Florida Bay Salinity and Everglades

Wetlands Hydrology circa 1900 CE: 

A Compilation of Paleoecology-Based

Statistical Modeling Analyses

By F.E. Marshall and G.L. Wingard

Open-File Report 2012–1054

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Florida Bay Salinity and Everglades Wetlands 

Hydrology circa 1900 CE: 

A Compilation of Paleoecology-Based Statistical 

Modeling Analyses

By F.E. Marshall and G.L. Wingard

Open-File Report 2012–1054

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2012

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth,

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit 

http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications,

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov

Suggested citation:

Marshall, F.E., and Wingard, G.L., 2012, Florida Bay salinity and Everglades wetlands 

hydrology circa 1900 CE: A compilation of paleoecology-based statistical modeling 

analyses: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012–1054, 32 p., available only 

online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2012/1054. 

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not 

imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the 

individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this 

report.
iii

Contents

Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................... 2

Study Area and Data ..................................................................................................................................... 2

Methods......................................................................................................................................................... 5

Phase I – Develop the Paleosalinity Time Series....................................................................................... 5

Phase II – Develop the System of Hydrology and Salinity Regression Models.......................................... 8

Phase III – Link Paleosalinity Time Series to System of Hydrology and Salinity Models to Produce 

Paleoecology-Based Stage, Flow, and Salinity.......................................................................................... 9

Results........................................................................................................................................................... 9

Summary and Future Efforts........................................................................................................................ 10

Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................................... 11

References Cited......................................................................................................................................... 11

Figures

1. Map howing locations of stations, cores, and FATHOM basins, south Florida ................................ 4

2. Flowchart of steps in paleoecologic and statistical analyse .............................................................. 6

Tables

1. Sediment core locations, sample data, and associated salinity monitoring stations ....................... 15

2. Stage station locations and information included in analyses......................................................... 16

3. Flow station locations and information included in analyses........................................................... 17

4. ENP Marine Monitoring Network (MMN) stations and daily salinity data included in analyses ....... 18

5. FIU/SFWMD Florida Bay stations and associated monthly salinity data included in analyses ....... 19

6. Comparison of observed salinity, model-derived salinity, and paleosalinity estimates ................... 20

7. Summary statistics for observed and model-produced daily stage, flow, and salinity..................... 21

8. Summary statistics for observed and model-produced monthly stage, flow, and salinity................ 26

9. Comparison of spatially-averaged salinity differences (paleo-obs) across FATHOM regions......... 32

Appendix 

Molluscan data used to calculate paleosalinity estimates from Florida Bay cores....................In separate file
1 

Florida Bay Salinity and Everglades Wetlands 

Hydrology circa 1900 CE:

A Compilation of Paleoecology-Based Statistical 

Modeling Analyses

By F.E. Marshall1 and G.L. Wingard2 

1 Cetacean Logic Foundation, New Smyrna Beach, Fla.

2 U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Va.

Abstract

Throughout the 20th century, the Greater Everglades Ecosystem of south Florida was 

greatly altered by human activities. Construction of water-control structures and facilities altered 

the natural hydrologic patterns of the south Florida region and consequently impacted the coastal 

ecosystem. Restoration of the Greater Everglades Ecosystem is guided by the Comprehensive 

Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), which is attempting to reverse some of the impacts of 

water management. In order to achieve this goal, it is essential to understand the predevelopment 

conditions (circa 1900 Common Era, CE) of the natural system, including the estuaries. The 

purpose of this report is to use empirical data derived from analyses of estuarine sediment cores 

and observations of modern hydrologic and salinity conditions to provide information on the 

natural system circa 1900 CE. A three-phase approach, developed in 2009, couples paleosalinity 

estimates derived from sediment cores to upstream hydrology using statistical models prepared 

from existing monitoring data. Results presented here update and improve previous analyses. A 

statistical method of estimating the paleosalinity from the core information improves the 

previous assemblage analyses, and the system of linear regression models was significantly 

upgraded and expanded. 

The upgraded method of coupled paleosalinity and hydrologic models was applied to the 

analysis of the circa-1900 CE segments of five estuarine sediment cores collected in Florida Bay. 

Comparisons of the observed mean stage (water level) data to the paleoecology-based model’s

averaged output show that the estimated stage in the Everglades wetlands was 0.3 to 1.6 feet

higher at different locations. Observed mean flow data compared to the paleoecology-based 

model output show an estimated flow into Shark River Slough at Tamiami Trail of 401 to 2,539 

cubic feet per second (cfs) higher than existing flows, and at Taylor Slough Bridge an estimated 

flow of 48 to 218 cfs above existing flows. For salinity in Florida Bay, the difference between 

paleoecology-based and observed mean salinity varies across the bay, from an aggregated 

average salinity of 14.7 less than existing in the northeastern basin to 1.0 less than existing in the 

western basin near the transition into the Gulf of Mexico. When the salinity differences are 

compared by region, the difference between paleoecology-based conditions and existing 

conditions are spatially consistent. 
2 

Introduction

The Greater Everglades Ecosystem of south Florida includes Everglades National Park 

(ENP), which has been recognized worldwide for its unique characteristics and species. ENP has 

been designated an International Biosphere Reserve, a World Heritage Site, and a Wetland of 

International Importance (Davis and Ogden, 1994). This unique ecosystem has been impacted by

water management practices in south Florida. Drainage projects for flood control and land 

reclamation beginning around the start of the 20th century altered the natural hydrologic and 

salinity patterns and negatively impacted the biota (Davis and others, 2005; McIvor and others, 

1994; Ogden and others, 2005; Sklar and others, 2005; Willard and others, 2006). The reduction 

in freshwater stored upstream has caused the saltwater-freshwater transition zone to migrate 

landward (Parker and others, 1955). In the estuaries, particularly Florida Bay, average salinities

have increased measurably, and this increase has been attributed to this reduction in freshwater 

flow (McIvor and others, 1994; Rudnick and others, 2005). 

Restoration of the Greater Everglades Ecosystem was authorized by Congress in the 

Water Resources Development Act of 2000 and is guided by the Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan (CERP) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1999, 2000). The CERP was

developed to address, in part, the issues surrounding current water management in south Florida. 

The primary CERP goal is to restore the timing, quantity, quality, and distribution of freshwater 

to the remaining parts of the original ecosystem so that they approximate the predevelopment 

conditions as closely as possible. If successful, the restored result will be flow and stage (water 

level) in the wetlands and a salinity regime in Florida Bay similar to a natural Greater Everglades 

Ecosystem. The Southern Coastal System Subteam (a CERP multiagency group) is tasked with 

developing performance measures and targets for restoration of the southern estuaries, including 

Florida Bay, and it has identified salinity as “the most important physical parameter in 

determining species and community composition in south Florida’s coastal waters.” (See 

http://www.evergladesplan.org.) 

To focus on the need to develop restoration performance measures and targets based on 

the natural system hydrology and salinity, a method was developed to couple paleoecologic data 

with linear regression models derived from current system hydrology (Marshall and others, 

2009). Since 2009, the method of deriving the paleosalinity estimates has been improved and the 

system of hydrologic models has been upgraded and enhanced. This report presents the results of 

a reexamination of the single core discussed in Marshall and others (2009) and an additional four 

sediment cores collected in Florida Bay using the improved methods. 

Study Area and Data

The study area for this project is Everglades National Park (ENP), located at 

approximately 25o to 26o N. latitude and 80o 30’ to 81o W. longitude. Included within the area of 

study are freshwater marshes, mangrove ecotones, and the Florida Bay estuary (fig. 1). Outside 

of the boundaries of ENP, the construction of extensive drainage features began circa 1900 and 

continued into the 1970s to reclaim south Florida wetlands for agricultural and urban 

development projects. Numerous studies have shown that this alteration of the natural hydrolgy 

has negatively impacted the unique Everglades ecosystem (Davis and Ogden, 1994; Schaffranek 

and others, 2001; Davis and others, 2005; Ogden and others, 2005; Renken and others, 2005; 

Sklar and others, 2005; Willard and others, 2006; Willard and Bernhardt, 2011). 
3 

Three types of data are utilized in the estimation of historical hydrologic and salinity 

conditions in the Everglades ecosystem. 

1. Paleoecologic data – These data are obtained from sediment cores collected by the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) from locations in Florida Bay. Over 20 sediment cores have been 

collected in Florida Bay by the USGS since 1994 (Wingard and others, 2007) and from these, 

5 were selected for the analyses: Crocodile Point, Rankin Lake, Russell Bank, Taylor T24, 

and Whipray Basin (fig. 1A; table 1). All paleoecologic data related to the project can be 

found at http://sofia.usgs.gov/exchange/flaecohist/. 

2. Hydrologic monitoring station data – A number of long-term hydrologic monitoring stations 

have been established in the Everglades freshwater marshes and the mangrove transition 

zone. The stage data are collected by ENP and reported to the South Florida Water 

Management District (SFWMD) (fig. 1A; table 2). Three of the stage stations – CP 

(Craighead Pond), P33, and TSBstage (stage monitoring station where the Taylor Slough 

Bridge flow is monitored) – are considered to be “primary” stage stations because of their 

importance in simulating hydrologic conditions in the freshwater marshes as well as the 

salinity in Florida Bay.

 For this project, upstream freshwater flows into the Everglades wetlands are measured (1) 

along Tamiami Trail (all data collected by SFWMD) and (2) at the headwaters of Taylor 

Slough at the ENP Bridge (collected by ENP and reported to SFWMD). The Shark River 

Slough (SRS) flow value represents a water budget calculated from six stations along 

Tamiami Trail (the northern border of the ENP) as follows: SRS = [(S12A +S12B + S12C + 

S12D) + S333 - S334]. These stage and flow data are available on the SFWMD DBHYDRO 

data portal (http://www.sfwmd.gov/org/ema/dbhydro/index.html). Downstream flow data for 

the mangrove creeks flowing into northeast and central Florida Bay are collected by the 

USGS and are available on the South Florida Information Access (SOFIA) Web site 

(http://sofia.usgs.gov/). Flow monitoring station locations are shown on figure 1A and 

presented in table 3.

3. Salinity monitoring station data – A number of long-term salinity monitoring stations have 

been established in Florida Bay. Data collected by two programs are used for the 

paleoecology-based evaluations. The first is the ENP Marine Monitoring Network (MMN), 

which has 15 fixed-structure salinity monitoring stations in Florida Bay (table 4; fig. 1A). 

Data at these stations are collected at 10-minute increments and have been averaged to daily

values for the purposes of model development. Details about these data can be found in 

Everglades National Park (1997a, b) and Smith (1997, 1998, 1999, 2001), and the data are

available from South Florida Natural Resources Center (SFNRC) by request 

(EVER_data_request@nps.gov).

 A second long-term salinity dataset for Florida Bay is the South Florida Coastal Water 

Quality Monitoring Network. The network was initiated in 1993 by the Southeast 

Environmental Research Center at Florida International University (FIU) (fig. 1B; table 5) 

(Jones and Boyer, 2001). These data are monthly grab samples from specific locations in the 

bay that are analyzed for a variety of water quality constituents, including salinity. Beginning 

with fiscal year 2010, the monitoring network was assumed by SFWMD, and the number of 

monitoring sites within the network was reduced (D. Rudnick, SFWMD, oral commun., 

2010); these data are referred to herein as the FIU/SFWMD data. 
4 

Figure 1. A. Map of Everglades National Park (ENP) showing the location of the daily ENP Marine 

Monitoring Network salinity stations, the USGS core locations in Florida Bay, and the ENP and South 

Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) stage and flow monitoring stations in the Everglades 

wetlands. B. Map of Florida Bay showing the location of the monthly Florida International University 

(FIU)/SFWMD stations and the aggregated FATHOM basins (Briceño and Boyer, 2010). 
5 

Note that the Practical Salinity Scale is used throughout this report, and therefore salinity has 

no units (UNESCO, 1985). One Practical Salinity Unit (psu) is approximately the same as 

one part per thousand (ppt). 

Data (salinity plus other water quality components) from the South Florida Coastal Water 

Quality Monitoring Network were used for a principal components analysis of Florida Bay 

(Briceño and Boyer, 2010) that subdivided the bay into five regions. These regions are based on 

the aggregated basins from the FATHOM mass balance model developed by Cosby and others 

(2010) (fig. 1B). The individual ENP MMN stations and the FATHOM regions are used in the 

development of the salinity targets and performance measures for the Southern Coastal Systems 

Subteam of RECOVER (REstoration COordination and VERification) and therefore are 

important considerations in the analyses discussed in this report. 

Methods

Each of the five sediment cores was analyzed using a three-phase approach (fig. 2). The 

methodology was originally developed using the Whipray Basin sediment core, and the details 

are presented in Marshall and others (2009). The initial analyses for each of the five cores 

discussed herein were conducted using semiquantitative paleosalinity assessments, limited data 

for hydrology and salinity model development, and preliminary statistical models to couple the 

paleosalinity estimates based on faunal assemblage analysis with regression models (Marshall 

and others, 2009; Marshall, 2010a, b). For this report, the databases used for model development 

were updated and the period of record extended. In addition, a more complex statistical method 

was employed for the faunal paleosalinity estimates. These updates and improvements are 

described below. 

Phase I – Develop the Paleosalinity Time Series

Five cores were selected for the paleosalinity analysis from the subset of cores available

(fig. 1A; table 1). The criteria for selection were (1) location near a salinity monitoring station; 

(2) a reliable age model (ideally based on lead-210, pollen, and carbon-14; Whipray Basin core 

is the exception with no pollen analysis); and (3) statistically significant molluscan fauna present 

in the circa-1900 CE segment of the core (ideal >100 individuals). The age models (Wingard and

others, 2007) were used to identify the core segments representing the circa-1900 CE time 

period, and the paleosalinity estimates for these portions of the core were extracted for use with 

the linear regression models. 

The first step in Phase I is to obtain paleoecologic data from the core segments 

representing circa 1900 CE (fig. 2). The initial sediment core analyses relied on a 

semiquantitative assessment of the salinity regimes represented by the molluscan fauna present 

in each core segment (see Marshall and others, 2009, for example). In areas such as Florida Bay, 

however, where most species are euryhaline, this method often produces a general “polyhaline 

assemblage” assessment – the common salinity regime of overlap for the wide-ranging species. 

This method is not useful in distinguishing subtle differences in salinity regimes between sites. 

To overcome this problem, a statistical method, based on the modern analog approach (Hutson, 

1979), was developed and used on the five cores discussed in this report. 
6 

Figure 2. Flowchart indicating the steps involved in coupling the paleoecological data from a single 

core (Phase I) to the regression models (RMs) (Phase II) to produce estimates of flow, stage, and 

salinity conditions (Phase III) prior to disturbance of the natural drainage in the Greater Everglades 

Ecosystem. These steps are repeated for each core analyzed. The primary stage stations referred to 

below are CP, P33, and TSBstage. The outputs are daily averages for the Rankin Lake (RL), Taylor 

T24, and Whipray Basin (WB) cores, and monthly averages for the Crocodile Point (CPt) and Russell 

Bank (RB) cores, as determined by the salinity monitoring station associated with each core (see table 

1). CWP, cumulative weighted percent; NSM, Natural System Model; MLR, multiple variable linear 

regression. 
7 

Details of the method (referred to as the cumulative weighted percent, or CWP) and a test 

of its ability to accurately predict salinity are presented in Wingard and Hudley (2011) and 

summarized here. After cores are collected they are cut into 2-centimeter (cm) increments, and 

individual increments are analyzed for their molluscan faunal content. The preservational state of 

the faunal remains is characterized, and the worn and fragmented specimens are excluded from 

the analyses. The molluscan fauna in the core samples are then compared to the modern mollusk 

dataset, which includes records of the occurrence and observed salinities of living mollusks in 

the south Florida estuaries (appendix; see also Wingard and Hudley (2011) for summary data, or 

http://sofia.usgs.gov/exchange/flaecohist/ for raw data). The modern data are divided into two 

sets – the CONFID and the FULL. The CONFID dataset contains species with 10 or more 

salinity observations and a 95 percent confidence interval of <5 salinity units ± the mean 

salinity; whereas FULL includes any taxa for which we have salinity data. The average salinity 

from the FULL and (or) CONFID dataset for each species in a core sample is multiplied by the 

percent abundance of the species (adjusted to 100 percent when the no-modern-analog data are 

excluded), these values are summed for all the species in a sample interval, and the resulting 

value divided by 100 to produce an average salinity estimate for that interval of the core 

(appendix; steps are illustrated in Wingard and Hudley, 2011, fig. 2). 

An optional additional step in the CWP is to add species weighting factors to the species 

in the CONFID dataset, based on observations and descriptive statistics of species preferences. 

The goal is to refine the data on estuarine species that have the ability to tolerate a wide range of 

salinities. Two separate sets of species weights were developed – nearshore and basin (Wingard 

and Hudley, 2011). The weighting factors enter the calculations for the CONFID dataset at the 

step where the average salinity value for each species is multiplied by its adjusted percent 

abundance. The data for each species in each sample are again summed and divided by 100 and 

result in the SW-CWP – the species weighted salinity estimate. These variations create four 

possible combinations of CWP average salinity estimates that can be used as output to the linear 

regression models: CWP FULL, CWP CONFID, SW-CWP Nearshore, and SW-CWP Basin

(appendix). 

The suite of four mean CWP and SW-CWP estimates was calculated for the circa-1900 

CE interval in each core (table 6). Only the CWP CONFID, however, was used as output to the 

linear regression models because we have higher confidence in salinity estimates associated with 

the CONFID versus FULL modern dataset (Wingard and Hudley, 2011). In addition, using the 

SW-CWP requires a greater number of assumptions be made about which weighting factor to 

apply. We feel the CWP CONFID represents a less manipulated, more conservative estimate of 

the paleosalinity. 

Step 2 in Phase I develops a paleosalinity time series for the salinity monitoring station

located nearest to each sediment core (fig. 2). The time series are derived from multiple variable 

linear regression (MLR) models (Marshall and others, 2011) using hydrologic data from the 

SFWMD Natural System Model (NSM), in combination with existing wind and Key West sea 

surface elevation data for 1965-2000 as model input. The NSM/MLR salinity values are adjusted 

using the CWP CONFID mean paleosalinity estimates from each core. For the MMN or 

FIU/SFWMD station associated with each core, equal bias is incorporated into each value of the 

1965 to 2000 NSM/MLR time series such that the average NSM/MLR salinity is the same as the 

average paleosalinity estimates (table 6). Equal bias adjustment means that the same value is 

added to or subtracted from each salinity value from the NSM/MLR salinity time series (table 6, 

last column). This provides a simulated day-to-day salinity variability to the paleosalinity 
8 

average estimates at stations associated with the Whipray Basin, Rankin Lake, and Taylor T24 

cores or monthly salinity variability at stations associated with the Russell Bank and Crocodile 

Point cores. For the Russell Bank analysis the adjusted NSM/MLR time series was modified 

further by linear interpolation using the distance of the sediment core site from the 

FIU/SFWMD22 and FIU/SFWMD23 monitoring stations. 

The underlying assumption in the use of the NSM model hydrologic output and observed 

wind and sea surface elevation data of 1965-2000 is that the regional climate associated with the 

hydrology and salinity during the circa-1900 period was similar to the climate of 1965-2000; 

therefore the natural (unmanaged) hydrology and salinity conditions should be similar to the 

circa-1900 hydrology and salinity. The long-term regional precipitation data in the upper 

watershed of the Everglades (NCDC Division 4) indicate that precipitation patterns were similar 

for the periods 1895-1950 and 1960-2000 (Enfield and others, 2001; Basso and Shultz, 2003). 

Analysis of plots of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) showed that the AMO 

conditions for 1965-2000 were also similar to the AMO conditions for the approximately 30-year 

period beginning around 1900 (Enfield and others, 2001; Obeysekera and others, 2006).

Phase II – Develop the System of Hydrology and Salinity Regression Models

In the second phase of the methodology, systems of regression models are developed 

from observed hydrololgy and salinity data for use with each sediment core analysis (fig. 2). 

There are four sets of simple and multiple linear regression models that link paleosalinity 

estimates to the upstream hydrology (stage and flow) and salinity at other stations throughout 

Florida Bay: stage-to-salinity, stage-to-flow, stage-to-stage, and salinity-to-salinity models (fig. 

2, steps 3 and 4). 

The stage-to-salinity regression models that are inversed are unique to each sediment core 

evaluation; hence there are five different stage-to-salinity models for the primary stage stations. 

For the upgraded stage-to-salinity models (step 3, fig. 2), the trend in the observed salinity data 

(tables 4 and 5) used for model development was statistically significant and was therefore 

included in the upgraded models (table 2 for stage). Because the inversed stage-to-salinity 

models are the first models in the linked modeling system, accounting for the salinity trend in 

this manner incorporates into the model the effects of sea level rise as well as any other trend in 

in the salinity data. 

The stage-to-flow models are common to all evaluations (step 4A, fig. 2). For stage-toflow relationships, new multiple linear regression models were developed for Shark River 

Slough at Tamiami Trail (SRS), Taylor Slough at Taylor Slough Bridge (TSB), and monitored 

tidal creeks in the mangrove fringe of north Florida Bay using the observed stage values at CP, 

P33, and TSB. For the new stage-to-flow models, stage values were averaged to monthly values, 

then squared as an independent variable transformation resulting in a significant improvement in 

model goodness-of-fit. Squared, cubed, and fourth-power stage variables were evaluated for use 

in the flow models along with linear stage terms and the linear trend. The stage-to-flow models 

that included squared independent variable stage terms provided the highest R2 and the least 

amount of error (over- or under-estimation) of simulated high and low flow values for 

calibration/verification runs. The transformed (squared) stage values were then used with lagged 

(previous month) and unlagged (same month), nontransformed stage values to develop the 

updated MLR flow models. Coefficents in the flow regession models remained linear, 

maintaining the linear regression structure of the multiple variable model. 
9 

Stage-to-stage models also are common to all evaluations (step 4B, fig. 2). They are 

simple linear regression models between the three primary stage stations (CP, P33, and 

TSBstage) and other stage stations in the freshwater marsh and mangrove fringe. These models 

are common to all five core evaluations and remain unchanged from the original core 

evaluations. 

Similar to the set of stage-to-salinity models (step 3, fig. 2), the set of salinity-to-salinity 

models also is unique to each sediment core evaluation (step 4C, fig. 2). This means that 

different sets of salinity-to-salinity models were developed for each core analysis. For Whipray 

Basin, Rankin Lake, and Taylor T24 core sites, 15 models were developed using MMN daily 

salinity station data (table 4), and for Russell Bank and Crocodile Point core sites, 21 models 

were developed using the FIU/SFWMD monthly salinity station data (table 5). 

Phase III – Link Paleosalinity Time Series to System of Hydrology and Salinity Models to 

Produce Paleoecology-Based Stage, Flow, and Salinity 

For Phase III, the paleoecology-based salinity time series values developed in Phase I for 

each of the five sediment core analyses were input to the system of models developed in Phase II 

(fig. 2). This produces spatially comprehensive time-series estimates of paleoecology-based 

stage and flow in the Everglades wetlands and salinity throughout Florida Bay. The specific 

model-based outputs are as follows: 

1. Daily and monthly mean stage at CP, P33, and TSBstage, and daily stage at all other stage 

stations (tables 7 and 8); 

2. Monthly average flow at all flow stations (table 8); 

3. Daily salinity at all MMN stations in Florida Bay for the Whipray Basin, Rankin Lake, and 

Taylor T24 cores (table 7); 

4. Monthly salinity at all FIU/SFWMD stations in Florida Bay for the Russell Bank and 

Crocodile Point cores (table 8); and 

5. Daily or monthly mean salinity averaged spatially over the MMN and FIU/SFWMD stations, 

respectively, in each FATHOM region (tables 7, 8, and 9). 

For each sediment core analysis, mean values for these outputs were compared by 

parameter and station to observed data to quantify the difference between the existing conditions 

and the paleoecology-based conditions (tables 7 and 8). 

Results

The systems of models in Phase III produce time series simulations of paleoecologybased stage, flow, and salinity. Paleoecology-based simulations are estimates of the hydrologic 

conditions needed in the Everglades freshwater marshes to produce salinity conditions in Florida 

Bay that were similar to the circa-1900 period represented by the mollusks in the analyzed core 

segments, before drainage projects were implemented in south Florida. The underlying 

assumption is that the climatic conditions of 1965-2000 were similar to the circa-1900 period, for 

which there is solid supporting evidence. 

Simple summary statistics were developed for each paleoecology-based time series of 

hydrology and salinity data, for each core evaluation. Tables 7 and 8 compare the mean and 

standard deviation for observed data and paleoecology-based hydrology and salinity model 

system output for each of the sediment core analyses, for equal length periods. There is general 
10

consistency in the mean values for each parameter though there is variation in the individual 

estimates. All paleoecology-based mean values for stage and flow parameters in tables 7 and 8 

are greater than the observed data when compared over periods of equal length. Similarly, all 

paleoecology-based mean values for salinity in tables 7 and 8 are less than the mean of the 

observed data, for equal length periods of comparison. 

When the differences between paleoecology-based parameters and observed data are 

compared for the daily analyses (table 7), the average paleoecology-based stage ranges from 0.6 

to 1.6 feet higher, with the smallest increase at EVER7 and the largest increase at TSBstage 

compared to observed data. Paleoecology-based flow increases are highest for SRS (range of 

increase: 401-2539 cfs) and Trout Creek (range of increase: 470-1460 cfs) compared to observed 

data (tables 7 and 8). The paleoecology-based flow increases for the other tidal creeks are much 

smaller, with increases ranging from about 48 – 218 cfs (tables 7 and 8). The smallest reduction 

in paleoecology-based salinity values compared to observed data (about 1-3 salinity units) is at 

the western stations, which receive the greatest influence from the open connection to the Gulf of 

Mexico (tables 7 and 8). The largest differences in the paleoecology-based values are seen at the 

nearshore embayments with Terrapin Bay (TB) averaging 11 salinity units less. 

When the differences between paleoecology-based stage and observed data for the 

monthly analyses are compared, the average increase in stage is between 0.3 and 1.2 feet (table 

8), generally less than the daily-based stage increase data in table 7. Monthly average flow 

increases are also smaller than the daily flow increases. However, average salinity decreases for 

monthly based analyses are similar to the daily based average decreases. When the average 

salinity decreases are compared after aggregation to FATHOM regions (table 9), the salinity 

decreases are similar for both daily and monthly simulations compared to observed data, except 

for the Crocodile Point simulation of the FATHOM Northeast Bay region. 

Summary and Future Efforts

In this study, five previously completed efforts coupling paleoecology and statistical 

modeling were revisited with updated methods that reduced the uncertainty in the paleoecologybased outputs and expanded the spatial domain of the model system simulations. This allowed all 

of the sediment cores to be analyzed similarly and consistently. The CWP approach for 

estimating average salinity conditions for a core segment provided a more quantitative method 

for characterizing the paleosalinity information, compared to the initial molluscan assemblage 

evaluations presented in Marshall and others (2009). Although the three-phase methodology for 

simulating paleoecology-based hydrology and salinity parameters did not change, the system of 

models within the methodology was updated, new models were developed, and the model system 

was applied uniformly across the sediment cores. While there is general consistency among the 

average values of model-generated, paleoecology-based hydrology and salinity parameters, there 

are also differences between cores. Identified sources of uncertainty include uncertainty in the 

core-based CWP paleosalinity estimates, uncertainty generated by the level of correlation 

between the data from a salinity station associated with a core and the data from hydrology or 

salinity stations that are being simulated by the model, and uncertainty in the model system 

output based on the capability of the individual models to simulate the hydrology and salinity 

parameters. 

The products of this effort are five independent estimates of paleoecology-based 

Everglades hydrology (stage and flow) and Florida Bay salinity circa 1900 CE. The next step is 

to compare the ability of each model to simulate observed conditions (goodness-of-fit) by using 
11

weighted output from the model systems. The result will produce estimates of Everglades 

freshwater stage and flow and Florida Bay salinity that combine the information obtained from 

each independent core analysis. A synthesis of the data presented here will provide the Southern 

Coastal Systems Subteam of RECOVER with empirically based information on the natural 

system hydrology, including the historical salinity patterns in Florida Bay and the associated 

hydrologic conditions in the Everglades wetlands required to produce those salinities. This 

information is an important component of setting salinity targets and performance measures for 

restoration. 

Acknowledgments 

This project was funded by the USGS Greater Everglades Priority Ecosystems Science 

(GEPES) effort, G. Ronnie Best, Coordinator. Our reviewers Tom Cronin and Bruce Wardlaw 

(USGS) improved this manuscript with their thoughtful comments. We would like to thank 

Everglades National Park for providing access to sites; this work was conducted as part of 

National Park Service (NPS) Study number EVER-00141. Dewitt Smith and Erik Stabenau 

(NPS) provided access to the hydrologic and salinity station data. Bethany Stackhouse (USGS) 

created figure 1 and assisted in proofreading the data tables. 

Numerous people have assisted in the collection and processing of the USGS cores and 

development of the modern analog dataset over the years. We would particularly like to thank 

Joel Hudley (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill) for his role in developing the cumulative 

weighted percent (CWP) technique, Jeffrey Stone (University of Nebraska, Lincoln) for his 

initial design of the Ecosystem History database, and Carleigh Trappe (former USGS contractor)

and Bethany Stackhouse for improving the original database design. Cores included here were 

collected by Charles W. Holmes, Robert Halley (retired USGS), and James Murray (USGS). 

Bethany Stackhouse, James Murray, and Carleigh Trappe assisted in the analysis of the cores. 

References Cited

Basso, Ron and Schultz, Richard, 2003, Long-term variation in rainfall and its effect on Peace 

River flow in West-Central Florida: Brooksville, FL, Southwest Florida Water Management 

District Hydrologic Evaluation Section, 33 p. (Available at 

http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/documents/reports/peace_rainfall.pdf) 

Brewster-Wingard, G.L., Ishman, S.E., Willard, D.A., Edwards, L.E., and Holmes, C.W., 1997, 

Preliminary paleontologic report on cores 19A and 19B, from Russell Bank, Everglades 

National Park, Florida Bay: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-460, 29 p. (Available 

at http://sofia.usgs.gov/publications/ofr/97-460/index.html) 

Brewster-Wingard, G.L., Stone, J.R., and Holmes, C.W., 2001, Molluscan faunal distribution in 

Florida Bay, past and present: an integration of down-core and modern data: Bulletins of 

American Paleontology, special volume, no. 361, p. 199-231. (Available at 

http://sofia.usgs.gov/publications/papers/mollusc_distribution/index.html) 

Briceño, H.O., and Boyer, J.N., 2010, Climatic controls on phytoplankton biomass in a subtropical estuary, Florida Bay, USA: Estuaries and Coasts v. 33, p. 541–553. 

Cosby, B., Marshall, F., and Nuttle, W., 2010, FATHOM version 6.1 model structure and 

salinity simulation. Report for CESI Cooperative Agreement Number H5284-07-0076: New 

Smyrna Beach, FL, Cetacean Logic Foundation, Inc. (Available at 

https://sites.google.com/a/cetaceanlogic.org/www/publications) 
12

Davis, S.M., and Ogden, J.C., 1994, Introduction, in Davis, S.M. and Ogden, J.C., eds., 

Everglades: The ecosystem and its restoration: Delray Beach, FL, St. Lucie Press, p. 3-7. 

Davis, S.M., Childers, D.L., Lorenz, J.L., Wanless, H.L., and Hopkins, T.A, 2005, A conceptual 

model of ecological interactions in the mangrove estuaries of the Florida Everglades: 

Wetlands, v. 25, p. 832-842. 

Enfield, D.B., Mestas-Nuñez, A.M. and Trimble, P.J., 2001, The Atlantic Multidecadal 

Oscillation and its relation to rainfall and river flows in the continental U.S.: Geophysical 

Research Letters, v. 28, no. 10, p. 2077-2080. 

Everglades National Park, 1997a, Everglades National Park marine monitoring network 1994 

data summary: Homestead, FL, Everglades National Park, 67 p. 

Everglades National Park, 1997b, Everglades National Park marine monitoring network 1995 

data summary: Homestead, FL, Everglades National Park, 67 p. 

Hutson, W.H., 1979, The Agulhas current during the Late Pleistocene: Analysis of modern 

faunal analogs: Science, v. 207, p. 64–66. 

Jones, R.D., and Boyer, J.N., 2001, An integrated surface water quality monitoring program for 

the south Florida coastal waters: FY2000 cumulative report to the South Florida Water 

Management District (C-10244) and Everglades National Park: Miami, FL, Southeast 

Environmental Research Center, Florida International University, 118 p. (Available at 

http://serc.fiu.edu/wqmnetwork/) 

Marshall, F.E., 2010a, Coupling statistical models and sediment core data from Rankin Lake and 

Russell Bank in Florida Bay to estimate pre-drainage salinity and hydrology conditions. Final 

project report for USGS Contract: 08ERSAD614: New Smyrna Beach, FL, Cetacean Logic 

Foundation, Inc. (Available at https://sites.google.com/a/cetaceanlogic.org/www/publications) 

Marshall, F.E., 2010b, RECOVER Greater Everglades and Southern Coastal Systems 

performance measure targets: hydrology and salinity simulations using estuarine and 

freshwater paleoecological characterizations coupled with ecological models for 

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) Restoration Scenario Evaluation. Task 

Report for USACOE Contract: W912EP-09-D-0016-0001: New Smyrna Beach, FL, Cetacean 

Logic Foundation, Inc. (Available at 

https://sites.google.com/a/cetaceanlogic.org/www/publications) 

Marshall, F.E., Smith, D.T., and Nickerson, D.N., 2011, Empirical tools for simulating salinity in 

the estuaries of Everglades National Park: Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, v. 95, 

p. 377-387. 

Marshall, F.E., Wingard, G.L. and Pitts, P., 2009, A simulation of historic hydrology and salinity 

in Everglades National Park: Coupling paleoecologic assemblage data with statistical models: 

Estuaries and Coasts, v. 32, n. 1, p. 37-53. 

McIvor, C.C., Ley, J.A., and Bjork, R.D., 1994, Changes in freshwater inflow from the 

Everglades to Florida Bay including effects on biota and biotic processes: A review, in Davis, 

S.M. and Ogden, J.C., eds., Everglades: The ecosystem and its restoration: Delray Beach, FL, 

St. Lucie Press, p. 117-146. 

Obeysekera, J., Trimble, P., Neidrauer, C., Pathak, C., VanArman, J., Strowd, T., and Hall, C., 

2006, Consideration of long-term climatic variability in regional modeling for SFWMD 

planning and operations, in 2007 South Florida Environmental Report: West Palm Beach, FL,

South Florida Water Management District, Appendix 2-2. 
13

Ogden, J.C., Davis, S.M., Jacobs, K.J., Barnes, T., and Fling, H.E., 2005, The use of conceptual 

ecological models to guide ecosystem restoration in south Florida: Wetlands, v. 25, p. 795-

809. 

Parker, G.G., Ferguson, G.E., Love, S.K., and others, 1955, Water resources of southeastern 

Florida, with special reference to the geology and ground water of the Miami area: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1255, 965 p. 

Renken, R.A., Dixon, Joann, Koehmstedt, J.A., Ishman, Scott, Lietz, A.C., Marella, R.L., Telis, 

Pamela, Rodgers, Jeff, and Memberg, Steven, 2005, Impact of anthropogenic development on 

coastal ground-water hydrology in southeastern Florida, 1900-2000: U.S. Geological Survey 

Circular 1275, 77 p. 

Rudnick, D.T., Ortner, P.B., Browder, J.A., and Davis, S.M., 2005, A conceptual ecological 

model of Florida Bay: Wetlands, v. 25, no. 4, p. 870-883. 

Schaffranek, R.W., Smith, T.J., and Holmes, C.W., 2001, An investigation of the interrelation of 

Everglades hydrology and Florida Bay dynamics to ecosystem processes in south Florida: U.S. 

Geological Survey Fact Sheet 49-01, 3 p. (Available at http://sofia.usgs.gov/publications/fs/ 

49-011) 

Sklar, F.H., Chimney, M.J., Newman, S., McCormick, P., Gawlik, D., Miao, S., McVoy, C., 

Said, W., Newman, J., Coronado, C., Crozier, G., Korvela, M., and Rutchey, K., 2005, The 

ecological-societal underpinnings of Everglades restoration: Frontiers in Ecology and the 

Environment, v. 3, no. 3, p. 161-169. 

Smith, D., 1997, Everglades National Park marine monitoring network 1996 data summary: 

Homestead, FL, Everglades National Park, 94 p. 

Smith, D., 1998, Everglades National Park marine monitoring network 1997 data summary: 

Homestead, FL, Everglades National Park, 100 p. 

Smith, D., 1999, Everglades National Park marine monitoring network 1998 data summary: 

Homestead, FL, Everglades National Park, 100 p. 

Smith, D., 2001, Everglades National Park marine monitoring network 1999 data summary: 

Homestead, FL, Everglades National Park, 65 p. 

UNESCO, 1985, The international system of units (SI) in oceanography: UNESCO Technical

Papers in Marine Science 45, IAPSO Publication Scientifique, no. 32, 131 p. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1999, Central and southern Florida comprehensive review study. 

Final integrated feasibility report and programmatic environmental impact statement. Prepared 

by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL, 4034 p. (Available at 

http://www.evergladesplan.org/) 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2000, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. (Available at 

http://www.evergladesplan.org/about/rest_plan_pt_01.aspx) 

Willard, D.A., Bernhardt, C.E., Holmes, C.W., Landacre, B., and Marot M., 2006, Response of 

Everglades tree islands to environmental change: Ecological Monographs, v. 76, no. 4, 

p. 565-583. 

Willard, D.A., and Bernhard, C.E., 2011, Impacts of past climate and sea level change on 

Everglades wetlands: Placing a century of anthropogenic change into a late-Holocene context: 

Climate Change, v. 107, p. 59-80. 

Wingard, G.L. and Hudley, J.W., 2011, Application of a weighted-averaging method for 

determining paleosalinity: A tool for restoration of south Florida’s estuaries: Estuaries and 

Coasts, v. 35, no. 1, p. 262-280, DOI 10.1007/s12237-011-9441-3. 
14

Wingard, G.L., Hudley, J.W., Holmes, C.W., Willard, D.A., and Marot, M., 2007, Synthesis of 

age data and chronology for Florida Bay and Biscayne Bay cores collected for the Ecosystem 

History of south Florida’s Estuaries Projects: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-

1203, 120 p. (Available at http://sofia.usgs.gov/ publications/ofr/2007-1203/index.html) 
Table 1. Sediment core locations, sample data, and associated salinity monitoring stations used in the analyses. (Data on individual samples available in 

appendix. Cores shown on figure 1A.)

Sediment Core 

Name

Map 

Symbol Core ID

North Latitude 

(NAD83)

West 

Longitude 

(NAD83)

Depth in 

cm of 

interval(s) 

used in 

analysis

No. 

specimens 

in original 

sample(s)2

Percent of 

original 

included in 

CONFID3

Percent of 

original 

included 

in FULL3

Associated 

Monitoring 

Station1

Crocodile Point CPt FB295 16B 25:8:19.32 80:43:41.16 48-58 433-446 87-89 95-97 FIU/SFWMD 12

Rankin Lake RL GLBW601 RL1 25:06:58.14 80:49:10.56 32-42 331-1876 77-80 83-88 MMN BK

Russell Bank RB FB295 19B 25:3:50.04 80:37:29.28 92-110 113-203 29-53 76-87 FIU/SFWMD 22

Taylor T24 T24 FB594 24 25:11:24 80:38:21.48 38-44 187-210 77-80 86-88 MMN LM

Whipray Basin WB FB697 25B 25:4:16.32 80:44:18.6 36-46 39-581 35-53 90-97 MMN WB

1 Monitoring station information is shown in tables 4 and 5. 

2 Number of mollusk specimens in original sample, excluding worn and fragmented specimens, prior to removing no-analog species.

3 See text for discussion, section "Phase I."

15
Table 2. Information on stage station locations included in the analyses. Data collected by Everglades National 

Park. (Stations shown on figure 1A.)

Stage 

Station 

Name

North 

Latitude 

(NAD83)

West 

Longitude 

(NAD83) Region

Ground Surface 

Elevation, ft 

NGVD29

Mean Stage 

Value, POR, ft 

NGVD291

Number of 

Days in 

POR

Starting Date 

of Record

CP 25:13:38 80:42:14 Transition Zone -0.12 1.2 10669 10/1/1978

E146 25:15:13 80:40:01 Taylor Slough 0.3 1.2 5426 3/24/1994

EVER4 25:20:32 80:32:42 Transition Zone 1.8 2 7599 11/10/1993

EVER6 25:17:49 80:30:42 Transition Zone 1.5 2 6162 12/24/1991

EVER7 25:18:31 80:32:33 Transition Zone 1.9 2.2 5934 12/24/1991

G3273 25:37:35 80:34:33 Shark River Slough 7 6 9215 3/14/1984

NP206 25:32:38 80:40:20 Shark River Slough 6 5.24 11966 1/1/1978

NP46 25:19:05 80:47:46 Transition Zone 1.3 1.43 11035 9/16/1998

NP62 25:26:17 80:46:59 Shark River Slough 4.2 2.45 13199 9/16/1988

NP67 25:19:45 80:39:02 Taylor Slough 3.4 2.14 5795 1/1/1991

P33 25:36:48 80:42:09 Shark River Slough 4.9 5.99 20358 2/15/1953

P35 25:27:34 80:51:53 Shark River Slough 0.83 1.62 20335 2/16/1953

R127 25:21:11 80:36:24 Taylor Slough 1.5 2.25 8529 4/11/1984

TSBstage 25:24:01 80:36:24 Taylor Slough 3.5 3.2 10767 1/1/1978

TSH 25:18:38 80:37:51 Shark River Slough 1.4 2 4831 3/12/1994

1 Mean is for Period of Record (POR) of the data (start date through December 31, 2009).

16
Table 3. Information on flow stations included in the analyses. (Stations shown on figure 1A.)

[USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; SFWMD, South Florida Water Management District; ENP, Everglades National Park]

Flow Station Name

Map 

Symbol

North Latitude 

(NAD83)

West 

Longitude 

(NAD83)

Mean 

Flow 

Value 

POR, cfs1

Number of 

days in POR

Starting Date of 

Record

Agency 

Collecting 

Data

McCormick Creek MC 25:10:03 80:43:55 24 5036 10/26/1995 USGS

Mud Creek Mud 25:12:09 80:35:01 32 4925 10/15/1995 USGS

Shark River Slough 

(Tamiami Trail)2

SRS 25:45:43 80:43:33 1047 11708 10/12/1978 SFWMD

Taylor River Taylor 25:11:27 80:38:21 39.9 4955 10/8/1995 USGS

Taylor Slough Bridge TSB 25:24:06 80:36:24 53 17624 10/1/1960 ENP

Trout Creek Trout 25:12:53 80:32:01 203 4931 2/1/1996 USGS

West Highway Creek WHC 25:14:33 80:26:50 46 4923 2/17/1996 USGS

1 Mean flow in cubic feet per second (cfs) is for Period of Record (POR) of the data (start date through 

December 31, 2009

2 For Shark River Slough, a water balance calculation based on multiple stations is used. 

SRS=[S12T + S333 – S334]

17
Table 4. Everglades National Park (ENP) Marine Monitoring Network (MMN) Florida Bay stations and associated 

daily salinity data included in analyses. FATHOM regions are areas that aggregate individual daily and monthly 

station data. (Stations and FATHOM regions are shown on figure 1.)

MMN Salinity 

Station Name

Map 

Symbol

North Latitude 

(NAD83)

West Longitude 

(NAD83) FATHOM Region1

Mean 

Salinity 

Value, POR2

Number of 

days in POR

Starting Date of 

Record

Bob Allen Key BA 25:01:34 80:40:54 South Bay 34.6 4207 9/9/1997

Buoy Key BK 25:07:16 80:50:01 Central Bay 35.2 4032 9/7/1997

Butternut Key BN 25:05:18 80:31:07 Northeast Bay 31.65 6799 2/8/1990

Duck Key DK 25:10:54 80:29:22 Northeast Bay 30.2 6586 7/14/1988

Garfield Bight GB 25:10:12 80:47:48 Central Bay 30.9 4600 3/6/1996

Joe Bay JB 25:13:28 80:32:28 Northeast Bay 15.2 4878 7/14/1988

Johnson Key JK 25:02:43 80:54:41 West Bay 35.9 6428 7/25/1989

Little Madeira 

Bay

LM 25:10:25 80:37:56 North Bay 24.2 7139 8/25/1988

Little Rabbit 

Key

LR 24:58:53 80:49:31 West Bay 36.2 4175 9/11/1997

Long Sound LS 25:13:59 80:27:27 North Bay 19.5 7259 7/14/1988

Murray Key MK 25:06:21 80:56:31 West Bay 34.4 3753 10/21/1997

Peterson Key PK 24:55:06 80:44:45 West Bay 35.9 6543 7/25/1989

Terrapin Bay TB 25:09:18 80:43:30 Central Bay 25.3 6231 9/12/1991

Trout Cove TC 25:12:41 80:31:49 North Bay 19.9 7314 7/14/1988

Whipray Basin WB 25:04:42 80:43:38 Central Bay 36.4 6742 4/6/1989

1

 Cosby and others (2010).

2 Salinity recorded as Practical Salinity System (no salinity units are used). Mean is for Period of Record (POR) of the data 

(start date through December 31, 2009). 

18
Table 5. Florida International University /South Florida Water Management District (FIU/SFWMD) Florida Bay stations and associated monthly salinity data 

included in analyses. (Stations shown on figure 1B.)

FIU / SFWMD Salinity 

Station Name

Number on 

Map

North Latitude 

(NAD88)

West Longitude 

(NAD88) FATHOM Region1

Mean Salinity 

Value, POR2

No. of Months 

in POR

Month / Year 

Record Started

Butternut Key 24 25:06:06 80:31:53 Northeast Bay 30.2 214 March 1991

Captain Key 22 25:02:24 80:36:51 South Bay 33.5 212 April 1991

Duck Key 9 25:10:37 80:29:30 Northeast Bay 31.1 235 March 1991

East Cape 25 25:05:01 81:04:50 West Bay 34.5 204 July 1992

Garfield Bight 14 25:09:02 80:48:33 Central Bay 33.9 212 March 1991

Joe Bay 10 25:13:28 80:32:12 North Bay 14.7 212 March 1991

Johnson Key Basin 17 25:02:33 80:54:55 West Bay 35.7 236 March 1991

Little Madeira Bay 11 25:10:31 80:37:37 North Bay 24.2 213 March 1991

Long Sound 8 25:13:39 80:27:42 North Bay 19.6 220 March 1991

Murray Key 16 25:07:06 80:56:23 West Bay 34.7 221 March 1991

Old Dan Bank 28 24:52:.02 80:48:26 West Bay 35.7 204 July 1992

Oxfoot Bank 26 24:58:51 81:00:06 West Bay 35.1 204 July 1992

Park Key 23 25:07:05 80:35:59 Northeast Bay 29.7 235 April 1991

Peterson Keys 20 24:55:46 80:45:02 South Bay 36.4 221 March 1991

Porpoise Lake 21 25:00:24 80:40:53 South Bay 35.9 221 March 1991

Rabbit Key Basin 18 25:00:09 80:54:00 West Bay 36 236 March 1991

Rankin Lake 15 25:07:17 80:48:10 Central Bay 35.8 236 March 1991

Sprigger Bank 27 24:55:07 80:56:06 West Bay 35.4 204 July 1992

Terrapin Bay 12 25:08:25 80:42:58 Central Bay 33.1 213 March 1991

Twin Key Basin 19 24:58:40 80:45:13 South Bay 36.4 220 April 1991

Whipray Basin 13 25:05:29 80:45:17 Central Bay 36 221 March 1991

1

 Cosby and others (2010).

2 Salinity recorded as Practical Salinity System (no salinity units are used). Mean is for Period of Record (POR) of the data (start 

date through December 31, 2009).

19
Table 6. Comparison of observed salinity, model-derived salinity, and paleosalinity estimates.

Core Name1

Associated Salinity 

Station2

Temporal 

Resolution 

of Data

Observed Mean 

Salinity, POR3

NSM/MLR 

Mean Salinity 

(1965-2000)

Paleosalinity Estimates for circa-1900 CE Interval4 NSM Salinity 

Adjustment for 

Paleosalinity Time 

Series6

CWP FULL 

Mean5

CWP CONFID 

Mean5

SW-CWP 

Nearshore 

Mean5

SW-CWP Basin 

Mean5

Crocodile Point FIU / SFWMD 12 Monthly 33.2 27.6 28.8 26.5 18.1 N/A** -1.1

Rankin Lake MMN BK Daily 35.2 30.4 28.3 28.3 N/A** 34.7 -2.1

Russell Bank FIU / SFWMD 22 Monthly 33.4* 28.1 28.0* 26.4* N/A** 32.3* -1.7

Taylor T24 MMN LM Daily 24.2 17.7 17.2 16.5 8.5 N/A** -1.5

Whipray Basin MMN WB Daily 36.4 31.8 30.6 29.5 N/A** 36.2 -2.3

1 Core locations are given in table 1 and shown on figure 1A.

2 Marine Monitoring Network (MMN) salinity stations are listed in table 4 and FIU/SFWMD stations in table 5, and shown on figure 1.

3 Values from tables 4 and 5.

4 Data used to derive cumulative weighted percent (CWP) estimates and the summary data are shown in appendix. For details of

method see Wingard and Hudley (2011).

5 See text for discussion, section "Phase I."

6 Value shown is SFWMD Natural System Model/multiple variable linear regression (NSM/MLR) mean salinity (1965-2000) minus CWP CONFID Mean values. This 

value is used to adjust the NSM to derive the paleosalinity time series.

* Distance adjusted (see explanation in text).

** Weighting factor not applicable to these sites (see explanation in text). 

20
Table 7. Summary statistics for observed and model-produced daily stage, flow, and salinity data for each sediment core paleosalinity analysis using the 

Everglades National Park (ENP) Marine Monitoring Network (MMN) salinity data (daily). Paleo-estimate minus the observed (paleo - observed) indicates the 

difference between current and circa-1900 CE values. Values in FATHOM regions are aggregates of the individual daily and monthly station data as 

indicated on tables 4 and 5.

Parameter

Station/Station 

Map Symbol 

(fig. 1) Type of data

Whipray Basin Rankin Lake Taylor T24 Average 

Difference of 

(paleo - 

N Mean Std Dev N Mean Std Dev N Mean Std Dev observed) 

Stage, ft (NGVD29) Increase (ft)

CP observed 7338 1.2 0.5 7375 1.2 0.5 7318 1.2 0.5

paleo-estimate 7338 2.5 0.7 7375 1.5 0.9 7318 2.1 0.4

(paleo - observed) 1.3 0.3 0.9 0.8

E146 observed 2233 1.3 0.4 2266 1.3 0.4 2259 1.3 0.4

paleo-estimate 2233 2.1 0.4 2266 1.9 0.4 2259 2.0 0.3

(paleo - observed) 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.7

EVER4 observed 2415 2.2 0.4 2448 2.2 0.4 2441 2.2 0.4

paleo-estimate 2415 3.0 0.4 2448 2.8 0.4 2441 2.9 0.3

(paleo - observed) 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.7

EVER6 observed 2898 2.1 0.4 2942 2.1 0.4 2931 2.1 0.4

paleo-estimate 2898 2.9 0.3 2942 2.7 0.3 2931 2.9 0.3

(paleo - observed) 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.8

EVER7 observed 2812 2.3 0.4 2838 2.3 0.4 2845 2.3 0.4

paleo-estimate 2812 2.9 0.3 2838 2.7 0.3 2845 2.9 0.3

(paleo - observed) 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.6

G3273 observed 5932 6.0 1.1 5969 6.0 1.1 5843 6.0 1.0

paleo-estimate 5932 7.6 1.1 5969 7.0 1.3 5843 6.9 0.7

(paleo - observed) 1.6 1.1 0.9 1.2

NP206 observed 8521 5.1 1.4 8563 5.1 1.4 8483 5.2 1.4

paleo-estimate 8521 7.3 1.2 8563 6.3 1.4 8483 6.3 0.8

(paleo - observed) 2.1 1.2 1.2 1.5

NP46 observed 5049 1.4 0.6 5077 1.4 0.6 4959 1.4 0.6

paleo-estimate 5049 2.3 0.6 5077 1.8 0.8 4959 2.3 0.4

(paleo - observed) 0.9 0.4 0.9 0.7

21
Table 7. Summary statistics for observed and model-produced daily stage, flow, and salinity data for each sediment core paleosalinity analysis using the 

Everglades National Park (ENP) Marine Monitoring Network (MMN) salinity data (daily). Paleo-estimate minus the observed (paleo - observed) indicates the 

difference between current and circa-1900 CE values. Values in FATHOM regions are aggregates of the individual daily and monthly station data as 

indicated on tables 4 and 5.—Continued

Parameter

Station/Station 

Map Symbol (fig. 

1) Type of data

Whipray Basin Rankin Lake Taylor T24 Average 

Difference of 

(paleo - 

N Mean Std Dev N Mean Std Dev N Mean Std Dev observed) 

Stage (cont.) NP62 observed 6466 2.5 0.9 6480 2.5 0.9 6423 2.5 0.8

paleo-estimate 6466 3.9 0.9 6480 2.9 1.1 6423 4.0 0.7

(paleo - observed) 1.4 0.5 1.4 1.1

NP67 observed 3124 2.3 0.6 3154 2.3 0.6 3157 2.3 0.6

paleo-estimate 3124 3.4 0.5 3154 3.0 0.6 3157 3.3 0.4

(paleo - observed) 1.1 0.7 1.0 0.9

P33 observed 12346 6.0 0.7 12375 6.0 0.7 12286 6.1 0.7

paleo-estimate 12346 7.5 0.8 12375 6.7 0.9 12286 6.9 0.5

(paleo - observed) 1.4 0.7 0.8 1.0

P35 observed 12495 1.6 0.6 12515 1.6 0.6 12440 1.6 0.6

paleo-estimate 12495 2.6 0.5 12515 2.1 0.6 12440 2.2 0.3

(paleo - observed) 1.0 0.5 0.6 0.7

R127 observed 5252 2.3 0.7 5290 2.3 0.7 5156 2.3 0.7

paleo-estimate 5252 3.4 0.8 5290 2.7 1.1 5156 3.4 0.6

(paleo - observed) 1.1 0.4 1.1 0.9

TSBstage observed 8071 3.2 1.1 8087 3.2 1.1 8025 3.2 1.1

paleo-estimate 8071 5.2 1.2 8087 3.8 1.5 8025 5.4 0.9

(paleo - observed) 2.1 0.6 2.2 1.6

TSH observed 1945 2.2 0.5 1941 2.2 0.5 1970 2.2 0.5

paleo-estimate 1945 3.2 0.5 1941 2.9 0.5 1970 3.1 0.4

(paleo - observed) 1.0 0.7 0.9 0.9

Flow, cfs Increase (cfs)

MC observed 60 9.7 61.4 61 9.9 60.9 60 9.7 61.4

paleo-estimate 60 225.9 113.5 61 168.6 107.3 60 121.2 58.2

(paleo - observed) 216.2 158.7 111.5 162.1

22
Table 7. Summary statistics for observed and model-produced daily stage, flow, and salinity data for each sediment core paleosalinity analysis using the 

Everglades National Park (ENP) Marine Monitoring Network (MMN) salinity data (daily). Paleo-estimate minus the observed (paleo - observed) indicates the 

difference between current and circa-1900 CE values. Values in FATHOM regions are aggregates of the individual daily and monthly station data as 

indicated on tables 4 and 5.—Continued

Parameter

Station/Station 

Map Symbol 

(fig. 1) Type of data

Whipray Basin Rankin Lake Taylor T24 Average 

Difference of 

(paleo - 

N Mean Std Dev N Mean Std Dev N Mean Std Dev observed) 

Flow (cont.) Mud observed 41 47.7 35.5 42 47.3 35.2 42 47.2 35.2

paleo-estimate 41 212.1 72.3 42 172.1 73.2 42 128.5 38.2

(paleo - observed) 164.4 124.8 81.2 123.5

SRS observed 264 1089.9 1174.5 265 1089.4 2152.0 265 1089.4 1172.3

paleo-estimate 264 3628.9 1935.9 265 2750.6 1172.3 265 2059.0 1095.8

(paleo - observed) 2539.0 1661.2 969.6 1723.3

Taylor observed 50 46.3 38.6 61 37.4 40.4 51 46.4 38.2

paleo-estimate 50 236.8 83.6 61 166.8 89.3 51 146.1 43.4

(paleo - observed) 190.5 129.3 99.7 139.9

Trout observed 41 331.1 265.2 42 328.7 262.4 42 328.7 262.4

paleo-estimate 41 1791.4 594.3 42 1357.7 594.8 42 1018.8 288.7

(paleo - observed) 1460.3 1029.0 690.1 1059.8

TSB observed 427 47.5 72.6 427 47.6 72.5 426 47.6 72.6

paleo-estimate 427 220.4 123.9 427 104.9 88.6 426 265.5 126.9

WHC observed 39 70.9 62.4 40 70.5 61.6 39 70.9 62.4

paleo-estimate 39 237.8 82.5 40 188.0 84.2 39 171.7 49.6

(paleo - observed) 166.9 117.4 100.8 128.4

Salinity Decrease

BA observed 1125 33.2 5.5 1133 33.2 5.5 1132 33.1 5.5

paleo-estimate 1125 27.3 3.2 1133 28.1 3.0 1132 29.0 2.3

(paleo - observed) -5.9 -5.0 -4.2 -5.0

BK observed 1168 33.7 4.5 1174 33.6 4.5 1180 33.6 4.5

paleo-estimate 1168 28.7 3.3 1174 26.7 4.0 1180 29.6 2.3

(paleo - observed) -5.0 -6.9 -4.0 -5.3

23
Table 7. Summary statistics for observed and model-produced daily stage, flow, and salinity data for each sediment core paleosalinity analysis using the 

Everglades National Park (ENP) Marine Monitoring Network (MMN) salinity data (daily). Paleo-estimate minus the observed (paleo - observed) indicates the 

difference between current and circa-1900 CE values. Values in FATHOM regions are aggregates of the individual daily and monthly station data as 

indicated on tables 4 and 5.—Continued

Parameter

Station/Station 

Map Symbol 

(fig. 1) Type of data

Whipray Basin Rankin Lake Taylor T24 Average 

Difference of 

(paleo - 

N Mean Std Dev N Mean Std Dev N Mean Std Dev observed) 

Salinity BN observed 3575 31.5 8.6 3639 31.4 8.6 3497 31.0 8.3

(cont.) paleo-estimate 3575 24.1 5.2 3639 24.4 4.1 3497 24.7 3.3

(paleo - observed) -7.3 -7.0 -6.3 -6.9

DK observed 3536 28.9 9.1 3521 29.0 9.1 3438 28.5 8.9

paleo-estimate 3536 23.1 5.5 3521 22.7 3.8 3438 23.1 3.9

(paleo - observed) -5.9 -6.3 -5.4 -5.8

GB observed 1627 29.0 9.5 1279 29.4 10.2 1285 29.3 10.2

paleo-estimate 1627 20.2 5.6 1279 19.4 6.4 1285 21.2 4.6

(paleo - observed) -8.8 -10.0 -8.2 -9.0

JK observed 3338 35.4 4.7 1486 34.2 3.7 1491 34.2 3.7

paleo-estimate 3338 34.2 3.3 1486 29.3 2.9 1491 32.4 1.3

(paleo - observed) -1.2 -4.9 -1.7 -2.6

LM observed 4011 24.2 11.0 4013 24.2 10.9 3905 23.1 10.2

paleo-estimate 4011 15.6 7.1 4013 16.3 5.8 3905 13.8 10.2

(paleo - observed) -8.6 -8.0 -9.3 -8.6

LR observed 1155 34.4 3.2 1167 34.4 3.2 1164 34.4 3.2

paleo-estimate 1155 31.8 1.9 1167 30.2 3.5 1164 33.3 1.2

(paleo - observed) -2.6 -4.2 -1.1 -2.6

LS observed 4102 18.0 10.8 4153 17.9 10.8 4041 17.2 10.3

paleo-estimate 4102 13.3 6.1 4153 10.3 6.1 4041 10.8 5.0

(paleo - observed) -4.7 -7.6 -6.4 -6.2

MK observed 966 33.1 4.0 966 33.1 4.0 966 33.1 4.0

paleo-estimate 966 30.1 1.9 966 28.7 2.6 966 31.3 1.2

(paleo - observed) -3.0 -4.4 -1.8 -3.1

PK observed 3428 35.9 3.4 918 34.5 2.9 917 34.5 2.9

paleo-estimate 3428 33.0 2.1 918 32.1 1.8 917 33.3 1.0

(paleo - observed) -2.9 -2.5 -1.3 -2.2

24
Table 7. Summary statistics for observed and model-produced daily stage, flow, and salinity data for each sediment core paleosalinity analysis using the 

Everglades National Park (ENP) Marine Monitoring Network (MMN) salinity data (daily). Paleo-estimate minus the observed (paleo - observed) indicates the 

difference between current and circa-1900 CE values. Values in FATHOM regions are aggregates of the individual daily and monthly station data as 

indicated on tables 4 and 5.—Continued

Parameter

Station/Station 

Map Symbol 

(fig. 1) Type of data

Whipray Basin Rankin Lake Taylor T24 Average 

Difference of 

(paleo - 

N Mean Std Dev N Mean Std Dev N Mean Std Dev observed) 

Salinity TB observed 3046 23.9 11.3 3110 23.8 11.2 3129 23.7 11.2

(cont.) paleo-estimate 3046 12.6 6.0 3110 11.6 6.5 3129 13.0 5.2

(paleo - observed) -11.3 -12.2 -10.7 -11.4

TC observed 3305 18.5 13.1 4154 19.1 13.1 4037 18.3 12.6

paleo-estimate 3493 11.8 6.2 4154 9.8 7.6 4037 10.0 5.9

(paleo - observed) -6.7 -9.3 -8.3 -8.1

WB observed 3553 36.6 7.8 1142 34.4 5.8 1141 34.4 5.8

paleo-estimate 3553 28.3 5.5 1142 28.4 4.0 1141 29.6 2.5

(paleo - observed) -8.3 -6.0 -4.8 -6.4

FATHOM C observed 853 31.4 7.6 853 31.4 7.6 853 31.4 7.6

paleo-estimate 853 23.2 5.0 853 22.3 5.4 853 24.0 3.9

(paleo - observed) -8.3 -9.1 -7.4 -8.3

FATHOM NB observed 3526 20.3 11.4 3540 20.3 11.4 3442 19.5 10.8

paleo-estimate 3526 13.8 6.8 3540 12.1 6.4 3442 11.7 5.6

(paleo - observed) -6.5 -8.2 -7.9 -7.5

FATHOM NE observed 2862 29.9 8.6 2828 30.0 8.6 2820 29.5 8.3

paleo-estimate 2862 23.0 4.8 2828 23.1 3.3 2820 23.6 3.4

(paleo - observed) -6.9 -6.8 -5.9 -6.6

FATHOM S observed 1125 33.2 5.5 1132 33.2 5.5 1132 33.1 5.5

paleo-estimate 1125 27.3 3.2 1132 28.1 3.0 1132 29.0 2.3

(paleo - observed) -5.9 -5.0 -4.2 -5.0

FATHOM W observed 747 33.7 3.2 747 33.7 3.2 747 33.7 3.2

paleo-estimate 747 31.9 1.9 747 30.3 2.5 747 32.7 1.2

(paleo - observed) -1.7 -3.4 -1.0 -2.0

25
Table 8. Summary statistics for observed and model-produced daily stage, flow, and salinity data for each sediment core 

paleosalinity analysis using the Florida International University /South Florida Water Management District (FIU/SFWMD) salinity 

data (monthly). Paleo-estimate minus the observed (paleo - observed) indicates the difference between current and circa-1900 

CE values. Values in FATHOM regions are aggregates of the individual daily and monthly station data as indicated on 

tables 4 and 5.

Parameter

Station/Station 

Map Symbol 

(fig. 1) Type of data

Russell Bank Crocodile Point Average 

Difference of 

(paleo - 

N Mean Std Dev N Mean Std Dev observed) 

Stage, ft (NGVD29) Increase (ft)

CP observed 265 1.2 0.6 265 1.2 0.6

paleo-estimate 265 1.9 0.9 265 1.5 0.8

(paleo - observed) 0.7 0.3 0.5

E146 observed 79 1.3 0.4 79 1.3 0.4

paleo-estimate 79 2.0 0.5 79 1.7 0.5

(paleo - observed) 0.7 0.4 0.6

EVER4 observed 181 2.1 0.5 181 2.1 0.5

paleo-estimate 181 2.5 0.7 181 2.2 0.6

(paleo - observed) 0.4 0.2 0.3

EVER6 observed 106 2.1 0.4 106 2.1 0.4

paleo-estimate 106 2.7 0.4 106 2.4 0.4

(paleo - observed) 0.7 0.4 0.5

EVER7 observed 106 2.2 0.4 106 2.2 0.4

paleo-estimate 106 2.8 0.3 106 2.6 0.4

(paleo - observed) 0.6 0.3 0.4

G3273 observed 200 6.0 1.0 199 6.0 1.0

paleo-estimate 200 7.4 1.3 199 6.3 1.0

(paleo - observed) 1.4 0.3 0.8

NP206 observed 314 5.1 1.3 313 5.1 1.3

paleo-estimate 314 6.9 1.4 313 5.7 1.1

(paleo - observed) 1.8 0.6 1.2

NP46 observed 417 1.4 0.5 417 1.4 0.5

paleo-estimate 417 2.0 0.8 417 1.6 0.7

(paleo - observed) 0.6 0.2 0.4

26
Table 8. Summary statistics for observed and model-produced daily stage, flow, and salinity data for each sediment core 

paleosalinity analysis using the Florida International University /South Florida Water Management District (FIU/SFWMD) salinity 

data (monthly). Paleo-estimate minus the observed (paleo - observed) indicates the difference between current and circa-1900 

CE values. Values in FATHOM regions are aggregates of the individual daily and monthly station data as indicated on 

tables 4 and 5.—Continued

Parameter

Station/Station 

Map Symbol 

(fig. 1) Type of data

Russell Bank Crocodile Point Average 

Difference of 

(paleo - 

N Mean Std Dev N Mean Std Dev observed)

Stage NP62 observed 429 2.4 0.9 429 2.4 0.9

(cont.) paleo-estimate 429 3.4 1.1 429 2.9 1.0

(paleo - observed) 1.0 0.5 0.7

NP67 observed 118 2.2 0.6 118 2.2 0.6

paleo-estimate 118 3.1 0.6 118 2.7 0.7

(paleo - observed) 0.9 0.5 0.7

P33 observed 430 6.1 0.7 429 6.1 0.7

paleo-estimate 430 7.2 0.9 429 6.4 0.7

(paleo - observed) 1.1 0.4 0.8

P35 observed 430 1.6 0.6 429 1.6 0.6

paleo-estimate 430 2.4 0.6 429 1.9 0.5

(paleo - observed) 0.8 0.3 0.5

R127 observed 198 2.2 0.7 198 2.2 0.7

paleo-estimate 198 3.0 1.0 198 2.5 0.9

(paleo - observed) 0.8 0.3 0.5

TSBstage observed 274 3.2 1.0 274 3.2 1.0

paleo-estimate 274 4.3 1.3 274 3.6 1.2

(paleo - observed) 1.1 0.5 0.8

TSH observed 66 2.2 0.5 66 2.2 0.5

paleo-estimate 66 2.9 0.5 66 2.6 0.6

(paleo - observed) 0.8 0.4 0.6

Flow, cfs Increase (cfs)

MC observed 60 9.7 61.4 60 9.7 61.4

paleo-estimate 60 47.7 95.4 60 98.9 95.9

(paleo - observed) 38.0 89.2 63.6

27
Table 8. Summary statistics for observed and model-produced daily stage, flow, and salinity data for each sediment core 

paleosalinity analysis using the Florida International University /South Florida Water Management District (FIU/SFWMD) salinity 

data (monthly). Paleo-estimate minus the observed (paleo - observed) indicates the difference between current and circa-1900 

CE values. Values in FATHOM regions are aggregates of the individual daily and monthly station data as indicated on 

tables 4 and 5.—Continued

Parameter

Station/Station 

Map Symbol 

(fig. 1) Type of data

Russell Bank Crocodile Point Average 

Difference of 

(paleo - 

N Mean Std Dev N Mean Std Dev observed) 

Flow (cont.) Mud observed 41 47.7 35.5 41 47.7 35.5

paleo-estimate 41 151.5 56.8 41 113.7 76.4

(paleo - observed) 103.8 66.0 84.9

SRS observed 265 1089.4 1172.3 264 1089.9 1174.5

paleo-estimate 265 3225.9 1997.3 264 1490.9 1285.7

(paleo - observed) 2136.5 401.0 1268.8

Taylor observed 50 46.3 38.6 50 46.3 38.6

paleo-estimate 50 166.9 67.8 50 119.7 80.1

(paleo - observed) 120.6 73.4 97.0

Trout observed 41 331.1 265.2 41 331.1 265.2

paleo-estimate 41 1123.0 493.2 41 801.6 518.3

(paleo - observed) 791.9 470.5 631.2

TSB observed 426 47.6 72.6 425 47.7 72.7

paleo-estimate 426 130.3 92.3 425 95.8 86.7

(paleo - observed) 82.7 48.1 65.4

WHC observed 39 70.9 62.4 39 70.9 62.4

paleo-estimate 39 159.8 62.4 39 118.5 69.9

(paleo - observed) 88.9 47.6 68.2

Salinity Decrease

8 observed 120 16.8 9.5 120 16.8 9.5

paleo-estimate 120 9.5 5.9 120 11.3 3.4

(paleo - observed) -7.3 -5.5 -6.4

9 observed 131 29.7 9.3 131 29.7 9.3

paleo-estimate 131 20.4 8.5 131 20.6 4.8

(paleo - observed) -9.3 -9.1 -9.2

28
Table 8. Summary statistics for observed and model-produced daily stage, flow, and salinity data for each sediment core 

paleosalinity analysis using the Florida International University /South Florida Water Management District (FIU/SFWMD) salinity 

data (monthly). Paleo-estimate minus the observed (paleo - observed) indicates the difference between current and circa-1900 

CE values. Values in FATHOM regions are aggregates of the individual daily and monthly station data as indicated on 

tables 4 and 5.—Continued

Parameter

Station/Station 

Map Symbol 

(fig. 1) Type of data

Russell Bank Crocodile Point Average 

Difference of 

(paleo - 

N Mean Std Dev N Mean Std Dev observed)

Salinity (cont.) 10 observed 117 12.3 11.5 117 12.3 11.5

paleo-estimate 117 3.8 4.7 117 5.9 3.8

(paleo - observed) -8.5 -6.5 -7.5

11 observed 118 22.6 8.5 118 22.6 8.5

paleo-estimate 118 12.1 6.0 118 13.6 4.6

(paleo - observed) -10.5 -9.0 -9.7

12 observed 118 32.0 8.6 118 32.0 8.6

paleo-estimate 118 20.9 6.5 118 24.3 4.3

(paleo - observed) -11.1 -7.7 -9.4

13 observed 121 34.9 7.0 121 34.9 7.0

paleo-estimate 121 26.3 6.7 121 27.2 4.2

(paleo - observed) -8.6 -7.7 -8.1

14 observed 117 32.5 8.7 117 32.5 8.7

paleo-estimate 117 23.1 5.3 117 24.5 4.1

(paleo - observed) -9.5 -8.0 -8.8

15 observed 132 34.9 8.3 132 34.9 8.3

paleo-estimate 132 26.8 7.4 132 27.1 4.1

(paleo - observed) -8.1 -7.8 -7.9

16 observed 121 34.1 4.2 121 34.1 4.2

paleo-estimate 121 29.8 3.6 121 30.2 2.3

(paleo - observed) -4.4 -3.9 -4.1

17 observed 132 35.0 4.2 132 35.0 4.2

paleo-estimate 132 31.1 4.2 132 31.2 2.3

(paleo - observed) -3.9 -3.8 -3.9

29
Table 8. Summary statistics for observed and model-produced daily stage, flow, and salinity data for each sediment core 

paleosalinity analysis using the Florida International University /South Florida Water Management District (FIU/SFWMD) salinity 

data (monthly). Paleo-estimate minus the observed (paleo - observed) indicates the difference between current and circa-1900 

CE values. Values in FATHOM regions are aggregates of the individual daily and monthly station data as indicated on 

tables 4 and 5.—Continued

Parameter

Station/Station 

Map Symbol 

(fig. 1) Type of data

Russell Bank Crocodile Point Average 

Difference of 

(paleo - 

N Mean Std Dev N Mean Std Dev observed)

Salinity 18 observed 132 35.2 3.6 132 35.2 3.6

(cont.) paleo-estimate 132 31.7 3.7 132 31.8 2.1

(paleo - observed) -3.4 -3.3 -3.4

19 observed 120 35.4 4.2 120 35.4 4.2

paleo-estimate 120 30.6 3.9 120 31.2 2.5

(paleo - observed) -4.8 -4.2 -4.5

20 observed 121 35.8 3.5 121 35.8 3.5

paleo-estimate 121 31.4 3.5 121 31.9 2.2

(paleo - observed) -4.3 -3.9 -4.1

21 observed 121 34.9 5.6 121 34.9 5.6

paleo-estimate 121 27.5 5.9 121 28.3 3.8

(paleo - observed) -7.4 -6.6 -7.0

22 observed 117 32.4 6.4 117 32.4 6.4

paleo-estimate 117 22.8 5.5 117 27.5 2.7

(paleo - observed) -9.6 -4.9 -7.3

23 observed 131 28.6 9.7 131 28.6 9.7

paleo-estimate 131 18.2 9.2 131 18.6 5.2

(paleo - observed) -10.4 -10.1 -10.2

24 observed 119 28.7 7.5 119 28.7 7.5

paleo-estimate 119 18.7 6.1 119 20.1 4.6

(paleo - observed) -10.0 -8.6 -9.3

25 observed 106 33.8 3.1 106 33.8 3.1

paleo-estimate 106 30.2 3.1 106 30.7 1.9

(paleo - observed) -3.6 -3.2 -3.4

30
Table 8. Summary statistics for observed and model-produced daily stage, flow, and salinity data for each sediment core 

paleosalinity analysis using the Florida International University /South Florida Water Management District (FIU/SFWMD) salinity 

data (monthly). Paleo-estimate minus the observed (paleo - observed) indicates the difference between current and circa-1900 

CE values. Values in FATHOM regions are aggregates of the individual daily and monthly station data as indicated on 

tables 4 and 5.—Continued

Parameter

Station/Station 

Map Symbol 

(fig. 1) Type of data

Russell Bank Crocodile Point Average 

Difference of 

(paleo - 

N Mean Std Dev N Mean Std Dev observed) 

Salinity 26 observed 106 34.3 2.7 106 34.3 2.7

(cont.) paleo-estimate 106 31.3 2.7 106 31.7 1.6

(paleo - observed) -3.0 -2.6 -2.8

27 observed 106 34.7 2.5 106 34.7 2.5

paleo-estimate 106 32.3 2.1 106 33.7 0.7

(paleo - observed) -2.4 -1.0 -1.7

28 observed 106 34.9 2.3 106 34.9 2.3

paleo-estimate 106 33.0 1.7 106 34.2 0.6

(paleo - observed) -1.9 -0.7 -1.3

FATHOM C observed 36 33.3 6.4 36 33.3 3.6

paleo-estimate 36 23.7 4.6 36 25.2 6.4

(paleo - observed) -9.6 -8.1 -8.9

FATHOM NB observed 36 16.7 8.2 36 16.7 3.5

paleo-estimate 36 8.1 4.2 36 9.8 8.2

(paleo - observed) -8.5 -6.8 -7.7

FATHOM NE observed 36 27.1 6.2 36 27.1 2.7

paleo-estimate 36 17.7 4.9 36 12.3 6.2

(paleo - observed) -9.4 -14.7 -12.1

FATHOM S observed 36 34.4 4.5 36 34.4 2.4

paleo-estimate 36 27.7 3.4 36 29.4 4.5

(paleo - observed) -6.6 -5.0 -5.8

FATHOM W observed 36 34.4 3.0 36 34.4 1.4

paleo-estimate 36 31.0 1.9 36 31.7 3.0

(paleo - observed) -3.4 -2.7 -3.0

31
Table 9. Comparison of spatially averaged salinity differences 

(paleo-observed) across FATHOM regions (Cosby and others, 

2010). Data here are summarized from tables 7 and 8 FATHOM 

data. Negative differences indicate a lower salinity from the paleoestimate compared to the observed. (FATHOM regions are shown 

on figure 1B.)

FATHOM 

Region

Whipray 

Basin

Rankin 

Lake Taylor T24

Russell 

Bank

Crocodile 

Point

Central -8.3 -9.1 -7.4 -9.6 -8.1

North Bay -6.5 -8.2 -7.9 -8.5 -6.8

Northeast -6.9 -6.8 -5.9 -9.4 -14.7

South -5.9 -5.0 -4.2 -6.6 -5.0

West -1.7 -3.4 -1.0 -3.4 -2.7

32