BAY SCALLOP PROJECT 2009 ANNUAL REPORT

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Fish and Wildlife Research Institute 100 Eighth Avenue SE St. Petersburg, Florida 33701

- 5095

March 31, 2010

Sarah P. Stephenson & Stephen P. Geiger

Phone: (727) 896

- 8626 Fax: (727) 893

- 9606 E

- mail: Sarah.Stephenson@MyFWC.com

### 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A project of this scope and duration requires the assistance of many individuals and groups from
throughout Florida. Members of the Molluscan Fisheries research group at the Fish & Wildlife Research
Institute who participated in portions of this project include: Melanie Parker, Janessa Cobb, Mark
Gambordella, Anthony Vasilas, Michael Dre xler, and Anne Dowling. Three interns also participated in
scallop activities in 2009 through the FWRI intern program: Kevin Anderson, Glenn Goodwin, and
Lindsey O’Hern. Loren Coen, Mark Thompson and A.J. Martignette (Sanibel

- Captiva Conservation

Foundat ion), Jay Leverone (Sarasota Bay Estuary Program), and Jim Culter (Mote Marine Laboratory)

assisted with the continuation of our recruitment and survey monitoring and restoration efforts in Pine
Island Sound. Elizabeth Staugler (University of Florida

– IF AS) and volunteer Steve Patterson assisted in
recruitment monitoring in Charlotte Harbor area. Rene Janneman (Sarasota County) assisted in both
recruitment monitoring and community based restoration efforts throughout Sarasota County. Peter Clark

and Chr is Sutton of Tampa Bay Watch assisted with scallop collections and scallop restoration efforts in
Tampa Bay. Peter Klocksien and Tiffany Black (FWC

- Cedar Key field lab) assisted with the continuation
of our recruitment monitoring efforts in the Suwannee b asin area, namely Steinhatchee and Keaton Beach.
Kim Wren and Jessica Avant (Florida DEP) continued to manage our recruitment

- monitoring program in
St. Joseph Bay and Alligator Harbor. The St. Andrew Bay Resource Management Association
organization and i ts members, in particular Chris Metcalf and Jon Hemming (USFWS), Linda Fitzhugh
and Melissa Moore (Gulf Coast Community College), and Carrie Fioramonti and Michelle Passerotti
(NOAA) provided assistance in recruitment monitoring and restoration efforts in St. Andrew Bay. Ben
Russell of FDEP assisted in initiating recruitment monitoring in Pensacola Bay.

We would also like to thank Erin Leone of FWCs Biostatistics and Modeling Program for
statistical and analytical assistance.

### 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 OVERVIE W OF PROGRAM 7

2.0 METHODS 8
2.1 Site Selection 8
2.2 Adult Abundance Surveys 9
2.3 Recruitment Monitoring 1 0
2.4 Restoration Activities 1 1

3.0 RESULTS 1 3
3.1 Pensacola Bay 1 3
3.1.1 Pensacola B ay Recruitment Monitoring 1 3
3.2 St. Andrew Bay 1 4
3.2.1 St. Andrew Bay Adult Abundance Surveys 1 5
3.2.2 St. Andrew Bay Recruitment Monitoring 1 6
3.2.3 St. Andrew Bay Restoration Activities 1 7
3.3 St. Joseph Bay 19
3.3.1 St. Joseph Bay Adult Abundance Surveys 2 0
3.3.2 St. Joseph Bay Recruitment Monitoring 2 0
3.4 Apalachee Bay Area 2 2
3.4.1 Apalachee Bay Area Adult Abundance Surveys 2 2
3.4.2 Apalachee Bay Area Recruitment Monitoring 2 3
3.5 Steinhatch ee Area 2 5
3.5.1 Steinhatchee Area Adult Abundance Surveys 2 5
3.5.2 Steinhatchee Area Recruitment Monitoring 2 6
3.6 Crystal Bay Area 29
3.6.1 Crystal Bay Area Adult Abundance Surveys 3 0
3.6.2 Crystal Bay Area Recruitment Monitorin g 3 1
3.7 Hernando Area 3 2
3.7.1 Hernando Area Adult Abundance Surveys 3 3
3.7.2 Hernando Area Recruitment Monitoring 3 4
3.8 Anclote Area 3 5

### 4 3.8.1 Anclote Area Adult Abundance Surveys 3 6
3.8.2 Anclote Area Recruitment Monito ring 3 7
3.9 Tampa Bay 3 8
3.9.1 Tampa Bay Adult Abundance Surveys 39
3.9.2 Tampa Bay Recruitment Monitoring 4 0
3.9.3 Tampa Bay Restoration Activities 4 2
3.10 Sarasota Bay Area 4 4
3.10.1 Sarasota Bay Area Adult Abundance S urveys 4 5
3.10.2 Sarasota Bay Area Recruitment Monitoring 4 6
3.10.3 Sarasota Bay Area Restoration Activities 51
3.11 Charlotte Harbor and Pine Island Sound Area 52
3.11.1 Charlotte Harbor and Pine Island Sound Area Adult Abundance Surveys 53
3.11.2 Charlotte Harbor and Pine Island Sound Area Recruitment Monitoring 54
3.11.3 Charlotte Harbor and Pine Island Sound Area Restoration Activities 58

4.0 SUMMARY 62
4.1 Adult Abundance 62
4.2 Recruitment 64
4.3 Restora tion 65

5.0 2010 PLANS 6 5 5.1 Adult Abundance Surveys 6 5
5.2 Restoration Activities 66

6.0 REFERENCES 67

### 5 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 2009 Bay scallop study sites 8 Figure 3.1.1 Pensacola Bay study site 2009 s tations 1 3 Figure 3.2.1 St. Andrew Bay study site 2009 stations 1 4 Figure 3.2.2 St. Andrew Bay annual adult abundances 1 5 Figure 3.2.3 St. Andrew Bay 2009 recruitment 1 6 Figure 3.2.4 S t. Andrew Bay shell heights of caged scallops 1 8 Figur e 3.3.1 St. Joseph Bay study site 2009 stations 19 Figure 3.3.2 St. Joseph Bay annual adult abundances 2 0 Figure 3.3.3 St. Joseph Bay 2009 recruitment 2 1 Figure 3.4.1 Apalachee Bay area study site 2009 stations 2 2 Figure 3.4.2 Apalachee B ay area annual adult abundances 2 3 Figure 3.4.3 Apalachee Bay area 2009 recruitment 2 4 Figure 3.5.1 Steinhatchee area study site 2009 stations 2 5 Figure 3.5.2 Steinhatchee area annual adult abundances 2 6 Figure 3.5.3 Steinhatchee area 2009 r ecruitment 2 8 Figure 3.6.1 Crystal Bay study site 2009 stations 29 Figure 3.6.2 Crystal Bay annual adult abundances 3 0 Figure 3.6.3 Crystal Bay 2009 recruitment 3 1 Figure 3.7.1 Hernando study site 2009 stations 3 2 Figure 3.7.2 Hernand o annual adult abundances 3 3 Figure 3.7.3 Hernando 2009 recruitment 3 4 Figure 3.8.1 Anclote study site 2009 stations 3 5 Figure 3.8.2 Anclote annual adult abundances 3 6 Figure 3.8.3 Anclote 2009 recruitment 3 7 Figure 3.9.1 Tampa Bay s tudy site 2009 stations 3 8 Figure 3.9.2 Tampa Bay annual adult abundances 39 Figure 3.9.3 Tampa Bay 2009 recruitment 4 1 Figure 3.9.4 Tampa Bay caged scallop survival 4 3 Figure 3.10.1 Sarasota Bay study site 2009 stations 4 4 Figure 3.1 0.2 Sarasota Bay annual adult abundances 46 Figure 3.10.3 Sarasota Bay area adult abundances in fall 2009 4 8

### 6 Figure 3.10.4 Northern Sarasota Bay 2009 recruitment 49 Figure 3.10.5 Southern Sarasota Bay 2009 recruitment 50 Figure 3.10.6 Sa rasota Bay shell heights of caged scallops 51 Figure 3.11.1 Charlotte Harbor and Pine Island Sound study site 2009 stations 52 Figure 3.11.2 Charlotte Harbor and Pine Island Sound annual adult abundances 54 Figure 3.11.3 Charlotte Harbor 2009 recru itment 56 Figure 3.11.4 Pine Island Sound 2009 recruitment 57 Figure 3.11.5 Pine Island Sound open water growth study 59 Figure 3.11.6 Pine Island Sound canal area growth study 60 Figure 3.11.7 Pine Island Sound survival study 61

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1.1 Annual abundance means for each study site 64

### 7 1.0 OVERVIEW OF THE PROGRAM
This report summarizes bay scallop ( Argopecten irradians ) research conducted by the Molluscan
Fisheries program at the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservat ion Commission’s Fish and Wildlife Research
Institute during calendar year 2009. First, we report the results of adult population surveys conducted at
sites along the west coast of Florida from Lee County to Escambia County (Figure 2.1). The intent of

th ose surveys is to monitor the status of representative scallop populations in Florida and to assess changes
in population abundance that may occur in response to management and restoration efforts instituted by the
State of Florida beginning in 1994. Seco nd, we present the results of recruitment monitoring studies that
are ongoing in Lee County (San Carlos Bay and Pine Island Sound), Charlotte County (Gasparilla Sound
through Lemon Bay), Sarasota County (Lemon bay through southern Sarasota Bay), Manatee Co unty
(northern Sarasota Bay through southern Tampa Bay), Hillsborough County and Pinellas County portions
of Tampa Bay, Gulf of Mexico waters from Pinellas county through Franklin (including the near shore
zone between Anclote and Crystal River, the near shore zone near Steinhatchee and Keaton Beach, and
Alligator Harbor), Gulf County (St. Joseph Bay), Bay County (St. Andrew Bay), and Escambia County
(Pensacola Bay) (Figure 2.1). Finally, we provide a summary of bay scallop restoration efforts that are

u nderway in state waters.

### 8 2.0 METHODS

2.1 Site Selection
The Florida bay scallop population is comprised of many small, discreet, local populations along

the Gulf Coast that are in large part limited to the near

- shore, shallow

- water seagrass beds.

F igure 2.1 Bay scallop sites studied in 2009.

### 9 2.2 Adult Abundance Surveys
The 2009 adult scallop sampling protocol consisted of diver transect surveys at replicate stations,
initially randomly chosen within local seagrass beds . The methodology was cons istent with previous
surveys (e.g., Arnold et al., 2009). At each station, we deployed a 300

- m transect line and one diver on

each side searched within one meter of the line along its length. All scallops within that two by 300 meter

area were counted, a nd the shell height (distance from the hinge to the leading ventral margin) of the first
30 scallops encountered were measured. Ten study sites were surveyed during the spring and summer of

2009: northern and southern Pine Island Sound, Sarasota Bay, Tamp a Bay, Anclote, Hernando,
Homosassa, Steinhatchee, St. Marks, St. Joseph Bay, and St. Andrew Bay (Figure 2.1) during May through
August. All areas open to recreational harvest were surveyed prior to the July 1 opening day. Twenty
stations were sampled at each site with the exception of southern Pine Island Sound (N = four), and
Sarasota Bay (N = ten). Each station comprised a 600 m 2 survey area, so we sampled 12,000 m 2 of
potential bay scallop habitat at most sites. Abundance surveys were discontinued i n Pensacola Bay in

2006 and Cedar Key and Crooked Island Sound in 2008 due to the lack of scallops observed during s pring

surveys at those sites

.
W e classify the health of the local populations surveyed using the average number of scallops per

600 m 2 are a. Populations whose average falls below five scallops per 600 m 2 area are classified as
“collapsed”; populations with averages that range between 5 and 25 scallops per transect are classified as
“transitional”; and populations with averages greater than 25 scallops per 600 m 2 area are classified as
“healthy.” We also consider the distribution of scallops among stations when describing local
populations. A healthy status has scallops at ≥ half of the stations, and a transitional status has scallops at

< half of the stations. We use these classifications and distributions as well as the resiliency of a
population to determine which local areas may need assistance, most often in the form of restoration
efforts, but occasionally in recommendations for mana gement changes. For locations with long term data

### 10 sets (St. Andrew Bay, St. Joseph Bay, Steinhatchee, Crystal Bay/Homosassa Bay, Hernando area, Anclote

area, and Pine Island Sound) the least

- squared means were calculated using a SAS Glimmix procedure

(SAS Institute, 1985 ). Letter designations of the LS means are plotted in the respective graphs. Years
with the same letters are not significantly different from each other.
We also assisted as necessary in the local community scallop searches hosted by Tam pa Bay
Watch, Sarasota Bay Watch, and UF Sea Grant in Charlotte Harbor. These surveys followed a similar
procedure as FWRI adult abundance surveys with the exception of transect length and survey method. At

each station a 50

- m weighted transect line was deployed in shallow

- water grassy habitats, and volunteers
snorkeled the length, counting all scallops within a one meter path on each side of the transect. No shell
heights were recorded.

2.3 Recruitment Monitoring
After adult scallops spawn, the larvae u ndergo a 2

- week planktonic life stage before settling out of
the water column onto seagrass blades. These newly settled juvenile scallops, called spat, will grow and

become the next year

- class. We estimate the recruitment of these spat using collector de signed to mimic
seagrass blades. The collectors consist of a vexar mesh panel encased within a citrus bag that is tied to a
polypropylene rope. The rope is anchored to a cement block and is supported with a round surface float

(Arnold et al., 1998; Brand et al., 1980 as modified from a design described in Motada, 1977). Generally a
single collector is deployed at each station and allowed to soak for eight weeks prior to retrieval. An
additional collector is deployed at the same station, four weeks later, and similarly allowed to soak for
eight weeks. This overlapping deployment/recovery schedule ensures that any recruitment event that
occurs just prior to recovery of one series of collectors can be detected on the overlapping collector. Upon

recovery, c ollectors are returned to the laboratory for visual examination and enumeration of all recruits.
Collectors are deployed at 13 sites statewide: St. Andrew Bay, St. Joseph Bay, Alligator Harbor,
Keaton Beach area, Steinhatchee area, the Crystal Bay/Homosa ssa Bay area, the near

- shore waters off

### 11 Hernando County (Bayport), the Anclote Anchorage area, Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay, the intracoastal
waters throughout Sarasota County, the Charlotte Harbor area, and Pine Island Sound (Figure 2.1).
Collectors deploye d in Tampa Bay and Sarasota Bay are processed immediately upon retrieval and all live
recruits collected are returned to the FWRI facility for growout in Bayboro Harbor. These scallops will be
used at a later date during our ongoing restoration efforts. Th e FWRI Molluscan Fisheries group maintains
the traps from Anclote, Hernando, and Homosassa. At the St. Andrew Bay, St. Joseph Bay, Alligator
Harbor, Steinhatchee and Keaton Beach, Sarasota County, Charlotte Harbor, and Pine Island Sound sites,

collectors are retrieved and deployed by a network of fellow FWRI employees, DEP scientists, county

scientists, non

- profit agency scientists and volunteer organizations. The traps collected by external
agencies are shipped or transported to FWRI for processing. All generated data is standardized by dividing
the number scallops on a collector by the number of days that the collector was deployed. For reporting
purposes these numbers of scallops per collector per day are averaged for each deployment period and
graphi cally reported by retrieval date. Also note that the y

- axis scale of the recruitment plots changes from
site to site associated with changes in the magnitude of recruitment at each site.
Over the past several years, we have noted an increasing number of calico scallop s ( Argopecten
gibbus ) recruiting onto our bay scallop recruitment collectors. For each collector the number of calico
recruits are noted, as well as the invasive species Perna virdis (Asian green mussel) and Megabalanus

coccopoma (titan acorn barnacle). In Tampa Bay and Sarasota Bay study sites, we count the number of
green mussel recruits present on the small round float attached to the collector and measure the shell length

(mm) of the first 30 animals.

2.4 Restoration Activities

In 2 009, we continued restoration efforts in Pine Island Sound, St. Andrew Bay, Sarasota County
waters, and Tampa Bay. We utilized several sources/techniques for restoration, chief among these being
the retention and culture of scallop spat (i.e., new recruit s) collected during recruitment monitoring efforts

### 12 in Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay, and St. Andrew Bay. Recruits collected in Tampa Bay and Sarasota Bay and
cultured in Bayboro harbor waters were used in restoration efforts in Tampa Bay, in Sarasota County

com munity restoration efforts, and in Pine Island Sound community restoration efforts. In September
2008, we deployed 40 additional collectors in St. Andrew Bay to soak over the fall months in order to
amplify the number of recruits collected

. These collecto rs consisted of a 2

- m length of black netting that
was bunched up and stuffed into a citrus bag, adding both surface area and volume to the collector. Once
the collectors were retrieved they were immediately processed. Large scallops were given to NOAA a nd
GCCC staff to hang in cages off local docks, and small scallops (<10 mm) were transferred to mesh bags
and transported back to the FWRI. After the traps were inspected for visible scallops, and most of the
fouling organisms were removed, the traps were redeployed for an additional two months. All scallops
returned to FWRI were placed in cages and deployed off the St. Petersburg dock in Bayboro Harbor until
they reached a size capable of avoiding predation pressure (>20 mm shell height). Once these sca llops
were of suitable planting size they were transported back to the target estuary and released into seagrass

beds. Supplemental collectors were also planted in St. Andrew Bay in the fall of 2009, but were not

retrieved until 2010, and those results w ill not be reported here, except to indicate the program is ongoing.
We also partnered with Tampa Bay Watch staff to collect adult scallops from Tampa Bay waters
near Tarpon Key that were placed in cages and hung off of local volunteer docks. The scallop s remained
in the cages throughout their short life cycle with the assumption that they spawned before their death.

### 13 3.0 RESULTS
3.1 Pensacola Bay

Figure 3.1.1 Pensacola Bay recruitment monitoring stations
3.1.1 Pensacola Bay Recruitment Monitoring

Re cruitment monitoring occurred at two stations in Pensacola 2009 (Figure 3.1.1). Of the eight
collectors processed, spat were present on two and no scallops were observed on the remaining six
collectors. The total spat observed at this site in 2009 was tw o, the average was 0.25 per collector, and the
maximum number found on a single collector was two.

### 14 3.2 St. Andrew Bay

Figure 3.2

. 1 St. Andrew Bay restoration ( 

### ● ), survey ( ▲ ), and recruitment monitoring ( 

## □ ) stations sampled in 2009.

### 15 3.2.1 St. Andrew Bay Adult Abundance Surveys
We surveyed 20 stations in St. Andrew Bay in 2009 (Figure 3.2.1). St. Andrew Bay scallop
abundance increased in 2009 to 25.8 scallops per 600 m 2 . This population reached a healthy status (>25
scallops / 600m 2 ) for the first ti me in 13 years. We recorded scallops at 13 of our 20 survey stations, with
no scallops found in the north end of the bay (Figure 3.2.2). Of the 261 scallops measured in 2009, shell
heights (mm) during the June sampling effort ranged from 14 to 69, the av erage was 45.5, and the most
frequent shell heights recorded were 45 and 48. Even though the population status reached a healthy level,
it is not a resilient population. Since the inception of our monitoring program in 1994, there have never

been two suc cessive years of healthy bay scallop abundances.

A CDE AB EFG EFG FG FG H BC CD GH BC H DEF FG B# Scallops / 600 m2

0.1 1 10 100 1000

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Figure 3.2.2 Annual St. Andrew Bay survey abundances. Triangles indicate the scallop density at a given station (per 600 m 2 ) and the solid line connects annual means. The horizontal dotted lines denote the transitional (5/600 m 2 ) a nd healthy (25/600 m 2 ) population levels. Results of the comparison of means analysis are shown above the graph, where similar letters denote averages that were not different at a significance level of 0.05.

### 16 3.2.2 St. Andrew Bay Recruitment Monitoring
Recruitment monitoring occurred at 10 stations in the St. Andrew Bay area in 2009 (Figure 3.2.1).
Of the 110 collectors deployed in 2009, 102 were recovered and processed. Of those 102 collect ors, spat
were present on 79 (77.5%

- the highest rate of monitored sites statewide in 2009) and no scallops were
observed on the remaining 23 collectors. The total spat observed at this site in 2009 was 2,639, the
average was 25.9 per collector, and the maximum number found on a single collector was 235. The
strongest recruitment peak occurred in collectors retrieved in December, and recruitment was observed in
10 of the 11 retrieval dates (Figure 3.2.3). No spat were found in collectors retrieved in Ap ril. In 2008 we
counted 497 scallops on 81 collectors, for an average of 6.1, so average recruitment increased in 2009.

Of the 102 collectors retrieved in 2009 , calico spat were present on seven and no calico scallops
were observed on the remaining 95 col lectors. The total calico spat observed at this site in 2009 was 23,
the average was 0.2 per collector, and the maximum number found on a single collector was 8. The
invasive titan acorn barnacle was observed on collectors retrieved in April, May, July a nd December, and
the invasive Asian green mussel was observed on collectors retrieved in December.

1/1/09 2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0Mean SpatCollector-1Day-1

Figure 3.2.3 St. Andrew Bay scallop recruitment during 2009. The number of scallops per collector was standardized by dividing the count by the number of days deployed, then averaged by deployment period and plotted by retrieval date.

### 17 3.2.3 St. Andrew Bay Restoration Activities
On December 15 and 16, 2008, FWRI staff collected a total of 129 scallops off six of the ten
Vexar collectors regularly deployed and 2,841 off the set of 40 supplemental collectors. Scallops that were
above 15 mm in shell height were divided into groups of 25 individuals and placed in mesh bags within
plastic cages and hung from docks at the NOAA facility. The remaining scallops were transported back to
FWRI for growout. We delivered approximately 500 bay scallop spat to staff of NOAA and Gulf Coast
Community College which were then distributed to volunteers and Gulf Coast Community College
students and monitored monthly for growth and mortality rates (Figure 3.2.4). The caged scallops were
monitored through May 2009 and were then released into seagrass beds in the north end of the bay (Figure
3.2.1). Bay scallop growth rates for this study were approximately 0.77 mm per week.
On February 23 and 24, 2009, FWRI staff released 1,910 scallops that were from the supplemental
recruitment collectors retrieved in December 2008 and cultured in Bayboro Harbor at four sites around St.
Andrew Bay (Fi gure 3.2.1). During the same two days FWRI staff collected a total 45 scallops off eight of
the ten Vexar collectors regularly deployed and 777 off 38 of the 40 supplemental collectors that were
redeployed in December 2008 in St. Andrew Bay. We released approximately 225 of these scallops that
were 15mm or greater in shell height into local seagrass beds, and transported the remaining 550 smaller

sized scallops back to FWRI for grow

- out. On June 15, 2009, FWRI staff transported 400 scallops from
Bayboro Harbor to St. Andrew Bay and released them at two locations in East Bay (Figure 3.2.1).
Scallops collected in St. Andrew Bay and cultured in Bayboro Harbor in St. Petersburg had an
average growth rate of 1.47 mm/week.

### 18 Jan 2009 Feb 2009 Mar 2009 Apr 2009 May 2009 Jun 2009Shell Height (mm)

10 20 30 40 50 60

Mean Scallop Growth Rate = 0.77 mm/week Average Size = 27.4 mm Average Size = 42.8 mm

Figure 3.2.4 Actual ( ○ ) and average (line) shell heights of caged scallops in St. Andrew Bay.

### 19 3.3 St. Joseph Bay

Figure 3.3.1 St. Joseph Bay survey ( ▲ ) and recruitment monitoring ( 

### □ ) stations.

### 20 3.3.1 St. Joseph Bay Adult Abundance Surveys
We surveyed 20 stations in St. Jos eph Bay in 2009 (Figure 3.3.1). The scallop population in St.
Joseph Bay increased from a transitional population (5

- 25 scallops / 600 m 2 ) in 2008, to a healthy one (>
25 scallops / 600 m 2 ) in 2009, with 97.4 scallops per 600 m 2 . Scallops were found at all 20 stations, with
almost half of the total number found observed at one station located in slightly deeper water and thinner
grass (Figure 3.3.2). Of the 369 scallops measured in 2009, shell heights (mm) during the June sampling
effort ranged from 24 to 75, the average was 48.0, and the most frequent shell height recorded was 45.

DEF B A EF FG CDE GH H CDE DEF I CDE BCD BC GH BC# Scallops / 600 m2

0.1 1 10 100 1000

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Figure 3.3.2 Annual St. Joseph Bay survey abundances. Triangles indicate the scallop density at a given station (per 600 m 2 ) and the s olid line connects annual means. The horizontal dotted lines denote the transitional and healthy population levels. Results of the comparison of means analysis are shown above the graph, where similar letters denote averages that were not different at a si gnificance level of 0.05.

3.3.2 St. Joseph Bay Recruitment Monitoring
Recruitment monitoring in St. Joseph Bay occurred at four stations, each with three replicates,
during January

- April 2009. Beginning in March a new configuration of 12 stations (inc luding the
original four), each with a single replicate, was deployed, positioning the collectors around the bay (Figure

### 21 3.3.1). All collectors retrieved in May through December were of the new design. Of the 120 collectors
deployed in 2009, 102 were rec overed, and 12 were lost during shipment to the Fish and Wildlife Research
Institute. Of those 90 collectors processed, spat were present on 64 (71.1%) and no scallops were observed
on the remaining 26 collectors. The total spat observed at this site in 2009 was 1,855, the average was
20.6 per collector, and the maximum number found on a single collector was 494. The strongest
recruitment peak occurred in collectors retrieved in January, and recruitment was observed in all of the ten

retrieval dates, wit h the exception of the lost collectors that were retrieved in late July (Figure 3.3.3). In
2008 we counted 3,614 scallops on 116 collectors, for an average of 31.2, so average recruitment

decreased in 2009.

The invasive titan acorn barnacle was observed on collectors retrieved in April, and the invasive
Asian green mussel on collectors retrieved in December. No calico scallops were observed at this site in

2009.

1/1/09 2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0Mean SpatCollector-1Day-1

Figure 3.3.3 St. Joseph Bay scallop recruitment during 2009. The number of scallops per collector was standardized by dividing the count by the number of days deployed, then averaged by deployment period and plotted by retrieval date. The gap indicates the time period for which the collectors were lost during shipment.

### 22 3.4 Apalachee Bay Area

Figure 3.4.1 Apalachee Bay area survey ( ▲ ) and recruitment monitoring ( 

### □ ) stations sampled in 2009.
3.4.1 Apalachee Bay Area Adult Abundance Surveys
We surveyed 20 stations in the Apalachee Bay area including five near Lanark and Alligator
Harbor, and 15 in the St. Marks area, eight of which w ere sampled the previous year (Figure 3.4.1). In
2008 the local population was a healthy one (>25 scallops / 600 m 2 ), but in 2009 the total number found
decreased from 170.0 to 10.2 scallops per 600 m 2 . Even though more stations were sampled, the 2009

po pulation dropped to a transitional status (5

- 25 scallops / 600 m 2 ). We found scallops at 15 stations, but
in smaller quantities than the year before (Figure 3.4.2). Of the 159 scallops measured in 2009, shell

### 23 heights (mm) during the June sampling effor t ranged from 10 to 68, the average was 51.8, and the most
frequent shell height recorded was 53.# Scallops / 600 m2

0.1 1 10 100 1000

2008 2009 Figure 3.4.2 Annual Apalachee Bay Area survey abundances. Triangles indicate the scallop density at a given station ( per 600 m 2 ) and the solid line connects annual means. The horizontal dotted lines denote the transitional and healthy population levels. Mean

- comparison groupings were not performed for this site.
3.4.2 Apalachee Bay Area Recruitment Monitoring

Recruit ment monitoring occurred at four stations in Alligator Harbor in 2009 (Figure 3.4.1). Of
the 40 collectors deployed in 2009, 38 were recovered. Of those 38 collectors recovered, spat were present
on 12 (31.6%) and no scallops were observed on the remaini ng 26 collectors. The total spat observed at
this site in 2009 was 48, the average was 1.3 per collector, and the maximum number found on a single
collector was 14. The strongest recruitment peak occurred in collectors retrieved in January, and

recruitme nt was observed in eight of the ten retrieval dates (Figure 3.4.3). No spat were found in
collectors retrieved in May or August. Recruitment monitoring was initiated at this site in 2008, so we are

unable to describe relative changes in average recruitme nt.
Several (N > 40) of the invasive Asian green mussels were observed in collectors retrieved in
December. No calico scallops or titan acorn barnacles were observed at this site in 2009.

### 24 1/1/09 2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09Mean SpatCollector-1Day-1

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10

Figure 3.4.3 Apalachee Bay area scallop recruitment during 2009. The number of scallops per collector was standardized by dividing the count by the number of days deployed, then averaged by deployment period and plotted by retrieval date.

### 25 3.5 Steinhatchee Area

Figure 3.5.1 Stein hatchee area survey ( ▲ ) and recruitment monitoring ( 

### □ ) stations sampled in 2009.

3.5.1 Steinhatchee Area Adult Abundance Surveys
We surveyed 20 stations in the Steinhatchee area in 2009 (Figure 3.5.1). The Steinhatchee scallop
population remained a healthy one (>25 scallops / 600 m 2 ) in 2009 with 69.0 scallops per 600 m 2 , although
the total number of scallops found was less than the number observed in 2008 (140.0 scallops 600 m - 2 ).
Scallops were observed at 19 of the stations, with 10 of these supporting 25 or more scallops per transect
(Figure 3.5.2). Steinhatchee consistently remains the healthiest and most resilient scallop population we
monitor in Florida, with healthy (>25 scallops / 600 m 2 ) means in 13 out of the 16 years surveyed, and

### 26 with transitional means (5

- 25 s callops / 600 m 2 ) in the remaining three years. Of the 368 scallops
measured in 2009, shell heights (mm) during the June sampling effort ranged from 23 to 67, the average
was 50.4, and the most frequent shell height recorded was 50.

AB FG A FG FG ABC A ABCD AB CD G EF G BCD AB DE# Scallops / 600 m2

0.1 1 10 100 1000

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Figure 3.5.2 Annual Steinhatchee survey abundances. Triangles indicate the scallop density at a given station (per 600 m 2 ) and the solid line connects annual means. The horizontal dotted lines denote the transitional and healthy populatio n levels. Results of the comparison of means analysis are shown above the graph, where similar letters denote averages that were not different at a significance level of 0.05.
3.5.2 Steinhatchee Area Recruitment Monitoring
Recruitment monitoring occurred on four replicate collectors at each of one station in the Keaton
Beach area, and one station in the Steinhatchee area in 2009 (Figure 3.5.1). Of the 44 collectors deployed
in 2009 at the Keaton Beach site, all were recovered. Spat were present on 16 (3 6.4%) and no scallops
were observed on the remaining 28 collectors. The total spat observed at this site in 2009 was 48, the
average was 1.1 per collector, and the maximum number found on a single collector was 14. The strongest
recruitment peak occurred in collectors retrieved in October, and recruitment was observed in seven of the
11 retrieval dates (Figure 3.5.3). No spat were found in collectors retrieved in March, early April, August
or September. Recruitment monitoring was initiated at this site i n 2008, so we are unable to describe

### 27 relative changes in average recruitment.
Of the 48 collectors deployed in 2009 at the Steinhatchee site, 44 were recovered. Of those 44
collectors recovered, spat were present on nine (20.5%) and no scallops were observed on the remaining
35 collectors. The total spat observed at the Steinhatchee site in 2009 was 12, the average was 0.3 per
collector (the lowest in the state), and the maximum number found on a single collector was three. The
strongest recruitment peak occurred in collectors retrieved in February, and recruitment was observed in
five of the twelve retrieval dates (Figure 3.5.3). No spat were found in collectors retrieved in March, late
April, July, October or November. In 2008 we counted 53 scall ops on 38 collectors, for an average of 1.4,
so average recruitment decreased in 2009.
No calico scallops, Asian green mussels, or titan acorn barnacles were observed at this site in

2009.

### 28 1/1/09 2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 1/1/09 2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09Mean SpatCollector-1Day-1

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 

## A)

B)Mean SpatCollector-1Day-1

Figure 3.5.3 Keaton Beach ( A) and Steinhatchee (B) scallop recruitment during 2009. The number of scallops per collector was standardized by dividing the count by the number of days deployed, then averaged by deployment period and plotted by retrieval date.

### 29 3.6 Crystal Bay Area

Figure 3.6.1 Crystal Bay area survey ( ▲ ) and recruitment monitoring ( 

### □ ) stations sampled in 2009.

### 30 3.6.1 Crystal Bay Area Adult Abundance Surveys
We surveyed 20 stations in the Crystal Bay area in 2009 (Figure 3.6.1). The scallop population in
the Crystal Bay area decreased from a healthy po pulation (>25 scallops / 600 m 2 ) to a transitional one (5

- 25 scallops / 600 m 2 ) in 2009, dropping from 86.2 to 20.7 scallops per 600 m 2 . We recorded scallops at 19
of the survey stations (Figure 3.6.2), and the number of stations supporting more than 25 scallops per
transect (our criteria for a healthy population) decreased from 16 in 2008 to four in 2009. Of the 331
scallops measured in 2009, shell heights (mm) during the June sampling effort ranged from 25 to 65, the
average was 50.2, and the most fre quent shell height recorded was 50. This population recovered after
years of low abundance in 2004 and 2006, but 2009 was the third year out of the last six years, where the
population fell to transitional levels

– suggesting some instability in this popu lation that bears monitoring.

H H HI G I EFG A A CD BC HI CD FG DE AB DEF# Scallops / 600 m2

0.1 1 10 100 1000

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Figure 3.6.2 Annual Crystal Bay area survey abundances. Triangles indicate the scallop density at a given station (per 600 m 2 ) and the solid line connects annual means. The horizontal do tted lines denote the transitional and healthy population levels. Results of the comparison of means analysis are shown above the graph, where similar letters denote averages that were not different at a significance level of 0.05.

### 31 3.6.2 Crystal Bay Ar ea Recruitment Monitoring
Recruitment monitoring occurred at 12 stations in the Crystal Bay area in 2009 (Figure 3.6.1). Of
the 144 collectors deployed in 2009, 125 were recovered. Of those 125 collectors recovered, spat were
present on 13 (10.4%

- lowes t statewide) and no scallops were observed on the remaining 112 collectors.
The total spat observed at this site in 2009 was 46, the average was 0.4 per collector (the 2 nd lowest in the
state), and the maximum number found on a single collector was nine. The strongest recruitment peak

occurred in collectors retrieved in November, and recruitment was observed in five of the 12 retrieval dates
(Figure 3.6.3). No spat were found in collectors pulled in January

– March, or May

- August. In 2008 we

counted 4 1 scallops on 130 collectors, for an average of 0.3, so average recruitment increased slightly in
2009. We continue to observe poor recruitment at this site compared to the number of adults observed
during summer surveys, as well as the quantity and quali ty of available habitat.
No calico scallops, Asian green mussels, or titan acorn barnacles were observed at this site in

2009.

1/1/09 2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10Mean SpatCollector-1Day-1

Figure 3.6.3 Crystal Bay area scallop recruitment during 2009. The number of scallops per collector was standardized by dividing the count by the number of days deployed, then averaged by deployment period and plotted by retrieval date.

### 32 3

. 7 Hernando Area

Figure 3.7.1 Hernando area survey ( ▲ ) and recruitment monitoring ( 

### □ ) stations sampl ed in 2009.

### 33 3.7.1 Hernando Area Adult Abundance Surveys
We surveyed 20 stations in the nearshore waters of Hernando county in 2009 (Figure 3.7.1). The
scallop population in the Hernando area decreased from a healthy population (>25 scallops / 600 m 2 ) to a
transitional one (5

- 25 scallops / 600 m 2 ) in 2009, falling from an average 79.8 to 13.9 scallops 600 m - 2

. We recorded scallops at all 20 of the survey stations again in 2009 (Figure 3.7.2). Of the 262 scallops
measured in 2009, shell heights (mm) dur ing the June sampling effort ranged from 6 to 70, the average
was 50.6, and the most frequent shell height recorded was 55. This population has only been classified as
healthy in one of the last eight years. The average in the open harvest regions sinc e the inception of
monitoring has been 25.9 per 600 m 2 , almost exactly at our healthy criteria limit. The average in the

closed harvest regions since the inception of monitoring has been 12.5 per 600 m 2 , almost exactly half of

our healthy criteria limit.

C D C A B B C C C C B A B# Scallops / 600 m2

0.1 1 10 100 1000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Figure 3.7.2 Annual Hernando area survey abundances. Triangles indicate the scallop density at a given station (per 600 m 2 ) and the solid line connects annual means. The horizontal dotted lines denote the transitiona l and healthy population levels. Results of the comparison of means analysis are shown above the graph, where similar letters denote averages that were not different at a significance level of 0.05. Hernando survey was initiated in 1997.

### 34 3.7.2 Hernando Re cruitment Monitoring
Recruitment monitoring occurred at 12 stations in the Hernando area in 2009 (Figure 3.7.1). Of
the 144 collectors deployed in 2009, 136 were recovered. Of those 136 collectors recovered, spat were
present on 47 (34.6%) and no scallop s were observed on the remaining 89 collectors. The total spat
observed at this site in 2009 was 280, the average was 2.1 per collector, and the maximum number found
on a single collector was 46. The strongest recruitment peak occurred in collectors retr ieved in December,
and recruitment was observed in 10 of the 12 retrieval dates (Figure 3.7.3). No spat were found in
collectors retrieved in late August or September. In 2008 we counted 958 scallops on 138 collectors, for
an average of 6.9, so average r ecruitment decreased in 2009.
In 2009 we observed calico scallop spat on collectors retrieved in December (N = 3). No Asian
green mussels or titan acorn barnacles were observed at this site in 2009.

1/1/09 2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09Mean SpatCollector-1Day-1

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

Figure 3.7.3 Hern ando area scallop recruitment during 2009. The number of scallops per collector was standardized by dividing the count by the number of days deployed, then averaged by deployment period and plotted by retrieval date.

### 35 3.8 Anclote Area

Figure 3.8.1 Ancl ote area survey ( ▲ ), and recruitment monitoring ( 

### □ ) stations sampled in 2009.

### 36 3.8.1 Anclote Area Adult Abundance Surveys
We surveyed 20 stations in the Anclote area in 2009 (Figure 3.8.1). The scallop population in the
Anclote anchorage area remained healthy (>25 scallop s / 600 m 2 ) in 2009, with a higher total number
found that in 2008, and with the highest number of scallops found statewide. The average abundance
increased from 137.9 to 152.6 scallops per 600 m 2 area. We recorded scallops at 18 of the 20 survey

station s (Figure 3.8.2). Of the 498 scallops measured in 2009, shell heights (mm) during the June to July
sampling effort ranged from 29 to 69, the average was 51.9, and the most frequent shell height recorded

was 50.

CDE G F B DE F BCD EF BC BC F BCD DE A A A# Scallops / 600 m2

0.1 1 10 100 1000

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Figu re 3.8.2 Annual Anclote area survey abundances. Triangles indicate the scallop density at a given station (per 600 m 2 ) and the solid line connects annual means. The horizontal dotted lines denote the transitional and healthy population levels. Results of t he comparison of means analysis are shown above the graph, where similar letters denote averages that were not different at a significance level of 0.05.

### 37 3.8.2 Anclote Area Recruitment Monitoring
Recruitment monitoring occurred at 12 stations in the Ancl ote area in 2009 (Figure 3.8.1). Of the
144 collectors deployed in 2009, 105 (72.9%) were recovered, remaining the site with the greatest number
of collector loss. Of those 105 collectors recovered, spat were present on 75 (71.4%) and no scallops were

ob served on the remaining 30 collectors. The total spat observed at this site in 2009 was 3821, the average
was 36.4 per collector, and the maximum number found on a single collector was 1095. The strongest
recruitment peak occurred in collectors retrieved in February, and recruitment was observed in all 12 of the
retrieval dates (Figure 3.8.3). This year elevates the number of months of continuous recruitment to
collectors in the Anclote area to 49 (54 deployment periods). In 2008 we counted 2,109 scallo ps on 106
collectors, for an average of 19.9, so average recruitment increased in 2009. This site remains one of the
strongest areas for scallop recruitment.
In 2009 we observed calico scallop spat on collectors retrieved in May (N = 7), and Asian green
mussels on collectors retrieved in May and December. No titan acorn barnacles were observed at this site

in 2009.

1/1/09 2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09Mean SpatCollector-1Day-1

0 1 2 3 4

Figure 3.8.3 Anclote scallop recruitment during 2009. The number of scallops per collector was standa rdized by dividing the count by the number of days deployed, then averaged by deployment period and plotted by retrieval date.

### 38 3.9 Tampa Bay

Figure 3.9.1 Tampa Bay restoration ( ● ), survey ( ▲ ), and recruitment monitoring ( 

### □ ) stations sampled in 2009.

### 39 3.9.1 Tampa Bay Adult Abundance Surveys
We surveyed 20 stations in Tampa bay in 2009 (Figure 3.9.1). The scallop population in the
Tampa Bay area remained a healthy (>25 scallops / 600 m 2 ) population in 2009 with an average 40.4
scallops per 600 m 2 , increasing slightly from 2008 (37.0 scallops / 600 m - 2 ). We recorded scallops at 14 of
the 20 survey stations (Figure 3.9.2). Of the 215 scallops measured in 2009, shell heights (mm) d uring the
July sampling effort ranged from 30 to 66, the average was 52.5, and the most frequent shell height
recorded was 50. Tampa Bay Watch’s Great Bay Scallop Search also recorded a higher number of
scallops in the Boca Ciega Bay area than any year pr evious. The yearly number of scallops counted by
volunteers can be viewed on Tampa Bay Watch’s website: http://tampabaywatch.org/.# Scallops / 600 m2

0.1 1 10 100 1000

2007 2008 2009

Figure 3.9.2 Annual Tampa Bay survey abundances. Triangles indicate the scallop d ensity at a given station (per 600 m 2 ) and the solid line connects annual means. The horizontal dotted lines denote the transitional and healthy population levels. Mean

- comparison groupings were not performed for this site.

### 40 3.9.2 Tampa Bay Recruitmen t Monitoring
Recruitment monitoring occurred year

- round at six stations in the Boca Ciega Bay area of Tampa
Bay in 2009 (Figure 3.9.1). Of the 72 collectors deployed in Boca Ciega Bay in 2009, 59 were recovered.
Of those 59 collectors recovered, bay scal lop spat were present on 37 (62.7%), and no scallops were
observed on the remaining 22 collectors. The total bay scallop spat observed at this site in 2009 was
3,496, the average was 59.2 per collector (the highest in the state), and the maximum number fo und on a
single collector was 726. The strongest recruitment peak occurred in collectors retrieved in January, and
recruitment was observed in 10 of the 12 retrieval dates (Figure 3.9.3A). No bay scallop spat were found
in collectors retrieved in Septemb er or October. In 2008 we counted 4,666 scallops on 69 collectors, for
an average of 67.6, so average recruitment decreased slightly in 2009.
Of those 59 collectors recovered, calico scallop spat were present on 11 (18.6%) of the collectors.

The total ca lico scallop spat observed at this site in 2009 was 53, the average was 0.9 per collector, and the
maximum number found on a single collector was 17. The strongest calico scallop recruitment peak
occurred in collectors retrieved in May, and recruitment wa s observed in 5 of the 12 retrieval dates (Figure
3.9.4). On the 58 small round floats processed, green mussel recruits were present on 18. The strongest
green mussel recruitment peak occurred in collectors retrieved in June, and recruitment was observed in 6
of the 12 retrieval dates (Figure 3.9.3B). No titan acorn barnacles were observed at this site in 2009.
In October we added an additional 12 stations around Tampa Bay as part of a grant funded project.
The collectors were deployed from Coqui na Key, north of the Howard Franklin Bridge, and then on the
east side of the bay south to Anna Maria Sound area (Figure 3.9.3C). Collectors were deployed in October

and November and the first retrieval was in mid

- December. All the collectors were retrie ved and four bay
scallops were observed.

### 41 1/1/09 2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09Mean Bay ScallopsCollector-1Day-1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

1/1/09 2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09# Calico Scallops

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

1/1/09 2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09# Green Mussels

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

## A)

B)

C)

Figure 3.9.3 Tampa Bay bay scallop recruitment (A) , Calico scallop recruitment (B) , and Asian green mussel recruitment (C) during 2009. The number of bay scallops per collect or was standardized by dividing the count by the number of days deployed, then averaged by deployment period and plotted by retrieval date. The total number of calico and green mussel recruits per retrieval date are reported.

### 42 3.9.3 Tampa Bay Restoration Activities
Using recruitment collectors deployed in Tampa Bay and Sarasota Bay as a spat

- collection method
we were able to retain 3,491 scallops in December 2008, 3,633 scallops in January, 584 in February, 317
in March, 1,417 in April, and 278 in May, fo r a total of 9,720 scallops. On March 3, 2009, FWRI staff

free

- released 1,000 scallops in grass beds near Weedon Island (Figure 3.9.1). On March 17, 2009, FWRI

staff free

- released scallops in seagrasses near Vinoy Park (N = 500 and 532), Coquina Key (N = 1,500),
Boca Ciega Bay (N = 500), and Gulfport (N = 1500). These scallops ranged from approximately 10 to 30
mm, with the majority on the small size. Although we originally collected over 9,700 scallops from Tampa
Bay and Sarasota Bay collectors, high water temperatures and heavy rainfall in May and June led to high
mortality of the scallops remaining in cages deployed in Bayboro Harbor, so that a second set of free

releases was not an option for further Tampa Bay scallop restoration.

On October 5, 2009 , FWRI and Tampa Bay Watch staff and volunteers collected 500 adult
scallops from seagrass beds in Boca Ciega Bay. These scallops were transported to three sites in Tampa
Bay: Vinoy Park, Coquina Key, and Tampa Bay Watch headquarters in Boca Ciega Bay, an d then hung in
multiple cages off volunteer and facility docks (Figure 3.9.1). The number of scallops in each cage was
counted each month (Figure 3.9.4). This marks the 5 th year that this type of volunteer restoration has been
in place in Tampa Bay. Ju st as the previous year’s study, scallops survived through the winter and a small
percentage was still alive during the early months of the consecutive year.
Bay scallops cultured in Bayboro harbor grew an average of 1.53 mm/week during late January

thr ough March, and an average of 2.32 mm/week during late April through June. Calico scallops were
measured weekly as well from April through June, and their average growth rate was 2.23 mm/week.

### 43 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar% Survival

0 20 40 60 80 100 

### Vinoy Park Tamp Bay Watch Coquina Key

Figure 3.9.4 Survival of cage

- planted scallops monitored by Tampa Bay Watch staff.

### 44 3. 10 Sarasota Bay Area

Figure 3.10.1 Sarasota Bay area restoration ( ● ), survey ( ▲ ), and recruitment monitoring ( 

### □ ) stations sampled in 2009. Stations to the north of the dashed line are servic ed by FWRI staff and those to the south by Sarasota County staff.

### 45 3.10.1 Sarasota Bay Area Adult Abundance Surveys
FWRI staff surveyed 10 stations in northern Sarasota Bay in 2009 (Figure 3.10.1). The scallop
population in the Sarasota Bay area remaine d a healthy population (>25 scallops / 600m 2 ), though numbers
were down from last year, dropping from 249.9 scallops/600m 2 to 62.5. We recorded scallops at five of
the 10 survey stations, which was half of the distribution of 2008 surveys (Figure 3.10.2). Of the 133
scallops measured in 2009, shell heights (mm) during the July sampling effort ranged from 25 to 69, the
average was 54.0, and the most frequent shell height recorded was 60.

The 2 nd annual Sarasota Bay Watch scallop search on August 8, 2009 ha d a good turnout, with volunteers
counting 136 scallops. Sarasota Bay Watch information can be found at www.sarasotabaywatch.org

. Scallop surveys performed countywide by Sarasota County staff in September 2 009 yielded a total count of
123 scallops. Staff scientists performed 27 100

- m long visual surveys in seagrass beds throughout the
entire Sarasota County waterway system, for an average of 4.6 scallops per 200 m 2 (equivalent to 13.8 per

600m 2 or transiti onal) F igure 3.10.3 illustrates the total number of scallops observed by both volunteers
and Sarasota County staff scientists in 2009.

### 46# Scallops / 600 m2

0.1 1 10 100 1000

2007 2008 2009 Figure 3.10.2 Annual Sarasota Bay area survey abundances. Triangles indicat e the scallop density at a given station (per 600 m 2 ) and the solid line connects annual means. The horizontal dotted lines denote the transitional and healthy population levels Mean

- comparison groupings were not performed for this site.

3.10.2 Sarasot a Bay Area Recruitment Monitoring
Recruitment monitoring occurred at 8 stations in the Manatee County area of Sarasota Bay, and at
15 stations in the Sarasota County area in 2009 (Figure 3.10.1). Of the 96 collectors deployed in 2009 in
Manatee County, 87 were recovered. Of those 87 collectors recovered, bay scallop spat were present on 53
(60.9%), and no scallops were observed on the remaining 34 collectors. The total bay scallop spat
observed at this site in 2009 was 2823, the average was 32.5 per coll ector, and the maximum number
found on a single collector was 705. The strongest recruitment peak occurred in collectors retrieved in
January, and recruitment was observed in 10 of the 12 retrieval dates (Figure 3.10.4A). No bay scallop
spat were found i n collectors retrieved in August or November. In 2008 we counted 2,522 scallops on
82collectors, for an average of 27.5, so average recruitment increased in 2009.
Of those 87 collectors recovered, calico scallop spat were present on 33 (37.9%) of the coll ectors.
The total calico scallop spat observed at this site in 2009 was 317, the average was 3.6 per collector, and

### 47 the maximum number found on a single collector was 84. The strongest calico recruitment peak occurred
in collectors retrieved in April, an d recruitment was observed in 7 of the 12 retrieval dates (Figure
3.10.4B). The strongest green mussel recruitment peak occurred in collectors retrieved in December, and
recruitment was observed in 7 of the 12 retrieval dates (Figure 3.10.4C). No titan a corn barnacles were

observed at this site in 2009.
Of the 165 collectors deployed in 2009 in Sarasota County, 161 were recovered. Of those 161
collectors recovered, bay scallop spat were present on 79 (49.1%), and no scallops were observed o n the
remaining 82 collectors. The total bay scallop spat observed at this site in 2009 was 2144, the average was
13.3 per collector, and the maximum number found on a single collector was 384. The strongest
recruitment peak occurred in collectors retrie ved in January, and recruitment was observed in 10 of the 11
retrieval dates (Figure 3.10.5A). No bay scallop spat were found in collectors retrieved in November.
Recruitment monitoring was initiated at this site in 2008, so we are unable to describe rel ative changes in
average recruitment.
Of those 161 collectors recovered, calico scallop spat were present on 33 (20.5%) of the collectors.
The total calico scallop spat observed at this site in 2009 was 360, the average was 2.2 per collector, and

the ma ximum number found on a single collector was 76. The strongest calico recruitment peak occurred
in collectors retrieved in April, and recruitment was observed in 7 of the 11 retrieval dates (Figure
3.10.5B). No Asian green mussels or titan acorn barnacle s were observed at this site in 2009.

### 48 Figure 3.10.3 Bay scallop counts observed in Sarasota Bay and county waters during Sarasota Bay Watch’s volunteer event and during transect surveys performed by county scientists in 2009.

### 49 1/1/09 2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09Mean Bay ScallopsCollector-1Day-1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

1/1/09 2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09# Calico Scallops

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

1/1/09 2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09# Green Mussels

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

## A)

B)

C)

Figure 3.10.4 Northern Sarasota Bay bay scallop (A) recruitment, calico scallop (B) recruitment, and Asian green mussel (C) recruitment during 2009. The number of bay scallops per collector was standardized by dividing the count by the number of days deployed, then averaged by deployment period and plotted by retrieval date. The total number of calico and green mussel recruits per retrieval date are reported.

### 50 1/1/09 2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09Mean Bay ScallopsCollector-1Day-1

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

1/1/09 2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09# Calico Scallops

0 50 100 150 200 250 

# A)

B)

Figure 3.10.5 Southern Sar asota Bay through Lemon Bay bay scallop (A) recruitment and calico scallop (B) recruitment during 2009. The number of bay scallops per collector was standardized by dividing the count by the number of days deployed, then averaged by deployment period and p lotted by retrieval date. The total number of calico recruits per retrieval date are reported.

### 51 3.10.3 Sarasota Bay Area Restoration Activities
On July 30 and 31, 2009, FWRI and Sarasota County staff transported approximately 900 bay
scallops from Bayboro Harbor and deployed them in 18 cages off volunteer homeowner docks along
Sarasota County (Figure 3.10.1). These volunteers monitored the caged scallops at least once a month,
measuring the ten largest scallops out of the original 50, and counting the num ber of live animals
remaining (Figure 3.10.6). The fluctuation within the graph is due to the mortality of the larger individual
measured over time. This second year of community based restoration had a high degree of early mortality
within the cages. T his may be attributed to high water temperatures, especially when transporting scallops
from Bayboro to the respective homeowner’s dock, as well as heavy rainfall throughout the summer
months. Increased rainfall and runoff causes a drop in the salinity wh ich the scallops are extremely
sensitive to. Average growth rates in the illustration below are most likely low due to the larger size of the
scallops at time of planting.

Jul 2009 Aug 2009 Sep 2009 Oct 2009 Nov 2009 Dec 2009Shell Height (mm)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Mean Scallop Growth Rate = 0.51 mm/week Average Size = 39.8 mm Average Size = 50.0 mm

Figure 3.10.6 Actual ( 

### ○ ) and average (line) shell heights of caged scallops throughout Sarasota County.

### 52 3.11 Charlotte Harbor and Pine Island Sound Area

Figure 3.11.1 Charlotte Harbor and Pine Island Sound restoration ( ● ), survey ( ▲ ), and recruitment monitoring ( 

### □ ) stations sampled in 2009.

### 53 3.1 1.1 Charlotte Harbor and Pine Island Sound Area Adult Abundance Surveys
We surveyed 20 stations in the northern end of Pine Island Sound in May 2009, and four stations
in the southern end (Figure 3.11.1) in August 2009. The scallop population in the north end of Pine Island
Sound area increased from a collapsed population (<5 scallops / 600 m 2 ) to a transitional one (5

- 25
scallops / 600 m 2 ) in 2009, increasing from an average of 0.1 to 14.1 scallops/600 m 2 . We recorded
scallops at 19 of the 20 survey st ations (Figure 3.11.2), which is a much broader distribution than what was
observed in 2008 (two out of 20). This increase in abundance may be a positive sign of our restoration
efforts, which are heavy in this area, but in no way indicate a stable popula tion. The observation that there
was some recovery after a two

- year period where Pine Island Sound was essentially devoid of bay scallops
suggests that either the area’s resiliency is improving or that the continued restoration and conservative

management efforts are having a positive impact. For this reason we will continue restoration efforts in
Pine Island Sound. Of the 270 scallops measured in 2009, shell heights (mm) during the May sampling
effort ranged from 17 to 64, the average was 45.7, and the m ost frequent shell height recorded was 42.
Only four scallops were observed in the southern end of Pine Island Sound in August, and their shell
heights were 42, 43, 55, and 62 mm.
On September 12, 2009, the first annual Great Bay & Sound Scallop Search in the Charlotte
Harbor vicinity hosted by the University of Florida Sea Grant program was a success despite the
unfavorable weather conditions. Volunteers came out to snorkel local seagrass beds and counted 94 bay
scallops. This was a higher number than an ticipated and hopefully shows signs of improving habitat and
water quality and other contributing factors crucial for bay scallop populations.

### 54# Scallops / 600 m2

0.1 1 10 100 1000

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

# * *

Figure 3.11.2 Annual northern Pine Island Sound area survey abundances. Tri angles indicate the scallop density at a given station (per 600 m 2 ) and the solid line connects annual means. The horizontal dotted lines denote the transitional and healthy population levels. Asterisks denote years where no scallops were observed during s urveys. Mean

- comparison groupings were not performed for this site.

3.11.2 Charlotte Harbor and Pine Island Sound Recruitment Monitoring
Recruitment monitoring occurred at 12 stations in the Lemon Bay to Charlotte Harbor area of

Charlotte Count y in 2009 (Figure 3.11.1). Of the 156 collectors deployed in 2009, 130 were recovered.
Of those 130 collectors recovered, bay scallop spat were present on 51 (39.2%), and no scallops were
observed on the remaining 79 collectors. The total bay scallop spa t observed at this site in 2009 was 1,292,
the average was 9.9 per collector, and the maximum number found on a single collector was 151. The
strongest recruitment peak occurred in collectors retrieved in May, and recruitment was observed in 8 of

the 13 r etrieval dates (Figure 3.11.3A). No bay scallop spat were found in collectors retrieved in May or
September through December. Recruitment monitoring was initiated at this site in 2008, so we are unable

to describe relative changes in average recruitment.
Of those 130 collectors recovered, calico scallop spat were present on 37 (28.5%) of the collectors.

### 55 The total calico scallop spat observed at this site in 2009 was 466, the average was 3.6 per collector, and
the maximum number found on a single collec tor was 98. The strongest recruitment peak occurred in
collectors retrieved in April, and recruitment was observed in 10 of the 13 retrieval dates (Figure 3.11.3B).
No green mussels or titan acorn barnacles were observed at this site in 2009.

Recruit ment monitoring occurred at 18 stations in Pine Island Sound area in 2009 (Figure 3.11.1).
Of the 216 collectors deployed in 2009, 194 were recovered. Of those 194 collectors recovered, bay
scallop spat were present on 49 (25.3%), and no scallops were ob served on the remaining 145 collectors.
The total bay scallop spat observed at this site in 2009 was 145, the average was 0.8 per collector, and the
maximum number found on a single collector was 16. The strongest recruitment peak occurred in

collectors retrieved in December, and recruitment was observed in 11 of the 12 retrieval dates (Figure
3.11.4A). No bay scallop spat were found in collectors retrieved in October. In 2008 we counted 17
scallops on 150 collectors, for an average of 0.1, so average r ecruitment increased in 2009.
Of those 194 collectors recovered, calico scallop spat were present on 36 (18.6%) of the collectors.
The total calico scallop spat observed at this site in 2009 was 351, the average was 1.8 per collector, and

the maximum num ber found on a single collector was 89. The strongest recruitment peak occurred in
collectors retrieved in May, and recruitment was observed in 7 of the 12 retrieval dates (Figure 3.11.4B).

### 56 1/1/09 2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09Mean Bay ScallopsCollector-1Day-1

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

1/1/09 2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09# Calico Scallops

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 

# A)

B)

Figure 3.11.3 Charlott e Harbor area bay scallop (A) and calico scallop (B) recruitment during 2009. The number of bay scallops per collector was standardized by dividing the count by the number of days deployed, then averaged by deployment period and plotted by retrieval date. The total number of calico recruits per retrieval date are reported.

### 57 1/1/09 2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09Mean Bay ScallopsCollector-1Day-1

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10

1/1/09 2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09 5/1/09 6/1/09 7/1/09 8/1/09 9/1/09 10/1/09 11/1/09 12/1/09# Calico Scallops

0 50 100 150 200 250 

## A)

B)

Figure 3.11.4 Pine Island Sound bay scallop (A) and calico scallop (B) recruitment during 2009. The number of bay scallops per collector was standa rdized by dividing the count by the number of days deployed, then averaged by deployment period and plotted by retrieval date. The total number of calico recruits per retrieval date are reported.

### 58 3.11.3 Charlotte Harbor and Pine Island Sound Restoration A ctivities
On the heels of successful community based restoration efforts in Sarasota County FWRI scientists
teamed up with scientists from the Sanibel

- Captiva Conservation Foundation ( http://www.sccf.org/ ) to try

a simi lar approach for restoring bay scallops to Pine Island Sound. Previous restoration attempts in this
area focused on releasing larval and juvenile scallops into the bay, but this method offered no way to assess
the survival of the scallops after deployment . On February 26, 2009 FWRI staff transported 1,000 bay
scallops from Bayboro Harbor to Sanibel. Scientists Loren Cohen and Mark Thompson of were on hand to
distribute the scallops to waiting volunteers, who would in turn place them in cages and hang off their
personal docks . Half of the scallop cages were hung in canals and others in the open Sound area. The
canal sites were in more developed areas and the salinity values more variable than that of the non

- canal
sites. Figures 3.11.5 and 3.11.6 illust rate the growth measurements recorded by volunteers and Figure
3.11.7 depicts the survival rates for the two deployment areas over the course of the study.
On March 3, 2009 Jim Culter of Mote Marine Lab planted 60 scallops at each of two spots in Pine

I sland Sound (Culter et al. in prep). On August 29, 2009, FWRI staff planted the remaining 500 scallops
that were grown in Bayboro Harbor in the southern end of Pine Island Sound (Figure 3.11.1).

### 59 Size of Scallops at Non-Canal Sites: February - July 2009

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

2/24/09 3/10/09 3/24/09 4/7/09 4/21/09 5/5/09 5/19/09 6/2/09 6/16/09 6/30/09Scallop Height (cm)

Average Size at Deployment = 24.5
cm Average Size = 50.7 cm Mean Scallop Growth Rate: 1.7 mm/week

Figure 3.11.5 Figure produced by Sanibel

- Captiva Conservation Foundation staff

. Shell heights (mm) of caged bay scallops deploye d in open water areas in Pine Island Sound in 2009.

### 60 

### Size of Scallops at Canal Sites: February - July 2009

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

2/24/09 3/10/09 3/24/09 4/7/09 4/21/09 5/5/09 5/19/09 6/2/09 6/16/09 6/30/09Scallop Size (cm)

Average Size at Deployment = 25.1
cm Average Current Size = 50.8 cm Mean Scallop Growth Rate: 1.5 mm/week

Figure 3.11.6 Figure produced by Sanibel

- Captiva Conservation Foundation staff

. Shell heights (mm) of caged bay scallops deployed in canal areas in Pine Island Sound in 2009.

### 61 

### Mean Scallop Survival At Non-Canal vs. Canal Sites

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

1 1.2

Feb-09 Mar-09 Apr-09 May-09 Jun-09 Jul-09 Aug-09% Surviving Non-Canal Sites Canal Sites

Figure 3.11.7 Figure produced by Sanibel

- Captiva Conservation Foundation staff

. Percent survival of caged bay scallops deployed in open water and canal areas i n Pine Island Sound in 2009.

### 62 4.0 SUMMARY

4.1 Adult Abundance
The results of our spring adult abundance suggest that statewide the local bay scallop p opulations
were relatively stable in 2009. Some of the local populations increased in abundance while o thers

decreased, however, there were no ne categorized as “collapsed” (mean number of scallops < 5 / 600 m - 2 ),
with the exception of south Pine Island Sound (Table 4.1.1). This mean was based off of only four

stations, and if the data is added to counts f or the northern end of the Sound, the overall mean for this site
would be 11.9 scallops 600 m - 2 , which i s almost 100 times greater than in 2008. By consolidating the data
for Pine Island Sound to one local population instead of two we can then say that ou t of the ten study sites
surveyed in 2009 six were healthy (mean number scallops > 25 / 600 m - 2 ) and four were transitional (mean
number scallops between 5 and 25 / 600 m - 2 ). Although the number of healthy populations dropped from

seven to six over the co urse of one year, the two populations that were collapsed in 2008 (St. Andrew Bay
and Pine Island Sound) both had substantial increases in abundance, which is a stronger stabilizing factor
for the statewide condition of this species.

The distribution of sc allops observed per station increased from 79% in 2008 to 85% in 2009.
While the overall count was down from 2008 (13,745 to 9,508), this increase in spatial stabilization is a
good sign. This percent coverage is the highest recorded since surveys initia ted in 1994. Perhaps the key
to rebuilding local populations is not just about quantity, but rather dispersion. Local populations are
easily affected by water parameters, for example a t ropical s torm dumped massive amounts of rain on the
big bend region of the state and we heard several reports of open shells in the St. Marks area shortly
thereafter. These extreme fluctuations in the physical dynamics can rapidly alter the abundance of adult
scallops within a local area, and if they are widespread enough , the entire bay scallop population.
Something of this nature is most likely what happened in the summer of 1998 and 2004. Abundance
counts were low for these two years (N = 1,390 and 709 scallops) as well as the spatial distribution

### 63 (scallops at 43.8 % a nd 36.0% of the stations surveyed). Over the past few years the physical conditions
have been relatively stable possibly translating to more healthy and stable local bay scallop populations.
The local population with the highest average abundance in 200 9 was the Anclote study site
(Sarasota Bay was the highest in 2008). For this site, the abundances over the last three years have been an
order of magnitude greater than any of the previous 13 years. While exciting, the reason for this
phenomenal increase in abu ndance is unclear. Anclote was an area of focus for bay scallop restoration,
and activities were ongoing from summer of 1999 through fall of 2006. So it is possible that the increase
in abundance in 2007 was due to these ongoing restoration efforts. The re were red tide occurrences over

the course of 2004

– 2006 that infiltrated the Anclote area waters, and may have altered the local scallop
population or benthic community in some capacity. During the restoration years (2000

– 2006) the

distribution of t he scallop shell heights that were measured during the annual spring surveys shifted from a
mode of 50 to 55 mm, and then returned to 50 mm during the 2007

– 2009 surveys. The percent of shell
heights greater than 60 mm increased slightly during this rest oration period, possibly in dicati ng a second
spawning cohort was occurring each year . Regardless of why it has occurred, this local boom in
abundance may be crucial for continued enhancement of the statewide bay scallop population. With a
strong, steady bay scallop population to the north (Steinhatchee), this more southern centralized population
may be needed to help jumpstart o ther local populations to within its immediate vicinity, including Tampa
Bay. Depending on the local currents, this Anclote popu lation could send bay scallop larvae in either
direction, as well as be a local sink for incoming recruits.

### 64 Table 4.1.1 Mean adult abundances per 600 m 2 in Pensacola Bay (PE), St. Andrew Bay (SA), Crooked Island Sound (CI), St. Marks (SM), Steinhatche e (ST), Cedar Key (CK), Crystal Bay (CB), Hernando (HE), Anclote (AN), Tampa Bay (TB), Sarasota Bay (SB), northern Pine Island Sound (PI

- N), and southern Pine Island Sound (PI

- S) observed during annual FWRI spring surveys. Dashes indicate years in which no surveys were performed at that site.

Year PE SA CI SM ST CK CB HE AN TB SB PI

- N PI

- S 1994

- 83.2 7.7

- 153.3

- 6.9

- 14.7

- - 0.0

- 1995 0.0 7.5 2.4 0.5 27.9

- 4.7

- 0.2

- - 2.5

- 1996

- 28.8 4.0

- 250.2

- 3.2

- 3.4

- - 0.8

- 1997

- 2.4 0.9

- 25.9

- 15.2 14.3 47.4

- - 2.3

- 1998

- 2.9 0.7

- 27.4 0.8 3.1 0.6 20.4

- - 2.4

- 1999

- 2.1 2.9

- 164.5 2.7 28.7 5.7 2.5

- - 2.6

- 2000

- 1.8 0.1

- 218.3 0.3 242.9 42.2 22.2

- - 2.8

- 2001

- 0.1 0.0

- 122.8 7.7 299.3 46.1 5.9

- - 5.5

- 2002 0.2 10.8 2.3

- 138.7 2.3 51.8 7.3 37.2

- - 0.7

- 2003 0.6 9.8 0.6

- 61.3 6.0 125.7 8.0 35.8

- - 0.6

- 2004 0.0 0.7 2.7

- 18.8 0.0 5.7 3.3 2.9

- - 1.1 0.1 2005 0.0 13.5 1.6

- 22.7 4.7 72.3 17.5 25.9

- - 93.4 2.4 2006

- 0.2 0.9

- 11.2 3.8 21.9 7.3 11.9

- - 8.2 1.3 200 7

- 3.0 1.7

- 36.8 0.7 48.0 30.5 174.0 5.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 2008

- 2.1

- 170.0 140.0

- 86.2 79.8 137.9 37.0 249.9 0.1 0.3 2009

- 25.8

- 10.2 69.0

- 20.7 13.9 152.6 40.4 62.5 14.1 1.0

4.2 Recruitment
Statewide bay scallop recruitment was generally as expect ed during 2009. Recruits were observed
on collectors in 72.1% of the months sampled, which is l ower than 2008 (81.6%) . For the Anclote area
recruitment was recorded was during all sampling months in 2009, elevating the number of continuous

retrieval even ts with bay scallops to 5 3 . Recruitment has been ongoing at this site since December of
2005. The majority of bay scallops are recorded each winter, but our collectors detect a small level of
recruitment in the warmer summer months, which is atypical of this species life history. As with the adult
abundance phenomenon at this site, we have many theories as to why this may be happening, but no hard
conclusions. We will continue to track this trend, and hopefully get enough data gathered to do a through

s tock assessment model for bay scallops.

### 65 4.3 Restoration
Having developed, refined, and assessed our previous restoration strategies for bay scallop
populations we continued to rebuild collapsed populations and augment transitional populations. Using

natu ral recruits that were captured on deployed collectors and wild

- collected adults, we were able to
release scallops in St. Andrew Bay, Tampa Bay, and Pine Island Sound, as well as deploy caged scallops in
these areas plus the intercoastal waters of Sarasota County. This later effort depends largely on volunteers
and collaborating scientific agencies. These techniques continue to be relatively inexpensive, labor

efficient and user

- friendly and allow us to focus our efforts on systems that continue to be of concern. In
each area where we have attempted to increase natural populations through supplementation with spat, we
have also seen gains in the adult populations, though in many cases, the gains have not been self

sustaining.

5.0 2010 PLANS

5.1. Adul t Abundance Surveys
For the spring adult abundance surveys in 2010 we plan to modify our sampling stations slightly in
the areas of St. Andrew Bay, Steinhatchee, Crystal Bay, the intercoastal waters of Sarasota and Charlotte

Counties, and Pine Island Sound. As we continue to work to restore sca llops in St. Andrew Bay our
knowledge of the local waters increases, and more potential locations to study bay scallops are discovered.
If water conditions are conducive to bay scallop health, then we hope to transfer one of our curren t
stations to a gras sy spot in East Bay. In the Steinhatchee and Crystal Bay areas, where the seagrass beds
are vast, we plan to add up to 10 additional stations to help compliment our current abundance estimates.
In Steinhatchee we will most likely expand our range in a no rth

- south direction and in an east

- west
direction in Crystal Bay. These additional stations will hopefully incorporate more of the local recreational
harvest areas, and provide us with a better estimation of the scallop abundances. We plan to add 10

### 66 stat ions in the Lemon Bay

– Charlotte Harbor area to better fill in the gap between the northern reaches of
Sarasota Bay and Pine Island Sound bay scallop populations. Based on our recruitment monitoring and the
success of the local community

- based bay scallo p searches we have most likely been missing an important
portion of these southern local populations. Finally, in Pine Island Sound, we plan to redistribute a portion

of our 20 stations in the northern region and 4 stations in the southern region , expandi ng from the small,
localized area near Pineland and Demere Key to western and southern portions of the estuary.

5.2 Restoration Activities
We hope to continue with our volunteer

- driven restoration efforts in St. Andrew Bay, Sarasota
County waters, and Pine Island Sound. This year the goal is to standardize the number of scallops within a
cage statewide, as well as the procedure for measuring shell heights. If scallop stocks are available, we
also hope to plant earlier in the summer to avoid temperatur e and salinity related mortalities. Scientists in
the Pensacola Bay area have also expressed the desire to initiate a similar restoration effort in their local
waters. If possible we hope to have scallops available for such an undertaking this summer, bu t we may be

forced to wait until enough local recruits can be gathered. This would mean planting the supplemental
recruit collectors in Pensacola Bay near locations of previous or current known bay scallops, and using the
resultant catch in caged efforts in 2011. We will be working with Curt Hemmel of Bay Shellfish to monitor

the success of a PCEF

- funded bay scallop restoration grant for Tampa Bay.

### 67 6.0 References
Arnold, W.S., D.C. Marelli, C.P. Bray and M.M. Harrison, 1998. Recruitment of bay scallops Argopecten

irradians in Floridan Gulf of Mexico waters: scales of coherence. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 170: 143

-

157.
Arnold, W.S., S.P. Geiger, M. Parker, S. Stephenson, J. Cobb, M. Gambordella, A. Vasilas and M

.
Drexler , 200 9 . Annual report of the bay scall op project, 200 8 . Report to the Division of Marine

Fisheries, Florida Fish and Wil dlife Conservation Commission, 61 pp.
Barber, B.J. and Blake, N.J. 1991. Reproductive Physiology. In Scallops: Biology, Ecology and
Aquaculture. Edited by S.E. Shumway. Else vier, Amsterdam pp. 377

- 420.
Brand, A.R., Paul, J.D., and Hoogesteger, J.N. 1980. Spat settlement of the scallops Chlamys opercularis
(L.) and Pecten maximus (L.) on artificial collectors. Journal of the marine biological Association

U.K. 60 : 379

- 390.

Cult er, J.K., J.R. Leverone, S.P. Geiger. 2009. Reestablishing Bay Scallop Populations in Pine Island

Sound. Mote Technical Report No. 1441 . Submitted to Charlotte Harbor National Estuary
Program. 28 pp.
Motada, S., 1977. Biology and artificial propagation of Japanese scallop (General review). In Proceedings

of the Second Soviet

- Japan Joint Symposium on Aquaculture, Moscow, 1973 (ed. S. Motada),
pp75

- 120. Tokyo; Tokai University.

SAS Institute, Inc., 1985. SAS User’s Guide: Statistics, Version 5 Edition. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary,
North Carolina, 956 pp.