TASK 6A: FINAL BENTHIC REPORT

A REPORT ON

THE 2007 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

SARASOTA TIDAL CREEK CONDITION INDEX

Specific Authorization No. 2 to Contract 2004-134 Sarasota County Water Resources

Contract No. 2007-274 Purchase Order No. P737068

Submitted November 1, 2007 and January 25, 2008 to

Kathy Meaux

Sarasota County Water Resources 1001 Sarasota Center Boulevard

Sarasota, Florida 24240

By

Jim Culter Mote Marine Laboratory

1600 Ken Thompson Parkway Sarasota Florida, 34236

Mote Marine Laboratory Technical Report No. 1225

This report was funded by grants from the Southwest Florida Water Management District, Manasota Basin Board, and Sarasota County.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1

Stream number ............................................................................................................................ 2

Methods........................................................................................................................................... 4

Field and laboratory sample processing...................................................................................... 4 Benthic fauna .......................................................................................................................... 4 Sediment analysis.................................................................................................................... 5

Data analysis methods................................................................................................................. 7 Indices of community structure .............................................................................................. 7

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

Benthic macroinfauna ................................................................................................................. 9 Measures of species richness and diversity .............................................................................. 13 Faunal similarity analysis ......................................................................................................... 14 Sediment composition............................................................................................................... 15 Benthic correlations to abiotic parameters................................................................................ 20

Summary and discussion............................................................................................................... 22

Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................... 28

Literature cited .............................................................................................................................. 29

Appendices................................................................................................................................... 56

Appendix table 1. Rank order species list for each creek. ..................................................... 57

Appendix table 2. Benthic species data representing the percentage composition of the total fauna by species for each station, and sorted by greatest percentage. ................................................................................................ 72

Appendix table 3. Percentage distribution of sediment particulates among grain size categories. ................................................................................................. 78

- i -

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Maps of Sarasota County coastal creeks ..................................................................... 3 Figure 2. Number of taxa arranged in N-S order (top) and in rank value order (bottom). ....... 32 Figure 3. Number of taxa for each creek for polychaetes, mollusks and crustaceans .............. 33 Figure 4. Percentage of total individuals contributed by polychaetes, mollusks and

crustaceans................................................................................................................. 33 Figure 5. Log plot of abundance of three major invertebrate groups for each creek................ 34 Figure 6. Abundance as number of individuals per square meter............................................. 35 Figure 7. Illustration of the number of times a taxon was recovered from the 16 creeks......... 36 Figure 8. Shannon-Weiner Index of diversity........................................................................... 37 Figure 9. Pielou's Index of equitability..................................................................................... 38 Figure 10. Margalef's Index of species richness ......................................................................... 39 Figure 11. Gini's Index of diversity ............................................................................................ 40 Figure 12. Cluster diagram illustrating similarity levels for faunal community

composition with data normalized to counts per square meter. ................................ 41 Figure 13. Cluster diagram illustrating similarity levels for faunal community

composition with data reduced to species presence (1) or absence (0). .................... 42 Figure 14. Percentage sand present in the sediment ................................................................... 43 Figure 15. Percentage organic content (volatile solids) present in the sediment........................ 44 Figure 16. Percentage silt present in the sediment...................................................................... 45 Figure 17. Percentage clay present in the sediment.................................................................... 46 Figure 18. Graphic illustrating the percentage of sand, silt, clay and organic matter for

each creek .................................................................................................................. 47 Figure 19. Percentage moisture present in the sediment............................................................. 48 Figure 20. Percentage solids present in the sediment ................................................................. 49 Figure 21. Mean sediment grain size for samples....................................................................... 50 Figure 22. Median sediment grain size for samples ................................................................... 51 Figure 23. Value for the graphic standard deviation of mean grain size .................................... 52 Figure 24. Value for the graphic skewness of grain size distribution......................................... 53 Figure 25. Value for the graphic kurtosis of grain size distribution ........................................... 54 Figure 26. Salinity range for 13 of the 16 creeks for April and May 2007 ................................ 55

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Benthic community parameters for 16 tidal creeks of the Sarasota Bay system......... 9 Table 2. List of the number of taxa contributed by each major invertebrate group ................ 11 Table 3. List of abundance of organisms contributed by each major invertebrate group........ 12 Table 4. Percentage composition of solids, moisture, organic content, sand silt and cla........ 15 Table 5. Sediment grain size distribution statistics.................................................................. 16 Table 6. Descriptive categories based on calculated phi (Ν) values for grain size

parameters. ................................................................................................................ 19 Table 7. Results of correlation analysis between benthic faunal parameters and select

abiotic measures. ....................................................................................................... 20

- ii -

- 1 -

INTRODUCTION The importance of tidal creeks, including their headwater areas and the narrow reaches of coastal rivers, cannot be overstated. They are valuable environmental resources in that they are unique ecosystems that function as a link between uplands and estuaries. While comparative ecological health assessment indices have been developed for marine, estuarine, and freshwater ecosystems, none has been developed for tidal creeks using rapid survey techniques. Sarasota County and Mote Marine Laboratory have collaborated to develop biological indicators for tidal creeks. The preliminary effort to develop a Tidal Creek Condition Index for County tidal creeks by Mote Marine Laboratory was divided into three phases. During the first phase of the project in 2004, County staff conducted research to collect existing data for the sub-basins of the 20 tidal creeks. The data were compared to establish the ecological condition of those streams, characterize the condition of their sub-basins, and select 2 streams that could be deemed as opposites (best and worst) by the condition of their respective sub-basins. Phase I resulted in a preliminary rough grading of 16 coastal watersheds and streams in order of best condition to worst condition and concluded that there were enough streams with very different major basin features to be able to move forward with the next phase of the project. During the second phase in 2005, Mote Marine Laboratory conducted field studies to characterize extremes among County coastal systems to determine the range of ecological conditions available for index development. The assessment resulted in two reports: “The Gottfried Creek Reconnaissance Report”, July 12, 2005 and “The Whitaker Bayou Reconnaissance Report”, August 17, 2005 and concluded that there were a sufficient number of county systems to develop a biologically based stream condition index. During the third phase in 2006, Mote Marine Laboratory developed and tested a prototypic creek index based on ecological attributes that could be measured using rapid survey techniques. The test was made in 15 County coastal creek systems. A report, “Biological Condition Index for Tidal Streams in Coastal Sarasota County, Florida,” providing methods and results of the test and a recapitulation of previous planning efforts, was submitted on September 30, 2006. Details of Phase III conclusions and recommendations appear in the July 23, 2007 “Report on Preparatory Tasks 1-4 for the 2007 Implementation of the Sarasota Tidal Creek Condition Index.” Three subsequent reports presented graphical data analyses of 2006 data as a guideline for sampling effort in 2007 and a final report “Task 7 Tidal Creek Condition Index and Task 8 Evaluation of the Tidal Creek Condition Index.” In order to have an independent standard for the evaluation of the creek index, a one-time only collection of benthic infauna was made at each creek during the index field effort. This report presents the results of the benthic study and compares benthic findings to the Tidal Creek Condition Index. Benthic communities have been used as an indicator of water body health for many years. Many of the inhabitants are relatively sessile or have limited spatial mobility and therefore are subject to both acute and chronic environmental impacts. The benthos responds to changes in sediment structure, salinity, water circulation, and pollutant levels typically through a change in species

- 2 -

composition, including reduced number of species and changes in species composition, and changes in faunal abundance. The ecology of benthic communities is complex, and there are hundreds of potential species that may colonize a habitat. In the subtropical climate of Florida lifecycles of many species are relatively short and there may be pronounced seasonal fluctuations in species composition and abundance even in pristine habitats. In addition, the distribution of species is not uniform and therefore sample size becomes an important consideration in the evaluation of a benthic community. The development of a Tidal Creek Condition Index was an effort to create an efficient rapid survey technique that could serve as a proxy for relative tidal creek community health. Stream Number There are 20 tidal streams in Sarasota County, including the Myakka River. From north to south the coastal streams are Whitaker and Hudson Bayous, and Phillippi, Matheny, Clower, Catfish, North, South, Shakett, Curry, Hatchett, Alligator, Woodmere, Forked, Gottfried, and Ainger Creeks (Figure 1). The north to south numbering nomenclature will be used in this report. Whitaker Bayou is also called Walker Creek. Shakett Creek is the downstream reach of Cow Pen Slough. Curry Creek extends east to the Myakka River as the Blackburn Canal. Three tributaries of the Myakka from north to south are Deer Prairie, Little Salt, and Myakkahatchee Creeks. Myakka systems are substantially different than coastal streams and were not included in the benthic sampling program which included the 16 coastal streams.

- 3 -

Figure 1. Maps of Sarasota County coastal creeks

- 4 -

METHODS The July 23, 2007 “Report on Preparatory Tasks 1-4 for the 2007 Implementation of the Sarasota Tidal Creek Condition Index” provided an Appendix 1 (standard operating procedures), Appendix 2 (final site selections), and Appendix 3 (Version 7.0 field sheets) that were employed in all sixteen coastal creeks of Sarasota County. Sampling began on May 20 and ended on June 8, 2007. The same two surveyors worked in every creek and they were assisted by a third person in all cases. Two adjacent creeks were surveyed on a given day. Time on-station ranged from 75 to 210 minutes and averaged 127 minutes. FIELD AND LABORATORY SAMPLE PROCESSING Benthic Fauna Standard procedures and methods defined previously were adhered to in all creeks except as follows. In Catfish and North Creeks, where boat access is strictly limited by tidal conditions, sediment samples for Tagelus, other mollusks, and benthic infauna were collected but not processed until the crew could return to navigable waters. In Whitaker Bayou, Matheny Creek, and Clower Creek, methods requiring total immersion of a surveyor were substituted by alternative methods (dip net samples were taken from the vessel using handle extensions; petite ponar grabs were used instead of diver-operated box cores, etc.). An effort to use underwater photography failed because of the high turbidity associated with thick sediments comprised of fine particulate organic matter on some creek bottoms. Other safety measures described in Appendix 1 of the July 23, 2007 report were employed as needed. After collection samples were washed through a 0.5 mm mesh sieve to remove the fine sediment. The material remaining on the sieve was placed into a labeled plastic container, which also contained an internal label identifying the project, location, date, and sampling methods. The contents were then preserved by adding a solution of 10% buffered Formalin™ by volume, which contained rose Bengal stain. Rose Bengal stains animal tissue which facilitates the sorting process. After return to the Laboratory samples remain in the preservative for a minimum of 72 hours after which they may be decanted and processed. Samples are processed in two separate steps; 1) rough sorting the sample to separate the fauna from the detritus and 2) identification of the fauna to the lowest practical taxonomic level (LPTL). Rough sorting is accomplished by placing small aliquots in a small dish and examining the material under a stereo-zoom dissecting microscope. Fauna are sorted into four major categories, and placed in labeled vials containing 70% isopropyl alcohol to await final identification. For the identification process each vial is opened and the contents emptied into a small dish for microscopic examination. Fauna are separated and identified to the LPTL utilizing published identification keys and the Mote reference collection. Each species (or other category) name is entered on a bench sheet and the total count for the species tabulated. After completion of all of the samples, data from the bench sheets are entered into an electronic database for analysis.

- 5 -

Sediment Analysis Sediment particle size analysis was conducted using a laser particle size analyzer. The instrumentation is important for the field of benthic ecology, since sediment particle size distribution is based on a wet sample which more closely approximates the condition of the sediment that the benthic fauna “see”. It provides a much greater resolution of the fine particle grades which are so important to benthic ecology and the distribution of benthic organisms. Grain size distributions of field moist sediment was determined using a laser diffraction instrument (Coulter LS-200), capable of measurement between 0.4 and 2000 :m equivalent spherical diameters. In this instrument, the angle and intensity of laser light scattered by a solution of sediment sample are selectively measured and converted to volume distributions based on a Fraunhofer optical model. Similar to other methods of particle sizing (pipette or hydrometer analyses), the optical model is based on assumptions of partial sphericity. During operation, filtered tap water is used for background determinations and sample suspensions. Samples are homogenized and representative portions introduced to the sample chamber. Samples are circulated for 60 seconds, and then analyzed for 60 seconds. Experience with repetitive analyses of sample aliquots has indicated that a 60 second analysis time was sufficient for reproducible data. The recirculation time was determined based on experiments with sediments which showed the time was sufficient for samples distributions to stabilize (destruction of loose agglomerates). As QA checks, a percentage of duplicate evaluations were also conducted utilizing a separate aliquot from a sample jar introduced into the instrument. As sample aliquots are comparatively small (1-2 g wet weight), low or non-representative concentrations of coarser fragments which are not readily homogenized will produce variations which are more extensive than from a more uniform sediment. Instrument calibrations are performed with glass beads of known mean grain size. The instrument provides results as 93 logarithmically distributed size channels as the volume percent of the entire sample within that spherical size range. Within rounding error, the sum of volume percent from all size ranges will total 100%. As the instrument is sensitive only to 2,000 :m (2.000 mm), sediments are sieved through a 2 mm mesh prior to diffraction analysis. Coarse material was then weighed separately and added back to the total sample. Total percent sand, silt, and clay was calculated as the sum of volume percent between 2,000 and 62.5 :m, 62.5 and 3.91 :m, and 3.91 to 0.04 :m, respectively, using the Wentworth size scales and a 8.0Ν value as the clay-silt boundary. Sand, silt, and clay percentages are provided only for the raw sample. Geometric distributional statistics were computed from the logarithmic center of each size grouping as sediment distributions are typically more log-normal than normal. Statistics provided include mean, median, and modal grain sizes and are in units of :m. The standard deviation is also in :m and is a measure of the spread of the sediment distribution.

- 6 -

Skewness, a unit-less coefficient, is a measure of the distortion from a symmetrical distribution, with a skewness of zero (where mean, median, and mode coincide) being perfectly symmetrical. Samples with an excess of material in the finer sizes (left-hand skewed) will have negative skewness coefficients, while samples with an excess of coarser material (right-hand skewed) will have skewness values greater than zero. Kurtosis is also unit-less and is a measure of the peakedness of a distribution, with kurtosis values of zero representing a normal distribution (mesokurtic), values greater than zero (leptokurtic) indicating a higher sharper peak, and values less than zero (platykurtic) indicating a comparatively broad distribution. Ash-free organic matter (total volatile solids) was determined by combustion at 550oC for 1 hour after the methods suggested by the Environmental Protection Agency (1973), Standard Methods (1989) and Gross (1971) for determination of organic carbon in sediments and plankton samples. Percentage moisture and solids of sediment are determined by oven drying an aliquot of sample to a constant weight at 103-105°C.

- 7 -

DATA ANALYSIS METHODS Indices of Community Structure Several standard data analysis and community metrics are included in this report: - Number of taxa per station, - Number of individuals collected per station, - Number of individuals per square meter of bottom (calculated), - Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index (H', for three commonly used log bases), - Pielou's Index of equitability (J'). - Gini's Index of Diversity and Simpson's Index of Diversity - Margalef's Index of species richness. The method used to calculate the Shannon-Weaver Index and Pielou's Index are presented below.

Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index will be calculated as the Shannon-Wiener (also known as Shannon-Weaver) Index (Shannon and Weaver, 1972) using the formula:

s H' = - ∋(pi)(log pi) i=1

where s = total number of species for the sample and pi = the proportion of total individuals for the ith species. The index was calculated using various log bases (log10, log2, ln) to enable comparisons to other data sets. The use of a particular log base is immaterial but should be consistent between comparisons. The State of Florida uses log2 for reporting of diversity values.

The use and biological meaning of the Shannon-Weaver Index has been strongly criticized by several authors (Hurlbert, 1971; Goodman, 1975; Patten, 1968; Washington, 1984). An increase or decrease in H' does not necessarily indicate an improvement or decline in the quality of a benthic community. In addition, both high and low diversity values can be found in "natural" undisturbed systems. Environmental impact assessments must consider the natural state of the community under consideration. Nevertheless, the index has utility in certain circumstances but caution should be used when interpreting values of H' as related to impact assessments.

Gini's Index of Diversity (Gini, 1912: Simpson 1949) and the complement known as Simpson's Index are not often used. The index is a measure of dominance in a sample and is sometimes referred to as dominance diversity. However, it is usually insensitive to rare species and is usually referenced as a diversity index. The computational formula for Gini’s index of diversity is:

- 8 -

s DM = ∋n(n-1)/N(N-1) (Gini 1912)) i=1

A low value for DM indicates low diversity.

Simpson's Index is calculated as:

d = 1 - DM (Simpson 1949)

For the above; n = number of individuals of species s, and N = the total number of individuals from a sample.

Species Richness is usually measured as the total number of taxa (species, S) recovered from a sample or station. An index of species richness is also sometimes used and is known as Margalef's index, calculated as follows:

D = (S - 1)/logeN

where S is the number of species in the sample.

Pielou's Index of Equitability, or evenness of distribution of fauna among species was calculated by Pielou's conventional method (Pielou, 1975). Values for the index range from 0-1, with a value of 1 being the maximum possible evenness of distribution in the community. The computational formula is:

J' = H'

logeS

where e = 2.30, H' = value for Shannon-Wiener Index, and S = total number of species for a sample. Statistical Correlations Statistical correlations between benthic community parameters and the Creek Index and various abiotic measures such as sediment parameters, water quality, land use, and watershed age were made using the Pearson Correlation Coefficient (r) processed with SPSS statistical software.

RESULTS Benthic Macroinfauna For the 16 creeks sampled by this project a total of 9,489 organisms were recovered from a total of 48 samples, or 3 samples per creek. A total of 138 macroinvertebrate taxa were identified from the samples. Two creeks, Matheny and Clower, were sampled with a petite PONAR grab (surface area 0.0232 m2) and the remaining 14 were sampled with a hand held box core (surface area 0.0156 m2). Data for all three replicates were combined for the data analysis. Table 1 presents a summary of the benthic community parameters for each creek. The number of taxa collected at a creek ranged from 7 at Whitaker Bayou to 52 at Gottfried Creek, with an overall mean value of 31 taxa and a relatively high standard deviation of 14 (45% of the mean). It was rather unusual that the mean and median values were the same value. Figure 2 graphically illustrates the number of taxa arranged in N-S order (top) and in rank value order (bottom). Figure 3 illustrates the number of taxa for each creek contributed by polychaetes, mollusks and crustaceans. Table 1. Benthic community parameters for 16 tidal creeks of the Sarasota Bay system, arranged in rank order for most to fewest numbers of taxa

No. of Number of Individuals Shannon-Wiener

Index Pielou's Margalef's Simpson's Gini's Creek Taxa Individuals per m2 logE log10 log2 Index Index Index Index Gottfried 52 1,430 30,556 2.05 0.89 2.96 0.52 7.02 0.23 0.77 South 48 630 13,462 2.65 1.15 3.83 0.68 7.29 0.15 0.85 Ainger 46 1,457 31,132 2.18 0.95 3.14 0.57 6.18 0.23 0.77 Phillippi 45 945 20,192 2.58 1.12 3.72 0.68 6.42 0.11 0.89 Forked 44 362 7,735 2.96 1.28 4.27 0.78 7.30 0.09 0.91 Shakett 39 711 15,192 2.49 1.08 3.59 0.68 5.79 0.12 0.88 Woodmere 39 735 15,705 2.61 1.13 3.76 0.71 5.76 0.13 0.87 Alligator 33 809 17,286 2.34 1.01 3.37 0.67 4.78 0.14 0.86 Matheny 28 211 3,032 2.49 1.08 3.59 0.75 5.04 0.13 0.87 Curry 26 672 14,359 1.62 0.70 2.33 0.50 3.84 0.38 0.62 Hatchett 22 297 6,346 2.14 0.93 3.09 0.69 3.69 0.17 0.83 Clower 21 108 1,552 2.53 1.10 3.65 0.83 4.27 0.10 0.90 Hudson B. 19 230 4,915 1.84 0.80 2.65 0.62 3.31 0.23 0.77 Catfish 17 261 5,577 1.68 0.73 2.42 0.59 2.88 0.32 0.68 North 13 387 8,269 1.54 0.67 2.22 0.60 2.01 0.35 0.65 Whitaker B. 7 244 5,214 0.84 0.36 1.21 0.43 1.09 0.51 0.49

Average: 31 593 12,533 2.16 0.94 3.11 0.64 4.79 0.21 0.79 St.Dev: 14 415 9,032 0.54 0.24 0.78 0.11 1.89 0.12 0.12

Median: 31 509 10,865 2.26 0.98 3.26 0.67 4.91 0.16 0.84 Minimum: 7 108 1,552 0.84 0.36 1.21 0.43 1.09 0.09 0.49 Maximum: 52 1,457 31,132 2.96 1.28 4.27 0.83 7.30 0.51 0.91

- 9 -

- 10 -

Table 2 provides a breakdown of the number of taxa as distributed among the major benthic animal groups. Whittaker Bayou and North Creek were the only creeks that did not have any mollusks present within the benthic samples. Figure 4 illustrates the percentage of individuals contributed by polychaetes, mollusks and crustaceans as a percentage of the total fauna. The data are arranged in order of decreasing polychaete abundance. At five creeks (Whittaker, Gottfried, Curry, Ainger and Catfish) the fauna were almost exclusively comprised of polychaetes. While Whittaker, Catfish and Curry creeks all exhibited low numbers of species Gottfried and Ainger creeks were among the top three creeks in terms of species numbers. The relationship between abundance and number of species present is not straightforward. High species numbers are not necessarily indicative of high faunal abundance, although there does seem to be a weak relationship as shown in Figure 4. Figure 5 provides a log plot of abundance of three major invertebrate groups for each creek arranged in order of increasing species numbers (lowest to highest). The trendline for polychaetes abundance is also shown which shows an overall positive relationship between abundance and number of species. Crustaceans also exhibited a trend for an increase in abundance with increases in number of taxa. However, mollusk abundance remained relatively flat even with moderate increases in numbers of taxa. Abundance of benthic organisms ranged from a very low of 108 organisms at Clower Creek to 1,457 individuals at Ainger Creek, which convert to 1,552 - 31,132 organisms/m2. Mean abundance for all creeks was 593 organisms per three replicates or 12,533 organisms/m2. Figure 6 illustrates abundance as number of individuals per square meter arranged in N-S order (top) and in rank value order (bottom). In general the creeks exhibiting the greatest number of taxa also had the greatest overall organism abundance. Table 3 shows a breakdown of the abundance of organisms as distributed among the major benthic animal groups. The raw benthic data are presented in a series of appendix tables. Appendix Table 1 is a rank order species list for each creek. The relative percentage composition of each taxon with respect to the total station abundance is also listed in the table. Overall polychaetes were the most abundant faunal group. This included Laeonereis culveri, present at all stations, and species such as Fabriciola sp. which was very abundant but only found at five creeks. Crustaceans that were abundant at some creeks included Xenanthura brevitelson (isopod), Grandidierella bonnieroides (amphipod), Corophiid amphipods, Hargeria rapax (tanaid) and Cyclaspis varians (cumacean). The bivalve Parastarte triquetra was common at Hudson Bayou and Forked Creek but was only found in low numbers at three other creeks. Other species that occurred in relatively large numbers were generally found only in one or several creeks. Appendix Table 2 lists the benthic species data for the percentage composition of each species with respect to the total fauna with the data sorted by greatest to least percentage. Only one species was found at all 16 creeks, the polychaete Laeonereis culveri. Laeonereis was also the most abundant organism recovered, being collected in high numbers from Ainger, Gottfried, Curry, Woodmere, Alligator, Shackett, Catfish, Hatchet and Whitaker Bayou. In each of these cases Laeonereis accounted for greater than 20% and as much as 60% of the total fauna.

Table 2. List of the number of taxa contributed by each major invertebrate group for each creek

Number of Taxa found in each Creek

Faunal Group Gottfried South Ainger Phillippi Forked Shakett Woodmere Alligator Matheny Curry Hatchett Clower Hudson Catfish North Whitaker

NEMERTEA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 ANNELIDA-Total 27 25 24 20 19 18 20 15 13 15 11 7 9 7 8 4 Polychaeta 26 25 24 19 18 17 19 14 12 14 10 6 8 5 6 3 Oligochaeta 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Misc. Annelids 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 MOLLUSCA-Total 11 10 8 10 16 11 8 6 4 3 4 9 7 5 0 0 Gastropoda 4 2 4 2 9 2 3 2 3 2 1 3 1 4 0 0 Bivalvia 7 8 4 8 7 9 5 4 1 1 3 6 6 1 0 0 ARTHROPODA-Total 10 11 11 12 7 9 10 11 10 6 7 4 2 4 3 3 Mysidacea 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 Cumacea 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 0 1 3 1 0 1 0 1 Tanaidacea 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Isopoda 1 2 1 2 0 2 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 Amphipoda 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 7 2 2 3 2 3 2 1 ECHINODERMATA 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0MISCELLANEOUS 2 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0

TOTAL TAXA: 52 48 46 45 44 39 39 33 28 26 22 21 19 17 13 7

- 11 -

- 12 -

Table 3. List of abundance of organisms contributed by each major invertebrate group for each creek.

Number of Taxa found in each Creek

Faunal Group Gottfried South Ainger Phillippi Forked Shakett Woodmere Alligator Matheny Curry Hatchett Clower Hudson Catfish North Whitaker

NEMERTEA 8 4 2 7 3 3 3 3 0 2 0 0 0 2 8 0 ANNELIDA-Total 1337 206 1323 350 112 499 450 477 69 617 190 53 125 229 130 241 Polychaeta 1327 206 1323 348 111 495 375 475 56 616 189 31 117 211 114 234 Oligochaeta 10 0 0 2 1 4 75 2 13 1 1 22 8 17 14 7 Misc. Annelids 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 MOLLUSCA-Total 20 21 32 33 162 32 38 13 5 4 24 31 102 15 0 0 Gastropoda 5 4 7 6 38 4 3 2 4 3 2 7 1 14 0 0 Bivalvia 15 17 25 27 124 28 35 11 1 1 22 24 101 1 0 0 ARTHROPODA-Total 57 398 95 552 82 177 244 316 136 48 83 23 2 15 238 3 Mysidacea 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 1 Cumacea 35 11 8 61 21 52 11 22 0 7 8 1 0 3 0 1 Tanaidacea 1 99 8 90 2 66 33 161 5 6 26 0 0 0 0 0 Isopoda 9 224 6 188 0 14 55 1 20 9 0 0 0 0 1 0 Amphipoda 11 62 71 212 59 45 145 131 111 22 46 22 2 12 237 1 ECHINODERMATA 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0MISCELLANEOUS 4 1 5 3 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 11 0

TOTAL 1430 630 1457 945 362 711 735 809 211 672 297 108 230 261 387 244

Figure 7 illustrates the number of times a taxon was recovered from the 16 creeks. For example only one species was collected at all 16 sites (left side of graph), two species were recovered from 15 creeks, one from 14 creeks, etc). The largest percentage of taxa were for the class of one creek, far right on the graph, for which there were 57 taxa (41% of the total taxa found in the study). Species widely distributed were generally those that are found to occur across a broad spectrum of estuarine conditions and are relatively tolerant of salinity fluctuations and various sediment conditions. Capitella capitata (polychaete) and Grandidierella bonnieroides (amphipod) were found at 15 of the 16 creeks. C. capitata is considered by many to be a pollution indicator species because it is tolerant of organically enriched sediment and low dissolved oxygen levels. Although it can also be found in undisturbed natural habitats it tends to occur in abundance in degraded habitats when few other taxa may be present. G. bonnieroides is a commonly occurring moderate to low salinity estuarine amphipod that feeds in a specialized microphagous manner, grooming plant surfaces (and presumably other materials) for small particle detritus and diatom. (Zimmerman et al. 1979). Other common crustaceans included Cyclaspis varians (cumacean), Hargeria rapax (tanaid) and Corophiid amphipods; all common species that occur widely along estuaries of the Gulf coast.

Mysella planulata was the only mollusk found at a relatively large number of creeks (10). M. planulata is a simultaneous hermaphrodite and it is capable of self-fertilization. M. planulata is believed to be a suspension feeder; probably feeding on very fine particulate organic matter (Franz 1973). Both Mysella and Grandidierella are opportunistic rapid colonizers.

Measures of Species Richness and Diversity Shannon-Wiener diversity values (log base 2) ranged from 1.21 at Whitaker Bayou to 4.27 at Forked Creek. A greater number indicates higher species diversity. The mean diversity for all creeks was 3.11 and the median 3.26. Figure 8 illustrates the values for the Shannon-Weiner Index of diversity arranged in N-S order (top) and in rank value order (bottom). Pielou's Index, a measure of the evenness of distribution of organisms among the species, ranged from 0.43 at Whittaker Bayou to 0.83 at Clower Creek. The possible range of values for Pielou's Index ranges from near 0.0 to 1.0 with very low values indicating that most of the organisms present within a sample are comprised of few species. A high value of the index indicates the organisms are more uniformly distributed among the species that are present. In general a higher value for Pielou's Index is considered to be a more desirable condition for the benthos when compared between similarly structured habitats. Figure 9 graphically presents Pielou's Index of equitability arranged in N-S order (top) and in rank value order (bottom). Margalef's Index another measure of diversity ranged from 1.09 at Whittaker Bayou to 7.30 at Forked Creek. The mean value for this index is 4.79 and the median 4.91. As for the number of species, the Shannon-Wiener Index and Pielou's Index Whittaker Bayou is at the bottom of the list. Figure 10 presents Margalef's Index of species richness arranged in N-S order (top) and in rank value order (bottom). The Simpson's and Gini's Indices are reciprocals of one another. Simpson's Index was the original calculation and for this index a high value (near one) indicates a low diversity and a low

- 13 -

value (near zero) indicates a high diversity. To make the index more institutively understandable the Gini's modification simply reverses the scale so a high index value indicates a high diversity and a low value a low diversity. Gini's Index values ranged from 0.49 (Whittaker Bayou) to 0.91 (Forked Creek). The average value for all creeks was 0.79 and the median was 0.84. Figure 11 presents the values for the Gini's Index of diversity arranged in N-S order (top) and in rank value order (bottom). Faunal Similarity Analysis Figures 12 and 13 present the results for community similarity analysis graphed as cluster diagrams. One analysis was conducted with species abundance counts normalized to numbers per meter square (Figure 12) and the second conducted with the database reduced to species presence or absence (1/0) as the data input (Figure 13). The illustrations are color coded for stations that grouped together based on levels of faunal similarity. The stations that are linked closest to the left are those that were most similar to one another. Linkages that occur farther to the right are less similar. Figure 12 illustrates five basic faunal assemblages of moderate similarity. Starting from the top of the diagram the first cluster consists of Ainger, Gottfried and Curry Creeks. Both Ainger and Gottfried were the most closely related creeks and both had high numbers of taxa, Curry Creek exhibited much fewer taxa and was linked to the above two creeks at a lower level of similarity. The next cluster consisted of Alligator, Shakett and Phillippi Creeks which were then joined by Woodmere Creek. The next group consisted of Hatchett Creek and Whitaker Bayou which then joined with the previous cluster at a relatively low level of similarity. Thus the cluster group of Alligator, Shakett, Phillippi, Woodmere, Hatchett and Whitaker formed a large cluster of moderate to low faunal similarity creeks. The inclusion of Whittaker seems incongruous but is likely driven by the small number of species which was most closely related to the dominant species of the other cluster stations. The next cluster consisted of Catfish and North Creeks both low species richness stations. South Creek showed very little similarity to any of the other stations. Forked Creek and Hudson Bayou showed a weak similarity as did Clower and Matheny creeks. The presence absence analysis, Figure 13, illustrated different sets of faunal similarities with station clusters seemingly related to the relative number of taxa found at a creek. Two creeks in this diagram, Forked and Matheny showed virtually no similarity to any of the other creeks. These creeks were mid-range in terms of total number of taxa with Matheny Creek being near the north end of the study area and Forked Creek near the south end. Starting at the top of the diagram of Figure 13 the first cluster consists of Ainger, Gottfried, Phillippi, South and Woodmere creeks. The first four of these were also the creeks with the greatest number of taxa. The second cluster group consisted of Alligator, Hatchet, Shackett and Curry creeks which were general the mid-range creeks in terms of number of taxa. The third cluster group was comprised of Catfish and North Creeks and Whittaker Bayou, the three creeks with the fewest number of taxa. The last cluster consisted of only two stations Clower Creek and Hudson Bayou.

- 14 -

Sediment Composition A tabulation of sediment parameters for each location is presented in Tables 4 and 5. Table 4 presents the relative percentages of various measures of sediment structure. Appendix Table 3 presents the raw data of percentage distribution of sediment particulates among 26 grain size categories. There was a wide range of the various sediment structure values (Table 5). Data are arranged in rank order for percentage sand. Percentage of sand ranged from 65.5% at Hudson Bayou to 95.6% at Forked Creek (Figure 14). Table 4. Percentage composition of solids, moisture, organic content, sand silt and clay for

each creek. Creeks in rank order by percentage sand.

Percentage Station Solids Moisture Organic Sand Silt Clay Forked 80.2 19.8 0.6 95.6 3.7 0.6 Phillippi 75.1 24.9 0.9 95.0 4.0 1.0 Alligator 64.9 35.1 0.7 95.0 4.5 0.5 Gottfried 57.7 42.3 1.1 94.0 5.3 0.7 Hatchett 63.6 36.4 1.0 90.3 8.6 1.1 Catfish 66.1 33.9 1.9 89.5 9.9 0.5 South 68.5 31.5 1.2 89.5 9.6 0.9 Whitaker 69.6 30.4 1.7 89.3 10.1 0.6 Curry 65.1 34.9 1.8 89.1 9.9 1.0 Ainger 76.3 23.7 1.2 87.3 10.9 1.8 Shakett 63.2 36.8 2.2 87.0 11.7 1.3 Woodmere 64.2 35.8 1.6 86.5 12.5 1.1 North 65.7 34.3 2.2 80.8 18.0 1.1 Matheny 59.0 41.0 4.3 79.6 18.8 1.5 Clower 22.8 77.2 22.1 70.3 28.3 1.4 Hudson 18.0 82.0 23.7 65.5 32.6 1.9 Average 61.3 38.8 4.3 86.5 12.4 1.1 St.Dev. 17.0 17.0 7.3 8.6 8.3 0.4 Median 65.0 35.0 1.7 89.2 10.0 1.1 Minimum 18.0 19.8 0.6 65.5 3.7 0.5 Maximum 80.2 82.0 23.7 95.6 32.6 1.9

- 15 -

Table 5. Sediment grain size distribution statistics for each creek.

Grain Size Statistics

Station Mean

(micron) Median (micron)

Mode (micron)

Graphic ST.Dev. (Φ) Skewness Kurtosis

Alligator 274 304 296 2.34 -2.43 9.25 Forked 268 289 324 2.50 -1.88 6.78 Catfish 250 298 324 2.99 -1.41 2.92 Whitaker 244 313 324 2.88 -1.91 4.10 Phillippi 241 274 269 2.42 -2.92 11.70 Gottfried 197 193 169 2.48 -1.41 5.52 South 187 217 204 2.88 -1.60 3.78 Curry 173 204 204 2.78 -1.79 4.57 North 168 247 324 3.52 -1.29 1.30 Ainger 154 187 185 3.33 -1.49 3.01 Shakett 154 186 185 3.01 -1.56 3.60 Hatchett 151 168 169 2.54 -1.91 6.71 Woodmere 150 167 154 2.99 -1.22 2.87 Matheny 146 199 223 3.59 -1.15 1.40 Clower 118 133 154 4.05 -0.41 0.04 Hudson 90 113 185 3.73 -0.60 0.41 Average 185.2 218.0 230.9 3.0 -1.6 4.2 St.Dev. 55.0 62.4 67.3 0.5 0.6 3.2 Median 170.5 201.3 203.5 2.9 -1.5 3.7 Minimum 90.5 112.7 153.8 2.3 -2.9 0.0 Maximum 273.6 312.5 324.4 4.1 -0.4 11.7

- 16 -

The sand-sized fraction of the sediment is comprised of very fine to coarse quartz sands and is the base component for the sediments of this portion of west Florida. The organic content (total volatile solids) of the soils ranged from 0.6 percent at Forked Creek to 23.7 percent at Hudson Bayou (Figure 15). The percentage of silt ranged from 3.7 percent at Forked Creek to 32.6 percent at Hudson Bayou (Figure 16) and was significantly negatively correlated (r = -.99) to the percentage of sand. The percentage of clay ranged from 0.5% at Alligator and Catfish Creeks to 1.9% at Hudson Bayou (Figure 17). The proportion of clay sized particulates is generally very low in Sarasota Bay. Levels of clay size particles and organic matter also showed a significant negative correlation (r = -.73 and -.89) to the percentage of sand. Figure 18 illustrates these relationships. The percentage of silt and clay sized particles are important measures of the substratum. Compared to high levels of sand, a substratum with high silt and clay fractions results in much softer texture that is easily suspended. The soft texture and periodic suspension can result in a surface flocculent layer that is unsuitable as habitat for many benthic organisms. Silt-clay fractions can also act as a gas barrier resulting in reduced exchange of oxygen to deeper sediment layers. A high silt-clay fraction indicates a depositional habitat and often results in a higher sediment organic content as well. Organic content of the sediment was low at most creeks being less than 2% by weight for 11 of the 16 creeks. Organic content was highest for Matheny (4.3%) and Clower Creeks (22.1%) and Hudson Bayou (23.7%). Both silt and clay fractions show a significant correlation to levels of organic matter (r = 0.90 and 0.58). Percentage sand exhibited a significant negative correlation to the percentage organic matter(r = -.89). High silt-clay levels were found at 75% of the creeks which is defined here as a percentage of silt-clay greater than 10%. Four creeks, North, Matheny, Clower, and Hudson Bayou exhibited very high levels of silt-clay, from 19.1% to 34.5% of the total by volume. In the field this type of substrate appears as a very soft muck, often with a distinct hydrogen sulfide odor. The percentage of water contained in marine sediments varies and is dependent on the particle size composition and the mineralogy of the sediment. Moisture content of the creeks ranged from 19.8% at Forked Creek to 82% at Hudson Bayou (Figure 19). The inverse measure of moisture is the percentage solids as shown in Figure 20. The percentage of silt-clay sized particles in the sediment was significantly correlated to the percentage of moisture (r = 0.87 for silt and r = 0.51 for clay). Small particles have a greater proportion of interstitial spaces than large particles for comparable volumes. These spaces are filled with water. Clay can be composed of different materials and has complex properties. Two notable properties are the ability to bind with and adsorb water, and the ability of clays to adsorb contaminants such as pesticides or metals. Table 5 presents a summary of the calculated sediment statistics for each location. The data for this table are arranged in rank order by decreasing mean grain size. Table 6 presents a summary of the descriptive and calculated sediment terminology to assist with interpretation.

- 17 -

The mean grain size of the creek sediments ranged from 90 microns (very fine sand) at Hudson Bayou to 274 microns (medium sand) at Alligator Creek (Figure 21). The median grain size distribution was slightly larger ranging from 113 microns at Hudson Bayou to 313 microns at Whittaker Bayou (Figure 22). The graphic standard deviation of the sediment is a measure of how well sorted the sediment is among the particle class sizes. Well sorted sediment has a more even distribution among classes than poorly sorted sediments. The standard deviation ranged from 2.34 at Alligator Creek to 4.05 at Clower Creek. The entire range of sediments is considered to be very poorly sorted meaning there is a preponderance of material within a rather limited size range. The values for standard deviation are shown in Figure 23. The descriptive terminology for the particulate distributions of soils is based on a graphical description of the relative percentages of each size class as it would apply to modifications of a typical bell curve distribution. Sarasota Bay sediments typically have very low levels of silt and clay sized sediment fractions which results in a sediment particle distribution that is considered to be negatively skewed. This means that the sediment has a greater proportion of coarse sediment than fine sediment. Figure 24 illustrates the skewness values for the creeks sediment. Kurtosis refers to the peakedness of the sediment distribution curve. Sediments that have a large proportion of particles within one or a few grain size classes will be more peaked (leptokurtic) than sediments that are evenly distributed among all of the size classes being measured. Values for the kurtosis measure of the creeks sediments are graphed in Figure 25.

- 18 -

Table 6. Descriptive categories based on calculated phi (Ν) values for grain size parameters. (Sediment classification by particle size Wentworth classification).

Grain Size Class Phi Mcrons Gravel <-1 >2000 Very coarse sand 0-(-1) >1000 # 2000 Coarse sand 1-0 > 500 # 1000 Medium sand 2-1 > 250 # 500 Fine sand 3-2 > 125 # 250 Very fine sand 4-3 > 62.5 # 125 Silt 8-4 > 3.9 # 62.5 Clay >8 # 3.9 Degree of sediment sorting based on inclusive graphic standard deviation (Folk, 1974). Standard deviation Degree of sorting <0.35 Ν Very well sorted 0.35 Ν - 0.50 Ν Well sorted 0.50 Ν - 0.71 Ν Moderately well sorted 0.71 Ν - 1.00 Ν Moderately sorted 1.00 Ν - 2.00 Ν Poorly sorted 2.00 Ν - 4.00 Ν Very poorly sorted Classification of sediment by skewness (Folk, 1974). Sk values Degree of skewness +1.00 - +0.30 Strongly fine-skewed +0.30 - +0.10 Fine-skewed +0.10 - -0.10 Near symmetrical -0.10 - -0.30 Coarse skewed -0.30 - -1.00 Strongly coarse-skewed Classification of sediment by kurtosis (Folk, 1974). Kg values Degree of kurtosis <0.67 Very platykurtic (flattened) 0.67 - 0.90 Platykurtic 0.90 - 1.11 Mesokurtic (like a normal curve) 1.11 - 1.50 Leptokurtic 1.50 - 3.00 Very leptokurtic >3.00 Extremely leptokurtic (very peaked)

- 19 -

Benthic Correlations to Abiotic Parameters Benthic community parameters were evaluated against a series of other parameters including the Creek Index (described in a previous report) sediment measures, water parameters (salinity, dissolved oxygen) water quality measures, and certain land use and watershed characteristics. Analysis of the Pearson Correlation Coefficient (r) between comparisons was conducted. The results of the analysis illustrating the significant correlations are presented in Table 7. Table 7. Results of correlation analysis between benthic faunal parameters and select

abiotic measures. (* = significant 0.05, ** = highly significant 0.01)

Landscape Sediment Parameters Metals

Benthic Creek Water- Shed Development Percent Percent Percent Percent Pb,Cu,

Parameter Index Age Index Sand Silt Moisture Organic Zn, Cd No. of Taxa 0.67** -0.57* -0.73** -0.52* No. of Individuals 0.53* -0.63** -0.66** 0.50* -0.52* Margalef's Index 0.63* -0.66** Metals Pb,Cu,Zn,Cd 0.73** 0.68** 0.58* 0.68** 0.69** % Polychaete Taxa -0.52* -0.51* -0.52*

The significant correlations with number of taxa included Creek Index (CI), Watershed Age (WA), Landscape Development Index (LDI) and Metals (Pb, Cu, Zn, Cd). For this project it is important to note that the CI was also correlated with the number of individuals, Margalef's Index and percentage of polychaete taxa. All of the significant correlations between taxa and abundance and WA, LDI, and Metals were negative indicating that extent and duration of development in a watershed has a significant negative impact on the benthos of tidal creeks. Number of taxa present showed a significant positive correlation to the CI which indicates that a high value for the CI is likely to be reflected in a diverse benthic fauna. The CI also showed a significant negative correlation to the percentage of polychaete taxa. The percentage of polychaete taxa can only increase when other groups such as mollusks and crustaceans decline. Therefore, a higher CI value correlates with a decline in polychaete taxa which implies that other benthic invertebrate groups have increased in relative abundance. Both WA and LDI had a highly significant positive correlation to the presence of Metals in the sediment and significant negative correlations to the percentage of polychaete taxa. Faunal abundance (number of individuals) was also significantly correlated with the percentage of sand and inversely correlated to the percentage of silt. Creeks such as Whitaker and Hudson Bayous and Clower Creek which have accumulated thick layers of silt in dredged basins have very low faunal abundance compared to creeks with low levels of silt. It was interesting that no correlations were shown between number of species and salinity or grain size of sediment, classic deterministic measures of species distribution and abundance. The lack of such correlations may be due to a combination of the relative level of the sampling

- 20 -

effort, a single temporal survey, and the complex nature of tidal creek systems. Salinity data for the creek systems are the result of instantaneous measurements which would not document fluctuations that may occur on tidal cycles. Overall the range of salinity was also rather small and there may not have been enough data points for various salinity levels to form a correlation relationship with faunal parameters. Other factors such as sediment structure, circulation, and water quality may also mask the salinity fauna relationship. Figure 26 illustrates the range of salinity from April to May 2007, which preceded the creek survey period of May 20 - June 8th. Data were only available for 12 of the 16 creeks that were surveyed. Salinity data were not available for Ainger, Shakett, Woodmere and Matheny creeks. Most of the creeks exhibited relatively high salinities > 20 PSU. Benthic sampling was conducted prior to the onset of seasonal summer rains and 2007 was considered a drought year with considerable rainfall deficits. High salinities indicate conditions that are favorable for potential colonization by a large number of estuarine benthic species.

- 21 -

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION This report presents the final analysis of a dry season macrobenthic sampling of 16 tidal creek tributaries flowing into the Sarasota Bay system. This is the first effort within Sarasota Bay and perhaps within Florida to simultaneously characterize the benthos of all of the tidal creeks within an estuary for the purpose of providing biological standards for the evaluation of a Tidal Creek Condition Index (TCI). During the first phase of the project in 2004, data from the sub-basins of the 20 tidal creeks within Sarasota County were compared to establish the ecological condition of those streams, characterize the condition of their sub-basins, and select 2 streams that could be deemed as opposites (best and worst) by the condition of their respective sub-basins. Phase I resulted in a preliminary rough grading of 16 coastal watersheds and streams in order of best condition to worst condition, and concluded that there were enough streams with very different major basin features to be able to move forward with the next phase of the project. During the second phase in 2005, Mote Marine Laboratory conducted field studies to characterize extremes among County coastal systems to determine the range of ecological conditions available for index development. The assessment resulted in two reports: “The Gottfried Creek Reconnaissance Report”, July 12, 2005 and “The Whitaker Bayou Reconnaissance Report”, August 17, 2005 and concluded that there were a sufficient number of county systems to develop a biologically based stream condition index. During the third phase in 2006, Mote Marine Laboratory developed and tested a prototypic creek index based on ecological attributes that could be measured using rapid survey techniques. The test was made in 15 County coastal creek systems. A report, “Biological Condition Index for Tidal Streams in Coastal Sarasota County, Florida,” providing methods and results of the test and a recapitulation of previous planning efforts, was submitted on September 30, 2006. Details of Phase III conclusions and recommendations appear in the July 23, 2007 “Report on Preparatory Tasks 1-4 for the 2007 Implementation of the Sarasota Tidal Creek Condition Index”. A large suite of potential biological indicators were evaluated and data collected in 2006 were analyzed to compute correlation coefficients between individual variables using a pair-wise approach that employed all original data for every variable. There were 110 significant or highly significant variables pairs among the 1,317 comparisons, or approximately 8.3 percent. The variable most frequently correlated to others with significance was intertidal Tagelus divisus (Mollusca; Bivalvia) extent, with 56 significant correlation pairs. Relevant biological indicator parameters consisting of various measures related to mollusk density, submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), percent SAV cover, oyster attributes, Tagelus attributes, net catches of epibenthic fauna, and burrow density. The specific variables selected for use in the creek index included two intertidal variables (percent live oyster, maximum height of live oysters), and seven subtidal variables (burrow density, live Tagelus density, number of live Tagelus cohorts, other mollusk density, bare dipnet catch (all species combined), percent cover of periphyton, and percent cover of filamentous

- 22 -

algae. The algal measures are a biological indicator of nutrient enrichment and as such are pollution indicators. From lowest (worst condition) to highest (best condition) the TCI values of the creeks were evaluated as follows: Matheny, Clower, Whitaker, Hatchett, Catfish, North, Shackett, Phillippi, Curry, Ainger, Hudson, South, Gottfried, Woodmere, Alligator, Forked. Quantitative benthic macroinfaunal samples were obtained as one task for the third phase of the project. These samples were used to conduct a quantitative benthic community analysis for each creek. The intent of the benthic survey was to provide an additional means of calibrating the utility of the TCI. Three quantitative benthic samples were collected at each creek for a total of 48 samples. For the 16 creeks sampled by this project a total of 9,489 organisms were recovered representing 138 macroinvertebrate taxa. Sediment samples were also collected at each location for analysis of grain size distribution and organic content. The number of species present at a creek ranged from 7 at Whitaker Bayou to 52 at Gottfried Creek. The number of individuals present at a creek ranged from 1,552 organisms/m2 at Clower Creek to 31,132 organisms/m2 at Ainger Creek. The Shannon-Weiner Index of diversity ranged from 1.21 at Whittaker Bayou to 4.27 at Forked Creek. Number of species, faunal abundance and species diversity are often considered measures of benthic community health although such assessments are usually made with many qualifiers. A comparison of the TCI and the faunal metrics follows:

Number # Individuals Creek TCI rank Species Rank Rank Diversity Rank Forked 1 5 10 1 Alligator 2 8 4 8 Woodmere 3 7 5 3 Gottfried 4 1 2 11 South 5 2 8 2 Hudson 6 13 14 12 Ainger 7 3 1 9 Curry 8 10 7 14 Phillippi 9 4 3 4 Shakett 10 6 6 6 North 11 15 9 15 Catfish 12 14 12 13 Hatchett 13 11 11 10 Whitaker 14 16 13 16 Clower 15 12 16 5 Matheny 16 9 15 7

- 23 -

Each of the above rankings is from best to worst condition. Keeping in mind that each metric represents a unique measure, there is relative general agreement in high medium and low values in the above comparison. The TCI takes into consideration a greater number of ecological parameters than the benthic metrics. The major discrepancies between the infaunal metrics and the TCI include Hudson Bayou and Curry Creek which rank much lower based on the macroinfaunal parameters and Phillippi and Shakett Creeks which rank higher on the macroinvertebrate scales. A wide range of habitat and sediment conditions were encountered during the survey, from highly urbanized with dredged basins or channels to relatively natural. Earlier reports described these conditions in detail. The benthos also exhibited a wide range of values for species numbers, abundance and community composition of species. Tidal rivers on the Florida peninsula contain most of the coastal oligohaline or low salinity waters. The habitats contained within these regions experience varying periods of freshwater, brackish water, and waters of higher salinity (Browder, 1991). Taken as a whole, this mosaic of habitats influenced by oligohaline waters comprises an important environment for the larval and juvenile developmental stages of many invertebrates and fishes of commercial, economic, or ecological importance (Edwards, 1992; Estevez et al., 1991; Peebles and Flannery 1992, Flannery et al. 2002, Dehaven and Tuckey 2006). Landscape alteration, impacting the timing and volume of freshwater inflow, was found to be the most common stress on estuarine systems by Sklar and Browder (1998) in a review of studies in the Gulf of Mexico. Small coastal tidal creeks have seen less scrutiny but likely function in a manner similar to their larger counterparts. The ecological importance of the low salinity reaches of estuaries has been amply documented, and their freshwater needs currently are used as guidelines for river flow regulation (Longley, 1994). Jassby et al. (1995) demonstrated that the 2 part per thousand (ppt) salinity positions in the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta Estuary has simple and significant relationships with phytoplankton, plankton-based detritus, mollusks, mysids and shrimps, larval fish survival, and the abundance of several fish trophic guilds. A number of factors affect species composition and abundance of benthic communities. The recognition that salinity change and sedimentation were important aspects of the estuary date to the earliest days of marine ecology (Forbes 1844), although intensive studies of estuaries were not common until the middle of the 20th Century, during the post-war era. The classic habitat attributes regulating community structure are sediment type and salinity. Both Jones (1950) and Scanland (1966) considered "bottom type" as the single-most influential factor for all benthic communities (for any given salinity regime). Both turbidity and sediment deposition rates affect the substratum, and both exert their independent influences on filter-feeders and other bottom-dwelling organisms (Collard and D'Asaro, 1973). Sediment structure is the result of a complex mix of factors related to river flow and transport of terrestrially derived components. Livingston (1981) described the driving factors for the productivity of Apalachicola Bay in terms of the interrelationships of the inputs of dissolved and particulate organic and inorganic substances coupled with cyclic disturbance (tides, winds, currents) of the benthos. The mechanism serves to

- 24 -

enhance microbial production which in turn is grazed by benthic invertebrates and in turn secondary predators such as fishes. The weight of the effect of sediment structure in determining benthic community composition is as great as the weight of salinity zonation. In a study of the tidal Peace River salinity was the parameter most often significantly correlated to the faunal parameters. However, most of the correlations were weak. In the lower portions of the river sediment grain size became more important with significant negative correlations with clay levels to numbers of species and abundance, and farther downstream in the zone that opens to Charlotte Harbor there was a positive correlation with percentage sand (Estevez and Culter 2001). In the same study the areas with low sand fractions, moderate to high silt fractions, some clays, and high organic content were considered to be poor sediment quality and exhibited low faunal abundance and species richness. Stocks and Grassle (2001) found that shading the benthos of a salt marsh had a clear effect on the densities of the benthic macrofauna, and total densities of macrofauna were 62% lower in shaded ponds during the experimental period and the effect was highly significant. In addition, three of the 5 dominant taxa were significantly lower in the shaded areas. The experimental shading limited microalgae production and all three of the species are known benthic microalgae feeders and included the polychaete Laeonereis culveri. The high occurrence of Laeonereis in the tidal creeks of Sarasota County may be due to an abundance of benthic microalgae. Laeonereis typically reside in burrows within the upper 2 cm of fine, flocculent sediments where they feed chiefly on benthic diatoms until developing past the 5-setiger stage, after which they become non-selective deposit feeders. They generally prefer fine sediment and readily burrow into and remain within fine sediments (particle diameters < 250 µ) even if the latter are relatively free of organic matter. A swim-crawl behavior also appears to be elicited under conditions of unfavorable water quality (Mazurkiewicz, 1975; Martin et. al, 2004). In Sarasota Bay fine flocculent sediments were found to be typical of dredged areas that were significantly deeper than surrounding undisturbed areas. Dredged areas act as fine particulate sinks and because of limited water movement especially during warm summer months the sediments often generate hydrogen sulfide as a result of anaerobic bacterial decomposition of organic matter (Culter and Leverone, 1993). Under such conditions the benthic fauna are severely limited or even eliminated. A study of twenty-three headwater tidal creeks representing drainage basins which included forested, suburban, urban, and industrial land cover were sampled along the South Carolina coast from 1994 to 2002 (Holland et al., 2004). The study concluded that human population density in the watershed and associated increases in the amount of impervious land cover were the ultimate stressor on the tidal creek ecosystem. They attributed this effect to measurable adverse changes in the physical and chemical environment when the impervious cover exceeded 10–20%. Altered parameters included hydrography, salinity variance, sediment characteristics, increased chemical contaminants, and increased fecal coliform loadings. They observed a response in the benthos and other living resources when impervious watershed cover exceeded 20–30%. A portion of the above study took place in Charleston Harbor and showed that macrobenthic diversity and abundance were higher for suburban and impacted salt marsh creeks than for urban

- 25 -

and industrial creeks. However, suburban and salt marsh impacted creeks were numerically dominated by a few pollution indicative species including oligochaetes and the polychaete Laeonereis culveri. The authors concluded that these creeks appeared to be exhibiting early signs of degradation manifest as a simplified food web (Lerberg et al., 2000). The authors considered Laeonereis to be a pollution indicator. In subsequent work, the South Carolina team has shown that the “headwaters” reaches of tidal creeks were affected more by watershed alterations than were downstream or “subtidally dominated” reaches. Because most Sarasota County creeks are dammed, channelized, or dominated by subtidal conditions, few headwater effects are likely. The North Carolina study reported benthic community alterations that were similar to those observed in the Sarasota Bay Creek study including a reduced abundance of stress-sensitive macrobenthic taxa, and altered or simplified food webs. Certain species of polychaetes, such as Laeonereis, have been shown to be important prey items for fishes although some abundant polychaete species that are primarily burrowers (e.g., capitellids) are unavailable to fishes. In contrast microcrustaceans are often identified as fish prey items probably because they live at the sediment surface and are highly mobile, thus being more susceptible to predation (Llanso et al., 1998). The second most abundant species in the Sarasota creeks was the polychaete Fabriciola sp. although it was only found at 5 creeks. Fabriciola sp. is also known to occur in high abundance in the Venice Intracoastal Water Way south of the Venice Inlet in southern Sarasota County (Culter 2007). It is a member of the Family Sabellidae also known as "fanworms" or "feather duster worms" and feeds by filtering particulates from the water. It needs a relatively coarse or firm substrate and seems to be abundant in areas of high water movement. The lack of mollusks and certain small crustaceans, such as amphipods, cumaceans and tanaids at many of the low diversity creeks is an indication of a simplified food web. In the Peace River the microcrustaceans were an important and often dominant component of the fauna. Many of the microcrustaceans are typically found feeding on the sediment surface. They often swarm into the plankton at night, a mechanism which may allow for repositioning to the most favorable habitat conditions. In the present study parameters showing significant correlations with number of taxa included Tidal Creek Index (TCI), Watershed Age (WA), Landscape Development Index (LDI) and Metals. For this project it is important to note that the TCI was also correlated with the number of individuals, Margalef's Index, and percentage of polychaete taxa. All of the significant correlations between taxa / abundance and WA, LDI and metals were negative indicating that extent and duration of development in a watershed has a significant negative impact on the benthos of tidal creeks. Both WA and LDI had a highly significant positive correlation to the presence of metals in the sediment. It was interesting that no correlations were shown between number of species and salinity or grain size of sediment, classic deterministic measures of species distribution and abundance. The lack of correlation with these parameters may be due to relative levels of quantitative

- 26 -

sampling effort which was limited in number of samples and temporal scale which did not exhibit seasonal changes in salinity, or to the complex nature of urbanizing tidal creeks. The findings of this study demonstrate that land use and development within the creek drainage basins affect the quality of the tidal creek benthos likely through mechanisms that alter flow, sediment structure and contaminants that reside in the sediment. The benthic data also illustrate that the rapid assessment techniques employed to calculate the Tidal Creek Condition Index result in findings that are in general agreement with the results of the quantitative benthic analysis. Both number of species and faunal abundance were significantly positively correlated with the Tidal Creek Index. This methodology offers a realistic estuarine counterpart to the freshwater Stream Condition Index methodologies.

- 27 -

Acknowledgments Kathy Meaux of Sarasota County participated in the sampling of every creek and her assistance is gratefully acknowledged. Mike Jones provided county oyster data. Other field assistants included Matthew Phillips, Gary Raulerson, and Jay Leverone. Data management and graphical analyses were managed by Jay Sprinkel with assistance from Jan Gannon. Invertebrate taxonomy conducted by Anamari Boyes, Lucas Jennings and Jay Leverone. Rusty Holmes provided assistance with document production.

- 28 -

LITERATURE CITED American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and Water Pollution

Control Federation. 1989. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 17th Edition. Washington, DC.

Browder, J.A. 1991. Watershed management and the importance of freshwater flow to estuaries. pp. 7-22.In: S.F. Treat and P.A. Clark (ed.s), Proceedings, Tampa Bay Scientific Information Symposium 2. Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, St. Petersburg, FL.

Collard, SB and CN D'Asaro. 1973. Benthic invertebrates of the eastern Gulf of Mexico. A summary of knowledge of the eastern Gulf of Mexico. State University System of Florida, Institute of Oceanography.

Culter, J.K. and A.J. Boyes. 2007. City of Venice Discharge Ambient Water Quality and Benthic Monitoring. Quarter XXXVI – May 14, 2007. Mote Technical Report 1218. Submitted to: The City of Venice Utilities Department, Venice, FL.

Culter, J.K. and J.R. Leverone. 1993. Bay bottom assessment; final report. Submitted to the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program. Mote Technical Report No. 303. 69 pp.

Dehaven, M.and T.D. Tuckey. 2006. Fish assemblages found in tidal-creek and seagrass habitats in the Suwannee River estuary. Fishery Bulletin, 01/01/2006.

Edwards. R.E. 1992. Identification, classification, and inventory of critical nursery habitats for commercially and recreationally important fishes in the Manatee River estuary system of Tampa Bay. Mote Technical Report No. 276. Submitted to the Southwest Florida Water Management District, Tampa Bay Surface Water Improvement and Management Program.

Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. SW-846. Washington, DC.

Estevez, E. and J.K. Culter. 2001. Benthic Macroinvertebrate and Mollusk Indicators. Phase II, Final Report. Technical Report No. 744. Submitted to: Peace River / Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority. Arcadia, Florida.

Estevez, E.D., M. Tinsky, G. Blanchard. 1991. Distribution and abundance of larval and juvenile fishes in the tidal waters of the Myakka River, Sarasota and Charlotte Counties, Florida : final report to Sarasota County Office of Environmental Monitoring / by Mote Marine Laboratory. Mote Technical Report No. no. 197. 97 p.

Flannery, M.S., E. Peebles, and R. Montgomery. 2002. A Percent-of-flow Approach for Managing Reductions of Freshwater Inflows from Unimpounded Rivers to Southwest Florida Estuaries. Estuaries 25(6):1318–1332.

Faherty, K.F., and T.G. Williamson. 1989. Wood engineering and construction handbook. McGraw-Hill Publishing Company. New York, NY.

Folk, R.L. 1974. Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks. Hemphill Publishing Company. Austin, TX. Forbes, E. 1844. Report on the mollusca and radiata of the Agean Sea, and on their distribution,

considered as bearing on geology. Report 13th meeting, British Assoc. Adv. Science, 1843, pp. 130-193.

Franz, D.R. 1973. The Ecology and Reproduction of a Marine Bivalve, Mysella planulata (Erycinacea). Biol Bull 144: 93-106.

Gini. 1912. Variability e mutabilita. Studi Economico-Guirida Fac. Giurisprudence Univ. Cagliari A. III, parte II.

- 29 -

Goodman, D. 1975. The theory of diversity-stability relationships in ecology. Q. Rev. Biol. 50:237-266.

Gross, M.G. 1971. Chapter 25. Carbon Determination. In: Procedures is sedimentary Petrology. R.E. Carver, editor. University of Georgia, Athens, Ga. Wiley Interscience. p. 587.

Holland, A.F., D. M. Sanger, C.P. Gawle, S.B. Lerberg, M.S. Santiago, G.H. M. Riekerk, L.E. Zimmerman and G.I. Scott. 2004. Linkages between tidal creek ecosystems and the landscape and demographic attributes of their watersheds. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 298(2)2, pp. 151-178.

Hurlbert, S.H. 1971. The non-concept of species diversity: a critique and alternative parameters. Ecology 52:577-586.

Jassby, A.D., W.J. Kimmerer, S.G. Monismith, C. Amrmor, J.E. Cloern, T.M Powell, J.R. Shubel, and T.J. Vendilinski. Isohaline position as a habitat indicator for estuarine populations. Ecol. Appl. 5(1): 272-289

Jones, N. 1950. Marine bottom communities. Biological Reviews, 25. Klute, A., (ed). 1986. Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 1: Physical and Mineralogical Methods.

Second Edition. American Society of Agronomy, Inc. and Soil Science Society of America, Inc. Madison, WI.

Kunze, G.W. and J.B. Dixon. 1986. Pretreatment for Mineralogical Analysis. Chapter 5. In: Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 1: Physical and Mineralogical Methods. Second Edition. A. Klute (ed), American Society of Agronomy, Inc. and Soil Science Society of America, Inc. Madison, WI.

Lerberg, S B., A.F. Holland, and D.M. Sanger. 2000. Responses of Tidal Creek Macrobenthic Communities to the Effects of Watershed Development. Estuaries Vol. 23, No. 6, p. 838–853.

Livingston, R.J. 1981. Ecology of the Apalachicola Bay System (Northeast gulf of Mexico) An Estuarine Profile. Prepared for National Coastal Ecosystem Team, Slidell, Louisiana.

Llanso, R.J., S.S. Bell and F.E. Vose. 1998. Food Habits of Red Drum and Spotted Seatrout in a Restored Mangrove Impoundment. Estuaries Vol. 21, No. 2, p. 294-306.

Longley, W.L. (ed.) 1994. Freshwater inflows to Texas bays and estuaries: ecological relationships and methods for determination of needs. Texas Water Development Board and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin TX. 386 pp.

Mazurkiewicz, M. 1975. Larval Development and Habits of Laeonereis culveri (Webster) (Polychaeta: Nereiidae) Biol Bull 149: 186-204.

Margalef, R. 1958. Information theory in ecology. Gen Sys. 3:36-71. Martin, J.P., R. Bastida, and M. Trassens. 2004. Polychaete Assemblages of Intertidal

Mixohaline Flats of Bahia Samborombon (La Plata River Estuary-Argentina). Thalassas, 20 (2): 39-53.

Patten, B.C. 1968. Mathematical models of plankton production. Int. Revue. ges Hydrobiol. Hydrogr. 53:357-408.

Peebles, E.B.and M.S. Flannery. 1992. Fish nursery use of the Little Manatee River estuary (Florida) : relationships with freshwater discharge. Final report submitted to the Southwest Florida Water Management District. 91 p.

Pielou, E.C. 1977. Mathematical Ecology. Whiley, New York. Scanland, TB. 1966. A description of the community associated with two arcs, Arca zebra and

Arca imbricata (Pelycopoda: Arciade) in the offshore northeastern Gulf of Mexico. MS Thesis, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

- 30 -

Shannon, C.E. and W. Weaver. 1972. The Mathematical Theory of Communications. Univ. of Ill. Press, Urbana. 117 p. [first printed in 1949].

Sklar, F.H. and J.A. Browder. 1998. Coastal Environmental Impacts Brought About by Alterations to Freshwater Flow in the Gulf of Mexico. Environmental Management, 22(4): 547-562.

Simpson, E.H. 1949. Measurement of diversity. Nature 163: 688. Stocks, Karen I. and J. F. Grassle. 2001. Effects of microalgae and food limitation on the

recolonization of benthic macrofauna into in situ saltmarsh-pond mesocosms. Mar Ecol Prog Ser, Vol. 221: 93–104.

Washington, H.G. 1984. Review: Diversity, biotic and similarity indices. A review with special relevance to aquatic ecosystems. Water Res. 18(6):653-694.

Zimmerman, R., R. Gibson and J. Harrington. 1979. Herbivory and detritivory among gammaridean amphipods from a Florida seagrass community. Marine Biology. Vol. 54(1): 41-47.

- 31 -

WHIT

AKER B.

NORTH

CATFISH

HUDSON B.

CLOWER

HATCHETT

CURRY

MATHENY

ALLIGATOR

SHAKETT

WOODMERE

FORKED

PHILLIPPI

AINGER

SOUTH

GOTTFRIED

Num

ber o

f Tax

a

10

20

30

40

50

60

Number of Taxa

10 20 30 40 50 60

AINGERGOTTFRIED

FORKEDWOODMEREALLIGATORHATCHETT

CURRYSHAKETT

SOUTHNORTH

CATFISHCLOWER

MATHENYPHILLIPPI

HUDSON B.WHITAKER B.

Number of Taxa

Figure 2. Number of taxa arranged in N-S order (top) and in rank value order (bottom).

- 32 -

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Whit

aker B

.Nort

h

Catfish

Hudson

B.

Clower

Hatche

ttCurr

y

Matheny

Alligato

r

Woodm

ere

Shaket

t

Forked

Phillip

pi

Ainger

South

Gottfrie

d

Num

ber o

f Tax

a PolychaetesCrustaceansMollusks

Figure 3. Number of taxa for each creek for polychaetes, mollusks and crustaceans. Data arranged from lowest to greatest species numbers.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Whitaker

B.

Gottfried

Curry

Ainger

Catfish

Shakett

Hatchet

t

Woodmere

Alligato

r

Hudson B

.

Clower

Phillippi

North

Mathen

ySouth

Forked

Perc

enta

ge C

ompo

sitio

n

PolychaetesMollusksCrustaceans

Figure 4. Percentage of total individuals contributed by polychaetes, mollusks and crustaceans.

Data arranged in order of decreasing polychaete abundance.

- 33 -

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

Whit

aker B

.North

Catfish

Hudson B

.

Clower

Hatchet

tCurr

y

Math

eny

Alligato

r

Woodmere

Shakett

Forked

Phillippi

AingerSouth

Gottfried

Log

(2) o

f Abu

ndan

cePolychaetesMollusksCrustaceansLinear (Polychaetes)

Figure 5. Log plot of abundance of three major invertebrate groups for each creek. Stations are arranged by rank for least number of taxa (left) to greatest number of taxa (right). The trendline for polychaetes is also shown.

- 34 -

CLOWER

MATHENY

HUDSON B.

WHIT

AKER B.

CATFISH

HATCHETT

FORKED

NORTH

SOUTH

CURRY

SHAKETT

WOODMERE

ALLIGATOR

PHILLIPPI

GOTTFRIED

AINGER

Num

ber o

f Ind

ivid

uals

per

m2

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Number Individuals per m2

5000

1000

015

000

2000

025

000

3000

0

AINGERGOTTFRIED

FORKEDWOODMEREALLIGATORHATCHETT

CURRYSHAKETT

SOUTHNORTH

CATFISHCLOWER

MATHENYPHILLIPPI

HUDSON B.WHITAKER B.

Number of Individuals per m2

Figure 6. Abundance as number of individuals per square meter arranged in N-S order (top) and in rank value order (bottom)

- 35 -

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101106111 116121126 131136

Count of Species

Num

ber o

f Cre

eks F

ound

Figure 7. Illustration of the number of times a taxon was recovered from the 16 creeks. Each dot represents the occurrence of one taxon. For example only one species was collected at all 16 sites (left side of graph) two species were recovered from 15 creeks, one from 14 creeks, etc). The largest percentage of taxa were for the class of one creek, far right on the graph, for which there were 57 taxa (41% of the total taxa found in the study).

- 36 -

WHIT

AKER B.

NORTH

CURRY

CATFISH

HUDSON B.

GOTTFRIED

HATCHETT

AINGER

ALLIGATOR

MATHENY

SHAKETT

CLOWER

PHILLIPPI

WOODMERE

SOUTH

FORKED

Shan

non'

s Ind

ex (l

og(2

))

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Shannon's Index (log(2))

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5

AINGERGOTTFRIED

FORKEDWOODMEREALLIGATORHATCHETT

CURRYSHAKETT

SOUTHNORTH

CATFISHCLOWER

MATHENYPHILLIPPI

HUDSON B.WHITAKER B.

Shannon's Index (log2)

Figure 8. Shannon-Weiner Index of diversity arranged in N-S order (top) and in rank value order (bottom).

- 37 -

WHIT

AKER B.

CURRY

GOTTFRIED

AINGER

CATFISH

NORTH

HUDSON B.

ALLIGATOR

PHILLIPPI

SHAKETT

SOUTH

HATCHETT

WOODMERE

MATHENY

FORKED

CLOWER

Piel

ou's

Inde

x

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Pielou's Index

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

AINGERGOTTFRIED

FORKEDWOODMEREALLIGATORHATCHETT

CURRYSHAKETT

SOUTHNORTH

CATFISHCLOWER

MATHENYPHILLIPPI

HUDSON B.WHITAKER B.

Pielou's Index

Figure 9. Pielou's Index of equitability arranged in N-S order (top) and in rank value order (bottom).

- 38 -

WHIT

AKER B.

NORTH

CATFISH

HUDSON B.

HATCHETT

CURRY

CLOWER

ALLIGATOR

MATHENY

WOODMERE

SHAKETT

AINGER

PHILLIPPI

GOTTFRIED

SOUTH

FORKED

Mar

gale

f's In

dex

2

4

6

8

Margelef's Index

2 4 6 8

AINGERGOTTFRIED

FORKEDWOODMEREALLIGATORHATCHETT

CURRYSHAKETT

SOUTHNORTH

CATFISHCLOWER

MATHENYPHILLIPPI

HUDSON B.WHITAKER B.

Margalef's Index

Figure 10. Margalef's Index of species richness arranged in N-S order (top) and in rank value order (bottom).

- 39 -

WHIT

AKER B.

CURRY

NORTH

CATFISH

AINGER

HUDSON B.

GOTTFRIED

HATCHETT

SOUTH

ALLIGATOR

MATHENY

WOODMERE

SHAKETT

PHILLIPPI

CLOWER

FORKED

Gin

i's In

dex

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Gini's Index0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

AINGERGOTTFRIED

FORKEDWOODMEREALLIGATORHATCHETT

CURRYSHAKETT

SOUTHNORTH

CATFISHCLOWER

MATHENYPHILLIPPI

HUDSON B.WHITAKER B.

Gini's Index

Figure 11. Gini's Index of diversity arranged in N-S order (top) and in rank value order (bottom).

- 40 -

Figure 12. Cluster diagram illustrating similarity levels for faunal community composition with data normalized to

counts per square meter.

Ainger

--------------------I-------IGottfried --------------------I I-----------------I Curry ----------------------------I I Alligator -------------I-------I I------I Shakett -------------I I------------I I I Phillippi ---------------------I I-------I I I Woodmere ----------------------------------I I---I I--I Hatchett ---------------------------I--------------I I I Whitaker B. ---------------------------I I I---------I Catfish ----------------------------------I------------------I I I North ----------------------------------I I I------I South --------------------------------------------------------I I I Forked -------------------------------------------I----------------------I I----Hudson B.

-------------------------------------------I I

Clower ------------------------------------------------------I------------------I Matheny

------------------------------------------------------I

High similarity ---------------------------------------------Low similarity

- 41 -

- 42 -

Figure 13. Cluster diagram illustrating similarity levels for faunal community composition with data reduced to species presence (1) or absence (0).

Ainger ------------------------I-----------IGottfried ------------------------I I------I Phillippi -------------------------I----I I I South -------------------------I I-----I I Woodmere ------------------------------I I-------I Alligator ---------------------I----I I I Hatchett ---------------------I I-----I I I---------------------I Shakett --------------------------I I----------I I I Curry --------------------------------I I I Forked ---------------------------------------------------I I--- Catfish ----------------------------I-------------------I I North ----------------------------I I------------------I I Whitaker B. ------------------------------------------------I II I Matheny -------------------------------------------------------------------II----IClower ------------------------------------------I-------------------------IHudson B. ------------------------------------------I

High similarity ----------------------------------------------Low similarity

HUDSON B.

CLOWER

MATHENY

NORTH

WOODMERE

SHAKETT

AINGER

CURRY

WHIT

AKER B.

CATFISH

SOUTH

HATCHETT

GOTTFRIED

ALLIGATOR

PHILLIPPI

FORKED

Perc

ent S

and

60

70

80

90

100

Percent Sand

60 70 80 90 100

AINGERGOTTFRIED

FORKEDWOODMEREALLIGATORHATCHETT

CURRYSHAKETT

SOUTHNORTH

CATFISHCLOWER

MATHENYPHILLIPPI

HUDSON B.WHITAKER B.

Percent Sand

Figure 14. Percentage sand present in the sediment at each location arranged in N-S order (top) and in rank value order (bottom).

- 43 -

FORKED

ALLIGATOR

PHILLIPPI

HATCHETT

GOTTFRIED

AINGER

SOUTH

WOODMERE

WHIT

AKER B.

CURRY

CATFISH

NORTH

SHAKETT

MATHENY

CLOWER

HUDSON B.

Perc

ent O

rgan

ics

0

5

10

15

20

25

Percent Organics

0 5 10 15 20 25

AINGERGOTTFRIED

FORKEDWOODMEREALLIGATORHATCHETT

CURRYSHAKETT

SOUTHNORTH

CATFISHCLOWER

MATHENYPHILLIPPI

HUDSON B.B.WHITAKER

Percent Organics

Figure 15. Percentage organic content (volatile solids) present in the sediment at each location arranged in N-S order (top) and in rank value order (bottom).

- 44 -

FORKED

PHILLIPPI

ALLIGATOR

GOTTFRIED

HATCHETT

SOUTH

CATFISH

CURRY

WHIT

AKER B.

AINGER

SHAKETT

WOODMERE

NORTH

MATHENY

CLOWER

HUDSON B.

Perc

ent S

ilt

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Percent Silt

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

AINGERGOTTFRIED

FORKEDWOODMEREALLIGATORHATCHETT

CURRYSHAKETT

SOUTHNORTH

CATFISH

M

WHITAKER B.

CLOWERATHENY

PHILLIPPIHUDSON B.

Percent Silt

Figure 16. Percentage silt present in the sediment at each location arranged in N-S order

(top) and in rank value order (bottom).

- 45 -

ALLIGATOR

CATFISH

FORKED

WHIT

AKER B.

GOTTFRIED

SOUTH

CURRY

PHILLIPPI

HATCHETT

NORTH

WOODMERE

SHAKETT

CLOWER

MATHENY

AINGER

DSON B.

HU

Perc

ent C

lay

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Percent Clay

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

AINGERGOTTFRIED

FORKEDWOODMEREALLIGATORHATCHETT

CURRYSHAKETT

SOUTHNORTH

CATFISHCLOWER

MATHENYPHILLIPPI

HUDSON B.WHITAKER B.

Percent Clay

Figure 17. Percentage clay present in the sediment at each location arranged in N-S order

(top) and in rank value order (bottom).

- 46 -

- 47 -

Graphic illustrating the percentage of sand, silt, clay and organic matter for each creek with creeks arranged in rank order for percentage sand.

0102030405060708090

100

ForkedPhilli

ppiAllig

ator

Gottfried

Hatchet

tCatf

ishSouth

Whitaker

Curry

AingerShake

ttWood

mereNorth

Mathen

yClowerHudso

n

Figure 18.

Perc

enta

ge C

ompo

sitio

n % Sand

% Silt

% Clay

% Organic

FORKED

AINGER

PHILLIPPI

WHIT

AKER B.

SOUTH

CATFISH

NORTH

CURRY

ALLIGATOR

WOODMERE

HATCHETT

SHAKETT

MATHENY

GOTTFRIED

CLOWER

HUDSON B.

Perc

ent M

oist

ure

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Percent Moisture

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

AINGERGOTTFRIED

FORKEDWOODMEREALLIGATORHATCHETT

CURRYSHAKETT

SOUTHNORTH

CATFISHCLOWER

MATHENYPHILLIPPI

HUDSON B.WHITAKER B.

Percent Moisture

Figure 19. Percentage moisture present in the sediment at each location arranged in N-S order (top) and in rank value order (bottom).

- 48 -

HUDSON B.

CLOWER

GOTTFRIED

MATHENY

SHAKETT

HATCHETT

WOODMERE

ALLIGATOR

CURRY

NORTH

CATFISH

SOUTH

WHIT

AKER B.

PHILLIPPI

AINGER

FORKED

Perc

ent S

olid

s

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Percent Solids

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

AINGERGOTTFRIED

FORKEDWOODMEREALLIGATORHATCHETT

CURRYSHAKETT

SOUTHNORTH

CATFISHCLOWER

MATHENYPHILLIPPI

HUDSON B.WHITAKER B.

Percent Solids

Figure 20. Percentage solids present in the sediment at each location arranged in N-S order (top) and in rank value order (bottom).

- 49 -

HUDSON B.

CLOWER

MATHENY

WOODMERE

HATCHETT

SHAKETT

AINGER

NORTH

CURRY

SOUTH

GOTTFRIED

PHILLIPPI

WHIT

AKER B.

CATFISH

FORKED

ALLIGATOR

Mea

n G

rain

Siz

e

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Mean Grain Size

0 50 100

150

200

250

300

AINGERGOTTFRIED

FORKEDWOODMEREALLIGATORHATCHETT

CURRYSHAKETT

SOUTHNORTH

CATFISHCLOWER

MATHENYPHILLIPPI

HUDSON B.WHITAKER B.

Mean Grain Size

Figure 21. Mean sediment grain size for samples from at each location arranged in N-S order (top) and in rank value order (bottom).

- 50 -

HUDSON B.

CLOWER

WOODMERE

HATCHETT

SHAKETT

AINGER

GOTTFRIED

MATHENY

CURRY

SOUTH

NORTH

PHILLIPPI

FORKED

CATFISH

ALLIGATOR

WHIT

AKER B.

Med

ian

Gra

in S

ize

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Median Grain Size

0 50 100

150

200

250

300

350

AINGERGOTTFRIED

FORKEDWOODMEREALLIGATORHATCHETT

CURRYSHAKETT

SOUTHNORTH

CATFISHCLOWER

MATHENYPHILLIPPI

HUDSON B.WHITAKER B.

Median Grain Size

Figure 22. Median sediment grain size for samples from each location arranged in N-S order (top) and in rank value order (bottom).

- 51 -

ALLIGATOR

PHILLIPPI

GOTTFRIED

FORKED

HATCHETT

CURRY

SOUTH

WHIT

AKER B.

CATFISH

WOODMERE

SHAKETT

AINGER

NORTH

MATHENY

HUDSON B.

CLOWER

Stan

dard

Dev

iatio

n

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Standard Deviation

2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5

AINGERGOTTFRIED

FORKEDWOODMEREALLIGATORHATCHETT

CURRYSHAKETT

SOUTHNORTH

CATFISHCLOWER

MATHENYPHILLIPPI

HUDSON B.WHITAKER B.

Standard Deviation

Figure 23. Value for the graphic standard deviation of mean grain size for samples from each

location arranged in N-S order (top) and in rank value order (bottom).

- 52 -

PHILLIPPI

ALLIGATOR

HATCHETT

WHIT

AKER B.

FORKED

CURRY

SOUTH

SHAKETT

AINGER

CATFISH

GOTTFRIED

NORTH

WOODMERE

MATHENY

HUDSON B.

CLOWER

Skew

ness

-3.5

-3.0

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

Skewness

-3.5

-3.0

-2.5

-2.0

-1.5

-1.0

-0.5 0.0

AINGERGOTTFRIED

FORKEDWOODMEREALLIGATORHATCHETT

CURRYSHAKETT

SOUTHNORTH

CATFISHCLOWER

MATHENYPHILLIPPI

HUDSON B.WHITAKER B.

Skewness

?

Figure 24. Value for the graphic skewness of grain size distribution for samples from each

location arranged in N-S order (top) and in rank value order (bottom).

- 53 -

CLOWER

HUDSON B.

NORTH

MATHENY

WOODMERE

CATFISH

AINGER

SHAKETT

SOUTH

WHIT

AKER B.

CURRY

GOTTFRIED

HATCHETT

FORKED

ALLIGATOR

PHILLIPPI

Skew

ness

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Skewness

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

AINGERGOTTFRIED

FORKEDWOODMEREALLIGATORHATCHETT

CURRYSHAKETT

SOUTHNORTH

CATFISHCLOWER

MATHENYPHILLIPPI

HUDSON B.WHITAKER B.

Kurtosis

Figure 25. Value for the graphic kurtosis of grain size distribution for samples from each

location arranged in N-S order (top) and in rank value order (bottom).

- 54 -

Figure 26. Salinity range for 13 of the 16 creeks for April and May 2007. The area between the paired symbols represents the change in salinity from April to May.

0

10

20

25

30

35

40

Whitaker

North

Catfish

Hudson

Clower

Hatchet

tCurr

y

Mathen

y

Alligato

r

Woodmere

Shakett

Forked

Phillippi

AingerSouth

Gottfried

Salin

ity (P

SU)

15

April Salinity

5 May Salinity

- 55 -

EN SAppendix Table 1. r species list ea cree

Appendix Table 2. Benthic species data representing the percentage composition

otal fauna r each st on, d s ed b reat er ge.

Appendix Table 3. ntage dis diment particul es a ong grain size categories

APP DICE

Rank orde for ch k

of the t by species fo ati an ort y g est p centa

Perce tribution of se at m

- 56 -

Appendix Table 1. Rank order species list for each creek. G Tottfried Creek ype of Number Ind Cumulative

Taxa O rganism Rep1 Rep2 Rep3 Total per m2 Percent Percent F 162 125 236 abriciola Polychaete (worm) 523 11,175 36.6% 36.6%L 130 118 144 aeonereis culveri Polychaete (worm) 392 8,376 27.4% 64.0%A xiothella mucosa Polychaete (worm) 62 26 83 171 3,654 12.0% 75.9%Heteromastus filiformis 1 Polychaete (worm) 28 8 5 51 1,090 3.6% 79.5%M alis 1 onticellina dorsobranchi Polychaete (worm) 7 8 19 44 940 3.1% 82.6%Leitoscoloplos robustus 15 10 14 Polychaete (worm) 39 833 2.7% 85.3%C n) 2 yclaspis varians Cumacean (crustacea 4 1 8 33 705 2.3% 87.6%P a rionospio heterobranchi Polychaete (worm) 7 6 8 21 449 1.5% 89.1%N eanthes acuminata Polychaete (worm) 4 7 8 19 406 1.3% 90.4%C 1 aulleriella Polychaete (worm) 1 2 0 13 278 0.9% 91.3%A ricidea philbinae Polychaete (worm) 1 6 4 11 235 0.8% 92.1%O ligochaeta Oligochaete (worm) 4 5 1 10 214 0.7% 92.8%X on enanthura brevitels Isopod (crustacean) 0 4 5 9 192 0.6% 93.4%N emertea Ribbon worm 3 1 4 8 171 0.6% 94.0%L yonsia floridana Bivalve 1 5 2 8 171 0.6% 94.5%O a phryotroch Polychaete (worm) 3 1 2 6 128 0.4% 95.0%C tenodrilus Polychaete (worm) 3 1 2 6 128 0.4% 95.4%C (worm) apitella capitata Polychaete 0 4 2 6 128 0.4% 95.8%S treblosoma hartmanae Polychaete (worm) 5 0 0 5 107 0.3% 96.2%A gassizi tacean) mpelisca a Amphipod (crus 0 4 1 5 107 0.3% 96.5%T yposyllis Polychaete (worm) 4 0 0 4 85 0.3% 96.8%A mpelisca holmesi Amphipod (crustacean) 1 0 3 4 85 0.3% 97.1%L eptosynapta Sea Cucumber 2 0 2 4 85 0.3% 97.3%C irriformia Polychaete (worm) 1 1 1 3 64 0.2% 97.6%S ipuncula Peanut worm 1 1 1 3 64 0.2% 97.8%K oni inbergonuphis sim Polychaete (worm) 1 0 1 2 43 0.1% 97.9%P ialis olydora soc Polychaete (worm) 1 1 0 2 43 0.1% 98.0%S worm) abellidae Polychaete ( 1 0 1 2 43 0.1% 98.2%A d styris lunata Gastropo 2 0 0 2 43 0.1% 98.3%T ellina mera Bivalve 1 0 1 2 43 0.1% 98.5%A ctiniaria Anemone 0 1 0 1 21 0.1% 98.5%P olynoidae Polychaete (worm) 0 1 0 1 21 0.1% 98.6%Streptosyllis pettiboneae (worm) Polychaete 0 1 0 1 21 0.1% 98.7%S (worm) pio pettiboneae Polychaete 0 0 1 1 21 0.1% 98.7%S colelepis texana Polychaete (worm) 0 0 1 1 21 0.1% 98.8%P olycirrus Polychaete (worm) 0 0 1 1 21 0.1% 98.9%C hone Polychaete (worm) 1 0 0 1 21 0.1% 99.0%B a ranchiomma nigromaculat Polychaete (worm) 1 0 0 1 21 0.1% 99.0%C erithium muscarum Gastropod 0 0 1 1 21 0.1% 99.1%H aminoea antillarum Gastropod 1 0 0 1 21 0.1% 99.2%A plysiidae Gastropod 1 0 0 1 21 0.1% 99.2%M usculus lateralis Bivalve 1 0 0 1 21 0.1% 99.3%A mygdalum papyrium Bivalve 0 0 1 1 21 0.1% 99.4%M ysella planulata Bivalve 0 1 0 1 21 0.1% 99.4%M acoma tenta Bivalve 0 1 0 1 21 0.1% 99.5%T ellina Bivalve 0 0 1 1 21 0.1% 99.6%B dana owmaniella flori Mysid (crustacean) 0 0 1 1 21 0.1% 99.7%Oxyurostylis smithi stacean) Cumacean (cru 1 0 0 1 21 0.1% 99.7%Almyracuma nr. proximoculae Cumacean (crustacean) 0 1 0 1 21 0.1% 99.8% Hargeria rapax Tanaid (crustacean) 0 0 1 1 21 0.1% 99.9% Corophiidae Corophiid amphipod 1 0 0 1 21 0.1% 99.9% Grandidierella bonnieroides Amphipod (crustacean) 0 1 0 1 21 0.1% 100.0%

- 57 -

Appendix Table 1. Continued. South Creek Type of Number Ind Cumulative

Taxa Organism Rep1 Rep2 Rep3 Total per m2 Percent Percent Xenanthura brevitelson Isopod (crustacean) 79 56 86 221 4,722 35.1% 35.1% Halmyrapseudes b ahamensis Mysid (crustacean) 25 3 29 57 1,218 9.0% 44.1% Laeonereis culveri Polychaete (worm) 18 13 21 52 1,111 8.3% 52.4% Hargeria rapax Tanaid (crustacean) 15 8 19 42 897 6.7% 59.0% Ampelisca burkei Amphipod (crustacean) 5 7 24 36 769 5.7% 64.8% Caulleriella Polychaete (worm) 7 8 13 28 598 4.4% 69.2% Prionospio heterobranchia Polychaete (worm) 12 4 7 23 491 3.7% 72.9% Kinbergonuphis simoni Polychaete (worm) 14 3 2 19 406 3.0% 75.9% Ampelisca holmesi Amphipod (crustacean) 4 2 11 17 363 2.7% 78.6% Aricidea philbinae Polychaete (worm) 10 2 1 13 278 2.1% 80.6% Heteromastus filiformis Polychaete (worm) 0 5 4 9 192 1.4% 82.1% Neanthes acuminata Polychaete (worm) 0 1 7 8 171 1.3% 83.3% Cyclaspis varians Cumacean (crustacean) 3 1 4 8 171 1.3% 84.6% Monticellina dorsobranchialis Polychaete (worm) 1 5 1 7 150 1.1% 85.7% Streblosoma hartmanae te (worm) Polychae 1 1 5 7 150 1.1% 86.8% Typosyllis Polychaete (worm) 2 1 3 6 128 1.0% 87.8% Leitoscoloplos robustus Polychaete (worm) 3 1 2 6 128 1.0% 88.7% Chione cancellata Bivalve 5 0 1 6 128 1.0% 89.7% Grandidierella bonnieroides Amphipod (crustacean) 2 3 0 5 107 0.8% 90.5% Nemertea Ribbon worm 1 0 3 4 85 0.6% 91.1% Axiothella mucosa Polychaete (worm) 1 3 0 4 85 0.6% 91.7% Rudilemboides naglei an) Amphipod (crustace 0 2 2 4 85 0.6% 92.4% Polydora socialis Polychaete (worm) 0 0 3 3 64 0.5% 92.9% Armandia maculata (worm) Polychaete 3 0 0 3 64 0.5% 93.3% Mediomastus ambiseta te (worm) Polychae 1 0 2 3 64 0.5% 93.8% A orm) sychis elongata Polychaete (w 2 0 1 3 64 0.5% 94.3% Fabriciola Polychaete (worm) 0 1 2 3 64 0.5% 94.8% Acteocina canaliculata Gastropod 0 0 3 3 64 0.5% 95.2% Amygdalum papyrium Bivalve 1 2 0 3 64 0.5% 95.7% Oxyurostylis smithi Cumacean (crustacean) 2 1 0 3 64 0.5% 96.2% Mesanthura floridensis Isopod (crustacean) 0 1 2 3 64 0.5% 96.7% Podarkeopsis levifuscina te (worm) Polychae 1 0 1 2 43 0.3% 97.0% Tellina mera Bivalve 1 0 1 2 43 0.3% 97.3% Lyonsia florida na Bivalve 2 0 0 2 43 0.3% 97.6% Taphromysis bowmani Mysid (crustacean) 0 2 0 2 43 0.3% 97.9% Eteone heteropoda Polychaete (worm) 0 0 1 1 21 0.2% 98.1% Glycinde solitaria Polychaete (worm) 0 0 1 1 21 0.2% 98.3% Scolelepis texana Polychaete (worm) 0 0 1 1 21 0.2% 98.4% Carazziella hobsonae Polychaete (worm) 0 1 0 1 21 0.2% 98.6% Capitella capitata Polychaete (worm) 0 0 1 1 21 0.2% 98.7% Pectinaria gouldii Polychaete (worm) 1 0 0 1 21 0.2% 98.9% B a P ranchiomma nigromaculat olychaete (worm) 1 0 0 1 21 0.2% 99.0% Haminoea antillarum Gastropod 0 1 0 1 21 0.2% 99.2% Mysella planulata Bivalve 1 0 0 1 21 0.2% 99.4% Laevicardium mortoni Bivalve 1 0 0 1 21 0.2% 99.5% Tellina Bivalve 0 0 1 1 21 0.2% 99.7% Tagelus divisus Bivalve 0 1 0 1 21 0.2% 99.8% Sipuncula Peanut worm 1 0 0 1 21 0.2% 100.0%

- 58 -

Appendix Table 1. Continued. Ainger Creek of d e Type Number In Cumulativ

Taxa m 1 2 3 al 2 t t Organis Rep Rep Rep Tot per m Percen PercenLaeonereis culveri Polychaete (worm) 6 2 0 8 6 % 25 20 19 64 13,84 44.5 44.5% Axiothella mucosa Polychaete (worm) 4 9 8 1 2 % 3 12 5 22 4,72 15.2 59.6% Caulleriella Polychaete (worm) 6 3 0 9 5 % 2 2 5 9 2,11 6.8 66.4% Heteromastus filiformis ) 3 0 3 6 4 % Polychaete (worm 2 2 3 7 1,62 5.2 71.7% Prionospio heterobranchia 9 5 9 3 6 % Polychaete (worm) 1 2 1 6 1,34 4.3 76.0% Fabriciola Polychaete (worm) 14 6 1 1 6 % 2 4 87 2.8 78.8% Leitoscoloplos robustus 9 3 % Polychaete (worm) 12 8 19 3 83 2.7 81.5% Grandidierella bonnieroides n) 3 2 7 1 % Amphipod (crustacea 32 3 79 2.5 84.0% Neanthes acuminata Polychaete (worm) 11 7 7 5 8 % 1 3 74 2.4 86.4% Capitella capitata Polychaete (worm) 9 0 % 10 2 17 2 62 2.0 88.4% Typosyllis Polychaete (worm) 4 8 8 8 % 16 2 59 1.9 90.3% Corophiidae phipod 9 8 8 5 4 % Corophiid am 2 53 1.7 92.0% Lyonsia floridana 4 7 6 7 3 % Bivalve 1 36 1.2 93.2% Amphicteis gunneri m) 4 1 4 9 2 % Polychaete (wor 19 0.6 93.8% Hargeria rapax Tanaid (crustacean) 1 4 3 8 1 % 17 0.5 94.4% Cyclaspis varians Cumacean (crustacean) 3 3 1 7 0 % 15 0.5 94.9% Ctenodrilus Polychaete (worm) 1 0 5 6 8 % 12 0.4 95.3% Xenanthura brevitelson Isopod (crustacean) 2 2 2 6 8 % 12 0.4 95.7% Arenicola cristata m) 1 3 1 5 7 % Polychaete (wor 10 0.3 96.0% Brania Polychaete (worm) 2 1 1 4 5 % 8 0.3 96.3% Crepidula plana 0 0 4 4 5 % Gastropod 8 0.3 96.6% Parastarte triquetra 2 1 1 4 5 % Bivalve 8 0.3 96.8% Sipuncula Peanut worm 1 2 1 4 5 % 8 0.3 97.1% Ophryotrocha Polychaete (worm) 0 3 0 3 4 % 6 0.2 97.3% Aricidea philbinae haete (worm) 0 1 2 3 4 % Polyc 6 0.2 97.5% Polydora socialis haete (worm) 2 0 1 3 4 % Polyc 6 0.2 97.7% Chone Polychaete (worm) 0 1 2 3 4 % 6 0.2 97.9% Tellina mera 1 0 2 3 4 % Bivalve 6 0.2 98.1% Ampelisca acean) 3 0 0 3 4 % Amphipod (crust 6 0.2 98.4% Ampelisca agassizi acean) 0 1 2 3 4 % Amphipod (crust 6 0.2 98.6% Ampelisca holmesi acean) 1 0 2 3 4 % Amphipod (crust 6 0.2 98.8% Nemertea 1 0 1 2 3 % Ribbon worm 4 0.1 98.9% Exogone Polychaete (worm) 1 0 1 2 3 % 4 0.1 99.0% Streptosyllis pettiboneae m) 0 1 1 2 3 % Polychaete (wor 4 0.1 99.2% Platyhelminthes Flatworm 0 1 0 1 % 21 0.1 99.2% Eteone heteropoda Polychaete (worm) 0 1 0 1 1 % 2 0.1 99.3% Sphaerosyllis taylori Polychaete (worm) 0 0 1 1 1 % 2 0.1 99.4% Cirriformia Polychaete (worm) 1 0 0 1 1 % 2 0.1 99.5% Terebellidae Polychaete (worm) 0 0 1 1 1 % 2 0.1 99.5% Gastropoda juv Gastropod 0 0 1 1 21 0.1% 99.6% Astyris lunata Gastropod 0 1 0 1 21 0.1% 99.7% Gastropteron rubrum Gastropod 0 1 0 1 21 0.1% 99.7% Anomalocardia auberiana Bivalve 1 0 0 1 21 0.1% 99.8% Bowmaniella floridana Mysid (crustacean) 0 1 0 1 21 0.1% 99.9% Taphromysis bowmani Mysid (crustacean) 0 0 1 1 21 0.1% 99.9% Oxyurostylis smithi Cumacean (crustacean) 0 1 0 1 21 0.1% 100.0%

- 59 -

Appendix Table 1. Continued. Phil Ty Nu Ind Culippi Creek pe of mber mulative

Taxa Or Rep1 ep p ot er er Perganism R 2 Re 3 T al p m2 P cent cent Xen Iso acean) 70 47 68 185 3,953 19.anthura brevitelson pod (crust 19.6% 6% Cor Co 29 17 103 149 3,184 35.ophiidae rophiid amphipod 15.8% 3% Lei Pol 54 30 55 139 2,970 7% 50.toscoloplos robustus ychaete (worm) 14. 1% Lae Pol 29 43 41 113 2,415 0% 62.onereis culveri ychaete (worm) 12. 0% Ha Tan 41 17 31 89 1,902 9.4% 71.rgeria rapax aid (crustacean) 4% Alm oculae Cu rustacean) 8 7 19 34 726 3.6% 75.yracuma nr. proxim macean (c 0% Gra oides Am rustacean) 9 0 24 33 705 3.5% 78.ndidierella bonnier phipod (c 5% Am Am 14 8 7 29 620 3.1% 81.pelisca burkei phipod (crustacean) 6% Ca Pol 11 1 16 28 598 3.0% 84.pitella capitata ychaete (worm) 6% Cyc Cu 6 4 14 24 513 2.5% 87.laspis varians macean (crustacean) 1% Heteromastus filiformis Pol 4 6 9 19 406 2.0% 89.ychaete (worm) 1% Pri hia Pol 7 2 4 13 278 1.4% 90.onospio heterobranc ychaete (worm) 5% Lyo Biv 1 5 6 12 256 1.3% 91.nsia floridana alve 7% Ne Rib 2 2 3 7 150 0.7% 92.mertea bon worm 5% Sco Pol 3 3 1 7 150 0.7% 93.lelepis texana ychaete (worm) 2% Am gunneri Pol 4 2 1 7 150 0.7% 94.phicteis ychaete (worm) 0% Ete Pol m) 2 0 3 5 107 0.5% 94.one heteropoda ychaete (wor 5% Ric Ga 1 1 2 4 85 0.4% 94.taxis punctostriatus stropod 9% Par Biv 0 2 2 4 85 0.4% 95.astarte triquetra alve 3% Ari Pol 0 2 1 3 64 0.3% 95.cidea philbinae ychaete (worm) 7% Str olychaete orm) 1 1 1 3 64 0.3% 96.eblospio gynobranchiata P (w 0% Chone Pol rm) 2 1 0 3 64 0.3% 96.ychaete (wo 3% Mysella planulata Biv 0 1 2 3 64 0.3% 96.alve 6% Ox Cu tacean) 1 1 1 3 64 0.3% 96.yurostylis smithi macean (crus 9% Edo Iso 0 0 3 3 64 0.3% 97.tea montosa pod (crustacean) 2% Pla Fla 1 0 1 2 43 0.2 97.tyhelminthes tworm % 5% Oligochaeta Oligochaete 0 2 0 2 43 0.2% 97.(worm) 7% Acteocina canaliculata Ga 0 1 1 2 43 0.2% 97.stropod 9% Mu Biv 1 1 0 2 43 0.2% 98.linia lateralis alve 1% Ma Biv 1 0 1 2 43 0.2% 98.coma tenta alve 3% Tel Biv 0 1 1 2 43 0.2% 98.lina mera alve 5% Ac An 0 0 1 1 21 0.1% 98.tiniaria emone 6% Typosyllis Polychaete orm) 0 0 1 1 21 0.1% 98.(w 7% Brania Pol orm) 0 1 0 1 21 0.1% 98.ychaete (w 8% Nea Pol orm) 0 0 1 1 21 0.1% 98.nthes acuminata ychaete (w 9% Spi Pol 1 0 0 1 21 0.1% 99.o pettiboneae ychaete (worm) 0% Caulleriella Polychaete 0 1 0 1 21 0.1% 99.(worm) 2% Asychis elongata Pol 0 0 1 1 21 0.1% 99.ychaete (worm) 3% Axi Pol 0 1 0 1 21 0.1% 99.othella mucosa ychaete (worm) 4% Bra Pol 0 0 1 1 21 0.1% 99.nchiomma nigromaculata ychaete (worm) 5% Am Biv 0 1 0 1 21 0.1% 99.ygdalum papyrium alve 6% Ano Biv 0 1 0 1 21 0.1% 99.malocardia auberiana alve 7% Tap My 0 0 1 1 21 0.1% 99.hromysis bowmani sid (crustacean) 8% Ha ensis My 0 1 0 1 21 0.1% 99.lmyrapseudes baham sid (crustacean) 9% Rudilemboides naglei Am 0 1 0 1 21 0.1% 100.phipod (crustacean) 0%

- 60 -

Appendix Table 1. Continued. Forked Creek Type of Number Ind Cumulative

Taxa Organism ep1 ep2 ep3 ota 2 cenR R R T l per m Per t Percent Parastarte triquetra Bi 37 25 1 8 0 % .1% valve 8 0 1,7 9 22.1 22Ampelisca agassizi acean) 11 17 24 52 11 % Amphipod (crust 1,1 14.4 36.5% Acteocina canaliculata 4 13 5 22 70 % Gastropod 4 6.1 42.5% Scolelepis texana m) 6 4 10 20 27 % Polychaete (wor 4 5.5 48.1% Mysella planulata Bivalve 7 6 4 17 63 % 3 4.7 52.8% Lyonsia floridana 6 7 4 17 63 % Bivalve 3 4.7 57.5% Prionospio heterobranchia 5 6 5 16 42 % Polychaete (worm) 3 4.4 61.9% Magelona pettiboneae Polychaete (worm) 5 5 5 15 21 % 3 4.1 66.0% Capitella capitata Polychaete (worm) 2 5 7 14 99 % 2 3.9 69.9% Cyclaspis varians tacean) 3 3 7 13 78 % Cumacean (crus 2 3.6 73.5% Laeonereis culveri Polychaete (worm) 5 2 3 10 14 % 2 2.8 76.2% Asychis elongata chaete (worm) 1 2 6 9 92 % Poly 1 2.5 78.7% Oxyurostylis smithi tacean) 1 2 5 8 71 % Cumacean (crus 1 2.2 80.9% Chone Polychaete (worm) 2 1 4 7 50 % 1 1.9 82.9% Haminoea succinea ropod 4 0 1 5 07 % Gast 1 1.4 84.3% Eteone heteropoda m) 1 1 2 4 85 % Polychaete (wor 1.1 85.4% Megalomma pigmentum ) 0 0 4 4 85 % Polychaete (worm 1.1 86.5% Amygdalum papyrium Bivalve 1 1 2 4 85 % 1.1 87.6% Actiniaria 1 0 2 3 64 Anemone 0.8% 88.4% Nemertea Ribbon worm 0 1 2 3 64 0.8% 89.2% Haminoea antillarum ropod 3 0 0 3 64 % Gast 0.8 90.1% Corophiidae Corophiid amphipod 1 1 1 3 64 0.8% 90.9% Erichthonius brasiliensis n) 0 1 2 3 64 % Amphipod (crustacea 0.8 91.7% Glycinde solitaria m) 0 0 2 2 43 % Polychaete (wor 0.6 92.3% Leitoscoloplos robustus ) 0 0 2 2 43 % Polychaete (worm 0.6 92.8% Pectinaria gouldii m) 0 0 2 2 43 % Polychaete (wor 0.6 93.4% Teinostoma Gastropod 0 0 2 2 43 % 0.6 93.9% Eulimastoma Gastropod 0 0 2 2 43 % 0.6 94.5% Bivalvia juv. 2 0 0 2 43 Bivalve 0.6% 95.0% Laevicardium mortoni 0 0 2 2 43 % Bivalve 0.6 95.6% Anomalocardia auberiana Bivalve 0 2 0 2 43 % 0.6 96.1% Hargeria rapax an) 0 1 1 2 43 % Tanaid (crustace 0.6 96.7% Glycera Polychaete (worm) 0 1 0 1 21 % 0.3 97.0% Paraprionospio pinnata haete (worm) 0 0 1 1 21 % Polyc 0.3 97.2% Streblospio gynobranchiata chaete (worm) 0 1 0 1 21 % Poly 0.3 97.5% Heteromastus filiformis chaete (worm) 1 0 0 1 21 % Poly 0.3 97.8% Mediomastus ambiseta Polychaete (worm) 0 1 0 1 21 % 0.3 98.1% Melinna maculata Polychaete (worm) 0 1 0 1 21 % 0.3 98.3% Oligochaeta Oligochaete (worm) 1 0 0 1 21 0.3% 98.6% Gastropoda juv 1 0 0 1 21 Gastropod 0.3% 98.9% Nassarius vibex Gastropod 0 0 1 1 21 0.3% 99.2% Turridae Gastropod 0 0 1 1 21 0.3% 99.4% Bulla striata Gastropod 0 0 1 1 21 0.3% 99.7% Caprellidae Caprellid amphipod 1 0 0 1 21 0.3% 100.0%

- 61 -

Appendix Table 1. Continued.

S Ty Nu Ind Cuhakett Creek pe of mber mulative Taxa Or Rep1 ep p ot er er Perganism R 2 Re 3 T al p m2 P cent cent

Lae Pol 34 40 85 159 3,397 22.onereis culveri ychaete (worm) 22.4% 4% Lei bustus Pol 30 55 18 103 2,201 36.toscoloplos ro ychaete (worm) 14.5% 8% Ca Pol 38 27 35 100 2,137 1% 50.pitella capitata ychaete (worm) 14. 9% Str ol 32 26 21 79 1,688 1% 62.eblospio gynobranchiata P ychaete (worm) 11. 0% Ha Tan 11 25 30 66 1,410 9.3% 71.rgeria rapax aid (crustacean) 3% Cyc Cu 21 13 14 48 1,026 6.8% 78.laspis varians macean (crustacean) 1% Gra oides Am 12 8 20 40 855 5.6% 83.ndidierella bonnier phipod (crustacean) 7% Heteromastus filiformis Pol 5 4 6 15 321 2.1% 85.ychaete (worm) 8% Caulleriella Polychaete 5 4 4 13 278 1.8% 87.(worm) 6% Me Iso 4 2 6 12 256 1.7% 89.santhura floridensis pod (crustacean) 3% Chione cancellata Biv 4 2 5 11 235 1.5% 90.alve 9% Ete Pol 1 2 4 7 150 1.0% 91.one heteropoda ychaete (worm) 8% Pri ol 1 4 1 6 128 0.8% 92.onospio heterobranchia P ychaete (worm) 7% Tellina Bivalve 2 1 3 6 128 0.8% 93.5% Am Pol 0 1 3 4 85 0.6% 94.pharetidae ychaete (worm) 1% Oligochaeta Oligochaete 2 0 2 4 85 0.6% 94.(worm) 7% Alm oculae Cu 1 0 3 4 85 0.6% 95.yracuma nr. proxim macean (crustacean) 2% Ne Rib 2 0 1 3 64 0.4% 95.mertea bon worm 6% Ha Ga 2 0 1 3 64 0.4% 96.minoea stropod 1% Lucinoma filosa Biv 0 3 0 3 64 0.4% 96.alve 5% My Biv 0 3 0 3 64 0.4% 96.sella planulata alve 9% Am Am 1 1 1 3 64 0.4% 97.pelisca burkei phipod (crustacean) 3% Am Pol 0 0 2 2 43 0.3% 97.phicteis gunneri ychaete (worm) 6% Edo Iso 1 0 1 2 43 0.3% 97.tea montosa pod (crustacean) 9% Diopatra cuprea Pol 1 0 0 1 21 0.1% 98.ychaete (worm) 0% Pol Pol 1 0 0 1 21 0.1% 98.ydora ligni ychaete (worm) 2% Sco Pol 0 0 1 1 21 0.1% 98.lelepis texana ychaete (worm) 3% Ctenodrilus Polychaete orm) 1 0 0 1 21 0.1% 98.(w 5% Armandia maculata Pol 1 0 0 1 21 0.1% 98.ychaete (worm) 6% Me Pol 0 1 0 1 21 0.1% 98.diomastus ambiseta ychaete (worm) 7% Fabriciola Polychaete 0 0 1 1 21 0.1% 98.(worm) 9% Ga Ga 1 0 0 1 21 0.1 99.stropoda juv stropod % 0% Biv Biv 1 0 0 1 21 0.1 99.alvia juv. alve % 2% Ana Biv 1 0 0 1 21 0.1% 99.dara transversa alve 3% Par Biv 1 0 0 1 21 0.1% 99.vilucina multilineata alve 4% Lae Biv 0 0 1 1 21 0.1% 99.vicardium mortoni alve 6% Trachycardium eg Bivalve 1 0 0 1 21 0.1% 99.montianum 7% Ampelisca holmesi Amphipod (crustacean) 0 1 0 1 21 0.1% 99.9% Corophiidae Corophiid amphipod 0 1 0 1 21 0.1% 100.0%

- 62 -

Appendix Table 1. Continued.

Woodmere Creek Type of Number Ind Cumulative Taxa Organism Rep1 Rep2 Rep3 Total per m2 Percent Percent

Laeonereis culveri Polychaete (worm) 77 29 113 219 4,679 29.8% 29.8% Oligochaeta Oligochaete (worm) 4 65 6 75 1,603 10.2% 40.0% Grandidierella bonnieroides Amphipod (crustacean) 28 30 3 61 1,303 8.3% 48.3% Leitoscoloplos Polychaete (worm) 19 19 22 60 1,282 8.2% 56.5% Xenanthura brevitelson Isopod (crustacean) 27 18 7 52 1,111 7.1% 63.5% Ampelisca burkei Amphipod (crustacean) 11 26 3 40 855 5.4% 69.0% Corophiidae Corophiid amphipod 33 3 2 38 812 5.2% 74.1% Capitella capitata Polychaete (worm) 10 7 12 29 620 3.9% 78.1% Tellina mera Bivalve 11 12 1 24 513 3.3% 81.4% Hargeria rapax Tanaid (crustacean) 16 7 0 23 491 3.1% 84.5% Amphicteis gunneri Polychaete (worm) 1 14 0 15 321 2.0% 86.5% Chone Polychaete (worm) 4 8 0 12 256 1.6% 88.2% Ophryotrocha Polychaete (worm) 0 0 10 10 214 1.4% 89.5% Halmyrapseudes bahamensis Mysid (crustacean) 5 5 0 10 214 1.4% 90.9% Aricidea philbinae Polychaete (worm) 0 6 0 6 128 0.8% 91.7% Caulleriella Polychaete (worm) 3 1 2 6 128 0.8% 92.5% Almyracuma nr. proximoculae Cumacean (crustacean) 0 3 3 6 128 0.8% 93.3% Ampelisca holmesi Amphipod (crustacean) 3 3 0 6 128 0.8% 94.1% Mysella planulata Bivalve 3 2 0 5 107 0.7% 94.8% Cyclaspis varians Cumacean (crustacean) 1 4 0 5 107 0.7% 95.5% Nemertea Ribbon worm 1 1 1 3 64 0.4% 95.9% Prionospio heterobranchia Polychaete (worm) 0 3 0 3 64 0.4% 96.3% Amygdalum papyrium Bivalve 0 3 0 3 64 0.4% 96.7% Edotea montosa Isopod (crustacean) 2 1 0 3 64 0.4% 97.1% Eteone heteropoda Polychaete (worm) 1 1 0 2 43 0.3% 97.4% Glycinde solitaria Polychaete (worm) 2 0 0 2 43 0.3% 97.7% Polydora Polychaete (worm) 1 1 0 2 43 0.3% 98.0% Scolelepis texana Polychaete (worm) 1 1 0 2 43 0.3% 98.2% Pectinaria gouldii Polychaete (worm) 0 2 0 2 43 0.3% 98.5% Tagelus plebeius Bivalve 1 1 0 2 43 0.3% 98.8% Exogone Polychaete (worm) 1 0 0 1 21 0.1% 98.9% Neanthes acuminata Polychaete (worm) 1 0 0 1 21 0.1% 99.0% Glycera americana Polychaete (worm) 1 0 0 1 21 0.1% 99.2% Armandia maculata Polychaete (worm) 0 0 1 1 21 0.1% 99.3% Mediomastus ambiseta Polychaete (worm) 1 0 0 1 21 0.1% 99.5% Nassarius vibex Gastropod 0 1 0 1 21 0.1% 99.6% Rictaxis punctostriatus Gastropod 0 1 0 1 21 0.1% 99.7% Bivalvia juv. Bivalve 0 1 0 1 21 0.1% 99.9% Acteocina canaliculata Gastropod 0 0 1 1 21 0.1% 100.0%

- 63 -

Appendix Table 1. Continued.

Alligator Creek Type of Number Ind Cumulative Taxa Organism Rep1 Rep2 Rep3 Total per m2 Percent Percent

Laeonereis culveri Polychaete (worm) 70 42 86 198 4,231 24.5% 24.5% Hargeria rapax Tanaid (crustacean) 37 62 37 136 2,906 16.8% 41.3% Corophiidae Corophiid amphipod 44 18 47 109 2,329 13.5% 54.8% Leitoscoloplos robustus Polychaete (worm) 26 23 46 95 2,030 11.7% 66.5% Capitella capitata Polychaete (worm) 30 17 22 69 1,474 8.5% 75.0% Heteromastus filiformis Polychaete (worm) 34 20 15 69 1,474 8.5% % 83.6Halmyrapseudes bahamensis Mysid (crustacean) 8 9 8 25 534 3.1% 86.7% Cyclaspis varians Cumacean (crustacean) 3 13 4 20 427 2.5% 89.1% Grandidierella bonnieroides Amphipod (crustacean) 6 3 6 15 321 1.9% 91.0% Prionospio heterobranchia Polychaete (worm) 3 5 1 9 192 1.1% 92.1% Eteone heteropoda Polychaete (worm) 4 4 0 8 171 1.0% 93.1% Streptosyllis pettiboneae Polychaete (worm) 2 1 5 8 171 1.0% 94.1% Mysella planulata Bivalve 1 3 2 6 128 0.7% 94.8% Amphicteis gunneri Polychaete (worm) 3 2 0 5 107 0.6% 95.4% Chone Polychaete (worm) 1 2 2 5 107 0.6% 96.0% Scolelepis texana Polychaete (worm) 1 1 2 4 85 0.5% 96.5% Nemertea Ribbon worm 0 3 0 3 64 0.4% 96.9% Chione cancellata Bivalve 0 1 2 3 64 0.4% 97.3% Ampelisca agassizi Amphipod (crustacean) 2 0 1 3 64 0.4% 97.7% Caulleriella Polychaete (worm) 0 0 2 2 43 0.2% 97.9% Oligochaeta Oligochaete (worm) 1 1 0 2 43 0.2% 98.1% Oxyurostylis smithi Cumacean (crustacean) 1 1 0 2 43 0.2% 98.4% Ampelisca Amphipod (crustacean) 1 0 1 2 43 0.2% 98.6% Ampelisca holmesi Amphipod (crustacean) 0 2 0 2 43 0.2% 98.9% Neanthes acuminata Polychaete (worm) 0 1 0 1 21 0.1% 99.0% Polydora ligni Polychaete (worm) 0 1 0 1 21 0.1% 99.1% Mediomastus ambiseta Polychaete (worm) 0 0 1 1 21 0.1% 99.3% Haminoea Gastropod 1 0 0 1 21 0.1% 99.4% Haminoea antillarum Gastropod 0 0 1 1 21 0.1% 99.5% Tellina Bivalve 1 0 0 1 21 0.1% 99.6% Anomalocardia auberiana Bivalve 1 0 0 1 21 0.1% 99.8% Taphromysis bowmani Mysid (crustacean) 0 1 0 1 21 0.1% 99.9% Edotea montosa Isopod (crustacean) 0 1 0 1 21 0.1% 100.0%

- 64 -

Appendix Table 1. Continued.

Matheny Creek Type of Number Ind Cumulative Taxa Organism Rep1 Rep2 Rep3 Total per m2 Percent Percent

Cymadusa compta Amphipod (crustacean) 17 8 38 63 905 29.9% 29.9% Hourstonius laguna Amphipod (crustacean) 5 3 19 27 388 12.8% 42.7% Ophryotrocha Polychaete (worm) 2 1 18 21 302 10.0% 52.6% Harrieta faxoni Isopod (crustacean) 9 2 8 19 273 9.0% 61.6% Oligochaeta Oligochaete (worm) 0 4 9 13 187 6.2% 67.8% Melita Amphipod (crustacean) 0 0 13 13 187 6.2% 73.9% Exogone Polychaete (worm) 1 1 8 10 144 4.7% 78.7% Laeonereis culveri Polychaete (worm) 5 0 0 5 72 2.4% 81.0% Hargeria rapax Tanaid (crustacean) 0 0 5 5 72 2.4% 83.4% Grandidierella bonnieroides Amphipod (crustacean) 0 0 5 5 72 2.4% 85.8% Polydora ligni Polychaete (worm) 2 0 2 4 57 1.9% 87.7% Ctenodrilus Polychaete (worm) 1 1 2 4 57 1.9% 89.6% Capitella capitata Polychaete (worm) 2 0 2 4 57 1.9% 91.5% Podarkeopsis levifuscina Polychaete (worm) 0 0 2 2 29 0.9% 92.4% Stenoninereis martini Polychaete (worm) 0 2 0 2 29 0.9% 93.4% Opisthobranchia Sea slug 0 0 2 2 29 0.9% 94.3% Actiniaria Anemone 1 0 0 1 14 0.5% 94.8% Parahesione luteola Polychaete (worm) 1 0 0 1 14 0.5% 95.3% Autolytus Polychaete (worm) 0 1 0 1 14 0.5% 95.7% Sphaerodoridae Polychaete (worm) 1 0 0 1 14 0.5% 96.2% Aricidea philbinae Polychaete (worm) 0 0 1 1 14 0.5% 96.7% Vitrinella Gastropod 1 0 0 1 14 0.5% 97.2% Caecum nitidum Gastropod 0 0 1 1 14 0.5% 97.6% Anomalocardia auberiana Bivalve 1 0 0 1 14 0.5% 98.1% Erichsonella filiformis Isopod (crustacean) 0 0 1 1 14 0.5% 98.6% Ampelisca burkei Amphipod (crustacean) 0 0 1 1 14 0.5% 99.1% Corophiidae Corophiid amphipod 0 0 1 1 14 0.5% 99.5% Dulichiella appendiculata Amphipod (crustacean) 1 0 0 1 14 0.5% 100.0%

- 65 -

Appendix Table 1. Continued.

Curry Creek Type of Number Ind Cumulative Taxa Organism Rep1 Rep2 Rep3 Total per m2 Percent Percent

Laeonereis culveri Polychaete (worm) 95 151 155 401 8,568 59.7% 59.7% Capitella capitata Polychaete (worm) 24 25 33 82 1,752 12.2% 71.9% Leitoscoloplos robustus Polychaete (worm) 4 26 19 49 1,047 7.3% 79.2% Amphicteis gunneri Polychaete (worm) 20 6 6 32 684 4.8% 83.9% Grandidierella bonnieroides Amphipod (crustacean) 7 6 6 19 406 2.8% 86.8% Streblospio gynobranchiata Polychaete (worm) 5 5 6 16 342 2.4% 89.1% Caulleriella Polychaete (worm) 9 1 2 12 256 1.8% 90.9% Heteromastus filiformis Polychaete (worm) 3 5 2 10 214 1.5% 92.4% Mesanthura floridensis Isopod (crustacean) 3 3 3 9 192 1.3% 93.8% Cyclaspis varians Cumacean (crustacean) 3 1 3 7 150 1.0% 94.8% Prionospio heterobranchia Polychaete (worm) 2 3 1 6 128 0.9% 95.7% Hargeria rapax Tanaid (crustacean) 3 0 3 6 128 0.9% 96.6% Taphromysis bowmani Mysid (crustacean) 2 0 2 4 85 0.6% 97.2% Ampelisca burkei Amphipod (crustacean) 1 1 1 3 64 0.4% 97.6% Nemertea Ribbon worm 1 1 0 2 43 0.3% 97.9% Eteone heteropoda Polychaete (worm) 0 2 0 2 43 0.3% 98.2% Fabriciola Polychaete (worm) 0 1 1 2 43 0.3% 98.5% Rictaxis punctostriatus Gastropod 1 1 0 2 43 0.3% 98.8% Actiniaria Anemone 1 0 0 1 21 0.1% 99.0% Neanthes acuminata Polychaete (worm) 1 0 0 1 21 0.1% 99.1% Stenoninereis martini Polychaete (worm) 0 1 0 1 21 0.1% 99.3% Armandia maculata Polychaete (worm) 0 1 0 1 21 0.1% 99.4% Pectinaria gouldii Polychaete (worm) 0 1 0 1 21 0.1% 99.6% Oligochaeta Oligochaete (worm) 1 0 0 1 21 0.1% 99.7% Haminoea Gastropod 1 0 0 1 21 0.1% 99.9% Amygdalum papyrium Bivalve 0 1 0 1 21 0.1% 100.0%

- 66 -

Appendix Table 1. Continued.

Hatchett Creek Type of Number Ind Cumulative Taxa Organism Rep1 Rep2 Rep3 Total per m2 Percent Percent

Laeonereis culveri Polychaete (worm) 30 22 37 89 1,902 30.0% 30.0% Capitella capitata Polychaete (worm) 21 8 27 56 1,197 18.9% 48.8% Grandidierella bonnieroides Amphipod (crustacean) 5 3 35 43 919 14.5% 63.3% Leitoscoloplos robustus Polychaete (worm) 16 5 9 30 641 10.1% 73.4% Hargeria rapax Tanaid (crustacean) 8 8 10 26 556 8.8% 82.2% Chione cancellata Bivalve 6 3 5 14 299 4.7% 86.9% Heteromastus filiformis Polychaete (worm) 1 1 5 7 150 2.4% 89.2% Bivalvia juv. Bivalve 4 0 1 5 107 1.7% 90.9% Cyclaspis varians Cumacean (crustacean) 3 0 2 5 107 1.7% 92.6% Mysella planulata Bivalve 0 1 2 3 64 1.0% 93.6% Taphromysis bowmani Mysid (crustacean) 0 0 3 3 64 1.0% 94.6% Ampelisca holmesi Amphipod (crustacean) 0 0 3 3 64 1.0% 95.6% Eteone heteropoda Polychaete (worm) 1 0 1 2 43 0.7% 96.3% Aplysiidae Gastropod 0 0 2 2 43 0.7% 97.0% Oxyurostylis smithi Cumacean (crustacean) 0 0 2 2 43 0.7% 97.6% Neanthes acuminata Polychaete (worm) 0 0 1 1 21 0.3% 98.0% Polydora ligni Polychaete (worm) 0 0 1 1 21 0.3% 98.3% Prionospio heterobranchia Polychaete (worm) 0 0 1 1 21 0.3% 98.7% Streblospio gynobranchiata Polychaete (worm) 0 0 1 1 21 0.3% 99.0% Caulleriella Polychaete (worm) 0 1 0 1 21 0.3% 99.3% Oligochaeta Oligochaete (worm) 1 0 0 1 21 0.3% 99.7% Almyracuma nr. proximoculae Cumacean (crustacean) 0 0 1 1 21 0.3% 100.0%

- 67 -

Appendix Table 1. Continued.

Clower Creek Type of Number Ind Cumulative Taxa Organism Rep1 Rep2 Rep3 Total per m2 Percent Percent

Oligochaeta Oligochaete (worm) 14 2 6 22 316 20.4% 20.4% Ophryotrocha Polychaete (worm) 8 8 3 19 273 17.6% 38.0% Tellina mera Bivalve 3 2 7 12 172 11.1% 49.1% Elasmopus laevis Isopod (crustacean) 5 0 6 11 158 10.2% 59.3% Ampelisca abdita Amphipod (crustacean) 4 2 3 9 129 8.3% 67.6% Parastarte triquetra Bivalve 2 1 2 5 72 4.6% 72.2% Parahesione luteola Polychaete (worm) 1 0 3 4 57 3.7% 75.9% Prionospio heterobranchia Polychaete (worm) 4 0 0 4 57 3.7% 79.6% Haminoea Gastropod 1 1 1 3 43 2.8% 82.4% Mysella planulata Bivalve 2 1 0 3 43 2.8% 85.2% Laeonereis culveri Polychaete (worm) 0 2 0 2 29 1.9% 87.0% Vitrinellidae Gastropod 0 1 1 2 29 1.9% 88.9% Acteocina canaliculata Gastropod 0 1 1 2 29 1.9% 90.7% Bivalvia juv. Bivalve 0 0 2 2 29 1.9% 92.6% Grandidierella bonnieroides Amphipod (crustacean) 1 0 1 2 29 1.9% 94.4% Actiniaria Anemone 0 1 0 1 14 0.9% 95.4% Glycinde solitaria Polychaete (worm) 1 0 0 1 14 0.9% 96.3% Mediomastus ambiseta Polychaete (worm) 1 0 0 1 14 0.9% 97.2% Mulinia lateralis Bivalve 0 1 0 1 14 0.9% 98.1% Sphenia antillensis Bivalve 0 0 1 1 14 0.9% 99.1% Cyclaspis varians Cumacean (crustacean) 1 0 0 1 14 0.9% 100.0%

- 68 -

Appendix Table 1. Continued.

Hydson Bayou Type of Number Ind Cumulative Taxa Organism Rep1 Rep2 Rep3 Total per m2 Percent Percent

Parastarte triquetra Bivalve 18 64 10 92 1,966 40.0% 40.0% Streblospio gynobranchiata Polychaete (worm) 17 16 5 38 812 16.5% 56.5% Laeonereis culveri Polychaete (worm) 12 14 9 35 748 15.2% 71.7% Ophryotrocha Polychaete (worm) 17 12 4 33 705 14.3% 86.1% Oligochaeta Oligochaete (worm) 2 2 4 8 171 3.5% 89.6% Stenoninereis martini Polychaete (worm) 1 1 2 4 85 1.7% 91.3% Mysella planulata Bivalve 1 2 1 4 85 1.7% 93.0% Capitella capitata Polychaete (worm) 1 2 0 3 64 1.3% 94.3% Mediomastus ambiseta Polychaete (worm) 2 0 0 2 43 0.9% 95.2% Abra aequalis Bivalve 0 1 1 2 43 0.9% 96.1% Actiniaria Anemone 1 0 0 1 21 0.4% 96.5% Podarkeopsis levifuscina Polychaete (worm) 0 0 1 1 21 0.4% 97.0% Streblosoma hartmanae Polychaete (worm) 1 0 0 1 21 0.4% 97.4% Acteocina canaliculata Gastropod 1 0 0 1 21 0.4% 97.8% Tellina versicolor Bivalve 0 0 1 1 21 0.4% 98.3% Tellina mera Bivalve 0 0 1 1 21 0.4% 98.7% Chione cancellata Bivalve 0 1 0 1 21 0.4% 99.1% Ampelisca burkei Amphipod (crustacean) 0 0 1 1 21 0.4% 99.6% Grandidierella bonnieroides Amphipod (crustacean) 1 0 0 1 21 0.4% 100.0%

- 69 -

- 70 -

Appendix Table 1. Continued.

Catfish Creek Type of Number Ind Cumulative Taxa Organism Rep1 Rep2 Rep3 Total per m2 Percent Percent

Laeonereis culveri Polychaete (worm) 77 25 37 139 2,970 53.3% 53.3% Stenoninereis martini Polychaete (worm) 21 2 15 38 812 14.6% 67.8% Streblospio gynobranchiata Polychaete (worm) 11 7 3 21 449 8.0% 75.9% Oligochaeta Oligochaete (worm) 13 0 4 17 363 6.5% 82.4% Capitella capitata Polychaete (worm) 6 2 3 11 235 4.2% 86.6% Lioplax Gastropod 1 4 5 10 214 3.8% 90.4% Corophiidae Corophiid amphipod 0 8 1 9 192 3.4% 93.9% Almyracuma nr. proximoculae Cumacean (crustacean) 1 0 2 3 64 1.1% 95.0% Nemertea Ribbon worm 0 1 1 2 43 0.8% 95.8% Leitoscoloplos Polychaete (worm) 0 1 1 2 43 0.8% 96.6% Hydrobiidae sp. B Gastropod 0 1 1 2 43 0.8% 97.3% Grandidierella bonnieroides Amphipod (crustacean) 0 2 0 2 43 0.8% 98.1% Hirudinea leach 1 0 0 1 21 0.4% 98.5% Hydrobiidae sp. A Gastropod 0 1 0 1 21 0.4% 98.9% Thiaridae Gastropod 0 0 1 1 21 0.4% 99.2% Mytilopsis leucophaeata Bivalve 0 1 0 1 21 0.4% 99.6% Ampelisca Amphipod (crustacean) 0 0 1 1 21 0.4% 100.0%

- 71 -

Appendix Table 1. Continued.

North Creek Type of Number Ind Cumulative

Taxa Organism Rep1 Rep2 Rep3 Total per m2 Percent Percent Grandidierella bonnieroides Amphipod (crustacean) 51 126 39 216 4,615 55.8% 55.8% Laeonereis culveri Polychaete (worm) 16 23 15 54 1,154 14.0% 69.8% Stenoninereis martini Polychaete (worm) 4 1 28 33 705 8.5% 78.3% Streblospio gynobranchiata Polychaete (worm) 4 8 11 23 491 5.9% 84.2% Corophiidae Corophiid amphipod 0 16 5 21 449 5.4% 89.7% Oligochaeta Oligochaete (worm) 1 6 7 14 299 3.6% 93.3% Actiniaria Anemone 4 2 5 11 235 2.8% 96.1% Nemertea Ribbon worm 1 6 1 8 171 2.1% 98.2% Capitella capitata Polychaete (worm) 0 2 0 2 43 0.5% 98.7% Hirudinea leach 0 2 0 2 43 0.5% 99.2% Eteone heteropoda Polychaete (worm) 1 0 0 1 21 0.3% 99.5% Polydora ligni Polychaete (worm) 0 1 0 1 21 0.3% 99.7% Edotea montosa Isopod (crustacean) 0 1 0 1 21 0.3% 100.0%

Whitaker Bayou Type of Number Ind Cumulative Taxa Organism Rep1 Rep2 Rep3 Total per m2 Percent Percent

Capitella capitata Polychaete (worm) 35 66 57 158 3,376 64.8% 64.8% Laeonereis culveri Polychaete (worm) 9 39 27 75 1,603 30.7% 95.5% Oligochaeta Oligochaete (worm) 1 4 2 7 150 2.9% 98.4% Stenoninereis martini Polychaete (worm) 0 1 0 1 21 0.4% 98.8% Mysidae Mysid ) 0 1 0 1 21 0.4% 99.2% (crustaceanCyclaspis varians Cumacean (crustacean) 1 0 0 1 21 0.4% 99.6% Grandidierella bonnieroides Amphipod (crustacean) 0 0 1 1 21 0.4% 100.0%

Appendix Table 2. Benthic species data representing the percentage composition of the total fauna by species for each station, and sorted by greatest percentage.

Taxa No.

Creeks Max % Ain

ger

Alli

gato

r

Cat

fish

Clo

wer

Cur

ry

Fork

ed

Got

tfri

ed

Hat

chet

t

Hud

son

B.

Mat

heny

Nor

th

Phill

ippi

Shak

ett

Sout

h

Whi

take

r B

.

Woo

dmer

e

Capitella capitata 15 64.75 1.99 8.53 4.21 -- 12.20 3.87 0.42 18.86 1.30 1.90 0.52 2.96 14.06 0.16 64.75 3.95 Laeonereis culveri 16 59.67 44.47 24.47 53.26 1.85 59.67 2.76 27.41 29.97 15.22 2.37 13.95 11.96 22.36 8.25 30.74 29.80 Grandidierella bonnieroides 15 55.81 2.54 1.85 0.77 1.85 2.83 -- 0.07 14.48 0.43 2.37 55.81 3.49 5.63 0.79 0.41 8.30 Parastarte triquetra 5 40.00 0.27 -- -- 4.63 -- 22.10 -- -- 40.00 -- -- 0.42 -- -- -- -- Fabriciola 5 36.57 2.81 -- -- -- 0.30 -- 36.57 -- -- -- -- -- 0.14 0.48 -- -- Xenanthura brevitelson 5 35.08 0.41 -- -- -- -- -- 0.63 -- -- -- -- 19.58 -- 35.08 -- 7.07 Cymadusa compta 1 29.86 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 29.86 -- -- -- -- -- -- Oligochaeta 14 20.37 -- 0.25 6.51 20.37 0.15 0.28 0.70 0.34 3.48 6.16 3.62 0.21 0.56 -- 2.87 10.20 Ophryotrocha 6 17.59 0.21 -- -- 17.59 -- -- 0.42 -- 14.35 9.95 -- -- -- -- -- 1.36 Hargeria rapax 11 16.81 0.55 16.81 -- -- 0.89 0.55 0.07 8.75 -- 2.37 -- 9.42 9.28 6.67 -- 3.13 Streblospio gynobranchiata 8 16.52 -- -- 8.05 -- 2.38 0.28 -- 0.34 16.52 -- 5.94 0.32 11.11 -- -- -- Corophiidae 10 15.77 1.72 13.47 3.45 -- -- 0.83 0.07 -- -- 0.47 5.43 15.77 0.14 -- -- 5.17 Axiothella mucosa 4 15.17 15.17 -- -- -- -- -- 11.96 -- -- -- -- 0.11 -- 0.63 -- -- Leitoscoloplos robustus 9 14.71 2.68 11.74 -- -- 7.29 0.55 2.73 10.10 -- -- -- 14.71 14.49 0.95 -- -- Stenoninereis martini 6 14.56 -- -- 14.56 -- 0.15 -- -- -- 1.74 0.95 8.53 -- -- -- 0.41 -- Ampelisca agassizi 4 14.36 0.21 0.37 -- -- -- 14.36 0.35 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Hourstonius laguna 1 12.80 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 12.80 -- -- -- -- -- -- Tellina mera 7 11.11 0.21 -- -- 11.11 -- -- 0.14 -- 0.43 -- -- 0.21 -- 0.32 -- 3.27 Elasmopus laevis 1 10.19 -- -- -- 10.19 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Halmyrapseudes bahamensis 4 9.05 -- 3.09 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.11 -- 9.05 -- 1.36 Harrieta faxoni 1 9.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 9.00 -- -- -- -- -- -- Heteromastus filiformis 9 8.53 5.22 8.53 -- -- 1.49 0.28 3.57 2.36 -- -- -- 2.01 2.11 1.43 -- -- Ampelisca abdita 1 8.33 -- -- -- 8.33 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Leitoscoloplos 2 8.16 -- -- 0.77 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 8.16 Caulleriella 9 6.79 6.79 0.25 -- -- 1.79 -- 0.91 0.34 -- -- -- 0.11 1.83 4.44 -- 0.82 Cyclaspis varians 12 6.75 0.48 2.47 -- 0.93 1.04 3.59 2.31 1.68 -- -- -- 2.54 6.75 1.27 0.41 0.68

- 72 -

Appendix Table 2. Continued.

Taxa No.

Creeks Max % Ain

ger

Alli

gato

r

Cat

fish

Clo

wer

Cur

ry

Fork

ed

Got

tfri

ed

Hat

chet

t

Hud

son

B.

Mat

heny

Nor

th

Phill

ippi

Shak

ett

Sout

h

Whi

take

r B

.

Woo

dmer

e

Melita 1 6.16 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 6.16 -- -- -- -- -- -- Acteocina canaliculata 6 6.08 -- -- -- 1.85 -- 6.08 -- -- 0.43 -- -- 0.21 -- 0.48 -- 0.14 Ampelisca burkei 7 5.71 -- -- -- -- 0.45 -- -- -- 0.43 0.47 -- 3.07 0.42 5.71 -- 5.44 Scolelepis texana 7 5.52 -- 0.49 -- -- -- 5.52 0.07 -- -- -- -- 0.74 0.14 0.16 -- 0.27 Amphicteis gunneri 6 4.76 0.62 0.62 -- -- 4.76 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.74 0.28 -- -- 2.04 Exogone 3 4.74 0.14 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 4.74 -- -- -- -- -- 0.14 Chione cancellata 5 4.71 -- 0.37 -- -- -- -- -- 4.71 0.43 -- -- -- 1.55 0.95 -- -- Lyonsia floridana 5 4.70 1.17 -- -- -- -- 4.70 0.56 -- -- -- -- 1.27 -- 0.32 -- -- Mysella planulata 10 4.70 -- 0.74 -- 2.78 -- 4.70 0.07 1.01 1.74 -- -- 0.32 0.42 0.16 -- 0.68 Prionospio heterobranchia 11 4.42 4.32 1.11 -- 3.70 0.89 4.42 1.47 0.34 -- -- -- 1.38 0.84 3.65 -- 0.41 Magelona pettiboneae 1 4.14 -- -- -- -- -- 4.14 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Lioplax 1 3.83 -- -- 3.83 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Parahesione luteola 2 3.70 -- -- -- 3.70 -- -- -- -- -- 0.47 -- -- -- -- -- -- Almyracuma nr. proximoculae 6 3.60 -- -- 1.15 -- -- -- 0.07 0.34 -- -- -- 3.60 0.56 -- -- 0.82 Monticellina dorsobranchialis 2 3.08 -- -- -- -- -- -- 3.08 -- -- -- -- -- -- 1.11 -- -- Kinbergonuphis simoni 2 3.02 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.14 -- -- -- -- -- -- 3.02 -- -- Actiniaria 8 2.84 -- -- -- 0.93 0.15 0.83 0.07 -- 0.43 0.47 2.84 0.11 -- -- -- -- Haminoea 4 2.78 -- 0.12 -- 2.78 0.15 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.42 -- -- -- Ampelisca holmesi 7 2.70 0.21 0.25 -- -- -- -- 0.28 1.01 -- -- -- -- 0.14 2.70 -- 0.82 Asychis elongata 3 2.49 -- -- -- -- -- 2.49 -- -- -- -- -- 0.11 -- 0.48 -- -- Neanthes acuminata 8 2.40 2.40 0.12 -- -- 0.15 -- 1.33 0.34 -- -- -- 0.11 -- 1.27 -- 0.14 Oxyurostylis smithi 7 2.21 0.07 0.25 -- -- -- 2.21 0.07 0.67 -- -- -- 0.32 -- 0.48 -- -- Nemertea 11 2.07 0.14 0.37 0.77 -- 0.30 0.83 0.56 -- -- -- 2.07 0.74 0.42 0.63 -- 0.41 Aricidea philbinae 6 2.06 0.21 -- -- -- -- -- 0.77 -- -- 0.47 -- 0.32 -- 2.06 -- 0.82 Chone 6 1.93 0.21 0.62 -- -- -- 1.93 0.07 -- -- -- -- 0.32 -- -- -- 1.63 Typosyllis 4 1.92 1.92 -- -- -- -- -- 0.28 -- -- -- -- 0.11 -- 0.95 -- --

- 73 -

Appendix Table 2. Continued.

Taxa No.

Creeks Max % Ain

ger

Alli

gato

r

Cat

fish

Clo

wer

Cur

ry

Fork

ed

Got

tfri

ed

Hat

chet

t

Hud

son

B.

Mat

heny

Nor

th

Phill

ippi

Shak

ett

Sout

h

Whi

take

r B

.

Woo

dmer

e

Ctenodrilus 4 1.90 0.41 -- -- -- -- -- 0.42 -- -- 1.90 -- -- 0.14 -- -- -- Polydora ligni 5 1.90 -- 0.12 -- -- -- -- -- 0.34 -- 1.90 0.26 -- 0.14 -- -- -- Bivalvia 5 1.85 -- -- -- 1.85 -- 0.55 -- 1.68 -- -- -- -- 0.14 -- -- 0.14 Vitrinellidae 1 1.85 -- -- -- 1.85 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Mesanthura floridensis 3 1.69 -- -- -- -- 1.34 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1.69 0.48 -- -- Haminoea succinea 1 1.38 -- -- -- -- -- 1.38 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Streblosoma hartmanae 3 1.11 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.35 -- 0.43 -- -- -- -- 1.11 -- -- Amygdalum papyrium 6 1.10 -- -- -- -- 0.15 1.10 0.07 -- -- -- -- 0.11 -- 0.48 -- 0.41 Eteone heteropoda 10 1.10 0.07 0.99 -- -- 0.30 1.10 -- 0.67 -- -- 0.26 0.53 0.98 0.16 -- 0.27 Megalomma pigmentum 1 1.10 -- -- -- -- -- 1.10 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Taphromysis bowmani 6 1.01 0.07 0.12 -- -- 0.60 -- -- 1.01 -- -- -- 0.11 -- 0.32 -- -- Streptosyllis pettiboneae 3 0.99 0.14 0.99 -- -- -- -- 0.07 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Opisthobranchia 1 0.95 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.95 -- -- -- -- -- -- Podarkeopsis levifuscina 3 0.95 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.43 0.95 -- -- -- 0.32 -- -- Glycinde solitaria 4 0.93 -- -- -- 0.93 -- 0.55 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.16 -- 0.27 Mediomastus ambiseta 7 0.93 -- 0.12 -- 0.93 -- 0.28 -- -- 0.87 -- -- -- 0.14 0.48 -- 0.14 Mulinia lateralis 2 0.93 -- -- -- 0.93 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.21 -- -- -- -- Sphenia antillensis 1 0.93 -- -- -- 0.93 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Abra aequalis 1 0.87 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.87 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Tellina 4 0.84 -- 0.12 -- -- -- -- 0.07 -- -- -- -- -- 0.84 0.16 -- -- Erichthonius brasiliensis 1 0.83 -- -- -- -- -- 0.83 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Haminoea antillarum 4 0.83 -- 0.12 -- -- -- 0.83 0.07 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.16 -- -- Hydrobiidae sp. B 1 0.77 -- -- 0.77 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Aplysiidae 2 0.67 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.07 0.67 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Rudilemboides naglei 2 0.63 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.11 -- 0.63 -- -- Ampharetidae 1 0.56 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.56 -- -- --

- 74 -

Appendix Table 2. Continued.

Taxa No.

Creeks Max % Ain

ger

Alli

gato

r

Cat

fish

Clo

wer

Cur

ry

Fork

ed

Got

tfri

ed

Hat

chet

t

Hud

son

B.

Mat

heny

Nor

th

Phill

ippi

Shak

ett

Sout

h

Whi

take

r B

.

Woo

dmer

e

Anomalocardia auberiana 5 0.55 0.07 0.12 -- -- -- 0.55 -- -- -- 0.47 -- 0.11 -- -- -- -- Eulimastoma 1 0.55 -- -- -- -- -- 0.55 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Laevicardium mortoni 3 0.55 -- -- -- -- -- 0.55 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.14 0.16 -- -- Pectinaria gouldii 4 0.55 -- -- -- -- 0.15 0.55 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.16 -- 0.27 Teinostoma 1 0.55 -- -- -- -- -- 0.55 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Hirudinea 2 0.52 -- -- 0.38 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.52 -- -- -- -- -- Armandia maculata 4 0.48 -- -- -- -- 0.15 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.14 0.48 -- 0.14 Polydora socialis 3 0.48 0.21 -- -- -- -- -- 0.14 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.48 -- -- Autolytus 1 0.47 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.47 -- -- -- -- -- -- Caecum nitidum 1 0.47 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.47 -- -- -- -- -- -- Dulichiella appendiculata 1 0.47 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.47 -- -- -- -- -- -- Erichsonella filiformis 1 0.47 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.47 -- -- -- -- -- -- Sphaerodoridae 1 0.47 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.47 -- -- -- -- -- -- Vitrinella 1 0.47 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.47 -- -- -- -- -- -- Tellina versicolor 1 0.43 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.43 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Rictaxis punctostriatus 3 0.42 -- -- -- -- 0.30 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.42 -- -- -- 0.14 Lucinoma filosa 1 0.42 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.42 -- -- -- Mysidae 1 0.41 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.41 -- Edotea montosa 5 0.41 -- 0.12 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.26 0.32 0.28 -- -- 0.41 Ampelisca 3 0.38 0.21 0.25 0.38 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Hydrobiidae sp. A 1 0.38 -- -- 0.38 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Mytilopsis leucophaeata 1 0.38 -- -- 0.38 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Thiaridae 1 0.38 -- -- 0.38 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Arenicola cristata 1 0.34 0.34 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Leptosynapta 1 0.28 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.28 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Bulla striata 1 0.28 -- -- -- -- -- 0.28 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

- 75 -

- 76 -

Appendix Table 2. Continued.

Taxa No.

Creeks Max % Ain

ger

Alli

gato

r

Cat

fish

Clo

wer

Cur

ry

Fork

ed

Got

tfri

ed

Hat

chet

t

Hud

son

B.

Mat

heny

Nor

th

Phill

ippi

Shak

ett

Sout

h

Whi

take

r B

.

Woo

dmer

e

Caprellidae 1 0.28 -- -- -- -- -- 0.28 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Gastropoda 3 0.28 0.07 -- -- -- -- 0.28 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.14 -- -- -- Glycera 1 0.28 -- -- -- -- -- 0.28 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Melinna maculata 1 0.28 -- -- -- -- -- 0.28 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Nassarius vibex 2 0.28 -- -- -- -- -- 0.28 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.14 Paraprionospio pinnata 1 0.28 -- -- -- -- -- 0.28 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Turridae 1 0.28 -- -- -- -- -- 0.28 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Brania 2 0.27 0.27 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.11 -- -- -- -- Crepidula plana 1 0.27 0.27 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Sipuncula 3 0.27 0.27 -- -- -- -- -- 0.21 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.16 -- -- Polydora 1 0.27 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.27 Tagelus plebeius 1 0.27 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.27 Macoma tenta 2 0.21 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.07 -- -- -- -- 0.21 -- -- -- -- Platyhelminthes 2 0.21 0.07 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.21 -- -- -- -- Cirriformia 2 0.21 0.07 -- -- -- -- -- 0.21 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Branchiomma nigromaculata 3 0.16 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.07 -- -- -- -- 0.11 -- 0.16 -- -- Carazziella hobsonae 1 0.16 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.16 -- -- Tagelus divisus 1 0.16 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.16 -- -- Anadara transversa 1 0.14 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.14 -- -- -- Diopatra cuprea 1 0.14 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.14 -- -- -- Parvilucina multilineata 1 0.14 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.14 -- -- -- Trachycardium egmontianum 1 0.14 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.14 -- -- -- Astyris lunata 2 0.14 0.07 -- -- -- -- -- 0.14 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Sabellidae 1 0.14 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.14 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

- 77 -

Appendix Table 2. Continued.

Taxa No.

Creeks Max % Ain

ger

Alli

gato

r

Cat

fish

Clo

wer

Cur

ry

Fork

ed

Got

tfri

ed

Hat

chet

t

Hud

son

B.

Mat

heny

Nor

th

Phill

ippi

Shak

ett

Sout

h

Whi

take

r B

.

Woo

dmer

e

4 GlyceSpio BoCerithMuPoPoGastroSphaerosyllis Terebellidae

ra americana 1 0.14 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.1pettiboneae 2 0.11 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.07 -- -- -- -- 0.11 -- -- -- --

wmaniella floridana 2 0.07 0.07 -- -- -- -- -- 0.07 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ium muscarum 1 0.07 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.07 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

sculus lateralis 1 0.07 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.07 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- lycirrus 1 0.07 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.07 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- lynoidae 1 0.07 -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.07 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

pteron rubrum 1 0.07 0.07 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- taylori 1 0.07 0.07 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

1 0.07 0.07 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

- 78 -

Appendix Table 3. Percentage distribution of sediment particulates among grain size categories.

Lower size limit of fraction in microns

Station <0.49 0.49 0.69 0.98 1.38 1.95 2.76 3.91 5.52 7.81 11.00 15.60 22.10

Phillippi 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.11 0.18 0.27 0.38 0.47 0.55 0.58 0.59 0.55 0.42 Matheny 0.01 0.05 0.09 0.15 0.24 0.38 0.59 0.88 1.27 1.73 2.34 2.92 3.12 Ainger 0.01 0.03 0.08 0.16 0.29 0.50 0.76 1.06 1.39 1.65 1.82 1.66 1.23 Gottfried 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.14 0.19 0.24 0.29 0.37 0.49 0.68 0.84 0.83 Forked 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.12 0.18 0.24 0.30 0.38 0.45 0.55 0.61 0.52 Woodmere 0.01 0.04 0.07 0.11 0.17 0.26 0.39 0.57 0.82 1.12 1.52 1.89 2.06 Hatchett 0.00 0.02 0.11 0.18 0.23 0.27 0.32 0.40 0.55 0.74 1.01 1.28 1.37 Alligator 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.26 0.34 0.45 0.62 0.76 0.70 Curry 0.01 0.03 0.07 0.11 0.17 0.26 0.38 0.53 0.72 0.92 1.19 1.42 1.53 Shakett 0.01 0.04 0.08 0.13 0.22 0.34 0.52 0.73 1.00 1.28 1.59 1.76 1.69 Catfish 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.15 0.23 0.35 0.52 0.72 1.03 1.42 1.72 North 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.10 0.17 0.29 0.47 0.74 1.12 1.60 2.29 3.00 3.23 South 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.14 0.23 0.37 0.55 0.78 1.02 1.33 1.55 1.52 Clower 0.01 0.04 0.08 0.13 0.21 0.36 0.59 0.93 1.43 2.03 2.91 3.95 4.70 Whitaker 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.17 0.28 0.44 0.65 0.90 1.26 1.63 1.75 Hudson 0.02 0.09 0.15 0.21 0.30 0.44 0.69 1.09 1.66 2.37 3.40 4.63 5.50

Lower size limit of fraction in microns

Station 31.00 44.00 62.50 88.00 125 177 250 350 500 710 1000 1410 >2000

Phillippi 0.37 0.44 0.76 2.21 8.47 24.87 32.02 18.58 4.31 2.44 1.38 0.01 0.00 Matheny 3.24 3.33 3.57 6.50 13.59 18.78 16.50 10.64 4.56 2.59 2.07 0.85 0.00 Ainger 1.02 1.04 2.49 10.25 20.96 22.21 14.74 7.77 3.30 2.24 2.18 1.16 0.00 Gottfried 0.82 1.04 2.09 10.40 25.17 21.85 13.13 9.81 4.87 3.51 2.86 0.30 0.00 Forked 0.43 0.50 1.10 5.18 13.99 17.94 17.62 17.68 11.85 6.95 3.23 0.09 0.00 Woodmere 2.23 2.27 4.55 13.83 22.07 18.38 10.64 6.90 4.70 3.18 1.76 0.46 0.00 Hatchett 1.45 1.77 2.78 12.00 30.98 24.84 10.23 4.84 1.44 1.77 1.40 0.01 0.00 Alligator 0.66 0.72 0.90 1.86 7.24 19.46 27.07 22.28 9.90 4.34 1.90 0.01 0.00 Curry 1.72 1.88 2.95 8.99 18.28 21.33 17.16 12.07 5.83 2.03 0.43 0.01 0.00 Shakett 1.75 1.85 2.81 9.71 21.20 23.41 15.06 7.66 3.24 1.83 1.44 0.66 0.00 Catfish 2.00 2.17 2.40 3.93 8.34 15.16 18.87 17.60 11.05 6.31 4.05 1.81 0.00 North 3.15 2.91 3.10 5.34 9.17 13.82 18.31 17.79 9.00 3.20 1.05 0.06 0.00 South 1.49 1.38 2.22 7.96 17.13 20.74 17.22 12.50 6.74 3.18 1.48 0.34 0.00 Clower 5.57 6.73 8.03 10.36 12.09 10.55 7.86 5.90 4.56 4.76 4.29 1.93 0.00 Whitaker 1.74 1.72 1.68 1.93 5.29 15.19 23.67 22.94 12.33 4.76 1.46 0.08 0.00 Hudson 6.41 7.55 8.56 10.18 12.54 13.05 9.55 5.03 2.24 2.08 1.79 0.46 0.00