United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental Research
Laboratory
Corvallis,OR 97333
EPA/60Q/3-91/068
September 1991
Research and Development
EVALUATING DESIGN AND VERIFYING COMPLIANCE
OF CREATED WETLANDS IN THE VICINITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA
-------
EPA ERL-Corvallis Library
00006713
EPA/600/3-91/068
October 1991
EVALUATING DESIGN AND VERIFYING COMPLIANCE
OF CREATED WETLANDS IN THE VICINITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA
by
Stephanie E. Gwin1
Mary E. Kentula2
Donna L Frostholm1 ;
..*J
ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc.1
United States Environmental Protection Agency2
USEPA Environmental Research Laboratory ;
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333 :
With Assistance From
Robert E. Tighe
Center for Wetlands
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611
Contract Number 68-C8-0006
Project Officer
Eric M. Preston
Wetlands Research Program
USEPA Environmental Research Laboratory
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL. PROTECTION AGENCY
CORVALLIS, OREGOI^flWWB
9.9. Environmental Protectte* AaeBCf
national Health end Environmental
•Hocts Rosocrch Laboratory
200 5.17. 35th EHroot
CoivallU. Oregon 97339
-------
DISCLAIMER
The research described in this report has been funded wholly or in part by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through Contract Number 68-C8-
0006 to ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc., Corvallis, Oregon and Assistance
Agreement CR-814643-01-3 to the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. It has been
subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review, and it has been approved for
publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does
not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
CITATION
Gwin, S.E., M.E. Kentula, and D.L. Frostholm, in conjunction with R.E. Tighe. 1991.
Evaluating Design and Verifying Compliance of Created Wetlands in the Vicinity
of Tampa, Florida. EPA/600/3-91/068. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon. National Technical
Information Service Accession Number PB92 116 045/AS.
-------
ABSTRACT
Permit specifications, construction plans, and field measurements were used to
examine the correlation between permit specifications, project design and conditions i!as-
built" in nine palustrine open water and emergent marsh wetlands created in the
metropolitan area of Tampa, Florida between 1979-1987. This study was part of a series
of pilot studies being conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Wetlands
Research Program to determine how well compensatory mitigation under Section 404 is
working, and how the process could be improved. Data on planned and existing hydrology,
wetland area, wetland shape, slopes of banks, and vegetation were collected. Information
on the plans for each wetland was gathered from the permit files of the Hillsborough
County Environmental Protection Commission (EPC).
Differences between design and conditions as-built were found, however a complete
analysis could not be performed in many instances due to inadequate information in the
permit files, e.g., hydrological aspects of wetland design could not be evaluated.
Correlations between areal requirements and area as-built could not be made for 66%
(6/9) of the created wetlands due to inadequate information in the project specifications
or construction plans. Four of the created wetlands had irregular shapes, five had either
rectangular shapes or at least one long, straight shoreline with otherwise irregular shapes.
The predominant as-built slopes approximated the slopes indicated in the project
specifications and construction plans for five sites, and one wetland was built with slopes
more gentle than intended. Comparisons of predominant slopes could not be made for
the remaining three sites due to insufficient information in the project files. Vegetation
occurring on the created wetlands consisted primarily of species that had volunteered.
Planted species accounted for 0% to 15% of the total number of species found at each
site, and 0% to 29% of the percent cover on each created wetland.
The differences between the construction plans, specifications in the project files
and the as-built conditions, and the instances where the permit files were inadequate or
lacked information, point to the need for verification of projects in both the planning and
construction phases of the permitting process. These differences also indicate that the
planning phase should focus on the development of an approach that uses information
from the scientific literature, experience from past projects, and the history of the
surrounding landscape of the site of the planned created wetland. Planning should also
involve a professional ecologist to evaluate species mix, elevations and contours, hydrology,
and substrate type planned for the created wetland, because most other professionals lack
adequate ecological knowledge to evaluate these elements. In addition, the construction
phase should culminate in the production of an as-built plan. This would allow immediate
checks to ensure that critical features have been included as intended, e.g., wetland area,
vegetation type. It would also document any corrective measures that were taken due to
unanticipated events during construction. As-built plans of the project would ensure that
the details of the actual wetland created were available for future reference.
11
-------
TABLB.QF CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER i
ABSTRACT. ;. :;•::. ,.••••«•••.•...- •-.'• .'• ..-,-.•; •-.;..-.•• (. ., — • . , ii
LiSTOFTABLES. '.-.- -,'-•'.••-.-'.' >.'. •,..•, '-...•••."•-•'., •.•"•' '...-. ••,•• v
LIST OF FIGURES vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vii
INTRODUCTION 1
OVER VIEW OF WETLAND REGULATION - 1
THE STATUS OF WETLAND CREATION AND RESTORATION 2
METHODS 4
SITE SELECTION 4
DATA COLLECTION 6
Evaluating the Hydrology to be Created and As-Built 6
Evaluating the Area to be Created and As-Built 6
Evaluating the Shape to be Created and As-Built 7
Evaluating Slopes to be Created and As-Built 7
Evaluating the Vegetation to be Established and Actually
Found on Site : g
RESULTS 11
EVALUATING THE HYDROLOGY TO BE CREATED
AND AS-BUILT 11
EVALUATING THE AREA TO BE CREATED AND
AS-BUILT 11
Permit Specifications Compared to Field Measurements 11
Construction Plans Compared to Field Conditions 14
EVALUATING THE SHAPE TO BE CREATED AND AS-BUILT 14
m
-------
EVALUATING SLOPES TO BE CREATED AND AS-BUILT 14
As-Built Conditions Compared to Construction Plans
and Project Specifications 15
Comparisons with Recommendations in the Literature 15
EVALUATING THE VEGETATION TO BE ESTABLISHED
AND ACTUALLY ESTABLISHED 16
Evaluation of Planting Lists 16
Evaluation of the Vegetation Found On-Site 16
DISCUSSION 26
DESIGN OF CREATED WETLANDS 26
Hydrology 26
Area of Wetland to be Created 27
Shape of the Wetland to be Created 27
Slopes 27
Vegetation to be Established and Actually Found on the Site 28
Planting Lists 28
Survival of Species Planted 29
Planting vs Natural Revegetation of the Site 30
Instances Where Planting May be Advisable 31
RECOMMENDATIONS 32
LITERATURE CITED 35
APPENDIX I: DATA COLLECTED FOR EACH SITE 38
APPENDIX II: LISTS OF PLANT SPECIES 101
iv •
-------
IJIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1.
TABLE 2.
TABLES.
TABLE 4.
TABLE 5.
TABLE 6.
TABLE 7.
TABLE 8.
TABLE 9.
Approxirn'ate dates when constriction and field sampling was
completed for the created wetlands. Dashes (•») indicate
no information1 available. '
Wetland indicator codes were assigned, tP all species found on
the created wetlands and on planting lists. Codes were
adapted from categories in the regional list of plant species
that occur in wetlands (Reed 1988). . :
The hydrology planned for each created wetland studied.
Information was taken from the Hillsborough County
Environmental Protection Commission (EPC) permit files.
Comparisons of wetland area required in the permit
specifications (PERMIT) with the area of wetland measured
from each field map of as-built conditions (AS-BUILT) and
with the area indicated by construction plans (PLANS).
Composition of planting lists.
Species found on the sites that were to be planted, volunteered,
and that occurred on the natural wetlands sampled.
Proportion of the plant cover found on the created sites
composed of species to be planted, volunteers, and that were
also found on the natural wetlands sampled.
Proportions of the species found on a site that are indigenous
to the southeastern United States or exotic.
Proportions of the total number of species found on a site
which fell into the categories in the Regional List of Plant
Species that Occur in Wetlands (Reed 1988).
TABLE 10. Relative abundances of the species found on a site, expressed
as the proportion of the total cover composed by each, which
fell into the categories in the Regional List of Plant Species
that Occur in Wetlands (Reed 1988).
10
12
13
17
18
21
22
24
25
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. A. The proportion of the number of species found on each
created wetland that were planted (PLANTED),
volunteered (VOLUNTEERS), and that also occurred
on the natural wetlands sampled (ON NATURAL).
B. The relative abundance (expressed as % cover) of
species that were planted (PI-ANTED) found on each
created wetland, volunteered (VOLUNTEERS), and were
also found on the natural wetlands (ON NATURAL).
FIGURE 2. A. The proportion of the total number of species foxind
on the created wetlands by wetland indicator category (Reed
1988). B. The proportion of the relative abundances of
the species found on the created wetlands by wetland indicator
category (Reed 1988) expressed as the proportion of the total
cover composed by each.
20
23
VI
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research described in this report has been funded by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and conducted at EPA's Research Laboratory
in Corvallis, Oregon, through Contract 68-C8-0006 to ManTechEnvironmental
Technology, Inc. The authors owe many thanks for the collection of field data to M.T.
Brown, R.E. Tighe, G.R. Best, D.W. Hall, K.H. firandt, K.E. Dollar, CA. Raymond,
S.J. Roguski and S.E. Tennenbaum, who formed the field crew for this study.
Additional thanks are due to Mark Brown and Bob Tighe, who gathered the
information from the Hillsborpugh County Environmental Protection Commission (EPC)
permit files, and to David Hall and Christina Raymond who assigned wetland indicator
codes to all vegetation species for which a code was not found in Reed (1988). Thanks
are also due to Steven Pelles, who used his computer and cartographic skills to create
functional maps from field sketches and the sometimes cryptic construction plans. In
addition, we wish to thank Kevin Erwin, Donald Richardson, and David Ferrell who
provided technical peer review of the paper, and to Marcia Bollman and Deborah
Coffey who provided editorial and quality assurance reviews, respectively. Finally, we
thank the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission for allowing
access to their files, and both the EPC and the property owners for allowing access to
the created wetlands. Without their permission for access, this research could not have
been conducted.
Vll
-------
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
The growing body of information on both the ecological values of wetlands and
the documentation of the historic losses of these systems has generated concern about
the status of the resource. Reflecting this concern, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) initiated a Wetlands Research Program (Zedler and Kentula 1986) to
assist the Agency in implementing its responsibilities to protect the Nation's wetlands.
The research program was designed to support the Agency in the administration of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). One component of this research is to
determine how well compensatory mitigation under Section 404 is working, and how the
process could be improved.
Completed mitigation projects are being studied by the Wetlands Research
Program nationwide to identify critical design features, develop methods for evaluating
projects, determine the functions they perform, and describe how they change with time.
To date, pilot studies have been conducted in Portland and Seaside, Oregon;
Connecticut; and Hillsborough County, Florida. This report is the second in a series
designed to evaluate the physical adequacy of created wetlands by comparing field
measurements of wetlands created as compensatory mitigation with their construction
plans and permit conditions. Because the information contained in the project files was
limited to hydrology, wetland area, wetland shape, slopes of banks, and vegetation, our
evaluation was also limited to these elements. Wetland hydrology and vegetation are
important to study on their own merit because they are two of the factors required to
indicate a wetland exists (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation
1989). It is important to examine wetland area created to ensure that losses in area do
not occur as a result of compensatory mitigation, and wetland shape and slopes of
banks are structural features which influence wetland type and wildlife habitat. In light
of the above, quantitative measurements were taken to 1) determine if the wetland
creation projects conformed to their permit specifications, 2) verify that the wetlands
were created according to their construction plans, and 3) evaluate the design of those
projects in terms of their resemblance to natural wetlands and their attributes as
discussed in the literature. The first report in the series evaluated the design of
mitigation projects in Portland, Oregon (Gwin & Kentula 1990). Other aspects of the
research conducted near Tampa, Florida are reported in Brown (1991), in which the
created wetlands were compared with their natural analogs.
OVERVIEW OF WETLAND REGULATION
The CWA was passed in 1972 to restore and maintain the chemical, physical,
and biological integrity of the Nation's waters by regulating the discharge of dredge and
1
-------
fill materials. In 1977, the legislation was strengthened to give additional protection to
wetlands. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and EPA jointly administer the
Section 404 permit program. In brief, the COE is the permitting authority, while EPA
is responsible for issuing the environmental criteria for permit review, taking the lead in
enforcement against unauthorized discharges, and overseeing state assumption of the
program. EPA also has the authority to prohibit oir restrict discharge!; that would have
unacceptable adverse effects on certain resource values.
Applicants for 404 permits can be required to mitigate any adverse impacts to
the aquatic environment caused by the proposed project. The EPA and COE use a
three step process to evaluate Section 404 permit applications. The steps are to (1)
avoid impacts by exploring alternatives; (2) minimize potential impacts through project
modifications; and (3) compensate for any unavoidable impacts which remain.
Compensatory mitigation includes either the restoration of existing degraded wetlands
or the creation of man-made wetlands (Memorandum of Agreement 1990).
In addition to the federal regulations, in 1984 the state of Florida passed the
Henderson Wetlands Act, which requires the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation (FDER) to evaluate proposals to mitigate the adverse impacts of dredging
and rilling in waters of the state before granting permits for such actions. Mitigation is
required when negative aspects of a proposed dredging and filling project have been
identified that would result in the loss of wetland functions (FDER Rule 17-312.330).
THE STATUS OF WETLAND CREATION AND RESTORATION
Interest in compensatory mitigation has generated a number of reports on
wetland creation and restoration. In summarizing the results of a recent review of
wetland creation and restoration in the United States, Kusler and Kentula (1990) state
that the overall status of the literature on wetland creation and restoration varies by
region, wetland type, and wetland function. Specific findings include:
o Practical experience and the available scientific knowledge on restoration and
creation are limited for most types of wetlands. The amount of information
varies regionally and with the wetlands function of interest. The most is known
about the creation and restoration of the cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora)
marshes of the low intertidal regions of the Atlantic coast. Much less success
has been achieved with the high intertidal marshes and the seagrasses that occur
in the same region. Even less is known about creating and restoring wetlands on
the Gulf and Pacific coasts, and in general, the least is known about restoring
and creating inland, freshwater wetlands.
o Most wetland restoration and creation projects do not have specified goals, which
complicates efforts to evaluate "success".
-------
o ..,-, Monitoring of wetland restoration and creation projects has been uncommon.
Most, of the studies of mitigation.projects, have been qualitative;case studies (e.g., Baker
1984, Reimold and Cobler 1986, Fishman et al 1987,, Good 1987, Mason and Slocum
1987, and Reiner. 1989). Furthermore, most are site-specific and do not use reference
sites as a standard for evaluation (Quammen 1986); Therefore, this pilot study looked
to begin filling this gap by quantitatively evaluating wetlands created as compensatory
mitigation, and by testing an approach for evaluating the design and construction of
these wetlands. ••••'.<•
-------
SECTION n
METHODS
The design and construction of nine freshwater wetlands created in the Tampa
urban area as requirements of the FDER and the Hillsborough County Environmental
Protection Commission (EPC) were examined. Briefly, this involved the comparison of
the as-built characteristics of the created wetlands measured in the field with the
written permit specifications and construction plans found in the official records. In
addition, project design and as-built features were compared to design guidelines found
in the current literature on wetland creation and restoration.
SITE SELECTION
The specific details of the selection of created and natural wetlands are
presented in Brown (1991). For the benefit of the reader, a brief overview of the
procedure used for selection of the created wetlands is presented below since the focus
of this report is to examine the design of the created wetlands. Data from the natural
wetlands are used only to amplify the interpretation of the results from the vegetation
analysis.
The regions with the largest numbers of created wetlands were identified using a
permit database provided by FDER. Upon further examination of the database and
consultation with FDER personnel, the Tampa urban area, specifically Hillsborough
County, was selected because of the extensive database kept by the county's EPC on all
created wetland projects permitted over the preceding nine years. The EPC files
contained records of species planted, year of planting, site conditions, and follow-up site
visits. The EPC database was found to be far superior to any other surveyed.
A total of 64 created wetlands in 31 developments throughout the county were
identified. The largest concentration was in the recently expanding Tampa urban area.
Candidate wetlands were evaluated relative to the following criteria: 1) size-must be
less than or equivalent to 1 hectare, the most common size class regionally and
probably, nationally; 2) type-herbaceous vegetation; 3) age-at least 1 year old; 4)
intensity of maintenance performed since creation of the site~the less maintenance, the
more desirable the site. This selection procedure narrowed the number of candidate
created wetlands to 20. Final selection of the created wetlands then required site visits
to determine which sites: 1) approximated the most commonly found natural freshwater
marsh systems of the eco-region, i.e., isolated, fully vegetated marshes were most
desirable; 2) located in an urban setting; and 3) accessible. The final selection process
yielded nine created wetlands between one and nine years old (Table 1).
-------
TABLE 1. Approximate dates when construction and field sampling was completed for
the created wetlands. Dashes (--) indicate no information available.
SITE CONSTRUCTION SAMPLED IN
COMPLETED THE FIELD
101
102
103
104
105
106
204
205
208
Spring 1985
March 1987
1985
1979
—
«
1985
Spring 1986
Before June 1985
May 1988
May 1988
May 1988
May 1988
May 1988
May 1988
July 1988
July 1988
July 1988
-------
DATA COLLECTION
Data on planned and existing hydrology, wetland area, wetiland shape, slopes of
banks, and vegetation were collected in the field and in the office, tor each site. The
general approach is presented below; details are given when each item is discussed in
the subsections that follow.
Information on the plans for each site was obtained from the Hillsborough
County EPC office. Project descriptions, blueprints, conceptual drawings, and lists of
species to be planted were used, as well as EPC "Created Wetlands Assessment Project
Candidate Wetlands Data Sheets", when available. Information on the existing
conditions on the sites was gathered in the field. Water levels, wetland area, wetiland
shape, slopes of banks, soil characteristics, and vegetation composition were sampled
during May and July of 1988. Sampling methods used and the associated quality
assurance procedures are documented in Sherman et al. (1991), and evaluated in
Sherman and Gwin (1991).
Evaluating the Hydrology to be Created and As-Built
Hillsborough County EPC files were examined for information on the intended
hydrologic regime, water levels, and area of the site to be inundated, and for
descriptions of water sources, inlets, outlets, and water control structures.
Sites were evaluated in the field for indicators of wetland hydrology. Evidence
that saturation occurred for a time sufficient to support hydrophytic vegetation and
create hydric soils was documented according to the criteria listed in the Federal
Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (1989). The presence of
a hydrophytic plant community was determined by the presence and degree of
dominance of obligate, facultative wetland, and facultative vegetation as defined by
Reed (1988). Presence of water above the surface of the substrate, presence of water
in soil pits, evidence of soil saturation (glistening), and presence of mottles in the soil
were used as evidence of wetland hydrology. In addition, presence of hydric soil was
determined on the basis of soil chroma and percent organic carbon content. Soil
chroma was determined using a Munsell Color Book. Percent organic matter was
expressed as ash free dry weight. In addition, water sources, inlets, and outlets were
located and described and their location documented. Water levels on site relative to
the soil surface were measured in each plot sampled and recorded. Percent of the site
inundated was estimated and recorded.
Evaluating the Area to be Created and As-Built
Three types of information were used to determine how the wetland area in the
plans and as-built compared with that listed in the EPC files—the written record, permit
maps, and field maps. Paired permit and field maps for each site were drawn at the
-------
same scale so that each map fit on an 8 1/2 x 11 inch piece of paper.- Permit- maps
were drawn from blueprints and conceptual drawings from the Millsborough County
EPC.fiJ.es. Field maps were computer generated from sketches and measurements
made in the field, with a, .transit and stadia rqd (Lounsbury and Aldrich 1986). The field
maps represent the boundary of the. wetland as determined from changes in vegetation
and slope. .-.....-.
A second member of the. field crew checked the accuracy of the measurements
made using the transit by duplicating the measurements. The sketches were drawn
back at the office using the compass directions and distances determined in the field.
The accuracy of the. sketches was subsequently checked and verified by a member of
the field crew.
A planimeter (Numonics model #125.0-1).was. used.to measure the area of each
wetland in acres from the maps. Each map was traced three times and the resulting
areas were averaged. A dot grid was used to check the accuracy of the planimetry on
three pairs (33%) of the maps. The relative percent difference between the areas
derived from planimetry and those calculated by the grid was less than 6%,
demonstrating the accuracy of the areal calculations done with the planimeter. The
data were converted from acres to hectares by multiplying by 0.4047.
Evaluating the Shape to be Created and As-Built
The shape of each wetland as-built was checked against the shape indicated by
the construction plans by visually comparing the permit and field maps. Notes on the
observations were made. In addition, the literature was searched for information
relating wetland shape to ecological function to evaluate the shapes designed and
constructed.
Evaluating Slopes to be Created and As-Built
The Hillsborough County EPC files were searched for specifications for the
slopes of the banks of the wetlands. Statements within the files, as well as contour
lines on the blueprints and conceptual drawings were used.
The slopes of banks leading into the wetland from upland areas were determined
in the field by measuring elevation changes with a transit and stadia rod along transects
placed on banks that were characteristic of the site (Lounsbury and Aldrich 1986).
Elevation measurements were first made at the top of the bank and then at regular
intervals determined by the spacing of the vegetation plots across the wetland.
Additional readings were taken at one meter intervals where the microtopography of
the wetland was irregular or where gradients appeared steep. Another member of the
field team checked the accuracy of the measurements by repeating the procedure at 6%
of the data points. The mean difference between the original and duplicate readings
-------
was less than 2%, demonstrating the comparability of the field crew personnel and
accuracy of the readings.
Elevations measured in the field were calculated relative to the lowest point in
the wetland. Calculations were checked and entered into a computer database.
Double entry was used to ensure that errors did not occur in transferring the data from
the field sheets into the computer. After entry, the two data sets were electronically
compared. Discrepancies were corrected by referring to the field sheets.
Cross-sections of the topography of each wetland were then computer generated
using the corrected elevation data. The top and bottom of each bank were located on
each cross-section. The top of the bank was defined as the uppermost point on each
cross-section. The bottom of the bank was defined as either the first point of inflection
on the cross-section, or the point where the profile obviously started to flatten out
across the bottom of the basin. The slope of each bank was then calculated.
'j
Slopes specified in the permit plans and construction plans were compared to
the as-built condition. To evaluate the design of each created wetland, the available
literature on wetland creation was searched for recommendations on slopes appropriate
for different types of wetlands, soil stabilization, and the establishment of vegetation
and wildlife communities. The recommendations were compared to the slopes
contained in the permit plans, construction plans, and the as-built conditions.
The evaluations described above were made first with reference to the
predominant slopes on the site. In addition, since the information in the EPC files was
often limited, each slope listed in the files and measured in the field was compared to
the recommended slopes from the literature.
Evaluating the Vegetation to be Established and Actually Found on Site
Hillsborough County EPC files were searched for revegetation strategies specified
as conditions for construction and for lists of vegetation to be planted on the site.
When the planting lists contained common names, scientific names were assigned from
the Regional Lists of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands (Reed 1988).
The same field procedures were used in both the created wetlands and their
natural analogs (Brown 1991). Transects were placed to obtain a representative sample
of the vegetation community of the wetland. This was accomplished by establishing
vegetation transects that followed basin morphology, i.e., downgradient through the
deepest portions of the habitat, and back up to the opposite edge of the wetland. The
number of transects placed in each wetland depended upon the shape of the wetland.
For example, in a circularly shaped wetland, two transects would be placed at right
angles to each other. In an elongated, oval or rectangularly shaped wetland, three
transects might be used-one long transect placed lengthwise in the wetland and two
8
-------
shorter transepts at right, angles to the long,transect., All species.present in forty 1-m2
quadrats placed at equal intervals along the transects were identified, the percent of the
total cover represented was estimated, and species lists were generated. The accuracy
of species identification was checked by a second botanist who resampled 25% of the
quadrats. Overall, the same species were identified in the same quadrat an average of
84% of the time, demonstrating comparability between the botanists (Sherman and
Gwin 1991). . , ..' . ' ' .. .;
Each species was assigned to one of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
(USFWS).wetland indicator categories (Reed 1988).. This resource was also used to
determine if species were native to the southeastern United States or exotic. Table 2
lists the wetland indicator codes used. All code assignments were verified by a second
person. Any species whose code could not be determined from Reed (1988) was
assigned a wetland indicator code by Drf David Hall and Ms. Christina Raymond of the
University of Florida Herbarium and Center for Wetlands, both experts in the
taxonomy of Florida wetland plants.
A combined list of all species contained in the planting lists was generated by
merging the planting lists from all sites. A combined list of all species actually found
on the nine created wetlands was also produced. The lists were compared as to the
proportion of 1) native and exotic species, 2) wetland and upland species, and 3)
species found on the site that were listed for planting. In addition, the same
comparisons were made for the species to be planted and found on all sites.
-------
TABLE 2. Wetland indicator codes assigned to all species found on the created wetlands and on the planting lists. Codes were adapted from categories in
the Regional List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands (Reed 1988).
INDICATOR CATEGORY
POSITION IN CATEGORY
NATIVE/EXOTIC
ABS = Absent from the list
FAC = Facultative. Sometimes found on
wetlands (34%~66% estimated
frequency), also occurs in
nonwetlands.
NO = No Agreement, Not Considered, or
No Review. No agreement was
applied when a regional panel was
unable to reach a unanimous
decision, not considered was
applied to plants recently added to
the list, and no review was applied
to species that have not received
regional review.
OBL = Obligate Wetland Species. Always
found in wetlands under natural
conditions (frequency greater than
99%), but may persist in
nonwetlands.
UPL = Upland. Occurs in wetlands in
another region, but not found
(<1% frequency) in wetlands in
the region specified.
FACU = Facultative Upland. Seldom found
in wetlands (l%-33% frequency)
and usually occurs in nonwetlands.
FACW = Facultative Wetland. Usually
found in wetlands (67%--99%
frequency), but occasionally found
in nonwetlands.
+ — Frequency is toward high end of the
category (more frequently found in
wetlands).
- = Frequency is toward lower end of the
category (less frequently found in
wetlands).
Intermediacy within the category.
NAT = Native Species,
EXO = Exotic Species, i.e., species introduced
into the region.
= No information available.
No information available.
-------
SECTION m
RESULTS
Data on planned and existing hydrology, wetland area, wetland shape, slopes of
banks, and vegetation were evaluated for each site. The results are presented in the
subsections that follow. Appendix I contains a narrative description and a catalog of all
the information gathered on each created wetland from field sampling, and from
construction plans and permit specifications found in the Hillsborough County EPC
files.
EVALUATING THE HYDROLOGY TO BE CREATED AND AS-BUILT
The hydrologic information contained in the project files was inadequate to use
in the comparison of the created wetlands with their project specifications and
construction plans. A summary of the information found is presented in Table 3. The
proportion of the created wetlands inundated by open water ranged from 0.51% to
3.03%. This range was similar to that of the natural wetlands sampled, and suggests
little difference between the two populations (Brown 1991).
EVALUATING THE AREA TO BE CREATED AND AS-BUILT
Permit specifications, construction plans, and as-built conditions were compared
to evaluate the area of each created wetland. For 44% (4/9) of the created wetlands
(sites 101, 102, 105, 106), permit specifications did not indicate area to be created. In
addition, construction plans for 44% (4/9) of the created wetlands (sites 103, 104, 105,
and 106) did not indicate the scale used in the drawings. Therefore, scale was
calculated from distances marked between contour lines or landmarks on drawings, and
each wetland's intended area was then estimated using the calculated scale.
Permit Specifications Compared to Field Measurements
Areas specified in the five permits that contained written areal specifications
(sites 103, 104, 204, 205, and 208) ranged from 0.25 ha (0.63 acres) to 1.28 ha (3.16
acres) (Table 4). For these five wetlands, the area measured in the field ranged from
0.34 ha (0.84 acres) to 0.88 ha (2.18 acres). Comparisons of the areas specified in the
permits with the field measurements showed a cumulative loss of 0.78 ha (1.91 ac) of
the 3.58 ha (8.84 ac) intended to be built, although two projects were built larger than
specified.
11
-------
TABLE 3. The hydrology planned for each created wetland studied. Information was
taken from the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection
Commission (EPC) permit files.
SITE HYDROLOGY INTENDED AT CREATED WETLAND
101 Letter from the property owner's attorneys to EPC states that the wetland
was designed as a detention system and would receive stormwater runoff
from discharge generated by the development.
102 Construction plans included planned high and low water levels.
Monitoring report states that "a wide range of water level fluctuation"
exists and that partial construction of the wetland had resulted in "the
pond [being] short on expected volume". An irrigation system was to be
installed to provide water until the summer rains began.
103 Design plans indicate that water levels on the site would be determined by
water levels in a "connecting swale".
104 No information.
105 No information.
106 No information.
204 Typical high and low water were marked on the construction plans.
Sketch of site also stated that the purpose of the project was to provide
"drainage structures".
205 Created site would receive overflow of stormwater and runoff flowing
through the cypress dome from commercial development via a V-notched
weir.
208 No information.
12
-------
TABLE 4. Comparisons of wetland area required in the permit specifications (PERMIT) with the area indicated by construction plans
(PLANS) and with the area of wetland measured from each field map of as-built conditions (AS-BUILT). Area is expressed in
hectares. Values in brackets [ac] are the corresponding data expressed in acres, which was converted to hectares by multiplying
by 0.4047. Parentheses (%) indicate the percentage of area gained or lost Dashes (-) indicate no information. ; Areal
measurements followed by an asterisk (*) are estimates, because scale information was lacking from construction plans.
SITE
101
102
103
104
105
106
204
205
208
PERMIT
-
~
1.13 ha
[2.80 ac]
1.28 ha
[3.16 ac]
--
--
0.53 ha
[1.30 ac]
0.25 ha
[0.63 ac]
0.39 ha
[0.95 ac]
PLANS
0.19 ha
[0.48 ac]
0.21 ha
[0.51 ac]
0.75 ha
[1.86 ac]*
1.04 ha
[2.56 ac]*
0.03 ha
[0.08 ac]*
0.03 ha
[0.07 ac]*
0.28 ha
[0.70 ac]
0.36 ha
[0.88 ac]
0.29 ha
[0.71 ac]
AS-BUILT
0.10 ha
[0.25 ac]
0.21 ha
[0.51 ac]
0.78 ha
[1.92 ac]
0.88 ha
[2.18 ac]
0.07 ha
[0.18 ac]
0.05 ha
[0.13 ac]
0.34 ha
[0.84 ac]
0.38 ha
[0.95 ac]
0.42 ha
[1.04 ac]
PERMIT vs
AS-BUILT
-
-
-0.35
(-31%)
-0.40
(-31%)
-
-
-0.19
(-36%)
+0.13
(+52%)
+0.03
(+ 8%)
DIFFERENCES
PLANS vs
AS-BUILT
-0.09
;(-47%)
0.00
( 0%)
+0.03*
(+ 4%)
-0.16*
(-15%)
+0.04*
(+133%) .
+0.01"
(+67%)
+0.06
(+21%)
+0.02
(+ 6%)
+0.13
(+45%)
PERMIT vs;
PLANS :
.
'•
-0.38
:(-34%).
;-0.24 .
(-19%) . •
." '. " ' -.
•'..
-0.25 ''•
(-47%) ,
+0.11
(+44%)
-0.10
(-26%)
-------
G^
Areas determined from construction plans ranged from 0.03 ha (0.07 acres) to
1.04 ha (2.56 acres) (Table 4). However, the areas determined for 44% (4/9) of the
construction plans (sites 103, 104, 105, and 106) are estimates because scale was not
included on the drawings for the site. The area measured in the field for all nine
created wetlands ranged from 0.05 ha (0.13 acres) to 0.88 ha (2.18 acres). Although
two wetlands were created smaller than their construction plans indicated, comparison
of the total area determined from the construction plans with the total area as-built
showed a slight increase in the area of wetlands constructed over that intended
(approximately 0.06 ha). However, considering that the area intended for four of the
nine wetlands were estimates, the total area created and the total area indicated by the
construction plans should be regarded as the same.
EVALUATING THE SHAPE TO BE CREATED AND AS-BUILT
Six of the permit maps indicate that the wetlands were designed to have
primarily straight, regular boundaries and geometric shapes (e.g., rectangular, circular).
The field maps for these wetlands show that two are rectangular, three have at least
one long, straight boundary with an otherwise irregular shape, and one is completely
irregular. The remaining three permit maps indicate that the wetlands were designed
to have irregular shapes and the field maps indicate that they were constructed as
designed. To summarize, the field maps for the wetlands studied indicated that all
were built with shapes similar to that intended.
EVALUATING SljOPES TO BE CREATED AND AS-BUILT
Slopes to be constructed were evaluated in two ways. The field measurements
of as-built slopes were compared with the intended slopes as determined from project
specifications or construction plans to ascertain if the banks were graded as specified.
Then, the as-built slopes were compared with slopes recommended in the current
literature on wetland creation.
Since any one wetland could contain banks with several different slopes, the
comparisons between as-built and intended slopes were made with reference to the
predominant as-built slopes on the site. In addition, each slope listed and each
measured in the field was compared to the recommended slopes from the literature.
14
-------
As-Built Conditions Compared to Construction Plans and Project Specifications
The predominant as-built slope's approximated the: slopes indicated in the project
specifications and construction.plans for five of the nine sites. One site was built with
slopes more gejntle than specified/ Comparisons of predominant slopes were riot made
for three sites due to insufficient mforrnation in the project specifications and
construction plans.
Forty-eight individual slopes were measured of as-built conditions for the nine
created wetlands. Of these, 44% (21/48) were more gentle than their respective project
specifications or construction plans. Twenty-three percent (11/48) were built as planned
and 8% (4/48) were steeper than stipulated. Twenty-five percent of the as-built slopes
(12/48) could not be compared to their project specifications and construction plans due
to insufficient information in the permit files;
Comparisons with Recommendations in the Literature
The current literature on wetland creation was reviewed to determine if slopes
intended for construction and as-built were appropriate for palustrine emergent
marshes. The literature recommended that the banks of created wetlands should be
graded between 5:1 and 15:1 (horizontal:vertical) to facilitate vegetation establishment
and soil stability (Reimold and Cobler 1986, Kruczynski 1990).
The predominant slope to be built for each site as determined from the
construction plans and project specifications was compared with the recommended
range for slopes from the literature. The results indicated that: 33% (3/9) were
steeper than 5:1; 33% (3/9) were within the range of 5:1 to 15:1; and 33% (3/9) could
not be evaluated because the predominant slope intended could not be determined.
The predominant slope as determined from the as-built conditions measured at
each site was compared with the recommended range for slopes from the literature.
The results were: 33% (3/9) were steeper than 5:1; 56% (5/9) were within the 5:1 to
15:1 range; and 11% (1/9) were gentler than 15:1.
The individual slope measurements of as-built conditions were also compared
with the recommended slopes from the literature. The results indicated that: 27%
(13/48) were steeper than 5:1; 56% (27/48) were within the 5:1 to 15:1 range; and 17%
(8/48) were gentler than 15:1.
15
-------
VEGETATION TO BE ESTABLISHED AND ACTUALLY
ESTABLISHED ^
. Eigtit of the nine (89%) project specifications indicated that the wetlands were to
be planted. Project specifications for site 104 did not include a planting list.
Seven of the planting lists used scientific names. Of those seven, one listed
genera only, and six listed genus and species for some plants and genus only for others.
In addition, one planting list used only common names. Scientific names should be
used to designate species for planting because common names can apply to more than
one species. The number of species found on the planting lists ranged from three to
twenty, with an average of eight species per list (S.E. = +. 2.0).
The planting lists which specified both the genus and specific epithet for each
plant allowed determination of whether or not the species included were native or
exotic. All included only native species, and none included exotics (Table 5). However,
determination of whether a species was native or exotic could not be made when only
the genus was specified.
The majority of the planting lists (5/8) were composed primarily of obligate
wetland species (Table 5). Four planting lists included facultative wetland species and
two included facultative species. Five planting lists contained species for which the
indicator status could not be determined.
Combining the planting lists produced a total of 35 unique species (Table 5). Of
these, 29 were native to the Southeast, while the origins of six could not be determined.
In addition, 46% (16/35) of the species on the combined list were obligate wetland
species. Of the 35 species on the combined planting list, 21 (60%) were found on at
least one created wetland, although not necessarily the wetland on which they were to
be planted.
Evaluation of the Vegetation Found On-Site
The number of species found on each site was much greater than the number of
species contained on each planting list. The average number of species found on a
created wetland was 50 (S.E. = +. 8.4). Vegetation communities at three of the nine
wetlands (33%) were composed completely of volunteer species. For the remaining six
created wetlands, between 84.6% and 98.0% of the species found were volunteers
(Table 6). The species that volunteered on the created wetlands were compared with
the species that were found on the natural wetlands sampled (Brown 1991). This
16
-------
TABLE S. Composition of planting lists. # SPECIES is the total number of species listed to be
planted on each wetland. # NAT is the number of species indigenous to the
southeastern United States listed. The species were counted in the Ufl^novw (TJNK)
category if only the genus was given. Also listed are the numbers of species found on
each planting list which fell into the categories in the Regional List of Plant Species
that Occur in Wetlands (Reed 1988). Plants were assigned to categories m consultation
with Dr. David Hall and Ms. Christina Raymond of the University of Florida Hetbarium.
The categories are: OBL-obligate wetland species; FACW-facultative wetlands species;
FAC~facultative species, FACU-facultative upland species, and UPIy-uplantl species.
The combined list (Comb List) is composed of all unique species on the planting lists.
No species was counted more than once, though species may have occurred on more
than one planting list. NP indicates the created wetland was not planted.
SITE # SPECIES # NAT # UNK # OBL # FACW # FAC # FACU/UPL
101
102
103
104
105
106
204
205
208
Comb
List
3
9
5
NP
6
6
20
3
12
35
3
9
3
NP
3
3
17
0
12
29
0
0
2
NP
3
3
3
3
0
6
3
6
0
NP
3
3
1
1
0
6
16
0
3
3
NP
0
0
7
0
4
10
0
0
0
NP
0
0
3
0
2
3
0
0
0
NP
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
-------
TABLE 6. Species found on the sites that were to be planted, volunteered, and that occurred on
the natural wetlands sampied. NA indicates pkntmg information available was
inadequate, therefore, all sp~eci.es found on ihe sate were assumed lc be: volunteers. NP
indicates the wetland ivas rot planted. The combined list. (Comb List) was created by
merging all the individual planting lists and lists of species found on the sf.tes. Species
were only counted once, though they may have occurred on more than one planting list
and may have been found at more than one site. # SPECIES FOUND is the total
number of species found on the created wetland. % PLANTED SPECIES FOUND is
the proportion of species foroid ort the site tfoat were on the planting Ifet. % VOLS
FOUND is the proportion of the. total number of species found on the site that were
volunteers (not on the planting list). % ON NATURAL WETLANDS is the proportion
of the species on the created wetland that also occurred on the natural wetlands. Actual
numbers of species found in each category are in parentheses.
SITE
101
102
103
104
105
106
204
205
208
Comb List
# SPECIES
FOUND
% PLANTED
FOUND
% VOLS
FOUND
50
79
49
38
13
35
96
34
59
207
0.0 (0)
6.3 (5)
2.0 (1)
0.0 (NP)
15.4 (2)
5.7 (2)
11.5 (11)
0.0 (NA)
8.5 (5)
10.1 (21)
100.0 (50)
93.7 (74)
98.0 (48)
100.0 (38)
84.6 (11)
94.3 (33)
88.5 (85)
100.0 (34)
91.5 (54)
89.9 (186)
%ON
NATURAL
WETLANDS
58.0 (29/50)
38.0 (30/79)
61.2 (30/49)
55.3 (21/38)
53.8 ( 7/13)
54.3 (19/35)
59.4 (51/96)
52.9 (18/34)
61.0 (36/59)
44.0 (91/207)
18
-------
comparison showed th^t the proportion of (Volunteer species oh the created wetlands
that also occurred on the natural wetlands ranged from 38.0% to 61.2%, Overall, an
average of 54.9% (S.E. = 2.4%) of the species on the created wetlands also occurred
on natural wetlands, and 44.0% of the species on the combined planting list also
occurred. 6n,the combined list or" species found on the natural wetlands.,
• '"::< . ...'.••.. .;• .••.-..,'•....•• •. : ...'•.:• •.;•...' .
The relative abundance of the species found on the created wetlands followed a
pattern similar' to that generated by evaluating the number of species found on the sites
(Figure 1). For those wetlands that were planted, the proportion of the plant cover
composed of species to be planted ranged from 0.0% to 33.4% (Table 7). The
proportion of the plant cover on the created wetlands that was composed of volunteers
ranged from 66.6% to 100.0%, and the proportion of the plant cover composed of
species that also occurred on the natural wetlands sampled ranged from 48.0% to
93.4%.
Plant communities found at the created wetlands were composed of both native
and exotic species. However, all sites had a much greater proportion of native than
exotic species, with regard to both the numbers of species found and the proportion of
the cover composed of those species (Table 8). The proportion of native species found
on each site ranged from 79.7% to 96.6%. The proportion of the cover composed of
native species on each created wetland ranged from 83.4% to 99.5%. Combining the
lists of species found on each created wetland generated a total of 207 unique species.
Of these, 174 (84.1%) were native to the southeastern United States.
A majority of both the number of species present and the proportion of the
cover was composed of obligate wetland (OBL) and facultative wetland (FACW)
species (Figure 2). The proportion of species found on the created wetlands that were
OBL ranged from 26.5% to 53.8% (Table 9). The proportion of the cover composed
by OBL species was somewhat higher, ranging from 37.4% to 90.2% (Table 10),
indicating that species in this category represent a large proportion of the vegetation on
these wetlands. The proportion of FACW species found on the created wetlands
ranged from 23.1% to 43.0%, and the proportion of the cover composed of FACW
species ranged from 4.5% to 51.5%.
Facultative (FAC), facultative upland (FACU), and upland (UPL) species were
minor constituents of the vegetation on the created wetlands, in terms of both the
species found and the proportion of the cover composed of these species. The
proportion of FAC species found on the created wetlands ranged from 3.4% to 26.5%,
and the proportion of the cover composed of these species ranged from 0.1% to 12.8%.
FACU and UPL species constituted even smaller proportions of the vegetation. The
proportion of FACU and UPL species found ranged from 0.0% to 16.0% and 0.0% to
1.0%, respectively. The proportion of the cover composed of these species ranged from
0.0% to 13.2% (FACU) and 0.0% to 0.2% (UPL).
19
-------
PERCENT OF SPECIES
100
PLANTED VOLUNTEERS ON NATURAL
101 • 102 m 103 • 104 • 105
106 B 204 Hi 205 El 208
B.
PERCENT COVER
100
PLANTED
101 • 102
106 m 204
VOLUNTEERS ON NATURAL
B 103 • 104 • 105
0 205 El 208
FIGURE 1. A. The proportion of the number of species found on each created
wetland that were planted (PLANTED), volunteered (VOLUNTEERS),
and that also occurred on the natural wetlands sampled (ON
NATURAL). B. The relative abundance (expressed as % cover) of
species that were planted (PLANTED) found on each created wetland,
volunteered (VOLUNTEERS), and were also found on the natural
wetlands (ON NATURAL).
20
-------
TABLE 7. Proportion of the plant cover found on the created sites composed of
species to be planted, volunteers, and that were also found on the natural
wetlands sampled. NP indicates the wetland was not planted. NA
indicates planting information was inadequate, therefore, all species found
on the site were assumed to be volunteers. PLANTED is the proportion
of the cover composed cf species found on the site that were on the
planting list. VOLUNTEERS is the proportion of the cover composed of
species found on the site that were volunteers (not on the planting list).
NATURAL WETLANDS is the proportion of the cover composed of
specks that also occurred on the natural wetlands sampled. An asterisk
(*) indicates the wetland was mulched during construction.
SITE
PLANTED
VOLUNTEERS
NATURAL
WETLANDS
101
102*
103*
104*
105
106
204*
205*
208*
0.0%
8.3%
3.7%
NP
14.0%
5.6%
28.9%
NA
33.4%
100.0%
91.7%
96.3%
100.0%
86.0%
94.4%
71.1%
100.0%
66.6%
48.0%
61.3%
62.5%
84.9%
82.4%
72.4%
77.4%
93.4%
89.4%
21
-------
TABLE 8. Proportions of the species found on a site that are indigenous to the southeastern
United States or exotic. # SPECIES is the total number of species found on each
created wetland. % NATIVE is the proportion Of the total number of species that were
indigenous,, % EXOTIC is the proportion of species that were exotic. % COVER
NATIVE is the, proportion of the cover composedi of indigenous species, and %
COVER EXOTIC is the proportion of the cover composed of exotic species. The
Combined List (Comb' List) represents all unique species found on the created wetlands.
No species was counted more than once, though it may have been found on more than
one site. Numbers of species are in parentheses.''
SITE
101
102
103
104
105
106
204
205
208
Comb List
# SPECIES
50
79
49
38
13
35
96
34
59
207
% NATIVE
82.0%
(41)
79.7%
(63)
87.8%
(43)
94.7%
(36)
92.3%
(12)
82.9%
(29)
89.6%
(86)
91.2%
(31)
96.6%
(57)
84.1%
(174)
% EXOTIC
14.3%
(7)
12.7%
(10)
4.0%
(2)
5.3%
(2)
0.0%
• (0) .
11.4%
(4)
9.4%
(9)
2.9%
(1)
1.7%
(1)
9.7%
(20)
% COVER
NATIVE
92.9%
79.0%
98.8%
93.3%
95.2%
83.4%
94.3%
98.5%
99.5%
% COVER
EXOTIC
7.0%
17.7%
0.7%
6.7%
0.0%
16.1%
5.7%
0.6%
0.4%
22
-------
A.
FAG
FACW
PAOI
B.
FACW
FAC
FIGURE 2. A. The proportion of the total number of species found on the created
wetlands by wetland indicator category (Reed 1988). B. The proportion
of the relative abundances of the species found on the created wetlands
by wetland indicator category (Reed 1988) expressed as the proportion of
the total cover composed by each.
23
-------
TABLE 9. Proportions of the total number of species found on a site which fell into the categories in the Regional List of Plant Species
that Occur in Wetlands (Reed 1988). # SPP is the total number of species found on each wetland. Plants were assigned to
categories in consultation with Dr. David Hall and Ms. Christina Raymond of the University of Florida Herbarium. Categories
are: (DHL-obligate wetland species; FACW~facultative wetland species; FAC-facultative species; FACU-facultative upland
species; UPL-upland species; and UNK--species that could not be identified or for which the wetland indicator could not be
determined. The combined list (Comb List) is composed of all unique species found at the created sites. No species was
counted more than once, though it may have been found at more than one site. Results are expressed as percentages of the
total number of species found on site. Actual numbers of species are in parentheses.
SITE
101
102
103
104
105
106
204
205
208
Comb List
#SPP.
50
79
49
38
13
35
96
34
59
207
% OBL
26.0% (13)
34.2% (27)
38.8% (19)
44.7% (17)
53.8% ( 7)
51.4% (18)
41.7% (40)
32.4% (11)
52.5% (31)
36.7% (76)
%FACW
28.0% (14)
43.0% (34)
32.7% (16)
39.5% (15)
23.1% ( 3)
25.7% ( 9)
32.3% (31)
35.3% (12)
37.3% (22)
32.4% (67)
%FAC
26.0% (13)
11.4% ( 9)
14.3% ( 7)
13.2% ( 5)
15.4% ( 2)
8.6% ( 3)
15.6% (15)
11.8% ( 4)
3.4% ( 2)
14.5% (30)
% FACU
16.0% ( 8)
3.8% ( 3)
6.1% ( 3)
2.6% ( 1)
0.0% ( 0)
8.6% ( 3)
8.3% ( 8)
14.7% ( 5)
5.1% ( 3)
9.7% (20)
%UPL
0.0% ( 0)
0.0% ( 0)
0.0% ( 0)
0.0% ( 0)
0.0% ( 0)
0.0% ( 0)
1.0% ( 1)
0.0% ( 0)
0.0% ( 0)
0.5% ( 1)
%UNK
4.0% ( 2)
7.6% ( 6)
8.2% ( 4)
,0.0% ( 0)
7.7% ( 1)
5.7% ( 2)
1.0% ( 1)
5:9% ( 2)
1.7% ( 1)
5.8% (13)
-------
TABLE 10. Relative abundances of the species found on a site, expressed as the proportion of the total cover composed by each, which fell
into the categories in the Regional List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands (Reed 1988). Plants were assigned to categories
in consultation with Dr. David Hall and Ms. Christina Raymond of the University of Florida Herbarium. Categories are: OBL-
-obligate wetland species; FACW-facultative wetland species; FAC~facultative species; FACU-facultative upland species; UPL--
upland species; and UNK--species that could not be identified or for which the wetland indicator could not be determined.
Results are expressed as percentages of the total vegetation cover of all species sampled on site.
NJ
SITE
101
102
103
104
105
106
204
205
208
%OBL
52.6%
45.1%
79.4%
54.2%
90.2%
79.9%
37.4%
76.4%
66.5%
%FACW
23.6%
33.7%
12.8%
38.3%
4.5%
17.5%
51.5%
18.1%
32.5%
%FAC
10.4%
12.8%
6.5%
7.1%
0.4%
0.3%
4.0%
0.5%
0.1%
%FACU
13.2%
5.1%
0.9%
0.4%
0.0%
1.8%
6.9%
4.0%
0.9%
%UPL
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
%UNK
0.2%
3.3%
0.5%
0.0%
4.8%
0.5%
0.0%
1.0%
0.0%
-------
SECTION IV
DISCUSSION
Wetlands are, and undoubtedly will continue to be, created, as compensation for
those destroyed by development. Therefore, it is important to ensure that the
wetlands created compensate fully for those destroyed, in terms of function as well as
acreage. Because measures of wetland structure are more readily available and better
understood than are measures of function, we focus on structural measures to
determine if wetland replacement :has occurred. Although verifying that wetland
function exists is the ultimate goal, it is important to establish that a project is, indeed,
a wetland. This includes ensuring that the wetland design is appropriate for the type of
wetland desired and its location, and that structural elements were constructed correctly.
The following discussion examines wetland design and planning in terms of the results
of this study, and presents suggestions for improving the process.
DESIGN OF CREATED WETLANDS
Hydrology
Hydrology is one of the most important aspects of wetland establishment (Mitsch
and Gosselink 1986). Therefore, the design of a created wetland should include specific
statements of the hydrological characteristics intended. Descriptions of planned high
and low water levels or requirements that a source of water must (or will) be provided
are not sufficient in themselves. The plans must explicitly state at minimum 1) how and
from where the water will be supplied to the site, 2) the depths at which water will
inundate the site (seasonal high and seasonal low), and 3) the timing and duration of
inundation.
Hydrological aspects of the created wetlands were not included in the
comparisons of as-built conditions with project specifications and construction plans
because information in the project files was inadequate. However, the percent of open
water on each created wetland was estimated during field work, and a small proportion
of each was found to be open water. This would be appropriate for palustrine
emergent wetlands. Because the proportion of open water on each site was similar to
that of the natural wetlands sampled (Brown 1991), we can speculate that this was
intentional on the part of the wetlands' designers. On the other hand, because a
majority of the created wetlands had greater mean and maximum water depths, as well
as steep bank slopes and basins that are deeper than the natural wetlands sampled, it is
also possible that the designers intended the sites to have greater proportions of open
water (i.e., ponds). If the wetlands were intended to be ponds, then the similarities to
the natural wetlands occurred because of the low water levels that resulted from the
relatively serious drought prior to and during field data collection (Brown 1991). We
26
-------
recommend continuous or periodic monitoring of water levels and proportion of open
water to determine which of the above possibilities is true.
Area of Wetland to be Created
It cannot be determined whether or not there was a net loss of wetland area due
to the absence of areaK requirements in the project specifications or scale markings on
construction plans and conceptual drawings for 66% (6/9) of the created wetlands
studied. Without information on what was intended, it cannot be discerned if the area
created is correct, and the builder/contractor cannot be held accountable for
constructing a wetland of the correct size. When project specifications included area
and conceptual drawings included scale, areas actually built tended to be similar to the
area intended. In fact, of the three created wetlands whose project files included both
written specifications of area to be created and conceptual drawings that included scale,
two were constructed with area slightly greater than that specified.
Shape of the Wetland to be Created
The shape of a wetland can influence its function as wildlife habitat. An
irregular shoreline with small vegetated fingers and open water bays will provide more
edge than will an even-sided shoreline. Greater edge tends to increase waterfowl usage
by providing isolated areas for feeding and loafing (Crawford and Rossiter 1982). Two
of the created wetlands studied had rectangular shorelines, and three others had one
long, straight shoreline with otherwise irregular shapes. The other four wetlands were
constructed with irregular shorelines. Therefore, the four created wetlands constructed
with irregular shorelines may provide more benefit to wildlife than those constructed
with rectangular shapes and straight shorelines.
Garbisch (1977) states that slopes are one of the most important factors in
preparing a site for marsh establishment. He suggests designing slopes to be as gentle
as possible without impounding water. One method of calculating slopes that will be
proper for the vegetation type desired, is to determine the slopes of non-eroding,
vegetated sections of banks of wetlands contiguous to the site. For example, Shisler
and Charette (1984) recommend the grading of slopes and topography to the relative
elevations of adjacent natural marshes.
Kruczynski (1990) recommends slopes between 5:1 and 15:1 (horizontakvertical)
to provide maximum flooding of wetland area, to minimize erosion, and to promote the
successful establishment of wetland vegetation. He states that many mitigation sites
have been unsuccessful because of the steepness of their slopes. In this study 33%
(3/9) of the sites both as planned and constructed had slopes steeper than 5:1
predominant on the site, and field sampling showed that 27% (13/48) of all the slope
measurements taken within the created wetlands studied were steeper than 5:1.
27
-------
D'Ayanzo-(1,990) stated that the. failure, of plantings in created[wetlands is, often
caused; by, incorrect. slope, and the, resulting,erosion and increased rate: of sedimentation.
Water, fluctuations and the corresponding changes in, the duration and frequency of \ >. >
inundation' of. the site are likely to be greater, .when slopes are.s^eep than, when gradual.
Any influx pf water into a small area with steep slopes will cause a rapid deepening of
the water as it rises ,up the banks. Influx!of thp same amount of water will cause a
much smaller increase in depth in a site .where the water is spread over a greater area
because slopes are gentle. These differences in water fluctuations, and hence, the
differences in the duration and frequency of inundation, influence th& amount, zonation,
and form of the vegetation community. Another consequence of steep banks is less
area with the appropriate hydrology for wetland vegetation to become established.
Thus, we have observed that only a narrow band of vegetation forms at the water's
edge in wetlands with steep bank slopes.
Vegetation to be Established and Actually Found on the Site
Planting Lists—
A list of species to be planted should be included in the project plan if planting
is to be done. Planting lists were found for eight of the nine created wetlands studied.
However, some of these lists were problematic: 1) one listed common names only, 2)
several used names of genera only instead of both genus and species, and 3) none
specified planting methods. Scientific names, both genus and species, should be used to
identify species for planting, and, whenever possible, the native variety should be
specified. Common names may be included with the scientific names, but should not
be the sole means of species identification because a common name often can apply to
more than one species. Overall, however, these planting lists were much less
problematic than those included in project plans for wetlands created in Oregon that
were examined in a similar study. In addition to the problems listed above, the
planting lists for the wetlands created in Oregon included exotic species, upland species,
and commercial cultivars (Gwin and Kentula 1990). These problems did not occur on
the planting lists examined in this study.
As stated above, none of the projects studied prescribed planting exotic or
upland species. Of those planting lists that specified both genus and species, all
contained species that were native to the southeast and either obligate wetland,
facultative wetland, or facultative species (Reed 1988). In addition, most project
specifications stated the wetland should be monitored for one or two years, and
required removal by hand of nuisance or invasive species such as Typha spp. (Cattails),
Melaleuca quinquenervia (Melaleuca), and Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian
peppertree) to help ensure the survival of desired species. The survival of planted
species constituted the primary evaluation criteria, and the removal of invasive or
nuisance species were the principal actions to be taken during monitoring.
28
-------
None of the project files contained instructions or timing for the actual planting
process. The season for planting, type of planting materials, planting density, and
required survival iatcs, should be stated in the project specifications (Kruczynski 1990).
When considering type of plant material to use, several factors should be considered.
Seeding is the least expensive method, but its success is the least predictable (Garbisch
1986) because seeds may be washed away by fluctuating water levels or consumed by
wildlife. Moreover, seed germination and development in shallow water depend upon
uncontrollable parameters such as the temperature and turbidity of the water (Garbisch
1986).
Transplanting of peat-potted plants, plugs, sprigs, and dormant underground
plant parts (tubers, bulbs, and rhizomes) is both the most successful and most expensive
method of revegetating (Garbisch 1986). Generally, in the Southeast, materials should
be planted during the wet season, or plans for irrigation should be made (Erwin 1990).
The transplants or seeds used should be of local origin, because native wetland plants
grown from non-local genetic stock may not be adapted to local climatic conditions.
Garbisch (1977) recommends that plant stock used should originate from within a 100-
mile radius of its intended destination. However, ensuring that plant stock originates in
a climate and ecological setting similar to its intended destination is probably more
important than strictly following the 100-mile radius recommendation. Generally,
abundant plant material for the revegetation of marsh creation projects can be found in
the Southeast (Erwin 1990).
Survival of Species Planted-
Overall, approximately 90% of the species on the created wetlands were
volunteers, while about 10% were species found on the planting lists (Table 6). A
similar pattern was found when the relative abundances of the species were considered
(Figure 1). It is interesting to note however, that approximately 60% of the species to
be planted were found on at least one of the created sites, although not necessarily the
site they were to be planted on. This poses the question: Why weren't species on the
planting lists found in greater numbers on the respective created wetlands? One
possibility is that the species on the individual planting lists constitute only a small
proportion of the possible number of species capable of growing on these wetlands.
Therefore, the small fraction of the vegetation community made up of planted species
may merely reflect the large number of species that could be planted and would survive
on created wetlands.
However, it is also possible that the planted species did not occur in larger
numbers or greater abundances on the created wetlands because the original planting
materials were unhealthy or were not handled properly, or that they simply weren't
planted. Since none of the project files gave instructions for handling the planting
materials, specified types of propagules to use, or where individual species should be
planted, these are possibilities.
29
-------
Lastly, it is-possible that-environmental conditions at the'created wetlands may
have bfccii incorrect for the survival ofithe species planted. Therefore, it may be
necessary to change the conditions of the site (hydrology, slopes, location, etc.) to allow
the species planted to persist on the created wetlands:' Future'research might include-
exploring the type of environmental conditions necessary for the successful
establishment tit desire'd species.
Planting vs Natural Revegetatibn of the Site-
Natural revegetation may be a viable option since over 90% of both the species
found on the created sites, and the percent cover occupied by those species, were
volunteers. In addition, a large proportion of these volunteers were also found on
natural wetlands of the same type in the region (Figure 1). However, both Shisler and
Charette (1984) and Erwin (1990) recommend that natural revegetation be allowed only
on small wetlands created adjacent to, or within existing marshes, so that the volunteer
colonization of the site by desired species does not take too long to meet the desired
goals of the project. Erwin (1990) also recommends that natural revegetation not be
allowed when problematic exotics such as Melaleuca quinquenervia (Melaleuca) and
Schinus terebinthifolius (Brazilian peppertree) are found within or adjacent to the site.
These species are a threat to the colonization of native, non-invasive marsh species
because the exposed substrate provides optimal habitat for aggressive colonization by
the invasive species. Even without the threat of colonization by invasive exotics, the
amount of time required for the site to fully revegetate naturally will probably be longer
than if the wetland is planted. Therefore, the time required for the site to fully
revegetate through natural means constitutes a wetland loss. Planting lessens this
temporal loss because it hastens the establishment of a functional wetland (Kruczynski
1990).
Because a large proportion of the volunteers on the created wetlands also
occurred on natural wetlands, it may be expedient to plant these species. An inventory
of the desirable species that occur on natural wetlands could be developed and then
used as a template for the planting of created wetlands. This might help ensure that
the appropriate wetland vegetation communities develop on the created wetlands in the
least amount of time possible.
Mulching the created wetland by applying a layer of topsoil removed from the
destroyed wetland may enhance and accelerate the revegetation process by providing a
supply of propagules, a seedbank, from which the wetland should revegetate. Because
the stripping process from the donor wetland thoroughly mixes the soil materials, the
vegetation of the created wetland may have a different cover frequency and pattern of
distribution than of the donor wetland (Erwin 1990). However, mulching may provide
an organic surface horizon and soil microflora (Kruczynski 1990) and helps to reduce
evaporation of soil pore water, runoff and soil loss, and surface compaction and crusting
(Thornburg 1977). Six of the created wetlands in this study (Sites 102, 103, 104, 204,
205, and 208) were mulched, which may have accelerated the successful establishment
30
-------
of the wetland vegetation (Brown 1991). The one drawback to mulching is the possible
introduction of undesirable exotics or invasive species such ar> Typha spp. (cattails).
Instances Where Planting May be Advisable—
Although the high proportion and percent cover of volunteer obligate and
facultative wetland species that occurred on the created wetlands indicate that
appropriate revegetation will occur without planting, it may be necessary to plant
certain species to establish a specific wetland community or wildlife habitat. The value
of a wetland for wildlife habitat and food depends upon water depth, the type and
density of the vegetation, seed production, accessibility of edible plant parts, and the
associated production of invertebrates. Vegetation stands that are too dense may be
impenetrable to waterfowl, while those that are too sparse will be unattractive. The
plant parts consumed must be abundant and available at the right times and in the
right places (Kadlec and Wentz 1974). Therefore, if wildlife habitat is an important
goal of the wetland creation, these factors must be considered when deciding upon a
revegetation strategy and/or species to plant.
If erosion is a concern, especially where the banks slope steeply into the wetland,
species should be chosen on the basis of their capacity for soil stabilization. Those with
extensive root systems, rhizomes and erect stems that form dense bunches or turf, are
best (Allen and Klimas 1986). However, initially it may be necessary to provide an
additional degree of substrate stabilization by seeding with annual grasses (Erwin 1990).
It may be easier to control the spread of invasive species by planting early in the
wetland construction process. Some marsh species have difficulty colonizing if more
aggressive species become established first. Planting the desired species may give them
a competitive edge over invasive species (Josselyn et al. 1990). Erwin (1990) states that
some created wetlands have been overrun by invasive species such as Melaleuca or
monocultures of cattails where substrates were exposed for art extended period of time
prior to planting.
Planting also may be advisable because weedy and early-successional species tend
to be long-lived in the seed bank (Glass 1989). This suggests that weedy and early
successional species are likely to appear on a disturbed site (such as a newly created
wetland), and that the seed bank, either existing or supplied in a mulch, cannot be
counted on to produce the desired community. It is possible that the small numbers of
FAC, FACU, and UPL species found on the created wetlands were pioneering species
contained in the seedbank or that invaded the newly created wetland due to its
disturbed nature and early successional state. If so, these species should gradually die
out or become limited to transitional areas between the wetland and adjacent upland as
the wetland matures. Monitoring of the created wetlands over an extended time period
would help determine if this is true.
31
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS ^ i
Evaluation of these created wetlands was limited by a lack of information within
the project files; Pfoject specifications were often vague, ;aMrcohstructibn'plans and'
conceptual drawings often were inadequate. Without proper documentation of the
intended project' and the construction process, judgements of compliance cannot be
made. In som£instances where discrepancies occurred between the project
specifications or the construction plans arid the^actual created wetland, ;it is likely that
necessary changes were made during construction;' As-built drawings of thfe wetland,
drawn after the completion of the construction process, would provide an accurate
portrayal of the newly constructed site. To be most useful, as-built drawings should
contain a map indicating the location of the created wetland, and illustrate the project's
size, shape, and vertical elevations. Map scales should be printed on the map. All
sketches, lettering, scales, etc., should be clear and legible. The as-built drawings should
also include the actual slopes built within the wetland, where vegetation species were
planted; and documentation of any mid-course changes. In addition, the plans should
contain the specific objectives of the creation. These should be related to specific
vegetation or habitat types, wildlife values or other functional values considered in the
design of the wetland (Fishman, et al. 1987).
Flexibility to make changes along the way is a crucial component of the wetland
creation process. However, if mid-course changes are not documented by either the
contractor or agency personnel, there are no means by which to determine if the
project is out of compliance or if differences merely reflect a necessary change in the
plans due to unanticipated conditions encountered during construction.
Many developers have short-term goals and create wetlands only to fulfill
regulatory obligations. To ensure the created wetland persists in the landscape, the
long-term goals (including monitoring) should be specified in the project plans (Shisler
and Charette 1984). No specific long-term goals or plans for long-term monitoring
were stated within any of the project files, although short-term monitoring was specified
for five of the nine created wetlands studied (Sites 102, 103, 104, 204, and 208). The
short-term monitoring of these sites consisted of quarterly reports to either the FDER
or the Hillsborough County EPC for one or two years. The quarterly reports were to
include:
o an analysis of the recruitment of desirable vegetation,
o documentation of the removal of nuisance species,
o counts of living trees and measurements of the growth rates of 50 individuals,
o an ecological evaluation of the created wetland,
32
-------
o 85% survival of vegetation planted, with replacement to raeev the minimum
requirement, and
o replacement of trees to meet 80% survival at the end of the monitoring period.
Although the elements included in these quarterly reports constitute a step in the right
direction, they lack consideration of factors such as hydrology, substrate, and site
contours. Project monitoring should encompass more than plant survival. For example,
changes in the inundated area of the project .might occur from long-term climatic cycles
(drought vs prolonged rainy seasons), or because of the failure of water control
structures. Changes in. site contours might occur due to slumping of banks, high
sedimentation rates, or erosion. Monitoring should be conducted on all important
characteristics of the created wetland, and the criteria by v/hich the evaluations and
analyses are made should be documented.
As-built drawings and documentation of changes made d?jiring the construction
process would provide baseline information from which monitoring could be conducted.
In addition, complete documentation, organized in a consistent manner and composed
of specific data would allow resource agencies to more easily investigate and assess
projects as they proceed. Inspections should be recorded on a standard data sheet
which documents the same parameters for all projects. Future projects could then use
the information to evaluate the methods and techniques used (Shisler and Charette
1984, Erwin 1990). None of the project files examined included documentation of the
sequence of construction events or mid-course changes. However, the Hillsborough
County EPC has instituted an inspection process which uses a standard data sheet for
each wetland inspected. EPC Inspection Forms were found in the project files for six
of the nine wetlands studied.
Mason and Slocum (1987) conducted an evaluation of 32 wetlands created in
Virginia's coastal zone. Criteria used were establishment of vegetation, compliance with
permit conditions, and evidence of wildlife use. They concluded that when permits
contained specific conditions for creating the wetland, 86% were successful, whereas
only 44% of projects without specific permit conditions were successful, Where time
limits for completion of the wetland creation were specified in the permit, 100% of the
projects were successful compared to only a 50% success rate when no time limits or
deadlines were set. It appears that specific permit conditions help to ensure
compliance with the permit and the establishment of the created wetland.
A more recent study was conducted by the FDER (1991) to assess the use and
effectiveness of mitigation in Florida wetland resource regulation permitting. The study
found a high rate of noncompliance in that only four of the 63 permits reviewed were
in full compliance with their mitigation requirements. Noncompliance ranged from
minor non-submittal of reports to major deviations from the mitigation design (e.g.,
construction of the wetland at incorrect elevations, truncation of the transition zone
between wetland and upland, failure to apply appropriate soils and soil treatments, and
33
-------
failure to plant required species). Among the recommendations made by FDER to
improve the effectiveness of mitigation was the submittal of drawings of record of the
constructed mitigation site, including a topographic survey (FDER 1991), in other
words, submittal of an as-built pla.n.
In summary, the lack of complete information in the project files and the
differences between the plans and permit specifications arid the as-built conditions point
to the need for verification of projects in both the planning and construction phases of
wetland creation. The planning phase should focus on the development of a realistic
approach using information from the scientific literature, past projects, and the history
and surrounding landscape of the site of the planned created wetland. The construction
phase should culminate in the production of an as-built plan. This would allow
immediate checks to ensure that critical features have been included as intended, e.g.,
wetland area, vegetation type. It would also document any corrective measures that
were taken due to unanticipated events during construction. As-built plans of the
project would ensure that the details of the actual wetland created were available for
future reference.
34
-------
SECTION V
LITERATURE CITED
Allen, H.H. and CV. Klimas. 1986. Reservoir Shoreline Revegetation Guidelines. Tech. Rep. E-86-
13. U.S. Army Eng. Waterways Exp. Sta., Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Baker, G.F. 1984. An Analysis of Wetland Losses and Compensation .Under the Clean Water Act
Section 404 Program: Managing Natural Resources Through Mitigation. M.S. Thesis, University
of San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Brown, M.T. 1991. Evaluating Created Wetlands Through Comparisons with Natural Wetlands.
EPA/600/3-91/058. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory,
Corvallis,, Oregon. National Technical Service Accession Number PB92-111566
Crawford, R.D. and J.A. Rossiter. 1982. General design considerations in creating artificial wetlands for
wildlife, p. 44-47, In W.D. Svedarsky and R.D. Crawford (Eds.), Wildlife Values of Gravel Pits,
Symposium Proceedings. Misc. Pub. 17-1982. Ag. Exp. Sta., Univ. of Minn., Duluth, Minnesota.
D'Avanzo, C 1990. Long-term evaluation of wetland creation projects, p. 487-496. In J. A Kusler and
M.E. Kentula (Eds.), Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science, Part 2:
Perspectives. Island Press, Washington, District of Columbia.
Erwin, K.L. 1990. Freshwater marsh creation and restoration in the southeast, p. 239-271. In J.A
Kusler and M.E. Kentula (Eds.), Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science,
Pan 1: Regional Reviews. Island Press, Washington, District of Columbia.
Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Eng., U.S. Env. Protection Agency,
U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., and U.S.D.A Soil Conserv. Serv., Coop. Tech. Publ., Washington,
District of Columbia.
Fishman, P.A, N.S. Geiger, L. Sharp, J.W. Buell, and L. Wilson. 1987. Estuarine Mitigation Evaluation
Project-Mitigation Site Evaluation Notebook. Submitted to the Department of Land
Conservation and Development and The Division of State Lands. Fishman Environmental
Services, Portland Oregon.
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. 1990. Rule 17-312, Part III, F.AC., the Mitigation
Rule.
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. 1991. Report on the Effectiveness of Permitted
Mitigation. Submitted to the Governor, President of the Senate, and Speaker of the House of
Representatives on March 5, 1991. Pursuant to Section 403.918(2)(b), Florida Statutes.
Garbisch, E.W., Jr. 1986. Highways and Wetlands: Compensating Wetland Losses. Contr. Rep. DOT-
FH-11-9442. Fed. Highway Admin., Office of Implementation, McLean, Virginia.
Garbisch, E.W., Jr. 1977. Recent and Planned Marsh Establishment Work Throughout the Contiguous
United States-a Survey and Basic Guidelines. Contr. Rep. D-77-3. U.S.Army Eng. Waterways
Exp. Sta., Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Glass, S. 1989. The role of soil seed banks in restoration and management. Restor. & Manag. Notes
7(l):24-29.
35
-------
Good, J.W. 1987. Mitigating estuarine development in the Pacific Nprthwest: from concept to practice.
Northwest Env. Jour. 3(1):93-111,
Gwin, S.E and M.E. Kentula. 1990. Evaluating Design and Verifying Compliance of Wetlands Created
Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act in Oregon. EPA/600/3-90/061. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Environmental Research '.Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon. National Technical
Information Service Accession Number PB90 261 512./AS,
Josselyn, M., J, Zedler, and T. Griswold. 1990. Wetland mitigation alongjhe Pacific Coast of the
United States, p. 3-36. In J.A. Kusler and M.E. Kentula (Eds.), Wetland Creation and
Restoration: The Status of the Science, Pan 1: Regional Reviews. Island Press, Washington,
District of Columbia.
Kadlec, J.A. and W.A. Wentz. 1974. State-of-the-Art Survey and Evaluation of Marsh Plant
Establishment Techniques: Induced and Natural. Volume I: Report of Research. U.S. Army
Eng. Waterways Exp. Sta., Contr. Rep. D-74-9. Vicksburg, Mississippi. Grant No. DACW72-
74-C0010.
Kruczynski, W.L. 1990. Options to be considered in preparation and evaluation of mitigation plans, p.
555-570. In J.A. Kusler and M.E. Kentula (Eds.), Wetland Creation and Restoration: The
Status of the Science, Part 2: Perspectives. Island Press, Washington, District of Columbia.
Kusler, J.A. and M.E. Kentula. 1990. Executive Summary, p. xvii-xxv. In J.A. Kusler and M.E. Kentula
(Eds.), Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Island Press, Washington,
District of Columbia.
Lounsbury, J.F. and F.T. Aldrich. 1986. Introduction to Geographic Field Methods and Techniques.
2nd Edition. Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co., Columbus, Ohio.
Mason, C.O. and D.A. Slocum. 1987. Wetland replication-does it work? p. 1183-1197. In Proceedings
of the 5th Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management, May 1987, Volume 1. Amer. Soc. of
Civil Eng., New York, New York.
Memorandum of Agreement Between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the
Army Concerning the Determination of Mitigation Under the Clean Water Act Section
404(b)(l) Guidelines, (Feb. 7, 1990).
Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company Inc. New York,
New York.
Quammen, M.L. 1986. Measuring the success of wetlands mitigation. Nat Wetlands NewsL 8(5):6-8.
Reed, P.B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Southeast (Region 2).
U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 88(26.2). Washington, District of Columbia.
Reimold, RJ. and S.A. Cobler. 1986. Wetlands Mitigation Effectiveness. USEPA Contract No. 68-04-
0015. Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., Wakefield, Massachusetts.
Reiner, EL. 1989. The Biological and Regulatory Aspects of Salt Marsh Protection, Restoration and
Creation in Massachusetts. M.S. Thesis, Dept. of Biology, Northeastern Univ., Boston,
Massachusetts.
Sherman, A.D. and S.E. Gwin. 1991. Final Quality Assurance Report: Tampa, Florida Wetlands Study.
EPA/600/3-91/059. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory,
Corvallis, Oregon. NTIS Accession Number PB92-113000.
36
-------
Sherman, A.D., S.E. Gwin, and M.E. Kenrah, in conjunction with M.T. Brovm. 1991. Quality
Assurance Project Plan: Tampa, Florida Wetlands Study. EPA'600/3-91/060. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon. NTIS
Accession Number PB92-122V6I/AS.
Shisler, J. K. and D.J. Charette. 1984. Evaluation of Artificial Sail Marshes in New Jersey. N.J. Agric.
Exp. Sta. Publ. No. P-40502-01-84.
Thornburg, A. 1977. Use of vegetation for stabilization of shorelines of the Great Lakes, p. 39-53. In
Proceedings of the Workshop on the Role of Vegetation in Stabilization of the Great Lakes
Shoreline. Great Lakes Basin Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Willard, D.E. and A.K. Hiller. 1990. Wetland dynamics: considerations for restored and created
wetlands, p. 459-466. In J.A. Kusler and M.E. Kentula (Eds.), Wetland Creation and
Restoration: The Status of the Science, Part 2: Perspectives. Island Press, Washington, District
of Columbia.
Zedler, J.B. and M.E. Kentula. 1986. Wetland Research Plan. EPA/600/3-86/009, Environmental
Research Lab., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon. Nat. Tech, Infer. Serv.
Accession No. PB86158656/AS.
37
-------
APPENDIX I
DATA COLLECTED FOR EACH SITE:
DESCRIPTIONS, PERMIT AND FIELD MAPS,
BASIN MORPHOLOGY PROFILES, AND SPECIES LISTS
DESCRIPTION: SITE 101
Function/Purpose
Stormwater/runoff basin for an apartment complex.
General Physical Description
This site is a small, square retention basin, located within an apartment complex.
It is bordered on the west by apartments and on the north by tennis courts, all of which
are part of the development for which the mitigation was required. The east side of
the wetland abuts the yards of houses not associated with the development. A berm
separates the south side of the wetland from a natural cypress swamp, of which the
land used for the retention basin was purportedly originally a part.
The walls of the basin are very steep-sided and the depth of the pond is two to
three meters. The southeast corner has a small peninsula/island with a fairly large oak
tree. The basin is about 35 meters in length on each side.
Hydrology
Water flowed into the northwest corner of the basin via a drainage ditch.
Outflow occurred at the southwest corner through a low portion of the berm and into
the adjoining cypress swamp. The water was only a few inches deep—well below the
rim of the outflow ditch—and was very murky and stagnant. This condition may have
been due to prevailing climatic conditions, since the site was sampled prior to the onset
of the rainy season.
Soil/Subsrrate
The substrate was slimy and covered with algae. The soil chromas ranged from
/4 to /I, with /2 the dominant chroma found. Mottling was found in most samples,
especially at a depth of 25-30 cm.
Dominant Vegetation
A profusion of cattails (Typha domingensis) grew along the west and north sides
of the pond and were particularly thick at the inflow (northwest corner) of the basin.
38
-------
Other invasive species dominating vhe site wens primrose willow (Ludwigia peruviana),
dog fennel (Eupatorium capfllifoMum) and salt bush (Baccbaris halimifolia). These were
found along the sides and top of the berm, along with Juncus effusus and J.
megacephalus.
See the Vegetation Sunimaiy section of this description for a complete listing of
the species identified.
39
-------
FLORIDA 101
PERMIT MAP
ox.w.-aaoo
O.L.W.-3i60
N.W.-32.00
ConB«v«flon Are* t> Bs Dedicated
Upon Completion ol Park
Conrtr. Sand Cement X
Rip-Rap Erotion Control ,
lnct«tl ff Hah Cluln Unk Fence
36-
87-
NUMERICAL \AUJES ARE IN FEET
046m
U400 j i t i
0 17 33 (I
40
-------
R ESIDENTIAL
YARD
FLORIDA 101
FIELD MAP
CYPRESS SWAMP
T2-TURN
HOUSING
TENNIS COUUTS
N
0 4 B
1:400
17 S3 ft
A START OF TRANSECT
• END OF TRANSECT
• BERM
4b OAK TREE
X BASE
POND AREA
EMERGENT MARSH
MARSH OUTLET
RETAINING WALL
»i— CHAIN UNK FENCE
SOURCE:DATA COLIECTED MAY. 1988
41
-------
anr«noi ID
i.i
SITE 101
Transect 1
tlilUCt (•)
Transect 2
DI3TAICZ (t)
-------
SITE 101
Transect 4
ELEVATION (a)
2
0.6
10 II
16 18 tO
DISTANCE (0)
12 21 26 28 30 J2 31 36
ELEYATIOK (B)
2
Transect 2M
I.S
O.S
o L-i
10 12
16 IB 20
DISTAHCE (a)
22 24 26 26 30 )2 X 36
-------
VEGETATION SUMMARY
The following are the species listed for planting in the created wetland and the
species found on the site. Wetland indicator codes were adapted from categories in the
Regional List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands (Reed 1988). Codes are: OBL-
-obligate wetland species; FACW-rfacultative wetland species; FAC~facultative species;
FACU-facultative upland species; UPL-upland species; NAT-native species; and
EXO~exotic species. The symbols separating the two elements of each code indicate
the position of that species within the wetland indicator category. The symbol"+"
indicates the species is toward the high end of the category (more frequently found in
wetlands); "-" indicates the species is toward the low end of the category (less frequently
found in wetlands); "d" means drawdown; and 'Y indicates the species is intermediate
within the category. "???" indicates no information. Species names followed by "*"
indicate which "Species Listed for Planting in Created Wetland" were also "Species
Found On Site".
Species Listed for Planting in Created Wetland 101
Pontederia cordata
Sagittaria lancifolia
Taxodium spp.
OBL\NAT
OBL\NAT
OBL\NAT
Species Found On Site 101 during Summer 1988
Acer rubrum
Andropogon glomeratus
Axonopus affinis
Baccharis halimifolia
Bacopa monnieri
Bidens alba
Carex albolutescens
Centella asiatica
Commelina diffusa
Cynodon dactylon
Cyperus brevifolius
Cyperus spp.
Dioscorea bulbifera
Eclipta alba
Erechtites hieracifolia
Erigeron quercifolius
Eriocaulon sp.
Eupatorium compositifolium
Euthamia tenuifolia
Hydrocotyle umbellata
Hypericum hypericoides
FAONAT
FACW+NAT
FACW-NAT
FAC\NAT
OBLVNAT
FACW-NAT
FAC+NAT
FACW\NAT
FACW\EXO
FACUXNAT
FACW\NAT
FACU\EXO
FACW-NAT
FAC-NAT
FAC+NAT
FACU\NAT
FAC\NAT
OBL\NAT
FACUXNAT
44
-------
Juncus effusus
Juncus marginatus
Juncus megacepbalus
Lindernia anagallidea
Ijppia nodiflora
Ludwigia octovalvis
Ludwigia palustris
Ludwigia peruviana
Macroptilium lathyroides
Micranthemum glomeratum
Mikania scandens
Myrica cerifera
Oxalis florida
Panicum ciliatum
Parietaria floridana
Paspalum notatum var. saurae
Paspalum urvillei
Phyla nodiflora
Pluchea odorata
Polygonum densiflorum
Polygonum hydropiperoides
Ptilimnium capillaceum
Sacciolepis indica
Sacciolepis striata
Salix caroliniana
Sesbania macrocarpa
Typha domingensis
Vitis rotundifolia
FACW+NAT
FACW\NAT
OBLVNAT
FAC+NAT
FACWdNAT
OBLVNAT
OBLdNAT
OBLANAT
FACUVEXO
OBLWAT
FACW+NAT
FAC+NAT
FACUNNAT
FACVNAT
FACdNAT
FACU+EXO
FACXEXO
FACWdNAT
FACW\EX(3
OBLVNAT
OBLNNAT
OBLVNAT
FAOEXO
OBLVNAT
OBLVNAT
FACWVNA11
OBLVNAT
FAC\NAT
-------
DESCRIPTION: SITE 102
Function/Purpose
Stormwater detention basin for office complex.
General Physical Description
The created wetland is a rectangular detention basin adjacent to the parking lot
of an office complex located to the north and adjoining a swamp forest to the west. A
westward-flowing creek meanders along the southern border of the basin, and the
eastern side is flanked by a flat, upland area dominated by pines (Pimis spp.) and oaks
(Quercus spp.). The basin is surrounded by a grassy berm, one to two meters high.
Hydrology
Stormwater enters the wetland through a two foot diameter concrete culvert
located at the northern end of the basin. Primary outflow occurs at a low area in the
berm at the northeast corner of the basin. From there, water flows into a canal which
drains into the stream at the southern end of the site.
The western side of the basin has a concrete spillway designed to handle
excessive water flows from the basin. Outflow from this structure is directed into the
adjacent forested swamp.
Soil/Substrate
Low chroma values-primarily /1-were found in many of the soil samples.
Mottles were found in nearly half the samples, however, the basin and soil pits were dry
when sampled.
Dominant Vegetation
The site was lushly vegetated with a high diversity of species. The site was
planned as a marsh and swamp system, survival of both herbaceous and woody
vegetation was high. The dominant species-soft rush (Juncus effusus), pickerelweed
(Pontedaria cordata), and arrowhead (Sagirtaria lancifolia)~formed two major zones
within the site. The Juncus community dominated the northern and southern portions
of the site, and were separated by a Sagittaria/Pontedaria community, which formed a
band running southwest to northeast across the wetland from the outfall structure to the
overflow of the berm in the northeast corner.
A small forested "hammock" located in the south-central portion of the wetland
contained several bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia)
46
-------
and citrus (Citrus spp.) trees of fairly significant size. Cypress and oak seedlings were
found throughout the site, as well as red maple (Acer nibram) and willow (Salix
caroliniana).
See the Vegetation Summary section of this description for a complete listing of
the species identified.
47
-------
FLORIDA 102
PERMIT MAP
23 24 25
23-
19.6-
Oaks
Ret
19
,---20---.
Existing elevation
contours in feet
Proposed pond
grading
Map CAD drafted by Steven Pelles 8/90
48
-------
FLORIDA 102
FIELD MAP
r
^ Juncus •^•^r'i
" ~
Vegetation Transect
Start D End
Cypress It Oak
Map CAD drafted by Steven Pelles 8/90
Vegetation data collected 5/88
4!)
-------
SITE 102
Transect 1
II II
n,mrioi
11STUCC (I)
Transect 2
CtrtVTIOl (I)
DISTAICt (I)
Transect 3
lUTAICt (I)
-------
VEGETATION SUMMARY
The following are the species listed for planting in the created wetland and the
species foxmd on the site. Wetland indicator codes weire adapted from categories in the
Regional Ust of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands (Reed 1988). Codes are: OBL-
-obligate wetland species; FA.CW—facultative wetland species; FAC—facultative species;
FACU-facultative upland species; UPL--upland species; NAT-native species; and
EXO-exotic species. The symbols separating i:he two elements of each code indicate
the position of that species within the wetland indicator category. The symbol "+"
indicates the species is toward the high end of the category (more frequently found in
wetlands); "-" indicates the species is toward the low end of the category (less frequently
found in wetlands); "d" means drawdown; and Y indicates the species is intermediate
within the category. "???" indicates no information. Species names followed by "*"
indicate which "Species Listed for Planting in Created Wetland" were also "Species
Found On Site".
Species Listed for Planting in Created Wetland 102
In addition to the species listed for planting, the site was mulched.
Hex cassine FACW\NAT
Iris hexagona* OBIANAT
Osmunda cinnamonea FACW+NAT
Peltandra virginica* OBIANAT
Pontederia cordata* OBIANAT
Sagittaria lancifolia* OBIANAT
Saururus cernuus OBIANAT
Spartina bakeri* FACW+NAT
Taxodium spp. OBIANAT
Species Found On Site 102 during
Acer rubrum FACVNAT
Alternanthera philoxeroides OBLAEXO
Ambrosia artemisiifolia FACU-NAT
Ammannia coccinea FACW+NAT
Ampelopsis arborea FAC+NAT
Baccharis halimifolia FAC\NAT
Bacopa monnieri OBIANAT
Bidens alba FACW-NAT
Canna flaccida OBIANAT
Carex albolutescens FAC+NAT
Carex stipata FACW\NAT
Celtis laevigata FACW\NAT
Chamaecrista fasciculata FACW\NAT
51
-------
Citrus sp.
Commelina diffusa
Cynodon dactylon
Cyperus brevifolius
Cyperus haspan
Cyperus polystachyos
Cyperus rotundus
Cyperus spp.
Cyperus surinamensis
Digitaria decumbens
Eclipta alba
Erigeron quercifolius
Eryngium baldwinii
Eupatorium capillifolium
Fuirena pumila
Galium tinctorium
Galium uniflorum
Hydrocotyle umbellata
Hydrocotyle verticillata
Iris hexagona*
Juncus dichotomus
Juncus effusus
Juncus marginatus
Juncus megacephalus
Juncus scirpoides
Ludwigia octovalvis
Ludwigia palustris
Ludwigia peruviana
Ludwigia repens
Lythrum alatum
Micranthemum umbrosum
Mikania scandens
Oxalis sp.
Panicura maximum
Panicum repens
Paspalum distichum
Paspalum urvillei
Peltandra virginica*
Phyla nodiflora
Plantago virginicus
Pluchea odorata 0
Polygonum hydropiperoides
Pontederia cordata*
Ptilimnium capillaceum
Quercus laurifolia
FACW\EXO
FACW\NAT
FACW\NAT
OBLVNAT
FACW\NAT,
FAC-EXO
FACW\NAT
FACU\EXO
FACW-NAT
FAC+NAT
FACW+NAT
FACW\NAT
OBL\NAT
FACW\NAT
FACW\NAT
OBL\NAT
OBL\NAT
OBL\NAT
FACW\NAT
FACW+NAT
FACW\NAT
OBL\NAT
FACW+NAT
OBL\NAT
OBLdNAT
OBL\NAT
OBLVNAT
FACW\NAT
OBLdEXO
FACW+NAT
FAC-EXO
FACW-EXO
OBLVNAT
FAOEXO
OBL\NAT
FACWdNAT
FACU-NAT
FACW\EXO
OBL\NAT
OBL\NAT
OBL\NAT
FACW\NAT
52
-------
Rhynchospora mixta
Rhynchospora spp.
Rubus sp.
Rumex pulcher
Sagittaria lancifolia*
Sagittaria latifolia
Salix caroliniana
Samolus valerandi
Scoparia dulcis
Senecio glabellus
Senna obtusifolia
Sesbania macrocarpa
Solidago sempervirens
Spartina bakeri*
Tall grass
Taxodium distichum
Thalia geniculata
Typha domingensis
Urena lobata
Verbena scabra
Vigna luteola
OBL\NAT
FACWdEXO
OBL\NAT
OBL\NA1'
OBL\NAT
OBL\NAT
FACW\NAT
FACW+NAT
FAONAT
FACW\NAT
FACW\NAT
FACW+NAT
OBUNAT
OBUNAT
OBL\NAT
FACW\NAT
FACW+NAT
FACW\NAT
53
-------
DESCRIPTION: SITE 103
Function/Purpose
This wetland is one of five marshes created as mitigation for a large residential
subdivision. Totalling approximately six acres, the five created wetlands are scattered
throughout the development. Two of the five mitigation sites were sampled: site 103
was one; site 104 was the other.
General Physical Description
This wetland is a long, narrow pond situated between a major thoroughfare of
the subdivision and a large cypress (Taxodium distichum) swamp. A grassy area along
the northern border of the wetland separates it from the roadway. A small shrubby
island separates the wetland from the road at it's northwest corner, and the cypress
swamp is adjacent to the wetlands's southern edge. The southwestern tip of the site
borders a golf course which is part of the subdivision. Dozens of golf balls were found
throughout the eastern portion of the marsh.
The created wetland is somewhat shallow, gently grading from the upland edge
to a depth of one to two meters. Unlike many of the study sites which were created to
serve as stormwater retention ponds, the morphology of this site is much more similar
to the morphology of natural Florida marshes.
Hydrology
This marsh is hydrologically connected to the adjacent cypress swamp by three
small drainage ditches. These ditches allow the marsh to drain into the swamp when
water levels rise above the vegetated portion of the system. No direct inflow pipes or
ditches were noted during the field survey. The created wetland probably receives
runoff waters from the golf course and, to lesser degree, from other portions of the
development.
Soil/Substrate
A wide range of soil chromas were found. Most were either /I or /4, although
chromas of /2, /3 and /8 were noted. Mottling occurred in upper and lower layers of all
the core samples except one.
Dominant Vegetation
A large proportion of the created wetland was dominated by pickerelweed
(Pontedaria cordata) and arrowhead (Sagittaria lancifolia). Only 28% (11/40) of the
54
-------
plots sampled had any other species and these were primarily found along the outer
margins of the marsh.
See the Vegetation Summary section of this description for a complete Hating of
the species identified.
55
-------
FLORIDA 103
PERMIT MAP
O\
CONSERVATION
AREA B
1:1000
510 30m
10 50 75 100ft
Map CAD drafted by Steven Pelles 8/90
-------
FLORIDA 103
FIELD MAP
®BM
T1
Vegetation Transect
A Start Q End
T73 Emergent
3 mergen
1=^3 Vegetation
Drainage pipes
1:1000
CYPRESS SWAMP
II
Map CAD drafted by Steven Pelles 8/90
Vegetation data collected 5/88
-------
00
SITE 103
Transect 1
ELEVATION (B)
2
16 Jt 33 40 «B 54 (I 72 80 69 94 104 112 120 .121 136 : HI- '157 - 160 169 176
ELEVATIOX (B)
I.I
Trnnsect 2
I 2
0.2
10 15 20 25 30 35 10
15 50 55 60 45 70 75" 60 .65 tb 95. -100 V 105
DISTANCE (0) ' - V.. . . •'-"" i . .. " •
-------
VEGETATION SUMMARY
The following are the species listed for planting in the created wetland and the
species found on the sits. Wetland indicator codes were adapted from categories in the
Regional List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands (Reed 1988). Codes are: OBL-
-obligate wetland species; FACW—facultative wetland species; FAC—facultative species;
FACU-facultative upland species; UPL-upland species; NAT-native species; and
EXO~exotic species. The symbols separating the two elements of each code indicate
the position of that species within the wetland indicator category. The symbol "+"
indicates the species is toward the high end of the category (more frequently found in
wetlands); "-" indicates the species is toward the low end of the category (less frequently
found in wetlands); "d" means drawdown; and 'V indicates the species is intermediate
within the category. "???" indicates no information. Species names followed by "*"
indicate which "Species Listed for Planting in Created Wetland" were also "Species
Found On Site".
Species Listed for Planting in Created Wetland 103
In addition to the species listed for planting, the site was mulched.
Hypericum fasciculatum FACW+NAT
Juncus effusus* FACW+NAT
Pontederia spp. ???
Sagittaria spp. ???
Spartina bakeri FACW+NAT
Species Found on Site 103 during Summer lf>88
Andropogon virginicus FAC-NAT
Axonopus affinis FACW-NAT
Axonopus furcatus OBL\NAT
Carex albolutescens FAC+NAT
Cyperus globulosus FAC\NAT
Cyperus haspan OBL\NAT
Cyperus polystachyos FACW\NAT
Cyperus spp. ???
Eleocharis baldwinii FACW+NAT
Eryngium baldwinii FACW+NAT
Eupatorium capillifolium FACU\NAT
Euthamia tenuifolia FAC\NAT
Gratiola pilosa FACW-NAT
Hydrocotyle umbellata OBL\NAT
Hypericum cistifolium FACW\NAT
Hypericum mutilum FACW\NAT
Juncus dichotomus FACW\NAT
59
-------
Juncus effusus*
Juncus marginatus
Juncus scirpoides
Lachnanthes carolininana
Lachnocaulon anceps
Leersia hexandra
Linaria sp.
Ludwigia maritima
Ludwigia palustris
Ludwigia peruviana
Ludwigia repens
Ludwigia spp.
Luziola fluitans
Mikania scandens
Myrica cerifera
Panicum repens
Polygonum hydropiperoides
Polypremum procumbens
Pontederia cordata
Ptilimnium capillaceum
Rhynchospora fascicularis
Rhynchospora microcarpa
Rhynchospora microcephala
Sacciolepis indica
Sagittaria lancifolia
Sagittaria sp.
Scoparia dulcis
Typha domingensis
Urena lobata
Utricularia fibrosa
Woodwardia virginica
Xyris jupicai
FACW+NAT
FACW\NAT
FACW+NAT
OBL\NAT
OBL\NAT
OBL\NAT
FACW\NAT
OBLdNAT
OBL\NAT
OBLVNAT
OBLMSTAT
FACW+NAT
FAC+NAT
FACW-EXO
OBL\NAT
FAONAT
OBL\NAT
OBL\NAT
FACW+NAT
FACW+NAT
OBL\NAT
FACVEXO
OBL\NAT
FACU\NAT
OBL\NAT
FACU\NAT
OBLVNAT
OBL\NAT
OBL\NAT
60
-------
DESCRIPTION: SITE 104
Function/Purpose
This marsh was created in the same subdivision as Site 103. This created
wetland is located just off an access road in what was an as-yet-unbuilt portion of the
development.
General Physical Description
This wetland is nearly circular in shape. The south and west sides are bordered
by grassy-scrub, comprised of various grasses and patches of saw palmetto (Screnoa
repens). The northwestern portion of the site borders on two large, concrete retention
basins which separate the created wetland from an adjacent access road. Two cypress
(Taxodium spp.) domes are near the northwest and southwest edges of the site.
The wetland was built in 1978-1979. No vegetation was planted on the site,
however, the area was "mulched" with organic matter from three donor wetlands.
Hydrology
No surface inflow points were found around the perimeter of the marsh and
there was no connection between this site and the nearby retention basins. A small
outflow ditch at the northwest edge of the created wetland connected it with an
adjacent cypress dome. A small concrete weir is located in the ditch, about halfway
between the created wetland and the cypress dome, A small pond, about one meter
deep, was located in the center of the created wetland.
Soil/Substrate
Soil chromas varied, although most were hydric, as might be expected since the
site received peat from other wetlands. The majority of the chromas were /O and /I,
however, /2, /3 and /4 were present.
Dominant Vegetation
The created wetland was divided into four distinct zones, including the open
water in the center of the site. Shoreward from the open water, the other three zones
were dominated by pickerelweed (Pontedaria cordata), maidencane (Panicum
hemitomon) and St. John's wort (Hypericum fasciculatum), respectively.
See the Vegetation Summary section of this description for a complete listing of
the species identified.
61
-------
FLORIDA' y 04
•'•'-•• y i V ,' .• . ..;
PERMIT MAP
CONSERVATION
AREA J
Planted in Zones
0m
10 50 75 100ft
This is the boundry of the
old (1979) mitigation site
Map CAD drafted by Steven Pelles 8/90
62
-------
FLORIDA 104
FIELD MAP
Outfall
Ditch
Vegetation Transect
Start QEnd
Emergent
Vegetation
-X-:-:-d Open Water
Base ::
BM 2
Base 1
5 10 30m
^^^^^^•••^^^Sl.
10 50 75 100ft
BM 1
Mop CAD drafted by Steven Pelles 8/90
Vegetation data collected 5/88
6:1
-------
SITE
Transect 1
ELEVATION (a)
i
i.c
o.s
12 16 20 21 28 '3: '.. 36 10
M IS St 56
DISTANCE (m)
Transect 2
6» 71 76 --80
9: • j»6
ELEVATION (n)
i i
1.1 -
o.i -
10
IS
20
IS SO SS 10
DISTANCE (n)
75
80
90
100
-------
VEGETATION SUMMARY
The following are the species listed for planting in the created wetland and the
species found on the site. Wetland indicator codes were adapted from categories in the
Regional List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands (Reed 1988). Codes are: OBL-
-obligate wetland species; FACW-facultative wetland species; FAC-facultative species;
FACU—facultative upland species; UPL— upland species; NAT—native species; and
EXO~exotic species. The symbols separating the two elements of each code indicate
the position of that species within the wetland indicator category. The symbol "+"
indicates the species is toward the high end of the category (more frequently found in
wetlands); "-" indicates the species is toward iJie low end of the category (less frequently
found in wetlands); "d" means drawdown; and Y indicates the species is intermediate
within the category. "???" indicates no information. Species names followed by "*"
indicate which "Species Listed for Planting in Created Wetland" were also "Species
Found On Site".
Species Listed for Planting in Created Wetland 104
This site was not planted, however, it was mulched.
Species Found On Site 104 during Summer 1988
Amphicarpum muhlenbergian
Andropogon virginicus
Aristida spiciformis
Axonopus affinis
Centella asiatica
Drosera capillaris
Eleocharis baldwinii
Eleocharis interstincta
Eriocaulon compressum
Eriocaulon decangulare
Eupatorium leptophyllum
Eupatorium mohrii
Euthamia tenuifolia
Fuirena scirpoidea
Gratiola ramosa
Hypericum fasciculatum
Hypericum myrtifolium
Juncus megacephalus
Lachnanthes carolininana
Oxypolis filiformis
Panicum erectifolium
Panicum hemitomon
Panicum laxiflorum
FACW\NAT
FAC-NAT
FAC\NAT
FACW-NAT
FACW\NAT
OBL\NAT
FACW+NAT
OBLVNAT
OBL\EXO
OBL\EXO
FAC+NAT
FACIANAT
FACXNAT
OBL\NAT
FACWVNAT
FACW+NAT
FACW\NAT
OBL\NAT
OBL\NAT
FACW+NAT
OBL\NAT
OBL\NAT
FACW\NAT
-------
Paspalum setaceum
Pluchea rosea
Polygala ramosa
Pontederia cordata
Proserpinaca pectinata
Rhexia mariana
Rhexia nuttallii
Rhynchospora filifolia
Rhynchospora microcephala
Rhynchospora mixta
Rhynchospora tracyi
Sagittaria graminea
Syngonanthus flavidulus
Xyris caroliniana
Xyris elliottii
FAC\NAT
FACW\NAT
OBL\NAT
OBLANAT
OBL\NAT
FACW+NAT
FACW+NAT
FACW-NAT
OBIANAT
OBL\NAT
OBIANAT
OBL\NAT
FAGW+NAT
^ACW+NAT
OBL\NAT
66
-------
DESCRIPTION: SITE 105
Function/Purpose
This site is one of two (see Site 106) stormwater runoff basins in a residential
development.
General Physical Description
The wetland is a very small, deep pond in the midst of a high density
development. It is bordered by lawns and is completely surrounded by the
development. The south side abuts a side.ws.lk and roadway, and the west side is
separated from housing by a brick wall. The north and east sides are bordered by
extensive lawns, which contain a duck pond ;md a clubhouse. The sides of the created
wetland are fairly steep and grade into a deep pond.
Hydrology
In addition to runoff from the surrounding lawn, the wetland is fed by a pipe
which drains directly from an adjoining roadway to the southeast of the wetland. An
outfall structure leads from the created wetland into a cypress swamp, located to the
south.
Soil/Substrate
Eight of the soil samples had chromas of /I, while the remaining two had a
chroma of 12. No mottling was evident.
Dominant Vegetation
The primary species found were the broad-leaved emergents pickerelweed
(Pontedaria cordata) and arrowhead (Sagittaria lancifolia). These were found from
shallow water depths out to the open water, interspersed with cannas (Canna flaccida),
and several mats of spikerush (Eleocharis vrdpara). Fragrant water-lily (Nymphaea
odorata) was found in the open water areas. Along the upland edges of the site, soft
rush (Juncus effusus) grew in abundance.
See the Vegetation Summary section of this description for a complete listing of
the species identified.
67
-------
FLORIDA 105 & 106
SITE MAP
1^1600
-------
FLORIDA 105
FIELD MAP
Vegetation Transect
A Start D End
3=3 Emergent
!i>"^l Vegetation
Open Water
5 20 40 ft
1:400
Map CAD drafted by Steven Pelles 8/90
Vegetation data collected 5/88
69
-------
-J
o
ELEVATION (in)
3
I.S
096
ELEVATIOK (a)
3
3.C
I.S
0.5
SITE 105
Transect 1
9.5 12.5 15.5 IB. 5 21.5 ».5 27.5 30.5 33. S 36.5 35 «2
: DISTANCE (ffl)
Transect 2
15 '~
-------
VEGETATION SUMMARY
The following are the species listed for planting in the created wetland and the
species found on the site. Wetland indicator codes were adapted from categories in the
Regional List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands (Reed 1988). Codes are: OBL-
-obligate wetland species; FACW-facultative wetland species; FAC-facultative species;
FACU-facultative upland species; UPL—upiand species; NAT-native species; and
EXO--exotic species. The symbols separating; the two elements of each code indicate
the position of that species within the wetland indicator category. The symbol "+"
indicates the species is toward the high end of the category (more frequently found in
wetlands); "-" indicates the species is toward the low end of the category (less frequently
found in wetlands); "d" means drawdown; and Y indicates the species is intermediate
within the category. "???" indicates no information. Species names followed by "*"
indicate which "Species Listed for Planting in Created Wetland" were also "Species
Found On Site".
Species Listed for Planting in Created Wetland 105
Canna flaccida* OBLVEXO
Iris virginica OBL\NAT
Nymphaea odorata* OBL\NAT
Pontederia spp. ???
Sagittaria spp. ???
Spartina spp. ???
Species Found On Site 105 during Summer 1988
Canna flaccida* OBL\NAT
Eleocharis vivipara OBL\NAT
Galium tinctorium FACW\NAT
Hydrocotyle sp. ???
Juncus effusus FACW+NAT
Nymphaea odorata* OBL\NAT
Paspalum distichum OBL\NAT
Pontederia cordata OBL\NAT
Sagittaria lancifolia OBL\NAT
Solidago fistulosa FAC+NAT
Spartina bakeri FACW+NAT
Stenotaphrum secundatum FAC\NAT
Typha domingensis OBL\NAT
71
-------
DESCRIPTION: SITE 106
Function/Purpose
This site is one of two (see Site 105) stormwater runoff basins in a residential
development. '•
General Physical Description
This wetland is similar in structure and setting to Site 105. It is a small, deep
pond with lush, planted wetland vegetation bordered by landscaped lawns. Located at
the end of a cul-de-sac, the created wetland is bordered on the north by a house and
yard, on the east by a sidewalk and roadway, and on the south and east by a cypress
swamp.
Hydrology
This wetland was fed primarily by surface inflow, with no man-made structures
evident. An outflow structure drains high water into the adjoining cypress swamp.
Soil/Substrate
Soil chromas were primarily /2 and /3. No mottling was found.
Dominant Vegetation
The open water areas were covered with a mat of salvinia (Salvinia spp.),
interspersed with fragrant water lilies (Nymphaea odorata). Shallower water areas were
dominated by pickerelweed (Pontedaria cordata), pennywort (Hydrocotyle umbellata),
bladderwort (Utricularia fibrosa), and bacopa (Bacopa monnieri). The transitional
margins were dominated by torpedo grass (Panicum repens) and soft rush (Juncus
effusus).
See the Vegetation Summary section of this description for a complete listing of
the species identified.
72
-------
OJ
FLORIDA 105 & 106
SITE MAP
1w1600
-------
FLORIDA 106
FIELD MAP
Vegetation Transect
A Start Q End
Emergent
Vegetation
Tl
N
Map CAD drafted by Steven Pellas 8/90
Vegetation data collected 5/88
-------
SITE 106
Transect 1
ELEVATION (n)
i
1.5
1.5
0.5
0 1.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 )0 52.5 55 37.5 10 42.5 15 47.5 50
DISTANCE (n)
Transect 2
ELEVATION (n)
1.5
I 1 1 I
0 1 1 6 8 10 It U It It 10 21 It It 21 10 31 54 3t 3t 40 41 44
DISTANCE (n)
0.5 -
-------
VEGETATION SUMMARY
The following are the species listed for planting in the created'wetland and the
species found on the site. Wetland indicator codes were adapted from categories in the
Regional List of Plant Species that Occur ift Wetlands (Reed l988)^r Code's are: OBL-
-obligate wetland species; FACW—facultatiye wetland species; FAC—facultative species;
FACU-facultative upland species; UPL— uplandJspecies; NAT--native species; and ;
EXO«exotic species. The symbols separating the; two elements of each code indicate
the position of that species within the wetland indicator category. The symbol "+M
indicates the species is toward the high end of the category (more frequently found in
wetlands); "-" indicates the species is toward the low end of the category (less frequently
found in wetlands); "d" means drawdown; and "\" indicates the species is intermediate
within the category. "???" indicates no information. Species names followed by "*"
indicate which "Species Listed for Planting in Created Wetland" were also "Species
Found On Site". :
Species Listed for Planting in Created Wetland 106
Canna flaccida*
Iris virginica
Nymphaea odorata*
Pontederia spp.
Sagittaria spp.
Spartina spp.
OBL\NAT
OBLVNAT
OBL\NAT
99?
• • •
999
999
Species Found On Site 106 during Summer 1988
Acer rubrum
Alternanthera philoxeroides
Andropogon glomeratus
Baccharis halimifolia
Bacopa caroliniana
Bacopa monnieri
Canna flaccida*
Carex albolutescens
Cyperus brevifolius
Eclipta alba
Eleocharis baldwimi
Eryngium baldwinii
Eupatorium capillifolium
Hydrocotyle umbellata
Iris hexagona
Juncus dichotomus
Juncus effusus
Juncus megacephalus
FAONAT
OBL\EXO
FACW+NAT
FAC\NAT
OBL\NAT
OBLVNAT
OBL\NAT
FAC+NAT
FACW\NAT
FACW-NAT
FACW+NAT
FACW+NAT
FACU\NAT
OBL\NAT
OBL\NAT
FACW\NAT
FACW+NAT
OBL\NAT
76
-------
Lolium perenne
Ludwigia octovalvis
Ludwigia peruviana
Ludwigia spp.
Micranthemum umbrosum
Mikania scandens
Nymphaea odorata*
Panic-am rcpem
Paspalum distichum
PolygoBTim spp.
Pontederia cordata
Ptilimnium capillaceum
Sagittaria lancifolia
Salix caroliniana
Scoparia dulcis
Typha domingensis
Utricularia fibrosa
FACU\EXO
OBLWAT
OBL\NAT
OBLdEXO
FACW+NAT
OBIANAT
FACW-EXD
OBUNAT
OBL\NAT
OBLANAT
OBUNAT
OBL\NAT
FACUXNAT
OBLVNAT
OBUNAT
77
-------
DESCRJPTIpN: , SITE 204
Function/Purpose
This wetland was created to mitigate for the destruction of wetlands by
development in the area. Planned as a "streamside marsh and swamp", it is an
expansion and reforestation of a stream floodplain.
General Physical Description
The wetland is located within a residential development and connects a lake to a
downstream forested swamp. Apartment buildings and lawns adjoin the eastern side of
the site, and a major roadway adjacent to the southern end of the site separates it from
the forested swamp. The western and northern sides of the wetland are bordered by
lawns and parking lots.
Hydrology
The entire site is surrounded by a low berm which excludes overland flow from
the wetland. It was uncertain as to how construction of the wetland may have altered
the natural water flow from the lake into the stream. Two bridges allow unimpeded
flow, however, there was no flow at the time of the study, as the wetland was dry.
Soil/Substrate
The majority of soil samples had a chroma of /I , with two samples having a
chroma of 12. Some mottling was found in the lower horizons (25-30 cm) of the soil
cores.
Dominant Vegetation
The vegetation community was very diverse with both planted and volunteer
species. The most common species were soft rush (Juncus effusus) and sand cordgrass
(Spartina bakeri). Also frequently found were primrose willow (Ludwigja peruviana),
climbing hempweed (Mikania scandens), bushy bluestem (Andropogon glomeratus),
dwarf St. Johns wort (Hypericum mutflum), viviparous spikerush (Eleocharis vivipara),
American cupscale (Sacciolepis striata), prairie iris (Iris hexagona), coinwort (Centella
asiatica), mock-bishopweed (Ptflimnium capfllaceum), sweet-broom (Scoparia dulcis).
Tree seedlings common throughout the site included cypress (Taxodium ascendens and
T. distichum), willow (Salix caroliniana), loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus), blackgum
(Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora) and red maple (Acer rubnun).
78
-------
See the Vegetation Summary section of this description for a complete listing of
the species identified.
79
-------
fJ'lDA'. 204
PERMIT MAP
50.8
51
58
5655
57s Nv 54
--•53
-53
--54
_ 56
Area to be
Dredged
Area to be
Filled
Existing elevation
contours in feet
Proposed pond
.,\ rropose
s^ I boundry
56-
55
54
... X v 54
'»\1'.51 ,-""
53X'SO 8 52
Map CAD drafted by Steven Pelles 8/90
80
-------
FLORIDA 204
FIELD MAP
LAKE
N
1:600
VT3
VTl
VT2
^=i£lT±= _->_r Stream
•f1- ~— —•»—«f- -_* rh,-..n.i
Base 1
VT2
© BM
Vegetation Transect
A Start Q End
Emergent
Vegetation
^
Outflow
ROAD
Map CAD drafted by Steven Pelles 8/90
Vegetation data collected 5/88
81
-------
SITE 204
Transect 1
ELEVATION (n)
i.s
1.5
1.6
0.5
ELBVATIOK (a)
3.5
1Z
30 II 16 19
DISTANCE (o)
Transect 2
si
57
1.5
1
0.5
is
19
V
30 3) 36
DISTANCE (B)
SI
-------
00
U)
SITE 204
Transect 3
ELEVATION (a)
3
1.6
O.E
0 3 6 « 12 IS LI 11 14 21 10 13 34 19 41 4t 41 SL 54 57 40 61 tt t« 71
DISTANCE (D)
Transect 4
J.5
l.S
OS
36 40
DISTANCE (B)
SI
7J
-------
VEGETATION SUMMARY
The following are the species listed'for planting in the created wetland and the
species found on the site. Wetland indicator codes were adapted from categories in the
Regional List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands (Reed 1988); Codes are: OBL-
-obligate wetland species; FACW-facultative 'wetland species; FAC--facultative species;
FACU-facultative upland species; UPL-upland1 species; NAT-native species; and ;
EXO-exotic species. The symbols separating the: two elements of each code indicate
the position of that species within the wetland indicator category. The symbol "+"
indicates the species is toward the high end of the category (more frequently found in
wetlands); "-" indicates the species is toward the low end of the category (less frequently
found in wetlands); "d" means drawdown; and 'V indicates the species is intermediate
within the category. "???" indicates no information. Species names followed by •"*•"
indicate which "Species Listed for Planting in Created Wetland" were'also "Species
Found On Site". -
Species Listed for Planting in Created Wetland 204
In addition to the species listed for planting, the site was mulched.
Acer rabrum* FAC\NAT
Bacopa caroliniana* OBL\NAT
Blechnum serrulatum* FACW+NAT
Canna flaccida* OBL\NAT
Celtis laevigata FACW\NAT
Gordonia lasianthus* FACW\NAT
Ilex cassine FACW\NAT
Irissp. ???•••'
Juncus effusus* FACW+NAT
Ludwigia repens* OBL\NAT
Myrica cerifera FAC+NAT
Nyssa sylvatica FAC\NAT
Osmunda regalis* OBL\NAT
Pontederia cordata* OBL\NAT
Quercus laurifolia FACW\NAT
Sagittaria sp. ???
Salix spp. ???
Spartina baked* FACW+NAT
Taxodium sp. OBL\NAT
Thalia geniculata OBL\NAT
Species Found On Site 204 during Summer 1988
Acer rubrum* FAC\NAT
Agalinus fasciculata FAC+NAT
84
-------
Alternanthera philoxeroides
Ambrosia artemisiifolia
Andropogon glomeratus
Axonopus affinis
Baccharis halimifolia
Bacopa caroliniana*
Bidens miti:;
Blechnum semslatum*
Boehmeria cylindrica
Canna flaccida*
Carex albolutescens
Cassia nictitans
Centella asiatica
Cirsium homdulum
Commelina diffusa
Conyza canadensis
Crotalaria pallida
Cuphea carthagenensis
Cyperus compressus
Cyperus haspan
Cyperus ligularis
Cyperus polystachyos
Diodia virginiana
Eclipta alba
Eleocharis baldwinii
Eleocharis vivipara
Erechtites hieracifolia
Eryngium baldwinii
Eupatorium capillifolium
Eupatorium compositifoliura
Euthamia tenuifolia
Galium uniflorum
Gordonia lasianthus*
Hedyotis uniflora
Hydrocotyle bonariensis
Hydrocotyle umbellata
Hydrocotyle verticillata
Hypericum mutilum
Hyptis alata
Iris hexagona
Juncus dichotomus
Juncus effusus*
Juncus marginatus
Juncus megacephalus
Juncus repens
OBIAEXO
FACU-NAT
FACW+NAT
FACW-NAT
FACVNAT
OBIANAT
OBLWAT
FACW+NAT
FACW-fNAT
OBLVNAT
FAC+NAT
FACU\NAT
FACW\NAT
FAC-f-NAT
FACW\EXO
FACIANAT
UPL\EXO
FACW\EXO
FACW\NAT
OBLVNAT
FACW\NAT
FACWVNAT
FACW\NAT
FACW-NAT
FACWfNAT
OBIANAT
FAC-NAT
FACW+NAT
FACIANAT
FACU\NAT
FAONAT
FACIANAT
FACW\NAT
FACW-EXO
FACW\JSTAT
OBUNAT
OBL\NAT
FACWVNAT
OBL\NAT
OBL\NAT
FACW\NAT
FACW+NAT
FACW\NAT
OBL\NAT
OBL\NAT
85
-------
Lachnanthes carolininana
Leersia hexandra
Ludwigia arcuata
Ludwigia linifolia
Ludwigia microcarpa
Ludwigia octovalvis
Ludwigia palustris
Ludwigia peruviana
Ludwigia pilosa
Ludwigia repens*
Lythrum alatum
Mecardonia acuminata
Mikania scandens
Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora
Osmunda regalis*
Oxalis sp.
Panicum dichotomum
Panicum hemitomon
Panicum repens
Parietaria floridana
Paspalum urvillei
Phyla nodiflora
Pluchea odorata
Pluchea rosea
Polygonum hydropiperoides
Polypremum procumbens
Pontederia cordata*
Proserpinaca palustris
Ptilimnium capillaceum
Rhexia mariana
Rhynchospora caduca
Rhynchospora fascicularis
Rhynchospora microcephala
Rhynchospora mixta
Sacciolepis indica
Sacciolepis striata
Sagittaria lancifolia
Salix caroliniana
Scirpus cyperinus
Scoparia dulcis
Solidago fistulosa
Spartina bakeri*
Taxodium ascendens
Taxodium distichum
Toxicodendron radicans
OBLVNAT
OBLVNAT,
OBLVNAT
OBLVNAT
OBL\NAT
OBLdNAT
OBL\NAT
OBL\NAT
OBLVNAT
FACW\NAT
FACW\NAT
FACW+NAT
FACVNAT
OBLVNAT
FACVNAT
OBL\NAT
FACW-EXO
FACdNAT
FACVEXO
FACWdNAT
FACW\EXO
FACW\NAT
OBLVNAT
FACVNAT
OBLVNAT
OBLVNAT
OBLVNAT
FACW+NAT
OBLVNAT
FACW+NAT
OBLVNAT
OBLVNAT
FACVEXO
OBLVNAT
OBLVNAT
OBLVNAT
OBLVNAT
FACUVNAT
FAC+NAT
FACW+NAT
OBLVNAT
OBLVNAT
FACVNAT
86
-------
Typha latifolia OBLNNAT
Urena lobata FACU\NAT
Viola lanceolata OBL\NAT
Woodwardia virginica OBL\NAT
87
-------
DESCRIPTION: SITE 205
Function/Description
This wetland was created to 1) receiveoverflow from an adjacent retention basin
and 2) as mitigation for berming and'using a nearby cypress dome to receive additional
stormwater runoff. The retention basin and created wetland receive stormwater flow
from a parking lot, while the cypress dome receives roadside drainage and outflow from
the created wetland.
General Physical Description
The wetland is rectangular, with short, steep banks and a flat interior surrounded
by a low berm. A dirt access road and a junkyard adjoin the south side, and a small
stand of trees is adjacent to the east end. The cypress dome is adjacent to the north
side of the created wetland and the retention basin is along the west end. The site is
in a heavily commercialized area, near a major county road and within the interchange
of an interstate highway. There is little undisturbed land near this site.
Hydrology
An inflow ditch at the southwest corner of the wetland allows overflow from the
retention basin into the site. Thfe berm excludes all other surface inflow. An outfall
structure at the northwest corner allows overflow from the created wetland into the
cypress dome.
Soil/Substrate •
Soil chromas were /2 and /3. There was no mottling.
Dominant Vegetation
The dominant plant species on the site was pickerelweed (Pontedaria cordata),
however, water smartweed (Potygonum punctatum) was found throughput the site.
Primroses (Ludwigia spp. L. octovarvis, and L. peruviana), fragrant flatsedge (Cyperus
odoratus), and creeping rush (Juncus repens) were scattered throughout many of the
sampling plots.
See the Vegetation Summary section of this description for a complete lising of
the species identified.
-------
FLORIDA 205
PERMIT MAP
oo
rrq Wetland area
£-2 to be created
Q Existing elevation
contours in feet
S Proposed pond
grading
CYPRESS DOME
\ \ 28
N f \
1:1000
10 50 75 100ft
Map CAD drafted by Steven Pelles d/90
-------
FLORIDA 205
FIELD MAP
Vegetation Transect
A Start D End
Erg Emergent
^3 Vegetation
CYPRESS DOME
fl
\
1:1000
10 50 75 100ft
Mop CAD drafted by Steven Pelles 8/90
Vegetation data collected 7/88
-------
VO
SITE 205
Transect 1
IUTATIOI (1)
I i it it » it » x
tlXTATlOl (I)
I
«o « » B » ii 't !« ii ii to « 100 in no 111
Transect 2
Dismcc
11 >t
Transect 3
-------
VEGETATION SUMMARY
The following are the species listed for planting in the created wetland and the
species found on the site. Wetland indicator codes, were adapted from categories in the
Regional List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands (Reed 1988). Codes are: OBL-
-obligate wetland species; FACW-facultative wetland species; FAC-facultative species;
FACU-facultative upland species; UPL-upland species; NAT-native species; and
EXO-~exotic species. The symbols separating the two elements of each code indicate
the position of that species within the wetland indicator category. The symbol"+"
indicates the species is toward the high end of the category (more frequently found in
wetlands); "-" indicates the species is toward the low end of the category (less frequently
found in wetlands); "d" means drawdown; and 'Y indicates the species is intermediate
within the category. "???" indicates no information. Species names followed by "*"
indicate which "Species Listed for Planting in Created Wetland" were also "Species
Found On Site".
Species Listed for Planting in Created Wetland 205
In addition to the genera listed for planting, the site was mulched.
Juncus spp. ???
Pontederia spp. ???
Sagittaria spp. ???
Species Found On Site 205 during Summer 1988
Ambrosia artemisiifolia FACU-NAT
Ammannia latifolia OBL\NAT
Andropogon glomeratus FACW+NAT
Baccharis halimifolia FAC\NAT
Carex albolutescens FAC+NAT
Conyza canadensis FACU\NAT
Cyperus compressus FACW\NAT
Cyperus odoratus FACWVNAT
Cyperus polystachyos FACW\NAT
Cyperus surinamensis FACW\NAT
Eclipta alba FACW-NAT
Erechtites hieracifolia FAC-NAT
Eupatorium capillifolium FACU\NAT
Galactia volubilis FACU\NAT
Hydrocotyle umbellata OBL\NAT
Juncus effusus FACW+NAT
Juncus marginatus FACW\NAT
Juncus megacephalus OBL\NAT
Juncus repens OBL\NAT
92
-------
Juncus scirpoides FACW+NAT
Ludwigia octovalvis OBLVNAT
Ludwigia peruviana OBLVNAT
Ludwigia spp. ???'
Mikania scandens FACW+NAT
O.calisj sp. ???
Pluchea odorata FACWVEXO
Polygonum hydropiperoides OBLVNAT
Polygonum punctatum FACW+NAT
Polypremum procumbens FACVNAT
Pontederia cordata OBLVNAT
Sagittaria lancifolia OBLVNAT
Salix caroliniana OBL'\NAT
Scoparia dulcis FACLANAT
Typha latifolia OBLVNAT
-------
DESCRIPTION: SITE 208
Function/Purpose
Stormwater/retention basin for residential neighborhood.
General Physical Description
This wetland is long and narrowband has steep sides grading down into open
water. For the size requirements of the study, the created wetland sampled was
arbitrarily cut off at the border of a lily pond at the south end, which contained a
substantial amount of refuse. The north end of the wetland is bordered by a residential
road. The residential development borders the east side of the wetland, and some
household refuse is scattered along the edges of this/side of the site. The west side is
adjacent to a powerline easement, which is bordered further west by an oak hammock.
Hydrology
There may have been inflow/outflow points further downslope (beyond the limits
of the study area), however, no inflow or outflow points were evident. Sheetflow runoff
from adjacent roads probably occurs.
Soil/Substrate
The wetland was mulched with soil from a donor wetland to about 20 cm thick.
Five of the soil samples had chromas of /I and five had 12. There was no mottling.
Dominant Vegetation
The dominant plant species found were cattails (Typha domingensis and T.
latifolia), pennywort (Hydrocotyle umbellata), pickerelweed (Pontedaria cordata),
American cupscale (Sacciolepis striata), primroses (Ludwigja arcuata, L. peruviana, and
L. repens), smartweed (Potygonum hydropiperoides), spikerush (Eleocharis baldwinii),
sedges (Cyperus polystachyos and C retrorsus), soft rush (Juncus effusus), and
arrowroot (Thalia geniculata).
See the Vegetation Summary section of this description for a complete listing of
the species identified.
94
-------
FLORIDA 208
PERMIT MAP
44
43
N
1:1000
r~~~\ Existing elevation
e-^-i contours in feet
r—a Proposed pond
«—J grading
K'.-j Wetland area
^*^ to b« created
10 50 75 100ft
42
Map CAD drafted by Steven Pelles 8/90
9:5
-------
FLORIDA 208
FIELD MAP
Bare sand
f JrrX.^.Grassek^.1
--«,- jsrL'Z^TT*-':
JB
•V-typhai~-
"-LlsL-^-^.sto Juncus
"•i-5-*- *?^ •="-^tf^
v X@i-?:J^!i£
t ^i^sJv
;_«.?• r-^T-.--^--.
Base® " ~ ~ " ~
J^*~q^5*"^"~~^"
r^-e--r-= •"—^"*j:
^.^TyphaX:
'--J*.—
Thalia^"
— —- --a.-*. *.-«- — --
•\^f^v-f:^r--
Lily
T3
Pond
Tl
1:1000
Vegetation Transect
A Start 0 End
p-^q Emergent
t=^3 Vegetation
10 50 75 100ft
Map CAD drafted by Steven Pelles 8/90
Vegetation data collected 7/88
96
-------
lUTATIOH (•)
I
SITE 208
Transect 1
I "•
i u ii »
n n it «
» it it u M u
1I9TA1KI (l)
n M n «t it
Transect 2
\o
ILtTATIOH (I)
I
Transect 3
1.1
0.1
ti 11
»
trmrcc (
-------
VEGETATION SUMMARY
The following are the species listed for planting in the created wetland and the
species found on the site. Wetland indicator codes were adapted from categories in the
Regional List of Plant Species that Occur m Wetlands (Reed 1988). Codes are: OBL-
-obligate wetland species; FACW-facultatiye wetland species; FAC-facultative species;
FACU-facultative upland species; UPL-upIaiid species; NAT-native species; and
EXO-exotic species. The symbols separating the two elements of each code indicate
the position of that species within the wetland indicator category. The symbol "+"
indicates the species is toward the high end of the category (more frequently found in
wetlands); "-" indicates the species is toward the low end of the category (less frequently
found in wetlands); "d" means drawdown; and "\" indicates the species is intermediate
within the category. "???" indicates no information. Species names followed by "*"
indicate which "Species Listed for Planting in Created Wetland" were also "Species
Found On Site".
Species Listed for Planting in Created Wetland 208
In addition to the species listed for planting, the site was mulched.
Acer rubrum FAC\NAT
Bacopa monnieri OBL\NAT
Fraxinus caroliniana OBL\NAT
Gordonia lasianthus FACVNAT
Ilex cassine FACW\NAT
Juncus effusus* FACW+NAT
Nymphaea odorata* OBL\NAt
Nyssa aquatica OBL\NAT
Persea borbonia FACW\NAT
Pontederia cordata* OBL\NAT
Spartina bakeri* FACW+NAT
Thalia geniculata* OBL\NAT
Species Found On Site 208 during Summer 1988
Axonopus affinis FACW-NAT
Bacopa caroliniana OBL\NAT
Bidens alba FACW-NAT
Bidens mitis OBL\NAT
Bulbostylis ciliatifolia FACU\NAT
Centella asiatica FACW\NAT
Cyperus haspan OBL\NAT
Cyperus ligularis FACW\NAT
Cyperus odoratus FACW\NAT
Cyperus polystachyos FACW\NAT
98
-------
Cypems retrorsus
Cyperus strigosus
Echinocloa waited
Eleocharis baldwinii
Eupatorium capillifoliura
Eupatorium leptophyllum
Habenaria repens
Hydrocotyle bcxnariensis
Hydrocotyk umbellata
Hypericum mutilutn
Juncus effusus*
Juncus megacephalus
Juncus sciirpoides
Lachnanthcs carolininana
Leersia hexandra
Lindernia grandiflora
Ludwigia arcuata
Ludwigia octovalvis
Ludwigia peruviana
Ludwigia repens
Lythrum alatum
Mikania scandens
Nuphar luteum
Nymphaea odorata*
Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora
Panicum anceps
Panicum hemitomon
Panicum repens
Paspalum distichum
Peltandra virginica
Phyla nodiflora
Pluchea rosea
Polygonum hirsutum
Polygonum hydropiperoides
Pontederia cordata*
Proserpinaca pectinata
Ptilimnium capillaceum
Rhexia mariana
Rhynchospora caduca
Sabatia sp.
Sacciolepis striata
Sagittaria lancifolia
Solidago stricta
Spartina bakeri*
Spilanthes americana
FACU+NAT
FACWVNAT
OBLdNAT
FACW+NAT
FAOTNAT
FAC+NAT
OBLXNAT
FACW\NAT
OBUNAT
FACW\NAT
FACW+NAT
OBL\NAT
FACW+NAT
OBL\NAT
OBL\NAT
OBL\NAT
OBL\NAT
OBL\NAT
OBUNAT
OBL\NAT
FACWVNAT
FACW+NAT
OBL\NAT
OBLVNA.T
FACVNAT
FACW+NAT
OBLVNAT
FACW-EXO
OBLVNAT
OBLVNAT
FACWdN/vT
FACWVNAT
OBLVNAT
OBLVNAT
OBLVNAT
OBLVNAT
OBLVNAT
FACW+NAT
OBLVNAT
OBLVNAT
OBLVNAT
OBLVNAT
FACW+NAT
FACWVNAT
9!)
-------
Thalia geniculata* OBLANAT
Typha domingensis OBLANAT
Typha latifolia OBLANAT
Vigna luteola FACW\NAT
100
-------
APPENDIX H
LISTS OF PLANT SPECiES TO BE ESTABLISHED
AND ACTUALLY ESTABLISHED ON
THE CREATED WETLANDS STUDIED
Following are the lists of all species intended for planting and the list of all
species found on the created wetlands studied. Wetland indicator codes were adapted
from categories in the Regional List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands (Reed
1988). Codes are: OBL-obligate wetland species; FACW-facultative wetland species;
FAC-facultative species; FACU-facultative upland species; UPL~upland species; NAT-
-native species; and EXO-exotic species. The symbols separating the two elements of
each code indicate the position of that species within the wetland indicator category.
The symbol"+" indicates the species is toward the high end of the category (more
frequently found in wetlands); "-" indicates the species is toward the low end of the
category (less frequently found in wetlands); "d" means drawdown; and T indicates the
species is intermediate within the category. "???" indicates no information. Species
names followed by "*" indicate which species on the "List of all species intended for
planting" were also on the "List of all species found on created wetlands".
LIST OF ALL SPECIES INTENDED FOR PLANTING
The following list includes all species intended for planting within wetland areas
of the created wetlands studied. Species listed for planting in buffer areas, banks and
adjacent upland areas are not included.
Acer rubrum* FAQNAT Red maple
Bacopa caroliniana* OBL\NAT Lemon bacopa
Bacopa monnieri* OBL\NAT Coastal water-hyssop
Blechnum serrulatum* FACW+NAT Swamp fern
Canna flaccida* OBL\NAT Canna lily
Celtis laevigata* FACW\NAT Sugarberry
Fraxinus caroliniana OBL\NAT Carolina ash
Gordonia lasianthus* FACW\NAT Loblolly bay
Hypericum fasciculatum* FACW+NAT St. John's-wort
Ilex cassine FACW\NAT Dahoon holly
Iris hexagona* OBL\NAT Prairie iris
Iris sp. ??? Swamp iris
Iris virginica OBL\NAT Virginia blueflag
Juncus effusus* FACW+NAT Soft rush
Juncus spp. ??? Rush
Ludwigia repens* OBL\NAT Red ludwigia
Myrica cerifera* FAC+NAT Wax myrtle
101
-------
Nymphaea odorata*
Nyssa aquatica
Nyssa sylvatica
Osmunda cinnamonea
Osmunda regalis*
Peltandra virgmica*
Persea bqrbonia
Pontederia cordata*
Pontederia spp.
Quercus laurifolia*
Sagittaria lancifolia*
Sagittaria sp.
Salix spp.
Saururus cernuus
Spartina bakeri*
Spartina spp.
Taxodium sp.
Thalia geniculata*
OBL\NAT.
FAC\NAT
FACW+NAT
OBL\NAT
FACW\NAT
OBL\NAT
FACW\NAT
OBL\NAT
OBL\NAT
FACW+NAT
OBL\NAT
OBUNAT
White waterrlijy
Water tupelo
Black gum
Cinnamon fern
Royal fern
Arrow arum
Red bay
Pickerel weed
Laurel oak
Bull-tongue arrowhead
Arrowhead
Willows
Lizard tail
Sand/smooth cordgrass
Cordgrass
Cypress
Alligator flag/arrowroot
LIST OF ALL SPECIES FOUND ON CREATED WETLANDS
The following list includes all species found along transects that were placed to
represent the vegetation communities of each created wetland studied. Transects were located
within the wetland areas of the sites only. They were not placed in buffer areas, banks and
adjacent upland areas.
Acer rubrum*
Agalinus fasciculata
Alternanthera philoxeroides
Ambrosia artemisiifolia
Ammannia coccinea
Ammannia latifolia
Ampelopsis arborea
Amphicarpum muhlenbergian
Andropogon glomeratus
Andropogon virginicus
Aristida spiciformis
Axonopus affmis
Axonopus furcatus
Baccharis halimifolia
Bacopa caroliniana*
Bacopa monnieri*
Bidens alba
Bidens mitis
FAC\NAT
FAC+NAT
OBL\EXO
FACU-NAT
FACW+NAT
OBL\NAT
FAC+NAT
FACW\NAT
FACW+NAT
FAC-NAT
FAONAT
FACW-NAT
OBL\NAT
FACVNAT
OBL\NAT
OBL\NAT
FACW-NAT
OBLVNAT
Red Maple
Beach False-foxglove
Alligator weed
Annual ragweed
Purple ammania
Pink ammania
Pepper-vine
Perennial goobergrass
Bushy bluestem
Broom-sedge
Pinebarren 3-awn grass
Southern carpet grass
Big carpet grass
Eastern false-willow
Carolina water-hyssop
Coastal water-hyssop
Beggar-tick
Small-fruit beggar-tick
102
-------
Blechnum sermlatum
Boehmeria cylindrica
Bulbostylis ciliatifolia
Canna flaccida*
Carex albolutescens
Carex stipata
Cassia nictitans
Geltis laevigata*
Centella asiatica
Chamaecrista fasciculata
Cirsium horridulum
Citrus sp.
Commelina diffusa
Conyza canadensis
Crotalaria paMida
Cuphea carthagenensis
Cynodon dactylon
Cyperus brevifolius
Cyperus compressus
Cyperus globulosus
Cyperus haspan
Cyperus ligularis
Cyperus odoratus
Cyperus polystachyos
Cyperus retrorsus
Cyperus rotundus
Cyperus spp.
Cyperus strigosus
Cyperus surinamensis
Digitaria decumbens
Diodia virginiana
Dioscorea bulbifera
Drosera capillaris
Echinocloa waited
Eclipta alba
Eleocharis baldwinii
Eleocharis interstincta
Eleocharis vivipara
Erechtites hieracifolia
Erigeron quercifolius
Eriocaulon compress urn
Eriocaulon decangulare
Eriocaulon sp.
Eryngium baldwinii
Eupatorium capillifolium
FACW+NAT
FACW+NAT
FACUVNAT
OBLVNAT
FAC+NAT
FACWVNAT
FACUVNAT
FACWVNAT
FACWVNAT
FACWVNAT
FAC+NAT
FACWVEXO
FACUVNAT
UPL\EXO
FACWVEXO
FACU\NAT
FACW\NAT
FACWVNAT
FACVNAT
OBL\NAT
FACWVNAT
FACW\NAT
FACWVNAT
FACU+NAT
FAC-EXO
FACWVNAT
FACWVNAT
FACUXEXO
FACWVNAT
FACUXEXO
OBLVNAT
OBLdNAT
FACW-NAT
FACW+NAT
OBLVNAT
OBLVNAT
FAC-NAT
FAC+NAT
OBLVEXO
OBLVEXO
FACW+NAT
FACUVNAT
Toothed mid-sorus feni
Small-spike falsenettle
Capillary hairsedge
Canna lily
Greenish-white sedge
Stalk-grain sedge
Sensitive partridge pea
Sugar-berry
Asian coinleaf
Yellow thistle
Spreading dayflower
Canada horseweed
Columbia waxweed
Bermuda grass
Shortleaf flatsedge
Poorland flatsedge
Baldwin flatsedge
Sheathed flatsedge
Alabama swamp flatsedge
Rusty flatsedge
Many-spike flatsedge
Retrorse flatsedge
Purple flatsedge
Flatsedges
Straw-color flatsedge
Tropical flatsedge
Pangola grass
Virginia buttonweed
Pink sundew
Coast cockspur
Yerba de tajo
Baldwin's spikerush
Knotted spikerush
Viviparous spikerush
American burn
Oak-leaf fleabane
Flattened pipewort
Ten-angle pipewort
Pipeworts
Baldwin coyote-thistle
Small dog-fennel
103
-------
Eupatorium compositifolium
Eupatorium leptoptiylium
Eupatorium mohrii
Euthamia tenuifolia
Fuirena pumila
Fuirena scirpdidea
Galactia volubilis
Galium tinctorium
Galium uniflorum
Gordonia lasianthus*
Gratiola pilosa
Gratiola ramosa
Habenaria repens
Hedyotis uniflora
Hydrocotyle bonariensis
Hydrocotyle spp.
Hydrocotyle umbellata
Hydrocotyle verticillata
Hypericum cistifolium
Hypericum fasciculatum*
Hypericum hypericoides
Hypericum mutilum
Hypericum myrtifolium
Hyptis alata
Iris hexagona*
Juncus dichotomus
Juncus effusus*
Juncus marginatus
Juncus megacephalus
Juncus repens
Juncus scirpoides
Lachnanthes carolininana
Lachnocaulon anceps
Leersia hexandra
Linaria spp.
Lindernia anagallidea
Lindernia grandiflora
Lippia nodiflora
Lolium perenne
Ludwigia arcuata
Ludwigia linifolia
Ludwigia maritima
Ludwigia microcarpa
Ludwigia octovalvis
Ludwigia palustris
FACIANAT
FAC+tfAT;
FACU\NAT
FAONAT,
OBL\NAT
FACW\NAT
FACU\NAT
FACW\NAT
FACW-NAT
FACW\NAT
OBL\NAT
FACW-EXO
FACW\NAT
OBL\NAT
OBL\NAT
FACW\NAT
FACW+NAT
FACIANAT
FACW\NAT
FACW\NAT
OBL\NAT
OBL\NAT
FACW\NAT
FACW+NAT
FACW\NAT
OBLVNAf
OBL\NAT
FACW+NAT
OBL\NAT
OBL\NAT
OBL\NAT
FAC+NAT
OBLVNAT
FACWdNAT
FACU\EXO
OBUNAT
OBLVNAT
FACW\NAT
OBL\NAT
OBL\NAT
OBLdNAT
Yankee weed
Fennel
Dwarf umbrella-sedge
Southern umbrella-iedge
Stiff marsh bedstraw
Loblolly bay
Shaggy hedgehyssop
Branching hedgehyssop
Water-spider orchid
Coastal-plain pennywort
Pennyworts
Many-flower pennywort
Whorled pennywort
Round-pod St.John's wort
Sandweed St. John's wort
Slender St. John's wort
Myrtleleaf StJohn's wort
Ouster bushmint
Prairie iris
Forked rush
Soft rush
Grass-leaf rush
Big-head rush
Creeping rush
Needle-pod rush
Carolina redroot
White-head bbgbutton
Club-head cutgrass
False-pimpernel
Savannah false-pimpernel
Perennial ryegrass
Piedmont seedbox
Southeastern seedbox
Seaside seedbox
Small-fruit seedbox
Mexican seedbox
Marsh seedbox
104
-------
Ludwigia peruviana
Ludwigia pilosa
Ludwigia repens*
Ludwigia spp.
Luziola fluitans
Lythrum alatum
Macroptiliuin lathyroides
Mecardonia acuminata
Micranthemum glomeratum
Micranthemum umbrosum
Mikania scandens
Myrica cerifera*
Nuphar luteum
Nymphaea odorata*
Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora
Osmunda regalis*
Oxalis florida
Oxalis spp.
Oxypolis filiformis
Panicum anceps
Panicum ciliatum
Panicum dichotomum
Panicum erectifolium
Panicum hemitomon
Panicum laxiflorum
Panicum maximum
Panicum repens
Parietaria floridana
Paspalum distichum
Paspalum notatum var. saurae
Paspalum setaceum
Paspalum urvillei
Peltandra virginica*
Phyla nodiflora
Plantago virginicus
Pluchea odorata
Pluchea rosea
Polygala ramosa
Polygonum densiflorum
Polygonum hirsutum
Polygonum hydropiperoides
Polygonum punctatum
Polygonum spp.
Polypremum procumbens
Pontederia cordata*
OBLVNAT
OBL\NAT
OBLVNAT
OBLVNAT
FACW\NAT
FACUWO
FACWVNAT
OBUNAT
OBLdEXO
FACW+NAT
FAC+NAT
OBUNAT
OBUNAT
FAONAT
OBL\NAT
FACUWAT
FACW+NAT
FACW+NAT
FAONAT
FAONAT
OBLVNAT
OBLVNAT
FACW\NAT
FAC-EXO
FACW-EXO
FACdNAT
OBLVNAT
FACU+EXO
FAONAT
FAOEXO
OBUNAT
FACWdNAT
FACU-NAT
FACW\EXO
FACW\NAT
OBL\NAT
OBL\NAT
OBLVNAT
OBL\NAT
FACW+NAT
779
• • •
FAONAT
OBL\NAT
Peruvian seedbox
Hairy seedbox
Creeping seedbox
Seedboxes
Winged loosestrife
Purple mecardonia
Manatee mudflower
Shade mudflower
Climbing hempweed
Southern bayberry
Yellow cow-lily
White water-lily
Black gum
Royal fern
Florida woodsorrel
Woodsorrel
Water cowbane
Beaked panic grass
Little panicum
Cypress witchgrass
Erect-leaf witchgrass
Maiden-cane
Guinea grass
Torpedo grass
Florida pellitory
Joint paspalum
Bahia grass
Thin paspalum
Vasey grass
Arrow arum
Common frog-fruit
Pale-seed plantain
Shrubby camphor-weed
Rosy camphor-weed
Low pinebarren milkwort
Dense-flower smartweed
Hairy smartweed
Swamp smartweed
Dotted smartweed
Smartweeds
Juniper-leaf
Pickerel weed
105
-------
FACW+NAT
FACW+NAT
OBIANAf
FACW+NAT
FACW-NAT
FACW+NAT
OBL\NAT
OBIANAT
OBL\NAT
???
FACWdEXO
Proserpinaca palustris OBL\NAT
Proserpinaca pectinata OBL\NAT
Ptilimnium capillaceum OBLM^At1
Quercus laurifolia*
Rhexia mariana
Rhexia nuttallii
Rhynchospora caduca
Rhynchospora fascicularis
Rhynchospora filifolia
Rhynchospora microcarpa
Rhynchospora microcephala
Rhynchospora mixta
Rhynchospora spp.
Rhynchospora tracyi
Rubus spp.
Rumex pulcher
Sabatia spp.
Sacciolepis indica FAC\EXO
Sacciolepis striata OBL\NAT
Sagittaria graminea OBL\NAT
Sagittaria lancifolia* OBL\NAT
Sagittaria latifolia OBL\NAT
Sagittaria spp.
Salix caroliniana
Samolus valerandi
Scirpus cyperinus
Scoparia dulcis
Senecio glabellus
Senna obtusifolia
Sesbania macrocarpa
Solidago fistulosa
Solidago sempervirens
Solidago stricta
Spartina bakeri*
Spilanthes americana
Stenotaphnun secundatum
Syngonanthus flavidulus
Tall grass
Taxodium ascendens OBL\NAT
Taxodium distichum OBL\NAT
Thalia geniculata* OBL\NAT
Toxicodendron radicans FAC\NAT
Typha domingensis OBL\NAT
Typha latifolia OBL\NAT
Urena lobata FACU\NAT
OBLVNAT
OBLVNAT
OBL\NAT
FACU\NAT
FACW+NAT
FAONAT
FACW\NAT
FAC+NAT
FACW\NAT
OBL\NAT
FACW+NAT
FACW\NAT
FACXNAT
FACW+NAT
Marsh mermaid-weed
Comb-leaf mermaid-weed
Hairlike mock bishopweed
Laurel oak
Maryland meadow-beauty
Nuttal's meadow-beauty
Falling beakrush :
Fasciculate beakrush
Thread-leaf beakrush ,'
Southern beakrush
Capitate beakrush
Mingled beakrush
Beakrushes
Tracy's beakrush
Blackberrys
Fiddle dock
Rose-gentian
Glenwood grass
American cupscale
Grass-leaf arrow-head
Bulltongue arrow-head
Broadleaf arrow-head
Arrow-heads
Coastal-plain willow
Water pimpernel
Wool-grass
Licorice weed
Grass-leaf groundsel
Sesbania hemp
Pinebarren goldenrod
Seaside goldenrod
Willow-leaf goldenrod
Sand/Smooth cordgrass
Creeping spotflower
St. Augustine grass
Bantam-buttons
Bald cypress
Bald cypress
Alligator flag
Poison ivy
Southern cattail
Broadleaf cattail
Caesar weed
106
-------
Utricularia fibrosa OBL\NAT Fibrous bladderwort
Verbena scabra FACW-J NAT Sandpaper vervain
Vigna luteola FACW\NAT Hairy-pod cowpea
Viola lanceolata OBL\NAT Lance-leaf violet
Vitis rotundifolia FAC\NAT Muscadine grape
Woodwardia virginica OBL\NAT Virginia chainfern
Xyris caroliniana FACW-i-NAT Carolina yelloweyedgrass
Xyris elliottji OBUNAT Elliot's yeJJoweyedgrass
Xyris jupicai OBL\N AT Richards yelloweyedgrass
107
------- |