An Ecological Characterization of the Tampa Bay Watershed

Biological Report 90(20)December 1990An Ecological Characterizationof the Tampa Bay WatershedFish and Wildlife Service andMinerals Management Serviceu.s. Department of the Interior

Chapter 6. FaunaN. Scott Schomer and Paul Johnson6.1 IntroductionGenerally speaking, animal species utilize only alimited number of habitats within a restricted geographicrange. Factors that regulate habitat use andgeographic range include the behavior, physiology,and anatomy ofthe species; competitive, trophic, andsymbiotic interactions with other species; and forcesthat influence species dispersion. Such restrictionsmay be broad, as in the ca.

station having a mixture ofbottom types, vegetation,physical environments (pools, ponds, runs), andresulting current structures. Ofthe 143 taxa recorded,122 were insects, with Diptera (32 taxa), Odonata (28taxa), and Coleoptera (26 taxa) being the mostcommon orders. In quantitative benthic samples,oligochaetes, mollusks, and chironomids account for37.6%, 32.6%, and 25.7% of the total fauna, respectively.Densities in this study range from 25 to 3,303organisms/m 2 .Similar numbers oftaxa (49-52) were recorded atthe four river stations, with many taxa occurring atmore than one station. Samples taken in a Sphagnumbog off the river yielded 25 taxa, 13 of which werefound nowhere else in the river system. In generalmayflies, mollusks, and dragonflies (Odonata) weremore numerous at upstream swamp forest stations,while damselflies (Odonata) and chironomids(Diptera) were more abundant downstream, especiallyin vegetation. As in the Peace River, the introducedpelecypod mollusk Corbicula manilensis wasabundant in the Hillsborough River. Corbicula is alsoabundant in the upper reaches of the Manatee Riverestuary (Culter and Mahadevan 1982).The effect ofvegetation on invertebrate densities,though difficult to compare quantitatively, is quiteapparent in the data. Cowell et al. (1974) estimated a10- to 100-fold greater density oforganisms collectedin vegetation than in benthic samples. In the Egeria­Hydrilla community, Beck (1974) estimated 3 x lOSto 11 x lOS grass shrimp per hectare, and Barnett(1972) estimated 2 x lOS to 4 x lOS mostly forage fishper hectare. These values are 2 to 3 orders ofmagnitudehigber than values from adjacent areas with novegetation.The species composition of the communitiesvaries as well. In the shaded, fast-flowing reaches ofthe upper river, the Vallisneria grass-bed communityis an important source ofinvertebrates selVing as foodfor fish. Areas dominated by Ludwigia and Polygonumalso showed high densities of invertebrates,while Pontederia and Paspalum contained relativelyfew taxa and lower densities.Cowen et a1. (1974) reponed a zooplanktoncommunity in Lake Thonotosassa dominated by6. Fauna217small-bodied herbivores. A total of 23 species ofrotifers, 5 of copepods, and 6 of cladocerans arerecorded. Species diversity was lowest in January,August, and September. Of the six cladocerans,Bosmina longirostris was the most common,comprising 93% ofthe total.Rotifers were the only group to exhibit significanthoriwntal spatial patchiness in species composition.This patchiness correlated well with increasing waterdepth. At the same time, rotifer abundance showed aconsistent decrease with depth at each station, whilecopepod and cladoceran numbers tended to increase.Rotifers represented 90.3% of the individualssampled, copepod nauplii 7.8%, and adult copepodsand cladocerans only 1.9%. Rotifer populationsexhibited three distinct peaks during the year, one inwinter, another (the largest) in late spring, and thethird (the smallest) in late fail. Each population peakwas dominated by different species. In winter thedominant species were Polyarthra vulgaris, Keratellacochlearis, Conochiloides dossuarius, andAnuraeopsisfissa. In late spring, seven species-K.serrulata, Brachionus angularis, B. calyciflorus andHexarthramira in addition to the first three abovedominated,making up 96% ofthe total. The late fallpeak was dominated by P. vulgaris, A. lissa,Syncheata stylatam, Trichocera simi/is, B.havanaensis, and Microcodon clavus. Copepodpopulations showed typical spring and fall peaks.Cladoceran populations peaked in the spring only, anevent totally dominated by Bosmina longirostris.Benthic invertebrates in Lake Thonotosassa werenumerically dominated by oligochaetes (primarilytubificid worms--commonly called sewer wormsbecause they flourish in the highly eutrophic sedimentsofsewers) (69.7%) and chironomids (24.7%).Shallow (i.e., better oxygenated) stations generallyyielded more invertebrate taxa than did deeper stations.Creek stations exhibited the most taxa as wellas the highest density ofindividuals (36,340/m2). Thedeepest station exhibited the lowest recorded density(l,581/m2). Density of individuals at creek stationsappeared to be lX'sitively correlated with the presenceof organic effluent from sewage treatment plants.The only station not directly influenced by effluent

showed significantly lower densities, especially oftubificid worms, than other stations (Dye 1972;Cowell et al. 1974).The prevailing trends in zooplankton and benthicinvertebrate communities lead Cowell et al. (1974) tocharacterize the lake as eutrophic. Dominance ofzooplankton by small-bodied rotifers, the occurrenceof blue-green algae, high rates of productivity, andsignificant oxygen deficits in the summer hypolimnionall point to this conclusion. Dominance of thebenthos by oligochaetes and two species of chironomids,Glyptotendipes paripes and Chironomus crassicandatus,also support this conclusion. These taxahave been linked to eutrophic conditions in otherFlorida lakes receiving organic wastes and nutrientrunoff(provost 1958; Provost and Branch 1959; Beckand Beck 1969).In the Alana and Little Manatee Rivers, freshwaterbenthic faunas begin to dominate around 28 to 32 kmupstream of Tampa Bay (Dames and Moore 1975).Densities are typically low near the oligohaline wneof tnmsition from estuarine to freshwater conditions.Judging from the station-to-station variation in thegroup or taxa dominating at different times of theyear, there must be many localized controllingfactors. Common groups include the chironomids.beetles, oligochaetes, pelecypods, mayflies, andisopods. In comparing the two rivers, the LittleManatee tends to have higher species diversities thanthe Alalia, but lower densities of individuals. Theauthors (Dames and Moore 1975) relate this generalcondition to the relative enrichment of the Alafiasystem with municipal, industrial, and agriculturalwaste product".6.2.2 Estuarine Invertebratesa. Planktonic invertebrates. Macrozooplanktonhave been studied by Kelly and Dragovich (1967) inTampa, Old Tampa, Hillsborough, Boca Ciega, andTerra Ceia Bays. Weiss and Hopkins (1973) andDonaldson and Johanson (1977) report on zooplanktonof the Anclote estuary. Saloman (1974) present';data oI1l.Ooplankton offSand Key in Pinellas Countyin association with other studies regarding beach restoration.Morris (1976) reports on macroinvertebrateTampa Bay Ecological Characterization218plankton in upper Tampa Bay. Hopkins (1973)presents a general review of zooplankton in the easternGulf of Mexico, and Turner and Hopkins (1985)and Weiss and Phillips (1985) review zooplanktonand meroplankton studies, respectively, in TampaBay in particular. The most authoritative study ofTampa Bay zooplankton, however, is reported byHopkins (1977).Quarterly samples at 42 stations within the bayyielded 37 taxa of true planktonic (haloplankton)organisms (Hopkins 1977). These were divided intothree categories based on numerical abundance;group 1 (>1,OOO/m 3 ), group 2 (100-1,OOO/m 3 ), andgroup 3 «lOO/m 3 ).Group 1 consisted of four species, the cyclopoidcopepod Oithona colcarva (=0. breviconus), thecalanoid copepods Acartia tonsa and Paracalanuscrassirostris, and a tunicate, Oikopleura dioica.These four species account for 60% and 38% of thezooplankton biomass and numbers, respectively.Although Oithooo colcarva generally outnumbers A.tonsa in the summer, the latter ranks first in biomassbecause ofits greater size. In winterA tonsa is moreabundant than O. colcarva. Since copepod nauplii,which account for 29% of total zooplankton, are notidentified to species, the real population numbers ofthese four species are no doubt higher.Group 2 consists of six species of copepods,Evadne tergestioo, Oithooo 0000, Pseudodiaptomuscoronatus, O. simplex, Euterpioo acutifrons, andLabidocera aestiva. Group 3 consists of 22 speciesincluding 11 copepods (Eucalanus pileatus, Paracalanusquasimodo, Temora turbioota, Centropageshamatus, C. furcatus, Oncaea curta, O. venusta,Corycaeus amazonicus, C. americanus, C. qiesbrechti,Microsetella rosea); 2 c1adoceran.."i (Peniliaavirostris, Podon polyphemoides), 1 decapod (Luciferfaxoni),2 chaetognaths (Sagitta tenuis, S. hispida),4 tunicates (Oikopleura longicauda, O. fusiformis,Appendicularia sicula, DoUotum gegenbauri), 1siphonophore (Muggiacea kochi), and I trachymedusa(Liviope tetraphylla).Group 3 consists of a large number of relativelyuncommon species which will not be listed as agroup.

It is interesting to note that Kelly and Dragovich(1967) report Lucifer faxoni, porcellanid crab larvae,brachyuran crab larvae, and Sagitta hispida, alongwith copepods, as the most abundant macrozooplanktonof Tampa Bay. Some if not all of thediscrepancy could originate from the larger meshsizes of their sampling gear as well as from annualvariations in population makeup.Total zooplankton numbers were clearly higher inthe spring, summer, and fall than in winter. Thedifference between the three warm se,l such as oyster reefs. In his recent review ofbenthiC invertebrates of the Tampa Bay System,

Tampa Bay Ecological CharacterizationSimon and Mahadevan (1985) cite over 70 informa- organisms. These are the salinity, sediment compositionsources on invertebrates ofTampa Bay, most of tion, and pollution gradients, which are most intensethem in the grey (unpublished) literature. The major- in the upper estuary and relatively moderate towardity ofthis worle has been conducted with reference to the lower estuary. It is believed that increases inspecific effects, usually associated with local activi- benthic species richness from upper bay to lower bayties such as thermal effluents (Vimstein 1972; are due in large part to the moderation of salinityThorharg et al. 1977; Mahadevan and Patton 1979), changes and pollution in the lower bay. The thirddredging operations (Taylor and Saloman 1968; gradient, sediment composition, is discussed below.Sykes and Hall 1970; Godcharles 1971; Simon and In the upper bay, sediments are finer, relatively lessDyer 1972; Simon et a1. 1976), sewage and industrial consolidated, and of a higher organic content than indischarges (Taylor et al. 1970), and canal and seawall the lower bay, where sorting and flushing lead toconstruction (Hall and LindaU 1974). Other major coarser, sandier sediment conditions and lowerwoIks have focused on one species or species groups organic content. Correlating with these conditions,such as the polychactes (Taylor 1971; Santos 1972), deposit feeders (those organisms that feed within orpenaeid shrimp (Saloman 1964, 1965,1968; Eldredet upon the sediment/surface) are more abundant in thea1. 1965; Sykes and Finucane 1966) or mollusks upper bay than in the lower bay, while the reverse is(Dawson 1953; Sims and Stokes 1967; Finucane and true for filter feeders (those organisms which filterCampbell 1968). Although a considerable body of feed from the water column). Also, more individuals,knowledge has accumulated, relatively few studies though fewer species, tend to be found in the upperhave been baywide and inclusive of the full range of than the lower bay. However, it has been shown thatbenthic invertebrates. The numbers of the correlation is better for mobile species, bothmacroinvertebrate species reported from Tampa Bay deposit feeders and suspension feeders, in finer sedihasincreased from 82 species (Dragovich and Kelly ments and sedentary in sandier sediments. Mobile19Mb) to over I ,2(X) species (Simon and Mahadevan species suspend sediments while sedentary species1985). What portion ofthis increao;;e is attributable to consolidate them.increasing population diversity or to improvedsampling techniques is unknown.Signiticant studies also exist on estuarine andcoastal locations out"ide Tampa Bay proper, such asthe Andote River estuary and Sarasota, Roberts, andDona Bays (Tiffany 1974; Lincer et a1. 1975).In broad terms, the eastern side ofthe bay is betterknown than the western side and the shallow areas arebetter known than deep area". However, many areasofthe bay system have yet to be sampled because ofalack offinancial support, manpower, and proximity toperturbations(which usually generate the most impetusfor sampling).Simon and Mahadevan (1985) divide their discussionof invertebrates into three areas: generalities inbenthic community composition and abundance,variations in communities, and response and recoveryof communities to various stress factors. Among thegeneralities, three environmental gradients arerecognized as influencing distributions of benthic220Development and pollution have reduced habitatdiversity by the loss of seagrass beds and mangroveforests. This in itself results in a loss of speciesrichness.Consistent with these trends, the upper bay benthosappears to be dominated by what Simon andMahadevan (1985) call r-selected species, or opportunists.These species are generally short lived andthus capable of exploiting habitats quickly afterperiodic stresses. Such species also tend to be morecommon in the upper than the lower bay. The k­selected species, those that have more complex lifecycles, are longer lived, and hence more sensitive tostress. These species are more frequently found in thelower bay.Seagrass beds have been shown to support greaterspecies richness and abundance of benthic invertebratesthan open, unvegetated bottoms (Tabb andManning 1961; Dragovich and Kelley 1964b; Santosand Simon 1974; Brook 1975; Stoner 1980;

discharges of bacteria, nutrient." and potential toxinsfrom industry, municipal, and nonpoint-source runoff.Turbidity from runoff or dredging is obviouslycapable of smothering young oyster spat. A moresubtle effect is a relative increase in fine unconsolidatedsediments, especially in upper bay waters,making it less likely that oyster spat settle at all.Destabilization, orshoaling, ofbottom sediments nearchannels, dredged canals, and seawalls may alsoreduce chances ofoyster settling and sUlvival.Hydrologic flow-through modifications occurwhen the volume of water that a section of the baynonnally handles is increased, decreased, or otherwisealtered. Increases may arise from constructionor deepening and widening of channels that bringmore saline waters upstream, as well as hastening theloss of freshwater downstream. Urban developmentalso tends to accelerate the rate and volume loss offreshwater via direct runoff. Without the urban developmentmore of the runoff would be shunted intogroundwater recharge or surface storage where itwould be released slowly. Canals and seawalls alsoincrea'iC the rate of exchange in some locations byremoving the storage capacity of native shorelineareas (e.g., mangroves and salt marshes). In otherlocations, C

tend to be more physiologically tolerant of a wider.mge of osmotic conditions (euryhaline). Many ofthe more common and abundant fishes of the areabelong to this group, including the mosquitofish(Gambusia affinis), the sailfin molly (Poecilia latipinna),and the sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodonvariegatus).Were it not for human influence, these threecategories would serve as a fairly complete list ofbiogeographic mechanisms influencing fish speciescomposition in an area. Strictly freshwater connectionsare envisioned for members of the principallyfreshwater families. These connections probablyexisted as former sea level (and freshwater tables),higher than at present, incrementally receded, andfreshwater species inched their way farther south. Formembers of secondary families with some tolerancefor saline conditions, the connection is perhapsbroader because oftheir ability to invade the brackishfringes of the receding seas. For members of thisgroup, as well as for the principally marine species, atleast two factors peculiar to Florida have been identifiedas facilitating invasion by marine avenues.In south Florida, where land slopes are low andrainfall seasonal, the estuarine tran~ition zone is bothbroad and seasonally transient. This creates a wnewhere the gradient ofsalinity (or chlorinity) is spreadout over a relatively wide area. In addition, the backgroundchiorinity ofinland waters is frequently in theoligohaline (or near oligohaline) range, owing tocontact with residual salt from past invasions byshallow seas. These two factors (Le., distance toseawater over an extended gradient and high residualchiorinities) are believed to facilitate the invasion offreshwaters by euryhaline marine species (Odum1953). A second factor that may aid such invasions isthe high concentration of calcium (Ca++) in Floridafreshwaters (Hulet et al. 1967). High levels ofCarthave been found to inhibit salt loss and water gain inmarine fishes, helping them osmoregulate in lesssaline environments.With the advent ofman, the release ofnew specieseither by accident (aquarium rejects, fish fann escapees)or design (as weed controls, Le., white amur,Ctenopharyngodon idella) has become a new and6. Fauna223potentially powerful influence on fish species composition.Aquarium fish such as the oscar (Astronotusocellatus), blue acara (Aequidens pulcher), and goldfishhave been reported throughout south Florida.The incidence of releases in the Tampa Bay watershedis heightened by the large number offish farms,particularly in the Alafia and Manatee River basins(see Figure 97). Fish-farm escapees include manyaquarium species as well as the tilapia, cultivated forits food value. A long and healthy debate over thepotential effects of releasing the white amur intoHydrilla-infested lakes has been going on for years.The final resolution has been the tightly controlledand monitored release of sterile hybrids. Thiscompromise solution arises from the fact that thewhite amur has reproductively established itself elsewherein the United States. Itis feared that ifit shoulddo so in Florida lakes, its voracious feeding habitswould soon result in the consumption of nativevegetation, to the eventual detriment ofother fish andwildlife species.Significant studies of freshwater fishes in theTampa Bay area include Barnett (1972) and Cowell etal. (1974) in the Hillsborough River, and Dames andMoore (1975) in the Alafia and Little Manatee Rivers.Layne et al. (1977) especially provide one ofthe morecomprehensive compilations of freshwater fishspecies to be expected in the entire watershed.Using museum collections, Layne et al. (1977) list66 species offishes thatmay be found in the variety ofaquatic habitats of the Tampa Bay watershed(Appendix Table A-12). Another four species ofexotic aquarium types believed to be established, butwhose habitat is unknown, are included. In watersnear fish farms still more species may be periodicallyreported due to escapes.Flowing-water habitats appear to support therichest freshwater fish fauna in the study area. Fiftysevenspecies are reported from the major riversystems, while forty-three species are reponed fromstreams and creeks. Although streams and creekssupport a large number of species, many unique tothis particular habitattype, many (1/4 of the speciesreported) are under the category of"Population StatusQuestionable" in Appendix Table A-12. Area lakes

also support a high diversity offishes, with 42 speciesreported. Ponds (33), ditches (35), marsh~

from Tampa Bay (Huff 1975; Layne et a!. 1977). 'Dlisrecord represent

t'. Esocidae, Two sl')(':cics, theamericafllts aTflcr,icQnu" l and the chain plcker,~lniger), repn~.sentin thearea. 'I'he formertowater. Like all of theand redl1n pickerel arc yom·(~jousalmost any fishes smallenough to cal. Ofthe two. the redf1n is smaller. readl'a rnl,udmum of lllxmt 30 em. 'nrc chain(':rcj may reach 60 em.f. Cyprinidae. The Cyprinidae. or minnows, arerelJreselrned by eight the shiner(Nott:migonusthe(Norropis harpt?ri). t.he tn)fl,color shinerthe minnow (N.(N rru;lcukuus). the coastal (Nm'l~t;r.\:Ofl,n, the saHlin shiner (N. hypsdoptcrus), mrdthe dusky shiner (N cUJnmittgsae). 'nl{~ of th{~is till: golden shiner. which IlUI)' reach25 enl 'Ille consul! shiner is II common or Iht:shore ZOfl{~ of the lliHsbmough. Alalia. Little Manatee. Mltnll!t:(:,llnd MYl(kk~\ Rivers elaLwhere it islbllnd to deposit on aqumlcIt k(~y ltlk in the ofma,t(~rillh within aquatic AsonlniVOrt:s t:onsumt; detritus, mIdIn turn, they nn' uponTampa Bay Ecological Charactarlzatlonlargclllouth b.lss imd snook (Wan,:Minnows nre not t~SiJICciaUy well adnptt:d 10 flut:tu·W1Ht:r and lend H) tJIC among theslJt~tk:s nwst fish killsidentified by226sulJsequent resurgence of theet aLand1979; Hardin and Aucrson 1980), Carp frC(lUC1'ltlyseck (Jut vegetation other than those '>, RT"'" (ilccnlCcJundesirable. leading to significant in ''''''''''11'',bmte fXlpulations, i1sh food. :md fish habitat Thesec!l::mg1es may in turn promote local in fishsm~cij::s composition and abundance andGaS

eclaimed phosphate pits (Holcomb 1965; Buntz1967; Buntz and Chapman 1971).i. Percichthyidae. Contrary to its name, thestriped bass (Morone saxatilis) is not a memberofthetrue bass family (Centrarchidae). Although not nativeto the Tampa Bay watershed, pure stripers andhybrids (striped bass X white bass (Moronechrysops) have been introduced into inland lakes ofPolk and Hillsborough counties as a game species bythe Rorida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission(Langford 1974). The natural habitats ofthis anadromousfish are the nearshore to estuarine environs,where the fish spends its adult life, returning to freshwaterrivers to spawn (Carr and Goin 1955). Nowcommon in most lakes into which it has beenintroduced, initial stocking met with mixed successand in some cases poor rates ofgrowth, possibly dueto the internal parasite Goezia (Langford 1974).Drastic reductions of shad populations have beenreported after introduction ofthe striped bass (Stevens1975) and may indicate a useful means ofcontrollingnumbers ofthis less desirable species in certain lakes.Because ofits pelagic feeding habits, itis assumed notto compete significantly with the more littoral largemouthbass (Langford 1974). Stocking must continueto support populations of this bass, which is notexpected to reproduce in lakes of the watershed(Layne et al. 1977).j. Centrarchidae. The sunfish family (Centrarchidae)is the most numerous family ofnative freshwaterfishes in the Tampa Bay watershed, with 11 representatives.These are the Everglades pygmy sunfish(Elassoma evergladei), the Okeefenokee sunfish (E.okeefenokee), the bluespotted sunfish (Enneacanthusgloriosus), the warmouth (Lepomis gulosus), the redbreastsunfish (L. auritus), the spotted sunfish (L.punctatus), the redear sunfish (L. microlophus), thebluegill (L. macrochirus), the dollar sunfish (L.marginatus), the largemouth bass (Micropterussalmoides), and the black crappie (Pomoxisnigromaculatus). Many ofthe centrarchids are popularsport fishes ofconsiderable commercial interest.The sunfishes are predators of other small fishes,crustaceans, insects, and benthic organisms. Theythrive in heavily vegetated ponds, canal margins, and6. Fauna227sloughs where prey tend to concentrate, as well as inopen waters (Texas Instruments 1978b). Shallowwaters are used fornesting by sunfish and bass. Nestingprobably peaks in late spring (TI 1978b). For therest of their life cycle they are dependent upon fairlydeep water of good quality. The sunfishes adapt tofluctuating water levels by retreating into deeperwaters. Consequently, as the dry season peaks,extremely high concentrations of bass and sunfishmay be found in shrinking canals and waterholes. Ofthe 11 species, the Everglades pygmy sunfish ranks asthe most divergent form, reaching only about 4 cm inlength and living an exclusively benthic existence.Although the sunfish and bass are generally regardedas top carnivores, a truly accurate trophic categorizationmust take into account food habits at all stages oftheir life histories (Chew 1974). Young bass (yearclass 1), for instance, feed heavily on insects, amphipods,and zooplankton. No fish are consumed bythese often-numerous young bass. For year class 2,fish become a progressively more important componentofthediet. Only bythe time they reach year class3 do bass consume other fish nearly exclusively.Similar life-history transitions are reported for theredear sunfish or "shellcrackers," which they arecalled locally (Wilbur 1969). Tendipedids (midgeImvae) are generally of greater importance to largerindividuals, whereas copepods, corixoids (water boatmen),and Hyalella (amphipods) are consumed inlarge quantities by the smaller size groups.Ceratopogonids (biting midges) and gastropods(Goniobasis) are eaten mostly by the middle sizegroups. Seasonal variations in diet appear to be theresult ofvariations in available food items rather thanclear-cut preferences. In areas where cichlids havebeen introduced, centrarchids may be outcompeted.k. Percidae. The swamp darter (Etheostoma jusiforme)is the only representative ofthis family in theTampa Bay watershed. It is a small, bottom-dwellingfish reported from lakes, ponds, impoundments,flowing waters, and marshes. Like all Percidae it ispredaceous, feeding on small insect'l and crustaceans(Eddy 1969).I. Aphredoderidae. This family is also representedby only one member, the pirate perch(Aphredoderus sayanus). Ware and Fish (1969)

eport it as rare in pools, runs and glides and commonin riffles in the Peace River. Pirate perch reach amaximum size ofabout 53 em. They are predaceous,feeding mostly on aquatic insects and other smallaquatic animals (Eddy 1969).m. Cyprinodontidae. Despite the fact that thecyprinodonts, or killifishes, are not an obligatoryfreshwater family, but secondary invaders, they arerepresented by nine native species plus a fewaquarium escapees. 11l0se members of the killifishfamily found inhabiting freshwater habitat within thewatershed include the sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodonvariegatu.."i), the golden topminnow (Funduluschrysotus), the banded topminnow (P. cingulatus),marsh killifish (P. confluentus), the Seminole killifish(P. seminolis), the starhead topminnow (F. notti(=lineolatus), the flagfish (.Iordanella jloridae), thegoldspotted killifish (Floridichthys carpio), thepygmy killifish (Leptolucania ommata), the bluefinkillifish (Lucania goodei), the rainwater killifish (L.parva), and the diamond killifish (Adinia xenica).Three other srx:cies within the family, the gulf killifish(Fundulus grandis), the striped killifish (F.majalis), and the longnose killifish (F. similis), aregenerally restricted to more saline conditions of thebay and estuaries, but may be found well up the majortributaries as far as saline conditions extend. Thesheepshead minnow, marsh killifish, and diamondkillifish may also fall into this group.In addition to the generally euryhaline backgroundofthe killifish family, they also adapt well to fluctuatingwater levels. Because of their generally smallsize, they exploit extremely shallow waters and mayeven invade underground channels in bedrocklimestone during dry conditions. The upturnedmouths of many of the killifishes allow them toextract oxygen from the thin surface layers ofshallowponds when deeper waters are otherwise devoid ofoxygen (Carr 1973; Kushlan 1974).Perhaps because of their success in exploitingmany aquatic habitats ofthe study area, the killifishesreJ?resent a fundamental ecological link between primaryand tmphicaUy higher fish and wildlifespecies.Their diet consists of a mixture of plant and animaltissue ranging from periphyton to insect larvae. InTampa Bay Ecological Characterization228tum, they are heavily preyed upon by sport fishessuch as the sunfish and bass and wading birds such aswoodstOJ:K and white ibis. Since killifishes are rapidinvaders of newly flooded marshes, prairies, andmarginal wetlands, they facilitate the ability of theseenvironments to feed and support fish and wildlife.n. Poeciliidae. The topminnows or live bearers(poeciliidae) are represented by three native species,the ubiquitous mosquitofish (Gambusia qffinis), theleast killifish (Heterandriajormosa), and the sailfinmolly (Poecilia latipinna); and four aquarium escapees,the swordtail molly (P. petenensis), liberty molly(P. sphenops), black molly (P. latipinna x velifera),and the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Two of thesespecies, the mosquitofish and sailfm molly, are euryhaline,occupying a range of habitats from lakemar!,rins to salt marshes. The least killifish is abundantin shallow marshes, prairies, and freshwaterpockets within mangrove swamps, but is seldomfound in brackish waters. According to Kushlan andLodge (1974), it prefers thick emergent or submergedvegetation.Along with the killifishes, members of thePoeciliidae family playa key role in the diet ofbirdsand sport fishes ofcentral and southern Florida. Theyfeed primarily on small insects, crustaceans, andattached periphyton. The size range and upturnedmouths are very similar among members of bothfamilies. Poecilids generally avoid the problem oflosing eggs to desiccation by internal fertilization anddevelopment. The female carries the developing eggsuntil they hatch and the young fish emerge alive.o. Clariidae. One species, the walking catfish(Clarias batrachus), makes up this secondary familyoffish. Originally imported from South America as acuriosity for aquarium owners, the potential impact ofthe spread of walking catfish in Florida is considerable.These fish are capable ofmoving overland fromdrying ponds to other bodies ofwater. They can alsoburrow into bottom sediments during periods ofdrought or cold weather and remain dormant formonths (Courtenay 1970). As they congregate indrying ponds, they may devourall animal life within afew weeks, leaving little food for native fish and wildlifespecies. However, the catfish itselfmay serve as afood source for larger species (Duever et al. 1979).

p. Cichiidae. Eight of the species of exotic fishcurrently established in south-central Florida aremembers ofthe tropical secondary freshwater familyCichlidae. A highly diversified group, the cichlids areconsidered to be in many ways the tropical ecologicalcounterpart of the centrarchids (sunfish family).Members ofthis family are generally well adapted forsurvival, due to their ability to withstand drought,their highly developed system of parental care ofyoung, and their general aggressiveness. The abilityto withstand drought makes them especially competitivein south Florida. The Centrarchidae comprise afreshwater family that reaches the southern limit ofit,;;range in south Florida in habitats characterized byseasonal drought, to which the family is poorlyadapted (Kushlan 1974). It is anticipated that thespread ofcichlids will be at the expense of the nativeeentrarchids. The range expansion of the jewel fish(Hemichromis bimaculatus), already widespreadthroughout southern Florida, was aided by its toleranceof brackish water and its use of the extensivecanal system ofthe interior. The interactions and fateofthe exotic and native fish fauna ofsouthern Floridashould be a matter of concern in the area of Floridajust south of the Tampa Bay watershed. It is likelythat survival of cichlids farther north will be increa'iinglylimited by their intolerance of cold. However,in spite ofthis, Texas Instruments (1978b) reports themouth-breeding blue tilapia (Tilapea aurea) constitutinga,;; much as 30% of the fish biomass of openriver waters during an October sampling in the PeaceRiver.q. A;therinidae. The silversides are a familyperiphe'ral to freshwaters. Only one ofthe tWo speciesreported from the Tampa area, the brook silverside(Labidesthes sicculus), is found in freshwaters. Thetidewater silverside (Menidia beryllina), as the namesuggests, is more estuarine in its habit,>. The formerfish occurs in open canals, lakes, clear-water ponds,and deep cypress sloughs throughout the study area.According to Layne et al. (1977), the brook silversideis an important biological indicator species ofunpolluted conditiop.s. Brook silversides anchor theireggs in gravel bottoms on long filaments (Texas Instruments1978b).6. Fauna229r. Clupeidae. The herring family is also peripheralto fresh waters; only two of four species found in thearea are characterized as principally freshwaterdwellers. These are the gizzard shad (Dorosomacepedianum) and the threadfin shad (D. petenense).Rather large, these omnivorous fish tend to frequentcanals, rivers, channels, and open waters, where theyfeed on plankton. Though considered a freshwaterspecies, they may use brackish waters as well. Theshad prefer slow-moving or sluggish waters. Someauthorities regard gizzard shad as an indicator ofpoorwater-quality conditions. Attempts have been madeto selectively remove the less desirable shad fromarea lakes (Lake Tarpon) by rotenone treatments(phillippy 1964).s. Belonidae. The Atlantic needlefish (Strongyluramarina) is a primarily estuarine species thatoccasionally enters freshwaters. Ware and Fish(1969) report only rarely encountering this species inpool habitat,;; along water courses entering the estuary.t. Anguillidae. Although the American eel (Anguillarostrata) belongs to a family peripheral to freshwaters,it is a common inhabitant ofarea rivers (Wareand Fish 1969; Dames and Moore 1975). The eel is acatadromous species, living in freshwaters but spawningin marine waters. When the young migrate intothe estuaries, the males remain in brackish waters,while only the females proceed upstream, mostlytraveling at night. The eels remain here 5 to 7 yearsuntil they are sexually mature. Upon migratingdownstream, the mature females join the males andmove offshore to spawn (Eddy 1969). Eels areomnivorous, feeding on all kinds ofanimal food, bothdead and alive.6.3.2 Estuarine and Marine FishesDuring the last 25 years, numerous studies havebeen conducted regarding the community structure,distribution, and migration ofthe fishes in and aroundTampa Bay. Investigations centered along coastal areasand in lowerTampa Bay include those ofMoe andMartin (1965) offshore ofPinella,;; County; Fable andSaloman (1974) along the coastal beaches in PinellasCounty; Saloman and Naughton (1979) betweenLong Key and Clearwater pass; and McNulty et al.

Tampa Bay Ecological CharaelfarlzaUol'lan (i;(C(;UenUIJIlu:mtlrydonbCtWti(1'H t1'StIIiU'il:141' hiilbil,U&dt;trUU(iOud COltSCjilll(::nt~~sIt hll.'; been that around 90'% of all theimportant. and Ihc Gulf ofMexico use estuaries al some time in theirFor manyare most vital as a nrO'ICCInurseryarea for larvae and The nurseryfunction from the high productivity of estuaries.which provides an abundant source of food tolarvae and juveniles. ll.s well as through restricting thenumbers of predator species to those capable ofwithstanding the curyhaline conditions. 121of shows the distribution in Tampa Bay of thejuveniles ofsome fish species.'nlC timing ofsplnllning in the Gulfof Mexico andsubsequent sea':;onal movement of the young intoTampa Bay coincidcs with summer. the period ofhighest estuarine production. A second peak innumbers of fish larvac occurs in late summer and falland involvcs [ewer "I"........'".One ofthe major questions in this general model oft~stuarincdctx:ndcncc is how weak-swimming larvaetheir wuy into eSluaries against the nct outllov,iof water. Mimy investigators have s!'l()wn that larvaereglll~11ic their vcrti"u distribution in the wlltcr columnto advantage of differential now gmdicms thaiare tcmpomrily available in a two-layered systemoyer a tidld (Robison 1985). Given the physicalSililill10n. individuals out bouom watcrs at alllimes to have a greater probability of movingupper bay waters than those in the upper watercolumn. However, the ('act that many common cstua·exhibit distinct tx:havioral pref(~rences forSllv~"p('f('hlJay ltfKhavy5th,,, ,!tltll)'Sh'"9d1.,1td m!nMwPlnnllhSJXl'1Strlpm mu!ldJI'MAMJJAS(}N!)l\toolhFlgurel2L Sea-sona! distribution of selectedwirhin nursery areas of Ta.mpa Bay230

certain depths (not all on the bottom) stronglysuggests that other factors must be involved in themigratory process. Studies of circulation and theinteraction of wind and current on smaller spatialscales are necessary to determine these factors.The seasonal movement of adult fishes in and outofthe estuary is similarto those ofthejuveniles in thatpeaks in relative aboodance generally occur in thespring and early fall (Comp 1985). Decreases inrelative abundance are apparent from the onset oflowwater temperatures in December through February,when many species apparently migrate to the gulforto the deeper areas ofthe bay.Seasonal salinity variation is generally regarded asthe main influence around which estuarine fishcommunities are organized. Temperature, substrate,and the influence of detritus have also been noted asimportant background factors (Odum et al. 1982).Based on these factors, Odum et al. (1982) identifythe following four characteristic fish assemblages insouth-west Florida estuaries (Figure 122):1. The basin mangrove forest community.2. The tidal stream and river community.3. The estuarine bay fringing community.4. The oceanic bay community.a. Basin mangrove forest community. The basinmangrove forest community occurs within the estuarinewetlands (salt marshes and mangroves) wheredepressions hold a combination of rainwater, runoff,tidal overflow, and saline groood water. The fishesthat occupy these basin mangrove communitiesconsist largely ofthe euryhaline killifishes (Cyprinodontidae)and livebearers (Poeciliidae) discussedpreviously for freshwater communities. Water depthis generally very low (0.3-1 m) and the mud substrateis generally high in hydrogen sulfide and low indissolved oxygen (0-2 mg/L). The selection pressurein such a setting obviously favors euryhaline characteristicsand high tolerance to low oxygen concentrations.Remarkably, the members of this community arepermanent residents, completing their life cycleswit.llln this harsh setting. Important members of thiscommunity are the mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis),marsh killifish (Fundulus confluentus), sheepshead6. Fauna231minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus), sailfin molly(Poecilia latipinna), flagfish (Jordanella floridae),and rainwater killifish (Lucama parva).As a group, these fishes represent an importanttrophic link for many other fish and wildlife. They areomnivorous, feeding on small invertebrates and huvalfishes as well as on mangrove debris and algae.During high water, members ofthis community maymove downstream where they become the prey oflarger fishes such as snook, tarpon, ladyfish, Floridagar, and mangrove snapper. During low water thecommunity members tend to concentrate in recedingpools and ponds where wading birds such as herons,egrets, white ibis, and woodstork may feed uponthem.b. Tidal stream and river community. Wherecoastal streams provide a continuous connectionbetween upstream fresh (or fresher) waters and downstreamestuaries, a second fish community can bedefined. This is the tidal stream and rivercommunity;it supports a larger number and wider variety of fishspecies than the basin mangrove forest community.Seasonal oscillations ofenvironmental conditions andthe relative ease ofmovement between upstream anddownstream habitat,; create a diverse system habitableto a variety ofspecies during one or more stagesin their life cycles (Odum et al. 1982).During the wet season the influx of freshwaterbrings with it many fishes that are characteristic ofupstream marshes and sloughs. These include theFlorida gar (Lepisosteus platyrhincus), severalmembers of the centrarchid family such as sunfish(Lepomis spp.), and largemouth bass (Micropterussalmoides), the yellow bullhead (lctalurus natalis),the tadpole madtom (Noturus gyrinus), the bluefinkillifish (Lucania goodei), and the rivulus (Rivulusmarmoratus) (Dames and Moore 1975, Odum et al.1982) Fish species which commonly spend a portionoftheir life cycle in the mangrove-lined tidal streamsand rivers of the Tampa Bay watershed include thekillifishes (Cyprinodontidae), livebearers (Poeciliidae),silversides (Atherinidae), mojarras (Gerreidae),tarpon (Elopidae), snook (Centropomidae), snappers(Lutjculidae), sea catfishes (Ariidae), gobies (Gobiidae),porgys (Sparidae), mullet (Mugilidae), drums(Sciaenidae), and anchovies (Engraulidae).

I\)(",)I\).-tr.tQ.i~- ..... ~1 4~ ~7I: ::I 2- ~ o~ 8~sa~o 5Qe~3 6Q ~90~.c~Jilll'/IIlItr.t Black mangrove Riverine fringing Estuarine bayr.. basin..forest community community-High Salinity variabilityHigh~--Muddy, high organicRelative importance of mangrove detritus in food web--~SubstrateGradients---.,.------,.-~ ~1011~012Oceanic baycommunity--LowLowLargely sandyoj3'0 l»lXll»'

During the dry season, higher salinities force freshwaterfonns farther upstream and allow marine fishesto invade the tidal stremns and rivers. Species thatcharacteristically move into these areas at such timesinclude the nccdlefishes (family Belonidae), stingrays(Dasyatidae), jacks (Carangidae), and barracuda(Sphyrama barracuda). During the smne generalperiod of the year (December through May), lowtemperatures may induce some species sllch as thelined sole (Achirus lineatus) , the hogchoker(Trinectes maculatus), the bighead searobin(Prionotus tribulus), and the striped mullet (Mugilcephalus) to move offshore where temperatures aremore moderate.In addition to temperature- ,md salinity-inducedfluctuations in fish species composition and abundance,the tidal streams and rivers provide a nurseryfbI' the Imvae and juveniles of numerous marine andbrackish-water species that spawn farther offshore(Darnes and Moore 1975; 1'1 1978b). Larval recruitmentgenerally peaks during late spring and earlysummerwhen salinity is reduced over relatively largearc,t" of the estuary. Another important contributingfactor to the nursery value of tidal streams and riversis the abund,mt detrital food source brought in duringlaic spring when freshwater runoff peaks.(\ Estuarine bay community. 'This communityconsists of the open estuarine waters (e.g., lowerTampa Bay, proper). The major environmentaldifference between the bay habitat

'~''''·

From these records, a total of 94 species---27 amphibian,,>,including 8 salamanders and 19 frogs; and67 reptiles, including the alligator. 18 turtles. 1amphisbaenid, 17 lizards and 31 snakes-may beexpected to be found within the Tampa Bay watershed.This diverse and complex assemblage of speciescomprise over 60% of the total herpetofaunarecorded for the State. The estimated distribution ,mdrelative abundance ofeach species by habitat, accordingto Layne et al. (1977), are shown for terrestrialreptiles in Appendix Table A-14. for wetl used as food (Auffenberg 1978).The gopher frog uses the tortoise burrows, so it also isa common inhabitant (Fogarty 1978). The short-tailedsnake. another burrower, appears to be more commonin the yellow sands of longleaf pine habitat than thesand pine habitat (Campbell 1978). A speciesendemic to Rorida. this snake is thought to have anextremely narrow habitat tolerance, but little is knownof its life history and ecology (Woolfenden 1983).Other Florida endemics ofthis habitat are the Floridascrub lizard, blue-tailed mole skink. and sand skink.Aquatic habitats support many species, includingthe majority of turtles, snakes. and frogs listed inAppendix Tables A-14 through A-l7. It is here thatamphibians approach reptiles in species richness.Chara

Tampa Bay Ecological Characterization80..,...---------------------------,o AmphibiansII Reptiles----------------------------------Figure 123. Relative abundance ofamphibian ,md reptile species in various habitat categories withinthe Tampa Bay watershed.requirement~, as for many amphibians and reptiles,may vary sea..'IDnaUy in response to behavioral anddevelopmental adaptations to perfonn reproductiveand thennoregulatory functions. Forexample, amphibians,in general, require aquatic habitats toreproduce. Terrestrial species exemplified by toads(Bufo, Gastrophryne) and arboreal species of Hylatend to be dependent on the rains oflate spring andsummer for reproduction and use the more ephemeralponds where predation and competition pressuresmay be lower (McDiarmid and Godly 1974).Riparian and semiaquatic frogs (e.g., Acris and Ranaspp.)oftcn use more pennanentwaters and tend tohave prolonged breeding and/or developmentalperiods.236As for other faunal and floral groups, the geologicalhistory of central Florida and the geographicalposition ofthe peninsula in relation to the main contincntallandmass of North America affects the rate ofinvasion and the distribution of the herpetofauna.General discussions of geographical origins andaffinities of the Florida herpetofauna are included inCarr (1940), Neill (1954), Goin (1958), and Telford(1965). The majority ofthe species have invaded thepeninsula from the southeastern Atlantic CoastalPlain. Not all of these species that occur throughmuch ofFlorida have diverged morphologically frompopulations elsewhere. Examples of such species inthe study area are the spadefoot toad, stinkpot turtle,six-lined racerunner lizard, southeastern five-lined

skink, eastern hognose snake, and coachwhip snake.Boyles (1966) concludes that these species have beenpresent on the GulfCoastal Plain and in Florida withoutprolonged geographic isolation.Many other species have invaded Florida from thewest along the GulfCoastal Plain (Neill 1957). Theirclosest relationships are with species or larger taxonomicgroups now found in the southwestern UnitedStates, Mexico, and Central America. Examples ofthis group in the Tampa Bay area include the groundskink, pine woods snake, eastern indigo snake, pinesnake, coral snake, and eastern diamondback rattlesnake.Still otherspecies that have been recorded from thearea are forms whose ranges extend throughout tropicalregions of the Western Hemisphere. Theseinclude the American crocodile, Atlantic green turtle,Atlantic loggerhead, Atlantic ridley, and Atlanticleatherback.Ofthe seven exotics in the Tampa Bay watershed,the greenhouse frog, Cuban treefrog, and the brownanole have West Indian affinities. These three speciesare fairly widely distributed in Florida and inhabitnatural as well as human-modified habitats.Duellman and Schwartz (1958) speculate that theinvasion ofnatural habitats by these species indicateseitherthatthey have been present in Florida for longerthan otherintroduced species orare more adaptable tothe environmental conditions present. Neill (1957)suggest,> that their success may simply reflect thepresence ofnear-tropical habitats that are unoccupiedby amppibians and reptiles of temperate stocks. Ofthe otherexotic species, the giant toad may have beenintroduced from almost anywhere in the Caribbean orGulf of Mexico, while the gecko and the Mediterraneangecko are found in tropical regions around theworld. The Texas homed lizard is native to the southwesternUnited States.All of the endemic Florida herpetofauna, with theexception of the rim rock crowned snake, occur inparts or all of the Tampa Bay watershed. Theseendemic species are the Florida red-bellied turtle,Florida scrub lizard, sand skink, worm lizard, shorttailedsnake, and crowned snake. Two other species,the striped mud turtle and the striped swamp snake,6. Fauna237once endemic, are currently extending their rangesnorthward into southern Georgia (Layne et al. 1977).Other species that, although not endemic, underwentmuch of their evolution in the Florida peninsulabefore invading parts ofthe southeastern GulfCoastalPlain include the dwarf siren, pig frog, gophertortoise, Florida softshell turtle, mole skink, islandglass lizard, and black swamp snake.As the land in central Florida was periodicallyisolated during past fluctuations in sea level, the trueFlorida endemics and the "semi-endemics" thatmoved northward during a drop in sea level couldhave been isolated and differentiated from theirparental stocks, or they may represent relict populationsof species that were once widespread but nowextinct elsewhere. It is significant that most of thesespecies are burrowers in sand or mud, and that all ofthe true endemics except the Florida red-bellied turtleare characteristic of sandhill and sand pine scrubhabitats.Populations of some species that invaded theFlorida peninsula in earlier geologic times havedifferentiated to form new races, presumably as aresult of adaptation to subtropical environments, andprobably more importantly, isolation from parentstocks (Neill 1957). Species with peninsular subspeciesinclude the newt, snapping turtle, mud turtle,cooter, scarlet snake, king snake, mole skink, bandedwat,er snake, black swamp snake, rat snake,kingsnake, and crowned snake. These different racesoften possess subtle differences in habitat requirements.Of special significance is the fact that on theLake Wales Ridge, part of which lies in Polk County,three reptiles have differentiated populations: theworm lizard, blue-tailed mole skink, and the peninsulacrowned snake.Florida has an unusually large marine and brackishwater herpetofauna. Reasons for this include its longcoast line and numerous islands; low, flat topography,which accounts for subtle stream gradients that mightallow inland species to gradually adapt to brackishwater conditions; repeated inundations during itshistory, forcing some species into saltwater habitUsand favoring the sUIVival of those that could adapt;oligohaline waters formed as a result of the gradual

solution of salt deposiL~ left in interglacial periods,which may serve a" wnes of evolutionary adaptiveexchan.ge between freshwater and saltwater (Odum1953); and the gcner&1 diversity of saltwater habitatsalong the coa"t, Funhennore. the rich and variednature ofthe resident herpctofauna increases the like·Uh\xx! that some native species will adapt to saltwaterhabitats (Neill 1958).According to Layne et at (1977). almost one-thirdof the amphibil:ms and reptiles in the study area aR~known to occur in saline habitats (Appendix TabiesA-IS and A-I This list indudcK't 2 frogs, the Ameri·can ldligator, 11 turtles (inclUding 4 sea turtles and thebtult" c()aon seritbnnes) as well a'i members ofthe oniers Gallifonncs(turkey. bobwhite), Columbif()mleS (pigeons anddoves), Cuculiformcs (cuckoos and anis), Caprimulgilbrmes(nighthawk and chuck-wills-widow),Apodifonnes (swifts and hummingbirds), andPkifbmlcs (woodpeckers).The arlx)re.al avifauna ofthe Tarnpa Bay watershed(Appendix Tables A-IS through :\-20) is cSlimated ;:uapproximately 165 species. 'ntis consists ofa core.atxmt 47 yearcr\)UfKl tt1>1dt~nts as wen ali three other(I) the eXclusiVely winter residents,the exclusively summer resident';,

6. FaunaTable 42. Amphibians and rl?ptiles (~fbiological sigfl!ficancc.AmphibiansLesser siren (Siren intermedia)Dwarf siren (Pseudobranchus striatus)Southern dusky salamander(Desmognathus auriculatus)Slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus)Dwarf salamander (Eurycea quadridigitata)Eastern spadefoot toad(Scaphiopus holbrook,)Giant toad (Buto marinus)Cuban treefrog (Osteopilus septentrionatis)BUllfrog (Rana catesbeiana)Pig frog (Rana grylio)Green frog (Rana clamitans)Florida gopher frog (Rana capito)ReptilesAmerican alligator (Alligator mississippiensis)Sported turtle (Clemmys guttata)Box turtle (Terrapene carolina)Diamondback terrapin (Malac!emys terrapin)Suwannee cooter (Chrysemys floridana)Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus)Atlantic green turtle (Chelonia mydas mydas)Atlantic loggerhead (Caretta caretta caretta)Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempi,)Atlantic leatherback(Dermochelys coriacea coriacea)Florida softshell turtle (Trionyx terox)Green anoia (Anolis carolinensis)Eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus)Florida scrub lizard (Sceloporus wood,)Broad-headed skink (Eumeces laticeps)Mole skink (Eumeces egregius)Blue-tailed mole skink(Eumeces egregius lividus)Sand skink (Neoseps reynolds,)Worm lizard (Rhineura flor/dana)Banded water snake (Nerodia tasciata tasciata)Striped crayfish snake (Regina alieni)Black swamp snake (Seminatr/x pygaea)Florida red·bellied snake(Storeria occipitomaculata obscura)Southern hognose snake (Heterodon simus)Pine Woods snake (Rhadinaea flavilata)Eastern indigo snake(Drymarchon corais coupen)Short-tailed snake (Stilosoma extenuatum)Florida crowned snake (Tantilla relicta)Pigmy rattlesnake (Sistrurus miliarius) _Reason for status asAt southern limit of its rangeTaxonomic uncertainty; wetland dependenceNarrow habitat requirements; at southern limit of rangeNarrow habitat requirements; at southern limit of rangeAt southern limit of rangeNarrow habitat preference when not breedingPotentially negative effect on native faunaPotentially negative effect on native faunaAt southern limit of rangeCommercially valuableAt or beyond southern limit of known rangeListed by FCREPA as threatenedListed by FCREPA as threatenedListed by FCREPA as rare; at southern range limitIntergradational populations taxonomically significantMangrove quality indicator speciesListed by FCREPA as threatenedListed by FCREPA as threatenedListed by FCREPA as endangeredListed by FCREPA as threatenedListed by FCREPA as endangeredListed by FCREPA as endangeredCommercially valuable; biological interest re: breathingphysiologyPresence of morphologically different populationsAt southern range limitListed by FCREPA as rare; narrow habitat requirementAt southern range limitListed by FCREPA as threatened; of evolutionary interestListed by FCREPA as threatened; of evolutionary interestListed by FCREPA as threatened; narrow habitat requirementsEndemic genus at southern range limitWetland-quality indicator species; sensitiveWetland dependent, eats crayfish extensivelySouthern and northem races intergradeAt extreme southern limit of rangeAt southern limit of rangeAt southern range limit; habitat specificityListed by FCREPA as threatenedListed by FCREPA as endangered; endemiomonotypicgenusAt southern range limit; two races present, habitat specificWet prairie indicator species239

with 9 species; and (3) the migrating ortransient birdswith 50 species. Robertson and Kushlan (1974) notethat approximately 60% of the total south Roridaavifauna is migratory.An additional 20 to 30 species ofarboreal birds notlisted in Appendix Table A-16 are reported, butconsidered accidental in the study area. These includethose escapees (Le., exotic parrot

6. faunadiversity and bird density increase significantly. TheSouth Florida Research Center (1980) lists 44 speciesofwinter-only residents.With regard to habitat use by both resident andmigratory species, the most commonly used communitiesappear to be pinelands and cypress or mixedswamp forests. This is probably a function of foodsupply (primarily insects and seeds) and structuraldiversity.In a quantitative study on bird communities in thewatershed, Hirth and Marion (1979) record 49arboreal species from a flatwoods area north of theManatee River. Vegetation was a mixture of slashpine, saw palmetto, and grassland, dotted with occasionalliveoak hammocks along small streams.Ofthe 49 species, 32 were permanent residents, 13were winter-only residents and 4 were summer-onlyresidents. Consistent with the above general trends,the total number of species was high in the fall andwinter and low in spring and summer.Trophically speaking, granivores dominatedduring the summer while insectivores dominated inthe winter. Compared to granivores and insectivores,relatively few omnivores and carnivores wereobserved. Table 43 presents a list of species byseason and their trophic categories.The most important ground-feeding insectivoreduring all seasons was the eastern meadowlark.Canopy-feeding insectivores (e.g., pine and palmwarblers) were abundant in the winter. During theTable 43. Species andfeeding strategies offorest birds usingflatwoods in the Tampa Bay area (adaptedfromHirth andMarion 1979)Species and feeding strategies SeasonS Species and feeding strategies SeasonSInsectivores (cont.)OmnivoresCommon grackle (Quiscafus quiscufa)Boat-tailed grackle (Q. major')Blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata)Northern mockingbird (Mimus pofyglottos)American robin (Turdus migratorius)Brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus atei)InsectivoresEastern meadowlark (Stumella magna)Red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus)Common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas)Eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis)Carolina wren.(Thryothorus iudovicianus)Loggerhead shrike (Lanius iudovicianus)ppppWWPPPPPPPPPPWa P = Permanent Resident; W = Winter Resident; S =Summer Resident241

summer, woodpeckers and brown-headed nuthatchesbecame the second most abundant insectivores. Mostofthe granivores were ground feeders (Le., bobwhite,dove) owing to the extent of grassland habitat.Cardinals and towhees were common in the brushierhabitats. Two birds, the rufous-sided towhee and thewhite-eyed vireo, are particularly abundant inscrubby flatwoods.6.5.2 Wading BirdsTampa Bay Ecological CharacterizationA total of 19 species of wading birds, mostlyherons (order Ciconiiformes) and some cranes andtheir allies (order Gruiformes), from this group arefound in the Tampa Bay watershed (Appendix TableA-21). Like the arboreal avifauna, the interiorwetland-dependent avifauna is considered to have alow number ofspecies. From the interior wetlands ofnearby Cuba, 26 species are reported, as compared to19 species from south Horida. The explanation forthis phenomenon is similar to that for arboreal avifaunalimpoverishment. The long-term sea-level fluctuationsof the Pleistocene have created, in the southHorida peninsula, an unreliable freshwater wetlandhabitat that has been both periodically submerged andconsiderably drier than at present. In contrast,saltwater and brackish wetlands have been muchmore constant. It is not surprising. therefore. thatRobertson and Kushlan (1974) speculate that this areais probably best exploited by mobile populations ofwading birds. most of which arc also, and perhapsprimarily, estuarine. Consistent with this view is thefact that the coastal nnd estuarine avifauna is essentiaUyidentical to the coa

6. faunaTable 44. Number ofwading birdnests by county in the Tampa Bay watershedfrom 1976to 1978(adaptedfromNesbittetal.1982).County._-------Common name Pasco Pinellas Sarasota Manatee Hillsborough TotalCattle egret 450 1,237 35 3,200 12,300 17,222White ibis 17 1,250 9,230 10,497Wood stork 150 150Great egret 586 100 700 184 1,570Snowy egret + 100 200 502 802Great blue heron 79 29 88 47 243Little blue heron 25 100 349 474Tricolored heron + + 50 400 450Glossy ibis + 300 300Green heron 7 7Black-crownednight heron 400 400Yellow-crownednight heron 314 315Roseate spoonbill 15 15+ = present but uncounted.producing large populations of small fish and crayfish.In general, the biggest threats to this linkagebetween fish and birds are the mining ofwetlands forphosphate rock, the draining of wetlands for agriculturaldevelopment, and suburban development in andaround wetlands. On the positive side, however, of20nesting sites identified in Polk County, 6 were locatedin reclaimed phosphate mines and 6 were located inwater impoundments. Only eight were located innatural habitats. This reflects a combination offorcesand responses by wading bird populations to adapt tochanging or altered situations. In order to survive inthis changing environment, wading-bird species mustpossess the flexibility to exploit these new habitats.Although the relative species abundance and compositionmay be affected, it is encouraging that wadingbirds show sustained usage ofmining sites reclaimedas wetlands (Nesbitt et al. 1982). Sites reclaimed todeep lakes or pastures do not exhibit the same degreeofwildlife value.Fartherdownstream, in estuarine waters, Schreiberand Schreiber (1978) note a similar trend in the use ofdredged-spoil islands by nesting waders. On older,243"mature" islands with trees and shrubs, the canopylayer may be heavily used by great blue herons, greategrets, and woodstorks. The subcanopy layeris moreattractive to green herons, little blue herons, tricoloredherons, reddish egrets, black- and yellow-crownednight herons, white ibis, glossy ibis, and roseatespoonbills. All ofthese species need to be left undisturbedduring their breeding seasons and many needshallow areas for feeding. Many spoil islands arelacking in one or both ofthese characteristics.65.3 Floating and Diving Water BirdsA list of46 floating and diving water birds that usehabitats of the Tampa Bay watershed appears inAppendix Table A-22 (I11978c). Members of thisguild come from five taxonomic orders: the pelicansand their allies (Pelecanifonnes), the waterfowl(Anserifonnes), the gallinules and coot (Gruiformes),the loons (Gaviifonnes), and the grebes (podicipedifonnes).The pelicans are represented by two species, thebrown (?elecanus occidentalis) and the white (P. erythrorhynchos).Aside from the obvious morphologic

Tampa Bay Ecological Characterizationdifferences between the two, the brown and white whistling duck, which feeds nocturnally on bothdiffer in theirmethods offeeding. The brown pelican aquatic and terrestrial vegetation. Like surfacedivesfrom a height of about 10 meters for small fish feeding ducks, they tip and feed from the surface.in estuarine and nearshore waters. An accomplished Bay ducks (subfamily Aythyinae) include theglider, this bird is frequently seen skimming along scaup, redhead, ring necked duck, and bufflehead.only a few centimeters above the surface ofthe water. These ducks seem to preferprotected coa

6. FaunaThe cranes and their allies (order Gruiformes) arerepresented by three of the most abundant floatingand diving water birds of the florida gulf coast, thecommon gallinule, the purple gallinule, and theAmerican coot. These birds, which are permanentresidents, exhibit characteristics somewhat intermediatebetween wading birds and floating birds. It is notuncommon to see gallinules and coots feeding alongthe edges of shallow waters, sometimes wading,sometimes floating. Their diet consists of a mixtureof aquatic insects, benthic infauna, and vegetation.As it is with the omnivorous ducks, Hydrilla proves tobe a very significant food source for the coot(Montalbano et al. 1979). The common and purplegallinules tend to be found in freshwaters only duringthe nesting season, moving to brackish waters duringthe winter months.Another resident floating and diving water bird isthe pied-billed grebe (family Podicipediformes). Thepied-billed grebe is a small bird that prefers shallowfreshwaters and rarely moves into brackish areas. Itsdiet consists of about half fish and crayfish and theother half insects (Sprunt 1954). An accomplishedswimmer and rather JXX>r flyer, it frequently escapesdanger overhead by diving. The grebe nests frommid-April to September. Increased numbers of birdsin the winter indicates that there is some migration ofthe population.The last group of floating and diving birds is thefamily Gaviidae (loons), of which only one species,the common loon, occurs with any seasonal regularity.Arriving in late October or early November anddeparting by April or May, the common loon spendsmost of its time in coastal bays. An exceptionalswimmer, the loon spends nearly all its time in thewater, where it feeds exclusively on fish. The looncharacteristically swims very low to the water givingits head and neck a roughly S-shaped profile. Justbefore diving the loon hops upward to gain momentumas it lunges under the surface.6.5.4 Birds ofPreyA total of 27 .species of birds from three orderscomprise the members of this guild within the studyarea (Appendix Tables A-23 through A-25). Twentyspecies of the order Falconiformes (hawks, eagles,and vultures) are included in this group, along with sixspecies ofowls (order Strigiformes), and the magnificentfrigatebird (order Pelecaniformes).The vultures (family Cathartidae) are representedby two species, the turkey vulture and the blackvulture. Theirseemingly effortless gliding takes themovervirtually all habitats in searchofcarrion. Despitethe fact that they spend muchoftheir time cleaning uproad kills, they are seldom the victim of such accidents.The turkey vulture is more abundant than theblack vulture.Another species that frequently associates withvultures in south florida is the crested caracara(Polyborus planeus). This bird, a member of theFalconidae family, is a subtropical species having thegreater part of its range farther west in Mexico andCentral America. Like the vultures, it feeds oncarrion, though it flies much less and tends to restrictitself to open prairies, agricultural lands, and scrubhabitat~.Another group ofpredatory birds that uses a broadrange ofhabitats are the members ofthe Accipitridaefamily (hawks and eagles). The swallow-tailed kite,the red-tailed hawk, the red-shouldered hawk, and theshort-tailed hawk are primarily forest dwellers,preferring to nest in cypress, pine, or oak trees. Thelargest of the four, the red-tailed hawk, feedspredominantly upon small mammals (meadowmice),reptiles, insects, and crawfish. Small birds make upanother 10% ofits diet. As its prey suggests, this birdis a frequent visitor to upland prairies and marshes aswell as forests. The swallow-tailed kite prefers acombination of prairies, open pine glades, andcypress. Its food, primarily snakes, lizards, dragonflies,and grasshoppers, is taken on the wing. Therelatively small red-shouldered hawk is the mostabundant and widely distributed of the four. Its dietconsists ofsmall mammals, snakes, lizards, frogs, andinsects. The short-tailed hawk, although a residentand breeder in Florida, is relatively uncommon. Thegreaterpart ofits range is located in Central and SouthAmerica.Among predatory birds that restrict themselves to anarrower range of upland habitats are the Cooper's245

hawk and the broad-winged hawk, which appear toprefer upland forests; the kestrel, which appears toprefer open uplands; and the Everglades kite, whichexclusively uses wet prairies and sawgra

plovers, turnstones, and surf-birds (familyCharadriidae); the sandpipers (family Scolopacidae);and the avocet'; (family Recurvirostridae).It has been suggested (Recher 1966; Green 1968)that among the probing shore birds, morphologicaldifferences in bill length and structure are an importantresource-partitioning factor. Such differences arebelieved to reduce competition between species byfunctionally segregating the infaunal food resourcesinto fractions for which different bill lengths andstructures are best suited. However, operation ofthisprincipal for birds feeding in the same habitat, wherecompetition should be greatest, has not been demonstrated.In California, wintering shallow-feedingbirds (avocets, western sandpiper, dunlin, anddowitcher) all fed on the same things (Quammen1982). Itis unknown ifthe morphological differencesin bills evolved for breeding grounds or winteringareas.Other factors such as feeding behavior, flexibilityin diet, and the use ofother habitats also contribute tothis partitioning. Peterson and Peterson (1979) distinguishtwo categories of probers, the shallow-probingand surface-searching shorebirds, and the deepprobingshorebirds. This delineation is based onfundamental differences in feeding habits and diets.Shallow probers are generally very opportunisticfeeders, taking whatever prey presents itselfin greatestnumbers. Consequently, their diets may varywidely depending upon their location. Experimentsconducted elsewhere along the Atlantic coast(Schneider 1978) have shown that shallow proberscan have a very significant effect on the compositionand abundance of intertidal and beach fauna.Quammen (1982) found changes in intertidal andbeach faunal abundance but not species compositionon the Pacific coast. The importance of this effect inFlorida is unknown. Since many of these birds arewinter-only residents or migratory species, theirpredatory effect is likely to be greatest in winter. Thisis the time of greatest abundance for many infaunalinvertebrate prey, such as polychaetes, amphipods,and bivalve mollusks.In addition to morphological differences, theshallow probers also differ among themselves in6. Fauna247feeding strategies. Some, such as the plovers andsmaller sandpipers, feed by sight, commonly preyingupon surface fauna in sea wrack orsand. Others, suchas the semipalmated sandpiper and sanderling, feedby truly probing in the substrate. Their bills areintricately innervated with sensory nerves that facilitateprey capture. Preferences for prey organismsmay also playa role in resource partitioning by virtueof minimizing spatial overlap between species.Certain species, such as the ruddy turnstone, tend toprefer hard substrates that support their favorite prey.Others, such as the clapper rail, stick to the higherends of salt marshes, only occasionally venturing outonto mudflats at low tide.Two species, the longbilled and shortbilleddowitchers, belong somewhere between the shallowanddeep-probing categories. Although their bills arelong, they often take the same food and frequentlyfeed more like the shallow probers than the deepprobers (Quammen 1982). Another species, theAmerican oystercatcher, feeds when possible onoysters and other large mollusks. For this reason it ishard to place the oyster-catcher in either category.The deep-probing shorebirds include such speciesas the willet, the marbled godwit, and the long-billedcurlew. Their long bills enable them to reach deeperinto the sediment to obtain a different food source.Their generally greater size also allows them to takelarger prey. The most common deep prober in thebeach environment is clearly the willet. Although thisbird does probe for its own food, it more often exhibitsaggressive behavior toward other probing shorebirds,often appropriating their prey or chasing themaway.6.5.6 Aerially Searching BirdsAlthough the birds of this guild (Appendix TableA-27) are regarded as primarily estuarine, many ofthem frequent a variety ofother habitaL~ as well. Onespecies, the belted kingfisher, prefers the freshwaterwetland habitat. The gull most commonly foundinland is the ringbilled gull. The herring, laughing,a."1d Bonapa.-rc's gulls tend to r..e strictly coastal andventure only occasionally around inland lakes,agricultural fields, or dump sites. The terns tend to

estrict themselves to coastal habitat.

6. FaunaCommon nameOystercatcherSnowy ploverWi Ison's ploverKilldeer aWilletBlack-necked stilt aLaughing gullGull-billed ternCommon ternRoseate ternLeast ternRoyal ternCaspian ternBlack skimmerMonthJan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dect::::::A4itt>;\i3tl#ili::::i:4~::!:~:!:1:::4l::::::4:~::::::+~:;:::::::

Tampa Bay Ecological CharacterizationTable 45. Bird~ designated as endangered (E), threatened (T), rare (R), or ofspecial concern(1978).by KaleCommon NameStatusWood stork (Mycteria americana)EFlorida Everglade kite (Rostrhamus sociabilisplumbeus)EPeregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus)ECuban snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinustenuirostris)EIvory-billed woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) ERed-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) EFlorida grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramussavannarum floridanus)ECape Sable seaside sparrow (Ammospizamaritimus mirabilis )EEastern brown pelican (Pelt/canus occidentaliscarolinensis)TMagniHcent frigatebird (Fregata magnificens) TBald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) TOsprey (Pandion haliaetus)TSoutheastern American kestrel (Falco sparveriuspaulUS)TCrested caracara (Polyborus planeus)TFlorida sandhill crane (Grus canadensis pratensis) TAmerican oystercatcher (Haematopus pal/iatus) TLeast tern (Sterml antilfarum)TFlorida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescenscoerulescens)TReddish egret (DichromamlSsa rufoscens) RRoseate spoonbill (Aja/a ajaja)RWhite,tailed kite (Elanus leucurus)RCommon NameShort-jailed hawk (Buteo brachyurus)Mangrove cuckoo (Coccyzus minor)Black-whiskered vireo (Vireo altiloquus)Great egret (Casmerodius albus)Little blue heron (Florida caerulea)Snowy egret (Egretta thula)Tricolored heron (Hydranassa tricolor)Black-crowned nighj heron (Nycticoraxnycticorax)Yellow-crowned night heron (Nyctanassaviolaceus)Least bittern (/xobrychus exilis exilis)Glossy ibis (Plegadis falcinel/us)White ibis (Eudocimus albus)Cooper's hawk (Accipiter coopedi)Limpkin (Aramus guarauna)Piping plover (Charadrius melodus)Royal torn (Sterna maxima)Sandwich tern (Sterna sandvicensis)Black skimmer (Rynchops niger)Florida burrowing owl (Athene cuniculariafloridana)Southern hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosusauduboni)Marian's marsh wren (Cistothorus palustrismarianae)Florida prairie warbler (Dendroica discolorpaludicola)StatusRRRseseseseSCseseseseseseseseseseseSCseseall of the native species listed are of North AmericaOligin. This essentially unimpaired range extensionofa temperate fauna into the subtTOpics accompanieswhat appears to be an extensive differellliation ofsome species populations into many races. Suchdifferentiation is believed to result from the frequentisolation of j"JOpulations and subsequent genetic driftduring fluctuating sea levels of the late Pleistocene(Layne 1974, 1(78), rather than adaptation resuhingfrom invasion into uncxploited subtropical habitats.According to Layne et al. (1977), the mammalhmfauna ofthe \vatershed is of interest in severalrespects. A portion of the Tampa Bay area formspm1 ofthe Central Florida .Highland biogeographicregion, one of seven major biogeographic regions250of Florida recogn ized by Neill (1957). This region,which includes the ridge section of Polk County,is characterized by endemic species restricted tothe xeric sand pine scrub and sandhill habitats. TheFlorida mouse (Peromyscusfloridanus) is a memberof this endemic species group.A rather large number ofspecies (20%) reach theirsoutbem limits in western peninsular Rorida withinthe study area. ll1cse include the southeastem shrew,Rat1nesquc's big-eared bat, big brown bat, southeasternj"JOckct gopher, eastern harvest mouse, Roridamousc·, golden mOllse, and eastern woodrat.Two subspecies, the mole (Sealopus aquaticusbassi) and cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus

estrictus), were originally described from the TampaBay area. The type localities are Englewood andChadwick Beach (Sarasota County), respectively.The 01adwick Beach cotton mouse is known onlyfrom that locality, and its present status is uncertain.Part ofthe range ofanother coastal subspecies with agreatly restricted distribution, the insular cotton rat(Sigmodon hispidus insulieola), also extends into theTampa Bay area. The zone ofintergradation betweenSherman's fox squirrel (Sciurus niger shermani) andthe mangrove fox squirrel (S. niger avieennia) mayalso lie in the study area. Finally, the seven-countyregion of Layne et al. 's (1977) study area is in thetransition 7..one between north Florida with relativelymany bat species and south Florida with relativelyfew.Regarding the exotic species of the region, apparentlythe only established population of coyotes inFlOlida exists in Polk County, and nutria colonies indairy farm ponds near Brandon, HillsboroughCounty, may represent the densest populations ofthisintroduced species in the state.In addition to land mammals, two species ofaquatic marine mammals are also considered part ofthe total mammalian fauna. The first of these, themanatee, frequents both fresh and estuarine waters. Anumber of factors determine whether a particular siteis suitable for manatee use, induding availability ofvascular aquatic vegetation for food, proximity tochannels at least 2 m deep, recourse to warm waterduring cold snaps, and a source offreshwater.Estimates of the Tampa Bay manatee populationvary from 40 to 55 animals, with the highest numbersreported in the winter months (Hartman 1974; Patton1980; Irvine et al. 1981). An additional 14 to 35manatees may remain outside the bay, widely scatteredin the surrounding coastal area.Patton (1980) demonstrated that most of the baypopulation aggregated around artificial warm-waterareas in winter (e.g., power plant thermal dischargesites), with many individuals being found in theAlafia, Manatee, and Little Manatee Rivers. Descriptionsof this winter aggregation have resulted in theAlafia River being designated as a sanctuary underthe Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act of 1980.6. Fauna251Reynolds and Patton (1985) recently reviewedmanatee-related research and conservation efforts forthese protected animals in Tampa Bay. Specificprograms and study needs are outlined which, in theiropinion, are needed to better understand and managethe manatee population in the area.The manatee is a strict herbivore with no knownpredators. It appears that cold weather, shorelinedevelopment, injuries from boat collisions, and possiblypollution are among the major factors 1in1iting thesurvival ofmanatees in Florida.The bottle-nosed dolphin is strictly marine andestuarine in its distribution. Its primary source offoodis mullet. Offshore of Tampa Bay, Reynolds andPatton (1985) estimate a population of78 year-roundresidents with another 200 individuals just north andsouth of the bay area. These animals appear to be inherds of two to three animals that are fairly evenlydistributed from nearshore to 24 km offshore. InTampa Bay, numbers appear to be lower (around 23),although the survey coverage was admittedly inadequate.Irvine et aI. (1981) note that dolphin numbersin and adjacent to Tampa Bay increase from July toNovember. A localized herd ofaround 102 individualsis reported from Sarasota Bay (Wells et al. 1980;Irvine et al. 1982). Reynolds and Patton (1985) notethat Tampa Bay dolphins commonly harbor a parasitethat rarely appear in dolphins elsewhere in Florida.Othermarine mammals not considered residents ofthe study area, but occasionally observed alive orfound stranded in Tampa Bay and nearby waters,include 10 species ofwhales and 8 species ofdolphins(fable 46). Two ofthe eighteen species listed (fable47), the humpback whale and the sperm whale, arecurrently on the federal endangered species list.These pelagic animals, more commonly associatedwith deeper oceanic waters adjacent to or beyond theContinental Shelf, are generally considered rare in thenortheastern gulf.Increased interest and research efforts have, however,shown that some species are more common thanpreviously thought. For example, the pygmy spermwhale, once considered to be very rare, has beenstranded several times around Tampa Bay, and is nowconsidered to be the second most commonly stranded

Tampa Bay Ecological CharacterizationTable 46. Marine nwmmals sighted or stranded in Tampa Bay and in GulfofMexico coastal waters betiveenPasco and Sarasota counties. Nwnbers represent events, not total number of animaL,> involved (fromSchmidly 1980, SEAN1980-1982, Reynolds and Patton 1985).aCommon NameBryde's whale (Bafaenoptera edem)Humpback whale b (Megaptera novaeangliae)S~rm whale b (Phy,seter catodon)Pygmy killer whale (Faresa attenuata)False killer whale (Psaudorca crass/dens)Killer whale (Ore/nus orca)Number of1o15121oo71oNumber ofIS50sop In rampus gnseusBridled dolphin (Stenella frontalis) 0 1Atlantic spotted dolphin Wplagiodon) 3 1co1oo o oo111o1cetacean in Florida, after the tXHlle-nosed dolphin(Odell et al. 1(81). Additional infornlation on marinemammal strandings and sightings from !lIe TampaBay area may be found in Schmidley (l980) and theSEAN (Scientific Event Alert Network) reports1975,1982.L.lync (1978) lists nine taxa of mammals from thestudy area ,l"l eil11cr endangered, threatened, rare, ofspecial concern, Or status undcternlined Crable 47).Notable among these arc four of the larger mammals,the panther, the black bear, and two s~cics of wea."'cl(Muslda). Due probably to food requirements andterritorial im~ratives, these four taxa generally l11riveonly where mere is a large amount of open spacesupporting a mixturc ofappropriate habitats. Besides111cse 9, an additional 24 species arc considered ofcommercial value or s~cial biological significance(Neill 1957).252

6. FaunaTable 47. Mammals ofspecial concern in the Tampa Bay watershed (adaptedfromLayne 1978).Common nameVirginia opossumSoutheastern shrewShort-tailed shrewBig brown batNorthern yellow batRafinesque's big-eared batNine-banded armadilloMarsh rabbitEastern cottontailGray squirrelSherman's fox squirrelSoutheastern pocket gopherEastern harvest mouseFlorida mouseGolden mouseEastern wood ratRoundtailed muskratNutriaBottle-nosed dolphinCoyoteRed foxGray foxFlorida black bearRaccoonFlorida long-tailed weaselStriped skunkRiver otterFlorida pantherBobcatManateeWild hogWhite-tailed deerReason for status as significantCommercially valuable fur.Rare (FCREPA).Biological indicator of forested wetlands.Rare (FCREPA).Indicator of open woodlands with mature trees.Rare (FCREPA).Rapidly spreading invader.Game species.Game species.Game species.Threatened (FCREPA).Reaches southern range limit.Reaches southern range limit.Threatened (FCREPA).Habitat specificity.Reaches southern range limit; forested wetlandsindicator species.Species of special concern (FCREPA).Rapidly spreading invader.Estuarine quality indicator.New invader with unknown potential.New invader with unknown potential.Sport and commercial fur-bearing species.Threatened (FCREPA).Game species; commercial fur-bearer.Rare (FCREPA).Commercially valuable fur-bearer.Protected fur-bearer.Endangered (FCREPA).Indicator organism.Endangered (FCREPA).Game species.Game species.253

Literature CitedAd

Lake Tarpon fluctuation schedule. Southwest Fla.Water Manage. Dist., Environ. Sect. Tech. Rep. 1977­3. Brooksville. 89 pp.Bartos, L.F., T.F. Rochow, and W.D. Courser. 1978. LakeTarpon fluctuation study 1973-1978. Southwest Fla.Water Manage. Dist., Environ. Sect. Tech. Rep. 1978­6. Brooksville. 131 pp.Bauersfeld, P., RR Kifer, N.W. Durant, and J.E. Sykes.1969. Nutrient content of turtle grass (Thalassistestudinum). Proc. Inti. Seaweed Symposium. 6: 637­645.Bcach, M.L., W.M. Wiley, J.M. Van Dyke, and D.M.Riley. 1976. The effect of the Chinese grass carp(Ctenopharyngodon idella [vaL]) on the ecology offour Florida lakes, and its use for aquatic weed control.Florida Department of Natural Resources, Tallahassee.247pp.Beaman, B. 1973. Plant community structure and vegetationalzones on spoil islands. New College, Sarasota,Florida. 69 pp.Beck, E.C., and W.M. Beck, Jr. 1969. The ChironomidaeofFlorida, VoU!. The nuisance species. Fla. Entomol.52: 1-11.Beck, J.T. 1974. Some aspects of the life history andecology of the fresh-water caridean shrimp, Palaemonetespaludosis. M.A. Thesis. University of SouthFlorida, Tampa. 50 pp.Beck, W.M., Jr. 1965. The streams ofFlorida. Bull. Fla.State Mus. 10(3): 91-126.Bedient, P.B. 1975. Hydrologic land use interactions in aFlorida river basin. Ph.D. Dissertation. University ofFlorida, Gainesville.Berner, L. 1950. The mayflies of Florida. Univ. Fla.,BioI. Sci. Ser. 4(4): 1-267.Beyers, C.F. 1930. A contribution to the knowledge ofFlorida odonata. Univ. Fla., BioI. Sci. Ser. 1: 1-327.Bird,K.T.,CJ.Dawes,andJ.T.Romeo. 1980. Patternsofnon-photosynthetic carbon fixation in dark-held respiringthalli ofGracilaria verrucosa. Z. Pflanzenphysiol.98: 359-364.Bird, K.T., C.J. Dawes, and J.T. Romeo. 1981. Lightquality effects on carbon metabolism and allocation inGracilaria verrucosa. Mar. BioI. 64: 219-223.Blair, T.A., and RC. Fite. 1965. Wcather elements: a textin elementary meteorology. 5th ed. Prentice Hall Inc.,Englewood Cliffs, N.J.Blaney, RF., and W.D. Criddle. 1962. Determiningconsumptive uses and irrigation water requirement".Agric. Tech. Bull. 1275.References255Bock, J.H. 1966. An ecological study of Eichhorniacrassipes with special emphasis on its reproductivebiology. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California,Berkeley. 175 pp.Bowman, RD. 1977. Evaluation ofambient air monitoringfor total suspended particulates and sulfur dioxidein Hillsborough County, Florida. HillsboroughCounty.Boyle, RH., and K.M. Mechem. 1982. Anatomy of aman-made drought. Sports mus. 56(11): 46-54.Boyles, J.M. 1966. Zoogeography of the herpetofauna ofcentral Florida. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Alabama,Tuscaloosa. 164 pp.Bradley, J.T. 1972. Climatography of the United StatesNo. 60-8: climate of Florida. U.S. Dep. Comm.,NOAA. 31 pp.Bradley,J.T. 1974. TheclirnateofFlorida. In Climatesofthe States, Vol. I: Eastern States (including Puerto Ricoand the U.S. Virgin Islands). National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration, Water Center, Washington,D.C. 480 pp.Brezonik, P.L., C.D. Hendry, Jr., E.S. Edgerton, R.L.Schultze, and TL. Crisman. 1982. Acidity. nutrientsand minerals in atmospheric precipitation over Florida:deposition patterns, mechanisms and ecological effects.Final report to U.S.E.P.A., Project 805560. NationalEnvironmental Research Center, Corvallis, Or.Briggs, J.C. 1958. A list ofFlorida fishes and their distribution.Bull. Fla. State Mus. 2(8): 223-318.Brook, LM. 1975. Some aspects of the trophic relationshipsamong the higher consumers in a seagrasscommunity (Thalassia testudinum konig) in CardSound, Florida. Ph.D. Dissertation. University ofMiami. 133 pp.Brooks, H.K. 1968. The Plio-Pleistocene in Florida.Pages 3-42 in RD. Perkins, ed. Late Cenozoic stratigraphyof southern Florida-a reappraisal. MiamiGeological Society, Miami.Brooks, H.K. 1973. Geological Oceanography. Pages E­1 to 49 in J.I. Jones, RE. Ring, M.O. Rinkel, and R.E.Smith, cds. A summary of knowledge of the EasternGulf of Mexico - 1973. State University System Instituteof Oceanography, St. Petersburg, FL.Brooks, H.K. 19813. Geologic map of Florida. UniversityofFla., Institute ofFood and Agricultural Science,Gainesville.Brooks, H.K. 1982b. Physiographic map of Florida.University of F1a., Institute of Food and AgriculturalScience, Gainesville.

Brown, D.P. 1982a. Effect,> ofeffluent spray irrigation onground wa!Cr at a test site ncar Tarpon Springs, Florida.O.s. Gwl. Surv. Opcn-FileRcp. 81-1197. Tallahassee.Brown, D.P. 1982b. Water resources and dala - networkassessment of the Manasota basin, Manatee andSarasola countie..

Carter, M.R, LA Burns, T.R Cavinder, K.R. Dugger,D.L. Fore, D.B. Hicks, H.L. Revells, and T.W.Schmidt. 1973. Ecosystems analysis of the BigCypress Swamp and estuaries. U.S. Environ. Prot.Agency, Fla. Bcol. Study DI-SFEP-74-51. EPA 90419­74-002. 375 pp.Cathcart, J.B., L.V. Blade, D.F. Davidson, and K.B.Ketner. 1953. The geology of the Florida land-pebblephosphate deposit". Pages 77-91 in C.R Algiers, ed.Nineteenth International Geological Congress, Sec. II,Fasc. II.Causseaux, K.W., and J.D. Fretwell. 1982. Position ofthesaltwater- freshwater interface in the upper part of theFloridan aquifer, southwest Florida, 1979. U.S. Geo!.Surv., Wat.-Resour. Invest. Open-File Rep. 82-90.Tallahassee.Causseaux, K.W., and J.D. Fretwell. 1983. Chlorideconcentrations in the coastal margin of the Floridanaquifer, southwest Florida. U.S. Geo!. Surv., Wat.­Resour. Invest. Rep. 82-4070. Tallahassee.Chapman, P. 1973. Pollution investigation - Peace Riverand Whidden Creek, Cities Service Company Incident,Dec. 3, 1971. Florida Game and Fresh Water FishCommission, Tallahassee. 51 pp.Chapman, P. 1974. Lake Tarpon fish management area,Pinellas County, review and status report. FloridaGame and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee.31 pp.Chapman, P. 1975. Lake Tarpon fish management area,Pinellas County, status report. Florida Game and FreshWater Fish Commission, Tallahassee. 22 pp.Chen, C.S. 1965. The regional lithostratigraphic analysisof Paleocene and Eocene rocks of Florida. Fla. Dep.Nat. Resour., Geo!. Bull. 45. Tallahassee.Cheney, D.P., and J.P. Dyer. 1974. Deep-water benthicalgae of the Florida Middle Ground. Mar. BioI. 27:185-190.Cherry, R.N., J.W. Stewart, and J.A. Mann. 1970.General hydrology of the Middle Gulf Area, Florida.Fla. Dep. Nat. Resour., Bur. Geo!., Rep. Invest. 56. Tallahassee.96 pp.Chew, R.L. 1974. Early life history of the Florid largemouthbass. Fla. Game Fresh Water Fish Comm. BulL7. 76pp.Christiansen, J.E. 1966. Estimating evaporation andevapotranspiration from climatic data. Utah WaterResearch Laboratory, Logan.References257Clapp, R.B., D. Morgan-Jacobs, and RC. Banks. 1983.Marine birds ofthe southeastern United States and Gulfof Mexico. Part 3: Charadriiformes. U.S. Fish Wildl.Serv., FWS OBS-83/30. 853 pp.Coastal Zone Resources Corporation. 1977. A comprehensivestudy of successional patterns of plants andanimals at upland disposal areas. Environ. Effects Lab.,U.S. Army Eng. Waterways Exp. Stn., Contract Rep.D-77-2. Vicksburg, Miss. 395 pp.Cohen, A.D., and W. Spackman. 1974. The petrology ofpeats from the Everglades and coastal swamps ofsouthernFlorida. Pages 233-255 in P.J. Gleason, ed.Environments of south Florida: present and past. MiamiGeoI. Soc., Mem. 2.Collard, S.B., and CN. D'Asaro. 1973. Benthic invertebratesof the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Pages III G-l toIIIG-27 in J.J. Jones, RE. Ring, M.O. Rinkel, and RE.Smith, eds. A summary of knowledge of the easternGulf of Mexico. State University System of Florida,Institute of Oceanography. St. Petersburg.Colle, DE., J.V. Shireman, and RW. Rottmann. 1978.Food selection by grass carp fingerlings in a vegetatedpond. Trans. Am. Fish Soc. 107(1): 149-152.Collins, ME., and R.E. Caldwell. 1982. Soil taxonomy ­the system of soil classification. Pages 29-36 in V.W.Carlisle and R.B. Brown, cds. Florida soil identificationhandbook. University ofFlorida, Soil Science Department,Gainesville, and U.S. Department ofAgriculture,Soil Conservation Service.Comp, G.S. 1985. A survey ofthe distribution and migrationof the fishes in Tampa Bay. Pages 393-425 in S.F.Treat, J.L. Simon, RR. Lewis III, and R.L. Whitman,Jr., cds. Proceedings, Tampa Bay Area Scientific InformationSymposium, May 1982. Burgess PublishingCo., Inc., Minneapolis, MN. Available from TampaBASIS, P.O. Box 290197, Tampa, R.. 33687.Conover, C.S., and S.D. Leach. 1975. River basin andhydrologic unit map ofFlorida. Fla. Dep. Nat. Resour.,Bur. Goo!. Map Ser. 72. Tallahassee.Conservation Consultants, Inc. 1975. A survey ofvegetationand animal life, W.R Grace and Company FourComers Mine, southeastern Hillsborough County andnortheastern Manatee County, Florida. WR. Graceand Company, Mulberry, FL.Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 1983a. Annotatedbibliography of seagrass research conducted in TampaBay, Florida. Florida Department of EnvironmentalRegulation, Tallahassee.

Continental Shelf A'isociates, Inc. 1983b. Report on the21 and 22 June 1983 scagrass bed ground truthingsurvey in Tampa Bay, Florida. Contract No. SP-91.Florida Department of Environmental Regulation,Tallaha'isce. 17 pp.Cooke, C.W. 1939. Scenery of Horida interpreted by ageologist. Fla. Dep. Nat Resour., Bur. Geol., Bull. 17.TaHah,a'iscc. 118 pp.Cooke, CW. 1945. Geology of Florida. FI.1.. Ceo!. SurY.Bull. 29: 1-339.Copela.nd, C.E. 1973. The prediction of storm runoffquantity and qml1ity for the Tarnpa Bay region. M.S.Thesis. University of South Florida, Tampa.Coordinating Council (m the Restoration ofthe KissimmeeRiver Valley and Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough Ba'!in.1978. Field trip guide for the N~\tional Symposium onw(:tlands, Nov. 10, 1978. Lak(~ Buena Vista, FL.Am(~ric.m Water Resources Association and NationalWetlands T(x~hnical Council, Washington, D.C. 36 pp.Course.r, W.D., P.M. Dooris, and S.A. Putnam. 1974.Progress report - 1973 - moniwring of Lake TarponHUCUlUioll scheduk. Southw(~st Fla. Wat(~r Manage.DiSl., Environ. Sect Tech. Rep .. 1975-3. Brooksville.67 pp.COUrl.tmay, W.R., Jr. 1970. Florida's walking call1sh.Ward's Bull. HI: ICowell, B.C., D.O. Bun;;.h, L.N. Brown, ROW. McDiarmid,and G.E. W(x)lfen

Dawes, C.J, K. Bird, M. Durako, R. Goddard, W.Hoffman, and R. McIntosh. 1979. Chemical fluctuationsdue to seasonal and cropping effects on an algalseagrasscommunity. Aquat. Bot. 6: 79-86.Dawes, C.J., R.E. Moon, and M.A. Davis. 1978. Thephotosynthetic and respiratory rates and tolerances ofbenthic algae from a mangrove and salt marsh estuary:a comparative study. Estaur. Cstl. Mar. Sci. 6: 175­186.Dawson, C.E., Jr. 1953. A survey ofthe Tampa Bay area.Fla. State Board Conserv. Mar. Lab. Tech. Ser. 8. 39pp.Deuerling,RJ.,Jr.,andP.L.MacGill. 1981. Environmentalgeology series - Tarpon Springs sheet. Ra. Dep.Nat. Resour., Bur. Geol., Map Ser. 99. Tallahassee.Dineen, J.W. 1974. The fishes of the Everglades. Pages375-385 in P.1. Gleason, ed. Environments of southFlorida: present and past. Miami Gool. Soc. Mem. 2.Dinsmore, J.1., and R.W. Schreiber. 1974. Breeding andannual cycle of laughing gulls in Tampa Bay, Rorida.Wilson Bull. 86: 419-427.Donaldson, H.A., andJ.O.R. Johansson. 1977. Plankton.In Vol. 2, Section 4: Post-operational ecologicalmonitoring program. Final Report, Anclote Unit No.1,Rorida Power Corporation.Dohrenwend, R.E. 1977. Evapotransporation patterns inRorida. Fla. Sci. 40(2): 184-193.Donn, W.L. 1975. Meteorology, 4th ed. McGraw-HillBook Co., New York.Dooris, P.M. 1975. Evaluation of the chloride status ofLake Tarpon, Pinellas County, Rorida. Southwest Ra.Water Manage. Dist., Environ. Sect. Tech. Rep. 1975­2. Brooksville. 21 pp.Dooris, P.M. 1979. Sawgrass Lake: data summary.Southwest Ra. Water Manage. Dist., Brooksville. 56pp.Dooris, P.M., and G.M. Dooris. 1985. Surface flows toTampa Bay: quantity and quality aspects. Pages 88­106 in S.P. Treat, J.L. Simon, R.R. Lewis III, and R.L.Whitman, Jr., eds. Proceedings, Tampa Bay AreaScientific Information Symposium, May 1982. BurgessPublishing Co., Inc., Minneapolis, MN. Availablefrom Tampa BASIS, P.O. Box 290197, Tampa, FL33687.Dragovich, A., J.H. Finucane, and B.Z. May. 1961.Counts ofred tide organisms, Gymnodinium breve, andassociated oceanographic data from Rorida west coast,References2591957-59. U.S. Fish Wildl. Servo Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish.369. 175 pp.Dragovich, A., J.H. Finucane, and B.Z. May. 1963.Counts ofred tide organisms, Gymnodinium breve, andassociated oceanographic data from Florida west coast,1960-61. U.S. Fish Wildt Serv. Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish.455.40pp.Dragovich, A., and J.A. Kelly, Jr. 1964a. Preliminaryobservations on phytoplankton and hydrology inTampa Bay and the immediate adjacent offshorewaters. Pages 4--22 in A collection ofdata in referenceto red tide outbreaks during 1%3. Rorida Board ofConservation. St. Petersburg. (Mimoo).Dragovich, A., and J.A. Kelly, Jr. 1964b. Ecologicalobservations of macroinvertebrates in Tampa Bay,Florida, 1%1-1962. Bull. Mar. Sci. Gulf Caribb.14:74-102.Dragovich, A., and J.A. Kelly, Jr. 1966. Distribution andoccurrence ofGymnodiniwn breve on the westcoast ofFlorida, 1964-65. U.S. Fish Wildl. Servo Spec. Sci.Rep. Fish. 541. 15 pp.Dmgovich, A.,].A. Kelly, Jr., and R.D. Kelly. 1%5. Redwater bloom of a dinoflagellate in Hillsborough Bay,Florida. Nature 207(5002): 1209-1210.Drda, M., and M. Knox. 1981. Aquaculture Project 1980­81 Annual Report. Florida Game and Fresh WaterFishCommission, Lakeland. 37 pp.DSP. See Florida Division ofState Planning.Duellman, W.E., and A. Schwartz. 1958. Amphibians andreptiles of southern Florida Bull. Fla. State Mus. 3(5):181-324.Duerr, A.D., and J.W. Stewart. 1980. Hydrologic data forEureka Springs landfill and adjacent area, north-rentralHillsborough County, Florida, 1969-73. U.S. Geol.Surv. Open-File Rep. 80-70. 83 pp.Duerr, A.D., andJ'w. Stewart. 1981. Hydrogeologic datafor Rocky Creek Landfill and adjacent area, northwestHillsborough County, Florida, 1%9-73. U.S. Geol.Surv. Open-File Rep. 80-1291. 72 pp.Duerr, A.D., and J.T. Trommer. 1981. Estimated wateruse in Southwest Florida Water Management Districtand adjacent areas, 1979. U.S. Gool. Surv. Open-FileRep. 81-56. Tallahassee. 58 pp.Duever, MJ. J.E. Carlson, J.F. Meeder, L.C. Duever, L.R.Gunderson, LA Riopelle, T.R. Alexander,R.F. Myers,and D.P. Spangler. 1979. Resource inventory andanalysis of the Big Cypress National Preserve. Final

Report to the Department of the Interior, National ParkService. Center for Wetlands, University of Florida,Gainesville, and National Audubon Society, Naples,FL.Duever, M.J., J.E. Carlson, and L.A. Riopelle. 1975.Ecosystems analysis at Corkscrew Swamp. Pages 627­725 in H.T. Adam, K.C. Ewel,J.W. Ordway, and M.K.Johnston, eds. Cypress wetlands for water management,recycling, and conservation. Second AnnualRep., National Science Foundation and RockefellerFoundation Center for Wetlands, University ofFlorida,Gainesville.Duever, M.J., J.E. Carlson, L.A. Riopelle, and L.C.Duever. 1978. Ecosystem analysis at CorkscrewSwamp. Pages 534-570 in H.T. Odum and K.C. Ewel,cds. Cypress wetlands for water management, recycling,and conservation. 4th Annual Rep. NationalScience Foundation and the Rockerfeller FoundationCenter for Wetlands, University ofFlorida, Gainesville.Duke, R.W., and R.B. Chabreck. 1976. Waterfowl habitatin lake..

eport. Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group,Tampa. 39 pp.Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. 1982b.Florida Acid Deposition Study: Source attributionevaluation: Phase II summary report. Florida ElectricPower Coordinating Group, Tampa. 46 pp.Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc. 1984.Florida Acid Deposition Study: Phase III report.Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Tampa.518 pp.EPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.ESE. See Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc.Estevez, E.D. 1981. A review of scientific information:Charlotte Harbor (Florida) estuarine ecosystemcomplex. Final Rep. Southwest Florida Regional PlanningCouncil, Fort Myers. Mote Mar. Lab. Rev. Ser. 3.1,077 pp.Evans, M., and T. Brungardt. 1978. Shoreline analysis ofSarasota County bay systems with regard to revegetationactivities. Pages 193-206 in D.P. Cole, ed. Fmc.5th Annual Conferenceon restomtion ofcoastal vegetationin Florida. Environmental Studies Center,Hillsborough Community College, TampaEwel, J., R. Myers, L. Conde, and B. Sedlik. 1976. Studiesof vegetation changes in south Florida. ResearchAgreement No. 18-492. University of Florida,Gainesville, and U.S. Forest Service.Fable, W.A., Jr., and C.R. Saloman. 1974. The recreationalfishery on three piers near St. Petersburg,Florida during 1971. Mar. Fish. Rev. 36(10): 14-18.FEC. See Florida Board ofConservation.FDER. SeeFlorida DepartmentofEnvironmental Regulation.FDNR. See Florida Department ofNatural Resources.Federal Water Pollution Control Administmtion (FWP­CA). 1%9. Problems and management of water qualityin Hillsborough Bay, Florida. Federal Water PollutionControl Administmtion. Washington, D.C.Fernandez. M., Jr. 1978. Water quality data from a landfill,Pinellas County, Florida U.S. Goo!. Surv. Open­File Rep. 78-822.Fernandez. M., Jr. 1983. Municipal solid-waste disposaland groundwater quality in a coastal environment:west-central Florida. U.S. Goo!. Surv., Wat.-Resour.Invest. 83-4072, Tallahassee, FL. 29 pp.Fernandez, M.,Jr. andR.R. Hallbourg. 1978. Waterqualitydata for landfills, Hillsborough County, Florida,References261January 1974 - October 1977. U.S. Goo!. Surv. Open­File Rep. 78-820.Fernandez, M., Jr., c.L. Goetz, and J.E. Miller. 1984.Evaluation offuture base-flow wateT-quality conditionsin the Hillsborough River, Florida. U.S. Geol. Surv.,Wat.-Resour. Invest. 83-4182. Tallahassee, FL. 1 pp.Fernandez-Partaga~,J. and C.N.K. Mooers. 1975. A subsynopticstudy of winter cold fronts in Florida.Monthly Weather Rev. 103(8): 742-744.Finucane, J.R. and R.W. Campbell II. 1968. Ecology ofAmerican oysters in OldTampaBay, Florida. Q. J. Fla.Acad. Sci. 31: 37-46.Finucane, J.H. and A. Dmgovich. 1959. Counts ofred tideorganisms Gymnodinium breve and associated oceanographicdata from Florida west coast, 1954-1957. U.S.Fish Wildt Servo Spec. Rep. 289. 220 pp.Finucane, J.R. and A. Dmgovich. 1966. Hydrographicobservations in Tampa Bay, Florida, and adjacent Gulfof Mexico waters-l%3. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., DataRep. 14.Florida Board ofConservation (FBe). 1954. Summary ofobserved minfall on Florida to 31 December 1952. Fla.BoardConserv., Div. Water Surv. Res. Pap. 11.Florida Bureau ofGeology. 1980. Evaluation ofpre-July1975 disturbed phosphate lands. Florida DepartmentofNatural Resources, Tallahassee.Florida Department of Environmental Regulation(FDER). 1977. Ambient air quality. FDER, Bureau ofAir Quality Management, Tallahassee. 116 pp.Florida Department of Environmental Regulation(FDER). 1978. Proposed revision to the State implementationplan for nonattainment areas. TalIahasee.Florida Department of Environmental Regulation(FDER). 1979a. Revision to the State implementationplan for nonattainment areas; attachment 4, HillsboroughCounty, transportation control plan. Tallahassee.24pp.Florida Department of Environmental Regulation(FDER). 1979b. Revision to the State implementationplan for nonattainment areas; attachment 5, PinellasCounty, transportation control plan. Tallahassee. 59pp.Florida Department of Environmental Regulation(FDER). 1980. 1980 water quality inventory for theState of Florida. Bureau of Water Analysis, Tallahassee.294pp.Florida Department of Environmental Regulation(FDER). 1982. 1982 water quality inventory for the

State of Florida. Bureau of Water Analysis, Tallahassee.334 pp.Florida Department of Environmental Regulation(FDER). 1983. Nonpoint a

Carolina,RPI/R/82rm-15. Florida Department ofVeteranand Community Affairs, Tallahassee.Gilbert, C.R. 1976. Atlantic sturgeon. Pages 275-281 inInventory of rare and endangered biota of Florida.Florida Audubon Society and Florida Defenders of theEnvironment, University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.Gilbert, T. 1977. Florida phosphate mine reclamation andwildlife: an overview, preliminary findings. Jobprogress report mimeo. Florida Game and Fresh WaterFish Commission, Bureau of Environmental Protection,Tallahassee. 81 pp.Gilbert, T., T. King, and B. Barnett. 1981. An assessmentof wetland habitat establishment at a central Floridaphosphate mine site. U.S. Fish WildI. Serv., BioI. ServoProgram FWSIOBS-81/38. 95 pp.Giovanelli, RF. 1981. Relation between freshwater flowand salinity distributions in the Alafia River, BullfrogCreek, and Hillsborough Bay, Florida. U.S. GeoI.Surv., Wat.-Resour. Invest. 80-102. 62 pp.Godcharles, M.F. 1971. A study of the effects of acommercial hydraulic clam dredge on benthic communitiesin estuarine areas. Fla. Dep. Nat. Resour. Mar.Res. Lab., Tech. Ser. No. 64. 51 pp.Goetz, c.L. and C.R Goodwin. 1980. Water quality ofTampa Bay, Florida, June 1972-M:ay 1976. U.S.Geol.Surv. Wat-Resour. Inv. 80-12. 49 pp.Goin, C.J. 1958. Comments upon the origin of theherpetofaunaofFlorida. Q. J. Fla. Acad. Sci. 21(1): 61­70.Goodell, RG. and D.S. Gorsline. 1961. A sedimentologicalstudy ofTampa Bay, Florida Pt. 23, Pages 75-88 in21st Intemation Geological Congress, Copenhagen,1960.Goodins, J.W., R.F. Fisher, W.S. Garbett, and V.W.Carlisle. 1982. Interpreting soils for pine production.Pages 91-102 in V.W. Carlisle and RB. Brown, eds.Florida soil identification handbook. University ofFlorida, Soil Science Department, Gainesville, and U.S.Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.Goodwin, C.R 1977. Circulation patterns for historical,existing, and proposed channel configurations inHillsborough Bay, Florida. International NavigationCongress, 24th Proceedings. 13 pp.Goodwin, C.R. 1980. Preliminary simulated tidal flowand circulation patterns in Hillsborough Bay, Florida.U.S. Geol. Surv. Open-File Rep. 80-1021. 25 pp.References263Goodwin, C.R. 1981. Effective channel dredging andtidal flow in Tampa Bay. Seminar, Florida DepartmentofEnvironmental Regulation, Tallahassee.Goodwin, C.R, J.S. Rothshein, and D.M. Michaelis.1974. Water quality of Tampa Bay, Florida. Dryweather conditions, June 1971. U.S. GeoI. Surv. Open­File Rep. 74-026. 85 pp.Gorelick, S. 1975. Southwest Florida regional hydrologyand water supply. New College Environmental StudiesProgram, University of South Florida, Sarasota. 115pp.Grady, J.R 1981. Properties of seagrass and sandflatsediment for the intertidal zone of St. Andrews Bay,Florida. Estuaries 4: 335-344.Green,J. 1968. Thebiology ofestuarine animals. Universityof Washington Press, Seattle. 401 pp.Gruber, A. 1%8. The energy budget and climatologicaldescription of the atmosphere over the Florida peninsulawhen a convective regime dominates. Ph.D.Dissertation. Florida State University, Tallahassee.Gruber, A. 1969. Energy budget and climatology of theatmosphere over the Florida peninsula. U.S. ArmyElect. Comm., Tech. Rep. ECOM-04367-F. 64 pp.Guimond, RJ. and S.T. Windham. 1975. Radioactivitydistribution in phosphate products, by-products,effluents, and waters. U.S. Environ. Prot Agency,Criteria Stand. Div., Tech. Note ORP/CSD 75-3: 1-32.Gutfreund, P.D. 1978. Florida sulfur oxides study no. 2­dispersion, meteorology, and climatology. Dames andMoore, Inc., Atlanta. 3 vols.Haddad, K. 1982. Hydrographic factors associated withwest Florida toxic red blooms: an assessment for satelliteprediction and monitoring. M.S. Thesis. UniversityofSouth Florida, Tampa.Haddad, K. and K.D. Carder. 1979. Oceanic intrusion:one possible initiation mechanism ofred tide blooms onthe west coast ofFlorida. Pages 269-274 in D.L. Taylorand RR Selinger, cds. Toxic dinoflagellate blooms.Elsevier, New York.Hafer, FL. and CE. Palmer. 1978. Southwest FloridaWater Management District Atlas. Southwest FloridaWater M:anagement District, Brooksville. 58 pp.Hall, J.R., and W.N. LindalI, Jr. 1974. Benthicmacroinvertebrates and sediments from upland eanalsin Tampa Bay, Florida. Nat .Mar. Fish. Serv., Data Rep.94. Seattle. 221 pp.Haller,W.T. 1977. Hydrilla. Univ.F1a.,InstFood Agric.Sci. Cire. S-245. Gainesville.

Hamm, D., and HJ. Humm. 1976. Benthic algae of theAnclote Estuary. n. Bottom-dwelling species. F1or.Sci. 39: 209-229.Hand, J., and D. Jackman. 1984. Water quality inventoryfor the State of Florida. Florida Department of EnvironmentalRegulation, Bureau of Water Analysis, Tallahassee.Hardin, S. and J. Atterson. 1980. E.cological effect,> ofgrass carp introduction in Lake Wales, Florida. FloridaGame and Freshwater Fish Commission, Tallahassee.95pp.Harper, R.M. 1927. Natural resources ofsouthern Florida.Fla. Gool. Surv., 18th Ann. Rep.: 125-206.Harris, B.A., K.D. Haddad, K.A. Steidinger, and J.A. Huff.1983. Assessment of fisheries habitat: CharlotteHarbor and Lake Worth, florida. Final report forcontract period Nov. 18 through Nov. 30, 1982. FloridaDepartment of Natural Resources, Bureau of MarineResearch Laboratory, St. Petersburg. 211 pp.lbrtigan, J.P. and SA Hanson-Walton. 1984. Tributarystream flows and pollut.1nt loadings

ReferencesHickey,J.J.andG.L.Barr. 1979. Hydrogeologic data foru'1e Bear Creek subsurface injection test site, St. Petersburg,Florida. U.S. Geol. Surv. Open-File Rep. 78-853.104 pp.Hickey, U. and R.M. Spechler. 1979. Hydrogeologicdata for the southwest subsurface injection test site, St.Petersburg, Florida. U.S. Geot Surv. Open-File Rep.78-852.Hickey,J,J. and WE. Wilson. 1982. Resultsofdeep-wellinjection testing at Mulberry, Florida. U.S. Geot Surv.Wa1.-Resour. Inv. 81-75. 15 pp.Hicks, D.B. and LA Burns. 1975. Mangrove metabolicresponse to alterations ofnatural freshwater drainage tosouthwestern Florida estuaries. Pages 238-255 in G.Walsh, S. Snedaker, and H. Teas, eds. Proceedings ofthe international symposium on the biology and managementof mangroves. University of Florida,Gainesville.Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission(HCEPC). 1982. Environmental Quality, 1980:Hillsborough County, Florida. HCEPC Rep. Tampa,FL.Hillsoorough County Environmental Protection Commission(HCEPC). 1983. Environmental Quality, 1981:Hillsborough County, Florida. HCEPC Rep. Tampa,FL.Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission(HCEPC). 1984. Environmental Quality, 1982:Hillsborough County, Florida. HCEPC Rep. Tampa,FL.Hilmon, J.B. and CEo Lewis. 1962. Effects ofburning onsouth Florida range. U.S. Forest Service, SoutheastResearch Station. 12 pp.HirtJl, D.H. and W.R Marion. 1979. Bird communities ofa soup"! Florida flatwoods. Fla. Sci. 42(3): 142-151.Ho, F.P., R.W. Schwerdt, and H.Y. Goodyear. 1975.Some climatological characteristics of hurricanes andtropical stonns, Gulf and east coasts,of the UnitedStates. Nat. Ocean. Atmos. Admin. Tech. Rep. NWS15.Hobbs, H.B., Jr. 1942. The crayfishes of Florida. Univ.Fla., BioI. Sci. Ser. 3(2): 1-179. Gainesville.Hoffman, W.E. and CJ. Dawes. 1980. Photosyntheticrates and primary production by two Florida benthic redalgal species from a salt marsh and a mangrove community.Bun. Mar. Sci. 30: 358-364.Holcomb, D. 1965. A study of stocking rations of warmwater fishes, management research. Florida Game andFresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee.265Holle, RL. 1971. Effects of cloud condensation nucleidue to fires and surface sources during south Floridadroughts. J. Appl. Meteorol. 10: 62-69.Hopkins, T.L. 1973. Zooplankton. Pages IIIF-1-IIIF-1Oin J.l. Jones, et al., cds. Asummary ofknowledge oftheeastern Gulf of Mexico. Martin Marietta Aerospace,Orlando, FL.Hopkins, TL. 1977. Zooplankton distribution in surfacewaters of Tampa Bay, Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. GulfCaribb. 27(3): 467-478.Hosler, C.R. 1%1. Low-level inversion frequency in thecontiguous United States. Monthly Weather Rev. 89:319.Huff, J.A. 1975. Life history ofGulf ofMexico sturgeon,Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi. in Suwannee River,Florida. Flor. Dep. Nat. Resour., Mar. Res. Lab., Flor.Mar. Res. Publ. 16. 32 pp.Hughes, R.H. 1974. Management and utilization ofpineland threeawn range in south Florida. J. RangeMange. 27(3): 186-192.Hughes, M.A., and J. Parks. 1977. A study of the effectsof entrainment and thermal discharge on the phytoplanktoncommunity at Big Bend, Tampa Bay (Florida).Pages 3-i --3-108 in RD. Garrity, W.J. TiffanyIII, and S. Mahadevan (cds.) Ecological studies at BigBend Steam Electric Station. Tampa Electric Company.Hulet, W.H., SJ. Masel, L.B. Jodrey, and R.G. Wehr.1967. The role of calcium in the survival of marineteleosts in dilute seawater. Bull. Mar. Sci. 17: 677-688.Humm, H,J. 1956. Seagrasses of the northern gulfcoast.Bull. Mar. Sci. 6: 305-308.Humm, HJ. 1973. Seagrasses. Pages IIIC1-IIIClO in J.l.Jones, RE. Ring, M.O. Rinkel, and RE. Smith, cds. Asummary of knowledge of the eastern Gulf of Mexico1973. State University System Institute of Oceanography,St. Petersburg, FL.Humm, HJ., RC. Baird, KL. Carder, TL. Hopkins, andT.E. Pyle. 1971. Ancloteenvironmental project annualreport, 1970. Univ. South Fla., Mar. Sci. lnst., Contrib.No. 29. S1. Petersburg.Hunn, J.D. 1974. Hydrology ofLake Tarpon near TarponSprings. Fla. Dep. Nat. Resour., Bur. Geol. Map Ser.No. 60.Hunter, M.E. 1978. What is the Caloosahatehee Marl? InSoutheastern Geological Society guidebook No. 20;Hydrogeology of south-central Flonda. 22nd FieldConference, Southeastern Geological Society, WestPalm Beach, FL.

BUliChinson. C.B. AppraIsal of $!laUow li[1U\mowaterresoun::c,'1andin theuppt'\tPeac~ andflorida.U.S. Gool.Invt\"lt. n·t24. 57 pp.HUlchirlSOO, C.B. and J.W. Stewart 1978. GelclhydrolOiticevaluation ofalandfIll in acoa'ltal area, St. Petersburg,Florida. U.S. Gent Surv., Wat.·Resour. InvC$l. 77·78.4Opp.Hutehinson, 1967. A treatise ol1limnology. Vol. 2:Introduction to lake biology and the limnopl'l11kton.lohn Wiley and Sons, Inc.• New York.l,l15 pp.Hutton, R.F.,B. Idled, KO. Woodburn, and R.M. Ingle.1956. 'l1le ecology of Boca Ciega Bay with specialref«ence to dredging and filling operations. F1a. StateBoard Ctmlre.rv., Tech. No. 17. 87 pp.Hyd~ience Research Group. Inc. 1980. Preliminaryevaluation ofthe water supplies in the Cow PenSI()Ugharea. S()ulhwestFltxlda Water MMagemelllDI$trict. H)'droscicnce Resean::h Group, Inc.• Lukeland.l:lL.Inglc.J.C. 1962. The mov

Kurz, H. 1942. Florida dunes and scrub vegetation andgeology. Fla. State Geol. Surv. Bull. 23. 154 pp.Kurz, H., and K.A. Wagner. 1953. Factors in cypressdome development. Ecology 34: 157-164.Kurz, H., and K. Wagner. 1957. Tidal marshes ofthe Gulfand Atlantic coasts ofnorthern Florida and Charleston,SC. Fla. State Univ. Stud. No. 24. 168 pp.Kushlan, JA 1974. Effects of a natural fish kill on thewater quality, plankton and fish population ofa pond inthe Big Cypress Swamp, Florida. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.103: 235-243.Kushlan, lA., and T.E. Lodge. 1974. Ecological anddistributional notes on the freshwater fish of southernFlorida. Fla. Sci. 37(2): 110-128.Kushlan, JA, and D.A. White. 1977. Nesting wadingbird populations in southern Florida. Fla. Sci. 40: 65­72.Laessle, A.M. 1942. The plant communities of theWelaka area. Univ. Fla., BioI. Sci. Ser. 4(1): 1-143.Lane, E. 1980. Environmental geology series - West PalmBeach sheet. Fla. Dep. Nat. Resour., Bur. Geo!., MapSer. 100. Tallahassee.Lane, E., M.S. Knapp, and T. Scott. 1980. Environmentalgeology series - Fort Pierce sheet. Fla. Dep. Nat.Resour., Bur. Geol., Map Ser. 80. Tallahassee.Langford, F. 1974. Striped bass program status report ­1974 Fish Management Report, South Florida Region.Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, Tallahassee.II pp.Lanquist, E.E. 1953. Peace and Alafia rivers streamsanitation studies 1950-1953. Vol. 2, Suppl. 2: Abiological survey of the Peace River, Florida. FloridaState Board of Health, Jacksonville. 75 pp.LaPoint RE., L.D. Williams, J.C. Goldman, and J.H.Ryther. 1976. The mass outdoor culture of macroscopicmarine algae. Aquaculture 8: 3-21.Layne, IN. 1974. The land mammals of south Florida.Pages 386-413 in Gleason, P.J., ed. Environments ofsouth Florida: present and past. Miami Geo!. Soc.Mem.2.Layne, J.N. 1978. Rare and endangered biota of Florida.Vol. 1: Mammals. University Presses of Florida,Gainesville. 52 pp.References267Layne, J.N., J.A. Stallcup, G.E. Woolfenden, M.N.McCauley, and DJ.Worley. 1977. Fish and wildlifeinventory of the seven county region included in thecentral Florida phosphate industry areawide environmentalimpact study. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Washington, D.C. 3 vols.Lazor. 1973. Aquatic plants ofprincipal concern,Chapter5. In RL. Lyerly, N.W. Walls, and M.T. Sweeney, cds.An evaluation of aquatic weed control methods forpower plant coding reservoir. Fla. Power Light Co.,Environ. Eng. Tech. Rep. Ser.73-3. Miami.Leendertse, J.J. 1967. Aspects ofa computational modelfor long period water wave propagation. Rand Corporation,Santa Monica, Calif.Lehman, M.E. 1976. Collier County: Growth pressure ina wetlands wilderness. Florida Bureau of ComprehensivePlanning. Tallahassee. 59 pp.Lewis, R.R., M.J. Durako, M.D. Moffler, and R.C.Phillips. 1985. Seagrass meadows of Tampa Bay - areview. Pages 210-246 in S.F. Treat, J.L. Simon, R.R.Lewis III, and RL. Whitman, Jr., cds. Proceedings,Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium,May 1982. University of South Florida, Tampa.Lewis, RR, and E. Estevez. 1988. Theecology ofTampaBay, Florida: An estuarine profile. U.S. Fish Wildl.Servo BioL Rep. 85(7.18). 132 pp.Lewis, RR, and C.S. Lewis. 1978. Colonial bird use andplant succession on dredged material islands in Florida,Vol. 2: Patterns of plant succession. U.S. Army CorpEng., Waterways Exp. Sta. Tech. Rep. D-78-14.Vicksburg, Miss. 169 pp.Lewis, RR and RC. Phillips. 1980. Seagrass mappingproject, Hillsborough County, Florida. Tampa PortAuthority. 30 pp.Lewis, RR and R.C. Phillips. 1981. Occurrence ofseedand seedlings ofThalassia testudinum Banks ex Konigin the Florida Keys (U.S.A.) Aquat. Bot. 9:377-380.Lewis, RR, and RL. Whitman. 1985. A new geographicdescription of the boundaries and subdivisions ofTampa Bay. Pages 10-18 in SF. Treat, J.L. Simon,RR Lewis III, and R.L. Whitman, Jr., cds. Proceedings,Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium,May 1982. University ofSouth Florida, Tampa.Lincer,J.L.,etal. 1975. Theccologica1statusofDonaandRobert's Bays and its relationship to Cow Pen Sloughand other possible perturbations. Board of CountyCommissioners, Sarasota County. Mote Marine Lab.,Sarasota, FL.Lindall, W.N., Jr., W.A. Fable, Jr., and L.A. Collins. 1975.Additional studies of the fishes, macroinvertebrates,and hydrological conditions ofupland canals in TampaBay, Florida. U.S. Natl. Mar. Fish. Servo Fish. Bull. (1):81-85.

T'he OCCllrre:m:.e (1«' .4UYI'I~.• l!', cbm:aS amd UJfmRi(l"HI..md JR 1972,C'uu,mne mvenlJnry andllbll~ i:An,"Ji Nat, Mltr.:~, 126pp,M""l~lrill:~n SJ%. 197 1 ), L.Mlid CO'ltt:tarea, l'Cntfw fk'Jrida.•·1M(ridith,zmd W.S. We.tu~fhall 1961f'klfida. Fla.w41L- ~~e·!i{'tlf, In\'es't. :2:'L Till

Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 1983. Tampa Nationwide UrbanRunoff Program. Final Summary Report. DepartmentofPublic Works, City of Tampa, FL.Michewicz, JE., DL Sutton, and RD. Blackburn. 1972.The white amur for aquatic weed control. Weed Sci.20: 106-110.Miley, W.W. II, AJ. Leslie, Jr., andJ.M. Van Dyke. 1979.The effects of grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idellaval.) on vegetation and water quality in three centmlFlorida lakes. Florida Department of Natural Resources,Mimoo. 119 pp.Miller, J., and J. Morris. 1981. The Peace River. Chapter4 in E.D. Estevez, ed. A review of scientific infonnation:Charlotte Harbor (Florida) estuarine ecosystemcomplex. Report to Southwest Florida Regional PlanningCouncil, Fort Myers. Mote Mar. Lab. Rev. Ser. 3.1077 pp.Miller, RE., and H. Sutcliffe, Jr. 1982. Water-quality andhydrogeologic data for three phosphate industry wastedisposalsites in central Florida, 1979-80. U.S. Gool.Surv., Wat.-Resour. Invest. Rep. 81-84. Tallahassee,FL. 77 pp.Mills, L.R and c.P. Laughlin. 1976. Potentiometricsurface of Floridan aquifer, May 1975, and change ofpotentiometric surface 1969 to 1975, Southwest FloridaWater Management District and adjacent areas. U.S.Geo!. Surv., Wat.-Resour. Invest. 76-80. Tallahassee,FL. 1 p.Missimer,T.M. 1973. The depositional history ofSanibelIsland, Florida. M.S. Thesis. Florida State University,Tallahassee.Mitzner, L. 1978. Evaluation ofbiological control ofnuisanceaquatic vegetation by grass carp. Tmns. Am.Fish. Soc. 107(1): 135-145.Moe, M.A. 1964. A note on a red tide fish kill in TampaBay, Florida during April 1%3. Pages 122-125 in AcolleCtion of data in reference to red tide outbreaksduring 1963. Fla. State Board Conserv. Mar. Res. Lab.St. Petersburg.•Moe, M.A., Jr., and G.T. Martin. 1965. Fishes taken inmonthly trawl samples offshore of Pinellas County,Florida, with new additions to the fish fauna of theTampa Bay area. Tulane Stud. Zool. 12(4): 129-151.Monk, C.D. 1968. Successional and environmental relationshipsof the forest vegetation of north-centralFlorida. Am. MidI. Nat. 79(2): 411-457.Monk, C.D., and J.T. McGinnis. 1%6. Tree speciesdiversity in six forest types in north-central Florida. 1.Ecol. 54: 341-344.References269Montalbano, E, W.M. Hetrick, and T.C. Hines. 1978.Duck food habits in central Florida phosphate settlingponds. Pages 247-255 in D.E. Samuel, J.R. Stauffer,c.H. Hocutt, and W.T. Mason, eds. Proceedings ofSymposium on Surface Mining and Fish/WildlifeNeeds in the Eastern U.S. West Virginia Universityand the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 386 pp.Montalbano, F., S. Hardin, and W.M. Hetrick. 1979.Utilization of Hydrilla by ducks and coot in centralFlorida. Proc. Ann. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. FishWildl. Agencies 33: 36-42.Mooers, C.N.K., J. Fernandez-Partagas, and J.F. Price.1975. An evaluation of meteorological data fromseveral buoys of the NOAA data buoy office, easternGulfof Mexioo (1973-1974). Univ. Miami, RosenstielSchool Mar. Atmos. Sci. UM-RSMNS - No. 75030.Miami, FL.Morrill, S., and J. Harvey. 1980. An environmentalassessment of North Captiva Island. New CollegeEnviron. Stud. Program Pub!. 23. Sarasota, FL.Morrill, J.B., R Gasser, C.B. Morrill, and S. Baker. 1977.Final water quality report of the Lemon Bay complexstudy area. New College Environment Studies ProgramReport. SardSOta, FL. 30 pp.Morris, J. 1974. An ecological study of Upper Myakkalake with a special focus on water hyacinth andHydril/a. Unpublished thesis. New College EnvironmentalStudies Progmrn. Sarasota, FL.Morris, C.A. 1976. Macroinvertebrates and fish assampled by trawls and seines. Chapter 5 in Ecologicalsurveys of the Big Bend area. Tampa ElectricCompany, Marine Research Laboratory,Morris, J., and J. Miller. 1977. Estuaries affected by phosphatemining. M.S. Archbold Biological Station,University ofFlorida, Gainesville.Morris, J., J. Miller, W.K. Byle, and J.B. Morrill. 1978.Survey of the natural systems of Gasparilla Island,Florida, with special references to conservation, protection,restoration, and public use. Sarasota, FL.Mote Marine Laboratory. 1975. The ecological status ofDona and Robert's bays and its relationship to Cow PenSlough and other possible perturbations. Board ofCounty Commissioners, Sarasota County, FL.Motz, L.H. 1975. Hydrologic Effects of the TampaBypass Canal System. Fla. Bur. Gool. Rep. Inv. 82.Tallahassee. 42 pp.Murphy, W.R, Jr. 1968. Causes of flooding of LittleChariey Bowlegs Creek upstream of HighlandsHammock State Park, Florida. U.S. Geo!. Surv. Open­File Rep. 68-004. Tallaha..

Murray. G.E. 1963. Geologic history and fnul1cwork ofGulf.Atlantic geosyncline (abstract). Am. Assoc.Petro!. Geol. Bull. 47: 364-365.Myers. R.t. 1975. The relationship of site conditions tothe invading capability of Melaleuca quinquenervitl insouthwest Horida. M.S. Thesis. University ofHorida.Gainesville.Myers, R.L. 1976. Mda/(tw;a field slHdics. In J. Ewe!. R.Me~\d()r, R. Myers, L Conde, ,md B. Sedlik, cds. Stud·ies of vcgetadon changes in south Florida. U.S. ForestServk:e, Rese.an:h Agreement 18-492.Myers, V.B.. and H.L. Edmiston. 1983. Florida lakeclassification and prioritization projC'~t #S004388:Final rCjx)f1,. Aa. Dep. Environ. Regul., Tallahassee.18pp.Neill. W:r. 1954. Ranges and taxonomic allcx.1ltions ofamphibians and reptiks in the southe~SlCm UnitedState,s. Publ. Res. Div., Ross Allen Rept. Inst. 1(1): 75··96. Ocala. FL.Neill, W:r. 1957. Historical biogeography ofpn.:sent dayFlorida. Bull. Ha. SUite Mus. 2(7): 175·220.Neill, w:1'. 1958. 'I1l(~

Peek, H.M. 1959. The artesian water ofthe Ruskin area ofHillsborough County, Florida. U.S. Geol. Surv., Bull.1092. 111 pp.Penfound, W.T., and T.T. Earle. 1948. The biology ofthewater hyacinth. Ecol. Monogr. 18: 447-472.Penman, H.L. 1948. Natural evaporation from openwater, bare soil, or gra'>S. Proc. Roy. Soc., Ser. A. 193:120-145.Perkins, RD., and P. Enos. 1968. Hurricane Bel,>y in theFlorida-Bahama,> area: gc,ologic effects and comparisonwith Hurricane Donna. J. Geol. 76: 710-717.Peterson, C.H., and N.M. Peterson. 1979. The ecology ofintertidall1aL'> of North Carolina: a community profile.U.S. Fish WildI. Servo BioI. Servo Program. f

i9n~ni~IU.W lil~(inrl wl~r in!) ~di~~la.'t~ ~'«'lm.lllia,rbkJ.jt Gnmnd W~',!.==,=~e"-~_~'f,,,",__ ~! Ki~gmnlJe~dt>\ln;\~~eM."'If~","",,"','" ,,", TllUft,,'iiI."cC,212

RounsefeU, G.A., and W.R Nelson. 1966. Red tideresearch summarized to 1964 including an annotatedbibliography. U.S. Fish Wildt Servo S}XX:. Sci. Rep.535. 85 pp.Roush, RB. 1985. Terraces and soils of the Tampa Bayarea. Pages 33-52 in S.P. Treat, J.L. Simon, RRLewis ill, and R.L. Whitman, Jr., eds. Proceedings,Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium,May 1982. Burgess Publishing Co., Inc., Minneapolis,MN. Available from TampaBASIS, P.O. Box 290197,Tampa, FL 33687.Ryder, P.D. 1978. Model evaluation ofthe hydrogeologyof the Cypress Creek well field in west-central Florida.U.S. Geol. Surv., Wat.-Resour. Invest. 78-79. 68 pp.Saloman, C.R. 1964. The shrimp Trachypenaeus similisin Tampa Bay. Q. J. Fla. Acad. Sci. 27: 165.Saloman, C.H. 1%5. Bait shrimp (Penaeus duorarum) inTampa Bay, Florida - biology, fishery economics, andchanging habitat. U.S. Fish Wildl. Servo Spec. Sci.Rep. Fish. 561. 6 pp.Saloman, C.R. 1%8. Diel and seasonal occurrence ofpink shrimp Penaeus duorarum Barkenroad, in twodivergent habitats of Tampa Bay, Florida. U.S. FishWildt Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish. 561. 6 pp.Saloman, C.H. 1974. Physical, chemical, and biologicalcharacteristics ofnearshore zone of Sand Key, Florida,prior to beach restoration. National Marine FisheriesService, Gulf Coastal Fisheries Center, Panama CityLaboratory, Panama City, FL. ISA No. CERC 73-27,Vol. 1 and 2.Saloman, C.R., and S.P. Naughton. 1979. Fishes of thelittoral zone, Pinellas County, Florida. Fla. Sci. 42(2):85-93.Saloman, C.H., and J.L. Taylor. 1972. Hydrographicobservations in Tampa Bay, Florida - 1969. Nat Mar.Fish. Serv., Data Rep. 73: 1-82.Santos, S.L. 1972. Distribution and abundance of thepolychaetous annelids in Lassing Park, $t Petersburg,Florida M.A. Thesis. University of South Florida,Tampa. 67 pp.

pn)'!UCt~viIIY 0( (k::,~ntbl(: fi'lht'::ririiLBun'~~i,l of' Fi:~~·\\lii!dbi~_ \\fli,1itiltrl~ton, r»,

ReferencesSprinkle, C.L. 1982. Dissolved-solids concentration inwater from the upper permeable zone of the Tertiarylimestone aquifer system, southeastern United States.U.S. Geol. Surv., WaL-Resour. Invest., Open-File Rep.82-94 (map). Atlanta.Spmnt, A., Jr. 1954. Florida bird life. Coward-McCann,Inc., New York. 527 pp.Stahl, L.E. 1970. The marine geology of Tampa Bay.M.S. Thesis. Florida State University, Tallahassee. 70pp.Steidinger, KA. 1973. Phytoplankton ecology: a conceptualreview base,d on eastern Gulf of Mexico research.eRC Crit. Rev. MicrobioI. 3(1): 49-68.Steidinger, KA. 1975a. Basic factors influencing redtides. Pages 153-162 in V.R. LoCicero, ed. Proceedingsof the first international conference on toxicdinoflagellate blooms. Massachusetl

(Je\l'e:I01Pf1'Wint in"""'V~'f. 153· 156,Po]tycl)~~)Ull :uulell1i1 andootllhicetlvin'ml'tlOOt~ in TwnpaPh,D,Unlvtl'Sit" off"kJritbl Gainesvil.le, pp,IUId inv~~mo;"'rM'tpaHlftx)fPrc}~t, U,S. An'ny (;()ff~ of" EI,gin

Turner, J.F., Jr. 1979. Streamflow simulation studies ofthe Hillsborough, Alafia, and Anclote Rivers, westcentralHorida. U.S. Gool. Surv., Water Resour. Invest78-102, Tallahassee. 161 pp.Turner, J.T. 1972. The phytoplankton of the Tampa Baysystem, Florida. M.S. Thesis. University of SouthHorida, Tampa. 188 pp.Turner, J.T., and T.L. Hopkins. 1985. The zooplankton ofTampa Bay: a review. Pages 328-344 in S.F. Treat,JL. Simon, RR. Lewis III, and R.L. Whitman, Jr., eds.Proceedings, Tampa Bay Area Scientific InformationSymposiwn, May 1982.Twilley, RR., W.M. Kemp, K.W. Stager, J.C. Stevenson,and W.R. Boynton. 1985. Nutrient enrichment ofestuarine submersed vascular plant communities. 1.Algal growth and effects on production of plants andassociated communities. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 23:179-191.USACE. see U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers.USAFETAC. 1974. NOAA military climatic summaryfor MacDill Air Foree Base, Tampa, Horida, for theperiod from May 1941 to July 1972. AWS Climaticbrief, National Climatic Center, Asheville, NC.U.S. Air Force. 1982. Weather for aircrews. Air ForceManual AFM 51-12, Vol. 1. Headquarters, Washington,D.C.U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1966. Beach erosioncontrol study on Pinellas County, Florida. JacksonvilleDistrict. Serial No. 14.U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1974. Final environmentalstatement; C-13S and lower Hillsborough Riverbasin; four river basins, Florida. Jacksonville DistrictU.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1978. Preliminary guideto wetlands of peninsular Horida. Major associationsand communities identified. U.S. Army EngineerWaterways Experiment Station, Environmental EffectsLaboratory, Vicksburg, MS. Tech. Rept Y-78-2. FinalRepOrt. 92pp. .U.S. Bureau of Mines. 1982. The Florida phosphateindustry's technological and environmental problems,a review. U.S. Bur. Mines, Info. Cire. 8914. TuscaloosaResearch Center, AL.USDA. See U.S. Department of Agriculture.U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Soil Conservation Service.1958. Soil survey of Hillsborough County, Florida.Gainesville, FL.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil ConservationService. 1959. Soil survey of Sarasota County,Florida. Gainesville, FL.References277U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil ConservationService. 1972. Soil survey ofPinellas County, Florida.Gainesville, FL.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil ConservationService. 1981. Soil surveys in Horida - a status reportReport FY-73-80. Gainesville, FL.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil ConservationService. 1982. Soil survey of Pasco County, Florida.Gainesville, FL.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil ConservationService. 1983. Soil survey of Manatee County,Horida. Gainesville, FL.USDC. See U.S. Department ofCommerce.U.S. Department ofCommerce (USDC). 1953. Climaticswnmary of the U.S. - supplement for 1931 through1952,Florida. (Bulletin W Supplement). U.S. WeatherBur., Climatol. U.S., No. 11-6. 36 pp.U.S. Department ofCommerce (USDC). 1957. Surveyofmeteorological factors pertinent to reduction ofloss oflife and property in hurricane situations. Nat HurricaneRes. Proj. Rep. No.5.U.S. Department ofCommerce (USDC). 1964. Climaticsummary of the U.S. - supplement for 1951 through1960, Florida. (Bulletin W Supplement). U.S. WeatherBur., Climatog. O.S., No. 86-6. 61 pp.U.S. Department of Commerce (USDC). 1978. Localclimatological data 1977: annual summary withcomparative data-Lakeland. National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA). NationalClimate Center, Asheville, NC. 4 pp.U.S. Department of Commerce (USDC). 1981. Localclimatological data 1980: annual summary withcomparative data-Tampa. National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA). NationalClimate Center, Asheville, NC. 4 pp.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1972.Identification of plan. 40CPR 52.520.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1976.Detailed source emission data for 1976 for phosphateindustry sources. Region IV, Atlanta, GA.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1977.Compilation of air }X>llutant.emission. factors. AP-ZPts. A and B. 2nd ed. Office of Air and Waste Management.Washington, DC.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1977.Reporton Lake Tarpon,·PinellasCol.iritY,· Florida.National Eutrophication Survey. National EnvironmentalResearch Center, Corvallis, OR.

Atlintll.U.S, EnviroRlfl(tnll! J~~;fk,ni,"lI;()

ReferencesWilson, W.E., and J.M. Gerhart. 1980. Simulated effectof ground-water development on potentiometricsurface of the Floridan aquifer, west-eentral Florida.U.s. Geo!. Surv., Wat.-Resour. Invest. Open-File Rep.79-127 L Tallahassee.Wilson, W.E., D.C. Parsons, and RM. Spechler. 1979.Hydrologic data for a subsurface waste-injection site atMulberry, Florida, 1972-1977. U.S. Geo!. Surv. Open­File Rep. 79-683. 33 pp.Wolansky, RM., L.R. Mills, W.M. Woodham, and C.P.Laughlin. 1978. Potentiometric surface of Floridanaquifer, Southwest Florida Water Management Districtand adjacent areas, May 1978. U.S. Goo!. Surv. Open­File Rep. 78-720. 1 p.Wolansky, RM., G.L. Barr, and RM. Spechler. 1979.Generalized configuration ofthe bottom ofthe FloridanAquifer, Southwest Florida Water ManagementDistrict. U.S. Geol. Surv., Wat.-Resour. Invest. 79­1490.Wolansky, RM., F.P. Haeni, and RE. Sylvester. 1983.Continuous seismic-reflection survey defining shallowsedimentary layers in the Charlotte Harbor and Veniceareas, southwest Florida. U.S. Geol. Surv., Wat.­Resour. Invest. 82-57.Wood, D.A. 1989. Official lists ofendangered and potentiallyendangerd fauna and flora in Florida, 1July 1989.Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission,Tallahassee. 19 pp.Woodall, S. 1978. Melaleuca in Florida. U.S. ForestService, Lehigh Acres, FL. 27 pp.Woodall, S.L. 1982. Seed dispersal in Melaleucaquinquenervia. Fla. Sci. 45(2): 81-93.Woodburn, KD. 1961. Summary ofseagrass and marinealgae studies and seagrass cultures as performed byRonald C. Phillips for the Florida State Board ofConservaton Marine Laboratory. Pages 432-434 inD.S. Gosline (00), Proc. first national coastal and shallowwater research conference, National Science Foundationand Office ofNaval Research.Woodburn, KD. 1959. Survey ofproposed Papys Bayoudredge and fill, P.L. Bartow Power Plant area, PinellasCounty, Florida. Fla State Board Conserv. Mar. Res.Lab. Bull. No. 59-3. 9 pp.Woodburn, KD. 1962. Marine life and conservation inthe Johns Pass Zone of Boca Ciega Bay, PinellasCounty. Fla. State BoardConserv. Mar. Res. Lab. Bull.No. 62-3. 20 pp.Woodley, W.L. 1970. Precipitation results from a pyrotechniccumulus seeding experiment. J. Appl. Meteor.9: 242-257.Woodley, W.L., A. Olsen, A. Herndon, and V. Wiggert.1974. Optimizing the measurement ofconvective rainfallin Florida. Nat. Ocean. Atmos. Admin., Tech.Memo. ERL WMPO-18. 98 pp.Wooley, C.M. and EJ. Crateau. 1985. Movement, microhabitatexploitation, and management of Gulf ofMexico sturgeon, Apalachicola River, Florida. N.Amer. J. Fish. Manage. 5(4): 590-605.Woolfenden, G.E. 1983. Rare, threatened, and endangeredvertebrates of southwest Florida and potentialOCS activity impact. U.S. Fish Wildl. Servo FWS/OBS-82103. 64 pp.Wright, A.P. 1974. Environmental geology and hydrology,Tampa area, Florida. Fla. Dep. Nat. Resour., Bur.Goo!., Spec. Publ. No. 19. Tallahassee. 94 pp.Wyllie, M. 1981. Final report-evapotranspiration studyfor Southwest Florida Water Management District.Southwest Florida Water Management District,Brooksville. 142 pp.Yobbi, DK 1982. Trends and fluctuations in the potentiometricsurface of the Floridan aquifer, west-centralFlorida, 1961-80. U.S. Geo!. Surv., Wat.-Resour.Invest. 82-4086, Tallahassee.Young, EN. 1954. The water beetles ofFlorida. Univ. ofFla., Stud. BioI. Sci. Sec. 5: 1-237.Zellars-Williams, Inc. 1980. Evaluation of Pre-July I,1975 disturbed phosphate lands. Florida Department ofNatural Resources, Bureau ofGeology, Tallahassee.Zieman, J.e. 1972. Origin of circular beds of Thalassia(Spermatophyta: Hydrocharitaeeae) in south BiscayneBay, Florida, and their relationship to. mangrovehammocks. Bull. Mar. Sci. 22(3): 559-574Zieman, J.e. 1982. Theecology ofthe seagrasses ofsouthFlorida: a community profile. U.S. Fish Wildt ServoOff. BioI. Servo FWS/OBS-82/25. 150 pp.279

280

AppendixAppendix Table A-I. Concluded.Miocene Hawthorne Highly variable mixture ofsilts, clays, sands, Northern boundary from1.5,10,11,12,14,15, limestone, dolomite, and phosphate. Typically Dunedin to N. Old Tampa16,17,18,19,20,21. a silty, sandy, phosphatic dolomite; yellowish- Bay to middle Hillsboroughgray to white; microcrystalline to very fine. Bay to Polk City. Dips toLimestone white or occasionally yellowish- south, southeast andgray to very pale orange, calcilutitesouthwest; max heightcrytocrystalline to microcrystalline, sandy, exceeds 100ft MSL in SEclayey, phosphatic and dolomitic. Clay; Hillsborough County, andyellowish-gray to light green to moderately dips to greater than -100ftdark gray, quartz silt and sand, micritic, MSL around Tampa Baydolomitic, phosphatic. Sand, light gray to very Harbor mouth. Generallypale orange to dusky yellow-green; very fine to thickens to south, thickest inmedium, angular to subangular, silty,band from Sarasota to ENEphosphatic. As many as three units recognized county line.in the Tampa area. An upper sand unit, amiddle phosphatic clay unit, and a lowerlimestone unit Middle unit is often combinedwith upper, lower, or both. Brooks(1982a)identified 5 facies statewide, three of whichexist in the Tampa area.Miocene Tampa (S1. Marks) Quartz sand limestone; soft to hard; white, Underlies most of the study1.5,10,11,12,14,15, light yellow, tan to gray; occasionally the area. Pinched out to north16,17,18,19, upper portion contains calcareous sands and where Suwannee limestone20,21,22,23. clays which grade downward to unconsolidated surfaces. Dips to WSW;or loosely cemented lime mud; upper portion attains maximum elevationcontains chert layers, silicified fossils, and in extreme NE study areaoccasional phosphate nodules or pebbles; very (50' MSL), minimumporous. Sandy, green and gray clay. Fine to elevation (-350' MSL) invery fine quartz sand. High density and vicinity ofTampa Harbora References1) Brooks 1982a2) Davis 19463) Doyle 19824) Cooke 19455) Heath and Smith 19546) Hunter 19787) Cathcartetal.19538) Altschuler eta!. 1964diversity of fossils; includes corals, echinoids,ostracods, foraminiferans and mollusks.9) Puri and Vernon 196410) Vernon and Puri 1964'11) Wright 197412) Dames and Moore 197513) TI 1978a14) Knapp 198015) Scott and MacGill198116) Carr and Alverson 1959mouth and City ofSarasota.Surfaces in NWHillsborough, N Pinellas,and SE Pasco County.Outcrops in HillsboroughR., Ballast Pt, and InterbayPeninsula. Few feet to 200ft thick.17) Peek 195918) Menke et al. 196119) Hutchinson and Stewart 197820) King and Wright 197921) Deuerling and MacGill198122) Wetterhalll96423) Mann 197224) Brown 1982b281

282us

AppendixAppendix Table A-3. Summary ofpoint- and areal-source emissions in west-central Florida (after TI 1978a).QTotal emissions (tIyr)1974 1976County Partlculates(T5P) 5°2 Partlculales(T5P) 5°2Hillsborough Areal sources 12,382 2,559 12,865 2,695Point sources 29,358 267,620 7,909 238,649Manatee Areal sources 3,091 326 3,121 348Point sources 399 746 614 5,593Polk Areal sources 10,983 841 11,199 901Point sources 31,125 119,010 8,127 45,080Sarasota Areal sources 2,806 328 2,901 349Point sources 115 175 115 175Total Areal sources 35,297 4,332 36,176 4,580Point sources 61,095 387,790 16,863 289,736All sources 96,392 392,122 53,039 294,316§Pinellas County was not included in this survey.283

H~Ui1154161241'I'6745234569'0Continued,284

AppendixAppendix Table A-4. Concluded.1974 1976TSP S02 TSP S02-----Source categ0'Y_____lIYi-___-!on/yr t/yr ton/yr t/yr ton/yr t/yr ton/yrPolk CountyMobile sourcesHighway 1,121 (1,233) 355 (390) 1,189 (1,308) 376 (414)Aircraft 3.6 (4) 1.8 (2) 4.5 (5) 2.7 (3)VesselsRailroad 61 (67) 140 (154) 68 (75) 155 (170)Off- highway 43 (47) 51 (56) 46 (51 ) 54 (59)Stationary fuel combustionNatural gasFuel oilCoal 116 (128) 225 (248) 124 (136) 245 (270)Liquid petroleum gasWoodBurningTrash Incineration 4.5 (5) 1.8 (2) 4.5 (5) 1.8 (2)Forest fires, agriculture1,705 (1,876) 1,705 (1,876)Other sourcesCitrus heating 345 (380) 66 (73) 345 (380) 61 (73)Fugitive dust 5,478 (6,026) 5,478 (6,026)Paved roads 2,106 (2,317) 2,235 (2,458)Total 10,983 (12,083) 841 (925) 11,199 (12,320) 895 (991 )Sarasota CountyMobile sourcesHighway 514 (565) 163 (179) 545 (599) 173 (190)AircraftVesselsRailroad 1.8 (2) 4.5 (5) 1.8 (2) 4.5 (5)O1f- highway 22 (24) 27 (30) 23 (25) 29 (32)Stationary fuel combustionNatural gasFuel oilCoal 65 (71) 132 (145) 69 (76) 141 (155)~Liquid petroleum gas -WoodBurningTrash Incineration 4.5 (5) 1.8 (2) 4.5 (5) 1.8 (2)Forest fires, agriculture 544 (599) 544 (599)Other sourcesCitrus heating 1.8 (2) 1.8 (2)Fugitive dust 688 (757) 688 (757)Paved roads 965 (1,061 ) 1,024 (1,126)Total 2,806 (3,086) 328 (361 ) 2,901 (3,191) 349 (384)285

AppendixAppendix Table A-7. Industrial dischargers in the Alafia River watershed (qfter Priede-Sedgwick, Inc. 1980;Hartigan and Hanson-Walton 1984).NameDesign/ADF (mgd)8Florida Dairy b. I .Gardinier, Inc. - 166.3Agrico Chemical Company - I -Agrico Chemical Company . I -Borden, Inc. - 14.26Borden, Inc. • I -Brewster Phosphate 0.005/-Brewster Phosphate - 114.57C.F. Chemicals, Inc. - 13.32Conserv - 114.0Electro-Phosphate Corp. - I -Estech General Chemical Corp. - 11.8Farmland industries - 13.27W.R. Grace & Company - 110.09W.R. Grace & Company - 14.67W.R. Grace & Company - 16.68Hopewell land Corp. - 14.42IMC Corporation - 11.44IMC Corporation - 16.70Mid-Florida Phosphate Corp. - I -Mobile Chemical Company - 112.9Mobile Chemical Company - I .Seaboard Coastline Railroad - 10.017TIA Minerals - I -(1.4)(43.7)(5.5)(4.6)(3.6)(N.D.)(2.9)(22.9)(6.0)(0.6)(19.1 )Royster (0.43)Amax (1.84)IMC Corporation (10.7)aData from Hartigan and Hanson-Walton (1984) survey.b(_) =not reportedimmediateFacility activityFeed lotChemical manufacturerPhosphate millingMineBig Four MineCoronet MineHaynesworth MineFort Lonesome MinePhosphate complexMineChemical manufacturerSilver City MineChemical manufacturerChemical manufacturerChemical manufacturerChemical manufacturerRecovery plantChemical manufacturerKingsford MineChemical manufacturerNichols MineChemical manufacturerFreight car yardSands and rock miningChemical manufacturerBig Four MineNoralynlPhosphoria MineReceiving WatersHillsborough BayHillsborough BayAlafia River - North ProngAlafia River - South ProngAlafia River - South ProngEnglish CreekAlafia River - South ProngAlafia River - South ProngAlafia RiverThirty Mile CreekAlafia River - North ProngAlafia River - South ProngAlafia River· North ProngAlafia River - South ProngAlafia RiverAlafia River - North ProngAlafia RiverAlafia River - South ProngAlafia River - South ProngAlafia River - North ProngThirty Mile BranchThirty Mile BranchWinston CreekAlafia River - North ProngAlafia River - South ProngAlafia River - South ProngAlafia River - South Prong287

BODTC(PtweoCond. (SUrf.) 3~J3(xl0(0)o.pth(fNt)Light 'oneff.flon(irW:M~)'WOfIMeqold.htNttfOOMNttnlt.2112414·34,117·4,2144t539·5413·1454tH)8·1619·1842131L3IU}1.2·1 ,411,l},1,11,311 ,2CL9·1,6fO.8·1 ,14, 8l3, 13.5·6,3r.tS·5,QIUl17.44,7·7.1/5,2,·11,0391340133~4312·66164·atJ-849/4167·lt1;oo·1101,211.01,1·L3IU),1.10,0610,06O.OfHl01IOJ.>S·(1090.4210,60OrgllrdcHltrogMTot••Hhtoo·n00 (top)0,43/0,6100(bohom)pHTot.,Pho5f,dmto$artntty (top)(Wt)$aUnlty (bottom)(Wt)Temp (middle)(1,17/112032/3024/24288

AppendixAppendix Table A-9. Aquatic macrophytes collectedfrom the Alafla and little Manatee Rivers (adaptedfromDames andMoore 1975).Sampling Statlons 8 ,bCommon nameScientific nameAlgaeStonewortCharasp.BryophytesFissidensFissidens sp.Vascular PlantsCattailTyphasp.Bur reedSparganium sp.Water-thread pondweedPotamogeton diversifoliusBushy pondweedNajas flexilisDwarf burheadEchinodorus parvulusWater plantainAlismasp.ArrowheadSagittaria sp.WaterweedElodea canadensisSpiker'ushEleocharis acicularisMinute duckweedLemna perpusillaWater-hyacinthEichhornia crassipesAlafla River-> Upstream ->A2 A3 A4 A5 A60(1 )0(1) 0(1)0(2) 0(3)0(2) 0(1) 0(2)little Manatee River-> Upstream ->lM2 lM3 lM4 lM5 lM60(2) 0(1)0(2) 0(2)0(1) 0(1) 0(1)oSouthern pickerelweedPontederia cordata var.lanceolataContinued.0(2)289

CommonMmeScIMtlfic mimeA!·ef. Rt"'e'-'ilo Upstrom-.Uttle Mana!" R!ver-> lJpstrea.m ->A2 A3 A4 AS AS LM2 LM3 LM4 LMS lMS290

AppendixAppendix Table A-10. Bloom species ofalgae detected in Tampa Bay during1981 (adaptedjromHCEPC 1982).MonthJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberlocationHillsborough BayHillsborough RiverMcKay BayTampa Bypass CanalRocky CreekUpper Tampa BayHillsborough BayMcKay BayAlafia RiverHillsborough BayHillsborough RiverMcKay BayTampa Bypass CanalDouble Branch CreekChannel "A"Rocky CreekEdgewater Creeklittle Manatee RiverHillsborough BayHillsborough RiverMcKay BayTampa Bypass CanalTampa Bypass CanalHillsborough BayTampa Bypass CanalContinued.291Species detectedProrocentrum triestinumP. triestinumEuglena elasticaE. elasticaE. elasticaGymnodinium splendensProrocentrum triestinumProrocentrum triestinumCryptomonas sp.Torodinium robustumNo blooms detected.Gyrodinium fissumLepocinclis playfairianaGyrodinium fissumGymnodinium sp.Lepocinclis playfairianaGymnodinium coeruleumLepocinclis playfairianaProrocentrum sp.Gymnodinium sp.Euglenasp.Gymnodinium sp.Gymnodinium sp.Prorocentrum sp.Gyrodinium sp.Gymnodinium sp.Prorocentrum sp.Lepocinclis playfairianaGymnodinium coeruleumGonyaulax diacanthaLepocinclis playfairianaGyrodinium fissumGlenodinium sp.Prorocentrum triestinumGymnodinium sp.Blue-green filamentousalgaeEuglena proximaGymnodinium coetuleumProrocentrum triestinumGonyaulax sp.Euglena proxima

NovemOOfDeoomoorMcKay BayTwnpaCanalAlatlaRiwrDoublEt BrMch CrEtekenanoel ~A"Roc.ky CreekMcKay BayGymflOdinium Sip~GymflOdinium Sip ..GymflOdinium Sip~Bloo-green filamentousPror~ntrlJm triest/flumGonyaulax diac:ar:tlhaGynrUWt.1IniL(m Sip.No bloomll> det0Ctl$

Appendix Table A-11. Rare, threatened, and endangered plant species in the Tampa Bay watershed; their status and distribution among majorhabitats (adaptedfromMcCoy 1980).$peclesAcrostichum danaeifoliumAdiantum tenerumAgalinis purpurea cartenAndropogon arctatusAnnon. mcom Uc:: m1i)3tn'ii u E 't'lmo'ii tn_ 3ftn"-tn.c ... c4=:l!c ~Q..:.etno~mEm:::s~.:.e:::sV'l:" c- m -> ...... -Uo"imi -m°:lQ.o_cn~mo... ;: .s::: .... Q..! U ~ E ~.ll!.! I ~ E E ...tn ~ ... II) 't) cn-... V'IIl'" c::.... - (I)Source • ~ c :::s fCC:: >. Q. m ; m tii 8. :l E Gi .s:::CITES FCREPA FDACS SI FS FWS 0 a: ~.e ~ .s -a is ~ :: 8 f£ 0 u: i! c7j 0TTT 1E 2':;:T---TT T : "tIR· !ET • • e:)(ETSCTTT T 2TU/I T •IIIIIITTTTTE 2Continued.•

Took A.-J !.~Cfres-fCREPA "FOACS-srFS "i::wSIiIIESowe.-TETT" TTNTi U TifE!'.o~1Jsttacyi T TEm

Appendix Table A-iI. Continued.SpeciesHarriselra porrectaHelianthus debilis vestitusHexaJeqtris spicataHypolepis repens/lex ambigua/lex cas'sinellex deciduaI\,) llex opaca opaca~ llex vomitoria ...Continued.

Ij~IOpunowU·W, '1:JOWW8HI 'ISJIltW ....M&lG.,,::j1!....dAt) qn..t) edQ•II pU......e d~IItWI·.·80t)Iti !dWU••,,(:ueue.,:ii, OJ dWeMS ..! dwlltM dAo'180 :»AA'Id-o".X/GUrd J"l6uo1qNOS turd JWqlSe.tOIourd 'f"1S U.-...nOSlPOOMl.fJ auldpU........fU'OO•. ... ....•"'•.. " . . .. ... ... ..... ..• •.. . "'•..•• •• •.. .I! u.ṁ'2 ::=.e-guill......14:IIl~ = ==- _......... - ........_._---

Appendix Table A-ll. Continued.SpeciesSalviniai rotundifoliaScaevola plumieriSchizacnyrium niveumSchizaea germaniiSelaginjflla apodaSelagin~l/a arenicolaSida ruqromarginataN Sml1ax sma/Iii~ Spiranthes brevilabris brevilabrisSpirantftes brevilabris f10ridanaSpiran~es cetnua odorataSpirant1)es cranichoidesSpiranthesgracl1isSpiranthesgrayiSpiranthes laciniataSpiranthes lanceolata lanceolataSpiranthesfanctiolata paludicolaSpiranthes longilabrisSpirantftes polyanthaSpirantf)es praecoxSpiranthes vernalisThelypten's augescensThelypt~ris.dentataThelyptttris interruptaCITESIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISource-FCREPA FDACS SI FS FWSTTT 1RE 1TTTT TTTTTTTTTT E 1TT T 2TTTTTCIlHabitat b.5 2 c.. :.r:.Q..cCll c. E ~af!'0 II) oS 2 ~ E 1'!!' ~.r:. ~ >- ~C~'" CIl w:: -UE~o..!!! ~.5 ;CIlIl)f!:.c .. ~.t:l:l!1I) CIlC..¥1I)6C1l~E~:::JCIl.¥:::JfIl.s:;C c-~ -> "tit;uoiG..!!!i Q.:o=Q.2iG~fIl::oE1il ': :: 1il '0 "6> ~ ~ 5 C)c 1il i: 8.': 'i EE = ;0~"':::SCllCC~ .... '" ~'; CIl CIl.r:.0.5 06 ~ o.r:.o>-::~o .. o" (G.r:.~0Q.0_0..1Q. 0 .... uQ. LL::J:0v••~t~~?t:~!((:}(••••.•. ~••.••.•••II). \~~.••....;::H~:::::::::

j.JiIJ.... •••....- ,I 'Q. I '0 • .0-8i£fiI)! , .3 i. r; .ISoun;eatts"""~FCREPA~~fOACs~irFS-FViSTTI. eA.,DO Q.i_ ..• ", 2 i i•.' .",.''Oc,-. I'X i;!o -.¥ .. '0C C - - .....li; 11 .'8 ~i I !IIa. '0IiE .'C: >. ~Ii jo.. s; I.·e t ...,. 'I.'••0- c.l s 0._ ~ -"". .•. .!::.!. ..• .!.' Elilte ,. c;;:is&: ••It!~s; ~,. A:i 5iIIIIIITTTE 1TT .. . •T • ..E 3C· . ..-T T 3C •T Ta Citatl

AppendixAppendix Table A-J2. Habitat distribution and relative abundance offreshwater fzsh in the Tampa Baywatershed (adaptedfrom Layne etal. 1977)..:iHabitat Type a1:1~6"tl1:1 !Il= .c:0 .!!l OIlC\, Cll =6 1:1 .s~ ell CZl!Il !Il!Il ~ C\,S1:1 .:::l..'"'...C\, CllCll'"'~CZl ...:l ~ CZl CZl-; U •!Il .~ !Il ;g !Il S ~ .c:Common Name (Species Name) .5 ] "tl..~ .c: !Il~:cAcipenseridae (Peripheral)Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus)i. ~.... ....is ~Lepisosteidae (Primary)Longnose gar (Lepisosteus osseus) U U S CFlorida gar (L. platyrhincus) A A C A C C C CAmiidae (Prim.ary)Bowfin (Amia calva) C C C C C U UElopidae (Peripheral)Tarpon (Megalops atlanticus) R R REsocidae (Primary)Redfin pickerel (Esox americanus americanus) C U S R SChain pickerel (E. niger) C C SCyprinidae (Primary)Grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idel/a) C (see text)Redeye chub (Notropis harpert) C SGolden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas) C C C C C S CIroncolor shiner (Notropis chalybaeus)UDusky shiner (N. cummingsae)VPugnose minnow (Notropis emiliae) R RSailfin shiner (N. hypselopterus) C VCoastal shiner (N. petersom) R A ATaillight shiner (N. maculatus) C U C U U VCatostomidae (Primary)Lake chubsucker (Erimyzon sucetta) A A C U U U U UIctaluridae (Primary)White Catfish (lctalurus catus) U U C S S VYellow bullhead (I. natalis) C C U C C C UBrown bullhead (I. nebulosus) A A C C C C CChannel Catfish (I. punctatus) U U C S VTadpole rriadfurri (N()iiirus gyrinus) C U R UContinued.299S

cssuvuusC A C C CS S S SV RC S lJ (' S RR R R VP.iflJ U tJ tJSS C C C C CSSSCRuCsuContinued.300

AppendixAppendix Table A-l2. Concluded.Common Name (Species Name) ~Poeciliidae (Secondary)Mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis)Least killifish (Heterandriaformosa)Sailfm molly (Poecilia latipinna)Black molly (P. latipinna x velifera)Swordtail molly (P. petenensis)Guppy (P. reticulata)Liberty molly (P. sphenops)Clariidae (Secondary)Walking Catfish (Clarias batrachus)Cichlidae (Secondary)Blue acara (Aequidens pulcher)Jack Dempsey (Cichlasoma octofasciatum)Rio Grande cichlid (C. cyanoguttatum)Jewelfish (Hemichromis bimaculatus)Blue tilapia (Tilapia aurea)Blackchin tilapia (T. melanotheron)Mozambique tilapia (T. mossambica)Congo tilapia (T. sparmannt)Atherinidae (peripheral)Brook silverside (Labidesthes sicculus)Inland stlverside (Menidia beryllina)Clupeidae (Peripheral)Gizzard Shad (Dorosoma cepedianum)Threadfin Shad (D. petenense)Belonidae (peripheral)Atlantic needlefish (Strongylura marina)II= ~e"0Habitat TypeaI;fl= .cl0 .fQ CIJl:l. ~e = oS=.... ~00-a u .I;fl . I;fl I;flCJI;fl= "0 l:~00 ~ < 00 00.... I;fl ~~ el:l.I;fl.cl'C .:.c: ~= -.::: ~...~ elll:l. ell...~A A C A AC A A ACASAAcue uEstablished but habitat unknownEstablished but habitat unknownEstablished but habitat unknownEstablished but habitat unknownf~ .cle~:::~ is ~Anguillidae (peripheral)American eel (Anguilla rostrata) cue u u uSSSSSa Relative abundance categories and abbreviations: abundant (A), common (C), uncommon (U), rare (R), very rare (V),population status questionable (S).cuuSAuRRSCuACSSCcuURRSSSScRAACSSuccuSRRCCU301

a_ ChondrichthyesFamily ()reaolobidaefJ~ {(ilrIR~),,'m)SI(mulr cin'arwll)Family RhlncooontidaeWhale.'amily ()dtmta.ididaeSand (Odonta.fpLt «JIlI"USIF'arnih,; l.atnnidaeMOrder SemfonotlformesOrder EloplformesIi'atnily ElopidaeI"a•.olly (:.n:harbinid~B~ ~ (Corcha',hlrl:u,t Q('ro~Jtl"i)lJuUOrder Angul1nformes'amil)' AnguUlida...Mf'amily OphkhthidaeM'*(echi{IJ"his ifll(~rtbtctusl M"Order RaJUorm••'amtly .lriltl.~SmalJt()(,AA ~Iwfl~h IE ",un J.ltJ"lilkl1ill.'amU, Rhl:nobaU_Order CiupeiformesClulX>cldaeMF"Maasa OsteichthyesOrder Acfpen$ertformesOrder Myclophltormes302

AppendixAppendix Table A-13. Continued.Species Habitat TypeR Species Habitat TypeaOrder SiluriformesFamily Cyprinodontidae (continued)Family Ariidae Marsh killifish (Fundulus confluentus) EHardhead catfish (Ariusjelis) M,E Gulf killifish (F. grandis) EGafftopsail catfish (Bagre marinus) M,E Seminole killifish ( F. seminolis) F*Family IctaluridaeLongnose killifish (F. similis)ERainwater killifish (Lucania parva)EBrown bullhead (/ctalurus nebulosus) F*Family PoeciliidaeOrder BatracholdlformesMosquitofish (Gambusia qffi.nis)F,EFamily BatrachoididaeSailfin molly (Poecilia latipinna)EGulftoadfish (Opsanus beta)M,ELeopard toadfish (0. pardus) M Family AtherinidaeAtlantic midshipman (Porichthys plectrodon) M,E Rough silverside (Membras martinica) EOrder Goblesoclformes Tidewater silverside (Menidia peninsulae) EFamily GobiesocidaeOrder lamprldlformesSkilletfish (Gobiesox strumosus)M,EFamily RegalecidaeOrder Lophllformes Oarfish (Regalecus glesne) M*Family OgcocephalidaeOrder GasterostelformesPancake batfish (Halieutichthys aculeatus) M*Family SyngnathidaePolka-dot batfish (Ogcocephalus radiatus,) M,ELined seahorse (Hippocampus erectus) EOrder Gadlformes Dwarf seahorse (H. zosterae) EFamily Gadidae Fringed pipefish (Micrognathus criniger) ESouthern hake (Urophycis floridana) M,E Dusky pipefish (Syngnathus jloridae) EChain pipefish (S.louisianae)EFamily OphidiidaeGulf pipefish (S. scovel/i)ELongnose cusk-eel (Ophidion beanO M*Blotched cusk-eel (0. grayi) M Order PerclformesCrested cusk-eel (0. welshi) M Family CentrarchidaeOrder AtherlnlformesBluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) F*Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) F*Family ExocoetidaeBallyhoo (Hemiramphus brasiliensis) M* Family CentropomidaeHaltbeak (Hyporhamphus unifa.sciatus) M,E Snook (Centropomus undecimalis) M,EFamily BelonidaeFamily CichlidaeAtlantic needlefish (Strongylura marina) M* Blackchin tilapia (Yilapia melanotheron) ERedfin needlefish (S. notata)M,EFamily SerranidaeTimucu (S. timucu)M,EBlack sea ba~s (Centropristis striata) M*Houndfish (Tylosurus crocodilus) M*Sand perch (Diplectrumjormosum)MFamily Cyprinodontidae Jewfish (Epinephelus itajara) M,EDiamond killifish (Amnia xenica) E Red grouper (E. morio) M*SheePshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) E Gag (Mycteropercamicrolepis) MGoldspotted killifish (Floridichthys carpio) E Belted sandfish (Serranus subligarius) M*Continued.303

Tampa Bay Ecological CharacterizationAppendix Table A-13. Continued.Species-----_•.._----Family GrammistidaeGreater soapfish (Rypticus saponaceus)Family ApogonidaeBronze cardinalfish (Astrapogon alums)Family PomatomidaeBluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix)Family RachycentridaeCobia (Rachycentron canadum)Family EcheneidaeSharksucker (Echeneis naucrates)Remora (Remora remora)M*M*M,EM,EM,EM,EFamily CarangidaeBlue runner (Caranx crysos)MCrevalle jack (C. hippos)M,EHorse-eye jack (C. latus) E*Atlantic bumper (Chloroscombrus chrysurus) M,EBluntnose jack(Hemicaranx amblyrhyncus) M*Leatheljacket (Oligoplites saurus)M,EAtlantic moonfish (Selene setapinnis) M*Lookdown (Selene vomer)MRorida pompano (Trachinotus carolinus) M,EPermit (T.falcatus)M,EPalometa (T. goodei)MFamily LutjanidaeSchoolma.'\ter (Lutjanus apodus)Gmy snapper (L. griseus)Lane snapper (L. syoogris)Family LobotidaeTripletail (Lobotes surinamensis)Family GerreidaeIrish pompano (Diapterus auratus)Striped mojam (D. plumieri)Spotfm mojam (Eucinostomus argenteus)Silverjenny (E. gula)Yellowfin mojarra (Gerres cinereus)Family PomadasyidaeTommte (Haemulon aurolineatum)White grunt (H. plumieri)Pigfish (Orthopristis chrysoptera)M*M,EM,EM,EM*EM,EM,EE*M*MM,EContinued.304Species _Habitat Type aFamily SparidaeSheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus) M,EGrass porgy (Calamus arctifrons)M*Family Sparidae (continued)Spottail pinfish (Diplodus holbrooki)MPinfish (Lagodon rhomboides)M,EFamily SciaenidaeSilver perch (Bairdiella chrysoura)Sand seatrout (Cynoscion areoorius)Spotted seatrout (C. nebulosus)High-hat (Equetus acuminatus)Cubbyu (E. umbrosus)Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus)Southern kingfish (Menticirrhus americanus)Gulfkingfish (M.littoralis)Northern kingfish (M. saxatilis)Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undu!atus)Black drum (Pogonias cromis)Red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus)Family MullidaeSpotted goatfish (Pseudupeneus maculatus)Family KyphosidaeBermuda chub (Kyphosus sectatrix)Family EphippidaeAtlantic spadefish (Chaetodipterus faber)Family LabridaeSlippery dick (Halichoeres bivittatus)Hogfish (Lachnolaimus maximus)Family ScaridaeEmerald parrotfish (Nicholsioo usta)Family MugilidaeStriped mullet (MugU cephalus)White mullet (M. curema)Fantail mullet (M. trichodon)Family SphyraenidaeGreat barmcuda (Sphyraena barracuda)Northern sennet (S. borealis)Guagrianche (S. guachancho)M,EM,EM,EM,*M*M,EM,EMM,EEM,EM,EM*M*M,EM*M*MM,EM,EM,EM,EM*M*

..AppendixAppendix Table A-I3. Concluded.HabitatFamily Pol~'nemidaeAtlantic threadfin (Polydacrylus octonemus) M*Family OpistognathidaeMoustache jawfish (Opistognatlzus lonclzurus) M*Family DactyloscopidaeSand stargazer (Dactyloscopus tridigitatus) M*Family UranoscopidaeSouthem stargazer (Astroscopus y-graecum)M,EFamily ClinidaeBanded blenny (Paraclinusfasciatus) E*Marbled blenny (P. marmoratus) E*Striped blenny (Clzasmodes bosquianus) M*Florida blenny (C. saburrae)M,ECrested blenny (Hypleuroclzilus geminatus) M*Feather blenny (Hypsoblennius !zentzi) M,EHighfin blenny (Lupinoblennius nic!zolsi) M*Seaweed blenny (Blennius mamwreus) M*Family EleotridaeFat sleeper (Dormitator maculatus) F*Family GobiidaeFrillfin goby (Bat!zygobius soporator)EDarter goby (Gobionellus boleosoma)ESharptail goby (G. lzastatus)ENaked goby (Gobiosoma bosci)ETwoscale goby (G. longipala) E*Tiger goby (G. macrodon)M,ECode goby (G. robustum)EGown goby (Microgobius gulosus)EGreen goby (M. tlzalassinus)EFamily TrichiuridaeAtlantic cutla.'isfish (Trichiurus lepturus)Family ScombridaeKing mackerel (Scomberomorus caval/a)Spanish mackerel (8. maculatus)MMM,EFamily StromateidaeHatvestfish (Peprilus alepidotus) M*Butterfish (P. triacanthus) M*-, -. ~Species- - - ._-----_.. _- -, -_. - - --,Family ScorpaenidaeBarbfish (Scorpal~na brasiliensis)Family TriglidaeHorned scarobin (Bel/ator militaris) M*Bluespotted searobin (Prionotus roseu.s) M*Blackfin scarobin (P. rubio) M*Leopard scarobin (P. scitulus)M,EBighead searobin (P. tribulus)M,EOrder PleuronectlformesFamily BothidaeOcellated flounder (Ancylopsettaquadrocellata) M*Spotted whiff (Citharichthys macropsy M*Fringed flounder (Etropu.s crossotu.s)MGulf flounder (Paraliclzthys albigutta) M,EDusky flounder (Syacium papillosum) M*Family SoleidaeLined sole (Aclzirus lineatu.s)Hogchokcr (Trinectes maculatu.s)Family OstraciidaeScrawled cowfish (Lactophrys quadricornis) M,ETrunkJish (L. trigonu.sjM,E*Smooth trunkfish (L. triqueter) M*Family TetraodontidaeSmooth puffer (Lagocephalu.'1laevigatus)Southern puffer (Sphoeroides neplzelus)M,EM,EFamily CynoglossidaeBlackchcck tongucfish (Symp!zurus plagiu.sa) M,EOrder TetraodontlformesFamily BalistidaeOrange filcfish (Aluteru.s schoepfi)Fringed filefish (Monacanthu.s ciliatu.~')Planehcad filcfish (M. hispidu.\')Habitat TypeRM*MM,EM,EM,E*M,EFamily DiodontidaeStriped burrfish (Chilomyeterus schoepfi) M,EBalloonfish (Diodon h()locanth~') M*aM =marine, E =estuarine, F =freshwater, * =uncommon to mre305

Tampa Bay Ecological CharacterizationAppendix Table A-14. Habitat distribution and relative abundance ofterrestrial reptiles in the Tampa Baywatershed (adaptedfrom Layne et at. 1977).Habitat TypeSCommon Name (Species Name)Box turtle (Terrapene carolina)Chicken turtle (Deirochelys reticularia)Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) C C>ty Florida scrub lizard (Sceloporus woodl) R C ·R···-Texas horned lizard (Phrynosoma cornutwn)Six-lined mcerunner(CnemitkJphorus sex/ineatus) C cc·t.rJ.lgEug g ~ 't:l'"j u::: fa> '" e ~ g g ~ -eOJ;:J ::g 0 r:l:l ;:J~U,;.-.;.;.;.-.;.;.p JJ' tV R>R -c··c. C· U -US.· -......;. ··.R·RRuc u u U U .. R U· U - RR R - .- -R R .~.vU U UR RU U U -Eastern hognose snake(Heterodon plaryrhinos)Southern hognose snake (Heterodon simus)Ringnecksnake (Diadophispunctatus)Pine woods snake (Rhadinaea/laVilata)u ­R ­U -R -Continued.306R ­;. ... U C.R··U ­R. -......i::U·" U.•. U RRRU U C U ­U C C -u .....·U- . R.· S

AppendixAppendix Table A-14. Concluded).Mud snake (Farancia abacura) .. _.. CRacer (Coluber constrictor) C CiC C> U A DC - C· ~( ACoachwhip (Masticophis flagellum) U U un u .RUR&Rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus) U uti Hi U U· R. ... U -" "'Eastern indigosnake:(Drymarchon corais couperi) U • URat snake (Elaphe obsoleta) U U U U U 0 C .•MiIksnake (Lampropeltis triangulum) U - R U R RScarlet snake (Cemophora coccinea) R - .Florida crowned snake (Tantilla relicta) R RV R •........".... ... " ..•Eastern coral snake (Micrurusfulviusfulvius) U -,..·Ii U UlJR ~ ..Cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus) -Ri Up.··..·;.····· ·..UPigmy rattlesnake (Sistrurus miliarius) U -R/V U .>...>t{(Eastern diamondback mttlesnake:::/:::::';;::::>:;:::::::(Crotalus adamanteus) U UC< C U U un C COPa Relative abundance categories and abbreviations: Abundant (A), Common (C), Uncommon (0), Rare (R).Very rare (V), Breeding population (B), Population status questionable (S)307

~« ~ < u ot:~ Vviu

Appendix! II I>I I I I ii I II ::> I I..&(:: qSJtlW Itlpmuy.....S:a qs.rew J:lIP.MqsaJdl:'O=:=I I I II I U:::> II I I I et: i I I I I U I:::>U ::>::> I! IUU I I I I II I:::>:::> I I I I I I I I I I IdWUMS Il!pmuy I I I I I I1l):jIUI II:::JI II II IIdumMS SSOJdA;)dweMS (XX)MPJtlH309

IIamml Type aColi)"'"R U AU U C A UC C C"" - UQ~....:"_..'"- - - S~.gGilu -f~U U U C CUU U R RU U CC U C U A U - CSaboodaoc-e categoriesPopu~tion status questiooable (5)Breeding population (B).

Appendix TableA~17,Wetland and aquatic habitat distribution and relative abundmu:e tfamphibians in the Tampa Bay watershed (adaptedf!om!!fYne et ai. 1977).Species0. 0.m ~ ~ g-~ ~ ~ ;'0 Vl ~ r.n8 r.n :> , ~ t::.__~::t:,-_U tC. «Two-toed amphiuma (Amphiuma means) U U - UGreater siren (Siren lacertina) U ULesser siren (Siren inlermedia) C CDwarf siren (Pseudobranchus stria/us) R REastern newt (Notopltlhalmus viridescensJ U USouthern dusky salamander (Desmognalhus auriculalus) UwDw.ufs;:uamander (Eurycea quadridigiuua)Ea..~rn .spadefoot (ScaphWpus holbrooki)UUUU:: Greenhouse frog (EleuJherodactyJus planirostris)Southern toad (Bufo terrestris)Oak toad (Bufo quercicusJAAUUUGiant toad (Bufo marinus)Southern cricket frog (Acris gryllus)Green ueefrog (Hyla cinerea)Barking treefrog (Hyla graliosa)Pine woods treefrog (Hylajemoralis)Squirrel.treefrog (llyla squirdla)UURRACuban 1lTeefrog (Hyla seple11lrionalis)uuuuUUUHabitat Type a ~ ~ -• . '" ~ 'C~ ~ ~ ~c at> ~ '?s Vl ~ ~"'" e ~ ~ ..c: Vl ~ Vl ";5; ~ ... 0 e '0 d ~ >,:s 'C ~ I;;; ~ c ~ ...... ~~ ! ~ ! ~ ~ a ~ '" ! ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e.Q 5 0I;;; ~!.C ~ ~ ~. c!.c Vj..c:~ ..... '" ,,.., .... c "'" ~ 'C .,.., c:l ~~ ~ .~. ~ ~ 8 j .~ br ~ 0 "~ ~~. .__.~_"_._~~. . _. C"L.__.,"~..CCUUUCUU u- - cu u CC C u- - cu - ALittle grass frog (Limnaoedus ocularis) R U - - U C C U - - A CChorus frog (Pseudacris nigrita) U C - - - B B B - - B BEastern narrow-mouthed toad (Gastrophryne caroliJlensis) C u- . U eBB - - - B BBullfrog (Rana cmesbeiana) U U - - U U U C - - C CPig frog(Ranagrylio) U U - - U C C C - - c CGreen frog (Rana clamitans) S .S . - - - - - - - - - SCBBAUBB13CRRBRBACBBBRRBC U -U R - UU U - VR R UU U U UB - - BSouthern leopard frog (Rana sphe1lOcephaia) A . C. . •R C· U A A C U - A C U AFlorida $opberfrog (Rana areolata aesopus) --- .. _. - B 13 - - - B - - 13 - -.• Relative abundance categories and abbreviations: Abundant (A), Common (c). Uncommon (U), Rare (R), Vcry rare (V), Breeding population (B), Population slalUsquestionable (5),B13BACBBBUABB13UAB1313AC13.13BBC13BCCf :::JQ.Sf

Tampa Bay Ecological Characterllallol1Apperuiix Table .4,,18. Terrestrial hahitats in which forest (arboreal) birds in thelourui. including distrilmtiiJn. rclmive abundann:, andTl1978c).ocCurrence (w..tap.tctijlWhite-winged dove (Zlmaida asiatica)f\louming dove (Zenaida macroura)Commmon ground..(}ove (Colu.mbinaYdlow~bmed CUl;K(;~)WPPHlack··bilkd cuckoo t'rythropthalmus) .1\1Nonhem bobwhite (Colinlls virginiaruJs)PpC:huck·wiH'swidow (C'aptimulgus carolinensL\) SWhip poor· willWC'OlrmtlOt1 nig:l1t!ta\\,'k (

AppendixAppendix Table A-18. Continued.SpeciesBlue jay (Cyanocitta cristata)(Florida) Scrub jay(Aphelocorna eoerulescens eoerulescens) P UCaroililachlckadee(Paruicar(jITnensL~)' ········p····U··_·····RA(j"CUHabitat type bOIl.>- ~i::' i::'r;r.; ii: V) E-< U ::;E ::J Q QP C C C C C U····u···UC CR RR ····RBrown creeper (Certhia americana) W R R R R RFIoi.lsc·wren(Troglod§ie.~ae·aoii5···-········_····W···Tr· U "'0 Tf ·u· ··tT··UCRR···u·RWinter wren (T. troglodytes) W R R R R R RBewick's wren (Thryornanes bl.'Wickii) W R R R RCiiroHna··wren(TfiryotJi.Orii.~liidOvT(:Tanii.~r·p·CtcA··A·CShort-billed marsh wren (Cistot!wrus platensis) W UNorthern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) P A A ACe C C AGrayCiitbfrd (DumeteUa carr:)llnen.\i"iY· . "P'C "'TrTr"C'c' ····e ··c·· UBrown thrasher (Toxostorna rufum) P C U U C C C C UAmerican robin (Turdus migratorius) wee C C C C C AWoOd·thrush(flylo(,!'chlamu."iietliia) . W D . R 'R U'O ....'UR"Hermit thrush (Catharus guttatus) W U R R U U U RSwainson's thrush (c. ustulatus) M R R R R R R RGriiY~heekeathrusfi(C.mlnlmu:~r· M-··R·· ····RR ···_·R····R···lf·-RVeery (c;.fuseeseens) M R R R R R R REastern bluebird (Sialia sialis) P U U UBIUe~griiygniitciitchcr(Poliopilla'caeruTea)"15'·'(' ·····U· 'U ·········eGolden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa) W U R R URuby-crowned kinglet (R. calendula) W C U U CWater·plplt(Arithi.i.~sji{noleiiaf-·".. ······WCedar waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum) W ULoggerhead skrike (Lanius ludovicianus) P CEuro~an·starrrng(SiUrnus·vulgarl."iY.. p····UWhite-eyed vireo (Vireo griseu.~) P CYellow-throated vireo (V.flavifrons)MSoIriary..vIreoTVsolliarliiS5·········· .. · -··W·· ····U·Continued.313C 'C '0U U RC C U····eR U U U R RA C A'0'· U ·······U·'UU"Uu C C C C UU U u·D··UO "UU

Tampa Bay Ecological Characterlt,alionAppendix Table A·,Continlu~d,Red,eyed vin.x) (VIr('o o!iwU'('us)Philadelphia (V philaddphicus)gilvus)\\J."rhlint' vireoSMMtJRRURRlJRRW0I111-

AppendixAppendix Table A-lB. Continued.Habitat type bSpeciesC'iltil::I...........C'il ~ '"til-;.B~I:I:> 0 Itil ~C'il c:~tZlCl:Mourning waIbler (Oporornis philadelphia) MCommon yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) P C C CYellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens)MHooded warbler (Wilsonia citrina)MWilson's waIbler (W. pusilla)MCanada warbler (W. canadensis)MAmerican redstart (Setophaga ruticilla)MBobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus)MEastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna) P U A A"'R-ed·--wt ..·n-g-ed .......b·la-c·k·bl,-·rd.:..--r(A·g-e·la-;ius-p'hoi"-e-m,-·c-eus~) -------.-:P- U U UOrchard oriole (Icterus spurius) S R R RNorthern oriole (I. galbula) W R R RRusty blackbird (Euphagus carolinus) -W----------------------U----U-----u----UBrewer's blackbird (E. cyanocephalus) W R R R RBoat-tailed grackle (Quiscalus major) P U UCommon grackle (Q. quiscula) P U UBrown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) W U U U UScarlet tanager (Piranga olivacea) M R R RSummer tanager (P. rubra) S R U U U U UNorthern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) P C R R C C C URose-breasted grosbeak (Pheueticus ludovicianus) M"'B·lu-e-gr-os·,be----.ak-'(7;G"u..ic-ra-c-a-'c-a-er-u·le-a"')------.:.--M....-·R R RU--------------U-U--lJ------Indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea) W U U U UPainted bunting (P. ciris) M R R R RDickcissel (Spiza americana) W -'-'-TAmerican goldfinch (Carduelis tristis) W U U U C C C CRufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus) P A A A C C C A AnS-av-ann-ah-'-s-p-arro--w-:(""P:-'-as-s..o...e-rc-u·lus-=-s-a-ndw~i"-ch"--e-ns-l"--·s):--~W'-;-;-· U C C-----------_·--CGrasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) W U(Florida) Grasshopper sparrow (A. s.floridanus) P R RTiHr:-ens=-::i"lo:-::w:-:";-:-s-=sp::-:a=rro==w~(;;-:;A-.heT-:-ns-:-/aw'-:""ii")--=----:..---.W.,------ ··--------··..·------·-·····--R·Lark sparrow (Chondestes grammacus) W RBachman's sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) P C C CContinued.315UUAU

hynmlJis)ChiI'lping SmlJnlW Vf}piz('l,ia Ihl..tw:rimJ)Wllitc'Cf1(lWned spamlw {l,.{)'llllirrlt'hit1lc/J,cophrvslWhite,thrm:llcd (if)ilimlWHabihl!V'::.\of,

AppendixAppendixTable A-19. Wetland habitats in whichforest (arboreal) birds arefound in the Tampa Baywatershed,including relative abundance and seasonal occurrence (adaptedfrom Layne ct. at. 1977, TI1978c).Habitat type b ..cCl:JMourning dove (Zenaida macroura) P UMangrove cuckoo (Coccyzus minor) S RYellow-billed cuckoo (C. americanus) S C C CBlack-billed cuckoo (C. erythropthalmus) M R R'~"-R--'---~-'---'---~-Northern bobwhite (Colinu.'l virginianus) P UWild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) P U UChuck-will's-widow (Caprimulgus carolinensis) S C C-C-_·~----Whip-poor-will (C. vociferus) W U U URuby-throated hummingbird (Archilochus colubris) S U U UNorthern flicker (Colaptes auratus) P UC------tJPileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) P U U URed-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus) P C C CRed-headed woodpecker (M. erythrocephalus) P U U_.~-~----~---,---Yellow-bellied sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius) W C C UHairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus) P U U UDowny woodpecker (P. pubescens) P C C CEastern kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus) S C U U C C UGray kingbird (T. dominicensis) S CGreat crested flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus) P C C CEastern phoebe (Sayornis phoebe) W U U U U C CYellow-bellied flycatcher (Empidonaxflaviventris) M R R RAcadian flycatcher (E. virescens) M U U ULeast flycatcher (E. minimus) M U U U UTraill's flycatcher* (E. traillii) M U U UOlive-sided flycatcher (Nuttallornis borealis) M R REastern wood-pewee (Contopus virens) M U U UTree swallow (lridoprocne bicolor)~W A ABank swallow (Riparia riparia) M U --tT----Southern rough-winged swallow(Stelgidopteryx ruficollis) S U UBam swallow (Hirundo rustica) M --'-~-----'-------~--'----------TJ---u-----Cliffswallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) M U UPurple martin (Progne subis) S C CBlue jay (Cyanocitta cristata) P CCarolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis) P U U UContinued.317~C---C---=---'-~-'::----~-::-----"-::'----"--

p c c cP R R RW R it RW lJ lJ lJ lJW R R R RP A A A ('W U U UWp' C CUp C C C C lJw C (' C A Uw c c c uw c cf)cJ;> u u uwsuuuContinued.318u

AppendixAppendix Table A-19. Continued.SpeciesHabitat~peb~~ "'0"'0 I: -g .c"8~fa fa .§ .:g.ca ~';:lg ~ ';:l ~ "£3 5 ~0 "'0~0 5~!a "'0 ~ ~ ~ '1:: ~ea .cfa~~~·S~I: ~0 "'0 ....... 0 ~ ~~ S- l:l..~ .c ~~.c ~~ ...... ~0 S ..... ~~ fa 0~lZl I=Q ~ U ~ tr.l U:: tr.l~~-Swainson's warbler (Limnothlypis swainsonii) M R R RWonn-eating warbler (Helmitheros vermivorus) M R RLawrence's warbler (Helminthophaga lawrencei) M RBrewster's warbler (H.leucobronchialis) M RGolden-winged warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera) M RBlue-winged warbler (V. pinus) M RTennessee warbler (V. peregrina) M R R ROrange-crowned warbler (V. celata) W U U UNashville warbler (V. ruficapilla) M R R RNorthern parula (Parula americana) P C C C UYellow warbler (Dendroica petechia) M U U U RMagnolia warbler (D. magnolia) M R R RCape May warbler (D. tigrina) M U U UBlack-throated blue warbler (D. caerulescens) M U U UYellow-romped warbler (D. coronata) W A A A CBlack-throated green warbler (D. virens) M U U UCerulean warbler (D. cerulea) M R R RBlackburnian warbler (D.fusca) M R R RYellow-throated warbler (D. dominica) P U U UChestnut-sided warbler (D. pensylvanica) M R R RBay-breasted warbler (D. castanea) M R R RBlackpoll warbler (D. striata) M R R RKirtland's warbler (D. kirtlandii) M R R RPine warbler (D. pinus) P R R UPrairie warbler (D. discolor) W U U U(Florida) Prairie warbler (D. discolor paludicola) p CPalm warbler (D. paimarum) W C C C COvenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus) W U U UNorthern waterthrush (S. noveboracensis) M R R RLouisiana waterthrush (S. motacilla) M R R RKentucky warbler (Oporornisformosus) M R R R RConnecticut warbler (0. agilis) M R R R RMourning warbler (0. philadelphia) M R R R RCommon yellowthroat (Geothlypis tricliGs) P C C C C C CYellow-breastedchat(lcteria virens) M R R R RHooded warbler (Wiisonia citrina) M U U U UContinued.319

Appentii,x TableA·19. Concluded.,Wil'lOt'l's wwbler{WlLfmuapuslll(()C.lada warbler (W. tYl~lUls))HabhatIP6 b -gjl!.c·lii ... S ~ t2't:I~ ~ e~ eM R RM R RM C C~.0 $J;i.~'i3 i;I')U U .A .AR RW U U UW R R RU U U UU U US U U UJ} C C C UM U U R RW C C C IIRRRW U U UW R R RW C CWM320

AppendixAppendix Table A-20. Aquatic habitats in whichforest (arboreal) birds are found in the Tampa Bay watershed,including relative abundance and seasonal occurrence (adaptedfrom Layne et. al.1977, TI1978c)...ttlE5ttlHabitat type b-attlttlc bI:)-attl ttlSpecies0 c ~ ....Q) '1::lttlttlro.\::ro~cQ) 0 P< ~ 0CI:l ...J 0.. CZl CZl U-------~_._---Gray kingbird (Tyrannus dominicensL~) S CScissor-tailed flycatcher (T.forjicatus) W UEastern phoebe (Sayornis phoebe) W C CTree swallow (lridoprocne bicolor) W A --·A-----·- ABank swallow (Riparia riparia) M U U USouthern rough-winged swallow (Stelgidopteryx rujicollis) S U U UBam swallow (Hirundo rustica) -----.-.-- M .---- U-----O----·--·U·---~·Cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) M U U UPulple martin (Progne subis) S C C CCarolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus) .p-----.-..-----.-..--...----.--..--..--.....--......Long-billed marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris) W U U U(Marian's) Marsh wren (C. palustris marianae) P R R RWater pij)lt (Anthus spinoletta)" ----·-·......---..- ....- ....-W·..·..·..·--C·-·....--··C---·--·---..·-.............,C.........----Northern waterthrush (Seiurus noveboracensis) M R R RLouisiana waterthrush (S. motaeilla)Common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas)M R R·----..----p..··-----C-··-·C-----:::--RCAmerican redstart (Setophaga ruticilia) M C C CRed-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) P C C C"Boat-tailedgrnckle«(2UiscaliiSmexicanus) -.-- P A'---A' CCommon grackle (Q. quiscula) P C Ca P =Permanent resident; S =Summer resident (visitor); W =Winter resident (visitor); M =Migrant.b A =Abundant; C =Common; U =Uncommon; and R ~ Rare.321

Tam~ 8ayEcologicai CharacterizationAppendix Table A~21 ..lfabiwdistribution, relative abundance, and seasonal (JCcurrence ofwading birds in theTl1lfIPa Bay If.lQte,.,.;hed (aliaptedfrom ulyne et 11/97&).Habitat type bOre~lt bhre heron(Arf/c

Appendix Table A~21,SpeciesScarlet ibis(Eudocimus ruber)Concluded,Appendix-,;:l~"::1 ~ "Cl"Cl..c:.. '8 ~ ij~ ~ ~0Habitat type b.c0g -= ~ "::1:E 8 ~.... ~~ 'E '" .... S("$'"~ ~ 'C £ ....7a "Cl ..c: >Vl«lc:: «l~ c. ~ '[ ~ ~/:)Ij~ 3~ -,;:l ~~~..c: ~>

Tampa Bay ecological CharacterizationAppeNiix lQble A~22. Habitat distributkm, relative abundatu'e, and,feasonal occurrence ofjk;ating anddivingwaterbirds tft the Tampa Bay wlllershed (adaptedfrom Layne et 1977, TI1978c).SpeciesCommon loon (Oavta immer) W - URed-throated loon (0. stella/a) W - RRed-necked grebe (Podicep$ gr/segena) W - RIlornc,rgreootP:'tiiiTliiLir-'''"''''''''·''''''''''''''''w''"..,:,.,~~~,,;.H:"'~""'"":""N"":"'·""':"-'-'''R~''"":'''''''''':'~'''''R''-''''C'''''N:''''Pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podlceps)pee uAmerican white pelican(PeleciVUl.$ erythroruCA\"'.'-'!!I'''''' columbianul;)CaNitk:n.lj~")RRRAmeric3U black duck (A. rubripe.r)Mottled duckNol"thern pintail (A. acuul)(A. crecca)Arne-riCin Wigeon (1\, americana)Nmthern shoveler (A,Redhead (Aythya americana)Ritlil·neckl~ duckGreater scaup (A. marifa) W RLe.~rscaup(A. affinis) W ~ . U • C C . CA.commori"gotdeneye{liiICepliiJa"c!tiitgI41iifW""":""'"''''''''--''''':" ""':' """"":""""'::-""':""':"""":"""'Ir'""":Bufflehead (8. albeola) W R R RW .. R RcContinued.324

Appendix Table A·22. Concluded.Appendix~ 'g "0 ..c::.a(I'l §g 0 :2~(I'ltil sl;I)~0 e 0~~ ~ ~.I:>:~ £ ...Species ~l:..c::0l;I)White·winged sooter (Melanitta deglandl) WSurfscoter (M. perspicillata)WBlack sooter (M. nigra) ~ iBi >! ill~Habitat type b..c::i~~(I'l(I'l~(I'lbtl... ~ l:til~'C::~0 0 I:~ Q., ~l;I) ~ ~ l;I) &, l;I) l;I) u~ga~ ~0Common merganser (Mergus merganser)Red-breasteda P =Pennanent Resident; S(visitor); andb A =Abundant; C =Common; U =Unoommon; and R =Rare.Appendix Table A-23. Aquatic habitat distribution, relative abundance, and seasonal occurrence ofbirds ofprey in the Tampa Bay watershed (adaptedfrom Layne et al. 1977, T/1978c).Habitat types b__.§peci~ ~tatusa Lakes Ponds Springs Streams CoastalShort e~red owl (Asioflammeus) W RBald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) W U U U UNorthern harrier (Circus cyaneus) W_. . .__._. _._._..__.__.._. ....-f__ ~Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) P U U UPeregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) W RMerlin (F. columbarius) W RAmerican kestrel (F. sparverius)-----Vr----------·_---·-------····------·--------"-"......·-·_"--------_...·---_·-·C---(Southeast) American kestrel(F. sparverius paulus) PMagnificent frigatebird(Fregata magnificens) P Ra P = Pennanent resident; W = Winter resident (visitor).b C =Common; U = Uncommon; and R =Rare.325RUU

Tampa Bay ecological CharacterizationAppendix Table A~24. Wetlond habitat distribution. relative abundance. and seasOfra[ occurrence of birdsprey in the Tampa Bay water.wu!d(adapted/rom Layne 1977. Tl1.978c).SpeciesCOlnlnc)n bam owl (l"to alba)PA~tem screech owl (Oew 4Vt(»(Athena c,.nlcukuiajlorlt,iana)\\'IIIiHabitat tYPe b't:l 't:l .ci t ~ ~ ~§'=' ~a: ""I ~ )~ ~ j e:1! siii~u ,; ~'d~ J:J l It Iii 8- ~PPPPsW/Xl V)Barred owl (Strlx varia) pee C * - - - -§ii;;iewi"'owr'(ASiO'~teU3r""'"'''''''''''''''0''''''''''''''''''''''' '""',,1""'''''''''.''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''.'-'''''''''''''---"'-''''''''--'-''''-''''''-'ii-'-'''''''''---''''''''''''Turkey vultum (ea/harter (Ma) P CPCu u u u u UR(RfAftrhamu,r s(»ciabilLr pillmbeu.'i) PR R~t!~~t",~(!lY::!).',,,,,,, "," ,,,,,,~W,.. ",~~".,~~,,, .•••.,,,,,,,.~~,,,,,•..,,,,,..:.,.,.*,,.,.,,,,.:".,.,",.".,,,.~"'''''''",.,,'",,.,::,,''',.,, ..,''''''''',:,,..,pROO·caiJed hawk (lJutIU» jm,liflicen.ds) P Up CCBm&f·wiule(f'i)UStK>rt·ttilled hawk (fJ" !:mlChyuru.s')P RRWR.cNortbem hamer (Circw C)ltV'lftllJ')camcardPeregrine falcon (l

AppendixAppendix Table A-25. Terrestrial habitat distribution, relative abundance, and seasonal occurrence ofbirds ofprey in the Tampa Bay watershed (adaptedfrom Layne etal. 1977, T1 1978c).SpeciesTerrestrial habitat type bgECommon barn owl (Tyto alba) P U UEastern screech owl (Oms asio) P C C C CGreat homed owl (Bubo virginianus) P C C C(Florida )Burrowing Owl(Athena cuniculariafloridana) P UBarred owl (Strix varia) P C C CShort eared owl (Asioflamm.eus) W RTurkey vulture(Cathartes aura) P C A C C CBlack vulture (Coragyps atratus) P C A C _._-_.._-----C CAmerican swallow-tailed kite(Elanoidesforjicatus) S U U U UMississippi kite (1ctinia mississippiensis) W R R R R RSharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus) W U U UCooper's hawk (A. cooperii) P U U URed-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) P U U U U URed-shouldered hawk (B. lineatus) P C C C C CBroad-winged hawk (B. platypterus) W U URough-legged hawk (B.lagopus) W R RNorthern harrier (Circus cyaneus) W C C CCrested caracara (Polyborus plancus) P R R RAmerican kestrel (Falco sparverius) W C C(Southeast) American kestrel(F. sparverius paulus) P U Ua P =Pennanent resident; S =Summer resident (visitor); W =Winter resident (visitor).b A =Abundant; C =Common; U =Uncommon; and R =Rare.~..c::E~Il)1?Jl~327

Tampa Bay ecological CharacterizationAppendix 1ableA *26, Habitat dLvtribution., relati:vt abulUumce, andseasonal occurrence ofprobing shorebirdsin. the Tampa Bay water.fhed (adapted/rorn Layne et ai, 1977, Tl1978c).SpeciesRuddy turnstone interpres)American wood.oock (StYJlopaxs minor)(Numen.iu.s americanus)Whiimbl'el (N. phtUUJpus)cuusee foomote CC CccRUpCordlnued.c328

AppendixAppendix Table A-26. Concluded.~00 .c::Species c.. ~Oapper rail (Rallus longirostris)(Florida) Oapper rail (R.longirostris scottii) fVirginia rail (R.limicola)Sora (Porzana c.arolinq)Yellow rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis)Black rail (LateraIlusjamaicensis)American oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus) .Common ringed plover (Charadrius hiaticula)Semipalmated plover (c. semipalmatus)~~~Habitat typeb~en ea.>"'"S'G ~~en en.... en~ '8 ·2~~e~ If1U') \.L. Ui Ui Ui 0PPWWwPPAcSWUURRuURR'"' ~C'Il bOfij sgj ~CCUURRRc.. (3~l~!.~lover (C. melodus)(Cuban) Snowy plover(c. alexandrinus tenuirostris) P RWilson's plover (C. wi/sonia) P - - - - - - - --;-C.-__KIlIdeer(C:~voCife;:ii.~yr·--~--'·-----'·_-----------pC-----C- --:-----.-.-C----.::----:-----:-.Lesser golden-plover (Pluvialis dominica) M RBlack-bellied plover (P. squatarola) P R Ca P=Permanent Resident; S =Swnmer Resident (visitor); W=Winter Resident (visitor); M=Migrant; andAc = Accidental (vagrant).b A =Abundant; C =Common; U =Uncommon; and R=Rare.c rare in mixed hardwood wetlands and swamp brushlandd rare in dry prairiese also common in mangrove wetlandsf also common in mangrove wetlandsg also uncommon in dry brushlandRCUU1t1329

Tampa Bay EcclJogJctl.l cttalrac!erh~tk.nApJ;'etmU Table A*27, dil;lribulian, ff!lt:;lti'llt~ (JblU~J!lm('e, i:IJ'1d !;i!?(I.~'{)fUJJ Ilrl"IJP,.j.,'I"U','bird-fin thttTampa Bay wfltcnihl'dl (adaptedjr(1tn 14)'1UtRRUccARURAA330

AppendixAppendix Table A-28. Terrestrial habitatdistribution and relative abundance ofmammals known orexpected tooccur in the Tampa Bay watershed (Layne etal.1977, TI1978c).Habitat types aSpeciesVirginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana)Southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis)Least shrew (Cryptotis parva)Eastern mole (Sea/opus aquaticus)Southeastern myotis (Myotis austroriparius)Big brown bat (Eptesicusfuscus)Red bat (Lasiurus borealis)Seminole bat (L. seminalus)Northern yellow bat (L. intermedius)Evening bat (Nycticeius humeralis)Rafinesque's big-eared bat (Plecotus rafinesquii)Nine-banded annadillo(Dasypus novemcinctus)bMarsh rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris)Eastern cottontail rabbit (S.floritianus)Black-tailed jack rabbit (Lepus californicus)bGray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis)Sherman's fox squirrel (S. niger shermani)Southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans)Southeastern pocket gopher (Geomys pinetus)Marsh rice rat (Oryzomys pa/ustris)Eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis)Oldfield mouse (Peromyscus polionotus)Cotton mouse (P. gossypinus)Florida mouse (P.jloridanus)Golden mouse (Ochrotomys nutta/li)Hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus)Eastern woodrat (Neotomajloridana)House mouse (Mus musculus)b .Coyote (Canis latrans)bRed fox (Vulpes vulpes)bGray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus)Florida blackbear(Ufsus'americanusjlofidanus).!!.l 1€ '2 ~ Il.>~ is::C is::cU C AU C Uu C CU U CX XR CU UURRUU A AU C UU C CRUR::::::::::::::::>~:::::>~::::"''','.~jij~uI.1)

332

AppendixAppendix Table A-29. Wetland habitat distribution and relative abundance ofmammals known or expected tooccur in the Tampa Bay watershed (Layne et at. 1977; Tl1978c).Habitat typesaSpeciesVirginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana)Southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris)Southern short-tailedEastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus)Southeasternaw'troirimuiu~\")uu'g "'t:liiI i ~.r::~ te '"'& ~ Q.~~Q.~ ... ~~i~~ ca 0u V) rt V) u~~E~.r::~~C UBig brown bat (Eptesicusfusc~'i)Red batHoary (L.Rafmesque's big-eared bat (Plecom'i rafinesquii)free-tailedMarsh rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris)Eastern cottontailgraySherman's fox squirrel (S. niger shermani)SouthernCCC(Ochrotomys nuttalli)Round-tailed muskrat (Nt~ofi,beralleni)NutriaURRed fox (Vulpes vulpes)bRaccoon (Procyon lotor)Horida long-tailed weasel (Mustelafrenata peninsulae)UCContinued.333

Appendix Table A~29.Concluded.SpeciesRc Ram. X II:: SWUS Unknown.Appendix Tobie Aquatic habi«u tJi:;tribltlilm and relative abluu/ance ofmmnmaLf kmJWn ortt'(ptiCuJd l(J occur in the Tampa Bay watershed (l..aylIC et aJ..1971; ff 1971k).Spttdes~ ~~l CI)R R R RR R~U U U C