Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 95 (2011) 377e387

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecss

Empirical tools for simulating salinity in the estuaries in Everglades National Park, Florida
F.E. Marshall a, *, D.T. Smith b, D.M. Nickerson c
a

Cetacean Logic Foundation, Inc., 2022 Spyglass Lane, New Smyrna Beach, FL 32169, United States Everglades National Park, 950 North Krome Avenue, Homestead, FL 33030, United States c Department of Statistics, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 328916-2370, United States
b

a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history: Received 7 July 2011 Accepted 1 October 2011 Available online 15 October 2011 Keywords: Florida salinity modeling regression analysis multivariate analysis estuaries conceptual modeling

a b s t r a c t
Salinity in a shallow estuary is affected by upland freshwater inputs (surface runoff, stream/canal ows, groundwater), atmospheric processes (precipitation, evaporation), marine connectivity, and wind patterns. In Everglades National Park (ENP) in South Florida, the unique Everglades ecosystem exists as an interconnected system of fresh, brackish, and salt water marshes, mangroves, and open water. For this effort a coastal aquifer conceptual model of the Everglades hydrologic system was used with traditional correlation and regression hydrologic techniques to create a series of multiple linear regression (MLR) salinity models from observed hydrologic, marine, and weather data. The 37 ENP MLR salinity models cover most of the estuarine areas of ENP and produce daily salinity simulations that are capable of estimating 65e80% of the daily variability in salinity depending upon the model. The Root Mean Squared Error is typically about 2e4 salinity units, and there is little bias in the predictions. However, the absolute error of a model prediction in the nearshore embayments and the mangrove zone of Florida Bay may be relatively large for a particular daily simulation during the seasonal transitions. Comparisons show that the models group regionally by similar independent variables and salinity regimes. The MLR salinity models have approximately the same expected range of simulation accuracy and error as higher spatial resolution salinity models. 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Estuarine salinity is hydrology-dependent and the salt concentration at any point in an estuary is a function of the various elements of the water budget e rainfall, evaporation, and freshwater supply from the watershed e as well as the level of inuence from the marine end member and wind forcing (Hansen and Rattray, 1966; Pritchard, 1968; Kjerfve et al., 1996; Nuttle et al., 1999; Kelble et al., 2006). One of the primary drivers of the ecological composition of an estuary is the salinity variability (Montague and Ley, 1999; Thayer et al., 1999; Ogden et al., 2005). A unique example of a coastal ecosystem with freshwater wetlands and estuarine areas that support high species diversity and a number of threatened and endangered species is the Greater Everglades Ecosystem of South Florida within Everglades National Park (ENP). The Greater Everglades Ecosystem is an International

* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: clnc@earthlink.net (F.E. Marshall), dewitt_smith@nps.gov (D. T. Smith), nickersn@mail.ucf.edu (D.M. Nickerson). 0272-7714/$ e see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ecss.2011.10.001

Biosphere Reserve, a World Heritage Site, and a Wetland of International Importance (Davis and Ogden, 1994). Outside of ENP, changes were made to the hydrology over the past 100 years for agricultural and urban expansion. In general, the freshwater supply to the Everglades has been reduced, thereby altering the salinity regime(s) of the estuaries within ENP. The negative impact of this reduction in freshwater on the unique Everglades estuarine ecosystem has been well-documented for the past quarter-century (Tabb, 1967; Davis et al., 1994, 2005; Fourqurean and Robblee, 1999; Rudnick et al., 1999; Schaffranek et al., 2001; Burd and Jackson, 2002; Ogden et al., 2005; Renken et al., 2005; Yarbro and Carlson, 2008). The program that has been implemented to restore the Everglades (Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, or CERP) includes restoration of the hydrology and salinity of the Greater Everglades Ecosystem as a key component (www.evergladesplan.org). This study of the Everglades coastal system has identied the relationships of the various hydrologic components, wind, and marine inuence to salinity in the estuaries using statistical methods. Where there was sufcient correlation between salinity and the inuential factors, stepwise variable selection was used to develop

378

F.E. Marshall et al. / Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 95 (2011) 377e387

Fig. 1. Map of the Everglades National Park study area showing monitoring station locations for salinity, stage, ow, sea surface elevation, and wind data.

multiple linear regression (MLR) models for simulation of salinity. The objective was to provide meaningful and quantitative information for hydrologists, ecologists, managers, and others about the relationship between salinity and the physical factors that affect it in estuarine environments, to the benet of Everglades restoration.

Within ENP there are a number of estuarine environments with a relatively wide range of salinity regimes. They provide a variety of well-monitored waters that are useful for a statistical analysis of the inuence of observable physical factors on the salinity regimes. Data on water level and ow in the freshwater marshes and salinity

F.E. Marshall et al. / Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 95 (2011) 377e387

379

in the estuaries of ENP have been collected for a relatively long time and over a large area. In some areas, hydrology and salinity have been measured synoptically since the 1930s, and data have been collected continuously since the 1980s across the South Florida region. One of the rst attempts to use statistical methods to model salinity was made by Tabb (1967) in a study of estuarine biota and salinity in the estuaries of ENP. Based on an analysis of these data, Tabb (1967) concluded that the salinity variability in the estuarine areas can be estimated using groundwater levels in the upstream watersheds. He suggested that hypersaline conditions developed in Florida Bay when groundwater levels fell below a certain range of values. Tabb (1967) indicated that the applicability of the prediction relationships was limited at times because of observed anomalies when the wet season changed to the dry season. Scully (1986) used monthly stage data in the upstream freshwater marsh at P33 and Florida Bay salinity data to develop simple linear regression models for salinity. Cosby (1993) used correlation analysis and linear regression to examine relationships between stage, ow, rainfall, and salinity in Florida Bay. Nuttle (1997) developed improved statistical models after transforming monthly grab sample salinity data collected in Florida Bay. Building on the work of Nuttle (1997), Marshall (2000) used crosscorrelation techniques from time series analysis to evaluate the additional effects of wind, tide, and local meteorological conditions, suggesting that acceptable multiple linear regression models could be developed. In addition to statistical models, a number of numeric hydrology/salinity models have also been developed for ENP estuaries (Wang et al., 1994; Sheng et al., 1995; Cerco et al., 2000; Langevin et al., 2004; Swain et al., 2004; Cosby et al., 2005; Tetra Tech, 2005) with mixed success (Marshall and Nuttle, 2011). In 2002, the Committee on Restoration of the Greater Everglades Ecosystem (CROGEE) recommended the use of statistical models, time series analysis, and the coupling of salinity models with the output from watershed hydrology models (CROGEE, 2002) for Everglades restoration activities. Statistical methods such as correlation and regression are useful empirical tools for characterizing the relationships between hydrologic parameters of freshwater systems (Riggs, 1968; Pionke and Nicks, 1970; Jackson, 1975; Jensen, 1976; Hubert et al., 1992). A full analysis includes the selection of important factors, a way of characterizing the factors (i.e. data), development of a regression model including the error and goodness-of-t statistics, and interpretation of the model output (Riggs, 1968). A regression equation provides a way of quantifying relationships, even when more than two quantities are being used to characterize the association (Kachigan, 1991; Helsell and Hirsch, 1991). The developed structure of a regression model contains the important factors that may be reasonably expected to affect the dependent variable. Like a correlation coefcient, a regression equation or model does not imply cause and effect between dependent and independent variables because some unmeasured factor may be inuencing both. Even so, when there is a physical tie between the dependent and independent variables, the results can be considered to have meaning (Riggs, 1968). In this manner, river ow can be quantied statistically using regression methods and stage (water level) data. In the eld of hydro-geology and water supply engineering, the GhybeneHerzberg principle is often used to describe the location of the fresh/salt water interface in the coastal aquifer as a function of the height of freshwater in the watershed relative to the height of the sea surface above a common datum, and the relative densities of the water masses (Anderson et al., 2000). Following a review of the relevant literature, we hypothesized that a coastal aquifer conceptual model with a dynamic balance between fresh and salt water modied by the effects of wind could be used to study the

variability in salinity in Florida Bay and the estuaries discharging into the Gulf of Mexico within ENP. To test the hypothesis, linear regression models of hydrology, salinity, sea level, and wind factors were developed using accepted multiple regression methods (stepwise regression, SAS PROC REG routines) to select the independent variables and estimate the coefcients of the models, as described below. 2. Description of study area and data The study area encompasses the Greater Everglades Ecosystem within ENP and the immediately adjacent protected areas (Fig. 1). This includes the freshwater marshes and swamps in the Everglades and Big Cypress National Preserve; the estuarine areas of Florida Bay, Whitewater Bay, and the southern coast of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf); and the semi-enclosed sounds and bays between Florida Bay and Biscayne Bay referred to locally as South Biscayne Bay. Fresh surface water owing into ENP across Tamiami Trail into Shark River Slough is augmented by rainfall and lost to evaporation and groundwater as it moves south and southwest, primarily toward the Gulf of Mexico and Whitewater Bay. A secondary ow of water discharges into Florida Bay via Taylor Slough and the South Dade Conveyance System, a man-made drainage canal. Freshwater can recharge the surcial aquifer through the highly transmissive upper substrate, and surcial aquifer groundwater may re-emerge as surface water to augment overland ows in lower-elevation Taylor Slough. East of the Taylor Slough drainage basin in the ENP panhandle freshwater ows as overland ow, groundwater, and creek/stream ow to discharge into northeast Florida Bay and south Biscayne Bay. A number of studies indicate that freshwater being delivered to the estuarine receiving waters in ENP has been signicantly reduced for ood protection and water supply to serve areas outside of the park (Davis and Ogden, 1994; Fourqurean and Robblee, 1999; Renken et al., 2005). The climate of South Florida exhibits distinct wet and dry seasonal patterns but is spatially highly variable (Nuttle et al., 1999). The pattern during the wet season (May or June through October or November) is driven by tropical wind and sea breeze interactions on a daily scale causing frequent convective storms, less frequent tropical storms, and high spatial variability. Rainfall data between gauges that are only tens of miles apart often show widely varying rainfall volumes for a single event during the wet season. During the dry season rain is usually delivered by frontal systems with reduced frequency compared to the wet season. Evaporation is also seasonal, but with a different temporal pattern than rainfall. Evaporation peaks at the end of the dry season when rainfall is low. This difference in timing has a signicant effect on the stage in the freshwater marshes and salinity in the estuaries. Wind has a seasonal pattern similar to rainfall. During the wet season the wind direction is predominately from the south and southeast, and during the dry season wind blowing from the north is more common. However, wind direction and speed can change rapidly when a weather system is moving through South Florida (Smith, 1997a,b). Because wind can vary hourly and daily as well as seasonally, wind is considered an element of short-term weather and not long-term climate for this analysis. Nonetheless, wind is an important factor in salinity modeling in this study. The elevation of the sea surface (sea level) and the hydraulically connected elevation of the water surface in ENP estuaries have similar seasonal patterns of maximum and minimum elevations that are different than hydrologic and wind maxima and minima (Smith and Pitts, 1995). When a hurricane or other signicant weather event occurs, wind and storm surge effects can alter the sea surface elevation dramatically over short periods.

380

F.E. Marshall et al. / Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 95 (2011) 377e387

The salinity data used for this statistical modeling effort were obtained from the ENP Marine Monitoring Network (MMN) database. These salinity data are available from South Florida Natural Resources Center (SFNRC) by request (EVER_data_request@nps. gov). Details about these data can be found in Everglades National Park (1997a,b), and Smith (1997a,b), Smith (1998, 1999, 2001). The ENP MMN stations used for this study are shown in Fig. 1. There are 36 salinity stations and the list of stations and locations are presented in Table 1, along with the start date for data collection and the period-of-record mean daily value through October 31, 2002. As the Practical Salinity Scale is being used, salinity has no units. The stage data used for model development were also collected by ENP and are available from SFNRC by request (site address above). Several of the ENP continuous water level (stage) monitoring stations in the Everglades began recording data in the 1950s but most stage records date from the late 1980s to the 1990s. The stations are used as independent variable candidates for model development purposes and their locations are presented in Table 2 and Fig. 1. The units of stage are ft relative to the NGVD29 datum. Because the raw data and the data used in application of the described models are typically in English units, the primary units presented herein are English units. Daily average sea surface elevation data at the Key West NOAA tide station were obtained from the NOAA Tides Online website (http://tidesonline.nos.noaa.gov/). The Key West tide station location, start date for data collection, and the period-of-record mean daily value through October 31, 2002 are presented in Table 2.

Smith and Pitts (1995) discuss the inuence of the variability in the elevation of the ocean waters around Florida Bay on the variation of water levels in Florida Bay. For this study, the Key West sea surface elevation data were compared to the period-of-record stage data at MMN estuarine stations using correlation and regression analyses. It was found that estuarine stage data were signicantly correlated to Key West sea surface elevation at the 95% level of signicance. Therefore, the variation of the Key West sea surface elevation is considered to be representative of the variability of the water elevation in the ENP estuaries. A number of the stations in this study were located north of Cape Sable along the Gulf of Mexico coast, so the data from the Naples and Fort Myers tide stations were evaluated for use. Tide data at both of these Gulf coast stations have been collected continuously since 1996. Prior to 1996, only predicted daily average tide levels are available. A comparison of predicted and actual tide elevations for the post-1996 period indicated that, at times, there were relatively large differences. Because of the correlation between Key West sea surface elevation and stage at MMN stations along the Gulf coast and in Whitewater Bay, the sea surface elevation measured at Key West was used as a potential independent variable for all salinity models. The units of Key West water level are feet (ft) relative to the NGVD29 datum, and the variable name used for modeling is KWWATLEV. Long-term wind data are available at several locations in the region. National Weather Service (NWS) wind data were obtained from the Southeast Regional Climate Center for Key West and Miami stations because of the length of the continuous records. The

Table 1 Summary of information for the dependent variable (salinity) database, including the location of the salinity monitoring stations and the period-of-record for salinity data used in model development and verication for estuaries within ENP. All data were collected by ENP. Station name Blackwater Sound Bob Allen Key Broad River Broad River Lower Buoy Key Butternut Key Cane Patch Cannon Bay Clearwater Pass Duck Key Gareld Bight Gunboat Island Harney River Highway Creek Joe Bay Johnson Key Lane River Little Blackwater Sound Little Madeira Bay Little Rabbit Key Long Sound Lostmans River Manatee Bay Middle Key Murray Key North River Peterson Key Shark River Tarpon Bay East Taylor River Terrapin Bay Trout Cove Watson Place Whipray Basin Whitewater Bay Willy Willy
a

Map label BS BA BR BD BK BN CN CA CW DK GB GI HR HC JB JK LN LB LM LR LS LO MB MD MK NR PK SR TE TR TB TC WP WB WE WW

Location Florida Bay Nearshore Central Florida Bay Gulf Coast Gulf Coast Central Florida Bay Central Florida Bay Gulf Coast Big Cypress Estuary Whitewater Bay Central Florida Bay Florida Bay Nearshore Gulf Coast Gulf Coast Florida Bay Mangroves Florida Bay Nearshore Western Florida Bay Gulf Coast Florida Bay Nearshore Florida Bay Nearshore Western Florida Bay Florida Bay Nearshore Big Cypress Estuary South Biscayne Bay South Biscayne Bay Western Florida Bay Gulf Coast Western Florida Bay Gulf Coast Gulf Coast Florida Bay Mangroves Florida Bay Nearshore Florida Bay Nearshore Big Cypress Estuary Central Florida Bay Whitewater Bay Big Cypress Estuary

Start data 9/11/1991 4/27/1988 1/18/1999 4/12/1996 4/27/1988 4/27/1988 1/19/1990 1/12/2000 5/10/1996 4/26/1988 7/3/1991 3/22/1996 3/13/1996 4/27/1988 7/14/1988 1/1/1988 4/18/1996 9/11/1991 4/28/1988 4/27/1988 3/28/1988 8/25/1997 6/13/1991 10/11/1991 4/27/1988 2/3/1990 4/27/1988 5/2/1996 4/3/1996 5/12/1988 9/12/1991 4/28/1988 1/1/2000 4/28/1988 8/27/1995 6/27/1997

N 2596 1802 1512 1245 1802 4343 1605 733 2054 4247 2303 2061 1622 4270 4878 4079 1658 3517 4743 1829 4886 1378 1713 1894 1579 2746 2466 1960 1635 4644 3833 4871 717 4287 2016 1589

Meana 24.7 33.2 2.2 11.6 33.6 30.9 0.8 18.8 16.9 28.7 28.7 10.9 8.4 11.5 15.2 35.5 6.5 20.1 23.6 35.2 17.8 15.8 23.4 25.8 33.4 6.0 34.5 24.9 2.1 9.6 23.6 18.7 20.3 36.1 11.5 5.1

North latitude 25:10:43.43 25:01:34.43 25:28:41.59 25:29:10.50 25:07:16.43 25:05:18.92 25:25:18.66 25:42:06.30 25:17:47.65 25:10:54.30 25:10:19.42 25:22:41.84 25:25:27.52 25:15:22.03 25:13:28.28 25:03:08.03 25:17:04.45 25:12:49.43 25:10:32.45 24:58:53.08 25:14:06.40 25:33:21.46 25:14:25.40 25:17:13.42 25:06:21.96 25:20:24.47 24:55:06.46 25:21:13.21 25:24:36.18 25:13:29.42 25:09:25.45 25:12:40.97 25:42:34.13 25:04:42.46 25:13:53.51 25:35:13.09

West longitude 80:26:17.20 80:40:54.26 80:59:23.03 81:06:39.67 80:50:01.25 80:31:07.79 80:56:32.17 81:11:09.28 81:00:46.44 80:29:22.78 80:47:47.26 81:01:45.62 81:03:35.28 80:26:39.48 80:32:27.51 80:54:15.05 80:53:37.72 80:25:59.23 80:37:55.24 80:49:31.91 80:27:26.21 81:10:06.06 80:25:23.23 80:23:41.24 80:56:31.31 80:54:40.32 80:44:45.24 81:05:58.16 80:57:50.90 80:39:10.26 80:43:29.24 80:31:59.16 81:14:52.55 80:43:38.24 80:56:18.74 81:02:37.86

Start through October 31, 2002.

F.E. Marshall et al. / Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 95 (2011) 377e387

381

Table 2 Summary of information for the independent variable database used in model development and verication for ENP estuarine salinity regression models. Units are: stage e ft NGVD29, wind e vector quantity, Key West sea surface elevation e ft NGVD29, ow e ft3 s1. Station/variable CP E146 EVER1 EVER4 EVER6 EVER7 G3273 NP206 NP46 NP62 P33 P35 PA8 PA11 UWNDKW VWNDKW UWNDMIA VWNDMIA KWWATLEV S18C S197
a b

Variable type Stage Stage Stage Stage Stage Stage Stage Stage Stage Stage Stage Stage Stage Stage EeW Wind NeS Wind EeW Wind NeS Wind Sea Elevation Flow Flow

Data source ENP ENP ENP ENP ENP ENP ENP ENP ENP ENP ENP ENP SFWMD SFWMD NWS NWS NWS NWS NOS SFWMD SFWMD

Location Taylor Slough Taylor Slough C-111 Basin C-111 Basin C-111 Basin C-111 Basin East of S.R. Slough East of S.R. Slough East of S.R. Slough East of S.R. Slough Shark River Slough Shark River Slough Big Cypress Preserve Big Cypress Preserve Key West Key West Miami Miami Key West C-111 Basin C-111 Basin

Data start 10/1/1978 3/24/1994 4/23/1985 9/20/1985 12/24/1991 12/24/1991 3/14/1984 10/1/1974 1/15/1966 1/4/1964 2/15/1953 2/15/1963 12/18/1990 12/28/1990 1/1/1965 1/1/1965 1/1/1965 1/1/1965 1/1/1965 1/1/1970 1/1/1969

N 8266 3003 5797 5197 3699 3589 6749 9500 8581 10774 17892 17899 4294 4260 13819 13819 13819 13819 13819 12357 11992

Meana 1.20 1.24 1.46 2.00 2.02 2.22 5.98 5.17 1.44 2.39 5.95 1.60 2.31 4.71 1.29b 4.06b 0.37b 3.11b 0.04b 181.70 34.01

North latitude 25:13:39 25:15:13 25:19:42 25:20:32 25:17:49 25:18:31 25:37:36 25:32:38 25:19:05 25:26:17 25:36:49 25:27:34 25:53:25 25:47:22 24:33:12 24:33:12 25:45:20 25:45:20 24:33:12 25:19:50 25:17:13

West longitude 80:42:15 80:40:01 80:25:47 80:32:42 80:30:42 80:32:33 80:34:33 80:40:20 80:47:46 80:46:59 80:42:09 80:51:53 81:16:13 81:05:59 81:47:18 81:47:18 80:22:33 80:22:33 31:47:18 80:31:30 80:26:29

Start through October 31, 2002. January 1, 1994eOctober 31, 2002.

Key West and Miami NWS station information is presented in Table 2. South Florida is characterized by a regional wind pattern of prevailing winds from the southeast in the summer, and from the northeast and east in the fall, winter, and spring (Wang et al., 1994; Lee and Smith, 2002), and wind forcing is similar across Florida Bay (Smith, 1997a,b). The observed Key West and Miami wind data also show this seasonal pattern and are considered to be the best available, long-term wind data. Hourly wind speed and direction data were processed into vector quantities and daily averages were computed. The independent variables UWNDMIA and VWNDMIA were constructed as the U and V vectors of wind measured at the Miami wind station; UWNDKW and VWNDKW are the U and V vectors of wind measured at Key West. These components were computed as follows:

U Resultant wind speed*CosineResultant direction V Resultant wind speed*SineResultant direction

For the calculation of wind vectors the units of wind speed are ft s1 and the units of direction are bearing degrees. 3. Methods To begin the analysis, the raw data were plotted to observe any common patterns and anomalies in the daily values over multi-year periods. Fig. 2 presents an example of the plots used in the initial analysis. The seasonal patterns in the data and the inverse relationship between stage in the upstream freshwater marshes and

salinity in the downstream estuarine embayments are clear. The effect of very dry conditions and low P33 stage values can be seen in 2001, when the salinity at TB exceeded 50 salinity units at the maximum. This can be compared to the normal dry season conditions in 1996, 1997, 1999, and 2000 when the maximum annual salinity value was at least 10 salinity units lower. When a relationship between variability of a candidate independent variable and salinity was observed the candidate was included in the correlation analysis. Correlation analysis was used to determine the level of association between the dependent variable and the independent variables as a rst-cut for the identication of candidate independent variables for regression modeling. Lagged variables were included and missing values were lled using time series (ARIMA) models. Cross-correlation plots produced by the SAS PROC ARIMA routine for time series analysis assisted the correlation analysis for unlagged and lagged values, normally accomplished by analyzing numerous correlation matrices. Lags up to 50 days were evaluated. Independent variables that displayed r values greater than the critical r value at the 0.05 signicance level (two-tailed p) in the correlation analyses were included as candidate variables for regression modeling (Kachigan, 1991). The number of candidate independent variables submitted to the stepwise regression process at the onset of model development was usually on the order of 20e30 when lagged variables were included. The SAS PROC REG routine employed a stepwise regression procedure to identify the statistically signicant parameters for a multiple linear regression equation and computed parameter estimates at each ENP MMN station.

Fig. 2. A comparison of the variability in observed data for P33 stage and Terrapin Bay (TB) salinity for the example period 1994e2002.

382

F.E. Marshall et al. / Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 95 (2011) 377e387

Table 3 Multiple linear regression models for nearshore embayments, mangrove zone, central, and western regions of Florida Bay; and south Biscayne Bay. Region Nearshore embayments and mangrove zone of Florida Bay Model JB 37.05 3.06CP 3.47EVER6(lag6) 10.50E146(lag6) 019uwndkw 0.09uwndkw(lag2) 0.10vwndkw 0.16 vwndmia(lag1) TC 70.97 5.40P33(p33lag1) 15.26E146(lag3) 0.22vwndmia 0.32uwndmia 2.10kwwatlev LM 66.37 3.56CP(lag2) 6.25P33(lag2) 0.82(P33 NP206) 0.21 uwndkw 0.15uwndmia 0.14vwndmia(lag1) 0.76kwwatlev(lag2) TB 106.87 6.31CP(lag1) 11.12P33(lag2) 0.45uwndkw 0.23uwndkw(lag1) 0.20uwndkw(lag2) 0.14vwndkw(lag2) 0.46uwndmia 1.87kwwatlev(lag2) LS 42.24 9.49CP(lag4) 5.15EVER7(lag2) 1.73EVER6(lag2) 0.04vwndmia(lag1) TR 83.17 15.09CP(lag4) 7.83(P33 P35)(lag1) 4.34(P33 P35)(lag4) HC 49.89 5.34CP 16.28EVER6(lag4) 6.29(EVER7 EVER4)(lag2) 0.20uwndmia(lag3) 0.73kwwatlev LB 42.54 7.65CP(lag6) 6.29EVER7(lag5) 0.12vwndkw GB 56.09 9.23CP(lag1) 4.63NP62(lag1) 0.46uwndkw(lag1) 0.48uwndkw(lag4) 0.35uwndmia(lag1) 0.64uwndmia(lag4) BS 21.97 1.11(P33 P35) 0.22LS 0.34LS(lag3) WB 21.15 0.24LM(lag3) 0.18TB 0.15TB(lag3) 0.04vwndkw(lag2) 0.54kwwatlev(lag2) DK 10.21 0.33LM(lag1) 0.41LM(lag3) 0.10uwndkw(lag1) 0.13vwndkw(lag2) 0.53kwwatlev BN 15.40 0.14LM(lag1) 0.44LM(lag3) 0.03TB(lag3) 0.08uwndkw 0.10uwndkw(lag2) 0.37kwwatlev BA 19.37 0.31LM 0.25LM(lag3) 0.08TB(lag3) 0.04uwndkw 0.07uwndkw(lag2) 0.06vwndkw(lag2) BK 24.83 0.24TB 0.15TB(lag4) 1.14CP(lag4) MK 50.44 0.14TB(lag4) 3.16P33 JK 53.14 3.54P33 0.10LM(lag4) 0.08TB(lag4) 0.05vwndmia 0.55kwwatlev LR 51.32 0.20LM(lag4) 3.19P33(lag1) 0.60kwwatlev PK 39.77 0.25LM(lag1) 1.58P33(lag4) 0.05uwndkw(lag1) 0.06vwndkw 0.09vwndmia MD 23.34 0.16LB(lag3) 0.27LS 1.21CP 2.19EVER1 0.11uwndkw(lag2) 0.10uwndmia(lag2) MB 23.23 0.39LB 2.87EVER1(lag2) 1.65CP(lag1) 0.22uwndkw 0.17uwndkw(lag2) 0.09vwndkw(lag1) 0.10uwndmia 0.18uwndmia(lag2) MB 13.24 0.40LB 0.16LB(lag3) 0.13uwndkw 0.15vwndkw 0.06vwndkw(lag1) 0.13vwndmia 0.002s197(lag1) 0.002s197(lag2) 0.001s18C

Central and western Florida Bay

South Biscayne Bay

A pattern of independent variables selection was noted in the different estuarine areas of ENP so a consistent form of regression model was implemented for the different regions. In northeast Florida Bay, Gulf coast, and Big Cypress estuaries the common form used was:

salinity salinity variables stage variables sea surface elevation wind variables
The following guidelines were used to select the candidate independent variables for modeling and for controlling the model development process: 1. For the proof-of-concept models (JB, LM, TB, WB, NR) the independent freshwater stage variables selected by the SAS procedure (PROC REG) were accepted for the nal model along with Key West sea surface elevation and wind vectors; 2. After that, in the nearshore embayments and mangrove zone of northeast Florida Bay, the Gulf coast estuaries, and the Big

salinity stage variables sea surface elevation wind variables

In central and western Florida Bay and in south Biscayne Bay the regression models were improved substantially with the inclusion of salinity in the nearshore embayments or in adjacent estuarine areas, so the models at locations in those areas have the common form:

Table 4 Multiple linear regression models for the Gulf coast estuaries, Whitewater Bay, and the coastal waters of Big Cypress National Preserve. Region Gulf Coast estuaries and Whitewater Bay Model CW 83.0 1.95P35(lag4) 3.50NP62(lag2) 7.75P33 0.08uwndkw 0.23uwndkw(lag1) 0.29vwndkw(lag1) 0.19uwndmia(lag1) 0.7kwwatlev(lag4) WE 80.1 2.42(P33 P35)(lag2) 8.73P33(lag5) 0.06uwndkw(lag2) 0.52kwwatlev(lag1) NR 58.7 1.70G3273(lag4) 2.60NP206(lag3) 2.80NP62(lag2) 2.80P33(lag1) 0.47kwwatlev(lag2) GI 70.9 2.67G3273(lag1) 4.65P35(lag3) 4.87NP62 4.04(P33 P37) 0.20vwndkw 0.11vwndkw(lag1) 0.20uwndmia 0.11uwndmia(lag3) 2.59kwwatlev(lag3) SR 67.4 2.90P35 1.80P35(lag3) 5.0P33 0.13vwndkw0.07vwndkw(lag2) 0.14uwndmia(lag1) 0.96kwwatlev(lag2) LN 56.43 1.47P35(lag2) 2.82P33 4.71NP206(lag4) 0.076uwndkw(lag1) 0.14vwndkw(lag1) 0.05vwndmia(lag3) CN 7.86 1.21NP206(lag4) 0.24vwndmia TE 22.18 1.03P33(lag4) 2.24NP206(lag4) HR 51.1 2.84P35(lag4) 6.12NP206(lag2) 0.23vwndkw 0.12vwndkw(lag1) 0.17uwndmia 2.46kwwatlev(lag1) BR 20.83 3.12NP206(lag4) 0.06vwndkw(lag1) BD 73.21 4.82P35(lag3) 4.04P33 4.15NP206(lag2) 0.31vwndkw 0.23uwndmia 0.28uwndmia(lag2) (0.11vwndmia(lag3) 4.42kwwatlev(lag2) WW 19.10 2.23PA8(lag2) 2.23460PA11(lag2) LO 43.19 6.09PA8(lag2) 3.11PA11(lag2) 0.14vwndkw 3.25kwwatlev(lag1) CA 38.13 5.58PA8(lag2) 1.89PA11(lag2) WP 41.54 9.6PA8(lag1) 0.10uwndkw 0.24vwndmia (Provisional model, limited data)

Big Cypress estuaries

F.E. Marshall et al. / Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 95 (2011) 377e387

383

Fig. 3. Comparison of salinity simulated by the Long Sound (LS) MLR model (sim) with observed data (obs) for the combined calibration and verication period (verication period is beginning of record through September 30, 1995), adjusted R2 0.80. This model is representative of the nearshore embayments and mangrove zone of Florida Bay.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Cypress estuaries candidate independent stage variables were limited to stations as directly upstream as possible; For the stations in the central and western parts of Florida Bay and south Biscayne Bay, salinity at LM and TB or other adjacent station was included as a candidate independent variable; The signicance level for retaining an independent variable in a regression model was set at a 0.001 to limit the overall Type I error; Any independent variable that created a model with Mallows C(p) less than the number of variables in the model plus 1 was eliminated from the model; and Independent variables were eliminated when the model representation was contrary to known physical relationships (such as an increasing stage in the Everglades indicating an increase in salinity), which can occur when there are crosscorrelation effects and strong collinearity between some of the independent variables.

Several stage gradient variables (stage upstream minus stage downstream) were included as candidate independent variables. However, gradient variables were not consistently selected by the stepwise procedure and are only found in a limited number of models. The guidelines above were utilized to produce the model with the highest adjusted R2 value when compared to the observed data (calibration period). The nal model goodness-of-t and performance was then veried using a portion of the observed salinity data that were not used for model development. Plots of the output from the nal model were compared to observed data for the full model dataset (calibration verication) and were analyzed for unexpected deviations. Residual plots were examined and error statistics were interpreted. If necessary the model development step was re-visited. 4. Results At the onset of the analysis the elements of hydrology considered for the model development of salinity models included stage in the freshwater marshes of the Everglades, wind, sea surface elevation, ow into Shark River Slough and Taylor Slough, rainfall, and evaporation. After reviewing data plots, correlation analysis was conducted separately for all 36 MMN stations. Patterns were seen in the correlation analyses. Pearsons product moment

correlation coefcient values (r) were, in general, higher for freshwater stage and salinity compared to sea surface elevation, wind parameters, freshwater ows, rainfall and evaporation. Correlation values (jrj > 0.7) were consistently high between salinity data and stage data for CP and P33. Consistently low correlation values were seen for ows, rainfall and evaporation. In northeastern Florida Bay, data from stage stations at locations directly upstream of a salinity station were usually correlated with salinity, along with CP and P33. In the central Florida Bay area, salinity data were correlated at higher levels with salinity at the LM and TB nearshore stations than freshwater stage, though there was also correlation between stage and salinity at the central Florida Bay stations. At the western Florida Bay salinity stations, correlation coefcients were similar for P33 freshwater stage and for salinity at Little LM and TB. For the Whitewater Bay and Gulf coast salinity stations correlations with freshwater stage at various upstream stations in Shark River Slough (which include P33) were at relatively high levels. Across Florida Bay, salinity was not always correlated to sea surface elevation at Key West, though salinity at most stations was frequently correlated with wind parameters. Flow, rainfall, and evaporation were not highly signicant in salinity models when stage in the freshwater marshes of the Everglades, wind, sea surface elevation were already selected as model parameters by the stepwise regression process (Marshall et al., 2004). The only exception to this was in Manatee Bay. Flow from the S197 canal was a signicant independent variable because Manatee Bay is a small embayment and the S197 ow can be large. Marshall and Smith (2008) showed that the inclusion of evaporation did not improve MLR salinity models when stage, sea surface elevation and wind were already a part of the model. When the level of signicance for retaining an independent variable in a model was raised to a 0.001, the stepwise regression process selected only stage in the upstream marshes, wind, and sea surface elevation at Key West as the most signicant independent variables and retained them in the models. The models that were developed according to the methodology presented above are presented in Tables 3 and 4. The models are grouped by similarity of form into models for the nearshore embayments and mangrove zone of Florida Bay, central and western Florida Bay, and south Biscayne Bay (Table 3); and models for Gulf coast estuaries/Whitewater Bay and Big Cypress estuaries (Table 4). The independent variables appearing in these models reect the correlation with the dependent variable and the level of

Fig. 4. Comparison of salinity simulated by the Whipray Basin (WB) MLR model (sim) with observed data (obs) for the combined calibration and verication period (verication period is beginning of record through March 24, 1995), adjusted R2 0.80. This model is representative of central Florida Bay.

384

F.E. Marshall et al. / Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 95 (2011) 377e387

Fig. 5. Comparison of salinity simulated by the Murray Key (MK) MLR model (sim) with observed data (obs) for the combined calibration and verication period (verication period is January 1, 2001 through the end of the record), adjusted R2 0.80. This model is representative of western Florida Bay.

variance explained relative to the other independent variables also in the models. The selected independent variables also reect the guidelines used to select the variables that were ultimately included in the nal models. The values of the coefcients may also reect collinearity effects between independent variables. Calibrationeverication plots are presented in Figs. 3e7 for ve representative models (one for each region). These plots illustrate typical model delity over several ranges of salinity and differing salinity variability patterns that displays the exibility of the regression modeling method. The error statistics computed for the nal MLR salinity models are presented in Tables 5 and 6. The R2 values for the models range from a low of 0.4 to a high of 0.85, and NasheSutcliffe Efciency absolute values range from 0.42 to 0.96. In general the error statistics indicate that the daily resolution MLR salinity models are capable of explaining about 65e80% of the variation in daily salinity. However, individual residuals can sometimes be large (maximum absolute error) particularly in the nearshore embayments of Florida Bay. When daily predictions are averaged to weekly or monthly values, large residuals are uncommon. The model output for the nearshore embayment models (JB, LM, TB, and GB) has larger errors compared to other models based on the error and goodness-of-t statistics, implying greater uncertainty in simulations. In general the error statistics for the Gulf coast estuaries indicate the least error in prediction. Residual plot characteristics were used to evaluate how well a model conforms to the assumptions of constant variance and normally distributed errors with a mean of zero. Most residual plots indicate that there were no consistent deviations that indicate a problem with the normal distribution assumptions. Predicted value/residual value plots for models with observed and predicted salinity values that were in the range of 0e10 salinity units show the effects of a small range of observed salinity values. The normal probability residual plots for these models are also affected to some extent by this issue which increases the uncertainty in predictions at these stations. 5. Discussion The estuarine areas of ENP represent a wide range of salinity conditions because of geomorphology and variations in freshwater supply, both natural and anthropogenic. The extent of that

variability can be seen when observed salinity data are characterized using the Venice classication scheme (Por, 1972). In the nearshore embayments and mangrove zone areas of Florida Bay salinity can vary widely on a daily to weekly scale with salinity ranging from oligohaline to polyhaline conditions, i.e. euryhaline. By comparison, in the open water areas of central Florida Bay, salinity does not drop below the polyhaline range except during an extreme event. Restricted circulation, evaporation, and reduced freshwater input may allow euhaline or hypersaline conditions to develop in the central part of the Bay during some dry seasons, particularly back-to-back dry years. In western Florida Bay where the dominant factor is the proximity to marine conditions, the regime is euhaline. Even so, the inuence of freshwater can drop salinity into the polyhaline regime for part of a wet season at the western Florida Bay stations that are closest to the mainland. In Whitewater Bay, Gulf coast estuaries, and Big Cypress estuaries, the salinity regimes range from oligohaline to polyhaline, and hypersaline conditions are rare. The south Biscayne Bay areas are mostly isolated from the marine connections by physical barriers to circulation and mixing but remain polyhaline. Manatee Bay is subject to intermittent large discharges for water management that can reduce the salinity rapidly into the mesohaline range. Hypersaline conditions are rare, which may be attributed to important dry season freshwater contributions from overland ow and groundwater. The correlation analysis and subsequent regression modeling of daily salinity in the estuaries of ENP using hydrologic, marine, and wind factors indicated that the strongest correlative relationships existed between salinity and Everglades freshwater stage, followed by sea level and wind parameters. While freshwater ows in the Everglades, rainfall, and evaporation were also correlated with salinity, the level of association was considerably weaker. It appears stage data may integrate the temporal and spatial variability of the other hydrologic factors such as rainfall and ow as well as the dynamic storage in the surface water and groundwater components of the Everglades water budget. When the partial correlation coefcients for the nal models were reviewed it was noted that stage was always a primary source of variability in the nearshore embayments, mangrove zone, Gulf coast estuaries, and Big Cypress estuaries. Models for upstream stations in the Gulf coast and Big Cypress estuaries did not include

Fig. 6. Comparison of salinity simulated by the Clearwater Pass (CW) MLR model (sim) with observed data (obs) for the combined calibration and verication period (verication period is beginning of record through March 22, 1997), adjusted R2 0.85. This model is representative of the Gulf coast estuaries and Whitewater Bay.

F.E. Marshall et al. / Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 95 (2011) 377e387

385

Fig. 7. Comparison of salinity simulated by the Manatee Bay (MB) MLR model (sim) with observed salinity, ow, wind data (obs) for the combined calibration and verication period (verication period is beginning of record through March 24, 1995), adjusted R2 0.77. This model is representative of south Biscayne Bay.

wind parameters, and few included sea surface elevation. At the central and western Florida Bay stations salinity in the nearshore embayments (LM and/or TB) provided the most information about salinity variability. Even though there are collinearity issues within the stage data, the three categories of independent variables used for model development (stage, sea surface elevation, wind) are substantially independent of each other. The negative effects of cross-correlation between stage variables were minimized to some extent in model development by using a high signicance level (0.001) for retention of an independent variable in the nal model. An unexpected outcome of model development at many of the stations was the consistent appearance of CP and P33 freshwater stages in many of the salinity models. Often CP stage (unlagged or lagged) explained the largest portion of salinity variability or was at least a primary contributor to explaining salinity variability as expressed by the partial correlation coefcients. It appears that the CP stage data collected near the mangrove transition zone provide important information about the variability of the entire Everglades/estuarine hydrology/salinity system, and CP data can readily simulate stage variability at many freshwater marsh stations in ENP through regression modeling. In verication scenarios, the MLR salinity models were capable of simulating the daily variability in salinity within about 2e4 salinity units on average. There is the potential for greater error of a daily model prediction in the nearshore embayments and the mangrove zone of Florida Bay, particularly when the change from the dry to the wet season is abrupt (and vice versa). A compilation of the error statistics for other salinity models being used in South

Florida, including hydrodynamic models, shows that the MLR salinity models have approximately the same expected range of simulation accuracy and error as higher resolution numeric salinity models. The R2 and NasheSutcliffe Efciency values for the MLR salinity models are comparable and sometimes greater than these same goodness-of-t statistics for higher resolution numeric models (Marshall and Nuttle, 2011). Because of their simplicity and cost-effective use, the MLR salinity models presented herein have been implemented by a number of agencies associated with Everglades restoration. The available MLR salinity models were used by ENP for the Interim Operations Plan (IOP) evaluations for a Congressional report (South Florida Natural Resources Center, 2005). Daily time series simulations by these MLR salinity models (1965e2000) are used by the RECOVER Southern Coastal Systems Sub-team for evaluations of CERP alternative scenarios for Everglades restoration and performance measures development (Marshall, 2005). The relative simplicity of the models has allowed them to be coded into routines used by the RECOVER Interagency Modeling Center for use with future CERP alternative evaluations. They have been adapted for use with USGS paleoecological characterizations to estimate the salinity regime in Florida Bay that may have existed prior to the alteration of Everglades freshwater ows around 1900 (Marshall et al., 2009). The models have been used for historical salinity reconstructions, for establishment of Minimum Flows and Levels for Florida Bay (Cosby et al., 2005; Marshall, 2011), and for input data to shrimp and seagrass ecological models. The salinity model output is most useful when the daily values are interpreted using distributional statistics or monthly, seasonal, and annual average values.

Table 5 Comparison of model error statistics for MLR salinity models for nearshore embayments, mangrove zone, central, and western regions of Florida Bay; and south Biscayne Bay. Region Nearshore embayments and mangrove zone of Florida Bay Station JB TC LM TB LS TR HC BS GB LB WB DK BN BA BK MK JK LR PK MD MB (stage) MB (ow) RMSE 5.1 5.4 6.4 5.7 3.9 4.6 4.3 3.2 6.1 3.7 2.7 3.1 3.3 2.7 2.7 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.0 2.6 3.1 2.6 Mean error 0.14 0.23 0.66 0.99 0.31 0.49 0.95 0.01 0.36 0.14 0.11 0.18 0.10 0.30 0 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.01 0.22 0.01 0.25 Mean absolute error 3.7 4.3 5.1 5.4 2.7 3.6 3.7 2.4 4.7 2.9 2.2 2.3 2.7 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.2 1.9 1.6 2.2 2.0 2.1 Max absolute error 20.6 20.9 22.6 5.4 18.9 22.9 17.7 11.9 21.1 15.7 10.1 14.4 11.3 9.2 7.8 12.0 9.7 8.6 5.8 11.3 12.9 10.7 NasheSutcliffe efciency 0.76 0.72 0.96 0.67 0.81 0.78 0.76 0.66 0.89 0.76 0.77 0.71 0.66 0.81 0.79 0.51 0.55 0.45 0.57 0.71 0.76 0.7 Adjusted R2 0.75 0.69 0.65 0.75 0.80 0.78 0.81 0.63 0.68 0.75 0.80 0.71 0.65 0.79 0.79 0.62 0.55 0.59 0.55 0.74 0.69 0.77

Central and western Florida Bay

South Biscayne Bay

386

F.E. Marshall et al. / Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 95 (2011) 377e387

Table 6 Comparison of model error statistics for MLR salinity models for Gulf coast estuaries, Whitewater Bay, and the coastal waters of Big Cypress National Preserve. Region Shark River estuaries and Whitewater Bay Station CW WE NR GI SR LN CN TE HR BR BD LO CA WP WW RMSE 3.4 3.1 3.8 3.4 2.5 2.9 1.1 1.6 3.8 2.3 3.9 4.6 6.1 4.9 2.6 Mean error 0.12 0.46 0.56 1.03 0.11 0.14 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.31 Mean absolute error 2.7 2.9 3.2 3.0 2.0 2.1 0.5 1 2.9 1.3 3.0 3.7 4.8 3.7 1.6 Max absolute error 10.8 10.6 17.9 13.3 9.1 12.5 9.0 9.0 14.1 13.9 16.6 12.8 22.9 20.6 10.9 NasheSutcliffe efciency 0.85 0.88 0.92 0.89 0.89 0.79 0.42 0.58 0.72 0.54 0.75 0.76 0.9 0.86 0.72 Adjusted R2 0.85 0.74 0.77 0.85 0.82 0.79 0.4 0.62 0.77 0.6 0.73 0.79 0.68 0.95 0.71

Big Cypress estuaries

In the central and western regions of Florida Bay, better MLR salinity models were developed using the salinity from the nearshore embayments of LM and TB. Though not obvious at the time, the utility and benet of this construct became apparent when the MLR salinity models were coupled with salinity output produced by the dynamic mass balance model FATHOM (Cosby et al., 2005) and the hydrodynamic model FTLOADDS TIME (Langevin et al., 2004; Swain et al., 2004). Because a correlative relationship in data does not prove cause and effect, this study took a different approach in which correlation analysis was only one of the statistical tools employed. The development of a conceptual model of the coastal aquifer and salinity transition zone from physical principles was the basis for identifying the general factors inuencing salinity. Then correlation analysis was used to provide information on candidate independent variables that may characterize those factors. Finally, stepwise regression was used to measure and quantify the level of association between the independent variables and salinity. According to Riggs (1968) the information from a combination of correlation analysis and regression models, when properly interpreted, provides strong evidence of the inuence of the independent variables in the regression model on the dependent variable e in this case, salinity. As with all models there are limitations on use. The observed data that were used to develop the MLR salinity models are point measurements, but they are usually considered to be characteristic of a somewhat wider spatial extent in the vicinity of monitoring equipment. Grid-based models are generally assumed to provide additional spatial information on salinity compared to the MLR salinity models. Though the spatial resolution of the point estimates provided by the MLR model output may be lower than provided by the higher spatial resolution numerical models, the existing higher resolution models were developed from the same data or data of similar spatial coverage as were used for the MLR salinity models. 6. Conclusions This study has shown that MLR salinity models are useful for a wide variety of estuarine conditions, and they seem particularly well-suited for bar-built or lagoonal estuaries. The conceptual model of the coastal aquifer developed for this study should be applicable to any bar-built estuary with moderate to high transmissivity in the substrate of the adjacent land form. Sufcient daily or higher resolution data for observations of stage, ow, and salinity are available in South Florida, though similar temporal resolution of these data in other coastal areas of the world may not

be as readily available. The regression model methodology also works well with data at lower temporal resolution so long as there are a sufcient number of observations. The limited availability of local or regional sea surface elevation and wind data may limit the independent variables used for analysis and modeling to the use of hydrologic data only in other coastal areas of the world. The MLR salinity models have known levels of uncertainty, and delity of the simulations is as good as the currently available numerical models. One of the advantages of the regression model approach is that detailed bathymetry of the estuary is not needed for MLR salinity models as is needed for box and grid-based models. Another benet of MLR salinity models is that they can be developed by any basic statistical modeling software package, meaning the models herein can be reproduced by anyone with the data. Once developed the MLR salinity models can be run in prediction mode and output obtained in seconds. This empirical study has shown that salinity in the estuarine areas of ENP can be represented by simple-to-understand MLR models developed from existing data that describe the local and regional hydrology, sea level, and wind conditions. The ndings of this combination of conceptual modeling, correlation analysis, and regression modeling suggest that overall freshwater supply is the primary factor in determining the salinity in the ENP estuaries, though the uncontrollable variability of the elevation of the marine end member and wind forcing are also inuential. Simulations by these models show that restoration of the altered hydrology in the Everglades can be combined with the natural variability of the marine and weather inuences to provide favorable conditions for the recovery of the ora and fauna of these important Everglades ecosystems. Acknowledgments We greatly appreciate the support of the Everglades National Park Critical Ecosystem Studies Initiative and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan Restoration Coordination and Verication (RECOVER) program. References
Anderson, W.P., Evans, D.G., Snyder, S.W., 2000. The effects of Holocene barrierisland evolution on water-table elevations, Hatteras Island, North Carolina, USA. Hydrogeology Journal 8 (4), 390e404. doi:10.1007/s100400000081. Burd, A.B., Jackson, G.J., 2002. An analysis of water column distributions in Florida Bay. Estuaries 25 (4A), 570e585. Cerco, C.F., Bunch, B.W., Teeter, A.M., Dortch, M.S., 2000. Water Quality Model of Florida Bay. Environmental Laboratory, ERDC/EL TR-00-10. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

F.E. Marshall et al. / Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 95 (2011) 377e387 Cosby, B.J., 1993. An Examination of the Relationships of Stage, Discharges and Meteorology in the Panhandle and Taylor Slough Areas of Everglades National Park to Salinity in Upper Florida Bay. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. Cosby, B.J., Nuttle, W.K., Marshall, F.E., 2005. FATHOM Enhancements and Implementation to Support Development of MFL for Florida Bay. Final Report on Contract C-C-15975-WO05-05 for the South Florida Water Management District. Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc., New Smyrna Beach, Florida. CROGEE, 2002. Florida Bay Research Programs and Their Relation to the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. Davis, S.M., Ogden, J.C., 1994. Introduction. In: Davis, S.M., Ogden, J.C. (Eds.), Everglades: The Ecosystem and its Restoration. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida. Davis, S.M., Gunderson, L.H., Park, W.A., Richardson, J.R., Mattson, J.E., 1994. Landscape dimension, composition, and function in a changing Everglades ecosystem. In: Davis, S.M., Ogden, J.C. (Eds.), Everglades: The Ecosystem and its Restoration. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida. Davis, S.M., Childers, D.L., Lorenz, J.L., Wanless, H.L., Hopkins, T.A., 2005. A conceptual model of ecological interactions in the mangrove estuaries of the Florida Everglades. Wetlands, 832e842. doi:10.1672/0277-5212(2005) 025(0832:ACMOEI)2.0.CO;2. Fourqurean, J.W., Robblee, M.B., 1999. Florida Bay: a history of recent ecological changes. Estuaries 22 (2B), 345e357. Everglades National Park, 1997a. Everglades National Park Marine Monitoring Network 1994 Data Summary. Everglades National Park, Homestead, Florida. 67 pp. Everglades National Park, 1997b. Everglades National Park Marine Monitoring Network 1995 Data Summary. Everglades National Park, Homestead, Florida. 67 pp. Hansen, D.V., Rattray, M., 1966. New dimensions in estuary classication. Limnology and Marine XI, 319e326. Helsell, D.R., Hirsch, R., 1991. Statistical methods in water resources. In: Studies in Environmental Science, vol. 49. Elsevier Science Publishers, B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Hubert, H.G., Savenije, H.H.G., Page, J., 1992. Hypersalinity: a dramatic change in the hydrology of Sahelian estuaries. Journal of Hydrology 135, 157e174. Jackson, B.B., 1975. The use of streamow models in planning. Water Resources Research 11 (1), 54e63. Jensen, A.R., 1976. Computer Simulation of Surface Water Hydrology and Salinity with an Application to Studies of Colorado River Management. Environmental Quality Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California. Kachigan, S.K., 1991. Multivariate Statistical Analysis. Radius Press, New York, New York. Kelble, C.R., Johns, E.M., Nuttle, W.K., Lee, T.N., Smith, R.H., Ortner, P.B., 2006. Salinity patterns in Florida Bay. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 71 (1e2), 318e334. doi:10.1016/j.ecss.2006.08.006. Kjerfve, B., Schettini, C.A.F., Knoppers, B., Less, G., Ferreir, H.O., 1996. Hydrology and salt balance in a large, hypersaline coastal lagoon: Lagoa de Araruama, Brazil. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 42 (6), 701e725. Langevin, C.D., Swain, E.D., Wolfert, M.A., 2004. Simulation of Integrated Surfacewater/Groundwater Flow and Salinity for a Coastal Wetland and Adjacent Estuary. Open-File Report 2004-1097. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Lee, T.N., Smith, N., 2002. Volume transport variability through the Florida Keys tidal channels. Continental Shelf Research 22, 1361e1377. Marshall, F.E., 2000. Florida Bay Salinity Transfer Function Analysis. Cetacean Logic Foundation, Inc., New Smyrna Beach, Florida. Marshall, F.E., 2005. ICU Runs Summary Report for Southern Estuaries Sub-team of RECOVER. Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc., New Smyrna Beach, Florida. Marshall, F.E., 2011. Final Report on Modeling Activities: Salinity Predictions Resulting from Upland Flows for Restoration Scenarios for the Florida Bay Minimum Flows and Levels Update. South Florida Water Management District. Frank Marshall Engineering, PL, New Smyrna Beach, Florida. Marshall, F.E., Smith, D., 2008. Final Task Report: Task 1 e Investigation of Evaporation Surrogates for Florida Bay Salinity Modeling. Cetacean Logic Foundation, Inc., New Smyrna Beach, Florida. http://soa.usgs.gov/publications/reports/ hydrosal_relation/index.html. Marshall, F.E., Nuttle, W.K., 2011. South Florida Hydrology and Salinity Models. Available at:. Cetacean Logic Foundation, Inc., New Smyrna Beach, Florida http://soa.usgs.gov/publications/reports/salinity_bay/index.html Final report, contract W912EP-09-R-0016 US Army Corps of Engineers. Marshall, F.E., Smith, D., Nickerson, D., 2004. Using Statistical Models to Simulate Salinity Variation and Other Physical Parameters in North Florida Bay. Cetacean Logic Foundation, Inc., New Smyrna Beach, Florida. http://soa.usgs.gov/ publications/reports/salinity_variation/index.html.

387

Marshall, F.E., Wingard, G.L., Pitts, P., 2009. A simulation of historic hydrology and salinity in Everglades National Park: coupling paleoecologic assemblage data with statistical models. Estuaries and Coasts 32 (1), 37e53. Montague, C.L., Ley, J.A., 1999. A possible effect of salinity uctuation on abundance of benthic vegetation and associated fauna in northeastern Florida Bay. Estuaries 16 (4), 703e717. Nuttle, W.K., 1997. Central and Southern Florida Project Restudy: Salinity Transfer Functions for Florida Bay and West Coast Estuaries, vol. 1 and 2. Southeast Environmental Research Center, Florida International University, Miami, Florida. Nuttle, W.K., Fourquerean, J., Cosby, B.J., Robblee, M., 1999. Inuence of net freshwater supply on salinity in Florida Bay. Water Resources Research 36 (7). doi:10.1029/1999WR900352. Ogden, J.C., Davis, S.M., Jacobs, K., Barnes, T., Fling, H.E., 2005. The use of ecological models to guide ecosystem restoration in South Florida. Wetlands 25, 795e809. Pionke, H.B., Nicks, A.D., 1970. The effect of selected hydrologic variables on stream salinity. Bulletin of International Association of Scientic Hydrology XV (4), 13e21. Por, F.D., 1972. Hydrobiological notes on the high-salinity waters of the Sinai Peninsula. Marine Biology 14 (2), 111e119. Pritchard, D.W., 1968. What is an estuary? Physical viewpoint. In: Lauf, G.H. (Ed.), Estuaries. A.A.A.S. Publ. No. 83, pp. 3e5. Washington, D.C. Renken, R.A., Dixon, J., Koehnstedt, J., Lietz, A.C., Ishman, S., Marella, R.L., Telis, P., Rogers, J., Memberg, S., 2005. Impact of Anthropogenic Development on Coastal Ground-water Hydrology in Southeastern Florida, 1900e2000. Circular 1275. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Riggs, H.C., 1968. Some statistical tools in hydrology. In: Hydrologic Analysis and Interpretation, Techniques of Water-Resource Investigations of the United States Geological Survey. US Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. (Chapter A1, Book 4). Rudnick, D.T., Chen, Z., Childers, D.L., Boyer, J.N., Fontaine, T.D., 1999. Phosphorus and nitrogen inputs to Florida Bay: the importance of the Everglades watershed. Estuaries 22 (2), 398e416. Schaffranek, R.W., Smith, T.J., Holmes, C.W., 2001. An Investigation of the Interrelation of Everglades Hydrology and Florida Bay Dynamics to Ecosystem Processes in South Florida. Fact Sheet FS-49-01. U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Scully, S.P., 1986. Florida Bay Salinity Concentration and Groundwater Stage Correlation and Regression. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida. Sheng, Y.P., Davis, J.R., Liu, Y., 1995. A Preliminary Model of Florida Bay Circulation. Final Report to the National Park Service. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Smith, N.P., 1997a. An Analysis of Weather Data from Northern Florida Bay. Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution, Fort Pierce, Florida. Smith, D., 1997b. Everglades National Park Marine Monitoring Network 1996 Data Summary. Everglades National Park, Homestead, Florida. 94 pp. Smith, D., 1998. Everglades National Park Marine Monitoring Network 1997 Data Summary. Everglades National Park, Homestead, Florida. 100 pp. Smith, D., 1999. Everglades National Park Marine Monitoring Network 1998 Data Summary. Everglades National Park, Homestead, Florida. 100 pp. Smith, D., 2001. Everglades National Park Marine Monitoring Network 1999 Data Summary. Everglades National Park, Homestead, Florida. 65 pp. Smith, N.P., Pitts, P.A., 1995. Low-frequency Tidal and Seasonal Water Level Variations in Florida Bay. Everglades National Park Cooperative Agreement CA 52804-9022. Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution, Fort Pierce, Florida. Swain, E.D., Wolfert, M.A., Bales, J.D., Goodwin, C.R., 2004. Two-dimensional Hydrodynamic Simulation of Surface-water Flow and Transport to Florida Bay through the Southern Inland and Coastal Systems (SICS). Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4287. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Tabb, D., 1967. Prediction of estuarine salinities in Everglades National Park, Florida by the use of ground water records. PhD dissertation, University of Miami, Miami, Florida. Tetra Tech Inc., 2005. Development of a Florida Bay and Florida Keys Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Model: Hydrodynamic Model Calibration, Interim Status Report. Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA. Thayer, G.W., Powell, A.B., Hoss, D.E., 1999. Composition of larval, juvenile, and small adult shes relative to changes in environmental conditions in Florida Bay. Estuaries 22 (2B), 518e533. Wang, J.D., van de Kreeke, J., Krishnan, N., Smith, D., 1994. Wind and tide response in Florida Bay. Bulletin of Marine Science 54 (3), 579e601. Yarbro, L.A., Carlson, P.E., 2008. Community oxygen and nutrient uxes in seagrass beds of Florida Bay, USA. Estuaries and Coasts 31, 877e897.