Florida's Wetlands

An Update on Status and Trends,

1985 to 1996

Thomas E. Dahl

U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service

Branch of Habitat Assessment

Washington, D.C .

Coverphotograph:

Forested wetland,

Collier County,

Florida.

Acknowledgments

Many people within the U.S .

Fish and Wildlife Service have

provided technical, administrative

or editorial support for this project.

The author would like to thank the

following individuals: Dr. Mamie

Parker, Ms. Kathleen Short and

Mr. William Knapp, Mr. Everett

Wilson, Fisheries and Habitat

Conservation ; Dr. Benjamin Tuggle,

Division of Resource and Habitat

Conservation ; Mr. John Cooper, of

the Branch of Habitat Assessment.

Numerous personnel from the

National Wetlands Inventory Center

in St. Petersburg, FL. helped with

data preparation, collection and field

reconnaissance.

Technical review of the manuscript

was provided by the following

experts: Mr. William Ainslie,

Chief, Wetlands Section, U.S .

Environmental Protection Agency,

The author and U.S . Fish

and Wildlife Service wish to

acknowledge Richard Young*,

Cartographer, whowas

responsible for digital data

verification and who produced

many of the data tables and

Geographic Information System

graphics in this report.

*Current address U.S . Fish and Wildlife

Service, Portland, OR.

Atlanta, GA; Dr. Ken Burnham

Cooperative Research Unit,

Colorado State University, Ft.

Collins, CO; Mr. John Hefner,

Ecological Services, U.S . Fish and

Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA; Dr.

Wiley Kitchens, Florida Cooperative

Fish and Wildlife Research Unit,

University of Florida, Gainesville,

FL. ; Mr. Andreas Mager, Jr.,

Assistant Regional Administrator,

Habitat Conservation Division,

NOAA-National Marine Fisheries

Service, St. Petersburg, FL; and

Mr. Steve Rockwood Waterfowl

Biologist, Florida Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Commission,

Fellsmere, FL.

All photographs are by the author

unless otherwise noted. Publication

layout and final illustration of the

report were done by Ms. Elizabeth

Ciganovich, and photographs were

revised by Ms. Marta Anderson and

Ms. Erinn Dornaus, U.S . Geological

Survey, Cartography and Publishing

Program, Madison, WI.

This report should be cited as

follows:

T. E. Dahl. 2005. Florida's wetlands :

an update on status and trends 1985

to 1996. U.S . Department of the

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,

Washington, D.C . 80 pp.
Conversion Table

U.S Customary to Metric

inches (in.) x 25.40 = millimeters (mm)

inches (in.) x 2 .54 = centimeters (cm)

feet (ft) x 0 .3048 = meters (m)

miles (mi) x 1 .609 = kilometers (km)

nautical miles (nmi) x 1 .852 = kilometers (km)

square feet (ft2) x 0 .0929 = square meters (m')

square miles (mi l) x 2 .590 = square kilometers (km')

acres (A) x 0 .4047 = hectares (ha)

gallons (gal) x 3 .785 = liters (L)

cubic feet (ft') x 0 .02831 = cubic meters (m3 )

acre-feet (A-ft) x 1233 .5 = cubic meters (mi)

ounces (oz) x 28.3495 = grams (g)

pounds (lb) x 0 .4536 = kilograms (kg)

short tons (tons) x 0 .9072 = metric tons (t)

British Thermal Units (BTU) x 0 .2520 = kilocalories (kcal)

Fahrenheit degrees (F) 0 .556 (F - 32) = Celsius degrees (C)

Metric to U.S. Customary

millimeters (mm) x 0 .03937 = inches (in.)

centimeters (cm) x 0 .3937 = feet (ft)

meters (m) x 3 .281 = feet (ft)

kilometers (km) x 0 .6214 = miles (mi)

square meters (m2 ) x 10.764 = square feet (W)

square kilometers (km2) x 0 .3861 = square miles (miz )

hectares (ha) x 2 .471 = acres (A)

liters (L) x 0 .2642 = gallons (gal)

cubic meters (m3 ) x 35.31 = cubic feet (ft=;

cubic meters (ms ) x 0 .0008110 = acre-feet (A-ft)

milligrams (mg) x 0.00003527 = ounces (oz)

grams (g) x 0.03527 = ounces (oz)

kilograms (kg) x 2 .2046 = ounces (oz)

metric tons (t) x 2204.62 = pounds (lb)

metric tons (t) x 1 .102 = short tons (tons)

kilocalories (kcal) x 3.968 = British Thermal Units (BTU)

Celsius degrees (C) ---> 1 .8 (C) + 32) = Fahrenheit degrees (F)
Contents

Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Study Area and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Results : Status, Distribution and Trends. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Appendix A: Definitions of Habitat Categories Used in the Florida Status and Trends Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Appendix B : Changes in Florida's wetland classifications, 1985 and 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

List of Figures

Figure 1. General locator map of Florida names and places referenced in the text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Figure 2. Map of the physiographic sampling strata used in this study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Figure 3. Exposed tidal flats of an intertidal estuarine wetland in Wakulla County, Florida, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Fig-tire 4. Florida's barrier islands, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Figure 5. High altitude, color infrared photograph of a portion of Shark Valley,

Florida Everglades, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Figure 6. Mangrove islands (red) as shown on color infrared photography of Florida Bay, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Figure 7. Florida's major water bodies, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Figure 8. Freshwater springs near Ocala, Florida, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Figure 9. Florida counties, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Figure 10. Sample plot distribution within Florida, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

Figure 11 . Sample of 1996 color infrared aerial photography used to identify and classify wetlands. . . . . . . . . . 23

Figure 12. Original wetland area in Florida and estimated remaining portion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Figure 13. Average annual net wetland loss in Florida (Sources: Hefner 1986, Frayer and

Hefner 1991, this study) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Figure 14. Net loss of wetlands to uplands, 1985 to 1996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

Figure 15. Distribution of estuarine emergent wetland in Florida, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Figure 16. Distribution of estuarine shrub wetland in Florida, 1996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Figure 17. Proximity of urban areas to Florida's wetlands, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Figure 18. Long term trends of intertidal wetland types in Florida, 1950s to 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Figure 19. Long term trends of freshwater wetland types in Florida, 1950s to 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Figure 20 . Net losses and gains of wetlands to various land use types, 1985 to 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

Figure 21 . Example of intertidal wetlands along Florida's coastline in close proximity

to development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46

Figure 22. Florida's sand beaches offer recreational, commercial and aesthetic benefits to people . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Figure 23. Loss and gain of Florida's estuarine nonvegetated wetlands, 1985 to 1996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

Figure 24. Estuarine salt marsh of north Florida dominated by black needlerush

(Juncus roemerianus), 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

Figure 25. Mangroves and surrounding waters of Florida Bay, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Figure 26. Mangroves were concentrated within Federal, State and other conservation lands

along Florida's Gulf Coast, 1996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Figure 27. Mangrove rehabilitation project in Fort De Soto Park, Pinellas County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Figure 28. Loss or gain of estuarine shrub habitat between 1985 and 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Figure 29. Freshwater forested wetland dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum) and water oak

(Quercus nigra), St. John's River, Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Figure 30. Forest wetlands gained or converted from various cover-types, 1985 to 1996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Figure 31. Forested wetlands lost or converted to various cover-types, 1985 to 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Figure 32. Loss of forested wetlands to uplands, 1985 to 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Figure 33. Example of freshwater shrub wetland, Corkscrew Swamp, Florida, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

Figure 34. Loss of freshwater shrub wetlands to uplands, 1985 to 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Figure 35. Example of a freshwater emergent wetland in central Florida, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Figure 36. 1985 and 1994 color infrared aerial photograph of wetlands and small lakes,

Hatchbend, Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Figure 37. Loss of freshwater emergent wetlands to uplands, 1985 to 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Figure 38. A constructed freshwater pond in a residential neighborhood, Brandenton, Florida, 1996 . . . . . . . 58

Figure 39. Long term trends of freshwater pond area in Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58

Figure 40. 1985 and 1994 color infrared aerial photographs near Panama City, Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

4
Figure 41 . Acres of new ponds created from uplands in Florida, 1985 to 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Figure 42. A wetland creation/restoration site in southwestern Florida, 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Figure 43. Percentage of wetland area restored or created (ponds and emergent wetlands)

from various upland land uses in Florida, 1985 to 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Figure 44. Conservation lands designated as Federal, State, local or private preserves, refuges,

parks, reserves, or sanctuaries in Florida, 1996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65

List of Tables

Table 1 . Wetland, deepwater and upland categories used in this study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Table 2. Wetland habitat descriptions, characteristic plant species and classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Table 3. Change in wetland area for selected wetland and deepwater categories, 1985 to 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Table 4. Estimated acreage of wetlands within the physiographic regions of Florida, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Table 5. Comparison of marine and estuarine wetland area for Florida and the conterminous

United States (Sources: Dahl 2000, this study) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Table 6. Mean area and size range of individual estuarine wetlands within sample units in

Florida, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

Table 7. Changes in estuarine and marine intertidal wetlands, 1985 to 1996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Table 8. Changes in marine and estuarine intertidal wetlands, 1985 to 1996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Table 9. Distribution of freshwater wetland types by physiographic region in Florida, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Table 10. Mean area and size range of individual freshwater wetlands within sample units

in Florida, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

Table 11. Changes in freshwater wetlands, 1985 to 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
L
Executive Summary

Corkscrew

Swamp, Collier

County, Florida.

Before Florida became a State

in 1845, there were an estimated

20.3 million acres (8 .2 million ha)

of wetlands . Over time, wetlands

have been drained, dredged, filled,

leveled, and flooded to the extent

that about half of the original

wetland acreage remained.

The U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service

has produced a series of status

and trends reports on Florida's

wetlands . The first (Hefner 1986)

estimated the rate ofwetland

conversion to have been 72,000

acres (29,150 ha) per year between

the mid 1950s and the mid 1970s.

Those estimates captured trends

from the period preceding efforts

to protect and restore wetlands .

Society's views about wetlands have

changed considerably and interest

in the preservation of wetlands has

increased as the values of wetlands

have become more fully understood .

This became evident in the Service's

updated wetlands status and trends

report for Florida (Hefner and

Frayer 1991) that covered the period

from the mid 1970s to the mid 1980s.

During that period the estimated

rate ofwetland loss had declined to

23,700 acres (9,600 ha) per year.

The EmergencyWetlands Resources

Act (Public Law 99-645) was enacted

to promote the conservation of

our Nation's wetlands . The Act

required the Service to conduct

wetland status and trend studies of

the Nation's wetlands at periodic

intervals. This report has been

produced as a supplemental effort

and details the status and trends

of Florida's wetlands from 1985

to 1996. It has provided the most

recent and comprehensive estimates

of the status and trends of wetland

habitats within the State.

An interagency group of statisticians

developed the design for the

national status and trends study.

Within Florida, the study design

was stratified, random sampling

with 636 randomly selected sample

plots, each four square miles (2,560

acres or 1,040 ha) in area. These

plots were examined, using remotely

sensed data in combination with field

work, to determine wetland change.

Twenty two percent of the plots

were field verified, and rigorous

quality control measures were taken

to ensure data integrity and quality.

Estimates of changes over time

were made for wetland area and by

wetland type.

The study incorporated all wetlands,

regardless of land ownership, as

part of the sampled landscape.

Because wetlands in coastal areas

are important to avariety of fish and

wildlife, a supplemental sampling

stratum was added along the

Atlantic and Gulf coastal fringes.

Determining what caused wetland

loss or gain was an important part of

assessing the effectiveness of policy

or management actions. As part of

this study, the Service worked with

other Federal agencies to examine

and field test wetland loss and gain

attribution categories which included

upland urban development, upland

agriculture, upland silviculture,

upland rural development, and other

miscellaneous lands.
Status of

Wetlands in

Florida, 1996

and marine nonvegetated vegetated

wetlands occurred in Florida.

These nonvegetated wetlands were

commonly referred to as shores,

sand or mud flats, bars and shoals.

The conversion of marine and

estuarine wetlands to deepwater

habitats involved losses to open

water bay bottoms (deep water

estuaries), or open ocean .

Florida's wetlands included coastal

estuaries, mangrove islands, wet

prairies, freshwater springs, cypress

swamps, cattail marshes and many

other types. Wetlands were found

throughout the State from the Dry

Tortugas to the Okefenokee Swamp

along the Georgia border and from

Cape Canaveral to the Gulf Islands

near Pensacola.

In 1996, an estimated 11 .4 million

acres (4 .6 million ha) ofwetlands

found in Florida occupied

approximately 29 percent of area of

the State, a greater percentage of

the land surface than any other state

in the conterminous United States .

Ninety percent of Florida's wetlands

by area were freshwater systems.

The remaining 10 percent were

marine or estuarine intertidal

wetlands . Of the original wetland

area in Florida, about 56 percent

remained.

The estimated average annual rate

of wetland loss was 5,000 acres

(2,030 ha) between 1985 and 1996.

This was an 81 percent decline in

the annual rate of loss as reported

for the 1970s to 1980s. Important

factors that contributed to the

decline in the wetland loss rate

included Federal, State and local

legislation, ordinances and initiatives

that protected wetland habitats,

the application and enforcement

of wetland protection measures,

elimination of some incentives for

wetland drainage, public education

and outreach about the value and

functions of wetlands, private land

initiatives, coastal monitoring and

protection programs, and programs

and policies that promoted wetland

restoration and creation.

Marine and Estuarine Wetlands

An estimated 314,400 acres (127,290

ha) of estuarine emergent or

saltmarsh wetlands, 616,300 acres

(249,510 ha) of estuarine shrubs and

206,400 acres (83,560 ha) of estuarine

Florida's coastal zone contained

about 21 percent of all estuarine

and marine wetlands found in the

conterminous United States . A

high percentage (92 percent) of

estuarine shrub wetlands found in

the conterminous U.S . were located

in Florida, whereas only 8 percent

of the estuarine emergent (salt

marsh) wetlands were found along

the State's coast lines. An estimated

31 percent of all nonvegetated

estuarine and marine habitats within

the conterminous United States

were found in Florida.

The mean size of emergent salt

marsh wetlands and estuarine shrub

wetlands in the sample sites were

slightly less than 23 acres (9 ha). The

estuarine nonvegetated wetlands

sampled averaged just over 10 acres

(4 ha).

Florida's intertidal wetlands

sustained a net loss of 500 acres (200

ha) or less than 1 percent during

this study period. Compared with

the results from the 1970s to 1980s,

there was an 83 percent decline in

the loss rate of marine and estuarine

wetlands.

The estimated loss of 17 acres (7 ha)

of estuarine emergent wetland to

upland was statistically insignificant.

Seventy five percent of the estuarine

shrub losses were attributable to

some form of coastal development.

This may have involved construction

of bridges, roadways, urban or

suburban development or other

infrastructure . Twenty percent

of the estuarine shrub losses

were attributed to agriculture

and 5 percent were due to other

unidentified upland land uses.

Seventy-one percent of the losses

to estuarine shores was attributed

to urban expansion along the coast.

The remaining 29 percent was due

to expansion of other unidentified

types of upland land use.

Freshwater Wetlands

There were an estimated 10.2

million acres (4 .1 million ha) of

freshwater wetlands in Florida in

1996. Freshwater wetlands made up

90 percent of all wetland area in the

State. An estimated 98 percent were

vegetated while the remaining 2

percent were open water ponds.

Within the freshwater system,

approximately 5.6 million acres (2 .3

million ha) were forested wetlands,

1 .8 million acres (725,000 ha) were

shrubs, 2.6 million acres (1 .1 million

ha) were emergent wetlands or

marshes and 241,000 acres (98,000

ha) were freshwater ponds.

The size of freshwater wetlands

in this study indicated forested

wetlands were larger than shrubs

or emergent wetlands . Forested

wetlands averaged 17.7 acres (7 ha)

with emergent marshes and shrub

wetlands each averaging 9.9 acres (4

ha) and 7.1 acres (3 ha) respectively.

The mean size of freshwater ponds

was 1 .7 acres (0.7 ha).

Florida's freshwater wetlands

declined by an estimated 52,000

acres (21,100 ha) or 0.5 percent

between 1985 and 1996. This was

an average annual net loss of 4,740

acres (1,920 ha) and represented an

82 percent decline in the rate of loss

since the 1970s to 1980s era.

Freshwater vegetated wetlands

declined by an estimated 91,000

acres (36,800 ha) or 0.9 percent.

Freshwater emergent wetlands

exhibited the largest losses declining

by an estimated 260,000 acres

(10,500 ha) or 9.0 percent. These

losses were partially offset by gains

in other freshwater wetland types.

Freshwater forested wetlands

exhibited a net gain over the course

of this study. This was in contrast

to long term trends which had

exhibited continual decline since the

1950s. There was an estimated net
gain of 22,500 acres (9,100 ha) due in

large part to the maturation of shrub

wetlands reclassified as forested

wetlands . Forested wetland gains

resulted from the conversion of

almost 300,000 acres (118,500 ha) of

shrub wetland to forested wetland.

The vast majority of these lands

were in production ofwood products

for lumber, pulp, chip and paper

products .

There were an estimated 1,791,100

acres (725,140 ha) of wetland shrubs

in 1996. This represented a gain of

an estimated 146,400 acres (59,300

ha) or almost 9 percent. There was

a close interrelationship between

wetland shrub acreage and wetland

forest acreage as many areas

were rotating from shrub to forest

following timber cutting. There was

also alarge amount of emergent

wetland (306,000 acres or 123,900 ha)

that was converted to shrub wetland

during this study period.

From the 1970s to 1980s, the

estimated loss of freshwater

emergent wetlands was 110,000

acres (44,500 ha). This study

indicated the loss rate of freshwater

emergent wetland more than

doubled as an estimated 260,200

acres (105,340 ha) were lost in

Florida between 1985 and 1996. The

conversion of freshwater emergent

wetland to shrub wetland involved

286,900 acres (116,150 ha). Changes

of the magnitude that occurred

in Florida between 1985 and 1996

were indicative of prolonged periods

of drought that allowed woody

plants to become established in

emergent wetlands, or the invasion

of shrubs such as Brazilian Pepper

or Melaleuca.

Freshwater ponds increased in area

by over 39,000 acres (15,800 ha),

almost 20 percent. Forested wetland

area increased slightly (0 .4 percent)

while shrub wetlands increased by

an estimated 8.9 percent. These

gains largely overshadowed the

losses to freshwater emergents.

Attribution of

Wetland Losses

Net losses of wetland between 1985

and 1996 were attributed to urban

and rural development, (72 percent)

and agriculture (28 percent). Small

net gains were recorded from

silviculture and the "other uplands"

land use categories .

Urban development destroyed

a variety of freshwater wetland

types. Losses attributed to urban

expansion were fairly evenly divided

between freshwater forested, shrub

and emergent wetlands .

Loss of wetlands to urban and rural

development involved drainage

for homes, resorts, golf courses,

industry, roads, bridges and other

infrastructure . It occurred in

high growth areas throughout the

State. Collectively urban and rural

development activities accounted for

an estimated 72 percent of the net

wetland losses .

Development outside established

urban areas was termed rural

development and included road

construction, buildings for homes

or industry, mining operations, golf

courses, etc. Rural development was

responsible for more freshwater

forested wetland loss than other

land use categories . An estimated

26,400 acres (10,700 ha) of forested

wetlands were lost to rural

development

Much of the wetland acreage loss

to agriculture occurred in southern

Florida where freshwater emergent

wetlands were converted to citrus

production, horticulture, growing

landscape or other ornamental

plants, greenhouses, sod farms

and other agricultural uses. The

net losses attributed to agriculture

declined by 79 percent compared

to the estimated losses attributed

to agriculture from the 1970s to

1980s. There were an estimated

127,940 acres (51,800 ha) of wetlands

that were restored or created

from uplands. Approximately 67

percent took place on agricultural

lands. Agricultural programs that

promote wetland restoration, pond

creation and land retirement were

responsible for these gains.

St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge, an

emergent marsh on Florida's

Gulf'Coast.
Introduction

Florida wetland wildlife, below,from

left to right: whooping crane (Gnus

americana), manatee (Trichechus

manatus), great egret (Ardea alba),

wood stork (Mycteria americana), green

tree frog (Hyla cinera), and loggerhead

turtle (Caretta caretta).

The mission of the U. S. Fish and

Wildlife Service is to conserve,

protect, and enhance fish and

wildlife and their habitats for

the continuing benefit of the

American people . The Service has

responsibility for the protection

and stewardship of endangered

wildlife, migratory birds, certain

marine mammals, and their habitats.

Changes in the status of wetlands

potentially affects migratory and

endangered species. Florida's

coastal, inland waters and wetlands

provide habitats for a large number

of resident species and are the

wintering destination for many other

migratory species. Approximately

75 species of mammals, 283 species

of birds, 122 reptiles, 57 amphibians

and 126 fishes can be found in the

State (Millsap et al . 1990). Forty

two ofthese species are listed

as endangered by the U. S. Fish

and Wildlife Service. The Florida

panther (Felts concolor corgi),

West Indian manatees (Trichechus

manatus) and five species of sea

turtles are critically endangered and

require Federally designated species

coordinators.

Wetlands support Florida's fish and

wildlife populations. Coastal beaches

provide nesting habitat for thirteen

species of shorebirds and about 90

percent of all loggerhead sea turtles

nesting in the United States (U.S .

Fish and Wildlife Service 1996).

Estuaries and near shore habitats

are nurseries for ecologically and

economically important fish and

shellfish. Herons, egrets, ibises,

spoonbills and storks reside in

wetlands and are aconspicuous

part of Florida's wildlife resources

(Runde 1991). Seventeen percent

of Florida's wildlife species are

not found elsewhere in the United

States. Some portions of south
Shrimping boats andfisherman

in Florida. (Photos courtesy of

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration.)

Florida support the only subtropical

ecological communities in the

continental U.S . making it one of

North America's most important

reservoirs of biological diversity.

People also benefit from Florida's

abundant wetland and water

resources. Much of the State's

tourist industry is based on the

ability to access and enjoy coastal

waters and beaches. Inland waters

support sport fishing, canoeing,

boating and other water sports .

Wetlands provide opportunities for

viewing and photographing nature,

birdwatching, hunting and other

outdoor activities . Other products

produced by wetlands are used by

industry or commercial enterprises.

Coastal waters support commercial

and recreational fisheries. Cypress

mulch and peat are used for

horticultural purposes, timber

products for construction and

manufacturing, mineral extraction

and freshwater supplies are all be

associated with wetlands in Florida.

The Emergency Wetlands Resources

Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-645) was

enacted to promote the conservation

of our Nation's wetlands . The Act

requires that the Fish and Wildlife

Service conduct wetland status

and trend studies of the Nation's

wetlands at periodic intervals.

This is accomplished by the use

of a stratified, random sampling

design where sample plots are

examined with the use of remotely

sensed imagery, in combination with

field work, to determine wetland

change. The most recent study

detailed the status and trends of

our Nation's wetlands from 1986 to

1997 (Dahl 2000) . It provided the

most comprehensive estimates of the

current status and trends of wetland

habitats. Although designed as part

of the national assessment, the data

collected as part of that effort meet

criteria for providing statistical

estimates of wetland status and

trends for the State of Florida. The

following sections report the results

of the Florida data analysis .

Previous Service reports on

Florida's wetland trends have used a

similar subset of the national status

and trends data set (Hefner and

Brown 1984; Hefner 1986; Frayer

and Hefner 1991). Those reports

examined Florida's wetland trends

from the 1950s to 1970s, and from

the 1970s to 1980s, respectively.

Data from those studies indicated

that Florida had lost substantial

wetland acreage. The cypress

strands fringing the Atlantic coastal

ridge, the pond apple forests south

of Lake Okeechobee and the tropical

hardwood hammocks were some

of the wetland types that had been

greatly reduced over time (U.S .

Fish and Wildlife Service 1996) .

These types, once conspicuous and

expansive landscapes, were reduced

to highly fragmented remnant

ptaches in South Florida (Davis and

Ogden 1994).

With the advent of measures to

conserve wetlands during the 1970s

and 1980s, Florida's wetland loss

rates declined (Frayer and Hefner

1991). However, since that time, the

population has continued to increase

dramatically. Florida ranked seventh

in the Nation for population growth

between 1990 and 2000. This growth

has necessarily been accompanied

by extensive land-use changes

and increasing demand for water,

resources and space. In addition,

invasive species have spread,

compromising the function and

value of wetlands and waterways

throughout the state. The presence

of invasive species in wetlands and

waterways has been problematic,

and reconciling increasing demands

for water resources has continued

as an issue in Florida. These

circumstances, accompanied by

extensive land use changes, have

generated continued interest in the

status of the State's wetlands . Many

challenges to maintaining wetland

habitat availability and quality

remain.

This report presents the latest

wetland status information on

Florida's wetland resources and

provides estimates of losses or gains

that occurred between 1985 and

1996. The data for the State were

the first to be analyzed beyond the

national data set and provide new

information about wetland trends

specific to Florida. These data have

been supplemented with additional

sources of information on wetland

community types to provide a more

comprehensive understanding of

Florida's wetland resources.
Study Area and Procedures

A combination of geological history,

climate, geography, environmental

forces and human habitation

have shaped Florida's landscape.

Florida's 8,400 miles (5,220 km)

of coastline, 13 river basins and

nearly 8,000 lakes have been vital to

the state's recreation and tourism

industry (GAP Commission 2001).

Water has been key to many of

Florida's unique ecosystems . Coastal

estuaries, mangrove islands, wet

prairies, freshwater springs, cypress

swamps, cattail marshes and many

other types were found throughout

the State from the Dry Tortugas

to the Okefenokee Swamp along

the Georgia border and from Cape

Canaveral to the Gulf Islands near

Pensacola (Figure 1) .

?ensa

Gulf Islands

NationaISeashore

Ch,w/ntt

Harhrn

,'9

z

N1(Y' cir' l-, q,

n

Ml let

lacliarl

Rircr

La~ncm

Cape

anaveral

Z

hrl,itc i

0 62 miles lorhrc im oh,

Bur

l palclc -lu~

lirr o

Figure 1. General locator map ofFlorida names and places

referenced in the text.

Dry Torrugas

Soldier

Key
The total land area of Florida was

approximately 58,560 square miles

(151,670 sq. km)' . Florida's mean

elevation was 100 ft . (31 m) (Sharp

1992). Throughout south Florida

and in the coastal stretches of

the Big Bend area, relief of less

than 6 feet (2 m) was widespread

(Fernald and Purdum 1992). The

landscape included coastal estuaries,

beach and dune complexes, dense

subtropical vegetation in the south

and temperate hardwood forests in

the north. Karstic (i .e . limestone)

relief features including caves, sinks

and low hills occurred in the north

western portion of the State. Water

bodies, whether they were coastal or

inland were common, and no portion

of the State was more than 60 miles

(97 km) from salt water (Marth and

Marth 1992). Florida was considered

the wettest State with more wetland

and surface water area than other

States in the conterminous U.S .

(Dahl 1990).

For this study, Florida was stratified

into three physiographic regions

(Figure 2) . These included:

'This study incorporated some estuarine

embayments not included in the total land

area figure.

The Myakka

River

Physiographic Region

Gulf-Atlantic Rolling Plain

Gulf-Atlantic Coastal Flats

Coastal Zone

Figure 2. Map ofthe physiographic sampling strata

used in this study.
Figure 3. Exposed tidal flats of an intertidal estuarine wetland in Wakulla County, Florida, 1993.

Coastal Zone

The Coastal Zone encompassed the

near-shore areas of Florida and

included barrier islands, coastal

marshes, exposed tidal flats (Figure

3) and other features not in the

landward physiographic zones. The

Coastal Zone represents an area

where salt water was the overriding

influence on biological systems and

was not synonymous with any State

or Federal jurisdictional coastal zone

definitions.

Florida had 8,426 miles (13,557 km)

of tidal shoreline bordering both

the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of

Mexico. Included as part of this

coastline were 700 miles (1,126 km)

of sand beaches and 4,510 islands

10 acres (4 .1 ha) or larger (Morris

1991).

Fewrock shorelines occurred along

the Florida coast. These were high

energy intertidal environments

where beach or coral had weathered

to form irregularly shaped rocky

features 1-3 meters high (Duever et

al . 1982). Rock shoreline stretched

discontinuously from south of St.

Augustine to Jupiter Inlet. Rocky

shores were also found on the

windward side of some of the Florida

Keys.

There were numerous islands

that formed barriers between the

Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico

and the mainland. Some segments of

Florida's barrier islands have been

designated as part of the Federal

Coastal Barrier Resources System.

The Barrier Islands Act of 1983

removed undeveloped islands from

Federal flood insurance protection

and resulted in 33 locations being

designated as coastal barriers

under this legislation. The system

was expanded to include several

more sites by the Coastal Barrier

Improvement Act of 1990 (U.S .

Dept. of Interior 1995). In all, 67

sites encompassing 285,146 acres

(115,444 ha) of coastal island

segments were designated as part of

this system in Florida (Figure 4) .
( ( (/(I ~- KC,//

Coastal vacation and residential

development, Indian Rocks Beach

Garson

nta R

Island

Sa

Mareno Point

Four Mile Village

Deer Lake Complex

St. Andrew Peninsula",, Complex Point \

Cape San Blas \. ~~/ ~Dog Island 11

\~

Indian.

'-~St George Island

fFigure 4. Florida's barrier islands, 1996.
Gulf-Atlantic

Coastal Flats

The Gulf-Atlantic Coastal Flats

physiographic region described by

Hammond (1970), encompassed most

of the Florida peninsula. The Coastal

Flats were characteristically level,

but low beach ridges provided some

topographic relief as tree hammocks

rose slightly above the surrounding

landscape (Bailey 1980) .

The Everglades covered much of

south Florida. These vast wetlands

occupied a flat marl and limestone

shelf covered with shallow peat

deposits (Figure 5) . Elevations in

the Everglades drainage system

ranged from 14 feet (4 .3 m) near

Lake Okeechobee to sea level at

Florida Bay. Slopes averaged less

that 2 inches per mile (3 cm per km)

as water flowed in a southwestern

direction across the Everglades and

into Florida Bay(McPherson and

Halley 1996).

The Big Cypress Preserve, adjacent

to the Everglades was made up of

cypress strands, wooded sloughs

and wet prairies (Duever et al . 1986).

A

Figure 5 High altitude, color infrared photograph of a, portion

of Shark Valley, Florida Everglades, 1996 . (Aerial photo

courtesy ofUSGS.)
South and west of the Everglades

and the Big Cypress Preserve are

the Ten Thousand Islands. This

area supported the most extensive

mangrove swamp in the United

States (U.S . Fish and Wildlife

Service 1996). The mangrove

islands were dissected by numerous

tidal channels dotted with Indian

mound hammocks of slightly higher

elevation which support avariety

of tropical trees (Figure 6) . The

Everglades, contiguous with the

Big Cypress Preserve and the Ten

Thousand Islands area, form one

of the largest expanses of wetlands

found in the conterminous United

States.

The Gulf-Atlantic Coastal Flats also

included many highly populated

urban centers such as Miami/Ft.

Lauderdale/West Palm Beach,

Tampa/St . Petersburg, Ft. Myers,

Orlando, Jacksonville and Pensacola.

Much of Florida's citrus and

vegetable crop were grown in this

region of the State.

Figure 6. Mangrove islands (red) as shown on color infrared

photography of Florida Bay, 1996. (Aerial photo courtesy ofFL

DEP)

{load center:

81`29° 25°50°N
Gulf-Atlantic

Rolling Plain

The Gulf-Atlantic Rolling Plain

included a portion of the northern

panhandle, and the northern

part of peninsular Florida. It was

contiguous with physiographic zones

extending south from Alabama and

Georgia. This region of the State, as

delineated by Hammond (1970), was

an area of slightly higher elevation

and it supported largely temperatezone vegetation (Duever et al . 1982).

Omernik (1987) described similar

physiographic settings as smooth

to irregular plains with a mosaic

of crop land, forest, pasture and

urbanized areas.

Other Important

Facets of

Florida's Water

Resources

Water has sustained many of the

State's unique ecosystems and

has been key to the recreation

and tourism industry (Figure 7) .

Florida's 8,426 miles (5,220 km) of

coastline provide vast socioeconomic

value as well as important ecological

resources.

There were 34 major river systems

in Florida (Marth and Marth 1992).

Collectively, there were 1,711

rivers and streams that made up

an estimated 10,550 miles (16,975

km) of flowing water systems in

Florida (Morris 1991). Alluvial rivers

originating in piedmont Alabama

and Georgia and running south

through the Florida panhandle

carried sediments made up of sand,

silt or clays. Others originiating in

the coastal plain are dominated by

base flows. Examples include the

Suwannee and St. Johns Rivers

where waters were often colored

black from the high levels of tannic

acid in the runoff from surrounding

swamp hardwoods. (The wetlands

surrounding these rivers were often

referred to in colloquial terms as

"red river bottoms" or "red river

swamp" and "black water river

bottoms" depending on the origins

;<nlurh l

1>o~-

Deepwater Habitats

Large Lakes

Rivers

Figure 'T'. Florida's major water bodies,1996.

tpulcr h,

Ch,

~ fcrrhnr

r

n

v

n

Bamunu

Rii'~ r

nv
of the river water.) The wetlands

adjacent to these rivers provide

food chain support, fish and wildlife

habitat, erosion control, water

quality protection, flood storage and

control and deep aquifer recharge

(Taylor et al. 1990) .

Other freshwater resources included

7,800 lakes, nearly all naturally

formed from sink holes or solutional

depressions . Lake Okeechobee is the

Nation's second largest freshwater

lake wholly within the U.S. borders.

Geologists have estimated that

Florida may have nearly 600

freshwater springs (Figure 8), a

number classified as first magnitude

springs with average flows of

greater than 100 cubic feet/sec (2.8

cubic meters/sec) (Morris 1991).

There were 67 counties in Florida

(Figure 9) . Between 1990 and 2000

Florida's population increased by

23.5 percent making it the fourth

most populous state in the Nation

(U .S . Census Bureau 2002) . Tourism

was the leading industry, agriculture

was second as Florida was one

of the top producers of citrus,

sugarcane, tomatoes, foliage, honey

and strawberries (Marth and Marth

1992).

Figure 8. Freshwater springs near

Ocala, Florida, 1993.

Figure 9 Florida, counties, 1996
Study Methods

Wetland Definition and Classification

Cowardin et al. (1979) was used

to define wetland for this study.

This ecological definition was the

National standard for wetland

mapping, monitoring and data

reporting as determined by

the Federal Geographic Data

Committee . It was a two-part

definition as indicated below:

Wetlands are lands transitional

between terrestrial and aquatic

systems where the water table is

usually at or near the surface or

the land, is covered by shallow

water.

For purposes ofthis

classification, wetlands must

have one or more ofthefollowing

three attributes: (1) at least

periodically, the land supports

predominantly hydrophytes, (2)

the substrate is predominantly

undrained hydric soil, and (3)

the substrate is nonsoil and is

saturated with water or covered

by shallow water at some time

during the growing season of

each year.

Habitat category definitions used in

this study appear in synoptic form

in Table l. Complete definitions

ofwetland types and land use

categories used to conduct this study

are in Appendix A.

Study Design

Within the physiographic regions

described above, sample plots were

randomly allocated in proportion

to the amount ofwetland acreage

expected to occur within each

stratum. Each sample plot was

2.0 miles (3 .218 km) on a side, or

4 square miles total area equaling

2,560 acres (1,036 ha). Six-hundredand-thirty-six sample plots were

analyzed in this study (Figure

10). For each sample plot, aerial

photography (i .e . digital orthophoto

quarter quadrangle) was acquired

and interpreted to identify wetlands,

deepwater habitats and uplands.

Plots were initially allocated to

strata based on the best information

available about wetland area

and variability by strata and on

a standard optimal-allocation

formula for stratified simplerandom sampling. This stratification

scheme had ecological, statistical,

and practical advantages because

the physiographic divisions within

Florida coincided with factors that

effected wetland distribution and

One of'the world's largest and deepest

freshwater springs, Wakulla Springs is

apristine river sanctuary.
Florida panther (Fells copcolor coryi) .

(Photo courtesy of Everglades National

Park.)

Table 1 . Wetland, deepwater, and upland categories used in this study. The definitions for each category appear in

Appendix A.

Category

Salt Water Habitats

Marine Subtidal"

Marine Intertidal

Estuarine Subtidal°-

Estuarine Intertidal Emergents

Estuarine Intertidal Forested/Shrub

Estuarine Unconsolidated Shore

Estuarine Aquatic Bed**

Riverine (may be tidal or nontidal)

Cwn,tnon Description

Open ocean

Near shore

Open water/bay bottoms

Salt marsh

Mangroves or other estuarine shrubs

Beaches/bars

Submerged or floating estuarine vegetation

River systems

Freshwater Habitats

Palustrine Forested

Palustrine Shrub

Palustrine Emergents

Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore

Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom

Palustrine Aquatic Bed

Lacustrine

Uplands

Agriculture

Urban

Forested Plantations

Rural Development

Other Uplands

Forested swamps

Shrub wetlands

Inland marshes/wet meadows

Shore beaches/bars

Open water ponds

Floating aquatic/submerged vegetations

Lakes and reservoirs

Cropland, pasture, managed rangeland

Cities and incorporated developments

Planted or intensively managed forests, silviculture

Nonurban developed areas and infrastructure

Rural uplands not in any other category ; barren lands

*Deehte(der habitat

**Tech it icol l i m itatioos de .sc) ,ibed in the text
abundance. Thus, this study design

was well suited for determining

wetland acreage and trends .

Wetland changes were determined

by intensive analysis of the

aerial photography (Figure 11),

interpretation of wetland types

and hydrologic conditions, and

determination of the changes that

occurred between the respective

target dates. The mean dates of

the aerial photography used to

determine wetland trends were

1985 and 1996, with the difference

being an average of 11 years. For

this study, wetlands 3 acres (1 .2 ha)

and larger composed the target

population. Actual results indicated

that for each wetland category

included in the study, the minimum

size represented was less than

1.0 acre (0 .4 ha). However, not all

wetlands less than the target size

category were detected .

Changes in areal extent or type of

wetland observed on the sample

plots between 1985 and 1996 were

recorded . Field verification of

features on the aerial photography

was done for 138 plots or 22 percent

of the total sample. Field verification

addressed questions regarding

image interpretation, land use

coding, and attribution ofwetland

gains or losses . Field work was also

done as a quality control measure

to verify that plot delineations were

correct. Verification involved field

visits to a cross section ofwetland

types and geographical settings .

Field work was used to update

sample plots based on observations

of on-the-ground conditions . Low

level reconnaissance was done by

helicopter for some plots inaccessible

on the ground. Representatives from

three Federal agencies (Natural

Resources Conservation Service,

Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S .

Geological Survey) participated

in field reconnaissance trips and

quality control reviews from April

1999 through May 2000.

For each sample plot, the extent

of change among all wetland

types between the two dates of

photography was used to estimate

the total area of each wetland

type. Areas of the sample plot that

had been identified in previous

eras as wetlands but that were

no longer wetlands, were placed

into five land use categories,

which included agriculture, upland

forested plantations, upland areas

of rural development, upland urban

landscapes and other miscellaneous

lands. The outputs from this analysis

were change matrices that provided

estimates of wetland area by type

and observed changes over time.

The advantages of this design

were that it focused entirely on

® Status and Trends 4-Square Mile

Sample Plots (636 Total)

Figure 10. Sample plot distribution within Florida,, 1996 .
monitoring wetland change, it was

used to monitor conversions between

ecologically different wetland types,

and it measured wetland gains and

losses .

Advances in computerized

cartography helped to reduce labor

intensive tasks and to improve data

quality and geospatial integrity.

Newer technologies allowed the

generation of existing digital plot

files at any scale to directly overlay

onto an image base. The wetlands

interpreter viewed the new imagery

and made change notations directly

on the image overlay. This process

was greatly facilitated by the use

of rectified digital orthophoto

quarter quadrangle imagery

obtained with the assistance

of the Florida Department of

Environmental Protection. Because

the plot information was already in

a spatially rectified file, any change

information could be inserted to the

correct geospatial position in the

plot boundary. Area information was

recalculated from the newdigital file

by use of a geographic information

system. This process eliminated

manual drafting, registered the

image overlays to georeferenced

coordinates, and reduced imprecise

lines (line pixel width) inherent in

older scanning technologies.

Figure 11 . Sample of 1996 color infrared aerial photography

used to identify and classify wetlands . (Aerial photo courtesy

of FL DEP)

Quad center

az 19`W zs ts'N

23
The geospatial analysis capability

built into this study provided

a complete digital database to

better assist analysis of wetland

change information. Rigorous

quality control inspections were

built into the interpretation, data

collection and analysis processes.

Amore complete description of

the techniques used to accomplish

the interpretation, registration,

and change detection is provided

in various technical manuals (U.S .

Fish and Wildlife Service 1994a,

1994b) . Detailed discussion of the

geographic information systems

design, quality control procedures

and the statistical aspects of the

study design were presented by

Dahl (2000) .

This study produced estimates of

total wetland area and changes for

the State of Florida, and included all

lands and waters of the State within

the sampling frame, regardless of

land ownership. Statistical estimates

were used to expand the sample data

to specific physiographic regions,

wetland types or were generated

for the entire State . The reliability

of each estimate generated was

expressed as the percent coefficient

ofvariation (% C.V) associated

with that estimate. This study

was designed to measure changes

in wetland area without further

assessment of species composition or

wetland quality.

Study

Limitations

Due to the limitations of using aerial

photography as the primary data

source to detect wetlands, certain

habitats were excluded from this

study by design. These included:

" Small Limesinks or Limestone

Sinkholes-These cavities or

depressions were variable in

size and were associated with

partially or completely collapsed

limestone rock. They were

considered a type of wetland

if they were observed to hold

standing water. Large limesinks

or sinkholes were detected on

the aerial photography and

included in the study results

based on their cover type.

However, many limesinks

were small (less than 1 acre

or .5 ha), and tree canopies

or other vegetation may have

masked their presence . In

these instances, sinkholes

were excluded from the report

analyses because they were not

detectable .

" Seagrasses or Submerged

Aquatic Vegetation-The

detection of submerged aquatic

vegetation was difficult using

aerial photography without

extensive surface-level

observations, tide stage data,

water clarity data and low

surface waves (Ferguson et al .

1993). Seagrasses and other

submerged plants inhabited the

intertidal and subtidal zones of

estuaries and near shore coastal

waters (Orth et al . 1990). The

four most common seagrasses

found in Florida were widgeon

grass (Ruppia maritima),

shoal grass (Halodule wrightii),

turtle grass (Thalassia

testudinum) and manatee grass

(Syringodium filiforme) .

Collectively, Florida had been

reported to have between 1.9

and 2.7 million acres (769,230

to 1,093,100 ha) of seagrasses

(Sargent et al . 1995). Florida's

seagrasses were not delineated

as part of this study.

Reefs-Tropical reef

communities (coral or tuberficid

worm reefs) were found offshore

Mashes Islan

County Park

Unique coastal

marsh ecosystem

ofMashes Island

County Park,

Wakulla County,

Florida.
in south Florida waters. These

reefs range in water depth from

less than 1 mto 41 m. Maximum

coral reef development was

restricted to the south and

western portions of the State,

along a line extending from

Soldier Keyto the Dry Tortugas

(Jaap 1984). Oyster (Crassostrea

mrginica) reefs also occurred in

the intertidal zone adjacent to

marshes or mud flats (Bahr and

Lanier 1981) . There were also

approximately 329 permitted

artificial reefs in Florida coastal

waters. Most of these occurred

in deep water, however several

were in 7 to 8 feet (2-2 .5 m) of

water (Pybas 1991).

Coral reefs were concentrated

complexes of corals and other

organisms that constructed a

limestone structure in shallow

waters (Jaap 1984). They were

important links to a number

of fishery and benthic marine

resources and along with

seagrasses and mangroves

formed a vital component of

the coastal ecosystem. The only

emergent coral reefs found in the

conterminous U.S . were located

in the Florida Keys extending

south from Miami and Soldier

Key to the Dry Tortugas. This

narrow band of shallow water

(< 10 m) reef habitat covered

approximately 360 sq. km and

was the planets third largest

barrier reef system in the world

(Miller and Crosby 1998). Coral

reef extent and changes were

not quantified as part of this

study. Although data from other

studies were available for only

limited geographical sites, there

has been widespread agreement

that coral reef area has been

declining (Millhouser et al. 1998).

" Ephemeral Water-When

defining and classifying wetlands

Cowardin et al . (1979) did not

recognize ephemeral water areas

as a wetland type. Therefore,

ephemeral water areas were not

included in this study.

Attribution of

Freshwater

Wetland Losses

in Florida

The process of identifying or

attributing cause for wetland losses

or gains has been investigated by

both the Service and the Natural

Resources Conservation Service.

During 1998 and 1999, the Natural

Resources Conservation Service and

the Service launched a concerted

effort to develop a uniform system

of definitions to attribute wetland

losses and gains to their causes. The

categories used to determine the

cause of wetland losses and gains are

described below.

Agriculture

The definition of agriculture

followed Anderson et al. (1976) and

included land used primarily for

the production of food and fiber.

Agricultural activity was shown

by distinctive geometric field and

road patterns on the landscape

and/or by tracks produced by

livestock or mechanized equipment.

Agricultural land uses included

horticultural crops, row and close

grown crops, hayland, pastureland,

native pastures and range land and

farm infrastructures. Examples of

agricultural activities within each

land use included:

Horticultural crops consisted

of orchard fruits (limes, bananas,

grapefruit, oranges, peaches,

avocados, other citrus and like

species) . Also included were

nuts such as almonds, pecans

and walnuts; vineyards including

Everglades

National Park

1'h,e 'mseate

spoonbill (Ajaia

ajaja) prefers

mangrove

swamp and salt

marsh habitats

(Photo courtesy

ofEverglades

National Park.)
grapes and hops; bush-fruit such

as blueberries; berries such as

strawberries or raspberries ;

and commercial flower and fern

growing operations.

Row and Close Grown Crops

included field and sugar cane,

sweet corn, sorghum, soybeans,

cotton, peanuts, tobacco, sugar

beets, potatoes, other truck

vegetables including melons,

beets, cabbage, cauliflower,

pumpkins, tomatoes, sunflower

and watermelon. Close grown

crops also included wheat, oats,

barley, sod, ryegrass, and similar

graminoids.

Hayland and pastureland

included grass, legumes,

summer fallow and grazed native

grassland.

Other farmland included

farmsteads and ranch

headquarters, commercial

feedlots, greenhouses, hog

facilities, nurseries and poultry

facilities .

Forested Plantations

Forested plantations consisted

of planted and managed forest

stands and included planted pines,

Christmas tree farms, clear cuts and

other managed forest stands. These

were identified by observing the

following remote sensing indicators:

1) trees planted in rows or blocks;

2) forested blocks growing with

uniform crown heights ; and 3)

logging activity and use patterns.

Rural Development

Rural developments occurred in

rural and suburban settings outside

distinct cities and towns. They were

characterized by nonintensive land

use and sparse building density.

Typically, a rural development was

a crossroads community that had a

corner gas station and a convenience

store and were surrounded

by sparse residential housing.

Scattered suburban communities

located outside of a major urban

centers were also included in this

category as were some industrial

and commercial complexes ;

isolated transportation, power,

and communication facilities ; strip

mines; quarries; and recreational

areas such as golf courses .

Major highways through rural

development areas were included in

the rural development category.

Urban Development

Urban land consisted of areas of

intensive use in which much of the

land was covered by structures

(high building density). Urbanized

areas were cities and towns that

provided goods and services through

a central business district. Services

such as banking, medical and legal

office buildings, supermarkets and

department stores made up the

business center of a city. Commercial

strip developments along main

transportation routes, shopping

centers, contiguous dense residential

areas, industrial and commercial

complexes, transportation, power

and communication facilities, city

parks, ball fields and golf courses

were included in the urban category.

Other Land Uses

Other Land Use was composed

of uplands not characterized by

the previous categories. Typically

these lands included native prairie,

unmanaged or nonpatterned upland

forests and scrub lands, and barren

land. Lands in transition between

different uses were also in this

category.

Transitional lands were lands in

transition from one land use to

another. They generally occurred

in large acreage blocks of 40

acres (16 ha) or more. They were

characterized by the lack of any

remote sensor information that

would enable the interpreter to

reliably predict future use. The

transitional phase occurred when

wetlands were drained, ditched,

filled, leveled or the vegetation has

been removed and the area was

temporarily bare.

During April, 1999, cooperative

interagency field evaluations were

conducted to test the definitions

used by the Service on the wetland

status and trends plots to attribute

wetland losses or gains. Field

exercises involving the participation

of the Service and the Natural

Resources Conservation Service

were conducted in central and south

Florida . These exercises consisted

of a careful review of determinations

made on 31 sample plots. Field

evaluation of these plots resulted

in no disagreement among agency

representatives with how the

Service attributed wetland losses or

gains as to cause.
Florida's Everlades during a dry season, 1990.
Table 2. Wetland habitat descriptions, characteristic plant species and classification designation(s) as found in this

study.

Habitat-Community

Type andSynonyms

Mangrove ForestMangrove Swamp;

Shrub; Mangle;

Tidal Swamp;

Mangrove Islands

Salt Marsh

Brackish Marsh

Beach

Flats, Shoals, Bars

Description

Salt tolerant trees that are

adapted to continual flooding

and salt water. Mangroves

grow along low energy

shorelines in the subtropical

intertidal communities that

tolerate very little frost.

They are most common in the

southern portions of the State

particularly south of Charlotte

Harbor, in the Ten Thousand

Islands area and along Florida

Bay.

Estuarine salt marshes are

tidally flooded communities

dominated by species of

grasses, rushes or sedges

that form along low waveenergy coastlines and river

mouths. Marshes dominated

by black needlerush (often in

nearly pure stands) are most

common growing on mud

deposits flooded by high tide .

They are found primarily from

Apalachicola Bay south to

Tampa Bay and form as much

as 50 percent of Florida's salt

marsh area . Smooth cordgrass

is adapted to frequent

tidal flooding and a saline

environment. This species is

prevelent in the coastal marshes

along the Atlantic coast in the

northeastern part of the State .

These wetlands, composed

of herbaceous species, are

characterized by low or

fluctuating salinity. These areas

are subject to tidal influence

as well as freshwater inflows

such that neither estuarine nor

freshwater plants attain full

dominance .

Sand or mud beaches are

nonvegetated wetlands

periodically inundated bywave

action between low and high

tide . The sediments are usually

sand or mud.

Tidal flats are composed of

sand or mud found in hypersaline conditions along the

coast or on the landward side of

barrier islands. Shallow water

sand flats become exposed at

low tide . They may become

sparsely vegetated by scattered

succulent halophytic forbs .

Oyster bars develop in lowenergy tidal areas with inflows

of freshwater from sources such

as rivers and tidal creeks . These

areas are always nonvegetated

and may become completely

submerged at high tide .

Characteristic Plant Species References Designation for

This Study

Coastal Zone

Red mangrove (Rhizophora Florida Natural Estuarine Shrub

mangle) Areas Inventory

Black mangrove (Avicennia and Florida Dept.

germinans) of Nat. Resources

White mangrove (Laguncularia (1990), Florida

racemosa) Soil Conservation

Buttonwood (Conocarpus erecta) Service (1992),

Odum et al . (1982),

Odum and Melvor

(1990), U.S . Army

Corps of Engineers

(1988) .

Black needlerush (Juncus Carlton (1977), Estuarine

Roemerianns) Dressler et al . Emergent

Smooth cordgrass (Spartina (1987), Drew and

alternifora) Schomer (1984),

Seashore saltgrass (Distichlis Florida Natural

spicata) Areas Inventory

Saltmeadow cordgrass (Spartina and Florida Dept.

patens) of Nat. Resources

Glasswort (Salicornia spp .) (1990), Montague

Saltwort (Batis maritima) and Wiegert

(1990) .

Saltmeadow cordgrass (Spartina Carlton (1977), Estuarine or

patens) Florida Natural Palustrine

Sea ox-eye (Borrichia frutescens) Areas Inventory Emergent

Saltmarsh aster (Aster and Florida Dept.

tenmcfolius) of Nat. Resources

Sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense) (1990), Stout

Bulrushes (Scirpus spp.) (1984), Wolfe et al .

Big cordgrass (Spartina (1988) .

cynosuroides)

Marshelder (Iva ftutescens)

Nonvegetated Gore (1992) Estuarine

or Marine

Intertidal

Unconsolidated

Shore

Nonvegetated or sparsely U.S . Army Corps Estuarine

vegetated flats : of Engineers or Marine

Saltwort (Bans maritima) (1988) . Intertidal Flats

Glasswort (Salicornia spp .) or Reefs

Salt grass (Distichlis spicata)

Sea bite (Suaeda linearis)

Nonvegetated, often partly

submerged and dominated by

the eastern oyster (Crassostrea

virginica)
Table 2. Wetland habitat descriptions, characteristic plant species and classification designation(s) as found in this

study-Continued.

Open Ocean

Forested Wetland

Cypress Ponds;

Cypress Strand ;

Cypress Gall ; Cypress

Dome

Hydric Hammock;

Hardwood Hammock

Bayheads

Mixed Hardwood

Swamp; Floodplain

Swamp; Bottomland

Swamp

Deep water

Dome swamps or cypress

ponds are characterized as

shallow, usually circular or

oval depressions dominated by

cypress, black gum or tupelo .

"Strands" refer to shallow

elongated depressions or

channels dominated by cypress

trees. These wetlands are

flooded for long periods during

the year. They are common

where high water tables and

topographic depressions allow

these wetlands to develop as

isolated islands intermixed with

pine flatwoods and pastures .

This forested wetland type

occurs at low elevations and

usually on thin soils of sand

and loam over limestone. They

are most common in north and

central Florida and support a

diversity of plant species. These

wetlands flood occasionally, but

for short periods of time .

Bayheads are forested wetlands

with a mix of broadleaf and

evergreen bay tree species.

They are almost continually

saturated but may be inundated

with shallow water. Soils of

bayhead wetlands are organic

and acidic.

These forested wetlands

are dominated by deciduous

tree species and are found

in seasonally flooded basins,

on flooded soils along river

or stream channels and in

depressions or oxbows within

river floodplains Soils are

variable mixtures of sand,

organic and alluvial sediments.

Seasonal and often prolonged

inundation is a characteristic .

Coastal

Habitat-Community

Type and Synonyms Description Characteristic Plant Species References Designation fbr

This Study

Coastal Zone-Continued

Open Water Estuary Deep water portion of bays, Nonvegetated Bahr and Lanier Estuarine

inlets or sounds (1981), Florida Subtidal

Natural Areas

Inventory and

Florida Dept . of

Nat. Resources

(1990).

Nonvegetated Marine Subtidal

Flats and Rolling Plain

Bald cypress (Taxodium Darst et al (1996), Palustrine

distichnm) Ewel and Odum (Freshwater)

Pond cypress (Taxodium (1986), Lake Forested

asendens) County Water

Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica) Authority (1995).

Water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica)

American elm (Ulmus americana) Florida Natural Palustrine

Red maple (Acer rubrum) Areas Inventory (Freshwater)

Cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto) and Florida Dept Forested

Sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana) of Nat. Resources

Sweetgum (Liquidambar (1990), Vince et al .

styraciflua) (1989), Simons et

Water oak (Quercus nigra) al . (1989), Ward

Laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) (1943) .

Box Elder (Acernegundo)

Swamp ash (Fraxinus paucif ora)

Loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus) Florida Natural Palustrine

Swamp bay (Persea borbonia) Areas Inventory (Freshwater)

Sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana) and Florida Dept . Forested

Sweetgum (Liquidambar of Nat. Resources

styraciflua) (1990), Lake

Slash pine (Pines elliottii) County Water

Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica) Authority (1995),

Willow (Salix spp.) U.S . Army Corps of

Engineers (1988) .

Bald cypress (Taxodium Ewel (1990), Palustrine

distichnm) Florida Natural (Freshwater)

Red maple (Acer rubrum) Areas Inventory Forested

Dahoon holly (Ilex cassine) and Florida Dept .

Pop ash (Fraxinus caroliniana) of Nat. Resources

Cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto) (1990), Ward (1943),

Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica) Wolfe et al. (1988) .

Winged elm (Ulmus alata)

Willow (Salix spp.)

Sweetgum (Liquidambar

styracifua)

Water oak (Quercus nigra)

Overcup oak (Quercus lyrata)

Water Tupelo (Nyssa aquatica)

Water Hickory (Carya aquatica)

Green Ash (Faxinus Pennsylvania)

Laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia)
Table 2. Wetland habitat descriptions, characteristic plant species and classification designation(s) as found in this

study-Continued.

Habitat-Community

Type and Synonyms

Pine Flatwoods

Shrub Wetlands

Dwarf or Scrub

Cypress

Shrub Swamp

Shrub Bogs

Freshwater Marsh

Long Hydroperiod

Moderate Hydroperiod

Description

Pine flatwoods may be Florida's

most common ecological

community. They occur on flat,

poorly drained, sandy soils

that are underlain by clay or

hardpan . Wet pine flatwoods

will have standing water for

several weeks during the

rainy season . In Florida, pine

flatwoods may be a mixture of

wetland and upland.

Dwarfor scrub cypress

wetlands are found on

frequently flooded rock or

marl soils in south Florida. The

largest concentration of these

wetlands is in the Big Cypress

region in the southwestern part

of the State . These wetlands

have low densities of stunted

pond cypress with sparse

understories .

Florida's shrub wetlands

are characterized by dense

shrubbery in areas where

the water table is close to the

surface and standing water

pockets are common. They

often border pine flatwoods,

cypress or blackgum swamp

forests .

There are a small number

of bogs in Florida that are

found around lakeshores, in

dome swamps and in sink

holes (generally north of

Highlands County) . Shrub

bogs occur on peat substrate

that is continually saturated .

Characteristic vegetation is

composed of sphagnum moss

and dense evergreen shrub

thickets .

Deep marsh-may contain

more than 110 species of

hydrophytic plants .

Shallow marsh-may contain

more than 175 species of

hydrophytic plants .

Coastal Flats

Characteristic Plant Species References Designation for

This Study

and Rolling Plain-Continued

Long leaf pine (Pines palustris) Abrahamson and Palustrine

Slash pine (Pines elliottii) Hartnett (1990), (Freshwater)

Loblolly pine (Pines taeda) U.S . Army Corps Forested

Pond pine (Pines serotina) of Engineers

(1988) .

Pond cypress (Taxodium Duever et al. 1986, Palustrine

asendens) Ewel (1990), Ward (Freshwater)

(1943) . Shrub

Titi (Cyrilla racemiflora) U.S . Army Corps Palustrine

Black titi (Cliflonia monophylla) of Engineers (Freshwater)

Swamp haw (Viburnum nudism) (1988), Wolfe et al . Shrub

Swamp honeysuckle (1988).

(Rhododendron viscosum)

Buttonbush (Cephalanthus

occidentalis)

Sweet pepperbush (Clethra

alnifolia)

Willows (Salix spp.)

Stiff Cornel (Cormsfoemina)

Alder (Alms serrulata)

Sphagnum moss (Sphagnum spp.) Florida Natural Palustrine

Black titi (Cliftonia monophylla) Areas Inventory (Freshwater)

Pond pine (Pines serotina) and Florida Dept. Shrub

White cedar (Chamaecyparis of Nat. Resources

thyoides) (1990), U.S . Army

Buttonbush (Cephalanthus Corps of Engineers

occidentalis) (1988), Wolfe et al .

Sundew (Drosera capillaris) (1988) .

Pitcher plant (Sarracenia minor)

White water lily (Nymphaea Gunderson (1994), Palustrine

ordorata) Hart and Newman (Freshwater)

Neverwet (Orontium aquaticun) (1995), Kushlan Emergent

Yellow lotus (Nelumbo lutea) (1990) .

Naiad (Nayas guadalupensis)

Bladderwort (Utricularia spp.)

Pondweed (Potamogeton spp .)

Cattail (Typha spp .)

Bullrush (Scirpus spp.)

Pickerelweed (Pontederia

lanceolata)

Arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia)

Spikerush (Eleocharis spp .)

Maidencane (Panicum

hennitomon)

Fire flag (Th,alia geniculata)

Tracy's beakrush (Rynchospora

tra.eyi)
Table 2. Wetland habitat descriptions, characteristic plant species and classification designation(s) as found in this

study-Continued .

Habitat-Community

Type and Synonyms

Short Hydroperiod

Freshwater Pond

Springs

Description

Coastal, Flats and Rolling Plain-Continued

Characteristic Plant Species

Maidencane (Panicum

hemitonton)

Saw grass (Cladium jamaicensis)

Muhly (Muhlenbergiafillipes)

Cordgrass (Spartina bakeri)

White-topped sedge (Dichromena

colorata)

St. John's- wort (Hypericum

fasciculatum)

Spikerush (Eleocharis cellulosa)

Pickerel weed (Pontederia

lanceolata)

Arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia)

Rushes (Juncos spp.)

Duck weeds (Lemma spp.)

Spatterdock (Nuphar luteum)

Water lily (Nyinphaea odorata)

Water shield (Brasenia schreberi)

Bladderworts (Utricularia spp.)

Southern Naiad (Najas

guadalupensis)

Tape grass (Vallisneria americana)

Eelgrass (Sagittaria latifolia)

Pond weed (Zannichellia palnstris)

Muskgrass (Chara spp.)

Wild Rice (Zizania aquatica)

Includes swales and wet

prairies, which occur in low

areas throughout Florida

These wetlands are often dry

for part of the year. Some wet

prairies in Florida support over

320 species of herbaceous and

woody hydrophytes .

Many manmade ponds in

Florida have been created

for water retention, aesthetic

purposes, or agricultural use .

These open water ponds may

be maintained or periodically

treated to be free of vegetation .

Other areas such as borrow

pits or excavations have filled

with water over time and may

be fairly deep or lack nutrients

to support aquatic vegetation .

Other ponds throughout the

State support submerged,

floating or emergent wetland

vegetation . These wetlands are

characteristically small (less

than 20 acres or 8 ha) and hold

shallow water during years of

normal precipitation .

Florida has numerous

freshwater springs which

originate from artesian openings

in the underground aquifer.

Springs are usually clear and

have sand bottoms or exposed

limestone along a central

channel . Many of the larger

springs are used extensively for

recreation particularly fishing,

snorkeling, tubing, canoeing and

swimming .

A canal in the Everglades .

References Designation for

This Study

Hart and Newman Palustrine

(1995), U.S . Army (Freshwater)

Corps of Engineers Unconsolidated

(1988) . Bottom (Ponds)

Florida Natural Palustrine

Areas Inventory (Freshwater)

and Florida Dept. Unconsolidated

of Nat. Resources Bottom or

(1990), Nordlie Palustrine

(1990). Emergent
Rookery Bay National Estuarine

Research Reserve.
Results: Status, Distribution and Trends

This study estimated that in 1996

there were 11.4 million acres (4 .6

million ha) of wetlands in Florida.

Wetlands occupied approximately

29 percent of the area of the State,

a greater percentage of the land

surface than any other state in

the conterminous United States

(Dahl 1990). Thebulk (90 percent)

of Florida's wetlands by area were

freshwater systems. The remaining

10 percent were marine or estuarine

intertidal wetlands. About 56

percent of the original wetland area

of Florida remained in 1996 (Figure

12). Wetland data for Florida from

1985 to 1996 are presented in

Appendix B, and are summarized in

Table 3.

The estimated average annual rate

of wetland loss was 5,000 acres

(2,030 ha) between 1985 and 1996.

This was an 81 percent decline in

the annual rate of loss as reported

for the 1970s to 1980s (Figure 13).

Between 1985 and 1996, estimated

wetland losses in Florida made

up about 12 percent of the total

National wetland loss .

Results from this study indicated

that 11.5 percent of Florida's

wetlands were located within the

coastal zone physiographic region.

The majority of wetlands, by area,

were within the Gulf-Atlantic

Coastal Flats (82.7 percent) and

smaller percentage (5 .8 percent)

Original Wetlands in Florida,

Circa 1780

Remaining Wetlands in Florida, 1996

Ponds 2%

Freshwater

Shrub 16%

Freshwater

Emergent 23%

Figure 1,2. Original wetland area in

Florida and estimated remaining

portion.

10%

are Intertidal

Freshwater Forested

49%

Intertidal

10%
were located in the Rolling Plain

physiographic region (Table 4) .

Urban and rural development

accounted for an estimated 72

percent of the total estimated loss .

Agriculture was attributed with the

remaining 28 percent of the losses

(Figure 14). Small gains in wetland

were attributed to upland forest

plantations, the "other" uplands

category and from deepwater.

Florida also had an estimated 4.3

million acres (1 .8 million ha) of

deepwater lakes.

Pond created

by mineral

extraction.

80,000

60,000

N

40,000

a

20,000

1954-74 1974-84 1984-96

Figure 13. Average annual net wetland loss in Florida (Sources: Hefner 1986, Frayer and

Hefner 1991, this study).

Figure 14. Net loss ofwetlands

to uplands, 1985 to 1996.

Rural Development

44%

Urban

28%

Agriculture

28%
Table 3. Change in wetland area for selected wetland and deepwater categories, 1985 to 1996. The coefficient of

variation (CV) for each entry (expressed as a percentage) is given in parentheses.

Statistically ztn)-eliable

' Includes the categories: EstuarineIntertidal Unconsolidated Shore.

= Includes the categories : Estuarine Intertidal Emergent and Estuarine Intertidal Shrub.

' Includes the categories: Palustrine Aquatic Bed, Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom and Palustrine Unconsolidated Shore.

a Includes the categories : Palustrine Emergent, Palustrine Forested and Palustrine Shrub

Wetland/Deepwater Category

Intertidal Habitats

Estimated Area, 1985

Area, in Thousands

Estimated Area, 1996

ofAcres

Change,

1985-96

Change

(in Percent)

Marine Intertidal 27 .5

(38.1)

26 .5

(38.3)

-1 .0

( )

-3 .6

Estuarine Intertidal Nonvegetated' 183.4

(20.8)

179.8

(20.8)

-3 .5

( )

-1 .9

Estuarine Intertidal Vegetated2

926.7

(10.7)

930.7

(10.7)

4.0

(63.1) 0.4

All Intertidal Wetlands 1,137.6

(9 .3)

1,137.1

(9.3)

-0 .5

(73.0) <-0.1

Freshwater Habitats

Freshwater NonvegetatedB 201.4

(7 .7)

240.6

(7.4)

39 .2

(24.3) 19 .5

Freshwater Vegetated' 10,085 .5

(3 .9)

9,994.2

(3.9)

-91.3

(46)

-0 .9

Freshwater Emergent 2.897 .1

(9 .6)

2,636.9

(9.9)

-260 .2

(26.7) -9 .0

Freshwater Forested 5,543.7

(4 .8)

5,566.2

(5.0)

2.5

(") -2 .3

Freshwater Shrub 1,644.7

(9 .3)

1,791.1

(8.7)

146.4

(80.8) 6.6

All Freshwater Wetlands 10,085 .5

(3 .8)

10,234.8

(3.8)

-52.1

(80.2) -0 .5

All Wetlands 11,424 .5 11,371 .9 -52.6 -0 .5 (3 .6) (3.5) (79.7)

Deepwater Habitats

Lacustrine 5

1696 .2 1,676.4 -19.8 -1 .2 (16.6) (16.7) N

Riverine 135.3 136.7 1.4 1.0 (32.5) (32.3) (60.6)

Estuarine Subtidal 2,504.7

(5 .4)

2,530.1

(5.3)

25 .4

(94.9) 1.0

All Deepwater Habitats 4,336.2 4,343.2 7.0 0.2 (7 .2) (7 .1) ( -1 )

All Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats'' 15,760

(2 .7)

15,715.1

(2.7)

-45.6

( )

-0 .3
Table 4. Estimated acreage of wetlands within the physiographic regions of Florida, 1996.

Wetland Categ ory

Freshwater Wetlands

Acres

Coastal Zone

1996 Area

Hectares

Percent CV

Freshwater forested 73,430 29,717 26.3

Freshwater shrub 42,742 17,298 21 .9

Freshwater emergent 57,827 23,402 37.1

Freshwater unconsolidated shore 69 28 67.1

Freshwater unconsolidated bottom 14,224 5,756 17.6

Freshwater aquatic bed 608 246 58.4

Total Freshwaterwetland area for region 188,900 76,447 19.4

Intertidal Wetlands

Estuarine intertidal shrub 614,930 248,859 13.7

Estuarine intertidal emergent 291,466 117,955 17.3

Estuarine intertidal unconsolidated shore 179,674 72,713 20.8

Total Estuarine wetland area for region 1,086,070 439,527 9.6

Marine intertidal 28,855 10,463 39.1

Total Marine wetland area for region 25,855 10,463 39.1

Total wetland area for region 1,300,825 526,437 8.3

Gulf-Atlantic Coastal Flats

Freshwater Wetlands

Freshwater forested 4,975,550 2,013,577 5.5

Freshwater shrub 1,682,972 681,090 9.2

Freshwater emergent 2,524,909 1,021,817 10.3

Freshwater unconsolidated shore 8,356 3,382 31 .0

Freshwater unconsolidated bottom 174,100 70,457 9.0

Freshwater aquatic bed 15,659 6,337 21 .2

Total Freshwater area for region 9,381,546 3,796,660 4.1

Intertidal Wetlands

Estuarine intertidal shrub 1,378 558 55.0

Estuarine intertidal emergent 22,933 9,281 79.0

Estuarine intertidal unconsolidated shore 245 99 59.6

Total Estuarine wetland area for region 24,556 9,938 75.5

Marine intertidal 606 245 98.2

Total Marine wetland area for region 606 245 98.2

Total wetland area for region 9,406,708 3,806,843 4.1

Gulf-Atlantic Rolling Plain

Freshwater Wetlands

Freshwater forested 517,266 209,335 10.2

Freshwater shrub 65,411 26,472 21 .8

Freshwater emergent 54,176 21,925 25.8

Freshwater unconsolidated shore 579 234 54.7

Freshwater unconsolidated bottom 23,026 9,318 15.4

Freshwater aquatic bed 3,986 1,613 31 .1

Total Freshwater area for region 664,444 268,897 9.6

Total wetland area for region 664,444 268,897 9.6
Intertidal

Marine and

Estuarine

Wetlands

Status and Distribution :

This study estimated there were

slightly more than 1.1 million

acres (460,300 ha) of marine and

estuarine wetlands, comprising 10

percent of the area of all wetlands in

Florida. This included an estimated

314,400 acres (127,290 ha) of

estuarine emergent or saltmarsh

wetlands, 616,300 acres (249,510

ha) of estuarine shrubs and 206,400

acres (83,560 ha) of estuarine and

marine nonvegetated wetlands .

Nonvegetated wetlands were

commonly referred to as shores,

sand or mud flats, bars and shoals.

The approximate distribution and

abundance of estuarine emergent

wetlands along Florida's coast line is

shown in Figure 15. These saltmarsh

habitats were found in embayments,

estuaries and behind coastal

barriers along the Atlantic seaboard

and the Gulf of Mexico. Saltmarsh

vegetation was sparse or absent

along the shorelines of Sarasota

County, the Florida Keys and the

highly urbanized areas of Palm

Beach, Broward and northern Dade

counties. Saltmarshes were more

extensive in the "Big Bend" region

of Apalachicola Bay and along the

coastal inlets of Nassau and Duval

counties in the northeast portion of

the State.

In 1996, there were an estimated

616,300 acres (249,400 ha) of

estuarine shrub wetlands in

Florida. The estuarine shrubs were

comprised of halophytic trees and

shrubs growing in brackish or saline

tidal waters. This category was

dominated by species of mangroves

(Rhizophora mangle, Avicennia

germinans and Laguncularia

racemosa). 2 Mangroves represented

subtropical or tropical intertidal

TThis study did not differentiate distribution

or extent at the species level.

Cover of Estuarine Emergents,

in Percent

<5

5-9

10-19

20-49

50

Figure 15. Distribution of estuarine emergent

wetland in Florida, 1996 .
communities that tolerated very

little or no frost (Tomlinson 1986).

They were most common in the

subtropical portions of the State

particularly south of Charolette

Harbor, in the Ten Thousand Islands

area and along Florida Bay (Figure

16). Less dense stands of estuarine

shrubs were found in Biscayne Bay,

the Indian River Lagoon, Tampa

Bay, Ponce de Leon Inlet and

Homosassa Bay. The occurrence

of estuarine shrubs was observed

extending as far north as the St.

Mary's River Inlet and Apalachee

Bay, however, these areas may have

contained salt tolerant shrub species

other than mangroves.

Almost all (97.8 percent) estuarine

wetlands were located in the Coastal

Zone. However, some estuarine

emergent, shrub and nonvegetated

wetlands extended into the Coastal

Flats physiographic region (2 .2

percent). This occurred primarily

along tidal rivers and salt water

canal systems.

Florida's coastal zone contained

about 21 percent of all estuarine

and marine wetlands and 92 percent

of the estuarine shrub wetlands

found in the conterminous United

States. Whereas, only 8 percent

of all estuarine emergent (salt

marsh) wetlands were found along

the State's coast lines (Table 5) .

An estimated 31 percent of all

nonvegetated estuarine and marine

habitats within the conterminous

United States were found in Florida.

The mean size of emergent salt

marsh wetlands and estuarine shrub

wetlands within the sample sites

were slightly less than 23 acres (9

ha) . The estuarine nonvegetated

wetlands sampled averaged just over

10 acres (4 ha) (Table 6) .

Although much of Florida's

population lives along or close to

the coastline, less than 10 percent of

the marine and estuarine wetlands

sampled were located within or

adjacent to urban areas (Figure 17).

Occurrence of Estuarine Shrubs

O Present or Sparse

Some Estuarine Shrubs

Shrubs More Common

Figure 16. Distribution ofestuarine shrub wetland

in Florida, 1996.
Table 5. Comparison of marine and estuarine wetland area for Florida and the conterminous United States . (Sources:

Dahl 2000; this study.)

Table 6. Mean area and size range of individual estuarine wetlands within

sample units in Florida, 1996.

Wetland

Deepwater

Urban Centers

Figure 17. Proximity ofurban areas to

Florida's wetlands, 1996.

Wetland Category

Contermimous

(Thousands

1997 Area

U.S. 1986-97

ofAcres)

Trend

(in Percent)

Florida Area

1996

(in Acres)

Florida Trendd

(in Percent)

Florida Area as

percentage of

National Totals

Marine Intertidal 130.9 -2.2 26.5 -3.6 20.2

Estuarine Nonvegetated 580.1 -0.3 179.9 -1 .9 31 .0

Estuarine Emergent 3,942.4 -14.5 314.4 -0.6 8.0

Estuarine Shrub 672.8 +6.6 616.3 +1.0 91 .6

Wetland Category Mean Acres

(Hectares)

Range, inAcres

(Hectares)

Estuarine Shrub 22 .8 .02 to 2,500

(9.2) ( .008 to 1,013)

Estuarine Emergent 22 .9 .02 to 1,225

(9 .3) ( .008 to 508)

Estuarine Flats/Bars 10 .1 .05 to 1,021

(4 .0) ( .02 to 414)
Trends from 1985 to 1996

Marine and estuarine nonvegetated

wetlands declined by an estimated

4,500 acres (1,820 ha) between 1985

and 1996. Most of these losses were

believed to have been the result of

coastal erosion and storms .

Estuarine vegetated wetlands, which

combined estuarine emergents

and shrubs, increased slightly

during this study period . Although

estuarine emergents declined in

area by about 1,800 acres (730 ha),

this was overshadowed by increases

in estuarine shrub wetlands

yielding a net gain for the estuarine

vegetated category as seen in Table

7. Estuarine shrubs increased by

an estimated 5,800 acres (2,350

ha). Overall, intertidal estuarine

vegetated wetlands increased by

approximately 4,000 acres (1,620 ha)

between 1985 and 1996.

Intertidal nonvegetated losses

were ameliorated by the estuarine

vegetated wetland gains. Florida's

intertidal wetlands sustained a net

loss of 500 acres (200 ha) or less than

1 percent during this study period.

Frayer and Hefner (1991) reported a

net decline of 2,900 acres (1,170 ha)

to all marine and estuarine wetlands

from the 1970s and 1980s. Compared

with the results of this study there

was an 83 percent decline in the

loss rate of marine and estuarine

wetlands .

Long-term trends in intertidal

wetland types are shown in Figure

18.

Attribution of Losses and Conversions

-Marine and Estuarine Wetlands

The area of marine and estuarine

wetland lost to uplands is shown in

Table 8. The loss of 17 acres (7 ha)

of estuarine emergent wetland to

upland was statistically insignificant.

Seventy-five percent of the estuarine

shrub losses were attributable to

some form of coastal development.

This may have involved construction

of bridges, roadways, urban

or suburban development or

infrastructure . Twenty percent

of the estuarine shrub losses

were attributed to agriculture

and 5 percent were due to other

unidentified upland land uses.

Seventy-one percent of the losses

to estuarine shores were attributed

to urban expansion along the coast.

The remaining 29 percent of the loss

to upland from this category was due

to expansion of other unidentified

types of upland land use.

The conversion of marine and

estuarine wetlands to deepwater

habitats involved losses to open

water bay bottoms (deep water

estuaries), or open ocean.

Table 7. Changes in estuarine and marine intertidal wetlands, 1985 to 1996. The coefficient of variation (CV) for each

entry (expressed as a percentage) is given in parentheses .

Area in Thousands ofAcres

Area

'Includes the category: Estuarine Unconsolidated Shore

=Includes the categories: Estuarine Emergent and Estuarine Shrub.

Wetland Category

Nonvegetated

Estimated Area.

1985,

Estimated Area,

1996

Gain or Loss,

198 .5-96

(as Percentage)

of All Intertidal

Wetland, 1996

Marine Intertidal 27 .5 26 .5 -1.0 2.3 (38 .1) (38 .3) M

Estuarine Intertidal Nonvegetated 183 .4 179 .9 -3.5 15 .8 20.8 20.8) M

Vegetated

Estuarine Emergent 316.2 314.4 -1 .8 27.7 (17.2) (17 .0) (*)

Estuarine Shrub 610.5 616.3 5.8 54 .2 (13.7) (13.7) (83.8)

Estuarine Intertidal Vegetatedl 926 .7 930.8 4 .0 81 .9 (10.7) (10.7) (63 .1)

Net Intertidal Change 1,137.6 1,137 .1 -0 .5 100

*Statistically unreliable
Table 11 . Changes in marine and estuarine intertidal wetlands, 1985-96.

y1,300 ,

F= 1,200

L

V

A. Nonvegetated Intertidal Wetland

C. Estuarine Emergent Wetland

1950s " 1970s 1980S 1996

Figrcr(- 18. Long term trends ofintertidal wetland types in Florida, 1950s to 1996.

Wetland Category

Percentage of

All Intertidal

Wetland in

Florida, 1996

Change,

1985-96,

in Percent

Area Lost

Upland

Acres

to Area, Converted

to Deepwater

Change as

Percentage of

Intertidal Gross

Change

Marine [ntertidal 2.3 -4 .0 0 657 6.5

Estuarine Nonvegetated 15 .8 -1 .9 249 6,561 67 .8

Estuarine Emergent 27 .7 -0 .6 17 290 3.1

Estuarine Shrub 54 .2 1.0 2,185 90 22 .6

Gross Change to Intertidal Wetlands 2,451 7,598 100

<11,1100 1

1950s 1970s 1980S 1996

B. Estuarine Shrub Wetland

_ 650 _ 400 ti y

C

H 625

C

y 375

0 0

t

600 ~- 350

5;15 L 325

a

550 300 ,

1950s 1970s 1980S 1996
Freshwater

Wetlands

Status and Distribution

In 1996, there were an estimated

10.2 million acres (4 .1 million ha) of

freshwater (palustrine) wetlands

that comprised 90 percent of all

wetland area in the State. An

estimated 98 percent were vegetated

the remaining 2 percent were open

water ponds. Nationwide, Florida

had an estimated 10.2 percent

of all freshwater wetlands in the

conterminous United States.

Of these freshwater wetlands,

there were an estimated 5.6 million

acres (2 .3 million ha) of forested

wetlands, 1 .8 million acres (725,000

ha) of shrubs, 2.6 million acres (1 .1

million ha) of emergent wetlands

or marshes and 241,000 acres

(98,000 ha) of freshwater ponds.

Almost 92 percent of these wetlands

were located in the Coastal Flats

physiographic region of the State.

Freshwater forested wetlands

were distributed throughout

the State excluding much of the

Everglades and the Florida Keys.

Forested wetlands were sparse in

Pinellas, Marion, Suwanee, Hendry,

Glades and Okeechobee counties.

Forested wetlands were most

dense in the Fakahatchee Strand

and Big Cypress Preserve areas of

Collier County, and the Big Bend

counties of Levy, Dixie, Taylor,

Jefferson, Wakulla, Franklin and

Gulf. Bottomlands adjacent to river

and stream systems and the wet

pine flatwood areas of the Florida

Panhandle also contained moderate

numbers of forested wetlands.

Pockets of forested swamps also

occurred in Volusia County east of

Lake George, the Green Swamp

area of Polk County and around

Blue Cypress Lake in Indian River

County.

Freshwater emergent wetland

distribution was concentrated in

what was the historic Everglades

ecosystem, extending from Lake

Okeechobee through the Everglades

National Park including the western

margins of St. Lucie and Martin

Counties . Emergent marshes and

wet prairies were also prevalent

in DeSoto and Charlotte Counties .

The Kissimmee River system in

Okeechobee and Osceola Counties as

well as the St. John's River system

in Volusia, Brevard and Indian River

Counties supported considerable

emergent wetlands as did Sumpter

Sawgrass Lake, Florida.
and Lake Counties in central

Florida.

wetlands (about 9 percent) were also

found in this physiographic region.

the emergent wetlands occurred in

urban areas.

Few freshwater wetlands were

found within the Coastal Zone

physiographic region. These

occurred in the interior portions of

barrier islands, and where rivers

flowed into coastal estuaries.

Less that 2 percent of Florida's

freshwater wetlands were located in

this coastal stratum (Table 9) .

The Coastal Flats contained most

of the freshwater wetlands in

Florida. Almost 90 percent of the

forested wetlands, 94 percent of

the freshwater shrubs and nearly

96 percent of freshwater emergent

marshes were in the Coastal Flats.

A small percentage of freshwater

shrubs and emergents was found

in the Rolling Plain. Some forested

The size of freshwater wetlands

contained within the sampling of this

study indicated forested wetlands

had a mean size larger than shrubs

or emergent wetlands (Table 10) .

Forested wetlands were 17.7 acres

(7 ha) with emergent marshes and

shrub wetlands 9.9 acres (4 ha)

and 7.1 acres (3 ha) respectively.

The mean size of freshwater ponds

identified in this study was 1.7 acres

(0 .7 ha).

There was a noticeable difference

in the type of freshwater wetland

found within or adjacent to urban

areas in Florida. About 25 percent

ofthe forested wetlands sampled

were in urban settings, whereas

less than 3 percent of freshwater

shrub wetlands and 5 percent of

Trends from 1985 to 1996

Florida's freshwater wetlands

declined by an estimated 52,000

acres (21,100 ha) or 0.5 percent

between 1985 and 1996. This was

an average annual net loss of 4,740

acres (1,920 ha). The average annual

rate of freshwater wetland loss had

declined 82 percent since the 1970s

to the 1980s.

Freshwater vegetated wetlands

declined by an estimated 91,000

acres (36,800 ha) or 0.9 percent.

Freshwater emergent wetlands

exhibited the largest losses declining

by an estimated 260,000 acres

(10,500 ha) or 9.0 percent (Table 11).

Table!). Distribution of freshwater wetland types by physiographic region in Florida, 1996.

Physiooraphic Region

Gulf-At] antic Rolling Plain

Gulf-At antic Coastal Flats

Coastal Zone

Total Freshwater Wetland

'Percent coefficie-Wof va-riatiorr is expressed as (standard error/mean)*100

Table '10. Mean area and size range of individual freshwater wetlands within

sample units in Florida, 1996.

We up} er size limit reflected the area of ponds connected in series.

Estimated Area in

Acres

(Hectares)

Percent CV1 Percentage of'Total

Freshwater Wetland

66,444 9 .6 6

(268,897)

9,381,546 4 .1 92 (3,796,660)

188,900 19 .4 2

(76,447)

10,234,890 3 . 8 100 (4,142,003

Wetland Category Mean Acres

(Hectares)

Range in Acres

(Hectares)

Freshwater Forested 17 .7

(7.2)

.02 to 2,554

( .008 to 1,034)

Freshwater Shrub 7.1

(2 .9)

.02 to 2,339

(.008 to 947)

Freshwater Emergent 9.9

(4.0)

.02 to 2,5571

( .008 to 1,036)

Freshwater Ponds 1 .7

(0.7)

.03 to 1432

( .012 to 58)

Other 117iscellaneous Freshwater Types 2.0

(0.8)

.02 to 80

(.008 to 32)

'The itpl er size limit zvas restricted by sample plot size.
Freshwater ponds increased in area

by over 39,000 acres (15,800 ha),

almost 20 percent. Forested wetland

area increased slightly (0 .4 percent)

while shrub wetlands increased by

an estimated 8.9 percent. These

gains largely overshadowed the

losses of freshwater emergents

wetlands .

Long term trends in freshwater

wetland types indicated that

freshwater ponds continued to

increase over time. Freshwater

forested wetlands reversed a long

term trend and sustained a net gain

in area, while emergent wetlands

continued to decline (Figure 19).

Attribution of Losses and Conversions

-Freshwater Wetlands

Net losses of freshwater wetland

between 1985 and 1996 were

attributed to rural development,

urban development and agriculture

(Figure 20). Small net gains were

recorded from silviculture and the

"other uplands" land use categories .

Loss of wetlands to urban and rural

development involved drainage

for homes, resorts, golf courses,

industry, roads, bridges and other

infrastructure . Urban and rural

development activities accounted for

an estimated 72 percent of the net

wetland losses .

Agriculture accounted for an

estimated 28 percent loss of

freshwater wetlands . Primarily

in south Florida, where emergent

wetlands were converted to citrus

production, horticulture, growing

landscape or other ornamental

plants, greenhouses, sod farms and

other uses. The net losses attributed

to agriculture declined by 79 percent

compared to the estimated losses

attributed to agriculture during the

1970s to 1980s.

Freshwater

Lakes and

Reservoirs

About 49,000 acres (19,800 ha) of

freshwater lakes were created from

uplands between 1985 and 1996.

Despite these gains, lacustrine

deepwater areas experienced a net

decline of 19,700 acres (8,000 ha), or

1.2 percent. The loss of deepwater

habitats to freshwater wetlands

helped offset wetland losses to

upland land uses.

Table 11 . Changes in freshwater wetlands, 1985 to 1996. The coefficient of variation (CV) for each entry (expressed

as a percentage) is given in parentheses.

'Includes the categories : Fresht ater Agtta.tic Bed and Freshwater Ujzcorzsoliidated Bottom

Wetland Category

Freshwater Vegetated Wetlands

Area

Estimated Area,

1985

in, Thousands ofAcres

Estimated Area,

1996

Change,

1985-96

Change

(in Percent)

Freshwater Forested 5,

(4

543

.8)

.7 5,566

(5 .0)

.2 22~

)

.5 0.4 (

Freshwater Shrub 1,644 .76 1,791 .1 146 .5 8.9 (9.3) (8 .7) (80 .8)

Freshwater Emergent 2,897 .1 2,636 .9 -260.3 -9.0

(9 .6) (9 .9) (26 .7)

All Freshwater Vegetated Wetlands 10,085 .5 9,994 .2 -91.3 -0.9 (3 .9) (3 .9) (46)

Freshwater Nonvegetated Wetlands

Ponds* 195 .1 231 .6 36.5 18 .7 (7 .9) (7 .5) (25 .1)

Miscellaneous Types (19 .6

6.3

)

9 .0

(28 .9) (862) 42.9

All Freshwater Nonvegetated Wetlands 2014

(7 .7)

240.6

(7 .4)

392

(24 .3) 19.5

All Freshwater Wetlands 10,286.9 10,234 .8 -52.1 -0.5 (3.8) (3.8) (80.2)

'Statistically u.rzreliable.
A. Freshwater Forested Wetland

2,001)

y

. E 1,401)

B. Freshwater Shrub Wetland _5,000

H

4,500

y

64,000- t

H

r- 3,000 -

C. Freshwater Emergent Wetland

1,201) a 2,500

C.) Q

41,001 a

2,000 L a

1950s 1970s 1980s 1996 1950s 1970s 1980s 1996

Figure 19 Long term trends offreshwater wetland types in Florida, 1950s to 1996.

601

40

Gains

0

c

-411 -

-611 Agriculture Forest Urban Rural Other Deepwater

Plantations Development

Land Use Category

Figure 20. Net losses and gains ofwetlands to various land use types, 1985 to 1996.
Discussion

Intertidal

Marine and

Estuarine

Wetlands

Three major categories of estuarine

and marine wetlands were included

in this study: estuarine intertidal

emergents (salt and brackish

water marshes), estuarine shrubs

(mangrove swamps or mangles and

other salt tolerant woody species),

and estuarine and marine intertidal

nonvegetated wetlands . This later

category included exposed coastal

beaches subject to tidal flooding, as

well as sand bars, tidal mud flats,

shoals, and sand spits.

In 1996, Florida had an estimated

1 .1 million acres (460,300 ha) of

marine and estuarine wetlands.

Twenty-one percent of all intertidal

wetlands in the conterminous United

States were found in Florida. While

only 8 percent of the estuarine salt

marsh vegetation in the lower 48

States was found along Florida's

coastline, the State harbored over

91 percent of the estuarine shrub

habitat of the Nation.

Less than 1 percent of Florida's

wetland losses between 1985 and

1996 were intertidal wetlands .

During previous eras, development

along the Gulf and Atlantic coast

was probably at the expense of

wetlands and open land (Lynch

et al . 1976; Lins 1980). Because

Figure 22. Lauderdale by the Sea.

(Photo courtesy of NOAA.)

Figure 21 . Jupiter Inlet, Florida, 1997.

(Photo courtesy of NOAA).

Jupiter

Inlet

Lauderdale by

-" tithe Sea
intertidal wetlands often occupy

prime scenic locations immediately

along the coastline, in the past,

many were developed for residential

and resort communities (Figure

21). Other studies have indicated

that as of 1995, over 60 percent of

Floridians lived within 5 miles of the

coast (Florida Coastal Management

Program 1999a). However, since

then, most of Florida's shoreline

habitats have been protected either

by regulation or through public

ownership. These mechanisms in

combination with continued outreach

and educational efforts have been

responsible for reducing intertidal

wetland losses between 1986 and

1997.

Although the net loss of marine and

estuarine wetland was small, in the

estuarine environment there were

important changes. An estimated

three times as much estuarine

wetland was converted to deepwater

than was lost to upland. The

conversion to deepwater primarily

affected nonvegetated intertidal

wetlands as a result of scouring,

sediment movement, or shifts of

sand or mud substrates resulting

from dredging, coastal storms, wave

action, or water currents.

Nonve,getated

Marine and

Estuarine

Wetlands

Nonvegetated intertidal wetlands

included sand and mud flats, beaches

flooded by the tides at regular

intervals and shallow water features

such as sand bars and shoals . It was

estimated that there were more

than 206,000 acres (83,600 ha) of

marine and estuarine nonvegetated

wetlands in 1996 than there were in

1985 .

Intertidal flats were nonvegetated

(or sparsely vegetated) saline

areas that were inundated during

high tides or storms. These flats

were usually composed of sand

or mud and were found scattered

along Florida's coastline. When

flooded with shallow water, sand

flats provided habitat for sport

fish such as the sand sea trout

(Cynoscion arenarius), bonefish

(Albuta vulpes), tarpon (Magalops

atlanticus), snook (Centropomus

undecimalis), and red drum

(Sciaenops ocellatus) . Exposed flats

of sand or mud provided habitat

for many organisms important

to intertidal food web such as

polychaete worms, crustaceans,

mollusks and amphipods (Livingston

1990).

Florida's sand beaches have

provided considerable recreational,

commercial and aesthetic benefits

to people (Figure 22). This wetland

type has also been important to

unique wildlife species. For example,

the green sea turtle (Chelonia

mydas) and the loggerhead

sea turtle (Caretta caretta) use

sandy beaches for nesting sites.

The highest nest densities of

loggerhead turtles have been found

in southern Broward County from

Cape Canaveral to Sebastian Inlet

(Hopkins and Richardson 1984).

Florida beaches have also been

important as nesting habitats

for several species of shore birds

(Johnson and Barbour 1990).

The constant movement of

sediment and water resulting

from tidal influences, wave action

and coastal storms, made these

wetlands dynamic. The erosion

and accretion of sand or mud was

a continual process in response to

the number and severity of coastal

The loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta

caretta) uses sandy beaches for neting.

A tracking device was attached to this

turtle before it returned to the sea. (Ron

Hagerty)
storms, wind and wave action, and

currents. Coastal storm frequency

and strength may have modified the

rates of sediment deposition and

erosion (Williams et al . 1999). By

scouring away sand flats or bars, or

depositing sand to create or elongate

sand spits and shallow water shoals,

coastal storms had the potential

to reconfigure long stretches of

shoreline.

Dredging, placement of fill, beach

renourishment or construction

of shoreline armormentalso

has affected coastal sediments

in shallow water environments.

Coastal armoring including the

construction of sea walls, jetties,

bulkheads, stabilization of shorelines

or protecting inlets mayhave

exacerbated or relocated some of the

coastal erosion processes (Bergquist

1996) .

Florida had an estimated 206,400

acres (38,560 ha) of marine and

estuarine nonvegetated wetland

in 1996. Frayer and Hefner

(1991) reported that Florida had

experienced a net gain of 4,000

acres (1,620 ha) in nonvegetated

intertidal wetland from the 1970s

to the 1980s. Results from this

study estimated a net loss of 4,500

acres (1,820 ha) of nonvegetated

intertidal wetland between 1985

and 1996. This trend corresponded

with data collected between 1989

and 1993 that indicated an increase

in shoreline erosion of nearly 7

percent in Florida (Florida Coastal

Management Program 1999a) .

Certain segments of Florida's

coastline exhibited erosion and

accretion of sediments between

1985 and 1996 (Figure 23). These

types of intertidal wetlands have

demonstrated temporal changes

in the past. The long term trends

indicated an overall reduction in

the losses that were reported for

nonvegetated intertidal wetlands

from the 1950s to 1970s.

Estuarine

Emergent

Wetlands

Estuarine emergent (saltmarsh)

vegetation occurred along

low energy shorelines often

behind barrier islands or within

embayments and tidal river systems.

Estuarine emergent marshes were

typified by salt-tolerant plants

periodically flooded by tidal waters

(Cowardin et al . 1979). Researchers

have found plant species vary

depending on location (Carlton

1977; Duever et al . 1982; Montague

and Wiegert 1990). Those found

along the Atlantic coast in Nassau,

Duval and St. Johns counties for

example, were dominated by smooth

cordgrass (Spartina alterniffora).

Whereas, salt marshes along the

Gulf of Mexico (Dixie, Levy and

Taylor counties) were generally

dominated by black needle rush

Figure ,23. Loss and gain of Florida's

estuarine non-vegetated wetlands, 1985

to 1996.

Loss Due to Erosion or Subsidence

Gain Due to Accretion or Deposition

V-1 I

.11
(Juncus roemerianus) as shown in

Figure 24.

The ecological value of estuarine

salt marsh wetlands has been well

documented (Livingston 1984,

Montague and Wiegert 1990).

These wetlands were important as

nursery areas for fishes, shellfish,

crustaceans and other benthic

organisms. Salt marshes also

provided valuable habitat for birds

and other wildlife, help transport

valuable nutrients, prevent erosion

and buffer the impacts of coastal

storms.

Salt marsh vegetation accounted

for less than one third of the

estimated intertidal wetlands in

Florida in 1996. There were an

estimated 314,000 acres (127,290

ha). These marshes decreased by

an estimated 1,800 acres (730 ha) or

0.6 percent between 1985 and 1996.

This continued a downward trend

that has been documented since the

1950s, albeit the rate of decline has

slowed considerably. Only modest

losses to upland land use (17 acres

or 7 ha) and deepwater systems (290

acres or120 ha) were observed.

Estuarine salt marsh was lost to

deepwater where the vegetation was

scoured or buried by sediments, or

was washed away by rising water

or turbulent wave action . Without

sufficient support around the plant

base and root structures, vegetation

fragmented and washed away. This

occurred along the coast lines of

Citrus and Hernando counties.

Statewide this was only a minor

cause for the decline in salt marsh,

Mashes Island County Park, Wakulla

County, Florida.

accounting for only 3 percent of

estuarine salt marsh decline.

Modest estuarine salt marsh gains

were observed in the counties of

Wakulla and Taylor along the Gulf

Coast and, Duval and St. John's

County along the Atlantic . These

gains helped offset losses of salt

marsh that occurred elsewhere in

the State.

The major factor in the net decline

of salt marsh wetlands was the

conversion to estuarine shrubs

primarily along the Gulf coast in

Sarasota, Charlotte, Lee, Collier,

Monroe and south Dade counties.

Figure ,~4 . Estuarine salt marsh ofnorth Florida dominated by black needlerush (JLwcas roemerianus),

199!x.
Estuarine Shrub

Wetlands

The most notable component of

the estuarine shrub category

were the mangroves (Figure

25). Florida has always been the

primary location of mangrove

wetlands in the United States.

Mangrove species are uniquely

adapted to saline environments

and ecologically, mangroves have

supported a diversity of wildlife

(Odum and McIvor 1990). Mangrove

communities and surrounding

waters of south Florida support

more than 220 species of fish, 24

species of reptiles and amphibians,

18 mammals and 181 bird species

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1996). Other values of mangrove

wetlands include exporting organic

matter to coastal food chains,

stabilizing shorelines and protecting

inland areas from hurricane damage

(Mitsch and Gosselink 1993).

The geographic extent of mangroves

has been influenced by cold

temperatures, hurricanes, and

human induced stressors (Spalding

et al. 1997). There has been general

agreement among researchers

that the greatest concentrations

of mangroves occurred along the

southern tier of counties including

Lee, Collier, Monroe and Dade (U.S .

Fish and Wildlife Service 1996,

Spalding et al . 1997, Wilson 1998).

Occurrence of Estuarine

Shrubs

Spalding et al. (1997) also noted

that large expanses of mangroves

occurred in protected areas such as

Everglades National Park. Results

from this study have also indicated a

close relationship between mangrove

wetland distribution in south Florida

and Federal or State designated

conservation areas (Figure 26).

Conversely, only 7 percent of all

estuarine shrub wetlands were

associated with urban areas.

Occurrences of estuarine shrub

wetlands in north Florida may have

included woody species other than

mangroves. Mitsch and Gosselink

(1993) indicated that the northernFigure 25.

Mangroves and

surrounding

waters ofFlorida

Bay, 1991 .

most extent of black mangrove

(A. geminans) occurred at about

30 degrees N. latitude . Although

scattered stands of mangrove shrubs

have been found along the north

coast of the Gulf of Mexico (Odum

and McIvor 1990), these wetlands

have been exposed to freezing

temperatures that greatly reduced

their number and distribution .

Other salt-tolerant or invasive

woody plants in these northern

wetlands included false willow

(Baccharis angustifolia), saltbush

(Baccharis halimifolia), buttonwood

(Conocarpus erectus), bay cedar

(Suriana maritina) and Brazilian

pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) .

Figure 26 Mangroves were concentrated within

Federal, State and other conservation lands along

Florida's Gulf Coast, 1996 .

Present or Sparse

Some Estuarine Shrubs

Shrubs More Common

Conservation Areas
Estuarine shrub area increased in

Florida from 610,500 acres (247,170

ha) to 616,300 acres (249,510 ha)

between 1985 and 1996. Historically,

thousands of acres of mangroves

were destroyed by dredging,

ditching, diking or filling wetlands

along Florida's coastline (Patterson

1986; Odum and McIvor 1990) . There

has also been ongoing controversy

over continued development of golf

courses and residential housing

along marginal mangrove habitats

(Twilley 1998). Specific legal

protection for mangrove wetlands

was enacted by the State in 1985.

This, in combination with mangrove

restoration and conservation

practices, such as restrictive removal

and pruning, has helped increase the

extent of mangroves in south Florida

(Figure 27). This has resulted in

slight increases in estuarine shrub

wetland area.

A contributing factor that

accounted for increased estuarine

shrub area, was the invasion and

Losses to Upland Developed Land Use

Gains

Figure ,28. Loss or gain ofestuarine shrub habitat

between 1985 and 1996.

establishment of exotic shrub

species within and bordering

estuarine wetlands . Brazilian

pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius)

for example, was capable of

establishment in a broad range of

hydrologic conditions including

intertidal mangroves (McCann et

al . 1996). When viewed from aerial

photography, monospecific stands

of this invasive species appeared

within the intertidal zone. Duever

et al. (1986) and Habeck (1995)

recognized exotic shrub invasion

was a continuing problem in Florida.

Without qualitative or species

specific information, determining the

ecological impact of the increased

extent of exotic shrubs observed

within the estuarine shrub category

was not possible. This study was

designed to measure changes in

wetland area by generalized life

form (woody shrubs) without further

assessment of species composition or

wetland quality.

Although some estuarine shrub

wetlands were lost to open water

systems, most of the losses were

attributed to upland land use. An

estimated 75 percent (1,635 acres

or 662 ha) of the estuarine shrub

area converted to upland was due

to construction activities or land

development along the shoreline

(Figure 28) .

HABITAT

RESTORATIO

AREA

THE PARK DEPARTMENT IS WORKING TO

ELIMINATE INVASIVE EXOTIC PLANTS AT

FORT DE SOTO PARK. THIS AREA HAS

ALSO SUFFERED DUE TO EXTENSIVE

VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC

AND THEREFORE IS BEING CLOSED TO

ALLOW THE AREA TO RECOVER.

AUTHORIZED

PERSONNEL

ONLY

COUNTY OR

Figure ,27. Mangrove rehabilitation

project in Fort De Soto Park, Pinellas

County.
Exotic Plant

Species in Florida's

Wetlands .

No discussion of Florida's wetlands

would be complete without some

acknowledgment of the presence

of harmful exotic species in the

ecosystem. Because of the subtropical

climate and abundance of aquatic

habitats, Florida is especially

susceptible to infestations of exotic

aquatic and wetland plants (FL

Coastal Management Program

1999b) . Exotic aquatic plants such as

Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) can

choke waterways, inhibit navigation

and recreational activities, reduce

spawning habitat for fish and degrade

water supplies (McCann et al. 1996).

Other exotic wetland plants such as

Melaleuca quinquenervia (Cajeput)

and Brazilian Pepper (Schinus

terebinthifolius) have demonstrated

a remarkable ability to invade

and colonize portions of Florida's

landscape . These plants often form

monospecific stands that dominate

natural flora (U.S . Department of

Interior 1994). Several of Florida's

more notorious exotic plants include

the following:

Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata):

This plant has become a serious

aquatic weed problem in Florida's

freshwater environments . Hydrilla

grows rapidly in waterways and will

out-compete native submerged aquatic

plant communities (FL Coastal

Management Program 1999b) . By the

early 1990s hydrilla had infested more

than 40 percent of Florida's public

waters and was spreading (McCann

Hydrilla verticillata or "water thyme. "

(Photo courtesy ofColette Jacona-, U.S.

Geological Survey.)

et al. 1996). In 1995, Florida's

Invasive Aquatic Plants Inventory

indicated that hydrilla was most

widespread in the waters ofAlachua,

Brevard, Citrus, Gulf, Highlands,

Leon, Okechobee, Osceola, Polk,

and Seminole Counties (FL Dept. of

Environmental Protection 1996b) .

Water hyacinth (Eichhornia

crassipes) : This floating aquatic

plant is one of the most prolific

plant species to inhabit Florida's

lakes, rivers and canals systems .

Water hyacinth blocks waterways

and limits boat traffic, recreation,

and wildlife use. Large expanses of

this plant impede the ability of the

snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis) to

find important food items (Griffen

1989) and mats ofwater hyacinth can

crowd out native aquatic plants and

thus reduce biological diversity in

freshwater ecosystems. The extent of

water hyacinth has been reduced due

to control efforts by the State and U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers. In 1995,

acres ofwater hyacinth could still be

found in Okechobee, Osceola, Seminole

and St. Johns counties (FL Dept. of

Environmental Protection 1996b).

Water hyacinthfilling a canal.

(Photo courtesy of Dr Terry

McTique, NOAA)

Melaleuca (Melaleuca

gninquenervia), Cajeput or Punk

Tree: This tree species is perhaps

the most insidious exotic to invade

Florida's wetlands. The principal

reason for its original introduction

in Florida, was for drying up the

Everglades (Thayer et al.1990) .

Melaleuca trees can grow up to 25 m

tall and exist in soil conditions ranging

from dry sand to muck covered with

several feet ofwater (Tarver et al.

1988). Although there are no precise

estimates of the extent of Melaleuca

throughout the State, the species is

prevalent throughout south Florida .

Within the Everglades and Big

Cypress National Preserve, it has

Melaleuca orpunk tree. (Photo

courtesy of'the South Florida

Water Management District.)

invaded the cypress-pine ecosystem

and displaced areas of cypress

(Taxodium distichum) with dense

monospecific Melaleuca forest (Myers

1986). There are concerns for the

long-term protection of regional water

tables, increased expenditures for the

treatment of allergies caused by this

plant, degradation of wildlife habitat

and the high costs associated with

control and eradication (McCann et al .

1996) .

Brazilian Pepper (Schinus

terebinthifolius): Brazilian pepper

is an aggressive shrub species that

grows well under a range of conditions

including coastal mangrove sites, along

dikes, levees or ponds, hammocks,

and drier pinelands (Tarver et al .

1988). These plants often create a

dense canopy and eliminate almost all

herbaceous understory (Ewel 1978).

In the 1990s, it was reported that

thousands of acres existed in central,

and south Florida, the Florida Keys

and other islands of the State (Bennett

and Habeck 1991). Because of its

environmental tolerance, Brazilian

pepper is a threat to invade and

colonize both freshwater and some

estuarine wetlands in Florida .

Brazilian pepper: (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service.)
Freshwater

Wetlands

Florida's freshwater wetland

resources have been tremendously

important. Commercially valuable

products such as hardwood

timber, softwood for pulp and

paper products, cypress mulch for

gardening, and bottled spring water

come from wetland areas. The long

growing season and abundant forage

supplied by wetland vegetation

fringing many Florida lakes have

made 8-10 pound largemouth bass

(Micropterus salmoides) an angler's

delight. Some Florida springs and

their surrounding wetlands hide

archeological or paleontologic

discoveries of scientific significance .

Four major types of freshwater

wetlands were included within this

study. Three of these types were

based on vegetative life form and

included forested wetlands, woody

shrubs and wetlands dominated by

emergent or herbaceous plants . The

fourth type was freshwater ponds

less than 20 acres (8 .0 ha).

Figure 29 .

Freshwater

forested wetland

dominated

by red maple

(Acer rubrum)

and water oak

(Quercus nigra),

St. John's River,

Florida.

In 1996, there were an estimated

10,234,800 acres (4,143,600 ha) of

freshwater wetlands in Florida. In

the conterminous United States,

freshwater wetlands occupied about

5 percent of land surface (Dahl

2000). Freshwater wetlands occupied

slightly over 27 percent of Florida's

land area, making Florida the

wettest State by area in the lower 48

United States .

This study indicated that Florida

had 11 percent of all forested

wetland area in the conterminous

U.S . ; 10 percent of the wetland

shrubs and 10 percent of the wetland

emergents, by area. Slightly more

than 4 percent of the Nation's open

water ponds occurred in the State.

Freshwater wetlands sustained 99

percent of the all wetland losses in

Florida between 1985 and 1996.

Between 1985 and 1996, freshwater

forested and shrub wetlands and

freshwater ponds had increased in

area. These gains were offset by

large losses of freshwater emergent

wetlands . When wetland trends

for the three vegetated freshwater

wetland categories (emergent, shrub

and forest) were combined there

was an estimated net loss of over

91,000 acres (36,940 ha). Freshwater

ponds (nonvegetated) increased in

area by an estimated 39,200 acres

(15,860 ha). The net result was that

freshwater wetlands in Florida

declined by and estimated 52,000

acres (21,080 ha).

Freshwater Forested Wetlands

Forested wetlands were most

abundant. In 1996, there were an

estimated 5,566,200 acres (2,253,500

ha). This comprised 54 percent of the

total freshwater area for the State.

Forested wetlands appeared in many

different ecological associations and

included wet pine flatwoods, mixed

hardwoods, river swamps, cypress

domes, and hydric hammocks

(Figure 29).

Species diversity and forested

wetland community types decreased

as sampling progressed from the

more temperate northern part of

the State to south Florida. The

proportion of forested wetland to

emergent marsh also changed in

a north to south gradient within

the State . In the panhandle region,

wetland forest to marsh ratios have

been approximated at 10:1, whereas

the ratio was 3:1 in central Florida

and 1 :5 in south Florida (FL Dept. of

Comm. Affairs 1988).

Freshwater forested wetlands

exhibited a net gain in area over

the course of this study. This was in

contrast to long term trends which

have continually declined since the

1950s. Frayer and Hefner (1991)

reported a net loss of 184,000 acres

(74,500 ha) of forested wetland

from the 1970s to the 1980s. This

study estimated a net gain of 22,500

acres (9,100 ha) because of the

maturation of shrub wetlands that

became forested wetlands . Net gains

in forested wetland area did not

result from restoration of former

wetland or creation of newwetland

from uplands. The net gain of

forested wetland from uplands was

46 acres (19 ha) over the 11 years
and statistically was not significant

(Figure 30). Forested wetland gains

resulted from the conversion of

almost 300,000 acres (118,500 ha)

of shrub wetland to wet forest .

Most of these lands were observed

in production of wood products

for lumber, pulp, chip and paper

products .

Timber production has been a

major land use activity in Florida's

forested wetlands (Ewel 1990, Hart

and Newman 1995). The amount

of forested wetland in a cyclical

pattern of growth, cutting and

regrowth increased substantially

over the past two decades. From

the 1970s to 1980s, approximately

234,000 acres (94,700 ha) of wetland

trees and shrub habitats alternated

between more mature forested

wetland stands and wet shrubs once

the trees were cut. The amount or

wetland area included in the wetland

shrub, to forest, to shrub cycle had

more than doubled to 500,000 acres

(202,400 ha) by 1996.

Large blocks of wetland area

changed classification from forested

to other wetland types (primarily

shrubs) as seen in Figure 31 .

The long term effects of changes

in forested wetland community

structure and composition on

wildlife populations and other

environmental aspects was unclear.

Some researchers have reported

that silvicultural activities changed

the character of the surrounding

landscape, and possibly changed the

hydroperiod, water depth, water

quality and ultimately the fish and

wildlife value (Hart and Newman

1995). Others have indicated that

cutting and replacement of Florida's

old forests with single species that

were commercially more desirable

seriously damaged the wildlife value

of forests (FL Dept. Env. Protection

1996a).

In recent years, silvicultural best

management practices have given

more emphasis to protecting and

maintaining certain wildlife values

during forestry activities (FL Dept.

of Ag. and Consumer Services

1993). During this study, forestry

practices did not result in a loss of

wetland area. Forested and shrub

L

Figure 30. Forest wetlands gained or converted from various cover-types, 1985 to

1996.

Figure 31. Forested wetlands lost or converted to various cover-types, 1985 to 1996.

wetland areas retained their wetland

characteristics and a small gain in

wetland area resulted from what

had formerly been upland managed

forest.

Forested wetland losses to various

upland land use categories

indicated that these wetlands

remained vulnerable to urban and

rural development. Construction

activities in urban and urbanizing

rural settings accounted for 79

percent of forested wetland losses

to upland (Figure 32). Development

activities in rural areas accounted

for over 26,400 acres (10,700 ha) of

forested wetland loss . This occurred

throughout Florida, and included

building development on the urban

fringe, bridge and road construction,

industrial development, construction

of recreational facilities and

150,000

100,000

50,000

Shrub Emergent

Wetland Wetland

Land Use Category

Shrub Uplands

Wetland

Land Use Category

Ponds Uplands

Emergent Ponds Lakes

Wetland

expansion of other infrastructure

as a result of rapid growth. An

estimated 11,500 acres (4650 ha)

of forested wetland area was lost

within urbanized cities and towns.

Although Frayer and Hefner (1991)

did not use a "rural development"

upland category to describe wetland

losses, their findings indicated that

urban development accounted for

over 39,000 acres (15,830 ha) of

forested wetland loss during the

previous decade.

Agriculture was attributed with

the loss of an estimated 6,700 acres

(2,700 ha) during the 11 year period .

This was a 20-percent reduction in

the rate of forested wetland loss

attributed to agriculture between

the 1970s and 1980s (Frayer and

Hefner 1991).
Other miscellaneous upland land

uses were attributed with 7 percent

of the forested wetland loss to

uplands during the study.

Urban and Rural

Development 79%

Freshwater Shrub Wetlands

Shrub wetlands included areas

dominated by woody vegetation less

than 20 feet tall (6 m) (Figure 33). In

Florida's shrub swamps, titi (Cyrilla

racemiFla. ora), black titi (Cliftonia

monophylla), swamp honeysuckle

(Rhododendron viscosum), swamp

haw (Viburnum nudum), willow

(Salix spp.) and swamp bay

(Persea palustris) were common

species. Many shrub wetlands

had been invaded by Brazillian

pepper (Shines terebinthifolius) or

Melaleuca quinquenervia.

Cowardin et al . (1979) did not

distinguish between true wetland

shrub communities and wetlands

dominated by tree species less than

20 feet tall (6 m). Consequently,

all small, wet trees were classified

as shrub wetlands . This included

"dwarf" or "scrub" cypress wetlands

Agriculture 14%

Othe

Uplands 7°°

Figure 32 . Loss of forested wetlands to uplands, 1985 to 1996.

(Ewel 1990) that were common in

south Florida especially in the Big

Cypress National Preserve.

There were an estimated 1,791,100

acres (725,140 ha) of wetland

classified as shrubs in 1996. This

represented a gain of an estimated

146,400 acres (59,300 ha) or almost

9 percent between 1985 and

1996. Trends in wetland shrubs

were strongly influenced by the

interrelationship between wetland

shrub acreage and wetland forests.

Also, there was also a large amount

of emergent wetland (306,000

acres or 123,900 ha) converted to

shrub wetland during this study.

The increased amount of shrub

wetland mayhave been the result

of drier conditions . Several authors

(Mitsch and Ewel 1979, Ewe11990)

have discussed the importance of

hydroperiod and fire frequency to

species composition and productivity

in Florida wetlands . Wilson and

Loomis (1967) and Mitsch and

Gosselink (1993) presented the

concepts of classical hydrarch

succession where shallow water

lakes or wetlands tended to move

toward drier sites and eventually

became terrestrial habitat. Changes

in hydrologic conditions did

influence these trends however;

there has been little information on

Figure 33 . Example offreshwater shrub wetland, Corkscrew Swamp, Florida, 1994.
the long term dynamics of species

composition or life form transition

that have resulted from drier

conditions over regional landscapes.

Of the freshwater shrub wetlands

converted to upland, 54 percent or

21,100 acres (8,550 ha) were drained

for urban and rural development

purposes . Another 11,600 acres

(4,700 ha) were lost to agriculture

and 6,500 acres (2,630 ha) were

lost to other miscellaneous uplands

(Figure 34). There were gains to the

wetland shrub category from upland

forested plantations during this

period.

Freshwater Emergent Wetlands

Emergent wetlands generally

contained shallow water and were

dominated by herbaceous plants

(Figure 35). They included areas

known as marsh, swale, slough, wet

prairie, wet savanna, reed swamps

and glades. Relatively frequent

fires in combination with fluctuating

water levels have maintained the

integrity of many of Florida's

emergent wetlands (Kushlan 1990).

Emergent wetlands supported

abundant wildlife that included

aquatic invertebrates, fishes,

amphibians, reptiles and mammals.

Urban and Rural

Development

54%

Other Uplands

16%

Agriculture

30%

Figure 3.4 . Loss offreshwater shrub wetlands to uplands, 1985 to

1996.

Most notable among the wildlife

supported by these wetlands were

the wading birds. There were 16

species of wading birds in Florida

with representatives from three

families : the herons (Ardeidae), the

storks (Ciconiidae), and the ibises

and spoonbills (Threskiornithidae)

(Collopy and Jelks 1989).

Freshwater wetlands provided

feeding habitats that were important

to the survival of these wading bird

species. During the wet season

(June through November) many

emergent wetlands were flooded

with shallow water that maximized

prey production for birds (Collopy

and Jelks 1989).

Other values provided by emergent

wetlands benefitted people .

Aesthetics have played an important

role in defining natural areas

throughout Florida's landscape.

The "River of Grass" formed by the

Everglades, Homosassa Springs,

Cypress Gardens, Silver Springs

and Myakka River State Park were

all examples. Emergent wetlands

also provided environmental quality

values. They were important

components of the hydrologic cycle,

retained flood waters and served as

depositories for nutrients.

In 1996, there were an estimated

2,636,900 acres (1,067,600 ha) of

freshwater emergent wetland

in Florida. Emergent wetlands

declined by an estimated 9 percent

between 1985 and 1996. This was

the largest decrease of any wetland

category sampled, and these losses

overshadowed the area gained

in forested, shrub wetlands and

freshwater ponds.

Figure 35.

Example of

afreshwater

emergent wetland

in central Florida,

1996.
Frayer and Hefner (1991) estimated

the loss of freshwater emergent

wetlands to have been 110,000 acres

(44,500 ha) between the mid 1970s

and 1980s. Results from this study

indicated the loss rate more than

doubled, an estimated 260,200 acres

(105,340 ha) .

The conversion of freshwater

emergent wetland to shrub wetland

involved 286,900 acres (116,150 ha).

Historically there have always been

small conversions between wetland

types (i .e . shrub to emergent

and emergent to shrub) based on

duration and intensity of flooding

or frequency of wildfires (Figure

36). Changes of the magnitude that

occurred in Florida between 1985

and 1996 were indicative of prolonged

periods of drought that allowed

woody plants to become established

in emergent wetlands, or the invasion

of shrubs such as Brazilian pepper or

Melaleuca.

Agriculture was responsible for

some of the emergent wetland loss to

upland land uses. An estimated 98,400

acres (39,800 ha) were lost to upland

agriculture. Numerous wetlands were

also restored or created on land

previously classified as agricultural

uplands. An estimated 60,100

acres (2,430 ha) of agricultural

upland were converted to emergent

wetlands and offset some of the

losses . Wetland restoration, creation,

land retirement or set aside

programs were responsible for many

of these changes in land use. Anet

loss of 38,300 acres (15,500 ha) was

attributed to agricultural land use.

That accounted for 63 percent of the

losses to upland (Figure 37).

1985 1994

Figure 36. 1985 and 199! color infrared aerial photographs of'wetlands and

small lakes, Hatchbend, Florida. (Photos courtesy of FL DEP)

Agriculture

63%

' Rural

Development

_ 19%

Figure 37. Loss offreshwater emergent wetlands to uplands, 1985 to

1996.
Figure 38. A constructed freshwater pond in a residential neighborhood, Brandenton, Florida, 1996.

Underthe definitions of upland

land uses used by the Fish and

Wildlife Service to conduct this

study, agriculture was abroadly

applied term that included many

agricultural products not limited to

commodity crops or traditional row

crop agriculture. For example in

1997, Florida led the Nation in the

production of 18 major agriculture

commodities including sugarcane,

oranges, grapefruit, fresh tomatoes,

bell peppers, ferns, sweet corn, snap

beans, fresh cucumbers, tangerines,

temple oranges, fresh squash,

radishes, gladioli, tangelos, eggplant,

and house plants (FL Dept. of Ag.

and Consumer Services 1998).

Florida also produced watermelons,

endive, mushrooms, peanuts,

tobacco, limes, other citrus, potatoes,

blueberries, strawberries, lettuce,

carrots, cabbage, and ornamental

plants and trees for homes, offices

and gardens. Agriculture as aland

use category in this study also

included buildings, field roads and

infrastructure directly associated

with agricultural operations. Many

of the products listed above were not

covered under the "Swampbuster"

provisions of the Farm Bill and

wetlands were subject to drainage

without penalty. Citrus production

in Florida had expanded the number

of acres in production from 1985-86

to 1995-96 by about 266,000 acres

(107,700 ha) (FL Dept. of Ag. and

Consumer Services 1998). Some of

that expansion resulted in drained

wetlands.

Urban and rural development

were attributed with 18 and 19

percent of the freshwater emergent

losses to uplands, respectively.

"Other" upland land uses and

upland forested plantations were

responsible for net gains back to

emergent wetland. Each category

showed the creation or restoration of

about 4,900 acres (2,000 ha).

250 -1

200-

150-

100-

50

Freshwater Ponds

Freshwater ponds (Figure 38)

continued to increase throughout

the State . Between 1985 and 1996

pond area increased by 39,200 acres

(15,900 ha) . This was almost a20

percent increase over the previous

decade and continued a long term

upward trend (Figure 39).

This study included freshwater

ponds that were functionally and

qualitatively different, and there

were many different kinds of ponds

found throughout Florida. Some

were natural, others manmade.

Figure 39.

77 1950s 1970s

Long term trends offreshwater pond area in Florida.

1980s 1996
Open water ponds were created

as water retention basins in urban

areas, water traps on golf courses

(Figure 40), ornamental landscape

features for housing or office

developments or as a result of rock

mining operations. All of these met

the wetland definition of Cowardin

et al . (1979) . Very few ponds for

catfish farming have been created in

Florida (U.S . Dept. of Ag. National

Agricultural Statistics Service 2001).

Freshwater ponds exhibited net

increases from all of the upland

categories with the exception of

rural development. About 23,700

acres (9,600 ha) of freshwater

ponds were created on agricultural

lands between 1985 and 1996.

Upland agriculture was the largest

contributor to the freshwater

ponds category (Figure 41). Rural

development activities were

responsible for an estimated 2,000-

acre (800 ha) loss in ponds. This was

due to the reclamation of open water

bodies that had been created during

phosphate mining operations .

1985 1994

Figure 40. 1985 and 199! color infrared aerial photographs near Panama City, Florida. (Photos

courtesy of FL DEP.)

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

a

5,000

Urban Forest Rural

Plantations Development

Other

Upland

Land Use Category

Figure 41 . Acres of new ponds createdfrom uplands in Florida, 1985 to 1996.
Wetland

Restoration,

Protection and

Conservation

Efforts

There has been considerable

emphasis in the last decade on

wetland restoration or rehabilitation

activities . Many worthwhile

projects have been completed by

Federal, State, local and private

organizations and citizens (Figure

42) . In Florida, the term restoration

has been used to describe various

management practices such as

beach clean-up, removal of exotic

plants from existing wetlands or

the enhancement of condition. The

term "restoration" has also been

used to describe the return of

land area to a former condition or

function. Some projects designed

to restore hydrologic function or

remove exotic species from wetlands

have not increased the area of the

wetland base. Thus, while successful

restoration projects have been very

beneficial, the amount of wetland

area has not changed. Direct

comparisons ofwetland restoration

estimates from this study with other

studies using different definitions of

restoration cannot be made.

Gains in wetlands from upland land

uses were tabulated as part of this

study. Emergent wetland and ponds

predominated the wetland from

upland restorations . There were

an estimated 127,940 acres (51,800

ha) of restoration or creation from

uplands in Florida. Approximately

67 percent of the wetland restoration

or creation took place on agricultural

lands. Agricultural programs that

promote wetland restoration,

pond creation and land retirement

were responsible for these gains.

Wetland restoration or creation

was dominated by open water

pond creation in urban areas and

accounted for a small percentage of

the wetland area restored or created

between 1985 and 1996. Rural

development and managed forest

plantations accounted for 6 percent

each of the wetland area restored

or created. "Other" upland land use

restored or created 18 percent of the

wetland area (Figure 43).

Figure 42. A wetland creation/restoration site in southwestern Florida, 1999.
A waterway in the Everglades.
EVERGLADES

RESTORATION

PROJECT

Extending more than half the

length of the Florida peninsula, the

watershed of Florida's Everglades

once covered more than 10,800

square miles (27,970 sq. km).

This large wetland complex was

interconnected by rivers, lakes

open ponds, marshes, tree islands,

wooded hammocks, bays and

coastal mangrove swamps. Surface

water traveled slowly from Lake

Kissimmee 200 miles (320 km )

southwest to reach Florida Bay and

the Gulf of Mexico.

During the 1900s, more than half

of the wetlands that made up this

vast ecosystem were destroyed or

degraded, many having been drained

or filled for agriculture or residential

housing (U.S . Fish and Wildlife

Service 1996). Canals and levees

were constructed to drain, retain or

alter the hydrology of the wetlands

of south Florida. As aresult of these

alterations, most of the peripheral

wet prairie, cypress forests and all of

the custard apple (Annona Glabra)

forest that were associated with the

historic Everglades have been lost

(Davis et al. 1994).

Habitat restoration. (Robert Owens)

By 1990, competition for water in

south Florida was intense. There

were competing demands to support

rapidly growing population centers,

agriculture and meet the water

resource demands of State and

Federal parks, reserves, sanctuaries

and preserves (McPherson and

Halley 1996) . The remaining

Everglades comprised about 2,300

square miles (5,960 sq. km), three

fifths ofwhich was impounded and

managed as water conservation

areas (Lord 1993). The wetlands of

the Everglades had been drastically

reduced in size and some suffered

from mercury contamination. Others

suffered water quality problems,

water supply and diversion

controversies, declining wildlife

populations, increasing pressure

from ecotourism, urban and

agricultural expansion, and an influx

of exotic plant species (Dahl and

Allord 1996).

During the early 1990s, five Federal

Departments, the Environmental

Protection Agency, in partnership

with the tribes, State and local

agencies, reached a consensus that

the Everglades should be restored.

The South Florida Ecosystem

Restoration Initiative was developed

Native pond apple and spatterdock.

(Photo courtesy ofthe South Florida

Water Management District.)

Fish and

Wildlife Service

firefighters

monitor a

prescribed burn.

(John and Karen

Hollingsworth)
to restore and maintain, to the

extent possible, the elements of the

south Florida ecosystem to resemble

the natural functions of a healthy,

balanced and functioning freshwater,

estuarine and marine environment

(U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service

1996).

Restoring the Everglades remains

an enormous challenge that involves

returning essential functions to

a large and diverse ecosystem. It

constitutes the largest wetland

restoration effort ever undertaken,

and is estimated to cost billions of

dollars and take up to 30 years to

complete (Eggleston et al . 2000).

The ability to manage the hydrology

of the Kissimmee River, Lake

Okeechobee, the Everglades and

associated waters, while providing

for the needs of urban, rural and

agricultural users will determine the

future of natural resources of south

Florida.

Wetlands ofthe

Everglades.

(Photo courtesty

ofEverglades

National Park.

Research on

the Everglades

System. (Photo

courtesy of

Everglades

National Park.)

,S

The extent ofthe greater Everglades system in South. Florida, 1911 and 1990.

.9

1990

63
As human development pressures

have continued in Florida, there

have been increased demands placed

on all natural resources. Land needs

for wildlife habitat, recreation,

green space and surface water

protection have been increasingly

threatened . In response, Florida

has identified acquisition of

environmentally sensitive lands as

one of its most important strategies

for environmental protection (FL

Dept. Environmental Protection

1996a). The Conservation and

Recreation Lands Program, Save

Our Rivers, Save Our Coasts, Land

Acquisition Trust Fund Programs

and the Preservation 2000 program

represented commitments on the

part of the State and the Water

Management Districts to acquire

environmentally important lands.

There were almost 7 million acres

(2,834,000 ha) of land that had

been acquired between State and

Federal agencies in Florida (FL

Dept. Environmental Protection

1996a). Many of these lands included

important wetland habitats. As

shown in Figure 44, these lands

have been acquired in key coastal

wetland areas, the Everglades and

the south Florida ecosystem, key

watersheds or rivers and other

strategic locations for the protection

of endangered species or rare

habitat types.

Land acquisition has been only one

part of the conservation strategy.

Many wetlands in Florida have other

special designations to help ensure

recognition of value or protection .

Some of these designations have

included the following: National

Estuarine Research Reserves,

National Marine Sanctuaries,

National Estuary Program, Florida

Wetland creation and wildlife habitat restoration on lands overlook historic Pelican

Island National Wildlife Refuge in 2002. (George Gentry)

Aquatic Preserves, International

Biosphere Reserve, World Heritage

Site, and Wetland of International

Importance (Ramsar Sites) .

Florida had also identified

"Strategic Habitat Conservation

Areas." These lands (about 4.8

million acres or 1,943,300 ha), were

subject to loss and degradation

because of development pressure

and represented some of Florida's

most "at risk" resources (FL Dept.

Environmental Protection 1996a).

Other important factors that

were part of Florida's wetland

conservation efforts included

Federal, State and local legislation,

ordinances and initiatives.

Darst et al . (1996) has provided

a comprehensive discussion of

the many government agencies

involved in wetland conservation

efforts in Florida. The application

and enforcement ofwetland

protection measures, elimination

of some incentives for wetland

drainage, public education and

outreach, private land initiatives,

coastal monitoring and protection

programs, and wetland restoration

and creation actions also contributed

to wetland conservation over the

past decade. Private organizations

have also had an important role

in wetland conservation and

protection in Florida. Many

private-interest groups have kept

the public informed on wetland

issues, organized citizen networks

and lobbied for wetland protection

measures (Darst et al. 1996).

Figure 43. Percentage ofwetland area

restored or created (ponds and emergent

wetlands) from various upland land

uses in Florida, 1985 to 1996.

Forest Plantations

6%
Protected wetlands prowide recreation for people and habitat

for native plants and animals. Birdwatehers (above) enjoy

a sunny day of spotting birds at Ding Darling National

Wildlife Refitge. (George Gentry) An alligator surfaces to rest

on a log at the Corkscrew Sanctuary in Collier County (right) .

Federal

State

Other

Figure 4y ! Conservation lands designated as Federal,

State, local or private preserves, ref2,iges, parks, reserves, or

smzctuaries iii Florida, 1996.

Dr

Ding Darling

National Wildlife

Refuge

Summary

Rookery Bay

National

Estna~rine

Research Reserve.

Wetlands have been an important

part of Florida's landscape as they

have provided many values to

wildlife and people . The U.S . Fish

and Wildlife Service has developed

and maintained a program to assess

changes in the Nation's wetland

acreage. The statistical design used

in the National trend study also

produced reliable wetland area

estimates for Florida. Six-hundredand-thirty-six sample plots were

analyzed using digital orthophoto

quarter quadrangles to identify

wetlands, deepwater habitats and

uplands. Changes in areal extent

or type of wetland observed in the

sample plots between 1985 and 1996

were recorded . Field verification

was accomplished for 138 plots or 22

percent of the sample. During April

1999, cooperative interagency field

evaluations were conducted to test

the definitions used by the Service

on the wetland status and trends

plots to attribute wetland losses or

gains. The study produced estimates

oftotal wetland area and changes

for Florida that included all lands

and waters of the State regardless of

land ownership.

As of 1996, Florida had 11 .4 million

acres (4 .6 million ha) of wetlands .

Of this, 10 percent were estuarine

and 90 percent were freshwater

wetlands . Between 1985 and 1996

the average annual net loss of

wetlands in Florida was 5,000

acres (2,030 ha). This rate of loss

was an 81-percent reduction from

the annual rate reported for the

previous decade by the Service.

Urban and rural development

accounted for an estimated 72

percent of the loss . Agriculture was

attributed with the remaining 28

percent of the losses . Small gains in

wetland were attributed to upland

silviculture, the "other" uplands

category as well as an increase from

deepwater. Although Florida had not

reached "no-net-loss" of wetlands,

there had been dramatic progress

made in slowing the rate of loss .

Less than one percent of the wetland

losses that occurred between 1985

and 1996 were intertidal wetlands,

as marine and estuarine wetlands

declined by an estimated 500 acres

(200 ha) over the 11-year period.

These losses were attributed to

construction activities along the

coast, and coastal erosion. Most

of Florida's shoreline had been

protected either by regulation or

through public ownership. These

mechanisms in combination with

continued awareness and educational

efforts were responsible for reducing

intertidal wetland losses between

1986 and 1997.

There were an estimated 10,234,800

acres (4,143,600 ha) of freshwater

wetlands . Between 1985 and 1996,

freshwater forested and shrub

wetlands and freshwater ponds

increased in area. These gains were

offset by large losses to freshwater

emergent wetlands . Florida's

freshwater wetlands declined by an

estimated 52,000 acres (21,100 ha) or

0.5 percent between 1985 and 1996.

This was an average annual net

loss of 4,740 acres (1,920 ha) for the

period. The average annual rate of

freshwater wetland loss declined 82

percent since the 1970s to the 1980s

era.

There were an estimated 127,940

acres (51,800 ha) of wetlands

restored or created from uplands

in Florida. Approximately 67

percent took place on agricultural

lands. Agricultural programs that

promote wetland restoration, pond

creation and land retirement were

responsible for these gains.

Of the net wetland losses to upland

land use, the urban and rural
development categories were

attributed with 72 percent of the

losses. Agriculture was attributed

with 28 percent of the losses . Net

gains came from silviculture and

the "other" upland categories .

There was no net loss attributed to

silvicultural practices. There were

gains to the wetland shrub category

and freshwater emergents from

upland silviculture . There was also a

net gain in wetland from the "Other"

upland land use category.

The wetland loss rate in Florida has

been reduced substantially since

the last half of the 20th century. The

State and the Federal Government

had purchased substantial amounts

of land for conservation and

recreational purposes. Parks,

preserves and management areas

protect exemplary remnants of most

of Florida's natural ecosystems

(Myers and Ewel 1990). Restoration

efforts have been underway to try

and rehabilitate some of Florida's

watersheds and wetlands . In the

future, Florida faces difficult

challenges to try and balance

economic growth, rapid population

immigration and growth with limited

natural resources, land and carrying

capacity. Wetlands were apervasive

feature of the landscape, and will

remain an important benchmark

to the ecological and economic

sustainability of Florida and the

Nation.

Corkscrew

Sanctuary
Abrahamson, W.G. and D. C. Hartnett .

1990. Pine Flatwoods and dry

prairies . In. R.L. Myers and

J.J . Ewel (eds.) . Ecosystems of

Florida. University of Central

Florida Press, Orlando, FL.

pp. 103-149.

Anderson, J.R., E .E. Hardy, J.T. Roach

and R.E . Winter. 1976. A land

use and land cover classification

system for use with remote sensor

data. U.S . Geological Survey

Professional Paper 964. U.S .

Geological Survey, Washington,

D.C. 28 p.

Bahr, L.M. and WP Lanier. 1981 . The

ecology ofintertidal oyster reefs

of the south Atlantic coast : A

community profile . U.S . Fish

and Wildlife Service, Office of

Biological Services, Washington,

D.C . FWS/OBS 81/15.105 p.

Bailey, R. G. 1980. Description of the

ecoregions of the United States.

U.S . Department ofAgriculture,

Forest Service. Miscellaneous

Publication Number 1391. 77 p.

Bennett, ED. and D.H. Habeck. 1991.

Brazilia n peppertree-prospects

for biological control in Florida.

In. TD. Center, R.E Doren, R.L.

Hofstetter, R.L . Myers and L.D.

Whiteaker (eds. ) . Proceedings

of the symposium on exotic pest

plants, National Park Service,

Denver, CO. NPS/NREVER/

NRTR-91/06.

Bergquist, G.T. 1996. Florida State of

the coast report. Florida Coastal

Management Program, Florida

Department of Community

Affairs, Tallahassee, FL. 28 p.

Carlton, J.M. 1977. A survey of selected

coastal vegetation communities

of Florida. Florida Department

of Natural Resources Marine

Research Laboratory. Florida

Marine Research Publication

Number 30, St. Petersburg, FL.

40 p.

Collopy, M.W and H.L. Jelks. 1989.

Distributio n of foraging wading

birds in relation to the physical

and biological characteristics of

freshwater wetlands in southwest

Florida. Florida Game and Fresh

Water Fish Comm. Nongame

Wildlife . Program Final Rept.

102 p.

Cowardin, L.M, V Carter, EC. Golet, and

E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classificatio n of

wetlands and deepwater habitats

of the United States. Department

of the Interior, U.S . Fish and

Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

131 p.

Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetlands losses in the

United States 1780s to 1980s.

Department of the Interior,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Washington, D.C. 21 p.

Dahl, T. E. 2000. Status and trends of

wetlands in the conterminous

United States 1986 to 1997.

U.S . Department ofthe Interior,

Fish and Wildlife Service,

Washington, D.C. 82 p.

Dahl, TE. and J.G. Allord. 1996. History

ofwetlands in the conterminous

United States . National Water

Summary on Wetland Resources.

U.S . Geological Water-Supply

Paper 2425, Reston, VA. pp. 19-26.

Darst, M.R., H.M. Light and BY

McPherson. 1996. Florida wetland

resources . In. National water

summary on wetland resources .

U.S. Geological Survey, WaterSupply Paper 2425, Reston, VA.

pp. 153-160.

Davis, S.M., L.H. Gunderson, WAPark

and J.E. Mattson.1994. Landscape

dimensions, composition, and

function in a changing Everglades

ecosystem. In. S.M. Davis and

J.C . Ogden (eds.) EvergladesThe ecosystem and its restoration .

St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach,

FL. pp. 419-444.

Davis, S.M. and J.C . Ogden. 1994.

Everglades-The ecosystem and

its restoration . St. Lucie Press,

Delray Beach, FL. pp. 1-7.

Dressler, R.L ., D.W. Hall, K.D. Perkins

69
and N.H. Williams . 1987.

Identification manual for wetland

plant species of Florida. Institute

of Food and Agricultural Sciences

SP-35. Gainesville, FL. 297 p.

Drew, R.D. and N.S . Schomer. 1984. An

ecological characterization of the

Caloosatchee River/Big Cypress

Watershed. U.S . Fish and Wildlife

Service, FWS/OBS-82/58.2 .

Washington, D.C . 225 p.

Duever, L.C., J.F. Meeder and M.J .

Duever. 1982. Ecological portion

Florida peninsula natural

region theme study. Final Report

to the National Park Service, U.S .

Department of Interior. National

Audubon Society. Ecosystem

Research Unit, Naples, FL. 398 p.

Duever, M.J., J.E. Carlson, J.F. Meeder;

L.C. Duever, L.H. Gunderson,

L.A. Riopelle, T.R. Alexander,

R.L . Meyers and D.P Spangler.

1986. The Big Cypress National

Preserve . Research Report No. 8,

National Audubon Society, New

York, NY 455 p.

Eggleston, J.R., T.L. Embry, R.H.

Mooney, L. Wedderburn, C.R.

Goodwin, H.S . Henkel, K.M.H.

Pegram, and TJ. Enright. 2000.

The U.S . Geological Survey

program on the South Florida

Ecosystem : 2000 proceedings .

Presentations made at the

Greater Everglades Ecosystem

Restoration Conference,

December 11-15,2000, Naples,

FL. Open-File Report 00-449.

246 p.

Ewel, J. 1978. Ecology of Schinus .

Schinus-Technical proceedings of

techniques for control of Schinus

in south Florida: A workshop

for natural area managers .

Unpublished report of SanibelCaptiva Conservation Foundation,

Ft. Myers, FL. 87 p.

Ewel, K.C. 1990. Swamps. In. R.L .

Myers and J.J. Ewel (eds.).

Ecosystems of Florida. University

of Central Florida Press, Orlando,

FL. pp. 281-323.

Ewel, K.C . and H.T Odum. 1986.

Ecological patterns in cypress

swamps. In. K.C. Ewel and H.T.

Odum (eds.) . Cypress Swamps.

University of Florida Press,

Gainesville, FL. pp. 5-6.

Ferguson, R.L., L.L . Wood and D.B.

Graham. 1993. Monitorin g

spatial change in seagrass

habitat with aerial photography.

Photogrammetric Engineering

and Remote Sensing. 59(6) :

1033-1038 .

Fernald, E .A. and E.D. Purdum. 1992.

Atlas of Florida . University Press

of Florida, Institute of Science

and Public Affairs, Florida State

University, Gainesville, FL. 280 p.

Florida Bureau of Aquatic Plant

Management. 1996. Invasive

aquatic plants inventory. Florida

Environmental Publishing, Inc.,

Gainesville, FL.

Florida Coastal Management Program.

1999a. Florida Assessment of

Coastal Trends-Disruption of

coastal physical processes-Miles

oferoding shoreline. Florida

Department of Community

Affairs, Tallahassee, FL. 143 p.

Florida Coastal Management Program.

1999b. Florida Assessment of

Coastal Trends-Degradation

and restoration of coastal

ecosystems-Change in acreage

of invasive non-indigenous

(exotic) aquatic plants . Florida

Department of Community

Affairs, Tallahassee, FL. 143 p.

Florida Department of Agriculture and

Consumer Services. 1998. Florida

Agricultural Facts-Florida

Agriculture Overview. Tallahassee,

FL. unk. p.

Florida Department of Agriculture

and Consumer Services. 1993.

Silviculture Best Management

Practices . Tallahassee, FL. 98 p.

Florida Department of Community

Affairs . 1988. Mapping and

Monitoring ofAgricultural Lands

Project (1984-1987) County data.

Tallahassee, FL. unk. p.

Florida Department of Environmental

Protection. 1996a. Strategic

Assessment of Florida's

Environment-Change in Wildlife

Habitat/Strategic Habitat

Conservation Areas. Tallahassee,

FL. pp. 26-31.

Florida Department of Environmental

Protection. 1996b. Invasive

aquatic plants inventory. Bureau

ofAquatic Plant Management,

Tallahassee, FL. unk. p.

Florida Natural Areas Inventory and

Florida Department of Natural

Resources. 1990. Guide of the

natural communities of Florida.

Tallahassee, FL. 111 p.

Florida Soil Conservation Service . 1992.

Soil and water relationships of

Florida's ecological communities :

Ecological community No. 19-

Mangrove Swamps. Soil Survey

Staff, Gainesville, FL. 20 p.

Frayer, WE and J.M. Hefner. 1991.

Florida wetlands status and

trends, 1970s to 1980s. U.S . Fish

and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA.

31

GAP Commission . 2001. The Florida

critical benchmarks goals report.

The Florida Commission on

Government Accountability to the

People, Tallahassee, FL. unk. p.

Gore, R .H. 1992. The Gulf of Mexico.

Pineapple Press Inc., Sarasota,

FL. 384 p.

Griffen, J. 1989. The Everglades kite .

Aquatics 11(3) :17-19 .

Gunderson, L.H. 1994. Vegetation of

the Everglades: Determinants

of community composition . In.

S.M. Davis and J.C . Ogden (eds.)

Everglades-The ecosystem and

its restoration . St. Lucie Press,

Delray Beach, FL. pp. 323-340 .

Habeck, D.H. 1995. Biological control

of Brazilian peppertree . The

Florida Naturalist . Vol. 68,

No. 1 . Florida Audubon Society,

Casselberry, FL. pp. 9-11.

Hammond, E .H. 1970. Physical

subdivisions of the United

States ofAmerica. In. U.S .

Geologica l Survey. National atlas

ofthe United States of America.

Department ofthe Interior,

Washington, D.C. 61 p.

Hart,-R . and J.R. Newman. 1995. The

importance ofisolated wetlands

to fish and wildlife in Florida.

Florida Game and Fresh Water

Fish Commission, Nongame

Wildlife Program Project Report,

Tallahassee, FL. 145 p.

Hefner, J.M. 1986. Wetlands of Florida

1950s to 1970s. In. Estevez,

E.D., J. Miller, J. Morris and

R. Hamman (eds.) . Managing

Cumulative Effects in Florida

Wetlands. New College

Environmental Studies Program

Publication No. 37. Omnipress,

Madison, WI. pp. 23-31.

Hefner, J.M. and J.D. Brown

1984. Wetland trends in the

southeastern United States.

Wetlands . Vol. 4. pp. 1-11.

Hopkins, S.R. and J.J. Richardson.

(eds .) . 1984. Recovery plan for

marine turtles . Marine Turtle

p.
Recovery Team, National Marine

Fisheries Service, Department of

Commerce. Washington, D.C .

unk. p.

Jaap, W.C . 1984. The ecology of the

south Florida coral reefs : A

community profile . U.S . Fish and

Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

FWS/OBS 82/08.138 p.

Johnson, A.E and M.G. Barbour. 1990.

Dunes and maritime forests . In.

R.L . Myers and J.J . Ewel (eds.) .

Ecosystems of Florida. University

of Central Florida Press, Orlando,

FL. pp. 429-480 .

Kushlan, J.A. 1990. Freshwater marshes.

In. R.L . Myers and J.J . Ewel

(eds.) . Ecosystems of Florida.

University ofCentral Florida

Press, Orlando, FL. pp. 324-363.

Lake County Water Authority, 1995. Our

vital wetlands . Lake County Water

Authority, Tavares, FL. 28 p.

Langbein, WB. and K.T Iseri . 1960.

General introduction and

hydrologic definitions manual of

hydrology. Part 1 . General surface

water techniques . U.S. Geological

Survey, Water-Supply Paper

1541-A, Reston, VA. 29 p.

Lins, H.E, Jr. 1980. Patterns and trends

of land use and land cover on

Atlantic and Gulf coast barrier

islands, U.S . Geological Survey

Professional Paper 1156, Reston,

VA. unk. p.

Livingston, R. J. 1984. The ecology of

the Apalachicola Bay system: An

estuarine profile . U.S. Department

of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife

Service, FWS/OBS-82/05,

Washington, D.C. 148 p.

Livingston, R. J. 1990. Inshore marine

habitats . In. Myers, R.L . and

J.J . Ewel (eds.) . Ecosystems of

Florida. University of Central

Florida Press, Orlando, FL.

pp. 549-573 .

Lord, L.A. 1993. Guide to Florida

environmental issues and

information . Florida Conservation

Foundation, Winter Park, FL.

364 p.

Lynch, MY, B.L . Laird, N.B . Theberge

and J.C. Jones. (eds.) . 1976. An

assessment of estuarine and

nearshore marine environments.

Special Report in Applied Marine

Science and Ocean Engineering

No 93. OBS, Fish and Wildlife

Service, Department of the

Interior, Washington, D.C. 132 p.

Marth, D. and M.J . Marth. 1992. Florida

Almanac 1992 -1993. Pelican

Publishing Company, Gretna, LA.

432 p.

McCann, J.A., L.N. Arkin and J.D.

Williams . 1996. Nonindigenou s

aquatic and selected terrestrial

species of Florida . University of

Florida, Center for Aquatic Plants,

Gainesville, FL.

McPherson, B.E and R. Halley. 1996.

The south Florida environmentA region under stress . U.S .

Geological Survey Circular

1134. National Water-Quality

Assessment Program. Department

of the Interior, U.S . Geological

Survey, Reston, VA. 61 p.

Miller, S.L . and MY Crosby. 1998. The

extent and condition of U.S . coral

reefs-NOAA's State ofthe Coast

Report. National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration,

Silver Spring, MD.

Millhouser, WC ., J. McDonough,

J.P Tolson and D. Slade. 1998.

Managing coastal resources

NOAAs State of the Coast Report.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, Silver Spring,

MD.

Millsap, B.A., J.A. Gore, D.E. Runde

and S.I . Cerulean. 1990. Setting

priorities for the conservation of

fish and wildlife species in Florida.

Wildl. Monog. 111 :1-57 .

Mitsch, W.J . and K.C. Ewel. 1979.

Comparativ e biomass and growth

of cypress in Florida wetlands .

Am. Midl. Nat. 101 :417-426.

Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink . 1993.

Wetlands (2nd edition). Van

Norstrand Reinhold, New York,

NY 722 p.

Montague, C.L. and R.G. Wiegert. 1990.

Salt marshes. In. Myers, R.L .

and J.J . Ewel (eds.) . Ecosystems

of Florida. University of Central

Florida Press, Orlando, FL.

pp. 481-516 .

Morris, A. 1991 . The Florida handbook

1991-1992 . The Peninsular

Publishing Company,

Tallahassee, FL. 720 p.

Myers, R.L. 1986. Ecological

compression of Taxodium

distichum var. nutans by

Melateuca quinquenervia in

southern Florida. In. K.C. Ewel

and H.T Odum (eds.) . Cypress

Swamps. University of Florida

Press, Gainesville, FL.

pp. 358-364 .

Myers, R.L . and J.J. Ewel. 1990.

Problems, prospects, and

strategies for conservation . In.

Myers, R.L . and J.J. Ewel (eds.) .

Ecosystems of Florida. University

of Central Florida Press, Orlando,

FL. pp. 619-632

Nordlie, F.G. 1990. Rivers and springs.

In. Myers, R.L . and J.J. Ewel

(eds.) . Ecosystems of Florida.

University of Central Florida

Press, Orlando, FL. pp. 392-425 .

Odum, WE. and C .C . McIvor. 1990.

Mangroves. In. R.L . Myers and

J.J . Ewel (eds.) . Ecosystems of

Florida. University of Central

Florida Press, Orlando, FL.

pp. 517-548.

Odum, WE., C.C. Mclvor and T.J .

Smith, 111 . 1982. The ecology of

the mangroves of south

Florida: A community profile . U.S .

Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of

Biological Services, Washington,

D.C. FWS/OBS 81/24.144 p.

Omernik, J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of

the conterminous United States.

Supplement to the Annals of

the Association of American

Geographers, 77 (1) : pp. 118-125.

Orth, R.J., K.A. Moore and J.E Nowak.

1990. Monitoring seagrass

distribution and abundance

patterns : A case study from the

Chesapeake Bay. Pages 111-123.

In. S.J. Kiraly, EA. Cross and J.D.

Buffington (eds.) . Federal coastal

wetland mapping programs . Biol .

Rept. 90 (18). Department of the

Interior, U. S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Washington, D.C.

Patterson, S.G. 1986. Mangrove

community boundary

interpretation and detection of

areal change on Marco Island

Florida: Application of digital

image processing and remote

sensing techniques . U.S .

Department ofthe Interior,

National Wetlands Research

Center, Washington, D.C. Biol.

Rept. 86(10) .

Patton, J.E . and WS. Judd. 1986.

Vascular flora of Paynes Prairie

Basin and Alachua Sink

Hammock, Alachua County, FL.

Castanea 51, 88-110.

Pybas, D.W 1991. Atlas of artificial reefs

in Florida. Florida Sea Grant

College Program, University

of FL., Gainesville. Sea Grant
Educational Bulletin 20. 40 p.

Reed, PB. 1988. National list of plant

species that occur in wetlands.

NERC-88/18.40 . Department of

the Interior. U.S . Fish and Wildlife

Service, Washington, D.C.

Runde, D.E. 1991. Trends in wading

bird nesting populations in

Florida 1976 -1978 and 1986-1989.

Nongame Wildlife Section,

Division ofWildlife, Florida Game

and Freshwater Fish Commission.

Tallahassee, FL. 90 p.

Sargent, FJ., WB. Sargent, TJ. Leary,

D.W Crewz and C .R . Kruer. 1995.

Scarring of Florida's seagrass :

assessment and management

options. Florida Marine Research

Institute Report TR-1 unk. p.

Sharp, J.G. 1992. Florida facts and

figures (21st edition). Florida

Trend Magazines, Inc., St.

Petersburg, FL. 40 p.

Simons, R.W., S.W Vince and S.R.

Humphrey. 1989. Hydric

hammocks: A guide to

management. U.S . Fish and

Wildlife Service Biological Report

85 (7 .26 Supplement), Washington,

D.C . 89 p.

Spalding, M.D., F Blasco and C.D. Field

(eds.) . 1997. World Mangrove

Atlas. The International Soc. for

Mangrove Ecosystems, Okinawa,

Japan. 178 p.

Stout, J. 1984. The ecology of irregularly

flooded salt marshes of the

northeastern Gulf of Mexico: A

community profile . U.S . Fish and

Wildlife Service Biological Report

85 (7 .1) . Washington, D.C. 98 p.

Tarver, D.P, J.A. Rogers, M.J . Mahler

and R.L . Lazor. 1988. Aquati c

and wetland plants of Florida, 4th

edition . Bureau of Aquatic Plant

Management, Florida Department

of Natural Resources, Tallahassee,

FL. 125 p.

Thayer, D.D., K.K. Langeland, WT

Haller and J.C . Joyce. 1990.

Weed control in aquaculture and

farm ponds. Florida cooperative

extension Service, University of

Florida, Gainesville, FL . 24 pp.

Taylor, J.R., M.A. Cardamone and

WJ. Mitsch. 1990. Bottomland

hardwood forests : Their functions

and values. In. Gosselink, J.G.,

L.C . Lee and TA. Muir (eds.) .

Ecological Processes and

Cumulative Impacts: Illustrated

by Bottomland Hardwood Wetland

Ecosystems. Lewis Publishers,

Inc. Chelsea, MI. pp. 13-86.

Tomlinson, PB. 1986. The Botany of

Mangroves. Cambridge University

Press. 419 p.

Twilley, R.R. 1998. Mangrove wetlands.

In. . Messina, M.G. and W.H.

Conner (eds.) . Southern

Forested Wetlands : Ecology and

Management. Lewis Publishers,

CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

pp. 445-473 .

U.S . Army Corps of Engineers . 1988. A

guide to selected Florida wetland

plants and communities . CESAJP

1145-2-1, Jacksonville District :

Regulatory Division, Jacksonville,

FL. 319 p.

U.S . Census Bureau. 2002. State and

County Quickfacts-Florida . Online resources a wwwquickfacts .

census.gov/qfd.

U.S . Department of Agriculture . 1975.

Soil taxonomy : A basic system

of soil classification for making

and interpreting soil surveys.

Department of Agriculture. Soil

Conservation Service, Soil Survey

Staff, Agricultural Handbook 436,

Washington, D.C. 754 p.

U.S . Department of Agriculture . 1991.

Hydric Soils of the United States.

Soil Conservation Service,

Miscellaneous Publication Number

1491, Washington, D.C . pages

unnumbered.

U.S . Department of Agriculture,

National Agricultural Statistics

Service . 2001 . Florida State

Report, Florida Aquaculture.

Washington, D.C .

U.S . Department of the Interior.

1994. Big Cypress National

Preserve . Briefing statements

for 1994-National Park Service,

Washington, D.C. 14 pp.

U.S . Department of the Interior. 1995.

Coastal Barrier Improvement

Act; Technical corrections to

the Coastal Barrier Resources

System; Notice. Part V Fish and

Wildlife Service. Federal Register,

February 23, 1995, 60 (36) .

pp. 10268-10283.

U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service . 1994a.

Continuous wetlands trend

analysis project specifications

(photo-interpretation and

cartographic procedures). Wetland

Status and Trends, National

Wetlands Inventory Center, St.

Petersburg, FL. 60 p.

U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994b.

Technical specifications and

protocols for Status and Trends

digital files . Wetland Status

and Trends, National Wetlands

Inventory Center, St. Petersburg,

FL. 35 p. plus appendices.

U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. The

South Florida Ecosystem . U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service-South

Florida Ecosystem Office, Vero

Beach, FL. 45 p. plus Appendices .

Vince, S.W, S.R. Humphrey and R.W.

Simons. 1989. The ecology of

hydric hammocks: A community

profile . U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service Biological Report 85(7.26) .

Washington, D.C . 81 p.

Ward, D.B . 1943. Rare and endangered

biota of Florida: Volume fivePlants. University Press of

Florida, Gainesville, FL. 175 p.

Wilson, R.E 1998. Mangroves in Florida,

U.S .A. Wetlands Journal 10 (1) :

pp 12-20.

Wilson, C.L . and WE . Loomis . 1967.

Botany, 4th ed. Holt, Rinehart and

Winston, New York, NY. 626 p.

Williams, K. A.S . Pinzon, R.P Stumpf

and E .A. Raabe. 1999. Sea-level

rise and coastal forests on the

Gulf of Mexico. Open-File Report

99-441. U.S . Department of

the Interior, Geological Survey,

Center for Coastal Geology,

St. Petersburg, FL. 87 p. plus

Appendices.

Wolfe, S. H., J.A. Reidenauer and

D.B . Means. 1988. An ecological

characterization ofthe Florida

panhandle . U.S . Fish and Wildlife

Service Biological Report 88(12) .

Washington, D.C. 277 p.

Right: Mangrove

thicket ofcoastal

south Florida.
73
Appendix A.

Definitions of Habitat Categories Used in

This Status and Trends Study

Wetlands'

In general terms, wetlands are lands where saturation with water is the dominant factor

determining the nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal communities

living in the soil and on its surface. The single feature that most wetlands share is soil or

substrate that is at least periodically saturated with or covered by water. Thewater creates

severe physiological problems for all plants and animals except those that are adapted for life

in water or in saturated soil .

Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table

is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this

classification wetlands must have one or more of the following three attributes : (1) at least

periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes, 2 (2) the substrate is predominantly

undrained hydric soil, I and (3) the substrate is non-soil and is saturated with water or covered

by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year.

The term wetland includes a variety of areas that fall into one of five categories : (1) areas with

hydrophytes and hydric soils, such as those commonly known as marshes, swamps, and bogs;

(2) areas without hydrophytes but with hydric soils-for example, flats where drastic

fluctuation in water level, wave action, turbidity, or high concentration of salts may prevent the

growth of hydrophytes; (3) areas with hydrophytes but non-hydric soils, such as margins of

impoundments or excavations where hydrophytes have become established but hydric soils

have not yet developed; (4) areas without soils but with hydrophytes such as the seaweedcovered portions of rocky shores ; and (5) wetlands without soil and without hydrophytes, such

as gravel beaches or rocky shores without vegetation.

Marine System The Marine System consists of the open ocean overlying the continental shelf and

its associated high energy coastline. Marine habitats are exposed to the waves

and currents of the open ocean. Salinities exceed 30 parts per thousand, with little

or no dilution except outside the mouths of estuaries. Shallow coastal indentations

or bays without appreciable freshwater inflow and coasts with exposed rocky

islands that provide the mainland with little or no shelter from wind and waves,

are also considered part of the Marine System because they generally support

typical marine biota.

Estuarine System The Estuarine System consists of deepwater tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetland

that are usually semienclosed by land but have open, partly obstructed, or sporadic access

to the open ocean, and in which ocean water is at least occasionally diluted by freshwater

runoff from the land. The salinity may be periodically increased above that of the open

ocean by evaporation. Along some low energy coastlines there is appreciable dilution

of sea water. Offshore areas with typical estuarine plants and animals, such as red

mangroves (Rhizophora maizgle) and eastern oysters (Crassostrea virginica), are also

included in the Estuarine System.

'Adapted from Cowardin et al . 1979 .

''The U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service has published the list of plant species that occur in wetlands of the United States (Reed 1988)

"U .S Department of Agriculture has developed the list of hydric soils for the United States (U.S . Department of Agriculture 1991).
Marine and Estuarine Subsystems

Subtidal The substrate is continuously submerged by marine or estuarine waters .

Intertidal The substrate is exposed and flooded by tides. Intertidal includes the splash zone of coastal

waters.

Palustrine System The Palustrine (freshwater) System includes all non-tidal wetlands dominated by

trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses or lichens, farmed wetlands,

and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas where salinity due to ocean derived

salts is below 0.5 parts per thousand. It also includes wetlands lacking such

vegetation, but with all of the following four characteristics: (1) area less than 20

acres (8 ha) ; (2) active wave formed or bedrock shoreline features are lacking; (3)

water depth in the deepest part of basin less than 6.6 feet (2 meters) at low water;

and (4) salinity due to ocean derived salts less than 0.5 parts per thousand.

Classes

Unconsolidated Bottom Unconsolidated Bottom includes all wetlands with at least 25 percent cover

of particles smaller than stones, and a vegetative cover less than 30 percent.

Examples of unconsolidated substrates are: sand, mud, organic material,

cobble-gravel.

Aquatic Bed Aquatic Beds are dominated by plants that grow principally on or below the

surface of the water for most of the growing season in most years. Examples

include seagrass beds4 , pondweeds (Potamogeton spp.), wild celery

(Vallisneria americana), waterweed (Elodea spp.), and duckweed (Lemma

SPO.

Unconsolidated Shore Unconsolidated Shore includes all wetland habitats having two

characteristics: (1) unconsolidated substrates with less than 75 percent

areal cover of stones, boulders or bedrock and; (2) less than 30 percent areal

cover of vegetation other than pioneering plants.

Emergent Wetland Emergent Wetlands are characterized by erect, rooted, herbaceous

hydrophytes, excluding mosses and lichens. This vegetation is present for

most of the growing season in most years. These wetlands are usually

dominated by perennial plants .

Shrub Wetland Shrub Wetlands include areas dominated by woody vegetation less than 20

feet (6 meters) tall . The species include true shrubs, young trees, and trees

or shrubs that are small or stunted because of environmental conditions .

Forested Wetland Forested Wetlands are characterized

by woodyvegetation that is 20 feet

(6 meters) tall or taller.

Palustrine Farmed Farmed Wetlands are wetlands that

meet the Cowardin et al . definition

where the soil surface has been

mechanically or physically altered

for production of crops, but where

hydrophytes will become

re-established if farming is

discontinued.

'Although some seagrass beds maybe evident on aerial photography, water and climatic

conditions often prevent their detection.
Deepwater Habitats

Wetlands and deepwater habitats are defined separately because the term wetland has not included deep

permanent water bodies . For the purposes of conducting status and trends studies, riverine and lacustrine

are considered deepwater habitats. Elements of marine or estuarine systems can be wetland or deepwater.

Palustrine includes only wetland habitats.

Deepwater habitats are permanently flooded land lying below the deepwater boundary of wetlands .

Deepwater habitats include environments where surface water is permanent and often deep, so that water,

rather than air, is the principal medium within which the dominant organisms live, whether or not they are

attached to the substrate. As in wetlands, the dominant plants are hydrophytes ; however, the substrates are

considered non-soil because the water is too deep to support emergent vegetation (U.S . Department of

Agriculture 1975).

Riverine System The Riverine System includes deepwater habitats contained within a channel, with the

exception of habitats with water containing ocean derived salts in excess of 0.5 parts per

thousand. A channel is "an open conduit either naturally or artificially created which

periodically or continuously contains moving water, or which forms a connecting link between

two bodies of standing water" (Langbein and Iseri 1960).

Lacustrine System The Lacustrine System includes deepwater habitats with all of the following characteristics:

(1) situated in a topographic depression or a dammed river channel; (2) lacking trees, shrubs,

persistent emergents, emergent mosses or lichens with greater than 30 percent coverage ; (3)

total area exceeds 20 acres (8 ha). Similar wetland and deepwater habitats totaling less than 20

acres may also be included in the Lacustrine System if an active, wave-formed or bedrock

shoreline feature makes up all or part of the boundary, or if the water depth in the deepest

part of the basin exceeds 6.6 feet (2 meters) at low water.

Snorkeler at Fort Jefferson on the Dry

Tortugas. (Photo courtesy ofEverglades

National, Park.)
Uplands

Agriculture' Agricultural land may be defined broadly as land used primarily for production of food and

fiber. Agricultural activity is evidenced by distinctive geometric field and road patterns on the

landscape and the traces produced by livestock or mechanized equipment. Examples of

agricultural land use include cropland and pasture ; orchards, groves, vineyards, nurseries,

cultivated lands, and ornamental horticultural areas including sod farms; confined feeding

operations; and other agricultural land including livestock feed lots, farmsteads including

houses, support structures (silos) and adjacent yards, barns, poultry sheds, etc.

Urban Urban land is comprised of areas of intensive use in which much of the land is covered by

structures (high building density) . Urbanized areas are cities and towns that provide the goods

and services needed to survive by modern day standards through a central business district.

Services such as banking, medical and legal office buildings, supermarkets, and department

stores make up the business center of a city. Commercial strip developments along main

transportation routes, shopping centers, contiguous dense residential areas, industrial and

commercial complexes, transportation, power and communication facilities, city parks, ball

fields and golf courses can also be included in the urban category.

Forested

Plantation Forested plantations include areas

of planted and managed forest

stands. Planted pines, Christmas

tree farms, clear cuts, and other

managed forest stands, such as

hardwood forestry are included in

this category.

Forested plantations can be

identified by observing the

following remote sensing

indicators: 1) trees planted in

rows or blocks; 2) forested blocks

growing with uniform crown

heights ; and 3) logging activity and

use patterns.

Rural

Development Rural developments occur in sparse rural and suburban settings outside distinct urban cities

and towns. They are characterized by non-intensive land use and sparse building density.

Typically, a rural development is a cross-roads community that has a corner gas station and a

convenience store which are surrounded by sparse residential housing and agriculture.

Scattered suburban communities located outside of a major urban center can also be included

in this category as well as some industrial and commercial complexes ; isolated transportation,

power, and communication facilities ; strip mines ; quarries ; and recreational areas such as golf

courses, etc. Major highways through rural development areas are included in the rural

development category.

Other Land Use Other Land Use is composed of uplands not characterized by the previous categories. Typically

these lands would include native prairie ; unmanaged or non-patterned upland forests and

scrub lands; and barren land. Lands in transition may also fit into this category.

Transitional lands are changing from one land use to another. They generally occur in

large acreage blocks of 40 acres (16 ha) or more and are characterized by the lack of any

remote sensor information that would enable the interpreter to reliably predict future use. The

transitional phase occurs when wetlands are drained, ditched, filled, leveled, or the vegetation

has been removed and the area is temporarily bare.

'Adapted from Anderson et al . 1976

77