National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science

Natural Resource Condition Assessment

Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National 

Monuments, Florida

Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/WRD/NRR—2012/515 
ON THE COVER

A view of the marsh from Fort Matanzas on left. Castillo de San Marcos NM sign and grounds on right.

Photograph by: Jessica L. Dorr, Conservation Management Institute, Virginia Tech
Natural Resource Condition Assessment

Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National 

Monuments, Florida

Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/WRD/NRR—2012/515 

Primary Authors/Editors: 

Jessica L. Dorr1, David M. Palmer1, and Rebecca M. Schneider1

Contributing Authors: 

John M. Galbraith2, Myles B. Killar3, Scott D. Klopfer1, Linsey C. Marr3, and Eric D. Wolf1 

1

Conservation Management Institute 

Virginia Tech

1900 Kraft Drive, Suite 250 

Blacksburg, VA 24061-0534 

2

Department of Crop and Soil Environmental Science 

Virginia Tech

3

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering 

Virginia Tech

April 2012

U.S. Department of the Interior 

National Park Service

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science 

Fort Collins, Colorado
ii

The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, 

Colorado publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics of interest and 

applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource 

management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. 

The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource 

management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse 

audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management 

applicability.

All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the 

information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended 

audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received informal 

peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in the collection, analysis, 

or reporting of the data. 

Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not 

necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the 

Interior. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or 

recommendation for use by the U.S. Government. 

Printed copies of reports in these series may be produced in a limited quantity and they are only 

available as long as the supply lasts. This report is also available from the Integrated Resource 

Management Applications website (http://irma.nps.gov) and the Natural Resource Publications 

Management website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/NRPM). 

Please cite this publication as:

Dorr, J. L., D. M. Palmer, R. M. Schneider, J. M. Galbraith, M. B. Killar, S. D. Klopfer, L. C. 

Marr, and E. D. Wolf. 2012. Natural resource condition assessment: Castillo de San Marcos and 

Fort Matanzas National Monuments, Florida. Natural Resource Report 

NPS/NRPC/WRD/NRR—2012/515. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

NPS 343/113812, 347/113812, April 2012
iii

Contents

Page

Contents ......................................................................................................................................... iii

Tables ............................................................................................................................................ vii

Figures.......................................................................................................................................... xiii

Appendices ................................................................................................................................... xix

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... xxi

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... xxvii

Prologue .................................................................................................................................... xxvii

Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................. xxix

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Park and Resources ................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Bio-geographic and Physical Setting ................................................................................. 3

2.1.1 Park Location and Size .............................................................................................. 3

2.1.2 Park Plans and Objectives .......................................................................................... 3

2.1.3 Climate ....................................................................................................................... 5

2.1.4 Geology, Landforms, and Soils ................................................................................. 5

2.1.5 Surface Water and Wetlands ...................................................................................... 6

2.2 Regional and Historic Context ........................................................................................... 8

2.2.1 Regional History and Land Use ................................................................................. 8

2.2.2 Site History ................................................................................................................ 8

2.3 Unique and Significant Park Resources and Designations ................................................ 9

2.3.1 Unique Resources ...................................................................................................... 9

2.3.2 Special Designations ................................................................................................ 10

3.0 Condition Assessment (Interdisciplinary Synthesis) .............................................................. 11
iv

Contents (continued)

Page

3.1 Ecosystem Pattern and Process ........................................................................................ 12

3.1.1 Landscape Dynamics ............................................................................................... 12

3.1.1.a Current condition: ............................................................................................................ 12

3.1.1.b Resource threats and stressors: ........................................................................................ 24

3.1.1.c Critical knowledge or data gaps: ..................................................................................... 24

3.1.1.d Condition status summary ............................................................................................... 25

3.1.1.e Recommendations to park managers: .............................................................................. 26

3.1.2 Fire and Fuel Dynamics ........................................................................................... 28

3.1.2.a Current condition: ............................................................................................................ 28

3.1.2.b Resource threats and stressors: ........................................................................................ 34

3.1.2.c Critical knowledge or data gaps: ..................................................................................... 34

3.1.2.d Condition status summary ............................................................................................... 34

3.1.2.e Recommendations to park managers: .............................................................................. 34

3.2 Human Use ...................................................................................................................... 36

3.2.1 Non-point Source Human Effects ............................................................................ 36

3.2.1.a Current condition: ............................................................................................................ 36

3.2.1.b Resource threats and stressors: ........................................................................................ 43

3.2.1.d Condition status summary ............................................................................................... 43

3.2.1.e Recommendations to park managers: .............................................................................. 44

3.2.2 Visitor and Recreation Use ...................................................................................... 45

3.2.2.a Current condition: ............................................................................................................ 45

3.2.2.b Resource threats and stressors: ........................................................................................ 48

3.2.2.c Critical knowledge or data gaps: ..................................................................................... 48

3.2.2.d Condition status summary: .............................................................................................. 48

3.2.2.d Recommendations to park managers: .............................................................................. 49

3.3 Air and Climate ................................................................................................................ 49

3.3.1 Air Quality ............................................................................................................... 49

3.3.1.a Current condition: ............................................................................................................ 52

3.3.1.b Resource threats and stressors: ........................................................................................ 58

3.3.1.c Critical knowledge or data gaps: ..................................................................................... 58

3.3.1.d Condition status summary ............................................................................................... 59

3.3.1.e Recommendations to park managers: .............................................................................. 60

3.3.2 Climate ..................................................................................................................... 60

3.3.2.a Current condition: ............................................................................................................ 61

3.3.2.b Resource threats and stressors: ........................................................................................ 80

3.3.2.c Critical knowledge or data gaps: ..................................................................................... 80

3.3.2.d Condition status summary: .............................................................................................. 80

3.3.2.e Recommendations to park managers: .............................................................................. 81
v 

Contents (continued)

Page

3.4 Water ................................................................................................................................ 81

3.4.1 Hydrology ................................................................................................................ 81

3.4.1.a Current condition: ............................................................................................................ 82

3.4.1.b Resource threats and stressors: ........................................................................................ 90

3.4.1.c Critical knowledge or data gaps: ..................................................................................... 95

3.4.1.d Condition status summary ............................................................................................... 95

3.4.1.e Recommendations to park managers: .............................................................................. 97

3.4.2 Water Quality ........................................................................................................... 97

3.4.2.a Current condition: .......................................................................................................... 102

3.4.2.b Resource threats and stressors: ...................................................................................... 106

3.4.2.c Critical knowledge or data gaps: ................................................................................... 106

3.4.2.d Condition status summary ............................................................................................. 106

3.3.2.e Recommendations to park managers: ............................................................................ 107

3.5 Geology and Soils .......................................................................................................... 108

3.5.1 Geology and Soils .................................................................................................. 108

3.5.1.a Current condition: .......................................................................................................... 110

3.5.1.b Resource threats and stressors: ...................................................................................... 123

3.5.1.c Critical knowledge or data gaps: ................................................................................... 123

3.5.1.d Condition status summary ............................................................................................. 123

3.5.1.e Recommendations to park managers: ............................................................................ 124

3.6 Biological Integrity ........................................................................................................ 124

3.6.1 Focal Communities and At-risk Biota ................................................................... 124

3.6.1.a Current Condition: ......................................................................................................... 126

3.6.1.b Resource threats and stressors: ...................................................................................... 135

3.6.1.c Critical knowledge or data gaps: ................................................................................... 136

3.6.1.d Condition status summary ............................................................................................. 137

3.6.1.e Recommendations to park managers: ............................................................................ 138

4.0 Summary and Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 141

Literature Cited ........................................................................................................................... 145

Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 155

vii

Tables 

Page

Table 1. Condition status scoring system for Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas 

National Monuments Natural Resource Assessment. ................................................................... 11

Table 2. Example condition status table ....................................................................................... 12

Table 3. Land cover (from CMI classification and 2001 NOAA C-CAP) totals and 

percent of total within Castillo de San Marcos National Monument (CASA) boundary 

and in the subbasin study area containing CASA ......................................................................... 14

Table 4. Land cover (from CMI classification and 2001 NOAA C-CAP) totals and 

percent of total within Fort Matanzas National Monument (FOMA) boundary and in the 

subbasin study area containing FOMA ......................................................................................... 15

Table 5. Comparison of cover types (from CMI classification and 2001 NOAA C-CAP) 

within Castillo de San Marcos National Monument boundary, subbasin study area, and 

other protected areas within the subbasin ..................................................................................... 17

Table 6. Comparison of cover types (from CMI classification and 2001 NOAA C-CAP) 

within Fort Matanzas National Monument boundary, subbasin study area, and other 

protected areas within the subbasin .............................................................................................. 18

Table 7. Protected areas surrounding Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas 

National Monuments, within the subbasin study area. ................................................................. 19

Table 8. Comparison of natural, semi-natural, and unnatural vegetation (reclassified 

from CMI classification and 2001 NOAA C-CAP) at Castillo de San Marcos National 

Monument, Fort Matanzas National Monument, and in the subbasin study area ......................... 21

Table 9. Land cover change (from 1996 and 2001 C-CAP) in the subbasin study area 

containing Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. ............................. 24

Table 10. Landscape dynamics condition status summary within Castillo de San Marcos 

National Monument ...................................................................................................................... 25

Table 11. Landscape dynamics condition status summary within Fort Matanzas 

National Monument ...................................................................................................................... 26

Table 12. List of protected areas, organizations, and contact information. .................................. 26

Table 13. Wildfires reported at Castillo de San Marcos National Monument from 

1/1/1972 to 12/31/2007, at the National Fire and Aviation Management Web 

Application (National Wildfire Coordinating Group 2008). ........................................................ 28

Table 14. Fire condition status summary for Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas 

National Monuments ..................................................................................................................... 34
viii

Tables (continued)

Page

Table 15. Schueler (2000) related percent impervious cover to management category. .............. 41

Table 16. Impervious surface totals for Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas 

National Monuments and each watershed/subbasin within the study area. Management 

category from Schueler 2000. ....................................................................................................... 41

Table 17. Human effects condition status summary for Castillo de San Marcos National 

Monument ..................................................................................................................................... 44

Table 18. Human effects condition status summary for Fort Matanzas National 

Monument ..................................................................................................................................... 44

Table 19. Number of National Park Service Fort visitors in 2007 in ranked order. ..................... 48

Table 20. Visitor use condition status summary for Castillo de San Marcos National 

Monument ..................................................................................................................................... 49

Table 21. Visitor use condition status summary for Fort Matanzas National Monument ............ 49

Table 22. The Air Quality Index (AQI) is a cross-agency U.S. Government venture 

whose purpose is to explain air quality health implications to the public. ................................... 51

Table 23. Air quality index in 2007 at monitoring sites near Castillo de San Marcos and 

Fort Matanzas National Monuments ............................................................................................. 52

Table 24. Air Resources Division ozone air quality condition classifications and 

corresponding condition status ..................................................................................................... 56

Table 25. Air Resources Division wet deposition condition classifications and 

corresponding condition status ..................................................................................................... 57

Table 26. Air Resources Division visibility condition classifications and corresponding 

condition status ............................................................................................................................. 57

Table 27. Air quality condition status summary for Castillo de San Marcos National 

Monument ..................................................................................................................................... 59

Table 28. Air quality condition status summary for Fort Matanzas National Monument ............ 60

Table 29. List of recommended air quality organizations to participate with and promote 

regional approaches. ..................................................................................................................... 60

Table 30. Classification used for Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) values. ....................... 68

Table 31. Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale (Blake et al. 2007). .................................................... 73
ix

Tables (continued)

Page

Table 32. Climate condition status summary for Castillo de San Marcos and Fort 

Matanzas National Monument ...................................................................................................... 81

Table 33. Surface water detention correlation to National Wetland Inventory 

classification within Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. ............. 82

Table 34. Coastal storm surge detention correlation to National Wetland Inventory 

classification within Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. ............. 84

Table 35. Streamflow maintenance correlation to National Wetland Inventory 

classification within Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. ............. 85

Table 36. Nutrient transformation correlation to National Wetland Inventory 

classification within Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. ............. 86

Table 37. Sediment and other particulate retention correlation to National Wetland 

Inventory classification within Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National 

Monuments. .................................................................................................................................. 88

Table 38. Shoreline stabilization correlation to National Wetland Inventory 

classification within Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. ............. 89

Table 39. Hydrology condition status summary for Castillo de San Marcos National 

Monument ..................................................................................................................................... 96

Table 40. Hydrology condition status summary for Fort Matanzas National Monument ............ 96

Table 41. Water quality standards from Florida 305(b) Rule 62-302.530 Criteria for 

Surface Water Quality Classification (Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

2008) ........................................................................................................................................... 100

Table 42. Names and locations of the five closest water quality monitoring stations to 

Castillo de San Marcos with appropriate available water quality data ....................................... 101

Table 43. Names and locations of the five closest water quality monitoring stations to 

Fort Matanzas with appropriate available water quality data ..................................................... 101

Table 44. Dissolved oxygen levels and number of data points (n) from the stations 

closest to CASA .......................................................................................................................... 103

Table 45. Dissolved oxygen levels and number of data points (n) from the stations 

closest to FOMA ......................................................................................................................... 103

Table 46. Water quality standards for nutrient concentrations as developed for the 

National Coastal Condition Report II (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2005) .............. 104
x

Tables (continued)

Page

Table 47. Water bodies in HUC 03080201 listed as Impaired by Florida’s 303(d) 1998 

list. ............................................................................................................................................... 104

Table 48. Fecal Coliform data from FL DEP monitoring stations near Castillo de San 

Marcos since 2004 ...................................................................................................................... 105

Table 49. Fecal Coliform data from Florida DEP monitoring stations near Fort 

Matanzas since 2004. .................................................................................................................. 105

Table 50. Water quality condition status summary within Castillo de San Marcos and 

Fort Matanzas National Monuments ........................................................................................... 107

Table 51. Recommendations to improve water quality and monitoring at Castillo de San 

Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. ...................................................................... 107

Table 52. Historic soil survey (1917) classification and approximate percent of total 

acreage for Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. .......................................................... 111

Table 53. Historic soil survey (1917) classification and approximate percent of total 

acreage for Fort Matanzas National Monument. ........................................................................ 112

Table 54. Current soil survey (2006) classification, acreages, and percent of total 

acreage for Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. .......................................................... 114

Table 55. Current soil survey (2006) classification, acreages, and percent of total 

acreage for Fort Matanzas National Monument. ........................................................................ 114

Table 56. Potential erosion hazard (off-road, off-trial) according to soil characteristics at 

Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments .............................................. 117

Table 57. Flooding frequency according to soil characteristics at Castillo de San Marcos 

and Fort Matanzas National Monument ..................................................................................... 119

Table 58. Drainage classes according to soil characteristics at Castillo de San Marcos 

and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. ................................................................................... 121

Table 59. Soil condition status summary for Castillo de San Marcos National 

Monument ................................................................................................................................... 123

Table 60. Soil condition status summary for Fort Matanzas National Monumen ...................... 124

Table 61. List of available animal and plant surveys for Castillo de San Marcos and Fort 

Matanzas National Monuments. ................................................................................................. 125

Table 62. Management matrix used to categorize trend combinations. ..................................... 128
xi

Tables (continued)

Page

Table 63. Total number of species documented at Castillo de San Marcos National 

Monument, number of species of greatest conservation need (SGCN) from the Florida 

Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, and % of SGCN within Florida that are 

found at Castillo de San Marcos NM. ......................................................................................... 134

Table 64. Total number of species documented at Fort Matanzas National Monument, 

number of species of greatest conservation need (SGCN) from the Florida 

Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, and % of SGCN within Florida that are 

found at Fort Matanzas NM. ....................................................................................................... 134

Table 65. Proportion of invasive species by taxa at Castillo de San Marcos National 

Monument. .................................................................................................................................. 136

Table 66. Proportion of invasive species by taxa at Fort Matanzas National Monument. ......... 136

Table 67. Biotic community condition status summary for Castillo de San Marcos 

National Monument .................................................................................................................... 137

Table 68. Biotic community condition status summary for Fort Matanzas National 

Monument ................................................................................................................................... 138

Table 69. Condition status scoring system for Castillo de San Marcos and Fort 

Matanzas National Monument Natural Resource Assessment. .................................................. 142

Table 70. Overall condition status summary for Castillo de San Marcos National 

Monument ................................................................................................................................... 143

Table 71. Overall condition status summary for Fort Matanzas National Monument ............... 144

xiii

Figures

Page

Figure 1. Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments are located 

on the east coast of northern Florida. .............................................................................................. 4

Figure 2. Water resources and hydrologic unit boundary at Castillo de San Marcos and 

Fort Matanzas National Monuments. .............................................................................................. 7

Figure 3. The subbasin study area examined for the Castillo de San Marcos and Fort 

Matanzas National Monuments Natural Resource Assessment. ................................................... 13

Figure 4. Land cover (from CMI classification in detailed insets and 2001 NOAA CCAP) at Castillo de San Marcos NM, Fort Matanzas NM, and in the subbasin study 

area. ............................................................................................................................................... 22

Figure 5. Vegetation reclass (from CMI classification in detailed insets and 2001 

NOAA C-CAP) for Castillo de San Marcos NM, Fort Matanzas NM, and in the 

subbasin study area. ...................................................................................................................... 23

Figure 6. Wildfire sites and the dates they occurred, from 2000 to 2007 (GeoMAC 

2008), within 20 miles of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National 

Monuments. .................................................................................................................................. 29

Figure 7. Simulated historical percent of low severity fires according to LANDFIRE 

(USDA Forest Service 2006) in the region of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas 

National Monuments. .................................................................................................................... 30

Figure 8. Simulated historical percent of mixed severity fires according to LANDFIRE 

(USDA Forest Service 2006) in the region of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas 

National Monuments. .................................................................................................................... 31

Figure 9. Simulated historical percent of replacement severity fires according to 

LANDFIRE (USDA Forest Service 2006) in the region of Castillo de San Marcos and 

Fort Matanzas National Monuments. ............................................................................................ 32

Figure 10. Departure between current vegetation condition and reference vegetation 

condition according to LANDFIRE (USDA Forest Service 2006) in the region of 

Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. ............................................... 33

Figure 11. Wildfire fuel types according to LANDFIRE (USDA Forest Service 2006) in 

the region of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. ......................... 35

Figure 12. A recent observed fire danger class map for the United States (USDA Forest 

Service 2008). ............................................................................................................................... 36
xiv

Figures (continued)

Page

Figure 13. Human population change in counties surrounding Castillo de San Marcos 

and Fort Matanzas National Monuments, 1990 – 2000 and 2000 – 2007 (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2008). ................................................................................................................................ 38

Figure 14. Human population change in counties surrounding Castillo de San Marcos 

and Fort Matanzas National Monuments, 1990 – 2007 (U.S. Census Bureau 2008). .................. 39

Figure 15. Human population density (people per square kilometer, 2007) for counties 

surrounding Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2008). ................................................................................................................... 40

Figure 16. Impervious surface (from National Land Cover Database 2001) in the 

subbasin study area containing Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National 

Monuments. .................................................................................................................................. 42

Figure 17. Number of visitors per year to Castillo de San Marcos National Monument 

from 1934 to 2007. Data from NPS (2008d). ............................................................................... 46

Figure 18. Number of visitors per year to Fort Matanzas National Monument from 1938 

to 2007. Data from NPS (2008d). ................................................................................................. 46

Figure 19. Average monthly visitors (from the past 10 years, 1998 – 2007) to Castillo 

de San Marcos National Monument. Data from NPS (2008d). .................................................... 47

Figure 20. Average monthly visitors (from the past 10 years, 1998 – 2007) to Fort 

Matanzas National Monument. Data from NPS (2008d). ............................................................. 47

Figure 21. Air quality monitoring sites near Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas 

National Monuments ..................................................................................................................... 53

Figure 22. Eight-hour ozone for Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National 

Monuments. .................................................................................................................................. 54

Figure 23. 24-hour PM2.5 for Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National 

Monuments. .................................................................................................................................. 55

Figure 24. Annual temperature for St. Augustine, FL from 1901 to 2007. The mean 

annual temperature is 69.97 °F. The trend is 0.01 °F per decade. ................................................ 62

Figure 25. Winter temperature for St. Augustine, FL from 1901 to 2007 .................................... 63

Figure 26. Spring temperature for St. Augustine, FL from 1901 to 2007 .................................... 63
xv

Figures (continued)

Page

Figure 27. Summer temperature for St. Augustine, FL from 1901 to 2007 ................................. 64

Figure 28. The fall temperature for St. Augustine, FL from 1901 to 2007 .................................. 64

Figure 29. Annual precipitation for St. Augustine, FL from 1901 to 2007 .................................. 65

Figure 30. The winter precipitation for St. Augustine, FL from 1901 to 2007 ............................ 66

Figure 31. The spring precipitation for St. Augustine, FL from 1901 to 2007 ............................. 66

Figure 32. The summer precipitation for St. Augustine, FL from 1901 to 2007 .......................... 67

Figure 33. The fall precipitation for St. Augustine, FL from 1901 to 2007 ................................. 67

Figure 34. PDSI values for St. Augustine, FL in 8-year blocks from 1896 – 2007...................... 69

Figure 35. The total growing degree days from January – March for St. Augustine, FL 

from 1901 – 2007 .......................................................................................................................... 70

Figure 36. The approximate date in St. Augustine, FL when 1200 GDD has been 

reached for each year (1901 – 2007) ............................................................................................. 72

Figure 37. Total number of all storms per month (1851 – 2007) occurring within 100 

nautical miles of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. ................... 74

Figure 38. Total number of major and minor storms per month (1851 – 2007) occurring 

within 100 nautical miles of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National 

Monuments. .................................................................................................................................. 75

Figure 39. Total number of storms by category per month (1851 – 2007) occurring 

within 100 nautical miles of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National 

Monuments ................................................................................................................................... 76

Figure 40. Total number of all storms per decade (1851 – 2007) occurring within 100 

nautical miles of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. ................... 77

Figure 41. Total number of major and minor storms per decade (1851 – 2007) occurring 

within 100 nautical miles of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National 

Monuments. .................................................................................................................................. 78

Figure 42. Total number of storms by category per decade (1851 – 2007) occurring 

within 100 nautical miles of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National 

Monuments. .................................................................................................................................. 79
xvi

Figures (continued)

Page

Figure 43. Surface water detention correlation to National Wetland Inventory 

classification within Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. ............. 83

Figure 44. Coastal storm surge detention correlation to National Wetland Inventory 

classification within Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. ............. 84

Figure 45. Streamflow maintenance correlation to National Wetland Inventory 

classification within Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. ............. 85

Figure 46. Nutrient transformation correlation to National Wetland Inventory 

classification within Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. ............. 87

Figure 47. Sediment and other particulate retention correlation to National Wetland 

Inventory classification within Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National 

Monuments. .................................................................................................................................. 88

Figure 48. Shoreline stabilization correlation to National Wetland Inventory 

classification within Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. ............. 90

Figure 49. Digital elevation model (DEM) of the Castillo de San Marcos National 

Monument region showing mean sea level, and approximate two foot, and four foot 

storm surge. ................................................................................................................................... 92

Figure 50. Digital elevation model (DEM) of the Fort Matanzas National Monument 

region showing mean sea level, and approximate two foot, and four foot storm surge. .............. 93

Figure 51. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA, 2008) flood maps for the 

Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monument region, showing all 

areas are under 100-year flood hazard in which base flood elevations have been 

determined (Zone AE). ................................................................................................................. 94

Figure 52. The Daytona-St. Augustine subbasin (HUC 03080201) that contains Castillo 

de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. ............................................................ 98

Figure 53: Water resources and hydrologic unit at Castillo de San Marcos and Fort 

Matanzas National Monuments. ................................................................................................... 99

Figure 54. Location of the water quality monitoring stations used for the Castillo de San 

Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monument Natural Resource Assessment. ....................... 102

Figure 55. The surficial geology of northeast Florida (Scott et al. 2001). .................................. 108

Figure 56. Castillo de San Marcos National Monument (Google 2008). ................................... 109

Figure 57. Fort Matanzas National Monument (Google 2008). ................................................. 109
xvii

Figures (continued)

Page

Figure 58. Extent of historic soil survey (1917) at Castillo de San Marcos and Fort 

Matanzas National Monuments. ................................................................................................. 113

Figure 59. Extent of current soil survey (2006) at Castillo de San Marcos and Fort 

Matanzas National Monuments. ................................................................................................. 116

Figure 60. Potential erosion hazard (off-road, off-trial) according to soil characteristics 

at Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments .......................................... 118

Figure 61. Flooding frequency according to soil characteristics at Castillo de San 

Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. ...................................................................... 120

Figure 62. Drainage classes according to soil characteristics at Castillo de San Marcos 

and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. ................................................................................... 121

Figure 63. Hydric rating according to soil characteristics at Castillo de San Marcos and 

Fort Matanzas National Monuments. .......................................................................................... 122

Figure 64. USGS Breeding Bird Survey Routes in the area surrounding Castillo de San 

Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments that were chosen for the assessment. ............ 127

xix

Appendices

Page

Appendix A: Land cover calculation methods............................................................................ 157

Appendix B: Hydrology calculation methods............................................................................. 163

Appendix C: Soil series description and soil ratings. ................................................................. 165

Appendix D: Reference species lists from habitat distribution models published by the 

Florida Gap Analysis Project (2003). ......................................................................................... 197

Appendix E: Reference bird species lists from St. Johns County Audubon (2008) North 

American Migratory Counts in spring 2006, spring 2008, and fall 2008. .................................. 209

Appendix F: The following species lists (Appendix G through Appendix Q) have been 

cross-referenced to NatureServe’s global and state rankings (NatureServe 2008); and 

the FWC listings for endangered, threatened, or rare species (Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission 2005a).. ............................................................................................ 225

Appendix G: Plant species documented for Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. ....... 228

Appendix H: Plant species documented for Fort Matanzas National Monument. ..................... 233

Appendix I: Fish species documented for Fort Matanzas National Monument. ........................ 241

Appendix J: Amphibian species documented for Castillo de San Marcos National 

Monument. .................................................................................................................................. 244

Appendix K: Amphibian species documented for Fort Matanzas National Monument. ............ 245

Appendix L: Reptile species documented for Castillo de San Marcos National 

Monument. .................................................................................................................................. 246

Appendix M: Reptile species documented for Fort Matanzas National Monument. ................. 247

Appendix N: Bird species documented for Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. ........ 249

Appendix O: Bird species documented for Fort Matanzas National Monument. ....................... 255

Appendix P: Mammal species documented for Castillo de San Marcos National 

Monument. .................................................................................................................................. 266

Appendix Q: Mammal species documented for Fort Matanzas National Monument. ............... 267

xxi

Executive Summary 

The goal of this assessment is to provide an overview of natural resource condition status to 

allow Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments (NMs) to effectively 

manage National Park Service (NPS) trust resources through Resource Stewardship Strategies 

(RSS) and General Management Plans. An ancillary benefit is that it will aid the park in meeting 

government reporting requirements, such as the land health goals under the Government 

Performance Results Act (GPRA). This assessment is primarily based on existing data and 

information from the NPS Inventory & Monitoring Program, and from other Federal and State 

natural resource agencies.

A natural resource assessment should provide a concise, understandable, and accurate summary 

of the condition of the ecological system. Reporting on this ecological condition will provide for 

better decision-making (Young and Sanzone 2002). As such we found that collaborating with 

decision-makers was an important part of this project. 

Precise measurements and objective analysis are preferred for assessing the condition of natural 

resources. Wherever possible, we used quantitative data and established thresholds, but in some 

cases only qualitative measures were available to rate important categories. Rather than remove 

these categories all together, we simply report on the type of data that was available and the 

methods used to compare these data to a desired condition. In all cases, straightforward tables, 

charts, maps, and geospatial data are provided to summarize findings. 

The National Park Service (NPS) monitors the condition of their natural resources using an 

ecological monitoring framework that has been widely used among other agencies (Fancy et al. 

2008). There are six basic level 1 categories: 1) air and climate; 2) geology and soils; 3) water; 4) 

biological integrity; 5) human use; and 6) ecosystem pattern and process. This framework is 

based on earlier work including the Environmental Protection Agency’s ecological condition 

framework that uses similar essential ecological attributes as their upper-level categories (Young 

and Sanzone 2002). We found the NPS categories to be uncomplicated and intuitive. This 

framework is also familiar to NPS personnel and will allow the users to compare current vital 

sign monitoring plans to this assessment. We have, however, reorganized the NPS framework to 

go from small-scale (broad) to large-scale (detailed) analysis, beginning with a primary threat 

and stressor: ecosystem pattern and process (landscapes). 

Throughout this assessment, several data under each natural resource category are given a 

condition status score. Some of these scores are based on predesigned systems, but all have been 

cross referenced to a good, fair, poor scoring system (Table 1). 

Table 1. Condition status scoring system for the Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas 

National Monuments Natural Resource Condition Assessment. 

Score Range Midpoint

Good 0.67 – 1.00 0.84

Fair 0.34 – 0.66 0.50

Poor 0.00 – 0.33 0.17

Publisher’s Note: Some or all of the work done for this project preceded the revised guidance 

issued for this project series in 2009/2010. See Prologue (p. xxvii) for more information. 
xxii

In addition, we provide a data quality rating based on three categories, thematic, spatial, and 

temporal. We gave thematic a 1 or 0 (yes or no) based on whether these data were from the best 

available source. Spatial received a 1 or 0 based on the spatial proximity of these data (in-park 

data or out-of-park data). We also gave temporal a 1 or 0 based on how recently these data were 

acquired. Temporal was somewhat dependent on data type, but generally, if the data were from 

the last 5 years they received a 1. A sample is shown in Table 2. These tables are combined and 

an overall condition status is reported in the conclusion of this document. The user can also 

access these scores in the provided spreadsheet to view calculations, update data, and modify 

importance ratings as management goals change.

Table 2. Example condition status table. Data quality was rated based on thematic (1 = best 

source; 0 = not the best source), spatial (1 = inside park boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), 

and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = older than 5 years). The colors green, yellow, and red refer to 

good, fair, and poor scores respectively (see Table 1).

Category Condition 

Status

Data Quality

Thematic Spatial Temporal

Condition Group A 1 0 0

Good 1 out of 3

Condition Group B

1 1 0

Fair 2 out of 3

Condition Group C

1 1 1

Poor 3 out of 3

The overall condition status for Castillo de San Marcos NM is in the fair range (0.53; Table 3); 

Fort Matanzas NM is also in the fair range (0.65; Table 4). Midpoint scores were averaged for 

each NPS ecological monitoring framework level 2 category (Fancy et al. 2008) to come up with 

the overall condition status for the monument. The data quality scores were summed for each 

category.

At Castillo de San Marcos NM, fire dynamics, visitor use, climate, and geology and soils scored 

in the good range. Fire dynamics and climate are broad-scale assessment categories upon which 

Castillo de San Marcos NM has limited management influence. Consistent reporting and 

collaboration are essential for these categories. Visitor statistics do not indicate a sharp increase 

in visitors and there is no additional data to indicate a negative correlation between visitor use 

and natural resource condition. Soils have remained relatively consistent and soil attributes are 

positive as well.

Landscape dynamics, human effects, and water quality are all in the fair range at Castillo de San 

Marcos NM. Landscape dynamics and human population, in this case, mirror each other. The 

landscape was rated within the monument and shows open space and small tree lots offer some 

benefits. Human effects are plentiful in this region and impervious surface coverage for Castillo 

de San Marcos NM and within the subbasin study area are high. Although dissolved oxygen was 

good in surrounding waters, other water quality indicators are in need of improvement. 
xxiii

Hydrology and biological integrity for Castillo de San Marcos NM are extremely limiting. This 

is more than likely due to the fact and this monument is an urban-centered park, focused on 

cultural resource management. Despite this, some improvements could be made, and are in 

process, for shoreline stabilization. Additionally, air quality received a poor rating in this 

assessment. The poor rating was a result of elevated ozone exposure, high levels of estimated 

atmospheric deposition, and poor visibility due to a high Haze Index score. Similar to landscape, 

fire, and human effects, air quality is a broad-scale assessment category upon which Castillo de 

San Marcos NM has limited management influence.

For Fort Matanzas NM, landscape dynamics, fire dynamics, human effects, visitor use, climate, 

and geology and soils scored in the good range. Landscape, fire, human effects, and climate are 

broad-scale assessment categories upon which Fort Matanzas NM has limited management 

influence. Consistent reporting and collaboration are essential for these categories. Visitor 

statistics do not indicate a sharp increase in visitors and there is no additional data to indicate a 

negative correlation between visitor use and natural resource condition. Soils have remained 

relatively consistent with the only limiting factor being the flooding frequency.

Biological integrity received a fair rating for Fort Matanzas NM. The species assemblages 

present do not appear to reflect the more complete biotic communities observed in the 

surrounding area. This is perhaps due to the unique habitats present at the monument and may be 

due in part to a lack of comprehensive survey efforts. Other categories that scored in the fair 

range included hydrology and water quality. Hydrology improvements could be made, and are in 

process, for shoreline stabilization. Water quality will need coordination with other management 

organizations to improve. Collecting additional water quality data within park boundaries would 

allow better assessment of in-park resources. 

The only category in this assessment to receive a poor rating was air quality. Despite a fair ozone 

exposure score, the poor rating was a result of high levels of estimated atmospheric deposition 

and poor visibility due to a high Haze Index score. Similar to landscape, fire, human effects, and 

climate, air quality is a broad-scale assessment category upon which Fort Matanzas NM has 

limited management influence.

For both monuments, thematic (best source) and spatial proximity, to a lesser degree, are the 

limiting factors in data quality. Thematic is often in the fair range for data quality mostly due to 

needing more local-scale data. These National Monuments were established primarily to protect 

cultural resources, so a minimal amount of natural resource data has been collected on-site. 

There are plans to map vegetation communities and continue species and community inventory 

and monitoring. An observation that is present in several of the assessment categories is the 

importance of coordination with outside management organizations. It is also noted in several 

categories that additional local-scale data collection could improve assessment and management.

The good, fair, poor scoring system (Table 1) has its limitations. It is somewhat subjective, 

especially when pre-established thresholds and criteria are missing. However, in most cases we 

were able to find thresholds from other agencies or peer-reviewed publications. We made note of 

the cases where established rating systems or thresholds were not available. With these caveats 
xxiv

in mind, we effectively reported on the condition status of important natural resource 

management categories while providing further information on data quality. 

Table 3. Overall condition status summary for Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. Data 

quality was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), spatial (1 = inside 

park boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = older than 5 years). 

The colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor scores respectively (see Table 1). 

Category Condition 

Status Score Data Quality 

Thematic Spatial Temporal 

Landscape dynamics total 0 3 0 

Fair 0.39 3 out of 9 

Fire dynamics total 0 1 1 

Good 0.84 2 out of 3 

Human effects total 1 2 2 

Fair 0.34 5 out of 6 

Visitor use total 0 1 1 

Good 0.84 2 out of 3 

Air quality total 3 1 3 

Poor 0.17 7 out of 9 

Climate total 5 1 5 

Good 0.70 11 out of 15 

Hydrology total 0 6 6 

Poor 0.30 12 out of 18

Water quality total 3 4 1 

Fair 0.54 8 out of 12 

Soil total 3 3 3 

Good 0.84 9 out of 9 

Biotic total 5 0 5 

Poor 0.30 10 out of 15 

CASA overall 20 22 27 

Fair 0.53 69 out of 99 
xxv

Table 4. Overall condition status summary for Fort Matanzas National Monument. Data quality 

was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), spatial (1 = inside park 

boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = older than 5 years). The 

colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor scores respectively (see Table 1). 

Category Condition 

Status Score Data Quality 

Thematic Spatial Temporal 

Landscape dynamics total 0 3 0 

Good 0.84 3 out of 9 

Fire dynamics total 0 1 1 

Good 0.84 2 out of 3 

Human effects total 1 2 2 

Good 0.67 5 out of 6 

Visitor use total 0 1 1 

Good 0.84 2 out of 3 

Air quality total 3 1 3 

Poor 0.28 7 out of 9 

Climate total 5 1 5 

Good 0.70 11 out of 15 

Hydrology total 0 6 6 

Fair 0.64 12 out of 18

Water quality total 3 4 1 

Fair 0.54 8 out of 12 

Soil total 3 3 3 

Good 0.73 9 out of 9 

Biotic total 5 1 6 

Fair 0.45 12 out of 18 

FOMA overall 20 23 28 

Fair 0.65 71 out of 102

This project provided a comprehensive amount of organized tabular data and many geospatial 

data layers and maps that will aid in the management of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort 

Matanzas NMs. These data are provided on an accompanying disk and can be used to compare 

current status to future conditions. This is merely a first step to compiling data and reporting on 

current condition status, data gaps, and threats and stressors. A well established assessment 

protocol will include follow-up and future analysis. 

xxvii

Acknowledgements

This project would not have been possible without the help of personnel from Fort Matanzas

National Monument, NPS Southeast Region, Southeast Coast Network, and various departments 

at Virginia Tech. We would like to thank the following people for their contribution to this 

assessment effort:

Fort Matanzas National Monument 

Andrew Rich

Southeast Region 

Jim Long

Southeast Coast Network 

Joe DeVivo

Tony Curtis 

Christina Wright

Natural Resource Program Center

Jeff Albright

Air Resources Division 

Ellen Porter

Conservation Management Institute, Virginia Tech 

Shelia Crowe

Jeff Dobson 

Jacob Hartwright

Ginger Hicks

Laura Roghair

Virginia Water Resources Research Center, Virginia Tech

Stephen Schoenholtz 

Prologue

Publisher’s Note: This was one of several projects used to demonstrate a variety of study 

approaches and reporting products for a new series of natural resource condition assessments in 

national park units. Projects such as this one, undertaken during initial development phases for 

the new series, contributed to revised project standards and guidelines issued in 2009 and 2010 

(applicable to projects started in 2009 or later years). Some or all of the work done for this 

project preceded those revisions. Consequently, aspects of this project’s study approach and 

some report format and/or content details may not be consistent with the revised guidance, and 

may differ in comparison to what is found in more recently published reports from this series. 

xxix

Abbreviations

AICW Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway

AQI Air Quality Index 

BBS Breeding Bird Survey

BOD Biological Oxygen Demand 

BMP Best Management Practice

CASA Castillo de San Marcos National Monument 

C-CAP Coastal Change Analysis Program

CMI Conservation Management Institute at Virginia Tech

CRD Coastal Resources Division

DDT Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane 

DEM Digital Elevation Model

DIN Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen 

DIP Dissolved Inorganic Phosphorus 

DNR Department of Natural Resources

DO Dissolved Oxygen 

DRG Digital Raster Graphic

EMAP Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

EPD Environmental Protection Division 

ERL Effects Range Low

ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute

FDA Food and Drug Administration 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FOMA Fort Matanzas National Monument 

GA Georgia

GAP Gap Analysis Program

GDD Growing Degree Days

GeoMAC Geospatial Multi-Agency Coordination Group 

GFC Georgia Forestry Commission

GIS Geographic Information System 

GMP General Management Plan

GPRA Government Performance Results Act

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code 

I&M Inventory and Monitoring 

LMER Land Margin Ecosystem Research

LTER Long-Term Ecological Research

MLRA Major Land Resource Area

NB National Battlefield

NCA National Coastal Assessment

NCDC National Climatic Data Center

NESDIS National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service

NHD National Hydrologic Data

NM National Monument 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
xxx

NPS National Park Service

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

NTCHS National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils

NWI National Wetlands Inventory 

PAHs Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls

PDSI Palmer Drought Severity Index

PPM Parts per million

RSS Resource Stewardship Strategies

SC South Carolina 

SCP Southern Coastal Plain 

SERCC Southeast Regional Climate Center

SGCN Species of Greatest Conservation Need

SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic 

TD Tropical Depression

TS Tropical Storm

U.S. United States

UGA University of Georgia 

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USGS United States Geological Survey

UV Ultraviolet
1 

1.0 Introduction 

The goal of this assessment is to provide an overview of natural resource condition status to 

allow Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments (NMs) to effectively 

manage National Park Service (NPS) trust resources through Resource Stewardship Strategies 

(RSS) and General Management Plans. An ancillary benefit is that it will aid the parks in 

meeting government reporting requirements, such as the land health goals under the Government 

Performance Results Act (GPRA). This assessment is primarily based on existing data and 

information from the NPS Inventory & Monitoring Program, and from other Federal and State 

natural resource agencies.

A natural resource assessment should provide a concise, understandable, and accurate summary 

of the condition of the ecological system. Reporting on this ecological condition will provide for 

better decision-making (Young and Sanzone 2002). As such we found that collaborating with 

decision-makers was an important part of this project. 

An iterative process was implemented to collect and synthesize data and meet with NPS staff. 

We collaborated on what was important for their particular assessment, park, and watershed. 

Additional data was then collected and the process repeated itself to further refine and identify 

additional natural resource issues and objectives for this assessment. 

Precise measurements and objective analysis are preferred for assessing the condition of natural 

resources. Wherever possible, we used quantitative data and established thresholds, but in some 

cases only qualitative measures were available to rate important categories. Rather than remove 

these categories all together, we simply report on the type of data that was available and the 

methods used to compare these data to a desired condition. In all cases, straightforward tables, 

charts, maps, and geospatial data are provided to summarize findings.

Publisher’s Note: Some or all of the work done for this project preceded the revised guidance 

issued for this project series in 2009/2010. See Prologue (p. xxvii) for more information. 

3

2.0 Park and Resources 

2.1 Bio-geographic and Physical Setting

2.1.1 Park Location and Size

Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs are located in the Coastal Plain of northeastern 

Florida in St. Johns County (Figure 1). Castillo de San Marcos NM is within the city of St. 

Augustine and comprises about 20 acres along Matanzas Bay. Fort Matanzas NM is 14 miles 

south of St. Augustine on Anastasia and Rattlesnake Islands (Figure 1). Fort Matanzas is 

approximately 298 acres, the larger of the two monuments under joint management. The

headquarters for both park units are located at Castillo de San Marcos NM in St. Augustine 

(National Park Service 2007b, 2008b). 

2.1.2 Park Plans and Objectives

The purpose of Castillo de San Marcos is to preserve and protect the fortress and related cultural 

resources as described in the Historic Resources Study of March 1997, and to interpret their 

architectural, political, military, and social history. The monument’s mission is to preserve and 

protect the oldest masonry fortification in the continental United States and its related cultural 

resources, and to foster public understanding of their historical, military, and architectural 

significance (National Park Service 2007b). 

Fort Matanzas NM is in the process of completing a new General Management Plan (GMP). 

During this process, newsletters are released to the public and public meetings aid managers in 

the development of the plan. According to the August 2007 GMP Newsletter (National Park 

Service 2007c), the purpose of Fort Matanzas National Monument is: 

- To preserve the masonry tower and its associated cultural landscapes and archeological 

resources.

- To provide an accurate historical perspective of what military life was like in Florida as it 

existed at this isolated outpost. 

- To manage and care for all resources within the park for the benefit of future generations 

through a comprehensive program of preservation, interpretation, and education. 

- To permit recreational opportunities on Rattlesnake Island and Anastasia Island that do 

not impair park resources. 
4

Figure 1. Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments are located on the east 

coast of northern Florida. 
5

2.1.3 Climate

The climate of the St. Augustine region of the Florida Coastal Plain is temperate, semitropical 

with hot, humid summers and mild winters. The average annual temperature of the area is 70.0 

degrees Fahrenheit (°F), with a mean maximum temperature of 79.2 °F and mean minimum 

temperature of 60.9 °F (The Southeast Regional Climate Center 2008). The coolest month on 

average is January, at 56.7 °F and the warmest month is July, at 81.5 °F. Lowest and highest 

recorded temperatures were 10 °F in 1985 and 103 °F in 1986. The wettest month has 

historically been September with an average of 7.64 inches (The Southeast Regional Climate 

Center 2008). Major storms are somewhat of a concern as this area is brushed or hit by a tropical 

system every 3.63 years (Hurricane City 2008). 

2.1.4 Geology, Landforms, and Soils

The Coastal Plain region in northeastern Florida is composed of undeformed sedimentary rock 

layers whose ages range from the Late Cretaceous to the present Holocene sediments of the 

coast. Florida and southern Georgia were not part of the same geologic platform as the Coastal 

Plain from Central Georgia and further north. Ordovician to Devonian sedimentary "basement

rocks” occur more than 3,500 feet beneath the Coastal Plain sediments in northeast Florida (Lane 

1994). During all of Late Cretaceous and early Paleogene time, Florida looked much like the 

Grand Bahama Bank does today: a marine platform mostly covered by shallow seas with 

scattered small, low islands. The sediments that accumulated in those shallow waters formed the 

carbonate deposits that underlie much of Florida (Frazier 2007). Starting in Miocene times, the 

Appalachian Mountains were uplifted and eroding sediments began to cover the carbonate rocks 

below. Periodic high sea levels during the Pleistocene allowed strong longshore currents to carry 

thick accumulations of sandy marine sediment south to cover Florida’s carbonate platform (Lane 

1994). In addition to recent alluvium, organic and marine deposits make up some of the most 

recent sediment found in the Coastal Plain (UGA Department of Geology 2008). Humandredged and deposited sediments are abundant along the coastlines. Specifically, the region near 

Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs is a Holocene-aged deposit of organic, marine, 

and human-altered origin.

Castillo de San Marcos NM is primarily an urban-based park with little natural vegetation. The 

main grounds are a rolling grassy area with a few trees (National Park Service 2007b). 

Maintenance of grounds includes regular mowing, trimming, fertilizing, and removal of invasive 

species and storm damaged vegetation. There are no naturally occurring ecosystems since the 

area has been highly altered by human activity (National Park Service 2007b). Based on a 

classification that is explained further in 3.1.1 Landscape Dynamics section, we found developed 

open space to be 12.2 acres. The only natural vegetation class at Castillo de San Marcos NM is 

mixed forest at 1.5 acres.

The majority of Fort Matanzas NM acreage is in evergreen forest, while wetlands compose a 

close second of the land area. The GMP Newsletter (National Park Service 2007c) states that the 

monument contains dunes, marsh, and maritime forest that are nearly undisturbed. We found a 

total of 121 acres of evergreen forest and 72 acres of wetlands.
6

According to Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) from the USDA Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (2006b), Castillo de San Marcos NM is composed primarily of St. 

Augustine-Urban land complex. There is a miniscule (<0.01%) section of Pellicer silty clay 

loam, frequently flooded that falls within the monument boundary. Fort Matanzas NM is 

composed of St. Augustine fine sand, clayey substratum (25.7%); Pellicer silty clay loam, 

frequently flooded (15.8%); Fripp-Satellite complex (13.0%); Satellite fine sand (12.7%); 

Moultrie fine sand, frequently flooded (12.5%); and Beaches (8.6%) (National Park Service 

2006b). Additional information on these soils can be found in 3.5.1 Geology and Soils section. 

2.1.5 Surface Water and Wetlands

Castillo de San Marcos NM is located just south of the St. Augustine inlet on the Matanzas 

River. The Matanzas River is a part of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AICW) and is 

actually a saltwater estuary about 20 miles in length and flows about eight miles past the 

Matanzas inlet. Fort Matanzas NM lies on the southern tip of Anastasia Island on the Matanzas 

inlet and the northern third of Rattlesnake Island. The two islands that compose Fort Matanzas 

NM are separated by the Matanzas River (AICW, Figure 2). The Matanzas River is home to 

extensive salt marshes, estuarine lagoons, oyster bars, mangrove tidal wetlands, and marine 

environments (National Park Service 2007b). These communities not only support a wide range 

of aquatic plants and animals but are of great aesthetic importance. All of Castillo de San Marcos 

and Fort Matanzas NMs and these surrounding waterways are in the Daytona-St. Augustine, 

Florida subbasin, hydrologic unit code (HUC) 03080201. 
7

Figure 2. Water resources and hydrologic unit boundary at Castillo de San Marcos and Fort 

Matanzas National Monuments. 
8

As mentioned previously, we found 72 acres of wetlands within the Fort Matanzas NM 

boundary. These wetlands are important globally and support a myriad of aquatic plants and 

animals. As development along the coast and threats of rising sea level from climate change 

continues, importance will be placed on maintaining wetlands. 

2.2 Regional and Historic Context

2.2.1 Regional History and Land Use

The region surrounding Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NM has a rich history 

stretching back to Native American occupation and early European colonization. Juan Ponce de 

León laid claim to North America for the Spanish in 1513 when he discovered Florida. Several 

failed attempts at colonizing led the Spanish King, Philip II, to put a moratorium on colonization 

of Florida in 1561. When the French began their own colonization effort, Pedro Menéndez de

Avilés was sent to reestablish Spanish claims to this area. He succeeded and St. Augustine 

became the oldest permanent European settlement in the continental United States, founded in 

1565 by the Spanish. England took control of Florida and St. Augustine in 1763, but the Spanish 

won the area back in 1784. Then in 1821 Spain gave ownership of Florida to the United States, 

making it an American territory (National Park Service 1997, 2007b). 

The total population for year 2000 in the St. Augustine subdivision of St. Johns County was 

59,415, while the 1990 total was 49,229. More recent data for St. Augustine was not available, so 

we looked at the Jacksonville, Florida Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). The 2007 population 

estimate for the Jacksonville, Florida MSA was 1.3 million people, ranking 40th out of 363 

MSAs nationwide (U.S. Census Bureau 2009c). St. Johns County grew from 83,829 to 175,446 

individuals between 1990 and 2007, a 109% increase. The U.S. Census Bureau (2009a) reported 

an even higher population increase in nearby Flagler County of 208%, from 28,701 in 1990 to 

49,832 in 2007. 

The Northern Coastal Basin Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan (Haydt and 

Frazel Inc. 2003) reports that the basin is approximately 23% residential, commercial, and 

industrial lands. Wetlands, wetland forest, and open water cover more than 29% of the area; 

upland forest, agriculture, and open/range lands comprise more than 41%; and open water covers 

nearly 7%. Increases have been noted in coastal residential development in St. Augustine and St. 

Augustine Beach. Traditionally, the western edge of the Tolomato/Matanzas River planning unit 

has been used for agriculture and silviculture. Commercial shellfishing has also been a traditional 

use of resources in northern St. Johns County. Urban areas are expanding in these regions at an 

increasing rate (Haydt and Frazel Inc. 2003). 

2.2.2 Site History

The Spanish built the Castillo de San Marcos between 1672 and 1695 to guard the colonial town 

to St. Augustine and insure the safety of sea routes for ships departing to Spain. This fort is the 

oldest in-tact European fortification in the continental United States. When England took control 

of Florida in 1763, the fort was under control of the British for 21 years, but the Castillo was 
9

never taken by military force. In 1784, the fort was back under Spanish control until the United 

States purchased Florida in 1821. The fort was then known as Fort Marion, after General Francis 

Marion, of the American Revolutionary War. Both the Confederate forces (January 1861 to 

March 1862) and United Sates occupied Fort Marion during the Civil War. In the late 19th

century, Fort Marion was used as a prison for Native Americans in the Cheyenne, Kiowa, 

Camanche, Caddo, and Arapaho tribes (National Park Service 2007b). 

Fort Marion became a National Monument on October 15, 1924 and, like many of the forts 

during this time, was run the War Department. The National Park Service took over on June 10, 

1933, and Congress changed the name to Castillo de San Marcos National Monument on June 5, 

1942, bringing the fort full circle back to its historical name (National Park Service 2007b). 

In the mean time, Fort Matanzas, a smaller and more remote fort situated 14 miles south of the 

Castillo, was also making history doing its part to protect the Matanzas River Inlet, the back door 

to St. Augustine. Fort Matanzas construction began soon after 1740, when the British blockaded 

the St. Augustine Inlet for 39 days and the importance of maintaining the Matanzas Inlet was 

realized by the Spanish. The fort was near completion in 1742 when 12 British ships were driven 

off by cannon fire from Fort Matanzas. Fort Matanzas also became a National Monument on 

October 15, 1924, was originally administered by the War Department, and was transferred to

the National Park Service in 1933 (National Park Service 2007c). 

2.3 Unique and Significant Park Resources and Designations

2.3.1 Unique Resources

There are several significant historical park resources at Castillo de San Marcos NM. The 

monument stands as a reminder of the battle of European powers for control of North America. 

Its design and historic structures preserve the architecture of that time-period. As mentioned 

previously, the fortification is the oldest of its type in the continental United States. It has a long 

history of occupation and was in use by Spain, England, the Confederate States of America, and 

the United States for parts of its history. In addition, it marks a period in US history when Native 

Americans were forced from their homelands since it was used as a prison for many prominent 

tribal leaders during this time (National Park Service 2007b). There are no unique resources of 

natural resource significance present at Castillo de San Marcos. 

There are also several significant historical park resources at Fort Matanzas NM. These were 

outlined in the General Management Plan Newsletter (National Park Service 2007c) and include: 

- The fort is the only example of a fortified watchtower of Spanish architecture in the 

continental United States.

- The fort is a completely intact component of the St. Augustine defense system 

constructed by the Spanish. 

- The site commemorates the slaughter of over 200 French Huguenot soldiers by Spanish 

soldiers in 1565 – an event which marked the beginning of 235 years of Spanish 

dominance in Florida. 

- The location provides a rare opportunity for visitors to experience an historic setting as it 

might have appeared hundreds of years ago. 
10

Fort Matanzas NM also protects 298 acres of dunes, marsh, and maritime forest within a nearly 

undisturbed barrier island system. This monument is part of the Guana Tolomato Matanzas 

National Estuarine Research Reserve (GTM NERR). This reserve contains approximately 55,000 

acres of county, state, and federal lands, providing protection for salt marsh and mangrove tidal 

wetlands, oyster bars, estuarine lagoons, upland habitat, and offshore seas (NOAA 2009). 

2.3.2 Special Designations

Castillo de San Marcos NM has no special natural resource designations, however it was placed 

on the National Register of Historic Places in 1966 (National Park Service 1997). Ten structures 

within Castillo de San Marcos are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Fort 

Matanzas NM is also listed on the National Register of Historic Places (2009). As mentioned 

previously, Fort Matanzas NM is part of the Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine 

Research Reserve (NOAA 2009). 
11 

3.0 Condition Assessment (Interdisciplinary Synthesis) 

The National Park Service (NPS) monitors the condition of their natural resources using an 

ecological monitoring framework that has been widely used among other agencies (Fancy et al. 

2008). There are six basic level 1 categories: 1) air and climate; 2) geology and soils; 3) water; 4) 

biological integrity; 5) human use; and 6) ecosystem pattern and process. This framework is 

based on earlier work including the Environmental Protection Agency’s ecological condition 

framework that uses similar essential ecological attributes as their upper-level categories (Young 

and Sanzone 2002). We found the NPS categories to be uncomplicated and intuitive. This 

framework is also familiar to NPS personnel and will allow the users to compare current vital 

sign monitoring plans to this assessment. We have, however, reorganized the NPS framework to 

go from small-scale (broad) to large-scale (detailed) analysis, beginning with a primary threat 

and stressor, ecosystem pattern and process (landscapes). 

Throughout this assessment, several data under each natural resource category are given a 

condition status score. Some of these scores are based on predesigned systems, but all have been 

cross referenced to a good, fair, poor scoring system (Table 1).

Table 1. Condition status scoring system for Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National 

Monuments Natural Resource Assessment.

Score Range Midpoint

Good 0.67 - 1.00 0.84 

Fair 0.34 - 0.66 0.5 

Poor 0.00 - 0.33 0.17 

In addition, we provide a data quality rating based on three categories, thematic, spatial, and 

temporal. We gave thematic a 1 or 0 (yes or no) based on whether these data were from the best 

available source. Spatial received a 1 or 0 based on the spatial proximity of these data (park data 

or out of park data). We also gave temporal a 1 or 0 based on how recent these data were 

acquired. Temporal was somewhat dependent on data type, but generally, if the data were from 

the last 5 years, they received a 1. A sample is shown in Table 2. These tables are combined and 

an overall condition status is reported in the conclusion of this document. The user can also 

access these scores in the provided spreadsheet to view calculations, update data, and modify 

importance ratings as management goals change.
12 

Table 2. Example condition status table. Data quality was rated based on thematic (1 = best 

source; 0 = not the best source), spatial (1 = inside park boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), 

and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = older than 5 years). The colors green, yellow, and red refer to 

good, fair, and poor scores respectively (see Table 1).

Category Condition 

Status

Data Quality

Thematic Spatial Temporal

Condition Group A 1 0 0

Good 1 out of 3

Condition Group B 1 1 0

Fair 2 out of 3

Condition Group C 1 1 1

Poor 3 out of 3

3.1 Ecosystem Pattern and Process

3.1.1 Landscape Dynamics

Managing the entire landscape as opposed to individual species or community types is a 

recommended step to maintain ecosystem health. With that in mind, the landscape as a whole 

was considered at Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs. Ecosystems do not often 

function within the small political boundaries in which regulating bodies are constrained. 

Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs are relatively small monuments, so we chose to 

first look at the monuments within their watershed context and then examine the finer-scale park 

properties. 

3.1.1.a Current condition: 

Study area:

The broad study area that we chose was based on the National Hydrologic Data (NHD) and 

includes Daytona-St. Augustine, Florida subbasin, hydrologic unit code (HUC) 03080201. The 

NHD geospatial layers do not further delineate this subbasin into specific watersheds. This study 

area covers coastal areas of St. Johns, Flagler, and Volusia Counties, Florida (Figure 3).
13 

Figure 3. The subbasin study area examined for the Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas 

National Monuments Natural Resource Assessment.

Land cover:

When looking at land cover, there are several possible data sources that could be used. We chose 

the newest, most complete and detailed classification from the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP). These data 

are part of the overall National Land Cover Dataset, but are more detailed around the coastal 

regions (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2008a). We examined these data in 

the overall subbasin study area outlined above and within the Castillo de San Marcos and Fort 

Matanzas NM boundaries. Because the monuments contain a relatively small area, the spatial 

resolution of C-CAP for analysis within the park boundary was questionable. Consequently, we 

(Conservation Management Institute at Virginia Tech, CMI) also performed a more detailed 

classification using heads-up digitizing over 2004 digital orthophotos from the St. Johns River 

Water Management District (2004). This delineation was performed at a minimum 1:10,000 

scale and polygons were attributed using photointerpretation and the C-CAP classification 

schema. More detailed spatial data preparation methods can be found in Appendix A: Land cover 

calculation methods.
14 

The total land area within the subbasin study area is approximately 697,000 acres. Of this total 

acreage, 15.7% or 109,517 acres is Evergreen Forest. This is the highest represented class (after 

water) for the subbasin study area as well as Fort Matanzas NM (at 40.6% or 121.0 acres in the 

CMI classification, Table 4, Figure 4). Castillo de San Marcos NM is an urban-centered park, 

and its highest land cover class reflects that (Table 3, Figure 4). Developed Open Space is 12.2 

acres or 60.7% of the detailed CMI classification for Castillo de San Marcos NM. The only 

natural vegetation class at Castillo de San Marcos NM is Mixed Forest at 1.5 acres or 7.5%. The 

subbasin study area is composed of only 0.3% Mixed Forest. 

Table 3. Land cover (from CMI classification and 2001 NOAA C-CAP) totals and percent of 

total within Castillo de San Marcos National Monument (CASA) boundary and in the subbasin 

study area containing CASA. “CASA Acres (CMI)” are the number of acres of each cover type 

within CASA as delineated by the Conservation Management Institute at Virginia Tech (CMI). 

“CASA Acres (NOAA)” are the number of acres of each cover type within CASA as classified 

by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA 2008a) Coastal Change 

Analysis Program (C-CAP). “Study Area Acres” are the number of acres of each cover type 

within the subbasin study area as classified by the NOAA. In each case, “%” refers to the percent 

of the total acreage of CASA or the subbasin study area.

Land Cover Classification

CASA 

Acres 

(CMI)

CASA % 

(CMI)

CASA 

Acres 

(NOAA)

CASA % 

(NOAA)

Study 

Area 

Acres

Study 

Area %

Developed Open Space 12.2 60.7 7.1 35.6 32643 4.7

Medium Intensity Developed 5.7 28.5 3.6 17.8 10774 1.5

Mixed Forest 1.5 7.5 0.0 0.0 2103 0.3

Bare Land 0.4 1.9 1.1 5.6 6804 1.0

Low Intensity Developed 0.2 1.0 7.1 35.6 56688 8.1

Unconsolidated Shore 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 4128 0.6

High Intensity Developed 0.0 0.0 0.7 3.3 4067 0.6

Scrub/Shrub 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.1 35046 5.0

Pasture/Hay 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.1 6685 1.0

Water 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 260989 37.5

Evergreen Forest 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 109517 15.7

Palustrine Forested Wetland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 63460 9.1

Palustrine Scrub/Shrub Wetland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35659 5.1

Palustrine Emergent Wetland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29841 4.3

Estuarine Emergent Wetland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22732 3.3

Grassland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12879 1.8

Estuarine Scrub/Shrub Wetland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1269 0.2

Cultivated 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 759 0.1

Deciduous Forest 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 498 0.1

Estuarine Forested Wetland 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 112 0.0
15 

Table 4. Land cover (from CMI classification and 2001 NOAA C-CAP) totals and percent of 

total within Fort Matanzas National Monument (FOMA) boundary and in the subbasin study 

area containing FOMA. “FOMA Acres (CMI)” are the number of acres of each cover type within 

FOMA as delineated by the Conservation Management Institute at Virginia Tech (CMI). 

“FOMA Acres (NOAA)” are the number of acres of each cover type within FOMA as classified 

by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA 2008a) Coastal Change 

Analysis Program (C-CAP). “Study Area Acres” are the number of acres of each cover type 

within the subbasin study area as classified by the NOAA. In each case, “%” refers to the percent 

of the total acreage of FOMA or the subbasin study area.

Land Cover Classification

FOMA 

Acres 

(CMI)

FOMA % 

(CMI)

FOMA 

Acres 

(NOAA)

FOMA % 

(NOAA)

Study 

Area 

Acres

Study 

Area %

Evergreen Forest 121.0 40.6 38.0 12.7 109517 15.7

Estuarine Emergent Wetland 44.2 14.8 49.6 16.6 22732 3.3

Water 42.0 14.1 41.4 13.8 260989 37.5

Unconsolidated Shore 25.5 8.6 11.8 3.9 4128 0.6

Estuarine Scrub/Shrub Wetland 17.2 5.8 0.0 0.0 1269 0.2

Scrub/Shrub 14.9 5.0 25.1 8.4 35046 5.0

Bare Land 13.8 4.6 54.9 18.3 6804 1.0

Palustrine Emergent Wetland 10.5 3.5 11.3 3.8 29841 4.3

Grassland 4.1 1.4 5.1 1.7 12879 1.8

Low Intensity Developed 3.0 1.0 12.9 4.3 56688 8.1

Developed Open Space 1.1 0.4 0.7 0.2 32643 4.7

Medium Intensity Developed 0.6 0.2 9.3 3.1 10774 1.5

Palustrine Forested Wetland 0.0 0.0 25.4 8.5 63460 9.1

Palustrine Scrub/Shrub Wetland 0.0 0.0 6.7 2.2 35659 5.1

High Intensity Developed 0.0 0.0 3.6 1.2 4067 0.6

Estuarine Forested Wetland 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.8 112 0.0

Mixed Forest 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.3 2103 0.3

Deciduous Forest 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 498 0.1

Pasture/Hay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6685 1.0

Cultivated 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 759 0.1

We also compared the cover type percentages with other protected areas in the subbasin study 

area (Table 5, Table 6). These acreages and percentages show that Castillo de San Marcos NM is 

protecting a minor amount of the Mixed Forest within the protected areas in the subbasin; but a 

high percentage (7.5%) or relative make-up compared to the other protected areas (0.4%, Table 

5). Fort Matanzas NM is also protecting a minor amount of the Evergreen Forest and Estuarine 

Emergent Wetland within the protected areas. However, Fort Matanzas NM is protecting a 

greater relative make-up of Evergreen Forest (40.6%) as compared to other protected land in the 

study area (21.1%). Fort Matanzas NM is also protecting Estuarine Emergent Wetland at a 

higher relative make-up (14.8%) as compared to the subbasin protected lands (9.8%, Table 6). 

There is a long list of conservation areas within the subbasin study area that we included in this 

examination (Table 7). Chief among them is a group of protected areas that compose the Guana 

Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve (GTM NERR). Fort Matanzas NM
16 

along with 11 other county and state properties are part of this approximately 55,000 acre 

collection of protected lands (NOAA 2009). 

When all wetland types are combined, Fort Matanzas NM holds a marginal 0.15% (71.9 acres) of 

the total protected wetlands. However, we must take into consideration the small size of this 

monument and the relative make-up of natural vegetation communities within the monument. In 

addition, this monument is part of a large contiguous network of conservation lands which 

provide protection for salt marsh and mangrove tidal wetlands, oyster bars, estuarine lagoons, 

upland habitat and offshore seas (NOAA 2009). 

There is an additional 106,298 acres of wetlands in the study area that are not owned and under 

direct protection by a conservation organization. These areas are under development pressure 

and permits can be acquired to alter these wetlands. With that in mind, Fort Matanzas NM and 

other conservation areas may play a larger role in the protection of Florida coastal natural areas 

as population and development pressures increase. 
17 

Table 5. Comparison of cover types (from CMI classification and 2001 NOAA C-CAP) within 

Castillo de San Marcos National Monument boundary, subbasin study area, and other protected

areas within the subbasin. “CASA Acres (CMI)” are the number of acres of each cover type 

within CASA as delineated by the Conservation Management Institute at Virginia Tech (CMI). 

“Study Area Acres” are the number of acres of each cover type within the subbasin study area as 

classified by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA 2008a) Coastal 

Change Analysis Program (C-CAP). “Conservation Acres (NOAA)” are the number of acres of 

each cover type within conservation areas in the study area as classified by the NOAA. In each 

case, “%” refers to the percent of the total acreage of either CASA, study area, or conservation 

areas.

Land Cover Classification

CASA 

Acres 

(CMI)

CASA 

% 

(CMI)

Study 

Area 

Acres

Study 

Area %

Conservation 

Acres (NOAA)

Conservation 

% (NOAA)

Developed Open Space 12.2 60.7 32643 4.7 176.6 0.1

Medium Intensity 

Developed 5.7 28.5 10774 1.5 91.6 0.1 

Mixed Forest 1.5 7.5 2103 0.3 444.1 0.4 

Bare Land 0.4 1.9 6804 1.0 1790.9 1.4 

Low Intensity Developed 0.2 1.0 56688 8.1 625.6 0.5 

Unconsolidated Shore 0.1 0.5 4128 0.6 610.2 0.5 

Water 0.0 0.0 260989 37.5 38032.5 30.0 

Evergreen Forest 0.0 0.0 109517 15.7 26690.4 21.1 

Palustrine Forested Wetland 0.0 0.0 63460 9.1 17771.6 14.0 

Palustrine Scrub/Shrub 

Wetland 0.0 0.0 35659 5.1 5994.3 4.7 

Scrub/Shrub 0.0 0.0 35046 5.0 7664.4 6.1

Palustrine Emergent 

Wetland 0.0 0.0 29841 4.3 10252.6 8.1 

Estuarine Emergent 

Wetland 0.0 0.0 22732 3.3 12370.7 9.8 

Grassland 0.0 0.0 12879 1.8 3383.4 2.7 

Pasture/Hay 0.0 0.0 6685 1.0 223.5 0.2 

High Intensity Developed 0.0 0.0 4067 0.6 22.9 0.0 

Estuarine Scrub/Shrub 

Wetland 0.0 0.0 1269 0.2 324.0 0.3 

Cultivated 0.0 0.0 759 0.1 58.7 0.0

Deciduous Forest 0.0 0.0 498 0.1 76.9 0.1

Estuarine Forested Wetland 0.0 0.0 112 0.0 62.3 0.0

Total 20.0 100.0 696653 100.0 126667.3 100.0
18 

Table 6. Comparison of cover types (from CMI classification and 2001 NOAA C-CAP) within 

Fort Matanzas National Monument boundary, subbasin study area, and other protected areas 

within the subbasin. “FOMA Acres (CMI)” are the number of acres of each cover type within 

FOMA as delineated by the Conservation Management Institute at Virginia Tech (CMI). “Study 

Area Acres” are the number of acres of each cover type within the subbasin study area as 

classified by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA 2008a) Coastal 

Change Analysis Program (C-CAP). “Conservation Acres (NOAA)” are the number of acres of 

each cover type within conservation areas in the study area as classified by the NOAA. In each 

case, “%” refers to the percent of the total acreage of either FOMA, study area, or conservation 

areas.

Land Cover Classification

FOMA 

Acres 

(CMI)

FOMA 

% 

(CMI)

Study 

Area 

Acres

Study 

Area %

Conservation 

Acres (NOAA)

Conservation 

% (NOAA)

Evergreen Forest 121.0 40.6 109517 15.7 26690.4 21.1

Estuarine Emergent 

Wetland 44.2 14.8 22732 3.3 12370.7 9.8 

Water 42.0 14.1 260989 37.5 38032.5 30.0 

Unconsolidated Shore 25.5 8.6 4128 0.6 610.2 0.5 

Estuarine Scrub/Shrub 

Wetland 17.2 5.8 1269 0.2 324.0 0.3 

Scrub/Shrub 14.9 5.0 35046 5.0 7664.4 6.1

Bare Land 13.8 4.6 6804 1.0 1790.9 1.4

Palustrine Emergent 

Wetland 10.5 3.5 29841 4.3 10252.6 8.1 

Grassland 4.1 1.4 12879 1.8 3383.4 2.7

Low Intensity Developed 3.0 1.0 56688 8.1 625.6 0.5

Developed Open Space 1.1 0.4 32643 4.7 176.6 0.1

Medium Intensity 

Developed 0.6 0.2 10774 1.5 91.6 0.1 

Palustrine Forested Wetland 0.0 0.0 63460 9.1 17771.6 14.0 

Palustrine Scrub/Shrub 

Wetland 0.0 0.0 35659 5.1 5994.3 4.7 

Pasture/Hay 0.0 0.0 6685 1.0 223.5 0.2

High Intensity Developed 0.0 0.0 4067 0.6 22.9 0.0

Mixed Forest 0.0 0.0 2103 0.3 444.1 0.4

Cultivated 0.0 0.0 759 0.1 58.7 0.0

Deciduous Forest 0.0 0.0 498 0.1 76.9 0.1

Estuarine Forested Wetland 0.0 0.0 112 0.0 62.3 0.0

Total 297.9 100.0 696653 100.0 126667.3 100.0
19 

Table 7. Protected areas surrounding Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National 

Monuments, within the subbasin study area. 

Protected Area Management Primary Owner Acres

Addison Blockhouse Historic State Park FL Dept. of Environmental 

Protection, Div. of Rec and Parks 

Trustees of the Internal 

Improvement Trust Fund

6

Anastasia State Park FL Dept. of Environmental 

Protection, Div. of Rec and Parks

Trustees of the Internal 

Improvement Trust Fund

1644

Betty Steflik Memorial Preserve Flagler County Flagler County 321

Bings Landing Flagler County Flagler County 12

Bulow Creek State Park FL Dept. of Environmental 

Protection, Div. of Rec and Parks

Trustees of the Internal 

Improvement Trust Fund

5528

Bulow Plantation Ruins Historic State 

Park

FL Dept. of Environmental 

Protection, Div. of Rec and Parks

Trustees of the Internal 

Improvement Trust Fund

151

Canopy Shores Park St. Johns County St. Johns County 37

*Deep Creek State Forest (GTM NERR) FL Dept. Agriculture and 

Consumer Services, Div. of 

Forestry

Trustees of the Internal 

Improvement Trust Fund

380

Doris Leeper Spruce Creek Preserve Volusia County Trustees of the Internal 

Improvement Trust Fund

2263

*Faver-Dykes State Park (GTM NERR) FL Dept. of Environmental 

Protection, Div. of Rec and Parks

Trustees of the Internal 

Improvement Trust Fund

6046

Fort Mose Historic State Park FL Dept. of Environmental 

Protection, Div. of Recreation 

and Parks

Trustees of the Internal 

Improvement Trust Fund

41

Gamble Place City of Port Orange City of Daytona Museum 

of Arts and Sciences

144

Gamble Rogers Memorial State 

Recreation Area at Flagler Beach

FL Dept. of Environmental 

Protection, Div. of Rec and Parks

Trustees of the Internal 

Improvement Trust Fund

134

Graham Swamp Conservation Area Flagler County St. Johns River Water

Management District

3199

*GTMNERR - Guana River Site (GTM 

NERR)

FL Dept. of Environmental 

Protection, Office of Coastal and 

Aquatic Managed Areas

Trustees of the Internal 

Improvement Trust Fund

2649

Guana River Marsh Sanctuary Florida Audubon Society, Inc. Florida Audubon 

Society, Inc.

6

*Guana River Wildlife Management 

Area (GTM NERR)

FL Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission

Trustees of the Internal 

Improvement Trust Fund

9815

*Guana Tolomato Matanzas National 

Estuarine Research Reserve (GTM 

NERR)

FL Dept. of Environmental 

Protection, Office of Coastal and 

Aquatic Managed Areas

Trustees of the Internal 

Improvement Trust Fund

64487

Hand Avenue Mitigation Volusia County Volusia County 65

Herschel King Senior Park Flagler County Flagler County 20

Larson Tract St. Johns County Trustees of the Internal 

Improvement Trust Fund

14

Lehigh Greenway Flagler County Trustees of the Internal 

Improvement Trust Fund

191

Lighthouse Point Park Volusia County Trustees of the Internal 

Improvement Trust Fund

55

Longleaf Pine Preserve Volusia County Volusia County 12286
20 

Protected Area Management Primary Owner Acres

Mandel Parcel US Dept. of the Interior, National 

Park Service

Trustees of the Internal 

Improvement Trust Fund

1

Margaret Buschman Parcel St. Johns River Water 

Management District

St. Johns River Water 

Management District

23

Matanzas State Forest FL Dept. Agriculture and 

Consumer Services, Div. of 

Forestry

Trustees of the Internal 

Improvement Trust Fund

4700

Mercer Conservation Easement US Dept. of the Interior, National 

Park Service

Private Individual(s) 7

*Moses Creek Conservation Area (GTM 

NERR)

St. Johns River Water 

Management District

St. Johns River Water 

Management District

2173

New Smyrna Sugar Mill Ruins Historic 

Site

Volusia County Trustees of the Internal 

Improvement Trust Fund

17

North Peninsula State Park FL Dept. of Environmental 

Protection, Div. of Rec and Parks

Trustees of the Internal 

Improvement Trust Fund

564

*Pellicer Creek Corridor Conservation 

Area (GTM NERR)

St. Johns River Water 

Management District

St. Johns River Water 

Management District

3163

Ponce Preserve Town of Ponce Inlet Town of Ponce Inlet 82

Port Orange City Forest City of Port Orange City of Port Orange 8642

*Princess Place Preserve (GTM NERR) Flagler County Flagler County 1503

*River to Sea Preserve at Marineland 

(GTM NERR)

Flagler County Flagler County 85

*Roberts Property (GTM NERR) FL Dept. of Environmental 

Protection, Office of Coastal and 

Aquatic Managed Areas

Trustees of the Internal 

Improvement Trust Fund

186

Southeast Intracoastal Waterway Park St. Johns County St. Johns County 114

Spruce Creek Park Volusia County Volusia County 21

*Stokes Landing Conservation Area 

(GTM NERR)

St. Johns River Water 

Management District

St. Johns River Water 

Management District

286

Three Chimneys Ormond Beach Historical Trust 

Inc.

Trustees of the Internal 

Improvement Trust Fund

8

Tiger Bay State Forest FL Dept. Agriculture and 

Consumer Services, Div. of 

Forestry

Trustees of the Internal 

Improvement Trust Fund

27396

Tocoi Junction Conservation Area St. Johns County St. Johns County 19

Tomoka State Park FL Dept. of Environmental 

Protection, Div. of Recreation 

and Parks

Trustees of the Internal 

Improvement Trust Fund

1620

Twelve Mile Swamp Conservation Area St. Johns River Water 

Management District

St. Johns River Water 

Management District

20711

Vaill Point Park St. Johns County St. Johns County 24

Varn Park Flagler County Flagler County 8

*Washington Oaks Gardens State Park 

(GTM NERR)

FL Dept. of Environmental 

Protection, Div. of Rec and Parks

Trustees of the Internal 

Improvement Trust Fund

426

Wiregrass Prairie Preserve Volusia County Volusia County 1433

*Property is part of the Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve (GTM NERR)
21 

Vegetation: 

In addition, we reclassified and examined the land cover data to quantify “natural vegetation,” 

“semi-natural vegetation,” and “unnatural vegetation” within the subbasin study area and within 

the monument boundaries (Appendix A). Castillo de San Marcos NM is composed of 62.1% 

“semi-natural vegetation,” 30.2% “unnatural vegetation,” and a marginal 7.6% “natural 

vegetation” (Table 8, Figure 5). This is in stark contrast to the subbasin study area, where 

“natural vegetation” dominates the landscape at 73.7%. As mentioned before, Castillo de San 

Marcos is a chiefly urban-centered park so this difference is not surprising. On the other hand, 

“natural vegetation” dominates the relative land area of Fort Matanzas NM (Table 8, Figure 5). 

Only 1.6% of this monument is in “unnatural vegetation,” while its subbasin study area is

composed of 16.8% “unnatural vegetation.” 

Table 8. Comparison of natural, semi-natural, and unnatural vegetation (reclassified from CMI 

classification and 2001 NOAA C-CAP) at Castillo de San Marcos National Monument, Fort 

Matanzas National Monument, and in the subbasin study area. “CASA Acres” and “FOMA 

Acres” are the number of acres of each vegetation type within CASA or FOMA as delineated by 

the Conservation Management Institute at Virginia Tech (CMI). “Study Area Acres” are the 

number of acres of each vegetation type within the subbasin study area as classified by the 

NOAA. In each case, “%” refers to the percent of the total acreage of either CASA, FOMA, or 

the subbasin study area. 

Vegetation Classification

CASA 

Acres

CASA 

%

FOMA 

Acres

FOMA 

%

Study Area 

Acres

Study 

Area %

Natural Vegetation 1.5 7.6 212.0 97.8 313115.6 73.7 

Semi-natural Vegetation 12.2 62.1 1.1 0.5 40086.9 9.4 

Unnatural Vegetation 5.9 30.2 3.6 1.6 71529.5 16.8 
22 

Figure 4. Land cover (from CMI classification in detailed insets and 2001 NOAA C-CAP) at 

Castillo de San Marcos NM, Fort Matanzas NM, and in the subbasin study area. 
23 

Figure 5. Vegetation reclass (from CMI classification in detailed insets and 2001 NOAA C-CAP) 

for Castillo de San Marcos NM, Fort Matanzas NM, and in the subbasin study area. 
24 

3.1.1.b Resource threats and stressors: 

Threats and stressors to landscape dynamics are plentiful and often serve as primary threats to 

other natural resource categories examined in this assessment. Several were mentioned in the 

previous condition status and all are related. They include human population growth, 

unstructured development, and overutilization of natural resources, all of which often lead to 

habitat fragmentation and wetland loss. 

Land cover changes have been evident throughout the subbasin study area (Table 9). There was 

an 11% increase from 1996 to 2001 in developed areas within the study area. These changes will 

directly impact Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs as even relatively small 

protected natural areas fall under increased pressure to accommodate much of their region’s 

natural processes and biodiversity.

Table 9. Land cover change (from 1996 and 2001 C-CAP) in the subbasin study area containing 

Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. 

Land Cover Classification 

Study Area 

Acres 1996

Study Area 

% 1996

Study Area 

Acres 2001

Study Area 

% 2001

Percent 

Change 

1996 - 2001 

Palustrine Scrub/Shrub Wetland 16581 2.4 35659 5.1 115.06

Grassland 7692 1.1 12879 1.8 67.43

Palustrine Emergent Wetland 20820 3.0 29841 4.3 43.33

Bare Land 4956 0.7 6804 1.0 37.30

Estuarine Forested Wetland 90 0.0 112 0.0 23.89

Pasture/Hay 5646 0.8 6685 1.0 18.39

Developed Open Space 28515 4.1 32643 4.7 14.48

Low Intensity Developed 51279 7.4 56688 8.1 10.55

Medium Intensity Developed 9914 1.4 10774 1.5 8.67

High Intensity Developed 3751 0.5 4067 0.6 8.42

Deciduous Forest 466 0.1 498 0.1 6.97

Cultivated 713 0.1 759 0.1 6.59

Unconsolidated Shore 3895 0.6 4128 0.6 6.00

Mixed Forest 2011 0.3 2103 0.3 4.54

Estuarine Emergent Wetland 22165 3.2 22732 3.3 2.56

Estuarine Scrub/Shrub Wetland 1244 0.2 1269 0.2 1.98

Water 261062 37.5 260989 37.5 -0.03

Scrub/Shrub 36403 5.2 35046 5.0 -3.73

Evergreen Forest 121095 17.4 109517 15.7 -9.56

Palustrine Forested Wetland 98354 14.1 63460 9.1 -35.48

3.1.1.c Critical knowledge or data gaps: 

To assess in-park landscapes, a more comprehensive, detailed-scale map of vegetation 

communities would be an ideal addition to the broader scale land cover on which this analysis 

was primarily based. National Park Service has a service-wide vegetation mapping initiative

(National Park Service 2008e). Current plans will have final maps available for Castillo de San 
25 

Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs in 2012 (Curtis 2008). We could also draw more thorough 

conclusions with more recently acquired data (Table 10). The detailed classification we 

performed used dated imagery, and was done relatively fast, with no fieldwork, verification, or 

accuracy assessment. With that said, it was much more accurate than the NOAA C-CAP 

classification (30 by 30 meter pixel resolution) at the more detailed park scale.

3.1.1.d Condition status summary 

The land cover comparison to subbasin study area condition status for Castillo de San Marcos 

NM is fair because this monument is protecting a smaller percentage of forest cover types than 

the subbasin study area (Table 10). Developed open space and general developed areas compose 

the largest land cover class at Castillo de San Marcos NM. The open space and small tree lots 

offer some benefits. Fort Matanzas NM is good for comparison to the subbasin because the 

monument is protecting a larger relative area of evergreen forest than the subbasin study area. 

This monument is also protecting a large percentage of wetlands (Table 11). Compared to other 

conservation areas, Castillo de San Marco NM is protecting a higher relative make-up of mixed 

forest, but no wetland or evergreen forest (the 2 highest land cover classes in conservation areas), 

so this monument received a fair status for this category (Table 10). On the other hand, Fort 

Matanzas NM is in the good range compared to other conservation areas because it is protecting 

a greater relative area of evergreen forest and estuarine emergent wetland (Table 11). Castillo de 

San Marcos NM is protecting a marginal 7.6% natural vegetation, so it is rated poor for 

comparison to the subbasin study area (Table 10). Natural and semi-natural vegetation make up 

the bulk of the relative land area of Fort Matanzas NM, so vegetation comparison to subbasin 

study area received a good condition status (Table 11).

Table 10. Landscape dynamics condition status summary within Castillo de San Marcos National 

Monument. Data quality was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), 

spatial (1 = inside park boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = 

older than 5 years). The colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor scores 

respectively (see Table 1).

Category Condition 

Status Midpoint Data Quality 

Thematic Spatial Temporal 

Land cover comparison to 

subbasin study area 

 0 1 0 

Fair 0.5 1 out of 3 

Land cover comparison to 

conservation areas

0 1 0 

Fair 0.5 1 out of 3 

Vegetation comparison to 

subbasin study area 

0 1 0 

Poor 0.17 1 out of 3 

Landscape dynamics total 0 3 0 

Fair 0.39 3 out of 9 
26 

Table 11. Landscape dynamics condition status summary within Fort Matanzas National 

Monument. Data quality was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), 

spatial (1 = inside park boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = 

older than 5 years). The colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor scores 

respectively (see Table 1).

Category Condition 

Status Midpoint Data Quality 

Thematic Spatial Temporal 

Land cover comparison to 

subbasin study area 

 0 1 0 

Good 0.84 1 out of 3 

Land cover comparison to 

conservation areas

0 1 0 

Good 0.84 1 out of 3 

Vegetation comparison to 

subbasin study area 

0 1 0 

Good 0.84 1 out of 3 

Landscape dynamics total 0 3 0 

Good 0.84 3 out of 9 

3.1.1.e Recommendations to park managers: 

Landscape scale initiatives take collaboration from all parties involved. Continuing to build on 

partnerships with other conservation organizations and land managers (Table 12) will promote 

broad-scale collaboration efforts.

Table 12. List of protected areas, organizations, and contact information. 

Protected Area Management Phone number

Addison Blockhouse Historic State Park FL Dept. of Environmental Protection, Div. of 

Recreation and Parks

386-676-4075

Anastasia State Park FL Dept. of Environmental Protection, Div. of 

Recreation and Parks

904-461-2000

Betty Steflik Memorial Preserve Flagler County 386-446-7658

Bings Landing Flagler County 386-446-7658

Bulow Creek State Park FL Dept. of Environmental Protection, Div. of 

Recreation and Parks

386-676-4040

Bulow Plantation Ruins Historic State Park FL Dept. of Environmental Protection, Div. of 

Recreation and Parks

386-676-4075

Canopy Shores Park St. Johns County 904-209-0326

*Deep Creek State Forest (GTM NERR) FL Dept. Agriculture and Consumer Services, 

Div. of Forestry

904-825-5082

Doris Leeper Spruce Creek Preserve Volusia County 386-740-5261 

(2092)

*Faver-Dykes State Park (GTM NERR) FL Dept. of Environmental Protection, Div. of 

Recreation and Parks

904-794-0997

Fort Mose Historic State Park FL Dept. of Environmental Protection, Div. of 

Recreation and Parks

904-461-2000

Gamble Place City of Port Orange 386-985-5047

Gamble Rogers Memorial State Recreation 

Area at Flagler Beach

FL Dept. of Environmental Protection, Div. of 

Recreation and Parks

386-517-2086

Graham Swamp Conservation Area Flagler County 386-446-7658

*GTMNERR - Guana River Site (GTM 

NERR)

FL Dept. of Environmental Protection, Office 

of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas

904-823-4500

Guana River Marsh Sanctuary Florida Audubon Society, Inc. 407-539-5700
27 

Protected Area Management Phone number

*Guana River Wildlife Management Area 

(GTM NERR)

FL Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission

904-825-6877

*Guana Tolomato Matanzas National 

Estuarine Research Reserve (GTM NERR)

FL Dept. of Environmental Protection, Office 

of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas

904-823-4500

Hand Avenue Mitigation Volusia County 386-740-5261 

(2092)

Herschel King Senior Park Flagler County 386-313-4185

Larson Tract St. Johns County 904-209-0792

Lehigh Greenway Flagler County 386-437-7474

Lighthouse Point Park Volusia County 386-736-5953

Longleaf Pine Preserve Volusia County 386-740-5261 

(2092)

Mandel Parcel US Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service 904-829-6506 

(221)

Margaret Buschman Parcel St. Johns River Water Management District 386-329-4404

Matanzas State Forest FL Dept. Agriculture and Consumer Services, 

Div. of Forestry

904-824-4564

Mercer Conservation Easement US Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service 904-829-6506 

(221)

*Moses Creek Conservation Area (GTM 

NERR)

St. Johns River Water Management District 904-529-2380

New Smyrna Sugar Mill Ruins Historic Site Volusia County 386-736-5953

North Peninsula State Park FL Dept. of Environmental Protection, Div. of 

Recreation and Parks

386-517-2086

*Pellicer Creek Corridor Conservation Area 

(GTM NERR)

St. Johns River Water Management District 386-329-4883

Ponce Preserve Town of Ponce Inlet 386-322-6711 

(345)

Port Orange City Forest City of Port Orange 386-506-5750

*Princess Place Preserve (GTM NERR) Flagler County 386-446-7658

River to Sea Preserve at Marineland (GTM 

NERR)

Flagler County 386-446-7658

*Roberts Property (GTM NERR) FL Dept. of Environmental Protection, Office 

of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas

904-823-4500

Southeast Intracoastal Waterway Park St. Johns County 904-209-0324

Spruce Creek Park Volusia County 386-736-5953

*Stokes Landing Conservation Area (GTM 

NERR)

St. Johns River Water Management District 904-529-2380

Three Chimneys Ormond Beach Historical Trust Inc. 386-677-7005

Tiger Bay State Forest FL Dept. Agriculture and Consumer Services, 

Div. of Forestry

386-226-0250

Tocoi Junction Conservation Area St. Johns County 904-209-0792

Tomoka State Park FL Dept. of Environmental Protection, Div. of 

Recreation and Parks

386-676-4075

Twelve Mile Swamp Conservation Area St. Johns River Water Management District 904-529-2380

Vaill Point Park St. Johns County 904-209-0326

Varn Park Flagler County 386-313-4185

*Washington Oaks Gardens State Park 

(GTM NERR)

FL Dept. of Environmental Protection, Div. of 

Recreation and Parks

386-446-6780

Wiregrass Prairie Preserve Volusia County 386-740-5261 

(2092)
28 

3.1.2 Fire and Fuel Dynamics

Fire exclusion practices have drastically changed the natural fire processes that took place in 

many ecosystems across the United States (U.S. Geological Survey 2000). Fire is now being 

used more actively in managing natural landscapes such as historical prairies and pine savannahs 

in the Coastal Plain of the Southeastern U.S. (Waldrop et al. 1992, U.S. Geological Survey 

2000). Chinese tallow and other Southeastern invasive exotic species may also be controlled with 

appropriately timed controlled burns (Zouhar et al. 2008). 

3.1.2.a Current condition: 

Despite the Southeastern Coastal Plain having an active fire regime and history, fire has not been 

a major concern at Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NM. There have been 7 fires 

recorded at Castillo de San Marcos NM since 1972 (Table 13). There have been no fires

recorded at Fort Matanzas NM. Due to incomplete data, it is difficult to estimate the size and 

scope of the fires, although the most recent fire incident at Castillo de San Marcos NM covered 

only a fraction of an acre. There have been four fires within 20 miles of Castillo de San Marcos 

and Fort Matanzas NM reported by the Geospatial Multi-Agency Coordination Group (GeoMAC 

2008) since 2000 (Figure 6). 

Table 13. Wildfires reported at Castillo de San Marcos National Monument from 1/1/1972 to 

12/31/2007, at the National Fire and Aviation Management Web Application (National Wildfire 

Coordinating Group 2008). 

WFMI 

ID Fire Name

NPS 

ID Protection Type Date Acres Cause Owner

226660 Wilema 2222 NPS land under NPS 

protection

8/25/1993 N/A N/A NPS

226661 Gnatcatche 2 Support actions by NPS 

resources

6/12/1993 N/A N/A FWS

226662 Squaw Peak 1 Support actions by NPS 

resources

7/30/1994 N/A N/A USFS

226663 Chamberlain 2 Support actions by NPS 

resources

8/7/1994 N/A N/A USFS

226664 Bitter Nez 3 Support actions by NPS 

resources

8/15/1994 N/A N/A USFS

226665 Fomanogo 1 NPS land under NPS 

protection

5/7/1995 N/A N/A NPS

226666 Kaboom 2 NPS land under NPS 

protection

5/20/1995 0.1 Natural NPS
29 

Figure 6. Wildfire sites and the dates they occurred, from 2000 to 2007 (GeoMAC 2008), within 

20 miles of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. 

According to a simulated historical fire severity model (USDA Forest Service 2006), low 

severity fires accounted for a majority of fire occurrences on essentially all of the acreage at 

Castillo de San Marcos NM. Low severity fires accounted for a majority of fire occurrences on 

roughly half of the Rattlesnake Island portion of Fort Matanzas NM (Figure 7). Replacement 

severity fires accounted for a majority of fires on roughly half of Rattlesnake Island and nearly 

all fire occurrences on Anastasia Island (Figure 9). Low severity fires cause less than 25% 

average replacement of dominant biomass, medium severity fires cause between 25 and 75% 

replacement, and replacement severity fires cause greater than 75% average replacement of 

dominant biomass. Castillo de San Marcos NM is rated entirely as urban or agriculture and 

therefore does not have a qualifying fire regime condition class. The majority of the Rattlesnake 

Island portion of Fort Matanzas NM is in the Fire Regime Condition Class II, meaning there is 

moderate departure from historic vegetation, and the majority of the Anastasia Island portion of 

Fort Matanzas NM is in the Fire Regime Condition Class III, meaning there is high departure 

from historic vegetation (Figure 10). These data are intended to be used at a landscape scale 

(USDA Forest Service 2006), so caution should be taken with analysis of these data at a larger, 

more detailed scale within Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NM boundaries. 
30 

Figure 7. Simulated historical percent of low severity fires according to LANDFIRE (USDA 

Forest Service 2006) in the region of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National 

Monuments. 
31 

Figure 8. Simulated historical percent of mixed severity fires according to LANDFIRE (USDA 

Forest Service 2006) in the region of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National 

Monuments. 
32 

Figure 9. Simulated historical percent of replacement severity fires according to LANDFIRE 

(USDA Forest Service 2006) in the region of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National 

Monuments. 
33 

Figure 10. Departure between current vegetation condition and reference vegetation condition 

according to LANDFIRE (USDA Forest Service 2006) in the region of Castillo de San Marcos 

and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. 
34 

3.1.2.b Resource threats and stressors:

Fuel types (Figure 11) and fuel loads are an existing threat and stressor that should be monitored 

at Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs. As dead and dry plant materials build up, the 

risk of more catastrophic fire events increases (U.S. Geological Survey 2000). 

3.1.2.c Critical knowledge or data gaps: 

As mentioned before, there is a data gap since there are no detailed, large-scale vegetation maps 

available for Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs. With a current vegetation map, we 

could more thoroughly assess the role of fire in the vegetation communities. 

3.1.2.d Condition status summary 

Fire and fuel dynamics received a good condition status for both monuments because there were 

very few recorded fires at the monuments or in the region (Table 14). If fires were to occur a 

large portion of both monuments and the region are predicted to be low severity. In addition, the 

majority of Fort Matanzas NM and the surrounding region exhibits moderate departure from 

historic vegetation, placing it in Fire Regime Condition Class II.

Table 14. Fire condition status summary for Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National 

Monuments. Data quality was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), 

spatial (1 = inside park boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = 

older than 5 years). The colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor scores 

respectively (see Table 1).

Category Condition 

Status

Data Quality

Thematic Spatial Temporal

Fire dynamics Total 0 1 1

Good 2 out of 3

3.1.2.e Recommendations to park managers: 

Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NM should continue to record fire occurrence 

information with the National Wildfire Coordinating Group. There have been only seven 

recorded fires, from 1993 to 1995. A formal fire management plan may also be an appropriate 

addition. 

The Wildland Fire Assessment System (USDA Forest Service 2008) has a Fire Danger Rating 

website: http://www.wfas.net/content/view/17/32/ 

A daily observed (current) fire danger class and a forecasted fire danger class can be viewed for 

the United States as well as regional subsets (Figure 12).
35 

Figure 11. Wildfire fuel types according to LANDFIRE (USDA Forest Service 2006) in the 

region of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. 
36 

Figure 12. A recent observed fire danger class map for the United States (USDA Forest Service 

2008). 

3.2 Human Use 

3.2.1 Non-point Source Human Effects

In the region of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs, human population and resulting 

development pressures are growing. This encroachment of human population and development is 

arguably the most important threat or stressor the monuments must consider. Development may 

lead to increasing point and non-point source pollution, affecting air and water quality. Increased 

vehicle emissions can occur as more people move to the area. In-park biological integrity may 

also be stressed from these outside influences.

3.2.1.a Current condition: 

We examined two factors to assess the current condition of human effects in the Castillo de San 

Marcos and Fort Matanzas NM area. First, census data was obtained from the U.S. Census 

Bureau and trends were analyzed. The second factor we examined was relative impervious 

surfaces within the Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NM boundaries and in the broad, 

subbasin study area. 
37 

Human Population: 

Although seemingly intuitive, several studies have quantitatively researched the relationship 

between human population and the degradation of the world’s natural resources (Jones and Clark 

1987, Forester and Machlist 1996, McKinney 2001, Parks and Harcourt 2002, Cardillo et al. 

2004). In a 2001 study, nonnative plant and fish diversity were negatively correlated with human 

population (McKinney 2001). Parks and Harcourt (2002) found that the probability of species 

extinction around western U.S. National Parks was significantly correlated with the surrounding 

human population density. 

Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs are situated in the city of St. Augustine, the 

county seat of St. Johns County, Florida. St. Johns County is part of the Jacksonville, Florida 

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). The 2007 population estimate for the Jacksonville, Florida 

MSA was 1.3 million people, ranking 40th out of 363 MSAs nationwide (U.S. Census Bureau 

2009c). Significant population increases from U.S. Census Bureau (U.S. Census Bureau 2009a) 

data were evident in this region, particularly in Flagler and St. Johns counties, the two fastest 

growing counties in the subbasin study area (Figure 13 and Figure 14). Flagler County 

experienced the most precipitous growth rate, with a 208% increase in population between 1990 

and 2007. St. Johns County grew from 83,829 to 175,446 individuals between 1990 and 2007, a 

109% increase. Volusia and Duval counties, the two remaining counties in the subbasin study 

area, each experienced more moderate population increases between 1990 and 2007. Volusia 

County population expanded nearly 35% while Duval County population increased by 26%. 

Along with population change, a good indicator of human effects on natural resources is 

population density. Duval County totaled by far the highest population density in the study area 

in 2007 with 357 people/square km. Volusia County is the second highest with 135 

people/square km, while St. Johns and Flagler have respective population densities of 83 and 60 

people/square km (Figure 15).
38 

Figure 13. Human population change in counties surrounding Castillo de San Marcos and Fort 

Matanzas National Monuments, 1990 – 2000 and 2000 – 2007 (U.S. Census Bureau 2008). 
39 

Figure 14. Human population change in counties surrounding Castillo de San Marcos and Fort 

Matanzas National Monuments, 1990 – 2007 (U.S. Census Bureau 2008). 
40 

Figure 15. Human population density (people per square kilometer, 2007) for counties 

surrounding Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2008). 
41 

Impervious Surface: 

Studies have shown that increased impervious surface leads to degradations in water quality, 

hydrology, habitat structure, and aquatic biodiversity (Schueler 2000, Hurd and Civco 2004). In 

a review of eighteen studies that related stream quality to urbanization, Schueler (2000) suggests 

using three management categories (Table 15) to group streams by percent impervious surface. 

Table 15. Schueler (2000) related percent impervious cover to management category. 

Impervious Cover Management Category

1 to 10% impervious Sensitive streams

11 to 25% impervious Impacted streams

26 to 100% impervious Non-supporting streams

 

We used these groups to find the potential quality within Castillo de San Marcos and Fort 

Matanzas NMs and within the subbasin study area (Table 16, Figure 16). The Daytona-St. 

Augustine (HUC 03080201) subbasin contains Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs 

and has a fairly high amount of impervious surface (Table 16, Figure 16). It is not surprising that 

the highest concentration of impervious surface in the subbasin occur in urbanized areas 

surrounding the cities of St. Augustine, Palm Coast, and Daytona Beach. The subbasin study area 

exceeds the 10% impervious threshold, with 23.2% impervious cover, and was therefore 

classified as impacted. Castillo de San Marcos NM was classified as non-supporting due to 

nearly 76% impervious surface cover, while Fort Matanzas NM was classified as sensitive, with 

slightly more than 9% impervious surface cover. 

Table 16. Impervious surface totals for Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National 

Monuments and each watershed/subbasin within the study area. Management category from 

Schueler 2000. 

Watershed/ Subbasin 

Pervious 

(acres)

Impervious 

(acres)

Total 

(acres)

Percent 

Impervious 

Management 

Category 

Daytona-St. Augustine

(03080201) 358339 108120 466459 23.2 Impacted streams

Castillo de San Marcos NM 5 15 20 75.5 Non-supporting 

streams

Fort Matanzas NM 271 28 300 9.4 Sensitive streams
42 

Figure 16. Impervious surface (from National Land Cover Database 2001) in the subbasin study 

area containing Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. 
43 

3.2.1.b Resource threats and stressors: 

The condition assessments for human effects, described in the previous section, are threats and 

stressors to several natural resources within the monument. We started with these broad-scale 

conditions so they can be applied as threats and stressors to several of the following natural 

resource categories. Rapid population increases can lead to unstructured, unplanned 

development, higher population densities, and overutilization of natural resources. 

According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2009b), two of the top five counties in Florida with the 

highest population change between 2000 and 2008 are in the subbasin study area. Flagler County 

ranks number one with an 83.1% population increase and St. Johns County ranks number three 

with a 47.4% population increase. Additionally, Flagler County and St. Johns County are 

expected to continue growing, with respective population increase projections of 28.3% and 

20.3% from 2008 to 2013. Similarly, the number of households in these counties are projected to 

increase over the same five-year period: by 31.2% in Flagler County and by 19.8% in St. Johns 

County between 2008 and 2013 (St. Johns County Chamber of Commerce 2009). 

3.2.1.c Critical knowledge or data gaps: 

U.S. Census Bureau population data is a good source of information, but assigning resource 

thresholds to these data was a challenge that was not easily supported with current literature for 

the Southeastern U.S. We used somewhat arbitrary thresholds for population growth and density 

in assigning low, medium, and high impacts to the natural resource. These thresholds can easily 

be changed as more quantitative relationships are formulated for this area of the U.S.

Broad, small-scale remotely sensed data were a good source for this assessment category. 

Unfortunately they may be less accurate at the larger scale (more detailed) park level. This was a 

continual challenge in several of our assessment categories since Castillo de San Marcos NM (20 

acres) and Fort Matanzas NM (298 acres) are fairly small parks. When spatial scale was 

questionable, we gave thematic a zero for data quality (Table 17). 

3.2.1.d Condition status summary 

Human population condition status is in the fair range because St. Johns County is growing 

relatively fast and population density is fairly substantial for the region (Table 17, Table 18). 

Impervious surface coverage for Castillo de San Marcos NM was above the 26% cut-off so it is 

rated as poor for this category (Table 17). Fort Matanzas NM was below the 10% threshold so it 

received a good rating (Table 18). It is important to note that the subbasin containing the 

monuments fell in the fair (impacted streams) range, at 23.2% impervious cover. This may lead 

to greater impacts from outside the monument boundaries to streams and other resources within 

the monuments. 
44 

Table 17. Human effects condition status summary for Castillo de San Marcos National 

Monument. Data quality was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), 

spatial (1 = inside park boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = 

older than 5 years). The colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor scores 

respectively (see Table 1).

Category Condition 

Status Midpoint Data Quality 

Thematic Spatial Temporal 

Human population 

1 1 1

Fair 0.5 3 out of 3

Impervious surface 

0 1 1

Poor 0.17 2 out of 3

Human effects total

1 2 2

Fair 0.34 5 out of 6

Table 18. Human effects condition status summary for Fort Matanzas National Monument. Data 

quality was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), spatial (1 = inside 

park boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = older than 5 years). 

The colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor scores respectively (see Table 1).

Category Condition 

Status Midpoint Data Quality 

Thematic Spatial Temporal 

Human population 

1 1 1

Fair 0.5 3 out of 3

Impervious surface 

0 1 1

Good 0.84 2 out of 3

Human effects total

1 2 2

Good 0.67 5 out of 6

3.2.1.e Recommendations to park managers: 

Higher population densities have been correlated with a myriad of environmental impacts. 

However, focusing development and human population growth restrictions on high population 

centers may not be the most productive course. Studies have found that nonnative species 

introductions (McKinney 2001) and species extinctions (Balmford 1996) occur more rapidly in 

fast-growing lower human populated areas as opposed to highly populated areas. Thus, it may be 

prudent to focus structured development, nonnative species, and other natural resources 

education campaigns on low population centers with a high potential for growth. 

Although human population increase and development is, in most cases, an outside threat 

unmanageable by the park, there are instances in which park interpretation and education can 

play a large role in surrounding resource protection. In addition, focusing efforts on sustainable 

development and limiting impervious surfaces within park boundaries is important for in-park 

resource management. These campaigns may also increase the knowledge and perceived 

importance of structured development within surrounding locales. 
45 

3.2.2 Visitor and Recreation Use

The National Park Service was established to provide for its visitors. The NPS mission is to 

"preserve unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the national park system 

for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations.” In fact, the top 

guiding principle to accomplish this mission is excellent service for park visitors and partners 

(National Park Service 2008c). Visitors are no doubt the primary reason the NPS exists and 

continues to be an important part of this country. 

Visitor and recreation use, however, has been shown to negatively affect the other half of the 

NPS mission, which is to protect natural and cultural resources. Several studies have shown a 

negative correlation between outdoor recreation and the various natural resources covered in this 

assessment (Taylor and Knight 2003, Wood et al. 2006, Park et al. 2008). As visitation to parks 

increases, these two parts of the mission often work against each other. 

3.2.2.a Current condition: 

The number of visitors per year at Castillo de San Marcos NM was steadily on the rise and 

experienced a peak in visitation in 1992. For the past 20 years, however, visitor levels have been 

on an overall decline (Figure 17). The number of visitors per year at Fort Matanzas NM has also 

been steadily increasing, with a peak of over 1 million visitors in 2005. Unlike Castillo de San 

Marcos, however, Fort Matanzas NM has seen a steady increase in visitor levels over the past 20 

years (Figure 18). Visitation to Castillo de San Marcos NM is relatively constant throughout the 

year, with peaks occurring in March, April, and July (Figure 19). Likewise, visitation to Fort 

Matanzas NM is relatively constant throughout the year, with peaks in July and August (Figure 

20). Castillo de San Marcos NM was fifth out of 21 in the number of visitors to NPS Forts in 

2007 (Table 19) and eighth out of 68 National Monuments visited in 2007. Fort Matanzas NM 

was second out of 21 in the number of visitors to NPS Forts in 2007 (Table 19) and third out of 

68 National Monuments visited in 2007. 
46 

Figure 17. Number of visitors per year to Castillo de San Marcos National Monument from 1934 

to 2007. Data from NPS (2008d). 

Figure 18. Number of visitors per year to Fort Matanzas National Monument from 1938 to 2007. 

Data from NPS (2008d). 
47 

Figure 19. Average monthly visitors (from the past 10 years, 1998 – 2007) to Castillo de San 

Marcos National Monument. Data from NPS (2008d). 

Figure 20. Average monthly visitors (from the past 10 years, 1998 – 2007) to Fort Matanzas 

National Monument. Data from NPS (2008d). 
48 

Table 19. Number of National Park Service Fort visitors in 2007 in ranked order. 

Park Visitors

% of Fort 

visitors Rank

Fort Point NHS 1,552,141 21.8 1

Fort Matanzas NM 830,672 11.7 2

Fort Sumter NM 788,838 11.1 3

Fort Vancouver NHS 682,645 9.6 4

Castillo de San Marcos NM 632,048 8.9 5

Fort McHenry NM & HS 574,924 8.1 6

Fort Necessity NB 353,296 5.0 7

Fort Raleigh NHS 321,717 4.5 8

Fort Pulaski NM 317,349 4.5 9

Fort Frederica NM 264,586 3.7 10

Fort Caroline NMEM 250,616 3.5 11

Fort Donelson NB 233,205 3.3 12

Fort Smith NHS 83,850 1.2 13

Fort Stanwix NM 59,643 0.8 14

Fort Davis NHS 51,435 0.7 15

Fort Laramie NHS 40,263 0.6 16

Fort Larned NHS 30,471 0.4 17

Fort Scott NHS 22,314 0.3 18

Fort Union Trading Post NHS 12,405 0.2 19

Fort Union NM 10,534 0.1 20

Fort Bowie NHS 10,027 0.1 21

Fort Total 7,122,979 100.0

3.2.2.b Resource threats and stressors: 

Visitor and recreation use is itself a threat and stressor to the natural resources of Castillo de San 

Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs. With that said, visitor use statistics and current data do not 

indicate that this is a large threat to natural resources within the parks’ boundaries. 

3.2.2.c Critical knowledge or data gaps:

An examination of in-park degradation due to visitor use would be a good addition to these 

analyses. On-the-ground surveys of visitor impacts and trail spatial data would help quantify the 

effects of visitor use on the natural resources. These data were not available (Table 20 and Table 

21).

3.2.2.d Condition status summary: 

Visitor use is in the good range for condition status at both monuments because statistics do not 

indicate a sharp increase in visitors and there is no additional data to indicate a negative 

correlation between visitor use and natural resource condition (Table 20 and Table 21). 
49 

Table 20. Visitor use condition status summary for Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. 

Data quality was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), spatial (1 = 

inside park boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = older than 5 

years). The colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor scores respectively (see 

Table 1).

Category Condition 

Status

Data Quality

Thematic Spatial Temporal

Visitor use total 0 1 1

Good 2 out of 3

Table 21. Visitor use condition status summary for Fort Matanzas National Monument. Data 

quality was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), spatial (1 = inside 

park boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = older than 5 years). 

The colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor scores respectively (see Table 1).

Category Condition 

Status

Data Quality

Thematic Spatial Temporal

Visitor use total 0 1 1

Good 2 out of 3

3.2.2.d Recommendations to park managers: 

We recommend continuing to collect visitor use statistics and identify and monitor trends in 

recreation. Collecting additional visitor statistics and recreation use parameters, such as percent 

trail degradation would be a useful addition to data and analysis.

3.3 Air and Climate

3.3.1 Air Quality

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires the monitoring of six pollutants 

considered harmful to human health and the environment. The six “criteria” pollutants are listed 

below (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2008b). The first two are considered problematic 

in hundreds of counties across the U.S., and the last four are of concern only in a handful of 

locations at most.

Ozone (O3) is "good up high but bad nearby." Ozone high in the atmosphere protects us from 

ultraviolet (UV) radiation, but ozone at ground-level can negatively affect plant populations and 

can cause respiratory irritation when humans or animals breathe it. Symptoms include coughing, 

wheezing, breathing difficulties, inflammation of the airways, and aggravation of asthma. Ozone 

is not directly emitted; rather it is formed from reactions involving volatile organic compounds 

and nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight. 

Particulate matter (PM) is subdivided into two categories by size: 

Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) consists of particles smaller than 2.5 micrometers. For 

comparison, the average human hair is 70 micrometers in diameter. Fine particles can be inhaled 

deeply into the lungs and can cause respiratory irritation and, over the long term, are associated 

with elevated levels of cardiovascular disease and mortality. Particles also obscure visibility and 

affect global climate. Fine particles are generated by combustion; major sources include industry 
50 

and motor vehicles. Such particles can also be formed in the atmosphere through reactions 

involving gases. 

Coarse particulate matter (PM10) consists of particles smaller than 10 micrometers. They may 

cause respiratory irritation. Coarse particles stem from grinding and other mechanical processes 

and include wind-blown dust.

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) originates mostly from coal combustion and causes respiratory irritation. It 

also contributes to acid rain and particle formation. 

Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas that is formed during incomplete combustion 

of fuels. Its major sources include vehicles and fires. Exposure to high levels of carbon 

monoxide can cause dizziness, headaches, confusion, blurred vision, and ultimately coma and 

death. 

Lead (Pb) is a metal found in particles and can adversely affect the nervous system, kidney 

function, immune system, reproductive and developmental systems and the cardiovascular 

system. In children, it has been found to lower IQ. Lead originates mainly from the processing of 

metals in industry. 

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a brownish gas that is generated during high-temperature combustion. 

It is a member of a family of chemicals called nitrogen oxides, or NOx. Major sources of NOx

include coal-fired power plants, industrial boilers, and motor vehicles. Like ozone, it causes 

respiratory irritation. It is also important because it can react to form ozone and particles, 

contribute to acid rain, deposit into water bodies and upset the nutrient balance, and degrade 

visibility.

The National Ambient Air Quality Standards are levels not to be exceeded for each pollutant 

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2008a). Air quality is summarized for the public in 

terms of the Air Quality Index (AQI, Table 22), a scale that runs from 0 to 500, where any 

number over 100 is considered to be unhealthy (AirNow 2008a). Based on measurements or 

predicted levels of pollutants, an AQI is calculated for each of the criteria pollutants, and the 

highest value is reported to the public. 
51 

Table 22. The Air Quality Index (AQI) is a cross-agency U.S. Government venture whose 

purpose is to explain air quality health implications to the public. 

Air Quality Index

Levels of Health Concern

Numerical 

Value Meaning

Good 0-50 Air quality is considered satisfactory, and air pollution 

poses little or no risk.

Moderate 51-100 

Air quality is acceptable; however, for some pollutants 

there may be a moderate health concern for a very small 

number of people who are unusually sensitive to air 

pollution.

Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups 101-150 Members of sensitive groups may experience health 

effects. The general public is not likely to be affected. 

Unhealthy 151-200 

Everyone may begin to experience health effects; 

members of sensitive groups may experience more 

serious health effects. 

Very Unhealthy 201-300 Health alert: everyone may experience more serious 

health effects.

Hazardous > 300 Health warnings of emergency conditions. The entire 

population is more likely to be affected.

 

Environmental effects

In addition to health, air pollution has also been shown to impact visibility, vegetation, surface 

waters, soils, and fish and wildlife at National Park Service sites in the Southeast Coast Network. 

In 2003, the National Park Service conducted an Air Quality Inventory and Monitoring 

Assessment of the Southeast Coast Network that reported on atmospheric deposition of 

compounds that can affect acidity, nutrient balances, and wildlife in surface waters; air toxics; 

surface water chemistry in the context of acidification due to atmospheric deposition; fine 

particulate matter and ozone; and ozone-sensitive plant species (National Park Service 2003). 

The report concluded that although only two of the seventeen parks have monitors on-site, 

existing monitors within ~100 miles are sufficiently representative. Only two parks, Congaree 

Swamp NM and Moores Creek NB, were deemed extremely sensitive to acidification from 

atmospheric deposition. Ozone concentrations were high enough in all parks to potentially cause 

plant damage.

The NPS Air Resources Division (ARD) has developed methods and target values to evaluate air 

quality conditions important for natural resource planning and management. The ARD approach 

to air quality assessment includes thresholds for ozone, atmospheric (wet) deposition in the form 

of nitrogen and sulfur, and visibility (National Park Service 2007a). Based on certain criteria, 

these categories are given a score of “good,” “moderate,” or “significant concern.” Although 

Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs do not have any air quality monitoring stations 

on-site, the ARD interpolates data from all available monitors in the region into five-year 

averages. This document utilizes the most recent data interpolations from the 2003 – 2007 period 

for ozone, wet deposition, and visibility. 
52 

3.3.1.a Current condition: 

Monitoring sites: 

Florida's state environmental agency operates twelve air quality monitoring sites in Duval 

County, ranging between 40 and 100 km from Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs. 

They measure O3, PM2.5, PM10, SO2, and CO. Table 23 and Figure 21 show the air quality index 

in 2007 for each of the pollutants measured. Blank cells mean that the pollutant was not 

measured at the site. 

Table 23. Air quality index in 2007 at monitoring sites near Castillo de San Marcos and Fort 

Matanzas National Monuments. Blank cells mean that the pollutant was not measured at the site

Site ID Common name State County City Latitude Longitude O3 PM2.5 PM10 SO2 CO NO2

120310032 Bennett St. FL Duval Jacksonville 30.356111 -81.635556 12

120310053 Buckman St. FL Duval Jacksonville 30.352222 -81.628333 64

120310081 Cedar Bay Rd. FL Duval Jacksonville 30.422222 -81.621111 28

120310097 Fort Caroline Rd. FL Duval Jacksonville 30.367222 -81.594167 16

120310089 Georgia St. FL Duval Jacksonville 30.328889 -81.639722 65

120310077 Lanier St. FL Duval Jacksonville 30.477500 -81.587500 104

120310080 LaSalle St. FL Duval Jacksonville 30.308889 -81.652500 7 16

120310098 Mandarin Rd. FL Duval Jacksonville 30.135556 -81.634167 82

120310099 Merrill Rd. FL Duval Jacksonville 30.355833 -81.548056 88

120310084 Rosselle and 

Copeland FL Duval Jacksonville 30.320278 -81.687778 62 24 

120310083 South McDuff 

Ave. FL Duval Jacksonville 30.305000 -81.705556 20 

120310100 William Davis 

Parkway FL Duval Jacksonville 30.261000 -81.454000 129 
53 

Figure 21. Air quality monitoring sites near Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National 

Monuments. Green indicates "good" air quality, yellow indicates "moderate,” and orange 

indicates “unhealthy for sensitive groups” at these sites in 2007. 

There are multiple standards, over varying averaging periods, for some criteria pollutants. In 

some cases, the standard is based on the annual average while in others, it is based on a 

maximum (or 4th-highest or 98th percentile) in a year. Furthermore, some standards are based on 

averages over multiple years. The exact details are provided in the footnotes of the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards table (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2008a). For each 

of the pollutants, we selected the traditionally more problematic averaging period, extracted the 
54 

relevant average or high concentration from the EPA's Air Quality System Data Mart (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 2008d), and converted it to an Air Quality Index value using 

the AQI calculator (AirNow 2008b). The values shown in Table 23 correspond to metrics 

described below.

O3: 8-hour average, 4th highest in a year 

PM2.5: 24-hour average, 98th percentile in a year 

PM10: 24-hour average, maximum in a year 

SO2: 24-hour average, maximum in a year 

Air quality trends: 

Trends in ozone and fine particulate matter, two pollutants posing a serious risk to health, are 

shown in Figure 22 and Figure 23. The figures show the number of times the national standard 

was violated in a year, known as "exceedances," on the left axis and an indicator of the highest 

concentration in a year on the right axis. The air quality standards are based on the 4th highest 

concentration in a year for ozone and the 98th percentile concentration for PM2.5. Ignoring the 

very highest concentration in a year allows for unusual events that may cause anomalies. 

The ozone measurements are from the Lanier Road site (Figure 22). Ozone exceedances have 

been consistently around 4 for the last few years with a noticeable spike in 2006. The EPA 

standard for 8-hour ozone is based on the 4th highest measurement in a year. The measurements 

have stayed consistently around the standard of 0.075 ppm. 

Figure 22. Eight-hour ozone for Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments.

The PM2.5 measurements shown in Figure 23 are from the Merrill Road site. PM2.5 exceedances 

have not been an issue until recently in 2007 when 6 occurred. The EPA standard for 24-hour 

PM2.5 is based on the 98th percentile of measurements in a year, and this metric has fluctuated 

between 20 and 35 micrograms per cubic meter, compared to the standard of 35. 
55 

Figure 23. 24-hour PM2.5 for Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. 

Air quality forecast:

The location nearest Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments with a 

daily air quality forecast is in Jacksonville, FL, which is approximately 60 km to the northwest of 

Castillo de San Marcos NM and 90 km to the northwest of Fort Matanzas NM. The AQI forecast

(AirNow 2008c) is provided for both ozone (O3) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). The 

Jacksonville forecast is a reasonable indicator for the monuments, but because of the moderate 

distance between the locations and the comparatively urban setting in Jacksonville, the forecast 

may not always apply. 

Ozone (O3):

The ARD criterion for ozone utilizes the newly revised 2008 national standard for ozone air 

quality as a baseline. The national standard requires that the 3-year average of the fourth-highest 

daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area 

over each year must not exceed 75 parts per billion (ppb) (U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 2009). In assessing air quality within national parks, the ARD mandates that if the 

interpolated five-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentrations is greater than or equal to 76 ppb, then ozone is classified as a “significant 

concern” in the park. If the interpolated five-year average is between 61 ppb and 75 ppb, 

concentrations greater than 80-percent of the national standard, then the park is classified as 

“moderate.” To receive a “good” ozone rating, a park must have a five-year average ozone 

concentration less than 61 ppb (concentrations less than 80-percent of the national standard). 

Table 24 illustrates how ARD uses the five-year average concentrations to classify ozone air 

quality conditions in national parks. The ARD mandates for ozone air quality are designed to 

reflect the idea that simply meeting the national standard does not guarantee “unimpaired” parks 

for future generations. 
56 

Table 24. Air Resources Division ozone air quality condition classifications and corresponding 

condition status. The 5-year average ozone concentration at Castillo de San Marcos NM was 

79.67 ppb; Fort Matanzas NM was 72.40 ppb. 

ARD Condition Condition Status Ozone concentration (ppb)

Significant Concern Poor ≥ 76

Moderate Concern Fair 61 – 75

Good Condition Good ≤ 60

Vegetation sensitivity to ozone is also taken into consideration when conducting air quality 

assessments in national parks. A 2004 vegetation risk assessment indicated that there are no 

ozone-sensitive species present at Castillo de San Marcos NM, but identified five plant species 

present at Fort Matanzas NM that are sensitive to ozone (National Park Service 2004). This risk 

assessment indicated that the risk of injury to plants is low at Castillo de San Marcos NM

because of the regular occurrence of mild to severe drought, which inhibits ozone uptake by 

plants, during periods of elevated ozone levels. Similarly, the risk of injury to plants is low at 

Fort Matanzas NM due to low levels of ozone exposure coupled with soil moisture conditions 

which inhibit the uptake of ozone. Although none are present as Castillo de San Marcos NM, the 

2004 report also identifies two bioindicator species that can be monitored at Fort Matanzas NM 

to indicate increased ozone injury to vegetation. The ARD uses the vegetation risk evaluation to 

modify the average ozone concentration air quality condition status when assigning parks a final 

ozone condition rating. If a park is evaluated as a high risk of plant injury, the ARD would assign 

that park the next more severe ozone condition status (i.e., reclassify “moderate” to “significant 

concern”).

Atmospheric Deposition: 

The ARD uses wet deposition in evaluating atmospheric conditions in national parks, primarily 

due to the general lack of available dry deposition data. Using wet deposition data, however, may 

be problematic for accurately assessing atmospheric deposition in parks situated in arid climates 

where dry deposition data would prove to be more useful. In the continental United States, wet 

deposition is calculated by multiplying nitrogen (N from nitrate and ammonium ions) or sulfur (S 

from sulfate ions) concentrations in precipitation by a normalized precipitation value. The 

precipitation values, obtained from the PRISM database, are normalized over a 30-year period to 

minimize interannual variations in deposition caused by interannual fluctuations in precipitation 

(Oregon State University 2008). The nitrogen and sulfur deposition concentrations used for 

interpolation are obtained from the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (University of 

Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 2009). The ARD takes natural background deposition estimates 

and deposition effects on ecosystems under consideration when evaluating atmospheric 

deposition conditions. Table 25 illustrates how the ARD rates atmospheric deposition conditions 

according to the amount of estimated wet deposition at a park. Estimates of natural background 

deposition for total deposition are approximately 0.25 kilograms per hectare per year (kg/ha/yr) 

in the West and 0.50 kg/ha/yr in the East, for either N or S. For wet deposition only, this is 

roughly equivalent to 0.13 kg/ha/yr in the West and 0.25 kg/ha/yr in the East. Although the 

proportion of wet to dry deposition varies by location, wet deposition is at least one-half of the 

total deposition in most areas. Certain sensitive ecosystems respond to levels of deposition on the 

order of 3 kg/ha/yr total deposition, or about 1.5 kg/ha/yr wet deposition (Fenn et al. 2003, Krupa 

2003). 
57 

Table 25. Air Resources Division wet deposition condition classifications and corresponding 

condition status. The wet deposition values refer to either nitrogen or sulfur individually, not the 

sum of the two. Total wet nitrogen deposition at Castillo de San Marcos NM is estimated at 2.75 

kg/ha/yr, and total wet sulfur deposition is estimated at 3.99 kg/ha/yr. Total wet nitrogen 

deposition at Fort Matanzas NM is estimated at 2.83 kg/ha/yr, and total wet sulfur deposition is 

estimated at 4.14 kg/ha/yr. 

ARD Condition Condition Status Wet Deposition (kg/ha/yr)

Significant Concern Poor > 3

Moderate Concern Fair 1 – 3 

Good Condition Good < 1

Visibility:

Individual park scores for visibility are based on the deviation of the current Group 50 visibility 

conditions from estimated Group 50 natural visibility conditions, where Group 50 is defined as 

the mean of the visibility observations falling within the range between the 40th and 60th

percentiles. Natural visibility conditions are those that have been estimated to exist in a given 

area in the absence of anthropogenic visibility impairment. Visibility is described in terms of a 

Haze Index, a measure derived from calculated light extinction, and expressed in deciviews (dv) 

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2003). Visibility worsens as the Haze Index increases. 

The visibility condition is expressed as: 

Visibility Condition = (current Group 50 visibility) – 

 (estimated Group 50 visibility under natural conditions) 

As illustrated in Table 26, parks with a visibility condition estimate of less than two dv above 

estimated natural conditions receive a “good” visibility condition classification. Those parks with 

visibility condition estimates between two and eight dv above natural conditions are classified as 

“moderate,” and parks with visibility condition estimates greater than eight dv above natural 

conditions are classified as a “significant concern.” While the dv ranges for each category are 

somewhat subjective, they reflect as nearly as possible the variation in visibility conditions 

across the visibility monitoring network. 

Table 26. Air Resources Division visibility condition classifications and corresponding condition 

status. The current Group 50 deviation at Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs is 

12.20 dv. 

ARD Condition Condition Status

Current Group 50 – Estimated 

Group 50 Natural (dv)

Significant Concern Poor > 8

Moderate Concern Fair 2 – 8

Good Condition Good < 2

Environmental effects:

Using the methods developed by the ARD discussed above, the air quality condition status at 

Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs takes into account ozone concentration, wet 
58 

atmospheric deposition, and visibility. The 5-year (2003 – 2007) average ozone concentrations 

for Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs were 79.67 ppb and 72.40 ppb, respectively. 

As a result, Castillo de San Marcos received a “significant concern” or “poor” ozone condition 

rating; Fort Matanzas received a “moderate” or “fair” ozone condition rating (Table 24). The 

2004 vegetation risk assessment indicated that both parks are at low risk for plant injury, and the 

ARD consequently maintained the original ozone air quality condition status of “significant 

concern” for Castillo de San Marcos NM and “moderate” for Fort Matanzas NM.

Atmospheric deposition at Castillo de San Marcos NM is classified as a “significant concern” or 

“poor” condition status (Table 25). Although wet nitrogen deposition, estimated at 2.75 kg/ha/yr, 

fell within the “moderate concern” or “fair” condition status, the wet sulfur deposition, estimated 

at 3.99 kg/ha/yr, was high enough to warrant an overall “significant concern” classification for 

wet atmospheric deposition. Likewise, Fort Matanzas NM is classified as a “significant concern” 

or “poor” condition status due to elevated wet sulfur deposition, estimated at 4.14 kg/ha/yr, 

despite the “moderate” or “fair” condition status of wet nitrogen deposition, estimated at 2.83 

kg/ha/yr. There is no current information to indicate whether ecosystems at Castillo de San 

Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs are sensitive to nitrogen or sulfur deposition, but deposition is 

elevated. Nitrogen deposition, in particular, may affect the integrity of vegetation communities at 

Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs because excess nitrogen has been found to 

encourage growth of invasive plant species at the expense of native species.

The visibility condition at Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs is classified as a 

“significant concern” because the current Group 50 visibility at both parks is 12.20 dv above 

estimated Group 50 natural conditions (Table 26). 

Trends cannot be evaluated from the interpolated 5-year averages utilized by the ARD. However, 

the NPS ARD evaluates 10-year trends in air quality for parks with on-site or nearby monitoring. 

Maps in the most recently available progress report show trends in ozone, deposition, and 

visibility that can be used to discern regional trends (National Park Service 2007a). For the 

period 1996 – 2005, ozone concentrations and nitrogen and sulfur deposition in the Southeast 

appear to be decreasing, while visibility is relatively unchanged.

3.3.1.b Resource threats and stressors: 

Threats to the monuments’ air quality include new point sources, such as power plants and large 

industrial facilities that are located upwind. Emissions from such sources can travel hundreds of 

kilometers and influence the monuments’ air quality. Additionally, development near the 

monuments could lead to an increase in vehicle traffic and its associated emissions that could 

impact the monuments’ air quality.

3.3.1.c Critical knowledge or data gaps: 

An air monitoring site on the monuments’ property would provide the best information about 

their air quality. Such sites are expensive to install and maintain; however, it is feasible that if a 

nearby monitoring site needs to be relocated, the state environmental agency might be willing to 

consider moving it to one of the monuments. The spatial component of data quality received a 

zero for atmospheric deposition and visibility because the available data could be more local 
59 

(Table 27 and Table 28). There are, however, monitoring stations for ozone within close 

proximity to the monuments so we gave this data quality component a one. 

3.3.1.d Condition status summary

From the environmental and natural resource management perspective, air quality at Castillo de 

San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs is poor overall (Table 27 and Table 28). As previously 

discussed, a 2004 risk assessment determined that the ozone threat to vegetation at Castillo de 

San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs is low. Risk of plant injury is low, despite periodic elevated 

ozone exposures at the parks, because the low soil moisture conditions that prevail during 

periods of high ozone exposure limit stomatal uptake of ozone (National Park Service 2004). 

The NPS Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) Program is currently conducting risk assessments to 

evaluate the threats from several sources. The assessments will evaluate nitrogen deposition 

(complete in late 2009), acidic deposition from nitrogen and sulfur (complete in 2010), and 

mercury deposition (complete in 2010) in national parks. These I&M assessments will be 

available on the NPS ARD website and will assist managers in determining what park resources 

are at risk from air pollution, and what type of air quality monitoring might be needed. 

Table 27. Air quality condition status summary for Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. 

Data quality was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), spatial (1 = 

inside park boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = older than 5 

years). The colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor scores respectively (see 

Table 1).

Category Condition 

Status Midpoint Data Quality 

Thematic Spatial Temporal 

Ozone 1 1 1 

Poor 0.17 3 out of 3 

Atmospheric Deposition 1 0 1 

Poor 0.17 2 out of 3 

Visibility 1 0 1 

Poor 0.17 2 out of 3 

Air quality total 3 1 3 

Poor 0.17 7 out of 9 
60 

Table 28. Air quality condition status summary for Fort Matanzas National Monument. Data 

quality was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), spatial (1 = inside 

park boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = older than 5 years). 

The colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor scores respectively (see Table 1).

Category Condition 

Status Midpoint Data Quality 

Thematic Spatial Temporal 

Ozone 1 1 1 

Fair 0.50 3 out of 3 

Atmospheric Deposition 1 0 1 

Poor 0.17 2 out of 3 

Visibility 1 0 1 

Poor 0.17 2 out of 3 

Air quality total 3 1 3 

Poor 0.28 7 out of 9 

3.3.1.e Recommendations to park managers: 

Collaborative efforts are needed to tackle the region's air pollution. Park managers are urged to 

participate in and to promote regional-scale approaches to improve the area's air quality and 

visibility through the organizations listed in Table 29. 

Table 29. List of recommended air quality organizations to participate with and promote regional 

approaches.

Organization Webpage

1. Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the 

Southeast (VISTAS) 

http://www.vistas-sesarm.org/

2. EPA Region 4 http://www.epa.gov/region4/air/index.htm

3. Florida Department of Environmental Protection - Division 

of Air Resource Management

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/Air/default.htm

3.3.2 Climate

Climate is the long-term pattern and processes of weather events for a given location. Climate is 

one of the most significant abiotic factors dictating biotic components anywhere on the Earth. 

There is much interest in climate recently due to increasing temperatures and changing weather 

patterns across the globe (Blaustein et al. 2001, Walther et al. 2002, Corn 2005). Such changes 

have the potential to impact natural resources by shifting dominant vegetation communities, 

impacting animal species at the frontiers of their range, and impacting fundamental ecosystem 

processes.

We included some basic assessments on the climate of the landscape around Castillo de San 

Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs. This information can be used to provide some forward-looking 

insight into potential direct and indirect impacts a changing climate might have on their natural 

resources.
61 

3.3.2.a Current condition: 

Climate is a complex amalgam of long-term weather events. Our assessment includes several of 

these factors examined over the long term (> 30 years). We attempted to narrow the suite of 

factors down to those metrics where data was available and long-term trends were easily 

established. These include temperature, precipitation, available moisture, phenology through 

growing degree days, and extreme weather events (e.g., hurricane) which act as agents of major 

landscape change and disturbance ecology.

Temperature:

We used data provided by the Southeast Regional Climate Center (SERCC) to assess 

temperature change for Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs. The SERCC is a 

regional climate center headquartered at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and is 

directed and overseen by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and National Environmental Satellite, Data and 

Information Service (NESDIS). St. Augustine, Florida is one of the cities available for long-term 

climate information summaries provided through the SERCC Historical Climate Summaries 

product. This product permits access to annual, monthly, and daily climate information including 

mean temperature. In an effort to obtain the most comprehensive climate data possible, we 

obtained data from two separate data collection sites within close proximity to Castillo de San 

Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs and combined them in our analysis (The Southeast Regional 

Climate Center 2008). These sites were St Augustine WFOY, FL (087826) and St Augustine, FL 

(087812). 

We used the “monthly average temperature” option to examine annual temperature trends as well 

as seasonally for Winter (December – February), Spring (March – May), Summer (June – 

August), and Fall (September – November) seasons. The range of dates for which the combined 

data were available was 1901 – 2007. It should be noted, however, that data there are data gaps 

which prevent precise climate analysis. Instances of incomplete data are noted beneath each 

figure.

The mean annual temperature for St. Augustine, Florida has increased approximately 0.01 

degrees Fahrenheit per decade (mean = 69.97 °F) from 1901 to 2007 (Figure 24). This observed 

trend was similar for all four seasons (Figure 25 through Figure 28). Although the most 

potentially biologically significant increase was observed during the winter and summer seasons, 

temperatures in St. Augustine are fairly constant and increasing at a relatively negligible rate. 
62 

Figure 24. Annual temperature for St. Augustine, FL from 1901 to 2007. The mean annual 

temperature is 69.97 °F. The trend is 0.01 °F per decade.

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

1900 1912 1924 1936 1948 1960 1972 1984 1996 2008

Year

Degrees Fahrenheit

Actual Temperature Average Temperature Trend
63 

Figure 25. Winter temperature for St. Augustine, FL from 1901 to 2007. The mean temperature 

was 58.16 °F. The trend is 0.06 °F per decade. Data for 1926, 1948, 1973, and 1978 is 

incomplete and has been omitted from this figure. 

Figure 26. Spring temperature for St. Augustine, FL from 1901 to 2007. The mean temperature 

was 69.02 °F. The trend is 0.001 °F per decade. Data for 1926, 1928, 1948, 1973, and 1987 is 

incomplete and has been omitted from this figure. 

50

52

54

56

58

60

62

64

66

1900 1912 1924 1936 1948 1960 1972 1984 1996 2008

Year

Degrees Fahrenheit

Actual Temperature Average Temperature Trend

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

1900 1912 1924 1936 1948 1960 1972 1984 1996 2008

Year

Degrees Fahrenheit

Actual Temperature Average Temperature Trend
64 

Figure 27. Summer temperature for St. Augustine, FL from 1901 to 2007. The mean temperature 

was 80.40 °F. The trend is 0.05 °F per decade. Data for 1928, 1930, 1948, and 1976 is 

incomplete and has been omitted from this figure. 

Figure 28. The fall temperature for St. Augustine, FL from 1901 to 2007. The mean temperature 

was 72.16 °F. The trend is 0.02 °F per decade. Data for 1901, 1916, 1926, 1960, 1970, and 1986 

is incomplete and has been omitted from this figure.

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

1900 1912 1924 1936 1948 1960 1972 1984 1996 2008

Year

Degrees Fahrenheit

Actual Temperature Average Temperature Trend

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

1900 1912 1924 1936 1948 1960 1972 1984 1996 2008

Year

Degrees Fahrenheit

Actual Temperature Average Temperature Trend
65 

Precipitation:

Similar analyses were conducted for precipitation using data collected at St. Augustine, FL. The 

annual precipitation at St. Augustine shows great variation through time and has an increasing 

trend of approximately 0.41 inches per decade (Figure 29). 

We also examined precipitation seasonally (as described in temperature above) for winter, 

spring, summer, and fall from 1901 – 2007 (Figure 30 through Figure 33). 

Figure 29. Annual precipitation for St. Augustine, FL from 1901 to 2007. The mean annual 

precipitation is 49.02 inches with an increasing trend of 0.41 inches per decade. 
66 

Figure 30. The winter precipitation for St. Augustine, FL from 1901 to 2007. The mean 

precipitation is 8.89 inches with an increasing trend of 0.05 inches per decade. Data for 1948 and 

1973 is incomplete and has been omitted from this figure. 

Figure 31. The spring precipitation for St. Augustine, FL from 1901 to 2007. The mean 

precipitation is 9.33 inches with an increasing trend of 0.06 inches per decade. Data for 1926, 

1928, 1948, 1987 and 1991 is incomplete and has been omitted from this figure. 
67 

Figure 32. The summer precipitation for St. Augustine, FL from 1901 to 2007. The mean 

precipitation is 17.09 inches with an increasing trend of 0.05 inches per decade. Data for 1928, 

1930, 1948 and 1976 is incomplete and has been omitted from this figure. 

Figure 33. The fall precipitation for St. Augustine, FL from 1901 to 2007. The mean 

precipitation is 14.89 inches with an increasing trend of 0.23 inches per decade. Data for 1916, 

1970 and 1986 is incomplete and has been omitted from this figure.
68 

Overall, St. Augustine is receiving an increasing amount of precipitation. While this trend is 

relatively slight, St. Augustine is experiencing the highest increase in precipitation during the fall

season. This is interesting given the observed increase in temperatures for the same seasonal 

period. Taken together, it is reasonable to assume that increasing temperatures and increasing

precipitation will moderate one another and result in stable water availability. This may also 

prevent severe drought conditions or excessive moisture that could impact biotic resources, 

particularly during extremes.

Moisture: 

We also summarized information on drought severity using monthly data from NOAA for 

coastal Florida from 1896-2007 (Figure 34). Drought severity was measured with the Palmer 

Drought Severity Index (PDSI, also known as the Palmer Drought Index [PDI]). The PDSI 

attempts to measure the duration and intensity of the long-term drought-inducing circulation 

patterns. Long-term drought is cumulative, so the intensity of drought during the current month 

is dependent on the current weather patterns plus the cumulative patterns of previous months. 

The PDSI values reflect the severity of drought, and are classified into several levels (Table 30). 

We used these classes for each monthly PDSI value from 1900 to 2007 then determined the 

proportion of months in each class for each 9-year period for ease of comparison (Figure 34). 

Table 30. Classification used for Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) values. 

PDSI Range Class Description

-3 or less Severely Dry

-2 to -3 Excessively Dry

-1 to -2 Abnormally Dry

-1 to 1 Slightly Dry/Favorably Moist

1 to 2 Abnormally Wet

2 to 3 Wet

3 or greater Excessively Wet
69 

Figure 34. PDSI values for St. Augustine, FL in 8-year blocks from 1896 – 2007. 

The data indicate a clear increase in the proportion of months classified as “excessively dry” or 

“severely dry” since 1975. The red and orange bands clearly increase in width relative to the 

classes at the wetter end of the scale after that period. It is also evident that drought severity has 

fluctuated greatly in the past, with the majority of months falling into the “slightly dry/favorably 

moist” category. This supplies additional support to our observations that increasing temperature 

and increasing precipitation may provide a stabilized environment able to tolerate periodic 

instances of saturation or drought conditions. 

Phenology (growing degree days): 

Temperature and precipitation have seasonal variation. The patterns of seasonal variation in 

these abiotic factors impact the biological processes of all local biota. These cycles are reflected 

in the timing of migration, flowering, and the birth of young. The study of such cycles and 

seasonal timing is termed “phenology” and changes in these annual cycles can provide 

information regarding important issues like the length of the growing season. 

The best metric available for recording the passage of phenological time are “growing degree 

days.” Growing degree days (GDD) can vary depending on the reference temperature 

corresponding to the species or process of interest, but the reference temperature is often set to 

40 °F. At this temperature, plants can photosynthesize, and typically this equates to growing 

season. GDDs cannot be equated to calendar days, they are their own unit of measure. In this 

case, GDDs accumulate anytime the average temperature is more than 40 °F.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1896-19031904-19111912-19191920-19271928-19351936-19431944-19511952-19591960-19671968-19751976-19831984-19911992-19992000-2007

Percentage of Months

Excessively Wet

Wet

Abnormally Wet

Slightly Dry/Favorably

Moist

Abnormally Dry

Excessively Dry

Severely Dry
70 

We calculated the approximate number of growing degree days per month for Castillo de San 

Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs by using monthly mean temperature data for nearby weather 

collection stations in St. Augustine, Florida. Monthly temperature was available from 1901-2007 

and was used to calculate the monthly growing degree day total with a simple formula: 

GDD = (Tm – 40) Dm 

Where GDD = Growing degree days

Tm = monthly mean temperature

Dm = number of days in month 

The number of growing degrees days for each month were summed to determine the 

approximate number of growing degree days per year. In an attempt to compensate for gaps in 

the temperature data, the growing degree days were computed for the first three months of the 

year rather than for the entire year. These values were plotted against time (year) to illustrate the 

long-term trends in the numbers of growing degree days at Castillo de San Marcos and Fort 

Matanzas NMs (Figure 35).

Figure 35. The total growing degree days from January – March for St. Augustine, FL from 1901 

– 2007. The three month mean growing degree total is 1797.11 (black line). The red trend line 

indicates a decreasing trend (R2

=0.01). Data for 1948, 1973, and 1978 is incomplete and has 

been excluded from this figure. 

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

1900 1912 1924 1936 1948 1960 1972 1984 1996 2008

Year

Growing Degree Days

Actual GDD Average GDD Trend
71 

Over the long-term span of available data, we observed a decrease in the number of growing 

degree days during the first three months of the year. While this may indicate a decrease in the 

growing season through time, Figure 35 also illustrates that conditions are variable and cyclical. 

To better understand this, we elected to examine the same data in terms of phenology. Much 

research has been completed equating phenological events to growing degree days (McMaster 

and Wilhelm 1997, University of Massachusetts Extension 2008, Virginia Tech FORSITE 2008). 

We attempted to put this in the context of a calendar year by selecting an arbitrary GDD 

threshold (1200 GDD) and estimating the date at which that number of growing degree days was 

achieved. This would be analogous to estimating the specific date a phenological event was to 

occur (e.g., the blooming of dogwood trees).

Since our source data is comprised of monthly mean daily temperature, we calculated the total 

monthly accumulated GDD by multiplying the mean daily temperature by the number of days in 

the month. We then set a reference number of GDDs at 1200 to approximate a springtime 

phenological event. Historically, this value was achieved during the month of either March or 

April. We used the total GDD accumulated for the year through March 31 (sum of January, 

February, and March) then calculated the difference from 1200. 

We estimated the number of days required to achieve the 1200 GDD by calculating the slope of 

the line for the appropriate month. If the difference was positive, we estimated the exact date 

where 1200 was achieved by determining the slope of the line between the total GDD for March 

and the total for April. If negative, the same procedure was used between February and March. 

This permitted us to use the most accurate daily rate in our estimation. 

Using this process we determined the calendar date that 1200 GDD was achieved for each year 

in the dataset and plotted it over time (Figure 36).
72 

Figure 36. The approximate date in St. Augustine, FL when 1200 GDD has been reached for 

each year (1901 – 2007). The average date is March 5. The decreasing trend (-0.30 days per 

decade) indicates that this date is arriving earlier each year. Data for 1948, 1973, and 1978 is 

incomplete and has been excluded from this figure. 

This illustrates that the phenology of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs may be 

advancing which, in turn, may allow species found in warmer climates with longer growing 

seasons to expand into this area while perhaps limiting those more northern species. However, 

the annual variation for this factor is high making the correlation for this trend extremely weak 

(R2

 = 0.012). More detailed information is needed. 

Extreme Weather Events:

To observe extreme weather events and trends, we obtained historic storm tracks from NOAA’s 

Coastal Services Center (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2008b). We 

acquired storm data from 1851 to 2007, which was loaded into a GIS. We then selected all 

storms that occurred within 100 nautical miles (nm) of the Castillo de San Marcos and Fort 

Matanzas NM boundaries to assess those storms which were most likely to have an impact on the 

ecosystems and processes associated with the park. 

Each storm category is defined as a separate event, so we combined storms that occurred on 

successive days into one storm event and maintained the most severe storm rating assigned to 

any one of the storms. This was necessary to accurately and efficiently understand storm 

frequency and the impacts of extreme weather on Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas 

y = -0.0301x + 39571

R2

 = 0.0117

2/7

2/12

2/17

2/22

2/27

3/3

3/8

3/13

3/18

3/23

3/28

4/2

1900 1912 1924 1936 1948 1960 1972 1984 1996 2008

Year

Date

Date when 1200 GDD reached Average Date when 1200 GDD reached

Trend 10-year Moving Average
73 

NMs and the surrounding areas. Additionally, it is worth noting that storms were not named until 

around 1950. In our assessment, we included storms rated as tropical depressions (TD), tropical 

storms (TS), and category 1 – 4 hurricanes. There were no Category 5 hurricanes in the historical 

data that came within 100nm of Castillo de San Marcos or Fort Matanzas NMs. 

Storms categorized as tropical depressions are those with maximum sustained winds of 38 mph 

or less. Tropical storms are those with maximum sustained winds of 39 to 73 mph (U.S. 

Department of Commerce 2001). The Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale (Table 31) rates and 

categorizes hurricanes on a scale of 1 through 5 based on wind speeds (Blake et al. 2007). A 

major hurricane is any storm categorized as 3, 4, or 5 on the Saffir/Simpson Scale. 

Table 31. Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale (Blake et al. 2007). 

 Typical Characteristics of Hurricanes by Category

Scale Number 

(Category)

Wind Speed 

(mph) Millibars Inches Surge (feet) Damage

1 74 – 95 > 979 > 28.91 4 to 5 Minimal

2 96 – 110 965 – 979 28.50 – 28.91 6 to 8 Moderate

3 111 – 130 945 – 964 27.91 – 28.47 9 to 12 Extensive

4 131 – 155 920 – 944 27.17 – 27.88 13 to 18 Extreme

5 > 155 < 920 < 27.17 > 18 Catastrophic

Upon analyzing the historic hurricane data, we were able to better understand the frequency and 

magnitude of extreme weather events affecting Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs. 

We observed the data in terms of monthly occurrence as well as yearly occurrence. Figure 37

through Figure 39 illustrate various combinations of storm activity during the annual monthly 

cycles, while Figure 40 through Figure 42 illustrate various combinations of storm activity 

broken down decennially to adequately facilitate illustration and interpretation. 

The majority of all storm activity within 100nm of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas 

NMs occurs later in the year, between the months of August and October, with September 

experiencing the most (Figure 37). When the storms are divided into groups designated as either 

major or minor, these findings remain constant. Breaking the storms into groups, however, 

illustrates that minor storms (TD, TS, or Cat 1 or 2 hurricanes) pose a greater threat to Castillo de 

San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs than do major storms (Figure 38).

Dissecting the data further, we were able to illustrate the frequency of each storm category and 

the potential impacts on Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs. According to the data, 

the parks are affected most by tropical storms, followed by Cat 1 hurricanes, both of which are 

relatively minor storm systems (Figure 39).

The annual data, combined into ten-year blocks, permits the interpretation of historic storm 

trends and the opportunity to infer future storm activity and the potential impacts on Castillo de 

San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs. When all storm categories are combined, the data show 

that storm activity is on a relative decline (Figure 40). The graphic also illustrates that although 

the trend is declining, storm activity peaks an average of every twenty years since the 1940 – 
74 

1949 decennial block. Based on these data alone, storm activity should peak in the 2000 – 2009 

decennial block and continue the historic downward trend in the following decade. 

When the annual data is split into major and minor storms, it is evident that Castillo de San 

Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs are threatened more by minor storms than major storms (Figure 

41). The graph illustrates that while minor storm activity generally appears to be decreasing, the 

monuments have experienced a peak every twenty years since the 1940 – 1949 decennial block. 

According to the trends, minor storms should peak in the 2000 – 2009 decennial block and 

continue to decline in the following decade. The data also suggests that Castillo de San Marcos 

and Fort Matanzas NM may expect a major storm event in the coming years. The trends for 

major storm indicate that activity peaks every thirty to forty years, with the last peak occurring in 

the 1960 – 1969 decennial block. 

Splitting the annual data into its primary components permits the observation of each storm 

category and its trends since 1851 (Figure 42). Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs 

have historically been affected most by Tropical Storms, followed by a secondary influence from 

Cat 1 hurricanes. The data also illustrates that the monuments are experiencing an increasing 

trend in Tropical Depressions and Cat 4 hurricanes, while experiencing fewer storms in other 

categories. 

Figure 37. Total number of all storms per month (1851 – 2007) occurring within 100 nautical 

miles of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Number of Storms
75

Figure 38. Total number of major and minor storms per month (1851 – 2007) occurring within 100 nautical miles of Castillo de San 

Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Months

Number of Storms

Minor Storms (TD-Cat 2)

Major Storms (Cat 3-4)
76

Figure 39. Total number of storms by category per month (1851 – 2007) occurring within 100 nautical miles of Castillo de San 

Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. Tropical depressions (TD) have 38 mph sustained wind speeds or less, tropical 

storms (TS) have 39 to 73 mph wind speeds, and the remaining hurricane categories (1 – 4) are from Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale 

(Table 31).

0

5

10

15

20

25

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Number of Storms

TD

TS

Cat 1

Cat 2

Cat 3

Cat 4
77

Figure 40. Total number of all storms per decade (1851 – 2007) occurring within 100 nautical miles of Castillo de San Marcos and 

Fort Matanzas National Monuments. 

R2 = 0.0004

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1850-

1859

1860-

1869

1870-

1879

1880-

1889

1890-

1899

1900-

1909

1910-

1919

1920-

1929

1930-

1939

1940-

1949

1950-

1959

1960-

1969

1970-

1979

1980-

1989

1990-

1999

2000-

2007

Year

Number of Storms
78

Figure 41. Total number of major and minor storms per decade (1851 – 2007) occurring within 100 nautical miles of Castillo de San 

Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1850-

1859

1860-

1869

1870-

1879

1880-

1889

1890-

1899

1900-

1909

1910-

1919

1920-

1929

1930-

1939

1940-

1949

1950-

1959

1960-

1969

1970-

1979

1980-

1989

1990-

1999

2000-

2007

Year

Number of Storms

Minor Storms (TD-Cat 2)

Major Storms (Cat 3-4)
79

Figure 42. Total number of storms by category per decade (1851 – 2007) occurring within 100 nautical miles of Castillo de San 

Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. Tropical depressions (TD) have 38 mph sustained wind speeds or less, tropical 

storms (TS) have 39 to 73 mph wind speeds, and the remaining hurricane categories (1 – 4) are from Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale 

(Table 31).

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1850-

1859

1860-

1869

1870-

1879

1880-

1889

1890-

1899

1900-

1909

1910-

1919

1920-

1929

1930-

1939

1940-

1949

1950-

1959

1960-

1969

1970-

1979

1980-

1989

1990-

1999

2000-

2007

Year

Number of Storms

TD

TS

Cat 1

Cat 2

Cat 3

Cat 4
80 

3.3.2.b Resource threats and stressors: 

The threat of changing climate is real, and much research points to the high likelihood of broad 

ecological impacts as a result. How these changes will impact specific park resources is yet 

unknown, but they are likely to be comprehensive. That is not to say that those changes will be 

catastrophic. While specific biota or processes will be impacted, climate change may not result in 

extinctions or degradations. An important and immediate trend to consider is the increase in 

likelihood of drier summer periods and the impact this may have on the marsh at Fort Matanzas 

NM. 

3.3.2.c Critical knowledge or data gaps: 

Data quality is relatively good for the climate categories. We gave spatial a zero because these 

data were not collected at Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs, but it could be argued 

that these should receive a one (Table 32). All the data used for climate were taken from longterm datasets for St. Augustine, Florida and Castillo de San Marcos NM is within the city. It is

also unlikely that the climate at Fort Matanzas NM varies much from this data, but without basic 

climate variable information taken on-site, this remains an assumption. Since climate is the 

product of long-term weather variables, simply initiating weather data collection now will not 

yield useful information for some time unless it is used to calibrate the dataset available for St. 

Augustine. 

It would be advisable for the park to maintain basic phenological information. This could be used 

along with data gathered throughout the region to quantify the changing phenology over a 

reasonably short time frame. The park can easily identify specific events (e.g., the appearance of 

the first bloom) that should be monitored and recorded annually as part of other ongoing 

activities.

Assigning condition status was a bit of a challenge for this assessment category. Although we 

have tracked and displayed these data in a thorough manner, there are little historical or 

experimental outcomes to which these climatic and extreme weather events can be compared 

(Table 32).

3.3.2.d Condition status summary: 

Temperature is in the good range for Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs because 

temperatures are fairly constant and increasing at a relatively negligible rate (Table 32). The 

condition status was also good for precipitation due to an increasing trend (Table 32). The 

moisture condition status was fair because the increase in the proportion of months classified as 

“excessively dry” or “severely dry” since 1975 (Table 32). Phenology is in the fair range due to 

the observed increase in the number of growing degree days that may indicate an increase in the 

growing season through time (Table 32). Extreme weather events received a good condition 

status because storm activity is on a relative decline and the majority of the storms that do hit are 

relatively minor (Table 32).
81

Table 32. Climate condition status summary for Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas

National Monuments. Data quality was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best 

source), spatial (1 = inside park boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 

0 = older than 5 years). The colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor scores 

respectively (see Table 1).

Category Condition 

Status Midpoint Data Quality 

Thematic Spatial Temporal 

Temperature

1 0 1 

Good 0.84 2 out of 3 

Precipitation

1 0 1 

Good 0.84 2 out of 3

Moisture

1 0 1 

Fair 0.5 2 out of 3 

Phenology (GDD) 1 0 1 

Fair 0.5 2 out of 3 

Extreme weather events

1 1 1 

Good 0.84 3 out of 3 

Climate total

5 1 5 

Good 0.70 11 out of 15 

3.3.2.e Recommendations to park managers: 

Simple measures to monitor the climate changes at Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas 

NMs should be considered. This does not require a comprehensive or expensive program, but 

simply a dedicated effort to raise awareness of the changes on the park as they occur. We 

recommend:

- Attention to the summer season temperature and precipitation to anticipate the threat of 

marsh stress and the potential for it contributing to salt marsh dieback.

- Participation in national and regional investigations into phenological changes. The US 

National Phenology Network (http://www.usanpn.org/) provides information and protocol 

for low-cost programs. 

3.4 Water

3.4.1 Hydrology

Hydrologic issues at Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NM are wide and varied. The 

unique interaction of coastal water processes in conjunction with the Matanzas River estuary and 

arrangement of wetlands make for a complicated array of hydrologic function. We examined 

these first within the context of the wetlands through a National Wetlands Inventory assessment 

protocol (Tiner 2003a). In addition, there are several local hydrologic issues that are important to 

the monuments. Castillo de San Marcos NM is concerned with erosion pertaining to its seawall 

stabilization (Parsons 2007). Fort Matanzas NM is also concerned about shoreline stabilization
82

along the Intracoastal Waterway and has recently finished some parts of a project to slow erosion 

(National Park Service 2006a). 

 

3.4.1.a Current condition: 

There are 0.80 acres of wetlands at Castillo de San Marcos NM and 170 acres of wetlands at Fort 

Matanzas NM according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory 

(NWI). NWI designed a straightforward way of assessing watershed function in a spatial context 

using available NWI classifications. The newer wetland landscape position, landform, water flow 

path, and waterbody type descriptors (LLWW) (Tiner 2003b) are also needed to perform this 

correlation. There are ten functions that NWI has designed to evaluate wetlands. These are: 1) 

surface water detention, 2) coastal storm surge detention, 3) streamflow maintenance, 4) nutrient 

transformation, 5) sediment and other particulate retention, 6) shoreline stabilization, 7) 

provision of fish and shellfish habitat, 8) provision of waterfowl and waterbird habitat, 9) 

provision of other wildlife habitat, and 10) conservation of biodiversity. 

The criteria that were developed by Tiner (2003a) have been reviewed by wetland specialists 

working in Maryland, Delaware, New York, and Maine. These criteria may need to be modified 

slightly for Florida, but we work under the assumption that these functional analyses will operate 

similarly for the Southeastern U.S. The first 6 functions are covered in this hydrology section. 

Surface Water Detention: 

All of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NM wetlands are highly rated for surface water 

detention (Table 33, Figure 43). These wetland types have been shown to provide flood storage 

and reduce downstream floods and flood heights (Tiner 2003a). 

Table 33. Surface water detention correlation to National Wetland Inventory classification within 

Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. 

NWI Correlation

CASA

Acres

% of CASA

Wetlands

FOMA

Acres

% of FOMA

Wetlands

High 0.80 100.00 170.0 100.00

0.80 100.00 170.0 100.00
83

Figure 43. Surface water detention correlation to National Wetland Inventory classification 

within Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. 
84

Coastal Storm Surge Detention: 

Table 34 and Figure 44 illustrate that only 4% of Castillo de San Marcos NM wetlands are 

capable of offering high levels of coastal storm surge detention, while 93% of Fort Matanzas NM 

wetlands offer high levels of coastal storm surge detention. These are wetlands that will function 

as temporary water storage under the pressure of large storms such as hurricanes and tropical 

storms (Tiner 2003a). 

Table 34. Coastal storm surge detention correlation to National Wetland Inventory classification 

within Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. 

NWI Correlation

CASA

Acres

% of CASA

Wetlands

FOMA

Acres

% of FOMA 

Wetlands

High 0.03 4.08 158.4 93.19

Not Correlated/Poor 0.76 95.92 11.6 6.81

0.80 100.00 170.0 100.00 

Figure 44. Coastal storm surge detention correlation to National Wetland Inventory classification 

within Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. 
85

Streamflow Maintenance: 

The location of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs, on the coast, precludes them 

from offering much in the way of streamflow maintenance (Table 35, Figure 45). Headwater 

wetlands, far upstream from the monuments, operate to increase streamflow (Tiner 2003a). 

Table 35. Streamflow maintenance correlation to National Wetland Inventory classification 

within Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. 

NWI Correlation 

CASA

Acres

% of CASA

Wetlands 

FOMA

Acres

% of FOMA 

Wetlands 

Not Correlated /Poor 0.80 100.00 170.0 100.00

0.80 100.00 170.0 100.00 

Figure 45. Streamflow maintenance correlation to National Wetland Inventory classification 

within Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. 
86

Nutrient Transformation: 

Nutrient transformation occurs most readily in permanently flooded wetlands whereas 

temporarily flooded wetlands have only moderate potential (Tiner 2003a). Four percent of the 

wetlands at Castillo de San Marcos NM and 22% of wetlands at Fort Matanzas NM are highly 

correlated to this function (Table 36, Figure 46). Irregularly exposed wetlands and subtidal 

rivers/streams do not offer much in the way of nutrient transformation because they are 

continuously saturated and anaerobic. 

Table 36. Nutrient transformation correlation to National Wetland Inventory classification within 

Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. 

NWI Correlation

CASA

Acres

% of CASA

Wetlands

FOMA

Acres

% of FOMA 

Wetlands

High 0.03 4.08 36.7 21.59 

Not Correlated /Poor 0.76 95.92 133.3 78.41 

0.80 100.00 170.0 100.00
87

Figure 46. Nutrient transformation correlation to National Wetland Inventory classification 

within Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. 

Sediment and Other Particulate Retention: 

There is a low correlation of wetlands at Castillo de San Marcos NM (4%) and a significantly 

higher correlation of wetlands at Fort Matanzas NM (79%) with the retention of sediments and 

other particulates (Table 37, Figure 47). Water quality is supported through this wetland function 

(Tiner 2003a). Maintenance of healthy native vegetation is an important way to ensure that 

sediment and particulate retention is maximized.
88

Table 37. Sediment and other particulate retention correlation to National Wetland Inventory 

classification within Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. 

NWI Correlation

CASA

Acres

% of CASA

Wetlands

FOMA

Acres

% of FOMA 

Wetlands

High 0.03 4.08 134.3 78.97

Moderate 0.00 0.00 24.2 14.22

Not Correlated /Poor 0.76 95.92 11.6 6.81

0.80 100.00 170.0 100.00

Figure 47. Sediment and other particulate retention correlation to National Wetland Inventory 

classification within Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments.

Shoreline Stabilization: 

Shoreline stabilization is an important function for Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas 

NMs. Both monuments are undergoing projects to assure shoreline stabilization (National Park 

Service 2006a, Parsons 2007). 
89

Castillo de San Marcos NM has ongoing issues with erosion due to the failing seawall. An 

environmental assessment was performed in 2007 with a comment period in fall 2007. They plan 

to rehabilitate the seawall. This is an important project to protect the landscape and historic 

structures of the monument (Parsons 2007). 

Fort Matanzas NM recently finished the boat dock replacement on the Rattlesnake Island portion 

of the proposed shoreline stabilization and boat dock replacement (National Park Service 2006a, 

2008a). Stabilization of rubble mound groins, dikes, concrete capped bulkhead, and seawall are 

also proposed to prevent erosion along Rattlesnake and Anastasia Islands (National Park Service 

2006a). The erosion has been shown to be caused by waves, currents, and human dredging and 

filling. The primary cause, however, is boat wakes in the Intracoastal Waterway (Price 2006). 

In agreement with current plans, NWI correlations (Tiner 2003a) show a low level of shoreline 

stabilization functionality within all of the wetlands of Castillo de San Marcos NM. Shoreline 

stabilization functionality at Fort Matanzas NM, however, is relatively high as a whole (Table 

38, Figure 48). Fort Matanzas NM does show some level of shoreline stabilization issues along 

the immediate shoreline. Although hard to distinguish in the map (Figure 48), there is a buffer of 

not correlated/poor along the Matanzas River (Intracoastal Waterway) between the two islands. 

Table 38. Shoreline stabilization correlation to National Wetland Inventory classification within 

Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. 

NWI Correlation

CASA

Acres

% of CASA

Wetlands

FOMA

Acres

% of FOMA 

Wetlands

High 0.03 4.08 134.3 78.97 

Not Correlated /Poor 0.76 95.92 35.8 21.03 

0.80 100.00 170.0 100.00
90

Figure 48. Shoreline stabilization correlation to National Wetland Inventory classification within 

Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. 

3.4.1.b Resource threats and stressors:

Sea level rise and flooding are a real concern at Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs. 

A recent study (Craft et al. 2009) showed that salt marshes on the Georgia coast may decline in 

area by 20 to 40% due to predicted sea level rise in this century. Craft et al. (2009) also predicted 

that under a mean scenario, tidal freshwater marshes will increase by 2% and under a maximum 

scenario they will decline by 39%. The mean scenario assumes a 52-cm (1.7-foot) increase in sea 

level, resulting in an overall, 184 km2 loss of Georgia tidal marsh.

We examined the effect of a 2-foot and 4-foot storm surge or sea-level rise on the land area of 

Castillo de San Marcos NM (Figure 49) and Fort Matanzas NM (Figure 50). In a 2-foot surge, 

the area of water associated with Castillo de San Marcos NM increased from 4 to 6 acres, or 22% 

to 28% of Castillo de San Marcos NM total area. The area of water at Fort Matanzas NM in a 2-

foot surge increased from 26 to 59 acres, or 9% to 20% of Fort Matanzas NM total area. In a 4-

foot surge, the area of water at Castillo de San Marcos NM increased to 9 acres, leaving 

approximately 42% of Castillo de San Marcos NM under water. The area of water at Fort 
91

Matanzas NM in a 4-foot surge increased to 124 acres, leaving approximately 41% of Fort 

Matanzas NM under water. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (2008) also shows 

Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs under a hazardous flood area (Figure 51).

Another important threat and stressor mentioned under shoreline stabilization is the threat of 

increased erosion from boat wakes. The Matanzas River (Intracoastal Waterway) separating 

Rattlesnake and Anastasia Islands is a popular recreational boat area. This is another case of 

recreation and visitation to parks possibly leading to the two parts of the NPS mission working 

against each other (3.2.2 Visitor and Recreation Use).
92

Figure 49. Digital elevation model (DEM) of the Castillo de San Marcos National Monument 

region showing mean sea level, and approximate two foot, and four foot storm surge. 
93

Figure 50. Digital elevation model (DEM) of the Fort Matanzas National Monument region 

showing mean sea level, and approximate two foot, and four foot storm surge. 
94

This Map Is For Advisory Purposes Only

Figure 51. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA, 2008) flood maps for the Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas 

National Monument region, showing all areas are under 100-year flood hazard in which base flood elevations have been determined 

(Zone AE).
95 

3.4.1.c Critical knowledge or data gaps: 

Data quality is relatively good for this assessment category (Table 39, Table 40). Local-scale 

wetland and hydrology analysis, specific to Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs, 

would add detail to this assessment. When spatial scale was questionable, we gave thematic a 

zero for data quality. Table 39 and Table 40 show the summaries of condition status and data 

quality. 

3.4.1.d Condition status summary 

Surface water detention is the only wetland correlation that falls in the good range for Castillo de 

San Marcos NM (Table 39). It could be argued that more of these correlations could be 

considered not applicable. However, it is important to note their poor or no correlation status 

even if they are not used in the overall condition status summary. Surface water detention, 

coastal storm surge detention, and sediment and other particulate retention are all in the good 

range because the majority of Fort Matanzas NM wetlands were highly rated for these 

assessment categories (Table 40). Seventy-eight percent of Fort Matanzas NM wetlands are not 

correlated with nutrient transformation, thus giving this category a poor condition status (Table 

40). The majority of Fort Matanzas NM wetlands are highly rated for shoreline stabilization. 

However, in agreement with recent projects and reports (National Park Service 2006a, Price 

2006), the immediate shoreline, unconsolidated shore and bottom, shows no correlation to 

shoreline stabilization and is a concern. Consequently, shoreline stabilization is in the fair range 

for condition status (Table 40). In addition, the monuments’ wetlands do not offer much in the 

way of streamflow maintenance because of their coastal location. Headwater wetlands, far 

upstream from the Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs, operate to increase 

streamflow, so this category is not applicable (Table 39, Table 40).
96

Table 39. Hydrology condition status summary for Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. 

Data quality was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), spatial (1 = 

inside park boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = older than 5 

years). The colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor scores respectively (see 

Table 1).

Category Condition 

Status Midpoint Data Quality 

Thematic Spatial Temporal 

Surface water detention 0 1 1 

Good 0.84 2 out of 3 

Coastal storm surge 

detention 

0 1 1 

Poor 0.17 2 out of 3 

Streamflow maintenance 0 1 1 

N/A -- 2 out of 3 

Nutrient transformation 0 1 1 

Poor 0.17 2 out of 3 

Sediment and other 

particulate retention

0 1 1 

Poor 0.17 2 out of 3 

Shoreline stabilization 0 1 1 

Poor 0.17 2 out of 3 

Hydrology total 

0 6 6 

Poor 0.30 12 out of 18 

Table 40. Hydrology condition status summary for Fort Matanzas National Monument. Data 

quality was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), spatial (1 = inside 

park boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = older than 5 years). 

The colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor scores respectively (see Table 1).

Category Condition 

Status Midpoint Data Quality 

Thematic Spatial Temporal 

Surface water detention 0 1 1 

Good 0.84 2 out of 3 

Coastal storm surge 

detention 

0 1 1 

Good 0.84 2 out of 3 

Streamflow maintenance 0 1 1 

N/A -- 2 out of 3 

Nutrient transformation 0 1 1 

Poor 0.17 2 out of 3 

Sediment and other 

particulate retention

0 1 1 

Good 0.84 2 out of 3 

Shoreline stabilization 0 1 1 

Fair 0.5 2 out of 3 

Hydrology total 

0 6 6 

Fair 0.64 12 out of 18 
97

3.4.1.e Recommendations to park managers: 

We recommend avoiding excavation in the tidal marshes as well as filling and building on the 

tidal marsh soils. Park managers should be aware of and follow all wetland protection 

regulations. An additional proactive step would be to work with boat operators and other 

management entities to avoid continued shoreline erosion. Continuing to monitor and stabilize 

the shoreline is a positive management action that is already in process at both monuments. 

3.4.2 Water Quality

Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments lie within Florida’s Daytona-St. 

Augustine subbasin, hydrologic unit code (HUC) 03080201 (Figure 52), that extends from 

southern Duval County south through Flagler and St. John’s Counties to northern Volusia 

County. The Daytona-St. Augustine subbasin is also referred to as the Upper East Coast 

Watershed. This subbasin encompasses 692 square miles excluding estuarine areas (Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection 2009). 

Surface waters cover about 36 percent of the basin area (158,939 acres) consisting of small 

rivers, streams, and marshes which form shallow bays and coastal lagoons all flowing east into 

the Atlantic Ocean (Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2009). The three inlets, St. 

Augustine, Matanzas, and Ponce de Leon connect the bays and coastal lagoons to the Atlantic, 

where they mix with tidal waters. The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AICW) extends 15 miles 

north of the subbasin and runs south into the Tolomato River, which connects with the Guana 

River and flows into the Atlantic through the St. Augustine inlet. South of the St. Augustine 

inlet, the Matanzas River, a narrow bar-bounded estuary, flows into either the Atlantic via the 

Matanzas inlet or enters an extension of the AICW through an artificial canal into the Halifax 

River. The Halifax River continues south exiting the basin (Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection 2009) (Figure 52, Figure 53).
98

Figure 52. The Daytona-St. Augustine subbasin (HUC 03080201) that contains Castillo de San 

Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. 

Castillo de San Marcos NM is located just south of the St. Augustine inlet on the Matanzas 

River. The Matanzas River is a part of the AICW and is actually a saltwater estuary about 20 

miles in length and flows about eight miles past the Matanzas inlet. Fort Matanzas NM lies on 

the southern tip of Anastasia Island on the Matanzas inlet and the northern third of Rattlesnake 

Island. The two islands that compose Fort Matanzas NM are separated by the Matanzas River 

(AICW, Figure 53). The Matanzas River is home to extensive salt marshes, estuarine lagoons, 

oyster bars, mangrove tidal wetlands, and marine environments (National Park Service 2007b). 

These communities not only support a wide range of aquatic plants and animals, but are of great 

aesthetic importance.
99

Figure 53: Water resources and hydrologic unit at Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas 

National Monuments. 
100

Florida’s Water Quality Standards Program 

Florida has designated five classes of water for the “present and future most beneficial uses” 

(Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2008). The classes are as follows:

Class I Potable water supplies 

Class II Shellfish propagation or harvesting 

Class III Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population 

of fish and wildlife 

Class IV Agricultural water supplies (large agricultural lands, located mainly around Lake 

Okeechobee) 

Class V Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this 

class)

Water Quality Standards are assigned according to the classification of the surface water system 

(Table 41). 

Table 41. Water quality standards from Florida 305(b) Rule 62-302.530 Criteria for Surface 

Water Quality Classification (Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2008) 

Use 

Classification Bacteria (fecal coliform)

Dissolved Oxygen, 

DO pH

Class I

Monthly Ave not to exceed 200 

MPN or MF, nor exceed 400 in 10% 

of samples, nor 800 in any one day

> 5 mg/L at all times

Not to vary more > 1 unit above 

or below natural background 

value, and fall between 6 and 8.5

Class II

MPN should not exceed median 

value of 14, with 10% not exceeding 

43, nor exceed 800 on any one day

> 5 mg/L daily 

average; Not < 4 

mg/L at all times

Coastal waters shall not vary > 1 

unit above or below natural 

background value, open water 

shall not vary > 0.2 unit

Class III/

Fresh

Monthly Ave not to exceed 200 

MPN or MF, nor exceed 400 in 10% 

of samples, nor 800 in any one day

> 5 mg/L at all times Coastal waters or predominately 

freshwaters shall not vary > 1 

unit above or below natural 

background value, open water 

shall not vary > 0.2 unit

Class III/

Marine

Monthly Ave not to exceed 200 

MPN or MF, nor exceed 400 in 10% 

of samples, nor 800 in any one day

> 5 mg/L daily 

average; Not < 4 

mg/L at all times

Class IV Not specified

> 4 mg/L daily 

average; Not < 3 

mg/L at all times

Not to vary more than 1 unit 

above or below natural 

background value, and fall 

between 6 and 8.5

Class V Not specified

> 0.3 50% of the 

times for flows 

greater than 250 

cubic feet/sec; Not <

0.1 at all times

Not lower than 5.0 nor greater 

than 9.5 except certain swamp 

waters which may be as low as 

4.5.
101

Generally, those in Class I have the most stringent water quality criteria and Class V are the least 

restrictive (Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2008). 

The Florida Department of Environmental Protections (DEP) collects water quality data from 

stations located throughout the subbasin. The five stations closest to the monuments with 

appropriate available water quality data were used as an index of the condition of the water 

resources in and around the monuments (Table 42, Table 43, and Figure 54). 

Table 42. Names and locations of the five closest water quality monitoring stations to Castillo de 

San Marcos with appropriate available water quality data. Data from U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency STORET (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2008c). Distance estimated 

using the EPA EnviroMapper. 

Station Name Station ID Latitude Longitude

Approximate 

distance from CASA

St. Augustine Inlet @ Marker #2 27010131 29.90325 -81.2996 0.7 miles

Tolomato R S of Vilano Bch Brid 27010136 29.91494 -81.3028 1.2 miles

Matanzas R 1/2 Mi S of Bridge 27010139 29.88567 -81.3052 0.8 miles 

San Sebastian R @ Hwy 1 27010141 29.89248 -81.3226 0.7 miles 

San Sebastian River @ US 1 SSB 29.8819444 -81.3238889 1.3 miles

Table 43. Names and locations of the five closest water quality monitoring stations to Fort 

Matanzas with appropriate available water quality data. Data from U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency STORET (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2008c). Distance estimated 

using the EPA EnviroMapper. 

Station Name Station ID Latitude Longitude

Approximate distance 

from FOMA

ICWW at Channel cut to Matanzas 27010098 29.70419 -81.2338 0.0 miles

Across from Fort Matanzas at 

creek mouth 88SEAS011 29.71683 -81.2395 0.1 miles 

Up Creek from station 11 88SEAS012 29.71867 -81.2375 0.2 miles 

CM 80A 88SEAS100 29.71917 -81.2463 0.1 miles 

Mouth of 2nd creek southwest of 

CM 81C 88SEAS189 29.71117 -81.244 0.1 miles 
102

Figure 54. Location of the water quality monitoring stations used for the Castillo de San Marcos 

and Fort Matanzas National Monument Natural Resource Assessment.

3.4.2.a Current condition: 

Dissolved oxygen (DO):

Dissolved oxygen (DO) is a relative measure of volume of oxygen, O2, dissolved in water, 

usually measured in mg/L. It is considered relative because temperature, pressure, and salinity, 

affect the capacity of water to hold oxygen. Both high (i.e. supersaturation) and low DO 

concentrations can be harmful in aquatic systems, though low DO concentrations are more 

common. Low DO concentrations may result from excess organic matter in aquatic systems, as 
103

aerobic (oxygen-consuming) decomposition breaks down organic material. Low dissolved 

oxygen levels are most prevalent during the warm summer months when water temperatures rise 

and mixing of the water column is reduced. 

Data available through STORET for DO was reported by Florida DEP from January 8, 2004 to 

November 14, 2006. DO concentrations ranged from 2.4 to 10.7 mg/l and averaged 5.9 ± 2.3 

mg/l. DO concentrations inherently vary by time of day along with the photosynthetic activity of 

aquatic vegetation, with the lowest DO levels occurring at sunrise. Many samples were taken 

midday or later and so likely do not represent daily minimums. Sampling intensities (n) varied 

between sites and so some reported averages are based on more data points than others. Florida 

water quality standards for DO are expressed in terms of daily averages, but some of the 

STORET data collected at Florida DEP monitoring stations near Castillo de San Marcos and Fort 

Matanzas NM during the last 5 years report DO levels as a single point value (i.e. reporting one 

single value per day). Consequently, direct comparison to daily average standards is problematic. 

Seventy-one percent (176 of 248) of the individual DO measurements reported exceeded the 

most restrictive standard of 5mg/liter for Class I waters. Ninety-eight percent (244 of 248) 

exceeded the Class III/Marine standard of 4mg/liter. Average DO values from all data reported 

are provided (Table 44 and Table 45).

Table 44. Dissolved oxygen levels and number of data points (n) from the stations closest to 

CASA. Averages taken from all values available in the past five years on the EPA STORET. 

Station Name Station ID

Average DO

(mg/L) n

Lowest DO

(mg/L)

St. Augustine Inlet @ Marker #2 27010131 7.2 13 5 

Tolomato R S of Vilano Bch Brid 27010136 7.2 13 4.6 

Matanzas R 1/2 Mi S of Bridge 27010139 6.9 7 4.2

San Sebastian R @ Hwy 1 27010141 7.3 8 4.6 

San Sebastian River @ US 1 SSB 6.1 47 3.4 

Table 45. Dissolved oxygen levels and number of data points (n) from the stations closest to 

FOMA. Averages taken from all values available in the past five years on the EPA STORET. 

Station Name Station ID

Average DO 

(mg/L) n

Lowest DO 

(mg/L)

ICWW at Channel cut to Matanzas 27010098 6.9 21 5.1 

Across from Fort Matanzas at creek mouth 88SEAS011 5.5 72 2.4

Up Creek from station 11 88SEAS012 5.4 12 3.7 

CM 80A 88SEAS100 5.7 82 2.4 

Mouth of 2nd creek southwest of CM 81C 88SEAS189 5.4 13 3.7 

Nutrients: 

According to the U.S. EPA, nutrient pollution, especially from nitrogen and phosphorus, has 

consistently ranked as one of the top causes of water degradation in the U.S. (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 2008e). Nutrients increase the biological oxygen demand 

(BOD) and therefore lower DO concentrations in water. This process occurs because nutrients 

stimulate the growth of algae and other aquatic plants, which eventually die. Once dead, this 

organic material is decomposed by oxygen-consuming processes, resulting in low DO. Nutrients 
104

often enter aquatic systems from agricultural runoff, storm water runoff, waste-water treatment 

plants, and septic systems (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2008f). 

Florida DEP does not have extensive water quality standards for nutrients. Criteria for Surface 

Water Quality Classifications (62-302.530) list a standard for Nitrate as N Class I waters as < 10 

mg/liter, or that concentration that exceeds the nutrient criteria (Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection 2008). The U.S. EPA’s National Coastal Condition Report II (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 2005) does establish some criteria for nutrient levels for U.S. 

coastal waters (Table 46) and classifies samples as “good,” “fair,” or “poor,” based upon their 

nutrient concentrations. 

Table 46. Water quality standards for nutrient concentrations as developed for the National 

Coastal Condition Report II (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2005). DIN refers to total

dissolved inorganic nitrogen. DIP refers to total dissolved inorganic phosphorous. 

Good Fair Poor 

DIN < 0.1 mg N/l 0.1 – 0.5 mg N/l > 0.5 mg N/l

DIP < 0.01 mg P/l 0.01 – 0.05 mg P/l > 0.05 mg P/l

The available STORET data does not list sufficient information to assess nutrient levels in and 

around the monuments based on relevant standards. 

There are at least eight water bodies in HUC 03080201 with sections that are listed as impaired 

in part due to nutrient levels according to the 1998 Florida 303(d) listing (Table 47). It is unclear 

to what extent excessive nutrient levels contribute to the impairment or the constituent nutrients 

involved. Florida’s 305(b) Rule 62-302.530 states that “In no case shall nutrient concentrations 

of a body of water be altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora 

or fauna.” 

Table 47. Water bodies in HUC 03080201 listed as Impaired by Florida’s 303(d) 1998 list. 

Water body Type of water body Cause of impairment

Guana River Stream/Creek River Coliforms, DO

Halifax River Stream/Creek River Coliforms, Copper, Iron, Lead, Nutrients

ICWW Coastal DO

Matanzas River Stream/Creek River Coliforms, Nutrients

Mosquito Lagoon Lagoon Coliforms

Palm Coast Coastal Cadmium, Coliforms, DO, Lead, Nutrients, Selenium, 

Silver, Thallium

Pellicer Creek Stream/Creek River Coliforms, DO, Iron, Lead, Nutrients

Rose Bay Bay Coliforms, DO, Nutrients

Spruce Creek Stream/Creek River Coliforms, DO, Iron, Nutrients

Tomoka River Stream/Creek River Coliforms, DO, Iron, Lead, Nutrients

Unnamed Ditch Ditch DO, Nutrients

Guana River Stream/Creek River Coliforms, DO

 
105

Bacterial Contamination (fecal coliform):

Fecal coliform bacteria contamination is the most common form of bacterial contamination in 

many water bodies. Its presence in aquatic environments is a human health hazard and may 

indicate the presence of other dangerous pathogens as well. Fecal coliform bacteria often enter 

waterways through the direct discharge of untreated (or insufficiently treated) human waste and 

agricultural and municipal runoff.

Florida water quality standards for fecal coliform are expressed in terms of monthly averages, 

median values or daily maximum values. Some of the STORET data collected at Florida DEP 

monitoring stations near Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs during the last 5 years 

report fecal coliform levels as a single point value (i.e. reporting one single value per day) so 

direct comparison to monthly average standards is problematic, but all values reported fall well 

below the most restrictive monthly average and daily maximum standards. All values reported 

also meet the median standard of 14 MPN for Class II waters (shellfish propagation or harvesting 

waters) with the exception of one station where only one value was reported (Table 48 and Table 

49).

Table 48. Fecal Coliform data from FL DEP monitoring stations near Castillo de San Marcos 

since 2004 

Station Name Station ID

Average 

(#/100mL)

Median 

(#/100mL) n

St. Augustine Inlet @ Marker #2 27010131 3 2 12 

Tolomato R S of Vilano Bch Brid 27010136 3 1.9 12

Matanzas R 1/2 Mi S of Bridge 27010139 17 9.5 4 

San Sebastian R @ Hwy 1 27010141 17 17 1 

Oyster Cr @ Dixie Hwy 27010156 3 2 5 

Table 49. Fecal Coliform data from Florida DEP monitoring stations near Fort Matanzas since 

2004. 

Station Name Station ID Average Median n

ICWW at Channel cut to Matanzas 27010098* 9** 2** 22 

Across from Fort Matanzas at creek mouth 88SEAS011 6* 1.5* 74 

Up Creek from station 11 88SEAS012 9* 5* 13

CM 80A 88SEAS100 6* 2* 71 

Mouth of 2nd creek southwest of CM 81C 88SEAS189 10* 5* 13 

 *MPN

** #/100mL

Contaminants: 

Contaminants are substances such as metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and pesticides. One hundred twenty six of these “toxic 

pollutants” are listed in the Clean Water Act as Priority Pollutants. These substances enter 

waterways through storm water runoff, industrial discharges, agricultural runoff, sewage 

treatment and atmospheric deposition. Once present in aquatic systems, they may concentrate in 

sediment and bottom-dwelling organisms. Many of these substances pose a risk to human health 

and aquatic systems. 
106

In general, data on priority pollutants/organic chemicals and metals from any one given site are 

infrequent owing to the specific sampling techniques required, and EPA STORET data for these 

contaminants in the monuments’ subbasin are scarce. Of the water bodies in HUC 03080201 

listed as Impaired by Florida’s 303(d) 1998 list, 50% (7 of 14) cite contaminants (metals) as 

contributing factors in their designation as impaired (Table 47).

3.4.2.b Resource threats and stressors: 

While Florida Department of Health Division of Environmental Health does not list any 

hazardous waste sites proximate to the monuments, the northern-most corner of HUC 03080201 

in Duval County does contain sites cited by the agency as containing chemicals found in 

environmental samples of air, soil and water with potential for harm to human health (Florida 

Department of Health 2008). Since the Matanzas River is a part of the Atlantic Intracoastal 

Waterway, potential impacts from boat traffic, like erosion from ship wake and other impacts of 

human/industrial use of the resource, may be a factor in the preservation of the water resources 

in the area.

3.4.2.c Critical knowledge or data gaps: 

The fact that the data currently available is not easily evaluated against State or Federal standards 

is the most significant impediment to a thorough assessment of water quality in and around 

Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs (Table 50). Available data provides insight into 

water quality conditions in HUC 03080201 as a whole, but it is not clear as to what extent those 

conditions are reflected on a local scale. However, close proximity of the monitoring stations 

make it likely that the conditions assessed here are reflected in and around the monuments 

themselves (Table 50).

3.4.2.d Condition status summary 

Available data do not indicate water quality problems due to low dissolved oxygen levels around 

Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs. Overall condition status of the water resources 

at the monuments is assessed in the good range (Table 50) even though Table 47 cites a portion 

of the Intracoastal Waterway in HUC 03080201 as impaired due to DO levels. Clearly there have 

been water bodies in the subbasin where DO has been a problem, but the impaired area cited is 

located in the northern-most corner of the subbasin in Duval County in the vicinity of the 

reported hazardous waste site. Given that 98% data reported closer to Castillo de San Marcos and 

Fort Matanzas NMs exceeded the Class III/Marine standard for DO concentration, available data 

does not support a similar problem with low DO levels near the monuments. 

The nutrients category is assessed between the fair and poor range (Table 50), but conclusions 

are less robust due to lack of appropriate data. The portion of the Matanzas River that is cited as 

impaired in Table 47 due to nutrient levels lies just north of Castillo de San Marcos NM and with 

no additional data it is assumed that water quality at this monument at least may be influenced by 

excess nutrient levels. Excess nutrient levels are also reported elsewhere in the subbasin. 

Conclusions about fecal coliform levels in the monuments are similarly compromised by the fact 

that available data from stations near the monument boundaries cannot readily be compared with 

relevant standards. The portion of the Matanzas River north of Castillo de San Marcos NM is 
107

also cited as being impaired in part due to coliform levels. The proximity of Castillo de San 

Marcos NM to the impaired area may be an influence on fecal coliform levels near the 

monument. As a result overall Condition Status of water resources is assessed as fair for fecal 

coliform levels (Table 50). Excess fecal coliform levels are also reported elsewhere in the 

subbasin. 

There is no direct indication of pollutant contaminants at Castillo de San Marcos and Fort 

Matanzas NMs, but documented problems in the subbasin have been attributed to nonpoint 

sources in the area, thus giving water quality a fair condition status assessment due to potential 

contaminant levels (Table 50). 

Table 50. Water quality condition status summary within Castillo de San Marcos and Fort 

Matanzas National Monuments. Data quality was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = 

not the best source), spatial (1 = inside park boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal

(1 = recent; 0 = older than 5 years). The colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and 

poor scores respectively. 

Category Condition 

Status Midpoint Data Quality 

Thematic Spatial Temporal 

Dissolved oxygen 1 1 0 

Good 0.84 2 out of 3 

Nutrients (N/P) 0 1 0 

Fair/Poor 0.34 1 out of 3 

Fecal coliform bacteria 1 1 0 

Fair 0.5 2 out of 3 

Contaminants 

1 1 1 

Fair 0.5 3 out of 3 

Water quality total

3 4 1 

Fair 0.54 8 out of 12 

3.3.2.e Recommendations to park managers: 

We highlight the water quality specific recommendations in Table 51. 

Table 51. Recommendations to improve water quality and monitoring at Castillo de San Marcos 

and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. 

1. Work towards improved regional cooperation

2. Initiate regular water quality monitoring at CASA and FOMA

3. Collect additional water quality information

4. Improve access to state and federal water quality data and improved metadata
108

3.5 Geology and Soils

3.5.1 Geology and Soils

As outlined in the park and resources section of this report, the Coastal Plain region in 

northeastern Florida is composed of undeformed sedimentary rock layers whose ages range from 

the Late Cretaceous to the present Holocene sediments of the coast. Florida and southern 

Georgia were not part of the same geologic platform as the Coastal Plain from Central Georgia 

and further north. Ordovician to Devonian sedimentary "basement rocks” occur more than 3,500 

feet beneath the Coastal Plain sediments in northeast Florida (Lane 1994). During all of Late 

Cretaceous and early Paleogene time, Florida looked much like the Grand Bahama Bank does 

today: a marine platform mostly covered by shallow seas with scattered small, low islands. The 

sediments that accumulated in those shallow waters formed the carbonate deposits that underlie 

much of Florida (Frazier 2007). Starting in Miocene times, the Appalachian Mountains were 

uplifted and eroding sediments began to cover the carbonate rocks below. Periodic high sea 

levels during the Pleistocene allowed strong longshore currents to carry thick accumulations of 

sandy marine sediment south to cover Florida’s carbonate platform (Lane 1994). In addition to 

recent alluvium, organic and marine deposits make up some of the most recent sediment found in 

the Coastal Plain (UGA Department of Geology 2008). Human-dredged and deposited sediments 

are abundant along the coastlines. Specifically, the region near Castillo de San Marcos and Fort 

Matanzas NMs is a Holocene-aged deposit of organic, marine, and human-altered origin (Figure 

55). 

 

Figure 55. The surficial geology of northeast Florida (Scott et al. 2001). 

Castillo de San Marcos NM is located within the city of Saint Augustine Florida and the majority 

of the 20 acres are maintained grass with a scattering of trees in an urban park-like setting

(National Park Service 2007b). Fort Matanzas NM is part of Rattlesnake and Anastasia Islands, 

separated from the mainland by the Intracoastal Waterway and the Matanzas River. These 

islands consist of quartz sand with underlying coquina, a limestone of coarsely broken shells. 

CASA

FOMA
109

Figure 56. Castillo de San Marcos National Monument (Google 2008). 

Figure 57. Fort Matanzas National Monument (Google 2008). 
110

3.5.1.a Current condition: 

We compared a 1917 soil survey (Table 52, Table 53, and Figure 58) to the current soil data 

from the Soil Survey Geographic Data Base (SSURGO) (Table 54, Table 55, and Figure 59) to 

see what changes had occurred. The SSURGO soil data for Castillo de San Marcos NM have a 

version date of December 7, 2006 and are available in GIS format (USDA Natural Resource 

Conservation Service 2006b). Current SSURGO data for Fort Matanzas were compiled by the 

National Park Service (2006b) but were originally created by the USDA Natural Resource 

Conservation Service (2006b). The 1917 soil survey (USDA Bureau of Soils 1917) was obtained 

from an on-line collection at University of Alabama. The 1917 soil data were aligned to digital 

raster graphics (DRG) topographic maps, using the georeferencing tools in ArcGIS (ESRI 2006). 

We surveyed Saint Augustine, Saint Augustine Beach, Matanzas Inlet, and Dinner Island NE 

1:24,000 topographic maps that made up Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs or 

were in close proximity to the boundaries. Published data was also used along with photo 

interpretation to asses both current soil resources and changes. No spoil areas were identified on 

these 1994 topographic maps for the areas in either monument, but are evident and wellvegetated on closer inspection of recent photos (Figure 57).

The soil survey program was near its inception in 1917. The 1917 soil data were obtained by 

reconnaissance survey methods using a limited set of soil series choices. The 1917 soil survey of 

Castillo de San Marcos NM (Figure 58) gave a soil classification of “Norfolk fine sand.” The 

Norfolk series includes soils with sandy surfaces and loamy subsoils with clay accumulation. 

Norfolk soils are now mapped on well drained, older, higher elevation, highly weathered Coastal 

Plain terraces much further inland. The area is currently mapped as “St. Augustine-Urban land 

complex” made up of a complex mixture of about 55% St. Augustine soils, about 35% buildings 

and pavements (Urban Land), and about 10% other soils. St. Augustine is a human-altered soil 

formerly composed of dredged sandy deposits and possibly leveled sand dunes and interdune 

swales. These soils have no subsoil accumulation of clay and are somewhat poorly drained. One 

soil that occurs on the ocean side next to the monument is Pellicer silty clay loam, a silty tidal 

marsh soil. “St. Augustine” and “Pellicer” soils were established long after the 1917 soil survey 

was completed. The change in soil mapping is due to an improvement in formerly inaccurate 

mapping and a closer inspection of the soils in the newer survey with additional choices of soil 

series for the soil mappers.

The 1917 soil survey of Fort Matanzas NM (Figure 58) gave a soil classification of “Coastal 

Beach” and “Tidal Marsh" soils, represented by the Transquaking series. The beaches are 

flooded twice daily by tides and are a miscellaneous land type because the sands shift and are not 

stabilized by vegetation. The dunes should have been recognized as a soil series if one was 

established in 1917. The coastline of Florida has certainly been altered significantly since 1917 

by development, dredging and severe storm tides. The “Coastal Beach” areas of Anastasia Island 

have been altered by longshore current additions of sand on the south end, now called 

“Beaches.” The rest of the “Coastal Beach” on Anastasia Island are now mapped as “FrippSatellite complex” or “Satellite fine sand” (Figure 59). The “Fripp” soils are thick, older, wellvegetated sand dunes that are excessively drained. The “Satellite” soils are thick sandy soils on 

very low undulating dunes and swales that are somewhat poorly drained. The “Tidal Marsh” 

mapped in the extreme northwest section of the park is now mapped as “Satellite fine sand 

(Figure 59). “Fripp” and “Satellite” soils were established long after the 1917 soil survey was 
111

completed. The change in soil mapping is due to an improvement in formerly inaccurate 

mapping and a closer inspection of the soils in the newer survey with additional choices of soil 

series for the soil mappers. 

Rattlesnake Island has been severely altered since 1917, mainly by dredging of the Intracoastal 

Waterway. The “Coastal Beach” map unit has been remapped as “Moultrie fine sand.” 

“Moultrie” soils are thick sandy deposits flooded by tidal storms. They have a subsoil 

accumulation of aluminum-organic carbon complex minerals. The rest of Rattlesnake Island has 

either been dredged out (southwestern and southeastern edge), eroded away (southeastern edge), 

or covered with sandy dredged deposits since the 1917 survey (spoil piles mapped as “Moultrie 

fine sand” on the northern end or “St. Augustine fine sand, clayey substratum” in the island 

center is an area shown as open water in 1917). The 1917 base map is probably inaccurate in 

places as well (Compare Figure 57 and Figure 58). The “Moultrie fine sand” on the northern end 

is now almost certainly a dredged sand deposit. Revegetation by tree planting is evident in Figure 

57. The area may have been mapped as “Moultrie” if the elevation is very low and has somewhat 

poor drainage. However, the vegetation being planted corresponds more with an upland soils 

than a “Tidal Marsh” map unit or a soil subject to inundation by storm tides (Moultrie). 

The “St. Augustine fine sand, clayey substratum” mapped in the island center in 2006 is almost 

certainly a sandy dredged deposit placed over a clayey tidal marsh soils or a shallow clayey 

marine or alluvial estuary deposit. Both areas appear to have a geometric-shaped berm or dike 

around them to hold dredged sediment. The “Pellicer silty clay loam” mapped in the island 

center in 2006 is almost certainly a remnant of the original “Tidal Marsh” soils or a shallow 

clayey marine or alluvial estuary deposit that filled with sediment as sea level has risen. “St. 

Augustine,” “Moultrie,” and “Pellicer” soils were established long after the 1917 soil survey was 

completed. The change in soil mapping is due to drastic alteration of the soils by humans, an 

improvement in formerly inaccurate mapping, a better base map, and a closer inspection of the 

soils in the newer survey with additional choices of soil series for the soil mappers. The areas 

mapped as “Tidal Marsh” in 1917 are not accurately mapped. The “Transquaking” soil type 

identified in the 1917 survey is an organic soil from the upper East Coast in Maryland and is also 

not representative of the soils in the area. The “Pellicer” soil used in the 2006 soil survey provide 

a better description of the soil resources. “Pellicer” does not have thick organic sediment at the 

surface. The difference in “Tidal Marsh” soils between 1917 and 2006 reflect updated versions 

of the soil series concepts and improved soil survey detail and accuracy.

Table 52. Historic soil survey (1917) classification and approximate percent of total acreage for 

Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. 

Soil 

Code

Classification 

Name Description

Extent w/in 

CASA

Nf Norfolk fine 

sand (Hammock 

phase) 

The Norfolk series consists of very deep, well drained, 

moderately permeable soils on lower, middle, or upper 

coastal plains with slopes ranging from 0 to 10 percent. 

Parent material consists of marine deposits or fluviomarine 

deposits (deposits near the mouth of a river, formed by the 

combined action of river and sea). (1)

100%

(1) http://www2.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/osd/dat/N/NORFOLK.html
112

Table 53. Historic soil survey (1917) classification and approximate percent of total acreage for 

Fort Matanzas National Monument. 

Soil 

Code 

Classification 

Name Description

Extent w/in 

FOMA

Cb Coastal Beach Beaches consist of long narrow strips of nearly level sand 

along the Atlantic Ocean. Seawater covers these areas twice 

daily during normal high tides. Beaches also include some 

small areas of low dunes that are adjacent to the beaches. 

This is not a soil but a miscellaneous land type, since it is not 

stabilized by vegetation.

≈ 50%

T Tidal Marsh The Transquaking series consists of very deep, very poorly 

drained soils flooded by tidal waters. Permeability is rapid in 

the organic deposits and slow in the mineral material. Parent 

material consists of organic deposits underlain by loamy 

mineral sediments. These soils are on coastal plains in 

brackish estuarine marshes along tidally influenced rivers 

and creeks with slopes ranging from 0 to 1 percent. 

(Transquaking soils were previously mapped as Tidal Marsh 

miscellaneous area. These soils become ultra acid when 

drained).(2)

≈ 50%

(2) http://www2.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/osd/dat/T/TRANSQUAKING.html
113

Figure 58. Extent of historic soil survey (1917) at Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas 

National Monuments. 

In the 2006 soil survey, there is one soil for Castillo de San Marcos NM, the “St. AugustineUrban land complex” (Table 54, Figure 59). There is a miniscule amount of “Pellicer silty clay 

loam, frequently flooded” on the ocean side next to the Fort. 

In the 2006 soil survey, there are six soil classes for Fort Matanzas NM. These are “St. 

Augustine fine sand, clayey substratum,” “Pellicer silty clay loam, frequently flooded,” “FrippSatellite complex,” “Satellite fine sand,” “Moultrie fine sand, frequently flooded,” and 

“Beaches” (Table 55, Figure 59). Tidal marsh soils such as “Pellicer” contain reduced sulfides 

and are called cat clays because of the formation of a gray and yellow pattern when they are 

exposed to oxygen by dredging or ditching. “Pellicer” soils are not as clayey as “Bohicket” or 

“Capers.” The gray is the background color of the subaqueous, reduced soil and the yellow 

mottles are iron-sulfates (jarosite) formed by oxidation and precipitation of sulfides in the 

exposed sediment. The formation of jarosite leads to release of sulfuric acid and thus lowers the 

pH to levels too low to support native vegetation, until the soil pH is raised through additions of 
114

calcium or leaching of sulfates. The “Moultrie” soils have higher salinity than other sandy soils 

and have limitations for revegetation because of their flooding during storm tides. 

There are no Prime Farmlands or soils of Statewide Importance in either monument. The only 

Highly Erodible Lands are at Fort Matanzas NM. These are the poorly vegetated dunes and 

dredged deposits in the “Moultrie fine sand”, “Beaches”, and “Fripp-Satellite complex.” 

Table 54. Current soil survey (2006) classification, acreages, and percent of total acreage for 

Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. 

Map 

Symbol Map Unit Name Description

CASA 

Acres

CASA 

%

51 St. Augustine (3)-

Urban land complex

This map unit consists of nearly level, somewhat 

poorly drained St. Augustine soils that have been 

used for urban development. Most areas of this 

unit are located near developments along the 

Atlantic Coast and Intracoastal Waterway. Many 

areas are adjacent to tidal marshes and other low 

areas or bodies of water from which sandy soil 

material has been dredged.

20.0 100.0

 Total 20.0 100.0

(3) http://www2.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/osd/dat/S/ST._AUGUSTINE.html

Table 55. Current soil survey (2006) classification, acreages, and percent of total acreage for Fort 

Matanzas National Monument. 

Map 

Symbol Map Unit Name Description

FOMA 

Acres

FOMA 

% 

45 St. Augustine(3) fine 

sand, clayey 

substratum 

This is a somewhat poorly drained, nearly level 

soil on narrow to broad low flat areas, and low 

knolls adjacent to tidal salt marshes and estuaries 

along the Atlantic Coast and Intracoastal 

Waterway. It formed in marine sands mixed with 

shells and shell fragments and fragments of 

loamy or clayey material overlying loamy or 

clayey layers. This soil formed as the result of 

dredging operations in the Inland Waterway.

76.4 25.7

24 Pellicer(4) silty clay 

loam, frequently 

flooded 

This is a very poorly drained, nearly level soil 

that is in low tidal marshes along stream estuaries 

near the Atlantic coast. Soil areas are wide and 

elongated in shape. Slopes are less than 1 

percent. Typically, the surface layer is very dark 

brown silty clay loam about 10 inches thick. 

Between depths of 10 and 55 inches, the material 

is dark greenish gray clay loam. High sulfide 

content makes this soil subject to developing 

ultra-acid conditions if exposed to air. 

47.2 15.8
115

Map 

Symbol Map Unit Name Description

FOMA 

Acres

FOMA 

%

31 Fripp(5)-Satellite(6)

complex 

In this map unit are excessively drained, rolling 

or hilly Fripp Soil on narrow relict beach dunes 

and somewhat poorly drained, nearly level 

Satellite soil in narrow swales between areas of 

the Fripp soil. These soils formed in thick sandy 

deposits of marine origin mixed with small 

amounts of shell and shell fragments.

38.6 13.0

29 Satellite(6) fine sand This is a somewhat poorly drained, nearly level 

soil in narrow to broad swales between higher 

relict beach sand dunes, on low knolls adjacent to 

drainageways. Most of this soil is in the area 

between the Inland Waterway and Atlantic 

Ocean. Areas are generally elongated in shape. 

Slope ranges from 0 to 2 percent.

37.7 12.7

49 Moultrie(7) fine sand, 

frequently flooded 

This very poorly drained, nearly level soil is in 

tidal marsh areas, generally in long narrow areas 

on the margins of the tidal marsh or on low 

islands in the tidal marsh. Slopes range from 0 to 

1 percent. Typically, the surface layer is dark 

grayish brown fine sand about 2 inches thick. 

37.3 12.5

99 Water 35.1 11.8

28 Beaches Beaches consist of long narrow strips of nearly 

level sand along the Atlantic Ocean. Seawater 

covers these areas twice daily during normal high 

tides. Beaches also include some small areas of 

low dunes that are adjacent to the narrow strips 

that are overwashed by tidal waves.

25.5 8.6

 Total 298 100 

(3) http://www2.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/osd/dat/S/ST._AUGUSTINE.html (closest fit soil) 

(4) http://www2.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/osd/dat/P/PELLICER.html

(5) http://www2.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/osd/dat/F/FRIPP.html

(6) http://www2.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/osd/dat/S/SATELLITE.html

(7) http://www2.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/osd/dat/M/MOULTRIE.html
116

Figure 59. Extent of current soil survey (2006) at Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas 

National Monuments. 

Several soil-based assessments can be assembled from current soil data using the soil database 

(USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service 2006a) and an extension that runs on ArcGIS 

(ESRI 2006), the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service Soil Data Viewer (2008). The 

soil assessments that we found most useful for the parks included: potential erosion hazard for 

off-road, off trail traffic (Table 56, Figure 60, Appendix C); flooding frequency class (Table 57, 

Figure 61, other water features listed in Appendix C); drainage class (Table 58, Figure 62, 

Appendix C); hydric rating (Figure 63, Appendix C); soil features (Appendix C); and camp area, 

picnic area, and playground ratings (Appendix C); and paths, trails, and golf fairways (Appendix 

C). Explanations from USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service Soil Data Viewer (2008) 

follow with more detail in Appendix C. 

Potential erosion hazard (off-Road, off-Trail):

“Ratings indicate the hazard or risk of soil loss from off-road and off-trail areas after disturbance 

activities that expose the soil surface, and are based on slope and soil erodibility factor K. The 
117

soil loss is caused by sheet or rill erosion in off-road or off-trail areas where 50 to 75 percent of 

the surface has been exposed by logging, grazing, mining, or other kinds of disturbance. 

The hazard is described as "slight", "moderate", "severe", or "very severe.” A rating of "slight" 

indicates that erosion is unlikely under ordinary climatic conditions; "moderate" indicates that 

some erosion is likely and that erosion-control measures may be needed; "severe" indicates that 

erosion is very likely and that erosion-control measures, including revegetation of bare areas, are 

advised; and "very severe" indicates that significant erosion is expected, loss of soil productivity 

and off-site damage are likely, and erosion-control measures are costly and generally 

impractical.” (USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service 2008) 

Table 56. Potential erosion hazard (off-road, off-trial) according to soil characteristics at Castillo 

de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. Slight means erosion is unlikely under 

ordinary climatic conditions. 

Potential Erosion CASA Acres % of CASA FOMA Acres % of FOMA

Not rated 0.0 0.00 60.7 20.37 

Slight 20.0 100.00 237.3 79.63 

20.0 100.00 298.0 100.00
118

Figure 60. Potential erosion hazard (off-road, off-trial) according to soil characteristics at 

Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. Slight means erosion is unlikely 

under ordinary climatic conditions; moderate means that some erosion is likely and that erosioncontrol measures may be needed; severe means that erosion is very likely, erosion-control 

measures advised; and very severe means that significant erosion is expected, loss of soil 

productivity and off-site damage likely.

Flooding frequency class: 

“Flooding is the temporary inundation of an area caused by overflowing streams, by runoff from 

adjacent slopes, or by tides. Water standing for short periods after rainfall or snowmelt is not 

considered flooding, and water standing in swamps and marshes is considered ponding rather 

than flooding. 

Flooding frequency class is the number of times flooding occurs over a period of time and is 

expressed as a class. Flooding Frequency Classes are based on the interpretation of soil 

properties and other evidence gathered during soil survey field work. The classes are: 
119

None - Flooding is not probable, near 0 percent chance of flooding in any year or less than 1 

time in 500 years. 

Very rare - Flooding is very unlikely but possible under extremely unusual weather 

conditions (the chance of flooding is less than 1 percent in any year). 

Rare - Flooding is unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions (the chance of 

flooding is 1 to 5 percent in any year). 

Occasional - Flooding occurs infrequently under normal weather conditions (the chance of 

flooding is 5 to 50 percent in any year). 

Frequent - Flooding is likely to occur often under normal weather conditions (the chance of 

flooding is more than 50 percent in any year but is less than 50 percent in all months in 

any year).

Very frequent - Flooding is likely to occur very often under normal weather conditions (the 

chance of flooding is more than 50 percent in all months of any year).” 

(USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service 2008) 

Table 57. Flooding frequency according to soil characteristics at Castillo de San Marcos and Fort 

Matanzas National Monuments. None means flooding is not probable; frequent means flooding 

is likely to occur often; and very frequent means flooding is likely to occur very often under 

normal weather conditions. 

Flooding Frequency CASA Acres % of CASA FOMA Acres % of FOMA

None 0.0 0.00 111.5 37.41

Rare 20.0 100.00 76.4 25.63

Frequent 0.0 0.00 110.1 36.95

Very Frequent 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00

20.0 100.00 298.0 100.00 
120

Figure 61. Flooding frequency according to soil characteristics at Castillo de San Marcos and 

Fort Matanzas National Monuments. None means flooding is not probable; very rare means 

flooding is very unlikely; rare means flooding is unlikely but possible under unusual weather 

conditions; occasional means flooding occurs infrequently under normal weather conditions; 

frequent means flooding is likely to occur often; and very frequent means flooding is likely to 

occur very often under normal weather conditions. 

Drainage class: 

“Drainage class (natural) refers to the frequency and duration of wet periods under conditions 

similar to those under which the soil formed. Alterations of the water regime by human 

activities, either through drainage or irrigation, are not a consideration unless they have 

significantly changed the morphology of the soil. Seven classes of natural soil drainage are 

recognized – excessively drained, somewhat excessively drained, well drained, moderately well 

drained, somewhat poorly drained, poorly drained, and very poorly drained.” (USDA Natural 

Resource Conservation Service 2008) 
121

Table 58. Drainage classes according to soil characteristics at Castillo de San Marcos and Fort 

Matanzas National Monuments. 

Drainage Class CASA Acres % of CASA FOMA Acres % of FOMA

Not rated 0.0 0.00 35.2 11.80

Excessively drained 0.0 0.00 38.6 12.96

Somewhat poorly drained 20.0 100.00 114.1 38.28

Poorly drained 0.0 0.00 25.6 8.59

Very poorly drained 0.0 0.00 84.6 28.38

20.0 100.00 298.0 100.00 

Figure 62. Drainage classes according to soil characteristics at Castillo de San Marcos and Fort 

Matanzas National Monuments. 

Map unit hydric rating: 

“This rating provides an indication of the proportion of the map unit that meets criteria for hydric 

soils. Map units that are dominantly made up of hydric soils may have small areas, or inclusions, 
122

of nonhydric soils in the higher positions on the landform, and map units dominantly made up of 

nonhydric soils may have inclusions of hydric soils in the lower positions on the landform 

Hydric soils are defined by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS) as soils 

that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing 

season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. These soils, under natural conditions, 

are either saturated or inundated long enough during the growing season to support the growth 

and reproduction of hydrophytic vegetation. . . 

. . . If soils are wet enough for a long enough period of time to be considered hydric, they should 

exhibit certain properties that can be easily observed in the field. These visible properties are 

indicators of hydric soils. . . .” (USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service 2008) 

Figure 63. Hydric rating according to soil characteristics at Castillo de San Marcos and Fort 

Matanzas National Monuments. 
123

3.5.1.b Resource threats and stressors:

Flooding from storm tides (Beaches and Moultrie), daily tides (Pellicer), and river flow (Moultrie

soils) pose concerns. The Pellicer tidal marsh soils have high salinity and are subject to 

acidification if drained or oxidized. The dunes in the “Beaches” map unit and poorly vegetated 

sandy dredged deposits are subject to severe wind erosion if not properly vegetated. The 

southern tip of Anastasia Island appears to be growing seaward by accretion of sand from 

longshore currents. These accretions of sand are taking place despite a rise in ocean levels. The 

rise in ocean levels may cause increasing wake and wave action that may damage shorelines 

along the western shore of Rattlesnake Island along the Intracoastal Waterway, and along the 

eastern shore on the Matanzas and Anastasia River. Some erosion of sands, or recent deposition 

of sands, is seen along the eastern side of Rattlesnake Island. 

3.5.1.c Critical knowledge or data gaps: 

Data quality is good in all cases (Table 59). Local scale, specific soil analysis to Castillo de San 

Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs may be appropriate to add detail to soil characteristics.

3.5.1.d Condition status summary 

Soil properties did not appear to change that drastically from the 1917 soil survey so soil change 

is in the good range for condition status in both monuments (Table 59 and Table 60). However, 

improvements in soil series choices and mapping technologies were evident in the data. Potential 

erosion hazard is slight for the majority of soils so this category is rated in the good range (Table 

59 and Table 60). All of Castillo de San Marcos NM soils have rare flooding frequency and the 

drainage class is somewhat poorly drained, so these categories received a good condition status 

(Table 59). Thirty-seven percent of Fort Matanzas NM has a frequent flooding frequency class 

while drainage class mirrored these findings with poor and very poorly drained characteristics in 

the same soils. Consequently, flooding frequency and drainage class were combined and 

received a fair condition status (Table 60). 

Table 59. Soil condition status summary for Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. Data 

quality was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), spatial (1 = inside 

park boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = older than 5 years). 

The colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor scores respectively (see Table 1).

Category Condition 

Status Midpoint Data Quality 

Thematic Spatial Temporal 

Soil change 1 1 1 

Good 0.84 3 out of 3 

Potential erosion 1 1 1 

Good 0.84 3 out of 3 

Flooding frequency and 

drainage class 

1 1 1 

Good 0.84 3 out of 3 

Soil total

3 3 3 

Good 0.84 9 out of 9 
124

Table 60. Soil condition status summary for Fort Matanzas National Monument. Data quality 

was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), spatial (1 = inside park 

boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = older than 5 years). The 

colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor scores respectively (see Table 1).

Category Condition 

Status Midpoint Data Quality 

Thematic Spatial Temporal 

Soil change 1 1 1 

Good 0.84 3 out of 3 

Potential erosion 1 1 1 

Good 0.84 3 out of 3 

Flooding frequency and 

drainage class 

1 1 1 

Fair 0.5 3 out of 3 

Soil total

3 3 3 

Good 0.73 9 out of 9 

3.5.1.e Recommendations to park managers: 

We recommend controlling wave erosion on the edges of Castillo de San Marcos NM. We also 

advise avoiding excavation in the tidal marsh as well as filling and building on the tidal marsh 

soils. These soils have the potential to produce ultra-acidic properties if exposed to the 

atmosphere. Tidal flooding and high salinity are a problem in the marsh areas. Park managers 

should plan for shoreline erosion and damage from storm tides. Storm tides may cause severe 

erosion in the Fort Matanzas NM area because the hydrology has been totally altered and is not 

natural. Many of the soils surrounding the Matanzas River are sandy and cannot withstand strong 

wave or wake action or storm surges without being eroded. Continuing to monitor and stabilize 

the shoreline is a positive management action that is already in process at both monuments. The 

dunes forming next to the new beach deposits should be vegetated rapidly to prevent wind 

erosion. The sandy dredged spoil that is poorly vegetated should be revegetated. Park egress 

during tropical storms should be planned for. 

3.6 Biological Integrity

3.6.1 Focal Communities and At-risk Biota

The species of plants and animals found within the boundary of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort 

Matanzas NMs are the product of numerous habitat factors. The principal natural land cover 

classes found at the monument are coastal wetlands and evergreen forest. These classes of 

vegetation are no doubt comprised of several different plant communities which vary related to 

wetness, salinity, and management history, among other factors. 

The most dominant vegetation communities at Castillo de San Marcos NM include developed 

open space, medium intensity developed, and mixed forest (however mixed forest only 

comprises 1.5 acres). Approximately 90% of the monument is open space or developed. Natural 

resource management at Castillo de San Marcos NM is somewhat difficult due to the fact that 

the 20 acre site has “no free-flowing streams, wetlands, forests, or other naturally occurring 
125

ecosystems” and has been completely modified throughout history by human activities (National 

Park Service 2007b). 

At Fort Matanzas NM, the most dominant vegetation communities are evergreen forest, 

estuarine emergent wetland, open water, unconsolidated shore, and estuarine scrub/shrub 

wetland (see Appendix A for a full description of the land cover classifications at Castillo de 

San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs).

The complete assemblage of species, plants and animals, at Castillo de San Marcos and Fort 

Matanzas NMs is a direct result of several different types of vegetation, land use, and hydrologic 

communities that occur within each park’s boundaries. The most important natural community is 

the estuarine emergent wetland. However, the species assemblages observed at the monuments 

are certainly the product of other communities (natural or anthropogenic) around the monuments. 

Ideally, an assessment of the biotic communities at Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas 

NMs would consist of the complete range of plants and animals known to occur within the 

monuments’ boundaries, as well as the full suite of species found on pristine tracts of similar 

habitat in the same landscape. The biotic assessment would be performed on the full spectrum of 

animals and plants from each taxonomic class. Species absences or species located that were not 

part of that suite of native species would represent decreases in biotic integrity from the 

reference scenario.

Such a complete assessment is beyond the scope of this project. We can, however, use existing 

datasets for a few of these taxa to permit some insight as to the likely state of biotic communities 

at Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments. There have been just a few 

investigations of animals and plants at these Monuments over the past 20-plus years (Table 61).

Table 61. List of available animal and plant surveys for Castillo de San Marcos and Fort 

Matanzas National Monuments. 

Year Park Community target for survey Author(s)

2005 CASA, FOMA Reptiles and Amphibians Tuberville, et al.

1999 FOMA Reptiles and Amphibians King and Krysko

2004 CASA, FOMA Floristic surveys Zomlefer and Giannasi 

These studies have been synthesized into a species information database by the NPS (Certified 

Organisms: NPSpecies 2008). With this system, users can extract predicted species lists for each 

park in the system. We utilized this database to generate list of species (by-taxa) expected to 

occur within Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs. These lists were reviewed and 

corrected as necessary and used in this project as current species lists.

Attempts at locating and utilizing appropriate reference datasets for comparison to Castillo de 

San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs community information were more problematic. Such 

information is either not readily available, or is considered suspect for these purposes. Without 

defensible reference community assemblages, any assessments drawn using them would be 

suspect. We elected to focus on those communities for which the most defensible information 

was available. We also looked to the existing NPS Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) Vital Signs 
126

Program for the Southeast Coastal Network to provide some guidance as to which species 

communities were considered important enough for future monitoring efforts. 

The I&M program has specifically identified forest breeding birds and amphibians as 

communities of interest for that program. Relatively sound community information can be 

obtained for these groups and work at and around Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas 

NMs for these communities has been done relatively recently.

3.6.1.a Current Condition: 

Avian communities, Castillo de San Marcos National Monument: 

The bird community at Castillo de San Marcos NM is reported to contain 84 species either listed 

as “present” or “probably present,” 19 species are listed as confirmed “breeder.” These species 

are associated with all the habitats at Castillo de San Marcos NM. Due to the limited data 

available on breeding birds at Castillo de San Marcos NM, we elected to compare this suite of 

species to that of known breeders from the surrounding landscape. 

The reference list of breeding birds was synthesized from data compiled as part of the ongoing 

USGS Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) effort (U.S. Geological Survey 2008b). We selected BBS 

routes from the surrounding landscape that had several years of survey data in them from 1966 – 

2007 (Figure 64). We selected six routes for building the reference species list.
127

Figure 64. USGS Breeding Bird Survey Routes in the area surrounding Castillo de San Marcos 

and Fort Matanzas National Monuments that were chosen for the assessment. 

We compiled the total number of species seen on each route over the 42-year period. We then 

counted the number of routes on which a species was observed during that period. Those species 

seen on at least four routes were used to compile the reference breeding bird route for the region.

A total of 86 species were identified as breeding in the landscape surrounding Castillo de San 

Marcos NM. We then cross-referenced this list to the breeding and resident list obtained for 

Castillo de San Marcos NM (n = 43). A total of 30 species were found on both lists. The Jaccard 

Index of Similarity between the reference breeding bird list and the breeding bird list from 

Castillo De San Marcos NM was 0.30. 
128

The Jaccard Index of Similarity is a simple method for comparing species diversity between two 

different samples or communities (Krebs 1999). The value is calculated by dividing the number 

of species found in both samples (a) by the number found in only one sample or the other (b, c): 

Sj = a / (a+b+c)

Another means for assessing the biotic condition of the birds at Castillo de San Marcos and Fort 

Matanzas NM was to examine the population trends for each species. From a management 

perspective, the monuments would like to see each species either at, or moving towards, 

population levels desired for management. These levels will differ depending on the status of the 

species. For example, we assume that rare species populations would be desirable if they are 

increasing. The opposite would be true of exotic or nuisance species. 

Using the BBS data, we were able to establish observation trends for 30 species known to be 

present at Castillo De San Marcos NM. For each species, we calculated the number of times the 

species was observed each year over the course of the surveys, then calculated a regional average 

by dividing the total seen by the total number of routes that were completed in that year. In years 

that a route was completed but the species was not observed, we recorded a 0 value. We then 

plotted the mean number of observations against the years and used linear regression to create a 

trend line for each species. We used the statistical output to determine if the slope of the line was 

significantly different from 0. If so, it was classified as either “increasing” or “decreasing” for 

the period. 

We calculated this slope value for two periods. The first period was for the entire survey period 

(1966 – 2007). The second period was for the last 15 years only (1992 – 2007). Comparisons 

between these periods will allow us to determine if any non-significant long-term trends are 

changing more recently.

We categorized trends as “acceptable” or “unacceptable” by using a simple management matrix 

for each class of species in the set (Table 62). These three classes were species of “concern,” 

“nuisance,” or “breeder.” These values were used to determine the overall management 

acceptability of population trends for the bird community. 

Table 62. Management matrix used to categorize trend combinations. 

Period 1 Period 2 Management Evaluation

1966 – 2007 1992 – 2007 Concern Nuisance Breeders

Increasing increasing acceptable unacceptable acceptable

Decreasing increasing acceptable unacceptable acceptable

not significant increasing acceptable unacceptable acceptable

Increasing decreasing unacceptable acceptable unacceptable

Decreasing decreasing unacceptable acceptable unacceptable

not significant decreasing unacceptable acceptable unacceptable

Increasing not significant unacceptable unacceptable acceptable

Decreasing not significant unacceptable acceptable unacceptable

not significant not significant unacceptable unacceptable acceptable
129

A total of 13 of the 30 (~ 43%) species were deemed “acceptable” based on their observed trends 

in the landscape surrounding Castillo de San Marcos NM. The remaining species observation 

trends were deemed “unacceptable” in light of the management levels placed on them.

This result suggests that the majority of the breeding birds in the landscape surrounding and 

perhaps including Castillo de San Marcos NM are experiencing either long or short term declines 

that may increase their conservation priority in the future. It is important to note that this does 

not provide any proof that these species are declining at Castillo de San Marcos National 

Monument. There is no long term data on breeding bird observations at Castillo de San Marcos 

National Monument. However, if these species continue to decline over the local landscape, their 

continued presence as breeding birds at Castillo de San Marcos NM may be jeopardized.

Additionally, we elected to use species-habitat distribution models published by the Florida Gap 

Analysis Project (2003). These models were synthesized with a combination of literature review, 

historical records, and expert review. The resulting species-habitat models were applied to real 

landscapes using a land cover map derived from satellite imagery. Predicted species distributions 

were then attributed to specific vegetation classes and mapped for the entire state. We extracted 

the bird species whose distributions placed them within matching land cover classes present at

Castillo de San Marcos NM and used that as a reference list. 

A total of 157 species were identified from the FL-GAP models as potentially occurring within 

the land cover classes coincident with Castillo de San Marcos NM (Appendix D). Of these, 55 

species were documented at Castillo de San Marcos NM. The Jaccard Similarity Index was 

calculated as 0.30 between Castillo de San Marcos NM birds and the FL-GAP derived reference 

set. 

These indices reflect a moderately low overlap between the birds present at Castillo de San 

Marcos NM relative to similar habitats. That is, areas outside of the monument with similar 

habitat characteristics will have more species. Lack of proper habitat (approximately 90% of the 

monument is open space or developed) is likely the cause for low overlap between the data sets.

However, 19 species are known to breed at Castillo de San Marcos NM, three of which are 

species of greatest conservation need for the state of Florida.

St. Johns County Audubon (2008) conducted North American Migratory Counts in spring 2006, 

and spring and fall of 2008. We used the combined species list from the three survey periods 

(Appendix E) and compared it with the list for Castillo de San Marcos NM. A total of 144 

species were documented for the Audubon surveys, of which 61 species occurred on both lists 

(Jaccard Index of Similarity = 0.36). 

Avian communities, Fort Matanzas National Monument:

The bird community at Fort Matanzas NM is reported to contain 155 species, 37 of which are 

listed as a confirmed “breeder” at the monument. These species are associated with all the 

habitats at Fort Matanzas NM. Due to the limited data available on breeding birds at Fort 

Matanzas NM, we elected to compare this suite of species to that of known breeders from the 

surrounding landscape. 
130

Using the BBS data (Figure 64), 86 species were identified as breeding in the landscape 

surrounding Fort Matanzas NM and occurring on at least four of the six routes. A total of 55 

species were found on both lists (104 species listed as either breeder or resident at Fort Matanzas 

NM). The Jaccard Index of Similarity between the reference breeding bird list and the breeding 

bird list from Fort Matanzas NM was 0.40. 

A total of 25 of the 56 (~ 45%) species were deemed “acceptable” based on their observed trends 

in the landscape surrounding Fort Matanzas NM (from BBS data, Figure 64) and our 

management matrix (Table 62). The remaining species observation trends were deemed 

“unacceptable” in light of the management levels placed on them.

A total of 181 species were identified from the FL-GAP models as potentially occurring within 

the land cover classes coincident with Fort Matanzas NM (Appendix D). Of these, 100 species 

were documented at the monument. The Jaccard Similarity Index was calculated as 0.41 between 

Fort Matanzas NM birds and the FL-GAP derived reference set. 

St. Johns Audubon conducted North American Migratory Counts in spring 2006, and spring and 

fall of 2008. We used the combined species list from the three survey periods (Appendix E) and 

compared it with the list for Fort Matanzas NM. A total of 144 species were documented for the 

Audubon surveys, of which 114 species occurred on both lists (Jaccard Index of Similarity = 

0.56). 

Amphibian communities, Castillo de San Marcos National Monument:

Amphibians are of particular interest in biotic condition analysis due to their sensitivity to their 

surrounding environment. Recent declines in amphibian production elsewhere in the Southeast 

make them of further interest as part of this assessment.

Amphibians were recently inventoried at Castillo de San Marcos NM along with reptiles 

(Tuberville et al. 2005). Tuberville et al. (2005) employed a variety of survey methods aimed at 

compiling the most comprehensive list of amphibians present at the monument. Our assessment 

was completed using the amphibian species documented during this effort. 

A total of four species of amphibians (all anurans) were observed for Castillo de San Marcos NM 

as part of this survey. This study suggests that three additional amphibian species (all anurans) 

have ranges coincident with this monument, but were not observed. Presumably this is due to a 

lack of specific local-scale habitat conditions (e.g., fresh water, pine barrens) that these species 

require. The Jaccard Similarity Index between the observed species and the potential assemblage 

is 0.57.

We elected to use species-habitat distribution models published by the Florida Gap Analysis 

Project (2003). These models were synthesized with a combination of literature review, historical 

records, and expert review. The resulting species-habitat models were applied to real landscapes 

using a land cover map. Predicted species distributions were then attributed to specific land 

cover classes and mapped for the entire state. Castillo de San Marcos NM contains five land 

cover classes defined by the FL-GAP program (Sandhill Ecological Complex, Gallberry/Saw 

Palmetto Shrubland Compositional Group, Saltmarsh Cordgrass Marsh, Urban and Recreation). 
131

We extracted the frogs and salamanders species whose distributions placed them within land 

cover classes and used that as a reference list (Appendix D). 

A total of 31 species were identified from the FL-GAP models as occurring within the land cover 

classes coincident with Castillo de San Marcos NM. Of these, four species were documented at 

this monument. The Jaccard Similarity Index was calculated as 0.13 between Castillo de San 

Marcos NM amphibians and the FL-GAP derived reference set. 

These indices reflect a relatively low overlap between the amphibians present at Castillo de San 

Marcos NM relative to similar habitats. That is, areas outside of the monument with similar 

habitat characteristics will have more species than were observed here. 

Because this monument is bordered by the ocean on the east or otherwise completely surrounded 

by intensely developed areas, the movement of amphibians from and to the monument is 

difficult. So, although Castillo de San Marcos NM has relatively few frogs and salamanders this 

may be due to its isolation from potential immigrants rather than a degraded habitat condition.

Amphibian communities, Fort Matanzas National Monument: 

A total of six species of amphibians (all anurans) were observed for Fort Matanzas NM as part of 

the Tuberville (2005) survey. This study suggests that four more amphibian species (three

anurans, one salamander) have ranges coincident with this monument. The Jaccard Similarity 

Index between the observed species and the potential assemblage is 0.5. Two species, the Cuban 

treefrog and greenhouse frog, are documented as a record for the park, but not listed as a 

potential species for the Tuberville survey. 

As before, we used species-habitat distribution models published by the Florida Gap Analysis 

Project (2003). Fort Matanzas NM contains 18 land cover classes classified by FL-GAP. We 

extracted the frogs and salamanders species whose distributions placed them within those land 

cover classes and used that as a reference list (Appendix D). 

A total of 39 species were identified from the FL-GAP models as occurring within the land cover 

classes coincident with Fort Matanzas NM. Of these, nine species were documented at this 

monument. The Jaccard Similarity Index was calculated as 0.23 between Fort Matanzas NM 

amphibians and the FL-GAP derived reference set.

These indices reflect a relatively low overlap between the amphibians present at Fort Matanzas 

NM relative to similar habitats. That is, areas outside of the monument with similar habitat 

characteristics will have more species than were observed here. This, however, may be due to the 

fact that fewer species of amphibians and reptiles are found on coastal barrier islands than on 

adjacent mainland, primarily because freshwater is scarce. Since the monument is surrounded by 

salt water, the movement of amphibians from mainland populations and habitats to the islands is 

difficult. So, although Fort Matanzas National Monument has relatively few frogs and 

salamanders this may be due to its isolation from potential mainland immigrants rather than a 

degraded habitat condition. 
132

Reptile communities, Castillo de San Marcos National Monument: 

We completed a community composition analysis for reptiles similar to our methods for 

amphibians. Reptiles were surveyed recently (Tuberville et al. 2005) along with amphibians 

using similar methods. 

Two species of reptiles are recorded present at Castillo de San Marcos NM. The survey suggests 

the potential for 13 additional species with overlapping ranges (although habitat may not be 

found at the monument). The Jaccard Similarity Index between the observed species and the 

potential assemblage is 0.13. 

As with amphibians, we elected to utilize predicted distributions of reptile species from the FLGAP. The FL-GAP models predict the occurrence of 62 species in all (Appendix D). Both 

species observed at Castillo de San Marcos NM are included, so the Jaccard Similarity Index was 

calculated at 0.03. The list of 60 additional species is likely comprised of several species unlikely 

to occur within Castillo de San Marcos NM because of a lack of appropriate habitat 

Reptile communities, Fort Matanzas National Monument: 

A total of 29 species of reptiles are documented present at Fort Matanzas National Monument 

(King and Krysko 1999). Tuberville et al (2005) suggests the potential for 15 additional species 

with overlapping ranges (although habitat may not be found at the monument). This yields a 

Jaccard Similarity Index of 0.55. There are five species listed on the park’s I&M report that are 

not listed as potential species in the Tuberville report (Hemidactylus garnotii, Hemidactylus 

turcicus, Chelonia mydas, Lepidochelys kempii, Norops sagrei). 

The FL-GAP models predict the occurrence of 77 species in all for the land cover classes present 

at Fort Matanzas NM (Appendix D). Of the 77 predicted species, 24 species have been observed 

at this monument, Jaccard Similarity Index of 0.29. Three species, Eastern box turtle, ground 

skink, and Eastern ribbon snake were not included in the FL-GAP list, but have been 

documented at Fort Matanzas NM. Additionally, King and Krysko (1999) documented four 

species that are not included on the parks’ I&M list. 

We decided to do a last comparison by synthesizing a list of reptiles that would be expected to 

utilize the salt marsh habitats only and compare that to the list of reptiles for Fort Matanzas NM. 

We generated a reference list of reptiles from Gibbons (1978 as cited in Wiegert and Freeman 

1990). This list contains six species that are ubiquitous in coastal salt marshes throughout the 

southeast. Of these six species, one (diamondback terrapin) has been documented at Fort 

Matanzas NM (Jaccard Similarity Index = 0.17).

Mammal communities, Castillo de San Marcos National Monument: 

The mammal community at Castillo de San Marcos NM is very small. There are three species at

the monument including the domestic cat (Felis catus). We used the FL-GAP species distribution 

models as a reference list for comparison of mammals. FL-GAP models predicted the presence 

of 51 species for the land cover classes present at Castillo de San Marcos NM (Appendix D). All 

three species observed at this monument were predicted by the FL-GAP models with a low 

Jaccard Similarity Index of 0.06. 
133

Mammal communities, Fort Matanzas National Monument: 

There are 22 species of mammals at Fort Matanzas NM including two marine mammals, West 

Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) and bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). Non-native 

species include the domestic cat (Felis catus), domestic dog (Canis familiaris), black rat (Rattus 

rattus), and house mouse (Mus musculus). 

We used the FL-GAP species distribution models as a reference list for comparison of mammals. 

FL-GAP models predicted the presence of 57 species for the land cover classes present at Fort 

Matanzas NM (did not include marine mammals; Appendix D). Nineteen terrestrial species 

observed at this monument were predicted by the FL-GAP models with a Jaccard Similarity 

Index of 0.32. 

Wiegert and Freeman (1990) also provided a list of salt marsh mammals (derived from Sanders 

1978) found in the salt marshes of the southeast. The Fort Matanzas NM list contained 11 of the 

14 species on the reference list with a Jaccard Similarity Index of 0.79.

Other communities: 

There are several other key biotic communities that should be examined as part of this 

assessment. For the salt marsh vegetation communities, fish (especially breeding salt marsh 

species) and invertebrates (crabs and bivalves in particular) should be considered. For both 

upland areas and salt marsh, plants are important as well. 

The biotic species list compiled from the NPS biotic database (Certified Organisms: NPSpecies 

2008) indicates there are 80 fish species that utilize Fort Matanzas NM habitats for some period 

of their annual or seasonal life requisites. Castillo de San Marcos NM does not have any fish on 

this list because it has no water resources.

Erickson (2009) performed an analysis of the aquatic condition for Fort Matanzas NM. The 

analysis compared native fish species documented at this monument to native fish that occur in 

the watersheds based on NatureServe data. Percent similarity of native fish collected in the NPS 

unit was 0.19 (5/26). 

Without recent field-verified studies, it is difficult to draw assessment conclusions about these 

biotic groups. Factors such as abundance, distribution, and health for each group or species 

provide the information necessary to begin to assess their condition. Further, we were unable to 

identify any available reference species lists appropriate for comparison to fish or plants at Fort 

Matanzas NM. 

At-risk biota: 

At-risk biota refers to those species that are listed as threatened or endangered (T&E) under the 

authority of the Endangered Species Act (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). We took this a 

step further to identify those species that are listed in the State of Florida as endangered,

threatened, rare, or a species of greatest conservation need (SGCN) under the Florida 

Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission 2005a). In addition, these species were cross referenced to NatureServe’s global 

and state rankings (NatureServe 2008). The bird list was also cross referenced to the Partners in 
134

Flight Priority Species (Partners in Flight 2005) and Audubon WatchList (National Audubon 

Society 2007). Appendix F through Appendix Q contain complete species lists with associated

state and global ranks and federal and state status.

There are 17 bird species of greatest conservation need documented at Castillo de San Marcos 

NM (Table 63, Appendix N). This is 16% of the total number of species of greatest conservation 

need identified for Florida in the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (Florida Fish 

and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2005b). 

Fort Matanzas NM supports a large number of species of greatest conservation need (Table 64,

Appendix N). There are 29 fish, 45 bird, five mammal, and nine reptile species of greatest 

conservation need present within park boundaries. 

Table 63. Total number of species documented at Castillo de San Marcos National Monument, 

number of species of greatest conservation need (SGCN) from the Florida Comprehensive 

Wildlife Conservation Strategy, and % of SGCN within Florida that are found at Castillo de San 

Marcos NM. 

Taxonomic 

Group 

# species 

documented at 

CASA*

# unconfirmed 

species

# SGCN in 

FL** 

# SGCN at 

CASA

% SGCN at 

CASA

Fish 0 -- -- -- --

Birds 70 14 104 17 16% 

Mammals 3 -- 56 0 --

Amphibians 4 -- 19 0 --

Reptiles 2 -- 48 0 --

Plants 152 -- -- -- --

Table 64. Total number of species documented at Fort Matanzas National Monument, number of 

species of greatest conservation need (SGCN) from the Florida Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy, and % of SGCN within Florida that are found at Fort Matanzas NM. 

Taxonomic 

Group 

# species 

documented at 

FOMA*

# unconfirmed 

species

# SGCN in 

FL** 

# SGCN at 

FOMA

% SGCN at 

FOMA

Fish 80 -- 378 29 8% 

Birds 155 17 104 45 43% 

Mammals 22 -- 56 5 9% 

Amphibians 8 -- 19 0 --

Reptiles 25 -- 48 9 19%

Plants 241 -- -- -- --

*Including non-native species

** FL Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy list 

At-risk marine reptiles and mammals present at Fort Matanzas NM: 

• West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), federally and state-listed threatened

• Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta), federally and state-listed threatened

• Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas), federally and state-listed endangered
135

• Leatherback Sea Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), federally threatened and state-listed 

endangered

• Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), federally and state-listed endangered

• Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), federally and state-listed endangered 

• Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), state-listed threatened

Other at-risk species present at Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs: 

• Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus), federally and state-listed threatened (FOMA)

• Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus), state-listed endangered (FOMA)

• Wood Stork (Mycteria Americana), federally and state-listed endangered (CASA/FOMA)

• Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon corais), federally and state-listed threatened (FOMA)

• Anastasia Island beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus phasma), federally and state-listed 

endangered (FOMA)

3.6.1.b Resource threats and stressors: 

The biotic communities and at-risk species at Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs

are under constant stress from agents within and outside the monument. These threats and 

stressors have the ability to reduce the natural resource condition within the monument. 

Therefore, it is important that managers and decision makers at Castillo de San Marcos and Fort 

Matanzas NMs identify those threats, how they may affect the natural resource condition, and 

how severe and imminent they may be.

Habitat change: 

The most immediate impact to nesting shorebirds (least terns and piping plover), sea turtles, and 

the Anastasia Island beach mouse at Fort Matanzas NM is the use of off-road vehicles on the 

beaches. Nationwide, beach nesting birds are rapidly declining to beach loss and disturbance to 

nesting birds, off-road vehicles being a primary factor (Watson 2005). The park is encouraged to 

limit the use to areas where birds do not nest, rest, or forage (Watson 2005, DeVivo et al. 2008). 

Invasive species:

Invasive species, particularly those that are exotic, have the potential to degrade native species 

and their habitat. They occupy habitat niches that would otherwise support native species, 

thereby degrading species communities. Invasive species are present at Castillo de San Marcos

(Table 65) and Fort Matanzas NMs (Table 66). Invasive plant species comprise 18% of all plant 

species at Castillo de San Marcos NM and 25% of all plant species at Fort Matanzas NM. Per 

discussions with park personnel, the species currently posing the largest threat to habitat at 

Castillo de San Marcos NM are Chinese tallow, wisteria and Japanese honeysuckle. At Fort 

Matanzas National Monument, invasive species of greatest concern are Brazilian pepper, sword 

fern, cogan grass, Lantana, box orange, and the Redbay ambrosia beetle (Xyleborus glabratus).
136

Table 65. Proportion of invasive species by taxa at Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. 

Taxonomic 

Group # native species

# Non-native

Species % Non-native species

Birds 70 3 4

Mammals 3 1 33 

Amphibians 4 2 50 

Reptiles 2 1 50 

Plants 152 57 38 

Table 66. Proportion of invasive species by taxa at Fort Matanzas National Monument. 

Taxonomic 

Group # native species

# Non-native

Species % Non-native species

Fish 80 0 0 

Birds 155 5 3 

Mammals 22 4 18 

Amphibians 8 2 25 

Reptiles 25 3 12

Plants 241 60 25 

External threats and stressors:

There are many external threats to the biotic communities of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort 

Matanzas NMs from factors external to the boundaries, and management authority of the NPS. 

These factors have been covered extensively in previous sections and include:

1. Population growth resulting in an increase in recreational use at the monuments. 

2. Increased point and non-point source pollution. 

3. Potential decline of salt marsh habitat in the future due to sea level rise as discussed in 

the Water Section (3.4 Water). 

3.6.1.c Critical knowledge or data gaps: 

Vital Signs Program for the Southeast Coastal Network provides some guidance as to which 

species communities were considered important enough for future monitoring efforts. 

• Complete the breeding bird inventory at Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas 

National Monuments, 

• Additional surveys of bird species utilizing all habitats during all seasons are also needed, 

and

• Fish community diversity and relative abundance

The species assemblages present at Castillo de San Marcos NM do not appear to reflect the 

more complete biotic communities observed in the surrounding area. Relatively low similarity 

scores for all taxa may reflect the relatively low diversity at Castillo de San Marcos NM as a 

result. This is primarily due to the fact that the majority of the land cover at the monument is 

developed. Table 67 shows the summary of condition status and data quality. 
137

A lack of comprehensive survey efforts certainly contributes to some of the observed differences. 

Similarity index scores for birds, for example, may increase with more comprehensive data from 

within the monument. These surveys should not only focus on species inventory, but should also 

address abundance which, over time, will provide better information to complete biotic 

community assessments. 

3.6.1.d Condition status summary 

The Jaccard similarity index scores were cross referenced to report on the condition status for 

each of the major taxa at both monuments (Table 67 and Table 68). An additional rating was 

added for bird trend acceptability based on the percentage of observed trends that were deemed 

“acceptable” in the landscape surrounding Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas NMs. For 

both monuments, bird trend acceptability received a fair condition status and the overall 

condition status for biological integrity is in the fair range.

Table 67. Biotic community condition status summary for Castillo de San Marcos National 

Monument. Data quality was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), 

spatial (1 = inside park boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = 

older than 5 years). The colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor scores 

respectively.

Category Condition 

Status

Score 

Midpoint 

Data Quality 

Thematic Spatial Temporal 

Bird community 

composition 

(0.30 to 0.36) 1 0 1 

Fair 0.5 2 out of 3 

Bird trend acceptability 43% 1 0 1 

Fair 0.5 2 out of 3 

Amphibian community (0.13 to 0.57) 1 0 1 

Poor 0.17 2 out of 3 

Reptile community (0.03 to 0.13) 1 0 1 

Poor 0.17 2 out of 3 

Mammal community 

0.06 1 0 1 

Poor 0.17 2 out of 3 

Biological integrity total

5 0 5 

Poor 0.30 10 out of 15 
138

Table 68. Biotic community condition status summary for Fort Matanzas National Monument. 

Data quality was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), spatial (1 = 

inside park boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = older than 5 

years). The colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor scores respectively. 

Category Condition 

Status

Score 

Midpoint 

Data Quality 

Thematic Spatial Temporal 

Bird community 

composition 

(0.36 to 0.41) 1 0 1 

Fair 0.5 2 out of 3 

Bird trend acceptability 45% 1 0 1 

Fair 0.5 2 out of 3 

Amphibian community (0.23 to 0.50) 1 0 1 

Fair 0.5 2 out of 3 

Reptile community (0.29 to 0.55) 1 0 1 

Fair 0.5 2 out of 3 

Mammal community (0.32 to 0.79) 1 0 1 

Fair 0.5 2 out of 3 

Fish community 

0.19 0 1 1 

Poor 0.17 2 out of 3 

Biological integrity total

5 1 6

Fair 0.45 12 out of 18 

3.6.1.e Recommendations to park managers: 

Park managers are aware of the need for long-term monitoring data (Watson 2005, DiMatteo 

2007). However, there are several factors limiting park personnel to conduct needed surveys and 

monitoring programs. 

Clearly, if surveys were conducted over several years where population trend data were 

available, personnel would be better able to assess habitat quality. The following are 

recommended projects for Castillo de San Marcos NM when opportunities arise: 

1. Work with NPS Inventory and Monitoring Program on breeding bird and amphibian 

surveys. 

2. Develop and/or strengthen relationship with FL DNR, Audubon, etc. 

The following are recommended projects for Fort Matanzas NM when opportunities arise:

1. Perform native plant species restoration. 

2. Conduct invertebrate surveys. 

3. Implement management zones to best balance visitor needs and species conservation.

4. Monitor trends in land condition. Evaluate and manage the impact of off-road vehicles on 

beach nesting birds, limiting this use in the interim to areas where birds do not nest, rest, 

or forage.
139

5. Conduct faunal species surveys every 2 to 3 years. If possible, concentrate on birds and 

herpetofauna. Focal species can be monitored in addition to some special status species 

(such as threatened and endangered species, game species and sensitive species).

6. Continue to conduct existing monitoring of least terns and expand to all colonial nesting 

species on the beaches.

7. Develop a more complete breeding fish survey in salt marsh areas.

8. Conduct water quality monitoring within the park. 

9. Develop and/or strengthen relationship with FL DNR, Audubon, etc. 
140
141

4.0 Summary and Conclusion 

The overall condition status for Castillo de San Marcos NM is in the fair range (0.53; Table 70); 

Fort Matanzas NM is also in the fair range (0.65; Table 71). Midpoint scores were averaged for 

NPS ecological monitoring framework level 2 categories (Fancy et al. 2008) to come up with the 

overall condition status for the monument. 

At Castillo de San Marcos NM, fire dynamics, visitor use, climate, and geology and soils scored 

in the good range. Fire dynamics and climate are broad-scale assessment categories upon which 

Castillo de San Marcos NM has limited management influence. Consistent reporting and 

collaboration are essential for these categories. Visitor statistics do not indicate a sharp increase 

in visitors and there is no additional data to indicate a negative correlation between visitor use 

and natural resource condition. Soils have remained relatively consistent and soil attributes are 

positive as well.

Landscape dynamics, human effects, and water quality are all in the fair range at Castillo de San 

Marcos NM. Landscape dynamics and human population, in this case, mirror each other. The 

landscape was rated within the monument and shows open space and small tree lots offer some 

benefits. Human effects are plentiful in this region and impervious surface coverage for Castillo 

de San Marcos NM and within the subbasin study area are high. Although dissolved oxygen was 

good in surrounding waters, other water quality indicators are in need of improvement. 

Hydrology and biological integrity for Castillo de San Marcos NM are extremely limiting. This 

is more than likely due to the fact and this monument is an urban-centered park, focused on 

cultural resource management. Despite this, some improvements could be made, and are in 

process, for shoreline stabilization. Additionally, air quality received a poor rating in this 

assessment. The poor rating was a result of elevated ozone exposure, high levels of estimated 

atmospheric deposition, and poor visibility due to a high Haze Index score. Similar to landscape, 

fire, and human effects, air quality is a broad-scale assessment category upon which Castillo de 

San Marcos NM has limited management influence.

For Fort Matanzas NM, landscape dynamics, fire dynamics, human effects, visitor use, climate, 

and geology and soils scored in the good range. Landscape, fire, human effects, and climate are 

broad-scale assessment categories upon which Fort Matanzas NM has limited management 

influence. Consistent reporting and collaboration are essential for these categories. Visitor 

statistics do not indicate a sharp increase in visitors and there is no additional data to indicate a 

negative correlation between visitor use and natural resource condition. Soils have remained 

relatively consistent with the only limiting factor being the flooding frequency.

Biological integrity received a fair rating for Fort Matanzas NM. The species assemblages 

present do not appear to reflect the more complete biotic communities observed in the 

surrounding area. This is perhaps due to the unique habitats present at the monument and may be 

due in part to a lack of comprehensive survey efforts. Other categories that scored in the fair 

range included hydrology and water quality. Hydrology improvements could be made, and are in 

process, for shoreline stabilization. Water quality will need coordination with other management 
142

organizations to improve. Collecting additional water quality data within park boundaries would 

allow better assessment of in-park resources. 

The only category for Fort Matanzas NM to receive a poor rating was air quality. Despite a fair 

ozone exposure score, the poor rating was a result of high levels of estimated atmospheric 

deposition and poor visibility due to a high Haze Index score. Similar to landscape, fire, human 

effects, and climate, air quality is a broad-scale assessment category upon which Fort Matanzas 

NM has limited management influence.

For both monuments, thematic (best source) and spatial proximity, to a lesser degree, are the 

limiting factors in data quality. Thematic is often in the fair range for data quality mostly due to 

needing more local-scale data. These National Monuments were established primarily to protect 

cultural resources, so a minimal amount of natural resource data has been collected on-site. 

There are plans to map vegetation communities and continue species and community inventory 

and monitoring. An observation that is present in several of the assessment categories is the 

importance of coordination with outside management organizations. It is also noted in several 

categories that additional local-scale data collection could improve assessment and management.

The good, fair, poor scoring system (Table 69) has its limitations. It is somewhat subjective, 

especially when pre-established thresholds and criteria were missing. However, in most cases we 

were able to find thresholds from other agencies or peer-reviewed publications. We make note of 

the cases where established rating systems or thresholds were not available. With these caveats 

in mind, we effectively reported on the condition status of important natural resource 

management categories while providing further information on data quality. 

Table 69. Condition status scoring system for Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas 

National Monument Natural Resource Assessment.

Score Range Midpoint

Good 0.67 - 1.00 0.84 

Fair 0.34 - 0.66 0.5 

Poor 0.00 - 0.33 0.17 
143

Table 70. Overall condition status summary for Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. 

Data quality was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), spatial (1 = 

inside park boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = older than 5 

years). The colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor scores respectively (see 

Table 69).

Category Condition 

Status Score Data Quality 

Thematic Spatial Temporal

Landscape dynamics total 0 3 0 

Fair 0.39 3 out of 9 

Fire dynamics total 0 1 1 

Good 0.84 2 out of 3 

Human effects total 1 2 2 

Fair 0.34 5 out of 6 

Visitor use total 0 1 1 

Good 0.84 2 out of 3 

Air quality total 3 1 3 

Poor 0.17 7 out of 9 

Climate total 5 1 5 

Good 0.70 11 out of 15 

Hydrology total 0 6 6 

Poor 0.30 12 out of 18

Water quality total 3 4 1 

Fair 0.54 8 out of 12 

Soil total 3 3 3 

Good 0.84 9 out of 9 

Biotic total 5 0 5 

Poor 0.30 10 out of 15 

CASA overall 20 22 27 

Fair 0.53 69 out of 99 
144 

Table 71. Overall condition status summary for Fort Matanzas National Monument. Data quality 

was rated based on thematic (1 = best source; 0 = not the best source), spatial (1 = inside park 

boundary; 0 = outside park boundary), and temporal (1 = recent; 0 = older than 5 years). The 

colors green, yellow, and red refer to good, fair, and poor scores respectively (see Table 69).

Category Condition 

Status Score Data Quality 

Thematic Spatial Temporal 

Landscape dynamics total 0 3 0 

Good 0.84 3 out of 9 

Fire dynamics total 0 1 1 

Good 0.84 2 out of 3 

Human effects total 1 2 2 

Good 0.67 5 out of 6 

Visitor use total 0 1 1 

Good 0.84 2 out of 3 

Air quality total 3 1 3 

Poor 0.28 7 out of 9 

Climate total 5 1 5 

Good 0.70 11 out of 15 

Hydrology total 0 6 6 

Fair 0.64 12 out of 18

Water quality total 3 4 1 

Fair 0.54 8 out of 12 

Soil total 3 3 3 

Good 0.73 9 out of 9 

Biotic total 5 1 6 

Fair 0.45 12 out of 18 

FOMA overall 20 23 28 

Fair 0.65 71 out of 102

This project provided a comprehensive amount of organized tabular data and many geospatial 

data layers and maps that will aid in the management of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort 

Matanzas NMs. These data are provided on an accompanying disk and can be used to compare 

current status to future conditions. This is merely a first step to compiling data and reporting on 

current condition status, data gaps, and threats and stressors. A well established assessment 

protocol will include follow-up and future analysis. 
145 

Literature Cited

AirNow. 2008a. Air quality index (AQI) - a guide to air quality and your health. A cross-agency 

U.S. Government web site (http://airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=static.aqi). Accessed 

June 2008. 

AirNow. 2008b. AQI calculator. (http://airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=aqi.conc_aqi_calc). 

Accessed June 2008. 

AirNow. 2008c. Florida air quality conditions & forecasts. 

(http://www.airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=airnow.showlocal&CityID=111). Accessed 

August 2008. 

Balmford, A. 1996. Extinction filters and current resilience: the significance of past selection 

pressures for conservation biology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 11:193-196. 

Blake, E. S., E. N. Rappaport, and C. W. Landsea. 2007. The deadliest, costliest, and most 

intense United States tropical cyclones from 1851 to 2006 (and other frequently requested 

hurricane facts). National Weather Service, National Hurricane Center, Miami, Florida.

Blaustein, A. R., L. K. Belden, D. H. Olson, D. M. Green, T. L. Root, and J. M. Kiesecker. 2001. 

Amphibian breeding and climate change. Conservation Biology 15:1804-1809. 

Cardillo, M., A. Purvis, W. Sechrest, J. L. Gittleman, J. Bielby, and G. M. Mace. 2004. Human 

population density and extinction risk in the world's carnivores. PLoS Biology 2:909 - 

914. 

Certified Organisms: NPSpecies. 2008. The National Park Service biodiversity database. Secure 

online version of certified organisms from 

(https://science1.nature.nps.gov/npspecies/web/main/start). Accessed 30 April 2008. 

Corn, P. S. 2005. Climate change and amphibians. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 28:59-

67. 

Craft, C., J. Clough, J. Ehman, S. Joye, R. Park, S. Pennings, H. Guo, and M. Machmuller. 2009. 

Forecasting the effects of accelerated sea-level rise on tidal marsh ecosystem services. 

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 7:73-78. 

Curtis, T. 2008. NPS Southeast Coast Network Ecologist /Remote Sensing Specialist. E-mail 

Communication, June 16, 2008. 
146

DeVivo, J. C., C. J. Wright, M. W. Byrne, E. DiDonato, and T. Curtis. 2008. Vital signs 

monitoring in the Southeast Coast Inventory & Monitoring Network. Natural Resource 

Report NPS/SECN/NRR-2008/061. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

DiMatteo, A. 2007. National Parks Conservation Association natural resource assessment for 

Fort Pulaski National Monument. Masters Project. Duke University, Durham, NC. 

Erickson, M. 2009. Analysis of aquatic conditions in Fort Matanzas National Monument. In

Nibbelink, N.P., J.M. Long, K.T. McAbee, J.C. Wilson, and L. Brons. Watershed-based 

condition and threat assessment for fish and aquatic habitat in southeastern National Park 

Service Units. Task Agreement J5028000705 Final Report. National Park Service, 

Atlanta, Georgia.

ESRI. 2006. ArcInfo, ArcMap 9.2. Redlands, CA. 

Fancy, S. G., J. E. Gross, and S. L. Carter. 2008. Monitoring the condition of natural resources in 

US National Parks. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment (In Press). 

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2008. Flood map viewer. 

(https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/wps/portal). Accessed December 2008. 

Fenn, M. E., J. S. Baron, E. B. Allen, H. M. Reuth, K. R. Nydick, L. Geiser, W. D. Bowman, J. 

O. Sickman, T. Meixner, D. W. Johnson, and P. Neitlich. 2003. Ecological Effects of 

Nitrogen Deposition in the Western United States. BioScience 53:404-420. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2008. Integrated water quality qssessment for 

Florida: 2008 305(b) report and 303(d) list update. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2009. Florida's water, ours to protect. 

(http://www.protectingourwater.org/watersheds/map/upper_east_coast/). Accessed 

February 2009. 

Florida Department of Health. 2008. Division of Environmental Health. 

(http://www.doh.state.fl.us/Environment/community/SUPERFUND/index.html). 

Accessed March 2009.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2005a. Florida comprehensive wildlife 

conservation strategy. 

(http://www.myfwc.com/WILDLIFEHABITATS/Legacy_strategy.htm) Accessed March 

2009. 
147

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2005b. Species of greatest conservation 

need. (http://www.myfwc.com/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Legacy_SGCN.pdf) Accessed 

March 2009. 

Florida Gap Analysis Project. 2003. USGS Biological Resources Division, Florida Cooperative 

Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, and the University of Florida. 

(http://www.wec.ufl.edu/coop/gap/, ftp://ftp.gap.uidaho.edu/products/florida/). Accessed 

December 2008.

Forester, D. J. and G. E. Machlist. 1996. Modeling human factors that affect the loss of 

biodiversity. Conservation Biology 10:1253-1263. 

Frazier, W. J. 2007. Coastal plain geologic province. New Georgia Encyclopedia. Georgia 

Humanities Council and the University of Georgia Press. 

(http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-1161). Accessed August 

2008. 

GeoMAC. 2008. Geospatial multi-agency coordination, wildland fire support. U.S. Department 

of Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture. (http://www.geomac.gov/). Accessed 

June 2008. 

Google. 2008. Google maps. (http://maps.google.com/). Accessed November, 2008. 

Haydt, P. J. and Frazel Inc. 2003. Northern coastal basin surface water improvement and 

management plan. St. Johns River Water Management District. Palatka, Florida. 

Hurd, J. D. and D. L. Civco. 2004. Surface water quality and impervious surface quantity: a 

preliminary study. Center for Land Use Education and Research, Department of Natural 

Resources Management & Engineering, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 

The University of Connecticut. 

Hurricane City. 2008. St. Augustine Florida's history with tropical systems. 

(http://www.hurricanecity.com/city/saintaugustine.htm). Accessed November 2008. 

Jones, R. C. and C. C. Clark. 1987. Impact of watershed urbanization on stream insect 

communities. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 23:1047-1055. 

King, F. W. and K. L. Krysko. 1999. Amphibian and reptile inventory of Fort Matanzas National 

Monument. Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville, FL. Final technical report to 

the National Park Service, 30 November 1999. 44 pp. 

Krebs, C. J. 1999. Ecological methodology. Second edition. Addison-Wesley Educational 

Publishers, Inc.
148

Krupa, S. V. 2003. Effects of atmospheric ammonia (NH3) on terrestrial vegetation: a review. 

Environmental Pollution 124:179-221. 

Lane, E. 1994. Florida's geological history and geological resources. Florida Geological Survey. 

Electronic version published by State University System of Florida, Tallahassee, FL in 

2001. (http://purl.fcla.edu/fcla/dl/UF00000124.pdf). Accessed February 2009. 

Leica Geosystems Geospatial Imaging. 2004. ERDAS Imagine 8.7. Norcross, GA. 

McKinney, M. L. 2001. Effects of human population, area, and time on non-native plant and fish 

diversity in the United States. Biological Conservation 100:243-252. 

McMaster, G. S. and W. W. Wilhelm. 1997. Growing degree-days: one equation, two 

interpretations. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 87:291-300. 

National Audubon Society. 2007. WatchList. 

(http://web1.audubon.org/science/species/watchlist/). Accessed June 2008. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2008a. Coastal change analysis program, 

land cover analysis. (http://www.csc.noaa.gov/crs/lca/ccap.html). Accessed April 2008. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2008b. Coastal Services Center, historical 

hurricane tracks. (http://maps.csc.noaa.gov/hurricanes/index.jsp). Accessed September 

2008. 

National Park Service. 1997. Castillo de San Marcos National Monument: historic resource 

study. Southeast Regional Office, NPS. Atlanta, GA.

National Park Service. 2003. Air quality monitoring considerations for the Southeast Coast 

Network. (http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/permits/aris/networks/secn.cfm). Accessed 

December 2008.

National Park Service. 2004. Assessing the Risk of Foliar Injury From Ozone On Vegetation In 

Parks In the Southeast Coast Network. 

(http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/Pubs/pdf/03Risk/secnO3RiskOct04.pdf). Accessed June 

2009. 

National Park Service. 2006a. Draft environmental assessment: proposed shoreline stabilization 

features and boat dock replacement.

National Park Service. 2006b. NPS - Soil survey geographic (SSURGO) database for Fort 

Matanzas National Monument, Florida. survey area version 4, survey area version date 
149

6/29/2006. (http://science.nature.nps.gov/nrdata/datastore.cfm?ID=41627). Accessed July 

2008. 

National Park Service. 2007a. 2006 Annual Performance & Progress Report: Air Quality in 

National Parks. 

(http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/Pubs/pdf/gpra/GPRA_AQ_ConditionsTrendReport2006.p

df). Accessed June 2009. 

National Park Service. 2007b. Final general management plan and environmental impact 

statement Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. St. Augustine, Florida. 

National Park Service. 2007c. Fort Matanzas National Monument, general management plan 

news (August 2007). 

National Park Service. 2008a. Fort Matanzas National Monument news. 

(http://www.nps.gov/foma/parknews/index.htm). Accessed March 2009. 

National Park Service. 2008b. Fort Matanzas National Monument, general management plan 

news (GMP preliminary alternatives - March 2008). 

National Park Service. 2008c. NPS mission. (http://www.nps.gov/aboutus/mission.htm). 

Accessed November 2008. 

National Park Service. 2008d. NPS stats, National Park Service public use statistics office. 

(http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/). Accessed November 2008. 

National Park Service. 2008e. Vegetation mapping inventory. 

(http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/inventory/veg/index.cfm). Accessed November 2008. 

National Register of Historic Places. 2009. Florida, St. Johns County. 

(http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/FL/St.+Johns/state.html). Accessed 

February 2009. 

National Wildfire Coordinating Group. 2008. National fire and aviation management web 

application. (http://fam.nwcg.gov/fam-web/). Accessed June 2008. 

NatureServe. 2008. NatureServe explorer. (http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ranking.htm). 

Accessed August 2008. 

NOAA. 2009. National Estuarine Research Reserve System, Guana Tolomato Matanzas Reserve, 

Florida. (http://www.nerrs.noaa.gov/GTM/welcome.html). Accessed March 2009.
150

Oregon State University. 2008. Prism Climate Group. (http://www.prism.oregonstate.edu/). 

Accessed June 2009. 

Park, L. O., R. E. Manning, J. L. Marion, S. R. Lawson, and C. Jacobi. 2008. Managing visitor 

impacts in parks: a multi-method study of the effectiveness of alternative management 

practices. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration 26:97-121. 

Parks, S. A. and A. H. Harcourt. 2002. Reserve size, local human density, and mammalian 

extinctions in U.S. protected areas. Conservation Biology 16:800-808. 

Parsons. 2007. Castillo de San Marcos National Monument historic seawall stabilization 

environmental assessment. Prepared for: The National Park Service.

Partners in Flight. 2005. Species assessment database. 

(http://www.rmbo.org/pif/scores/scores.html). Accessed August 2008. 

Price, F. 2006. Quantification, analysis, and management of Intracoastal Waterway channel 

margin erosion in the Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve, 

Florida. National Estuarine Research Reserve Technical Report Series 2006:1. 

Schueler, T. 2000. The importance of imperviousness. Pages 1-12 in T. Schueler and H. Holland, 

editors. The practice of watershed protection. Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicott 

City, MD.

Scott, T. M., K. M. Campbell, F. R. Rupert, J. D. Arthur, T. M. Missimer, J. M. Lloyd, J. W. 

Yon, and J. G. Duncan. 2001. Geologic map of the State of Florida. Florida Geological 

Survey and Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 

(http://sofia.usgs.gov/publications/maps/florida_geology/). Accessed February 2009. 

Tallahassee, FL.

St. Johns County Audubon Society. 2008. North American migratory count (NAMC) results for 

2006 and 2008. (http://www.stjohnsaudubon.org/site/conservation.html). Accessed 

January 2009. 

St. Johns County Chamber of Commerce. 2009. Demographics. 

(http://www.stjohnscountychamber.com/index.php?src=directory&view=Resources&sub

menu=DataCenter&category=Demographics). Accessed February 2009. 

St. Johns River Water Management District. 2004. Digital orthophotos, natural color. Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection Mapping Data 

(http://data.labins.org/2003/MappingData/DOQQ/doqq.cfm). Accessed September 2008. 
151

Taylor, A. R. and R. L. Knight. 2003. Wildlife responses to recreation and associated visitor 

perception. Ecological Applications 13:951-963. 

The Southeast Regional Climate Center. 2008. Climate data. (http://www.sercc.com/aboutus). 

Accessed November 2008. 

Tiner, R. W. 2003a. Correlating enhanced National Wetlands Inventory data with wetland 

functions for watershed assessments: a rationale for northeastern U.S. wetlands., U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory Program, Region 5, Hadley, MA. 

Tiner, R. W. 2003b. Dichotomous keys and mapping codes for wetland landscape position, 

landform, water flow path, and waterbody type descriptors. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, National Wetlands Inventory Program, Northeast Region, Hadley, MA. 

Tuberville, T., J. Willson, M. Dorcas, and J. Gibbons. 2005. Herpetofaunal species richness of 

southeastern National Parks. Southeastern Naturalist 4. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. American fact finder. 

(http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en). Accessed August 2008. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2009a. American fact finder. 

(http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en). Accessed January 2009. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2009b. County population estimates. 

(http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/CO-EST2008-02.html). Accessed February 

2009. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2009c. Metropolitan and micropolitan statistical area estimates. 

(http://www.census.gov/popest/metro/CBSA-est2007-pop-chg.html). Accessed January 

2009. 

U.S. Department of Commerce. 2001. Hurricanes, unleashing nature's fury, a preparedness 

guide. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Weather Service.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility 

Conditions Under the Regional Haze Program. EPA-454/B-03-005. Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Research 

Triangle Park, NC. (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf). 

Accessed June 2009. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. National coastal condition report II (2005), EPA620/R-03/002., Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

(http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/). Accessed August 2008. 
152

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008a. National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). (http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html). Accessed July 2008. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008b. Six Common Air Pollutants. 

(http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/). Accessed July 2008. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008c. STORET, storage and retrieval data management 

system. (http://www.epa.gov/storet/). Accessed March 2008. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008d. Technology transfer network (TTN), air quality 

system (AQS) data mart. (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/aqsdatamart/index.htm). Accessed 

July 2008. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008e. Water quality criteria for nitrogen and 

phosphorus pollution, basic information. 

(http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/basic.htm). Accessed July 2008. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008f. Water quality criteria for nitrogen and 

phosphorus pollution. (http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nutrient/) Accessed July 

2008. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Ground-level Ozone Air Quality Standards. 

(http://www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/standards.html). Accessed June 2009. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Endangered species program, Endangered Species Act of 

1973. (http://www.fws.gov/Endangered/ESA/content.html). Accessed November 2008. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2000. Fire ecology in the southeastern United States. 

U.S. Geological Survey. 2008a. 7.5-minute digital elevation model (DEM). From 

GeoCommunity (http://www.geocomm.com/). Accessed December, 2008.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2008b. North American breeding bird survey data. Patuxent Wildlife 

Research Center, Laurel, MD. (http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/results/). Accessed August 

2008. 

UGA Department of Geology. 2008. Georgia geology. 

(http://www.gly.uga.edu/default.php?PK=0&iPage=5). Accessed October 2008. 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 2009. National Atmospheric Deposition Program. 

(http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/). Accessed June 2009. 
153

University of Massachusetts Extension. 2008. Monitoring: growing degree days and plant 

phenology. (http://www.umassgreeninfo.org/fact_sheets/ipmtools/gdd_phrenology.html). 

Accessed November 2008. 

USDA Bureau of Soils. 1917. Historical soil survey maps. 

(http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/historicalmaps/soilsurvey/index.html). Accessed August 

2008. 

USDA Forest Service. 2006. LANDFIRE: 14047990, 64779257, 14896850, and 43476636: 

USDA Forest Service, Missoula MT.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Wildland fire assessment system. (http://www.wfas.net/). Accessed 

November 2008. 

USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2006a. Soil data mart. Soil survey area: Camden 

and Glynn Counties, Georgia, December 27, 2006. 

(http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/Survey.aspx?County=GA127). Accessed September 

2008. 

USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2006b. Soil data mart. Soil survey area: St. Johns 

County, Florida, December 7, 2006. 

(http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/Metadata.aspx?Survey=FL109&UseState=FL). 

Accessed September 2008.

USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service. 2008. Soil data viewer. 

(http://soildataviewer.nrcs.usda.gov/). Accessed August 2008. 

Virginia Tech FORSITE. 2008. Forestry outreach site. Scientific investigations, phenology and 

growing degree days. (http://www.cnr.vt.edu/dendro/forsite/si6.htm). Accessed October 

2008. 

Waldrop, T. A., D. L. White, and S. M. Jones. 1992. Fire regimes for pine-grassland 

communities in the southeastern United States. Forest Ecology and Management 47:195-

210. 

Walther, G.-R., E. Post, P. Convey, A. Menzel, C. Parmesan, T. J. C. Beebee, J.-M. Fromentin, 

O. Hoegh-Guldberg, and F. Bairlein. 2002. Ecological responses to recent climate 

change. Nature 416:389-395. 

Watson, K. 2005. Avian conservation implementation plan Fort Matanzas National Monument 

and Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. National Park Service Southeast 

Region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 
154

Wiegert, R. G. and B. J. Freeman. 1990. Tidal salt marshes of the southeast Atlantic coast: a 

community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report. 85 (7.29). 

Wood, K. T., S. R. Lawson, and J. L. Marion. 2006. Assessing recreation impacts to cliffs in 

Shenandoah National Park: integrating visitor observation with trail and recreation site 

measurements. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration 24:86-110. 

Young, T. F. and S. Sanzone. 2002. A framework for assessing and reporting on ecological 

condition. 

Zomlefer, W. B. and D. E. Giannasi. 2004. Floristic survey of Castillo de San Marcos National 

Monument, St. Augustine, Florida. Castanea:222-236. 

Zouhar, K., J. K. Smith, S. Sutherland, and M. L. Brooks. 2008. Wildland fire in ecosystems, fire 

and nonnative invasive plants. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42-volume 6. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, 

UT.
155 

Appendices

Page

Appendix A: Land cover calculation methods............................................................................ 157

Appendix B: Hydrology calculation methods............................................................................. 163

Appendix C: Soil series description and soil ratings. ................................................................. 165

Appendix D: Reference species lists from habitat distribution models published by the 

Florida Gap Analysis Project (2003). ......................................................................................... 197

Appendix E: Reference bird species lists from St. Johns County Audubon (2008) North 

American Migratory Counts in spring 2006, spring 2008, and fall 2008. .................................. 209

Appendix F: The following species lists (Appendix G through Appendix Q) have been 

cross-referenced to NatureServe’s global and state rankings (NatureServe 2008); and 

the FWC listings for endangered, threatened, or rare species (Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission 2005a). These are further explanations of the rank and status 

abbreviations. .............................................................................................................................. 225

Appendix G: Plant species documented for Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. ....... 228

Appendix H: Plant species documented for Fort Matanzas National Monument. ..................... 233

Appendix I: Fish species documented for Fort Matanzas National Monument. ........................ 241

Appendix J: Amphibian species documented for Castillo de San Marcos National 

Monument. .................................................................................................................................. 244

Appendix K: Amphibian species documented for Fort Matanzas National Monument. ............ 245

Appendix L: Reptile species documented for Castillo de San Marcos National 

Monument. .................................................................................................................................. 246

Appendix M: Reptile species documented for Fort Matanzas National Monument. ................. 247

Appendix N: Bird species documented for Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. ........ 249

Appendix O: Bird species documented for Fort Matanzas National Monument. ....................... 255

Appendix P: Mammal species documented for Castillo de San Marcos National 

Monument. .................................................................................................................................. 266

Appendix Q: Mammal species documented for Fort Matanzas National Monument. ............... 267

157 

Appendix A: Land cover calculation methods. 

We used “Extract by Mask” in ArcToolbox (ESRI 2006) to clip each land cover dataset to the 

study areas. In some cases when the study areas went into another state, multiple datasets were

mosaicked (combined) in ERDAS Imagine (Leica Geosystems Geospatial Imaging 2004). In 

some cases we performed grid reclassification and relabeling of class name to simplify and to 

make the raster files that were produced more useable.

NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program Classification Scheme (National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration 2008a): 

Uplands 

Consisting of areas above sea level where saturated soils and standing water are absent. Also, the 

Hydrologic regime is not sufficiently wet to support vegetation associated with wetlands. Upland 

features are divided into classes such as High, Medium, Low Intensity Development, Cultivated 

land, Grassland, Pasture/ Hay, Barren land, Scrub/Shrub, Dwarf Shrub, Deciduous, Evergreen 

and Mixed Forest. 

2- Developed, High Intensity – Includes highly developed areas where people reside or work in 

high numbers. Impervious surfaces account for 80 to 100 percent of the total cover. 

Characteristic land cover features: Large commercial/industrial complexes and associated 

parking, commercial strip development, large barns, hangars, interstate highways, and runways. 

3- Developed, Medium Intensity – Includes areas with a mixture of constructed materials and 

vegetation. Impervious surfaces account for 50 to 79 percent of the total cover. 

Characteristic land cover features: Small buildings such as single family housing units, farm 

outbuildings, and large sheds.

4- Developed, Low Intensity – Includes areas with a mixture of constructed materials and 

vegetation. Impervious surfaces account for 21 to 49 percent of total cover. 

Characteristic land cover features: Same as Medium Intensity Developed with the addition of 

streets and roads with associated trees and grasses. If roads or portions of roads are present in the 

imagery they are represented as this class in the final land cover product. 

5- Developed, Open Space – Includes areas with a mixture of some constructed materials, but 

mostly vegetation in the form of lawn grasses. Impervious surfaces account for less than 20 

percent of total cover.

Characteristic land cover features: Parks, lawns, athletic fields, golf courses, and natural grasses 

occurring around airports and industrial sites. 

6- Cultivated Crops – Areas used for the production of annual crops. Crop vegetation accounts 

for greater than 20 percent of total vegetation. This class also includes all land being actively 

tilled. 

Characteristic land cover features: Crops (corn, soybeans, vegetables, tobacco, and cotton), 

orchards, nurseries, and vineyards.
158

7- Pasture/Hay – Areas of grasses, legumes, or grass-legume mixtures planted for livestock 

grazing or the production of seed or hay crops, typically on a perennial cycle and not tilled. 

Pasture/hay vegetation accounts for greater than 20 percent of total vegetation. 

Characteristic land cover features: Crops such as alfalfa, hay, and winter wheat. 

8- Grassland/Herbaceous – Areas dominated by grammanoid or herbaceous vegetation, 

generally greater than 80 percent of total vegetation. These areas are not subject to intensive 

management such as tilling, but can be utilized for grazing. 

Characteristic land cover features: Prairies, meadows, fallow fields, clear-cuts with natural 

grasses, and undeveloped lands with naturally occurring grasses. 

9- Deciduous Forest – Areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 meters tall and greater 

than 20 percent of total vegetation cover. More than 75 percent of the tree species shed foliage 

simultaneously in response to seasonal change. 

Characteristic species: Maples (Acer), Hickory (Carya), Oaks (Quercus), and Aspen (Populus 

tremuloides).

10- Evergreen Forest – Areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 meters tall and greater 

than 20 percent of total vegetation cover. More than 75 percent of the tree species maintain their 

leaves all year. Canopy is never without green foliage. 

Characteristic species: Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), slash pine (Pinus ellioti), shortleaf pine 

(Pinus echinta), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and other southern yellow (Picea); various spruces 

and balsam fir (Abies balsamea); white pine (Pinus strobus), red pine (Pinus resinosa), and jack 

pine (Pinus banksiana); hemlock (Tsuga canadensis); and such western species as Douglas-fir 

(Pseudotsuga menziesii), redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), ponderosa pine (Pinus monticola), 

Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmanni), western red cedar (Thuja 

plicata), and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla).

11- Mixed Forest – Areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 meters tall, and greater 

than 20 percent of total vegetation cover. Neither deciduous nor evergreen species are greater 

than 75 percent of total tree cover.

Characteristic species: Those listed in 9 and 10. 

12- Scrub/Shrub – Areas dominated by shrubs less than 5 meters tall with shrub canopy typically 

greater than 20 percent of total vegetation. This class includes tree shrubs, young trees in an early 

successional stage, or trees stunted from environmental conditions. 

Characteristic species: Those listed in 9 and 10 as well as chaparral species such as chamise 

(Adenostoma fasciculatum), chaparral honeysuckle (Lonicera interrupta), scrub oak (Quercus 

beberidifolia), sagebrush (artemisia tridentate), and manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.).

Wetlands 

Areas dominated by saturated soils and often feature standing water. Wetlands vegetation is 

adapted to withstand long-term immersion and saturated, oxygen-depleted soils. These are 

divided into two salinity regimes: Palustrine for freshwater wetlands and Estuarine for saltwater 
159

wetlands. These are further divided into Forested, Shrub/Scrub, and Emergent wetlands. 

Unconsolidated Shores are also included as wetlands. 

13- Palustrine Forested Wetland – Includes all tidal and nontidal wetlands dominated by woody 

vegetation greater than or equal to 5 meters in height, and all such wetlands that occur in tidal 

areas in which salinity due to ocean-derived salts is below 0.5 percent. Total vegetation coverage 

is greater than 20 percent.

Characteristic species: Tupelo (Nyssa), Cottonwoods (Populus deltoids), Bald Cypress 

(Taxodium distichum), American elm (Ulmus Americana), Ash (Fraxinus), and tamarack.

14- Palustrine Scrub/Shrub Wetland – Includes all tidal and non tidal wetlands dominated by 

woody vegetation less than 5 meters in height, and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas in 

which salinity due to ocean-derived salts is below 0.5 percent. Total vegetation coverage is 

greater than 20 percent. The species present could be true shrubs, young trees and shrubs, or 

trees that are small or stunted due to environmental conditions (Cowardin et al. 1979). 

Characteristic species: Alders (Alnus spp.), willows (Salix spp.), buttonbush (Cephalanthus 

occidentalis), red osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), honeycup (Zenobia pulverenta), spirea 

(Spiraea douglassii), bog birch (Betula pumila), and young trees such as red maple (Acer 

rubrum) and black spruce (Picea mariana).

15- Palustrine Emergent Wetland (Persistent) – Includes all tidal and nontidal wetlands 

dominated by persistent emergent vascular plants, emergent mosses or lichens, and all such 

wetlands that occur in tidal areas in which salinity due to ocean-derived salts is below 0.5 

percent. Plants generally remain standing until the next growing season. Total vegetation cover is 

greater than 80 percent.

Characteristic species: Cattails (Typha spp.), sedges (Carex spp.), bulrushes (Scirpus spp.), 

rushes (Juncus spp.), saw grass (Cladium jamaicaense), and reed (Phragmites australis).

16- Estuarine Forested Wetland – Includes all tidal wetlands dominated by woody vegetation 

greater than or equal to 5 meters in height, and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas in 

which salinity due to ocean-derived salts is equal to or greater than 0.5 percent. Total vegetation 

coverage is greater than 20 percent.

Characteristic species: Red Mangrove (Rhizophora mangle), Black Mangrove (Avicennia 

germinans) and White Mangrove (Languncularia racemosa) 

17- Estuarine Scrub / Shrub Wetland – Includes all tidal wetlands dominated by woody 

vegetation less than 5 meters in height, and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas in which 

salinity due to ocean-derived salts is equal to or greater than 0.5 percent. Total vegetation 

coverage is greater than 20 percent. 

Characteristic species: Sea-myrtle (Baccharis halimifolia) and marsh elder (Iva frutescens).

18- Estuarine Emergent Wetland – Includes all tidal wetlands dominated by erect, rooted, 

herbaceous hydrophytes (excluding mosses and lichens). Wetlands that occur in tidal areas in 

which salinity due to ocean-derived salts is equal to or greater than 0.5 percent and that are 

present for most of the growing season in most years. Perennial plants usually dominate these 

wetlands. Total vegetation cover is greater than 80 percent.
160

Characteristic species: Cordgrass (Spartina spp.), needlerush (Juncus roemerianus), narrow 

leaved cattail (Typha angustifolia), southern wild rice (Zizaniopsis miliacea), common 

pickleweed (Salicornia virginica), sea blite (Suaeda californica), and arrow grass (Triglochin 

martimum).

19- Unconsolidated Shore – Unconsolidated material such as silt, sand, or gravel that is subject 

to inundation and redistribution due to the action of water. Characterized by substrates lacking 

vegetation except for pioneering plants that become established during brief periods when 

growing conditions are favorable. Erosion and deposition by waves and currents produce a 

number of landforms representing this class. 

Characteristic land cover features: Beaches, bars, and flats.

20- Barren Land – (rock/sand/clay) Barren areas of bedrock, desert pavement, scarps, talus, 

slides, volcanic material, glacial debris, sand dunes, strip mines, gravel pits, and other 

accumulations of earth material. Generally, vegetation accounts for less than 10 percent of total 

cover.

Characteristic land cover features: Quarries, strip mines, gravel pits, dunes, beaches above the 

high-water line, sandy areas other than beaches, deserts and arid riverbeds, and exposed rock. 

21- Open Water – All areas of open water, generally with less than 25 percent cover of 

vegetation or soil. 

Characteristic land cover features: Lakes, rivers, reservoirs, streams, ponds, and ocean. 

Table A-1. Vegetation reclassification of C-CAP land cover to quantify “natural vegetation,” 

“semi-natural vegetation,” and “unnatural vegetation.” 

Vegetation Class C-CAP Class

Natural Vegetation Deciduous Forest

Estuarine Emergent Wetland

Estuarine Forest Wetland

Estuarine Shrub/Scrub Wetland

Evergreen Forest

Grassland

Mixed Forest

Palustrine Emergent Wetland

Palustrine Forested Wetland

Palustrine Shrub/Scrub Wetland

Shrub/Scrub

Semi-natural Vegetation Cultivated

Pasture/Hay

Developed Open Space

Unnatural Vegetation High Intensity Developed

Low Intensity Developed

Medium Intensity Developed

Other Bare Land

Unconsolidated Shore

Water


163 

Appendix B: Hydrology calculation methods. 

The 7.5-minute Digital Elevation Model (DEM) raster datasets were produced by the U.S. 

Geological Survey (2008a), and were obtained from the GeoCommunity website. We used 

“Extract by Mask” in ArcToolbox (ESRI 2006) to clip each DEM raster to the park boundaries. 

In some instances, the study areas of interest were contained in multiple quadrangles. In such 

cases, each raster dataset was clipped to the park boundary using the “Extract by Mask” tool and 

subsequently merged into one dataset using “Mosaic to New Raster” in ArcToolbox. Having 

clipped the DEM data to the park boundaries, the data were then reclassified, symbolized, and 

labeled to illustrate mean sea level, two-foot storm surges, and four-foot storm surges. Each 

reclassification permitted the analysis of changes in the acreage and percentage of land/water 

extent in each of the figures. 

165 

Appendix C: Soil series description and soil ratings. 

Brief Map Unit Description

Fort Matanzas National Monument, Florida

[Only those map units that have entries for the selected description categories are included in this report]

Map unit: 24 - Pellicer silty clay loam, frequently flooded

Description category: aSOI Characteristics

Pellicer silty clay loam, frequently flooded. This is a very poorly drained, nearly level soil that is in low tidal marshes along stream 

estuaries near the Atlantic coast. Soil areas are wide and elongated in shape. Slopes are less than 1 percent. Typically, the 

surface layer is very dark brown silty clay loam about 10 inches thick. Between depths of 10 and 55 inches, the material is dark 

Description category: dCULtivation Limits

This soil has very low potential for vegetable crops. Daily tidal flooding, extreme wetness and a high sulfur content severely limit 

most crops. The high sulfur makes this soil extremely acid when dry. Reclamation is difficult requiring dikes and pumping.

Description category: hPASture and Hayland

These soils are not recommended for pasture and hayland. Soil conditions and/or current land use severly limit their suitability for 

the production of forage and hay crops. Limitations include excessive wetness, flooding and ponding water, restrictive soil textures

and layers, and salinity.

Description category: mWOD - Woodland Mgt

These soils are not recommended for the production of pine trees. Forest management is severely limited due to equipment 

limitation, seedling mortality, winthrow hazard, and plant competition. Soil conditions that produce these limitations include 

excessive wetness, flooding and ponding water, restrictive soil textures and layers, susceptibility to compaction, and salinity.

 

Description category: oURB - Urban

These soils have severe limitations for building sites and community development. Wetness, flooding, and soil with shrink/swell 

and low strength characteristics are the primary restrictions. These conditions are not suited for urban uses.

Description category: sWQ - Water Quality

Soileach=Low and Soilrun=Medium or High These soils have a low potential for pesticide leaching to groundwater and a medium 

or high potential for pesticide runoff to surface water. They have a medium potential for nitrogen leaching to groundwater and a 

medium or high potential for nitrogen leaching to groundwater and a medium or high potential for phosphorous runoff to surface 

 

Description category: tPES - Pesticide Mgt

The Florida Pest Control Guide from the Cooperative Extension Service contains a list of pesticides suited to each pest. This list 

also contains Relative Leaching Potential Index (RLPI) and Relative Runoff Potential Index (RRPI) values. While any approved 

pesticide listed in the guide can be used, the applicator should consider for use pesticides with a larger RLP1 value, RRPI value, 

Health Advisory Level (HAL or HALEQ) value, and Aquatic Toxicity value. Read and follow pesticide labels.

Description category: uNUT - Nutrient Mgt

A soil test will be used as a guide to determine plant nutrient needs. In addition, a listing of nitrogen and phosphorous 

requirements by crop type is available from the Cooperative Extension Service. Nutrients should be added at the rate needed by 

the crop grown or according to the producer's goals, whichever is lower.

Survey Area Version: 4

Survey Area Version Date: 06/29/2006 Page 1
166 

Brief Map Unit Description

Fort Matanzas National Monument, Florida

Map unit: 28 - Beaches

Description category: aSOI Characteristics

Beaches. Beaches consist of long narrow strips of nearly level sand along the Atlantic Ocean. Seawater covers these areas twice 

daily during normal high tides. Beaches also include some small areas of low dunes that are adjacent to the narrow strips that are 

overwashed by tidal waves.

 

Description category: hPASture and Hayland

These soils are not recommended for pasture and hayland. Soil conditions and/or current land use severly limit their suitability for 

the production of forage and hay crops. Limitations include excessive wetness, flooding and ponding water, restrictive soil textures

and layers, and salinity.

 

Description category: sWQ - Water Quality

Soileach and Soilrun=Medium or High These soils have a medium or high potential for pesticide leaching to groundwater and a 

medium to high potential for pesticide runoff to surface water. They have a medium or high potential for nitrogen leaching to the 

groundwater and a medium of high potential for phosphorous runoff to surface runoff.

Description category: tPES - Pesticide Mgt

The Florida Pest Control Guide from the Cooperative Extension Service contains a list of pesticides suited to each pest. This list 

also contains Relative Leaching Potential Index (RLPI) and Relative Runoff Potential Index (RRPI) values. While any approved 

pesticide listed in the guide can be used, the applicator should consider for use pesticides with a larger RLP1 value, RRPI value, 

Health Advisory Level (HAL or HALEQ) value, and Aquatic Toxicity value. Read and follow pesticide labels.

 

Description category: uNUT - Nutrient Mgt

A soil test will be used as a guide to determine plant nutrient needs. In addition, a listing of nitrogen and phosphorous 

requirements by crop type is available from the Cooperative Extension Service. Nutrients should be added at the rate needed by 

the crop grown or according to the producer's goals, whichever is lower.

Map unit: 29 - Satellite fine sand

Description category: aSOI Characteristics

Satellite fine sand. This is a somewhat poorly drained, nearly level soil in narrow to broad swales between higher relict beach 

sand dunes, on low knolls adjacent to drainageways, and on slight ridges in the flatwoods. Most of this soil is in the area between

the Inland Waterway and Atlantic Ocean. Areas are generally elongated in shape. Slope ranges from 0 to 2 percent.

Description category: dCULtivation Limits

This soil had a medium potential for cultivated crops when intensive management and soil improving measures are utilized. A water

control system is needed to provide both irrigation and drainage as needed. Soil improving cover crops should be planted after 

crops are harvested. Bedding of the rows is needed prior to planting crops. Fertilizer and lime should be added according to the 

Description category: hPASture and Hayland

Potential for improved pasture and hayland for these soils are moderate to low. Surface ditches are needed to remove excess water

during times of high rainfall. Improved pasture grasses such as Bahiagrass and Bermudagrass grow well. Regular application of 

fertilizer and lime are required. Grazing should be controlled to maintain plant vigor. The pasture suitability group is 9 CL.

Survey Area Version: 4

Survey Area Version Date: 06/29/2006 Page 2
167 

Brief Map Unit Description

Fort Matanzas National Monument, Florida

Map unit: 29 - Satellite fine sand

Description category: mWOD - Woodland Mgt

These soils are suited to the production of slash pine. The site index for slash pine ranges from 65 to 71. Based on a site index of 

68, the yield from an even-aged, fully stocked stand of 25 year old trees is 35 cords per acre. The major management concerns are 

for equipment limitations, seedling mortality, and plant competition.

Description category: oURB - Urban

These soils have severe limitations for building sites and community development. Wetness due to a periodic high water table is 

the primary restriction. Alternative designs, additional construction costs, and possible increased maintenance may help overcome 

the limitations. Dwellings without basements and small commercial buildings by require water control measures.

Description category: sWQ - Water Quality

Soileach=Medium or High and Soilrun=Low These soils have a medium or high potential for pesticide leaching to the groundwater 

and a low potential for pesticide runoff from the field(s) to surface water. They have a medium or high potential for nitrogen 

leaching to the groundwater and a low potential for phosphorous runoff to surface runoff.

Description category: tPES - Pesticide Mgt

The Florida Pest Control Guide from the Cooperative Extension Service contains a list of pesticides suited to each pest. This list 

also contains Relative Leaching Potential Index (RLPI) and Relative Runoff Potential Index (RRPI) values. While any approved 

pesticide listed in the guide can be used, the applicator should consider for use pesticides with a larger RLP1 value, RRPI value, 

Health Advisory Level (HAL or HALEQ) value, and Aquatic Toxicity value. Read and follow pesticide labels.

 

Description category: uNUT - Nutrient Mgt

A soil test will be used as a guide to determine plant nutrient needs. In addition, a listing of nitrogen and phosphorous 

requirements by crop type is available from the Cooperative Extension Service. Nutrients should be added at the rate needed by 

the crop grown or according to the producer's goals, whichever is lower.

Map unit: 31 - Fripp-Satellite complex

Description category: aSOI Characteristics

Fripp-Satellite complex. In this map unit are excessively drained, rolling or hilly Fripp Soil on narrow relict beach dunes and 

somewhat poorly drained, nearly level Satellite soil in narrow swales between areas of the Fripp soil. These soils formed in thick 

sandy deposits of marine origin mixed with small amounts of shell and shell fragments.

Description category: dCULtivation Limits

This soil is not suited to cultivated crops. Soil droughtiness, steep slopes, and rapid leaching of fertilizer limits this soil for this 

Description category: hPASture and Hayland

This soil complex has a low potential for pasture and hayland production. Lime and fertilizer are required for maximum potential. 

Soil suitability group is 9 CL and 9 BL.

Survey Area Version: 4

Survey Area Version Date: 06/29/2006 Page 3
168 

Brief Map Unit Description

Fort Matanzas National Monument, Florida

Map unit: 31 - Fripp-Satellite complex 

Description category: mWOD - Woodland Mgt

These two soils occur in complex repeating pattern on the landscape, and possess different pine production capabilities. Slash 

pine is the recommended species to plant. The site index for slash pine on Fripp soils ranges from 65 to 71. Based on a site index 

of 68, the yield from an even-aged, fully stocked stand at 25 year old tress is 35 cords per acre.

Description category: oURB - Urban

These two soils occur in a complex, repeating pattern on the landscape, and possess different limitations for building site and 

community development. Fripp soils have moderate limitations for dwellings without basements, small commercial buildings, and 

local roads and streets. Alternative designs and additional construction costs may be required. Soil conditions are favorable for 

Description category: sWQ - Water Quality

Soileach=Medium or High and Soilrun=Low. These soils have a medium or high potential for pesticide leaching to the groundwater 

and a low potential for pesticide runoff from the field(s) to surface water. They have a medium or high potential for nitrogen 

leaching to the groundwater and a low potential for phosphorous runoff to surface runoff.

Description category: tPES - Pesticide Mgt

The Florida Pest Control Guide from the Cooperative Extension Service contains a list of pesticides suited to each pest. This list 

also contains Relative Leaching Potential Index (RLPI) and Relative Runoff Potential Index (RRPI) values. While any approved 

pesticide listed in the guide can be used, the applicator should consider for use pesticides with a larger RLP1 value, RRPI value, 

Health Advisory Level (HAL or HALEQ) value, and Aquatic Toxicity value. Read and follow pesticide labels.

Description category: uNUT - Nutrient Mgt

A soil test will be used as a guide to determine plant nutrient needs. In addition, a listing of nitrogen and phosphorous 

requirements by crop type is available from the Cooperative Extension Service. Nutrients should be added at the rate needed by 

the crop grown or according to the producer's goals, whichever is lower.

Map unit: 45 - St. Augustine fine sand, clayey substratum

Description category: aSOI Characteristics

St. Augustine fine sand, clayey substratum. This is a somewhat poorly drained, nearly level soil on narrow to broad low flat areas, 

and low knolls adjacent to tidal salt marshes and estuaries along the Atlantic Coast and Intracoastal Waterway. It formed in marine 

sands mixed with shells and shell fragments and fragments of loamy or clayey material overlying loamy or clayey layers. This soil 

formed as the result of dredging operations in the Inland Waterway.

Description category: dCULtivation Limits

This soil has a low potential for cultivated crops. The root zone is limited by a water table 20 to 40 inches below the surface most 

of the time. Soil and water salt content adversely effect some plants.

Description category: hPASture and Hayland

These soils are not recommended for pasture and hayland. Soil conditions and/or current land use severly limit their suitability for 

the production of forage and hay crops. Limitations include excessive wetness, flooding and ponding water, restrictive soil textures

and layers, and salinity.

Survey Area Version: 4

Survey Area Version Date: 06/29/2006 Page 4
169 

Brief Map Unit Description

Fort Matanzas National Monument, Florida

Map unit: 45 - St. Augustine fine sand, clayey substratum

Description category: mWOD - Woodland Mgt

These soils are not recommended for the production of pine trees. Forest management is severely limited due to equipment 

limitation, seedling mortality, winthrow hazard, and plant competition. Soil conditions that produce these limitations include 

excessive wetness, flooding and ponding water, restrictive soil textures and layers, susceptibility to compaction, and salinity.

Description category: oURB - Urban

These soils have severe limitations for building sites and community development. Wetness and flooding are the primary 

restrictions. Alternative designs, additional construction costs, and possible increased maintenance may help overcome the 

limitations.

Description category: sWQ - Water Quality

Soileach and Soilrun=Medium or High These soils have a medium or high potential for pesticide leaching to groundwater and a 

medium to high potential for pesticide runoff to surface water. They have a medium or high potential for nitrogen leaching to the 

groundwater and a medium of high potential for phosphorous runoff to surface runoff.

Description category: tPES - Pesticide Mgt

The Florida Pest Control Guide from the Cooperative Extension Service contains a list of pesticides suited to each pest. This list 

also contains Relative Leaching Potential Index (RLPI) and Relative Runoff Potential Index (RRPI) values. While any approved 

pesticide listed in the guide can be used, the applicator should consider for use pesticides with a larger RLP1 value, RRPI value, 

Health Advisory Level (HAL or HALEQ) value, and Aquatic Toxicity value. Read and follow pesticide labels.

Description category: uNUT - Nutrient Mgt

A soil test will be used as a guide to determine plant nutrient needs. In addition, a listing of nitrogen and phosphorous 

requirements by crop type is available from the Cooperative Extension Service. Nutrients should be added at the rate needed by 

the crop grown or according to the producer's goals, whichever is lower.

Map unit: 49 - Moultrie fine sand, frequently flooded

Description category: aSOI Characteristics

Moultrie fine sand, frequently flooded. This very poorly drained, nearly level soil is in tidal marsh areas, generally in long narrow 

areas on the margins of the tidal marsh or on low islands in the tidal marsh. Slopes range from 0 to 1 percent. Typically, the 

surface layer is dark grayish brown fine sand about 2 inches thick.

Description category: dCULtivation Limits

This soil has a very low potential for vegetable crops. Excessive salt content and periodic tidal flooding restrict this soil for 

agriculture purposes.

Description category: hPASture and Hayland

These soils are not recommended for pasture and hayland. Soil conditions and/or current land use severly limit their suitability for 

the production of forage and hay crops. Limitations include excessive wetness, flooding and ponding water, restrictive soil textures

and layers, and salinity.

Survey Area Version: 4

Survey Area Version Date: 06/29/2006 Page 5
170 

Brief Map Unit Description

Fort Matanzas National Monument, Florida

Map unit: 49 - Moultrie fine sand, frequently flooded

Description category: mWOD - Woodland Mgt

These soils are not recommended for the production of pine trees. Forest management is severely limited due to equipment 

limitation, seedling mortality, winthrow hazard, and plant competition. Soil conditions that produce these limitations include 

excessive wetness, flooding and ponding water, restrictive soil textures and layers, susceptibility to compaction, and salinity. 

Description category: oURB - Urban

These soils have severe limitations for building sites and community development. Wetness and flooding are the primary 

restrictions. Alternate designs, additional construction costs, and possible increased maintenance may help overcome the 

limitations. Dwellings with out basements, small commercial buildings, and local roads and streets require water control measures.

Description category: sWQ - Water Quality

Soileach and Soilrun=Medium or High These soils have a medium or high potential for pesticide leaching to groundwater and a 

medium to high potential for pesticide runoff to surface water. They have a medium or high potential for nitrogen leaching to the 

groundwater and a medium of high potential for phosphorous runoff to surface runoff.

Description category: tPES - Pesticide Mgt

The Florida Pest Control Guide from the Cooperative Extension Service contains a list of pesticides suited to each pest. This list 

also contains Relative Leaching Potential Index (RLPI) and Relative Runoff Potential Index (RRPI) values. While any approved 

pesticide listed in the guide can be used, the applicator should consider for use pesticides with a larger RLP1 value, RRPI value, 

Health Advisory Level (HAL or HALEQ) value, and Aquatic Toxicity value. Read and follow pesticide labels.

Description category: uNUT - Nutrient Mgt

A soil test will be used as a guide to determine plant nutrient needs. In addition, a listing of nitrogen and phosphorous 

requirements by crop type is available from the Cooperative Extension Service. Nutrients should be added at the rate needed by 

the crop grown or according to the producer's goals, whichever is lower.

 Survey Area Version: 4

Survey Area Version Date: 06/29/2006 Page 6
171 

Map Unit Description (Brief)

St. Johns County, Florida

[Only those map units that have entries for the selected description categories are included in this report]

Map unit: 51 - St. Augustine-Urban land complex

Description category: aSOI

St. Augustine-Urban land complex. This map unit consists of nearly level, somewhat poorly drained St. 

Augustine 

soils that have been used for urban development. Most areas of this unit are located near developments along 

the Atlantic Coast and Intracoastal Waterway. Many areas are adjacent to tidal marshes and other low areas or 

bodies of water from which sandy soil material has been dredged.

Description category: hPAS

These soils are not recommended for pasture and hayland. Soil conditions and/or current land use severly limit 

their suitability for the production of forage and hay crops. Limitations include excessive wetness, flooding and 

ponding water, restrictive soil textures and layers, and salinity.

Description category: oURB

These soils have severe limitations for building sites and community development. Wetness and flooding are 

the 

primary restrictions. Alternative designs, additional construction costs, and possible increased maintenance 

may 

help overcome the limitations.

 Dwellings without basements, small commercial buildings, and septic tank absorption fields require water 

control

measures.

Description category: sWQ

Soileach and Soilrun=Medium or High These soils have a medium or high potential for pesticide leaching to 

groundwater and a medium to high potential for pesticide runoff to surface water. They have a medium or high 

potential for nitrogen leaching to the groundwater and a medium of high potential for phosphorous runoff to 

surface runoff.

Description category: tPES

The Florida Pest Control Guide from the Cooperative Extension Service contains a list of pesticides suited to 

each 

pest. This list also contains Relative Leaching Potential Index (RLPI) and Relative Runoff Potential Index 

(RRPI) 

values. While any approved pesticide listed in the guide can be used, the applicator should consider for use 

pesticides with a larger RLP1 value, RRPI value, Health Advisory Level (HAL or HALEQ) value, and Aquatic 

Toxicity value. Read and follow pesticide labels.

Description category: uNUT

A soil test will be used as a guide to determine plant nutrient needs. In addition, a listing of nitrogen and 

phosphorous requirements by crop type is available from the Cooperative Extension Service. Nutrients should 

be

added at the rate needed by the crop grown or according to the producer's goals, whichever is lower.

Survey Area Version: 5

Survey Area Version Date: 12/07/2006
172 

Application Version: 5.2.0016 Page 1 of 2 

Potential Erosion Hazard (Off-Road, Off-Trail)

Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition

Tie-break Rule: Higher

Fort Matanzas National Monument, Florida

Survey Area Version and Date: 4 - 06/29/2006

Map Component name and % composition

symbol Map unit name Rating Rating reasons 

24 Pellicer silty clay loam, frequently flooded Slight Pellicer 80% 

28 Beaches Not rated Beaches 95% 

Satellite 5% 

29 Satellite fine sand Slight Satellite 90% 

31 Fripp-Satellite complex Slight Fripp 55% 

Satellite 30% 

45 St. Augustine fine sand, clayey substratum Slight St. Augustine 90% 

49 Moultrie fine sand, frequently flooded Slight Moultrie 90% 

99 Water Not rated Water 100% 

100 Waters of the Atlantic Ocean Not rated Water 100% 
173 

Potential Erosion Hazard (Off-Road, Off-Trail) 

Rating Options 

Attribute Name: Potential Erosion Hazard (Off-Road, Off-Trail) 

Ratings indicate the hazard or risk of soil loss from off-road and off-trail areas after disturbance activities that expose the soil 

surface, and are based on slope and soil erodibility factor K. The soil loss is caused by sheet or rill erosion in off-road or off-trail 

areas where 50 to 75 percent of the surface has been exposed by logging, grazing, mining, or other kinds of disturbance. 

The hazard is described as "Slight", "Moderate", "Severe", or "Very severe". A rating of "Slight" indicates that erosion is unlikely 

under ordinary climatic conditions; "Moderate" indicates that some erosion is likely and that erosion-control measures may be 

needed; "Severe" indicates that erosion is very likely and that erosion-control measures, including revegetation of bare areas, are 

advised; and "Very severe" indicates that significant erosion is expected, loss of soil productivity and off-site damage are likely, and 

erosion-control measures are costly and generally impractical. 

Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition 

Aggregation is the process by which a set of component attribute values is reduced to a single value to represent the map unit as a 

whole. 

A map unit is typically composed of one or more "components". A component is either some type of soil or some nonsoil entity, 

e.g., rock outcrop. The components in the map unit name represent the major soils within a map unit delineation. Minor 

components make up the balance of the map unit. Great differences in soil properties can occur between map unit components 

and within short distances. Minor components may be very different from the major components. Such differences could 

significantly affect use and management of the map unit. Minor components may or may not be documented in the database. The 

results of aggregation do not reflect the presence or absence of limitations of the components which are not listed in the database. 

An on-site investigation is required to identify the location of individual map unit components. 

For each of a map unit's components, a corresponding percent composition is recorded. A percent composition of 60 indicates that 

the corresponding component typically makes up approximately 60% of the map unit. Percent composition is a critical factor in

some, but not all, aggregation methods. 

For the attribute being aggregated, the first step of the aggregation process is to derive one attribute value for each of a map unit's 

components. From this set of component attributes, the next step of the aggregation process derives a single value that represents 

the map unit as a whole. Once a single value for each map unit is derived, a thematic map for soil map units can be generated. 

Aggregation must be done because, on any soil map, map units are delineated but components are not.The aggregation method 

"Dominant Condition" first groups like attribute values for the components in a map unit. For each group, percent composition is set 

to the sum of the percent composition of all components participating in that group. These groups now represent "conditions" rather 

than components. The attribute value associated with the group with the highest cumulative percent composition is returned. If more 

than one group shares the highest cumulative percent composition, the corresponding "tie-break" rule determines which value 

should be returned. The "tie-break" rule indicates whether the lower or higher group value should be returned in the case of a 

percent composition tie. 

The result returned by this aggregation method represents the dominant condition throughout the map unit only when no tie has 

occurred. 

Tie-break Rule: Higher

The tie-break rule indicates which value should be selected from a set of multiple candidate values, or which value should 

be selected in the event of a percent composition tie. 

Application Version: 5.2.0016 Page 2 of 2 
174

Water Features

Fort Matanzas National Monument, Florida

[Depths of layers are in feet. See text for definitions of terms used in this table. Estimates of the frequency of ponding and flooding apply to the whole year rather than to individual months.

 Absence of an entry indicates that the feature is not a concern or that data were not estimated]

Water table Ponding Flooding

Map symbol Hydrologic

and soil name Surface runoff Months Upper Lower Surface water Duration Frequency Duration Frequency

group limit limit depth

Ft Ft Ft

24:

Pellicer D Negligible January 0.0-1.0 >6.0 --- --- None Long Frequent

February 0.0-1.0 >6.0 --- --- None Long Frequent

March 0.0-1.0 >6.0 --- --- None Long Frequent

April 0.0-1.0 >6.0 --- --- None Long Frequent

May 0.0-1.0 >6.0 --- --- None Long Frequent

June 0.0-1.0 >6.0 --- --- None Long Frequent

July 0.0-1.0 >6.0 --- --- None Long Frequent

August 0.0-1.0 >6.0 --- --- None Long Frequent

September 0.0-1.0 >6.0 --- --- None Long Frequent

October 0.0-1.0 >6.0 --- --- None Long Frequent

November 0.0-1.0 >6.0 --- --- None Long Frequent

December 0.0-1.0 >6.0 --- --- None Long Frequent

Durbin --- --- Jan-Dec --- --- None --- None

St. Augustine --- --- Jan-Dec --- --- None --- None

Tisonia --- --- Jan-Dec --- --- None --- None

Survey Area Version: 4

Survey Area Version Date: 06/29/2006 Page 1
175

Water Features

Fort Matanzas National Monument, Florida

Water table Ponding Flooding

Map symbol Hydrologic

and soil name Surface runoff Months Upper Lower Surface water Duration Frequency Duration Frequency

group limit limit depth

Ft Ft Ft

28:

Beaches D Negligible January 0.0->6.0 >6.0 --- --- None Very brief Frequent

February 0.0->6.0 >6.0 --- --- None Very brief Frequent

March 0.0->6.0 >6.0 --- --- None Very brief Frequent

April 0.0->6.0 >6.0 --- --- None Very brief Frequent

May 0.0->6.0 >6.0 --- --- None Very brief Frequent

June 0.0->6.0 >6.0 --- --- None Very brief Frequent

July 0.0->6.0 >6.0 --- --- None Very brief Frequent

August 0.0->6.0 >6.0 --- --- None Very brief Frequent

September 0.0->6.0 >6.0 --- --- None Very brief Frequent

October 0.0->6.0 >6.0 --- --- None Very brief Frequent

November 0.0->6.0 >6.0 --- --- None Very brief Frequent

December 0.0->6.0 >6.0 --- --- None Very brief Frequent

Satellite --- --- Jan-Dec --- --- None --- None

29:

Satellite C Negligible June 1.0-3.5 >6.0 --- --- None --- None

July 1.0-3.5 >6.0 --- --- None --- None

August 1.0-3.5 >6.0 --- --- None --- None

September 1.0-3.5 >6.0 --- --- None --- None

October 1.0-3.5 >6.0 --- --- None --- None

November 1.0-3.5 >6.0 --- --- None --- None

Fripp --- --- Jan-Dec --- --- None --- None

Pompano --- --- Jan-Dec --- --- None --- None

Moultrie --- --- Jan-Dec --- --- None --- None

Survey Area Version: 4

Survey Area Version Date: 06/29/2006 Page 2
176

Water Features

Fort Matanzas National Monument, Florida

Water table Ponding Flooding

Map symbol Hydrologic

and soil name Surface runoff Months Upper Lower Surface water Duration Frequency Duration Frequency

group limit limit depth

Ft Ft Ft

31:

Fripp A Very low Jan-Dec --- --- None --- None

Satellite C Negligible June 1.0-3.5 >6.0 --- --- None --- None

July 1.0-3.5 >6.0 --- --- None --- None

August 1.0-3.5 >6.0 --- --- None --- None

September 1.0-3.5 >6.0 --- --- None --- None

October 1.0-3.5 >6.0 --- --- None --- None

November 1.0-3.5 >6.0 --- --- None --- None

Narcoossee --- --- Jan-Dec --- --- None --- None

Pompano --- --- Jan-Dec --- --- None --- None

45:

St. Augustine C Negligible July 1.5-3.0 >6.0 --- --- None Brief Rare

August 1.5-3.0 >6.0 --- --- None Brief Rare

September 1.5-3.0 >6.0 --- --- None Brief Rare

October 1.5-3.0 >6.0 --- --- None Brief Rare

Pompano --- --- Jan-Dec --- --- None --- None

Survey Area Version: 4

Survey Area Version Date: 06/29/2006 Page 3
177

Water Features

Fort Matanzas National Monument, Florida

Water table Ponding Flooding

Map symbol Hydrologic

and soil name Surface runoff Months Upper Lower Surface water Duration Frequency Duration Frequency

group limit limit depth

Ft Ft Ft

49:

Moultrie D Negligible January 0.0 >6.0 --- --- None Long Frequent

February 0.0 >6.0 --- --- None Long Frequent

March 0.0 >6.0 --- --- None Long Frequent

April 0.0 >6.0 --- --- None Long Frequent

May 0.0 >6.0 --- --- None Long Frequent

June 0.0 >6.0 --- --- None Long Frequent

July 0.0 >6.0 --- --- None Long Frequent

August 0.0 >6.0 --- --- None Long Frequent

September 0.0 >6.0 --- --- None Long Frequent

October 0.0 >6.0 --- --- None Long Frequent

November 0.0 >6.0 --- --- None Long Frequent

December 0.0 >6.0 --- --- None Long Frequent

Pellicier --- --- Jan-Dec --- --- None --- None

Tisonia --- --- Jan-Dec --- --- None --- None

99:

Water --- --- Jan-Dec --- --- None --- None

100:

Water --- --- Jan-Dec --- --- None --- None

Survey Area Version: 4

Survey Area Version Date: 06/29/2006 Page 4
178

Water Features This table gives estimates of various soil water features. The estimates are used in land use planning that involves engineering considerations.

 "Hydrologic soil groups" are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by 

vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms.

 The four hydrologic soil groups are:

 Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These 

soils have a high rate of water transmission.

 Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have 

moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission.

 Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine 

texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission.

 Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high 

water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.

 If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas.

 "Surface runoff" refers to the loss of water from an area by flow over the land surface. Surface runoff classes are based on slope, climate, and vegetative cover. The concept indicates 

relative runoff for very specific conditions. It is assumed that the surface of the soil is bare and that the retention of surface water resulting from irregularities in the ground surface is minimal. 

The classes are negligible, very low, low, medium, high, and very high. 

 The "months" in the table indicate the portion of the year in which a water table, ponding, and/or flooding is most likely to be a concern.

 "Water table" refers to a saturated zone in the soil. The water features table indicates, by month, depth to the top ("upper limit") and base ("lower limit") of the saturated zone in most 

years. Estimates of the upper and lower limits are based mainly on observations of the water table at selected sites and on evidence of a saturated zone, namely grayish colors or mottles 

(redoximorphic features) in the soil. A saturated zone that lasts for less than a month is not considered a water table.

 "Ponding" is standing water in a closed depression. Unless a drainage system is installed, the water is removed only by percolation, transpiration, or evaporation. The table indicates 

"surface water depth" and the "duration" and "frequency" of ponding. Duration is expressed as "very brief" if less than 2 days, "brief" if 2 to 7 days, "long" if 7 to 30 days, and "very long" if 

more than 30 days. Frequency is expressed as none, rare, occasional, and frequent. "None" means that ponding is not probable; "rare" that it is unlikely but possible under unusual weather 

conditions (the chance of ponding is nearly 0 percent to 5 percent in any year); "occasional" that it occurs, on the average, once or less in 2 years (the chance of ponding is 5 to 50 percent in

any year); and "frequent" that it occurs, on the average, more than once in 2 years (the chance of ponding is more than 50 percent in any year).

 "Flooding" is the temporary inundation of an area caused by overflowing streams, by runoff from adjacent slopes, or by tides. Water standing for short periods after rainfall or snowmelt is 

not considered flooding, and water standing in swamps and marshes is considered ponding rather than flooding.

 "Duration" and "frequency" are estimated. Duration is expressed as "extremely brief" if 0.1 hour to 4 hours, "very brief" if 4 hours to 2 days, "brief" if 2 to 7 days, "long" if 7 to 30 days, and 

"very long" if more than 30 days. Frequency is expressed as none, very rare, rare, occasional, frequent, and very frequent. "None" means that flooding is not probable; "very rare" that it is 

very unlikely but possible under extremely unusual weather conditions (the chance of flooding is less than 1 percent in any year); "rare" that it is unlikely but possible under unusual weather 

conditions (the chance of flooding is 1 to 5 percent in any year); "occasional" that it occurs infrequently under normal weather conditions (the chance of flooding is 5 to 50 percent in any 

year); "frequent" that it is likely to occur often under normal weather conditions (the chance of flooding is more than 50 percent in any year but is less than 50 percent in all months in any 

year); and "very frequent" that it is likely to occur very often under normal weather conditions (the chance of flooding is more than 50 percent in all months of any year).

 The information is based on evidence in the soil profile, namely thin strata of gravel, sand, silt, or clay deposited by floodwater; irregular decrease in organic matter content with 

increasing depth; and little or no horizon development.

 Also considered are local information about the extent and levels of flooding and the relation of each soil on the landscape to historic floods. Information on the extent of flooding based 

on soil data is less specific than that provided by detailed engineering surveys that delineate flood-prone areas at specific flood frequency levels.
179 

Application Version: 5.2.0016 Page 1 of 2 

Drainage Class

Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition

Tie-break Rule: Higher

Fort Matanzas National Monument, Florida

Survey Area Version and Date: 4 - 06/29/2006

Map 

symbol Map unit name Rating 

24 Pellicer silty clay loam, frequently flooded Very poorly drained 

28 Beaches Poorly drained 

29 Satellite fine sand Somewhat poorly drained 

31 Fripp-Satellite complex Excessively drained 

45 St. Augustine fine sand, clayey substratum Somewhat poorly drained 

49 Moultrie fine sand, frequently flooded Very poorly drained 

99 Water 

100 Waters of the Atlantic Ocean 
180 

Drainage Class 

Rating Options 

Attribute Name: Drainage Class 

Drainage class (natural) refers to the frequency and duration of wet periods under conditions similar to those under which the soil 

formed. Alterations of the water regime by human activities, either through drainage or irrigation, are not a consideration unless 

they have significantly changed the morphology of the soil. Seven classes of natural soil drainage are recognized -- excessively 

drained, somewhat excessively drained, well drained, moderately well drained, somewhat poorly drained, poorly drained, and very 

poorly drained. These classes are defined in the "Soil Survey Manual." 

Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition 

Aggregation is the process by which a set of component attribute values is reduced to a single value to represent the map unit as a 

whole. 

A map unit is typically composed of one or more "components". A component is either some type of soil or some nonsoil entity,

e.g., rock outcrop. The components in the map unit name represent the major soils within a map unit delineation. Minor 

components make up the balance of the map unit. Great differences in soil properties can occur between map unit components 

and within short distances. Minor components may be very different from the major components. Such differences could 

significantly affect use and management of the map unit. Minor components may or may not be documented in the database. The 

results of aggregation do not reflect the presence or absence of limitations of the components which are not listed in the database. 

An on-site investigation is required to identify the location of individual map unit components. 

For each of a map unit's components, a corresponding percent composition is recorded. A percent composition of 60 indicates that 

the corresponding component typically makes up approximately 60% of the map unit. Percent composition is a critical factor in 

some, but not all, aggregation methods. 

For the attribute being aggregated, the first step of the aggregation process is to derive one attribute value for each of a map unit's 

components. From this set of component attributes, the next step of the aggregation process derives a single value that represents 

the map unit as a whole. Once a single value for each map unit is derived, a thematic map for soil map units can be generated. 

Aggregation must be done because, on any soil map, map units are delineated but components are not.The aggregation method 

"Dominant Condition" first groups like attribute values for the components in a map unit. For each group, percent composition is set 

to the sum of the percent composition of all components participating in that group. These groups now represent "conditions" rather 

than components. The attribute value associated with the group with the highest cumulative percent composition is returned. If more 

than one group shares the highest cumulative percent composition, the corresponding "tie-break" rule determines which value 

should be returned. The "tie-break" rule indicates whether the lower or higher group value should be returned in the case of a 

percent composition tie. 

The result returned by this aggregation method represents the dominant condition throughout the map unit only when no tie has

occurred. 

Tie-break Rule: Higher

The tie-break rule indicates which value should be selected from a set of multiple candidate values, or which value should 

be selected in the event of a percent composition tie. 

Application Version: 5.2.0016 Page 2 of 2 
181 

Application Version: 5.2.0016 Page 1 of 2 

Map Unit Hydric Rating

Aggregation Method: Absence/Presence

Tie-break Rule: Lower

Fort Matanzas National Monument, Florida

Survey Area Version and Date: 4 - 06/29/2006

Map 

symbol Map unit name Rating 

24 Pellicer silty clay loam, frequently flooded Partially Hydric 

28 Beaches Unknown Hydric 

29 Satellite fine sand Partially Hydric 

31 Fripp-Satellite complex Not Hydric 

45 St. Augustine fine sand, clayey substratum Not Hydric 

49 Moultrie fine sand, frequently flooded All Hydric 

99 Water Unknown Hydric 

100 Waters of the Atlantic Ocean Unknown Hydric 
182 

Map Unit Hydric Rating 

Rating Options 

Attribute Name: Map Unit Hydric Rating 

This rating provides an indication of the proportion of the map unit that meets criteria for hydric soils. Map units that are dominantly 

made up of hydric soils may have small areas, or inclusions, of nonhydric soils in the higher positions on the landform, and map 

units dominantly made up of nonhydric soils may have inclusions of hydric soils in the lower positions on the landform. 

Hydric soils are defined by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS) as soils that formed under conditions of 

saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (Federal 

Register, 1994). These soils, under natural conditions, are either saturated or inundated long enough during the growing season to 

support the growth and reproduction of hydrophytic vegetation. 

The NTCHS definition identifies general soil properties that are associated with wetness. In order to determine whether a specific 

soil is a hydric soil or nonhydric soil, however, more specific information, such as information about the depth and duration of the 

water table, is needed. Thus, criteria that identify those estimated soil properties unique to hydric soils have been established 

(Federal Register, 2002). These criteria are used to identify map unit components that normally are associated with wetlands. The 

criteria used are selected estimated soil properties that are described in "Soil Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 1999) and "Keys to Soil 

Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 2003) and in the "Soil Survey Manual" (Soil Survey Division Staff, 1993). 

If soils are wet enough for a long enough period of time to be considered hydric, they should exhibit certain properties that can be 

easily observed in the field. These visible properties are indicators of hydric soils. The indicators used to make onsite 

determinations of hydric soils are specified in "Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States" (Hurt and others, 2002). 

Aggregation Method: Absence/Presence 

Aggregation is the process by which a set of component attribute values is reduced to a single value to represent the map unit as a 

whole. 

A map unit is typically composed of one or more "components". A component is either some type of soil or some nonsoil entity, 

e.g., rock outcrop. The components in the map unit name represent the major soils within a map unit delineation. Minor 

components make up the balance of the map unit. Great differences in soil properties can occur between map unit components 

and within short distances. Minor components may be very different from the major components. Such differences could 

significantly affect use and management of the map unit. Minor components may or may not be documented in the database. The 

results of aggregation do not reflect the presence or absence of limitations of the components which are not listed in the database. 

An on-site investigation is required to identify the location of individual map unit components. 

For each of a map unit's components, a corresponding percent composition is recorded. A percent composition of 60 indicates that 

the corresponding component typically makes up approximately 60% of the map unit. Percent composition is a critical factor in

some, but not all, aggregation methods. 

For the attribute being aggregated, the first step of the aggregation process is to derive one attribute value for each of a map unit's 

components. From this set of component attributes, the next step of the aggregation process derives a single value that represents 

the map unit as a whole. Once a single value for each map unit is derived, a thematic map for soil map units can be generated. 

Aggregation must be done because, on any soil map, map units are delineated but components are not.The aggregation method 

"Absence/Presence" returns a value that indicates if, for all components of a map unit, a condition is always present, never present, 

partially present, or whether the condition's presence or absence is unknown. The exact phrases used for a particular attribute may 

vary from what is shown below. 

"Always present" means that the corresponding condition is present in all of a map unit's components. 

"Never present" means that the corresponding condition is not present in any of a map unit's components. 

"Partially present" means that the corresponding condition is present in some but not all of a map unit's components, or that the 

presence or absence of the corresponding condition cannot be determined for one or more components of the map unit. 

"Unknown presence" means that for components where presence or absence can be determined, the corresponding condition is 

never present, but the presence or absence of the corresponding condition cannot be determined for one or more components. 

The result returned by this aggregation method quantifies the degree to which the corresponding condition is present throughout 

the map unit. 

Tie-break Rule: Lower

The tie-break rule indicates which value should be selected from a set of multiple candidate values, or which value should 

be selected in the event of a percent composition tie. 

Application Version: 5.2.0016 Page 2 of 2 
183

Soil Features

St. Johns County, Florida

[Absence of an entry indicates that the feature is not a concern or that data were not estimated]

Restrictive layer Subsidence Potential Risk of corrosion

Map symbol for frost

and soil name Depth action Uncoated Kind to top Thickness Hardiness Initial Total steel Concrete

In In In In

24:

Pellicer --- --- --- --- --- --- None High High

Durbin --- --- --- --- 12-14 15-24 None High High

St. Augustine --- --- --- --- --- --- None High High

Tisonia --- --- --- --- 16-18 16-25 None High High

28:

Beaches --- --- --- --- --- --- None High High

Fripp --- --- --- --- --- --- None Low Low

Pomona, nonhydric --- --- --- --- --- --- None High High

Satellite --- --- --- --- --- --- None Low Moderate

29:

Satellite --- --- --- --- --- --- None Low Moderate

Fripp --- --- --- --- --- --- None Low Low

Moultrie --- --- --- --- --- --- None High High

Pompano, nonhydric --- --- --- --- --- --- None High Moderate

31:

Fripp --- --- --- --- --- --- None Low Low

Survey Area Version: 5

Survey Area Version Date: 12/07/2006 Page 1
184

Soil Features

St. Johns County, Florida

Restrictive layer Subsidence Potential Risk of corrosion

Map symbol for frost

and soil name Depth action Uncoated Kind to top Thickness Hardiness Initial Total steel Concrete

In In In In

31:

Satellite --- --- --- --- --- --- None Low Moderate

Narcoossee --- --- --- --- --- --- None Moderate Low

Pompano, nonhydric --- --- --- --- --- --- None High Moderate

45:

St. Augustine, clayey --- --- --- --- --- --- None High High

substratum

Pompano, nonhydric --- --- --- --- --- --- None High Moderate

49:

Moultrie --- --- --- --- --- --- None High High

Pellicer --- --- --- --- --- --- None High High

Tisonia --- --- --- --- 16-18 16-25 None High High

51:

St. Augustine --- --- --- --- --- --- None High High

Urban land --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Fripp --- --- --- --- --- --- None Low Low

Satellite --- --- --- --- --- --- None Low Moderate

99:

Water --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Survey Area Version: 5

Survey Area Version Date: 12/07/2006 Page 2
185

Soil Features

St. Johns County, Florida

Restrictive layer Subsidence Potential Risk of corrosion

Map symbol for frost

and soil name Depth action Uncoated Kind to top Thickness Hardiness Initial Total steel Concrete

In In In In

100:

Water --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Survey Area Version: 5

Survey Area Version Date: 12/07/2006 Page 3
186

Soil Features This table gives estimates of various soil features. The estimates are used in land use planning that involves engineering considerations.

 A "restrictive layer" is a nearly continuous layer that has one or more physical, chemical, or thermal properties that significantly impede the movement of water and air through the soil 

or that restrict roots or otherwise provide an unfavorable root environment. Examples are bedrock, cemented layers, dense layers, and frozen layers. The table indicates the hardness and 

thickness of the restrictive layer, both of which significantly affect the ease of excavation. "Depth to top" is the vertical distance from the soil surface to the upper boundary of the restrictive 

layer.

 "Subsidence" is the settlement of organic soils or of saturated mineral soils of very low density. Subsidence generally results from either desiccation and shrinkage, or oxidation of 

organic material, or both, following drainage. Subsidence takes place gradually, usually over a period of several years. The table shows the expected initial subsidence, which usually is a 

result of drainage, and total subsidence, which results from a combination of factors.

 "Potential for frost action" is the likelihood of upward or lateral expansion of the soil caused by the formation of segregated ice lenses (frost heave) and the subsequent collapse of the 

soil and loss of strength on thawing. Frost action occurs when moisture moves into the freezing zone of the soil. Temperature, texture, density, saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), 

content of organic matter, and depth to the water table are the most important factors considered in evaluating the potential for frost action. It is assumed that the soil is not insulated by 

vegetation or snow and is not artificially drained. Silty and highly structured, clayey soils that have a high water table in winter are the most susceptible to frost action. Well drained, very 

gravelly, or very sandy soils are the least susceptible. Frost heave and low soil strength during thawing cause damage to pavements and other rigid structures.

 "Risk of corrosion" pertains to potential soil-induced electrochemical or chemical action that corrodes or weakens uncoated steel or concrete. The rate of corrosion of uncoated steel is 

related to such factors as soil moisture, particle-size distribution, acidity, and electrical conductivity of the soil. The rate of corrosion of concrete is based mainly on the sulfate and sodium 

content, texture, moisture content, and acidity of the soil. Special site examination and design may be needed if the combination of factors results in a severe hazard of corrosion. The 

steel or concrete in installations that intersect soil boundaries or soil layers is more susceptible to corrosion than the steel or concrete in installations that are entirely within one kind of soil 

or within one soil layer.

 For uncoated steel, the risk of corrosion, expressed as "low," "moderate," or "high," is based on soil drainage class, total acidity, electrical resistivity near field capacity, and electrical 

conductivity of the saturation extract.

Survey Area Version: 5

Survey Area Version Date: 12/07/2006 Page 4
187 

Camp Areas, Picnic Areas, and Playgrounds

St. Johns County, Florida

[The information in this table indicates the dominant soil condition but does not eliminate the need for onsite investigation. The numbers in 

the value columns range from 0.01 to 1.00. The larger the value, the greater the potential limitation. The columns that identify the rating 

class and limiting features show no more than five limitations for any given soil. The soil may have additional limitations]

Camp areas Picnic areas Playgrounds

Pct.

Map symbol of

and soil name map

unit Rating class and Rating class and Rating class and

limiting features Value limiting features Value limiting features Value

24:

Pellicer 90 Very limited Very limited Very limited

Depth to saturated 1.00 Depth to saturated 1.00 Depth to saturated 1.00

zone zone zone

Sodium content 1.00 Sodium content 1.00 Sodium content 1.00

Salinity 1.00 Salinity 1.00 Salinity 1.00

Flooding 1.00 Slow water 1.00 Flooding 1.00

Slow water 1.00 Flooding 0.40 Slow water 1.00

Durbin 4 Very limited Very limited Very limited

Depth to saturated 1.00 Depth to saturated 1.00 Depth to saturated 1.00

zone zone zone

Sodium content 1.00 Organic matter 1.00 Organic matter 1.00

Salinity 1.00 content content

Flooding 1.00 Sodium content 1.00 Sodium content 1.00

Organic matter 1.00 Salinity 1.00 Salinity 1.00

content Flooding 0.40 Flooding 1.00

St. Augustine 3 Very limited Very limited Very limited

Flooding 1.00 Too sandy 1.00 Too sandy 1.00

Too sandy 1.00 Depth to saturated 0.03 Depth to saturated 0.07

Depth to saturated 0.07 zone zone

zone Gravel content 0.06

Tisonia 3 Very limited Very limited Very limited

Depth to saturated 1.00 Depth to saturated 1.00 Depth to saturated 1.00

zone zone zone

Salinity 1.00 Organic matter 1.00 Organic matter 1.00

Flooding 1.00 content content

Organic matter 1.00 Salinity 1.00 Salinity 1.00

content Slow water 1.00 Flooding 1.00

Slow water 1.00 Flooding 0.40 Slow water 1.00

28:

Beaches 95 Not rated Not rated Not rated

Fripp 2 Very limited Very limited Very limited

Too sandy 1.00 Too sandy 1.00 Slope 1.00

Slope 0.63 Slope 0.63 Too sandy 1.00

Pomona, nonhydric 2 Very limited Very limited Very limited

Depth to saturated 1.00 Too sandy 1.00 Depth to saturated 1.00

zone Depth to saturated 0.99 zone

Too sandy 1.00 zone Too sandy 1.00

Survey Area Version: 5

Survey Area Version Date: 12/07/2006 Page 1
188 

Camp Areas, Picnic Areas, and Playgrounds

St. Johns County, Florida

Camp areas Picnic areas Playgrounds

Pct.

Map symbol of

and soil name map

unit Rating class and Rating class and Rating class and

limiting features Value limiting features Value limiting features Value

28:

Satellite 1 Very limited Very limited Very limited

Too sandy 1.00 Too sandy 1.00 Too sandy 1.00

Depth to saturated 0.07 Depth to saturated 0.03 Depth to saturated 0.07

zone zone zone

29:

Satellite 90 Very limited Very limited Very limited

Too sandy 1.00 Too sandy 1.00 Too sandy 1.00

Depth to saturated 0.07 Depth to saturated 0.03 Depth to saturated 0.07

zone zone zone

Fripp 4 Very limited Very limited Very limited

Too sandy 1.00 Too sandy 1.00 Slope 1.00

Slope 0.63 Slope 0.63 Too sandy 1.00

Moultrie 3 Very limited Very limited Very limited

Depth to saturated 1.00 Too sandy 1.00 Depth to saturated 1.00

zone Depth to saturated 1.00 zone

Sodium content 1.00 zone Too sandy 1.00

Salinity 1.00 Sodium content 1.00 Sodium content 1.00

Flooding 1.00 Salinity 1.00 Salinity 1.00

Too sandy 1.00 Flooding 0.40 Flooding 1.00

Pompano, nonhydric 3 Very limited Very limited Very limited

Depth to saturated 1.00 Too sandy 1.00 Depth to saturated 1.00

zone Depth to saturated 0.99 zone

Too sandy 1.00 zone Too sandy 1.00

31:

Fripp 55 Very limited Very limited Very limited

Too sandy 1.00 Too sandy 1.00 Slope 1.00

Slope 0.63 Slope 0.63 Too sandy 1.00

Satellite 30 Very limited Very limited Very limited

Too sandy 1.00 Too sandy 1.00 Too sandy 1.00

Depth to saturated 0.07 Depth to saturated 0.03 Depth to saturated 0.07

zone zone zone

Narcoossee 10 Very limited Very limited Very limited

Too sandy 1.00 Too sandy 1.00 Too sandy 1.00

Pompano, nonhydric 5 Very limited Very limited Very limited

Depth to saturated 1.00 Too sandy 1.00 Depth to saturated 1.00

zone Depth to saturated 0.99 zone

Too sandy 1.00 zone Too sandy 1.00

Survey Area Version: 5

Survey Area Version Date: 12/07/2006 Page 2
189 

Camp Areas, Picnic Areas, and Playgrounds

St. Johns County, Florida

Camp areas Picnic areas Playgrounds

Pct.

Map symbol of

and soil name map

unit Rating class and Rating class and Rating class and

limiting features Value limiting features Value limiting features Value

45:

St. Augustine, clayey 90 Very limited Very limited Very limited

substratum

Flooding 1.00 Too sandy 1.00 Too sandy 1.00

Too sandy 1.00 Depth to saturated 0.03 Depth to saturated 0.07

Depth to saturated 0.07 zone zone

zone Gravel content 0.06

Pompano, nonhydric 10 Very limited Very limited Very limited

Depth to saturated 1.00 Too sandy 1.00 Depth to saturated 1.00

zone Depth to saturated 0.99 zone

Too sandy 1.00 zone Too sandy 1.00

49:

Moultrie 90 Very limited Very limited Very limited

Depth to saturated 1.00 Too sandy 1.00 Depth to saturated 1.00

zone Depth to saturated 1.00 zone

Sodium content 1.00 zone Too sandy 1.00

Salinity 1.00 Sodium content 1.00 Sodium content 1.00

Flooding 1.00 Salinity 1.00 Salinity 1.00

Too sandy 1.00 Flooding 0.40 Flooding 1.00

Pellicer 5 Very limited Very limited Very limited

Depth to saturated 1.00 Depth to saturated 1.00 Depth to saturated 1.00

zone zone zone

Sodium content 1.00 Sodium content 1.00 Sodium content 1.0 

Flooding 1.00 Slow water 1.00 Flooding 1.00

Slow water 1.00 Flooding 0.40 Slow water 1.00

Tisonia 5 Very limited Very limited Very limited

Depth to saturated 1.00 Depth to saturated 1.00 Depth to saturated 1.00

zone zone zone

Salinity 1.00 Organic matter 1.00 Organic matter 1.00

Flooding 1.00 content content

Organic matter 1.00 Salinity 1.00 Salinity 1.00

content Slow water 1.00 Flooding 1.00

Slow water 1.00 Flooding 0.40 Slow water 1.00

51:

St. Augustine 55 Very limited Very limited Very limited

Flooding 1.00 Too sandy 1.00 Too sandy 1.00

Too sandy 1.00 Depth to saturated 0.03 Depth to saturated 0.07

Depth to saturated 0.07 zone zone

zone Gravel content 0.06

Urban land 35 Not rated Not rated Not rated

Survey Area Version: 5

Survey Area Version Date: 12/07/2006 Page 3
190 

Camp Areas, Picnic Areas, and Playgrounds

St. Johns County, Florida

Camp areas Picnic areas Playgrounds

Pct.

Map symbol of

and soil name map

unit Rating class and Rating class and Rating class and

limiting features Value limiting features Value limiting features Value

51:

Fripp 5 Very limited Very limited Very limited

Too sandy 1.00 Too sandy 1.00 Slope 1.00

Slope 0.63 Slope 0.63 Too sandy 1.00

Satellite 5 Very limited Very limited Very limited

Too sandy 1.00 Too sandy 1.00 Too sandy 1.00

Depth to saturated 0.07 Depth to saturated 0.03 Depth to saturated 0.07

zone zone zone

99:

Water 100 Not rated Not rated Not rated

100:

Water 100 Not rated Not rated Not rated

Survey Area Version: 5

Survey Area Version Date: 12/07/2006 Page 4
191 

Camp Areas, Picnic Areas, and Playgrounds

 The soils of the survey area are rated in this table according to limitations that affect their suitability for camp areas, picnic areas, and 

playgrounds. The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil 

features that affect the recreational uses. "Not limited" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good 

performance and very low maintenance can be expected. "Somewhat limited" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately 

favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance 

and moderate maintenance can be expected. "Very limited" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the 

specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation 

procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

 Numerical ratings in the table indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 

to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point 

at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

 The ratings are based on restrictive soil features, such as wetness, slope, and texture of the surface layer. Susceptibility to flooding is 

considered. Not considered in the ratings, but important in evaluating a site, are the location and accessibility of the area, the size and shape 

of the area and its scenic quality, vegetation, access to water, potential water impoundment sites, and access to public sewer lines. The 

capacity of the soil to absorb septic tank effluent and the ability of the soil to support vegetation also are important. Soils that are subject to 

flooding are limited for recreational uses by the duration and intensity of flooding and the season when flooding occurs. In planning 

recreational facilities, onsite assessment of the height, duration, intensity, and frequency of flooding is essential.

 The information in this table can be supplemented by other information, for example, interpretations for dwellings without basements, for 

local roads and streets, and for septic tank absorption fields.

 "Camp areas" require site preparation, such as shaping and leveling the tent and parking areas, stabilizing roads and intensively used 

areas, and installing sanitary facilities and utility lines. Camp areas are subject to heavy foot traffic and some vehicular traffic. The ratings are 

based on the soil properties that affect the ease of developing camp areas and the performance of the areas after development. Slope, 

stoniness, and depth to bedrock or a cemented pan are the main concerns affecting the development of camp areas. The soil properties that 

affect the performance of the areas after development are those that influence trafficability and promote the growth of vegetation, especially 

in heavily used areas. For good trafficability, the surface of camp areas should absorb rainfall readily, remain firm under heavy foot traffic, 

and not be dusty when dry. The soil properties that influence trafficability are texture of the surface layer, depth to a water table, ponding, 

flooding, saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), and large stones. The soil properties that affect the growth of plants are depth to bedrock or a

cemented pan, Ksat, and toxic substances in the soil.

 "Picnic areas" are subject to heavy foot traffic. Most vehicular traffic is confined to access roads and parking areas. The ratings are based 

on the soil properties that affect the ease of developing picnic areas and that influence trafficability and the growth of vegetation after 

development. Slope and stoniness are the main concerns affecting the development of picnic areas. For good trafficability, the surface of 

picnic areas should absorb rainfall readily, remain firm under heavy foot traffic, and not be dusty when dry. The soil properties that influence 

trafficability are texture of the surface layer, depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, Ksat, and large stones. The soil properties that affect 

the growth of plants are depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, Ksat, and toxic substances in the soil.

 "Playgrounds" require soils that are nearly level, are free of stones, and can withstand intensive foot traffic. The ratings are based on the 

soil properties that affect the ease of developing playgrounds and that influence trafficability and the growth of vegetation after development.

Slope and stoniness are the main concerns affecting the development of playgrounds. For good trafficability, the surface of the playgrounds 

should absorb rainfall readily, remain firm under heavy foot traffic, and not be dusty when dry. The soil properties that influence trafficability 

are texture of the surface layer, depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, Ksat, and large stones. The soil properties that affect the growth of 

Survey Area Version: 5

Survey Area Version Date: 12/07/2006 Page 5
192 

Paths, Trails, and Golf Fairways

St. Johns County, Florida

[The information in this table indicates the dominant soil condition but does not eliminate the need for onsite investigation. The numbers in 

the value columns range from 0.01 to 1.00. The larger the value, the greater the potential limitation. The columns that identify the rating 

class and limiting features show no more than five limitations for any given soil. The soil may have additional limitations]

Paths and trails Off-road Golf fairways

Pct. motorcycle trails

Map symbol of

and soil name map

unit Rating class and Rating class and Rating class and

limiting features Value limiting features Value limiting features Value

24:

Pellicer 90 Very limited Very limited Very limited

Depth to saturated 1.00 Depth to saturated 1.00 Flooding 1.00

zone zone Salinity 1.00

Flooding 0.40 Flooding 0.40 Sodium content 1.00

Depth to saturated 1.00

zone

Sulfur content 1.00

Durbin 4 Very limited Very limited Very limited

Depth to saturated 1.00 Depth to saturated 1.00 Flooding 1.00

zone zone Organic matter 1.00

Organic matter 1.00 Organic matter 1.00 content

content content Salinity 1.00

Flooding 0.40 Flooding 0.40 Sodium content 1.00

Depth to saturated 1.00

zone

St. Augustine 3 Very limited Very limited Somewhat limited

Too sandy 1.00 Too sandy 1.00 Droughty 0.69

Depth to saturated 0.03

zone

Tisonia 3 Very limited Very limited Very limited

Depth to saturated 1.00 Depth to saturated 1.00 Flooding 1.00

zone zone Salinity 1.00

Organic matter 1.00 Organic matter 1.00 Depth to saturated 1.00

content content zone

Flooding 0.40 Flooding 0.40 Sulfur content 1.00

28:

Beaches 95 Not rated Not rated Not rated

Fripp 2 Very limited Very limited Very limited

Too sandy 1.00 Too sandy 1.00 Droughty 1.00

Slope 0.63

Pomona, nonhydric 2 Very limited Very limited Very limited

Too sandy 1.00 Too sandy 1.00 Depth to saturated 0.99

Depth to saturated 0.99 Depth to saturated 0.99 zone

zone zone Droughty 0.30

Survey Area Version: 5

Survey Area Version Date: 12/07/2006 Page 1
193 

Paths, Trails, and Golf Fairways

St. Johns County, Florida

Paths and trails Off-road Golf fairways

Pct. motorcycle trails

Map symbol of

and soil name map

unit Rating class and Rating class and Rating class and

limiting features Value limiting features Value limiting features Value

28:

Satellite 1 Very limited Very limited Very limited

Too sandy 1.00 Too sandy 1.00 Droughty 1.00

Depth to saturated 0.03

zone

29:

Satellite 90 Very limited Very limited Very limited

Too sandy 1.00 Too sandy 1.00 Droughty 1.00

Depth to saturated 0.03

zone

Fripp 4 Very limited Very limited Very limited

Too sandy 1.00 Too sandy 1.00 Droughty 1.00

Slope 0.63

Moultrie 3 Very limited Very limited Very limited

Depth to saturated 1.00 Depth to saturated 1.00 Flooding 1.00

zone zone Salinity 1.00

Too sandy 1.00 Too sandy 1.00 Sodium content 1.00

Flooding 0.40 Flooding 0.40 Depth to saturated 1.00

zone

Droughty 0.97

Pompano, nonhydric 3 Very limited Very limited Very limited

Too sandy 1.00 Too sandy 1.00 Droughty 1.00

Depth to saturated 0.99 Depth to saturated 0.99 Depth to saturated 0.99

zone zone zone

31:

Fripp 55 Very limited Very limited Very limited

Too sandy 1.00 Too sandy 1.00 Droughty 1.00

Slope 0.63

Satellite 30 Very limited Very limited Very limited

Too sandy 1.00 Too sandy 1.00 Droughty 1.00

Depth to saturated 0.03

zone

Narcoossee 10 Very limited Very limited Somewhat limited

Too sandy 1.00 Too sandy 1.00 Droughty 0.65

Pompano, nonhydric 5 Very limited Very limited Very limited

Too sandy 1.00 Too sandy 1.00 Droughty 1.00

Depth to saturated 0.99 Depth to saturated 0.99 Depth to saturated 0.99

zone zone zone

Survey Area Version: 5

Survey Area Version Date: 12/07/2006 Page 2
194 

Paths, Trails, and Golf Fairways

St. Johns County, Florida

Paths and trails Off-road Golf fairways

Pct. motorcycle trails

Map symbol of

and soil name map

unit Rating class and Rating class and Rating class and

limiting features Value limiting features Value limiting features Value

45:

St. Augustine, clayey 90 Very limited Very limited Somewhat limited

substratum

Too sandy 1.00 Too sandy 1.00 Droughty 0.38

Depth to saturated 0.03

zone

Pompano, nonhydric 10 Very limited Very limited Very limited

Too sandy 1.00 Too sandy 1.00 Droughty 1.00

Depth to saturated 0.99 Depth to saturated 0.99 Depth to saturated 0.99

zone zone zone

49:

Moultrie 90 Very limited Very limited Very limited

Depth to saturated 1.00 Depth to saturated 1.00 Flooding 1.00

zone zone Salinity 1.00

Too sandy 1.00 Too sandy 1.00 Sodium content 1.00

Flooding 0.40 Flooding 0.40 Depth to saturated 1.00

zone

Droughty 0.97

Pellicer 5 Very limited Very limited Very limited

Depth to saturated 1.00 Depth to saturated 1.00 Flooding 1.00

zone zone Salinity 1.00

Flooding 0.40 Flooding 0.40 Sodium content 1.00

Depth to saturated 1.00

zone

Sulfur content 1.00

Tisonia 5 Very limited Very limited Very limited

Depth to saturated 1.00 Depth to saturated 1.00 Flooding 1.00

zone zone Salinity 1.00

Organic matter 1.00 Organic matter 1.00 Depth to saturated 1.00

content content zone

Flooding 0.40 Flooding 0.40 Sulfur content 1.00

51:

St. Augustine 55 Very limited Very limited Somewhat limited

Too sandy 1.00 Too sandy 1.00 Droughty 0.48

Depth to saturated 0.03

zone

Urban land 35 Not rated Not rated Not rated

Fripp 5 Very limited Very limited Very limited

Too sandy 1.00 Too sandy 1.00 Droughty 1.00

Slope 0.63

Survey Area Version: 5

Survey Area Version Date: 12/07/2006 Page 3
195 

Paths, Trails, and Golf Fairways

St. Johns County, Florida

Paths and trails Off-road Golf fairways

Pct. motorcycle trails

Map symbol of

and soil name map

unit Rating class and Rating class and Rating class and

limiting features Value limiting features Value limiting features Value

51:

Satellite 5 Very limited Very limited Very limited

Too sandy 1.00 Too sandy 1.00 Droughty 1.00

Depth to saturated 0.03

zone

99:

Water 100 Not rated Not rated Not rated

100:

Water 100 Not rated Not rated Not rated

Survey Area Version: 5

Survey Area Version Date: 12/07/2006 Page 4
196 

Paths, Trails, and Golf Fairways

 The soils of the survey area are rated in this table according to limitations that affect their suitability for paths, trails, and golf fairways. The

ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that 

affect the recreational uses. "Not limited" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance 

and very low maintenance can be expected. "Somewhat limited" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the 

specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate 

maintenance can be expected. "Very limited" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The 

limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor 

performance and high maintenance can be expected.

 Numerical ratings in the table indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 

to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point 

at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

 The ratings are based on restrictive soil features, such as wetness, slope, and texture of the surface layer. Susceptibility to flooding is 

considered. Not considered in the ratings, but important in evaluating a site, are the location and accessibility of the area, the size and shape 

of the area and its scenic quality, vegetation, access to water, potential water impoundment sites, and access to public sewer lines. The 

capacity of the soil to absorb septic tank effluent and the ability of the soil to support vegetation also are important. Soils that are subject to 

flooding are limited for recreational uses by the duration and intensity of flooding and the season when flooding occurs. In planning 

recreational facilities, onsite assessment of the height, duration, intensity, and frequency of flooding is essential.

 "Paths and trails" for hiking and horseback riding should require little or no slope modification through cutting and filling. The ratings are 

based on the soil properties that affect trafficability and erodibility. These properties are stoniness, depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, 

slope, and texture of the surface layer.

 "Off-road motorcycle trails" require little or no site preparation. They are not covered with surfacing material or vegetation. Considerable 

compaction of the soil material is likely. The ratings are based on the soil properties that influence erodibility, trafficability, dustiness, and the

ease of revegetation. These properties are stoniness, slope, depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, and texture of the surface layer.

 "Golf fairways" are subject to heavy foot traffic and some light vehicular traffic. Cutting or filling may be required. Irrigation is not 

considered in the ratings. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect plant growth and trafficability after vegetation is established. 

The properties that affect plant growth are reaction; depth to a water table; ponding; depth to bedrock or a cemented pan; the available water

capacity in the upper 40 inches; the content of salts, sodium, or calcium carbonate; and sulfidic materials. The properties that affect 

trafficability are flooding, depth to a water table, ponding, slope, stoniness, and the amount of sand, clay, or organic matter in the surface 

layer. The suitability of the soil for traps, tees, roughs, and greens is not considered in the ratings.

Survey Area Version: 5

Survey Area Version Date: 12/07/2006 Page 5
197 

Appendix D: Reference species lists from habitat distribution models published by the Florida 

Gap Analysis Project (2003). 

FL GAP Birds (reference for Castillo de San Marcos National Monument):

American Coot

American Crow

American Kestrel

American Oystercatcher

American Redstart

American Robin

American Woodcock

Anhinga

American Swallow-tailed Kite

Bald Eagle

Barred Owl

Bachman's Sparrow

Barn Swallow

Black-crowned Night-Heron

Blue-crowned Parakeet

Belted Kingfisher

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher

Blue-and-yellow Macaw

Brown-headed Cowbird

Brown-headed Nuthatch

Black-hooded Parakeet

Blue Grosbeak

Blue Jay

Black Rail

Black Swan

Black Vulture

Black-necked Stilt

Brown Thrasher

Boat-tailed Grackle

Budgerigar

Burrowing Owl

Black-whiskered Vireo

Carolina Chickadee

Cave Swallow

Carolina Wren

Chesnut-fronted Macaw

Chipping Sparrow

Chimney Swift

Clapper Rail

Barn Owl

Common Ground-Dove

Common Grackle

Cooper's Hawk

Common Moorhen

Common Myna

Common Nighthawk

Common Yellowthroat

Crested Myna

Canary-winged Parakeet

Chuck-will's-widow

Double-crested Cormorant

Dusky-headed Parakeet

Downy Woodpecker

Eastern Bluebird

Eastern Kingbird

Eastern Meadowlark

Eastern Phoebe

Eastern Screech-Owl

Eastern Wood-Pewee

Egyptian Goose

European Starling

Fish Crow

Field Sparrow

Great Blue Heron

Gull-billed Tern

Great Crested Flycatcher

Green-cheeked Parakeet

Great Horned Owl

Glossy Ibis

Gray Catbird

Great Egret

Green-backed Heron

Gray Kingbird

Great White Heron

Hairy Woodpecker

Hill Myna

Hispaniolan Parrot

House Finch

House Sparrow

Indigo Bunting
198 

Kentucky Warbler

Killdeer

King Rail

Little Blue Heron

Least Bittern

Least Tern

Limpkin

Loggerhead Shrike

Mangrove Cuckoo

Mallard

Marsh Wren

Mississippi Kite

Mitred Parakeet

Mourning Dove

Mottled Duck

Monk Parakeet

Mute Swan

Northern Parula

Northern Rough-winged Swallow 

Orange-fronted Parakeet

Orchard Oriole

Osprey

Orange-winged Parrot

Painted Bunting

Pied-billed Grebe 

Pine Warbler

Pileated Woodpecker

Prairie Warbler

Purple Martin

Red-bellied Woodpecker

Red-crested Cardinal

Red-crowned Parrot

Red-cockaded Woodpecker

Reddish Egret 

Red-headed Woodpecker

Ringed Turtle-Dove

Red-lored Parrot 

Red-masked Parakeet

Rock Dove

Roseate Spoonbill 

Rose-ringed Parakeet

Red-shouldered Hawk

Eastern Towhee

Red-tailed Hawk

Ruby-throated Hummingbird

Red-winged Blackbird

Red-whiskered Bulbul 

Smooth-billed Ani

Spot-breasted Oriole

Scrub Jay

Seaside Sparrow

Shiny Cowbird

Snowy Egret

Short-tailed Hawk

Summer Tanager

Swainson's Warbler

Turquoise-fronted Parrot

Tricolored Heron

Tufted Titmouse

Turkey Vulture

White-breasted Nuthatch

White-eyed Parakeet

White-eyed Vireo

White-fronted Parrot

White Ibis 

Willet

Wilson's Plover

Wood Stork 

Wood Thrush

White-winged Dove

Yellow-breasted Chat

Yellow-billed Cuckoo

Yellow-crowned Night-Heron

Yellow-crowned Parrot 

Yellow-headed Parrot

Yellow-throated Vireo

Yellow-throated Warbler
199 

FL GAP Birds (reference for Fort Matanzas National Monument):

Acadian Flycatcher

American Coot

American Crow

American Kestrel

American Oystercatcher

American Redstart

American Robin

American Woodcock

Anhinga

American Swallow-tailed Kite

Bald Eagle

Barred Owl

Bachman's Sparrow

Barn Swallow

Black-bellied Whistling-Duck

Black-crowned Night-Heron

Blue-crowned Parakeet

Belted Kingfisher

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher

Blue-and-yellow Macaw

Brown-headed Cowbird

Brown-headed Nuthatch

Black-hooded Parakeet

Blue Grosbeak

Blue Jay

Black Rail

Black Skimmer

Black Swan

Black Vulture

Black-necked Stilt

Brown Pelican

Bridled Tern

Brown Thrasher

White-tailed Kite

Boat-tailed Grackle

Budgerigar

Burrowing Owl

Broad-winged Hawk

Black-whiskered Vireo

Carolina Chickadee

Cave Swallow

Caspian Tern

Carolina Wren

Chesnut-fronted Macaw

Chipping Sparrow

Chimney Swift

Clapper Rail

Barn Owl

Common Ground-Dove

Common Grackle

Cooper's Hawk

Common Moorhen

Common Myna

Common Nighthawk

Common Yellowthroat

Crested Caracara

Crested Myna

Canary-winged Parakeet

Chuck-will's-widow

Double-crested Cormorant

Dusky-headed Parakeet

Downy Woodpecker

Eastern Bluebird

Eastern Kingbird

Eastern Meadowlark

Eastern Phoebe

Eastern Screech-Owl

Eastern Wood-Pewee

Egyptian Goose

European Starling

Fish Crow

Field Sparrow

Great Blue Heron

Gull-billed Tern

Great Crested Flycatcher

Green-cheeked Parakeet

Great Horned Owl

Glossy Ibis

Gray Catbird

Great Egret

Green-backed Heron

Gray Kingbird

Grasshopper Sparrow

Great White Heron
200 

Hairy Woodpecker

Hill Myna

Hispaniolan Parrot

House Finch 

House Sparrow

Indigo Bunting

Kentucky Warbler

Killdeer

King Rail

Laughing Gull 

Little Blue Heron

Least Bittern

Least Tern

Limpkin

Loggerhead Shrike

Louisiana Waterthrush

Masked Booby

Mangrove Cuckoo

Mallard

Marsh Wren

Mississippi Kite

Mitred Parakeet

Mourning Dove

Mottled Duck

Monk Parakeet

Mute Swan

Northern Parula

Northern Rough-winged Swallow 

Orange-fronted Parakeet

Orchard Oriole

Osprey

Orange-winged Parrot

Painted Bunting

Pied-billed Grebe 

Pine Warbler

Pileated Woodpecker

Prothonotary Warbler 

Prairie Warbler

Purple Martin

Red-bellied Woodpecker

Red-crested Cardinal

Red-crowned Parrot

Red-cockaded Woodpecker 

Reddish Egret

Red-eyed Vireo

Red-headed Woodpecker

Ringed Turtle-Dove

Red-lored Parrot

Red-masked Parakeet

Rock Dove

Roseate Spoonbill

Royal Tern

Rose-ringed Parakeet

Red-shouldered Hawk

Rufous-sided Towhee

Red-tailed Hawk

Ruby-throated Hummingbird

Red-winged Blackbird

Red-whiskered Bulbul 

Sandhill Crane

Sandwich Tern

Smooth-billed Ani

Spot-breasted Oriole

Scrub Jay

Seaside Sparrow

Shiny Cowbird

Snowy Egret

Snowy Plover 

Short-tailed Hawk

Summer Tanager

Swainson's Warbler

Turquoise-fronted Parrot

Tricolored Heron

Tufted Titmouse

Turkey Vulture

White-breasted Nuthatch

White-crowned Pigeon 

White-eyed Parakeet

White-eyed Vireo

Worm-eating Warbler

White-fronted Parrot

White Ibis

Willet

Wilson's Plover

Wild Turkey

Wood Duck 
201 

Wood Stork 

Wood Thrush

White-winged Dove

Yellow-breasted Chat

Yellow-billed Cuckoo

Yellow-crowned Night-Heron

Yellow-crowned Parrot 

Yellow Warbler

Yellow-headed Parrot

Yellow-throated Vireo

Yellow-throated Warbler
202 

FL GAP Reptiles (reference for Castillo de San Marcos National Monument):

Copperhead

Cottonmouth

American alligator

Jungle runner

Green anole

Anole

Crested anole

Large-headed anole

Bark anole

Knight anole

Jamaican giant anole

Brown anole

Brown basilisk

Scarlet snake

Rainbow whiptail

Racerunner

Racer

Eastern diamondback

Timber rattlesnake

Spiny-tailed iguana

Ringneck snake

Indigo snake

Corn snake

Rat snake

Mole skink

Five-lined skink

Southeastern five-lined skink

Broad-headed skink

Tokay gecko

Yellow-headed gecko

Gopher tortoise

Indo-pacific gecko

Common house gecko

Medditeranian gecko

Eastern hognose snake

Southern hognose snake

Common iguana

Prairie kingsnake

Common kingsnake

Milk snake

Curly-tailed lizard

Hispaniolan curly-tailed lizard

Coachwhip

Diamondback terrapin

Eastern coral snake

Gulf salt marsh snake

Banded water snake

Brown water snake

Rough green snake

Slender glass lizard

Island glass lizard

Mimic glass lizard

Eastern glass lizard

Texas horned lizard

Pine-gopher snake

Suwannee cooter

Peninsula cooter

Florida redbelly turtle

Glossy crayfish snake

Queen snake

Pine woods snake

Worm lizard
203 

FL GAP Reptiles (reference for Fort Matanzas National Monument):

Copperhead

Cottonmouth

American alligator

Jungle runner

Green anole

Anole

Crested anole

Large-headed anole

Bark anole

Knight anole

Jamaican giant anole

Brown anole

Florida softshell

Gulf Coast smooth softshell

Gulf Coast spiny softshell

Brown basilisk

Loggerhead

Spectacled caiman

Scarlet snake

Green turtle

Common snapping turtle

Spotted turtle

Rainbow whiptail

Racerunner

Racer

Eastern diamondback

Timber rattlesnake

Spiny-tailed iguana

Chicken turtle

Atlantic leatherback

Ringneck snake

Indigo snake

Corn snake

Rat snake

Coal skink

Mole skink

Five-lined skink

Southeastern five-lined skink

Broad-headed skink

Tokay gecko

Yellow-headed gecko

Gopher tortoise

Indo-pacific gecko

Common house gecko

Medditeranian gecko

Eastern hognose snake

Southern hognose snake

Common iguana

Striped mud turtle

Mud turtle

Prairie kingsnake

Common kingsnake

Milk snake

Curly-tailed lizard

Hispaniolan curly-tailed lizard

Coachwhip

Diamondback terrapin

Eastern coral snake

Sand skink

Gulf salt marsh snake

Banded water snake

Florida green water snake

Brown water snake

Rough green snake

Slender glass lizard

Island glass lizard

Mimic glass lizard

Eastern glass lizard

Texas horned lizard

Pine-gopher snake

Suwannee cooter

Peninsula cooter

Florida redbelly turtle

Glossy crayfish snake

Queen snake

Pine woods snake

Worm lizard
204 

FL GAP Amphibians (reference for Castillo de San Marcos National Monument):

Flatwoods salamander

Tiger salamander

Giant toad

Oak toad

Southern toad

Woodhouse's toad

Peurto Rican coqui

Greenhouse frog

Dwarf salamander

Eastern narrow-mouthed frog

Pine barrons treefrog

Bird-voiced treefrog

Green treefrog

Pine woods treefrog

Barking treefrog

Squirrel treefrog

Cuban treefrog

Southern chorus frog

Ornate chorus frog

Chorus frog

Mud salamander

Red salamander

Gopher frog

Bullfrog

Green frog

Pig frog

River frog

Florida bog frog

Leopard frog

Carpenter frog

Eastern spadefoot
205 

FL GAP Amphibians (reference for Fort Matanzas National Monument):

Northern cricket frog

Southern cricket frog

Flatwoods salamander

Many-lined salamander

Mole salamander

Tiger salamander

Giant toad

Oak toad

Southern toad

Woodhouse's toad

Southern dusky salamander

Peurto Rican coqui

Greenhouse frog

Southern two-lined salamander

Long-tailed salamander

Dwarf salamander

Eastern narrow-mouthed toad

Four-toed salamander

Pine barrons treefrog

Bird-voiced treefrog

Green treefrog

Pine woods treefrog

Barking treefrog

Squirrel treefrog

Striped newt

Eastern newt

Cuban treefrog

Southern chorus frog

Ornate chorus frog

Chorus frog

Dwarf siren

Gopher frog

Green frog

Pig frog

River frog

Florida bog frog

Leopard frog

Carpenter frog

Eastern spadefoot
206 

FL GAP Mammals (reference for Castillo de San Marcos National Monument):

Jamaican fruit bat

Sherman's short tailed shrew

domestic dog (feral)

Coyote

sambar deer

least shrew

nine-band armadillo

virginia oppossum

big brown bat

domestic cat (feral)

Panther

Bobcat

southeast pocket gopher

southern flying squirrel

eastern red bat

Northern yellow bat

seminole bat

northern river otter

striped skunk

pine vole

common house bat

long-tailed weasal

house mouse

Mink

round-tailed muskrat

evening bat

golden mouse

white-tailed deer

silver rice rat

marsh rice rat

cotton mouse

oldfield mouse

eastern pipistrelle

Florida mouse

common raccoon

Norway rat

black rat

eastern harvest mouse

eastern mole

eastern grey squirrel

eastern fox squirrel

hispid cotton rat

southeastern shrew

eastern spotted skunk

wild boar

eastern cottontail

marsh rabbit

Brazilian free-tailed bat

black bear

gray fox

red fox
207 

FL GAP Mammals (reference for Fort Matanzas National Monument):

Jamaican fruit bat

Sherman's short tailed shrew

domestic dog (feral)

Coyote

sambar deer

least shrew

nine-band armadillo

virginia opossum

big brown bat

mastiff bat

domestic cat (feral)

Panther

Bobcat

southeast pocket gopher

southern flying squirrel

eastern red bat

Northern yellow bat

seminole bat

northern river otter

striped skunk

meadow vole

pine vole

common house bat

long-tailed weasal

house mouse

Mink

southeastern myotis

round-tailed muskrat

eastern woodrat

evening bat

golden mouse

white-tailed deer

silver rice rat

marsh rice rat

cotton mouse

oldfield mouse

eastern pipistrelle

Southeastern big-eared bat

Florida mouse

common raccoon

Norway rat

black rat

eastern harvest mouse

eastern mole

eastern grey squirrel

eastern fox squirrel

hispid cotton rat

southeastern shrew

eastern spotted skunk

wild boar

eastern cottontail

marsh rabbit

Brazilian free-tailed bat

eastern chipmunk

black bear

gray fox

red fox

209 

Appendix E: Reference bird species lists from St. Johns County Audubon (2008) North 

American Migratory Counts in spring 2006, spring 2008, and fall 2008. 

Spring 2006 St. Johns Aubodbon reference bird list:

Red-throated Loon

Pacific Loon

Common Loon

loon sp.

Pied-billed Grebe

Horned Grebe 

Aechmophorus sp. 

Northern Gannet 

American White Pelican

Brown Pelican

Great Cormorant

Double-crested Cormorant

Anhinga

Magnificent Frigatebird

American Bittern

Least Bittern

Great Blue Heron

 Wurdemann's form 

 Great White Heron

Great Egret

Snowy Egret

Little Blue Heron

Tricolored Heron

Reddish Egret

 White form

Cattle Egret

Green Heron

Black-crowned Night-Heron

Yellow-crowned Night-Heron

night-heron sp.

White Ibis

Glossy Ibis

White-faced Ibis

Plegadis sp.

Roseate Spoonbill

Wood Stork

Greater Flamingo

Fulvous Whistling Duck 

Black-bellied Whistling Duck

Canada Goose

Muscovy Duck

Wood Duck

Green-winged Teal

Mottled Duck

Mallard

White-cheeked Pintail

Northern Pintail 

Blue-winged Teal 

Cinnamon Teal 

Northern Shoveler

Gadwall

Eurasian Wigeon

American Wigeon

Canvasback

Redhead

Ring-necked Duck

Greater Scaup

Lesser Scaup

scaup sp.

Common Eider

King Eider

Bufflehead

Hooded Merganser

Common Merganser

Red-breasted Merganser

Ruddy Duck 

Black Vulture

Turkey Vulture

Osprey

Swallow-tailed Kite

White-tailed Kite

Snail Kite

Mississippi Kite

Bald Eagle

Northern Harrier

Sharp-shinned Hawk

Cooper's Hawk 

accipiter sp. 

Red-shouldered Hawk 

Broad-winged Hawk
210 

Short-tailed Hawk

Swainson's Hawk

Red-tailed Hawk

 Harlan's form

 Krider's form

buteo sp.

Golden Eagle

Crested Caracara

American Kestrel

Merlin

Peregrine Falcon

Wild Turkey

Northern Bobwhite 

Yellow Rail

Black Rail

Clapper Rail

King Rail

large rail sp.

Virginia Rail

Sora

Purple Gallinule

Common Moorhen 

American Coot

Limpkin

Sandhill Crane

Whooping Crane

Black-bellied Plover

American Golden-Plover

Snowy Plover

Wilson's Plover

Semipalmated Plover

Piping Plover 

Killdeer

American Oystercatcher

Black-necked Stilt

American Avocet

Greater Yellowlegs

Lesser Yellowlegs

Solitary Sandpiper

Willet

Spotted Sandpiper 

Upland Sandpiper 

Whimbrel 

Long-billed Curlew

Hudsonian Godwit

Marbled Godwit

Ruddy Turnstone

Red Knot

Sanderling

Semipalmated Sandpiper

Western Sandpiper

Least Sandpiper

White-rumped Sandpiper 

Baird's Sandpiper 

peep sp. 

Pectoral Sandpiper

Purple Sandpiper

Dunlin

Curlew Sandpiper

Stilt Sandpiper

Buff-breasted Sandpiper

Ruff

Short-billed Dowitcher 

Long-billed Dowitcher

dowitcher sp.

Common Snipe

American Woodcock

Wilson's Phalarope

Pomarine Jaeger

Parasitic Jaeger

Long-tailed Jaeger

jaeger sp.

Laughing Gull 

Franklin's Gull 

Black-headed Gull 

Bonaparte's Gull

Ring-billed Gull

Herring Gull

Lesser Black-backed Gull

Great Black-backed Gull

Black-legged Kittiwake

gull sp.

Gull-billed Tern

Caspian Tern
211 

Royal Tern

Sandwich Tern

Roseate Tern

Common Tern

Forster's Tern

Least Tern

Bridled Tern

Sooty Tern

Black Tern

Brown Noddy

Black Noddy 

Black Skimmer

Rock Dove

White-crowned Pigeon

Ringed Turtle-Dove

Eurasian Collared Dove

White-winged Dove

Mourning Dove

Common Ground-Dove

Key West Quail-Dove

Red-crowned Parrot

Lilac-crowned Parrot 

Yellow-crowned Parrot

White-fronted Parrot

Mealy Parrot

Orange-winged Parrot

Blue-crowned Parakeet

Red-masked Parakeet 

Green Parakeet

Mitred Parakeet

Dusky-headed Parakeet

Orange-fronted Parakeet

Black-hooded Parakeet

Yellow-chevroned Parakeet

Canary-winged Parakeet

Budgerigar

Monk Parakeet

Black-billed Cuckoo

Yellow-billed Cuckoo

Mangrove Cuckoo

Smooth-billed Ani

Groove-billed Ani 

Barn Owl

Eastern Screech-Owl

Great Horned Owl

Burrowing Owl

Barred Owl

Common Nighthawk

Antillean Nighthawk

Chuck-will's-widow

Whip-poor-will

Chimney Swift

Vaux's Swift 

Ruby-throated Hummingbird 

Belted Kingfisher

Red-headed Woodpecker

Red-bellied Woodpecker

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker

Downy Woodpecker

Hairy Woodpecker

Red-cockaded Woodpecker

Northern Flicker 

 Yellow-shafted Flicker

 Red-shafted Flicker

Pileated Woodpecker

Olive-sided Flycatcher

Eastern Wood-Pewee

Acadian Flycatcher

Eastern Phoebe

Vermilion Flycatcher

Ash-throated Flycatcher

Great Crested Flycatcher

Western Kingbird 

Eastern Kingbird

Gray Kingbird

Scissor-tailed Flycatcher

Fork-tailed Flycatcher

Purple Martin

Tree Swallow 

Northern Rough-winged Swallow

Bank Swallow

Cliff Swallow

Cave Swallow

Barn Swallow 
212 

Blue Jay

Florida Scrub Jay

American Crow 

Fish Crow

crow sp.

Carolina Chickadee

Tufted Titmouse

Red-breasted Nuthatch

White-breasted Nuthatch

Brown-headed Nuthatch

Brown Creeper 

Red-whiskered Bulbul 

Carolina Wren

Bewick's Wren

House Wren

Winter Wren

Sedge Wren

Marsh Wren

Golden-crowned Kinglet

Ruby-crowned Kinglet 

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher

Eastern Bluebird

Veery

Gray-cheeked Thrush

Bicknell's Thrush

Swainson's Thrush

Hermit Thrush

Wood Thrush

American Robin

Gray Catbird

Northern Mockingbird

Bahama Mockingbird

Brown Thrasher

Cedar Waxwing

Loggerhead Shrike

European Starling

Common Myna

Crested Myna

Hill Myna

White-eyed Vireo

Bell's Vireo

Blue-headed Vireo

Yellow-throated Vireo

Warbling Vireo

Philadelphia Vireo

Red-eyed Vireo

Black-whiskered Vireo

Blue-winged Warbler

 Brewster's Hybrid

 Lawrence's Hybrid

Golden-winged Warbler

Tennessee Warbler

Orange-crowned Warbler 

Nashville Warbler

Northern Parula 

Yellow Warbler

Chestnut-sided Warbler

Magnolia Warbler

Cape May Warbler

Black-throated Blue Warbler

Yellow-rumped Warbler

Black-throated Green Warbler

Blackburnian Warbler

Yellow-throated Warbler

 yellow-lored form

 white-lored form

Pine Warbler

Kirtland's Warbler

Prairie Warbler

Palm Warbler

 Yellow Palm Warbler

 Western Palm Warbler

Bay-breasted Warbler

Blackpoll Warbler

Cerulean Warbler

Black-and-white Warbler

American Redstart

Prothonotary Warbler

Worm-eating Warbler

Swainson's Warbler

Ovenbird

Northern Waterthrush

Louisiana Waterthrush

Kentucky Warbler
213 

Connecticut Warbler

Mourning Warbler 

Common Yellowthroat 

Hooded Warbler

Wilson's Warbler

Canada Warbler

Yellow-breasted Chat

Stripe-headed Tanager

Bananaquit

Summer Tanager

Scarlet Tanager

Western Tanager

Northern Cardinal 

Rose-breasted Grosbeak

Blue Grosbeak

Indigo Bunting

Painted Bunting

Dickcissel

Eastern Towhee

 Red-eyed Towhee 

 White-eyed Towhee 

Spotted Towhee

Black-faced Grassquit

Bachman's Sparrow

Chipping Sparrow

Clay-colored Sparrow

Field Sparrow

Vesper Sparrow

Lark Sparrow

Savannah Sparrow

 Belding's Sparrow 

 Ipswich Sparrow 

Grasshopper Sparrow 

Henslow's Sparrow

Le Conte's Sparrow

Nelson's Sharp-tailed Sparrow

 Acadian

 James Bay

 Nelson's

Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrow

 Southern 

Seaside Sparrow

Song Sparrow 

Lincoln's Sparrow 

Swamp Sparrow 

White-throated Sparrow

White-crowned Sparrow

Bobolink

Red-winged Blackbird

Eastern Meadowlark

Boat-tailed Grackle

Common Grackle

Bronzed Cowbird 

Brown-headed Cowbird 

Shiny Cowbird 

blackbird sp.

Orchard Oriole

Spot-breasted Oriole

Baltimore Oriole

House Finch

Pine Siskin

American Goldfinch

House Sparrow 
214 

Spring 2008 St. Johns Aubodbon reference bird list:

Red-throated Loon

Pacific Loon

Common Loon 

loon sp. 

Pied-billed Grebe

Horned Grebe

Aechmophorus sp.

Northern Gannet

American White Pelican

Brown Pelican

Great Cormorant

Double-crested Cormorant

Anhinga 

Magnificent Frigatebird

American Bittern

Least Bittern

Great Blue Heron

 Wurdemann’s form

 Great White Heron

Great Egret

Snowy Egret

Little Blue Heron

Tricolored Heron

Reddish Egret 

 White form

Cattle Egret

Green Heron

Black-crowned Night-Heron

Yellow-crowned Night-Heron

night-heron sp.

White Ibis

Glossy Ibis 

White-faced Ibis

Plegadis sp.

Roseate Spoonbill

Wood Stork

Greater Flamingo

Fulvous Whistling-Duck

Black-bellied Whistling-Duck

Canada Goose

Muscovy Duck

Wood Duck

Green-winged Teal 

Mottled Duck

Mallard

White-cheeked Pintail

Northern Pintail

Blue-winged Teal

Cinnamon Teal

Northern Shoveler

Gadwall

Eurasian Wigeon

American Wigeon

Canvasback

Redhead

Ring-necked Duck

Greater Scaup

Lesser Scaup

scaup sp.

Common Eider

King Eider

Bufflehead

Hooded Merganser

Common Merganser

Red-breasted Merganser

Ruddy Duck 

Black Vulture

Turkey Vulture

Osprey

Swallow-tailed Kite

White-tailed Kite

Snail Kite

Mississippi Kite

Bald Eagle

Northern Harrier

Sharp-shinned Hawk

Cooper's Hawk

accipiter sp.

Red-shouldered Hawk

Broad-winged Hawk

Short-tailed Hawk

Swainson's Hawk
215 

Red-tailed Hawk

 Harlan's form

 Krider's form

buteo sp.

Golden Eagle

Crested Caracara

American Kestrel

Merlin

Peregrine Falcon

Wild Turkey

Northern Bobwhite 

Yellow Rail

Black Rail

Clapper Rail

King Rail

large rail sp.

Virginia Rail

Sora

Purple Gallinule

Common Moorhen 

American Coot 

Limpkin

Sandhill Crane

Whooping Crane

Black-bellied Plover

American Golden-Plover

Snowy Plover

Wilson's Plover

Semipalmated Plover

Piping Plover

Killdeer

American Oystercatcher

Black-necked Stilt

American Avocet

Greater Yellowlegs

Lesser Yellowlegs

Solitary Sandpiper

Willet

Spotted Sandpiper

Upland Sandpiper

Whimbrel 

Long-billed Curlew

Hudsonian Godwit 

Marbled Godwit

Ruddy Turnstone 

Red Knot

Sanderling

Semipalmated Sandpiper

Western Sandpiper

Least Sandpiper

White-rumped Sandpiper

Baird's Sandpiper

peep sp. 

Pectoral Sandpiper

Purple Sandpiper 

Dunlin

Curlew Sandpiper

Stilt Sandpiper

Buff-breasted Sandpiper

Ruff

Short-billed Dowitcher

Long-billed Dowitcher

dowitcher sp. 

Common Snipe 

American Woodcock

Wilson's Phalarope

Pomarine Jaeger

Parasitic Jaeger

Long-tailed Jaeger

jaeger sp.

Laughing Gull

Franklin's Gull

Black-headed Gull 

Bonaparte's Gull 

Ring-billed Gull

Herring Gull

Lesser Black-backed Gull

Great Black-backed Gull

Black-legged Kittiwake

gull sp.

Gull-billed Tern

Caspian Tern

Royal Tern

Sandwich Tern
216 

Roseate Tern

Common Tern 

Forster's Tern

Least Tern

Bridled Tern

Sooty Tern

Black Tern

Brown Noddy

Black Noddy

Black Skimmer

Rock Pigeon

White-crowned Pigeon 

Ringed Turtle-Dove

Eurasian Collared-Dove

White-winged Dove

Mourning Dove

Common Ground-Dove

Key West Quail-Dove

Red-crowned Parrot

Lilac-crowned Parrot 

Yellow-crowned Parrot 

White-fronted Parrot

Mealy Parrot

Orange-winged Parrot

Blue-crowned Parakeet

Red-masked Parakeet 

Green Parakeet

Mitred Parakeet

Dusky-headed Parakeet

Orange-fronted Parakeet

Black-hooded Parakeet 

Yellow-chevroned Parakeet

 brotogeris sp

Budgerigar

Monk Parakeet

Black-billed Cuckoo

Yellow-billed Cuckoo

Mangrove Cuckoo

Smooth-billed Ani

Groove-billed Ani

Barn Owl

Eastern Screech-Owl

Great Horned Owl

Burrowing Owl

Barred Owl

Common Nighthawk

Antillean Nighthawk

Chuck-will's-widow

Whip-poor-will

Chimney Swift

Vaux's Swift

Ruby-throated Hummingbird

Belted Kingfisher

Red-headed Woodpecker

Red-bellied Woodpecker

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker

Downy Woodpecker

Hairy Woodpecker

Red-cockaded Woodpecker

Northern Flicker

 Yellow-shafted Flicker

 Red-shafted Flicker

Pileated Woodpecker

Olive-sided Flycatcher

Eastern Wood-Pewee

Acadian Flycatcher

Eastern Phoebe

Vermilion Flycatcher

Ash-throated Flycatcher

Great Crested Flycatcher

Western Kingbird

Eastern Kingbird

Gray Kingbird

Scissor-tailed Flycatcher

Fork-tailed Flycatcher

Purple Martin

Tree Swallow 

Northern Rough-winged Swallow

Bank Swallow

Cliff Swallow

Cave Swallow

Barn Swallow

Blue Jay

Florida Scrub-Jay
217 

American Crow 

Fish Crow 

crow sp. 

Carolina Chickadee

Tufted Titmouse

Red-breasted Nuthatch

White-breasted Nuthatch

Brown-headed Nuthatch

Brown Creeper

Red-whiskered Bulbul

Carolina Wren

Bewick's Wren

House Wren

Winter Wren

Sedge Wren

Marsh Wren

Golden-crowned Kinglet

Ruby-crowned Kinglet

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher

Eastern Bluebird

Veery

Gray-cheeked Thrush

Bicknell's Thrush

Swainson's Thrush

Hermit Thrush

Wood Thrush

American Robin

Gray Catbird

Northern Mockingbird

Bahama Mockingbird

Brown Thrasher

Cedar Waxwing

Loggerhead Shrike 

European Starling

Common Myna

Crested Myna

Hill Myna

White-eyed Vireo

Bell's Vireo

Blue-headed Vireo

Yellow-throated Vireo

Warbling Vireo

Philadelphia Vireo

Red-eyed Vireo

Black-whiskered Vireo

Blue-winged Warbler

 Brewster's Hybrid

 Lawrence's Hybrid

Golden-winged Warbler

Tennessee Warbler

Orange-crowned Warbler

Nashville Warbler

Northern Parula 

Yellow Warbler

Chestnut-sided Warbler

Magnolia Warbler

Cape May Warbler

Black-throated Blue Warbler

Yellow-rumped Warbler

Black-throated Green Warbler

Blackburnian Warbler

Yellow-throated Warbler

 yellow-lored form

 white-lored form 

Pine Warbler

Kirtland's Warbler

Prairie Warbler

Palm Warbler

 Yellow Palm Warbler

 Western Palm Warbler

Bay-breasted Warbler

Blackpoll Warbler

Cerulean Warbler

Black-and-white Warbler

American Redstart

Prothonotary Warbler

Worm-eating Warbler

Swainson's Warbler

Ovenbird

Northern Waterthrush

Louisiana Waterthrush

Kentucky Warbler

Connecticut Warbler

Mourning Warbler 
218 

Common Yellowthroat 

Hooded Warbler 

Wilson's Warbler

Canada Warbler

Yellow-breasted Chat

Western spindalis

Bananaquit

Summer Tanager

Scarlet Tanager

Western Tanager

Northern Cardinal 

Rose-breasted Grosbeak

Blue Grosbeak

Indigo Bunting

Painted Bunting

Dickcissel

Eastern Towhee

 Red-eyed Towhee

 White-eyed Towhee

Spotted Towhee

Black-faced Grassquit

Bachman's Sparrow

Chipping Sparrow

Clay-colored Sparrow

Field Sparrow

Vesper Sparrow

Lark Sparrow

Savannah Sparrow

 Belding's Sparrow

 Ipswich Sparrow

Grasshopper Sparrow 

Henslow's Sparrow 

Le Conte's Sparrow 

Nelson's Sharp-tailed Sparrow

 Acadian

 James Bay

 Nelson's

Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrow

 Southern

Seaside Sparrow

Song Sparrow 

Lincoln's Sparrow 

Swamp Sparrow 

White-throated Sparrow 

White-crowned Sparrow 

Bobolink

Red-winged Blackbird

Eastern Meadowlark

Boat-tailed Grackle

Common Grackle

Bronzed Cowbird

Brown-headed Cowbird

Shiny Cowbird 

blackbird sp. 

Orchard Oriole 

Spot-breasted Oriole

Baltimore Oriole

House Finch

Pine Siskin

American Goldfinch

House Sparrow
219 

Fall 2008 St. Johns Aubodbon reference bird list:

Red-throated Loon

Pacific Loon

Common Loon 

loon sp. 

Pied-billed Grebe

Horned Grebe

Aechmophorus sp.

Northern Gannet

American White Pelican

Brown Pelican

Great Cormorant

Double-crested Cormorant

Anhinga 

Magnificent Frigatebird

American Bittern

Least Bittern

Great Blue Heron

 Wurdemann's form

 Great White Heron

Great Egret

Snowy Egret

Little Blue Heron

Tricolored Heron

Reddish Egret 

 White form

Cattle Egret

Green Heron

Black-crowned Night-Heron

Yellow-crowned Night-Heron

night-heron sp.

White Ibis

Glossy Ibis 

White-faced Ibis

Plegadis sp.

Roseate Spoonbill

Wood Stork

Greater Flamingo

Fulvous Whistling-Duck

Black-bellied Whistling-Duck

Canada Goose

Muscovy Duck

Wood Duck

Green-winged Teal 

Mottled Duck 

Mallard

White-cheeked Pintail

Northern Pintail

Blue-winged Teal

Cinnamon Teal

Northern Shoveler

Gadwall

Eurasian Wigeon

American Wigeon

Canvasback

Redhead

Ring-necked Duck

Greater Scaup

Lesser Scaup

scaup sp.

Common Eider

King Eider

Bufflehead

Hooded Merganser

Common Merganser

Red-breasted Merganser

Ruddy Duck 

Black Vulture

Turkey Vulture

Osprey

Swallow-tailed Kite

White-tailed Kite

Snail Kite

Mississippi Kite

Bald Eagle

Northern Harrier

Sharp-shinned Hawk

Cooper's Hawk

accipiter sp.

Red-shouldered Hawk

Broad-winged Hawk

Short-tailed Hawk

Swainson's Hawk
220 

Red-tailed Hawk

 Harlan's form

 Krider's form

buteo sp.

Golden Eagle

Crested Caracara

American Kestrel

Merlin

Peregrine Falcon

Wild Turkey

Northern Bobwhite 

Yellow Rail

Black Rail

Clapper Rail

King Rail

large rail sp.

Virginia Rail

Sora

Purple Gallinule

Common Moorhen 

American Coot 

Limpkin

Sandhill Crane

Whooping Crane

Black-bellied Plover

American Golden-Plover

Snowy Plover

Wilson's Plover

Semipalmated Plover

Piping Plover

Killdeer

American Oystercatcher

Black-necked Stilt

American Avocet

Greater Yellowlegs

Lesser Yellowlegs

Solitary Sandpiper

Willet

Spotted Sandpiper

Upland Sandpiper

Whimbrel 

Long-billed Curlew

Hudsonian Godwit 

Marbled Godwit

Ruddy Turnstone 

Red Knot

Sanderling

Semipalmated Sandpiper

Western Sandpiper

Least Sandpiper

Baird's Sandpiper

White-rumped Sandpiper

peep sp. 

Pectoral Sandpiper

Purple Sandpiper 

Dunlin

Curlew Sandpiper

Stilt Sandpiper

Buff-breasted Sandpiper

Ruff

Short-billed Dowitcher

Long-billed Dowitcher

dowitcher sp. 

Common Snipe 

American Woodcock

Wilson's Phalarope

Pomarine Jaeger

Parasitic Jaeger

Long-tailed Jaeger

jaeger sp.

Laughing Gull

Franklin's Gull

Black-headed Gull 

Bonaparte's Gull 

Ring-billed Gull

Herring Gull

Lesser Black-backed Gull

Great Black-backed Gull

Black-legged Kittiwake

gull sp.

Gull-billed Tern

Caspian Tern

Royal Tern

Sandwich Tern
221 

Roseate Tern

Common Tern 

Forster's Tern

Least Tern

Bridled Tern

Sooty Tern

Black Tern

Brown Noddy

Black Noddy

Black Skimmer

Rock Pigeon

White-crowned Pigeon 

Ringed Turtle-Dove

Eurasian Collared-Dove

White-winged Dove

Mourning Dove

Common Ground-Dove

Key West Quail-Dove

Red-crowned Parrot

Lilac-crowned Parrot 

Yellow-crowned Parrot 

White-fronted Parrot

Mealy Parrot

Orange-winged Parrot

Blue-crowned Parakeet

Red-masked Parakeet 

Green Parakeet

Mitred Parakeet

Dusky-headed Parakeet

Orange-fronted Parakeet

Black-hooded Parakeet 

Yellow-chevroned Parakeet

 brotogeris sp

Budgerigar

Monk Parakeet

Black-billed Cuckoo

Yellow-billed Cuckoo

Mangrove Cuckoo

Smooth-billed Ani

Groove-billed Ani

Barn Owl

Eastern Screech-Owl

Great Horned Owl

Burrowing Owl

Barred Owl

Common Nighthawk

Antillean Nighthawk

Chuck-will's-widow

Whip-poor-will

Chimney Swift

Vaux's Swift

Ruby-throated Hummingbird

Belted Kingfisher

Red-headed Woodpecker

Red-bellied Woodpecker

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker

Downy Woodpecker

Hairy Woodpecker

Red-cockaded Woodpecker

Northern Flicker

 Yellow-shafted Flicker

 Red-shafted Flicker

Pileated Woodpecker

Olive-sided Flycatcher

Eastern Wood-Pewee

Acadian Flycatcher

Eastern Phoebe

Vermilion Flycatcher

Ash-throated Flycatcher

Great Crested Flycatcher

Western Kingbird

Eastern Kingbird

Gray Kingbird

Scissor-tailed Flycatcher

Fork-tailed Flycatcher

Purple Martin

Tree Swallow 

Northern Rough-winged Swallow

Bank Swallow

Cliff Swallow

Cave Swallow

Barn Swallow

Blue Jay

Florida Scrub-Jay
222 

American Crow 

Fish Crow 

crow sp. 

Carolina Chickadee

Tufted Titmouse

Red-breasted Nuthatch

White-breasted Nuthatch

Brown-headed Nuthatch

Brown Creeper

Red-whiskered Bulbul

Carolina Wren

Bewick's Wren

House Wren

Winter Wren

Sedge Wren

Marsh Wren

Golden-crowned Kinglet

Ruby-crowned Kinglet

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher

Eastern Bluebird

Veery

Gray-cheeked Thrush

Bicknell's Thrush

Swainson's Thrush

Hermit Thrush

Wood Thrush

American Robin

Gray Catbird

Northern Mockingbird

Bahama Mockingbird

Brown Thrasher

Cedar Waxwing

Loggerhead Shrike 

European Starling

Common Myna

Crested Myna

Hill Myna

White-eyed Vireo

Bell's Vireo

Blue-headed Vireo

Yellow-throated Vireo

Warbling Vireo

Philadelphia Vireo

Red-eyed Vireo

Black-whiskered Vireo

Blue-winged Warbler

 Brewster's Hybrid

 Lawrence's Hybrid

Golden-winged Warbler

Tennessee Warbler

Orange-crowned Warbler

Nashville Warbler

Northern Parula 

Yellow Warbler

Chestnut-sided Warbler

Magnolia Warbler

Cape May Warbler

Black-throated Blue Warbler

Yellow-rumped Warbler

Black-throated Green Warbler

Blackburnian Warbler

Yellow-throated Warbler

 yellow-lored form

 white-lored form 

Pine Warbler

Kirtland's Warbler

Prairie Warbler

Palm Warbler

 Yellow Palm Warbler

 Western Palm Warbler

Bay-breasted Warbler

Blackpoll Warbler

Cerulean Warbler

Black-and-white Warbler

American Redstart

Prothonotary Warbler

Worm-eating Warbler

Swainson's Warbler

Ovenbird

Northern Waterthrush

Louisiana Waterthrush

Kentucky Warbler

Connecticut Warbler

Mourning Warbler 
223 

Common Yellowthroat 

Hooded Warbler 

Wilson's Warbler

Canada Warbler

Yellow-breasted Chat

Western spindalis

Bananaquit

Summer Tanager

Scarlet Tanager

Western Tanager

Northern Cardinal 

Rose-breasted Grosbeak

Blue Grosbeak

Indigo Bunting

Painted Bunting

Dickcissel

Eastern Towhee

 Red-eyed Towhee

 White-eyed Towhee

Spotted Towhee 

Black-faced Grassquit

Bachman's Sparrow

Chipping Sparrow

Clay-colored Sparrow

Field Sparrow

Vesper Sparrow

Lark Sparrow

Savannah Sparrow

 Belding's Sparrow

 Ipswich Sparrow

Grasshopper Sparrow 

Henslow's Sparrow 

Le Conte's Sparrow 

Nelson's Sharp-tailed Sparrow

 Acadian

 James Bay

 Nelson's

Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrow

 Southern

Seaside Sparrow

Song Sparrow 

Lincoln's Sparrow 

Swamp Sparrow 

White-throated Sparrow 

White-crowned Sparrow 

Bobolink

Red-winged Blackbird

Eastern Meadowlark

Boat-tailed Grackle

Common Grackle

Bronzed Cowbird

Brown-headed Cowbird

Shiny Cowbird 

blackbird sp. 

Orchard Oriole 

Spot-breasted Oriole

Baltimore Oriole

House Finch

Pine Siskin

American Goldfinch

House Sparrow

225 

Appendix F: The following species lists (Appendix G through Appendix Q) have been crossreferenced to NatureServe’s global and state rankings (NatureServe 2008); and the FWC listings 

for endangered, threatened, or rare species (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

2005a). These are further explanations of the rank and status abbreviations. 

NatureServe Ranks (NatureServe 2008)

Global Ranks: 

G#G#: NatureServe Global Conservation Status Rank, Range Rank - A numeric range rank (e.g., 

G2G3) is used to indicate the rank of uncertainty in the status of a species or community. Ranges 

cannot skip more than one rank (e.g., GU should be used rather than G1G4). 

G1: Critically Imperiled 

At very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations), very steep 

declines, or other factors. 

G2: Imperiled 

At high risk of extinction due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), 

steep declines, or other factors.

G3: Vulnerable 

At moderate risk of extinction due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or 

fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors. 

G4: Apparently Secure 

Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. 

G5: Secure 

Common; widespread, and abundant. 

State Ranks: 

S#S#: NatureServe Subnational Conservation Status Rank - Range Rank-A numeric range rank 

(e.g., S2S3) is used to indicate the range of uncertainty about the status of the species or 

community. Ranges cannot skip more than one rank (e.g., SU should be used rather than S1S4). 

S?: Unranked 

State/Province conservation status not yet assessed. 

S1: Critically Imperiled

Critically imperiled in the state or province because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer 

occurrences) or because of some factor(s) such as very steep declines making it especially 

vulnerable to extirpation from the state or province. 

S2: Imperiled

Imperiled in the state or province because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few 
226 

populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors making it very vulnerable to 

extirpation from the state or province. 

S3: Vulnerable 

Vulnerable in the state or province due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 

or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. 

S4: Apparently Secure 

Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. 

S5: Secure

Common, widespread, and abundant in the state or province. 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) listings for endangered, 

threatened, or rare species

Federal Status: 

E = Endangered

T = Threatened

State Status: 

E = Endangered

T = Threatened

SSC = Species of Special Concern

(1) has a significant vulnerability to habitat modification, environmental alteration, human 

disturbance, or human exploitation which, in the foreseeable future, may result in its 

becoming a threatened species unless appropriate protective or management techniques are

initiated or maintained;

(2) may already meet certain criteria for designation as a threatened species but for which 

conclusive data are limited or lacking;

(4) has not sufficiently recovered from past population depletion 

S1: NatureServe Subnational Conservation Status Rank - Critically Imperiled-Critically 

imperiled in the state or province because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer occurrences) or 

because of some factor(s) such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to 

extirpation from the state or province. 

S2: NatureServe Subnational Conservation Status Rank - Imperiled-Imperiled in the state or 

province because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), 

steep declines, or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the state or 

province. 
227 

S3: NatureServe subnational Conservation Status Rank - Vulnerable-Vulnerable in the state or 

province due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and 

widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. 

S4: NatureServe Subnational Conservation Status Rank - Apparently Secure-Uncommon but not 

rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. 

S5: NatureServe Subnational Conservation Status Rank - Secure-Common, widespread, and 

abundant in the state or province. 

SNR: NatureServe Subnational Conservation Status Rank — Unranked— - State or Province 

conservation status not yet assessed

SNRB - Breeding

SNRN - Non-breeding 

SNA: NatureServe Subnational Conservation Status Rank — Not Applicable — A conservation

status rank is not applicable because the species is not a suitable target for conservation 

activities.
228

Appendix G: Plant species documented for Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. 

These species have been cross referenced to NatureServe’s global and state rankings (NatureServe 2008). See reference or Appendix F

for explanation of abbreviations. 

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Abundance Nativity Global Rank State Rank

Hydrocotyle bonariensis largeleaf pennywort Common Native

Hydrocotyle verticillata whorled marsh pennywort Uncommon Native

Ptilimnium capillaceum herbwilliam, threadleaf mockbishopweed Common Native

Hedera helix English ivy Rare Non-Native

Sabal palmetto cabbage palm, cabbage palmetto Unknown Native

Ambrosia artemisiifolia annual ragweed, common ragweed, low ragweed Common Native

Baccharis halimifolia eastern baccharis Rare Native

Bidens alba var. radiata bidens, romerillo Rare Native

Conyza canadensis var. canadensis Canadian horseweed Common Native

Conyza canadensis var. pusilla Canadian horseweed Common Native

Eclipta prostrate eclipta, false daisy, yerba de tago, yerba de tajo Uncommon Native

Emilia sonchifolia lilac tasselflower Uncommon Non-Native

Erechtites hieracifolius Rare Native

Erigeron quercifolius oakleaf fleabane Common Native

Eupatorium capillifolium dogfennel Rare Native

Gamochaeta antillana Uncommon Native

Gamochaeta purpurea spoon-leaf purple everlasting Uncommon Native

Pluchea odorata marsh fleabane, sweetscent Common Native

Pyrrhopappus carolinianus Carolina desert chicory, Carolina false-dandelion Uncommon Native

Sonchus oleraceus annual sowthistle, common sow-thistle Common Non-Native

Sphagneticola trilobata Bay Biscayne creeping-oxeye Unknown Non-Native

Symphyotrichum subulatum eastern annual saltmarsh aster Common Native

Taraxacum officinale blowball, common dandelion, faceclock Uncommon Non-Native

Youngia japonica oriental false hawksbeard Common Non-Native

Neoregelia spectabilis Unknown Non-Native

Tillandsia recurvata ballmoss, small ballmoss Common Native

Tillandsia usneoides Spanish moss Common Native

Capsella bursa-pastoris shepardspurse Uncommon Non-Native

Coronopus didymus lesser swinecress Rare Non-Native

Lepidium virginicum peppergrass, poorman pepperweed, Virginia 

pepperweed

Common Native

Sesuvium portulacastrum shoreline seapurslane Common Native

Amaranthus hybridus green pigweed, slim amaranth, smooth amaranth Uncommon Non-Native
229

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Abundance Nativity Global Rank State Rank

Amaranthus viridis slender amaranth Common Non-Native

Drymaria cordata chickweed, whitesnow Common Native

Spergularia marina Uncommon Non-Native

Stellaria media chickweed, common chickweed, nodding 

chickweed

Common Non-Native

Chenopodium ambrosioides Mexican tea, Mexican-tea Uncommon Non-Native

Boerhavia diffusa red spiderling Common Native

Portulaca amilis Paraguayan purslane Uncommon Non-Native

Portulaca oleracea common purslane, duckweed, garden purslane Uncommon Native

Portulaca pilosa chisme, kiss me quick, kiss-me-quick Uncommon Native

Ilex vomitoria Yaupon Unknown Native

Commelina erecta erect dayflower, whitemouth dayflower Common Native

Tradescantia ohiensis bluejacket, Ohio spiderwort Uncommon Native

Cycas revolute sago palm Unknown Non-Native

Zamia pumila Coontie Unknown Native

Cyperus compressus poorland flatsedge Rare Native

Cyperus polystachyos manyspike flatsedge Rare Native

Cyperus retrorsus pine barren flatsedge Common Native

Cyperus rotundus cocograss, purple nutsedge Uncommon Non-Native

Cyperus strigosus strawcolor flatsedge, strawcolor nutgrass Uncommon Native

Cyperus surinamensis tropical flatsedge Uncommon Native

Eleocharis flavescens yellow spikerush Common Native

Kyllinga brevifolia shortleaf spikesedge Uncommon Non-Native

Andropogon glomeratus bushy bluestem Uncommon Native

Andropogon virginicus broomsedge, broomsedge bluestem, yellow 

bluestem

Rare Native

Cynodon dactylon Bermudagrass, chiendent pied-de-poule, common 

bermudagrass, devilgrass, grama-seda, manienie, 

motie molulu

Unknown Non-Native

Dactyloctenium aegyptium crowfoot grass, Durban crowsfoot grass, 

Egyptian grass

Common Non-Native

Digitaria bicornis Asian crabgrass Common Native

Eleusine indica crowsfoot grass, goose grass, silver crabgrass, 

wiregrass

Common Non-Native

Eragrostis elliottii field lovegrass Common Native

Eustachys petraea pinewoods fingergrass Uncommon Native

Oplismenus hirtellus bristle basketgrass Common Native
230

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Abundance Nativity Global Rank State Rank

Panicum repens couch panicum, creeping panic, panic rampant Uncommon Non-Native

Paspalum notatum var. saurae bahiagrass Common Non-Native

Paspalum urvillei Vasey grass, Vasey's grass, vaseygrass Common Non-Native

Poa annua annual blue grass, annual bluegrass, walkgrass Common Non-Native

Sphenopholis obtusata prairie wedgegrass, prairie wedgescale Common Native

Sporobolus indicus var. indicus smut grass Uncommon Non-Native

Stenotaphrum secundatum St. Augustine grass, St. Augustinegrass Common Native

Zea mays ssp. Mays Corn Rare Non-Native

Sideroxylon tenax tough bully Rare Native

Acalypha gracilens slender copperleaf, slender threeseed mercury Uncommon Native

Chamaesyce hirta pill-pod sandmat, pillpod sandmat Uncommon Native

Chamaesyce hypericifolia graceful sandmat, graceful spurge Uncommon Native

Chamaesyce maculate large spurge, spotted sandmat, spotted spurge Common Native

Chamaesyce prostrate prostrate sandmat, prostrate spurge Uncommon Native

Phyllanthus tenellus Mascarene Island leaf-flower Uncommon Non-Native

Phyllanthus urinaria chamber bitter Rare Non-Native

Sapium sebiferum Chinese tallow tree, Florida aspen, popcorn tree Rare Non-Native

Chamaecrista nictitans var. aspera partridge pea Common Native

Desmodium incanum tickclover, zarzabacoa comun Common Non-Native

Galactia volubilis downy milkpea Uncommon Native

Indigofera spicata trailing indigo Uncommon Non-Native

Medicago lupulina black medic, black medic clover, black medick Uncommon Non-Native

Medicago polymorpha bur clover, burclover, California burclover Uncommon Non-Native

Melilotus albus Uncommon Non-Native

Melilotus indicus annual yellow sweetclover, Indian sweet-clover Uncommon Non-Native

Trifolium repens Dutch clover, ladino clover, white clover Common Non-Native

Vigna luteola deer pea, hairypod cowpea Common Native

Quercus virginiana live oak Uncommon Native

Catharanthus roseus Madagascar periwinkle Unknown Non-Native

Impatiens balsamina spotted snapweed Unknown Non-Native

Geranium carolinianum Carolina crane's-bill, Carolina geranium Common Native

Oxalis corniculata creeping oxalis, creeping woods, oxalis, yellow 

wood sorrel

Common Native

Oxalis rubra Oxalis rubra, windowbox woodsorrel Uncommon Non-Native

Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Rare Native

Carya illinoinensis Pecan Unknown Non-Native

Juncus megacephalus bighead rush Common Native
231

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Abundance Nativity Global Rank State Rank

Salvia lyrata lyreleaf sage Common Native

Stachys floridana Florida betony, Florida hedgenettle Common Native

Lantana montevidensis trailing shrubverbena Unknown Non-Native

Phyla nodiflora frog fruit, sawtooth fogfruit, turkey tangle Common Native

Cinnamomum camphora camphor laurel, camphor tree, camphortree Unknown Non-Native

Yucca aloifolia aloe yucca Unknown Native

Asparagus aethiopicus Uncommon Non-Native

Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus yellow daylily Unknown Non-Native

Liriope spicata Unknown Non-Native

Zephyranthes rosea Cuban zephyrlily Rare Non-Native

Smilax auriculata earleaf greenbrier Rare Native

Smilax bona-nox saw greenbrier Rare Native

Magnolia grandiflora southern magnolia Unknown Native

Hibiscus syriacus althea, rose of Sharon, shrub-althea Unknown Non-Native

Malvastrum corchorifolium false mallow Uncommon Native

Malvastrum coromandelianum threelobe false mallow Rare Native

Gaura angustifolia southern beeblossom Common Native

Ludwigia octovalvis Mexican primrose-willow Common Native

Juniperus virginiana eastern red-cedar, eastern redcedar Rare Native

Lygodium japonicum Japanese climbing fern Rare Non-Native

Pleopeltis polypodioides var. michauxiana Common Native

Adiantum capillus-veneris* common maidenhair, venus hairfern Common Native G5 S3S4

Pteris vittata* Chinese brake, ladder brake Common Non-Native GNR SNA

Samolus valerandi ssp. parviflorus seaside brookweed, smallflower water pimpernel, 

water brookweed

Common Native

Cissus trifoliate sorrelvine Uncommon Native

Parthenocissus quinquefolia American ivy, fiveleaved ivy, Virginia creeper, 

woodbine

Rare Native

Vitis aestivalis summer grape Rare Native

Pittosporum tobira Japanese cheesewood Unknown Non-Native

Rhaphiolepis indica Unknown Non-Native

Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush, common buttonbush Unknown Native

Diodia virginiana Virginia buttonweed Uncommon Native

Galium uniflorum oneflower bedstraw Uncommon Native

Houstonia procumbens roundleaf bluet Uncommon Native

Oldenlandia corymbosa flat-top mille graines, flattop mille graines Uncommon Non-Native

Richardia brasiliensis tropical Mexican clover Common Non-Native
232

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Abundance Nativity Global Rank State Rank

Spermacoce assurgens woodland false buttonweed Uncommon Native

Phoradendron leucarpum oak mistletoe Rare Native

Melia azedarach chinaberry, Indian lilac, white cedar Rare Non-Native

Forestiera segregate florida privet, Florida swampprivet Rare Native

Osmanthus serrulatus Unknown Non-Native

Bacopa monnieri coastal waterhyssop, herb of grace Common Native

Linaria Canadensis Canada toadflax Common Native

Dichondra carolinensis Carolina ponysfoot, grass ponyfoot Uncommon Native

Ipomoea cordatotriloba cotton morningglory, tievine Common Native

Physalis walteri Walter's groundcherry Common Native

Solanum americanum American black nightshade, purple nightshade Common Native

Morus alba mulberry, white mulberry Unknown Non-Native

Morus rubra red mulberry Rare Native

Celtis laevigata sugar berry, sugar hackberry, sugarberry Rare Native

Ulmus alata winged elm Rare Native

Parietaria floridana Florida pellitory, pellitory Common Native

Parietaria praetermissa clustered pellitory Rare Native

Pilea microphylla rockweed Rare Native
233

Appendix H: Plant species documented for Fort Matanzas National Monument. 

These species have been cross referenced to NatureServe’s global and state rankings (NatureServe 2008). See reference or Appendix F

for explanation of abbreviations. *FOMA management priority species

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Abundance Nativity Global Rank State Rank

Hydrocotyle bonariensis largeleaf pennywort Common Native

Ptilimnium capillaceum herbwilliam, threadleaf mockbishopweed Uncommon Native

Sabal palmetto cabbage palm, cabbage palmetto Common Native

Serenoa repens saw palmetto Common Native

Ageratina jucunda hammock snakeroot Uncommon Native

Ambrosia artemisiifolia annual ragweed, common ragweed, low 

ragweed

Common Native

Baccharis angustifolia saltwater false willow Rare Native

Baccharis halimifolia eastern baccharis Common Native

Bidens alba var. radiate bidens, romerillo Common Native

Borrichia frutescens bushy seaoxeye, bushy seaside tansy Common Native

Calyptocarpus vialis straggler daisy Rare Non-Native

Cirsium horridulum yellow thistle Common Native

Conyza canadensis var. canadensis Canadian horseweed Common Native

Erechtites hieracifolius Common Native

Erigeron quercifolius oakleaf fleabane Common Native

Eupatorium capillifolium Dogfennel Rare Native

Gaillardia pulchella firewheel, Indian blanket, Indianblanket, 

rosering gaillardia

Common Native

Gamochaeta antillana Common Native

Helianthus debilis ssp. debilis cucumberleaf sunflower Common Native

Heterotheca subaxillaris camphorweed, golden aster Common Native

Iva frutescens bigleaf sumpweed, Jesuit's bark Common Native

Iva imbricate seacoast marshelder Common Native

Krigia virginica Virginia dwarfdandelion Rare Native

Lactuca graminifolia grass-leaf lettuce, grassleaf lettuce Rare Native

Mikania cordifolia Florida Keys hempvine Common Native

Pluchea odorata marsh fleabane, sweetscent Uncommon Native

Solidago odora var. chapmanii Chapman's goldenrod Rare Native

Solidago stricta wand goldenrod Uncommon Native

Sonchus asper perennial sowthistle, prickly sowthistle, spiny 

sowthistle

Uncommon Non-Native

Sonchus oleraceus annual sowthistle, common sow-thistle, 

common sowthistle

Uncommon Non-Native
234

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Abundance Nativity Global Rank State Rank

Taraxacum officinale blowball, common dandelion, dandelion, 

faceclock

Rare Non-Native

Youngia japonica oriental false hawksbeard Uncommon Non-Native

Batis maritime saltwort, turtleweed Common Native

Neoregelia spectabilis Unknown Non-Native

Tillandsia recurvata ballmoss, small ballmoss Common Native

Tillandsia usneoides Spanish moss Common Native

Triodanis perfoliata clasping bellwort, clasping Venus' lookingglassRare Native

Cakile edentula ssp. harperi Harper's searocket Common Native

Cakile lanceolata coastal searocket Uncommon Native

Coronopus didymus lesser swinecress Rare Non-Native

Descurainia pinnata green tansymustard, pinnate tansy mustard Rare Native

Lepidium virginicum peppergrass, poorman pepperweed, poorman's 

pepper

Uncommon Native

Sesuvium portulacastrum shoreline seapurslane Common Native

Blutaparon vermiculare Silverhead Uncommon Native

Gomphrena serrata arrasa con todo Rare Non-Native

Iresine rhizomatosa Juda's bush, rootstock bloodleaf Common Native

Opuntia pusilla cockspur pricklypear Common Native

Opuntia stricta erect pricklypear Common Native

Paronychia baldwinii Baldwin's nailwort Rare Native

Paronychia herniarioides coastalplain nailwort Uncommon Native

Stellaria media chickweed, common chickweed, nodding 

chickweed

Common Non-Native

Atriplex cristata crested saltbush Common Non-Native

Chenopodium album common lambsquarters, lambsquarters, 

lambsquarters goosefoot, white goosefoot

Uncommon Non-Native

Chenopodium ambrosioides Mexican tea, Mexican-tea Common Non-Native

Salsola kali ssp. Pontica Russian thistle, tumbleweed Common Non-Native

Sarcocornia perennis Chickenclaws Common Native

Suaeda linearis annual seepweed Common Native

Boerhavia diffusa red spiderling Common Native

Phytolacca americana var. rigida American pokeweed Uncommon Native

Rivina humilis bloodberry rougeplant, rougeplant Uncommon Native

Portulaca oleracea akulikuli-kula, common purslane, duckweed, 

garden purslane

Rare Native
235

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Abundance Nativity Global Rank State Rank

Portulaca pilosa chisme, kiss me quick, kiss-me-quick Uncommon Native

Ilex vomitoria Yaupon Common Native

Commelina diffusa var. diffusa climbing dayflower Rare Non-Native

Commelina erecta erect dayflower, whitemouth dayflower Uncommon Native

Tradescantia ohiensis bluejacket, Ohio spiderwort Common Native

Zamia pumila Coontie Common Native

Cyperus esculentus chufa, chufa flatsedge, yellow nutgrass, yellow 

nutsedge

Common Non-Native

Cyperus polystachyos manyspike flatsedge Common Native

Cyperus retrorsus pine barren flatsedge Common Native

Cyperus tetragonus fourangle flatsedge Uncommon Native

Fimbristylis spadicea Common Native

Scleria triglomerata whip nutrush Rare Native

Andropogon glomeratus var. hirsutior bushy bluestem Common Native

Andropogon glomeratus var. pumilus bushy bluestem Common Native

Andropogon virginicus var. virginicus broomsedge, broomsedge bluestem Uncommon Native

Cenchrus echinatus burgrass, common sandbur, field sandbur Uncommon Native

Cenchrus gracillimus slender sandbur Common Native

Cenchrus spinifex coastal sandbur Common Native

Cenchrus tribuloides sanddune sandbur Uncommon Native

Cynodon dactylon Bermudagrass, chiendent pied-de-poule, 

common bermudagrass, devilgrass, gramaseda, manienie, motie molulu

Common Non-Native

Dactyloctenium aegyptium crowfoot grass, Durban crowsfoot grass, 

Egyptian grass

Common Non-Native

Dichanthelium scabriusculum woolly rosette grass Common Native

Digitaria bicornis Asian crabgrass Uncommon Non-Native

Digitaria filiformis var. filiformis Common Native

Distichlis spicata desert saltgrass, inland saltgrass, marsh 

spikegrass

Common Native

Eleusine indica crowsfoot grass, goose grass, Indian goose 

grass

Common Non-Native

Eragrostis elliottii field lovegrass Common Native

Eragrostis secundiflora ssp. oxylepis red lovegrass Common Native

Eustachys petraea pinewoods fingergrass Common Native

Imperata cylindrical* cogon grass, cogongrass Rare NonNativeGNR SNA
236

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Abundance Nativity Global Rank State Rank

Lolium perenne italian ryegrass, perennial rye grass, perennial 

ryegrass

Uncommon Non-Native

Muhlenbergia capillaris var. filipes Gulf muhly, gulfhairawn muhly Common Native

Muhlenbergia capillaris var. trichopodes cutover muhly Common Native

Oplismenus hirtellus bristle basketgrass Common Native

Panicum amarum bitter panicgrass, bitter panicum Common Native

Paspalum notatum var. saurae bahiagrass Common Non-Native

Paspalum setaceum fringeleaf paspalum, sand paspalum, slender

crown grass

Common Native

Poa annua annual blue grass, annual bluegrass, walkgrass Common Non-Native

Setaria parviflora knotroot bristlegrass, marsh bristle grass, marsh 

bristlegrass

Common Native

Spartina alterniflora Atlantic cordgrass, saltmarsh cordgrass, smooth 

cordgrass

Common Native

Spartina patens marshhay cordgrass, salt meadow cordgrass Common Native

Sphenopholis obtusata prairie wedgegrass, prairie wedgescale Common Native

Sporobolus indicus var. pyramidalis West Indian dropseed Uncommon Non-Native

Sporobolus virginicus seashore dropseed Common Native

Stenotaphrum secundatum St. Augustine grass, St. Augustinegrass Rare Native

Triplasis purpurea purple sand grass, purple sandgrass Uncommon Native

Uniola paniculata seaoats Common Native

Sambucus nigra ssp. canadensis blue elder, common elderberry, elder, 

elderberry

Common Native

Viburnum odoratissimum sweet arrowwood Unknown Non-Native

Diospyros virginiana common persimmon, eastern persimmon, 

Persimmon

Rare Native

Sideroxylon tenax tough bully Common Native

Rhododendron simsii Unknown Non-Native

Acalypha gracilens slender copperleaf, slender threeseed mercury Uncommon Native

Chamaesyce bombensis dixie sandmat Common Native

Chamaesyce hirta pill-pod sandmat, pillpod sandmat Uncommon Native

Chamaesyce hyssopifolia hyssop spurge, hyssopleaf sandmat, leafy 

spurge

Common Native

Chamaesyce maculate large spurge, spotted sandmat, spotted spurge Common Native

Cnidoscolus stimulosus finger rot Common Native

Croton glandulosus var. glandulosus vente conmigo Common Native

Croton punctatus gulf croton Common Native
237

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Abundance Nativity Global Rank State Rank

Phyllanthus abnormis abnormis leaflower, Drummond's leaf-flower Common Native

Phyllanthus tenellus Mascarene Island leaf-flower, Mascarene 

Island leafflower

Uncommon Non-Native

Poinsettia cyathophora wild poinsettia Uncommon Native

Centrosema virginianum butterflypea, spurred butterfly pea Common Native

Chamaecrista fasciculata partridge pea, Showy partridgepea, 

sleepingplant

Common Native

Desmodium tortuosum Dixie tick trefoil, dixie ticktrefoil Rare Non-Native

Erythrina herbacea eastern coralbean, redcardinal Rare Native

Galactia volubilis downy milkpea Common Native

Indigofera hirsute roughhairy indigo Rare Non-Native

Indigofera spicata trailing indigo Uncommon Non-Native

Medicago lupulina black medic, black medic clover, hop clover, 

hop medic

Common Non-Native

Medicago polymorpha bur clover, burclover, California burclover, 

toothed medick

Common Non-Native

Melilotus albus Common Non-Native

Melilotus indicus annual yellow sweetclover, Indian sweet-clover Uncommon Non-Native

Senna obtusifolia Java-bean, sicklepod Rare Non-Native

Strophostyles helvola Common Native

Vigna luteola deer pea, hairypod cowpea Common Native

Quercus chapmanii Chapman oak Uncommon Native

Quercus geminate sand live oak Common Native

Quercus myrtifolia myrtle oak Common Native

Quercus virginiana live oak Common Native

Nerium oleander oleander Unknown Non-Native

Cynanchum angustifolium gulf coast swallow-wort, Gulf coast 

swallowwort

Uncommon Native

Geranium carolinianum Carolina crane's-bill, Carolina geranium Uncommon Native

Oxalis corniculata creeping oxalis, creeping woods, creeping 

woodsorrel, oxalis

Common Native

Oxalis rubra Oxalis rubra, windowbox woodsorrel Uncommon Non-Native

Carya illinoinensis pecan Unknown Non-Native

Juncus dichotomus forked rush Common Native

Juncus roemerianus needlegrass rush Common Native

Heliotropium curassavicum quail plant, salt heliotrope, seaside heliotrope Rare Native

Hyptis mutabilis tropical bushmint Uncommon Non-Native
238

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Abundance Nativity Global Rank State Rank

Monarda punctata spotted beebalm Common Native

Salvia lyrata lyreleaf sage Common Native

Stachys floridana Florida betony, Florida hedgenettle Uncommon Native

Teucrium canadense American germander, Canada germander, hairy 

germander

Common Native

Trichostema dichotomum blue curls, forked bluecurls Uncommon Native

Avicennia germinans black mangrove Common Native

Callicarpa Americana American beautyberry Common Native

Lantana camara* lantana, largeleaf lantana Common NonNativeG5 SNA

Phyla nodiflora frog fruit, sawtooth fogfruit, turkey tangle, 

turkey tangle fogfruit

Common Native

Verbena bonariensis pretty verbena, purpletop vervain Uncommon Non-Native

Verbena officinalis ssp. halei Common Native

Cinnamomum camphora camphor laurel, camphor tree, camphortree Unknown Non-Native

Persea borbonia redbay Common Native

Yucca aloifolia aloe yucca Rare Non-Native

Asparagus aethiopicus Unknown Non-Native

Crinum asiaticum poisonbulb Unknown Non-Native

Smilax auriculata earleaf greenbrier Common Native

Smilax bona-nox saw greenbrier Common Native

Asimina parviflora smallflower pawpaw Common Native

Magnolia grandiflora southern magnolia Rare Native

Malvastrum corchorifolium false mallow Uncommon Native

Malvastrum coromandelianum threelobe false mallow Uncommon Non-Native

Malvaviscus penduliflorus mazapan Unknown Non-Native

Sida rhombifolia arrowleaf sida, cuban jute, Cuban-jute Common Native

Myrica cerifera southern bayberry, wax myrtle Common Native

Gaura angustifolia southern beeblossom Common Native

Oenothera humifusa seabeach evening-primrose Common Native

Oenothera laciniata cut-leaf evening-primrose Rare Native

Oenothera speciosa pinkladies, Showy evening primrose, showy 

eveningprimrose

Uncommon Non-Native

Juniperus virginiana eastern red-cedar, eastern redcedar, red cedar 

juniper

Common Native

Pinus elliottii slash pine Common Native

Plantago virginica paleseed Indianwheat, Virginia plantain Uncommon Native
239

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Abundance Nativity Global Rank State Rank

Limonium carolinianum Carolina sea-lavender, Carolina sealavender Common Native

Polygala incarnate procession flower Uncommon Native

Rumex hastatulus heartwing dock, heartwing sorrel Uncommon Native

Pteridium aquilinum var. pseudocaudatum bracken, bracken fern, western brackenfern Common Native

Nephrolepis cordifolia* Boston fern, narrow swordfern, sword fern, 

tuber ladder fern

Common NonNativeG4G5 SNA

Phlebodium aureum golden polypody Rare Native

Pleopeltis polypodioides var. michauxiana Common Native

Pteris vittata* Chinese brake, ladder brake Common NonNativeGNR SNA

Ampelopsis arborea peppervine Common Native

Cissus trifoliate sorrelvine Uncommon Native

Parthenocissus quinquefolia American ivy, fiveleaved ivy, Virginia creeper, 

woodbine

Common Native

Vitis aestivalis summer grape Common Native

Vitis rotundifolia muscadine, muscadine grape Common Native

Rhizophora mangle American mangrove, mangrove, red mangrove Rare Native

Eriobotrya japonica loquat Rare Non-Native

Prunus caroliniana Carolina laurelcherry Uncommon Native

Prunus serotina var. serotina black cherry Common Native

Rhaphiolepis indica Unknown Non-Native

Rubus trivialis southern dewberry Uncommon Native

Chiococca alba West Indian milkberry Rare Native

Diodia teres poor joe, poorjoe, rough buttonweed Rare Native

Galium hispidulum coastal bedstraw Common Native

Houstonia procumbens roundleaf bluet Uncommon Native

Oldenlandia corymbosa flat-top mille graines, flattop mille graines Uncommon Non-Native

Richardia brasiliensis tropical Mexican clover Uncommon Non-Native

Spermacoce assurgens woodland false buttonweed Rare Native

Stenaria nigricans var. nigricans Common Native

Phoradendron leucarpum oak mistletoe Uncommon Native

Rhus copallinum flameleaf sumac Common Native

Severinia buxifolia Unknown Non-Native

Zanthoxylum clava-herculis Hercules' club, hercules-club, hercules-club 

pricklyash

Common Native

Justicia brandegeeana shrimpplant Unknown Non-Native

Ruellia caroliniensis Carolina wild petunia Uncommon Native
240

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Abundance Nativity Global Rank State Rank

Polypremum procumbens juniper leaf Common Native

Forestiera segregate florida privet, Florida swampprivet Uncommon Native

Jasminum mesnyi Japanese jasmine Unknown Non-Native

Bacopa monnieri coastal waterhyssop, herb of grace Common Native

Linaria Canadensis Canada toadflax Uncommon Native

Scoparia dulcis licorice weed Uncommon Native

Dichondra carolinensis Carolina ponysfoot, grass ponyfoot Uncommon Native

Ipomoea batatas 'uala, sweet potato, sweetpotato Rare Non-Native

Ipomoea cordatotriloba cotton morningglory, tievine Uncommon Native

Ipomoea imperati beach morning-glory, beach morningglory Common Native

Ipomoea pandurata bigroot morningglory, man-of-the-earth Rare Native

Ipomoea pes-caprae bayhops Common Native

Merremia dissecta noyau vine Rare Non-Native

Ipomopsis rubra standing-cypress, Texas plume Rare Native

Lycium carolinianum Carolina desert-thorn, Carolina wolfberry Rare Native

Physalis walteri Walter's groundcherry Common Native

Solanum chenopodioides goosefoot nightshade Uncommon Native

Hypericum gentianoides orangegrass, pinweed st. johnswort Rare Native

Hypericum hypericoides St. Andrew's cross, St. Andrews cross Uncommon Native

Morus rubra red mulberry Rare Native

Celtis laevigata sugar berry, sugar hackberry, sugarberry Common Native

Parietaria praetermissa clustered pellitory Rare Native

Pilea microphylla rockweed Uncommon Native

Alpinia zerumbet shellplant Unknown Non-Native
241

Appendix I: Fish species documented for Fort Matanzas National Monument. 

These species have been cross referenced to the FL Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy species of greatest conservation 

need (SGCN) (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2005b); NatureServe’s global and state rankings (NatureServe 

2008); and the FWC listings for endangered, threatened, or rare species (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2005a). 

See reference or Appendix F for explanation of abbreviations. 

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Abundance Residency

FL 

SGCN

Global 

Rank 

State 

Rank 

Federal 

Status 

State 

Status

Membras vagrans Unknown Unknown

Menidia beryllina inland silverside, tidewater silverside Unknown Breeder

Menidia menidia Atlantic silverside Common Breeder

Synodus foetens inshore lizardfish Unknown Unknown

Strongylura marina Atlantic needlefish, silver gar Abundant Breeder

Carcharhinus isodon finetooth shark Unknown Unknown Yes

Rhizoprionodon terraenovae Atlantic sharpnose shark Rare Breeder Yes

Sphyrna lewini scalloped hammerhead Rare Breeder Yes

Sphyrna tiburo bonnethead, shovelhead Uncommon Breeder Yes

Brevoortia smithi yellowfin menhaden Common Breeder

Brevoortia tyrannus Atlantic menhaden, bugfish, bunker, 

fatback, menhaden

Common Breeder

Dorosoma cepedianum American gizzard shad, eastern gizzard 

shad, hickory shad

Unknown Unknown

Dorosoma petenense threadfin shad Unknown Unknown

Harengula jaguana scaled herring, scaled sardine Unknown Unknown

Opisthonema oglinum Atlantic thread herring Unknown Unknown

Anchoa hepsetus broad-striped anchovy, striped anchovy Unknown Unknown

Anchoa mitchilli bay anchovy Unknown Unknown

Cyprinodon variegates sheepshead minnow, sheepshead pupfish Unknown Breeder

Fundulus heteroclitus mummichog Unknown Unknown

Fundulus majalis striped killifish Unknown Unknown

Fundulus similis longnose killifish Unknown Unknown

Elops saurus ladyfish Uncommon Breeder

Megalops atlanticus tarpon Uncommon Breeder Yes

Hippocampus erectus lined seahorse, spotted seahorse Rare Breeder Yes

Syngnathus louisianae chain pipefish Unknown Unknown Yes

Mugil cephalus black mullet, gray mullet, striped mullet Abundant Breeder Yes

Mugil curema silver mullet, white mullet Abundant Breeder Yes

Dasyatis Americana southern stingray Common Breeder
242

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Abundance Residency

FL 

SGCN

Global 

Rank 

State 

Rank 

Federal 

Status 

State 

Status

Aetobatus narinari bonnetray, spotted eagle ray Rare Breeder Yes

Hypleurochilus 

pseudoaequipinnis

oyster blenny Unknown Unknown

Lupinoblennius nicholsi highfin blenny Unknown Unknown

Scartella cristata molly miller Unknown Unknown

Caranx hippos crevalle jack Common Breeder

Caranx latus horse-eye jack Common Breeder Yes

Chloroscombrus chrysurus Atlantic bumper Unknown Unknown

Oligoplites saurus leatherjack, leatherjacket Unknown Unknown

Selene vomer lookdown Common Breeder

Trachinotus carolinus Florida pompano Common Breeder Yes

Trachinotus falcatus permit Common Breeder Yes

Trachinotus goodie palometa Unknown Breeder Yes

Centropomus undecimalis common snook, snook Uncommon Breeder Yes

Chaetodipterus faber Atlantic spadefish Common Breeder Yes

Eucinostomus argenteus spotfin mojarra Unknown Unknown

Eucinostomus gula silver jenny Unknown Unknown

Ctenogobius boleosoma darter goby Unknown Unknown

Ctenogobius stigmaticus marked goby Unknown Unknown

Gobionellus oceanicus highfin goby, sharptail goby, slim goby Unknown Unknown

Orthopristis chrysoptera pigfish Abundant Breeder

Labrisomus nuchipinnis hairy blenny Unknown Unknown Yes

Lutjanus griseus gray snapper, grey snapper Common Breeder Yes

Abudefduf saxatilis sergeant major Common Breeder Yes

Pomatomus saltatrix bluefish Common Breeder Yes

Bairdiella chrysoura silver perch Unknown Unknown

Cynoscion nebulosus spotted seatrout Common Breeder Yes

Leiostomus xanthurus spot Abundant Breeder

Menticirrhus americanus jewsharp drummer, southern kingfish Common Breeder

Menticirrhus littoralis Gulf kingfish Common Breeder

Micropogonias undulates Atlantic croaker Common Breeder

Pogonias cromis black drum Uncommon Breeder Yes

Sciaenops ocellatus red drum Common Breeder Yes

Centropristis striata black sea bass Uncommon Breeder Yes

Mycteroperca microlepis charcoal belly, gag Uncommon Breeder Yes

Rypticus maculates whitespotted soapfish Unknown Unknown
243

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Abundance Residency

FL 

SGCN

Global 

Rank 

State 

Rank 

Federal 

Status 

State 

Status

Archosargus probatocephalus sheepshead Abundant Breeder Yes

Diplodus argenteus silver porgy Common Breeder

Lagodon rhomboids pinfish Abundant Breeder

Trichiurus lepturus Atlantic cutlassfish, Australian hairtail, 

largehead hairtail

Unknown Unknown

Astroscopus y-graecum southern stargazer Unknown Unknown

Achirus lineatus lined sole Unknown Unknown

Trinectes maculates hogchoker Unknown Unknown

Symphurus plagiusa blackcheek tonguefish Unknown Unknown

Citharichthys spilopterus bay whiff Unknown Unknown

Paralichthys albigutta Gulf flounder Common Breeder Yes

Prionotus evolans striped searobin Unknown Unknown

Prionotus scitulus leopard searobin Unknown Unknown

Ariopsis felis hardhead catfish Abundant Breeder

Bagre marinus gafftopsail catfish Common Breeder

Chilomycterus schoepfii burrfish, porcupinefish, striped burrfish Unknown Unknown Yes

Cantherhines pullus orangespotted filefish Unknown Unknown Yes

Sphoeroides nephelus southern puffer Uncommon Breeder
244

Appendix J: Amphibian species documented for Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. 

These species have been cross referenced to the FL Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy species of greatest conservation 

need (SGCN) (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2005b); NatureServe’s global and state rankings (NatureServe 

2008); and the FWC listings for endangered, threatened, or rare species (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2005a). 

See reference or Appendix F for explanation of abbreviations. 

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Park Status Abundance Residency Nativity

FL

SGCN

Global

Rank

State

Rank

Federal

Status

State

Status

Bufo terrestris Southern Toad Present in Park Unknown Unknown Native G5 SNR

Hyla squirella Squirrel Treefrog Present in Park Unknown Unknown Native G5 SNR

Osteopilus 

septentrionalis

Cuban Treefrog Present in Park Unknown Unknown NonNativeG5 SNA

Eleutherodactylus 

planirostris

Greenhouse Frog Present in Park Unknown Unknown NonNativeG5 SNA

Acris gryllus Southern cricket frog Found near 

vicinity

G5 SNR

Gastrophryne 

carolinensis

Eastern narrowmouth 

toad

Found near 

vicinity

G5 SNR

Hyla cinerea Green treefrog Found near 

vicinity

G5 SNR
245

Appendix K: Amphibian species documented for Fort Matanzas National Monument. 

These species have been cross referenced to the FL Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy species of greatest conservation 

need (SGCN) (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2005b); NatureServe’s global and state rankings (NatureServe 

2008); and the FWC listings for endangered, threatened, or rare species (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2005a). 

See reference or Appendix F for explanation of abbreviations. 

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Abundance Residency Nativity FL SGCN Global Rank State Rank 

Bufo terrestris Southern Toad Common Breeder Native G5 SNR

Hyla cinerea Green Treefrog Unknown Unknown Native G5 SNR

Hyla squirella Squirrel Treefrog Common Breeder Native G5 SNR

Osteopilus septentrionalis Cuban Treefrog Unknown Unknown NonNativeG5 SNA

Eleutherodactylus planirostris Greenhouse Frog Unknown Unknown NonNativeG5 SNA

Gastrophryne carolinensis Eastern Narrow-mouthed 

Toad

Unknown Unknown Native G5

Rana sphenocephala Florida leopard frog, 

Southern Leopard Frog

Unknown Unknown Native G5 SNR

Scaphiopus holbrookii eastern spadefoot toad Common Breeder Native G5 SNR

Hyla gratiosa barking treefrog Unknown Unknown Native G5 SNR
246

Appendix L: Reptile species documented for Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. 

These species have been cross referenced to the FL Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy species of greatest conservation 

need (SGCN) (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2005b); NatureServe’s global and state rankings (NatureServe 

2008); and the FWC listings for endangered, threatened, or rare species (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2005a). 

See reference or Appendix F for explanation of abbreviations. 

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Park Status Abundance Nativity

FL

SGCN

Global

Rank

State

Rank

Federal

Status

State

Status

Norops sagrei Brown Anole Present in Park Abundant Non-Native G5 SNA

Rhadinaea flavilata Pine Woods Snake Present in Park Occasional Native G4 SNR

Anolis carolinensis Green anole Found near vicinity G5 SNR

Cnemidophorus sexlineatus Six-lined racerunner Found near vicinity G5 SNR

Eumeces fasciatus Five-lined skink Found near vicinity G5 SNR

Eumeces inexpectatus

Southeastern five-lined 

skink Found near vicinity G5 SNR

Scincella lateralis Ground skink Found near vicinity G5 SNR

Coluber constrictor Black racer Found near vicinity G5T5 SNR 

Elaphe guttata Corn snake Found near vicinity G5 S5

Elaphe obsolete Rat snake Found near vicinity G5 SNR

Lampropeltis getula Eastern kingsnake Found near vicinity YES G5T5 SNR 

Opheodrys aestivus Rough green snake Found near vicinity G5 SNR

Storeria dekayi Brownsnake Found near vicinity G5 S5

Thamnophis sauritus Ribbon snake Found near vicinity YES G5 SNR 

Thamnophis sirtalis Common Gartersnake Found near vicinity G5 SNR
247

Appendix M: Reptile species documented for Fort Matanzas National Monument. 

These species have been cross referenced to the FL Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy species of greatest conservation 

need (SGCN) (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2005b); NatureServe’s global and state rankings (NatureServe 

2008); and the FWC listings for endangered, threatened, or rare species (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2005a). 

See reference or Appendix F for explanation of abbreviations. 

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Abundance Residency Nativity

FL

SGCN

Global

Rank

State

Rank

Federal

Status

State

Status

Ophisaurus ventralis Eastern Glass Lizard Unknown Unknown Native G5 SNR

Coluber constrictor Eastern Racer Uncommon Breeder Native G5 SNR

Drymarchon corais Eastern Indigo Snake Uncommon Breeder Native Yes G3 S3 T T

Elaphe guttata Red Cornsnake Uncommon Breeder Native G5 S5

Elaphe obsolete Eastern Ratsnake Unknown Unknown Native G5 SNR

Heterodon platirhinos Eastern Hognose Snake Unknown Unknown Native Yes G5 SNR

Masticophis flagellum Coachwhip Uncommon Breeder Native G5 SNR

Opheodrys aestivus Rough Greensnake Uncommon Breeder Native G5 SNR

Rhadinaea flavilata Pine Woods Snake Unknown Unknown Native G4 SNR

Thamnophis sauritus Eastern Ribbonsnake Unknown Unknown Native Yes G5 S5

Micrurus fulvius Eastern Coral Snake, 

Harlequin

Unknown Unknown Native G5 SNR

Hemidactylus garnotii Fox Gecko, Indo-Pacific 

Gecko, Indopacific Gecko

Unknown Unknown NonNativeG5 SNA

Hemidactylus turcicus Mediterranean House Gecko Unknown Unknown NonNativeG5 SNA

Anolis carolinensis Green Anole Abundant Breeder Native G5 SNR

Norops sagrei Brown Anole Abundant Breeder NonNativeG5 SNA

Eumeces inexpectatus Southeastern Five-lined Skink Abundant Breeder Native G5 SNR

Scincella lateralis Ground Skink, Little Brown 

Skink

Uncommon Breeder Native G5 SNR

Cnemidophorus sexlineatus Six-lined Racerunner Abundant Breeder Native G5 SNR

Crotalus adamanteus Eastern Diamond-backed 

Rattlesnake

Uncommon Breeder Native Yes G4 S3

Caretta caretta Loggerhead Sea Turtle Rare Breeder Native Yes G3 S3 T T

Chelonia mydas Green Sea Turtle Occasional Breeder Native Yes G3 S2 E E
248

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Abundance Residency Nativity

FL

SGCN

Global

Rank

State

Rank

Federal

Status

State

Status

Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback Sea Turtle Occasional Breeder Native Yes G2 S2 T E

Malaclemys terrapin Diamondback Terrapin Unknown Unknown Native Yes G4 S4

Terrapene Carolina Eastern Box Turtle Rare Breeder Native G5 S5

Gopherus polyphemus Gopher Tortoise Abundant Breeder Native Yes G3 S3 T

Lepidochelys kempii Kemp's Ridley Occasional Unknown Native G1 S1 E E

Thamnophis sirtalis Eastern Garter Snake Unknown Unknown Native G5 SNR

Diadophis punctatus Southern Ringneck Snake Unknown Unknown Native G5 S5

Cemophora coccinea Scarlet Snake Unknown Unknown Native Yes G5 SNR
24

9

Appendix N: Bird species documented for Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. 

These species have been cross referenced to the FL Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy species of greatest conservation 

need (SGCN) (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2005b); NatureServe’s global and state rankings (NatureServe 

2008); and the FWC listings for endangered, threatened, or rare species (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2005a). 

See reference or Appendix F for explanation of abbreviations. Bird species were also cross referenced to the Partners in Flight Priority 

Species (Partners in Flight 2005) and Audubon WatchList (National Audubon Society 2007). 

Scientific Name

Common 

Name(s)

Park 

Status Abundance Residency Nativity

FL

SGCN

PIF 

priority

species

Audubon

watchlist

Global

Rank

State

Rank

Federal

Status

State

Status

Corvus 

brachyrhynchos

American 

Crow

Present 

in Park

Common Breeder Native G5 SNR

Falco 

sparverius

American 

Kestrel

(southeastern 

sub-species)

Present 

in Park

Uncommon Breeder Native YES YES G5 SNR,

SNRN

T 

Setophaga 

ruticilla

American 

Redstart

Probably 

Present

n/a n/a Native G5 S2

Turdus 

migratorius

American 

Robin

Present 

in Park

Common Migratory Native G5 SNR,

SNRN

Anhinga 

anhinga

Anhinga Present 

in Park

Common Resident Native G5 SNR

Icterus galbula Baltimore 

Oriole

Present 

in Park

Unknown Unknown Native G5 SNRN

Hirundo rustica Barn 

Swallow

Probably 

Present

n/a n/a Native G5 SNRB

Megaceryle 

alcyon

Belted 

Kingfisher

Present 

in Park

Unknown Breeder Native G5 SNR,

SNRN

Rynchops niger Black 

Skimmer

Probably 

Present

n/a n/a Native YES YES G5 S3 SSC 

(1)

Coragyps 

atratus

Black Vulture Present 

in Park

Abundant Resident Native G5 SNR

Nandayus 

nenday

Black-hooded 

Parakeet

Present 

in Park

Occasional Resident NonNative

Cyanocitta 

cristata

Blue Jay Present 

in Park

Abundant Breeder Native G5 SNR

Quiscalus major Boat-tailed 

Grackle

Present 

in Park

Abundant Breeder Native G5 SNR

Pelecanus 

occidentalis

Brown 

Pelican

Present 

in Park

Abundant Resident Native YES G4 S3 SSC 

(1)
250

Scientific Name

Common 

Name(s)

Park 

Status Abundance Residency Nativity

FL

SGCN

PIF 

priority

species

Audubon

watchlist

Global

Rank

State

Rank

Federal

Status

State

Status

Toxostoma 

rufum

Brown 

Thrasher

Present 

in Park

Abundant Breeder Native G5 SNR

Molothrus ater Brownheaded 

Cowbird

Present 

in Park

Unknown Unknown Native G5 SNR

Sitta pusilla Brownheaded 

Nuthatch

Present 

in Park

Uncommon Unknown Native YES G5 SNR

Poecile 

carolinensis

Carolina 

Chickadee

Present 

in Park

Common Unknown Native G5 SNR

Thryothorus 

ludovicianus

Carolina 

Wren

Present 

in Park

Abundant Breeder Native G5 SNR

Bubulcus ibis Cattle Egret Present 

in Park

Abundant Resident Native G5 SNR

Chaetura 

pelagica

Chimney 

Swift

Present 

in Park

Uncommon Breeder Native G5 SNRB

Caprimulgus 

carolinensis

Chuck-will'swidowProbably 

Present

n/a n/a Native SNRB

Quiscalus 

quiscula

Common 

Grackle

Present 

in Park

Abundant Breeder Native G5 SNR

Gavia immer Common 

Loon

Present 

in Park

Unknown Migratory Native YES G5 SNRN

Junco hyemalis Dark-eyed 

Junco

Present 

in Park

Unknown Unknown Native G5 SNRN

Phalacrocorax 

auritus

Doublecrested 

Cormorant

Present 

in Park

Abundant Resident Native G5 SNR

Picoides 

pubescens

Downy 

Woodpecker

Present 

in Park

Abundant Breeder Native G5 SNR

Sialia sialis Eastern 

Bluebird

Present 

in Park

Rare Migratory Native G5 SNR

Tyrannus 

tyrannus

Eastern 

Kingbird

Present 

in Park

Common Unknown Native G5 SNRB

Sayornis phoebe Eastern 

Phoebe

Present 

in Park

Common Unknown Native G5 SNRN
251

Scientific Name

Common 

Name(s)

Park 

Status Abundance Residency Nativity

FL

SGCN

PIF 

priority

species

Audubon

watchlist

Global

Rank

State

Rank

Federal

Status

State

Status

Pipilo 

erythrophthalm

us

Eastern 

Towhee

Present 

in Park

Unknown Unknown Native G5 SNR

Sturnus vulgaris European 

Starling

Present 

in Park

Abundant Migratory Non-

Native

G5 SNA

Corvus 

ossifragus

Fish Crow Probably 

Present

n/a n/a Native G5 SNR

Dumetella 

carolinensis

Gray Catbird Present 

in Park

Abundant Unknown Native G5 SNR,

SNRN

Tyrannus 

dominicensis

Gray 

Kingbird

Present 

in Park

Common Unknown Native YES G5 SNRB

Catharus 

minimus

Gray-cheeked 

Thrush

Probably 

Present

n/a n/a Native G5 SNA

Larus marinus Great Black-

backed Gull

Probably 

Present

n/a n/a Native G5 SNRN

Ardea herodias Great Blue 

Heron

Present 

in Park

Abundant Resident Native G5 SNR

Myiarchus 

crinitus

Great Crested 

Flycatcher

Present 

in Park

Common Unknown Native G5 SNRB

Ardea alba Great Egret Present 

in Park

Abundant Resident Native G5 S4

Butorides 

virescens

Green Heron Present 

in Park

Uncommon Resident Native G5 SNR

Catharus 

guttatus

Hermit 

Thrush

Probably 

Present

n/a n/a Native G5 SNRN

Larus 

argentatus

Herring Gull Present 

in Park

Abundant Resident Native G5 SNRN

Lophodytes 

cucullatus

Hooded 

Merganser

Present 

in Park

Occasional Migratory Native G5 SNRN

Troglodytes 

aedon

House Wren Probably 

Present

n/a n/a Native G5 SNRN

Charadrius 

vociferus

Killdeer Present 

in Park

Unknown Breeder Native G5 SNR

Larus atricilla Laughing 

Gull

Present 

in Park

Abundant Resident Native G5 SNR

Egretta 

caerulea

Little Blue 

Heron

Present 

in Park

Common Resident Native YES G5 S4 SSC 

(1,4)
252

Scientific Name

Common 

Name(s)

Park 

Status Abundance Residency Nativity

FL

SGCN

PIF 

priority

species

Audubon

watchlist

Global

Rank

State

Rank

Federal

Status

State

Status

Lanius 

ludovicianus

Loggerhead 

Shrike

Present 

in Park

Common Breeder Native YES G4 SNR

Zenaida 

macroura

Mourning 

Dove

Present 

in Park

Unknown Breeder Native G5 SNR

Cardinalis 

cardinalis

Northern 

Cardinal

Present 

in Park

Unknown Breeder Native G5 SNR

Morus bassanus Northern 

Gannet

Present 

in Park

Occasional Resident Native G5 SNRN

Circus cyaneus Northern 

Harrier

Probably 

Present

n/a n/a Native G5 SNRN

Mimus 

polyglottos

Northern 

Mockingbird

Present 

in Park

Abundant Breeder Native G5 SNR

Parula 

americana

Northern 

Parula

Present 

in Park

Unknown Vagrant Native G5 SNRB

Stelgidopteryx 

serripennis

Northern 

Rough-

winged 

Swallow

Present 

in Park

Uncommon Unknown Native G5 SNRB

Icterus spurius Orchard 

Oriole

Present 

in Park

Unknown Unknown Native G5 SNRB

Pandion 

haliaetus

Osprey Present 

in Park

Abundant Resident Native G5 S3S4

Protonotaria 

citrea

Prothonotary 

Warbler

Present 

in Park

Uncommon Breeder Native YES YES G5 SNRB

Melanerpes 

carolinus

Red-bellied 

Woodpecker

Present 

in Park

Common Breeder Native G5 SNR

Egretta 

rufescens

Reddish 

Egret

Present 

in Park

Rare Resident Native YES YES G4 S2 SSC 

(1,4)

Buteo lineatus Red-

shouldered 

Hawk

Probably 

Present

n/a n/a Native G5 SNR

Buteo 

jamaicensis

Red-tailed 

Hawk

Probably 

Present

n/a n/a Native G5 SNR

Agelaius 

phoeniceus

Red-winged 

Blackbird

Present 

in Park

Common Breeder Native G5 SNR

Larus 

delawarensis

Ring-billed 

Gull

Present 

in Park

Abundant Resident Native G5 SNRN
253

Scientific Name

Common 

Name(s)

Park 

Status Abundance Residency Nativity

FL

SGCN

PIF 

priority

species

Audubon

watchlist

Global

Rank

State

Rank

Federal

Status

State

Status

Columba livia Rock Pigeon Present 

in Park

Common Breeder Non-

Native

G5 SNA

Pheucticus 

ludovicianus

Rose-

breasted 

Grosbeak

Present 

in Park

Unknown Unknown Native G5 SNA

Calidris alba Sanderling Present 

in Park

Common Resident Native YES YES G5 SNRN

Egretta thula Snowy Egret Present 

in Park

Abundant Resident Native YES G5 S3 SSC 

(1)

Melospiza 

melodia

Song 

Sparrow

Present 

in Park

Unknown Unknown Native G5 SNRN

Catharus 

ustulatus

Swainson's 

Thrush

Probably 

Present

n/a n/a Native G5 SNA

Melospiza 

georgiana

Swamp 

Sparrow

Present 

in Park

Unknown Unknown Native G5 SNRN

Tachycineta 

bicolor

Tree Swallow Present 

in Park

Uncommon Unknown Native G5 SNRN

Egretta tricolor Tricolored 

Heron

Present 

in Park

Occasional Resident Native YES G5 S4 SSC 

(1,4)

Baeolophus 

bicolor

Tufted 

Titmouse

Present 

in Park

Uncommon Unknown Native G5 SNR

Cathartes aura Turkey 

Vulture

Present 

in Park

Abundant Resident Native G5 SNR

Catharus 

fuscescens

Veery Present 

in Park

Unknown Unknown Native G5 SNA

Caprimulgus 

vociferus

Whip-poor-

will

Probably 

Present

n/a n/a Native G5 SNRN

Eudocimus 

albus

White Ibis Present 

in Park

Common Resident Native YES G5 S4 SSC 

(2)

Charadrius 

wilsonia

Wilson's 

Plover

Present 

in Park

Unknown Resident Native YES YES G5 S2

Mycteria 

americana

Wood Stork Present 

in Park

Uncommon Resident Native YES G4 S2EE

Hylocichla 

mustelina

Wood Thrush Present 

in Park

Rare Unknown Native YES YES G5 SNRB
254

Scientific Name

Common 

Name(s)

Park 

Status Abundance Residency Nativity

FL

SGCN

PIF 

priority

species

Audubon

watchlist

Global

Rank

State

Rank

Federal

Status

State

Status

Nyctanassa 

violacea

Yellowcrowned 

Night-Heron

Present 

in Park

Common Resident Native YES G5 S3

Dendroica 

coronata

Yellowrumped 

Warbler

Present 

in Park

Common Migratory Native G5 SNRN
255

Appendix O: Bird species documented for Fort Matanzas National Monument. 

These species have been cross referenced to the FL Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy species of greatest conservation 

need (SGCN) (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2005b); NatureServe’s global and state rankings (NatureServe 

2008); and the FWC listings for endangered, threatened, or rare species (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2005a). 

See reference or Appendix F for explanation of abbreviations. Bird species were also cross referenced to the Partners in Flight Priority 

Species (Partners in Flight 2005) and Audubon WatchList (National Audubon Society 2007). 

Scientific Name

Common 

Name(s)

Park 

Status Abundance Residency Nativity

FL

SGCN

PIF 

priority

species

Audubon

watchlist

Global

Rank

State

Rank

Federal

Status

State

Status

Corvus 

brachyrhynchos

American 

Crow

Present 

in Park

Common Resident Native

Carduelis tristis American 

Goldfinch

Present 

in Park

Occasional Migratory Native

Falco sparverius American 

Kestrel

Present 

in Park

Common Breeder Native Yes Yes G5 SNR

B,

SNR

N 

Haematopus 

palliates

American 

Oystercatcher

Present 

in Park

Occasional Migratory Native Yes G5 S2 SSC

(1,2)

Setophaga 

ruticilla

American 

Redstart

Probably 

Present

n/a n/a Native

Turdus 

migratorius

American 

Robin

Present 

in Park

Common Resident Native

Pelecanus 

erythrorhynchos

American 

White Pelican

Present 

in Park

Occasional Migratory Native

Anhinga 

anhinga

Anhinga Present 

in Park

Common Resident Native

Aimophila 

aestivalis

Bachman's 

Sparrow

Present 

in Park

Rare Unknown Native Yes G3 S3

Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus

Bald Eagle Present 

in Park

Uncommon Resident Native Yes G5 S3

Icterus galbula Baltimore 

Oriole

Present 

in Park

Occasional Migratory Native

Tyto alba Barn Owl Present 

in Park

Occasional Unknown Native

Hirundo rustica Barn 

Swallow

Present 

in Park

Uncommon Migratory Native

Strix varia Barred Owl Present Rare Unknown Native
256

Scientific Name

Common 

Name(s)

Park 

Status Abundance Residency Nativity

FL

SGCN

PIF 

priority

species

Audubon

watchlist

Global

Rank

State

Rank

Federal

Status

State

Status

in Park

Megaceryle 

alcyon

Belted 

Kingfisher

Present 

in Park

Common Breeder Native

Nandayus 

nenday

Black-hooded 

Parakeet

Present 

in Park

Occasional Resident NonNative

Rynchops niger Black 

Skimmer

Present 

in Park

Common Resident Native Yes Yes G5 S3 SSC 

(1)

Chlidonias niger Black Tern Present 

in Park

Occasional Migratory Native

Coragyps 

atratus

Black Vulture Present 

in Park

Abundant Resident Native

Mniotilta varia Black-andwhite 

Warbler

Probably 

Present

n/a n/a Native

Pluvialis 

squatarola

Black-bellied 

Plover

Present 

in Park

Rare Resident Native

Dendroica fusca Blackburnian 

Warbler

Probably 

Present

n/a n/a Native

Nycticorax 

nycticorax

Blackcrowned 

Night-Heron

Present 

in Park

Common Resident Native Yes G5 S3

Himantopus 

mexicanus

Black-necked 

Stilt

Present 

in Park

Occasional Migratory Native

Dendroica 

caerulescens

Blackthroated Blue 

Warbler

Present 

in Park

Common Resident Native

Dendroica 

virens

Blackthroated 

Green 

Warbler

Probably 

Present

n/a n/a Native

Cyanocitta 

cristata

Blue Jay Present 

in Park

Abundant Breeder Native

Polioptila 

caerulea

Blue-gray 

Gnatcatcher

Present 

in Park

Common Breeder Native

Quiscalus major Boat-tailed 

Grackle

Present 

in Park

Abundant Breeder Native
257

Scientific Name

Common 

Name(s)

Park 

Status Abundance Residency Nativity

FL

SGCN

PIF 

priority

species

Audubon

watchlist

Global

Rank

State

Rank

Federal

Status

State

Status

Larus 

Philadelphia

Bonaparte's 

Gull

Present 

in Park

Rare Resident Native

Pelecanus 

occidentalis

Brown 

Pelican

Present 

in Park

Abundant Resident Native Yes G4 S3 SSC 

(1)

Toxostoma 

rufum

Brown 

Thrasher

Present 

in Park

Common Resident Native

Sitta pusilla Brown-

headed 

Nuthatch

Present 

in Park

Occasional Migratory Native Yes G5 SNR

Poecile 

carolinensis

Carolina 

Chickadee

Present 

in Park

Common Breeder Native

Thryothorus 

ludovicianus

Carolina 

Wren

Present 

in Park

Abundant Breeder Native

Sterna caspia Caspian Tern Present

in Park

Uncommon Resident Native Yes G5 S2

Bubulcus ibis Cattle Egret Present 

in Park

Abundant Resident Native

Bombycilla 

cedrorum

Cedar 

Waxwing

Present 

in Park

Rare Migratory Native

Dendroica 

pensylvanica

Chestnut-

sided Warbler

Probably 

Present

n/a n/a Native

Chaetura 

pelagic

Chimney 

Swift

Present 

in Park

Common Breeder Native

Spizella 

passerine

Chipping 

Sparrow

Probably 

Present

n/a n/a Native

Caprimulgus 

carolinensis

Chuck-will's-

widow

Present 

in Park

Uncommon Breeder Native

Rallus 

longirostris

Clapper Rail Present 

in Park

Common Breeder Native

Quiscalus 

quiscula

Common 

Grackle

Present 

in Park

Common Breeder Native

Columbina 

passerine

Common 

Ground-Dove

Present 

in Park

Common Breeder Native Yes G5 SNR

Gavia immer Common 

Loon

Present 

in Park

Occasional Migratory Native Yes G5 SNRN

Mergus 

merganser

Common 

Merganser

Present 

in Park

Uncommon Migratory Native
258

Scientific Name

Common 

Name(s)

Park 

Status Abundance Residency Nativity

FL

SGCN

PIF 

priority

species

Audubon

watchlist

Global

Rank

State

Rank

Federal

Status

State

Status

Gallinula 

chloropus

Common 

Moorhen

Present 

in Park

Common Breeder Native

Chordeiles 

minor

Common 

Nighthawk

Present 

in Park

Uncommon Breeder Native

Sterna hirundo Common 

Tern

Present 

in Park

Uncommon Resident Native

Geothlypis 

trichas

Common 

Yellowthroat

Present 

in Park

Common Breeder Native

Accipiter 

cooperii

Cooper's 

Hawk

Present 

in Park

Rare Resident Native

Junco hyemalis Dark-eyed 

Junco

Present 

in Park

Common Breeder Native

Phalacrocorax 

auritus

Double-

crested 

Cormorant

Present 

in Park

Abundant Resident Native

Picoides 

pubescens

Downy 

Woodpecker

Present 

in Park

Abundant Breeder Native

Calidris alpine Dunlin Present 

in Park

Common Resident Native

Sialia sialis Eastern 

Bluebird

Present 

in Park

Rare Resident Native

Tyrannus 

tyrannus

Eastern 

Kingbird

Present 

in Park

Common Breeder Native

Sturnella magna Eastern 

Meadowlark

Present 

in Park

Uncommon Resident Native Yes G5 SNR

Sayornis phoebe Eastern 

Phoebe

Present 

in Park

Common Breeder Native

Megascops asio Eastern 

Screech-Owl

Present 

in Park

Uncommon Breeder Native

Pipilo 

erythrophthalmu s

Eastern 

Towhee

Present 

in Park

Common Unknown Native

Contopus virens Eastern 

Wood-Pewee

Present 

in Park

Uncommon Resident Native

Sturnus vulgaris European 

Starling

Present 

in Park

Common Breeder Non-

Native

Spizella pusilla Field Probably n/a n/a Native
259

Scientific Name

Common 

Name(s)

Park 

Status Abundance Residency Nativity

FL

SGCN

PIF 

priority

species

Audubon

watchlist

Global

Rank

State

Rank

Federal

Status

State

Status

Sparrow Present

Corvus 

ossifragus

Fish Crow Present 

in Park

Common Resident Native

Sterna forsteri Forster's Tern Present 

in Park

Uncommon Resident Native

Dumetella 

carolinensis

Gray Catbird Present 

in Park

Uncommon Resident Native

Tyrannus 

dominicensis

Gray 

Kingbird

Present 

in Park

Common Breeder Native Yes G5 SNR

B

Larus marinus Great Blackbacked GullPresent 

in Park

Occasional Resident Native

Ardea Herodias Great Blue 

Heron

Present 

in Park

Abundant Resident Native

Myiarchus 

crinitus

Great Crested 

Flycatcher

Present 

in Park

Common Breeder Native

Ardea alba Great Egret Present 

in Park

Common Resident Native

Bubo 

virginianus

Great Horned 

Owl

Present 

in Park

Common Breeder Native

Tringa 

melanoleuca

Greater 

Yellowlegs

Present 

in Park

Occasional Unknown Native

Butorides 

virescens

Green Heron Present 

in Park

Uncommon Resident Native

Sterna nilotica Gull-billed 

Tern

Present 

in Park

Occasional Resident Native Yes G5 S2

Larus argentatus Herring Gull Present 

in Park

Common Resident Native

Lophodytes 

cucullatus

Hooded 

Merganser

Present 

in Park

Uncommon Migratory Native

Wilsonia citrine Hooded 

Warbler

Probably 

Present

n/a n/a Native Yes G5 SNR

B

Podiceps auritus Horned 

Grebe

Present 

in Park

Occasional Migratory Native Yes G5 SNR

N

Passer 

domesticus

House 

Sparrow

Present 

in Park

Common Unknown NonNative

Troglodytes 

aedon

House Wren Present 

in Park

Common Breeder Native
260

Scientific Name

Common 

Name(s)

Park 

Status Abundance Residency Nativity

FL

SGCN

PIF 

priority

species

Audubon

watchlist

Global

Rank

State

Rank

Federal

Status

State

Status

Charadrius 

vociferous

Killdeer Present 

in Park

Uncommon Resident Native

Larus atricilla Laughing 

Gull

Present 

in Park

Abundant Resident Native

Calidris 

minutilla

Least 

Sandpiper

Probably 

Present

n/a n/a Native

Sterna 

antillarum

Least Tern Present 

in Park

Common Breeder Native Yes G4 S2

Tringa flavipes Lesser 

Yellowlegs

Present 

in Park

Rare Unknown Native

Aramus 

guarauna

Limpkin Present 

in Park

Rare Resident Native Yes G5 S3 SSC 

(1)

Egretta caerulea Little Blue 

Heron

Present 

in Park

Common Resident Native Yes G5 S4 SSC 

(1,4)

Lanius 

ludovicianus

Loggerhead 

Shrike

Present 

in Park

Rare Resident Native Yes G4 SNR

Limnodromus 

scolopaceus

Long-billed 

Dowitcher

Present 

in Park

Occasional Unknown Native

Fregata 

magnificens

Magnificent 

Frigatebird

Present 

in Park

Occasional Unknown Native Yes G5 S1

Dendroica 

magnolia

Magnolia

Warbler

Present 

in Park

Uncommon Resident Native

Anas 

platyrhynchos

Mallard Present 

in Park

Rare Migratory Native

Scolopax minor Marbled 

Godwit

Probably 

Present

n/a n/a Native Yes G5 SNRN

Cistothorus 

palustris

Marsh Wren Present 

in Park

Occasional Unknown Native

Falco 

columbarius

Merlin Present 

in Park

Occasional Unknown Native Yes G5 S2

Zenaida 

macroura

Mourning 

Dove

Present 

in Park

Common Breeder Native

Colinus 

virginianus

Northern 

Bobwhite

Present 

in Park

Common Breeder Native Yes G5 SNR

Cardinalis 

cardinalis

Northern 

Cardinal

Present 

in Park

Abundant Breeder Native
261

Scientific Name

Common 

Name(s)

Park 

Status Abundance Residency Nativity

FL

SGCN

PIF 

priority

species

Audubon

watchlist

Global

Rank

State

Rank

Federal

Status

State

Status

Colaptes auratus Northern 

Flicker

Present 

in Park

Common Breeder Native Yes G5 SNR

Morus bassanus Northern 

Gannet

Present 

in Park

Common Resident Native

Circus cyaneus Northern 

Harrier

Present 

in Park

Common Resident Native

Mimus 

polyglottos

Northern 

Mockingbird

Present 

in Park

Abundant Breeder Native

Parula 

Americana

Northern 

Parula

Present 

in Park

Uncommon Resident Native

Stelgidopteryx 

serripennis

Northern 

Rough-

winged 

Swallow

Probably 

Present

n/a n/a Native

Vermivora 

celata

Orange-

crowned 

Warbler

Probably 

Present

n/a n/a Native

Icterus spurious Orchard 

Oriole

Present 

in Park

Rare Migratory Native

Pandion 

haliaetus

Osprey Present 

in Park

Abundant Resident Native SSC

2

(1,2)

Seiurus 

aurocapillus

Ovenbird Probably 

Present

n/a n/a Native

Passerina ciris Painted 

Bunting

Probably 

Present

n/a n/a Native Yes G5 S3

Dendroica 

palmarum

Palm Warbler Probably 

Present

n/a n/a Native

Falco peregrines Peregrine 

Falcon

Present 

in Park

Occasional Unknown Native Yes G4 S2E

Podilymbus 

podiceps

Pied-billed 

Grebe

Present 

in Park

Rare Migratory Native

Dryocopus 

pileatus

Pileated 

Woodpecker

Present 

in Park

Occasional Resident Native

Charadrius 

melodus

Piping Plover Present 

in Park

Rare Resident Native Yes G3 S3TT

Dendroica 

discolor

Prairie 

Warbler

Present 

in Park

Uncommon Resident Native
262

Scientific Name

Common 

Name(s)

Park 

Status Abundance Residency Nativity

FL

SGCN

PIF 

priority

species

Audubon

watchlist

Global

Rank

State

Rank

Federal

Status

State

Status

Calidris canutus Red Knot Present 

in Park

Unknown Unknown Native Yes G4 SNRN

Melanerpes 

carolinus

Red-bellied 

Woodpecker

Present 

in Park

Common Breeder Native

Mergus serrator Red-breasted 

Merganser

Present 

in Park

Unknown Unknown Native

Egretta 

rufescens

Reddish 

Egret

Present 

in Park

Occasional Unknown Native Yes Yes G4 S2 SSC 

(1,4)

Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed 

Vireo

Present 

in Park

Uncommon Migratory Native

Melanerpes 

erythrocephalus

Red-headed 

Woodpecker

Present 

in Park

Rare Resident Native Yes G5 SNR

Buteo lineatus Red-

shouldered 

Hawk

Present 

in Park

Uncommon Unknown Native

Buteo 

jamaicensis

Red-tailed 

Hawk

Present 

in Park

Unknown Unknown Native

Agelaius 

phoeniceus

Red-winged 

Blackbird

Present 

in Park

Common Resident Native

Larus 

delawarensis

Ring-billed 

Gull

Present 

in Park

Abundant Resident Native

Streptopelia 

risoria

Ringed 

Turtle-Dove

Present 

in Park

Occasional Resident Non-

Native

Columba livia Rock Dove Present 

in Park

Uncommon Resident Non-

Native

Ajaia ajaja Roseate 

Spoonbill

Present 

in Park

Common Resident Native Yes G5 S2 SSC 

(1,4)

Pheucticus 

ludovicianus

Rose-breasted 

Grosbeak

Present 

in Park

Occasional Unknown Native

Sterna maxima Royal Tern Present 

in Park

Common Resident Native Yes G5 S3

Regulus 

calendula

Ruby-

crowned 

Kinglet

Present 

in Park

Uncommon Unknown Native

Archilochus 

colubris

Ruby-

throated 

Present 

in Park

Common Breeder Native
263

Scientific Name

Common 

Name(s)

Park 

Status Abundance Residency Nativity

FL

SGCN

PIF 

priority

species

Audubon

watchlist

Global

Rank

State

Rank

Federal

Status

State

Status

Hummingbird

Arenaria 

interpres

Ruddy 

Turnstone

Present 

in Park

Common Resident Native

Ammodramus 

savannarum

Saltmarsh 

Sharp-tailed 

Sparrow

Present 

in Park

Occasional Resident Native

Calidris alba Sanderling Present 

in Park

Abundant Resident Native Yes Yes G5 SNR

N 

Sterna 

sandvicensis

Sandwich 

Tern

Present 

in Park

Occasional Migratory Native Yes G5 S2

Piranga olivacea Scarlet 

Tanager

Present 

in Park

Occasional Unknown Native

Cistothorus 

platensis

Sedge Wren Probably 

Present

n/a n/a Native

Charadrius 

semipalmatus

Semipalmate

d Plover

Present 

in Park

Common Breeder Native

Calidris pusilla Semipalmate

d Sandpiper

Present 

in Park

Uncommon Unknown Native Yes G5 SNR M

Limnodromus 

griseus

Short-billed 

Dowitcher

Present 

in Park

Rare Unknown Native

Egretta thula Snowy Egret Present 

in Park

Abundant Resident Native Yes G5 S3 SSC 

(1)

Tringa solitaria Solitary 

Sandpiper

Present 

in Park

Occasional Unknown Native

Vireo solitaries Solitary 

Vireo

Present 

in Park

Rare Migratory Native

Melospiza 

melodia

Song 

Sparrow

Present 

in Park

Common Migratory Native

Actitis 

macularia

Spotted 

Sandpiper

Present 

in Park

Common Resident Native

Calidris 

himantopus

Stilt 

Sandpiper

Present 

in Park

Occasional Unknown Native

Piranga rubra Summer 

Tanager

Present 

in Park

Rare Unknown Native

Elanoides 

forficatus

Swallow-

tailed Kite

Present 

in Park

Occasional Resident Native Yes G5 S2
264

Scientific Name

Common 

Name(s)

Park 

Status Abundance Residency Nativity

FL

SGCN

PIF 

priority

species

Audubon

watchlist

Global

Rank

State

Rank

Federal

Status

State

Status

Melospiza 

Georgiana

Swamp 

Sparrow

Present 

in Park

Uncommon Migratory Native

Tachycineta 

bicolor

Tree Swallow Present 

in Park

Common Migratory Native

Egretta tricolor Tricolored 

Heron

Present 

in Park

Occasional Unknown Native Yes G5 S4 SSC 

(1,4)

Parus bicolor Tufted 

Titmouse

Present 

in Park

Uncommon Resident Native

Cathartes aura Turkey 

Vulture

Present 

in Park

Abundant Resident Native

Rallus limicola Virginia Rail Present 

in Park

Rare Resident Native

Calidris mauri Western 

Sandpiper

Present 

in Park

Common Resident Native Yes G5 SNRN

Caprimulgus 

vociferous

Whip-poor-

will

Present 

in Park

Rare Breeder Native

Eudocimus 

albus

White Ibis Present 

in Park

Common Resident Native Yes G5 S4 SSC 

(2)

Vireo griseus White-eyed 

Vireo

Present 

in Park

Uncommon Migratory Native

Zonotrichia 

albicollis

White-

throated 

Sparrow

Probably 

Present

n/a n/a Native

Catoptrophorus 

semipalmatus

Willet Present 

in Park

Common Breeder Native

Charadrius 

wilsonia

Wilson's 

Plover

Present 

in Park

Common Breeder Native Yes Yes G5 S2

Mycteria 

Americana

Wood Stork Present 

in Park

Common Resident Native Yes G4 S2EE

Hylocichla 

mustelina

Wood Thrush Present 

in Park

Rare Resident Native Yes Yes G5 SNRB

Sphyrapicus 

varius

Yellow-

bellied 

Sapsucker

Present 

in Park

Rare Resident Native

Coccyzus 

americanus

Yellow-billed 

Cuckoo

Present 

in Park

Common Resident Native
265

Scientific Name

Common 

Name(s)

Park 

Status Abundance Residency Nativity

FL

SGCN

PIF 

priority

species

Audubon

watchlist

Global

Rank

State

Rank

Federal

Status

State

Status

Nyctanassa 

violacea

Yellowcrowned 

Night-Heron

Present 

in Park

Uncommon Resident Native Yes G5 S3

Dendroica 

coronate

Yellowrumped 

Warbler

Present 

in Park

Abundant Migratory Native

Vireo flavifrons Yellowthroated 

Vireo

Present 

in Park

Rare Migratory Native
266

Appendix P: Mammal species documented for Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. 

These species have been cross referenced to the FL Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy species of greatest conservation 

need (SGCN) (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2005b); NatureServe’s global and state rankings (NatureServe 

2008); and the FWC listings for endangered, threatened, or rare species (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2005a). 

See reference or Appendix F for explanation of abbreviations. 

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Park Status Abundance Residency Nativity

FL 

SGCN

Global

Rank

State

Rank

Federal

Status

State

Status

Felis catus domestic cat Present Rare Breeder Non-Native

Sciurus carolinensis eastern gray squirrel Present Uncommon Breeder Native G5 SNR

Procyon lotor raccoon Present Occasional Breeder Native G5 S5
267

Appendix Q: Mammal species documented for Fort Matanzas National Monument.

These species have been cross referenced to the FL Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy species of greatest conservation 

need (SGCN) (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2005b); NatureServe’s global and state rankings (NatureServe 

2008); and the FWC listings for endangered, threatened, or rare species (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2005a). 

See reference or Appendix F for explanation of abbreviations. 

Scientific Name Common Name(s) Abundance Nativity

FL

SGCN

Global

Rank

State

Rank

Federal

Status

State

Status

Odocoileus virginianus white-tailed deer Uncommon Native

Canis familiaris domestic dog (feral) Occasional Non-Native

Canis latrans Coyote Uncommon Native

Urocyon cinereoargenteus gray fox Rare Native

Felis catus domestic cat Uncommon Non-Native

Lynx rufus Bobcat Rare Native

Lontra Canadensis river otter Occasional Native Yes G5 SNR

Mustela vison American mink, mink Common Native Yes G5 S5

Procyon lotor Raccoon Common Native

Tursiops truncates bottlenose dolphin Common Native Yes G5 SNR

Didelphis virginiana Virginia opossum Common Native

Scalopus aquaticus eastern mole Common Native

Sylvilagus palustris marsh rabbit Common Native

Mus musculus house mouse Unknown Non-Native

Oryzomys palustris marsh rice rat Uncommon Native

Peromyscus gossypinus cotton mouse Unknown Native

Peromyscus polionotus 

phasma

Anastasia Island beach mouse Common Native Yes G5T1 S1 E E

Rattus rattus black rat Unknown Non-Native

Sigmodon hispidus hispid cotton rat Unknown Native

Sciurus carolinensis eastern gray squirrel Uncommon Native

Trichechus manatus Antillean manatee, Caribbean 

manatee, Florida manatee

Uncommon Native Yes G2 S2 E E

Dasypus novemcinctus long-nosed armadillo, ninebanded armadilloUncommon Native

The Department of the Interior protects and manages the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and 

other information about those resources; and honors its special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and 

affiliated Island Communities.

NPS 343/113812, 347/113812, April 2012
National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science

1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 150

Fort Collins, CO 80525

www.nature.nps.gov

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA TM