# BAY SCALLOP PROJECT 2008 ANNUAL REPORT

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Fish and Wildlife Research Institute 100 Eighth Avenue SE St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-5095 March 31, 2009

William S. Arnold Stephen P. Geiger Melanie L. Parker Sarah P. Stephenson

Janessa C. Cobb Mark Gambordella Anthony Vasilis Michael Drexler

Phone: (727) 896-8626 Fax: (727) 823-0166 E-mail: Sarah.Stephenson@MyFWC.com

## 2 

# BAY SCALLOP PROJECT 2008 ANNUAL REPORT
Acknowledgements A project of this scope and duration requires the assistance of m any individuals and groups from throughout Florida. Jay Leverone (Sarasota Bay Estu ary Program), Jim Culter (Mote Marine Laboratory) and Loren Coen, Mark Thompson and A.J. Marti gnette (Sanibel-Captiva Conservation Foundation) assisted with the continuation of our recruitment mon itoring and restoration efforts in Pine Island Sound. Elizabeth Staugler (University of Florida - IMAFS) and volunteer Steve Patterson and his 6-year-old son Jacob assisted in initiating recruitment monitoring in Charlotte Harbor area. John Ryan and Rene Janneman (Sarasota County) assisted in initiating both recruitment monitoring and community based restoration efforts throughout Sarasota County. Pe ter Clark and Chris Sullivan of Tampa Bay Watch assisted with scallop collections and scallop restora tion 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 basin area, namely Stei nhatchee and Keaton Beach. Kim Wren, Jessica Avant and Ricky Hathcock (Florida DEP) continued to manage our recruitment-monitoring program in St. Joseph Bay and initiated recruitment monitoring in Alligator Harbor. The St. Andrew Resource Management Association organization and its member s, in particular Chris Metcalf (USFWS), Linda Fitzhugh and Melissa Moore (Gulf Coast Community College), and Carrie Fioramonti and Michelle Passerotti (NOAA) provided assistance in recruitment m onitoring and restoration efforts in St. Andrew Bay. Ben Russell of FDEP assisted in initiati ng recruitment monitoring in Pensacola Bay. With the completion and submittal of this report com es the end of an era within the Molluscan Fisheries program of the Florida Fish and Wildlif e Research Institute. Dr. William Arnold, who has served as the principal investigator and leader of this department for 24 years, has accepted a Fishery Biologist position with the National Marine Fisheries Service’s Southeast Regional Office in St. Petersburg. He will apply his considerable know ledge and fishery experience to the Limited Access

## 3 Privilege Program. His new job duties will include wo rking on a wide-array of scientific and statistical analyses in direct support of management activities. Dr. Arnold takes with him a wealth of knowledge of and research experience with Molluscan species within Florida waters, but he also leaves with us the knowledge and ability to propose, fund and conduct ex citing, sound, cutting edge and scientifically respected research. His "footprints" are large and w ill be difficult to match, but he has shown us the richness and fulfillment that true dedication to one's wo rk has to offer, and he has provided us with the motivation, guidance and skills to "aim hi gh" and achieve new goals on our own.

## 4 Table of Contents Overview of Program 8 I. Adult Abundance 8 1.0 Introduction 8-9 1.1 Pine Island Sound 9 1.2 Sarasota Bay 9 1.3 Tampa Bay 10 1.4 Anclote 10 1.5 Hernando 10 1.6 Homosassa 10-11 1.7 Cedar Key 11 1.8 Steinhatchee 11 1.9 St. Marks 11 1.10 St. Joseph Bay 12 1.11 Crooked Island 12 1.12 St. Andrew Bay 12 1.13 Pensacola Bay 12 1.14 Summary 13 II. Recruitment 13 2.0 Introduction 13-14 2.1 Pine Island Sound 14 2.2 Charlotte County 14 2.3 Sarasota County 15 2.4 Sarasota Bay 15 2.5 Tampa Bay 15-16 2.6 Anclote 16 2.7 Hernando 16 2.8 Homosassa 16 2.9 Suwannee area 17 2.10 Alligator Harbor 17 2.11 St. Joseph Bay 17-18 2.12 St. Andrew Bay 18 2.13 Pensacola Bay 18 2.14 Summary 18-19 III. Restoration Activities 19 3.0 Introduction 19-20 3.1 Pine Island Sound 20-21 3.2 Sarasota County 21 3.3 Sarasota Bay 21 3.4 Tampa Bay 21-22 3.5 St. Andrew Bay 22-23 3.6 Pensacola Bay 23 3.7 Summary 23-24 IV. References 24

## 5 List of Tables Table 1. Adult bay scallop density per sta tion at the south Pine Island Sound, Florida 25 study site during each summer from 2004 to 2008. Table 2. Adult bay scallop density per stati on at the north Pine Island Sound, Florida 26 study site during each summer from 1994 to 2008. Table 3. Adult bay scallop density per station at the Sarasota Bay , Florida study site 27 during each summer from 2007 to 2008. Table 4. Adult bay scallop density per station at the Tam pa Bay, Florida study site 28 during each summer from 2007 to 2008. Table 5. Adult bay scallop density per sta tion at the Anclote, Florida study site 29 during each summer from 1994 to 2008. Table 6. Adult bay scallop density per station at the Hernando, Florida study site during 30 each summer from 1997 to 2008. Table 7. Adult bay scallop density per station at the Homosassa, Florida study site 31 during each summer from 1994 to 2008. Table 8. Adult bay scallop density per station at the Cedar Key , Florida study site 32 during each summer from 1998 to 2007. Table 9. Adult bay scallop density per station at the Steinhatchee, Florida study site 33 during each summer from 1994 to 2008. Table 10. Adult bay scallop density per stati on at the St. Marks, Florida study site 34 during each summer in 1995 and 2008. Table 11. Adult bay scallop density per station at the St. Joe Bay , Florida study site 35 during each summer from 1994 to 2008. Table 12. Adult bay scallop density per sta tion at the Crooked Island Sound, Florida 36 study site during each summer from 1994 to 2007. Table 13. Adult bay scallop density per stati on at the St. Andrew Bay , Florida study 37 site during each summer from 1994 to 2008. Table 14. Adult bay scallop density per station at the Pensacola Bay, Florida study 38 site during each summer from 1995 and 2002 to 2005.

## 6 List of Figures Figure 1. Map of Florida illustrating bay scallop study sites. 39 Figure 2. Bay scallop adult abundance plot. 40 Figure 3. Recruitment and survey station lo cations for Pine Island Sound, Charlotte 41 County, Sarasota County and Sarasota Bay study sites. Figure 4. Recruitment and survey station locations for Tampa Bay, Anclote, 42 Hernando, and Homosassa study sites. Figure 5. Recruitment and survey station locations for Cedar Key, Steinhatchee, 43 Keaton Beach, St. Marks, Alligator Harbor, and St. Joseph Bay study sites. Figure 6. Recruitment and survey st ation locations Crooked Island Sound, 44 St. Andrew Bay, and Pensacola Bay study sites. Figure 7. Pine Island Sound recruitment plots for 2008. 45-47 Figure 8. Sarasota County recruitment plot for 2008. 48 Figure 9. Sarasota Bay recruitment plot for 2008. 49 Figure 10. Tampa Bay recruitment plot for 2008. 50 Figure 11. Anclote recruitment plot for 2008. 51 Figure 12. Hernando recruitment plot for 2008. 52 Figure 13. Homosassa recruitment plot for 2008. 53 Figure 14. Steinhatchee recruitment plot for 2008. 54 Figure 15. St. Joseph Bay recruitment plot for 2008. 54 Figure 16. St. Andrew Bay recruitment plot for 2008. 55 Figure 17. Restoration station locations with total number of scallops released in the 56 Pine Island Sound, Sarasota Bay, Tampa Ba y, and St. Andrew Bay study sites. Figure 18. Restoration station locations with total number of scallops released in the 57 Pensacola Bay study site. Figure 19. Growth and mortality plots of community based restoration effort in Sarasota County. 58 Figure 20. Mortality plot of community based restoration effort in Tampa Bay. 59

## 7 Figure 21. Weekly growth and morta lity plots of bay and calico scallops. 60

## 8 Overview of Program This report summarizes bay scallop ( Argopecten irradians ) research conducted by the Molluscan Fisheries program at the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s Fish and Wildlife Research Institute during calendar year 2008. First, we report the results of adult population surveys conducted at sites along the west coast of Florida be tween Pine Island Sound in the south and St. Andrew Bay in the northwest (Figure 1). The intent of tho se 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 since 1994. Second, we present the results of recruitment monitoring studies that ar e ongoing in Pine Island Sound, Sarasota Bay, Tampa Bay, the near shore zone between Anclote and Crysta l River, St. Joseph Bay, and St. Andrew Bay, and new sites in Charlotte County, Sarasota County, the Suwannee River area including Homosassa, Cedar Key, Steinhatchee and Keaton Beach, and Alligator Har bor (Figure 1). Finally, we provide a summary of scallop restoration efforts that are underway in state waters.

I. Adult Abundance
1.0 Introduction Consistent with each of the previous survey s (e.g., Arnold et al., 2008) our 2008 adult scallop

sam pling protocol consisted of diver transect surveys at replicate and randomly located stations at each of 11 study sites (see below) during the spring. At each station, we deployed one diver on each side of a 300 m transect line who searched within one meter of the lin e along its length. All scallops within that two by 300 meter area were counted. Surveys were conducted at study sites located in south Pine Island Sound, north Pine Island Sound, Sarasota Bay, Tampa Bay, Anclote, Hernando, Homosassa, Steinhatchee, St. Marks, St. Joseph Bay, and St. Andrew Bay (Figures 3 - 6) during May, June and July. Twenty stations were sampled at each site with the exception of sout h Pine Island Sound (N = four), Sarasota Bay (N =

## 9 ten), and St. Marks (N = eight). Each station comprised a 600 m 2 

### survey area, so we sampled 12,000 m 2 

### of potential bay scallop habitat at most sites. W ithin each site, differences in mean scallop abundance among years were statistically compared using a Wa ller-Duncan K-ratio t-test (SAS, 1985). If significant differences were found among years within a site, th en those differences are noted in each table of population abundance.

1.1 Pine Island Sound Scallop abundance increased from zero in both nor th and south Pine Is land Sound during June 2008 (Tables 1 and 2). In the north we found a single scallop at each of two of the 20 total stations (Figure 3A) and one scallop at one of the four stations surveyed in the south. For both sites the 2008, the average was less than the average for all previous years combined . Despite its lush seagrass beds and amenable water quality this estuary continues to be the most challenging for scallops and we will continue larval release studies and recruitment planting projects in an attempt to restore this population.
1.2 Sarasota Bay We found a record number of scallops (Table 3) at the station nearest the area known as the kitchen in Sarasota Bay in July of 2008 (Figur e 3D). The average number per transect increased dramatically from the previous year (0.20 to 249.90 per 600m 2 

### ) as well as the distribution among stations (scallops found at one station in 2007, and at all ten stations in 2008). This site was most improved; transitioning from a collapsed population to a healthy one with the total number of scallops observed increasing from two to 2,499.

## 10 1.3 Tampa Bay In 2008, we relocated four survey stations from the upper reaches of the bay and repositioned them near areas of scallop restoration efforts (Figure 4A). The distribution of scallops increased in 2008, with scallops observed at 18 of 20 stations, up from last year’s 11 of 20 (Table 4). Two of the stations near Tarpon Key were extremely rich with scallops, recording over 200 scallops per 600m 2



### . Comparatively, the highest number of sca llops observed in 2007 was 33 scallops per 600m 2 

### , and the total number of scallops observed within this estuary increased from 106 to 740.

1.4 Anclote Although there was a decrease in scallop abundance from last year (Table 5), the average was still roughly five times higher than the mean for the previ ous 14 years, suggesting that this area contains a healthy and stable population. The status per sta tion increased from 17 to 19 healthy stations with one transitional. Scallops were observed at all 20 survey stations for the second consecutive year (Figure 4B).

1.5 Hernando In 2008, the average scallop abundance doubled at the Hernando study site (Table 6) and was roughly five times higher than the mean from the pr evious 11 years. The overall population density remained healthy and scallops were observed at all 20 survey stations for the second consecutive year (Figure 4C).

1.6 Homosassa We observed an increase (>2x) in mean scallop abundance at our Homosassa study site in 2008, relative to 2007 (Table 7), and the yearly mean was higher than the total mean of the previous 15 years. We recorded scallops at all 20 survey stations fo r the first time since 2000, and only the second time in 16

## 11 years (Figure 4D). We recorded more than 25 scallops 600 m -2 

### , our criteria for a healthy density of scallops, at 16 of these stations.
1.7 Cedar Key Due to the low levels of scallops at this site over the past ten years (Table 8), survey was suspended at this site. Previous surv ey stations are illustrated in Figure 5A.

1.8 Steinhatchee Scallop abundance continued to increase at the St einhatchee study site (Table 9) during 2008, with the average number per transect increasing by a f actor of 3.5. The mean for the 2008 scallop surveys was higher than the mean of the previous 14 years. We found scallops at all 20 of our survey stations (Figure 5B), and 17 of these stations supported mo re than 25 scallops per transect. Steinhatchee consistently remains the healthiest and most res ilient scallop population we monitor in Florida, with healthy means (>25 scallops 600m -2 

### ) in 12 out of 15 years surveyed, and with transitional means (5>scallops<25 600m -2 

### ) in the remaining three years.

1.9 St. Marks We found scallops at all eight stations surveyed (Table 10) in summer 2008, and only one station had a less that healthy density. We plan to increase the area surveyed in 2009, adding 12 stations to the number surveyed this year (Figure 5C), expanding our panhandle scallop database. In our only previous survey in 1995, we found scallops at fewer than half of the 20 stations surveyed and averaged less than 0.5 scallops per station.

## 12 1.10 St. Joseph Bay The scallop population in St. Joseph Bay decreased from a healthy population in 2007, to a transitional one in 2008 (Table 11). S callops were not recorded at six of the 20 stations, the majority of these lining the western shore of the bay south of the state park (Figure 5D). In 2008, the average per transect was roughly one fifth of the mean of the prev ious 14 years. The bay is susceptible to red tide blooms, and the event observed in November 2007, mo st likely reduced the available spawning stock and number of recruits settling onto grass blades and collectors (see below), translating into low adult abundances during spring 2008.

1.11 Crooked Island Sound Due to the low levels of scallops at this site (Table 12) over the past 14 years, survey was suspended at this site. Previous surv ey stations are illustrated in Figure 6A.
1.12 St. Andrew Bay St. Andrew Bay scallop abundance decreased in 2008 (Table 13), and the population remains classified as collapsed at this site. The yearly m ean was well below the previous 14 years mean. We recorded scallops at 11 of our 20 survey stations (F igure 6B), but in no case were they abundant. We will continue restoration efforts in this estuary.
1.13 Pensacola Bay We did not survey within Pensacola Bay in 2008. Figure 6C and Table 14 show the station locations and abundances from previous surveys.

## 13 1.14 Summary Scallop abundances at seven of the 11 sites sampl ed in 2008 were classified as healthy and the same percentage of the sites exhibited population gr owth. Within these healthy populations, with the exception of St. Marks in which no data was availa ble for comparison, abundance increased at 60.8% of the stations surveyed, decreased at 36.9%, and remain ed constant at 2.3%. On the whole, statewide scallop populations were both more a bundant and widespread in 2008. St. Andrew Bay and Pine Island Sound were the only two sites classified as collapsed and remain areas of concern. Historically both of these sites contained abundant scall op populations, and it’s our goal to re-establish these estuaries closer to their historic levels.

II. Recruitment
2.0 Introduction We estim ate recruitment of new individuals to the scallop population using spat collectors. In most cases, these devices consist of a vexar mesh pane l encased within a citrus bag that is tied to a polypropylene rope. The rope is anchored to a cem ent block and is supported with a round surface float (Arnold et al., 1998). 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, collectors are returned to the laboratory for visual examination and enumeration of all recruits. Collectors in Ta mpa Bay and Sarasota Bay are processed immediately upon retrieval and all recruits collected are returned to FWRI for growout within Bayboro Harbor. These scallops will be used at a later date during our ongoi ng restoration efforts. In addition to our ongoing recruitment monitoring we added stations within five sites during 2008: Charlotte County, Sarasota

## 14 County, Suwannee area, Alligator Harbor and Pensacola Bay. At these five sites, and at St. Joseph Bay and St. Andrew Bay, collectors are retrieved and de ployed by various volunteer scientific agencies and shipped to FWRI for processing. Station locations for recruitment monitoring are depicted in Figure 8 for south Pine Island Sound, north Pi ne Island Sound, Sarasota Bay a nd Tampa Bay, in Figure 9 for Homosassa, Hernando, and Anclote, and in Figure 10 fo r St. Andrew Bay and St. Joseph Bay. Also note that the y-axis scale of the recruitment plots chang es from site to site associat ed with changes in the magnitude of recruitment at each site.

2.1 Pine Island Sound Starting in October 2008, the configuration of stations within Pine Island Sound was changed from five stations with three replicates to 18 stations with one replicate (Figure 5A). In Pine Island Sound we recorded spat on collectors retrieved during Ap ril (N=16) and May 2008 (N=1), albeit at relatively low levels (Figure 7). We are concerned that the low level of recruitment recorded during 2008, anticipates a continuation of low adult density at this site. Of the 159 collectors deployed in 2008, nine (5.7%) were not retrieved, 123 ( 77.4%) retrieved had zero scallops, th ree (1.9%) had bay scallops, and 26 (16.4%) had calico scallops ( Argopecten gibbus)

.
2.2 Charlotte County We added 12 new recruitment stations within Le mon Bay, Gasparilla Sound and Charlotte Harbor in October 2008 (Figure 3B). Only one set of collectors was retrieved during 2008, and of the 12 collectors deployed one was not retrieved, seven retrieved had zero scallops, two had bay scallops, and three had calico scallops. The total scallop recru itment in 2008, was four bay scallops and 36 calico scallops.

## 15 2.3 Sarasota County In March 2008, we added 15 new recruitment stations (Figure 3C) located throughout Sarasota Bay, Roberts Bay, Little Sarasota Bay, Blackburn Bay, Dona Bay, Roberts Bay, and Lemon Bay, spanning the entire stretch of Sarasota County. R ecruitment peaks were observed in May, June and December (Figure 8). Of the 120 collectors deployed in 2008, six (5.0%) were not retrieved, 63 (52.5%) retrieved had zero scallops, 45 (37.5%) had ba y scallops, and 20 (16.7%) had calico scallops.
2.4 Sarasota Bay We continued our monitoring efforts at the eight st ations located in the northern end of Sarasota Bay (Figure 3D) and recorded recruitment of bay scallops throughout the year (Figure 9). There was a recruitment peak during January and February followe d by minimal recruitment to collectors and ending in a record peak for this site during December. F ourteen collectors out of the 96 deployed (14.6%) over the course of the year were not retrieved. Of th e 96 collectors deployed in 2008, 14 (14.6%) were not retrieved, 22 (22.9%) retrieved ha d zero scallops, 53 (55.2%) had bay scallops, and 27 (28.1%) had calico scallops.
2.5 Tampa Bay At our six Tampa Bay stations (Figure 4A) strong pulses of recruitment occurred during January and December 2008 (Figure 10). Recruitment to coll ectors was observed during every retrieval event in 2008. This site recorded the highest overall recru itment with 4,666 scallops settling onto 69 traps. The presence of such a large number of recruits suggest s that the combination of active restoration, management, and relatively stable environmental conditions is supporting a self-sustaining local population, a large amount of exogenous larval supply, or some combination of both. Of the 72 collectors deployed in 2008, three (4.2%) were not retrieve d, 13 (18.1%) retrieved ha d zero scallops, 55 (76.4%)

## 16 had bay scallops, and 14 (19. 4%) had calico scallops.

2.6 Anclote We recorded recruitment during every retrieval event in 2008, and at each of our 12 Anclote monitoring stations (Figure 4B), with peaks during January through April and September through December (Figure 11). Recruits have been detected at Anclote during each month since November of 2005, suggesting that spawning has occurred continuously over 38 consecutive months. Of the 144 collectors deployed in 2008, 37 (25.7% - the highest recorded loss of collectors per site) were not retrieved, 26 (18.1%) retrieved had zero scallops, and 81 (56.3%) had bay scallops.

2.7 Hernando At the Hernando study site stations (Figure 4C), we recorded an elevated peak in recruitment during January, minimal recruitment through August, a nd a noticeable fall peak in 2008 (Figure 12). We recorded at least some recruits during every month except September, albeit at much lower numbers than at Anclote, as well as recruits at each of the 12 mon itoring stations. Of the 144 collectors deployed in 2008, six (4.2%) were not retrieved, 54 (37.5%) retrieved had zero scallops , and 84 (58.3%) had bay scallops.

2.8 Homosassa At our 12 Homosassa stations (Figure 4D), we collected a total of 41 spat from 131 collectors (Figure 13), with small peaks in January through February and September through October. Homosassa continues to show little correlation between the loca tion and timing of recruitment events and adult abundance patterns. Of the 144 collectors deployed in 2008, 13 (9.0%) were not retrieved, 109 (75.7%) retrieved had zero scallops, and 22 (15.3%) had bay scallops.

## 17 2.9 Suwannee area In 2008 we added up to four stations per site at Homosassa (February), Cedar Key (February), Steinhatchee (January) and Keaton Beach (October) in concordance with stone crab research. Difficulties arose in managing the Homosassa and Cedar Key sites and as a result they were discontinued. The remaining station locations are shown in Figure 5 B and C. Before discontinuation, a total of 20 spat on 19 retrieved collectors were observed at the Homosassa site, and one spat on five retrie ved collectors at the Cedar Key site. Steinhatchee has the longest running coverage with peaks in March, October and November (Figure 14) with 53 bay scallops observed. Of the 44 collectors deployed in 2008, six (13.6%) were not retrieved, 22 (50.0%) retrieved had zero scallops, and 16 (36.4%) had bay scallops. A total of 41 spat were observed on the 16 collectors from the Keaton Beach site. Of these 16 collectors deployed in Keaton Beach in 2008 all were retrieved, seven (43.8%) had zero scallops, and nine (56.3%) had bay scallops.
2.10 Alligator Harbor In late 2008 we added four recruitment monitoring st ations in Alligator Harbor (Figure 5C). All four collectors were retrieved in December and there was no scallop spat attached.
2.11 St. Joseph Bay Recruitment was limited at the four St. Joe Bay stations (Figure 5D) and was likely the result of a red tide event in November 2007. There was a small p eak in February, the majority located at Station 1 near the mouth of the Bay, and then minimal recruitment until November (Figure 15). A strong peak, the highest in the state in 2008, was observed in December, with 3,258 scallops settling on the 12 collectors

## 18 deployed. While the December spatfall occurred at all stations, 86.8% was recorded at the two stations near the mouth of the bay, possibly suggesting thatthe larvae were transported into the bay from an alternative source. Of the 132 collectors deployed in 2008, 16 (12.1%) were not retrieved, 69 (52.3%) retrieved had zero scallops, and 47 (35.6%) had bay scallops.
2.12 St. Andrew Bay At the ten St. Andrew Bay stations (Figure 6B), scallop recruits were recorded during each retrieval event in 2008 (Figure 16), with a peak in March and then again in November through December. This population appears to function in a manner similar to more northern populations that typically spawn at the end of spring in response to the spri ng phytoplankton bloom and rising temperatures (Barber and Blake, 1991). Of the 90 collectors deployed in 2008, nine (10.0%) were not retrieved, 11 (12.2%) retrieved had zero scallops, 50 (55.6%) had bay scallops, and five (5.6%) had calico scallops. We have also observed other Pectinid species on the collector s deployed at this site over the course of 2008, including Ravenel’s ( Pecten raveneli ) and Rough ( Aequipecten muscosus ) scallops.
2.13 Pensacola Bay In the fall of 2008, a new recruitment monitori ng station with two replicate collectors was deployed within this estuary (Figure 6C) near Spanish Cove, just west of Ft. Pickens and Pensacola Pass. The first two sets of collectors, both pulled in Novemb er of 2008, held a total of 221 bay scallops. This number was greater by 100 scallops than the total sum of our prior recruitment monitoring effort which spanned from October, 2002 to February, 2006.
2.14 Summary Calendar year 2008, was by and large a good year for bay scallop recruitment in Florida waters,

## 19 with the exception of Pine Island Sound. This Sound contains vast areas of lush seagrass but was essentially devoid of recruits, most likely reflective of the scarcity of adults available for reproduction. Sarasota Bay, Tampa Bay, and Anclote all had ex ceptionally high numbers of adults, and these numbers were reflected in high recruitment levels. St. Jo seph Bay did not have a high level of adults, yet succeeded in having the highest recruitment during December 2008. The newly added sites show promise; for example, Keaton Beach logged the same number of recruits as Homosassa with a third of the number of traps. Hopefully these new monitoring sites will help to provide more insight into bay scallop larval movement around the Gulf coast and help to el ucidate the apparent difference in recruit to adult ratios between bays and open coastal ecosystems. We have also communicated with John Fajans stationed at the FWC Keys Marine Lab and plan to deploy traps in Florida Bay during 2009.

III. Restoration Activities

3.0 Introduction In 2008, we continued restoration efforts in Pine Island Sound, St. Andrew Bay, Pensacola Bay, Sarasota Bay, and Tampa Bay. We utilized several sources/techniques for restoration, chief among these being the retention and culture of scallop spat (i.e., new recruits) collected during recruitment monitoring efforts in Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay, and St. Andr ew Bay. In November 2007, and September 2008, we deployed a secondary set of collectors in St. Andrew Bay to soak over the winter months in order to amplify the number of recruits collected. These collectors consisted of either a one meter by 80 cm piece of netron mesh or a similar amount 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 and immediately processed, the spat collected were tran sferred to mesh bags and transported back to the FWRI where they were placed in cages and deployed off the FWRI dock into Bayboro Harbor until they reached a size

## 20 capable of avoiding predation pressure (> 20 mm shell hei ght). We also collected and reared scallop spat retained on the transport containers employed duri ng our May 2007, larval release and that were initially spawned by Curt Hemmel at Bay Shellfish Inc. Once these spat reached this “p lantable” size they were used as stock in various restoration schemes. We al so partnered with Tampa Bay Watch staff to collect 600 adult scallops from Tampa Bay waters near Tar pon Key that were placed in cages and hung off of local volunteer docks. The scallops remained in the cages throughout their short life cycle with the assumption that they spawned before their death. Using these simple techniques we successfully collected 3,800 scallops from St. Andrew Bay, 2,929 from Tampa Bay, and 581 from Sarasota Bay. The majority of the scallops we collected were used in free plantings where they were gently released b ack into suitable seagrass hab itats within the target estuaries. Due to the lack of recruits and adu lts available from Pine Island Sound, the restoration activities in this area used scallops collected from the next closest estua ry, in this case Sarasota Bay. Similarly 217 scallops collected from St. Andrew Bay we re transported to Pensacola Bay and released at two locations. In collaboration with scientists at Sa rasota County, a batch of approximately 455 scallops was divided into groups of 25 individuals and each group then placed loosely in a cage and suspended from a volunteer dock within the estuaries of Saraso ta County (Sarasota – Lemon Bays). We also partnered with Mote Marine Lab to complete larval releases in Pi ne Island Sound, Sarasota Bay and Tampa Bay.

3.1 Pine Island Sound On February 23, 2008, Dr. Jay Leverone trans ported 600 scallops from the Bayboro Harbor stock and released them at Pine Island Sound survey Sta tions 3 and 4 (Figure 17A). On May 16, 2008, Dr. Leverone transported 412 scallops fro m Bayboro Harbor and released at Pine Island Sound survey Station 3. Despite these efforts, no scallops were detected at survey stations nearest the release sites during June. Restoration efforts continued on November 24, 2008, when Jim Culter transported ~three million larvae

## 21 spawned by Bay Shellfish Inc. and 85 scallops from Bayboro Harbor to Pine Island Sound and released them near survey Stations 3 and 4. A total of 1,097 adults and ~three million larvae were released into Pine Island Sound in 2008.
3.2 Sarasota County On July 21 and 23, 2008, Sarah Stephenson of FWRI and Rene Jannemann of Sarasota County transported 455 scallops from Bay boro Harbor and deployed them in 18 cages off volunteer homeowner docks in Sarasota Bay, Roberts Bay, Little Sarasota Bay, Blackburn Bay, Dona Bay, Roberts Bay, and Lemon Bay. The volunteers monitored the caged scallops at least once a month for mortality and growth rates. During the December cage monitoring efforts, 95 of the original 455 scallops (20.9%) remained alive and the average shell heights ranged from 40.0 to 64.5 mm (Figure 19). Initial results indicate that only one site, near Philippee Creek, may be uninhabitabl e by bay scallops as all scallops planted at this location were deceased by the first cage check.
3.3 Sarasota Bay On January 15, 2008, FWRI staff transported 200 scallops from Bayboro Harbor and released them into seagrass beds near Coon Key in Sarasota Bay (Figure 17B). On March 18, 2008, FWRI staff transported 312 scallops from Bayboro Harbor and released them into seagrass beds near Coon Key. On April 21, 2008, FWRI staff transported 177 scallops from Bayboro Harbor and released them into seagrass beds near Jewfish Key. On December 8, 2008, Jim Culter transported ~ one million larvae from Bay Shellfish Inc. and released them into seagrass beds in the southern area of Sarasota Bay. A total of 689 adults and ~one million larvae were released into the Sarasota Bay system in 2008.
3.4 Tampa Bay

## 22 On February 7, 2008, FWRI staff transported 300 scallops from Bayboro Harbor and released them into seagrass beds near Wheedon Island (Figure 17C). On March 13, 2008, FWRI staff transported 453 scallops from Bayboro Harbor and released 296 into seagrass beds near north of the Gandy Bridge, 57 into a cage north of the Gandy Bridge, and 100 into a seagrass bed south of the Gandy Bridge. The juvenile scallops released into the seagrass beds were tagged with colored plastic strips and released with the goal of relocating them during summer surveys. However, we were unable to recover any of the tagged scallops in July of 2008, during the Tampa Bay annual survey. The 57 caged scallops were deployed to determine if the water quality in this portion of Tampa Bay was conducive to scallop survivorship. The cage was retrieved on May 29, 2008, and shell heights and scallop density recorded. Fifty-four of the original 57 (94.7%) were still aliv e and the average shell height increased from 19.5 to 41.9 mm. On April 22, 2008, FWRI staff within the Fisheries Independent Monitoring program transported 270 scallops from Baybor o Harbor and released them into seagrass beds near MacDill Air Force Base. On May 29, 2008, FWRI staff trans ported 203 scallops from Bayboro Harbor and released them into seagrass beds near Apollo Beach. On October 2, 2008, 621 scallops were collected from Tampa Bay survey Stations 11 and 14 by FWRI a nd Tampa Bay Watch staff. These scallops were transported back to Bay Watch headquarters and di vvied into groups, transported to volunteer docks, placed into cages and suspended into Tampa Bay wa ters. Tampa Bay Watch staff monitored the cages monthly and counted the total number of live scallops pe r date. Survival rates by site are plotted in Figure 20 and to date 19% of the initial batch re mains alive. On December 8, 2008, FWRI staff transported ~ three million larvae from Bay Shellfish Inc. and released them into seagrass beds near Wheedon Island, Gulfport, and Ft. DeSoto. A tota l of 1,226 adults and ~three million larvae were released into Tampa Bay in 2008.
3.5 St. Andrew Bay On January 29, 2008, FWRI staff collected 1,699 scallops off the secondary set of collectors

## 23 deployed in 2007, several of which were large enough to free plant back into local waters. We released 531 near the Panama City airport and 209 near Gulf Coast Community College in North Bay (Figure 17D). The remaining scallops were transported back to FWRI for growout. On March 27, 2008, FWRI staff transported 474 scallops from Bayboro Harbor to St. Andrew Bay and released them at four locations throughout the bay. On May 26, 2008, FWRI staff transported 200 scallops from Bayboro to St. Andrew Bay and released them into seagrass beds near two bay scallop survey stations. On September 26, we deployed 50 secondary collectors spread among at five stations (10 collectors per station) spread through the St. Andrew Bay system. On December 15 and 16, 2008, FWRI staff collected a total of 2,841 scallops off the ten Vexar collectors regularly depl oyed and off the 50 secondary set of 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 doc ks at the NOAA facility. These scallops will be distributed to volunteers and Gulf Coast Community College students and monitored monthly for growth and mortality rates.
3.6 Pensacola Bay On May 5, 2008 FWRI staff transported 217 scallops from Bayboro Harbor to Pensacola Bay and released them into seagrass beds near Spanish Po int and the EPA lab (Figure 18). These scallops originated from the January St. Andrew Bay spat collection effort.
3.7 Summary Harvesting scallop recruits via spat collectors a nd using natural waters to grow them to an acceptable size is an inexpensive and easy method of r estoring depleted populations. We will continue to employ this method in 2009. This approach al so presents opportunities to discover and study new specifics about various Molluscan species that attach to and are recovered on the collectors. In 2008 we conducted basic growth and mortality trials on bay and calico scallops that were collected from Tampa

## 24 Bay and grown out in cages hung off the FWRI dock in Bayboro Harbor. Results are shown in figure 21.

IV. 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, M. Poplaski, J. Stone and B. Brown, 2008. Annual report of the bay sca llop project, 2007. Report to the Division of Marine Fisheries, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 37 pp.
Barber, B.J. and Blake, N.J. 1991. Reproductive Physiology. In Scallops: Biology, Ecology and Aquaculture. Edited by S.E. Shumway. Elsevier, Amsterdam pp. 377-420.
SAS Institute, Inc., 1985. SAS User’s Guide: Statistics, Version 5 Edition. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina, 956 pp.

## 25 Table 1. Adult bay scallop density at each of 20 sta tions sampled at the south Pine Island Sound, Florida study site during each June from 2004 through 2006, at each of 10 stations during June 2007, and at each of four stations during June 2008. Scallop density at each station is reported per 600 m 2 

### transect. The ‘Z’ indicates that the station was not sampled.

STA 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

1 0 0 0 Z Z 2 0 0 0 Z Z 3 0 1 4 0 Z 4 0 0 0 Z Z 5 0 0 0 0 Z 6 0 0 1 Z Z 7 0 0 0 Z Z 8 0 0 0 Z Z 9 0 1 1 Z Z 10 0 0 0 Z Z 11 0 0 1 0 0 12 0 0 1 0 Z 13 0 0 1 0 0 14 0 3 0 0 Z 15 0 1 3 Z Z 16 0 0 0 Z Z 17 0 21 0 0 Z 18 0 8 6 0 1 19 1 0 3 0 Z 20 0 13 5 0 0 MEAN 0.1 2.4 1.3 0.0 0.3

S.D. 0.2 5.5 1.9 0.0 0.5

## 26 Table 2. Adult bay scallop density at each of 20 st ations sampled at the north Pine Island Sound study site during each June from 1994 through 2008. Scall op density at each station is reported per 600 m 2 

### transect. Results of the Waller-Duncan (W.D.) comp arison of means (letters) are presented with the population means; similar letters denote averages that were not different at a significance level of 0.05.

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

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 13 7 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 13 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 123 7 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 25 0 3 3 545 40 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 39 3 0 0 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 1 0 0 7 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 5 3 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 18 15 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 10 0 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 7 4 0 0 12 0 34 1 5 5 1 0 22 1 0 1 122 2 0 0 13 0 9 0 4 0 0 0 37 0 2 1 99 2 0 0 14 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 2 7 0 2 59 2 0 0 15 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 39 9 0 0 16 0 1 0 2 0 1 2 7 0 1 1 203 7 0 0 17 0 0 9 9 22 12 8 12 0 4 2 255 14 0 1 18 0 0 3 0 14 25 1 3 0 1 1 44 0 0 1 19 0 1 0 2 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 27 12 0 0 20 0 1 0 0 3 5 8 0 0 0 8 226 16 0 0 MEAN 0.0 2.5 0.8 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.8 5.5 0.7 0.6 1.1 93.4 8.2 0.0 0.1

S.D. 0.0 7.7 2.1 3.9 5.7 6.1 5.3 10.5 1.6 1.1 1.9 131.9 9.1 0.0 0.3 W.D. B B B B B B B B B B B A B B B

## 27 Table 3. Adult bay scallop density at each of 10 stati ons sampled at the Sarasota Bay study site during each June from 2007 through 2008. Scallop dens ity at each station is reported per 600 m 2 

### transect.
STA 2007 2008

1 2 46 2 0 43 3 0 1931 4 0 1 5 0 2 6 0 323 7 0 116 8 0 6 9 0 25 10 0 6 MEAN 0.2 249.9

S.D. 0.6 598.8

## 28 Table 4. Adult bay scallop density at each of 20 st ations sampled at the Tampa Bay study site during each June from 2007 through 2008. Scallop dens ity at each station is reported per 600 m 2 

### transect.
STA 2007 2008

1 0 1 2 0 1 3 0 6 4 0 10 5 16 2 6 1 17 7 6 24 8 0 0 9 26 10 10 0 22 11 1 262 12 0 2 13 0 37 14 2 284 15 0 0 16 3 22 17 11 6 18 3 4 19 33 26 20 4 4 MEAN 5.3 37.0

S.D. 9.3 81.5

## 29 Table 5. Adult bay scallop density at each of 20 stations sampled at the Anclote study site during each June from 1994 through 2008. Scallop density at each station is reported per 600 m 2 

### transect. Results of the Waller-Duncan (W.D.) comparison of means (letters) are presented with the population means; similar letters denote averages that were not different at a significance level of 0.05.
STA 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

1 1 0 4 43 0 0 1 0 6 0 0 0 1 78 277 2 72 0 3 49 0 1 171 8 49 9 1 60 6 306 113 3 15 0 2 307 0 8 177 8 20 3 0 8 10 182 56 4 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 22 4 0 14 0 58 55 5 106 0 0 20 0 0 7 14 26 25 1 27 3 60 49 6 3 0 0 4 0 0 6 2 61 100 0 50 18 21 19 7 21 0 0 1 0 1 3 26 25 3 0 49 2 117 68 8 14 0 12 136 0 2 8 0 14 4 0 10 7 319 115 9 2 3 0 4 0 0 0 12 8 167 2 4 9 110 68 10 1 0 1 30 0 0 2 0 64 4 0 7 2 231 270 11 1 0 2 27 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 50 397 12 14 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 7 69 13 12 0 0 8 0 0 0 1 4 19 0 0 3 10 270 14 0 0 11 14 1 4 12 12 9 48 0 11 3 99 95 15 1 0 1 141 17 13 4 0 10 125 30 148 15 135 182 16 5 0 23 87 46 9 4 7 280 110 15 12 27 232 76 17 9 0 6 20 313 8 27 24 16 50 0 24 70 931 212 18 1 0 3 42 17 0 7 3 9 4 0 27 31 337 102 19 1 0 0 8 12 2 9 1 4 5 0 15 12 150 162 20 14 0 0 4 0 1 2 0 115 34 8 61 17 45 102 MEAN 14.7 0.2 3.4 47.4 20.3 2.5 22.2 5.9 37.2 35.8 2.9 26.4 11.9 173.9 137.9

S.D. 26.8 0.7 5.8 74.1 69.8 3.9 52.3 8.1 63.7 49.8 7.37 34.9 16.3 16.3 99.7 W.D. B,C C C B B,C C B,C C B,C B,C C B,C B,C A A

## 30 Table 6. Adult bay scallop density at each of 20 sta tions sampled at the Hernando study site during each June from 1997 through 2008. Scallop density at each station is reported per 600 m 2 

### transect. Results of the Waller-Duncan (W.D.) comparison of means (letters) are presented with the population means; similar letters denote averages that were not different at a significance level of 0.05.

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

1 3 0 0 13 13 2 4 0 7 1 16 353 2 11 0 33 76 110 5 4 0 7 14 46 320 3 134 3 17 213 555 12 73 0 222 13 118 125 4 80 6 43 48 105 1 30 0 86 65 204 123 5 9 0 1 29 61 17 8 1 3 0 19 54 6 1 0 2 31 2 10 1 0 0 1 19 23 7 0 0 0 10 0 9 0 0 0 1 3 23 8 0 0 0 14 2 5 0 0 0 3 5 45 9 1 0 1 66 6 6 0 2 1 4 9 35 10 3 0 1 43 6 3 9 13 1 4 5 33 11 0 0 5 17 5 4 0 1 0 3 2 29 12 0 0 1 61 2 5 0 0 2 0 7 22 13 10 0 4 18 7 6 0 2 2 2 23 53 14 1 0 0 15 6 9 0 3 2 0 12 46 15 10 1 2 54 14 6 2 9 4 9 15 14 16 2 1 1 7 5 9 1 2 1 2 11 24 17 8 0 3 27 7 5 6 0 2 13 13 174 18 6 0 0 28 10 9 7 10 6 4 25 108 19 6 0 0 25 5 8 8 23 3 6 48 88 20 0 0 0 49 1 13 6 0 0 0 9 3 MEAN 14.3 0.6 5.7 42.2 46.1 7.2 8.0 3.3 17.5 6.7 30.5 79.8

S.D. 33.1 1.5 11.8 45.0 124.2 3.9 16.8 6.0 51.7 14.3 48.4 94.8 W.D. B,C C C B B C C C B,C C B,C A

## 31 Table 7. Adult bay scallop density at each of 20 stations sampled at the Homosassa study site during each June from 1994 through 2008. Scallop density at each station is reported per 600 m 2 

### transect. Results of the Waller-Duncan (W.D.) comparison of means (letters) are presented with the population means; similar letters denote averages that were not different at a significance level of 0.05.
STA 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

1 3 0 0 9 0 3 23 74 16 6 0 2 6 3 11 2 38 9 2 17 0 3 87 209 51 522 5 20 8 27 59 3 5 9 5 18 2 7 29 185 31 93 0 57 24 14 32 4 1 4 0 19 0 36 323 735 113 170 0 39 8 121 58 5 0 14 5 15 0 33 395 489 78 194 1 47 30 37 34 6 0 1 9 7 0 70 724 121 68 119 0 87 74 24 14 7 1 2 5 5 34 47 817 174 79 201 1 159 39 43 39 8 5 27 4 27 3 13 850 663 69 210 6 85 29 24 90 9 3 7 4 13 13 54 614 391 82 498 6 340 37 70 215 10 19 3 2 58 6 9 165 1237 63 62 59 186 29 116 79 11 0 1 0 5 1 2 23 39 7 29 2 4 0 32 128 12 0 1 3 0 0 0 12 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 16 13 23 6 2 12 0 13 231 380 63 114 9 192 7 213 74 14 15 0 9 23 2 48 352 339 13 125 11 158 30 49 38 15 4 1 2 7 0 3 45 173 45 61 12 34 15 92 287 16 3 3 1 6 0 5 28 197 21 5 2 0 2 7 175 17 3 1 6 0 0 13 25 133 109 1 0 5 22 15 201 18 9 3 3 55 0 212 88 431 122 102 0 31 69 68 109 19 5 2 1 8 0 2 25 11 4 1 0 0 9 3 64 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 MEAN 6.9 4.7 3.2 15.2 3.1 28.7 242.9 299.3 51.8 125.7 5.7 72.3 21.9 48.0 86.2

S.D. 9.8 6.4 2.7 16.0 7.9 48.1 290.0 305.4 38.9 149.8 13.2 90.9 21.3 53.5 78.1 W.D. D D D D D C,D A A C,D B D B,C,D C,D C,D B,C

## 32 Table 8. Adult bay scallop density at each of 6 stati ons sampled at the Cedar Key study site during each June from 1998 through 2007. Scallop density at each station is reported per 600 m 2 

### transect. Results of the Waller-Duncan (W.D.) comparison of means (letters) are presented with the population means; similar letters denote averages that were not different at a significance level of 0.05.

STA 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

1 0 1 1 5 0 12 0 0 3 1
2 0 0 0 8 2 4 0 1 1 1
3 1 4 0 26 5 2 0 20 16 0
4 0 4 0 1 1 6 0 5 2 1
5 1 0 1 5 0 10 0 2 0 1
6 3 7 0 1 6 2 0 0 1 0
MEAN 0.8 2.7 0.3 7.7 2.3 6.0 0.0 4.7 3.8 0.7

S.D. 1.2 2.8 0.5 9.4 2.6 4.2 0.0 7.7 6.1 0.5 W.D. A,B A,B B A A, B A,B B A,B A,B A,B

## 33 Table 9. Adult bay scallop density at each of 20 stations sampled at the Steinhatchee study site during each June from 1994 through 2008. Scallop dens ity at each station is reported per 600 m 2 

### transect. Results of the Waller-Duncan (W.D.) comparison of means (letters) are presented with the population means; similar letters denote averages that were not different at a significance level of 0.05.

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

1 189 13 527 1 9 43 946 19 61 115 0 0 1 64 68 2 284 48 36 5 100 97 17 41 61 54 51 5 41 3 27 3 89 16 128 103 90 97 24 70 139 6 186 53 56 21 84 4 338 14 269 13 18 34 196 93 24 0 0 31 1 47 25 5 650 14 1878 25 16 105 99 430 90 10 4 36 4 94 128 6 234 22 210 37 0 137 75 48 204 3 8 83 19 12 37 7 81 4 73 3 4 29 115 47 170 57 2 49 5 20 27 8 0 1 0 3 0 2 5 8 1 0 0 3 2 8 19 9 169 43 498 23 40 158 84 57 563 7 2 15 20 60 42 10 10 0 76 1 3 10 0 33 62 1 0 22 7 15 2 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 2 0 2 0 62 1 12 281 0 415 30 0 638 1603 804 185 61 2 2 15 51 231 13 10 8 41 6 0 46 124 214 152 6 18 1 5 17 191 14 257 4 119 7 7 129 9 7 18 129 2 3 1 123 281 15 120 1 65 6 0 52 8 21 69 168 0 4 2 36 657 16 1 30 71 30 20 545 49 48 22 82 2 37 16 42 311 17 13 23 118 42 35 789 208 150 142 84 15 36 11 13 149 18 133 3 44 14 3 19 313 44 370 129 1 10 1 8 161 19 121 313 284 135 111 332 278 101 182 132 78 10 4 4 269 20 85 27 151 34 91 27 213 220 247 180 4 52 12 35 89 MEAN 153.3 29.2 250.2 25.9 27.4 164.5 218.3 122.8 138.7 61.3 18.8 22.7 11.2 36.8 140.0

S.D. 159.0 68.3 414.4 35.0 38.2 227.3 388.5 190.0 136.9 62.1 44.1 23.4 14.5 32.0 156.9 W.D. A,B,C D,E,F A D,E,F D,E,F A,B,C A,B B,C,D ,E,F A,B,C ,D,E C,D, E,F F E,F F D,E,F A,B ,C,D

## 34 Table 10. Adult bay scallop density at each of 20 st ations sampled in 1995 and 8 stations sampled in 2008 at the St. Marks study site. Scallop de nsity at each station is reported per 600 m 2 

### transect.
STA 1995 2008

1 0 255 2 1 553 3 0 207 4 0 36 5 0 48 6 0 2 7 1 155 8 0 104 9 0 Z 10 0 Z 11 0 Z 12 0 Z 13 1 Z 14 1 Z 15 1 Z 16 1 Z 17 1 Z 18 0 Z 19 0 Z 20 0 Z MEAN 0.5 170.0

S.D. 0.6 177.7

## 35 Table 11. Adult bay scallop density at each of 20 stations sampled at the St. Joseph Bay study site during each June from 1994 through 2008. Scallop dens ity at each station is reported per 600 m 2 

### transect. Results of the Waller-Duncan (W.D.) comparison of means (letters) are presented with the population means; similar letters denote averages that were not different at a significance level of 0.05.

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

1 16 1 4 2 0 1 0 0 11 0 2 2 0 113 1 2 2 1 64 10 0 35 9 0 48 1 2 3 7 112 5 3 12 6 2 3 0 10 22 0 26 5 1 6 13 36 7 4 1 2 0 0 12 11 18 0 42 8 1 0 7 60 4 5 8 67 2 2 0 29 5 0 32 2 1 1 14 8 6 6 15 205 114 19 3 43 3 0 4 0 0 2 56 22 3 7 5 114 55 7 4 30 0 0 79 4 0 1 69 17 4 8 265 348 140 93 90 105 4 41 243 30 0 486 48 90 46 9 61 118 43 11 7 29 0 4 7 201 23 214 10 26 28 10 7 711 363 111 18 53 3 3 86 67 12 154 30 41 42 11 0 5 759 10 25 31 1 1 3 14 0 9 7 58 0 12 5 233 1143 40 26 13 1 167 46 54 0 30 5 49 29 13 3 195 369 62 45 9 0 4 59 26 0 2 121 11 4 14 19 270 820 10 2 4 0 10 30 5 5 28 22 26 9 15 5 11 44 1 9 22 0 0 0 2 0 22 2 16 0 16 9 14 228 14 10 5 0 0 1 5 0 20 32 14 0 17 2 44 282 2 7 7 0 1 0 3 0 9 13 11 0 18 1 25 240 0 4 7 1 0 0 10 0 20 84 10 0 19 2 17 179 7 5 14 0 1 3 42 0 12 14 13 0 20 279 257 103 142 2 164 10 10 30 95 0 165 159 92 38 MEAN 35.9 132.2 247.7 27.3 13.5 31.1 3.9 12.1 37.5 28.7 2.4 59.3 35.7 41.3 11.3

S.D. 81.9 175.5 312.2 41.5 21.3 48.3 6.3 37.6 55.2 48.2 5.6 118.3 43.0 35.1 15.6
W.D. C B A C C C C C C C C C C C C

## 36 Table 12. Adult bay scallop density at each of 7 sta tions sampled at the Crooked Island Sound study site during each June from 1994 through 2007. Scallop de nsity at each station is reported per 600 m 2 

### transect. Results of the Waller-Duncan (W.D.) comparison of mean s (letters) are presented with the population means; similar letters denote averages that were not different at a significance level of 0.05.

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

14 23 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 9 7 0 0 8 0 0 1 2 13 0 4 8 16 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 2 0 0 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 2 0 0 18 5 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 7 2 0 19 24 1 13 3 0 8 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 20 0 1 5 3 4 4 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 MEAN 7.7 2.4 4.0 0.9 0.7 2.9 0.1 0.0 2.3 0.6 2.7 1.6 0.9 1.7

S.D. 10.9 3.1 4.8 1.5 1.5 3.8 0.4 0.0 2.1 0.8 5.1 2.6 1.56 3.0 W.D. A A,B A,B B B A,B B B A,B B A,B B B B

## 37 Table 13. Adult bay scallop density at each of 13 sta tions sampled at the St. Andrew Bay study site during each June from 1994 through 2006, and for tho se same 13 stations plus an additional seven stations added for the 2007-2008 survey. Scallop density at each station is reported per 600 m 2 

### transect. Results of the Waller-Duncan (W.D.) comparison of means (letters) are presented with the population means only for the original 13 sample stations for wh ich the experimental design was balanced; similar letters denote averages that were not different at a significance level of 0.05. The ‘Z’ indicates that the station was not sampled during that year. Note that the mean and standard deviation for each of 2007 and 2008 presented in the table are calculated from the original 13 stations only.
STA 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

1 1 4 12 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 3 10 0 2 1 2 5 13 6 5 0 0 2 0 0 15 1 10 0 4 1 3 70 16 155 9 0 1 2 0 2 3 0 2 0 2 1 4 244 8 23 0 0 1 1 0 1 5 0 24 0 12 2 5 50 1 20 2 2 0 0 0 12 2 0 3 0 5 2 6 96 20 13 0 0 1 0 0 5 2 0 8 0 5 0 7 144 6 2 0 2 4 0 0 7 1 1 8 0 2 7 8 173 13 11 0 31 3 1 0 7 1 3 41 0 0 0 9 149 8 39 1 0 0 1 1 7 5 0 12 0 6 0 10 68 0 26 1 0 5 1 0 36 3 0 37 0 8 0 11 69 5 5 0 1 9 12 0 38 83 0 13 0 2 2 12 6 2 6 4 0 1 1 0 0 4 1 1 0 4 5 13 6 2 56 8 1 2 2 0 25 1 0 7 2 3 1 14 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 0 1 15 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 3 0 16 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 0 19 17 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 0 0 18 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 0 0 19 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 2 0 20 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 0 0 MEAN 83.2 7.5 28.8 2.4 2.9 2.1 1.8 0.1 10.9 9.8 0.7 13.5 0.1 4.2 1.7

S.D. 75.6 6.3 40.9 3.2 8.5 2.6 3.2 0.3 13.4 22.3 1.1 12.7 0.5 3.1 2.1 W.D. A C B C C C C C C C C B,C C C C

## 38 Table 14. Adult bay scallop density at each of 20 stati ons sampled at the Pensacola Bay study site during each June from 1995 and 2002 through 2005. Scallop de nsity at each station is reported per 600 m 2 

### transect. Results of the Waller-Duncan (W.D.) comp arison of means (letters) are presented with the population means; similar letters denote averages that were not different at a significance level of 0.05.

STA 1995 2002 2003 2004 2005

1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 1 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 1 0 0 14 0 0 4 0 0 15 0 1 2 0 0 16 0 0 4 0 0 17 0 0 1 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 MEAN 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.0

S.D. 0.0 0.4 1.3 0.0 0.0 W,D. B B A B B

## 39 Figure 1. Bay Scallop study sites.

## 40 Figure 2. Bay scallop annual abundances. Asterisk s denote years in which scallop surveys were not performed.

0 100 200 300 Homosassa

0 50 100 250 300 St. Andrew Bay

0 100 200 300 St. Joe Bay

0 100 200 300 SteinhatcheeMean Density (#/600m2)

0

50 100 250 300 Hernando

0 100 200 300 Anclote



# Year 1 9 94 1 9 95 1 99

6 1 99

7 1998 1999 2 0 00 2 0 01 2 00

2 2 003 2004 2005 2 0 06 2 00

7 2 00

8 0 50 100 250 300 Pine Island Sound 

### ***

## 41 Figure 3. Survey and recruitment monitoring stations in A) Pine Island Sound, B) Charlotte Harbor, C) Sarasota County, and D) Sarasota Bay. Blue num bers represent survey stations and black squares represent recruitment monitoring stations. In Pi ne Island Sound (A) the dotted line divides the areas designated as north and south, and the white squa res represent the discontinued configuration of recruitment collectors.

## 42 Figure 4. Survey and recruitment monitoring stations in A) Tampa Bay, B) Anclote, C) Hernando, and D) Homosassa. Blue numbers represent survey st ations and black squares represent recruitment monitoring stations.

## 43 Figure 5. Survey and recruitment stations in A) Cedar Key, B) Steinhatchee, C) Keaton Beach, St. Marks, and Alligator Harbor, and D) St. Joseph Bay. Blue numbers represent survey stations and black squares represent recruitment monitoring stations.

## 44 Figure 6. Survey and recruitment stations in A) Crooked Island Sound, B) St. Andrew Bay, and C) Pensacola Bay. Blue numbers represent survey stations and black squares represent recruitment monitoring stations.

## 45 Figure 7. Average daily recruitment of bay scallops to collectors at the Pine Island Sound study site during 2008. Asterisks denote lost traps. Shaded areas denote discontinued or pre-recruitment periods.

0.0 0.5 1.0Recruits/Collector/Day

0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0

0.0 0.5 1.0
1/1/08 2 / 1 / 0 8 3/1/08 4/1/08 5/1/08 6/1/08 7/1/08 8 / 1 / 08 9/1/08 10 / 1/08 11/1 / 08 1 2 /1

/ 0 8 0.0 0.5 1.0 Station 1

Station 2

Station 3

Station 4

Station 5

## 46 Figure 7 continued

1/1/2008 2/1/2008 3/1/2008 4/1/2008 5/

1 / 2 008 6/

1 / 2 008 7/1/2008 8/1/2008 9/1/2008
1 0/

1 / 20

08

1 1/

1 / 20

08

1 2 /1

/ 20

0 8 0.0 0.5 1.0Recruits/Collector/Day

0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0

0.0 0.5 1.0

0.0 0.5 1.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 

## ** Station 1

Station 2

Station 3

Station 4

Station 5
Station 6

Station 7

Station 8

Station 9

## 47 Figure 7 continued

0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0

0.0 0.5 1.0Recruits/Collector/Day

0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1/1/2008 2/1/2008 3/1/2008 4/1/2008 5/

1 / 2 008 6/

1 / 2 008 7/1/2008 8/1/2008 9/1/2008
1 0/

1 / 20

08

1 1/

1 / 20

08

1 2 /1

/ 20

0 8 0.0 0.5 1.0 

## *

Station 18 Station 17 Station 16 Station 15 Station 14 Station 13 Station 12 Station 11 Station 10



## *

## 48 Figure 8. Average daily recruitment of bay scallops to collectors at the Sarasota County study site during 2008. Shaded areas denote pre-recruitment periods and asterisks denote lost traps.

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

*

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

*

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

*

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

*Recruits/Collector/Day

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

*

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5

*

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Dec Jan F eb M ar Apr May Jun J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov D ec Jan 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Station 1

Station 2

Station 3

Station 4

Station 5

Station 6

Station 7

Station 8

Station 9

Station 10

Station 11

Station 12

Station 13

Station 14

Station 15

## 49 Figure 9. Average daily recruitment of bay scallops to collectors at the Sarasota Bay study site during 2008. Asterisks denote lost traps.

1 /1

/0

8 2 /1

/0

8 3 / 1/0

8 4 /1

/0

8 5/1/08 6/1/08 7 /1

/0

8 8 /1

/0

8 9 /1

/0

8 10/1/08 11/1/08 1 2 /1

/0

8 0 5 10Recruits/Collector/Day

0 5 10



### * 0 5 10 0 5 10



### * *

0 5 10



### * ** * *

0 5 10



### * * 0 5 10



### * * * *

0 5 10 Station 1

Station 2

Station 3

Station 4

Station 5

Station 6

Station 7

Station 8

## 50 Figure 10. Average daily recruitment of bay scallops to collectors at the Tampa Bay study site during 2008. Asterisks denote lost traps.Recruits/Collector/Day

0 5 10 15

0 5 10 15

1/1

/08 2/1 /08 3/1 /08 4/1 /08 5/1/08 6/1 /0

8 7 /1

/08 8 /1

/08 9/1/08 10/1 /08 11/1 /08 1 2/1/08 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15



## * 0 5 10 15



## *

0 5 10 15



## * Station 1

Station 2

Station 3

Station 6 Station 5 Station 4

## 51 Figure 11. Average daily recruitment of bay scallops to collectors at the Anclote study site during 2008. Asterisks denote lost traps.

0 5 10



### * *** * *** * *

0 5 10



### * * * * * * * *

0 5 10



### *

0 5 10



### * * * * *

0 5 10



### * * *

0 5 10



### * ** *

0 5 10



### * *

0 5 10

0 5 10



### *

0 5 10



### * *

0 5 10

1 / 1 / 08 2/ 1 / 0

8 3/ 1 / 08 4 / 1 / 08 5 / 1 / 08 6/ 1 / 0

8 7/ 1 / 08 8/ 1 / 08 9/ 1 / 08 10 / 1/

0

8 1 1/

1/

0

8 12 / 1/

0

8 0 5 10



### * Station 1

Station 2

Station 3

Station 4

Station 5

Station 6

Station 7

Station 8

Station 9

Station 10

Station 11

Station 12Recruits/Collector/Day

## 52 Figure 12. Average daily recruitment of bay scallops to collectors at the Hernando study site during 2008. Asterisks denote lost traps.

0.0 1.5 3.0

0.0 1.5 3.0

0.0 1.5 3.0

0.0 1.5 3.0



### * *

0.0 1.5 3.0

0.0 1.5 3.0

0.0 1.5 3.0

0.0 1.5 3.0

0.0 1.5 3.0

0.0 1.5 3.0

0.0 1.5 3.0



### *

1/

1 / 0

8 2/ 1 / 08 3 / 1 / 0

8 4/ 1 / 0

8 5/ 1 / 0

8 6/ 1 / 0

8 7/ 1 / 0

8 8/ 1 / 08 9 / 1 / 08 1 0/

1 / 08 11 / 1 / 08 12 / 1 / 08 0.0 1.5 3.0



### * * * Station 1

Station 2

Station 3

Station 4

Station 5

Station 6

Station 7

Station 8

Station 9

Station 10

Station 11

Station 12Recruits/Collector/Day

## 53 Figure 13. Average daily recruitment of bay scallops to collectors at the Homosassa study site during 2008. Asterisks denote lost traps.

0.0 0.5 1.0



### * * * * 0.0 0.5 1.0

0.0 0.5 1.0

0.0 0.5 1.0

0.0 0.5 1.0

0.0 0.5 1.0



### * *

0.0 0.5 1.0



### *

0.0 0.5 1.0



### *

0.0 0.5 1.0



### * *

0.0 0.5 1.0



### * *

0.0 0.5 1.0



### *

1/

1 / 0

8 2/ 1 / 08 3 / 1 / 0

8 4/ 1 / 0

8 5/ 1 / 0

8 6/ 1 / 0

8 7/ 1 / 0

8 8/ 1 / 08 9 / 1 / 08 1 0/

1 / 08 11 / 1 / 08 12 / 1 / 08 0.0 0.5 1.0



### * Station 1

Station 2

Station 3

Station 4

Station 5

Station 6

Station 7

Station 8

Station 9

Station 10

Station 11

Station 12Recruits/Collector/Day

## 54 Figure 14. Average daily recruitment of bay scallops to collectors at the Steinhatchee study site during 2008. Asterisks denote lost traps.

0.0 0.5 1.0



### *

0.0 0.5 1.0



### *

0.0 0.5 1.0



### *

1/

1/

08 2/ 1/

08 3/ 1/

08 4/ 1/

0

8 5/ 1/

08 6/ 1/

08 7/ 1/

0

8 8/ 1 / 08 9 / 1/

08 1 0/

1/

08 11/ 1/

08 12 / 1/

08 0.0 0.5 1.0



### * * Station 1

Station 2

Station 3

Station 4Recruits/Collector/Day



### Figure 15. Average daily recruitment of bay scallops to collectors at the St. Joseph Bay study site during 2008. Asterisks denote lost traps.

0 1 2

0 1 2



### *

0 1 2

1/

1/

08 2/ 1/

08 3/ 1/

08 4/ 1/

0

8 5/ 1/

08 6/ 1/

08 7/ 1/

0

8 8/ 1 / 08 9 / 1/

08 1 0/

1/

08 11/ 1/

08 12 / 1/

08 0 1 2 Station 1

Station 2

Station 3

Station 4Recruits/Collector/Day

## 55 Figure 16. Average daily recruitment of bay scallops to collectors at the St. Andrew Bay study site during 2008. Asterisks denote lost traps.

1 /1/0 8 2 /1/0 8 3 /1/0 8 4 /1/08 5/1 /0

8 6/1 /0

8 7 /1/08 8 /1/0 8 9 /1/0 8 10 /1

/08 11 /1

/08 1 2/1

/0

8 0 1 2



### * 0 1 2



### * 0 1 2



### * 0 1 2



### * 0 1 2Recruits/Collector/Day

0 1 2



### * 0 1 2 0 1 2



### * * 0 1 2



### * * 0 1 2 Station 1

Station 2

Station 6

Station 7

Station 8

Station 9

Station 10

Station 15

Station 16

Station 17

## 56 Figure 17. Restoration sites in A) Pine Island Sound, B) Sarasota Bay system, C) Tampa Bay and D) St. Andrew Bay. Black numbers indicate the number of scallops that were released. Numbers > one million represent larval releases, and those less than one million represent juvenile releases.

## 57 Figure 18. Restoration sites and survey stations in Pensacola Bay. Black numbers indicate the number of juvenile scallops released.

## 58 Figure 19. Growth (A) and mortality (B) plots for Sarasota County volunteer-based scallop restoration cages.

JulyAugust September October Nov DecShellheight (mm)



### 20 40 60 80 

# A)

July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec% Survivorship



### 0 20 40 60 80 100 

# B)

## 59 Figure 20. Scallop mortality plot for Tampa Bay volunteer-based scallop restoration cages monitored by Tampa Bay Watch staff.



## 10/1/08 11/1/08 12/1/08 1/1/ 09 2/1/09 3/1/09 4/1/09Percent Survival



## 0 20 40 60 80 100

Kinter Mueller TBW Weiner

## 60 Figure 21. Shell height (A), weekly growth rate (B ), and mortality rate (C) comparisons between bay scallop and calico scallop species grown in Bayboro Harbor.

Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecShell Height (mm)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Bay Calico

Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecSurvivorship

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 

# A

C Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecWeekly Growth (mm)

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 

# B