Big Bend CAP, Final Report - Public.MyFWC.com · Final Report Prepared by Laura Geselbracht The...

Cedar Key Saltmarhes by Jeff Ripple

Conservation Action Plan for Marine and Estuarine Resources

of the Big Bend Area of Florida

Final Report

Prepared by Laura Geselbracht

The Nature Conservancy

Florida Chapter

March 2007

Acknowledgements

The following individuals provided invaluable input into the development of this

Conservation Action Plan by participating in expert workshops and/or by providing

advice on various aspects of this plan.

Bill Arnold, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife

Research Institute

Chad Bedee, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Coastal and

Aquatic Managed Areas, Big Bend Seagrass Aquatic Preserve

Jon Blanchard, The Nature Conservancy, Florida Chapter, Apalachicola Program

Seth Blitch, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Coastal and

Aquatic Managed Areas, Northwest Florida Program

Rafael Calderon, The Nature Conservancy, Gulf of Mexico Program

Melissa Charbonneau, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Office of

Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas, Big Bend Seagrass Aquatic Preserve

Sue Colson, Cedar Key City Commission and Cedar Key Aquaculture Association

Chris Gudeman, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Marine Habitat

Mark Hammond, Southwest Florida Water Management District

Steve Herrington, The Nature Conservancy, Florida Chapter, Apalachicola Program

Eugene Kelly, The Nature Conservancy, Science Department

Mike McManus, The Nature Conservancy, Florida Chapter, Science Department

Melody Ray-Culp, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Ron Mezich, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Kent Smith, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Leslie Sturmer, University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agriculture Sciences

Cynthia Taylor, Wildlife Trust

Laura Yarbro, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife

Research Institute

iii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary....................................................................................................v

I. Introduction..............................................................................................................1

II. Planning Area and Conservation Targets Defined...................................................3

III. Conservation Target Viability................................................................................16

IV. Threat Assessment .................................................................................................25

Harmful algal blooms ...............................................................................................26

Coastal Development ................................................................................................28

Fishing gear impacts .................................................................................................35

Utility corridors.........................................................................................................39

Dam presence............................................................................................................40

Nutrient Loads ..........................................................................................................42

Dredging ...................................................................................................................43

Inadequate Stormwater Management .......................................................................43

Incompatible fishing pressure ...................................................................................43

V. Strategies to Abate the Highest Rated Threats and Action Steps ..........................44

Harmful algal blooms ...............................................................................................44

Coastal Development ................................................................................................46

Fishing gear impacts .................................................................................................48

Utility corridors.........................................................................................................50

Dam presence............................................................................................................51

Nutrient Loads ..........................................................................................................52

Dredging ...................................................................................................................54

Inadequate Stormwater Management .......................................................................55

Incompatible fishing pressure ...................................................................................56

VI. Measuring Success.................................................................................................58

References..........................................................................................................................60

Appendices

Appendix 1. Strategies for Some Threats Rated High or Very High for Individual

Conservation Targets

Appendix 2. Workplan: Action Steps and Timeline to Accomplish the Top-Rated

Conservation Strategies.

Figures

1. Project area 4

2. Seagrass distribution 8

iv

Table of Contents, continued

Figures, continued

3. Saltmarsh & tide flat distribution, northern portion of planning area 9

4. Saltmarsh & tide flat distribution, southern portion of planning area 10

5. Oyster reef distribution, northern portion of planning area 11

6. Oyster reef distribution, southern portion of planning area 12

7. Live bottom distribution, vicinity of project area 13

8. Florida Manatee, Gulf sturgeon and Alabama shad distributions 14

9. Bay scallop distribution 15

10. Harmful algal blooms, 1995 – 2004 27

11. Surface tidal currents in the Big Bend region 28

12. Population density in the Big Bend region from Census 2000 30

13. Intactness of natural land cover 31

14. Road density 32

15. Percent impervious surface by basin 33

16. Hardened shoreline 34

17. Shrimp closure zones, Big Bend region 37

19. Shrimp fishing locations July through September 2004 38

19. Shrimp trawling zones in the Gulf of Mexico 39

20. Major dams and rivers 41

21. Total Nitrogen from the Inshore Mapping and Assessment Program 42

Tables

1. Fish Community Species & Species Groups Tracked by FWC/FWRI 6

2. Percent Statewide Representation, Habitat Conservation Targets 7

3. Percent Statewide Representation, Species Conservation Targets 7

4. Overall Viability Summary 16

5. Assessment of Target Viability – Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 17

6. Assessment of Target Viability – Salt Marsh/Tide Flat Complex 18

7. Assessment of Target Viability – Oyster Reef 19

8. Assessment of Target Viability – Live Bottom Community 20

9. Assessment of Target Viability – Florida Manatee 21

10. Assessment of Target Viability – Fish Community 22

11. Assessment of Target Viability – Diadromous Fish 23

12. Assessment of Target Viability – Bay Scallops 24

13. Summary of Threats, Big Bend CAP Planning Area 25

14. Total population and population density in Big Bend area HUC basins 34

v

Executive Summary

In 2005, the State of Florida completed the Florida Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation

Strategy (FWC, 2005). The Florida CWCS identifies and rates threats to the state’s

terrestrial, freshwater and marine habitats and identifies and rates strategies to abate the

top rated threats. While this is a highly valuable resource that will help guide the actions

of resource managers and other stakeholders to protect these resources over the next

several years, it lacks site specific advice for abating threats to the state’s environmental

resources. The Big Bend Conservation Action Planning process described in this

document follows up on the CWCS effort by providing a narrower focus on a specific

area of Florida. The Big Bend Conservation Action Plan (CAP) focuses on the marine

and estuarine resources of the Big Bend area of Florida. For purposes of this effort, the

Big Bend CAP planning area is defined as extending from Lighthouse Point (coast south

of Tallahassee) at its north end west and south to Anclote Key (just north of Clearwater,

Florida near Tampa Bay) at its southern end. The inland boundary of the project area is

the influence of saltwater as defined by the National Wetlands Inventory classifications

for marine and estuarine wetlands. The offshore boundary extends to the state waters

boundary which, on the Gulf Coast is 9 nautical miles from the shoreline.

To complete the Big Bend CAP, we have utilized a process developed and refined by The

Nature Conservancy over the last 10 years called Conservation by Design. Site

conservation through the development and implementation of Conservation Action Plans

has been carried out by the Conservancy and its partners around the globe. Some key

features of Conservation Action Plans (CAPs) are identification of conservation targets to

represent the ecosystem under consideration, identification of key threats to these

conservation targets, development of strategies to abate these key threats and methods for

measuring the success of implemented strategies. The strategies are to be reviewed

periodically and adapted as necessary depending on what the measures of success

indicate.

Over the last year and a half, we have held a series of meetings with Big Bend region and

statewide marine and estuarine resource experts and stakeholders to guide resource

characterization, threat assessment and strategy development. In addition, we have

corresponded with some of these same experts to advise us on the development of the

viability assessment component of the CAP. This effort builds on the numerous ongoing

conservation and management efforts that have been implemented in the Big Bend region

for a number of years by utilizing the information that has been gleaned about the

resources and their condition. A key value of this effort is to bring together in one place a

comprehensive compendium of actions that will be needed to ensure protection of area

resources for the use and enjoyment of future generations. The review of ongoing actions

to abate threats and measure success contained in this document also points out some

gaps in management actions and assessment that should be filled in order to ensure the

future health of area resources.

vi

In this report, we provide background on the key steps of the CAP process and detail the

results from the meetings and other analyses. The keys steps of the CAP process and our

findings are as follows:

Identify conservation targets to represent all area resources

We selected the following conservation targets to represent the marine and estuarine

ecological systems of the Big Bend region of Florida:

• Submerged Aquatic Vegetation

• Salt Marsh - Tide Flat Complex

• Oyster Reef

• Live Bottom Community

• Florida Manatee

• Fish Community

• Diadromous Fish; and

• Bay Scallops

Assess viability of the selected conservation targets;

We assessed the viability of each conservation target by examining three broad measures

of resource health: size, condition and landscape context. We identified specific attributes

to measure health and rated the health status of each conservation target by reviewing the

relevant scientific literature and survey results and by consulting with state and regional

resource experts. In summary, we found that individual conservation target health ranged

from fair to very good and that overall, the ecological health of the area could be

considered good.

Overall Viability Summary

Landscape Context

Condition Size Viability Rank Conservation Targets

Grade Grade Grade

1 Salt Marsh - Tide Flat Complex Good Very Good Very Good

Very Good

2 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Good Fair Good Good

3 Oyster Reef Good Fair Good Good

4 Live Bottom Community Fair Fair - Fair

5 Florida Manatee Good Fair Good Good

6 Fish Community Fair Good Good Good

7 Diadromous Fish Fair Good Fair Fair

8 Bay Scallops Fair Fair Fair Fair

Site Biodiversity Health Rank Good

vii

Identify and rank the critical threats to the conservation targets

We evaluated and rated approximately twenty potential threats to marine and estuarine

resources for each conservation target. When synthesized for all conservation targets in

the planning area, we identified the following nine very high or high rated threats:

harmful algal blooms, coastal development, fishing gear impacts, utility corridors, dam

presence, nutrient loads, dredging, inadequate stormwater management and incompatible

fishing pressure.

Develop strategies to abate the critical threats, detailed action steps and a work plan

At an expert workshop, we developed strategies to abate the top-rated threats and rated

each of these strategies. The ranking of the threats and strategies provides a tool for

resource managers and other stakeholders to focus on top priority threats and strategies in

the planning area. Below are the strategies that received a high or very high rating.

Top Rated Strategies to Abate Harmful Algal Blooms (includes toxic and harmful,

non-toxic blooms & black water events; goes beyond red tide)

Objective A: The conditions necessary to trigger HABs are understood and management

resulting in arrested HAB development is in place by 2016.

• Using data/information from existing water quality monitoring programs in the Big

Bend (FWC and Project Coast, UF, Tom Frazer), define as best we can what the

natural background levels of nutrients are for the area (current, baseline and/or

historic).

• Push for congressional support (i.e., funding) to address HABs now "while the iron is

hot".

• Conduct/support research that builds on existing knowledge to identify the cofactors

that trigger HABs.

• Create incentives for the placement of advanced septic systems. These could be tax

incentives. Water management districts and local governments may be the

appropriate leads for this action.

Objective B: Understanding of the dynamics and movement of HABs along the Big Bend

Coast allows prediction and early warning about HAB impacts to potentially impacted

communities by 2016.

• Purchase and deploy an adequate network of in situ samplers.

Top Rated Strategies to Abate/Reduce Impacts of Coastal Development

Objective A: By 2016, at least 90% of Big Bend planning area shorelines remain in a

natural condition (i.e., unhardened) so as to allow for natural processes to proceed

uninhibited.

• Modify federal/state flood insurance programs in coastal high hazard regions to

strictly control payment of repeat claims in areas subject to frequent flood events. For

example, after a certain amount of loss, the property becomes public or the owner can

rebuild at their own cost (for example, pay to rebuild once).

• Implement an education program to promote soft shoreline alternatives to hardened

shoreline

• Ensure adherence with the CCCL rules and shift the coastal construction control line

landward

viii

Objective B: Allow the migration of marine/estuarine habitats inland (i.e., upslope) as sea

level progresses by purchasing 50% of unprotected lands within 1 mile of the 2006

shoreline by 2016.

• Purchase more coastal conservation lands and easements

• Develop a mechanism to improve communication between developers and the

conservation community to circumvent problems upfront.

Top Rated Strategies to Abate Fishing Gear Impacts

Objective A: By 2016, Fishing gear improvements are developed and implemented that

result in minimal irreparable damage to marine and estuarine habitats from fishing

activities.

• Develop gears less harmful to bottom habitat for harvesting bait shrimp as an

alternative to roller frames.

• Conduct a broad-scale characterization of benthic communities and associated

habitat.

• Consider rotational closure of bottom trawling for the most sensitive areas.

• Develop aquaculture production for bait shrimp and other types of bait.

Top Rated Strategies to Abate the Threat of Utility Corridors

Objective A: Sensitive living resources in the Big Bend planning area are protected from

degradation by ensuring that all utility corridors approved for the planning area are sited

in the least vulnerable areas, effective 2006.

• Ensure that the least environmentally sensitive locations are selected for placement of

utility corridors, especially with respect to bay scallops. Consider co-location of

utilities when feasible.

• Ensure that the proper safeguards are employed to minimize secondary impacts

associated with utility corridor siting.

Top Rated Strategies to Abate the Presence of Dams

Objective A: Restore self-sustaining populations of target diadromous fishes, by

reconnecting upstream and downstream habitats across the dam at Lake Talquin

(Ochlocknee River) by 2016.

• Develop/implement fish passage technologies

Top Rated Strategies to Abate Nutrient Loads

Objective A: By 2011, determine natural background levels of nutrients in Big Bend

Region coastal waters, quantify nutrients loads especially from river sources such as the

Suwannee and develop nutrient targets for sustaining project area marine and estuarine

systems as viable and healthy.

• Determine natural background levels of nutrients in the Big Bend area. Use this

information to define nutrient targets. The FWC and water management districts

(Project Coast) may already have some of this information.

Objective B: By 2016, implement nutrient reduction programs such as best management

practices (BMPs) aimed at a minimum of achieving nutrient targets in the Big Bend

ix

Region. Focus on the most sensitive areas first. May use the results of the Conservancy's

Site Assessment to identify the most sensitive areas.

• Support continued and expanded implementation of BMPs in Suwannee Basin (Water

management districts may have data on dairy & chicken farms BMP implementation).

• Implement nutrient reduction techniques in sensitive areas or draining to sensitive

areas. For example, require septic systems that treat nutrients more effectively than

the status quo for all new development. For existing systems, require upgraded

system upon the need to replace it. This action will likely include new regulations

and/or code.

• Support the Water management districts ongoing work to retrofit existing stormwater

treatment areas identified to be problematic. Develop improved stormwater treatment

systems to reduce invasive species that thrive on high nutrients.

• Encourage the Water management districts and local governments to champion the

creation of incentives for placement of advanced septic systems (could be tax

incentives).

Top Rated Strategies to Abate Dredging Impacts

Objective A: From now into the future, maintain the ecological integrity of Big Bend

Area seagrass beds and salt marshes by preventing the unnecessary dredging of these

systems especially in designated managed areas such as the state's Aquatic Preserves.

• Prevent the dredging of new boating channels by effectively maintaining existing

dredged channels. Establish a rule that prevents new channels from being dredged in

managed areas or through high quality benthic communities.

Objective B: Beginning now, minimize the adverse impacts of dredge disposal by

identifying the least ecologically damaging and/or most ecologically beneficial methods

for dredge disposal.

• Create and implement effective uses for dredged spoils. For example, enhance

existing bird nesting sites.

Top Rated Strategies to Abate Incompatible Stormwater Management

Objective A: By 2016, accelerate WMD and local government efforts to retrofit

stormwater treatment systems throughout the planning area.

• Support the Water management districts ongoing work to retrofit existing stormwater

treatment areas identified to be problematic.

Top Rated Strategies to Abate Incompatible Fishing Pressure

Objective A: By 2016, stocks of all harvested species in the planning area are effectively

managed so as to ensure viable and sustainable populations into the future.

• Improve species specific management by evaluating/re-evaluating minimum size &

slot limits, seasons, bag limits, rotational harvest and closed areas.

• Improve protection at existing managed areas including more support for marine

enforcement.

• Pursue enhancement and restoration strategies for redfish, oysters, bay scallops and

other species as may be determined in the future.

x

Establish measures for evaluating the success of the strategies

Strategies, once implemented, must be evaluated periodically to determine if they have

been successful. In the final section of this report, we recommend measures to monitor

success for each conservation target. Some of these measures are already being

monitored comprehensively by resource agencies or institutions. Others are being

monitored, but only in certain locations or infrequently. Some of these factors are not

currently measured.

The development of the Big Bend CAP and preparation of this document are but first

steps in the conservation process. Continued implementation of the already ongoing

management and conservation efforts as well as implementation of the additional efforts

recommended in this document will be required to ensure the future health of Big Bend

area marine and estuarine resources.

1

I. Introduction

The Big Bend Coast is distinctive in Florida in that it is a low energy coastline with vast salt

marshes and seagrass beds among other important ecological communities. This coast remains

the least developed coastal region in Florida, but there is accelerating pressure to grow. This

combination of vast resources and relatively undeveloped coastline is a key reason the ecological

resources in this area remain so important. The vast seagrass beds in this region undoubtedly

make a significant contribution to Gulf of Mexico fish and invertebrate (e.g., shrimp) production.

This Conservation Action Planning process for the Big Bend Region of Florida follows and

builds on the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy developed last year for the state of

Florida (FWC, 2005). The Strategy summarized conservation threats for all of the state’s major

habitat types and provided a prioritized list of actions to abate the identified threats, among other

things. With this effort, we have focused in on marine and estuarine resources of one area, the

Big Bend Region, to provide a more detailed look at conservation challenges and develop more

region specific actions to abate the identified threats. For this effort, we have used a process

developed and refined by The Nature Conservancy to develop a Conservation Action Plan.

Conservation Action Plans have been developed and implemented by the Conservancy and its

partners around the globe. Some key features of Conservation Action Plans (CAPs) are

identification of key threats to area resources, development of strategies to abate these key

threats and methods for measuring the success of implemented strategies. The strategies are to be

reviewed periodically and adapted as necessary depending on what the measures of success

indicate.

Over the last year and a half, we have held a number of meetings with Big Bend region and

statewide marine and estuarine resource experts and stakeholders to guide resource

characterization, threat assessment and strategy development. In addition, we have corresponded

with some of these same experts to advise us on the development of the viability assessment

component of the CAP. This effort builds on the numerous ongoing conservation and

management efforts that have been implemented in the Big Bend region for a number of years by

utilizing the information that has been gleaned about the resources and their condition. A key

value of this effort is to bring together in one place a comprehensive compendium of actions that

will be needed to ensure protection of area resources for the use and enjoyment of future

generations. The review of ongoing actions to abate threats and measure success contained in

this document also points out some gaps in management actions and assessment that should be

filled in order to ensure the future health of area resources.

In the following sections, we provide background on the key steps of the CAP process and detail

the results from the meetings and other analyses. The keys steps described in this document are

as follows:

• Define project area and identify conservation targets to represent all area resources;

• Assess viability of the selected conservation targets;

• Identify and rank the critical threats to the conservation targets;

• Develop strategies to abate the critical threats, detailed action steps and a work plan; and

• Establish measures for evaluating the success of the strategies;

2

The development of this CAP and preparation of this document are but first steps in the

conservation process. Continued implementation of the already ongoing management and

conservation efforts as well as implementation of the additional efforts recommended in this

document will be required to ensure the future health of Big Bend area marine and estuarine

resources.

3

II. Project Area and Conservation Targets Defined

In this step of the Conservation Action Planning process, the project team defined the project

area and the conservation targets. Conservation targets are the natural systems (aka habitat types)

and specific species that were selected as representative of the overall biodiversity of the project

area. In this planning process, we limited ourselves to eight conservation targets.

Project Area

The project area is illustrated in Figure 1 and extends from Lighthouse Point (coast south of

Tallahassee) at its north end west and south to Anclote Key (just north of Clearwater, Florida

near Tampa Bay) at its southern end. The inland boundary of the project area is the influence of

saltwater as defined by the National Wetlands Inventory classifications for marine and estuarine

wetlands. The offshore boundary extends to the state waters boundary which on the Gulf Coast is

9 nautical miles from the shoreline.

Conservation Targets Selected for the Big Bend Conservation Action Plan

The following conservation targets were selected by the project team as being representative of

the biodiversity of the entire project area:

• Submerged Aquatic Vegetation

• Salt Marsh - Tide Flat Complex

• Oyster Reef

• Live Bottom Community

• Florida Manatee

• Fish Community

• Diadromous Fish

• Bay Scallops

For a complete list of nested targets within each habitat type conservation target see the Florida’s

Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (FWC, 2005).

Where geospatial information was available for a conservation target, it is displayed in Figures 2

– 10 which are grouped at the end of this section (pages 8-14). Additional information on the

Live Bottom Community, Fish Community and Diadromous Fish conservation targets is

included below.

Live Bottom Community Of all the conservation targets selected for this conservation action plan, live bottom community

along Florida’s Gulf Coast is the least well known, especially within state waters. The U.S.

Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service has defined two types of live bottom

community in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico as follows:

• “Live bottoms (low relief features) means seagrass communities, areas that contain biological

assemblages consisting of sessile invertebrates living upon and attached to naturally

occurring hard or rocky formations with rough, broken, or smooth topography; and areas

4

Figure 1. Big Bend Conservation Plan, Project Area

•

5

where a hard substrate and vertical relief may favor the accumulation of turtles, fishes, or

other fauna.”

• “Live bottoms (pinnacle trend features) means seagrass communities, areas that contain

biological assemblages consisting of sessile invertebrates living upon and attached to

naturally occurring hard or rocky formations with rough, broken, or smooth topography; and

areas where hard or rocky substrate and vertical relief may favor the accumulation of turtles,

fishes or other fauna.” (USDOI, MMS, 2004)

For purposes of this document, we are not including seagrass beds in the definition of live

bottom community because we place seagrass in a category of its own. Figure 6 below illustrates

the locations where live bottom may be present in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico off the Florida

Coast. Low relief live bottom is depicted as possibly present over a large portion of this area.

Pinnacle trend live bottom is not depicted on this map as occurring off the Florida Gulf Coast.

An attachment to the above referenced document further describes the biological assemblages

associated with live bottom, low relief communities as those “consisting of sessile invertebrates

as sea fans, sea whips, hydroids, anemones, ascidians, sponges, bryozoans, or corals living upon

and attached to naturally occurring hard or rocky formations with rough, broken, or smooth

topography.”

Fish Community The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute

tracks 134 fish and invertebrate species or groups in state waters and prepares annual reports

detailing their status (FWC/FWRI, 2005). The species and species groups tracked are listed in

Table 1. Of these, 132 are considered to be present on the Florida Gulf Coast. Information

contained in these reports comes from commercial and recreational harvest data as well as

fisheries independent monitoring. Species and species groups tracked through this program

include the following: greater amberjack, ballyhoo, bluefish, bonefish, catfish, cobia, Atlantic

croaker, dolphin, black drum, red drum, flounders, gag grouper, red grouper, grunts, Atlantic

thread herring, hogfish, crevalle jack, kingfish (whitings), ladyfish, king mackerel, Spanish

mackerel, menhaden, striped mullet, permit, pinfish, Florida pompano, Spanish sardine, spotted

seatrout, sheepshead, gray snapper, lane snapper, red snapper, vermilion snapper, yellowtail

snapper, common snook, spot, tarpon, triggerfish, tripletail hard clams, blue crabs, stone crabs,

spiny lobsters, oysters, calico scallops, penaeid shrimp, and rock shrimp. Other fish and

invertebrates included in this general category of fish community can be found in Florida’s

Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (FWC, 2005).

Diadromous Fish Diadromous fish use both marine and freshwater habitats during portions of their life cycle.

Species fitting this description may be anadromous or catadromous. Anadromous species spawn

in rivers, and then migrate to sea to spend most of their life. Catadromous species spawn at sea,

but spend most of their lives in lakes, ponds and rivers. Several diadromous species utilize the

fresh, brackish and saltwaters of the Big Bend Region of Florida including federally listed and

candidate species such as the Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) and Alabama shad

(Alosa alabamae), species under consideration for listing such as the American eel (Anguilla

rostrata) and other more common species such as the common snook (Centropomus

6

undecimalis). Some of these species are also included in the description of fish community

above.

Table 1. Fish Community Species and Species Groups

Tracked by FWC/FWRI Finfish Amberjack

Ballyhoo

Blue runner

Bluefish

Bonefish

Catfish

Cobia

Croaker

Dolphin

Drum, black

Drum, red

Flounders

Grouper, black

Grouper, gag

Grouper, red

Grouper, scamp

Grouper, snowy

Grouper, warsaw

Grouper, yellowedge

Grunts

Atlantic thread herring

Hogfish

Crevalle jack

Kingfish

Ladyfish

Mackerel, king

Mackerel, Spanish

Menhaden

Mojarras

Mullet, striped

Mullet, white

Permit

Pinfish

Pompano

Porgies

Sand perch

Sardine, scaled

Sardine, Spanish

Scad, bigeye

Scad, round

Seatrout, sand

Seatrout, silver

Seatrout, spotted

Shark spp.

Shark fins

Sheepshead

Snapper, gray

Snapper, lane

Snapper, mutton

Snapper, red

Snapper, silk

Snapper, vermilion

Snapper, yellowtail

Common snook

Spot

Swordfish

Tarpon

Triggerfish

Tripletail

Tuna, bigeye

Tuna, blackfin

Tuna, bluefin

Tuna, skipjack

Tuna, yellowfin

Little tunny

Wahoo

Hard clams

Conch

Crab, blue

Crab, stone

Lobster, Spanish

Lobster, spiny

Octopus

Oysters

Calico scallops

Squid

Shrimp Brown

Pink

Rock

White

Bait

Marine Life Angelfish

Basses

Batfish

Blennies

Butterflyfish

Cardinalfish

Clingfish

Damselfish

Drum

Filefish

Flounder

Goatfish

Gobies

Groupers

Grunts

Hamlets

Jawfish

Morays

Parrotfish

Puffers

Remoras

Scorpionfish

Seahorses

Searobins

Sharks

Squirrelfish

Surgeonfish

Toadfish

Triggerfish

Trumpetfish

Trunkfish

Wrasses

Anemones

Crabs

Crab, horseshoe

Jellyfish

Lobsters

Nudibranchs

Octopus

Oysters

Polychaetes

Sand dollars

Scallops

Sea cucumbers

Shrimp

Snails

Sponges

Starfish

Urchins

Whelks

7

Contribution of Conservation Targets to Statewide Total The seagrass and salt marsh habitats in the Big Bend region of Florida make a substantial

contribution to the statewide total of these resources with seagrass contributing more than 27%

of the statewide total and salt marsh contributing over 31% of the statewide total (Table 2).

Seagrass in the Big Bend project area may actually make a greater contribution to the statewide

total as the seaward extent of seagrasses in some portions of the project area have not been fully

assessed (Matson, 2005).

Table 2. Percent Statewide Representation of Habitat Conservation Targets in the Project Area.

Big Bend CAP Planning Area Statewide

Percent of Statewide

Habitat Conservation Target Hectares hectares

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 253,656 926,922 27.4%

Saltmarsh 55,984 177,704 31.5%

Tide Flats 7,810 73,477 10.6%

Oyster Reef* 478 5,445 8.8%

Live Bottom Community Not available Not available Not available *Spatial data on oyster reef distribution statewide is incomplete and so the statewide percent of oyster reef

represented in the Big Bend CAP Planning area may be revised in the future as more complete data becomes

available.

Table 3. Approximate Percent Statewide Representation of Species Conservation Targets in the Project Area from Population Assessments.

Selected Marine/Estuarine Species

Big Bend CAP

Planning Area Statewide

Percent of Statewide

Florida manatee (number of individuals)

Synoptic survey, 20011 377 3,300 11%

2

Mortality in planning area and watersheds

draining to planning area, 1999 - 20041 112 1,828 6.1%

Diadromous Fish

Gulf sturgeon, number of rivers utilized3 2 7 28.6%

Alabama shad, number of rivers utilized4 1 5-7 14% - 20%

Fish Community Not available Not available Not available

Bay Scallops, sites with 3 year average

densities exceeding 10 scallops per 600

meters squared5 3 5 60%

1Northwest Region from 2001 synoptic survey, Haubold et al., 2005;

2 Northwest Region is larger than the Big Bend

planning area and extends from the Pasco-Hernando County line north and west along the Florida Panhandle

including coastal areas of adjoining states as far west as Louisiana; 3Wakeford, 2001;

4NatureServe, 2004;

5Arnold,

2006.

8

Figure 2.

9

Figure 3.

10

Figure 4.

11

Figure 5.

12

Figure 6.

13

Figure 7. Portion of MMS Map Depicting Low Relief Live Bottom, Florida Gulf Coast.

Note: Only areas outside of state waters (outside of planning area) are illustrated. (MMS,

2003)

14

Figure 8. Florida Manatee, Gulf Sturgeon and Alabama Shad Distributions.

15

Figure 9. Bay Scallop distribution in 2006.

16

III. Conservation Target Viability Assessment

The purpose of the conservation target viability assessment is to identify the most effective

methods for measuring the health of each conservation target in its current state as well as over

time. This step in the CAP process also helps resource managers and conservation practitioners

identify which conservation targets are most in need of immediate attention. Viability measures

in the following categories were considered for each conservation target: landscape context, size

and condition. To complete the viability assessment for each conservation target, we used

literature reviews and expert judgment to assign poor, fair, good and very good viability ratings

for each target attribute. For some conservation targets, copious amounts of information and

data derived from research and assessment are readily available. For other conservation targets,

information and data are scarce. Viability assessments should be viewed as living documents that

should be adjusted as more complete information on targets become available. Table 3 below

summarizes the results of our viability assessment of the conservation targets selected to

represent biodiversity in the Big Bend CAP Planning Area. Tables 4 – 11 that follow present the

detailed viability assessments that we completed for each of the conservation targets and the

sources of information that we referenced to complete them.

Table 4. Overall Viability Summary

Landscape Context

Condition Size Viability Rank Conservation Targets

Grade Grade Grade

1 Salt Marsh - Tide Flat Complex

Good Very Good Very Good Very Good

2 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation

Good Fair Good Good

3 Oyster Reef Good Fair Good Good

4 Live Bottom Community

Fair Fair -- Fair

5 Florida Manatee Good Fair Good Good

6 Fish Community Fair Good Good Good

7 Diadromous Fish Fair Good Fair Fair

8 Bay Scallops Fair Fair Fair Fair

Big Bend CAP Planning Area Overall Biodiversity Health Rank

Good

17

Table 5. Assessment of Target Viability – Submerged Aquatic Vegetation

Conservation Target

Category Key Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good Current Indicator

Status Current Rating


Landscape Context

Water clarity/Light availability

Depth to visible Secchi disk

<0.5 meters 0.5 - 1 meter 1 - 2 meters bottom or > 2 meters

A lot of natural inter/intra- annual variation. Clarity appears to be reduced in some localized areas associated with coastal estuaries (Dawes et al., 2004).

Good


Condition Primary productivity

Biomass production per annum

Reduced by more than 25% of pre disturbance condition

Reduced by no more than 10 to 25% pre-disturbance condition

Reduced by less than 10% of pre-disturbance condition

No reduction in primary productivity detected.

Hale et al. 2004 results suggest that increased nutrient loads to coastal rivers may be increasing phytoplankton abundance and reducing water clarity, thus affecting primary productivity.

Good


Condition Species composition / dominance

Dominant species present

Significant shifts from historic condition observed.

Moderate shifts from historic condition noted.

Only minor or localized shifts from historic condition noted.

No shifts or only very minor shifts from historic condition noted.

Some shifts in species composition have been noted.

Good


Condition Community architecture

Degree of scarring

More than 20% of SAV area with scarring

5% - 20% of SAV area with scarring

1% - 5% of SAV area with scarring

Less than 1% of SAV area with scarring

Between 5% - 20% of SAV area with scarring

Fair


Size Size / extent of characteristic communities / ecosystems

Areal extent of seagrass cover

91 - 92% of historical range

93 - 94% of historical range; Some localized losses observed.

No localized losses observed

Some localized losses such as in Suwannee Sound; Fenholloway River and Apalachee Bay.

Good

References for Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Viability Assessment: Blitch, 2006; Dawes et al., 2004; FWC/FWRI, 2006 ; Frazer et al., 2002 ; Hale et al., 2004 ; Sargent et al, 1995; Smithsonian Marine Station at Fort Pierce,

2006 ; and USFWS, 1999.

18

Table 6. Assessment of Target Viability – Saltmarsh/Tide Flat Complex

Conservation Target

Category Key Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good Current

Indicator Status Current Rating


Landscape Context

Connectivity among communities & ecosystems

Acreage subject to disrupted connectivity between target and marine/estuarine system.

Less than 25% connectivity with deeper water throughout region

25 to 50% connectivity with deeper water habitats.

50 - 80% connectivity of tide flats and salt marshes in region with deeper waters

More than 80% connectivity of target with deeper water systems.

Checked through GIS analysis of hardened shoreline in salt marsh and tide flat areas.

Very Good


Landscape Context

Hydrologic regime - (timing, duration, frequency, extent)

Acreage subject to disrupted hydrologic regime

Hydrologic regime is significantly disrupted at more than 75% of the target habitat

Hydrologic regime is significantly disrupted at 50% to 75% of the target habitat

Hydrologic regime is significantly disrupted at 25% to 50% of the target habitat

Hydrologic regime is significantly disrupted at less than 25% of the target habitat

Overall, little disruption of hydrologic regime throughout planning area with localized impacts in some areas Blitch, 2006)

Good


Condition Primary productivity

Biomass production per annum

Reduced by more than 75% of pre disturbance condition

Reduced by 50% to 75% of pre-disturbance condition

Reduced by 25% to 50% of pre-disturbance condition

Reduced by less than 25% of pre-disturbance condition

Little information available, assume little changed from pre-settlement condition.

Very Good



Acreage of characteristic communities

Size/extent has been reduced by 75% as compared to pre-development acreage.

Size/extent has been reduced by 50% to 75% as compared to pre-development acreage.

Size/extent has been reduced by 25% to 50% as compared to pre-development acreage.

Size/extent has been reduced by less than 25% as compared to pre-development acreage.

Most of the salt marsh-tide flat complex exists within some form of managed area. Very

Good

References for Saltmarsh/Tide Flat Complex Viability Assessment:

Blitch, 2006; USFWS, 2006.

19

Table 7. Assessment of Target Viability – Oyster Reef

Conservation Target

Category Key Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good

Current Indicator Status

Current Rating

3 Oyster Reef Landscape Context


Presence/absence of parasites in oysters comprising reef

Dermo intensity 4-5 on Mackin scale, 67 - 100% infection prevalence

Dermo intensity 2-3 on Mackin scale, 34 - 66% infection prevalence

Dermo intensity 0.5 - 1 on Mackin scale, 1 - 33% infection prevalence

No dermo present: 0 on Mackin scale and 0% prevalence

Parasite prevalence and intensity data needed for BB region

Good

3 Oyster Reef Condition Population structure & recruitment

Population contains all age classes and approximates Type 3 Population Structure

contains nothing larger than 3 inches

a few areas with oysters larger than 3 inches

a majority of reefs contain oysters larger than 3 inches

all reefs contain oysters larger than 3 inches

a few larger oysters can be found

Fair

3 Oyster Reef Size Size / extent of characteristic communities / ecosystems

Acreage of oyster reefs

<10% of historic 10-24% of historic

25-74% of historic >75% of historic

at least the good range

Good

3 Oyster Reef Condition Community architecture

Vertical relief of lesser exploited reefs; Elevation from bottom

<10% of historic relief

10-25% of historic relief

25-75% of historic relief

>75% of historic relief

Reefs heavily exploited since at least the late 1800s.

Good

References for Oyster Reef Viability Assessment:

Arnold, 2006; Arnold and Berrigan, 2002; Brumbaugh, 2006.

20

Table 8. Assessment of Target Viability – Live Bottom Community

Conservation Target



Current Rating


Landscape Context

Water chemistry Presence/absence of harmful algal blooms

Harmful algal blooms present annually in more than 25% of the area.

Harmful algal blooms limited to less than 25% of the area over 1 to 3 years.

No harmful algal blooms in area for 3 to 5 years.

No harmful algal blooms in area for more than 5 years.

HABs have been present in the area in the last 3 years.

Fair


Condition Presence / abundance of key functional guilds

Diversity of indicative species per unit area

Diversity values reduced by 50% or more from typical

Diversity values reduced by 25% or more from typical

Diversity values fall within typical range.

Diversity values at high end of typical values

Shrimping is continuing to have a significant adverse impact on several key functional guilds.

Fair


Condition Community architecture

Intensity of fishing activity with destructive gears, e.g., bottom trawling.

Intensive fishing with destructive gears, passes happen on average once a year or more.

Moderate levels of fishing with destructive gears, passes on average happen between every 1 - 5 years.

Light fishing with destructive gears. On average, passes happen every 5 - 10 years.

No fishing with destructive gears over this habitat.

Shrimping at a moderate level occurs within the planning area except where closed areas exist.

Fair

References for Live Bottom Community Viability Assessment:

FWC/FWRI, 2006; NRC, 2002; Nelson, 2005; McDaniel et al., 2000; Shepard and Myers, 2005.

21

Table 9. Assessment of Target Viability – Florida Manatee

Conservation Target



Current Rating

5 Florida Manatee

Landscape Context


Number and distribution of barriers to historically used waterways.

A significant increase in the number of barriers from 2000 values by more than 25%.

An increase in the number of barriers from 2000 values by no more than 25%.

No difference in the number of barriers from 2000 values.

A reduction in the number of barriers from 2000 values.

There are a few barriers to connectivity currently, but not aware of any newly planned barriers.

Good

5 Florida Manatee

Condition Population structure & recruitment

State of Florida Population Assessment in Biological Status Review

Endangered Threatened Species of Special Concern

No special designation

NW subpopulation considered threatened

Fair

5 Florida Manatee

Size Population size & dynamics

Size of population from annual winter counts in Big Bend Region.

Population over the last five years declining.

Population over the last 5 years stable.

General increase over the last 5 years.

General increase in population size over the last 10 years.

Population stable with slight trend up. Good

References for Florida Manatee Viability Assessment:

Haubold et al., 2005; and FWC/FWRI, 2006.

22

Table 10. Assessment of Target Viability – Fish Community

Conservation Target



Current Rating

6 Fish Community

Landscape Context

Water chemistry Presence/absence of harmful algal bloom(s) and their associated toxins

"Killer" algal blooms present annually in more than 25% of the area.

"Killer" algal blooms limited to less than 25% of the area over 1 to 3 years.

No "killer" algal blooms in area for 3 to 5 years

No "killer" algal blooms in area for 5 or more years

HABs have been present in the area in the last 3 years. Fair

6 Fish Community


Status of fish species included in FWC/FWRI’s annual status & trends report.

Less than 90% of fish species included in FWRI’s status and trends review (n=112) were stable or increasing for last 5 years.

90% to 95% of fish species included in FWRI’s status and trends review (n=112) were stable or increasing for last 5 years.

At least 95% of fish species included in FWRI’s status and trends review (n=112) were stable or increasing for last 5 years.

All fish species included in FWRI’s status and trends review (n=112) were stable or increasing for last 5 years.

One species/ species group was decreasing in 2004, 12 were increasing and 99 were considered stable. Rarely caught species were not considered in this indicator.

Good

6 Fish Community

Condition Species composition/ dominance

Number of fish species present in system as compared to historic.

Number of indicative fish species present is reduced by 50% or more from typical

Number of indicative fish species present is reduced by up to 25% from typical

Number of indicative fish species present falls within typical range

Number of indicative fish species is represented at high end of typical range

Number of indicative fish species present falls within typical range

Good

References for Fish Community Viability Assessment:

FWC/FWRI, 2005; FWC/FWRI, 2006.

23

Table 11. Assessment of Target Viability – Diadromous Fish

Conservation Target



Current Rating

7 Diadromous Fish

Landscape Context


River flows River flows fall substantially outside of suitable levels during peak spawning and rearing times.

River flows fall outside of preferred flows for spawning and young.

River flows generally fall within the range of preferred flows for spawning and young. Flows do not exceed 1-2 meters per second.

River flows have fallen within the range of preferred flows for spawning and young for several years.

Good

7 Diadromous Fish

Landscape Context


Number and distribution of barriers to historically used waterways.

barriers impossible to pass

difficult to pass barriers

semi-passable barriers

no barriers Both the Withlachochee and Ochlocknee rivers have barriers (dams)

Fair

7 Diadromous Fish


age distribution highly skewed some what skewed

partly skewed normal species specific age distribution curve

Other rivers in Big Bend with less impact

Good

7 Diadromous Fish


Number of successfully spawning adult fish

No spawning adults 50% pre-barrier spawning levels as described under very good.

75% pre-barrier spawning levels as described under very good.

Pre-barrier number of spawning adults at levels equivalent to unobstructed rivers

Historical fishing pressures especially regarding sturgeon.

Fair

References for Diadromous Fish Viability Assessment:

Herrington, 2006.

24

Table 12. Assessment of Target Viability – Bay Scallops

Conservation Target



Current Rating

8 Bay Scallops

Landscape Context


Location and size of populations

Two or fewer "good" local populations comprise metapopulation

3-5 "good" local populations comprise metapopulation

5-10 "good" local populations comprise metapopulation

> 10 "good" local populations comprise metapopulation

Fair

Fair

8 Bay Scallops


Recruitment to distinct population segments

0 recruits per collector per day

0.1 - 5.0 recruits per collector per day

5.1 - 25.0 recruits per collector per day

> 25.0 recruits per collector per day

Site dependent, ranging from Poor to Very Good

Fair

8 Bay Scallops


Population size, each distinct population segment

Mean of < 5 scallops per 600 m2

Mean of 5-25 scallops per 600 m2

Mean of > 25 scallops per 600 m2

Mean of > 25 scallops per 600 m2, all stations holding scallops

Site dependent, ranging from Poor to Very Good

Fair

References for Bay Scallops Viability Assessment:

Arnold et al., 2005 and Arnold, 2006.

IV. Assessment of Threats to Conservation Targets in the Big Bend CAP Project

Area

In the threat assessment step of the CAP process, we identified the various factors that

adversely affected the conservation targets, and then rated each of these features to

identify priorities. Table 11 summarizes the results of the threat assessment workshop

that was held in March of 2006. Following this summary, we provide more detailed

information on the threats rated very high or high.

Table 13. Summary of Threats, Big Bend CAP Planning Area

Threats Across

Systems

Salt Marsh -

Tide Flat

SAV

Oyster Reef

Live Bottom

Florida Manatee

Fish Commun-

ity

Diad-romous

Fish

Bay Scallops

Overall Threat Rank

Harmful algal blooms

- - - VH H H - VH VH

Coastal Development

- H - - H - - VH H

Fishing gear impacts

- - - VH M - M - H

Utility corridors - - - - - - - VH H

Dam presence - - - - - - VH - H

Nutrient Loads (all sources)

- VH - M - M - - H

Dredging - VH - - - - - - H

Inadequate stormwater management

- VH - M - M - - H

Incompatible fishing pressure

- - - - - H - H H

Boating impacts H - - M M - - - M

Incompatible wildlife/fisheries management

- - H - - M - - M

Incompatible industrial operations

- - - - - - - H M

Roads, bridges and causeways

- H - - - - - - M

Surface/ groundwater withdrawal

- - H - - - - - M

Global climate change

H - - - - - - - M

Dam operations - - - - - - H - M

Threat Status for Targets and Site

H VH H VH H H H VH VH

26

The threats rated very high and high for the Big Bend CAP planning area as a whole are

described in more detail below. Some threats that are important (i.e., rated very high or

high) for individual targets are not included in the descriptions below.

Harmful algal blooms (Very High rated Threat)

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) has assembled

documentation on Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) in Florida marine waters going back

160 years to 1844. FWC recently undertook an extensive review of the HAB data. What

it found was no clear trends indicating that the frequency and duration of HABs in

Florida marine waters had increased over the last several decades. Although a natural

phenomena, an increase in HAB events would be a major concern to ecological health of

marine and estuarine systems as HABs have been associated with fish, bird, marine

mammal, sea turtle, invertebrate and other wildlife mortalities (HAB Task Force

Technical Advisory Group, 1999). Approximately 50 species of toxic macroalgae have

been identified from Florida marine and estuarine waters. It is one species however,

Karenia brevis (formerly called Gymnodinium breve) the red tide organism that has by

far caused the most serious environmental harm, human health concerns and economic

impacts (HAB Task Force TAC, 1999). K. brevis is present in the Gulf of Mexico year

round, but its presence is considered a bloom when cell concentrations reach a critical

level (>100,000 cells per liter) documented to cause fish kills and manatee mortalities,

etc. The epicenter of K. brevis blooms has been defined as the Florida West Coast

between Tampa Bay and Charlotte Harbor from observation of these blooms in 22 of the

last 23 years. In the Big Bend area of Florida, K. brevis blooms have only been observed

in 5 to 10 of the last 23 years. Figure 11 illustrates K. brevis blooms from 1995 through

2004 (FWC-FWRI, 2006). No blooms during this period fell into the “high count”

category (>1 million cells per liter). Medium blooms (100,000 to 1 million cells per liter)

have occurred a few times since 1994 in the planning area, mostly in the west Apalachee

Bay area. Since 1996, FWC-FWRI has recorded the following observations on HABs

from the Big Bend CAP Planning Area:

• Summer 1998 blue-green algae/diatom bloom – From an FWC-FWRI report on

this bloom, it appears that it covered an area extending from Hernando Beach

north to the Suwannee River. A major loggerhead sponge mortality event was

determined to be caused by the bloom. The bloom appears to have been triggered

by increased rainfall from an El Nino event that resulted in increased nutrient

loads to nearshore waters. Nutrient sources were determined to be both natural

and anthropogenic.

• Summer – Fall, 2003 report by a sponge diver of yellow water, dying crabs and

bleaching coral offshore of Pasco and Hernando counties. FWC-FWRI staff

suspect red tide was the cause.

Although the Big Bend CAP Planning Area has not experienced the frequency or

duration of HABs that the Florida Gulf Coast south of the planning area has experienced,

these events do occur from time to time and it is clear from published reports that their

impacts would be potentially devastating to certain vulnerable marine and estuarine

resources. Surface circulation in the Big Bend region forms a large clockwise

27

(anticyclonic) gyre (Figure 12), which may form most consistently during the winter

months of October through March (He & Weisburg, 2002; Fitzhugh et al., 2005). This

seasonal gyre undoubtedly plays a role in how HABs are distributed in the project area.

Figure 10.

28

Figure 11. Surface Tidal Currents from He and Weisburg, 2002

Coastal Development (High Rated Threat)

Coastal development impacts and trends can be quantified by examining the following

parameters in the coastal watersheds that drain the Big bend CAP Planning Area:

population density, intactness of natural land cover, road density, percent impervious

surface and amount of hardened shoreline. Maps of these parameters for the relevant

coastal watersheds are provided below (Figures 16 - 20). Where possible, I also provide

quantitative information on the status of these threat measures.

Table 14. Total Population and Population Density by HUC Basin (Census 2000).

HUC Basins in Big Bend Region Acres Hectares Population Pop. Density (by acre)

Pop. Density (by hectare)

1. CRYSTAL RIVER TO ST. PETE* 751,459 304,105 1,078,895 1.44 3.55

2. ST MARKS RIVER 686,112 277,660 257,309 0.38 0.93

3. WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER, SO. 1,317,798 533,294 486,332 0.37 0.91

4. OCHLOCKONEE RIVER 837,838 339,061 135,519 0.16 0.40

5. SUWANNEE RIVER, LOWER 1,010,229 408,825 88,726 0.09 0.22

6. WACCASASSA RIVER 576,816 233,429 49,882 0.09 0.21

7. AUCILLA RIVER 468,226 189,484 27,953 0.06 0.15

8. ECONFINA-FENHOLOWAY 1,189,809 481,499 43,939 0.04 0.09

*A large portion of HUC basin population is from the Pinellas Peninsula area and may

not substantially impact resources within the project area.

29

A study of tidal creeks along the South Carolina coast found that the ultimate stressor to

this ecosystem is human population density in a watershed and the impervious surface

that goes along with human presence (Holland et al., 2004). Holland et al. found that

impervious surface cover exceeding 10 – 20% adversely altered physical and chemical

characteristics of the environment and impervious surface cover exceeding 20 – 30%

adversely affected living resources. Overall, Holland et al. found impervious surface

cover in a watershed to be an integrative measure of the adverse human alterations to a

watershed.

None of the HUC basins draining to the planning area have impervious surface

percentages exceeding the threshold levels identified above (see Figure 17). However,

several of the smaller basins within HUC do exceed the stated thresholds. In particular, a

few sub-basins within the St. Mark’s River HUC basin exceed the threshold levels for

adverse impacts to physical/chemical characteristics and at least one exceeds the

threshold for adverse impacts to living resources as well. Some sub-basins of the Crystal

River to St. Pete HUC Basin also display percent impervious surface levels exceeding

adverse effects thresholds.

30

Figure 12. Population Density. Source Census 2000.

31

Figure 13. Intactness of Natural Land Cover. Source: Gordon et al., 2005)

32

Figure 14. Road Density. Source: Gordon et al., 2005.

33

Figure 15. Percent Impervious Surface by basin. Source: Gordon et al., 2005.

34

Figure 16. Hardened Shoreline in the Big Bend CAP Planning Area. Source: FWC-

FWRI, 1993.

35

Fishing gear impacts (High Rated Threat)

In our conservation action planning process, fishing gear impacts was rated as a very high

threat to live bottom community and a medium threat to diadromous fish. Since the

conservation targets we evaluate are intended to collectively represent the entire marine

and estuarine system within the Big Bend Planning Area, it is appropriate to mention

other specific habitats or species that are also likely to be adversely impacted by fishing

gear.

Bottom trawling for shrimp is an important fishery in the Gulf of Mexico. While this

method of fishing is effective at catching shrimp, it has also been associated with a large

bycatch (Alverson et al., 1994) and implicated as causing harm to benthic habitats (NRC,

2002). Historical (pre-TED and BRD) bycatch in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery was

estimated at 10:1 (10 kg of bycatch for every kg of shrimp caught) by Alverson et al.

(1993). On live bottom communities subject to bottom trawling, sea fans, stony corals

and sponges, etc. are removed and the substrate is flattened out (Nelson, 2005). Recovery

of these bottom habitats make take on the order of tens of years. No other current fishing

gear impacts were noted as significant in the project area.

Since the late 1980’s, numerous measures have been taken in Florida to reduce the

impacts resulting from the bottom trawling of shrimp:

• In 1989, the state of Florida established 5 seasonal shrimping closure zones in

Citrus and Hernando counties (see Figure 13 below);

• In 1990, the state required Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) on all trawling vessels

operating in state waters;

• In 1991, the state prohibited the use of trawl gear in an area offshore of Taylor

County;

• In 1992 (Wakulla through Pasco counties in all state waters), the state imposed

restrictions on the type of gear that shrimp vessels could use by requiring the use

of roller frames of a maximum size, by specifying a minimum size for net mesh

and by prohibiting more than 4 trawls to be pulled by any one vessel;

• In 1993, the state prohibited shrimping in approximately 500,000 acres of Big

Bend region inshore waters characterized by dense and patchy seagrass bottom

habitat and imposed seasonal restrictions on harvest for the rest of the area’s state

waters (no shrimping in July and August);

• In 1995, the state limited the size of trawls that could be used for shrimping; and

• In 1998, the state required the use of Bycatch Reduction Devices (BRDs) on all

otter trawls used for shrimping (Approved rule Summary, August 2006

http://marinefisheries.org/history/index.html)

Despite the numerous measures that have done much to protect marine and estuarine

resources in the Big Bend and other areas of the state, it appears that these measures may

not be sufficient to protect area living resources from irreparable harm. Recent scientific

studies suggest that shrimp trawling in the Gulf of Mexico is continuing to have a

significant adverse effect on sea turtles, small coastal elasmobranchs, various finfish

species and benthic habitats even though gear improvements such as TEDs and BRDs,

36

and seasonal closures in some areas, have been imposed (NRC, 2002; Nelson, 2005;

McDaniel et al., 2000; Shepard and Myers, 2005). Bycatch remains relatively high with

recent bycatch-to-shrimp ratios in the Gulf shrimp fishery estimated at 4.3:1 (Nelson,

2005). Although significant efforts have been taken by the state to protect certain types of

bottom habitats such as seagrass, other bottom habitats such as livebottom, where

shrimping continues to be allowed, remain vulnerable (See Figure 14). Even seagrass

areas may not be fully protected as Big Bend Seagrasses Aquatic Preserve staff members

have reported large rafts of seagrass following passes by shrimping vessels in the project

area (Blitch, 2006).

Texas, Louisiana and Florida have the largest shrimp fleets in the Gulf primarily working

waters from nearshore to 90 meters in depth (NRC, 2002). Along the Florida Gulf Coast,

however, the largest shrimp fleet is concentrated to the south of the Big Bend Planning

Area around the Florida Keys. The National Research Council (2002) study estimated

that on average Gulfwide, fished areas were trawled more than 2.5 times per year with

some localized areas swept 37 – 75 times annually. In the NRC report, shrimp trawling

statistical areas 6 and 7 represent the Big Bend region (Figure 15). Average shrimp

trawling days (24 hour) averaged 4,450 and 4,850, respectively, during the period 1998 –

1999. Each statistical region was further broken down by 5 fathom depth intervals to

provide some insight into particular areas of fishing focus. In area 6, effort was

concentrated in the 60 to 120 foot depth range. In area 7, fishing effort was distributed

throughout depths up to 120 feet. Trawling intensity at the levels recorded in the

planning area was considered moderate.

37

Figure 17.

38

Figure 18. Shrimping activities near the Big Bend CAP project area occur primarily in

hardbottom/livebottom areas which are assumed to be the hardest substrate types on the

below map.

39

Figure 19. Shrimp trawling zones in the Gulf of Mexico (NRC, 2002).

Utility corridors (High Rated Threat)

Construction, and possibly maintenance, of utility corridors fractionates the scallop

population by interfering with gamete and larval exchanges (Arnold, 2007). These

activities further disrupt interactions among local populations that have already been

significantly altered (Arnold et al., 1998).

Utility pipelines have been proposed in the vicinity of the planning area in recent years.

In early 2000, Buccaneer Gas Pipeline, L.L.C. proposed construction of a submarine gas

pipeline that would cross the Gulf of Mexico and come ashore near Anclote Key. The

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission granted approval for pipeline construction,

however, later in the year the plans were abandoned due to a business merger with

Gulfstream Natural Gas (St. Petersburg Times, 2000). At the time, Gulfstream was

proposing and ultimately built a trans-Gulf natural gas pipeline that comes ashore in the

southern Tampa Bay area after crossing 419 miles of submerged marine habitat. There

are no current submarine utility proposals in the study area.

40

Dam presence (High Rated Threat)

Two of the major rivers draining into the Big Bend CAP Planning Area have major dams,

the Ochlocknee River and the Withlacoochee River (Figure 21). “Major rivers” are

defined by the state as one of the state’s largest 50 rivers. “Major dams” are defined as 50

feet or more in height, or with a normal storage capacity of 5,000 acre-feet or more, or

with a maximum storage capacity of 25,000 acre-feet or more, based on information

contained in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers National Inventory of Dams. The dam on

the Ochlocknee River is known as the Jackson Bluff Dam. Its purpose is to provide

hydroelectric power to nearby Tallahassee. The Withlacoochee River has two dams in it

southern basin. Both are close to the Town of Inglis. One’s stated purpose is for

navigation and the other’s is flood control. Dams of the type identified here can cause

adverse ecological effects by changing water flow patterns and by blocking the passage

of aquatic species across various areas of the river. Several aquatic species, such as

diadromous fish, native to coastal tidal rivers in the Big Bend area require transit into and

out of various portions of the rivers to complete life stages or to successfully feed. Gulf

sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) and Alabama shad (Alosa alabamae) historically

used the Ochlocknee River (FNAI) and Gulf sturgeon were commercially fished on the

Ochlocknee River until the 1970s (USFWS/GSMFC, 1995). Gulf sturgeon are still found

in the Suwannee and Ochlocknee Rivers (Wakeford, 2001). In the Big Bend region,

Alabama shad are still found in the Suwannee and Withlacoochee rivers (NatureServe,

2004; NOAA, 2006).

41

Figure 20. Major dams on major rivers and diadromous fish occurrence.

42

Nutrient Loads

Seagrass health is dependent on water quality. Declines in water quality can significantly

reduce seagrass coverage (FWC, 2003). Fourteen coastal rivers as well as groundwater

drain into the Big Bend area. Nutrient loads in some area rivers have increased steadily

over the last few decades. Seagrass beds in Suwannee Sound have disappeared and

upstream pulp mill operations have caused seagrass declines in the Fenholloway Estuary

(Carlson, 2004; FWC, 2003). Figure 21 illustrates the elevated nitrogen levels present in

the Suwannee River.

Figure 21. Total Nitrogen from the Inshore Mapping and Assessment Program

2000-2004.

43

Dredging (High Rated Threat)

Dredging is required to create and maintain navigation channels from marinas and docks

to deeper waters. The need and depth required for navigation channels depends on the

size and draft of boats that will utilize the navigation channel. The number of dredge

channels generally increases as an area becomes more developed and pressure increases

to provide more access to offshore areas. Dredging destroys submerged benthic habitats

and wetlands, increases turbidity and serves as barrier to the movement of some aquatic

species.

Inadequate Stormwater Management (High Rated Threat)

Stormwater management is closely related to coastal development. See the discussion

above on impervious surfaces under coastal development.

Incompatible fishing pressure (High Rated Threat)

The latest reported status and trends analysis on Florida’s harvested marine inshore and

nearshore fish and invertebrates (FWRI, 2005) found that only 1 species out of the 134

species tracked was in a declining rather than in a stable or increasing condition on the

Florida Gulf Coast. FWRI found crevalle jack (Caranx hippos) to be in a declining

condition from information collected on the species from recreational fisheries and

fisheries independent monitoring. Recreational harvest of the conservation target, bay

scallop (Argopecten irradians), is immensely popular in the project area and fishing

pressure was rated as a high threat.

44

V. Strategies to Abate the Highest Rated Threats

As part of the Conservation Action Plan (CAP) for the Big Bend region of Florida,

we developed and rated strategies to abate the top rated threats identified above in

Table 12 using a process developed by The Nature Conservancy as outlined in Low

(2003). Strategy rating criteria are provided in Appendix 3. In this section, we

identify the strategies and the rankings that were derived in an expert workshop

held in June 2005. Objectives that help to frame what the strategies are intended to

accomplish and the action steps that will be required to carry out each strategy are

also provided in this section. A workplan that provides a listing of all the action

steps plus details on a possible timeline is provided in Appendix 2 of this report.

Many of the strategies listed in this section will require the involvement of

agencies, stakeholder groups, research institutions and non-governmental

organizations to be most effectively carried out.

Threat: Harmful Algal Blooms, Rating Very High

Feasibility Top Rated Strategies to Abate Harmful Algal

Blooms (includes toxic and harmful, non-toxic

blooms & black water events; goes beyond red

tide)

Ease Lead

Benefit Cost Overall

Rank

Objective: The conditions necessary to trigger HABs are

understood and management resulting in arrested HAB

development is in place by 2016.

Using data/information from existing water quality

monitoring programs in the Big Bend (FWC and Project

Coast, UF, Tom Frazer), define as best we can what the

natural background levels of nutrients are for the area.

H VH M H VH

Push for congressional support (i.e., funding) to address

HABs now "while the iron is hot".

H H M L H

Conduct/support research that builds on existing knowledge

to identify the cofactors that trigger HABs.

M VH H VH H

Create incentives for the placement of advanced septic

systems. These could be tax incentives. Water management

districts and local governments may be the appropriate leads

for this action.

H VH M M H

Objective: Understanding of the dynamics and movement of

HABs along the Big Bend Coast allows prediction and early

warning about HAB impacts to potentially impacted

communities by 2016.

Purchase and deploy an adequate network of in situ samplers. H VH M VH VH

L = low; M = medium; H = high; and VH = very high

45

Action Steps for Very High and High Rated Strategies

Objective A: We understand the conditions necessary to trigger HABs and are able to

arrest or minimize HAB development by 2016.

Strategy HAB, A-1: Using data/information from existing water quality monitoring

programs in the Big Bend (FWC and Project Coast, UF, Tom Frazer), define as best we

can what the natural background levels of nutrients are for the area.

Action Steps:

a. Determine existing water quality monitoring programs along Big Bend coastline

and assemble this data;

b. Determine if data allows for the determination of existing background levels of

nutrients along the entire Big Bend coastline or only in segments;

c. Where data allows, identify likely natural background levels of nutrients in

coastal waters;

d. Recommend additions to existing water quality monitoring programs.

Strategy HAB, A-2: Push for congressional support (i.e., funding) to address HABs now

"while the iron is hot". Now on the minds of our congressional representatives.

Action Steps:

a. Identify likely supporters for increased congressional funding;

b. Determine if these likely supporters are already requesting additional support

from congress for HAB research/remediation;

c. Where likely supporters have not been engaged with congressional requests for

support, encourage them to become so.

Strategy HAB, A-3: Conduct/support research that builds on existing knowledge to

identify the cofactors that trigger HABs.

Action Steps:

a. Establish a coordinating body to share HAB research, determine future

advancements and promote support for future research and remedial actions; and

b. Evaluate progress towards understanding what triggers HABs and implementing

remedial actions on an annual basis; and

c. Adapt research and remediation plans as recommended by the evaluation.

Strategy HAB, A-4: Create incentives for the placement of advanced septic systems.

These could be tax incentives. Water Management Districts and local governments may

be the appropriate leads for this action.

Action Steps:

a. Determine what water management districts and local governments are already

doing to encourage the use of advanced septic systems and the need for these

systems in their jurisdictions;

46

b. Determine what the success of the above mentioned programs have been and what

it will take to reach goals for the placement of advanced septic systems;

c. Propose new programs or improvements to existing programs to achieve

placement of advanced septic system goals;

d. Identify sources of funding to implement the new and/or improved programs.

Threat: Coastal Development, Rating High

Feasibility Top Rated Strategies to Abate (includes reducing

impacts of) Coastal Development Ease Lead


Rank

Objective A: By 2016, at least 90% of Big Bend planning area

shorelines remain in a natural condition (i.e., unhardened) so as

to allow for natural processes to proceed uninhibited.

Modify federal/state flood insurance programs in coastal high

hazard regions to strictly control payment of repeat claims in

areas subject to frequent flood events. For example, after a

certain amount of loss, the property becomes public or the owner

can rebuild at their own cost (for example, pay to rebuild once).

L M VH L VH

Implement an education program to promote soft shoreline

alternatives to hardened shoreline

H VH L M VH

Ensure adherence with the CCCL rules and shift the coastal

construction control line landward

M M L M H

Objective B: Allow the migration of marine/estuarine habitats

inland (i.e., upslope) as sea level progresses by purchasing 50%

of unprotected lands within 1 mile of the 2006 shoreline by

2016.

Purchase more coastal conservation lands and easements VH VH H VH VH

Develop a mechanism to improve communication between

developers and the conservation community to circumvent

problems upfront.

VH VH M L VH


Objective A: By 2016, at least 90% of Big Bend planning area shorelines remain in a

natural condition (i.e., unhardened) so as to allow for natural processes to proceed

uninhibited.

Strategy DEVL, A-1: Modify federal/state flood insurance programs in coastal high

hazard regions to strictly control payment of repeat claims in areas subject to frequent

flood events. For example, after a certain amount of loss, the property becomes public or

the owner can rebuild at their own cost (for example, pay to rebuild once).

Action Steps:

a. Identify stakeholders that may support changes to federal and state flood

insurance programs as suggested above.

47

b. Convene a group of these stakeholders to develop suggested changes to the

existing flood insurance programs;

c. Submit this proposal of recommended changes to the appropriate agencies; and

d. Promote the proposal widely.

Strategy DEVL, A-2: Implement an education program to promote soft shoreline

alternatives to hardened shoreline. Promote planting of native plants, for example.

Action Steps:

a. Convene a meeting with appropriate stakeholders to develop educational

materials/programs that educate people about and promote soft shorelines as an

alternative to hardened shorelines;

b. Identify funding sources to develop and print the identified programs and

materials;

c. Implement the educational program and develop the materials for printing. Print

the educational materials;

d. Promote the educational program and disseminate the print materials to

appropriate audiences.

Strategy DEVL, A-3: Ensure adherence with the coastal construction control line (CCCL)

rules and promote shifting the CCCL landward.

Action Steps:

a. Determine how well the CCCL rules have been adhered to in the planning area;

b. Where violations or variances to the CCCL rules have occurred, determine why;

c. Working with other stakeholders, develop recommendations that will avert further

violations and/or variances to the CCCL rules;

d. Convene a working group to determine if CCCL rules are sufficient to protect

coastal natural resources in light of the best available scientific evidence on global

climate change and its impacts such as sea level rise;

e. If the current CCCL rules are determined to be insufficient, engage the working

group in a effort to develop a science-based proposal for CCCL revision;

f. Submit this proposal to the appropriate state authorities and promote it widely.

Objective B: Allow the migration of marine/estuarine habitats inland (i.e., upslope) as sea

level progresses by purchasing 50% of unprotected lands within 1 mile of the 2006

shoreline by 2016.

Strategy DEVL, B-1: Purchase more coastal conservation lands and easements.

Action Steps:

a. Prepare a geospatial inventory of coastal uplands in the Big Bend CAP planning

area from the shoreline extending inland 1 mile that depicts the conservation and

ownership) status (private versus public, relevant agency and purpose. Revise the

inland boundary of this analysis if warranted to reflect potential sea level rise

impacts;

48

b. Rank the importance of acquiring lands not currently in some form of

conservation status;

c. Identify programs and funding sources under which these inventoried lands may

be acquired;

d. Submit acquisition proposals to appropriate programs in order of priority to the

greatest extent practical;

e. Work to create/renew land acquisition funding programs if necessary.

Strategy DEVL, B-2: Develop a mechanism to improve communication between

developers and the conservation community to circumvent problems upfront.

Action Steps:

a. Convene a group of stakeholders to develop an effective mechanism for the type

of communication described above;

b. Implement the recommendations from the stakeholders group; and

c. Evaluate effectiveness of the communication strategy periodically and revise as

necessary.

Threat: Fishing Gear Impacts, Rating High

Feasibility Top Rated Strategies to Abate Fishing

Gear Impacts

Ease Lead


Rank

Objective A: By 2016, marine and estuarine habitats

are implemented that result in minimal irreparable

damage to marine and estuarine habitats from fishing

gear and activities.

Develop gears that are less harmful to bottom habitat

for harvesting bait shrimp as an alternative to roller

frames

M VH VH M VH

Conduct a broad-scale characterization of benthic

communities and associated habitat.

VH VH H VH VH

Consider rotational closure of bottom trawling for the

most sensitive areas.

L VH H L H


Objective A: By 2016, fishing gear improvements are developed and implemented that

result in minimal irreparable damage to marine and estuarine habitats from fishing

activities.

Strategy GEAR, A-1: Develop gears that are less harmful to bottom habitat for harvesting

bait shrimp as an alternative to roller frames.

Action Steps:

49

a. Document/assemble documentation on the harm that roller frames cause to the

bottom types present in the Big Bend region;

b. Encourage the development of gears that do less harm to these bottom types.

Encouragement may be provided in the form of grants, etc.;

c. Identify funding sources to finance the grant program or other forms of

encouragement.

Strategy GEAR, A-2: Conduct a broad-scale characterization of benthic communities and

associated habitat.

Action Steps:

a. Determine the progress made by the State of Florida to characterize bottom

habitats and benthic communities in the Big Bend region and any impediments;

b. Identify the technology that could be used to conduct this broad scale benthic

habitat characterization and the costs of implementing this technology in the Big

Bend region;

c. Assist agencies/institutions that would take the lead in conducting the

characterization with attracting the necessary funding to carry out the assessment;

d. Ensure that the benthic assessment is conducted in a timely manner.

Strategy GEAR, A-3: Consider rotational closure of bottom trawling for the most

sensitive areas.

Action Steps:

a. Collect information on the bottom trawling fishery along the Big Bend coast such

as locations fished, frequency of trawling “sweeps” in fished areas, damage

caused by trawling gear and time required for damage to heal;

b. Work with stakeholders to devise a feasible plan to abate damage to bottom

habitats where it has been identified taking into account socio-economic factors;

c. If a feasible plan can be devised, propose it to FWC.

Strategy GEAR, A-4: Develop aquaculture production for bait shrimp and other types of

bait.

Action Steps:

a. In partnership with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer

Services' Division of Aquaculture, review guidelines and permitting requirements

for bait shrimp aquaculture in Florida.

b. Prepare an economic analysis for successful bait shrimp aquaculture and

marketing.

c. Identify aquaculture production facilities that are willing and able to develop a

bait shrimp aquaculture operation.

d. Develop an incentive plan for transitioning from wild harvest of bait shrimp to

aquaculture production of bait shrimp.

50

Threat : Utility Corridors, Rating High

Feasibility Top Rated Strategies to Abate the Threat of

Utility Corridors Ease Lead


Rank

Objective: Sensitive living resources in the Big Bend planning

area are protected from degradation by ensuring that all utility

corridors approved for the planning area are sited in the least

vulnerable areas, effective 2006.

Ensure that the least environmentally sensitive locations are

selected for placement of utility corridors, especially with

respect to bay scallops. Consider co-location of utilities when

feasible.

H VH VH H VH

Ensure that the proper safeguards are employed to minimize

secondary impacts associated with utility corridor siting.

VH VH VH L VH


Objective A: Sensitive living resources in the Big Bend CAP planning area are protected

from degradation by ensuring that all utility corridors approved for the planning area are

sited in the least vulnerable areas, effective 2006.

Strategy UTIL, A-1: Ensure that the least environmentally sensitive locations are selected

for placement of utility corridors, especially with respect to bay scallops. Consider co-

location of utilities when feasible.

Action Steps:

a. Ensure the completion of Strategy A-2 under Fishing Gear Impacts (benthic

habitat characterization);

b. Ensure that distribution information on benthic habitats and sensitive resources in

the Big Bend CAP planning area is widely available to/through state/federal/local

regulatory and resource management agencies;

c. Assemble and disseminate information on the sensitivity of various marine and

estuarine resources to the placement of utility corridors;

d. Track utility corridor proposals closely and provide comment where appropriate

to ensure that utility corridor placements do not cause substantial or irreparable

harm to marine and estuarine resources in the planning area.

Strategy UTIL, A-2: Ensure that the proper safeguards are employed to minimize

secondary impacts associated with utility corridor siting.

Action Steps:

a. Assemble information on potential secondary impacts of siting utility corridors in

the planning area and the best available technologies to avoid these impacts;

b. Ensure that decision-makers in the utility corridor siting process are informed

about secondary impacts and best available technologies to avoid them;

51

c. Track utility corridor proposals closely and provide comment where appropriate

to ensure that secondary impacts of utility corridor placements do not cause

substantial or irreparable harm to marine and estuarine resources in the planning

area.

Threat : Presence of Dams, Rating High

Feasibility Top Rated Strategies to Abate the Presence of

Dams Ease Lead


Rank

Objective A: Restore self-sustaining populations of target

diadromous fishes, by reconnecting upstream and

downstream habitats across the dam at Lake Talquin


Develop/implement fish passage technologies M H H H H


Objective A: Restore self-sustaining populations of target diadromous fishes, by

reconnecting upstream and downstream habitats across the dam at Lake Talquin


Strategy DAMS, A-1: Develop and implement fish passage technologies.

Action Steps:

a. Compile and collect information on the species, their habitat and use of habitat on

the Ochlocknee River. (Life history and population biology);

b. Identify and engage all relevant partners, collaborators and affected parties;

c. Develop a plan to implement fish passage;

d. Identify funding sources to explore & implement fish passage; and

e. Implement the fish passage.

52

Threat: Nutrient Loads from All Sources, Rating High

Feasibility Strategies to Abate Incompatible

Nutrient Loads Ease Lead


Rank

Objective A: By 2011, determine natural background levels

of nutrients in Big Bend Region coastal waters, quantify

nutrients loads especially from river sources such as the

Suwannee and develop nutrient targets for sustaining

project area marine and estuarine systems as viable and

healthy.

Determine natural background levels of nutrients in the Big

Bend area. Use this information to define nutrient targets.

The FWC and WMDs (Project Coast) may already have

some of this information.

H VH M H VH

Objective B: By 2016, implement nutrient reduction

programs such as BMPs aimed at a minimum of achieving

nutrient targets in the Big Bend Region. Focus on the most

sensitive areas first. May use the results of the

Conservancy's Site Assessment to identify the most

sensitive areas.

Support continued and expanded implementation of BMPs

in Suwannee Basin (WMDs may have data on dairy &

chicken farms BMP implementation).

M H M L H

Implement nutrient reduction techniques in sensitive areas

or draining to sensitive areas. For example, require septic

systems that treat nutrients more effectively than the status

quo for all new development. For existing systems, require

upgraded system upon the need to replace it. This action

will likely include new regulations and/or code.

M H H VH H

Support the WMDs ongoing work to retrofit existing

stormwater treatment areas identified to be problematic.

Develop improved stormwater treatment systems to reduce

invasive species that thrive on high nutrients (retrofitting

existing only)

VH VH H VH VH

Encourage the WMDs and local governments to champion

the creation of incentives for placement of advanced septic

systems (could be tax incentives).

H VH H M VH

53


Objective A: By 2011, determine natural background levels of nutrients in Big Bend

Region coastal waters, quantify nutrients loads especially from river sources such as the

Suwannee and develop nutrient targets for sustaining project area marine and estuarine

systems as viable and healthy.

Strategy NUTR, A-1: Determine natural background levels of nutrients in the Big Bend

area. Use this information to define nutrient targets. The FWC and WMDs (Project

Coast) may already have some of this information.

Action Steps:

a. Review existing data on natural background levels of nutrients in the Big Bend

Region and nutrient loads into area rivers;

b. Work with WMD, state and local government staff to develop nutrient targets for

defined Big Bend areas.

Objective B: By 2016, implement nutrient reduction programs such as BMPs aimed at a

minimum of achieving nutrient targets in the Big Bend Region. Focus on the most

sensitive areas first. May use the results of the Conservancy's Site Assessment to identify

the most sensitive areas.

Strategy NUTR, B-1: Support continued and expanded implementation of BMPs in

Suwannee Basin (WMDs may have data on dairy & chicken farms BMP

implementation).

Action Steps:

a. Identify how additional partnerships may be able to enhance or expand the

effective implementation of BMPs to reduce nutrient loading in the Suwannee

River Basin.

b. Engage additional partners in BMP implementation where warranted.

Strategy NUTR, B-2: Implement nutrient reduction techniques in sensitive areas or

draining to sensitive areas. For example, require septic systems that treat nutrients more

effectively than the status quo for all new development. For existing systems, require

upgraded system upon the need to replace it. This action will likely include new

regulations and/or code.

Action Steps:

a. Inventory septic systems in the planning area and identify areas where their

density may exceed the capacity of natural systems to assimilate the nutrients

effectively.

b. Work with local governments to develop programs that require advanced septic

systems as systems are replaced. This may include identifying funding sources for

these programs.

54

Strategy NUTR, B-3: Support the WMDs ongoing work to retrofit existing stormwater

treatment areas identified to be problematic. Develop improved stormwater treatment

systems to reduce invasive species that thrive on high nutrients.

Action Steps:

a. Identify any impediments faced by the WMDs to retrofit existing stormwater

treatment areas;

b. Partner with the WMDs to facilitate and accelerate the retrofits focusing on the

most sensitive areas first.

Strategy NUTR, B-4: Encourage the WMDs and local governments to champion the

creation of incentives for placement of advanced septic systems (could be tax incentives).

Action Steps:

See NUTR, B-3 above.

Threat: Dredging, Rating High

Feasibility Top Rated Strategies to Abate the

Adverse Impacts of Dredging Ease Lead


Rank

Objective A: From now into the future, maintain the

ecological integrity of Big Bend Area seagrass beds

and salt marshes by preventing the unnecessary

dredging of these systems especially in designated

managed areas such as the state's Aquatic

Preserves.

Prevent the dredging of new boating channels by

effectively maintaining existing dredged channels.

M H VH H H

Establish a rule that prevents new channels from

being dredged in managed areas or through high

quality benthic communities.

M H VH M H

Objective B: Beginning now, minimize the adverse

impacts of dredge disposal by identifying the least

ecologically damaging and/or most ecologically

beneficial methods for dredge disposal.

Create and implement effective uses for dredged

spoils. For example, enhance existing bird nesting

sites.

H VH M H VH

55


Objective A: From now into the future, maintain the ecological integrity of Big Bend

Area seagrass beds and salt marshes by preventing the unnecessary dredging of these

systems especially in designated managed areas such as the state's Aquatic Preserves.

Strategy DREG, A-1: Prevent the dredging of new boating channels by effectively

maintaining existing dredged channels. Establish a rule that prevents new channels from

being dredged in managed areas or through high quality benthic communities.

Action Steps:

a. Inventory existing dredge channels in the planning area;

b. Determine which of these may be suitable for expansion;

c. Explore with state partners if future dredge channels could be prevented if

adequate access utilizing existing channels can be assured.

Objective B: Beginning now, minimize the adverse impacts of dredge disposal by

identifying the least ecologically damaging and/or most ecologically beneficial methods

for dredge disposal.

Strategy DREG, B-1: Create and implement effective uses for dredged spoils. For

example, enhance existing bird nesting sites.

Action Steps:

a. Identify existing work that details beneficial uses of dredge spoils.

b. Determine which of these beneficial uses may be appropriate in the study area.

c. With partners, develop a dredged material disposal plan for the Big Bend area.

d. Identify sources of funding and implement the plan.

Threat: Inadequate Stormwater Management, Rating High

Feasibility Top Rated Strategies to Abate

Inadequate Stormwater

Management

Ease Lead


Rank

Objective A: By 2016, accelerate WMD and local government

efforts to retrofit stormwater treatment systems throughout the

planning area. Focus on the most sensitive areas first. May use

the results of the Conservancy's Site Assessment to identify

the most sensitive areas.

Support the WMDs ongoing work to retrofit existing

stormwater treatment areas identified to be problematic.

VH VH H VH VH

56


Objective A: By 2016, accelerate WMD and local government efforts to retrofit

stormwater treatment systems throughout the planning area. Focus on the most sensitive

areas first. May use the results of the Conservancy's Site Assessment to identify the most

sensitive areas.

Strategy STRMW, A-1: Support the WMDs ongoing work to retrofit existing stormwater

treatment areas identified to be problematic.

Action Steps:

a. Identify existing stormwater retrofit programs and their status including any

impediments to attaining retrofit goals.

b. Work with WMDs and local governments to attain their retrofit goals. Identify

funding where necessary.

c. Encourage WMDs and local governments to focus on most sensitive areas first.

Threat: Incompatible Fishing Pressure, Rating High

Feasibility Top Rated Strategies to Abate Incompatible

Fishing Pressure Ease Lead


Rank

Objective A: By 2016, stocks of all harvested species in the

planning area are effectively managed so as to ensure viable

and sustainable populations into the future.

Improve species specific management by evaluating/re-

evaluating minimum size & slot limits, seasons, bag limits,

rotational harvest and closed areas.

M VH H M H

Improve protection at existing managed areas including more

support for marine enforcement.

M VH H H H

Pursue enhancement and restoration strategies for redfish,

oysters, bay scallops and other species as may be determined

in the future.

M VH H H H


Objective A: By 2016, stocks of all harvested species in the planning area are effectively

managed so as to ensure viable and sustainable populations into the future.

Strategy FISH, A-1: Improve species specific management by evaluating/re-evaluating

minimum size & slot limits, seasons, bag limits, rotational harvest and closed areas.

57

Action Steps:

a. Evaluate existing information on fished stocks and stocks subject to bycatch in the

Big Bend CAP planning area to determine their status and the status of the area

ecosystem relative to stock status;

b. For stocks that appeared to be impaired or where their status appears to be having

an adverse impact on the ecosystem in the Big Bend CAP planning area, consult

with appropriate fisheries agencies and experts to develop an plan for stock

recovery;

c. Implement the plan developed in step b above.

Strategy FISH, A-2: Improve protection at existing managed areas including more

support for marine enforcement.

Action Steps:

a. Identify where and what protection gaps may be occurring at existing managed

areas;

b. Develop a proposal that reduces or eliminates these gaps;

c. Promote the proposal among the relevant state agencies, institutions and NGOs;

d. Seek to have the proposal adopted by the relevant state agencies.

Strategy FISH, A-3: Pursue enhancement and restoration strategies for redfish, oysters,

bay scallops and other species as may be determined in the future.

Action Steps:

III. Review existing information to determine which stocks would benefit from

enhancement or restoration;

IV. In consultation with relevant agencies, institutions and organizations, promote the

development of enhancement and restoration strategies for the stocks identified in

step a above.

Strategies were developed for some threats that were not rated very high or high overall,

but were rated at least high for individual conservation targets. These are included in

Appendix 2.

58

Measuring Success

Once the recommended strategies are implemented, they should be evaluated periodically

to determine if they have been successful. In this step, we recommend measures to

monitor success for each conservation target are listed below. Some of these measures are

already being monitored comprehensively by resource agencies or institutions. Others are

being monitored, but only in certain locations or infrequently. Some of these factors are

not currently measured. See the references listed in the viability assessment section for

more information on measures that have been or are currently monitored in the project

area.

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation

1. Water clarity/Light availability - Depth to visible Secchi disk.

2. Primary productivity - Biomass production per annum.

3. Species composition /dominance - Dominant species present.

4. Community architecture – Degree of scarring.

5. Size/extent of characteristic communities/ecosystems - Spatial extent of seagrass

cover.

Saltmarsh/Tide Flat Complex

1. Connectivity among communities & ecosystems - Acreage subject to disrupted

connectivity with shallow subtidal.

2. Hydrologic regime - (timing, duration, frequency, extent)- Acreage subject to

disrupted hydrologic regime.

3. Primary productivity - Biomass production per annum.

4. Size/extent of characteristic communities/ecosystems - Acreage of characteristic

communities.

Oyster Reef

1. Hydrologic regime(timing, duration, frequency, extent) - Presence/absence of

parasites in oysters comprising reef.

2. Population structure & recruitment - Population contains all age classes and

approximates Type 3 Population Structure.

3. Size/extent of characteristic communities/ecosystems - Acreage of oyster reefs.

4. Community architecture - Vertical relief of lesser exploited reefs; Elevation from

bottom.

Live Bottom Community

1. Water chemistry - Presence/absence of harmful algal blooms.

2. Presence/abundance of key functional guilds - Diversity of indicative species per unit

area.

3. Size/extent of characteristic communities/ecosystems - Acreage and distribution of

characteristic communities.

4. Species composition/dominance - Shrimping intensity.

59

Florida Manatee

1. Connectivity among communities & ecosystems - Number and distribution of barriers

to historically used waterways.

2. Population structure & recruitment – Status of Criteria D & E in Biological Status

Review (number of mature individuals and probability of extinction, respectively).

3. Population size & dynamics – FWC/FWRI photo identification and mortality data.

Fish Community

1. Water chemistry - Presence/absence of harmful algal bloom(s) and their associated

toxins.

2. Population size/trend of monitored fish species/species groups – Status and trend of

monitored fish species/species groups as reported in the FWC/FWRI annual status

and trends report (FWC/FWRI, 2005).

3. Species composition/dominance - Number of fish species present in system as

compared to historic.

Diadromous Fish

1. Hydrologic regime (timing, duration, frequency, extent) - River flows.

2. Connectivity among communities & ecosystems - Number and distribution of barriers

to historically used waterways.

3. Population structure & recruitment - Age distribution.

4. Population size & dynamics - Number of successfully spawning adult fish.

Bay Scallops

1. Connectivity among communities & ecosystems - Location and size of populations.

2. Population structure & recruitment - Recruitment to distinct population segments.

3. Population size & dynamics - Population size, each distinct population segment.

60

References

Alverson, D.L., M.H. Freeburg, J.G. Pope, S.A. Murawski. 1994. A global assessment of

fisheries bycatch and discards. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 339. Rome, FAO.

233p.

Arnold, W.S. 2006. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission/Fish and

Wildlife Research Institute. Personal communication (with assistance from Melanie

Parker for the oysters and Sarah Peters for the scallops.

Arnold, W.S. and M. Berrigan. 2002. A Summary of the Oyster (Crassostrea virginica)

Fishery in Florida. A report to the Division of Marine Fisheries, Florida Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Commission.

Arnold, W.S., N.J. Blake, M.M. Harrison, D.C. Marelli, M.L. Parker, S.C. Peters and

D.E. Sweat. 2005. Restoration of bay scallop (Argopecten irradians (Lamarck))

populations in Florida coastal waters: Planting techniques and the growth, mortality and

reproductive development of planted scallops. J. Shellfish Res. 24: 883-904.

Arnold, W.S., D.C. Marelli, C.P. Bray and M.M. Harrison, 1998. Recruitment of bay

scallops (Argopecten irradians) in Floridan Gulf of Mexico waters: scales of coherence.

Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 170: 143-157.

Blitch, S. 2006. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Coastal and Aquatic

Managed Areas, personal communication.

Brumbaugh, R. 2006. The Nature Conservancy. Personal communication.

Carlson, Paul, Jr., Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Florida Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Commission. 2004. Personal communication.

Dawes, C.J., R.C. Phillips and G. Morrison. 2004 Seagrass Communities of the Gulf

Coast of Florida: Status and Ecology. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation

Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute and the Tampa Bay Estuary Program,

St. Petersburg, FL. iv - 74 pp.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2005. Florida’s Wildlife Legacy

Initiative. Florida’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Tallahassee, Florida,

USA.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research. 1993.

Sensitivity of Coastal Environments and Wildlife to Spilled Oil.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research

Institute. 2005. Florida’s Inshore and Nearshore Species: Status and Trends Report. St.

Petersburg, Florida.

61


Institute, Inshore Mapping Program results through 2006.


Institute. 2006. Webpages and downloadable data on harmful algal blooms and the

Florida manatee.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Marine Research Institute.

2003. Conserving Florida’s Seagrass Resources: Developing a Coordinated Statewide

Management Program. 51pp.

Fitzhugh, G., C. Koenig, F. Coleman, C. Grimes and W. Sturges III. 2005. Spatial and

temporal patterns in fertilization and settlement of young gag Mycteroperca microlepis

along the west Florida shelf. Bulletin of Marine Science, 77(3): 377-396.

Frazer, T.K, S.K. Notestein, J.A. Hale, D. E. Canfield and S.B. Blitch. 2002. Water

Quality Characteristics of the Nearshore Gulf Coast Waters Adjacent to Citrus, Hernando

and Levy Counties, Project Coastal 2001. Southwest Florida Water Management District,

Tampa, FL. 187 pp.

Gordon, D. D. Shaw and E. Contreras. 2005. Problems adversely affecting Florida’s

wildlife habitats and species of greatest conservation need. Report to the Florida Fish and

Wildlife Conservation Commission. The Nature Conservancy, Gainesville, Florida. 170

pp.

Hale, J.A., T.K. Frazer, D.A. Tomasko and M.O. Hall. 2004. Changes in the Distribution

of Seagrass Species along Florida's Central Gulf Coast: Iverson and Bittaker Revisited.

Estuaries, Vol 27, No. 1, p. 36-43

Harmful Algal Bloom Task Force Technical Advisory Group. 1999. Harmful Algal

Blooms in Florida, Florida’s HAB Task Force.

Haubold, E., C. Deutsch, and C. Fonnesbeck. 2005. Preliminary Biological Status

Review of the Florida Manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris). Florida Fish and

Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, St. Petersburg,

Florida.

He, R. and R. Weisburg. 2002. Tides on the West Florida Shelf. Journal of Physical

Oceanography. pp. 3455- 3473.

Herrington, S. 2006. The Nature Conservancy. Personal Communication.

Holland, A.F., D.M. Sanger, C.P. Gawle, S.B. Lerberg, M.S. Santiago, G.H.M. Riererk,

L. Zimmerman and G.I. Scott. 2004. Linkages between tidal creek ecosystems and the

landscape and demographic attributes of their watersheds. Journal of Experimental

Marine Biology and Ecology, 298 (151-178).

62

Low, Greg. 2003. Landscape-scale Conservation - A Practitioners Guide. The Nature

Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia.

Matson, R. 2005. Suwannee River Water Management District. Personal communication.

McDaniel, C. J., L.B. Crowder and J.A. Priddy. 2000. Spatial dynamics of sea turtle

abundance and shrimping intensity in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. Conservation Ecology

4(1): 15.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2006. Office of Protected Species

website, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish.

National Research Council, Committee on Ecosystem Effects of Fishing. 2002. Effects of

Trawling and Dredging on Seafloor Habitat, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

NatureServe. 2004. Webpages on Alabama shad (Alosa alabamae). Natureserve.org

Nelson, Russell. 2005. Trawls: Clear Cutting the Ocean. Tide, Jan/February.

Rubec, P., J. Lewis, D. Reed, C. Ashbaugh, C. Lashley, S. Versaggi, R. Weisberg, L.

Zheng, R. He and C. Jenkins. 2005. Refinement of an Electronic Logbook to Support

Fishing operations by Spatially Predicting shrimp abundance in relation to environmental

conditions off the West Coast of Florida. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation

Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, St. Petersburg, Florida.

Sargent, F.J., T.J. Leary, D.W. Crewz and C.R. Fruer. 1995. Scarring of Florida's

seagrasses: assessment and management options. FMRI Tech. Rep. TR-1. Florida Marine

Research Institute, St. Petersburg, Florida. 37 p. plus appendices.

Shepard, T.D. and R.A. Myers. 2005. Direct and indirect fishery effects on small coastal

elasmobranches in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Ecology Letters 8: 1095 – 1104.

Smithsonian Marine Station at Fort Pierce, webpage on Thalassia testudium, 6/8/06.

(www.sms.si.edu).

St. Petersburg Times. 2000. Pipeline debate doesn’t end with plan’s demise. Editorial,

November 21.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Draft Comprehensive

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment - St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge.

385 pp.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service.2003. Map of

Biologically Sensitive Areas (<400 meters), Gulf of Mexico OCS Region.

http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/regulate/environ/topomap.pdf

63

U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 2004. Notice to Leases

and Operators or Federal Oil, Gas and Sculpture Leases and Pipeline Right-of-Way

Holders in the Outer Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, NTL No. 2004-

G05.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. South Florida Multi-species recovery plan. Atlanta,

Georgia. 2172 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1995. Gulf

Sturgeon Recovery Plan. Atlanta, Georgia. 170 pp.

Wakeford, A. 2001. State of Florida conservation plan for Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser

oxyrinchus desotoi). Florida Marine Research Institute Technical Report TR-8. 100 p.

APPENDIX 1. Strategies for Some Threats Rated High or Very High for Individual

Conservation Targets

In general, as part of this Conservation Action Planning (CAP) process we focused our

strategy development efforts on the highest rated threats to the system as represented by

the conservation targets selected for the Big Bend CAP. With some additional time

available at the end of the Strategies Development Workshop, we developed strategies

for some of the threats that were rated high for individual conservation targets. These are

presented below.

Feasibility # Strategies to Abate Incompatible

Boating Impacts Ease Lead

Benefit Cost

Objective A: By 2011, all recreational boaters have

received advice/information on the sensitive nature of

seagrass and other marine/estuarine habitats in the Big

Bend planning area, understand how to avoid harming

these sensitive resources, and are motivated to do so.

1 Education - for example kiosks at marinas about the

location of sensitive resources.

VH VH M M

2 Require individual boaters to have a license. L VH H H

Objective B: By 2016, all recreational boaters are taking

all reasonable actions to avoid harming benthic habitats in

the Big Bend planning area.

3 Require all boats to have a port-a-potty aboard. This could

be as simple as having a 5-gallon bucket with a lid aboard.

This is/could be a pilot project through the EPA Gulf of

Mexico Program.

M M M M

Objective C: By 2016, marinas and other

facilities/navigational aids that support recreational

boaters have the equipment and educational materials

available to support recreational boater efforts to take all

reasonable actions to avoid harming marine and estuarine

habitats and associated communities in the Big Bend

planning area.

4 Require pump out stations everywhere there is a marina. H H M M

5 Improve the channel marking system by utilizing better

channel markers and by having more complete coverage.

Consider gated marking systems.

M VH M H

6 Implement clean marina programs throughout the

planning area to the greatest extent possible; Educate

marina owners to encourage increased participation. (DEP

& Sea Grant)

VH VH M M

2

7 Place mooring buoys around sensitive hardbottom

communities.

M VH M H

Objective D: By 2010, a regulatory and enforcement

scheme adequate to maintain sustainable seagrass of other

marine/estuarine habitats in the Big Bend planning area is

in place. See also related objective (and strategies) under

dredging impacts: Improve existing access points to avoid

the creation of new (prop scarring of seagrasses is

concentrated around access points).

8 Institute a protection zone scheme for seagrasses

(including regulatory and non-regulatory approaches)

M VH VH M

9 Provide greater support the marine patrol in the form of

more equipment and officers.

M H H VH

10 Implement Bumps for recreational boaters to minimize

the threat of spreading invasive aquatic species.

H VH L L

11 Create new regulations/fines to impose on vessel

groundings. Collect compensatory resource damages.

M VH M L

Objective E: By 2010, create a program (or ensure

enforcement if existing regulatory framework is

sufficient) to recover damages when injuries to

marine/estuarine habitat are caused by recreational

boating and use these damage recoveries to restore

impacted areas/habitats.

12 Funnel restoration dollars back to regional restoration

programs. Restore areas that are damaged.

M VH M H

Feasibility # Strategies to Abate Incompatible

Industrial Operations Eas

e

Lead

Benefit Cost

Objective A: By 2016, industrial discharges into the Fen

Holloway River are reduced sufficiently to allow recovery

of marine and estuarine waters and associated natural

communities in the vicinity of the Fen Holloway River

Estuary to a healthy and viable state with a seagrass

community comparable to pre-settlement conditions.

1 Repeal the class 5 designation for the Fen Holloway

River.

2 Require the paper mill to implement state of the art clean

up technologies.

Appendix 2. Strategy Rating Criteria from Low (2003).

Feasibility

Ease of Implementation

Actions that are less complex have been successfully implemented previously, fit within the core competencies of the lead institution, and that appeal to key constituencies have a higher likelihood of success than other actions.

Very High Implementing the action is very straightforward; this type of action has been done often before and will appeal to key constituencies.

High Implementing the action is relatively straightforward, but not certain; this type of action has been done before and is likely to appeal to key constituencies.

Medium Implementing the action involves a fair number of complexities, hurdles and/or uncertainties; this type of action has rarely been done before; constituency support uncertain.

Low Implementing the action involves many complexities, hurdles and/or uncertainties; this type of action has never been done before and/or is unlikely to appeal to key constituencies.

Lead Individual / Institution

The availability of a lead individual/institution ("champion") with sufficient time, proven talent, relevant experience, and good institutional support to implement the action.

Very High A "champion" with sufficient time, proven talent, substantial relevant experience and institutional support is reasonably available and committed to lead implementation of the action.

High An individual/institution with sufficient time, promising talent, some relevant experience and institutional support is reasonably available and likely to be able to lead implementation of the action.

Medium An individual/institution with promising talent and sufficient time is reasonably available, but lacks relevant experience or institutional support.

Low No lead individual/institution currently available.

2

Benefit

Threat Abatement Benefit

The degree to which the proposed action, if successfully implemented, is likely to achieve the desired outcome(s). How much will this action, by itself, reduce the critical threat over the scope and scale it is degrading the habitat?

Very High The action, in itself, will abate the threat (source of stress). (Or will get 76-100% of the way there.)

High The action makes a substantial contribution towards abating the threat, but is not by itself sufficient. ( will get 51-75% of the way there)

Medium The action makes an important contribution towards abating the threat. (will get 26-50% of the way there)

Low The action makes a relatively small contribution towards abating the threat. (will get 1-25%of the way there)

Cost

Order of Magnitude $$

Total cost of implementing the action, including staff time -- in unrestricted or discretionary dollars (i.e. dollars that might be applied to other purposes) -- estimated for the time horizon of the action, but no longer than 10 years: (Total cost = One Time Cost + ((Annual Costs + Staff Time) * Number of Years))

Very High $10,000,000 or more

High $1,000,000 or more (up to $9,999,999)

Medium $100,000 or more (up to $999,999)

Low $10,000 or more (up to $99,999)

3

Appendix 3. Workplan: Action Steps and Timeline to Accomplish the Top-Rated Conservation Strategies

YEAR 1 YEAR 2

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Strategy HAB, A-1: Using data/information from existing water quality monitoring programs in the Big Bend (FWC and Project Coast, UF, Tom Frazer),

define as best we can what the natural background levels of nutrients are for the area.

Action Steps: a. Assemble data and existing information from existing water quality monitoring programs from the Big bend CAP planning area;

b. Where data allows, identify likely natural background levels of nutrients in coastal waters;

c. Recommend additional water quality monitoring that may be required to adequately monitor water quality in the

planning area.

Strategy HAB, A-2: Push for congressional support (i.e., funding) to address HABs now "while the iron is hot". Now on the minds of our congressional

representatives.

Action Steps: a. Identify likely supporters for increased congressional funding and their actions towards increasing support;

b. Create/assemble marketing materials that can be distributed to increase congressional support for HAB research and

remediation.

c. Encourage likely supporters not currently engaged with congressional requests for support to become so.

Strategy HAB, A-3: Conduct/support research that builds on existing knowledge to identify the cofactors that trigger HABs.

Action Steps: a. Establish a coordinating body to share HAB research, determine future advancements and promote support for future research and

remedial actions.

b. Evaluate progress towards understanding what triggers HABs and implementing remedial actions on an annual basis;

and

c. Adapt research and remediation plans as recommended by the evaluation.

Strategy HAB, A-4: Create incentives for the placement of advanced septic systems. These could be tax incentives. Water Management Districts and local

governments may be the appropriate leads for this action.

Action Steps: a. Determine what water management districts and local governments are already doing to encourage the use of advanced septic

systems and the need for these systems in their jurisdictions;

b. Determine what the success of the above mentioned programs have been and what it will take to reach goals for the

placement of advanced septic systems;

4

c. Propose new programs or improvements to existing programs to achieve placement of advanced septic system

goals;

d. Identify sources of funding to implement the new and/or improved programs.

Strategy GEAR, A-1: Develop gears that are less harmful to bottom habitat for harvesting bait shrimp as an alternative to roller frames.

Action Steps: a. Document/assemble information on the harm that roller frames cause to the bottom types present in the Big Bend CAP planning area;

b. Encourage the development of gears that do less harm to these bottom types. Encouragement may be provided in the

form of grants, etc.;

c. Identify funding sources to finance the grant program or other forms of encouragement.

Strategy GEAR, A-2: Conduct a broad-scale characterization of benthic communities and associated habitat.

Action Steps: a. Document the progress made by the State of Florida to characterize bottom habitats and benthic communities in the Big Bend region

and any impediments;

b. Identify the technology that could be used to conduct this broad scale benthic habitat characterization and its costs to do

so in the Big Bend CAP planning area;

c. Assist agencies/institutions that would take the lead in conducting the characterization with attracting the

necessary funding to carry out the assessment;

d. Ensure that the benthic assessment is conducted in a timely manner.

Strategy GEAR, A-3: Consider rotational closure of bottom trawling for the most sensitive areas.

Action Steps: a. Collect information on the bottom trawling fishery along the Big Bend coast such as locations fished, frequency of trawling “sweeps”

in fished areas, damage caused by trawling gear and time required for damage to heal;

b. Work with stakeholders to devise a feasible plan to abate damage to bottom habitats where it has been identified taking

into account socio-economic factors;

c. If a feasible plan can be devised, propose it to FWC.

Strategy GEAR, A-4: Develop aquaculture production for bait shrimp and other types of bait.

Action Steps: a. In partnership with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services' Division of Aquaculture, review guidelines and

permitting requirements for bait shrimp aquaculture in Florida.

b. Prepare an economic analysis for successful bait shrimp aquaculture and marketing.

c) Identify aquaculture production facilities that are willing and able to develop a bait shrimp aquaculture operation.

d) Develop an incentive plan for transitioning from wild harvest of bait shrimp to aquaculture production of

bait shrimp.

5

Strategy DEV, A-1: Modify federal/state flood insurance programs in coastal high hazard regions to strictly control payment of repeat claims in areas

subject to frequent flood events. For example, after a certain amount of loss, the property becomes public or the owner can rebuild at their own cost

(for example, pay to rebuild once).

Action Steps: a. Identify stakeholders that may support changes to federal and state flood insurance programs as suggested above.

b. Convene a group of these stakeholders to develop suggested changes to the existing flood insurance programs;

c. Submit this proposal of recommended changes to the appropriate agencies; and

d. Promote the proposal widely.

Strategy DEV, A-2: Promote soft shoreline alternatives to hardened shoreline. Promote planting of native plants, for example. Implement an

education program along the lines of the following: Natural Resource Conservation Service, Partners for Fish and Wildlife, and Florida Yards and

Neighbors. Hold a summit to develop what people should be doing then disseminate the information through SeaGrant, etc.

Action Steps: a. Convene a meeting with appropriate stakeholders to develop educational materials/programs that educate people about and

promote soft shorelines as an alternative to hardened shorelines;

b. Identify funding sources to develop and print the identified programs and materials;

c. Implement the educational program and develop the materials for printing. Print the educational materials;

d. Promote the educational program and disseminate the print materials to appropriate audiences.

Strategy DEV, A-3: Ensure adherence with the coastal construction control line (CCCL) rules and promote shifting the CCCL landward.

Action Steps: a. Determine how well the CCCL rules have been adhered to in the planning area;

b. Where violations or variances to the CCCL rules have occurred, determine why;

c. Working with other stakeholders, develop recommendations that will avert further violations and/or

variances to the CCCL rules;

d. Convene a working group to determine if CCCL rules are sufficient to protect coastal natural

resources in light of the best available scientific evidence on global climate change and its impacts such

as sea level rise;

e. If the current CCCL rules are determined to be insufficient, engage the working group in a

effort to develop a science-based proposal for CCCL revision;

f. Submit this proposal to the appropriate state authorities and promote it widely.

6

Strategy DEV, B-1: Purchase more coastal conservation lands and easements.

Action Steps: a. Prepare a geospatial inventory of coastal uplands in the Big Bend CAP planning area from the shoreline extending inland 1 mile

that depicts the conservation and ownership) status (private versus public, relevant agency and purpose. Revise the inland boundary

of this analysis if warranted to reflect potential sea level rise impacts;

b. Rank the importance of acquiring lands not currently in some form of conservation status;

c. Identify programs and funding sources under which these inventoried lands may be acquired;

d. Submit acquisition proposals to appropriate programs in order of priority to the greatest extent

practical;

e. Work to create/renew land acquisition funding programs if necessary.

Strategy DEV, B-2: Develop a mechanism to improve communication between developers and the conservation community to circumvent problems

upfront.

Action Steps: a. Convene a group of stakeholders to develop an effective mechanism for the type of communication described above;

b. Implement the recommendations from the stakeholders group; and

c. Evaluate effectiveness of the communication strategy periodically and revise as necessary.

Strategy UTIL, A-1: Ensure that the least environmentally sensitive locations are selected for placement of utility corridors, especially with respect to

bay scallops. Consider co-location of utilities when feasible.

Action Steps: a. Ensure the completion of Strategy A-2 under Fishing Gear Impacts (benthic habitat characterization);

b. Ensure that distribution information on benthic habitats and sensitive resources in the Big Bend CAP planning area

is widely available to/through state/federal/local regulatory and resource management agencies;

c. Assemble and disseminate information on the sensitivity of various marine and estuarine resources to the

placement of utility corridors;

d. Track utility corridor proposals closely and provide comment where appropriate to ensure that utility

corridor placements do not cause substantial or irreparable harm to marine and estuarine resources in the

planning area.

Strategy UTIL, A-2: Ensure that the proper safeguards are employed to minimize secondary impacts associated with utility corridor siting.

Action Steps: a. Assemble information on potential secondary impacts of siting utility corridors in the planning area and the best available

technologies to avoid these impacts;

b. Ensure that decision-makers in the utility corridor siting process are informed about secondary impacts and best

available technologies to avoid them;

7

c. Track utility corridor proposals closely and provide comment where appropriate to ensure that secondary

impacts of utility corridor placements do not cause substantial or irreparable harm to marine and estuarine

resources in the planning area.

Strategy DAMS, A-1: Develop and implement fish passage technologies.

Action Steps: a. Compile and collect information on the species, their habitat and use of habitat on the Ochlocknee River. (Life history and

population biology);

b. Identify and engage all relevant partners, collaborators and affected parties;

c. Develop a plan to implement fish passage;

d. Identify funding sources to explore & implement fish passage; and

e. Implement the fish passage.

Strategy FISH, A-1: Improve species specific management by evaluating/re-evaluating minimum size & slot limits, seasons, bag limits, rotational

harvest and closed areas.

Action Steps: a. Evaluate existing information on fished stocks and stocks subject to bycatch in the Big Bend CAP planning area to determine

their status and the status of the area ecosystem relative to stock status;

b. For stocks that appeared to be impaired or where their status appears to be having an adverse impact on the

ecosystem in the Big Bend CAP planning area, consult with appropriate fisheries agencies and experts to develop an

plan for stock recovery;

c. Implement the plan developed in step b above.

Strategy FISH, A-2: Improve protection at existing managed areas including more support for marine enforcement.

Action Steps: a. Identify where and what protection gaps may be occurring at existing managed areas;

b. Develop a proposal that reduces or eliminates these gaps;

c. Promote the proposal among the relevant state agencies, institutions and NGOs;

d. Seek to have the proposal adopted by the relevant state agencies.

Strategy FISH, A-3: Pursue enhancement and restoration strategies for redfish, oysters, bay scallops and other species as may be determined in the

future.

Action Steps: a. Review existing information to determine which stocks would benefit from enhancement or restoration;

b. In consultation with relevant agencies, institutions and organizations, promote the development of enhancement and

restoration strategies for the stocks identified in step a above.

8

Date post:	05-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Big Bend CAP, Final Report - Public.MyFWC.com · Final Report Prepared by Laura Geselbracht The...

Documents