Wingard, G. Lynn Stackhouse, B. L. 20200930 Version 2.0 MS Access database Reston, VA U.S. Geological Survey https://doi.org/10.5066/P9ZT2ITU The 2008 - Present Ecosystem History of South Florida's Estuaries Database contains listings of all sites (modern and core) and modern monitoring site survey information (water chemistry, floral and faunal data, etc.). Three general types of data are contained within this database: 1) Modern Field Data (2008-present), 2) Master list of location information on all modern sites, and 3) Core data - location information. Data are available for modern sites (from 2008 to present) and cores in the general areas of Florida Bay, Biscayne Bay, and the southwest (Florida) coastal mangrove estuaries. Specific sites in the Florida Bay area include Taylor Creek, Bob Allen Key, Russell Bank, Pass Key, Whipray Basin, Rankin Bight, Park Key, and Mud Creek core. Specific Biscayne Bay sites include Manatee Bay, Featherbed Bank, Card Bank, No Name Bank, Middle Key, Black Point North, and Chicken Key. Sites on the southwest coast include Alligator Bay, Big Lostmans Bay, Broad River Bay, Roberts River mouth, Tarpon Bay, Lostmans River First and Second Bays, Harney River, Shark River near entrance to Ponce de Leon Bay, and Shark River channels. Modern field data contain (1) general information about the site, bottom type, description, latitude and longitude, date of data collection, (2) water chemistry information (salinity, temperature, pH, etc.), and (3) descriptive text of fauna and flora observed at the site. Core data contain basic location information. Beginning in the late 20th century, scientists and resource managers realized the Greater Everglades Ecosystem in South Florida was showing increasing signs of stress, and a large scale restoration project was implemented. In order to establish restoration goals and targets, it is important to understand the natural system and how it responds to stresses, and what role humans have played in altering the natural system. The USGS Ecosystem History of South Florida projects (started in 1995) were designed to provide this information by determining what south Florida's estuaries have looked like in the past, how they have changed, and what is the rate and frequency of change. To accomplish this, shallow sediment cores are collected within the bays, and the faunal and floral remains, sediment geochemistry, and shell biochemistry are analyzed. Modern field data are collected from the same region as the cores and serve as proxies to allow accurate interpretation of past depositional environments. The USGS Ecosystem History of South Florida projects integrate studies from a number of researchers compiling data from terrestrial, marine, and freshwater ecosystems within south Florida and the greater Everglades region. The project is divided into 3 regions: Biscayne Bay and the Southeast coast, Florida Bay and the Southwest coast, and Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecosystems of Southern Florida. The purpose of the projects is to provide information about the ecosystem's recent history based on analyses of paleontology, geochemistry, hydrology, and sedimentology of cores taken from the south Florida region. Data generated from the South Florida Ecosystem History projects will be integrated to provide biotic reconstructions for the area at selected time slices and will be useful in testing ecological models designed to predict floral and faunal response to changes in environmental parameters. Plant and animal communities in the South Florida ecosystem have undergone striking changes over the past few decades. In particular, Florida Bay (part of Everglades National Park) has been plagued by seagrass die-offs, algal blooms, and declining sponge and shellfish populations. These alterations in the ecosystem have traditionally been attributed to human activities and development in the region. Scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) are studying the paleoecological changes taking place in Florida Bay in hopes of understanding the physical environment to aid in the restoration process. First, however, scientists must determine which changes are part of the natural variation in Florida Bay and which resulted from human activities. To answer this question, modern habitats are studied and compared to piston cores that reveal changes over the past 150-5000 years. These two types of data complement each other by providing information about the current state of the ecosystem, changes that occurred over time, and patterns of change. Biscayne Bay is of interest to scientists because of the rapid urbanization that has occurred in the Miami area and includes Biscayne National Park. Dredging, propeller scars, and changes in freshwater input have altered parts of Biscayne Bay. Currently, the main freshwater input to Biscayne Bay is through the canal system, but many scientists believe subsurface springs used to introduce fresh groundwater into the Bay ecosystem. Study of the modern environment and core sediments from Biscayne Bay provide important information on past salinity and seagrass coverage, which can be used to predict future change within the Bay. 20080316 present ground condition In work As needed Everglades National Park, including Florida Bay and the southwest Florida coast, and Biscayne Bay, including Biscayne National Park -81.83 -80.0 26.5 24.75 USGS Thesaurus ecology paleontology mollusks estuary sedimentology paleoecology conservation paleobiology none biology geologic core geology pollen ecosystem history molluscs diatoms ostracodes foraminifera gastropods pelecypods vegetation ecology geography salinity ISO 19115 Topic Category biota climatologyMeteorologyAtmosphere environment geoscientificInformation inlandWaters oceans 002 004 007 008 012 014 USGS Metadata Identifier USGS:5d8d0da3e4b0c4f70d0c86ad U.S. Department of Commerce, 1995, Countries, dependencies, areas of special sovereignty, and their principal administrative divisions, Federal Information Processing Standards Publication (FIPS PUB) 10-4, Washington, D.C., National Institute of Standards and Technology United States US U.S. Department of Commerce, 1987, Codes for the identification of the States, the District of Columbia and the outlying areas of the United States, and associated areas, Federal Information Processing Standards Publication (FIPS PUB) 5-2, Washington, D.C., National Institute of Standards and Technology Florida FL U.S. Department of Commerce, 1990, Counties and equivalent entities of the United States, its possessions, and associated areas, Federal Information Processing Standards Publication (FIPS PUB) 6-4, Washington, D.C., National Institute of Standards and Technology Broward County Collier County Miami-Dade County Monroe County USGS Geographic Names Information System Everglades National Park Biscayne Bay Florida Bay Barnes Key Bob Allen Key Clive Key Johnson Key Pass Key Rabbit Key Russell Key Whipray Basin Sprigger Bank Trout Creek Manatee Bay Big Cypress National Preserve Bottle Key Butternut Key Cape Sable Duck Key Ironwood Channel Lignumvitae Basin Little Madeira Bay Nest Key Old Dan Bank Old Sweat Bank Park Key Peterson Keys Porjoe Key Schooner Bank Black Point Card Bank Featherbed Bank Pelican Bank Little Blackwater Sound Lostmans River Harney River Shark River Tarpon Bay McCormick Creek Rabbit Key Basin Buttonwood Keys C-111 Canal Storter Bay Gun Rock Point Pavillion Key Alligator Bay Big Lostmans Bay Roberts River White Water Bay Oyster Bay Rodgers River Bay Broad River Broad River Bay Huston River Chicken Key Arsenicker Key Shell Creek Spy Key Black Creek Canal Florida City Canal Chokoloskee Bay Buchanan Bank Sid Key Otter Creek North Prong Otter Creek Ponce de Leon Bay Taylor Creek Crocodile Point Military Canal Mowry Canal Princeton Canal Long Sound Lake Key North Canal Samphire Keys Monroe Lake Convoy Point Crab Keys Jim Foot Key North River none Arsenicker Shoal Dragover Bank Gopher Pass Rankin Lake Central Everglades South East Coast SW Big Cypress Florida Keys Alinas Reef Middle Key Basin Rankin Basin Caesars Cut Black Point Creek Canal Dead Terrapin Basin Arsenicker Bank Goulds Canal Prong Creek USGS Biocomplexity Thesaurus Algae Crustaceans Fishes Plants Trees Bivalves Garbett, Elizabeth C. Maddocks, Rosalie F. 1979 ONLINE_REFERENCE Iowa City, IA The Paleontological Society Keyser, Dietmar 1975 ONLINE_REFERENCE Hamburg, Germany unknown Keyser, Dietmar 1976 ONLINE_REFERENCE Hamburg, Germany Hamburg University Keyser, Dietmar 1977 ONLINE_REFERENCE Hamburg, Germany unknown Teeter, James W. 1975 BOOK Tulsa, OK American Association of Petroleum Geologists Abbott, R. Tucker 1974 BOOK New York, NY Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. Warmke, Germaine L. Abbott, R. Tucker 1961 BOOK Narbeth, PA Livingston Publishing Co. Perry, Louise M. Schwengel, Jeanne S. 1955 BOOK Ithica, NY Paleontological Research Institution Loeblich Jr., Alfred R. Tappan, Helen 1988 BOOK New York, NY Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, Inc. Andrews, Jean 1971 BOOK Austin, TX University of Texas Turgeon, D. D. Quinn Jr., J. F. Bogan, A. E. Coan, E. V. Hochberg, F. G. Lyons, W. G. Mikkelsen, P. M. Neves, R. J. Roper, C. F. E. Rosenberg, G. Roth, B. Scheltema, A. Thompson, F. G. Vecchione, M. Williams, J. D. 1998 BOOK Bethesda, MD American Fisheries Society Mikkelsen, P. M. Bieler, R. 2008 BOOK Princeton, NJ Princeton University Press G. Lynn Wingard Northeast Region: FLORENCE BASCOM GEOSCIENCE CENTER Research Geologist mailing and physical

Mail Stop 926A, 12201 Sunrise Valley Dr

Reston VA 20192 United States 703-648-5352 lwingard@usgs.gov Bethany Stackhouse Northeast Region: FLORENCE BASCOM GEOSCIENCE CENTER Physical Science Technician mailing and physical

Mail Stop 926A, 12201 Sunrise Valley Dr

Reston VA 20192 United States 703-648-6092 bstackhouse@usgs.gov Cores were sampled every 2 centimeters from the top to base for faunal and geochemical analysis. All samples were washed through a set of nested 63 micron and 850 micron sieves. Sample components from less than 63 microns were dried at 50 deg. C and weighed for 210 Pb analysis. The fractions of samples greater than 63 microns were dried at 50 deg. C and analyzed for ostracodes, foraminifers, and molluscs. All identifiable molluscs (ranging between 5 and 184 specimens) between 97 and 152 ostracode specimens, and 300 foraminifers (when attainable) were picked from each sample with a fine brush. Samples yielding less than 300 foraminifers were picked in their entirety. Every other sample from the core was examined. Faunal groups and species were identified, counted, and standardized by calculating percent abundance within each sample. Pollen assemblages and geochronology were analyzed from samples collected at 1-2 cm intervals throughout the cores. Pollen was isolated from the samples using standard palynological techniques, including carbonate and silicate removal with HCl and HF when necessary, acetolysis to reduce the amount of phytodebris, sieving through 8 micron mesh to remove clay-size particles, heavy liquid treatment when needed, and staining with Bismarck Brown before mounting on microscope slides with glycerin jelly. Ostracode species were identified using the taxonomy of Teeter (1975), Keyser (1975, 1976, 1977), and Garbett and Maddocks (1979). Thomas Cronin and others reviewed the ecology of the ostracode species. Molluscs were identified primarily using Abbott(1974), Warmke and Abbott (1961), Perry and Schwengel (1955) and Andrews (1971), and taxonomic nomenclature was updated following Turgeon et al (1998). Taxonomy of the benthic foraminiferal species was identified using Loeblich and Tappan (1988). Faunal slides are housed in the Eastern Earth Surface Processes Team, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. In Modern samples, mollusks (pelecypods and gastropods) are identified to Genus or, in most cases, Species level. Fish and crustaceans are typically identified as common names or 'fish' / 'crab'. Submerged aquatic vegetation and algae are identified to Genus level. Terrestrial plants are identified as common names typically (i.e. red mangrove). Percent abundance and raw count data from cores for mollusks, ostracodes, forams, and pollen are identified to Genus or Species level. Empire Biovitae Kingdom Animalia Phylum Mollusca molluscs mollusks Phylum Arthropoda arthropodes Subphylum Crustacea crustaceans Class Ostracoda ostracodes Kingdom Plantae Subkingdom Chromista Division Bacillariophyceae diatoms Kingdom Chromalveolata Superphylum Alveolata Phylum Dinoflagellata algae dinocysts Kingdom Protozoa Phylum Protozoa Subphylum Sarcodina Superclass Rhizopoda Class Granuloreticulosea Order Foraminiferida foraminifers forams none The field measurements (such as salinity and temperature) and GPS coordinates were made on a variety of instruments over the years. We have made every attempt to calibrate and standardize the instruments and check the data for anomalies, however, we cannot rule out the possibility of instrumental error. Taxonomic names may not represent the most up to date usage, but are internally consistent. G. Lynn Wingard Northeast Region: FLORENCE BASCOM GEOSCIENCE CENTER Research Geologist mailing and physical

Mail Stop 926A, 12201 Sunrise Valley Dr

Reston VA 20192 United States 703-648-5352 lwingard@usgs.gov https://sofia.usgs.gov/publications/fs/145-96 map showing Biscayne Bay region, seagrass, hardbottom and barren bottom communities GIF Principal investigators of the USGS South Florida Ecosystem History projects have included G. Lynn Wingard, Debra Willard, Charles Holmes, Thomas Cronin, Bruce Wardlaw, Scott Ishman, and Jacqueline Huvane. Data collected by G. Lynn Wingard, Scott Ishman, Thomas Cronin, Jessica Albietz, Kristi Alger, Carlos Budet, Margot Corum, Andre Daniels, Gary Dwyer, Jill D'Ambrosio, James Gillespie, Lauren Hewitt, Chuck Holmes, Joel Hudley, Jacqueline Huvane, Casey Lowe, Marci Marot, Frank Marshall, Guy Means, James Murray, Joseph Murray, Ruth Ortiz, Laura Pyle, Casey Saenger, Bane Schill, Sara Schwede, Tom Scott, Eugene Shinn, Bethany Stackhouse, Rob Stamm, Jeffery Stone, Carleigh Trappe, Stephen Wandrei, Christopher Williams, and Christopher Wingard. The ecosystem history projects, which collected these data, have been funded by the USGS Greater Everglades Priority Ecosystems Science (GEPES). Biscayne Bay data were funded in part by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). Biscayne National Park and Everglades National Park have made the sites accessible to project personnel. The original database (containing field data from 1995-2007) was designed and developed by Jeffery Stone (1998-2000), under the supervision of G. Lynn Wingard. Carleigh Trappe revised the original design and maintained the database from 2000-2002. Carlos Budet maintained the database from 2002-2009, and Carlos Budet, Ruth Ortiz, Joel Hudley, and Jim Murray assisted G. Lynn Wingard in preparing the database for initial release in fall 2005 (Version 1). This new database (containing field data from 2008-present) was redesigned by Bethany Stackhouse and released in February 2012 (Version 1) and will be periodically updated as new data are collected. Database is currently maintained by Bethany Stackhouse. Poag, C. W. 1981 BOOK New York, NY Academic Press Ishman, Scott E. 1997 ONLINE_REFERENCE USGS Open-File Report 97-0437 Reston, VA U.S. Geological Survey https://pubs.usgs.gov/pdf/of/ofr97437.html Ishman, Scott E. Graham, Ian D'Ambrosio, Jill 1997 ONLINE_REFERENCE USGS Open-File Report 97-034 Reston, VA U.S. Geological Survey https://pubs.usgs.gov/pdf/of/ofr97034.html Stone, Jeffery R. Cronin, Thomas M. Brewster-Wingard, G. Lynn Ishman, Scott E. Wardlaw, Bruce R. Holmes, Charles W. 2000 ONLINE_REFERENCE USGS Open-File Report 00-191 Reston, VA U.S. Geological Survey https://archive.usgs.gov/archive/sites/sofia.usgs.gov/publications/ofr/00-191/index.html Wingard, G. Lynn Cronin, Thomas M. Dwyer, Gary S. Ishman, Scott E. Willard, Debra A. Holmes, Charles W. Bernhardt, Christopher E. Williams, Christopher P. Marot, Marci E. Murray, James B. Stamm, Robert G. Murray, J. H. Budet, Carlos A. 2003 ONLINE_REFERENCE USGS Open-file Report 03-375 Reston, VA U.S. Geological Survey https://archive.usgs.gov/archive/sites/sofia.usgs.gov/publications/ofr/03-375/index.html Wingard, G. Lynn Cronin, Thomas M. Holmes, Charles W. Willard, Debra A. Dwyer, Gary Ishman, Scott E. Orem, William Williams, Christopher P. Albietz, Jessica Bernhardt, Christopher E. Budet, Carlos A. Landacre, Bryan Lerch, Terry Marot, Marci E. Ortiz, Ruth E. 2004 ONLINE_REFERENCE USGS Open-File Report 2004-1312 Reston, VA U.S. Geological Survey https://archive.usgs.gov/archive/sites/sofia.usgs.gov/publications/ofr/2004-1312/index.html Trappe, Carleigh A. Brewster-Wingard, G. Lynn 2001 ONLINE_REFERENCE USGS Open-File Report 01-143 Reston, VA U.S. Geological Survey https://archive.usgs.gov/archive/sites/sofia.usgs.gov/publications/ofr/01-143/index.html Pyle, Laura Cooper, Sherri R. Huvane Jacqueline K. 1998 ONLINE_REFERENCE USGS Open-File Report 98-522 Reston, VA U.S. Geological Survey https://pubs.usgs.gov/pdf/of/ofr98522.html Brewster-Wingard, G. Lynn Ishman, Scott E. Willard, Debra A. Edwards, Lucy E. Holmes, Charles W. 1998 ONLINE_REFERENCE USGS Open-File Report 98-0122 Reston, VA U.S. Geological Survey https://pubs.usgs.gov/pdf/of/ofr98122.html Scott, Thomas M. Means, Guy H. Brewster-Wingard, G. Lynn 1997 ONLINE_REFERENCE USGS Open-File Report 97-0534 Reston, VA U.S. Geological Survey https://pubs.usgs.gov/pdf/of/ofr97534.html Willard, Debra A. Brewster-Wingard, G. Lynn Fellman, Claire Ishman, Scott E. 1997 ONLINE_REFERENCE USGS Open-File Report 97-0736 Reston, VA U. S. Geological Survey https://pubs.usgs.gov/pdf/of/ofr97736.html Wingard, G. Lynn Ishman, Scott Cronin, Thomas Edwards, Lucy E. Willard, Debra A. Halley, Robert B. 1995 ONLINE_REFERENCE USGS Open-File Report 95-628 Reston, VA U.S. Geological Survey https://archive.usgs.gov/archive/sites/sofia.usgs.gov/publications/ofr/95-628/index.html Brewster-Wingard, G. Lynn Stone, Jeffery R. Holmes, Charles W. 2001 ONLINE_REFERENCE Bulletins of American Paleontology 361 Ithica, NY Paleontological Research Institute https://archive.usgs.gov/archive/sites/sofia.usgs.gov/publications/papers/mollusc_distribution/index.html Brewster-Wingard, G. Lynn Ishman, Scott E. Edwards, Lucy E. Willard, Debra A. 1996 ONLINE_REFERENCE USGS Open-File Report 96-0732 Reston, VA U.S. Geological Survey https://pubs.usgs.gov/pdf/of/ofr96732.html Ishman, Scott E. Brewster-Wingard, G. Lynn Willard, Debra A. Cronin, Thomas M. Edwards, Lucy E. Holmes, Charles W. 1996 ONLINE_REFERENCE USGS Open-File Report 96-0543 Reston, VA U.S. Geological Survey https://pubs.usgs.gov/pdf/of/ofr96543.html Wingard, G. Lynn Cronin, Thomas M. Holmes, Charles W. Willard, Debra A. Budet, Carlos A. Ortiz, Ruth E. 2005 ONLINE_REFERENCE USGS Open-File Report 2005-1360 Reston,VA U.S. Geological Survey https://archive.usgs.gov/archive/sites/sofia.usgs.gov/publications/ofr/2005-1360/index.html Wanless, H. R. Cottrell, D. J. Tagett, M. G. Tedesco, L. P. Warzeski, E. R., Jr. 1995 ONLINE_REFERENCE Special Publicaton v. 23 Cambridge, MA International Association of Sedimentologists https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781444304114.ch16 Schweitzer, Peter N. 1994 ONLINE_REFERENCE USGS Open-File Report 94-645 Reston, VA U.S. Geological Survey https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr94645 Kovach, W. L. 1999 OTHER Pentraeth, Wales, UK Kovach Computing Services Bock, Wayne D. 1971 ONLINE_REFERENCE Memoir 1 Miami, FL Miami Geological Society https://archive.usgs.gov/archive/sites/sofia.usgs.gov/publications/reports/mgs_bock1971/ahandbook-1.pdf Hazel, J. E. 1983 ONLINE_REFERENCE Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology 53 Washington, DC Smithsonian Institution https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_91475.htm Cronin, Thomas M. 1979 ONLINE_REFERENCE Geographie Physique et Quaternaire v. 33, n. 2 Montreal, Quebec, Canada Les Presses de l'Universite de Montreal https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/gpq/1979-v33-n2-gpq1486110/1000066ar.pdf Cronin, Thomas M. 1990 ONLINE_REFERENCE USGS Professional Paper 1367-C Reston, VA U.S. Geological Survey Wingard, G. Lynn 2004 ONLINE_REFERENCE Reston, VA U.S. Geological Survey https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2004/3108/fs2004-3108.html All data are cross checked at least twice to original field notes so entries are correct. In terms of reproducibility, these are living ecosystems, so part of the purpose of the database is to compare repeat observations at the same site over time to note the changes. The presence/absence data on occurrence of plants and animals are not quantitative assessments. Simply put, an absence in the database does not necessarily mean the species was absent at the site. Fieldwork was conducted for a variety of purposes over the years, and these data represent observations made at specific times and places. For example, a species may not have been detected at a specific site on a given date, because we were at the site to collect a core - not do a site survey. We always note any observations made and these are recorded here in the Modern Field Information table, but keep the sampling method and purpose in mind when comparing. The field measurements (such as salinity and temperature) and GPS coordinates were made on a variety of instruments over the years. We have made every attempt to calibrate and standardize the instruments and check the data for anomalies, however, we cannot rule out the possibility of instrumental error. Taxonomic names may not represent the most up to date usage, but are internally consistent. All data are cross checked at least twice to original field notes so entries are correct. In terms of reproducibility, these are living ecosystems, so part of the purpose of the database is to compare repeat observations at the same site over time to note the changes. The data on occurrence of plants and animals are qualitative notes - not quantitative assesments. Simply put, an absence in the database does not necessarily mean the species was absent at the site. Fieldwork was conducted for a variety of purposes over the years, and these data represent observations made at specific times and places. For example, a species may not have been detected at a specific site on a given date, because we were at the site to collect a core - not do a site survey. We always noted any observations made and these are recorded here, but more species would obviously be detected if we spent 30 minutes doing a snorkeling transect looking for species, than if we were there to collect a core and in the process noted the presence of certain species. Keep this in mind when looking at the data. Much of the data were collected using a GPS system to accurately capture the location of the collection site. The accuracy of the positions range from none shown to +/- 493 feet. Many of the sites fall in the +/- 92 feet range. Most of the sites in the database have a GPS accuracy value given. The earlier dates for data collection are usually the ones without an accuracy value. Water depth data are accurate to within 0.25 meter both Core Collection. Core collection sites are determined on the basis of examination of digital orthophotoquadrangles, aerial photos, maps, reconnaissance, and discussion with land managers. Collecting cores is essential to the purpose of this project - to reconstruct the history of the ecosystem over biologically significant periods of time (decades to centuries) and to determine what the system looked like prior to significant human alteration. The sediments, faunal and floral remains in the cores retain this record. All cores are collected via the "piston" coring method. This provides a minimum of disruption to the sediments. The technique of obtaining the piston core varies somewhat from site to site depending on water depth and accessibility. Following are the general procedures: 1. Marking the site: Specific core site is selected in advance by snorkeling before the boat or equipment is brought up to the site. The chosen site is marked with a float. 2. Set up: If the water depth allows, the boat is floated up to the site, anchored on at least two sides, and coring conducted through a "moon pool" (hatched hole in the bottom or back of the boat). If water depth does not allow us to float the boat over the site, we place the coring equipment on a raft or rubber dinghy, snorkel and float to the site, and proceed with coring. A tripod may be set up and utilized to assist in extracting the core. This is especially useful if the cores are long (>1.5 m) and/or if the substrate is very firm. If used, the tripod is set up prior to starting the actual coring. The purpose of the tripod is to keep tension on the piston while the core is being pushed down into the substrate. 3. Inserting the core barrels: 1. The piston (a hard rubber plug with 2 O-rings) is inserted into the bottom of a 4" outside-diameter clear acrylic tube, and a rope attached to an eye-ring in the top of the piston is threaded back through the core barrel. 2. The core barrel is lowered to just above the substrate and any air trapped in the space between the piston and the bottom of the barrel is removed and filled with water. Tension is then placed on the line attached to the piston, so when the core barrel penetrates the sediment the piston remains in a fixed position a few cm above the sediment surface; this produces a vacuum that retards compaction. 3. When the barrel is set in position it is forced down into the sediments (via muscle power) until we hit bedrock or until we cannot push the core any further. If a replicate core is being taken (side by side cores), the second core is pushed in place at this time, before the first core is extracted so that no disruption of the sediments for the second core will occur due to sediment movement during the extraction process. An aluminum clamp device with handles is usually placed around the barrel to provide a good grip for pushing. 4. Extracting the core barrels: 1. If a tripod was not set up, the aluminum clamp handles are used to extract the cores via muscle power. If a tripod is used, a cable and pulley system can be used to lift the core via a hand winch. With either method, it is critical to keep tension on the piston, because the piston provides the vacuum to retain the sediments in the core barrel as it is lifted. A benefit of the clear core barrel is that it allows us to determine if the piston is moving or if any leakage around the piston's O-ring seal occurs during the extraction process. 2. As soon as the core barrel clears the sediment surface, a person standing in the water quickly places a plastic cap over the bottom of the barrel. The barrel is hoisted vertically onto the boat and the bottom cap secured via waterproof tape. 3. Excess tubing is cut off just above the sediment surface using a large pipe cutter, and any space between the sediment surface and the top of the barrel is filled with water to prevent sloshing and disruption of the surface during transport. A top cap is placed on the barrel and sealed with waterproof tape. 4. If a replicate core is taken, the replicate also is extracted following the same procedures in 1-3 above. During the coring process we are very careful to not stand on or damage any organisms (coral, sponges, etc.) or to damage the substrate other than the actual hole from the coring. In many areas, the mud is so soft that the hole caves in/collapses immediately after extraction, and no visible sign of the core is left. Data recorded at the time of coring include: 1) GPS location (recorded on at least two instruments); 2) water depth to the substrate; 3) water depth to the sediment in the barrel (items 2 & 3 allow calculation of compaction during the coring process); 4) water properties including salinity, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH. Core processing: Cores are transported vertically and most are x-rayed as soon as possible (sometimes in the field at local hospitals). Cores are extruded vertically using the piston in reverse to push the sediment out of the barrel into one or two centimeter slices (resembling hockey pucks). The slices are trimmed around the edges to remove any contaminants due to contact with the barrel, bagged and weighed. Wet and dry weights are obtained for each sample. Processing procedures may vary slightly for each core, depending on the different analyses being conducted and these procedures are reported with results for individual cores. In general, all material is retained. Small (1 cm3) plugs of sediment are removed for palynological analyses and for archival purposes. The remainder of the sample is washed with distilled and deionized water through 63 and 850 micron nylon mesh sieves and all material passing through the sieves is trapped in buckets and allowed to settle out for a period of days or weeks. The water is then siphoned off and the fine (<63 micron) fraction is air dried on filter paper under a hood, then distributed for geochemical and geochronological analyses. The 63 and 850 micron fractions are dried in a 50 degree C oven and distributed for faunal analyses. Shallow sediment cores are collected within the bays and the faunal and floral remains, sediment geochemistry, and shell biochemistry are analyzed. Modern field data are collected from the same region as the cores and serve as proxies to allow accurate interpretation of past depositional environments. 2022 G. Lynn Wingard U.S. Geological Survey mailing and physical

12201 Sunrise Valley Dr., MS926A

Reston VA 20192 USA 703 648-5352 lwingard@usgs.gov Modern samples Actual sampling methods and frequencies vary from site to site, depending on the substrate, water depth, and conditions, and the specific purpose of the sampling. In some cases we have collected small push core samples (10 cm deep by 5.1 cm diameter); in others, small samples of vegetation, scoops of sediment, or petite ponar grab samples. At every site we record information on water properties including salinity, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH, and where ever possible, we conduct a snorkel survey of the site listing presence/absence of various indicator macrofauna and flora. Processing of modern samples follows procedures similar to the core samples, except the <63 micron fraction is rarely retained. 2022 G. Lynn Wingard U.S. Geological Survey mailing and physical

12201 Sunrise Valley Dr., MS926A

Reston VA 20192 USA 703 648-5352 lwingard@usgs.gov This database was originally designed and developed during the period 1998-2000, under the supervision of G. Lynn Wingard. New versions of the database are released as new infomation is added. 2022 Bethany Stackhouse U.S. Geological Survey mailing and physical

12201 Sunrise Valley Dr., MS926A

Reston VA 20192 USA 703 648-6092 bstackhouse@usgs.gov south Florida 0.01 0.01 Degrees and decimal minutes North American Datum of 1983 Geodetic Reference System 80 6378137.0 298.257 The following attributes are possible for records in the Modern Field Data: Site #, ID Number, Site (name), Location (Florida Bay, Biscayne Bay or Southwest coast), General Area Description, Changes Observed, Comments, Clarity/Weather/Water/Tide, Collectors, Date Collected, Time, Longitude, Latitude, Instrument Used (for water chemistry), Salinity, Temperature, pH, Dissolved O2, Redox potential, Specific Conductance, Resistivity, Subsample #, Unique sample ID, Sample Type, Site Category, Position, Depth, Sampling Description, Site Description, Comments, Presence/Absence - Debris/Live for Mollusc/Other, SAV, and Terrestrial Vegetation. Not all attributes apply to all sites. The appropriate attributes are populated for each site. The possible attributes for the Core Locations are: General Location, Core ID #, Core Name, Related Modern Site, Public Information, Date Collected, Collectors, Longitude, Latitude, State, County, 7.5 minute quad, Core Length in Barrel, H20 Depth, General Area Description, Substrate Description, and Additional Information. These attributes are populated as appropriate for each core. See the Ecosystem History Access Database for more detailed information on the attributes for the Modern Field Data and Core Locations. U.S. Geological Survey – ScienceBase U.S. Geological Survey mailing and physical

Denver Federal Center, Building 810, Mail Stop 302

Denver CO 80225 USA 1-888-275-8747 sciencebase@usgs.gov Unless otherwise stated, all data, metadata and related materials are considered to satisfy the quality standards relative to the purpose for which the data were collected. Although these data and associated metadata have been reviewed for accuracy and completeness and approved for release by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the display or utility of the data for other purposes, nor on all computer systems, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty. MS Access 2007 The Access database is available as a zipped file The file must be unzipped before use https://doi.org/10.5066/P9ZT2ITU The database may be downloaded from the ScienceBase landing page None This zip file contains data available in Microsoft Access database format. The user must have Microsoft Access found in the Microsoft Office suite. 20220627 Bethany Stackhouse Northeast Region: FLORENCE BASCOM GEOSCIENCE CENTER Physical Science Technician mailing and physical

Mail Stop 926A, 12201 Sunrise Valley Dr

Reston VA 20192 United States 703-648-6092 bstackhouse@usgs.gov FGDC Biological Data Profile of the Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata FGDC-STD-001.1-1999 none