### U.S. Department of the Interior **U.S. Geological Survey** 

# Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5287 **Gulf of Mexico Program** 

# Seagrass Status and Trends in the Northern **Gulf of Mexico: 1940–2002**

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 855-R-04-003**Cover:** Background, seagrass through surface of water (Tommy Michot, U.S. Geological Survey). Left, seagrass sampling (Tommy Michot, U.S. Geological Survey). Center, oblique aerial photograph of seagrass (Tommy Michot, U.S. Geological Survey). Right, manatees in

seagrass habitat (Sirenia Project, U.S. Geological Survey).

# Seagrass Status and Trends in the Northern **Gulf of Mexico: 1940–2002**

Edited by L. Handley, D. Altsman, and R. DeMay



# U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 855-R-04-003 Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5287

**U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey** 

## U.S. Department of the Interior DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary

**U.S. Geological Survey** Mark D. Myers, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2007

For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS--the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation: Handley, L., Altsman, D., and DeMay, R., eds., 2007, Seagrass Status and Trends in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: 1940-2002: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5287 and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 855-R-04-003, 267 p.**iii**



# Preface

The Gulf of Mexico Program (GMP) is a network of citizens dedicated to promoting the economic health of the region by managing and protecting the gulf’s resources. Although administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the GMP engages many organizations across the Gulf of Mexico coastal region to implement and lead restoration and conservation projects that are environmentally and economically sound. The GMP includes representatives from State and Federal agencies, nonprofit organizations, the scientific community, business and industry, and an organized citizens group. These members are appointed by the five State governors along the gulf coast. The GMP focuses on three ecological issues: (1) public health, (2) excess nutrient enrichment, and (3) habitat degradation and loss, including the introduction of nonindigenous species.

The GMP has long recognized that seagrasses, estuaries, and coastal wetlands are vital in providing food and shelter for plants and animals, improving water quality, sediment filtration, and flood and erosion control. In 1999, the GMP’s Habitat Focus Team set a goal to restore, enhance, or protect 20,000 acres of important coastal habitats of the gulf by 2009. The Habitat Team, recognizing that seagrass beds are some of the most productive habitats in nearshore waters, set a goal to produce this summary report on gulfwide seagrass status and trends. The purpose of the summary report is to provide current baseline information on the status of seagrasses in the Gulf of Mexico.

To produce this report, the GMP’s Habitat Team formed a subcommittee, consisting of over 30 gulf coast seagrass scientists and environmental managers. Committee members provided data on seagrass maps, seagrass status and trends, causes of change in seagrass acreage, monitoring activities, and restoration efforts important to seagrass areas along the gulf coast. The U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) National Wetlands Research Center provided extensive support in the production of data, maps, writing, and editing for this summary.

Lastly, Seagrass Habitat in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: Degradation, Conservation, and Restoration of a Valuable Resource , written in lay terms and developed for the general public, legislators, and Gulf of Mexico stakeholders, is meant to be a companion to this summary report. For example, nomenclature of seagrasses in the summary report follows this outreach document. Additional information will be available on the USGS National Wetlands Research Center’s Web site at http://www.nwrc.usgs.go v and the GMP Web site at http://www.epa.gov/gmpo /

.**iv**



# Acknowledgments

The U.S. Geological Survey, National Wetlands Research Center, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf of Mexico Program partnership would like to thank the following scien

tists and environmental managers for reviewing the Gulf of Mexico seagrass status and trends. Your dedication, time, and expertise are greatly appreciated.

Ron Boustany, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service

Dr. Ken Dunton, University of Texas

Dr. Steve Jordan, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Dr. Michael Lewis, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Randy Roach, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Frank Sargent, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Southwest Florida Water Management District

Dr. Judy Stout, University of South Alabama

Dr. Sandy Wyllie-Echeverria, University of Washington

Dr. Judy Stout, University of South Alabama

Captain David Yeager, Mobile Bay National Estuary Program

Personnel from the USGS National Wetlands Research Center who played a key role in the production of this document included

Pete Bourgeois, cartography

Helena Schaefer, peer review coordination

Blaire Hutchison, data compilation**v**



# Contents

Preface

.......................................................................................................................................................... ii i Acknowledgments

....................................................................................................................................... i v

Abstract

.......................................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction

.................................................................................................................................................... 1
References Cited

........................................................................................................................................... 6 

# Statewide Summary for Texa **s** Background

.................................................................................................................................................... 7 Statewide Status and Trends Data

............................................................................................................. 9 Galveston Bay System

......................................................................................................................... 9 Texas Coastal Bend Region

................................................................................................................ 9 Laguna Madre System

...................................................................................................................... 1 1 Causes of Change

....................................................................................................................................... 1 1 Natural Process Changes

................................................................................................................. 1 1 Human-induced Changes

................................................................................................................. 1 1 Gaps in Data Coverage

.............................................................................................................................. 1 2 Bay Systems Lacking Inventories

............................................................................................................ 1 2
Data Limitations and Future Needs

................................................................................................. 1 2 Overview of Seagrass Restoration Efforts

.............................................................................................. 1 3 Seagrass Conservation Plan and Resource Management Needs

............................................ 1 3 Overview of Monitoring, Restoration, and Enhancement Opportunities

........................................... 1 3 Monitoring for Seagrass Ecosystem Health

.................................................................................. 1 3
References Cited

......................................................................................................................................... 1 4 

# Galveston Bay Syste **m** Background

.................................................................................................................................................. 1 7 Scope of Area

.............................................................................................................................................. 1 7 Methodology Employed To Determine and Document Current Status

.............................................. 1 7 Methodology Employed To Analyze Historical Trends

.......................................................................... 1 9
Status and Trends

........................................................................................................................................ 1 9 Upper Galveston Bay and Trinity Bay

.............................................................................................. 1 9 West Galveston Bay

........................................................................................................................... 2 1 Christmas Bay

..................................................................................................................................... 2 1 Causes of Change

........................................................................................................................................ 2 1 Upper Galveston-Trinity Bays

........................................................................................................... 2 1 West Galveston Bay

........................................................................................................................... 2 3 Christmas Bay System

....................................................................................................................... 2 4 Species Information

.................................................................................................................................... 2 4 Monitoring for Seagrass Health

............................................................................................................... 2 4**vi**

Mapping and Monitoring Needs

.............................................................................................................. 2 5 Restoration and Enhancement Opportunities

........................................................................................ 2 5
References Cited

......................................................................................................................................... 2 6 

# Laguna Madr **e** Background

.................................................................................................................................................. 2 9 Scope of Area

.............................................................................................................................................. 2 9 Methodology Employed To Determine and Document Current Status

.............................................. 2 9 Methodology Employed To Analyze Historical Trends

.......................................................................... 3 1
Status and Trends

........................................................................................................................................ 3 1 Lower Laguna Madre

........................................................................................................................ 3 1 Upper Laguna Madre

........................................................................................................................ 3 3 Laguna Madre as a Whole

............................................................................................................... 3 6 Causes of Change

........................................................................................................................................ 3 6 Lower Laguna Madre

........................................................................................................................ 3 6 Upper Laguna Madre

........................................................................................................................ 3 7 Monitoring for Seagrass Health

................................................................................................................ 3 8 Mapping and Monitoring Needs

............................................................................................................... 3 8 Restoration and Enhancement Opportunities

......................................................................................... 3 9 Acknowledgments

....................................................................................................................................... 3 9
References Cited

......................................................................................................................................... 4 0


# Texas Coastal Ben **d**
Background

.................................................................................................................................................. 4 1 Scope of Area

.............................................................................................................................................. 4 1 Redfish Bay

.......................................................................................................................................... 4 1
Harbor Island

....................................................................................................................................... 4 3 Mustang Island

................................................................................................................................... 4 3 Nueces Bay

......................................................................................................................................... 4 3 Methodology Employed To Determine and Document Current Status

.............................................. 4 3
Classification Scheme

....................................................................................................................... 4 3 Methodology Employed To Analyze Historical Trends

.......................................................................... 4 5
Status and Trends

........................................................................................................................................ 4 6 System Summary

................................................................................................................................ 4 6 Status Summary

.................................................................................................................................. 4 6 Trends Summary

................................................................................................................................. 4 6 Causes of Change

....................................................................................................................................... 5 2 Redfish Bay

......................................................................................................................................... 5 2
Harbor Island

...................................................................................................................................... 5 4 Mustang Island

................................................................................................................................... 5 4 Nueces Bay

......................................................................................................................................... 5 4 Species Information

.................................................................................................................................... 5 5 Monitoring for Seagrass Health

............................................................................................................... 5 5 Mapping and Monitoring Needs

............................................................................................................... 5 6 Restoration and Enhancement Opportunities

........................................................................................ 5 6**vii**

Propeller Scar Restoration

............................................................................................................... 5 6 Designation of State Scientific Areas

............................................................................................. 5 6 Signage and Boater Education Activities

....................................................................................... 5 7 Seagrass Restoration Through Beneficial Use Projects

............................................................ 5 7 Coastal Bend Bays and Estuaries Program Outreach Strategies

.............................................. 5 7
References Cited

......................................................................................................................................... 5 8 

# Statewide Summary for Louisian **a** Background

.................................................................................................................................................. 6 0
Statewide Status and Trends

.................................................................................................................... 6 0
Reference Cited

........................................................................................................................................... 6 0


# Chandeleur Island **s** Background

.................................................................................................................................................. 6 2 Scope of Area

.............................................................................................................................................. 6 2 Methodology Employed To Determine and Document Current Status

............................................... 6 2 Methodology Employed To Analyze Historical Trends

.......................................................................... 6 4
Status and Trends

........................................................................................................................................ 6 4 Causes of Change

........................................................................................................................................ 6 4 Species Information

.................................................................................................................................... 6 6 Monitoring for Seagrass Health

................................................................................................................ 6 6 Mapping and Monitoring Needs

............................................................................................................... 6 6 Restoration and Enhancement Opportunities

......................................................................................... 7 1
References Cited

......................................................................................................................................... 7 1 

# Statewide Summary for Mississipp **i**
Background

.................................................................................................................................................. 7 2
Statewide Status and Trends

.................................................................................................................... 7 2 Causes of Change Statewide

.................................................................................................................... 7 2 Gaps in Data Coverage

............................................................................................................................... 7 4 Overview of Seagrass Restoration Efforts

.............................................................................................. 7 4 Overview of Monitoring, Restoration, and Enhancement Opportunities

........................................... 7 4
References Cited

......................................................................................................................................... 7 4 

# Mississippi Sound and the Gulf Island **s** Background

.................................................................................................................................................. 7 6 Scope of Area

.............................................................................................................................................. 7 8 Methodology Employed To Determine and Document Current Status

............................................... 7 8 Methodology Employed To Analyze Historical Trends

.......................................................................... 8 0
Status and Trends

........................................................................................................................................ 8 0 Causes of Change

........................................................................................................................................ 8 0 Seagrass Health

........................................................................................................................................... 8 3 Species Information

.................................................................................................................................... 8 4 Monitoring, Restoration, and Enhancement Opportunities

.................................................................. 8 4
References Cited

......................................................................................................................................... 8 4**viii**



# Statewide Summary for Alabam **a** Background

.................................................................................................................................................. 8 6
Natural Environment

.......................................................................................................................... 8 6
Context of Human Influences

........................................................................................................... 8 8 Scope of Area

............................................................................................................................................... 9 0
Historical Documentation

.......................................................................................................................... 9 0
Statewide Status and Trends

..................................................................................................................... 9 0 Historical Surveys

.............................................................................................................................. 9 0 Methodology Employed To Determine and Document Current Status

..................................... 9 1 Current Status and Changes

............................................................................................................ 9 1 Causes of Change

........................................................................................................................................ 9 3 Seagrass Health

.......................................................................................................................................... 9 3 Species Information

.................................................................................................................................... 9 3 Monitoring, Restoration, and Enhancement Opportunities

.................................................................. 9 4
References Cited

......................................................................................................................................... 9 4 

# Statewide Summary for Florid **a** Background

.................................................................................................................................................. 9 8 Species Information

.................................................................................................................................... 9 8 Scope of Area

............................................................................................................................................ 10 0 Methods Used To Determine Current Status of Seagrasses in the State of Florida

...................... 10 0
Status and Trends

..................................................................................................................................... 10 0 Causes of Change

..................................................................................................................................... 10 5 Mapping and Monitoring Problems and Information Needs

............................................................. 10 7
Data Problems

.................................................................................................................................. 10 7 Monitoring Needs

............................................................................................................................. 10 9 Assessment, Protection, Recovery, and Restoration Opportunities

................................................ 10 9 Acknowledgments

.................................................................................................................................... 11 1
References

................................................................................................................................................. 11 1 

# Perdido Bay
Background

................................................................................................................................................ 11 4 Scope of Area

............................................................................................................................................ 11 6 Upper Perdido Bay

........................................................................................................................... 11 6 Middle Perdido Bay

.......................................................................................................................... 11 6 Lower Perdido Bay

........................................................................................................................... 11 6 Methodology Employed To Document Current Status

........................................................................ 11 6 Methodology Employed To Analyze Historical Trends

........................................................................ 11 8
Status and Trends

...................................................................................................................................... 11 8 Upper Perdido Bay

........................................................................................................................... 11 8 Middle Perdido Bay

......................................................................................................................... 11 8 Lower Perdido Bay

........................................................................................................................... 11 8 Entire Study Area

.............................................................................................................................. 11 8 Causes of Change

...................................................................................................................................... 12 4 Upper/Middle Perdido Bay

............................................................................................................. 12 4**ix**

Lower Perdido Bay

........................................................................................................................... 12 4 Species Information

.................................................................................................................................. 12 4 Monitoring for Seagrass Health

............................................................................................................. 12 5 Mapping and Monitoring Needs

............................................................................................................. 12 5 Restoration and Enhancement Opportunities

...................................................................................... 12 5
References

................................................................................................................................................. 12 6
Oral and Written Communication

........................................................................................................... 12 6


# Pensacola Ba **y** Background

................................................................................................................................................ 12 8 Scope of Area

............................................................................................................................................ 12 8 Escambia Bay

.................................................................................................................................... 13 0 East Bay

.............................................................................................................................................. 13 0 Pensacola Bay

.................................................................................................................................. 13 0 Big Lagoon

........................................................................................................................................ 13 0
Santa Rosa Sound

............................................................................................................................ 13 0 Methodology Employed To Determine and Document Current Status

............................................. 13 0 Methodology for Historical Trend Mapping

.......................................................................................... 13 2
Status and Trends

...................................................................................................................................... 13 2 Escambia Bay

.................................................................................................................................... 13 2 East Bay

.............................................................................................................................................. 13 4 Pensacola Bay

.................................................................................................................................. 13 4 Big Lagoon and Santa Rosa Sound

............................................................................................... 13 4 Causes of Change

...................................................................................................................................... 13 4 Species Information

.................................................................................................................................. 13 6 Monitoring for Seagrass Health

............................................................................................................. 13 6 Epiphytic Coverage

.......................................................................................................................... 13 8 Water-quality Monitoring

................................................................................................................ 13 8 Light-attenuation Monitoring

.......................................................................................................... 13 8 Mapping and Monitoring Needs

............................................................................................................. 13 8 Restoration and Enhancement Opportunities

...................................................................................... 14 0
References Cited

....................................................................................................................................... 14 0


# Choctawhatchee Ba **y** Background

................................................................................................................................................ 14 2 Scope of Area

............................................................................................................................................ 14 4 Western Choctawhatchee Bay

...................................................................................................... 14 4 Middle Choctawhatchee Bay

......................................................................................................... 14 6 Eastern Choctawhatchee Bay

........................................................................................................ 14 6 Methodology Employed To Determine and Document Current Status

............................................. 14 6 Methodology Employed To Analyze Historical Trends

........................................................................ 14 6
Status and Trends

...................................................................................................................................... 14 7 Western Choctawhatchee Bay

...................................................................................................... 14 7 Middle Choctawhatchee Bay

......................................................................................................... 14 8 Eastern Choctawhatchee Bay

........................................................................................................ 14 8**x**

Causes of Change

...................................................................................................................................... 14 8 Western Choctawhatchee Bay

...................................................................................................... 14 8 Middle Choctawhatchee Bay

......................................................................................................... 15 0 Eastern Choctawhatchee Bay

........................................................................................................ 15 0 Species Information

.................................................................................................................................. 15 0 Western Choctawhatchee Bay

...................................................................................................... 15 0 Middle and Eastern Choctawhatchee Bay

.................................................................................. 15 0 Monitoring for Seagrass Health

............................................................................................................. 15 1 Mapping and Monitoring Needs

............................................................................................................ 15 1 Restoration and Enhancement Opportunities

...................................................................................... 15 1
References Cited

....................................................................................................................................... 15 2


# St. Andrew Ba **y** Background

................................................................................................................................................ 15 4 Scope of Area

............................................................................................................................................ 15 4 St. Andrew Bay Segment

............................................................................................................... 15 6 West Bay Segment

.......................................................................................................................... 15 6 North Bay Segment

......................................................................................................................... 15 6 East Bay Segment

............................................................................................................................ 15 6 St. Andrew Sound Segment

........................................................................................................... 15 6 Methodology Employed To Determine and Document Current Status

............................................ 15 6 Methodology Employed To Analyze Historical Trends

........................................................................ 15 8
Status and Trends

...................................................................................................................................... 15 8 Entire Study Area

............................................................................................................................. 15 8 St. Andrew Bay Segment

............................................................................................................... 15 8 East Bay Segment

............................................................................................................................ 15 9 North Bay Segment

......................................................................................................................... 15 9 West Bay Segment

.......................................................................................................................... 15 9 St. Andrew Sound Segment

........................................................................................................... 15 9 Causes of Change

..................................................................................................................................... 16 0 Entire Study Area

............................................................................................................................. 16 0 St. Andrew Bay Segment

............................................................................................................... 16 0 East Bay Segment

............................................................................................................................ 16 0 North Bay Segment

......................................................................................................................... 16 5 West Bay Segment

.......................................................................................................................... 16 5 St. Andrew Sound Segment

........................................................................................................... 16 6 Species Information

.................................................................................................................................. 16 6 Monitoring for Seagrass Health

............................................................................................................. 16 6 Mapping and Monitoring Needs

............................................................................................................ 16 6 Restoration and Enhancement Opportunities

...................................................................................... 16 7
References Cited

....................................................................................................................................... 16 7


# Florida Big Ben **d**
Background

................................................................................................................................................ 17 0 Scope of Area

............................................................................................................................................ 17 2**xi**

Methodology Employed To Determine and Document Current Status

............................................ 17 2 Methodology Employed To Analyze Historical Trends

........................................................................ 17 4
Status and Trends

..................................................................................................................................... 17 4 Regionwide Mapping Studies

........................................................................................................ 17 5 Other Subregional Mapping Studies

............................................................................................ 17 6 Causes of Change

..................................................................................................................................... 17 9 Hydrologic Alteration of Watersheds

........................................................................................... 17 9
Nutrient Enrichment of Estuaries and Nearshore Coastal Waters

......................................... 17 9 Species Information

.................................................................................................................................. 18 0 Monitoring for Seagrass Health

............................................................................................................. 18 2 Mapping and Monitoring Needs

............................................................................................................. 18 2 Restoration and Enhancement Opportunities

...................................................................................... 18 5
References Cited

....................................................................................................................................... 18 5 

# Tampa Bay and Saint Joseph Soun **d**
Background

................................................................................................................................................. 18 8 Scope of Area

............................................................................................................................................. 18 8 Methodology Employed To Determine and Document Current Status

............................................. 18 8 Methodology Employed To Analyze Historical Trends

........................................................................ 19 0
Status and Trends

..................................................................................................................................... 19 0 Tampa Bay

......................................................................................................................................... 19 0 Clearwater Harbor and Saint Joseph Sound

.............................................................................. 19 2 Causes of Change

..................................................................................................................................... 19 2 Monitoring for Seagrass Health

............................................................................................................. 19 3 Species Information

.................................................................................................................................. 19 4 Restoration and Enhancement Opportunities

...................................................................................... 19 4 The Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Strategy

....................................................................... 19 4 Reduction of Seagrass Scarring

................................................................................................... 20 2
References

................................................................................................................................................. 20 2


# Sarasota Ba **y** Background

................................................................................................................................................ 20 6 Scope of Area

............................................................................................................................................ 20 6 Methodology Employed To Determine and Document Current Status

............................................ 20 6
Status and Trends

..................................................................................................................................... 20 8 Upper Sarasota Bay in Manatee County

...................................................................................... 20 8 Upper Sarasota Bay in Sarasota County

...................................................................................... 20 8 Roberts Bay

....................................................................................................................................... 20 8 Little Sarasota Bay

........................................................................................................................... 21 0 Blackburn Bay

................................................................................................................................... 21 0 Causes of Change

...................................................................................................................................... 21 0 Monitoring for Seagrass Health

............................................................................................................. 21 6 Species Information

.................................................................................................................................. 21 6 Restoration and Enhancement Opportunities

...................................................................................... 21 6
References

................................................................................................................................................. 21 7**xii**



# Charlotte Harbo **r** Background

................................................................................................................................................ 21 8 Scope of Area

............................................................................................................................................ 21 8 Methodology Employed To Determine and Document Current Status

............................................ 22 1 Southwest Florida Water Management District

......................................................................... 22 3 South Florida Water Management District

.................................................................................. 22 3 Methodology Employed To Analyze Historical Trends

....................................................................... 22 4 Status and Trends

..................................................................................................................................... 23 3 Causes of Change

..................................................................................................................................... 23 3 Monitoring for Seagrass Health

............................................................................................................. 23 6 Species Information

................................................................................................................................. 23 7 Mapping and Monitoring Needs

............................................................................................................ 23 7 Restoration and Enhancement Opportunities

...................................................................................... 23 8
References

................................................................................................................................................. 23 9
Oral and Written Communication

........................................................................................................... 24 0


# Florida Ba **y** Background

................................................................................................................................................ 24 2 Scope of Area

............................................................................................................................................ 24 4 Methodology Employed To Analyze Historical Trends

....................................................................... 24 4 Aerial Photography and Interpretation

........................................................................................ 24 4 Field Investigations

.......................................................................................................................... 24 6 Current Seagrass Change—Florida Bay Fisheries Habitat Assessment Program

........................ 24 6
Methods

............................................................................................................................................. 24 6
Status and Trends

..................................................................................................................................... 24 9 Restoration Opportunities

........................................................................................................................ 24 9
References Cited

....................................................................................................................................... 25 2


# Conclusions
Importance of Gulf of Mexico Seagrasses

........................................................................................... 25 4 Seagrass Losses

....................................................................................................................................... 25 4 Seagrass Decline Leads to Economic and Aesthetic Losses

........................................................... 25 7 Resource Management and Monitoring

............................................................................................... 25 8 Field of Dreams or Empty Meadows: If You Build It, Will They Come?

............................................ 25 9 Conservation Is a Necessary and Proactive Management Tool

...................................................... 25 9
Towards Restoration and Conservation Success

............................................................................... 25 9
References Cited

....................................................................................................................................... 26 0 

# Appendix
Appendix 1.

................................................................................................................................................. 26 5
References Cited

....................................................................................................................................... 26 6

# Pensacola Bay

By Lisa Schwenning, 1 

### Traci Bruce, 1 

### and Lawrence R. Handley 2

1 Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Northwest District.

2 U.S. Geological Survey. 

# Background

The Pensacola Bay system (fig. 1) has historically supported a rich and diverse ecology, productive fisheries, and considerable recreational opportunities. It has also provided an important resource for commercial shipping and military activities and has enhanced area aesthetics and property values. Unfortunately, for many years, point and nonpoint source pollution, direct habitat destruction, and the cumulative impacts of development and other activities throughout the watershed have combined to degrade the health and productivity of much of the Pensacola Bay system (Northwest Florida Water Management District, 1997). During the 1800s and early 1900s, extensive logging of hardwood trees occurred on tributaries entering the Pensacola Bay system (Rucker, 1990). Historically, it is likely that the timber industry adversely impacted the upper bays of the system. Blackwater Bay and lower reaches of the Blackwater River and Pond Creek were covered with sawdust from mills in Bagdad, Fla. Sawn timber and sawdust are rich in turpines and other toxic substances. During logging operations, turbidity, nutrient concentrations, biological oxygen demand, and chemical oxygen demand were probably high, and dissolved oxygen levels were probably low. Benthic communities may have been scarce or nonexistent while the mills were operating at peak levels (Northwest Florida Water Management District, 1991). Barge traffic and log rafting from tributaries to the Port of Pensacola unquestionably resuspended fine sediments in shoal areas of the system. Fairly extensive dredging of the Blackwater River was authorized and completed in 1916 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1990). Moskovits (1955) reported general silting problems in Pensacola Bay during 1949–50, as well as settlement of fouling organisms (barnacles, serpulid worms, hydroids, bryozoans, sponges, jingle shells, and Mytilus sp.) on artificial substrata. These organisms tend to settle in relatively clear water, so the presence of these animals suggests that suspended sediment loads were not sufficient to inhibit the settlement of zooplankton and that water quality may have been better during the early to mid-1950s (Northwest Florida Water Management District, 1991). Predominant land uses within the riverine watershed include forestry, agriculture, military, and public conservation and recreation, as well as residential and other urban land uses around several communities. Much of the economic base of this area is provided by the extraction of natural resources, primarily timber and agriculture, but there are also indirect economic benefits provided by military activities and the service sector. Major public landholdings include portions of Eglin Air Force Base, Blackwater River State Forest (Northwest Florida Water Management District, 1997), and water management district lands along the Escambia and Blackwater Rivers. Population growth and development apply the greatest pressure to the environment of Florida’s coastal areas. As population increases, so do the demands on coastal resources. Over 75% of Florida’s residents live in coastal counties, and a 50% increase is estimated by 2020 (Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 1998). In the three counties included in the Florida portion of the Pensacola Bay watershed, there has been a 220% increase in population since 1960. As a result of the population increase, there has been a dramatic change in land use of the Pensacola Bay area from agricultural to urban. Escambia County alone lost 13,247 ha (32,732 acres) of agricultural lands between 1992 and 1997; during the same time, the county gained approximately 6,071 ha (15,000 acres) of urban land use.



# Scope of Area

The Pensacola Bay system consists of about 50,992 ha (126,000 acres), including its coastline of 885 km (550 mi) and open surface waters of about 373 km 2 (144 mi 2 ). The watershed covers nearly 18,130 km 2 (7,000 mi 2 ). The final outlet for the system is the Gulf of Mexico at the mouth of Pensacola Bay. The watershed of the Pensacola Bay system includes many different counties, cities, and incorporations. Approximately 65% of the entire watershed is located outside of Florida State lines; Alabama counties—including portions of Covington, Escambia, Conecuh, Butler, Crenshaw, Pike, Bullock, Montgomery, and Coffee—make up 11,632 km 2Y e l l o w

R

i v e r E s c a m b i a R i v e r C o n e c u h

R

i v e r

B l a c k

w

a t e r R i v e r 65

E a s t B a y R i v e r

Pensacola Ferry Pass

Fort Walton Beach 10 Pensacola Bay Pensacola Bay
Watershed boundary
City Interstate highway
River Gulf Intracoastal Waterway County line



## Gulf of Mexico 40 30 20 10 0 km

20 25 15 10 5 0 mi 

## N

**Figure 1.** Watershed for the Pensacola Bay system. **130 Seagrass Status and Trends in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: 1940–2002** (4,491 mi 2 ) of the Pensacola Bay system (Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 1998). Approximately 857 km 2 (331 mi 2 ) (45%) of Escambia County form the western portion of the Pensacola Bay watershed. Nearly all of the 2,631 km 2 (1,016 mi 2 ) of Santa Rosa County, located to the east, are included in the watershed. Seventy-five percent of Okaloosa County (1,940 km 2 , or 749 mi 2 ) lies in the watershed. Within Okaloosa County are the Yellow and Shoal Rivers, their tributaries, and the other half of Santa Rosa Sound. Only 648 km 2 (250 mi 2 ) (20%) of Walton County drain into the Pensacola Bay system and contain a portion of the Shoal River and tributaries. The western portion of the basin is predominantly urban, whereas the eastern portion is primarily low density, rural, and undeveloped. The Pensacola Bay system has been divided into five segments: Escambia Bay, East Bay, Pensacola Bay proper, Big Lagoon, and Santa Rosa Sound (fig. 2).



## Escambia Bay

Escambia Bay may be the most vulnerable of the Pensacola Bay segments. It is located north of the line between Garcon Point to the east and Magnolia Point to the west. Escambia Bay is commonly divided into upper and lower parts, with Interstate 10 delineating the boundary. This dividing line falls in an area that divides species between the dominant brackish water plant water celery ( Vallisneria
americana ) in the upper bay and the dominant seagrass shoal grass ( Halodule wrightii ) in the lower part of the bay.



## East Bay

East Bay is located east of the line between Garcon Point and Redfish Cove. East Bay, like Escambia Bay, is commonly divided into upper and lower segments, but with Robinson Point delineating the boundary. The area north of Robinson Point harbors all brackish water submerged aquatic vegetation. The area south of Robinson Point, or East Bay proper, contains shoal grass and turtle grass ( Thalassia testudinum ).



## Pensacola Bay

Pensacola Bay is west of the Garcon Point Bridge. Escambia and East Bays drain into Pensacola Bay, along with Bayous Texar, Chico, and Grande. Pensacola Bay empties into the Gulf of Mexico at the Pensacola Pass.



## Big Lagoon

Big Lagoon is oriented west to east and connects lower Perdido and Pensacola Bays. It is bordered on the south by Perdido Key and on the north by Pensacola Naval Air Station. 

## Santa Rosa Sound

Santa Rosa Sound is oriented west to east and connects Choctawhatchee and Pensacola Bays. It is bordered on the south by Santa Rosa Island and on the north by the Gulf
Breeze Peninsula.



# Methodology Employed To Determine **and Document Current Status**

The most current mapping study of seagrass coverage for the Pensacola Bay area was conducted more than 10 yr ago by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Wetlands Research Center (NWRC) by using natural-color aerial photography taken in 1992 at a 1:24,000 scale as part of the northeastern Gulf of Mexico seagrass mapping project. The mapping protocol consisted of stereoscopic photointerpretation, cartographic transfer, and digitization in accordance with strict mapping standards and conventions.Other important aspects of the protocol included the development of a seagrass classification system, groundtruthing, quality control, and peer review. The information derived from the photography was subsequently transferred by using a zoom transfer scope onto a stable medium overlaying USGS 1:24,000-scale quadrangle base maps. The primary data source was 1:24,000-scale natural color aerial photography flown by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Stennis Space Center in fall 1992. In those cases where the data were inadequate or incomplete, contemporary supplemental data were acquired from other sources and used to complete the photographic coverage. The seagrass classification system that was developed (see appendix for full discussion) consisted of two classes of open water—RIV (riverine, fresh water) and EST (estuarine or marine open water)—and five classes of seagrass habitats. One seagrass habitat class is continuous seagrass, CSG, for which no density distinction was made. The other four classes are patchy seagrass based on percent ground cover of patches in 5% increments: PSG1 (0%–10%, very sparse), PSG2 (15%–40%, sparse), PSG3 (45%–70%, moderate), and PSG4 (75%–95%, dense). The groundtruthing phase included the participation of field staff from Gulf Islands National Seashore, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Dauphin Island Sea Lab, Mississippi State University, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, and Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Draft maps were sent out to these agencies
for review and comments. All comments received were incorporated into the final maps. **Methodology Employed To Determine and Document Current Status 131** **2 1** **3 4** **5**Escambia BaySanta Rosa SoundBig LagoonEast BayPensacola BaySegmentGulf IntracoastalWaterway**1 2** **3 4** **5**East BayGarcon PointRedfish CoveChoctawahatchee Bay

Y e llo w R iv e r

R iv

e r Escambia B la c k w a te r R iv e r Coldwater RiverPerdidoBay G u lf B re e ze Gulf Islands National SeashorePensacola BeachNavarreAvalonBeachRobinsonPointPensacola Pensacola Naval Air StationEglin Air ForceBase

**G u**  **lf o f M**  **e x**  **ic o** 

Santa Rosa SoundPensacola Bay

Big Lagoon Escambia BaySanta Rosa IslandPerdido Keykmmi55001010StudyareaN 

### F

l

o

r i d

a**Figure 2.**Scope of area for the Pensacola Bay vignette. **132 Seagrass Status and Trends in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: 1940–2002** 

# Methodology for Historical **Trend Mapping**

In 1999, the NWRC produced historical seagrass maps from 1:20,000-scale black and white aerial photography from 1964 for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Panama City Ecological Services and Fisheries Resources Office to use in the development of a trend analysis for Pensacola and Escambia Bays, Santa Rosa Sound, and Big Lagoon. These seagrass maps for 1964 and the previously described seagrass maps from 1992 were used to develop the trend analysis. The aerial photography from 1964 was analyzed with stereoscopic visual equipment; seagrasses were delineated onto Mylar® overlays by using a zoom transfer scope and USGS 1:24,000- scale topographic quadrangles as the base maps. The overlays were digitized by using ArcInfo (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., Redlands, Calif.) and converted into Arc format files. The black and white aerial photography was of good to high quality for delineating seagrasses. Classification of the seagrasses for the trend analysis followed the same protocol as that followed in the development of the northeastern Gulf of Mexico seagrass mapping using the 1992 aerial photography (see appendix 1). Draft maps were sent out to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for review and comments. All comments received were incorporated into the final maps. No groundtruthing took place for the historical seagrass delineations for 1964. The NWRC currently holds the aerial photography, the interpreted overlays, and the Mylar® overlays for the 1964 maps.



# Status and Trends

Seagrass beds that were extensive in 1949 were documented in 1975 as having receded or disappeared in most areas of the Pensacola Bay system (Northwest Florida Water Management District, 1997). In the 1940s and early 1950s, seagrass was abundant in all segments of the system, but less than 5%–10% of these levels remain. Figures illustrating these documented losses in all segments are available in chapter 12 of Environmental and Recovery Studies of Escambia Bay and the Pensacola Bay System, Florida (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975).



## Escambia Bay

The loss of seagrass in Escambia Bay may be the most significant in the system, affecting the biological quality of the entire Pensacola Bay system (table 1; fig. 3). The earliest documented assertions of seagrass bed loss were in a 1955 report to the Florida State Board of Conservation by Murdock (1955) after an industrial plant began operating and discharging under permit into the Escambia River. The Murdock report clearly linked the loss of seagrasses in Escambia Bay with industrial discharges into the drainage basin (Hopkins, 1973). During the 1940s, seagrass was sparse in lower Escambia Bay. Transient beds, usually small, appeared, disappeared, and reappeared several times during the 50 yr of survey. For example, a recession and disappearance of most of Escambia Bay’s true seagrass occurred from 1950 to 1975. In 1960 (fig. 4; table 2), Escambia Bay had approximately 105 ha (259 acres) of seagrass. Attempts in the 1970s to reestablish shoal grass in lower Escambia Bay were not successful. Seagrass beds were believed to have disappeared completely by 1976. By 1980 (fig. 5; table 3), it was found that 24 ha (60 acres) of mostly patchy beds were present. A greater reestablishment of several small beds was observed in the late 1980s, and by 1992 (fig. 6; table 4), patchy beds were observed, mostly around the mouths of bayous, totaling approximately 178 ha (441 acres). **Table 1.** Seagrass area for the Pensacola Bay system.

[Values are given in hectares (acres)]

**Escambia Bay**  **East Bay Pensacola**  **Bay Big**  **Lagoon Santa**  **Rosa Sound** 

1960 105 (259) 476 (1,175) 372 (918) 271 (670) 2,634 (6,508)

1980 24 (60) 99 (245) 55 (137) 236 (582) 1,489 (3,680)

1992 178 (441) 165 (408) 114 (282) 218 (538) 1,140 (2,816)

Escambia

Bay East Bay Pensacola Bay Big Lagoon Santa Rosa Sound 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000

1960

1980

1992 Seagrass Coverage

**Figure 3.** Summary of seagrass coverage in the Pensacola Bay system, 1960, 1980, and 1992. **Status and Trends 133** WaterSeagrass, patchySeagrass, continuousLandGulf of Mexico0 2 4 6 8kmmiN0 1 2 3 4 5**Figure 4.**Distribution of seagrass in the Pensacola Bay system, 1960. **134 Seagrass Status and Trends in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: 1940–2002** **Table 2.** Seagrass area in the Pensacola Bay system for 1960.

[Values are given in hectares (acres). CSG = continuous seagrass; PSG = patchy seagrass]

**Segment Class**  **Area** Escambia Bay CSG 4 (10)
PSG 101 (249)

East Bay CSG 45 (110)
PSG 431 (1,065)

Pensacola Bay CSG 44 (108)
PSG 328 (810)

Big Lagoon CSG 107 (265)
PSG 164 (405)

Santa Rosa Sound CSG 1,247 (3,081)
PSG 1,387 (3,427)


## East Bay

From 1950 to 1975, East Bay experienced a decline similar to that in Escambia Bay (Northwest Florida Water Management District, 1991). In 1960 (fig. 4; table 2), 476 ha (1,175 acres) of seagrass were present. This area declined by 21% by 1980 (fig. 5; table 3) to 99 ha (245 acres); however, by 1992 (fig. 6; table 4), 165 ha (408 acres) were mapped in East Bay.



## Pensacola Bay

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1975), the disappearance of several small beds near the north end of the Pensacola Bay Bridge was documented in 1951 and was likely attributable to dredging. In 1960 (fig. 4; table 2), 372 ha (918 acres) of seagrass were mapped. In that same year, the Port of Pensacola was enlarged, which involved extensive dredge and fill activities. Additional dredging was done to the port in 1967. Most beds declined along the southern shore of Pensacola Bay and East Bay and disappeared by 1974. Based on historical data, seagrasses in Pensacola Bay declined from 372 ha (918 acres) in 1960 to 56 ha (137 acres) in 1980 (fig. 5; table 3). In 1992 (fig. 6; table 4), seagrass beds had increased to 114 ha (282 acres).



## Big Lagoon and Santa Rosa Sound

Seagrass disappearance has not been quite as dramatic in Big Lagoon or Santa Rosa Sound; however, seagrasses have gradually decreased over the years in some areas of Big Lagoon and southwestern portions of Santa Rosa Sound along the Gulf Breeze Peninsula (Northwest Florida Water Management District, 1991). In Big Lagoon, seagrass beds declined slightly from 271 ha (670 acres) in 1960 (fig. 4; table 2) to 236 ha (582 acres) in 1980 (fig. 5; table 3). Seagrass beds declined even further in 1992 (fig. 6; table 4) to 217 ha (538 acres). In contrast to the previously mentioned segments, Big Lagoon has not had dramatic losses but has had steady, continued decline in its seagrass meadows. Santa Rosa Sound, like Big Lagoon, has experienced a steady decline from 1960 (fig. 4; table 2), when it had 2,634 ha (6,508 acres), to 1980 (fig. 5; table 3), when there were 1,489 ha (3,680 acres). There was a further decline by 1992 (fig. 6; table 4), when 1,139 ha (2,816 acres) were mapped.



# Causes of Change

Major causes of seagrass loss were sewage and industrial waste discharges, dredge and fill activities, beachfront alteration, and changing watershed and land-use characteristics. In the Pensacola Bay system, many factors have affected the entire system, with certain factors having an increased local effect. Along the southern shore of East Bay, bulkheads and groins likely caused changes in nearshore water movements and energy; erosion of seagrass beds likely occurred as a result. Industrial discharge caused the loss of vegetation in the northeast section of Escambia Bay since these effluents remained near the shore in that area. For instance, the loss of seagrass around the sewage treatment plant there was caused first by the laying of a discharge pipe directly through the bed and later by sewage effluents (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975). Although seagrass loss is thought to have occurred in the early 1900s, no data have been found to support the hypothesis. Two activities occurred in the area that could have caused loss. One possible impact was the dredging of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway in Pensacola in 1910. A continuous 3 by 31 m (9 by 100 ft) channel was completed between Apalachicola River in Florida and New Orleans, La., in 1936. In 1942, the dimensions of the channel were increased to 4 m deep by 38 m wide (12 ft deep by 125 ft wide). The expansion of the waterway may account for increased traffic, providing indirect effects over a longer period of time. Pensacola Bay waters have been impacted by numerous sources of pollution, resulting in a system that does not have the natural biodiversity and productivity expected of a system of this complexity. The massive quantities of point source waste previously discharged into the Pensacola Bay system between 1955 and 1964 have been significantly reduced. Based on surveys by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and its predecessor agencies, the combined quantity of waste discharged by the several major dischargers into the Escambia Bay drainage area was reduced by 40% for biological oxygen demand, 71% for total nitrogen, and 96% for total phosphorus by 1975 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975). **Causes of Change 135** WaterSeagrass, patchySeagrass, continuousLandGulf of Mexico0 2 4 6 8kmmiN0 1 2 3 4 5**Figure 5.**Distribution of seagrass in the Pensacola Bay system, 1980. **136 Seagrass Status and Trends in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: 1940–2002** While it is true today that point sources have decreased significantly, nonpoint sources such as stormwater runoff are increasing, and pollution continues to degrade water and sediment quality throughout much of the system. Santa Rosa Sound and Big Lagoon are two of the few remaining bodies of water within the Pensacola Bay system that still harbor seagrass beds. Livingston and others (1972) reported that 784,428 m 3 (1,025,933 yd 3 ) of sediments were dredged from Mulatto Bayou in 1965 during construction of the Interstate 10 bridge across upper Escambia Bay. Additional dredging occurred in 1970 when finger canals were created for housing developments and a narrow channel was dug to open the southern portion of the bayou to Escambia Bay. Livingston and others (1972) made a compelling case that the creation of deep borrow pits within the bayou and the new narrow entrance to the bay were nutrient traps that reduced circulation and flushing of the bayou and depressed oxygen availability. In addition, it has been reported that seagrass beds in Mulatto Bayou were replaced by sludge deposits containing hydrogen sulfide as a result of dredging (Northwest Florida Water Management District, 1991).



# Species Information

The Pensacola Bay system contains four species of true seagrasses—turtle grass, manatee grass ( Syringodium filiforme ), star grass ( Halophila engelmannii ), and shoal grass—and two brackish water species, water celery and wigeon grass ( Ruppia maritima ). The upper portion of Escambia Bay contains mostly water celery, with a few patches of wigeon grass; the lower portion has lost all seagrass. East Bay has lost all seagrass with the exception of a few areas in upper East Bay around the mouth of the Blackwater River. Big Lagoon and Santa Rosa Sound have the last two remaining stands of turtle grass and shoal grass in the Pensacola Bay system. Santa Rosa Sound holds, in addition, a few patches of manatee grass and star grass. Though shoal grass is a pioneering species and is usually the first to colonize an area, no historical data have been found supporting transition from one species to another.



# Monitoring for Seagrass Health

In 1974, the Escambia Bay Recovery Study Team obtained photographs from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and used them to develop maps of the seagrass beds. Their FDOT file of aerial photographs of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties dated back to 1949. The study team project personnel also conducted aerial surveys in 1974. These overflights of the bays were made sporadically and occurred more frequently over areas of greater highway construction. (Refer to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975, to see these maps.) In 1996, a study was conducted by Heck and others (1996) for the Gulf Islands National Seashore within Big Lagoon and Santa Rosa Sound, where two of the last stands of seagrass within the Pensacola Bay system remained. Annual groundtruthing, inventory of the seagrass community types, and water-quality parameters were monitored. The study suggested a significant decline in seagrass meadows in thearea. The investigators of this study hypothesized a lightattenuation problem caused by an increase in turbidity in these water bodies (Kirschenfeld, 1999). In 1999, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection was awarded a seagrass monitoring grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Gulf of Mexico Program to determine the extent of the problem. Seagrass monitoring, combined with water-quality and light-attenuation monitoring, was conducted over 2 yr, resulting in the publication of the Seagrass Management Plan for Big Lagoon and Santa Rosa Sound (Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 2001). The seagrass monitoring component of this study involved measurements of the depth of growth, percent cover, epiphytic coverage, Braun-Blanquet density (the second year), species composition, and canopy height (for more information on the Braun-Blanquet density, see http://chla. library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=chla;idno=2917578 ). The monitoring parameters (Hach Environmental, Loveland, Colo.) measured were temperature, pH, conductivity, salinity, and dissolved oxygen. Water samples were also taken from each monitoring site once a month to measure turbidity, color, chlorophyll a, total suspended solids, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, ammonia, nitrate + nitrite, total phosphorus, orthophosphorus, and algal growth potential. The Seagrass Management Plan for Big Lagoon and Santa Rosa Sound (Florida Department of **Table 3.** Seagrass area in the Pensacola Bay system for 1980.

[Values are given in hectares (acres). CSG = continuous seagrass; PSG = patchy seagrass]

**Segment Class**  **Area**
Escambia Bay CSG 4 (10)
PSG 20 (50)

East Bay CSG 12 (30)
PSG 87 (215)

Pensacola Bay CSG 10 (24)
PSG 46 (113)

Big Lagoon CSG 193 (477)
PSG 43 (105)

Santa Rosa Sound CSG 860 (2,126)
PSG 629 (1,554) **Monitoring for Seagrass Health 137** WaterSeagrass, patchySeagrass, continuousLandGulf of Mexico0 2 4 6 8kmmiN0 1 2 3 4 5**Figure 6.**Distribution of seagrass in the Pensacola Bay system, 1992. **138 Seagrass Status and Trends in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: 1940–2002** Environmental Protection, 2001) contains an overview of the results from the entire monitoring effort.



## Epiphytic Coverage

In summary, 17 out of 20 sites monitored in spring 2001 indicated an increase of epiphytic coverage compared to the previous 2 yr, with the most dramatic increase in Big Lagoon. This change suggests that there may have been an increase in the amount of nutrients over the past 2 yr. If eutrophication has taken place, there should be more indications of this in other areas of monitoring, such as in water quality (Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 2001).



## Water-quality Monitoring

Water-quality monitoring was conducted every month at each of the 20 monitoring sites. The data were categorized into two sets of parameters, Hydrolab and laboratory. TheHydrolab parameters were measured on site with a waterquality meter and included temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and salinity. Secchi depth was also included with the Hydrolab parameters. Laboratory parameters required chemical analysis and included turbidity, color, conductivity, nonfiltered residue, ammonia, Kjeldahl nitrogen, nitrate + nitrite, total phosphate, and chlorophyll a. Algal growth potential was measured every other month. Algal blooms and excessive turbidity in the water column can reduce the amount of sunlight available to seagrass for photosynthesis. One indication of increased algae caused by excessive nutrients is an increase in both chlorophyll a and color. When turbidity increases but chlorophyll a and color remain low, however, stormwater runoff or some other stirring mechanism (i.e., boating) may be the cause of light attenuation. Results of water-quality monitoring for the parameters of chlorophyll a, color, and turbidity suggest eutrophication over the past 2 yr. The summer months of July and August normally show seasonal trends of increased chlorophyll a and color compared to other months of the same year. Not only is this trend now evident in the data, but those seasonal highs have also increased over the last 2 yr.



## Light-attenuation Monitoring

Photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) is the part of the spectrum of sunlight, between 400 and 700 nanometers (nm), that plants use for energy. Seagrass requires about 25% of the surface PAR for photosynthetic production. For example, if the PAR is 9.5 Moles per square meter per second (M/m 2 /s) just below the surface of the water, then the seagrass requires 2.4 M/m 2 /s of PAR for optimal survival. Underwater vegetation is less likely to receive sufficient PAR to sustain growth when light reaching the plants is reduced because of water turbidity and algal blooms. In this study, light-attenuation monitoring suggested that, immediately after a heavy rainfall, stormwater input inhibits the amount of PAR available to the seagrass. Figure 7 illustrates light attenuation at the deep edge of a seagrass bed in 1.4 m (4.5 ft) of water. Although the monitored storm event lasted only 1 d, the inhibited PAR persisted for several days after the rainfall because of increased turbidity and nutrient enrichment from stormwater runoff.



# Mapping and Monitoring Needs

Although historical data documenting extensive lossesof seagrass in Pensacola Bay are available, recent (post1992) data are scarce. Turtle grass and shoal grass are nearly absent from Pensacola and Escambia Bays; only water celery and wigeon grass are surviving in limited areas of upper Escambia Bay. These species are also doing well in portions of Blackwater Bay, and shoal grass, turtle grass, manatee grass, and star grass are surviving in portions of Santa Rosa Sound (Northwest Florida Water Management District, 1997) and Big Lagoon. Furthermore, standardized mapping of seagrass beds at appropriate temporal and spatial scales should be made every 5–10 yr. Groundtruthing is recommended for verification of those mapping initiatives. Continuation of a strategic long-term monitoring program that includes biotic and abiotic parameters of the community is needed. Such parameters include, but are not limited to, areal coverage, shoot length, epiphyte load, percent coverage, density, and water- and sediment-quality indicators. This monitoring should determine causes of changes in health, seagrass species composition, density, and distribution including total loss or gain. Shoot density and faunal communities should be measured to determine **Table 4.** Seagrass area in the Pensacola Bay system for 1992.

[Values are given in hectares (acres). CSG = continuous seagrass; PSG = patchy seagrass]

**Segment Class**  **Area**
Escambia Bay CSG 36 (88)
PSG 143 (353)

East Bay CSG 5 (13)
PSG 160 (395)

Pensacola Bay CSG 13 (33)
PSG 101 (249)

Big Lagoon CSG 99 (245)
PSG 119 (293)

Santa Rosa Sound CSG 796 (1,968)
PSG 343 (848) **Mapping and Monitoring Needs 139** 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

9.65

2.12 9.97

3.60 7.64

2.07 9.62

3.69 9.12

4.28 9.62 9.43 9.06 9.17 9.39

2.28 2.33 2.29 9.46

3.85 4.02



### Date and TimeP A R (M/ m2/s)

PAR at water's

surface

PAR reaching the seagrass bed Oct. 17, 2000, 7 a.m. Oct. 17, 2000, 2 p.m. Oct. 18, 2000, 8 a.m. Oct. 18, 2000, 3 p.m. Oct. 19, 2000, 9 a.m. Oct. 19, 2000, 4 p.m. Oct. 20, 2000, 10 a.m. Oct. 20, 2000, 5 p.m. Oct. 21, 2000, 11 a.m. Oct. 21, 2000, 6 p.m. Oct. 22, 2000, 12 p.m. Oct. 22, 2000, 7 p.m. Oct. 23, 2000, 1 p.m. Oct. 24, 2000, 7 a.m. Oct. 24, 2000, 2 p.m. Oct. 25, 2000, 2 p.m. Oct. 26, 2000, 8 a.m. Oct. 26, 2000, 3 p.m. Oct. 27, 2000, 9 a.m. Oct. 27, 2000, 4 p.m.

**Figure 7.** The amount of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) was diminished for several days while turbidity settled after a storm event at Big Lagoon in Florida. October 18 indicates a normal day, with surface PAR around 9.6 Moles per square meter per second (M/m 2 /s) and underwater PAR (at grass blade depth) around 3.7 M/m 2 /s. Available PAR to the seagrass bed is about 38% of surface PAR. October 20 indicates a storm event with decreased surface and underwater PAR caused by clouds and rain. Following the storm event, surface PAR returned to normal, while underwater PAR remained inhibited for days because of increased turbidity from stormwater runoff. Available PAR decreased to insufficient levels of around 22%, which persisted for 4 d before returning to normal. **140 Seagrass Status and Trends in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: 1940–2002** habitat function and productivity. Changes in light quality and quantity as they affect seagrass health may be related to nutrient loading and stimulation of phytoplankton blooms, epiphytes, and drift macroalgae and should be included in the monitoring program. Assessment of the biogeochemical environment occupied by belowground tissue, such as porewater composition, would also be useful, as would the monitoring of contaminants in surface water, sediment, and seagrass tissue. All of these monitoring activities, however, would not be able to be accomplished without a large source of funding. The prioritization of activities would be to study the parameters related to seagrass health and growth, such as areal coverage, density, shoot length, etc. If these attributes were found to be declining, then other parameters—such as contaminants in water, sediment, and tissue and light quality and quantity—would be useful to measure.

Studies should address the following:

effects of boating impacts (trawling and boat traffic, including jet skis, motorboats, and sailboats),

effects of nonpoint pollution sources on seagrass beds,

socioeconomic values and impacts of management,

on users
effects of the increase in the human population (nonpoint nutrient loading, user impacts),

factors involved in repairing propeller scar damage,

dredging effects on light attenuation, and

indirect effects of dredging.



# Restoration and Enhancement **Opportunities**

Habitat functions and productivity of natural seagrass community types should be identified, as well as should linkages with other habitats to support habitat conservation, creation, enhancement, and restoration in the Pensacola Bay system. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection is working with Federal, State, and local agencies and with local businesses, individuals, and civic organizations to promote and facilitate a large-scale restoration project. Project Greenshores is a habitat restoration project designed to restore an area in Pensacola Bay that was once lightly populated with seagrass. This project will attempt to restore between 4 and 8 ha (10 and 20 acres) of oyster reefs and emergent and submerged grasses, as well as to educate the public on the importance of seagrass communities in estuarine habitats. Seagrasses to be planted include turtle grass, shoal grass, and wigeon grass. This project will also be used as a template for further restoration •

•

•

•

•

•

• projects in northwest Florida and throughout the Gulf of Mexico coastal area. The Ecosystem Restoration Section of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection has initiated many local shoreline restoration projects involving emergent and submerged vegetation and propeller scar restoration. Restoration sites have included Wayside Park in Gulf Breeze, the mouth of Bayou Texar, and propeller scarred areas in Big Lagoon and elsewhere. The Florida Marine Research Institute states that the Pensacola Bay system has, in general, light to moderate scarring with a few areas labeled as severe. Propeller scar restoration is new to the Pensacola Bay system: few restoration attempts have been made within the past 5 yr, but restoration opportunities are becoming more attainable. Future restoration opportunities should include experimental research on seagrass bed creation and restoration to determine how donor stocks, including drift grass (detached plants), should be selected to achieve maximum success. The research should also determine if there are methods to accelerate natural recruitment of seagrasses.



# References Cited

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 1998, The Pensacola Bay watershed management guide: an integrated ecosystem action plan: Pensacola, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Northwest District, 268 p., 5 appendixes.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 2001, Seagrass management plan for Big Lagoon and Santa Rosa Sound: Pensacola, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Northwest District, 45 p.

Heck, K.L., Jr., Sullivan, M.J., Zande, J.M., and Moncreiff, C.A., 1996, An ecological analysis of seagrass meadows of the Gulf Island National Seashore—years one, two, and three: seasonal assessment and inventory, interaction studies and assessment/inventory: University of South Alabama, Marine Environmental Science Consortium, executive summary, 7 p.

Hopkins, T.S., 1973, Marine ecology in Escarosa: Tallahassee,

Florida Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Coordinating Council, 100 p.

Kirschenfeld, T., 1999, FDEP Northwest District, Ecosystem

Restoration Section Gulf of Mexico grant proposal: seagrass management plan for Big Lagoon and Santa Rosa Sound, Pensacola Bay system.

Livingston, R.J., Hopkins, T.S., Adams, J.K., Schnitt, M.D., and Welch, L.M., 1972, The effects of dredging and eutrophication on Mulat-Mulatto Bayou (Escambia Bay, Pensacola, Florida): Tallahassee, Florida Department of Transportation, 180 p. **References Cited 141** Moskovits, G., 1955, Marine biology (v. 2), in Literature survey of Lake Charles, La., Gulfport, Miss., Mobile, Al., and Pensacola Fl. (J.P. Barlow, Prog. Dir.): College Station, Texas A&M University, Department of Oceanography, Texas A&M Project 98, 55-34F.

Murdock, J.F., 1955, Investigation of the Lee County bay scallop fishery [a report] submitted to Florida State Board of Conservation: Coral Gables, Fla., University of Miami, Marine Laboratory, 101 p.

Northwest Florida Water Management District, 1991, Surface

Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Program: the Pensacola Bay system, biological trends and current status: Havana, Fla., Northwest Florida Water Management District, 181 p.

Northwest Florida Water Management District, 1997, Pensacola Bay system: Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Plan: Havana, Fla., Northwest Florida Water Management District, 146 p.

Rucker, B.R., 1990, Blackwater and Yellow Pine: the development of Santa Rosa County, 1821–1865 (2 v.): Tallahassee, Florida State University, Ph.D. dissertation, 780 p.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1990, Collection and analysis of bottom sediment samples from upper Escambia Bay, Florida: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 26 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975, Environmentaland recovery studies of Escambia Bay and the PensacolaBay system Florida: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 904/9-76-016, 322 p. **142 Seagrass Status and Trends in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: 1940–2002**