## FWS/OBS-82/05 

## September1984

k'''s

-»»:

## ^*SS^
;«Mf;

c<c*'^'-«'l



# THE

# ECOLOGYOF

# THE APALACHICOLA BAYSYSTEM:


# ANESTUARINEPROFILE 

# -»

':»*.



## Fish

## andWildlife

## Service
U.S.

## Departmentof

## theInterior

### FWS/OBS-82/05 

### '^

' ''' 

### September 1984



## THE

## ECOLOGYOFTHE

## APALACHICOLABAYSYSTEM: 

## ANESTUARINEPROFILE

by


### Robert J..J.ivinQston 

### Department of

### Biological 

### Science 

### Florida State

### University Tallahassee, PL 32306

> ) 

### ~^^= Project 

### Officer

WileyM. 

### Kitchens National Coastal 

### Ecosystems Team U.S. Fish and

### Wildlife Service 1010

### Gause Blvd. Slidell, LA 

### 70458



### Prepared for

National Coastal 

### Ecosystems 

### Team Division of 

### Biological 

### Services 

### Research and

### Development Fish and

### Wildlife Service U.S. 

### Department of the 

### Interior 

### Washington, DC 

### 20240

### Libraryof 

### Congress CarH Mo. R4-'S01077

This report should be cited as: 

### Livingston, R.J. 1984, The 

### ecology of the

### Apalachicola Bay system: an 

### estuarine profile. U.S. FishWildl. Serv. FWS/OBS 82/05. 148 pp.

## PREFACE

This paoer 

### represents a 

### synthesis of 

### knowledqe 

### concerninq the 

### Apalachicola drainage system, which is located in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama. The 

### Apalachicola Bay complex is 

### onlyone part of a ma.ior

### drainage area that includes the 

### Apalachicola, 

### Chattahoochee, and Flint River systems on one side and the 

### northeastern Gulf of 

### Mexico on the other. The 

### boundaries that 

### separate various 

### components (i.e., the river and its 

### associated wetlands, the bay system, and the open gulf) are artificial in an ecological sense. 

### Likewise, the 

### traditional 

### boundaries that have 

### separated various 

### scientific discipl

### ines--such as physics, chemistry, 

### meteorology, and 

### biology--are somewhat 

### arbitrary when a systems 

### approach is used to 

### determine the 

### functional 

### interactions among 

### interacting subsystems. Thus various 

### boundaries must be 

### crossed when the 

### investigator attempts to 

### understand an 

### entire aquatic ecosvstem.

Over the past 12 years, 

### researchers in the 

### Apalachicola system have 

### carried out a series of 

### multidisciplinary and 

### interdisciplinarystudies to

### determine the 

### response of the 

### Aoalachicola estuary to a series of 

### environmental variables. Such
an effort can be likened to the growth of 

### concentric layers of a snowball as it rolls down a hill. The 

### solution of each 

### problem forms the 

### foundation for a new guestion, which, in turn, serves as the 

### template for new 

### hypotheses and tests. The 

### combination of 

### background field analyses and

### experiments in the 

### laboratory and the field have been used as the basis of this effort. 

### Eventually, we can view the overall 

### picture by

### cuttingthrough the snowball of ideas, 

### hypotheses, and 

### resolutions to 

### form 

### models of how the 

### ecosystem works. As of this writing, 12 

### years of 

### continuous field and

### experimental data have been 

### transformed into



### computerized files, 

### which are now being 

### used to 

### develop models of how the 

### Aoalachicola Ray 

### system works in 

### comparison with other such 

### systems in the 

### southeasternUnited States. The 

### scientific work on the 

### Apalachicola estuary is 

### only the first step in our 

### understanding of 

### system 

### functions. Increasingly, humans are 

### having an 

### important 

### influence on natural 

### aquatic systems. 

### Urbanization, 

### industrialization, and 

### agricultural 

### activities can lead to 

### habitat 

### destruction, pollution, and severe 

### restrictions on 

### productivity, which, in turn, can be 

### translated into 

### very real 

### socioeconomic problems. The

### Apalachicola area is a 

### multiple-use system. 

### Accordingly, sound land 

### planning and 

### progressive resource 

### management are best 

### carried out with a 

### comprehensive base of 

### objective 

### scientific and 

### economic information. 

### With the recent 

### establishment of the 

### Apalachicola River and 

### Bay National 

### Estuarine 

### Sanctuary--the largest such 

### sanctuary in the 

### nation--the 

### Apalachicola drainage system has been 

### designated by law as a special area, a place of 

### refuge and 

### shelter for 

### important aquatic species as well as humans as integral parts of the 

### ecosystem. As one of the last 

### relatively natural biq river
areas in the 

### United States, the 

### highly 

### productive 

### Apalachicola system is small enough to 

### analyze in a 

### comprehensive scientific fashion 

### while being 

### extensive enough to be used as a natural model for other such areas. The

### Apalachicolavalley is 

### currentlypart of a

### major experiment to 

### determine whether 

### scientific data can be 

### translated into a 

### comprehensive resource 

### management program that will 

### accommodate 

### economic development while 

### perpetuating thenatural 

### resources of the region. 

# m

# SUMMARY

The 

### results of 1? years oi" 

### continuous field 

### studies and 

### exoeriments in the 

### Apalachicola Bay 

### system are 

### reviewed and 

### summarized in this paoer. 

### Included are data 

### concerninq the 

### geography, 

### hydrology, chemistrv, geology, and 

### biology of the 

### Apalachicoladrainage 

### systemwith

### particular 

### emphasis on the 

### estuaryand 

### associated waters.


### The

### Apalachicola Bay system is part of

a 

### major drainage area that 

### includes four rivers and their 

### associated 

### wetlands in Georgia, 

### Alabama, and Florida. The Bay is

a 

### shallow coastal lagoon 

### fringed by 

### barrier islands and 

### dominated by 

### wind 

### effects and tidal currents. 

### River bottomlands that 

### include the 

### channels, sloughs, swamps and 

### backwaters, and 

### periodically flooded 

### lowlands are 

### important components of the system. Principal 

### influences on the 

### biological 

### processes in the 

### estuary are the 

### physiography of the basin, river flow, 

### nutrient input, and 

### salinity dis

### tribution in space and time. 

### Water 

### quality is 

### affected by 

### periodic wind and tidal 

### influences and 

### freshwater inflows.



### Compared to 

### most of the 

### estuaries in the 

### United States, the 

### Aoalachicola Ray 

### system is in a 

### relatively natural state, 

### although 

### hardly pristine. However, 

### economic

### development and

### pooulation growth
are 

### beginning to put 

### pressure upon the region, 

### threatening it with 

### destructive changes. The 

### economic and 

### ecological 

### importance of the area as a 

### producer of food and as 

### shelter for

### diverse species is such that it has inspired a 

### movement to 

### protect its natural resources. 

### Broadening the 

### economic base of the region 

### while 

### maintaining its biological 

### productivity will 

### require the 

### development of a 

### comprehensive

### management plan based on the 

### deepest 

### possible 

### understanding of the basis for that 

### productivity, 

### supported by



### ongoing study, close 

### monitoring, and 

### continued 

### cooperation from local interests.


### Research efforts to 

### acquire the 

### necessary understanding are not yet com- plete, but have 

### nonetheless given rise to
one of the 

### most 

### extensive 

### computerized data bases so far 

### assembled on an estuarine system. Powerful 

### programs for wo»-king 

### with these data have also beei^ 

### developed; 

### because of the 

### extreme com- 

### plexity of their interplay, 

### computer analysis has been and will 

### continue to be

a 

### primary tool in 

### understanding how physical and 

### biological 

### processes work in the estuary.
Rased upon the data 

### obtained thus far, some 

### efforts have been 

### initiated to 

### preserve and 

### protect important 

### freshwater and

### estuarinewetlands. Included in these 

### efforts are the 

### followina:

• 

### State and federal 

### land-purchase programs

• 

### Integration of local (county) land-
use

### regulations into a

### comprehensive plan for

### newand

### existing development

t

### Creation of the

### ApalachicolaRiver and

### BayNational 

### Estuarine Sanctuary, the largest such 

### sanctuary inthe country.
The effort to

### manage the

### Apalachicola Bay 

### system is an 

### ambitious one; 

### only time will tell 

### whether it will be 

### successful in its effort to 

### protect 

### important 

### wildlife values as the 

### region undergoes 

### economic development.

TV

## CONTENTS Page
PREFACE 1i 1 

### SUMMARY iV 

### FIGURES VI i 

### TABLES X 

### CONVERSIONTABLE xi i 

### ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xi i i

1. 

### INTRODUCTION (HISTORICAL 

### PERSPECTIVE AND

### OVERVIEW) 1 1.1. 

### Geographic Settingand

### Classification 1 1.2. 

### Driving Forces and Human Influence 2

2. 

### ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 6 2.1. Origin and 

### Evolution of the 

### Estuary 6 2.1.1. 

### Geological Time Frame 6 2.1.2. 

### GeomorphologyandRegional 

### Geology 7 2.1.3. 

### Watershed

### Characterization 9 2.1.4. 

### Barrier Islands 10 2.2. 

### Climate 11 2.2.1. 

### Temperature 11 2.2.2. 

### Precipitation 11 2.2.3. Wind 12 2.3. 

### Hydrology 13 2.3.1. 

### Freshwater Input 13 2.3.2. Tides and

### Currents 13 2.4 

### Physical/Chemical Habitat 14 2.4.1. 

### Temperature and 

### Salinity 14 2.4.2. 

### Dissolved Oxygen 18 2.4.3. pH 18 2.4.4. Water Colorand

### Turbidity 18 2.5 Biological 

### Habitats 19 2.5.1. 

### Wetlands 19 2.5.2. 

### Seagrass Beds 24 2.5.3. 

### Soft-BottomSubstrates 25 2.5.4. 

### Oyster Bars 25 2.5.5. 

### Nearshore Gulf 

### Environment 25 2.6 Natural 

### Resources of the

### Apalachicola Drainage 

### System 26

3. 

### PRIMARY 

### PRODUCTIVITYAND

### NUTRIENT

### CYCLING 28 3.1. Primary 

### Producers 28 3.1.1. 

### Allochthonous Sources 28 3.1.2. 

### Autochthonous Sources 31 3.2. 

### Detritus Flux and 

### Nutrient Dynamics 36 3.3. 

### Microbial 

### Ecology 41

4. 

### SECONDARY PRODUCERS 43 4.1. 

### Zooplankton 43 4.2. Larval Fishes 464.3. 

### Benthos 49 4.4. 

### Oysters 60 4.5. Nekton 60

5. NICHE 

### DIVERSITY, 

### TROPHIC INTERACTIONS, AND

### COMMUNITY STRUCTURE 76 5.1 

### Habitat-SpecificAssociations 76 5.1.1. 

### Marshes 76 5.1.2. 

### Seagrass Beds 76 5.1.3. 

### Litter

### Associations 77 5.1.4. 

### Oyster Bars 79 5.1.5. Subtidal 

### (Soft-Sediment) 

### Communities 79 5.2 Physical Control of Biological 

### Processes 80 5.3. 

### Trophic 

### Relationships and 

### Food-Web

### Structure 83 5.4. 

### Predator-Prey Interactions and

### CommunityResponse 88

6. 

### LONG-TERM

### ECOLOGICAL 

### RELATIONSHIPS 90

7. THE 

### ESTUARYAS A

### RESOURCE 99 7.1. 

### Fisheries 99 7.2. 

### Socioeconomic Factors 101 7.3. 

### Existingand 

### Projected Impact byMan 103 7.3.1. Physical 

### Alterations 103 7.3.2. 

### Toxic 

### Substances 104 7.3.3. 

### Municipal 

### Development 105 7.4. Land 

### Planning and 

### Resource

### Management 107 7.4.1. Public Land 

### Investment 108 7.4.2. The

### Apalachicola Estuarine Sanctuary 109 7.4.3. Local 

### Planning 

### Efforts and 

### Integrated

### Management 110 7.4.4. 

### Integration of

### Management Efforts 110

8. 

### COMPARISONWITH OTHER

### ESTUARIES 112



### LITERATURE CITED 118



### APPENDICES 131
A. 

### Overview of 

### Sampling Program in North 

### Florida Coastal Areas 131
1. 

### Apalachicola Bay

### System 131
2. 

### Apalachee Bay

### System 132
B. 

### Computer Programs for

### Analyzing Fieldand 

### Laboratory Data 134
1. Special 

### Program for

### Ecological Science (SPECS): 

### System

### Overview 134
2. "MATRIX" 

### ProgramSystem: 

### Summary of 

### Capabilities 137
C. 

### Review of 

### Ongoing Research Programs of the Center for

### Aquatic Research and 

### Resource

### Management (Florida State 

### University) 144
1. Overall Scope of the 

### Program 144
2. 

### Center for

### Aquatic Research and 

### Resource

### Management: Personnel (1984) 146

VI

## FIGURES Number Page

1 The tri-river

### drainage area 1

2 

### Location of the 

### tri-river 

### drainage system in the 

### southeastern United States 2

3 

### Important features of the

### Apalachicola Bay system, the

### major contributingdrainages, and the 

### barrier island 

### complex 3

4 

### Impoundments along the 

### tri-river system 4

5 The

### Apalachicola estuary 6

6 Geological 

### features of the

### Apalachicoladrainage system 7

7 Natural areas of the

### Apalachicola basin 9

8 Aerial view of St. 

### Vincent Island 11

9 Seasonal 

### averages of

### Apalachicola River flowand rainfall from Columbus, GA, and

### Apalachicola, FL 11

10 

### Six-monthand 

### thirty-sixmonth

### movingaverages of

### Apalachicola River flowand

### Apalachicola rainfall 12

11 Net

### water 

### currentpatterns in the

### Apalachicola estuary as 

### indicated by flowmodels 14

12 

### Apalachicola River flowand

### monthlyaverage

### minimumair 

### temperature 15

13 SYNMAP

### projections of

### average levels of salinity, 

### dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and color at

### permanent stations in the

### Apalachicola estuary 16
14 

### Surface salinityat 

### stations 1 and 5 in the

### Apalachicolaestuary from 1972 through 1982 17

15 

### Surface

### dissolvedoxygen at 

### stations 1 and 5 in the

### Apalachicola estuary from 1972 through 1982 18

16 

### Water color at 

### stations 1 and 5 in the

### Apalachicola estuary from 1972 through 1982 19

17 

### Turbidityat 

### stations 1 and 5 in the

### Apalachicola estuary from 1972 through 1982 19

18 

### Frequently floodedareas and soil 

### associations in the

### Apalachicola River Basin 23

v11Number Page

19 

### Distribution of the

### marshes and 

### submergentvegetation in the 

### Apalachicola estuary 24

20 

### Distribution of 

### oyster bars and 

### sediments in the

### Apalachicola estuary 26

21 

### Nutrient/detritus transport

### mechanisms and 

### long-term 

### fluctuations in detrital 

### yield to

### Apalachicola River flow 28

22 

### Regression

### analysis of

### microdetritus and

### Apalachicola River flow by season 31

23 

### Average seasonal 

### variation in

### phytoplanktonproductivity for the 

### Apalachicola estuary 36

24 

### Monthlyaverages ofdaily litterfall on 

### intensive 

### transectplots 

### across the

### Apalachicola

### wetlands 38

25 

### Tentative model of

### microbial 

### interactions with various physical and 

### biological 

### processes in the

### Apalachicola River 

### estuary 42

26 Seasonal 

### distribution of total 

### zooplanktonbiomass in the

### Apalachicola estuaryand

### associated coastal areas 

### during 1974 45

27 

### Summednumerical 

### abundance and

### number of 

### species of

### benthic infauna and

### epibenthic fishes and 

### invertebrates taken in the 

### Apalachicola estuary 59

28 Life cycle of the blue crabalong the gulf 

### coast of 

### Florida 65

29 

### Averagemonthly

### distribution of 

### anchovies in the

### Apalachicolaestuary from 1972 

### through 1979 69

30 

### Averagemonthly

### distribution of 

### croaker in the

### Apalachicola estuary from 1972 

### through 1979 70

31 

### Averagemonthly

### distribution of sand 

### seatrout in the

### Apalachicola estuary from 1972 

### through 1979 71

32 

### Averagemonthly

### distribution of spot in the

### Apalachicola estuary from 1972 

### through 1979 72

33 

### Averagemonthly

### distribution of

### penaeid shrimp in the

### Apalachicola estuary from 1972 

### through 1979 73

34 

### Average

### monthly

### distribution of blue crabs in the

### Apalachicola estuary from 1972 

### through 1979 74

35 Numerical 

### abundance and species 

### richness of 

### invertebrates taken in 

### leaf-litterbaskets at

### various 

### permanent sampling sites in the

### Apalachicola estuary 78

36 

### Regression of 

### numbers of species of 

### litter-associated

### macroinvertebrates
on 

### salinityat three stations in the

### Apalachicolaestuary 78

viii

### Number Page

37 

### Simplified feeding

### associations of four

### dominant fishes (bay

### anchovy, sand seatrout, 

### Atlantic croaker, spot) and

### blue crabs in the 

### Apalachicolaestuary 85

3S 

### Generalised simplifiedmodel of seasonal 

### relationships of the

### dominant 

### macroinvertebraes and fishes in the

### Apalachicola Bay system 86

39 

### Long-term fluctuations of squid

### abundance, salinityand 

### temperature taken in the

### Apalachicola estuary fromJune 1972 

### through

### March 1979 91

40 

### Monthlyfrequencies of blue crabs and

### variations in key

### physico-chemical parameters at the 10 

### day-time stations in the

### Apalachicola estuary frcifMarch 1972 thi

. :hMarch 1978 92

41 

### Long-termabundance patterns in the

### dominant trawlable fish

### populations in the

### Apalachicola estuary from

### March 1972 through

### February 4, 1982 95
42 

### Relative 

### importance of four

### dominant species of 

### invertebrates and fishes taken in the

### Apalachicola Bay 

### Systemfrom

### March 1972 

### through 

### February 1975 96

43 Temporal 

### arsociations of fishes taken in

### Apalachicola estuary from March 1972 to 

### February 1976 98

44 Dredge spoil bank 

### along the

### Apalachicola River 100

45 

### Ditching anddiking

### associatedwithagricultural 

### activities in the lower

### Apalachicola floodplain 105

46 The

### extent of :.

## Mng by

### agricultural interests along the

### western bank of the lower

### Apalachicola River 105

47 

### Portions of St. George Island 

### showinghousing

### development on the Gulf sideand

### dredging on the bay side 106

48 

### Majorpublic 

### investiments and 

### specially

### designated areas in the 

### Apalachicola basin 108

49 

### Boundaries of the

### Apalachicola RiverandBay

### Estuarine 

### Sanctuary with inclusion of real and

### proposed

### purchases 

### according to the 

### EnvironmentallyEndangeredLand (EEL) 

### Program (state) and 

### current federal 

### holdings 110

IX

## TABLES

Number Page

1 

### Distribution andarea of

### majorbodies of

### wateralong the 

### coast of 

### Franklin County (north Florida) with 

### relative area of oysters, 

### grassbeds, and

### contiguous

### marshes 15

2 

### Bottom salinities at 

### stations in the

### Apalachicola estuary 17

3 

### Terrestrial 

### habitats and 

### land-use 

### patterns in the 

### immediate

### watershed of the

### Apalachicola Bay 

### system 20

4A 

### Tree 

### species found

### within the

### Apalachicola floodplain 21

4B 

### Areas of each

### mapping 

### category for five 

### reaches of the 

### ApalachicolaRiver 22

5 

### Linear

### regression of total 

### microdetritus and river flow by

### month/year by season 

### (August 1975-April 1980) 30

6 Net

### above-groundprimary

### production of

### marshplants in 

### various salt

### marshes 32

7 

### Presence/absence information for net

### phytoplankton taken from the 

### Apalachicolaestuary by

### month from

### October 1972 through 

### September 1973

.... 33

8 

### Physical, 

### chemical, and

### productivitydata taken from

### locations along the 

### northwestgulf 

### coast of 

### Florida 37

9 Total annual net

### productivity and net input to the

### Apalachicola estuary and the

### Apalachicola Bay 

### system 38

10 

### Nutrientyields for

### various 

### drainage areas in the

### ApalachicolaChattahoochee-Flint

### River system 39

11 

### Nutrientvalues for 

### stations in the

### Apalachicola estuaryand

### River 40

12 

### Distribution of the

### major zooplankton groups in the

### Apalachicolaestuary and

### associated coastal 

### areas 44

13 

### Pearson 

### correlation 

### coefficients for 

### significant zooplankton

### relationships in

### East Bay, 

### Apalachicola Bay, and coastal 

### areas 46

14 

### Distribution of 

### ichthyoplankton in the

### Apalachicola estuary as 

### indicated by the

### presence of eggs and larvae 47

XNumber 

### Page

15 

### Numbers of 

### ichthyoplankton taken at

### various stations

### within the 

### Apalachicola estuary 48

16 

### Invertebrates taken in cores, 

### leaf-baskets, dredge nets, and otter trawls in the

### Apalachicola Bay system (1975-1983) 50

17 General 

### abundance information and natural 

### historynotes for the 

### dominantorganisms in the

### Apalachicolaestuary 56

18 Fishes and 

### invertebrates commonly taken

### with seines in

### oligohaline and 

### mesohalinemarshes of the

### Apalachicola estuary 61

19 

### Epibenthic fishes and 

### invertebrates in the

### Apalachicolaestuary from 1972 

### through 1982 63

20 

### Epibenthic fishes and 

### invertebrates in the

### Apalachicola estuary from June 1972 toMay 1977 66

21 

### Factor

### analysis of

### physico-chemical variables in the

### Apalachicola system taken

### monthly from

### March 1972 to 

### February 1976 81

22 

### Correlation 

### coefficients of linear 

### regressions of nitrate, 

### orthophosphate, silicate, and

### ammonia on 

### salinity 82

23 

### Results of a 

### stepwise 

### regressionanalysis of various 

### independent parameters and 

### species (population) 

### occurrence in the

### Apalachicola estuary fromMarch 1972 to 

### February 1975 84

24 

### Parametric and

### nonparametric correlations of seasonal 

### variations of blue crab 

### frequencies and

### abiotic

### variables 93

25 

### Multiple stepwise 

### regression of seasonal 

### variations of 

### frequencies of blue crabs of three size groups and 

### selectedabiotic 

### variables 93

26 Landuse 

### inventory of the

### Apalachicola Riverbasin 102

27 

### Approximatedimensions of 

### selected

### estuarine systems 113

28 

### Estimates of

### particulate primary

### production in

### various 

### estuaries in the United States 113

29 

### Approximate land use 

### distribution and

### populationdensity 

### surrounding the 

### estuarine studyareas 114

30A 

### Approximate annual input from land

### drainage and

### point source

### discharge of 

### dissolved inorganic nitrogenper

### unitarea andperunit volume in various 

### estuaries 115

308 

### Approximate annual input from land

### drainage and

### point source

### discharges of

### dissolved inorganic 

### phosphateper

### unitarea andper

### unit volume in the studyareas 116

31 Total numbers of fishes per trawl sample taken at

### permanent stations in the

### Apalachicola estuary, the 

### Econfina estuary, and the 

### Fenholloway estuary 117

xi

## CONVERSIONTABLE

# ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The 

### research on 

### which this paper is basedheqan as a

### modest

### monitoringproiect in 

### Apalachicola Bay in

### March 197?. Since that time, 

### more than 1000 

### peoole-- scientists, 

### research aides, 

### graduate and 

### undergraduate students, and 

### professional staff 

### peoole--have 

### participated in a series of 

### projects carried out 

### within a broad 

### spectrum of 

### disciplines. The 

### research effort has included 

### chemistry, 

### hydrological 

### engineering, physical 

### oceanography, biology, geology, 

### geography, fisheries, 

### computer programming, statistics, 

### resource 

### planning and 

### management, and 

### economics. 

### Many of the data have been

### retained and

### organized into

a series of 

### computer files, 

### which T am 

### currently holding at the 

### Florida State 

### Uniyersity Computer Center. A 

### complete list of this 

### information is given in the 

### appendices to this paper.


### Although 

### funding for this 

### programhas


### come 

### from various sources, the 

### maior contributions have been 

### made by the 

### Florida Sea Grant 

### College (National 

### Oceanic and 

### Atmospheric Administration) and the 

### Franklin 

### County Board o^" 

### Commissioners. 

### Supplementary funds have been 

### provided by 

### private 

### industry and state and federal agencies. The list includes local 

### developers, 

### forestry interests, the 

### Florida Department of 

### Environmental Regulation, the 

### Florida Department of 

### Community Affairs, the Coastal Plains 

### Regional 

### Commission, the

U.S. 

### Environmental 

### Protection Agency, the National 

### Science Foundation, the 

### Florida Department of Natural 

### Resources, the 

### Northwest Florida 

### Water 

### Management District, the U.S. 

### Geological Survey, the 

### Florida Game and 

### Fresh 

### Water Fish 

### Commission, the U.S. Fish and 

### Wildlife Service, and the Man in the 

### Biosphere 

### Program of the U.S. 

### Department of State. Special 

### credit should be given to the 

### Department of 

### Biological 

### Science (Florida State 

### University) for its 

### long-running support of the research. It is 

### somehow 

### consistent that the 

### main impetus for the 

### research effort has come 

### from local 

### concerns (the 

### fishermen of 

### Franklin County, 

### i^lorUa) and afederal 

### agency (the 

### Florida Sea 

### Grant College, NCAA) that has always sought to 

### apply basic 

### scientific 

### knowledge to practical 

### problems. The 

### people of 

### Franklin County, 

### depending on the sea for 

### their livelihood, 

### recognized 

### early that, as land 

### development accelerates in 

### Florida, a 

### forward-looking management program will be 

### necessary to 

### protect the 

### resource that has been at the 

### center of their 

### way of life for 

### generations. The 

### combination of basic and 

### applied science, local, state, and federal 

### involvement, and a 

### multidisciplinary, long-term research 

### program has led to a series of 

### resource 

### management/planning actions that are 

### unprecedented in the nation.



# xm

## CHAPTER 1 

## INTRODUCTION(HISTORICAL

## PERSPECTIVE

# ANDOVERVIEW)

1.1. 

### GEOGRAPHIC SETTING

### AND 

### CLASSIFICATION

The 

### ADalachicola estuary (Fioures 1-3) is part of a 

### tri-river system that includes the

### ApalachicolaRiver in

### Florida and the 

### Chattahoochee and Flint 

### Rivers in 

### Georgia and Alabama. The 

### Chattahoochee River 

### originates at the base of the 

### Appalachian Mountains in the 

### Piedmont upland, and 

### traverses three 

### geologic provinces: the 

### Piedmont, the

### Appalachian, and the Coastal Plain. The Flint 

### River begins in the lower 

### Piedmont 

### Plateau just north of the fall line and flows 

### through the Coastal Plain.

The 

### Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) drain_age basin includes an

### estimated 48,484 km" Georgia, 

### northern Florida (Figure 1). The 

### Chattahoochee River drains 

### approximately

-^ (19,^00 mi2) in 

### western southeastern Alabama, and 

### ?1,840 km^ (8,650mi^) and the Flint River

drains an 

### estimated ?1,444 km^ (8,4P4 mi^). The 

### Jim

### Woodruff dam, which forms Lake 

### Seminole at the 

### confluence of the Flint and 

### Chattahoochee rivers, 

### constitutes the 

### headwaters of the 

### Apalachicola River. The 

### Apalachicola River is 

### approximately 171 km (108 mi) long, with a 

### fairlyuniform slope of 0.15 

### m/km (0.5 ft/mi); it falls 

### approximately 12 m in its course 

### from Lake 

### Seminole to the 

### Gulf of Mexico. The 

### Apalachicola River drains an area of about 2,500 km^ (1,030 mi2). The 

### Chipola River, which ioins the 

### Apalachicola River near its 

### southern terminus (Figure 1), has a 

### watershed equal to that of the 

### Apalachicola. About 3% of the ACF basin is in the BlueRidge

### mountains, 38% in the 

### Piedmont Plateau, and 59% in the coastal plainbelow the fall line (Figure 2). The lower coastal plain is 

### nearly flat, with 

### extensivewetlands development.

en.'!"""" 

# TRI-RIVER 

# SYSTEM jkj y-ChoMohoochee River 

# COAST

Figure 1. 

### Location of the 

### tri-river 

### drainage 

### system in the 

### southeasternUnited States 

### showing the 

### relative positions of 

### upland 

### features and the 

### Apalachicola estuary.

A 

### detailed 

### review of the 

### dimensions of the

### Apalachicola Bay

### system (^QOis'n to ?9055'N; 

### 84O20'W to 

### 85O?0'W) (Figure ?) is given by

### Livingston (1980a). 

### This 

### system is 

### composed of six

### major subdivisions:

3,Q81 ha (9,837 acres) ?0,959 ha East 

### Bay 

### ApalachicolaBay ('51,792 acres) St. 

### Vincent Sound 5, "^40 ha (13,689 acres) 

### West St. 

### George Sound (toDog Island) 14,747 ha (36,440 acres) East St. 

### George Sound 16,016 ha (39,576 acres) 

### AlligatorHarbor 1,637 ha (4,045 acres)
The 

### entire area totals 6?,879 ha (155,374 acres). Anatural shoal forms a 

### submerged 

### boundary between 

### Apalachicola Bay and St. 

### George Sound. The bay is 

### bounded on its 

### extreme southern end by

### three 

### barrier islands: St. 

### Vincent, St. George, andDog Island. 

### There are four natural 

### openings to the gulf: Indian Pass, 

### West Pass, East Pass, and a pass 

### between Dog Island and 

### Alligator Harbor. A 

### man-made opening (Sike's Cut) was 

### established in the 

### western portion of St. 

### George Island. The 3.6-m- (12-ft-) 

### deep Intracoastal 

### Waterway

extends 

### northwestward from St. 

### George Sound through 

### Apalachicola Bay, up the 

### ApalachicolaRiver to

### Lake

### Wimico and then along an artificial channel to St. 

### Andrews Bayto thewest.

The 

### Apalachicola estuary is a lagoon and 

### barrier island complex. It has been 

### classified as a 

### shallow coastal plain 

### estuaryoriented in an 

### east-west direction (Dawson 1^55). 

### Because of the 

### placement of the 

### barrier island complex, it coul'^ be 

### called a coastal lagoon. The 

### average 

### depth is 

### between 7 and 3 m at mean low 

### tide 

### (Gorsline 1^163).

In terms of 

### Pritchard's (1^67) 

### estuarine 

### classification scheme, the 

### Apalachicola Bay 

### system is a 

### width

### dominated 

### estuary controlled by lunar tides and

### wind currents. As such, it is a 

### type D 

### estuary (Conner et al. 1981) in that it is 

### dominated by physical forces (i.e., tidal 

### currents, wind) as a

### function of its 

### shallowdepths. As a result, the 

### bay 

### system is 

### relatively well mixed, 

### although various 

### portions of the 

### estuary are 

### periodically (seasonally) 

### stratified (Livingston 1984a).

1.^. 

### DRIVINGFORCES AND

### HUMAN 

### INFLUENCE

The principal 

### driving forces that 

### determine the 

### habitat 

### structure and 

### biological 

### processes of the 

### estuary are river flow, 

### physiography of the basin, seasonal 

### changes of 

### nutrients, and 

### salinity as 

### modified by wind, tidal 

### influences, and

### freshwater inflows. Tidal 

### influence extends 

### approximately 40 km (?5 

### miles) up the river. As a 

### biological 

### entity (Odum et al. 1'374), (which includes East Bay, Bay, St. 

### Vincent Sound, 

### portions of St. 

### George 

### characterized by

### upland

### marshes that grade into 

### soft-sediment areas, 

### vegetated 

### shallow bottoms, and oyster reefs. The 

### oligohaline East 

### Bay 

### merges with 

### mesohaline and 

### oolyhaline portions of 

### Apalachicola Bay, St. 

### Vincent Sound, and St. 

### George Sound.

The 

### Apalachicola River, the largest in 

### Florida in terms of flow, is the principal source of fresh 

### water to the estuary. The 

### average 

### flow rate is about

the 

### estuary 

### Apalachicola and 

### western Sound), isP;65 m3 sec-l (23, '^00 ft^ sec'l) 

### measured at 

### Blountstown, Florida. 

### Maximum and 

### minimum discharqes over the pa<;t 1? years are 4,600 

### m^ sec"! (162,^^00 cfs) and 178 m^ sec"l (6,280 cfs), 

### respectively. The river and, 

### secondarily, local rainfall 

### determine the 

### distribution o^" 

### salinity in the estuary. The

### placement of the 

### barrier islands also has a

### maior influence on the 

### salinityreqime of the

### estuary (Livinqston 1^79, iq84a). The islands limit the 

### outflow of the low-salinitv 

### water to the outer Gul-P ofMexico.

The 

### Aoalachicola basin 

### occupies the last 

### sparsely inhabited and 

### undeveloped drainaqe system and coastal reqion in 

### Florida (Livingston lQ83a, b, c). 

### FranklinCounty, 

### with a

### population of 

### only 8,403 in 197Q, 

### encompasses the lower river and 

### bay system. 

### Forested uplands, 

### wetlands, and 

### aquatic 

### habitats 

### comprise most of the land area in

### Franklin County. The local 

### economy is based 

### larqely on the sport and 

### commercial 

### fisheries of the



### Apalacbicola River and Ray system. 

### According to recent 

### estimates (Florida 

### Department of 

### Administration l'^77), 

### commercial fishinq, 

### recreation, 

### forestry and timber 

### processing, aqriculture, and light 

### manuf

### acturinq 

### characterize the 

### regional 

### economv of the 

### entire 

### Apalacbicola basin. The human 

### population of the six 

### counties along the river has grown 

### slowly since li^GO, 

### increasing 

### only 7% (from 

### 101,782 to 10Q,?S4) 

### from

## 1%^ to 1974. State 

### government is a 

### major employer in the region, 

### while industrial
or

### commercial land use is 

### confined to

### only 0.2% of the basin area.
The 

### Apalacbicola drainage system is
one of the least 

### polluted in the 

### country (Livingston 1974a, b, iq77a-d, 1Q78, 1979, 1980a-c; 

### Livingston and 

### Thompson 1975; 

### Livingston and 

### Duncan 1979; 

### Livinqston et al. 1974, 1976a, b, 1Q77, 1Q78_). Some 

### problems, however, have 

### emerged in 

### recent years 

### (Livinqston l'583d).

CAPE SANBLAS

Figure 3. 

### Detailed features of the

### Apalachicola Bay 

### system 

### including the

### major contri

### butingdrainages, the 

### barrier island complex, and the

### majorpasses in the bay complex.1, A 

### 13,352-ha (33,000-acre) 

### cattle ranch was 

### established in the 

### Apalachicola River 

### floodplain about '^-10 km (6 mi) Much of the area was anddrained, 

### whilewaste over the dikes into the The potential impact of above the bay. cleared, ditched, 

### water was 

### pumped river system. this 

### operation is under 

### study and review, 

### although 

### farming has continued, and 

### water 

### quality has 

### deteriorated in some of the 

### upland creeks.

?. 

### Portions of the 

### drainage 

### system have 

### historically been 

### subjected to 

### forestry operations, which 

### include ditching, 

### draining, 

### clearcutting, and 

### reforestation. These activities have been 

### associated with local changes in 

### water 

### quality and 

### short-term adverse 

### effects on 

### aquatic biological 

### associations (Livingston 1^78). A 

### long-term multidiscipl

### inary 

### study has iust been 

### completed bythe

### Florida Sea

### Grant 

### College (Livingston lQ83c) 

### along 

### with 

### proposed 

### management practices 

### which are 

### designed to 

### mitigate adverse impacts.

3. Recent 

### population increases along the north 

### Florida coast have 

### stressed regional coastal 

### counties in terms of 

### municipal 

### development, sewage disposal, and 

### stormwater 

### runoff (Livingston lP83d). The 

### recognition of such 

### potential impact has led to the 

### development of 

### relatively advanced local land use plans such as that 

### adopted by 

### Franklin 

### County in 1P81 

### (Livingston lP80a, b, iq83c). 

### Implementation of the 

### comprehensive plan has not been 

### carried out, however. 

### During 1^8^, sewage spills 

### closed down the 

### Apalachicolaoyster 

### industryfor

### prolonged periods. 

### Meanwhile, 

### proposals to bring 

### high-density construction projects to coastal areas of 

### Franklin Countv have 

### proliferated.

4. A 

### continuing problem in the 

### region involves 

### proposals to 

### either 

### channelize or dam the 

### Apalachicola River to 

### make a 

### corridor for barge 

### traffic and industrial 

### development. 

### These 

### developments would serve as a 

### north-south link 

### between 

### upriver ports on the 

### Chattahoochee and Flint 

### Rivers in 

### Alabama and 

### Georgia and the 

### Gulf of Mexico. 

### Authorization for a 

### maintained channel (30.B m or 100 ft wide, ?.7 m or 8.8 ft deep) bytheU.S. 

### ArmyCorps of 

### Engineers (USAGE) was part of the 

### amendedRivers and



### Harbor Act of 1^46. A 

### system of 13 dams is 

### already in place on the 

### Chattahoochee River and three dams are 

### currently in use on the Flint 

### River (Figure 4). 

### Associated with these 

### activities are a series of barge terminal 

### facilities and 

### offloading systems. Rock 

### outcrops in the 

### Apalachicola River have been 

### removed as part of ongoing, 

### extensive dredging and 

### channelization of the river. 

### Superimposed over these 

### activities is the 

### increasing municipal water use in areas such as 

### Atlanta, Georgia, 

### where sustained 

### population growth could 

### reduce 

### water flow in the tri

### -river 

### system in the near future.

Federal

aOther



### Figure 4. 

### Distribution along the 

### tri-river information 

### provided by Corps of 

### Engineers). of 

### impoundments



### system (after the U.S. 

### Army5. Past 

### studies on 

### pesticide 

### distribution in the 

### estuary (Livingston and

### Thompson 1^175; 

### Livingston et al. 1<578) have 

### indicated 

### relatively low levels of 

### organochlorine contamination in the 

### ApalachicolaBay

### systembythe

### mid lQ70's. 

### Winger et al. (1984) 

### found that biota

### from the

### ApalachicolaRiver had

### moderatelyhigh levels of total DDT, total PCB's, and 

### toxaphene in 1978. 

### Animals from the upper river had higher 

### organic residues than 

### those taken in the lower river. Such levels 

### exceeded 

### recommended permissible levels for the

### protection of 

### aquatic life. A recent 

### review of the 

### heavy-metal 

### distribution (Livingston 1^83d; 

### Livingston et al. 1982) 

### indicates local 

### increases of 

### metals in the 

### sediments and biota of 

### Lake Seminole, parts of the 

### Chipola drainage, and areas in the bay 

### system that 

### receive 

### municipal runoff. 

### These increases are due to local point 

### sources such as 

### battery recycling operations (upper 

### Chipola), industrial 

### sources in 

### Georgia, marinas, and 

### municipal outfalls. 

### Winger et al. (1984) 

### found metal 

### residues in 

### riverine 

### organisms 

### generally below 1 pg g-^. A 

### recent 

### analysis of data on 

### long-term 

### monitoring of the metal 

### concentrations in 

### oysters 

### (Crassostrea 

### virginica ) in the



### estuary (Florida 

### D¥partment of Natural 

### Resources, personal 

### communication) indicates no undue 

### increases of such 

### metals in 

### shellfishover the past decade.
^. 

### Dredging and spoil 

### placement take place in the 

### Apalachicola River and 

### Rav 

### system (Livingston 1984a). 

### These 

### operations are being 

### reviewed bv the 

### Florida 

### Department of 

### Environmental 

### Regulation (S. 

### Leitman et al. 1982). The 

### immediate impact of 

### long-term dredge and spoil 

### activities on the 

### estuary is given by

### Livingston (1984a).

In summary, the

### Apalachicoladrainage basin is 

### currently lightly

### populatedwith

an 

### economic system dominated by 

### renewable natural 

### resources. However, over the next 

### fewdecades, the 

### essentialIvrural 

### economy will 

### probably give 

### way to 

### more energy

### dependent industrial and urban 

### development, which

### might lead to 

### increased stress on the natural 

### system due to 

### growing 

### population pressure, 

### residential 

### development, agricultural activities, toxic 

### waste disposal, 

### erosion and 

### sedimentation, and 

### alteration of the physical 

### structure of the 

### drainage basin.

## CHAPTER2 

## ENVIRONMENTALSETTING

?.l. 

### ORIRIN

### ANDEVOLUTION OF THE 

### ESTUARY

?,1.1. 

### Geological 

### Time

### Frame

The 

### Dhysiograohic structures of most 

### estuaries are 

### ephemeral in terms of 

### geological time. 

### Climatological forces
are 

### continuously at work 

### shaping and 

### reshaping the basin 

### features. 

### Characteristics of the 

### Apalachicola estuary are 

### dependent on the 

### interaction of an upland

### drainage 

### systemwi^h

### offshore 

### marine conditions. The 

### estuary is, in effect, an 

### extension of the 

### upland river
or 

### drainage area, and its 

### origin and 

### evolution are 

### inextricably linked to the 

### dynamic geological 

### historyof the 

### land/sea interaction. 

### approximately '^?.^ km (14mi) 

### northeast of



### Apalachicola, Florida. 

### These islands 

### were located in what is now the 

### Tate's Hell 

### Swamp (Figure 1). The general 

### dimensions of the 

### Apalachicola vallev as we see 

### them 

### todaywere 

### established in the

### Pleistocene.

The 

### maior drainages of the 

### Florida 

### panhandle (which 

### includes the

### Apalachicola drainage system) are alluvial in that 

### they 

### carry sediment loads that 

### eventually end UD in the coastal 

### estuaries (Figures 1, ^). The 

### geological 

### structure of the 

### Apalachicola River 

### estuary is of 

### Recent and 

### Pleistocene origin. 

### Marine sediments 

### comprise a 

### maior physical 

### feature of the region. The 

### Apalachicola 

### estuary is 

### bounded by 

### well-developed beach-ridge

The 

### Aoalachicola River is the 

### only drainage area in 

### Florida that has its 

### origin in the 

### Piedmont, which, as will be 

### explained later, is of 

### biological importance to the region. The 

### geological 

### history of this area is well known in general terms. Rv the 

### Cretaceous period (about 135

### million years ago), most of the tri

### -river 

### valley was 

### submerged under ancient seas (Tanner 19fi2). The 

### origin of the 

### Apalachicola River or its 

### antecedents occurred some 

### time in the 

### Miocene epoch about 25

### million years ago (W. F. Tanner, 

### Florida State 

### University, pers. comm.). 

### There has been a gradual 

### decline in sea level through 

### Cenozoic time (70 

### million years ago to present); sea level has 

### dropped an 

### estimated 70-100 m 

### from the 

### middle of the 

### Miocene (Tanner 1968). Olsen (1^68) gives 

### evidence that the uoper 

### Apalachicola River basin (the area around 

### Blountstown, Florida; 

### Figure 1) was a 

### deltaic or coastal 

### environment during the 

### Miocene. By the 

### Pleistocene epoch (1 

### million years ago), there was 

### evidence of
an 

### arcuate chain o^ 

### barrier islands 

### Figure 5. The 

### Apalachicola estuary with



### details of upland 

### drainage areas and the 

### placement of 

### permanent sampling sites for the 

### long-termfield studies of the

### Florida State 

### University research team (after 

### Livingston et al. 1974).plains of late 

### Holocene oriqin (Fernald 1Q81). The linear, 

### qentlv 

### curving beach 

### ridges of the area attest to the changes in 

### orientation of the 

### estuary through geological time in 

### resoonse to 

### wide 

### fluctuations of sea level. The 

### Apalachicola estuary is part of a broad, 

### sandv shore plain, which is 

### constantly being 

### changed by a 

### combination of 

### climatological elements such as wind, rainfall and sea level 

### alterations. The 

### present 

### structure of the bay is around 

### 10,000 years old (Tanner 1^83). Sea level 

### reached its 

### modern position about SOOO years ago when the 

### construction of the 

### present barrier island chainwas underway. Exceot for the 

### southward 

### migration of the delta front, the general 

### outline of the 

### bay 

### system was 

### established at this 

### time (Tanner 1^83).

?.!.?. 

### Oeomorphologyand

### Regional 

### Geology

a. 

### Upland areas

. The 

### maior 

### formations in the upper 

### Chattahoochee River 

### system are 

### underlain by igneous rocks and 

### crystalline schists. The area is 

### characterized by 

### Tertiarv limestone 

### outcroppinqs, which add to the 

### habitat 

### diversity of the region (Figure 6). The lower 

### division of 

### Piedmont upland, 

### defined

as the 

### Opelika Plateau, is 

### underlain by 

### Archean (i.e., 

### Precambrian) rocks. 

### Tributaries of the 

### Ohattahoochee River have 

### subsequently eroded these 

### formations with some valleys cut 

### approximately 6? m (?00 ft) 

### below the general surface. The rocks of the 

### Appalachian province pass under the Coastal Plain 

### formations. Along the border 

### between the 

### Appalachian province and the Coastal Plain, 

### Appalachian rocks are 

### overlain by 

### Cretaceous formations,


### more 

### deeply buried 

### Quaternary sediments 

### further north Coastal 

### Plain is 

### covered with a 

### These rocks by 

### Tertiary are and The thick layer of 

### clastic (erosion 

### produced) 

### sediments as well as 

### limestone (nonclastic) 

### sediments, some of which 

### mav be 

### crystalline.
Adams et al. (1'526) have 

### presented a 

### detailed account of the 

### Paleozoic, 

### Mesozoic, and 

### Cenozoic formations in 

### Alabama, which is 

### generally applicable to the 

### Apalachicola valley. The 

### Cenozoic formations are 

### confined to the Coastal Plain and

### represent deposits at the 

### bottom of an ancient sea, 

### which 

### consist of sand,

clay, mud, or 

### calcareous ooze. Fossil 

### marine mollusks and 

### echinoderms are 

### interspersed with 

### remnants of fossil plants from flood plains, 

### marshes, and swamps. 

### Pleistocene 

### marine sands and clays 

### overlie older 

### formations along the coast, and 

### estuarine and fluvial 

### deposits 

### extend up the 

### main river valley. Swamps 

### immediately upland of the 

### Apalachicola 

### estuary are 

### underlain by 

### quartz sand 

### (Brenneman and

### Tanner 1958).



### Figure 6. 

### Geological 

### features of the 

### Apalachicoladrainage systemshowing (A) a line north and west of which there are thin patches of 

### Tertiary limestone near the land 

### surface and (B) a line beyond 

### which the 

### limestone thickens and is 

### more 

### deeply buried. The top of the 

### Tertiary limestone is shown in feet below sea level, 

### while 

### Tertiary limestone that occurs in ornear the land 

### surface is also 

### outlined (modified

### fromMeans 1977).The coastal 

### geomorpholoqy of the 

### Apalachicola reqion is 

### extremeiv complex; 

### major features are

### developedfromwind and 

### current 

### modified beach ridqes (Clewell 1977). 

### These 

### formations are 

### complicated by 

### considerable 

### Pleistocene sea-level 

### fluctuations. The 

### northern qulf coastal 

### lowlands are 

### dominated by 

### Pliocene epoch 

### marine sands. The 

### floodplain of

### Holocene (recent) 

### sediment reaches depths 

### approximating 24.3 m (80 ft) near the river 

### mouth and 13.7 m (45 ft) near 

### Blountstown, 

### Florida (Fiqure 1). 

### These sediments lie 

### directly on 

### Miocene strata 

### because much of the 

### Pliocene and 

### Pleistocene sediments were 

### eroded during periods when sea level was lower and river 

### flow was greater. The sea level 

### approximately 20,000 years ago was over 125 m (410 ft) lower than that 

### found today, and the 

### coastline was 

### considerably seaward of its 

### current position.

The 

### Florida 

### panhandle is an uneven 

### platform of 

### carbonate bedrock 

### (limestone 

### with dolomite) 

### overlain by one or 

### more layers of less 

### consolidated elastics (Fiqure 6, Puri and 

### Vernon 1«564; Clewell 1^78). 

### Superficial strata are of Eocene, 

### Oligocene or 

### early 

### Miocene origin. 

### Considerable solution 

### activityhas led to the 

### formation of sinks, caves and other karst 

### features (Means 1977). The 

### elastics consist of 

### Fuller's earth 

### (primarily the clays 

### montmorillinite and 

### attapulqite), 

### phosphaticmatrix, sand, silt, clay, shell marl, qravel, rock 

### fragments, and fossil remains. The 

### elastics with shell marl are 

### sediments of ancient 

### shallow seas and 

### estuaries. Various 

### clastic strata were 

### deposited during the 

### earlyMiocene, 

### while others 

### were fluvial and 

### aeolian 

### deoosits
or 

### sediments in lake bottoms. 

### These elastics form terraces 

### sloping toward the Gulf. Such 

### terraces are 

### altered by 

### erosion and 

### dissection by 

### streams and rivers. In 

### spite of 

### various 

### post-Pleistocene sea-level 

### fluctuations, elevations in this area have 

### changed less than 10 m as a 

### result o^ erosion, 

### deposition, and 

### sedimentation. Dunes, spits, bars, and beach ridqes 

### became 

### stranded inland as the sea receded.
Soils and sediments. The 

### Apalachicola River 

### floodplain lies 

### wholly within the

### FloridaCoastal 

### Plain and is in 

### contact with 

### Tamoa 

### Limestone (early 

### Miocene). The river just below the 

### Jim



### Woodruff Dam flows through the 

### Citronelle formation (Pliocene) that borders the 

### western edge of the 

### Pleistocene bed 

### from 16 to 20 km 

### below the dam to 

### Blountstown. The 

### eastern portion of the river is 

### influenced by the 

### Hawthorn formation (Fuller's earth and 

### phosphatic limestone) and 

### Duplin marl (sandy

### marine and clayey, 

### micaceous shell marl). The clays in 

### particular and fine sands 

### cause 

### considerable turbidity. The river bed is 

### composed 

### primarily of 

### remnants of 

### Pleistocene deposits (sand to 

### coarse gravel) that are 

### covered by 

### fine clay sediments. The lower river 

### valley is 

### composed largely of 

### Plio-Pleistocene marine sands, which lie over the 

### Aucilla Karst Plain, the 

### Jackson Bluff 

### formation, and the lower part of the 

### Citronelle formation.
Upland soil 

### composition reflects the 

### geological 

### history of the 

### Apalachicola valley. Soils in the titi swamps and 

### savannahs of the 

### Apalachicola National 

### Forest are 

### strongly acidic and low in 

### extractable cations 

### (Mooney and 

### Patrick 1915; 

### Coultas 1976, 1C)77, IQRO). Total 

### phosphorus is low in all soils of the basin. 

### Cypress and gum swamps are also 

### highly acidic and low in 

### extractable bases, 

### while more alluvial soils are less acidic. 

### Estuarine 

### marsh soils are rela

### tively hiqh in 

### organic matter, 

### especially at the river mouth. 

### These soils are 

### derived largely from the 

### erosion of the 

### northern

### Piedmont-Appalachian soils, 

### which have been 

### deposited on the sea 

### floor and, at times, have been 

### uplifted above sea level. 

### Floodplain soils are 

### composed of a broad range of 

### textures and colors. 

### They are 

### predominantly clay with some 

### silty 

### clayand

### minor clay loams (Leitman, 1978). Point bars in the river bed are 

### composed largelyof fine and

### veryfine sands.
Soils in

### wetlands 

### directlyassociated with the 

### Apalachicola River have been analyzed. 

### Swamp soils arewet, 

### moderately acidic, high in 

### clay content, and low in 

### salinity (Coultas in press). The principal 

### clay-sized

### minerals include 

### kaolinite, 

### vermiculite, quartz, and mica. 

### These
areas are 

### poorly drained and 

### contain 

### considerable amounts of 

### clay and 

### organic matter. The soils are 

### formed from recent 

### accumulations of 

### sediments 

### deposited in

### stream channels and 

### estuarine meanders. The pHvalues ranqe 

### from 4.^ to f^.6.


### Studies of the

### marshes above East 

### Bay (Coultas 1^80; 

### Coultas and Gross 197^^) 

### indicate that the 

### deltaic soils are 

### slightly acidic and 

### become alkaline with depth. The dense mats of roots and 

### rhizomes from the 

### predominant sawgrass

(

### Cladium .iamaicense ) and 

### needlerush

(Juncus 

### roemerianus ) along the 

### eastern portions of the 

### estuary tend to hold the soils inplace. The soils are 

### composed of thin 

### organic deposits 

### mixed 

### with clay and 

### overlie loamy sands of 

### fine-textured materials. 

### Considerable amounts of silt


### occur in some soils, and 

### most have poor 

### load-bearing 

### capacitybecause of the high 

### organic content and high 

### field 

### moisture levels. 

### Vegetation differences are 

### attributed to soil salt content. 

### Sawgrass is 

### dominant in areas most 

### affected by 

### river flow (i.e., 

### with low 

### salinity), and 

### needlerush is 

### predominant in tidal areas (i.e., those 

### with 

### higher salinity) (Coultas 1P80).


### Sediments in the 

### estuary are 

### characterized bv 

### mixtures of sand, silt, and shell 

### components (Livingston 1^78). 

### Present sediments are 

### accumulating over 

### tertiarylimestones and

### marls that 

### outcrop in the 

### scoured central 

### channels of 

### West Pass and Indian Pass. St. 

### Vincent Sound and 

### northern portions of 

### Apalachicola Bay are 

### silty areas that grade into 

### sand/silt and shell gravel toward St. 

### George Island. The 

### thickness of these 

### sediments (10-^0m) 

### (Gorsline 1^63) 

### may be the 

### result of 

### erosion of older 

### deltaic 

### deposits during 

### periods of higher sea level. East 

### Ray is 

### composed of 

### silty sand and 

### sandy shell. Areas near the river 

### mouth have 

### varying 

### quantities of 

### woody debris and leaf 

### matter, 

### especially during 

### winter and 

### spring months of 

### heavy river 

### flooding (Livingston et al. 1976a). The 

### floor of the bay is thus 

### formed 

### largely of 

### quartz sand with a thin (but 

### varying) cover of silt, clay, and debris 

### depending on the 

### proximityto land runoff.

The 

### estuarine sediments 

### originated in the 

### southern 

### Appalachians and have 

### undergone a 

### complex 

### history of 

### deposition and 

### reworking in the coastal plain 

### deposits, coastal 

### marshes, beaches, and dunes. Fine 

### sediments flowout of the bay into the Gulf of 

### Mexico 

### while sand is



### moved bytidal 

### currents 

### within the 

### bayand at the 

### mouths of the 

### western inlets. The 

### cusp of the

### AoalachicolaBay

### coastline has been built by river 

### sediments 

### deposited during

### Tertiaryand

### Pleistocene times 

### with 

### modification bv waves and 

### long-shore drift. Puri and

### Vernon (19fi4) andClewell (1978) have 

### made a 

### detailed review of the 

### geological 

### formations and soil 

### distribution in the region.

?

.1

.3

. 

### Watershed

### Characterization

Numerous 

### physiographic, geological, and 

### bioqeographic features 

### contribute to the biotic 

### richness of the 

### Apalachicola drainage system (Clewell 1^77; Means 1977). 

### While the 

### Apalachicola basin (Figure 7) lies 

### entirely within the Coastal Plain, it is 

### subdivided into upper and lower regions; the 

### Marianna lowlands. New 

### Hope Ridge, 

### Tallahassee Hills and



## MARIANNA LOWLANDS

WESTERN RED HIL 

## GRAND

RIDGE 

### |><^PALACHICOLA

' 

## ^-RAVINES

RIVER 

## BOTTOM LANDS /

### APALACHICOLA 

## LOWLANDS



# \ COASTAL
^

## ^MARSHES

OFFSHORE AREAS

Figure 7. Natural areas 

### Apalachicola basin based 

### physiography, 

### vegetation types, 

### geography, and 

### distribution of (afterMeans 1977). of the

on the regional 

### organisms

### BeaconSlope are part of the

### Gulf-Atlantic rollinq plain, 

### while the lower coastal 

### lowlands are part of the 

### Gulf-Atlantic Coastal Flats (H, M. 

### Leitman et al. l^^S?). The 

### drainaqe 

### system contains streams of 

### various types, which range 

### from firstorder 

### ravine streams (Means 1*^77) to the 

### hiqher order 

### low-qradient, 

### meanderinq types. The latter 

### contain hiqh 

### orqanic acid levels in the 

### flatwoods or are 

### calcareous and clear in the 

### Marianna Lowlands karst plain. 

### Extensive lake 

### systems are 

### lacking in the valley; 

### Ocheesee Pond is located in an 

### abandoned bed of the 

### Apalachicola River, and two other natural lakes (Lake 

### Wimico, Dean Lake) 

### occur in the basin. The upper river region, 

### cuttingthrough

### Miocene sediments, has a flood plain 1.^-3 km 

### (O.P-l.q mi) wide. This 

### floodplain widens to 3-5 km (1.9-3.1 mi) along

### middle portions of the river, with the lower river 

### having the 

### widest 

### floodplain (7 km; 

### 4.4 mi). The 

### upstream tidal 

### influence in the

### floodplain does not 

### extend above km 40 (mi PS). The 

### ChipolaRiver joins the

### Apalachicola at km 45 (river mi ?8). The 

### delta is about 16 km (in mi) 

### wide and is 

### surrounded by a broadmarsh.

The 

### previously described geological 

### processes have led to hiqh physical 

### diversity of the land forms in the 

### Apalachicola basin. 

### "Steepheads" or 

### amphitheatre-shapedvalleyheads 

### with

### very steep 

### walls (Means 1^77) 

### occur in small 

### drainages that 

### dissect the 

### eastern 

### escarpment between Bristol and 

### Torreya State Park 

### within a 

### narrow 

### east-to-west alignment through the 

### Florida panhandle. 

### These constant 

### environments are 

### important 

### habitats for 

### various species. The 

### Apalachicola Ravines (Figure 7) (Hubbell et al. 1956) are 

### drainages that 

### form 

### another unique habitat 

### associatedwith the river basin. 

### Theseravines include smallorder 

### stream bottoms and 

### steep 

### valley slopes; the 

### vegetation qrades upward 

### from hydric plant 

### communities near the 

### bottom to xeric 

### vegetation at the top of small divides between ravines. The 

### Marianna lowlands 

### form a karst plain 

### containing more vadose (i.e., above

### water table) cave 

### ecosystems than any 

### other part of the coastal plain (Means 1977). The 

### Aoalachicola lowlands, a 

### flatwoods region 

### with little relief, is a low, 

### sliahtlv inclined plain 

### with 

### extensive swamplands. The 

### eastern portion of the 

### Aoalachicola

lowlands contains parts of the

### Tate's Hell Swamp, which is 

### undergoing extensive changes due to 

### forestry operations. The 

### western lowlands are part of a 

### cattle ranch and 

### farming operation. The

### Western Red Hills are 

### separated from the other natural areas bythe

### ChipolaRiver valley. This area is high in 

### elevation but not as 

### deeply dissected as the 

### Apalachicola Ravines. Grand 

### Ridge (Figure 7) is a 

### wedge-shaped area 

### bounded by the 

### Chipola and

### ApalachicolaRivers. 

### While

### originally part of the same

### uplandmass that 

### extended from the 

### Apalachicola Ravines westward. 

### GrandRidge has been eroded. This area is 

### associated with springs, caves, and 

### troglodyte (i.e., 

### subterranean) fauna. The river 

### bottomlands represent a 

### floodplain habitat 

### characterized by the river channel, sloughs, swamps and 

### backwaters, and the 

### periodically flooded lowlands. 

### Many springs and 

### aquatic cave 

### systems 

### empty 

### directly into the river 

### bottomlands.
?.1.4, 

### Barrier Islands

At the 

### mouth of the 

### Apalachicola River is a well 

### developed 

### barrier-island system composed of three islands (St. 

### Vincent, St. George, Dog) (Figure 3). 

### These islands 

### roughly parallel the 

### coastline and are 

### characterized bvsets of sand dunes of 

### differing geological ages. 

### While the shore 

### system is based on dunes that date back some 3000 to 6000 years, the 

### barrier islands are no older than 3000 years. 

### They consist of 

### quartz sand that has been 

### transported from the 

### southern 

### Appalachian Piedmont by the river 

### system and that 

### currently rests on an 

### eroded 

### Pleistocene surface (Zeh 1980). On St. 

### Vincent Island, for example, 

### qently 

### curvinq lines of beach ridges (Figure 8) up to 1 m (3 ft) hiqh serve as the base for small dunes; such ridqes 

### represent the 

### geological 

### history of sand 

### deposition in the region, with the 

### oldest 

### (northernmost) ridqes 

### indicatinq

### where sea level 

### achieved its 

### earliest position.

St. 

### Georqe Island is about 48 km (30 mi) lonq and 

### averaqes less than 0.5 km (1/3 mi) in width. It 

### consists of ?,Q73 ha (7,340 acres) of land and 486 ha (1,?00 acres) of marshes. The 

### medium to fine grain sands 

### provide for 

### relatively poor

10

### Figure Island. Aerial 

### view of St. 

### Vincent

aquifer conditions; all 

### fresh 

### water is 

### derived 

### from rainfall. 

### Silty clav sediments at depths 

### between 7.6 and P.?m (25-30 ft) 

### below the 

### sandy surface create
an 

### impermeable barrier to 

### separate rain

### derived fresh water from the 

### surrounding salt water. 

### There is a 

### shallow lens of fresh 

### water 

### beneath the island. 

### Some of this 

### fresh water, 

### modified by 

### transpiration and 

### evaporation, is 

### eventually discharged into the 

### Gulf and lagoonal 

### marine systems.

?.2. 

### CLIMATE

2.2.1. 

### Temperature
The 

### climate in the

### Apalachicolabasin ismild, 

### with a

### mean annual 

### temperature of 20° C (68° F). 

### Temperature varies 

### with 

### elevation and

### proximityto the coast. The mean annual 

### number of days 

### with 

### temperatures at or below

### freezing is 20 at 

### Lake 

### Seminole and 5 

### along the 

### Gulf Coast (National 

### Oceanic and" 

### Atmospheric Administration, unpublished data; Clewell 1°77). 

### Livingston (unpublished 

### manuscript), 

### working with 

### long-term (40-year) 

### climatological data, 

### found that 

### temperatures 

### usually peak in 

### August with lows 

### from 

### December to 

### February, at 

### which time 

### monthly variance is 

### maximal. 

### While peak 

### summer 

### temperatures are 

### similar from year to year, 

### winter

### minima vary. A timeseries (spectral) 

### analysis indicates that there is a 

### long-term period of 

### recurring low

### winter 

### temperatures of 118

### months (P.8 

### Precipitation

Mean annual 

### rainfall in the 

### Aoalachicola River basin is 

### approximately 150 cm (59 inches). 

### There are, however, 

### considerable local 

### differences in

### monthly precipitation totals. In the

### Apalachicola delta, areas 

### west of the river 

### receive almost 

### one-third less rainfall than those east of the river (i.e., 

### Tate's Hell Swamp). 

### Rainfall in the 

### Georgia portion of the 

### watershed is 130 

### cm/yr (51 

### inches/yr).
The 

### rainfall 

### patterns of 

### Florida and 

### Georgia (Figure 9; 

### Meeter et al. 1979) are 

### basicallysimilar exceot for the 

### timing of rainfall peaks. 

### Georgia rainfall has twopeaks: one in

### March and 

### another of equal tnaqnitude in July. The 

### Florida rainfall peak in 

### March is not as great as that of 

### Georgia, but the 

### primary

### difference is the 

### much larger, 

### sustained rainfall peak in summer and

### earlyfall in

### Florida. Inboth areas, there are 

### drought periods 

### during mid to late fall. Spectral 

### analysis of 

### long-term trends (Figure 10) 

### indicate that, 

### while rainfall is 

### highly variable, there are 

### certain long-term trends. 

### Florida (Apal

### achicola) 

### rainfall has 

### RO-month ('i."'-yr) 

### cycles in peak 

### reoccurrence, 

### while 

### Georgia rainfall has a 

### slightlydifferent spectrum. 2.^.3. 

### Wind

Wind 

### direction is 

### predominantly from the 

### southeast during the 

### spring (March-May) and 

### southwest to 

### west 

### during the 

### summer (June-August). 

### Winds come 

### from the 

### north or 

### northeast during the rest of the year. 

### However, analysis of 

### long-term wind data indicates that there is wide 

### variabilityof

### wind

### velocityand

### direction over the 

### Apalachicola watershed at any given time. Tn the 

### shallowestuary, winds
can cause rapid 

### changes in the normal tidal 

### current patterns. 

### Southerly winds tend to augment 

### astronomical tides and

UJ 

## o < 560 a: 

## u > <
CO(5 400- 

# "I o 2 240-



## z 

## o

«> 

### 80- 

## RIVER

# FLOW

1920 I 1925 1930 I I 1935 1940 

### -400 LJ



## < ir
LlI 

## > < 300 CP



### 200

-100 

# T 

# T T 1945 1950 1955 I960 1965

# —

1

1970

# —

1 1975 O) 

## >o 

## o

liJ 

## O <

UJ



## o



## o

CD 24-

16- 6

### MONTH - 36

### MONTH 

# RAINFALL

1920 —I 1925 -|
1 \ 1930 1935 1940 -I \ 1945 1950 1955 -1 1 i960 1965 "1 1 1970 1975 

## YEARS UJ

C3 

## <

cr UJ

iS) 

## z > oo

CO fO



### Figure 10. 

### Six-month and 

### 36-month 

### moving averages of 

### Apalachicola River flow (cfs; 1920-1977) and 

### Apalachicola rainfall (1937-1977). Data are taken from 

### Meeter et al. (1979).

12

### cause 

### abnormally hiqh 

### water 

### without the usual ebb.

The air 

### circulation over the 

### Gulf of 

### Mexico is 

### primarily anticvclonic (clock

### wise around an 

### atmospheric 

### high-pressure region) 

### duringmuch of the year. 

### However, 

### strong air 

### masses of 

### continental origin often 

### move through the 

### northern 

### Florida area, 

### especiallyduring the winter. 

### From 

### November to March, an 

### average of 30 to ^0 polar air 

### masses 

### penetrate the 

### Gulf each year. Storms are 

### usually formed along 

### slow-moving cold fronts in winter. 

### Tropical storms or

### hurricanes

### mayoccur in summer and 

### early fall. 

### Lesser storms often occur as 

### extratropical cyclones, 

### which tend to 

### move across the 

### Gulf from west to 

### northeast 

### during 

### winter oeriods (Jordan 1973). 

### Winter storms tend to be 

### more 

### pervasive in a 

### geographic sense, 

### while summer storms are often intensive, 

### short-lived, localized events. The 

### likelihood of the 

### occurrence of a 

### hurricane in the 

### northeast Gulf is about once 

### every 17 years 

### with 

### fringe effects about once 

### every S years (Clewell 1^78). The last 

### hurricane to hit 

### Apalachicola, 

### Hurricane Agnes, 

### occurred in June 197?. 

### Overland (1975) 

### showed that basin 

### orientation (relative to 

### wind 

### direction, 

### headlands, and 

### marsh areas) can 

### produce 

### variations in surge heights, which are 

### responsible for 

### much damage. 

### Livingston (unpublished data) 

### found that 

### Hurricane Agnes had no 

### sustained effect on 

### water 

### quality or the biota o^ the 

### Apalachicola estuary.

''.3. 

### HYDROLOGY

?.3.1. 

### Freshwater Input
The 

### Apalachicola River has the 

### highest flow rate (690 

### m^ sec"l at 

### Chattahoochee, Florida; 

### 1958-1^80) and 

### broadest flood olain (450 km? of 

### bottomland 

### hardwood and 

### tupelo-cypress forests) of any river in

### Florida (H. M. 

### Leitman et al. 1982). 

### Apalachicola River 

### discharge accounts for 35^ of the total <'reshwater runoff on the west coast of 

### Florida (McNultyet al. 1'572). Seasonal 

### variation (Figure Q) is high, with peak flows 

### from 

### January through April and low flows 

### from 

### September through 

### November. The 

### absence of a 

### summer

### river-flowpeak (despiterainfall peaks in the basin at this time) 

### may be 

### related to higher 

### evapotranspiration

rates in the 

### vegetation of the 

### watershed (Livingston and 

### Loucks l'^78). A spectral 

### analysis using data 

### from 1920 to 1977 (Figure 10) 

### indicated

### river-flowcycles on the order of 6-7 years (Meeter et al. 1<^79). 

### Indications of 

### longer-term cycles 

### were shown along with the 

### abnormally low river

### flowduring the

### mid-1950's.

In a 

### cross-spectral analysis of 

### Georgia rainfall 

### with river flow, the two 

### patterns were in phase (Meeter et al

. 1979; 

### Figure °)

. 

### The 

### analysis 

### indicated that the 

### Apalachicola River flow patterns 

### more 

### closelv 

### resembled cycles of 

### Georgia rainfall than 

### they did those of 

### Florida rainfall. This 

### pattern 

### should be 

### expectd since 

### only 11.6% of the 

### drainage basin is in 

### Florida, and the 

### remainder is in 

### Georgia. Stage 

### fluctuations vary

### greatly from upper to lower 

### river with the 

### narrowest ranges (from peak to low) at 

### downstream stations (H. M. 

### Leitman et al. 1982). Such 

### flooding patterns are 

### essential to 

### elements of the 

### hydrologyof the estuary. 

### Floodplain inundation varies 

### with location on the river and 

### reflects the 

### influence of natural 

### riverbank levees (H. M. 

### Leitman et al. 1982). Natural levees 

### within the 

### flood plain are 

### inundated only at high stages of river flow. The level of the 

### water table also 

### depends on river stage. 

### Fluctuations are 

### damped by 

### water 

### movement through floodplain soils. The levees of the upper river, where there is a 

### greater range of 

### water 

### fluctuation, are 

### higher than those in the lower river 

### where the 

### flood plain is guite flat. Flood depths tend to 

### decreasefrom the upper to the lower river and rates of flow in the upper river 

### floodplain are 

### generally less than those along the 

### middle and lower 

### reaches of the river. The height of the natural levees and the size and

### distribution of breaks in the levees all control the 

### hydrological 

### conditions of the river 

### flood plain. Such 

### hydrological conditions, in turn, control the 

### form and 

### distribution of 

### floodplain vegetation (H. M. 

### Leitman et al

. 1982).
2,3.2. Tides and

### Currents


### Franklin

### Countystraddles aregion of 

### transition between the diurnal tides of

13

### west 

### Florida and the 

### semidiurnal tides on the

### Gulf peninsula. Tides at

### Aoalachicola
are diurnal to 

### semidiurnal, with 

### "uncertainties" 

### concerninq the 

### selection of a 

### "typical" tide

### pattern for each

### month (Conner et al. I'^Sl). 

### Tides in the 

### Apalachicolaestuaryare 

### influenced by the 

### main entrances and 

### smaller passes. Tidal ranqes 

### vary 

### from 0.13 m (0.^3 ft) at Doq Island near the 

### eastern end of the

### estuary to 0.?3 m (0.75 ft) at East Pass. 

### Gorsline (1963) 

### classified this 

### estuary as 

### "unsymmetrical and 

### semidiurnal except 

### durinq periods of 

### stronq wind 

### effect." 

### While currents in the

### Apalachicola estuary are 

### tide-dominated, 

### they are also 

### dependent on local 

### physioqraphic conditions and 

### wind soeed and 

### direction (Livinqston 1<578). 

### River 

### discharqe has 

### little influence on the 

### hydrodynamics of the 

### partially stratified 

### estuary (Conner et al. 1°81). 

### Shallow estuaries such as the 

### Apalachicola are 

### wind 

### dominated in terms of 

### flushing and 

### current 

### movement. The 

### wind can be up to three times 

### more important than the tidal input in the 

### determination of 

### current 

### strength and 

### direction (Conner et al. 1981).

Net flows tend to 

### move to the west 

### from St. 

### George Sound; East 

### Ray 

### water merqes with the

### westwardflow (Fiqure 11). 

### West Pass appears to be a

### maior outlet for the 

### discharge of 

### estuarine water to the Gulf, 

### especiallywhen 

### influenced by long

### term or high

### velocitywinds 

### from the east. 

### Water 

### movement through Indian Pass also 

### occurs in a net 

### westward direction, although the 

### Picoline Bar 

### may retard passage (Dawson 1955). 

### Estuarine currents

Figure 11. Net 

### water 

### current patterns in the 

### Apalachicola estuary as 

### indicated by 

### flowmodels developed by B. A. 

### Christensen and 

### colleagues. (A 

### detailed analysis of such 

### currents can be 

### found in 

### Conner et al. (1981).) 

### may be 

### affected by 

### excessive land 

### runoff

or high 

### velocity winds 

### from the east or west. 

### Strong north to 

### northeast winds 

### deflect water

### downwind and to thewest. 

### Gorsline (1963) 

### estimated a tidal 

### prism equal to about ?0^ of the bay

### water volume, and he 

### suggested that the 

### residence time of river 

### water in the 

### estuaryranges 

### from a

### fewdays to amonth. The two 

### western passes account for over 669$ of the total 

### bay 

### discharqe, even though 

### they account for 

### only 10°4 of the inlet area 

### (Gorsline 1'563). The bulk of river 

### flowexits through these passes, and the 

### effects of river 

### flow on 

### salinitycan be felt ?65 km (165

### miles) 

### offshore in the gulf. Tidal deltas 

### extend 

### seaward from Indian Pass, West Pass, and East Pass, 

### indicating 

### appreciable sediment 

### transport through 

### these areas. 

### Current 

### velocities in the bay 

### rarely exceed 0.5 m sec"^, 

### while velocities in the passes 

### may reach 2-3m sec"l.

?.4. 

### PHYSICAL/CHEMICALHARITAT
Important 

### habitat 

### features of the 

### Apalachicola Bay 

### system include physio-

•graphic, 

### climatic, and 

### river-flow conditions. 

### While marshes (emergent 

### vegetation), oyster beds, and 

### qrassbeds (submerqent 

### veqetation) 

### represent important biological 

### habitats of the estuary. the 

### primaryphysical 

### habitat in terms of areal 

### extent is the shallow, 

### unvegetated soft 

### sediment 

### bottom (Table 1). 

### Within the

### myriad of 

### rapidlychanging gradients of physical and chemical 

### features of the estuary, 

### there are 

### certain 

### recurrent patterns and general trends that 

### remain

### more or less 

### constant in soace and over time. Such 

### water-quality features and 

### nutrient 

### distributions are 

### important 

### determinants of the 

### habitat 

### conditions in the

### ApalachicolaBaysystem. ?.^.\. 

### Temperature and

### Salinity

Because of the 

### shallowness of the 

### bay 

### system and 

### wind-mixing of the 

### water column, there is little thermal 

### stratification in the estuary. 

### Water 

### temperature is 

### hiqhlv 

### correlated (r = O.QO, p < 0.00001) 

### with air 

### temperature (Livinqston 1983c), which 

### indicates rapid mixing. 

### Summer 

### temperature peaks are 

### similar from year to year, with seasonal highs 

### usually in 

### August. 

### Water

14

### Table 1. 

### Distribution and area of

### major bodies of

### wateralong the 

### coast of 

### Franklin County (northFlorida) 

### withareas of

### oysters, 

### grassbeds, and

### contiguousmarshes.

### Mean 

### salinity values are lowest at the 

### mouth of the river and in 

### East 

### Bay (Table ?, 

### Figure 13). 

### According to the 

### Venice 

### system of 

### brackish water 

### classification, the lower 

### reaches of the 

### ApalachicolaRiver 

### constitute the 

### limnetic
zone, 

### with 

### salinities 

### reaching O.S parts per 

### thousand (ppt). 

### During periods of high river flow, the zone 

### expands to include East

### Bayand

### considerableportions of 

### Apalachicola Bay. 

### Because of 

### extreme seasonal and annual 

### variability, there are
no 

### clear-cut zones that 

### remain 

### stable in the bay system. Rather, the 

### salinity

gradients move 

### through the bay area 

### according to upland runoff 

### conditions. East Bay, lying 

### northeast of the river head, is 

### oliqohaline (O.'i-'i.O ppt) 

### durinq most of the 

### year (Figure 13). 

### Apalachicola Bay, St, 

### Vincent Sound, and 

### westernportions of St. 

### George Sound

### vary between 

### mesohaline (5-18' ppt) and 

### polyhaline (18-30 ppt) 

### conditions, 

### depending on river 

### flow and upland 

### runoff 

### (Livingston 1983d). Areas near the passes and inthe

### eastern sections of St. 

### George



## SALINITY (ppt) FWOuEW oiSTRiauriON or o»ia<K»nvalues imeachuexei 

# TURBIDITY(Jacksonturbityunits)

FREOUENCYaSTSIBUTIONOf OA'AOOINTVAIUES INEACHLEVEL

LEVEL L

# id^iiH

Mm%. 000 300 600 iO£K> IIOQ TOOL: Mo. TU 3X 60O tOOO 1500 2000 3500 I I

# HiHiIB1^1

000 1200
.200 1500 15.00 700 1900 2100 2100 2400



# DISSOLVED

# OXYGEN(ppm) 

# COLOR(Pt-Co units)

fHiO^itNCt r>iSt»<iBU*iON Oi L-iTi i.-:.!NTVA^UtS INEACHLtvtl

-r---]

# QABil fRfOufWCYOtSTHISUTlON OF '.^ATaoOINtVALUES INEACH LtVSl

LEVCL I 2_

Vr pe*r OOC 500 '5C 300 y^C> 900 »o. p(n^ 500 75C eOO 850 900 iOOO 

# :]diiiM

"li fSEQ 4 ? •>

M.rptco 000 2000 4QCX) 550C moO 9000 Moi IIICO2000 4000 5500 7000 9000 16000



### Figure 13. 

### SYNMAP

### projections of 

### average levels of 

### salinity, 

### dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and color at 

### permanent stations in the 

### Apalachicola estuary, based on data taken

### monthly from 1972-1980.

16

### Sound vary 

### from 

### polyhaline to 

### euhaline (> 10 ppt) 

### conditions. 

### Gorsline (1'363) 

### alluded to the vertical 

### isohaline 

### conditions of the

### estuaryexcept for areas that are deep or near the inlets. 

### Livinqston (1*^78, 1984a), however, has 

### documented seasonal vertical 

### salinity stratification in 

### various parts of the estuary, 

### especially in areas 

### affectedmost 

### directly by the river. 

### Differences of 

### surface and 

### bottom 

### salinities of as 

### much

as 5-10 ppt 

### during periods of 

### stratification further 

### complicate the exact 

### dimensions of the 

### salinityregime in

a given area of the bay 

### system through time. 

### However, by 

### most statistical measures, river 

### flow is the chief 

### determinant of the 

### salinity structure of the

### estuary (Meeter and

### Livingston 1P78). 

### periods of high local 

### precipitation

(Figure 14). 

### Salinitv qenerally peaks 

### during the fall 

### drought 

### (October-November), 

### Long-term salinity trends 

### followriver 

### flow

### fluctuations; low 

### salinitywas noted for a 

### prolonged period 

### throughout the 

### estuary during the 

### heavy river 

### flow 

### conditions of the 

### winter of 1972-73, 

### although 

### various 

### factors combine to shape the 

### long-term (multiyear) 

### salinity trends in the estuary. 

### Various statistical 

### analyses (Meeter and 

### Livingston 1978; 

### Meeter et al

. 1°79) have 

### made a 

### strong 

### association of 

### Apalachicola River flow 

### with the 

### spatial/temporal 

### distribution of 

### salinitv throughout the 

### baysystem.



### There are 

### persistent seasonal 

### patterns of 

### salinity in the 

### Apalachicola estuary, 

### although such 

### patterns are 

### modified byannual 

### variation of river 

### flow and 

### fluctuations of local rainfall. 

### Low 

### bay salinities 

### coincide with high river flows 

### during 

### winter and 

### spring periods; 

### secondarysalinityreductions occur in the 

### bay system during late 

### summer-early fall



### Table 2. 

### Bottom salinities in parts per 

### thousand at 

### stations in the 

### Apalachicola estuary. All data 

### represent 5-year means (1972-77) with

### maxima and 

### minima for this period. A 

### cluster analysis was 

### made to group the 

### stations 

### according to 

### salinity type.



### Apalachicola 

### estuaryareas 

### Bottomsalinities (ppt) Sta- Mini- Maxi- 

### 5-yr tion 

### mum mum mean



### OuterBay

### Riverdominated- 

### -1 

### -lA -IE 

### -IC 

### -IX 

## [—2 -3 0.0 3.0 

### 6.9 1.4 0.0 33.7 35.6 31.6 33.7 32.0

I

# —4 0.0 28.1 

### 0.0 22.0 

### 0.0 31.8



### Upper (East) 

### bay

# —

Sike's Cut4A

5 

## h—5A 5B 5C 6 0.0 

### 0.0 0.0 

### 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.2 28.0 

### 27.3 25.7 

### 27.8 23.0 15.7 22.1 15.7 

### 20.4 17.8 10.4 

### 4.8 9.6
3.6 7.4 5.1 3.8 

### 4.3 3.6 Stotion 1

Q. a.



## < (A

i"riiiii'" iii "" i| I ' ""

I"

I ' I ""

I |i" iii'Mii| 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 I97e 1979 1980 1981 1982

Station2

a. a.



## < CO

IB 10.6 35.5 28.6 "

I""

I I"""

I'""

I I I I 'I I I

1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 

### YEARand

### MONTH

Figure 14. 

### Surface 

### salinity (5-month 

### moving averages) at 

### stations 1 and 5 

### (Apalachicola Bay, East Bay) taken

### monthly from 1972 

### through 1982.

17?.4.'. Dissolverl

### Oxygen
Diurnal and seasonal 

### variations of 

### dissolved oxygen (Figure 1"^) 

### reflect biological and physical 

### processes in the svstem. 

### Maximum levels 

### usually occur 

### duringwinter and 

### spring

### months because of low 

### water 

### temperature and, to a lesser degree, low salinity. 

### During summer and fall periods, vertical 

### stratification of 

### dissolved oxygen is 

### evident in 

### various parts of the estuarv. Spatial 

### distribution of mean 

### dissolved oxvgen values (Figure 13) is not uniform; the 

### highest values occur in the upper 

### reaches of East 

### Bav (i.e.. 

### Round Bay), iust off St. 

### George Island (i.e., 

### Nick's Hole), and alona the 

### eastern side of St. 

### Vincent Island. 

### Concentrations of 

### dissolved oxygen in 

### most of the 

### estuary during the 10-vr

### period of 

### observation are 

### sufficient to 

### support most forms of 

### estuarine biota (Figure 1'^)

. No sign of cultural 

### eutrophication is evident. The 

### long-term pattern of 

### dissolved oxyqen 

### maxima followed the 

### long-term

### temperature trends, 

### with 

### dissolved oxygen 

### peaking 

### during the 

### cold 

### winters from \^''6 to 1'378. Such 

### changes 

### represent an 

### indirect effect of 

### temperature on 

### long-termhabitat 

### variation in the estuary.
?.4.3. _pH


### From 1^7? to I'^S?, the pH 

### throughout most of the bay 

### system ranged 

### between fi and P 

### (Livingston lQ?^3c, unpublisheddata). However, 

### relatively low pH levels (4-5) 

### were observed in upper 

### portions of East Bay during periods of heavy local rainfall and runoff from newly 

### cleared lands in Tate's Hell Swamp 

### (Livingston 1978). Such 

### changes were 

### temporary and, overall, the pH of the 

### Apalachicola Bay 

### system remains 

### within a range that is not 

### limiting tomost life forms.

"^

.^

.^

. Water Color and

### Turbidity Light 

### transmission, as 

### determined by color 

### (measured in 

### platinum-cobalt units) and 

### turbidity (in .lackson 

### Turbidity Units), is a 

### key 

### variable in the 

### timinq and 

### distribution of 

### orimary and 

### secondary 

### productivity in the estuarv. The spatial and temporal 

### distributions of 

### water color and turbiiHity (Figures 13, 16, 17) are 

### related to patterns of 

### fresh-water flow into the bav system. The 

### highest levels

of both 

### factors are found at the

### mouth of the river and 

### throughout upper East 

### Bay with 

### clear-cut gulfward gradients. Both 

### color and 

### turbidity reach seasonal hiqh levels 

### during 

### winter and 

### early spring periods of hiqh river 

### flow and 

### overland runoff. 

### During the

### major flooding in the 

### winter of 197?-73, 

### turbidity and color in the 

### estuaryreached a 10-yr high point at 

### most stations. 

### While the general 

### pattern of color in the 

### estuaryfollows river 

### flow 

### fluctuations, the 

### highest levels 

### occurred in 

### eastern East Bay. The color was 

### directly associated with 

### forestry activities and

### runoff from the

### Tate's Hell 

### Swamp 

### (Livingston 1"578). 

### Various 

### compounds such as tannins, lignins, and



## „

### fulvic acid 

### complexes, which 

### occur 

### naturally in the upland swamps, are

### washed into the 

### estuary durinq periods of high local 

### precipitation. Such 

### water-qualitv changes, 

### associated with river 

### flow and local rainfall, affect the 

### biological 

### organization of the 

### bay

### system in terms of 

### primary 

### productivity and 

### food 

### web 

### structure (Livingston ic)83b-d).

'.S. 

### BIOLOGICAL HABITATS

The

### Aoalachicoladrainage system as a 

### whole is an almost 

### unbroken series of natural 

### habitats, which include 

### upland 

### vegetation, swamps, 

### marshes, and 

### flood plain 

### wetlands. Much of the basin 

### vegetation has the 

### appearance of a

### mature forest 

### because of rapid 

### regrowth. Slash and 

### longleaf pine are 

### abundant in 

### upland areas. 

### Although several 

### municipalities

are 

### located near or 

### within the 

### Apalachicola and 

### Chipola flood plains. none is a 

### major urban center; there is 

### little 

### industrialization in the basin. The 

### dimensions of the biological 

### habitats 

### within the bay 

### system and its 

### associated 

### watershed (i.e., 

### Franklin County) are given in 

### Tables 1 and ?. 

### Aquatic areas, 

### together with 

### forested and 

### nonforested wetlands, 

### comprise about 42% of the total area of 

### Franklin County. As noted 

### previously, 

### aquatic areas are

### dominated by 

### unvegetated

### soft-bottomsubstrates.

2.5.1. 

### Wetlands

a. 

### Bottomland hardwoods

. The 

### Apalachicola flood plain (Figure 18) of the upper river is 

### relatively narrow

a.



### o o o

I z>

>-

## ^
I- "2 

### 5^ 

### 5^

1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 B79 1980 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1979 1979 1980 1981 1982

O 

### o

cm 

### o _i 

### o o

<

1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 

### YEARand

### MONTH « 140

1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 ra78 1979 1980 1981 1982



### YEARand

### MONTH
Figure 16. Color (5-month 

### moving averages) at stations 1 and 5 in the 

### Apalachicola estuary taken 

### monthly from 1972 

### through 1982. 

### Figure 17. 

### Turbidity (5-month 

### moving

averages) at stations 1 and 5 in the 

### Apalachicola estuary taken 

### monthly from 1972 

### through 1982.

19

### Table 3. 

### Terrestrial habitats and 

### land-usepatterns in the 

### immediate

### watershed of the 

### ApalachicolaBay

### system (Florida 

### Bureau of Land and

### Water

### Manaqement 1977).



### Category
Residential Commercial, services 

### Transportation, utilities 

### Mixed urban or

### built-up areas 

### Other urban or

### built-up areas All urban or

### built-up areas Total area (ha)

2,461 178 218 27 39 2,922 % of total

1.3 0.1 0.1 

### 0.0 0.0 1.5



### Cropland and

### pasture Other 

### agriculture All 

### agricultural land 78

4 82 

### 0.0 0.0 0.0



### Herbaceous rangeland 

### Rangeland 13

13 

### 0.0 0.0



### Evergreen forest land 

### Mixed

### forest land All 

### forest land 

### 68,598

36,396 

### 104,994 35.7

18.9 54.6



### Streams and 

### canals Lakes 

### Reservoirs Bays and 

### estuaries All 

### water 1,469

452 10 

### 62,879 64,810 0.8

0.2 

### 0.0 24.3 25.4



### Forested

### wetland Nonforestedwetland All 

### wetlands 25,562

8,465 

### 34,027 13.3



### 4.4 17.7



### Beaches 

### Quarries andpits 

### Transitional areas All barren land

Total area of 

### FranklinCounty: 1,441

25 110 1,575


### 198,398 0.7



### 0.0 0.1 

### 0.8

(l.'^-S.O km or O.^'-l.Q mi wide). The 

### forested flood plain 

### broadens along the lower river (up to 7 km or 11.3 mi wide), 

### with most of the 

### flood-plain wetlands located in the lower 

### delta (H. M. 

### Leitman et al. 1982). The 

### forested

### floodplain of the 

### Apalachicola basin is the 

### largest in 

### Florida (450 km?, 173mi?; 

### Wharton et al

. 1977), and 60 of the 211 

### tree species in 

### north 

### Florida are 

### found 

### there (Table 4). The 

### predominant soecies in terms of cover



### include 

### water tupelo, 

### ogeechee tupelo, 

### baldcypress, 

### Carolina ash, swamp tupelo, 

### sweetgum, and 

### overcuo oak. 

### These soecies
are typical of 

### southeastern alluvial flood plains and occur in such areas 

### partially because of their 

### adaptive 

### response to 

### restricted 

### availability of 

### oxygen in 

### saturated and 

### inundated soils. 

### Despite 

### continuous loggingfor over a century, the

20Table 4. A. Tree species found in the

### Apalachicola floodplain (from

### Leitman 1983and H. M. 

### Leitman et al. 1982). Included is the 

### relative basal area (inpercent) ofthe top 25 species. B. Area, in acres, of each

### mappingcategoryfor five 

### reaches ofthe 

### ApalachicolaRiver (from

### Leitman 1983).

Common name 

### Scientific name
Ash, 

### Carolina Green 

### Pumpkin 

### Baldcypress Birch, river Boxelder Bumelia, 

### buckthorn 

### Buttonbush 

### Chinaberry Cottonwood, swamp 

### Cypress Dogwood, stiffCornell (swamp dogwood'^) Elm, 

### American 

### Slippery Winged Grape 

### Hawthord, green 

### Parsley Hickory, 

### water 

### Hornbeam, 

### American Locust, water Maple, red 

### Mulberry, red Oak, 

### cherrybark diamond-leaf laurel



### overcup swamp

### chestnut water Palmetto, cabbage 

### Persimmon, common Pine, 

### loblolly spruce 

### Planertree (water-elm^) 

### Possumhawholly Silverbell, little 

### Sugarberry (hackberry) Swamp-privet 

### Sweetbay Sweetgum 

### Sycamore, 

### American Titi 

### Fraxinus 

### carolinianaMill. (5.4)



### Fraxinuspennsyl

### vanicaMarsh. (2.9 

### Fraxinusprofunda (Bush.) Bush. (1.9) 

### Taxodiumdistichum (L.) Rich. (10.6) 

### Betulanigra L,

### TO, (0, 

### Acer 

### nequndo L. 

### Bumelia lycioides (L.) Pers. 

### Cephalanthus occidentalis L. 

### Meliaazedarach L.^ 

### Populus heterophylla L

. (0.4) see 

### baldcypress Cornus 

### foemina Mill

. rCornus 

### stricta Lam.b) Ulmus 

### americana L. (2

.4 ) 

### Ulmus rubraMuhl. 

### Ulmus alataMichx.
Vitis spp.c 

### Crataegus viridis L. 

### Crataegusmarshallii Egqle. 

### Carya aquatica (Michx. f.) Nutt. (2.^) 

### Carpinus 

### carolinianaWalt. (2.0) 

### Gleditsia aquaticaMarsh. 

### Acer 

### rubrum L. (1.5) 

### Morus rubra L. 

### Quercus falcataMichx., var. 

### paqodaefolia Ell 

### Quercus 

### laurifoliaMichx. (2.5) 

### Quercus 

### hemisphaerica Bartr. (£. laurifolia Michx. '^) 

### Quercus lyrataWalt. (3.2) 

### Quercus

### prinus L. (Q_. 

### michauxii Nutt.^) (0.3) 

### Quercus nigra L. (1.8) Dalmetto (Walt.) Sabal 

### Diospyros 

### virqiniana L Pinus taeda L. Pinus 

### glabraWalt. 

### Planera aquaticaGmel

. Ilex

### deciduaWalt. (0. Lodd.

(2.9)


### Halesiatetraptera Ellis. (_H. 

### parviflora Michx.'') 

### Celtis laevigataWilld. (2.8) 

### Forestiera acuminata (Michx.) Poir, 

### Magnoliavirqiniana L. (1.0) 

### Liquidambar styraciflua L. (4.8) Platanus 

### occidentalis L

. (0.6) Cyrilla

### racemiflora L.

(continued)

21

### Table 4. (Concluded.



### Common name 

### Scientificname
Tupelo, 

### Ogeechee 

### water swamp (blackgum)
black (sourgum)


### Viburnum, 

### witherod Walnut, black 

### Willow, black 

### Nyssa ogeche Bartr. (11.0)



### Nyssaaquatica L. (29.9) 

### Nyssa

### bifloraWalt. (N. 

### sylvatica var. biflora (Walt.) Sarg.b)

### X5.0) Nyssa 

### sulvaticaMarsh. (_N. 

### sylvaticaMarsh.
var. 

### sylvatica^ ) 

### Viburnum

### cassmoides L. 

### Juglans nigra L. SalixnigraMarsh. (0.4)



### ^Introduced exotic species. "^According to

### Little (1979). 

### CRadford andothers (1968). <^Little (1979) 

### does not 

### recognizeQuercus

### hemisphaerica as a 

### separate species.

Acres B.

### Apalachicolafloodplain

### remains 

### relatively intact as a 

### functional 

### bottomland hardwood system.
Tupelo, gum, and 

### cypress species are 

### dominant in the upper 

### flood plain (Table 4). The lower 

### flood plain is 

### characterized by coastal plain pine 

### flatlands, coastal dunes 

### (shortleaf pine, titi, and bayhead) and 

### freshwater and 

### brackish marshes. 

### Various forest 

### associations occur in

### different regions of the basin (Table 4) (Leitman 1^83, H. M. 

### Leitman et al. 1982): (1) The 

### sweetgum/sugarberry/ water 

### oak/loblolly pine 

### association is 

### found in 

### dry to 

### damp soils or 

### wetland-toupland/transition areas. 

### These forest types 

### decrease in the area 

### within the basin as the 

### river 

### approaches the coast. (?) The 

### water 

### hickory/sweetgum/overcup oak/green 

### ash/sugarberry association covers about

78% of the 

### floodplain

### mainly in the uoper and 

### middle reaches of the river basin. This 

### association is not common in the lower 

### reaches of the valley. (^) The 

### water 

### tupelo/ogeechee 

### tupelo/baldcypress association is found in 

### dry to 

### saturated soils and is 

### concentrated along

### waterways and 

### relict 

### waterways in the lower 

### reaches of the river basin. (4) The 

### water 

### tupeln/baldcypress association is 

### located in damp to 

### saturated soils along the 

### entire length of the river. 

### Pioneer 

### associations are 

### dominated by a 

### narrow zone of black 

### willow in areas 

### inundated


### more than ?^% of the time. 

### Marsh areas are 

### located along the lower river. 

### Water depth, 

### duration of 

### inundation and 

### saturation, and 

### fluctuations in 

### water levels all 

### contribute to the 

### composition of the 

### wetland forests. 

### These 

### conditions



### 100-YR 

## FLOOD HURRICANE 

## FLOOD ^^~~l 

### 1are 

### dependent to a larqe 

### degree on

### watershed runoff, flood plain 

### toooqraphic relief, and

### drainage 

### characteristics.

b. 

### Marshes

. 

### Most of the intertidal
areas around the

### estuarvare 

### surrounded by 

### freshwater, brackish, and 

### saltwater 

### marshes (Figure 19). The 

### freshwater and 

### brackish-water marshes are 

### characterized by bullrushes (

### Scripus spp.), 

### cattails

(Tvpha spp.), saw grasses (

### Cladium spo.), 

### cordgrass (

### Spartina spp.), and 

### needlerush

(Juncus 

### roemerianus ) . Salt

### marshes of the 

### region are 

### represented by black 

### needlerush, 

### cordgrass, Distichlis 

### spicata

, and Sal icornia spp. 

### Maior 

### marsh 

### develooment is 

### found along the lower flood plain and areas 

### adjacent to East Bay. 

### Thesemarshes
are

### dominated by

### mixed

### freshwater soecies. 

### Similar 

### marsh 

### associations are 

### found in the 

### New 

### River and 

### Ochlochonee River 

### drainages to the east. 

### Narrow stands of 

### brackish water marshes occur 

### intermittently along the lagoonal 

### interface of the

### Alligator Point 

### peninsula (at the 

### extreme east end of the system; 

### Figure 3) and along the 

### bayside portion of

the 

### barrier islands. 

### Limitedmarshes are 

### located along the 

### mainland east and 

### west of the

### AoalachicolaRivermouth. The East 

### Bay 

### marshes dominate the 

### system by area (Table 1) 

### with lesser 

### marsh development along St. 

### Vincent Sound and along the lagoonal 

### oortions of St. 

### George Island and 

### Dog Island. The

### marshes in the 

### entire bay 

### system 

### comorise 

### approximately l^% of the total 

### water surface.

The 

### Apalachicola marshes are 

### significant feeding and

### reproductive zones for various 

### aquatic and 

### terrestrial species 

### (Livingston lQR3c). 

### Vertical and lateral 

### stratification of this 

### habitat has 

### provided conditions that 

### house and 

### feed some of the 

### most important 

### species 

### (ecologically and 

### commercially) in the 

### river-baysystem.

?.S.?. 

### Seagrass Beds


### Grassbeds in the

### Apalachicolaestuary (Figure 19) 

### account for about 10% of the



# "=#^

:



### :^»^Mt>'*

Figure 19. 

### Distribution of the 

### marshes and submer'^ent 

### vegetation in the

### Apalachicola estuary (data 

### compiled fromaerial 

### photographs and 

### ground-truthobservations by

### divers) (see

### Livingston 1980a).
24total water area (Table 1). Except for 

### certain areas alonq the 

### eastern portions of St. 

### Georqe Sound, 

### submerqed 

### vegetation in the 

### Apalachicola estuary is light

### limitedbyhiqh 

### turbidityand

### water color. High 

### sedimentation and 

### resuspension of 

### sediments in the 

### estuary

### may also affect the 

### seagrass bed

### distribution. 

### Seagrasses and algal 

### associations are 

### largely confined to 

### frinqes of the 

### estuary at depths of less than 1 m. The largest 

### concentration of these 

### submerged grassbeds is in 

### eastern St. 

### George Sound; such 

### seagrass beds also occur in upper 

### East Bay, inside St. 

### George Island in 

### Apalachicola Bay, and in 

### western St, 

### George Sound. In East Bay, 

### freshwater and 

### brackish-water species (Val 1isneria 

### americana

, Ruppia 

### maritima

, and 

### Potamogeton sp. ) are 

### oredominant. Grass beds along the 

### mainland east of the river
are 

### dominated by 

### Halodule wrightii

, 

### Syringodium fil i

### forme

, and 

### Thalassia testudinum

. The 

### shallow lagoonal flats of 

### Alligator Point, Dog Island, and St. 

### George Island are 

### populated by 

### Halodule wrighti i

, 

### Gracilaria spp., and

### Syringodium fil i

### forme

. Few if any

### grassbeds are 

### found in St. 

### Vincent Sound.

As a habitat, 

### seagrass beds 

### provide 

### organic matter and 

### shelter for 

### various infaunal and 

### epibenthic invertebrates and fishes.

?.S.3. 

### Soft-BottomSubstrates

Muddy, soft 

### bottom 

### substrates 

### comprise about 78% of the ooen 

### water zone of the 

### Apalachicola Bay 

### system and are thus the 

### dominant habitat 

### form in the
area. The 

### relative 

### composition of the sand, silt, 

### clay and shell 

### fractions of the 

### sediments depends on 

### proximity to land, runoff 

### conditions, water 

### currents, and trends of 

### biological 

### productivity. Sediment type and

### associatedwater-guality 

### conditions in the 

### benthic 

### habitat 

### determine the 

### composition of infaunal and 

### epifaunal biological 

### components. 

### Recruitment and 

### community composition of the 

### benthic 

### invertebrates (meio^auna and 

### macrofauna) 

### maydepend on the

### distribution of 

### flocculent 

### resuspended sediments and 

### bedload transport. The 

### unvegetated, soft

### bottom habitat in the 

### Apalachicola Bay 

### system represents the basis for 

### imoortant food

### web

### relationships in the estuary. ?.5.4. 

### Oyster Bars

The 

### Apalachicola estuary is an ideal 

### environment for the growth and 

### culture of the 

### oyster (

### Crassostrea virqinica ) . The 

### oyster bars that cover about 1% of the 

### aquatic area of the bay 

### system (Table 1) are an 

### important habitat 

### for various 

### assemblages of 

### estuarineorganisms. Malor 

### oyster beds are located in St. 

### Vincent Sound, 

### west St. 

### Georqe Sound, and the East 

### Bay-Apalachicola Bay 

### complex (Figure ?0). New 

### (constructed or 

### artificial) 

### oyster reefs stq located in 

### eastern portions of St. 

### Vincent Sound. The 

### highlyproductive natural 

### oyster bars of St. 

### Vincent Sound and

### western St. 

### George 

### Sound

### represent the 

### primary concentrations of 

### commercial oysters in the estuary. The 

### waters of both areas are well 

### circulated by the 

### prevailing currents and are 

### characterized by 

### salinityconditions optimal for 

### oyster 

### propaqatinn and 

### qrowth (l.ivinqston 1983c, d). The reefs near the 

### seaward edqe of the bay thrive when the river is high 

### while those near the river 

### mouth do well 

### duringconditions of lowwater.


### Whitfield and 

### Beaumariage (1977) 

### estimate that about 40''^ of 

### Apalachicola Bay is 

### suitable for 

### growing oysters but that 

### substrate type is a 

### major limiting factor. 

### Rapid oyster growth due to 

### favorable environmental conditions accounts for the fact that over 90% of 

### Florida's oysters (8%-10%

### nationally) come 

### from the

### Apalachicolaestuary.
?.5.5. 

### NearshoreGulf

### Environment

The 

### shallow 

### nearshore gulf is a 

### drowned alluvial plain 

### grading into a 

### limestone plateau to the east and south 

### (McNulty et al. 1972). The 

### eastern Gulf of 

### Mexico is 

### characterized by

### moderately high-enerqy sand beaches. The north qulf coast 

### sedimentaryprovince contains relict sand 

### west of the

### Apalachicola delta. The 

### Miocene relict sands and clays off the 

### Apalachicola embayment qrade into 

### quartz sand andmud over 

### limestone 

### characteristic of the 

### extreme eastern gulf region. Much of the

### water

### motion along the 

### shallowWest 

### Florida Shelf is due to tides, 

### although 

### wind effects are evident, 

### especially in 

### winter when cold 

### fronts move 

### through the
area. The 

### high-salinity coastal waters arewell 

### mixedexcept 

### durinqwarmermonths

25

### Figure 20. 

### Distribution of 

### oyster bars and 

### sediments in the

### Apalachicola estuary (data from 

### historic records, personal 

### information from

### oysterdealers in

### Apalachicola, field 

### observations by F.S.U. 

### field personnel, and 

### records from the 

### Florida 

### Department of Natural 

### Resources) (Livingston 1980a). (This chart is 

### currently being 

### updated.)
when a 

### thermocline separates the 

### cooler 

### bottomwaters 

### from the 

### surface-waters.
Organisms in 

### near-shore areas are part of a 

### temperate sand 

### community (Jones et al. 1<573; Smith 1P74). The 

### shallow (10-20 m) 

### shelf benthos 

### reflects the 

### intrusion of tropical 

### species in both 

### sandy areas and 

### rocky 

### outcrop substrates. The

### northeastern gulf lies in the

### Carolina ZoogeographicRegionwith a

### warm-temperate fish fauna. 

### Fish 

### assemblages are 

### characterized by high 

### endemism and hiqh 

### species 

### diversity due, in part, to a 

### number of 

### eurythermic tropical species. 

### The 

### northeastern Florida gulf coast has a 

### relatively high 

### fishery potential for 

### crustaceans and 

### finfishes (Jones et al. 1973; 

### Smith 1974).

2.6. 

### NATURAL

### RESOURCES OFTHE 

### APALACHICOLADRAINAGE 

### SYSTEM

There are several natural 

### attributes of the 

### Apalachicola drainage system that 

### make it 

### unique among 

### Florida and 

### North American river 

### estuaries (Livingston and Joyce 1977). The 

### strategic placement of the 

### drainage, 

### togetherwith the 

### relatively

unspoiled natural 

### comDonents--streams, rivers, 

### wetlands, estuary, 

### offshore gul^-- have 

### combined to 

### create the 

### conditions for 

### speciose and 

### unique 

### assemblages of 

### terrestrial and 

### aguatic 

### organisms. In 

### many ways, the 

### Apalachicola system is an 

### important dispersal route for 

### temperate species of plants and 

### animals from the high 

### elevations of the 

### southeasternUnited States to the

### Gulf ofMexico.

The 

### following is an 

### summaryof such 

### attributes: 

### abbreviated

1. The 

### Aoalachicola ranks as one of the great rivers of is the 

### largest river 

### Florida. It is the to 

### stretch 

### from the of

### Mexico. the 

### United States and (in terms of flow) in 

### onlyriver in 

### Florida Piedmont to the 

### Gulf

2. The area of 

### forested 

### floodplain is the 

### greatest of all river 

### systems in Florida. The 

### densely forested, bottomland

### hardwood

### wetlands of the

### Apalachicola River have the 

### highest litter-fall 

### production rates of the 

### worldwide warm26

### temperate systems that have been 

### studied (Mattraw andElder 1<380).

3. 

### Nutrient levels are 

### higher in the 

### Aoalachicola wetlands than in 

### most 

### comparable systems 

### throuqhout the 

### northern hemisphere. The 

### Aoalachicola wetlands 

### contribute significant quantities of 

### nutrients and 

### organic matter to river and 

### bay areas. 

### Regular seasonal 

### flooding by the 

### currently 

### free-flowing river is 

### necessary for 

### mobilization of 

### particulate organic matter (POM) and 

### nutrients out of the 

### floodplain (Mattraw and

### Elder 1980).

4. The 

### Apalachicola drainage system includes a grouo of 

### ecological regions that 

### contribute to 

### soeciose and unique plant 

### associations. The 

### flora 

### comorises 117 plant species, of 

### which 17 are 

### endangered, ?8 are 

### threatened, and 30 are
rare. 

### Nine 

### species are 

### narrowly endemic 

### while 71 are 

### endemic to the general 

### Apalachicola area (Means 1977).

5. The

### Apalachicolawetlands provide habitat for rich faunal 

### assemblages. The basin 

### receives 

### biotic 

### exchanges and input 

### from the 

### Piedmont, the 

### Atlantic Coastal Plain, the 

### Gulf Coastal "lain, and 

### peninsular Florida. The 

### floodplain forest, 

### with over ^50 

### species of 

### vertebrates, is one of the

### most important animal 

### habitats o-f the 

### Southeast (Means 1977).

6. Of the 

### drainages of the 

### Apalachicolan and

### West

### Floridian

### molluscan province (from the 

### Escambia River to the 

### Suwannee River), the 

### Apalachicola River contains the largest total 

### number of species of 

### freshwater gastropod and 

### bivalve 

### mollusks. The 

### river 

### contains the 

### greatest 

### proportion of 

### endemics to the total fauna in the 

### province, 

### with at least six VZV9, and 

### endangered soecies (two 

### Amblemids, four

### Unionids) (Heard 1977).

7. The tri

### -river 

### valley is 

### characterized by a rich fish 

### fauna (ll^i 

### species) (Yerger 1977). The 

### Apalachicola basin 

### contains more fish 

### species (85) than 

### any other 

### Florida river. 

### Three species

(

### Notropis cal

### litaenia

, N_. 

### zonistius

, 

### Moxostoma sp. ) are 

### restricted to the 

### Apalachicola River and its ma.ior 

### tributaries, while a 

### fourth species (the 

### "handoaint" bluegill, 

### Lepomis

### macrochirus) 

### originated in the system. 

### Existing



### freshwater sport and commercial 

### fisheries
are 

### diverse and rich. The 

### Apalachicola River is the 

### only river on the 

### Florida gulf coast that 

### supports a 

### striped bass

(

### Morone saxatilis ) 

### fishery (Livingston and Joyce 1977). TlTis 

### fishery is based on a 

### population that is 

### endemic to the river and 

### considered a 

### separate race 

### from the 

### Atlantic coast 

### striped bass.

8. 

### Excluding fishes, the 

### Apalachicola River 

### system contains over ?50 

### species of 

### vertebrates. The 

### highest species 

### densityof 

### amphibians and

### reptiles in 

### North

### America (north of 

### Mexico) occurs in the upper 

### Aoalachicola basin (Means 1977). The 

### abundant and 

### diverse bird 

### fauna is 

### concentrated in the 

### floodplain forests. Two 

### species 

### considered extinct, the 

### ivory-billed 

### woodoecker (

### Campephilus principalis ) and 

### Bachman's sparrow

(Aimophila 

### aestivalis), 

### were last 

### siqhted in the

### Apalachicola system. 

### These species
are part of a 

### growing list of 

### approxi

### mately fifty soecies of 

### amphibians, reptiles, birds, and 

### mammals that are 

### considered endangered, threatened, rare, of special 

### concern, or of 

### undetermined status.

^. The 

### Apalachicola estuary, 

### with its 

### barrier islands, 

### represents a ma.ior 

### flyway for gulf 

### migratory bird species. The 

### estuary has the 

### highest 

### density of 

### nesting osoreys (

### Pandion 

### haliaetus ) 

### along the

### northeast Florida gulf coast 

### (Eichholz

10. The 

### Apalachicola Ray 

### system is
one of the 

### richest and least 

### polluted such
areas in the 

### United States. The 

### estuary now

### provides over ^0% of 

### Florida's oysters and is part of a

### major spawningground for blue crabs along the 

### Florida gulf coast 

### (Livingston and Joyce 1977). The 

### bay serves as an 

### important 

### nurseryfor

### penaeid 

### shrimp and 

### finfishes and is 

### characterized by 

### some of the 

### highest densities of infaunal 

### invertebrates of any 

### comparable
area in the

### United States.

11. The 

### hiqhly 

### profitable 

### Apalachicola oyster 

### industry and 

### various sport and 

### commercial 

### fisheries 

### directly and 

### indirectly provide the 

### economic and cultural basis for a high 

### oroportion of the 

### peoole in the 

### region 

### (Livinqston iq83c).

27

## CHAPTER3 

## PRIMARYPRODUCTIVITY

# ANDNUTRIENT

## CYCLING

Most 

### aquatic systems such as rivers and

### estuaries depend on 

### sources of 

### organic 

### matter outside the 

### system (i.e., 

### allochthonous: 

### dissolved and 

### particulate orqanic matter from 

### associated 

### wetlands) and 

### within the 

### system (i.e., 

### autochthonous: 

### phytoplankton, benthic plants). 

### Tnorqanic

### nutrients (phosphorus, 

### nitrogen) and 

### orqanic 

### matter (dissolved, 

### particulate) are swept into 

### aquatic 

### systems by 

### rainfall, 

### overland runoff, and river 

### flooding. The 

### extremely complex chemical 

### processes involved in the 

### transformation of 

### nutrients into plant and animal 

### biomass
are not well 

### understood and are intri

### cately related to 

### microbioloqical activity. 

### One important qeneral

### ization based on the 

### long-term field studies is that the 

### Apalachicola estuary is 

### inextricably linked to the river in terms of 

### freshwater input and the 

### movement of 

### dissolved and

### particulateorqanicmaterial into the estuary. 

### River input is sea- 

### sonally and 

### annually pulsed, and such influx of 

### materials has an 

### important 

### influence on 

### allochthonous and 

### autochthonous sources of 

### orqanic 

### matter throuqhout the

### Apalachicola estuary. et al. 1P77; Elder and

### Cairns 1982; Elder

and 

### Mattraw 1^82; 

### Mattraw and 

### Elder 1980, 1982). Over time, the

### ApalachicolaRiver has 

### meandered in broad curves through the 

### flood plain, 

### Erosional and 

### depositional 

### processes have led to the 

### development of shoals, 

### backswamps, channels, sloughs, levees, and 

### oxbow lakes. The 

### dynamics of the 

### Apalachicola River affect the 

### transport of 

### dissolved and 

### particulate substances into 

### receiving aquatic areas. 

### However, such 

### transport of 

### allochthonous substances depends on 

### complex 

### interactions of river 

### flooding with factors such as 

### wetland productivity, 

### decomposition processes, the 

### timing and

### relative heights of the 

### flood staqe, the 

### heiqhts of 

### surroundinq lands, soil types, and 

### drainaqe 

### characteristics of the 

### flood plain. The 

### unifyinq 

### characteristics of the 

### wetland inputs are the 

### distribution and 

### environmental functions of the 

### bottomland hardwood forests of the 

### Apalachicolafloodplain (Figure 21).



### Nutrient fluxes and 

### primary 

### productivity of the 

### river-estuary system have been 

### studied for over a decade; the 

### followinq is a 

### review of the 

### available information 

### concerning the 

### Apalachicola system.

3.1. 

### PRIMARYPRODUCERS

3.1.1. Allochthor-ous 

### Sources

a. 

### Freshwater wetlands

. The 

### production and 

### decomposition of 

### orqanic 

### matter in the 

### floodplain wetlands represents one facet of 

### estuarine 

### productivity (Livinqston l<581a; 

### Livinqston EVAPO-TRANSPIRATION
RflIN

- DISCHARGE
STAGE^___^ ELEVATION ^
SOILSFLOODPLAIN f INUNDATION

> TREE DISTRIBUTION POSITION O^ 

# VLEAF PRODUCTION ATMOSPHERE

^NUTRIENTS DETRITUS



### RIVER

## BAY TRANSPORT 

# fJ

Fiqure 21. 

### Nutrient/detritus transport 

### mechanisms and 

### lonq-term fluctuations in detrital yield to the 

### Apalachicola River flow (modified

### from

### Mattraw andElder 1980 and

### Livingstonunpubl.).

28General plant 

### distribution in the 

### riverine wetlands is 

### associated with 

### topographic features of the 

### flood plain and 

### surroundingforested lowlands (Clewell 1978). H. M. 

### Leitman et al. (1^8?) 

### showed that the height of natural 

### riverbank levees and the size and 

### distribution of levee breaks control 

### floodplainhvdrologic conditions. 

### Vegetative 

### composition is 

### highly correlated with depth of water, 

### duration of 

### inundation and 

### saturation, and 

### water level. 

### Leitman (1978, 1983) and 

### Leitman and 

### Sohm (1981) 

### described in detail the 

### distribution of 

### floodplain trees in the 

### Apalachicola drainage. 

### According to 

### these studies, pine 

### flatwoods and 

### loblolly 

### pine-sweetgum associations
are often found on 

### elevated slopes 

### while


### more mesic hardwoods inhabit the levees. River banks are 

### occupied by 

### willows and birches. 

### Terraces or basin 

### depressions
are 

### inhabited by 

### hardwood swamp species. 

### Cypress-tupelo associations are often 

### located in sloughs. 

### Backswamps are 

### characterized by 

### blackgum and 

### sweetbay associations.

The 

### bottomland 

### hardwood 

### community of the

### Apalachicolafloodplainproduces larae amounts of

### potentiallyexportablematerial (Elder and 

### Cairns 1982). The 

### weighted
mean of litterfall was 800 grams m'^

### with overall annual 

### deposition 

### within the 454
km-^ 

### bottomland hardwood flood plain of 

### 360,000

### metric tons (mt) (396,7?0 tons) of 

### organic matter. 

### These 

### production levels
are 

### similar to those 

### observed in eguatorial 

### forests but are 

### higher than 

### those noted in cool 

### temoerate forests and 

### most 

### warm-temperate forests. 

### Levee 

### vegetation produced more litterfall per 

### ground surface area than did the 

### swamp 

### vegetation. The seasonal 

### distribution of litterfall was 

### characterized by a 

### sharp late 

### autumn peak. The three

### most abundant 

### flood plain tree 

### species (tupelo, 

### cypress and ash) 

### accounted for over 50% of the total leaf-fall, even 

### though 

### these 

### species
were the least 

### productive of those 

### analyzed on the basis of 

### mass-per-stem biomass.

Annual 

### flooding is a

### major factor for 

### mobilization of 

### substances out of the 

### flood plain. 

### Flooding leads to 

### immersion of litter

### material, 

### enhanceddecomoosition rates, and 

### transfer of the breakdown: 

### products (nutrients and 

### detritus) to 

### associated aquatic systems (Cairns I'^Bl,



### Elder -and

### Cairns 1^82). The 

### river is thus 

### closely associated with the rich 

### productivity of the 

### Apalachicola wetlands and is the 

### primary agent for 

### movement of 

### organicmatter out of the 

### floodplain. In this way, the 

### forested

### Apalachicola River 

### flood plain is an 

### important source of 

### organic carbon for the estuary. 

### Spring floods during 

### March and April of 1980 

### deposited 35,000 mt (38,570 tons) of 

### detritus derived 

### from litterfall into the 

### Apalachicola estuary (Mattraw and Elder 1982). 

### During one year of 

### observation, total 

### organic carbon 

### deposits in the bay 

### amounted 'to 

### 214,000 mt 

### (235,830 tons). Total 

### nitrogen and total 

### phosphorus inputs to the river 

### during the 

### same 

### periodwere 21,400 (23,593) and l,fi50mt (1,818 tons), 

### respectively (Mattraw and 

### Elder 1<582). The annual detrital 

### organic carbon input
was 30,000

### metric tons 

### (Mattraw and 

### Elder 1982). 

### Mattraw and

### Elder (1^82) 

### estimated that an 

### 86-dayperiod of

### winter and 

### spring 

### flooding accounted for 53, 60, 48, and 56 

### percent of the annual total 

### organic carbon, 

### particulate organic carbon, total 

### nitrogen, and total 

### phosphorus transport, 

### respectively. Flood 

### characteristics are 

### important 

### determinants of the amounts and forms of 

### transported materials. 

### While there was an annual net 

### export of 

### nutrients to the estuary, it is 

### likely that the 

### wetland system acted as a 

### nutrient sink 

### during 

### certain periods of the year. 

### Although nutrients are

### released to the river by 

### flood-plain vegetation, such 

### compounds are 

### subiect to active 

### recycling within the 

### receiving aquatic systems.

The 

### considerable exoort of 

### particulatematter from the 

### floodplain is 

### consistent with previous findings. 

### Livingston (1981a) and 

### Livingston et al

. (1976a) 

### found a direct 

### relationship between river 

### flooding and the 

### appearance of 

### micro- and 

### macroparticulate matter in the estuary. 

### Results of 

### long-term studies of the 

### significance of 

### river-derived particulate organicmatter to the 

### estuary (Livingston 1981a, b) 

### indicate that the exact 

### timing of the peak river flows and the seasonal changes in the 

### oroductivity of 

### wetlands vegetation are 

### key 

### determinants of 

### short-term fluctuations and 

### long-term trends of the input of 

### allochthonous organic 

### matter into the

29

### Apalachicola estuary (Figure 21). A linear 

### regression of 

### microdetritus and river flow by season (Table 5; Figure 22) 

### showed seasonal 

### differences in the 

### relationship of detrital 

### concentration and 

### river flow 

### (Livingston 1981a). 

### During summer 

### periods, there was no 

### direct 

### correlation of river flow and

### detritus in the

### estuary. By the fall, therewas still
no 

### significant

### relationship although there


### were occasional 

### influxes of 

### detritus with 

### minorpeaks in the river flow. By

### winter, however, a strong 

### direct relationship was 

### apparent between

### microdetrital loadingand 

### rivpr-flow peaks,



### differed from that loading, 

### associated required 

### comoarable detritus, the 

### degree

a seasonal The 

### winter rearession of the 

### spring detrital though 

### significantly river-flow levels, river levels for 

### concentrations and 

### loading of 

### This analysis indicates that and

### timing of 

### river

### flooding on basis affects the level of which, 

### with higher

detrital 

### loading to the estuary.


### There are 

### various additional sources of al

### lochthonous 

### nutrients and 

### detritus for the 

### Apalachicola River and 

### estuary

Table 5. 

### Linear 

### regression (log/log) of total 

### microdetritus (ash-free dry

### weight) and 

### river 

### flow (m^ sec"l) by

### month/year by

### season (August 1975-April 1980), at 

### station 7, 

### located at the 

### mouth of the 

### Apalachicola River. Data are taken 

### from

### Livingston (1981a). r = 

### Pearson 

### correlation coefficient.



### Station/month (Significance of r)



### Station 7 (Surface)


### June-August 

### September-November
December-

### February 

### March-May 0.08

0.48



### 0.70

0.77 

### 0.?3

0.23



### 0.49

0.60 

### 0.39863



### 0.03469

0.00188

0.00057

Station 7 

### (Mid-depth)


### June-August 

### September-November 

### December-February 

### March-May 0.35



### 0.19

0.64



### 0.68 0.12



### 0.04



### 0.40

0.46 

### 0.11809

0.25542



### 0.00570

0.00397

Station 7 (Bottom)


### June-August 

### September-November
December-

### February 

### March-May 0.08

0.21

0.77

0.55 0.01

0.04



### 0.60

0.30 

### 0.40243

0.22867

0.00037

0.02253

30JUNE-AUG ODEC-FEB

ASEPT-NOV 

### •MAR-MAYthe 

### Apalachicola estuary throughout the 

### oredominant in the spring, 

### while year (Table 7) 

### (Estabrook 1P73). In East 

### Skeletonema costatum

, 

### Rhizosolenia alata Bay, 

### Melosira granulata is the 

### dominant and 

### Coscinodiscus radiatus prevail 

### during species; 

### Chaetoceros lorenzianus is fall and 

### winter months. 

### Although the 

### dominant in 

### Apalachicola Bay. 

### Species 

### phytoplankton standinq crop is quite low such as 

### Chaetoceros lorenzianus

, at any given time, 

### phytoplankton 

### Bacteriastrum delicatulum

, and 

### productivity is often quite high in areas 

### Thalassiothrix frauenfeldii are such as the

### ApalachicolaBaysystem.



### Table 6. Net 

### above-groundprimaryproduction of

### marshplants in

### various salt

### marshes (Kruczynski et al. 1978b).



### Marshplant and Net 

### primary

### productivityg/m^/yr location LM UM HM 

### Authors



### Spartina alterniflora FL

### Table 7. 

### Presence/absence information for net 

### phytoplankton taken 

### from the 

### Apalachicola estuary by 

### month from 

### October 1972 

### through 

### September 1973 

### (Estabrook 1973). X =

### presence.

1 = 10/14/72 2 = 12/02/72 3 = 01/06/73 4 = 03/19/73 5 = 04/22/73 6 = 

### 05/19/73 7 = 06/11/73 8 = 

### 07/12/73 9 = 

### 08/22/73 10 = 

### 09/10/73



### Phytoplankter 10



### PHYLUM

### CHRYSOPHYTA
Melosira sulcata 

### Melosiragranulata 

### Melosira

### nummuloides 

### Melosiradubia 

### Melosiravarians 

### Skeletonema

### costatum Coscinodiscus radiatus 

### Coscinodiscus spp. 

### Coscinodiscus apiculatus 

### Coscinodiscuswailessi 

### Coscinodiscus excentricus 

### Coscinodiscusmarqinatus 

### Coscinodiscus centralis 

### Coscinodiscus oculus iTidis 

### Coscinodiscus nitidus 

### Coscinodiscus concinnus 

### Actinocyclus chrenberqii 

### Actinocyclus undulatus 

### Biddulphia sinensis 

### Biddulphia rhombus 

### Biddulphia aurita 

### Biddulphiaalternans 

### Biddulphia longicruris Eupodiscus 

### radiatus 

### Bellarochiamalleus 

### Triceratium favus Triceratiurn

### reticulum Hemiaulus hauckii 

### Chaetoceros spp. 

### Chaetoceros 

### lorenzianum Chaetoceros decipiens 

### Chaetoceros didymus 

### Chaetoceros 

### curvisetus Chaetoceros 

### coarctatus Chaetoceros bravis 

### Chaetoceros affinis 

### Chaetoceros 

### compressus 

### Chaetoceros 

### peruvianum Chaetoceros glandazii 

### Chaetoceros 

### pelagicus Chaetoceros danicum 

### Chaetoceros 

### constrictum Bacteriastrum

### delicatulum X X
X X

X X
X X X X
X X X X

X X X X 

### (continued)

33 X X

X X

X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X

X
X X

### Table 7. (Continued. )



### Phytoplankter

### Table 7, (Concluded. )



### Phytoplankter 9 10



### Dinophysis caudata Dinophysis diagenesis(?) 

### Dinophysis tripos



### PHYLUM

### CHLOROPHYTA
Pediastrumsimplex 

### Pediastrumduplex 

### Pediastrumtetras var. 

### tetraodon Scenedeslrius 

### quadricauda

Studies by R. L. 

### Iverson and his 

### students 

### indicate that 

### phytoplankton 

### productivity is an 

### important source of 

### organic 

### matter in the 

### Apalachicola estuary. Ingeneral, 

### phytoplanktongrowth depends on 

### temperature, light, and available

### nutrients (nitrogen, 

### ohosphorus) (Figure 23). 

### Temperature is the 

### primary limiting 

### factor for 

### phytoplankton 

### productivity in the 

### estuary during the 

### winter months. 

### Nutrient 

### concentrations and 

### possibly predation 

### pressure control 

### production from late 

### soring The 

### usually low levels of 

### productivity during the 

### way to peaks in April,
are noted 

### during summer 

### phytoplankton to the fall, 

### phytoplankton winter give 

### Secondary peaks and fall months.


### The average cA^ 

### phytoplankton 

### productivity (Figure 23) 

### rangedfrom fi3 to 1,694 

### mg C m"? 

## dayl (Estabrook 1973; 

### Livingston et al. 1974). The 

### relationship of 

### phytoplankton 

### productivity and 

### predation pressure from 

### zooplankton has not been 

### determined. However, since river 

### discharge is 

### strongly 

### associated with nutrient 

### concentrations in the 

### estuary (Livingston et al. 1<^74), such 

### factors as river 

### flow and 

### nutrients, 

### together with the general 

### ecological 

### conditions in the 

### estuary, 

### combine to control the phvto

### olankton

### productivityof the baysystem. 

### Despite 

### considerable spatial and temporal 

### variability of 

### phytoplankton productivity, 

### Eastabrook (1973) 

### estimated

an annual 

### productivity value of 371 g C 

### m-^ for the 

### Apalachicola estuary. 

### This



### figure was taken 

### from 

### averaged data (five 

### bay stations) 

### sampled 

### monthly over a 

### 12-month period. 

### Based on 

### these figures, the 

### phytoplankton 

### productivity from the 

### bay system 

### approximates 233,?84 t C vr"l 

### (257,070 tons C yr-1); for the 

### immediate 

### estuary (East Bay, 

### Apalachicola Bay), this 

### figure is 

### 103,080 t C yr-1 (113,S94 tons C yr"l). When 

### compared to

### productionvalues in other 

### estuaries of the 

### region (Table 8), the 

### phytoplankton 

### productivity and 

### chlorophyll _a levels in the 

### Apalachicola 

### estuaryare

### relativelyhigh.

b. 

### Submerged 

### vegetation

. The 

### relatively high levels of color, 

### turbidity, and

### sedimentation tend to limit 

### submerged 

### macrophytes to the 

### shallowest portions of the 

### Apalachicola estuary (Livinqston 1980c, ia83c). 

### Species 

### composition and 

### distribution of 

### seagrass beds are given by 

### Livingston (l^SOc, 1983c). A 

### major 

### concentration of 

### seagrasses occurs in 

### eastern St. 

### George Sound, which 

### remains 

### outside of the 

### influence of river 

### drainage (Table 1, 

### Figure 19). Such areas are 

### dominated bv 

### turtle grass (

### Thalassia 

### testudinum), shoal grass (

### Halodule wrighti i), and 

### manatee grass (

### Syrinqodium filiforme ) . 

### Seagrass beds are also 

### located inupper 

### portions of East Bay. Such 

### assemblages are 

### dominated by tape 

### weed (Vail

### isneria 

### americana), 

### widgeon grass (

### Ruppia

### maritimaTJ and sago 

### pondweed (

### Potamogeton sp. ) . Since the 

### early 1980's 

### Eurasian 

### watermil^oil

(

### Myriophyllum spicatum) has taken over

353 O

o '=

CL

_>» O 

### o 2000

### Table 8. Physical, chemical, and 

### productivity data taken from 

### locations along the 

### northwest gulf coast of Florida (from R. L. Iverson and his 

### students, 

### unpublished data, Myers 1977). Standard 

### deviations () are also given.

Station

### Table 9. Total annual net 

### productivityand net input to the

### Apalachicolaestuary (East Bay, 

### Apalachicola Bay, St. 

### Vincent Sound) and the

### ApalachicolaBay

### system 

### (Aoalachicola estuary, St. 

### George Sound, 

### Alligator Harbor). 

### Productivity includes (metric tons) 

### organic carbon 

### produced by the 

### ApalachicolaRiver 

### wetlands, coastal 

### marshes, phyto

### plankton, and 

### seagrass beds.



### Vegetation 

### Apalachicola

### estuary 

### ApalachicolaBay

### system

Net in situ Net input Net in situ Net input 

### productivity mt C

### yr~l 

### productivity mt C yr"l mt C

### yr~l mt Cyr~^ Season of



### maximum input



### Freshwater wetlands

Coastal 

### marshes
Phyto

### plankton
Seagrass beds 

### 360,000

37,714



### 103,080

8,953 

### 30,000 

### 360,000 30,000

37,714(?) 

### 46,905



### 103,080

8,953 27,213 27,213 

### winter/spring

46,905(?) late summer, fall(?)


### 233,284(?) 233,284(?) 

### spring and

fall

summer-fal 1

A

### review of the

### phytoplankton

### ecologv of the 

### Apalachicola estuary (Estabrook 1973; 

### Livingston et al. 1974, lQ76a; Myers and 

### Iverson 1977) 

### indicates that ohyto

### plankton 

### productivity is 

### relatively restricted to 

### conditions of 

### optimum 

### temperature and 

### ample 

### (available) 

### nutrients. Such 

### conditions occur 

### princioally in the spring, summer, and fall. 

### Multipleregression analysis (Myers and 

### Iverson 1977) 

### indicated that river 

### discharge 

### explained 209S-50^ of the 

### variability of 

### chlorophyll _a and phvto

### plankton productivity. 

### Nutrients were 

### positively correlated with river 

### discharge. 

### Temperature accounted for 26^ to 49% of the 

### variability in

### phytoplankton productivity. 

### Water 

### temperature was also 

### positively correlated with 

### phytoplankton productivity. Wind 

### speed was 

### positively correlated with 

### suspended sediments and 

### phosphate concentrations, increases in 

### which

### were 

### followed by

### increases in ohyto

### plankton 

### productivity. 

### Nutrient 

### enrichment 

### experiments indicated that 

### nutrients are 

### limiting 

### onlyduring summer and fall 

### (Estabrook 1^73) and that 

### phosphate is the 

### primary nutrient that limits 

### phytoplankton 

### productivity in East 

### Bay and 

### Apalachicola Bay (Myers and 

### Iverson 1*^77), 

### although both 

### nitrates and



### phosphates 

### may be 

### limiting in summer 

### (Livingston et al. l^^a).



## 2

<

N D J F M A 

## MONTH
Figure 24. 

### Monthly averages of 

### daily litterfall on 

### intensive 

### transect plots across the 

### Apalachicola wetlands (after Elder and

### Cairns 1982).
38

### Recently, 

### certainrevisions have been 

### proposed of 

### early concepts of 

### detritus 

### outwellinq from coastal 

### marshes (Haines 197Q). 

### There is 

### evidence of no net exportof 

### particulate organic 

### matter (POM) 

### from salt 

### marshes under 

### certain 

### conditions (Woodwell et al. 1Q77). 

### Odum et al. (1^179) have 

### hypothesized that net 

### fluxes of 

### POM from coastal 

### marshes depend on the 

### qeomoroholoqy of the 

### wetland basin, the 

### maqnitude of the tidal ranqe, and 

### upland 

### freshwater inout. In the 

### Apalachicola estuary, the tidal ranqe is 

### relatively small. 

### Marsh 

### distribution is 

### limited 

### larqely to the delta area (East Bay) and laqoonal 

### portions of the 

### barrier islands. The 

### considerable river 

### runoff and the 

### associatedexport of 

### orqanic

### matter due to 

### floodinq 

### would 

### amplify the 

### importance of the East

### Ray

### marshes 

### accordinq to the

### Odum model (Odum et al

. l^^yg).

The salt 

### marshes of the bay 

### svstem 

### contribute only a small 

### fraction of the 

### particulate orqanic loadinq to the bay 

### system 

### (Livinqston et al

. 1974), 

### althouqh such areas are 

### important 

### nurseries for 

### estuarine fishes and 

### invertebrates (Livinqston 1^80c). 

### However, the 

### marshes



### may olay a 

### role in the 

### export of 

### orqanic material to the bay system. 

### Ribelin and 

### Collier (1P79) 

### showed that local 

### marshes export detrital 

### agqreqates or films that 

### averaqe ?5-50 m in 

### thickness and are 

### produced by 

### benthic alqae 

### rather than by 

### microbial 

### decomposition of the 

### marsh plants. Tidal action lifts these

### films of alqae out of the 

### marshes, 

### especially durinq late summer ebb flows. Thus, 

### while the 

### vascular tissue of the 

### marsh qrasses is 

### decomposed beneath a layer of 

### benthic alqae, it is 

### essentially retained within the

### marsh proper. 

### Amorphous aqqreqates of 

### "nanodetritus" composed of 

### microalqae 

### may play a

### more important role in the 

### nutrient budget of the bay 

### svstem than 

### previously thouqht, 

### esoeciallyduring late 

### summer and 

### earlyfall periods.

The seasonal 

### abundance and spatial 

### distribution of 

### nutrients and 

### detritus in the 

### Apalachicola Bay 

### system result 

### from a 

### combination of forces, some of which are 

### quite 

### localized and 

### specific in nature. For example, the 

### timing and 

### magnitude of 

### localized 

### hydrologic events such as

Table 10. 

### Nutrient 

### yields for 

### various 

### drainage areas in 

### Chattahoochee-Flint River system. Data are 

### presented on an areal 

### Mattrawand Elder 1982). the 

### Apalachicolabasis (adapted from

### passinq thunderstorms, wind effects, and tidal actions are 

### superimposed over basin 

### characteristics such as depth and 

### bottom morphology. These, in turn, 

### may significantly influence 

### larqer-scale conditions such as 

### temperature, salinity, and light 

### penetration. The 

### large-scale seasonal 

### fluctuations of 

### important 

### climatic features, in

### combinationwith the 

### influence of local 

### habitat 

### distribution and basin 

### configuration, produce an 

### array of 

### processes 

### whereby organic matter is 

### incorporated into the

### estuarinefoodwebs.

The seasonal cycle of 

### nutrientdetritus flux in the 

### Apalachicola estuary has been well 

### established (Livingston et al

. 1976a; 

### Livingston and 

### Loucks 1978). 

### Huring winter and 

### spring periods of hiah 

### river flow, 

### dissolved nutrients and 

### particulateorganicmatter are

### washed into

the estuary. The influx is 

### concurrent with 

### salinityreductions. Peak levels of leaf 

### matter are 

### present 

### during these periods. One to two 

### months later, 

### wood debris and other forms of 

### particulates appear in the 

### bay system. In the spring,
as river 

### flow 

### diminishes, 

### temperature increases, and the 

### water becomes clearer, 

### phytoplanktonblooms occur. As 

### principally phosphorus, 

### become during summer/fall months, 

### productivity becomes 

### wind-mixed transfers of the 

### spring nutrients,

1imiting 

### phytoplankton dependent on 

### nutrients from the 

### sediments into the 

### water column. 

### During the 

### summer and

### early fall, local rainfall 

### enhances 

### nutrient 

### enrichment. At this time, 

### benthic 

### macrophytes begin to die off. The peak 

### levels of 

### macrophyte organic debris and



### Table 11. 

### Nutrient values (winter and summer) for 

### stations in the

### Apalachicolaestuary (means

## ±one 

### standard

### deviation of five 

### stations) and 

### River (Station 2) 

### (Livingston et al. 1974).



### Nutrient 

### Nutrient values ( g/1)

Site

### microaggreqates from the 

### marshes occur 

### during the fall as river 

### flow andrainfall
are 

### minimal. By late fall (November), 

### temperature drops and 

### salinity coincidentally 

### increases to an annual 

### maximum throughout the 

### estuary. Bv 

### winter, 

### temperature is low as river 

### flow
once againrises.

Even though the input 

### from 

### various
sources is 

### variable in terms of 

### magnitude
over time, the input of 

### particulate organic 

### matter to the 

### estuarv from all
sources is 

### fairlv constant. Thus, there is a 

### generally continuous influx of 

### dissolved and 

### particulate organic and 

### inorganic

### matter to the

### estuarythroughout the year; this 

### matter is then 

### subiect to 

### various 

### processes, physical and 

### biological, 

### which are 

### dependent on 

### specific 

### spatial-temporal habitat 

### conditions.

3.3. 

### MICROBIAL ECOLOGY

In the 

### Apalachicola estuarv, 

### approximately 0.005'^ of the 

### sediment dry 

### weight is 

### composed of 

### bacterial 

### biomass (organic carbon) and 

### COQ"^ is 

### composed of 

### extracellular carbohydrates (D. C. White, 

### Florida State 

### University; pers. comm.). 

### Usually, these 

### microbes are 

### concentrated
on

### particulate surfaces as

### morphologically diverse prokaryotic and 

### microeukarvotic assemblages (White 1*^83). The 

### ecological importance of 

### microbes to the 

### estuary is 

### defined by

### microbial biomass (which 

### forms the basis of food webs) and 

### microbial 

### metabolic activity (which 

### contributes to 

### various 

### bioqeochemical and 

### recycling processes). 

### White and his 

### coworkers have 

### quantified the 

### biochemical 

### "siqnature" 

### components of 

### specificmicrobial 

### community associations. 

### These components include 

### phospholipids, adenine-

### containing components, 

### muramic acid, and 

### hydroxy 

### fatty acids, 

### which 

### orovide biomass 

### estimates. 

### Communitycomposition has been 

### evaluated by 

### analysis of 

### phosoholipid alkyl 

### fatty acids 

### (prokaryotes 

### microeukaryotes) and 

### "signature" lioids 

### (anaerobic-aerobic bacteria). 

### Fattyacids
are an 

### excellent 

### measure of algae, and 

### other groups of 

### microeukaryotes can be 

### characterized by the 

### polyenoic 

### fatty acid 

### composition (Federle et al. 1°83). 

### Nutritional status was 

### analyzed by 

### measurement of

### poly-beta-hydroxyalkonates (PHA), 

### extracellular qlycolalyn, and

### other



### microbial 

### byproducts (White 1<583). 

### These 

### methods were used to 

### analyze 

### microbial 

### activity in the

### Apalachicolaestuarv.

A series of 

### experiments have been 

### carried out to learn the 

### fate of 

### particulate organic 

### matter 

### deposited in the 

### estuary as a 

### result of river 

### flooding. 

### Morrison et al. (I'^^y) 

### demonstrated a 

### succession of 

### microbiota that 

### colonized oak leaves 

### deposited in the estuarv. Initially, 

### colonization is by 

### bacteria with a hiqh 

### ratio of

### muramic acid to ATP. 

### These 

### bacteria are 

### succeeded by 

### diatoms and fungal 

### mycelia that do not 

### contain 

### muramic acid. Thus, initial 

### bacterial 

### colonization is 

### succeeded by a 

### community of fungi and 

### microeukaryotes. Bobbie et al. (1078) 

### found that 

### microbial 

### communities on 

### biodeqradable substrates such as leaf 

### matter are 

### biochemically and 

### morpholoqically

### more diverse than 

### those on 

### bioloqically inert 

### substrates. A 

### 10-fold increase in

### biomass on the 

### bioloqical substrates was also noted. 

### Grazinqamphipods 

### removed 

### microbiota without 

### affectinq the 

### morphology of oak leaves (Morrison and 

### White 1980). The 

### colonization of 

### mixed 

### hardwood leaves 

### from the 

### Apalachicola flood plain in the 

### estuaryvaried

### more as

a 

### function of leaf 

### surface than of 

### location (White et al

. 1977, 1979a, b). 

### However, 

### macroorganisms were 

### attracted to the litter baskets as a 

### function of 

### location rather than 

### microbial biomass 

### (Livingston

### unpublished data).

The 

### activities of 

### microbes are 

### inextricably linked 

### with 

### orqanisms at 

### hiqher levels of the 

### estuarine food web (Figure ?5). 

### Amphipod 

### distribution was 

### significantly correlated with 

### concentrations of 

### certain bacterial 

### fatty acids (White et al. 1979a, b). 

### Amphioods grazing at natural 

### densities induced 

### increases in 

### microbial biomass, 

### oxygen 

### utilization, PHB 

### synthesis, lioid synthesis, and I'^CO^

### releasefrom simple substances by 

### microbes (Morrison and 

### White 1980). 

### These chanqes 

### caused 

### qrazinq shifts in

### communitystructure fromdiatom

### funqal-bacterial associations to 

### bacterially dominated ones. 

### Within limits, 

### grazing thus 

### stimulates microbial 

### growth and alters the

### microbial communitv. 

### Indications are that 

### organisms graze on detrital and 

### sedimentary 

### microbiota and

41

### substantially affect the 

### microbial associations. Studies of 

### microbes in the 

### absence of 

### their 

### predators are not 

### sufficient if 

### comparisons with natural 

### ^unctions are 

### intended (White 1Q83).



### Recent studies 

### indicate that 

### estuarine microbial 

### associations in 

### polvhaline areas of the 

### bay are 

### actually 

### controlled by 

### epibenthic predators (Federle et al. 1'383). 

### Replicate areas (^ m'') of

### mud-flat sedimentwere caqed in the 

### field to 

### confine and 

### exclude predators. 

### Uncaqed areas 

### were used as 

### controls. 

### The 

### microbiota of the 

### sediments was 

### characterized at weeks 0, ?, and fi by 

### measurement of the 

### concentrations o^" 

### phospholipid and 

### analysis of the 

### fatty acids of the 

### microbial lipids 

### extracted from the 

### sediments. The data 

### were 

### analyzedusing an 

### analysis of 

### variance and 

### step-wise discriminant analysis. 

### After ? 

### weeks, the 

### microbiota of the 

### predator

### exclusion areawas 

### significantlydifferent from that in the control and 

### predator inclusion areas. 

### After R 

### weeks, these 

### differences became

### more pronounced. 

### There
were no 

### demonstrable caqing 

### effects that could 

### account for the 

### treatment differences. The results 

### indicated that removal of 

### predators had a

### profoundeffect
on the 

### microbial 

### communities in 

### estuarine sediments. Thus, we see that the 

### intermediate trophic levels 

### (epibenthic predators) of the 

### estuarine foodwebs are part of the control 

### mechanism that 

### defines the 

### structure and level of 

### productivityof the

### microbial communities.
Sediments and 

### particulate matter 

### deposited in the 

### estuary form a 

### substrate for 

### microbial 

### productivity, which is 

### stimulated by 

### dissolved nutrients in 

### various forms (Figure ?'i). The 

### transformation of 

### dissolved 

### substances into 

### living 

### particulate matter produces the food of important grouos of 

### grazing 

### organisms, which, in turn, 

### represent the 

### base of the detrital food webs in the estuary. 

### Grazing and other physical 

### disturbances enhance microbial 

### productivity and alter the 

### qualitative 

### composition and 

### succession of the 

### microbial community. The 

### oeriodic input of 

### particulate organic 

### matter and RIVER

### FLOW

RUNOFF 

### LOWSALINITY DISSOLVEDNUTRIENTS



### INCREASED MICROBIAL 

### BIOMASS

TIDALSUBSIDY WIND 

### DISTURBANCE 

# II
PHB/LIPIDS '"COj

### RELEASE Oj UTILIZATION 

# y

BASE,

### DETRITAL

### FOOD

### WEBS
Figure 25. 

### Tentative model of 

### microbial 

### interactions with 

### various physical and 

### biological 

### processes in the 

### Apalachicola River 

### estuary (Livingston 1983c).



### dissolved nutrients into a 

### shallow bay 

### ecosystem characterized by 

### gradients of 

### salinity is seen to 

### provide the appro

### priate 

### components for a 

### highlyproductive system. Tidal and

### wind-induced currents, 

### periodic flooding, and 

### predation all 

### provide a series of 

### disturbances that, 

### together with the 

### periodic 

### enrichment of the 

### system from 

### upland runoff, 

### increase 

### microbial productivity. River 

### flow and 

### fresh water runoFf from 

### associated wetlands, togetherwith the 

### shallowness of the 

### system and 

### tidal/wind 

### energy subsidies, all 

### contribute to the 

### observed high 

### productivity of the estuary. 

### Considering their immense biomass and 

### their role as 

### processors of 

### nutrients into 

### biologicallyactive

### material, the

### microbes
are an important 

### component in the 

### energy 

### transformations within the system.

42

## CHAPTER4 

# SECONDARYPRODUCERS

4.1. 

### ZOOPLANKTON

The 

### diverse 

### zooplankton represent an 

### important link 

### between the 

### phytoplankton and higher levels of the 

### estuarine food webs. 

### Almost 

### every ma.ior qroup of 

### organisms is 

### represented in the 

### zooplankton, either as larvae or as adults; great 

### variety is also 

### evident in the 

### relatively extensive size range of individuals. 

### Zooplankton have 

### marked differences in 

### swimming 

### ability and are often 

### dispersed in patchv, 

### somewhat 

### irregular spatial 

### distributions. 

### Zooplankton repackage organic 

### matter produced by 

### phytoplankton into larger 

### particles, 

### thereby 

### concentrating energy into forms 

### more useful to 

### higher predators. At the same time, 

### they

### excrete nutrients that 

### may again 

### contribute to 

### phytoplanktonproductivity. of the 

### estuary (Figure 26). Overall

seasonal peaks of 

### copepods in

### Apalachicola Bay are noted 

### from March to 

### August with 

### minimumdensities in

### Januaryand

### February. Optimal 

### salinities for the 

### dominant species, 

### Acartia tonsa

, range 

### from Ifi to 22 ppt. East Bay, 

### characterized by low but 

### variable salinity, has the 

### highest 

### variability in 

### zooplankton numbers over time. Coastal 

### waters have been 

### most 

### stable in terms of seasonal changes in 

### zooplankton abundance. 

### Apalachicola Bay also has the 

### highest species 

### richness of the three areas studied. 

### Cladocerans and 

### chaetoqnaths are 

### located 

### primarily in coastal waters. 

### Decapod larvae 

### throughout the 

### estuarv are 

### primarily crab zoeae; other 

### zooplankton include 

### polychaete larvae, 

### ostracods, amphipods, isopods, 

### mysids, 

### echinoderms, ctenophores, and 

### coelenterates.


### Zooplankton (Table 12) are among the least known 

### assemblages in the 

### Apalachicola estuary. 

### While the 

### dimensions and 

### interrelationships of the 

### zooplankton 

### community are 

### relatively poorly 

### understood in the 

### Apalachicola estuary, 

### certain factors such as 

### temperature, salinity, wind, 

### nutrients, 

### primary (phytoplankton) 

### productivity, and 

### predator-prey relationships are known to 

### contribute to 

### processes involving this group of 

### organisms. Net 

### zooplankton are 

### composed largelyof 

### holoplankton (plankton for 

### entire life cycle; about '^0%)

, 

### while 

### meroplankton (temporary plankton) 

### constitute less than lO?;! of the total (Table 12; 

### Edmisten 1QZ9). The 

### holoplankton are 

### composed 

### mainly of 

### copepods, 

### cladocerans, larvaceans, and 

### chaetognaths. Copeoods, 

### notably 

### Acartia tonsa

, are 

### dominant 

### throughout the estuary. 

### Apalachicola Bay

### supports higher numbers of 

### copepods than anyother 

### portion The 

### zooplankton mean 

### standing crop

(dry

### weight) in East 

### Bayapproximates 4.0 3 

### mg m"-^ 

### annually; in

### Apalachicola Bay, 32.1 

### mg m 

### m~3 yr~lyr-1. in coastal areas, 16.7 

### mg Peak 

### dry-weight biomass occurs in 

### May throughout most of the 

### study area 

### with 

### secondary increases 

### during .luly and 

### August (Figure 26). 

### Zooplankton 

### distribution is 

### influenced by changes of 

### temperature and 

### salinity through time (Table 13). 

### Edmisten (1979), using 

### analysis of 

### covariance with 

### temperature and 

### salinity as 

### covariates for 

### factors such as

### Acartianumbers, percent 

### abundance (of Acartia ) , total 

### zooplankton numbers, 

### zooplankton biomass, and 

### Shannon diversity, found 

### significant station and 

### monthdifferences in all cases (p - 0.02). 

### Temperature significantly influenced numbers of 

### Acartia

, total 

### zooplankton numbers (p < 0.01), andbiomass. 

### Salinity 

### significantly affected 

### zooplankton numbers, biomass, and

### diversity (p < 0.01)
43

### Table 12. 

### Distribution of the

### major zooplanktonqrouDs in the 

### Apalachicolaestuaryand 

### associated coastal areas (after 

### Edmisten, 1979). 

### Average values are given 

### from1973 

### through 1974. The symbol (+) 

### means l/m^ or less than 0.1%.



### Average 1973-1974 values


### ApalachicolaBay
^.

, (6 

### stations) 

### Zooplanktongroups 

### No./m^ % 

### No./m^ %



### Copepods


### Acartia tonsa


### Paracalanus 

### crossirostris

Paracal

### Table 12. 

### (Concluded.)

### Table 13. 

### Pearson 

### correlation coefficients (r) for 

### significant (p < 0.05) 

### zooplankton 

### relationships inEast Bay, 

### Apalachicola Bay, and coastal areas 

### (Edmisten 1979).



### Variable East 

### Bay 

### Apalachicola Bay Coastal areas


### Temperature vs. Acartia

### tonsa Total 

### zooplankton Zooplankton biomass 

### Salinityvs. Acartia

### tonsa %Acartia

### tonsa Total 

### zooplankton 

### Zooplankton biomass 

### Zooplankton

### diversity 0.45



### 0.50a 0.45 

### 0.58 0.58

-0.30 0.31 

### 0.40 0.51 0.463



### ^Significant at p ' 0.10.

less than ?0% of the overall abundance. The 

### evenness factor is 

### hiqher in the

### more stable 

### marine environment with 

### increased 

### representation by 

### cladocerans, decapod larvae, and other 

### cooepods (i.e., 

### Temora turhinata

, Paraclinus 

### parvus

, P_. 

### crassirostris

, 

### Oithona nanlT) 

### (Tdmisten 1<379)

. 

### Zooplankton biomass in coastal 

### waters is 

### correlatedwith 

### temperature (r = 0.46). 

### Zooplankton in 

### Apalachicola Bav has 

### characteristics of both the 

### inshore and 

### offshore components (Edmisten 1979). Overall numerical 

### abundancewas 

### highest in 

### Apalachicola Bay (Figure ?fi). 

### Numbers of and total 

### zooplankton biomass 

### follow general of 

### water 

### temperature, the spatial 

### distribution any Acartia 

### tonsa 

### abundance and seasonal trends 

### Salinity affects of 

### zooplankton in

### Apalachicola Bay at given time. 

### Salinity increases appear to be 

### associated 

### with 

### decreased relative abundance of Acartia tonsa

. At low 

### salinities, lower numbers of Acartia are taken 

### although this 

### species still 

### comorise

a hiqher 

### percentage of the overall zoo- 

### Dlankton assemblage at such times. Thus, 

### while temperature influences overall trends of 

### abundance through time, 

### salinity is 

### associated with the spatial 

### distribution and 

### relative abundances of 

### zooplankton in 

### Apalachicola Bay at 

### any given time. 4.?. 

### LARVAL FISHES



### Planktonic fish larvae, 

### derived from 

### either demersal or 

### planktonic eggs, are 

### common among 

### various 

### marine teleost species. 

### While it is well known that 

### estuaries have 

### relatively high levels of 

### phytoplankton 

### productivity and that such levels are 

### necessary for 

### feeding 

### aggregations of 

### zooplankton (Mann 1982), the 

### relationship o-f suchhigh

### productivity to 

### developing stages of 

### marine fishes is not quite as well known. 

### Lasker (1975) has shown that larvae of the 

### northern 

### anchovy (Engraulis 

### mordax) 

### feed on 

### phytoolankton and that there is a direct 

### association between 

### feeding 

### activity and 

### phytoplankton concentration. Thus, there 

### may be close 

### relationships between the 

### highly oroductive inshore 

### waters of the 

### Gulf and 

### develooing stages of various 

### teleost fishes.

The 

### relatively high 

### numbers of 

### ichthyoplankton in the 

### Apalachicola 

### estuary indicate the 

### importance of this 

### system as a

### nurseryfor fishes. The

### most abundant 

### planktonic form is the 

### bay 

### anchovy (

### Anchoamitchilli), 

### which accounts for 92% of the eggs and 7S% of the larvae taken 

### during a 

### year-long 

### survey (Tables 14, 15; 

### Blanchet 1978). 

### Other 

### relatively abundant larvae include 

### silversides

46Table 14, 

### Distribution of 

### ichthyoplankton in the

### Apalachicold estuary as 

### indicated by the 

### presence of eggs and larvae. Dotted lines 

### indicate sparse 

### breeding activity. Solid lines 

### indicate

### widespread and/or intensive 

### breeding as 

### indicated by large 

### numbers of eggs or larvae. Data are taken from

### Blanchet (1978),



### Month Species N D M A M N D


### Brevoorita sp. 

### Harenqula jaguana Anchoamitchili 

### Anchoa

### hepsetus 

### Gobiesox strumosus

. 

### Atherinidae Syngnathus scove1 1 i
.. . . 

### Syngnathus louisianae 

### Chloroscombrus chrysura Lagodon

### rhomboides 

### Bairdiellachrysura 

### Cynoscion arenarius 

### Cynoscion

### nebulosu? Leiostomus xanthurus 

### MenticirTWus sp. 

### Micropogonias undulatus
Poqonias chromis Sciaenop's 

### ocellata

.. Hypleuroc"hilus 

### geminatus 

### Hypsoblennius hentzi 

### Gobiosoma sp. 

### Prionotus sp. .... 

### Trinectes

### maculatus

(Atherinidae), 

### skilletfish (

### Gobiesox strumosus), gobies (

### Gobiosoma spp. ), aruT various 

### warm-season spawners. 

### Winter to 

### early spring types are 

### dominated by 

### Atlantic croaker (

### Micropogonias undulatus), spot (

### Leiostomus xanthurus), and 

### Gulf 

### menhaden (

### BrevoorTTa patronus ) . 

### Various other 

### sciaenid larvae are taken, 

### including red 

### drum (

### Sciaenops 

### ocellatus), 

### southern kinqfis"h 

### CMenticirrhus americanus), and the sand 

### seatrout

(Cynosci"on" 

### arenarius). The 

### abundance of total larvae is 

### highest in 

### western portions of 

### Apalachicola Bay, 

### largely because of the high 

### numbers of 

### Anchoa mitchilli

. Eggs of 

### most 

### species (except 

### anchovies) are 

### generally found offshore, 

### indicating that 

### few species 

### actuallyspawn 

### within the estuary. The 

### developinqstages of fishes 

### usually appear 

### within the bay



### system at 

### different times of the year. Areas in the 

### estuaryaway

### from the passes are 

### characterized by the 

### presence of 

### species that soawn 

### within the 

### hay (anchovies, 

### atherinids, 

### blennies and gobies). 

### Relatively large 

### numbers of 

### goby larvae are

### found at 

### West Pass.


### With the 

### exception of the gulf 

### oipefish (

### Syngnathus scovell i), 

### which appears to breed 

### throughout the year, 

### most 

### species have 

### specific 

### breeding seasons 

### extending from one to several months. 

### Anchovies have an 

### extendedbreedingseason although 

### they are 

### considered 

### warm-season spawners. Two peaks in total larval 

### abundance (April-May and 

### July-September) occur (Table IB). Larval 

### abundance and 

### species 

### richness are higher 

### during 

### spring months, however. Peak 

### numbers of

47

### Table 15. Numbers of 

### ichthyoplankton with larvae and 

### without anchovy larvae (in 

### parenthesis) taken at 

### various stations 

### within the 

### Apalachicola 

### estuary (after 

### Blanchet 1978).

### Table 15. 

### (Concluded.)



### Date Station

IC 

### Offshore IB Inshore



### Little St. 

### George lA

10/17

### Table 16. 

### Invertebrates taken in cores, 

### leaf-baskets, dredge nets, and otter trawls in the 

### Apalachicola Bay 

### system (1975-1983). Data are 

### derivedfrom

### Livinqston et al. (1976c, 1977), 

### McLane (1980), Purcell (1977), 

### Mahoney (198?), and 

### Sheridan (1^78, 1979). Recent 

### taxonomic updates are noted in

### Livingston et al. (1983).



### Phylum -

### Mollusca Class

- 

### Gastropoda Subclass

- 

### Prosobranchia Order

-

### Archaeogastropoda Family -

### Neritidae Neritina reel ivata Order

-

### Mesogastropo^a Family - 

### Calyptraeidae Crepidula

### fornicata 

### Crepidulaplana 

### Family - 

### Naticidae Polinices 

### duplicatus 

### Family - 

### Epitoniidae 

### Epitoniumrupicola 

### Family - 

### Hydrobiidae Texadina 

### sphinctostoma 

### Family - 

### Cerithiidae Bittium

### varium Order

-

### Neogastropoda Family - 

### Fasciolariidae 

### Fasciolaria tulipa 

### Family -

### Melongenidae Busycon

### contrarium Busycon 

### spiratum 

### Melongenacorona 

### Family -

### Muricidae Urosalpinxperrugata 

### Family - Columbel 1idae 

### Anachis avara 

### Mitrella lunata 

### Family - 

### Olividae

1ive 1 1a sp. 

### Family - 

### Thaididae Thais

### haemastoma Family -

### Marginellidae Prunum

### apicinum Subclass

-

### Opisthobranchia Order

- 

### Cephalaspidea Family - Bullidae 

### Bullastriata 

### Family -

### Retusidae Retusa canaliculata 

### Family - Pyramidellidae 

### Odostomia laevigata Order

-

### Anaspidea Family -

### Aplysiidae 

### Aplysia

### wiUcoxi Order

-

### Nudibranchia Nudibranch sp. Class

-

### Bivalvia

Bivalve sp. ? 

### Bivalve sp. x Order

-

### Mytiloida Family - Mytilidae 

### Amygdalumpapyria 

### Brachidontes exustus 

### Brachidontes sp. 

### Order

-

### Arcacea Family - Arcidae 

### Anadara 

### Anadara Anadara brasiliana
sp. 

### transversa Order

- 

### Ostreoida 

### Family - Ostreiidae 

### Crassostreavirginica Order

-

### Veneroida 

### Family - 

### Cyrenoididae Pseudocyrena f

### loridana 

### Family -

### Mactridae Mactra fragilis Mulinia lateralis 

### Rangia cuneata 

### Family - Solenidae Ensis

### minor 

### Family - 

### Tellinidae Macoma balthica 

### Macomamitchelli Tellina 

### texana Family - 

### Semelidae Abra 

### aequalis 

### Family - 

### Solecurtidae Tagelus plebeius 

### Family - 

### Dreissenidae Mytilopsis 

### leucophaeta 

### Family - 

### Corbiculidae Polymesoda caroliniana 

### Family - Cardiidae 

### Dinocardiumrobustum Class
- 

### Cephalopoda Order

-

### Teuthoidea (= 

### Decapoda) 

### Family - 

### Loliginidae Loll

### igunculabrevis Class
- 

### Polyplacophora Family - 

### Chitonidae Chiton 

### tuberculatus Phylum -

### Annelida Class

- 

### Polychaeta Polychaete (unident.)



### (continued)

50

### Table 16. (Continued. )



### Phylum -

### Arthropoda Subphylum - 

### Crustacea Class
-

### Malacostraca Superorder - 

### Peracarida Order

-

### Mysidacea Mysidopsis almyra 

### Mysidopsis bahia Mysidopsis b1qe1ow 

### Taphromysis bowmani 

### Taphromysis louisianae Order

- Tanaidacea 

### Harqeriarapax Order

- 

### Cumacea Cumacea sp. 

### Order

- 

### Isopoda 

### Family -

### Anthuridae Cyathurapolita 

### Xenanthura 

### brevitelson Family - 

### Sphaeromatidae 

### Cassidinidea ovalis 

### Sphaeroma 

### quadridentatum Sphaeroma terebrans 

### Family - 

### Idoteidae Edotea

### montosa Edotea sp. (cf

. 

### montosa) 

### Erichsonella sp. (cf. filTf"ormis ) 

### Family - 

### Munnidae Munna reynoldsi 

### Order

-

### Amphipoda Family -

### Ampeliscidae

Ampelisca abdita 

### Ampeliscavadorum 

### Ampelisca verril 1 i 

### Family -

### Melitidae Melita 

### appendiculata Melitaelonqata 

### Melita fresnelii



### Family

Family

Suborder 

### Family

Suborder Family



### Family -



### Family -Caprellidea 

### Caprellidae 

### Paracaprella tenuis Gammaridea 

### Haustoridae Lepidactylus sp. 

### Haustoridae sp. Gammaridae 

### Gammarus 

### macromucronatus Gammarus 

### mucronatus Gammarus so. Bate idae Batea 

### catharinensis 

### Carinobatea sp. 

### Melita

intermedius Me"TTta 

### lonqisetosa Melitanitida Melita sp. 

### Ischyroceridae Cerapus sp. (cf. 

### tubularis ) 

### Erichthonius brasilie"ris"is 

### Erichthonius sp. 2 

### Aoridae 

### Grandidierella bonnieroides 

### Grandidierella
sp. 

### Lembos sp. 

### Microdeutopus sp. 

### Corophiidae 

### Corophium louisianum 

### Corophium sp. 

### Family - 

### Cranqonyctidae Cranqonyx 

### richmondensis Family - Amphil

### ochidae 

### Gitanopsis sp. 

### Family -

### Ampithoidae Cymadusacompta 

### Cymadusa sp. 

### Family - Talitridae 

### Orchestia qrillus 

### Orchestia uhleri 

### Family

(continued)

52

### Table Ifi. 

### (Concluded.)



### Family - Porcel

### lanidae Petrolisthes
armatus 

### Cliba

### narius vittatusevident. Tnfaunal 

### numerical 

### abundance and 

### dry weiqht biomass (Figure ?7) in East Bay, 

### Apalachicola Bay, and St. 

### George Sound

### usuallypeak

### during

### winter and

### early spring months (Mahonev and 

### Livingston 1982; 

### Livingston l'583b, c; 

### Livingston et al. 1983). Numbers of infaunal species reach the 

### highest levels 

### during

### winter and 

### spring months (Figure ?J)

. 

### Monthly variance follows the 

### trends of numerical 

### abundance and 

### soecies richness. 

### Sheridan and 

### Livingston (1983), 

### working in shoal grass (

### Halodule wrightii ) 

### meadows on the 

### north shore of St. 

### George Island, 

### found infaunal 

### densities 

### exceeding 104,000 

### individuals m"'' inApril 1^15.
Spatial 

### gradients of salinity, 

### oroductivity, and 

### sediment types 

### influence the infaunal 

### community composition (Livingston et al. 1983). 

### While physical •"actors appear to 

### predominate in the infaunal 

### community relationships in the upper 

### estuary near the rivermouth, other 

### factors such as 

### predation 

### pressure and 

### competition 

### mav be 

### important 

### determinants of such 

### interspecific interactions in 

### polyhaline portions of the 

### bay 

### system (Livingston et al

. 1983).


### Overall, infaunal soecies fall into four general 

### categories: 

### crustaceans, polychaetes, mollusks, and a

### miscellaneous qroup that 

### includes insect larvae and 

### oligochaeteworms. 

### Predominant species in East 

### Bay include 

### Mediomastus ambiseta

, 

### Steblospio benedicti

, 

### Heteromastus filiformis

, Ampelisca 

### vadorum

, 

### Hobsonia florida

, 

### Hargeria rapax

, and 

### Grandidierella 

### bonnieroides

. The 

### tanaid 

### Hargeria raoax is

### most abundant in or near grass beds in 

### Apalachicola Bav from 

### February to April. 

### Other dominant grassbed 

### soecies include 

### Heteromastus filiformis and 

### Hobsonia 

### florida

. The



### bonnieroides amphipod ranges 

### Grandidierel 1a 

### throughout the East Bay-Apal

### achicola Bay complex, with peak 

### abundances during 

### early spring and late
summer. 

### Soft-sediment 

### polyhaline assemblages are 

### dominated by 

### Mediomastus ambiseta

, 

### Paraorionospio pinnata

, and 

### immature 

### tubificid worms (Livingston et al. 1^83). The 

### sedentary polychaete 

### Heteromastus filiformis is 

### largely 

### restricted to grass beds and is 

### most abundant 

### during April. The 

### amphipod Ampel isca 

### vadorum occurs 

### primarily in the 

### Apalachicola Bay 

### seagrass 

### meadows during



### winter and 

### early fall months. The poly

### chaete 

### Mediomastus ambiseta is found in 

### fine mud 

### bottoms 

### throughout the bay, 

### with peaks of 

### abundance in March. The 

### ubiquitous 

### polychaete 

### Streblospio benedicti 

### utilizes a 

### variety of 

### habitats 

### throughout the estuary, 

### with peak 

### abundance during 

### winter months. The 

### polychaete 

### Hobsonia florida is 

### found 

### throuqhout the bay

### fromqrass beds to soft 

### sediment 

### (unveqetated areas). Peak 

### abundance is 

### noted 

### during 

### early fall 

### months. Tn general, the 

### polychaete species are

### eurythermal and

### euryhaline and 

### include 

### selective and

### nonselectivedeposit feeders. 

### Sheridan and 

### Livingston (1983) 

### noted that the 

### dominant tanaids and 

### amphipods are 

### detritivores and 

### deposit feeders.



### Because 

### considerable amounts of detrital 

### matter are

### usuallyswept into the 

### estuary by the 

### Apalachicola River during 

### winter-spring periods, the 

### organic litter forms an 

### important habitat for 

### various 

### macroinvertebrates. Organisms associated 

### with leaf litter and 

### detritus have been 

### described by 

### Livingston (1978) and 

### Livingston et al. (1976b, 1977). 

### Litter fauna is 

### dominated by isopods, amphipods, and 

### decapods, which 

### utilize 

### particulate matter and 

### litter-associatedmicrobes for 

### food and/or shelter. 

### Dominant species in East 

### Bay and 

### Apalachicola Bay include 

### Neritina reclivata

, 

### Palaemonetes spp., 

### Corophium louisianum

, 

### Gammarus spo., 

### Grandidierella bonnieroides

, Melita spo., and

### Munna reynoldsi

. 

### Salinityappears to be an 

### important 

### orqanizinq feature of litter 

### associations (Livinqston unpubl.). 

### Life-history strategies of 

### dominant infaunal and 

### litter-associated 

### macroinvertebratepopulations are

### dictated by 

### substrate type, 

### temperature, salinity, and biological factors (Table 17). 

### Most 

### dominant infaunal 

### populations reach peaks of numerical 

### abundance during late 

### winter and 

### spring periods of low 

### salinity and 

### increasing temperature. Most such 

### soecies

are 

### euryhaline and 

### eurythermal. 

### Reproduction of some infaunal 

### populations
occurs 

### throughout the year 

### while others 

### reproduce 

### only between spring and fall. Individual species have 

### different patterns of 

### distribution 

### within the 

### estuarydepending on 

### recruitment patterns and 

### response

55• I 10 s- 

### c <u 

### 3 +-> 10

### O"O 4- <0 OJ 

### C J- •!-> •r- 1^ VI 

# ^x: -f- 

### uI— 

### E vo a> CO q; Si. •f— .,- (O 

### cu
«o OJ ''^ enQ. 0) J. <rt ••-' 

### o o



## ^

# °^

5 8 4'

>. O) O) 

### O .rI—-c "t: TO <->

### * 

## 3 (0 ••-

-o a; "Z
<0 *^

### 3 

### O•- 0)

(O V> I

### — E 01

### 3
S- <-> cn 

### o <o M- S- S-

•r— OJXI

O) 1.

### o c>c (O

### c "" 

# ?"

-

•— * '^ n3 vT

### ?

5n <^

### i c trt -, <U .r--g

r-^

## r '5

<U <U

### O I— .Q •!- 

## ^ -r- -!-> fO Q.

### W C t/l

*J .— -i^^

u •» (uor^

_r-l Q. -t-J CTi ur-.O1/1•—

^.— TO 4-j cj^ua
"Oc•—-^ q; C—^ 3

>-U-,

.^"C

J QJ l/l

:t: oi 3CO •CD

4_> f-- IT? O^-C•—< CD

JO

-— CT ^x: ac

3 a' fcx: 3 ,Oj .^

.?500

6000-
1500
3000
1500- 

# ilM Ki ,9:

CNJto stress. 

### However, there is 

### relatively little in the

### wayof 

### detailed 

### life-history information 

### concerninq these 

### invertebrate species.

4.a. 

### OYSTERS
Oysters (

### Crassostrea 

### virqinica ) 

### represent an 

### important part of the 

### biota of the 

### Apalachicola estuary (Fiqure 20). Such 

### factors as 

### temperature, 

### rainfall/ river 

### flow (and hence 

### salinity), 

### productivity (al

### lochthonous and 

### autochthonous), bottom type, and

### predation define the life 

### history of 

### oysters in the 

### Apalachicola estuary. Ingle and 

### Dawson (1951, 1952) noted that 

### temperature is 

### rarely limiting and that the 

### spawning season is one of the 

### longest in the

### United States (April through 

### November). The f

### ree-swimminq larval stage 

### persists for two weeks. Ingle and 

### Dawson (1952) 

### found that 

### oyster growth in 

### Apalachicola Bay is the 

### fastest in the 

### United States and is 

### continuous 

### throughout the 

### year 

### because of the 

### relatively high 

### year-round temperatures. Successful 

### oyster 

### development depends on an 

### appropriate substrate such as 

### oyster shells, 

### which can be d1anted 

### throughout the 

### estuary as 

### cultch to 

### enhance growth. 

### Whitfield and 

### Beaumariage [l^^ll) 

### estimate that 

### nearly 40^ of 

### Apalachicola Bay is 

### suitable for 

### growing oysters. The 

### ample 

### nutrients and 

### primaryproduction of the bayalso

### enhance oyster growth.



### Oyster-bar associations also include 

### various 

### organisms that 

### prey on 

### oysters (Menzel et al. 1^58, 1966). 

### These include 

### boring sponges, 

### polychaete worms, 

### gastropod 

### mollusks (such as Thais 

### haemastoma and 

### Melongena corona), and 

### crustaceans (Menippe" 

### mercenaria ) . 

### Salinity is the 

### most important 

### limiting factor for 

### oyster 

### populations, but it has been 

### hypothesized that such 

### influence is 

### indirect in that low 

### salinity limits 

### predation by 

### excluding important species such as 

### Thais and

### Menippe

. 

### Duringperiods of high 

### salinity, 

### oyster 

### predation is 

### enhanced and can be 

### considerable. 

### Experiments have shown that 

### oysters over 50 

### mm in length are rare in 

### unprotected areas of high 

### salinity relative to areas 

### where oysters are 

### shielded 

### from predation by baskets at 

### similar 

### salinities (Menzel et al. 

### 1%6). 4.5. 

### NEKTON

Nekton are 

### those 

### organisms that are 

### strong enough 

### swimmers that 

### they can

### move through the 

### water column, even 

### aqainst 

### water currents. In the 

### Apalachicola Bay system, the 

### nekton 

### comprise the bulk of the sport and commercial 

### fisheries and are among the 

### more 

### consoicuous biological 

### components of the estuarv. 

### Eoibenthic fishes and 

### invertebrates in the 

### Aoalachicola marshes (Table IS) and ooen 

### water areas (Table 1°) are 

### characterized by high 

### numbers of 

### oredominant soecies, 

### with the top three 

### species of each group 

### accounting for 70'?;-RO'3^ of the total 

### numbers taken 

### throughout the year. The 

### relatively low number of fish and 

### invertebrate species in the bay 

### system at 

### any given time, 

### together with the high 

### dominance of a 

### relatively few 

### extremelv successful species, 

### contribute to the low 

### species 

### diversity throughout the 

### estuary (Livingston l'376b).

In a given year, peak 

### numbers of 

### fishes tend to occur 

### from

### Februarythrough Aoril (Figure 27). 

### This 

### situation is due 

### largely to the 

### presence of 

### juvenile soot and

### Atlantic croaker. 

### Species numbers, on the 

### other hand, tend to oeak 

### during October. 

### Epibenthic invertebrates reach 

### abundance peaks 

### from August through 

### October, 

### largely because of high 

### numbers of 

### penaeid shrimp and, 

### secondarily, blue crabs (Figure 27). Seasonal 

### patterns of 

### invertebrate species 

### richness tend to 

### follow those of the fishes. The 

### highest numbers of 

### invertebrate soecies 

### usually occur in 

### October. The peaks of 

### abundance and 

### species 

### richness of fishes and 

### invertebrates are 

### characterizedby

### monthly high 

### variances.



### Various 

### organisms appearing in the 

### estuary may not be 

### estuarine dependent throughout their life 

### histories. 

### Many such 

### organisms are 

### migratory. The 

### anadromous soecies in the 

### Apalachicola drainage system include the 

### Atlantic sturgeon (

### Acipenser 

### oxvrhynchus), 

### Alabama shad (Alosa 

### alabamaej^ and 

### striped bass

(

### Morone saxatil i

### T) (Yerqer 1<^77). The 

### skipiack 

### herrinq (Alosa 

### chrysochloris ) is 

### another 

### possible anadromous species. 

### Other species, such as the 

### Atlantic 

### needlefish (

### Stronqylura marina ) 

### may be 

### diadromous. 

### Catadromous species 

### include

60

### Table 18. 

### Fishes and 

### invertebrates commonly taken 

### with seines in 

### oligohaline (East Bay) and 

### mesohaline (Apalachicola Bay) 

### marshes of the 

### Apalachicola estuary (from

### Livingstonand

### Thompson 1975).



### Species 

### Scientific name 

### Common name

East 

### Bay Fishes

Ictalurus natalis 

### Micropterus salmoides 

### Lepomis

### microlophus Lepomis 

### punctatus Poecilia 1at ipinna 

### Adiniaxenica 

### Cyprinodonvariegatus Fundulus qrandis 

### Fundulus 

### confluentus Fundulus similis 

### Notemigonus crysoleucas 

### Lucamaparva 

### Lucaniagoodei 

### Notropis sp. 

### Lepisosteus osseus 

### Cyprinus carpio Anguilla

### rostrata Pomoxis 

### nigromaculatus 

### Menidiaberyl 1ina 

### Anchoamitchilli Brevoortia

### patronus Mugil 

### curema Mugil 

### cephalus 

### Micropogomas undulatus 

### Bairdiellachrysoura Stellifer lanceolatus 

### Cynoscion arenarius 

### Paralichthys lethostigma Trinectes

### maculatus Eucinostomus gula 

### Lutjanus griseus 

### Gobiosomabosci Microgobiu"s~gu1osus 

### Archosargusprobatocephalus
Invertebrates 

### yellowbullhead

largemouth bass 

### redear sunfish spotted sunfish sailfin

### molly diamond

### killifish 

### sheepshead

### minnow gulf 

### killifish marsh

### killifish longnose

### killifish golden 

### shiner 

### rainwaterkillifish 

### bluefin

### killifish shiners 

### longnose gar 

### common carp 

### American eel black 

### crappie inland 

### silverside bay

### anchovy gulf

### menhaden white

### mullet stripedmullet 

### Atlantic croaker silver perch star 

### drum sand 

### seatrout southern 

### flounder hog

### choker silver 

### jenny graysnapper naked

### goby clown 

### goby 

### sheepshead



### Callinectes sapidus 

### Palaemonetes pugio Penaeus setiferus 

### Penaeus aztecus blue crab

grass shrimp 

### white shrimp brown 

### shrimp

(continued)

61

### Table 18. 

### (Concluded.)



### Species 

### Scientificname 

### Common name


### Aoalachicola Fishes 

### Bay



### Anchoamitchil 1 i 

### Anchoahepsetus 

### NIemdiaberyllina 

### Eucinostomus quia 

### Synodus foetens 

### Stronqyiuramarina 

### Lucaniaparva 

### Fundulus similis 

### Synqnathus floridae Lagodon 

### rhomboides 

### Leiostomus xanthurus 

### BairdieTTachrysoura Cynoscion ne^bulosus Mugil 

### cephalus 

### Orthopristis chrysoptera Opsanusbeta



### Invertebrates


### Callinectes sapidus 

### Palaemonetes pugio 

### Palaemonetes vulqaris 

### Palaemonetes intermedium Penaeus setiferus Penaeus 

### duorarum Penaeus aztecus 

### Neopanope texana bay

### anchovy

striped

### anchovy inland 

### silverside silver 

### jenny inshore 

### lizardfish 

### Atlantic needlefish 

### rainwater killifish 

### longnose killifish 

### dusky

### pipefish pinfish spot 

### silver perch 

### spotted seatrout 

### stripedmullet pig 

### fish gulf toad

### fish

blue crab grass 

### shrimp grass 

### shrimp grass 

### shrimp 

### white shrimp pink 

### shrimp brown 

### shrimp mud crab

the 

### American eel (Anquilla 

### rostrata) , 

### hoqchoker (

### Trinectes 

### maculatus), and 

### mountain mulTet (

### Agonostomus 

### monitcola ) . 

### Various other 

### freshwater species and 

### some 

### marine forms, such as 

### strioed 

### mullet

(Muqil 

### cephalus ) and the 

### southern

### flounder

(Paralichthys 

### lethostiqma), occur in the lower river and 

### estuary although 

### thev do not

### make true

### migrations.
The 

### estuarine dominants such as 

### sciaenid fishes, 

### penaeid shrimp, and blue crabs have annual 

### migrations during 

### which the adults spawn 

### offshore, the larval and 

### juvenile stages 

### move into the 

### estuarine nursery, and 

### finally the 

### subadults return to the open gulf to spawn as adults. 

### Most such 

### species are 

### either 

### marine-estuarine
or 

### estuarine. 

### Oesterling and

### Evink (1°77) 

### studied 

### migratory habits o^ blue crabs

along the 

### Gulf coast of 

### Florida (Figure ?R). 

### Adult blue crabs spawn 

### offshore and the larvae, after going 

### through a series of zoeal 

### (planktonic) stages, 

### metamorphose into a 

### single

### megalops staqe that has both 

### Dlanktonic and 

### benthic 

### features (Figure 28). The 

### meqalops 

### eventuallymolts into the first crab stage, 

### which 

### develops 

### mainly within the 

### estuarine nursery grounds. The authors 

### found that 

### female crabs 

### move 

### northward alonq the oulf coast of Florida, some as far as SDO km. 

### Few 

### males 

### move 

### more than 40 or 50 km. Such 

### migrations appear to be linked to 

### spawning 

### within the 

### Apalachicola offshore area (from the 

### Ochlockonee River drainage to the 

### Apalachicola River drainaqe). 

### Larqe numbers of 

### egg-bearing females are

62

### Table 19. 

### Epibenthic fishes and 

### invertebrates taken in otter trawls and trammel nets at various 

### stations in the 

### Apalachicola estuary from 1972 

### through 1982 

### (Livingston 

### unpublished data). Species are listed in order of numerical 

### abundance.



### Species

Fishes



### Anchoa mitchil 1 i 1, 2. 

### Micropogonias undulatus
3

. 

### Cynoscion are

### narius 4

. 

### Leiostomus xanthurus 5. 

### Polydactylus octonemus 6. 

### Arius felis 7. 

### Chloroscombrus chrysurus 8. 

### Menticirrhus 

### amencanus 9. 

### Symphurus

### plagiusa 10. 

### BairdielTachrysura 11. 

### Etropus 

### crossotus 12. 

### Trinectes

### maculatus 13. 

### Prionotus tribulus 14. 

### StellifeFlanceoTatus 15. 

### Anchoahepsetus
16

. 

### Porichthys

### porosissimus 17. 

### Prionotus scitulus 18. 

### Eucinostomus aula 19. 

### Paralichthys letiTostigma 20. 

### Synodus foetens 21

. 

### Eucinostomus arqenteus 22. 

### Dasyatis sabina 23. 

### Cynoscion

### nebulosus 24. 

### Microgobius thalassinus 25. 

### Urophycis 

### floridanus 26

. 

### Lagodon 

### rhomboides 27. 

### Gobiosomabosci 28. 

### Chaetodipterus faber 29. 

### Orfhopristis 

### chrysoptera 30. 

### Brevoortiapatronus 31

. 

### Dorosomapetenense 32. 

### Peprilus burti 33. 

### Peprilus paru 34

. 

### Stephanolepis hispidus 35

. 

### Sphaeroides nephe1us_ 36

. 

### Ophichthus gomesf~
37. 

### Synqnathus louisTanae 38

. 

### Syngnathus scovelli 39. 

### Gobionellus 

### boleosoma 40. Harengula

### pensacolae 41.

42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 4q. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 60. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79.

1

. 

### Penaeus setiferus 2. Callinectes 

### sapidus 3. 

### Palaemonetes puqio 

### Archosarqus

### probatocephalus

Microgobius gulosus Bagre

### marinus Menidiaberyl 1ina 

### Monacanthus ciliatus 

### Caranxhippos 

### Centropristismelana Syngnathus

### flondae Ancyclopsettaquadrocellata Chilomycterus schoepfi Pi

### plectrum

### formosum Tctalurus catus 

### Sciaenops ocellata 

### Astroscopus

### y-qraecum Hippocampus erectus 

### Leoisosteus osseus 

### Lucanis parva 

### Lutjanus qriseus 

### Opsanus beta 

### Paralichthys albigutta 

### Ophidion beani 

### Aluterus schoepfi Diplodus" holbrook'i 

### Gobionellus hastatus 

### Hypsoblennius hentzi 

### Menticirrhus saxatilis 

### Myrophis punctatus 

### Oqilbia

### cayorum Oligoplites saurus 

### Pomatomus saltatrix 

### Rhinopterabonasus 

### Scomberomorusmaculatus Selenevomer 

### Sphyraenaboreal is 

### Sphyrna tiburo 

### Sardinella anchovia Caranx

### bartholomaei

B. 

### Invertebrates
4. 5. 6.


### (continued)

63 Mugil sp. 

### Gymnura micrura



### Penaeus 

### duorarum 

### Trachypenaeus constrictus 

### Chrysaora

### quinquecirrha

### Table IP. 

### (Concluded.)



### Species

B. 

### Invertebrates (continued]

7. 

### Lolliqunculabrevis 8. 

### Penaeus aztecus ^. 

### Palaemonetes 

### vulgaris 10. 

### Portunus gibbesi i 11. Stomolop'hys

### me1e¥gris 12. 

### Neritina 

### reclivata 13. Squilla

### empusa 14. 

### Callinectes similis 15. 

### Rhithropanopeus harrisi i 16. 

### Neopanope texana
17

. 

### Polinices 

### duplicatus 18. 

### Neopanope packardii 19. 

### Mulinia

### Tateralis 20

. 

### Acetes americanus 21. 

### Pagurus

### pollicarTs 22. 

### Rangiacuneata 23. 

### Menippe

### mercenaria 24. 

### Xiphopeneus kroyeri 25. 

### Alpheus

### heterochaelis 26. 

### Latreutes parvuTTTs 27. 

### Palaemonetes intermedius 28. 

### Metoporhaphis calcarata 29. 

### Crassostreavirginica 30. 

### Palaemon 

### floridanus 31. 

### Periclimenes longicaudatus 32. 

### Ogyrides limicola 33. 

### Trachypenaeus similis 34. 

### Busycon

### contrarium 35. 

### Branchiosychis americana 36.

37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 

### Brachiodontes exustus 

### Hexapanopeus angustifrons Luidia

### clathrata 

### Persephona

### mediterranea ClibanarTus vittatus 

### Libiniadubia 

### Periclimenes americanus 

### Ambidexter symmetricus Busycon 

### spiratum 

### Procabarus

### paeninsulanus 

### Eupleura~u1cidentata Hemipholus 

### elonqata Alpheus normanni 

### Eurypanopeus dep^ressus 

### Lysmatawurdemanni 

### Pentacta sp. 

### Petrolisthes armatus 

### Podochela riisei 

### Tozeumacarolinense Nudi

### branch sp. 

### Alpheus armillatus 

### Sesarma

### cinereum SicyoniadorsalTs 

### Anadarabrasiliana 

### Dinocardiumrobustum Cantharus cancel 1aria 

### Urosalpinxperrugata Ovalipes 

### guadulpensis Pagurus lonqicarpus



### concentrated in this area inwinter. 

### The authors 

### hypothesized that larval 

### dispersal 

### from the 

### Apalachicola area takes place along 

### clockwise (Lood) 

### currents that 

### eventually wash onto the 

### Florida Shelf (Figure 28). '^oea 

### larvae then 

### disperse along the coast, with the 

### megalops stage 

### settlinq into the coastal 

### estuaries. 

### Livingston et al. (1°77) used 

### daytime 

### trawling to 

### estimatewinter

### populations of 

### juvenile blue crabs in the 

### Apalachicola 

### estuarv of 

### approximately 30,000,000 individuals. 

### Miqration of 

### spawning females aopears to 

### coincide 

### with 

### flooding of the north 

### Florida drainaae system, 

### which makes 

### particulate organic matter 

### available as 

### food to the young crabs 

### (Lauqhlin 107Q). Thus, the 

### migration of blue crabs along the gulf coast could be



### tied to both the 

### reproductive 

### characteristics of the 

### species and the 

### trophic 

### organization of the 

### Apalachicola estuary. 

### Life-historyfeatures of the 

### dominant 

### epibenthic soecies in the 

### Apalachicola estuary have the same 

### patterns as 

### elsewhere in the 

### northern Gulf of 

### Mexico (Table 17). 

### Spawning and 

### recruitment 

### generally vary from species to species 

### according to 

### different 

### combinations of seasonal physical factors. The bay 

### anchovy is the 

### most abundant fish and is one of the few

### fish species that does not show 

### regular seasonal 

### recruitment progressions. In 

### contrast, the 

### Atlantic

64megalops



### Figure 28. Life 

### cycle of the blue crab 

### along the gulf coast of Florida. 

### Ovigerous females 

### move toward the 

### Apalachicola estuary. It is 

### hypothesized that 

### developing stages 

### move back down the gulf coast of 

### Florida with 

### offshore currents (after 

### Oesterling and Evink 1P77).



### croaker spawn near passes 

### during fall and 

### early winter; the 

### iuveniles 

### occupy the 

### estuary inpeak

### numbers 

### during late

### winter and 

### early spring when 

### salinities are 

### usually less than 10-15 opt. Spot also 

### spawn near passes, and peaks of 

### abundance in the 

### estuary generally coincide with 

### those of the 

### Atlantic croaker. Sand 

### seatrout are 

### usuallymost abundant 

### during summer 

### months after 

### spawning 

### offshore during the spring. 

### This species is taken at 

### various 

### salinities, but 

### temperature appears to be limiting; high 

### catches are 

### generallytaken in 

### ?0O-350-Cwater.


### White shrimp are 

### dominant from

### August to 

### November, 

### with 

### spring 

### spawning and 

### recruitment. Other penaeids 

### usuallyreach peak 

### numbers 

### during late 

### spring (brown shrimp: 

### Penaeus aztecus ) or late 

### summer (pink shrimp: P_. 

### duorarum) . The blue 

### crab shows a bimodal annual peak of 

### recruitment; numbers peak 

### during 

### winter and summer periods. 

### Oeoth and 

### specific 

### microhabitat conditions are the principal 

### determinants of blue crab 

### distribution at any given 

### time 

### (Laughlin 1<570; 

### Livingston

unpubl.). The brief sguid (Lol

### liguncula brevis), is limited in 

### spatial/temporal 

### distribution by 

### salinitv ('O-'^O ppt) and 

### other habitat 

### characteristics and 

### complex 

### trophic relationshios (Laughlin and 

### Livingston 1P8?). In summary, these 

### species-specific responses to 

### multifactor complexes 

### demonstrate the 

### difficulty of 

### trying to design linear 

### models to 

### explain and oredict 

### spatial/temporal patterns of 

### occurrence.

The spatial 

### distributions of 

### nektonic fishes and 

### invertebrates in the 

### Apalachicolaestuary (Table 20) 

### tend to be 

### associatedwith

### freshwater runoff into the system. 

### Relative dominance at a given 

### station 

### varied 

### according to 

### salinity gradients and habitat type. 

### Regular seasonal 

### changes in 

### distributions are 

### evident for 

### most of the 

### dominant 

### nektonic species. For example, 

### anchovies are 

### relatively uniformly distributed within the 

### estuarv during 

### January and 

### February (Figure 7°). Bythe spring, 

### anchovies ^re 

### concentrated in upper 

### portions of East Ray. 

### Huring the 

### early summer, there are 

### minor population peaks 

### with 

### orimary 

### concentrations in 

### eastern

### portions of East Bay. Bv the fall, the 

### anchovies 

### concentrate around the 

### mouth of the 

### Apalachicola River as well as in 

### portions of East Bay, and 

### during 

### earlywinter, the 

### anchovies become 

### uniformly distributed throughout East

### Bayand

### Apalachicola Bay.

In 

### January, 

### Atlantic croaker tend to 

### conqregate at the 

### mouth of the 

### Apalachicola River and upper 

### oortions o*" East 

### Bay (Figure ?0). Bv 

### February, this 

### distribution is 

### more 

### uniform 

### throughout East 

### Bav and 

### northern 

### Apalachicola Bay, a 

### situation that appears to hold 

### during 

### ensuing winter and spring 

### months until, by 

### May or June, the 

### croakers move out of 

### the bay.
The spatial 

### distribution of sand 

### seatrout through agiven seasonal 

### cycle is guite 

### regular (Figure 31). As the young 

### seatrout move into the bay

### svstem inMay, 

### thev

### concentrate in upper 

### portions o^^ East 

### Bay and just off the 

### mouth of the 

### Apalachicola River. 

### Secondary concentrations are found 

### throuqhout East 

### Bay and 

### northern oortions of 

### Apalachicola Bav. The 

### distribution changes 

### little in June,

65

### Table ?0. 

### Epibenthic fishes and 

### invertebrates taken inotter trawls at 

### permanent stations in the 

### ApalachicolaestuarvfromJune 1^7? to

### Mav 1'377. 

### Stations have been 

### ordered by 

### cluster analysis 

### according to 

### relative 

### abundance of fishes and 

### invertebrates. Data are given 

### concerning 

### numbers/sample, dry 

### weight biomass/sample, 

### percent 

### dominance (by 

### numbers), and 

### Margalef richness. 

### Dominant species are also 

### enumerated bystation.



### Number 

### Biomass per %

### Dominper 

### sample (a, ance (by 

### Station sample d

### ryweiqht^) numbers) 

### Dominant species 

### Margalef

richness



### OUTER BAY

### 1— IX 73.? A. 

### FISHES

- 1

### Table 20. (Continued.



### Number 

### Biomass per %Dominper 

### sample (q, ance (by 

### Station sample dry

### weight) numbers) 

### Dominant species 

### Margalef

richness

A. 

### FISHES 

### (continued)

SIKE'S CUT IB 20.6 129.3 36 

### ANCHOA

### MITCHILLI



### CYNOSCIONARENARIUS ETROPUS 

### CROSSOTUS 4.92

B. 

### INVERTEBRATES

OUTER BAY

### RIVER 

### DOMINATED - 1 7.0 7.2



### I— lA 5.5 5.3



### I—4 14.7 16.8 47 

### CALLINECTES SAPIDUS 2.58



### PENAEUS 

### SETIFERUS

38 

### PENAEUS 

### SETIFERUS 1.86 

### CALLINECTES SAPIDUS 

### LOLLIGUNCULABREVIS 

### TRACHYPENAEUS CONSTRICTUS

IE

### Table 20. 

### (Concluded.)

Number 

### Biomass per %Domiri- per 

### sample (q, ance (by 

### Station 

### sample dry

### weight) numbers) 

### Dominant species 

### Marqalef

richness



### I—4A 

### 13.0



# — 5



### UPPER 

# - (EAST) BAY 5A



# —58 12.2

13.7

6.8



# —5C 12.5



## I—6 

### 45.8



### SIKE'S CUT IB 

### 10.0 B. 

### INVERTEBRATES (continued)

16.0be 

### attracted to the upper 

### freshwater portions in the estuary. 

### Although the 

### major peaks in 

### numbers of 

### juvenile blue crabs occur 

### during the 

### winter, 

### secondary increases are 

### often noted 

### during the 

### summer and fall (Figure 34). As the young blue crabs enter the 

### Aoalachicola estuary during the 

### winter months, they 

### concentrate in East 

### ^ay and off the 

### Nick's Hole 

### drainage (St. 

### George Island). 

### During 

### May and June, oeaks in the 

### number of blue crabs occur in these
areas. By the 

### summer and fall months, the blue crabs are 

### concentrated in East Bay. Blue crabs appear to be 

### attracted to areas that 

### receive 

### overlandrunoff although 

### they

are not 

### attracted bydirect river flow.


### While there is a qeneral 

### pattern of 

### concentration of the 

### dominant 

### epibenthic fishes and 

### invertebrates in areas that 

### receive direct input of 

### freshwater runoff 

### from upland areas, it is 

### simplistic to 

### assume that runoff per se is the 

### primary factor that 

### influences the temporal and soatial asoects of the 

### distribution of such

### organisms in the estuary. 

### There are, in fact, a 

### complex o^" 

### species-specific limiting 

### factors that are 

### associated with the 

### trophic 

### organization of the 

### bay system.

75

## CHAPTER5 

## NICHEDIVERSITY,

## TROPHICINTERACTIONS,

# ANDCOMMUNITYSTRUCTURE

5.1. 

### HABITAT-SPECIFICASSOCIATIONS

The 

### Apalachicola estuary, as an 

### ecosystem, can be 

### defined as a series of 

### habitats with 

### associated 

### assemblages of 

### organisms. Such 

### assemblages (or 

### communities) live in the 

### same general 

### habitat, 

### compete for space and food, and are part of the

### highlycomplex 

### trophic 

### structure of the 

### river-baysystem. The 

### dimensions of a given 

### community are 

### difficult to 

### define 

### precisely because the 

### component populations vary 

### considerably in 

### their 

### distribution and 

### community function in space and time. 

### However, 

### selected factors
can be used to 

### characterize the 

### various 

### estuarine assemblages. Sources of

### primary productivity, habitat 

### features, the physical and 

### chemical 

### environment (including 

### pollutants), modes of 

### reproduction and 

### recruitment, 

### feeding interactions, 

### predator-preyrelations, and 

### competition are some of the 

### features that shape the 

### estuarine communities.

The 

### distribution of most of the 

### estuarine assemblages 

### may be 

### partitioned into the 

### following habitats: 

### marshes, seagrass beds, litter 

### associations, oyster bars, and subtidal 

### unvegetated (soft

### sediment) areas. 

### Many of the 

### long-term biological studies in the 

### Apalachicola estuary have 

### concentrated on the 

### macro- 

### invertebrates (benthic, 

### epibenthic) and 

### fishes that are 

### found in these areas.

S.1.1. 

### Marshes

The 

### marshes, which include 

### complex 

### patterns of tidal 

### channels and small creeks, 

### provide food and 

### habitat for a 

### number of 

### organisms in the 

### Apalachicola estuary (Table 18). 

### Marsh 

### complexes include insects, 

### mollusks, 

### crustaceans, fishes, birds, and

### mammals. 

### Topminnows of 

### various species are 

### dominant in such

areas. 

### Manyspecies that are 

### important to the sports and 

### commercial 

### fisheries of the 

### region spend at least part of their life 

### histories in the 

### estuarine marshes. Such 

### species include blue crabs, 

### penaeid shrimp, 

### large-mouth bass, lepomids, 

### stripedmullet, spotted and sand seatrout, and anchovies. Few 

### species spend 

### their 

### entire lives 

### within the 

### marshes, however, and the 

### marsh habitat is best 

### characterized as a 

### nursery for 

### migratory species 

### duringsummer and fall months.

5.1.2. 

### Seagrass Beds

The 

### distribution of 

### grassbeds in the 

### Apalachicola estuary (Figure 19) is the 

### result of a 

### number of 

### environmental 

### controlling factors. Even though it is limited to 

### only about 10% of the 

### aquatic area by the high 

### turbidity and 

### sedimentation associated with the river, this 

### habitat's 

### productivity is high. 

### Grassbed 

### productivity is also limited by 

### water temperature, salinity, and the 

### activity of 

### certain invertebrates. However, 

### grassbeds also have an effect on 

### certain water 

### quality indices. 

### Various studies in East 

### Bay (Livingston 1978; Purcell 1977) 

### indicate that 

### water 

### quality factors such as 

### dissolved oxygen and pH are 

### higher in the 

### grassbeds than in 

### associatedmudflats.

The 

### oligohaline grassbeds of East Bay are 

### dominated by 

### tapeweed (Valisneria 

### americana), a 

### freshwater species. 

### Other 

### species found in 

### conjunctionwith 

### tapeweed
are 

### Potamogeton pusillus

, 

### Ruppia

### maritima (locally dominant in 

### western bayous of East Bay), 

### Cladophora sp., and 

### Halophila engelmanni

. In recent years, some parts of East 

### Bay are being taken over by the 

### Eurasian 

### watermilfoil (

### Myriophyllum

76

### spicatum). 

### During the 

### period 1980-1981, this 

### introduced species 

### became

### dominant in Round Bay, one of the 

### eastern bayous. By 1982-1983, the 

### Myriophyllum had 

### become rooted 

### throughout the upper East 

### Bayarea 

### (Livingston unpubl.). It is 

### unclear how spread of 

### Eurasian 

### watermilfoil will affect the 

### distribution of plants and 

### animals in the East 

### Bay

### seagrass beds.


### Currently, the 

### oligohaline seagrass beds serve as a 

### nursery for 

### benthic species such as the snail 

### Neritina reclivata (a 

### major dominant! and 

### epibenthic species (

### Udostomia sp., 

### Gammarus 

### macromucronatus and 

### Taphromysis bowmani )". Infaunal 

### assemblages are 

### dominated by 

### polychaetes (

### Loandalia americana

, 

### Mediomastus ambiseta), 

### amphipods (

### Grandidierella bonnieroides ) and 

### chironomid larvae (

### Dicrontendipes sp.). Fish 

### populations are 

### dominated by 

### rainwater killifish (

### Lucania parva), 

### pipefish (

### Syngnathus scovell i), 

### silversides (

### Menidia beryllina")^ gobies 

### (Microgobius gulosus), and 

### centrarchids. 

### Many species 

### utilize these areas (Duncan 1977; 

### Livingston and 

### Duncan 1979; Purcell 1977). Of the 28

### dominant benthic species of 

### fishes that 

### comprised over 98% of the 

### abundance in the area, 

### most 

### consumed detritus, small 

### mollusks, 

### crustaceans, epiphytes, and insect larvae. Most of the 

### penaeid shrimp, insect larvae, and 

### fishes that are 

### found here are 

### seasonally abundant at 

### early stages of their 

### reproductive cycles, 

### which indicates the
use of these areas as 

### primary 

### nursery grounds. Peaks of 

### abundance are 

### staggered 

### throughout theyear.
The

### predominant

### macrophyte species in 

### mesohaline or 

### higher-salinity areas off St. 

### George Island in 

### Apalachicola Bay is 

### Halodulewrighti i 

### (Sheridan and

### Livingston 1983)

. Infaunal 

### macroinvertebrates, dominated by 

### Hargaria rapax
, 

### Heteromastus fi 1iformis

, Ampelisca 

### vadorum and 

### various 

### oligochaetes, reach peaks of 

### abundance 

### during 

### early spring. 

### Predominant fishes include silver perch (Bairdiella 

### chrysoura), 

### pigfish (

### Orthopristis chrysoptera), 

### pinfish (

### Lagodon 

### rhomboides ) and 

### spotted 

### seatrout (

### CynoscTon nebulosus ) . 

### These species are 

### abundant 

### from 

### May through 

### September. Blue crabs

(Callinectes 

### sapidus ) , pink 

### shrimp

(

### Penaeus 

### duorarum ) ^and grass 

### shrimp (

### Palaemonetes vulgaris ) are the 

### dominant

invertebrates. 

### Their densities are bimodal, 

### peaking in the 

### winter and 

### summer months. 

### These areas are also 

### characterized by the 

### year-round presence of larval and 

### juvenile nekton.

5.1.3. 

### Litter

### Associations

Leaf litter 

### associations are 

### dominated by 

### omnivores and detritivores. The 

### fraction of 

### particulate organic

### matter (POM) large enough to be 

### identified as litter is 

### populated with 

### gastropod 

### mollusks (

### Neritina 

### reclivata), 

### amphipods

(

### Gammarus 

### mucronatus

. Me1 ita spp., 

### Grandidierella bonnieroides

, 

### Corophium louisianum

, 

### Gitanopsis sp.), isopods

(

### Munna reynoldsi ) , and 

### decapods

(

### Palaemonetes pugio

, P^. 

### vulgaris

, 

### Penaeus 

### setiferus

, Cal

### linectes sapidus). 

### Species richness of the litter

### associated fauna in upper East 

### Bay (station 5A), the river

### mouth (station 3), and the shoal 

### qrassbeds off St. 

### George Island (station IX) peaks 

### during 

### August and 

### September (Figure 35). Such peaks are 

### strongly associated with 

### salinity levels at the 

### respective studysites (Figure 36). 

### Dominant species 

### vary from location to location. The level and 

### timing of peaks of 

### abundance also 

### vary 

### spatially (Figure 35). Upper East Bay, 

### which is 

### outside of the 

### direct 

### influence of the 

### Apalachicola River, appears to be the least 

### productive part of the 

### estuary in terms of litter

### associated

### macroinvertebrates. Areas rich in 

### detritus, such as 

### station 3, are 

### most 

### highly populated during March and 

### September, periods 

### when the river is 

### flooding or 

### macrophytes are dying off. The 

### highest numbers of 

### litter-associated 

### macroinvertebrates occur in the 

### Halodule beds off St. 

### George Island 

### from April to June, a 

### period of high 

### macrophyte productivity. These data 

### indicate that 

### while species 

### richness 

### may be 

### strongly influenced by salinity, the 

### numerical 

### abundance of the litter 

### associations is 

### more 

### strongly aligned with the 

### availabilityof 

### detritus.


### While physical 

### factors such as 

### salinity and 

### temperature are 

### important 

### determinants of the 

### distribution of 

### litter-associated organisms in the 

### estuary, recent 

### experiments by 

### Florida

77

### LU



# < LU CO
L. 

## O

a: UJ 

## m 3

< 

## Q Z 

## m < _i 

### < 

## o
tr iij 25

15-

20,000-

15,000-

10,000-



### 5000- Stotions

I I I I I I I I I I I I 

# JFMAMJJASOND
TIME
Figure 35. 

### Numerical 

### abundance and 

### SHPcies 

### richness of 

### invertebrates taken in 

### leaf-litter baskets at 

### various 

### permanent sampling sites in the 

### Apalachicola estuary, 

### monthly from January, 1976, 

### through 

### Pecember, 1976. 

### After 

### Livingston (1978) and 

### Livingston et al. (1977).

State

### Universityresearchers indicate that 

### biological 

### associations are also important. 

### Macroinvertebrates appear to 

### utilize the 

### detritus as 

### shelter and a 

### source of food (White in press). In a series of 

### experimentswith the leaf litter 

### community. 

### White et al. (1979a) 

### found that, 

### whereas the 

### biomass (as 

### measured bv lipid 

### phosphate and 

### poly-beta-hydroxybutyrate), nutritional history, and 

### respiratory activity of 

### microbes are 

### correlated with 

### substrate type, the

### macrofaunal populations are

### more often 

### associated with 

### specific water 

### quality features such as 

### salinity. 

### Numbers, biomass, and 

### species 

### richness of 

### detritus-associated microfauna are 

### associated with the mass and 

### community structure of the 

### macrofaunal food web. 

### These 

### macroinvertebrates apparently seek out 

### microbial 

### populations rich in5.1.4. 

### Oyster Bars



### Oyster bars 

### represent a 

### relatively significant habitat in the 

### estuary (Table 1). The 

### main 

### concentrations of 

### oysters

(

### Crassostreavirqinica ) (Fiqure 20) lie in St. 

### Vincent Sound and 

### western portions of St. 

### George Sound, 

### Oyster 

### distribution is 

### dependent upon substrate, 

### temperature, salinity, and 

### available food. 

### Oyster bars, 

### themselves, provide 

### habitat and 

### food for a 

### variety of 

### organisms. The 

### oyster 

### associated 

### community includes 

### sponges

(

### Cliona 

### vastifica), bryozoans

(

### Membranipora sp.), 

### flatworms (

### Stylochus 

### frontalis), 

### annelids (

### Neanthes 

### succinea

. 

### Polydora websteri ), 

### various 

### arthropod 

### crustaceans (

### Callinectes sapidus

, 

### Menippe 

### mercenaria

, 

### Neopanope spp., 

### Petrolisthes armatus),~ 

### gastropods (

### Crepidula plana , 

### Melongena corona

, Thais 

### haemastroma and 

### pelecypods (

### Brachidontes exusta, Chione cancellata ) (Menzel et al

. 1966). Fishes include blennies (

### Hypsoblennius spp.) and 

### toadfish (

### Opsanus beta). 

### These 

### organisms
use the reef for 

### shelter and/or 

### feeding.



### Salinity controls 

### oyster-bar 

### community organization. When 

### salinities

are high, 

### various 

### stenohaline gulf species
are able to 

### move Into the 

### oyster-rich
areas and feed on the oysters. Low 

### salinity limits such 

### predation by 

### acting

as a 

### barrier to those 

### organisms. 

### Species 

### richness and 

### diversity of the 

### oyster

### associated populations vary

### directlywith seasonal increases in salinity. 

### During


### warmer months, 

### extensive oyster 

### mortality in the 

### Apalachicola estuary has been 

### attributed to 

### infestation by the 

### pathogen 

### Perkinsus 

### marinus (formerly called 

### Dermocyctidium marinum) (Menzel 1983). Young 

### oysters are 

### unaffected by this disease, although up to 505^ of adult 

### oysters 

### may be 

### killed annually. The 

### relatively long period of high 

### water 

### temperature in the gulf 

### estuaries 

### contributes to such 

### mortality. A longterm 

### study is 

### currently under 

### way to 

### determine the 

### response of the

### Apalachicola oyster 

### associations to various stimuli 

### includinghabitat 

### features (water quality, 

### substrate), predation, 

### competition, disease, and 

### possible 

### over-fishing (Livingston et al., unpubl.). 5.1.5. Subtidal 

### (Soft-Sediment)



### Communities

Almost 70% of the 

### Apalachicola Bay 

### systemcan be 

### characterized as a

### subtidal, 

### unvegetated, 

### soft-sediment area (Table 1). The 

### muddy bottom substrate is 

### inhabited 

### primarily by 

### polychaetes (

### Mediomastus ambiseta

, 

### Streblospio benedicti ) and" 

### amphipods (

### Grandidierella bonnleroides). The 

### polychaetes are

### deposit and 

### suspension feeders with a high 

### reproductive 

### capacity and 

### considerable tolerance for low 

### salinity and 

### variable 

### environmental 

### conditions. 

### Productivity trends, 

### habitat type, and the ecological 

### characteristics of the 

### various 

### populations 

### contribute to 

### what is a 

### temporally variable but 

### highly 

### persistent assemblage of 

### organisms in terms of species 

### richness, 

### relative abundance, and 

### recruitment. In 

### oligohaline areas of the estuary, the 

### benthic 

### macroinvertebrate assemblages are 

### characterized by high 

### dominance, low 

### species richness, low 

### diversity, and 

### varying 

### standing-crop biomass and 

### numerical 

### abundance (Livingston 1983c, d). Areas around the 

### mouth of the river have 

### much higher numbers of infaunal 

### macroinvertebrates than areas 

### outside of the region of general flow. Such 

### differences have been 

### attributed (Livingston 1983c, d) to the 

### deposition of 

### nutrients and

### detritus bythe river 

### during 

### periods of 

### flooding (Figure 9) and 

### Increased 

### activity and 

### abundance of the 

### benthic

### macroinvertebrates (Figure 27).

The general 

### communitycharacteristics of the 

### soft-bottom assemblages change as 

### salinities increase 

### temporally and 

### spatially. In 

### mesohaline and 

### polyhaline portions of the system, overall numerical 

### abundance Is lower than in 

### oligohaline areas, but species 

### richness and 

### diversity increase 

### significantly (Livingston et al. 1983). Such trends are 

### evident in the 

### associations of 

### epibenthic fishes and 

### invertebrates, which are an 

### Important part of the 

### soft-sediment communities. 

### Dominant populations such as 

### Atlantic croaker, spot, 

### penaeid shrimp, and blue crabs feed

### extensivelyon

### organisms within the

### muddybottom of the estuary.

The 

### soft-sediment 

### community (invertebrates and fishes) of the

79

### Apalachicola

### estuaryreflects the 

### response of 

### hundreds of species to a 

### complex 

### combination of 

### physical, chemical, and 

### biological factors. Physical control, 

### together with 

### productivity features, 

### recruitment patterns, 

### predator-prey interactions, and 

### competition for 

### various


### resources determine to a 

### considerable degree the 

### form and

### functions of the soft

### sediment 

### communities in the 

### Apalachicola Bay system. 

### Because the 

### majority of the 

### research in the 

### Apalachicola Bay 

### system has been 

### carried out 

### with the 

### fishes and 

### macroinvertebrates of the 

### soft-sediment estuarine habitat, the 

### interrelationships of the 

### dominant features of these 

### biological systems will be 

### treated in a 

### more 

### detailed

### fashion below.

5.2. 

### PHYSICAL CONTROL OF

### BIOLOGICAL PROCESSES

For some time, 

### ecologists have 

### argued about the 

### relative 

### importance of 

### physical and 

### biological control of 

### aquatic 

### populations and 

### communities. Clearly, the 

### problem is 

### extremelycomplex, 

### based on the fact that each 

### species is a 

### product of a given 

### habitat 

### while also 

### having an input, 

### through 

### predation and 

### competition, to the 

### community. It is 

### generally agreed that 

### temperate estuaries such as the 

### Apalachicola system are 

### highlyproductive and

### physicallyunstable in space and time. 

### Temperature and 

### salinity have a 

### major influence on the 

### form and

### processes of the 

### estuarine biota in such a system. At the same time, 

### various 

### populations interact 

### witheach

### other and 

### their

### environmentwith 

### almost 

### continuous feed-back to the 

### system
as awhole. 

### evaluation of 

### hypotheses derived from



### observational data can then be used to 

### determine the 

### processes that 

### define and 

### ultimatelycontrol the 

### observed structural 

### components of the system.


### Various attempts have been 

### made to 

### delineate the 

### relationships of physical and 

### biological 

### variables in the 

### Apalachicola estuary (Livingston 1975, 1976b, 1979, 1982b; 

### Livingston and 

### Loucks 1978; 

### Livingston et al. 1974, 1976b, c, 1978; 

### Mahoney and 

### Livingston 1982; 

### Meeter and 

### Livingston 1978; 

### Meeter et al. 1979). 

### Most analyses indicate that 

### Apalachicola River 

### flow has a 

### major influence on the physical and 

### biological 

### relationships in the estuary. For 

### example, 

### statistical 

### analysis of the 

### principal 

### physico-chemical variables (Table 21) 

### indicates that the 

### main factor or 

### component could be 

### called "river flow." 

### This river 

### flow is 

### associated with low 

### salinity, 

### increased 

### color and 

### turbidity (and 

### reduced Secchi 

### readings), and 

### reduced 

### chlorophyll _a. 

### River flow alone 

### explained 32% of the total 

### variance and about half of the 

### variance 

### explained by the four 

### factors. 

### Average bayvalues of

### major 

### nutrients vary seasonally; high 

### nutrient 

### concentrations
are 

### found during high (winter) river 

### discharge and low 

### salinity conditions (Table 22). The 

### Apalachicola River 

### controls to a 

### considerable degree various 

### factors such as 

### nutrient and 

### detritus 

### concentrations, salinity, color and 

### turbidity, and other 

### water 

### quality factors. Tn turn, these 

### conditions control the level and 

### pattern of 

### productivity fluctuations in the bay system.

The timed 

### interactions of 

### multiple physical and 

### biological 

### components of an 

### estuarine system are 

### difficult to 

### differentiate for a 

### variety of reasons. Individual physical 

### events 

### follow different temporal 

### patterns. 

### Often such 

### phenomena are 

### essentially cyclic although "cycle" does not 

### necessarily imply that there is a 

### complete return to a 

### previous condition. 

### Biological 

### responses are not that 

### simple and often 

### follow

### nonlinear or 

### curvilinear patterns of 

### response to 

### varying 

### controlling factors. 

### Analysis of 

### biological 

### responses requires the initial 

### delineation of 

### key 

### dependent and 

### independent variables. 

### Experimental Studies of 

### temperate estuaries

indicate that the 

### combination of high 

### primary 

### productivity and 

### extremely variableenvironmental 

### conditions is often 

### associated with 

### relatively low 

### species 

### richness and 

### diversity and high 

### secondary 

### productivity of a few 

### dominant species. No 

### matter which group of 

### organisms is 

### considered, from 

### phytoplankton to fishes, 

### salinity appears to be the 

### primary regulator of 

### species numbers at a given 

### location in the estuary. 

### Dominants are able to adapt to low or 

### highly variable 

### salinity conditions. 

### Salinity is a

### major 

### determinant of species 

### richness (S) of

80

### Table 21. 

### Factor analysis of 

### physico-chemical variables in the 

### Apalachicola system taken 

### monthlyfrom March 1972 to 

### February 1976. Color (Pt-Co units), 

### turbidity (J.T.U.), Secchi 

### readings (m), 

### salinity (ppt), 

### temperature C^C), and 

### chlorophyll _a (mg 1"1) 

### were noted at 

### Station 1. Tidal data 

### included stages of the tide on the dayof 

### collection 

### while the 

### wind

### variable was 

### represented bytwo 

### vector 

### components (speed, 

### direction) (from

### Meeter and

### Livingston 1978).



### Variable

### Table 22. 

### Correlation

### coefficients of 

### linear

### regressions ofnitrate, 

### orthophosphate, silicate, and

### ammonia on 

### salinity (from

### Livingston et a1. 1974).

Date

### different times of the year. 

### Estabrook (1973) noted that 

### grazing 

### zoopiankton also 

### may control 

### phytoplankton 

### productivity since 

### experiments removing 

### zooplankton and net 

### plankton 

### enhanced 

### nannoplankton 

### productivity greatly. The 

### possibility exists that 

### competition for 

### nutrients among

### various species also is an 

### important 

### determinant of 

### relative 

### phytoplankton dominance.



### Among the 

### zooplankton, copepods are dominant. The 

### copepod 

### Acartia tonsa 

### constitutes 95.5% of total 

### zooplankton in East Bay, 

### 68.2% in 

### Apalachicola Bay and 19.8% in coastal 

### waters (Edmisten 1979). 

### Salinity and 

### temperature control the 

### composition of 

### zooplankton communities in the estuary. 

### Populations of

### Acartia vary 

### inverselywith 

### distance from the

### mouth of the 

### Apalachicola River and are 

### concentrated in 

### Apalachicola Bay. 

### Temperature is 

### associatedwith 

### significant (p < 0.01) 

### differences in

### Acartianumbers. 

### Salinity 

### significantly (p < 0.01) 

### affects the overall 

### relative 

### abundance of the 

### dominant populations. 

### Edmisten (1979) 

### showed that 

### temperature, salinity, 

### station and

### monthhad a

### multiple rvalue of 0.775. In East Bay, 

### Acartia numbers (as well as 

### zooplankton numbers and 

### biomass) peak 

### during periods of high 

### salinity. Thus, 

### temperature usually determines overall numbers in the 

### bay system, 

### while 

### salinity determines their spatial 

### distribution at any given time. The 

### response to

### midrange salinities explains the 

### nonlinear (parabolic) 

### relationship of 

### Acartia with salinity,. It 

### appears that other 

### organisms can 

### successfully complete with 

### Acartia at 

### higher and lower 

### salinities.
Life 

### history strategies of 

### various 

### nektonic 

### estuarine species 

### depend to some 

### degree on 

### spatial/temporal gradients of 

### substrate type, salinity, food 

### availability, and 

### energy flow. The spatial 

### distribution and 

### abundance of brief sguid (

### Lolliguncula brevis ) is 

### determined to a 

### considerable degree by 

### salinity and 

### temperature (Laughlin and 

### Livingston 1982). Optimal 

### salinities range 

### between 25 and 30 ppt. 

### Squid tend to 

### congregate near the passes 

### during summer and fall periods of high salinity. 

### Distribution within the 

### estuary is 

### associated with the 

### distribution of 

### zooplankton in the bay. 

### Population trends of squid 

### followed long-term (9-year)



### salinity trends that, in turn, 

### were 

### associated with 

### climatic features. 

### There were sharp decines in squid 

### abundance duringperiods of low

### salinity.
Overall, 

### attempts to 

### correlate patterns of 

### species 

### abundance with individual 

### physical, chemical, and 

### productivity variables have not been 

### entirely successful. A 

### multiple regression analysis of individual 

### population densities with 

### combinations of 

### independent variables indicates that such 

### components 

### accounted for less than 50% of the 

### population

### variability (Table 23). No 

### single set of physical 

### conditions 

### explained population 

### variation through time. 

### While factors such as 

### temperature, salinity, 

### productivity, and 

### water 

### quality 

### characteristics are 

### important 

### determinants of general 

### habitat 

### availability, it is clear that other factors, 

### presumably biological in nature, 

### may be 

### important to our 

### understanding of the 

### processes that 

### determine the 

### community structure of the 

### ApalachicolaBaysystem.

5.3. 

### TROPHIC

### RELATIONSHIPSAND

### FOOD-WEB STRUCTURE 

### Community structure is 

### determined in part by 

### predator-prey interactions, 

### especially among 

### dominant 

### estuarine populations. 

### Comprehensive studies of the 

### feeding habits of 

### dominant fishes 

### (Sheridan 1978; 

### Sheridan and 

### Livingston 1979) and 

### invertebrates (Laughlin 1979) have been 

### carried out (Figure 37). 

### Pelagic anchovies feed 

### preimarily on 

### calanoid copepods 

### throughout their lives. 

### Seventy percent of the diet of 

### young 

### anchovies (standard length (SL), 10-39mm) is 

### composed of these 

### copeoods. 

### Larger fish (SL 

### 40-69 mm) eat mysids, insect larvae and 

### juvenile fishes. A seasonal 

### progression of food item 

### consumption follows trends of 

### available prey species. The 

### Atlantic croakers progress through a series of 

### distinct 

### ontogenetic trophic stages. 

### Young fish (SL 10-30 mm) eat insect larvae, 

### calanoid copepods, and 

### harpacticoid copepods. "Midrange fish (SL 

### 40-99 mm) 

### consume detritus, mysids, and isopods; larger 

### fish (SL 

### 100-159mm) eat a high

### proportion of 

### juvenile fishes, crabs, and infaunal shrimp. 

### Croaker at all stages eat 

### polychaete worms. Spot, 

### which

83

### Table 73. 

### Results of a 

### stepwise regression analysis of 

### various 

### independent parameters and species (numerical 

### abundance) in the 

### Apalachicola estuaryfromMarch 1972 to 

### February 1^75. 

### Independent 

### variables are listed bv 

### order of 

### importance

### with R- 

### expressed as a

### cumulative function of the given 

### parameters (from 

### Livingston et al. 1976b). 

### Independent 

### variableswere run

### with and

### without lag

### periods of 1-:^

### months.



### Species 

### Independentvariables R?



### Anchoamitchilli 

### Micropogonias undulatus Cynoscion

### arenanus Polydactylu Arius feliss 

### octonemus
Leiostomus 

### xanthurus 

### Chloroscombrus chrysurus 

### Menticirrhus americanus Symphurus 

### plagiusa 

### Bairdiellachrysura Penaeus setiferus 

### Palaemonetes pugio 

### Callinectes sapidus 

### Penaeus 

### duorarum 

### Lolligunculabr?yis 

### Portunus gibbesii 

### Palaemonetes vuTgaris 

### Rhithropanopeus harrisi i 

### Callinectes similis 

### ChloroDhyll a, Secchi

River 

### flow (Tag), Secchi (lag) 

### Chlorophyll _a, wind, Secchi (lag) temp. 

### Chlorophyll _a (lag), salinity, Secchi Temp., 

### wind 

### Turbidity (lag), Secchi, 

### salinity, temp. Temp, (lag), temp., 

### salinity Temp, (lag) 

### Color (laa), color, Secchi Wind, temp., color Wind, 

### chlorophyll _a, 

### incoming tide, color 

### Turbidity Secchi, 

### incoming tide 

### Chlorophyl 1 a_, Secchi

a (lag), temp.

a (lag), Secchi 

### Chlorophyl 1 

### Chlorophyll 

### Turbidity Wind 

### Chlorophyl 1 a, temp. 

### 0.38

0.46 0.83 0.=^8 0.30 0.85 0.44 

### 0.19 0.63 

### 0.40 0.48 

### 0.40 0.43 0.41 0.43 0.39 0.32 0.18 0.34

are also 

### benthic omnivores, 

### consume polychaetes, 

### harpacticoid copepods, 

### bivalves, and 

### nematodes. Spot have a 

### more 

### diverse diet than 

### croaker and do not 

### concentrate
on 

### single prey types. 

### Trends across size classes are not as 

### clearcut, 

### although 

### there is 

### decreased 

### specialization with growth. The sand 

### seatrout is a 

### watercolumn

### predator of fishes and

### mysidshrimp

(

### Mysidopsis bahia). Small trout (SL 

### 10-29 mm) tend to eat 

### mysids and 

### calanoid copepods, 

### while larger fish (SL 30-8° mm) 

### consume more 

### juvenile fishes. 

### Anchovies

(

### Anchoa mitchilli ) 

### comprise 70^ of all 

### fishes taken.
Fishes 

### regularly undergo 

### ontoqenetic 

### dietary shifts 

### encompassing planktivory, carnivory, omnivory, and 

### herbivorywithin the same species 

### (Sheridan 1978; 

### Sheridan and 

### Livingston 1979; 

### Livingston 1'379, 1982). 

### Sheridan and 

### Livingston (1979) 

### indicated that temporal 

### differences in 

### feeding 

### progressions were a 

### major 

### factor in the lack of 

### overlap in food types among species. 

### Laughlin (1979) 

### found that blue crabs also 

### undergo trophic 

### progressions.

Juveniles, abundant 

### during 

### winter months, feed 

### largely on plant matter, 

### detritus, and 

### bivalve 

### mollusks such as 

### Rangia 

### cuneata

, 

### Brachidontes exustus

, and 

### Crassostrea

### virginica

. As the crab grows, 

### bivalves and fishes 

### become 

### progressively more important in the diet. 

### Larger blue crabs feed 

### primarily on 

### bivalves, fishes, and crabs (i.e., blue crabs, mud crabs such as 

### rhithropanopeus harrisi

, and 

### xanthid crabs of the genus 

### Neopanope ) . 

### Cannibalism is a 

### significant mode of 

### foraqing in the older blue crabs. Diet 

### generallyreflects seasonal shifts of 

### prey abundance.


### Although the 

### distinctive nutrient
sources for the 

### estuary have been 

### identified, the rate 

### functions of 

### energy 

### movement through the 

### system are little 

### understood. The 

### periodic inputs of 

### nutrients and 

### detritus into the 

### estuary
are 

### transformed into biological matter. Such 

### integrative processes 

### continuously smooth out the 

### episodic nature of 

### energy

84

### Fiqure 37. 

### Simplified feeding associations of four 

### dominant 

### fishes--bay anchovy, sand 

### seatrout, 

### Atlantic croaker, 

### spot--and blue crabs in the 

### Apalachicola estuary. Four food 

### compartments are shown: phytoplankton (P), 

### holoplankton (H), 

### meroplankton and benthos (MB), and 

### sediments (S). 

### Major food items in the 

### compartments are: 

### DE=detritus, 8I=bivalves, 

### HC=harpacticoid copepods, 

### NE=nematodes, IN=insects, 

### PO=polychaetes, SH=shrimp, 

### MY=mysids, CR=crabs, 

### FS=fishes, 

### CC=calanoid copepods, 

### OI=diatoms. 

### Numbers indicate 

### dry-weight 

### contribution of 

### particular food items (within boxes) and food 

### contributions of 

### major food 

### compartments (after 

### Laughlin 1979 and 

### Sheridan 1978).



### transfer from upland systems. The 

### planktonic and detrital 

### pathways come 

### together at the 

### sediment level through 

### repackaging of fecal 

### material and the 

### activity of the 

### microorganisms. The 

### microbes transform 

### dissolved nutrients into 

### available 

### particulate matter. 

### Over 2% of the

### dry-weightmass of the 

### sediments is 

### composed of 

### organic carbon, 

### bacterial biomass, and

### extracellularpolysaccharides (D. C. 

### White personal 

### communication). The 

### sediment organic 

### matrix and POM form the basis of the 

### benthic (detrital) 

### foodwebs.

The 

### grazing of 

### detritus and its 

### microbial 

### populations enhances 

### nutrient 

### qualityfor 

### subsequent microbial 

### development by 

### stimulatingfurthermicrobial 

### productivity and 

### enhancing the 

### nitrogen and 

### phosphorus content of the POM. Physical 

### disturbance, through wind and tidal action and active 

### predation and 

### biological activity, is one of the reasons 

### why the 

### Apalachicola estuary is such a

### productive system.
Seasonal 

### relationships among the 

### various physical and

### biological 

### factors in the bay

### systemhave been

### developed (Figure 38). 

### Although the biological 

### response to

a given event 

### usually follows a 

### nonlinear
or 

### curvilinear pattern, 

### certain 

### relationships have 

### become

### evident after

### manyyears of 

### observation. Seasonal 

### variations of 

### temperature and the 

### pulsed river 

### flow are 

### usually out of phase. Local rainfall (Florida) peaks 

### during summer months. 

### Salinity in the 

### estuary is 

### highest 

### during
summer and fall months. The 

### timing of the 

### river flow, and the 

### resultant loading of 

### nutrients and POM, is critical to the seasonal 

### biological 

### successions in the 

### estuary, 

### especially during 

### winter and 

### early spring. 

### During such periods of low 

### winter temperature and 

### salinity and high river 

### flow and detrital 

### movement into the 

### estuary, 

### benthic infaunal 

### abundance is high. 

### Epibenthic organisms 

### (especially fishes) reach peak levels 

### during late 

### winter as 

### temperature starts to 

### increase and 

### macroinvertebrates available for food
are abundant. 

### Benthic omnivores such as spot and the

### Atlantic croaker are 

### favored by such 

### conditions. 

### Although these 

### sciaenids 

### overlap in their temporal dis

### tribution, food size

### partitioning bythese two 

### bottom-feeding fishes 

### results in 

### distinctive differences in 

### prey type and size (Sheridan 1978). A larger 

### apparatus allows 

### croaker to 

### penetrate deeper into the 

### substrate and 

### consume larger polychaetes, shrimp, and crabs. Spot tend to 

### exploit smaller 

### organisms, such as nematodes, 

### harpacticoid copepods, 

### juvenile bivalves, and 

### smaller forms of polychaetes. There is enough

### dietaryoverlap, however, to allow the potential for 

### competition between these two species.


### Benthic 

### macroinvertebrates occupy an 

### important 

### trophic link 

### between the 

### primary producers (and 

### microbes) and the upper

85

### REGIONAL

I 

### RAINFALLj 

### EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

Soil Composition Floodploin Inundotion 

## / VEGETATION DISTRIBUTION 

### MICROBIAL



### SUCCESSION 

### LOCALRAINFALL

EmergenlVeoetation

Leaf Pfoduction Decomposition Ffogmenlofion Nutrient/Detritus Flo'

S 

### y

Ttdal Subsidy W.nd^V
o.s.rba'r'y ISUBH/IERGED

### VEGETATION PRODUCTIVITY

Conditioning

### VER

### PEAKS

I w.rdY > /

## MN
^ ^ B.oiccoi^ ISUBH/IERGED

### VEGETATION nenl/OelcMus Flo* Oisluibance \ |^'•'"

Salinity Gradients ,,_\, / 3 '"" 

# — ^'\ 

### / 

## \

# ^-^ >|

### PHYTOPLANKTON PRODUCTIVITY

|^

Potticulate Organic MatterV WindSubsidy

; j--; .-y' ^--;

I MICROBES-^DE ganic Matter^ WindSubsidy
; .--- 3ETR|TUS ' 

# W T 

## WT
~^LITTEr1-ASSOCIATED f INVERTEaRATES

i I Detritus Production

1

### — f I 

# 1 OETRITLIS-FEEDING INVERTEBRATES

CALANOIDCOPEPQDS -^ OTHER_iO0PL^NK.T0N_

,INVERTBBRATES ANCHpyiES 

### \

^ ANCHOVIES

PENAElp SHRIMP

SEATROUT
TOPPREDATORS ( Incluqingmon )

DEC JAN. 

### FEB 

### MAR APR MAY

i JUN 

# MONTH JUL. AUG. 

### SEPT

I 

### OCT 

### NOV

Figure 38. 

### Generdlized, 

### simplified model of seasonal 

### relationships of the 

### dominant 

### macroinvertebrates and fishes in the 

### Apalachicola Bay system. The model 

### associates population

### distribution with seasonal 

### changes in keyphysical 

### variables, 

### productivity features, and the 

### predator-prey

### relationships of the 

### estuary.



### trophic levels of the estuary. Of the 10 

### numerically dominant infaunal 

### species 

### (representing over 83% of the total number), five are detrital 

### feeders, four
are 

### deposit feeders (surface and 

### subsurface), and one is a

### filter feeder. Of the 

### entire infaunal 

### assemblage, there are 

### fifteen 

### omnivore/carnivore types, seven 

### subsurface deposit feeders, eleven 

### surface deposit feeders, twelve 

### (generalized) 

### deposit feeders, and seven 

### filter feeders. 

### There are high 

### numbers of the various 

### filter-feeding mollusks such as 

### Rangia cuneata and

### Crassostreavirginica

.
The 

### important role of 

### detritus and its 

### associated microbial 

### components is 

### indicated by the 

### predominance of the

detriti

### vore/omnivore 

### feeders in the 

### macroinvertebrate assemblages. Of the 

### dominant 

### litter-associated organisms, the 

### polychaetes are 

### generally omnivorous, 

### consuming fine 

### detritus, 

### microalgae, copepods, and amphipods. The 

### gastropods in the litter include 

### omnivores, filter 

### feeders, 

### scavengers, 

### suspension feeders, and 

### carnivores. The 

### herbivorous snail 

### Neritina reel ivata is a ma.ior species in the 

### grassbeds of East Bay. 

### The 

### amphipods found among the litter 

### assemblages include 

### omnivores, detritus 

### feeders (or leaf 

### scavengers) and, in the case of some 

### gammarids, filter feeders. A few 

### species such as Hyalella azteca

, 

### Gammarus

86

### lacustris

, andMelita spp. areknown to be leaf 

### ThreddeFs [i.e., 

### herbivores), although other 

### amphipods are 

### predaceous, 

### feeding on 

### hydroids, 

### bryozoans, and (possibly) 

### zooplankton. 

### Crustaceans such

as the 

### tanaid

### Hargeria rapax are

### generally omnivores, but some are 

### shredders or 

### parasites. Mysid 

### shrimp

### generallyfeed on 

### fine 

### detritus and diatoms. 

### Decapod 

### crustaceans found in the litter 

### associations are 

### largely 

### omnivores and 

### detritus feeders, 

### although 

### certain dominants, such as 

### penaeid shrimp andblue crabs, are 

### predominately carnivorous duringcertain life stages. 

### During the 

### spring

### months, river 

### flow 

### discharge decreases, 

### salinity increases, and the 

### water clears. 

### These 

### conditions trigger the late 

### spring 

### phvtoplankton blooms and 

### associated 

### zooplankton increases. The 

### spring plankton peaks are 

### concurrent with 

### increased 

### relative abundances of planktivorous 

### fishes such as 

### anchovies and 

### menhaden. As the 

### temperature increases and river 

### flow falls, the high 

### numbers of infaunal 

### macroinvertebrates fall 

### precipitously. As

a result, by the end of 

### spring there are 

### few spot and

### Atlantic croaker in the bay, and the sand 

### seatrout, 

### feeding on 

### anchovies, becomes the 

### dominant scianid. 

### Sheridan (1978) 

### postulated that the 

### summer 

### anchovy peaks are 

### truncated bv sand 

### seatrout. 

### There is little trophic 

### Interaction of the sand 

### seatrout with 

### other dominant fish 

### predators; likewise, there is little 

### dietary overlap of these 

### species 

### during their 

### concurrent periods in the 

### estuary (May-August). 

### During such 

### periods, 

### predation pressure on 

### penaeid 

### shrimp and crabs is low. Ry fall, most of the sand 

### seatrout have 

### moved out of the 

### estuaryand 

### anchovies becomedominant.

As 

### temperature peaks 

### during the summer, the 

### numbers of 

### invertebrates (penaeid shrimp, blue crabs) 

### increase (Figure 27). 

### During this time, local rainfall reaches 

### seasonally hiqh levels. 

### Benthic 

### macrophytes attain peak 

### productivity and 

### standing crop. Ry the end of summer, 

### macrophytes start to die off, and 

### estuarine detritus levels 

### increase as the 

### temperature begins to 

### decline and 

### salinity increases 

### throughout the estuary. By 

### early fall, the 

### numbers of species of fishes and 

### invertebrate species reach high levels. One 

### possible



### explanation for this 

### situation is that those 

### species limited by low 

### salinity duringmost of the year are able to enter the 

### shallow portions of the 

### estuary at this time. 

### Other 

### factors that could 

### enhance the 

### observed high 

### numbers of 

### species 

### during the fall could be 

### falling temperatures (to optimal levels) and the 

### availability of 

### detritus and/or detritivorous 

### invertebrates as food.

An 

### overwhelming 

### majority of the 

### estuarine nekton is 

### omnivorous at some 

### life-history stage, and 

### detritus forms an 

### important 

### component of 

### stomach 

### contents at 

### any given 

### time (Sheridan 1978; 

### Sheridan and 

### Livingston 1979; 

### Livingston 1982b). Of the seven 

### dominant 

### macroinvertebrates, 

### representing over 

### 90% of the 

### trawl

### susceptible catch, five (

### Peaneus 

### setiferus

, 

### Palaemonetes pugio

, 

### Callinectes sapidus, 

### Penaeus aztecus and Loll

### iguncula 

### brevisT are 

### omnivore/carnivore types; Neritina reel ivata is an 

### herbivore, and 

### Lolliguncula brevis is a zooplanktivore. 

### While the 

### nutritional 

### importance of the 

### detritus remains in doubt, 

### omnivory appears to be an 

### important 

### characteristic of the 

### predominant 

### feeding patterns at 

### intermediate levels of the 

### estuarine food webs.

Top 

### predators, 

### feeding 

### largely on 

### decapod 

### crustaceans and 

### fishes 

### during the fall, include 

### spotted 

### seatrout (

### Cynoscion nebulosus), 

### flatfishes (Paralichthys spp. ), adult 

### silver perch

## ~T"Bairdiel1a" 

### chrysoura), 

### searobins (PrionotTTs spp. ), and

### various shark types. 

### During November, as the 

### temperature drops rapidly, 

### epibenthic organisms decrease and 

### various 

### migratory species leave the 

### estuary for 

### nearshore gulf 

### waters as part of their annual 

### migration. 

### Penaeid shrimp are an

### example of this type of 

### population behavior. River 

### flowstarts to 

### increase 

### during the 

### early winter, and 

### salinity goes down. 

### Benthic infaunal 

### species 

### richness and 

### abundance increase as 

### winter progresses (Figure 27).

The seasonal 

### succession of habitat change, 

### energy distribution, soecies

### specific 

### recruitment patterns, 

### predatorprey

### relationships, and the 

### resultingfood 

### web 

### configurations contribute to the

87

### biological 

### organization of the estuary. Infaunal 

### macroinvertebrates reach 

### maximum abundance from 

### November through 

### March, 

### although species 

### richness is 

### highest in May. As 

### indicated previously, 

### phytoplankton and 

### zooplankton are 

### abundant 

### during spring 

### months and summer periods. Fish 

### abundance peaks 

### during 

### winter and 

### early spring although fish and 

### invertebrate species 

### richness indices reach 

### their 

### highest level in 

### October. 

### Epibenthic invertebrate abundance, on the other hand, is high 

### during 

### August when 

### penaeid shrimp and blue crabs are 

### prevalent. In general, the 

### dominant fish species, 

### while

### overlapping in 

### abundance to 

### some degree, tend to 

### predominate during 

### different times of the year; high 

### croaker and spot 

### abundance occurs in 

### winter and 

### earlyspring, sand 

### seatrout in summer, and 

### anchovies in the fall and 

### early winter. 

### Water column feeders such as 

### anchovies are linked to 

### plankton 

### outbursts and

### predation pressure from species such as sand 

### seatrout. 

### Benthic feeders occur

### primarily during periods of 

### detritus/ 

### macroinvertebrate abundance. 

### Croakers and spot feed 

### largely on 

### polychaetes, 

### while blue crabs 

### concentrate on 

### bivalves. 

### Directly or 

### indirectly, most such species 

### take 

### advantage of the 

### detritus that is 

### brought into the 

### estuary by the river. 

### The 

### combination of low 

### salinity, high POM, and low 

### predation 

### pressure 

### contributes to the 

### observed high 

### relative 

### abundance of these 

### species.

5.4. 

### PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTIONSAND 

### COMMUNITYRESPONSE
Although 

### productivity trends and 

### habitat 

### characteristics are 

### important factors in the 

### development and control of food 

### web and 

### community structure, biological 

### features such as 

### predator-prey relationships and 

### competition for


### resources can be 

### extremely important in 

### affecting the 

### biological 

### organization of the estuary. 

### Predation 

### within aguatic 

### associations can lead to 

### changes in 

### relative abundance, species 

### diversity, and other 

### important 

### community indices. 

### Peterson (1979) 

### reviewed factors that 

### relate the impact of 

### predation and 

### competitive exclusion to the 

### response of 

### benthic

### macroinvertebrates in 

### unvegetated, 

### soft-sediment estuarine habitats. 

### Previous work 

### with various 

### marine assem

### blages 

### (largely 

### rocky intertidal



### communities) has 

### indicated that 

### isolation 

### from 

### predation (through 

### manipulative processes such as caging) 

### should lead to 

### increased total density, 

### increased species 

### richness, and 

### restriction of 

### competitive 

### exclusion by 

### particular dominant species 

### (Peterson 1979). 

### According to thismodel, 

### manipulative predator 

### exclusion should


### cause 

### simplification of the 

### prey

### community
as a

### result of 

### enhanced

### competition due to 

### increased 

### population densities. 

### Various authors have 

### found that 

### soft-bottom associations of 

### benthic

### macroinvertebrates do not always 

### follow such a 

### paradigm (Peterson 1979). A series of tests of this 

### basic

### hypothesis has been 

### carried out in the 

### Apalachicola Bay 

### system over the past 3years.



### Inverse 

### correlations between 

### predator and 

### prey 

### population do exist in the 

### Apalachicola estuary (Sheridan and 

### Livingston 1983). 

### Macroinfaunal 

### abundance often 

### declines 

### precipitously during 

### periods of peak 

### abundance of the chief 

### sciaenidpredators (Mahoneyand

### Livingston 1982). Such 

### correlative results suggest that fishes

### mayhave adirect 

### influence on the infaunal 

### assemblages through 

### predation. In 

### grassbed areas, however, infaunal 

### biomass is not 

### affected because larger species 

### (burrowing deeper in the 

### sediments) are not 

### influenced by such 

### predation. Also, recent 

### experiments indicate that 

### macroinvertebrate assemblages in 

### East 

### Bay remain 

### largely 

### unaffected by 

### predation 

### pressure from fishes in the late 

### winter and 

### spring and by 

### motile invertebrates (penaeid shrimp, blue crabs) in the 

### summer/fall 

### (Mahoney and 

### Livingston 1982; 

### Livingston unpubl.). Thus, 

### predation does not appear to play a 

### decisive role in the 

### regulation of 

### prey 

### density or 

### macroinvertebrate community structure in 

### oligohaline portions of the 

### estuary during periods of peak 

### predation pressure.
One 

### possible 

### explanation of the 

### apparent 

### contradiction of the 

### predation 

### paradigm could lie in the 

### recruitment potential of the 

### dominant infaunal species. In a series of 

### experiments with 

### azoic sediments (i.e., 

### devoid of 

### macroinvertebrates), 

### Mahoney (1982) 

### found that infaunal larval 

### recruitment was a 

### decidingfactor in the 

### population dynamicsof 

### various 

### macroinvertebrate species such

as 

### Streblospio benedicti and Capitella 

### capitata

. Such 

### organisms are 

### characterized by 

### extremely short life cycles. 

### Rapid 

### reproduction and larval 

### settlement could 

### mask the impact of and 

### biological 

### disturbances, often 

### important 

### features of 

### estuaries. 

### Heavy larval not always 

### followed by

a given species, however, 

### habitat 

### suitability also be 

### implicated physical 

### which are 

### temperate recruitment is 

### predominance of 

### Other 

### factors such as and 

### competition could in the structure. 

### determination of 

### community

At 

### various levels of 

### biological 

### organization in the estuary, the 

### dominant 

### macroinvertebrate populations are 

### opportunistic and are 

### influenced to 

### varying degrees by the high 

### productivity and physical 

### instability of the system. Such 

### populations have 

### adapted well to 

### habitat 

### instability and 

### variability. 

### Response time to 

### disturbance remains little 

### understood, however. 

### Recent 

### experiments in 

### polyhaline portions of the 

### bay 

### system (Livingston et al. 1983) 

### indicate that 

### salinity could be a 

### factor in the 

### influence of 

### predation on 

### benthic infaunal 

### associations. Infaunal 

### macroinvertebrates in the field 

### were



### manipulated using a series of 

### treatments that 

### involved 

### exclusion cages (i.e., 

### predators were kept out), 

### inclusion cages (i.e., 

### predators were 

### returned to 

### exclusion cages), and 

### field controls. 

### These 

### treatments were compared to 

### laboratory microcosms taken 

### from the field. 

### Preliminaryresults indicate that, over a 6-week

### period of 

### observation, there 

### were 

### increased numbers of 

### macroinvertebrates in the 

### laboratory 

### microcosms and 

### exclusion cages. 

### Species 

### diversity was 

### reduced in such 

### treatments 

### relative to 

### field 

### controls and 

### inclusion cages. Thus 

### predation in

### polyhaline areas of high 

### macroinvertebrate diversity and low 

### dominance 

### may affect infaunal 

### macroinvertebrate community structure. The 

### influence of 

### salinity on species 

### diversity and 

### relative 

### dominance could thus be a

### factor in the 

### relative influence of 

### predation pressure on 

### dominant 

### populations in various 

### portions of the 

### estuary. In areas of low 

### dominance, the 

### influence of 

### predation 

### may be 

### enhanced 

### relative to 

### oligohaline areas 

### where 

### dominance is 

### naturallyhigh. In anycase, few 

### generalizations of 

### predation effects
can be 

### made 

### without due 

### consideration to local 

### habitat 

### conditions.

89

## CHAPTER6 

## LONG-TERM

## ECOLOGICALRELATIONSHIPS

Although diurnal and seasonal 

### changes in 

### population and 

### community structure in the 

### estuaryare 

### relativelywell 

### documented (Livingston IQ/Sb, 1977a, lQ77d, 1Q78; 

### Livingston et al. 1974, 1977), the long

### term

### biological 

### relationships, 

### measured in decades, are still under 

### consideration (Livingston 

### unpublisheddata; 

### Appendix A). Seasonal changes in 

### important physical and chemical 

### factors are 

### relatively stable in terms of timing (Figures 9, 1?); however, there is 

### considerable annual or 

### year-toyear 

### variation of such 

### factors (Figures 10, 14, 15, 16, 17). The 

### couplingbetween 

### climatological features such as river 

### flow and 

### long-term changes in the 

### commercial 

### catches of 

### oysters, shrimp, and crabs (Meeter et al. 11^79) is often 

### complicated by 

### socioeconomic influences on such data 

### (Whitfield and

### Beaumariage 1977).

The 

### specific 

### short-term distribution of a given species is often 

### associated 

### with complex habitat 

### variables and the avail

### ablility of food. At the same time, 

### long-termchanges in a given

### population in the 

### estuary may be 

### influenced by 

### climatological cycles. Thus, the 

### monthly distribution of brief squid (Lol 1inguncula 

### brevis ) 

### depends to a 

### considerable degree on 

### fluctuations of 

### zooplankton abundance, but the 

### timing and annual 

### abundance of this species is also 

### associated with 

### recurrent cycles of 

### salinity and 

### temperature (Fiaure 39; Laugh!in and 

### Livingston 1<582). 

### Spring 

### migration into the 

### estuary has been 

### correlated with 

### specific changes in both 

### temperature and 

### salinity, 

### while the fall 

### emigration largely depends on 

### temperature changes. 

### Timing of the 

### succession of 

### climatological changes is 

### important since a 

### specific 

### temperature has 

### entirely different 

### meanings to a given species in the 

### spring and in the fall. 

### Long-term patterns of blue crab

(

### Callinectes sapidus ) 

### recruitment cannot be 

### determined solely by the physical and 

### chemical 

### environment (Figure 40; 

### Laughlin and 

### Livingston, unpubl.). For any given year, the

### winter 

### recruitment was 

### inversely 

### related to blue crab 

### population abundance and to summer 

### recruitment levels. The 

### variable size 1 

### (monthlymean 

### frequencies of crabs of 1-30 mm; 

### Table 24) was 

### inversely

### correlatedwith 

### temperature (p 0.01) and 

### with 

### variable size 3 

### (monthly mean 

### frequencies of crabs 61 mm) (p O.OS). No 

### significant 

### correlations were found 

### with river 

### flow or local 

### rainfall, 

### which were 

### associated with peak 

### recruitments at 

### different times of the year. In a 

### multiple regression with 

### variable size 1 as the 

### dependent variable (Table 25A, N = 12 

### months), temperature, rainfall, and 

### variable size 2 

### explained about 89°^ of the 

### variability of 

### relative abundance. The

### variable size 2was

### weakly correlatedwith all other 

### variables (Table 26R). In a 

### multiple regression with 

### variable size 3 as the 

### dependent variable, 

### temperature, river flow, size 1 and size 2 

### explained about 70^ of the 

### variability of 

### relative abundance (Table 25C).


### Winter 

### recruitment was 

### below the 

### 6-year average (59 

### crabs/month) in 1972-73, 1974-75 and 1975-75. A 

### single high peak, however, 

### occurred in 1<373 and
was 

### correlated with the 

### highest peak of river 

### flow of the 

### 6-year period (Figure 40). 

### During the 

### winter months of these years, river 

### flow (which 

### largely 

### determines 

### salinityvalues in the 

### estuary) 

### reached high (1^73), 

### intermediate (1975), and low (1°76) values, 

### whereas water 

### temperatures deviated little {+_1° C) 

### from the 

### 6-year 

### temperaturemean (14.9° C). By 

### contrast, summer 

### recruitment for each of these years was well above the 

### 6-year

90

# YEARand

# MONTH
Figure 39. 

### Long-term fluctuations of squid 

### abundance, salinity, and 

### temperature at 

### stations lA, IB, and IC in the

### Apalachicola estuary from June 1972 

### throughMarch 1979 (Laughlin and

### Livingston 1982).



### average (51 

### crabs/month) and was not 

### directly correlated with 

### abiotic or 

### physico-chemical factors; summer rainfall 

### varied from minimal (1976) to maximal (1975) values and 

### temperature varied little. The total 

### population abundance (all sizes) 

### following the 

### winter recruitments of 1972-73, 1974-75, and 

### 1975-76 was above the 

### 6-year 

### average (59 

### crabs/ month). Summer 

### recruitment values 

### were not 

### included in these 

### calculations. 

### Alternatively, winter 

### recruitment was above the annual mean in 1973-74, l'376-77. and 1977-78, and was 

### correlated with



### relatively high (1974, 1977) and low (1978) 

### winter river flow. 

### Water 

### temperatures were just above the average in 1974 and

### markedly low in 1977 and 1978, Summer 

### recruitment levels and total 

### population abundance 

### following the

### winters of these years 

### were all 

### below the 

### 6-year average. Tn fact, 

### dramatic decreases in total numbers of crabs 

### occurred in 1974 and 1978. Again, none of these values was 

### significantly correlated with any 

### single 

### abiotic factor. With the 

### exception of

91~]iiiiiiiii i|iiii

### n i iiiip iiffiiiiii|iiiiiiiiiii|iiiiiiiiiii[iiiiiiiiiii[ i i iiiiiii'~ 

### m s J 1972 

### m s 1973 

# ms)msjmsjms)

1974 1975 1976 1977 

### m s

1978

( )

## l-50mm

( ) All Sizes 

# YEARand

# MONTH

Figure 40. 

### Monthly 

### frequencies of blue crabs and 

### variations in 

### important 

### physicochemical 

### parameters at the 10 

### day-time stations in the

### Apalachicola estuary from 

### March 1972 

### through 

### March 1978 (Laughlin and 

### Livingston, unpubl

. )
.

92

### Table 24. 

### Parametric (r) and 

### nonparametric (T) 

### correlations of seasonal 

### variations of 

### blue crab 

### frequencies and 

### abiotic variables. 

### Variables 

### representmonthlyaverages of 

### monthly data for 7 years. 

### Salinity and 

### temperaturemeans are 

### baywide over 14 

### stations in the

### Apalachicola estuary (from

### Laughlin and 

### Livingston unpubl.). 

### Correlation

### matrix

- Seasonal 

### variations (N = 12).



### Variables1978, years with high levels of 

### winter 

### recruitment were

### preceded byyears of hiqh 

### population abundances; however, the 

### opposite was not true for 

### winters of low 

### recruitments.


### Unlike the brief squid, there was no 

### significant linear 

### relationships between blue crab 

### population parameters and 

### abiotic factors. 

### Including 1-, ?-, and 

### 3-month time lags of the 

### abiotic variables didnot 

### improve such linear 

### relationships. However, for a given year, there was a 

### significant inverse 

### correlation between 

### winter recruitment and the 

### following summer 

### recruitment (p < 0.1). In 

### other words, in any given year, 

### above-average winter recruitment was 

### usually

### followed by

a sharp 

### decrease in total 

### population and by low summer 

### recruitment levels. 

### Conversely, 

### relatively hiqh 

### population abundances and high levels of summer 

### recruitments followed 

### winters of low 

### recruitment levels. Thus, 

### long-term 

### population features of these 

### dominant 

### invertebrate species (brief squid and blue crabs) are 

### dependent on

### different factors.


### Temporal 

### variability is 

### extremely complex since, at any given instant, a natural 

### system 

### represents a 

### composite ot 

### different sequences of 

### varyinq periods 

### superimposed over one 

### another as the 

### result of an almost 

### infinite 

### number of 

### cause-and-effect reactions. 

### Determining 

### causality is 

### difficult because these 

### overlapping cycles 

### may differ along 

### habitat 

### gradients and at 

### different levels of 

### biological 

### organization. 

### Consequently, the term 

### "backqround noise" has 

### become a 

### euphemism for our 

### inability to 

### determine the temporal or 

### sequential 

### cause and 

### effect relationships. 

### Modeling efforts often 

### assume that 

### systems are in a state of 

### equilibrium, 

### without 

### defininq the actual extent of temporal 

### variability. Terms such as stability, 

### resilience, and 

### diversity are used to give a 

### theoretical ^'ramework towhat is 

### essentially a lack of 

### consistent 

### observations of 

### organisms under 

### fieldconditions.

Annual 

### variability among 

### dominant fish 

### populations in the 

### Apalachicola estuary was 

### considerable (Figure 41). Each 

### species 

### followed a 

### distinct, long

### term pattern of abundance; no 

### single aspect of the physical 

### environment was



### apparent as the 

### controlling factor of the 

### long-term changes. 

### Bay anchovies were most dominant 

### during periods of high 

### salinity. The sand 

### seatrout 

### population tended to 

### follow the 

### anchovypatternwith 

### particularly low 

### numbers during the vear of peak 

### flooding when 

### anchovies were also low (1973). The

### Atlantic croaker 

### followed
no 

### obvious pattern

### relative to 

### temperature
or salinity. Spot showed the 

### highest 

### year-to-year 

### variability with 

### relatively high 

### numbers taken 

### during the 

### winterspring 

### months of 1981. The cold 

### winters of 

### 1976-77 and 

### 1977-78 did not 

### appear to affect any of the 

### dominant fish 

### populations in the 

### Apalachicola estuary. It is clear that 

### factors other than 

### temperature and 

### salinity are 

### important in the control of 

### long-term 

### fluctuations of these

### populations.

Although 

### generalized temperature and 

### salinity preferences are well 

### established for 

### various 

### estuarine species (Table 17), 

### most such

### organisms have a

### relativelywide 

### tolerance for these 

### factors. 

### Tolerance of this kind 

### could 

### explain the lack of 

### importance of these 

### factors in the 

### determination of 

### long-term 

### population 

### variability (Table 23). 

### When 

### viewed 

### from the aspect of 

### relative (percentage) 

### abundance, a 

### certain temporal 

### regularity of the 

### appearance of the 

### dominant fishes and 

### invertebrates becomes 

### apparent 

### (Livingston et al. 1976b; 

### Figure 42). For example, 

### relative 

### occurrence of 

### Palaemonetes pugio is high 

### during spring 

### while Penaeus setiferus was 

### dominant 

### during late 

### summer and fall. The blue 

### crab is 

### abundant 

### during 

### winter periods. 

### Among the fishes, sand 

### seatrout are 

### dominant during the 

### spring and summer 

### while bay 

### anchovies (after the first year of 

### sampling) 

### predominate in the fall and 

### Atlantic croaker prevail 

### during the late 

### winter and soring. 

### When a 

### comparison is 

### made among the 

### dominant fishes for peaks of abundance, such 

### increases tend to be 

### evenlydistributedover a 

### 12-month period. 

### However, of the top 

### invertebrates, most 

### abundance peaks occur 

### during fall 

### periods 

### (September-November) with 

### secondary concentrations of peaks 

### during 

### early
summer (May-June). The 

### major dominants for both fishes and 

### invertebrates thus
94BayAnchovy {Anchoamitchilli )

Atlontic Croaker (Micropogonias undulolus )

aoo

Z2

24

160- Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus )

979 1980 1981 1982

Bottom WaterTemperoture

—

1

### — 

### m—

I

### —
\ I I I97J 1974 075 in7p 1977 ,9?e 1979 I98C 1981

Surface Water Salinity



### Figure 41. 

### Long-termabundance patterns in the

### dominant trawlable fish 

### populations in the 

### Apalachicola estuary fromMarch 1972 

### through

### February 4, 1982, 

### with 

### reference to 

### temperature and 

### salinity 

### variations (Livingston 1983 unpubl

. )

.
95

# X 

# o h- 

# <



# oILi_ 

# o

hUJ 

# o I I I r A I I I I J 1—1

# —

I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I



# T—

1

# —

I

# —r M AM JT

# —

I I I I I

# —

r I I I I

# —

I I I I

# —r—

# n—

i i"-i i i i

# —

r i i i i i 

# JASONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONDJF

1972 I97J 1974 1975 

# YEAR and

# MONTH

Figure 42. 

### Relative importance of four

### dominant species of 

### invertebrates and fishes taken in the 

### Apalachicola Bay 

### system from 

### March 1972 

### through 

### February 1975. These species 

### represent32.4% and 

### 86.0% of the 

### respective 3-yr totals 

### (Livingstonet al

. 1976).

show 

### distinct patterns of 

### relative abundance throuqh a given seasonal period.


### Various independent ecological 

### factors operate to 

### determine the temporal 

### distribution of the 

### dominant 

### estuarine organisms. Biological functions, such as 

### adaptive 

### response to the physical and 

### trophic 

### environment, 

### determine distributional patterns, 

### thereby allowing a 

### somewhat 

### orderly temooral 

### succession of



### dominant forms 

### within certain broad 

### trophic spectra. 

### Patterns of 

### reproduction of various 

### dominant 

### estuarine species have 

### evolved in such a 

### way as to permit long

### term 

### partitioning of the 

### estuarine environment. 

### Superimposed on these 

### patterns of 

### response are

### varying levels of 

### resource division based on vertical and 

### horizontal 

### distribution of the 

### component

96species. 

### Various 

### microhabitat phenomena such as salinity, 

### bottom type, 

### currents, and the 

### availability of 

### detritus and 

### food
are important. Thus, no 

### single 

### parameter Drevails in the 

### determination of the 

### community structure of the estuary, 

### which itself 

### undergoes 

### predictable seasonal changes as part of a 

### physically forced system. 

### Although there are 

### appreciable shortterm 

### fluctuations in the 

### numbers of 

### individuals of 

### different populations, the 

### system maintains a temporal 

### constancy which, 

### according to a 

### traditional view of such

### phenomena, could be 

### termed stability. This does not mean that the 

### system is not in a 

### constantly transient state. On the 

### contrary, 

### through natural and unnatural 

### mechanisms such as 

### habitat 

### alteration and 

### destruction, hurricanes, cold

### winters, and 

### periodic flooding, the 

### various 

### population 

### equilibria 

### continuously shift. Each 

### population 

### fluctuates around a 

### specific point of 

### equilibrium, and the 

### fluctuations reflect the 

### adaptive 

### response to the 

### specific aspects of the 

### estuarine environment.

The 

### physically 

### Apalachicola unstable in 

### estuary time but IS is 

### characterized by 

### epibenthic populations 

### which 

### maintain relatively stable temporal 

### interspecific relationships. The 

### dominant fishes and 

### invertebrates are 

### temporarily partitioned in time. 

### Particular groups of 

### fishes tend to 

### co-occur (Figure 43). 

### Generally, three 

### main 

### clusters were 

### arranged around the top 

### dominants, 

### Anchoa mitchilli (I), 

### Micropogonias undulatus (II), and 

### Cynoscion arenarius (IV)

. The 

### anchovygroup is 

### abundant 

### during the fall. The 

### Micropogonias group 

### predominates during winter and 

### early spring periods, and the 

### Cynoscion group 

### prevails during the summer and

### earlyfall.



### Studies are 

### currently being 

### undertaken to model the 

### response of the 

### major groups of fish 

### with 

### respect to physical stress, 

### abundance of 

### prey (Mahoney and 

### Livingston 1982; 

### Livingston et al. 1983), 

### long-term changes of 

### concurrent populations, and 

### experimental 

### manipulations of a

### varietyof 

### associations 

### within the 

### estuary (Livingston et al. 1983; 

### Livingston, unpubl.; 

### Appendices A, B, C). 

### These studies will be based on 

### occurrence patterns over a 1?- to 13-year period.

97

### 0.9 

### Similarity

0.5 

### 01 -0.3 

### -0.5 

# —r~



# m



# m

m

YR

'PTTT Anchoomitchilli Etropus crossofus Symphurus pfogiuso Dasyatis sabina Pnonotusfnbulus
Archosargusprobotocephafus
Lepisosfeus osseus

DorosofDcpefeoense

Mtcropogonios undulatus Lewstomus xanfhurus Trinectes maculofus Parohchthys lethostigmo Oob/osomo bosci Microgobius gulosus Microgobius fhafassinus GobiontHus boleosoma
Syngnafhus scovetii - Lucartiaparva

Lagodonrhomboides

Brevooffio pafronus
Mbnidia berylfina
Urophycis f/oridonus

Ictalurus cofus

Cynosdon arenarius Anus felis M»nticirrhus amenconus Synodus foetens

Chloroscombrus chrysurus Choefodipferus faber Peprilus paru

Syngnotbus flondae Eucmostomus argenfeus Syngnatbus louisianae CynosC'on nebulosus Pnonotus scitulus

Boirdiello chrysura Sphoeroides nap^elus Orthoprisfis Cbrysopfero Porichthys porosissimus

Eucmostomus gula Opistbonerriaoglmum
Anchoa hepselus Monocanfhus hispidus

Poiydactyius octonemus Bagremannus



### Figure 43. Temporal 

### associations of fishes taken in 

### Apalachicola estuary from 

### March 1972 to 

### February 1976. Only top 45 

### species in terms of total numbers of 

### individuals are shown. 

### Clusters 

### represent species that occur 

### together from one

### year to the 

### next (Livingston et al. 1978).
98

## CHAPTER7 

## THE

## ESTUARYASA

## RESOURCE

7.1. 

### FISHERIES

There ^re 

### relatively few 

### studies of 

### fisheries in the 

### Apalachicola River system. 

### Early surveys (Cox and Auth, 

### 1^70-1973) of the upoer

### ApalachicolaRiver noted 

### increasing stress to

### various species of fishes as a 

### result of physical 

### alterations such as damminq, 

### dredqing, and 

### eutrophication. Studies of 

### striped bass 

### (Barkuloo 1967, 1970; 

### Crateau et al. 1981) 

### indicated that, be^'ore the 

### construction of the 

### Jim 

### Woodruff Dam (1955) at the 

### confluence of the Flint and 

### Chattahoochee Rivers, there was a 

### viable sport 

### fishery for 

### striped bass in the 

### Apalachicola River. Since that time, the 

### striped bass 

### fishery has 

### declined 

### "drastically." The dams in 

### Georgia (Figure 4), 

### together with 

### dredging and spoil 

### deposition along the upoer 

### Apalachicola River, have 

### eliminated spawning grounds in the Flint and 

### Chattahoochee Rivers. 

### Pesticides from 

### agricultural runoff and industrial 

### effluents (Livingston I'^SAb) are also 

### suspected of 

### reducing these 

### populations. The 

### native Gulf of 

### Mexico race of 

### striped bass, once 

### widespread throughout the rivers of the 

### northern gul''', is now 

### limited to a small 

### population in the 

### Apalachicola River. 

### Recent 

### stocking of 

### Atlantic coast 

### striped bass has 

### further diluted the gulf strain and has 

### resulted in 

### only limited success (Crateau et al

. 1981). 

### Wooleyand

### Crateau (1<383) 

### conclude that the 

### native 

### Apalachicola striped bass 

### represent the 

### only 

### existing remnant of a 

### population that 

### historically was present in

### numerous Gulf of

### Mexico drainages. For this reason, the authors 

### recommend 

### conservation of the 

### existing stock as a "gene bank."

A 

### commercial 

### catfish 

### fishery still exists along the 

### Apalachicola River. 

### However, 

### Miller et al. (1977) cite 

### studies

that 

### related 

### snagging (i.e., stumpremoval 

### from the river bed for 

### navigation) to the 

### decline of the 

### commercial 

### catfish harvest 

### from the river. This activity, 

### together with the 

### massive 

### excavation and 

### maintenance activities 

### associated with 

### nagivation projects (Figure 44), has 

### reduced or 

### modified the 

### riverine habitat 

### substantially (Miller et al

. 1977). 

### Recent studies of the 

### Apalachicola River (Ager et al

. 1984) 

### indicate that sand bars and spoil disposal sites are now common 

### throughout the river; in the upper river, the 

### gently sloping natural bank 

### habitat has 

### become "scarce" 

### because of 

### dredging 

### activities over the past 30

### years (Ager et al. 1984). It has been 

### projected that, 

### because of such 

### habitat alterations, the fish 

### species 

### composition will 

### continue to shift fromgame 

### species 

### (characteristic of natural 

### habitats) to rough and 

### forage species 

### (characteristic of 

### sand-bar habitats). This loss of 

### habitat has also been 

### associatedwith the recent 

### decline of the 

### sturqeon fishery. 

### Accordinq to recent 

### studies (Wooleyand

### Crateau 1982), 

### Florida sturgeon landings in the 

### Apalachicola River have 

### declined 

### raoidly (U.S. 

### Department of 

### Commerce 1976 

### landing 

### statistics) relative to 

### neiqhboringgulfcoast rivers. The 

### fishery 

### effectively ended in 1^70 

### when only five fish 

### were taken. The 

### Apalachicola sturgeon 

### copulation appears to be in trouble, 

### although it is 

### believed that at least a 

### relict 

### sturqeon 

### population still 

### remains in the 

### Apalachicola River. 

### Recently, 

### Wooley et al. (li^B?) 

### reported the 

### first 

### recorded capture of a larval gulf 

### sturgeon about 3.3 km

### below the

### Jim

### Woodruff Dam in May, 1977. 

### Wooley and 

### Crateau (1982) 

### reported that 

### relatively few 

### sturgeon (35-40) 

### were 

### harvested by 

### angling during 1981. An 

### important 

### spawning area has been

99

### Figure 44. 

### Dredge spoil bank along the 

### Apalachicola River--a result of 

### channel

### maintenance efforts of the U.S. 

### ArmyCorps of 

### Engineers. Note dead trees inwhat was once the river floodplain.



### located in the upper 

### Apalachicola at the end of the usual 

### spring flooding. 

### Recent studies (Wooley and 

### Crateau 1984 in 

### review) 

### indicate seasonal 

### migrations of 

### sturgeon between 

### freshwater and 

### estuarine portions of the 

### Apalachicola system. A 

### strong

### homestreamtendency is apparent.
The 

### tailwaters of the 

### Jim 

### Woodruff Dam still support some sport 

### fishing in the spring, 

### especially for the

### white bass

(

### Morone chrysops ) and the 

### hybrid or 

### sunshine bass (M^. saxati 1is x M_. 

### chrysops). 

### Largemouth bass and 

### various forms of bream and 

### shellcrackers are also 

### important sport fishes. The

### yellow perch

(Perca flavescens ) is taken 

### occasionally by

### freshwater fishermen. The

### Alabama shad

(

### Alosa alabamae ) is the 

### most abundant anadromous fish along the river. As 

### pointed out by

### Miller et al. (1977), the general 

### decline of the 

### freshwater fisheries is 

### inevitable if 

### habitat 

### destruction along the river 

### continues. 

### Habitats are 

### destroyed by 

### dredging and 

### channelization, damming, urban and 

### agricultural runoff, toxic 

### substances, and 

### other forms of river 

### modification. There is a need for a 

### comprehensive assessment of the 

### current status of the

### Apalachicola River 

### fisheries and the 

### current and 

### future effects of river

### modifications and

### habitat loss on such

### productivity. However, as of this writing, the 

### channelization of the upper 

### Apalachicola River by 

### dredging and rock removal for 

### navigation purposes 

### continues, and there is little hope of a



### return to 

### former levels of 

### productivityof the

### once-viable freshwater fisheries.

The 

### commercial 

### fisheries of the 

### Apalachicola Bay 

### system are 

### diverse and 

### substantial. 

### According to the 

### summaries of 

### commercial 

### marine landings in 

### Franklin 

### County (Florida 

### Department of Natural 

### Resources, 1952-1976) and 

### projections of commercial there is 

### considerable annual such landings over the 

### observation (1952-1977) 

### Prochaska 1977). Shrimp, 

### analyses of



### populations, 

### variation of 

### period of (Cato and 

### together with 

### oysters and blue crabs, 

### provide over 80^ of the annual catch by weight. Black 

### mullet and 

### grouper 

### contribute almost

# m
of the 

### remaining catch. 

### Whiting, 

### menhaden, flounder, red snapper, and 

### spotted seatrout all 

### contribute to the overall landings. In terms of total value, 

### shrimp (53.9°/$), 

### oysters (33%), and blue crabs (5.1%) 

### constitute the 

### backbone of the 

### commercial 

### fishery value in 

### FranklinCounty, 

### which itself 

### accounts for
over 90% of 

### Florida's oyster landings and the third 

### highest catch of 

### shrimp 

### statewide.

The 

### oyster 

### fishery in the 

### Apalachicola estuarv has 

### historical 

### significance (Swift 1896; Ruge 1897; 

### Danglade 1917). 

### Many of the 

### historic 

### observations were 

### similar to 

### today's in that 

### floods and

### droughts have an 

### important impact on the 

### viability of individual 

### oyster bars. The 

### present 

### distribution of 

### oyster bars does not differ 

### substantially from that 

### depicted on

### maps 

### producedduring the 

### early part of this 

### century (Whitfield and 

### Beaumariage 1977). 

### However, the 

### current maps (Figure 20) need to be updated, as they are based 

### largely on 

### obsolete surveys. 

### Commercially valuable oyster bars 

### currently cover 

### onlyhalf the
area

### estimated to be 

### available at the turn of the century. Shell 

### planting with "cultch" or 

### shucked shells has proven to be a successful 

### management technique for 

### encouraging oyster bar 

### development (Whitfield 1973). 

### Approximately 40% of the 

### Apalachicola Bay area is 

### suitable for 

### growing oysters if 

### cultched in an 

### appropriate manner (Whitfield and 

### Beaumariage 1977). The actual and 

### potential 

### productivityhas been 

### attributed to the unique 

### geographical and physical

100

### attributes of the 

### largely 

### unpolluted 

### Apalachicola drainage system. 

### More 

### sanitary (safe) 

### harvesting waters for 

### oysters exist in the 

### Apalachicola estuary than in any other 

### Florida estuary. 

### Considerable support 

### exists for this 

### industry as a regional and 

### statewide natural resource. This fact, added to recent 

### information that the 

### Apalachicola Bay 

### system appears to be a

### major 

### spawning or 

### source area for the 

### entire

### FloridaGulf blue crab 

### fishery (Oesterling and Evink 1977), has 

### stimulated various 

### research 

### investigations 

### concerning future 

### fishery potential.
The overall 

### Apalachicola fishery resource has grown 

### substantially over the past decade. 

### During the 

### period from 1Q77 to 1981, all 

### previous 

### oyster 

### production records were broken on an annual basis (Joyce 1983). The 

### record landings were due 

### largely to an 

### increase in the 

### fishing effort (Prochaska and 

### Mulkey 1983), 

### although 

### newly 

### instituted programs of summer 

### oystering (1977) and an 

### oyster 

### relay program (Futch 1983) have added to the annual crop. 

### Although 

### oyster 

### production has 

### increased to Al% of the total 

### Franklin 

### County landings, the 

### relative value of the 

### oyster crop has 

### declined to 365;!, 

### partly as a 

### result of 

### increased 

### county shrimp landings and 

### considerable increases in 

### shrimp prices 

### (Prochaska and 

### Mulkey 1983). Blue crabs 

### constitute about 5% of the total value of the 

### commercial 

### fishery in

### FranklinCounty. 

### Of the 

### commercial 

### finfish catch, 

### striped 

### mullet (Mugil 

### cephalus ) is the most important. Grouper, 

### menhaden, and

### whiting are also taken, 

### although the 

### commercial ''infish 

### industry has 

### declined in recent years 

### (Livingston 1983c).
Sport 

### fishing in the

### Apalachicola Bay 

### system remains 

### largely 

### undeveloped, although the 

### potential exists for a

### highly productive industry. Sport 

### fisheries 

### associated with the 

### estuary include 

### spotted seatrout (

### Cynoscion nebulosus), red drum (

### Sciaenops 

### ocellatus), tarpon

(

### Megalops atlanticus), 

### sheepshead

(

### Archosargus 

### probatocephlus), black drum

(

### Pogonias 

### cromis ) and 

### flounder

(Paralichthys spp.). Fishes taken ott the 

### barrier islands and 

### Alligator Point include various 

### species of sharks, 

### cobia

(

### Rachycentron canadum), 

### bluefish (

### Pomatomus saltatrix), red 

### snapper
(

### Lutjanus 

### campechanus), and 

### different species of grouper. The 

### development of 

### artificial 

### offshore reefs in the region 

### could add 

### considerably to the 

### continued 

### development of sport 

### fisheries in the area.

7.2. 

### SOCIOECONOMICFACTORS

The

### Apalachicola valleydepends to a 

### considerable degree on a 

### rather 

### narrow 

### economic base. A 

### land-use 

### inventory (Table ?6) is 

### indicative of the regional 

### socioeconomic conditions. 

### Forestry and 

### agriculture account for 

### nearly 80% of the land use in the basin. 

### Forestry, 

### agriculture, sport and 

### commercial 

### fisheries, 

### recreation, and light 

### manufacturing are the chief 

### industries of the region. In 

### Franklin and 

### Gulf Counties, commercial and industrial land use are 

### only 0.9% and 

### 0.^% of the total area, 

### respectively. In the 

### entire river basin, the 

### populationwas 109,254 in 1974, 

### with 

### only modest projected increases for the next 10-20 years. Per 

### capita income is low, 

### averaging 

### only 65% of the state level in 1974. 

### Despite a 

### historic trend of 

### emigration of 

### workers, the natural 

### features of the river and bay 

### system 

### continue to 

### attract new 

### residents, 

### especially in the coastal areas. The 

### Apalachicola system 

### contributes an 

### important part of the regional 

### economyand culture, 

### with unique 

### sociological 

### conditions 

### characterized by the close 

### relationship between the natural attributes of the 

### drainage system and the local 

### inhabitants. The 

### slight 

### investment needed to 

### maintain the rich 

### renewable resources of the area is an 

### important 

### factor in anv 

### review of the value 

### (economic and 

### cultural) of the natural 

### productivity of the valley.


### Franklin County, 

### which 

### surrounds the 

### Apalachicola Bay

### System

,has a 

### relatively limited scope of 

### employment with 

### primary dependence on 

### products from the 

### aquatic 

### resource base and 

### tourist 

### expenditures (Colberg et al. 1968). 

### Commercial 

### fisheries alone 

### provide jobs for over 65% of the 

### Franklin 

### County work force. 

### Fishing is an "export" 

### industry for 

### Franklin 

### County because 

### practically all sales are 

### outside the region 

### (Prochaska and

### Mulkey 1983). 

### Export sales trigger a
101

### Table 26. Land use 

### inventoryof the

### ApalachicolaRiver basin (from

### Florida

### Department of

### Administration 1<^77).

### contributions of the 

### entire 

### family (husband and older boys as tonqers, 

### wife and older 

### daughters as shuckers, joint 

### management of the business). Such a 

### family-oriented business 

### structure has 

### strengthened the 

### traditional bond 

### between the 

### community and the 

### industry to an 

### extent that is not common 

### elsewhere in 

### today's society. Thus, 

### familyand

### kinship bonds 

### underlie and 

### strengthen the 

### dependence of the area on the natural industries.

Some of the 

### more important prospects for regional growth are based on 

### residential 

### develooment of areas such as St. 

### George Island and 

### industrialization of the river 

### watershed. This 

### situation has 

### resulted in a direct 

### confrontation between local and 

### outside 

### developmental interests. 

### Future 

### planning initiatives will have to be based on a 

### reasonable evaluation of the natural 

### renewable- 

### resource base if the local 

### industry is to be protected. The 

### potential for 

### destruction of these 

### resources through 

### environmental alterations and

### pollution is high. At the same time, the potential for 

### expanding the 

### highly 

### profitable oyster 

### industry with 

### updated 

### management of the 

### resource is 

### excellent.

7.3. 

### EXISTINGAND

### PROJECTED IMPACT BYMAN

A number of 

### publications have 

### addressed the 

### problem of 

### environmental alteration and 

### pollution in the 

### Apalachicola drainage system (Livingston 1^74, 1P75, 1976a, b, lQ77a-d, 1978, 1980a-c, 1983d; 

### Livingston and 

### Duncan 1979; 

### Livingston et al. 1974, 1976a, 1978). The 

### Apalachicola estuary depends
on three basic 

### elements for its 

### productivity: (1) the 

### Apalachicola River system, (2) the 

### Tate's Hell 

### Swamp and 

### surrounding 

### freshwater/brackish wetlands, and (3) the 

### barrier islands. Physical 

### alterations of these areas or changes in 

### water 

### quality or 

### quantity due to human 

### activities could affect the natural 

### processes that define and control the 

### productivityof the 

### river-baysystem.

7.3.1. Physical 

### Alterations

Darnell (1976) 

### reviewed the effects of structural changes on a range of 

### aquatic systems. 

### Impoundment, 

### channelization, dredge and spoil



### operations, diking, and other physical 

### modifications have the 

### capacity to alter natural 

### aquatic systems. Since the 

### early 1970's, there has been 

### considerable 

### controversy concerning efforts to dam 

### and/or 

### channelize the 

### currently free

### flowing 

### Apalachicola River. 

### Georgia and 

### Alabama industrial 

### interests want to 

### maintain an 

### authorized 9-ft channel so that barge 

### traffic can

### move from the 

### Gulf of 

### Mexico to 

### upriver cities along the Flint and 

### Chattahoochee Rivers. 

### Currently, this 

### system is deep 

### enough for barge 

### traffic 

### only 83^ of the time (U.S. 

### Army Corps of 

### Engineers, 1975), which is not enough for the 

### upriver interests. 

### There are 13 

### hydroelectric dams on the 

### Chattahoochee River and 3 dams on the Flint River, some of which are 

### privately owned (Figure 4). 

### Publiclyowneddams and 

### dredging and 

### maintenance activities have cost in

### excess of 

### $700

### million.


### According to a 1975 

### environmental impact 

### statement bytheU.S. 

### ArmyCorps of 

### Engineers, 

### dredging has had 

### adverse effects on the 

### Apalachicola River. 

### Livingston andJoyce (1977) point out that 

### impoundments such as the 

### Jim

### Woodruff Dam 

### cause 

### aquatic

### weedproblems, water 

### guality 

### degradation due to the 

### accumulation of 

### herbicides and 

### insecticides, 

### continued need for 

### dredging due to 

### sedimentation, 

### reduction of habitat due to spoil 

### disposal, and 

### restriction of the 

### movement of 

### nutrients and 

### particulate 

### matter to 

### downriver areas. 

### Dredging and 

### snagging (removal of 

### submerged stumps) 

### operations along the 

### Apalachicola River are 

### blamed for habitat loss 

### (Stevenson 1977), 

### destruction of 

### benthic 

### organisms (Miller et al. 1977), loss of 

### flood-plain vegetation (Clewell and 

### McAninch 1977), 

### reduction of bank 

### overflow, 

### blocked 

### migrations of 

### migratory fishes, 

### restriction of 

### striped bass from thermal 

### refuges and 

### sturgeon from 

### former ranges, and 

### increased 

### pollution due to oil and chemical spills (Figure 44).


### Stabilization of a river 

### usually leads to 

### industrialization and 

### municipal 

### development in the 

### former floodplain

### with 

### associated effects on 

### water 

### availability and quality. The 

### development of the 

### Apalachicolafloodplain is 

### uneconomical in terms of the 

### cost-benefit analysis

103

### (Rockwood and 

### Leitman, 1977). A 1<382 

### comparison of federal 

### subsidies 

### prepared by the 

### Congressional Budget 

### Office shows that 

### waterways in general 

### receive the 

### highest level of public 

### transportation support of all industries. On the basis of 

### cost-per-ton mile, the 

### Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) 

### system is the 

### most 

### expensive 

### maintenance operation in the 

### country (45.5 

### mills per tonmile), being almost twice as 

### expensive

as the 

### second highest and 41.36 times the national average. The cost to the 

### public of

### moving abarge 

### through the Jim

### Woodruff Dam is around $2,040. The 1981 cost for 

### maintenance of the Jim 

### Woodruff Dam and 

### dredging of the 

### Apalachicola River 

### exceeded $6,735,000, and 

### recent cost increases have not been 

### offset by

### revenue from 

### increased barge traffic. 

### Despite all this 

### information, the Corps of 

### Engineers has 

### recentlybeen 

### authorized to blast tons of rock 

### from the river (a 

### form of 

### channelization) at a cost 

### exceeding $1,000,000.


### There are few 

### available data for 

### evaluating the 

### environmental impact of physical 

### alteration of the 

### tri-river system. Cox (1970) and Cox and 

### Auth (1971-1973) 

### indicate that 

### dredging (Figure 44) has 

### contributed to local 

### habitat 

### destruction on the 

### Apalachicola River along with 

### associated 

### simplification of the fauna and 

### reduced 

### productivity. As 

### indicated above (Ager et al

. , 1984), the 

### long-term 

### dredging of the river is a 

### significant ecological 

### occurrence. 

### These impacts include 

### altered habitat, 

### shortening of the river, and 

### redirected natural river flow. 

### Operations associated withthese 

### activities include 

### construction of 

### training dikes, 

### maintenance dredging, spoil 

### deposition, 

### bendwayelimination, and snag removal. The river has 

### alreadybeen 

### shortened by past 

### activities, and 

### channelization continues.

In the

### Apalachicolaestuary, 

### dredging of 

### Sike's Cut has been 

### related to 

### increased 

### salinity in the bay and 

### reduced 

### productivity due to a loss of 

### nursery habitat (Livingston 1979). A 

### review by state and federal 

### agencies (Florida 

### Department of 

### Environmental 

### Regulation, pers. comm. ) is 

### currently in 

### progress (Livingston 1984a) to 

### determine the potential impact of 

### dredging along the 

### Intracoastal 

### Waterway on the 

### salinity

regime and 

### oyster 

### productivity in the estuary. 

### Proven 

### dredging effects include 

### deterioration of

### water-sediment quality in 

### dredged 

### channels near areas of urban 

### runoff and

### effects on the natural 

### salinity regime of the 

### estuary (Livingston 1984a).

In the lower 

### Apalachicola valley, a 

### 33,000-acre cattle ranch was 

### established along the west bank of the river in the 

### early 1970's (Figures 45, 46). This 

### operation was 

### accompanied by 

### extensive clearing, ditching, and diking. 

### Land was 

### drained by 

### periodic pumping of turbid, 

### sediment-laden water over the dikes. 

### Extensive 

### forestry operations have been 

### carried out in the

### Tate's Hell 

### Swamo above East 8ay. 

### After 

### clearcuttina of large tracts of trees, the land was ditched, drained, 

### olowed and 

### replanted with pine trees. 

### Livingston et al. (1978) 

### found that 

### during periods of 

### heavy local 

### rainfall, 

### cleared areas caused 

### increased levels of runoff 

### leading to 

### increases in color and 

### turbidity and 

### reductions in pH and 

### dissolved oxygen. 

### Analyses of the 

### problem indicate 

### short-term adverse impact
on 

### certain biological 

### associations in upper East Bay. The 

### long-term implications of 

### forestry activities for 

### water 

### resources are 

### currently being 

### evaluated (Livingston unpubl.).


### Overall, the 

### primarywetlands of the 

### Apalachicola valley remain intact, 

### although 

### dredging and 

### associated 

### construction activities, 

### especially in the upper reaches of the river, are 

### continuing. 

### These activities include the 

### construction of 

### bridges across the river and 

### development of a barge terminal 

### facility and 

### offloading system. 

### Currently, state and federal 

### agencies are 

### attempting to 

### purchase portions of the 

### remainingwetlands for 

### preservation.

7.3.?. 

### Toxic 

### Substances

The limited industrial and 

### agricultural 

### activity in the region has 

### contributed to the 

### relatively low levels of 

### pollutants found in the 

### Apalachicola drainage system. However, the 

### water 

### quality of the Flint and 

### Chattahoochee Rivers has been 

### adversely affected by 

### waterway maintenance activity, 

### urbanization, and the 

### discharge of

104

### Figure 45. 

### Ditching and

### diking 

### associated with 

### agricultural 

### activities in the lower 

### Aoalachicola floodplain. 

### Figure 46. The extent of 

### diking by



### agricultural interests along the 

### western bank of the lower

### ApalachicolaRiver.

industrial and 

### agricultural wastes 

### (Georgia 

### Department of Natural 

### Resources 1Q78, 1^82). A 

### thorough 

### scientific analysis of the 

### biological 

### resoonse to 

### eutrophication and the influx of toxic 

### substances to these rivers is lacking, however. Recent studies by the L). S. 

### Geological 

### Survey (H. 

### Mattraw pers. comm. ) 

### concerning the levels of toxic 

### substances in the 

### Apalachicola River indicate 

### relatively low levels of 

### heavy 

### metals and 

### negligible concentrations of 

### herbicides. In the 

### Apalachicola estuary, 

### from l'^72-1976, there was a 

### orecipitous decrease of 

### organochlorine residues in 

### sediments and 

### associated 

### estuarine organisms. This 

### decrease was 

### attributed to the 

### banning of DDT in 1Q72, the 

### flushing action of the river, and the 

### heavy 

### sedimentation associated with the 

### estuary (Livingston et al. l'^78).



### Recent studies (Winger et al. 1^582) 

### indicate that 

### residue 

### concentrations of 

### organochlorine insecticides (DDT, toxaphene), ool

### ychlorinated biphenyls, and 

### heavy 

### metals in 

### aguatic biota are higher in the upper 

### Apalachicola River than in the lower river. Total 

### organic 

### contaminant residues, 

### particularly from the upper river, 

### exceeded 

### permissible levels for the 

### protection of 

### wildlife. The authors 

### considered that such 

### moderately high 

### residues indicated that the 

### Apalachicola River 

### "may be in the 

### early stages of 

### contamination." The 

### highest levels of 

### cadmium and lead in 

### sediments and biota of the



### Apalachicola-Chipola drainage system are found in 

### tributaries leading to the 

### Chipola River below an industrial plant that 

### discharged 

### battery wastes into the 

### svstem (Livingston et al

. 1°82). The oH levels of runoff 

### water 

### approximated 1.2 to 1.4. 

### Concentrations of lead and 

### cadmium in 

### sediments of the 

### Little Dry 

### Creek-Dry Creek 

### tributary to the 

### ChipolaRiverwere 

### particularly high. 

### Studies are 

### currently under 

### way to 

### evaluate the biological 

### resoonse to this 

### contamination (R. J. 

### Livingston unoubl.). 

### Recent analyses 

### indicate that this 

### contamination has not 

### reached the 

### Apalachicola Bay 

### system (Florida 

### Department of Natural 

### Resources, pers. comm.).

7.3.3. Municipal 

### Development


### Municipal 

### development in 

### Florida is 

### concentrated along the coast. The Big Bend region, 

### which includes the 

### Apalachicola Bay system, remains one of the last 

### undeveloped coastal areas in Florida. In

### FranklinCounty, 

### urbanization is 

### restricted to the cities of 

### Apalachicola (approximately 3,000 people) and 

### Carrabelle (aoproximatelv 1,000 people). A 

### municipal 

### waste 

### system is 

### currently under 

### construction in 

### Apalachicola to 

### eliminate point sources of 

### waste 

### discharge (Scipio Creek) into 

### surrounding areas. 

### Nutrient, 

### phytoplankton, and 

### dissolved oxygen data 

### indicate no 

### discernible 

### tendency for

105cultural 

### eutrophication in the 

### estuary (Livingston unpubl.). l^ost of the 

### construction activity in the 

### Apalachicola Bay 

### system has 

### occurred in 

### Apalachicola and East Point and on St. 

### George Island (Figure 47). 

### While there is 

### considerable pressure for 

### construction on the island, 

### population 

### density is still 

### relatively low. The 

### outlook for 

### future growth, however, remains 

### uncertain, as 

### portions of the 

### estuarvhave 

### alreadybeen

### contaminated withmunicipal and 

### agricultural runoff and 

### waste (Livingston l'383d).
Coastal 

### development is often 

### accompanied by the loss of natural 

### vegetation, increased levels of solid waste, and 

### enhanced effluent discharge. 

### These activities often lead to 

### increased runoff, erosion, physical 

### alterations, changes in 

### water 

### circulation, increased 

### deposition of 

### sediments, and the 

### introduction of 

### various 

### pollutants into the 

### river-bay system. Such changes can have an 

### adverse effect on the natural


### resources of the area. 

### According to Bell and 

### Canterbery (1'574, 1^75), "The ma.ior cause of 

### closing of commercial 

### shellfish
areas is bacterial 

### pollution at sublethal 

### contamination levels." 

### Closings of 

### Louisiana's shellfish beds went 

### from 5,POO
acres in

## 1%5 to lciR,812 acres in 1^71, a S^OO"-^ increase. In 

### Florida, 

### considerable
areas of 

### shellfishgrounds are 

### closed each year 

### because of pollution. Of over ? 

### million acres of 

### available shellfish areas in 

### Florida, only 27% are 

### approved for 

### harvesting; 13% are 

### prohibited, ^t are 

### conditionally approved, and about 60% are 

### unclassified. The national figures show
over 3 

### million acres of clam and 

### oyster beds closed, at a loss of over 

### $3R.4 

### million (Bell and 

### Canterbery, 1975). 

### Septic tank 

### effluents, sewage waters, and 

### municipal and industrial 

### runoff account 

### for most of these problems. Since commercial 

### fisheries account for 65% of the

### Franklin

### County income, there is 

### cause for 

### concern (Florida 

### Department of 

### Administration 1P77).

St. George Island (Figure 47) 

### forms the 

### gulfwardperimeter of

### Apalachicola Bay and is of critical 

### importance to bay 

### productivity because its 

### orientation determines the 

### distribution of 

### salinity and other 

### water-quality features of the estuary. In 1965, a 

### bridge was 

### completed Figure 47. 

### Portions of St. 

### George Island



### showing housing 

### development and other human 

### activities.

from the 

### mainland to St. 

### George Island at 

### public expense. The 

### bridge caused the 

### island's value as real 

### estate to 

### escalate tremendously. Today, 

### portions of St. 

### George Island are 

### currently under consi

### derablepressure for

### municipal 

### development (Livingston 1976a). 

### Based on past 

### experience in 

### Florida and other coastal states, the 

### outlook for St. 

### George Island is to be the center of the growth for 

### FranklinCounty. On St. 

### George Island, as 

### elsewhere in the 

### drainage area, there is a real need for 

### planned 

### development if the natural 

### resources of the

### estuaryare to be 

### maintained.
Recently, there have been anumber of 

### incidents in which 

### oystering in the bay has been 

### closed down 

### because of high 

### coliform bacteria counts 

### (Livingston et al. 1978). 

### This 

### situation has caused local 

### economic problems and 

### represents a 

### continuing threat to the 

### oyster 

### industry in the 

### Apalachicola estuary. The 

### combination of 

### dredging and 

### municipal 

### development has led to 

### localizedpollution of 

### portions of the 

### estuary (Livingston 1983d). 

### Dredged 

### channels south of 

### Apalachicola and East Point have acted as sinks for 

### nutrients (nitrogen and 

### phosphorus compounds), oils and greases, and 

### heavy

### metals (Livington 1983b). Such 

### substances have been 

### associated with the silt (i.e., fine) 

### fractions of the 

### sediments and have led to 

### conditions of high 

### biochemical oxygen 

### demand (BOD). The 

### degree of urban 

### development, the 

### heavy

106boat traffic, and the 

### dredging activities have been 

### directly associated with local 

### destruction of 

### near-shore grassbeds, 

### deterioration of 

### water and 

### sediment guality, and the loss of biological 

### productivity (Livingston 1983b, d). 

### Municipal 

### drainages 

### contribute 

### significantly to the 

### pollution burden of the 

### Apalachicola River and Bay area 

### (Livingston 1983d). 

### Scipio Creek (Apalachicola), 

### Eagle (or Indian) Creek (East Point), and runoff from 

### East Point into 

### near-shore areas of St. 

### George Sound have been 

### affected by a 

### combination of high 

### biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and chemical 

### oxygen 

### demand (COD), low 

### dissolved oxygen, and 

### heavy-metal 

### contamination of sediments. Areas of 

### northern 

### Apalachicola Bay that 

### receive 

### runoff from the 

### city of

### Apalachicola also 

### show signs of low 

### water quality. 

### The 

### dredged canals of St. 

### George Island are polluted. The boat basins at St. 

### George Island and 

### Apalachicola have been 

### contaminatedwith 

### organic input and 

### heavy metals in the sediments. The lowest 

### dissolved oxygen in the 

### entire system occurs at the St. 

### George boat basin (just west of the 

### causeway as it enters the island; 

### Figure 47) 

### during periods of high 

### summer rainfall and 

### overland runoff. There are signs of 

### organic runoff in the 

### vicinity of St. 

### George 

### Sound 

### receiving input 

### from 

### construction sites, 

### although


### more analysis is 

### necessaryto 

### qualifythis 

### observation. At all of the above sites, the biological indices 

### (benthic infaunal 

### macroinvertebrates) indicated 

### moderate to high

### biological stress.


### Other

### major sources of 

### pollutants are 

### located in areas 

### receiving drainage from 

### agricultural 

### operations (MurphyCreek and 

### Clark's Creek off the 

### Jackson River; 

### West 

### Bayou in East 

### Bay from the 

### Tate's Hell Swamp). Aerial 

### reconnaisance of the 

### study area 

### indicates that 

### forestry interests have 

### drained

### extensive areas of the

### Tate's Hell 

### Swamp into East 

### Bayou and

### West Bayou in 

### eastern portions of 

### East Bay. High 

### organic input and 

### heavy-metal 

### contamination of the 

### sediments have been noted in areas of the 

### drainage system 

### receivingagricultural runoff. 

### Biological indices have 

### indicated 

### severe stress.


### Various stations along the lower 

### Apalachicola River, 

### while having rela

### tively low levels of 

### pollution in the



### water and 

### sediments, also appear to be 

### biologically stressed (Livingston 1983d). 

### These sandy areas could be 

### naturally stressed by the 

### heavy currents and the 

### shifting qualities of the 

### sandysubstrate. 

### Dredgingactivities along the

### Apalachicola River could 

### contribute to the 

### observed 

### paucity of 

### benthic 

### macroinvertebrates noted in these areas, 

### although the exact


### cause of the 

### observed biological 

### conditions remains unknown.
Overall, the 

### Apalachicola River and 

### Bay system remains 

### relatively pollution free at this time. 

### Some areas, such as 

### eastern portions of St. 

### Vincent Sound, have been 

### characterized by

### relativelyhigh levels of 

### heavy

### metals in the 

### sediments, the source of which is not 

### immediately apparent. 

### These areas 

### could be points of 

### sedimentation (such as the 

### dredged 

### channels in 

### Apalachicola Bay), 

### which 

### naturallyconcentrate contaminants such as 

### heavy 

### metals as part of the 

### fallout of 

### silt/clay fractions from river input and urban runoff. Such small 

### particles are known to adsorb 

### chemicals such as 

### heavy metals. The 

### dredged channels serve as silt traps 

### within the system. The 

### cumulative effect of 

### municipal and 

### agricultural activities in the 

### region 

### could be 

### especially significant to the 

### rather 

### sensitive oyster 

### industry in 

### FranklinCounty. Itwill take 

### imaginative and 

### progressive planning and 

### resource 

### management action if the 

### fisheries potential of the 

### Apalachicola estuary is to be 

### preserved and

### enhanced.

7.4. 

### LAND

### PLANNINGAND

### RESOURCE 

### MANAGEMENT

Resource 

### management, based on 

### comprehensive scientific data, 

### depends on 

### complex

### socioeconomic factors and cultural trends. The 

### mere 

### identification of a given natural 

### resource does not 

### necessarily ensure 

### enlightened planning for its 

### perpetuation. There have been a series of 

### reviews of the 

### resource problems in the

### Apalachicola basin. The

### historyof


### resource planning and 

### management in the 

### Apalachicola basin has been well 

### documented over the past decade 

### (Livingston 1974b, 1975, 1976a, 1977a-d, 1978, i980a-c; 1982a; 

### Livingston andJoyce 1977). 

### Overall, there has been a

107

### relatively qood 

### relationship between researchers, manaqers, and local user groups. The wel

### 1-inteqrated (local, state, federal) 

### planning initiatives have been based 

### largely on 

### preservation (land 

### purchases) and 

### conservation approaches. 

### Whether such 

### efforts will 

### maintain the 

### resource remains to be seen.
7.4.1. Public

### Land 

### Investment
Public and

### private parks, 

### designed to 

### conserve or 

### preserve areas in the 

### Apalachicola Valley, are 

### scattered

'. I

' 

## iSlT

Figure 48. Major public 

### investments and 

### specially designated areas in the 

### Apalachicola basin. 

### throughout the area (Figure 4R). The



### Torreya State Park 

### includes unique plant 

### species such as the 

### FloridaTorreya cedar and 

### Florida yew. The 

### Apalachicola Forest and

One of the 

### major 

### land-acquisition projects, the 

### bottomland hardwoods in the lower basin, was the 

### result of 

### research funded by the 

### Florida Sea Grant 

### College and the 

### Franklin 

### County Commission (Livingston et al. 1976a). In 1^76, 

### portions of the 

### Apalachicola River 

### floodplain were 

### considered for 

### purchase

Legend

1. 

### ThreeRivers 

### State Park 2. 

### Jim

### Woodruff Lock andDam 3. 

### Jackson

### CountyPort

### Authority 4. 

### Torreya State Park 5. 

### Gaskin

### WildlifeRefuge (private) 6. G. IJ. 

### Parker

### WildlifeManagement Area (private) 7. 

### ApalachicolaNational 

### Forest R. 

### EnvironmentallyEndangeredLand 

### Purchase 9. Ed Ball 

### Wildlife

### ManagementArea (private) 10. 

### Apalachicola Bay

### Aquatic Preserve 11. St. 

### Vincent Island

### National WiIdlife

### Refuge 12. 

### Little St. 

### George Island EEL 

### Purchase 13. Dr. 

### Julian Bruce 

### State Park 14. Dead

### Lake

### Recreational 

### Area 15. 

### Proposed

### purchase (estuarine 

### sanctuary) 16. Unit 4, EEL

### purchase 17. Dog Island, 

### Nature

### Conservancy 18. 

### Proposed

### bottomlandhardwood purchase: 

### Nature

### Conservancy and "Save Our

### Rivers" 

### program (state).

108

### through the 

### Environmentally Endangered Lands 

### Program (EEL) of the 

### State of Florida, The 

### environmental 

### background and 

### justification for 

### purchase was based on data 

### concerning the

### movement of 

### nutrients and POM 

### from 

### floodplain areas 

### (Livingston et al. 1^77; 

### Pearce 1977). 

### Ecological 

### associations were 

### made 

### between the 

### hardwood forests of the lower 

### floodplain and the 

### productivity of the 

### Apalachicola 

### River-Bay system. 

### Based on the data and the need to protect this 

### ecologically sensitive portion of the system, the 

### Florida Cabinet 

### approved the 

### purchase of 

### ?8,044 acres of the lower 

### Apalachicola floodplain for 

### $7,615,250 in 

### December, 1976. 

### While this 

### purchase 

### represented only a small 

### percentage of the total 

### floodplain and

### could not hope to 

### achieve a total 

### approach to

### management of the 

### system as a whole, it 

### provided a 

### much needed state

### presence in the area.


### Considerable effort has been 

### expended in the 

### preservation of 

### barrier islands 

### bordering the

### Apalachicolaestuary. 

### Based
on 

### information 

### concerning the 

### importance of the islands to the 

### bay 

### productivity (Livingston et al. 1976a), 

### portions of the 

### eastern end of St. George Island 

### were added to the 

### existing state nark. In 

### March 1977, the State of 

### Florida 

### authorized the 

### purchase of 

### Little St. 

### George Island for S8,838,000. 

### Approximately 1,300 acres of 

### undeveloped land on Dog Island 

### were 

### purchased by the 

### Nature 

### Conservancy in 1982 for the 

### implementation of an island 

### conservation program. In addition, the 

### Trust for 

### Public Land 

### purchased that 

### portion of St. 

### George Island known as Unit 4 

### which borders the 

### highlyproductive oyster beds of East Hole. This land was 

### recently 

### repurchased by state agencies as part of the EEL program. The 

### balance of St. 

### George Island is still in 

### private ownership, Ma.ior

### portions of the 

### holdings on 

### western portions of this island are 

### already

### restricted by

### planningregulations to 1 

### unit/acre. Thus, much of the 

### barrier island 

### system is 

### currently under public 

### ownership or 

### within the 

### jurisdiction of the 

### comprehensive plan of 

### Franklin 

### County (see below).

In summary, there has been a 

### continuous and guite successful effort over the past decade to 

### purchase andplace in public 

### stewardship those oortions of

the 

### Apalachicola drainage system which have been 

### identified as important for 

### maintaining the high 

### productivity of the area.
7,4.2, The

### ApalachicolaEstuarine Sanctuary
Afteryears of effort by local, state and federal agencies, the 

### Apalachicola River and 

### Bay 

### Estuarine 

### Sanctuary was 

### established in 

### September 1979. The 

### sanctuary is the largest in the 

### country and includes 

### 192,750 acres of 

### submerged waters and 

### associated wetlands (Figure 49).
The approval of the 

### Estuarine 

### Sanctuary was the legal 

### equivalent (Section 315, Coastal Zone

### ManagementAct; P. L. Q2-583) of 

### setting this area aside
as a natural field 

### laboratory "for long

### term

### scientific and

### educational purposes," 

### With the 

### establishment of the 

### Sanctuary came a federal grant of SI.8 

### million, to be 

### matched by $1,95 

### million of 

### Florida's EEL funds (the 

### previous 

### wetlands purchase on the 

### Lower 

### Apalachicola River) for the 

### acquisition of the additional 

### wetlands 

### surrounding the East 

### Bay system (the 

### nursery portion of the 

### Apalachicola estuary) (Figure 49), 

### After the 

### acquisition of the final 12,467 acres around East 

### Bayand 

### portions of the M. K. 

### Ranch along the lower 

### Apalachicola River by the state of Florida, the 

### public land 

### perimeter of the 

### estuarine 

### sanctuarywill be 

### nearly complete. 

### Recently, state 

### agencies have 

### entered into 

### negotiations for 

### another tract of 

### wetlands along the 

### Apalachicola River. If successful, this land will 

### become part of the "Save Our 

### Rivers" 

### program 

### administered by the 

### northwest Florida 

### Water 

### Management District.

Currently, in a close 

### cooperative effort 

### between local interests and state 

### environmental agencies, the 

### Apalachicola Sanctuary program is 

### involved in the 

### development of a 

### resource atlas 

### (Livingston 1983c) and 

### management plan, several 

### ongoing research projects, 

### public 

### educational programs, and 

### continuous input into local 

### planning problems and public interest issues. Mot the least of this effort is the potential 

### development of

109

### training programs and 

### curricula in the 

### Franklin 

### County secondary school system. A group of 

### educational films on the 

### Apalachicola drainage system has been 

### developed for 

### showing 

### throughout the valley. The close 

### interaction of 

### aquatic 

### research with local and regional 

### elements has been one of the keys to the 

### successful

a 

### management program for 

### effort will be 

### carried the 

### auspices of 

### Apalachicola Estuarine 

### Sanctuary if 

### effective mode of 

### administration can established. 

### development of the area. 

### This 

### largely under out

the
an be

7.4.3. Local 

### PlanningEfforts and 

### Integrated

### Management

A series 

### Commissions have 

### establishment of local 

### development These zoningplans have 

### restrictionsof 

### Florida 

### County been 

### responsible for the 

### comprehensive plans for and

### resourcemanagement. the legal 

### which have status of been 

### upheld

STGEORGE ISLAND



## SANCTUARY
PROPOSED


## iiji EEL

FEDERAL
Figure 49. 

### Boundaries of the

### Apalachicola Riverand Bay

### Estuarine Sanctuary, including actual and 

### proposed 

### purchases according to the 

### Environmentally Endangered Lands (EEL) 

### Program (state) and 

### current federal holdings. in recent court decisions. For some

years, 

### agencies such as the 

### Apalachee Regional 

### PlanningCouncil, the

### Washington, D.C.

### -based 

### Conservation Foundation, 

### Florida State 

### University, and the 

### Florida Sea Grant 

### College have aided local 

### officials in the 

### development of a 

### comprehensivemanagement plan for

### Franklin County. 

### During the 

### summer of 1981, the 

### Franklin 

### County Commission passed a plan 

### which installed various 

### restrictions on the level and tyoe of 

### construction activities in the area and

### established low 

### density requirements in 

### environmentally sensitive areas. 

### These areas include 

### wetlands, barrier islands, and

### portions of the 

### countythat drain into 

### oyster bars and grass beds 

### (Livingston 19R3c). This plan, in 

### conjunction with the 

### estuarine 

### sanctuary program and state and federal 

### management, could 

### eventually provide for the 

### orderlydevelopment of the area

### while 

### managing the natural 

### resources of the region. 

### Passage of the plan is 

### only the first step in the 

### planning process. 

### Successful 

### implementation of the 

### Franklin 

### CountyComprehensive Plan has not yet been achieved, and the status of local 

### resource 

### management in the 

### estuarine 

### sanctuary remains in doubt.

7.4.4. 

### Integration of

### Management Efforts

A 

### diverse series of 

### management approaches 

### coordinated through local user 

### associations and the 

### estuarine 

### sanctuary could provide the 

### key for 

### broadening the 

### economic base of the 

### region 

### while 

### conserving the unique natural assets of the 

### Apalachicola drainage system. This 

### resource use will have to be 

### subiect to 

### specific internal 

### controls as the 

### population grows to prevent 

### overfishing and other 

### problems related to the 

### fishing industry. 

### Long-term scientific data have been used to address local 

### problems such as 

### pesticide use, 

### aquatic 

### weed control, 

### shoreline development, and other aspects of human 

### activity around the bay. Such 

### problems have often been 

### solved through close 

### cooperation between 

### researchers and local 

### elected officials. The initial studies, 

### funded 

### through a series of grants 

### administered by the 

### Florida Sea Grant College, 

### provided needed 

### information 

### concerning the 

### ecologically sensitive points in the 

### drainage system. 

### These

110areas include the 

### Apalachicola River, the upland

### wetlands (includingthe

### Tate's Hell Swamp), and the 

### barrier islands--all 

### features that control the 

### hydroloqical regime, 

### nutrient structure, and 

### physicochemical 

### environment (salinity, 

### water quality), which, 

### together with other 

### specific habitat 

### conditions, 

### provide the 

### appropriate environment for the seasonal and annual 

### progressions of 

### prominent 

### estuarine populations. 

### Through contact with 

### public 

### officials, state and federal 

### administrators, and leaders of 

### private

industry, 

### researchers have been able to channel 

### scientific information into

### public use. 

### Through close 

### cooperationwith local user groups, the 

### Apalachicola research effort is 

### gradually being 

### applied to 

### regional problems.

The real test for this 

### management effort, however, remains in the future. As of this writing, the issue is 

### unresolved.

Ill

## CHAPTER8 

## COMPARISONWITH

## OTHERESTUARIES

The 

### Apalachicola estuary has been 

### included in a 

### comparison of 14 

### estuaries
on the 

### Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and 

### Pacific coasts of the

### UnitedStates (Nixon 1983). This 

### study 

### indicated that 

### ApalachicolaBay is a

### relativelysmall and 

### shallow estuary, 

### rapidly flushed, with a 

### considerable watershed area (Table 21) 

### when 

### compared to other 

### estuaries in the 

### United States. The 

### cross-sectional area of the 

### Apalachicola estuary (18.1 x 10^ m^) is 

### relatively small 

### comoared to 

### most of the other 

### estuaries. 

### Because of the 

### dimensions of the 

### bay and the 

### volume of 

### freshwater input, Nixon (1983) 

### estimates that 

### dissolved and 

### suspended

### materials are 

### likely to

### remain in

### Apalachicola Bayfor a 

### shorter time than in 

### many of the other 

### estuaries in the survey. 

### The 

### relatively high level and 

### strong 

### seasonality of the rainfall in the 

### Apalachicola drainage basin 

### would 

### contribute to the high river 

### discharge rates to the 

### estuary. 

### Approximately f^2% of the 

### surface area of the 

### estuary has 

### salinities that 

### average less than 15 ppt. 

### ApalachicolaBaystands out, along 

### with 

### Mobile Bay and 

### Northern San 

### Fransisco Ray, as a 

### system that 

### resDonds to river 

### discharge in "a 

### major way" (Nixon 1983).



### Because of the physical 

### characteristics and the 

### relatively high annual level of solar 

### radiation, 

### Apalachicola Bay and 

### Kancohe Ray (Hawaii) are the 

### only estuaries of those 

### surveyed in 

### which the bay 

### bottoms fall 

### within the 

### euphotic zone (Nixon 1983). This fact, 

### together with the 

### major impact of the river on the estuary, 

### could help to 

### explain the 

### apparently high 

### productivity of the 

### Apalachicola system. The 

### phytoplankton 

### productivity in the 

### Apalachicola estuary is 

### moderately high (Table ?8). 

### Estabrook (1973) 

### found that such 

### production is 

### similar to that 

### found in 

### Tampa Bay. The 

### importance of



### phosphorus as the 

### limiting nutrient for 

### phytoplankton 

### productivity for various 

### estuaries, including the 

### Apalachicola system, is 

### evident (Nixon 1983). 

### Relatively little of the 

### Apalachicola primary 

### productivity is due to cultural 

### eutrophication from input of 

### nutrients 

### from human wastes. The 

### Apalachicola is the least 

### developed of the 

### estuaries surveyed, with an

### extremely low

### population 

### density (Table ?9). The 

### contribution of 

### nutrients from point source 

### discharges to the 

### Apalachicola estuary is 

### extremely low (Table 30). 

### These data 

### indicate that the 

### Apalachicola estuary remains in a 

### relativelynatural state 

### compared to other such 

### systems around the country.

A

### comparison of 

### zooplankton abundance in 

### different 

### estuaries is 

### difficult because 

### distribution and 

### abundance depend to some 

### degree on 

### mesh size of the nets used to take the samples. Awide 

### variety of 

### mesh sizes has been used in such studies. 

### When 

### compared with other 

### estuaries in the gulf, 

### Apalachicola Bay has a 

### similar or larger 

### zooplankton assemblage in terms of numbers and biomass 

### (Edmisten 1^79). Such 

### numbers are 

### comparable to those taken in various 

### estuaries in the 

### United States (Nixon 1983). A 

### comparison of 

### ichthyplankton in the other 

### estuaries indicated that the bay 

### anchovy (

### Anchoa mitchil 1 i ) as a 

### dominant species is a common 

### characteristic inhalf the 

### estuaries surveyed (Nixon 1983). The low numbers of fish eggs in the 

### Apalachicola system, 

### relative to other
areas such as 

### Tampa Bay, has been 

### attributed to the 

### relatively low 

### salinities in the 

### Apalachicola estuary (Blanchet 1978). 

### Attempts to 

### make 

### comparisons between the level of 

### primary 

### production and 

### abundance of 

### organisms at higher 

### trophic levels 

### indicate no direct
or 

### simple

### correlation (Nixon 1983).

112Table 27. 

### Approximate dimensions of 

### selected 

### estuarine systems (Nixon 1983).

Estuarine system Watershed area (km^) Surface Mean
area depth (kni^) (m) (m) Mean Flushing tide factor (days)
Narragansett Bay Long IslandSound NewYork Bay. Delaware Bay Chesapeake Bay PatuxentEstuary Potomac Estuary PamlicoEstuary Apalachicola Bay Mobile Bay Barataria Bay San Francisco Bay*- Suisun Bayplus San Pablo Bay SouthBay KaneoheBay 4.8 X

### Table 29. 

### Approximate land use

### distribution and

### population

### densitysurrounding the 

### estuarine studyareas (Nixon 1983).

### Table 30. A. 

### Aoproximate annual input 

### from land

### drainaqe and point source 

### discharge of 

### dissolved inorganic

### nitrogen (NH4''", NO2", NO3") per unit area and per unit 

### volume in 

### various estuaries. '^ The topnumber of each 

### entry is inmmol m~'^-

## y^, the 

### bottomnumber is inmmol m"3y-1 (Nixon 1983).



### Estuary Land



### drainaqe

### Table 30. 

### (Concluded.)

B: 

### Approximate annual input 

### from land 

### drainage and point source 

### discharges of 

### dissolved
areas. 

### inorganic 

### phosphate (PO43-) per unit area and per unit 

### volume in the 

### study The upper 

### entryfor each 

### estuary is area (mmol m"'^ y"l) and the lower is 

### volume (mmol m-3

## yl) (Nixon 1P83).



### Estuary Land



### drainage Sewage Total Percent

sewage



### Narragansett Bay

Long Island Sound

NewYork 

### Bay



### Delaware Bay



### Chesapeake Bay



### Patuxent 

### Estuary

Potomac 

### Estuary

Pamlico 

### Estuary



### Apalachicola Bay



### MobileBay



### Barataria Bay


### Northern San 

### Francisco Bay

South San

### Francisco Bay



### Kaneohe Bay 28

3

55 8

18 2

40
1

67 12

114 34

14 5

240 74

104 22

minor 38 4

1500 210

62 6

9 1

170 32

55
7


### minor

minor 66
7

1555 218

80

6q
2

237 44

55

> 7

114 34

14
5

250 77 58

96

78

13

72

minor



### minor

3.6

216

### Table 31. Total 

### numbers of fishes per trawl sample taken at 

### permanent stations in the 

### Apalachicolaestuary (3/72-7/80), the 

### Econfina

### estuary (6/71-5/79), and the

### Fenhollowav estuary (6/71-5/79). 

### Numbers per trawl are 

### averaged over the 

### entire period of study 

### with

### percentages of the total number of 

### fishes taken 

### indicatedbybrackets. The 25 

### numericallydominant species in each

### estuarywere used for the analysis. 

### Sciaenids are 

### markedwith 

### asterisks (from

### Livingston I'^sib).



### Species Total numbers

per 

### sample {% of total) Species Total numbers

per sample {%of total)



### Apalachicolaestuary Econfina

### estuary (continued)


### Anchoamitchil 1 i 

### Leiostomus xanthurus Micropogonias undulatus Brevoortia

### patronus 

### Cynoscion arenarius '^ 

### Harengulapensacolae 

### Bairdiella chrysura* 

### Trinectes

### maculatus Arius felis 

### Lagodon

### rhomboides Symphurus 

### plaqiusa 

### Chloroscombrus chrvsurus Etropus 

### crossotus 

### Microgobius gulosus 

### Lucaniaparva 

### Polydactylus octonemus Paralichthys 

### lethostigma Menti

### cirrhus 

### americanus Syngnathus scovel 1 i 

### Stellifer 

### lanceolatus* Anchoa

### hepsetus 

### Eucinostromus argenteus Prinotus 

### trihulus Menidiaberyl 1 ina 

### Gobiosomabosci 2511

1766 1513 1214 498 54 50 41 37 37 35 35 33 32 30 27 24 24 19 16 14 14 14 13 13 30.8 21.6 18.5 14.Q 5.1 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2

0.2 0.^ 0.2


### Econfina

### estuary
Lagodon

### rhomboides Leiostomus 

### xanthurus Bairdiel 1a

### chrvsura 

### Monacanthus cil iatus 

### Gobiosomarobustum Diplodus holbrooki Orthopristis 

### chrysoptera Eucinostomus gula 

### Micrognathus cri

### nigerus 

### Syngnathus 

### floridae Opsanus beta 

### Eucinostomus argenteus 

### Stephanolepis hispidus 1418 (

### LITERATURECITED

Adams, G. I., C. Butts, L. W. 

### Stephenson, and W. Cook. 19?6. 

### Geoloqvof

### Alabama, Geol. Surv. Ala., Spec. Rep. 14. 312
pp.

Ager, L. A,, C. L. Mesing, R. S. Land, M. J. Hill, fA. Spelman, and R. Simmons. 1*384. Annual report for 

### fisheries 

### ecology and 

### dredging impacts on the 

### Apalachicola River (July 

### 1Q8?-September 1Q83). 

### Florida Game and Fresh 

### Water Fish

### Commission, 109 pp.


### Barkuloo, J. M. 1967. 

### Florida striped bass. Fla. 

### Game Fresh 

### Water Fish Comm., Fish. Bull

. 4, ?4 pp,


### Barkuloo, J. M. 1970, 

### Taxonomic status and

### reproduction of 

### striped bass (

### Morone saxatilis ) in Florida. Tech. Pan. 44. U. S. FishWildl, Serv. 17 pp.



### Bechtel, T. J., and B. J, 

### Copeland. 1970. Fish 

### species 

### diversity indices as indicators of 

### pollution in 

### Galveston Bay, Texas, Contrib, Mar. Sci. 

### 15:103-132,

Bell, F. W,, and E, R, 

### Canterbery, 1974. 

### Estimated historical impact of 

### deteriorated water 

### quality on 

### United States coastal 

### fishery resources. 

### Submitted to National 

### Commission on 

### Water 

### Quality under 

### contract WQ 5AC008. 50 pp.
Bell, F. w., and E. R. 

### Canterbery. 1975. An 

### assessment of the 

### economic benefits 

### which will acrue to 

### commercial and 

### recreational fisheries from 

### incremental 

### improvements in the 

### quality of coastal waters. 

### Unpublished Report. The National 

### Commission on 

### Water Quality, 

### Washington, D. C. 299 pp. 

### Bittaker, H. F. 1975. A 

### comparative

study of the 

### phytoplankton and 

### benthic 

### macrophyte primary 

### productivity in a 

### polluted versus an 

### unpolluted coastal
area. M.S. Thesis. 

### Florida State 

### University, Tallahassee.
Blanchet, R. H. 1978. The 

### distribution and 

### abundance of 

### ichthyoplankton in the 

### Apalachicola Bay, Florida, area. M.S. Thesis. 

### Florida State 

### University, 

### Tallahassee.

Bobbie, R. J., S. J. 

### Morrison, and D. C. White. 1978. Effects of 

### substrate biodegradability on the mass and acti

### vity of the 

### associated 

### estuarine microbiota. Appl. Environ. 

### Microbiol. 35:179-184.



### Brenneman, L., and W. F. Tanner. 1958. 

### Possible abandoned barrier island in 

### panhandle, Florida. J. Sediment. Petrol. 

### 28:342-344,

Cairns, 0, J. 1981. Detrital 

### production and 

### nutrient 

### release in a 

### southeastern flood plain forest. M.S. Thesis. 

### Florida State

### University, 

### Tallahassee.

Cato, J. 

## C, and F. J. 

### Prochaska. 1977, 

### Landings, values, and prices in com- 

### mercial 

### fisheries for the 

### Florida northwest coast. 

### Marine 

### Advisory Program, 

### Florida Sea Grant, 

### SUS-SG-77-004. 

### Gainesville, Fla.



### Christmas, J. Y., G. Gunter, and P. 

### Musgrave. 1966. Studies of annual 

### abundance of 

### postlarval 

### penaeid shrimp in the 

### estuarine waters of the 

### Mississippi as 

### related to 

### subsequent commercial catches. Gulf Res. Rep. 2:177-212.

118Clewell, A. F. 1^77. 

### Geobotany of the 

### Apalachicola River region. Pages 6-15 in R. J. 

### Livingston and E. A. Joyce, Jr., eds. 

### Proceedings of the

### Conference
on the 

### Apalachicola Drainage System. Fla. Dep. Nat, Resour. Mar. Res. Publ

. 26.



### Clewell, Andre F. 1978. The natural 

### setting and 

### vegetation of the 

### Florida panhandle. 

### Report for the U.S. 

### Army Corps of 

### Engineers, 

### Contract no. 

### DACW01-77-C-0104, Mobile, Ala. p. 363.

Clewell, A. F., and J. 

### McAninch. 1977. 

### Effects of a fill 

### operation on tree 

### vitality in the

### Apalachicola floodplain, Florida. Pages 16-19 in R. J. 

### Livingston and E. A. Joyce, Jr., eds. 

### Proceedings of the 

### Conference on the 

### ApalachicolaDrainage System. Fla. Dep. Nat. Resour. Mar. Res. Publ. ?6.


### Colberg, M .R., T. S. 

### Dietrich, and D. M. 

### Windham. 1968. The social and

### economic values of 

### Apalachicola Bay, Florida. Federal 

### Water Pollution Control 

### Administration, Final Report. 5^ pp.


### Connor,

## C, A. Conway, B. A. 

### Benedict, and B. A. 

### Christensen. 1981. 

### Modelling the 

### Apalachicola System. A

### hydrodynamic and 

### water 

### qualitymodel 

### with a 

### hydrodynamic and 

### water 

### quality atlas of 

### Apalachicola Bay. Fla. Sea Grant 

### Project R/EM-13, Report 8107, 300 pp.


### Copeland, B. J., and T. J. Bechtel. 1971. 

### Species 

### diversity and 

### water 

### quality in 

### Galveston Bay, Texas. 

### Water Air Soil Pollut. 1:89-105.


### Copeland, B. J., and T. J. Bechtel. 1974. Some 

### environmental limits of six 

### Gulf coast 

### estuarine organisms. Contrib. Mar. Sci. 

### 18:169-?04.
Copeland, B. J., and M. V. Truitt. 1966. Fauna of the 

### Aransas Pass Inlet, Texas. II. 

### Penaeid shrimopostlarvae. Tex. J. Sci. 18:65-74.
Coultas, C. L. 1976. Soils of the 

### Apalachicola National Forest 

### Wetlands Part I: Titi swamps and savannahs. Soil Crop Sci. Soc. Fla. Proc. 36:72-77. 

### Coultas, C. L. 1977. Soils of



### Apalachicola National 

### Forest 

### Wetlands Part III: 

### Cypress and gumswamps. Soil 

### Crop Sci. Soc. ^la. Proc. 37: 154-159.


### Coultas, C. L. 1980. Soils of

### marshes in the 

### Apalachicola, Florida, estuary. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 

### 44:348-353.



### Coultas, C. Y., and E. R. Gross. 1975. 

### Distribution and 

### properties of some tidal 

### marsh soils of 

### Apalachee Bay, Florida. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 

### 39:914-910.
Coultas, C. L. In press. Soils of swamos in the 

### Apalachicola, Florida, estuary. Fla. Sci.

Cox, D. T. 1969-1070. Annual 

### Progress Report for 

### Investiqations Project. State of 

### Florida Game and Fresh 

### Water Fish

### Commission.

Cox, D. T., and D. Auth. 1970-71. Annual report for 

### Investigations Project. I. Upper 

### Apalachicola River Study. II. Upper 

### Suwannee River Study. III. St. Johns 

### River Study. State of 

### Florida Game and

### Fresh

### Water Fish

### Commission.

Cox, D. T., and D. Auth. 1971-72. Annual 

### report for 

### Investigations Project. I. 

### Upper 

### Apalachicola River Study. II. Upper 

### Suwannee River Study. III. St. Johns River Study. State of 

### Florida Game and Fresh

### Water Fish

### Commission.

Cox, D. T., and 0. Auth. 1972-73. Annual 

### report for 

### Investigations Project. I. 

### Upper 

### Apalachicola River Study. II. Upper 

### Suwannee River Study. III. St. Johns River Study. State of 

### Florida 

### Game andFresh

### Water Fish

### Commission.

Crateau, E. J., P. A. Moon, and C. M. Wooley. 1981. 

### Apalachicola River 

### striped bass project. U. S. FishWildl. Serv. Annu. "rog. Reo., FY 1981. 105 pD.


### Danglade, E. 1017. 

### Conditions and

### extent of the natural 

### oyster beds and barren bottoms in the 

### vicinityof

### Apalachicola, Florida. 

### Appendix V, Report of the U. S. 

### Commissioner of 

### Fisheries for 1916. 

### Bureau of 

### Fisheries 

### Document No, 841. 75 pp.
119

### Darnell, R. M, 1959. 

### Studies of the life 

### history of the blue crab (Cal 1 inectes sapiflus 

### Rathbun) in 

### Louisiana waters. Trans. Am, Fish. Soc. 

### 88:?Q4-304.
Darnell, R. M. 1976. Impacts of 

### construction activities in 

### wetlands of the 

### United States. Ecol. Res. Ser., U. S. Env. Protect. 

### Agency600/3-76-045. 392 pp.
Dawson, C. E. 1955. A 

### contribution to the 

### hydroqraph of 

### Aoalachicola Ray. Publ. Tex. Inst. Mar. Sci. 4:15-35.

Day, J. W., Jr., W. G. Smith, P. R. 

### Waqner, and W. C. Stone. 1973. 

### Communitystructure and 

### carbon budget of

a salt 

### marsh and 

### shallow bay 

### estuarine system in

### Louisiana. Center for

### Wetland Resources, 

### Louisiana State 

### University, Baton Rouge, Publ. LSU-Sfi-72-04. 80 pp.
Duncan, J. L. 1977. 

### Short-term effects of 

### storm

### water runoff on the 

### epibenthic 

### community of a north 

### Florida 

### estuary (Apalachicola, Florida). M.S. 

### Thesis. 

### Florida State

### University, 

### Tallahassee.
Edmisten, H. L. 1979. The 

### Zooplankton of the 

### Apalachicola Bay System. M.S. Thesis. 

### Florida State 

### University, 

### Tallahassee.
Eichholz, N. F. 1^80. 

### Osprey nest con- 

### centrations in 

### northwest Florida. Fla. 

### FieldNat. 

### 8:18-19.

Elder, J. F., and D. J. Cairns. 1^58?. 

### Production and 

### decomposition of forest litter fall on the 

### Apalachicola River flood plain, Florida. U. S. 

### Department Inter., Geol. Surv. 124 pp.
Elder, J. F., and H. C. 

### Mattraw, .Ir. 1982. 

### Riverine transport of 

### nutrients and 

### detritus to the 

### Aoalachicola Ray estuary, Florida. 

### Water Res. Bull. 

### lR:R4q-856.


### Estabrook, R. H. 1973. 

### Phytoplankton ecology and 

### hydrograohy of 

### Apalachicola Bay. M.S. Thesis. 

### Department of 

### Oceanoaraphv, 

### Florida State 

### University, Tallahassee.


### Federle, T. W., R. J. 

### Livingston, P. A. 

### Meeter, and D. C. White. 1^583. 

### Modifications of 

### estuarine 

### sedimentary

microbiota by 

### exclusion of 

### epibenthic predators. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 73:81-94.


### Fernald, E. A. 1981. Atlas of 

### Florida. The

### Florida State

### UniversityFoundation, Inc. 

### Tallahassee, Fla. ?76 pp.


### Florida 

### Department of 

### Administration. 1977. The

### AoalachicolaRiver system: a 

### Florida Resource. 

### Prooosed resource 

### management and 

### planning 

### program for the 

### Apalachicola Bay system. Unpubl. Rep. 58 pp.


### Florida Department of Natural 

### Resources. 1^52-1976. 

### Summary of 

### Florida Commercial 

### Marine Landings. 

### Division of 

### Marine Research. 

### Yearly breakdown of 

### landings by county, soecies and category.


### Fontenot, B. J., Jr. and H. E. 

### Rogillio. 1970. A 

### study of 

### estuarine sports fishes in the Biloxi 

### marsh complex, 

### Louisiana. 

### Louisiana 

### Wildlife and Fish 

### Commission. F-8 Compl. Rep. 1972 pp.
Foster, W. A. 1^68. 

### Studies on the 

### distribution and 

### growth of Juncus 

### roemerianus in 

### southeastern Brunswick County'," "North 

### Carolina. M.S. Thesis. 

### Universityof

### Michigan, AnnArbor.

Fox, L. S., and W. R. Mock. 1968. Seasonal 

### occurrence of fishes in two 

### shore 

### habitats in 

### Barataria Bay, 

### Louisiana. La. Acad. Sci. 31:43-53.

Futch, C. R. 1983. 

### Oyster reef 

### construction and 

### relaying program. In: 

### Apalachicola Oyster Industry: 

### Conference Proceedings. Scott Andree, ed. Fla. SeaGrant Rep. "^7, 34-38.


### Gabriel, B. 

## C, and A. A. de la Cruz. 1^574. 

### Species 

### comnnsition, 

### standing stock, and net 

### primary

### productivityof a salt marsh 

### community in 

### Mississippi. 

### Chesapeake Sci. 15:''2-77.
Gaidrv, W. J., Ill and C. T. White. 1973. 

### Investigations of 

### commercially important 

### oenaeid shrimp in 

### Louisiana estuaries. La. Wildl. Fish. Comm. Tech. Bull. 8:154 pp.
120

### Georgia Department of Natural 

### Resources. 1Q78. 

### Water

### Quality

### MonitorinqData for 

### Georgia Streams 1977. Unoubl. Rep. 315 pp. 

### Georgia Deoartment of Natural 

### Resources. 1982. Water

### Quality

### MonitoringData for 

### Georgia Streams 1981. iJnpubl. Rep. 31Q pp.
Good, R. E. 1965. Salt

### marshvegetation. Cape May, New Jersey. Bull. N.J. Acad. Sci. 1Q:1-11.


### Gorsline, D. S. 1^63. 

### Oceanography of 

### Apalachicola Bay, Florida. Pages 145-176 _i_n Essays in 

### marine 

### geology in honor of K. 0. Emery. 

### University of 

### Southern

### California Press, Los Angeles.



### Gunter, G. 1945. 

### Studies on 

### marine fishes of Texas. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. Univ. Tex. 1:7-51.

Gunter, G. 1950. Seasonal 

### population changes and

### distributions are 

### related to 

### salinityof 

### certain 

### invertebrates of the Texas coast 

### including the commercial shrimp. Publ. Inst. Mar, Sci. Univ. Tex. 1:7-51.

Gunter, G., and G. E. Hall. 1965. A 

### biological 

### investigation of the 

### Caloosahatchee estuaryof Florida. Gulf Res. Rep. ?:1-71.
Haines, E. B. 1979. 

### Interactions between 

### Georgia salt

### marshes and coastal waters:

a 

### changing paradigm. Pages 35-46 in 

### Ecological 

### processes in coastal and 

### marine systems. R. J. 

### Livingston, ed. 

### PlenumPress, NewYork.
Heald, E. J. 1969. The 

### production of 

### organic detritus in a south 

### Florida estuary. Ph.D. 

### Dissertation, 

### University of Miami

, Miami

. 110 pp.
Heard, W. H. 1977. 

### Freshwater 

### mollusca of the 

### Apalachicola drainage. Pages PO-21 in R. J. 

### Livingston and E. A. Joyce, Jr., eds. 

### Proceedings of the 

### Conference on the 

### Apalachicola Drainage System. Fla. Dep. Nat. Resour. Mar. Res. Publ. ?6.


### Hedgepeth, J. W. 1950. Notes on the 

### marine invertebrate fauna of salt flat area in the 

### Aransas

Refuge, Texas. Publ, Univ. Tex. 1:103-119. National 

### Wildlife Inst. Mar. Sci.

Hoese, H. D., and R. S. Jones. 1963. 

### Seasonalityof larger animals in aTexas 

### turtle grass community. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. Tex. 9:37-47.
Hubbell, T. H., A. M. Laessle, and J. C. 

### Dickinson, Jr. 1956. The 

### Flint-Chattahoochee-Apalachicola region and its 

### environments. Bull. Fla. Mus. Biol. Sci. 1:1-72.
Ingle, R. M. 1957. 

### Intermittent shrimp 

### sampling in

### ApalachicolaBaywith biological notes and

### regulatoryapplications. Proc. Gulf Caribb. Fish. Inst. 9th Annu. Sess.: 6-17.

Ingle, R. M., and C. E. Dawson, Jr. 1951. 

### Variation in 

### salinity and its 

### relation to the 

### Florida Oyster. 

### Salinity variations in 

### Apalachicola Bay. Proc. Gulf Caribb. Fish. Inst.: 35-4

Ingle, R. M., and C. E. Dawson, Jr. 1952. 

### Growth of the 

### American oyster, 

### Crassostrea virginica (GmeTin) in 

### Florida waters. Bull. Mar. Sci. Gulf andCaribb. 2:393-404.

Johnson, M. 1970. 

### Preliminaryreport on 

### species 

### composition, chemical com- 

### position, biomass, and 

### production of 

### marsh vegetation in the upper 

### Patuxent estuary, Maryland. Pages 

### 164-178 in Final tech. rep. for the 

### Period August 1968 to 

### August 1970, to 

### Office of 

### Water Res., Natural 

### Resource Institute, 

### Universityof

### Maryland. NRI Ref. 71-76.

Jones, J. I., R. E. Ring, M. 0. Rinkel, and R. E. Smith. 1973. A 

### summary of 

### knowledge of the 

### easternGulf ofMexico. State 

### University System of 

### Florida 

### Institute of

### Oceanography.
Jordan, C. L. 1973. Climate. In: J. I. Jones, R. E. Ring, M. 0. Rinkel, and R. E. Smith, eds., A 

### summary of 

### knowledge of the

### easternGulf ofMexico. State 

### University System of 

### Florida 

### Institute of

### Oceanography, Tampa.
Joseoh, E. R., and R. W. Yerger. 1956. The fishes of

### Alligator Harbor, Florida,

121

### with notes on their natural history. Fla, State Univ. Stud. 

### ?2:111-156.

Joyce, E. A., Jr. 1983. State of the Fishery. Pages 5-7 ji_n Scott Andree, ed., 

### Apalachicola oyster industry: 

### conference proceedings. Fla. Sea 

### Grant Rep. 57.
Keefe, C. W., and W. R. Boynton. 1973. 

### Standing crop of salt 

### marshes 

### surrounding 

### Chincoteague Bay, 

### Maryland-Virginia. Chesapeake Sci. 

### 14:117-123.
Kilby, J. D. 1955. The fishes of the two 

### Gulf coastal 

### marsh areas of Floria. 

### Tulane Stud. Zool. 

### 2:176-?47.
King, B. D., III. 1971. 

### Study of 

### migratory patterns of fish and 

### shellfish through a natural pass. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dep. Tech. Series 9. 54 pp. Kirby, J. C. 1971. The annual net 

### primary production and 

### decomposition of the salt 

### marsh grass 

### Spartina alterniflora Loisel in the 

### Barataria Bay 

### estuary of 

### Louisiana. Ph.D. 

### Dissertation. 

### Southwestern Louisiana State

### University, Lafayette.


### Kruczynski, W. tion of the L. 1978. 

### Primaryoroduc

### Juncus 

### roemerianus marsh

### estuary interface on the 

### west coast of Florida. J_n Salt 

### marshes of the 

### Gulf Coast of Florida. 

### Proceedings, 

### Florida Defenders of the 

### Environment, 

### Gainesville, Fla.


### Kruczynski, W. L., C. B. 

### Subrahmanyam, and S. H. Drake. 1978a. 

### Studies on the plant 

### community of a north 

### Florida marsh. Part I. 

### Primary production. Bull. Mar. Sci. 

### ?8:316-334.


### Kruczynski, W. L., R. T. 

### Huffman, and M. K. 

### Vincent. 1978b. 

### Apalachicola Bay 

### marsh development site, 

### Apalachicola Bay, Florida. 

### Habitat 

### Development Field 

### Investigations, U. S. 

### Army Corps of 

### Engineers 

### Dredged Material 

### Research Program. Tech. rep. 0-78-32. 39 pp.


### Kuenzler, E. J., and H. L. 

### Marshall. 1973. 

### Effects of 

### mosquito control 

### ditching on

### estuarineecosystems. 

### Water Resources Research Institute, 

### University of North 

### Carolina, 

### Project

B-026-NC. 83 pp. Lasker, R. 1975. 

### Field

### criteria for survival of 

### anchovy larvae: The 

### relation between inshore 

### chlorophyll 

### maximum layers and successful first feeding. Fish. Bull. 

### 73:453-452. 

### Laughlin, R. A. 1979. 

### Troohic 

### ecology and 

### population 

### distribution of the blue crab, Cal 1inectes sapidus Rathbun, in the

### Apalachicolaestuary (North 

### Florida, 

### U.S.A.). Ph.D. 

### Dissertation. Florida State

### University, 

### Tallahassee. Laughlin, R. A., and R. J. 

### Livingston. 1<382. 

### Environmental and 

### trophic deter

### minants of the spati

### al/temooral 

### distri

### bution of the brief squid (

### Lolliguncula brevis ) in the 

### Apalachicola estuary (north 

### Florida, U.S.A.). Bull. Mar. Sci. 

### 32:489-497.
Leitman, H. M. 1978. 

### Correlation of 

### Apalachicola River 

### floodplain tree com- 

### munities with 

### water levels, 

### elevation, and soils. M.S. Thesis. 

### Florida State 

### University, Tallahassee.
Leitman, H. M. 1983. Forest 

### map and 

### hydrologic conditions, 

### Apalachicola River Flood Plain, Florida. U.S. 

### Geological 

### Survey 

### Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-fS72; Tallahassee.


### Leitman, H. M., and J. F. Sohm. IQRl, Tree 

### distribution, leaf litter 

### production, and 

### flood patterns on the 

### ApalachicolaRiver flood plain, Florida. U.S. 

### Geological Survey, 

### Tallahassee.
Leitman, H. M., J. E. Sohm, and M. A. 

### Franklin. 1982. 

### Wetland 

### hydrology and tree 

### distribution of the 

### Apalachicola River flood plain, Florida. U.S. Geo!. Surv. Rep. 82. U. S. 

### Government 

### Printing Office, 

### Washington, D.C. 92
pp. 

### Leitman, S., T. Allen, K. Brady, and A, Redmond. 1982. 

### Apalachicola River 

### dredged material disposal study. 

### Florida 

### Department of 

### Environmental Regulation. 

### Unpublishedreport. 

### Lindner, M, J,, and W. W. 

### Anderson. 1956. Growth, 

### migrations, spawning and size

122

### distribution of shrimp, 

### Penaeus seti

- ferus

. U.S. Fish Wild!. Serv. Fish. Bull. 

### 56:555-645. 

### Livinqston, R. J. l"374a. 

### Field and 

### laboratory studies 

### concerninq the 

### effects of 

### various 

### pollutants on 

### estuarine and coastal 

### orqanisms with 

### application to the 

### manaqement of the 

### Apalachicola Ray 

### system (north 

### Florida, U.S.A.). i^inal Rep. State 

### University System of Florida, Sea 

### Grant 

### SUSFSG-04-3-158-43. Unoubl. Rep. 

### Livinqston, R. J. 1974b. St. 

### Georqe Island: Biota, ecoloqy, and 

### manaqement proqram for 

### controlled development. 

### Unpublished report. 

### Livinqston, R. J. 1975. 

### Field and 

### laboratory studies 

### concerninq the 

### effects of 

### various 

### pollutants on 

### estuarine and coastal 

### orqanisms with 

### application to the 

### manaqement of the 

### Apalachicola Bav 

### system (north 

### Florida, U.S.A.). Unpubl. Rep. Fla. Sea Grant 

### Project R/EM-1.


### Livinqston, R. J. l<576a. 

### Environmental 

### considerations and the 

### manaqement of 

### barrier islands: St. 

### Georqe Island and the 

### Apalachicola Bay system. 

### Barrier Islands and Beaches, 

### Technical 

### °roceedinqs of the 1976 

### Barrier Islands 

### Workshop, Annapolis, Maryland, 

### May 17-18, 1<376. op. 86-102.


### Livinqston, R. J. 1976b. Diurnal and seasonal 

### fluctuations of 

### orqanisms in a north 

### Florida estuary. 

### Estuarine Coastal Mar. Sci. 

### 4:373-400.


### Livinqston, R. J. 1977a. 

### Estuarine and coastal 

### research in 

### Apalachee Bav and 

### Apalachicola Bay. Paqes 7-11 J_n Coastal Zone

### Manaqement Symposium, 

### Universityof West Florida, 

### Pensacola.


### Livinqston, R. J. 1977b. 

### Introduction and 

### summary of results. Paqes 1-5, 

### 172-177 _i_n R. J. 

### Livinqston and E. A. Joyce, Jr., eds. 

### froceedinqs of the 

### Conference on the 

### Apalachicola Drainaqe System. Fla. Dep. Nat. Resour. Mar. Res. Publ. 26.


### Livinqston, R. J. 

### Apalachicola dilemma: 1977c. The 

### wetlands development and 

### management initiatives. 

### Invited paper. National 

### Wetlands 

### Protection Symposium; 

### Environmental Law 

### Institute and the Fish and 

### Wildlife Service, U.S. 

### Department of the Interior. 163-177.


### Livinqston, R. J. 1977d. 

### Time as a factor in 

### biomonitoring estuarine systems 

### with

### reference to 

### benthic

### macrophyte and 

### epibenthic fishes and 

### invertebrates. Biol. Monit. 

### Water 

### Effluent Qual., Am. Soc. Test. Mater. STO 

### 607:212-234. 

### Livinqston, R. J. 1978. Short- and longterm 

### effects of 

### forestry operations on 

### water 

### quality and the biota of the 

### Apalachicola estuary (North Florida, U. S. A.). Fla. Sea Grant Rep. 

### (unpublished). 400 pp. 

### Livinqston, R. J. 1979. 

### Multiple factor 

### interactions and stress in coastal systems: A 

### review of 

### experimental 

### approaches and 

### field implications. Pages 389-413 jji F. John 

### Vernberg, ed. 

### Marine pollution: functional 

### responses. 

### Academic Press, Inc., NewYork.


### Livingston, R. J. 1980a. 

### Application of 

### scientific research to 

### decision-making processes 

### concerninqenvironmental management and 

### resource utilization: Case study, the

### Apalachicoladrainage system. 

### Report for the U. S. 

### Department of State: 

### Secretariat to the U. S. National 

### Commission for

### UNESCO.


### Livinqston, R. J. 1980b. The 

### Apalachicola experiment: 

### Research and 

### Management. Oceanus 23:14-21.


### Livingston, R. J. 1980c. Critical habitat 

### assessment o^ the 

### Apalachicola 

### estuary and 

### associated coastal areas. Coastal Plains Regional 

### Commission. Unpubl. Rep.


### Livinqston, R. J. 1981a. 

### River-derived input of 

### detritus into the 

### Apalachicola estuary. 

### Proceedings of the National 

### Symposium on 

### Freshwater Inflow to 

### Estuaries.


### Livingston, R. J. 1981b. Man's impact on the 

### distribution and 

### abundance of 

### sciaenid fishes. Sixth Annual 

### Marine Recreational Fisheries Symposium,

123

### Sciaenides: 

### Territorial Demersal 

### Resources. U. S. Natl. Ocean. Atmos. Admin., National 

### Marine Fisheries Service. 

### Houston, Tex.


### Livingston, R. J. 1982a. 

### Long-term 

### variability in coastal systems: 

### background noise and 

### environmental stress. Pages 

### 505-620 jji Ecological 

### stress and the 

### NewYork Bight: 

### science and 

### management. U.S. 

### Department of 

### Commerce. 

### Livingston, R. J. 1982b. 

### Trophic organization in a coastal 

### seagrass system. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 7:1-12.


### Livingston, R. J. 1983a. 

### Research and


### resource planning in the 

### Apalachicola drainage system. Pages 31-32 in Scott 

### Andree, ed. 

### Apalachicola oyster industry: Conf. Proc. Fla. Sea 

### Grant Rep. 57. 

### Livingston, R. J. 1983b. 

### Review and ana- lysis of the 

### environmental implications of the 

### proposed 

### development of the East Point 

### Breakwater and

### associateddredging operations within the East Point channel 

### (Apalachicola Bay System, 

### Florida). Unpubl

. rep. 

### Livingston, R. J. 1983c. 

### Resource atlas of the 

### Apalachicola estuary. 

### Florida SeaGrant 

### Colleae 

### Publication. 64 pp. 

### Livingston, R. J. 1983d. 

### Identification and 

### analysis of 

### sources of 

### pollution in the 

### Apalachicola River and 

### Bay system. 

### Florida 

### Department of Natural 

### Resources and

### Franklin

### CountyCommission. Unpubl. Rep. 

### Livingston, R. J. 1984a. 

### Effects of 

### dredging and 

### spoiling on the 

### Apalachicola Bay system. 

### Florida 

### Department of 

### Environmental 

### Regulation. Unpubl. rep. 

### Livingston, R. J. 1984b. Impact of a 

### pulp mill on 

### macroinvertebrates of the Flint 

### River-Lake Blackshear system. 

### Academy of Natural 

### Sciences of 

### Philadelphia. Unpubl. rep. 

### Livingston, R. J., D. 

### Alderson, N. 

### Friedman, S. 

### Keller, B. Minor, J. H. 

### Hankinson, Jr., S. 

### Mashburn, and D. 

### Marston. 1<582. 

### Review of the 

### distribution of trace 

### metals in the



### Apalachicola-Chipoladrainage system. A 

### detailed analysis 

### carried out for the 

### River 

### Committee of the 

### Apalachee Regional 

### Planning Council by the 

### Environmental Service Center (Florida 

### Defenders of the 

### environment) and the 

### Florida Public Interest 

### Research Group. Unpubl. Rep. 

### Livingston, R. J., C. R. Cripe, R. A. 

### Laughlin, and F. G. Lewis, III. 1976c. 

### Avoidance response of 

### estuarine organisms to storm 

### water runoff and pulp mill 

### effluents. 

### Estuarine Proc. 1:313-331.


### Livingston, R. J., R. J. Diaz, and D. C. White. 1983. Field and 

### semi-field validation of 

### laboratory-derived aguatic test systems. 

### Unpublished final report. U. S. Env. Prot. 

### Agency and Fla. Sea 

### Grant Col. (N.O.A.A.). 

### Livingston, R. J., and J. Duncan. 1979. 

### Short- and 

### long-termeffects of 

### forestry operations on 

### water 

### guality and epi

### benthic assemblages of a north 

### Florida estuary. Pages 

### 339-382 

### ^n R- ^^ 

### Livingston, ed.. 

### Ecological 

### processes in coastal and 

### marine systems. 

### Plenum Press, NewYork. 

### Livingston, R. J., R. L. Iverson, R. H. 

### Estabrook, V. E. Keys, and John Taylor, Jr. 1974. 

### Major 

### features of the 

### Apalachicola Bay system: 

### physiography, biota, and 

### resource 

### management. Fla. Sci. 37 245-271.


### Livingston, R. J., D. C. White, 

### relationships and 

### Apalachicola Bay. R. L. Iverson, and 1976a. 

### Energy the 

### productivity of 

### Florida Sea 

### Grant 

### ProgramFinal Report. 437 pp. 

### Livingston, R. J., G. J. 

### Kobylinski, Frank G. Lewis, III, and Peter F. 

### Sheridan. 1976b. 

### Long-term fluctuations of epi

### benthic fish and 

### invertebrate populations in 

### Apalachicola Bay, Florida. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv. Fish Bull. 

### 74:311-321.


### Livingston, R. J., and E. A. Joyce. 1977. 

### Proceedings of the 

### conference on the 

### Apalachicola drainage system. Fla. Mar. Res. Publ

. , Cont. 26. 

### Tallahassee, Fla. 177 pp.
124

### Livingston, R. J., and 0. Loucks. 1978. 

### Productivity, trophic interactions, and 

### food 

### web 

### relationships in 

### wetlands and 

### associated systems. Pages 

### 101-119 jj^ 

### Wetland functions andvalues: the state of our 

### understanding. Am. 

### Water Res. 

### Assoc, Lake BuenaVista.


### Livingston, R. J., P. S. 

### Sheridan, B. G. 

### McLane, F. G. Lewis, III, and G. G. 

### Kobylinski. 1977. The biota of the 

### Apalachicola Bay system: 

### functional 

### relationships. Pages 

### 75-100 vn. ^- J- 

### Livingston and E. A. Joyce, Jr., eds. 

### Proceedings of the 

### Conference on the 

### Apalachicola Drainage System. Fla. Dep. Nat. Resour. Mar. Res. Publ. 26. 

### Livingston, R. J., and N. P. 

### Thompson. 1975. 

### Field and 

### laboratorystudies con- 

### cerning the 

### effects of various pollutants on

### estuarine and coastal 

### organisms with 

### application to the 

### management of the 

### Apalachicola Bay system (north 

### Florida, U.S.A.). Unpubl. rep., 

### Florida Sea

### Grant College. 

### Livingston, R. J., N. 

### Thompson, and D. 

### Meeter. 1978. 

### Long-term variation of 

### organochlorine residues and 

### assemblages of 

### epibenthic organisms in a 

### shallow north

### Florida (USA) 

### estuary. Mar. Biol. 46: 355-372.

Loesch, H. 1965. 

### Distribution and

### growth of 

### penaeid shrimp in 

### Mobile Bay, Alabama. Publ. Inst. Mar. Sci. Univ. Tex. 

### 10:41-58.

Lyons, W. G., S. P. Cobb, D. K. Camp, J. A. 

### Mountain, T. Savaqe, L. Lyons, and E. A. Joyce, Jr. 1971. 

### Preliminary inventory of 

### marine invertebrates 

### collectednear the 

### electrical 

### generating plant. Crystal River, 

### Florida, in 1<569. Fla. Dep. Nat. Res. Prof. Pap. Ser. 14:1-45. 

### McNulty, J. K., W. N. Lindall, Jr., and J,

E. Sykes. 1972. 

### Cooperative Gulf of 

### Mexico estuarine inventory and study, Florida: Phase I, Area 

### description, Natl. Ocean. Atmos. Admin. Tech. Rep. NMFS 

### CIRC-368. U.S. Dep. 

### Commerce, 

### Washington, D.C.


### Mahoney, B. M. S. 1982. Seasonal fluc

### tuations of 

### benthic 

### macrofauna in the 

### Apalachicolaestuary, Florida. The 

### role of 

### predation and larval 

### availability. Ph.D. 

### Dissertation. 

### Florida State 

### University, 

### Tallahassee.
Mahoney, B. M. S., and R. J. 

### Livingston. 1982. Seasonal 

### fluctuations of 

### benthic 

### macrofauna in the 

### Apalachicola estuary, Florida, USA: the 

### role of predation. Mar. Biol. 

### 69:207-213.

Mann, K. waters: of 

### California
pp. H. 1Q82. 

### Ecology of coastal

a 

### systems approach. 

### University Press, Los 

### Angeles. 322



### McHugh,Jr., K. Dickson, and R. J. 

### Livingston, eds.. 

### Biological data in

### water

### pollution assessment: 

### quantative and 

### statistical analyses. Am. Soc. Test. Mater. Spec. Tech. Publ. 652.



### Meeter, 0. A., R. J. 

### Livingston, and G. 

### Woodsum. 1979. Short and 

### long-term 

### hydrological cycles of the 

### Apalachicola drainage 

### systemwith 

### application to

### Gulf coastal 

### populations. Pages 

### 315-338 ji_n R. J. 

### Livingston, ed., 

### Ecoloqical 

### processes in coastal and

### marine systems. 

### PlenumPress, NewYork.


### Menzel, R. W., N. C. 

### Hulings, and R. R. 

### Hathaway. 1958. Causes of 

### depletion of 

### oysters in St. 

### Vincent Bay, 

### Apalachicola, Florida. Proc. Natl. 

### Shellfish. Assoc. 

### 48:66-71.
Menzel, R. W.

, N. C. 

### Hulings, and R. R. Hathway. 1966. 

### Oyster abundance in 

### Apalachicola Bay, 

### Florida, in 

### relation to 

### biotic 

### associations influenced by 

### salinity and other factors. Gulf Res. Rep. ?:73-96.


### Miller, M., B. 

### Hartman, and D. Dunford. 1977. Fish and 

### wildlife values of the 

### Apalachicola River and 

### floodplain. Pages 

### P?-l?9 in R. J. 

### Livingston and
E. A. Joyce, Jr., eds. 

### Proceedings of the 

### Conference on the 

### Apalachicola Drainage System. Fla. Oep. Nat. Resour. Mar. Res. Publ. ?6.

Moon, P. A. 1976. 

### Historical 

### review of the 

### Apalachicola River system. U.S. FishWildl. Serv. 

### Project Rep. 20 pp.



### Mooney, C. N., and A. L, Patrick. 1915. Soil 

### surveyof 

### FranklinCounty, 

### Florida. 

### Field

### operations of the 

### Bureau of Soils. Unpubl. Rep. pp. 799-825.

More, W. R. 1^69. A 

### contribution to the 

### biology of the blue crab (

### Callinectes sapidus 

### Rathbun) in Texas, 

### with a 

### description of the fishery. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dep. Tech. Ser. 1. 31 pp.


### Morgan, M. H. 1961. Annual 

### angiosperm production on a salt marsh. M.S. Thesis. 

### Universityof 

### Delaware, Newark.


### Morrison, S. J., J. 0. King, R. J. 

### Bobbie, R. E. 

### Bechtold, and D. C. White. 1977. 

### Evidence of 

### microflora! succession of



### allochthonous olant litter in 

### Apalachicola Bay, Florida, U.S.A. Mar. Biol. 

### 41:229-240.


### Morrison, S. J., and D. C. White. 1980. 

### Effects of 

### grazing by 

### estuarine 

### Gammaridean amphipods on the 

### microbiota of 

### allochthonous detritus. Appl. Environ. 

### Microbiol. Sept. 1980.



### Myers, V. B. 1977. 

### Nutrient limitation of 

### phytoplankton 

### productivity in north 

### Florida coastal systems: 

### Technical 

### considerations; spatial 

### oatterns; and 

### wind 

### mixing effects. Ph.D. 

### Dissertation. Florida State

### University, 

### Tallahassee.

Myers, V. B., and R. L. Iverson. 1977. 

### Aspects of 

### nutrient 

### limitation of phy

### toplankton 

### productivity in the 

### Apalachicola Baysystem. Pages 68-74 in
R. J. 

### Livingston and E. A. Joyce, Jr., eds. 

### Proceedings of the 

### Conference on the 

### Apalachicola Drainage System. Fla. Dep. Nat. Resour. Mar. Res. Publ. 26.

Nelson, W. R. 1969. 

### Studies on the 

### croaker and spot in

### Mobile Bay, 

### Alabama.
J. Mar. Sci. Ala. 1:4-92.
Nixon, S. W. 1983. 

### Estuarine 

### ecology--a comparative and 

### experimental analysis using 14 

### estuaries and the 

### MERL 

### microcosms. U. S. 

### Environmental 

### ProtectionAgency, 

### unpublished report.
Norden, C. R. 1966. 

### bution of fishes 

### Louisiana. Wise. 

### Letters 

### 55:110-137. The seasonal 

### distriin 

### Vermillion Bay, Acad. Sci. Arts

Odum, E. P. 1971. 

### Fundamentals of ecology. W. B. 

### Saunders Co., 

### Philadelphia. 574 pp.
Odum, E. P., and M. E. Fanninq, 1973. 

### Comparison of 

### productivity of 

### Spartina alterniflora and 

### Spartina 

### cynosuroides in 

### Georgia coastal 

### marshes. Bull. Ga. Acad. Sci. 31:1-12.
Odum, H. T., B. J. 

### Copeland, and E. A. 

### McMahan. 1974. Coastal 

### ecological systems of the 

### United States. The 

### Conservation Foundation, 

### Washington, D.C.

126Odum, W. E., and E. J. Heald. 1Q7?. 

### Trophic analyses of an 

### estuarine mangrove community. Bull. Mar. Sci. 22: 671-738.
Odum, W. E., J. S. Fisher, and J. C. Pickral. 1^79. 

### Factors 

### controlling the flux of 

### particulate organic carbon from 

### estuarine wetlands. Pages 59-80 j_n R. J. 

### Livingston, ed. 

### Ecological 

### processes in coastal and 

### marine systems. 

### Plenum Press, NewYork.


### Oesterling, M. E., and G. L. Evink. 1977. 

### Relationshipbetween

### Florida's blue crab 

### population and

### Apalachicola Bay. Pages 101-121 ji_n R. J. 

### Livingston and E. A. Joyce, Jr., eds. 

### Proceedings of the 

### Conference on the 

### Apalachicola Drainage System. Fla. Oep. Nat. Resour. Mar. Res. Publ. 26.
Olsen, S. J. 1968. 

### Miocene 

### vertebrates and north 

### Florida shorelines. 

### Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, and 

### Palaeoclimatology =^:127-134.


### Overland, 1975. 

### Estimation of 

### hurricane storm surge in 

### Apalachicola Bay, Florida. Natl. Ocean. Atmos. Admin. Tech. Rep. NWS 17. 66 op.
Pearson, J. C. 1929. Natural 

### historyand 

### conservation of the 

### redfish and other 

### commercial 

### sciaenids on the Texas coast. Bull. U.S. Bur. Fish. 

### 44:29-214.

Pearce, J. W. 1977. 

### Florida's environ

### mentally endangered land 

### acguisition program and the 

### Apalachicola Drainage System. Pages 141-145 in R. J. 

### Livingston and E. A. Joyce, Jr., eds. 

### Proceedings of the 

### Conference on the 

### Apalachicola Drainage System. Fla. Dep. Nat. Resour. Mar. Res. Publ. 26.

Perez-Farfante, I. 1969. 

### Western 

### Atlantic shrimps of the genus 

### Penaeus. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Fish. Bull. 

### 67:461-591.

Perret, W. S. 1971. 

### Cooperative Gulf of 

### Mexico estuarine 

### inventory and study, 

### Louisiana. Phase IV, Biology. La. Wildl. Fish. Comm. 175 pp.

Perret, W. S., and C. W. 

### Caillouet. 1974. 

### Abundance and size of fishes taken by 

### trawling in 

### Vermillion Bay, 

### Louisiana.

Bull. Mar. Sci. 24:52-75.


### Peterson, C. H. 1979. 

### Predation, com- 

### petitive exclusion, and

### diversity in the 

### soft-sediment benthic 

### communities of 

### estuaries and lagoons. Pages 233-264 in R. J. 

### Livingston, ed. Ecological pro- cesses in coastal and 

### marine systems. 

### PlenumPress, NewYork.


### Prichard, D. W. 1967. What is an estuary: physical viewpoint. Pages 3-5 in G. H. Lauff, ed. Estuaries. 

### Washington, D. C.


### Prochaska, F. J., and D. Mulkey. 1983. 

### Apalachicola Bay 

### oyster industry: Some 

### economic considerations. Pages 47-52 vn. Scott Andree, ed., 

### Apalachicola oyster industry: 

### conference proceedings. Fla. Sea

### Grant Rep. 57.
Purcell, B. H. 1977. The 

### ecologyof the 

### epibenthic fauna 

### associated with 

### Vallisneria americana beds in a north 

### Florida estuary. M. S. Thesis. 

### Department of 

### Oceanography, Florida State

### University, 

### Tallahassee.
Puri, H. S., and R. 0. Vernon. 1964. 

### Summary of the 

### geologyof 

### Florida and a 

### guidebook to the 

### classic exposures. Fla. Geol. Surv. Spec. Publ. 5. 312 pp. Reid, G. K., Jr. 1954. An 

### ecological 

### study of the 

### Gulf of 

### Mexico fishes, in the 

### vicinity of Cedar Key, Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. Gulf Caribb. 4:1-94.
Reid, G. K., Jr. 1955. Asummer 

### studyof the 

### biologyof East Bay, Texas. Part I. 

### Introduction, 

### description of area, 

### methods, some aspects of the fish com- munity, the 

### invertebrate fauna. Tex. J. Sci. 7: 316-343. 

### Ribelin, B. W., and A. W. Collier. 1979. 

### Ecological 

### considerations of detrital 

### aggregates in the salt marsh. Pages 47-68 vn_ R. J. 

### Livingston, ed.. 

### Ecological 

### processes in coastal and 

### marine systems. 

### PlenumPress, NewYork.


### Rockwood, C. E., and S. Leitman. 1977. 

### Economic planning for the 

### Apalachicola drainage system. Pages 

### 151-157 ji_n R. J. 

### Livingston and E. A. Joyce, Jr., eds. 

### Proceedings of the 

### Conference on the

127

### ApalachicolaDrainage System. Fla. Dep. Nat. Resour. Mar. Res. Publ. 26.


### Rockwood, C. E., L. Rhodes, W. Mazek, M. Colberg, W. 

### Menzel, L. Haines, D. 

### LeBlanc, W. 

### Desvousges, M. Otis, P. 

### Terrebonne, G. Brosch, C. Grigg, and R. Jones. 1973. A

### management program for the 

### oyster 

### resource in

### Apalachicola Bay, 

### Florida. Unpubl. Rep. to 

### Florida 

### Department of Natural 

### Resources. 650
pp.
Rouse, W. L. 1969. 

### Littoral 

### Crustacea from 

### southwest Florida. Q. J. Fla. Acad. Sci. 

### 32:127-152.

Ruge, J. G. 1897. 

### The 

### oysters and 

### oyster-beds of Florida. Bull. U. S. Fish. 

### Commission 17: 

### 289-296.


### Schelske, C. L., and E. P. Odum. 1961. 

### Mechanisms

### maintaininghigh

### productivity in 

### Georgia estuaries. Proc. 

### Gulf Caribb. Fish. Inst. 14:75-80.

Shea, M. L., R. W. 

### Warren, and W. A. Niering. 1975. 

### Biochemical and 

### transplantation studies of the 

### growth 

### form of 

### Spartina alterniflora in 

### Connecticut salt 

### marshes. 

### Ecology 56:461-466.
Sheridan, P. F. 1978. 

### Trophic rela

### tionships of 

### dominant fishes in the 

### Apalachicola Bay 

### system (Florida). Ph.D. 

### Dissertation. 

### Florida State 

### University, 

### Tallahassee.

Sheridan, P. F. 1979. 

### Three new 

### species of 

### Melita (Crustacea: 

### Amphipoda), with notes on the 

### amphipod fauna of the 

### Apalachicola estaury of 

### northwest Florida. 

### NortheastGulf Sci. 3:60-73.


### Sheridan, P., and R. J. 

### Livingston. 1979. 

### Cyclic trophic 

### relationships of 

### fishes in an 

### unpolluted, 

### river-dominated 

### estuary innorth

### Florida. Pages 

### 143-161 in R. J. 

### Livingston, ed.. 

### Ecological 

### processes in coastal and

### marine systems. 

### PlenumPress, 

### NewYork.


### Sheridan, P. F., and R. J. 

### Livingston. 1983. 

### Abundance and 

### seasonality of 

### infauna and 

### epifauna inhabiting a 

### Halodulewrightii 

### meadow in

### Apalachicola Bay, Florida. 

### Estuaries 6:407-419. Smalley, A. E. 1959. The 

### growth 

### cycle of



### Spartina and its 

### relation to the insect 

### populations in the marsh. Pages ci6-l00 in 

### Proceedings of the 

### Salt 

### Marsh 

### Conference, Sapelo Island, Ga.
Smith, R. E. 1974. 

### Marine 

### environment implications of 

### offshore

### drilling in the 

### eastern Gulf of Mexico. 

### Institute of 

### Oceanography, State

### UniversitySystem of 

### Florida, St. 

### Petersberg.
Springer, V. G., and K. D. 

### Woodburn. 1960. An 

### ecological 

### studyof the 

### fishes of the 

### Tampa Bay area. Fla. 

### State Board 

### Conserv. Mar. Lab. Prof. Pap. Ser. 1. 104 pp.



### Stevenson, H. M. 1977. A 

### comparison of the 

### Apalachicola River 

### avaifauna above and

### belowJim

### Woodruff Dam. Pages 34-36 in R. J. 

### Livingston and E. A. Joyce, Jr., eds. 

### Proceedings of the

### Conference
on the 

### Apalachicola Drainage System. Fla. Dep. Nat. Resour. Mar. Res. Publ. 26.



### Stokes, G. M. 1974. The

### distribution and 

### abundance of 

### penaeidshrimp in the lower 

### Laguna

### Madre of Texas 

### with a

### description of the live bait 

### shrimp fishery. Tex. Parks Wildl. Dep. Tech. Series 15. 32
pp.

Stroud, L. M., and A. W. Cooper. 1968. 

### Color-infrared aerial 

### photographic interpretation and net 

### primary produc

### tivity of a 

### regularly flooded North 

### Carolina saltmarsh. Univ. N. C. 

### Water Resour. Res, Inst. Rep. 14, 86 pp.


### Suttkus, R. D. 1956. 

### Early life 

### history of the 

### Gulf menhaden, 

### Brevoortia patro-
nus

, in 

### Louisiana. Trans. 21st Amer. Wildl. Conf, 

### 21:309-407.
Swift, F. 1896. 

### Report of a 

### survey of the 

### oyster 

### regions of St. 

### Vincent Sound, 

### Apalachicola Bay, and St. 

### George Sound, 

### Florida. U. S. 

### Commission of 

### Fish and 

### Fisheries. Report of 

### Commissioner for 1896, 

### Appendix 4, pp. 187-221.


### Swingle, H, A., and D. G. Bland. 1974. A 

### study of the fishes of the coastal 

### watercourses of 

### Alabama. Ala. Mar. Res. Bull. 

### 10:17-102.

128Sykes, J. E., and J. H. 

### Finucane. 

### 1%6. Occurrence in 

### Tampa Bay, 

### Florida, of 

### immature 

### species 

### dominant in 

### Gulf of 

### Mexico commercial species. Fish Wildl. Serv. Fish. Bull. fi5:369-37Q.

Tagatz, M. E. 1968. 

### Biology of the blue crab, 

### Callinectes sapidus Rathbun, in the St. Johns 

### River Florida. U. S. 

### Fish Wildl. Serv. Fish. Bull. 

### 67:17-33.

Tanner, W. F. 1962. Upper 

### Cretaceous coast of

### Georgia and

### Alabama. Ga. Min. Newsl. 15:89-92.

Tanner, W. F. 1968. 

### Tertiary sea level symposium. 

### Paleoqeogr. 

### Paleoclimatol

. 

### Paleoecol. S:?-172.

Tanner, W. F. 1983. 

### Apalachicola Bay: 

### geologyand

### sedimentology. Pages 8-9 in S. Andree, ed., 

### Apalachicola oyster industry: 

### conference proceedings. 

### Florida Sea

### Grant College.
Teal, J. M. 1962. 

### Energy flow in the salt 

### marsh 

### ecosystem of Georgia. 

### Ecology43:614-624.
Udell, H. F., .1. 

### Zardudsky, T. E. Dohney, and P. R. 

### Burkholder. 1969. 

### Productivity and 

### nutrient values of plants 

### growing in salt 

### marshes of the town of 

### Hampstead, Long Island. Bull. 

### TorreyBot. 

### Club 69:42-51.

U. S. 

### ArmyCorps of 

### Engineers. 1975. A 

### study on the 

### effects of 

### maintenance dredging on 

### selected ecological parameters in the 

### Gulf Intracoastal 

### Waterway, 

### Apalachicola Bay, 

### Florida. 

### Unpublished report. 

### Water and 

### Air Research, Inc. 200 pp. Waits, E. D. 1967. Net 

### primaryproduc

### tivity of an 

### irregularly flooded North 

### Carolina salt marsh. Ph.D. 

### Dissertation. North 

### Carolina State 

### University, Raleigh.
Wass, M. L., and T. D. Wright. 1969. Coastal 

### wetlands of 

### Virginia. 

### Interim Rept. to the 

### Governor and General 

### Assembly. VIMS Special Rep. 

### Applied Mar. Sci. 

### Ocean Eng. No. 10. 154 pp. 

### Wharton, C. H., H. T. Odum, K. Ewel, M. Duever, A. Lugo, R. 

### Boynton, J. 

### Bartholomew, E. 

### DeBellevue, S. Brown, M.

Brown, and L. Duever. 1977. 

### Forested 

### wetlands of 

### Florida--their management and use. 

### Unpublished report. 

### Universityof Florida. 

### Gainesville.
White, D. C. 1983. 

### Analysis of 

### microorganisms in terms of 

### quantity and 

### activity in natural 

### environments. 

### Microbes in 

### their natural 

### environments. 

### Society for General 

### Microbiology Symposium 34: 37-66.
White, D. 

## C, R. J. Bobbie, S. J. 

### Morrison, D. K. 

### Oosterhof, C. W. 

### Taylor, and D. A. Meeter. 1977. 

### Determination of 

### microbial 

### activity of 

### estuarine detritus by 

### relative rates of lipid 

### biosynthesis. Lim. 

### Oceanogr. 

### 22:1089-1099.
White, D. 

## C, R. J. 

### Livingston, R. J. Bobbie, and J. S. Nickels. 1979a. 

### Effects of surface 

### composition, water 

### column chemistry, and time of 

### exposure on the 

### composition of the detrital 

### microflora and 

### associated

### macrofauna in 

### Apalachicola Bay, Florida. Pages 

### 83-116 in R. J. 

### Livingston, ed.. 

### Ecological 

### processes in coastal and

### marine systems. 

### PlenumPress, 

### NewYork.


### White, D. 

## C, W. M. Davis, J. S. 

### Nickels, J. D. 

### King and R. J. Bobbie. 1979b. 

### Determination of the 

### sedimentarymicrobial 

### biomass by 

### extractable lipid 

### phosphate. 

### Oecologia 40: 51-62.


### Whitfield, W. K., Jr. 1973. 

### Construction and 

### rehabilitation of 

### commercial 

### oyster reefs in 

### Florida from 1949 

### through 1971 

### with 

### emphasis on 

### economic impact in 

### Franklin County. Fla. Dep. Nat. Resour. Mar. Res. Lab. Spec. Sci. Rep. 38. 42 pp. 

### Whitfield, W. K., Jr. and D. S. 

### Beaumariage. 1977. 

### Shellfish management in 

### Apalachicola Bay: past, present, future. Pages 

### 130-140 j_n R. J. 

### Livingston and E. A. Joyce, Jr., eds.. 

### Proceedings of the 

### Conference on the 

### ApalachicolaDrainage System. Fla. Dep. Nat. Resour. Mar. Res. Publ

. 26.


### Williams, A. B. 1956. 

### Marine decapod 

### crustaceans of the 

### Carolinas. U.S. 

### Fish andWildl. Serv. Bull. 

### 65:1-298.

129

### Williams, R. B., and M. B. 

### Murdoch. 1972. 

### Compartmental analysis of the 

### production of 

### Juncus roemerianus_ in a 

### North 

### "Chesapeake 

### Carolina 13:69-79. salt marsh. Sci



### Willingham, C. A., B. W. 

### Cornaby, and
D. G. 

### Engstrom. 1975. A 

### study of 

### selected coastal zone 

### ecosystems in the 

### Gulf of 

### Mexico in 

### relation to gas pipelining

### activities. Tech, Rep. 

### Offshore Pipeline Comm., Battelle Corp.


### Winger, P. V., C. W. W. 

### Johnson 

### organochlorine Sieckman, 1984. T. W. May, and 

### Residues of 

### insecticides, and 

### heavy 

### polychloniated biphenyls, 

### metals inbiota

### from

### ApalachicolaRiver, 

### Florida, 1978. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 

### 67:325-333.
Wood, C. E. 1967. 

### Physico-ecology of the grass shrimp, 

### Palaemonetes pugio

, in the 

### Galveston Bay

### estuarine system. Contr. Mar. Sci. Univ. Tex. 12:54-79.


### Woodwell, G. M., C. A. Hall, and K. A. 

### Houghton. 1977. The 

### Flax Pond eco- 

### system study: 

### exchanges of 

### carbon in 

### water between a salt 

### marsh and 

### Long Island Sound. Limn. 

### Oceanog. 

### 22:833-838.
Wooley, C. M., and E. J. 

### Crateau. 1982. 

### Observations on 

### Gulf of 

### Mexico sturgeon

(

### Acipenser 

### oxyrhynchus Desotoi ) in the 

### Apalachicola River, Florida. Fla. Sci. 

### 45:244-248.
Wooley, C. M., and E. J. Crateau. 1983. 

### Biology, 

### population estimates, and

### movement of 

### native and 

### introduced striped bass, 

### Apalachicola River, 

### Florida. Am. J. Fish. Man. 3:383-394.

Wooley, C. M., and E. J. 

### Createau. 1984. 

### Movement, 

### microhabitat, exploitation, and 

### management of 

### Gulf of 

### Mexico sturgeon, 

### Apalachicola River, 

### Florida (inreview).


### Wooley, C. M., P. A. Moon, and E. J. Crateau. 1982. A larval 

### Gulf of

### Mexico sturgeon (

### Acipenser 

### oxyrhynchus Desotoi). 

### Northeast Gulf Sci. 5:57-58.

Yerger, R. W. 1977. Fishes of the 

### Apalachicola River. Pages 22-23 in R. J. 

### Livingston and E. A. Joyce, Jr., eds. 

### Proceedings of the 

### Conference on the 

### Apalachicola Drainage System. Fla. Dep. Nat. Resour. Mar. Res. Publ. 26.

Zeh, T. A. 1980. Sikes Cut inlets report No. 7. Sea (Rep. No. 35). 39 pp. ; 

### glossaryof

Grant 

### College



### Zimmerman, M. S., and R. J. 

### Livingston. 1976a. The 

### effects of kraft mill 

### effluents on 

### benthic 

### macrophyte assemblages in a 

### shallow bay 

### system (Apalachee Bay, North 

### Florida, U. S. A.). Mar. Biol. 34, 297-312.


### Zimmerman, M. S., and R. J. 

### Livingston. 1976b. 

### Seasonalityand

### physico-chemical ranges of 

### benthic 

### macrophytes from a 

### north 

### Florida 

### estuary (Apalachee Bay). Contr. Mar. Sci. Univ. Tex. 20, 34-45.


### Zimmerman, M, S., and R. J. 

### Livingston. 1979. 

### Dominance and 

### distribution of 

### benthic 

### macrophyte assemblages in a 

### north 

### Florida 

### estuary (Apalachee Bay, 

### Florida). Bull. Mar. Sci. 29, 27-40.

130

## APPENDIXA 

## OVERVIEW

## OFSAMPLING

# PROGRAMIN

## NORTHFLORIDA

## COASTALAREAS

1. 

### ApalachicolaBay

### System

a. 

### Physico-chemical 

### measurements

. (All 

### stations, 

### surface andbottom; March, 

### 1972-present; 

### minimum at

### monthly intervals. 

### Temperature (air), river 

### flow and 

### rainfall data 

### from

### Atlanta, Georgia, to

### Apalachicola, Florida, (monthly, 1920-- 

### present) are also on files in the 

### database)


### temperature (^C) 

### salinity (ppt) 

### dissolvedoxygen (ppm) 

### turbidity (J.T.U.) 

### color (Pt-Co units) 

### depth (m) pH (since 1974) Seechi 

### readings (m) 

### chlorophyll _a 

### (discontinued 9/76) (pg e,"l) 

### orthophosphate (discontinued 9/76) (yg P «."!) 

### nitrite (discontinued 9/76) (ng N «."!) 

### nitrate (discontinued 9/76) (^g N s,"l) 

### silicate (discontinued 9/76) (yg Si e,"^) 

### ammonia (discontinued 9/76) (ygNH3 n-l) 

### organochlorine compounds (pesticides, PCB's, etc.) (monthly, 1972-74) 

### heavymetals (1983) B.O.D., C.O.D. (1983

b. 

### Sediments

, 

### (representative stations, 

### monthly intervals, 3/75-2/76)


### grain size (phi units) 

### organic content {%

### dry

### weight)

c. 

### Detritus

, 

### (macroparticulates: all 

### stations, 

### monthlyfrom 1/75 to present), 

### microparticulates: mouth of

### Apalachicola and

### Little St. Marks Rivers, 

### monthly from8/75 to 

### present) 

### macroparticulates (by

### species or type, g

### dryweight) 

### microparticulates (sieve intervals; 45 y , 88 p , 125 y , 250m, '^00 p, 1 mm, 2mm;
g

### ash-freedry

### weight)

d. 

### Phytoplankton analysis (Iverson et al.). 

### (selected stations, 

### monthly intervals; 

### 7/72-9/76) 

### qualitative (species) 

### analysis 

### productivity (ng C

### m"^ hr"^) 

### limiting

### factor analysis

131e. 

### Grassbed (

### Vallisneriaamericana ) 

### analysis

, 

### (macrophyte samoles, m^, 

### monthly from 11/75 to 7/77)
By

### species biomass (g

### dry

### weight)

f. 

### Litter-associated assemblages

, 

### (stations 5A, 3, and IX; 

### quarterlyand/or 

### monthlyfrom4/74 to 1/77)
By

### species (numbers and 

### biomass, q

### ash-free dryweight)

g. 

### Benthic infauna

. 

### (stations 1, IX, 3, 4, 4A, BA, SB, 6); 10

### repetitive cores/station; monthly, 3/75 to

### present); 

### weekly (station 3, 5A, 

### Marine Laboratory:

### 10/82-present )
"y

### species (numbers and biomass g

### ash-free dry

### weight)

h. 

### Grassbedassemblages

, 

### (stations 4A and 4B; 

### monthlyfrom 11/75 to 7/77)
By

### species (numbers and

### biomass in g

### dryweight)

i. 

### Epibenthic fishes and 

### invertebrates

, (otter trawls; all 

### stations, 3/72 to present. Trammel nets and seines, 

### various stations)
By

### species (numbers and 

### biomass in g

### dryweight)
j. 

### Stomach 

### contents, 

### fishes (dominant species) and blue crabs

, (all 

### stations, 

### monthlyfrom 3/75 to 12/78)

Bygroup or 

### species 

### according tomonth, size class, and 

### station biomass (g ashfree 

### dry

### weight) (Peter F. 

### Sheridan, 

### Roger A. 

### Laughlin)

k. 

### Zooplankton

. (202 m

### meshnylon net; 

### monthlyfrom 11/73 to 12/74)
By

### species (numbers, 

### biomass, g

### dry

### weight) (H. Lee 

### Edmisten)

1. Larval 

### fishes

. (505 p

### plankton net; 

### monthlyfrom 11/73 to 12/^4)

By

### species (numbers) (Harry

### Blanchet)

m. 

### Meroplankton

. (303 m

### plankton net; 

### weekly, 10/82 topresent; 

### stations 3, 5A, 

### MarineLaboratory)

n. 

### Fisheries data

, (key

### commercial species; 

### Florida

### Department of Natural 

### Resources)
(monthly

### from 1Q55 to

### present)

2. 

### Apalachee Bay

### System

a. 

### Physico-chemical 

### measurements

, (all 

### stations, surface andbottom; June 

### 1971-May 1979; at (minimum) 

### monthly intervals)


### temperature (OC) 

### salinity (ppt) 

### dissolved oxygen (ppm) 

### turbidity (J.T.U.) 

### color (Pt-Co units) 

### depth (m)
132pH 

### (discontinued in 1974) Secchi 

### readings (m) 

### chlorophyll a_ 

### (discontinued in 1975) (pg i-l) 

### orthophosphate (discontinued in 1975)

## Lg P n'^) 

### nitrite 

### (discontinued in 1975) (^g N n"^) 

### nitrate (discontinued in 1975) (pg N j,-!)



### Sediments

, 

### (representative stations, 

### October 1972; 

### November 1972; 

### February 1973; 

### monthly, 

### November 1976

- 

### December 1978) 

### Phytoplankton analysis (Iverson and

### Bittaker). (selected stations, 

### monthly intervals, ElO-Fll, E11-F14, T21; 

### January 1972-1975) 

### qualitative (species) 

### analysis 

### productivity (ng Cm^ hr"l)

d. 

### Benthic

### macrophytes: long-termchanges

, 

### (monthlyfromMarch 1972

- 

### May 1979, at 

### certain

### permanent stations)
by

### species, m^, g

### dry

### weight

e. B

### enthic infauna: seasonal 

### variability

, (same 

### stations as 

### sediments; 10 

### repetitive 

### cores/station; monthly, 11/1976 to 12/1978) by

### species (numbers and 

### ash-free dry

### weight/m^)

f. 

### Short- and 

### long-term

### variablityof 

### epibenthic fishes and 

### invertebrates (numbers and biomass)
Seine: 

### marsh stations, 1972-1975 Trammel nets: 

### Offshore stations, 1974-1975, 

### 1976-1978 

### Multiple otter trawl tows (7.2min.

### /station) 

### monthly, E7, E8, ElO, E12; F9, FIO, Fll, F12; 

### 6/72-5/79; quarterly, all stations, 

### 6/72-5/79)

g. 

### Trophic

### relationships (stomach 

### contents) of fish 

### assemblages in

### Apalachee Bay

, (top 28 species, by

### numbers, all 

### stations, 

### monthlyfrom

### 6/1972 to 12/1978)


### biomass bygroup or 

### species, 

### according tomonth, size class, and 

### station (g ashfree dry

### weight)

h. 

### Trophic interactions of the 

### pinfish (Lagodon 

### rhomboides) with

### keybiological 

### variables such as

### macrophytes and 

### benthic 

### invertebrates in

### Apalachee Bay (Allan W. Stoner)

i. Nocturnal 

### feedinghabits of fish

### assemblages in

### Apalachee Bay (Joseph D. Ryan)

j. 

### Day/night and 

### seasonal 

### varibilityof 

### epibenthic invertebrate 

### distribution (Holly S. 

### Greening) '

k. Seasonal 

### variabilityof larval fishes in

### Apalachee Bay 

### (Kathleen Brady)

1. 

### Trophic 

### relationships of 

### decapod 

### crustaceans (K. Leber)

133

## APPENDIXB 

# COMPUTER

# PROGRAMSFORANALYZINGFIELD

# ANDLABORATORYDATA

1. Special 

### Programfor 

### Ecological 

### Science (SPECS): 

### System

### Overview

a. 

### Introduction



### Long-term field studies in

### which

### diverse habitats are 

### regularlysampled for a

### varietyof

### organisms and

### physical-chemical factors amass large amounts of data. 

### Organization and 

### presentation of such data in auseful 

### formhas been aided 

### significantlyby

### modern 

### high-speed computers.

At 

### Florida State, we have 

### designed and

### developed a 

### computer software 

### system 

### specifically for use 

### with 

### long-termbiological data. 

### Primarydesign 

### criteria have been 

### storage of a large data base, 

### retrieval of 

### virtuallyany 

### subset of the data, and 

### rapid access to a 

### diverse group of 

### biological, 

### statistical, and 

### graphical data.

The SPECS 

### systemhas been 

### written 

### mostly in the 

### FORTRAN

### programming language. Afew

### subroutines are

### written in the Control Data

### Corporation (CDC) 

### COMPASS 

### assembly language. SPECS 

### operates on aCDC 6500 or CYBER 74 

### computer under the

### KRONOS operating system.

b. 

### Organization of the 

### System

Data 

### storage


### Field and 

### laboratorydata on

### physical-chemical parameters and fish, inver

### tebrate, and plant 

### populations are 

### assembled and

### punched on 

### standard 

### 80-column cards or

### entered

### directlyvia a

### computer terminal. Upon 

### completion of apreli

### minaryedit a

### program is 

### executed to add the rawdata to a

### data-base tape.

Two data base tapes are

### maintained, each

### with four files (one each for the 

### four types of data). One 

### tape is always the 

### "current" data base, the other


### serves as abackup. Upon each 

### addition of new 

### information the taoes 

### reverse roles.



### Rawdata 

### information is also 

### copied to a

### raw-data tape. This tape serves
as an 

### additional 

### backup 

### copyof 

### information (although it is not in

### data-base format).

User 

### Programs

All user 

### programs, 

### procedure files 

### (predefined sets of 

### often-used 

### operating systemcommands), 

### program libraries, and 

### active data 

### files reside on 

### computer-center disk packs (for 

### rapid access). Most of the SPECS 

### system is 

### stored as a 

### singlefile on one of-these disks.

134This 

### file 

### contains one large

### program which has been 

### structured in an 

### overlayformat having one

### main

### overlayand nine 

### secondaryoverlays. 

### Secondary overlays 

### perform the

### majorityof 

### system functions, such as 

### loading data, sorting, 

### calculatingbiological indices, 

### preparing for 

### graphics and 

### statistics, etc. The

### main

### overlaysimplyfields a SPECS 

### system

### command and calls for the 

### loading of a 

### secondaryoverlay. 

### LibraryPrograms
The F.S.U. 

### ComputerCenter

### program librarycontains

### manyroutines accessed bythe SPECS system. 

### Amongthese are the 

### Statistical 

### Package for the Social 

### Sciences (SPSS), the FSU

### plottingpackage, a

### mappingpackage (SYMAP), and a 

### SORT/MERGE routine. The 

### function of some 

### SPECS 

### secondaryoverlays is 

### therefore to 

### prepare data base 

### information for input to 

### these higher level routines.


### Operation of the 

### System

All 

### programs in the 

### systemare 

### designed to be

### operated from a

### remote tele

### type or CRT

### terminal. 

### System

### operation is 

### interactive in that there is 

### two-way 

### communication between the user and the program. The user guides the 

### program through each steo of 

### analysis by

### entering commands or other 

### information in 

### response to

### questions 

### displayed bythe program. 

### Terminal 

### Session

Aterminal 

### session with the SPECS 

### systembegins

### with a user call of the INIT (initiate) 

### procedure file. This 

### procedure first asks the user for the 

### location of the data to be used in this run 

### (possibly a data base 

### tape or an 

### active data file). It then gets the SPECS

### program and 

### initiates its 

### execution.

The 

### main 

### overlayof SPECS

### writes a 

### "COMMAND?" 

### message to the terminal
screen. In 

### response the user enters a SPECS 

### systemcommand. The 

### LOAD (retrieve) and 

### SORT

### commands are used to 

### create an 

### active data 

### file from adatabase tape. If the user began this run

### with an active data 

### file (created in a 

### previous run), the 

### LOAD and 

### SORT

### commands are not needed. Once an active data 

### file is 

### available for use, the user selects 

### fromamong a group of 

### commands that 

### initiate 

### execution of 

### secondaryoverlayswhich

### performanalyses of 

### active data.

Upon 

### completion of an 

### analysis, the user 

### maywish to load 

### more data (create an 

### additional active data file), 

### request another type of analysis on the same data file, or 

### terminate SPECS 

### systemoperation. When 

### system

### operation is ended 

### file 

### disposition is under user control. 

### Active data files or other 

### intermediate files

### maybe saved if 

### theywill be used again. This ootion is 

### especially valuable if an 

### important file has taken a long time to 

### generate (that timeneed not be 

### invested again).


### Summary
The SPECS 

### systemconsists of a

### collection of 

### programs 

### written

### expressly for the 

### storage, 

### retrieval, and 

### analysis of 

### long-termecological data. Some 

### programs 

### performdirect 

### calculations or data 

### manipulationswhile others serve
as 

### interface 

### programs that 

### prepare data for higher level (and

### widelyavailable) 

### programpackages.



### Interactive design affords apersonwith limited 

### computer background 

### immediate access to a

### broad-based data file. It also 

### facilitates a raoid, 

### relatively inexpensive yet 

### comprehensive analysis with great 

### flexibilityof
access to 

### data and forms of 

### analysis. All 

### operations are 

### carried out at the

135

### terminal; new

### options can be added easily; and

### routineperiodic updates of the 

### database are

### easilymade. This gives the

### biologist the use of a 

### sophisticated 

### computerized software 

### system as a

### research tool.

e. Capabil ities

(1) 

### Data 

### Storage

(a) 

### Physical-chemical data (byarea, station, date, time of day, anddepth) 

### -dissolved oxygen, color, 

### turibidty, Secchi disk depth, 

### temperature, pH, river flow, 

### rainfall, 

### bottomtype 

### -nitrate, phosphate, ammonia, 

### water-columnproductivity

(b) Fish and 

### invertebrate data (byarea, station, date, and time of day): 

### -genus and 

### species, 

### number of 

### individuals, mean size (with 

### standard 

### deviation), biomass 

### (ash-free 

### drywt.), sex 

### (invertebrates only)

(c) Plant data (byarea, station, date, and time of day): 

### -genus and 

### species, total wet and

### dry

### weight stems and roots (wet and 

### dryweight), tops (wet and 

### dryweight)

(2) 

### Data

### Processing

(a) 

### Retrieval -for anyarea, 

### station or group of 

### stations, date or range of dates

(b) 

### Sorting -byarea, date, station, 

### time of day, or any

### combinaton of these 

### -biological data sorted byspecies

(c) 

### Calculation of 

### biological indices (based on 

### numbers of 

### individuals or 

### biomass per 

### species for anyarea, station or group of stations, date or 

### range of dates, or 

### time of day): 

### -Species Richness (number of species, 

### Margalef Index) 

### -Species 

### Diversity (Simpson index, 

### Brillouin Index, 

### Shannon Index, 

### Mclntosh/indices, Hurlbert's E(Sn)) 

### -Species 

### equitablity (Brillouin J,' 

### Shannon J')

(3) 

### Graphics
-for anyarea, 

### station or group of 

### stations, range of dates, or time of day): 

### plotted as a

### function of time or any

### other

### variable -all 

### physical chemical 

### variables -fish and 

### invertebrates a) 

### number of 

### individuals (single 

### species or 

### collective total) b) 

### average size c) 

### dry

### weight biomass (single 

### species or 

### collective total) d) 

### number of 

### species -plants a) 

### dry

### weight biomass (single 

### species or 

### collective total) b) 

### number of 

### species 

### -Versatec

### high-resolution electrostaticplotter

(4) 

### Statistics

-for

### virtuallyanyset(s) of 

### numbers that can be 

### generated byanyother 

### routine in the 

### system

136

### -linear 

### regression. 

### Student's t-tests, 

### non-oarametric correlations, 

### discriminant analysis, factor analysis, 

### scattergrams, analysis of 

### variance (one, two, and 

### three-way), 

### multivariateANOVA, canonical 

### correlations, etc.

(a) 

### Cluster analysis 

### -cluster by

### species, station, or 

### time -total 

### flexibility inhowspecies, 

### stations, and dates are 

### groupedprior to 

### analysis 

### -selection of 

### similarity index

### fromamong

### Orloci's standarddistance, 

### product

### moment correlation, Fager, Jaccard, 

### Sorenson's, Webb, Kendall, 

### Czekanowski, 

### Canberrametric, C-lambda, rho, and tau 

### -selection of 

### clustering strategyfromamong

### unweightedpair group (grp avg), 

### weightedpair (centroid) 

### grouping, nearest 

### neighbor grouping, 

### furthest neighbor grouping, 

### median grouping, and 

### flexiblegrouping (with beta)

(b) 

### Dendrogram -for 

### any

### output 

### fromcluster analysis 

### -three scales 

### available

(c) Data 

### reduction by

### summary (for anyarea, 

### station or group of stations, range of dates, and times of day) 

### -number of 

### individuals or dry

### weight biomass byspecies, month, and

### year (fish, 

### invertebrates, and plants) -mean, 

### standarddeviation, and 

### range of values over any

### specified time 

### period (foreach of 12

### physical-chemical parameters) 

### -trophic analysis - diet 

### summaryof food items 

### (user-defined classes) 

### -C-lambda (for anyarea, 

### station or group of stations, date or

### range of dates, and times of day)

(d) 

### Data 

### smoothing -moving average (number of time units 

### optional) 

### -seasonal 

### adjustment -data

### tapering and trend 

### adjustment

(e) 

### Time-series analysis 

### -autoregressive

### movingaverage 

### approach (Box-Jenkins

### methodology) -spectral analysis

(f) 

### Mapping -physical-chemical data, 

### macrophyte data, fish or 

### invertebrate species 

### population totals

### mapped for all 

### stations in 

### studyareas (by

### month)

(g) 

### Database 

### update 

### -modification of any

### field in adata base 

### record or 

### records 

### -deletion of data 

### records

2. "MATRIX" 

### ProgramSystem: 

### Summaryof 

### Capabilities

a. 

### Introduction

The 

### term "matrix" as usedhere refers to a 

### formfor 

### holdingnumbers

. It does not 

### have any

### algebraic connotations. A

### two-dimensional array (or table) is one 

### veryuseful and

### frequentlyencountered formfor the

### presentation of numbers. In

a 

### table (see below), basic units (cells ) that 

### containnumbers are 

### arranged in

rows and 

### columns

, 

### where the cells of any

### single row or 

### column (vector) are 

### generallyrelated in 

### someway. A

### table of 

### numbers can be 

### considered a two137

### dimensional matrix. A

### three-dimensional matrix (see below) 

### comprises a series (or set) of tables, 

### where each 

### table (plane ) 

### contains the same number of rows and 

### columns. All the 

### numbers in a

### single

### matrixplane are

### usuallyrelated in


### someway.


### COLUMNS > 

### COLUMNS >



### ROWS

### systemwas 

### developed as a

### utility (i.e., a tool) to aid an 

### investigator in 

### pulling 

### together all the data 

### required for a

### desired analysis and

### preparing the 

### data for

### direct useby

### other 

### analytic systems.

c. 

### MATRIX 

### SystemDesign

### Considerations

The 

### principal design 

### consideration for

### MATRIX was 

### flexibility in input data 

### formats, 

### retrieval and 

### grouping of 

### raw-data filevalues, and in

### manipulation and

### presentation of

### matrix file 

### contents. 

### Flexibilitywas 

### achieved

### mostly through

### generalization of 

### programcode; 

### MATRIX was

### written without anyfixed input 

### file

### formats so that the 

### systemcould be used on a

### varietyof input data types. 

### Furthermore, when a

### matrix is 

### produced from rawdata, the user is 

### offered ahigh

### degree of 

### flexibilityregardingwhich filevalues are retrieved, 

### where theyare

### positioned along a

### matrix dimension, andhow

### theyare "pooled" in the

### matrix cells. Once a

### matrix has been created, anyof several 

### manipulative 

### operations can be 

### performed on the data. Since these 

### operations simply act on

### matrixrows, columns, andplanes, 

### theyare

### effectivelyavailable for use 

### with any

### MATRIX-compatible input file, 

### regardless of the original format.



### Other design 

### considerations were 

### adaptability and 

### allowance for user 

### creativity. The

### MATRIX systemhas been coded in such a

### waythat as newhigherlevel 

### package programs 

### become 

### available or new

### functions are 

### desired ofMATRIX, the 

### changes 

### necessary to 

### incorporate the new

### features will 

### require a

### minimum of 

### programming time. 

### There is 

### considerableroomfor 

### creativity in the use of the 

### MATRIX system; 

### manipulative functions 

### currentlyavailable under

### MATRIX can take 

### matrices apart, "twist" 

### them around, change the 

### contents, and piece 

### them together. It is left 

### entirelyup to the user to

### become 

### familiarwith the power of these 

### operations and to 

### envision their 

### application to 

### specific problems.

d. 

### Summaryof

### MATRIXFunctions

Listed

### below are brief 

### descriptions of the 

### functions 

### performed by

### MATRIX 

### systemoperations.



### GENERATE

# — Produces a 

### numeric data

### matrix file of 2 or 3

### dimensions from an input 

### file 

### containingalphanumeric storage keys and

### numeric datavariables. The 

### programprovides for 

### complete user 

### definition of row, column, andplane 

### contents, 

### automatic insertion of

### missing values, and

### pooling of 

### qualified retrieval values by

### summation or averaging. 

### Storage keys are

### written along 

### with data to serve as row, column andplane labels.



### READ

# — Loads the data and label 

### information from a

### previouslygeneratedmatrix file.



### VIEW

# — Displays (to the 

### terminal) a 

### subsection of the data points 

### contained in the 

### currentlyactive

### matrix file. User defines the 

### extent of row, column, and plane 

### dimensions for a 

### desired 

### submatrix (which

### maybe the entire 

### matrix if it is 

### 2-dimensional ) .


### DESCRIBE

# — Lists the labels 

### assigned to rows, columns, or planes. This function is helpful in

### determining the 

### contents of amatrix.



### EDIT

# —Allows the user to

### modifycontents of amatrix. Auser

### maychange labels, cell values, 

### contents of avector (

### single row, column, or plane),
or the

### missingvalue code 

### assigned to amatrix. He

### mayalso add avector to an 

### existingmatrix.

139

### REPORT -- 

### Similar toVIEW, but the 

### display is 

### written to a 

### separate file that is 

### suitable for

### printing. The

### display is also

### more 

### informative than that of

### VIEWbecause: (1) labels are

### written along

### withdata points; (2) an 

### optional 

### title is 

### provided; (3) the

### programperforms report paging; and (4) 

### marginal totals can be

### reported (at user option).



### SUBMATRIX -- 

### Extracts a

### user-specified subsection of a larger

### matrix. Anew 

### matrix file (complete

### with labels) is 

### created

### containingonly the 

### selected portion.



### MERGE -- 

### Combines two 

### existing matrices into one, 

### with the 

### following restrictions: (1) Both

### matricesmust have the same

### missing-value code; (2) At least two

### dimensions of the

### matricesmust be equal (e.g., each

### matrix has 25 rows and 3planes). Anew

### matrix file 

### (complete

### with labels) is created.



### TRANSPOSE -- 

### Reorients the 

### dimensions of a

### matrix in one of 2ways: (1) 

### interchanging the rows, 

### columns, orplanes; (2) 

### making a

### three-dimensional matrix into two

### dimensions. A

### new

### matrix file (complete

### with labels) is created.



### STATISTICS -- 

### Computes and 

### (optionally) 

### displays 

### matrixmarginal statistics 

### including total, mean, 

### standarddeviation, number of

### missingpoints, and 

### number of 

### nonzero values. 

### Statistics can be 

### computed for 

### either rows or 

### columns over all 

### planes or a 

### selectedplane. A

### matrix file 

### (suitable for a 

### MERGE operation) can also be 

### produced if row

### statistics (all planes) have been 

### selected.



### TRANSFORM -- 

### Allows a user to

### perform data 

### transformation (e.g., log, 

### square root, unit 

### conversion) and/or 

### standardization (i.e., to

### mean = 0, st. dev.

= 1). 

### Also

### permits 

### computation of linear 

### combinations of 

### variables.



### PREPARE FOR 

### PACKAGE -- Strips a 

### matrix file of label and

### header information. This 

### function leaves a 

### file 

### containing datapoints only, 

### which is the

### most 

### convenient form of input to the BMDP, SPSS, and

### MINITAB statistical packages.


### GRAPHICS

# — Prepares

### matrix row or 

### column data for the 

### EZGRAFgraphics system. A series of 

### EZGRAF "EN"ter data 

### commands are 

### generated and

### written to a 

### file (which is saved) 

### suitable for 

### EZGRAF

### entrywith the "RUN" command.



### MAPPING -- 

### Prepares 

### matrixdata for spatial 

### mappingwith the SYMAP system. 

### Matrix columns must 

### correspond to 

### predefined spatial 

### locations (i.e., 

### stations). The user 

### selects 

### which

### matrix rows are to bemapped.



### SUBSAMPLE 

### SPECIES

# — A 

### very 

### specialized function, which 

### performs "soecies 

### accumulation" 

### according to the

### methoddescribed by

### Livingston et al. (1^76) and 

### "rarefaction" 

### according to the

### method of 

### Simberloff (1^78).



### MENU

# —Displays a "full" 

### menu of 

### available system 

### operations (descriptions of 

### options are

### more complete).

END -- 

### Terminates the

### MATRIX

### programsystem and

### returns the user to 

### interactive 

### communicationwith the 

### operating system (NOS).

140

### SPECS Interfaces

The SPECS 

### computer

### programsystem (Special 

### Programfor 

### Ecological Science) was 

### developed for use

### with the 

### experimental and 

### long-termbiological data of Dr. Robert J, 

### Livingston at 

### Florida State

### University. 

### While SPECS

### provides the 

### capabilityto

### retrieve and sort 

### data-base information and to 

### calculate values of

### biological indices, it has 

### only a limited

### ability to

### make these results 

### available in a

### form

### compatiblewith

### higher-level packages such as BMDP, SPSS, EZGRAF, and

### MINITAB. 

### MATRIX can act as apowerful 

### interface between SPECS and 

### theseprograms. The SPECS data base 

### comprises the 

### following types of data: fish, 

### invertebrate, plant, trophic, and

### physical-chemical. Using the SPECS 

### LOAD and 

### SORTcommands, these data can be 

### retrieved for anyarea(s), 

### station (or group of 

### stations), and date (or 

### range of dates). The 

### resultingfile is called a 

### load/sort 

### file and

### maybe input to 

### MATRIX

### GENERATE using one of the 

### predefined formats 

### described in

### Table A. 

### Notice that, for eachdata type, there are several date 

### options. 

### Prudent 

### selection of one of these can 

### greatly reduce the user 

### effort 

### required for the 

### collapse

### procedure soecification. For 

### example, 

### suppose a 

### load/sort 

### invertebrate file is input to

### GENERATE and the rows of the

### matrix file are to be individual 

### months from 

### January 1978 

### through 

### December 1982 (60

### months). If the full date 

### format is used, the date key 

### values will be listed as individual days (YYMMDD). It could be 

### tedious here to 

### specify a

### monthlycollapseprocedure, 

### because all the

### numerical 

### assignments for the days in

### 01/78

### wouldhave to be entered, then all the 

### assignments for 02/78, and so 

### forth for

### possibly all of the 60

### months. If the data are read

### with the 

### year/month format, the day

### field

### would be 

### skipped and the listedvalues

### would be

### YYMM (i.e., the

### monthlycollapse is 

### accomplished bythe format instead of a 

### laborious user 

### response). The user could then 

### simplyenter 999*1 and anewrow 

### would be

### generated for eachmonth. If each row

### were to

### represent one of the 12 

### months of the 

### calendaryear (i.e., row 1

### wouldrepresent all 

### January's, row 2 all 

### February's, etc.), the "month only" 

### format

### would be 

### appropriate. This for

### mat causes the 

### dayand 

### year parts of the date to be ignored, leaving

### only 12 

### possiblevalues for the date key.
The SPECS 

### CALC 

### command computes ten 

### separate diversity, richness, and 

### evenness indices along

### with the total 

### number of 

### individuals and

### number of species. 

### These

### variables

### maybe 

### calculated for anyarea(s), 

### station(s), date(s), or time(s) of dayor any

### combination thereof (see SPECSmanual fordetails). 

### CALCoutputs two files. One (keyword

### OUTPUT) is 

### suitable for

### printing; the 

### other (keyword 

### PLOTDAT) is 

### suitable as input to 

### MATRIXGENERATE. The use of the

### MATRIX 

### programon a SPECS CALC 

### output file is the 

### simplest 

### way to

### make 

### these 

### computed

### variables available for

### plottinqand/or 

### statistical analysis.

The SPECS and 

### MATRIX systems can be run

### with

### maximumefficiency if the
user gives 

### forethought to

### exactlywhat 

### information is 

### needed for his analysis. A

### combination of LOAD, SORT, and 

### SLECT

### orocedures in

### SPECS can be used to get
an input 

### file for

### MATRIXwith little or no 

### extraneous data. If, for example, the fishdata for all dates and 

### stations were 

### retrieved to a 

### load/sort file and input to

### GENERATE when

### onlythe data for 

### stations 3 and 5A

### from

### February 1978 

### through June 1980

### were needed, two things 

### wouldhappen. First, 

### MATRIX

### would have to read a great deal of

### nonrelevant data, 

### which

### wouldresult in

### wasted 

### computer time andmoney. Second, there 

### would be a

### very large number of

### key values listed in the 

### collapseprocedure, so

### more user time andeffort 

### would be 

### required to 

### specifythe 

### collapse correctly. The 

### LOADcommand causes an 

### entire data base to be read. The 

### records that

### match the load

### parameters are

### written to an 

### output file. The 

### SLECT 

### command reads a 

### load/sort file and

### writes the 

### records that 

### match its 

### parameters to a 

### smaller load/sort file. If

### manysubanalyses are to be run on a group of data, a

### LOADcommand should be used to 

### retrieve all the 

### data that will be

### required for all the analyses; 

### therefore the

141

### Table A. 

### Predefined file 

### formats 

### (including lists of 

### keyand

### variable names) to 

### accomplish a

### number of 

### SPECS-MATRIX interfaces.

File 

### format 

### Keynames 

### Variable names

SPECS 

### Load/Sort File

-- Inverts (Full Date)



# —Fish (Full Date)

SPECS 

### Load/Sort File

-- Inverts (Date is 

### Year/ Month only)

-- Fish (Date is 

### Year/Month Only)



### SPECS 

### Load/Sort File



# — Inverts (Date is

### Month Only)

SPECS 

### Load/Sort File

-- 

### Plants (Full Datel

SPECS 

### Load/Sort File



# —Plants (Date is 

### Year/ 

### MonthOnly)

SPECS 

### Load/Sort File

-- 

### Phys/ChemData (Full Date) 

### AREA

### Table A. (Concluded.



### File

### format 

### Keynames 

### Variablenames



### SPECS 

### Load/Sort File

-- 

### Phys/Chem (Date is 

### Year/ 

### MonthOnly)

SPECS 

### CALC

### Output File 

### AREA

YRMON 

### STATION TOD 

### DEPTHCODE

AREA DATE (YYMMDD) 

### STATION TOD 

### DEPTH

### APPENDIX

## C REVIEW

## OFONGOINGRESEARCH

## PROGRAMSOFTHE

## CENTERFORAQUATIC 

## RESEARCH

## ANDRESOURCE

## MANAGEMENT(FLORIDA

### STATEUNIVERSITY)

1. Overall 

### Scope of 

### Program
Since 1971, 

### together with 

### undergraduate and 

### graduate students, a

### multi

### disciplinary array of 

### scientists, and a

### permanent staff of 

### post-doctoral fellows and

### full-timepersonnel, R. J. 

### Livingston has put 

### together a series of

### multi

### disciplinary and 

### interdisciplinarystudies 

### concerningvarious aguatic systems in the 

### southeastern United States. 

### Simultaneous laboratory and 

### field studies 

### (descriptive, trophic, 

### experimental) have been 

### carried out, and the

### resultingdata have been 

### entered into a 

### series of 

### computerized files. 

### Simultaneously, computer programs have been 

### developed over the past 10 years that are

### designed to

### handle short- and 

### long-term

### multidisciplinarydata

### fromvarious aguatic systems.


### Currently, the data 

### from the 

### 13-year 

### research effort are being

### compiled and 

### organized for

### publication. 

### These data are also 

### being

### utilized to 

### design and 

### carry out an

### ongoing field

### experimental 

### program in a 

### series of 

### freshwater, estuarine, and

### marine habitats.



### Laboratoryand 

### Field

### Bioassays

A. 

### Single-species tests 

### (seagrasses, 

### macroinvertebrates, fishes; 

### fresh-water and 

### marine animals).

B. 

### Multiple-species tests 

### (macroinvertebrates; 

### freshwater and

### marine)

C. 

### Seagrass

### microcosms
FieldSurveys

A. 

### Habitat analyses 

### (including

### pollutants) and

### biological 

### components (productivity, 

### epibenthic fishes and

### macroinvertebrates, infaunal macroi

### nvertebrates )

1. Spatial 

### comparisons amongrivers and 

### associated estuaries

a. Flint River (Georgia), 

### ChipolaRiver (Florida), 

### EconfinaRiver (Florida), 

### FenhollowayRiver (Florida), 

### MobileRiver (Alabama), 

### Escatawpa--East PascagulaRivers (Mississippi), Pee 

### Dee--Sampit Rivers, 

### Winyah Bay (South

### Carolina)

2. Temporal 

### comparisons (daily, 

### weekly, and

### monthly intervals; 10-12years of 

### continuous data)

a. 

### Apalachicola

### River-estuary

144b. 

### Econfina

### River-estuary

c. 

### Fenholloway

### River-estuary

B. 

### Food-webstructure of infaunal 

### macroinvertebrates and

### epibenthicmacroinvertebrates and 

### fishes 

### (freshwater and

### marine systems)

1. 

### Transformation of 

### species-specific abundance and

### biomass data into 

### trophic units by

### feedingmode and

### trophic position infood

### web

2. 

### Comparative analysis among 

### systems by

### feedingmode and 

### trophicposition in food

### web (trophic unit)

3. 

### Analysis of 

### long-term (10-12) 

### changes of food

### webstructure in

### different systems (with and

### without effects of 

### pollution and 

### habitat 

### alteration)

4. 

### Interaction of habitat 

### features, 

### primaryproduction, and 

### food

### web

### features

C. Impact

### Analysis (freshwater, 

### estuarine, marine)

1. Pulpmill 

### effluents (6

### riverine and 5

### estuarine systems)

2. 

### Storm-water runoff 

### (ApalachicolaRiver and

### Baysystems)

3. 

### Toxic 

### substances (pesticides, 

### heavymetals) (Flint River, 

### ChipolaRiver, 

### Hogtown Creek, 

### ApalachicolaRiver and

### Baysystems)

4. 

### Dredging and

### spoiling (ApalachicolaRiver and

### Baysystem)

5. 

### Forestrymanagement (ApalachicolaRiver and Baysystem)


### Experimental 

### Ecology (LaboratoryandField)

A. 

### Validation of 

### freshwater bioassayswith

### fielddata at toxic

### waste sites along tworivers 

### (ChipolaRiver, 

### HogtownCreek): infaunal 

### macroinvertebrates, epi

### benthicfishes and

### macroinvertebrates (ongoing)

B. 

### Validation of 

### bioassays using

### multi-speciesmicrocosms of 

### soft-sediment, 

### marine infaunal 

### macroinvertebrates (ApalachicolaBay

### system and the

### Yorktown estuary, 

### Virginia) (ongoing)

C. 

### Predator-preyinteractions (soft-sediment areas and 

### seagrass beds) (ongoing)

1. 

### Behavioral 

### ecology

2. 

### Fieldeffects of

### predation on

### prey

### assemblages

3. 

### Influence of

### predator-preyrelationships on

### communitystructure under 

### varying

### environmental conditions (intra- and 

### intersystemcomparisons with and

### without pollutionvariables)

4. 

### Relation of 

### predator-preyrelationships to 

### communitystructure and

### food 

### webpatterns


### Models
: 

### time-series 

### changes of 

### physical, chemical, and biological 

### variables in 

### various 

### aquatic systems (ongoing) 

### Application of 

### research 

### findings to

### resource

### management and

### public 

### education

145

### Development of the

### ApalachicolaRiver and

### BayNational 

### Estuarine 

### Sanctuary

A. 

### ApalachicolaAtlas.

B. 

### Continuing integration of regional 

### research projects and abroad 

### spectrum of 

### educational activities (secondary, 

### undergraduate, graduate),

C. Input of 

### research data to local, state, and

### regional 

### planning/management authorities.

2. 

### Center for

### Aquatic Research and

### Resource

### Managment : 

### Personnel (1984)



### Robert J. 

### Livingston (Director)
Glenn C. 

### Woodsum (Associate 

### Director)

DATA

### PROCESSING/ANALYSIS

Duane A. 

### Meeter (Associate Investigator: 

### Statistical 

### Analysis)

Loretta E. 

### Wolfe (Computer

### programming, statistical analysis)


### Shelley J. 

### Roberts (Project 

### coordination, data 

### transmission, 

### formation of 

### computer files)



### FIELD

### OPERATIONS

Robert L. Howell IV (Field

### collections, 

### epibenthic 

### fishes/invertebrates)

BIOLOGICAL

### ANALYSIS
Christopher C. 

### Koenig (Bioassay, 

### experimental protocols, 

### biologyof fishes)



### Kenneth R. Smith 

### (Oligochaeteworms, 

### benthic invertebrates)


### Gary L. 

### Ray 

### (Polychaeteworms, 

### benthic invertebrates)

Bruce M. 

### Mahoney (Benthic 

### invertebrates, 

### experimental ecology)


### William H. 

### Clements (Benthic 

### invertebrates, feedinghabits of fishes, 

### experimental ecology)


### William R. 

### Karsteter (Aquatic insects, 

### benthic invertebrates, 

### water/sediment chemistry)

John Epler 

### (Aquatic insects)


### Akshintala Prasad 

### (Aquatic plants)



### GRADUATE STUDENTS Joseph 

### Luczkovich (Ph.D.) 

### (Predator-preyinteractions, fish 

### foraging, 

### experimental ecologyl

Jon

### Schmidt (Ph.D.) 

### (Benthic 

### invertebrates, 

### experimental ecology)
David

### Bone (Ph.D.) 

### (Experimental ecology, foodweb 

### interactions)


### FeliciaColeman (Ph.D.) 

### (Physiological and

### behavioral ecology)

146

### KellyCuster (M.S.) 

### (Feedinghabits of 

### decapod 

### crustaceans, food

### processing by 

### benthic invertebrates)
DavidMayer (M.S.) 

### (Ecologyof

### penaeid shrimp, 

### benthic invertebrates) 

### GRADUATE STUDENTS (continued)

Susan

### Mattson (M.S.) (Benthic 

### invertebrates, 

### experimental ecology) 

### Carrie Phillips (M.S.) (Benthic 

### invertebrates, experimental ecology)

_J. Michael 

### Kuperberg (M.S.) 

### (Interactions of 

### benthic

### macrophytes and animals) 

### LABORATORY

### ANALYSIS
KimBurton (Rough sorting, 

### sample

### preparation)
Howard L. Jelks (Rough sorting, 

### sample

### preparation) Mike 

### Hollingsworth (Sediment analysis, algal studies) 

### Stephen B. 

### Holm (Rough sorting, 

### sample

### preparation)
John B. 

### Montgomery (Sample

### preparation)
Brenda C. 

### Litchfield (Sample

### preparation) 

### MikeGoldman (Sample

### preparation)
Frank 

### Jordan (Fish 

### identification)

Sam

### Cole 

### (Sample

### preparation)
Hampton 

### Hendry (Sample

### preparation)


### Kline

### Miller (Sample 

### preparation)


### MelanieSaunders (Data 

### punching)

Joanna

### Greening (Sample 

### preparation, 

### oligochaetemounting)
Carl Felton 

### (Sample

### preparation)
David

### Ringelberq (Sample

### preparation)
Sharon 

### Solomon (Sample 

### preparation) 

### SandyVardaman (Sample

### preparation)
Erica

### Meeter (Sample

### preparation)
Carol 

### Meeter (Sample 

### preparation)
JuliaBeth

### Livingston 

### (Sample

### preparation)

Sara Van Beck (Sample 

### preparation) 

### CathyWallace (Data

### preparation)

147

### POST-DOCTORAL

### ADVISORS

KennethLeber 

### (Feedinghabits of 

### decapod 

### crustaceans, experimental ecology)

Kevan

### Main 

### (Predator-preyinteractions, behavioral ecology)

RESEARCH PROGRAMOF R. J. LIVINGSTON ETAL.

Pollution

FEEDING STUDIES

(Stom^ich contents)

(ModfS of tcoding

. function.il morphology, bt'h.ivior)

TRORHICORGANIZATIONAND FOODWEB INTERACTIONS

(Bv troph ic units)

VALIDATIONEXPERIMENTS {Single species, multipl- *" species, microcosms' MODELS OF ENERGYCYCLINGHYPOTHESES

FOR EXPERIMENTAL ECOLOGY

LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS (Bioassay, predator-prey interactions; feedingpatterns) SPATIAL/TEMPORALEFFECTS

(Wi th in-syStcmvariation; between-syscemvariation)

PREDATOR-PREYRELATIONSHIPS (Effects of predators onprevassemblages) Compet ition



### Figure A. An

### overviewof the 

### ongoingresearch

### program of the

### Florida State

### University Aquatic Research Group concerning- 

### long-termstudies innine river systems and six 

### estuaries in the 

### southeasternUnited States.

14850?77-101 REPORTDOCUMENTATION PAGE 1.REPORTNO. FWS/ORS-R?/OS 3. Recipient'sAccessionNo.

4. rrti. .nd subtiti.7he Ecologyof theApalachicola BaySystem: An Estuarine Profile S. ReportDate

September 1984

7. Aothor(») Robert J. Livingston

9.Author's Afti

### Nation: 8. PerformrngOrganizationRept, No.

10. Project/Task/WorkUnitNo. Department ofBiological Science Florida StateUniversity Tallahassee, FL 32306 11. Contract(C) orGrant(G) No.

(C)

(G)

12. SpontortngOrganizationNameandAddress National Coastal Ecosystems Team ResearchandDevelopment FishandWildlife Service Washington, DC 20240 13. TypeofReport&PeriodCovered

15. SupplementaryNotes

16. Abstract (Limit: 200words) Twelveyears of studies in theApalachicola Bay data on geography, hydrology, chemistry, geology, and The system is part of amajordrainagearea incl wetlands in Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. It is a s barrier islands and dominated bywind effects and tid (channels, sloughs, swamps, and backwater) and period tant components. Principal influences on biological river flow, nutrient input, and salinity. Water qual tidal influences and freshwater inflows. The system is in a relativelynatural state, tho development and population growth are beginning to th ecological importance as a food producer and shelter movement to protect its natural resources, including programs, integration of county land-use regulations and creation of theApalachicola River and BayNation Research has produced an extensive computerized working with these data have been developed. systemare reviewed. Included are

biology, uding four rivers andassociated hallowcoastal lagoon fringed by al currents. Riverbottomlands ically flooded lowlands are imporprocesses are basin physiography, ity is affected by periodic wind and
ughhardlypristine. But economic reaten it. The area's economic and fordiverse species has inspired a State and Federal land-purchase into a comprehensive development, al Estuarine Sanctuary, data base. Computerprograms for

17.DocumentAnalysis a. Descriptors Geology „•

,, , ^^ River Hydrology r j. d1^i„^, Estuaries Bioloay

,- , '^ Ecology

.. Fisheries

b. Identifiers/Open-EndedTerms Bottomlands Apalachicola Bay Flooded lowlands Florida Nutrient input

c. COSATI Field/Group

16. AvailabilityStatement 19. SecurityClass (ThisReport)

unclassified
unl imited 20. SecurityClass (ThisPage)

unclassified No. ofPages

150

(SeeANSI-Z39.18) OPTIONALFORM272 (t-77) (FormerlyNTIS-35) DepartmentofCommerce

### »^ r'

# ">€^

^ Headquarters Divisiono' Biological Services,Washington,DC X EasternEnergyandLandUseTeam Leetown.WV
NationalCoastalEcosystemsTeam Slidell LA
WesternEnergyandLandUseTeam
Ft Collins,CO

LocationsotRegionalOffices



### REGION 1 RegiimulDireckir US. FishandWildliteService LloydFiveHundredBuilding.Suite Ib'^'^ 500N.E.MultnomahStreet Portland,Oregon47232 

### REGION 2

RegionalDirector U.S. FishandWildlifeService P.G.Bo.x 130(1 Albuquerque,

### NewMexicoK7103 

### REGION 3

RegionalDirector U.S. FishandWildlifeService FederalBuilding, FortSnelling TwinCities,Minnesota S.'i 1 II



### REGION4 RegionalDirector
U.S. FishandWildlifeService RichardB. RussellBuilding 75SpringStreet,S.W. Atlanta,Georgia30303 

### REGION 5

RegionalDirector
U.S. FishandWildlifeService OneGatewayCenter NewtonCorner,Massachusetts0215X 

### REGION 6

RegionalDirector U.S. FishandWildlifeSei^ice PC,Box25486 DenverFederalCenter Denver,Colorado80225



### REGION 7 RegionalDirectoi U,S. FishandWildlifeService 101 1 t,TudorRoad Anchorage,Alaska4i)503

### """sSS^^" 

# DEPARTMENTOFTHEINTERIOR

U.S. 

### FISH

## AND

# WULIFESERVICE

AstheNation'sprincipalconservationagency,theDepartmentoftheInteriorhasresponsibilityformostofournationallyownedpubliclandsandnaturalresources.Thisincludes fosteringthewisestuseofourlandandwaterresources, protectingourfishandwildlife, preservingthAenvironmentaiandculturalvaluesofournationalparksandhistoricalplaces, and providing fortheenjoyment of lifethroughoutdoorrecreation.TheDepartment as-
sessesourenergyandmineralresourcesandworkstoassurethattheirdevelopment is in thebest interests of allourpeople.TheDepartmentalsohasamajor responsibilityfor AmericanIndianreservationcommunitiesandforpeople

### who liveinislandterritoriesunder
U.S. administration.