Nearshore Marine Biological

Survey and Assessment

Pinellas County Shore Protection Project

Comprehensive Borrow Area Study

December 2002

Prepared for:

Jacksonville District

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

400 West Bay Street

Jacksonville, FL 32202

Prepared by:

Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.

490 Osceola Avenue

Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250
Comprehensive Borrow Area Study Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.

Pinellas County December 2002

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. (DC&A) was contracted by the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, Jacksonville District (Corps) to conduct a nearshore marine environmental baseline

survey and report for the Pinellas County Shore Protection Project. This portion of the study

focuses on the nearshore pipeline corridors and staging areas leading from potential offshore

borrow areas. This work was done under contract GS-10F-0124L. Marine resources were

mapped and documented with underwater still and video photography during July and August

2002.

Resources maps and summaries of habitat types delineated during the survey are reviewed in

this report. Since the methods to be employed by the dredging contractors are not known, a

complete impact assessment cannot be fully reviewed at this time. The information contained

in this report should be used for planning of future beach nourishments and renourishments

utilizing these offshore borrow areas and corridors. However, further surveying of the

pipeline placement during construction, as well as equipment placement may need to be

conducted before, during, and after construction to judge actual impacts to the marine

resources present in each area.
Comprehensive Borrow Area Study Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.

Pinellas County December 2002

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... II

LIST OF FIGURES....................................................................................................................V

LIST OF TABLES .....................................................................................................................V

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1

1.1 Purpose and Need ...........................................................................................................1

2.0 TECHNICAL APPROACH ................................................................................................3

2.1 Towed Video Survey and Mapping ................................................................................3

2.2 Diver Survey and Characterization...............................................................................12

2.2.1 Digital Image Analysis..........................................................................................12

2.2.2 Hardbottom Relief Assessment ............................................................................13

3.0 MARINE RESOURCE CHARACTERIZATION ............................................................14

3.1 Overview of Marine Resources ....................................................................................14

3.1.1 Fishes ....................................................................................................................14

3.1.2 Invertebrates..........................................................................................................16

3.1.3 Marine Algae ........................................................................................................17

3.1.4 Other Vertebrates..................................................................................................18

3.1.4.1 Sea Turtles ........................................................................................................18

3.1.4.2 Marine Mammals..............................................................................................19

3.1.5 Hardbottom and Livebottom Characterization .....................................................19

3.1.5.1 Digital Image Analysis......................................................................................19

3.1.5.2 Relief.................................................................................................................20

3.2 Pipeline Corridors.........................................................................................................21

3.2.1 Borrow Area D......................................................................................................22

3.2.1.1 North Corridor ..................................................................................................22

3.2.1.2 South Corridor ..................................................................................................22

3.2.2 Borrow Area E ......................................................................................................22

3.2.3 Borrow Area F ......................................................................................................22

3.2.4 Borrow Area G......................................................................................................23

3.2.4.1 North Corridor ..................................................................................................23
Comprehensive Borrow Area Study Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.

Pinellas County December 2002

iv

3.2.4.2 South Corridor ..................................................................................................23

3.2.5 Borrow Area H......................................................................................................23

3.2.5.1 North Corridor ..................................................................................................24

3.2.5.2 Center Corridor .................................................................................................24

3.2.5.3 South Corridor ..................................................................................................24

3.2.6 Borrow Area I .......................................................................................................24

3.3 Nearshore Staging Areas...............................................................................................25

3.3.1 Borrow Area D North (R-62 to R-63)...................................................................25

3.3.2 Borrow Area D South (R-74 to R-78)...................................................................25

3.3.3 Borrow Areas E and F (R-84 to R-86)..................................................................25

3.3.4 Borrow Area G North (R- 91to R-93)...................................................................25

3.3.5 Borrow Area G South and H (R-99 to R-103)......................................................26

3.3.6 Borrow Area I (R-58 to R-61)...............................................................................26

3.4 Pass-a-Grille Channel ...................................................................................................26

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................27

4.1 Pipeline Corridors.........................................................................................................27

4.2 Nearshore Staging Areas...............................................................................................27

5.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................29
Comprehensive Borrow Area Study Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.

Pinellas County December 2002

v

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1 Location Map..............................................................................................................2

Figure 2 Area D - North............................................................................................................4

Figure 3 Area D - South............................................................................................................5

Figure 4 Area E and F...............................................................................................................6

Figure 5 Area G - North............................................................................................................7

Figure 6 Area G - South and Area H - North............................................................................8

Figure 7 Area H - Central and South ........................................................................................9

Figure 8 Area I ........................................................................................................................10

Figure 9 Pass-A-Grille ............................................................................................................11

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1 Hardbottom Coverage Classification Used to Map Marine Resources .....................12

Table 2 Hardbottom Relief Classification Used to Map Marine Resources...........................12

Table 3 Fishes Observed Within Borrow Area During Diving Surveys................................15

Table 4 Dominant Invertebrate Species Observed During Borrow Area Surveys..................16

Table 5 Summary of Loggerhead Sea Turtle Nesting From 1988-2000.................................18

Table 6 Summary of Mean Percent Cover For Each Classification Category From Image

Analysis For All Areas Surveyed ..........................................................................20

Table 7 Summary of Mean Relief From Diver Characterization............................................20

Table 8 Summary of Marine Resource Cover Types Within Each Area Surveyed ................21
Comprehensive Borrow Area Study Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.

Pinellas County December 2002

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Dial Cordy and Associates Inc. (DC&A) was contracted by the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, Jacksonville District (Corps) to conduct a nearshore marine environmental baseline

survey and report for the Pinellas County Shore Protection Project. This portion of the study

focuses on the nearshore pipeline corridors and staging areas leading from potential offshore

borrow areas. This work was done under contract GS-10F-0124L.

1.1 Purpose and Need

Shoreline erosion and a lowered beach profile caused by storms, wave action, and currents

have become a serious concern along Pinellas County barrier island beaches. As a means of

controlling shoreline erosion and providing storm protection to these barrier islands fill

material has been placed along the shorelines. The Pinellas County Shore Protection Project

has historically obtained beach quality fill from inlet borrow areas and the Egmont Channel

Shoal for nourishment of Pinellas County beaches. The use of the Egmont Channel Shoal is

not always a cost effective option for nourishment of Pinellas County's beaches due to the

logistical and cost constraints associated with moving material such a large distance (22

miles). To help offset some of the costs associated within renourishment activity nine

offshore borrow areas have been identified for future use (Dial Cordy 2001). Bathymetry and

side-scan sonar of nearshore marine habitats has also been performed (SeaSystems 2001).

Identification of nearshore pipeline corridors and staging areas for construction equipment for

these offshore areas is evaluated in this report. These nearshore areas required evaluation to

document occurrence and quality of marine habitats to facilitate minimization of impacts.

1.2 Location

The project area is located in Pinellas County on the West coast of Florida, near the central

portion of the Florida peninsula, approximately 25 miles west of Tampa. The sites

investigated include the nearshore areas of Sand Key, Long Key, Treasure Island, and the

Pass-a -Grille Channel (Figure 1).
Area H

Area D

Area A

Area F

Area G

Area C

Area B

Area I

Area E

3036 Miles

Offshore Borrow Areas (Dial Cordy, 2001)

Survey Area for Pipeline Corridors and Nearshore Staging Areas

100 0 100 200 Miles

Pinellas Co., FL

Location Map

Nearshore Marine Biological Survey and Assessment

Pinellas County Shore Protection Project

Comprehensive Borrow Area Study

Scale: 1 inch = 3 miles

Date: October, 2002

Drawn By: MR

J02-582

Figure 1
Comprehensive Borrow Area Study Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.

Pinellas County December 2002

3

2.0 TECHNICAL APPROACH

DC&A conducted field investigations to locate, delineate, and characterize existing

hardground and/or other benthic community resources within the proposed pipeline corridors

and staging areas. Marine resources were mapped and documented with underwater still and

video photography. The field survey was conducted during July and August 2002.

2.1 Towed Video Survey and Mapping

To identify and delineate any marine resources present within the proposed pipeline corridors

and staging areas, a towed video survey was conducted. A towed video camera, in

conjunction with Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) and HYPACKMAXTM

navigation software, was utilized (Photograph 1). Real time position of the camera was

overlaid on the digitally recorded survey record. Transects were established within each area

at 100-foot intervals. In total, over 160 nautical miles of transect lines encompassing over

2000 acres were surveyed (Figures 2-9).

The point at which each transect crossed a change in marine habitat (i.e. hardbottom, sand,

etc.) was determined from video analysis. The points were then incorporated into a database

and ArcView GISTM was used to generate resource maps. Hardbottom was classified by

percent of coverage and also vertical relief. Hardbottom classifications are shown in Tables 1

and 2.

Photograph 1 Towed video camera and sled

used for mapping and assessment of marine

resources offshore Pinellas County
18

X= 219588 E

Y=1309960 N

0

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

6

6

6

8

8

18

COE-94-18

CB-SK96-D20

21

CB-SK96-D22

CB-SK96-D23

CB-SK96-D24

CB-SK96-D25

CB-SK96-D26

CB-SK96-D27

1500 0 1500 3000 Feet

Nearshore Habitat Classification

Sand

Shell Hash

Patchy Hardbottom / Low Relief Patchy Hardbottom / Medium Relief

Scattered Hardbottom / Low Relief

Scattered Hardbottom / Medium Relief

Artificial Reef

Penshell / Shell Hash Community

Survey Areas for Nearshore Pipeline Corridors and Staging Areas

LEGEND

Area D - North

Nearshore Marine Biological Survey and Assessment Pinellas County Shore Protection Project

Comprehensive Borrow Area Study

Scale: 1" = 1,500'

Date: October, 2002

Drawn By: MR

J02-582

Figure 2
X= 215052 E

Y=1303309 N

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

4

18

18

X= 212872 E

0 Y=1295403 N

0

2

2

2

4

4

4

18

CB-SK96-D28

96-E7

E8

2000 0 2000 4000 Feet

Nearshore Habitat Classification

Sand

Shell Hash

Patchy Hardbottom / Low Relief Patchy Hardbottom / Medium Relief

Scattered Hardbottom / Low Relief

Scattered Hardbottom / Medium Relief

Artificial Reef

Penshell / Shell Hash Community

Survey Areas for Nearshore Pipeline Corridors and Staging Areas

LEGEND

Area D - South

Nearshore Marine Biological Survey and Assessment Pinellas County Shore Protection Project

Comprehensive Borrow Area Study

Scale: 1" = 2,000'

Date: October, 2002

Drawn By: MR

J02-582

Figure 3
X= 212267 E

Y=1291031 N

0

0

2

2

2

2

4

4

4

18

X= 213053 E

Y=1284168 N

X= 213417 E

Y=1286888 N

X= 215796 E

Y=1286570 N

X= 216274 E

Y=1290150 N

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

4

4

4

4

4

6

6

18

18

E7

CB-SK96-F11

B-SK96-F15

CB-SK96-F24

CB-SK96-F4 CB-SK96-F5

B-SK96-F8

1500 0 1500 3000 Feet

Nearshore Habitat Classification

Sand

Shell Hash

Patchy Hardbottom / Low Relief Patchy Hardbottom / Medium Relief

Scattered Hardbottom / Low Relief

Scattered Hardbottom / Medium Relief

Artificial Reef

Penshell / Shell Hash Community

Survey Areas for Nearshore Pipeline Corridors and Staging Areas

LEGEND

Area E and F

Nearshore Marine Biological Survey and Assessment Pinellas County Shore Protection Project

Comprehensive Borrow Area Study

Scale: 1" = 1,500'

Date: October, 2002

Drawn By: MR

J02-582

Figure 4
12

215796 E

1286570 N

MATCH LINEMATCH LINE

AREA G

(1 of 2)

X= 221097 E

Y=1282481 N

0

0

2

2

4

4

4

4

4 4 4

6

6 6

6

8

12

18

18

COE-94-19

N

0 600 600 1200FT

300 

SCALE: 1''= 1200' 

0 SEDIMENT ISOPACH - EXPOSED HARDGROUNDS

SEDIMENT ISOPACH CONTOURS

BATHYMETRY CONTOURS

BORING X Y

AREA G

(2 of 2)

2

2

4

CB-SK96-G1

CB-SK96-G10

CB-SK96-G2

CB-SK96-G3

CB-SK96-G4 CB-SK96-G5

CB-SK96-G6

CB-SK96-G7

CB-SK96-G8 CB-SK96-G9

1500 0 1500 3000 Feet

Nearshore Habitat Classification

Sand

Shell Hash

Patchy Hardbottom / Low Relief Patchy Hardbottom / Medium Relief

Scattered Hardbottom / Low Relief

Scattered Hardbottom / Medium Relief

Artificial Reef

Penshell / Shell Hash Community

Survey Areas for Nearshore Pipeline Corridors and Staging Areas

LEGEND

Area G - North

Nearshore Marine Biological Survey and Assessment Pinellas County Shore Protection Project

Comprehensive Borrow Area Study

Scale: 1" = 1,500'

Date: October, 2002

Drawn By: MR

J02-582

Figure 5
AREA H

(1 of 2)

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

4

4

4

4

6

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

12

COE-94-11

AREA H

0

0

2

18

MATCH LINEMATCH LINE

6

18

AREA G

(2 of 2)

X= 220821 E

Y=1270988 N

0

0

2

2

2

2

4

4

18

18

N

1200FT 0 600 600 300 

SCALE: 1''= 1200' 

0 SEDIMENT ISOPACH - EXPOSED HARDGROUNDS

SEDIMENT ISOPACH CONTOURS

BATHYMETRY CONTOURS

BORING X Y

CB-SK96-G10

CB-SK96-G11

CB-SK96-G8 CB-SK96-G9

CB-SK96-H1

CB-SK96-H2

NO WORK ZONE

AREA H

2000 0 2000 4000 Feet

Nearshore Habitat Classification

Sand

Shell Hash

Patchy Hardbottom / Low Relief Patchy Hardbottom / Medium Relief

Scattered Hardbottom / Low Relief

Scattered Hardbottom / Medium Relief

Artificial Reef

Penshell / Shell Hash Community

Survey Areas for Nearshore Pipeline Corridors and Staging Areas

LEGEND

Area G - South and Area H - North

Nearshore Marine Biological Survey and Assessment Pinellas County Shore Protection Project

Comprehensive Borrow Area Study

Scale: 1" = 2,000'

Date: October, 2002

Drawn By: MR

J02-582

Figure 6
12

18

X= 231154 E

Y=1261378 N

228802 E

54881 N

N

0

 600

 600

1200FT

300 

SCALE: 1''= 1200' 

0 SEDIMENT ISOPACH - EXPOSED HARDGROUNDS

SEDIMENT ISOPACH CONTOURS

BATHYMETRY CONTOURS

BORING X Y

 

2500 0 2500 5000 Feet

Nearshore Habitat Classification

Sand

Shell Hash

Patchy Hardbottom / Low Relief Patchy Hardbottom / Medium Relief

Scattered Hardbottom / Low Relief

Scattered Hardbottom / Medium Relief

Artificial Reef

Penshell / Shell Hash Community

Survey Areas for Nearshore Pipeline Corridors and Staging Areas

LEGEND

Area H - Central and South

Nearshore Marine Biological Survey and Assessment Pinellas County Shore Protection Project

Comprehensive Borrow Area Study

Scale: 1" = 2,500'

Date: October, 2002

Drawn By: MR

J02-582

Figure 7
12

6

4

4

18

AREA I

(2 of 2)

X= 219933 E

Y=1318637 N

X= 217685 E

Y=1317189 N

0

0

0

2

2

2

2

2

4

4

6

18

N

0

 300

 300

600FT 

SCALE: 1''= 600' 

150 

BATHYMETRY CONTOURS

SEDIMENT ISOPACH CONTOURS

0 SEDIMENT ISOPACH - EXPOSED HARDGROUNDS

BORING X Y

CB-SK96-I5

CB-SK96-I6 X= 219933 E

Y=1318637 N

X= 217685 E

Y=1317189 N

Area I

1500 0 1500 3000 Feet

Nearshore Habitat Classification

Sand

Shell Hash

Patchy Hardbottom / Low Relief Patchy Hardbottom / Medium Relief

Scattered Hardbottom / Low Relief

Scattered Hardbottom / Medium Relief

Artificial Reef

Penshell / Shell Hash Community

Survey Areas for Nearshore Pipeline Corridors and Staging Areas

LEGEND

Area I

Nearshore Marine Biological Survey and Assessment Pinellas County Shore Protection Project

Comprehensive Borrow Area Study

Scale: 1" = 1,500'

Date: October, 2002

Drawn By: MR

J02-582

Figure 8
1500 0 1500 3000 Feet

Offshore Borrow Areas (Dial Cordy, 2001)

Nearshore_video_poly_latlong.shp

Sand

Shell Hash

Patchy Hardbottom / Low Relief

Patchy Hardbottom / Medium Relief

Scattered Hardbottom / Low Relief

Scattered Hardbottom / Medium Relief

Artificial Reef

Penshell / Shell Hash Community

Survey Area for Pipeline Corridors and Nearshore Staging Areas

LEGEND

Pass-A-Grille

Nearshore Marine Biological Survey and Assessment Pinellas County Shore Protection Project

Comprehensive Borrow Area Study

Scale: 1" = 1,500'

Date: October, 2002

Drawn By: MR

J02-582

Figure 9
Comprehensive Borrow Area Study Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.

Pinellas County December 2002

12

Table 1 Hardbottom Coverage Classification Used to Map Marine Resources

Classification Percent Coverage

Penshell/Shellhash Variable coverage in nearshore areas

Patchy < 20% coverage

Scattered 20-75% coverage

Dense >75% coverage

Table 2 Hardbottom Relief Classification Used to Map Marine Resources

Classification Relief (cm)

Low Relief <30 cm

Medium Relief 30-100 cm

High Relief >100 cm

2.2 Diver Survey and Characterization

In addition to the towed video survey, diver characterizations of existing habitats were also

conducted. Representative habitat types, as determined from video analysis, were located and

divers deployed to document the dominant invertebrate, fish, marine algae, and coral

communities present within each of the survey areas.

2.2.1 Digital Image Analysis

The aim of the image analysis portion of the survey was to characterize the sessile biota (hard

corals, soft corals, sponges and algae) located within each survey area. Within each survey

area a 50 m transect was randomly laid to assess coverage of livebottom resources in the area.

A diver with a digital video camera would then swim along the transect and collect a still

image of the bottom type at every 5 m. Distance from the transect line was kept constant

using a positioning device attached to the camera to allow for comparison between images.

Images were then post processed and a random point analysis done on the images to assess

percent coverage of habitat types (USGS BRD 2000). These images were viewed in Adobe

Photoshop  5.0.2 and overlaid with 10 random dots on each photograph (Microsoft Excel

2000) (Photograph 2). Percent coverage was estimated by counting the total number of dots

covering each habitat type and data collected in a spreadsheet. The percent cover of each

habitat type was then determined for each area and this summary percent cover used to map

the respective habitats in each area.
Comprehensive Borrow Area Study Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.

Pinellas County December 2002

13

Vertical relief and overall quality were also recorded. Still photographs and hand held video

were also used to document the type and extent of living cover located within these areas.

2.2.2 Hardbottom Relief Assessment

Along each 50 m transect, relief measurements of hardbottom resources were also taken. At

each 5 m sampling location, a graduated measuring rod was used to estimate the relief from

the seafloor of significant marine resources. These measurements were averaged over each

transect and the average relief of the survey area utilized for characterization and mapping.

Photograph 2 Sample grabbed digital image with point

count dot overlay used in percent cover analysis.
Comprehensive Borrow Area Study Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.

Pinellas County December 2002

14

3.0 MARINE RESOURCE CHARACTERIZATION

This section summarizes the results of the two-year comprehensive survey of offshore borrow

areas, pipeline corridors and staging areas, as well as a review of pertinent literature.

3.1 Overview of Marine Resources

The area surveyed included areas offshore of Pinellas County, FL. These potential borrow

areas, pipeline corridors and staging areas exist in water depths up to ten meters. Lyons and

Collard (1974) describe these communities as areas of moderate wave energy with quartz sand

and shell fragments extending offshore. Large temperate mollusks and echinoderms tend be

the dominant faunal elements. In areas over 10 meters in depth, exposed rock substrate allows

for the establishment of scleractinian, molluscan, crustacean, tunicates, and other species more

common to shallower waters of south Florida (Smith 1974, Lyons and Collard 1974). Quartz

sands, with biologically influenced carbonates present, also dominate the sediments within

this area.

3.1.1 Fishes

Fishes off of the Gulf coast of western Florida are comprised of both reef and pelagic species.

Many of the species present within this area are of commercial importance and addressed

under the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management

Council (GMFMC) Management Plan (GMFMC 1998). The fish assemblages in the area

offshore of Pinellas County Florida and the Gulf of Mexico have been studied many times in

the past. These studies have included reports which characterize the offshore and nearshore

assemblages of fishes (Moe and Martin 1965; Saloman and Naughton 1979), cold stress of

fishes on reef areas (Gilmore, et. al 1978; Bullock, et. al 1979), growth and reproduction

(Shirripa and Burns 1997; Bullock, et. al 1996), and the impacts of fishing activities and

predation (Pierce, et. al 1998; Nelson and Bortone 1996), as well as many others.

Moe and Martin (1965) collected over 2300 individual fishes from 41 species during sampling

conducted nine separate locations offshore of Pinellas County. The most common fishes

collected during this survey included sand perch (Diplectrum fromosum), pigfish

(Orthopristus chrysopterus), silver perch (Bairdiella chrysura), spot (Leiostomus xanthurus),

and pinfish (Lagodon rhomboides). Other species collected in this study included searobins

(Prionotus tribulus crassiceps and Prionotus scitulus latfirons) and three species of flounder

(Etropus rimosus, E. crossotus atlanticus, and Syacium papillosum).

Fishes of commercial and recreational importance within the eastern Gulf of Mexico include

groupers and snappers. These species are included in the GMFMC snapper-grouper complex
Comprehensive Borrow Area Study Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.

Pinellas County December 2002

15

fisheries management plan (1998). Species common to the area include yellowedge grouper

(Epinephelus flavolimbatus) (Bullock, et. al 1996), gag (Mycteroperca microlepis) and red

grouper (Epinephelus morio) (Schirripa and Burns 1997). Many of these species have been

subjected to overfishing and stocks within the area have declined. This include red porgy

(Pargus pargus), vermilion snapper (Rhomboplites aurobens), and other grouper species

(Epinephelus sp.) (Roberts, et al. 1995).

Pelagic species also occur throughout the Gulf of Mexico in the nearshore and offshore

waters. Major coastal pelagic families include Rachycentridae (cobia), Mugilidae (mullets),

Pomatomidae (bluefish), Caranagidae (jacks), Scombridae (tunas and mackerels), Engraulidae

(anchovies), and Carahahinidae (requieum sharks). Many of these pelagic species form large

schools (e.g. jacks, mullet, mackerel, etc.), while others travel singly or in small groups (e.g.

cobia). Distribution of these species can vary seasonally and usually depends on water

column attributes that vary seasonally.

Fishes observed during diver and video surveys in this study are shown in Table 3. In total 22

species from 16 families were observed. Most species observed included small demersal

species common to hardbottom areas. The most common species observed were sand perch

(Diplectrum fromosum) and belted sandfish (Serranus subligarius); wrasses, in particular the

slippery dick (Halichoeres bivittatus), were also very common in the study area. Other

common fishes included searobins (Prionotus sp.) and menhaden (Brevoortia sp.). Anecdotal

observations of fishes during the survey included large schools of baitfish (Engraulidae and

Clupeidae), sharks (Carahahinidae), seahorse (Sygnathidae), batfish (Ogcocephalidae) and

mackerel (Scombridae).

Table 3 Fishes Observed Within Borrow Area During Diving Surveys

Scientific Name Common Name

Haemulon sp. Juv. Grunt

Equetus umbrosus Juv. Highhat

Haemulon sciurus Bluestriped Grunt

Haemulon chrysargyreum Smallmouth Grunt

Haemulon melanurum Cottonwick

Lutjanus griseus Gray Snapper

Lachnolaimus maximus Hogfish

Synodus intermedius Sand Diver

Opsanus beta Toadfish

Monocanthus sp. Filefish

Halichoeres bivittatus Slippery Dick

Diplectrum fromosum Sand Perch

Archosargus probatocephalus Sheepshead

Chaetodipterus faber Spadefish

Calamus sp. Porgy

Parablennius marmoreus Seaweed Blenny
Comprehensive Borrow Area Study Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.

Pinellas County December 2002

16

Scientific Name Common Name

Diplodus holbrooki Spottail Pinfish

Brevoortia sp. Menhaden

Prionous sp. Searobin

Echeneis naucrates Sharksucker

Centropristis striata Black Sea Bass

Epinephelus morio Red Grouper

Sphoeroides testudineus Checkered Puffer

Serranus subligarius Belted Sandfish

3.1.2 Invertebrates

Benthic invertebrates associated with livebottom habitats along the eastern Gulf of Mexico

include scleractinian, molluscan, crustacean, tunicates, octocoral, echinoderm, and porifera

species. Many of these species are similar to species found in the more tropical waters of the

Caribbean and south Florida reef tract. Lyons and Collard (1974) characterize the shallow

shelf habitat offshore of Pinellas County as an area with sediments dominated by quartz sand

and biogenically derived carbonates with exposed rock substrate. This substrate provides

habitat for scleractinian, molluscan, crustacean and other invertebrate species.

Previous studies have identified species common to habitats offshore of Pinellas County (EPA

1981; CZR 1991; Child 1992; Posey et. al 1996). The species listed in these previous studies

compares closely to species observed during this survey (Table 4). In total, over 40 dominant

invertebrates species were observed from the diver and video surveys. There are many more

cryptic and less obvious species present within these complex habitats.

Table 4 Dominant Invertebrate Species Observed During Borrow Area Surveys

Scientific Name Common Name

Echinoderms

Linckia guildingii Common Comet Star

Astropecten articulatus Beaded Sea Star

Echinaster spinulosus Orange-Ridged Sea Star

Luidia clathara Striped Sea Star

Luidia sp. Sea Star

Luidia alternata Banded Sea Star

Echinometra lucunter Rock-boring Urchin

Lytechinus variegates Variegated Urchin

Mollusks

Pinna carnea Penshell

Charonia variegata Tritons Trumpet

Busycon contrarium Lightning Whelk

Pleuroploca gigantean Florida Horse Conch
Comprehensive Borrow Area Study Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.

Pinellas County December 2002

17

Scientific Name Common Name

Scleractin Corals

Cladocora arbuscula Tube Coral

Stephanocoenia mitchelinii Blushing Star Coral

Isophyllia sinuosa Cactus Coral

Siderastrea sp. Starlet Coral

Solenastrea hyades Knobby Star Coral

Scolymia lacera Mushroom Coral

Phyllangia americana Hidden Cup Coral

Manicina aereolata Rose Coral

Montastrea annularis Boulder Star Coral

Oculina robusta Robust Ivory Tree Coral

Millepora alcicornis Branching Fire Coral

Octocorals

Eunicea succinea Shelf-knob Sea rod

Eunicea calyculata Warty Sea Rod

Plexaurella nutans Giant Slit-Pore Sea Rod

Muricea laxa Delicate Spiny Sea Rod

Muricea elongata Orange Spiny Sea Rod

Pseudoterogorgia sp. Sea Plume

Pterogorgia citrina Yellow Sea Whip

Leptogorgia virgulata Colorful Sea Whip

Sponges

Cribrochalina vasculum Brown Bowl Sponge

Xestospongia muta Giant Barrel Sponge

Spheciospongia vesparium Loggerhead Sponge

Ircinia sp. Ball Sponge

Calyx podatypa Dark Volcano Sponge

Anthosigmella varians Brown Variable Sponge

Amphimedon compressa Erect Rope Sponge

Pseudoceratina crassa Branching Tube Sponge

Crustaceans

Menippe mercenaria Florida Stone Crab

Tunicates

Clavelina sp. Colonial tunicates

Family Didemnidae Overgrowing Tunicates

Eudistoma sp. Condiminium Tunciate

3.1.3 Marine Algae

The marine algae present within the areas offshore of Pinellas County are extremely diverse.

Phillips, et al. (1960) identified 95 taxa of algae within areas of similar depth in this area.

Dominant algal species observed during this and other studies includes Caulerpa sp.,

Halimeda sp., Udotea flabellum, Sargassum sp., and Rhipocephalus phoenix (Phillips, et al.

1960; EPA 1981; CZR 1991).
Comprehensive Borrow Area Study Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.

Pinellas County December 2002

18

3.1.4 Other Vertebrates

Other vertebrate species, which utilize these offshore habitats, include many threatened and

endangered species. The Gulf of Mexico is within the range of five species of sea turtle, the

West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), and up to 28 cetacean species. Of these, four

species of sea turtle, the manatee, and one cetacean, the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops

truncatus), occur within the study area.

3.1.4.1 Sea Turtles

Four species of sea turtle commonly occur within the area around Pinellas County (Meylan, et

al. 1999; EPA 1981). These are the loggerhead (Caretta caretta), green (Chelonia mydas),

Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), and the hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata). The

loggerhead is listed as threatened and the other three species are listed as endangered.

Loggerhead turtles represent most of the sea turtles present in the Pinellas County area. Data

collected on sea turtle nesting in the area shows that the majority of the nests within this area

consist of loggerhead nests (Table 5). Of the 279 nests observed on Pinellas County beaches

in 2000, 278 were loggerhead nests and all 195 nests in 2001 were loggerhead. The only other

nesting activity reported was one green turtle nest. In 2000, there was one reported green

turtle nest and in 2002, two Kemp's Ridley nests were found on Sand Key (FMRI 2002). All

turtles observed during this survey were loggerhead turtles; which were seen with regular

consistency while conducting the survey. Stranding records within the Pinellas County area

also confirmed that loggerhead turtles are the most numerous species.

Table 5 Summary of Loggerhead Sea Turtle Nesting From 1988-2000

Year Beach Length Surveyed Number of Nests

1988 69.5 56

1989 63.2 92

1990 62.1 144

1991 67.3 175

1992 63.3 142

1993 42.7 105

1994 52.6 138

1995 58.8 229

1996 49.1 223

1997 58.8 181

1998 52.3 233

1999 62.6 172

2000 62.6 279

2001 62.6 195

Source: Florida Marine Research Institute 2002
Comprehensive Borrow Area Study Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.

Pinellas County December 2002

19

3.1.4.2 Marine Mammals

Marine mammals commonly present within the waters nearshore and offshore the study area

include manatee and bottlenose dolphin. Bottlenose dolphins were commonly observed while

conducting this survey. As many as 15 dolphins were observed at one time in the areas

adjacent to the offshore borrow areas. Weigle (1990) documented that at least three distinct

herds of dolphin are common within the Lower Tampa Bay area. This includes as many as

246 individual animals. Many of the dolphins observed may have been transient in nature.

However, 75 individuals were observed on more than one occasion.

West Indian manatees also utilize habitats within the study area. Manatees inhabit both fresh

and saltwater and may be encountered in canals, rivers, estuaries, bays, and on occasion have

been observed as far as 6 km off the Florida Gulf coast (USFWS 1996). Aerial surveys

indicate that as many as 190 manatees may use Tampa Bay (Ackerman 1995). Surveys show

that over 900 manatees inhabit the west coast of Florida. The highest concentrations of

manatees along Florida's Gulf coast exists in Citrus, Levy, Lee, and Collier Counties. Data

suggest that of the manatees living in the Tampa Bay area, most occur within the bay where

water temperatures are more stable year round. During aerial surveys in 1992, only 15

manatees were surveyed in the eastern portion of Tampa Bay (Akcerman 1995). Examination

of the manatee mortality data for Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties shows that from January

2000-October 2001 a total of 27 manatee deaths were reported. The majority of these deaths

involved perinatal, cold stress, or other natural causes.

3.1.5 Hardbottom and Livebottom Characterization

Hardbottom and livebottom within each of the survey areas was characterized for mapping

and impact assessment. A summary of the results for each area is discussed in this section.

3.1.5.1 Digital Image Analysis

The aim of the image analysis portion of the survey was to characterize the sessile biota (hard

corals, soft corals, sponges, and algae) located within each survey area. A total of 132

photographic quadrats were collected and analyzed. Overall, the mean coverage of living

resources within all areas was 26.7 percent. A summary breakdown of means for each

coverage classification is shown in Table 6. The major cover types within each area surveyed

were sponges and macroalgae. Hard corals accounted for the lowest percentage living cover

types identified with 0.7 percent.
Comprehensive Borrow Area Study Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.

Pinellas County December 2002

20

Table 6 Summary of Mean Percent Cover For Each Classification Category From

Image Analysis For All Areas Surveyed

Classification Mean Cover (%) Standard Deviation

(n=132)

Coral 0.7 0.7

Gorgonians 4.2 5.5

Sponges 10.6 10.5

Macroalgae 9.8 6.2

Other, Live 1.4 3.4

Sand, Rubble 72.6 17.4

Unknown 0.7 0.7

 3.1.5.2 Relief

Relief measurements within each survey area were averaged to obtain the mean relief within

each area. These mean relief numbers were then used during the mapping of each area to

develop a characterization of each area. A summary of mean relief within each area is shown

in Table 7.

Table 7 Summary of Mean Relief From Diver Characterization

Survey Area Mean Relief (cm) Standard Deviation

(n=11)

Area D South Site 1 39 6.1

Area D South Site 2 20.9 15.6

Area D 9.5 7.2

Area D Staging Area 3.9 3.6

Area E 1.4 3.2

Area F 12.2 13.1

Area F Staging Area 7.7 17.7

Area G North 20 22.5

Area G South 23.6 22.6

Area H 32.2 28.4

Area I 23.2 11.7

The extremely variable hardbottom distribution within each area accounts for the deviations in

relief within each area. Outcroppings of limestone covered in living bottom interspersed with

patches of open substrate are common in these areas. This mosaic of habitats creates

communities of hardbottom/livebottom within these areas. Penshell/shellhash communities in

these nearshore locations characterized survey areas with particularly low relief.
Comprehensive Borrow Area Study Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.

Pinellas County December 2002

21

3.2 Pipeline Corridors

This section contains a description of marine resources located within each potential pipeline

corridor surveyed. A summary of hardbottom resources within each pipeline corridor is

shown in Table 8.

Table 8 Summary of Marine Resource Cover Types Within Each Area Surveyed

Acres

Corridor

Survey Areas Sand

Penshell

/Shellhash

Patchy

Low

Relief

Patchy

Medium

Relief

Scattered

Low

Relief

Scattered

Medium

Relief

Shellhash

Area D north 58.9 ------ 4.0 ------ 17.4 ------ ------

Area D south 117.6 ------ ------ ------ 29.9 ------

Area E 149.1 ------ 10.2 ------ ------ ------ ------

Area F 69.6 3.1 15.2 ------ ------ ------ ------

Area G north 58.1 ------ ------ ------ ------ 7.9 ------

Area G south 65.2 ------ ------ 0.6 ------ 50.1 ------

Area H north 159.3 ------ ------ ------ 2.7 ------

Area H center 103.1 ------ ------ 0.4 ------ ------ ------

Area H south 418.4 ------ 0.7 ------ ------ 5.5 ------

Area I 80.7 20 ------ 27.8 ------

Pass-a-grille 75.8 ------ 4.6 ------ 16.2

Staging Area

Survey Areas

Area D north

(R62-R-63) 86.2 4.3 ------ ------ ------ ------ ------

Area D south

(R-74-R-78) 132.7 32.9 ------ 2.7 ------ ------ ------

Area EF

(R-84-R-86) 66.4 0.1 1.9 ------ ------ ------ ------

Area G north

(R-91-R-93) 125.3 2.6 9.9 ------ ------ ------ ------

Area G south

(R-99-R-103) 172.4 ------ ------ 8.2 ------ ------ ------

Area I

(R-58-R-61) 99.4 27.0 3.2 ------ ------ ------ ------
Comprehensive Borrow Area Study Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.

Pinellas County December 2002

22

3.2.1 Borrow Area D

Borrow Area D is located in the northern extent of the survey area offshore Pinellas County

(Figure 1) (Dial Cordy 2001). Two potential pipeline corridors were identified from prior

investigations and surveyed for marine resources.

3.2.1.1 North Corridor

Marine resources in the north corridor of Area D are shown in Figure 2. Marine resources

located in this potential pipeline corridor include 17.4 acres of scattered/low relief

hardbottom. These resources are located along the western extents of the corridor near the

borrow area. An additional 4.0 acres of patchy/low relief hardbottom is also located in this

corridor. Overall the hardbottom within this corridor is variable in its distribution and very

low relief.

3.2.1.2 South Corridor

The south corridor for Area D contains a total of 29.9 acres of hardbottom habitat. These

marine resources are located primarily in one extensive area of scattered/medium relief

hardbottom (Figure 3). This hardbottom habitat has an average relief of over 30 cm. Percent

coverage of hardbottom features in this area was over 20 percent living resources.

3.2.2 Borrow Area E

Area E could provide over 1MCY of material for potential placement along Indian Rocks

Beach (Figure 4) (Dial Cordy 2001). Hardbottom resources within the pipeline corridor for

Area E are limited to 10.2 acres of patchy/low relief hardbottom. Diver characterization of

these resources revealed an average relief of less than 10 cm and an average coverage by

living resources of less than 10 percent.

3.2.3 Borrow Area F

The pipeline corridor leading from Borrow Area F contains 18.2 acres of marine livebottom

resources. These resources consist of 15.2 acres of patchy low relief hardbottom and an

additional 3.1 acres of penshell/shellhash community. These hardbottom resources had an

average of 33 percent cover and a relief of 27 cm with a mean relief over the entire area of

12.2 cm.
Comprehensive Borrow Area Study Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.

Pinellas County December 2002

23

3.2.4 Borrow Area G

Borrow Area G has over 1.5 MCY of material available for placement along Pinellas County's

beaches (Dial Cordy 2001). This material is situated over 1,100 acres of seafloor

approximately 1.8 nm offshore of the area just south of Indian Rocks Beach, FL (Figure 1).

3.2.4.1 North Corridor

The northern corridor leading from Borrow Area G contains areas of scattered/medium relief

hardbottom (Figure 5). These areas of scattered hardbottom total 7.9 acres and occur in the

center of the pipeline corridor. This medium relief (w=20 cm) hardbottom has an average

percent cover of 33.3 percent. The most dominant living resource features covering the

limestone in these areas were macroalgae and sponges (19.2 percent and 0.1 percent,

respectively). Four percent of the living bottom surveyed along the transects surveyed were

covered in gorgonian species.

3.2.4.2 South Corridor

The southern pipeline corridor leading from Borrow Area G has extensive hardbottom

features (Figure 6). In total there are 50.1 acres of scattered/medium relief hardbottom and

0.6 acres of patchy/medium relief hardbottom within the survey limits of this pipeline

corridor. The average percent cover of these hardbottom features was 35.5 percent with an

average relief of 23.6 cm. Hardbottom features in this area consisted of medium relief

limestone ledges and outcrops. Gorgonian species were one of the dominant features covering

these rock features and accounted for 16.4 percent of the living cover.

3.2.5 Borrow Area H

Borrow Area H is the southernmost offshore borrow area surveyed and contains

approximately 2.7 MCY material that could be placed on Pinellas County's beaches. Borrow

Area H is 2.8 nautical miles offshore of the Treasure Island area (Dial Cordy 2001). Three

pipeline corridors were surveyed, a northern corridor that terminates in the staging area

located offshore of Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Monuments R99 to R-103, a central corridor that terminates on the beach just north of Johns Pass, and a

southern corridor that would allow sand to be placed south of the Johns Pass area (Figures 1,

6, and 7).
Comprehensive Borrow Area Study Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.

Pinellas County December 2002

24

3.2.5.1 North Corridor

The northern pipeline corridor leading from Borrow Area H has very little hardbottom

resources located within the extents of the survey area. Only 2.7 acres of hardbottom

resources were located during this survey. These are two small areas of patchy/medium relief

hardbottom located near the nearshore end of the corridor (Figure 6).

3.2.5.2 Center Corridor

The central pipeline corridor for Borrow Area H contains one small area of hardbottom. This

area of patchy/medium relief hardbottom covers 0.4 acres of seafloor. No other hardbottom

resources exist in this pipeline corridor (Figure 7).

3.2.5.3 South Corridor

The longest pipeline corridor surveyed was the southern corridor leading from Borrow Area

H. This corridor was just over 4 nautical miles in length. Located within this survey area was

5.5 acres of scattered/medium relief hardbottom. This area has a 41 percent living resource

cover and a relief of approximately 50 cm. Sponges were the most dominant resource cover

type in these hardbottom areas and results of the image analysis reveal that 16.4 percent was

covered with sponge growth, while in this same area, macroalgae accounted for 12.7 percent

and gorgonians 1.8 percent of the coverage.

3.2.6 Borrow Area I

Borrow Area I is the northern most and smallest of the offshore borrow areas. One pipeline

corridor was investigated for Borrow Area I and would allow material to come ashore in the

area south of Clearwater Pass (Figures 1 and 8).

Located within the pipeline corridor for Area I is an extensive area of scattered/low relief

hardbottom. This area of hardbottom covers over 27.8 acres and extends the entire width of

the surveyed corridor. Additionally, there are 20 acres of penshell/shellhash community along

the eastern portion of this pipeline corridor. Point count analysis and diver characterizations

show that this area of low relief hardbottom covers approximately 50 percent of the bottom

where it occurs and has a relief of 23 cm. Sponges (32.1 percent), macroalgae (10.4 percent),

gorgonians (3.8 percent, and corals (2.8 percent) are the cover types that typify these

hardbottom areas.
Comprehensive Borrow Area Study Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.

Pinellas County December 2002

25

3.3 Nearshore Staging Areas

Since the methods that dredging contractors will use to move the sand from the offshore

borrow areas to the beach to be nourished is not known (i.e. hopper dredge, cutterhead dredge

etc.) nearshore staging areas for dredge equipment were also surveyed for potential use. In

total, six nearshore staging areas were surveyed and a summary of marine resources located in

each area is discussed in this section.

3.3.1 Borrow Area D North (R-62 to R-63)

The staging area for the pipeline corridor Borrow Area D north is located offshore of FDEP

Monuments R-62 to R-63. This staging area and nearshore corridor is predominately sand

bottom with a few areas of penshell/shellhash communities. In total, 4.3 acres of

penshell/shellhash community exists within this area (Figure 2). These communities, while

not true hardbottom, do support a variety of marine life. In particular, it is an important

community for the stone crab, which was documented extensively in these areas during the

diver characterization.

3.3.2 Borrow Area D South (R-74 to R-78)

Located offshore between monuments R-74 to R-78 is the staging area surveyed for the

pipeline corridor leading from the southern end of Borrow Area D (Figure 3). This staging

area and nearshore corridor contains a permitted Pinellas County artificial reef site. The

location of this artificial reef is shown on Figure 3. During the survey, debris from this

artificial reef site was located north of the buoys marking the limits of the artificial reef. These

areas where debris was located are shown on Figure 3 immediately north of the area defined

as the reef site. There are 2.7 acres of patchy/medium relief hardbottom located in the

southwestern corner of this staging area. Additionally, there are 32.9 acres of

penshell/shellhash community located nearshore.

3.3.3 Borrow Areas E and F (R-84 to R-86)

The staging area surveyed between monuments R-84 to R-86 contains only 1.9 acres of

patchy/low relief hardbottom. The majority of this resource is located in an isolated patch of

hardbottom along the southeastern corner of the staging area (Figure 4).

3.3.4 Borrow Area G North (R- 91to R-93)

The northern pipeline corridor for Borrow Area G ends at the staging area offshore of

Monuments R-91 to R-93. This staging area has a total of 12.5 acres of marine resources.
Comprehensive Borrow Area Study Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.

Pinellas County December 2002

26

Figure 5 shows the relative distribution of patchy/low relief hardbottom located within this

area. In total, there are 9.9 acres of patchy/low relief hardbottom in this area. The remaining

2.6 acres located in this area are along the southeastern boundary of the survey area and

consists of penshell/shellhash community.

3.3.5 Borrow Area G South and H (R-99 to R-103)

Resources within this staging area are isolated patches randomly scattered throughout the area.

In total, 8.2 acres of patchy/medium relief hardbottom are located within this area. These

resources are distributed over the majority of the staging area (Figure 6). The largest areas of

occurrence are along the northern edge of the staging area.

3.3.6 Borrow Area I (R-58 to R-61)

The staging area for Borrow Area I has a total area of 129.6 acres. This area is predominately

sand (99.4 acres) and penshell/shellhash community (27.0 acres). Located in this staging area

are also 3.2 acres of patchy/low relief hardbottom resources (Figure 7).

3.4 Pass-a-Grille Channel

The Pass-a-Grille Channel was also surveyed and characterized during this study. A total of

4.6 acres of marine resources were located within the survey limits of Pass-a-Grille Channel

(Figure 9). These areas consisted of patchy/low relief hardbottom/livebottom within the

interior portions of the channel.
Comprehensive Borrow Area Study Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.

Pinellas County December 2002

27

4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This survey was conducted to determine the potential for utilization of the pipeline corridors

and nearshore areas located offshore of the Pinellas County shoreline. Since the methods to

be employed by the contractors are not known a complete impact assessment cannot be fully

reviewed at this time. Recommendations on the use of these areas and their potential for

utilization in the future will be addressed in this section.

4.1 Pipeline Corridors

Utilization of pipeline corridors by dredging contractors may result in impacts to marine

resources. The corridors for Borrow Areas D and G have particularly extensive areas of

hardbottom resources (Table 8). These resources would not be avoidable should they be used

for pipeline access to the beach. Both of these areas have nearshore staging areas that may be

utilized and if it is cost effective, hopper dredging or some other technique may be utilized to

minimize impacts. Should impacts be unavoidable, mitigation for these impacts would be

required. Construction of artificial reefs may be attempted to offset the damage done by pipe

placement.

The other pipeline corridors surveyed have few or isolated areas of hardbottom/livebottom

habitats, and avoidance of these habitats may be possible. The corridors surveyed were 500

feet in width and the majority of pipeline corridors will only need to be approximately 50 feet

in width. Careful planning and placement by the contractor can be used to avoid or minimize

impacts to these resources.

Further surveying of the pipeline placement during construction, as well as equipment

placement may need to be conducted before, during and after construction to judge actual

impacts to the marine resources present in each area. This monitoring of the construction

activity will allow for correct mitigation ratios and impact assessments.

4.2 Nearshore Staging Areas

The use of hopper dredges or booster pumps may require the utilization of the nearshore

staging areas. Portions of these areas have marine resources as described above and

summarized in Table 8. In most cases, however, these areas may be utilized with minimal

impact to hardbottom/livebottom resources. Exclusion zones can be created in areas where

marine resources are present, and access by the contractors machinery can be denied in these

areas. Additionally, placement of pipelines can be done to avoid these nearshore habitats.

Should any impacts be unavoidable within these nearshore areas mitigation would be

required.
Comprehensive Borrow Area Study Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.

Pinellas County December 2002

28

The staging area located at the southern end of Borrow Area D contains an artificial reef,

which should be avoided. Buffer zones would need to be established to avoid this area. This

survey revealed an area of debris north of this artificial reef. Storm events may be moving

areas of this artificial reef from its original location. Examination of the side scan record and

further surveying in the area prior to construction may be needed to insure a clear corridor for

equipment prior to use.

The penshell/shellhash communities present within some of these nearshore staging areas are

not true hardbottom. They do, however, appear to be an important marine resource within this

area. Impacts to these areas should be included in any impacts analysis done for future

projects. Consultation with the appropriate agencies for these habitats may also need to be

done prior to any construction.

Monitoring of the areas to be utilized during a project should be done before, during and after

construction. Monitoring of these habitats will not only allow better impact assessment but

also aid in mitigation of these impacts and allow for better planning for future projects.
Comprehensive Borrow Area Study Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.

Pinellas County December 2002

29

5.0 REFERENCES

Ackerman, B.B. 1995. Aerial surveys of manatees: A summary and progress report. In

O'Shea, T.J., Ackerman, B.B., and Percival, H.F. Population Biology of the Florida

Manatee. 13-33 pp.

Bullock, L.H, Godcharles, M.F., and Crabtree, R.E. 1996. Reproduction of yellowedge

grouper, Epinephelus flavolimbatus, from the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Bull. Mar. Sci.

59(1): 216-224.

CZR Incorporated. 1991. Indian Shores beach nourishment project side-scan mosaic and

biological report. Prepared for Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners,

Clearwater, FL.

Child, C.A. 1992. Shallow water Pychnogonida of the Gulf of Mexico. Mem. Hourglass

Cruises 9(1): 86 pp.

Dial Cordy and Associates. (2001). Marine Biological Survey Pinellas County Shore

Protection Project Comprehensive Borrow Area Study. Prepared for U. S. Army Corps

of Engineers, Jacksonville District, Jacksonville FL. 51 pp.

Gilmore, R.G., Bullock, L.H, and Berry, F.H. 1978. Hypothermal mortality in marine fishes

of south-central Florida January 1977. Northeast Gulf Science 2(2): 77-97.

Environmental Protection Agency. 1981. Marine sampling and measurement program off

northern Pinellas County, Florida. A Technical Report, S. Mahadevan, ed. Vol. 1:

306 pp.

Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. 1998. Generic Amendment for Addressing

Essential Fish Habitat Requirements of the Gulf of Mexico. 237 pp.

Lyons, W.G., and Collard, S.B. 1974. Benthic invertebrate communities of the eastern Gulf

of Mexico. In R.E. Smith, ed. Proceedings of marine environmental implications of

offshore drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. State Univ. Syst. FL. Inst. Oceanogr.,

St. Petersburg, FL. 157-166 pp.

Meylan, A., Redlow, A. Mosier, A., Moody, K., Foley, A. 1999. Occurrence and distribution

of sea turtles in Tampa Bay, FL. In J.R. Pribble, A. J. Janicki, and H. Greening , eds.

Baywide environmental monitoring report, 1993-1998, Tampa Bay, FL. Tampa Bay

Estuary Program, Technical Publication 07-99. St. Petersburg, FL. Chapter 13, 13-1-

13-15 pp.
Comprehensive Borrow Area Study Dial Cordy and Associates Inc.

Pinellas County December 2002

30

Moe, M.A., and Martin, G. T. 1965. Fishes taken in monthly trawl samples offshore of

Pinellas County, Florida, with new additions to the fish fauna of the Tampa Bay area.

Tulane Studies in Zoology. 12(4): 129-151.

Nelson, B. D., and Bortone, S.A. 1996. Feeding guilds among artificial-reef fishes in the

northern Gulf of Mexico. Gulf of Mexico Science. 1996(2): 66-80.

Phillips, R.C. and Springer, V.G. 1960. Observations on the Offshore Benthic Flora in the

Gulf of Mexico off Pinellas County, Florida. The Amer. Midland Nat. 64(2): 362-381.

Pierce, D.J., Wallin, J.E., and Mahmoudi, B. 1998. Spatial and temporal variations in the

species composition of bycatch collected during a striped mullet (Mugil cephalus)

survey. Gulf of Mexico Science 1998(1): 15-27 pp.

Posey, M., Lindberg, W.J., Alphin, T., and Vose, F. 1996. Influence of storm disturbance of

an offshore benthic community. Bull. Mar. Sci. 59(3): 523-529.

Roberts, C., Ballantine, W.J., Buxton, C.D., Dayton, P., Crowder, L.B., Milon W., Orback,

M.K., Pauly, D., Trexler, J. and Walters, C.J. 1995. Review of the use of marine

fishery reserves in the U.S. southeastern Atlantic. NOAA Technical Memorandum

NMFS-SEFSC-376. 31pp.

Saloman, C.H., and Naughton, S.P. 1979. Fishes of the littoral zone, Pinellas County,

Florida. Florida Sci. 42(2):85-93.

Schirripa, M. J., and Burns, K. M. 1997. Growth estimates for three species of reef fish in the

eastern Gulf of Mexico. Bull. Mar. Sci. 61(3): 581-591.

U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division. 2000. Using Videotape to Sample

Coral Reefs. Virgin Islands Field Station, St. John, USVI. 38pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Florida Manatee Recovery Plan (Trichechus manatus

latirostris), Second Revision. Prepared by the Florida Manatee Recovery Team for the

southeast region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA.

Weigle, B.L., 1990. Abundance, distribution and movements of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops

trucncatus) in lower Tamps Bay, Florida. In P.S. Hammond, S. A. Mizorch, and G.P.

Donovan, eds. Individual recognition of cetaceans: use of photo-identification and

other techniques to estimate population parameters. Rep. Int. Whaling Comm. Spec.

Issue 12. 195-201 pp.