[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]





                                                                                  /n

















                           WINDSTAR MANGROVE MITIGATION SITE





                                 FINAL PROGRESS REPORT









                                    Principal Authors

                                   Dr. Edward Proffitt
                            Director. Florida Regional Office
                             Center for Marine Conservation


                                            and


                                   Ms. Donna J. Devlin
                     Marine Ecologist, Collier County Government and
                      Adjunct staff, Center for Marine Conservation


                                  Date: January     1990








           Funds for this project were provided by the Department of
           Environmental Regulation, Office of Coastal Manaaement usino
           funds made available throuQh the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
           Administration under the Coastal Zone Mananement- Act of 1-772, as
           amended.















                                        E C UT V F S L I M MA RY



           FINAL PROGRESS REPORT TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
           ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION (DER), OFFICE OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT, ON
           THE INVESTIGATION OF MANGROVE FOREST HABITATS THAT HAVE BEEN
           CREATED THROUGH MITIGATION.



           OBJECTIVE: To provide DER      with a final progress report on the
           investigation of mangrove forest communities that have been
           created through mitigation at Windstar Resort, an Naples Bay, in
           Collier County, Florida.



           CONSIDERATIONS:


           On 01 January, 19e9, research was initiated on a comparative
           study of mangrove forest communities at Windstar Resort, on
           Naples Bay; this study was designed as part of an ongoing Coastal
           Zone Management (C2M) coastal management plan for Collier County.
           The study is designed to compare naturally occurring mangrove
           habitat with artificially created (planted) mangrove systems; the
           artificially produced forests were planted by the Windstar
           Development as mitigation for destruction of habitat during
           development. The purpose of the research is to obtain data that
           will    contribute to the understanding of the productivity,
           viability, and practicality of prescribed mitigation efforts in
           two fundamental areas: 1) the rate of survival and growth of the
           mangroves that were originally planted seven years before the
           start of the study; 2) colonization by other plant species in the
           mitigation sites, and the implications that this may have on
           succession in mitigated areas. The attached report is a synapsis
           of work, compiled from the previous 12 months, on the Coastal
           Zone Management mangrove mitigation research study that has been
           contracted by Collier County to the Center for Environmental
           Education, Edison Community College, and Friends of Rookery Bay.

           The study compares mitigated forest sites to existing natural
           areas by collecting and measuring mangrove leaf litter, stem tip
           growth rates, Soil salinity, and macro-invertebrate species
           composition through the duration of the study. Three pr.incipal
           components that are measured are: 1) extension growth of mangrove
           stems and production of leaf litter; 2) numbers of.replanted and
           naturally colonizing new mangroves; 3) species composition and
           numbers of individuals of macro-invertebrates associated with
           each site. Permanent study stations have been established in the
           interior of the replanted areas and in the naturally occurring
           mangrove forest, so that data may be collected at the same
           locations in the future. Additional data have been gathered on
           the amounts of herbivory Orl leaves, abundances of marine macro-
           fauna,    abundances of seagrasses, soil salinities, mangrove
           species composition within and outside of the MitigatiOT-1 SiteS7



                                              2












        and Mary other related observations in and around the study

        


        The project has been designed and study areas have been set up,
        so that the study may be continued over a long period of time.
        Sample areas and individual trees have been identified so that
        investigators will be able to return to the same Sample sites,
        and measurements may be repeated on the same individual tree
        branches in the future. Comparisons and continuous measurement of
        individual trees, and their Surroundings, will be possible during
        future studies of the mitigation sites, and their surrounding
        natural forest systems.

        Funds for this project were provided by the Department of
        Environmental Regulation, Office of Coastal Management using
        funds made available through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
        Administration under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as
        amended.

























































                                        3









                                  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


             Many people contributed to making this study possible. Mr.
        James N. Burch acted as liaison between Collier County and the
        principal investigators, provided field support (personally and
        other County staff), arranged for use of the County helicopter an
        two occasions, designed and constructed litter collecting boxes
        used in this study, provided expertisein plant identification
        and spent many hours collecting and measuring length, width, and
        area of leaves. Dr. Robert Twilley and Ms. Heather Warner of
        Southwestern Louisiana State University spent a considerable
        amount of time an the phone and on site (Ms. Warner) teaching us
        the techniques that they used to mark and measure mangrove stems,
        and generally discussing with us the sites, project, and data.
        Field assistance was provided by Mr. Keith Edwards, Ms. Kathryn
        Muldoon, Ms. Heidi B. Lovett, Ms. Maura Kraus, and Mr. Steven
        Grabe.    Mr. Grabe and Ms. Muldoon also helped identify certian
        invertebrate taxa collected. Mr. David Crewz of the Florida
        Marine Research Institute and Mr. James Beever of the Department
        of Natural Resources Pine Island Aquatic Preserve engaged in
        numerous useful and informative discussions with us regarding
        this project and the general topics of mangrove biology and
        mitigation. Drs. Samuel Snedaker and Eric Heald also provided
        insights regarding mangrove ecology during valuable discussions.
        Collier County Forester, Mr. Chris Anderson, provided insight on
        tree biology and forestry techniques, and allowed us to use
        equipment as needed. Dr. Kris Thoemke of the'Rookery Bay National
        Estuarine Research Reserve, permitted us to use the drying oven
        and mettler balances in his facility. Mr. Geo+fery Churchill of
        Mangrove Systems, Inc. (now Proctor and Redfern)         and various
        members of Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. provided needed
        information regarding' site preparation and the planting.         Most
        importantly, in a spirit of true cooperation between developers
        and the conservation community, Mr. Bernard Johnson and Mr. Jack
        Mac'Kie of Windstar an Naples Bay graciously allowed use of
        mitigation sites in this development for the studies. The project
        was funded by a grant from the Department of Environmental
        Regulation to Collier County.






             7-




                                INTRODUCTION



          As coastal wetlands   continue to.decline due to encroaching
     civilization, pollution,   and possibly rising sea level, concern
     for their protection concomitantly increases. In addition, as the
     human population of Florida swells, and with most wanting to live
     near the coast, the pressure mounts for. increased development
     in,, and various other consumptive uses of, coastal wetlands.

          Florida has 6,884,900 acres of coastal wetlands of which
     1,405,600 are salt marsh, 254,200 are fresh water marsh, and
     5,032,100 are "forested scrub-shrub" type dominated primarily by
     mangroves in estuarine areas and cypress and willow in freshwater
     sites (Reyer et al. 1988). Other states in the Gulf of Mexico
     have considerably fewer coastal wetland (acreages are: Louisiana
     - 3,345,900; Texas - 1,662,500; Alabama - 1,071,600;              and
     Mississippi - 719,700) (Reyer et al. 1988). Of the forested
     coastal wetland systems, mangroves occupy an estimated 430,000 to
     500,000 acres in south Florida (Odum et al. 1982).      These, and
     other. coastal and estuarine habitats ranging from salinas (salt
     barrens)  to sea grasses, provide myriad 'ecological benefits
     including habitat for thousands of animal species, biological
     productivity   for    numerous   fishery    populations,      coastal
     stabilization, and protection of upland ecosystems from storm
     surge (Heald 1969, Lugo and Snedaker 1974, Odum 1979, Odum and
     Heald 1972, Thayer et al. 1987, Tomlinson 1986).

          In response to the pressure to allow more and more use of
     wetlands, federal, state, and local governmental agencies charged
     with protection of wetlands have had to address two complex and
     provocative questions. First, can the functions of naturally
     occurring wetlands be replaced once destroyed by creating new
     wetlands? Second, should other procedures, for example, removal
     of noxious exotic plant species, providing conservation easements
     or deeds to wetlands not targeted for destruction,. or re-
     establishing "historic" hydrological regimes to drained wetlands,
     be allowed as alternative forms of mitigating the negative
     effects of wetland loss? This became even more of a focal point
     for environmental regulators when the President of the United
     States promised that there would be a "no net wetland loss"
     policy.

          In recent- years concern has increased as to             whether
     restoration mitigation typically re-establishes all-lost wetland
     ecological functions, or if projects often simply providle a
     "garden" of wetland plant species of limited overall* ecological
     value. Although opinions abound on both sides of the question,
     few detailed studies exist to provide the data necessary to
     properly formulate an objective answer. Recent publications have
     documented the status of knowledge (Kusler and Kentula 1989 a,b)
     and there is some substantive work currently being conducted. For
     example, the Florida Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
     Marine   Research    Institute'.  in    conjunction   with      Lewis
     Environmental 'Services, Inc., have conducted a survey of many


                                 2







        mitigation sites of varying age and Species Composition. The
        results of this study are currently being reviewed and analyzed
        by the DNR. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf of
        Mexico Habitat Evaluation Task Force is surveying wetlands Gulf-
        wide. The results of this study will be available around April
        1990. The National Marine Fisheries Service has on-going projects
        addressing fish utilization of restored and natural marshes and
        sea grass restoration.

             We have taken a different approach than many of the agency
        studies. Instead of surveying a broad spectrum of mitigation
        projects, we chose to focus more in-depth work in one mangrove
        mitigation project. Our studies are designed to quantitatively
        assess the following primary questions: (1) How well did the
        Driginally-planted mangroves survive and grow over the seven
        years since they were planted; (2) What other plant species have
        colonized the sites, and what implications might this have an
        successional patterns?



             We have also gathered quantitative data on the amount of
        herbivory   on leaves, the abundance of marine          macrofaunal
        invertebrates living in the sites, litterfall, the occurrence of
        cocoons and caterpillars Pn mangrove leaves, and      the species
        composition of the natural mangrove forest that surrounds the
        mitigation sites, and sail salinities. Also, we have made
        qualitative field observations on use of the areas by wading
        birds, raptors, raccoons, spiders, and fish. The results of these
        studies and observations will be included in a series of reports
        on this project.

             Our project plats have been set up and marked in such a
        manner as.to allow us, or any other scientist, to conduct similar
        studies in exactly the same area, and even on many of the same
        individual plants, in the future. Although funding -for this
        project was provided for only one year, we envision this as a
        long-term study to evaluate the growth and successional patterns
        occurring in the site over the course of the development of this
        plant assemblage. The lead organization in this studylthe Center
        for Marine Conservation, is committed to the study in order to
        provide data for the development of a model-for use by agencies
        in mangrove wetland policy decisions.

             Considerable data on various features of both the mitigation
        sites and their surrounding natural forest have been gathered.
        These data will be presented in a series of reports. Here,,- the
        project history is documented, the study sites and surrounding
        ,natural forest described, and the studies outlined.



                                  PROJECT HISTORY


             The development, Windstar on Naples Bay, is a golf course
        community encompassing some 400 acres on the eastern shores of
        Naples Bay, in Collier County, Florida. The developer proposed to


                                    3





     C- T t c=M 1 NTRr"'. Fr--"'-



     "recontour" existing tidal wetlands during the cr-eat-i-on----of   the- -
     golf course. This resulted in the filling of 5.5 acres of
     wetlands    allowed   in Florida Department       of     Environmental
     Regulation permit number 11-45104 (issued March 23, 1?82, under
     the project name "Whispering Pines" expired February 30, 1987).

          In mitigation for this loss, the developer proposed to
     recreate 15.4 acres of submerged wetlands, from three old,
     existing spoil mounds (from north to south about 3.30, 7.68, and
     4.40 acres) in the mangrove forest of their development. The
     spP11 had apparently been deposited in the mangroves when the
     channel in Naples Bay was dredged. The mounds were infested with
     Australian pine (Casurina litorea L., Brazilian pepper (Schinus
     terebinthifolius Raddi).


          The initial mitigation work occurred in August and September
     of 19132. A small access path was created to each site, the sites
     were scraped to 0.8 to 1.9 feet NGVD (re-exposing the covered
     mangrove soils), and planted with pairs of Rhizophona manale L.
     propagules an one meter centers (Bradow 19B6). About 70,000
     propagules were planted.,Survival of the plants after 8 months
     was reportedly 97 % and some "volunteer" colonization                by
     Avicennia germinans (L.) Stearn     had occurred in portions o4 the
     sites (Stephen 1984).

          According to Bradow (1986)    none of the propagules planted
     below 1.0 foot NGVD survived the    first year. He cites that, this
     lead to the establishment of about 2 acres of "open mud flats".

          After 3.5 years, Brad6w (1986) reports the survival of red
     mangroves to be 85 %, with man    y of the red mangroves reaching
     heights of 3 to 5 feet. Bradow (1986) concludes from observations
     of survival and relative size that elevations between 1.2 and 1.5
     feet NGVD are best for R. mangle in these mitigation areas.
     Also, much of the area (except in the center of each site and
     around the perimeter -- the lowest and highest elevations
     respectively) has been colonized by Laguncularia racemosa (L.)
     Gaertn.f. and to a lesser extent A. germinans. Many of the white
     mangroves are reported to be "eight feet tall or more" (Bradow
     1986). The access roads created to allow heavy construction
     equipment into the mitigation sites were reported to have been
     colonized as well, especially by L. racemqsa.

          Also,    within this 3.5 year period, the lagoon              area
     comprising the middle of one site, and perhaps channel portions
     of other sites, have been colonized by the sea grass RUDDia
     maritima, and clumps of oysters (Crasspstrea virginica) in the
     flushing channels (Bradow 19B6). In addition, other animals were
     abundant in the sites including snails (Littorina angulifera),
     fiddler crabs (Uca spp.), isopods ( Ligia sp.), sheepshead
     minnows (Cyprinodon varj gatus), mullet (Mugil cephalua), and
     killifish (Fundulus arandis and F. similis).

          Bradow (1986) opined that the "young system is providing a
     valuable benefit to the Naples Bay ecosystem, particularly in


                                  4





         C7 T I Z@ N1 T tl T;7, M . F,1 r:-



         regard to biomass production and transport_!@-He@_further concluded
         that: "If the primary goal of this project was to create an
         integrated wetlands/open water system capable of supporting
         wildlife, then the project was successful".




                               DESIGN OF THE STUDIES


         Def initions:


              Sites: The two mitigation areas in which the studies were
         conducted. Site I is the northernmost (about 3.3 acres) and Site
         II is the middle (about 7.68 acres in area)         of the three
         original mitigation areas. Site I is roughly circular and site ri
         is somewhat more elliptical in shape.


              Plots: The basic unit of area for study in the mangrove
         growth, colonization, reproduction, and succession studies in the
         sites. Twelve plots were established in each of the two study
         sites. Each plot was 5 x 5 meters in size and was established in
         a stratified random fashion. Plots were marked using 10 foot long
         pvc poles driven a couple of feet into the soil at each of the
         corners.



         I. PROJECT DESIGN: Mangrove Growth Study

              Our studies   focused primarily an the two northern sites
         because of manpower and funding constraints and case of access.
         In both study sites, we established 12, 5 x 5 meter study plots.
         These were arranged as described below and illustrated in Fig. 1:

              "Eastern" Plots E-1, E-2, and E-3: Located in a stratified
         random manner along the eastern margin of each study site
         (relatively near the Windstar Development). These plots were also
         situated closer to the edge of the study sites than the center by
         placing them at points more than 1/2 the distance from the center
         of the sites to the edge. Plots were established in areas where
         the mangrove canopy was five feet or more in height.

              "Western" Plots W-1, W-2, and W-3: Located in a stratified
         random manner along the -western margin of each study site
         (relatively nearer Naples Bay). These plots were also situated
         closer' to the edge of the study sites than the center by pl-acing
         them at points more than 1/2 the distance from the center of the
         sites to the edge. Plots were established in areas where the
         mangrove canopy was five feet or More in height.

              "Inner" Plots It-1, It-2, and It-3: Located in a stratified
         random manner closer the center of each site than the edge by
         placing them at points less than 1/2 the distance from the center
         to the margin of the study sites. Plots were established in areas
         where the mangrove canopy was five feet or more in height.



                                     5






      7 1 L E:1T RC F-,F




           "Scrub" Plots S-1, S-2, and S-3: Located along the outer
      margin of the study sites in areas where there was not          ' a
      generally "closed" canopy and all mangroves were typically less
      than four feet tall and appeared to possibly be stunted.





           In these plots, we selected five (if available) individual
      trees of each of three species (Rhizophora manale, Avicennia
      germinans, and Laguncularia racemosa). For each treeV three
      branches were tagged with metal numbered tags and, marked for
      evaluation of stem growth, leaf turnover, and plant reproductive
      activity (fruits and flowers) using latex-based paint sticks. In
      addition, marked stems were used to assess the frequency of
      finding cocoons, caterpillars, and snails on the-trees. At study
      initiation, the stems were typically marked at either the most
      distal leaf scar with both leaves already fallen or at the most
      distal branch point of the stem (whichever was encountered 'first
      moving from apical tip toward the trunk -- usually in R. mangle
      this was a leaf scar and in A, germinans and L... racemosa was
      often a branch point).




           For the selected trees we measured at, so far, two points in
      time in the study (Spring-early summer 1989 and Fall 1989):
           (1) Tree height (tallest point).
           (2) Tree "Diameter at BreastHeight (DBH)" - which for these
      specimens was taken as the point midway between the lowest branch
      and the highest prop root (R mangle) or at the very base of the
      plant next to the sediment (A. germinans and L. racemosa). For
      red mangroves% the spot where DBH was measured was marked with
      the paint stick.
           (3) Noted whether or not the tree was reproducing.
           (4) Survival of the plant.
           (4) For each tagged branch we measured:
                a. Distance from paint mark to base of apical growing
      tip.
                b.  Diameter at a point 1/2 the way along the length in
      a.
                C.  The number of leaves.
                d.  The number of'leaf scars.
                e.  The number of Cocoons on leaves.
                f.  The number of caterpillars an leaves.
                g.  The number of snails on leaves.'
                h.  The number of flowers (or flower clusters).
                i.  The number of propagles.
                j.  -The number of reproductive axes (R. mangle)
                k.  Survival of the branch.
                1.  Growing apical tip mortality and/or breakage.
                M.  Number of new branches produced. (All measurements
      from a   I above were al.so recorded for new branches)




                                 6





          1L 7-@ =W7 NTF:Z3.,FF:,F-'r



              Preliminary analysis was conducted to determine the degree
         of   "field   measuring error" to allow us to          assess     the
         repeatability of these measurements and the precision , and
         accuracy of the data.








         II. PROJECT DESIGN: Mangrove population densities, colonization
         and succession study


         Definitions:


         Mature trees: In all except scrub plots, these were trees over
         i@wo -Feet tall (as per typical forestry techniques). In scrub
         plots this was arbitrarily defined as individuals that had
         branched more than once.


         5eedlings: Were defined as unbranched, germinated and rooted
         plants. It was not possible to separate true seedlings resulting
         from de novo colonization events from coppicing in A. germinans
         and L. racemosa. However, root-derived shoots are simply another
         form of colonization of a site.


         Saplings: Were defined as plants that had branched once only.

         Subplots: Subplots were one meter square sampling areas within
         the larger 5 x 5 meter study plots described in part I.


              We   assessed    population densities,,    colonization,     and
         succession in the same study plots described above in part I of
         this section.


              The following mangrove population variables were assessed
         for  all three species of mangroves (unless otherwise indicated)
         existing in the study sites along the time schedule indicated.


                                    ----1989 Evaluation-          -
                                    June     Sept./Oct.    Nov./Dec.
         PLANT AGE CATEGORY


         Mature Trees                x                         x


         Saplings                    x                         x

         Seedlings                   x                         x

         R. mangle propagules        x            x            x






                                     7






        L



           The assessments--wer-e-conduct-ed in five haphazardly-selected,
      one meter square subplots within each study plot. In each
      subplot, all individuals of each age class for each species of
      mangrove    occurring was counted. In addition, during the June 1989
      data collection, heights of each mature tree was also measured.

           In conjunction with this study, we also assessed the
      population densities of these same species in the natural forest
      surrounding the two mitigation study sites. To accomplish this
      we used either 25 or 5.72 square meter quadrats (depending on the
      apparent density of seedlings to count). The following mangrove
      species occurred as members of the canopy in various portions 6f
      this forest and were included in our measurements: B. mangle, A.
      germinans, L. racemosa and Conocaryus erectus L. Three replicate
      quadrats were established at each of the areas listed below:


                                 Site I            Site' II
      Adjacent to the
      eastern edge of  the          x                x
      -mitigation site

      Adjacent to the
      western edge of  the          x                x
      mitigation site

      Adjacent to the
      northern edge of the                           X
      mitigation site


           Within each quadrat, we counted the number of trunks of each
      species and measured the DBH (at a point approximately 1.4 meters
      above ground level). We also recorded the numbers of seedlings
      and saplings of each mangrove species, as well as,,               mangle
      prDpagules. In addition, we noted any other plant species in the
      quadrat.






      III. PROJECT DESIGN: Spatial coverage of various habitat types



           The data on mature plant densities in the study plots           (see
      11 above) were combined with low-altitude aerial photography to
      allow us to estimate the overall aerial coverage and spatial
      dispersion patterns of different types of habitats ("tall"
      mangroves, "scrub" mang  .roves, open water, open dry land, etc.) in
      the mitigation sites.









         IV. PROJECT DESIGN: Percent leaf area lost to herbivory

              We evaluated the percent leaf area of R. mangle, A.
         germinans and L. racemosa entering the food web by grazing.
         We first determined linear regression relationships for each
         species between the area of a leaf and the variables leaf length
         and leaf width for entire, ungrazed leaves. The following
         allometric relationships were thus determined for ungrazed leaves
         of each species: (1) Leaf area as a simple linear regression
         function of leaf length; (2) Leaf area as a simple linear
         regression function of leaf width (widest point); and (3) leaf
         area as a multiple linear regression function of both width and
         length.

              From these regression equations, we could calculate the
         expected area for any leaf for which enough remained ungrazed to
         permit us to measure either the entire length or width.

              We then collected leaves from representative stems of each
         species from the study sites (not from within our marked plots).
         For each stem selected, all leaves were collected and the
         relative distance from the apical tip of the branch to the leaf
         was recorded (thereby providing the relative ages of the leaves).

              For these leaves, the length, width and area were measured.
         The  area measured was then compared to that predicted from
         regression equations to exist if the leaf had not been grazed
         upon. The mean difference between the measured and expected areas
         provided a minimum estimate of the area lost to herbivory. The
         estimate is minimum because some leaves wereso heavily grazed
         that length and width could not be accurately determined.
         However, for most leaves, at least one of the two variables could
         be determined.


              Separate assessments were made for "tall" and "stunted"
         plants (see earlier size descriptions in the definitions included
         in part I).





         V.   PROJECT DESIGN: Penthic infaunal invertebrate       density
         monitoring in the lagoon in-Site II

              Benthic infaunal invertebrate population densities'-were
         determined bimonthly in two separate stations in the lagoon, one
         north of Site II center, and one south of center.

              At each station, six replicate 8 cm diameter cores were
         collected (to a depth of 30 cm) bimonthly. Samples passed through
         a 0.5 mm mesh screen in the field, relaxed using clove oil, and
         preserved in formalin (with rose bengal added as a vital stain).
         Samples were scope sorted and animals identified to the lowest
         practicable taxon, usually species.



                                    9






      C.' T@7 - M I't'i-- 1=@ 'r





           The field portion of this project was begun in July 1989 and
      will continue until at least a year's dataset is obtained.











      Vi.   PROJECT DESIGN:    Sea grass biomass and coverage in the
      lagoon in Site II

           Sea grass samples (Ruppia maritima L.) were collected in 8
      cm diameter cores. Above sediment and below sediment portions   of
      samples were separated, dried in an oven, and weighed           to
      determine biomass.


           Location and size (lengths of major and minor. axes)       of
      patches of sea grass were determined to allow calculation       of
      cover and overall biomass.













                             OTHER OBSERVATIONS


           We kept'notes on our observations of other wildlife (birds,
      fish, horseshoe crabs, blue crabs, etc.) seen in the mitigation
      sites or in the surrounding natural forest. The salient points of
      these observations will be presented as an appendix to one of the
      ensuing reports.

          .In addition, we recorded water depth, water salinity, and
      salinity of soil water in study sites at various times during the
      project. These will be presented in subsequent reports as
      appropriate.




                                   COMMENTS


           The studies generated extensive data which will            take
      considerable time to reduce and properly analyze. In addition, we
      are still gathering data in the field 4or several of the
      projects. Thus, the results of our work, and recommendations
      stemming from the studies, will be provided in a series of


                                  10





                1  7-, C.; .F,.,'F' 7



          repartsi5s@-Analyses are completed.



                This report is provided to provide background regarding the
          studies and as a "end of the year" grant status report for the
          Department of Environmental Regulation.







                                   LITERATURE CITED


          Bradow,    S.N. 1986. Department of Environmental          Regulation
                Mitigation Appraisal. Permit 11-45104. 17 pp.

          Heald, E.J. 1969. The production of organic.detritus in a south
                Florida estuary. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of Miami.

          Lugo, A.E. and S.C. Snedaker. 1974. The ecology of mangroves.
                Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 5: 39-64.

          Odum, W.E. 1979. Pathways of energy flow in a south Florida
              estuary. Sea Grant Tech. Bull. No. 7.

          Odum, W.E. and E.J. Heald. 1972. Trophic analyses of an estuarine
              mangrove community. Bull. Mar. Sci. 22(3): 671- .

          Reyer, A.J., D.W. Field, J.E. Cassells, C.E. Alexander, and C.L.
                Holland. 19BS. The distribution and areal extent of coastal
                wetlands in estuaries of the Gulf of Mexico. National
                Wetlands Inventory, NOAA Publication, IS pgs.

          Stephen, M.F. 1984. Mangrove restoration in Naples, Florida. In,
                F.J. Webb , Jr. (Ed.), PrOC. Tenth Ann. Con+. Wetl. Restor.
                and Creation. Hillsbarough Community College, Tampa, Fl.,
                pp. 201-216.

          Thayer, G.W., D.R. Colby, and W.F. Hettler.    1987. Utilization of
                the red mangrove prop root habitat by fishes in south
                Florida. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 35: 25     38.

          Tomlinson,    P.B. 19S6. The botany of mangroves. Cambridge Univ.
              Press, 41-75 pp.









                                                                                                                             NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY



                                                                                                                             3 6668 14111412 6