131
i
Preface
“A Look to the Future. A Management Plan for the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem” was printed in June 1998 and was
the culmination of nine months of intensive work by the Department of Environmental Protection, Ecosystem
Management Team and the Department’s Northwest District, Panama City Branch Office and the St. Andrew Bay
Environmental Study Team (BEST). The original writing and printing of the document was made possible by a
grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and administered by the State of Florida
Department of Community Affairs (DCA), Coastal Zone Management Program to the Department of Environmental
Protection’s (FDEP) Northwest District Ecosystem Management Section. The senior author of this revision had the
pleasure of authoring sections of the original plan and coordinating the efforts of the DEP and the members of the
BEST Steering Committee in completing the plan.
BEST and BEST, Inc. determined that “A Look to the Future” should be revised and updated to reflect the
accomplishments of various entities toward fulfilling the Action Plans in the original document and to add to or
revise the Action Plans as needed. The Northwest Florida Water Management District published a Surface Water
Improvement Management plan (SWIM) for the St. Andrew Bay Drainage basin in September 2000. SWIM plans
are directed at the maintenance of the quality of surface waters and address many ecosystem functions related to
water quality. The SWIM plan for the St. Andrew Bay drainage basin adopted much of the organization and
information provided in “A Look to the Future” including a majority of the Action Plans as described in “A Look to
the Future”. As a result of the incorporation of most of “A Look to the Future” in the SWIM plan, it was decided
that the revision should be accomplished with more emphasis on total ecosystem management and a de-emphasis on
water quality to separate it from the SWIM plan. Therefore, the purpose of this revision is to make it an adjunct to
the SWIM plan rather than a repeat of the SWIM plan and “A Look to the Future”.
This document relies on “A Look to the Future”. The authors rewrote and rearranged the introductory material and
Part 1. Part 2 is from the original plan with modifications from the SWIM plan and updates by the authors. Part 3 is
from the original plan with modifications by the authors. Part 4 has been modified by the authors and relies on the
original document. The authors have modified the biodiversity section of Part 5 and added the section on
accomplishments for each Action Plan. Mr. Michael Brim, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service authored the
Contaminants section and Action Plans for the original plan, and these were carried over to the revision with
additional material added as was provided. The following were also carried over and/or modified from the original
plan with the author; Hydrology, Mr. Kennard Watson, St. Andrew Bay Resource Management Association; Point
Source Discharges, Mr. Steven Kelley, DEP; Air Quality, Mr. Richard Spaulding, DEP; Impaired Water Bodies,
DEP, Pensacola; and Solid Waste, Mr. Clarke Millikan, DEP.
The original “A Look to the Future” was the result of the dedicated volunteer spirit of the members of BEST who
devoted a considerable amount of their time to the successful completion of that plan. The authors hope that this
document will have the same positive affect as the original plan.
Edwin J. Keppner and Lisa A. Keppner, May 2001
Acknowledgements
Many individuals provided information that was included in the original document, and those persons are
recognized in that document, and the authors wish to express their sincere appreciation to all of those people who
contributed to the original “Look to the Future”. The authors served as volunteers to accomplish the task of
providing this revision for distribution. Sincerest appreciation is expressed to the people of the Northwest Florida
Water Management District for permission to use tables and figures from the SWIM plan. The authors express
their sincerest appreciation to Ms. Candis Harbison for her initial review, comments, patience, and understanding
during the preparation of this revision. Sincere appreciation is also expressed to Mr. James Barkuloo for his
professional contribution to the review and completion of the revision. A very special thank you to Ms. Linda
Chafin of Florida Natural Areas Inventory for working her magic as an editor, reviewer, and biologist. Mr.
Michael Brim, Mr. Joseph McLernan, Mr. Charles Yautz, Dr. Neil Lamb, and Ms. Candis Harbison served as
reviewers from the BEST Steering Committee. The authors appreciate the time and effort that these reviewers
expended in making this a better document and placing the stamp of BEST on it. The members of BEST and
BEST, Inc. express their sincere appreciation to the Northwest Florida Water Management District for
support in printing this document.
ii
The St. Andrew Bay Environmental Study Team
The St. Andrew Bay Environmental Study Team (BEST) has met since 1987 to share information regarding the
natural resources of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem and to address cumulative concerns for the ecological integrity
of the system. The mission and goals of BEST are stated in ecological terms. The mission of BEST is to evaluate
the status of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem, identify problems, and initiate corrective actions where necessary. The
goal of BEST is to maintain and restore a healthy St. Andrew Bay ecosystem for the benefit of all people. Efforts to
achieve that goal involve obtaining information regarding the biological, chemical, and physical components of the
ecosystem through original research and literature summaries, providing that information to the public and decision
makers, and improving coordination and communication between those responsible for the management of natural
resources of the ecosystem. BEST is not an adversarial or advocacy organization. It provides information and
recommendations pertinent to informed decision-making.
Membership in BEST is free and is available to any interested citizen or group that is interested in the management
of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem for the benefit of all the people. BEST has no formal corporate structure, bylaws,
policies, or rules to encumber the achievement of its mission, and members serve as volunteers. The only officer in
BEST is the Chairperson who is selected by the Steering Committee each year. The Chairperson serves as the
spokesperson for BEST, chairs the general membership meetings, and chairs the meetings of the Steering
Committee. General membership meetings are held six times each year in January, March, May, July, September,
and November. Partners of BEST include representatives of federal agencies, state agencies, academia, industry,
local government, citizen’s organizations, and individuals.
The Steering Committee of BEST manages the activities of BEST and meets every other month. It consists of the
Chairperson of BEST, the Chairperson from each subcommittee, the President of BEST, Inc., and individuals who
represent various interests in the community. The five standing subcommittees of BEST provide a means for
achieving the goals of BEST. Membership on a subcommittee is open to anyone interested in the subject of the
subcommittee, and all members serve as volunteers. The standing subcommittees of BEST are the Natural
Resources, Habitat; Natural Resources, Biodiversity; Education & Public Outreach; Contaminants and Stormwater,
and Growth Management.
St. Andrew Bay Environmental Study Team, Inc. (BEST, Inc.)
BEST, Inc., by nature of its corporate status, bylaws, and organization, is an integral yet separate part of BEST.
BEST, Inc. is a Florida not-for-profit, 501 (c) (3) corporation with a complete slate of officers and must comply with
the rules of the State of Florida that govern such corporations. The by-laws of BEST, Inc. include a statement of
purpose as follows. The St. Andrew Bay Environmental Study Team, Inc. is dedicated to charitable, scientific, and
educational purposes in support of its mission to evaluate the status of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem and its
watershed (including all connecting bays, bayous, and waterways and pertinent uplands that drain into it) to identify
any problems, and to initiate and implement corrective action. The Board of Directors of the corporation consists of
a President, Treasurer, and Secretary. The Board of Directors, with the approval of the membership, have set the
policies of the corporation. Meetings are held at least once each year and more often as needs arise. Minutes are
recorded for each meeting. BEST, Inc. serves to receive donations and grant money, seeks such sources of funding,
and administers those funds to fulfill the Action Plans of the ecosystem management plan.
Recommended Citation. Keppner, Edwin J. and Keppner, Lisa, A. 2001. The St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem, Our
Environment. A Revision of “A Look to the Future”. St. Andrew Bay Environmental Study Team Publication
#0004. vii + 90 pp.
iii
Table of Contents
Purpose and Goals .............................................................................................................................................. 1
Introduction ............................................................................................ .............................................................. 1
The Ecosystem and Ecosystem Management: A BEST & BEST, Inc. Perspective ................ 3
Part 1. Overview of the St Andrew Bay System ................................................................................... 4
Introduction ................................................................................................................ ................................................ 4
Geographical Boundaries of the Ecosystem ....................................................................................................... ........ 4
Political Boundaries of the Ecosystem ....................................................................................... ................................ 5
Abiotic (Non-living) components of the Ecosystem ............................................................................................... 7
Physiography and Geology ............................................................................................................................. 7
Substrate ................................................................................................................... ....................................... 7
Climate ..................................................................................................................... ....................................... 8
Chemical Components .................................................................................................................................... 8
Air ......................................................................................................................... .......................................... 9
Biotic (Living) Components of the Ecosystem ....................................................................................................... 9
Biotic Communities ......................................................................................... ............................................... 9
Biodiversity ................................................................................................................ ..................................... 10
Rare, Endemic and Protected Species ...................................................................................................... ....... 12
Summary ..................................................................................................................... .................................... 13
Part 2. Status of the St Andrew Bay System ......................................................................................... 13
Current Terrestrial Use in the Ecosystem .............................................................................................................. 14
Land Use and Ownership ...................................................................................................... .......................... 14
Solid Waste Management ..................................................................................................................... .......... 17
Air Quality in the Ecosystem ........................................................................................ .................................. 18
Current Water Use and Water Quality in the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem ........................................................ 22
Ground Water and the Deer Point Reservoir .................................................................................................. 22
Freshwater Lakes and Ponds ................................................................................................. ......................... 22
Creeks and Springs ................................................................................................................................. ......... 23
Non-point Source Discharges .............................................................................................. .......................... 24
iv
Point Source Discharges ..................................................................................................... ............................ 25
Thermal Discharges .......................................................................................................................... ............. 26
Part 3. The St. Andrew Bay Estuarine System ..................................................................................... 27
General Description ......................................................................................................................... ............... 27
Habitats ................................................................................................... ........................................................ 27
Hydrology ................................................................................................................... .................................... 28
Water Quality ...................................................................................................................................... ............ 31
Sediment Quality .............................................................................................. ............................................... 33
Dredging for Navigation Purposes ........................................................................................... ...................... 34
Hazardous Substance and Material Transportation ............................................................................... .......... 35
Part 4. Threats to the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem................................................................................ 36
Human Population Growth .................................................................................................................... ......... 36
Fragmentation of the Ecosystem ......................................................................................... ............................ 37
Existing Regulatory Framework and Ecosystem Management ........................................................... ........... 37
Land Use Planning .......................................................................................................................................... 38
Goals and Priorities for Ecosystem Maintenance and Improvement .................................................... .......... 39
Part 5. Action Plans for the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem ................................................................. 42
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 42
Action Plans for Maintenance and Restoration of the Living (Biotic) Components of the
St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem, Natural Resources – Biodiversity Sub-committee
BD1. Species Diversity Assessment ............................................................................................................ 43
BD2. Comparison Survey of the Finfish of St. Andrew Bay ............................................................... ........ 45
BD3. Bay Scallop Restoration ................................................................................ ..................................... 46
BD4. Assessment of the Protected, Rare and/or Endemic Species of Plants in the St. Andrew Bay
Ecosystem ...........................................................................................................................................
48
BD5. Participate in the Development of Guide lines for the Protection of Protected Species in the
Ecosystem ............................................................................................................................................
50
BD6. Assessment of the Rare and/or Endemic Species of Animals ...................................................... ....... 51
BD7. Preservation of the Panama City Crayfish ................................................................................... ........ 52
BD8. Assessment of East Pass Closure.......................................................................................................... 53
BD9. Invasive Exotic Species Management in the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem ........................................... 54
v
Action Plans for Maintenance and Restoration of the Living (Biotic) Components of the
St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem, Natural Resources– Habitat Sub-committee
HM1. Assessment of Lands and Sensitive Habitats ..................................................................................... 55
HM2. Identification and Mapping of Corridors Linking Public and Private Conservation and Preservation
Lands in the Ecosystem. ......................................................................................................................
56
HM3. Conservation of Primary Tributaries to St. Andrew Bay .................................................................... 57
HM4. Assessment of Freshwater Inflow Needs for North Bay ..................................................................... 58
HM5. Restoration of Audubon Island .................................................................................................................... 59
HM6. State Owned Submerged Land Assessment & Monitoring ................................................................. 60
HM7. Grand Lagoon Bridge Replacement .................................................................................................... 61
Action Plans for the Maintenance and Restoration of the Natural Communities of the St.
Andrew Bay Ecosystem Natural Resources– Habitat Sub-committee
Seagrass Management in the Ecosystem .......................................................... ....................................................... 62
HM8. Monitoring of Seagrass Beds in St. Andrew Bay ............................................................................... 64
HM9. Protection of Seagrass Beds ................................................................................................................ 65
HM10. Restoration of Lost or Damaged Seagrass Beds .................................................................................. 66
HM11. Restoration of Seagrass Loss in West Bay .......................................................................................... 67
HM12. Innovative Pier and Dock Construction .............................................................................................. 68
Wetland Habitats in the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem .............................................................................................. 69
HM13. Wetlands Inventory ............................................................................................................................. 70
HM14. Identification of Areas for Wetland Restoration or Preservation ........................................................ 71
HM15. Vegetative Buffers for Wetlands and Water Bodies ........................................................................... 72
HM16. Shoreline Protection and Vegetative Buffers ...................................................................................... 73
HM17. Habitat Enhancement and Management of West Bay Dikes and Impounded Wetlands for Bird
Species, Marsh and Seagrass Propagation and St. Andrew Bay Restoration Projects ........................
75
Action Plans for Maintenance and Restoration of the Chemical and Physical (Abiotic)
Components of the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem
Sediment Quality and Chemical Contaminants in the Ecosystem ......................................................................... 77
SC1. Chemical Contaminant Sediment Monitoring Within the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem ...................... 78
SC2. Evaluation of Dioxin Compounds Within the Ecosystem .......................................................................... 80
SC3. Chemical Monitoring of Biological Organisms ................................................................................. . 81
SC4. Determine the Current Status of Air Quality in the Ecosystem .......................................................... 82
vi
SC5. Restoration of Martin Lake Habitat ....................................................................................................... 83
SC6. Restoration of Watson Bayou Process Assessment Martin Lake Habitat .................................................. 85
SC7. Restoration of Massalina Bayou, Sampling and Assessment ..................................................................... 86
SC8. Restoration of Lynn Haven Bayou, Sampling and Assessment ................................................................. 87
Point Source Discharges ............................................................................................................................................. 88
SC9. Cumulative Assessment ....................................................................................................... ................ 89
SC10. Determine the Assimilative Capacity of the St. Andrew Bay Estuary ................................................ 90
Non-Point Sources Discharges: Stormwater Treatment Actions ........................................................................... 91
SC11. Maintenance of Existing Stormwater Treatment Facilities ................................................................... 91
SC12. Survey Stormwater Sediment Quality in Existing Ponds ...................................................................... 92
SC13. Retrofit Stormwater Infrastructure Constructed Prior to 1982 .............................................................. 93
SC14. Investigate the Advantages and Disadvantages of Organizing a Stormwater Utility for Bay County .. 94
Action Plans for Implementing the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem Management Plan, Growth
Management Sub-committee
GM1. State Owned Submerged Lands Policy .......................................................................................... ........ 95
GM2. Creation of an Ecosystem Mitigation Bank ........................................................................................... 96
GM3. Coordinate Growth Management Plans ........................................................................................ ......... 97
GM4. Establish the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem Management Plan as a Legal Component of Each Bay
County Local Government Comprehensive Management Plan ............................................................
98
GM5. Implement the Ecosystem Management Plan and the SWIM plan for the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem 99
GM6. Land Use Planning and Transferable Development Rights in the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem ............ 100
Action Plans for Implementing the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem Management Plan,
Education Outreach Sub-committee
EO1. Education About the Significance of Seagrass Meadows in the Ecosystem ....................................... 101
EO2. Develop and Maintain a St. Andrew Bay Environmental Study Team (BEST) Website ................... 102
EO3. Inform the General Public about the BEST Program .......................................................................... 103
EO4. Inform the General Public about the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem ...................................................... 104
Literature Cited .................................................................................................................................................... 106
Appendix 1. Biotic Communities of the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem............................................. 111
Appendix 2. Protected, Rare, or Endemic Biota of the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem .............. 116
vii
Summary
This report is the result of the volunteer efforts of the authors and the members of the St. Andrew
Bay Environmental Study Team (BEST) and the St. Andrew Bay Environmental Study Team,
Inc. (BEST, Inc.). The report provides a summary of the quality of the environment provided by
the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem to the citizens of the ecosystem and describes actions considered
important in conserving and preserving a part of the natural ecosystem as the human population
of the system increases. It is based upon “A Look to the Future. A Management Plan for the St.
Andrew Bay Ecosystem” that was printed in 1998 and the Surface Water Improvement
Management (SWIM) plan produced by the Northwest Florida Water Management District in the
year 2000. The purpose of the report is to revise and bring to date the actions accomplished for
each of the Action Plans in “A Look to the Future” and to serve as an adjunct to the SWIM plan.
The report begins with a discussion of the perspective of BEST and BEST, Inc. regarding
ecosystem management, the definition of an ecosystem, and the components of an ecosystem.
The remainder of the report consists of five sections each describing a component of the
ecosystem, the St. Andrew Bay estuarine system, and Action Plans directed at providing
information necessary to the management of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem to maintain the
functions of that system. Bay County is provided special attention because it constitutes about
two thirds of the ecosystem and contains the entire St. Andrew Bay estuarine system within it’s
boundaries. The emphasis is on the living components of the ecosystem, because the SWIM
plan is directed primarily at the maintenance of surface and ground water quality in the
ecosystem.
The sections of the report are not intended to be a thorough examination of each characteristic
but to provide general information and sources of more specific information for the interested
reader. The emphasis on the living components of the ecosystem are directed at obtaining a
more complete understanding of the distribution of natural biotic communities and species of
plants and animals of interest and addressing fragmentation of the ecosystem in relation to the
expanding human population.
The Action Plans were developed to address the aspects of each component of the ecosystem that
are considered priority components. Seagrass beds and wetlands receive special consideration as
do those species in the ecosystem that are protected, rare, or endemic to the ecosystem. Linking
the public lands in the ecosystem and conserving or preserving sensitive biotic communities is
also a priority of the report. The growth management process is identified as the primary method
of implementing the plan. Each Action Plan begins with a description of the actions that have
been completed pertaining to that particular Action Plan since the printing of “A Look to the
Future” with additional information as seemed appropriate. This is followed by a description of
the action to be taken, followed by background information, followed by a strategy to complete
the action, and followed by a description of the expected benefits. A few Action Plans also
contain a section for monitoring the results of the action.
The following table is a summary of the Action Plans in the report and the major component of
the ecosystem to which they apply.
viii
Summary of the Action Plans in Relation to the Components of the Ecosystem
Natural Resources
Biodiversity Sub-
committee
Natural Resources,
Habitat Management
Sub-committee
Stormwater &
Contaminants Sub-
committee
Growth Management
Sub-committee
Education Outreach
Sub-committee
BD1. Species Diversity
Assessment
HM1. Assessment of
Lands and Sensitive
Habitits
SC1. Sediment Chemical
Contaminant Monitoring
GM1. State Owned
Submerged Lands Policy
EO1. Educate about
Seagrass Beds
BD2. Survey of
Finfishes in St. Andrew
Bay
HM2. Identify & Map
Corridors Between Land
SC2. Evaluate Dioxin
Compounds
GM2. Creation of an
Ecosystem Management
Bank
EO2. Develop a BEST
Website
BD3. Bay Scallop
Restoration
HM3. Primary
Tributaries to St.
Andrew Bay
SC3. Monitor Biological
Organisms
GM3. Coordinate
Growth Management
Plans
EO3. Inform the
General Public About
BEST
BD4. Assess Imperiled
Species of Plants
HM4. Freshwater Inflow
to North Bay
SC4. Determine Air
Quality
GM4. Ecosystem
Management &
Comprehensive Plans
EO4. Inform the
General Public About
the St. Andrew Bay
Ecosystem
BD5. Guidelines for
Protected Species,
Participation
HM5. Restore Audubon
Island
SC5. Restoration of
Martin Lake
GM5. Land Planning &
Transferable
Development Rights
BD6. Assess Imperiled
Species of Animals
HM6. State Owned
Submerged Land
Assessment
SC6. Restoration of
Watson Bayou
BD7. Preserve the
Panama City Crayfish
HM7. Grand Lagoon
Bridge Replacement
SC7. Restoration of
Massalina Bayou
HM8. Monitor Seagrass
Beds
SC8. Assessment of
Lynn Haven Bayou
HM9. Protect Seagrass
Beds
SC9. Cumulative
Assessment of Point
Source Discharges
HM10. Restore Seagrass
Beds
SC10. Assimilative
Capacity of St. Andrew
Bay
HM11. Restore West
Bay Seagrass Beds
SC11. Maintenance of
Stormwater Facilities
HM12. Pier & Dock
Construction
SC12. Assess Treatment
Pond Sediment Quality
HM13. Wetlands
Inventory
SC13. Retrofit
Stormwater Infrastructure
HM14. Wetland
Restoration and
Preservation
SC14. Advantages &
Disadvantages of
Stormwater Utility
HM15. Vegetative
Buffers for Wetlands &
Waters
HM16. Shoreline
Protection and
Vegetative Buffers*
HM17. Habitat Project
West Bay Dikes &
Impounded Wetlands
*Contains an Education & Outreach component
1
Purpose and Goals
The original plan, “A Look to the Future” was prepared in accordance with the then existing
definition of “ecosystem” provided by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The
form of that plan emulated the plans for the Indian River Lagoon and Tampa Bay Estuary that
were written as part of the National Estuary Plan process financed by federal and state
governments. This revision retains the general form of the original plan, but uses a different
definition of ecosystem management than the original as explained below. The purpose of this
revision is to provide a summary of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem from an ecological point of
view including the current status, threats to the ecosystem, and action plans to maintain, restore,
and improve the current relationships of its components. It is written as an adjunct to the SWIM
plan for the St. Andrew Bay drainage basin that was prepared by the Northwest Florida Water
Management District (NWFWMD). The SWIM plan was prepared to fulfill the responsibilities
of the NWFWMD to maintain surface and ground water quality. The SWIM plan drew quite
heavily on “A Look to the Future” because the NWFWMD takes a holistic view of water quality
management and recognizes the relationship between land and water.
The emphasis of the SWIM plan on surface and ground water quality prompted the preparation
of this document. The emphasis of this revision is on other aspects of the ecosystem, although
water quality remains an integral part of the plan. This document is directed at the maintenance
and restoration of ecosystem functions by providing information about the ecosystem and
recommending actions that will:
1. Reduce the fragmentation of the ecosystem by providing corridors of land and water between
the fragments that are currently in public ownership.
2. Assess the status of the land in the ecosystem and increase the acreage in public ownership,
in conservation easements, or other methods to preserve ecosystem functions.
3. Identify sensitive habitats for purchase by government or private organizations to increase
the quantity of land preserved as natural habitats or restored to natural habitats.
4. Provide for the preservation and conservation of protected, endemic and/or rare species of
plants and animals in the ecosystem.
5. Recommend actions to reduce the adverse impact of the increase in human population in the
ecosystem.
6. Assure good quality of the surface water and their sediments in the ecosystem in conjunction
with the SWIM plan by examining aspects that are not in the SWIM plan.
7. Assure good quality of the ground water in the ecosystem in conjunction with the SWIM
plan through habitat preservation and conservation.
8. Examine particular areas of interest in the ecosystem for restoration or improvement of
natural ecosystem functions on a long-term basis.
9. Increase the public and private awareness of the diversity and sensitive areas of our
ecosystem.
Introduction
The St. Andrew Bay ecosystem serves as the environment for the people who choose to live
here. The ecosystem provides us with air, water, land, and a desirable climate. It provides us
with a variety of recreational opportunities, economic values, and commercial values. The fate
of the ecosystem is the responsibility of those who live here and those who will immigrate here
because of the desirable environment provided by the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem. This revision
2
of “A Look to the Future” emphasizes the ecosystem as a whole, and the interrelationships of the
components of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem without the restriction of statutory responsibilities.
This is an independent attempt to provide general information about the St. Andrew Bay
ecosystem, establish the interrelationships between the major components of the ecosystem, and
point to where additional information of a more detailed nature may be found. It is hoped that
this will provide the citizens of the ecosystem with information useful in the process of planning
for the future of their environment.
The attempt by government to manage land through an ecosystem approach has been, by and
large, abandoned, altered, or the name changed. We do not know the reasons for the alteration of
the ecosystem management approach, but it may be a result of attempting to define the
ecosystem in political terms rather than adhering to the ecological definition. Or, it may have
been realized that in order to manage an ecosystem, one must be willing to plan the use of the
land and water to sustain ecosystem functions as well as provide for an increasing human
population. Grumbine (1997) addressed the concept of ecosystem management and its history.
In that article he states that “EM (ecosystem management) was perceived by many as a
buzzword, a concept whose definition was slippery, imprecise”. He provides four reasons for
this statement that flow from his “politics of definition”. He then discusses the ten dominant
themes of ecosystem management. This discussion is interesting for the complexity that can be
incorporated into ecosystem. Where does this plan fit in the ten dominant themes of ecosystem
management? The authors believe that it fits best under “Ecological Integrity”. We encourage
the reader to answer that question by reading the article. The journal is in the library of the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the National Marine Fisheries Service
library, both in Panama City, Florida. Brunner and Clark (1997) followed with an article on
practice-based ecosystem management. The underlying rationale for this approach is that a clear
goal is necessary to select the best action alternatives for achieving it. It is hoped that the goals
of this document are clear and that the completion of the action plans will achieve the purpose.
Land use planning at the local level of government appears to be the beginning step in the
ecosystem management process. An inventory of the existing land and water in public
ownership and the areas designated for preservation, conservation, or restoration to the natural
biotic communities would be a beginning. It may be necessary to designate additional areas for
preservation, conservation, and restoration to the natural condition and develop a fair method of
doing so in order to maintain ecosystem functions. It may also be necessary to plan to link these
areas to one another by establishing corridors of natural communities. These corridors will
prevent the ecosystem from being fragmented into isolated units without functional relationships
to one another. These are the major points addressed in this plan.
Who can undertake the task of land use planning with an expectation of success? The myriad
state and federal agencies could attempt to do so, but the time necessary to accomplish the task
would be prohibitive. It is the citizens of the ecosystem who must address land use planning and
thereby maintain the natural ecosystem at some level of functionality. In the St. Andrew Bay
ecosystem, there are a number of local organizations and citizens who can be of great value in
this process. State and federal agencies can also be a part of the process, but it appears that the
citizens, through their land use planning efforts, will drive the process to some sort of
completion.
3
The Ecosystem and Ecosystem Management: A BEST & BEST, Inc.
Perspective.
“A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and the beauty of the biotic
community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” (Aldo Leopold)
The concept of the ecosystem is a fundamental unit of the science of ecology because it is the
study of all the organisms (living things) in an ecosystem interacting with each other and with
the physical and chemical properties (non-living things) of the environment to produce a self-
sustaining unit. An ecosystem develops under the influence of the climate and the geological
history of an area and is then acted upon by plants and animals. An ecologist’s definition of an
ecosystem is any area of nature in which the biotic (living) and abiotic (non-living) components
interact to form a clearly defined trophic (flow of energy) structure based upon the fixation of
light energy, biodiversity, and biogeochemical cycles (see Odum, 1971). The only source of
energy needed by the ecosystem is sunlight. Both the biotic and abiotic components of an
ecosystem influence one another, and both are necessary for life on the planet. Ecosystem
management, therefore, should be directed at maintaining and restoring the biodiversity, trophic
structure, and biogeochemical cycles of the ecosystem in question.
BEST and BEST, Inc., by nature of their mission and goals statements as provided in the preface
to this document, accept the ecological definition of ecosystem rather than attempt to redefine it.
Federal, state, and local governmental agencies have attempted to place the concept of
“ecosystem” into their environmental management plans at various times. However, these
attempts were, more often than not, accompanied by a redefinition of the term ecosystem to fit
the perceived responsibility or political framework of the time. This variety of definitions results
in confusion among agencies and citizens and results in the absence of a unified approach to
managing the ecosystem.
The renewable resources of an ecosystem are those living things that occupy the ecosystem.
They are considered renewable because they will perpetuate themselves provided that the
conditions necessary to their survival are present or maintained. Species diversity refers to the
number of species (kinds of plants and animals) that occupy a given area such as an ecosystem or
other defined unit of area. The species of animals and plants in an ecosystem are arranged as
biotic communities. A biotic community is an assemblage of organisms that live in a physical
habitat. The biotic communities of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem are many and include
seagrass beds, longleaf pine-wiregrass, etc. The six major community categories of the
ecosystem are listed and subdivided into biotic communities in Appendix 1 and discussed in the
biodiversity section below.
“When we try to pick anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe”
John Muir (My First Summer in the Sierra, 1911, page 10)
Ecosystem management must embrace all the qualities of an ecosystem, because emphasis on
one quality over the others is to lose sight of the ecosystem as a whole. An effective
management plan that will assure the continuation of the functions of an ecosystem must be
based on the knowledge of the biodiversity of the ecosystem and the physical and chemical
characteristics of that ecosystem. Alteration of one component of the ecosystem in the absence
of an understanding of the affects of that alteration on all of the other components of the
ecosystem will risk change to the ecosystem. Often this change is small, but these changes must
4
be viewed from the point of view of their cumulative affects that can act to so alter an ecosystem
that it is no longer recognizable or sustainable.
BEST and BEST, Inc. realize that one must understand species diversity, biotic community
structure, and the physical and chemical characteristics that determine the biotic communities
that are present in an ecosystem in order to manage the ecosystem in a manner that will retain the
functions of the ecosystem. They also realize that, within limits, the ecosystem can respond to
alterations that are natural or man-made and restore itself if provided the opportunity to do so.
Once the above components of the ecosystem are reasonably understood, a reasonable approach
to the management of the ecosystem can be developed. This approach should include actions to
maintain existing natural functions, prevent alterations of natural characteristics, restore areas
currently in an altered condition, prevent fragmentation, and correct the existing fragmentation of
the ecosystem. Fragmentation of the ecosystem is the process of dividing the ecosystem into
discreet, isolated units that can no longer function in relation to one another. Management of the
ecosystem must be accomplished in conjunction with a rapidly increasing human population
whose presence in the ecosystem results in alterations and fragmentation. This document was
developed with that in mind.
Part 1. Overview of the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem
Introduction. Information regarding the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem is extensive. Shaffer
(1993) compiled a bibliography of the research on St. Andrew Bay, its tributaries, and nearby
coastal water, and the process of adding new information continues. The literature that is cited in
this bibliography includes all levels of reports from contractors’ reports to clients to government
agency reports to manuscripts published in professional journals. This bibliography should be
consulted by anyone interested in a particular aspect of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem or the
ecosystem in general. The bibliography and publication collection is located at the National
Marine Fisheries Service Laboratory in Panama City Beach, Florida. For more information
contact Ms. Rosalie Shaffer at that facility at 850/234-6541. An updated, searchable copy of this
bibliography is available on the Internet at http://aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/sadl.html. The
SWIM plan (Thorpe et al., 2000) should also be consulted because it has an extensive list of
publications and projects pertaining to the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem. Copies of the SWIM plan
can be obtained from NWFWMD (850/539-5999).
The geology, physiography, and climatology of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem have been
described in a number of documents and publications. These documents and publications should
be consulted for a more detailed description of the various characteristics of the system. The
documents include Hydroqual, Inc. et al. (1993), Wolfe et al. (1988), Saloman et al. (1982),
Brusher & Ogren (1976), Ogren & Brusher (1977) and the numerous publications by the
NWFWMD pertaining to Deer Point Reservoir and the Deer Point Reservoir Watershed. The
following is a general summary of the characteristics of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem.
Geographical Boundaries of the Ecosystem. The definition of an ecosystem does not restrict
the size of the system examined provided that the components and their interrelationships as
stated in the definition are present. The SWIM plan used the U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic
Unit 03140101 to define the St. Andrew Bay drainage basin. This hydrologic unit includes St.
Joseph Bay in Gulf County at the southeastern corner and Lake Powell at the southwestern
5
corner of the hydrologic unit. Figure 1 is the entire St. Andrew Bay drainage basin including
Lake Powell, Deer Point Reservoir, and St. Joseph Bay for reference purposes. The SWIM plan
states that this hydrologic unit covers approximately 749,663 acres or 1171.5 square miles of
land and water.
Beck et al. (2000) identified priority sites for conservation in the northern Gulf of Mexico
ecoregion. Although no sites were identified in the St. Andrew Bay drainage basin as a priority
site, they provided information pertaining to the St. Andrew Bay drainage basin. They
determined the drainage basin to be 735,301 acres (1149 square miles) in size.
The St. Andrew Bay ecosystem is defined for management purposes in this document as the U.S.
Geological Survey Hydrologic Unit 03140101 minus the Lake Powell subdrainage basin and the
St. Joseph Bay subdrainage basin as shown on Figure 1. Using this definition for the purposes of
this document, the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem covers approximately 707,560 acres or 1105.5
square miles. The St. Andrew Bay drainage basin consists of a number of subdrainage basins as
depicted on the St. Andrew Bay drainage basin map produced by and available from the Florida
Department of Community Affairs, Division of Community Planning in the year 2000. Those
interested in subdivisions of the overall drainage basin should consult this or other maps.
The Lake Powell subdrainage basin is excluded from this plan because Keppner and Keppner
(2000a) provided a comprehensive summary of the information pertaining to it. In addition,
Lake Powell has been designated an Outstanding Florida Water, and this designation requires
more stringent regulation of certain activities that may affect the ambient water quality of the
lake than is used for other water bodies. The St. Joseph Bay subdrainage basin is within Gulf
County and is connected to the overall St. Andrew Bay drainage basin by a narrow strip of land.
The St. Joseph Bay subdrainage basin would be best considered on its own for management
purposes and is excluded from this plan for that reason.
The Deer Point Reservoir subdrainage basin has been the subject of a separate SWIM plan
developed by the NWFWMD. The SWIM plan for the Deer Point Reservoir and the Deer Point
Reservoir subdrainage basin was developed in 1988 and revised in 1991. A copy of the plan is
available from the NWFWMD. The development of the plan was a result of the importance of
the Deer Point Reservoir and subdrainage basin as a source of drinking water and high quality
industrial use water for Bay County. Little, if anything, can be added to the thorough assessment
of this subdrainage basin by the NWFWMD in this plan. One should consult the NWFWMD for
copies of the many excellent reports prepared for a variety of characteristics of this subdrainage
basin and its management.
Political Boundaries of the Ecosystem. The St. Andrew Bay ecosystem is the only ecosystem
within the Panhandle of Florida that contains an entire, major, estuarine system. In other words,
all of the tidally influenced surface water of the St. Andrew Bay estuarine system is entirely
within Bay County. State, city, and county boundaries are not drawn along drainage basin lines
or ecosystem lines, so the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem encompasses all or part of six counties
with Bay County being entirely within the boundaries of the ecosystem and accounting for about
69% (761 square miles) of the ecosystem. The other five counties contribute 35% (346 square
miles) of the land and water to the ecosystem. The portion of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem in
each county is Gulf County about 15% (159 square miles), Washington County at 10% (117
square miles), Calhoun County at 4% (47 square miles), and Jackson County at 2% (23 square
miles). However, the 4% of the ecosystem located in Walton County is excluded, as is a portion
6
7
of the Gulf County contribution as stated above. The result is that Bay County accounts for over
two thirds of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem as defined here.
In summary, the boundaries of the ecosystem are drawn from an ecological perspective and
include portions of six counties. Bay County is at the center of the ecosystem and accounts for
over two thirds of the total land and water in the ecosystem including the entire St. Andrew Bay
estuarine system. Therefore, Bay County will be the major political entity in determining the
ultimate fate of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem as a whole and the St. Andrew Bay estuarine
system as a part of that whole. This places a large burden on the citizens of Bay County in
planning for the increase in the growth of the human population while maintaining the functions
of the ecosystem that provide many of the environmental characteristics that make the ecosystem
so attractive to visitors and new residents.
Abiotic (Non-living) Components of the Ecosystem
The abiotic components of the ecosystem include the landform, substrate (soil and sediment
types), climate of the area, air quality, and the chemicals present in the water, sediment, and soil.
The geology of the region, the geological history of the ecosystem, and the climate of the region
set the stage for the evolution of the biotic (living) components of the ecosystem. The purpose of
the following brief discussion of abiotic factors is to set the stage for addressing the information
needed to assess the alterations of these factors in later sections of this plan. Wolfe et al. (1988)
provided a detailed summary of the physiography, geology, and climate of the Florida Panhandle
and specific areas such as the St. Andrew Bay estuarine system. Readers are encouraged to
consult this work for a detailed understanding of the physical characteristics of this ecosystem.
Physiography and Geology. The landform of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem has been greatly
influenced by the rise and fall of sea level throughout geological history. The entire ecosystem
has been inundated with seawater for varying periods of time. During the periods of inundation,
seabed sediments were formed and were left behind as the sea level decreased. These sediments
included the limestone and sand deposits that remained after the sea level decreased. The
“sandhills” and karst area of the ecosystem were formed during the periodic rise and fall in sea
level. These deposits formed the basic physical material for the development of the biotic
portion of the ecosystem. Uplands, flatlands and lowlands are found in the ecosystem. The
surface water bodies in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem are also a result of the rise and fall of the
sea level and the substrate left behind.
Substrate. The soils that develop in an ecosystem are a result of the parent material and
sediments that have been transported, deposited, formed or exposed over the geological history
of the area in conjunction with the quantity and quality of inorganic chemicals naturally present,
slope, and the ability to hold moisture. The substrate plays an important role in determining the
biotic communities that develop in an ecosystem. The biotic communities, in turn, act on the
physical substrate to modify it. A look at a soils map of the ecosystem (Duffee et al., 1984)
reveals that a significant number of different soil types have developed as a result of the
interaction of the biota of the ecosystem with the substrate. Soils that are covered by, or
saturated with, water are called sediments. They serve in the same manner as terrestrial soils to
determine, in conjunction with the physical and chemical properties of the water column, the
biotic communities present. Grain size and organic content of substrates are important
characteristics in understanding the biota found in particular areas.
8
The water in surface water bodies serves as a physical substrate for aquatic biotic communities
that develop in the water column. The quantity and quality of the physical and chemical
characteristics of the water column influence the biotic community that is present in the open
water. An obvious example is the quantity of salt in the water. The amount of salt in the water
column determines the biotic communities that can develop. Only those organisms adapted to
the quantity of salt in the water will be found there. The biotic communities, in turn, add
substances to the water column and can affect other physical characteristics such as depth of
sunlight penetration. The water column and the sediment of a water body also interact to
exchange substances.
Climate. The climate sets limits on an ecosystem by establishing the basic conditions (normal
and extreme) to which all the biota must be adapted if they are to survive in the ecosystem. The
climatological limits to which the biotic component of the ecosystem must be adapted include
seasonal temperature variations (length of growing season), rainfall amount, seasonal distribution
of rainfall, and insolation (amount of sunlight). The frequency of thunderstorms affects the
frequency of naturally occurring fire in the ecosystem, and the frequency of fire in an area acts as
a determining factor in the development and maintenance of many biotic communities
(Appendix 1). Flooding or period of inundation (normal and extreme) is also important to the
development of natural communities and their maintenance. These natural events must be
considered in the maintenance of the functional characteristics of the biotic communities within
the ecosystem (Appendix 1).
Chemical Components. A number of studies have been conducted on the quantity and quality
of the chemical and physical characteristics of the sediments of various surface water bodies in
the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem. Included is the work by Brim (1998) and Payne (1997a & b,
1998, 2000). The quality and quantity of inorganic molecules present in the substrate or
sediments are dependent on the parent material. The biotic communities that develop do so, in
part, in response to the basic inorganic molecules present. Once established, the biota add
organic chemical products of their metabolism to the substrate, and therefore, change the
substrate providing different substrate conditions that support a different biota. This is an
evolving process of interaction and change. An example is the development of a bog from an
open water pond where the physical conditions are conducive to the bog. The open water area
with its biotic community fills in with sediments and accumulations of organic material from the
death of the biota until the open water is replaced by saturated soils. These saturated soils
support a different biotic community that then further modifies the substrate until it is replaced
by another biotic community.
The quantity and quality of the inorganic substances in the parent material determine the quantity
and quality of the inorganic substances in the substrate. Those inorganic substances needed by
the biota are cycled from the substrate through plants (photosynthesis or chemosynthesis) to the
animals and back to the substrate upon the death and decomposition of the biota. Organic
chemicals are produced primarily by the metabolism of the biota in the ecosystem, and these
substances are added to the substrate and modify it chemically and physically. Of course,
another source of organic chemicals to the ecosystem is the activities of humans and their ability
to synthesize new organic molecules not found in the natural ecosystem.
The chemical characteristics of the substrate can be modified by human activities. Human
activities can alter the balance of chemicals in the ecosystem by introduction of additional
substances, alteration of the quantity of a substance, and the addition of toxic substances.
9
Changes in the quantity and quality of the chemicals in the substrate of an ecosystem can result
in changes in the biota present, and therefore, changes in the ecosystem.
Air. Air provides chemical substances necessary to the functioning of the ecosystem. Plants
remove carbon dioxide from the air to use in photosynthesis to produce organic molecules. The
process of photosynthesis releases oxygen to the air. Animals in their metabolic processes use
the oxygen and return carbon dioxide to the air. Thus, one of the cycles is established between
the biotic and abiotic components of the ecosystem. The quality of the air in an ecosystem can
affect the biota present in the ecosystem. Natural events such as fire in the ecosystem can
temporarily alter the air quality with little lasting effect on the biotic components of the
ecosystem. However, the persistent addition of chemicals to the air from human activities can
alter the air quality and adversely impact the biotic component of the ecosystem. An obvious
example is acid rain and its effects on water chemistry and aquatic biotic communities and
terrestrial communities in an ecosystem. Another example is the addition of mercury compounds
to the ecosystem that can occur by burning certain fossil fuels in our industries.
Biotic (Living) Component of the Ecosystem
The biotic component of the ecosystem consists of the organisms that live in the ecosystem as a
result of their being adapted to the abiotic conditions present in the area. The biotic component
of the ecosystem uses the inorganic chemicals in the ecosystem to produce the organic
substances necessary for life. Photosynthetic plants use the energy from the sun to convert
inorganic chemicals to organic substances, and chemosynthetic microorganisms use the energy
of bonds between atoms to do the same. The animals present in the ecosystem derive their
energy by eating the plants and/or other animals present. Food chains and food webs (trophic
structure) are established that lead from the variety of plants present to the variety of animals
present in the ecosystem. Upon the death of the plants and animals, a group of organisms
referred to as decomposers use the dead organic material as a source of energy. In doing so, they
return the organic material to the abiotic part of the environment for reuse. Biogeochemical
cycles (cycling of substances between the living and non-living ) are thus established.
The description of the biotic part of the ecosystem can be accomplished from a number of
viewpoints that attempt to bring order out of the diversity of organisms that occupy an
ecosystem. For the purposes of this plan, we will use the concept of biotic communities and
species diversity to summarize the biotic component of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem. The rare,
endemic, and protected species in the ecosystem will be examined separately. However, the
reader should keep in mind the hierarchy of ecological study. A species is a group of organisms
that breed and produce viable young, so one can study a species in relation to its environment.
Species are arranged into populations. A population is a group of organisms of the same species
that occupy a given area, so one can study a population in relation to its environment.
Populations are arranged into biotic communities that are populations of different species
interacting with one another and their environment. This ecosystem management plan is directed
at the species and biotic community level of the ecological hierarchy.
Biotic Communities. The Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) defines a natural biotic
community as a distinct and recurring assemblage of populations of plants, animals, fungi, and
microorganisms naturally associated with each other and their physical environment (FNAI,
2000). It is within the biotic community that the energy flows are established through food
chains and food webs and the biogeochemical cycles are established in relation to the abiotic
10
component of ecosystem. FNAI has provided a hierarchy of biotic communities in which the
community category is defined by the hydrology and vegetation. Each community category is
divided into community groups that are defined by landform, substrate, and vegetation.
Community groups are further subdivided into community types defined by landform and
substrate, soil moisture, fire, climate and characteristic vegetation. Florida governmental
agencies use the FNAI community hierarchy where biological evaluations or descriptions are
needed to fulfill their responsibilities. For that reason, the FNAI hierarchy is used here.
FNAI (2000) defines 70 natural community types that constitute the original, natural biological
associations of Florida. In addition, FNAI (2000) has provided a ranking system for these
natural community types based on their degree of imperilment in Florida. FNAI kindly provided
the authors with a list of 27 community types and their rankings that are present in Bay County
alone. Three additional community types present in Bay County that are not listed by FNAI
have been added. The 30 community types that occur in Bay County represents 43% of the total
number of communities listed for the State of Florida. Eighteen of the natural community types
of the 30 in our ecosystem are listed as imperiled (S1, S2, or S3) by FNAI (Appendix 1). These
community types are considered sensitive habitats for the purposes of this plan. An additional
three types of communities are present in the other counties included in the St. Andrew Bay
ecosystem. Appendix 1 contains the list of biotic communities from ecosystem, their definition,
and ranking.
The St. Andrew Bay ecosystem is a diverse mosaic of natural community types that
demonstrates a complex interrelationship of these communities with one another and with their
physical and chemical environment. The maintenance of these interrelationships, in conjunction
with the rapidly increasing human population and its need to alter communities, is a task that
requires careful thought.
Biodiversity. Biodiversity, in its simplest form, is the number of different kinds (species) of
organisms that occupy a given area. It can be viewed as the naming of all of the species that
occupy the Earth and a determination of their distribution patterns on Earth. It can also involve
the study of the ecological relationships between organisms, their genetics and their evolution.
Species diversity refers to the number of different kinds of organisms (species) that occupy a
given area such as an ecosystem, biotic community (community type), or a plot in your
backyard. It is not an easy task to determine the species diversity of even a small area in your
backyard. This is a result of the myriad species of arthropods, nematodes, protozoa, bacteria,
algae and other groups of organisms that may be present in addition to those that are more easily
seen and recognized. Methods have been developed by The Nature Conservancy, the Heritage
Programs of the states (FNAI is a state Heritage Program), and other organizations to track
species diversity and make sense out of the concept of biodiversity in general. Our concern here
is the species diversity of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem.
Stein et al. (2000) addressed the biodiversity of the United States and identified six areas of
significant biodiversity in the nation that they referred to as “hotspots.” This book is
recommended reading for anyone interested in biodiversity and ecosystem management. One of
the six “hotspots” is centered over the Apalachicola River basin with the St. Andrew Bay
ecosystem included to the west of the epicenter. One of the criteria used to identify the
“hotspots” was the number of rare and/or endemic species present in the area. The St. Andrew
Bay ecosystem supports a number of populations of rare and endemic species, a few of which are
known only from small areas of this ecosystem and nowhere else on Earth. “A Look to the
11
Future” contained the lists of the species so far reported from the ecosystem and will not be
reproduced in this revision. Those interested in the complete listings can refer to the original
document. However, those lists must be viewed as minimal because not all groups of organisms
were included. The lists do attempt to incorporate species from all the counties in the ecosystem.
The following discussion centers on Bay County because this area is entirely within the
ecosystem, and various lists of species have been compiled for the county.
The species diversity of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem has been partly addressed through
literature surveys and field surveys of various groups of organisms living in the ecosystem.
Emphasis has been placed on the species known from the St. Andrew Bay estuarine part of the
ecosystem and on the vascular plants of Bay County. Although lists of species of organisms of
various groups are available for the other five counties that make up a part of the ecosystem, the
specific locations for the species within a given county are not provided. Therefore, it is not
possible to determine which species occur in the part of the county within the St. Andrew Bay
ecosystem and which species do not occur without locating the original record or specimen for
each species. Therefore, the following summary of species diversity is restricted to the Bay
County portion of the ecosystem. Those interested in the complete picture could request
information for the other counties from FNAI and plot their element occurrence records on a
map.
Keppner (1996) attempted to catalogue the species known from the St. Andrew Bay estuarine
system based solely on reports from the literature. This effort resulted in the listing of 1649
species of invertebrates, 398 species of vertebrates, and 350 species of plants from the estuary.
Only 25 species were vascular plants, and the remaining 325 species were species of algae and
diatoms. This was obviously not a representative number of species of plants for the estuary or
the county. However, the list of species directly associated with the estuary totaled 2397. If less
stringent criteria for listing had been used, the number would increase to about 2530.
Keppner and Keppner (1997) provided a list of the vascular plants of Bay County. This list was
compiled from the list of vascular plants for Bay County given by Wunderlin et al. (1996) and
specimens present in collections of vascular plants in the herbaria for St. Andrews State
Recreation Area, Camp Helen State Recreation Area, and in the authors’ collection. The list
contained 1146 species in 474 genera in 137 families including non-native species. Additional
collecting of vascular plants in Bay County continued, and Keppner and Keppner (2001a)
provided a recent list of the vascular plants known from Bay County based on the above
mentioned collections and additional collections in the county. The list of vascular plants from
Bay County now contains about 1271 species in 512 genera in 151 families including non-native
species. Clewell (1985) listed 2359 species in 810 genera, in 181 families of vascular plants for
the Panhandle counties of Florida (Suwanee River westward to Pensacola Bay). The Bay
County portion of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem alone supports 54% of the species, 63% of the
genera, and 83% of the families reported from the Panhandle by Clewell (1985). Wunderlin
(1998) stated that the State of Florida supports 3834 species in 1306 genera, in 227 families of
vascular plants. The Bay County portion of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem alone supports 33%
of the species, 39% of the genera, and 66.5% of the families reported by Wunderlin (1998).
Recent publications by a number of workers have been located that would increase the species
diversity of the ecosystem appreciably through addition of freshwater invertebrates and
freshwater species of algae. With the known additions, one can conclude that the St. Andrew
Bay ecosystem has significant species diversity. If one adds the number of vascular plants now
12
known from the ecosystem to the number of estuarine animals and non-vascular plants known
from the ecosystem, the total for this restricted summary is 3643 species. To that number could
be added, at very least, the species of crayfish and Lepidoptera from the ecosystem that are in the
authors’ collections, reports of freshwater algae from DEP reports, records of occurrence from
FNAI, and the freshwater aquatic invertebrates in Payne (1997 a & b, 1998, 2000). A search of
the records at various educational institutions could easily increase the total number of species
many times.
The Indian River Lagoon was once considered to be the most species-diverse estuary in North
America. Swain et al. (1994) published a list of the species reported from the Indian River
Lagoon drainage basin of the east coast of Florida that contained 2493 species. The St. Andrew
Bay ecosystem is one half the size of the Indian River Lagoon drainage basin, and supports 3643
reported species. This makes the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem one of the most, if not the most,
diverse estuary in North America if the original statements from the Indian River estuary
supporters are correct. Regardless, the species diversity of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem is
impressive, and all levels of government should take notice of this fact.
In summary, diversity at the biotic community level and species level of the St. Andrew Bay
ecosystem is quite high and depends on the maintenance of the natural habitats within the
ecosystem. The maintenance of that biodiversity will be a challenge to those tasked with
planning the development of the ecosystem as the human population increases.
Rare, Endemic, and Protected Species. The St. Andrew Bay ecosystem provides habitat for a
significant number of rare, endemic, protected and/or tracked species of organisms. The rare
species in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem are those species that are present in limited numbers or
of limited distribution (Panhandle or Florida) but are not yet protected or are secure as a result of
their abundance on public land. These rare, unprotected endemic species also exist in the St.
Andrew Bay ecosystem and in adjacent ecosystems. An example is Hypericum exile Adams that
is endemic to the central and western areas of the Panhandle including the St. Andrew Bay
ecosystem. Endemic species are those that are restricted to a geographical area such as Bay
County, the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem or any other finite geographical area. We will examine
those species that are endemic to the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem and those that extend into an
adjacent ecosystem. Protected species are those species that are listed as threatened or
endangered by the State of Florida under state statute and/or the federal government under the
Endangered Species Act. Species tracked by FNAI include most of the formally protected
species as well as those of interest to FNAI because of their rarity.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service administers the federal Endangered Species Act and lists the
species protected under that act. The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs,
Division of Plant Industry, Bureau of Entomology, Nematology, and Plant Pathology – Botany
Section publishes a list of the protected plants of Florida (Coile, 2000). The Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission is responsible for the listing of state protected animals in
Florida (Wood, 1996). Appendix 2 provides the lists of species mentioned above as provided by
FNAI (Chafin, Pers. Comm.) for Bay County and records in Coile (2000) and Wood (1996) for
Bay County. Appendix 2 also contains a list of the protected and tracked species for the
ecosystem that was provided by FNAI for this report. Again, Bay County is chosen for a
detailed examination because of the extent of the ecosystem located in Bay County. Bay County
provides habitat for 39 species of protected and/or tracked vertebrates, 4 species of invertebrates,
13
and 55 species of vascular plants. The ecosystem contains 60 species of vertebrates and
invertebrates and 130 species of vascular plants.
The St. Andrew Bay ecosystem supports an endemic species of crayfish that is found nowhere
else on Earth except in a small area of Bay County. The Panama City Crayfish, Procambarus
(Leconticambarus) econfinae, is the subject of a survey supported by a grant from the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service to BEST, Inc. Keppner and Keppner (in prep.) will provide a report of the
results of that survey by June 30, 2001. Northern Bay County and southern Washington County
provide the only known habitat for a species of vascular plant found nowhere else on Earth. The
plant is smoothbark St. John’s-wort, Hypericum lissophloeus, which inhabits the margins of the
karst ponds in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem and part of the adjacent Choctawhatchee River
drainage basin. Keppner and Keppner (2001b) provided a summary of the reported information
and their observations pertaining to this species. Associated with this endemic species of plant
are a number of other species of vascular plants that are protected under state and federal statutes
or are rare or endemic to the Panhandle. The continued existence of the protected, endemic
and/or rare species of plants and animals supported by the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem should be
considered seriously in any plan for the management of the ecosystem.
Summary. The St. Andrew Bay ecosystem is a complex and highly diverse system of
interrelated physical, chemical, and biological components that provide value for the citizens of
the ecosystem. The physical and chemical components and their distribution and variation
throughout the ecosystem has provided for a diversity of habitats with their attendant
microhabitats. This provides for significant species and biotic community diversity in the St.
Andrew Bay ecosystem. Included in this species diversity are a number of quite rare and
endemic species that should be addressed as part of the plan to maintain the function and
diversity of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem.
Part 2. Status of the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem
Fortunately, the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem has not experienced the degree of alteration
experienced by some other Florida ecosystems. Many of those areas require extensive
restoration plans that are not required at this time for the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem as a whole.
The St. Andrew Bay ecosystem can be spared the fate of other Florida ecosystems through the
implementation of a management plan directed at maintaining the existing environmental quality
of the ecosystem and restoring those areas of the system identified as requiring restorative
actions. The sooner this plan is developed and implemented, the less the chance of irreparable
alteration of the system or alteration that would necessitate large-scale restoration plans and the
less expensive restoration will be.
According to an article in the News-Herald on April 1, 2001, Bay County, which accounts for
the largest area of the drainage basin, had a population of 148,217 based on the 2000 census.
This was a 17% increase in the past ten years, and a third of this occurred in rural areas. The
area of the ecosystem in the other four counties is sparsely populated with the possible exception
of the Sunny Hills development in Washington County. However, Washington County
experienced a 24% increase in population during the last 10 years (News-Herald, April 1, 2001).
The largest private landowners in the ecosystem are paper companies and development
companies. The St. Joe Company is the largest single landowner in Bay County with holdings of
about 296,755 acres (463 square miles). The extent of their ownership of land has not been
14
determined for the portions of the other counties in the ecosystem. The planned uses of the
undeveloped natural communities and that area of the ecosystem in silviculture or agriculture
will determine the state of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem in the future.
Current Terrestrial Use in the Ecosystem
The terrestrial habitats in the ecosystem are used by humans for a variety of purposes, including
urban development, suburban development, commercial activities, agriculture, silviculture,
recreation, etc. Some of the land is owned by the public and used for preservation or
conservation of natural resources and recreation. Other land is leased by the state for specific
uses such as hunting. The following is an overview of the distribution of private and public land
in the ecosystem and the use of the land.
Land Use and Ownership. Thorpe et al. (2000) in the SWIM plan for the entire St. Andrew
Bay drainage basin provided a table and a figure of generalized land use and cover for the entire
St. Andrew Bay drainage basin as they defined it (Fig. 2 from SWIM plan). Table 1 is taken
from that document.
Agriculture, Barren Land, Commercial and Services, Industrial, Institutional, Residential,
Recreational, Transportation, Communications, and Utilities have altered 114,853.99 acres
(about 15.5%) of the ecosystem. The table does not state what portion of the Upland Forests and
Wetlands categories are used for silviculture. The number of acres in these two categories that
are used for silviculture would increase the per cent of the ecosystem that has been altered quite
significantly.
Table 1. Generalized Land Use and Cover, St. Andrew Bay Watershed
Category Acres Percent
Agriculture 42,324.22 5.75
Barren Land 3979.8 0.54
Commercial & Services 6391.39 0.87
Industrial 2871.36 0.39
Institutional 1731.64 0.24
Recreational 10,109.31 1.37
Residential 38,011.75 5.16
Trans., Comm., & Utilities 9434.52 1.28
Upland Forests 500,151.51 67.95
Water 12,509.80 1.70
Wetlands 108,546.98 14.75
Ownership of the land in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem is divided among a number of entities.
Table 2 provides an estimate of the distribution of ownership of the land in the ecosystem taken
from the original edition of this document. Ownership may have changed for some of the land
since that estimate was made. The largest landowner in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem is the St.
Joe Company. The majority of the land owned by the St. Joe Company has been and currently is
used for silviculture. However, recent reorganization of the company appears to point the
company in a different direction, and silviculture may not be the primary use of the land in the
future. Large tracts of their land are available for purchase, and this could result in the land
being developed for a variety of purposes as the human population increases in the ecosystem.
15
16
Table 2. Major Landowners in the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem
Property Owner Acres Per cent
The St. Joe Company 296,755 42.00
Remaining private, county, municipal 144,972 20.51
Private land leased to Fl. Fish & Wildl. Conserv. Comm. 141,202 20.00
John Hancock Insurance Company 46,019 6.50
Northwest Florida Water Management District 37,271+ 5.15+
Tyndall Air Force Base 29,000 4.10
Chipola Land Company 9,841 1.39
Florida Division of Recreation and Parks 1,261 0.18
Naval Coastal Systems Station 665 0.09
Hunt Oil Company (Rosewood) 309 0.04
U.S. Bureau of Land Management 184 0.03
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ? ?
Florida Depart. Of Agriculture (forestry) 80 0.01
The land listed as leased by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission represents
land leased from private owners for wildlife management purposes. Most of the leased land is
used for silviculture, and the St. Joe Company owns much of the land listed in this category. The
leased lands are not public lands and use by the public can be restricted by the landowner. Also,
these leases can be ended in a very simple and rapid fashion with the land losing its wildlife
management area status. Since the estimate of these lands was made, withdrawals from the lease
program have occurred, and this acreage has been reduced.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has perpetual dredged material disposal easements
along the land cuts of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. These easements are 500 feet for the
channel, and a strip of land 500 feet wide on either side of the channel for a total of 1500 feet in
width for the length of the land cut. The total amount of land in easement to the COE has not
been estimated.
The majority of the xeric upland, mesic flatwoods, and wet flatwoods community groups (see
Appendix 1) appear to have been converted to silviculture. Although silviculture retains
vegetation on the land and protects the water quality of adjacent water bodies, it converts natural
terrestrial communities to non-natural essentially monocultural areas (such as a cornfield).
Harvest of the trees and preparation for the next planting may adversely impact the hydrology
and water quality if drainage, herbicides, pesticides, or fertilizers are used on the site. These
areas have a low biodiversity as compared with the natural communities and leave only a small
portion of these community groups in their natural condition. However, restoration of the natural
communities can be accomplished on these silviculture lands. An example is the restoration of
natural habitats from sand pine silviculture by the NWFWMD in the ecosystem.
Those lands used for silviculture are subject to Best Management Practices (BMP) established by
the federal and state governments. BMPs for silviculture were first established for Florida in the
middle 1970’s in response to the Federal Clean Water Act. The original BMPs were designed
exclusively to protect Florida’s streams and lakes from potential sources of pollution associated
with forestry activities. Silviculture BMPs establish a Special Management Zone (SMZ) which
consists of specific areas associated with a stream, lake, wetland or other water body within
which certain activities are not allowed in order to protect water quality by reducing inputs of
sediments, nutrients, logging debris, chemicals, and reducing water temperature fluctuations.
The SMZ is designated and maintained during the silviculture operations. SMZs have specific
17
criteria based on the size and type of water body involved and Site Sensitivity Class, which will
define the operating procedures and special management objectives. The Site Sensitivity Class is
based on the soil type and degree of slope for a particular site that determines the activities that
can occur within the zone. Adherence to the BMPs by those involved in silviculture activities
reduces the adverse environmental impacts of this activity on water quality and riparian habitat.
However, the substantial loss of the biodiversity of the natural biotic community still occurs.
Silviculture, residential and commercial development, transportation corridors, utility corridors,
and other human activities have resulted in the alteration and fragmentation of a large area of the
St. Andrew Bay ecosystem, and therefore, adversely effects many of the natural communities. A
number of agencies and private organizations are striving to purchase land in the ecosystem to
attempt to maintain a semblance of the natural system that once was.
Examination of Table 2 reveals the acres of land in the public domain. These parcels are owned
by the NWFWMD, Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s
Division of Recreation and Parks, Naval Coastal Systems Station, U.S. Bureau of Land
Management (BLM, 1995), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services’ Division of Forestry. The total number of acres of land
held by these agencies is over 68,461 acres or about 9.6% of the ecosystem. To this number can
be added the recent purchases of the NWFWMD and the Bay County Conservancy (a non-profit
citizens group). However, the public lands are scattered across the ecosystem (Fig. 3 from
SWIM plan) and are not interconnected. These fragments of public lands would benefit greatly
by being connected by corridors of land and water that would provide pathways of interchange
and migration for the organisms on each parcel. They would be connected to one another, thus
establishing a more natural relationship between them.
Solid Waste Management. Solid waste management in the ecosystem consists of an active
landfill site, a closed landfill site, and the incinerator. The Majette Landfill is the closed site that
is located northeast of Panama City. The site is divided into Majette North (Class III) and
Majette South (Class I). Both sites were permitted for closure in 1987. The north site was
closed with a clay cap and vegetated and then converted into a municipal golf course that was
subsequently privatized. One area of the north site that was used by Arizona Chemical Company
as a disposal unit was excavated and closed with a synthetic cap. The south site was closed with
a synthetic cover and a gas piping system.
In 1991, analytical results from the north site indicated that volatile organic compounds (VOC)
were contaminating the groundwater at the site. Most of the contamination was found in wells
within the area formerly used for sludge disposal by Arizona Chemical Company. The
hydrogeology and proximity to surface waters of the contaminated area made this contamination
of particular concern. Groundwater flow at the landfill site is toward No-Name creek that drains
to Bayou George and thence to Deer Point Reservoir. A contamination assessment was
conducted, and the results that were published in a report indicated that groundwater in the
surficial aquifer was contaminated in the vicinity of the former disposal unit. Contamination was
not found in any wells outside of the landfill site. Contaminants found in the surficial aquifer
within the site and with concentrations slightly above the DEP groundwater guidance
concentrations included benzene, chlorobenzene, vinyl chloride, chromium, lead, and fecal
coliform. The Bay County Solid Waste section has performed studies that determined there was
no adverse effect on human health, the environment, or Deer Point Reservoir and is working
18
with the DEP in a continuing monitor only plan to track the movement of these chemicals (Pers.
comm., William Hudson, Bay County, April 2001).
The active landfill site for Bay County is located off Steelfield Road on the western end of the
county. The location is out of the ecosystem as defined in this document because it is a part of
the Choctawhatchee Bay drainage basin. The Bay County incinerator referred to as a Refuse to
Energy (RTE) facility burns garbage and generates electrical power. The RTE is located in
northeastern Bay County, and emissions from the incinerator are discussed in the air quality
section.
Air Quality in the Ecosystem. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Air Quality Branch in
Denver, Colorado (Ellen Porter, pers. comm. to Charles Yautz, 2001) provided an analysis of the
information regarding air quality in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem based on data readily
available from various web sites. Other information is from the original document, “A Look to
the Future”. The St. Andrew Bay ecosystem is within an area classified as an “attainment area”
by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This means that documented air pollution
levels are below the minimum limits (National Ambient Air Quality Standards – NAAQS) set by
the EPA for the six criteria pollutants. The six criteria pollutants are nitrogen dioxide (NO2),
sulphur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter less than 10 microns in
diameter (PM10), lead (Pb), and ozone (O3). Primary NAAQS are set at a level to protect public
health, including the health of “sensitive” populations such as asthmatics, children, and the
elderly. Because the ecosystem is an attainment area, activities of the DEP Division of Air
Resources Management are primarily designed to prevent the air quality from deteriorating.
These activities include monitoring air quality, inventorying and quantifying the local sources,
and a continuous permitting and inspection program.
The monitoring program has one station in Bay County, located in the downtown Panama City
area at the Bay County Health Department. This monitor (monitor ID# 120051004) has been in
use since 1995 for the measurement of the levels of PM10. There have been no days where the
ambient air monitor has registered a concentration beyond the standard of 150 micrograms per
cubic meter. In July 2000, an ozone monitor was placed in Panama City Beach because of
growing concern regarding ozone pollution and transport along the Gulf Coast. The ozone
monitor will be used to demonstrate compliance or non-compliance with EPA’s proposed revised
NAAQS for ozone. Three years of data are needed to determine NAAQS attainment status for a
site. Data from this monitor (Monitor ID# 120050006) and from the PM10 monitor are available
at www.epa.gov/air/data/index.html.
Additional information regarding air pollution can also be obtained by measuring the types and
amounts of pollutants in rainfall. The National Atmospheric Deposition Program has a sampler
in Quincy, Florida that has been in operation since 1994. Annual and seasonal data for
deposition of pollutants is available at http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/. The St. Andrew Bay ecosystem is
not considered industrialized, so atmospheric deposition from local sources of the primary
pollutants is not considered to be significant. Whereas atmospheric deposition of nitrogen from
human activities is a problem in some ecosystems, it does not appear to be a concern for the St.
Andrew Bay ecosystem.
19
20
Other pollutants in the area are not monitored, because it is believed that the potential sources of
the pollutants, other than PM10 and ozone, are well defined and the levels of the other pollutants
will be below the standard. The Inventory of Pollutant Sources listed in Table 3 lists only the
sources considered to be “major”. To be a major source, a source must emit more than 100
tons/year of a primary pollutant or 5 tons/year in the case of lead. Sources not listed are below
the threshold, but are included in the total pollutant loading. Emission estimates are from the
AirData National Emission Trends Facility Emissions Report and the AirData National Emission
Trends Tier Report. Table 3 summarizes emissions of major air pollutants, including nitrogen
oxides (NOx), SO2, VOC (volatile organic compounds), CO, and PM10 for stationary, or point,
sources in Bay County. The three largest sources include the Lansing Smith Power Plant
(Smith), Stone Container, and Arizona Chemical. Other stationary sources contribute relatively
small amounts of major pollutants to the total emissions from all stationary sources in Bay
County.
Table 3. Air Pollutant Sources for the Ecosystem (tons/year).
Source NOx SO2 VOC CO PM10
Arizona Chemical 110 186 173 22 13
Stone Container 3,577 3,910 1,120 4,146 627
Gulf Power (Smith) 7,251 48,776 33 276 176
Total of 3 Sources 10,938 52,872 1,326 4,444 873
Other Stationary Sources 29 22 109 78 27
Total, All Stationary 10,967 52,894 1,435 4,522 900
Table 4 summarizes all common pollutant emissions in Bay County from point and area sources.
Point sources include the three largest stationary sources plus a variety of smaller sources that
produce emissions through fuel combustion and the use of solvents. Area sources include both
non-mobile and mobile sources. Non-mobile sources include certain types of fuel combustion
(including residential), road dust, agricultural and forestry operations, gas stations, wastewater
treatment plants, and a variety of small operations such as dry cleaning, surface coating, asphalt
manufacturing, etc. Mobile sources include gas and diesel autos and all other motor vehicles,
watercraft, railroads, and other vehicles.
Table 4. Point and Area Sources in Bay County (from EPA Airdata National Emissions
Trends Tier Report, 1985-1998) in Tons Per Year
Source NOx SO2 VOC CO PM10 PM2.5
All Point Sources 10,077 60,803 1,449 4,593 934 636
Non-mobile 185 316 120 3,545 5,145 6,789
Mobile 8,067 991 8,714 62,060 1,244 933
Non-mobile + Mobile 8,252 1,307 8,834 65,065 6,389 7,737
Grand Total 18,329 62,110 10,283 71798 7,323 8.373
Forest management techniques and the maintenance of certain naturally occurring pine-
dominated communities in the ecosystem depend on the occurrence of fire on a regular basis
through controlled burning (Appendix 1). These controlled burns and naturally occurring forest
fires may effect air quality at certain times of the year and may have an effect on the deposition
of substances produced by the burns. No information is available as to the effects of burning on
air quality, water quality, or sediment quality in the ecosystem.
21
Gulf Power Company operates a power plant on the shores of North Bay, the Lansing Smith
Plant. Gulf Power is the first participant in the statewide program called “Partnership for
Ecosystem Protection” in which companies pledge to reduce the environmental effects of their
operation. Participation in the program requires that the participating companies must be
currently in compliance and have a good compliance history. Gulf Power Company met the
eligibility requirements and Gulf Power has pledged to reduce nitrogen dioxide emissions at the
Lansing Smith Plant on North Bay by 30% from its 1992 rate of production. The reduction will
be achieved through installation of “Low NOx” burners.
All hazardous air pollutants (HAPS) are considered detrimental to humans and other species.
Information on HAPS can be obtained from the EPA Office of Pollution Control and Toxics at
www.epa.gov.chemfact/, www.epa.gov/ngispgm3/iris/index.html, and www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/.
The EPA lists mercury, among other substances, as a HAP. There is only one facility in Bay
County that is considered a potential mercury source, the Bay County RTE plant. This facility
burns municipal waste to generate electricity, reducing both the volume of waste sent to landfills
and the fossil fuel energy requirements of the area. The total mercury emission from this source
in 1997 was 0.10 ton/year, which is below the major source threshold of 100 tons/year.
Sources are permitted to operate based on pollutant levels that a well-maintained facility of the
type permitted would be expected to emit. In some cases (normally for a new major source) this
is based on an average of the cleanest 10% of similar sources nationwide. In other cases,
facilities are permitted to operate based on standard formulas that are based on BACT (Best
Available Control Technology), RACT (Reasonably Available Control Technology) or MACT
(Maximum Achievable Control Technology) determinations. Sources are required to publish an
“Intent to Issue” notice in the legal section of a local paper before the permit is issued to allow
time for public response.
All permitted sources are visited a minimum of once a year by DEP personnel to determine
compliance with permit conditions. General conditions in the permit include proper maintenance
of equipment and use of good engineering practice to minimize pollutant emissions. Many of the
permits require one or more annual emission tests to be performed by a third party to determine
if the facility is meeting its requirements.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1999) provided comments on the air emission reports for
three major air pollutant emitting facilities in Bay County, Florida. The three facilities are the
Stone Container, the Bay County RTE, and the Gulf Power Lansing Smith generating plant.
This technical report states at the beginning that “ The following analysis does not attempt to
determine if the three facilities are in compliance with State emission limits, as that analysis
should be performed by the State permitting agency. Rather, the following analysis includes an
estimate of the types and amounts of the pollutants likely to be emitted and an evaluation of the
level of emission control used at each site”. Additional caveats are included pertaining to the
calculation of the quality and quantity of emissions from the three sources. This is a technical
document and is available from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama City Office for those
interested in the details.
Table 1.e of the Fish and Wildlife Service report provides data for mercury that was calculated
according to a formula rather than on measurements of actual emissions of mercury from the
three sources. They estimated that a total of 143 pounds of mercury per year were emitted to the
atmosphere, but do not estimate the quantity that would actually be deposited in the St. Andrew
22
Bay ecosystem. The report also states that it would be preferable to establish deposition
monitoring sites near the bay.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report also states that as population increases, resultant air
pollution emission increases from increased power production, automobiles, and other sources.
It appears that neither of the above referenced reports is based on the actual measurement of the
substances emitted to the air by various sources except for the data obtained from the single
monitoring station for the PM10. It appears that ecosystem management would benefit from
obtaining direct data as to the quality and quantity of substances emitted to the atmosphere of the
ecosystem. With the information in hand, a plan to control any substances that may be
considered detrimental to the ecosystem in the quantities emitted could be developed.
Each major source has continuing programs related to air emissions that the above may not have
taken into consideration. Gulf Power is constructing a new generating facility at Lansing Smith
that will use natural gas as an energy source, and it appears that Arizona Chemical is
implementing various plans to reduce their emissions.
Current Water Use and Water Quality in the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem
The St. Andrew Bay ecosystem contains ponds, lakes, streams, and many types of wetlands (see
Appendix 1). The following is a brief summary of the major groups of ground water and surface
waters in the ecosystem.
Ground Water and the Deer Point Reservoir. The Floridan Aquifer approaches near the
surface in the karst pond area of the ecosystem where the freshwater lakes and ponds of this area
serve as sources of recharge to the aquifer. The water in the Floridan Aquifer provides high
quality drinking water to the citizens that use wells as a source of potable water. The aquifer
also provides the same high quality water to Econfina Creek that empties into the Deer Point
Reservoir. The Deer Point Reservoir is the source of drinking water for Bay County. The
NWFWMD has developed a SWIM plan for the Deer Point Reservoir subdrainage basin. That
plan can be obtained from the NWFWMD and should be consulted for details regarding land use,
water quality, etc. in this subdrainage basin. The NWFWMD land in the St. Andrew Bay
ecosystem has been purchased to protect the quality of the water entering the Floridan Aquifer
and the Deer Point Reservoir that is, at the time of this writing, excellent. Surficial aquifers with
varying water quality also exist in the ecosystem at varying depths below the surface.
Freshwater Lakes and Ponds. Numerous lakes and ponds are scattered throughout the
ecosystem with a concentration in the karst area of the ecosystem. As stated above, many of the
surface water bodies in the karst pond area serve as recharge areas for the underlying aquifer (see
sandhills lakes in Appendix 1). The karst ponds and lakes also serve as unique habitat that
support many rare, protected, and/or tracked species of plants. These lakes and ponds usually
have no surface inflow or outflow of water. Inflow of water is from rain falling on the land
around the lake and from the aquifer when levels in the aquifer are high. The outflow from the
karst lakes and ponds is to the aquifer or by evaporation. The karst pond area is the habitat of the
smoothbark St. John’s-wort and the associated rare, endemic, and protected plants.
Other freshwater lakes and ponds are scattered throughout the ecosystem and serve as habitat for
a diversity of species. They develop in depressions or along drainage routes and can be
permanent, semipermanent, or temporary in nature with regard to the persistence of surface
23
water. Many have inflow and outflow creeks and the substrate varies in composition (see
Lacustrine and Palustrine communities, Appendix 1). The ecosystem also has artificial lakes
such as Deer Point Reservoir, Lake Martin, Lake Caroline, and others. These lakes were formed
by isolating bayous from the St. Andrew Bay estuarine system and then allowing freshwater to
accumulate. Most of these lakes discharge directly to the estuarine system. Water quality in the
natural and artificial lakes and ponds varies.
Creeks and Springs. The St. Andrew Bay ecosystem contains a number of large and numerous
small springs that provide water to creeks and ponds in the ecosystem. The springs are located
primarily in the northern part of Bay County and southern Washington County where they
discharge water from the Floridan aquifer to Econfina Creek. This is water of high quality and
supports a commercial bottling operation.
The ecosystem does not have a large river system. The largest stream is Econfina Creek that
empties into the Deer Point Reservoir. This creek has been intensively studied by the
NWFWMD and is included in the Deer Point Reservoir subdrainage basin SWIM plan. Other
major creeks that enter Deer Point Reservoir such as Cedar Creek and Bear Creek are also
included in that SWIM plan.
A number of freshwater creeks enter directly into the St. Andrew Bay estuarine system. The
lower portions of these creeks near the bay are tidally influenced and the freshwater carried by
them mixes with the salt water of the bay. The major creeks entering West Bay are Burnt Mill
Creek and Crooked Creek on the north side of the bay. The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway enters
on the west side of the bay but is primarily salt water due to its connection to Choctawhatchee
Bay to the west. The land drained by Burnt Mill Creek and Crooked Creek is mostly
undeveloped and in silviculture but some residential development is present along both creeks
near Highway 388. Extensive areas of tidal marsh mark the entrance of these creeks to West
Bay. The major freshwater creeks entering East Bay are those entering Callaway Bayou, Cooks
Bayou, Laird Bayou, and Sandy Creek on the north side and the small creeks entering the bayous
on Tyndall Air Force Base. Callaway Bayou, Cooks Bayou, Laird Bayou, and the lower portion
of Sandy Creek have varying degrees of residential development.
The bulk of the natural surface freshwater water to the St. Andrew Bay estuarine system flows
over the Deer Point Reservoir dam at the head of North Bay. Ogren and Brusher (1977) stated
that the area of North Bay near this freshwater inflow was the only true estuarine water in the
entire system. Reduction of fresh water inflow to this system by increased withdrawal from the
Reservoir to meet the drinking water and high quality industrial water needs of Bay County may
have an adverse impact on the estuarine conditions in North Bay. The amount of fresh water
necessary to maintain estuarine conditions in North Bay has not been formally addressed.
However, according to the SWIM plan, the NWFWMD has proposed a budget to address this in
their five-year plan. The proposed budget contains funds for the years 2001-2003. Other
sources of freshwater to North Bay are the creeks entering the bayous along both shores.
Residential development is present around the bayous along the southeastern shore of North Bay.
A large amount of water is used for cooling purposes by the Lansing Smith Power Generating
Plant that is located on North Bay. North Bay also receives the discharge from the cooling
process (see thermal discharges below).
St. Andrew Bay proper receives the flow of water from the other bays in the system and is
connected directly to the Gulf of Mexico. St. Andrew Bay proper also receives all the
24
stormwater runoff and discharges from industry and public water treatment facilities with the
exception of one treatment facility. Urban development and industrial development occur along
most of the shoreline and bayous of this part of the bay system. Sources of freshwater are the
creeks entering the many bayous. However, most of these creeks serve as stormwater conduits
from the developed areas.
The St. Andrew Bay estuarine portion of the ecosystem is discussed in more detail in the next
section. The estuary is used for recreational and commercial fishing, boating, swimming, and
other water related recreational activities.
Non-point Source Discharges. Stormwater runoff from developed areas adjacent and
contiguous with the surface waters of the ecosystem can enter the surface waters with little to no
treatment. Stormwater runoff has been identified by BEST to be the primary threat to the
maintenance of the water and sediment quality of the surface waters of the ecosystem. DEP has
produced a number of educational pamphlets and booklets that provide excellent summaries and
discussions of stormwater dynamics, effect of stormwater runoff on water quality, purposes of
control and treatment, and the methods used in control and treatment of stormwater. Included
are the publications entitled “Stormwater Management. A Guide for Floridians” and “Florida
State of the Environment. Stormwater Management”. These publications are available from the
DEP office in Panama City, Florida.
The program that permits stormwater runoff for the State of Florida was established in 1982.
Most new developments, excluding single-family residences, must obtain a stormwater permit.
The permits require projects to include a stormwater management system that provides the flood
control required by water management district rules and must also deal with the quality of
stormwater. The state rule requires the use of Best Management Practices such as retention,
detention, or wetland filtration such that 80% of the average annual pollutant load is removed.
Outstanding Florida Waters and other sensitive waters such as those supporting shellfish
harvesting and waters below the water quality for their classification standards require additional
treatment. In 1989, the stormwater law directed DEP to establish statewide goals for stormwater
treatment and to oversee the implementation of the State’s stormwater regulatory programs, that
will be delegated to the Water Management Districts.
Bay County prepared a Strategic Plan for its stormwater system in 1994. The plan described the
first five years of a 15-year program for the construction of Capital Stormwater Infrastructure.
The mission statement stated: “The Stormwater Capital Infrastructure Program must protect the
health, safety, and welfare of the Citizens of Bay County by preserving the integrity of the
potable water supply, reducing pollution to receiving waters and attenuating flood waters.” The
plan includes the description of specific projects to fulfill the mission statement. The
implementation and completion of the projects described will reduce the adverse impacts of the
stormwater entering the surface waters of the ecosystem by initiating control of sediment inflow
and improving the quality of the stormwater entering the system. The stormwater plans of the
municipalities are incorporated into the county’s plan, and there is cooperation between these
entities on a case by case basis. The SWIM plan contains funds for addressing stormwater
treatment facility effectiveness and retrofitting stormwater infrastructure in the years 2001-2003.
Yautz (pers. comm., 2001) provided a summary of the status of the stormwater plans for the
municipalities and the unincorporated areas in Bay County. The major obstacle to the
development and implementation of stormwater plans appears to be the absence of funds to
25
accomplish the work. Each governmental entity addresses problems as they arise. Parker has
completed its plan and has completed two projects and must obtain grants to complete the other
identified projects. Springfield, Callaway, Lynn Haven, Cedar Grove, and Panama City Beach
are in the planning process or about to begin the process. Panama City is addressing the more
critical stormwater problems that they face as they arise.
Point Source Discharges. The assumption is made that the current laws regarding point source
discharges are being administered appropriately by the responsible federal and state agencies.
The EPA administers the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), but the
actual permitting of point source discharges has been delegated to the State of Florida, DEP. All
point source discharges have permits to discharge specific pollutants up to specified amounts to
the surface waters of the ecosystem. These permits are reviewed and renewed at specified
intervals. It is not known whether the permitting of new or previously issued permits is reviewed
in relation to the cumulative impacts of permitted discharges. Nor is it known if the assimilative
capacity of the surface waters receiving the discharges is sufficient to receive the pollutants with
no adverse impact upon water quality or the existing biotic communities. Therefore, the issuance
of new permits and the review of old permits for renewal may be accomplished in the absence of
the knowledge of the ability of the water body to assimilate the pollutants being discharged to the
system individually or collectively. This appears to be true for the St. Andrew Bay estuarine
system, because the assimilative capacity of the system has not been determined to our
knowledge.
The average person in the State of Florida generates about 100 gallons of wastewater per day
(gpd). This is an incredible amount of wastewater that must be treated in order to protect the
valuable surface and ground water resources of the State. The following is taken from the
SWIM plan. Discharges are permitted to sprayfields, percolation ponds, and other non-surface
water points. These discharges are considered to be reuse facilities because the portion of the
discharge that does not evaporate enters the local ground water. Discharges to surface waters are
based on water quality based effluent limit studies (WQBEL) performed by DEP. NPDES
permits are reviewed for renewal at designated intervals.
Progress has been made toward increasing the level of treatment of the wastewater discharged to
the St. Andrew Bay estuarine system. Bay County completed construction of an Advanced
Wastewater Treatment plant in 1999. This facility treats the domestic wastewater that was
previously discharged to the Military Point Lagoon. The Military Point Lagoon now treats the
industrial wastewater form Arizona Chemical Company and the Stone Container Corporation.
Table 4 is modified from the SWIM plan.
Yautz (pers. comm., 2001) provided a summary of the progress made by the municipalities
regarding the treatment of domestic wastewater. Every municipal wastewater treatment plant is
now an Advanced Wastewater Treatment facility (AWT). The municipalities discharge to St.
Andrew Bay with the exception of Panama City Beach that discharges to West Bay. The total
allocation of wastewater to St. Andrew Bay is 50 million gallons per day (mgd). The current
total discharge is less than that, and the level of treatment of domestic wastewater has increased.
This indicates that an improvement in water quality, particularly nutrient loads, should be
occurring. Panama City Beach has received a permit to increase the discharge of treated
wastewater to West Bay with conditions that include the eventual removal of the discharge from
the bay to a wetland treatment site north of Lake Powell.
26
Yautz (pers. comm., 2001) also provided information that there are efforts to reuse the treated
wastewater for the irrigation of golf courses in Bay County. It appears that Bay County’s AWT
facility on Tyndall Air Force Base places about 640,000 gpd on the base golf course and 54,000
gpd irrigating green areas around the facility. Lynn Haven is in the process of providing the
pipelines to carry treated wastewater for reuse on the city’s golf course and other recreational
facilities. It appears that the reuse of treated wastewater for irrigation purposes promises a
needed solution to the discharge of this water to the surface waters of the ecosystem. The SWIM
plan does not contain action plans pertaining to point source discharges. This is probably due to
the fact that the DEP is the agency responsible for the permitting of point source discharges.
Table 4. Summary of Permitted Domestic and Industrial Waste Facilities in the St.
Andrew Bay Ecosystem in Millions of Gallons per Day.
# Name Permitted Discharge Type
DOMESTIC
1 Gulf Aire Subdivision STP 0.070 Spray irrigation to land
2 Lake Merial WWTF 0.098 Discharge to percolation pond
3 Millville AWT Facility 5.000 Discharge to surface water
4 Pinnacle Port Condominium 0.090 Discharge to percolation pond
5 The Shores STP 0.055 Discharge to percolation pond
6 Sunny Hills WWTF 0.050 Spray irrigation to land
7 Bay Point STP 0.500 Spray irrigation to land
8 Sunnyside Beach & Tennis 0.050 Discharge to percolation pond
9 Sandy Creek Ranch 0.075 Spray irrigation to land
10 Cypress Apartments WWTF 0.016 Discharge to drainfield
11 Barrier Dunes/Seacliff 0.050 Discharge to percolation pond
12 St. Andrew WWTF 5.000 Discharge to surface water
13 Panama City Beach WWTF 7.000 Discharge to surface water
14 Military Point Regional AWT 7.000 Discharge to surface water
15 Tyndall CS Tr. Complex 0.050 Spray irrigation to land
16 City of Lynn Haven 2.500 Discharge to surface water
INDUSTRIAL
17 Louisiana Pacific Corporation No data Spray irrigation to land
18 Stone Container Corporation 24.000 To Military Point Lagoon
19 Military Point Lagoon No data Discharge to surface water
20 Gulf Power Lansing Smith No data Discharge to surface water
Thermal Discharges. Gulf Power Company operates a permitted two-unit steam turbine electric
power generating plant adjacent to North Bay. This is a coal-fired plant that uses bay water for
cooling, and the volume of the cooling water intake is measured. However, the facility does not
have a flow limitation or maximum discharge limitation. The heated water from the cooling
process is discharged back to North Bay through a long canal that allows the water to cool before
entering the bay. A number of studies were conducted by Gulf Power Company (Law
Engineering 1975, 1976, 1977, 1980, 1982, 1993) regarding the possible effects of their use of
bay water for cooling and the resultant thermal discharge. These studies have not revealed the
presence of significant adverse impacts to the bay from the thermal discharge or from
impingement and entrainment of organisms. The mouth of the cooling water canal appears to
serve as a winter thermal refuge for estuarine finfish such as speckled trout and redfish based on
the number of anglers one can observe in the area in winter.
27
Part 3. The St. Andrew Bay Estuarine System
The largest surface water body in the ecosystem is the St. Andrew Bay estuarine system. This
system is linked to the entire ecosystem through the surface runoff from the land directly to the
system and from the creeks that enter the bayous of the bay system. The St. Andrew Bay
estuarine system, therefore, is the depository for all runoff in the ecosystem both natural and
human altered. As such, the following overview of the St. Andrew Bay estuarine system is
included below. This is not to single out the St. Andrew Bay portion of the ecosystem as more
important than the other components of the ecosystem but because it receives the surface water
from the remainder of the ecosystem. The majority of the point source discharges and the
stormwater runoff from the most highly developed segment of the ecosystem enter St. Andrew
Bay.
General Description. The St. Andrew Bay estuarine system is located in the Gulf Coastal
Lowlands physiographic region. It consists of four named bays, West Bay, North Bay, St.
Andrew Bay, and East Bay (Fig. 4 from SWIM plan). The system extends for approximately 31
miles along an axis parallel to the Gulf of Mexico and 13.5 miles inland to Econfina Creek. The
estimates of the area of the entire St. Andrew Bay estuarine system proper vary from
approximately 94 square miles (Saloman et al., 1982) to 108 square miles (Pristas & Trent, 1978)
or approximately 8.5% to 9.8% of the entire ecosystem. The average depth of the system is
reported to be from 17- 27 feet depending on the source of the information. Historically, St.
Andrew Bay had two passes into the Gulf of Mexico, a man-made pass located at the west end of
Shell Island (West Pass) and one natural pass located at the east end of Shell Island (East Pass).
West Pass is maintained as a navigation channel by the federal government while East Pass is not
so maintained and is affected by the natural processes of the Gulf of Mexico. Currently, East
Pass is completely closed as a result of natural processes and possible effects of the federally
maintained West Pass. Plans to reopen East Pass have been developed, and the work is
scheduled for completion in the near future. The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway traverses the
system from west to east entering on the west at West Bay Creek near the Highway 79 bridge
and exiting on the east at the easternmost extension of East Bay (Wetappo Creek).
The restricted amount of freshwater entering the system allows the influence of Gulf of Mexico
water to dominate the bay. The basin itself is rather deep, with an average depth of 27 feet and a
maximum depth of 65 feet. As a result of the low freshwater inflow, deep basin, and the
influence of Gulf of Mexico water, St. Andrew Bay is characterized as a relatively deep, clear
water, high salinity system.
Habitats. Beck et al. (2000) provided the number of hectares of a variety of habitats associated
with the St. Andrew Bay estuary. There are 2.471 acres per hectare. The figures when
converted to acres are 9832 acres of seagrass, 9273 acres of saltmarsh, and 877 acres of tidal flat.
Other marine/estuarine biotic communities found in the St. Andrew Bay estuary are provided in
Appendix 1.
Hydrology. St. Andrew Bay is unique to Florida embayments in that no major river flows into
the system. Tides are diurnal, of small amplitude (about 1.5 ft), and can be modified by the wind
direction and velocity. The spring-neap tide cycle is apparent and occurs about every two weeks.
The system receives an average of 1,460 cubic feet per second (cfs) of freshwater excluding the
freshwater discharged to the system from wastewater treatment plants. About 60 % of this
28
inflow comes from Econfina Creek and Bear Creek both of which enter Deer Point Reservoir.
The Deer Point dam then discharges about 950 cfs to North Bay.
The area of North Bay immediately below the Deer Point dam has been identified as the only
major, truly estuarine part of the ecosystem (Ogren and Brusher,1977). The quantity, quality,
and timing of the discharge from the dam to this area of North Bay is critical to maintaining the
estuarine conditions found here. Increasing population will require additional withdrawals of
water from the reservoir that may alter the quantity and timing of the downstream discharge.
Downstream flow should be evaluated in the near future to assess the effect of increased
withdrawal from the reservoir. As stated previously, this work is scheduled for funding by the
NWFWMD in the years 2001-2003.
The remaining 40% of the freshwater inflow enters the bay system through major tributaries to
West Bay [Crooked Creek (35 cfs) and Burnt Mill Creek (35 cfs)] and East Bay [Sandy Creek
(105 cfs)]. The amount of discharge of fresh water from Wetappo Creek to East Bay was not
located. St. Andrew Bay proper has no major stream or creek entering it. Freshwater enters St.
Andrew Bay through the bayous and stormwater runoff.
Major permitted point source discharges include the Military Point discharge of treated
wastewater to East Bay (35 cfs), the Panama City Beach discharge of treated wastewater to West
Bay (10 cfs), and the discharge of treated wastewater to St. Andrew Bay from the Panama City
Wastewater Treatment Plant (7.75 cfs). The amount of treated wastewater to the system totals
52.75 cfs or 3.6% of the total natural freshwater inflow. Stormwater runoff is also a major
component of freshwater inflow to the system. The volume of stormwater entering the system is
not known. Details of the hydrology of the system can be obtained from Rodriguez and Wu
(1990) and Hydroqual et al. (1993).
Two hydrological models of the bay system have been produced. However, both models were
developed before East Pass closed. The closure of East Pass presents a problem in attempting to
use the models under present circumstances. However, East Pass is scheduled for reopening in
the fall of 2001, and the models should be adjusted to accept the dimensions and flow of the
restored pass.
The first was a rather limited model accomplished by Rodriguez and Wu (1990). The second was
a more comprehensive model produced for the Bay County Board of County Commissioners by
Hydroqual Incorporated (Hydroqual et al., 1993). The hydrological model produced by
Hydroqual was used to predict the movement and mixing of effluent from Bay County’s Military
Point Lagoon outfall. Water currents were predicted as a function of time and position
throughout the St. Andrew Bay system, incorporating almost 100 square miles. The model also
predicted the spatial and temporal variations of water levels, salinity, and water temperature. A
water quality model to predict the affect of the effluent on water quality constituents such as
dissolved oxygen and biological oxygen demand (BOD) used this information. The development
of the hydrodynamic model encompassed three phases: (1) collection of data to guide the
selection of a proper modeling framework and to provide information for initial and boundary
29
30
conditions needed to run the model, (2) adjustment of the model parameters to improve the
accuracy of the predictions, and (3) use of the calibrated model to predict long-term circulation
in the estuary and effluent dispersal patterns. Each phase is summarized below.
Hydrodynamic data collection consisted of water surface elevations and current measurements
during 1991 and 1992. Water levels were measured at six locations, four of which were at the
estuary boundaries near West Pass, East Pass, and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW)
entrances at West Bay and East Bay (Wetappo Creek). Water levels at two interior locations
near Lynn Haven and Parker were used for model calibration and validation. Current meter data
were collected at three sites in St. Andrew Bay. At each site, current speed and direction were
measured at two locations in the water column: near-surface and near-bottom. In addition,
temperature and conductivity sensors were attached to the current meters. The data showed that
the flow patterns in the estuary were quite complex due to the bay’s irregular geometry, tidally-
driven currents, and mixing of salt and fresh water. As a result, a three-dimensional model was
selected to accurately determine the time-dependent currents.
The hydrodynamic model was calibrated using data collected over a 100-day period during
September to December 1991. The purpose of the calibration was to adjust empirically-driven
model parameters to improve the accuracy of the predictions. The accuracy of the model was
estimated by comparing predicted water levels and currents collected at the interior stations in
the bay system against the model predictions. In general, the results showed good model
performance for reproducing tidal amplitudes and times of high and low water. Amplitudes and
fluctuations of the tidal currents were also well produced by the model. Measured and predicted
salinity and temperatures were compared at several locations around the bay system. Accurate
prediction of the vertical salinity profile is very important for water quality issues, and the
comparisons showed that the vertical stratification was predicted rather well. Temperature
profiles were also in good agreement, with the exception of a period of rapid cooling caused by
the passage of a front. The drop in water temperature caused by atmospheric cooling of the
water surface occurred more gradually in the model than was observed in the data.
The model was used to predict the bay’s long-term circulation patterns, which determine the
transport and fate of water quality constituents. The long-term mean flow should not be
confused with the highly time variable flow occurring over a single tidal cycle. During the
calibration period, the surface and bottom mean currents depicted a two-layer circulation pattern
in most of the bay. This circulatory flow was primarily generated by longitudinal density
gradients and modified by the mixing of fresh and salt water. The two-layer structure was
evident at the diffuser for the Military Point discharge site in the bay.
Net flow rates were calculated at Wetappo Creek entrance of the GIWW, West Bay entrance of
the GIWW, and the Gulf of Mexico during the calibration period. Daily flow rates at Wetappo
Creek were relatively low, generally less than 14,130 cfs compared to the more variable flows at
West Bay, where magnitudes greater than 35,320 cfs occurred regularly. Daily Gulf flows were
less than 35,320 cfs but were usually directed into the bay. Overall flow balance for the 100 day
period showed inflow occurring from the Gulf of Mexico and Deer Point Reservoir with mean
flow rates of 10,140 cfs and 945 cfs respectively. These inflows were balanced by the net
outflows at West Bay with 9113 cfs and Wetappo Creek with 2049 cfs. It is important to note
that this net flow pattern applies only to the calibration period. Other time periods, with different
forcing functions, may produce a significantly different flow structure.
31
Using the hydrodynamic predictions, the water quality model calculated effluent dilution during
the calibration period. At a location east of the Dupont Bridge in East Bay, the model predicted
considerably less dilution than was estimated by the 1988 U.S. EPA dye study. This may be
related to different circulation patterns during the two studies. The effluent dilution was reduced
during the calibration period by stratification and two-layer circulation occurring in the vicinity
of the Military Point diffuser.
Water Quality. The existing data reveal that the water quality in the system is, in general, good.
Bay County Utility Services Department maintains an extensive sampling program for the Deer
Point Lake Reservoir watershed involving 13 sampling stations. Bay County is working with the
NWFWMD to establish six stream flow stations and three rain gauge locations. Bay County
Wastewater Division performs quarterly sampling at 12 stations in St. Andrew Bay from the
Hathaway Bridge to West Pass to the Dupont Bridge. Bay County also performs an analysis
every four hours of the Deer Point Reservoir water being withdrawn for use by the public. The
St. Andrew Bay Resource Management Association (RMA) has a continuing program of
volunteer water quality sampling. This data is not used for regulatory purposes but provides for
a valuable analysis of trends for those parameters measured. The RMA (1991-2000) has
published a number of annual reports summarizing the data for the 60 + stations monitored.
The surface waters within the state of Florida are classified in accordance with their use, not by
the actual quality of the water. For example, a water body may be classified as Class III, but
have actual water quality that meets the standards for Class II. This water body is classified as
Class III because it does not have a harvestable population of shellfish. Each class is defined by
a set of parameters including the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of the water
and its intended use. The surface waters of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem are classified as
follows.
Water bodies designated as Class I are Potable Water Supplies. This means that the water is
used as a supply of drinking water, and the standards for this classification are the most stringent.
Class I water bodies in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem include Deer Point Reservoir and its
major tributaries: Bayou George Creek, Bear Creek, Big Cedar Creek, and Econfina Creek.
A water body designated as Class II is a Shellfish Propagation or Harvest area. This means that
oysters and other shellfish can be harvested in these waters. The standards for Class II water
bodies pay particular attention to those components that effect the quality of the shellfish
harvested in the area to protect consumers from possible diseases associated with the
consumption of raw or cooked shellfish. Fecal coliform standards are of particular concern, and
the state monitors these waters carefully. The Class II waters in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem
include East Bay and tributaries east of U.S. Highway 98, but excluding Wetappo Creek; North
Bay and tributaries north of Highway U.S. 98 to Deer Point Dam excluding Alligator Bayou and
Fanning Bayou.
A water body designated as Class III provides for Recreation and Propagation of Healthy, Well-
balanced Populations of Fish and Wildlife. Standards for Class III waters are not as stringent for
some parameters as for the above discussed classes and are directed at maintaining biodiversity
and water quality sufficient for human contact such as swimming and diving. All surface waters
in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem not listed as Class I or II or designated as an Aquatic Preserve
are designated as Class III water bodies.
32
Class IV and V water bodies are used as Agricultural Water Supplies (IV) or as Navigation,
Utility and Industrial Use (V). There are no Class IV or V water bodies in the St. Andrew Bay
ecosystem.
Aquatic Preserves are described in the SWIM plan as waters designated by the Florida
Legislature for the purpose of preserving their biological resources and maintaining these
resources in an essentially natural condition. The DEP, Office of Coastal Aquatic Managed
Areas is responsible for managing Aquatic Preserves in accordance with the applicable statutes.
According to the SWIM plan, the St. Andrew State Recreation Area Aquatic Preserve contains
about 25,000 acres located below the mean high water line. The preserve boundary on the north
is a line from Redfish Point westward to Courtney Point and south from Courtney Point into the
Gulf of Mexico waters off of the St. Andrew State Recreation Area. The east boundary extends
south from Redfish Point then eastward to East Pass, then into the waters of the Gulf of Mexico
off shore of Shell Island. Essentially, the Aquatic Preserve is the water adjacent to St. Andrew
State Recreation Area.
The DEP has determined that the best water quality is found in Econfina Creek and Sandy Creek.
However, health advisories regarding mercury content have been issued for the consumption of
largemouth bass in Deer Point Reservoir. The source or sources of the mercury have not been
determined. Water quality adjacent to the urban areas of the bay is lower than the undeveloped
areas of the system. This is probably due to the effects of stormwater runoff from the urbanized
areas. The heads of some bayous have been affected by stormwater runoff, and Grand Lagoon
has suffered a problem with siltation from runoff from the unpaved roads along the Lagoon.
The Florida Department of Health has been taking biweekly water samples from the St. Andrew
Bay estuarine system and the Gulf of Mexico at 13 stations for determination of fecal coliform
and Enterococcus levels in the water. Both groups of bacteria indicate contamination from
animal intestinal tracts. The results of their sampling efforts are available on their web site
www.myflorida.com under the section entitled environment. The results of each sampling event
are rated as good, moderate, or poor for each group of bacteria. A rating of poor, requires re-
sampling before issuing a health advisory. Health Advisories indicate that contact with the water
at the site may pose an increased risk of infectious disease, particularly for susceptible
individuals. Data from August 2000 through April 3, 2001 shows that all sites were rated good
or moderate with the exception of the station at Carl Gray Park that was ranked poor for
Enterococcus and moderate for fecal coliforms on March 20, 2001. As a result, a Health
Advisory was issued.
The concentrations of both groups of bacteria in water appear to be linked to the amount of
rainfall in a given period of time and to the stormwater runoff that results from the rainfall. The
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs, Shellfish Environmental Assessment
Section has developed a procedure to calculate the fecal coliform pollution of a water body based
on the amount of rainfall in a given amount of time. They obtain field data and calculate
conditions under which shellfish harvesting areas are opened and closed in relation to amount
and duration of rainfall. Areas with large expanses of impermeable surfaces cause stormwater to
runoff rapidly to the drainage system that ultimately discharges to a surface water.
Salinity in the St. Andrew Bay system varies with the distance from the passes to the Gulf of
Mexico. Salinity is consistently highest in St. Andrew Bay proper where bottom and midwinter
salinity typically exceeds 30 parts per thousand (ppt) on an annual basis. In the upper areas of
33
the system, salinity can fall to about 10 ppt after heavy rainfall. In water of sufficient depth,
stratification occurs with colder more saline, dense water occurring from mid-depth to the
bottom.
Nitrogen and phosphorus levels remain, in general, in the lower range considered healthy for
estuaries. Dissolved oxygen is generally good throughout the water column and at the water-
sediment interface. However, some deeper areas of the system can exhibit depressed dissolved
oxygen concentrations that approach the lower standard set for estuarine areas.
A problem area appears to be Watson Bayou that has experienced fish kills on an irregular basis
over the years. The 1991 fish kill in the bayou was thought to be a result of leaking sewage lines
and a sewage discharge to the bayou from the Millville Wastewater Treatment Plant located on a
peninsula in the bayou. Sediment contaminants in the bayou are addressed in the sediment
section of this report.
In February 1998, the DEP released a draft 303(d) list of the waters of the state that do not meet
applicable water quality standards. Table 5 is a list of those waters in the St. Andrew Bay system
that did not meet applicable standards in 1998, the cause of such designation, and the priority for
correction of the deviation from the standards. The source of the problems for the waters listed in
Table 5 appears to be predominantly stormwater runoff.
Currently, the FDEP is in the process of attempting to comply with the EPA conditions and
guidelines regarding the definition and listing of impaired waters of the state. The final list of
impaired waters for the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem must await the completion of that task.
Table 5. Segments of the St. Andrew Bay System on the 303(d) List, 1998
Name Segment Parameter of
Concern Priority
St. Andrews Parker Bayou 0 DO, nutrients Low
St. Andrews Pitts Bayou 0 DO, nutrients Low
St. Andrews Pretty Bayou 0 DO, nutrients Low
St. Andrews Robinson Bayou 0 DO, nutrients Low
St. Andrews Warren Bayou 0 DO, nutrients Low
St. Andrews Direct runoff 7 nutrients High
St. Andrews Massalina Bayou 9 DO, nutrients Low
St. Andrews Watson Bayou 12 DO, nutrients Low
St. Andrews Johnson Bayou 13 DO, nutrients Low
St. Andrews Calloway Bayou 14 DO, nutrients Low
St. Andrews Beatty Bayou 16 DO, nutrients Low
St. Andrews Deer Point Lk 20 Mercury* High
* based on fish consumption advisory
Sediment Quality. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama City Field Office conducted an
extensive study of the quality of the sediments in the St. Andrew Bay estuarine system (Brim,
1998). This survey emphasized the deeper sediments of the Bay and associated bayous. The
following was taken from the original document as submitted by Michael Brim of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. These sediments are mostly comprised of silts and clays with small
amounts of sand, and normally contain about 4% organic carbon. Unlike the shallow water areas
34
where the sediments are primarily quartz sand with little organic carbon, the deeper sediments of
the bay and bayous are particularly prone to become contaminated with chemicals because of the
quantities of fine grain materials and carbon. If released into the bay, harmful chemicals will
readily associate with these types of sediment substrates. Bayous in the urbanized areas of the
system receive runoff from the surrounding developed areas and demonstrate varying degrees of
siltation and possible sediment contamination.
The Fish and Wildlife Service evaluated over 100 sediment stations. The stations were located
both in the open bay and in about 37% of the associated bayous. The evaluation included
collecting composite samples of sediment at each station and submitting the samples to
laboratories for a number of chemical analyses. Routinely, sediments were evaluated to establish
the amounts (concentrations) of individual chemicals present including; organochlorine
pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 21 metals (including cadmium, lead, and
mercury), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), aliphatic hydrocarbons (AHs), and
occasionally dioxin and furan compounds. Sediment grain size (per cent sand, silt, and clay) and
the per cent of total organic carbon (TOC) were also determined for most samples. Most of the
work was accomplished during the late 1980’s with some additional samples collected during the
early 1990’s.
During the study period, the sampling revealed that sediments in the open bay were mostly free of
chemical contaminants. However, the evaluation also revealed that several of the bayous were
either significantly contaminated or were becoming so. The most contaminated sites included
Watson Bayou, Massalina Bayou, Martin Lake, and Fred Bayou. Sediment stations were ranked and
scored for the presence and amounts of individual contaminants using sediment quality guidelines.
However, it is important to understand that sediment quality guidelines have only been developed
for a limited number of chemicals. Of the twenty-two bayous evaluated, six (27%) were free of
"guideline" chemicals in amounts that could cause adverse biological impacts. On the other hand,
eight bayous (36%) had numerous chemicals present in amounts above or well above “guideline”
values, and it is probable that adverse biological effects could occur in these areas. The remainder
of the bayous fell somewhere in between these conditions.
Contamination observed at particular sites within St. Andrew Bay is probably the result of both
historic and contemporary anthropogenic activities. Sources of chemicals included or include
municipal and industrial point source discharges, urban stormwater runoff, boat and ship
building and repair facilities, ports and marinas, vessel discharges, and air pollution (with
associated atmospheric deposition of chemicals directly on the water or from land runoff).
Conclusions from the sediment evaluations are that the many bayous of the St. Andrew Bay
estuary are particularly susceptible to chemical contamination. In addition, the great majority
(over 50,000 acres) of St. Andrew Bay is deep (more than ten feet) and contains sediments rich
in silts, clays and organic compounds. This vast estuarine/marine area provides economically
valuable habitat for marine life, including commercial shrimps, crabs, seatrout, flounder and
mullet. These same deep-water sediments are of the type that are particularly susceptible to
chemical contamination, and therefore these large habitat areas should be protected as much as
possible from sources and releases of harmful chemicals.
Dredging for Navigation Projects. The natural depths of the bay system are adequate to meet
the needs of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW). Maintenance dredging of the GIWW is
not necessary within the bay system from about the Highway 79 Buchanon Bridge on the west to
the entrance to the land cut on the east. The federally maintained channel from West Pass into
35
the bay system requires periodic maintenance dredging of the entrance channel in the Gulf of
Mexico and the pass between the jetties to the fork in the channel into Grand Lagoon. Material
removed at each maintenance cycle is deposited on the beach on the west side of the west jetty in
St. Andrews State Recreation Area. The material is beach quality sand. The environmental
impacts of the maintenance dredging of West Pass have been minimal with the possible
exception of the role played in the closing of East Pass. East Pass is the historic, natural inlet to
the bay system. East Pass is currently completely closed due to Hurricane Opal and the possible
interruption of littoral drift by the jetties at West Pass.
The Port of Panama City facility has not required maintenance dredging as such but has
accomplished some new work. The dredged material from these projects has been placed in an
upland, diked disposal area. Current plans for deepening the facility involves the placement of
suitable material on Audubon Island in the bay to raise the elevation to a sufficient level to
protect the colony of nesting brown pelicans and other water birds from wave action and storm
surges. Dredged material disposal resulting from dredging at the Port does not appear to have
been a problem in the past.
The ship channel that traverses St. Andrew Bay to Port Panama City and Stone Container has
been proposed for deepening in the past. Deepening of the channel requires a place to dispose of
the dredged material. To a degree, the type of material to be dredged determines the possible
effects of the disposal method on the environment. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
usually evaluates alternative disposal methods for channel deepening projects under the National
Environmental Policy Act. It is during the review process that one addresses the environmental
impacts. Usually there are three methods to be evaluated, disposal on bay bottom, disposal in the
Gulf of Mexico, and disposal on land. It appears that the COE is in the process of addressing the
proposed deepening again with disposal of the dredged material in the open water of the bay
(Barkuloo, pers. comm., 2001).
Hazardous Substance and Material Transportation. The GIWW and the federal ship channels in
the St. Andrew Bay estuarine system provide a means of transporting large volumes of material
at a reasonable cost. The barges that traverse the St. Andrew Bay portion of the GIWW carry a
variety of materials such as coal, petroleum products, and other commodities. The vessels that
use the navigation channel to the Port of Panama City also carry a variety of materials to and
from the Port. Therefore, the opportunity for accidental spills of hazardous materials exists for
the bay. Within the St. Andrew Bay system, The U.S. Coast Guard has a station on the bay
adjacent to the Naval Coastal Systems Station and maintains an oil spill response group. The
Coast Guard has developed a Geographically Specific Tactical Response Plan to supplement the
Area Contingency Plan that is in place. The DEP also has an oil spill and hazardous waste spill
interest and works closely with the Coast Guard in the response planning process and onsite
decisions should a spill occur. The counties also maintain a hazardous waste containment
program to handle spills outside the jurisdiction of and in conjunction with the state and federal
agencies. Rail and truck transportation present similar problems and have similar solutions. The
local and state governments have developed the plans to address the possibility of accidents
involving hazardous materials from these sources.
36
Part 4. Threats to the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem
The activities that may lead to the alteration of the physical, chemical, and biological
characteristics of the ecosystem are all related to human activities. Habitat alteration and
destruction resulting from development and infrastructure needs, agriculture, and silviculture
reduce natural areas and fragment the ecosystem. Chemical contamination from point and non-
point source discharges and air emissions can alter the quality of the air, soil, water, and
sediments and therefore, alter the biotic portion of the ecosystem. It is sufficient to say that the
St. Andrew Bay ecosystem is experiencing a rapid increase in the growth of the human
population with attendant alteration of the ecosystem to meet its actual and/or perceived needs.
One could make a list of all the individual activities of humans that can adversely alter the
ecosystem, but this list would be quite long. The Action Plans developed for this ecosystem
management plan address the major human activities that have or will have an effect on the
functioning of the ecosystem. Therefore, very general categories of actions that can affect the
future condition of the ecosystem are provided here.
Human Population Growth. BEST and BEST, Inc. understand that the ecosystem can be
unbalanced or severely altered when a single population of a species begins to dominate the
system. This is particularly true if the species in question is greatly influential on the entire
ecosystem. Humans are the only species that is not subject to the natural factors that regulate the
density of a natural population in the ecosystem. The human population has succeeded in
protecting itself from the effects of climate, predators, most epidemic diseases, and other natural
density dependent and independent population control factors. Therefore, only the resources of
the ecosystem essentially limit the density of the human population as that ecosystem is
converted to human use. Conversion to human use is usually at the expense of the chemical,
physical, and biological characteristics of the ecosystem. The growth figures cited earlier for
Bay County (17% overall with 33% of that in rural areas) is a cause for concern from the point of
view of maintaining and restoring ecosystem functions. Development in rural areas fragments
the ecosystem into ever-smaller units that are separated from one another, and their functional
relationships can be lost or severly limited.
Humans can minimize their cumulative affects on such aspects of the ecosystem as surface and
ground water quality, air quality, and sediment quality by using pollution control measures and
the existing regulatory programs. However, the control of the density of the human population is
another matter. As density increases so does the loss or degradation of the habitats and
ecological niches of an ecosystem. This results in the alteration or destruction of the functions
and characteristics of that ecosystem.
Fragmentation of the Ecosystem. Dr. Eugene Odum (in an abstract from the 13th
Annual
Conference on Applications of Landscape Ecology in Natural Resource Management, 1998)
stated the problem with which we are faced. He said, “Humans tend to chop up the environment
into patches and strips with sharp boundaries thereby doing away with natural gradients and
ecotones (i.e. buffers) and creating a mosaic of numerous patches of many kinds of ecosystems.
Accordingly, land-use research and practical management must move up to the level of the
region, so we can focus on interactions and exchanges between ecosystem patches and how best
to arrange the patches on the landscape.” With this in mind, the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem
should be the region of concern as the citizens struggle with human density limits and the
pressure to increase the human density in the ecosystem.
37
Fragmentation of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem to accommodate the needs of an increasing
human population must be addressed to prevent the elimination of the ecosystem as it presently
functions. The land use planning process must understand and respond to the cumulative
adverse effects of the fragmentation of the remaining portions of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem
in addition to the direct loss of sections of the ecosystem by development.
The natural condition of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem was a mosaic of the communities listed
in Appendix 1. All the communities were interrelated and interconnected by ecotones (transition
areas where one community type grades into another type, and components of both communities
are intermixed). Ecotones are usually as diverse or more diverse than the adjoining
communities. Human activities (agriculture, silviculture, development, roads, etc.) alter the
natural communities and alter the connectivity between the remaining natural communities. The
remaining natural communities are fragments of the former system and no longer function in
relation to one another. The size of fragments is important in maintaining ecosystem functions.
The ecological literature contains references to studies performed on the size of fragments of
natural communities and their species diversity and use by certain groups of animals. The larger
the size, the greater the diversity and the greater the use by mobile animals such as birds.
Establishing corridors of natural communities between the remaining fragments can restore some
of the natural relationships including ecotones. Corridors also increase the size of the fragments
by uniting them, provide for the dissemination of the flora and migration of the fauna between
communities, and establish the natural functions of the fragments as a connected system. Roads,
particularly those with medians, are very effective in fragmenting the ecosystem. The
establishment of connecting corridors between communities should involve the consideration of
placement of wildlife crossings under the roads within the connecting corridors.
Existing Regulatory Framework and Ecosystem Management. The rapidly expanding
population of humans in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem poses a significant threat to the integrity
of the ecosystem. What can ecosystem management do to maintain or restore the functioning
and biodiversity of an ecosystem that is continuously and progressively under the control of a
single species (humans) within that system? It appears that the mechanisms are in place at the
federal, state, and local levels to reduce the adverse impacts of the human population on the
integrity of the ecosystem. The mechanisms are embodied in the federal and state environmental
laws and regulations and in the local Comprehensive Growth Management Plans required of the
counties and municipalities. Absolute compliance with these mechanisms is of great importance
to overall ecosystem management. Deviations or variances from these mechanisms will
adversely affect ecosystem functions. This is particularly true if deviations or variances become
the rule rather than the exception.
The overall purpose of the regulatory agencies and their programs appear to be the minimization
of the adverse effects of human actions on the environment. However, there are instances where
responsibilities conflict and other instances where differences in procedures or responsibilities
are confusing. Most of these agencies are subdivided into units tasked with the permitting of
specific human activities such as point source pollution, air pollution, alteration of wetlands, etc.
Assessment of the cumulative impacts of the actions permitted, and the application of the results
of such analyses is difficult to incorporate into a system designed to evaluate impacts on a case
by case basis. In addition, there is difficulty in relating the activities of one permit program with
the activities of another program, and the rules have a tendency to change as political parties
come and go from power at all levels of government. This results in an absence of consistency
38
and reliability of the programs over the long term. As a result, the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem
continues to be negatively affected by the alteration of the ecosystem for human uses.
The laws, rules, regulations, and procedures do exist, and they provide a means for public
comment and recommendations in the process. It is not the purpose here to describe in detail the
regulatory programs that are in place and functioning because it has been adequately addressed
in the previous edition of this document and in the SWIM plan. The purpose of this document is
to add to, refine, make recommendations, and seek information that will enhance the existing
state of the ecosystem and gain a better understanding of what must be accomplished to maintain
and restore, where necessary, the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem. Therefore, this plan does not flow
from current laws, rules and regulations (although they are an integral part of management) but
from the ecosystem itself as a functioning unit dependent upon the interrelationships of all its
components.
The ecosystem management concept is a means of providing facts about the ecosystem to the
regulators, uniting the various regulatory programs that are in place, and a means to oversee
those programs. It is easy to locate statements such as, “water quality is the key to ecosystem
management” or “sediment quality is the key to ecosystem management.” These statements are
false. Any single characteristic of the ecosystem is no more or less important than any other
characteristic of the ecosystem. To focus on one aspect is not ecosystem management and is not
the “holistic” view. It is not difficult to imagine a St. Andrew Bay watershed stripped of its
natural habitats and indigenous species, replaced with ornamental species, pavement, etc., while
surface and ground water quality meet the regulatory classification standards of those waters.
This could occur provided that the technology and means to sufficiently treat the volumes of
domestic wastewater, industrial wastewater, drinking water, and stormwater generated under
such conditions is sufficient to maintain the standards. However, the ecosystem with its
attendant biodiversity, sediment characteristics, soil characteristics, etc. would be completely
destroyed because the focus was directed at only one aspect of the natural ecosystem.
All of the human activities that degrade the ecosystem are the subject of one or more federal,
state, and/or local governmental agency. Yet the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem remains in
jeopardy.
Land Use Planning. As stated above, about two thirds of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem is
under the influence of the citizens of Bay County. The SWIM plan for the St. Andrew Bay
ecosystem provides human population estimates for the various counties in the ecosystem. Bay
County is, by far, the most populated county in the ecosystem and has a moderate to high rate of
growth. The land use planning process of the all of the counties will determine the state of the
St. Andrew Bay ecosystem in the future. Whether one prefers to discuss land use planning as
Growth Management or something else, it is this ongoing process and the final results of that
process that will determine the condition of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem in the future. Will
adequate preservation and conservation areas be incorporated into the evolving land use plans as
valid land uses? If so, will these preservation and conservation areas be protected from variances
or alterations of their designation? Will preservation and conservation areas be designated based
on the value of the ecosystem functions of the land and water incorporated into these areas or on
some other criterion? How will the most important functional areas of the ecosystem be
determined? Will the process provide for the continued existence of species that are rare,
endemic, and/or protected? Will serious consideration be given to providing corridors of
39
undeveloped land and water that will connect the existing and future public lands and reduce the
fragmentation of the ecosystem?
The citizens of the counties that are a part of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem must answer these
questions and thus, determine the fate of the ecosystem as they review and modify their growth
management plans. The growth management plan developed and modified by the citizens of
Bay County will have major effects on the ecosystem as a whole, the St. Andrew Bay estuarine
system, and the endemic species of the ecosystem. This ecosystem management plan, by
completion of its Action Plans, can provide information to the citizens as to the areas that would
benefit the maintenance of ecosystem functions through preservation or conservation of these
areas. The Action Plans that form the substance of this plan are directed at summarizing and
providing the information necessary to make informed decisions regarding the maintenance of
the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem.
Goals and Priorities for Ecosystem Maintenance and Improvement. Based upon the existing
information, the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem is in fairly good condition at present. The
ecosystem, as a whole, is not heavily urbanized and is, therefore, amenable to management
techniques that will assure the quality of the ecosystem and the quality of human existence in the
system well into the 21st century. Management of the growth in human population in the system
is a primary concern. Random, unmanaged growth associated with an increasing population can
result in the degradation of the ecosystem by altering the basic components of the ecosystem.
Included among the possible alterations is fragmentation of habitats, conversion of habitat to
infrastructure and housing, increased point source discharges and non-point source discharges of
pollution, increased nutrification and contamination of waters, and other problems attendant with
a growing human population. As stated above, growth management must play a major role in
minimizing the adverse affects of population growth and distribution of population density.
Actions have been accomplished to ensure the maintenance of some of the characteristics of this
ecosystem. The potable water supply of Deer Point Reservoir and the quality of the waters
entering it have been conserved and preserved through the actions of the NWFWMD and Bay
County. In doing so, the NWFWMD has also preserved large tracts of important habitat types
that will, if properly managed, restored, and connected to other public land, assure the
environmental quality of that subdrainage basin and enhance its biodiversity. The NWFWMD
has begun aggressive restoration activities on their land that is in silviculture to establish natural
biotic communities. The public lands in the ecosystem and their management to maintain the
natural characteristics of the ecosystem are essential parts of maintaining the ecosystem as a
functional entity. This is particularly true when these areas are interconnected.
Domestic wastewater treatment has improved. Conversion to AWT standards is improving the
effluent of all the systems discharging to surface waters of the St. Andrew Bay estuarine system.
A major discharge of treated wastewater from the Panama City Beach Wastewater Treatment
Plant to West Bay is proposed for removal from the bay and converted to a wetland treatment
area in the ecosystem. Stormwater runoff remains a problem but progress may be occurring
regarding the treatment of runoff. Problems remain in that wetlands are being lost and habitats
fragmented as the population increases at a rapid rate. The quality of certain types of sediments
within the St. Andrew Bay estuarine system appears to indicate that past practices have degraded
some areas of the bay that possess sediments that are disposed to the binding and retention of
pollutants. Watson Bayou is of particular concern regarding sediment quality.
40
The overall goal of the ecosystem management process for the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem is to
maintain and where necessary restore the ecological integrity of the system. Priority items to be
addressed should include:
1. Maintenance of existing water quality with emphasis on the treatment of stormwater
runoff. The NWFWMD is addressing this concern to a degree through the SWIM plan.
2. Reduction in the loss of habitat to development activities for residential, commercial, and
infrastructure needs.
3. Reduction in the fragmentation of the ecosystem by providing connecting corridors between
preservation and conservation lands in the ecosystem and adjacent ecosystems.
4. Reduction of wetland losses to development and conversion to other uses.
5. Protection of the surface water quality and conservation of water quantity. The NWFWMD is
addressing these concerns through the SWIM plan.
6. Restoration of seagrass beds and other habitats.
7. Maintenance of biotic communities and species diversity by preserving tracts of
interconnected land and water, preferably large tracts but not to exclude small tracts.
8. Preservation and conservation lands to be managed to retain natural or restored biotic
communities by recognizing the importance of fire and flooding to these communities.
9. Restoration of those water bodies or segments of water bodies that do not meet the criteria of
their classification as Class I, II, or III or become listed as impaired water bodies by the DEP.
Conservationists have traditionally relied upon the concept that public ownership of land and
water is the best method to ensure the survival of ecosystems. The land acquisition programs
that Florida has financed over the years are proof of the general acceptance that this is true for
effective ecosystem management. Preservation 2000 and other programs have placed significant
amounts of land in the public trust and preserved segments of the various ecosystems in Florida.
The continuation of these programs such as the current Florida Forever program is the
foundation of ecosystem management and restoration. However, it costs money to manage,
restore, connect, and protect these lands. Concepts are being developed that are directed at
involving land owners, through incentive programs, to be more directly involved in the
maintenance of ecosystems in Florida. Experimental and new methods should be explored and
given a chance to succeed with the realization that they also involve monetary costs to the public.
However, until these new ideas are proven, land acquisition and the connection of these
fragments must remain the cornerstones to obtaining the goals of ecosystem management.
In the final analysis, the success of the ecosystem management process in the St. Andrew Bay
ecosystem will rest on:
1. The amount of the ecosystem that is in the ownership of the public or in the trust of private
conservation organizations such as the Bay County Conservancy, Inc. and The Nature
Conservancy.
41
2. The reduction of fragmentation by the establishment of corridors of natural communities
between the segments of the ecosystem in public ownership and private ownership.
3. The restoration and quality of the management of the public’s lands including upland,
wetland, submerged lands, and their ecotones.
4. The desire of the citizens to maintain the quality of the natural environment of which they are
a part.
5. The success of the ecosystem management programs for private lands developed by state and
federal agencies.
6. The success of the land use planning process at the local level will be crucial to the success
of ecosystem management in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem.
42
Part 5. Action Plans for the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem
Introduction. The Action Plans are organized by sub-committees that would have the primary
responsibility for their implementation, such as: Natural Resources, Biodiversity; Natural
Resources, Habitat; Stormwater and Contaminants; Growth Management; and Education and
Outreach. However, many Action Plans overlap sub-committees, as one would expect. All the
Action Plans within a section are all inter-related and applicable to the overall goal of
maintaining or restoring the biotic or abiotic components of the ecosystem.
The first paragraph of each Action Plan provides the actions that have been taken pertaining to
that Action Plan since the publication of the first edition of a “A Look to the Future”. The
original Action Plans contained paragraphs that addressed a number of aspects of each Action
Plan. Review of these categories revealed that some are of little use, so they have been
eliminated unless they were considered pertinent to achieving the Action Plan. Estimate of cost
has been eliminated because the majority of these estimates were not based on a realistic
assessment and costs have risen. Sources of funding, regulatory needs, and monitoring of
environmental response have also been removed unless they were considered to be important in
actually achieving the intent of the Action Plan.
43
Action Plans for Maintenance and Restoration of the Living (Biotic)
Components of the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem, Natural Resources,
Biodiversity Sub-Committee
BD1. Species Diversity Assessment
Actions Completed: The activities that have been completed or are continuing that pertain
directly to the inventory of species in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem include the following.
Vascular plant species diversity in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem.
1. Keppner & Keppner (1999) completed the first year of a survey of the vascular plants of
Bay County with a grant from the Norcross Foundation. The herbarium of Bay County
Vascular Plants is located at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Office in Panama
City, Florida. The herbarium contained over 900 specimens. An update was provided in
December 1999, and the work continues.
2. Keppner & Keppner (2000c) provided specimens of vascular plants and a list of plants
from the NWFWMD, Econfina Creek Water Management Area to the NWFWMD.
3. Keppner and Keppner (2001) provided a revised list of vascular plants from Bay County
including the specimens in the NWFWMD collection.
4. FNAI continually seeks and catalogues data regarding the biodiversity in Florida.
Animal species diversity in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem.
1. Animal species diversity was not addressed directly in a number of reports but lists of
animals were presented. Some of these are Koenig et al. (1999) and Payne (1997a & b,
1998), and DEP and NWFWD (1992).
2. Keppner and Keppner (in prep.) have collected a number of species of crayfish from the
St. Andrew Bay ecosystem. This was accomplished in conjunction with a survey of an
endemic species of crayfish in Bay County. A report of the species collected and their
location will be provided to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in July 2001.
Action: Continue to determine the biodiversity of the ecosystem through the completion of
surveys of the most visible flora and fauna that have not been surveyed in the past and continue
the present surveys. Priority surveys should be directed at the freshwater fish, amphibians,
reptiles, and freshwater invertebrates within the system.
Background: Compilation of the species present within the ecosystem revealed that the
freshwater fish in the system have not been surveyed since 1954 and have never been surveyed
ecosystem wide. The amphibians, reptiles, and freshwater invertebrates have also apparently not
been surveyed recently. Mammals of the system appear to never have been systematically
surveyed. Therefore, surveys are required to understand the diversity of these important groups
of animals.
44
Strategy: The surveys of the freshwater fish, terrestrial mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and
aquatic invertebrates should be designed by the appropriate biologists of the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and others with knowledge of the particular
groups. The surveys could be performed by FFWCC personnel or by volunteers under the
supervision of FFWCC personnel or other knowledgeable organizations or individuals.
Expected Benefits: The benefits to the ecosystem would be to increase the knowledge of the
occurrence and distribution of these groups that provide recreational activities, both direct and
indirect, to the public. It would also provide information necessary to the management of the
ecosystem to maintain species diversity and serve as a means of educating the public to the kinds
and numbers of organisms that share the ecosystem with humans.
45
BD2. Comparison Survey of the Finfish of St. Andrew Bay
Actions Completed: Ogren and Brusher (1977) performed a study of the distribution and
abundance of the fishes in St. Andrew Bay. The study was based on a specific set of conditions
regarding fishing gear used, minimum depth of water sampled, and time of sampling. This
information can serve as a base line against which future studies can be compared.
Action: Reproduce the survey conducted by Ogren and Brusher (1977) in order to obtain a
comparison of existing finfish populations with those reported in the previous study.
Background: About 80-90% of the commercially and recreationally exploited finfish and
shellfish in the Gulf of Mexico are considered to be estuarine dependent. The status of certain of
those populations within the St. Andrew Bay system is currently unknown. Juvenile Red
Snapper were common in the 1977 survey, but they appear to have declined over the years based
on anecdotal information. A reproduction of the 1977 study would provide information as to the
current status of these species in the bay system.
Strategy: Design a survey to closely reproduce the 1977 survey to provide comparative
information as to the species present, their distribution, and numbers.
Expected Benefits: The trend in the populations of finfish subject to the sampling procedures
would be better understood. This information would be available for use in the management
plans for these species, and in the management of their habitats within the bay system.
46
BD3. Bay Scallop Recovery
Background: Bay scallops (Argopecten irradians) were once plentiful in most of St Andrew
Bay and St. Andrew Sound. Since the Florida Marine Research Institute (FMRI) survey in 1984,
population numbers have dropped dramatically. Figure 1 illustrates the current situation. Data
were taken from The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s (FFWCC) annual
survey data (1984-2004). As a result of the decline of this species, scallop harvesting has been
closed in St. Andrew Bay and the Sound since 2002. Since the closure, little or no recovery has
been documented.
Various specific causes (or combinations of causes) have been hypothesized to potentially
account for the population decline. They include: 1) loss of sea grass habitat, 2) red tide
(Karenia brevis) outbreaks, 3) storm water runoff (chemicals and/or turbidity), 4) the natural
closing of East Pass (with reduced recruitment of scallop larvae from the Gulf of Mexico and
reduced estuarine water circulation).
Recent studies and trial programs by the FMRI (St. Petersburg) have suggested that there may be
some potential management tools involving the capture and use of local brood stock as a
component of recovery strategy.
Because of their interest in the Action Plan, the lead partner within BEST would probably be the
St. Andrew Bay Resource Management Association (RMA).
Action: Produce a written Bay Scallop Recovery and Management for St. Andrew Bay using a
multi-partnership team of qualified and interested individuals. The written plan should include
the following components:
1. A complete review of existing and relevant scientific research reports and applicable data
bases.
2. A qualitative review of anecdotal and historical information.
47
3. An evaluation of the utility and application of an appropriate public information program.
4. A scientific and economic critique of the potential use of collected brood stock for
restoration purposes.
5. A scientific and economic critique of using mariculture technology as a restoration tool.
Strategies:
1. Circulate a draft recovery and management plan to interested members of BEST, the
scientific community and appropriate regulatory agencies.
2. After review, finalize the recovery and management plan.
3. Implement the recovery and management plan in the most efficient and cost-effect
manner.
Expected Benefits Restoration and proper management of the St. Andrew Bay, bay scallop
population will help assure retention of the biological integrity and diversity of the bay. Bay
scallop recovery, and eventual managed recreational and commercial harvest will be of social
and economic benefit to citizens at large. Preservation of the bay scallop resource will help
assure retention of the St. Andrew Bay area’s quality of life.
48
BD4. Assessment of the Protected, Rare and/or Endemic Species of Plants in the St.
Andrew Bay Ecosystem
Actions Completed: The actions completed that pertain to the vascular plants that are protected,
rare and/or endangered in the ecosystem include the following specific to the St. Andrew Bay
ecosystem. Reports addressing all of Florida include, but are not limited to, Cox and Kautz
(2000) and Cox et al. (1994).
1. The Bureau of Land Management has completed a preliminary survey of the listed plants on
the Lathrop Tract in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem. Included on the list are Pinguicula ionantha,
Verbesina chapmanii, Oxypolis greenmanii, Asclepias viridula, Scutellaria floridana,
Coelorachis tuberculosa, and Aster spinulosus. Hypericum exile was also found on the tract.
2. Keppner and Keppner (1999b) reported on a survey of 96 lakes, ponds, and basins on the
Econfina Water Management Area for Hypericum lissophloeus, Xyris longisepala, Xyris
isoetifolia, Rhexia salicifolia, and Drosera filiformis. The survey was supported with funds from
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
3. The Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) is about to complete a survey of Hypericum
lissophloeus on private land and to revisit the historic locations in their database. Work is
scheduled for completion by June 1, 2001. FNAI obtains information and tracks species and
biotic communities on a continual basis.
4. Keppner (2000) provided the NWFWMD with a report of observations of the response of
Hypericum lissophloeus and Rhexia salicifolia to the drought.
5. Keppner, Keppner, and Blanchard (2000) developed a brochure that provides information
regarding the conservation of protected species of vascular plants to property owners around the
karst ponds in northern Bay and southern Washington Counties. The Nature Conservancy
provided funds to print and distribute the brochures. The project was completed on March 1,
2001. The response has been sufficiently favorable for The Nature Conservancy to print
additional copies.
6. Keppner and Keppner (pers. comm. 2000) located a new location for Paronychia chartacea
minima on the Econfina Water Management Area. The location was forwarded to FNAI and
specimens were placed in the Florida State University Herbarium and the NWFWMD collection.
7. Keppner and Keppner (2001) provided the NWFWMD with a list of specimens they placed
in the NWFWMD herbarium. The list contained a number of protected and/or rare species.
NWFWMD has used the Global Positioning System to place the locations of these species on
their maps and aerial photographs.
Action: Continue to seek support and assist agencies in assessing the status and location of
protected species within the ecosystem.
Background: Stein et al. (2000) identified the central Florida panhandle area including the St.
Andrew Bay ecosystem as one of six areas of the United States noted for the diversity and
endemism of its flora and fauna. The management and conservation of this biodiversity is based
on knowing what species are present, where they are located, and their abundance.
49
Strategy: Continue to seek support to obtain information regarding the occurrence and
distribution of the organisms present in the ecosystem with emphasis on those that are protected,
rare, and/or endemic species.
Expected Benefits: Information regarding the occurrence and distribution of the protected, rare,
and/or endemic species would provide knowledge to update the status of species with regard to
their habitat status and the degree of protection, if any, that may be required to protect a species
or the species diversity of the ecosystem as a whole.
Monitoring of the Environmental Response: Revisit critical sites to determine the status of the
species or habitat based on FNAI element occurrence records.
Regulatory Needs: None unless information provided indicates that a species should receive
additional protection or become protected under the existing federal and state statutes.
50
BD5. Participate in the Development of Guidelines for the Protection of Protected Species
in the Ecosystem
Actions Completed or in Progress: The Bay County Board of County Commissioners voted
unanimously to direct the Bay County Planning Board to develop guidelines to protect the listed
and rare species in the Bay County portion of the ecosystem. FNAI is completing a survey of the
rare, endemic, and protected species of plants in the karst pond area of the ecosystem. The Bay
County Audubon Society adopted and provided funds for the printing of a manuscript describing
the biology and conservation status of the smoothbark St. John’s-wort and associated species in
the karst area.
Background: Bay County contains habitat that supports a number of protected, rare and/or
endemic species of plants. The karst pond area of Bay County is relatively well known as to the
location of this habitat.
Strategy: Provide the Bay County Planning Board with all information available regarding the
biology of the protected, rare and/or endemic species in the karst pond area and other areas of the
Bay County. Provide recommendations for the protection of these species, and restoration of
their habitats. Individuals or groups with knowledge of these species could serve as advisors if
so requested by the Planning Board.
Expected Benefits: The unique species of plants in the Bay County portion of the ecosystem
will be recognized and guidelines will be established to protect or conserve them for the future.
51
BD6. Assessment of the Protected, Rare and/or Endemic Species of Animals
Actions Completed or in Progress: The St. Andrew Bay ecosystem supports a number of
protected, rare and/or endemic species of animals. The following items are actions that have
been completed or are in progress that pertain to this Action Plan.
1. The St. Andrew Bay Resource Management Association has maintained a sea turtle nest
monitoring program for the past 10 years. The monitoring involves the location, protection,
relocation if necessary, and release of hatchlings at appropriate locations along the beach.
Annual reports of the nesting activities, per cent hatching, and number of juvenile turtles released
is provided each year (Watson, 1991-2000). The DEP, Division of Recreation and Parks surveys
nesting activities along the beaches within the St. Andrews State Recreational Area. Tyndall Air
Force Base conducts surveys along the beaches within this military installation.
2. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is studying the Gulf Sturgeon. Reports of this
anadromous fish in St. Andrew Bay ecosystem are sparse, but its occurrence should be
considered in the overall management of the ecosystem.
3. Keppner and Keppner (2000b) performed a limited preliminary survey of the Panama City
Crayfish designed to revisit the three previously known locations for this species. The volunteer
report was provided to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
4. Keppner and Keppner (in prep.) are in the process of completing a survey of the presence of
the Panama City Crayfish, Procambarus (Leconticambarus) econfinae in the ecosystem. The
final report is due June 30, 2001. The survey is supported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
5. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service maintains a program of monitoring the populations of
endangered beach mice inhabiting the sand dunes of Bay County in conjunction with the Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and they have been involved with the Piping
Plover Survey. The Service has prepared the Endangered Species component of the educational
materials for the Kindergarten through Middle School curriculum.
Action: Continue the monitoring programs and identify other species for study.
Background: Stein et al. (2000) identified the central Florida panhandle area including the St.
Andrew Bay ecosystem as one of six areas of the United States noted for the diversity and
endemism of its flora and fauna. The management and conservation of this biodiversity is based
on knowing what species are present, where they are located, and their abundance.
Strategy: Complete the projects in progress, add new projects as the need arises, and provide
the information to the governmental agencies and elected officials for inclusion in their decision-
making processes.
Expected Benefits: Information regarding the occurrence and distribution of the protected, rare
and/or endemic species would provide knowledge to update the status of species with regard to
their habitat status and the degree of protection, if any, that may be required to protect a species
or the species diversity of the ecosystem as a whole.
52
BD7. Preservation of the Panama City Crayfish
Action: Participate with state and federal agencies and the public to develop a plan to preserve
the existence of the Panama City crayfish as a component of the ecosystem.
Actions Completed: A preliminary survey established the continued existence of the Panama
City Crayfish, Procambarus (L.) econfinae, in the ecosystem. Additional survey work has added
additional locations for this species and has added information regarding the range of this species
in the ecosystem.
Background: The Panama City Crayfish is a true endemic to the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem.
The range of this species is restricted to a small area of Panama City and Bay County. Although
once thought to be extinct, it was rediscovered by the above surveys in 2000 and 2001. This
species is listed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission as a Species of
Special Concern (See Appendix 2). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will eventually decide
the status of this species as a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act or work
with private landowners to achieve a plan for preservation.
Strategy: Participate in and encourage the responsible state and federal agencies and Bay
County to develop a plan that will assure the survival of this species in the ecosystem.
Knowledgeable individuals and groups could offer to provide technical information, perform
field surveys if necessary, and provide public participation in the process.
Expected Benefits: A plan to preserve the Panama City Crayfish would be developed that
would be a result of a group effort and may preclude the lengthy and expensive process of listing
the species under the Endangered Species Act and elevating it to a threatened or endangered
level by the state.
53
BD8: Assessment of East Pass Closure
Actions Completed: None
Action: The initial action will be to examine the hydrological changes and circulation patterns in
the lagoon that has resulted from the closure of East Pass. An evaluation will be made as to the
benefits of applying the HydroQual Model. Secondary actions may be required depending on
the results of the initial studies.
Background: East Pass is the historical natural opening into the St. Andrew Bay system.
Concern has been expressed that the closure has altered the hydrology of that arm of the bay that
extends from Grand Lagoon eastward between Shell Island and Tyndall Air Force Base on
towards East Pass. Adverse effects on the seagrass beds and biodiversity of the system, which is
part of the St. Andrew Bay Aquatic Preserve, is conjectural, but important to the determination
of achievement of the purpose of the Aquatic Preserve designation.
Strategy: Examine the hydrologic regime and water quality effects of closure of East Pass, as
well as alternative strategies to address any beneficial or detrimental conditions identified. This
data will be provided to decision makers.
Expected Benefits: Results of the analysis should provide an indication as to the hydrological
quality of the system, and, thus provide information to assess the effects on the biodiversity of
the Bay and Aquatic Preserve. This analysis should form the basis from which decisions can be
made regarding appropriate courses of action.
Monitoring the Environmental Response: A monitoring plan will be developed to determine
the hydrological effects on the lagoon, to document quantities and species of aquatic life, and to
assess the cumulative response of the biota to the changed conditions at the Pass.
Regulatory Needs: If FDEP and USACOE permits would be required, it would be the
responsibility of Bay County to obtain these permits.
Related Indicators: Restriction of flows and reduced rate of circulation, if observed, would
affect the deliberations relating to stormwater runoff and water quality within the system.
Estimate of Cost to Complete the Action: To be determined.
Sources of Funds to Complete the Action: Bay County is requesting a USACOE 1135 Grant
which awards up to $5 million. The NWFWMD, Tyndall, AFB, Bay County are all potential
funding partners.
Reliable Resources: Bay County, municipalities discharging into the system, FDEP.
54
BD 9: Maintenance and Restoration of the Natural Communities of the St. Andrew Bay
Ecosystem: Invasive Exotic Species Management
Actions Completed or In Progress that directly pertain to the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem: Local State Parks the Bay County Conservancy and many private landowners have invasive
exotic plant management programs.
Members of the Friends of St. Andrew Bay have been attending workshops and compiling
information on the subject.
Keppner and Keppner have been maintaining a list of invasive non-native species currently
known to occur in the ecosystem.
Action: This action plan focuses on the eradication or at least the managed control of invasive
exotic species within the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem.
Background: Invasive exotic species are a serious and growing threat, both in Florida and
across the United States. They displace native plants and animals, seriously undermine
ecosystem stability, and threaten almost half of all endangered species with extinction. They
harm forests, waterways, fisheries, agriculture, and natural areas. In doing so, they impose
enormous costs on state and federal governments through their damage to human health, natural
communities, agriculture, forestry, fisheries and infrastructure (The Nature Conservancy,
Florida).
The Florida Invasive Species Working Group composed of all state agencies having
jurisdictional responsibilities for invasive exotic species has developed a comprehensive
statewide strategic plan that unifies and coordinates the responsibilities of government agencies
to prevent and manage harmful biological invasions in Florida. This working group has formed
a sub-working group to create incentives for private land owners to control invasive exotic
species.
The United States Department of Agriculture and various other entities have developed
information and protocols for exotic and invasive plant species management and disseminate this
information to the public through printed materials and workshops throughout Florida.
The Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council’s (FLEPPC) has created and maintains a list of Florida’s
invasive exotic plants.
Strategy: Continue to locate and identify invasive exotic species within the ecosystem. Educate
the public and provide local governments with information available on this issue in an effort to
develop a Cooperative Weed Management Area (CWMA) for the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem.
Expected Benefits: Benefits include the preservation of our ecosystem’s biodiversity along with
long-term economic benefits realized from an ecosystem approach to invasive exotic eradication.
Regulatory Needs: Inventory work and control may require permission agreements on private
lands, and permits for chemical treatments, where appropriate. A significant amount of work can
be accomplished on roadway right-of-ways and other public areas where outbreaks often
originate.
55
Action Plans for Maintenance and Restoration of the Living (Biotic)
Components of the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem, Natural Resources,
Habitat Sub-committee
HM1. Assessment of Lands and Sensitive Habitats
Actions Completed: FNAI has assessed the habitats of concern in the St. Andrew Bay
ecosystem and in a number of publications, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission has
addressed sensitive habitats from the point of view of sensitive species, mostly animals.
Action: Review the existing literature and synthesize it into a plan for the St. Andrew Bay
ecosystem. Map the sensitive habitats remaining in the ecosystem and determine their priority
for conservation or preservation as part of the overall goal of linking ecosystem fragments.
Background: The location and areal extent of the remaining natural habitats within the
ecosystem is unknown. The Fish and Wildlife Service has provided maps and a classification of
the nation’s wetlands including Bay County, but information regarding the other community
types is not of general knowledge. Knowledge of the location and amount of natural
communities in the ecosystem is valuable to planning to maintain ecosystem function and
connectivity.
Strategy: Request information from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) regarding any
studies they may have performed that identifies the location and/or extent of the natural habitats
in the ecosystem. Request species occurrence records for those protected and tracked species
from FNAI and plot these records on a map to determine the locations of these species.
Expected Benefits: The benefits to the ecosystem would be the identification of the areas
considered most valuable in maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem function. It would identify
those areas necessary to complete the actions required to place, in conservation or preservation
status, those areas essential to the enhancement of the existing public lands and would identify
the corridors of natural vegetation needed to link the lands. The information could be prioritized
to provide a plan for acquisition or conservation of these lands.
56
HM2. Identification and Mapping of Corridors Linking Public and Private Conservation
and Preservation Lands in the Ecosystem
Actions Completed: The NWFWMD has mapped the public land within the ecosystem. The
Bay County Conservancy, Inc. has purchased a tract of land in Panama City at State Avenue and
19th
Street and is seeking to acquire other properties for preservation. The City of Panama City
has mapped the remaining wetlands within the city limits. A group of citizens have begun the
process of identifying corridors and land for possible acquisition or as mitigation to add to the
ecosystem management areas. The scientific literature contains a number of articles that apply
directly to corridors, their types, their functions, and the efficiency of their use.
Action: Summarize the available literature and apply it to the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem.
Using the maps in existence and summary, identify corridors that will link the public lands to
one another to reduce the fragmentation of the ecosystem and provide floral and faunal
connections between the fragments. The Panama City wetland map should also be examined to
identify corridors to link wetlands in the ownership of the Bay County Conservancy and the City
of Panama City.
Background: The largest purchaser of public land in the ecosystem is the NWFWMD in their
goal to protect the surface and ground water quality of the Deer Point Reservoir subdrainage
basin. The District is continuing to seek purchase of out parcels in the Econfina Creek Water
Management Area (ECWMA) and along Econfina Creek itself. Pine Log State Forest is mostly
out of the ecosystem, but should be connected with the ECWMA. The inner city wetlands
should be connected as they are purchased, become conservation easements, or are otherwise
placed in a conservation or preservation status.
Strategy: Use the maps and aerial photographs from The Nature Conservancy and the
NWFWMD to locate corridors that will connect public and conservation lands together to reduce
fragmentation of the ecosystem. Present these corridor visuals to the NWFWMD and Bay
County Board of County Commissioners to be used as a basis for purchasing land and
developing a land use plan that will assure the connection and protection of those lands.
Expected Benefits: Reduce the isolation of the public and conservation lands in the ecosystem
by connecting them. This will establish functional relationships that are not present now.
57
HM3. Conservation of Primary Tributaries to St. Andrew Bay
Actions Completed: NWFWMD has developed and implemented a plan for the Econfina
Creek-Deer Point Reservoir subdrainage basin. The District has identified and purchased lands
identified as important in maintaining the water quality in the subdrainage basin.
Actions: Identify the lands along the major tributaries to the bay that would serve best to
conserve the ecological functions and water quality of these tributaries following the example of
the NWFWMD for the Econfina Creek-Deer Point Reservoir subdrainage basin.
Background: The major tributaries to the bay system, other than Econfina Creek, have not been
examined from the point of view of conserving the water quality and ecological functions of
these tributaries. The Burnt Mill Creek and Crooked Creek tributaries to West Bay and Sandy
Creek and Wetappo Creek tributaries to East Bay should be examined with the view of obtaining
public control over the management of these lands to conserve their ecosystem and water quality
maintenance functions.
Strategy: Use aerial photography to examine the degree of development along the above
referenced tributaries. Select those areas that will provide maximum diversity and water quality
maintenance. Perform field investigations of the selected areas. Provide the county commission
with the results.
Expected Benefits: This would provide the basic information necessary to take actions to
acquire the lands. Acquiring the lands or a management interest in them would provide for the
conservation of the diversity and water quality functions of these lands. Public lands and the
habitats existing on those lands will provide the basis for the survival and recovery of many
listed species of plants and animals in the ecosystem. The presence and abundance of the
populations of those species that are present on public lands should be investigated to provide
information to the managing agency or agencies.
58
HM4. Assessment of Freshwater Inflow Needs for North Bay
Actions Completed: Flow over the dam has been and is being monitored. The NWFWMD has
budgeted funds for this determination in the five year-plan described in the SWIM plan.
Action: Determine the minimum quantity of freshwater which must enter North Bay through the
Deer Point Dam that is required to maintain the estuarine nursery area of North Bay and assure
the maintenance of the harvestable oyster beds in the downstream, Class II waters of North Bay.
Background: Deer Point Dam was constructed in 1961 as a low level dam and spillway to
provide a source of potable water for the growth of Bay County. The dam was constructed at the
upper end of North Bay and impounds the high quality water entering from Econfina Creek and
other tributaries. The Bay County Board of County Commissioners was authorized by special
acts of the Florida Legislature to construct a saltwater barrier and convert a portion of North Bay
and the surrounding lands into a freshwater reservoir. The area had experienced saltwater
intrusion in a coastal well and a source of potable freshwater was needed to serve the residents of
the County and its industries.
Prior to the construction of the dam the impounded area was estuarine in nature. Brusher and
Ogren (1976) and Ogren and Brusher (1977) investigated the distribution and species of finfish
and shrimp in the St. Andrew Bay system. They concluded that the area of North Bay below the
Deer Point dam was a truly estuarine nursery area and important to the continued maintenance of
the populations of certain finfish and shellfish in the system. Their conclusions were based on
the quantity, quality, and timing of the freshwater inflows from the Deer Point Reservoir.
Deer Point Reservoir receives, on average, 619 mgd (millions of gallons per day) from its
tributaries. The historic low flow was 285 mgd during a recent drought. Bay County currently
has an intergovernmental agreement with the NWFWMD that permits the County to withdraw an
average of 69.5 mgd with a maximum daily limit of 82 mgd. A modification of this agreement
may occur in 2010 that would permit the County to withdraw a daily average of 98 mgd with a
maximum daily withdrawal of 107 mgd. The NWFWMD has also reserved to the County an
additional amount of water equal to the seven day/ten-year flow entering the reservoir for
resource enhancement purposes. Therefore, the total amount of water that could be allocated to
the County equals 285 mgd or the total flow at the historic low flow value.
Strategy: Obtain the information necessary to develop a study plan from the agencies with
experience in determining freshwater inflow requirements to estuaries. With this information,
develop a plan of study and identify the best path to completion of the study.
Expected Benefits: Maintain the estuarine nursery areas of North Bay for those estuarine
dependent finfish and shellfish present in the St. Andrew Bay system.
Monitoring the Environmental Response: Monitor the salinity regime after the freshwater
inflow determination is complete to assess the impact of the flows on the portion of North Bay
below the Deer Point Dam. Monitor the harvestable oyster reefs for their productivity and their
mortality due to natural predators.
Regulatory Needs: Regulations regarding the amount and timing of freshwater releases from
the Deer Point Dam may be needed. This will be determined following completion of the study.
59
HM5. Restoration of Audubon Island
Actions Completed: The Port of Panama City has obtained the necessary permits to conduct
dredging at the Port. A condition of those permits requires the Port to place suitable dredged
material on Audubon Island to restore damage incurred during Hurricane Opal. The Port has
placed riprap around the Island in preparation for the receipt of the dredged material.
Action: Support the efforts to restore Audubon Island, encourage the Port to place the material
on the Island during the non-breeding season of the birds, and continue monitoring of the
Island’s breeding bird population.
Background: Audubon Island is a small artificial island located off the Port of Panama City.
The Island serves as a breeding site for a wide variety of birds including the brown pelican.
Significant numbers of pelicans and other birds are reared on this island each year. Hurricane
Opal severely eroded the Island making it smaller and lowering the elevation. The Island should
be restored to provide needed bird nesting and rearing habitat. The Island is monitored by the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission regarding bird nesting activities.
Strategy: Continue the efforts to encourage the Port of Panama City to complete the work
required as mitigation.
Expected Benefits: Restoration of previous nesting and rearing conditions for the large number
of birds that use the island.
Monitoring of Environmental Response: Continue the state’s annual monitoring of nesting
success.
60
HM6. State Owned Submerged Land Assessment & Monitoring
Actions Completed: None
Action: Assessment and monitoring of state owned submerged lands.
Background: The State of Florida owns the lands within the state that are located at and below
the mean high tide line in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem. These submerged lands support the
variety of habitats found within the system from seagrass beds to intertidal emergent marsh.
These lands should be managed to maintain the integrity of the ecosystem. However,
information as to the extent of these lands, particularly the emergent saltmarsh, is not generally
known. In order to effectively manage the habitats located on these lands owned by the citizens
of Florida, one must know where they are and what habitats they support. Knowledge of the
lands below the mean high water mark is fairly well known. Emphasis should be directed at
determining the habitat supported by the intertidal zone, particularly Spartina and Juncus
emergent marshes.
Strategy: Request that the state agency responsible for holding these lands in trust for the
citizens of Florida produce a series of maps that delineate the boundary of the state owned
submerged lands in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem and establish the type of emergent marsh
habitats supported by these lands.
Expected Benefits: State owned water bottoms would be known and would, therefore, be
capable of management to retain the ecological functions of those lands without adversely
affecting private property.
Monitoring the Environmental Response: 1. Monitor the loss and alteration of these publicly owned lands through the permitting process
by requiring that any loss or conversion of state owned lands from its existing condition be so
recorded with the acreage and habitat lost or converted.
2. Examine the historical permitting information to determine the acres lost or converted and the
habitats involved.
61
HM7. Grand Lagoon Bridge Replacement
Actions Completed: None. Bridge replacement is in the planning process.
Action: Include in any future design for the bridge replacement and highway expansion a crossing
structure spanning the Lagoon that is a modern, cement-supported bridge that spans the entire width
of the Lagoon. The old earthen causeway currently in place could be completely removed. This
action will restore the historic, cross-sectional hydrologic dimensions of the Lagoon as it passes
under the new bridge.
Background: The causeway/bridge crossing created over Grand Lagoon in the 1950's has, ever
since, severely restricted tidal flushing, water exchange, and marine fish and invertebrate larval
transport. The structure has also severely reduced transport of pollutants and contaminants out of
the Lagoon. As may be seen in aerial photographs of the areas east and west of the Lagoon, the
structure has resulted in unusual tidal currents at the point of the small bridge that have resulted in
sediment transport beyond the bridge on each side. This has, in turn, resulted in the burial of
valuable sea grass beds.
Strategy: Comments should be provided to the Florida Department of Transportation and any
other appropriate government agencies to clearly define the need for adequate bridge replacement
and to accelerate such replacement. The recommendations should include complete removal of the
old earthen causeway, removal of all sediments east and west of the old bridge that have buried sea
grass beds, construction of a concrete-pile-supported bridge that spans the entire width of the
Lagoon.
Expected Benefits: Increased water quality, water exchange, restoration of sea grass beds near the
crossing, and increased biodiversity within the upper Lagoon resulting in enhanced larval transport
of marine fishes and invertebrates.
Monitoring the Environmental Response: The effectiveness of this action to the environment
will be measured as increased water clarity, water quality, tidal movement, biological diversity, and
sea grass bed recovery. The monitoring will be accomplished through several of the other Action
Plans identified within the document.
Action Plans for the Maintenance and Restoration of the Natural Communities
of the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem
Seagrass Management in the Ecosystem
Background: The seagrass community occupies a unique place in the St. Andrew Bay estuarine
system in that seagrass beds support highly diverse floral and faunal communities dependent on
the presence of the dominant seagrass species. Seagrasses reflect the health of the bay system
through their responses to alterations in various water quality and sediment quality parameters.
Seagrass beds also provide spawning, feeding, nursery, and protective habitat for a wide
diversity of aquatic organisms including many of recreational and commercial value. One
example is the relationship between seagrass beds and the production of gag grouper (Koenig
and Coleman, 1998).
Decline in the acreage of seagrass in the system would indicate that water quality and/or
sediment quality is changing in a manner that restricts their growth. For example, increased
turbidity restricts the quality and quantity of light reaching the seagrass beds. Decline in the
depth of penetration of light of adequate quality results in the decline in the quality of the
seagrass beds, the depths at which they can grow and reproduce, and therefore, the number of
acres covered by the seagrass. Seagrasses are used as an indicator of the health of the system,
because of their responses to changes in various water quality and sediment quality parameters.
Wolfe et al. (1988) stated that in total acreage the St. Andrew Bay system contains the largest
seagrass stock in the Panhandle of Florida. This statement was based upon data from McNulty et
al. (1972). Hydroqual Inc. et al. (1993) summarized the information on the acreage of seagrass
beds in St. Andrew Bay available at the time of their study, and Beck et al. (2000) stated that the
St. Andrew Bay estuarine system contained 9838 acres of seagrass beds. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service performed the most recent and thorough survey of the seagrass beds in St.
Andrew Bay based on aerial photography from 1953, 1964, and 1992. The survey was prepared
for the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Panama City Field Office. Table 1 is the summary of that
survey. The survey did not divide the seagrass beds by the species of seagrass that was dominant
in each bed. Therefore, nothing can be said about the species composition of the beds or shift in
species composition, if it occurred, during the times of the survey. The data is complex in that
shifts in acreage of the components analyzed vary from year to year. However, some
conclusions can be made based on the data in that survey regarding the overall acreage of
seagrass beds in the bay.
The following table indicates that there has been a 17% decline in the total acreage of seagrass in
the bay during the time of the study. This included a decline in the acreage of continuous beds in
the system. Continuous beds indicate the presence of a healthy seagrass system and are
considered to be the most valuable in terms of productivity, biodiversity, and habitat function.
Fragmentation of continuous beds into patches of varying densities indicates a decline in the
functioning of all aspects of the community. However, there are some natural areas in estuaries
that are subject to water currents in which the seagrass beds become established as patches and
remain patchy due to the flow of water through the bed.
63
Acres of Seagrass Beds in St. Andrew Bay, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Survey
Type of Bed 1953 1964 1992
Continuous 3771.97 5479.37 4324.88
Dense Patch 799.94 1746.74 3056.62
Moderate Patch 5968.69 3475.71 1368.57
Sparse Patch 1145.63 841.10 933.94
Very Sparse Patch 156.99 176.26 144.57
Total Acres 11,843.22 11,719.18 9,828.58
The seagrass species present in St. Andrew Bay are shoal grass (Halodule wrightii), turtle grass
(Thalassia testudinum), manatee grass (Syringodium filiforme), star grass (Halophila
engelmannii), and widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima). The large continuous beds appear to be
dominated by turtle grass and shoal grass. Manatee grass forms small continuous beds and is
more restricted in areas of the bay. The distribution and extent of Halophila engelmannii in the
system is unknown. Continuous turtle grass beds or turtle grass-shoal grass beds are considered
to be the dominant climax seagrass community in the system. However, the turtle grass in St.
Andrew Bay is at the northern extent of its range which may limit seed production and slow the
progress of rhizomatous growth resulting in these beds being sensitive to environmental
perturbation and are slow to recover from damage incurred. Turtle grass in the system
experiences a shedding of leaves in the fall that results in massive amounts of seagrass wrack in
the shallow water and shore of the bay. This material decomposes and provides a source of
nutrients to the bay system.
Factors that can reduce the extent or quality of the seagrass beds include increased turbidity,
dredging and filling, propeller damage and other mechanical damage, sediment contamination,
nutrification of the water column, and local sustained decreases in salinity. This complex set of
factors must be addressed in order to maintain and restore the seagrass habitats in the bay.
Unlike other wetland communities, sea grass beds are difficult to restore when damaged and very
difficult to create as mitigation for permitted losses. Loss of the climax vegetation from direct or
indirect causes can be considered a permanent loss due to the slow regrowth of turtle grass and
the inability to create new beds or restore damaged beds as mitigation for authorized losses in
this system.
Direct destruction of sea grass beds in St. Andrew Bay by dredging or filling and mechanical
damage should be avoided, because mitigation of losses by creation or restoration of these beds
have not been successful in the past. An example is the mitigation for the Michigan Avenue
outfall in St. Andrew Bay. Water quality should be maintained and preserved through actions
regarding stormwater runoff and point source discharges. The status of the seagrass beds in the
bay should be monitored for condition, distribution, and acres of coverage on a regular basis.
Steps should be taken to restore conditions conducive to seagrass growth in the system.
64
HM8. Monitoring of Seagrass Beds in St. Andrew Bay
Actions Completed: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service survey of the seagrass beds of the St.
Andrew Bay ecosystem was completed as referenced above. The St. Andrew Bay Resource
Management Association (RMA), in partnership with Gulf Coast Community College and DEP,
has begun a seagrass monitoring program at three locations in St. Andrew Bay estuarine system.
Transects have been established at a site near Shell Island, Grand Lagoon, and in West Bay.
Monitoring will be accomplished at each transect in the fall of each year. Data to be collected
includes species composition, shoot density, per cent cover, and canopy height. In addition,
water quality data will be collected monthly at each site including turbidity and
photosynthetically active radiation (quality of light). The work was supported by a grant from
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to the Florida Department of Community
Affairs. For additional information, one can contact the RMA at P.O. Box 15028, Panama City,
Florida 32406.
Action: Continue the monitoring of the areal extent of seagrass within the St. Andrew Bay
estuarine system on a five year cycle by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife using aerial photography.
Continue the St. Andrew Bay Resource Management Association seagrass monitoring program.
Strategy: Encourage and work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to provide an update of
the current seagrass survey from aerial photography on a five year cycle.
Expected Benefits: Provide information as to the status of the seagrass community in the bay.
65
HM9. Protection of Seagrass Beds
Actions Completed: A Bay County seagrass ordinance was drafted and proposed in 1999 by
Bay County and the Bay Environmental Study Team (BEST). BEST arranged for a community
forum to discuss the ordinance. The Bay County Board of County Commissioners chose not to
enact the ordinance at the time.
Action: Pursue additional state, federal and local legislation that would provide additional
protection for seagrass beds in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem.
Background: St. Andrew Bay is unique in the Panhandle for the acreage of seagrass beds
within the ecosystem. The climax seagrass vegetation is Thalassia testudinum which is at the
northern limit of its range in St. Andrew Bay. Therefore, recovery of damaged beds is unlikely
or will take many years. Creation of seagrass beds as mitigation for losses in the ecosystem is
essentially a permanent loss because attempts at creation of seagrass beds in the system have
been unsuccessful. All seagrass beds grow on submerged lands that are owned by the State of
Florida and are held by the state in the public interest. It is in the public interest to protect
seagrass beds on public lands because of their value to the ecosystem.
Strategy: Obtain all data and information pertaining to the recovery of seagrass beds in the
ecosystem and all data and information pertaining to mitigation projects involving seagrass beds
in the ecosystem. Obtain available information on the reproductive status of the seagrass beds in
the ecosystem and rates of rhizome growth, if available. Present the data and information in a
report to the appropriate state, federal, and local government agencies as support for a request to
prohibit the loss of seagrasses on public lands in the system.
Expected Benefits: Loss of seagrass beds to dredging and filling will cease or be significantly
reduced.
Monitoring the Environmental Response: If accepted, monitoring should take two paths. The
first should be directed at continuing the surveys recommended in HM8. The second is to
monitor the appropriate agencies to assure that no loss of seagrass is permitted by the
participating agencies.
Regulatory Needs: May require new legislation and/or changes to regulations and policies of
the responsible agencies.
66
HM10. Restoration of Lost or Damaged Seagrass Beds
Actions Completed: BEST received a grant from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2000 to
perform a pilot restoration project involving the planting of Spartina alterniflora and possibly
seagrass in West Bay. The pilot project is in the planning stage and will be completed in 2001 at
which time monitoring will be initiated.
Action: Identify the areas of significant loss of seagrass. Investigate the cause of the loss.
Initiate corrective measures to encourage regrowth. This is a long-term action due to the slow
regrowth, but this action is essential.
Background: The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service survey of seagrass beds and the attendant
maps of the beds in the ecosystem referenced above indicate that some significant losses of
continuous seagrass beds has occurred in various areas of the bay. These areas should be
addressed for corrective actions.
Strategy: Examine the existing survey maps. Locate areas of significant losses. Follow the
guidelines published by the National Marine Fisheries Service in determining the cause of the
losses. Initiate corrective measures based on the information gathered as to the causation of the
loss.
Monitoring Environmental Response: Those areas of loss that receive attention and corrective
measures should be monitored for recovery rates on an annual basis.
67
HM11. Restoration of Seagrass Loss in West Bay
Actions Completed: The loss of over 1000 acres of seagrass beds along the southern shore of
West Bay has been documented by examination of the aerial photography mentioned in HM10.
An idea for restoration is present, but a plan to achieve the restoration has yet to be developed.
Action: Develop a plan to restore the area in conjunction with all responsible and interested
parties.
Background: The survey of the seagrass beds in the ecosystem performed by the Fish and
Wildlife Service indicates that the shallow waters adjacent to Botheration Bayou along the south
shore of West Bay has suffered a loss of approximately 350 acres of seagrass beds. This
represents a 3% loss of the total acreage of seagrass present in the system in 1953 and a 3.6%
loss of the seagrass beds present in 1992.
Strategy: Design a study based on the possible causes of the loss of seagrass in this area to
attempt to identify the cause or causes. Begin the study with an examination of ambient salinity
and freshwater inflow in the area in relationship to seagrass beds. Use adjacent beds as a
comparison. Elimination of this possible cause will lead the investigation to the next hypothesis.
Expected Benefits: Identification of the cause for the loss will allow for the development of a
possible restoration plan. Restoration, if possible, would bring 350 acres of currently
unvegetated bay bottom back to a seagrass bed.
Monitoring the Environmental Response: Monitoring would not be required until restoration
activities, if appropriate, were commenced. Monitoring would then consist of examining the rate
of coverage of the expanding bed on an annual basis.
68
HM12. Innovative Pier and Dock Construction
Actions Completed: Shafer and Robinson (2001) reported on the results of a study that
evaluated the use of grid platforms to minimize shading impacts of docks and piers on
seagrasses. The study reached the following conclusions: 1) the use of fiberglass grating to
increase light transmission should reduce the amount of seagrass loss due to shading by docks
and terminal platforms. And 2) the method of piling installation used in this study minimizes the
physical destruction and removal of seagrasses, and resulted in nearly complete regrowth of the
bare area by the end of the second growing season.
Action: Work to have the conclusions of the report translated into regulatory action in the form
of an addition to the regulatory guidelines for dock construction in the Florida Panhandle.
Background: Traditionally, permitting agencies have addressed the need for waterfront
property owners to gain access to the water for navigational purposes by encouraging the
construction of docks or piers to navigable depths rather than dredging access channels to the
shoreline. A pile-supported structure has been considered the least environmentally damaging
alternative to the dredging of access channels. This is true in nonvegetated water bottoms.
However, information became available that the construction of pile supported structures over
seagrass beds can result in the degradation or loss of the seagrasses under the structure. As the
number of permits issued for piers and docks in seagrass beds increases, so does the possible
adverse impacts of these structures on seagrass beds. Each new structure adds to the cumulative
impact of existing structures. A less environmentally damaging construction alternative should
be encouraged or required to reduce or eliminate seagrass loss due to docks and terminal
platforms.
Strategy: Convene a meeting between the permitting agencies and the commenting agencies to
assess the results and applicability of the study to the regulatory process in order to conserve
seagrass habitat in the St. Andrew Bay estuarine system.
Expected Benefits: Will, if implemented, reduce the degradation and loss of seagrass beds due
to pier and dock construction.
Regulatory Needs: Encourage the regulatory agencies to address methods of implementing the
new techniques.
69
Management of Wetland Habitats in the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem
State and federal agencies involved in the management of wetland habitats or the regulation of
wetland habitats appear to agree with ecologists regarding the function of wetlands within
ecosystems. In general, wetlands have a high rate of primary production, support a high
diversity of organisms, retard and retain floodwaters, can serve as recharge areas for aquifers,
remove excess nutrients in runoff, trap pollutants in runoff, and protect shorelines from erosion.
Each type of wetland has its own set of characteristics and functional values to the ecosystem of
which it is a part. What is a wetland? The answer to that question is confusing, because a wetland is defined in a
variety of ways depending on the governmental agency in question. The answers to that question
can become quite confusing when one examines the various definitions of wetlands developed
by regulatory agencies. The state definition and the method to determine the state’s jurisdiction
over wetlands is different from that of the federal government’s definition and jurisdictional
methodology under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The result of these varying definitions
and methods for determining jurisdiction is that it is practically impossible to monitor the actual
loss of wetlands destroyed through the state and federal permitting processes.
What is a jurisdictional wetland for the federal regulatory agency may not be a jurisdictional
wetland for the state regulatory agency. Therefore, the two are not compatible regarding
monitoring of losses. The problem of monitoring of wetland losses as a result of the permitting
processes is further compounded by the individual agency’s concept of which wetlands are
“valuable” and the concept of mitigation. Wetlands of “lesser value” are considered as
exemptions, subjects for general permits, or subjects for nationwide permits. Records of losses
of wetlands resulting from the issuance of these permits is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain.
If one selects a single regulatory agency definition of wetlands and attempts to monitor permitted
wetland losses, one must also monitor the rate of compliance with mitigation requirements
agreed to in order to obtain the permits. The success of mitigating actions and the ecological
functional equivalency of the mitigating actions to the wetlands lost must also be considered.
This complicated process provides many avenues for analysis of the success of a permitting
program depending on the results one wishes to obtain. Therefore, any analysis of the success of
a permitting process involving wetlands is questioned.
Ecosystem management must address wetlands from their ecological function without attempting
to place a value on them to determine whether or not they will be permitted for destruction. In
addition, ecosystem management must address the importance of ecotones between wetlands and
uplands, because wetlands do not function independently of the surrounding habitats. Ecosystem
management, to be effective, must go beyond the micromanagement and complications of the
permitting systems. The FNAI definition of wetland types is not encumbered by regulatory
processes and is used for the purposes of this plan (Appendix 1). The action elements developed
for the management of wetlands in this plan are directed at obtaining this knowledge.
70
HM13. Wetlands Inventory
Actions Completed: The U.S. Department of Interior, National Wetlands Inventory completed
the maps for the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem in the late 1970’s. These maps provide an
acceptable baseline of the ecologically defined wetlands in the system. The City of Panama City
has hired consultants to prepare a map of the wetlands remaining within the city and perform
detailed studies of subdrainage basins.
Dahl (2000) provided some information regarding the alteration of various types of wetlands in
the United States from 1986 t0 1997. The report states that freshwater, non-tidal wetlands
experienced the greatest development pressure just inland from the coastlines of the United
States. Citing other sources, the report states that wetlands located in coastal watersheds of
many coastal counties are undergoing rapid growth, and they lead in many demographic
indicators of development. The freshwater wetlands were most susceptible to development from
rapid population growth, and the demand for housing, transportation infrastructure, and
commercial and recreational facilities. The report shows the coastal counties where there were
wetland losses between 1986 and 1997. Bay County is in the “high loss” category that is a loss
in excess of 150 acres.
Beck et al. (2000) estimated that the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem has 9270 acres of saltmarsh, 607
acres of tidal flat, and 47 acres of intertidal shrub/forest. However, the distribution of these
wetlands in the ecosystem was not provided at a scale usable to place on a map of the St. Andrew
Bay ecosystem.
Action: Determine the type, quantity, and location of the various wetland types currently
existing in the system based on the National Wetlands Inventory classification. Use the maps
being prepared for Panama City to inventory the wetlands remaining in City limits.
Background: Reasonably accurate, current information regarding the types, quantity, quality,
and location of wetlands within the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem do not appear to be available.
The National Wetlands Inventory survey maps for the system are about 20 years old.
Strategy: Review the existing Wetland Inventory maps of the system to obtain baseline data on
wetlands. These maps are available at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama City Field
Office. Determine the status of the updating of these maps by the Wetland Inventory to
determine when the new maps will be available. If the Wetland Inventory maps are not
forthcoming in a reasonable period of time, obtain the most current Florida Department of
Transportation aerial photographs and perform a comparison to determine the number of acres
and location of the various types of wetlands remaining in the ecosystem. Also, determine the
changes that have occurred by examination of old versus recent aerial photography.
Expected Benefits: The basic information necessary to manage the wetlands in the ecosystem
would be obtained. This information in conjunction with the information obtained from other
Action Plans would provide a basis for the determination of those areas necessary to maintain the
function of the ecosystem.
Reliable Resources: Panama City Wetlands maps, The National Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, NOAA (estuarine and marine wetlands), and Florida DOT aerial
photographs.
71
HM14. Identification of Areas for Wetland Restoration or Preservation
Actions Completed: The federal and state permitting agencies have established an area in
Panama City Beach to receive adjacent land for mitigation of permits issued for the alteration of
wetlands. Panama City has mapped the wetlands within the city limits.
Action: Determine the wetland areas in the watershed that can be improved through
enhancement, restoration, and preservation activities. Develop a list of locations and acreage
that qualify for the activities.
Background: The National Wetlands Inventory survey maps have identified the wetlands
within the ecosystem, but areas that could benefit from enhancement and restoration activities
have not been examined and identified.
Strategy: In conjunction with HM13, HM1, and HM2, review National Wetland Inventory
maps and contact wetland regulatory agencies to create a list of wetland sites that could be
candidates for enhancement and/or restoration. Identify the wetlands in Panama City that could
serve as preservation or conservation sites.
Expected Benefits: The candidate sites could be used as mitigation sites to offset wetland
impacts resulting from the wetland permitting processes within the ecosystem, develop corridors
between public land in the ecosystem, and be used as preservation areas.
72
HM15. Vegetative Buffers for Wetlands and Water Bodies
Actions Completed: County and municipal Comprehensive Growth Management plans may
have vegetative buffers stipulated in the plans. Bay County is in a state of indecision regarding
vegetative buffers for water bodies in the county with the exception of the requirement for
vegetative buffers around Deer Point Reservoir for those lands platted after adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan by the County.
Action: Review all comprehensive growth management plans in the ecosystem for the presence
of vegetative buffers for wetlands and water bodies. Encourage enforcement of existing buffer
zones and encourage inclusion of buffer zones in those plans that lack them.
Background: The holistic view of ecosystem management recognizes that biotic communities
within an ecosystem exist in a continuum. Humans place artificial boundaries on these habitats,
and, at times, forget that they are interdependent. Ecotones are important in maintaining
biodiversity and water quality when examining the relationship between wetlands, transitional
zones, and uplands. These are interconnected habitats with animal movement between and
dependent on the existence of the connections.
Strategy: Encourage the establishment of vegetative buffers and protect existing vegetative
buffers around water bodies and wetlands at all levels of government, particularly the counties
and municipalities in the ecosystem.
Expected Benefits: Improved water quality through protection and maintenance of wetland
functions adjacent to water bodies and conservation of wetlands and the wetland-upland
ecotones.
Monitoring the Environmental Response: Monitor the trend in increase or decrease of natural
vegetation around water bodies. This could be accomplished through periodic examination of
aerial photography.
73
HM16. Shoreline Protection and Vegetative Buffers
Background: This action plan would compliment Action Plans HM14, and HM15, but is more
specific to the problem of armoring and erosion. The shorelines of St. Andrew Bay, and its
bayous and tributaries, are being armored or eroded at an alarming rate. Bay County has a 30-
foot vegetative buffer requirement along the bay, but often citizens are not in compliance with
this requirement. Under current permit regulations, the DEP and Corps both frequently issue
permits for seawalls, riprap and fill that often negatively impact natural shorelines and fringe
marshes. This trend is causing a cumulative, major loss of intertidal and shallow shorezone
habitat for critically important to wading birds, small crustaceans and juvenile and adult fishes,
and other wildlife.
Actions Completed: There has been some effort to videotape, document, and quantify the
amount of shoreline armoring that is now in place in Bay County. This is not an organized effort
to do this and we are not aware of the status of this effort. There has been very little effort to
educate the public as to the damage done by replacing natural shoreline with bulkheads, or the
associated destruction of the natural vegetation along the shoreline. A small effort began in 2004
to restore both armored and eroding shorelines in West Bay and Pretty Bayou, which if
successful, can be a model for future restoration projects.
Action: Education of shoreline property owners would be a major component of the action plan.
Also, trying to change State and Federal policies on the issuance of permits for shoreline fill and
armoring is needed. There should be some way to give the property owners an incentive to leave
shorelines natural in addition to enforcing the vegetative buffer ordinance. An inventory of
armored and natural shorelines in St. Andrew bay and its tributaries is needed which should
include a listing of eroding shorelines that need protection/restoration. Restoration of these
altered areas is a viable option, but education and prevention of shoreline destruction a much
better option.
Strategies: The Education/Outreach and Natural Resources Habitat/Biodiversity Sub-
Committees would develop education materials to be used to educate shoreline land owners and
businesses regarding the values of natural shorelines. These sub-committees and BEST staff
should work with DEP and the Corps of Engineers to try to modify and improve the permit
requirements for shoreline armoring and land filling. We should furnish these agencies with good
educational material and publicize the need to keep shorelines naturally vegetated. BEST should
also encourage Bay County to enforce existing ordinances requiring 30-foot vegetative buffers.
Expected Benefits: Protecting natural shoreline habitat would help preserve the many native and
migratory bird species that depend on these habitats. It would also preserve fish and crustacean
habitats that are necessary to maintain a healthy bay. This vegetation acts as a buffer to filter
nutrients, contaminants, and sediments flowing into bay waters, helping to preserve the bay’s
water quality.
Monitoring and Environmental Response: Shoreline armoring and modifications should be
inventoried annually or bi-annually to determine the percentage of natural shoreline lost within
the bay area. Monitoring the number of bulkhead permits issued may be a valid way to track the
extent of the problem.
74
Regulatory Needs: A portion of the problem might be addressed within the State and Federal
regulatory framework. There seems to be no incentive for a landowner to leave the natural
shoreline and much social pressure to construct a bulkhead “like your neighbor has.” If the
permits were not so easily obtained, or if the agencies discouraged the construction of seawalls a
considerable amount of wildlife habitat might be saved.
75
HM17. Habitat Enhancement and Management of West Bay Dikes and Impounded
Wetlands for Bird Species, Marsh and Seagrass Propagation and
St. Andrew Bay Restoration Projects
Background: In the early 1970s, two areas of saltmarsh, seagrass, and tidal creek habitat in
West Bay were dredged and diked to create impoundments approximately 300 acres each. These
impoundments were constructed along the northeastern shoreline of West Bay, one northwest of
Warren Bayou and one to its southeast. The impoundments were constructed by a private
corporation to create shrimp culture and growth areas. Subsequently, sometime after 1970, the
corporation went out of business and the altered habitat sites were abandoned.
Actions Completed: In the late 1980s the U.S. Navy, working with the National Marine
Fisheries Service, breached the northwest impoundment dike in several places to connect the
impounded water with West Bay, thereby increasing tidal flushing. However no filling of the
“borrow channel” adjacent and parallel to the dikes took place, and these channels significantly
dictate tidal flow and direction, and probably restrict tidal sheet flow to the adjacent marsh areas.
After the project was abandoned and the above work accomplished, significant areas behind the
dikes became revegetated naturally by saltmarsh vegetation, primarily black needlerush (Juncus
roemerianus). Later in the 80s, the St. Andrew Bay Resource Management Association (RMA),
with volunteer help, planted one suitable site within the northwest impoundment with saltmarsh
cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora). The site was slightly less than one acre and is healthy today.
As recently as 2004, and at previous times, the impounded sites have been visited and inspected
by various government agencies and conservation organizations to determine if further
modifications could be accomplished to enhance the altered sites, thus increasing their habitat
value for marine life and wildlife. It has also been suggested that the two sites could be managed
to propagate marine vegetation that could be harvested under a managed plan and used as
material for restoration projects throughout other areas of St. Andrew Bay.
Action: This action plan would be aimed at evaluating the potential for habitat enhancement and
marine vegetation propagation and if feasible and appropriate, implementing actions to
accomplish these objectives.
Strategies:
1. The Natural Resources Habitat Sub-Committee, working with other members of BEST,
BEST Inc., and the Administrative Support Team, would complete an evaluation of existing
conditions at these sites, and determine the ownership of both the dikes and impounded waters.
2. If feasible and practical, an Enhancement and Management Plan would be developed for
these sites.
3. The Plan would be implemented by making the corrective and enhancement actions.
4. Funding, labor, and technical advice would be obtained to accomplish the above through
BEST partnerships, grants, and private donations targeted specifically for this Action Plan.
Expected Benefits: Three significant benefits would result from this work:
76
1. Over 600 acres of formerly altered bay habitat would be enhanced to further approach pre-
project conditions, thus increasing water quality, habitats, and the value of these areas to marine
invertebrates, fishes, birds and mammals.
2. Management of the growth and harvest of marine vegetation at the project sites on a
rotational, limited basis would provide much needed vegetative materials to repair and restore
other damaged sites within St. Andrew Bay, and would make unnecessary the permitting and
harvest of materials for restoration from “wild stands or beds” of saltmarsh or seagrass.
3. The enhanced and managed sites could serve as important environmental examples for area
students and the general public; the sites may provide opportunities for undergraduate and
graduate studies in coastal engineering and ecological conservation.
Monitoring the Environmental Response: BEST and its partners would develop and
implement not only a monitoring, but additionally a long-term management plan for the
enhanced areas.
Regulatory Needs: All necessary federal, state, and county permits would be obtained to
accomplish the work described above.
77
Action Plans for Maintenance and Restoration of the Chemical and Physical
(Abiotic) Components of the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem Stormwater &
Contaminants Sub-committee
Sediment Quality and Chemical Contamination in the Ecosystem
This section is taken from “A Look to the Future” as written by Mr. Michael Brim of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. Alteration of the living resources of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem
can occur through the chemical contamination or pollution of air, water, soils, sediments,
vegetation, and animals that result from commercial/industrial air emissions, vehicular
emissions, point source discharges, urban stormwater runoff, discharges from vessels, and oil or
hazardous material spills. It is the nature of chemical contaminants to cause subtle, insidious
injuries to biological organisms and their habitats. Furthermore, because they are caused by
chemicals, these injuries are usually the most difficult of all environmental impacts to observe and
to evaluate. Chemical contamination of the ecosystem can severely degrade habitats, significantly
reduce biological productivity and diversity, and even eliminate the presence of entire species.
Water and/or sediment that becomes degraded by toxic chemicals can generate contaminated food
chains that adversely affect numerous biological organisms. Top predators, such as eagles, dolphins
and turtles, can often be the most severely injured.
There are many difficulties associated with evaluating and correcting chemical contamination
problems. First, adverse effects are usually most significant during reproductive stages - developing
eggs, larval or embryonic phases. Injury and/or mortality are not easily observed when they take
place in invertebrates, fish, or bird eggs, or in the developing internal embryos of mammals.
Second, injuries caused by several chemicals working together (synergism) are difficult to
document and to understand. Third, chemical contaminants are usually generated not from one
single, easily identifiable source, but from several sources, often remote and diverse. The
environmental pathway from injured organisms back to a contaminant source or sources is therefore
often difficult to describe.
Chemical contaminants not only adversely affect fish and wildlife resources, they can also be
harmful to human beings. Concern is warranted when it comes to consumption of seafood and fish
that contain undesirable quantities of mercury, PCBs, dioxin and other harmful chemicals. Public
health agencies attempt to monitor concentration levels of undesirable chemicals that occur in food
products and public natural resource land and recreational waters. However, probably the best way
to protect the public health is to identify and control the sources from which harmful chemicals
originate.
78
SC1. Chemical Contaminant Sediment Monitoring Within the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem
Actions Completed: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has conducted an extensive baseline
evaluation of the chemical contaminants within sediments of the bay (Brim, 1998). The evaluation,
completed primarily in the latter 1980s, includes 103 sediment stations located in the bayous and
open waters of the bay. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sediment database for St. Andrew Bay
includes these 103 sampling locations and analyses for 61 individual chemicals. In addition, seven
locations have been sampled for 17 dioxin and furan compounds.
Action: Chemically evaluate, once every ten years, approximately 200 sediment locations in the St.
Andrew Bay ecosystem.
Background: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service began evaluating the chemical health of the
sediments within the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem in 1985. This sampling established a valuable
database for future comparison and monitoring of the health of ecosystem. This action is necessary,
in order to preserve and protect the vast, productive, and economically valuable sediment habitat
within St. Andrew Bay. It is also necessary to measure the actual effectiveness of contaminant
management programs in preventing the chemical degradation of the bay's vast sediment habitat
areas. Already implemented and operational management programs within the bay include: 1)
urban stormwater treatment facilities, 2) State-permitted, treated point source discharges, 3) oil and
chemical spill prevention initiatives, 4) State permitted, pollution control for industrial and
municipal air pollution emissions, and 5) regulation of port, marina, and vessel discharges.
The sediment chemical evaluation and monitoring program should include the following:
1. The already established 103 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sediment sampling locations.
2. The establishment of new sediment monitoring stations in the 37 (of 59) St. Andrew Bay bayous
that have never been sampled for chemical contaminants.
3. The establishment of additional "open water" bay stations, as necessary, for adequate scientific
sampling of the bay.
4. The establishment of 10 sediment sampling stations in Deer Point Reservoir, a major water
body in the ecosystem which has never been sampled.
5. Chemical evaluation of sediment samples at least once every 10 years, at approximately 200
sediment locations (stations) within the 70,000 acres of St. Andrew Bay and Deer Point
Reservoir.
Note: Two hundred sampling locations is a small, but adequate number, for this monitoring
program. Two hundred stations amounts to an average of one station for every 350 acres of
sediment habitat. This action will only require monitoring 20 stations per year on a rotational basis.
Strategy: Monitor routinely, 20 sediment stations each year. Evaluate the data base routinely to
establish trends in chemicals, locate problem areas, identify contaminant sources, and initiate
corrective actions.
79
Expected Benefits: The continued economic benefits of non-degraded habitat including valuable
production of marine and freshwater organisms for commercial and recreational harvest, the
preservation of harvestable organisms that are safe for human consumption, and the preservation of
a clean ecosystem for human recreation.
Monitoring the Environmental Response: Monitoring will be through annual reports that update
the data base, contain trend analysis, and define locations of concern. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service will manage the database.
Reliable Resources: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can serve as custodian of the database.
80
SC2. Evaluation of Dioxin Compounds Within the Ecosystem
Actions Completed: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has sampled marine sediments at seven
locations within St. Andrew Bay, including one bayou and an adjacent lake, for 17 dioxin and furan
compounds that are problematic to fish and wildlife resources. Dioxin and furan compounds were
measured at every site and included most or all of the individual isomers for which analyses were
run. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has sampled sediments at two other locations, and their
data are comparable to the Service data for the area of the bay.
Action: At this time it is not known whether the dioxin and furan chemicals detected in the
sediment samples from the nine locations (seven FWS and two Corps of Engineers) in the bay
constitute an ecological risk to fish and wildlife resources within the bay. Therefore it seems
prudent to evaluate the presence of these compounds more thoroughly to estimate the degree of any
ecological impact, identify any local sources, eliminate further discharges as much as practicable,
and to determine contributions from atmospheric deposition whether local, regional or remote.
Background: Dioxin and furan compounds are among the most toxic chemicals known. Their
toxic effects can take place at incredibly low concentrations; as low as parts per billion and parts per
trillion. The compounds vary in their toxic effects to different species, but they have been
determined to be carcinogenic, teratogenic, and to mimic estrogenic compounds. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency is scheduled to complete a very comprehensive reassessment of
dioxin in the environment and its human health implications. Canada will produce its guidelines for
acceptable amounts of dioxin compounds in surface waters, sediments, fresh water and marine
organisms, and wildlife.
Strategy: Develop and implement a Dioxin Habitat and Biota Assessment Program for St. Andrew
Bay to include additional sampling to estimate amount of bay habitat (sediments) affected and
degree of contamination, and organisms most at risk from exposure to dioxin compounds.
Expected Benefits: The evaluation will result in a determination of the degree of ecological risk, if
any, associated with the presence of dioxin compounds in the environment. If significant risk exists,
steps can be taken to reduce or eliminate such risk, thereby protecting bay habitat, fish and wildlife
resources, and the general public from unnecessary exposure.
Monitoring the Environmental Response: The first monitoring will be a final report of the
findings of a dioxin evaluation program within St. Andrew Bay. If steps are taken to reduce dioxin
concentrations within the bay habitat and biota, such can be measured via sampling implemented as
part of SC1 above.
81
SC3. Chemical Monitoring of Biological Organisms
Actions Completed: Some sampling of fish has been conducted in the past by the National Marine
Fisheries Service (1971) for metals. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sampled various fish
species, crabs and shrimp, for metals, organochlorine pesticides, PCBs, and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH) in 1986. Both sampling efforts were random and very limited.
Action: Develop a Chemical Contaminant Monitoring Program for biological resources within the
bay. The program should evaluate the resources consumed by the public (fish fillets, shrimp, and
crabs). The program should also evaluate any chemical contaminants that could adversely effect
species health and survivability, species reproductive capacity, biological diversity, and overall
productivity by analyses of such tissues as eggs, fat, liver, etc. The program should also include
opportunistic evaluation of aquatic birds, bird eggs, and incidental mortality of sea turtles and
bottlenose dolphins. The program would include five separate annual components. One component
would be completed each year, thus splitting the sampling into a five-year rotational system.
Background: Monitoring of the health of the bay’s biological organisms has not been done on any
systematic basis.
Strategy: Select and monitor indicator species representative of important groups and habitats.
These indicator species should include ten fish species, four birds, and occasional, opportunistic
evaluation of sea turtle and bottlenose dolphin mortalities. Chemical analyses should include
organochlorine compounds, metals, and PAH compounds. Other chemical compounds may need to
be included after review of the bay’s habitat conditions, however dioxin and furan compounds are
treated separately at this time (see action item SC2.)
Expected Benefits: Benefits include: identification of contaminant problems within biota,
correction of problems through identification of pathways of chemicals and sources, conservation of
the bay’s high species diversity, maintenance and possible increase of the bay’s biological
productivity (biomass), and protections of consumers of the bay’ seafood.
Monitoring the Environmental Response: The environmental response would be monitored
through the annual publication of monitoring reports, and a 5-year summary report. Trend analyses
could begin after publication of the second 5-year report.
82
SC4. Determine the Current Status of Air Quality in the Ecosystem
Actions Completed: The single air quality parameter measured in the ecosystem is particulate
matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10). The ecosystem is considered an attainment area
for the other six priority pollutants listed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
However, growth may have altered the composition of the other six priority pollutants in the
ecosystem.
Action: Request that DEP or the appropriate federal agency add a second air quality monitoring
station in the ecosystem to obtain data on the amount of mercury possibly being emitted to the
atmosphere and to assess the other five priority pollutants in the atmosphere.
Background: The single monitoring station for PM10 only has been in operation since 1992.
The Deer Point Lake Reservoir was listed in 1998 as an impaired water body based on an
advisory directed at the human consumption of fish taken from the Reservoir. Mercury was
listed as the parameter of concern (see air quality section of this plan). The possible ecological
effects of mercury in the food chains of biotic communities are well established in the literature.
Strategy: Contact the appropriate state and federal agencies and request that an additional air
quality monitoring station be placed in the ecosystem or the present station be modified to
address mercury and the other priority pollutants.
83
SC5. Restoration of Martin Lake Habitat
Actions Completed: The Fish and Wildlife Service has completed a preliminary evaluation of the
chemical contaminants occurring in the sediments of the lake, and the Florida Game and Fish
Commission has conducted fish surveys in the lake. Following a two year effort, the City of
Springfield received a grant in 1998 to study Martin Lake and correct stormwater problems. A
consulting firm was retained and a plan is being developed to assess the water quality, benthic
communities, and sediment quality. The studies have begun or are about to commence.
Action: If warranted, restore the lake habitat to an uncontaminated condition that allows all public
recreational uses without risk, and that reduces ecological risk to species that use the lake as habitat,
including migratory birds, aquatic mammals, fishes and invertebrates.
Background: Prior to the 1950's, the lake was actually Martin Bayou with a free and open
connection to St. Andrew Bay. Because industrial effluent from the bay was entering and
polluting the Bayou, in the late 1950's a small dam was constructed at the entrance, and the
saltwater bayou eventually evolved into a freshwater lake with one-way outflow of water into the
bay. In the late 1980's the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service collected a number of sediment
samples from the lake and found the sediments to be contaminated with polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbon (PAH) compounds and some metals. Dioxin compounds were also present in the
sediment and the presence of these chemicals is also a concern. Fish, including largemouth bass
and redear sunfish, are present in the lake. To date, complete evaluation of all chemicals in the
fish species of the lake has not been accomplished.
Strategy: Contamination within the lake may be historic (old contamination from a source that no
longer exists) or contemporary. Attempt to identify the sources of contemporary contamination
impacting the lake's sediments and biota. If any sources are currently present, eliminate further
releases. Based on the results of the planned studies, determine the ecological and human health
risks present in the lake and determine the areal extent and volume of sediment that may need to be
removed to clean up contaminants within the lake.
A lake restoration/preservation plan could include: a) dredging and disposal of contaminated
sediments, b) enlargement of the connections between the segments of the lake at Cherry Street and
Highway 22 to increase water exchange and ingress and egress of aquatic species between the upper
and lower portions of the lake, c) improvement of the management of stormwater runoff entering
the lake through engineering design and a maintenance program, and d) evaluation and
improvement of the management of the land in areas at the headwaters of the lake.
Expected Benefits: The lake is potentially an important urban recreational, educational, and
biological resource. Consumable fish, trophy fish, and water-related recreational activities have a
direct, positive economic benefit to the public. As a small, fresh water ecosystem, the lake will
significantly benefit local educational facilities as a site for field trips, and individual student
projects. Natural resource benefits include the establishment and maintenance of a diverse aquatic
freshwater biological community including wading birds, water fowl, small mammals, fishes, and
freshwater invertebrates. The lake will also serve as an important source of fresh water for wildlife,
located next to a high salinity bay.
Monitoring the Environmental Response: Upon completion of any restoration actions that may
be needed, sediments can be chemically evaluated on a routine basis, fish species can be chemically
84
evaluated to assure that consumed fish are of no risk to the public, and fish and wildlife monitoring
studies can be conducted to measure the biological productivity and diversity of the lake.
85
SC6. Restoration of Watson Bayou Process Assessment
Actions Completed: A citizens group has been formed that is concerned with the conditions and
plans for the development of Watson Bayou. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has completed
two rounds of sediment sampling at ten locations within the bayou. Round one was completed in
July 1985 and consisted of triplicate samples at each of the ten locations. Round two was
completed in July 1995 and consisted of duplicate samples at each of the ten locations. Using
sediment quality guidelines, the 1985 data were evaluated, and the bayou ranked as one of the three
most extensively contaminated locations within St. Andrew Bay.
Action: Compare the 1985 data with the 1995 data to determine if storm water, spill prevention,
dredge and fill, and other management programs have resulted in less contamination into the
bayou. Also compare data sets to determine if any natural restoration resulting from
biodegradation or hydraulic flushing has taken place. If the bayou still scores high, using the
sediment quality guidelines, proceed with the development and implementation of a Bayou
Restoration Plan. Evaluate the bayou water for bacterial problems to assure water that is safe for
activities such as swimming, wading and water skiing. Evaluate biological organisms to assure
they are safe for consumption.
Background: The Bayou has been a receiving water for pollutants of various types since 1835
when a sawmill was constructed along the shoreline. A paper mill was constructed in 1931, various
oil and fuel storage facilities were located later, as was a municipal waste water treatment plant that
discharged directly into the bayou. Several marine construction and repair facilities with associated
marine railways also contributed metal-containing runoff to the Bayou. Organic wastes from
commercial fishing operations and petroleum and chemicals from recreational marinas and vessel
discharges have also been responsible for contaminants entering the water body. Finally, fertilizers,
pesticides and septic tank leachate from the residential housing on the western shore have
contributed to the problem.
Strategy: If necessary, commence restoration through public education of shoreline property
owners, evaluation of on-site environmental management regulatory programs, cleanup of
particularly bad sections via dredging and disposal or other methods, stabilize shorelines and install
storm water management facilities (particularly in the watershed headwaters) to control urban
runoff.
Expected Benefits: Benefits include increased recreational use, cleaner water and sediments,
fishable and swimmable conditions (as required by the federal Clean Water Act), associated
increases in waterfront property values, increased quality of habitat for fish and wildlife, and an
increase in the Bayou's species diversity.
Monitoring the Environmental Response: Develop a Bayou Management Plan that includes
components for one-time restoration, and components for perpetual, appropriate actions through
management, to maintain the Bayou's restored water quality, sediment quality, fish and wildlife and
public recreational uses.
86
SC7. Restoration of Massalina Bayou, Sampling and Assessment
Actions Completed: The Fish and Wildlife Service has sediment chemical data for three locations
within the Bayou (1985 and later). Some water quality data may exist. The City of Panama City
has constructed storm water retention and treatment facilities at some points on the Bayou.
Action: Obtain additional sediment samples to compare with the 1985 data and determine the
degree of contamination present. Evaluate the bayou waters for bacterial problems to assure
recreational water that is safe for activities such as swimming, wading and water skiing. Evaluate
biological organisms to assure they are safe for consumption. If the Bayou scores high, using the
sediment quality guidelines, proceed with the development and implementation of a Bayou
Restoration Plan.
Background: For better than fifty years, Massalina Bayou has been the site of several small
industrial activities including marine vessel construction and repairs, large marinas, and unknown
historical activities at the upper end of the bayou. Urban storm water runoff from downtown
Panama City and adjacent residential neighborhoods has also contributed chemicals, pollutants,
fertilizers and pesticides.
Strategy: If necessary, commence restoration through public education of shoreline property
owners, evaluation of on-site environmental management regulatory programs, cleanup particularly
bad sections via dredging and disposal or other methods and install storm water management
facilities (particularly in the watershed headwaters) to control urban runoff.
Expected Benefits: Benefits include increased recreational use, cleaner water and sediments, and
improved fishing and swimming conditions (as required by the federal Clean Water Act), and
associated increases in waterfront property values. Increased quality of habitat for fish and wildlife,
and an increase in the bayou's species diversity.
Monitoring the Environmental Response: Develop a Bayou Management Plan that includes
components for one-time restoration, and components for perpetual, appropriate actions through
management, to maintain the bayou's restored water quality, sediment quality, fish and wildlife and
public recreational uses.
87
SC8. Restoration of Lynn Haven Bayou, Sampling and Assessment
Actions Completed: The Florida Department of Environmental Protection, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and private citizens have conducted separate limited, sampling and analysis efforts for
water quality and sediment quality sampling within the bayou. The Defense Logistic Agency has
been conducting petroleum assessment and remediation since 1993. Tyndall Air Force Base has
been actively conducting a CERCLA investigation since 1999 and has just completed the
Preliminary Assessment and Site Inspection phases of the process.
Action: Assess conditions within the bayou, evaluate impacts and potential sources, establish
needed action/options, develop remediation and restoration options and recommended remedy, and
create a bayou management plan
Background: A Defense Fuel Support Point was constructed adjacent to Lynn Haven Bayou in
1943. A causeway that bisected the bayou into north and south sections provided road and rail
access. The southern section is open to North Bay while the northern section is closed by the
causeway. Tidal action in the northern segment is provided by two sets of culverts through the
causeway and a mile long canal located along the southern boundary of the facility. This canal
provides some recreational access to adjacent bay waters. The property was originally over 400
acres in size, but 200 acres were provided to the Panama City-Bay County Airport and Industrial
District in 1967. The area now serves as an industrial park.
The area was sparsely populated when the facility was built, but now has dense residential
development. Neither the residential area nor the industrial park appears to have adequate
stormwater management. Sedimentation is occurring in the northern section of the bayou, the
northern extreme of the southern section of the bayou, and the canal. Initial results of studies
indicate that contamination has occurred in both sections of the bayou as well as in Upper Goose
Bayou. However, there is insufficient information to determine the extent, fate, and transport of
contaminants. It does appear that, in the absence of planned stormwater management, the northern
section of the bayou is serving as a stormwater control mechanism.
Strategy: Continue the CERCLA investigation to characterize the contamination, and supplement
the investigation with stormwater and biodiversity studies to assess the health of the bayou and
identify adverse impacts that require attention. Once identified, eliminate or minimize the sources
and develop long-term restoration and management options
Expected Benefits: Proper identification of the status of the bayou, restoration of wetland habitat,
bayou biodiversity, bayou productivity, and improved stormwater/sediment management.
Monitoring the Environmental Response: The completion of the status assessment of the bayou
will provide the basics for restoration actions and determine the monitoring process. Monitoring
will be included in the future action and management plans.
Point Source Discharges
88
Point Source Discharges
The amount of permitted pollutant loading to the St. Andrew Bay estuarine system has been
reduced over the past 10 years. This reduction is the result of the elimination of several small
package treatment plants that, in many instances, did not provide adequate levels of treatment.
The following is a list of the facilities that have been eliminated by sending wastewater to the
Panama City Beach AWT: Woodlawn AWT discharge to West Bay (0.109 mgd), Venture Out
WWTP discharge to Grand Lagoon (0.09 mgd), Pride Resorts discharge to Alligator Bayou and
St. Andrew Bay (0.0365 mgd), and the Naval Coastal System Center discharge to St. Andrew
Bay (0.2 mgd). The remaining WWTP discharging to the St. Andrew Bay system either
currently use or are developing plans to use advanced wastewater treatment processes that will
further decrease the pollutant loading to the bay from point source discharges. Volunteers of the
St. Andrew Bay Resource Management Association (RMA) have conducted routine quarterly water
quality monitoring over the last seven years within the bay. Parameters measured include salinity,
temperature, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, and some bacterial measurements
Expected Benefits: Data on the current status of air quality in the ecosystem would be
available. Air concentrations of the six priority pollutants would be documented, and
information, positive or negative, would be obtained pertaining to the mercury advisory for the
consumption of fish from Deer Point Reservoir.
89
SC9. Cumulative Assessment
Action: Assess the total loading of the various permitted pollutants to the St. Andrew Bay
estuary.
Background: The total pollutant loading from all permitted point sources is not known or
generally known. The total amounts of each permitted pollutant should be determined and made
available to the interested public.
Strategy: Obtain copies of all permitted point source discharges from the DEP. Calculate the
total amounts of each permitted pollutant that is discharged to the estuary per unit time.
Expected Benefits: This information can be used to make informed decisions during the
renewal of existing permits or the evaluation of new permit applications. It can also serve to
educate the public as to the amount of pollutants entering the estuary.
Monitoring the Environmental Response: Monitoring of direct environmental response is not
necessary, but monitoring of the increases or decreases in the total permitted pollutant loading to
the estuary can be achieved and cumulative impacts better addressed.
90
SC10. Determine the Assimilative Capacity of the St. Andrew Bay Estuary
Actions Completed: A water quality based evaluation of the estuary that concentrated on a
portion of East Bay has been conducted with regard to the Military Point discharge of treated
domestic and industrial wastewater by Bay County (Hydroqual et al 1993).
Action: Perform the necessary analysis of the estuary to determine its capacity to assimilate the
current level of permitted pollutant discharges.
Strategy: Discuss the need for such an analysis with the agencies responsible for issuing point
sources discharges, DEP and EPA, with the purpose of obtaining the information necessary to
the design and cost of such an analysis.
Expected Benefits: Knowledge of the assimilative capacity of the estuary is essential to the
permitting of new point source discharges and the renewal of existing permitted discharges in
view of the rapidly expanding human population.
Monitoring the Environmental Response: Monitoring of the environmental response would
not be required until the assimilative capacity is determined.
91
Non-Point Sources Discharges: Stormwater Treatment Actions
The number of stormwater permits issued is increasing steadily from 51 issued in Bay County in
1991 to 95 issued in 1995 with a continuing increase as development of the ecosystem proceeds.
The beach nourishment project for Panama City Beach will include stormwater rework that
should increase the quality and decrease the quantity of stormwater directly entering the Gulf of
Mexico along the nourished beach. Additional stormwater actions are needed.
SC11. Maintenance of Existing Stormwater Treatment Facilities
Actions Completed: Bay County is addressing the problem areas identified by DEP regarding
stormwater treatment, and the municipalities are in various stages of planning and/or
implementation of stormwater plans.
Action: Examine existing stormwater treatment ponds for proper functioning and obtain
maintenance of the facilities to restore treatment capacity.
Background: Stormwater treatment facilities have been permitted since 1982. Some or a
majority of the older ponds may require maintenance to re-establish their ability to adequately
treat their influent.
Strategy: Examine existing stormwater treatment permits for the presence of a condition that
requires maintenance of a facility. Inspect those facilities, oldest first, for compliance with
treatment requirements. Require maintenance, if necessary.
Expected Benefits: Would return those facilities that are not currently functioning at the
required level of efficiency to the required level of efficiency. This would serve to increase the
quality of the water exiting these treatment facilities and entering surface waters.
Monitoring the Environmental Response: Monitor the quality of the water discharged from
the facility before and after maintenance to quantify the effect of maintenance on the quality of
water leaving the facility.
Regulatory Needs: If not already required, require that maintenance of stormwater facility be
included in all permits to assure that the required treatment levels are maintained through out the
life of the facility.
92
SC12. Survey Stormwater Sediment Quality in Existing Ponds
Actions Completed: None known.
Action: Request that DEP provide any data that they may have obtained regarding sediment
quality in existing stormwater ponds. Then select representative, permitted stormwater ponds
and perform an analysis of the sediment.
Background: A number of treatment ponds have been in existence and functioning for some
years. The ponds function to accumulate sediments and pollutants before the water is discharged
to a surface water body. The accumulation of sediments and the pollutants carried by the runoff
entering these ponds may be present in concentrations high enough to be of concern.
Examination of the sediment quality in the ponds should be investigated, and, if necessary, the
contaminated sediments should be removed and disposed of properly.
Strategy: The information gathered under SC1 can be used to select a sample of the permitted
treatment ponds for the analysis of contaminant levels in the sediments that have accumulated in
the ponds. Standard sampling and analytical techniques should be employed in obtaining and
analyzing the sediments.
Monitoring the Environmental Response: Perform in conjunction with SC1.
93
SC13. Retrofit Stormwater Infrastructure Constructed Prior to 1982
Actions Completed: The existing Stormwater Plan addresses stormwater problems identified
by the DEP. Many of these involve retrofitting existing drainages with treatment facilities.
Urbanized areas have drainages that would benefit from the installation of treatment facilities.
Progress toward improving the water quality discharged from these drains is slow because of the
lack of funds to perform all the needed work in as short a time as possible. Funds for this
activity are present in the SWIM plan for preliminary work
Action: Identify the areas of most concern from aerial photographs, conduct onsite visits,
investigate the date of construction, prioritize the areas of concern, and present the list to the
appropriate governmental body for inclusion on their priority lists.
Background: Prior to 1982, stormwater drainage structures were often constructed without
treatment facilities. These old drains, in some instances, may be contributing a major amount of
pollutants to surface waters.
Strategy: Survey the existing, non-permitted (pre-1982) stormwater drainage structures and
assess their possible impact on the receiving waters based upon sediment load and pollutant load
that they carry. This could be estimated from an examination of the condition of the drainage
area of the structure.
Monitoring the Environmental Response: Compare the quality of the water discharged before
retrofitting with the quality of the water discharged after retrofitting.
94
SC14. Investigate the Advantages and Disadvantages of Organizing a Stormwater Utility
for Bay County
Actions Completed: The concept of creating a stormwater utility has been discussed at various
levels of local government.
Action: Investigate the process of creating a stormwater utility for Bay County and determine
the advantages and disadvantages of doing so. Provide information to the public and local
officials for consideration.
Background: Stormwater Utilities open the door to additional sources of funding to address
stormwater needs. The reasons for Bay County not establishing a stormwater utility should be
addressed again in light of the actual and potential growth and development of the county.
Expected Benefits: May provide a means to obtain additional funds to those budgeted by the
NWFWMD to address the stormwater action plans in the SWIM plan and the plans under
development by various political entities in the county. Would provide for a holistic approach to
stormwater management, if feasible.
95
Action Plans for Implementing the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem Management
Plan, Growth Management Sub-committee
Implementation of the ecosystem management plan requires actions directed at explaining the
plan to those not familiar with ecosystem management, distributing the plan to the interested
citizens, encouraging its use by the local land use planning organizations, and use of the plan by
the municipal and county planning commissions
GM1. State Owned Submerged Lands Policy
Actions Completed: Many policies exist except a definitive one.
Action: Institute a policy whereby state owned, public, submerged lands located at or below the
mean high tide line in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem will not be converted from the natural or
currently occurring condition for private or public use other than the maintenance of their
ecosystem functions. The policy will be directed at the maintenance of ecosystem functions by
retaining the public owned submerged habitats, particularly emergent and submergent, vegetated
wetlands, as such.
Background: The State of Florida owns the lands that are located at and below the mean high
tide line in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem. These submerged lands support a variety of habitats
found within the system from seagrass beds to intertidal emergent marsh. These lands should be
managed to maintain the integrity of the ecosystem. The key to the management of these lands,
in the interest of the maintenance of ecosystem function, is the prevention of their loss,
destruction, or alteration for private or public uses that affect the ability of the existing
submerged lands to so function. Case by case evaluation of permits does not prevent loss,
destruction, or alteration for private or public uses of these lands. Many methods of
encouragement to prevent the alteration or conversion of state owned submerged lands exist
within the permitting process. However, they do not provide for the prevention of the loss or
conversion of state owned submerged lands.
Strategy: Work with and encourage the responsible FDEP agencies to institute policies that: 1.
prevent the conversion of state owned submerged lands to ownership by entities other than the
State of Florida. 2. institute policies that prevent the conversion of state owned submerged lands
to uplands or adversely alter the existing ecosystem functions of the land.
Expected Benefits: This would add further assurance that public lands remain in public
ownership and that they remain a functioning part of the ecosystem. This would eliminate or
reduce the incremental losses of public lands and their ecological functions resulting from the
permitting of activities such as bulkheads waterward of the mean high tide line in areas not
experiencing erosion.
Monitoring the Environmental Response: Annually review all permits issued in the
ecosystem for compliance with the policy, establish number of acres of public lands converted to
private ownership, and number of acres of habitat change on public lands.
Regulatory Needs: New laws or regulations are not needed, only a definitive policy statement
that will be enforced.
96
GM2. Creation of an Ecosystem Mitigation Bank
Actions Completed: None
Action: Develop a mitigation bank for the ecosystem that would use some of the funds obtained
from the existing local, state, and federal permitting programs to purchase lands identified as
necessary to maintain the integrity of the ecosystem. The operation of the mitigation bank would
be the responsibility of a local or state governmental agency or could be the responsibility of a
nonprofit organization. Its purpose would be to obtain a mosaic of habitats characteristic of the
ecosystem including aquatic, wetland, and terrestrial habitats and link them to existing public
land in order to maintain the ecotones and connections between these habitats.
Background: State and federal permitting agencies such as the FDEP and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers have developed procedures for the development of mitigation banks to serve the
needs of the agencies and the public. Mitigation banks are supposed to speed the permitting
process while better assuring that mitigation for unavoidable losses of the regulated habitats is
performed and functions as a replacement for the habitat lost. A mitigation bank would be a
method of obtaining funds for the directed expenditure to purchase and/or restore priority
habitats in the ecosystem.
Strategy: Identify the agency or group to be responsible for the management of the mitigation
bank. Obtain the guidelines for the development of a mitigation bank and begin the process of
developing approval for the bank.
Expected Benefits: Provides a means of obtaining lands within the ecosystem that have been
identified as necessary to the maintenance of the biodiversity and functions of the ecosystem.
Monitoring the Environmental Response: The effectiveness of the mitigation bank in adding
priority lands and restoration of priority habitats would be tracked by assessing the acreage
added each year and the amount of restorative work accomplished within the framework of the
funds received.
Regulatory Needs: Existing state and federal laws and the mitigation bank guidelines
developed by the state and federal permitting agencies are adequate for the accomplishment of
this action.
97
GM3. Coordinate Growth Management Plans
It appears from the currently proposed legislation and administration directions to state
government agencies that the concept of growth management in the State of Florida is, to say the
least, in a state of flux. It would not be prudent to wait for the situation to stabilize before taking
action at the local level to assure the survival of the functions of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem.
Actions Completed: All of the Evaluations and Appraisal Reports from each entity in Bay
County that has a Growth Management Plan have been reviewed.
Action: Lines of communication should be maintained with the cities and counties in order to
ensure that the Action Plans are completed, the plan is explained and understood, and that it is
incorporated into the planning processes. Interested groups should continue to communicate
with and provide technical assistance to the entities as the Comprehensive Growth Management
Plans are modified or rewritten, and participate in the activities of the various planning
commissions.
Strategy: Obtain a working relationship with the citizens organizations in the county to make
the local governmental bodies aware of the need to develop and implement meaningful,
consistent land use plans that address ecosystem concerns.
Expected Benefits: Aid in the development of more uniform Growth Management Plans in
terms of the management of natural resources based on an ecosystem management approach.
Monitoring the Environmental Response: Monitoring would involve tracking the
development of the Comprehensive Plans and the Land Development Regulations by which they
are implemented, and track the implementation of the plans to obtain information as to the
uniformity in the management of the natural resources of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem.
Regulatory Needs: Uniformity of Growth Management Plans regarding natural resources.
Related Indicators: The Growth Management Plans are related directly or indirectly to all of
the Action items in this plan.
98
GM4. Establish the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem Management Plan as a Legal Component
of Each Bay County Local Government Comprehensive Management Plan
Actions Completed: Publication of the original document provided a significant portion of the
basic information required to establish the existing natural resource quality of St. Andrew Bay,
Florida. A multitude of other reports and surveys have established the ecosystem as a unique,
resource with exceptional water quality, biological diversity, biological productivity, and extremely
high economic, educational, and social value.
Action: Provide this revision of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem Management Plan to the
municipalities and Bay County Commission to adopt and include as a component of each individual
Local Government Comprehensive Management Plan.
Background: It has been demonstrated by several federal and state government agencies,
municipal governments, conservation groups, and citizens that the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem is an
ecologically, economically, and recreationally valuable resource of significant importance to the
general public, commercial fishermen, recreational businesses, industries, and educational
institutions. Further, it has been demonstrated that the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem faces a multitude
of conservation, growth and management challenges that will require a variety of management
tools, funding sources, management resources, and dedicated persons to assure retention of the
valuable resources within the ecosystem. The Coastal Management, Conservation, Recreation and
Open Space, and Economic elements of Local Government Comprehensive Plans include strategies
for municipal government management that can significantly protect and conserve the resources of
the Bay. However, these elements can be strengthened and improved by adoption of the ecosystem
management plan as a component of each comprehensive plan, and modification of specific
elements of each local government comprehensive plan to include management practices identified
and recommended in the plan.
Strategy: 1. Provide copies of the plan to each local government for their review.
2. Individuals and groups familiar with the plan should be available to work with a particular local
government to assist them in understanding the plan and modifying their appropriate comprehensive
plan elements to incorporate maximum management actions and practices.
Expected Benefits: Continuity between Local Government Comprehensive Plans and the
ecosystem management plan and an increased overall effort to manage properly the St. Andrew Bay
ecosystem.
Monitoring the Environmental Response: Modification and improvement in Local Government
Comprehensive Plans should be reflected in myriad positive actions by local governments that
result in beneficial management results within St. Andrew Bay.
99
GM5. Implement the Ecosystem Management Plan and the SWIM plan for the St. Andrew
Bay Ecosystem
Actions Completed: The NWFWMD has developed the Surface Water Improvement
Management Plan. This Ecosystem Management Plan has been developed as a complement to
the SWIM plan.
Background: The emphasis of the SWIM plan is on the maintenance and restoration of surface
water quality, and the emphasis of this document is on the maintenance and restoration of
ecosystem functions in general. The goals of this document are stated on page 1 of this
document. The achievement of the goals of the two plans should proceed in concert to avoid
duplication of effort and expenditures of time and money.
Action: In conjunction with the NWFWMD, develop a list of priority items to be accomplished
by the NWFWMD and those to be accomplished by other agencies or organizations that are
interested in and capable of completing the Action Plans listed as priorities. Progress toward
completion of the listed Actions Plans should begin immediately following the development of
the priority list.
Expected Benefits: Progress toward implementing the two plans will proceed in concert with
the more important Action Plans being addressed first. The ecosystem would benefit by a
planned and active approach to obtaining the information needed to implement the two plans,
and an accelerated accomplishment of the goals of both plans.
100
GM6. Land Use Planning and Transferable Development Rights in the St. Andrew Bay
Ecosystem
Actions Completed: Other counties in Florida have established the value of Transferable
Development Rights (also known as Non-Contiguous Density Transfers) in their Growth
Management Plans. Shaffer (2001) provides an insight into this method of approach to land use
planning.
Action: Explore the advantages of this concept to the management of the St. Andrew Bay
ecosystem and if applicable to achieving the goals of this plan, participate in the education of the
citizens regarding the advantages. Participate in the Growth Management Planning process by
encouraging the use of these methods in the growth management processes of the counties in the
ecosystem.
Expected Benefits: The use of this method may apply directly to the acquisition of conservation
and preservation lands in the ecosystem and to the acquisition of corridors connecting existing
public lands and those lands acquired by the use of the method.
101
Action Plans for Implementing the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem Management
Plan, Education Outreach Sub-committee
EO1. Education About the Significance of Seagrass Meadows in the Ecosystem
Action Completed: This Action Plan has been completed as stated in the original plan.
1. Mr. Doug Hough of the Museum of Man and the Sea, Panama City Beach, Florida completed
a video depicting the importance of seagrass meadows to the ecosystem, and the effects of
careless boating on the meadows. This video is available from the Museum.
2. “A Boater’s Guide to St. Andrew Bay” was prepared by the Northwest Florida Aquatic
Preserve Program (NWFAPP) and the Florida Marine Research Institute that was printed and
distributed in 1996. The guide provides a map and information regarding the various habitats
including the location the location of boat ramps and marinas in St. Andrew Bay. This is an
excellent educational document of practical use by the public. It is directed at helping the
boating public to avoid damaging seagrass beds and other estuarine habitats in St. Andrew Bay.
3. The International Paper Company Foundation and Arizona Chemical Company provided
funds to the St. Andrew Bay Resource Management Association to produce and place signs at
boat ramps to inform boaters of the effects of propeller damage to seagrass beds. The NWFAPP
provided funds to place buoys in the water at the edge of selected seagrass beds to warn boaters
of the shallow water.
4. The International Paper Company Foundation and Arizona Chemical Company provided a
grant to BEST, Inc. to purchase materials for and develop a seagrass informational display for
use at various conferences, festivals, etc.
The RMA, as part of the seagrass monitoring grant, will produce an educational video regarding
the role of seagrass in the St, Andrew Bay estuarine system.
102
EO2. BEST Web Site Creation and Operation
Actions Completed: BEST formerly had a web site. However, that website has been
discontinued because it has become outdated and obsolete.
Background: With the opening of offices, the hiring of staff for the Administrative Support
Team (AST), and the expansion of the scope and vision of BEST, and because of the critical
need for public education, the Steering Committee has determined that a new web site is needed.
Action: Create, activate, and maintain a new BEST website for the St. Andrew Bay
Environmental Study Team.
Strategies: The web site information will be developed and created by the Steering Committee,
its Sub-Committees and Liaisons, the BEST Inc. Board of Directors, and the Administrative
Support Team. A contractor will be hired to build and maintain the website, with oversight by
the Executive Director of the AST. A web-hosting company will be selected, and a domain
name will be chosen.
Expected Benefits: The web site will fulfill many purposes and advance the mission of BEST.
It will contain information about our mission and goals; the BEST volunteer program, including
applications and opportunities; projects, progress, and accomplishments; our newsletter; and a
calendar of meetings, field projects, and other activities. It will also contain electronic copies of
all BEST reports.
Regulatory Needs: None applicable.
Monitoring the Environmental Response: The indirect environmental response will be
increased public awareness and education which will translate into increased conservation and
resource appreciation. The web-site will contain data about the number of visitors, and may
contain a comments page. This data will be monitored and regularly reported to the Steering
Committee by the Education/Outreach Sub-Committee.
103
EO3. Inform the General Public about the BEST Program
Actions Completed: Prepared a general information sheet to inform the public about the vision,
Mission, Goal, etc. of BEST. A number of articles have been published regarding BEST and its
accomplishments. A quarterly newsletter is now being published and distributed to BEST
participants and the public. A BEST website, baybest.org, has been created and is functional via
EO2.
Action: Continue to inform and educate the public about BEST, its Mission and Goal, and its
projects and activities.
Background: BEST has been in existence since 1987. A concerted public information plan is
needed to increase interest and membership.
Strategy: Hire a contractor or recruit a qualified volunteer to develop Public Service
Announcements for distribution to local media, develop a Speakers Bureau consisting of BEST
members who will be available to speak about subjects regarding BEST and its activities, and
develop appropriate brochures about BEST to be distributed to the public. Participate in local
fairs, festivals, and public events. Continue publishing the Newsletter and maintain the Website
to inform members and the public about BEST activities via EO2.
Expected Benefits: Benefits will include: increased interest, attendance, participation, input, and
donations from a larger more diverse segment of the population.
Monitoring of Response: Monitor attendance and participation at meetings, and new sources of
information (people and new projects) generated for the ecosystem management plan.
Environmental benefits would accrue from the more diverse input to the plan. Also monitor the
growth of the BEST volunteer population.
Regulatory Needs: None.
Estimated Cost to Complete Action: Hire a contractor or use volunteer time to develop the
PSAs (written, audio, or video), develop the brochures and other materials, and attend local
events. Finally, determine a practical annual amount that is adequate to maintain a public
relations/marketing effort.
Sources of Funds to Complete the Action: Seek grant funds, as appropriate, on at least an
annual basis, to fund this effort.
104
EO4 . Inform the General Public about the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem
Actions Completed: A bibliography of the scientific information regarding the St. Andrew Bay
Ecosystem and near-shore waters of the Gulf of Mexico has been developed, the data files from
the early years of BEST, and the files of BEST activities and correspondence have been
assembled into CDs, and are kept at the BEST offices, with electronic copies also available at
Allegra Print and Imaging. These educational materials are now centralized and available to the
public for informational and education purposes.
Action: Educate and inform the general public about St. Andrew Bay, its ecosystem and
watershed; its flora and fauna; and, various impacts on these resources. Serve as a resource
“information bank” to elected officials, decision makers, developers, governmental
representatives, teachers, conservation organizations, naturalists, and the general public.
Background: BEST was organized in 1987 to share information regarding the natural resources
of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem and to address cumulative concerns for the ecological integrity
of the system. The Goal of BEST, as described in the Ecosystem Management Plan (Preface,
page ii), is to maintain and restore a healthy St. Andrew Bay ecosystem for the benefit of all
people. The public should be educated and informed about the value of the ecosystem,
particularly about the biological species, populations, and communities that make up the
ecosystem.
Strategy: The strategy of this action plan focuses on the ecosystem itself, its biological
resources and related information, including the impacts from human activity. With that in mind,
the following are objectives of the action plan:
1) Notify the public of the existence of the assembled biological information. Collect and
distribute interesting facts about St. Andrew Bay.
2) Educate the public about our ecosystem’s living resources, impacts on these resources,
and proper management of these resources through the BEST website, newsletter,
preparation of educational brochures and other documents.
3) Assist other organizations (both public and private), in educating the public (including
students and visitors) about our ecosystem and its biological resources, how they are
being impacted, and use of proper management techniques.
4) Enlist BEST members and partners in these endeavors, as speakers, teachers, and
mentors.
5) Participate in local fairs, festivals and public events.
6) Re-establish a “Sea Life of St. Andrew Bay” classroom course to be taught to the public
by BEST volunteers, with a reasonable tuition which can help fund this action plan.
Establish a “Wildlife and Plants” classroom course taught in the same manner.
Expected Benefits: The educational materials on CDs are a means to better inform the
community regarding issues related to St. Andrew Bay. Teachers can incorporate St. Andrew
Bay information into their curriculum. A better understanding of our ecosystem’s biological
105
resources can benefit it through the activities of an educated and interested public. The Sea Life
class will increase an appreciation of the biological resources; it will increase the conservation
ethic of the community; and it will increase the numbers of BEST members, volunteers, and
partners.
Monitoring the Response: Monitor the number and distribution of species/resource brochures,
BEST volunteer participation in this action plan, students enrolled in the Sea Life course, and
funds generated by the course.
Regulatory needs: None.
Sources of Funds to Complete the Action: May seek grant funds for specific components of
this action plan.
106
Literature Cited
Barkuloo, James. 2001. Personal Communications. BEST Civic Organizations Representative.
Beck, M.W., Odaya, M., Bachant, J.J., Keller, B., Martin, R., Mathews, C., and Ramseur, P.G.
2000. Identification of priority sites for conservation in the northern Gulf of Mexico: An
ecoregional plan. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA. 49 pp. (available on the
www.natureserve.com web site).
Brim, M. 1998. Environmental contaminants evaluation of the St. Andrew Bay system, Florida.
I, II, III. Pub. No. PCFO-EC98-01, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama City, FL. 232 pp.
Brunner, R.D. and Clark, T.W. 1997. A practice-based approach to ecosystem management.
Conservation Biology 11(1):48-58.
Brusher, H. A. and Ogren, L.H. 1976. Distribution, abundance and size of penaeid shrimps in
the St. Andrew Bay system, Florida. Fish. Bull. 74(1):158-166.
Bureau of Land Management. 1995. Florida resource management plan and record of decision.
U.S. Depart. Interior. BLM. Jackson, MS, 140 pp.
Chafin, L. 2001. Personal Communications. Botanist, Florida Natural Areas Inventory,
Tallahassee, FL.
Clewell, A.F. 1985. Guide to the vascular plants of the Florida Panhandle. Univ. Presses of
Florida. 605 pp.
Coile, N.C. 2000. Notes on Florida’s endangered and threatened plants. Fla. Depart. Agric. &
Consumer Serv., Div. of Plant Indust. Bur. Entomol., Nematol, & Plant Pathol. Contrib. No.
38, 3rd
Edition. 122 pp.
Cox, J., Kautz, R., Maclaughlin, M., and Gilbert, T. 1994. Closing the gaps in Florida’s wildlife
habitat conservation system. Off ice of Environmental Services, Florida Game and Freshwater
Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL. 239 pp.
Cox, J.A. and Kautz, R.S. 2000. Habitat conservation needs of rare and imperiled wildlife in
Florida. Office of Environmental Services, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,
Tallahassee, FL. 156 pp.
Dahl, T.E. 2000. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1986-1997.
Depart. Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Wash., D.C. 82 pp.
Duffe, E.M., Baldwin, R.A., Lewis, D.L, and Warmack, W.B. 1984. Soil survey of Bay County,
Florida. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 152 pp. + maps.
Florida Department of Community Affairs. 2000. St. Andrew Bay subdrainage basin map. Map
produced by the DCA.
107
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and the Northwest Florida Water Management
District. 1992. Biological water quality of the Deer Point Lake drainage basin, Bay County,
Florida. DER, Tallahassee, FL. 89 pp.
Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 2000. Tracking list of rare, threatened, and endangered plants,
animals, and natural communities of Florida. Florida Natural Areas Inventory. Tallahassee, FL.
82 pp.
Grumbine, E. 1997. Reflections on “What is Ecosystem Management”. Conservation Biology
11(1):41-47.
Hudson, William. 2001. Personal Communications. Bay County Utilities Department.
Hydroqual, Inc. & Vittor & Associates. 1993. Environmental studies in St. Andrew Bay.
Report to Bay County Board of County Commissioners, 4 volumes.
Keppner, E. J. 1996. An inventory of the biological resources reported from the St. Andrew Bay
estuarine system, Bay County, Florida. BEST Public. 0001. 72 pp.
Keppner, E. J. 2000. Summary of some observations on smoothbark St. John’s-wort and
associated protected species of vascular plants on the Econfina Water Management Area. Report
to NWFWMD. 11 pp.
Keppner, E. J. and Keppner, L. A. 1997. A list of the vascular plants of Bay County, Florida.
BEST Public. 0002. 50 pp.
Keppner, E. J. and Keppner, L. A. 1999a. A compendium of the species of vascular plants
reported from Bay County, Florida. Including specimens in the BEST Herbarium. BEST Public.
0003. 88 pp.
Keppner, L. A. and Keppner, E. J. 1999b. A preliminary survey of four protected species of
vascular plants, with emphasis on Smooth-barked St. John’s-wort (Hypericum lissophloeus
Adams), on the land owned by the Northwest Florida Water Management District in Bay and
Washington Counties, Florida. BEST Nat. Res. Com. Report submitted to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Panama City, Florida. 14 pp. + appendices.
Keppner, E. J. and Keppner, L. A. 2000a. A compilation of the information pertaining to Lake
Powell, Bay County, Florida. Report submitted to the Bay County Board of County
Commissioners. 95 pp. + appendices.
Keppner, E. J. and Keppner, L. A. 2000b. A preliminary search for the Panama City Crayfish,
Procambarus (Leconticambarus) econfinae Hobbs, 1942, in Bay County, Florida. A volunteer
report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama City, Florida. 20 pp.
Keppner, L. A., Keppner, E. J., and The Nature Conservancy. 2000. Brochures entitled
“Property Owners of Sandhill Ponds and Lakefront.” and “Attention Property Owners of Sand
Hill Ponds and Lakefront.” Available from The Nature Conservancy, P.O. Box 393, Bristol, FL
32321.
108
Keppner, E. J. and Keppner, L.A. 2001a. A list of the species of vascular plants reported from
Bay County, Florida. Report to BEST, Inc. February 2001. 65 pp.
Keppner, E. J. and Keppner, L.A. 2001b. Biology and conservation status of Smoothbark St.
John’s-wort. Report to Bay County Audubon Society Inc. 29 pp.
Keppner, E.J. and Keppner, L.A. 2001c. A survey of the Panama City Crayfish, Procambarus
(Leconticambarus) econfinae Hobbs, 1942 in Bay County, Florida. Report to U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (in preparation, due June 30, 2001).
Keppner, L.A. and Keppner, E.J. 2001d. The specimens of vascular plants in the Northwest
Florida Water Management District Herbarium. Report to the NWFWMD. 44 pp.
Koenig, C.C. and Coleman, F.C. 1998. Absolute abundance and survival of juvenile gags in sea
grass beds of northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 127(1):44-55.
Koenig, C., Ruckelshaus, M., and Coleman, F. Seagrass Habitat Quality: Criteria for the
management of economically important finfishes of the northwest coast of Florida. Final Report
to DEP by FSU/NMFS Instit. for Fish. Resources Ecolog. 45 pp. + tables and appendices.
Law Engineering Testing Company. 1975. Seagrass bed study in West Bay near the Lansing
Smith Power Plant. Report prepared for Gulf Power Company. 51 pp.
Law Engineering Testing Company. 1976. Thermal impacts of a fossil-fueled electric power
plant discharge on seagrass bed communities: “an older unit 316(a) demonstration”. Report
Prepared for Gulf Power Company. 13 pp.
Law Engineering Testing Company. 1977. A 316(b) study of the Lansing Smith steam plant:
Final report. Report Prepared for Gulf Power Company. 58 pp.
Law Engineering Testing Company. 1980. Larval fish investigation--Lansing Smith plant.
Report Prepared for Gulf Power Company. 6 pp.
Law Engineering Testing Company. 1982. Thermal study of Warren Bayou and West Bay.
Report Prepared for Gulf Power Company. 142 pp.
Law Engineering Testing Company. 1993. A thermal plume characterization and environmental
assessment: Warren Bayou and West Bay, St. Andrew Bay Lansing Smith Electric Generating
Plant, Panama City, Florida. Report prepared for Gulf Power Company. 46 pp. + appendices.
Loftin, H.G., Stedman, S.J., and Francis, T.L. 1987. An annotated check-list of the birds of Bay
County, Florida (including St. Andrews State Recreation Area). Bay County Audubon Society,
Panama City, FL. 34 pp.
McNulty, J. K., Lindall, W.N., and Sykes, J.E. 1972. Cooperative Gulf of Mexico inventory and
study: Florida. Phase I. Area description. NOAA Tech. Rpt. NMFS Circ. 368. 126 pp.
Ogren, L.H. and Brusher, H.A. 1977. The distribution and abundance of fishes caught with a
trawl in the St. Andrew Bay system, Florida. Northeast Gulf Sci. 1(2):83-105.
109
O’Rourke, P.L., Rains, L., and Macmillan, T. 1993. Deer Point Lake watershed:
Environmentally sensitive areas assessment. Northwest Florida Water Management District
SWIM Program. 31 pp.
Peterson, L. (edit.) 1997. County distribution and habitats of rare and endangered species in
Florida. Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahassee, Florida. 150 pp. + Appendix.
Payne, R.G. 1997a. Report on the biological condition of nine Northwest Florida lakes sampled
in the Summer of 1995. FDEP, NW District. 68 pp.
Payne, R.G. 1997b. Report on the biological condition of nine Northwest Florida lakes sampled
in the Summer of 1996. FDEP, NW District. 77 pp.
Payne, R. G. 1998. Report on the biological and chemical condition of four Northwest Florida
lakes sampled Summer 1997 Winter 1998. FDEP, NW District. 59 pp.
Payne, R. G. 2000. An assessment of the biological health and water quality of Martin Lake,
Bay County, Florida. FDEP, NW District Report. 40 pp.
Porter, E. 2001. Pers. Comm. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado.
Porter, K. 2001. Bay County Shows Moderate Growth. News-Herald article April 1, 2001.
Pristas, P.J. and Trent, L. 1978. Seasonal abundance, size, and sex ratio of fishes caught with
gill nets in St. Andrew Bay, Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. 28(3):581-589.
Rodriguez, J.A. and Wu, T. 1990. Initial analysis of circulation and flushing characteristics of
the St. Andrew Bay system. Northwest Florida Water Management District, Water Resources
Special Report No. 90-1, 105 pp.
Saloman, C.H., Naughton, S. P., and Taylor, J.L. 1982. Benthic faunal assemblages of shallow
water sand and seagrass habitats, St. Andrew Bay, Florida. Performed for the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Panama City, FL. 565 pp.
Shafer, D. J. and Robinson, J. 2001. An Evaluation of the use of grid platforms to minimize
shading impacts to seagrasses. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Eng. and Develop. Center,
Vicksburg, MS. 14 pp.
Shaffer, R. N. 1993. A bibliography of research on St. Andrew Bay, it’s tributaries, and the
nearby coastal waters of Bay County, Florida. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-320. 62 pp.
Shaffer, R. 2001. Density Transfer – Maybe We Can Bank on it. County-Press Voice, March
23, 2001.
St. Andrew Bay Resource Management Association. (1991-2000). Water quality monitoring
reports for the Bay/Lake Watch program.
110
Stein, B. A., Kutner, L. S., and Adams, J. S. eds. 2000. Precious Heritage. The Status of
Biodiversity in the United States. Oxford Univ. Press. NY, NY. 399 pp.
Swain, H.M., Hopkins, S. E., and Thornton, C.L. 1994. A preliminary species list for the Indian
River Lagoon, Florida. National Estuary Program, Melbourne, Fl.
Thorpe, P, Ryan, P., Stafford, C., Bartel, R., MacMillan, T., Culbertson, M., Cairns, D., and
Horowitz, K. 2000. St. Andrew Bay watershed surface water improvement and management
plan. NWFWMD Prog. Develop. Series 00-2. 151 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Comments on the emission reports for three major air
pollutant emitting facilities Bay County, Florida. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Air Qual. Branch,
Denver. Colorado. 7 pp. + Tables + Appendices.
Watson, K. 1991-2001. Annual reports of the Sea Turtle monitoring program. Annual reports
to the St. Andrew Bay Resource Management Association.
Wolfe, S. H., Reidenauer, J. A., and Means, B. 1988. An ecological characterization of the
Florida panhandle. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report. no. 88(12), 277 pp.
Wood, D.A. 1996. Florida’s endangered species, threatened species and species of special
concern. Official Lists. Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, Bureau of Nongame
Wildlife. 14 pp.
Wunderlin, R.P. 1998. Guide to the vascular plants of Florida. University Press of Florida. 806
pp.
Wunderlin, R.P., Hansan, B.F., and Bridges, E.L. 1996. Atlas of Florida vascular plants. Univ.
South Florida, Inst. for Systematic Botany, Tampa, Florida, CDROM.
Yautz, C. 2001. Personal Communications. Chairman, BEST Growth Management
Subcommittee.
111
APPENDIX 1. Biotic Communities of the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem
The Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) has developed a list of the 70 natural biotic
communities of Florida and has placed them in a hierarchy. Each level of the hierarchy is
defined. The following is from the list for the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem that contains 31
community types provided by Linda Chafin of the FNAI. The definitions of the community
types and rankings are from FNAI (2000). The top of the hierarchy contains six Community
Categories that are defined by their hydrology and vegetation. Each Community Category is
divided into a number of Community Groups that are defined by the land form, substrate, and
vegetation. Each Community Group contains Community Types that are defined by the land
form and substrate, soil moisture, fire, climate, and characteristic vegetation. The Community
Categories, Community Groups, and Community Types listed for Bay County are included
below. One must realize that these are natural biotic communities. Therefore, altered areas such
as agricultural (farms, pine plantations, catfish ponds, etc.) are not included.
Community Categories
Terrestrial: Defined as upland habitats dominated by plants that are not adapted to anaerobic
soil conditions imposed by saturation or inundation for more than 10% of the growing season.
Palustrine: Defined as wetlands dominated by plants adapted to anaerobic substrate conditions
imposed by substrate saturation or inundation during 10% or more of the growing season (tidal
and nontidal wetlands).
Lacustrine: Defined as non-flowing wetlands of natural depressions lacking persistent
emergent vegetation except around the perimeter (lakes and ponds).
Riverine: Defined as natural, flowing waters from their source to the downstream limits of tidal
influence and bounded by channel banks (rivers, streams, creeks).
Marine/estuarine: Defined as subtidal, intertidal, and supratidal zones of the sea, landward to
the point at which seawater becomes significantly diluted with freshwater inflow from the land
(Gulf of Mexico, bays, and sounds).
Subterranean: Defined as twilight, middle and deep zones of natural chambers overlain by the
earth’s crust and characterized by climatic stability and assemblages of trogloxenic, troglophilic,
and troglobitic organisms (Caves both terrestrial and submerged)
The following list contains the Community Categories and Community Types and their FNAI
designations listed for Bay County. The Community Group is stated at the beginning of the
definition of the Community Type. FNAI maintains a list of the number of occurrences of each
community type.
112
Terrestrial Category
Sandhill: Xeric Upland Group. Upland with deep sand substrate; xeric; temperate; frequent fire
(every 2-5 years); longleaf pine and/or turkey oak with wiregrass understory. Rank = S2
(imperiled in Florida because of rarity).
Scrub: Xeric Upland Group. Scrub is found on old dunes with deep, fine sand substrate:
temperate or subtropical: occasional or rare fire (20-80 years): sand pine and/or scrub oaks
and/or rosemary and lichens. Rank = S2 (imperiled in Florida because of rarity).
Xeric Hammock: Xeric Upland Group. Xeric hammocks exist on deep, fine sand substrate:
xeric-mesic: temperate or subtropical: rare or no fire: live oak and/or sand live oak and/or laurel
oak and/or other oaks, sparkleberry, saw palmetto. Rank = S3 (either very rare or local
throughout its range or found locally in a restricted range or vulnerable to other factors).
Beach Dune: Coastal Upland Group. Active coastal dune with sand substrate: xeric; temperate
or subtropical: occasional or rare fire; sea oats and/or mixed salt-spray tolerant grasses and herbs.
Rank = S2 (imperiled in Florida because of rarity).
Coastal Grassland: Coastal Upland Group. Coastal flatland with sand substrate; xeric-mesic;
subtropical or temperate; occasional fire; grasses, herbs, and shrubs with or without slash pine
and/or cabbage palm. Rank = S2 (imperiled in Florida because of rarity).
Coastal Strand: Coastal Upland Group. Stabilized coastal dune with sand substrate; xeric;
subtropical or temperate; occasional or rare fire; dense saw palmetto and/or seagrape and/or
mixed stunted shrubs, yucca, and cacti. Rank = S2 (imperiled in Florida because of rarity).
Maritime Hammock: Coastal Upland Group. Stabilized coastal dune with sand substrate;
xeric-mesic; subtropical or temperate rare or no fire; mixed hardwoods and/or live oak. Rank =
S2 (imperiled in Florida because of rarity).
Shell Mound: Coastal Upland Group. Although not on the list provided by FNAI, this
community type is known from the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem at a number of places along the
bay. Indian midden with shell substrate; xeric-mesic; subtropical or temperate; rare or no fire;
mixed hardwoods. Rank = S2 (imperiled in Florida because of rarity).
Bluff: Mesic Uplands Group. Steep slope with rock, sand, and/or clay substrate; hydric-xeric;
temperate; sparse grasses, herbs, and shrubs. Not ranked.
Slope Forest: Mesic Upland Group. Steep slope on bluff or sheltered ravine; sand/clay
substrate; mesic-hydric; temperate; rare or no fire; magnolia, beech, spruce pine, Shummard oak,
Florida maple, mixed hardwoods. Rank = S2 (imperiled in Florida because of rarity).
Mesic Flatwoods: Mesic Flatlands Group. Flatland with sand substrate; mesic-xeric; subtropical
or temperate; frequent fire; slash pine and/or longleaf pine with saw palmetto, gallberry and/or
wiregrass or cutthroat grass understory. Not ranked.
113
Scrubby Flatwoods: Mesic Flatlands Group. Flatland with sand/organic soil over marl or
limestone substrate; mesic; subtropical; occasional or rare fire; live oak and/or cabbage palm.
Rank = S3 (either very rare or local throughout its range or found locally in a restricted range
or vulnerable to other factors).
Upland Hardwood Forest: Mesic Uplands Group. Upland with sand/clay and/or calcareous
substrate; mesic; temperate; rare or no fire; spruce pine, magnolia, beech, pignut hickory, white
oak, and mixed hardwoods. Rank = S3 (either very rare or local throughout its range or found
locally in a restricted range or vulnerable to other factors).
Palustrine Category
Hydric Hammock: Wet Flatlands Group. Lowland with sandy/clay/organic soil, often over
limestone; mesic-hydric;subtropical or temperate; rare or no fire; water oak, cabbage palm,
diamond-leaf oak, red maple, bays, hackberry, hornbeam, black gum, blue palmetto, and
hardwoods. Rank = S4? (apparently secure statewide).
Wet Flatwoods: Wet Flatlands Group. Flatland with sand substrate; seasonally inundated;
subtropical or temperate; annual or frequent fire; vegetation characterized by slash pine or pond
pine and/or cabbage palm mixed with grasses and herbs. Rank = S4? (apparently secure
statewide).
Wet Prairie: Wet Flatlands Group. Flatland with sand substrate; seasonally inundated;
subtropical or temperate; annual or frequent fire; beakrush, spike rush, wiregrass, pitcher plants,
St. John’s-wort, mixed herbs. Rank = S4? (apparently secure statewide).
Baygall: Seepage Wetlands Group. Wetland with peat substrate at base of slope; maintained by
downslope seepage, usually saturated and occasionally inundated; subtropical or temperate; rare
or no fire; bays and/or titi and/or dahoon holly and/or red maple and/or mixed hardwoods. Rank
= S4? (apparently secure statewide).
Seepage Slope: Seepage Wetlands Group. Wetland on or at base of slopewith organic or
sand/clay substrate; maintained by downslope seepage, usually saturated but rarely inundated;
subtropical or temperate; frequent or occasional fire; sphagnum moss, mixed grasses and herbs
or mixed hydrophytic shrubs. Rank = S2 (imperiled in Florida because of rarity).
Floodplain Swamp: Floodplain Wetlands Group. Floodplain with organic or alluvial substrate;
usually inundated; subtropical or temperate; rare or no fire; vegetation characterized by cypress,
gums, and/or green ash. Rank = S4? (apparently secure statewide).
Basin Marsh: Basin Wetlands Group. Large basin with peat substrate; seasonally inundated;
temperate or subtropical; frequent fire; saw grass, cattail, buttonbush, or mixed emergents. Rank
= S4? (apparently secure statewide).
Basin Swamp: Basin Wetlands Group. Large basin with peat substrate; seasonally inundated,
still water; subtropical or temperate; occasional or rare fire; cypress, black gum, bays, and/or
mixed hardwoods. Rank = S3 (either very rare or local throughout its range or found locally in
a restricted range or vulnerable to other factors).
114
Bog: Basin Wetlands Group. Wetland on deep peat substrate; moisture maintained by capillary
action, soil usually saturated, occasionally inundate; subtropical or temperate; rare fire;
sphagnum moss and titi an/or bays and/or dahoon holly, and/or mixed hydrophytic shrubs. Rank
= S3 (either very rare or local throughout its range or found locally in a restricted range or
vulnerable to other factors).
Coastal Interdunal Swale: Basin Wetlands Group. Long narrow depression wetlands in sand or
peat-sand substrate; seasonally inundated, fresh to brackish, still water; temperate; rare fire;
graminoids and mixed wetland forbs. Rank = S2 (imperiled in Florida because of rarity).
Dome Swamp: Basin Wetlands Group. Rounded depression in sand/limestone substrate with
peat accumulating toward center; seasonally inundated; still water; subtropical or temperate;
occasional or rare fire; pond cypress, and/or black gum. Bays, often tallest in center. Rank = S3?
(either very rare or local throughout its range or found locally in a restricted range or
vulnerable to other factors).
Lacustrine Category
Sandhill Upland Lake: No Group designation. Generally a rounded solution depression in deep
sandy uplands or sandy uplands shallowly underlain by limestone; predominantly without
surface inflows/outflows; typically sand substrate with organic accumulations toward middle;
clear, acidic, moderately soft water with varying mineral content; ultra-oligotrophic to
mesotrophic. Rank = S2 (imperiled in Florida because of rarity).
Sinkhole Lake: No Group designation. Typically deep, funnel-shaped depression in limestone
base; occurs in most physiographic regions; predominantly without surface inflows/outflows, but
frequently with connection to the aquifer; clear, alkaline, hard water with high mineral content
(calcium, bicarbonate, magnesium). Ranking = S3 (either very rare or local throughout its
range or found locally in a restricted range or vulnerable to other factors).
Riverine Category
Blackwater Stream: No Group Designation. Perennial or intermittent/seasonal watercourse
characterized by tea-colored water with a high content of particulate and dissolved organic
matter derived from drainage through swamps and marshes; generally lacking an alluvial
floodplain. Rank = S2 (imperiled in Florida because of rarity).
Seepage Stream: No Group designation. Upper perennial or intermittent/seasonal watercourse
characterized by clear to lightly colored water derived from shallow groundwater seepage. Rank
= S2 (imperiled in Florida because of rarity).
Spring-run Stream: No Group designation. Perennial watercourse with deep aquifer
headwaters and characterized by clear water, circumneutral pH and, frequently, a solid limestone
bottom. Rank = S2 (imperiled in Florida because of rarity).
Subterranean Category
Terrestrial Cave: No Group designation. Cavernicolous area lacking standing water; often
characterized by bats, such as Myotis, and other terrestrial vertebrates and invertebrates; includes
115
interstitial areas above standing water such as fissures in the ceiling of caves. Rank = S1
(critically imperiled in Florida because of extreme rarity).
Marine/Estuarine Category
Unconsolidated Substrate: No Group designation. Expansive subtidal, intertidal, and
supratidal area composed primarily of loose mineral matter (e.g., mud, sand, shell); octocorals,
sponges, stony corals, nondrift macrophytic algae, bluegreen mat-forming algae and seagrasses
sparse, if present. Rank = S5 (demonstrably secure statewide).
Grass Bed: No Group designation. Expansive subtidal or intertidal area, occupied primarily by
rooted vascular macrophytes (e.g., shoal grass, Halophila, widgeon grass, manatee grass, turtle
grass); may include various epiphytes and epifauna; octocorals, sponges, stony corals, and
attached macrophytic algae sparse, if present. Rank = S2 (imperiled in Florida because of
rarity).
Mollusk Reef: No Group designation. Substantial subtidal or intertidal area with relief from
concentrations of sessile organisms of the Phylum Mollusca, Class Bivalvia (e.g., molluscs,
oysters, & worm shells); octocorals, sponges, stony corals, macrophytic algae, and seagrasses
sparse if present. Ranking = S3 (either very rare or local throughout its range or found locally in
a restricted range or vulnerable to other factors).
Tidal Marsh: No Group designation. Expansive intertidal or supratidal area occupied by rooted,
emergent vascular macrophytes (e.g. cord grass, needlerush, saw grass, saltwort, saltgrass, and
glasswort); may include various epiphytes and epifauna. Rank = S4? (apparently secure
statewide).
Man Made Marine/Estuarine Substrates
Rock Jetties: Although not a natural component of the St. Andrew Bay marine/estuarine system,
rock structures such as the jetties along the man-made channel into St. Andrew Bay and at the
Landmark Apartments serve as consolidated substrate and support a diverse community of
organisms associated with such natural structures. Man-made substrates are not ranked because
they are artificial areas rather than naturally occurring substrates.
116
APPENDIX 2. Protected, Rare, or Endemic Biota of the St. Andrew Bay
Ecosystem
The following tables of species that are considered protected by the responsible state and federal
agencies are presented as major groups of organisms. The sources of the tables are provided
below. The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs, through the Endangered
Plant Advisory Council, is responsible for determining the status of protected plants. The Florida
Fish and Wildlife Commission is responsible for determining the status of protected animals, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service are responsible for
determining the status of plants and animals under the federal Endangered Species Act. The
tables of protected species provided below are constructed in a similar fashion. The heading
“State” refers to the status of the organism as determined by the responsible Florida agency, the
heading “Federal” refers to the status as provided by the responsible federal agency, and
“County” is the county or counties within the watershed where that organism may be found. The
designations are: E = endangered, T = threatened, SSC = species of special concern, N = not
listed, S1 = critically imperiled in Florida because of extreme rarity, S2 = imperiled in Florida
because of rarity, S3 = either very rare or local throughout its range or found locally in a
restricted range or vulnerable to other factors, B = Bay County, C = Calhoun County, G = Gulf
County, J = Jackson County, and W = Washington County.
Bay County is the only county entirely within the St. Andrew Bay watershed. Therefore, those
protected species known to occur in Bay County are confirmed as present in the watershed.
Relatively small portions of the other counties are included in the watershed. It was not possible
within the time available to determine the exact locations of the species listed as protected in the
other counties in the watershed. Therefore, some to many of the protected species listed for the
other counties may not actually occur within the St. Andrew Bay watershed. The Lake Powell
watershed extends a short distance into Walton County. Walton County is not included for the
purposes of protected species because the Lake Powell subdrainage basin has been excluded
from this plan. The species designated as protected in the official lists change periodically, and
one should consult the most recent document for the current designations and status.
Vascular Plants
Wunderlin et al. (1996) listed 856 species and varieties of vascular plants from Bay County. In
1998, the BEST, Inc. received a grant from the Norcross Wildlife Foundation to perform a
survey of the vascular plants of Bay County and to develop a herbarium for the specimens
collected. Keppner and Keppner (2001a) completed the work and provided 1000 specimens of
over 900 species from Bay County for the herbarium and a list of the vascular plants reported
from Bay County. That work has continued and the current list of vascular plants known from
Bay County currently totals 1271 species in 512 genera in 151 families.
The lists of vascular plants from the other counties in the watershed were obtained from
Wunderlin et al. (1996). According to that work, there are 844 species known from Calhoun
County, 726 species known from Gulf County, 1377 from Jackson County, 1275 from Walton
County, and 804 from Washington County. There is, of course, a significant similarity in species
between the counties so that a simple addition of the number of species from each county is not
valid. The following table of protected vascular plants was taken from the Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Affairs document prepared by Coile (2000). Scientific and common
117
names are from Coile (2000). The federal status of the plants on the list was obtained from
FNAI (2000).
The St. Andrew Bay ecosystem supports about 130 species of plants listed by the State of Florida
and/or the federal government and/or tracked by FNAI (Table 1). One can not be sure which
species reported from counties other than Bay County actually occur in the St. Andrew Bay
ecosystem because the location records have not been analyzed. However, Bay County supports
populations of 53 of the listed plant species or 42% of the possibly occurring species in the
ecosystem.
Animals
As with the plants in the ecosystem, the total number of species of animals that are actually
present in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem is impossible to determine for those counties that are
only partly located in the ecosystem. No one has attempted to develop a list of all the animals
that might occur in the ecosystem. Keppner (1996) provided information on the animals
reported from the St. Andrew Bay estuary, but did not include animals from any other habitat in
the ecosystem.
The animals that are designated as protected and/or tracked in the ecosystem were obtained from
Wood (1996), from the document dated 1997 on the Florida Game and Fish Commission
website, and from FNAI (2000). None of these references provided information pertaining to the
counties from which each species is known. However, Peterson (1997) did provide a list of the
counties from which the species designated as protected at the time of his compilation have been
reported. This document was used to determine the protected animals that occur in the counties
in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem. Additional records of protected birds were obtained from
Loftin et al. (1987) for Bay County. Barkuloo (pers. comm. 2001) stated that the alligator gar,
Atractosteus spatula, was collected from Bay County, and the specimens are at Tulane
University. The State of Florida or the federal government does not list this species, but it is
tracked by FNAI.
There are 60 protected and/or tracked species of animals known from the ecosystem. Bay
County supports 33+ or 80% of those species. FNAI tracks a much larger number of animals
including many invertebrates. However, they are not listed because the species on the list are not
known to be present in the ecosystem. A search of the literature and a search of specimens in
taxonomic collections would provide the species present in the most accurate manner (Table 2).
Beck et al. (2000) provided records of the occurrence of certain species of animals from the St.
Andrew Bay estuarine system and Gulf of Mexico waters not encountered in the other literature.
They list three records of occurrence for the Manatee, 2 records of occurrence for the Fringed
Pipefish, and 23 records of occurrence for Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle listed as endangered by the
federal government. The Fringed Pipefish is neither a candidate nor listed under the Endangered
Species Act according to the National Marine Fisheries Service (pers. comm. 2001).
118
Table 1. Protected Plants in the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem
Scientific Name Common Name FNAI State Federal County
Andropogon arctatus Pinewood Bluestem S3 T N B,C,G,J,W
Arabis canadensis Sicklepod N E N J
Aristolochia tomentosa Pipevine N E N B,C,G,J,W
Asclepias viridula Green Milkweed S2 T N B,G,W
Asplenium verecundum Delicate Sleenwort S1 E N J
Aster hemisphericus Aster S1 E N W
Aster spinulosus Pinewoods Aster S1 E N B,C,G,W
Baptisia megacarpa Apalachicola Wild Indigo S2 E N W
Bigelowia nuttallii Nuttall's Rayless Goldenrod S1 E N W
Brickellia cordifolia Flyer's Nemesis S1 E N J
Sideroxylon lycioides Buckthorn N E N J
Sideroxylon thornei Thorn's Buckthorn N E N G,J
Arnoglossum diversifolia Indian-plantain N T N C,J,W
Calamintha dentata Toothed Savory S3 T N B,J,W
Calamovilfa curtissii Curtiss's Sandgrass S3 T N B
Callirhoe papaver Poppy Mallow S2 E N J
Calycanthus floridus Sweetshrub S2 E N J
Calystegia catesbaeiana Catesby's Bindweed SH E N J
Carex baltzellii Baltzell's Sedge S3 T N B,C,W
Cheilanthes microphylla Southern Lip Fern S3 E N W
Chrysopsis cruiseana Cruise's Goldenaster S2 E N B
Chrysopsis godfreyi Godfrey's Goldenaster S2 E N B
Cleistes divaricata Spreading Pogonia N T N B,C,G
Coelorachis tuberculosa Florida Jointail S3 T N B*,W
Coreopsis integrifolia Fringleaf Tickseed S1 E N C,J,W
Cornus alternifolia Pagoda Dogwood S2 E N C,J,W
Crataegus phaenopyrum Washington Thorn S1 E N W
Cryptotaenia canadensis Honewort S1 E N J
Cuphea aspera Tropical Waxweed S1 E N C,G
Dirca palustris Leatherwood S2 E N J
Drosera filiformis Threadleaf Sundew S1 E N B,W
Drosera intermedia Water Sundew S3 T N B,C,G
Eriocaulon nigrobracteatum Darkheaded Hatpins S1 E N B,C
Euphorbia commutata Wood Spurge S2 E N J
Euphorbia telephioides Telephus Spurge S1 E N B,G
Forestiera godfreyi Godfrey's Swamp Privet S2 E N J
Gentiana pennelliana Wiregrass Gentian S3 E N B,C,G,W
Hexalectris spicata Crested Coralroot N E N C,J
Hexastylis arifolia Heartleaf Wild Ginger S3 T N W
Hymenocallis henryae Henry's Spiderlily S2 E N B,G
Hypericum lissophloeus Smoothbark St. John's-wort S2 E N B,W
Ilex amelanchier Serviceberry Holly S2 T N J
Isopyrum biternatum False Rue-anemone S1 E N J,W
Isotria verticillata Whorled Pogonia S1 E N W
Juncus gymnocarpus Coville's Rush S2 E N B,W
Justicia crassifolia Thickleaved Waterwillow S2 E N G
Kalmia latifolia Mountain Laurel S3 T N B,C,W
Lachnocaulon digynum Panhandle Bog Buttons S3 T N B,C,
Liatris provincialis Godfrey's Gayfeather S2 E N B*
119
Table 1. Protected Plants in the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem
Scientific Name Common Name FNAI State Federal County
Lilium catesbaei Catesby Lily N T N B,C,G,J,W
Lilium michauxii Carolina Lily S2 E N J
Linum westii West's Flax S2 E N C,G,J
Lilaeopsis carolinensis Carolina Lilaeopsis S3 N N B
Listera australis Southern Tway Blade N T N J
Lobelia cardinalis Cardinal Flower N T N C,J
Lupinus westianus Gulf Coast Lupine S2 T N B,G,W
Macbridea alba White Birds-in-a-nest S2 E T B,G
Macranthera flammea Hummingbird Flower S2 E N B,C,J
Magnolia ashei Ashe's Magnolia S2 E N B,W
Magnolia pyramidata Pyramid Magnolia S3 E N B,C,J
Malaxis uniflora Green Addersmouth S3 E N J,W
Malus angustifolia Southern Crabapple N T N C,J,W
Marshallia obovata Barbara's Buttons S1 E N J
Marshallia ramosa Barbara's Buttons S1 E N W
Matelea alabamensis Alabama Spinypod S2 E N J
Matelea baldwiniana Baldwin's Spinypod S1 E N J
Matelea flavidula Yellowflowered Spinypod S1 E N W
Matelea gonocarpus Angle-pod N T N B,C,G,J,W
Myriophyllum laxum Piedmont Water-milfoil S3 N N **
Nyssa ursina Bog Tupelo S2 N N B
Opuntia stricta Shell Mound Prickly Pear N T N G
Oxypolis greenmanii Giant Water-dropwort S3 E N B,C,G
Pachysandra procumbens Allegheny Spurge S1 E N J
Panicum nudicaule Naked-stemmed Panicgrass S3 LT N B
Paronychia chartacea Papery Whitlow-wort S1 E T B,W
Pellaea atropurpurea Hairy Cliff-brake Fern S1 E N W
Phoebanthus tenuifolius Narrowleaf Phoebanthus S3 LT N **
Physocarpus opulifolius Ninebark S1 E N C,J
Physostegia godfreyi Apalachicola Dragonhead S3 T N B,C,G
Pinckneya bracteata Fever Tree N T N B,C,G,J,W
Pinguicula ionantha Panhandle Butterwort S2 E T B,G
Pinguicula lutea Yellow Butterwort N T N B,C,G,J,W
Pinguicula planifolia Swamp Butterwort N T N B,C,G,J,W
Pinguicula primuliflora Primrose-flowered Butterwort S3 E N B,W
Platanthera blephariglottis Whitefringed Orchid N T N J,W
Platanthera ciliaris Yellowfringed Orchid N T N B,C,J,W
Platanthera clavellata Green Rein Orchid SH E N C
Platanthera integra Orange Rein Orchid S3 E N C,G,J,W
Platanthera nivea Snowy Orchid N T N B,C,J,W
Podophyllum peltatum Mayapple S1 E N J
Pogonia ophioglossioides Rose Pogonia N T N B,C,G,W
Polygonella macrophylla Largeleaf Jointweed S2 T N B
Polymnia laevigata Tennessee Leaf-cup S1 E N J
Quercus arkansana Arkansas Oak S3 T N C
Rhexia parviflora Apalachicola Meadowbeauty S2 E N B,C,G
Rhexia salicifolia Panhandle Meadowbeauty S2 T N B,C,W
Rhododendron austrinum Florida Flame Azalea S3 E N C,J,W
120
Table 1. Protected Plants in the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem
Scientific Name Common Name FNAI State Federal County
Rhododendron chapmanii Chapman's Rhododendron S1 E E G
Rhynchospora crinipe Hairypeduncled Beakrush S1 N N **
Rhynchospora stenophylla Narrowleaf Beakrush S3 T N B,W
Rudbeckia nitida St. John's Susan S2 E N B
Ruellia noctiflora Nightflowering Ruellia S2 E N G,J
Salix eriocephala Heartleaved Willow S1 E N J
Salvia urticifolia Nettle-leaved Sage S1 E N J
Sarracenia leucophylla Whitetop Pitcher Plant S3 E N B,C,G
Sarracenia psitticina Parrot Pitcher Plant N T N B,C,G,J,W
Sarracenia purpurea Decumbent Pitcher Plant N T N B,C,W
Sarracenia rubra Sweet Pitcher Plant S3 N LT **
Schisandra coccinea Bay Star Vine S2 E N J,W
Scutellaria floridana Florida Skullcap S1 E T B,G
Silene virginica Fire Pink S1 E N **
Spigelia gentianoides Gentian Pinkroot S1 E E C,J,W
Spiranthes laciniata Lace-lip Ladies'-tresses N T N B
Spiranthes longilabris Long-lip Ladies'-tresses N T N G
Spiranthes ovalis Lesser Ladies'-tresses N E N J
Spiranthes tuberosa Little Pearl-twist N T N J,W
Stachydeoma graveolens Mock Pennyroyal S2 E N B,C
Stewartia malacodendron Silky Camelia S3 E N B,C,W
Tipularia discolor Crane-fly Orchid N T N J
Trillium lancifolium Narrowleaf Trillium S2 E N J
Verbesina chapmanii Chapman's Crownbeard S3 T N B,C,G,J
Xanthorhiza simplicissima Yellowroot S1 E N J
Xyris chapmanii
Chapman's Yelloweyed
Grass S1 E N C
Xyris drummondii
Drummond's Yelloweyed
Grass S3 N N B
Xyris isoetifolia Quillwort Yelloweyed Grass S1 E N B,G,W
Xyris longisepala Kral's Yelloweyed Grass S2 E N B,W
Xyris louisianica Louisiana Yelloweyed Grass S1 E N C
Xyris stricta var. obscura Pineland Yelloweyed Grass S1 N N **
Xyris scabrifolia Harper's Yelloweyed Grass S3 T N B,C,G,J
Zephranthes atamasco Rainlily N T N J
** = FNAI list, Counties not designated
121
Table 2. Protected Animals in the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem
Scientific Name Common Name FNAI State Federal Counties
Invertebrates
Caecidotea sp. 8 Econfina Springs Cave Isopod S1 N N **
Dasyscias franzi Shaggy Ghostsnail S1 N N **
Medionidus penincillatus Gulf Moccasinshell S2 N LE **
Panopea bitruncata Atlantic Geoduck S3? N N **
Pleurobrema pyriforme Oval Pigtoe S? N LE
Procambarus econfinae Panama City Crayfish S1 SSC N B
Sphodros abboti Blue Purse-web Spider S4 N N **
Libellula jesseana Purple Skimmer S? N N B
** = FNAI list, Counties undesignated
Freshwater Fish
Acipenser oxyrhyncus desotoi Gulf Sturgeon S2 SSC T B,C,G
Ameirus serracanthus Spotted Bullhead S3 N N **
Atractosteus spatula Alligator Gar S3 N N B*
* = Barkuloo, pers. Comm. See text
** = FNAI list, counties undesignated
Saltwater Fish
Micrognathus crinigerus* Fringed Pipefish
* = Considered imperiled by Beck et al. (2000)
Amphibians
Ambystoma cingulatum Flatwoods Salamander S2S3 N T C,J,W
Rana capito Gopher Frog S3 SSC N B,C,G,J,W
Reptiles
Alligator mississippiensis American Alligator S4 SSC T B,C,G,J,W
Caretta caretta Atlantic Loggerhead Turtle S3 T T B,G
Chelonia mydas Atlantic Green Turtle S2 E E B,G
Crotalis adamanteus Eastern Diamondback Rattlesanake S3 N N B,C,J,G,W
Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback Turtle S2 T T B,G
Drymarchon corias couperi Eastern Indigo Snake S3 T T B,C,J,W
Gopherus polyphemus Gopher Tortoise S3 SSC N B,C,J,G,W
Graptomys barbouri Barbour's Map Turtle S2 SSC N G
Lepidochely kempii Kemp's ridley S1 E E B
Macroclemys temminckii Alligator Snapping Turtle S3 SSC N C,G,W
Nerodia clarkii clarkii Gulf Salt Marsh Snake S3? N N B
Pituophis melanoleucas Florida Pine Snake S3 SSC N B,C,W
Birds
Accipiter cooperi Cooper's Hawk S3? N N B,C,G,J,W
Ajaia ajaja Roseate Spoonbill S2 SSC N B*
Ammodramus maritimus peninsulae Scott's Seaside Sparrow S2 SSC N **
Aramus guarauna Limpkin S3 SSC N B*,G,J
Ardea alba Great Egret S4 N N B,C,G,J,W
Charadrius alexandrius Snowy Plover S2 LT N B
122
Table 2. Protected Animals in the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem
Scientific Name Common Name FNAI State Federal Counties
Charadrius melodus Piping Plover S2 T T B,G
Cistothorus palustris marianae Marian's Marshwren S3 SSC N B
Dendroica kirtlandii Kirtland's Warbler S1 E E B*
Egretta caerulea Little Blue Heron S4 SSC N B,C,G,J,W
Egretta rufescens Reddish Egret S2 SSC N B
Egretta thula Snowy Egret S3 SSC N B,C,G,J,W
Egretta tricolor Tricolored Heron S4 SSC N B
Eudocimus albus White Ibis S4 SSC N C,J
Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon S2 E N B
Falco sparvarius paulus Southeastern American Kestrel S3 T N B
Haematopus palliatus American Oystercatcher S2 SSC N B,G
Haliaeetus leucocephala Bald Eagle S3 T T B,G
Ixobrychus exilis Least Bittern S4 N N B,C,G,J,W
Myctera americana Wood Stork S2 E E C,G,J
Pandion haliatus Osprey S3S4 SSC N B,G,J
Pelecanus occidentalis Brown Pelican S3 SSC N B,G
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded Woodpecker S2 T E B
Rhynchops niger Black Skimmer S3 SSC N B,G
Sterna antillarum Least Tern S3 T N B,G
Sterna maxima Royal Tern S3 N N B,G
Sterna sandvicensis Sandwich Tern S2 N N B,G
** = FNAI list, Counties undesignated
* records in Loftin et. al. 1987
Mammals
Mustela frenata olivacea Southeastern Weasel S3? N N **
Myotis grisescens Gray Bat S1 E E J,W
Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat SA E E J
Peromyscus polionotus allophrys Choctawhatchee Beach Mouse S1 E E B
Peromyscus polionotus peninsularis St. Andrews Beach Mouse S1 E N B,G
Sciuris niger shermani Sherman's Fox Squirrel S3 SSC N W
Trichechus manatus West Indian Manatee S2 E E B,G
Ursus americanus floridanus Florida Black Bear S2 T N B,C,G
** = FNAI list, Counties undesignated
