F\^5/oe>S-^7/s7 Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-77/37 APRIL 1978 CONTRIBUTED PAPERS ON COASTAL ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION STUDIES Presented at the FOURTH BIENNIAL INTERNATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH FEDERATION CONFERENCE Mt. Pocono, Pennsylvania 2-5 October 1977 Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development Program /"^ Office of Research and Development Ui. Environmental Protection Agency use Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior The Biological Services Program was established within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to suppl, key environmental issues that supporting ecosystems. The mi t^rogram was estaoiisnea wiinin ine u.j. r ibn y scientific information and methodologies on impact fish and wildlife resources and their ission of the program is as follows: ■ To strengthen the Fish and VJildlife Service in Its role as a primary source of information on national fish and wild- life resources, particularly in respect to environmental impact assessment. • To gather, analyze, and present information that will aid decisionmakers in the identification and resolution of problems associated with major changes in land and water use. • To provide better ecological information and evaluation for Department of the Interior development programs, such as those relating to energy development. Information developed by the Biological Services Program is intended for use in the planning and decisionmaking process to prevent or minimize the impact of development on fish and wildlife. Research activities and technical assistance services are based on an analysis of the issues a determination of the decisionmakers involved and their information needs, and an evaluation of the state of the art to identify information gaps and to determine priorities. This is a strategy that will ensure that the products produced and disseminated are timely and useful. Projects have been initiated in the following areas: coal extraction and conversion; power plants; geothermal , mineral and oil shale develop- ment; water resource analysis, including stream alterations and western water allocation, coastal ecosystems and Outer Continental Shelf develop- ment; and systems inventory, including National Wetland Inventory, habitat classification and analysis, and information transfer. The Biological Services Program consists of the Office of Biological Services in Washington, D.C., which is responsible for overall planning and management; National Teams, which provide the Program's central scientific and technical expertise and arrange for contracting biological services studies with states, universities, consulting firms, and others; Regional Staff, who provide a link to problems at the operating level; and staff at certain Fish and Wildlife Service research facilities, who conduct inhouse research studies. FWS/OBS-77/37 AprU 1978 CONTRIBUTED PAPERS ON COASTAL ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION STUDIES Presented at the FOURTH BIENNIAL INTERNATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH FEDERATION CONFERENCE MT. POCONO, PENNSYLVANIA 2-5 October 1977 Edited by: James B. Johnston National Coastal Ecosystems Team Office of Biological Services Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior NSTL Station, Miss. 39529 and Lee A. Barclay Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior P.O.Box 12559 Charleston, S. C. 29412 DISCLAIMER The opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in tiiis publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Biological Services Progi'am, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the Federal Government. PREFACE A session on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Coastal Ecological Characterization Studies was held on 3 October 1977 at the Fourth Biennial International Estuarine Research Conference in Mt. Pocono, Pennsylvania, to highlight the important components of the characterization process. The papers in this report are those presented at the session, with two exceptions. First, the paper entitled Interim Hierarchical Regional Classifica- tion Scheme for Coastal Ecosystems of the United States and its Territories is not included and may be secured from the author— Terry T. Terrell, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Room 206, Federal Building, Fort Collins, Colorado 80521. Secondly, papers entitled The Con- struction of a Conceptual Model of the Chcnier Plain Coastal Ecosystem in Texas and Louisiana and Maine Coast Characterization User's Guide are included in the proceedings. The first paper summarizes the modeling effort for the first coastal characterization study— Chenier Plain of Southwest Louisiana and Southeast Texas; while the second paper describes how a user would utilize products from the Maine characterization study. Funding for the initial characterization studies was provided through the Interagency Energy/Environment Research and Development Program which is planned and coordinated by the Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry within the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Research and Development. Inaugurated in fiscal year 1975, this program brings together the coordinated efforts of 77 Federal agencies and departments. The goal of the Program is to assure that both environmental data and control tech- nology are available to support the rapid development of domestic energy resources in an environmentally acceptable manner. Any suggestions or questions regarding this publication should be direc- ted to: Information Transfer Specialist National Coastal Ecosystems Team U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Space Technology Laboratories NSTL Station, Miss. 39529 This report should be cited as follows: Johnston, J. B. and L. A. Barclay, eds. Contributed papers on coastal ecological characterization studies, presented at the Fourth Biennial Inter- national Estuarine Research Conference, Mt. Pocono, Pa., 2-5 October 1977. Office of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildhfe Service. FWS/OBS- 77/37. 66 pp. ui CONTENTS PAGE Preface iii Coastal Ecological Characterization— An Overview /. B. Johnston 1 Ecosystem Characterization— An Approach to Coastal Planning and Management A. W. Palmisano 4 Evaluation of Methodology Used in Ecological Characterization of the Chenier P'ain R. H. Chabreck, J. B. Johnston, and J. B. Kirkivood 10 User-Oriented Conceptual Modeling in the Ecological Characterization of the Sea Islands and Coastal Plain of South Carolina and Georgia John J. Manzi and Robert J. Reimold 19 The Construction of a Conceptual Model of the Chenier Plain Coastal Ecosystem in Louisiana and Texas L. M. Bahr, Jr., J. W. Day, Jr., T. Gayle,J. G. Gosselink, C. S. Hopkinson, and D. Stellar 32 Maine Coast Characterization User's Guide Stewart I. Fcfer, Curtis Laffin, Larry Thornton, Patty Schettig, and Russ Brami 44 COASTAL ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION AN OVERVIEW J. B. Johnston^ INTRODUCTION The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), in response to accelerated development pressures upon the coastal zone of the United States and its territories, has developed an ecological characterization approach for describing these valuable areas. An ecological characterization is a description of the important components and processes of an ecosystem. The emphasis of ecological characteri- zation, however, is placed on understanding func- tional relationships. The objective of ecological characterization is to develop an ecosystem information base, and is unique in that it: 1. Focuses on functional relationships. 2. Relates to specific and geographically well- defined ecosystems. 3. Integrates existing multidisciplinary in- formation. 4. Represents state-of-the-art understanding of the ecological relationships. 5. Provides an ecologically based framework for comprehensive coastal planning. 6. Develops tools for assessment of environ- mental impacts. 7. Identifies information deficiencies and re- search priorities. Among the principal users of the study results are those entitites within the FWS which are in- volved in programs oriented toward the manage- ment of coastal areas of the U.S. and its territories. FWS has mandates under the Fish and Wildlife Co- ordination Act of 1958 and the Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, and has responsibility for the National Coastal Ecosystems Team, Office of Biological Semces, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, NSTL Sta- tion, Miss. 39529. review of permits for development and discharge activities in U.S. wetlands and aquatic systems. Prin- cipal permit authority lies with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Within the FWS, the Division of Ecological Services (ES) Land and Water Resources Development Planning Program has lead responsibility. Although a characterization will not provide all tiie answers for reviewing a permit application, it will provide an ecological data base (bibliography, site-specific data, maps, etc.) and describe the area o.n an ecosystem level. Supplemental data, i.e., field inspections and review of developmental prac- tices for an area, wall still be needed by the ES biologist and his counterparts in other agencies, for the preparation of final reports. Characterizations will be available for use by all FWS programs related to coastal resource manage- ment and planning. Other applications are assessing the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) development, Coastal Zone Management (CZM), and Section 208 water (quality planning. Characterizations will iden- tify fish and wildlife populations and their habitats that coidd be impacted during ecological emergen- cies such as oil spills. Perhaps of even greater value, characterizations will provide foundations for plan- ning during formulation of emergency response plans, i.e.. Coast Guard and EPA oil-spill contin- gency plans. Government agencies other than the FWS are also considered to be primary users of characteriza- tions. These agencies include the National Marine Fisheries Service, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, USCG, COE, State CZM, and fish and game agencies. Additional users could include conserva- tion groups, academic institutions, and the various industries or service companies involved in coastal developments. Any aj^ency or private group with an interest in coastal resource decisionmaking should be able to carry out its responsibilities more effectively by applying a coastal characterization. Coastal areas presently being characterized and anticip^iteU study completion date are: (1) the Chenief Plain (Southwest Louisiana and Southeast Texas^^winter 1978; (2) the Sea Islands and CoastaJ Plain of Georgia and South Carolina— sumn^er J979; (3) the Pacific Northwest (Northern Califo><-|\ia» Oregon, and Washington)— winter 1978; anc^ (4) \\y^ Rocky Coast of Maine— winter 1979. These sm^y areas were delineated on the basis of ecolo^i,^ characteristics; consequently the charac- terizaiyp^s a^ije primarily regional in scope and are not n^-q?^s^ifi;ty limited tu political or geographic bounda^es;.. Sipme states, like Florida and Alaska, includq. aH Qjf parts of more than one distinct coastal ^OiS;ys,■ in O u lU Supplemental Data OCS Development Planning OBS ocs Development USGS Supplemental Data CZM Planning CZM Plan Implementation ES / OBS NOAA / State Supplemental Data Permit Review Sec 10 & 404 Permit Decision ES USAGE Supplemental Data Water Quality Management Plans Water Quality Standards ECE 1 ES EPA ES/ECE Supplemental Data on Spill Contingency Plan Oil Spill Response Activity CG — OTHER Figure 4. Relationship of ecosystem characterization information to supplemental data requirements and selected Fish and Wildlife Service-related action programs in the coastal zone. required for OCS leasing. Ecosystem characteriza- tions, however, could provide information on the distribution and vidue of wetlands and fish and wildhfe resources in the vicinity of the proposed development. Much of the basic site-specific infor- mation will be contained in the data source appen- dix. Furthennore, the ecosystem characterization report would assist in assessing impacts on the important natural functional processes of the system, e.g., alteration of salinities and currents, effects on primary and secondary productivity, sediment transport processes, etc. Information regarding the effects and mitigation procedures specifically associated with dredging must be pro- vided from supplemental sources such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dredge Material Research Program. The ecosystem characteri- zation should be regarded as one of a number of tools required to protect and manage living resources. To be effective, other more specialized tools will also be required. It is important that users recognize the tools available to them and the purpose for which they were designed. PROJECT STATUS To date, four coastal ecosystems are being characterized using the approach described. The Chenier Plain study of southwestern Louisiana and southeastern Texas was initiated in April 1976 and is scheduled for completion in late 1978. The other three studies were started in February 1977. They include the coast of South Carolina— Georgia, the rocky coast of Maine, and the Pacific coast from Cape Mendocino, California to Cape Flattery, Washington. These studies are due for completion in 1979. Funding has been provided through the Federal Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development Program (FIE/ER&D) adminis- tered by the Environmental Protection Agency. The Fish and Wildlife Service has been responsi- ble for the design and management of the charac- terization contracts. There are approximately 15 coastal ecosystems fringing the 48 contiguous States. The FIE/ER&D program has provided a mechanism to rapidly advance our understanding of a significant portion of the coastal zone and it is hoped that the techniques developed in this program will have broad application by other agencies to other areas. CONCLUSION Decisions facing natural resource management become increasingly complex as knowledge advances and interactions are better understood. Improved methods of data integration will become more essential to the appHcation of existing information. Until holistic systems analysis becomes more effective, we will have to rely on modular components to integrate information. Such modules, especially regarding natural systems, can readily be adapted to more comprehensive pro- grams, if properly designed. The characterization process, as outlined, add- resses an important functional unit of the environ- ment—the ecosystem. The approach involves the delineation of the physical boundaries of the system, preparation of a functional conceptual eco- system model, synthesis and analysis of existing information using the model as a "blueprint," and the preparation of an interim pilot characterization report. The latter report, after review by the user group, will permit the effective production of the final ecosystem characterization report. During the process most of the relevant information about the system will be brought together in a data source appendix. Guidance throughout the project is pro- vided by a user committee to assure that the information will meet action program needs. The current energy dilemma may be the first true test of our nation's ability to marshal the diverse knowledge we have accumulated over the past few centuries into a program which assures our survival and strives at least to maintain the cultural standards to which we have become accus- tomed. Ecosystem characterizations can provide an important ecological foundation from which to plan and manage our natural resources. EVALUATION OF METHODOLOGY USED IN ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF THE CHENIER PLAIN R. H. Chabreck,' J. B.Johnston,' and J. B. Knkwood- INTRODUCTION Increasing uses of coastal areas by developers, plus increasing public awareness of the value of living resources in these areas, have resulted in in- creasing conflicts concerning land and water uses. These conflicts can be resolved and reasonable de- velopment can proceed while, at the same time, productivity is maintained, if a good understanding of the functions of these fragile areas and more pre- cise methods of predicting the effects of further alterations can be developed. The ecological char- acterization process was devised by the Fish and Wildhfe Service (FWS) as a procedure for providing this understanding. Characterizations provide a de- scription of the important environmental and socioeconomic resources and physical processes comprising coastal ecosystems, and an understand- ing of the dynamic relationships of these systems by integrating existing resource data as a functional ecological unit. The area selected for the initial ecosystem char- acterization was the Chenier Plain of southeastern Texas and southwestern Louisiana. This area is an important producer of fish and wildlife resources; it is subjected to a wide variety of land use prac- tices; it contains large areas of vital natural habitat such as coastal marshes, estuaries, and shallow off- shore waters; and it supports several endangered and threatened species. There is a large amount of biological and environmental data available from previous studies of this ecosystem, and the Chenier Plain area has a long history of development associ- ated with industrialization, mineral extraction, navigation, flood control, and agriculture. Through investigation and evaluation of the productivity of resources that have been subjected to various in- tensities of development, it should be possible to iormulate precise impact predictions. National Coastal Ecosystems Team, Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, NSTL Station, Miss. 39529. Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Atlanta, Ga. 30347. Since the Chenier Plain characterization was the first investigation of this type to be initiated, an important aspect of the project was an evalua- tion of the methodology used. This evaluation was needed also for the orderly execution of subse- quent characterizations of other coastal ecosys- tems. A methodology evaluation made it possible to identify techniques which effectively served to meet project objectives, and at the same time it identified procedures that had not contributed sig- nificantly. Important aspects of the characterization metht)dology to be evaluated in this paper include the steering committee concept, user needs sur\ey, conceptual modeling, area delineation, type of map- ping, data search and presentation, and pilot study. This paper presents the results of these evaluations and suggests alternative procedures where unsatis- factory results were obtained. STEERING COMMITTEE CONCEPT In order to facilitate active input into the char- acterization study by others within and outside the FWS, various State and Federal agencies closely in- volved with activities within the Chenier Plain were asked to assign a representative to a steering com- mittee. These committee members were assigned on the basis of their iniderstanding of tiic area or special knowledge of certain aspects of the charac- terization process. The Steering Committee re- viewed progress made by contractors at regularly schedided periods, assessed this progress, and made recommendations to the FWS Project Officer re- garding future study areas. The initial meeting of the Steering Committee was held prior to the beginning of work. Most members showed a strong interest in the project and responded with both oral and written reviews of materiiil presented to them. Enthusiasm re- mained high during the project and attendance at meetings was even higher than anticipated. The committee size (six) for Chenier Plain was accept- 10 able and each person had adequate time to actively participate in the discussion. The Steering Committee concept proved to be an important aspect of the characterization and assured establishment of priorities necessary to cover all areas of potential interest to resource managers and other user groups. The Steering Com- mittee concept has been continued in the other characterization studies. USER NEEDS SURVEY The Chenier Plain characterization was in- tended to serve primarily as a resource manage- ment tool. Thus, in order to develop a characteri- zation methodology which would achieve this ob- jective, it was necessary to first identify the nature and relative magnitude of the various types of on- going resource management efforts and other re- lated activities occurring within the study area. The data required to enable managers to make sensible decisions for resource utilization were identified for various regulatory organizations. Also, it was necessary to ascertain the level of detail and pre- ferred formats for data presentation which were most directly applicable and interpretable within the context of these management activities. A preliminary list of users to be contacted was compiled and circulated to Steering Committee members and other contacts for review. The addi- tions and modifications to the list which were sug- gested were then incorporated into the survey plan. Further additions to the list were made based on the recommendations of several respondents to a questionnaire. The potential users were then classi- fied into two groups: those to be interviewed per- sonally and those to be contacted only by ques- tionnaires and telephone followup, as necessary. Those organizational representatives selected for interviewing were thought to be more immediately involved in policy formulation, decisionmaking, and research activities within the Chenier Plan. A questionnaire was used to determine user needs. The questionnaire was designed as a check- list of all resources and possible areas of interest. The draft questionnaire was circulated to members of the Steering Committee for comments and proposed revisions before it was distributed to the users that had been identified. Less than half of the questionnaires were returned by the date re- quested. Three out of over 90 recipients reported that they elected not to respond. A telephone fol- lowup was employed to maximize the information yield. When a 90 percent return was achieved, a final analysis was perfomied on the responses. The returns were grouped into categories ac- cording to the management responsibilities of the users, as indicated by responses. Those categories are identified below: 1. Project and permit review on a case-by- case basis. 2. Environmental planning for water re- lated projects (including coastal engi- neering, flood control, water allocation, etc.). 3. Resource management for fish and wild- life habitat maintenance. 4. Coordination of coastal zone activities. 5. Design and enforcement of environ- mental legislation. 6. General land use planning. 7. Research and experimentation. 8. Environmental health and agricultural interests. Clearly, the management responsibilities of the various groups overlapped into a second or even third category. This categorization was designed to identify the respective groups by what appeared to be their major management focus. One objective of this categorization was to ascertain if the data utilized and the data preferred were significantly different according to the responsibilities of the various user groups. In some cases, therefore, responses were included in two categories. Data needs showed equal weighting by users in regards to their reliance on floral, faunal, and physical area features. There was no difference demonstrated among the management groups except that the water-related management groups expressed preferential dependence on physi- cal data. Answers to questions on environmental data needs may be ranked into data categories. The most important categories (over 70 percent in- terest) to users are shown in Table 1. The user needs survey is not being used in other characterization studies because it did not prove to be cost-effective and the required Office of Management and Budget clearance causes untimely delays. It appears that steering committee members and FWS personnel provide the most economical and effective means for acquiring necessary information on user needs. 11 Table 1. Potential User's Interests by Data Category' % of respondents Category indicating interest Habitat classification 80.6 Based on dominant \ egetation 83.3 Based on physical parameters 77.8 Productivity 80.6 Dominant fish 72.2 Sport species 77.8 Endangered species 77.8 Food webs 75.0 Salinity regime 77.8 Precipitation 72.2 Sediment type 75.0 Soil type 72.2 Water quality 86.1 Industrial projects 72.2 Table 2. Percent of Respondents Indicating a Preference for Various Data Presentation Techniques 3 Includes only categories in which at least 70% of respon- dents indicated interest. DATA PRESENTATION FORMATS The survey of potential users of environmental data indicated little preference for data formats. Ail groups reported that they employ maps, charts, tables, and reports with about the same frequency and all groups rely to a lesser extent on computer- ized information. The apparent tendency to de- emphasize computerized information may reflect economic constraints, limited computer access, lack of valid data banks, or mistrust of computer- ized printouts. In response to the survey concern- ing preferred data presentation formats, computer tape and flow diagrams were again deemphasized, but maps were preferred (Table 2). There was no difference in the format preferences among differ- ent management interests. However, the permit and project review group preferred a significantly higher scale than presently available. For example, representatives of the Galveston and Lafayette FWS field offices indicated that maps and photos currently used are at the 1:24,000, and 1:62,500 levels of resolution. The representatives expressed a desire to have the information provided at the 1:2,000 and 1:5,000 levels. Potential users for the other characterization studies have expressed essen- tially the same type of data format priorities. CONCEPTUAL MODEL Construction of a conceptual model of the eco-, system was one of the first tasks performed during Data presentation techniques % of respondents indicating preference Maps 88.9 Tables 75.0 Graphs 75.0 Narratives 69.4 Computer data tapes 33.3 Flow diagrams 27.8 the characterization of the Chenicr Plain. The model identified, as accurately as possible, the sys- tem components and their functional interactions and regulatory processes. The initial model served as a guide for development of the characterization and identified the data that should be assembled and where the data would be applied in the charac- terization. In addition to functioning as a guide in the data collection effort, the model also assured what appropriate focus would be given to the vari- ous components of the ecosystem. After the data was assembled, analyzed, and applied to the appropriate components, the result- ing model served to identify data gaps and provid- ed insight to areas requiring special attention. The conceptual model of the Chenier Plain eco- system characterization contained components, flows, structure, and external forcing functions and presented them in proper relationship. It further provided the organizational framework for devel- opment of the products of the characterization. Description, explanation, and prediction followed the outline of the conceptual model so that the ecosystem, its basins, habitats or communities, populations, and individuals could be elaborated more systematically in the characterization. Data, flow diagrams, or other forms of infor- mation proposed for inclusion in the characteriza- tion were tested for (1) reliability; (2) clarity of content; (3) relevance, i.e., identifiability and specificity of the information, interaction, etc., and (4) redundancy. The conceptual model was also checked for organization and completeness. The conceptual models for the other character- ization studies have evolved from an initial guide to data collection and utilization, to a system of qual- itative ecological modeling for user orientation. This approach includes modeling ecosystems by in- corporating generalized energese diagrams with coincidental graphic displays that illustrate repre- sentational ecosystem cross sections and appropri- 12 ate Holistic and faunistic cliaracters. Thus each ecosystem is introduced by a combinatorial model merging classic Odum energese symbolism with graphic (pictorial) presentations. This combination should give the wide range of user groups a maxi- mimi understanding of each ecosystem by stressing the identification of primary ecosystem compo- nents and the relationships between these compo- nents. AREA DELINEATION The coastal zone in western Louisiana and eastern Texas is a large integrated system which de- veloped during 7,000 years of deposition of river- ine sediments, mostly from the Mississippi River, coupled with the continual erosion, sorting, re- working, and longshore transport of these sedi- ments by marine forces. The entire system can be functionally divided into two broad zones, the eastern deltaic plain and the western Chenier Plain. The geological formation of the Chenier Plain was studied during the characterization of this area so it coidd be demonstrated that the entire region is a system, the parts of which are functionally connec- ted by dynamic long-temn physical processes. During the characterization of the Chenier Plain ecosystem, it was appropriate to delineate the area into functional subsystems. A hierarchy of resolution was used; at the top is the entire Chenier Plain, which consists of a group of individual drain- age basins, each of which is further subdivided into distinct regions (habitats) with characteristic organ- ismal communities and physical components, and habitats that are further subdivided into individual species units (Table 3). Each higher level of resolu- tion obviously includes more detail (complexity), although increasing the detail in a system model does not necessarily confer more understanding of the entire system. As the level of resolution is increased to a small system, the time frame becomes shorter. For ex- ample, the entire Chenier Plain system evolved and is changing on a time scale of thousands of years, keyed to such geological processes as the periodic switching of the Mississippi River and eustatic (sea level) changes. Individual habitats, on the other hand, have been affected by annual cycles of solar energy flux, animal migrations, etc., and even were radically altered by such short-term events as storm surges and local "eat outs" by geese or muskrats. Table 3. Units within the Chenier Plain Ecosystem Hierarchy- Basins Habitats Populations and/or species Vermilion Wetlands Mermentau Impounded areas Chenier Salt marsh Calcasieu Brackish marsh Sabine Intermediate marsh East Bay Fresh marsh Swamp forest Aquatic Nearshore gulf Inland open water Ridges Beach Cheniers, natural levees, Pleistocene islands Upland and manmade spoil areas Agriculture Rice and other crops Pasture Urban Shrimp Menhaden Finfish Oyster Blue crab Crawfish Clam F'urbearers and other mammals Alligator and other reptOes Bullfrog Waterfowl and other birds Each level of the hierarchy was set in a natural ecological context in the characterization in keep- ing with the following rationale: L The whole Chenier Plain region is unified by a common geological and climatic his- tory that explains its origins. 2. The drainage basin is the wetland analog of the watershed, and it is tiie mc^st nearly self-contained or autonomous ecosystem of the Chenier Plain. It is composed of a set of habitats or communities integrated by the flow of water through the basin. 3. "Habitats" or communities are not as sharply defined. A habitat refers to an or- ganized unit that has characteristics in addi- tion to its individual and population com- ponents and it functions as a unit through coupled metabolic transformations. 4. Populations of individual species are intui- tively unique. The organisms have a com- mon gene pool, and harvest statistics are usually reported by species. Individual species often occur in a number of differ- ent habitats. This method for delineating study area is being used in some of the other characterization studies and provides the framework for understanding the functional relationships within an ecosystem. However, other methods are also being explored. 13 LAND USE DATA AND TYPE MAPPING Previous studies had proven the usefulness of remote sensing techniques for coastal mapping. They had also proven this tool to be cost-effective, efficient, and relatively accurate. The degree of ac- curacy, however, depended upon the resolution de- sired. Techniques tested in devising a methodology suitable for ecological characterization were Landsat imageiy, black and white photographs, infrared imagery, aerial and ground obsen'ations, and various combinations of these. Landsat imagery was tested with the most sophisticated equipment available at Bendix Cor- poration, Ann Arbor, Michigan and National At- mospheric and Space Administration, Slidell, Lou- isiana. Training sites were adequately identified by ground truth to identify spectral signatures dis- played on Landsat imager^'. Maps were quickly generated by this procedure in pilot study areas and quantitative data were displayed according to the frequency of various signatures. Resolution appeared to be within acceptable limits. However, checks of the maps generated in this manner revealed that there was not always a distinct signature for each habitat; consequently, map displays sometimes differed significantly from actual conditions. Coastal marshes make up a large portion of the Chenier Plain and they contain a wide array of plant species varying in composition, density, and growth stage. These differences could not be ade- quately categorized from Landsat scenes, as re- quired for the characterization process. The procedure that proved most desirable is similar to that currently used for the National Wet- land Inventory being conducted by the Fish and Wildlife Sei^vice. This procedure requires a combi- nation of data obtained from infrared imagery and other aerial surveys. Aerial sui"veys by persons able to identify plant types from low-level flights over the area are a strategic part of this type mapping. This procedure, coupled with land-use mapping from black and white photographs, produced data with accuracy satisfactory lor characterization purposes. Also, this procedure proved to be more cost-effective than all other adequate procedures tested. PILOT STUDY The overall objective of the pilot study was to gather sufficient information to develop a "mini- atlas," which was used by project reviewers and others to evaluate a "finished" product with re- spect to the cost effectiveness of specific methods used, and the usefulness of the information to prospective users. In addition, it provided oppor- tunities for the researchers to correct any misjudg- ments and possibly give insight to new methods. Data processing included investigation of data availability, collection, coding, analysis, and pre- sentation. Data gaps were identified and filled where possible. Criteria initially used for selection of the pilot study area included that the area be large enough and variable enough to be representative of the problems encountered over the entire Chenier Plain, and that previous investigations completed in the area would provide adequate background data for characterization. Those involved in the actual choosing of the site deemed that these criteria alone were insufficient to permit a final decision. Other criteria, therefore, had to be considered. In brief, some of these additional factors used were: 1 . A representative display of habitats was lo- cated within the area. 2. A major urban complex was located within the basin. 3. Prevalence ot petro-chemiciil industries. 4. Diversified fisheries and wildlife resources. The pilot study concept proved to be an effec- tive part of the characterization process. It met the primary objective of providing a preliminary for- mat which could be reviewed and modified to maximize the effectiveness of the final product in meeting needs of user groups. CHARACTERIZATION STUDY The general structure developed for the pilot study was used for the characterization atlas. This facilitated assessment and, to some degree, made known what could be expected in the final charac- terization atlas. Results were presented in several forms; maps, figures, tables. The written portion of the atlas was designed, to the extent possible, to stimulate the use of the material by resource man- agers. Drafts of the atlas, maps, and other documents that are considered as the final products of the Ecological Characterization of the Chenier Plain are being reviewed and revised, and should be pub- lished during 1978. 14 THE USE OF A PILOT STUDY IN DEFINING CHARACTERIZATION PROCEDURES AND PRODUCTS-COOS BAY, OREGON Jay F. Watson/ Charles M. Proctor,^ and Robert L. Holton^ INTRODUCTION In 1804, when Captains Meriweather Lewis and William Clark began their historic expedition to the Pacific Ocean, they carried with them an extraordi- nary document, a copy of President Thomas Jeffer- son's instructions to them (Cutright 1969). Presi- dent Jefferson directed Lewis and Clark to observe: . . . climate as characterized by the thermom- eter, by the proportion of rainy, cloudy, and clear days, by lightning, hail, snow, ice, by the access and recess of frost, by the winds prevail- ing at different seasons, the dates at which par- ticular plants put forth or lose their flowers, or leaf, times of appearance of particular birds, or reptiles, or insects (Thwaites 1904). Their expedition coOected an incredible amount of information concerning botany, zoology, car- tography, meteorology, and ethnology. Much of their information was collected at Fort Clatsop near the mouth of the Columbia River. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) Pilot Study for the Ecological Characterization of the Pacific Northwest Coastal Region, although not of the historical significance of the Lewis and Clark expedition, has many similar characteristics. The Service's study is a two-year effort. The Lewis and Clark expedition took two years and four months to complete. The expedition's en- campment at Fort Clatsop was only part of their total project. The Pilot Study at Coos Bay is just a part of the total characterization process. Secondly, the expedition's objective was to reach the Pacific Ocean. The FWS's objective is to characterize the Pacific Northwest coastal region from Cape Flattery, Washington, to Cape Mendo- cino, California. Their objective was approximately in the center of our study area. Ipish and WUdlife Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Portland, Ore. 97232. ^Ryckman, Edgerly, Tomlinson, and Associates, Envirodyne Engi- neers, Bellevue, Wash. Dept. of Oceanography, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, Ore. Thirdly, it was hoped that the Lewis and Clark expedition would be the first of a continuing effort in the far west. The Pilot Study of Coos Bay is the first of 10 units in the process to characterize the Pacific Northwest coastal region. Fourth, Captains Lewis and Clark were given a general set of instructions by President Jefferson with which to guide their data collecting efforts. The FWS contractor has also been given a general set of instructions to guide the characterization ef- fort. History will have to teD us if the FWS writes instructions the way President Jefferson did. And last, Lewis and Clark were directed to "characterize" the route they traveled, i.e., to pick out the significant things, the important items that separated one area from another. For example, while at Fort Clatsop, Lewis and Clark noted the dominant plants and animals. The characterization is also attempting to pick out or define the impor- tant features of the area. As an additional comment, there is one major difference between the Lewis and Clark expedition and FWS effort. The Lewis and Clark expedition cost $38,722.25 (Jackson 1977). The characteriza- tion study will cost approximately 12 times as much. A characterization may be defined as: A study to obtain and synthesize available environ- mental data and provide an analysis of functional relationships and dynamics. The final products from a characterization will include: (1) a concep- tual model, (2) a characterization atlas with narra- tive text, figures, tables, and charts, and (3) a data source appendix. An intermediate step in this pro- cess is a "Pilot Study" or test characterization which is the subject of this paper. It is the mission of the FWS to conserve, pro- tect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their habi- tat for the benefit of the people of the United States. In order to carry out this mission, the FWS is authorized or required, among other things, to conduct investigations, surveys, and research. An Ecological Characterization of the Pacific Northi 15 west Coastal Region is one of the investigations that is being conducted to meet these responsibili- ties. The study area, extending from Cape Flattery, Washington, to Cape Mendocino, California, and from the crest of the coast range to the 200-m con- tour line of the Pacific Ocean is an area of high fish and wildlife values. To help maintain these values the Sei"vice operates eight wildlife refuges along the California, Oregon, and Washington coast. These National Wildlife Refuges, including Oregon Island, Three Arch Rocks, Lewis and Clark, Columbia White-tailed Deer, Willapa, Copalis, Quillayute Nee- dles, and Flattery Rocks, provide habitat for water- fowl, shorebirds, endangered species, and seabirds. In addition, the FWS is active in reviewing and commenting upon proposed activities that could cause adverse impacts upon fish and wildlife and their habitats in the coastal region. The FWS is also concerned about the possible impacts of energy development projects upon the area. These projects include foreign oil imports, Alaskan oil tranship- ment, liquified natural gas import, petrochemical industry development, and Outer Continental Shelf activities. The Coos Bay Unit was selected as a Pilot Study because it is representative of the area in habitat diversity, resources, and development. The Coos Bay Unit includes all of the major components that were included in the first product of study, the conceptual model. The unit contains agricultural, recreational and commercial develop- ments, logging, light industry, shipping, fisheries, and undeveloped areas. It was the opinion of the FWS and our contractor that the Coos Bay Unit would provide the kind of information and prob- lems necessary to test the characterization process. The point of conducting the Pilot Study was to pro- vide an example of the framework, data collection and coverage, map resolution, and synthesis of in- formation that the contractor proposes to use in the final products. The success of this effort will probably not be fully apparent until the entire characterization is complete. METHODS The Ecological Characterization o{ the Pacific Northwest Coastal Region is being conducted under contract by Ryckman, Edgcrley, Tomlinson, and Associates, a St. Louis, Missouri, consulting firm with offices in Bellevuc, Washington, and San Jose, California. They are being aided in the study by two subcontractors and several consultants. Dr. Charles Proctor is the Project Manager, Mr. John Garcia is Technical Director, and Dr. Robert Holton is the Technical Coordinator for the Oregon area of the characterization. Dr. Jay Watson is Project Officer for the FWS. For the Pilot Study, basic guidelines have been developed for the preparation of products. First, we have defined our user. It was stated early in the project that our target user was an FWS - Ecological Services field biologist. Although we want the characterization to be aimed primarily at FWS biologists, the characteri- zation must also be acceptable to a wide range of users. In an attempt to meet this guideline we have included and are continuing to include several Fed- eral, State, and local agencies in the review process. In addition, we are attempting to provide enough information in the text so that anyone, given the time and interest, can understand all aspects of the characterization. For example, if we take a concep- tual model of the external factors important in understanding an eelgrass (Zostera spp.) communi- ty, and present it without clearly developing an un- derstanding of the energy-mass flow symbols used in the model, it is not of a great deal of use to our field biologists or other people who may wish to use the conceptual model. However, if we take the user through an exercise in using the various sym- bols, developing the vocabulary and syntax of this new language in a structured manner, then the con- ceptual mt)del becomes a useful product. That is, if we move progressively through our conceptual model from a pictoral representation of a simplified hydrologic cycle to a general energy-mass flow dia- gram to a more detailed energy-mass flow diagram, we think the user can more easily understand the special language of the diagrammatic models of the ecosystems processes. The conceptual model is used as a template or guide for data collection. The conceptual model was completed with the intention that it would lead to a structured collection and synthesis of ex- isting information for the pilot study and the rest of the characterization. For example, there is a great deal of information available concerning the distribution of zinc in the lower Columbia River and Willapa Bay, Washington. However, all of the mod- els to date seem to indicate that zinc distribution data are not a key factor in our understanding of the structure and function of coastal ecosystems. If we were not careful, however, we could have spent a great deal of time trying to work the zinc infor- mation into our analysis. 16 The text of the characterization, or in this case the text for the pilot study, is to start at the begin- ning or at some point near the beginning in our un- derstanding of a particular process or system. Dr. Tim Joyner, a consultant on this project who is writing the section concerning geologic processes, located a discussion by William Maclure which seems to establish a base for further analysis. Mac- lure's observations (1817) seems to give us a starting point for our discussion of the geologic processes for the Coos Bay Pilot Study. Another starting point that was selected for the discussion of Trophic Structures was Lindeman's analysis of The Trophic- Dynamic Aspect of Ecology (Lindeman 1942). Whether we like to admit it or not, most of the information transferred within the FWS and from the Service to other agencies is in black and white and reproduced on copying machines. Therefore, to obtain the greatest long-term use of the maps and other graphic materials being produced for the characterization, we are using black and white. The pilot study contains several different approaches to information presentation, and the reviewers are se- lecting the ones that they consider the most useful. Furthermore, we are attempting to avoid oversized documents by fitting most of our information on 8'/2-by-l 1-inch pages. A few foldout pages have been included, which are 11 by 17 inches. One of the most perplexing problems in com- pleting the pUot study of Coos Bay has been to match the depth or extent of information coverage with manpower. Actual data collection and analy- sis for the Coos Bay Watershed Unit (one of 10 units to be characterized) began on 1 June 1977, and was completed 4 months later on 30 Septem- ber 1977. If 4 months are required for each water- shed, we will not complete the project by the scheduled completion date of December 1978. However, we think that future units will be com- pleted more rapidly because the conceptual model has been refined using actual data, the graphics and format will stabilize, and the amount of information required for each new unit will decrease as the proj- ect nears completion. For example, the FWS is providing the wetland maps for the Pilot Study area and also for the en- tire characterization area. Our first efforts on the Coos Bay Unit took approximately 1.5 man-months to locate and delineate the wetlands found within the five quadrangle maps that make up the unit. The process of wetland mapping proceeds as fol- lows: 1. Aerial photographs obtained; 2. Field reconnaissance of the study area com- pleted; 3. Classification and delineation of wetlands completed according to the FWS Classifi- cation System; and 4. Field check sites as necessary. During our initial effort on Coos Bay the pho- tographs were delineated and then 17 sites were checked. One major problem was identified during these checks; mapping conventions must be well established. For example, originally the photointer- preters were using tidegates as the head of high tide. Ground checks indicated that about half of the tidegates were inoperable and that head of tide was actually further upstream. The mapping conven- tion that was chosen to remedy this mapping prob- lem was modified from a definition in Oregon Es- tuaries (Oregon Division of State Lands 1973). The head of tide, as we are defining it now, is a point of continuous diking along the river edge where the tideland narrows to a width of approximately 6 to 9 m (20 to 30 ft). Now that the first set of wetland maps has been produced, we believe that the effort required for future mapping can be greatly reduced. Ground truth sites can probably be reduced from 17 to 10 or less and the final field checks eliminated entirely. We believe that the mapping effort will be 0.5 man- month per unit as opposed to 1.5 man-months re- quired for the Coos Bay Unit. CONCLUSION What have we learned from the Pilot Study of Coos Bay, Oregon? Although we have just com- pleted the pilot study, it appears that: 1. The conceptual model is a suitable frame- work for data collection; 2. The contractor has adequate manpower to complete the characterization on schedule; 3. The depth of coverage is sufficient for an understanding of functional relationships and dynamics of the processes described in the characterization; and 4. The amount of information collected is not so extensive that it cannot be synthesized into a comprehensible document. However, there are also some problems that have been identified during the pilot study. One of the most persistent problems is showing the rela- tionship between natural resources and socioeco- nomic processes. We are having difficulty showing 17 just how natural resource utilization relates to socioeconomic processes. For example, if we are managing our natural resources effectively, our eco- nomic activity should be dictated by the resources available. If on the other hand, we cannot identify important processes or the levels of resources avail- able, then economic activity is probably dictating the rate of utilization. That is, are we cutting trees faster than we are growing them? In any event, the information contained in the conceptual model and the pilot study does not clearly show the rela- tionship between man's activities and the natural resource base. It is hoped that during the course of this project we will be able to improve our under- standing of this relationship. Another problem that has become apparent in- volves the various ecosystem models. For example, the different systems vary with high and low tides, night and day, summer and winter, and high and low flows. We are looking over various options that could be used to modify the models to show these variations. REFERENCES Cutright, P. R. 1969. Lewis and Clark: Pioneering naturalists. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. 506 pp. Jackson, D., ed. 1977. Letters of the Lewis and Clark expedition with related documents, 1783-1854. University of Illinois Press, Urbana (cited in Cutright, 1969). Lindeman, R. L. 1942. The trophic-dynamic aspect of ecology. Ecology 23:399-418. Maclure, W. 1817. Observations on the geology of the United States of America with some remarks on the nature and fertility of soils by the decomposition of the different classes of rocks; and an application to the fertility of every state in the Union in reference to accom- panying geologic map. Read as a memoir before the Am. PhUos. Soc. and inserted in the first volume of their Transactions, New Series- Philadelphia. Oregon Division of State Lands. 1973. Oregon estuaries, Portland, Oregon, n.p. Thwaites, R. G., ed. 1904-5. Original journals of the Lewis and Clark expedition. Dodd, Mead and.Co. New York. 8 vols (cited in Cutright, 1969). 18 USER-ORIENTED CONCEPTUAL MODELING IN THE ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF THE SEA ISLANDS AND COASTAL PLAIN OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND GEORGIA JohnJ.Manzi^ and Robert J. Reimold^ INTRODUCTION The Division of Marine Resources, South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Depart- ment, began work in February 1977 on an eco- logical characterization of the sea islands and coastal areas of South Carolina and Georgia. This work is under contract to the U.S. Fish and Wild- Hfe Service and has as its principal goal "a descrip- tion of the important components and processes comprising (sea island) ecosystems and an under- standing of their important functional relation- ships" (Palmisano, 1978). The final products of the characterization include (1) a conceptual model which identifies system components and their interactions; (2) a characterization atlas which illustrates through graphs, pictorials, tables, and maps the socioeconomic, physical, and bio- logical aspects of the study area; (3) a characteriza- tion narrative and bibliography which summarizes available published and unpublished data on the study area; and (4) a data appendix containing un- published data used in the characterization effort (U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildhfe Service, RFP FWS-8-206, 25 June 1976). These products should provide essential information to decisionmakers concerning proposed or existing perturbations in the coastal areas of South Carolina and Georgia. In addition, the characterization should also indicate where serious data gaps exist and perhaps place priorities on the direction of future research. The conceptual model, as originally outlined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (RFP FWS- 8-206), was to function primarily as an instrument to assist in collection and organization of data. In this context, the model would form a framework of the coastal ecosystems indicating principal com- ponents and the relationships between them. The model would then act as a guide to project partici- Marine Resources Research Institute, Charleston, S.C. 29412 ■'Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Brunswick, Ga. 31520 pants in their individual assignments and thus provide the cohesion necessary to produce a uni- form and consistent characterization. In practice, the conceptual model for the ecological characteri- zation of the coastal areas of South Carolina and Georgia has evolved into a user-oriented- (rather than producer-oriented) guide to the coastal eco- systems characterization products (narrative, atlas, and data appendix). The present paper traces this evolution and describes the model/user package concept adopted for the sea island characterization project. CONCEPTUAL MODELING- INITIAL PROPOSAL In August 1976, the Division of Marine Re- sources, South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Re- sources Department, responded to RFP FWS-8- 206 with a proposal to develop a comprehensive ecological characterization of the sea islands and coastal plain of South Carolina and Georgia. In this document we proposed a schedule of ecosystem modeling strongly based in systems analysis (Dale 1970). The model we initially proposed to develop was to serve four primary functions: (1) orderly accumulation of knowledge about the ecosystem; (2) synthesis of this knowledge into functional relationships; (3) definition of areas in need of fur- ther study; and (4) systems analysis for planning and management of resource utilization and con- servation. Thus, it would indicate what data are to be collected and where they would be used in the actual characterization. The model was to be characterized by four basic elements: compartments, flows between entities, major inputs or external driving forces, and major outputs or products. The compartments would identify major entities and sets within enti- ties. In principal subsystems, the compartments would identify habitats and then major storage areas (biotic and abiotic) within the subsystems. Major driving forces (inputs) and products (outputs) 19 would be used to bidance flows within the model and to identify primary areas of concern for management and development activities. We proposed to illustrate the model with Forrester Diagrams, foUowing the pattern adapted by the IDOE-CITRE group in their proposal (1972). The units of the compartments and flows would change in relationship to the subsystem under study, i.e., gC/m"^ for energy flows, mg/m /yr for nutrient flows, etc. Because the Forrester Diagrams (Forrester 1961) would quickly become unmanageable in an ecosystem as complex as sea islands, each set within each subsystem was to be treated independently. The subsystems would then be abbreviated when combined to form the principal model. It would thus be possible to maintain a manageable matrix for the ecosystem model as a whole and still have high resolution as each major entity is encountered. In practice, the major entities (habitats) incor- porated into the sea island ecosystem model would include, but not be limited to, the following: off- shore euhaline, inshore euhaline, ocean beach (in- cluding shifting dunes), stable dunes, maritime forest, pine forest, coastal plain, marsh (including tidal creeks, river beaches, mud flats, freshwater marsh, brackish water marsh, salt marsh, high marsh, low marsh, marsh impoundments), fresh- water, and estuary. Within each subsystem the principal physical, chemical, geological, and bio- logical entities would be compartmentalized. For example, in modeling the chemical processes of an estuary, the important variables would include salinity (as an index of mixing and a habitat determinant), temperature, concentration of dis- solved oxygen, pH, alkalinity, concentrations of organic materials (dissolved and particulate), nutrient levels, concentrations of certain metals, etc. Biological modeling within subsystems such as estuaries would not proceed to the individual species level but would deal with spatial variation as distributed sources and sinks (Nihoul 1975). Biological subsystems would be comprehensively resolved into component biotic subsets (e.g., phyto- plankton, zooplankton, nekton, benthos, etc.) and linked through major variables (nutrients, carbon, etc.) within the system. In addition, external driv- ing forces (temperature, salinity, light, alloch- thonous materials, etc.) for each subset, and export links to other subsets or subsystems, would be identified. The final model was envisioned as a block diagram with blocks representing the major components and lines indicating flows (of carbon. energy, etc.) from one component to another and the relationships between subsystems (Patten 1971; Odum and Odum 1972). CONCEPTUAL MODELING- INTERIM PROCEDURE The above protocol for conceptual modeling was initiated in February 1977. However, we quickly found that these models actually had oiily narrow application to the project. Also, it became apparent that the list of major entities (habitats) to be incorporated into the ecosystem model would have to be revised. The revision was accomplished by using a synthesis of aquatic and terrestrial terminology and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Interim Classification of Wetlands and Aquatic Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al. 1976). This synthesis resulted in the identification of seven primary systems (marine, estuarine, riverine, palustrine, lacustrine, maritime, and upland to be modeled encompassing a total of 32 major subsystems (fig. 1). Various subsystems will also be modeled. The ecosystem models were to be used to identify system components and to structure them into an expanded subject outline for the characterization. The value of the conceptual model in relating functional interactions and regulatory processes, as well as identifying system components, prompted us to pursue models which could be integrated with the characterization atlas and narrative. There the models would present a preface summary of each ecosystem and also function as a user tool in understanding the impact of impingments or perturbations on system components. To perform as part of a user package, the complexity of the master" models would often be dissected into sub- system models or submodels. Submodels are generally divided into four formats: 1. Terrestrial or hydrological submodels (soil types, elevation, wind, wave action, cur- rents, tidal action, dispersed, diffusion, etc.); 2. Environmental quality submodels (physical states, chemistry, etc.); 3. Microbiological submodels (viruses, bac- teria, fungi, microscopic algae, and inverte- brates); and 4. Macrobiological submodels (macroscopic plants and animals, population dynamics, etc.). These submodels are rarely indepen- 20 MARINE (M) Subtidal Systems — Coastal Waters ( I ) ' ESTUARINE (E) Subtidol Systems — Open Waters and Boys ( I RIVERINE (R) '-tLow Gradient Reach — Open Waters ( I ) ^Tidal Reach Subtidal Systems — Open Waters (4) PALUSTRINE (P) LACUSTRINE (L) ■Profundol — Natural Lakes and Reservoirs ( I ) •Littoral -Nalurol Lokes and Reservoirs (WETLANDS) -intertiddl Systems L-Beach (2) -Intertiddl Systems -Flats (2) — Impoundments (3) — Emergent Wetlands (4)* (salinity modifier) -Emergent Wetlands (2) -Forested Wetlands (3)^^^ -Intertiddl Systems — Ricefield Impoundments (5) —Forested Wetlands (6)- '— Emergent Wetlands (7) -Emergent Wetlonds ( I ) -Forested Wetlands (2 ) (7) -Emergent Wetlands (2) -Forested Wetlonds (3) (9) I Li: MARITIME (M) I ) Keys and Bonks r (3) Dunes (4) Transition Shrub- (5) (Maritime Forest — UPLAND (U) ( I ) Agriculture — (2) Old Fields— Pine Forest- (4) Woodlond Mixed Pine/Hcrdw'd- (5) Woodlond- •AMIOOO Marine Subtidal Systems Coastal Waters AIVI2000 Marine Intertidal Systems Beach AE1000 Estuarine Subtidal Systems Open Waters & Bays AE2000 Estuarine Intertidal Systems Flats AE3000 Estuarine Intertidal Systems Impoundments *AE4000 Estuarine Intertidal Systems Emergent Wetlands (Salinity Modifier) AR1000 Riverine Low Gradient AR2000 Riverine Low Gradient Emergent Wetlands *AR3000 Riverine Low Gradient Forested Wetlands AR4000 Rivering Tidal Reach Subtidal Systems Open Waters AR5000 Riverine Tidal Reach Intertidal Systems Ricefield Impound- ments AR6000 Riverine Tidal Reach Intertidal Systems Forested Wetlands AR7000 Riverine Tidal Reach Intertidal Systems Emergent Wetlands AP1000 Palustrine Emergent Wetlands AP2000Palustrine Forested Wetlands •Models selected for Santee test characterization. AL1000 Lacustrine Profundal Natural Lakes and Reservoirs AL2000 Lacustrine Littoral Emergent Wetlands AL3000 Lacustrine Littoral Forested Wetlands TM1000 Maritime Keys & Banks TM2000 Maritime Keys & Banks Beach TM3000 Maritime Dunes TM4000 Maritime Transition Shrub TM5000 Maritime Forest TU1000 Upland Agriculture TU2000 Upland Oil Field TU3000 Upland Pine Forested Wetland •TU4000 Upland Pine Forest TU5000 Upland Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest TU6000 Upland Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forested Wetland TU7000 Upland Mixed Hardwood Forested Wetland TU8000 Upland Mixed Hardwood Forest TU9000 Upland Mixed Hardwood Forested Wetland Figure 1. Master models - Sea Island Characterization 21 dent and often overlap or partially fuse. The relative importance of each submodel within the ecosystem model is, of course, variable among ecosystems. In aquatic and wetland ecosystems this submodel interde- pendency is epitomized (Hansen 1975), and submodels of major ecosystems have metamorphosed into integrated subsystem models. Modeling biological systems or attempting biological simulation has evolved into the concep- tualization of biological components and processes against a background of physical and chemical variables. Such models are often considered to belong to one or more of the following hierarchical classifications: 1. Ecosystem models; 2. Productivity models; 3. Population models; and 4. Process models. These are listed more or less in order of decreasing complexity, but no hard and fast definitions are possible. In our attempt to provide conceptual modeling to a user package, the master models (fig. 1) probably best demonstrate the ecosystem/ process model approach while submodels are more often population/process model oriented. The following display illustrates how we expected the conceptual models to function in the user package. Figure 2 is master model AE4 (fig. 1), a simplified ecological/process model of an estuarine intertidal system— emergent wetland with salinity modifiers (i.e., salt and brackish marsh). It is this model to which the user is first directed in order to convey the physical, chemical, and biologi- cal interactions and the primary driving forces. This model is further dissected into component system submodels: figure 3, AE41 (marsh); figure 4, AE42 (water); and figure 5, AE43 (sedi- ment). The user can refer to the appropriate sub- model for specific information on master model components. For example, if the user is interested in evaluating the impact of dredge-and-fill opera- tions in an estuarine emergent wetland, he is directed by the master model to the marsh and water submodel primary producer components. All compartments in the submodels are numbered (01-99) and specific organisms can be identified as components by their associated alphanumeric code (see submodels tor specific examples). Ecologically and/or numerically important species could be identified by this code in the characterization narrative and atlas. CONCEPTUAL MODELING- CURRENT APPROACH The interim procedure described above, while attractive in theory, was extremely cumbersome to use. The total number of master models and sub- models needed for the entire study area would have amounted to well over 100 and the technique for referencing key species into the models would have resulted in thousands of manhours for cita- tion and annotation in the other characterization products. In addition, the interim procedure did little to communicate the contents of the charac- terization products to primary users (i.e., field biologists). The present approach attempts to provide a user-oriented system of access to product informa- tion as well as an ecological understanding of the various habitats comprising the study area. The modeling effort has been altered appreciably to enhance the value of the models as primary com- ponents of a "user package." The materials con- tained in this "package" are assembled to supple- ment and provide rational entry into the principal products of the characterization project (i.e., nana- tive, atlas, data appendix, and bibliography). The package is a user guide and is composed of four major parts: an executive summary, models, habitat distribution of various species, and inter- action matrices. The executive summary' will pro- vide an introduction to characterization concepts, a brief summary of the sea island ecosystems and general instructions for using the package components for data search and retrieval. Models are included to acquaint the reader with the princi- pal components of each ecosystem and the extrin- sic forces and intrinsic relationships associated with these components. The models are presented in a diagrammatic (energese) and a pictorial mode, hence combinatorial. The ecological sketches are brief narratives on "high priority" species, and summarize their reproductive and cover require- ments, and impinging human activities. Finally, the interaction matrices will form the central com- ponent of the user package. Each ecosystem will be supported by a single matrix which cross-references common environmental alterations with existing environmental characteristics. Each intersection of the matrix will thus provide appropriate entry into the characterization products. The functional components of the user package are the combinatorial models, ecological sketches, and the interaction matrices. The combinatorial 22 other Consumers Nutrient Regeneration -Nl — >- Pollution 1 (Modified from Day et al. 1973) Migration Figure 2. Master Model AE 4000: estuarine intertidal system— emergent wetland (salinity modifier) General increase in organic carbon flow ^^ Prlmory Rica 1 Consumers rot I IrxKIl I Snalh s.t4 Bird* 01 / X 03/\ ybeod^ 'iStondir* \Xrop . V . Decomposers V 1 ^^HBoctsrid Fungi x^^ y- »tes > ^-TSecondory r ^/ / Consumerk' Tertlory Consumer* Votculor \ Plontt j 1 \ /V^/ ^ \, /^ Blus (,^Crraaco in ctrtmrl enerov (Submodel AE42) ■> Figure 3. Submodel AE41: estuarine intertidal emergent wetland-marsh. 23 EMERGENT WETLAND EXPORTS eg AE4202 Sk«lelon«mo coilohim AE<»<:04 P«ng«ui lellferut AE4205 Cro»»otlr«o virglnico AE4206 Acorllo tonio AE42IO Collln«cl«« topldm AE42il Archotorgui proboloc«pholu> AE42I2 Egfilta Ihulo EXPORT ■Ii4a M FROM SYSTEM Figure 4. Submodel AE42: estuartne intertidal system - water eg AE430I OscHiotorlo sp. AE4303 Nitrosomonos spi AE4304 Horpoctlcus llttorollg EMERGENT WETLANDS WATER Figure 5. Submodel AE43: estuarine intertidal emergent wetland -- sediment 24 models for the entire characterization are listed in figure 1. The four models compiled to date for the Santee Test Characterization Area (fig. 1) are: the marine subtidal system, the estuarine intertidal emergent wetland system (fig. 6), the riverine fore- sted wetland system, and the upland pine forest system. The user would first be directed to these and should pursue the appropriate model(s) for the system(s) in question. Each system is displayed in dual form: an energese diagram showing energy flow into the system, interrelationships between components of the system, and flow from the sys- tem (fig. 6), and an accompanying pictorial or pic- tograph (fig. 7) illustrating representative flora and fauna tagged with appropriate producer or consu- mer symbols. The user should examine the model to either reaffirm presumptive relationships or establish initial relationships. At this time, the user may also wish to review species abundance and distribution charts if his/her interests encompass or center on a specific group or individual organisms. These charts are arranged taxonomically and each is composed of representa- tive species from the group. The reader may now return to the models, or advance to the characteri- zation products through the interaction matrices. The matrices provide points of entry to the characterization products based on specific interests of the reader. A customized matrix (e.g., fig. 8) is constructed for each ecosystem modeled and pre- sents intersections between primary existing envi- ronmental characteristics and proposed environ- mental alterations. Each intersection will provide a coded entry (blanks will indicate data gaps and an "x" will indicate an inappropriate interaction) to the characterization narrative and atlas, and back references to the models and ecological sketches. The narrative, atlas, and sketches will, in turn, pro- vide entry to the data appendix and bibliography. In plan, the system should function as illustrated in figure 9. The matrix is the central reference, keying to, and being keyed from, all other products of the characterization. In combination, the models, ecological sketches, and interaction matrices should reveal to the reader ramifications and rela- tionships that are not at first apparent. They should also allow full utilization of the characterization products by a wide spectrum of users with diverse educational backgrounds, interests, and needs. organizing the package materials. We also thank Drs. Lee Barclay and Paul Sandifer for reviewing the manuscript, Ms. Jane Davis, Karen Swanson, and Rose Smith for preparing the figures, Mr. David Chamberlain for constructing the ecological sketches, and Ms. Mary Anne Carson for prepara- tion of the typescript. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank Mr. John Miglarese for his valuable assistance in planning the user package concept and 25 Nitrogen Fixation Other Consumers Nutrient Regeneration KEY a Energy > >» Wo Source j^ T j/\. Passive |>^V. \_/ Storage l^ I rkgate Consumer Plant I J Popu- lations Sink (after Odum, 1971) (UoililUil liom Doy •! Hi , 1973) Seasonal Triggers Figure 6. Master model AE4000: estuarine intertidal system - emergent wetland (salinity modifier) 26 •a I I 8 3 K •S 3 S ts s g ft! I 27 Ui o o o HC.if.o** ; i , ■ ' : 1 ' ■ , ; 1 1 1 ? 1 ~ iN0"scTjt3 ; I ( 1 ' 1 . 1 1 ! 1 ' II 1 m-^f ^»^ *»»-: 1 - -1 ; 1 1 , 1 1 t)t»J- « tTT^S ■'■Oil. 1 ( . 1 1 fur*;!** T»**uii?«5«o 1 r ■ . 1 ,1 i«P.i3Ti*»»3 'o,c i: ,1 1 ' ' 1 z ■»9«T»>3«.i *:.7« 9mlOC3 i; . ; 1 1 1 1 1 Ml lt«»»«3S.g i».jr'j,3 C">C:T i r ' ' ' 1 ' ' 1 1 3eniTN:'s;3 Tfnis-cii ;: ■ i 1 1 1 1 1 3BMTm:(.c 3lST« lT« 1 ' 1 1 1 1 »*oitt«3N39 -3m3«3 ! ; 1 ' ■ ■ ■ : ' ' 1 1 ' ' : ' ; ' 1 1 t 5NIMWT': 1 * ■ 1 ; . , 1 . ■ j 1 KOll3ntilS»»C3 3H»T 9 C^-4 i J 1 | | 1 i 1 2 .-■:.«. . . , ; : . ; 1 , . ^ ; , : 1 1 ! 1QM1H03 i:3iNl 1 ^ , ■ ■ 1 ' . ■ 1 . 1 1 lC»iN03 a33* 1 ',11. 1 . 1 1 1 1 NCUTZnua^j 1 i i ' ■ ' 1 ' ■ i i t ' a^niin^iwcT i 1 ' ' 1 > I 1 : i i SaniT.T^fn;* 1 . ■ 1 ' i \ I ■ ' i "'S DNiHSu "fsiiijnnoo 1 : . ■ - , 1 1 1 1 • . M ;NiMSijifcC«s 1 . 1 , . ■ . 1 I : 1 1 < : 1 SNriHnh I _ ; ■ , ' i ■ ; 1 ■ . ■ 1 ; M . . 1 si F»OllT(^Tr:5 i . ; 1 . 1 1 1 , , . 1 . 1 1 CNir^3«u,S ■;■■!• * ' 1 1 1 ' ' ' ' 1 1 i I 1 ?r..t.-c,; ; 1 > 1 1 1 r 1 ♦Mi--'itT ^~Jm • 2 1 ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 : I'll SSiN'W 1 Z _• : i . , . 1 — : 1 : __ _. .1 111 •iOiiTMnTs;'; \ z \ 1 1 1 1 ! z ro op Siiiia-lS ■ . . 1 . 1 STr*«f3S « 5k3i« I ; ■'':;■ ' 1 i 1 1 1 S7Niw»n ; : ' ■ ■ t I ! laiinrrri T»HOii»3<*:3a ( r , i > . ! > 1 i i saiiiitcvj laco 1 : ' . i ! S;.«0«4ll* t Z ! , 1 I 1 13J.H -Tiwii.icM i; - 1 ! 1 MOu»:'NTea.i iz i 1 1 ; 1 ! H h s*».»nn»« 1 :: ■ 1 I r..t«. « 50TC.,: 1 ■ , 1 I i tJSCIVt • SA»»M9M , £ 1 ' ' , saiini »<* 1 • 1 ' ■ , - SHOOittliOS jHilSai*' 1 ! 1 . , . ■ 1 1 •».i:n3*i: I 1 1 : ' 1 1 1 t nmt WCrsSinS'ioiit3uk:o»» «o"il- 1 ' 1 1 "iciiT:f'"a*tNTv.3 1 « iwiiTCiinii 1 - 'III eMiN»»n« I - • ' 1 1 ■ t , . 1 'III 9NIAV4 ]3v«iinf j . . 1 ' 1 1 1 1 • N0IXTM311T tVlNlNHOMIANI a3t040U4 _, < 1 z» — QZ^ zj 5c: (r-J zu UiZui^ So •• ... .....'>>..•>.> -I • • 1 • . •* 1 • •!• •• ? i i 5 ? i ii i i S S 1 5 * o •• 2 S lb. y X o 1 •* c * 1 o i « u O « 1 o o i o r 9 3 o • 1 1 1 5 1 < li;<: « i i 1 X z • t m o « m i a a • S • s I i I»3i»« • Hi.HT3 -icniy\ «3«S300«J 1 TbOlj TMOTi - _ l»im3M3 « -,»:iS*.Md 1 (KOtOTJ iTSISOTOtt >» lO 1 i 1 MOTMStM aim titnoas ! : 1 1 ■ ; ' ' I 1 ! 1 "^ ' (MTKMio iiiin-u«J ainei-i e 1 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 Ml, jMn:tM •nmxtnoKi • 1 1 1 i ' ! , ; 1 ' ' i i M«*a3tie liiM -luowm ; 1 1 {{ill' i 1 1 1 i ' I »T«01I M ' \ '< \ i ' 1 1 1 1 Wl MKT z 1 ; : : ' 1 1 1 1 u < iwutBmnmMJ i -t ' ' 1 ■ ' 1 T 1 1 ■ 1 1 IB|-im4W t 1 1 1 1 1 HHMtIi 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 Ma«e* iMwrru ; I 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 I 1 3U4VIU IVMn « IISAU) t ^■; i 1 ' i ' 1 1 1 ■MU4MC • i 1 i' 1 ! i ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 uinptiiT • 1 ■ 1 j 1 1 1 1 I 1 AVMIIVH « ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 MIIOMU • 1 1 1 ! ' 1 I 1 MM 3ii«o«ioinr ; 1 ! 1 ! Mil KTMiS303d % i : 1 _.li t ' 1 1 1 1 1 M < 10»ll«» NOItCWJ « 1 . 1 , j 1 ' 1 ■ 1 T SDTNivwc « nu : ! ' 1 1 ' : 1 ■ 1 1 1 (tOMIHOD i33fNI) SHIHOXia ; 1 ; ! 1 1 1 ' ' 1 ■ 1 T 1 ' ' 1 SNiMna uoaiiou S 1 ■ • 1 t ! 1 ; 1 1 ' 1 I »NmiN ; 1 1 ! 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 SHIdyOIONTT ; 1 ■ . ' I 1 z M 0) bJ a. J9»»01» ISnOiMIW 3 i ■ i 1 J.I 1 i ! i 1 . 1 ' 1 1 i ' 1 ! 9NrtE330IH (iiajxtii ft 1 ' ; 1 i 1 ^ 1 1 , ill 1 MlllliJ* -IJO 5 1 I : 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ml' laitrww -iniHiMa 9 ill 1 1 1 i i MinlsoiM -iTMiam • 1 1 1 1 t i 1 1 1 Mil' 1 NOUwanit i»uiMa • i i ' 1 ' 1 ■ ' i 1 1 1 OHrnnvo ; 1 < i 1 ' i 1 , 1 { ■01i.SniU.tx03 JUTH « OMO* ; ■ i 1 i ' : : '■ ? 1 1 1 ! 1 1 i 1 . ! 1 1 1 i ' ' 101LLM03 lOaCNl ; 1 1 1 ' 1 ' 1 ■10«1H03 033* ; i i 1 1 1 M 1 ' 1 I 1 1 «OU»iniill3j ; 1 ) I'll 1 1 . > llMllft9W*T ; 1 1 [ 1 1 1 1 { 1 1 1 1 1 J M ' iHfliVIOTftOT 2 \ . ' 1 1 1 ' 1 ! , 3 (J o< S X SNIHtIi -mHOIMKO • 1 ! M ■ 1 1 ■ 1 ' 1 . 1 1 ■ 1 1 MIMIJllM4t • ] 1 1 111 M «Nti.NnH - 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 HOIJVATOia : ... 1 „ 1 j ' i i ' 1 ■ MKHiaa z 1 I'll 1 1 ; 1 1 j 1 M »HUsm * u^ 1 1 ' 1 ' 1 1 III Mirmo iia« - ! 1 1 1 j 1 1 : M ' . VNIHIH 2 t 1 t , ^ 1 1 i : 1 NOUTunTtaa 5 - ^— ' 1 1 1 , ii zo < a SJlUJr 2 1 i ; ! 1 1 1 ■ 1 ' 1 ' ! I'M! tiTirMvat « iti3M 1 S 1 i 1 1 ! 1 1 ■ 1 1 . 1 1 i ' j 1 SBNIOMTI « svmuTn • 1 M ; 1 : : i ' ' 1 1 1 1 i t3lini3«J 1TflOLlV3H33« ; , ! 1 . ' 1 : t 1 ' , 1 ! i ' 1 1 1 1 «luni3»i 1)104 ■ ' 1 • 1 ' 1 i tl.tf04MIT • ; 1 i 1 < : 1 i 1 1 ; i 1 i 1 1 Slut -iTiaitnOKi ; 1 i 1 1 1 1 HOUTZlNVtUn J 1 i 1 , 1 1 ! ' ' 1 ■ 1 i 1 1 tXVAKIVM s ■ ; 1 1 i , ! i — 1 1 1 1 1 ' < 1 tinrai t tovov - ■ , 1 " i' ' ! i ! 1 I : ' ! 1 : 1 1 ! ^ t>9aiM « tJLTMHeiH • ! j 1 ! 1 1 1 1 ' , . 1 1 1 1 I 1 , •aroiniTii 5 1 M ' , i 1 1 i -Tl . , 1 iasawiKn 3in»iiii-r» | - ■ 1 ! ' 1 ill <«U¥ll3n» JtTNlTllO i 1 NoiiTOuioon «oii -i— 1 1 ' M ' ■ M 1 wUirzniHimo 1 M 1 M M NOliVVlHIH 1 ■ ; ■ i ■ 1 I 1 ' 1 _; t Miwint 1 ■ 1 ' 1 M i ! i 1 1 1 1 1 ' n" J_ •IMAM 33TI)Klt . ' 1 ! 1 ^ 1 1 ' t 1 : ! 1 1 1 M 1 ' ' i i tNOIlVMlilT 1ViN3flN0MIANa 03(040X4 ^ ip! si ujZuj^ 25 X 111 « ■ ' U ! • ••' • \** « .1. :.{.!. -1* i2 i > if 1 I M W m - •• 1 yg ; ^ «> U hi iu 3 Ills ".^-, i»« M0I1T3«3I» ')l!Ai?S»,'J} S41M»M0U\nj* SX013W HTWllinS _ ^ -« g 3 s s K s 00 29 ^ COMBINATORIAL /Z ■^ MODELS //. ATLAS ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY V//7///M ECOSYSTEM; MATRICES NARRATIVE ATLAS DATA APPENDIX ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY ATLAS DATA APPENDIX ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY Figure 9. Flow diagram for user orientation to characterization products. 30 LITERATURE CITED Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1976. Interim classification of wetlands and aquatic habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 109 pp. Dale, M. B. 1970. Systems analysis and ecology. Ecology 51(1): 1-16. Day, J. W., W. G. Smith, P. R. Wagner and W. C. Stowe. 1973. Community structure and carbon budget of a salt marsh and shallow bay estuarine system in Louisiana. Center for Wet- land Resources, Publ. LSU-SG-72-04. Forrester, J. W. 1961. Industrial dynamics. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 464 pp. Hansen, J. 1975. Aquatic ecosystem analysis and modeling. A Sea Grant perspective. The Oceanic Institute, Waimanalo, Hawaii. IDOE-CITRE Group. 1972. International decade of ocean exploration: a proposal for compara- tive investigations of tropical reef ecosystems. Nihoul, J. C. J.; ed. 1975. Modeling of marine sys- tems. Elsevier Scientific Publ. Co., Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 272 pp. Odum, E. P., and H. T. Odum. 1972. Natural areas as necessary components of man's total envi- ronment. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. and Nat. Resour. Conf. 27: 178-179. Palmisano, A. W. 1978. Ecosystem characteriza- tion—an approach to coastal natural resources planning and management. In: Proc. of a Con- tributed Session on Coastal Ecosystem Charac- terization and Management— Fourth Biennial International Estuarine Research Conference, Mt. Pocono, Penn. 2-5 Oct. 1977. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service-Office of Biol. Serv. Publ. 77-37. Washington, D.C. Patten, B. C, ed. 1971. Systems analysis and simu- lation in ecology. Academic Press, New York. 607 pp. 31 THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF THE CHENIER PLAIN COASTAL ECOSYSTEM IN LOUISIANA AND TEXAS L. M. Bahr, Jr.,1 J. W. Day, Jr.,i T. Gayle,2 J. G. Gosselink.i q s. Hopkinson.i ^nd D. Stellar^ INTRODUCTION Increasing interest in coastal areas on the part of environmentalists, developers, and managers has generated the need to understand the function of these productive and fragile areas, and to predict the effects of further alterations to them. The term "function" as used throughout the following description of the Chenier Plain conceptual model is intended to describe the mechanics of the eco- system, i.e., the pathways and processes by which energy and matter are captured, transferred, par- titioned, stored, cycled, and degraded by the system. Examples of functional processes include primary production, water flow, trophic exchanges, and animal migrations. Functional understanding of an ecosystem includes much more than an inventory of important physical parameters and organisms; it requires a holistic, systems-level analysis which identifies important interactions among biological and physical components of the system, and all important control features and feedback mechanisms. In late 1975, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), U.S. Department of the Interior, funded a study of the Chenier Plain coastal ecosystem(s) of southeastern Texas and southwestern Louisiana (Galveston Bay, Tex., to Vermilion Bay, La.) in which the area would be characterized ecologically by the development of a conceptual model of the system and a synthesis of all extant data. This char- acterization was designed to serve as a pilot study for similar projects which will eventually describe all U.S. coastal ecosystems. The specific request was for a "description of the important resources and processes comprising the ecosystem and an under- standing of their functional relationships." (FWS Request for Proposal, 4 December 1975.) The first requirement of this study (and the key to the ^Center for Wetland Resources, Lxjuisiana State University, Baton Rouge, La. 70803 ^Center for Wetlands, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla. 32601. entire project) was the formulation of a conceptual model of the ecosystem(s). The model was to con- sist of a schematic framework of ecosystem func- tion in which all important processes and inter- actions among components would be identified in a qualitative manner. The completed model would identify data requirements and gaps, and set the stage for the two remaining portions of the study, a characterization atlas, and a quantitative ecologi- cal simulation model of the study area which could be used to aid in making management decisions. The study area is called the Chenier Plain, so named because of a series of prominent ridges known as cheniers that transect the region from east to west. "Chenier" is a French word meaning "place of oaks;" the vegetation of undisturbed chenier ridges is characteristically dominated by live oak (Quercus virginiana) trees. / This report describes the structure of the con- ceptual model developed for this study and dis- cusses the technical and management problems it was designed to solve. PROBLEM Any ecological model of the Louisiana-Texas Chenier Plain must take into account the following four factors: 1 . Spatial heterogeneity. The area described as the Chenier Plain (fig. 1) is highly variable in space; from east to west it is broken up by a series of rivers flowing southward into the Gulf, through lakes of different sizes and salinities, and over thousands of square miles of wetland. The wetlands themselves are not all homogeneous; vegetation ranges from pure stands of saline oyster grass (Spartina alterniflora) to fresh water bull- tongue (Sagittaria falcata) and maidencane (Panicum hemitomon). They are cut by ele- vated cheniers or ridges which function 32 X o S 3 ■« s o s .e .1 33 ecologically much differently from the adja- cent wetlands. Large areas, wetland and highland, have been modified for agricul- ture or are managed for waterfowl or fur- bearers. The region is far from homogeneous and any model that ignores this will produce information of limited management value. 2. Ecological or functional complexity. Aside from this spatial heterogeneity, within any small, fairly homogeneous area, the ecologi- cal food web is enormously complex and, on the whole, poorly understood. 3. Time scale of events. Events of ecological interest in the Chenier Plain, which deter- mine the physiography of the whole region, occur on the scale of hours, days or seasons for many biological processes; years or tens of years for many cumulative impacts, such as canal dredging and eulrophication; and thousands of years for geological processes. It is difficult to visualize a useful model which can simultaneously simulate geologi- cal processes and microbial kinetics in terms usefvd to a manager. 4. Management needs. In addition to the above considerations the model must enable a manager to evaluate the consequences of alternate management strategies at appro- priate levels of spatial, ecological and temporal resolution. Existing models cover a wide range of approaches, including strategies to exploit or manage single com- mercial species [such as fishery models (Wagner 1969) or alligator models (Nichols et al. 1976)]; models which treat ecosys- tems as homogeneous in space in order to elaborate the energetic interactions (Patten et al. 1975; Wiegert et al. 1975); models which treat spatial heterogeneity but con- sider only a limited number of chemical or biological parameters (Kremcr and Nixon 1975), and dramatically simplified, dynamic world-view models (Forrester 1971). SOLUTION The problems of resolution, complexity, and time frame were addressed by the construction of nested hierarchical conceptual models at four levels of resolution: region, drainage basin, habitat, and population levels (fig. 2). Individual populations are components of habitats, the smallest ecological units described in the Chenier Plain. Each habitat is considered homogeneous in space. Each of the six Chenier Plain basins is a spatially heterogeneous area composed of a number of interacting habitats. The time scale of events of interest increases from habitat to region. THE CHENIER PLAIN REGION The Chenier Plain region is unified by a com- mon geologic history; the sediments that underlie this major coastal system originated primarily from riverine sediments supplied by the Mississippi River. The primary geophysical process responsible for the unique physiography of the Chenier Plain has been the periodic alteration in course of the main dis- tributary of the Mississippi River. This switch has occurred on the average about every 400 years over the last 7,000 years, and has caused major changes in sediment input to the Chenier Plain region. For example, when the river is discharging on the eastern side of its delta (as it is presently, see fig. 1), little sediment reaches the Chenier Plain. But when the discharge is on the western side much sediment reaches the Chenier region. In the former case, ero- sion dominates, and in the latter, deposition and growth dominate. The Atchafalaya River, just east of the Chenier Plain (fig. 1), is beginning the long process of capturing the main channel flow of the Mississippi River, and accretion is beginning to re- verse the shoreline retreat measured over the past several decades. Change in sediment availability has in turn been reflected in the formation of the cheniers, which are stranded dune ridges parallel to the present shoreline. Man has had little effect on the regional development of the Chenier Plain. The conceptual model of the Chenier Plain region is primarily a model of geological processes (fig. 3). The symbolic "energese" language (Odum 1972) is used in the models illustrated. It is dis- cussed more fully in Bahr et al. (1977). Figure legends are complete enough for readers to follow the diagrams without full comprehension of the symbols. These processes are not strongly influ- enced by man, except as he controls the flow of the Mississippi River. BASINS Drainage basins represent perhaps the most natural category of ecological systems in the Chenier Plain region, because each basin is integra- ted by the flow of water over and through it; yet 34 REGION CHENIER PLAIN TIME SCALE 1000 ■¥ YEARS BASIN CALCASIEU BASIN I -100 YEARS HABITAT i. "^ O.OI- 10 YEARS OPEN WATER ~ BRACKISH MARSH POPULATION O.OI -10 YEARS Figure 2. The Chenier Plain conceptual hierarchy. Figure 3. A simplified model of the formation of the Chenier Plain system. Geologic processes (a) lead to the Mississippi River switching course and control the supply of riverine sediments (b). These sediments form an offshore mud flat. If sediment supply dwindles, the wave energy causes the offshore mud flat to form a beach (c). The beach gains and loses sediment through littoral drift (d). As the beach grows up, it strands the mud flat and forms a stranded Chenier Plain marsh (e, f). Subsidence or sea-level rise can transform this marsh into open water. 35 each basin is relatively autonomous from adjacent basins in terms of water circulation. Six fairly dis- tinct basins have been identified in the Chenier Plain (fig. 4). Each basin has its own hydrodynamic characteristics determined by such parameters as size, drainage density, downstream flow, elevation and slope of the basin, and extent of its connec- tion with the Gulf via tidal passes. Most significant changes in a basin occur through large-scale and cumulative effects over a period of time measured in years, rather than in hundreds of years. Examples include: effects of deep shipping channels on saltwater intrusion; changes in hydrology associated with stream chan- nelization; canal dredging and associated spoil bank formation; and cumulative wetland drainage for urban and industrial development. HABITATS The habitat is the smallest ecological system considered in our conceptual model. Wherever a particular habitat occurs on the Chenier Plain it is treated as the same basic functional unit, and can therefore be treated as homogeneous, even though we recognize the existence of gradients, specialized niches, and discontinuities. Each habitat is a com- plex ecological system characterized by its own species, carrying capacities for those species, levels of production, food web, nutrient cycles, and physical inputs. The time scale of important events is often seasonal, and short term impacts are important at this level. Most habitats are intuitively distinct. For example, aquatic systems are quite different from upland forests; however, different kinds of natural wetlands are not so clearly unique. For the Chenier Plain we have identified and mapped 10 natural habitats: nearshore Gulf; inland open water; salt, brackish, intermediate, and fresh marsh; wetland forest; upland forest; beaches; and cheniers and ridges. Large areas have been modified by human activity, which we have catalogued into four additional habitats as impounded marshes, pastures, rice and crop habitat, and urban habitat. Complex habitat level models have been con- structed for each of the 14 habitats to give a quali- tative functional understanding of each habitat, and to guide the acquisition of data. As illustra- tions of the habitat models, figure 5 shows the aquatic inland open habitat model as it appears in the conceptual model (Bahr et al. 1977). Figure 6 represents simplified version of the aquatic habitats (inshore open water and nearshore Gulf of Mexico). In the conceptual model document, figure 5 is accompanied by a detailed interaction matrix keyed to each of the compartments. Figure 7 is the generalized wedand habitat model, and figure 8 is the agricultural model, both from the characteriza- tion atlas. We are at present relatively ignorant of the internal working of most habitats; thus, those that are managed/exploited are manipulated at some peril to the function of the whole system. A better approach to management is to recognize that certain renewable resources (or nonresources; Ehrenfeld 1976) are associated with any habitat, and in order to protect the resource, one must pro- tect the habitat. POPULATIONS Habitats can be considered as ecological land- scape units composed of many different popula- tions interacting with each other and with their physical surroundings. At the bottom of the con- ceptual hierarchy of natural history, growth dynamics and environmental limits are considered for species of economic, recreational, or functional importance in the Chenier Plain region. The carry- ing capacity of a habitat for a particular species is an important concept that relates the species to its habitat. Major opportunities for management of a single species or group of related species occur through manipulation of habitat (for instance, by impounding wetlands), or through direct control of population size through harvesting (fig. 9). THE BASIN-LEVEL CONCEPTUAL MODEL The major kinds of manageable processes and the time scales of manageable events appear to occur at the basin level. For this reason, major em- phasis in this discussion is placed on the basin-level analysis. Figure 10 summarizes basin-level processes and interactions. This model is the result of a series of iterative changes and simplifications of earlier, more detailed, models of basin function (Bahr et al. 1977). It is extremely aggregated and simpHfied in order to include only the most critical components and processes, and to show how water, wetlands, and man interact in a hypothetical drainage basin. The basin model is divided into four linked submodels (fig. 10) each representing a different set of processes, and each in part responsible for the present state of a basin, and for the rate at which it is changing. The four submodels are: 36 I K ■a. 3 3 .X -a o •a. S o ln runoti ^ NulrMnI and toxin tunoil Figure 8. The agricultural sector is much simplified ecologically, because cultural practices subsidized by heavy fossil fuel and fertilizer inputs simplify the food chain. Heat sinks representing energy loss are implied at each interaction. 39 Wt«t* Removal Oyttac Larva* Production and Migration Figure 9. This representation of the major factors controlling the survival and growth of oysters is an example of population-level models. Hypothetical Basin Model B««ln Hydroloqic PTOc»«f « B«»ln N««uf«l R»aoufC« Productivity Figure 10. For simplicity, the basin is considered as four interacting sets of processes. 40 (A) Basin hydrologic processes, or water storage and flow through a basin; (B) The natural resource productivity of a basin, or its capacity to support wildlife and fishery species, and to perform other work services for man, such as the purifi- cation and storage of fresh water; (C) Land modifying processes, particularly those which result in loss of natural wet- land; and (D) Basin-level socioeconomic processes, or those human activities and management decisions that impinge directly on natural processes in a basin. HYDROLOGY (A) The hydrologic regime at any specific site within a Chenier Plain basin is ultimately responsible for determining the kind of habitat that develops at that site. Basin hydrology results from interactions among three modules (fig. 10); water storage in a basin (Aj^); upstream riverine and rainfall inputs of water and sediment (A2); and downstream water with accompanying salts and sediments and tidal and oceanic storm forces (A3). The role of hydrology in determining habitat type is primarily mediated via water levels and durations, and salinity levels and durations. Water levels are controlled by the pressure head between water level at a given site, and upstream and down- stream water levels. If rainfall raises water levels upstream, water flows toward the Gulf; likewise, if tidal stage or a southerly wind raises sea level at the Gulf, a wave proceeds upstream, gradually diminish- ing as it goes. Mean salinity and salinity range at a given site in the basin are determined by mixing, over time, of upstream and downstream inputs, and by the relative volumes of fresh and saline water inputs. Sediments are carried into a basin by the currents produced by salinity (density) and pressure gradients. Sediment deposition is a function of cur- rent speed, sediment load, salinity, and in some cases, biological activity. In summary, the hydrologic submodel sym- bolizes the complex physiographic configuration of a basin, which, together with upstream and down- stream water mputs, determines water level, water flow, salinity, and sediment regimes at any point in a basin. These parameters, in turn, constrain the type of habitat that can develop at any site in ques- tion. For example, if water level is always below the land surface, then the habitat is terrestrial. If the water level is always above the land surface, then the habitat is aquatic. If water level alternates above and below the land surface, the habitat is wetland. Salinity dynamics determine whether a habitat will be fresh or saline, and sediment dynamics (either gain or loss) can change one habitat to another. Man's activity is an important factor affecting water, salinity, and sediment cycles. NATURAL RESOURCE PRODUCTIVITY (B) Submodel B (fig. 10) represents the natural work services of a basin; that is, the quality of a basin with respect to its ability to do such things as support important fishery and wildlife species, and to "purify" and store water, all at no cost to man. "Quality" refers to both the particular blend of habitats that comprise one basin, and to the fact that two areas having similar habitat types can vary greatly in their abUity to support consumer or- ganisms. For example, the open water habitat can be in a balanced state with respect to nutrient input and use, or it can be degraded (by excess nutrient loading) into various degrees of eutrophica- tion. The natural resource productivity (NRP) sub- model consists of four components (fig. 10): pro- ducers (Bj), consumers (B2), a refugium (B3\ ^nd a water storage module (B4). Bj and B2 represent the species that occur naturally in all wetlands, water bodies, and ridges in a basin. A particular habitat can be characterized by its carrying ca- pacity for these species; as its quality diminishes, so does its carrying capacity. Diminishing quality may also lead to changes in community structure such as the proliferation of undesirable fish species in eutrophic waters. Wetlands are natural water reservoirs. Fresh wetlands and water bodies are especially valuable for storing surface water, which is often used by man. For example, much of the irrigation water for rice in Louisiana and Texas is stored in fresh marshes. Ground water often extends beyond basin boundaries, becoming a regional resource. As water flows over wetlands, many chemical transformations take place. Inorganic nutrients, which could encourage eutrophic conditions in aquatic habitats, undergo important changes. The 41 nutrients may be taken up during plant growth or by bacteria during detritus formation. Some of these nutrients may be exported later as organic detritus, a form more compatible with natural populations. Phosphorus may physically bind with sediments, and nitrogen may be denitrified. The natural resource productivity of a basin is thus a function of the particular mix of habitat types, especially the relative proportions of natural wetlands and water bodies, and the degree of human perturbation. LAND MODIFYING PROCESSES (C) Submodel C (fig. 10) represents the dynamic habitat area changes that occur within a basin of constant area. Over the past several thousand years, the dominant trend has been the growth of the wet- land habitat concurrent with the formation of new chenier ridges. The aerial gain of these habitats was at the expense of aquatic habitats (nearshore Gulf and inland water bodies). During the past 50 years, however, the major change has been loss of natural wetland (C^), either to open water (C2), or by im- poundment for waterfowl and/or agriculture (C3). Basically two processes cause loss of natural wet- land: hydrologic changes resulting from canalling, marsh burning, or impounding; and natural sub- sidence and erosion. Hydrologic changes are not always local phenomena. For example, artificial maintenance of the present Mississippi River course on the eastern side of the delta means that very little new sediment is reaching the area. SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS (D) Submodel D represents human effects at the basin level (fig. 10). Socioeconomic factors have been lumped into five main components: 1. The tolid human population in a basin (D^), its energy and material requirements and its waste production; 2. Commerce and industry (D2) such as manu- facturing, refining, retail sales, etc., that occur in a basin, along with the concomi- tant waste release; 3. Mineral resources in a basin (D3), primarily petroleum and natural gas (port and naviga- tion facilities are included here); the extrac- tion of minerals and maintenance of naviga- tion channels entails release of waste, as well as extensive disruption of natural habi- tats (dredging, etc.); 4. Fishery' and wildUfe resources harvested by man (D4) both commercially and for sports purposes; and 5. All agricultural activity (D5), especially rice and cattle. This activity also entails signifi- cant waste release, especially nutrients and pesticides. D^, D9, and D5 all require large quantities of fresh water. Some species in D4, especially waterfowl, are limited by freshwater bodies, and D3 requires fresh water for some processes. BASIN SYNTHESIS The water requirement of the socioeconomic submodel (fig. 10) is a convenient place to begin a discussion of the connections among the four basin submodels. The basin natural resource fresh water (B) is required by all five components of sub- model D, as indicated by the broad-branched arrow. Many of these water needs are met by groundwater pumping, but surface fresh water is also used, especially for rice irrigation and waterfowl habitat. The other input to submodel D from submodel B represents the harvest of commercial and sports fisheries and wildlife, which is a function of basin quality or natural resource productivity. Effects of the socioeconomic sector on other submodels ai'e broken down into waste effects, effects on hydrology, and developmental decisions based on market conditions (economics) that lead to habitat changes. Wastes, which include nutrients, toxins, and dredged spoil, affect the natural resource pro- ductivity of a basin. Nutrient wastes, such as sewage or fertilizer, can decrease NRP by causing eutrophication, or if applied judiciously to wet- lands, can actually increase NRP. Toxins such as pesticides and heavy metals generally lower NRP, and may selectively reduce higher consumers with- out affecting lower trophic levels. Another form of waste is dredged material which can create silting problems, e.g., destruction of oyster beds by silta- tion. The socioeconomic sector affects basin hy- drology via activities that disturb natural circula- tion patterns, especially by dredging canals or navi- gation channels (Stone and McHugh 1977). Fresh- water pumping can also affect hydrologic change by lowering the water head relative to sea level and causing salt water intrusion. Freshwater availability is so critical to all socioeconomic sectors that it can set ultimate limits to economic growth and develop- ment in a given basin. 42 Socioeconomic effects on physiography (C) in- clude decisions that lead to development of natural wetland areas for economic gain, or for human leisure use. Examples include decisions to "reclaim" wetland for agriculture or for duck habitat. Another major cause of wetland loss arises from long-range hydrologic changes that accom- pany canaling and other local wetland perturbation (arrow from A to C in fig. 10). This same change in local hydrology affects the natural resource pro- ductivity (arrow from C to B). SUMMARY The generalized Chenier Plain basin ecosystem and its critical wetland component is basically driven by hydrologic forces. Habitat area changes are primarily wetland loss to open water and to im- poundments, resulting in modification of natural resource productivity. All three of these processes (hydrologic, habitat, and resource productivity changes) are strongly influenced by the intensity of human socioeconomic activity in the basin. LITERATURE CITED Bahr, L. M.,J. W. Day, Jr., T. Gayle, and C. S. Hop- kinson. 1977. A conceptual model of the Chenier Plain coastal ecosystem of Texas and Louisiana. Louisiana State Univ. Cent, for Wet- land Resour., Baton Rouge. Ehrenfield, D. W. 1976. The conservation of non- resources. Am. Sci. 64(6):648-656. Forrester, J. W. 1971. World dynamics. Wright Allen, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 142 pp. Kremer, J. N., and S. W. Nixon. 1975. An ecologi- cal simulation model of Narragansett Bay— The plankton community. Pages 672-690 in L. E. Cronin, ed. Estuarine Research, Vol. 1. Aca- demic Press, New York. Nichols, J. D., L. Viehmaw, R. H. Chabreck, and B. Fenderson. 1976. Simulation of a commer- cially harvested alligator population in Louis- iana. La. State Univ. Agri. Exp. Stn. BuU. 691. 59 pp. Odum, H. T. 1972. An energy circuit language for ecological and social systems: its physical basis. in B. C. Patten ed., Systems Analysis and Simu- lation in Ecology, Vol. 2. Academic Press., N.Y. Patten, B. C, D. A. Egloff, and T. H. Richardson. 1975. Total ecosystem model for a cove in Lake Texoma. in B. C. Patten ed.. Systems Analysis and Simulation in Ecology, Vol. 4. Academic Press, N.Y. Stone, J. H., and G. F. McHugh. 1977. Simulated hydrologic effects of canals in Barataria Basin: A preliminary study of cumulative impacts. Rept. to Louisiana State Planning Office. Wagner, F. H. 1969. Ecosystem concepts in fish and game management. Pages 259-307 in G. Van Dyne ed.. The Ecosystem Concept in Natural Resource Management. Academic Press, N.Y. Wiegert, R. G., R.R.Christian, J.L.Gallagher, J. R. Hall, R. D. H. Jones, and R. L. Wetzel. 1975. A preliminary ecosystem model of a coastal Georgia Spartina marsh. Pages 583-601 in L. E. Cronin ed., Estuarine Research, Vol. 1. Academic Press, N.Y. 43 MAINE COAST CHARACTERIZATION USER'S GUIDE Stewart I. Fcfer,^ Curtis Laffin,^ Larry Thornton,' Patty Schettig,' and Russ Brami' INTRODUCTION The evaluation of natural resources, and tho- rough reviews of their alternative uses, are essential components of any decisionmaking process affect- ing our environment. There must be a basis for es- tablishing policies affecting land use and conserva- tion of resources; a holistic approach integrating the many disciplines of natural resources is th*e foundation upon which these policies can be built. The objective should be to maintain a diverse and productive natural environment. The holistic approach set forth here is known as the Ecological Characterization of Coastal Maine. An environmental management program must embrace whole ecosystems (Van Dyne 1969, Odum 1971, Moen 1973, Clark 1977, Likens et al. 1977). "Ecosystem" is defined by Odum (1971) as ". . . any area of nature that includes living or- ganisms and non-living substances interacting to produce an exchange of materials between the living and the non-living parts." It is a general term concerned with structural and functional relation- ships, but without precise information about these relationships, it is difficult to assess the impact of human activities on an ecosystem. Lack of ecosys- tem understanding has caused management prac- tices to emphasize strategies that maximize the output of some desirable product, i.e., species man- agement of waterfowl or fishes. It is evident that a new conceptual approach to the management of re- sources is desirable (Likens ct al. 1977). The charac- terization is designed to provide an ecosystem view of the Maine coastal zone, from Cape Elizabeth to Eastport (fig. 1) by treating entire ecological sys- tems as single interacting units and describing: 1. Driving forces of the Maine coastal ecosys- tem; Energy Resources Company, Inc., Cambridge, Mass. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Newton Corner, Mass. 2. The components of the ecosystem; 3. Functions of componenls; 4. Interrelationships of components and fimc- tions; and 5. Seasonal and long-term changes of compo- nents. Specific objectives of the ecological characterization are to: 1. Obtain and synthesize available ecological data which describe important resources, processes, and their interrelationships with- in the study area; 2. Identify information deficiences and re- search priorities; and 3. Provide an assessment of the state of know- ledge for the Maine coast ecosystem. The characterization sei"ves the needs of (1) the administrator and planner when making decisions on land-use planning and natural resource manage- ment and (2) the scientist seeking the status of Maine coast ecological knowledge in disciplines relative to his or her field. The Maine Coast Ecological Characterization will be completed in late 1979. This User's Guide, in its revised form, will be a part of the completed characterization; it directs various users how to manipulate the materials in the characterization to satisfy their specific needs. THE PHYSIOGRAPHIC ECOSYSTEM- THE MAINE COAST Land forms rellcct the geologic events which have had a major influence on the evolution of the biota because the types and structures of bedrock exposed to uplifting, weathering, and glaciation have had a great influence on the physiography of the Maine coast. The development of vegetation is controlled by these factors, climate, and animals (including man). The native fauna has evolved be- cause of its compatibility with the established vege- tative community (Shelford 1963). The land-use activities of man have also been influenced by physiographic constraints. Thus, physiography is a major influence on the physical, biological, and 44 e .o ■+3 <3 ■8 I u « (J CO o u CO OS o> 0 OJ Z ^ *- - c re w i5 « r 3 0) 3 1 I ^ - « a 5 uj X -J o ^ o S 1^ ?s !b ■a."' ■s !^ 1-1 a ^ " est ^ § £i 5 3 5 a <4) <-5 .^ o :j ^ <^ ^ ^ k, 2 s 47 c/> C/3 o u < o u 3 O 1^ *^ ■^ ^ H.s *^ -*^ .•^ fc ~ a ^ 2 «i-C ^O a '^ •^ S -a ^ 13 *-i ri t^ "^ ^ 2 -53 OT) ^ VI M ^ 0) ~-S "3 j; 0) ■o ^ to ff 3 a c ?Na TO m^ &> ^■cS OJ •^ C > a > vl •t^ "^ 3 _i a; c 1^ ^^ a; ■Q,-~ n > ^ S < ^^ 5 — 0— r a. Hi 1 "^•■^ UJ Q 3 a s i^^ CVJ 1 ^ li) ii -«: c 3 h.-s: LU .•1 S ^ ^ ^-i. ;5 b-^t^ «3 •*-* rN» 3 :S?^S^ ••m • (0 k, O'-s ^/ 3& 48 > o o UJ I- co < o u < a z ui s s a m = CO > CNJ c s o a to ~ to J? '^ ■^(^ •^ c ^^ s ^^ t^ !-■ -S' to s t^J 49 CO >- o u f/) < o o s I- C/5 111 a: — • c CO c < 04 i 0 z c -5 5 ■Cl. s K ■a. <-5 ■>* « ^ O ■^ -S s ? g ^ .to ** OH t^ Sh ,g '^ '-I ^ 1^ V3 -S "S "^ ^ •~ « ^ ■5 ^ o 50 basic laws which govern the behavior of energy. The conceptual energese model (fig. 6) illustrates the flow of energy through an ecological system. Figure 7 applies this energese model to the naturally occurring eelgrass community. Figure 8 fur- ther illustrates the relationship between the energy flow model and the natural system, in this case the intertidal emergent wetland. Biogeochemicals— Elements and inorganic compounds, many of which are essential components for growth, circulate through the biosphere (soil, water, and air) in characteristic patterns known as biogeo- chemical cycles (fig. 9). 3. Abiotic factors— Essential environmental factors which make life possible on the sur- face of the earth are the constant inter- actions of geologic, climatic, hydrologic, and oceanographic changes. 4. Biotic factors— The biotic world is classified in respect to energy through trophic levels, each of which is one exchange step beyond the energy source which drives it (fig. 10). Web diagrams will be used to depict trophic levels and energy flows by using food webs as examples. These concepts have been described by various , prominent ecologists as being illustrative of the interactions within a system. H. T. Odum (1966) Figure 6. Conceptual energy flow model. MkiohUI calMM Figure 7. Energy flow model of a natural eelgrass community. 51 Figure 8. A simplified energy flow model typical of an estuarine system. y^^.^ ^y ""---.rfs Trophic level 4 Trophic level 3 Trophic level 2 Trophic level 1 ih. INCIDENT LIGHT ENERGY Top carnivore! Carnivores Herbivores 'ENERGY LOST AT , EACH Photosynlhetic \ LEVEL plants, primary producers Figure 9. Conceptual model of the hydrologic cycle (adapted from Caswell 19/7). Elements and inuriianic compounds, many of which are essential components for the biolta, circulate through the biosphere dissolved in waters. Figure JO. Simple trophic pyramid of energy (Odum J 971). 52 has developed the concept of energy flows and interactions, which can be illustrated through ener- gese diagi'ams. This energy concept can be developed to a sophisticated science of quantitative ecological system modeling when such data are available (Hall and Day 1977). Flow diagrams can be used, for example, to translate an understanding of biogeochemical cycling which is essential to the appreciation of the interactions among living and nonliving components (Hutchinson 1944, 1950). Likens et al. (1977) have studied these cycles in depth and have quantified certain biogeochemical pathways in a terrestrial system in New Hampshire. Food webs are used to illustrate interactions between the plant and animsd components of a sys- tem. Abiotic factors interact to form the habitat templates governing the use of an area by the biota. Ecologists apply any one or combinations of the four primary concepts to illustrate and compre- hend interactions in ecological systems; we have attempted to apply all of these concepts to illus- trate interactions. It is important to realize that these concepts are not exclusive of each other but overlap and are complementary. Here they are applied to the ecosystems, systems, and classes found on the Maine coast and become the frame- work of the conceptual model (fig. 11). THE GROUPS-OF-INTEREST APPROACH Another approach to understanding the Maine coast ecosystem is to translate an organism's de- pendency on and participation in the interactions previously discussed. The ecosystem approach emphasizes the habitat as an entity. In the groups-of-interest approach, interrelationships between commercially and ecologically important groups of species and their environments are emphasized (fig. 12). The uses of habitats for various life stages, reproductive strate- gies as controlled by limiting factors, and the importance of man and management are discussed. Case studies illustrating the above concepts are in- cluded within the discussion of each group of in- terest. This section complements the ecosystem approach in that it illustrates the varied needs of important organisms in terms of habitats and com- ponents of habitats. THE ATLAS The Atlas presented as a volume of the report is to be used in conjunction with the text. Table 1 lists the contents of the Atlas. The specific maps and overlays illustrate locations of selected com- ponents and aid in directing interactions of driving forces and components. Table 1. Overlays of the Maine Test Characterization Atlas Figure 11. A conceptual model illustrating the interactions of the primary concepts applied to the Mame coast ecosystem. National Wetlands Inventory Land cover Marine geology Soils Substrates Sea bird, wading bird, shore bird, eagle, and osprey nest sites Shellfishes, marine worms Harbor seal haulout sites Tidal range, currents High and low water Point sources Named lakes with sum- marized data Wedands important to waterfowl; rivers evalu- ated for fisheries Migratory and anadrom- ous fish Estuarine and riverine fish Marine fish, lobsters 53 ■o "(5 to en C E 0) (A c O a E '5 E E o CJ 00 c re T3 (U k. a> en c TJ c LU ■D C TO T) c *^ n: a> Oi v> •D C ^ 0) w in o £ ^ k. CO o ^ trt" ■o Q) b. c m (T3 (A O) S E c X3 "D E (0 re C CO g ^ S tn o .52 01 T3 *^- c w h- ^~ ic o 00 (0 5 re 00 4-J «5 o Si O o f 1^ •I I*, CN OO tn 54 DATA SOURCE APPENDIX The Data Source Appendix, a computer-based information storage and retrieval system based on a key word index, is used to present data source reference information. It includes all information used for analysis in this characterizaton as well as general references that apply to the characteriza- tion; it is not an all-inclusive source of information dealing with resources of the Maine coast. Two lists of reference citations arc provided. One list will present the citations in alphabetical order by author. The second list will arrange the citations by key words associated with the classification model; key words are presented in table 2. APPLICATIONS OF THE PRODUCTS The products of the characterization could be used to gain an understanding of the entire Maine coast ecosystem. However, most users will be interested in a particular area, species, or group of species. The products are presented so that the needs of varied users are met. A user interested in a particular area would look at Atlas maps to determine where the area fits into the classification model. The particular classi- fication of concern would then be found in the Atlas text where components and interactions are discussed. It is recommended that the user start at the general level and work toward the specific for the most complete understanding of how the particular area interacts with others. If the user is interested in a particular impact, table 3 should be used. This matrix informs the user of the impacts of selected human activities. After these impacts have been identified, table 4 can be used to s*ee which systems are affected and how the biological and cultural factors may be im- pacted. A check indicates an interaction. Following the matrices will be an index of interactions with appropriate references to the characterization indicating where such impacts are discussed or implied. For example, the effects of the paper and pulp industry are indicated in table 3 and include an in- crease in turbidity, a rise in temperature, changes in water and air composition, and the addition of nutrients, metals, and chemical pollutants. If the user then locates these physical and chemical effects on table 4, he will find that each of these effects has impacts upon biological and cultural factors. An increase in chemical pollutants affects the terrestrial, wetland, and deepwater habitats, impacting upon phytoplankton, zooplankton, invertebrates, fish, birds, and mammals. Some of these effects are direct; others are indirect via a predator-prey or food web interaction. Reading further across the matrix, one then finds that wilderness areas, parks and refuges, fishing, swim- ming, bird watching, hunting, and aesthetics are also impacted. For specific discussions of any of these interactions, one would consult the index and refer to specific sections in the characteri- zation. A user interested in a particular species or group of species would refer to the group in the index where the appropriate Groups-of-Interest section and/or Systems section is listed. The Atlas maps referred to in the text should be studied to gain an understanding of the distribution and re- quirements of a species. As an example: A utility is planning to site a liquid natural gas facility in a town. The user con- cerned with the planning of this development and associated support developments would refer to the Atlas to determine the class system or habitat the proposed developments could impact, i.e., what classification the area fits. The user would then be referred to appropriate Ecosystem, Habitat, and Systems sections. Application of the Atlas would augment the discussion so that interactions would be illustrated. The User's Guide matrix would direct the user to a listing of the general im- pacts anticipated from the proposed activities. These impacts are referred to in the index which would lead the user to pages in the text where the impacts on the particular system/species of con- cern are explained. If specific information from the various sources is desired, the data sources and references are listed by habitats and species in the Data Source Appen- dix of the original report. LITERATURE CITED Caswell, W. B. 1977. Groundwater guidebook for State of Maine. Maine Geological Survey, open file report, Augusta, Maine. 202 pp. Clark, J. R. 1977. Coastal ecosystem management. A technical manual for the conservation of coastal zone resources. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 928 pp. 55 Table 2. Key Words Used in the Data Source Appendix Agriculture Air quality Algae Bacteria Behavior Benthos Biogeochemistry Biology Birds Chemistry Climatology Communities Crustacea Deep water Degradation Disease Dissolved oxygen Distributions Diversity Drainage Ecology Estuarine Fauna Fisheries Fishes Flooding Flora Food and feeding Forestry Freshwater Fungi General Geology Harvest Heavy metals Herbicides Hydrocarbons Hydrography In-document Industry Insects Intertidal Invertebrates Islands Lacustrine Land use Legislation Macroalgae Mammals Management Mapping Marine Marine mammals Marsh Methodology Microorganisms Molluscs Mortality Mud flat Nitrogen Nutrients Nutrient cycling Nutritive value Oceanography Palustrine Passerine Perturbation Pesticides Phosphorus Physical parameters Physiography Phytoplankton Plant ecology Pollutant effects Pollution Populations Precipitation Predator-prey Production Productivity Recreation Remote sensing Reproduction Riverine Rocky shore Salinity Sea birds Sedimentation Sediments Shore birds Socioeconomic Soil Species interaction Subtidal Temperature Terrestrial Terrestrial birds Terrestrial mammals Tides Trophic relations Vegetation Vertebrates Wading birds Water chemistry Waterfowl Water quality Wetlands Wildlife Zonation Zooplankton 56 c o > c -a V o a 3 X m 3 c o c o -a c bo C "5b bo C "J 3 _ c c. c bo Z 15 oa rt C C bo-- O O C -S o 'z: ?^ c = bo r- rt .ia Q-« 3 (iJi 25 ,^ J^ vS J= -c bo 0- ? y bo C 13 .a .5 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X rS rS rS rS ?N rS o t; ■w > +j 3 0^ (U -, a o o c c c > > CO tn M Q Q P3 rt rt 5 3 •» •T3 -a o c 3 O a 3 — c 3 J3 a i« fe o Q. O E o o c o 3 o o -J J ^ o c 2 < S Q 3 -0 05 5 - J .5.S g tn to -t-J •a c u i i < C 3 -y X « E be E ;*. — ii o c .S '^ c .0 c ° -2 --s O g nj o S sj o • j: c coo u "O T3 "O 13 T3 T3 < < < bo t- 57 X >" 5 r3 O bc • - •T3 c 0 u 3 u ^C 3 C 0 C u o '"^ ~ X Bl. XXX XX XX X X X XX XX XXXXXXXXXX X X »*% kS rS rS rS X X X X X X X X XX XXX X XXX X X X rS rS ?S rS X X X X X o o -g nj bC Cl. ^4-1 ^ 2 = o o c ° 2 2 3 S - E e s s J ai ai £ £ OJ V -4-1 a 03 0 ^ 5 en *« ■4-- c .3 0 lU 1) C 5 2 T3 -a c ^ 3 O ^ C o ii E - « 3 •S ^ -o ■a c e o bb '3 o n a i! O a; *-• C c V en 5 .2 c Cl 1-1 3 .y « E !U U & o « >« '-S .y ill J < s O in rt c S ? Q c .5 o C a: i 3 • 'S 'o c 0 C en (A .5 0 o 0 o c V c c nJ .2 .0 0 ij ^ rt 'w w bO 3 o ^ '■B ■3 C u C T3 -a ■a JZ W5 < < < U i5 58 4-> 2 ^ a V C/3 J2 ^ a. E 11 tfl 5 -a 0 c a rt WJ J 60 J .5 0 a c c 0 E 0 lyj «^ 13 V u a: .5 0 09 3 •S o u 3 < 00 .a a .8- C/3 bo .s u 2 H o :a < E X XXX X XX X X X X XX XX XX XX X XX XX X X X XXX XX X XXX XXX X X X X X X X c o '^ ^ -w o w 60 a. 2 > 2 *n »*- <*- ■rt O O O o o SEE o « K _i b: ciS S .5 c9 T3 -S " s " 3 •3 « O T3 ^ -S <« -3 ,y S^.E-§ ^ u S ^ E o 3 «J .2 ■»-» c« 3 c - C ° ^< a _ „ 5 .y I' u Q BO M c j; o 3 .B .S s . o 60 S O rt E Ji 5 S O 60 C iH j3 :s u o c '^ c? V. c .2 o .2 tj: J: < es td S _ _ «) I-. 52 fc^^ C V 60 A G O a o a "3 E S Z T3 c c u .a 60 l- S 3 59 _ .5 - § c 13 3 T3 C so .9-1 J= :a CAl 3 ^ w c '3 3 O e oa 2 J3 H — "B. *- ^ 3 i_ 3 -a be T3 ^ C a 0 '2 . X a. XX X X X XX X X X X XX XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ♦^ O u 60 CL <— • 1> o *- > i: 3 nf 2 "2 <« w 2 <-■ P a h — a o o > > o o e E .5 .S o •T3 O "— c o 0 J as qS i i i feb o n J < S ii £ _ rt 3 •S - "o " 5 > 5 o i « ^ c - -u -5 „ = u = **- u ? OJ Q 05 T3 C rs •3 u .5 c o 60 a a t o "^ a; 3 V c c V a; B O 60 'S O rt ft. i O V ■" c 3 M ■^ -^ n. -t- a 6 a a a. ■ E Z cj o •a '3 .2 '-I rt u -; c > -O «.» o O 60 SI ;s ■o § E T3 B O a o a 60 H >- 3 5 < 0 0 0 ^ w w _w w S T3 < 13 £ >-.2 c u a ^ - S •s g 'I U Q 60 s ra ■ X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X o t; ^ U- t+H C u ri 2 "3 « 2 fe S a; ftj -M o S o O O o ra " i E b o u u y -1 as ds £ o .3 .3 .3 § ° - " 3 r ra 3 .3^-0 2 5 > 3 — c ■a c a -D XX X X e o bo 'S o w a b c X X XX XX ?S rS ?S rS rS X XX XX X Z u I2 3 .3 .3 a 5- t. > lU Q OS ^ I Q^ .S Im U Q^ « "O W tn tfl 1-1 _2 r" 1- "-I u C^ 5 ^ 'J V O bo § O 3 .H 2 E tn flj ft 1 *: o .2 a ■a g 6 V T3 C 3 '3 .2 .a b 3 < OS bi> t3 o a 3 u . .3 o o u o 5 < t-t^ C4-I *+H O " " c o o s •■§ i ^ o T3 T3 T3 £ < < <: c J2 61 Table 3. (concluded) Catastrophic events Physical & chemical changes in the envoronment Loss of habitat Removal of vegetation Removal of topsoil Increase in surface runoff Increase in soil erosion Increase in slope grade Lovk'ering of water table Loss of groundwater Alteration of drainage areas Modification of seasonal flow patterns Drastic fluctuations in water level Sc flow rates Reduction in flow volume Increase in dovvTistream flooding Canal creation in wetlands Increase in turbidity Increase in sedimentation Alteration of bottom topog. Reduction in light penetration Elevation of temperature Modification of chemical composition: Soil Water Air Increase in oxygen demand Addition of nutrients Addition of metals Addition of chem. pollutants Change in salinity Disturbance (noise poll.) Explosions Floods Droughts X X X X X X X X X X X J X X 62 BO •a 3 ■3 o T3 B a •o •t3 J3 c , o N S ^ a c o 2 -c S ft. J2 fc3 1> t3 bo S 11 ■s s >- Sl. X X X X X XXX X X XXX X X X X X X X X X X X X XX XX XX XXX X XXX X XXX XXX X XXX XX X XX X X X X X X X rS fS r^ r% rS rS rS X X X XX XX X X X xxxx xxxxx X xxxxx X X X X X X X xxxxx xxxx X XX xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx X X X X X 63 3 >r ■§:> a. Q. = E -a O -43 O •^ -a u E 3 .s E ■M c s 0 o t' 2 V 3 03 m tS H •^ lA .y c M _0 S 3 °e2 2 a 8- 60 c J= c (J QJ n ~ •a .5 A. XX XX X XXX X X X XX X X X X X XX X X XX X XXX X X X X XX XXXXXX XX xxxxx X X XX X X X X X XX X X X X X XXX X X X X X X X XX X X XX X XX X X X XX XXXXXX XXX XX X X X X X XXXXXXX X XX XX X xxxxx ^ be Q^ ( B > s 13 > o o E E Bi £ ii Js 64 BO .s c 3 X .a u 3 60 .S 9 Vi .5 O bo .s 13 o U H S?S ?S^ ?sXXX/S X X XXXXX XX XX X XX X X X XX XXX XX XXX rS rS rS rS ?S X X o s <= •2 g (« ^ QJ ♦-0(1 V W3 (H bo a<2 l> o "- J3 « i" — f en M O O > > o o e e J a; ftj i ,5 5 .S .S .5 C C 4; rt > C O O 6P fe V 13 13 (U C bo O M '- C ■a T3 C » 5 > C o bb '3 a is o '*-' '3 .H o o -* -^ flj .a S3 o e -a II C o _ (u _e « ■3-^6 3 s C O .3 bo fl .g .C O (« rt Q 3 T3 o 5 M 1/1 BJ « c s O bo XI :s 'o.S = 5 o o •- 3 < Oi O 0 ,0 ^(j hj o 3 S s c C ^ bo i3 ■" !< c E 3 o a E v a o a .5 0 0 0 « .ha 5 < ■o < >r .a 'H .s U Q 65 LITERATURE CITED (CONTINUED) Cowardin, L. M., U. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1977. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States (an operational draft). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser- vice. 100 pp. (mimeo). Hall, C. A., and J. W.Day, Jr. 1977. Ecosystem modeling in theory and practice: an introduc- tion with case histories. John Wiley and sons. New York. 684 pp. Hutchinson, G. E. 1944. Limnological studies in Connecticut. Critical examination of the sup- posed relationship between phytoplankton periodicity and chemical changes in lake waters. Ecology 25:3-26. . 1950. Survey of contemporary know- ledge of biogeochemistry. III. The biogeochem- istry of vertebrate excretion. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 96:554. Likens, G. E., F. H. Bormann, J. S. Eaton, and N.M.Johnson. 1977. Biogeochemistry of a forested ecosystem. Springer-Verlag, New York. 146 pp. Maine State Planning Office. 1974. Standard classi- fication system for land cover in Maine. 26 pp. Moen, A. N. 1973. Wildlife ecology: an analytical approach. W. H. Freemand and Co., San Fran- cisco. Odum, E. P. 1971. Fundamentals of ecology, 3rd ed. W. B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia. 574 pp. Odum, H. T. 1966. Primary production in flowing waters. Limnol. Oceanogr. 1:102-117. Shelford, V. E. 1963. The ecology of North America. Univ. Illinois Press, Urbana. Van Dyne, G. M., ed. 1969. The ecosystem concept in natural resource management. Academic Press, New York. 383 pp. 66