fact that developers of bayfill jirojects have recent- 

 ly demonstrated a willinjjness to preserve some 

 natural features on development sites (Gresham, 

 1967; Sykes, 1967). 



In Florida and other States borderino: the Gulf 

 of Mexico, dredfrinfi' and other forms of estuarine 

 destruction damage fisheries because most of the 

 species taken in sport and commercial fisheries live 

 in estuaries durinp: part or all of their life cycle 

 (Skud and Wilson, 1960: Sykes and Finucane, 

 1966). Premium estuarine habitats that support 

 the fisheries are vegetated, littoral biotopes con- 

 taining populous, stable, and highly productive 

 communities (Humm, 1956; Odum and Hoskin, 

 1958; Pomeroy, 1959; Odum, 1961; Margalef, 

 1963; Moore, 196.S; Livingstone, 1965; Stephens, 

 1966; O'Gower and Wacasey, 1967). 



Commercial fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico ac- 

 count for one-third of the Nation's marine land- 

 ings and are worth about $114 million annually 

 (Lyles, 1966). The landings could probably be in- 

 creased two to five times through greater fishing 

 effort, and use of species not now fished would 

 raise tliese figures even higher (Schaefer, 1965; 

 Pirie, 1967). In addition, production in some estu- 

 aries will certainly increase when methods are 

 developed foi- culture of certain fishes, crustaceans, 

 mollusks, and marine plants (Allen, 196.3; Loos- 

 anotf and Davis, 1963; Shelbourne, 1964; Roney, 

 1965). Thus, perhaps the most timely argument 

 against further destruction of estuarine habitats 

 is the present a,nd potential value of these areas for 

 production of food (Tressler and Lemon, 1951 ; 

 Hornig, 1966). Other nondestnictive uses of estu- 

 aries, such as recreation, are compatible with fish- 

 eries and greatly add to the cash value of estuarine 

 acreage, particularly in resoi-t areas like Boca 

 Ciega Bay. 



DESCRIPTION OF AREA 



Boca Ciega Bay lies within Tampa Bay, mid- 

 way along the west coast of peninsular Florida. 

 Separated from the Gulf of Mexico by a chain 

 of barrier islands, Boca Ciega Bay merges with 

 Tampa Bay on the south and extends ;25.6 km. 

 (16 miles) north as a narrow coastal lagoon (fig. 

 1). Water area is about 70 km.= ('27 square miles) 

 and water depth over nearly 80 percent of the area 

 is 1.8 m. or less (Olson, 1953; Olson and Morrill, 

 1955). 



Bayfills occupy about 1,400 hectares (3,500 

 acres) and have reduced the water area by nearly 

 20 percent (Saloman, 1965). Aerial photographs 

 taken before and after major dredging illustrate 

 how coastal development has reshaped Boca Ciega 

 Bay in less than a generation (figs. 2-9) . 



In areas that remain relatively undisturbed, 

 sediments are a firm mixture of shell and sand 

 (Goodell and Gorsline, 1961). They support, lux- 

 uriant beds of sea grass except in deep depi-essions 

 and chaimels where light is inadequate. Turtle 

 grass {Thalassia tefttiulinum Konig) is the most 

 common species, but in many places any of three 

 other species may be present (Phillips, 1960a. 

 1962). 



The fii-st comprehensive study of Boca Ciega 

 Bay began in 1955 as a joint project of the Florida 

 Board of Conservation and the Fish and Wildlife 

 Service (Hutton, Eldred, Woodburn, and Ingle, 

 1956). The objectives were to detennine commer- 

 cial and recreational assets of the lagoon and focus 

 attention on undesirable consexjuences of past and 

 pending dredge-fill operations. Although the re- 

 port did not impede bayfill constiiiction, it de- 

 scribed many biological and physical features of 

 the bay. Subsequent work on the biology of Boca 

 Ciega Bay included that of Springer and Wood- 

 burn (1960), Phillips (1960b), Dragovich and 

 Kelly (1964), Saloman (1965), Sykes and Finu- 

 cane (1966), and Bullock and Boss.= 



PROCEDURE 



Sampling began in September 1963 at 31 sta- 

 tions. Ten of these (BC series) had been previously 

 sami)led by biologists of the Florida State Board of 

 Conservation (Hutton et al., 1956). The other 21 

 (I) and PB series) were in natural areas, deeply 

 dredged canals, and a variety of habitats influenced 

 to some degree by dredging. On the basis of an 

 evaluation of initial collections at all stations, we 

 selected six (PB series) to represent conditions at 

 dredged and undredged locations. Sampling at 

 these stations l>egan in November 1963 and con- 

 tinued at 3-month intervals for 9 months (Febru- 

 ary, May, and August 1964). Four stations (PB 

 1, 3, 5, and 6) were in undredged areas, and two 

 (PB 2 and 4) were in dredged access canals be- 



- BuHock, Bob. and Chuck Boss. The ecological distribution 

 of the marine mollusks in Boca Ciega Bay — 1962. On file at 

 I)e|iartment of Biology. Florida Presbyterian Collegie, St. Peters- 

 burg. Fla. 33711. 



214 



U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 



