Apalachicola Bay dredged, Material disposal plan

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

APALACHICOLA BAY DREDGED

MATERIAL DISPOSAL PLAN

Funding for this project was provided by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
through the Office of Coastal Management,
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation,
under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended

COASTAL ZONE

INFORMATION CENTER

Steve Leitman, Kathleen Brady, Lee Edmiston,

Thomas McAlpin, Victoria Tauxe

TD
171.3
.F6OF.o
A621
1986
July, 1986

APALACHICOLA BAY DREDGED
MATERIAL DISPOSAL PLAN

U. S. DEPARTMENT (F 'r;"'''j '; COASTAL ZONE
COASJAL SEh\'~(f'- (. 'R
COA234 scui+ ALf r. S jk INFORMATION CENTER
?2 4 Ir, U T H r, -.' , 7,ri,,
ChARLK E$'[Of, bC ,? .: ', . . -.

Steve Leitman, Kathleen Brady, Lee Edmiston,

Thomas McAlpin, Victoria Tauxe

EN,

- P'opey of C$C Libbrary

July, 1986

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to acknowledge the assistance of all the staff who

helped prepare this document including Wayne Ashmore and Carol

Knox for graphics; Susan Parks, Pam Wiley, Patty Lee and Sophia

Chambers for secretarial help; Jim Stoutamire for managing

grant monies; and Pam McVety for her guidance and trust. I

also want to thank Dr. R.J. Livingston and Dr. J. Donoghue,

Florida State University; Woody Miley and Joseph Thompson,

Florida Department of Natural Resources; Lou Burney and Leslee

Williams, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation;

DeWayne Imsand and Harry Peterson, U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers; Dr. Robert Ingle; and many residents and fishermen

of Franklin County for their guidance and assistance in

preparing this report.

Steve Leitman

Project Administrator

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES

I. INTRODUCTION ................. 1

II. CONCLUSIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR THE DISPOSAL
OF DREDGED MATERIAL IN APALACHICOLA BAY . . . 4

III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING. . . ........ 25

A. Physiography .............. 25
B. Geology and Sediments . . . . . . ...... 31
C. Hydrology and Climate . . . ........ 44
D. Physical-Chemical Properties ........ 49
1. Temperature. . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
2. Salinity . . . . ..... 49
3. Color and Turbidity ........... 55
4. Dissolved Oxygen . . . ...56
5. Nutrients.. .............. 58
6. Water Quality .............. 62
7. Sediment Quality ............ 63
E. Biota and Habitat .............. 65
1. Aquatic Microbiota ........... 66
2. Phytoplankton ........ 68
3. Zooplankton and Ichthyoplankton . . ... 70
4. Benthic Invertebrates.. . . . ..... 72
a. American Oyster . . .76
b. Penaeid Shrimp ........... 82
c. Blue Crab ............. 85
5. Fish .................. 87
6. Submerged Vegetation .......... 93
7. Nursery Habitat... . . . .... 97
8. Intertidal, Marsh, and Terrestrial Biota 99
a. Emergent Vegetation ........ 101
b. Herpetofauna ............ 101
c. Birds ............... 103
d. Mammals .............. 105
F. Protective Actions ............. 106
G. Existing Land Use .............. 108
H. Cultural History .............. 112

IV. THE AUTHORIZED NAVIGATION PROJECTS ........ 118

A. Gulf Intracoastal Waterway .......... 120
B. Two Mile Channel ............... 128
C. Eastpoint Channel .......... 132
D. St. George Island Channel (Sikes Cut) ... 136
E. Scipio Creek Channel ............. 142
F. Other Projects ................ 142

V. Impacts of Dredging and Disposal . . . . ..... 147
A. General Impacts ... . . . . ........ 147
1. Open-Water Disposal
a. Physical Impacts .......... 148
b. Chemical Impacts. . ........ 151
c. Biological Impacts. . .... 154
2. Other Disposal Techniques. . . . . . . . 160
B. Studies Of Impacts on the Apalachicola Bay
System.. . . . .........163
1. Water and Air Research (1975) . . . . 165
2. Taylor (1978). . . . ...... .170
3. Livingston (198)4a) . . . . . ......176
4. Schubel, et al. (1978) . . . . . . 179
5. Kruczynski, et al. (1978) .183
6. COE Environmental Assesments and
Impact Statements. . . . . . . . . 185
7. Monitoring Data and Studies Required
by Permits.. . . . ....... 191
a. Sikes Cut ............. 191
b. Eastpoint . . . . .192
c. Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. . . . . 195
(1) Hydrodynamic and Water
Quality Model of the Bay . 197
(2) Fluid Mud Flow Study . . . . . 200
(3) Vibrio Studies . . . . . . 203
8. Local Views on Dredging and Disposal . . 206
-a. Dredging in General . . . . . . . . 207
b. Two Mile Channel. . . . .208
c. Sikes Cut Channel . . . . . . . . . 209
d. Jim Woodruff Dam. .. . ...... 209
e. Concensus . . . . . . ....... 210
9. Summary of Ongoing Studies and Issues
a. Navigation Maintenance Plan and
COE 308 Study . . . . . . . .. 210
b. Sedimenation Rates in the Bay . . . 212
c. Sikes Cut Study ........ 212
d. Timing of Dredging ...... 217
C. Summary of Impacts on Apalachicola Estuary. . 220
1. Physical Impacts . .. .. .. .. . .. 221
2. Chemical Impacts ........... 224
3. Biological Impacts ........... 226

VI. REFERENCES CITED IN REPORT AND APPENDICES. . . 231

Appendix 1- Common and Scientific Names for
Species Mentioned . . . 252
Appendix 2- Microorganisms of Public Health
Concern ...... 256
Appendix 3- Review of Important Fish Species
in Apalachicola Bay . . . . . 263

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

I Sediment Grain-size Distribution in the
Apalachicola Bay Navigation Channels. . .42

2 Predominant Annual Surface Wind Speed
and Direction ..............46

3 Mean Values of Selected Physical and Chemical
Parameters at Selected Locations. . . . .50

4 Summary of Selected Franklin County Shellfish
Landings (1975-1985) . . . . . . . . . . 77

5 Summary of Selected Franklin County Finfish
Landings (1975-1985) . ........89

6 Acreage of Submerged Vegetation Assemblages
in the Apalachicola Bay System. . . . . .95

7 History of Disposal Site Utilization of the
GIWW, Apalachicola Bay . . . . . . . ..124

8 Major Commodities Moved on the GIWW Between
Apalachee Bay and Panama City . .....127

9 Dredging and Disposal History of Two Mile
Channel.. . . . . . . . . . .......130

10 Dredging and Disposal History of Eastpoint
Channel .................134

11 Dredging and Disposal History of St. George
Island Channel .............139

12 Seasonality of Important Apalachicola Bay
Species .................218

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. The Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint
River Basin .............. 26

2. The Apalachicola Drainage Basin. . . . . . . 27

3. Major Features of the Apalachicola
Estuary . . . ... . . ........ 28

4. Depth Changes in Apalachicola Bay from
1858 to 1985. ... .......... 35

5. Bottom Sediment Types of Apalachicola
Bay . . . . . . .39

6. Sediment Samples from the Apalachicola
Bay Navigation Channels ........ 43

7. Selected Long-term Monitoring Stations of
Dr. R.J. Livingston's Studies ..... 51

8. Average Monthly Flows of the Apalachicola
River at Chattahoochee,1957 to 1984 . . 53

9. Average Surface Water Salinity (1972-1979) . 54

10. Average Surface Turbidity in Apalachicola
Bay (1972-1979) ............ 57

11 Average Bottom Dissolved Oxygen Values in
Apalachicola Bay (1972-1979) ...... 59

12 Location of Major Oyster Bars in
Apalachicola Bay ............ 79

13 Seasonal Oyster Harvesting Areas for
Apalachicola Bay ............ 80

14 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Distribution
in Apalachicola Bay .......... 94

15 Emergent Aquatic Vegetation Distribution
in Apalachicola Bay .......... 102

16 Land in the Lower Apalachicola River Basin
in Public Ownership .......... 109

17 Authorized Navigation Projects in
Apalachicola Bay ............ 119

Figure Page

is Map of GIWW from Panama City to Apalachee
Bay ................ . . .* 1223

19 Dredged Material Disposal Sites for the
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway . . . . . . . 125I

20 Dredged Material Disposal Sites for
Two Mile Channel.. . ;. . . .* 131

21 Eastpoint Channel Disposal Sites . . . . . . . 135

22 Dredged Material Disposal Areas for
St. George Island Channel (Sikes Cut) * 137I
23 Dredged Material Disposal Areas for the
Scipio Creek Channel.. . . . . . ...143

214 Other Bay Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1145

25 Water and Air Research, Inc. (1975)
Sampling Stations . . . . . . . . . . . 167

26 Taylor (1978) Study Sites . . . . . . . . . . 1711

27 Sampling Scheme Used in Taylor (1978) . . . . 172j

28 Station Locations for Hydrodynamic

Model Data Collection . . . . . . . . . 1991

� ~~~~~~~I.*INTRODUCTION

This document was prepared to ensure 1) that navigation

channels in Apalachicola Bay are maintained in a manner which

minimizes environmental degradation of' the estuarine ecosystem,

S~and 2) that permits to maintain navigation channels in the bay are

obtained in an expedient manner. Development of' this plan was

required by a series of' conditions agreed upon between the States

5 ~of' Alabama, Florida, and Georgia when the lower Apalachicola River

and Bay was designated as a National Estuarine Sanctuary in 1979.

These conditions resulted f'rom concerns expressed by the States of'

I ~Alabama and Georgia , and waterway navigation interests that the

State of' Florida could obstruct navigation on the Apalachicola

River through the designation as an Estuarine Sanctuary. The

conditions agreed upon by the three states were:

(1) that the State of' Florida issue a f'ive-year dredging

and spoil disposal permit to the U.S Army Corps of'

'S ~~Engineers (COE) f'or the entire length of' the Apalachicola

3 ~~River;

(2) that COE navigation requirements be incorporated into

3 ~~the f'ive-year permit if' they are in compliance with

Florida law;

1 ~~(3) that Florida pursue a Level B study with the COE

and the States of' Georgia and Alabama to evaluate the

water resources in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint

(ACF) River system;

(4i) that the State of' Florida initiate and develop a long-

term spoil disposal plan for the Apalachicola River and Bay

in cooperation with the COE before the expiration of theJ

five-year permit and;

(5) that Florida work out a memorandum of understanding in

cooperation with the COE to evaluate steps that can be taken

to increase the availability of a 9 x 100 foot channel up theI

Apalachicola River.

With completion of this plan all of these conditions have been

met.

Because of the dynamic nature of estuaries, and progress in

estuarine research, this plan should be reviewed and amended at

least once every five years. Review and updating is the respon-3

sibility of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation

(DER) and will'be coordinated with the COE, Mobile Dis trict and

other state and federal agencies. If studies or additional infor-

mation dictate that the plan should be changed more frequently, itS

shall be the responsibility of the DER to implement the changes.

The purpose of this plan is to provide guidelines for the COE

to maintain the authorized navigation channels in Apalachicola Bay

in a manner acceptable to the State of Florida. This plan was

developed by first preparing the technical support sections (i.e.,3

the main body of the report) which focus on how the estuary

functions ecologically, what the needs of authorized navigationI

projects are, and how dredging and disposal disposal activities

can impact estuaries in general and the Apalachicola system

specifically. This support document was then sent out for an�

extensive review process. Once consensus was reached on the

I ~support document, a set of conclusions were derived, and a set of

3 ~operating policies and accompanying implementation strategies

developed to address each conclusion.

Since this plan is being developed for maintenance of

channels which already exist, a major emphasis of this effort was

I~to define how past practices have affected the ecology of the

� ~estuary on both a localized and system-wide basis. Existing

disposal practices represent the most economical means for

I ~maintaining the channels. Therefore, staff did not feel it was

appropriate to recommend alternatives to existing practices unless

B ~significant impacts could be documented, or unless the impacts

I ~associated with an activity were highly probable and of an

unacceptable level. Emphasis was placed upon modifying existing

I ~disposal met~hods as necessary and upon identifying data gaps which

need to be addressed to provide the necessary information for a

9 ~comprehensive understanding of the dredge and disposal impacts

I ~upon Apalachicola Bay. If future studies indicate there is

significant impact from existing practices, alternative disposal

I ~options will be sought at that time.

I~II. CONCLUSIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR THE DISPOSAL OF DREDGED

MATERIAL IN APALACHICOLA BAY.

The following conclusions, operating policies and implementa-

tion strategies were developed in response to an evaluation of the

' ~impacts of dredging and disposal practices in the Apalachicola

� ~estuary. A more detailed presentation of the supporting informa-

tion which accompanies each conclusion may be found in the main

I ~body of the report.

I ~~~~~~~CONCLUSION 1

I ~Many of the studies evaluating environmental impacts of dredging

S~and disposal practices in Apalachicola Bay are inad equate for

determining the extent of ecological impacts. The institutional

ft process for designing studies, assuring quality control, reviewing

results, and integrating studies into operational programs has

I ~also been inadequate.

Discussion

5 ~~Because of the complex nature of estuaries, problems are

frequently encountered in conducting research in these ecosystems.

I ~Statistical verification, comprehensive project design, and

I ~interpretation of results often present substantial obstacles for

researchers and thereby inhibit attempts to document long-term

5 ~impacts. As a result of this complexity, there is too often an

omission of some aspect of the project design that does not become

5 ~~~~~~~~~~~~4

apparent until after sampling has begun, or after the research

project is completed. Furthermore, it is important to understand

the complex interactions of the physical, chemical, biological and

geological processes for a complete understanding of an estuarine f

system. Interdisciplinary investigations are therefore important,

although many studies in the system to date have not been of an4

interdisciplinary nature.

In reviewing previous research projects associated with

the impacts of dredging in Apalachicola Bay there were problems

noted in the design, control, and review of the studies. Most

of the existing studies were designed not to assess if impacts

had occurred, but to evaluate readily apparent potential impacts.

Most were also broadly designed attempts to answer numerous

questions in one single study effort. Bec~ause of funding limita- f

tions biological study efforts designed to assess the impacts of

channel maintenance on the estuary have had limited sampling5

periods and too few samples collected. Yet, these studies have

been used to make broad conclusions with regard to the level of
impact. The only biological data which is of a long-term nature f

was not designed to determine impacts except on a gross, system-

wide basis. A detailed physical data base has been collected to f

develop a hydrodynamic model of the estuary. However, funds have

not been released to analyze this data base. Consequently, thisI

data base has not been adequately integrated into the decision- f

making process. Therefore, at present there is not an adequate

information base to allow a conclusive determination to be made5

of whether significant impacts have occurred, or may be expected

5 I

5 ~to occur from dredge and disposal activities. To date, no major

impacts on the Apalachicola Bay ecosystem from dredging and

I ~disposal activities have been documented.

3 ~~Furthermore, no adequate review procedure has been set up to

ensure that studies are properly designed and conclusions are well

O ~supported. Much of the monitoring data collected by the COE has

not been routinely evaluated to interpret its findings by either

I ~the COE or DER. No procedure for review of studies by scientists

3 ~outside the government has been established. And, no formalized

procedure has been established to integrate research findings into

operational programs. In the past few years there has been

progress on improving interagency coordination on study efforts.

I ~During preparation of the Sikes Cut Study, the Navigation Mainte-

3 ~nance Plan, and the Bay Water Needs Study extensive coordination.

occurred in both designing and conducting the studies. However,

5 ~no formalized procedures have been adopted to assure that such a

coordinated program will continue in the future.

I ~Operating Policy 1-I

3 ~Continued evaluation of the localized and system-wide impacts

from maintenance dredging and disposal activities in Apalachicola

I ~Bay is necessary.

' ~Implementation Strategy 1-I

Continued analysis and research can be accomplished by permit

conditions, assessments by the COE, joint studies by the DER andR

the COE, and studies conducted or funded by other agencies or

groups. Incorporation of necessary studies as permit conditions

and requiring interagency coordination on these studies has been a3

standard practice for several years. The DER will conduct a

meeting in Fall 1986 to discuss and reach conclusions concerning

the need for and scope of future research and monitoring efforts.

Operating Policy 1-Il

The DER, in conjunction with interested agencies (such as the COE

and the Apalchicola National Estuarine Reserve) shall estab- lish

and maintain a procedure to design and oversee studies and

monitoring efforts in Apal~achicola Bay.I

Implementation Strategy 1-II

A formal program should be established to be used as a standardI

tool for the design and management of future studies and5

monitoring efforts in Apalachicola Bay. This can be accomplished

through establishing a task force which: f

a) utilizes an interdisciplinary approach to incorporate

personnel with the expertise necessary to properly design andI

oversee particular studies and monitoring programs;3

b) focuses upon achieving realistic, well defined objectives

for each individual effort;5

c) requires appropriate quality control for each project;

I ~~d) designates a schedule for interim and final reports;

3 ~~e) utilizes the guidelines outlined in I'Deepwater Ports

Maintenance Dredging and Disposal Manual" (Ryan, et al.,19824)

1 ~~to design monitoring programs and define informational needs.

I ~Operating Policy 1-III

The DER, in conjunction with interested agencies, shall establish

and maintain a systematic procedure to evaluate studies and

monitoring data, and incorporate pertinent results into permits

I ~and management actions.

W ~Implementation Strategy 1-III

This operating policy shall be implemented through:

a) sending all monitoring data and reports required by DER

permits to appropriate parties to be reviewed and

evaluated through a written review;

5 ~~b) the DER and the COE meeting at least once each year to

assess the maintenance program for navigation channels in

Apalachicola Bay, determine if any research findings

should be incorporated into the dredging and disposal

I ~~~program, and determine what future studies or monitoring

3 ~~~efforts are warranted;

c) the COE and the DER providing each other with the option

5 ~~~of prior review for all projects, studies and monitoring

� ~~~efforts related to the Apalachicola Bay system. The

review should be conducted at the earliest possible date,

with adequate time provided for an in-depth review.

At present, some of these actions are being done, however this isI

on an ad hoc, informal basis.I

CONCLUSION 2

The potential impacts of dredging and disposal activities are

variable and depend upon many physical and biological factors

including circulation patterns , sediment characteristics proximity

to sensitive areas, proximity to pollution sources, and time of5

the year.

Di scussion5

Due to the complex and dynamic nature of estuaries, and

because the behavior of dredged material is dependent upon the

sediment characteristics and hydrography of the area where dredge

and disposal activities occur, the impacts from a dredging eventI

depend on when and where the dredging event occurs as well as the f

specific practices employed. Therefore, dredging and disposal

practices should be determined on a site-specific basis. Further,3

monitoring and management programs should be designed on a site

specific basis. They should also be linked to specific management3

and research goals.

Because of the complex interactions between physical, chemi-

cal, biological, and geological processes, variations in para-

meters such as salinity, temperature, sediment characteristics,

� ~chemical constituents and current velocities result in different

3 ~environmental responses when dredging events are seperated either

spatially or temporally. One example of the variability of pro-

cesses within the estuary is current velocity. Current velocities

are highly variable both temporally (spring versus neap tides) and

I ~spatially (passes versus central bay or river-mouth site s).

� ~Current velocities have a considerable affect on the size and

transportation of turbidity plumes caused by dredge and disposal

I ~activities. Wind is another important variable in transporting

turbidity plumes and in the resuspension of dredged material.

I ~Wind also affects current directions and velocity and is highly

5 ~variable.

Sediment quality is another example of the variable nature of

estuarine constituents. The grain-size distribution of bottom

sediments is dominated by sand in one part of the estuary, and

I ~clay in another. Grain-size distribution is an important factor

I ~in defining the degree of impact from a dredging event. Finer

grained sediments are more readily suspended and circulated

throughout the estuary, and have a greater affinity for organic

and inorganic substances. Therefore, dredging of finer grained

I ~sediments has a greater potential to cause adverse impacts.

The release of substances to the water column is also

3 ~dependent upon chemical characteristics which vary within the

E ~estuary. For instance, the pH value affects the solubility,

degree of complexation, and sorption of solutes by particulate

5 ~matter. Therefore, the mobility of many substances from the

sediments to and from the water column varies with the pH. For

*~~~~~~~~~~~~ 10

example, the solubility of' ferrous iron is about 100,000 times f

greater at pH 6.0 than at pH 8.5. Chemical characteristics are

often exhibited as lateral and/or vertical gradients within theI

estuary. These gradients and the influences exerted by inter- i

active processes upon the dredged material need to be better

understood. In addition to physical, chemical and geological5

characteristics, seasonal biological variations such as repro-

ductive season and timing of migrations and juvenile habitationI

need to be taken into consideration.3

Operating Policy 2-I3

Monitoring efforts shall be conducted in a coordinated manner andV

designed with consideration to the specific project needs.3

Implementation Strategy 2-I

Monitoring efforts specified by permit conditions shall be f

a) have as a long term goal the evaluation of impacts upon3

habitats and organisms caused by specific environmental

perturbations (including sub-lethal and cumulative impacts);

b) utilize the best available information in the design,I

collection methodologies, and analytical techniques;

c) coordinate monitoring design with previous monitoring5

efforts;

S ~~d) use as a baseline for monitoring programs the general

3 ~~protocol, methodologies, and interpretive framework outlined

in Ryan, et al. (198)4), and DER (1986, 1986a);

3 ~~e) require written reports of monitoring data utilizing a

standard format for each monitoring effort;

I ~~f) designate a location for storing monitoring reports and

studies;

g) consider specific monitoring needs necessary to properly

5 ~~evaluate different dredge and disposal projects;

h) consider the possibility of a joint monitoring effort

� ~~by the COE and the DER;

i) incorporate a permanent oyster bed and seagrass bed

monitoring plan;

� ~~j) designate persons with who'm the monitoring team should

consult on a regular basis;

3 1<~~) contain an explicit description of field collection

g ~~techniques developed in coordination with the DER.

5 ~~~~~~~~CONCLUSION 3

I ~Material at open-water disposal sites in Apalachicola Bay migrates

D~off of the site both during the dredging event and for months

afterwards. Therefore, the area of impact extends beyond the

* ~disposal site boundaries.

3 ~Discussion

At open-water disposal sites disposal material is removed

9 1~~~~~~~~~~~2

from the site over time. This occurs initially during the

dredging event when suspended material is transported from the

disposal site in a turbidity plume. In the intermediate period,

the finer particles which are not transported away in the plume f

settle out above the larger particles in a highly concentrated

layer, forming a "fluid mud." The fluid mud spreads out, often5

beyond the disposal area, and is eventually dispersed by waves,

wind, currents and gravity. Over time, additional material at theI

disposal site is resuspended by natural processes and transported5

off the disposal site. Both the turbidity plume and the transpor-

tation of the fluid mud result in higher suspended sediment levels3

on a localized basis. Because increased suspended sediments

decreases the depth of the photic zone, it has the potential to

directly and indirectly impact the primary and secondary producti -f

vity of the bay. The ultimate fate of the clays and fine organics

that migrate off the disposal site need to be understood. It must5

also be understood that the bay is a naturally turbid system.

Although the COE contracted with the U.S. Geological SurveyI

to gather data to determine the extent of the fluid mud migration,a

the study did not address the ultimate fate of the material, its

contribution to levels of suspended sediments and turbidity within3

the bay, or its subsequent impact on biota.

Operating Policy 3-1 f

Oyster bars, seagrass beds and other susceptible habitats shall be3

protected from impacts from dredging and disposal activities.

1 3

S ~Implementation Strategy 3-I

No permit shall be issued for dredging or disposal activities

3 ~before oyster bars, seagrass beds, and other susceptible habitats

within one mile of a dredge or disposal site have been adequately

I ~surveyed, and plans and conditions for monitoring the habitats

� ~before, during, and after the project have been made. Any docu-

mented impacts shall be corrected by modifying the dredge and

5 ~disposal activities and/or appropriate mitigative actions.

I ~Operating Policy 3-11

I ~The fate of dredged materials should be determined particularly

3 ~with respect to fluid muds, resuspended materials and their

impacts upon the ecology of the bay.

Implementation Strategy 3-II

E ~The fate of fluid muds, and the extent and impact of resuspended

material in general should be studied further. This could be

accomplished as a permit condition. Since gravity causes the

fluid mud to "flow"?, dredge operators should be required, through

I ~permit conditions, to minimize mounding of the disposal material.

CONCLUSION 4I

The potential ecological impacts from dredging and disposal

5 1~~~~~~~~~~~~4

activities, and the rate of habitat recovery vary seasonally.

DiscussionI

The vulnerability of most species in Apalachicola Bay to

dredging impacts varies seasonally with the timing of reproduc-

tion, larval recruitment and juvenile habitation. Populations are

lower during the winter months because of the offshore migration

of many species. In addition, the bay is more heavily utilized by

juvenile estuarine organisms in the spring, summer and fall5

quarters. This is especially true for the commercially important

fish, shrimp, and crabs. Although oysters do not migrate, they

too are more susceptible to dredging impacts in the spring,

summer, and fall months, because the oyster spawning season is

from- April through November. The spat are planktonic and mustB

settle out on a hard surface to survive. Galtsoff-(1964) has

demonstrated that one millimeter of sediment covering cultchI

material will prevent the spat from setting. Additionally

L~oosanoff (1961) showed that silt levels as low as 250 mg/l will

significantly affect the development of oyster eggs. Seagrasses f

would also be affected less by winter dredging since it is their

least active growth period.3

Operating Policy ~4-I

Dredging in the Apalachicola estuary shall be restricted to the

winter season.3

I ~Implementation Strategy ~4-I

Except for emergency situations, no permit shall be issued for

I ~dredging in Apalachicola Bay outside of the winter season

(December 1 through March 15). Modifications to the recommended

5 ~time frame, or exemptions for a specific project from the time

frame, may require the applicant to perform studies or to partici-

pate in mitigative activites as determined necessary by the DER.

CONCLUSION 5

I ~Salinity, circulation patterns and flushing rates are key

variables in defining the community structure of the estuary.

Discussion

3 ~~The biological productivity of Apalachicola Bay is the result

of certain physical parameters, such as nutrient input from the

I ~Apalachicola River, the salinity regime and circulation patterns'

I ~as define d by the tides, winds and geometry of the estuary.

Circulatiion patterns in the estuary carry sediments, nutrients and

I ~freshwater which determine habitat quality and biological

community structure. Therefore, circulation is an important

I ~factor in defining the ecological organization of the estuary.

3 ~~Open-water disposal of dredged material in Apalachicola Bay

can result in altered hydrological conditions. Bathymetric

5 ~changes due to dredging and disposal can affect the current

� 1~~~~~~~~~~6

velocities, circulation patterns, salinity, temperature, and5

erosion and deposition patterns. These changes, in turn, would

affect the biota. Likewise, the construction and maintenance ofI

inlets alters the salinity regime in the estuary, and therefore

affects the biota.

If the variables affecting salinity regimes and circulation5

patterns in Apalachicola Bay are understood, management activities

can be conducted more effectively. In an attempt to understandI

the long term physical and ecological effects several mathematical5

models of the estuary have been developed. The most recent of

these models is being used in several ongoing study efforts to3

assess management options.

Operating Policy 5-I

Any permits for modifications of existing navigation projects or5

proposed new projects (i.e., additional channels, deepening of

existing channels, disposal islands, etc.) shall include-*an eval-I

uation of the effects on circulation patterns , flushing rates and

s'alinity changes before issuance of the permit. The impacts from
existing projects should also be documented.3

Implementation Strategy 5-I3

In reviewing permits for federal or state actions in the Apalachi-

cola Bay system the DER shall require a detailed analysis of the5

impacts of the project on circulation patterns and the salinity

175

I ~regime. Documentation of the impacts from previous and proposed

I ~dredging and disposal activities should be determined through use

of the two-dimensional hydrodynamic model.

Operating Policy 5-II

The effects of the existence and maintenance of the St. George

Island Channel (Sikes Cut) on the salinity regime and circulation

I ~patterns of Apalachicola Bay needs to be well defined. The

long-term maintenance program for the Cut needs to be based on the

I ~results of this study.

I ~Implementation Strategy 5-Il

An on-going study of the ecological impacts of the existence and

3 ~maintenance of Sikes Cut is currently under way. This analysis is

utilizing a two-dimensional model and is being managed in coordi-

I ~natilon by the DER and COE. Results of this study will be used to

5 ~evaluate management options.

CONCLUSION 6

I ~Dredging of the Eastpoint Channel has the potential to signifi-

cantly damage estuarine habitat because of the migration and

5 ~resuspension of material, and its proximity to productive oyster

bars.

Discussion

Data show that the Eastpoint Channel has high levels of oils

and greases, nutrients, and heavy metals in the sediments. The

sediments in the channel also tend to be of a finer nature. Since

the Eastpoint Channel is close to highly productive oyster beds

(about 1,300 feet from Cat Point which is currently the most

productive bar in the estuary) and the prevailing current

direction is towards these beds, the potential for burial or

contamination of these beds exists. The permit for the Eastpoint

Breakwater allows for dredged material to be disposed of at an

open-water site on a one time basis and for the subsequent

monitoring of this event. However, since the Eastpoint Channel

has not been dredged since 1979, the next dredging event during

which this evaluation is to take plac.e will be much larger than

previous dredging events and events that would be typically

expected to occur in the future. Therefore, the potential impacts

of this event are also anticipated to be much larger than

previously experienced.

Operating Policy 6-I

Alternative disposal methods should be utilized for the Eastpoint

Channel.

Implementation Strategy 6-I

Alternative disposal options including upland disposal, ocean

I ~disposal, diked island disposal, and the option of foregoing the

project should be assessed in detail. The most feasible alterna-

I ~tive should become the disposal method for the Eastpoint Channel.

CONCLUSION 7

U ~The methods and techniques used during dredging and disposal

operations are determinants of the severity of impacts.

Discussion

5 ~~Several investigators have noted that the dredging and dis-

I ~posal methods and techniques utilized have differing effects on

the associated levels of impacts (Schubel, 1978; Huston and

I ~Huston, 1976). Some of the factors that influence the extent of

the environmental impacts include: the quantity of material

I ~(total yardage); the rate of disposal (cubic yds./hr); the

duration and frequency of recurrence of dredging; the ratio of

I ~sediment to water being pumped; the location of dredging and

I ~disposal sites; the geometry of the deposited material; the

methods of excavation, transport and disposal; and type of

I ~material. The effects of different methods and techniques will

also vary with the chemical and physical nature of the 5ediment

being moved and circulation patterns.

I ~Operating Policy 7-I

Alternative methods and techniques for dredging and disposal

3~~~~~~~~~~~~ 20

activities should be further evaluated.

Implementation Strategy 7-1

Further information should be collected on the degree of

environmental perturbation resulting from alternative open-waterI

disposal methods and techniques in Apalachicola Bay. Some evalua-

tions along these lines have already been conducted by the COE.I

Once this information is developed a report should be preparedp

addressing the suitability of each method and technique to the

Apalachicola estuary. This evaluation should consider the extent3

of impacts with varying sediment types, waves, and current regimes

typical of the bay. The report should also review alternative

uses for the dredged material such as oyster bed and seagrass bed

creation and should be done as a joint effort between DER, COE and

other agencies.3

Operating Policy 7-II

The height at which material is disposed of at open-water sites

shall not exceed mean low water levels unless specifically permit-3

ted as such.

Implementation Strategy 7-11

Permits for disposal of dredged material in Apalachicola Bay shall5

require that disposed material not be deposited above mean low

I ~water levels. Bathymetric surveys of the anticipated disposal

impact area should be required before and after disposal

activities (preferably just prior to, as soon as possible after

3 ~(i.e., two to three days), and 2-3 months after disposal).

I ~~~~~~~CONCLUSION 8

A comprehensive program for mitigating environmental impacts and

I ~permit violations associated with dredge and disposal activities

in Apalachicola Bay should be developed and implemented.

Discussion

I ~~Apalachicola Bay has been determined to be an area of signif-

icant state and national interest. The bay has been designated as
aNational Estuarine Reserve by the federal government, and as an

3 ~Aquatic Preserve, Outstanding Florida Water, and an Area of

U ~Critical State Concern by the State of Florida. The recognized

importance of the area also led to the development of this plan.

* ~The bay is also an important economic asset both to the state and

to Franklin County.

* ~~There have been problems in the past both with obtaining

necessary permits, and with the permits that are ultimately

I ~issued. The fact that many of the authorized channels have not

9 ~been permitted since 1979 documents this. An example of a problem

with permit conditions relates to the fact that although open-

S ~water is the permitted disposal practice for the GIWW, there are

no height restrictions in the permit for open-water sites. As a

3~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 22

result, the permit allows material to be piled above mean low

water. Therefore, island creation at an open-water site is not a

violation of the current permit.

Operating Policy 8-I

Dredge and disposal techniques used in Apalachicola Bay shall be

consistent with the state-of-the-art techniques for minimizing

impacts. Permits should clearly specify techniques allowed, type5

of disposal permitted, limitations on use of the site, and respon-

sibility and enforcement procedures for permit violations.

Implementation Strategy 8-I

0 1~~~~~~~~~~
Permits should be written such that all parties understand

precisely what is allowed under the permit. The DER should make5

it a priority to incorporate the Operating Policies and Implemen-

tation Strategies in this plan and the findings of futureI

monitoring efforts into the maintenance dredgiong program for the5

estuary.

Operating Policy 8-II

Permits for dredge and disposal operations in Apalachicola Bay3

shall incorporate appropriate mitigative activities to minimize

negative environmental impacts.5

231

I ~Implementation Strategy 8-lI

I ~The COE, DER, DNR, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National

3 ~Marine Fisheries Service should meet to agree upon mitigation

procedures and which mitigation actions are appropriate for the

I ~Apalachicola Bay system. One mitigative activity which should be

considered in this meeting is habitat creation and/or restoration,

including creation of seagrass beds, salt marshes and oyster bars.

I ~When possible, it would be ideal to use disposal material in

habitat creation. Use of dredged material for roadfill or other

I ~approved upland uses should also be investigated.

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~

III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) basin covers the

north-central and southwestern part of Georgia, the southeastern

portion of Alabama, the central portion of the Florida panhandle,

and terminates in Apalachicola Bay. Figure 1 shows the general

location of the ACF river basin, Figure 2 the major features of

the Apalachicola River basin, and Figure 3 the major features of

the Apalachicola Bay estuary. The scientific names of species

listed in this report may be found in Appendix 1.

A. Physiography

The Apalachicola Bay system is a wide, shallow estuary

located along the northwest Florida gulf coast that covers an area

of approximately 210 square miles behind a chain of barrier

islands (Gorsline, 1963). Its primary source of freshwater is the

Apalachicola River, the lower segment of the Apalachicola-

Chattahoochee-Flint river system. The ACF system drains an area

of 19,600 square miles of Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. The

Apalachicola River portion of the system is limited to the state

of Florida, with a drainage area of approximately 1,030 square

miles (Elder and Mattraw, 1982). The Apalachicola River flows 107

miles to the gulf from its headwaters at Jim Woodruff Dam. At

high water, the river inundates an extensive forested floodplain.

A thorough discussion of the Apalachicola River ecosystem can be

Figure 1

IM
s~~c. / ~~~~I I/

AL, ~~~~ ~ ' -A I

ATLANTA
a ,CL) U

THE APALACHI~~~COLA-BU
YI

HATAHOOCH EE FLI NT I
RIVER BASINA

AL.
FL.
BAINBRIDGE
MARIA N 00

BLUNTSTOWN
1�ODead Lakes I
WEWAHITC ~~ Apalachicola River
THE 0 20 30 APALACHICOLA

RIVEBpala chicla Bay

Figure 2

AL.
I -. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~FL./

JACKSON
(3 (

MARIANNA
JIM TTAHOOCIEE
WOODRUFF
DAM GADSDEN

I~~~~~~~~~~~

Blounts-
townw

CALHOUN .5
D�od
La kes

CHIPOLA
CUTOFF

I LIBERTY

0 5 10 MILES Wewahitchka
I~~
GULF

FRANKLIN

THE
APALACHICOLA
DRAINAGE BASIN APAACAHICOLA

E Reserve Area GULF OF MEXICO

Figure 3

MAJOR FEATURES OF THE APALACHICOLA ESTUARY

TATES
HELL

~~~~~~~~~~~~EAST ES
PASS

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~n

3 ~found in FDER (1984).

The Apalachicola Bay system is bounded on the gulf side by

I ~three barrier islands: St. Vincent Island, St. George Island, and

I ~Dog Island. St. Vincent is a triangular-shaped island

approximately 9 miles long and up to 4I 1/2 miles wide. Dog

3 ~Island and St. George Island range from 0.1 to 1.0 miles wide and

are 7 and 30 miles long respectively. They are both covered by

U ~low sand dunes, and to a lesser extent by marshes. St. Vincent

5 ~Island, on the other hand, contains large tracts of fresh and salt

water marshes.

3 ~~Between the islands are inlets and passes to the Gulf of

Mexico. The bay system may be divided into four sections based on

I ~both natural bathymetry and man-made structural alterations. They

U ~are East B~ay, St. Vincent Sound, Apalachicola Bay, and St. George

Sound (Figure 3). East Bay, north and east of the Apalachicola

5 ~River delta, is surrounded by extensive marshes and swamps, and

has a average depth of 3 feet (Dawson, 1955). The bay receives

I ~freshwater from' the numerous distributaries of the Apalachicola

I ~River and Tate's Hell Swamp. The John Gorrie Memorial Bridge is

considered its southern limit. A causeway extending west from

3 ~Eastpoint, and a causeway island near the river mouth form partial

barriers between East Bay and Apalachicola Bay.

I ~~To the west is St. Vincent Sound, which is also shallow, with

an average depth of LI feet, and contains numerous oyster bars and

lumps (Gorsline, 1963). It separates St. Vincent Island from the

U ~mainland and is linked to the gulf by Indian Pass. Maximum water

depth in Indian Pass is 12 feet near its entrance.

3~~~~~~~~~~~~ 29

Apalachicola Bay is the central and widest portion of the3

estuary. It is separated from St. Vincent Sound by shoal areas

and oyster bars. To the north it is separated from the river

mouth, delta, and East Bay by the John Gorrie Memorial Bridge.3

The western and southern land boundaries of Apalachicola Bay are

St. Vincent Island and St. George Island. The bay is connected to5

the Gulf of Mexico through West Pass, a deep tidal inlet, and

Sikes Cut, a man-made navigational channel which cuts through St.

George Island and divides it into Cape St. George or Little St.5

George Island to the west, and St. George Island to the east.

Depths in Apalachicola Bay average 6 to 9 feet at mean low water.

The bay floor slopes toward the barrier islands where depths

increase to 10 to 12 feet (Gorsline, 1963). Oyster lumps areI

scattered throughout the central bay area and near the Gorrie3

Bridge. There is a major submerged oyster reef, St. Vincent Bar

or Dry Bar, which extends in a north-south direction from St.5

Vincent Island's eastern edge towards Cape St. George. To the

east Apalachicola Bay is bounded by Bulkhead Shoal, a naturalI

submerged bar that extends from Cat Point on the mainland to East5

Hole on St. George Island. Construction of a causeway island in

the center of the bar and a causeway extension at St. George3

Island raised two portions of this barrier above water level.

St. George Sound extends from Bulkhead Shoal to theI

Carrabelle River and East Pass. Numerous oyster bars, lumps,3

shoal areas, and channels fill St. George Sound. Its average

depth is about nine feet and, like Apalachicola Bay, it gets3

deeper toward the barrier islands with a maximum depth of 20 feet.

3 01

I ~East Pass, a broad opening between St. George Island and Dog

Island, has an average depth of 14 feet and connects St. George

Sound with the Gulf of Mexico (Gorsline, 1963). Dog Island Sound

3 ~and Alligator Harbor are included in the geographical boundaries

of the estuary, yet are influenced minimally by the Apalachicola

I ~River due to distance, current direction, and submerged shoals.

Several navigation projects in the Apalachicola estuary have

resulted in alterations to the natural environment, apart from the

3 ~previously mentioned bridges, causeways, and Sikes Cut. These

include the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway Channel, the Two Mile

I ~Breakwater and Exten sion Channel, the Eastpoint Breakwater and

I ~Channel, and the Scipio Creek Boat Basin and Channel. These

projects and their dimensions are described in Chapter IV of this

3 ~report. All these alterations contribute to the present con-

figuration of the Apalachicola Bay system. Their effects on

3 ~bathymetry have primarily been increasing depth in areas of

channels, decreasing depth in areas of open-water spoil placement,

I ~and removal of bay bottom area with creation of the Two Mile and

3 ~Eastpoint Breakwaters and spoil islands. Other man-made changes

in bay topography include the creation of oyster reefs by the

3 ~planting of cultch in many areas of the bay.

I B. Geology and Sediments

The Apalachicola estuary lies along the coastal margin of the

3 ~Gulf Coastal Plain. The coastal plain is the product of a major

sedimentation period along the margins of the gulf, which was

1 ~~~~~~~~31

probably initiated in late Mesozoic time (roughly one hundred

million years ago) (Gorsline, 1963). The Gulf Coastal Plain

lowlands are characterized by marine sands of Pliocene age to the

north and Pleistocene age nearer to the river mouth (Alt and

Brooks, 1965). The large cusp of the entire Apalachicola coast

is believed to have been built out by the Apalachicola River

during the late Tertiary and Quaternary time and has subsequently

been modified by waves and longshore drift (Kofoed, 1961). East

Bay is believed to have been created by the Holocene flooding of

the ancient river channel (Isphording, 1985). Features of

ancestral delta systems exist from Panama City eastward to the

Ochlockonee River and inland nearly 30 miles (Kofoed and Gorsline,

1963).

Based on the findings of Goldstein (1942), Van Andel and

Poole (1960), Hsu (1960) and Griffen (1962); Schade (1985)

concluded that the Apalachicola River is the major source of

terrigenous sediments for at least 180 miles in any direction and

therefore, most sands on the shelf were delivered by the river.

Delivery occurred during the Pleistocene glacial period when

sea-level was much lower. The Apalachicola Bay system is

considered to be less than 10,000 years old with the general

outline of the bay stable over the last 5,000 years, except for

the migration of the delta front southward into the estuary

(Tanner, 1983). Based on digitization of bathymetric charts for

the period 1896-1982, the average progradation was found to be 3.0

feet/year, with estuarine surface area decreasing about 5% during

this period (Donoghue, personal communication).

Sea level 16,000 to 20,000 years ago is believed to have been

250 to 400 feet below its present level (Schade, 1985). No

conclusive evidence exists for a stand of the sea higher than its

present level during Recent time. The most commonly accepted

theory of sea level rise has sea level rising asymptotically with

the sea level 4,500 years ago being 2.0 to 4.0 meters below its

current level, one meter below its current level 3,500 years ago

and 0.3 to 0.7 meters 2,500 years ago (Schade, 1985). However,

Stapor and Tanner (1977) derived an alternative theory contending

that sea level was 0.5 to 1.5 meters below its current level 3,000

to 5,000 years ago, at its present level 2,100 to 3,000 years ago

and one to two meters below its current level 1,500 to 2,100 years

ago. Schade (1985) found that this alternative theory fits well

with the geological evidence on St. George Island.

The development and evolution of barrier islands is an

attempt by the physical environment to achieve a dynamic

equilibrium wilth the hydraulic regime. Barrier islands are

ephemeral features which are a response to the post-glacial

submergence of the continental shelf. Stapor (1973) concluded

that St. Vincent Island was formed by a successive accretion of

beach ridges which was initiated at least 3,500 years ago. This

makes St. Vincent the oldest of the barrier islands off the

Apalachicola cost. Schade (1985) concluded that St. George Island

is a relatively young island (less than 3,000 years) that is a

composite of two smaller island cores grown together, plus Gap

Island upon which it has welded itself. Gap Island represents the

first emergent feature with a history of seaward progradation and

3 33

dates back about 3,500 years. Schade (1985) hypothesizes that

during the sea level decline believed to have occured 1,500 to

2,100 years ago, two other island cores emerged between Gap Island

and St. Vincent Island. These two island cores are believed to

have grown laterally mostly by spit progradation and eventually

closed the inlet between them less than 1,000 years ago, forming a

single island.

On geological time scales estuaries are ephemeral features

having lifespans which measure from a few thousand years to a few

tens of thousands of years (Schubel and Hirschberg, 1978). Over

time, the principal factor which leads to an estuary's demise is

usually by in-filling by river-born sediment load (Isphording,

1985). In-filling rates greater than 10 mm/year have been

measured in the delta (Donoghue, personal communication), and

Isphording (1985) calculated an average rate of 5.44 mm/year for

the entire estuary, 2.87 mm/year for Apalachicola Bay, 17.2

mm/year for St. George Sound, 1.31 mm/year for East Bay, and 0.37

mm/year for St. Vincent Sound. These rates are large when

compared with other gulf and Atlantic estuaries, and consequently

Isphording (1985) concluded that the combination of high rates of

deposition and the absence of any appreciable subsidence in the

estuary will inevitably lead to its demise. Bathymetric changes

in the estuary are not only important from a long-term physical

perspective. Changes in bathymetry induce changes in other

parameters such as salinity, water temperature, and dissolved

oxygen and thereby influence the overall ecology of the system.

Figure 4 outlines the reduction of depths in Apalachicola Bay

Figure 4
Depth Changes in Apalachicola Bay
from 1858 to 1985

_ _~J'~ 1984

Note: Shaded areas represent depths
greater than nine feet.
Source Isphording, 1985
U~11
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 1935

* -~~ 1 984
Note: Shaded areas represent depths
3 ~~~~~~greater than nine feet.
Source: Isphordings 1985

since 1858.

In addition to the long-term effects of in-filling, bathy-

metry can also be affected rapidly by hurricanes (Isphording,

1985). Substantial quantities of material can move into the

estuary from increased river load and discharge, and from the

barrier island sands carried by tidal surge. Conversly, sediments

suspended in the water column by storm induced wave action and

increased currents can be transported out of the passes into the

gulf. Hurricanes can also influence the morphology and the very

existence of inlets and passes. From the combination of these

actions, hurricanes can effect bathymetry of the estuary, and

thereby its longevity, and also can alter the sediment composition

and distubution.

Since 1837, at least 35 hurricanes have passed within 150

miles of Apalachicola Bay and 16 within 50 miles. In 1985 the

estuary was impacted by three seperate hurricanes; Elena, Juan,

and Kate. Hurricane Elena passed within 50 miles of the estuary

twice within a two-day period, and Hurricane Kate made landfall at

Cape San Blas just west of the estuary, subjecting the bay to the

storm's strongest quadrant. The impact of these storms on the

bathymetry of the estuary is not known at this time. Isphording

(1985) contains a summary of the hurricanes which have approached

northwest Florida since 1837 and how they affected Apalachicola

Bay.

In general, the sedimentary floor of the bay system is formed

by quartz sand with a thin cover of clay in the central basin.

The sediment cover in the central bay measures 30 to 60 feet thick

(Gorsline, 1963). The original source of sand which comprises the

estuarine bottoms, barrier islands, and offshore sandy shelf is

the Appalachian Piedmont to the north (Schnable, 1966). However,

Kwon (1969) notes that most of the barrier sands found in the

petrological study by Hsu (1960) are more similar to the sand of

the Pleistocene delta in grain size and mineralogy than to

riverine sediments. Kwon therefore concluded that beach sands

were derived by reworking of Pleistocene material rather than by

material from the Apalachicola River. These relict sands were

probably orginally brought down the Apalachicola River from the

upper reaches of the drainage basin in earlier periods when the

flow of the river was greater. The lenses of sand in the bay also

may have been derived in part by wave erosion of older deltaic

deposits. Oyster reefs have contributed substantial calcareous

debris to estuarine sediments. Kofoed (1961) and Stapor (1973)

have concluded that at this time no significant amount of quartz

sand material is being supplied by the river system. Most of the

sand-sized sediment load of the Apalachicola River is currently

being deposited at the delta front and in the distributary

channels. Isphording (1985) estimated that sand represents only

about one percent of the river borne sediment load deposited in

the bay from the river. Much of the detrital load is therefore

dissolved material, silts, and clays (Gorsline, 1963).

Kofoed and Gorsline (1963) concluded that the sedimentary

characteristics of the Apalachicola Bay system are the result of

several integrated factors including: 1) bathymetry, 2) reworking

of sediments by wind, wave, and current action, 3) the production3

of organic materials by local faunal assemblages, and )4) sediment

from the Apalachicola River. Of these, Kofoed and Gorsline (1963)1

considered bathymetry to be the most important single factor3

controlling the distribution and textural properties of bottom

material. Waves and currents within the bay are also important in3

keeping material in suspension until it eventually reaches areas

where energy is low enough to permit deposition.I

The bottom sediment types in Apalachicola Bay are shown in3

Figure 5'. St. George Sound is shown to be predominantly sandy,

whereas the rest of the bay sediments have varying degrees of clay3

mixed with the sand. Isphording (1985) compared the bottom

sediment characteristics in the bay at present to those in 1825 by

dating core samples. There was littl~e difference in St. George

Sound sediments; however, in the rest of the bay, there was a

considerable shift from silts to clays. Clays, sandy clays, and3

clayey sands which are so widespread on the present map were

formerly silty clays, silty sands, and sand-silt-clay mixtures.I

Isphording (1985) hypothesized that the present scarcity of silt

in the Apalachicola Bay sediments is due to either: 1) a change

in the sediment carried by the Apalachicola River due to the3

upstream reservoirs, 2) events taking place in the bay which have

acted to remove or bury silt, or 3) a combination of both.3

FDER (198)4) concluded that the quantity of maintenance

dredging on the Apalachicola River has been increasing over time,

and that the areas requiring dredging are moving progressively3

downstream. There is concern about whether maintenance dredging

3 83

Figure 5

BOTTOM SEDIMENT TYPES OF APALACHICOLA BAY

N
A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~O

Apalachico l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~0

Sourc: Ispordin,1985Kilomters ILTYCLAY

m - m - - --- --- m m~WSIL

on the Apalachicola River is causing higher in-filling rates in

the bay. However, since the sites where major dredging increases

are occurring are over 35 miles upriver from the bay, it is un-U

likely that in-filling rates are affected appreciably by dredging3

in the river.

Biological assemblages in Apalachicola Bay contribute varying3

amounts of organic material and calcareous debris to the sediment.

Once in the sediment, organic material becomes food for burrowing3

organisms and is acted upon by bacteria and returned to the water

column as inorganic nutrients (Emery and Ritterberg, 1952).

Kofoed and Gorsline (1963) found that a correlation exists between3

bathymetry and organic content of sediments. Organic carbon

values were found to be low in elevated areas where organicI

material is easily resuspended from the sediment by current3

action. In depressions, the organic carbon content tends to

increase. Organic carbon and nitrogen are deposited under the3

same energy conditions favorable to clay deposition and the

percent composition is thus higher in the finer sediments. InI

contrast, Isphording (1985) noted a low correlation between3

organic carbon concentration and depth which he attributed to the

dynamic conditions which exist in the bay. Isphording (1985) also3

found calcareous debris derived from shell material to be

widespread throughout the bay and noted a low correlation betweenI

carbonate carbon content and depth, again due to the dynamic

conditions in the bay.

Kofoed (1961) and Schnable (1966) concluded that no detrital3

material from the Apalachicola River has been deposited east of

4 03

Cat Point since sea level reached its current level. The material

from the river which is not deposited in the bay is channeled to

the open gulf by way of West Pass and Indian Pass (Kofoed and

Gorsline, 1963). These inlets are oriented so that the water

currents and sediments are directed offshore.

Heavy minerals are uniformly distributed over the bay, rarely

exceeding one percent of the sediment by weight. Glauconite is

common in the small pellets and cavity fillings of silt and clay-

size material found throughout the bay. It is believed that these

grains originated within the bay (Barackman, 1964). Kofoed and

Gorsline, (1963) found kaolinite to be the most abundant clay-

mineral in the bay, but Isphording (1985) found montmorillonite to

be the most abundant clay mineral. Other clay-minerals in the bay

noted by Isphording (1985) include kaolinite, palygorskite

(attapulgite), and illite.

Since dredging of the bay's navigation channels is the major

focus of this document, Table 1 summarizes the sediment grain-size

distribution in the navigation channels, and Figure 6 indicates

where each sample was taken. The table shows that sediments in

the channel bottoms tend to be composed of mostly silts, clays,

and colloids on the GIWW, except at Stations 1 and 7 where the

material is composed of medium to fine-grained sand. At Two Mile,

Eastpoint and Scipio Creek the material is mostly fine sand and

silt. In Sikes Cut the material is medium to fine-grained sand

(COE, 1981, 1982). If the grain-size distribution for the

Eastpoint Channel reported in COE (1982) is compared with data for

similar sites in Geoscience (1984), it is found that the later

-- - m - - m m - M - - m

TABLE 1

SEDIMENT GRAIN-SIZE DISTRIBUTION
IN APALACHICOLA BAY NAVIGATION CHANNELS

% Coarse Sand (1), (2) % Medium Sand % Fine Sand % Silt % Clay % Colloids
x>2.0 (4) 2.0>x>.425 .425>x>o074 .074>x>.005 .005>x>.001 .001>x

GIWW(3)
1 <1% 83% 14% 2% <1% <1%
2 <1% <1% 4% 35% 16% 44%
3 <1% <1% 2% 32% 16% 50%
4 <1% <1% 6% 34% 13% 47%
5 <1% <1% 5% 36% 12% 46%
6 <1% 1% 16% 27% 14% 41%
7 2% 29% 55% 8% <1% 6%
Two Mile
1 <1% 2% 48% 35% 5% 10%
2 <1% <1% 60% 22% 10% 8%
3 <1% 5% 90% 3% <1% 2%
Eastpoint
1 <1% 1% 56% 30% 10% 3%
2 <1% <1% 57% 38% 2% 3%
3 <1% 15% 37% 38% 5% 5%
Sikes Cut
<1% 10% 90% <1% <1% <1%
Scipio Creek
<1% <1% 50% 40% 7% 3%

Sources: COE (1981), COE (1982)

1. X is the grain diameter
2. size terms given in the column are non-standard.
3. Data for GIWW sites collected in 1975.
4. grain-size listed in mm.

Figure 6

SEDIMENT SAMPLES FROM THE APALACHICOLA BAY NAVIGATION CHANNELS

* . ~~Dog

BAY **. ~~~~~~~~~ PASS
* EPI

201le~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ie

ST APALFAOCMEICOLA
Glw~~~~~~~Suc:CO,91&18

data set indicates that Eastpoint contains substantially more

fine-sized particles. For instance Geoscience (19841) found

colloids (<0.001 mm) to account for 26% and ~44% of the sedimentsI

in the west and east legs of the channel, respectively; whereas

COE (1982) found only 3% in both legs to be in this classifica-

tion. These data suggest that the channels are accumulating finer

material over time.

C. Hydrology and Climate3

The Apalachicola basin is located in a transitional climatic3

zone between the semitropical climate of peninsular Florida and

the subtropical temperate climate of the southeastern UnitedI

States.

Average annual rainfall in the Apalachicola River basin in

Florida is about 58 inches. Mean annual potential evapotrans-

piration is between 37 and 143 inches. Average annual rainfall in

the Chattahoochee and Flint basins varies from 147 inches to aboveI

60 inches. In the northern portion of the basin, average rainfall

is highest. Average rainfall then decreases steadily to below 50

inches/year in southern Georgia, and then increases to approxi-3

mately 60 inches/year in the coastal region (Alabama, et al.,

1984), Rainfall in the Chattahoochee-Flint basin is slightlyI

higher in the winter, but much lower in the summer than Florida

rainfall. Similar amounts fall in the spring and the least

rainfall is in October and November (Leitman, et al., 1983). The3

A-C-F basin in general exhibits rainfall peaks in early spring and

4 4I

I ~excep t in the immediate receiving areas (Conner, et al., 1982).

Net~movement of water is from east to west. The more saline gulf

water enters through St. George Sound and moves west, mixing with

the fresher water in East Bay and Apalachicola Bay, and eventually

back out to the gulf through Sikes Cut, West Pass, and Indian Pass

I ~(Ingle and Dawson, 1953; Conner, et al., 1982). Although the

western passes account for only ten percent of the inlet area in

the bay, they serve as outlets for about two-thirds of the total

I ~bay discharge (Gorsline, 1963).

Apalachicola Bay is in an area of transition between the

I ~semi-diurnal tides of southwestern Florida and the diurnal tides

of northwestern Florida, and its tides are therefore classified as

mixed. High tide arrives progressively later to the western and

3 ~mainland parts of the bay; high water reaches West Pass two hours

after East Pass, and high tide arrives in Apalachicola one half

5 ~hour after West Pass. The normal tidal range in the bay is one to

E ~two feet, with a maximum range of three feet (Dawson, 1955;

Gorsline, 1963).

5 ~~The predominant annual surface wind speeds and directions are

summarized in Table 2. This table indicates a large variability

5 ~in wind direction over the course of the year. Cold, dry fronts

from Canada cause winds to tend to come from a north to north-

I ~easterly direction during the fall and winter. In contrast, warm,

5 ~moist flow from the Gulf of Mexico tends to dominate the weather

pattern in the spring and summer, and therfore winds tend to be

5 ~from a southerly direction. Strong winds can modify water move-

ment to the point of obscuring tidal effects. When strong north

1~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 45

TABLE 2

Predominant Annual Surface Wind Speed and Direction (1)

Predominant Percent of Mean Speed
Direction Time (Knots)

N 8.4 7.4

NNE 4.3 6.8

NE 7.8 6.8

ENE 5.5 6.4

E 7.3 7.1

ESE 4.9 8.2

SE 8.4 8.3

SSE 5.4 8.0

S 7.9 6.9

SSW 3.6 6.5

SW 5�2 6.4

WSW 2.9 6. 2

W 5.4 6.1

WNW 3.6 6.6

NW 5.2 7.2

NNW 3.1 8.0

CALM 11.2

Source: Isphording (1985)

1. Period of record, 1948-1949,1975-1982. Data collected at the

National Weather Service Station, Apalachicola, Florida.

north and northeasterly winds blow across Apalachicola Bay, the

net effect is a deflection of' water to the west and south with

greater flows through Indian Pass and West Pass. In the bay,

water velocities rarely exceed 1.5 feet per second, but in the

I ~passes, velocities of 10 feet per second are common (Gorsline,

1963). Strong winds may thoroughly mix the shallow water of the

bay, but winds of lesser velocity affect only the surface layer,

resulting in stratification of the water column (Estabrook,

1973).

I ~~Several efforts have been made to model the circulation

patterns of Apalachicola Bay. Vansant (1980) developed a

I ~two-dimensional numerical model to study the tidal currents in

Apalachicola Bay. The results indicated that water exchange

between the bay and open gulf occurs predomnantly through West

3 ~Pass. However, Vansant (1980) assumed that the influence of Sikes

Cut was negligible and therefore did not include the cut in the

U ~model.

* ~~The University of Florida Department of Civil Engineering

deveolped a real-time, two-dimensional, vertically averaged,

* ~finite-element CAFE-i model to simulate the circulation in
Apalachicola Bay and St. George Sound (Graham, et al., 1979;

I ~Conner, et al., 1982). This model was developed to study

3 ~hydrodynamics and pollutant migration in the Apalachicola Bay

system. The model was intended to determine water velocity and

3 ~direction, water quality in the bay as it corresponds to water

quality in the river, and the salinity of bay waters (Conner, et

I ~al., 1982). The model was developed using the extensive

1~~~~~~~~~~~~ 47

ecological data base developed by Dr. R.J. Livingston at Florida

State University. After its development, this model was modified

to enable it to predict changes in currents due to alterations of

topography such as the creation of causeways or spoil islands and

dredged material disposal sites (Graham, et al., 1979). In a

simulation of the bay with and without the causeway islands of

Patton Bridge, Graham, et al. (1979) found that spoil islands and

causeways can significantly affect tidal circulation.I

In conjunction with permitting conditions imposed by DER, the

COE contracted to have a numerical model developed to simulate the

hydrodynamic and salinity regimes in Apalachicola Bay and adjacent

waters of St. George Sound, East Bay, and St. Vincent Sound. The

model utilized was a modification of an existing two-dimensional,I

vertically averaged, finite difference model. Additional boundary

conditions, constituent advection and diffusion, and reaction

dynamics were added to the model along with a variable grid

capability for greater resolution of critical hydrodynamic

features. The model provides a pseudo-three-dimensional effectI

since its equations are forced to satisfy boundary conditions at

the bottom and surface of the water column (Raney and Youngblood,

1983). This model represents an improvement over the University3

of Florida model because it is able to incorporate wind and

because the data base associated with the model was specificallyI

designed for developing a model.

4 83

I ~D. Physical-Chemical Properties

In this section an overview of the physical-chemical properties of

the bay system will be presented. Table 3 provides surface and

bottom mean values from 1972 to 1983 for selected physical and

I ~chemical parameters at several locations throughout the bay.

*~Figure 7 shows the location of these monitoring stations.

* ~~1. Temperature

Water temperature in Apalachicola Bay closely approximates

that of the air. There is little spatial variation in temperature

over the bay, and vertical stratification of temperature is

I ~minimal. Temperature peaks occur in July and August, and winter

lows occur in January and February. Throughout the year the

temperature may range from 3-50C to 320C. Summer temperature

peaks show little variation over time, but winter minima may vary

as much as 4loC from year to year. Table 3 summarized mean surface

I ~and bottom temperatures found in Apalachicola Bay from 1972 to

1983 at selected locations.

2. Salinity

Salnity is considered to be the single most important

determinant of the distribution of organisms in the estuary

I ~(Livingston, 1983). The salinity structure of the Apalachicola

* ~Bay system is primarily determined by freshwater inflow from the

Apalachicola River. Since the majority of the Apalachicola-

Chattahoochee-Flint River system is in Georgia and Alabama, flow

levels in the Apalachicola River are more closely correlated with

I ~rainfall in Georgia and Alabama than with local rainfall.

I~~~~~~~~~~~~ 49

TABLE 3

Mean Values of Selected Physical and Chemical Parameters for
Apalachicola Bay at Selected Locations (1)

DO(mg/l) Turbidity (JTU) Temperature (C�) Salinity (ppt)

Station 1
Surface 8.4 17.0 21.6 10.5
Bottom 7.8 22.3 21.5 16.2

Station 2
Surface 7.5 18.7 21.4 2.8
Bottom 7.1 23.2 21.3 9.5

Station 3
Surface 8.2 18.3 21.5 2.7
Bottom 8.0 22.2 21.3 404

Station 1A
Surface 8.3 13.0 22.1 17.2
Bottom 8.0 21.5 21.8 21.7

Station 1B
Surface 8.3 11.6 22.0 18.0
Bottom 7.7 16.9 21.6 25.9

Station 1C
Surface 8.2 12.7 22.1 15.7
Bottom 7.7 15.9 21.7 20.2

Source: Livingston (computer printout of data base)
1. See Figure 5 for location of station numbers.

Figure 7

SELECTED LONG-TERMI MONITORING STATIONS OF DR. R. J. LIVINGSTON'S STUDIES

:!.-

:~ f ~~~~~~EAST EAST
--C~ APALCIOSS
BAY BAY

ST. . \NEH
: l WEST X ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ASPON
'APALACH IC 0. ,.~PIT~

APALAC HICOLA
IC
SAY

WEST l
NPASS

Cut

0 4 a Miles

GULF OF MEXICO
Source: Livingston, 1983
II*IT I II _ _ _5 IIIIIIIIII

Consequently, salinity in the estuary is more closely correlated

with upbasin rainfall (Livingston, 1983). In the past several

decades a series of reservoirs have been constructed on the ACFI

river system. A detailed discussion of how this system functions

and the capabilities of each reservoir may be found in Alabama, et

al. (19841). Because of the physiography of the basin the3

reservoirs have limited storage capacity and are only able to

control flows over low to moderate discharges. Similarly, up-I

stream consumption of water only becomes significant in lower3

flows (Alabama, et al., 1984). Since salinity in the estuary is

affected by river flow, reservoir management actions and upstream

consumption can affect the salinity regime in the estuary in

periods of low flow.I

Discharge from the river peaks in the winter and early spring

months, and declines until fall when low flow occurs. Average

daily flows in the river can vary ten-fold in a single year.

Figure 8 shows the average monthly flow of the Apalachicola River

at Chattahoochee, Florida from 1957 to 1984. Table 3 gives meanI

salinity values in the estuary from 1972 to 1983. Measured values

ranged from 0 to 35 ppt. Figure 9 shows the average surface

salinities at different areas within in the estuary, though wide

variation occurs throughout the bay at any given time.

The great variations in salinity, temporally, spatially, and

vertically, are closely related to annual riverflow and wind

patterns. In late summer and fall, low flows and southerly windsI

can result in surface salinities greater than 20 ppt near the

rivermouth, with correspondingly high salinities throughout the

5 2

Figure 8
AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOWS OF THE APALACHICOLA
RIVER AT CHATTAHOOCHEE, 1957 TO 1984

40,000-

35,000- ': l 1929- 1957- 1929-
1956 1983 1983
, , !:11 Source: US.G.S. Water
,' i ; Resources Data-Florida,
30,000 Alabama, et a.1119841

!0~~~~~~~~1 n~~~~~~~~~L
~ 25,000-

20,000-

�:1/

15,000- FBI

OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT
- - _ - - _4 _ _ _ _ _ _- _ _

- -- - -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -i -M - F~e'%m ---

AVERAGE SURFACE WATER SALINITY 11972 -19791

TATES HELL SWAMP

WEST ~~~~~~~. 15.0-20.0~~~~~~~AS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~PASS
***~~~BA AST -u
POIN ~ ~ ~~Mie
.0-6.0 ~ ~ ~ Sore Lvngtn,18

I ~bay system (Livingston, 198)4). During winter and spring flooding

peaks, when river discharge is high and strong northerly winds are

blowing, freshwater may spread out over most of the bay surface.

3 ~At these times, salinity stratification commonly occurs in much of

the bay, particularly the channels and passes (Estabrook, 1973;

I ~Clarke, 1975).

� and, Spatial salinity distribution is affected most by riverflow

anto a lesser extent, local rainfall. East Bay, Apalachicola

Bay, and St. Vincent Sound show greater response to freshwater

inflow than St. George Sound. The lowest recorded salinities are

5 ~found near the rivermouth and in East Bay, which receives

freshwater drainage from Tate's Hell Swamp (Gorsline, 1963;

Livingston, 1983). When local rainfall is heavy in late summer
3 *-and early fall, reduced salinities occur in East Bay and in the

vicinity of Nick's Hole (a major area of freshwater runoff from

St. George Island). The eastern sounds tend to be more saline

than the western portions of the system because of their broad

I ~connections with the gulf and the minimal input of freshwater from

3 ~runoff.

5 ~~3. Color and Turbidity

Color levels in Apalachicola Bay vary seasonally and are

I ~directly related to runoff and riverflow. Peaks in color levels

* ~occur in areas of high river water input and overland runoff in

winter and spring. East Bay consistently has higher color levels

3 ~than Apalachicola Bay due to the drainage from Tate's Hell Swamp

and forestry operations (Livingston and Duncan, 1979).

1~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 55

Turbidity is directly related to riverflow. Turbidity values

measured in the estuary ranged from 0 to 1245 JTU's (Jackson

Turbidity Units) throughout most of the sampling stations. RiverI

turbidity values have been found to be highest during the monthsI

of Febuary through July when riverflow also is highest, and lowest

during the late summer and fall when flow subsides. Strong windsI

have also been shown to increase turbidity due to resuspension of

bottom sediments (Estabrook, 1973). Average surface turbidityI

values found throughout the bay from 1972 to 1979 are shown in

Figure 10 (also see Table 3). Because of the high variability in

turbidity levels, the values in Figure 10 merely diagram general5

trends in the system. The value at any given location at a

specific point in time can vary substantially from the values onI

Figure 10. The same is also true for Figure 11.1

24. Dissolved Oxygen

The amount of dissolved oxygen (DO) in a body of water is

related to air/water mixing, biological activity, temperature, and

salinity. In Apalachicola Bay, peak levels of dissolved oxygen

are found in winter and spring when temperatures are lowest.

Lower values are found in the warm summer and fall months

(Livingston, 1983). Spacially, highest levels of dissolved oxygen

are found in upper East Bay, Nick's Hole, and the eastern side of3

St. Vincent Island. There is considerable natural daily and

seasonal fluctuation of DO levels in Apalachicola Bay. Diurnally,

the lowest DO concentrations occur in the early morning. As yet

there is no indication that cultural eutrophication is causing

5 61

Figure 10

AVERAGE SURFACE TURBIDITY IN APALACHICOLA BAY 11972-19791

TATES HELL SWAMP

DOG
12.0-15.0 ..*ISLAND

P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 701. ASST..*
~~~~~~~~~12.0-21.0 PS

WEST :. 21 .-19.0
PASSPA
c~~I. . Sikos Miles~~S

"TSO10 0
S-r.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ore ~vnso.18 LLVLE NJCSO UBDT NT

- - - - m~~~~~~~AAAClCL,.0,-x

widespread reductions of' DO in the estuary. In certain locations,3

such as the mouth of' Scipio Creek, indications of' significant

reductions in DO levels have been noted (Livingston, 1983a).I

Table 3 gives mean DO values found at selected locations in the

bay f'rom 1972 to 1983, and Figure 11 shows the average bottom

dissolved oxygen level throughout the bay from 1972 to 1979.

5. NutrientsI

Among the major features which determine habitat character- i

istics of' the Apalachicola Bay estuary are the flow of the

Apalachicola River and its effects on nutrient transport from the5

river's f'loodplain (Livingston, 19814a). Nutrients are transported

to the estuary both in the form of' detritus (organic particulateI

matter from leaves and twigs) and as compounds dissolved in the

water column. Annual flooding causes surges in nutrient trans-

port, and these nutrients are the foundation for estuarine

productivity. Nutrients transported from the Apalachicola River

floodplain to its estuary are especially important since detri-I

tivores occupy key positions in the bay's food web (Livingston,3

1983).

The major nutrients affecting estuarine productivity arej

nitrogen, phosphorus, and carbon. Nitrogen and phosphorus are the

two nutrients most often in limited supply in aquatic ecosystems.

Organic carbon is the principle constituent in all organic

material. Phosphorus has been found to be the most critical

limiting nutrient in Apalachicola Bay (Myers and Iverson, 1977).3

Ryan, et al. (in prep) found that the TKN:TOC ratio for Apalachi-

Figure 11

AVERAGE BOTTOM DISSOLVED OXYGEN VALUES IN APALACHICOLA BAY 11972-19791

00.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~s
- - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - ~~~~~ES
~~~~~PSouc:LvnSon193

cola Bay was an order of magnitude lower than normal estuarine

sediments indicating that sediments in the bay are depleted in

nitrogen relative to carbon. In the water column, however,

TKN:TOC ratios are within the expected natural range. InJ

summation, Ryan et al. (in prep) concluded that these data suggest

that nitrogen is removed from the sediments rapidly relative to

TOC. Although the fate of the nitrogen is unknown, it is

conceivable that TKN is remobilized from the sediments to theI

water column and either utilized by biota or exported from the

bay.

Meeter, et al. (1979) found the cyclic productivity of the

Apalachicola Bay system to depend upon both annual pulses of

detritus and the periodic large scale import of detritus duringI

years of increased flow. Annual flooding causes appreciable5

surges in nutrient transport, especially in particulate organic

form. In an 86-day flood event in 1980, Mattraw and Elder (198)4)j

found that about one-half of the annual outflow of organic carbon,

nitrogen, and phosphorus and 60 percent of the detritus wereI

transported past their sampling station closest to the bay. Total3

organic carbon concentrations at this station were 50 percent

higher than those measured below Jim Woodruff Dam even thoughj

streamflow had only increased by 25 percent. These data indicate

that a substantial portion of the annual organic carbonI

contribution to the bay comes from the Apalachicola River

floodplain. Nitrogen and phosphorus increases were similar to

discharge increases. The degree and timing of river flooding3

affects the level of detrital loading to the estuary and

6 01

subsequently, the productivity of the bay system (Livingston,

1981).

As noted earlier, the reservoir system in the ACF basin is

only capable of significantly modifying flows in the low to

moderate discharge range. During flood stage the management

capabilities of the system are quite limited because of the

limited storage capacity of the upstream reservoirs. Studies by

the USGS (Leitman et al, 1983) and the Northwest Florida Water

Management District (Maristany, 1981) have shown that the annual

discharge regime for the Apalachicola River has not been

significantly modified by the upstream reservoirs. Therefore, the

impacts of the reservoir system on the detrital loading of the

estuary from the Apalachicola River's floodplain are believed to

be minimal.

Peaks in commercial seafood catches from the bay were found

to follow years of increased river discharge by Meeter, et al.

(1979). It was therefore hypothesized by Wharton, et al. (1982)

that increases in seafood catches result from the unusually large

load of detritus carried into the bay by the river. The surplus

detritus is accumulated from portions of the floodplain not

normally inundated and is also picked up by the additional

scouring of areas that are annually flooded.

Since Jim Woodruff Dam restricts particulate flow from the

Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers, the Chipola and Apalachicola

floodplains are the primary contributors of detritus to the bay.

Outflow at Jim Woodruff Dam does contain a substantial nutrient

load in a dissolved form (Elder and Cairns, 1982) and is the

largest single contributor of nutrients to Apalachicola Bay

(Mattraw & Elder, 1984). Nutrient concentrations were measured in

Apalachicola Bay in 1971-1972 by Estabrook. Nitrate (3-180 ug/1)

and silicate (400-2500 ug/1) values were found to vary inversely

with salinity, with the greatest concentrations occuring in winter

during highest river discharge. Orthophosphate concentrations

ranged from 4-8 ug/l and correlated with turbidity. There were

higher ammonia concentrations in the bay (7-25 ug/1) than in the

river indicating a possible ammonia source within the bay (i.e.,

not coming from river water). Estabrook (1973) postulated that

zooplankton excretion might be the source of such ammonia.

Nutrients were not found to be limiting to phytoplankton growth

for most of the year in Apalachicola Bay; however, during low wind

conditions in late summer, phosphate may be limiting.

6. Water Quality

The lower Apalachicola River and Bay system is considered to

be relatively free of pollution, although isolated areas have been

identified as having pollution problems. Low dissolved oxygen

concentrations (<4 mg/1) have been measured in Scipio Creek, Eagle

Creek, and the St. George Island Boat Basin. These water bodies

receive stormwater runoff from municipal, urban, and developing

areas. High fecal coliform bacterial levels have been noted in

Scipio Creek, East Bay, Eagle Creek, and the Apalachicola Boat

Basin. Sources of fecal coliform include municipal drainages, and

agricultural and stormwater runoff (Livingston,1983a). The

Apalachicola Bay Protection Act of 1984 provided funds to upgrade

I ~the municipal sewage plants in Apalachicola, Eastpoint, and

3 ~Carrabelle. The water quality in the upper Apalachicola River

basin is good, although problems have been identified at some

I ~locations. FDER (1984) contains a summary of the water quality in
the Apalachicola River, and Jackman and Hand (1982, 1984) can be

I ~referred to for a comprehensive summary of water quality data.

7thedien Quality

The stuainewater column is an important transition zone in

thegeohemcalcycle becuse of increases in pH and ionic strength

associated with the change from fresh water to sea water. These

3 ~increases change the solubility of substances and may also enhance

flocculation and precipitation of materials. Many substances may

be removed from the estuarine water column to the sediments when

the waters are mixed. For example, toxic organics such as

I ~petroleum hydrocarbons (e.g. PCB's and pesticides) have low

solubilities and accumulate in sediments shortly after being

introduced to estuarine waters. Therefore, estuarine sediments

3 ~act as a sink for some constituents, so that the pollution climate

of an estuary is reflected better in the sediments than in the

f ~water column (Ryan, et al., 1984). The historic emphasis of

� ~environmental quality assessment has been through water column

sampling. In estuaries water quality data can provide an

5 ~understanding of the impacts of individual pollution events, but

are of little value in understanding long-term trends, assessing

3 ~ambient background conditions, or assessing the degree of

environmental stress.

6 3

Sediment grain-size is an important qualitative predictor of1

sediment chemistry (Ryan, et al., 198~4). Fine-grained sediments3

usually contain elevated concentrations of metals and hydro-

carbons, while lower levels are observed in coarse-grained3

sediments. Fine-grained sediments have greater concentrations

because they are more enriched in organic and clay materials andI

because they have greater surface areas which provide more binding

sites.

Livingston (1983a) analyzed sediment samples taken from

stations distributed throughout the bay. His results indicated

that, overall, the Apalachicola Bay system remains relativelyI

pollution-free at this time. However, the data show that some

nearshore areas are being contaminated. Livingston (1983a) found

a strong positive correlation between silt/clay fractions and

levels of organic matter in the sediments. These same areas of

high organic content also showed increased concentrations of heavy3

metals. Locations which showed high concentrations of metals such

as chromium, copper, nickel, lead, and zinc include the following:

areas which receive municipal runoff (Scipio Creek, Eagle Creek,3

nearshore Eastpoint), marinas (Apalachicola Boat Basin, St. George

Island Boat Basin), and areas receiving agricultural runoff (Clark

Creek, Murphy Creek, West Bayou). The easternmost area in St.

Vincent Sound also had high metals concentrations, the source ofI

which is unknown. Livingston (198~4) found that the dredgedj

channels of the GIWW, Eastpoint, and Two Mile also concentrate

contaminants such as metals as part of the fallout of silt/clay

fractions. Geoscience (19841) sampled sediments from the

6 4

Apalachicola Boat Basin and Eastpoint Channel. Both sites had

high heavy metal concentrations in the sediments but failed to

release appreciable amounts of these metals into the receiving

water through elutriation.

Ryan, et al. (in prep) found that Apalachicola Bay sediments

contained high absolute concentrations of arsenic, cadmium,

copper, chromium and zinc. However, Apalachicola Bay also has the

highest aluminum concentrations of any estuary in Florida with

130,000 ppm (FDER, 1986). Therefore, when absolute concentrations

are normalized using metal-to-aluminum ratios, only cadmium,

chromium and zinc appear to not be from natural sources (Ryan et

al., in prep).

E. Biota and. abitat

The overall high water quality of the Apalachicola estuary,

with the combined effects of seasonal flooding, nutrient and

detrital transport, and the variable salinity regime, provide

ideal living conditions for estuarine biota and result in a highly

productive system. The Apalachicola Bay system is comparable to,

or higher than, other gulf estuaries in nutrient and detrital

transport from the river and floodplain, and in phytoplankton

productivity (Estabrook, 1973; Elder and Mattraw, 1982). It is

also comparable to other gulf estuaries in its zooplankton pro-

duction (Edmiston, 1979) and bay anchovy abundance (Sheridan and

Livingston, 1979). For many years, the bay has supported the

largest oyster harvesting industry in Florida, as well as exten-

sive shrimping and commercial fishing. It is believed that with

more extensive cultch plantings and implementation of management

and mariculture techniques, the bay could support a substantial

increase in production of oysters and other commercial seafood

species (Ednoff, 1984).

The following sections will provide background information on

the various biological communities that contribute to the high

productivity of the Apalachicola estuary.

1. Aquatic Microbiota

Microscopic organisms, including bacteria, fungi, protozoans,

and microalgae, are among the most biologically important organ-

isms in the aquatic environment. In estuaries, microorganisms are

very abundant and are found in the water column and associated

with sediments, detritus, plants, and animals. Most are extremely

small, single-celled, and are capable of multiplying rapidly in

the water column. They play a part in the recycling of estuarine

nutrients, particularly phosphorus (Myers and Iverson, 1977), and,

when associated with organic matter and sediments, are vital to the

food web of Apalachicola Bay (Livingston, 1983).

The high level of biological productivity in Apalachicola Bay

is due in great measure to the nutrient recycling and detrital

conditioning done by microbiota (Livingston, 1983). Phytoplankton

and aquatic plants depend upon the availability of nutrients in

the water for growth; zooplankton and other planktivores use

phytoplankton as a primary food source. Many bay organisms,

particularly benthic invertebrates, consume detritus during all or

I ~part of their life cycle. These animals in turn are part of the

3 ~food web in which they are preyed upon by omnivores and

carnivores. These trophic interactions are based directly or

indirectly on the healthy functioning of the microbial community

and the quantity, quality, and distribution of detritus.
Communities of microbes are important in the process of

I ~decomposition of floodplain leaf litter (Morrison, et al., 1977).

By colonizing detrital particles, microbes enhance its food value

3 ~since the variety and metabolic activity of the colonizing forms

provide additional and more diverse proteins and nutrients than

I ~were originally available. The enormous quantity and variety of

detrital particles (in size, age, state of decomposition, species

of plant) in the water column or associated with the substrate

5 ~provide colonization surfaces for a large microbial biomass in

Apalachicola Bay. In the bay the primary surfaces available to

I ~microbes are organic litter and sediment particles. Biological

5 ~disturbance of these substrates by grazing, deposit-feeding, or

burrowing, and physical disturbances by winds and tides result in

3 ~exposure of new substrate to colonizers.

Detrital and nutrient input from upriver are greatest during

I ~flooding in late winter to early spring. Although at present no

data is available to indicate the seasonal abundance and activity

of detrital colonizers, it is likely that most activity takes

5 ~place during the warmer months when detritus is available, and

temperature is not a limiting factor.

Many species of estuarine microorganisms are of public health

concern. Bacteria and viruses ubiquitous in the estuarine

6 7

environment may cause varying degrees of illness in people, via

exposure of wounds to waters or sediments, accidental ingestion of

water when swimming, or primarily by consumption of seafood which

is raw, or improperly cooked or stored.

There are two major groupings of human health-related

microorganisms in the estuarine environment: 1) those organisms

which occur naturally in the estuary, apparently originating

there, such as Aeromonas and Vibrio species of bacteria that are

known pathogens; and 2) those organisms which originate in sources

external to the estuary, particularly those bacteria and viruses

associated with human and other mammalian digestive tracts, and

numerous disease organisms. The most important bacteria in this

category are the coliform bacteria, including fecal coliforms,

which are generally associated with domestic sewage. Also

associated with sewage are numerous viruses, particularly enteric

viruses. For a more detailted discussion of human health-related

microorganisms in Apalachicola Bay refer to Appendix 2.

2. Phytoplankton

The phytoplankton community is an important component of the

aquatic system. Phytoplankton live and reproduce suspended in the

water column, drifting with the currents. They are photosynthetic

and utilize a variety of nutrients in the water, particularly

nitrogen and phosphorous.

In Apalachicola Bay the phytoplankton community is dominated

by diatoms, single-celled and filamentous algae which have

silicious cell-walls. The spatial and seasonal distribution of

phytoplankton is patchy, and different species become dominant in

different locations and seasons. In Apalachicola Bay proper,

Chaetoceros lorenzianum, a marine form, is most abundant, while in

East Bay, Melosira granulatum,a freshwater diatom, predominates

(Estabrook, 1973).

The Apalachicola Bay system has a moderately high level of

phytoplankton productivity compared to other gulf estuaries

(Livingston, et al., 1976). Average daily carbon 14 productivity

measured ranged from 63 to 1694 mg C/m2 /day, with an annual

productivity of 371 g C/m2 (Estabrook, 1973). Productivity is

seasonal with peaks occurring in late spring and in fall. Lowest

levels of production occur in winter when temperatures are lowest

and freshwater discharge from the river is high. Although

nutrient availability'is highest under these circumstances,

nutrient uptake and growth is limited by low temperatures.

Increases in productivity, therefore, coincide with rising water

temperatures in spring.

Nitrogen is not a limiting factor to phytoplankton producti-

vity in the estuary at any time of the year (Estabrook, 1973). It

is, however, far more abundant in the cold, growth-restrictive

months, and can be low in summer. Nutrient enrichment experiments

by Myers and Iverson (1977) indicated that phytoplankton pro-

ductivity was enhanced only when water temperature was above

21.50C and nitrate and phosphate concentrations were low. These

experiments indicate that low water temperatures limit phytoplank-

ton growth in the winter and low nutrient concentrations limit

growth in the summer. Their data also suggest that a reduction

in phosphate concentrations during the summer months could reduce

phytoplankton productivity.

Phosphate levels are relatively low in the Apalachicola

drainage basin, and phosphate is the most critical limiting

nutrient for phytoplankton growth (Myers and Iverson, 1977). It

adsorbs to fine sediments so that when the bay is well-mixed by

winds and the sediments are resuspended, phosphate is released and

becomes available for use by phytoplankton in the upper lighted

layer of water where photosynthesis can occur.

3. Zooplankton and Ichthyoplankton

The zooplankton community is an association of small aquatic

animals that have limited swimming abilities and live suspended in

the water column. It inbludes egg and larval stages of some

animals which as adults are not plankton, such as oysters, shrimp,

crabs, and fishes. It also includes species that are planktonic

through all stages of their lives, such as the calanoid copepods.

Zooplankton may be herbivorous, grazing on the abundant but patchy

phytoplankton; carnivorous, consuming other planktonic forms; or

omnivorous, feeding on almost anything organic including

detritus.

In Apalachicola Bay zooplankton biomass, numbers, and species

composition was found to be comparable to that of other gulf

estuaries (Edmiston, 1979). In this study zooplankton populations

from three areas of increasing salinity were compared: East Bay,

Apalachicola Bay, and the gulf outside Sikes Cut. Calanoid

copepods made up most of the catch, ranging from 70O to 94% of the

7O0

total at the three sites. In all three areas Acartia tonsa, was

the most prevalent organism. Zooplankton numbers and biomass were

lowest in East Bay, intermediate offshore, and highest in

Apalachicola Bay, with a total zooplankton community average of

9054 individuals per cubic meter and a total Acartia tonsa average

of 6304 individuals per cubic meter (Edmiston, 1979).

Seasonally, abundance increased with water temperature, with

numbers and biomass starting to rise in March, peaking in May, and

declining in October when water temperature decreased. The major

differences in distribution were found to be related to salinity.

East Bay, which had the greatest fluctuations in salinity, had the

lowest numbers, biomass, and diversity of species (92% were

Acartia tonsa). The offshore station, with the highest salinities

and least fluctuation, had the greatest diversity (only 20%

Acartia tonsa). Apalachicola Bay had intermediate diversity (70%

Acartia tonsa) and provided the optimum salinity range for Acartia

tonsa (Edmiston, 1979).

Other important components of the zooplankton community were

barnacle larvae, decapod crustacean (shrimps and crabs) larvae

cladocerans, mollusc larvae, larvaceans, chaetognaths, poly-

chaetes, and fish eggs and larvae.

Larval fish and eggs were sampled from the same sites as the

above zooplankton study in an ichthyoplankton survey of

Apalachicola Bay from November, 1973, to December, 1974 (Blanchet,

1979). The most abundant species collected was the bay anchovy,

representing 75% of total larvae and 92% of the eggs caught. The

bay anchovy was found year-round, but dominated the warm-season

assemblage of species (most collected between April and October).

Other abundant larvae found in the summer months were the tide-

water silversides (Atherinidae), skilletfish, and gobies. Another

group of species was found in the winter months and was dominated

by post-larval croaker, menhaden, and spot.

This survey was designed to collect only the larvae and eggs

drifting in the surface layers of water. The study indicates that

the bay serves as a spawning ground for bay anchovies since both

eggs and larvae were found. The only other pelagic eggs collected

in the bay were those of the silver perch and the speckled trout.

The eggs of other bay-spawning species, such as the silversides,

skilletfish, and gobies, may have been under-represented in this

survey because they have demersal, attached eggs which would not

be available to surface plankton tows. Most species with pelagic

eggs are offshore breeders such as croakers and spot. Their

larvae develop and grow offshore, arriving in the estuary in the

post-larval stage. The non-anchovy eggs identified in this survey

were collected near the passes and inlets to the gulf indicating

that they were being carried in by the tides (Blanchet, 1979).

4. Benthic Invertebrates

Three major habitat types support populations of aquatic

invertebrates in the Apalachicola Bay system: 1) soft mud and

sandy sediments, 2) grassbeds and areas of detrital accumulations,

and 3) oyster bars. The soft sediment habitat is the most

extensive of the three, covering approximately 78% of the total

open water area (Livingston, 1984). Many benthic invertebrates,

primarily polychaetes and amphipods, inhabit the soft sediments,

using them as a burrowing and feeding substrate. Benthic

community structure and distribution vary throughout the system,

and are determined by the relative composition of the sediment

(clay, silt, sand, and shell) and its organic content; by the

proximity to runoff, currents, wave energy, and bedload transport;

and by water quality conditions (Livingston, 1984). Organisms

themselves affect the nature of the sediment by burrowing,

tube-building, grazing, and filter-feeding activities. The

sediments are a rich source of food, containing bacteria adsorbed

onto sediment particles as well as the nutrients and detritus

brought in from the river which are the basis of the estuary's

food web.

Grassbeds are a complex habitat, providing food and shelter

for many organisms. Invertebrate assemblages in freshwater

grassbeds are dominated by polychaetes, amphipods, chironomid

larvae and molluscs. In higher-salinity grassbeds tanaids,

polychaetes, amphipods and oligochaetes are abundant (Livingston,

1984). Grassbeds provide a protected habitat with reduced water

turbulence, high dissolved oxygen, and an abundant source of food.

The vegetation also provides attachment sites for epiphytes and

epifauna, traps and produces detritus, and may be consumed. The

grassbeds of the Apalachicola Bay system are therefore utilized

extensively by many species, particularly as nursery and feeding

grounds.

The oyster bars and lumps of Apalachicola Bay cover

approximately 7% of the total bay area (Livingston, 1984).

As substrate, they provide a hard surface for the settling of

sessile organisms such as oysters, mussels, anemones, tunicates,

and attached algae such as Ulva, Enteromorpha, and Gracilaria spp.

(Pearse and Wharton, 1938). The rough structure of oyster reefs,

with their cavities and empty shells, is used as microhabitat by

numerous motile creatures. Among the more prevalent inhabitants

on Apalachicola Bay oyster bars are polychaete worms, isopods,

amphipods, mud crabs, hermit crabs, chitons, and barnacles (Pearse

and Wharton, 1938). Small benthic fishes like gobies, blennies,

clingfishes, and toadfishes reside and/or nest in empty shells and

holes. Many oyster predators live on or near the bars while other

organisms use oyster shell as substrate for burrowing, or

participate in some other sort of symbiotic relationship with

oysters.

Benthic invertebrates may be classified according to their

life-style. Infauna are generally quite small and burrow in the

sediments, remaining relatively sessile. Epifauna live on the

surface of the substrate (although they may burrow) and many are

capable of migrating great distances, such as penaeid shrimp and

blue crabs. Oysters and mussels are also epifauna, yet they are

attached and completely sessile as juveniles and adults.

The infauna of Apalachicola Bay consist primarily of small

polychaetes and crustaceans (Livingston, et al., 1977; Livingston,

1983). Polychaetes are particularly abundant in the finer muds

and grassflats, although they are found bay-wide, most being

eurythermal and euryhaline. Two of the most abundant polychaetes

are Mediomastus ambiseta and Streblospio benedicti. Their

UF.ILL Fax:352-392-7598 Oct 6 '98 13:57 P.02/03

I! :populations fluctuates greatly on both a seasonal and annual -basis.

I! ;Mo at. Apalachicola Bay polychaete species are deposit feeders
Consuming fine-detritus,* benthic algae, and small organisms living

~~ within the sediment.

1 ~~Inf'aunal crustaceans such as small amphipods, isopods, and
"tanidsare also extremely abundant throughout Apalachicola Bay

L* ~(Livingston, 1983). Many construct small tubes in the sediment in

I ~which to live, and consume benthic diatoms and detritus.

.Amphipods reach highest numerical abundance. in late winter and

.early, spring when river-derived organic detritus is arriving in

'Peak-quantities to the bay~. The major amphipod species are

~Grantrdidieralla bonnieroides, Ampelisca vadorum, and Corophium

* l1-ovisianum. They are most prevalent in the mudflats of East Bay
and the Halodule wrightii grassbeds off St. cGeorg-e Island. This

:1rassbed area also supports a population of' one of the most

abundant infaunal crustaceans of the bay, Hargeria rapax, a

I tanaid.~ It builds tubes in the substrate or on the grasses and

oonsmesfine particles of detritus and benthic diatoms.

Associations of infaunal animals Inhabiting leaf litter were

..studied experimentally in the bay with leaf litter baskets and

packs designed to resemble Apalachicola River derived detritus

.(Livingston, et al., 19-77). The major organisms found to Inhabit

such packs were Isopods, (e.g., munna reynoldsi); amphipods (e.g.,

'Gran-didierella bonnieroides, and Gammarus spp.); decapod
-crustaceans, and a snail (Neritina reclivata). These animals used

the leaf litter both for substrate to live in and for food. Most

%were detritivores or ominvores, and their patterns of' dominance

TABLE 4

Summary of Selected Franklin County Shellfish Landings (1975-1985)

Total
Blue Crabs Oysters Shrimp Shellfish
1975
Quantity1 1,659 2,033 4,486 9,000
Value2 224 1,107 4,300 6,061
1976
Quantity 1,742 2,503 3,160 9,679
Value 300 1,591 4,570 7,837
1977
Quantity 1,106 3,894 4,420 9,822
Value 214 2,820 5,051 8,305
197t
Quantity 888 5,566 4,931 11,885
Value 189 4,222 5,786 10,4.41
1979
Quantity 1,219 5,810 2,714 9,883
Value 243 4,869 5,260 10,464
195O
Quantity 1,313 6,410 2,890 11,163
Value 280 5,739 4,690 11,077
1981
Quantity 1,640 6,617 4,788 13,764
Value 374 6,463 7,983 15,307
1982
Quantity 1,011 4,153 3,047 8,319
Value 275 4,150 6,399 10,933
1983
Quantity 984 3,936 3,621 8,541
Value 343 4,158 7,956 12,466
1984
Quantity 1,287 6,199 4,164 11,650
Value 372 6,803 7,985 15,160
1985
Quantity 1,433 3,786 3,873 9,092
Value 527 4,311 7,154 11,992

Source: Florida Department of Natural Resources, Summary of Florida Commercial Marine Landings.
1. Quantity: in 1 000's of pounds.
2. Value: in 1,000s of dollars.
_ _

I ~Florida come from Apalachicola Bay, and historically revenue from

3 ~this industry has accounted for nearly 50% of Franklin County's

income (Whitfield and Beaumariage, 1977). Large oyster bars and

3 ~numerous small oyster lumps are distributed throughout the bay

(Figure 12), and the majority are in areas approved for shellfish

I ~harvesting (Figure 13). Additionally, the Department of Natural

Resources contributes to the acreage of oyster beds by conducting

a shell-planting program. Large quantities of clean shell are

I ~placed in suitable locations in the bay providing cultch for

oyster spat to settle on and develop.

I ~~The American oyster grows faster in Apalachicola Bay than it

does in the northern reaches of its range (Ingle and Dawson,

1952). Experiments performed at various sites throughout the bay

I ~indicate that spat grow to average lengths of 1.3 inches in six

weeks, lengths that may take northern oysters an entire year to

I ~achieve (Ingle, 1951). Oysters three inches long may be harvested

S ~from cultch after only 18 months (Ingle and Dawson, 1953).

In Apalachicola Bay, the spawning season is longer and more

3 ~successful when compared to more northern states (Ingle and

Dawson, 1953). An increase in water temperature triggers

3 ~spawning. Some isolated spawning may begin in mid-April at water

temperatures as low as 23OC; however, mass spawning, bay-wide,

.1 ~begins at the critical temperature average of 280C and peaks in

3 ~intensity in mid-May (Ingle, 1951). Spawning then continues at

reduced levels through mid-November.

3 ~~In Apalachicola Bay, spatfall, or settlement of larvae, often

lasts from April to late November. Because spat are planktonic,

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 78

Figure 12

LOCATION OF MAJOR OYSTER BARS IN APALACHICOLA BAY

Dog

PO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IN

'APALAC

GULF OFAPAMEXICOL
WB~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CAY18
I Source Llvlngton,145

Figure 13

SEASONAL OYSTER HARVESTING AREAS FOR APALACHICOLA BAY

GULF OF MEXI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CO
Sour~~~~~~~~ce:Tompo e l18

they have a very patchy distribution, and time and location ofI

settlement is highly variable (Ingle and Dawson, 1953). As notedg

by Menzel, et al. (1966) and Ingle and Dawson (1953), spatfall

tends to be less intensive on reefs in lower salinity areas such

as East Bay and St. Vincent Sound, and heavier in more saline

areas like St. George Sound.3

Oysters are most plentiful and in the best condition fori

harvest during the late fall and winter months, when temperatures

are low and salinities are reduced because of high rainfall and

riverflow. They have an optimal salinity range of 15-25 ppt

(Menzel and Cake, 1969). Oysters thrive in areas of reduced5

salinity, away from the passes and inlets that allow gulf water

(36 ppt) to enter the bay. High summer temperatures raise the

oyster's metabolic rate and increase its need for food. With highg

summer salinities, however, there is less food available and the

oyster must pump more to feed itself. The reduced nutritionalI

intake plus the increased expenditure of energy stresses the

oyster physiologically, and its condition may deteriorate (Ingle,I

personal communication). Under these circumstances the oyster is

subject to predators and disease organisms which are more

prevalent in the summer due to high salinities.I

The most serious oyster predators besides man are the

southern oyster drill and the stone crab. They have lowI

tolerances for freshwater and are not usually found in salinities

below 15 ppt and 12-15 ppt, respectively. Summer conditions

permit their encroachment into the bay and onto the oyster bars.5

In the past when droughts resulted in high persistent salinities,

I ~predators have become well-established on oyster bars such as St.

3 ~Vincent or Dry Bar, and Porter Bar, and consequently these bars

were depleted (Menzel,et al., 1958; 1966; interviews with

3 coystermen). A variety of other predators take advantage of the

stressed condition of oysters in the summertime; among them are

3 ~the blue crab, the crown conch, and the whelk.

Hurricanes can have a pronounced impact on oyster bars.

Hurricane Elena in September,1985 was estimated by the Florida

3 ~Department of Natural Resources to have destroyed 80 to 100 percent

of the oysters in the highly productive eastern part of the bay

3 ~(i.e., Cat Point and East Hole). Nick's Hole, off of St. George

Island, was also seriously affected. The western bars sustained

3 ~varying degrees of damage. The bars were damaged by a combination

of churning up and turning over of oyster shells and by direct

3 ~burial. Some of the higher, inshore bars may have had some

freshwater and/or exposure damage. After hurricane Elena, a good

I ~fall spat set suggested a rapid recovery for the bay's oyster

3 ~population. Unfortunately, in November the bay was hit by

Hurricane Kate, with winds in excess of 100 mph. Preliminary

* ~results indicate the impacts from this storm range from serious,

35% to 70% depletion of post-Elena standing crop, (Livingston,

1 ~1985) to minor damage of post-Elena standing crop by the Department

of Natural Resources.

b. Penaeid Shrimp

3 ~~Three species of penaeid shrimp in the Apalachicola estuary

are ecologically and economically important to the region. In

1 8~~~~~~~~~~~2

landing statistics the three species are combined and referred to

as saltwater shrimp, and represent between a third and a half of1

the dollar value of all seafood landings in Franklin County (Table

14). They are the white shrimp, the pink shrimp, and the brown

shrimp.

Adult penaeid shrimp migrate offshore to spawn in the Gulf ofI

Mexico, each species having its own spawning season and preferred

spawning ground depth (Perez-Farfante, 1969). The eggs hatch

offshore, and the larvae develop as they are transported to the

estuary by currents. In the low salinity tidal marsh areas where

there is protection from predators and abundant food, the larvae P

develop into juveniles. As their size increases, the juveniles3

move gradually from the marshes to other parts of the estuary

where they become sub-adults (Perez-Farfante, 1969). When water

temperatures begin to decrease, they begin the spawning migration

offshore to the adult grounds. Those shrimp still not largeI

enough to migrate remain in the deeper parts of the bay until the

water warms again in early spring.

The adults stay offshore after the spawning migration and may5

reach a maximum age of two years (some very large shrimp landed in

Apalachicola have been estimated to be about five years of age;U

Ednoff, personal communication). Most penaeids probably don't

survive past 12 to 14I months since they are a prime food source

for many aquatic animals and there is high demand for them for

human consumption.

The three species of penaeids in Apalachicola Bay have dif-5

ferent spawning times, migration patterns, and seasonal abun-

I ~dances. White shrimp are the most abundant in this area. In the

3 ~long-term trawl data, white shrimp made up over ~40% of the total

catch (Livingston, 1983; Livingston, et al., 1977), and it is

3 ~estimated that in commercial bay shrimping landings, they make up

to 60% of the average annual shrimp catch (Page, personal

I ~communication). Adults have a spawning peak from April to June

* ~although they may spawn several times from spring to fall.

Post-larval white shrimp move into Apalachicola Bay in spring and

3 ~summer and may be found in low-salinity vegetated habitat,

primarily in East Bay (Livingston, 1983). Juveniles reach peaks

I ~of abundance in summer and fall. When temperatures begin to drop

3 ~late in the year, the white shrimp move offshore, some of them

overwintering in the deeper channels and holes of the bay

3 ~(Livingston, 1983).

Pink shrimp spawn from spring through fall in the gulf and

5 ~the young return to the bay in summer and fall. They are

relatively low in abundance in long-term trawl data; only 5% of

the total catch (Livingston, et al., 1977; 1983); however, pinks,
3 ~or "hoppers" as they are called locally, are important in

commercial hauls in the bay (Page, personal communication). Brown

3 ~shrimp account for only 2 to 3 percent of the long-term trawl data

(Livingston, 1983). Commercially, browns are only caught from May

I ~to July, and at this time are very large (Page, personal

3 ~communication).

The seasonality and distribution of penaeids in Apalachicola

3 ~Bay may be summarized as follows. During the coldest part of

winter, relatively few shrimp are taken. By early summer,

1~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 84

postlarvae and juveniles arrive in East Bay, apparently attractedI

to the freshwater mud and grass bottom environment. In July and3

August the juveniles are at the rivermouth and East Bay. As fall

approaches, the center of concentration is still East Bay, but the3

shrimp begin to move out over the entire estuary, beginning their

migration towards the gulf. Penaeid abundance varies greatly,I

seasonally and annually, in both commercial landings and trawl

data (Livingston, 1983).

c. Blue CrabI

The blue crab, is one of the most abundant invertebrate

species found in the Apalachicola Bay area (Livingston, et al,,

1976). Commercial fisheries statistics of Franklin County

indicate that blue crabs are the third most abundant invertebrate

taken, after oysters and shrimp (Table )4). Blue crabs are also3

part of an important local sports fishery.

The blue crab is an estuarine-dependent, euryhaline species3

with a complex life cycle. Mating begins in summer in low-

salinity creeks and marshes. Between September and April, egg

bearing females from the entire west coast of Florida migrate to a3

high-salinity gulf spawning site which extends from St. Vincent

Island to Panacea (Qesterling and Evink, 1977). Eggs spawned here3

hatch out and undergo a series of larval stages while drifting

with prevailing tides and currents. The developing zoea, mega-U

lops, and first crab stages eventually reach estuaries along the5

southern and western Gulf Coast of Florida. The very early crab

stages and juveniles inhabit the estuaries, growing very rapidly,5

and reach maturity 12-18 months after hatching. Blue crabs then

live about one year as adults (Oesterling and Evink, 1977).

In Apalachicola Bay a peak in blue crab numbers is evident in

the winter, November through April, when the juveniles arrive

(Livingston, et al., 1976). The young prefer low-salinity water,

appearing predominantly in East Bay and Nick's Hole. In other

northern gulf estuaries, juvenile blue crabs are known to burrow

in the soft muds of navigation channels (Overstreet, 1981). It is

unknown whether or not juvenile blue crabs burrow in the channels

of Apalachicola Bay. Larger crabs are abundant in May and June,

and by the late summer and fall months are primarily found in East

Bay where the reproductive cycle begins again.

Blue crabs are opportunistic feeders in general, but do show

preferences for certain food items at different stages in their

development (Laughlin, 1979). Preferences of the larval stages

have not been studied closely, but they probably eat single-celled

phytoplankton and small zooplankton, as do so many other small

planktonic crustacea (Tranter, 1976). Juvenile blue crabs consume

detritus, plant material, and molluscs; adult crabs eat fishes and

mud crabs (Laughlin, 1982). Enormous quantities of detritus enter

the bay from January to April, coinciding with the arrival of the

juvenile blue crabs. The large food supply may be the major

reason for the large numbers of blue crabs found in the bay.

As pointed out by Oesterling and Evink (1977), the

Apalachicola Bay and adjacent Gulf of Mexico is vital to the

entire west Florida blue crab industry. Perturbations in water

quality and quantity could have far-reaching effects, possibly

reducing the number of eggs hatched and the chances of larval

survival, ultimately affecting the number of market-sized crabsI

available on the Florida Gulf Coast.

5. Fish

Available information published on fish populations of

Apalachicola Bay comes from two main sources. Dr. R.J. LivingstonI

and the Florida State University Aquatic Study Group have con-

ducted a long-term monitoring study of numerous biological and

ecological parameters at permanent sampling stations throughout5

Apalachicola Bay. Most stations were established in 1972, with

some in 1974 (Figure 6). Samples and data were collected on aI

monthly basis for twelve to thirteen years. Fish were collected

with an otter trawl, a small trawl which is dragged relatively

slowly and which is most efficient at collecting benthic fishes5

(often not of very large size) and those pelagic fishes which are

not particularly fast swimmers. Trammel nets, gill nets, and

seines were used intermittently during the earlier years of

sampling and collected some larger, faster swimming species. The
top four species collected from 1972 to 1982 were bay anchovies,5

croaker, sand seatrout and spot in order of numerical abundance

(Livingston, 198)4).

This extensive fish information is valuable because: 1) it

is long-term data from numerous stations representing variousI

habitats; 2) sampling methods used were consistent and regular5

over time; and 3) it was collected simultaneously with water

quality data. Reports by Livingston, et al. (19714; 1976; 1977)5

and Livingston (1980; 1983; 198)4) provide an overview of the

8 7

trawl-susceptible fish resources and ecology of Apalachicola Bay.'

5 ~~The other data base available on bay fishes is that of the

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) which provides Franklin

I ~County with annual seafood landings statistics. A NMFS

representative visits local seafood dealers three times a week and

I ~receives data on pounds of fish delivered by species and the

3 ~dollar values paid to the fishermen for it. These data are

submitted on a voluntary basis, and there is 100% participation by

5 ~Franklin County seafood dealers (Snell, personal communication;

Thompson, personal communication). Tabld 5 summarizes fish

I ~landings for Franklin County from 1971 to 1982.

3 ~~This data base provides a different perspective on the abun-

dance of certain species from that of the long-term trawl survey.

3 ~The purposes of each are very different. The long-term trawl

survey was designed, in part, to provide an estimate of relative

3 ~and numerical abundance of demersal fishes. The commercial data

5 ~reflect abundance in terms of a seafood species' desirability.

The types and quantities of seafood landed commercially are

3 ~influenced by availability, cultural preferences, and marketing.

In commercial fishing a variety of gear is used to efficiently

3 ~capture the desired species. For example, mullet are fast

3 ~swimmers which congregate in large schools and are caught most

efficiently with gill nets. Mullet is the most abundant

3 ~commercial fish species landed in Franklin County (over 670,000

pounds annually since 1977). It was not represented as an

3 ~abundant fish in the long term trawl survey, but was collected in

trammel net sampling. (Livingston, et al., 1977).

lm! - - - m - - -m
TABLE 5

Summary of Selected Franklin County Finfish Landings (1975-1985)

Total
Spotted Estuarine Total
Mullet Flounders Seatrout Redfish Croaker Spot Finfish Finfish
1975
Quantity1 984 71 74 36 14 13 1,192 1,679
Value 154 23 29 8 < 1 215 400
1976
Quantity 745 66 101 40 4 4 960 1,472
Value 132 23 43 9 1 < 208 431
1977
Quantity 539 59 48 22 1 4 673 878
Value 103 25 22 5 < < 155 268
1978
Quantity 670 40 49 10 10 3 782 1,060
Value 134 6 25 3 1 < 184 327
1979
Quantity 645 56 53 11 2 7 774 1,331
Value 118 29 32 4 < 1 184 634
1980
Quantity 722 90 29 9 3 6 859 1,642 _
Value 140 47 18 3 1 1 210 954
1981
Quantity 659 68 51 10 6 4 798 1,663
Value 144 37 33 4 1 1 220 1,164
1982
Quantity 653 95 55 7 4 10 820 1,907
Value 151 50 38 3 1 2 245 1,414
1983
Quantity 920 88 55 14 3 13 1093 2,120
Value 210 47 40 6 1 3 307 1,508
1984
Quantity 896 86 51 9 1 17 1060 1,585
Value 209 49 39 4 < 3 304 961
1985
Quantity 482 78 47 8 3 4 622 1,103
Value 116 49 38 4 1 1 209 816

Source: Florida Department of Natural Resources, Summaries of Florida Commercial Marine Landings.
1. Quantity: in 1,000's of pounds.
2. Value: in 1,000's of dollars.

I ~~A problem inherent in the NMFS data is that actual location

3 ~of capture is not reported. For instance, grouper and snapper

landings in Franklin County are high, yet these could have been

3 ~caught almost anywhere in the Gulf of Mexico. It is also unknown

where fish species that inhabit both the bay and gulf are actually

I ~caught. Species landed in significant numbers in Franklin County

for which catch location (bay or gulf) is undeterminable include

mullet, flounder, red drum, sea trout, shark, menhaden, spot, and

3 ~croaker. Species caught offshore, and which contribute to

Franklin County landings include various species of shark, cobia,

I ~bluefish, red snapper, and different species of grouper.

* ~~Although these two data bases are totally different in scope

and intent, and are not comparable, together they provide an

3 ~overall perspective on the value of Apalachicola Bay as an

important nursery ground, feeding ground, and habitat for

3 ~estuarine fishes.

It has been estimated that three-fourths of the commercial

catch of Franklin County is composed of species dependent on the

3 ~estuarine habitat and condi tions of Apalachicola Bay (Menzel and

Cake, 1969). There are various levels of estuarine dependence

3 ~among the species found in the Apalachicola estuary.

True estuarine species inhabit the estuary throughout their

U ~entire life cycle. The most abundant estuarine species in

3 ~Apalachicola Bay is the bay anchovy. It travels short distances,

but makes no long-distance migrations. Other estuarine species

3 ~tend to remain associated with specific habitats such as oyster

bars or submerged vegetation.

I~~~~~~~~~~~~ 90

Other fish inhabit the estuary during a large part of their

life cycle, using it for a nursery and feeding ground. These

species include mullet, flounder, and members of the sciaenid

family: speckled seatrout, redfish (red drum), croaker, spot, and

sand seatrout. The life cycles of these species involve an

offshore migration to gulf spawning sites. Developing larvae are

transported toward the coast by currents. They arrive in the

estuaries and congregate in nursery areas where salinity is low,

food is abundant, and predators are relatively scarce. Juveniles

of some species mature rapidly and move offshore to spawn within

their first year. As adults, they return to the estuary and spend

much of their time there (where they are fished commercially in

greatest numbers), making annual offshore spawning migrations.

Diadromous species spend a portion of their life cycle in the

estuary when migrating to their spawning grounds. In the

Apalachicola system, anadromous species (spawning upriver) include

the Atlantic sturgeon, the Alabama shad, the skipjack herring,

the Atlantic needlefish, and the striped bass. Catadromous

species (spawning at sea) include the American eel, the hogohoker,

and the mountain mullet (Yerger, 1977).

Other species only enter the bay when conditions are

appropriate. With winter and spring flooding and lowered bay

salinities bluegill, redear sunfish, and large-mouth bass may

enter the upper bay. Other freshwater fish found in the bay

include spotted gar, long-nose gar, common carp, and mosquito

fish. In summer months, when bay salinities are high, marine

fish such as shark, ray, cobia, jack crevalle, grunt, pigfish, and

I ~small grouper may enter the bay (Miley, personal communication).

5 ~~To obtain a perspective on recent fisheries landings in

Franklin County, 1971-1982, a table was compiled using the six

3 ~most valuable estuarine food fish landed: mullet, flounders,

spotted seatrout, redfish, croaker, and spot; their combined

I ~landings; and total finfish landed, including all species (Table

5). Table 5 shows that all landings declined in 197)4, and again

in 1977. Since then, the estuarine species landings have risen

3 ~slightly. Total landings, however, have risen substantially

indicating that offshore fisheries (primarily grouper, red

3 ~snapper, and swordfish) are contributing more to the total catch

in recent years. Landings of these three offshore species rose

from 151,000 pounds in 1977 (17% of the total landed) to 921,000

1 ~pounds in 1982 (418% of the total). Estuarine species contributed

673,000 pounds (77% of the total catch) in 1977, and 820,000

3 ~pounds in 1982 (143% of the total landings).

No information currently exists that can adequately explain

I ~these fishery trends. It is unknown what the relative contribu-

3 ~tions of fishing pressure (number of fishermen, concentration on

target species, efficiency of gear), natural population fluctua-

* ~tions, and environmental changes are to the overall condition of

local fisheries and their ecological relationships.

I ~~Appendix 3 presents a review of the life history, abundance,

3 ~seasonal distribution, and feeding habits of the most important

fish species in Apalachicola Bay. Species reviewed in this

5 ~appendix were selected on the basis of their relative abundances

in the long term trawl survey and NMFS data providing they were

3~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 92

estuarine dependent species spending all or a major part of their

life cycle within the estuary. In order of apparent relative

abundance they are: bay anchovy, mullet, flounder, speckled sea

trout, redfish, croaker, spot, and sand sea trout.

6. Submerged Vegetation

Aquatic plant distribution in Apalachicola Bay is mostly

limited to shallow areas along the coast (Figure 14). Table 6

summarizes the acreage of submersed vegetation assembleges in the

estuary. The largest grassbeds in the area are in eastern St.

George Sound near Alligator Point and Dog Island, where salinities

are generally the highest. These grassbeds consist of shoal

grass, manatee grass, and turtle grass. Algal species of the

genera Gracilaria, Caulerpa, and Padina also occur here. Further

west in Apalachicola Bay, vegetation is limited to the shallow

lagoons of St. George Island, and consists primarily of shoal

grass, manatee grass, and Gracilaria spp. There is no submerged

vegetation at Eastpoint and little or no grassbed development in

St. Vincent Sound or along the east coast of St. Vincent Island

(Livingston, 1980; 1983).

East Bay supports extensive grassbeds along its marshy

perimeter. They are dominated by tape grass, widgeon grass,

and sago pondweed all fresh to brackish water species (Livingston,

1980). In recent years, the Eurasian watermilfoil has become

rooted throughout northern East Bay, and there is concern over its

potential effects on the ecology of the area (Livingston, 1983).

A recent study funded by the COE (CSA, 1985) found that Eurasian

93I

Figure 14

SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION DISTRIBUTION IN APALACHICOLA SAY

411,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~s

GULF OF MEXICO Source:LivlASTnESTo.13
- m m - - - - - -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~PS

Table 6

ACREAGE OF SUBMERSED VEGETATION ASSEMBLAGES
IN THE APALACHICOLA BAY SYSTEM

Location Species/Assemblage Area (Acres)

Apalachicola Bay Halodule wrightii 1,145

Ruppia maritima 287
Vallisneria americana

R. maritima 50

St. Vincent Sound 0
St. George Sound H. wrightii 711

H. wrightii 277
Thalassia testudinum

East Bay R. maritima 166
V. americana

Myriopyllum americana 1,179
Potamogeton pectinatus
V. americana
R maritima

Najas guadalupensis 187

R. maritima 25

R. maritima, 55
P. pectinatus

Source: CSA, 1985

watermilfoil has undergone considerable expansion, increasing from

30% coverage in 1980 to 90% coverage in 1985 in the major bays

along the west side of East Bay.

Temperature chiefly limits the growth of submerged vegetation

in East Bay with plant biomass at its lowest levels during winter

months. Significant growth begins when the water gets warmer in

early spring, and it peaks between May and July. Senescence and

loss of grass blades occurs by August, but some growth may take

place in September and October. With winter temperatures,

senescence of the grassbed occurs rapidly. A similar seasonal

cycle occurs in grassbeds elsewhere in the Apalachicola system,

but with greatest growth occurring during the summer and little or

no new growth in early fall (Livingston, 1983). While temperature

limits the growth of submerged vegetation, salinity affects the

distribution. The John Gorrie Bridge and causeway generally acts

as a dividing line between higher salinity adapted seagrasses and

fresh-to-brackish water species. High salinity species such as

turtle, manatee, and shoal grasses have not been found north of

the bridge, while fresh-to-brackish water species such as tape and

widgeon grasses are not found south of the bridge except near the

mouth of the river (Livingston, 1980; CSA, 1985).

Two major evaluations of the grassbeds in the estuary have

been conducted in recent years (Livingston, 1980; CSA, 1985). The

total area of submersed grassbeds in Livingston (1980) is much

higher than that in CSA (1985). CSA (1985) attributes the decline

to differences in mapping and area calculation techniques and loss,

of grassbeds. CSA (1985) noted little change in species composi-

I 6

tion in Apalachicola Bay proper, St. George Sound and St. VincentI

Sound. However, GSA (1985) did note that both Livingston (1980)3

and infrared imagery taken in 1979 showed the presence of a large

seagrass bed (shoal grass) just west of Sikes Cut, along St.3

George Island, which was not there when they surveyed the bay.

7. Nursery Habitat3

Apalachicola Bay meets the three general criteria established

by Joseph (1973) that characterize a nursery ground: 1) an area

must provide some protection from predators; 2) it must provide

abundant food supply; 3) it must be physiologically suitable inU

terms of physical and chemical features. A combination of3

features provide protection from predators in the estuary. The

marsh systems along the bay side of St. George Island, the bayous3

and creeks of St. Vincent Island, and the extensive marshes

surrounding East Bay are major areas where post-larvae andI

juveniles of many species congregate. Salinities in these3

locations are low since they are areas of freshwater runoff, and

in the case of East Bay, heavily influenced by the Apalachicola3

River. Low salinities are a deterrent to many predatory species

(Massmann, 1971).3

The structural complexity of vegetation such as widgeon grass,

tape grass, shoal grass and turtle grass functions to protect

small animals from larger predators (Heck and Orth, 1980). High3

turbidity and color values found throughout the bay (particularly

in areas of freshwater runoff such as East Bay) reduce visibility

in the water and may help reduce the effectiveness of those

9 7I

predators that visually seek out their prey. Submerged vegetation

has additional protective and nurturing qualities for developing

young by providing sheltered microhabitat for benthic, planktonic,

and free-swimming organisms, and reduces excessive daytime

illumination. The system of leaves, rhizomes, and roots also

reduces water turbulence from tides and currents (Kikuchi and

Peres, 1977).

The planktonic larval stages of invertebrates and fishes rely

on large quantities of phytoplankton and zooplankton (especially

copepods in their early life stages) as a food supply (Detwyler

and Houde, 1970; Carr and Adams, 1973; Thayer, et al., 1974). The

larger post-larval stages may include detritus, other larval

forms, epiphytes, and other organisms in their diets (Carr and

Adams, 1973; Sheridan, 1978; Laughlin, 1979; Livingston, 1983).

In Apalachicola Bay such food types are abundant. Large amounts

of detritus are supplied to the bay by the Apalachicola River.

The peaks in abundance of these food items in early spring

coincide with the early development of the majority of estuarine-

dependent species in Apalachicola Bay. As a food resource,

submerged vegetation produces a supply of detritus, as well as

trapping detritus and other water-borne food items. Grassbeds

also provide increased substrate for growth of epiphytic algae and

associated fauna which may be fed upon by developing animals

(Kikuchi and Peres, 1977).

The temperate climate of Apalachicola Bay provides ideal

temperatures for growth and development and a relatively long

spring to fall spawning season. The bay circulation system, being

wind-driven and fairly well-mixed, provides high levels of'

dissolved oxygen vital to normal development, and also provides

effective waste removal (Livingston, 1983). Additional oxygen is

produced by submerged vegetation, which also consumes carbon

dioxide (Kikuchi and Peres, 1977). Low salinities, such as those

found in the bay, are essential for the proper development of someI

species (June and Chamberlin, 1958). Cultural eutrophication is

still relatively low in Apalachicola Bay; therefore, developing

organisms are not stressed by heavy concentrations of pollutants3

(Livingston, et al., 1974; Livingston, 1983).

8. Intertidal, Marsh, and Terrestrial Biota

Relative to the aquatic communities of Apalachicola Bay,

little research has been done on the intertidal, marsh, and3

terrestrial communities. Several lists of observed plant, bird,

and mammal species have been compiled by biologists and wildlifeI

specialists who have made field surveys of Cape St. George State

Preserve, the National Wildlife Refuge on St. Vincent Island and

other parts of the estuary. A census of island reptiles and3

amphibians has been published (Blaney, 1971), and an overview of

the terrestrial biota of St. George Island is provided in Means3

(1975).

The intertidal, marsh, and terrestrial community as discussedI

here is found between the mudflat, beach, and marshy intertidal3

zone to the coastal uplands along the shore of the mainland and

surrounding the barrier islands. The species here are numerous3

and varied. This area is highly productive, and the species in

9 9U

certain parts of this zone may be submerged or exposed, and

experience wide fluctuations in salinity, dissolved oxygen, and

temperature, while others may be completely terrestrial.

The animals found here are of two types: permanent and

transitory (Heard, 1982). Permanent residents include many

invertebrates. The microinvertebrates (meiofauna) living in or on

the sediment may include such groups as protozoans, flatworms,

roundworms, copepods, ostracods, polychaete larvae, and insect

larvae. The macroinvertebrate fauna include polychaetes,

oligochaetes, molluscs, crustaceans, and insects (Heard, 1982).

Vertebrates who live permanently in this area include muskrats,

alligators, turtles, and numerous birds. Other inhabitants visit

the intertidal-terrestrial zone temporarily, usually when feeding

or nesting. Carnivores and ordnivores such as raccoons, mice, blue

crabs, fishes, penaeid shrimp, herons, and other water birds feed

in this area (Heard, 1982).

Although the invertebrates of the intertidal, marsh, and

terrestrial zone have not been investigated per se, leaf-litter

and core studies (Livingston, et al., 1977) and fish gut analyses

(Sheridan, 1978; 1979) have produced some information on aquatic

larval stages of the non-biting midges (the Chironomidae) that are

abundant as adults in the marsh and terrestrial zone. The larvae

are benthic and are generally found in fresher water in shallow

areas and are a food item for many estuarine fishes. No

terrestrial insect data exists for the area; however, insects are

a significant part of the terrestrial biota, particularly the

mosquitos and no-see-ums (local residents, personal

I 00

communication). Mosquito larvae are also aquatic, live in the

water column, and are often fed upon by estuarine fishes.

a. Emergent Vegetation

The most extensive marshes in the Apalachicola Bay system are

located in the Apalachicola River floodplain near the rivermouth

and surrounding northern East Bay (Figure 15). Predominantly

freshwater marsh vegetation grows here, dominated by cattails,

bullrushes, sawgrass, needlerush, and brackish water forms of

cordgrass (Livingston, 1983). A system of creeks and bayous on

northeastern St. Vincent Island supports an'extensive brackish

water marsh. Lagoons along the bay side of St. George Island

(such as Nick's Hole and Rattlesnake Cove), Dog Island, and

Alligator Harbor are surrounded by saltwater marsh vegetation

dominated by needlerus'h and cordgrass. Marshes cover about 14% of

the total aquatic area of the Apalachicola Bay system (Livingston,

1980).

b. Herpetofauna

The coastal marsh environment of the mainland and barrier

islands surrounding Apalachicola Bay provides habitat for numerous

reptiles and amphibians. A common marsh inhabitant is the

American alligator, which is listed as a threatened species of

special concern by the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish

Commission. The saltmarsh water snake, and the diamond back

terrapin, also inhabit marshes of the Apalachicola system (Means,

1977). A census and biogeographic analysis of amphibians and

reptiles was conducted by Blaney (1971) on the barrier island

chain (Dog Island, St. George Island, and St. Vincent Island).

101 I

Figure 15

EMERGENT AQUATIC VEGETATION DISTRIBUTION IN APALACHICOLA BAY

ACH~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I.

S APAULFAOCHICOL
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Suc:LvfgtNDIAN3
PASS BAY- -

Thirty species of herpetofauna were found. Among these is theU

island glass lizard, which is found on St. George Island. Other-

wise this lizard is only found on peninsular Florida. This

distribution suggests that the Apalachicola Region was the

westernmost limit of peninsular Florida species distribution

during Pleistocene sea-level fluctuations, and also indicates thatI

island populations have historically been isolated from the

adjacent mainland (Blaney, 1971).

The loggerhead sea turtle, a state and federally listed

threatened species, nests on the gulf beaches of St. George Island

and Cape St. George (Miley, personal communication).

c. Bi rds

Cole (1985) identified 282 bird species within the boundaries

of the Apalachicola National Estuarine Reserve (formerly the

National Estuarine Sanctuary). This total is a very high species

count for such a relatively small area but may be explained by the

natural elements within the estuary. The habitats within the

Reserve include cypress swamplands, deciduous and coniferousI

forests of the Apalachicola River floodplain, delicate brackish

marshes which are the basis for the estuarine system, and

extensive dunes, beaches, and savannahs found in the barrier

island system. All of these habitats support a variety of plant

communities and are thus capable of supportin g large animalI

populations.I

The Apalachicola River estuary lies on the eastern fringe of

the Mississippi migratory flyway and thus receives large numbers

of birds from both the Midwest and the Atlantic seaboard which use

1 0 3~~~~~~

I ~the Gulf' of Mexico and peninsular Florida in migration. The

Reserve's two barrier islands (St. George Island and St. Vincent

Island) in addition to the Apalachicola River form a very unique

system that creates adequate landmarks to birds in migration.

Therefore, in both spring and fall the barrier islands serve as

U ~vital resting spots for birds flying across the gulf states. The

estuary's strategic position between two major migratory flyways,

at the mouth of a major river system with a large barrier island

system accounts for 16~4 of the bird species identified in the

reserve. Of the remaining species, 99 are breeding birds and 20

I ~are non-breeding, summer residential birds. Local residents

3 ~include many shorebirds, wading birds, and water birds as well as

passerines and other more land-oriented species.

Bird species legally listed as endangered, threatened, or of

special concern that live, breed and nest within the estuary

I ~include the osprey and bald eagle (Miley, personal communication).

* ~Many brown pelicans (a federal listed endangered species) inhabit

the bay area, but are not known to breed locally. Their nests

3 ~have been found nearby on islands in St. Joseph Bay (Nesbitt, et

al., 1977; Miley, personal communication).

Of particular interest to this study are the habitats provide

by construction of the Two Mile Breakwater, the Eastpoint

Breakwater, the bridge causeways, and the beach spoil sites at
Sikes Cut. Dredge spoil islands in southern Florida have provided

nesting habitat for numerous bird species, particularly the royal,

tern, and others such as the least tern, laughing gull and black

skimmers (Barbour, et al., 1976). These seabirds prefer to nest

I 10~~~~~~~~~~~~4

on sandy open stretches which are inaccessible to humans andI

mammalian predators, and which are located near estuaries. It is

unknown to what extent local breakwaters, causeways, and spoil

sites are used for nesting or roosting by local birds. Pelicans

and gulls are often seen on the rocky Eastpoint Breakwater, and

numerous tern s, gulls, skimmers, and oyster-catchers have beenI

observed on the bridge causeways.

d. Mammals

Among the many species of mammals on the mainland, several

are commonly hunted, including white-tailed deer, hogs, fox

squirrels, and grey squirrels (Frankenberger and Belden, 1976).I

Other species of mammals found in the area include black bear,

raccoon, opossum, marsh rabbit, rats and the eastern mole. Otters

were once trapped in Franklin County for their fur. A subspecies

of the round-tailed muskrat, found in the lower Apalachicola River

floodplain, is a species of special concern (Means, 1977).I

The barrier islands are inhabited by similar mammal species.

On Cape St. George, marsh rabbits, cotton rats, striped skunks,
raccons and grey squirrels have been observed (FDNR, 1983). St.

Vincent Island was owned privately in the past and used as a game

preserve by an individual who imported exotic game species for

hunting. At this date only the sambar deer remains. Other "known

or suspected" mammals on St. Vincent Island include opossum,

moles, many species of bats, raccoons, feral hogs, marsh rabbits,

rats, mice, grey squirrels, round-tailed muskrats, grey foxes,

bobcats, river otters, and white-tailed deer. Dolphin are often

present in the bay and inshore gulf area, usually travelling in

1 0 5~~~~~~

I ~groups. A few manatees have also been observed in the estuary.

I~F. Protective Actions

Because of the ecological and environmental importance of the

Apalachicola estuary, a number of protective designations have

I ~given to it. Among these are the designation of the estuary as an

aquatic preserve, an Outstanding Florida Water, a National

Estuarine Reserve and a Man and the Biosphere Reserve.

Under Chapter 258 of the Florida Statues those waters in

Apalachicola Bay from St. George Island bridge west to Indian Pass

* ~in Gulf County and North into East Bay are an aquatic preserve.

As an aquatic preserve, the state has added authority to review

all requests for uses of or directly affecting state-owned

sovereignty submerged lands. This mechanism allows f or the

evaluation of public interest and project merit within the context

of environmental impacts upon the preserve. A management plan for

the Apalachicola Bay aquatic preserve has not been developed.

I ~~Under Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code, the

E ~Apalachicola River and Bay are declared as Outstanding Florida

Waters (OFW). As an OFW, ambient conditions, instead of

prescribed values, become the water quality standards for the

water body. An OFW designation is the highest degree of

I ~protection affordable under Florida law.

In 1979 the lower Apalachicola River and Apalachicola Bay

were declared a National Estuarine Reserve (formerly National

Estuarine Sanctuary). As an estuarine reserve funds are provided

to purchase lands for preservation and protection, research and

~~~~~~~~~~~~~I 6

education programs are developed, and a mechanism for coordinatingI

management activities is provided. The estuarine reserve program

provides no additional authority to manage or protect the

resources of the estuary. A management plan for the Estuarine

Reserve is currently being developed.

In 1984 the lower Apalachicola River Valley was accepted forI

inclusion in the Man and the Biosphere Program. This is a system

of international reserves operating under the general guidance of

the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization

(UNESCO). These reserves are selected to conserve a representa-

tive diversity of the world's major ecosystems as sites for long-I

term monitoring, research and related educational activities. The

boundaries for the Biosphere Reserve are the same as those for the

estuarine reserve.

In addition to providing protective designations, the state

and federal government have acquired a sizable amount of land inI

the lower Apalachicola River and around Apalachicola Bay. St.

Vincent Island is a 12,358 acre National Wildlife Refuge. Under

the Environmentally Endangered Lands Program the State of Florida

purchased 28,0)45 acres in the lower Apalachicola River and the

2,300 acre Little St. George Island. In additional 1,883 acres on

the eastern tip of St. George Island is a state park. Under the

Conservation and Recreation Lands Program the State of Florida is

purchasing 12,467 acres around East Bay. Another 12,623 acres of

land which used to belong to M-K Ranches has been acquired by the

state. And, through the Save Our Rivers Program and fundsI

provided by the Nature Conservancy the Northwest Florida Water

I 0 7~~~~~~

Management District purchased 36,000 acres of Apalachicola River

floodplain. Figure 16 shows the location of these parcels.

G. Existing Land Use

The major land use in the Apalachicola River floodplain is

forestry. Most areas were first cut between 1870 and 1925 and

have been logged once or twice since that time. Regrowth has been

rapid and much of the floodplain has the general appearance of a

mature forest. A few areas of the floodplain have been cleared

for agricultural and residential development. The largest

agricultural operation in the basin, M-K Ranches, has recently

agreed to restore 8,000 of the 10,000 acres of floodplain it had

cleared for agriculture to the hydrologic regime of the river.

Population and residential development in the Apalachicola

basin is relatively sparce. The combined population of

Chattahoochee, Marianna, Sneads, Blountstown, Bristol, Wewahitchka

and Apalachicola, the major cities in the basin, is less than

25,000 (Bureau of Economic and Business Research, 1983).

Most of the floodplain land is owned by timber companies.

However, a large part of the floodplain is also in the public

domain. In conjunction with the Apalachicola River and Bay

National Estuarine Reserve approximately 28,000 acres of flood-

plain in the lower river are under state ownership. Torreya State

Park and Ft. Gadsden State Park account for additional 1,140 acres

of state-owned floodplain lands. Through the Save Our Rivers

program, the Northwest Florida Water Management District has

purchased 35,000 acres of floodplain and is negotiating for the

108

Figure 16
LAND IN THE LOWER APALACHICOLA
RIVER BASIN IN PUBLIC OWNERSHIP

CALHOUNI

DEAD
BAY ~~~~LAKES

WEWAHITCHKALIET

SUMATRA

GUF C... --------

~Reserve Area

. 0. R. Purchase Area C4oE

M-K Lands O

-~~~~~~~~~~ I

I ~purc hase of an additional 140,000 acres. And, the Nature

Conservancy, a private land trust, has also purchased 4I,500 acres

of floodplain and adjacent uplands in the upper river basin, and

is currently negotiating additional purchases in the basin.

According to Section 253.12 of the Florida Statutes,land below the

3 ~ordinary high water line of the river, and land in tidally

influenced areas below mean-high water, are owned by the state.

The ordinary high water line is defined as the elevation reached

by waters in a usual year for a long and continuous enough period

to remove terrestrial vegetation and change soils. The line must
5 ~also be immediately attached to a navigable water body (D.

Thompson, personal communication).

I ~~With a few notable exceptions (i.e. cities of Apalachicola

and Eastpoint, part of St. George Island and the coastal strand

between Eastpoint and Carabelle) the major land uses in the

Apalachicola Bay area are forestry and federally or State owned

conservation areas.

I ~~St. Vincent Island, a triangular shaped barrier island, was a

privately owned game preserve until 1968, at which time it was

acquired by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for inclusion in

the National Wildlife Refuge System. Land use on the island is

limited to outdoor recreation since the 12,358 acre island's

I ~primary purpose is to serve as a wildlife refuge.

I ~~Running from the east end of St. Vincent Island lies Little

St. George and St. George Islands. Little St. George is owned by

the State of Florida under the Environmental ly Endangered Lands

(EEL) program. A little more than half of the land use on St.

I 11~~~~~~~~~~~~0

George Island is single family residential with some commercial

tourist oriented areas. The eastern portion of St. George Island

is a State Park. Unit Four, which faces the mainland and rests

within the residential portion of the island was purchases by thej

Trust for Public Land and sold to the State of Florida through the

EEL Program.3

Across from St. Vincent Island, along the coast and for

approximately 18 miles west of Apalachicola the major land use is
forestry/silvaculture. This area is sparsely populated. Due west3

of Apalachicola, is a mobile home development. Apalachicola

consists mostly of residential development. The major land usesI

fringing the city are commercial fishing houses, light industrial

and residential.I

The major land use surrounding East Bay is forestry/silva-I

culture and conservation. The City of Eastpoint consists mostly

of single family homes and mobile homes/trailers. Along Highway3

98 within and just outside of Eastpoint, is a large area used for

single family home industry and commercial fishing. From thisI

area to Carabelle, along the coast, south of Highway 98 are single3

family homes owned by small land owners. To the north of Highway

98 stretching on to Carabelle are mobile homes owned by small landI

owners.

Most of the population in Franklin County is concentratedI

along the coastal strand and St. George Island. At present therea

are approximately-7000 persons residing in the county and this

number is expected to increase to 10,000 by the year 2000. In theI

future, development is expected to occur most heavily along the

bay and on St. George Island.

Aside from forestry, residential development is the primary

land use in Franklin County. County wide there are 51 recorded

subdivision plats; 25 more are unrecorded with a total of 6,822

lots. Currently the majority of these lots are unbuilt and

development is contingent upon adequate public services and

facilities; 45% of them are on St. George Island.

H. Cultural History

The Apalachicola River Valley is believed to have been

occupied by humans for over 10,000 years (Dunbar and Waller,

1983). Little is known of these early inhabitants, other than

that they were small, seasonally wide-ranging groups of hunter-

gatherers'organized in family bands (White, 1984). Their sites

generally clustered around river crossings where game could be

more easily taken. Because of the arid conditions during the

Pleistocene Period, water was an important factor in settlement

location. Therefore, the Apalachicola River Valley is believed to

have been an ideal environment for small hunting groups. However,

no direct evidence of Paleo-indian occupation has been uncovered

to date (Henefield and White, 1986).

The Archaic period (7000-1000 B.C.) is only slightly better

known than the earlier period of habitation in the Apalachicola

River Valley. The type of tools used would indicate an increasing

reliance on smaller game animals. Several middle to late Archaic

sites are known in the region (Bullen, 1950; Kurjack 1975;

Huscher, 1964; and Gibson, et al., 1980; White, 1984). The late

112

Archaic period is marked by the introduction of fiber tempered

pottery, which is probably an independent invention originating in

S.E. Georgia, Florida, and Louisiana at nearly the same time

(Phelps, 1966; Bullen, 1972). Settlements of a seasonal or semi-

permanent nature are noted in the valley during the late Archaic

period (just after 3000 B.C.) and these settlements intensively

exploited selected resources such as deer, nuts, fish and

shellfish. Expanded systems of socioeconomic interaction helped

to spread various technological innovations such as new

projectible points styles, steatite vessels and fired clay pots

(White, 1984).

Human populations became more sedentary by 1000 B.C.,

engaging in hunting and foraging as well as the beginnings of

plant cultivation. In Northwest 'Florida this period is known as

the Deptford period. Although the majority of Deptford sites are

associated with coastal swamps and estuaries (Milanich and

Fairbanks, 1980), Deptford components have been located at a

number of sites in the region (Bullen, 1950; Huscher, 1964, White,

1984). One site on the upper Apalachicola River suggests more

than just an occasional occupation with the Deptford component

extending several hundred meters along the river bank (White,

1984). The Deptford period is characterized by the appearance of

sand tempered ceramics and larger, more settled villages

(Hennefield and White, 1986).

The following Swift Creek period, 300 B.C. to 200 A.D., is

best known for the paddle-malleated complicated stamped ceramics

associated with occupations. This decorative motif originated in

113

central Georgia and radiated rapidly to both the Georgia and

Florida coastlines.

The influx of ideas from the north (Hopewell) and from the

West (Poverty Point) to the indigenous Florida gulf coastal

culture culminated in a vibrant and dynamic set of regional

adaptions during the middle Woodland stage known as the Weeden

Island culture. By 200 A.D., this culture had spread to the basin

(White, 1981). Weeden Island ceramics are the most distinctive

and well made in the Florida Gulf Coast and have long been

recognized as being among the finest native ceramics in North

America (Willey, 1949).

Numerous Weeden Island sites are noted in the region

surrounding the Apalachicola River Valley (Brose nd.; Bullen,

1950; Kelly, 1953; Huscher, 1959, 1964; Percy 1971, 1972;

Milanich, 1974; Kurjack, 1975; Chase, 1978; White, 1984). Through

the Weeden Island period an increasing dependence on agriculture

was responsible for a small, but constantly growing population.

Sites with multiple burial mounds and extensive middens are noted

in the central Apalachicola River Valley by Milanich and Fairbanks

(1980), and local sites of this time period have been investigated

by Bullen (1950), Kelly (1950), Huscher (1964, 1971), and White

(1980). Burial mounds seem to have stopped being built between

500 and 1000 A.D. (Hennefield and White, 1986).

Around 1000 A.D., in response to stresses from increasing

populations, the native culture shifted, evidently fairly rapidly,

to larger aggregations in more permanent, riverine villages, where

a larger labor force could concentrate on an intensified maize

114

culture (White, 1981). These changes developed in local WeedenI

Island populations as response to constant diffusion of culture

traits from Mississippian peoples. This Weeden Island culture is

known as the Ft. Walton Culture, which can be dated at 1000 to

1600 A.D.

These Ft. Walton populations were the first to have contact3

with Spanish explorers which was followed by a chain of Spanish

missions organized from 1670 to 1665 (Jones, 1973). This historic

phase, dating from 1600 A.D. to 1750 A. D., is known as the3

Leon-Jefferson period, during which aboriginal settlement patterns

were changed by Spanish influences. By the mid-seventeenth

century, native cultures were disrupted and populations had

declined severely, mostly because of the introduction of europeanI

diseases (Hennefield and White, 1986).1

Along the Apalachicola during this time, English traders from

the central Georgia area sold guns to the local populations, while i

Spanish traders were not allowed to trade. During the 1680's

Spain built three forts in the area: one near the junction of theI

Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers, another near the present day city

of Columbus, Georgia, and one at the confluence of the St. Marks

and Wakulla Rivers.5

In 1703 and 17041 allied British and Creek forces destroyed

all but two of thirteen existing missions of the province ofI

Apalachee and hundreds of Indian captives were taken back to

Savannah, effectively depopulating the area (Swanton, 1922). By

1715, returning Creeks resettled the area. With the Treaty of i

Paris in 1763, Florida passed into English hands for twenty years,

151

� ~then back to the Spanish. Historic Creek sites, all small, are

known in the surrounding areas of the valley and have been noted
by Fairbanks (1955), and Kurjack (1975).

Continued encroachment by American settlers onto native

occupied areas led to increased hostility which culminated in the

I ~Red Stick Rebellion (Moore, 1951 ). Following the war of 1812, and

I ~the defeat of the Creeks in 18141, only a few scattered remnants of
the Creek nation survived in the Apalachicola area.

I ~~The War of 1812 forced colonial powers out of the region and
in 1822, Florida joined the union. Subsequently, remnants of the

I ~Creek population were forcibly removed and white settlers began to

colonize the river valley. Demand for cotton lured many settlers

to the rich land, and by the early 1820's, a marketable crop of

I ~cotton was being produced in the Apalachicola River Valley. In

1822, the area around the mouth of the Apalachicola River was

designated as a customs district. This was the beginning of the

community of Apalachicola (Owens, 1966).

In 1827, the first steamboat, the Fanny, visted the community

3 ~and continued upriver. Unfortunately, she blew up near Columbus,

Georgia (Owens, 1966). But, many more boats were to follow. Most

* ~of the boats on the A-C-F river system were small to medium size

vessels designed for shallow water operation. Although steamboat

I ~traffic was seasonal, community dependence on them was heavy

I ~because alternative transportation was slow, seasonal and tenuous

at best (Grambling, 1980).

Riverboats provided the primary means of transportation and

communication along the river system from the 1820's until the

turn of the century. By the 1850's, several factors caused a

decline in cotton shipments and subsequently, the decline of the

riverboat era. Among these were the development of a textile

industry in Columbus, increased competition from railroads and the

War between the States (Grambling, 1980).

In pre-civil war times the river's floodplain, from the

present location of the 1-10 bridge to the Chipola Cutoff,

functioned as a "little Mississippi River Valley" (Atkins,

personal communication). Cotton was grown extensively in the

fertile floodplain soils since upland soils were of poor quality

and no commercial fertilizers were available. The cotton was

grown mostly in locations populated by bottomland hardwoods since

the cypress/tupelo content, eventually killed the local satsuma

industry. In the late 1800's and early 1900's the floodplain was

also used extensively for raising cattle and swine.

117

IV. THE AUTHORIZED NAVIGATION PROJECTS1

There are several authorized navigation projects in thej

Apalachicola Bay system including the Gulf' Intracoastal Waterway

(GIWW), the Two Mile Channel, the Eastpoint Channel, St. George
Island Channel and Scipio Creek Channel. Figure 17 shows the

location of' these projects. In addition, the Apalachicola-

Chattahoochee-Flint navigation channel begins at the John Gorrie3

Bridge and extends up the Apalachicola River system into Georgiaa

and Alabama. A detailed description of' this project may be f'ound

in FDER (1984). The GIWW is used both f'or waterborne commerce and

as an access channel to Apalachicola f'or a variety of' commercial

and recreational f'ishing interests. Two Mile and Eastpointj

Channels are used predominantly by oyster boats, smaller shrimp

boats and recreational craf't. St. George Island Channel, or SikesI

Cut, is used f'or access to the Gulf' by the larger shrimp boats andj

f'or recreational f'ishing. There are roughly 1,150 acres of' bay

bottom currently approved f'or as open water disposal and over

twenty miles of' authorized navigation channels in the bay. This

accounts f'or nearly one percent of' the bay bottom.I

In reviewing the dredging history of' the navigation channelsI

in Apalachicola Bay it should be noted that none of' the channels

were dredged between 1979 and 1983 since the COE did not have aj

maintenance dredging permit f'or either the GIWW or the bay

projects (i.e., Two Mile, Eastpoint, Sikes Cut and Scipio Creek)I

during this period. Since 1979 revisions to the Clean Water Act

Figure 17

AUTHORIZED NAVIGATION PROJECTS IN APALACHICOLA SAY

Dog

EAST~~~~~~~~~~~~. EAST

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CP
- ~~~ - - - Source COE,1983~~~~~~~Cr

required the COE obtain water quality certification from the State

of Florida before they maintenance dredge a navigation channel

within state boundries. The dredging history for the channels in

Apalachicola Bay indicates that in anticipation of permittingj

problems from the Clean Water Act, the COE extensively dredged all

the Navigation Channels in the bay in 1978. The GIWW, Two Mile,

Eastpoint, and St. George Island Channels all had among their

highest quantities dredged (Tables 7,10,11,12), .

The COE did not apply for the GIWW permit until 1981 and for

bay projects until 1982. The GIWW permit was issued in 198)4, but

to date the bay projects have not been permitted because the COEI

has not formally responded to the DER's Completeness Summary. It

is anticipated that the COE will try to get these projectsI

permitted in 1986. In 198)4 the COE was given a permit to5

maintenance dredge the St. 'George Island Channel one time. In

addition, the cut was dredged in September 1985 and January 1986J

beause of damages caused by Hurricane Elena and Hurricane Kate.

Most dredging in Apalachicola Bay is done with a hydraulic

cutterhead dredge, although a clamshell dredge has been used for3

small isolated jobs. Disposal sites for the most part are

open-water sites, although an upland site and beach renourishmentj

are also used.

A. Gulf Intracoastal Waterway

The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway is a shallow draft navigationI

project which extends 1,115 miles along the Gulf of Mexico coast

1 2 0~~~~~

from northern Florida to the tip of Texas. Although the GIWW is

authorized to .have a 12 x 125 foot channel to Apalachee Bay,

Florida, to date the project has only been constructed to

Carrabelle. The authorized inland route from Carrabelle to

Apalachee Bay is currently deferred for restudy (COE, 1983) and

traffic to St. Marks uses an open water route through East Pass

and around Alligator Point. Figure 17 shows the route of the GIWW

in the vicinity of Apalachicola Bay, and Figure 18 is a map of the

GIWW from Panama City to Apalachee Bay.

The GIWW was constructed to provide a sheltered course along

the coast of the Gulf of Mexico for barge tows and other small

craft designed for navigating inland waterways but not suitable

for the rougher waters of the open gulf. Much of the channel

follows protected sounds and bays between the mainland and

offshore islands. Some parts traverse open bays, and portions

have been cut through land to connect natural bodies of water

(COE, 1976).

The GIWW was built in segments, with the first federal act

passed in 1828 authorizing the construction of the Pass aux Herons

connecting Mobile Bay and Mississippi Sound. In 1909, Congress

first directed an investigation of constructing a continuous

waterway, inland where practical, along the Gulf of Mexico from

St. George Sound to the Mississippi River near New Orleans. With

the completion of a canal between Choctawhatchee Bay and St.

Andrews Bay in 1938, this inland waterway became a reality.

Extension of the channel from Apalachicola through St. George

Sound to Carrabelle and then inland to St. Marks was authorized

� 121

Figure 18

MAP OF G.I.W.W. FROM PANAMA CITY TO APALACHEE BAY

ALABAMA /

GEORGIA

TALLAHASSEE

OoLF

AMA CITY sa

PANACEA.

GULF

OF:

MEXICO

Source: COE,1983

122

I ~in 1937 (COE, 1976).

3 ~~The north-south leg of what is presently the GIWW in

Apalachicola Bay, initially was the Inner Bar Channel authorized

3 ~for construction in 1880, and first dredged in 1882. The purpose

of this channel was to provide access from the open gulf and

I ~anchorage areas in Apalachicola Bay to the Apalachicola River. A

further discussion of the Inner Bar Channel may be found later in

this section.

3 ~~Table 7 summarizes the dredging history for the GIWW since

1970 and the quantity of disposal at the various disposal sites.

I ~Figure 19 shows the location of the disposal sites. Table 7 shows

that the GIWW was not dredged from 1979 through 1983 because of

permiting problems discussed earlier. A review of COE Report of

I ~Channel Conditions forr the GIWW indicates there were'shoaling

problems in the channel over this time period. The majority of

3 ~the dredging and disposal activity on the GIWW in Apalachicola Bay

occurs within two miles of the bend in the GIWW, in the open

I ~waters of the bay. All disposal sites used on GIWW project in

3 ~Apalachicola Bay are open-water sites. There are 815 acres of

approved open-water disposal area associated with the GIWW in

Apalachicola Bay. Of these, 510 acres are on the east-west leg,

and the remainder are on the north-south leg (COE, 1981). It is

� ~estimated that open-water disposal sites will satisfy the

5 ~maintenance dredging needs of the GIWW over the next 20 to 50

years (COE, 1981). At open-water sites the natural shifting of

3 ~sediments rejuvenates a site and extends its effective life. A

review of the dredge monitoring surveys collected in 1984 by the

123

TABLE 7

HISTORY OF DISPOSAL SITE UTILIZATION
OF THE GIWW, APALACHICOLA BAY

QUANTITY DISPOSED AT EACH DISOSAL SITE (1000's cubic yrds)

Year 1 1A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 TOTAL

1970 130 --- 104 203 16 ---1

1971 147 26 128 300 139 71 32 ............... 844

1972 75 --- 66 186 . .... .............. . 327

1973 - - - --- --- 0

1974 93 167 90 . ... ............. 350

1975 91 --- 73 144 .....................308

1976 --- 60 --- 30 225 --- 20 31 20 ---386

1977 33 --- 67 91 66 53- - - - --- 311

1978 17 27 169 314 34 - - - - - 34 71 62 49 777

1979 �� -- --- 0

1980 . ............................. 0

1981 . . . ....-----

1982 . . ..---............................. 0

1983 . . ....-- 0

1984 125 100 257 180 98 87 18 51 110 23 65 --- 1114

TOTAL 618 113 800 1692 750 222 139 49 105 181 5 114 4871

SOURCE: COE Daily Dredge Reports

124 4

Figure 19

DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES FOR THE GULF INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY

EAST~~~~* EAST~s
~~**...*~~~AS
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A

GULF OF MEXICO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~e

14.1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Suc CCOE,1981
~~ ST-

COE does not indicate any appreciable accumulation of' material atI

the GIWW disposal sites.

The major purpose of' the GIWW is the transportation of'

waterborne commodities along the coast and to the ACF waterway.3

Table 8 summarizes the major commodities moved on the GIWW between

Apalachee Bay and Panama City f'rom 1971 to 1982. These includeI

gasoline, residual and distillate f'uel oil, f'ertilizers, phosphate

rock, and sodium hydroxide. However, all the commodities which

are shipped on this stretch of' the GIWW do not necessarily cross

Apalachicola Bay. Some products such as sodium hydroxide are

delivered to Port St. Joe, whereas others go up the Apalachicola-1

Chattahoochee-Flint waterway. Since the GIWW connects with the

ACF' waterway at the conf'luence of' the Apalachicola and Jackson

Rivers, about six miles above John Gorrie Bridge (Figure 16),5

traf'f'ic which goes up the ACF waterway f'rom the west does not

cross Apalachicola Bay. From 1971 to 1980 only about twenty3

percent of' the tonnage, about 500,000 tons per year, actually

traversed Apalachicola Bay. Principle commodities shipped overI

the bay in this time period included gasoline, phosphate rock,I

asphalt, tar and pitches, and sodium hydroxide. In 1981 and 1982,

however, coastwise traf'fic on this portion of' the GIWW increased

considerably to 1,64)4,000 tons in 1981 and to 1,090,000 tons in

1982. Principle commodities shipped across the bay during theseI

two years included crude petroleum, phosphate rock, sodiumI

hydroxide, gasoline, and distillate and residual fuel oils.

1 2 6~~~~~

TABLE 8

MAJOR COMMODITIES MOVED ON THE GIWW
BETWEEN
APALACHEE BAY AND PANAMA CITY
(1000's Tons)

1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976

Gasoline 493 512 503 434 394 419
Residual Fuel Oil 438 421 398 311 312 309
Crude Petroleum
Products 179 147 176 171 176 268
Asphalt, Tar and
Pitches 157 96 87 64 94 126
Basic Chemical
Products 80 77 91 68 58 72
Sodium Hydroxide 72 99 133 204 140 200
Fertilizers 132 235 94 95 104 160
Jet Fuel 52 69 75 102 88 113
Distillate Fuel Oil 82 87 87 96 72 86
Phosphate Rock 39 42 40 42 47 51
Grains (Corn, Oats,
Wheat, Soybeans) 40 30 6 11 19 79
TOTAL 2084 2149 2010 1864 1702 2096

1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982

Gasoline 490 856 627 426 374 417
Residual Fuel Oil 362 232 253 373 290 187
Crude Petroleum
Products 285 246 550 618 272 1
Asphalt, Tar and
Pitches 110 102 99 66 28 82
Basic Chemical
Products 73 45 67 65 100 58
Sodium Hydroxide 211 252 242 224 182 129
Fertilizers 251 179 167 206 165 189
Jet Fuel 102 166 189 138 150 34
Distillate Fuel Oil 203 240 165 104 137 158
Phosphate Rock 130 574 291 112 153 172
Grains (Corn, Oats,
Wheat, Soybeans) 103 68 74 57 78 77
TOTAL 2635 3194 3000 2617 2247 1680

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterborne Commerce of the
U.S.

� 127

B. Two Mile Channel5

The Two Mile Channel is a 6 x 100 foot channel which extends

from the GIWW and runs parallel to the shore west of Apalachicola.

Associated with the project is a 6 x 100 foot connecting channel5

to the bay and a breakwater. Figure 17 shows the location of the

Two Mile Channel and Breakwater.3

The Two Mile Channel was authorized in 1963, and constructed

in 19641 to provide access for oyster boats to the open bay and theI

oyster bars. Originally the Two Mile Channel paralleled the shore

in front of the access channel to the bay and did not connect with

the GIWW channel. However, in 1966 the City of Apalachicola3

adopted a resolution requesting the COE to study the feasibility

of extending the Two Mile Channel to connect with the GIWW. And,I

in 1970 the Franklin County Board of County Commissioners passed a

resolution requesting the COE to construct a breakwater to protect

shore installations and vessels. The COE released a study in 19713

which recommended the extension of the Two Mile Channel along the

shoreline until it intersected with the GIWW and the constructionI

of a breakwater along the seaward side of the existing Two Mile

Channel.

In 1976 the Two Mile Extension and Breakwater were construct-5

ed. The breakwater was constructed of the material dredged out of

the channel extension and has a top elevation of 7.0 feet aboveU

mean low water. To prevent silting of nearby oyster bars, dikesa

were constructed to confine the runoff. These dikes also served

as the outer toe of the main breakwater. The 1.8 mile long

breakwater consist of two islands extending 1000 feet along the

1 2 8~~~~~

3 ~approach channel. The rationale behind constructing the extension

and breakwater was to provide an all-weather safe route to the

oyster beds, to provide a shorter route between oyster houses in

5 ~Apalachicola and oyster beds in the western section of the bay, to

provide a shorter route to the Department of Natural Resources for

their oyster bed planting program, and to protect the shoreline.

In conjunction with the construction of the breakwater at Two

Mile, the COE constructed a marsh on the western breakwater island

3 ~(Site 6). The marsh was constructed as part of the COE's Dredged

Material Research Program and was designed to test the feasibility

5 ~of propagating selected marsh plants on fine-grained dredged

material placed in saline intertidal environments (Kruzynski, et

U ~al., 1978). Studies were also conducted to determine the optimum

3 ~spacing intervals for planting the selected species.

Table 9 shows the dredging history for the Two Mile Channel.

3 ~Figure 20 shows the location of the disposal sites for the Two

Mile Channel. As discussed earlier, no dredging has occurred in

I ~the Two Mile Channel since 1978 because of permitting problems. A

3 ~review of the COE Report of Channel Conditions indicates there has

been shoaling problems in the channel since 1979. It is estimated

5 ~by the COE that the Two Mile Channel will require 100,000 cubic

yards dredged from the channel every 18 months, and an additional

1 ~75,000 cubic yards dredged from the extension channel every five

years if it is to be maintained as authorized (COE, 1982).

Dredged material from the Two Mile Channel is proposed to be

3 ~placed upon the partially diked disposal islands (Sites 5 and 6)

and upon the open-water Sites 1-)4 adjacent to the north-south leg

1~~~~~~~~~~~~ 129

m - - - - -MM mm - - - - - -
TABLE 9

DREDGING AND DISPOSAL HISTORY
OF TWO MILE CHANNEL

Year(1) Total Quantity Dredged (cubic yds,) Disposal Site Quantity (cubic yds.)

1964 408,558 N/A (2)
1970 181,475 1 22,610
2 19,780
3 44,865
4 63,396
5 30,822
1974 261,150 2 11,005
3 58,683
4 49,701
5 71,627
6 70,494 o
1976 82,800 8 82,800
1976 369,000 7 200,000
8 169,000
1978 275,000 1 N/A
2 N/A
3 N/A
4 N/A
8 N/A

Sources: Department of the Army (1965), Peterson (personal communication),
COE daily dredge records.

(1) If year not listed then no dredging occured.
(2) N/A means not available.

figure zu
DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITES FOR TWO MILE CHANNEL

JOHN GORRIE MEMORAL BRIDG

APALACH ICOLA e

V~i~ o ' ~TWO MILE
If t | CHANNEL I
II Ii

2S3 I1 lI '-
2~ II
11

APALACHICOLA

BAY

SOURCE: C.O.E.,1982
_ _ _-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

of the channel. The authorized disposal sites associated with the

islands (sites 5 and 6) cover roughly seven acres each, and the

open-water disposal sites (1,2,3, and 4) are 29 acres each, for a

total of 130 acres authorized for dredged material disposal. The

choice of the appropriate disposal site used in a specific

dredging event depends upon dredging location and the condition of

the proposed disposal site. Dredged material from the extension

to the GIWW is proposed to be placed on the eastern disposal

island (Site 5) for the western half of the channel, and on an

open-water disposal area east of the GIWW (Site 7) for the eastern

half of the channel.

Disposal Sites 1,2,3,4, and 7 are expected to last the life

of the project because current patterns in this area and wave

energy are expected to shift bottom material out of the site

boundaries over time, making room for subsequent disposal volumes.

Disposal Sites 5 and 6 are also expected to last the life of the

project since erosion of the islands is expected to offset the

material placed upon them. Dredged material placed upon the

breakwater will be placed on the southern edge of the breakwater

to protect established marsh vegetation (COE, 1982).

C. Eastpoint Channel

The Eastpoint Channel is a 6 x 100 foot channel which

parallels the shore of Eastpoint, Florida. The channel is 6000

feet long with a connecting channel to St. George Sound. In 1983

a 5000 foot long breakwater was constructed on the bay side of the

132 2

channel to protect the channel and shoreline structures.

The Eastpoint Channel was authorized by the River and Harbor

Act of 1946 and justified by the fact that local commercial

fishermen had to either unload their vessels into small skiffs or

go wading to get their catch ashore because of the natural

shallowness of this area. Local interests requested a 9 x 100

foot channel, but the COE felt a 6 x 100 foot channel would

suffice (U.S. House of Representatives, 1951). In 1954, dredging

of the channel at Eastpoint was completed by local interests who

we're later reimbursed by the federal government (COE, 1978).

Since strong southerly winds generate heavy wave action in St.

George Sound and regularly caused considerable damage to seafood

houses and boats, a breakwater was constructed at Eastpoint in

1983 (COE, 1983a).

Table 10 shows the dredging and disposal history for the

Eastpoint Channel since 1970. Figure 21 shows the location of the

disposal sites for the Eastpoint Channel. No dredging has

occurred in the Eastpoint Channel since 1978, although the COE

Report of Channel Conditions again shows that there have been

shoaling problems in the channel. It has been estimated by the

COE that 50,000 cubic yards of material would have to be dredged

every one and a half years to maintain the authorized channel

(COE, 1982).

The COE has proposed to place dredged material from the

Eastpoint Channel either in two open-water sites-adjacent to the

channel or on a beach nourishment site adjacent to Highway 98.

TABLE 10

DREDGING AND DISPOSAL HISTORY

OF EASTPOINT CHANNEL

Year(1) Quantity (cubic Yds.) Disposal Site

1954 N/A N/A (2)

1960 67,844 N/A

1964 33,452 N/A

1969 70,228 N/A

1971 49,500 1,2

1976 54,900 2

1977 22,500 2

1978 249,000 1,2

Sources: Department of Army (1960), Department of Army (1964),

Department of Army (1969), Peterson (personal com-

munication), COE daily dredge logs.

(1) If year not listed, then no dredging occurred.

(2) N/A means not available.

134

Figure 21

EASTPOINT CHANNEL DISPOSAL SITES

BREAKWATER

NOURISH MENT //
SITE \ /
"'3 f ` DISPOSAL AREAS

1/
BREAKWATER

OINT

APALACHICOLA //

BAY /

-_I - -

The open-water sites total approximately 165 acres. Since these3

areas are shallow, islands will be created by disposal activity.

The beach nourishment site is approximately 4.5 acres and may beI

used in lieu of or in conjunction with the open-water sites (COE,

1982).

Disposal Areas I and 2 are expected to last the life of the3

project because the sediment is expected to be moved out of the

sites due to wave energy and current patterns, providing space forI

more disposal material. Since concerns have been expressed that3

material from the disposal sites will ultimately settle on oyster

bars southwest of the disposal sites (i.e., Cat Point), the3

breakwater permit required an extensive monitoring program for

disposal material associated with breakwater construction andI

disposal operations from'the Eastpoint Channel.U

D. St. George Island Channel (Sikes Cut)3

The St. George Island Channel, also referred to as Sikes Cut,I

is a 10' x 100' channel extending from a 10 foot depth in Apalach-5

icola Bay, across St. George Island, to within 300 feet of the

gulf shore. From this point the channel increases uniformly in3

width to 200 feet at the gulf shore out to a 10 foot depth in the

Gulf of Mexico. Twin jetties extend gulfward from the dune lineI

to the outer edge of the channel (COE, 1983). Figure 22 is au

diagram of the authorized project and disposal sites.

According to Zeh (1979) construction of the channel was first3

proposed in 1937 when local shrimp and fishing interests requested

3 6~~~~~~

Figure 22

DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL AREAS
FOR ST. GEORGE ISLAND CHANNELISIKES CUTI I*

APALACHICOLA BAY

I'*C

\ St. George
lsland Channel '*G
~\\Ii~lkes Cutl .'"

<,i. * _ sJETTY
:4 At : ~~~~~GULF OF MEXICO
'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

.fi 4V--JETTY

SOURCE: COE ,1982

that a 15' by 100' channel be dredged through a former natural1

opening in St. George called New Inlet to reduce the travel time5

to gulf fishing grounds. This request was rejected by the COE,

but a subsequent request in 1939 to construct a 10' x 100' channel3

2.5 miles east of New Inlet was supported, and in 1952 this

channel was authorized. Because of delays in project authoriza-I

tion and construction, the channel was actually cut by local

interests according to COE specifications. Since the mouth proved

to be unstable and shifted seasonally, the COE constructed two5

jetties on the gulf side and assumed maintenance of the channel in

1957.1

In 1970 the University of Florida submitted a report to the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, proposing that the

jetty system be extended back through the channel because erosion5

of the channel walls was contributing a significant percentage of

the material dredged from the channel (U. of Florida, 1970). The3

COE, however, rejected this proposal. Because of the erosion of

private property on the eastern bank of the land cut, extendingI

the jetties on either one or both sides of the cut is again bein g5

considered.

Table 11 lists the dredging history of Sikes Cut. From 19581

to 1970 the principal areas needing dredging were directly off-

shore, in the center of the cut, and between 1000 to 2000 feetI

north of the bay side of the cut (U. of Florida, 1970). These are

roughly the same areas still requiring maintenance dredging

(Peterson, personal communication). Shoaling in the cut is caused5

by erosion of land from the sides of the cut and to a limited

138

TABLE 11

DREDGING AND DISPOSAL HISTORY
OF ST. GEORGE ISLAND CHANNEL

Year(1) Quantity Dredged (cubic yds.) Disposal Site

1958 60,188 N/A (2)
1959 29,435 N/A
1960 25,998 N/A
1961 35,312 N/A
1962 24,321 N/A
1963 32,973 N/A
1964 89,164 N/A
1965 58,754 N/A
1966 115,181 N/A
1967 10,592 N/A
1968 38,544 N/A
1969 21,735 N/A
1970 21,785 4
1971 14,639 3
56,980 4
1972 50,000 3
19.74 18,241 2
3,022 4
1975 54,995 1
1976 5,246 3
22,400 4
1978 134,900
1984 17,000 2
41,500 3
1985 45,600 1
800 2
10,900 3
1986 63,300 1
18,900 3

Sources: Zeh (1979) 1958-1969, COE -dredging records (1970-1982),
Peterson (personal communication).
(1) If year not listed, then no dredging occurred.
(2) N/A means not available.

139

extent from material moving into the cut, whereas shoaling in theI

gulf is caused by movement of littoral material (Peterson,3

personal communication). Shoalling in the bay is caused by

movement of bottom material during periods of rough water in the5

bay.

As discussed earlier, no dredging occurred between 1977 andI

1983 because of problems associated with permitting. COE Report5

of Channel Conditions indicated that shoaling problems occurred in

the cut during this period. The cut was dredged in 1985 because3

of shoaling caused by Hurricane Elena, and again in early 1986

because of shoaling from Hurricane Kate.I

The channel was cut in a south-southeastern direction, which3

over the course of the year is also the direction of prevailing

wind and swell. It has been suggested (U. of Florida, 1970) that3

if the channel had been cut with its center line facing south,

maintenance needs on the channel would have been reduced. It isI

estimated that in the future an average of about 50,000 cubic

yards will have to be dredged annually to maintain the project

(COE, 1982).5

Disposal sites at the cut are located in open-water areas

within the bay and upland areas adjacent to the channel and on the3

gulf beaches (See Figure 20). Because of erosion caused by tidal

and wave actions, disposal Sites 1,2, and 3 are expected to last
the life of the project. Disposal Site ~4 is also expected to last3

the life of the project because bottom sediments will shift away

from the site, and it can then be used again (COE, 1982). TheU

specific site used for disposal depends upon the location of

1 40I

I ~dredging and the amount of' erosion at the beach renourishment

3 ~site. The size of the disposal sites are approximately 9 acres at

Site 1, 2 acres at Site 2, ~4 acres at Site 3, and ~41 acres at Site

I~~4

In 1975 the Board of County Commissioners of Franklin County

I ~requested a federal study to have Sikes Cut dredged to 12 feet to

allow larger vessels access to the gulf. This proposal was

rejected after a feasibility study by the Corps of Engineers

3 ~determined that the project cost exceeded the limitations of

funding for the small projects program under which funds were

3 ~sought, and that the requested changes would need to be

accomplished under the authority of congressional resolution (COE,

1977).
3 ~~Because of: 1) long-standing questions regarding the impact

of the cut on the oyster resources of the bay, 2) considerations

3 ~being given to stabilizing the cut, and 3) the COE's proceeding

I ~with obtaining a permit for the bay projects, a study has been

initiated to assess the range of impacts associated with the

� ~maintenance and existence of the cut. This study should be

completed in Spring 1986 and is discussed later in this report.

3 ~It is conceivable that if the study shows sufficient impacts

associated with the cut, either maintenance of the cut will be

I ~abandoned or the cut will be physically closed. In the event this

3 ~occurs, active maintenance of the access channels through West

Pass (i.e., the Outer Bar Channel and Link Channel) could occur

3 ~(see Section IV,F for a discussion of those channels).

E. Scipio Creek Channel

The Scipio Creek Channel is a 9 x 80 foot channel extendingI

from the Apalachicola River up Scipio Creek to a 200 x 880 foot3

boat basin just north of the City of Apalachicola. The channel

and boat basin were built to provide a haven of refuge during3

storms for the fishing vessels operating in the bay (U.S. House of

Representatives, 1951). The dredging of the Scipio Creek ChannelI

and Boat Basin was recommended by the COE in 1951, authorized in3

195J4 and done in 1957. The boat basin is presently used mainly

as a mooring area for the smaller shrimping boats which constitute3

the bay shrimp fleet, while larger shrimp boats moor along the

western edge of the access channel.I

When the access channel and basin were initially dredged,3

)40,803 cubic yards were removed from the access channel and 75,599

from the basin (Department of Army, 1957). No dredging has been3

done since. The COE have recently proposed maintenance dredging

25,000 cubic yards from the channel and estimate dredging will notI

be necessary for another twenty years (COE, 1982).3

The COE has proposed a three acre upland diked disposal

area, adjacent to the turning basin with runoff from the site

returning to Scipio Creek (see Figure 23).

F. Other Projects

In addition to the five currently active navigation projects3

in Apalachicola Bay, there are a number of projects not presently

Figure 23

I ~~~~~~~~DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL AREAS FOR THE SCIPIO CREEK CHANNEL

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IL

CNNEL' APALACH ICOLA
IiIII' ~~~~~~BAY

SOURCE: CO E,1982

being maintained: Bulkhead Shoals Channel, Link Channel, and aU

channel through the Outer Bar at West Pass (see Figure 241). An3

additional earlier project, the Inner Bar Channel, has been

incorporated into the GIWW.3

The Inner Bar Channel originally provided a channel entrance

from the Apalachicola River to the anchorage areas in ApalachicolaI

Bay. The COE's plan of improvment was to dredge a straight chan-

nel through the bar at the mouth of the river to 11 x 100 feet and

to increase the channel dimensions to 11 x 200 feet if warranted.3

The channel was to be roughly 6000 feet long (Chief of Engineers,

1882). In 1907 the project was amended to provide a 10 x 100 footI

channel at low water through the mouth of the Apalachicola River

and it was suggested that a bulkhead be constructed adjacent to

the'channel t6 reduce its silting (Chief of Engineers, 1907). In3

1908, a 6900 foot long timber bulkhead was constructed east of the

channel. By 1916 the bulkhead had deteriorated due to damage byI

storms and marine organisms (Chief of Engineers, 1917) and was

never restored. When the GIWW was authorized in 1939, the Inner

Bar Channel was incorporated into the GIWW Channel. From 1882 to5

1939 the Inner Bar Channel was regularly dredged and the

maintenance of this channel was believed to have increased the3

commerce at the Port of Apalachicola, and resulted in a

substantial reduction in freight rates to and from ApalachicolaU

(Chief of Engineers, 1917).1

In 1891 it was recommended that a 9 x 100 foot channel be cut

through Bulkhead Shoal because it was the most serious obstruction3

to commerce (i.e., exportation of lumber) via East Pass (Chief of

Engineers, 1891). The Bulkhead Shoal Channel was initially cut in

14 41

Figure 24

OTHER BAY PROJECTS

* ~~~~Dog
Is.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~EAST ES

G~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ULFKFHEXIC

T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~Suc CHANE~L9LO
- - m m ~~~~~~~ -------- -AALA -C V

1892. This channel, which con nects Apalachicola Bay to St. GeorgeI

Sound, has only been maintenance dredged twice since its cons-

truction, once in 1928 and again in 1936.

The Outer Bar Channel at West Pass and Link Channel were

constructed to provide access from the open gulf waters through

West Pass to Lower Anchorage. In 1900, the Outer Bar Channel atI

West Pass was first dredged to 17 x 150 foot dimensions, but after

it shoaled, it was relocated and redredged in 1907 to IS x 150

foot dimensions as authorized by Congress in 1907 (Chief of3

Enginfeers, 1907). The length of Link Channel, first dredged in

1905, was 5000 feet, and the length of Outer Bar Channel was 52801

feet.

After periodic maintenance the Link Channel and Outer Bar

Channel were recommended for abandonment in 1917 because they

provided no commercial advantage (Chief of Engineers, 1917).

Although this recommendation was continued through 1925 (Chief ofI

Engineers, 1925), the project was never formally abandoned. In

1936 and 19418 the Outer Bar Channel was maintenance dredged. As

discussed earlier, it is conceivable that if the ongoing

evaluation of Sikes Cut determines that continued maintenance of

the cut is ill-advised, active maintenance of the Outer Bar

Channel and Link Channel may be reinstituted.

The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1910 called for a preliminaryI

examination of Apalachicola Bay and St. George Sound to determine

the best location for a deep water harbor with entrance from the

Gulf of Mexico, by way of East Pass, West Pass, New Inlet or an3

artificial cut across St. George Island (Chief of Engineers,

1911). No record of follow-up on this examination was found.I

1 46I

I ~V. IMPACTS OF DREDGING AND DISPOSAL

* ~~Dredging and disposal activities can have a variety of'

impacts on estuarine and coastal ecosystems. Effects can range

I ~from obvious ones such as habitat burial by the disposal material,

* ~to more subtle ones such as alterations of circulation pattern

caused by bathymetric changes. This section of the report reviews

3 ~dredging and disposal impacts on estuarine systems in general, and

on the Apalachicola Bay system in particular. Also included are

* ~reviews of specific dredge-related studies and impact assessments.

A summary of the findings of these studies concludes the section.

I~A. General Impacts

3 ~~As part of the 1970 River and Harbor Act (Public Law 91-611),

Congress authorized the COE to initiate and conduct a series of

I ~stu'dies on the impacts of dredging and disposal. Physical,

3 ~chemical, and biological investigations of the impacts of dredging

and disposal practices have been carried out in such a manner as

3 ~to evaluate different dredging techniques, different sediment

types (coarse to fine, clean to contaminated), and different

I ~disposal environments (freshwater, estuarine, and open ocean).

3 ~This work, known as the Dredged Material Research Program (DMRP),

was prepared under the guidance of the COE Waterways Experiment

3 ~Station at Vicksburg and was conducted through interagency

agreements or through contracts with universities and private

1~~~~~~~~~~~~ 147

concerns. This extensive body of work includes Environmental

Laboratory (1978), Gambrell, et al. (1978), Hirsch, et al. (1978),

and Stern and Stickle (1978), and is summarized in Olsen (1982),

as well as two publications by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Morton (1977) and Allen and Hardy (1980). Information from the

DMRP was used to provide an overview of the impacts of dredging

and disposal on the aquatic and terrestrial environment.

The above literature indicates that the disposal phase of

dredging operations usually has far greater and more significant

impacts on environmental variables than does dredging itself. In

many estuarine systems, including Apalachicola Bay, open-water

disposal is the method most often used. The impacts of a specific

dredging event depend on the localized hydrographic and sediment

characteristics, and therefore, the'management of dredged material'

must be determined on a site-by-site basis. In this section, the

impacts of open-water disposal have been divided into three

categories: physical, chemical, and biological. Although

discussed separately, these impacts are interrelated.

Additionally, impacts of other disposal methods (upland, wetland,

beach, island-creation and open ocean) are discussed.

1. Open-Water Disposal

a. Physical Impacts

Dredging and disposal activities constitute a physical pro-

cess of removal, transport, and deposition of sediment that

differs from the natural process in being much more concentrated

in time and space (Morton, 1977). Nevertheless, several studies

148

I ~have indicated that sediment remobilization during dredging may be

similar to natural resuspension (Tramontano and Bohlen, 198~4).

However, unlike natural resuspension, a dredge mobilizes both fine

3 ~and coarse material and discharges them into the water column.

The coarser material subsequently settles rapidly near the point

of discharge, while the finer sediments remain in suspension

longer and move away from the discharge point. The most visible

I ~impact at the dredge site and the disposal area is increased

turbidity and suspended solids, with a corresponding reduction of

light penetration. The higher than ambient turbidities generated

by dredging and disposal activities generally form plumes which

extend outside the disposal area. Although they are short-lived,

U ~these plumes can extend over large areas of an estuary. only

3 ~about 1% of the total mass of solids discharged is incorporated

into the initial plume (Schubel, et al., 1978). The rest of the

3 ~solids (99%) settle out rapidly, with the finer particles

becoming incorporated into "fluid mud." The effects of fluid mud

I ~on the environment are described in a later section. The severity

3 ~of turbidity effects are generally related to the degree of mixing

in a water body (Allen and Hardy, 1980). The biota in well mixed,

3 ~dynamic systems which periodically experience natural increases in

turbidity, like Apalachicola Bay, are less affected by high

I ~turbidity than in systems which do not experience significant

3 ~natural fluctuations in turbidity levels.

Dredging and disposal activities also physically impact bot-

3 ~tom topography by creating channels and building disposal mounds.

Physical modification of the bottom can affect the circulation

I~~~~~~~~~~~~

pattern of an area changing salinity, current velocity, erosion3

and depositional patterns, and flushing times. These, in turn,

can alter nutrient and dissolved oxygen concentrations, tempera-I

ture regimes, and the biological components of the system.

Changes in circulation patterns caused by dredging activities may

not necessarily be harmful. However, predicting what impacts may

occur from circulation modifications is difficult.

The substrate itself can be physically changed by dredgingI

and disposal activities. Newly resettled sediments have been ob-

served to have a coarser median grain size than that measured

prior to dredging because the fine silt and clay fraction has been

resuspended. This change in median grain size affects porosity,

which has an important bearing on the flux of chemicals and con-I

taminants across the sediment-water interface, the distribution of

benthic organisms, and later redistribution of dredged sediments

after disposal (Morton, 1977).3

When evaluating the physical impacts of dredge and disposal

activities, the fate of the material which is disposed of in open

water (undiked) disposal areas needs to be examined. As mentioned

previously, up to 99% of the total solids discharged settle

rapidly to the bottom. Since increasing salinity enhances

flocculation, the percentage of material resettled (i.e., solids

and finer materials) is related to salinity (Meade, 1972). The3

mineralogy of the suspended sediments is also a major factor

affecting flocculation. Increased flocculation may help in theI

formation of "fluid mud," a highly concentrated layer of suspended3

material. This material is denser than water, moves in a more or

5 0~~~~~~~

less unified body of material, and is affected by gravity, which

means it is also affected by the slope of the bottom topography

I ~(Schubel, et al., 1978). Therefore, there is no guarantee that

3 ~the disposal material will stay in the disposal area, even on a

short-term basis.

* ~~The long-term fate of dredged materials is also uncertain.

Wind generated waves and tidal currents can resuspend the

I ~deposited sediments and are principally responsible for their

lateral transport. Studies conducted in Chesapeake Bay

(Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, 1970) indicated that disposal

*~~material covered an area at least 5 times greater than the

disposal site 150 days after the completion of disposal

I ~operations. Approximately 12% of the disposal material had left

the disposal site during this time. A study in Galveston Bay

determined that 40% of the disposal material had left the disposal

3 ~site immediately after being deposited, and within six months the

spoil covered an area three times larger than the original area

U ~(Bassi and Basco, 1974).

b. Chemical Impacts

* ~~Dredge and disposal activities can impact the chemical

constituents in the water column and sediment layer. Because of

the chemical properties of seawater, the flocculation and

precipitation of materials from the water column is enhanced in

saline environments, and estuarine sediments generally act as a

sink for contaminants. As sediments are dredged and disposed, the

potential for remobilization of chemical compounds and organics

I~~~~~~~~~~~

associated with the deeper sediment layers increases. These

chemical constituents are usually in a reduced state due to the

anaerobic environment in subsurface sediments, and are not inI

equilibrium with the overlying water, as are the surface deposits.

Most of the chemical changes occurring are related to the release,

resuspension, and deposition of organic matter, nutrients , and

chemical contaminants such as heavy metals, pesticides, PCB's, and

other industry-related compounds.I

Change in the dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration of the

water surrounding dredge and disposal sites is probably the first

chemically related impact noticeable. DO concentrations have an

important effect on the form, solubility, mobility, and ultimate

destination of the chemical constituents of the disposal material.I

In mos~t instances there appears to be a temporary reduction in DO

concentration in the waters overlying both the dredge and disposal

sites. Morton (1977) lists several factors which may influence

the effect of dredging and disposal on local DO concentrations:

1) the stimulation or inhibition of primary production, 2)I

changes in physical arrangement of the sediment, 3) the redox

potential of the sediment, 4) the magnitude of the organic

fraction in the sediment, 5) chemical composition of the sediment,3

6) how the sediments are handled during dredging and disposal, and

7) the degree of flushing that occurs at the dredging and disposalI

sites. Since habitats vary considerably, the degree of change in

DO concentration will be dependent on these variables. Generally,

there is an increased oxygen demand caused by the degradation of

resuspended organic matter and the oxidation of various reduced

5 2~~~~~~~

I ~compounds from the deeper sediment layers.

There can be a signficant release of' nutrients when bottom

sediments are resuspended in the water column. In general

nutrients, particularly ammonia, have the potential to present the

greatest environmental problems during dredging (Ryan, et al, in

prep). During dredging the release of sediment-bound nitrogen and

carbon compounds has a potential to impact aquatic biota (Ryan, et

al., 1984t). Remobilization of sediments enriched in organic
matter can significantly elevate the BOD and depress the concen-

trations of oxygen in the water column. However, in a well-mixed,

3 ~dynamic estuary such as Apalachicola Bay, the potential for

detrimental impacts is reduced. The relative concentrations of

I ~nutrients, organic material, and chemical contaminants in the

sediment are generally related to the percentage of fine silts and

clays present. These compounds, through sorption and flocculation

3 ~settle out in bays and estuaries. The chemical impacts of the

disposal material on the environment, and the physiochemical state

I ~of the contaminants in the disposal material, significantly affect

3 ~the release of chemical contaminants and make prediction of

potential releases difficult and complex.

3 ~~The resuspension of toxic contaminants probably poses the

greatest danger to the environmental health of an estuary. These

I ~contaminants include heavy metals, pesticides, petroleum hydro-

carbons, and chlorinated hydrocarbons (e.g. PCB's, etc.), which

accumulate in the sediments shortly after being introduced into

3 ~estuarine waters. Many of these compounds degrade very slowly and

become concentrated in the sediments in relation to the overlying

I~~~~~~~~~~~~

water. During dredging and disposal activities contaminants areI

resuspended into the water column. There is disagreement among

researchers as to the potential impacts from these pollutants.

Most agree that the majority of these compounds are tightly bound

to clay particles and their release back into the water column is

limited, with most contaminants settling back to the bottom.

Nevertheless, these contaminants still pose a long-term potential

hazard to an ecosystem. The effect of these pollutants are still

being studied, and may range from acute toxicity to little or no

effect. Synergistic and long-term effects are still being studied

and the potential for adverse impacts is significant. The reader

is urged to consult Morton (1977), Allen and Hardy (1980), and

Olsen (1982) for a review of potential impacts concerning theI

transfer of contaminants through dredge and disposal activities.

The limited data available have not confirmed that contaminants are

problem in Apalachicola Bay.

c. Biological ImpactsI

The physical and chemical aspects of dredging and disposal

discussed above affect estuarine organisms and their interaction

with the environment. Assessment of dredging impacts on biota is

difficult because estuaries are dynamic and diverse systems, and

estuarine organisms exhibit great variation in their life his-I

tories, basic requirements, spatial distribution, and seasonal5

abundances (Morton, 1977). Sampling designs, with their practical

constraints, are often not capable of accurately revealing effects

of dredging on estuarine organisms under such variable conditions.

14I

I ~Many toxic and physiological impacts found in laboratory experi-

ments may or may not accurately reflect real impacts occurring in

the field. Seasonal variations in biological communities is of

3 ~special concern in relation to dredging. Sensitive reproductive

seasons should be avoided.

* ~~The community most affected by dredge and disposal activities

is the benthic community. It is made up of a wide range of

species that differ greatly in habitat, mode of feeding, and

3 ~tolerance of environmental stress (Taylor, et al., 1970; Gordon,

et al., 1972). An obvious impact on the benthic community caused

3 ~by dredging is the destruction of organisms in the path of the

dredge itself. Maintenance dredging involves only a small area of

U ~estuarine bottom, whil~e the disposal of the dredged material

generally involves a larger area and impacts more organisms.

direct burial probably impacts more of the benthic community than

3 ~any other factor. Many sessile organisms are killed outright,

although the degree of mortality is related to the composition of

I ~dredged material and depth of burial. Animals that are generally

3 ~more mobile, such as polychaetes and some bivalves, have a greater

chance of surviving by migrating up through the deposited

3 ~material. It is difficult for a shelled organism such as a clam

to migrate up through loose muddy material, such as fluid mud,

I ~since it offers little support for their body weight (Mauer, et

3 ~al., 1978). Sheer weight of material is also a factor in

mortality rates. For a more detailed review see Hirsch , et al.

(1978) and Wright, et al. (1978).

The recovery of an area that has been inundated with dredged

material is dependent on the type of material deposited, depth of

material deposited, the type of benthic community that was

covered, the types and proximity of surrounding benthic communi-

ties, the size of the affected area, and the presence of contami-

nants in the material. The season of deposition also affects

recovery time. Some studies (Chesapeake Biological Laboratory,

1970; Slotta, et al., 1973) report full recovery of disposal

areas, while others (Gross, 1970; Kaplan, et al., 1974) have found

limited recovery and a shift in species composition. Methods of

recovery of benthic communities in disposal areas include arrival

of new larval forms, horizontal migration from nearby areas, and

the vertical migration of the indigenous bottom fauna, although

this method is'uncommon ('lsen, 1982). In some instances there

has been' a shift in the type of benthic community that reestab-

lishes an area because the habitat has been changed by the

dredging and disposal activities (i.e. water depth, sediment type,

circulation pattern) (Morton, 1977). Recovery time, type, and

amount are difficult to predict because of seasonal differences in

populations of organisms, habitat differences, current

differences, and the effects of contaminants.

Other impacts on the benthic community include acute and

sublethal effects of contaminants and other physiological effects.

Galtsoff (1964) showed that deposits of silt or loose sediments as

thin as 1 mm over a hard substrate or shell surface is sufficient

to cause failure of setting for oyster and other larvae. In terms

of egg development, Loosanoff (1961) demonstrated that silt levels

156

of 250 mg/i will significantly effect the development of oyster

eggs. Lunz (1938), Loosanoff and Tommers (1948) and Sherk (1971)

studied the effect of suspended solid loads on filter feeding

organisms and found that at sufficient concentrations it affected

their pumping rate, the efficiency of their filtering mechanism,

and the energy needed for maintenance. Specific disorders which

have been observed include: abrasion of gill filaments, clogging

of gills, impaired respiration, impaired feeding and excretory

functions, reduced pumping rates, retarded egg development, and

reduced growth and survival of larvae (Morton, 1977). All of

these effects can result in a decline in the productivity of the

benthic community, which can have significant impacts on higher

trophic levels and commercially important species.

The significance of contaminant effects on the benthic

community has been studied and debated for years. Many organisms

take up pollutants such as heavy metals, pesticides, PCB's, etc.,

and magnify the concentra- tions substantially beyond that found

in the water or sediment. This biological magnification or

bioconcentration becomes more significant as these compounds are

passed to higher trophic levels. For a more detailed review

consult Morton (1977), Hirsch, et al. (1978), or Olsen (1982).

The effects of contaminated sediment disposal on benthic organisms

can be significant and range from no effect to acute toxicity and

death in different organisms depending on the type and

concentration of the contaminant. Synergistic effects are also

under study.

Other estuarine organisms, such as microbiota, phytoplankton,

157

zooplankton, fish, and aquatic plants, are also affected by dredge

and disposal activities. Effects of chemical contaminants on

these organisms will not be discussed since they have not been

shown to be a problem in Apalachicola Bay. For a literature

review of contaminant impacts on these communities consult Morton

(1977), Hirsch, et al. (1978), Allen and Hardy (1980), and Olsen

(1982).

Fecal coliforms and enteric pathogens including Vibrio

species are known to adhere to sediment particles in aquatic and

estuarine systems (Grimes, 1975; Hood, et al., 1981, 1983b;

Williams, personal communication). In Apalachicola Bay, Vibrio

species have been recovered in surface floc, and as far down as

six inches into the sediment (Williams, personal communication).

These sediment-bound organisms are released to the overlying water

when sediment is disturbed and relocated, as in dredging

operations or heavy storms. Sands provide natural attachment

sites for bacteria and adsorb them loosely; therefore, they may be

easily resuspended in a disturbance event (Grimes, 1975).

Regulatory agencies and those interested in public health are

concerned about bacterial suspension near oyster bars during

dredging events, since high levels of bacteria may be ingested and

concentrated by the oysters. These levels may then increase

during storage or processing once harvested (Hood, et al.,

1983a).

Phytoplankton productivity and aquatic plants can be affected

by dredging and disposal activities in three ways. First,

increased turbidity reduces light penetration which reduces

158

I ~productivity and the depth of the photosynthetic zone. Prolonged

I ~decreased light penetration due to turbidity can result in a

die-off of rooted aquatic vegetation with resulting erosion and

dissolved oxygen effects. Most seagrasses require a minimum of 10

to 15 percent of surface light levels for survival (Bittaker,

I ~personal communication). Small reductions of already low light

levels could result in the loss of aquatic plants. Second, large

quantities of nutrients are usually released from the sediment

during disposal activites. Such nutrient enrichment can lead to a

shift in species composition to less desirable species that could

E ~disrupt food web interactions in the system (Morton, 1977),. In

dynamic estuaries like Apalachicola Bay the potential for this

impact is reduced, although some areas of the bay with less
5 ~well-mixed waters could be affected. Third, aquatic plants can be

lost due to direct burial under dredged material or the movement

* ~of fluid mud onto vegetative communities.

Impacts on zooplankton are difficult to observe because of

I ~their patchy distribution and seasonal variation. Sullivan and

I ~Hancock (1973), and Sherk, et al. (1974) observed reduced feeding

by zooplankton in the presence of high suspended sediment

5 ~concentrations in the laboratory. Most researchers have been

unable to detect any evidence of impacts on zooplankton caused by

I ~dredge and disposal activities.

* ~~Fish populations are also patchy and difficult to quantify.

Their ability to avoid dredge and disposal sites also makes it

I ~difficult to detect dredging impacts upon them. Suspended sedi-

ment has been shown to clog fish gills, reducing their oxygen

1~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 159

consumption, but little mortality from dredging has been observed.

Demersal eggs may be covered and destroyed by disposal, or a

change in the habitat may reduce the reproductive capacity of some
Species. Such habitat alterations by dredge and disposal activ-

ities could prove detrimental to some species and beneficial to

others. These changes are hard to quantify and difficult to

predict. Areas where fish occur in large numbers, such as

spawning grounds, nursery areas, and feeding areas, should alwaysI

be protected.

The above research indicates a broad range of possible im-

pacts on biota in estuarine systems. Impacts can vary from one

system to another. This emphasizes the need to study systems

individually before disturbing natural processes in a way whichI

could irrevocably alter the productivity of the'estuary.I

2. Other Disposal Techniques

Alternative techniques which have been used elsewhere instead

of open- water disposal include wetland disposal, upland disposal,1

beach disposal, and island-creation disposal, and continental

shelf disposal. Because of the distance to the Gulf of Mexico and

the subsequent economic infeasibility, deep-ocean disposal will

not be discussed. Disposal of dredged material onto wetland areas

was once routine and widespread. However, now wetlands are

protected by the state and federal government because their

habitat value, and disposal of dredged material there is less

frequent. In cases where wetland disposal has been the only3

viable choice, the decision concerning spreading the material

1 6 0~~~~~~

I ~thinly over a large section of the wetland or constructing a

5 ~confined area within the wetland, have to be studied carefully in

order to lessen the impact on the system (Allen and Hardy, 1980).

* ~In many instances confined disposal sites in wetlands become

I ~upland as they are filled, permanently altering the wetland.

Upland disposal is another technique which has been used

I ~extensively but less often in populated areas due to the scarcity

of cheap land. Confined upland disposal areas are considered one

of the few options available for the disposal of contaminated

dredge material. Confined (diked) disposal areas can impact fish

I ~and wildlife positively or negatively, depending on whether the

* ~new habitat is more productive than the habitat that existed

previously (Allen and Hardy, 1980). Other concerns from upland

I ~disposal include:

1) alteration of existing runoff patterns;

1 ~~2) the exit of contaminants from the disposal area through

the effluent;

* ~~3) the potential ingestion of contaminants by fish and

I ~~wildlife utilizing the new habitat;

4I) increased turbidity and sedimentation from dike

5 ~~construction and effluent discharge; and

5) possible proliferation of undesirable animal and plant

species in the confinement area (Allen and Hardy, 1980).
5 ~If the material disposed of is contaminated, other concerns such
as possible groundwater contamination must also be addressed.
* ~~Beach disposal has been used in conjunction with beach

nourishment projects for the disposal of sandy material. Dredged

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~

material with high percentages of' silt and clay would not be1

suitable for such projects. The main impact of' beach disposalI

appears to be increased turbidity for several months as the

fine-grained material is worked out of' the disposed sediment

(Allen and Hardy, 1980).

Dredged material has also been used to construct islands in

shallow waters or wetlands in deeper waters. One such project was

completed in Apalachicola Bay during the Two Mile Channel

construction (Kruczynski, et al., 1978). Impacts associated withI

this technique include the permanent loss of' wetland or water

bottom, changes in circulation patterns and associated hydrologicI

effects, and increased surface runoff (Allen and Hardy, 1980).

These impacts do not necessarily have to have a negative effect.

Creating an island community with an associated marsh and wetland

could increase the habitat value for fish and wildlife. The

creation or restoration of seagrass beds would not involve most of'

these potential negative impacts.I

In Texas, an experimental containment pond for mariculture of

shrimp was constructed using dredged material from the GIWW near

Freeport (Quick, et al., 1978). The experiment was jointly

designed and operated by the COE (WES, Vicksburg) and Dow ChemicalI

Company. The rearing of' shrimp in the diked containment area was

highly successful, although economically, it was very costly. For

such mariculture to be feasible on a commercial scale by the

private sector, additional cost-reducing techniques of spawning

and hatching shrimp within the containment area would need to be

used (Quick, et al., 1978). If such technology becomes available,

1 6 2

I ~this usage of dredged material might be considered in the

I ~Apalachicola Bay area.

Continental shelf disposal involves similar impacts on the

environment as open water disposal in estuaries, although adverse

impacts are generally not as severe because of the greater

I ~dilution, mixing, and assimilative capacities involved (Allen and

5 ~Hardy, 1980). Oceans are nutrient-poor when compared to

estuaries and, therefore, the addition of nutrient rich dredge

if ~disposal material does not have the potential impacts of nutrient

loading as does open-water disposal in estuaries. Before using

I ~this disposal technique, quantity and quality of the dredged

material should be evaluated thoroughly to minimize impacts and

avoid degradation to productive shelf areas.

B. Studies of Impacts on the Apalachicola Bay System

Dredging, disposal, and other man-made alterations of the

natural environment have been occurring in the Apalachicola River
and Bay system since the early 1800's. Concern about environ-

mental effects of such alterations and their potential impacts on

5 ~the seafood industry has resulted in some specific investigations

in Apalachicola Bay. In the mid 1970's the COE contracted two

studies to evaluate the impacts of dredging and disposal on
Apalachicola Bay: Water and Air Research, Inc. (WAR) (1975) and

Taylor (1978). In addition to these dredging studies, DER

3 ~contracted with Dr. R.J. Livingston of Florida State University to

determine whether his Aquatic Research Group's long-term data base

I~~~~~~~~~~~~

indicated impacts which could be attributed to dredging andI

disposal practices (Livingston, 19814a). In conjunction with the i

Dredged Material Research Program conducted by the COE Waterways

Experiment Station, Kruczynski, et al. (1978) studied marshI

development at the Two Mile disposal island and Schubel, et al.

(1978) studied turbidity plumes in the bay. Utilizing existingI

studies on Apalachicola Bay and other estuarine systems, the COEI

has prepared several environmental impact statements and

environmental assessments of how dredging and disposal might

impact the estuary.

A number of monitoring and study efforts were required byI

permits to assist the DER in evaluating the impacts of dredgingI

and disposal. The permit for dredging Sikes Cut required the COE

to conduct a synoptic salinity study to be performed before and9

after maintenance dredging to determine any salinity changes in

the bay caused by the project. The Eastpoint Channel dredgingI

permit required a study of the effects of the breakwater on

currents through the development of a model as well as water

quality monitoring before and after dredging. The permit for

dredging the GIWW required the COE to:

(1) monitor turbidity resulting from open-wa ter disposal;

(2) monitor oyster bars whenever dredging and disposal

occurs in the vicinity of a productive bar;

(3) complete development of a mathematical model toj

simulate hydrodynamic and salinity regimes in the

Apalachicola estuary;I

(4{) conduct a study on fluid mud flow associated with

1 6 4

I ~~dredging and disposal in the bay to determine the distance

fluid mud migrates from the disposal area;

(5) provide funds for the DER to monitor bacteriological

3 ~~and heavy metal impacts associated with maintenance

dredging.

I ~~The present study was initiated by the DER in 1982, with the

Iobjective of developing a long-term dredge disposal plan for joint

implementation by DER and the COE. It represents an attempt to

collect and review all available information on known or expected

impacts of dredging in Apalachicola Bay. A similar effort has

I ~been completed for the Apalachicola River. Associated with the

development of this plan, local fishermen were interviewed for

their opinions concerning dredging in the bay. Finally, there are

Iseveral issues which are still under study that will be discussed

later in this section. The following is a summarization of

previous research projects related to dredging impacts in

IApalachicola Bay.

j ~~1. Water and Air Research (1975)

Water and Air Research, Inc. (WAR) assessed the environmental

Ieffects of maintenance dredging in Apalachicola Bay in 1974 (WAR?

1975). Hydrologic conditions, turbidity, suspended solids,

Usediment composition, heavy metals, coliform bacteria, plankton,

and benthic invertebrates were analyzed. Sampling occurred before

(February 15-18), during (March 15-22), and after (July 28-30)

' maintenance dredging of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway in 197)4.

Sampling stations were established throughout the bay on a

1~~~~~~~~~~~~ 165

-~~~~~ - m JI mm - -I am mm --
Figure 25

* x7~~~ Key

*~~~~~~~~ -2 AE -Transects
N~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ xSpecial Bacteria
N ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1-24-Grid Stations

* .... ****~~~~~~~~~ .... . E~~~~~astpoint 2
Apa ac co a.,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

~~~WATE AN AI EERCIC

SAMPLING STATIONS 119751

Sourc*:WAR,1975

I ~significant changes. Therefore, any effects of dredging which

I ~occurred during the WAR (1975) data collection period would likely

be obscured by normal seasonal variations.

In addition, the limited sampling period of the WAR study,

especially during dredging, might have missed significant data.

U ~For instance, dispersion studies showed that during dredging,

turbidity plumes were detectable as far as 3500 feet from the

I ~point of discharge. However, since the area affected by the

UK, discharge plume varies with hydrological conditions, these values

represent only a small range of possible situations. Futhermore,

3 ~only one station which was impacted by disposal activities was

sampled both before and after this disturbance. All the other

I ~stations involved were either not impacted by disposal activities

~~ or were not sampled during both periods. This station exhibited

the smallest increase in both density and diversity of any station

sampled during the study. A significant increase in these

parameters occurred at all other stations due to natural seasonal

I ~variations from winter to summmer. This implies that this area

3 ~was adversely affected by disposal activities and had not

recovered fully within the 5 month period involved.

Problems involving sampling and analysis methods further

reduce the credibility of the results. Figures V-9, V-10, and

I ~VI-3 through 6 in the WAR report show complex isopleths describing

I ~salinity, turbidity, and suspended solids at surface, middle, and
bottom depths. However, according to the text, samples were taken

at two-mile intervals. These complex isopleths cannot be reliably
drawn from such widely-spaced data points. The dispersion data

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~

are graphically presented in Figures VI-8 through 15 of the WARI

report. Again, it is not clear how the concentric isoplethsf

could be drawn from the limited amount of data collected. Using

visual observations to describe turbidity plumes can be f

misleading. For example, during a dredge plume study in Apalach-

icola Bay in March-April, 19811, visual observations of apparentI

turbidity levels did not correlate well with transmissometer3

readings (Burney, personal communication). Schubel, et al. (1978)

also found areal differences between near-bottom and surface3

turbidity plumes.

Further problems concerning sampling and analysis proceduresI

were found in the macroinvertebrate study. An increase in numbersg

and diversity was noted from pre-to post-dredging invertebrate

samples due to'seasonality ('as expected in any warm-temperate

estuarine srystem). However, several methods were altered in the

post-dredging sampling and analysis including:

1) A newer sampler with a stronger closing spring wasa

used in the post-dredging sampling;

2) Rose Bengal stain, which makes infauna more visible to3

sorters, was added to post-dredging samples; and

3) There was a possible increased efficiency of sorters,I

and greater care in sampling and processing after dredging.

The alteration of methods, especially when examining before and
after effects, is poor scientific protocol and reduces the

credibility of the analysis.

In summation, the report's conclusion, that no significantI

environmental impacts are caused by dredging and disposal in

1 6 9~~~~~

Figure 26

TAYLOR 119781 STUDY SITES

Dog

,- EAST
PASS

S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

APA A141CL' G u!--t

~~~INDA
PASS BAY~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- - -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1

M 0- n o m ~ - _ -

Figure 27

Sampling scheme used in Taylor 119781

UNDISTURBED BOTTOM

*3 02 04

CHANNEL 1 CHANNEL

*6 @5 @7

SPOIL DISPOSAL AREA

I ~~According to Taylor (1978), "Channel and maintenance dredging

I ~operations have disrupted this system in the past and will do so

in the future. In most instances alterations caused by previous

3 ~dredging have been localized and largely temporary, a conclusion

supported in other waterway studies and corroborated here.

I ~~"Even though permanent adverse effects on sediments and

benthos were demonstrated from dredging at channel stations (high

silt content and low species diversity and abundance), such

I ~ecological damage is unavoidable if the GIWW is to be maintained.

At disposal areas and undisturbed areas, data for sediments and

3 ~benthos were essentially indistinguishable, even at sites that

have undergone recent maintenance dredging. Therefore, sedimento-

I ~logical, hydrological, and biological disturbances known to occur

I ~during dredging operations are veryr likely ofo short-term duration

at disposal sites and in adjacent areas free of seagrasses and

5 ~oyster reefs.

"Considering the general environmental characteristics of the

� ~GIWW (chemical, physical, and biological), it would appear that

the major concern that must be addressed in future dredging

projects is the potentially adverse effect of suspended sediments

and mud flows on aquatic vegetation and oysters."
Taylor (1978) recommended use of upland disposal methods or

I ~creation of diked disposal islands in open water, and suggested

5 ~that these alternatives would offer the following advantages over

open water disposal: 1) the silts and clays resuspended in

3 ~dredging operations could be confined and stabilized more satis-

factorily; 2) sand and shell material removed from channels could

1~~~~~~~~~~~~ 173

be stockpiled and used by the public; 3) permanent removal of1

sediments from channels may reduce the need for frequent main-

tenance dredging; and 4) environmental controversy would be

eliminated, allowing agencies to develop long-term management3

programs for coastal waters in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico.

After closely reviewing Taylor (1978), several problems were

found with this study effort. The study assumed that sediment

across the channel from disposal sites is undisturbed and notI

affected by the dredging and disposal process, and therefore3

represents an adequate control site for evaluation of effects of

dredging. However, personal observations in Apalachicola Bay,3

including monitoring of dredge events and discussions with local

oystermen, do not support this assumption. For instance, oysterI

lumps found on the "undisturbed" side'of the north-south leg of (

the GIWW were found to be covered with several inches of fine

black sediment after the March-April dredging in 1984. Further-3

more, COE monitoring data for the GIWW collected in 1984 noted

that turbidity plumes sometimes extended back across the channel,

under the dredge, to the "undisturbed" side. Therefore, the3

conclusion that data for sediments and benthos were essentially

indistinguishable at disposal areas and undisturbed areas is

questionable since the undisturbed sites may have been impacted by

dredging activities.I

Data from a single set of samples per site taken in the

winter is not sufficient information to adequately assess the

biological importance of any area. Four replicate samples wereI

taken for benthic biota analysis, but no rationale was given for

1 7 4~~~~~

1 ~this number. During previous benthic work done in the bay, ten

I ~cores per station were always taken to assure 90% species
accumulation (Livingston, et al., 1976; Livingston, personal

communication.). Problems in labelling the sampling grid diagrams

and in the use of a pro-rating procedure for numerical analyses

I ~and statistics further limit the usefullness of this study.

Analyses of sedimentological and biological data are based

mostly upon averages taken from all 28 sites along the GIWW. This
3 ~approach is excessively general, and does not reflect real

differences in habitat, sediments, biota, and localized

3 ~dredge-related problems. A better approach might have been to

analyze groups of sites with similar habitat characteristics.

I ~~The recommendations of disposal islands for GIWW disposal

3N material are ov~erly general, and not well supported. A site-by-

site or habitat-by-habitat series of recommendations would have

3 ~been far more pertinent. In Apalachicola Bay, open-water diked

disposal islands could be easily eroded by storms and wave action.

I ~As an example, the shell island next to Patton Bridge was

3 ~completely eroded recently. In addition, the effects of diked

islands on circulation patterns were not considered. Permanent

� ~removal of dredged material from the system probably would not

reduce the need for maintenance dredging in Apalachicola Bay

I ~because of the constant influx of sediment from the river as well

I ~as the shifting of sediments in the bay by storms. Creation of
disposal islands could also create obstructions to navigation and

I ~fishing. In addition the removal of bay bottom from potential
oyster or shrimp production would not be supported by area

1~~~~~~~~~~~~ 175

fishermen and, therefore, would not eliminate environmental

controversy.

In summation, Taylor (1978) provides a lot of sediment data

from 28 sites over a 3410 mile stretch of the GIWW. However, the3

report does not adequately address the question of negative or

long-term effects of maintenance dredging at disposal and3

undisturbed sites. The general approach taken in this study, and

its conclusions, show little sensitivity to individual habitat
differences and the actual effects of dredging at GIWW sites inf

Apalachicola Bay.

3. Livingston (19814a)

In conjunction with the preparation of a dredged material

disposal plan for Apalachicola Bay, Dr. R. J. Livingston ofI

Florida State University was contracted by DER to determine if the

long-term data base developed under his guidance indicated that3

there were any impacts from maintenance dredging in the

Apalachicola Bay system on key water quality factors or biological

parameters. Physical, chemical, and biological data were

collected (usually monthly) during eleven years of sampling from

March, 1972, to July, 1983. A series of 55 stations were5

established in the lower Apalachicola River and tributaries, East

Bay, Apalachicola Bay, St. Vincent Sound, and western St. GeorgeI

Sound. Original station placement began in 1972, and permanent,

or fixed stations from this area were used for this report,

particularly Stations 1, 2, 3, 5, la, lb, and le (Figure 7).3

Other stations were more recently established for various other

1 7 6~~~~~

I ~research purposes. Four of the permanent stations on in this

study were located near dredged channels: Station 1, near the Two

Mile breakwater; Station 2, on the north-south leg of the GIWW;

I ~Station le on the east-west leg of the GIWW; and Station lb near

Sikes Cut.

I ~~The long-term data were used to evaluate dredging effects on

a local and bay-wide basis. Short-term effects connected to

specific dredge events and storms were also examined. The data

3 ~were extensively processed statistically in an effort to separate

out effects of dredging from natural variability.

I ~~The study concluded that salinity at Sikes Cut was spatially

I ~and temporally related to dredging activities in the area. Shifts

were observed in the fish and invertebrate communities (numbers of

I ~individuals, species richness, and diversity) due to salinity

changes resulting from the cessation of dredging in Sikes Cut in

I ~1978. Livingston (1984a) found no short-term effects on water

I ~quality parameters and biological indices from dredging operations

in the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and the Two Mile extension

3 ~channel during winter months. And, no significant long-term

changes in habitat features were evident at stations that could

L ~have been affected by the opening of the Two Mile extension

channel in 1976.

I ~~The dredged sections of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway

I ~Channel, the Two Mile Channel, and the Eastpoint Channel were

found to be depositories of silt-laden sediment contaminated with

j ~heavy metals and organic matter. The deposition of these

contaminants was believed to be related to the proximity of urban

7 77

runoff, circulation conditions, and other seasonally changingI

variables. Nearshore channels were characterized by biological

degradation, while open-water channels were generally unaffected.

The overall analysis of dredging activities in the bay

suggested that dredging can affect the salinity regime and

the biological productivity of the system. Livingston (198)4a)I

recommends that dredging of the bay be restricted to winter and3

early spring months to minimize the possibility of adverse effects

on commercially important species which utilize the area as a3

nursery ground during spring, summer, and fall months.

One problem associated with the conclusions of LivingstonI

(198~4a) is that the sampling stations used to evaluate impacts3

were designed to provide an ecological characterization of the

estuary, not to evaluate the effects of dredging. Thereforle, evenI

with the use of statistical techniques designed to separate

natural and seasonal variability from dredging events, the data in

Livingston (198~4a) is open to differing interpretations and do not

conclusively indicate that differences in salinity regime and

biological productivity resulted from dredging activities. This

limitation was recognized at the onset of this evaluation.

Nevertheless, it was felt that an assessment of Dr. Livingston's

extensive data base on the estuary could provide valuble insights

to understanding the impacts of dredging on the estuary.

Another problems associated with Livingston (198)4a) were that

bottom salinities at Sikes Cut were reported to be related to

dredging events, and that after the cessation of dredging, bottomI

salinities were generally lower. However, this phenomenon seems

1 78

to have begun in mid-1977, while dredging of the cut did not cease

until mid-1978. Additionally, the data show that Sikes Cut and

West Pass generally follow similar trends throughout the study,

even though one has been dredged, and the other has not. (Refer

to Figures 19, 20, 44 through 54 in Livingston (1984a) for data

mentioned above.) Livingston (1984a) noted that no short-term

effects of dredging were found during winter months. However, the

data also indicate that there were no short-term effects of

dredging during spring or summer months (Refer to Figures 22 to 40

in Livingston (1984a).

4. Schubel, et al. (1978)

Apalachicola Bay was one of three bays studied by Schubel,

et al. (1978). Sampling in Apalachicola Bay occurred in April,

1977 before and during maintenance dredging in the Gulf Intra-

coastal Waterway. The primary thrust of the research was to

determine the effects of different discharge configurations on the

size and intensity of the disposal plume. Four different dis-

charge configurations were tested: above water with a deflector

plate, below water with a deflector plate, above water without a

deflector plate, and below water without a deflector plate. Water

samples were taken before and during dredging for nutrient and

metal analysis, and sediment cores were taken from the channel

prior to dredging for nutrient, metals, and grain size analysis.

A secondary study to determine increased biochemical oxygen demand

caused by dredging was also undertaken.

Using transmissometer data, concentrations of total suspended

3 179

solids were calculated using calibration curves for surface andI

bottom waters. Due to the abundance of suspended organic matter,

the use of these calibration curves results in an over-estimate of

the actual concentration of suspended solids. Background values3

collected prior to dredging had a range of concentration of

suspended solids of 25-150 mg/l. Most concentrations were within .

the 25-50 mg/l range. Concentrations of suspended solids measureda

in the discharge plume during dredging were generally below 200

mg/l. However, concentrations in excess of 500 mg/l were measured

in near surface waters and in excess of 2000 mg/l in near bottom

waters on numerous occasions. The areal extent of the discharge

plumes were estimated using 50 mg/l isopleths. The largest plume

covered an area of about 100 acres and extended 1.3 miles from

the discharge pipe. The near-bottom plume almost always coveredj

an area substantially larger than the near-surface plume.

Schubel, et al. (1978) also measured current speed and

direction during dredging but could not correlate the data with

plume orientation. Wind speed and direction data also could not

be correlated with plume orientation. Using three separateI

methods to measure the partitioning of the sediment discharged,

they estimated that only 1% of total mass of sediment discharged

was incorporated into the plume. The remaining 99% settled

rapidly to the bottom near the discharge point. Much of thisI

unconsolidated material can be incorporated into a mud flow or

fluid mud layer. This layer is caused by flocculation and the

settling out of the unconsolidated material and results in a

mobile sheet of mud. Areas subject to fluid mud formation are

1 8 0~~~~~

I ~those with high concentrations of' silt and clay in the sediments

I ~being dredged. Therefore, based on available sediment data, it
appears the GIWW and Eastpoint Channels are the dredged areas most

3 ~prone to fluid mud formation.

Data from Schubel, et al. (1978) indicate that a deflector

3 ~plate in front of' the discharge pipe seemed to reduce the areal

5 ~extent of' the near-surface plume. The data also suggest that

discharge above water without a deflector plate presents a

worst-case condition with regard to areal extent of the near-

surface plume. Data concerning effects of' differing discharge

a ~techniques on the near'-bottom plume were more variable and could

not be readily discerned.

A secondary study was undertaken to determine short-term

5 ~changes due to dredging in concentrat~ions of nutrients and metals

in the sediments and water column. Sediments in the channel prior

5 ~to dredging were predominantly clay (68%) and silt (31%) with a

small amount of sand (1%). Water content was approximately 70% by

wet mass. Carbon was about 10%. Analysis of water column

3 ~dissolved metal concentrations of iron, manganese, copper, and

chromium before and during dredging showed no significant increase

5 ~in average concentrations. No well defined plumes of' nutrients

were detected during dredging, although ammonium (NHi4+) and

I ~reactive silica (Si(OH)i4) concentrations increased, suggesting

these two nutrients were released, probably from interstitial

waters. Orthophosphate (PO4. -3) concentrations showed no

3 ~observable change. Analysis of sediment cores showed that metal

and nutrient concentrations were comparable to other studies'

f indings.

Schubel, et al. (1978) also measured dissolved oxygen (DO)I

concentrations and observed a small oxygen sag due to maintenance

dredging and disposal. They calculated an oxygen demand of about1

0.4 mg 02/g of dry sediment in Apalachicola Bay. They

indicated that the oxygen sag was smaller than would be predictedI

from either organic carbon content or the total reducing capacity

of the original sediment. From this and other data, Schubel, et
al. (1978) concluded that observed oxygen sags are largely the

result of oxidation of dissolved constituents in interstitial

waters and perhaps to some extent the oxidation of the surfaces of

sulfide minerals.

This study appears to be a well defined report that makesI

positive contributions towards the understanding of how dredgingg

effects the Apalachicola ecosystem. However, a problem associated

with the study was related to the location of the current meters5

and wind collection equipment which made correlation with the

plume orientation data impossible. The sampling tracks during the1

plume studies also appear to be biased in specific directions.j

Almost all sampling was done south or east of the discharge pipe.

The plume is well defined in these areas because of the amount of3

data; however, due to the lack of data north and west of the

discharge, the actual extent of the plume is questionable. If the1

tracks were determined by visual observation of the surface plumei

it is possible that the extent of the near bottom plume is

underestimated. The authors note that the water column was3

stratified during much of the study.

1 8 2~~~~~

5. Kruczynski, et al. (1978)

The Habitat Development Project of the Dredged Material

Research Program (WES, Vicksburg) conducted a field study of marsh

habitat development in Apalachicola Bay (Kruczynski, et al.,

1978). The project was designed to test the feasibility of

propagating marsh plants on coarse- and fine-grained dredged

material in an intertidal environment and to determine optimum

spacing between plants. The results were expected to be

applicable to efforts at stabilization of dredged material in

other estuarine environments.

The project site was Drake Wilson Island, one of two disposal

islands near Two Mile. The two islands were diked, and coarse

dredged material was pumped in during the Two Mile Channel

dredging in March, 1976. On Drake Wilson Island a weir was built

into the'dike, permitting tidal influx similar to local

marshes. Fine-grain dredged material was then pumped on top of

the coarse material and dispersed through the intertidal area.

The two marsh plants chosen for this study were smooth

cordgrass, to be planted on fine-grained material, and saltmeadow

cordgrass, to be planted in coarse-grained sediment. Transplants

were obtained from intertidal marsh areas on St. Vincent Island,

and were planted at elevations similar to those of their

original location. Sprigs of both species were planted in

experimental plots of different sizes, spaced 0.3, 0.9, 1.8, and

2.7 meters apart in July, 1976. Variables were then monitored 5,

9, and 14 months after planting. At these times a floristic

survey of the island was made to document natural invasion by

1 183

plants.

Both species exhibited substantial growth fourteen months

after planting. Smooth cordgrass growth improved as spacing
decreased. At the 1.8 and 2.7 meter intervals tidal energy from1

the nearby weir was apparently too great for the sprigs placed far

apart in unconsolidated materials. Plant cover resulting from the

0.3, 0.6, 0.9 meter spacing intervals was visibly comparable with

nearby native smooth cordgrass marshes. In the saltmeadow cord-

grass plots, growth improved as planting interval increased, withj

best growth at intervals of 1.8 and 2.7 meters.

The authors recommend that plantings be used to stabilize1

dredged ma~terial sites, since natural invasion and development of

sufficient ground cover is happenstance. They also recommendI

prior to any large-scale marsh development, choosing appropriate�

species (which provide ground cover quickly, stabilize substrate,

and become predominant primary producers in the estuarine food

chain), conducting a floristic survey of environmentally similar

areas, and conducting a small-scale feasibility study.

This report shows that successful stabilization of dredged

material and creation of marsh habitat is feasible in Apalachicola

Bay. Some additional information would have been valuable to the

reader. The ecological requirements of the two species chosen for

planting were not described. This information alone wouldI

probably have clarified why smooth cordgrass was planted in

fine-grained sediment with higher organic content, and saltmeadow

cordgrass was planted in coarse-grained material with low organicI

levels. No explanation was given for the substantial difference

8 4~~~~~~

I ~in experimental treatments of the two species. In the smooth

cordgrass study numerous plots of different sizes were planted,
each with a replicate, and there was a designated control plot

3 ~with a replicate. The area planted totalled 2650 square meters

and was oriented east to west. In the saltmeadow cordgrass study

I ~four large plots were planted, there were no replicates, and

a ~spaces between the plots were considered control sites. The total

area planted was 331 square meters and plots were oriented north

3 ~to south.

An additional section on the economic feasibility of this

I ~project and application of the results to a full-scale marsh

development study for the Apalachicola Bay area would have been

useful. The results and recommendations of this study may prove

5 ~to be of practical value when alternatives to'open-water'disposal

in Apalachicola Bay are considered.

6. COE Environmental Assessments and Impact Statements

I ~~In conjunction with the maintenance dredging of navigation

3 ~channels in Apalachicola Bay, the COE has reviewed environmental

impacts associated with their activities. The impacts from

I ~maintenance dredging on the GIWW are discussed in COE (1976) and

COE (1981), and the impacts associated with the bay projects are

I ~discussed in COE (197)4) and COE (1982). Most of the conclusions

I ~reached in these reports are based on the findings of WAR (1975)

and Taylor (1978), or research done in the COE's Dredged Material

U ~Research Program. WAR (1975) and Taylor (1978) have been

discussed in depth earlier in this document.

I 1~~~~~~~~~~~85

In general these reports acknowledge that maintenance

dredging will impact water quality, but the impacts are expected

to be minor, short-term, and of limited areal extent (COE, 1981).

It is noted that in naturally turbid estuaries such as Apalachi-

cola Bay, the potential for detrimental impacts from increased

turbidities caused by dredging are less than in clear water

systems. Studies from the COE's Dredged Material Research Program5

contended that in areas such as Apalachicola Bay, turbidity is

primarily a matter of aesthetic impact, rather than biologicalj

impact (Saucier, et al., 1978), because the biota is adapted to

living in conditions where turbidity levels fluctuate. COE (1981)1

further contends that the effects of turbidity from maintenanceI

dredging on the overall bay are small and of short duration. The

natural effects of wind, weather, and'floods on suspended5

sediments and turbidities are believed by the COE to be greater

than those of dredging, and much more frequent. WAR (1975) foundI

that turbidity plumes from maintenance dredging were not detect-

able within a few hours after dredging ceased. Differences in the

composition of bottom material between disposal areas and adjacent

undisturbed areas exist on the GIWW at the eastern part of

Disposal Site 1 and at Disposal Site 2 in Apalachicola Bay (COE,

1981). These differences are believed to be due to past disposal

practices, original construction, and/or maintenance. Continued

use of these sites is not expected by the COE to have long-termI

effects on the current conditions or the existing benthic

community. At all other open water sites on the GIWW, channel3

sediment types are similar to disposal area sediments, and,

1 6

I ~therefore, bottom composition changes are not expected. COE

1 ~(1982) does not expect any significant changes in the physical
composition of bottom material for Sikes Cut or Two Mile Channel.

I ~At the Eastpoint Channel, however, the physical characteristics of

the proposed disposal sites could temporarily change because the

I ~disposal material contains about 30% more fine-grained sediment

L ~than disposal site material.

COE (1982) notes that all disposal material placed in open-

3 ~water, on beaches, or on islands would experience some migration.

Hydrographic surveys of open-water sites indicate that bathymetric

3 ~changes due to the buildup of dredged material have occurred at

the eastern end of Disposal Site 1, northern end of Disposal Site

2, and at Disposal Site 2.2 of the GIWW. Continued buildup is

I .only expected at Site 2.1 'because this site is in a naturally

shallow area (COE, 1981). No significant impacts on circulation

I ~are expected from this buildup.

COE (1981) and COE (1982) note that no evidence exists to

I ~support the conclusion that sediment buildup from previous

I ~disposal operations has affected salinity distribution in the bay.

COE (1982) further contends that the St. George Island Cut has had

I ~only a localized impact upon the bay's salinity gradients.

According to COE (1982), chemical analysis of sediments did

I ~not indicate concentrations of chemical contaminants in toxic

3 ~amounts, and any release of chemical constituents that might occur

were not expected to be a threat to the bay ecosystem. No

3 ~significant cumulative effects on dissolved oxygen or toxic and

metal content in the water were foreseen from the bay projects.

3~~~~~~~~~~~~

Elutriate tests indicated possible violations of Florida

Water Quality Standards for copper and iron at the Eastpoint and

Two Mile Channels at the point of discharge. However, outside the

150 meter mixing zone, turbidity was the only parameter expected3

to have potential for violation (COE, 1981; COE, 1982).

In regard to impacts upon the aquatic ecosystem, the COE

(1981) and COE (1982) maintain that since dredging activities have

been ongoing for many years and no significant cumulative impactsI

have been identified, none exist. The COE (19741, 1981, 1982)j

claim impacts are insignificant because:, 1) the relative amount

of area disturbed by dredging and disposal practice is small whenI

compared to the entire bay; and 2) for the most part the disposal

sites and channels are not located in ecologically critical areas.I

The impacts on ben'thic communities at open water sites are5

believed to be minor because dredged material and disposal site

materials are similar in most cases (COE, 1981; 1982). I mpacts on

nekton are expected to be minimal because of the ability of this

group to swim away (COE, 1981; 1982). Impacts upon planktonicI

communities are expected to be temporary and localized, and not

result in measureable impacts on local or regional populations

(COE, 1982).5

According to COE (1982) disposal practices have resulted in

benefits to the aquatic ecosystem by the creation of marsh habitatI

at Two Mile and by increasing shallow habitat for submerged3

vegetation through elevating the bay bottom, although a detailed

description of these benefits was not provided. With the i

exception of the marsh planted at Two Mile Breakwater, CSA (1985a)

I ~and Livingston (1980) have identified no new marshes or sea grass

g ~beds associated with disposal sites. There have been reports of

oyster bars developing on the disposal sites of the GIWW during

3 ~the period the channel was not maintenance dredged (i.e., 1979-

1983). However, once maintenance dredging was resumed most

3 ~of these developing bars were apparently buried either directly or

by migration of material after disposal.

The extent of impact depends on the proximity of ecologically

sensitive habitats. In the GIWW, disposal areas on the east-west

leg are within 1500 feet of productive oyster bars, and much of

3 ~the channel and disposal sites are located in approved shellfish

harvesting areas. However, COE (1981) notes that dredging and

open-water disposal have occurred at these sites for years without
5 ~any known damage to these oyster-bars. Dense sediment flows

(i.e., fluid mud) are considered to have t-he most potential for

5 ~impact. COE (1981) states that mud flows have not been found to

significantly affect oyster bars because fluid mud travels along

I ~the bottom and oyster reefs are elevated. Since disposal material

3 ~at Eastpoint, Two Mile, and St. George Island Channels are placed

no closer than 1300, 3600, and 20,000 feet from the nearest oyster

5 ~beds, COE (1978) expects no critical damage to sensitive habitats.

COE (19714) further notes that no oyster mortalities or reduction

I ~in oyster production from dredging and disposal operations have

3 ~ever been reported.

These COE reports also note that the timing of dredging can

3 ~minimize potential impacts on the bay ecosystem. By limiting

dredging within the bay to winter months, potential damage to the

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~

oyster spawning season would be avoided, as would the damage to

critical life cycle stages of many other bay species (COE, 19724;

COE, 1982). COE (1982) further notes that no disposal should be
placed on the St. George Island beach disposal area from April3

through October to protect the nesting sites of loggerhead turtles.

COE (1981) and COE (1982) noted that although benthic3

communities would be covered by disposal practices, recovery would

begin within a few months and be complete within six months to two

years depending upon the location. Repopulation is expected to be

most rapid in fine-grained sediment. The recovery time for areas

covered by mud flows is expected to be less than that for disposalI

areas (COE, 1976), however, continued and frequent use of disposal

areas represents a long-term impact because the site never hasU

time to recover.3

There are two major problem areas associated with the COE

environmental assessments and environmental impact statements.5

The first is that WAR (1975) and Taylor (1978) are used to

support the conclusions drawn' in these documents. The problemsI

associated with WAR (1975) and Taylor (1978) are discussed earlier3

in this section. The second is the report's tendency to treat

unsubstantiated hypotheses and assumptions as documented facts.3

For instance, in COE (1982) it is contended that St. George Island

Channel has had no impacts upon the bay's salinity gradient, yet,I

the question as to whether the St. George Island Channel has3

impacted salinity gradients in the bay has still not been

resolved. In fact, monitoring of salinity was a requirement of3

the 1984 permit to dredge the cut, and an evaluation of this issue

1 9 0~~~~~

I ~is currently underway. COE (1981) and COE (1982) additionally

5 ~contend that no evidence exists to support the conclusion

(actually a hypothesis) that sediment buildup from previous

I ~disposal operations has affected salinity distribution in the bay,

and therefore, assume no impact has occurred. However, no

3 ~information to support their conclusion is provided.

Because of their tendency to be written as advocacy documents
U ~instead of evaluative assessments, the existing COE environmental

3 ~assessments and impact statements for navigation projects in

Apalachicola Bay do not provide an objective and comprehensive

I ~evaluation of the impacts of dredging and disposal activities on

the Apalachicola estuary.

3 ~~7. Monitoring Data and Studies Required by Permits

As discussed earlier a number of monitoring and study efforts
I ~have been required by DER permits to assist the Department in

I ~evaluating the impacts of dredging and disposal in the estuary. A

review of the data provided to the DER follows.

a. Sikes Cut

S ~The permit for dredging Sikes Cut which was issued in December,

1983 required the COE to monitor salinity at the channel before

I ~and after maintenance dredging to provide a better understanding

3 ~of salinity changes caused by the cut. Data collected in this

effort included: 1) water temperature, 2) salinity, 3) depth of

I ~water body, 14) depth of sample, 5) antecedent weather conditions,

6) tidal stage and direction of flow, and 7) wind direction and

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~

velocity. These data were submitted to the DER in April, 19824.

Analysis of' these data in COE (1985) showed that the data agreedI

with the findings of Mehta and Zeh (1980), that the influence of

the cut on the bay's salinity regime was localized, and subse-I

quently that the impact upon the oyster reefs was minimal. A

more detailed discussion of these data and the impacts of Sikes1

cut on the estuary's salinity regime is provided later in this3

section.

b. Eastpointj

In conjunction with the construction of the Eastpoint

Breakwater, the permit required the COE to monitor water qualityI

and to measure current velocity and direction before and after

construction. This monitoring was required because of concerns of

impacts on the nearby Cat Point oyster bar. Water quality3

monitoring was to consist of DO, temperature, pH, and salinity

readings taken at the top, middle, and bottom of the water column

at four' hour intervals over a 24 hour period. In addition, once

each 224 hour sampling period, BOD and fecal coliforms were to be

sampled at mid-depth. Three stations were established to measureI

current velocity and direction. The stations were in the

Eastpoint Channel at the middle, eastern, and western extremities3

of the breakwater. Measurements consisted of top, middle, and

bottom readings at 24-hour intervals over a 224-hour period, once

before construction began and then once per quarter for four3

quarters after construction was completed. Tidal and wind

velocity data were recorded during each monitoring period. InI

reviewing these data no conclusions could be made in regard to theg

1 92

I HRaney, et al. (1983). The study acknowledged that water quality

conditions landward of the breakwater would probably deteriorate

slightly; but since water quality there was already poor, the

3 ~effect from the breakwater is expected to be minimal. Livingston

(1983b) also concluded thjat dredging and breakwater construction

5 ~would have adverse effects on the benthic habitat in localized

areas, but these effects should be relatively transitory. The

loss of habitat due to placement of rock and dredged material
if would also be mitigated to a certain degree by the new habitat

provided by the breakwater.

5 ~~High levels of oils and greases, nutrients, and metals such

as copper, iron, lead, and zinc were found in sediments in the

U ~Eastpoint Channel area. These polluants are associated with the

3 ~fine silt and clay particles in the sediment and their presence is

probably due to urban runoff, boat traffic, and direct discharge

5 ~of washdown water from seafood processing houses. Again

Livingston (1983b) concluded that there should be minimal effects

I ~on Apalachicola Bay due to open water disposal of these dredged

5 ~sediments. He also concluded that the environmental impact should

be limited to the immediate area around Eastpoint and should not

3 ~have long-term adverse effects on the water quality or benthic

community.

I ~~In 1983 the COE and DER signed an agreement in regard to

monitoring conditions for dredging of the Eastpoint Channel. It

was agreed that prior to disposal operations, fourteen sampling

5 ~sites wo-uld be designated south of the breakwater. Parameters to

measured include DO, temperature, pH, salinity, turbidity and

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~

fecal coliform. The water column is to be evaluated for nutrients

(NO2, NO3, NH4+, TKN and total P), a variety of metals

(Al, Cu, Fe, Hg, Pb, and Zn) and oils and greases. Bottom

sediments are to be sampled for organic fraction, oils and

greases, metals (Al, Cu, Fe, Hg, Pb and Zn) and particle size.

Benthic macroinvertebarates are to be collected at eight sites and

oyster tissue samples are to be taken from several sites along the

eastern and western oyster bars and composited for fecal coliform

and heavy metal analyses. And, post-disposal bathymetry profiles

are to be taken for three weeks following the completion of

disposal operations to define bottom changes.

C. Gulf Intracoastal Waterway

In conjunction with the 1984 permit for maintenance dredging

the GIWW, the DER required the COE to monitor bathymetry and

turbidity at open-water disposal areas, and to fund bacterio-

logical and heavy metals monitoring. Furthermore, the permit

required the COE to complete development of a mathematical model

to simulate hydrodynamic and salinty effects in the estuary and to

conduct a study on fluid mud flows. Data submitted by the COE

taken during the 1984 dredging of the GIWW show turbidity values

generally ranged from about 25 to 200 NTU's 500 feet from the

discharge pipe. Several samples taken near the bottom, at a

distance of 500 feet, showed turbidity levels in excess of 1000

NTU's. Exact ranges were difficult to determine since the

turbidity meter would not read above 1000 NTU's. Turbidity values

of over 80 NTU's were also recorded as far as 3500 feet from the

discharge pipe in approximately 30% of the samples. Based on

195 I

I ~results of' turbidity plume sampling during the 19824 GIWW dredging,

B~Ryan, et al. (in prep) concluded that sediment remobilization

during dredging is similar to that from natural episodes.

3 ~However, they also found that secondary resuspension from disposal

areas appears to provide a major contribution to turbidity and

3 ~total suspended solid levels in their vicinity.

In several instances the turbidity plume extended back across

U ~the channel, under the dredge, to the "undisturbed side of the

3 ~channel." On several calm days turbidity levels were higher at

mid-depth than at the bottom. This condition was probably caused

3 ~by a stratified water column in which particles (and organisms)

tend to collect at the discontinuity layer, although this

I ~hypothesis cannot be verified since salinity values were not

3 ~reported.

To satisfy permit conditions the COE contracted the DER to

monitor metals and nutrients in the sediment and water column

adjacent to the GIWW. The DER monitored eleven stations along the

I ~GIWW in spring 19814 for a variety of parameters. As discussed

3 ~earlier, these results indicated high absolute concentrations of

arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, zinc, and ammonia-nitrate

associated with the sediments. However, when these concentrations

are normalized using metal-to-aluminum ratios, only cadmium,

I ~chromium and zinc appear to not be from natural sources. This

study (Ryan, et al, in prep) further found that secondary sediment

resuspension from previously used disposal areas contributed

3 ~significantly to turbidity and TSS levels in the vicinity of the

disposal area.

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ryan, et al (in prep) also found that there is a relationshipU

between the amount of nutrients released into the water column andg

the volume of sediment put into suspension. However, this release

is poorly predicted by elutriate testing. Nutrient concentrations3

(P04 and N03) in the plume were found to be closely related to

TSS and TOG concentrations. A good correlation was also found5

between NH3 and TKN, with the majority of the TKN being in the

form of ionized ammonia.I

(1) Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Model of' the Bay: A3

numerical model to simulate the hydrodynamic and salinity regimes

in Apalachicola Bay and the adjacent waters of St. George Sound,3

East Bay, and St. Vincent Sound has been developed. This model

was adapted to the estuary by Dr. Donald Raney of the UniversityI

of Alabama, and became available in December,9 1985. The model

selected for'use was a previously existing, two-dimensional,

finite difference model. This model was adapted to the Apalachi-3

cola estuary using a portion of a large data set collected during

two thirty-day monitoring periods: one in September, 1983, andI

one in March, 1984. The data set for this study effort consistedI

Of:

1) water current speed and direction, conductivity, andI

temperature measurements continuously recorded at nine moored

stations positioned throughout the Apalachicola Bay system;I

2) wind speed and direction recorded from one station on St.3

George Island;

3) six water quality zig-zag transects (one at the3

beginning, middle, and end of each thirty-day sampling

1 9 7~~~~~

Figure 28

STATION LOCATIONS FOR HYDRODYNAMIC MODEL DATA COLLECTION

PASS I~~~~~~~~fC~~~N '~~~~~LA N~~~AS

0~~~~~~~~ ieGg Stations
- ~-048Mlea

GULF OF APAMEXICOL

PA~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Souc CS,95AnYetl18
- --- - - ------- - -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~01

forced to satisfy boundary conditions at the bottom and surface ofI

the water column (Raney and Youngblood, 1983). The model is only3

capable of reliably projecting conditions in the estuary for a

period of several days into the future. In conjunction with the3

ongoing study of the impacts of Sikes Cut on the estuary, an

evaluation of the utility of this model for determining impacts in5

the estuary was done (Weisberg, 1986). This evaluation concludedg

that this numerical model is limited as an environmental impact

assessment tool because of its simplifications and boundary3

condition data. Specific questions were raised regarding the

calibration and verification of the model, and the simplificationsI

of vertical averaging and dynamic decoupling of momentum and

salinity conservation equations. A concern was also raised as to

whether the tide gages used to provide sea level-boundary 3

condition data had been accurately levelled. As a result of these

comments some modifications are being made to the model.1

(2) Fluid Mud Flow Study: The COE contracted with the U.S

Geological Survey (USGS) to gather data to determine the extent

that deposited dredged material migrated as a fluid mud layerI

along the bay bottom during the April 19824 dredging of the

north-south leg of the GIWW . Calibrated fathometer readings and3

sediment cores for bulk density were taken along eight parallel

ranges that lie perpendicular to the GIWW channel. FathometerI

readings began 1000 feet east of the channel and were recorded3

every 50 feet westward for 5500 feet. At least five cores were

taken along each range: one between the channel and disposal3

site, three on the disposal site, and one about 500 feet west of

. 2 0 0~~~~~

3 ~the disposal site. Seven sets of samples were taken: one before

I ~dredging and six after dredging at irregular intervals for about

9-10 weeks after deposition. The raw data (USGS, 198)4) has been

3 ~provided to the COE and DER. In addition, the COE has made a

review and analysis of the data (Imsand, 1986) and the USGS has

3 ~made an unpublished, preliminary analysis (Rumenik, personal

communication). Upon examination of the study proposal and these

U ~documents project staff has the following comments:

3 ~~1) There is serious question as to the efficiency of a

fathometer, even if it is highly calibrated, to measure a low

3 ~~density, relatively thin layer of material such as fluid mud.

A better tool would have been a sediment-water interface

I ~~probe as suggested in Nichols, et al. (1978). This

3 ~~alternative was advised by DER staff in the planning phase of

the study. Therefore, the utility of the data in defining

3 ~~the limits of the problem is open to question;

2) The study plan called for depth readings and core samples

I ~~to be taken to about 6000 feet west of the disposal areas (a

3 ~~total run of about 10,000 ft.). This range of samples was

taken only on the pre-dredge run and final run for fathometer

3 ~~readings. Instead, depth recordings and core samples were

taken only to about 2000 feet west and 500 feet past the

I ~~disposal site, respectively. Although it is implied that

this distance encompasses the extent of the mud flow, no

justification is given for this assumption. The data seem to

3 ~~indicate that some of the material also drifted to the east

off the disposal site and into the channel. The distance and

I~~~~~~~~~~~~

amount of material which drifted into the eastern quadrant3

was not addressed in Imsand (1986). These problems area

important since the study's objective was to see how far

dredged material moves off the disposal site;3

3) Fathometer readings indicated a great deal of shifting

over time within disposal boundaries, which may be due to3

either inaccuracy of readings or station locations, or a

resuspension of the material. Even allowing for extensi veI

variation due to sampling error, some broad generalizations3

are noted from the depth profiles. In the mai~n part of the

disposal area, deposition is up to one foot thick and covers3

a large area. The first profile, made about 14 days after

dredging, is very different from the others taken 2-10 weeksI

after disposal. The initial profile indicates a depositional3

area that is much broader, in some ranges extending well past

the disposal site, and more uniform in depth. Though peaksI

in disposal material depths are similar in the first and

later runs, it is apparent from the narrower margins of theI

peaks and more numerous 'valleys' in later run profiles, thata

volumes of material either moved off of the site or became

considerably more packed (not reflected in bulk density3

values). It appears to have moved away after a short

residence time, indicating that either the fathometer is notU

registering the low density materials or that waves and3

currents are resuspending much of the material. Imsand

(1986) acknowledges that disposal material moves up to 22003

feet past the disposal site as a fluid mud, but the discus-

2 0 2~~~~~~

I ~~sion is mostly directed at the resuspension of material

* ~~instead of the fluid mud issue;

14) Values for bulk density of cores taken as long as ten

3 ~~weeks after disposal at the stations farthest from the

disposal site proper (about 500 feet away) were statistically

I ~~lower than the pre-dredge sediment in the same location by

about 11% (t value =7.38; p<0.001). This decrease indicates

that low density materials or fluid mud were present at

3 ~~locations off of the disposal site. The average value for

post-dredging bulk density at this station was 1.15 g/cc

3 ~~which is in the range of fluid mud, whereas the pre-dredging

average of 1.29 g/co was not (Barnard, 1978);

Based on the information provided, there appears to be every

3 ~indication that dredged material moves off t-he disposal site soon

after deposition. Unfortunately, the sampling was not adequate to

3 ~conclusively determine the extent and fate of fluid muds. Further

investigation which would provide the necessary information to

3 ~control and/or avoid problems associated with fl'uid mud movement

3 ~is recommended.

3 ~~(3) Vibrio Studies: Results of recent Apalachicola Bay

research have indicated that pathogenic bacteria inhabit the

I ~estuary Is sediments (see Appendix 2). These findings have led to

3 ~the funding of further research by regulatory agencies concerned

with the resuspension of bacteria during dredging operations.

3 ~Ingestion and concentration of high levels of suspended bacteria

by oysters poses a health threat to human consumers.

U~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Florida Department of' Natural Resources (DNR) funded a3

one-year survey of' the sediments of' East Hole, an area identified

by DePaola, et al. (198)4) as having higher recovery of Vibrio

cholerae than other parts of' the bay. This study was carried out3

in 1983 by Leslee Williams, Biology Section, Florida Department of'

Environmental Regulation (DER). The results indicated that5

vibrios were sediment-associated and that their abundance varied

seasonally. Additionally, cycles of' differential abundance amongI

the individual species were identified (Williams and LaRock,3

1985).

A permit request was submitted to DER in 1983 by the COE for3

maintenance dredging of the GIWW in Apalachicola Bay. The

Department's concerns about potential public health problemsI

related to dredging and sediment-associated bacteria led to3

funding by DER, Bureau of' Coastal Zone Management, for additional

survey work and a monitoring program (as a GIWW permit condition)3

funded by the COE.

The survey work consisted of' two stu'dies. One involvedI

bacterial analysis of a series of triplicate cores taken from East3

Hole in March/April, and July/August. In the previous DNR study

these were identified as key periods of' bacterial population3

transition. The seasonal patterns of' abundance observed in the

DNR study re-occurred in this follow-up survey.U

The second part of' the survey was a study of' core samples3

taken from 20 stations throughout the bay in March, just prior to

GIWW dredging operations (April 1 - April 2~4). Cores were3

examined for the occurrence and distribution of' Vibrio bacteria.

2 0 4~~~~~~

It was found that Vibrio species distribution bay-wide followed

similar patterns as those observed in East Hole. The predominant

organisms found, and those most likely to be resuspended during

subsequent dredging, were Vibrio alginolyticus, V. parahemoly-

ticus, V. fluvialis, and Aeromonas hydrophila. In both the bay-

wide and East Hole surveys it was determined that further work

will be needed in order to establish what sediment characteristics

and conditions support or deter occurrence of vibrios in the

estuarine environment (Williams, personal communication).

The monitoring program funded by the COE was conducted in

order to determine potential impacts from dredging on water

quality and oysters at four sites near the GIWW: Sugar Lumps

(Thigpen Bar), west of the N-S leg; the (planted shell) Jetties,

east of the N-S leg; Pelican Bar and Hotel Bar, both south of the

E-W leg. Surface water samples and oysters were collected over an

eight week period from each site. Bacterial densities of fecal

coliform bacteria, Vibrio species, and Aeromonas hydrophila were

determined for both oyster meats and water samples. Water samples

were also monitored for turbidity, total suspended solids, pH, and

salinity. Dredging activities had an adverse effect on water

quality for up to fifteen days after dredging. Water column

turbidity and fecal coliform bacteria in both water and oysters

increased at a time when COE records show a turbidity plume

passing over the bar. Fecal coliform densitites were three to

four times higher after dredging occurred. Dredging effects were

more obvious in lower salinity areas (Sugar Lumps and the Jetties)

where the dredge plume passed close to or directly over the

235

sampling sites and less pronounced in the two southern bars which

were not influenced by the turbidity plume (Williams and Eaton, in

prep.). Long-term effects, monitored 30 and 60 days after

dredging, reflected impacts from natural disturbances rather than

dredging.

Williams and Eaton (in prep.) also measured pathogenic

Vibrio species and Aeromonas hydrophila. Though values for both

water column and oyster meats were higher at the southern bars, no

statistical link to dredging was demonstrated. The predominant

organism recovered from oysters and waters was A. hydrophila.

Five species of Vibrio were recovered: V. alginolyticus, V.

cholerae non-0-1, V. fluvialis, V. parahemolyticus, and V.

vulnificus. The most frequently recovered bacteria were those

which had been previously identified from the sediments as

seasonally dominant: V. parahemolyticus, V. alginolyticus and A.

hydrophila.

The extent of dredging impacts on oysters and water quality

was affected by various factors, including the size and direction

of the turbidity plume, salinity levels in the vicinity of the

plume, and the species composition and densities of sediment-

associated bacteria (Williams, personal communications).

8. Local Views on the Impacts of Dredging and Disposal

In conjunction with the preparation of a dredged material

disposal plan for Apalachicola Bay, local residents were

interviewed to gain a historical perspective on changes in the bay

system. These interviews were conducted casually, in a question

206 6

I ~and answer format, not as a survey to be used statistically.

3 ~Seventeen people of varying backgrounds and livelihoods were

interviewed. Many were retired, and the most were involved in the

3 ~seafood industry and had long-term, first-hand experience and

knowledge of the bay.

I ~~The major ideas expressed in the interviews are presented

below. This summary does not represent the opinion of every

individual; many varied and contradictory views were expressed.

3 ~The comments presented were the most prevalent ideas concerning

dredging in general , as well as the effects of the Two Mile

I ~Channel and Sikes Cut. Within each topic, conflicting opinions

are also presented. It is understood that the results of these

interviews represent unsubstantiated opinions and are not

necessarily correct. Nevertheless, the perspectives of local
individuals are valuable in understanding the effects of the

3 ~navigation projects on the bay ecosystem.

a. Dredging in General

I ~~The prevalent view was that dredging itself has not caused

3 ~major problems, but disposal of the material has. The problem

considered to be the most detrimental was the burial of oyster

3 ~bars by mud. It was suggested that dredging should be done in

winter months to avoid killing small shrimp, and to avoid such

I ~observed incidents as pumping brown shrimp out of the channel onto

3 ~the flats in springtime.

It was pointed out by numerous oystermen that oysters live

and thrive on certain GIWW spoil sites. Therefore, they suggested

periodic shifting of disposal sites to allow the old sites to

U~~~~~~~~~~~

develop into oyster bars. Historically only hurricanes moved sandI

onto oyster bars, however, recently winter storms, such as the one

in early 1983, have resulted in the burial of oyster bars.

Disposal practices were considered to be responsible for this.3

The disposal islands at Eastpoint are believed to be migrating

toward Cat Point, and burying parts of Cat Point and BulkheadI

Shoals bars. It was also noted that fill-dirt placed by the3

Florida Department of Transportation along Highway 98 is eroded by

storms and hurricanes, and then washed toward the Cat Point bar.3

Other views expressed included comments that open water

disposal negatively impacted the bay and all material should beI

placed upland, that disposal mounds both do and do not affect bay1

circulation, and that dredging stirs up sediments and bacteria,

resulting in higher bacteria levels in oysters. It 6was also3

expressed that oysters can stand a lot of silt and that dredging

won't affect them unless they are completely covered, but,I

covering by sand can kill oysters. Summer was believed to be the

worst time for dredging, since this is when oysters are in a

stressed condition.3

b. Two Mile Channel

The prevalent view concerning the impact of the Two-Mile3

Channel on the bay ecosystem was that it resulted in freshwater

being directed westward toward the Miles. This freshwater was

believed to be beneficial to the oysters in St. Vincent Sound and3

western Apalachicola Bay. No effects from the migration of

disposed material on the 80-acre lease west of Two Mile have been3

noticed. However, it was also stated that the Two Mile Channel

2 0 8~~~~~~

I ~and Breakwater destroyed a lot of shrimping grounds, since there

3 ~used to be mud in that area.

c. Sikes Cut Channel

3 ~~The prevalent view was that Sikes Cut has been the worst

structural change in the bay. It is widely believed that before

I ~the cut, fresh river water used to enter the bay, and then travel

I ~east or west with the prevailing winds and tides. But, after the

cut was constructed freshwater is now funneled out the cut into

3 ~the gulf, and therefore the bay has become more saline. Changes

in the salinity and currents in the bay have in turn damaged

U ~oyster bars (especially St. Vincent's Bar) and shrimping. The

increased salinity in the bay is considered to be detrimental

because it brings parasites and predators with it. In dry years,

I~conchs and leeches have become increasingly bad. Saltwater also

tends to bring in more trash fish. It is also believed that the

* ~cut was put in the wrong place and should have been located

further west at a former natural gap so that it would not fill in

so quickly. Other opinions indicated that Sikes Cut has not had a

3 ~negative impact on the bay, but has brought prosperity to the big

boat shrimpers, and that there has not been a freshwater oyster

3 ~kill since the cut was built. It was also stated that saltwater

which enters the bay does not spread out, but goes back out the

cut.

3 ~~~d. Jim Woodruff Dam

Many of the people interviewed expressed a belief that the

3 ~construction of Jim Woodruff Dam harmed the oyster industry

because it held back water and thereby changed the salinity regime

I~~~~~~~~~~~

in the bay.

e. Concensus

The concensus opinion of those interviewed was that permanent

changes have occurred in Apalachicola Bay, and that they3

significantly affect the level of productivity. There has been a

general decline in fisheries landings due to Sikes Cut, Jim

Woodruff Dam, and encroaching development with its associated

population increase and pollution. The bay's resources are
becoming over-fished due to poor resource management including

lack of law enforcement, excessive number of fishermen, and a

prevailing lack of conservation ethics and concern for the3

future.

9. Summary of Ongoing' Studies and issues

a. Navigation Maintenance Plan and COE 308 Study

There are several studies and planning efforts concerning the3

Apalachicola River which have a direct bearing on the Apalachicola

estuary. In conjunction with the interstate study of the ACFI

system which was discussed earlier, the COE and the states of3

Alabama, Florida, and Georgia are developing a Navigation

Maintenance Plan to determine what modifications, if any, are

necessary and warranted to improve the availability of the

navigation channel on the Apalachicola River. The plan is1

expected to be adopted in Fall, 1986. What is ultimately approved3

in this plan will significantly affect how the navigation project

on the Apalachicola River will develop in the future. The major3

principles upon which this plan is being developed are 1) to have

2 1 0~~~~~~

I ~no future net degradation of environmental quality in the basin

from the navigation project, and 2) to acknowledge the limitations

on channel availability from upstream discharges.

3 ~~In conjunction with the interstate study, the COE in coordina-

tion with the States of Florida, Georgia and Alabama is conducting

a 308 Study on the ACF basin. The purpose of this study is to

develop solutions to various water resource problems which have

either resulted in, or have the potential to cause, conflicts over

the multiple use of the basin's water resources. Specifically, a

long range water budget and water management strategy will be

3 ~developed to enable the states to coordinate the management of the

basin's water resources in concert with the appropriate federal

U ~agencies. In developing the overall management strategy drought

3 ~management needs, and problems relating to navigation, water

supply, flood control, recreation, hydropower, and fish and

I ~wildlife will be considered (COE, 198)4).

As part of this study the COE plans to evaluate the seasonal

U ~water needs (quantity and quality) of Apalachicola Bay. This

5 ~evaluation is to be done by an interagency workgroup and is

intended to be a preliminary evaluation. The principal objectives

3 ~of this effort are to provide resource managers a general perspec-

tive of the issue and to provide some direction and definition for

I ~further research efforts. The approach will be to estimate the

* ~salinity gradients in the estuary in selected low-flow and drought

discharges using the recently developed hydrodynamic model of the

3 ~estuary. Then, based on an understanding of how salinity affects

selected key species in the estuary, the impacts of the prolonged

U~~~~~~~~~~~~~

low flow and drought discharges on the ecology of the estuary will

be estimated.

b. Sedimentation Rates in the Bay

A study has been funded by the Apalachicola National Estuarine

Sanctuary to evaluate sediment loading processes in the northern

fringes of the estuary. This study is based upon measurements of

suspended sediment levels and sediment core analysis. Sediment

cores are being analyzed using standard radiometric dating methods

(i.e., lead-210, and radiocesium), magnetic susceptibility and

quantitative clay mineralogy data to gauge the rates at which

suspended sediment is being deposited on the bay floor. Pre-

liminary results indicate a high rate of sediment deposition (over

10 mm/year) which is similar to the bathymetric differencing

values obtained by Isphording (1985). Isphording calculated an

average rate of 1.31 mm/year for East Bay, 2,87 mm/year for

Apalachicola Bay, 17.2 mm/year for St. George Sound and 0.37

mm/year for St. Vincent Sound. The area-weighted average for the

entire bay system was 6.73 mm/year. The study discussed above is

scheduled to be completed by December, 1986.

c. Sikes Cut Study

As discussed in Section III(D) of this report, Sikes Cut, or

St. George Island Channel, is a 10 x 100 foot channel which

extends from a ten foot depth in Apalachicola Bay, across St.

George Island, to a ten foot depth in the Gulf of Mexico. The

channel was originally cut in 1954. Considerable controversy has

surrounded the question of whether the cut has had a major

influence on the estuarine ecosystem. As discussed earlier, many

212 2

local fishermen have expressed a belief that oyster productivity

has decreased in the western areas of the bay, and attribute this

I ~decrease to Sikes Cut which allows more saline water into the bay

and more freshwater out of the bay. This increase in salinity is

important because it brings with it predators and parasites that

3 ~are detrimental to the bay's oyster populations. The southern

oyster drill and the stone crab are two of the most damaging

U ~oyster predators in the bay, and both are intolerant of low

I ~salinities (Menzel, et al., 1958; 1966).

The bar which is believed to be most damaged by the cut from

I ~the perspective of local opinion is St. Vincent's Bar. Swift

(1898) reported dense growth of oysters on this bar in his survey

I ~of 1895-1896. However, Danglade (1917) noted that St. Vincent's

I ~Bar was showing signs of depletion and had been closed by the

State to recover. During the investigations of Pearse and Wharton

I ~(1938) there was an indication that St. Vincent's Bar was still

productive, but later Ingle and Dawson (1953) noted no oyster

I ~production on the bar. Menzel, et al. (1958) studied the causes

I ~of oyster depletion in the bar and found abundant spa tfall, but

high oyster mortality there. They concluded that predation,

3 ~especially by drills and stone crabs, was the primary cause of

mortality. Establishment of predators on the reef was believed to

I ~be due to four or five years of low rainfall, and they predicted

that with increased rainfall the reef might recover. Since the

1950's, however, the reef has not recovered (Miley, personal

5 ~communication).

Several hydrographic studies have assumed that Sikes Cut has

1~~~~~~~~~~~ 213

minimal impact on current structures in the bay at large (Gors-

line, 1963; Vansant, 1980). Mehta and Zeh (1980) evaluated the

distribution of tidal influences from Sikes Cut on ApalachicolaI

Bay and found that "the boundaries of the ebb flow differ from

those of the jet (flood flow) so that the volume of water that

enters the inlet has a different identity, at least partially,3

from the volume that issues from the inlet during flood (ebb?)".

However, this different identity is overlooked in developing theirI

conclusions. Saline water which enters the inlet during flood

flow and is not removed during ebb flow can result in a net

influx of salt into the estuary. Preliminary evaluations indicate

that Sikes Cut has led to a net influx of salt over a tidal cycle

during low-flow periods. However, this issue needs to be eval-U

uated in greater depth.

The question of whether this potential net introduction leads

to an accumulation of higher salinity water in the estuary, and if3

so, at what river discharge levels the accumulation is ecological-

ly significant, have never been evaluated. Negative effects would3

be expected to be greatest during periods of low river flow and

decreased bay mixing in the summer months, which is also a time of
stress for oysters. Low river flows can persist for several3

months so that salinity accumulation could occur over many con-

secutive tidal cycles. It is the long-term, chronic elevation of3

salinity from a series of tidal cycles that can cause a sustained

or detrimental impact, not the effects of single tidal cycle.I

Neither Mehta and Zeh (1980) or COE (1985) considered these3

cumulative effects. Field surveys conducted by Livingston (198)4)

2 1 4~~~~~~

suggest that the area affected by increased bottom salinities due

to Sikes Cut are greater than that predicted by Mehta and Zeh

(1980) and COE (1985).

The hypothesis in Mehta and Zeh (1980) that Jim Woodruff Dam

has reduced peak discharges in the river and subsequently caused

an increase in salinity throughout the bay is based on information

from Boynton (1975). Recent analyses of the impact of Jim Wood-

ruff Dam on stream flow of the Apalachicola River have shown that

since its construction, the dam has had minimal impact on the

distribution of streamflow over the year (Maristany, 1981;

Leitman, et al., 1983). Because Jim Woodruff Dam is a run-of-the-

river type dam it has very limited capabilities to store water and

has minimal effects on flood peaks of the river, contrary to the

contentions in Boynton (1975). The dam does have the a.bility to

significantly impact flow over the short-term, especially at low.

flows. However, at low-flow the reservoirs are operated to

augment flow in the river to enhance navigability; therefore,

their effect would be to decrease, not increase salinities 'in the

estuary.

FDER (1984) and Alabama, et al. (1984) also evaluated the

impact of the entire reservoir system on the Apalachicola-

Chattahoochee-Flint River system on flows in the Apalachicola

River. Both studies noted that comparison of flow-duration curves

before and after reservoir construction indicate that there has

been an overall increase in flow durations at the Chattahoochee,

Florida recording gage, and that this increase is attributable to

both upstream impoundments and increased rainfall in the basin.

215

In summation, the hypothesis in Mehta and Zeh (1980) that the dam3

is responsible for changing the salinity regime in the bay does

not appear supportable.I

It has also been contended by local fishing interests that

existence of the out provides an outlet to release flood water

from the river and thereby reduces the possibility of oyster3

mortality from large floods which can lower salinities throughout

the estuary. This type of damage to the oyster beds from extremeI

freshwater flows, or freshets, has been noted by both Swift (1898)3

and Danglade (1917). No evaluations have been done in regard to

the effects of Sikes Cut on the estuary at high river flows.

There has been some speculation that the north-south leg of

the GIWW plays a role in the distribution of fresh water in theI

bay. A local theory suggests that this deepened channel shunts3

the river water in a straight line and directs it toward and out

Sikes Cut. This diversion therefore lessens the length of time3

the freshwater remains in the bay, and thereby affects salinity

and oyster production. There is no data to support this theoryI

and none of the numerous studies carried out over the years have

observed any phenomenon such as a distintive fresh water flow

limited to the GIWW channel or its immediate vicinity.3

Because of long-standing questions regarding the impact of

Sike's Cut on the estuary, considerations to stabilize the inlet3

by extending the rock jetties through the land cut, and the fact

that the COE intends to apply for a maintenance dredging permit

for the Apalachicola Bay projects; a study effort was initiated in3

late 1985 to determine the effects of Sikes Cut on the estuary.

2 1 6~~~~~~

This study effort involves the COE, DER, and outside consultants

representing the fields of general ecology, physical oceanography,

biological oceanography, and oysters. Existing data and studies

are being utilized, as well as the hydrodynamic model recently

developed for the COE, to estimate the impacts from the cut on the

estuary. Preliminary results from the model runs indicate that

under certain conditions (e.g., low flow and south wind) Sikes Cut

has a significant impact upon salinity distribution within the bay

(Raney and Jin, 1986; Raney and Jin, 1986a). The study is sche-

duled to be completed in late spring, 1986.

d. Timing of Dredging

Aquatic organisms use estuaries for different purposes such

as breeding grounds, nursery areas, or home territories (Morton,

1977). While most year-round residents can tolerate wide ranges

in salinity, temperature, turbidity, and suspended solids, many

migratory species and larval forms cannot. Whether for physio-

logical (salinity, turbidity, or temperature tolerances), repro-

ductive (mating or spawning), or growth (feeding or safety)

related reasons, many species of organisms migrate in and out of

estuaries during different seasons. Variation in the ability to

tolerate or avoid stressful conditions by different species and

individuals at different stages in their life cycle makes the

timing of dredge and disposal activities important.

Most commercially important species in the bay migrate during

some period of their life cycle. Table 12 lists some of the more

important species along with their characteristic movements.

Many of the migrating species (shrimp, blue crab, mullet, and

2 217

TABLE 12

SEASONALITY OF IMPORTANT APALACHICOL.A BAY SPECIES

Oyster Year-round residents. Most spawning and spatfall
occurs from April to November with a mass spawningI
peak in May. Can spawn year-round.

Blue Crab Adults present most of year with peak numbers in May
and June. Females move offshore and spawn in spring
and summer. Juveniles migrate into the bay from
November to April.

Shrimp

White Migrate offshore to spawn in winter. JuvenilesI
migrate in spring and summer. Some overwinter in
deep holes.

Pink Juveniles migrate to estuary in summer and fall.

Brown Juveniles migrate to estuary in late winter, early
spring; peak in spring-summer. Adults migrateI
offshore late summer.

Anchovy Year-round residents. Spawn from spring to fall with
a peak in May. Highest population in summer and
fall, lowest in winter.
Mullet Migrate and spawn offshore October to February.3
Highest population in bay in summer and fall. Many
young overwinter in deep holes.,
Southern Flounder Present year-round. Many migrate offshore to spawn
in winter. Juveniles arrive in bay in spring and
summer.I
Gulf Flounder Migrate offshore in winter. Juveniles return in
February through April.
Croaker Adults migrate offshore summer to fall. Juveniles
return in October. Juveniles remain in bay their
first summer and migrate offshore in winter.I
Spot Juveniles and adults migrate offshore from late
summer to winter and return in late winter, earlyI
spring. Post-larvae return in January.

2 1 8~~~~~~

I ~flounder) leave the bay with the onset of cold weather and move

offshore to warmer, more saline gulf waters to feed, spawn, or

mate. Other species remain in the bay, burrowed in the sediment

or staying in deeper waters to avoid low temperatures and

salinities. Many of these migrating species return to the bay

from early spring until summer in their juvenile forms and use the

estuary as a nursery ground. Additionally, year-round residents

I ~may also spawn during this season. As noted earlier, the marsh

3 ~systems along the bay side of St. George Island, the bayous and

creeks of St. Vincent Island, and the extensive marshes surround-

ing East Bay are major areas where post-larvae and juveniles of

I ~many species congregate (Livingston, 1984).

In general, the winter in Apalachicola Bay is characterized

by low salinities (due to high river flow), low temperatures, and

high turbidity and suspended sediment loads. In contrast, summer

3 ~in Apalachicola Bay is generally characterized by higher tempera-

tures, higher salinities, lower turbidities, and more available

I ~food. During the summer, storms can cause bottom disturbances and

I ~therefore temporarily increase turbidity levels. Nevertheless,

from a physical perspective, high turbidity generated by dredging

3 ~is more consistent with the prevalent natural conditions in the

winter.

U ~~The previous discussion and Table 12 indicate that the

3 ~potential for damage to bay fauna from dredge and disposal

activities is greatest during the spawning and juvenile times.

3 ~Turbidity has been shown to disrupt larval development in many

species. Benthos spawning and larval settlement could be

I~~~~~~~~~~~~

seriously attenuated by untimely deposition at disposal sites and

surrounding areas. Bay-wide migrations of certain species could

also be disturbed by a dredge and disposal operation. Conversely,I

since most species are in their more quiescent life stages, winter

dredging would not only be less disruptive, but would also allow

for more rapid recovery and recolonization of disturbed habitat in

the spring. It should be noted that winter dredging might disrupt

species that take refuge from low temperatures and salinities inI

the channels and deep areas of the bay. Though this matter needs

further documentation, it appears that the advantages of winter

dredging far outweigh this disadvantage.

COE (197)4), WAR (1975), COE (1982), Livingston (198)4a), and

local fishermen all suggest that dredging be restricted to winter1

and early spring months to minimize impacts on the ecosystem. ~The

recent permit for the GIWW acknowledged this concern and

restricted dredging and open-water disposal to December through

March.

C. Summary of Impacts on the Apalachicola Estuary

As indicated earlier, a considerable body of knowledge exists

on how dredging and disposal practices impact estuaries in

general. And, considerable effort has been expended to understand

the impacts of dredging and disposal practices on the Apalachicola

estuary. A detailed review of these data, however, seems to giveI

a better perspective on the difficulties of monitoring, evaluat-

ing, and assessing impacts within estuaries than on the impacts

2 2 0~~~~~~

I ~themselves. By nature, estuaries are complex, dynamic systems

which are not completely understood by man. Activities with gross

impacts and/or whose impacts manifest themselves over a short
period of time are more easily discernible. However, activities

which have more subtle effects that may prove to have far reaching

impacts over time, such as a gradual shift in community structure,

are not so easily identified. Because a specific impact has not

I ~been noticed, or related to a specific activity, does not mean it

is not occurring. This section shows that few ecological impacts

on the Apalachicola estuary have been clearly demonstrated.

Nevertheless, it is clear that some degree of habitat and commun-

ity disruption has occurred. However, the studies addressing

I ~these impacts have been inadequate to define either the areal or

I .tempordl extent of disruption. Because of these difficulties and

because of the economic importance of the Apalachicola estuary,

I ~project staff believe a constant vigil should be kept on this

ecosystem.

I ~~The areal extent of impacts from dredge and disposal

activities is highly variable and dependent upon conditions in the

bay and which parameters are affected. If maintenance activities

I ~affect circulation patterns and/or salinity flux, the potential

for a subtle, widespread impact exists. On the other hand, if the

I ~effects are limited to burial of habitat or changes in water

quality parameters, the impacts may be more localized.

1. Physical Impacts

The most obvious physical impacts of dredge and disposal

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 221

activities in Apalachicola Bay are the relatively short-term

increases in turbidity and suspended solids, and the long-term

establishment of dredged channels and elevated disposal sites.

Fluid mud flow and the continued resuspension of dredged material

by wind generated waves and currents are impacts that are less

obvious and less studied.

Turbidity plumes observed in Apalachicola Bay vary in size

and persistence depending upon factors such as density andI

grain-size of material being dredged, wind speed and direction,1

current speed and direction, tidal phase, and type of disposal

pipe configuration. The degree of stratification of the water

column also influences the turbidity plume (COE, 19814). Plume

sizes observed in the bay have been estimate d at: 1500 feet wideI

and 3500 feet long (WAR, 1975); 14000 feet in length (COE, 19841);

and 1.3 miles in length and covering a maximum areal extent of 100

acres (Schubel, et al., 1978). All three studies found that the

plumes have much higher concentrations of suspended solids and

turbidity near the bottom than at the surface of the water column.

Their dimensions are also much larger near the bottom.

Within the plume, turbidities and suspended solid

concentrations are highest at the point of discharge and decrease

with distance from the discharge. Concentrations of suspended

solids have been measured as high as 130 g/1 (Ryan, et al., (inI

prep.) and turbidities of 3220 FTU by WAR (1975). Only one study,

WAR (1975), addressed the persistence of the plume and found most

plumes were visible for only a few hours. COE (19814) found that

the plumes are not restricted to the disposal areas but also cross

2 2 2~~~~~~

I ~the channel and extend into non-disposal areas.

While few long-term impacts have been found in the water

column due to turbidity plumes, studies currently underway

indicate that secondary and tertiary resuspension of the dredged

material by wind is more persistent and extensive than the initial

I ~plume (Ryan, et al., in prep.).

Only about 1-3% of the discharged material is incorporated

into initial turbidity plumes (Schubel, et al., 1978). The

remaining 97-99% settles rapidly to the bottom, some of which may

develop into a fluid mud layer. One fluid mud study has been

carried out in Apalachicola Bay under contract to COE. Pre-

liminary data from this study (USGS, 198)4) suggests that the

I ~dredged material initially spreads out in a layer up to one foot

thick and is then shifted around over time. The material is not

contained within the disposal areas (USGS, 19824), but covers a

wider area. The COE depends on this migration of material off of

the disposal sites to rejuvenate the site and extend its project

I ~life (COE, 1981; COE, 1982).

* ~~Dredge and disposal activities appear to have affected the

sediment characteristics in some parts of the bay. This change

* ~apparently is caused by continued resuspension of the finer

sediments over disposal areas which causes a sorting phenomenon.

I ~The dredged channels generally have more silt associated with them

than the rest of the bay (WAR, 1975; Taylor, 1978; Livingston,

1983a). The only channel for which sediment samples were

available for the same site over time was Eastpoint Channel, and

the grain-size distribution data from this channel showed

1~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 223

sediments getting finer over time. Sediments in the disposalI

areas are more sandy, or coarser, than surrounding areas (WAR,

1975; Taylor, 1978) due to the finer sediments being continually

resuspended and either deposited in channels, distributed over the

bay, or carried out the passes. The surface sediments gradually

revert back to a finer composition as distance from the disposalI

areas increases (WAR, 1975),

Dredge and disposal activities also directly impact the

bathymetry of the bay reducing depth in disposal areas and

increasing depth in channels. Preliminary data from COE

bathymetric charts (COE, 1984a) indicate the shifting5

of sediments can continue for a period of time, during which time

channels fill in and disposal areas lose sediments. Changes in
bathymetry have the potential to affect circulation patterns in

the bay, and subsequently have a widespread impact on the estuary.

Circulation changes have neither been documented or thoroughly

evaluated in Apalachicola Bay.

2, Chemical Impacts

Dredge and disposal activities have impacted the chemical

constituents in the water column and sediment layers of5

Apalachicola Bay. Because the water column and sediment layers of

the estuary are in a relatively unpolluted state these impactsI

have not caused serious problems. Schubel, et al. (1978) noted5

dissolved oxygen depressions from 0.2 to 1.8 mg/l at the surface

and 0.2 to 6.0 mg/l near the bottom during dredge and disposal

activities. The areas affected by the oxygen sag s were generally

2 2 4~~~~~~

small, usually less than 125 acres. The oxygen depressions

occurred in the disposal plume, and the authors concluded that

they were largely due to the oxidation of dissolved constituents

from interstitial waters and also possible oxidation of the

sufaces of sulfide minerals.

Increased concentrations of the ammonium ion (NH4+) and

reactive silicate (Si(OH)4) in the water column have been

documented during dredging activities by Schubel, et al. (1978)

and Ryan, et al. (in prep.). No significant increases in other

nutrient concentrations have been found in the water column.

Ryan, et al. (in prep.) however, noted extremely high

concentrations of ammonia in the fluid mud layer created by

disposal activities. Ammonia can be extremely toxic in its

un-ionized form (NH3). The ratio of un-ionized ammonia to total

ammonium (NH4+) is related to salinity, temperature, and pH.

Depending upon the conditions present at the time of dredging,

high concentrations of un-ionized ammonia (NH3) can kill benthic

organisms which come in contact with the fluid mud layer. The

potenital for harm is currently being investigated further by

DER.

No significant changes in metal concentrations in the

sediment or water column have been detected either during or after

dredging activities by WAR (1975) and Schubel, et al. (1978).

Ryan, et al. (in prep.) however, found high concentrations of

arsenic, copper, and chromium in the sediments when compared to

other bays in the state. When the data are compared using

metal-to-aluminum ratios from natural sources, the authors did

225

find that sediments in the dredged navigation channels wereI

enriched with cadmium which did not originate from natural

sources. The source of this metal is also being investigated

further. Livingston (198~4a) notes that the dredged channels of

the GIWW, Two Mile, and Eastpoint are depositories of silt-laden

sediment contaminated with heavy metals. The validity

reliability, and usefulness of the elutriate test, used

extensively in dredge and disposal studies has been questioned by
Schubel, et al. (1978) and Ryan, et al. (in prep.) after studies

in Apalachicola Bay. The elutriate test, a lab test which

supposedly measures the concentration of metals available for3

resuspension from the sediment, has been questioned because it

does not simulate the physiochemical make-up of the disposal site.
If the elutriate test is not valid, studies which have found low3

concentrations of metals and or nutrients available for release

may not be applicable to natural conditions in the bay.

3. Biological ImpactsI

As indicated in the general biological impacts section of

this document, biological impacts from dredging and disposal are

difficult to assess. A vast number of variables and theirU

interactions and synergistic relationships affect the life and

well-being of aquatic organisms, especially in estuaries. ToI

single out the effects of any one of these variables, unless it is

catastrophic, is often conjectural, and therefore, open to severe

criticism. Likewise, assuming that undefined impacts are not

important or nonexistant is also faulty. Therefore, in addition

2 2 6~~~~~~

to presenting documented biological impacts in Apalachicola Bay,

this section will also address possible or probable impacts.

Certainly the most pronounced biological impact is the

disruption of the benthic habitat and community in the channel

during dredging, and the burial of the benthos during deposition

at the disposal site. Since the dredged part of the channel

represents such a small portion of the bay (i.e. less than 1% of

the bottom area) and since studies show some degree of recovery of

benthic organisms in the channel (WAR, 1975; Taylor, 1978), the

concerns here would chiefly be: 1) that commercially important

species such as the juvenile shrimp and blue crabs which live in

the channels in the winter might be sucked up during dredging

activities; and 2) that benthic infauna might serve as an initial

link in a metals or organics bioaccumulation food chain. Careful

timing and execution of the dredging process would likely avoid

the former problem. There seems to be a concensus that winter

dredging would have the least chance of disrupting fauna both

within the channels and throughout the bay. Although Eastpoint,

Two Mile, and the GIWW Channels have been shown to have higher

than background metals concentrations (Livingston, 1984a), no

studies have been done to show whether any of the species residing

in the channels are actually incorporating these pollutants into

their tissues. Olsen (1982) indicates that bioaccummulation from

contaminated sediments can occur, but it is highly species

specific and pollutant specific. Although, it is doubtful that

bioaccumulation is presently a problem in Apalachicola Bay, there

is the possibility that as usage of the bay increases in the

227

future, sediment contamination will also increase.I

Habitat burial at disposal sites definitely occurs. The

total area affected, and the rate and degree of recovery of these

areas is not completely understood. Benthos at the disposal site

is normally buried 5-8 inches by the disposal material (WAR,

1975). There is some laboratory evidence (Olsen, 1982) that a few

species can migrate this distance, but most organisms probably

suffocate. No macroinvertebrate samples have been collected on or

around disposal sites close to the time of dredging.B

However, oystermen report oysters are sometimes buried in areas

near to dredging operations. One study on oyster bacteria also

reports such burial (Williams and Eaton, in prep.). However, it

should also be noted that sometime after deposition, the disposalI

mounds serve as new substrate for development of oyster bar~s.

There is indication that some amount of dredged material

either in the form of fluid mud or suspended fine sediment spreads

out over a larger area (WAR, 1975; USGS, 1984). One imagines a

gradation of decreasing depth and density of dredged materials 'I

away from the actual site, but the spatial and temporal extent of

this surface 'floe' and its effect on benthic flora and fauna near

the time of dredging is still not completely clear. The areasI

most susceptable to fluid mud or resuspension of surface materials

are those with high percentages of fine-grained silts and claysI

(Schubel, et al., 1978). In Apalachicola Bay, the Eastpoint areai

is most likely to present fluid mud problems, not only because of

the fine-grained nature of its disposal materials, but also

because of its proximity to the productive oyster bars at Cat

2 2 8~~~~~

I ~Point. Because of' GIWW sediment characteristics and the

orientation of the disposal sites on the N-S leg of the GIWW with

respect to the dominant current patterns in the bay, migration

problems might also occur here.

Data on the recovery of the benthos at disposal sites is

L ~limited. WAR (1975) collected one set of benthic samples about

~4 1/2 months after dredging on both the disposal site and other

stations located around the bay. The data indicate that the

benthos shows some degree of recovery. However, the recovery is

demonstrated only in density and the Shannon-Weaver diversity

3 ~index, parameters which by themeselves are generally accepted as

being of little use in describing community dynamics and/or

3 ~impacts (i.e. extreme low values can indicate environmental stress

I~but the reverse is generally meaningless without significant

additional information). Little information and no discussion of

3 ~the actual community structure is given. A shift in the community

at this low trophic level could have substantial effects on the

I ~ecology of the estuary. In addition, the increases in density and

I ~diversity found in WAR (1975) strongly reflect seasonality as well

as recovery. it should be noted that in this study, the only

3 ~station that was on a disposal site actually used and that had

before and after samples showed the least increase in density and

I ~diversity, a fact that might indicate a dredging impact.

3 ~~Taylor (1978) sampled disposal sites about one year after

dredging and found no significant effects of dredging on density

and diversity parameters. Again, actual community descriptions

and structure were largely ignored so again the rate and extent of

I ~the recovery is questionable. WAR (1975) and Livingston (19841a)

1~~~~~~~~~~~~ 229

have also investigated impact on benthic macroinvertebrates5

throughout the bay and were unable to define any effects due to

dredging and disposal. Against the backdrop of such high

variability and within the studies' design and scope restraints,1

only catastrophic impacts would be likely to be documented.

Changes in hydrology of the bay due to the creation of

channels and disposal mounds would, of course, affect biological

parameters. Livingston (1984a) contends that salinity has changed3

because of dredging at Sikes Cut, and that there has been a

concomitant change in biological parameters in that area. These

changes are still undocumented. The ongoing Sikes Cut Study3

should clarify some of these concerns.

Besides concern about bioaccumulation and benthic communityI

impacts, questions have also been raised about possible publicI

health hazards in the form of increased levels of pathogenic

bacteria and viruses which may be stirred up from the sediments of4

Apalachicola Bay by dredging and disposal activities. WAR (1975)

measured coliform bacteria (a group of non-disease causing,I

predominatly freshwater associated species) in water and sedimentsI

before, during, and after dredging. Values were low for sediments

and mostly low for water samples with the exception of one sample1

from the discharge. Williams and Eaton (in prep.) found water

column turbidity, and both water column and oyster meats fecal

coliform counts, elevated at a time when COE records show aa

turbidity plume passing over the bar. Williams and Eaton (in

prep. ) also measured pathogenic Vibrio species and Aeromonas3

hydrophila, but no statistical link to dredging was demonstrated.

2 3 0~~~~~~

VI. REFERENCES CITED IN REPORT AND APPENDICES

Alabama, Florida, Georgia and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Mobile District, (1984). 1984 Water Assessment for the
Apalachicola- Chattahoocchee-Flint River Basin.

Allen, KoO. and V.W. Hardy, (1980). Impacts of Navigational
Dredging on Fish and Wildlife: A Literature Review.
FWS/OBS-90/07.

Alt, D. and H.K. Brooks, (1965). "Age of Florida Marine Terraces,"
Journal of Geology. 73: 406-411.

Anderson, W.W., (1958). "Larval Development, Growth, and Spawning
of Striped Mullet (Mugil cephalus) along the South Atlantic Coast
of the United States," U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fishery
Bulletin. 58(144): 501-519.

Arnold, E.L., Jr., and J.R. Thompson, (1958). "Offshore Spawning
of the Striped Mullet, Mugil cephalus, in the Gulf of Mexico,"
Copeia. 130-132.

Barackman, M.A., (1964). A Study of the Mineral Glauconite in
Apalachicola Bay, Florida: Its Distribution, Mode of Occurrence a
Source. MoS. Thesis, Department of Geology, Florida State
University

Barbour, B., S.A. Nesbitt, and D.To Gilbert, (1976). "A Second
Recent Royal Tern Nesting Colony on the Gulf Coast of Florida,".
Florida Field Naturalist. 4: 9-10.

Barnard, W.D., 1978. Prediction and Control of Dredged Material
Dispersion around Dredging and Open Water Pipeline Disposal
Operations. DMRP. Technical Report DS-78-13. U.S. Army Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Bassi, D.E., and D.R. Basco,(1974). Field Study of an Unconfined
Spoil Disposal Area of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway in Galveston
Bay, Texas. Texas A & M University, College Station, Texas Sea
Grant 74-208, C.O.E. Report No. 174.

Bittaker, H., personal communication Florida Departmenrt of
Community Affairs.

Blake, N.J., and A.E. Rodrick, (1983). "Correlation of Coliform
Bacteria with Vibrios in Apalachicola Bay," in Apalachicola
Oyster Industry. S. Andree, editor, Florida Sea Grant, Report No.
57: 17-19.

Blanchet, R.H., (1979). The Distribution and Abundance of
Ichthyoplankton in the Apalachicola Bay, Florida Area. Masters
Thesis, Department of Oceanography, Florida State University.

2 31

Blaney, R.M., (1971). "An Annotated Check List and Biogeographic
Analysis of the Insular Herpetofauna of the Apalachicola Region,
Florida," Herpetologia. 27: 406-430.

Boynton, W.R., (1975). Energy Basis of a Coastal Region:
Franklin County and Apalachicola Bay, Florida. PhD Dissertation,
University of Florida.

Breder, C.M., Jr., (1940). "The Spawning of Mugil cephalus on the
Florida West Coast," Copeia. 138-139.

Brose, D.S., (n.d.) (1975). Case Western Reserve University
Contributions to the 1973 Excavations at the Cayson Site and the
Yon Site. Unpublished M.S. on file, Florida Division of Archives,
History and Record Management, Tallahassee, FL.

Bullen, R.P., (1950). "An Archeological Survey of the
Chattahoochee River Valley in Florida" in Journal of the
Washington Academy of Science. 40: 101-125.

Bullen R.P., (1972). "The Orange Period of Peninsular Florida," in
Fiber-tempered Pottery in Southeastern United States and Northern
Columbia: Its Origins, Context, and Significance. Bullen, R.P.
and J.B. Stoltman, editors, Florida Anthropological Society
Publication 6, pp. 9-33.

Burney, L., personal communication. Bureau of Coastal Zone
Management, Department of Environmental Regulation.

Carr, W.E.S. and C.A. Adams, (1973). "Food Habits of Juvenile
Marine Fishes Occupying Seagrass Beds in the Estuarine Zone near
Crystal River, Florida," Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society. 102: 511-540.

Chase, D.W., (1978). "Weeden Island-Swift Creek Affinities in the
Middle Chattahoochee Valley" in Journal of Alabama Archaeology. 24
(1): 60-64.

Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, (1970). Gross Physical and
Biological Effects of Overboard Spoil Disposal in Upper Chesapeake
Bay. NRI Spec. Rep. 3, University of Maryland, Solomons.

Chief of Engineers, (1882). Annual Report Upon the Improvement of
Certain Rivers and Harbors in the States of Georgia, Alabama,
Florida and Mississippi. Appendix K of Annual Report for 1882,
U.S. Government Printing Office.

Chief of Engineers, (1891). Annual Report Upon the Improvement of
Certain Rivers in Georgia, Florida and Alabama, of Apalachicola
Bay and Harbor at Pensacola, Florida. U.S. Government Printing
Office.

Chief of Engineers, (1907). Report Upon the Improvement of Rivers
and Harbors in Western Georgia, Florida and in Eastern Alabama.

232

U.S. Government Printing Office.

Chief of Engineers, (1911). op cit.

Chief of Engineers, (1917). Report Upon the Improvement of Rivers
and Harbors in the Montgomery, Alabama District. U.S. Government
Printing Office.

Chief of Engineers, (1925). op cit.

Christmas, J.Y., (1973). Cooperative Gulf of Mexico Estuarine
Inventory and Study: Mississippi. Gulf Coast Res. Lab., Ocean
Springs, MS.

Clarke, J.T., (1975). An Investigation of the Estuarine Structure
and Mass Transport Processes in the Vicinity of West Pass,
Apalachicola Bay, Florida. M.S. Thesis. Department of
Oceonography, Florida State University. 176 pp.

Cole, S.A., (1985). Bird species observed in the Apalachicola
River and Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary, prepared for Florida
Department of Natural Resources.

Collins, M., personal communication, Bureau of Permitting,
Department of Environmental Regulation.

Conner C.,,A. Conway, B. Benedict and B. Christensen, (1982).
Modeling the Apalachicola System. Florida Sea Grant Technical
Paper No. 23.

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., (1985). Apalachicola Bay Study
Final Report for the Field Data Collection Program, Volume I,
Technical Methodologies and Data Summaries. Prepared for the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, Sea Grant
Publication no MASGP-84-020.

Continental Shelf Associates, Inc., (1985a). Apalachicola Bay
Study Submersed Vegetation of the Apalachicola Bay System.
Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District,
Sea Grant Publication No. MASGP-84-020.

Daly, R.J., (1970). "Systematics of Southern Florida Anchovies
(Pisces: Engraulidae)," Bulletin of Marine Science of the Gulf
and Caribbean. 20(1): 70-104.

Danglade, E., (1917). Condition and Extent of the Natural Oyster
Beds and Barren Bottoms in the Vicinity of Apalachicola, Florida.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries. Appendix V to the
Report of the U.S. Commissioner of Fisheries for 1916, Bureau of
Fisheries. Doc. No. 841, 67 pp. 7 plates.

Dawson, C.E., (1955). A Contribution to the Hydrography of
Apalachicola Bay, Florida. Publication of the Texas Institute of
Marine Science. 4(1): 15-35.

2533

DePaola, A., M.W. Presnell, R.E. Becker, M.L. Motes, Jr., S.R.
Zywno, J.F. Musselman, J. Taylor, and L. Williams, (1984).
"Distribution of Vibrio cholerae in the Apalachicola (Florida) Bay
Estuary,"t Journal of Food Protection. 47(7): 549-553.

Department of the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers, (1957).
Report Upon the Improvement of Rivers and Harbors in the Mobile,
Alabama District, U.S. Government Printing Office.

Department of the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers, (1960).
op cit.

Department of the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers, (1964).
op cit.

Department of the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers, (1965)
op cit.

Department of the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers, (1969),
op cit.

Detwyler, R. and E.D. Houde, (1970). "Food Selection by
Laboratory Reared Larvae of the Scaled Sardine Harengula
pensacolae (Pisces, Clupeidae) and the Bay Anchovy Anchoa
mitchilli (Pisces, Engraulidae)," Marine Biology 7(3): 214-222.

Donoghue, J., personal communication. Department of Geology.
Florida State University.

Dunbar, J. and B.I. Waller, (1983). A Distribution Analysis of
the Clovis/Suwannee Paleo-Indian Sites of Florida- A Geographic
Approach. Division of Archives, History and Records Management.

Edmiston, H. L., (1979). The Zooplankton of the Apalachicola Bay
System. Masters Thesis. Department of Oceanography, Florida
State University.

Ednoff, M., (1984). A Mariculture Assessment of Apalachicola Bay,
Florida. A Report to Florida Department of Environmental
Regulations.

Elder, J.F. and D.V. Cairns, (1982). Production and Decomposition
of Forest Litter Fall on the Apalachicola River Flood Plain. USGS
Water Supply Paper 2196-B.

Elder, J.F. and H.C. Mattraw, (1982). "Riverine Transport of
Nutrients and Detritus to the Apalachicola Bay Estuary, Florida,"
Water Resources Bulletin. 18(5): 849-856.

Ellender, R.D., R.B. Mapp, B.L. Middlebrooks, D.W. Cook, and E.W.
Cake, (1980). "Natural Enterovirus and Fecal Coliform
Contamination of Gulf Coast Oysters," Journal of Food Protection.
43(2): 105-110.

2 3 4

Emery, K.O. and S.C. Rittenberg, (1952). "Early Diagenesis of
California Basin Sediments in Relation to the Origin of Oil," in
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin. 36:
735-806.

Environmental Laboratory, (1978). Wetland Habitat Development
with Dredged Material: Engineering and Plant Propagation. DMRP.
Technical Report DS-78-16 Final Report. U.S. Army Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station.

Estabrook, R.H., (1973). Phytoplankton Ecology and Hydrography of
Apalachicola Bay. M.S. Thesis. Department of Oceanography,
Florida State University.

Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, (1984).
Apalachicola River Dredged Material Disposal Plan.

Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, (1985). Report of
Findings on Three Surveys Conducted in Apalachicola Bay to
Determine the Presence of Sediment Associated Public Health
Pathogens.

Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, (1986).
Geochemical and Statistical Approach for Assessing Metals
Pollution, Office of Coastal Zone Management.

Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, (1986a). Guide to
the Interpretation of Reported Metal Concentrations in Estuarine
Sediments, Office of Coastal Zone Management.

Florida Department of Natural Resources, (1983). Cape St. George
State Reserve Management Plan.

Fox, L.S. and C.J. White, (1969). "Feeding Habits of the Southern
Flounder, Paralichthys lethostigma, in Barataria Bay, Louisiana,"
Proceedings of the Louisiana Academy of Science. 32: 31-38.

Frankenberger, W.B. and R.C. Belden, (1976). "Distribution,
Relative Abundance and Management Needs of Feral Hogs in Florida,"
S.E. Assoc. of Game and Fish Commissioners, Thirteenth Annual
Conference. j

Fruge, D.J. and F.M. Truesdale, (1978). "Comparative Larval
Development of Micropogon undulatus and Leiostomus xanthurus
(Pisces: Sciaenidae) from the Northern Gulf of Mexico." Copeia.
643-648.

Futch, C. R., (1976). "Biology of Striped Mullet," in Economics,
Biology and Food Technology of Mullet. Florida, Sea Grant. J.C. I
Cato, and W.E. McCullough, editors. Report No. 15: pp. 63-69

Gambrell, R.P., R.A. Khalid, and W.H. Patrick, Jr., (1978).
Disposal Alternatives for Contaminated Dredged Material as a
Management Tool to Minimize Adverse Environmental Effects. DMRP.

235

Technical Report DS-78-8. Synthesis of Research Results. U.S.
Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.

Galtsoff,P.S., (1964). "The American Oyster, Crassostrea virginica
Gmelin", Fisheries Bulletin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
64:1-480.

Geoscience, Inc., (1984). A Report of the Collection and Analysis
of Water and Bottom Sediments from Five Project Areas at or Near
Apalachicola Bay, Florida. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Mobile District.

Gibson, J.L., (1980). Cultural Investigations in the Apalachicola
and Chattahoochee River Valley in Florida, Alabama and Georgia:
History, Archeology, and Underwater Remote Sensing. Gibson, J.L.,
Center for Archaeological Studies, Report No. 6.

Ginsburg, I., (1952). "Flounders of the Genus Paralichthys and
Related Genera in American Waters." Bulletin of the United States
Bureau of Fisheries. 52(71): 267-351.

Goldstein, A., Jr, (1942). "Sedimentary Petrologic Provinces of
the Northern Gulf of Mexico," Journal of sedimentary Petrology,
12: 77-84.

Gordon, R.B., D.C. Rhoads, and K.K. Ture-kian, (1972). The
Environmental Consequence of Dredge Spoil Disposal in Central Long
Island Sound: I. The New Haven Spoil Ground and New Haven Harbor.
Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University.

Gorsline, D.S., (1963). "Oceanography of Apalachicola Bay," in
Essays in Marine Geology in Honor of K.O. Emery. T. Clements
editor. University of South Carolina Press, Los Angeles,
California. pp. 69-96.

Graham, D.S., J.P. Daniels and B.A. Christensen, (1979).
"Predicting Circulation Changes from Bathymetric Modification," in
Proceedings of the Specialty Conference on Civil Engineers in the
Oceans IV. ASCE.

Grambling, R.B., (1980). "A Chronology of Historical Events in
the Chattahoochee-Apalachicola River Area," in Cultural
Investigations in the Apalachicola and Chattahoochee River Valleys
in Florida, Alabama and Georgia: History, Archaeology, and
Underwater Remote Sensing. Gibson, J.L., editor. pp 204-231.
University of Southwest Louisiana Center for Archaeological
Studies.

Griffin, G.M., 1962. Regional Clay-Mineral Facies - Products of
Weathering Intensity and Current Distribution in the North-western
Gulf of Mexico: Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull., V. 73, pp. 737-768.

Grimes, D.J., (1975). "Release of Sediment-Bound Fecal Coliforms

236

by Dredging," Applied Microbiology. 29(1): 109-111.

Gross, M.G., (1970). Analyses of Dredged Wastes, Flyash, and
Waste Chemicals - New York Metropolitan Region. State University

Gunter, Gordon, (1945). Studies on the marine fishes of Texas,
Pub. Inst. Mar. Sci., Univ. of Texas. 1 (1).
New York. Marine Science Research Center. Technical Report 7.
Heard, R.W., (1982). Guide to Common Tidal Marsh Invertebrates of
the Northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Mississipi-Alabama Sea Grant
Consortium Report No. 79-004.

Heck, K.L., Jr. and RoJ. Orth, (1980). "Seagrass Habitats: The
Role of Habitat Complexity, Competition, and Predation in
Structuring Associated Fish and Motile Macroinvertebrate
Assemblages," in Estuarine Perspectives. V.S. Kennedy, editor.
Academic press, New York pp. 449-464.

Henefield, S.M. and N.M. White, (1986). Cultural Resources
Assessment of the Lower Apalachicola River Environmentally
Endangered Lands Tract, Franklin and Gulf Counties, Florida,
report to the Florida Department of State.

Hirsch, N.D., L.H. DiSalvo and R. Peddicord, (1978). Effects of
Dredging and Disposal on Aquatic Organisms. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Waterway Experiment Station Technical Report DS-78-5.

Hoese, H.D., and R.H. Moore, (1977). Fishes of the Gulf of Mexico
- Texas, Louisiana, and Adjacent Waters. Texas A & M University
Press.

Hood, M.A., G.E. Ness, and G.E. Rodrick, (1981). "Isolation of
Vibrio cholerae Serotype 01 from the Eastern Oyster, Crassostrea
virginica," Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 41(2):
559-560.

Hood, M.A., G.E. Ness, G.E. Rodrick, and N.J. Blake, (1983).
"Distribution of Vibrio cholerae in Two Florida Estuaries."
Microbial Ecology. 9: 65-75.

Hood, M.A., F.E. Singleton, G.E. Ness, and R.M. Baker, (1983a).
"Influence of Processing and Storage on the Microbiological Loads
of Oyster Meats," in Apalachicola Oyster Conference Proceedings.
Scott, Andree, editor. Florida Seagrant Publication, Report No.
57. pp. 20-21.

Hood, M.A., G.E. Ness, and N.J. Blake, (1983b). "Relationship
among Fecal Coliforms, Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. in
Shellfish," Applied and Enviornmental Microbiology. 45(1):
122-126.

Hsu, K.J., 1960. Texture and Mineralogy of the Recent Sands of
the Gulf Coast: J. Sedimentary Petrology, V. 30, pp. 380-403.

2 3 7

Huscher, H.A., (1959). "Appraisal of the Archaeological Resources
of the Walter F. George Reservoir, Chattahoochee River, Alabama
and Georgia." River Basin Survey, Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.

Huscher, H.A., (1964). "The Archaic of the Walter F. George
Reservoir Area." Southeastern Archaeological Conference,
Bulletin. 1:pp. 36-41.
Huscher, H.A., (1971). "Two Mississippian Mound Sites in Quitman
County, Georgia." Southeastern Archaeological Conference,
Newsletter. 10(2): pp. 35-38.

Huston, J.W. and W.C. Huston, (1976). Techniques for Reducing
Turbidity Associated with Present Dredging Procedures and
Operations, Contract Report D-76-4, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Waterway Experiment Station.

Imsand, D., (1986). Review of Apalachicola Bay Fluid Mud Flow
Study Data, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Ingle, R.M., (1951). "Spawning and Setting of Oysters in
Apalachicola Bay, Florida," Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean
Fisheries Institute.

Ingle, R.M., (1952). Studies on the Effect of Dredging Operations
Upon Fish and Shellfish. Florida State Board of Conservation
Technical Service. 20.5: 1-26.

Ingle, R.M., personal communication.

Ingle, R.M. and C.E. Dawson, Jr., (1952). "Growth of the American
Oyster, Crassostrea virginica (Gmelin) in Florida Waters,"
Bulletin of Marine Science for the Gulf and Caribbean. 2(2):
393-404.

Ingle, R.M. and C.E. Dawson, Jr., (1953). A Survey of
Apalachicola Bay, Florida. Florida State Board of Conservation
Technical Service.

Interim Coordinating Committee, (1984). Plan of Study for the
Development of a Navigation Maintenance Plan for the
Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Navigation Channel.

Isphording, W.C., (1985). Sedimentological Investigation of the
Apalachicola, Florida Estuarine System, prepared for the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Mobile District.

Jackman, D. and J. Hand, (1982). Water Quality Inventory for the
State of Florida. Florida Dept. of Environmental Regulation.

Jackman, D. and J. Hand, (1984). Water Quality Inventory for the
State of Florida. Florida Dept. of Environmental Regualtion.

Jetton, Fred. Personal communication, Florida Oysterman's

2 3 8

Association, Carrabelle, Florida. I

Jones, B.C., (1973). "A Semi-subterranean Structure at Mission
San Joseph De Ocuya, Jefferson County, Florida." Bureau of
Historic Sites and Proterties, Bulletin No. 3.

Jorgensen, C.B. and E.D. Goldberg, (1953). "Particle Filtration
in Some Ascidians and Lamellibranchs," Biological Bulletin.
105(3): 477-489.

Joseph, E.G., (1973). "Analysis of a Nursery Ground," in
Proceedings of a Workshop on Egg, Larval, and Juvenile Stages of
Fish in Atlantic Coast Estuaries. A.L. Pacheco, editor. Technical
Publication No. 1, Mid-Atlantic Coastal Fish Center. pp.
118-121.

June, F.C. and J.L. Chamberlin, (1958). "The Role of the Estuary
in the Life History and Biology of Atlantic Menhaden," I
Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute. pp.
41-45.

Kaplan, E.Ho., J.R. Welker, and M.G. Kraus, (1974). "Some Effects i
of Dredging on Populations of Macrobenthic Organisms," U.S.
National Marine Fish Service, Fishery Bulletin. 72(2): 445-480.

Kelly, A.R., (1953). "A Weeden Island burial Mound in Decatur
County, Georgia, and Related Sites on the Lower Flint River."
University of Georgia Laboratory Series Report 1,

Kelly, A.R., (1950). "Survey of the lower Flint and Chattahoochee
Rivers. "Early Georgia. 1(1): pp. 26-33.

Kikuchi, T., and J.M. Peres, (1977). "Consumer Ecology of
Seagrass Beds," in Seagrass Ecosystems. C.P. McRoy and C.
Helfferich, editors. pp. 147-193.

Kofoed, J.W., (1961). Sedimentary Environments in Apalachicola
Bay and Vicinity, Florida. Masters Thesis. Department of
Geology, Florida State University.

Kofoed, J.W. and D.S. Gorsline, (1963). "Sedimentary Environments
in Apalachicola Bay and Vicinity, Florida," in Journal of
Sedimentary Petrology. Vol. 33, No. 1: 205-223.

Kruczynski, W.L., R.T. Huffman, and M.K. Vincent, (1978). Habitat I
Development Field Investigations, Apalachicola Bay Marsh Developme
Site. Apalachicola Bay, Florida. Summary Report. Dredged
Material Research Program. Technical Report D-78-32. U.S. Army
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station.

Kurjack, E.B., (1975). In Archaeological Salvage in the Walter F.
George Basin of the Chattahoochee River in Alabama. DeJarnette,
D.L., editor. University of Alabama Press.

239 1

Kwon, H.J., (1969). Barrier Islands of the Northern Gulf of Mexico
Coast: Sediment Source and Development. Louisiana State University
Press, Coastal Studies Series Number 25.

Laughlin, R.A., (1979). Trophic Ecology and Population
Distribution of the Blue Crab (Callinectes sapidus Rathbun) in the
Apalachicola Estuary (North Florida, U.S.A.). PhD. Dissertation,
Florida State University.

Laughlin, R.A., (1982). "Feeding Habits of the Blue Crab,
Callinectes sapidus Rathbun, in the Apalachicola Estuary,
Florida," Bulletin of Marine Science. 32(4): 807-822.

Laughlin, R.A. and R.J. Livingston, (1982). "Environmental and
Trophic Determinents of the Spatial/Temporal Distribution of the
Brief Squid (Lolliguncula brevis) in the Apalachicola Estuary
(North Florida, USA)," Bulletin of Marine Science. 32(2):
489-497.

Leitman, H.M., J. Sohm and M. Franklin, (1983). Wetland Hydrology
and Tree Distribution of the Apalachicola River Flood Plain,
Florida. U.S. Geological Survey. Water Supply Paper 2196-A.

Livingston, R.J., (1979). "Multiple Factor Interactions and
Stress in Coastal Systems: A Review of Experimental Approaches
and Field Implications," in Marine Pollution; Functional
Responses. F. John Vernberg editor, Academic Press Inc., New
York, pp. 389-413.

Livingston, R.J., (1980). Critical Habitat Assessment of the
Apalachicola Estuary and Associated Coastal Areas.

Livingston, R.J., (1981). "River Derived Input of Detritus into
the Apalachicola Estuary," in Proceedings of the National
Symposium on Freshwater Inflow to Estuaries. FWS/DBS-81/04. V-1:
pp. 320-329.

Livingston, R.J., (1983). Resource Atlas of the Apalachicola
Estuary. Report No. 55, Florida Sea Grant College.

Livingston, R.J., (1983a). Identification and Analysis of Sources
of Pollution in the Apalachicola River and Bay System Florida
State University.

Livingston, R.J., (1983b). Review and Analysis of the
Environmental Implications of the Proposed Development of the
Eastpoint Breakwater and Associated Dredging Operations within the
East Point Channel (Apalachicola Bay System, Florida).

240

Livingston, R.J., (1984). The Ecology of the Apalachicola Bay
System: An Estuarine Profile. FWS/OBS-82/05, National Coastal
Ecosystems Team, USFWS.

Livingston, R.J., (1984a). Longterm Effects of Dredging and
Spoiling on the Apalachicola Bay System. Report to the Office of
Coastal Management, Florida Department of Environmental
Regulations.

Livingston, R.J., (1985). Preliminary Report: Impact of
Hurricane Kate on Oysters in the Apalachicola Bay System.

Livingston, R.J., R.L. Iverson, R.H. Estabrook, V.E. Keys, and J.
Taylor, Jr., (1974). "Major Features of the Apalachicola Bay
System: Physiography, Biota, and Resource Management," Florida
Scientist. 4: 245-271.

Livingston, R.J., A.F. Clewell, R.L. Iverson, D.B. Means and H.M.
Stevenson, (1975). St. George Island: Biota, Ecology and
Management Program for Controlled Growth. Report to the Franklin
County Board of County Commissioners and Leisure Properties Ltd.

Livingston, R.J., R.L. Iverson and D.C. White, (1976). Energy
Relationships and Productivity of Apalachicola Bay. Florida Sea
Grant.

Livingston, R.J., G.J. Kobylynski, F.G. Lewis, III, and P.F.
Shdridan, (1976b). "Long-term Fluctuations of Epibenthic Fish and
Invertebrate Populations in Apalachicola Bay, Florida," Fisheries
Bulletin. 74(2): 311-322.

Livingston, R.J., P.S. Sheridan, B.G. McLane, F.G. Lewis, and G.G.
Kobylinski, (1977). "The Biota of the Apalachicola Bay System:
Functional Relationships," in Proceedings of the Conference on the
Apalachicola Drainage System. R.J. Livingston and E.A. Joyce,
editors. Florida Marine Research Publication 26: pp. 75-100.

Livingston, R.J. and J.L. Duncan, (1979). "Climatological Control
of a North Florida Coastal System and Impact Due to Upland
Forestry Management," in Ecological Processes in Coastal and
Marine Systems. R.J. Livingston, editor. Plenum Press, New York
and London, pp. 339-381.

Loosanoff, V.L.,(1961). "Effects of Turbidity on Some Larval and
Adult Bivalves", Proc. Gulf Carib. Fish Inst. 14:80-95.

Loosanoff, V.L. and F.O. Toomers, (1948). "Effect of Suspended
Silt and Other Substances on the Rate of Feeding of Oysters",
Science. 197:69-70.

Lunz, G.R., (1938). Oyster Culture With Reference to Dredging
Operations in South Carolina and the Effects of Flooding of the
Sanatee River in April, 1936 on Oysters in the Cape Romain Area of
South Carolina (Part II), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

241

Mahoney, B.M.S., and R.J. Livingston, (1982). "Seasonal
Fluctuations of Benthic Macrofauna in the Apalachicola Estuary,
Florida, U.S.A.: The Role of Predation," Marine Biology. 69:
207-213.

Maristany, A., (1981). Preliminary Assessment of the Effects of
the Jim Woodruff Dam on the Streamflow Distribution of the
Apalachicola River. Northwest Florida Water Management District,
Technical File Report 81-7.

Massmann, W.H., (1971). "The Significance of an Estuary on the
Biology of Aquatic Organisms of the Middle Atlantic Region," in
A Symposium on the Biological Significance of Estuaries. P.A.
Douglas and R.H. Stroud, editors. Sport Fishing Institute,
Washington. pp. 96-109.

Mauer, D.L., R.T. Keck, J.C. Tinsman, W.A. Leathem, C.A. Wethel,
M. Huntzinger, C. Lord and T.M. Church, (1978). Vertical
Migration of Benthos in Simulated Dredged Material Overburden Vol
I: Marine Benthos. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterway
Experiment Station Technical Report D-78-3.

Mattraw, H.C., Jr. and J.F. Elder, (1984). Nutrient and Detritus
Transport in the Apalachicola River, Florida. U.S. Geological
Survey Water Supply Paper 2196-C, Department of Interior, U.S.
Government Printing Office.

McHugh, J.L., (1967). "Estuarine Nekton," in Estuaries. A.H.
Lauff, editor. A.A.A.S. Publication 83: pp. 581-620.

Meade, R.H., (1972). "Transport and Deposition of Sediments in
Estuaries," Geol. Soc. Am. Mem. 133: 91-120.

Means, D.B., (1975). "A Survey of the Amphibians, Reptiles and
Animals Inhabiting St. George Island, Franklin County, Florida,
with Comments on vulnerable Aspects of Their Ecology," in St.
George Island: Biota Ecolgy and Management Program for Controlled
Development. Livingston, et al. Report for Development Regional
Impact, Franklin County Commission.

Means, D.B., (1977). "Aspects of the Significance to Terrestrial
Vertebrates of the Apalachicola River Drainage Basin, Florida,"
in Proceedings of the Conference on the Apalachicola Drainage
System. R.J. Livingston, and E.A. Joyce, Jr., editors. Florida
Marine Research Publication. No. 26. pp. 37-67.

Meeter, D.A., R.J. Livingston and G.J. Woodsum, (1979).
"Long-Term Climatological Cycles and Population Changes in a
River-Dominated Estuarine System," in Ecological Processes in
Coastal and Marine Systems. R.J. Livingston, editor. Plenum
Press. pp. 315-380.

Mehta, A.J. and T.A. Zeh, (1980). "Influence of a Small Inlet in
a Large Bay," Coastal Engineering. 4: 157-176.

2 242

Menzel, R.W., (1983). "Genetics and the Potential for Oyster
Production in Apalachicola Bay." Apalachicola Oyster Industry:
Proceedings of a Conference. S. Andree, editor. Florida Sea
Grant. Report No. SGR-57.

Menzel, R.W. and S.H. Hopkins, (1955). "The Growth of Oysters
Parasitized by the Fungus Dermocystidium marinum and by the
Trematode Bucephalus cuculus," Journal of Parasitology. 41(4):
333-342.

Menzel, R.W., N.C. Hulings, and R.R. Hathaway, (1958). "Causes of
Depletion of Oysters in St. Vincent's Bar, Apalachicola Bay,
Florida," Proceedings of the National Shellfish Association. 48:
66-71.

Menzel, R.W., N.C. Hulings, and R.R. Hathaway, (1966). "Oyster
Abundance in Apalachicola Bay, Florida in Relation to Biotic urce
Associations Influenced by Salinity and Other Factors," Gulf Reso
Report. 2(2): 73-96.

Menzel, R.W. and E.W. Cake, (1969). Identification and Analysis
of the Biological Value of Apalachicola Bay, Florida. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.

Milanich, J.T., (1974). "Live in a 9th Century Indian Household:
a Weeden Island Fall-Winter Site on the Upper Apalachicola River,
Florida." Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, Bulletin. 4:
pp. 1-44.

Milanich, J.T. and C.H. Fairbanks, (1980). Florida Archaeology
Academic Press Inc.

Miley, W.W., personal communication, Lower Apalachicola River and
Bay National Estuarine Sanctuary.Apalachicola, Florida.

Morrison, S�J., J.D. King, R.J. Bobbie, R.E. Bechtold, and D.C.
White, (1977). "Evidence for Microfloral Succession on
Allochthonous Plant Litter in Apalachicola Bay, Florida, U.S.A,"
Marine Biology. 41: 229-240.

Moore, A.B., (1951). History of Alabama. Tuscaloosa, AL.

Morton, J.W., (1977). Ecological Effects of Dredging and Dredge
Spoil Disposal: A Literature Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.

Motes, M.L., R.E. Becker, A. DePaola, M.W. Presnell, and S.R.
Zywno, (1983). "Isolation of Vibrio cholerae Serotype Ogawa from
a Florida Estuary," Applied and Environmental Microbiology.
45(1): 321-322.

Musselman, J.F. and V.E. Carr, (1982). Apalachicola Bay, Florida,
Hydrographic Study: July-August 1981. Food and Drug
Administration, Shellfish Sanitation Branch.

243 3

Myers, V.B., and R.L. Iverson, (1977). "Aspects of Nutrient
Limitation of the Phytoplankton Productivity in the Apalachicola
Bay Systems," in Proceedings of the Conference on the Apalachicola
Drainage System. R.J. Livingston, and E.A. Joyce Jr., editors.

Florida Marine Research Publication. No. 26. pp. 68-74.

Nesbitt, S.A., M.J. Fogarty, and L.E. Williams, Jr., (1977).
"Status of Florida Nesting Brown Pelicans," Bird-Banding. 48(2):
138-144.

Ness, A.E., M.A. Hood, G.E. Rodrick, (1981). "Survival of Vibrio
cholerae Organisms in Estuarine Conditions." American Society for
Microbiology. Abstracts of the Annual Meeting.

Nichols, M.M., G.S. Thompson and R.W. Fass, (1978). A Field Study
of Fluid Mud Dredged Material: Its Physical Nature and Dispersal.
Program, U.S. Army Engineers Waterway Experiment Station,
Technical D-78-40.

Nichy, F.E. and R.W. Menzel, (1960). "Mortality of Intertidal and
Subtidal Oysters in Alligator Harbor, Florida," Proceedings of th
National Shellfish Association. 51: 33-41.

Oesterling, M.L. and G.L. Evink, (1977). "Relationship between
Florida's Blue Crab Population and Apalachicola Bay," in
Proceedings of the Conference.on the Apalachicola Drainage
System. R.J. Livingston, and E.A. Joyce, Jr., editors. Florida
Marine Research Publication. No. 26. pp.101-121.

Olsen, L.A., (1982). Reviews of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dred
Material Research Reports Concerning Sediment-Associated Metals an
Pesticides, Open Water Spoil Disposal, and Dredging and Turbidity.
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation.

Overstreet, R.M., (1978). Marine Maladies? Worms, Germs and
other Symbionts from the Northern Gulf of Mexico.
Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium. MASGP-78-021. Ocean
Springs, Mississippi.

Owens, H.P. (1966). Apalachicola Before 1861. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Florida State University.

Pacheco, A.L., (1962). "Age and Growth of Spot in Lower
Chesapeake Bay, with Notes on Distribution and Abundance of
Juveniles in the York River System," Chesapeake Science. 3(1):
18-28.

Page, R., personal communication, shrimper, Franklin County.

Parker, J.C., (1971). The Biology of the Spot, Leiostomus
xanthurus (Lacepede) and Atlantic croaker, Micropogon undulatus
(Linnaeus) in the Gulf of Mexico Nursery Areas, Texas A&M Sea
Grant Publication No. TAMU -SG-71-2.

2 244

Pearse, A.S. and G.S. Wharton, (1938). "The Oyster 'Leech'
Stylochus inimicus Palombi, Associated with Oysters on the Coasts
of Florida," Ecological Monographs. 8: 605-655.

Pearson, J.C., (1929). "Natural History and Conservation of the
Redfish and other Commercial Sciaenids on the Texas Coast,"
Bulletin of the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries. 44: 129-214.

Percy, G.W., (1971). Current research, Florida. Southeastern
Archaeological Conference, Newsletter. 15(1): pp. 7-8.

Percy, G.W., (1972). Current research, Florida. Southeastern
Archaeological Conference, Newsletter. 16(1): pp. 3-6.

Perez-Farfante, I., (1977). Shrimps and Prawns. Food and
Agriculture Organization Sheets. Fishing Area 31, W. Central
Atlantic United States.

Perret, W.S., J.E. Weaver, R.O. Williams, P.L. Johansen, T.D.
McIlwain, R.C. Raulerson, W.M. Tatum, (1980). Fishery Profiles of
Red Drum and Spotted Sea Trout. Gulf State Marine Fisheries
Commission Fishery Profiles. No. 6, April 1980.

Peterson, H., personal communication. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Mobile District, Panama City, Florida.

Phelps, D.S., (1966).e "Early and late components of the site."
Florida Anthropologists. 19(1): pp. 11-38.

Phillips, R.C., (1980). "Role of Seagrasses in Estuarine
Systems," in. Proceedings of the Gulf of Mexico Coastal
Ecosystems Workshop. P.L. Fore and R.D. Peterson, editors.U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico, FWS/OBS-80/30.
pp. 67-93.

Quick, J.A. Jr., D.J. Milligan, S.E. Hill, RoJ. Hover, and W.F.
McIlhenney, (1978). Field Demonstration of Shrimp Mariculture
Feasibility in Dredged Containment Areas. Dredged Material
Research Program, U.S. Army Engineer Waterway Experiment Station,
Technical Report D-78-53.

Raney, D.C. and H.L. Butler (1975), A Numerical Model for
Predicting the Effects of Landslide-Generated Water Waves, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station Res. Rep. No.
H-75-1.

Raney, D.C., (1977). "Los Angelos and Long Beach Harbor: A
Numerical Model for Tidal Circulation," Proceedings of the ASCE
Specialists Conference. Parts 77.

Raney, D.C., J.N. Youngblood and H. Vrgun, (1983). Establishment
of the Influence Zone for Physical Changes to an Estuarine
Environment: An Apalachicola Bay Example. Mississippi-Alabama
Sea Grant Consortium.

245

Raney, D.C. and J.N. Youngblood, (1983). A Proposal for Design
and Implementation of a Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Model for
Apalachicola Bay, submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Mobile District.

Raney, D.C., U, Huang and H. Vrgun (1985), A Hydrodynamic and
Salinty Model for Apalachicola Bay, Florida, prepared for U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, University of Alabama,
BER Report No. 339-183,

Raney, D.C. and K. Jin, (1986). The Effects of Sikes Cut on the
Hydrodynamics and Salinity of Apalachicola Bay. prepared for the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District. The University of
Alabama, Bureau of Engineering Research Report No. 372-186.

Raney, D.C. and K. Jin, (1986a). Hydrodynamics and Salinity of
Apalachicola Bay With a Wind from the South. Prepared for the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District. The University of
Alabama, Bureau of Engineering Research Report No. 373-183.

Raney, D.C., (no date). Study of Methodology for Evaluating
Water Quality Problems at Bayou Texar, Florida. The University of
Alabama Bureau of Engineering Research Report No 263-112,
submitted to the Corps of Engineers, Mobile District.

Rumenik R., U.S. Geological Survey, personal communication

Ryan, J.D., F.D. Calder, and L.C. Burney, (1984). Deepwater Ports
Maintenance Dredging and Disposal Manual. Office of Coastal Zone
Management, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation.

Ryan, J.D., F.D. Calder, and L.C. Burney, (in preparation).
Apalachicola Bay Open-Water Disposal Study, Office of Coastal Zone
Management, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation.

Ryan, J., personal communication, Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation, Bureau of Coastal Magement.

Saucier, R.T., C.C. Calhoun, R.M. Engler, T.R. Patin and H.K
Smith, (1978). Executive Overview and Detailed Summary. Dredged
Material Research Program, U.S. Army Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station, Technical Report DS-78-22.

Schnable, J.E., (1966). The Evolution and Development of Part of
the Northwest Florida Coast. PhD. Dissertation. Department of
Geology, Florida State University.

Schubel, J.R., H.H. Carter, A.E. Wilson, W.M. Wise, M.G. Heaton,
and M.G. Gross, (1978). Field Investigations of the Nature,
Degree, and Extent of Turbidity Generated by Open-Water Pipeline
Disposal Operations. U.S. Army Eng. Waterways Exp. Station,
Technical Report D-78-30.

246

Schubel, J.E. and D. Hirschberg, (1978). "Estuarine Graveyards,
Climatic Change, and the Importance of the Estuarine Environment,"
in Estuarine Interactions, M. Wiley, Ed, Academic Press, p.
285-303.

Sheridan, P.F., (1978). "Food Habits of the Bay Anchovy, Anchoa
mitchilli, in Apalachicola Bay, Florida," Northeast Gulf Science.
2(2): 126-132.

Sheridan, P.F., (1979). "Trophic Resource Utilization by Three
Species of Sciaenid Fishes in a Northwest Florida Estuary,"
Northeast Gulf Science. 3(1): 1-15.

Sheridan, P.Fo and R.J. Livingston, (1979). "Cyclic Trophic
Relationship of Fishes in an Unpolluted, River-Dominated Estuary
in North Florida," in Ecological Processes in Coastal and Marine
Systems. R.J. Livingston, editor. pp. 143-161.

Sherk, J.A., Jr., (1971). The Effects of Suspended and Deposited
Sediments on Estuarine Organisms. Literature Summary and Research
Needs. Chesapeake Biol, Lab, Solomons, MDo Contrib. No. 443.

Sherk, J.A., J.M. O'Connor, Do.A. Neumann, R.D. Prince, and K.V.
Wood, (1974). Effects of Suspended and Deposited Sediments on
Estuarine Organisms. Phase II. Final Rep. No. 74-20. University
of Maryland, Natural Resource Institute, Prince Frederick.

Slotta, L.So, C.K. Sollitt, D.A. Bella, DoR. Hancock, J.E.
McCauley, and R. Parr, (1973). Effects of Hopper Dredging and in
Channel Spoiling in Coos Bay, Oregon. Oregon State University,
Corvallis.

Smith E.M., C.P. Gerba, and J.L. Melnick (1978). "Role of
Sediment in the Persistence of Enteroviruses in the Estuarine
Environment," Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 35(4):
685-689.

Snell, E., personal communciation, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Miami, Florida.

Spira, W.M., A. Huq, Q.S. Ahmed, and Y.A. Saeed, (1981). "Uptake
of Vibrio cholerae Biotype Eltor from Contaminated Water by Water
Hyacinth Eichornia crassipes," Applied and Environmental
Microbiology. 42(3): 550-553.

Stapor, F. W., Jr., (1973). Coastal Sand Budgets and Holocene
Beach Ridge Plain Development, Northwest Florida. PhD.
Dissertation. Department of Geology, Florida State University.

Stern, E.M., and W.B. Stickle, (1978). Effects of Turbidity and
Suspended Material in Aquatic Environments: Literature Review.
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Tech. Rep. D-78-21.

2 4 7

Stevenson, J., (no date). Quantitative and Analytical Research on
the Fall Bird Migration of St. George Island, Franklin County,
Florida. Unpublished Report to Dr. F. James, Department of
Biological Sciences, Florida State University.

Sullivan B., and D.R. Hancock, (1973). Zooplankton and Dredging:
Literature Review and Suggestions for Research. Appendix 6-1:
pp. 199-211. Department of Oceanography, Oregon State
University.

Swanton, J.R., (1922) "Early History of the Creek Indians and
their neighbors." Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin. No.
137. Washington, D.C.

Swift, Lt. F., (1898). Report on the Survey of the Oyster Regions
of St. Vincent's Sound, Apalachicola Bay and St. George Sound,
Florida. U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries. 22: 187-221

Tabb, D.C., (1958). "Differences in the Estuarine Ecology of
Florida Waters and Their Effect on Populations of Weakfish,
Cynoscion nebulosus (Cuvier and Valenciennes)," Transactions of
the 23rd North American Wildlife Natural Resources Conference. pp.
392-401.

Tanner, W.F., (1983). "Apalachicola Bay: Geology and
Sedimentology," in Apalachicola Oyster Industry: Conference
Proceedings. S. Andree, editor. Florida Sea Grant Report 57. pp.
8-10.

Taylor, J.L., (1978). Evaluation of Dredging and Open-Water
Disposal on Benthic Environments: Gulf Intracoastal Waterway -
Apalachicola Bay, Florida to Lake Borgne, Louisiana. unpublished
report prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Taylor, J.L., J.R. Hall, and C.H. Saloman, (1970). "Mollusks and
Benthic Environments in Hillsborough Bay, Florida," U.S. Fish
Wildlife Service, Fishery Bulletin. 68(2): 191-205.

Thayer, G.W., D.E. Hoss, M.A. Kjelson, W.F. Hettler, Jr., and M.W.
LaCroix, (1974). "Biomass of Zooplankton in the Newport River
Estuary and the Influence of Postlarval Fishes," Chesapeake
Science. 15(1): 9-16.

Tramatano, and Bohlen (1979). Estuarine and Coastal Shelf
Science.

Thompson, P., personal communication. National Marine Fisheries
Service, Apalachicola, Florida.

Thompson, R.L., D.C. Heil, W.B. Porter, B.D. Poole and B.G.
Lunsford, (1984). Bacteriological Data Analysis for Apalachicola
Bay, Franklin County, Florida. C. Futch and J. Schneider, editors
Florida Department of Natural Resources.

2 4 8

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, (1971). Detailed Project Report on
Apalachicola Bay, Florida Channel from Apalachicola to Two-Mile
and Breakwater at Two-Mile.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, (1974). Final
Environmental Impact Statement: Apalachicola Bay, Florida
(Maintenance Dredging).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, (1976).
Maintenance Dredging of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway from Pearl
River, Louisiana-Mississippi to Apalachee Bay, Florida. Final
Environmental Impact Statement.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, (1977). Section
107 Reconnaissance Report on Apalachicola Bay, Florida.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, (1978). Draft
Detailed Project Report on Breakwater at Eastpoint, Florida.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, (1981).
Preliminary Section 404(b) Evaluation: Gulf-Intracoastal Waterway
Alabama-Florida State Line, Carrabelle, Florida.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, (1982). Section
404(b)(1) Evaluation of Maintenance Dredging of the Federal
Navigation Project, Apalachicola Bay (Scipio Creek, St. George
Island, Eastpoint and Two Mile), Florida.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, (1983). 1983
Project Maps.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, (1983a). Detailed
Project Report and Environmental Impact Statement on Breakwater at
Eastpoint, Florida.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, (1984). Plan of
Action - Survey for Apalachicola, Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers
"30Q" Study, Alabama, Florida and Georgia.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, (1984a).
Bathymetric Chart of Apalachicola Bay. Florida, prepared by
Raytheon Service Company.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, (1985). St. George Island, Florida,
Sikes Cut Channel: Analysis of Pre-and Post- dredging Monitoring
Data to Evaluate the Extent of Salinity Intrusion (19U4 Dredging).

U.S. Geological Survey, (1984), Data on the Movement and
Compaction of Deposited Dredged Material in Apalachicola Bay,
Florida, data
collected under contract to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile
District.

U.S. House of Representatives, (1951). Apalachicola Bay, Florida,

249 9

82nd Congress, 1st session, House Document No. 156.

University of Florida, Department of Coastal and Oceanographic
Engineering, (1970). Coastal Engineering Investigation of St.
George Island Channel. 35 pp.

Vansant, L., (1980). A Numerical Model of Tidal Currents in
Apalachicola Bay, Florida. M.S. Thesis. Department of
Oceanography, Florida State University. 85 pp.

Water and Air Research, Inc., (1975). A Study of the Effects of
Maintenance Dredging on Selected Ecological Parameters in the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway, Apalachicola Bay, Florida. prepared for the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District.

Weinstein, M.P., S.L. Weiss, R.G. Hodson, and L.R. Gerry, (1980).
"Retention of Three Taxa of Post-Larval Fishes in an Intensively
Flushed Tidal Estuary, Cape Fear River, North Carolina,"
Fishery Bulletin. 78(2): 419-435.

Weisberg, R.H., (1986). A Critique and Evaluation of Numerical
Model Studies on the Effects of Sikes Cut on Apalachicola Bay.
Prepared for the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation.

Wharton, C.H., W.M. Kitchens and T.W. Sipe, (1982). The Ecology
of Bottomland Hardwood Swamps of the Southeast: A Community
Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/OBS-81/37.

White, N.M., (1981). Archaeological Survey at Lake Seminole.
Cleveland Museum of Natural History Archaeological Research Report
#29.

White, N.M., (1984). Prehistoric Cultural Chronology in the
Apalachicola Valley. The Evolution of Native chiefdoms in
Northwest Florida, paper presented at the Gulf Coast History and
Humanities Conference, Pensacola.

Whitfield, W.K. and D.S. Beaumariage, (1977). "Shellfish
Management in Apalachicola Bay: Past, Present, Future," in
Proceedings of the Conference on the Apalachicola Drainage System.
R.J. Livingston and E.A. Joyce, editors. Florida Marine Research
Publication. No. 26, pp. 130-140.

Willey, G.R., (1949). Archeology of the Florida Gulf Coast.
Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collection. Vol. 113.

Williams, L., personal communication. Biology Section, Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation.

Williams, L.A. and P.A. LaRock, (1985). "Temporal Occurance of
Vibrio Species and Aeromonas hydrophila in Estuarine Sediments,"
Applied and Environmental Microbiology.

Williams, L.A. and Eaton, (in preparation). An Assessment of

2 250

Dredging Impacts in Apalachicola Bay, Florida, as Measured by
Selected Physical and Bacteriological Parameters, Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation.

Wright, T.D., D.B. Mathis, and J.J. Brannon, (1978). Aquatic
Disposal Field Investigations, Galveston, Texas. Offshore
Disposal Site: Evaluation Summary. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station. Technical Report D-77-20. Environmental
Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.

Yerger, R., (1977). "Fishes of the Apalachicola River," in
Proceedings of the Conference on the Apalachicola Drainage System.
R.J. Livingston, and E.A. Joyce, editors. Florida Marine Research
Publication: No. 26, pp. 22-33.

Zeh, T.A. (1979). Sikes Cut. Glossary of Inlets Report #7.
Department of Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering, University of
Florida.

2 51I

APPENDIX 1

Common and Scientific Names for Species Mentioned

Vegetation:

Needlerush Juncus spp.

Smooth cordgrass Spartina alterniflora

Saltmeadow cordgrass S. patens

Eurasian watermilfoil Myriophyllum spicatum

Shoal grass Halodule wrightii

Manatee grass Syringodium filiforme

Turtle grass Thalassia testudinum

Tape grass Vallisneria americana

Widgeon grass Ruppia maritima

Sago pondweed Pomatogeton spp.

Cattail Typha domingensis

Bullrush Scirpus spp.

Sawgrass Cladium jamaicense

Trees:

Water tupelo Nyssa aquatica

Ogeechee tupelo N. ogeche

Bald cypress Taxodium distichum

Carolina ash Fraxinus caroliniana

Green ash F. pennsylvanca

Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua

Overcup oak Quercus lyrata

Water hickory Carya aquatica

252

Benthic Macroinvertebrates:

Snail Neritina reclivata

American oyster Crassotrea virginica

Southern oyster drill Thais haemastoma

Stone crab Menippe mercenaria

Blue crab Callinectes sapidus

Crown conch Melongena corona

Whelk Busycon contrarium

White shrimp Penaeus setiferus

Pink shrimp P. duorarum

Brown shrimp P. aztecus

Fish:

Bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli

Skillettfish Gobiesox strumosus

Goby Gobiosoma spp.

Croaker Micropogon undulatus

Menhaden Brevoortia patronus

Spot Leiostomus xanthurus

Silver perch Bairdiella chrysoura

Spcekled trout Cynoscion nebulosus

Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris

American eel Anguilla rostrata

Hogchoker Trinectes maculatus

Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides

Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus

Long-nose gar L. osseus

Mullet Mugil cephalus

Flounder Pralichthys spp.

253

Red drum (redfish) Sciaenops ocellatus

Cobia Rachycentron candadum

Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix

Red snapper Lutjanus campechanus

Sand seatrout Cynoscion arenarius

Alabama shad Alosa alabamae

Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrhynchus

Atlantic needlefish Strongylura marina

Striped bass Morone saxatilis

Mountain mullet Agonostomus monticola

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus

Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus

Common carp Cyprinus carpio

Mosquito fish Gambusia affinis

Reptiles:

American alligator Alligator mississipiensis

Saltmarsh water snake Natrix faciata

Diamond back terrapin Malaclemys terrapin

Glass lizard Ophisaurus compressus

Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta

Birds:

Osprey Pandion haliactus

Bald eagle Haliaetus leucocephalus

Brown pelican Pelecanus accedentalis

Least tern Sterna atrillarum

Laughing gull Larus attricilla

Black skimmer Rynchops niger

254

Royal tern Sterna maxima

Mammals:

White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus

Hog Sus scrofa

Fox squirrel Sciuris niger

Grey squirrel S. carolinensis

Black deer Ursus americanus

Raccoon Procyon lotor

Opossum Didelphis virginiana

Marsh rabbit Sylvilagus palustris

Rat Scalopus asquaticus

Round-tailed muskrat Neofiber alleni

Otter Lutra canadensis

Cotton rat Peromyscus gossypinus

Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis

Sambar deer Cervus unicolor

255

APPENDIX 21

Microorganisms of Public Health Concern�

1. Microorganisms from External Sources

Apalachicola Bay has numerous known external sources of'

pollution. River water and overland runoff bring domestic sewage

pollution from Apalachicola's many septic tanks and its sewageI

treatment plant into the bay. Wastes from wild and domestic

animals, by-products from fish and oyster processing houses, and

discharges from fishing boats, pleasure boats, and commercialj

shipping vessels also enter bay water to varying degrees. These

sources of pollution usually contain high levels of fecal coliform

bacteria. Regulatory agencies (euch as the Department of Natural*

Resources and the Food and Drug Administration) use fecal

coliforms as indicator organisms to classify shellfish harvestingI

waters and determine shellfish quality. Shellfish such as oysters

are filter-feeders and are known to concentrate microorganisms of3

all kinds from the surrounding water, including bacterial and

viral pathogens. Because oysters are eaten raw, there is concern

for their potential to make people ill, since microbial loads in i

oysters may multiply rapidly under various processing and storage

circumstances (Hood, et al., 1983a).3

Standards using fecal coliforms as indicator organisms for

water quality in shellfish harvesting areas have been set by theI

Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Program (in which the Florida3

Department of Natural Resources, the U.S. Food and Drug

Administrative and the shellfish industry participate). Upper3

2 56U

limits are 14 MPN (most probable number) per 100 ml water, and MPN

levels at specific locations may not exceed 43 MPN/100 ml water

more than 10% of the time (Thompson, et al., 1984). DNR divides

shellfish harvesting areas into Approved, Conditionally Approved,

or Prohibited areas based on these standards for water and

knowledge of the sources, dilution, die-off, and dispersal of

fecal coliform bacteria (Figure 12). Formerly, when samples from

Approved or Conditionally Approved waters exceeded the acceptable

standards for bacteria, these areas would be closed to shellfish

harvesting until bacterial levels subsided to acceptable levels.

Recently, a new management plan was developed and implemented for

closure of the bay (Thompson, et al , 1984). A correlation exists

between the rise in river-stage and/or rainfall and elevation of

fecal coliform concentrations in Apalachicola Bay. The plan's

basic assumption is that coliform levels can be predicted based on

river-stage and rainfall levels.

There are problems involved with using fecal coliforms as

indicator organisms for water quality. The coliform group

correlates well with freshwater, becoming debilitated in salty

water, and is therefore not the best pollution indicator in

estuaries (L. Williams, personal communication). Several studies

have shown no correlation between fecal coliform levels and levels

of enteric viruses and potentially pathogenic bacteria which are

natural residents in aquatic systems (Musselman and Carr, 1982;

Hood, et al., 1983b). It also takes a long time (24 hours) to

process water samples for presence of fecal coliforms, which is a

2 257

source of contention between the oystermen and DNR when it comes

to speed of re-opening the bay after closure due to river-stage

and rainfall. Attempts to find an associated organism to replace

fecal coliforms as an indicator have not yet been successful, and

fecal coliforms remain the most acceptable determinant of

potential health problems at this time (Hood, et al., 1983b).

Enteroviruses commonly found in sewage effluent are known to

adsorb to estuarine sediments and survive longer than in estuarine

water alone (Smith, et al., 1978), Such viruses include

echovirus, coxsackie virus, and poliovirus. These enteroviruses,

as well as reoviruses, adenoviruses, and hepatitus A virus, are

considered prime candidates for shellfish contamination, and viral

epidemics attributed to shellfish ingestion most frequently

involve a hepatitus virus (Ellender, et al., 1980). As yet, no

research has been done on the presence or abundance of viruses in

Apalachicola Bay water, sediments, or oysters.

2. Microorganisms from Sources Within the Bay

Another very important group of microorganisms of public

health concern are the Vibrio bacteria. They have been found in

the estuarine sediments, shellfish, and waters of Apalachicola

Bay, and numerous other gulf estuaries, and Chesapeake Bay (Hood,

et al., 1983c; DePaola, et al., 1984; Williams and Larock, 1985).

These vibrios are believed to originate within the estuary because

no correlations have been made between the occurrence of vibrios

and the presence of fecal coliform bacteria (known to be

introduced from sources external to estuaries (Hood,

258 U

et al., 1983a)). In Apalachicola Bay, Musselman and Carr (1982)

found that Vibrio species were not coming from the same sources as

fecal coliform bacteria, being found in areas remote from any

discharges of domestic sewage.

Six types of Vibrio species have been isolated from

Apalachicola Bay, and have been found throughout the estuary in

waters, sediments and/or shellfish; each is capable of causing

illness in humans (Blake and Rodrick, 1983; Hood et al., 1981,

1983c; Williams and Larock, 1985):

1) Vibrio alginolyticus can cause wound infections.

2) Vibrio cholerae 01 is responsible for the major cholera

outbreaks worldwide. It causes severe

gastroenteritis and may result in death.

3) Vibrio pholerae non-01 is the most prevalent Vibrio -

organism in Apalachicola Bay, and also causes

severe gastroenteritis.

4) Vibrio fluvialis causes gastroenteritis.

5) Vibrio parahaemolyticus causes gastroenteritis and wound

infection.

6) Vibrio vulnificus may cause wound infection, septicemia

(a severe blood infection), and gastroenteritis.

Numerous outbreaks of cholera have occurred along the Gulf

Coast since the late seventies, and most cases have been traced

back to the consumption of raw shellfish (primarily oysters, and

some improperly cooked blue crabs) (Hood, et al., 1983c). In

Florida between 1979 and 1983, there were thirty-four reported

2 5 9

cases of gastroenteritis due to Vibrio species. Two of these

cases, due to V. vulnificus, resulted in fatalities in patients

over sixty years old. Thirty out of thirty-two of the cases with

known food histories had eaten raw oysters before becoming ill,

and the source of most of these oysters was Apalachicola Bay.

Additionally, eighteen cases of blood or wound infection due to

Vibrio species were reported; these were related to exposure to

seawater.

Because of the great potential for serious health problems

due to consumption of raw shellfish, and because Apalachicola Bay

produces nearly 90% of Florida's oysters, numerous microbiological

investigations have been conducted and are ongoing in Apalachicola

Bay. In 1980, oysters harvested from approved shellfish

harvesting waters were found to contain V. cholerae non-01 (Hood,

et al., 1981). In an experimental study, V. cholerae was found to

grow in estuarine waters and sediments from Apalachicola Bay, with

best growth occurring in salinity levels between 10 to 25 ppt.

Additionally, V. cholerae was observed to attach readily to chitin

(Ness, et al., 1981). Another study which sampled 24 stations

around the bay found V. cholerae 01 and non-01 in both polluted

waters (Scipio Creek) and non-polluted waters (East Hole) (Motes,

et al., 1983). In other research, a series of organisms

(including oysters, blue crabs, mussels, plankton, and algae) and

sediment and water samples from Apalachicola Bay and Tampa Bay

were tested for the presence of V. cholerae (Hood, et al.,

1983c). V. cholerae non-01 was found in 45% of all oysters

sampled, 30% of all sediments, 50% of water samples and 75% of

26O0

all blue crabs. No V. cholerae was found in mussels, plankton, or

algae. Only one oyster sample contained V. cholerae 01; it was

from St. Vincent Sound, an approved shellfish harvesting area.

Between August and November, at salinity levels of 12 to 25 ppt

and at temperatures between 20 and 350C, V. cholerae were most

abundant (Hood, et al., 1983c). The seasonal occurrance of six

Vibrio species and Aeromonas hydrophila (another bacterium

originating within the bay and one which also causes

gastroenteritis) in Apalachicola Bay sediments has been

investigated (L. Williams, personal communication). A succession

of species occurred oxer the year, apparently related to

temperature changes. The species occurred most commonly in sandy

sediments at depths of one inch or less and in a surface floc, and

one species was recovered from a depth of six inches. Results are

pending from a bay-wide core survey of 20 stations examining the

seasonal and areal distribution and depth occurrence of Vibrio

species, and their relation to water quality parameters and

sediment type (L. Williams, personal communication).

An unrelated study may have research implications for

Apalachicola Bay. In a cholera-endemic region of rural

Bangladesh, India, virulent V. cholerae in surface water contam-

inated by cholera victims were found to concentrate on the surface

of water hyacinth, Eichornia crassipes, and the authors suggested

that these floating plants may serve as environmental reservoirs

for cholera during the inter-epidemic period (Spira, et al.,

2 261

1981). Water hyacinths are abundant in the Apalachicola area,

found in the freshwater streams entering the main river, including3

Scipio Creek where presently the local sewage treatment plant

outfall is located. When river flows are high in the area, large3

masses of floating water hyacinth are transported into the bay.

Although no known cholera problem exists in the city of1

Apalachicola, the investigation of water hyacinth as a possible

transporter of bacteria may be warranted, to see if it plays some

role in the distribution of Vibrio species in the bay.

2 6 2~~~~~

APPENDIX 33

Review of Important Fish Species in Apalachicola Bay

1. Bay Anchovyg

The most abundant trawl-susceptible fish of Apalachicola Bay

is the bay anchovy, Anchoa mitchilli, yet it is not harvested3

commercially. It is a small, pelagic, schooling species found

throughout the bay, and has made up over 40Q% of the total fishI

catch in the long-term trawl study (Livingston, et al., 1976;

Livingston, 19814).

Bay anchovies are year-round estuary inhabitants with a wide3

range of tolerance for both salinity and temperature (Daly, 1970).

They make no long-distance migrations, and spawn all year withinI

the bay, most intensely from spring to fall with a mass spawningg

peak in May. As eggs and larvae, anchovies are also dominant in

the near surface ichthyoplankton. In a survey conducted in3

1973-714, anchovy eggs made up 92% of the total eggs caught, while

75% of all larvae were anchovies (Blanchet, 1979). There isf

year-round recruitment of juveniles into the adult population,

with no defined seasonal growth pattern; however, the anchovy
population is highest in the summer and fall.

'Although they do occur bay-wide and year-round, anchovy

distribution corresponds to seasonal changes in freshwater inputs5

to the bay. In winter and spring anchovies are most abundant in

East Bay and eastern Apalachicola Bay (Livingston, 1983). In MayI

there is a concentration off Nick's Hole on St. George Island.3

Anchovies are again most abundant from June through August in East

263 3

Bay. Through the fall they congregate near the Apalachicola River

mouth. Anchovies therefore tend to be more abundant in the parts

of the bay that are less saline.

The bay anchovies' pelagic life style is reflected in their

diet. As very young larvae they consume planktonic copepod

nauplii, copepodites, and copepods (Detwyler and Houde, 1970). In

Apalachicola Bay, Sheridan (1978) found that bay anchovies consume

primarily calenoid copepods (mostly Acartia tonsa) and show

minimal ontogenetic feeding changes. Diet changes somewhat among

two size classes: the 10-39 mm standard length (SL) group

consumed mostly calenoid copepods; the 40-69 mm SL group ate fewer

calenoid copepods and consumed large zooplankters such as mysids,

insect larvae, and larval and juvenile fish. Seasonally the diet

changed as well, with mysids most important in the winter, and

copepods predominant the rest of the year. Food items chosen were

related partially to the salinity - more insect larvae, mysids,

and cladocerans were eaten near the rivermouth, while chaetognaths

and barnacle nauplii were eaten at more saline locations.

Anchovies themselves are an important food item for

piscivorous fish in the bay (Sheridan, 1979). One of their main

predators is the sand sea trout, Cynoscion arenarius. These

predators enter the bay as juveniles in April and are abundant all

summer when the anchovy population is high. The sand sea trout

diet consists of 62% juvenile fishes and 26% mysids (Sheridan,

1979). The bay anchovy made up 78% of identifiable fishes

consumed.

2 6 4

2. Mullet3

Two species of mullet inhabit Apalachicola Bay, one of which

is of commercial and ecological significance. The striped, orI

black mullet, Mugil cephalus, is the most abundant of all fish3

landed commercially in Franklin County (Table 5). Relatively few

silver mullet, M. curema are harvested from the bay. Mullet are3

pelagic schooling fish caught in great numbers commercially in

gill nets (long nets which are played out in a circle from a boatI

to enclose an entire school). Mullet are fast swimmers and are3

good at avoiding most trawling gear. Their feeding ecology,

seasonal and spatial distribution and other life history aspects3

have not been reported on as extensively as those of the bay's

sciaenids or anchovies (Livingston, et al., 1976; Livingston,I

1980; 1983).

Mullet spend most of their lives within the estuary except

for annual spawning migrations to the gulf. Striped mullet spawn3

from October through February, with peak activity from November to

January (Futch, 1976). The location of spawning grounds off theI

barrier islands is not known; elsewhere in the gulf, spawning3

groups have been observed inshore (Breder, 19J40), and as far

offshore as forty to fifty miles, and in water as deep as 9003

fathoms (Arnold and Thompson, 1958; Anderson, 1958). Mullet

migrate to their spawning grounds in large schools.

During spawning the females shed their eggs into the water

and these are fertilized by accompanying males. An adult female

may produce from 1.2 to 2.7 million eggs in one spawning (Futch,I

2 6 5~~~~~

3 ~1976). The eggs are planktonic and buoyant and hatch out between

30 and 50 hours after fertilization, depending upon water

I ~temperature. Recently hatched planktonic larvae reach the

3 ~post-larval stage within a week, and begin to travel toward the

estuaries. They remain in protected low-salinity areas and grow

3 ~to nearly two inches within five months, and over seven inches in

one year. At this time they may remain in the estuary and

U ~overwinter, while the rest of the mullet population migrates to

the spawning grounds. It may take from two to three years for

striped mullet to reach sexual maturity. They generally become

I ~available to the fishery during their second year. Striped mullet

may grow to lengths of over two feet and live from six to seven

3 ~years. They are able to tolerate a wide range of salinities and

I ~have been found in the upper reaches of rivers (Futch, 1976).

In Apalachicola Bay most mullet move out of the estuary

3 ~during winter months, although some may overwinter in the deeper

parts of the bay (W. Miley, personal communication). Returning in

3 ~the spring, they become abundant in summer and fall. They may be

found bay-wide, but are caught primarily on the bay side of the

barrier islands. Mullet have their best flavor in summer and fall
3 ~when they become fat and are preparing for their spawning

migration; during the winter they consume a lot of mud and may

5 ~take on a muddy taste. Mullet may also take on a less desirable

flavor when they inhabit freshwater. In the fall mullet are

U ~sought after for their roe. The main type of gear used to harvest

5 ~mullet is a gill net, or, when the fish are mixed sizes in spring,

I~~~~~~~~~~~~

the trammel net is used. Cast-nets and small bank-anchored gill

nets are often used by individuals, but not on a large scale or

for commercial purposes.

Larval mullet and small juveniles eat zooplankton. Larger

juveniles and adults are herbivorous and feed by sucking up

surface layers of muddy bottoms, or by grazing (Futch, 1976).

They consume mostly benthic diatoms and dinoflagellates, plant

detritus, and sediment. Mullet are able to retain finer sediment

particles and reject larger ones, probably using to advantage any

adsorbed bacteria, other microbiota, or organics. When plankton

blooms are available, usually in spring and fall, mullet will feed

on them (Futch, 1976).

3. Flounders

Flounders, or flatfishes, begin their larval existence with

their physical features placed symmetrically on the body. At very

small sizes, they undergo a metamorphosis and one eye migrates to

the other side of the head, the mouth shifts position, and the

internal organs become rearranged. Two families of flatfishes are

"left-handed," with their eyes, mouth, and coloration on the left

side: the commercially important flounders, Bothidae, and the

tonguefishes, Cynoglossidae. Another flatfish family, the soles,

or Soleidae, is "right-handed."

Flounders are the second most abundant finfish landed in

Franklin County (see Table 5). All commercial flounders occurring

in the gulf are bothids, primarily of the genus Paralichthys

(Hoese and Moore, 1977). In the Apalachicola area, the two most

26?7

abundant commercial species are the southern flounder, P.

lethostigma, and the gulf flounder, P. albigutta. The landing

category of "flounder" therefore includes more than a single

species. Many other species in the bothid family do not get very

large as adults. They appear frequently in shrimp catches and are

mistakenly considered "baby flounders" (Hoese and Moore, 1977).

Other bothid species, in addition to the southern and gulf

flounders, have also been collected in the long-term trawl survey,

including the fringed flounder, Etropus crossotus, the ocellated

flounder, Ancyclopsetta quadrocellata, the black-cheeked

tonguefish, Symphurus plagiusa and the soles: the hogchoker,

Trinectes maculatus, and the lined sole, Achirus lineatus

(Livingston, et al., 1977).

These flatfishes are primarily benthic, lying buried in the

sediments when at rest. They are cryptically colored and are able

to alter the intensity of their skin pigment, blending well with

their background.

Relatively little is known about the life history of most

bothids, particularly in the northeastern gulf, in spite of their

commercial significance. The following observations on the

southern and gulf founders were made in Texas (Hoese and Moore,

1977):

"Young southern flounder, P. lethostigma are found in shallow

bays, even in low salinities. The larger fish leave the bays for

the open gulf during the fall in order to spawn. A severe norther

will cause a mass migration, resulting in excellent floundering or

2 6 8

gigging, while a moderate or warm winter will cause the large3

flounders to leave dispersed over a greater period of time and

result in decreased sports and commercial catches. This fish hasI

been called the "mud flounder." In the gulf as well as in the3

bays this species is often more common over the softer mud

bottoms. Large individuals of this species are often called3

'halibut."'"

"Like other Texas species of Paralichthys, young gulfI

flounder are found in the bays during the spring and summer and5

migrate to the gulf with the onset of colder weather. Ginsburg

(1952) called this flounder, 'sand flounder, ' since the adults3

appeared to be more common on hard, sandy bottoms. In the bays

the young are found in grassflats." I

The feeding habits of the southern flounder in Barataria Bay,3

Louisiana, were investigated by Fox and White (1969). Analysis of

the stomach contents of 305 P. lethostigma collected between 19631

and 1968 was performed. Of the 305 fishes, 13~4 stomachs were

empty. In the other 171 stomachs, fishes made up 93.7% andI

crustaceans 5.9% of the total food volume, with juvenile mullets

and anchovies being the most important food species. The fat

sleeper, Dormitator maculatus was extremely abundant as a food3

item, but in only one collection. Shrimp (Penaeus spp.) and crabs

(Callinectes spp.) were the most abundant crustacean food items.5

Other fish and crustacean species, and unidentifiable remains were

found, but made up very small percentages of the total. In fishes

of increasing size, no preference for larger food items was noted,5

2 6 9~~~~~~

3 ~but there was an increase in the number of items per stomach.

I ~Additionally food items in the flounder stomachs were found to be

related to the seasonal availability of such food organisms in the

3 ~sampling area.

In Apalachicola Bay, both the southern flounder and the gulf

3 ~flounder are important commercially and have been collected in the

long-term trawl survey, but P. lethostigma is usually more

U ~abundant because it is found in the bay year-round and P.

3 ~albigutta is not. The following information on flounders was

obtained from W. Miley, Manager, Apalachicola National Estuarine

3 ~Sanctuary (personal communication).

Adult southern flounder, P. lethostigma are caught

I ~commercially throughout the year in Apalachicola Bay, but are less

3 ~abundant in winter because mo~st adults undertake a spawning

migration to the gulf in late fall. As described for Texas

3 ~southern flounder (Hoese and Moore, 1977), the large flounder will

leave the bay for gulf spawning sites over a greater period of

3 ~time with the onset of a warm or 'moderate winter, whereas severe

* ~temperatures can result in a mass migration to the gulf.

Post-larval southern flounder appear in the marshes in early

3 ~spring. Upon returning to the estuary in spring, the adult

southern flounders spread out over the entire bay and up the

I ~Apalachicola River as far as Jim Woodruff Dam (Yerger, 1977).

The gulf flounder, P. albigutta spends much more of its time

out in the gulf. Adults migrate out of the estuary to spawn in
5 ~late fall and are not found in the bay during the winter. From

I~~~~~~~~~~~~

February to April huge numbers of returning adults may be found at

staging areas outside the inlets and passes, apparently in

anticipation of some change in temperature, salinity, or other

factor, before entering the bay. Females caught in these areas

are found to have already shed their eggs. The post-larvae of the

gulf flounder also move into marsh nursery grounds in early

spring.

These two flounders are omnivorous, consuming a variety of

organisms, but do prefer to eat fishes. The arrival of P.

albigutta at its staging areas coincides with the migration to the

bay of large numbers of silversides, Menidia peninsulae, a

preferred food item.

4. Croaker

Croaker, Micropogonias undulatus, has been the second most

abundant fish species collected in the long-term trawl survey

(>26.0% of the total fish caught) and is also a popular food fish

landed commercially in Franklin County (Livingston, et al., 1977;

Livingston, 1984; and see Table 5).

Croaker is an estuarine-dependent, benthic species with a

wide tolerance for temperatures and salinities, yet is found in

greatest numbers in Apalachicola Bay in salinities below 10-15 ppt

(Livingston, et al., 1977). Adult croakers begin to leave the bay

on their spawning migration between June and October. They spawn

fairly close to inlets and passes from late fall to early winter

along the Gulf Coast.

271

3 ~~Larval croakers hatch from planktonic eggs and begin

developing as they are transported towards the estuaries by tidal

U ~currents. They arrive inshore as post-larvae and are most

3 ~prevalent near the bottom during the daytime (Weinstein, 1980).

Blanchet (1979) only found croaker post-larvae in an unusual

3 ~circumstance, when the sampling net was drawn through the boat's

prop wash that had stirred up bottom sediment.

U ~~Post-larvae inhabit the shallow marshes, growing rapidly

* ~during the late fall and winter months when the highest quantities

of detritus and related peaks of detritivorous organisms are

3 ~present in the bay. Juvenile stages of croakers show up in

collection in October and November, and are most abundant in the

I ~peak months between January and April (Livingston, et al., 1977).

3 ~~Juveniles remain within the estuary during their first summer

and move offshore in cold weather. They leave the bay again the

following summer to spawn. Adult croakers may remain for several

years out in the open gulf after their first spawning migration

U ~(Parker, 1971; Fruge and Truesdale, 1978).

The majority of croakers collected in the bay are juveniles.

During January, they congregate in greatest numbers near the'

3 ~rivermouth and in upper East Bay, when greatest river flow occurs

(Livingston, 1983). By February they have spread out throughout

3 ~East Bay and northern Apalachicola Bay. Over the following few

months, as they grow and develop, they move further out toward the

I ~barrier islands and from July to September migrate from the bay

5 ~(Livingston, 1983).

I~~~~~~~~~~~~

Croakers are benthic omnivores with a diverse diet. Larvae

and post-larvae consume primarily zooplankton. Juvenile and

larger croakers' food habits were examined in a study of sciaenid

trophic resource utilization in Apalachicola Bay (Sheridan, 1979).

Polychaetes formed the basis of the diet at 32% of weight for all

size classes. Other major components of their diet were detritus

(16%), juvenile fishes (8%), mysids (7%), and shrimp (7%). Three

feeding groups were found. Small croakers ate polychaetes, insect

larvae, amphipods, and harpacticoid and calanoid copepods; the

mid-sized group consumed polychaetes, more detritus, and mysids;

and the larger fishes tended to specialize upon one or two food

items such as polychaetes, infaunal shrimp, and/or juvenile fishes

(Sheridan, 1979).

5. Spot

The spot, Leiostomus xanthurus, is an abundant fish in the

Gulf of Mexico, common in most estuaries. It is the fourth most

abundant trawl-susceptible species in Apalachicola Bay, making up

approximately 5% of the total collected (Livingston, et al., 1976;

Livingston, 1980; 1983), and is also landed commercially in

Franklin County (Table 5).

Spot are estuary-dependent fishes with the ability to

tolerate wide temperature and salinity variations. They have an

annual migration cycle: in late fall and winter adults and first-

year juveniles move to spawning grounds in the relatively warmer

waters of the gulf, often at great depths and great distances from

2 7 3

shore (Pearson, 1929; Fruge and Truesdale, 1978). Most first-year

spot develop to sexual maturity during the migration to the

spawning grounds (Pacheco, 1962). After spawning, adults travel

back in the late winter and early spring to use the estuary as a

feeding ground. Eggs and larvae are planktonic and drift

shoreward with tides and currents; the developing young have

reached the postlarval stage ( 0.5 inches) by the time they arrive

in the estuary.

Post-larvae and small juveniles begin to appear in

Apalachicola Bay in January and inhabit the shallow marsh areas of

East Bay and Nick's Hole (Livingston, 1980; 1983). They reach

peak numerical abundance in March and April. By late summer, the

juveniles have grown to near-adult size and the offshore migration

begins.

The spot is an omnivore and consumes the animals and plant

matter found in the soft sediments of Apalachicola Bay. A study

of the spot's feeding habits found that its diet includes many

detritus-eating benthic invertebrates such as polychaetes,

nematodes, bivalves, and harpacticoid copepods (Livingston, 1983).

It was also determined that there was little variation in food

habits between size classes - as the fish grew and developed,

their food choices did nbt change (Livingston, 1983).

1 274

6. Spotted Seatrout, or Speckled Seatrout

The spotted seatrout, Cynoscion nebulosus, also called speckled

seatrout, is an important commercial species landed in Franklin

County (see Table 5). It is caught with gill nets and beach

seines, and is an extremely popular sports fish, well liked for

its flavor and its fighting ability. It was not an abundant fish

in the long-term trawl survey, being a relatively fast swimmer.

Therefore the following information on spotted trout has been

drawn from a fishery profile of the Gulf States Marine Fisheries

Commission using data from all the gulf states (Perret, et al.,

1980).

Spotted seatrout have an extended spring and summer spawning

period from February-March to October, peaking from late April to

July. In Florida, spawning takes place in the quieter parts of

bays unaffected by tides, in the deeper channels and holes

adjacent to vegetated shallow areas. In some parts of the gulf

spotted seatrout spawn just offshore of the barrier islands.

Spotted seatrout eggs are buoyant in salinities over 30 ppt,

and sink in salinities below 25 ppt. It is unknown exactly where

recently-hatched larvae go, but post-larval individuals eventually

appear over shallow grassy bottoms where they remain and grow

rapidly. After 6-8 weeks, the young seatrout begin schooling.

They travel in groups of 5-50 individuals until the ages of five

or six, when large females become solitary, usually because of

mortality in the other individuals. During the warmer months the

juveniles can be found in or near vegetated areas, while adults

are more likely to be in deeper water nearby. When temperatures

275 3

3 ~begin to decline, both adults and juveniles are driven to deeper

waters in the bays, and larger fish may even enter the gulf or

I ~rivers. Spotted seatrout are most abundant in spring when they

3 ~migrate from their wintering areas to the shallows to feed or to

spawn.

3 ~~Spotted seatrout, both juveniles and adults, are often found

in turtle grass, and shoal grass: They are also found in numerous

I ~other habitats in the northern gulf, around submerged and emergent

E ~islands, shell reefs, marshes, and oil platforms. Tabb (1958)

assembled a number of habitat characteristics favorable to

3 ~seatrout. These included: large areas 10 to 20 feet deep

adjacent to the grassflats for refuge in winter cold, an abundant

I ~food supply including grazing crustaceans and small fish, an

3 ~absence of predators and competitors, and suitable temperatures of

59 to 800F. Spotted seatrout are able to tolerate variations in

salinity as extreme as 0.2 to 75 ppt, however, their ideal range

is from 20 to 25 ppt. Generally, spotted seatrout spend their

U ~entire lives in the estuaries, but they may migrate to the gulf

adverse conditions such as low salinities (5 ppt) or low

temperatures.

Spotted seatrout may be considered opportunistic carnivores

that undergo several ontogenetic changes in diet as they grow to

maturity. Their food items are apparently based upon availability

since their diet changes with seasons and from one location to

another. Numerous studies along the Gulf Coast have

I~~~~~~~~~~~~

found a variety of items taken, with some generalizations

possible: post-larvae consume copepods, and as they develop, add

small benthic invertebrates to their diet, then larger

invertebrates as they continue to grow. Gradually, small fishes

are eaten in addition to invertebrates, and ultimately fishes are

consumed exclusively.

7. Sand Seatrout

The sand seatrout, Cynoscion arenarius, has a similar life

cycle to its relative, the spotted seatrout, yet prefers a more

muddy-bottom habitat. Like the spotted seatrout, sand seatrout

is a very popular sports fish (Table 5). It is very common in

other estuaries of the northern gulf and, like most

estuarine-dependent fish, has wide salinity and temperature

tolerances. It is caught most often at temperatures between 20

and 350C (Livingston, 1983).

Spawning of sand seatrout takes place in early spring in the

Apalachicola area, just offshore of the barrier islands; however,

some spawning may take place within the bay (Blanchet, 1979).

Larvae are transported by tidal currents through the inlets and

passes. By April and May, post-larvae and the smallest juveniles

are collected, concentrated in upper East Bay and near the

rivermouth. Peak abundance for all juveniles occurs between May

and July, and they are found bay-wide. From July to September

juveniles are most abundant near the rivermouth and throughout the

northern part of Apalachicola Bay. Adults are present from March

277 7

through December with peaks between summer and early fall. In

October, sand seatrout begin to move to warmer offshore waters to

spawn, most are gone by November, and from January to March very

few are present in the bay at all (Livingston, et al., 1977;

Livingston, 1983).

A study of food habits of several fishes of Apalachicola Bay

revealed that sand seatrout are water column predators, consuming

primarily juvenile fishes (62% of items found in stomachs) and

mysids (26%)(Sheridan, 1979). Of all identifiable fishes

consumed, bay anchovies made up 78% of the total. Anchovies are

the most abundant fish species in the bay, and are available year

round (see section on anchovy life history). Juvenile anchovies

reach peaks of abundance in spring when juvenile seatrout become

abundant in the area. The smallest sizes of sand seatrout rely.

mostly on mysids and calanoid copepods particularly in shallow,

low-salinity areas, but switch quickly to a diet of fish as they

grow (Sheridan, 1979). This study indicates that sand seatrout

choose food items primarily based upon their availability in the

water column.

8. Red Drum

Red drum, Sciaenops ocellata, locally called redfish, is one

of the most popular sports fish caught in the Apalachicola Bay

area. It is also caught commercially by bay fishermen in gill

nets (Table 5). There is relatively little data available on

redfish abundance and distribution within Apalachicola Bay because

2?8

it was not collected that frequently in the long-term trawl survey

(Livingston, et al., 1977). The following information is drawn

from Perret, et al. (1980) from an extensive fishery profileI

compiled by the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. Where

possible it refers to Florida information, otherwise, information

is compiled from other Gulf states.

On the Florida coast, redfish spawning takes place from

September to February and peaks in October. Spawning apparentlyI

occurs offshore, since no ripe females are found in the estuaries.

Redfish eggs are pelagic and buoyant, and newly hatched larvae are

planktonic and drift to the estuaries with the tidal currents.

They arrive inshore as post-larvae from September to December and

inhabit shallow, quiet waters over muddy bottoms and amongI

submer~ged grasses such as shoal grass, and widgeon grass. The3

young redfish develop rapidly in their first year. Juvenile

redfish move from the shallows to the deeper water of bays during

their first winter, are most often found near the perimeter of

marshes. They tend to be most abundant from January to April.1

After the first year there is a gradual move to the gulf during

cold weather, and a pronounced return into bays and lagoons in

early spring. Redfish remain in or near the estuary for two years

then, as subadults, move offshore prior to maturation and

spawning.I

After their first spawning, redfish spend less time in the

estuary and more time at sea. Adults may be found in manyI

habitats, over muddy bo ttoms, sandy substrates, or oyster reefs.

2 7 9~~~~~~~

In the northern gulf, adults do not undertake extensive

migrations, they usually only travel short distances from bay to

gulf.

Redfish are eurythermal, yet are highly sensitive to rapid

drops in temperature and may suffer high mortalities during

freezes. They are also euryhaline, and their salinity tolerance

varies with their age and size; at small sizes redfish are found

in low salinity areas while larger sizes usually occur in

salinities of 30-35 ppt. Redfish abundance is apparently limited

by the total estuarine area available to them. Redfish landings

in the Gulf of Mexico, by state, vary directly with the total area

of estuaries in each state.

Smaller juvenile redfish consume primarily copepods and

copepod nauplii. As they get larger they will selectively eat

mysid shrimp when available, and otherwise will consume gammarid

amphipods, polychaetes, grass shrimp, penaeid shrimp, and blue

crabs. Adult redfish eat decapod crustaceans (crabs and shrimp)

and fish. They feed by visual and tactile means, either sucking

in their prey or biting into the substrate. Usually, they feed in

the early morning or late evening, either on the bottom or in the

water column. They will often lie in sloughs behind sand bars and

feed during a falling tide.

2 280