i

Preface

“A Look to the Future. A Management Plan for the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem” was printed in June 1998 and was 

the culmination of nine months of intensive work by the Department of Environmental Protection, Ecosystem 

Management Team and the Department’s Northwest District, Panama City Branch Office and the St. Andrew Bay 

Environmental Study Team (BEST). The original writing and printing of the document was made possible by a 

grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and administered by the State of Florida 

Department of Community Affairs (DCA), Coastal Zone Management Program to the Department of Environmental 

Protection’s (FDEP) Northwest District Ecosystem Management Section. The senior author of this revision had the 

pleasure of authoring sections of the original plan and coordinating the efforts of the DEP and the members of the 

BEST Steering Committee in completing the plan. 

BEST and BEST, Inc. determined that “A Look to the Future” should be revised and updated to reflect the 

accomplishments of various entities toward fulfilling the Action Plans in the original document and to add to or 

revise the Action Plans as needed. The Northwest Florida Water Management District published a Surface Water 

Improvement Management plan (SWIM) for the St. Andrew Bay Drainage basin in September 2000. SWIM plans 

are directed at the maintenance of the quality of surface waters and address many ecosystem functions related to 

water quality. The SWIM plan for the St. Andrew Bay drainage basin adopted much of the organization and 

information provided in “A Look to the Future” including a majority of the Action Plans as described in “A Look to 

the Future”. As a result of the incorporation of most of “A Look to the Future” in the SWIM plan, it was decided 

that the revision should be accomplished with more emphasis on total ecosystem management and a de-emphasis on 

water quality to separate it from the SWIM plan. Therefore, the purpose of this revision is to make it an adjunct to 

the SWIM plan rather than a repeat of the SWIM plan and “A Look to the Future”.

This document relies on “A Look to the Future”. The authors rewrote and rearranged the introductory material and 

Part 1. Part 2 is from the original plan with modifications from the SWIM plan and updates by the authors. Part 3 is 

from the original plan with modifications by the authors. Part 4 has been modified by the authors and relies on the 

original document. The authors have modified the biodiversity section of Part 5 and added the section on 

accomplishments for each Action Plan. Mr. Michael Brim, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service authored the 

Contaminants section and Action Plans for the original plan, and these were carried over to the revision with 

additional material added as was provided. The following were also carried over and/or modified from the original 

plan with the author; Hydrology, Mr. Kennard Watson, St. Andrew Bay Resource Management Association; Point 

Source Discharges, Mr. Steven Kelley, DEP; Air Quality, Mr. Richard Spaulding, DEP; Impaired Water Bodies, 

DEP, Pensacola; and Solid Waste, Mr. Clarke Millikan, DEP.

The original “A Look to the Future” was the result of the dedicated volunteer spirit of the members of BEST who 

devoted a considerable amount of their time to the successful completion of that plan. The authors hope that this 

document will have the same positive affect as the original plan. 

Edwin J. Keppner and Lisa A. Keppner, May 2001

Acknowledgements

Many individuals provided information that was included in the original document, and those persons are 

recognized in that document, and the authors wish to express their sincere appreciation to all of those people who 

contributed to the original “Look to the Future”. The authors served as volunteers to accomplish the task of 

providing this revision for distribution. Sincerest appreciation is expressed to the people of the Northwest Florida 

Water Management District for permission to use tables and figures from the SWIM plan. The authors express 

their sincerest appreciation to Ms. Candis Harbison for her initial review, comments, patience, and understanding 

during the preparation of this revision. Sincere appreciation is also expressed to Mr. James Barkuloo for his 

professional contribution to the review and completion of the revision. A very special thank you to Ms. Linda 

Chafin of Florida Natural Areas Inventory for working her magic as an editor, reviewer, and biologist. Mr. 

Michael Brim, Mr. Joseph McLernan, Mr. Charles Yautz, Dr. Neil Lamb, and Ms. Candis Harbison served as 

reviewers from the BEST Steering Committee. The authors appreciate the time and effort that these reviewers 

expended in making this a better document and placing the stamp of BEST on it. The members of BEST and 

BEST, Inc. express their sincere appreciation to the Northwest Florida Water Management District for 

support in printing this document.
ii

The St. Andrew Bay Environmental Study Team

The St. Andrew Bay Environmental Study Team (BEST) has met since 1987 to share information regarding the 

natural resources of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem and to address cumulative concerns for the ecological integrity 

of the system. The mission and goals of BEST are stated in ecological terms. The mission of BEST is to evaluate 

the status of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem, identify problems, and initiate corrective actions where necessary. The 

goal of BEST is to maintain and restore a healthy St. Andrew Bay ecosystem for the benefit of all people. Efforts to 

achieve that goal involve obtaining information regarding the biological, chemical, and physical components of the 

ecosystem through original research and literature summaries, providing that information to the public and decision 

makers, and improving coordination and communication between those responsible for the management of natural 

resources of the ecosystem. BEST is not an adversarial or advocacy organization. It provides information and 

recommendations pertinent to informed decision-making.

Membership in BEST is free and is available to any interested citizen or group that is interested in the management 

of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem for the benefit of all the people. BEST has no formal corporate structure, bylaws, 

policies, or rules to encumber the achievement of its mission, and members serve as volunteers. The only officer in 

BEST is the Chairperson who is selected by the Steering Committee each year. The Chairperson serves as the 

spokesperson for BEST, chairs the general membership meetings, and chairs the meetings of the Steering 

Committee. General membership meetings are held six times each year in January, March, May, July, September, 

and November. Partners of BEST include representatives of federal agencies, state agencies, academia, industry, 

local government, citizen’s organizations, and individuals.

The Steering Committee of BEST manages the activities of BEST and meets every other month. It consists of the 

Chairperson of BEST, the Chairperson from each subcommittee, the President of BEST, Inc., and individuals who 

represent various interests in the community. The five standing subcommittees of BEST provide a means for 

achieving the goals of BEST. Membership on a subcommittee is open to anyone interested in the subject of the 

subcommittee, and all members serve as volunteers. The standing subcommittees of BEST are the Natural 

Resources, Habitat; Natural Resources, Biodiversity; Education & Public Outreach; Contaminants and Stormwater, 

and Growth Management.

St. Andrew Bay Environmental Study Team, Inc. (BEST, Inc.)

BEST, Inc., by nature of its corporate status, bylaws, and organization, is an integral yet separate part of BEST. 

BEST, Inc. is a Florida not-for-profit, 501 (c) (3) corporation with a complete slate of officers and must comply with 

the rules of the State of Florida that govern such corporations. The by-laws of BEST, Inc. include a statement of 

purpose as follows. The St. Andrew Bay Environmental Study Team, Inc. is dedicated to charitable, scientific, and 

educational purposes in support of its mission to evaluate the status of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem and its 

watershed (including all connecting bays, bayous, and waterways and pertinent uplands that drain into it) to identify 

any problems, and to initiate and implement corrective action. The Board of Directors of the corporation consists of 

a President, Treasurer, and Secretary. The Board of Directors, with the approval of the membership, have set the 

policies of the corporation. Meetings are held at least once each year and more often as needs arise. Minutes are 

recorded for each meeting. BEST, Inc. serves to receive donations and grant money, seeks such sources of funding, 

and administers those funds to fulfill the Action Plans of the ecosystem management plan.

Recommended Citation. Keppner, Edwin J. and Keppner, Lisa, A. 2001. The St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem, Our 

Environment. A Revision of “A Look to the Future”. St. Andrew Bay Environmental Study Team Publication 

#0004. vii + 90 pp.
iii

Table of Contents

Purpose and Goals .............................................................................................................................................. 1

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

The Ecosystem and Ecosystem Management: A BEST & BEST, Inc. Perspective ................ 3

Part 1. Overview of the St Andrew Bay System ................................................................................... 4

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................ 4

Geographical Boundaries of the Ecosystem ............................................................................................................... 4

Political Boundaries of the Ecosystem ....................................................................................................................... 5

Abiotic (Non-living) components of the Ecosystem ............................................................................................... 7

Physiography and Geology ............................................................................................................................. 7

Substrate .......................................................................................................................................................... 7

Climate ............................................................................................................................................................ 8

Chemical Components .................................................................................................................................... 8

Air ................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Biotic (Living) Components of the Ecosystem ....................................................................................................... 9

Biotic Communities ........................................................................................................................................ 9

Biodiversity ..................................................................................................................................................... 10

Rare, Endemic and Protected Species ............................................................................................................. 12

Summary ......................................................................................................................................................... 13

Part 2. Status of the St Andrew Bay System ......................................................................................... 13

Current Terrestrial Use in the Ecosystem .............................................................................................................. 14

Land Use and Ownership ................................................................................................................................ 14

Solid Waste Management ............................................................................................................................... 17

Air Quality in the Ecosystem .......................................................................................................................... 18

Current Water Use and Water Quality in the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem ........................................................ 22

Ground Water and the Deer Point Reservoir .................................................................................................. 22

Freshwater Lakes and Ponds .......................................................................................................................... 22

Creeks and Springs .......................................................................................................................................... 23

Non-point Source Discharges ........................................................................................................................ 24
iv

Point Source Discharges ................................................................................................................................. 25

Thermal Discharges ....................................................................................................................................... 26

Part 3. The St. Andrew Bay Estuarine System ..................................................................................... 27

General Description ........................................................................................................................................ 27

Habitats ........................................................................................................................................................... 27

Hydrology ....................................................................................................................................................... 28

Water Quality .................................................................................................................................................. 31

Sediment Quality ............................................................................................................................................. 33

Dredging for Navigation Purposes ................................................................................................................. 34

Hazardous Substance and Material Transportation ......................................................................................... 35

Part 4. Threats to the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem................................................................................ 36

Human Population Growth ............................................................................................................................. 36

Fragmentation of the Ecosystem ..................................................................................................................... 37

Existing Regulatory Framework and Ecosystem Management ...................................................................... 37

Land Use Planning .......................................................................................................................................... 38

Goals and Priorities for Ecosystem Maintenance and Improvement .............................................................. 39

Part 5. Action Plans for the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem ................................................................. 42

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 42

Action Plans for Maintenance and Restoration of the Living (Biotic) Components of the 

St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem, Natural Resources – Biodiversity Sub-committee

BD1. Species Diversity Assessment ............................................................................................................ 43

BD2. Comparison Survey of the Finfish of St. Andrew Bay ....................................................................... 45

BD3. Bay Scallop Restoration ................................................................................ ..................................... 46

BD4. Assessment of the Protected, Rare and/or Endemic Species of Plants in the St. Andrew Bay

Ecosystem ........................................................................................................................................... 48

BD5. Participate in the Development of Guide lines for the Protection of Protected Species in the 

Ecosystem ............................................................................................................................................ 50

BD6. Assessment of the Rare and/or Endemic Species of Animals ............................................................. 51

BD7. Preservation of the Panama City Crayfish ........................................................................................... 52

BD8. Assessment of East Pass Closure.......................................................................................................... 53

BD9. Invasive Exotic Species Management in the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem ........................................... 54
v

Action Plans for Maintenance and Restoration of the Living (Biotic) Components of the 

St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem, Natural Resources– Habitat Sub-committee 

HM1. Assessment of Lands and Sensitive Habitats ..................................................................................... 55

HM2. Identification and Mapping of Corridors Linking Public and Private Conservation and Preservation 

Lands in the Ecosystem. ...................................................................................................................... 56

HM3. Conservation of Primary Tributaries to St. Andrew Bay .................................................................... 57

HM4. Assessment of Freshwater Inflow Needs for North Bay ..................................................................... 58

HM5. Restoration of Audubon Island .................................................................................................................... 59

HM6. State Owned Submerged Land Assessment & Monitoring ................................................................. 60

HM7. Grand Lagoon Bridge Replacement .................................................................................................... 61

Action Plans for the Maintenance and Restoration of the Natural Communities of the St. 

Andrew Bay Ecosystem Natural Resources– Habitat Sub-committee

Seagrass Management in the Ecosystem .......................................................... ....................................................... 62

HM8. Monitoring of Seagrass Beds in St. Andrew Bay ............................................................................... 64

HM9. Protection of Seagrass Beds ................................................................................................................ 65

HM10. Restoration of Lost or Damaged Seagrass Beds .................................................................................. 66

HM11. Restoration of Seagrass Loss in West Bay .......................................................................................... 67

HM12. Innovative Pier and Dock Construction .............................................................................................. 68

Wetland Habitats in the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem .............................................................................................. 69

HM13. Wetlands Inventory ............................................................................................................................. 70

HM14. Identification of Areas for Wetland Restoration or Preservation ........................................................ 71

HM15. Vegetative Buffers for Wetlands and Water Bodies ........................................................................... 72

HM16. Shoreline Protection and Vegetative Buffers ...................................................................................... 73

HM17. Habitat Enhancement and Management of West Bay Dikes and Impounded Wetlands for Bird 

Species, Marsh and Seagrass Propagation and St. Andrew Bay Restoration Projects ........................ 75

Action Plans for Maintenance and Restoration of the Chemical and Physical (Abiotic) 

Components of the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem

Sediment Quality and Chemical Contaminants in the Ecosystem ......................................................................... 77

SC1. Chemical Contaminant Sediment Monitoring Within the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem ...................... 78

SC2. Evaluation of Dioxin Compounds Within the Ecosystem .......................................................................... 80

SC3. Chemical Monitoring of Biological Organisms .................................................................................. 81

SC4. Determine the Current Status of Air Quality in the Ecosystem .......................................................... 82
vi

SC5. Restoration of Martin Lake Habitat ....................................................................................................... 83

SC6. Restoration of Watson Bayou Process Assessment Martin Lake Habitat .................................................. 85

SC7. Restoration of Massalina Bayou, Sampling and Assessment ..................................................................... 86

SC8. Restoration of Lynn Haven Bayou, Sampling and Assessment ................................................................. 87

Point Source Discharges ............................................................................................................................................. 88

SC9. Cumulative Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 89

SC10. Determine the Assimilative Capacity of the St. Andrew Bay Estuary ................................................ 90

Non-Point Sources Discharges: Stormwater Treatment Actions ........................................................................... 91

SC11. Maintenance of Existing Stormwater Treatment Facilities ................................................................... 91

SC12. Survey Stormwater Sediment Quality in Existing Ponds ...................................................................... 92

SC13. Retrofit Stormwater Infrastructure Constructed Prior to 1982 .............................................................. 93

SC14. Investigate the Advantages and Disadvantages of Organizing a Stormwater Utility for Bay County .. 94

Action Plans for Implementing the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem Management Plan, Growth 

Management Sub-committee 

GM1. State Owned Submerged Lands Policy .................................................................................................. 95

GM2. Creation of an Ecosystem Mitigation Bank ........................................................................................... 96

GM3. Coordinate Growth Management Plans ................................................................................................. 97

GM4. Establish the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem Management Plan as a Legal Component of Each Bay 

County Local Government Comprehensive Management Plan ............................................................ 98

GM5. Implement the Ecosystem Management Plan and the SWIM plan for the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem 99

GM6. Land Use Planning and Transferable Development Rights in the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem ............ 100

Action Plans for Implementing the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem Management Plan, 

Education Outreach Sub-committee

EO1. Education About the Significance of Seagrass Meadows in the Ecosystem ....................................... 101

EO2. Develop and Maintain a St. Andrew Bay Environmental Study Team (BEST) Website ................... 102

EO3. Inform the General Public about the BEST Program .......................................................................... 103

EO4. Inform the General Public about the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem ...................................................... 104

Literature Cited .................................................................................................................................................... 106

Appendix 1. Biotic Communities of the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem............................................. 111

Appendix 2. Protected, Rare, or Endemic Biota of the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem .............. 116
vii

Summary

This report is the result of the volunteer efforts of the authors and the members of the St. Andrew 

Bay Environmental Study Team (BEST) and the St. Andrew Bay Environmental Study Team, 

Inc. (BEST, Inc.). The report provides a summary of the quality of the environment provided by 

the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem to the citizens of the ecosystem and describes actions considered 

important in conserving and preserving a part of the natural ecosystem as the human population 

of the system increases. It is based upon “A Look to the Future. A Management Plan for the St. 

Andrew Bay Ecosystem” that was printed in 1998 and the Surface Water Improvement 

Management (SWIM) plan produced by the Northwest Florida Water Management District in the 

year 2000. The purpose of the report is to revise and bring to date the actions accomplished for 

each of the Action Plans in “A Look to the Future” and to serve as an adjunct to the SWIM plan.

The report begins with a discussion of the perspective of BEST and BEST, Inc. regarding 

ecosystem management, the definition of an ecosystem, and the components of an ecosystem. 

The remainder of the report consists of five sections each describing a component of the 

ecosystem, the St. Andrew Bay estuarine system, and Action Plans directed at providing 

information necessary to the management of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem to maintain the 

functions of that system. Bay County is provided special attention because it constitutes about 

two thirds of the ecosystem and contains the entire St. Andrew Bay estuarine system within it’s 

boundaries. The emphasis is on the living components of the ecosystem, because the SWIM 

plan is directed primarily at the maintenance of surface and ground water quality in the 

ecosystem.

The sections of the report are not intended to be a thorough examination of each characteristic 

but to provide general information and sources of more specific information for the interested 

reader. The emphasis on the living components of the ecosystem are directed at obtaining a 

more complete understanding of the distribution of natural biotic communities and species of 

plants and animals of interest and addressing fragmentation of the ecosystem in relation to the 

expanding human population.

The Action Plans were developed to address the aspects of each component of the ecosystem that 

are considered priority components. Seagrass beds and wetlands receive special consideration as 

do those species in the ecosystem that are protected, rare, or endemic to the ecosystem. Linking 

the public lands in the ecosystem and conserving or preserving sensitive biotic communities is 

also a priority of the report. The growth management process is identified as the primary method 

of implementing the plan. Each Action Plan begins with a description of the actions that have 

been completed pertaining to that particular Action Plan since the printing of “A Look to the 

Future” with additional information as seemed appropriate. This is followed by a description of 

the action to be taken, followed by background information, followed by a strategy to complete 

the action, and followed by a description of the expected benefits. A few Action Plans also 

contain a section for monitoring the results of the action.

The following table is a summary of the Action Plans in the report and the major component of 

the ecosystem to which they apply.
viii

Summary of the Action Plans in Relation to the Components of the Ecosystem

Natural Resources 

Biodiversity Subcommittee

Natural Resources, 

Habitat Management 

Sub-committee

Stormwater & 

Contaminants Subcommittee

Growth Management 

Sub-committee 

Education Outreach 

Sub-committee

BD1. Species Diversity 

Assessment 

HM1. Assessment of 

Lands and Sensitive 

Habitits 

SC1. Sediment Chemical 

Contaminant Monitoring

GM1. State Owned 

Submerged Lands Policy 

EO1. Educate about 

Seagrass Beds

BD2. Survey of 

Finfishes in St. Andrew 

Bay

HM2. Identify & Map 

Corridors Between Land

SC2. Evaluate Dioxin 

Compounds

GM2. Creation of an 

Ecosystem Management 

Bank 

EO2. Develop a BEST 

Website 

BD3. Bay Scallop 

Restoration 

HM3. Primary 

Tributaries to St. 

Andrew Bay

SC3. Monitor Biological 

Organisms

GM3. Coordinate 

Growth Management 

Plans

EO3. Inform the 

General Public About 

BEST 

BD4. Assess Imperiled 

Species of Plants

HM4. Freshwater Inflow 

to North Bay

SC4. Determine Air 

Quality

GM4. Ecosystem 

Management & 

Comprehensive Plans

EO4. Inform the 

General Public About 

the St. Andrew Bay 

Ecosystem 

BD5. Guidelines for 

Protected Species, 

Participation

HM5. Restore Audubon 

Island

SC5. Restoration of 

Martin Lake

GM5. Land Planning & 

Transferable 

Development Rights

BD6. Assess Imperiled 

Species of Animals

HM6. State Owned 

Submerged Land 

Assessment

SC6. Restoration of 

Watson Bayou

BD7. Preserve the 

Panama City Crayfish

HM7. Grand Lagoon 

Bridge Replacement

SC7. Restoration of 

Massalina Bayou

HM8. Monitor Seagrass 

Beds

SC8. Assessment of 

Lynn Haven Bayou

HM9. Protect Seagrass 

Beds

SC9. Cumulative 

Assessment of Point 

Source Discharges

HM10. Restore Seagrass 

Beds

SC10. Assimilative 

Capacity of St. Andrew 

Bay

HM11. Restore West 

Bay Seagrass Beds

SC11. Maintenance of 

Stormwater Facilities

HM12. Pier & Dock 

Construction

SC12. Assess Treatment 

Pond Sediment Quality

HM13. Wetlands 

Inventory

SC13. Retrofit 

Stormwater Infrastructure

HM14. Wetland 

Restoration and 

Preservation

SC14. Advantages & 

Disadvantages of 

Stormwater Utility

HM15. Vegetative 

Buffers for Wetlands & 

Waters

HM16. Shoreline 

Protection and 

Vegetative Buffers*

HM17. Habitat Project 

West Bay Dikes & 

Impounded Wetlands

*Contains an Education & Outreach component 
1

Purpose and Goals

The original plan, “A Look to the Future” was prepared in accordance with the then existing 

definition of “ecosystem” provided by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The 

form of that plan emulated the plans for the Indian River Lagoon and Tampa Bay Estuary that 

were written as part of the National Estuary Plan process financed by federal and state 

governments. This revision retains the general form of the original plan, but uses a different 

definition of ecosystem management than the original as explained below. The purpose of this 

revision is to provide a summary of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem from an ecological point of 

view including the current status, threats to the ecosystem, and action plans to maintain, restore,

and improve the current relationships of its components. It is written as an adjunct to the SWIM 

plan for the St. Andrew Bay drainage basin that was prepared by the Northwest Florida Water 

Management District (NWFWMD). The SWIM plan was prepared to fulfill the responsibilities 

of the NWFWMD to maintain surface and ground water quality. The SWIM plan drew quite 

heavily on “A Look to the Future” because the NWFWMD takes a holistic view of water quality 

management and recognizes the relationship between land and water.

The emphasis of the SWIM plan on surface and ground water quality prompted the preparation 

of this document. The emphasis of this revision is on other aspects of the ecosystem, although 

water quality remains an integral part of the plan. This document is directed at the maintenance 

and restoration of ecosystem functions by providing information about the ecosystem and 

recommending actions that will:

1. Reduce the fragmentation of the ecosystem by providing corridors of land and water between 

the fragments that are currently in public ownership.

2. Assess the status of the land in the ecosystem and increase the acreage in public ownership, 

in conservation easements, or other methods to preserve ecosystem functions.

3. Identify sensitive habitats for purchase by government or private organizations to increase 

the quantity of land preserved as natural habitats or restored to natural habitats.

4. Provide for the preservation and conservation of protected, endemic and/or rare species of 

plants and animals in the ecosystem.

5. Recommend actions to reduce the adverse impact of the increase in human population in the 

ecosystem.

6. Assure good quality of the surface water and their sediments in the ecosystem in conjunction 

with the SWIM plan by examining aspects that are not in the SWIM plan.

7. Assure good quality of the ground water in the ecosystem in conjunction with the SWIM 

plan through habitat preservation and conservation.

8. Examine particular areas of interest in the ecosystem for restoration or improvement of 

natural ecosystem functions on a long-term basis.

9. Increase the public and private awareness of the diversity and sensitive areas of our 

ecosystem. 

Introduction

The St. Andrew Bay ecosystem serves as the environment for the people who choose to live 

here. The ecosystem provides us with air, water, land, and a desirable climate. It provides us 

with a variety of recreational opportunities, economic values, and commercial values. The fate 

of the ecosystem is the responsibility of those who live here and those who will immigrate here 

because of the desirable environment provided by the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem. This revision 
2

of “A Look to the Future” emphasizes the ecosystem as a whole, and the interrelationships of the 

components of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem without the restriction of statutory responsibilities. 

This is an independent attempt to provide general information about the St. Andrew Bay 

ecosystem, establish the interrelationships between the major components of the ecosystem, and 

point to where additional information of a more detailed nature may be found. It is hoped that 

this will provide the citizens of the ecosystem with information useful in the process of planning 

for the future of their environment.

The attempt by government to manage land through an ecosystem approach has been, by and 

large, abandoned, altered, or the name changed. We do not know the reasons for the alteration of 

the ecosystem management approach, but it may be a result of attempting to define the 

ecosystem in political terms rather than adhering to the ecological definition. Or, it may have 

been realized that in order to manage an ecosystem, one must be willing to plan the use of the 

land and water to sustain ecosystem functions as well as provide for an increasing human 

population. Grumbine (1997) addressed the concept of ecosystem management and its history. 

In that article he states that “EM (ecosystem management) was perceived by many as a 

buzzword, a concept whose definition was slippery, imprecise”. He provides four reasons for 

this statement that flow from his “politics of definition”. He then discusses the ten dominant 

themes of ecosystem management. This discussion is interesting for the complexity that can be 

incorporated into ecosystem. Where does this plan fit in the ten dominant themes of ecosystem 

management? The authors believe that it fits best under “Ecological Integrity”. We encourage 

the reader to answer that question by reading the article. The journal is in the library of the 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the National Marine Fisheries Service 

library, both in Panama City, Florida. Brunner and Clark (1997) followed with an article on 

practice-based ecosystem management. The underlying rationale for this approach is that a clear 

goal is necessary to select the best action alternatives for achieving it. It is hoped that the goals 

of this document are clear and that the completion of the action plans will achieve the purpose. 

Land use planning at the local level of government appears to be the beginning step in the 

ecosystem management process. An inventory of the existing land and water in public 

ownership and the areas designated for preservation, conservation, or restoration to the natural 

biotic communities would be a beginning. It may be necessary to designate additional areas for 

preservation, conservation, and restoration to the natural condition and develop a fair method of 

doing so in order to maintain ecosystem functions. It may also be necessary to plan to link these 

areas to one another by establishing corridors of natural communities. These corridors will 

prevent the ecosystem from being fragmented into isolated units without functional relationships 

to one another. These are the major points addressed in this plan.

Who can undertake the task of land use planning with an expectation of success? The myriad 

state and federal agencies could attempt to do so, but the time necessary to accomplish the task 

would be prohibitive. It is the citizens of the ecosystem who must address land use planning and 

thereby maintain the natural ecosystem at some level of functionality. In the St. Andrew Bay 

ecosystem, there are a number of local organizations and citizens who can be of great value in 

this process. State and federal agencies can also be a part of the process, but it appears that the 

citizens, through their land use planning efforts, will drive the process to some sort of 

completion.
3

The Ecosystem and Ecosystem Management: A BEST & BEST, Inc. 

Perspective.

“A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and the beauty of the biotic 

community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” (Aldo Leopold)

The concept of the ecosystem is a fundamental unit of the science of ecology because it is the 

study of all the organisms (living things) in an ecosystem interacting with each other and with 

the physical and chemical properties (non-living things) of the environment to produce a selfsustaining unit. An ecosystem develops under the influence of the climate and the geological 

history of an area and is then acted upon by plants and animals. An ecologist’s definition of an 

ecosystem is any area of nature in which the biotic (living) and abiotic (non-living) components 

interact to form a clearly defined trophic (flow of energy) structure based upon the fixation of 

light energy, biodiversity, and biogeochemical cycles (see Odum, 1971). The only source of 

energy needed by the ecosystem is sunlight. Both the biotic and abiotic components of an 

ecosystem influence one another, and both are necessary for life on the planet. Ecosystem 

management, therefore, should be directed at maintaining and restoring the biodiversity, trophic 

structure, and biogeochemical cycles of the ecosystem in question.

BEST and BEST, Inc., by nature of their mission and goals statements as provided in the preface 

to this document, accept the ecological definition of ecosystem rather than attempt to redefine it. 

Federal, state, and local governmental agencies have attempted to place the concept of 

“ecosystem” into their environmental management plans at various times. However, these 

attempts were, more often than not, accompanied by a redefinition of the term ecosystem to fit 

the perceived responsibility or political framework of the time. This variety of definitions results 

in confusion among agencies and citizens and results in the absence of a unified approach to 

managing the ecosystem.

The renewable resources of an ecosystem are those living things that occupy the ecosystem. 

They are considered renewable because they will perpetuate themselves provided that the 

conditions necessary to their survival are present or maintained. Species diversity refers to the 

number of species (kinds of plants and animals) that occupy a given area such as an ecosystem or 

other defined unit of area. The species of animals and plants in an ecosystem are arranged as 

biotic communities. A biotic community is an assemblage of organisms that live in a physical 

habitat. The biotic communities of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem are many and include 

seagrass beds, longleaf pine-wiregrass, etc. The six major community categories of the 

ecosystem are listed and subdivided into biotic communities in Appendix 1 and discussed in the 

biodiversity section below. 

“When we try to pick anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe” 

John Muir (My First Summer in the Sierra, 1911, page 10)

Ecosystem management must embrace all the qualities of an ecosystem, because emphasis on 

one quality over the others is to lose sight of the ecosystem as a whole. An effective 

management plan that will assure the continuation of the functions of an ecosystem must be 

based on the knowledge of the biodiversity of the ecosystem and the physical and chemical 

characteristics of that ecosystem. Alteration of one component of the ecosystem in the absence 

of an understanding of the affects of that alteration on all of the other components of the 

ecosystem will risk change to the ecosystem. Often this change is small, but these changes must 
4

be viewed from the point of view of their cumulative affects that can act to so alter an ecosystem 

that it is no longer recognizable or sustainable.

BEST and BEST, Inc. realize that one must understand species diversity, biotic community 

structure, and the physical and chemical characteristics that determine the biotic communities 

that are present in an ecosystem in order to manage the ecosystem in a manner that will retain the 

functions of the ecosystem. They also realize that, within limits, the ecosystem can respond to 

alterations that are natural or man-made and restore itself if provided the opportunity to do so. 

Once the above components of the ecosystem are reasonably understood, a reasonable approach 

to the management of the ecosystem can be developed. This approach should include actions to 

maintain existing natural functions, prevent alterations of natural characteristics, restore areas 

currently in an altered condition, prevent fragmentation, and correct the existing fragmentation of 

the ecosystem. Fragmentation of the ecosystem is the process of dividing the ecosystem into 

discreet, isolated units that can no longer function in relation to one another. Management of the 

ecosystem must be accomplished in conjunction with a rapidly increasing human population 

whose presence in the ecosystem results in alterations and fragmentation. This document was 

developed with that in mind.

Part 1. Overview of the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem

Introduction. Information regarding the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem is extensive. Shaffer 

(1993) compiled a bibliography of the research on St. Andrew Bay, its tributaries, and nearby 

coastal water, and the process of adding new information continues. The literature that is cited in 

this bibliography includes all levels of reports from contractors’ reports to clients to government 

agency reports to manuscripts published in professional journals. This bibliography should be 

consulted by anyone interested in a particular aspect of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem or the 

ecosystem in general. The bibliography and publication collection is located at the National 

Marine Fisheries Service Laboratory in Panama City Beach, Florida. For more information 

contact Ms. Rosalie Shaffer at that facility at 850/234-6541. An updated, searchable copy of this 

bibliography is available on the Internet at http://aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/sadl.html. The 

SWIM plan (Thorpe et al., 2000) should also be consulted because it has an extensive list of 

publications and projects pertaining to the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem. Copies of the SWIM plan 

can be obtained from NWFWMD (850/539-5999).

The geology, physiography, and climatology of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem have been 

described in a number of documents and publications. These documents and publications should 

be consulted for a more detailed description of the various characteristics of the system. The 

documents include Hydroqual, Inc. et al. (1993), Wolfe et al. (1988), Saloman et al. (1982), 

Brusher & Ogren (1976), Ogren & Brusher (1977) and the numerous publications by the 

NWFWMD pertaining to Deer Point Reservoir and the Deer Point Reservoir Watershed. The 

following is a general summary of the characteristics of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem.

Geographical Boundaries of the Ecosystem. The definition of an ecosystem does not restrict 

the size of the system examined provided that the components and their interrelationships as 

stated in the definition are present. The SWIM plan used the U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic 

Unit 03140101 to define the St. Andrew Bay drainage basin. This hydrologic unit includes St. 

Joseph Bay in Gulf County at the southeastern corner and Lake Powell at the southwestern
5

corner of the hydrologic unit. Figure 1 is the entire St. Andrew Bay drainage basin including 

Lake Powell, Deer Point Reservoir, and St. Joseph Bay for reference purposes. The SWIM plan 

states that this hydrologic unit covers approximately 749,663 acres or 1171.5 square miles of 

land and water.

Beck et al. (2000) identified priority sites for conservation in the northern Gulf of Mexico 

ecoregion. Although no sites were identified in the St. Andrew Bay drainage basin as a priority 

site, they provided information pertaining to the St. Andrew Bay drainage basin. They 

determined the drainage basin to be 735,301 acres (1149 square miles) in size. 

The St. Andrew Bay ecosystem is defined for management purposes in this document as the U.S. 

Geological Survey Hydrologic Unit 03140101 minus the Lake Powell subdrainage basin and the 

St. Joseph Bay subdrainage basin as shown on Figure 1. Using this definition for the purposes of 

this document, the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem covers approximately 707,560 acres or 1105.5 

square miles. The St. Andrew Bay drainage basin consists of a number of subdrainage basins as 

depicted on the St. Andrew Bay drainage basin map produced by and available from the Florida 

Department of Community Affairs, Division of Community Planning in the year 2000. Those 

interested in subdivisions of the overall drainage basin should consult this or other maps.

The Lake Powell subdrainage basin is excluded from this plan because Keppner and Keppner 

(2000a) provided a comprehensive summary of the information pertaining to it. In addition, 

Lake Powell has been designated an Outstanding Florida Water, and this designation requires 

more stringent regulation of certain activities that may affect the ambient water quality of the 

lake than is used for other water bodies. The St. Joseph Bay subdrainage basin is within Gulf 

County and is connected to the overall St. Andrew Bay drainage basin by a narrow strip of land. 

The St. Joseph Bay subdrainage basin would be best considered on its own for management 

purposes and is excluded from this plan for that reason.

The Deer Point Reservoir subdrainage basin has been the subject of a separate SWIM plan 

developed by the NWFWMD. The SWIM plan for the Deer Point Reservoir and the Deer Point 

Reservoir subdrainage basin was developed in 1988 and revised in 1991. A copy of the plan is 

available from the NWFWMD. The development of the plan was a result of the importance of 

the Deer Point Reservoir and subdrainage basin as a source of drinking water and high quality 

industrial use water for Bay County. Little, if anything, can be added to the thorough assessment 

of this subdrainage basin by the NWFWMD in this plan. One should consult the NWFWMD for 

copies of the many excellent reports prepared for a variety of characteristics of this subdrainage 

basin and its management.

Political Boundaries of the Ecosystem. The St. Andrew Bay ecosystem is the only ecosystem 

within the Panhandle of Florida that contains an entire, major, estuarine system. In other words, 

all of the tidally influenced surface water of the St. Andrew Bay estuarine system is entirely 

within Bay County. State, city, and county boundaries are not drawn along drainage basin lines 

or ecosystem lines, so the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem encompasses all or part of six counties 

with Bay County being entirely within the boundaries of the ecosystem and accounting for about 

69% (761 square miles) of the ecosystem. The other five counties contribute 35% (346 square 

miles) of the land and water to the ecosystem. The portion of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem in 

each county is Gulf County about 15% (159 square miles), Washington County at 10% (117 

square miles), Calhoun County at 4% (47 square miles), and Jackson County at 2% (23 square 

miles). However, the 4% of the ecosystem located in Walton County is excluded, as is a portion 
6
7

of the Gulf County contribution as stated above. The result is that Bay County accounts for over 

two thirds of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem as defined here.

In summary, the boundaries of the ecosystem are drawn from an ecological perspective and 

include portions of six counties. Bay County is at the center of the ecosystem and accounts for 

over two thirds of the total land and water in the ecosystem including the entire St. Andrew Bay 

estuarine system. Therefore, Bay County will be the major political entity in determining the 

ultimate fate of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem as a whole and the St. Andrew Bay estuarine 

system as a part of that whole. This places a large burden on the citizens of Bay County in 

planning for the increase in the growth of the human population while maintaining the functions 

of the ecosystem that provide many of the environmental characteristics that make the ecosystem 

so attractive to visitors and new residents.

Abiotic (Non-living) Components of the Ecosystem

The abiotic components of the ecosystem include the landform, substrate (soil and sediment 

types), climate of the area, air quality, and the chemicals present in the water, sediment, and soil. 

The geology of the region, the geological history of the ecosystem, and the climate of the region 

set the stage for the evolution of the biotic (living) components of the ecosystem. The purpose of 

the following brief discussion of abiotic factors is to set the stage for addressing the information 

needed to assess the alterations of these factors in later sections of this plan. Wolfe et al. (1988) 

provided a detailed summary of the physiography, geology, and climate of the Florida Panhandle 

and specific areas such as the St. Andrew Bay estuarine system. Readers are encouraged to 

consult this work for a detailed understanding of the physical characteristics of this ecosystem.

Physiography and Geology. The landform of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem has been greatly

influenced by the rise and fall of sea level throughout geological history. The entire ecosystem 

has been inundated with seawater for varying periods of time. During the periods of inundation, 

seabed sediments were formed and were left behind as the sea level decreased. These sediments 

included the limestone and sand deposits that remained after the sea level decreased. The 

“sandhills” and karst area of the ecosystem were formed during the periodic rise and fall in sea 

level. These deposits formed the basic physical material for the development of the biotic 

portion of the ecosystem. Uplands, flatlands and lowlands are found in the ecosystem. The 

surface water bodies in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem are also a result of the rise and fall of the 

sea level and the substrate left behind.

Substrate. The soils that develop in an ecosystem are a result of the parent material and 

sediments that have been transported, deposited, formed or exposed over the geological history 

of the area in conjunction with the quantity and quality of inorganic chemicals naturally present, 

slope, and the ability to hold moisture. The substrate plays an important role in determining the 

biotic communities that develop in an ecosystem. The biotic communities, in turn, act on the 

physical substrate to modify it. A look at a soils map of the ecosystem (Duffee et al., 1984) 

reveals that a significant number of different soil types have developed as a result of the 

interaction of the biota of the ecosystem with the substrate. Soils that are covered by, or 

saturated with, water are called sediments. They serve in the same manner as terrestrial soils to 

determine, in conjunction with the physical and chemical properties of the water column, the 

biotic communities present. Grain size and organic content of substrates are important 

characteristics in understanding the biota found in particular areas. 
8

The water in surface water bodies serves as a physical substrate for aquatic biotic communities 

that develop in the water column. The quantity and quality of the physical and chemical 

characteristics of the water column influence the biotic community that is present in the open 

water. An obvious example is the quantity of salt in the water. The amount of salt in the water 

column determines the biotic communities that can develop. Only those organisms adapted to 

the quantity of salt in the water will be found there. The biotic communities, in turn, add 

substances to the water column and can affect other physical characteristics such as depth of 

sunlight penetration. The water column and the sediment of a water body also interact to 

exchange substances.

Climate. The climate sets limits on an ecosystem by establishing the basic conditions (normal 

and extreme) to which all the biota must be adapted if they are to survive in the ecosystem. The 

climatological limits to which the biotic component of the ecosystem must be adapted include 

seasonal temperature variations (length of growing season), rainfall amount, seasonal distribution 

of rainfall, and insolation (amount of sunlight). The frequency of thunderstorms affects the 

frequency of naturally occurring fire in the ecosystem, and the frequency of fire in an area acts as 

a determining factor in the development and maintenance of many biotic communities 

(Appendix 1). Flooding or period of inundation (normal and extreme) is also important to the 

development of natural communities and their maintenance. These natural events must be 

considered in the maintenance of the functional characteristics of the biotic communities within 

the ecosystem (Appendix 1). 

Chemical Components. A number of studies have been conducted on the quantity and quality 

of the chemical and physical characteristics of the sediments of various surface water bodies in 

the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem. Included is the work by Brim (1998) and Payne (1997a & b, 

1998, 2000). The quality and quantity of inorganic molecules present in the substrate or 

sediments are dependent on the parent material. The biotic communities that develop do so, in 

part, in response to the basic inorganic molecules present. Once established, the biota add 

organic chemical products of their metabolism to the substrate, and therefore, change the 

substrate providing different substrate conditions that support a different biota. This is an 

evolving process of interaction and change. An example is the development of a bog from an 

open water pond where the physical conditions are conducive to the bog. The open water area 

with its biotic community fills in with sediments and accumulations of organic material from the 

death of the biota until the open water is replaced by saturated soils. These saturated soils 

support a different biotic community that then further modifies the substrate until it is replaced 

by another biotic community.

The quantity and quality of the inorganic substances in the parent material determine the quantity 

and quality of the inorganic substances in the substrate. Those inorganic substances needed by 

the biota are cycled from the substrate through plants (photosynthesis or chemosynthesis) to the 

animals and back to the substrate upon the death and decomposition of the biota. Organic 

chemicals are produced primarily by the metabolism of the biota in the ecosystem, and these 

substances are added to the substrate and modify it chemically and physically. Of course, 

another source of organic chemicals to the ecosystem is the activities of humans and their ability 

to synthesize new organic molecules not found in the natural ecosystem. 

The chemical characteristics of the substrate can be modified by human activities. Human 

activities can alter the balance of chemicals in the ecosystem by introduction of additional 

substances, alteration of the quantity of a substance, and the addition of toxic substances. 
9

Changes in the quantity and quality of the chemicals in the substrate of an ecosystem can result 

in changes in the biota present, and therefore, changes in the ecosystem.

Air. Air provides chemical substances necessary to the functioning of the ecosystem. Plants 

remove carbon dioxide from the air to use in photosynthesis to produce organic molecules. The 

process of photosynthesis releases oxygen to the air. Animals in their metabolic processes use 

the oxygen and return carbon dioxide to the air. Thus, one of the cycles is established between 

the biotic and abiotic components of the ecosystem. The quality of the air in an ecosystem can 

affect the biota present in the ecosystem. Natural events such as fire in the ecosystem can 

temporarily alter the air quality with little lasting effect on the biotic components of the 

ecosystem. However, the persistent addition of chemicals to the air from human activities can 

alter the air quality and adversely impact the biotic component of the ecosystem. An obvious 

example is acid rain and its effects on water chemistry and aquatic biotic communities and 

terrestrial communities in an ecosystem. Another example is the addition of mercury compounds 

to the ecosystem that can occur by burning certain fossil fuels in our industries.

Biotic (Living) Component of the Ecosystem

The biotic component of the ecosystem consists of the organisms that live in the ecosystem as a 

result of their being adapted to the abiotic conditions present in the area. The biotic component 

of the ecosystem uses the inorganic chemicals in the ecosystem to produce the organic 

substances necessary for life. Photosynthetic plants use the energy from the sun to convert 

inorganic chemicals to organic substances, and chemosynthetic microorganisms use the energy 

of bonds between atoms to do the same. The animals present in the ecosystem derive their 

energy by eating the plants and/or other animals present. Food chains and food webs (trophic 

structure) are established that lead from the variety of plants present to the variety of animals 

present in the ecosystem. Upon the death of the plants and animals, a group of organisms 

referred to as decomposers use the dead organic material as a source of energy. In doing so, they

return the organic material to the abiotic part of the environment for reuse. Biogeochemical 

cycles (cycling of substances between the living and non-living ) are thus established.

The description of the biotic part of the ecosystem can be accomplished from a number of 

viewpoints that attempt to bring order out of the diversity of organisms that occupy an 

ecosystem. For the purposes of this plan, we will use the concept of biotic communities and 

species diversity to summarize the biotic component of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem. The rare, 

endemic, and protected species in the ecosystem will be examined separately. However, the 

reader should keep in mind the hierarchy of ecological study. A species is a group of organisms 

that breed and produce viable young, so one can study a species in relation to its environment. 

Species are arranged into populations. A population is a group of organisms of the same species 

that occupy a given area, so one can study a population in relation to its environment. 

Populations are arranged into biotic communities that are populations of different species 

interacting with one another and their environment. This ecosystem management plan is directed 

at the species and biotic community level of the ecological hierarchy.

Biotic Communities. The Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) defines a natural biotic 

community as a distinct and recurring assemblage of populations of plants, animals, fungi, and 

microorganisms naturally associated with each other and their physical environment (FNAI, 

2000). It is within the biotic community that the energy flows are established through food 

chains and food webs and the biogeochemical cycles are established in relation to the abiotic 
10

component of ecosystem. FNAI has provided a hierarchy of biotic communities in which the 

community category is defined by the hydrology and vegetation. Each community category is 

divided into community groups that are defined by landform, substrate, and vegetation. 

Community groups are further subdivided into community types defined by landform and 

substrate, soil moisture, fire, climate and characteristic vegetation. Florida governmental 

agencies use the FNAI community hierarchy where biological evaluations or descriptions are 

needed to fulfill their responsibilities. For that reason, the FNAI hierarchy is used here.

FNAI (2000) defines 70 natural community types that constitute the original, natural biological 

associations of Florida. In addition, FNAI (2000) has provided a ranking system for these 

natural community types based on their degree of imperilment in Florida. FNAI kindly provided 

the authors with a list of 27 community types and their rankings that are present in Bay County 

alone. Three additional community types present in Bay County that are not listed by FNAI 

have been added. The 30 community types that occur in Bay County represents 43% of the total 

number of communities listed for the State of Florida. Eighteen of the natural community types 

of the 30 in our ecosystem are listed as imperiled (S1, S2, or S3) by FNAI (Appendix 1). These 

community types are considered sensitive habitats for the purposes of this plan. An additional 

three types of communities are present in the other counties included in the St. Andrew Bay 

ecosystem. Appendix 1 contains the list of biotic communities from ecosystem, their definition, 

and ranking.

The St. Andrew Bay ecosystem is a diverse mosaic of natural community types that 

demonstrates a complex interrelationship of these communities with one another and with their 

physical and chemical environment. The maintenance of these interrelationships, in conjunction 

with the rapidly increasing human population and its need to alter communities, is a task that 

requires careful thought.

Biodiversity. Biodiversity, in its simplest form, is the number of different kinds (species) of 

organisms that occupy a given area. It can be viewed as the naming of all of the species that 

occupy the Earth and a determination of their distribution patterns on Earth. It can also involve 

the study of the ecological relationships between organisms, their genetics and their evolution. 

Species diversity refers to the number of different kinds of organisms (species) that occupy a 

given area such as an ecosystem, biotic community (community type), or a plot in your 

backyard. It is not an easy task to determine the species diversity of even a small area in your 

backyard. This is a result of the myriad species of arthropods, nematodes, protozoa, bacteria, 

algae and other groups of organisms that may be present in addition to those that are more easily 

seen and recognized. Methods have been developed by The Nature Conservancy, the Heritage 

Programs of the states (FNAI is a state Heritage Program), and other organizations to track 

species diversity and make sense out of the concept of biodiversity in general. Our concern here 

is the species diversity of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem.

Stein et al. (2000) addressed the biodiversity of the United States and identified six areas of 

significant biodiversity in the nation that they referred to as “hotspots.” This book is 

recommended reading for anyone interested in biodiversity and ecosystem management. One of 

the six “hotspots” is centered over the Apalachicola River basin with the St. Andrew Bay 

ecosystem included to the west of the epicenter. One of the criteria used to identify the 

“hotspots” was the number of rare and/or endemic species present in the area. The St. Andrew 

Bay ecosystem supports a number of populations of rare and endemic species, a few of which are 

known only from small areas of this ecosystem and nowhere else on Earth. “A Look to the 
11

Future” contained the lists of the species so far reported from the ecosystem and will not be 

reproduced in this revision. Those interested in the complete listings can refer to the original 

document. However, those lists must be viewed as minimal because not all groups of organisms 

were included. The lists do attempt to incorporate species from all the counties in the ecosystem. 

The following discussion centers on Bay County because this area is entirely within the 

ecosystem, and various lists of species have been compiled for the county. 

The species diversity of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem has been partly addressed through 

literature surveys and field surveys of various groups of organisms living in the ecosystem. 

Emphasis has been placed on the species known from the St. Andrew Bay estuarine part of the 

ecosystem and on the vascular plants of Bay County. Although lists of species of organisms of 

various groups are available for the other five counties that make up a part of the ecosystem, the 

specific locations for the species within a given county are not provided. Therefore, it is not 

possible to determine which species occur in the part of the county within the St. Andrew Bay 

ecosystem and which species do not occur without locating the original record or specimen for 

each species. Therefore, the following summary of species diversity is restricted to the Bay 

County portion of the ecosystem. Those interested in the complete picture could request 

information for the other counties from FNAI and plot their element occurrence records on a 

map.

Keppner (1996) attempted to catalogue the species known from the St. Andrew Bay estuarine 

system based solely on reports from the literature. This effort resulted in the listing of 1649 

species of invertebrates, 398 species of vertebrates, and 350 species of plants from the estuary. 

Only 25 species were vascular plants, and the remaining 325 species were species of algae and 

diatoms. This was obviously not a representative number of species of plants for the estuary or 

the county. However, the list of species directly associated with the estuary totaled 2397. If less 

stringent criteria for listing had been used, the number would increase to about 2530. 

Keppner and Keppner (1997) provided a list of the vascular plants of Bay County. This list was 

compiled from the list of vascular plants for Bay County given by Wunderlin et al. (1996) and 

specimens present in collections of vascular plants in the herbaria for St. Andrews State 

Recreation Area, Camp Helen State Recreation Area, and in the authors’ collection. The list 

contained 1146 species in 474 genera in 137 families including non-native species. Additional 

collecting of vascular plants in Bay County continued, and Keppner and Keppner (2001a) 

provided a recent list of the vascular plants known from Bay County based on the above 

mentioned collections and additional collections in the county. The list of vascular plants from 

Bay County now contains about 1271 species in 512 genera in 151 families including non-native 

species. Clewell (1985) listed 2359 species in 810 genera, in 181 families of vascular plants for 

the Panhandle counties of Florida (Suwanee River westward to Pensacola Bay). The Bay 

County portion of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem alone supports 54% of the species, 63% of the 

genera, and 83% of the families reported from the Panhandle by Clewell (1985). Wunderlin 

(1998) stated that the State of Florida supports 3834 species in 1306 genera, in 227 families of 

vascular plants. The Bay County portion of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem alone supports 33% 

of the species, 39% of the genera, and 66.5% of the families reported by Wunderlin (1998).

Recent publications by a number of workers have been located that would increase the species 

diversity of the ecosystem appreciably through addition of freshwater invertebrates and 

freshwater species of algae. With the known additions, one can conclude that the St. Andrew 

Bay ecosystem has significant species diversity. If one adds the number of vascular plants now 
12

known from the ecosystem to the number of estuarine animals and non-vascular plants known 

from the ecosystem, the total for this restricted summary is 3643 species. To that number could 

be added, at very least, the species of crayfish and Lepidoptera from the ecosystem that are in the 

authors’ collections, reports of freshwater algae from DEP reports, records of occurrence from 

FNAI, and the freshwater aquatic invertebrates in Payne (1997 a & b, 1998, 2000). A search of 

the records at various educational institutions could easily increase the total number of species 

many times.

The Indian River Lagoon was once considered to be the most species-diverse estuary in North 

America. Swain et al. (1994) published a list of the species reported from the Indian River 

Lagoon drainage basin of the east coast of Florida that contained 2493 species. The St. Andrew 

Bay ecosystem is one half the size of the Indian River Lagoon drainage basin, and supports 3643 

reported species. This makes the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem one of the most, if not the most, 

diverse estuary in North America if the original statements from the Indian River estuary 

supporters are correct. Regardless, the species diversity of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem is 

impressive, and all levels of government should take notice of this fact.

In summary, diversity at the biotic community level and species level of the St. Andrew Bay 

ecosystem is quite high and depends on the maintenance of the natural habitats within the 

ecosystem. The maintenance of that biodiversity will be a challenge to those tasked with 

planning the development of the ecosystem as the human population increases.

Rare, Endemic, and Protected Species. The St. Andrew Bay ecosystem provides habitat for a 

significant number of rare, endemic, protected and/or tracked species of organisms. The rare

species in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem are those species that are present in limited numbers or 

of limited distribution (Panhandle or Florida) but are not yet protected or are secure as a result of 

their abundance on public land. These rare, unprotected endemic species also exist in the St. 

Andrew Bay ecosystem and in adjacent ecosystems. An example is Hypericum exile Adams that 

is endemic to the central and western areas of the Panhandle including the St. Andrew Bay 

ecosystem. Endemic species are those that are restricted to a geographical area such as Bay 

County, the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem or any other finite geographical area. We will examine 

those species that are endemic to the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem and those that extend into an 

adjacent ecosystem. Protected species are those species that are listed as threatened or 

endangered by the State of Florida under state statute and/or the federal government under the 

Endangered Species Act. Species tracked by FNAI include most of the formally protected 

species as well as those of interest to FNAI because of their rarity.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service administers the federal Endangered Species Act and lists the 

species protected under that act. The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs, 

Division of Plant Industry, Bureau of Entomology, Nematology, and Plant Pathology – Botany 

Section publishes a list of the protected plants of Florida (Coile, 2000). The Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission is responsible for the listing of state protected animals in 

Florida (Wood, 1996). Appendix 2 provides the lists of species mentioned above as provided by 

FNAI (Chafin, Pers. Comm.) for Bay County and records in Coile (2000) and Wood (1996) for 

Bay County. Appendix 2 also contains a list of the protected and tracked species for the 

ecosystem that was provided by FNAI for this report. Again, Bay County is chosen for a 

detailed examination because of the extent of the ecosystem located in Bay County. Bay County 

provides habitat for 39 species of protected and/or tracked vertebrates, 4 species of invertebrates, 
13

and 55 species of vascular plants. The ecosystem contains 60 species of vertebrates and 

invertebrates and 130 species of vascular plants. 

The St. Andrew Bay ecosystem supports an endemic species of crayfish that is found nowhere 

else on Earth except in a small area of Bay County. The Panama City Crayfish, Procambarus

(Leconticambarus) econfinae, is the subject of a survey supported by a grant from the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service to BEST, Inc. Keppner and Keppner (in prep.) will provide a report of the 

results of that survey by June 30, 2001. Northern Bay County and southern Washington County 

provide the only known habitat for a species of vascular plant found nowhere else on Earth. The 

plant is smoothbark St. John’s-wort, Hypericum lissophloeus, which inhabits the margins of the 

karst ponds in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem and part of the adjacent Choctawhatchee River 

drainage basin. Keppner and Keppner (2001b) provided a summary of the reported information 

and their observations pertaining to this species. Associated with this endemic species of plant 

are a number of other species of vascular plants that are protected under state and federal statutes 

or are rare or endemic to the Panhandle. The continued existence of the protected, endemic 

and/or rare species of plants and animals supported by the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem should be 

considered seriously in any plan for the management of the ecosystem. 

Summary. The St. Andrew Bay ecosystem is a complex and highly diverse system of 

interrelated physical, chemical, and biological components that provide value for the citizens of 

the ecosystem. The physical and chemical components and their distribution and variation 

throughout the ecosystem has provided for a diversity of habitats with their attendant 

microhabitats. This provides for significant species and biotic community diversity in the St. 

Andrew Bay ecosystem. Included in this species diversity are a number of quite rare and 

endemic species that should be addressed as part of the plan to maintain the function and 

diversity of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem.

Part 2. Status of the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem

Fortunately, the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem has not experienced the degree of alteration 

experienced by some other Florida ecosystems. Many of those areas require extensive 

restoration plans that are not required at this time for the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem as a whole. 

The St. Andrew Bay ecosystem can be spared the fate of other Florida ecosystems through the 

implementation of a management plan directed at maintaining the existing environmental quality 

of the ecosystem and restoring those areas of the system identified as requiring restorative 

actions. The sooner this plan is developed and implemented, the less the chance of irreparable 

alteration of the system or alteration that would necessitate large-scale restoration plans and the 

less expensive restoration will be.

According to an article in the News-Herald on April 1, 2001, Bay County, which accounts for 

the largest area of the drainage basin, had a population of 148,217 based on the 2000 census. 

This was a 17% increase in the past ten years, and a third of this occurred in rural areas. The 

area of the ecosystem in the other four counties is sparsely populated with the possible exception 

of the Sunny Hills development in Washington County. However, Washington County 

experienced a 24% increase in population during the last 10 years (News-Herald, April 1, 2001). 

The largest private landowners in the ecosystem are paper companies and development 

companies. The St. Joe Company is the largest single landowner in Bay County with holdings of 

about 296,755 acres (463 square miles). The extent of their ownership of land has not been 
14

determined for the portions of the other counties in the ecosystem. The planned uses of the 

undeveloped natural communities and that area of the ecosystem in silviculture or agriculture 

will determine the state of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem in the future.

Current Terrestrial Use in the Ecosystem

The terrestrial habitats in the ecosystem are used by humans for a variety of purposes, including 

urban development, suburban development, commercial activities, agriculture, silviculture, 

recreation, etc. Some of the land is owned by the public and used for preservation or 

conservation of natural resources and recreation. Other land is leased by the state for specific 

uses such as hunting. The following is an overview of the distribution of private and public land 

in the ecosystem and the use of the land.

Land Use and Ownership. Thorpe et al. (2000) in the SWIM plan for the entire St. Andrew 

Bay drainage basin provided a table and a figure of generalized land use and cover for the entire 

St. Andrew Bay drainage basin as they defined it (Fig. 2 from SWIM plan). Table 1 is taken 

from that document.

Agriculture, Barren Land, Commercial and Services, Industrial, Institutional, Residential, 

Recreational, Transportation, Communications, and Utilities have altered 114,853.99 acres 

(about 15.5%) of the ecosystem. The table does not state what portion of the Upland Forests and 

Wetlands categories are used for silviculture. The number of acres in these two categories that 

are used for silviculture would increase the per cent of the ecosystem that has been altered quite 

significantly.

Table 1. Generalized Land Use and Cover, St. Andrew Bay Watershed

Category Acres Percent

Agriculture 42,324.22 5.75

Barren Land 3979.8 0.54

Commercial & Services 6391.39 0.87

Industrial 2871.36 0.39

Institutional 1731.64 0.24

Recreational 10,109.31 1.37

Residential 38,011.75 5.16

Trans., Comm., & Utilities 9434.52 1.28

Upland Forests 500,151.51 67.95

Water 12,509.80 1.70

Wetlands 108,546.98 14.75

Ownership of the land in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem is divided among a number of entities. 

Table 2 provides an estimate of the distribution of ownership of the land in the ecosystem taken 

from the original edition of this document. Ownership may have changed for some of the land 

since that estimate was made. The largest landowner in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem is the St. 

Joe Company. The majority of the land owned by the St. Joe Company has been and currently is 

used for silviculture. However, recent reorganization of the company appears to point the 

company in a different direction, and silviculture may not be the primary use of the land in the 

future. Large tracts of their land are available for purchase, and this could result in the land 

being developed for a variety of purposes as the human population increases in the ecosystem.
15
16

Table 2. Major Landowners in the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem

Property Owner Acres Per cent

The St. Joe Company 296,755 42.00

Remaining private, county, municipal 144,972 20.51

Private land leased to Fl. Fish & Wildl. Conserv. Comm. 141,202 20.00

John Hancock Insurance Company 46,019 6.50

Northwest Florida Water Management District 37,271+ 5.15+

Tyndall Air Force Base 29,000 4.10

Chipola Land Company 9,841 1.39

Florida Division of Recreation and Parks 1,261 0.18

Naval Coastal Systems Station 665 0.09

Hunt Oil Company (Rosewood) 309 0.04

U.S. Bureau of Land Management 184 0.03

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ? ?

Florida Depart. Of Agriculture (forestry) 80 0.01

The land listed as leased by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission represents 

land leased from private owners for wildlife management purposes. Most of the leased land is 

used for silviculture, and the St. Joe Company owns much of the land listed in this category. The 

leased lands are not public lands and use by the public can be restricted by the landowner. Also, 

these leases can be ended in a very simple and rapid fashion with the land losing its wildlife 

management area status. Since the estimate of these lands was made, withdrawals from the lease 

program have occurred, and this acreage has been reduced.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has perpetual dredged material disposal easements 

along the land cuts of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway. These easements are 500 feet for the 

channel, and a strip of land 500 feet wide on either side of the channel for a total of 1500 feet in 

width for the length of the land cut. The total amount of land in easement to the COE has not 

been estimated.

The majority of the xeric upland, mesic flatwoods, and wet flatwoods community groups (see 

Appendix 1) appear to have been converted to silviculture. Although silviculture retains 

vegetation on the land and protects the water quality of adjacent water bodies, it converts natural 

terrestrial communities to non-natural essentially monocultural areas (such as a cornfield). 

Harvest of the trees and preparation for the next planting may adversely impact the hydrology 

and water quality if drainage, herbicides, pesticides, or fertilizers are used on the site. These 

areas have a low biodiversity as compared with the natural communities and leave only a small 

portion of these community groups in their natural condition. However, restoration of the natural 

communities can be accomplished on these silviculture lands. An example is the restoration of 

natural habitats from sand pine silviculture by the NWFWMD in the ecosystem. 

Those lands used for silviculture are subject to Best Management Practices (BMP) established by 

the federal and state governments. BMPs for silviculture were first established for Florida in the 

middle 1970’s in response to the Federal Clean Water Act. The original BMPs were designed 

exclusively to protect Florida’s streams and lakes from potential sources of pollution associated 

with forestry activities. Silviculture BMPs establish a Special Management Zone (SMZ) which 

consists of specific areas associated with a stream, lake, wetland or other water body within 

which certain activities are not allowed in order to protect water quality by reducing inputs of 

sediments, nutrients, logging debris, chemicals, and reducing water temperature fluctuations. 

The SMZ is designated and maintained during the silviculture operations. SMZs have specific 
17

criteria based on the size and type of water body involved and Site Sensitivity Class, which will 

define the operating procedures and special management objectives. The Site Sensitivity Class is 

based on the soil type and degree of slope for a particular site that determines the activities that 

can occur within the zone. Adherence to the BMPs by those involved in silviculture activities 

reduces the adverse environmental impacts of this activity on water quality and riparian habitat. 

However, the substantial loss of the biodiversity of the natural biotic community still occurs. 

 

Silviculture, residential and commercial development, transportation corridors, utility corridors, 

and other human activities have resulted in the alteration and fragmentation of a large area of the 

St. Andrew Bay ecosystem, and therefore, adversely effects many of the natural communities. A 

number of agencies and private organizations are striving to purchase land in the ecosystem to 

attempt to maintain a semblance of the natural system that once was.

Examination of Table 2 reveals the acres of land in the public domain. These parcels are owned 

by the NWFWMD, Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s 

Division of Recreation and Parks, Naval Coastal Systems Station, U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM, 1995), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Florida Department of 

Agriculture and Consumer Services’ Division of Forestry. The total number of acres of land 

held by these agencies is over 68,461 acres or about 9.6% of the ecosystem. To this number can 

be added the recent purchases of the NWFWMD and the Bay County Conservancy (a non-profit 

citizens group). However, the public lands are scattered across the ecosystem (Fig. 3 from 

SWIM plan) and are not interconnected. These fragments of public lands would benefit greatly 

by being connected by corridors of land and water that would provide pathways of interchange 

and migration for the organisms on each parcel. They would be connected to one another, thus 

establishing a more natural relationship between them. 

Solid Waste Management. Solid waste management in the ecosystem consists of an active 

landfill site, a closed landfill site, and the incinerator. The Majette Landfill is the closed site that 

is located northeast of Panama City. The site is divided into Majette North (Class III) and 

Majette South (Class I). Both sites were permitted for closure in 1987. The north site was 

closed with a clay cap and vegetated and then converted into a municipal golf course that was 

subsequently privatized. One area of the north site that was used by Arizona Chemical Company 

as a disposal unit was excavated and closed with a synthetic cap. The south site was closed with 

a synthetic cover and a gas piping system.

In 1991, analytical results from the north site indicated that volatile organic compounds (VOC) 

were contaminating the groundwater at the site. Most of the contamination was found in wells 

within the area formerly used for sludge disposal by Arizona Chemical Company. The 

hydrogeology and proximity to surface waters of the contaminated area made this contamination 

of particular concern. Groundwater flow at the landfill site is toward No-Name creek that drains 

to Bayou George and thence to Deer Point Reservoir. A contamination assessment was 

conducted, and the results that were published in a report indicated that groundwater in the 

surficial aquifer was contaminated in the vicinity of the former disposal unit. Contamination was 

not found in any wells outside of the landfill site. Contaminants found in the surficial aquifer 

within the site and with concentrations slightly above the DEP groundwater guidance 

concentrations included benzene, chlorobenzene, vinyl chloride, chromium, lead, and fecal 

coliform. The Bay County Solid Waste section has performed studies that determined there was 

no adverse effect on human health, the environment, or Deer Point Reservoir and is working 
18

with the DEP in a continuing monitor only plan to track the movement of these chemicals (Pers. 

comm., William Hudson, Bay County, April 2001).

The active landfill site for Bay County is located off Steelfield Road on the western end of the 

county. The location is out of the ecosystem as defined in this document because it is a part of 

the Choctawhatchee Bay drainage basin. The Bay County incinerator referred to as a Refuse to 

Energy (RTE) facility burns garbage and generates electrical power. The RTE is located in 

northeastern Bay County, and emissions from the incinerator are discussed in the air quality 

section.

Air Quality in the Ecosystem. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Air Quality Branch in 

Denver, Colorado (Ellen Porter, pers. comm. to Charles Yautz, 2001) provided an analysis of the 

information regarding air quality in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem based on data readily 

available from various web sites. Other information is from the original document, “A Look to 

the Future”. The St. Andrew Bay ecosystem is within an area classified as an “attainment area” 

by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This means that documented air pollution 

levels are below the minimum limits (National Ambient Air Quality Standards – NAAQS) set by 

the EPA for the six criteria pollutants. The six criteria pollutants are nitrogen dioxide (NO2), 

sulphur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter less than 10 microns in 

diameter (PM10), lead (Pb), and ozone (O3). Primary NAAQS are set at a level to protect public 

health, including the health of “sensitive” populations such as asthmatics, children, and the 

elderly. Because the ecosystem is an attainment area, activities of the DEP Division of Air 

Resources Management are primarily designed to prevent the air quality from deteriorating. 

These activities include monitoring air quality, inventorying and quantifying the local sources, 

and a continuous permitting and inspection program.

The monitoring program has one station in Bay County, located in the downtown Panama City 

area at the Bay County Health Department. This monitor (monitor ID# 120051004) has been in 

use since 1995 for the measurement of the levels of PM10. There have been no days where the 

ambient air monitor has registered a concentration beyond the standard of 150 micrograms per 

cubic meter. In July 2000, an ozone monitor was placed in Panama City Beach because of 

growing concern regarding ozone pollution and transport along the Gulf Coast. The ozone 

monitor will be used to demonstrate compliance or non-compliance with EPA’s proposed revised 

NAAQS for ozone. Three years of data are needed to determine NAAQS attainment status for a 

site. Data from this monitor (Monitor ID# 120050006) and from the PM10 monitor are available 

at www.epa.gov/air/data/index.html.

Additional information regarding air pollution can also be obtained by measuring the types and 

amounts of pollutants in rainfall. The National Atmospheric Deposition Program has a sampler 

in Quincy, Florida that has been in operation since 1994. Annual and seasonal data for 

deposition of pollutants is available at http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/. The St. Andrew Bay ecosystem is 

not considered industrialized, so atmospheric deposition from local sources of the primary 

pollutants is not considered to be significant. Whereas atmospheric deposition of nitrogen from 

human activities is a problem in some ecosystems, it does not appear to be a concern for the St. 

Andrew Bay ecosystem.
19
20

Other pollutants in the area are not monitored, because it is believed that the potential sources of 

the pollutants, other than PM10 and ozone, are well defined and the levels of the other pollutants 

will be below the standard. The Inventory of Pollutant Sources listed in Table 3 lists only the 

sources considered to be “major”. To be a major source, a source must emit more than 100 

tons/year of a primary pollutant or 5 tons/year in the case of lead. Sources not listed are below 

the threshold, but are included in the total pollutant loading. Emission estimates are from the 

AirData National Emission Trends Facility Emissions Report and the AirData National Emission 

Trends Tier Report. Table 3 summarizes emissions of major air pollutants, including nitrogen 

oxides (NOx), SO2, VOC (volatile organic compounds), CO, and PM10 for stationary, or point, 

sources in Bay County. The three largest sources include the Lansing Smith Power Plant 

(Smith), Stone Container, and Arizona Chemical. Other stationary sources contribute relatively 

small amounts of major pollutants to the total emissions from all stationary sources in Bay 

County.

Table 3. Air Pollutant Sources for the Ecosystem (tons/year).

Source NOx SO2 VOC CO PM10

Arizona Chemical 110 186 173 22 13

Stone Container 3,577 3,910 1,120 4,146 627

Gulf Power (Smith) 7,251 48,776 33 276 176

Total of 3 Sources 10,938 52,872 1,326 4,444 873

Other Stationary Sources 29 22 109 78 27

Total, All Stationary 10,967 52,894 1,435 4,522 900

Table 4 summarizes all common pollutant emissions in Bay County from point and area sources. 

Point sources include the three largest stationary sources plus a variety of smaller sources that 

produce emissions through fuel combustion and the use of solvents. Area sources include both 

non-mobile and mobile sources. Non-mobile sources include certain types of fuel combustion 

(including residential), road dust, agricultural and forestry operations, gas stations, wastewater 

treatment plants, and a variety of small operations such as dry cleaning, surface coating, asphalt 

manufacturing, etc. Mobile sources include gas and diesel autos and all other motor vehicles, 

watercraft, railroads, and other vehicles.

Table 4. Point and Area Sources in Bay County (from EPA Airdata National Emissions 

Trends Tier Report, 1985-1998) in Tons Per Year

Source NOx SO2 VOC CO PM10 PM2.5

All Point Sources 10,077 60,803 1,449 4,593 934 636

Non-mobile 185 316 120 3,545 5,145 6,789

Mobile 8,067 991 8,714 62,060 1,244 933

Non-mobile + Mobile 8,252 1,307 8,834 65,065 6,389 7,737

Grand Total 18,329 62,110 10,283 71798 7,323 8.373

Forest management techniques and the maintenance of certain naturally occurring pinedominated communities in the ecosystem depend on the occurrence of fire on a regular basis 

through controlled burning (Appendix 1). These controlled burns and naturally occurring forest 

fires may effect air quality at certain times of the year and may have an effect on the deposition 

of substances produced by the burns. No information is available as to the effects of burning on 

air quality, water quality, or sediment quality in the ecosystem.
21

Gulf Power Company operates a power plant on the shores of North Bay, the Lansing Smith 

Plant. Gulf Power is the first participant in the statewide program called “Partnership for 

Ecosystem Protection” in which companies pledge to reduce the environmental effects of their 

operation. Participation in the program requires that the participating companies must be 

currently in compliance and have a good compliance history. Gulf Power Company met the 

eligibility requirements and Gulf Power has pledged to reduce nitrogen dioxide emissions at the 

Lansing Smith Plant on North Bay by 30% from its 1992 rate of production. The reduction will 

be achieved through installation of “Low NOx” burners.

All hazardous air pollutants (HAPS) are considered detrimental to humans and other species. 

Information on HAPS can be obtained from the EPA Office of Pollution Control and Toxics at 

www.epa.gov.chemfact/, www.epa.gov/ngispgm3/iris/index.html, and www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/. 

The EPA lists mercury, among other substances, as a HAP. There is only one facility in Bay 

County that is considered a potential mercury source, the Bay County RTE plant. This facility 

burns municipal waste to generate electricity, reducing both the volume of waste sent to landfills 

and the fossil fuel energy requirements of the area. The total mercury emission from this source 

in 1997 was 0.10 ton/year, which is below the major source threshold of 100 tons/year.

Sources are permitted to operate based on pollutant levels that a well-maintained facility of the 

type permitted would be expected to emit. In some cases (normally for a new major source) this 

is based on an average of the cleanest 10% of similar sources nationwide. In other cases, 

facilities are permitted to operate based on standard formulas that are based on BACT (Best 

Available Control Technology), RACT (Reasonably Available Control Technology) or MACT 

(Maximum Achievable Control Technology) determinations. Sources are required to publish an 

“Intent to Issue” notice in the legal section of a local paper before the permit is issued to allow 

time for public response.

All permitted sources are visited a minimum of once a year by DEP personnel to determine 

compliance with permit conditions. General conditions in the permit include proper maintenance 

of equipment and use of good engineering practice to minimize pollutant emissions. Many of the 

permits require one or more annual emission tests to be performed by a third party to determine 

if the facility is meeting its requirements.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1999) provided comments on the air emission reports for 

three major air pollutant emitting facilities in Bay County, Florida. The three facilities are the 

Stone Container, the Bay County RTE, and the Gulf Power Lansing Smith generating plant. 

This technical report states at the beginning that “ The following analysis does not attempt to 

determine if the three facilities are in compliance with State emission limits, as that analysis 

should be performed by the State permitting agency. Rather, the following analysis includes an 

estimate of the types and amounts of the pollutants likely to be emitted and an evaluation of the 

level of emission control used at each site”. Additional caveats are included pertaining to the 

calculation of the quality and quantity of emissions from the three sources. This is a technical 

document and is available from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama City Office for those 

interested in the details.

Table 1.e of the Fish and Wildlife Service report provides data for mercury that was calculated 

according to a formula rather than on measurements of actual emissions of mercury from the 

three sources. They estimated that a total of 143 pounds of mercury per year were emitted to the 

atmosphere, but do not estimate the quantity that would actually be deposited in the St. Andrew 
22

Bay ecosystem. The report also states that it would be preferable to establish deposition 

monitoring sites near the bay. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report also states that as population increases, resultant air 

pollution emission increases from increased power production, automobiles, and other sources. 

It appears that neither of the above referenced reports is based on the actual measurement of the 

substances emitted to the air by various sources except for the data obtained from the single 

monitoring station for the PM10. It appears that ecosystem management would benefit from 

obtaining direct data as to the quality and quantity of substances emitted to the atmosphere of the 

ecosystem. With the information in hand, a plan to control any substances that may be 

considered detrimental to the ecosystem in the quantities emitted could be developed.

Each major source has continuing programs related to air emissions that the above may not have 

taken into consideration. Gulf Power is constructing a new generating facility at Lansing Smith 

that will use natural gas as an energy source, and it appears that Arizona Chemical is 

implementing various plans to reduce their emissions.

Current Water Use and Water Quality in the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem

The St. Andrew Bay ecosystem contains ponds, lakes, streams, and many types of wetlands (see 

Appendix 1). The following is a brief summary of the major groups of ground water and surface 

waters in the ecosystem. 

Ground Water and the Deer Point Reservoir. The Floridan Aquifer approaches near the 

surface in the karst pond area of the ecosystem where the freshwater lakes and ponds of this area 

serve as sources of recharge to the aquifer. The water in the Floridan Aquifer provides high 

quality drinking water to the citizens that use wells as a source of potable water. The aquifer 

also provides the same high quality water to Econfina Creek that empties into the Deer Point 

Reservoir. The Deer Point Reservoir is the source of drinking water for Bay County. The 

NWFWMD has developed a SWIM plan for the Deer Point Reservoir subdrainage basin. That 

plan can be obtained from the NWFWMD and should be consulted for details regarding land use, 

water quality, etc. in this subdrainage basin. The NWFWMD land in the St. Andrew Bay 

ecosystem has been purchased to protect the quality of the water entering the Floridan Aquifer 

and the Deer Point Reservoir that is, at the time of this writing, excellent. Surficial aquifers with 

varying water quality also exist in the ecosystem at varying depths below the surface.

Freshwater Lakes and Ponds. Numerous lakes and ponds are scattered throughout the 

ecosystem with a concentration in the karst area of the ecosystem. As stated above, many of the 

surface water bodies in the karst pond area serve as recharge areas for the underlying aquifer (see 

sandhills lakes in Appendix 1). The karst ponds and lakes also serve as unique habitat that 

support many rare, protected, and/or tracked species of plants. These lakes and ponds usually 

have no surface inflow or outflow of water. Inflow of water is from rain falling on the land 

around the lake and from the aquifer when levels in the aquifer are high. The outflow from the 

karst lakes and ponds is to the aquifer or by evaporation. The karst pond area is the habitat of the 

smoothbark St. John’s-wort and the associated rare, endemic, and protected plants. 

Other freshwater lakes and ponds are scattered throughout the ecosystem and serve as habitat for 

a diversity of species. They develop in depressions or along drainage routes and can be 

permanent, semipermanent, or temporary in nature with regard to the persistence of surface 
23

water. Many have inflow and outflow creeks and the substrate varies in composition (see 

Lacustrine and Palustrine communities, Appendix 1). The ecosystem also has artificial lakes 

such as Deer Point Reservoir, Lake Martin, Lake Caroline, and others. These lakes were formed 

by isolating bayous from the St. Andrew Bay estuarine system and then allowing freshwater to 

accumulate. Most of these lakes discharge directly to the estuarine system. Water quality in the 

natural and artificial lakes and ponds varies.

Creeks and Springs. The St. Andrew Bay ecosystem contains a number of large and numerous 

small springs that provide water to creeks and ponds in the ecosystem. The springs are located 

primarily in the northern part of Bay County and southern Washington County where they 

discharge water from the Floridan aquifer to Econfina Creek. This is water of high quality and 

supports a commercial bottling operation.

The ecosystem does not have a large river system. The largest stream is Econfina Creek that 

empties into the Deer Point Reservoir. This creek has been intensively studied by the 

NWFWMD and is included in the Deer Point Reservoir subdrainage basin SWIM plan. Other 

major creeks that enter Deer Point Reservoir such as Cedar Creek and Bear Creek are also 

included in that SWIM plan.

A number of freshwater creeks enter directly into the St. Andrew Bay estuarine system. The 

lower portions of these creeks near the bay are tidally influenced and the freshwater carried by 

them mixes with the salt water of the bay. The major creeks entering West Bay are Burnt Mill 

Creek and Crooked Creek on the north side of the bay. The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway enters 

on the west side of the bay but is primarily salt water due to its connection to Choctawhatchee 

Bay to the west. The land drained by Burnt Mill Creek and Crooked Creek is mostly 

undeveloped and in silviculture but some residential development is present along both creeks 

near Highway 388. Extensive areas of tidal marsh mark the entrance of these creeks to West 

Bay. The major freshwater creeks entering East Bay are those entering Callaway Bayou, Cooks 

Bayou, Laird Bayou, and Sandy Creek on the north side and the small creeks entering the bayous 

on Tyndall Air Force Base. Callaway Bayou, Cooks Bayou, Laird Bayou, and the lower portion 

of Sandy Creek have varying degrees of residential development.

The bulk of the natural surface freshwater water to the St. Andrew Bay estuarine system flows 

over the Deer Point Reservoir dam at the head of North Bay. Ogren and Brusher (1977) stated 

that the area of North Bay near this freshwater inflow was the only true estuarine water in the 

entire system. Reduction of fresh water inflow to this system by increased withdrawal from the 

Reservoir to meet the drinking water and high quality industrial water needs of Bay County may 

have an adverse impact on the estuarine conditions in North Bay. The amount of fresh water 

necessary to maintain estuarine conditions in North Bay has not been formally addressed. 

However, according to the SWIM plan, the NWFWMD has proposed a budget to address this in 

their five-year plan. The proposed budget contains funds for the years 2001-2003. Other 

sources of freshwater to North Bay are the creeks entering the bayous along both shores. 

Residential development is present around the bayous along the southeastern shore of North Bay. 

A large amount of water is used for cooling purposes by the Lansing Smith Power Generating 

Plant that is located on North Bay. North Bay also receives the discharge from the cooling 

process (see thermal discharges below).

St. Andrew Bay proper receives the flow of water from the other bays in the system and is 

connected directly to the Gulf of Mexico. St. Andrew Bay proper also receives all the 
24

stormwater runoff and discharges from industry and public water treatment facilities with the 

exception of one treatment facility. Urban development and industrial development occur along 

most of the shoreline and bayous of this part of the bay system. Sources of freshwater are the 

creeks entering the many bayous. However, most of these creeks serve as stormwater conduits 

from the developed areas.

The St. Andrew Bay estuarine portion of the ecosystem is discussed in more detail in the next 

section. The estuary is used for recreational and commercial fishing, boating, swimming, and 

other water related recreational activities.

Non-point Source Discharges. Stormwater runoff from developed areas adjacent and 

contiguous with the surface waters of the ecosystem can enter the surface waters with little to no 

treatment. Stormwater runoff has been identified by BEST to be the primary threat to the 

maintenance of the water and sediment quality of the surface waters of the ecosystem. DEP has 

produced a number of educational pamphlets and booklets that provide excellent summaries and 

discussions of stormwater dynamics, effect of stormwater runoff on water quality, purposes of 

control and treatment, and the methods used in control and treatment of stormwater. Included 

are the publications entitled “Stormwater Management. A Guide for Floridians” and “Florida 

State of the Environment. Stormwater Management”. These publications are available from the 

DEP office in Panama City, Florida.

The program that permits stormwater runoff for the State of Florida was established in 1982. 

Most new developments, excluding single-family residences, must obtain a stormwater permit. 

The permits require projects to include a stormwater management system that provides the flood 

control required by water management district rules and must also deal with the quality of 

stormwater. The state rule requires the use of Best Management Practices such as retention, 

detention, or wetland filtration such that 80% of the average annual pollutant load is removed. 

Outstanding Florida Waters and other sensitive waters such as those supporting shellfish 

harvesting and waters below the water quality for their classification standards require additional 

treatment. In 1989, the stormwater law directed DEP to establish statewide goals for stormwater 

treatment and to oversee the implementation of the State’s stormwater regulatory programs, that 

will be delegated to the Water Management Districts.

Bay County prepared a Strategic Plan for its stormwater system in 1994. The plan described the 

first five years of a 15-year program for the construction of Capital Stormwater Infrastructure. 

The mission statement stated: “The Stormwater Capital Infrastructure Program must protect the 

health, safety, and welfare of the Citizens of Bay County by preserving the integrity of the 

potable water supply, reducing pollution to receiving waters and attenuating flood waters.” The 

plan includes the description of specific projects to fulfill the mission statement. The 

implementation and completion of the projects described will reduce the adverse impacts of the 

stormwater entering the surface waters of the ecosystem by initiating control of sediment inflow 

and improving the quality of the stormwater entering the system. The stormwater plans of the 

municipalities are incorporated into the county’s plan, and there is cooperation between these 

entities on a case by case basis. The SWIM plan contains funds for addressing stormwater 

treatment facility effectiveness and retrofitting stormwater infrastructure in the years 2001-2003.

Yautz (pers. comm., 2001) provided a summary of the status of the stormwater plans for the 

municipalities and the unincorporated areas in Bay County. The major obstacle to the 

development and implementation of stormwater plans appears to be the absence of funds to 
25

accomplish the work. Each governmental entity addresses problems as they arise. Parker has 

completed its plan and has completed two projects and must obtain grants to complete the other 

identified projects. Springfield, Callaway, Lynn Haven, Cedar Grove, and Panama City Beach 

are in the planning process or about to begin the process. Panama City is addressing the more 

critical stormwater problems that they face as they arise. 

Point Source Discharges. The assumption is made that the current laws regarding point source 

discharges are being administered appropriately by the responsible federal and state agencies. 

The EPA administers the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), but the 

actual permitting of point source discharges has been delegated to the State of Florida, DEP. All 

point source discharges have permits to discharge specific pollutants up to specified amounts to 

the surface waters of the ecosystem. These permits are reviewed and renewed at specified 

intervals. It is not known whether the permitting of new or previously issued permits is reviewed 

in relation to the cumulative impacts of permitted discharges. Nor is it known if the assimilative 

capacity of the surface waters receiving the discharges is sufficient to receive the pollutants with 

no adverse impact upon water quality or the existing biotic communities. Therefore, the issuance 

of new permits and the review of old permits for renewal may be accomplished in the absence of 

the knowledge of the ability of the water body to assimilate the pollutants being discharged to the 

system individually or collectively. This appears to be true for the St. Andrew Bay estuarine 

system, because the assimilative capacity of the system has not been determined to our 

knowledge.

The average person in the State of Florida generates about 100 gallons of wastewater per day 

(gpd). This is an incredible amount of wastewater that must be treated in order to protect the 

valuable surface and ground water resources of the State. The following is taken from the 

SWIM plan. Discharges are permitted to sprayfields, percolation ponds, and other non-surface 

water points. These discharges are considered to be reuse facilities because the portion of the 

discharge that does not evaporate enters the local ground water. Discharges to surface waters are 

based on water quality based effluent limit studies (WQBEL) performed by DEP. NPDES 

permits are reviewed for renewal at designated intervals. 

Progress has been made toward increasing the level of treatment of the wastewater discharged to 

the St. Andrew Bay estuarine system. Bay County completed construction of an Advanced 

Wastewater Treatment plant in 1999. This facility treats the domestic wastewater that was 

previously discharged to the Military Point Lagoon. The Military Point Lagoon now treats the

industrial wastewater form Arizona Chemical Company and the Stone Container Corporation. 

Table 4 is modified from the SWIM plan.

Yautz (pers. comm., 2001) provided a summary of the progress made by the municipalities 

regarding the treatment of domestic wastewater. Every municipal wastewater treatment plant is 

now an Advanced Wastewater Treatment facility (AWT). The municipalities discharge to St. 

Andrew Bay with the exception of Panama City Beach that discharges to West Bay. The total 

allocation of wastewater to St. Andrew Bay is 50 million gallons per day (mgd). The current 

total discharge is less than that, and the level of treatment of domestic wastewater has increased. 

This indicates that an improvement in water quality, particularly nutrient loads, should be 

occurring. Panama City Beach has received a permit to increase the discharge of treated 

wastewater to West Bay with conditions that include the eventual removal of the discharge from 

the bay to a wetland treatment site north of Lake Powell.
26

Yautz (pers. comm., 2001) also provided information that there are efforts to reuse the treated 

wastewater for the irrigation of golf courses in Bay County. It appears that Bay County’s AWT 

facility on Tyndall Air Force Base places about 640,000 gpd on the base golf course and 54,000 

gpd irrigating green areas around the facility. Lynn Haven is in the process of providing the 

pipelines to carry treated wastewater for reuse on the city’s golf course and other recreational 

facilities. It appears that the reuse of treated wastewater for irrigation purposes promises a 

needed solution to the discharge of this water to the surface waters of the ecosystem. The SWIM 

plan does not contain action plans pertaining to point source discharges. This is probably due to 

the fact that the DEP is the agency responsible for the permitting of point source discharges.

Table 4. Summary of Permitted Domestic and Industrial Waste Facilities in the St. 

Andrew Bay Ecosystem in Millions of Gallons per Day.

# Name Permitted Discharge Type

DOMESTIC

1 Gulf Aire Subdivision STP 0.070 Spray irrigation to land

2 Lake Merial WWTF 0.098 Discharge to percolation pond

3 Millville AWT Facility 5.000 Discharge to surface water

4 Pinnacle Port Condominium 0.090 Discharge to percolation pond

5 The Shores STP 0.055 Discharge to percolation pond

6 Sunny Hills WWTF 0.050 Spray irrigation to land

7 Bay Point STP 0.500 Spray irrigation to land

8 Sunnyside Beach & Tennis 0.050 Discharge to percolation pond

9 Sandy Creek Ranch 0.075 Spray irrigation to land

10 Cypress Apartments WWTF 0.016 Discharge to drainfield

11 Barrier Dunes/Seacliff 0.050 Discharge to percolation pond

12 St. Andrew WWTF 5.000 Discharge to surface water

13 Panama City Beach WWTF 7.000 Discharge to surface water

14 Military Point Regional AWT 7.000 Discharge to surface water

15 Tyndall CS Tr. Complex 0.050 Spray irrigation to land

16 City of Lynn Haven 2.500 Discharge to surface water

INDUSTRIAL

17 Louisiana Pacific Corporation No data Spray irrigation to land

18 Stone Container Corporation 24.000 To Military Point Lagoon

19 Military Point Lagoon No data Discharge to surface water

20 Gulf Power Lansing Smith No data Discharge to surface water

Thermal Discharges. Gulf Power Company operates a permitted two-unit steam turbine electric 

power generating plant adjacent to North Bay. This is a coal-fired plant that uses bay water for 

cooling, and the volume of the cooling water intake is measured. However, the facility does not 

have a flow limitation or maximum discharge limitation. The heated water from the cooling 

process is discharged back to North Bay through a long canal that allows the water to cool before 

entering the bay. A number of studies were conducted by Gulf Power Company (Law 

Engineering 1975, 1976, 1977, 1980, 1982, 1993) regarding the possible effects of their use of 

bay water for cooling and the resultant thermal discharge. These studies have not revealed the 

presence of significant adverse impacts to the bay from the thermal discharge or from 

impingement and entrainment of organisms. The mouth of the cooling water canal appears to 

serve as a winter thermal refuge for estuarine finfish such as speckled trout and redfish based on 

the number of anglers one can observe in the area in winter.
27

Part 3. The St. Andrew Bay Estuarine System

The largest surface water body in the ecosystem is the St. Andrew Bay estuarine system. This 

system is linked to the entire ecosystem through the surface runoff from the land directly to the 

system and from the creeks that enter the bayous of the bay system. The St. Andrew Bay 

estuarine system, therefore, is the depository for all runoff in the ecosystem both natural and 

human altered. As such, the following overview of the St. Andrew Bay estuarine system is 

included below. This is not to single out the St. Andrew Bay portion of the ecosystem as more 

important than the other components of the ecosystem but because it receives the surface water 

from the remainder of the ecosystem. The majority of the point source discharges and the 

stormwater runoff from the most highly developed segment of the ecosystem enter St. Andrew 

Bay.

General Description. The St. Andrew Bay estuarine system is located in the Gulf Coastal 

Lowlands physiographic region. It consists of four named bays, West Bay, North Bay, St. 

Andrew Bay, and East Bay (Fig. 4 from SWIM plan). The system extends for approximately 31 

miles along an axis parallel to the Gulf of Mexico and 13.5 miles inland to Econfina Creek. The 

estimates of the area of the entire St. Andrew Bay estuarine system proper vary from 

approximately 94 square miles (Saloman et al., 1982) to 108 square miles (Pristas & Trent, 1978) 

or approximately 8.5% to 9.8% of the entire ecosystem. The average depth of the system is 

reported to be from 17- 27 feet depending on the source of the information. Historically, St. 

Andrew Bay had two passes into the Gulf of Mexico, a man-made pass located at the west end of 

Shell Island (West Pass) and one natural pass located at the east end of Shell Island (East Pass). 

West Pass is maintained as a navigation channel by the federal government while East Pass is not 

so maintained and is affected by the natural processes of the Gulf of Mexico. Currently, East 

Pass is completely closed as a result of natural processes and possible effects of the federally 

maintained West Pass. Plans to reopen East Pass have been developed, and the work is 

scheduled for completion in the near future. The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway traverses the 

system from west to east entering on the west at West Bay Creek near the Highway 79 bridge 

and exiting on the east at the easternmost extension of East Bay (Wetappo Creek).

The restricted amount of freshwater entering the system allows the influence of Gulf of Mexico 

water to dominate the bay. The basin itself is rather deep, with an average depth of 27 feet and a 

maximum depth of 65 feet. As a result of the low freshwater inflow, deep basin, and the 

influence of Gulf of Mexico water, St. Andrew Bay is characterized as a relatively deep, clear 

water, high salinity system.

Habitats. Beck et al. (2000) provided the number of hectares of a variety of habitats associated 

with the St. Andrew Bay estuary. There are 2.471 acres per hectare. The figures when 

converted to acres are 9832 acres of seagrass, 9273 acres of saltmarsh, and 877 acres of tidal flat. 

Other marine/estuarine biotic communities found in the St. Andrew Bay estuary are provided in 

Appendix 1.

Hydrology. St. Andrew Bay is unique to Florida embayments in that no major river flows into 

the system. Tides are diurnal, of small amplitude (about 1.5 ft), and can be modified by the wind 

direction and velocity. The spring-neap tide cycle is apparent and occurs about every two weeks. 

The system receives an average of 1,460 cubic feet per second (cfs) of freshwater excluding the 

freshwater discharged to the system from wastewater treatment plants. About 60 % of this 
28

inflow comes from Econfina Creek and Bear Creek both of which enter Deer Point Reservoir. 

The Deer Point dam then discharges about 950 cfs to North Bay. 

The area of North Bay immediately below the Deer Point dam has been identified as the only 

major, truly estuarine part of the ecosystem (Ogren and Brusher,1977). The quantity, quality, 

and timing of the discharge from the dam to this area of North Bay is critical to maintaining the 

estuarine conditions found here. Increasing population will require additional withdrawals of 

water from the reservoir that may alter the quantity and timing of the downstream discharge. 

Downstream flow should be evaluated in the near future to assess the effect of increased 

withdrawal from the reservoir. As stated previously, this work is scheduled for funding by the 

NWFWMD in the years 2001-2003. 

The remaining 40% of the freshwater inflow enters the bay system through major tributaries to 

West Bay [Crooked Creek (35 cfs) and Burnt Mill Creek (35 cfs)] and East Bay [Sandy Creek 

(105 cfs)]. The amount of discharge of fresh water from Wetappo Creek to East Bay was not 

located. St. Andrew Bay proper has no major stream or creek entering it. Freshwater enters St. 

Andrew Bay through the bayous and stormwater runoff.

Major permitted point source discharges include the Military Point discharge of treated 

wastewater to East Bay (35 cfs), the Panama City Beach discharge of treated wastewater to West 

Bay (10 cfs), and the discharge of treated wastewater to St. Andrew Bay from the Panama City 

Wastewater Treatment Plant (7.75 cfs). The amount of treated wastewater to the system totals 

52.75 cfs or 3.6% of the total natural freshwater inflow. Stormwater runoff is also a major 

component of freshwater inflow to the system. The volume of stormwater entering the system is 

not known. Details of the hydrology of the system can be obtained from Rodriguez and Wu 

(1990) and Hydroqual et al. (1993).

Two hydrological models of the bay system have been produced. However, both models were 

developed before East Pass closed. The closure of East Pass presents a problem in attempting to 

use the models under present circumstances. However, East Pass is scheduled for reopening in 

the fall of 2001, and the models should be adjusted to accept the dimensions and flow of the 

restored pass.

The first was a rather limited model accomplished by Rodriguez and Wu (1990). The second was 

a more comprehensive model produced for the Bay County Board of County Commissioners by 

Hydroqual Incorporated (Hydroqual et al., 1993). The hydrological model produced by 

Hydroqual was used to predict the movement and mixing of effluent from Bay County’s Military 

Point Lagoon outfall. Water currents were predicted as a function of time and position 

throughout the St. Andrew Bay system, incorporating almost 100 square miles. The model also 

predicted the spatial and temporal variations of water levels, salinity, and water temperature. A 

water quality model to predict the affect of the effluent on water quality constituents such as 

dissolved oxygen and biological oxygen demand (BOD) used this information. The development 

of the hydrodynamic model encompassed three phases: (1) collection of data to guide the 

selection of a proper modeling framework and to provide information for initial and boundary
29
30

conditions needed to run the model, (2) adjustment of the model parameters to improve the 

accuracy of the predictions, and (3) use of the calibrated model to predict long-term circulation 

in the estuary and effluent dispersal patterns. Each phase is summarized below.

Hydrodynamic data collection consisted of water surface elevations and current measurements 

during 1991 and 1992. Water levels were measured at six locations, four of which were at the 

estuary boundaries near West Pass, East Pass, and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) 

entrances at West Bay and East Bay (Wetappo Creek). Water levels at two interior locations 

near Lynn Haven and Parker were used for model calibration and validation. Current meter data 

were collected at three sites in St. Andrew Bay. At each site, current speed and direction were 

measured at two locations in the water column: near-surface and near-bottom. In addition, 

temperature and conductivity sensors were attached to the current meters. The data showed that 

the flow patterns in the estuary were quite complex due to the bay’s irregular geometry, tidallydriven currents, and mixing of salt and fresh water. As a result, a three-dimensional model was 

selected to accurately determine the time-dependent currents.

The hydrodynamic model was calibrated using data collected over a 100-day period during 

September to December 1991. The purpose of the calibration was to adjust empirically-driven 

model parameters to improve the accuracy of the predictions. The accuracy of the model was 

estimated by comparing predicted water levels and currents collected at the interior stations in 

the bay system against the model predictions. In general, the results showed good model 

performance for reproducing tidal amplitudes and times of high and low water. Amplitudes and 

fluctuations of the tidal currents were also well produced by the model. Measured and predicted 

salinity and temperatures were compared at several locations around the bay system. Accurate 

prediction of the vertical salinity profile is very important for water quality issues, and the 

comparisons showed that the vertical stratification was predicted rather well. Temperature 

profiles were also in good agreement, with the exception of a period of rapid cooling caused by 

the passage of a front. The drop in water temperature caused by atmospheric cooling of the 

water surface occurred more gradually in the model than was observed in the data.

The model was used to predict the bay’s long-term circulation patterns, which determine the 

transport and fate of water quality constituents. The long-term mean flow should not be 

confused with the highly time variable flow occurring over a single tidal cycle. During the 

calibration period, the surface and bottom mean currents depicted a two-layer circulation pattern 

in most of the bay. This circulatory flow was primarily generated by longitudinal density 

gradients and modified by the mixing of fresh and salt water. The two-layer structure was 

evident at the diffuser for the Military Point discharge site in the bay.

Net flow rates were calculated at Wetappo Creek entrance of the GIWW, West Bay entrance of 

the GIWW, and the Gulf of Mexico during the calibration period. Daily flow rates at Wetappo 

Creek were relatively low, generally less than 14,130 cfs compared to the more variable flows at 

West Bay, where magnitudes greater than 35,320 cfs occurred regularly. Daily Gulf flows were 

less than 35,320 cfs but were usually directed into the bay. Overall flow balance for the 100 day 

period showed inflow occurring from the Gulf of Mexico and Deer Point Reservoir with mean 

flow rates of 10,140 cfs and 945 cfs respectively. These inflows were balanced by the net 

outflows at West Bay with 9113 cfs and Wetappo Creek with 2049 cfs. It is important to note 

that this net flow pattern applies only to the calibration period. Other time periods, with different 

forcing functions, may produce a significantly different flow structure.
31

Using the hydrodynamic predictions, the water quality model calculated effluent dilution during 

the calibration period. At a location east of the Dupont Bridge in East Bay, the model predicted 

considerably less dilution than was estimated by the 1988 U.S. EPA dye study. This may be 

related to different circulation patterns during the two studies. The effluent dilution was reduced 

during the calibration period by stratification and two-layer circulation occurring in the vicinity 

of the Military Point diffuser.

 

Water Quality. The existing data reveal that the water quality in the system is, in general, good. 

Bay County Utility Services Department maintains an extensive sampling program for the Deer 

Point Lake Reservoir watershed involving 13 sampling stations. Bay County is working with the 

NWFWMD to establish six stream flow stations and three rain gauge locations. Bay County 

Wastewater Division performs quarterly sampling at 12 stations in St. Andrew Bay from the 

Hathaway Bridge to West Pass to the Dupont Bridge. Bay County also performs an analysis 

every four hours of the Deer Point Reservoir water being withdrawn for use by the public. The 

St. Andrew Bay Resource Management Association (RMA) has a continuing program of 

volunteer water quality sampling. This data is not used for regulatory purposes but provides for 

a valuable analysis of trends for those parameters measured. The RMA (1991-2000) has 

published a number of annual reports summarizing the data for the 60 + stations monitored.

The surface waters within the state of Florida are classified in accordance with their use, not by 

the actual quality of the water. For example, a water body may be classified as Class III, but 

have actual water quality that meets the standards for Class II. This water body is classified as 

Class III because it does not have a harvestable population of shellfish. Each class is defined by 

a set of parameters including the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of the water 

and its intended use. The surface waters of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem are classified as 

follows.

Water bodies designated as Class I are Potable Water Supplies. This means that the water is 

used as a supply of drinking water, and the standards for this classification are the most stringent. 

Class I water bodies in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem include Deer Point Reservoir and its 

major tributaries: Bayou George Creek, Bear Creek, Big Cedar Creek, and Econfina Creek.

A water body designated as Class II is a Shellfish Propagation or Harvest area. This means that 

oysters and other shellfish can be harvested in these waters. The standards for Class II water 

bodies pay particular attention to those components that effect the quality of the shellfish 

harvested in the area to protect consumers from possible diseases associated with the 

consumption of raw or cooked shellfish. Fecal coliform standards are of particular concern, and 

the state monitors these waters carefully. The Class II waters in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem 

include East Bay and tributaries east of U.S. Highway 98, but excluding Wetappo Creek; North 

Bay and tributaries north of Highway U.S. 98 to Deer Point Dam excluding Alligator Bayou and 

Fanning Bayou.

A water body designated as Class III provides for Recreation and Propagation of Healthy, Wellbalanced Populations of Fish and Wildlife. Standards for Class III waters are not as stringent for 

some parameters as for the above discussed classes and are directed at maintaining biodiversity 

and water quality sufficient for human contact such as swimming and diving. All surface waters 

in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem not listed as Class I or II or designated as an Aquatic Preserve 

are designated as Class III water bodies.
32

Class IV and V water bodies are used as Agricultural Water Supplies (IV) or as Navigation, 

Utility and Industrial Use (V). There are no Class IV or V water bodies in the St. Andrew Bay 

ecosystem.

Aquatic Preserves are described in the SWIM plan as waters designated by the Florida 

Legislature for the purpose of preserving their biological resources and maintaining these 

resources in an essentially natural condition. The DEP, Office of Coastal Aquatic Managed 

Areas is responsible for managing Aquatic Preserves in accordance with the applicable statutes. 

According to the SWIM plan, the St. Andrew State Recreation Area Aquatic Preserve contains 

about 25,000 acres located below the mean high water line. The preserve boundary on the north 

is a line from Redfish Point westward to Courtney Point and south from Courtney Point into the 

Gulf of Mexico waters off of the St. Andrew State Recreation Area. The east boundary extends 

south from Redfish Point then eastward to East Pass, then into the waters of the Gulf of Mexico 

off shore of Shell Island. Essentially, the Aquatic Preserve is the water adjacent to St. Andrew 

State Recreation Area.

The DEP has determined that the best water quality is found in Econfina Creek and Sandy Creek. 

However, health advisories regarding mercury content have been issued for the consumption of 

largemouth bass in Deer Point Reservoir. The source or sources of the mercury have not been 

determined. Water quality adjacent to the urban areas of the bay is lower than the undeveloped 

areas of the system. This is probably due to the effects of stormwater runoff from the urbanized 

areas. The heads of some bayous have been affected by stormwater runoff, and Grand Lagoon 

has suffered a problem with siltation from runoff from the unpaved roads along the Lagoon.

The Florida Department of Health has been taking biweekly water samples from the St. Andrew 

Bay estuarine system and the Gulf of Mexico at 13 stations for determination of fecal coliform 

and Enterococcus levels in the water. Both groups of bacteria indicate contamination from 

animal intestinal tracts. The results of their sampling efforts are available on their web site 

www.myflorida.com under the section entitled environment. The results of each sampling event 

are rated as good, moderate, or poor for each group of bacteria. A rating of poor, requires resampling before issuing a health advisory. Health Advisories indicate that contact with the water 

at the site may pose an increased risk of infectious disease, particularly for susceptible 

individuals. Data from August 2000 through April 3, 2001 shows that all sites were rated good 

or moderate with the exception of the station at Carl Gray Park that was ranked poor for 

Enterococcus and moderate for fecal coliforms on March 20, 2001. As a result, a Health 

Advisory was issued. 

The concentrations of both groups of bacteria in water appear to be linked to the amount of

rainfall in a given period of time and to the stormwater runoff that results from the rainfall. The 

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs, Shellfish Environmental Assessment 

Section has developed a procedure to calculate the fecal coliform pollution of a water body based 

on the amount of rainfall in a given amount of time. They obtain field data and calculate 

conditions under which shellfish harvesting areas are opened and closed in relation to amount 

and duration of rainfall. Areas with large expanses of impermeable surfaces cause stormwater to 

runoff rapidly to the drainage system that ultimately discharges to a surface water. 

Salinity in the St. Andrew Bay system varies with the distance from the passes to the Gulf of 

Mexico. Salinity is consistently highest in St. Andrew Bay proper where bottom and midwinter 

salinity typically exceeds 30 parts per thousand (ppt) on an annual basis. In the upper areas of 
33

the system, salinity can fall to about 10 ppt after heavy rainfall. In water of sufficient depth, 

stratification occurs with colder more saline, dense water occurring from mid-depth to the 

bottom.

Nitrogen and phosphorus levels remain, in general, in the lower range considered healthy for 

estuaries. Dissolved oxygen is generally good throughout the water column and at the watersediment interface. However, some deeper areas of the system can exhibit depressed dissolved 

oxygen concentrations that approach the lower standard set for estuarine areas.

A problem area appears to be Watson Bayou that has experienced fish kills on an irregular basis 

over the years. The 1991 fish kill in the bayou was thought to be a result of leaking sewage lines 

and a sewage discharge to the bayou from the Millville Wastewater Treatment Plant located on a 

peninsula in the bayou. Sediment contaminants in the bayou are addressed in the sediment 

section of this report.

In February 1998, the DEP released a draft 303(d) list of the waters of the state that do not meet 

applicable water quality standards. Table 5 is a list of those waters in the St. Andrew Bay system 

that did not meet applicable standards in 1998, the cause of such designation, and the priority for 

correction of the deviation from the standards. The source of the problems for the waters listed in 

Table 5 appears to be predominantly stormwater runoff.

Currently, the FDEP is in the process of attempting to comply with the EPA conditions and 

guidelines regarding the definition and listing of impaired waters of the state. The final list of 

impaired waters for the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem must await the completion of that task.

Table 5. Segments of the St. Andrew Bay System on the 303(d) List, 1998

Name Segment Parameter of 

Concern

Priority

St. Andrews Parker Bayou 0 DO, nutrients Low

St. Andrews Pitts Bayou 0 DO, nutrients Low

St. Andrews Pretty Bayou 0 DO, nutrients Low

St. Andrews Robinson Bayou 0 DO, nutrients Low

St. Andrews Warren Bayou 0 DO, nutrients Low

St. Andrews Direct runoff 7 nutrients High

St. Andrews Massalina Bayou 9 DO, nutrients Low

St. Andrews Watson Bayou 12 DO, nutrients Low

St. Andrews Johnson Bayou 13 DO, nutrients Low

St. Andrews Calloway Bayou 14 DO, nutrients Low

St. Andrews Beatty Bayou 16 DO, nutrients Low

St. Andrews Deer Point Lk 20 Mercury* High

* based on fish consumption advisory 

Sediment Quality. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama City Field Office conducted an 

extensive study of the quality of the sediments in the St. Andrew Bay estuarine system (Brim,

1998). This survey emphasized the deeper sediments of the Bay and associated bayous. The 

following was taken from the original document as submitted by Michael Brim of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. These sediments are mostly comprised of silts and clays with small 

amounts of sand, and normally contain about 4% organic carbon. Unlike the shallow water areas 
34

where the sediments are primarily quartz sand with little organic carbon, the deeper sediments of 

the bay and bayous are particularly prone to become contaminated with chemicals because of the 

quantities of fine grain materials and carbon. If released into the bay, harmful chemicals will 

readily associate with these types of sediment substrates. Bayous in the urbanized areas of the 

system receive runoff from the surrounding developed areas and demonstrate varying degrees of 

siltation and possible sediment contamination.

The Fish and Wildlife Service evaluated over 100 sediment stations. The stations were located 

both in the open bay and in about 37% of the associated bayous. The evaluation included 

collecting composite samples of sediment at each station and submitting the samples to 

laboratories for a number of chemical analyses. Routinely, sediments were evaluated to establish 

the amounts (concentrations) of individual chemicals present including; organochlorine 

pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 21 metals (including cadmium, lead, and 

mercury), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), aliphatic hydrocarbons (AHs), and 

occasionally dioxin and furan compounds. Sediment grain size (per cent sand, silt, and clay) and 

the per cent of total organic carbon (TOC) were also determined for most samples. Most of the 

work was accomplished during the late 1980’s with some additional samples collected during the 

early 1990’s.

During the study period, the sampling revealed that sediments in the open bay were mostly free of 

chemical contaminants. However, the evaluation also revealed that several of the bayous were 

either significantly contaminated or were becoming so. The most contaminated sites included 

Watson Bayou, Massalina Bayou, Martin Lake, and Fred Bayou. Sediment stations were ranked and 

scored for the presence and amounts of individual contaminants using sediment quality guidelines. 

However, it is important to understand that sediment quality guidelines have only been developed 

for a limited number of chemicals. Of the twenty-two bayous evaluated, six (27%) were free of 

"guideline" chemicals in amounts that could cause adverse biological impacts. On the other hand, 

eight bayous (36%) had numerous chemicals present in amounts above or well above “guideline” 

values, and it is probable that adverse biological effects could occur in these areas. The remainder 

of the bayous fell somewhere in between these conditions.

Contamination observed at particular sites within St. Andrew Bay is probably the result of both 

historic and contemporary anthropogenic activities. Sources of chemicals included or include 

municipal and industrial point source discharges, urban stormwater runoff, boat and ship 

building and repair facilities, ports and marinas, vessel discharges, and air pollution (with 

associated atmospheric deposition of chemicals directly on the water or from land runoff). 

Conclusions from the sediment evaluations are that the many bayous of the St. Andrew Bay 

estuary are particularly susceptible to chemical contamination. In addition, the great majority 

(over 50,000 acres) of St. Andrew Bay is deep (more than ten feet) and contains sediments rich 

in silts, clays and organic compounds. This vast estuarine/marine area provides economically 

valuable habitat for marine life, including commercial shrimps, crabs, seatrout, flounder and 

mullet. These same deep-water sediments are of the type that are particularly susceptible to 

chemical contamination, and therefore these large habitat areas should be protected as much as 

possible from sources and releases of harmful chemicals.

Dredging for Navigation Projects. The natural depths of the bay system are adequate to meet 

the needs of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW). Maintenance dredging of the GIWW is 

not necessary within the bay system from about the Highway 79 Buchanon Bridge on the west to 

the entrance to the land cut on the east. The federally maintained channel from West Pass into 
35

the bay system requires periodic maintenance dredging of the entrance channel in the Gulf of 

Mexico and the pass between the jetties to the fork in the channel into Grand Lagoon. Material 

removed at each maintenance cycle is deposited on the beach on the west side of the west jetty in 

St. Andrews State Recreation Area. The material is beach quality sand. The environmental 

impacts of the maintenance dredging of West Pass have been minimal with the possible 

exception of the role played in the closing of East Pass. East Pass is the historic, natural inlet to 

the bay system. East Pass is currently completely closed due to Hurricane Opal and the possible 

interruption of littoral drift by the jetties at West Pass.

The Port of Panama City facility has not required maintenance dredging as such but has 

accomplished some new work. The dredged material from these projects has been placed in an 

upland, diked disposal area. Current plans for deepening the facility involves the placement of 

suitable material on Audubon Island in the bay to raise the elevation to a sufficient level to 

protect the colony of nesting brown pelicans and other water birds from wave action and storm 

surges. Dredged material disposal resulting from dredging at the Port does not appear to have 

been a problem in the past.

The ship channel that traverses St. Andrew Bay to Port Panama City and Stone Container has 

been proposed for deepening in the past. Deepening of the channel requires a place to dispose of 

the dredged material. To a degree, the type of material to be dredged determines the possible 

effects of the disposal method on the environment. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) 

usually evaluates alternative disposal methods for channel deepening projects under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. It is during the review process that one addresses the environmental 

impacts. Usually there are three methods to be evaluated, disposal on bay bottom, disposal in the 

Gulf of Mexico, and disposal on land. It appears that the COE is in the process of addressing the 

proposed deepening again with disposal of the dredged material in the open water of the bay 

(Barkuloo, pers. comm., 2001).

Hazardous Substance and Material Transportation. The GIWW and the federal ship channels in 

the St. Andrew Bay estuarine system provide a means of transporting large volumes of material 

at a reasonable cost. The barges that traverse the St. Andrew Bay portion of the GIWW carry a 

variety of materials such as coal, petroleum products, and other commodities. The vessels that 

use the navigation channel to the Port of Panama City also carry a variety of materials to and 

from the Port. Therefore, the opportunity for accidental spills of hazardous materials exists for 

the bay. Within the St. Andrew Bay system, The U.S. Coast Guard has a station on the bay 

adjacent to the Naval Coastal Systems Station and maintains an oil spill response group. The 

Coast Guard has developed a Geographically Specific Tactical Response Plan to supplement the 

Area Contingency Plan that is in place. The DEP also has an oil spill and hazardous waste spill 

interest and works closely with the Coast Guard in the response planning process and onsite 

decisions should a spill occur. The counties also maintain a hazardous waste containment 

program to handle spills outside the jurisdiction of and in conjunction with the state and federal 

agencies. Rail and truck transportation present similar problems and have similar solutions. The 

local and state governments have developed the plans to address the possibility of accidents 

involving hazardous materials from these sources.
36

Part 4. Threats to the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem

The activities that may lead to the alteration of the physical, chemical, and biological 

characteristics of the ecosystem are all related to human activities. Habitat alteration and 

destruction resulting from development and infrastructure needs, agriculture, and silviculture 

reduce natural areas and fragment the ecosystem. Chemical contamination from point and nonpoint source discharges and air emissions can alter the quality of the air, soil, water, and 

sediments and therefore, alter the biotic portion of the ecosystem. It is sufficient to say that the 

St. Andrew Bay ecosystem is experiencing a rapid increase in the growth of the human 

population with attendant alteration of the ecosystem to meet its actual and/or perceived needs. 

One could make a list of all the individual activities of humans that can adversely alter the 

ecosystem, but this list would be quite long. The Action Plans developed for this ecosystem 

management plan address the major human activities that have or will have an effect on the 

functioning of the ecosystem. Therefore, very general categories of actions that can affect the 

future condition of the ecosystem are provided here.

Human Population Growth. BEST and BEST, Inc. understand that the ecosystem can be 

unbalanced or severely altered when a single population of a species begins to dominate the 

system. This is particularly true if the species in question is greatly influential on the entire 

ecosystem. Humans are the only species that is not subject to the natural factors that regulate the 

density of a natural population in the ecosystem. The human population has succeeded in 

protecting itself from the effects of climate, predators, most epidemic diseases, and other natural 

density dependent and independent population control factors. Therefore, only the resources of 

the ecosystem essentially limit the density of the human population as that ecosystem is 

converted to human use. Conversion to human use is usually at the expense of the chemical, 

physical, and biological characteristics of the ecosystem. The growth figures cited earlier for 

Bay County (17% overall with 33% of that in rural areas) is a cause for concern from the point of 

view of maintaining and restoring ecosystem functions. Development in rural areas fragments 

the ecosystem into ever-smaller units that are separated from one another, and their functional 

relationships can be lost or severly limited.

Humans can minimize their cumulative affects on such aspects of the ecosystem as surface and 

ground water quality, air quality, and sediment quality by using pollution control measures and 

the existing regulatory programs. However, the control of the density of the human population is 

another matter. As density increases so does the loss or degradation of the habitats and 

ecological niches of an ecosystem. This results in the alteration or destruction of the functions 

and characteristics of that ecosystem.

Fragmentation of the Ecosystem. Dr. Eugene Odum (in an abstract from the 13th Annual 

Conference on Applications of Landscape Ecology in Natural Resource Management, 1998) 

stated the problem with which we are faced. He said, “Humans tend to chop up the environment 

into patches and strips with sharp boundaries thereby doing away with natural gradients and 

ecotones (i.e. buffers) and creating a mosaic of numerous patches of many kinds of ecosystems. 

Accordingly, land-use research and practical management must move up to the level of the 

region, so we can focus on interactions and exchanges between ecosystem patches and how best 

to arrange the patches on the landscape.” With this in mind, the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem 

should be the region of concern as the citizens struggle with human density limits and the 

pressure to increase the human density in the ecosystem.
37

Fragmentation of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem to accommodate the needs of an increasing 

human population must be addressed to prevent the elimination of the ecosystem as it presently 

functions. The land use planning process must understand and respond to the cumulative 

adverse effects of the fragmentation of the remaining portions of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem 

in addition to the direct loss of sections of the ecosystem by development.

The natural condition of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem was a mosaic of the communities listed 

in Appendix 1. All the communities were interrelated and interconnected by ecotones (transition 

areas where one community type grades into another type, and components of both communities 

are intermixed). Ecotones are usually as diverse or more diverse than the adjoining 

communities. Human activities (agriculture, silviculture, development, roads, etc.) alter the 

natural communities and alter the connectivity between the remaining natural communities. The 

remaining natural communities are fragments of the former system and no longer function in 

relation to one another. The size of fragments is important in maintaining ecosystem functions. 

The ecological literature contains references to studies performed on the size of fragments of 

natural communities and their species diversity and use by certain groups of animals. The larger 

the size, the greater the diversity and the greater the use by mobile animals such as birds. 

Establishing corridors of natural communities between the remaining fragments can restore some 

of the natural relationships including ecotones. Corridors also increase the size of the fragments 

by uniting them, provide for the dissemination of the flora and migration of the fauna between 

communities, and establish the natural functions of the fragments as a connected system. Roads, 

particularly those with medians, are very effective in fragmenting the ecosystem. The 

establishment of connecting corridors between communities should involve the consideration of 

placement of wildlife crossings under the roads within the connecting corridors.

Existing Regulatory Framework and Ecosystem Management. The rapidly expanding 

population of humans in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem poses a significant threat to the integrity 

of the ecosystem. What can ecosystem management do to maintain or restore the functioning 

and biodiversity of an ecosystem that is continuously and progressively under the control of a 

single species (humans) within that system? It appears that the mechanisms are in place at the 

federal, state, and local levels to reduce the adverse impacts of the human population on the 

integrity of the ecosystem. The mechanisms are embodied in the federal and state environmental 

laws and regulations and in the local Comprehensive Growth Management Plans required of the 

counties and municipalities. Absolute compliance with these mechanisms is of great importance 

to overall ecosystem management. Deviations or variances from these mechanisms will 

adversely affect ecosystem functions. This is particularly true if deviations or variances become 

the rule rather than the exception.

The overall purpose of the regulatory agencies and their programs appear to be the minimization 

of the adverse effects of human actions on the environment. However, there are instances where 

responsibilities conflict and other instances where differences in procedures or responsibilities 

are confusing. Most of these agencies are subdivided into units tasked with the permitting of 

specific human activities such as point source pollution, air pollution, alteration of wetlands, etc. 

Assessment of the cumulative impacts of the actions permitted, and the application of the results 

of such analyses is difficult to incorporate into a system designed to evaluate impacts on a case 

by case basis. In addition, there is difficulty in relating the activities of one permit program with 

the activities of another program, and the rules have a tendency to change as political parties 

come and go from power at all levels of government. This results in an absence of consistency 
38

and reliability of the programs over the long term. As a result, the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem 

continues to be negatively affected by the alteration of the ecosystem for human uses.

The laws, rules, regulations, and procedures do exist, and they provide a means for public 

comment and recommendations in the process. It is not the purpose here to describe in detail the 

regulatory programs that are in place and functioning because it has been adequately addressed 

in the previous edition of this document and in the SWIM plan. The purpose of this document is 

to add to, refine, make recommendations, and seek information that will enhance the existing 

state of the ecosystem and gain a better understanding of what must be accomplished to maintain 

and restore, where necessary, the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem. Therefore, this plan does not flow 

from current laws, rules and regulations (although they are an integral part of management) but 

from the ecosystem itself as a functioning unit dependent upon the interrelationships of all its 

components. 

The ecosystem management concept is a means of providing facts about the ecosystem to the 

regulators, uniting the various regulatory programs that are in place, and a means to oversee 

those programs. It is easy to locate statements such as, “water quality is the key to ecosystem 

management” or “sediment quality is the key to ecosystem management.” These statements are 

false. Any single characteristic of the ecosystem is no more or less important than any other 

characteristic of the ecosystem. To focus on one aspect is not ecosystem management and is not 

the “holistic” view. It is not difficult to imagine a St. Andrew Bay watershed stripped of its 

natural habitats and indigenous species, replaced with ornamental species, pavement, etc., while 

surface and ground water quality meet the regulatory classification standards of those waters. 

This could occur provided that the technology and means to sufficiently treat the volumes of 

domestic wastewater, industrial wastewater, drinking water, and stormwater generated under 

such conditions is sufficient to maintain the standards. However, the ecosystem with its 

attendant biodiversity, sediment characteristics, soil characteristics, etc. would be completely 

destroyed because the focus was directed at only one aspect of the natural ecosystem.

All of the human activities that degrade the ecosystem are the subject of one or more federal, 

state, and/or local governmental agency. Yet the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem remains in 

jeopardy.

Land Use Planning. As stated above, about two thirds of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem is 

under the influence of the citizens of Bay County. The SWIM plan for the St. Andrew Bay 

ecosystem provides human population estimates for the various counties in the ecosystem. Bay 

County is, by far, the most populated county in the ecosystem and has a moderate to high rate of 

growth. The land use planning process of the all of the counties will determine the state of the 

St. Andrew Bay ecosystem in the future. Whether one prefers to discuss land use planning as 

Growth Management or something else, it is this ongoing process and the final results of that 

process that will determine the condition of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem in the future. Will 

adequate preservation and conservation areas be incorporated into the evolving land use plans as 

valid land uses? If so, will these preservation and conservation areas be protected from variances 

or alterations of their designation? Will preservation and conservation areas be designated based 

on the value of the ecosystem functions of the land and water incorporated into these areas or on 

some other criterion? How will the most important functional areas of the ecosystem be 

determined? Will the process provide for the continued existence of species that are rare, 

endemic, and/or protected? Will serious consideration be given to providing corridors of 
39

undeveloped land and water that will connect the existing and future public lands and reduce the 

fragmentation of the ecosystem?

The citizens of the counties that are a part of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem must answer these 

questions and thus, determine the fate of the ecosystem as they review and modify their growth 

management plans. The growth management plan developed and modified by the citizens of 

Bay County will have major effects on the ecosystem as a whole, the St. Andrew Bay estuarine 

system, and the endemic species of the ecosystem. This ecosystem management plan, by 

completion of its Action Plans, can provide information to the citizens as to the areas that would 

benefit the maintenance of ecosystem functions through preservation or conservation of these 

areas. The Action Plans that form the substance of this plan are directed at summarizing and 

providing the information necessary to make informed decisions regarding the maintenance of 

the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem.

Goals and Priorities for Ecosystem Maintenance and Improvement. Based upon the existing 

information, the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem is in fairly good condition at present. The 

ecosystem, as a whole, is not heavily urbanized and is, therefore, amenable to management 

techniques that will assure the quality of the ecosystem and the quality of human existence in the 

system well into the 21st century. Management of the growth in human population in the system 

is a primary concern. Random, unmanaged growth associated with an increasing population can 

result in the degradation of the ecosystem by altering the basic components of the ecosystem. 

Included among the possible alterations is fragmentation of habitats, conversion of habitat to 

infrastructure and housing, increased point source discharges and non-point source discharges of 

pollution, increased nutrification and contamination of waters, and other problems attendant with 

a growing human population. As stated above, growth management must play a major role in 

minimizing the adverse affects of population growth and distribution of population density. 

Actions have been accomplished to ensure the maintenance of some of the characteristics of this 

ecosystem. The potable water supply of Deer Point Reservoir and the quality of the waters 

entering it have been conserved and preserved through the actions of the NWFWMD and Bay 

County. In doing so, the NWFWMD has also preserved large tracts of important habitat types 

that will, if properly managed, restored, and connected to other public land, assure the 

environmental quality of that subdrainage basin and enhance its biodiversity. The NWFWMD 

has begun aggressive restoration activities on their land that is in silviculture to establish natural 

biotic communities. The public lands in the ecosystem and their management to maintain the 

natural characteristics of the ecosystem are essential parts of maintaining the ecosystem as a 

functional entity. This is particularly true when these areas are interconnected.

Domestic wastewater treatment has improved. Conversion to AWT standards is improving the 

effluent of all the systems discharging to surface waters of the St. Andrew Bay estuarine system. 

A major discharge of treated wastewater from the Panama City Beach Wastewater Treatment 

Plant to West Bay is proposed for removal from the bay and converted to a wetland treatment 

area in the ecosystem. Stormwater runoff remains a problem but progress may be occurring 

regarding the treatment of runoff. Problems remain in that wetlands are being lost and habitats 

fragmented as the population increases at a rapid rate. The quality of certain types of sediments 

within the St. Andrew Bay estuarine system appears to indicate that past practices have degraded 

some areas of the bay that possess sediments that are disposed to the binding and retention of 

pollutants. Watson Bayou is of particular concern regarding sediment quality.
40

The overall goal of the ecosystem management process for the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem is to 

maintain and where necessary restore the ecological integrity of the system. Priority items to be 

addressed should include:

1. Maintenance of existing water quality with emphasis on the treatment of stormwater 

runoff. The NWFWMD is addressing this concern to a degree through the SWIM plan.

2. Reduction in the loss of habitat to development activities for residential, commercial, and 

infrastructure needs.

3. Reduction in the fragmentation of the ecosystem by providing connecting corridors between 

preservation and conservation lands in the ecosystem and adjacent ecosystems.

4. Reduction of wetland losses to development and conversion to other uses.

5. Protection of the surface water quality and conservation of water quantity. The NWFWMD is 

addressing these concerns through the SWIM plan.

6. Restoration of seagrass beds and other habitats.

7. Maintenance of biotic communities and species diversity by preserving tracts of 

interconnected land and water, preferably large tracts but not to exclude small tracts.

8. Preservation and conservation lands to be managed to retain natural or restored biotic 

communities by recognizing the importance of fire and flooding to these communities. 

9. Restoration of those water bodies or segments of water bodies that do not meet the criteria of 

their classification as Class I, II, or III or become listed as impaired water bodies by the DEP.

Conservationists have traditionally relied upon the concept that public ownership of land and 

water is the best method to ensure the survival of ecosystems. The land acquisition programs 

that Florida has financed over the years are proof of the general acceptance that this is true for 

effective ecosystem management. Preservation 2000 and other programs have placed significant 

amounts of land in the public trust and preserved segments of the various ecosystems in Florida. 

The continuation of these programs such as the current Florida Forever program is the 

foundation of ecosystem management and restoration. However, it costs money to manage, 

restore, connect, and protect these lands. Concepts are being developed that are directed at 

involving land owners, through incentive programs, to be more directly involved in the 

maintenance of ecosystems in Florida. Experimental and new methods should be explored and 

given a chance to succeed with the realization that they also involve monetary costs to the public. 

However, until these new ideas are proven, land acquisition and the connection of these 

fragments must remain the cornerstones to obtaining the goals of ecosystem management.

In the final analysis, the success of the ecosystem management process in the St. Andrew Bay 

ecosystem will rest on:

1. The amount of the ecosystem that is in the ownership of the public or in the trust of private 

conservation organizations such as the Bay County Conservancy, Inc. and The Nature 

Conservancy.
41

2. The reduction of fragmentation by the establishment of corridors of natural communities 

between the segments of the ecosystem in public ownership and private ownership.

3. The restoration and quality of the management of the public’s lands including upland, 

wetland, submerged lands, and their ecotones.

4. The desire of the citizens to maintain the quality of the natural environment of which they are 

a part.

5. The success of the ecosystem management programs for private lands developed by state and 

federal agencies.

6. The success of the land use planning process at the local level will be crucial to the success 

of ecosystem management in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem. 
42

Part 5. Action Plans for the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem

Introduction. The Action Plans are organized by sub-committees that would have the primary 

responsibility for their implementation, such as: Natural Resources, Biodiversity; Natural 

Resources, Habitat; Stormwater and Contaminants; Growth Management; and Education and 

Outreach. However, many Action Plans overlap sub-committees, as one would expect. All the 

Action Plans within a section are all inter-related and applicable to the overall goal of 

maintaining or restoring the biotic or abiotic components of the ecosystem. 

The first paragraph of each Action Plan provides the actions that have been taken pertaining to 

that Action Plan since the publication of the first edition of a “A Look to the Future”. The 

original Action Plans contained paragraphs that addressed a number of aspects of each Action 

Plan. Review of these categories revealed that some are of little use, so they have been 

eliminated unless they were considered pertinent to achieving the Action Plan. Estimate of cost 

has been eliminated because the majority of these estimates were not based on a realistic 

assessment and costs have risen. Sources of funding, regulatory needs, and monitoring of 

environmental response have also been removed unless they were considered to be important in 

actually achieving the intent of the Action Plan.
43

Action Plans for Maintenance and Restoration of the Living (Biotic) 

Components of the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem, Natural Resources, 

Biodiversity Sub-Committee

BD1. Species Diversity Assessment

Actions Completed: The activities that have been completed or are continuing that pertain 

directly to the inventory of species in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem include the following.

Vascular plant species diversity in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem.

1. Keppner & Keppner (1999) completed the first year of a survey of the vascular plants of 

Bay County with a grant from the Norcross Foundation. The herbarium of Bay County 

Vascular Plants is located at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Field Office in Panama 

City, Florida. The herbarium contained over 900 specimens. An update was provided in 

December 1999, and the work continues.

2. Keppner & Keppner (2000c) provided specimens of vascular plants and a list of plants 

from the NWFWMD, Econfina Creek Water Management Area to the NWFWMD.

3. Keppner and Keppner (2001) provided a revised list of vascular plants from Bay County 

including the specimens in the NWFWMD collection.

4. FNAI continually seeks and catalogues data regarding the biodiversity in Florida. 

Animal species diversity in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem. 

1. Animal species diversity was not addressed directly in a number of reports but lists of 

animals were presented. Some of these are Koenig et al. (1999) and Payne (1997a & b, 

1998), and DEP and NWFWD (1992).

2. Keppner and Keppner (in prep.) have collected a number of species of crayfish from the 

St. Andrew Bay ecosystem. This was accomplished in conjunction with a survey of an 

endemic species of crayfish in Bay County. A report of the species collected and their 

location will be provided to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in July 2001.

Action: Continue to determine the biodiversity of the ecosystem through the completion of 

surveys of the most visible flora and fauna that have not been surveyed in the past and continue 

the present surveys. Priority surveys should be directed at the freshwater fish, amphibians, 

reptiles, and freshwater invertebrates within the system.

Background: Compilation of the species present within the ecosystem revealed that the 

freshwater fish in the system have not been surveyed since 1954 and have never been surveyed 

ecosystem wide. The amphibians, reptiles, and freshwater invertebrates have also apparently not 

been surveyed recently. Mammals of the system appear to never have been systematically 

surveyed. Therefore, surveys are required to understand the diversity of these important groups 

of animals.
44

Strategy: The surveys of the freshwater fish, terrestrial mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and 

aquatic invertebrates should be designed by the appropriate biologists of the Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and others with knowledge of the particular 

groups. The surveys could be performed by FFWCC personnel or by volunteers under the 

supervision of FFWCC personnel or other knowledgeable organizations or individuals.

Expected Benefits: The benefits to the ecosystem would be to increase the knowledge of the

occurrence and distribution of these groups that provide recreational activities, both direct and 

indirect, to the public. It would also provide information necessary to the management of the 

ecosystem to maintain species diversity and serve as a means of educating the public to the kinds 

and numbers of organisms that share the ecosystem with humans.
45

BD2. Comparison Survey of the Finfish of St. Andrew Bay

Actions Completed: Ogren and Brusher (1977) performed a study of the distribution and 

abundance of the fishes in St. Andrew Bay. The study was based on a specific set of conditions 

regarding fishing gear used, minimum depth of water sampled, and time of sampling. This 

information can serve as a base line against which future studies can be compared.

Action: Reproduce the survey conducted by Ogren and Brusher (1977) in order to obtain a 

comparison of existing finfish populations with those reported in the previous study.

Background: About 80-90% of the commercially and recreationally exploited finfish and 

shellfish in the Gulf of Mexico are considered to be estuarine dependent. The status of certain of 

those populations within the St. Andrew Bay system is currently unknown. Juvenile Red 

Snapper were common in the 1977 survey, but they appear to have declined over the years based 

on anecdotal information. A reproduction of the 1977 study would provide information as to the 

current status of these species in the bay system.

Strategy: Design a survey to closely reproduce the 1977 survey to provide comparative 

information as to the species present, their distribution, and numbers.

Expected Benefits: The trend in the populations of finfish subject to the sampling procedures 

would be better understood. This information would be available for use in the management 

plans for these species, and in the management of their habitats within the bay system.
46

BD3. Bay Scallop Recovery

Background: Bay scallops (Argopecten irradians) were once plentiful in most of St Andrew 

Bay and St. Andrew Sound. Since the Florida Marine Research Institute (FMRI) survey in 1984, 

population numbers have dropped dramatically. Figure 1 illustrates the current situation. Data 

were taken from The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s (FFWCC) annual 

survey data (1984-2004). As a result of the decline of this species, scallop harvesting has been 

closed in St. Andrew Bay and the Sound since 2002. Since the closure, little or no recovery has 

been documented. 

Various specific causes (or combinations of causes) have been hypothesized to potentially 

account for the population decline. They include: 1) loss of sea grass habitat, 2) red tide 

(Karenia brevis) outbreaks, 3) storm water runoff (chemicals and/or turbidity), 4) the natural 

closing of East Pass (with reduced recruitment of scallop larvae from the Gulf of Mexico and 

reduced estuarine water circulation).

Recent studies and trial programs by the FMRI (St. Petersburg) have suggested that there may be 

some potential management tools involving the capture and use of local brood stock as a 

component of recovery strategy.

Because of their interest in the Action Plan, the lead partner within BEST would probably be the 

St. Andrew Bay Resource Management Association (RMA).

Action: Produce a written Bay Scallop Recovery and Management for St. Andrew Bay using a 

multi-partnership team of qualified and interested individuals. The written plan should include 

the following components:

1. A complete review of existing and relevant scientific research reports and applicable data 

bases.

2. A qualitative review of anecdotal and historical information.
47

3. An evaluation of the utility and application of an appropriate public information program.

4. A scientific and economic critique of the potential use of collected brood stock for 

restoration purposes.

5. A scientific and economic critique of using mariculture technology as a restoration tool.

Strategies:

1. Circulate a draft recovery and management plan to interested members of BEST, the 

scientific community and appropriate regulatory agencies.

2. After review, finalize the recovery and management plan.

3. Implement the recovery and management plan in the most efficient and cost-effect 

manner.

Expected Benefits Restoration and proper management of the St. Andrew Bay, bay scallop 

population will help assure retention of the biological integrity and diversity of the bay. Bay 

scallop recovery, and eventual managed recreational and commercial harvest will be of social 

and economic benefit to citizens at large. Preservation of the bay scallop resource will help 

assure retention of the St. Andrew Bay area’s quality of life.
48

BD4. Assessment of the Protected, Rare and/or Endemic Species of Plants in the St. 

Andrew Bay Ecosystem

Actions Completed: The actions completed that pertain to the vascular plants that are protected, 

rare and/or endangered in the ecosystem include the following specific to the St. Andrew Bay 

ecosystem. Reports addressing all of Florida include, but are not limited to, Cox and Kautz 

(2000) and Cox et al. (1994).

1. The Bureau of Land Management has completed a preliminary survey of the listed plants on 

the Lathrop Tract in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem. Included on the list are Pinguicula ionantha, 

Verbesina chapmanii, Oxypolis greenmanii, Asclepias viridula, Scutellaria floridana, 

Coelorachis tuberculosa, and Aster spinulosus. Hypericum exile was also found on the tract.

2. Keppner and Keppner (1999b) reported on a survey of 96 lakes, ponds, and basins on the 

Econfina Water Management Area for Hypericum lissophloeus, Xyris longisepala, Xyris 

isoetifolia, Rhexia salicifolia, and Drosera filiformis. The survey was supported with funds from 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

3. The Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) is about to complete a survey of Hypericum 

lissophloeus on private land and to revisit the historic locations in their database. Work is 

scheduled for completion by June 1, 2001. FNAI obtains information and tracks species and 

biotic communities on a continual basis.

4. Keppner (2000) provided the NWFWMD with a report of observations of the response of 

Hypericum lissophloeus and Rhexia salicifolia to the drought. 

5. Keppner, Keppner, and Blanchard (2000) developed a brochure that provides information 

regarding the conservation of protected species of vascular plants to property owners around the 

karst ponds in northern Bay and southern Washington Counties. The Nature Conservancy 

provided funds to print and distribute the brochures. The project was completed on March 1, 

2001. The response has been sufficiently favorable for The Nature Conservancy to print 

additional copies. 

6. Keppner and Keppner (pers. comm. 2000) located a new location for Paronychia chartacea

minima on the Econfina Water Management Area. The location was forwarded to FNAI and 

specimens were placed in the Florida State University Herbarium and the NWFWMD collection.

7. Keppner and Keppner (2001) provided the NWFWMD with a list of specimens they placed 

in the NWFWMD herbarium. The list contained a number of protected and/or rare species. 

NWFWMD has used the Global Positioning System to place the locations of these species on 

their maps and aerial photographs.

Action: Continue to seek support and assist agencies in assessing the status and location of 

protected species within the ecosystem.

Background: Stein et al. (2000) identified the central Florida panhandle area including the St. 

Andrew Bay ecosystem as one of six areas of the United States noted for the diversity and 

endemism of its flora and fauna. The management and conservation of this biodiversity is based 

on knowing what species are present, where they are located, and their abundance.
49

Strategy: Continue to seek support to obtain information regarding the occurrence and 

distribution of the organisms present in the ecosystem with emphasis on those that are protected, 

rare, and/or endemic species.

Expected Benefits: Information regarding the occurrence and distribution of the protected, rare, 

and/or endemic species would provide knowledge to update the status of species with regard to 

their habitat status and the degree of protection, if any, that may be required to protect a species 

or the species diversity of the ecosystem as a whole.

Monitoring of the Environmental Response: Revisit critical sites to determine the status of the 

species or habitat based on FNAI element occurrence records.

Regulatory Needs: None unless information provided indicates that a species should receive 

additional protection or become protected under the existing federal and state statutes.
50

BD5. Participate in the Development of Guidelines for the Protection of Protected Species 

in the Ecosystem

Actions Completed or in Progress: The Bay County Board of County Commissioners voted 

unanimously to direct the Bay County Planning Board to develop guidelines to protect the listed 

and rare species in the Bay County portion of the ecosystem. FNAI is completing a survey of the 

rare, endemic, and protected species of plants in the karst pond area of the ecosystem. The Bay 

County Audubon Society adopted and provided funds for the printing of a manuscript describing 

the biology and conservation status of the smoothbark St. John’s-wort and associated species in 

the karst area.

Background: Bay County contains habitat that supports a number of protected, rare and/or 

endemic species of plants. The karst pond area of Bay County is relatively well known as to the 

location of this habitat.

Strategy: Provide the Bay County Planning Board with all information available regarding the 

biology of the protected, rare and/or endemic species in the karst pond area and other areas of the 

Bay County. Provide recommendations for the protection of these species, and restoration of 

their habitats. Individuals or groups with knowledge of these species could serve as advisors if 

so requested by the Planning Board.

Expected Benefits: The unique species of plants in the Bay County portion of the ecosystem 

will be recognized and guidelines will be established to protect or conserve them for the future.
51

BD6. Assessment of the Protected, Rare and/or Endemic Species of Animals

Actions Completed or in Progress: The St. Andrew Bay ecosystem supports a number of 

protected, rare and/or endemic species of animals. The following items are actions that have 

been completed or are in progress that pertain to this Action Plan. 

1. The St. Andrew Bay Resource Management Association has maintained a sea turtle nest 

monitoring program for the past 10 years. The monitoring involves the location, protection, 

relocation if necessary, and release of hatchlings at appropriate locations along the beach. 

Annual reports of the nesting activities, per cent hatching, and number of juvenile turtles released 

is provided each year (Watson, 1991-2000). The DEP, Division of Recreation and Parks surveys 

nesting activities along the beaches within the St. Andrews State Recreational Area. Tyndall Air 

Force Base conducts surveys along the beaches within this military installation. 

2. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is studying the Gulf Sturgeon. Reports of this 

anadromous fish in St. Andrew Bay ecosystem are sparse, but its occurrence should be 

considered in the overall management of the ecosystem. 

3. Keppner and Keppner (2000b) performed a limited preliminary survey of the Panama City 

Crayfish designed to revisit the three previously known locations for this species. The volunteer 

report was provided to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

4. Keppner and Keppner (in prep.) are in the process of completing a survey of the presence of 

the Panama City Crayfish, Procambarus (Leconticambarus) econfinae in the ecosystem. The 

final report is due June 30, 2001. The survey is supported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

5. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service maintains a program of monitoring the populations of 

endangered beach mice inhabiting the sand dunes of Bay County in conjunction with the Florida 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and they have been involved with the Piping 

Plover Survey. The Service has prepared the Endangered Species component of the educational 

materials for the Kindergarten through Middle School curriculum.

Action: Continue the monitoring programs and identify other species for study.

Background: Stein et al. (2000) identified the central Florida panhandle area including the St. 

Andrew Bay ecosystem as one of six areas of the United States noted for the diversity and 

endemism of its flora and fauna. The management and conservation of this biodiversity is based 

on knowing what species are present, where they are located, and their abundance.

Strategy: Complete the projects in progress, add new projects as the need arises, and provide 

the information to the governmental agencies and elected officials for inclusion in their decisionmaking processes.

Expected Benefits: Information regarding the occurrence and distribution of the protected, rare 

and/or endemic species would provide knowledge to update the status of species with regard to 

their habitat status and the degree of protection, if any, that may be required to protect a species 

or the species diversity of the ecosystem as a whole.
52

BD7. Preservation of the Panama City Crayfish

Action: Participate with state and federal agencies and the public to develop a plan to preserve 

the existence of the Panama City crayfish as a component of the ecosystem.

Actions Completed: A preliminary survey established the continued existence of the Panama 

City Crayfish, Procambarus (L.) econfinae, in the ecosystem. Additional survey work has added 

additional locations for this species and has added information regarding the range of this species 

in the ecosystem. 

Background: The Panama City Crayfish is a true endemic to the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem. 

The range of this species is restricted to a small area of Panama City and Bay County. Although 

once thought to be extinct, it was rediscovered by the above surveys in 2000 and 2001. This 

species is listed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission as a Species of 

Special Concern (See Appendix 2). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will eventually decide 

the status of this species as a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act or work 

with private landowners to achieve a plan for preservation.

Strategy: Participate in and encourage the responsible state and federal agencies and Bay 

County to develop a plan that will assure the survival of this species in the ecosystem. 

Knowledgeable individuals and groups could offer to provide technical information, perform 

field surveys if necessary, and provide public participation in the process.

Expected Benefits: A plan to preserve the Panama City Crayfish would be developed that 

would be a result of a group effort and may preclude the lengthy and expensive process of listing 

the species under the Endangered Species Act and elevating it to a threatened or endangered 

level by the state.
53

BD8: Assessment of East Pass Closure

Actions Completed: None

Action: The initial action will be to examine the hydrological changes and circulation patterns in 

the lagoon that has resulted from the closure of East Pass. An evaluation will be made as to the 

benefits of applying the HydroQual Model. Secondary actions may be required depending on 

the results of the initial studies. 

Background: East Pass is the historical natural opening into the St. Andrew Bay system. 

Concern has been expressed that the closure has altered the hydrology of that arm of the bay that 

extends from Grand Lagoon eastward between Shell Island and Tyndall Air Force Base on 

towards East Pass. Adverse effects on the seagrass beds and biodiversity of the system, which is 

part of the St. Andrew Bay Aquatic Preserve, is conjectural, but important to the determination 

of achievement of the purpose of the Aquatic Preserve designation. 

Strategy: Examine the hydrologic regime and water quality effects of closure of East Pass, as 

well as alternative strategies to address any beneficial or detrimental conditions identified. This 

data will be provided to decision makers.

Expected Benefits: Results of the analysis should provide an indication as to the hydrological 

quality of the system, and, thus provide information to assess the effects on the biodiversity of 

the Bay and Aquatic Preserve. This analysis should form the basis from which decisions can be 

made regarding appropriate courses of action.

Monitoring the Environmental Response: A monitoring plan will be developed to determine 

the hydrological effects on the lagoon, to document quantities and species of aquatic life, and to 

assess the cumulative response of the biota to the changed conditions at the Pass.

Regulatory Needs: If FDEP and USACOE permits would be required, it would be the 

responsibility of Bay County to obtain these permits. 

Related Indicators: Restriction of flows and reduced rate of circulation, if observed, would 

affect the deliberations relating to stormwater runoff and water quality within the system. 

Estimate of Cost to Complete the Action: To be determined.

Sources of Funds to Complete the Action: Bay County is requesting a USACOE 1135 Grant 

which awards up to $5 million. The NWFWMD, Tyndall, AFB, Bay County are all potential 

funding partners. 

Reliable Resources: Bay County, municipalities discharging into the system, FDEP. 
54

BD 9: Maintenance and Restoration of the Natural Communities of the St. Andrew Bay 

Ecosystem: Invasive Exotic Species Management 

Actions Completed or In Progress that directly pertain to the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem:

Local State Parks the Bay County Conservancy and many private landowners have invasive 

exotic plant management programs. 

Members of the Friends of St. Andrew Bay have been attending workshops and compiling 

information on the subject.

Keppner and Keppner have been maintaining a list of invasive non-native species currently 

known to occur in the ecosystem.

Action: This action plan focuses on the eradication or at least the managed control of invasive 

exotic species within the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem. 

Background: Invasive exotic species are a serious and growing threat, both in Florida and 

across the United States. They displace native plants and animals, seriously undermine 

ecosystem stability, and threaten almost half of all endangered species with extinction. They 

harm forests, waterways, fisheries, agriculture, and natural areas. In doing so, they impose 

enormous costs on state and federal governments through their damage to human health, natural 

communities, agriculture, forestry, fisheries and infrastructure (The Nature Conservancy, 

Florida). 

The Florida Invasive Species Working Group composed of all state agencies having 

jurisdictional responsibilities for invasive exotic species has developed a comprehensive 

statewide strategic plan that unifies and coordinates the responsibilities of government agencies 

to prevent and manage harmful biological invasions in Florida. This working group has formed 

a sub-working group to create incentives for private land owners to control invasive exotic 

species.

The United States Department of Agriculture and various other entities have developed 

information and protocols for exotic and invasive plant species management and disseminate this 

information to the public through printed materials and workshops throughout Florida. 

The Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council’s (FLEPPC) has created and maintains a list of Florida’s 

invasive exotic plants. 

Strategy: Continue to locate and identify invasive exotic species within the ecosystem. Educate 

the public and provide local governments with information available on this issue in an effort to 

develop a Cooperative Weed Management Area (CWMA) for the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem. 

Expected Benefits: Benefits include the preservation of our ecosystem’s biodiversity along with 

long-term economic benefits realized from an ecosystem approach to invasive exotic eradication.

Regulatory Needs: Inventory work and control may require permission agreements on private 

lands, and permits for chemical treatments, where appropriate. A significant amount of work can 

be accomplished on roadway right-of-ways and other public areas where outbreaks often 

originate.
55

Action Plans for Maintenance and Restoration of the Living (Biotic) 

Components of the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem, Natural Resources, 

Habitat Sub-committee

HM1. Assessment of Lands and Sensitive Habitats

Actions Completed: FNAI has assessed the habitats of concern in the St. Andrew Bay 

ecosystem and in a number of publications, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission has 

addressed sensitive habitats from the point of view of sensitive species, mostly animals.

Action: Review the existing literature and synthesize it into a plan for the St. Andrew Bay 

ecosystem. Map the sensitive habitats remaining in the ecosystem and determine their priority 

for conservation or preservation as part of the overall goal of linking ecosystem fragments.

Background: The location and areal extent of the remaining natural habitats within the 

ecosystem is unknown. The Fish and Wildlife Service has provided maps and a classification of 

the nation’s wetlands including Bay County, but information regarding the other community 

types is not of general knowledge. Knowledge of the location and amount of natural 

communities in the ecosystem is valuable to planning to maintain ecosystem function and 

connectivity.

Strategy: Request information from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) regarding any 

studies they may have performed that identifies the location and/or extent of the natural habitats 

in the ecosystem. Request species occurrence records for those protected and tracked species 

from FNAI and plot these records on a map to determine the locations of these species.

Expected Benefits: The benefits to the ecosystem would be the identification of the areas 

considered most valuable in maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem function. It would identify 

those areas necessary to complete the actions required to place, in conservation or preservation 

status, those areas essential to the enhancement of the existing public lands and would identify 

the corridors of natural vegetation needed to link the lands. The information could be prioritized 

to provide a plan for acquisition or conservation of these lands.
56

HM2. Identification and Mapping of Corridors Linking Public and Private Conservation 

and Preservation Lands in the Ecosystem

Actions Completed: The NWFWMD has mapped the public land within the ecosystem. The 

Bay County Conservancy, Inc. has purchased a tract of land in Panama City at State Avenue and 

19th Street and is seeking to acquire other properties for preservation. The City of Panama City 

has mapped the remaining wetlands within the city limits. A group of citizens have begun the 

process of identifying corridors and land for possible acquisition or as mitigation to add to the 

ecosystem management areas. The scientific literature contains a number of articles that apply 

directly to corridors, their types, their functions, and the efficiency of their use.

Action: Summarize the available literature and apply it to the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem. 

Using the maps in existence and summary, identify corridors that will link the public lands to 

one another to reduce the fragmentation of the ecosystem and provide floral and faunal 

connections between the fragments. The Panama City wetland map should also be examined to 

identify corridors to link wetlands in the ownership of the Bay County Conservancy and the City 

of Panama City.

Background: The largest purchaser of public land in the ecosystem is the NWFWMD in their 

goal to protect the surface and ground water quality of the Deer Point Reservoir subdrainage 

basin. The District is continuing to seek purchase of out parcels in the Econfina Creek Water 

Management Area (ECWMA) and along Econfina Creek itself. Pine Log State Forest is mostly 

out of the ecosystem, but should be connected with the ECWMA. The inner city wetlands 

should be connected as they are purchased, become conservation easements, or are otherwise 

placed in a conservation or preservation status.

Strategy: Use the maps and aerial photographs from The Nature Conservancy and the 

NWFWMD to locate corridors that will connect public and conservation lands together to reduce 

fragmentation of the ecosystem. Present these corridor visuals to the NWFWMD and Bay 

County Board of County Commissioners to be used as a basis for purchasing land and 

developing a land use plan that will assure the connection and protection of those lands.

Expected Benefits: Reduce the isolation of the public and conservation lands in the ecosystem 

by connecting them. This will establish functional relationships that are not present now.
57

HM3. Conservation of Primary Tributaries to St. Andrew Bay

Actions Completed: NWFWMD has developed and implemented a plan for the Econfina 

Creek-Deer Point Reservoir subdrainage basin. The District has identified and purchased lands 

identified as important in maintaining the water quality in the subdrainage basin. 

Actions: Identify the lands along the major tributaries to the bay that would serve best to 

conserve the ecological functions and water quality of these tributaries following the example of 

the NWFWMD for the Econfina Creek-Deer Point Reservoir subdrainage basin.

Background: The major tributaries to the bay system, other than Econfina Creek, have not been 

examined from the point of view of conserving the water quality and ecological functions of 

these tributaries. The Burnt Mill Creek and Crooked Creek tributaries to West Bay and Sandy 

Creek and Wetappo Creek tributaries to East Bay should be examined with the view of obtaining 

public control over the management of these lands to conserve their ecosystem and water quality 

maintenance functions. 

Strategy: Use aerial photography to examine the degree of development along the above 

referenced tributaries. Select those areas that will provide maximum diversity and water quality 

maintenance. Perform field investigations of the selected areas. Provide the county commission 

with the results.

Expected Benefits: This would provide the basic information necessary to take actions to 

acquire the lands. Acquiring the lands or a management interest in them would provide for the 

conservation of the diversity and water quality functions of these lands. Public lands and the 

habitats existing on those lands will provide the basis for the survival and recovery of many 

listed species of plants and animals in the ecosystem. The presence and abundance of the 

populations of those species that are present on public lands should be investigated to provide 

information to the managing agency or agencies. 
58

HM4. Assessment of Freshwater Inflow Needs for North Bay

Actions Completed: Flow over the dam has been and is being monitored. The NWFWMD has 

budgeted funds for this determination in the five year-plan described in the SWIM plan.

Action: Determine the minimum quantity of freshwater which must enter North Bay through the 

Deer Point Dam that is required to maintain the estuarine nursery area of North Bay and assure 

the maintenance of the harvestable oyster beds in the downstream, Class II waters of North Bay.

Background: Deer Point Dam was constructed in 1961 as a low level dam and spillway to 

provide a source of potable water for the growth of Bay County. The dam was constructed at the 

upper end of North Bay and impounds the high quality water entering from Econfina Creek and 

other tributaries. The Bay County Board of County Commissioners was authorized by special 

acts of the Florida Legislature to construct a saltwater barrier and convert a portion of North Bay 

and the surrounding lands into a freshwater reservoir. The area had experienced saltwater 

intrusion in a coastal well and a source of potable freshwater was needed to serve the residents of 

the County and its industries. 

Prior to the construction of the dam the impounded area was estuarine in nature. Brusher and 

Ogren (1976) and Ogren and Brusher (1977) investigated the distribution and species of finfish 

and shrimp in the St. Andrew Bay system. They concluded that the area of North Bay below the 

Deer Point dam was a truly estuarine nursery area and important to the continued maintenance of 

the populations of certain finfish and shellfish in the system. Their conclusions were based on 

the quantity, quality, and timing of the freshwater inflows from the Deer Point Reservoir.

Deer Point Reservoir receives, on average, 619 mgd (millions of gallons per day) from its 

tributaries. The historic low flow was 285 mgd during a recent drought. Bay County currently 

has an intergovernmental agreement with the NWFWMD that permits the County to withdraw an 

average of 69.5 mgd with a maximum daily limit of 82 mgd. A modification of this agreement 

may occur in 2010 that would permit the County to withdraw a daily average of 98 mgd with a 

maximum daily withdrawal of 107 mgd. The NWFWMD has also reserved to the County an 

additional amount of water equal to the seven day/ten-year flow entering the reservoir for 

resource enhancement purposes. Therefore, the total amount of water that could be allocated to 

the County equals 285 mgd or the total flow at the historic low flow value.

Strategy: Obtain the information necessary to develop a study plan from the agencies with 

experience in determining freshwater inflow requirements to estuaries. With this information, 

develop a plan of study and identify the best path to completion of the study.

Expected Benefits: Maintain the estuarine nursery areas of North Bay for those estuarine 

dependent finfish and shellfish present in the St. Andrew Bay system.

Monitoring the Environmental Response: Monitor the salinity regime after the freshwater 

inflow determination is complete to assess the impact of the flows on the portion of North Bay 

below the Deer Point Dam. Monitor the harvestable oyster reefs for their productivity and their 

mortality due to natural predators.

Regulatory Needs: Regulations regarding the amount and timing of freshwater releases from 

the Deer Point Dam may be needed. This will be determined following completion of the study.
59

HM5. Restoration of Audubon Island

Actions Completed: The Port of Panama City has obtained the necessary permits to conduct 

dredging at the Port. A condition of those permits requires the Port to place suitable dredged 

material on Audubon Island to restore damage incurred during Hurricane Opal. The Port has 

placed riprap around the Island in preparation for the receipt of the dredged material.

Action: Support the efforts to restore Audubon Island, encourage the Port to place the material 

on the Island during the non-breeding season of the birds, and continue monitoring of the 

Island’s breeding bird population.

Background: Audubon Island is a small artificial island located off the Port of Panama City. 

The Island serves as a breeding site for a wide variety of birds including the brown pelican. 

Significant numbers of pelicans and other birds are reared on this island each year. Hurricane 

Opal severely eroded the Island making it smaller and lowering the elevation. The Island should 

be restored to provide needed bird nesting and rearing habitat. The Island is monitored by the 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission regarding bird nesting activities.

Strategy: Continue the efforts to encourage the Port of Panama City to complete the work 

required as mitigation.

Expected Benefits: Restoration of previous nesting and rearing conditions for the large number 

of birds that use the island.

Monitoring of Environmental Response: Continue the state’s annual monitoring of nesting 

success.
60

HM6. State Owned Submerged Land Assessment & Monitoring

Actions Completed: None

Action: Assessment and monitoring of state owned submerged lands.

Background: The State of Florida owns the lands within the state that are located at and below 

the mean high tide line in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem. These submerged lands support the 

variety of habitats found within the system from seagrass beds to intertidal emergent marsh. 

These lands should be managed to maintain the integrity of the ecosystem. However, 

information as to the extent of these lands, particularly the emergent saltmarsh, is not generally 

known. In order to effectively manage the habitats located on these lands owned by the citizens 

of Florida, one must know where they are and what habitats they support. Knowledge of the 

lands below the mean high water mark is fairly well known. Emphasis should be directed at 

determining the habitat supported by the intertidal zone, particularly Spartina and Juncus 

emergent marshes.

Strategy: Request that the state agency responsible for holding these lands in trust for the 

citizens of Florida produce a series of maps that delineate the boundary of the state owned 

submerged lands in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem and establish the type of emergent marsh 

habitats supported by these lands.

Expected Benefits: State owned water bottoms would be known and would, therefore, be 

capable of management to retain the ecological functions of those lands without adversely 

affecting private property. 

Monitoring the Environmental Response: 

1. Monitor the loss and alteration of these publicly owned lands through the permitting process 

by requiring that any loss or conversion of state owned lands from its existing condition be so 

recorded with the acreage and habitat lost or converted. 

2. Examine the historical permitting information to determine the acres lost or converted and the 

habitats involved.
61

HM7. Grand Lagoon Bridge Replacement

Actions Completed: None. Bridge replacement is in the planning process.

Action: Include in any future design for the bridge replacement and highway expansion a crossing 

structure spanning the Lagoon that is a modern, cement-supported bridge that spans the entire width 

of the Lagoon. The old earthen causeway currently in place could be completely removed. This 

action will restore the historic, cross-sectional hydrologic dimensions of the Lagoon as it passes 

under the new bridge.

Background: The causeway/bridge crossing created over Grand Lagoon in the 1950's has, ever 

since, severely restricted tidal flushing, water exchange, and marine fish and invertebrate larval 

transport. The structure has also severely reduced transport of pollutants and contaminants out of 

the Lagoon. As may be seen in aerial photographs of the areas east and west of the Lagoon, the 

structure has resulted in unusual tidal currents at the point of the small bridge that have resulted in 

sediment transport beyond the bridge on each side. This has, in turn, resulted in the burial of 

valuable sea grass beds.

Strategy: Comments should be provided to the Florida Department of Transportation and any 

other appropriate government agencies to clearly define the need for adequate bridge replacement 

and to accelerate such replacement. The recommendations should include complete removal of the 

old earthen causeway, removal of all sediments east and west of the old bridge that have buried sea 

grass beds, construction of a concrete-pile-supported bridge that spans the entire width of the 

Lagoon. 

Expected Benefits: Increased water quality, water exchange, restoration of sea grass beds near the 

crossing, and increased biodiversity within the upper Lagoon resulting in enhanced larval transport 

of marine fishes and invertebrates.

Monitoring the Environmental Response: The effectiveness of this action to the environment 

will be measured as increased water clarity, water quality, tidal movement, biological diversity, and 

sea grass bed recovery. The monitoring will be accomplished through several of the other Action 

Plans identified within the document. 
Action Plans for the Maintenance and Restoration of the Natural Communities 

of the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem 

Seagrass Management in the Ecosystem 

Background: The seagrass community occupies a unique place in the St. Andrew Bay estuarine 

system in that seagrass beds support highly diverse floral and faunal communities dependent on 

the presence of the dominant seagrass species. Seagrasses reflect the health of the bay system 

through their responses to alterations in various water quality and sediment quality parameters. 

Seagrass beds also provide spawning, feeding, nursery, and protective habitat for a wide 

diversity of aquatic organisms including many of recreational and commercial value. One 

example is the relationship between seagrass beds and the production of gag grouper (Koenig 

and Coleman, 1998). 

Decline in the acreage of seagrass in the system would indicate that water quality and/or 

sediment quality is changing in a manner that restricts their growth. For example, increased 

turbidity restricts the quality and quantity of light reaching the seagrass beds. Decline in the 

depth of penetration of light of adequate quality results in the decline in the quality of the 

seagrass beds, the depths at which they can grow and reproduce, and therefore, the number of 

acres covered by the seagrass. Seagrasses are used as an indicator of the health of the system, 

because of their responses to changes in various water quality and sediment quality parameters. 

Wolfe et al. (1988) stated that in total acreage the St. Andrew Bay system contains the largest 

seagrass stock in the Panhandle of Florida. This statement was based upon data from McNulty et 

al. (1972). Hydroqual Inc. et al. (1993) summarized the information on the acreage of seagrass 

beds in St. Andrew Bay available at the time of their study, and Beck et al. (2000) stated that the 

St. Andrew Bay estuarine system contained 9838 acres of seagrass beds. The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service performed the most recent and thorough survey of the seagrass beds in St. 

Andrew Bay based on aerial photography from 1953, 1964, and 1992. The survey was prepared 

for the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Panama City Field Office. Table 1 is the summary of that 

survey. The survey did not divide the seagrass beds by the species of seagrass that was dominant 

in each bed. Therefore, nothing can be said about the species composition of the beds or shift in 

species composition, if it occurred, during the times of the survey. The data is complex in that 

shifts in acreage of the components analyzed vary from year to year. However, some 

conclusions can be made based on the data in that survey regarding the overall acreage of 

seagrass beds in the bay. 

The following table indicates that there has been a 17% decline in the total acreage of seagrass in 

the bay during the time of the study. This included a decline in the acreage of continuous beds in 

the system. Continuous beds indicate the presence of a healthy seagrass system and are 

considered to be the most valuable in terms of productivity, biodiversity, and habitat function. 

Fragmentation of continuous beds into patches of varying densities indicates a decline in the 

functioning of all aspects of the community. However, there are some natural areas in estuaries 

that are subject to water currents in which the seagrass beds become established as patches and 

remain patchy due to the flow of water through the bed. 

 
63

Acres of Seagrass Beds in St. Andrew Bay, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Survey

Type of Bed 1953 1964 1992

Continuous 3771.97 5479.37 4324.88

Dense Patch 799.94 1746.74 3056.62

Moderate Patch 5968.69 3475.71 1368.57

Sparse Patch 1145.63 841.10 933.94

Very Sparse Patch 156.99 176.26 144.57

Total Acres 11,843.22 11,719.18 9,828.58

The seagrass species present in St. Andrew Bay are shoal grass (Halodule wrightii), turtle grass 

(Thalassia testudinum), manatee grass (Syringodium filiforme), star grass (Halophila 

engelmannii), and widgeon grass (Ruppia maritima). The large continuous beds appear to be 

dominated by turtle grass and shoal grass. Manatee grass forms small continuous beds and is 

more restricted in areas of the bay. The distribution and extent of Halophila engelmannii in the 

system is unknown. Continuous turtle grass beds or turtle grass-shoal grass beds are considered 

to be the dominant climax seagrass community in the system. However, the turtle grass in St. 

Andrew Bay is at the northern extent of its range which may limit seed production and slow the 

progress of rhizomatous growth resulting in these beds being sensitive to environmental 

perturbation and are slow to recover from damage incurred. Turtle grass in the system 

experiences a shedding of leaves in the fall that results in massive amounts of seagrass wrack in 

the shallow water and shore of the bay. This material decomposes and provides a source of 

nutrients to the bay system. 

Factors that can reduce the extent or quality of the seagrass beds include increased turbidity, 

dredging and filling, propeller damage and other mechanical damage, sediment contamination, 

nutrification of the water column, and local sustained decreases in salinity. This complex set of 

factors must be addressed in order to maintain and restore the seagrass habitats in the bay. 

Unlike other wetland communities, sea grass beds are difficult to restore when damaged and very 

difficult to create as mitigation for permitted losses. Loss of the climax vegetation from direct or 

indirect causes can be considered a permanent loss due to the slow regrowth of turtle grass and 

the inability to create new beds or restore damaged beds as mitigation for authorized losses in 

this system.

Direct destruction of sea grass beds in St. Andrew Bay by dredging or filling and mechanical 

damage should be avoided, because mitigation of losses by creation or restoration of these beds 

have not been successful in the past. An example is the mitigation for the Michigan Avenue 

outfall in St. Andrew Bay. Water quality should be maintained and preserved through actions 

regarding stormwater runoff and point source discharges. The status of the seagrass beds in the 

bay should be monitored for condition, distribution, and acres of coverage on a regular basis. 

Steps should be taken to restore conditions conducive to seagrass growth in the system. 
64

HM8. Monitoring of Seagrass Beds in St. Andrew Bay

Actions Completed: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service survey of the seagrass beds of the St. 

Andrew Bay ecosystem was completed as referenced above. The St. Andrew Bay Resource 

Management Association (RMA), in partnership with Gulf Coast Community College and DEP, 

has begun a seagrass monitoring program at three locations in St. Andrew Bay estuarine system. 

Transects have been established at a site near Shell Island, Grand Lagoon, and in West Bay. 

Monitoring will be accomplished at each transect in the fall of each year. Data to be collected 

includes species composition, shoot density, per cent cover, and canopy height. In addition, 

water quality data will be collected monthly at each site including turbidity and 

photosynthetically active radiation (quality of light). The work was supported by a grant from 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to the Florida Department of Community 

Affairs. For additional information, one can contact the RMA at P.O. Box 15028, Panama City, 

Florida 32406.

Action: Continue the monitoring of the areal extent of seagrass within the St. Andrew Bay 

estuarine system on a five year cycle by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife using aerial photography. 

Continue the St. Andrew Bay Resource Management Association seagrass monitoring program.

Strategy: Encourage and work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to provide an update of 

the current seagrass survey from aerial photography on a five year cycle. 

Expected Benefits: Provide information as to the status of the seagrass community in the bay.
65

HM9. Protection of Seagrass Beds

Actions Completed: A Bay County seagrass ordinance was drafted and proposed in 1999 by 

Bay County and the Bay Environmental Study Team (BEST). BEST arranged for a community 

forum to discuss the ordinance. The Bay County Board of County Commissioners chose not to 

enact the ordinance at the time.

Action: Pursue additional state, federal and local legislation that would provide additional 

protection for seagrass beds in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem.

Background: St. Andrew Bay is unique in the Panhandle for the acreage of seagrass beds 

within the ecosystem. The climax seagrass vegetation is Thalassia testudinum which is at the 

northern limit of its range in St. Andrew Bay. Therefore, recovery of damaged beds is unlikely 

or will take many years. Creation of seagrass beds as mitigation for losses in the ecosystem is 

essentially a permanent loss because attempts at creation of seagrass beds in the system have 

been unsuccessful. All seagrass beds grow on submerged lands that are owned by the State of 

Florida and are held by the state in the public interest. It is in the public interest to protect 

seagrass beds on public lands because of their value to the ecosystem. 

Strategy: Obtain all data and information pertaining to the recovery of seagrass beds in the 

ecosystem and all data and information pertaining to mitigation projects involving seagrass beds 

in the ecosystem. Obtain available information on the reproductive status of the seagrass beds in 

the ecosystem and rates of rhizome growth, if available. Present the data and information in a 

report to the appropriate state, federal, and local government agencies as support for a request to 

prohibit the loss of seagrasses on public lands in the system. 

Expected Benefits: Loss of seagrass beds to dredging and filling will cease or be significantly 

reduced.

Monitoring the Environmental Response: If accepted, monitoring should take two paths. The 

first should be directed at continuing the surveys recommended in HM8. The second is to 

monitor the appropriate agencies to assure that no loss of seagrass is permitted by the 

participating agencies.

Regulatory Needs: May require new legislation and/or changes to regulations and policies of 

the responsible agencies.
66

HM10. Restoration of Lost or Damaged Seagrass Beds

Actions Completed: BEST received a grant from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2000 to 

perform a pilot restoration project involving the planting of Spartina alterniflora and possibly 

seagrass in West Bay. The pilot project is in the planning stage and will be completed in 2001 at 

which time monitoring will be initiated.

Action: Identify the areas of significant loss of seagrass. Investigate the cause of the loss. 

Initiate corrective measures to encourage regrowth. This is a long-term action due to the slow 

regrowth, but this action is essential.

Background: The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service survey of seagrass beds and the attendant 

maps of the beds in the ecosystem referenced above indicate that some significant losses of 

continuous seagrass beds has occurred in various areas of the bay. These areas should be 

addressed for corrective actions.

Strategy: Examine the existing survey maps. Locate areas of significant losses. Follow the 

guidelines published by the National Marine Fisheries Service in determining the cause of the 

losses. Initiate corrective measures based on the information gathered as to the causation of the 

loss.

Monitoring Environmental Response: Those areas of loss that receive attention and corrective 

measures should be monitored for recovery rates on an annual basis.
67

HM11. Restoration of Seagrass Loss in West Bay

Actions Completed: The loss of over 1000 acres of seagrass beds along the southern shore of 

West Bay has been documented by examination of the aerial photography mentioned in HM10. 

An idea for restoration is present, but a plan to achieve the restoration has yet to be developed.

Action: Develop a plan to restore the area in conjunction with all responsible and interested 

parties.

Background: The survey of the seagrass beds in the ecosystem performed by the Fish and 

Wildlife Service indicates that the shallow waters adjacent to Botheration Bayou along the south 

shore of West Bay has suffered a loss of approximately 350 acres of seagrass beds. This 

represents a 3% loss of the total acreage of seagrass present in the system in 1953 and a 3.6% 

loss of the seagrass beds present in 1992.

Strategy: Design a study based on the possible causes of the loss of seagrass in this area to 

attempt to identify the cause or causes. Begin the study with an examination of ambient salinity 

and freshwater inflow in the area in relationship to seagrass beds. Use adjacent beds as a 

comparison. Elimination of this possible cause will lead the investigation to the next hypothesis.

Expected Benefits: Identification of the cause for the loss will allow for the development of a 

possible restoration plan. Restoration, if possible, would bring 350 acres of currently 

unvegetated bay bottom back to a seagrass bed.

Monitoring the Environmental Response: Monitoring would not be required until restoration 

activities, if appropriate, were commenced. Monitoring would then consist of examining the rate 

of coverage of the expanding bed on an annual basis.
68

HM12. Innovative Pier and Dock Construction

Actions Completed: Shafer and Robinson (2001) reported on the results of a study that 

evaluated the use of grid platforms to minimize shading impacts of docks and piers on 

seagrasses. The study reached the following conclusions: 1) the use of fiberglass grating to 

increase light transmission should reduce the amount of seagrass loss due to shading by docks 

and terminal platforms. And 2) the method of piling installation used in this study minimizes the 

physical destruction and removal of seagrasses, and resulted in nearly complete regrowth of the 

bare area by the end of the second growing season.

Action: Work to have the conclusions of the report translated into regulatory action in the form 

of an addition to the regulatory guidelines for dock construction in the Florida Panhandle. 

Background: Traditionally, permitting agencies have addressed the need for waterfront 

property owners to gain access to the water for navigational purposes by encouraging the 

construction of docks or piers to navigable depths rather than dredging access channels to the 

shoreline. A pile-supported structure has been considered the least environmentally damaging 

alternative to the dredging of access channels. This is true in nonvegetated water bottoms. 

However, information became available that the construction of pile supported structures over 

seagrass beds can result in the degradation or loss of the seagrasses under the structure. As the 

number of permits issued for piers and docks in seagrass beds increases, so does the possible 

adverse impacts of these structures on seagrass beds. Each new structure adds to the cumulative 

impact of existing structures. A less environmentally damaging construction alternative should 

be encouraged or required to reduce or eliminate seagrass loss due to docks and terminal 

platforms.

Strategy: Convene a meeting between the permitting agencies and the commenting agencies to 

assess the results and applicability of the study to the regulatory process in order to conserve 

seagrass habitat in the St. Andrew Bay estuarine system.

Expected Benefits: Will, if implemented, reduce the degradation and loss of seagrass beds due 

to pier and dock construction.

Regulatory Needs: Encourage the regulatory agencies to address methods of implementing the 

new techniques.
69

Management of Wetland Habitats in the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem

State and federal agencies involved in the management of wetland habitats or the regulation of 

wetland habitats appear to agree with ecologists regarding the function of wetlands within 

ecosystems. In general, wetlands have a high rate of primary production, support a high 

diversity of organisms, retard and retain floodwaters, can serve as recharge areas for aquifers, 

remove excess nutrients in runoff, trap pollutants in runoff, and protect shorelines from erosion. 

Each type of wetland has its own set of characteristics and functional values to the ecosystem of 

which it is a part.

What is a wetland? The answer to that question is confusing, because a wetland is defined in a 

variety of ways depending on the governmental agency in question. The answers to that question 

can become quite confusing when one examines the various definitions of wetlands developed 

by regulatory agencies. The state definition and the method to determine the state’s jurisdiction 

over wetlands is different from that of the federal government’s definition and jurisdictional 

methodology under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The result of these varying definitions 

and methods for determining jurisdiction is that it is practically impossible to monitor the actual 

loss of wetlands destroyed through the state and federal permitting processes. 

What is a jurisdictional wetland for the federal regulatory agency may not be a jurisdictional 

wetland for the state regulatory agency. Therefore, the two are not compatible regarding 

monitoring of losses. The problem of monitoring of wetland losses as a result of the permitting 

processes is further compounded by the individual agency’s concept of which wetlands are 

“valuable” and the concept of mitigation. Wetlands of “lesser value” are considered as 

exemptions, subjects for general permits, or subjects for nationwide permits. Records of losses 

of wetlands resulting from the issuance of these permits is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain. 

If one selects a single regulatory agency definition of wetlands and attempts to monitor permitted

wetland losses, one must also monitor the rate of compliance with mitigation requirements 

agreed to in order to obtain the permits. The success of mitigating actions and the ecological 

functional equivalency of the mitigating actions to the wetlands lost must also be considered. 

This complicated process provides many avenues for analysis of the success of a permitting 

program depending on the results one wishes to obtain. Therefore, any analysis of the success of 

a permitting process involving wetlands is questioned.

Ecosystem management must address wetlands from their ecological function without attempting 

to place a value on them to determine whether or not they will be permitted for destruction. In 

addition, ecosystem management must address the importance of ecotones between wetlands and 

uplands, because wetlands do not function independently of the surrounding habitats. Ecosystem 

management, to be effective, must go beyond the micromanagement and complications of the 

permitting systems. The FNAI definition of wetland types is not encumbered by regulatory 

processes and is used for the purposes of this plan (Appendix 1). The action elements developed 

for the management of wetlands in this plan are directed at obtaining this knowledge.
70

HM13. Wetlands Inventory

Actions Completed: The U.S. Department of Interior, National Wetlands Inventory completed 

the maps for the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem in the late 1970’s. These maps provide an 

acceptable baseline of the ecologically defined wetlands in the system. The City of Panama City 

has hired consultants to prepare a map of the wetlands remaining within the city and perform 

detailed studies of subdrainage basins. 

Dahl (2000) provided some information regarding the alteration of various types of wetlands in 

the United States from 1986 t0 1997. The report states that freshwater, non-tidal wetlands 

experienced the greatest development pressure just inland from the coastlines of the United 

States. Citing other sources, the report states that wetlands located in coastal watersheds of 

many coastal counties are undergoing rapid growth, and they lead in many demographic 

indicators of development. The freshwater wetlands were most susceptible to development from 

rapid population growth, and the demand for housing, transportation infrastructure, and 

commercial and recreational facilities. The report shows the coastal counties where there were 

wetland losses between 1986 and 1997. Bay County is in the “high loss” category that is a loss 

in excess of 150 acres.

Beck et al. (2000) estimated that the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem has 9270 acres of saltmarsh, 607 

acres of tidal flat, and 47 acres of intertidal shrub/forest. However, the distribution of these 

wetlands in the ecosystem was not provided at a scale usable to place on a map of the St. Andrew 

Bay ecosystem.

Action: Determine the type, quantity, and location of the various wetland types currently 

existing in the system based on the National Wetlands Inventory classification. Use the maps 

being prepared for Panama City to inventory the wetlands remaining in City limits.

Background: Reasonably accurate, current information regarding the types, quantity, quality, 

and location of wetlands within the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem do not appear to be available. 

The National Wetlands Inventory survey maps for the system are about 20 years old.

Strategy: Review the existing Wetland Inventory maps of the system to obtain baseline data on 

wetlands. These maps are available at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama City Field 

Office. Determine the status of the updating of these maps by the Wetland Inventory to 

determine when the new maps will be available. If the Wetland Inventory maps are not 

forthcoming in a reasonable period of time, obtain the most current Florida Department of 

Transportation aerial photographs and perform a comparison to determine the number of acres 

and location of the various types of wetlands remaining in the ecosystem. Also, determine the 

changes that have occurred by examination of old versus recent aerial photography.

Expected Benefits: The basic information necessary to manage the wetlands in the ecosystem 

would be obtained. This information in conjunction with the information obtained from other 

Action Plans would provide a basis for the determination of those areas necessary to maintain the 

function of the ecosystem.

Reliable Resources: Panama City Wetlands maps, The National Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, NOAA (estuarine and marine wetlands), and Florida DOT aerial 

photographs.
71

HM14. Identification of Areas for Wetland Restoration or Preservation

Actions Completed: The federal and state permitting agencies have established an area in 

Panama City Beach to receive adjacent land for mitigation of permits issued for the alteration of 

wetlands. Panama City has mapped the wetlands within the city limits.

Action: Determine the wetland areas in the watershed that can be improved through 

enhancement, restoration, and preservation activities. Develop a list of locations and acreage 

that qualify for the activities.

Background: The National Wetlands Inventory survey maps have identified the wetlands 

within the ecosystem, but areas that could benefit from enhancement and restoration activities 

have not been examined and identified.

Strategy: In conjunction with HM13, HM1, and HM2, review National Wetland Inventory 

maps and contact wetland regulatory agencies to create a list of wetland sites that could be 

candidates for enhancement and/or restoration. Identify the wetlands in Panama City that could 

serve as preservation or conservation sites.

Expected Benefits: The candidate sites could be used as mitigation sites to offset wetland 

impacts resulting from the wetland permitting processes within the ecosystem, develop corridors 

between public land in the ecosystem, and be used as preservation areas.
72

HM15. Vegetative Buffers for Wetlands and Water Bodies

Actions Completed: County and municipal Comprehensive Growth Management plans may 

have vegetative buffers stipulated in the plans. Bay County is in a state of indecision regarding 

vegetative buffers for water bodies in the county with the exception of the requirement for 

vegetative buffers around Deer Point Reservoir for those lands platted after adoption of the 

Comprehensive Plan by the County.

Action: Review all comprehensive growth management plans in the ecosystem for the presence 

of vegetative buffers for wetlands and water bodies. Encourage enforcement of existing buffer 

zones and encourage inclusion of buffer zones in those plans that lack them.

Background: The holistic view of ecosystem management recognizes that biotic communities 

within an ecosystem exist in a continuum. Humans place artificial boundaries on these habitats, 

and, at times, forget that they are interdependent. Ecotones are important in maintaining 

biodiversity and water quality when examining the relationship between wetlands, transitional 

zones, and uplands. These are interconnected habitats with animal movement between and 

dependent on the existence of the connections.

Strategy: Encourage the establishment of vegetative buffers and protect existing vegetative 

buffers around water bodies and wetlands at all levels of government, particularly the counties 

and municipalities in the ecosystem.

Expected Benefits: Improved water quality through protection and maintenance of wetland 

functions adjacent to water bodies and conservation of wetlands and the wetland-upland 

ecotones.

Monitoring the Environmental Response: Monitor the trend in increase or decrease of natural 

vegetation around water bodies. This could be accomplished through periodic examination of 

aerial photography.
73

HM16. Shoreline Protection and Vegetative Buffers

Background: This action plan would compliment Action Plans HM14, and HM15, but is more 

specific to the problem of armoring and erosion. The shorelines of St. Andrew Bay, and its 

bayous and tributaries, are being armored or eroded at an alarming rate. Bay County has a 30-

foot vegetative buffer requirement along the bay, but often citizens are not in compliance with 

this requirement. Under current permit regulations, the DEP and Corps both frequently issue 

permits for seawalls, riprap and fill that often negatively impact natural shorelines and fringe 

marshes. This trend is causing a cumulative, major loss of intertidal and shallow shorezone 

habitat for critically important to wading birds, small crustaceans and juvenile and adult fishes, 

and other wildlife. 

Actions Completed: There has been some effort to videotape, document, and quantify the 

amount of shoreline armoring that is now in place in Bay County. This is not an organized effort 

to do this and we are not aware of the status of this effort. There has been very little effort to 

educate the public as to the damage done by replacing natural shoreline with bulkheads, or the 

associated destruction of the natural vegetation along the shoreline. A small effort began in 2004 

to restore both armored and eroding shorelines in West Bay and Pretty Bayou, which if 

successful, can be a model for future restoration projects.

Action: Education of shoreline property owners would be a major component of the action plan. 

Also, trying to change State and Federal policies on the issuance of permits for shoreline fill and 

armoring is needed. There should be some way to give the property owners an incentive to leave 

shorelines natural in addition to enforcing the vegetative buffer ordinance. An inventory of 

armored and natural shorelines in St. Andrew bay and its tributaries is needed which should 

include a listing of eroding shorelines that need protection/restoration. Restoration of these 

altered areas is a viable option, but education and prevention of shoreline destruction a much 

better option. 

Strategies: The Education/Outreach and Natural Resources Habitat/Biodiversity SubCommittees would develop education materials to be used to educate shoreline land owners and 

businesses regarding the values of natural shorelines. These sub-committees and BEST staff 

should work with DEP and the Corps of Engineers to try to modify and improve the permit 

requirements for shoreline armoring and land filling. We should furnish these agencies with good 

educational material and publicize the need to keep shorelines naturally vegetated. BEST should 

also encourage Bay County to enforce existing ordinances requiring 30-foot vegetative buffers.

Expected Benefits: Protecting natural shoreline habitat would help preserve the many native and 

migratory bird species that depend on these habitats. It would also preserve fish and crustacean 

habitats that are necessary to maintain a healthy bay. This vegetation acts as a buffer to filter 

nutrients, contaminants, and sediments flowing into bay waters, helping to preserve the bay’s 

water quality.

Monitoring and Environmental Response: Shoreline armoring and modifications should be 

inventoried annually or bi-annually to determine the percentage of natural shoreline lost within 

the bay area. Monitoring the number of bulkhead permits issued may be a valid way to track the 

extent of the problem. 
74

Regulatory Needs: A portion of the problem might be addressed within the State and Federal 

regulatory framework. There seems to be no incentive for a landowner to leave the natural 

shoreline and much social pressure to construct a bulkhead “like your neighbor has.” If the 

permits were not so easily obtained, or if the agencies discouraged the construction of seawalls a 

considerable amount of wildlife habitat might be saved.
75

HM17. Habitat Enhancement and Management of West Bay Dikes and Impounded 

Wetlands for Bird Species, Marsh and Seagrass Propagation and

St. Andrew Bay Restoration Projects

Background: In the early 1970s, two areas of saltmarsh, seagrass, and tidal creek habitat in

West Bay were dredged and diked to create impoundments approximately 300 acres each. These 

impoundments were constructed along the northeastern shoreline of West Bay, one northwest of 

Warren Bayou and one to its southeast. The impoundments were constructed by a private 

corporation to create shrimp culture and growth areas. Subsequently, sometime after 1970, the 

corporation went out of business and the altered habitat sites were abandoned.

Actions Completed: In the late 1980s the U.S. Navy, working with the National Marine 

Fisheries Service, breached the northwest impoundment dike in several places to connect the 

impounded water with West Bay, thereby increasing tidal flushing. However no filling of the 

“borrow channel” adjacent and parallel to the dikes took place, and these channels significantly 

dictate tidal flow and direction, and probably restrict tidal sheet flow to the adjacent marsh areas.

After the project was abandoned and the above work accomplished, significant areas behind the 

dikes became revegetated naturally by saltmarsh vegetation, primarily black needlerush (Juncus 

roemerianus). Later in the 80s, the St. Andrew Bay Resource Management Association (RMA), 

with volunteer help, planted one suitable site within the northwest impoundment with saltmarsh 

cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora). The site was slightly less than one acre and is healthy today.

As recently as 2004, and at previous times, the impounded sites have been visited and inspected 

by various government agencies and conservation organizations to determine if further 

modifications could be accomplished to enhance the altered sites, thus increasing their habitat 

value for marine life and wildlife. It has also been suggested that the two sites could be managed 

to propagate marine vegetation that could be harvested under a managed plan and used as 

material for restoration projects throughout other areas of St. Andrew Bay. 

Action: This action plan would be aimed at evaluating the potential for habitat enhancement and 

marine vegetation propagation and if feasible and appropriate, implementing actions to 

accomplish these objectives.

Strategies:

1. The Natural Resources Habitat Sub-Committee, working with other members of BEST, 

BEST Inc., and the Administrative Support Team, would complete an evaluation of existing 

conditions at these sites, and determine the ownership of both the dikes and impounded waters.

2. If feasible and practical, an Enhancement and Management Plan would be developed for 

these sites.

3. The Plan would be implemented by making the corrective and enhancement actions.

4. Funding, labor, and technical advice would be obtained to accomplish the above through 

BEST partnerships, grants, and private donations targeted specifically for this Action Plan.

Expected Benefits: Three significant benefits would result from this work:
76

1. Over 600 acres of formerly altered bay habitat would be enhanced to further approach preproject conditions, thus increasing water quality, habitats, and the value of these areas to marine 

invertebrates, fishes, birds and mammals.

2. Management of the growth and harvest of marine vegetation at the project sites on a 

rotational, limited basis would provide much needed vegetative materials to repair and restore 

other damaged sites within St. Andrew Bay, and would make unnecessary the permitting and 

harvest of materials for restoration from “wild stands or beds” of saltmarsh or seagrass.

3. The enhanced and managed sites could serve as important environmental examples for area 

students and the general public; the sites may provide opportunities for undergraduate and 

graduate studies in coastal engineering and ecological conservation.

Monitoring the Environmental Response: BEST and its partners would develop and 

implement not only a monitoring, but additionally a long-term management plan for the 

enhanced areas.

Regulatory Needs: All necessary federal, state, and county permits would be obtained to 

accomplish the work described above.
77

Action Plans for Maintenance and Restoration of the Chemical and Physical 

(Abiotic) Components of the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem Stormwater & 

Contaminants Sub-committee

Sediment Quality and Chemical Contamination in the Ecosystem

This section is taken from “A Look to the Future” as written by Mr. Michael Brim of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Alteration of the living resources of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem 

can occur through the chemical contamination or pollution of air, water, soils, sediments, 

vegetation, and animals that result from commercial/industrial air emissions, vehicular 

emissions, point source discharges, urban stormwater runoff, discharges from vessels, and oil or 

hazardous material spills. It is the nature of chemical contaminants to cause subtle, insidious 

injuries to biological organisms and their habitats. Furthermore, because they are caused by 

chemicals, these injuries are usually the most difficult of all environmental impacts to observe and 

to evaluate. Chemical contamination of the ecosystem can severely degrade habitats, significantly 

reduce biological productivity and diversity, and even eliminate the presence of entire species. 

Water and/or sediment that becomes degraded by toxic chemicals can generate contaminated food 

chains that adversely affect numerous biological organisms. Top predators, such as eagles, dolphins 

and turtles, can often be the most severely injured.

There are many difficulties associated with evaluating and correcting chemical contamination 

problems. First, adverse effects are usually most significant during reproductive stages - developing 

eggs, larval or embryonic phases. Injury and/or mortality are not easily observed when they take 

place in invertebrates, fish, or bird eggs, or in the developing internal embryos of mammals. 

Second, injuries caused by several chemicals working together (synergism) are difficult to 

document and to understand. Third, chemical contaminants are usually generated not from one 

single, easily identifiable source, but from several sources, often remote and diverse. The 

environmental pathway from injured organisms back to a contaminant source or sources is therefore 

often difficult to describe.

Chemical contaminants not only adversely affect fish and wildlife resources, they can also be 

harmful to human beings. Concern is warranted when it comes to consumption of seafood and fish 

that contain undesirable quantities of mercury, PCBs, dioxin and other harmful chemicals. Public 

health agencies attempt to monitor concentration levels of undesirable chemicals that occur in food 

products and public natural resource land and recreational waters. However, probably the best way 

to protect the public health is to identify and control the sources from which harmful chemicals 

originate.
78

SC1. Chemical Contaminant Sediment Monitoring Within the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem

Actions Completed: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has conducted an extensive baseline 

evaluation of the chemical contaminants within sediments of the bay (Brim, 1998). The evaluation, 

completed primarily in the latter 1980s, includes 103 sediment stations located in the bayous and 

open waters of the bay. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sediment database for St. Andrew Bay 

includes these 103 sampling locations and analyses for 61 individual chemicals. In addition, seven 

locations have been sampled for 17 dioxin and furan compounds.

Action: Chemically evaluate, once every ten years, approximately 200 sediment locations in the St. 

Andrew Bay ecosystem.

Background: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service began evaluating the chemical health of the 

sediments within the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem in 1985. This sampling established a valuable 

database for future comparison and monitoring of the health of ecosystem. This action is necessary, 

in order to preserve and protect the vast, productive, and economically valuable sediment habitat 

within St. Andrew Bay. It is also necessary to measure the actual effectiveness of contaminant 

management programs in preventing the chemical degradation of the bay's vast sediment habitat 

areas. Already implemented and operational management programs within the bay include: 1) 

urban stormwater treatment facilities, 2) State-permitted, treated point source discharges, 3) oil and 

chemical spill prevention initiatives, 4) State permitted, pollution control for industrial and 

municipal air pollution emissions, and 5) regulation of port, marina, and vessel discharges.

The sediment chemical evaluation and monitoring program should include the following:

1. The already established 103 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sediment sampling locations.

2. The establishment of new sediment monitoring stations in the 37 (of 59) St. Andrew Bay bayous 

that have never been sampled for chemical contaminants.

3. The establishment of additional "open water" bay stations, as necessary, for adequate scientific 

sampling of the bay.

4. The establishment of 10 sediment sampling stations in Deer Point Reservoir, a major water 

body in the ecosystem which has never been sampled.

5. Chemical evaluation of sediment samples at least once every 10 years, at approximately 200 

sediment locations (stations) within the 70,000 acres of St. Andrew Bay and Deer Point 

Reservoir.

Note: Two hundred sampling locations is a small, but adequate number, for this monitoring 

program. Two hundred stations amounts to an average of one station for every 350 acres of 

sediment habitat. This action will only require monitoring 20 stations per year on a rotational basis.

Strategy: Monitor routinely, 20 sediment stations each year. Evaluate the data base routinely to 

establish trends in chemicals, locate problem areas, identify contaminant sources, and initiate 

corrective actions.
79

Expected Benefits: The continued economic benefits of non-degraded habitat including valuable 

production of marine and freshwater organisms for commercial and recreational harvest, the 

preservation of harvestable organisms that are safe for human consumption, and the preservation of 

a clean ecosystem for human recreation.

Monitoring the Environmental Response: Monitoring will be through annual reports that update 

the data base, contain trend analysis, and define locations of concern. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service will manage the database.

Reliable Resources: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can serve as custodian of the database.
80

SC2. Evaluation of Dioxin Compounds Within the Ecosystem

Actions Completed: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has sampled marine sediments at seven 

locations within St. Andrew Bay, including one bayou and an adjacent lake, for 17 dioxin and furan 

compounds that are problematic to fish and wildlife resources. Dioxin and furan compounds were 

measured at every site and included most or all of the individual isomers for which analyses were 

run. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has sampled sediments at two other locations, and their 

data are comparable to the Service data for the area of the bay.

Action: At this time it is not known whether the dioxin and furan chemicals detected in the 

sediment samples from the nine locations (seven FWS and two Corps of Engineers) in the bay 

constitute an ecological risk to fish and wildlife resources within the bay. Therefore it seems 

prudent to evaluate the presence of these compounds more thoroughly to estimate the degree of any 

ecological impact, identify any local sources, eliminate further discharges as much as practicable, 

and to determine contributions from atmospheric deposition whether local, regional or remote.

Background: Dioxin and furan compounds are among the most toxic chemicals known. Their 

toxic effects can take place at incredibly low concentrations; as low as parts per billion and parts per 

trillion. The compounds vary in their toxic effects to different species, but they have been 

determined to be carcinogenic, teratogenic, and to mimic estrogenic compounds. The U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency is scheduled to complete a very comprehensive reassessment of 

dioxin in the environment and its human health implications. Canada will produce its guidelines for 

acceptable amounts of dioxin compounds in surface waters, sediments, fresh water and marine 

organisms, and wildlife.

Strategy: Develop and implement a Dioxin Habitat and Biota Assessment Program for St. Andrew 

Bay to include additional sampling to estimate amount of bay habitat (sediments) affected and 

degree of contamination, and organisms most at risk from exposure to dioxin compounds.

Expected Benefits: The evaluation will result in a determination of the degree of ecological risk, if 

any, associated with the presence of dioxin compounds in the environment. If significant risk exists, 

steps can be taken to reduce or eliminate such risk, thereby protecting bay habitat, fish and wildlife 

resources, and the general public from unnecessary exposure.

Monitoring the Environmental Response: The first monitoring will be a final report of the 

findings of a dioxin evaluation program within St. Andrew Bay. If steps are taken to reduce dioxin 

concentrations within the bay habitat and biota, such can be measured via sampling implemented as 

part of SC1 above.
81

SC3. Chemical Monitoring of Biological Organisms

Actions Completed: Some sampling of fish has been conducted in the past by the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (1971) for metals. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sampled various fish 

species, crabs and shrimp, for metals, organochlorine pesticides, PCBs, and polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons (PAH) in 1986. Both sampling efforts were random and very limited.

Action: Develop a Chemical Contaminant Monitoring Program for biological resources within the 

bay. The program should evaluate the resources consumed by the public (fish fillets, shrimp, and 

crabs). The program should also evaluate any chemical contaminants that could adversely effect 

species health and survivability, species reproductive capacity, biological diversity, and overall 

productivity by analyses of such tissues as eggs, fat, liver, etc. The program should also include 

opportunistic evaluation of aquatic birds, bird eggs, and incidental mortality of sea turtles and 

bottlenose dolphins. The program would include five separate annual components. One component 

would be completed each year, thus splitting the sampling into a five-year rotational system.

Background: Monitoring of the health of the bay’s biological organisms has not been done on any 

systematic basis.

Strategy: Select and monitor indicator species representative of important groups and habitats. 

These indicator species should include ten fish species, four birds, and occasional, opportunistic 

evaluation of sea turtle and bottlenose dolphin mortalities. Chemical analyses should include 

organochlorine compounds, metals, and PAH compounds. Other chemical compounds may need to 

be included after review of the bay’s habitat conditions, however dioxin and furan compounds are 

treated separately at this time (see action item SC2.)

Expected Benefits: Benefits include: identification of contaminant problems within biota, 

correction of problems through identification of pathways of chemicals and sources, conservation of 

the bay’s high species diversity, maintenance and possible increase of the bay’s biological 

productivity (biomass), and protections of consumers of the bay’ seafood. 

Monitoring the Environmental Response: The environmental response would be monitored 

through the annual publication of monitoring reports, and a 5-year summary report. Trend analyses 

could begin after publication of the second 5-year report.
82

SC4. Determine the Current Status of Air Quality in the Ecosystem

Actions Completed: The single air quality parameter measured in the ecosystem is particulate 

matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10). The ecosystem is considered an attainment area 

for the other six priority pollutants listed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

However, growth may have altered the composition of the other six priority pollutants in the 

ecosystem.

Action: Request that DEP or the appropriate federal agency add a second air quality monitoring 

station in the ecosystem to obtain data on the amount of mercury possibly being emitted to the 

atmosphere and to assess the other five priority pollutants in the atmosphere.

Background: The single monitoring station for PM10 only has been in operation since 1992. 

The Deer Point Lake Reservoir was listed in 1998 as an impaired water body based on an 

advisory directed at the human consumption of fish taken from the Reservoir. Mercury was 

listed as the parameter of concern (see air quality section of this plan). The possible ecological 

effects of mercury in the food chains of biotic communities are well established in the literature.

Strategy: Contact the appropriate state and federal agencies and request that an additional air 

quality monitoring station be placed in the ecosystem or the present station be modified to

address mercury and the other priority pollutants.
83

SC5. Restoration of Martin Lake Habitat

Actions Completed: The Fish and Wildlife Service has completed a preliminary evaluation of the 

chemical contaminants occurring in the sediments of the lake, and the Florida Game and Fish 

Commission has conducted fish surveys in the lake. Following a two year effort, the City of 

Springfield received a grant in 1998 to study Martin Lake and correct stormwater problems. A 

consulting firm was retained and a plan is being developed to assess the water quality, benthic 

communities, and sediment quality. The studies have begun or are about to commence.

Action: If warranted, restore the lake habitat to an uncontaminated condition that allows all public 

recreational uses without risk, and that reduces ecological risk to species that use the lake as habitat, 

including migratory birds, aquatic mammals, fishes and invertebrates.

Background: Prior to the 1950's, the lake was actually Martin Bayou with a free and open 

connection to St. Andrew Bay. Because industrial effluent from the bay was entering and 

polluting the Bayou, in the late 1950's a small dam was constructed at the entrance, and the 

saltwater bayou eventually evolved into a freshwater lake with one-way outflow of water into the 

bay. In the late 1980's the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service collected a number of sediment 

samples from the lake and found the sediments to be contaminated with polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbon (PAH) compounds and some metals. Dioxin compounds were also present in the 

sediment and the presence of these chemicals is also a concern. Fish, including largemouth bass 

and redear sunfish, are present in the lake. To date, complete evaluation of all chemicals in the 

fish species of the lake has not been accomplished.

Strategy: Contamination within the lake may be historic (old contamination from a source that no 

longer exists) or contemporary. Attempt to identify the sources of contemporary contamination 

impacting the lake's sediments and biota. If any sources are currently present, eliminate further 

releases. Based on the results of the planned studies, determine the ecological and human health 

risks present in the lake and determine the areal extent and volume of sediment that may need to be 

removed to clean up contaminants within the lake.

A lake restoration/preservation plan could include: a) dredging and disposal of contaminated 

sediments, b) enlargement of the connections between the segments of the lake at Cherry Street and 

Highway 22 to increase water exchange and ingress and egress of aquatic species between the upper 

and lower portions of the lake, c) improvement of the management of stormwater runoff entering 

the lake through engineering design and a maintenance program, and d) evaluation and 

improvement of the management of the land in areas at the headwaters of the lake.

Expected Benefits: The lake is potentially an important urban recreational, educational, and 

biological resource. Consumable fish, trophy fish, and water-related recreational activities have a 

direct, positive economic benefit to the public. As a small, fresh water ecosystem, the lake will 

significantly benefit local educational facilities as a site for field trips, and individual student 

projects. Natural resource benefits include the establishment and maintenance of a diverse aquatic 

freshwater biological community including wading birds, water fowl, small mammals, fishes, and 

freshwater invertebrates. The lake will also serve as an important source of fresh water for wildlife, 

located next to a high salinity bay.

Monitoring the Environmental Response: Upon completion of any restoration actions that may 

be needed, sediments can be chemically evaluated on a routine basis, fish species can be chemically 
84

evaluated to assure that consumed fish are of no risk to the public, and fish and wildlife monitoring 

studies can be conducted to measure the biological productivity and diversity of the lake. 
85

SC6. Restoration of Watson Bayou Process Assessment

Actions Completed: A citizens group has been formed that is concerned with the conditions and 

plans for the development of Watson Bayou. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has completed 

two rounds of sediment sampling at ten locations within the bayou. Round one was completed in 

July 1985 and consisted of triplicate samples at each of the ten locations. Round two was 

completed in July 1995 and consisted of duplicate samples at each of the ten locations. Using 

sediment quality guidelines, the 1985 data were evaluated, and the bayou ranked as one of the three 

most extensively contaminated locations within St. Andrew Bay.

Action: Compare the 1985 data with the 1995 data to determine if storm water, spill prevention, 

dredge and fill, and other management programs have resulted in less contamination into the 

bayou. Also compare data sets to determine if any natural restoration resulting from 

biodegradation or hydraulic flushing has taken place. If the bayou still scores high, using the 

sediment quality guidelines, proceed with the development and implementation of a Bayou 

Restoration Plan. Evaluate the bayou water for bacterial problems to assure water that is safe for 

activities such as swimming, wading and water skiing. Evaluate biological organisms to assure 

they are safe for consumption.

Background: The Bayou has been a receiving water for pollutants of various types since 1835 

when a sawmill was constructed along the shoreline. A paper mill was constructed in 1931, various 

oil and fuel storage facilities were located later, as was a municipal waste water treatment plant that 

discharged directly into the bayou. Several marine construction and repair facilities with associated 

marine railways also contributed metal-containing runoff to the Bayou. Organic wastes from 

commercial fishing operations and petroleum and chemicals from recreational marinas and vessel 

discharges have also been responsible for contaminants entering the water body. Finally, fertilizers, 

pesticides and septic tank leachate from the residential housing on the western shore have 

contributed to the problem.

Strategy: If necessary, commence restoration through public education of shoreline property 

owners, evaluation of on-site environmental management regulatory programs, cleanup of 

particularly bad sections via dredging and disposal or other methods, stabilize shorelines and install 

storm water management facilities (particularly in the watershed headwaters) to control urban 

runoff.

Expected Benefits: Benefits include increased recreational use, cleaner water and sediments, 

fishable and swimmable conditions (as required by the federal Clean Water Act), associated 

increases in waterfront property values, increased quality of habitat for fish and wildlife, and an 

increase in the Bayou's species diversity.

Monitoring the Environmental Response: Develop a Bayou Management Plan that includes 

components for one-time restoration, and components for perpetual, appropriate actions through 

management, to maintain the Bayou's restored water quality, sediment quality, fish and wildlife and 

public recreational uses.
86

SC7. Restoration of Massalina Bayou, Sampling and Assessment

 

Actions Completed: The Fish and Wildlife Service has sediment chemical data for three locations 

within the Bayou (1985 and later). Some water quality data may exist. The City of Panama City 

has constructed storm water retention and treatment facilities at some points on the Bayou.

Action: Obtain additional sediment samples to compare with the 1985 data and determine the

degree of contamination present. Evaluate the bayou waters for bacterial problems to assure 

recreational water that is safe for activities such as swimming, wading and water skiing. Evaluate 

biological organisms to assure they are safe for consumption. If the Bayou scores high, using the 

sediment quality guidelines, proceed with the development and implementation of a Bayou 

Restoration Plan.

Background: For better than fifty years, Massalina Bayou has been the site of several small 

industrial activities including marine vessel construction and repairs, large marinas, and unknown 

historical activities at the upper end of the bayou. Urban storm water runoff from downtown 

Panama City and adjacent residential neighborhoods has also contributed chemicals, pollutants, 

fertilizers and pesticides. 

Strategy: If necessary, commence restoration through public education of shoreline property 

owners, evaluation of on-site environmental management regulatory programs, cleanup particularly 

bad sections via dredging and disposal or other methods and install storm water management 

facilities (particularly in the watershed headwaters) to control urban runoff.

Expected Benefits: Benefits include increased recreational use, cleaner water and sediments, and 

improved fishing and swimming conditions (as required by the federal Clean Water Act), and 

associated increases in waterfront property values. Increased quality of habitat for fish and wildlife, 

and an increase in the bayou's species diversity.

Monitoring the Environmental Response: Develop a Bayou Management Plan that includes 

components for one-time restoration, and components for perpetual, appropriate actions through 

management, to maintain the bayou's restored water quality, sediment quality, fish and wildlife and 

public recreational uses.
87

SC8. Restoration of Lynn Haven Bayou, Sampling and Assessment

Actions Completed: The Florida Department of Environmental Protection, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and private citizens have conducted separate limited, sampling and analysis efforts for 

water quality and sediment quality sampling within the bayou. The Defense Logistic Agency has 

been conducting petroleum assessment and remediation since 1993. Tyndall Air Force Base has 

been actively conducting a CERCLA investigation since 1999 and has just completed the 

Preliminary Assessment and Site Inspection phases of the process.

Action: Assess conditions within the bayou, evaluate impacts and potential sources, establish 

needed action/options, develop remediation and restoration options and recommended remedy, and 

create a bayou management plan

Background: A Defense Fuel Support Point was constructed adjacent to Lynn Haven Bayou in 

1943. A causeway that bisected the bayou into north and south sections provided road and rail 

access. The southern section is open to North Bay while the northern section is closed by the 

causeway. Tidal action in the northern segment is provided by two sets of culverts through the 

causeway and a mile long canal located along the southern boundary of the facility. This canal 

provides some recreational access to adjacent bay waters. The property was originally over 400 

acres in size, but 200 acres were provided to the Panama City-Bay County Airport and Industrial 

District in 1967. The area now serves as an industrial park.

The area was sparsely populated when the facility was built, but now has dense residential 

development. Neither the residential area nor the industrial park appears to have adequate 

stormwater management. Sedimentation is occurring in the northern section of the bayou, the 

northern extreme of the southern section of the bayou, and the canal. Initial results of studies 

indicate that contamination has occurred in both sections of the bayou as well as in Upper Goose 

Bayou. However, there is insufficient information to determine the extent, fate, and transport of 

contaminants. It does appear that, in the absence of planned stormwater management, the northern 

section of the bayou is serving as a stormwater control mechanism.

Strategy: Continue the CERCLA investigation to characterize the contamination, and supplement 

the investigation with stormwater and biodiversity studies to assess the health of the bayou and 

identify adverse impacts that require attention. Once identified, eliminate or minimize the sources 

and develop long-term restoration and management options

Expected Benefits: Proper identification of the status of the bayou, restoration of wetland habitat, 

bayou biodiversity, bayou productivity, and improved stormwater/sediment management.

Monitoring the Environmental Response: The completion of the status assessment of the bayou 

will provide the basics for restoration actions and determine the monitoring process. Monitoring 

will be included in the future action and management plans.

Point Source Discharges
88

Point Source Discharges

The amount of permitted pollutant loading to the St. Andrew Bay estuarine system has been 

reduced over the past 10 years. This reduction is the result of the elimination of several small 

package treatment plants that, in many instances, did not provide adequate levels of treatment. 

The following is a list of the facilities that have been eliminated by sending wastewater to the 

Panama City Beach AWT: Woodlawn AWT discharge to West Bay (0.109 mgd), Venture Out 

WWTP discharge to Grand Lagoon (0.09 mgd), Pride Resorts discharge to Alligator Bayou and 

St. Andrew Bay (0.0365 mgd), and the Naval Coastal System Center discharge to St. Andrew 

Bay (0.2 mgd). The remaining WWTP discharging to the St. Andrew Bay system either 

currently use or are developing plans to use advanced wastewater treatment processes that will 

further decrease the pollutant loading to the bay from point source discharges. Volunteers of the 

St. Andrew Bay Resource Management Association (RMA) have conducted routine quarterly water 

quality monitoring over the last seven years within the bay. Parameters measured include salinity, 

temperature, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, and some bacterial measurements

Expected Benefits: Data on the current status of air quality in the ecosystem would be 

available. Air concentrations of the six priority pollutants would be documented, and 

information, positive or negative, would be obtained pertaining to the mercury advisory for the 

consumption of fish from Deer Point Reservoir.
89

SC9. Cumulative Assessment

Action: Assess the total loading of the various permitted pollutants to the St. Andrew Bay 

estuary.

Background: The total pollutant loading from all permitted point sources is not known or 

generally known. The total amounts of each permitted pollutant should be determined and made 

available to the interested public.

Strategy: Obtain copies of all permitted point source discharges from the DEP. Calculate the 

total amounts of each permitted pollutant that is discharged to the estuary per unit time.

Expected Benefits: This information can be used to make informed decisions during the 

renewal of existing permits or the evaluation of new permit applications. It can also serve to 

educate the public as to the amount of pollutants entering the estuary.

Monitoring the Environmental Response: Monitoring of direct environmental response is not 

necessary, but monitoring of the increases or decreases in the total permitted pollutant loading to 

the estuary can be achieved and cumulative impacts better addressed.
90

SC10. Determine the Assimilative Capacity of the St. Andrew Bay Estuary

Actions Completed: A water quality based evaluation of the estuary that concentrated on a

portion of East Bay has been conducted with regard to the Military Point discharge of treated 

domestic and industrial wastewater by Bay County (Hydroqual et al 1993).

Action: Perform the necessary analysis of the estuary to determine its capacity to assimilate the 

current level of permitted pollutant discharges.

Strategy: Discuss the need for such an analysis with the agencies responsible for issuing point 

sources discharges, DEP and EPA, with the purpose of obtaining the information necessary to 

the design and cost of such an analysis.

Expected Benefits: Knowledge of the assimilative capacity of the estuary is essential to the 

permitting of new point source discharges and the renewal of existing permitted discharges in 

view of the rapidly expanding human population.

Monitoring the Environmental Response: Monitoring of the environmental response would 

not be required until the assimilative capacity is determined.
91

Non-Point Sources Discharges: Stormwater Treatment Actions

The number of stormwater permits issued is increasing steadily from 51 issued in Bay County in 

1991 to 95 issued in 1995 with a continuing increase as development of the ecosystem proceeds. 

The beach nourishment project for Panama City Beach will include stormwater rework that 

should increase the quality and decrease the quantity of stormwater directly entering the Gulf of 

Mexico along the nourished beach. Additional stormwater actions are needed.

SC11. Maintenance of Existing Stormwater Treatment Facilities

Actions Completed: Bay County is addressing the problem areas identified by DEP regarding 

stormwater treatment, and the municipalities are in various stages of planning and/or 

implementation of stormwater plans. 

Action: Examine existing stormwater treatment ponds for proper functioning and obtain 

maintenance of the facilities to restore treatment capacity.

Background: Stormwater treatment facilities have been permitted since 1982. Some or a 

majority of the older ponds may require maintenance to re-establish their ability to adequately 

treat their influent.

Strategy: Examine existing stormwater treatment permits for the presence of a condition that 

requires maintenance of a facility. Inspect those facilities, oldest first, for compliance with 

treatment requirements. Require maintenance, if necessary.

Expected Benefits: Would return those facilities that are not currently functioning at the 

required level of efficiency to the required level of efficiency. This would serve to increase the 

quality of the water exiting these treatment facilities and entering surface waters.

Monitoring the Environmental Response: Monitor the quality of the water discharged from 

the facility before and after maintenance to quantify the effect of maintenance on the quality of 

water leaving the facility.

Regulatory Needs: If not already required, require that maintenance of stormwater facility be 

included in all permits to assure that the required treatment levels are maintained through out the 

life of the facility.
92

SC12. Survey Stormwater Sediment Quality in Existing Ponds

Actions Completed: None known.

Action: Request that DEP provide any data that they may have obtained regarding sediment 

quality in existing stormwater ponds. Then select representative, permitted stormwater ponds 

and perform an analysis of the sediment.

Background: A number of treatment ponds have been in existence and functioning for some 

years. The ponds function to accumulate sediments and pollutants before the water is discharged 

to a surface water body. The accumulation of sediments and the pollutants carried by the runoff 

entering these ponds may be present in concentrations high enough to be of concern. 

Examination of the sediment quality in the ponds should be investigated, and, if necessary, the 

contaminated sediments should be removed and disposed of properly.

Strategy: The information gathered under SC1 can be used to select a sample of the permitted 

treatment ponds for the analysis of contaminant levels in the sediments that have accumulated in 

the ponds. Standard sampling and analytical techniques should be employed in obtaining and 

analyzing the sediments.

Monitoring the Environmental Response: Perform in conjunction with SC1.
93

SC13. Retrofit Stormwater Infrastructure Constructed Prior to 1982

Actions Completed: The existing Stormwater Plan addresses stormwater problems identified 

by the DEP. Many of these involve retrofitting existing drainages with treatment facilities. 

Urbanized areas have drainages that would benefit from the installation of treatment facilities. 

Progress toward improving the water quality discharged from these drains is slow because of the 

lack of funds to perform all the needed work in as short a time as possible. Funds for this 

activity are present in the SWIM plan for preliminary work

Action: Identify the areas of most concern from aerial photographs, conduct onsite visits, 

investigate the date of construction, prioritize the areas of concern, and present the list to the 

appropriate governmental body for inclusion on their priority lists.

Background: Prior to 1982, stormwater drainage structures were often constructed without 

treatment facilities. These old drains, in some instances, may be contributing a major amount of 

pollutants to surface waters.

Strategy: Survey the existing, non-permitted (pre-1982) stormwater drainage structures and 

assess their possible impact on the receiving waters based upon sediment load and pollutant load 

that they carry. This could be estimated from an examination of the condition of the drainage 

area of the structure.

Monitoring the Environmental Response: Compare the quality of the water discharged before 

retrofitting with the quality of the water discharged after retrofitting.
94

SC14. Investigate the Advantages and Disadvantages of Organizing a Stormwater Utility 

for Bay County

Actions Completed: The concept of creating a stormwater utility has been discussed at various 

levels of local government.

Action: Investigate the process of creating a stormwater utility for Bay County and determine 

the advantages and disadvantages of doing so. Provide information to the public and local 

officials for consideration.

Background: Stormwater Utilities open the door to additional sources of funding to address 

stormwater needs. The reasons for Bay County not establishing a stormwater utility should be 

addressed again in light of the actual and potential growth and development of the county.

Expected Benefits: May provide a means to obtain additional funds to those budgeted by the 

NWFWMD to address the stormwater action plans in the SWIM plan and the plans under 

development by various political entities in the county. Would provide for a holistic approach to 

stormwater management, if feasible.
95

Action Plans for Implementing the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem Management 

Plan, Growth Management Sub-committee 

Implementation of the ecosystem management plan requires actions directed at explaining the 

plan to those not familiar with ecosystem management, distributing the plan to the interested 

citizens, encouraging its use by the local land use planning organizations, and use of the plan by 

the municipal and county planning commissions 

GM1. State Owned Submerged Lands Policy

Actions Completed: Many policies exist except a definitive one.

Action: Institute a policy whereby state owned, public, submerged lands located at or below the 

mean high tide line in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem will not be converted from the natural or 

currently occurring condition for private or public use other than the maintenance of their 

ecosystem functions. The policy will be directed at the maintenance of ecosystem functions by 

retaining the public owned submerged habitats, particularly emergent and submergent, vegetated 

wetlands, as such.

Background: The State of Florida owns the lands that are located at and below the mean high 

tide line in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem. These submerged lands support a variety of habitats 

found within the system from seagrass beds to intertidal emergent marsh. These lands should be 

managed to maintain the integrity of the ecosystem. The key to the management of these lands, 

in the interest of the maintenance of ecosystem function, is the prevention of their loss, 

destruction, or alteration for private or public uses that affect the ability of the existing 

submerged lands to so function. Case by case evaluation of permits does not prevent loss, 

destruction, or alteration for private or public uses of these lands. Many methods of 

encouragement to prevent the alteration or conversion of state owned submerged lands exist 

within the permitting process. However, they do not provide for the prevention of the loss or 

conversion of state owned submerged lands.

Strategy: Work with and encourage the responsible FDEP agencies to institute policies that: 1. 

prevent the conversion of state owned submerged lands to ownership by entities other than the 

State of Florida. 2. institute policies that prevent the conversion of state owned submerged lands 

to uplands or adversely alter the existing ecosystem functions of the land.

Expected Benefits: This would add further assurance that public lands remain in public 

ownership and that they remain a functioning part of the ecosystem. This would eliminate or 

reduce the incremental losses of public lands and their ecological functions resulting from the 

permitting of activities such as bulkheads waterward of the mean high tide line in areas not 

experiencing erosion.

Monitoring the Environmental Response: Annually review all permits issued in the 

ecosystem for compliance with the policy, establish number of acres of public lands converted to 

private ownership, and number of acres of habitat change on public lands.

Regulatory Needs: New laws or regulations are not needed, only a definitive policy statement 

that will be enforced.
96

GM2. Creation of an Ecosystem Mitigation Bank

Actions Completed: None

Action: Develop a mitigation bank for the ecosystem that would use some of the funds obtained 

from the existing local, state, and federal permitting programs to purchase lands identified as 

necessary to maintain the integrity of the ecosystem. The operation of the mitigation bank would 

be the responsibility of a local or state governmental agency or could be the responsibility of a 

nonprofit organization. Its purpose would be to obtain a mosaic of habitats characteristic of the 

ecosystem including aquatic, wetland, and terrestrial habitats and link them to existing public 

land in order to maintain the ecotones and connections between these habitats. 

Background: State and federal permitting agencies such as the FDEP and the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers have developed procedures for the development of mitigation banks to serve the 

needs of the agencies and the public. Mitigation banks are supposed to speed the permitting 

process while better assuring that mitigation for unavoidable losses of the regulated habitats is 

performed and functions as a replacement for the habitat lost. A mitigation bank would be a 

method of obtaining funds for the directed expenditure to purchase and/or restore priority 

habitats in the ecosystem.

Strategy: Identify the agency or group to be responsible for the management of the mitigation 

bank. Obtain the guidelines for the development of a mitigation bank and begin the process of 

developing approval for the bank.

Expected Benefits: Provides a means of obtaining lands within the ecosystem that have been 

identified as necessary to the maintenance of the biodiversity and functions of the ecosystem.

Monitoring the Environmental Response: The effectiveness of the mitigation bank in adding 

priority lands and restoration of priority habitats would be tracked by assessing the acreage 

added each year and the amount of restorative work accomplished within the framework of the 

funds received.

Regulatory Needs: Existing state and federal laws and the mitigation bank guidelines 

developed by the state and federal permitting agencies are adequate for the accomplishment of 

this action.
97

GM3. Coordinate Growth Management Plans

It appears from the currently proposed legislation and administration directions to state 

government agencies that the concept of growth management in the State of Florida is, to say the 

least, in a state of flux. It would not be prudent to wait for the situation to stabilize before taking 

action at the local level to assure the survival of the functions of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem.

Actions Completed: All of the Evaluations and Appraisal Reports from each entity in Bay 

County that has a Growth Management Plan have been reviewed.

Action: Lines of communication should be maintained with the cities and counties in order to 

ensure that the Action Plans are completed, the plan is explained and understood, and that it is 

incorporated into the planning processes. Interested groups should continue to communicate 

with and provide technical assistance to the entities as the Comprehensive Growth Management 

Plans are modified or rewritten, and participate in the activities of the various planning 

commissions.

Strategy: Obtain a working relationship with the citizens organizations in the county to make 

the local governmental bodies aware of the need to develop and implement meaningful, 

consistent land use plans that address ecosystem concerns.

Expected Benefits: Aid in the development of more uniform Growth Management Plans in 

terms of the management of natural resources based on an ecosystem management approach.

Monitoring the Environmental Response: Monitoring would involve tracking the 

development of the Comprehensive Plans and the Land Development Regulations by which they 

are implemented, and track the implementation of the plans to obtain information as to the 

uniformity in the management of the natural resources of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem.

Regulatory Needs: Uniformity of Growth Management Plans regarding natural resources.

Related Indicators: The Growth Management Plans are related directly or indirectly to all of 

the Action items in this plan.
98

GM4. Establish the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem Management Plan as a Legal Component 

of Each Bay County Local Government Comprehensive Management Plan

Actions Completed: Publication of the original document provided a significant portion of the 

basic information required to establish the existing natural resource quality of St. Andrew Bay, 

Florida. A multitude of other reports and surveys have established the ecosystem as a unique, 

resource with exceptional water quality, biological diversity, biological productivity, and extremely 

high economic, educational, and social value.

Action: Provide this revision of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem Management Plan to the 

municipalities and Bay County Commission to adopt and include as a component of each individual 

Local Government Comprehensive Management Plan.

Background: It has been demonstrated by several federal and state government agencies, 

municipal governments, conservation groups, and citizens that the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem is an 

ecologically, economically, and recreationally valuable resource of significant importance to the 

general public, commercial fishermen, recreational businesses, industries, and educational 

institutions. Further, it has been demonstrated that the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem faces a multitude 

of conservation, growth and management challenges that will require a variety of management 

tools, funding sources, management resources, and dedicated persons to assure retention of the 

valuable resources within the ecosystem. The Coastal Management, Conservation, Recreation and 

Open Space, and Economic elements of Local Government Comprehensive Plans include strategies 

for municipal government management that can significantly protect and conserve the resources of 

the Bay. However, these elements can be strengthened and improved by adoption of the ecosystem 

management plan as a component of each comprehensive plan, and modification of specific 

elements of each local government comprehensive plan to include management practices identified 

and recommended in the plan.

Strategy: 1. Provide copies of the plan to each local government for their review.

2. Individuals and groups familiar with the plan should be available to work with a particular local 

government to assist them in understanding the plan and modifying their appropriate comprehensive 

plan elements to incorporate maximum management actions and practices.

Expected Benefits: Continuity between Local Government Comprehensive Plans and the 

ecosystem management plan and an increased overall effort to manage properly the St. Andrew Bay 

ecosystem.

Monitoring the Environmental Response: Modification and improvement in Local Government 

Comprehensive Plans should be reflected in myriad positive actions by local governments that 

result in beneficial management results within St. Andrew Bay.
99

GM5. Implement the Ecosystem Management Plan and the SWIM plan for the St. Andrew 

Bay Ecosystem

Actions Completed: The NWFWMD has developed the Surface Water Improvement 

Management Plan. This Ecosystem Management Plan has been developed as a complement to 

the SWIM plan.

Background: The emphasis of the SWIM plan is on the maintenance and restoration of surface 

water quality, and the emphasis of this document is on the maintenance and restoration of 

ecosystem functions in general. The goals of this document are stated on page 1 of this 

document. The achievement of the goals of the two plans should proceed in concert to avoid 

duplication of effort and expenditures of time and money.

Action: In conjunction with the NWFWMD, develop a list of priority items to be accomplished 

by the NWFWMD and those to be accomplished by other agencies or organizations that are 

interested in and capable of completing the Action Plans listed as priorities. Progress toward 

completion of the listed Actions Plans should begin immediately following the development of 

the priority list.

Expected Benefits: Progress toward implementing the two plans will proceed in concert with 

the more important Action Plans being addressed first. The ecosystem would benefit by a 

planned and active approach to obtaining the information needed to implement the two plans, 

and an accelerated accomplishment of the goals of both plans.
100

GM6. Land Use Planning and Transferable Development Rights in the St. Andrew Bay 

Ecosystem

Actions Completed: Other counties in Florida have established the value of Transferable 

Development Rights (also known as Non-Contiguous Density Transfers) in their Growth 

Management Plans. Shaffer (2001) provides an insight into this method of approach to land use 

planning.

Action: Explore the advantages of this concept to the management of the St. Andrew Bay 

ecosystem and if applicable to achieving the goals of this plan, participate in the education of the 

citizens regarding the advantages. Participate in the Growth Management Planning process by 

encouraging the use of these methods in the growth management processes of the counties in the 

ecosystem.

Expected Benefits: The use of this method may apply directly to the acquisition of conservation

and preservation lands in the ecosystem and to the acquisition of corridors connecting existing 

public lands and those lands acquired by the use of the method.
101

Action Plans for Implementing the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem Management 

Plan, Education Outreach Sub-committee 

EO1. Education About the Significance of Seagrass Meadows in the Ecosystem

Action Completed: This Action Plan has been completed as stated in the original plan.

1. Mr. Doug Hough of the Museum of Man and the Sea, Panama City Beach, Florida completed 

a video depicting the importance of seagrass meadows to the ecosystem, and the effects of 

careless boating on the meadows. This video is available from the Museum. 

2. “A Boater’s Guide to St. Andrew Bay” was prepared by the Northwest Florida Aquatic 

Preserve Program (NWFAPP) and the Florida Marine Research Institute that was printed and 

distributed in 1996. The guide provides a map and information regarding the various habitats 

including the location the location of boat ramps and marinas in St. Andrew Bay. This is an 

excellent educational document of practical use by the public. It is directed at helping the 

boating public to avoid damaging seagrass beds and other estuarine habitats in St. Andrew Bay. 

3. The International Paper Company Foundation and Arizona Chemical Company provided 

funds to the St. Andrew Bay Resource Management Association to produce and place signs at 

boat ramps to inform boaters of the effects of propeller damage to seagrass beds. The NWFAPP 

provided funds to place buoys in the water at the edge of selected seagrass beds to warn boaters 

of the shallow water. 

4. The International Paper Company Foundation and Arizona Chemical Company provided a 

grant to BEST, Inc. to purchase materials for and develop a seagrass informational display for 

use at various conferences, festivals, etc.

The RMA, as part of the seagrass monitoring grant, will produce an educational video regarding 

the role of seagrass in the St, Andrew Bay estuarine system. 
102

EO2. BEST Web Site Creation and Operation

Actions Completed: BEST formerly had a web site. However, that website has been 

discontinued because it has become outdated and obsolete.

Background: With the opening of offices, the hiring of staff for the Administrative Support 

Team (AST), and the expansion of the scope and vision of BEST, and because of the critical 

need for public education, the Steering Committee has determined that a new web site is needed.

Action: Create, activate, and maintain a new BEST website for the St. Andrew Bay 

Environmental Study Team.

Strategies: The web site information will be developed and created by the Steering Committee, 

its Sub-Committees and Liaisons, the BEST Inc. Board of Directors, and the Administrative 

Support Team. A contractor will be hired to build and maintain the website, with oversight by 

the Executive Director of the AST. A web-hosting company will be selected, and a domain 

name will be chosen.

Expected Benefits: The web site will fulfill many purposes and advance the mission of BEST. 

It will contain information about our mission and goals; the BEST volunteer program, including 

applications and opportunities; projects, progress, and accomplishments; our newsletter; and a 

calendar of meetings, field projects, and other activities. It will also contain electronic copies of 

all BEST reports.

Regulatory Needs: None applicable.

Monitoring the Environmental Response: The indirect environmental response will be 

increased public awareness and education which will translate into increased conservation and 

resource appreciation. The web-site will contain data about the number of visitors, and may 

contain a comments page. This data will be monitored and regularly reported to the Steering 

Committee by the Education/Outreach Sub-Committee.
103

EO3. Inform the General Public about the BEST Program

Actions Completed: Prepared a general information sheet to inform the public about the vision, 

Mission, Goal, etc. of BEST. A number of articles have been published regarding BEST and its 

accomplishments. A quarterly newsletter is now being published and distributed to BEST 

participants and the public. A BEST website, baybest.org, has been created and is functional via 

EO2.

Action: Continue to inform and educate the public about BEST, its Mission and Goal, and its 

projects and activities.

Background: BEST has been in existence since 1987. A concerted public information plan is 

needed to increase interest and membership.

Strategy: Hire a contractor or recruit a qualified volunteer to develop Public Service 

Announcements for distribution to local media, develop a Speakers Bureau consisting of BEST 

members who will be available to speak about subjects regarding BEST and its activities, and 

develop appropriate brochures about BEST to be distributed to the public. Participate in local 

fairs, festivals, and public events. Continue publishing the Newsletter and maintain the Website 

to inform members and the public about BEST activities via EO2. 

Expected Benefits: Benefits will include: increased interest, attendance, participation, input, and 

donations from a larger more diverse segment of the population.

Monitoring of Response: Monitor attendance and participation at meetings, and new sources of 

information (people and new projects) generated for the ecosystem management plan. 

Environmental benefits would accrue from the more diverse input to the plan. Also monitor the 

growth of the BEST volunteer population.

Regulatory Needs: None.

Estimated Cost to Complete Action: Hire a contractor or use volunteer time to develop the 

PSAs (written, audio, or video), develop the brochures and other materials, and attend local 

events. Finally, determine a practical annual amount that is adequate to maintain a public 

relations/marketing effort.

Sources of Funds to Complete the Action: Seek grant funds, as appropriate, on at least an 

annual basis, to fund this effort.
104

EO4 . Inform the General Public about the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem

Actions Completed: A bibliography of the scientific information regarding the St. Andrew Bay 

Ecosystem and near-shore waters of the Gulf of Mexico has been developed, the data files from 

the early years of BEST, and the files of BEST activities and correspondence have been 

assembled into CDs, and are kept at the BEST offices, with electronic copies also available at 

Allegra Print and Imaging. These educational materials are now centralized and available to the 

public for informational and education purposes.

Action: Educate and inform the general public about St. Andrew Bay, its ecosystem and 

watershed; its flora and fauna; and, various impacts on these resources. Serve as a resource 

“information bank” to elected officials, decision makers, developers, governmental 

representatives, teachers, conservation organizations, naturalists, and the general public. 

Background: BEST was organized in 1987 to share information regarding the natural resources 

of the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem and to address cumulative concerns for the ecological integrity 

of the system. The Goal of BEST, as described in the Ecosystem Management Plan (Preface, 

page ii), is to maintain and restore a healthy St. Andrew Bay ecosystem for the benefit of all 

people. The public should be educated and informed about the value of the ecosystem, 

particularly about the biological species, populations, and communities that make up the 

ecosystem.

Strategy: The strategy of this action plan focuses on the ecosystem itself, its biological 

resources and related information, including the impacts from human activity. With that in mind, 

the following are objectives of the action plan: 

1) Notify the public of the existence of the assembled biological information. Collect and 

distribute interesting facts about St. Andrew Bay.

2) Educate the public about our ecosystem’s living resources, impacts on these resources, 

and proper management of these resources through the BEST website, newsletter, 

preparation of educational brochures and other documents.

3) Assist other organizations (both public and private), in educating the public (including 

students and visitors) about our ecosystem and its biological resources, how they are 

being impacted, and use of proper management techniques.

4) Enlist BEST members and partners in these endeavors, as speakers, teachers, and 

mentors.

5) Participate in local fairs, festivals and public events.

6) Re-establish a “Sea Life of St. Andrew Bay” classroom course to be taught to the public 

by BEST volunteers, with a reasonable tuition which can help fund this action plan. 

Establish a “Wildlife and Plants” classroom course taught in the same manner.

Expected Benefits: The educational materials on CDs are a means to better inform the 

community regarding issues related to St. Andrew Bay. Teachers can incorporate St. Andrew 

Bay information into their curriculum. A better understanding of our ecosystem’s biological 
105

resources can benefit it through the activities of an educated and interested public. The Sea Life 

class will increase an appreciation of the biological resources; it will increase the conservation 

ethic of the community; and it will increase the numbers of BEST members, volunteers, and 

partners.

Monitoring the Response: Monitor the number and distribution of species/resource brochures, 

BEST volunteer participation in this action plan, students enrolled in the Sea Life course, and 

funds generated by the course. 

Regulatory needs: None.

Sources of Funds to Complete the Action: May seek grant funds for specific components of 

this action plan.
106

Literature Cited

Barkuloo, James. 2001. Personal Communications. BEST Civic Organizations Representative.

Beck, M.W., Odaya, M., Bachant, J.J., Keller, B., Martin, R., Mathews, C., and Ramseur, P.G. 

2000. Identification of priority sites for conservation in the northern Gulf of Mexico: An 

ecoregional plan. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA. 49 pp. (available on the 

www.natureserve.com web site).

Brim, M. 1998. Environmental contaminants evaluation of the St. Andrew Bay system, Florida. 

I, II, III. Pub. No. PCFO-EC98-01, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama City, FL. 232 pp.

Brunner, R.D. and Clark, T.W. 1997. A practice-based approach to ecosystem management. 

Conservation Biology 11(1):48-58.

Brusher, H. A. and Ogren, L.H. 1976. Distribution, abundance and size of penaeid shrimps in 

the St. Andrew Bay system, Florida. Fish. Bull. 74(1):158-166.

Bureau of Land Management. 1995. Florida resource management plan and record of decision. 

U.S. Depart. Interior. BLM. Jackson, MS, 140 pp.

Chafin, L. 2001. Personal Communications. Botanist, Florida Natural Areas Inventory, 

Tallahassee, FL.

Clewell, A.F. 1985. Guide to the vascular plants of the Florida Panhandle. Univ. Presses of 

Florida. 605 pp.

Coile, N.C. 2000. Notes on Florida’s endangered and threatened plants. Fla. Depart. Agric. & 

Consumer Serv., Div. of Plant Indust. Bur. Entomol., Nematol, & Plant Pathol. Contrib. No. 

38, 3rd Edition. 122 pp.

Cox, J., Kautz, R., Maclaughlin, M., and Gilbert, T. 1994. Closing the gaps in Florida’s wildlife 

habitat conservation system. Off ice of Environmental Services, Florida Game and Freshwater 

Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL. 239 pp.

Cox, J.A. and Kautz, R.S. 2000. Habitat conservation needs of rare and imperiled wildlife in 

Florida. Office of Environmental Services, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 

Tallahassee, FL. 156 pp.

Dahl, T.E. 2000. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1986-1997. 

Depart. Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Wash., D.C. 82 pp.

Duffe, E.M., Baldwin, R.A., Lewis, D.L, and Warmack, W.B. 1984. Soil survey of Bay County, 

Florida. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 152 pp. + maps.

Florida Department of Community Affairs. 2000. St. Andrew Bay subdrainage basin map. Map 

produced by the DCA.
107

Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and the Northwest Florida Water Management 

District. 1992. Biological water quality of the Deer Point Lake drainage basin, Bay County, 

Florida. DER, Tallahassee, FL. 89 pp.

Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 2000. Tracking list of rare, threatened, and endangered plants, 

animals, and natural communities of Florida. Florida Natural Areas Inventory. Tallahassee, FL. 

82 pp.

Grumbine, E. 1997. Reflections on “What is Ecosystem Management”. Conservation Biology 

11(1):41-47.

Hudson, William. 2001. Personal Communications. Bay County Utilities Department.

Hydroqual, Inc. & Vittor & Associates. 1993. Environmental studies in St. Andrew Bay. 

Report to Bay County Board of County Commissioners, 4 volumes.

Keppner, E. J. 1996. An inventory of the biological resources reported from the St. Andrew Bay 

estuarine system, Bay County, Florida. BEST Public. 0001. 72 pp.

Keppner, E. J. 2000. Summary of some observations on smoothbark St. John’s-wort and 

associated protected species of vascular plants on the Econfina Water Management Area. Report 

to NWFWMD. 11 pp.

Keppner, E. J. and Keppner, L. A. 1997. A list of the vascular plants of Bay County, Florida. 

BEST Public. 0002. 50 pp.

Keppner, E. J. and Keppner, L. A. 1999a. A compendium of the species of vascular plants 

reported from Bay County, Florida. Including specimens in the BEST Herbarium. BEST Public. 

0003. 88 pp.

Keppner, L. A. and Keppner, E. J. 1999b. A preliminary survey of four protected species of 

vascular plants, with emphasis on Smooth-barked St. John’s-wort (Hypericum lissophloeus

Adams), on the land owned by the Northwest Florida Water Management District in Bay and 

Washington Counties, Florida. BEST Nat. Res. Com. Report submitted to the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Panama City, Florida. 14 pp. + appendices.

Keppner, E. J. and Keppner, L. A. 2000a. A compilation of the information pertaining to Lake 

Powell, Bay County, Florida. Report submitted to the Bay County Board of County 

Commissioners. 95 pp. + appendices.

Keppner, E. J. and Keppner, L. A. 2000b. A preliminary search for the Panama City Crayfish, 

Procambarus (Leconticambarus) econfinae Hobbs, 1942, in Bay County, Florida. A volunteer 

report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama City, Florida. 20 pp.

Keppner, L. A., Keppner, E. J., and The Nature Conservancy. 2000. Brochures entitled 

“Property Owners of Sandhill Ponds and Lakefront.” and “Attention Property Owners of Sand 

Hill Ponds and Lakefront.” Available from The Nature Conservancy, P.O. Box 393, Bristol, FL 

32321.
108

Keppner, E. J. and Keppner, L.A. 2001a. A list of the species of vascular plants reported from 

Bay County, Florida. Report to BEST, Inc. February 2001. 65 pp.

Keppner, E. J. and Keppner, L.A. 2001b. Biology and conservation status of Smoothbark St. 

John’s-wort. Report to Bay County Audubon Society Inc. 29 pp.

Keppner, E.J. and Keppner, L.A. 2001c. A survey of the Panama City Crayfish, Procambarus

(Leconticambarus) econfinae Hobbs, 1942 in Bay County, Florida. Report to U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (in preparation, due June 30, 2001).

Keppner, L.A. and Keppner, E.J. 2001d. The specimens of vascular plants in the Northwest 

Florida Water Management District Herbarium. Report to the NWFWMD. 44 pp. 

Koenig, C.C. and Coleman, F.C. 1998. Absolute abundance and survival of juvenile gags in sea 

grass beds of northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 127(1):44-55.

Koenig, C., Ruckelshaus, M., and Coleman, F. Seagrass Habitat Quality: Criteria for the 

management of economically important finfishes of the northwest coast of Florida. Final Report 

to DEP by FSU/NMFS Instit. for Fish. Resources Ecolog. 45 pp. + tables and appendices.

Law Engineering Testing Company. 1975. Seagrass bed study in West Bay near the Lansing 

Smith Power Plant. Report prepared for Gulf Power Company. 51 pp.

Law Engineering Testing Company. 1976. Thermal impacts of a fossil-fueled electric power 

plant discharge on seagrass bed communities: “an older unit 316(a) demonstration”. Report 

Prepared for Gulf Power Company. 13 pp.

Law Engineering Testing Company. 1977. A 316(b) study of the Lansing Smith steam plant: 

Final report. Report Prepared for Gulf Power Company. 58 pp.

Law Engineering Testing Company. 1980. Larval fish investigation--Lansing Smith plant. 

Report Prepared for Gulf Power Company. 6 pp.

Law Engineering Testing Company. 1982. Thermal study of Warren Bayou and West Bay. 

Report Prepared for Gulf Power Company. 142 pp.

Law Engineering Testing Company. 1993. A thermal plume characterization and environmental 

assessment: Warren Bayou and West Bay, St. Andrew Bay Lansing Smith Electric Generating 

Plant, Panama City, Florida. Report prepared for Gulf Power Company. 46 pp. + appendices.

Loftin, H.G., Stedman, S.J., and Francis, T.L. 1987. An annotated check-list of the birds of Bay 

County, Florida (including St. Andrews State Recreation Area). Bay County Audubon Society, 

Panama City, FL. 34 pp.

McNulty, J. K., Lindall, W.N., and Sykes, J.E. 1972. Cooperative Gulf of Mexico inventory and 

study: Florida. Phase I. Area description. NOAA Tech. Rpt. NMFS Circ. 368. 126 pp.

Ogren, L.H. and Brusher, H.A. 1977. The distribution and abundance of fishes caught with a 

trawl in the St. Andrew Bay system, Florida. Northeast Gulf Sci. 1(2):83-105.
109

O’Rourke, P.L., Rains, L., and Macmillan, T. 1993. Deer Point Lake watershed: 

Environmentally sensitive areas assessment. Northwest Florida Water Management District 

SWIM Program. 31 pp.

Peterson, L. (edit.) 1997. County distribution and habitats of rare and endangered species in 

Florida. Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Tallahassee, Florida. 150 pp. + Appendix.

Payne, R.G. 1997a. Report on the biological condition of nine Northwest Florida lakes sampled 

in the Summer of 1995. FDEP, NW District. 68 pp.

Payne, R.G. 1997b. Report on the biological condition of nine Northwest Florida lakes sampled 

in the Summer of 1996. FDEP, NW District. 77 pp.

Payne, R. G. 1998. Report on the biological and chemical condition of four Northwest Florida 

lakes sampled Summer 1997 Winter 1998. FDEP, NW District. 59 pp.

Payne, R. G. 2000. An assessment of the biological health and water quality of Martin Lake, 

Bay County, Florida. FDEP, NW District Report. 40 pp.

Porter, E. 2001. Pers. Comm. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado.

Porter, K. 2001. Bay County Shows Moderate Growth. News-Herald article April 1, 2001.

Pristas, P.J. and Trent, L. 1978. Seasonal abundance, size, and sex ratio of fishes caught with 

gill nets in St. Andrew Bay, Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. 28(3):581-589.

Rodriguez, J.A. and Wu, T. 1990. Initial analysis of circulation and flushing characteristics of 

the St. Andrew Bay system. Northwest Florida Water Management District, Water Resources 

Special Report No. 90-1, 105 pp.

Saloman, C.H., Naughton, S. P., and Taylor, J.L. 1982. Benthic faunal assemblages of shallow 

water sand and seagrass habitats, St. Andrew Bay, Florida. Performed for the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Panama City, FL. 565 pp.

Shafer, D. J. and Robinson, J. 2001. An Evaluation of the use of grid platforms to minimize 

shading impacts to seagrasses. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Eng. and Develop. Center, 

Vicksburg, MS. 14 pp.

Shaffer, R. N. 1993. A bibliography of research on St. Andrew Bay, it’s tributaries, and the 

nearby coastal waters of Bay County, Florida. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-320. 62 pp.

Shaffer, R. 2001. Density Transfer – Maybe We Can Bank on it. County-Press Voice, March 

23, 2001.

St. Andrew Bay Resource Management Association. (1991-2000). Water quality monitoring 

reports for the Bay/Lake Watch program. 
110

Stein, B. A., Kutner, L. S., and Adams, J. S. eds. 2000. Precious Heritage. The Status of 

Biodiversity in the United States. Oxford Univ. Press. NY, NY. 399 pp.

Swain, H.M., Hopkins, S. E., and Thornton, C.L. 1994. A preliminary species list for the Indian 

River Lagoon, Florida. National Estuary Program, Melbourne, Fl. 

Thorpe, P, Ryan, P., Stafford, C., Bartel, R., MacMillan, T., Culbertson, M., Cairns, D., and 

Horowitz, K. 2000. St. Andrew Bay watershed surface water improvement and management 

plan. NWFWMD Prog. Develop. Series 00-2. 151 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Comments on the emission reports for three major air 

pollutant emitting facilities Bay County, Florida. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Air Qual. Branch, 

Denver. Colorado. 7 pp. + Tables + Appendices.

Watson, K. 1991-2001. Annual reports of the Sea Turtle monitoring program. Annual reports 

to the St. Andrew Bay Resource Management Association.

Wolfe, S. H., Reidenauer, J. A., and Means, B. 1988. An ecological characterization of the 

Florida panhandle. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report. no. 88(12), 277 pp.

Wood, D.A. 1996. Florida’s endangered species, threatened species and species of special 

concern. Official Lists. Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, Bureau of Nongame 

Wildlife. 14 pp.

Wunderlin, R.P. 1998. Guide to the vascular plants of Florida. University Press of Florida. 806 

pp.

Wunderlin, R.P., Hansan, B.F., and Bridges, E.L. 1996. Atlas of Florida vascular plants. Univ. 

South Florida, Inst. for Systematic Botany, Tampa, Florida, CDROM.

Yautz, C. 2001. Personal Communications. Chairman, BEST Growth Management 

Subcommittee.
111

APPENDIX 1. Biotic Communities of the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem

The Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) has developed a list of the 70 natural biotic 

communities of Florida and has placed them in a hierarchy. Each level of the hierarchy is 

defined. The following is from the list for the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem that contains 31 

community types provided by Linda Chafin of the FNAI. The definitions of the community 

types and rankings are from FNAI (2000). The top of the hierarchy contains six Community 

Categories that are defined by their hydrology and vegetation. Each Community Category is 

divided into a number of Community Groups that are defined by the land form, substrate, and 

vegetation. Each Community Group contains Community Types that are defined by the land 

form and substrate, soil moisture, fire, climate, and characteristic vegetation. The Community

Categories, Community Groups, and Community Types listed for Bay County are included 

below. One must realize that these are natural biotic communities. Therefore, altered areas such 

as agricultural (farms, pine plantations, catfish ponds, etc.) are not included.

Community Categories

Terrestrial: Defined as upland habitats dominated by plants that are not adapted to anaerobic 

soil conditions imposed by saturation or inundation for more than 10% of the growing season.

Palustrine: Defined as wetlands dominated by plants adapted to anaerobic substrate conditions 

imposed by substrate saturation or inundation during 10% or more of the growing season (tidal 

and nontidal wetlands).

Lacustrine: Defined as non-flowing wetlands of natural depressions lacking persistent 

emergent vegetation except around the perimeter (lakes and ponds).

Riverine: Defined as natural, flowing waters from their source to the downstream limits of tidal 

influence and bounded by channel banks (rivers, streams, creeks).

Marine/estuarine: Defined as subtidal, intertidal, and supratidal zones of the sea, landward to 

the point at which seawater becomes significantly diluted with freshwater inflow from the land 

(Gulf of Mexico, bays, and sounds).

Subterranean: Defined as twilight, middle and deep zones of natural chambers overlain by the 

earth’s crust and characterized by climatic stability and assemblages of trogloxenic, troglophilic, 

and troglobitic organisms (Caves both terrestrial and submerged)

The following list contains the Community Categories and Community Types and their FNAI 

designations listed for Bay County. The Community Group is stated at the beginning of the 

definition of the Community Type. FNAI maintains a list of the number of occurrences of each 

community type. 
112

Terrestrial Category

Sandhill: Xeric Upland Group. Upland with deep sand substrate; xeric; temperate; frequent fire 

(every 2-5 years); longleaf pine and/or turkey oak with wiregrass understory. Rank = S2 

(imperiled in Florida because of rarity).

Scrub: Xeric Upland Group. Scrub is found on old dunes with deep, fine sand substrate: 

temperate or subtropical: occasional or rare fire (20-80 years): sand pine and/or scrub oaks 

and/or rosemary and lichens. Rank = S2 (imperiled in Florida because of rarity).

Xeric Hammock: Xeric Upland Group. Xeric hammocks exist on deep, fine sand substrate: 

xeric-mesic: temperate or subtropical: rare or no fire: live oak and/or sand live oak and/or laurel 

oak and/or other oaks, sparkleberry, saw palmetto. Rank = S3 (either very rare or local 

throughout its range or found locally in a restricted range or vulnerable to other factors).

Beach Dune: Coastal Upland Group. Active coastal dune with sand substrate: xeric; temperate 

or subtropical: occasional or rare fire; sea oats and/or mixed salt-spray tolerant grasses and herbs. 

Rank = S2 (imperiled in Florida because of rarity).

Coastal Grassland: Coastal Upland Group. Coastal flatland with sand substrate; xeric-mesic; 

subtropical or temperate; occasional fire; grasses, herbs, and shrubs with or without slash pine 

and/or cabbage palm. Rank = S2 (imperiled in Florida because of rarity).

Coastal Strand: Coastal Upland Group. Stabilized coastal dune with sand substrate; xeric; 

subtropical or temperate; occasional or rare fire; dense saw palmetto and/or seagrape and/or 

mixed stunted shrubs, yucca, and cacti. Rank = S2 (imperiled in Florida because of rarity).

Maritime Hammock: Coastal Upland Group. Stabilized coastal dune with sand substrate; 

xeric-mesic; subtropical or temperate rare or no fire; mixed hardwoods and/or live oak. Rank = 

S2 (imperiled in Florida because of rarity).

Shell Mound: Coastal Upland Group. Although not on the list provided by FNAI, this 

community type is known from the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem at a number of places along the 

bay. Indian midden with shell substrate; xeric-mesic; subtropical or temperate; rare or no fire; 

mixed hardwoods. Rank = S2 (imperiled in Florida because of rarity).

Bluff: Mesic Uplands Group. Steep slope with rock, sand, and/or clay substrate; hydric-xeric; 

temperate; sparse grasses, herbs, and shrubs. Not ranked.

Slope Forest: Mesic Upland Group. Steep slope on bluff or sheltered ravine; sand/clay 

substrate; mesic-hydric; temperate; rare or no fire; magnolia, beech, spruce pine, Shummard oak, 

Florida maple, mixed hardwoods. Rank = S2 (imperiled in Florida because of rarity).

Mesic Flatwoods: Mesic Flatlands Group. Flatland with sand substrate; mesic-xeric; subtropical 

or temperate; frequent fire; slash pine and/or longleaf pine with saw palmetto, gallberry and/or 

wiregrass or cutthroat grass understory. Not ranked.
113

Scrubby Flatwoods: Mesic Flatlands Group. Flatland with sand/organic soil over marl or 

limestone substrate; mesic; subtropical; occasional or rare fire; live oak and/or cabbage palm.

Rank = S3 (either very rare or local throughout its range or found locally in a restricted range 

or vulnerable to other factors).

Upland Hardwood Forest: Mesic Uplands Group. Upland with sand/clay and/or calcareous 

substrate; mesic; temperate; rare or no fire; spruce pine, magnolia, beech, pignut hickory, white 

oak, and mixed hardwoods. Rank = S3 (either very rare or local throughout its range or found 

locally in a restricted range or vulnerable to other factors). 

Palustrine Category

Hydric Hammock: Wet Flatlands Group. Lowland with sandy/clay/organic soil, often over 

limestone; mesic-hydric;subtropical or temperate; rare or no fire; water oak, cabbage palm, 

diamond-leaf oak, red maple, bays, hackberry, hornbeam, black gum, blue palmetto, and 

hardwoods. Rank = S4? (apparently secure statewide).

Wet Flatwoods: Wet Flatlands Group. Flatland with sand substrate; seasonally inundated; 

subtropical or temperate; annual or frequent fire; vegetation characterized by slash pine or pond 

pine and/or cabbage palm mixed with grasses and herbs. Rank = S4? (apparently secure 

statewide).

Wet Prairie: Wet Flatlands Group. Flatland with sand substrate; seasonally inundated; 

subtropical or temperate; annual or frequent fire; beakrush, spike rush, wiregrass, pitcher plants, 

St. John’s-wort, mixed herbs. Rank = S4? (apparently secure statewide).

Baygall: Seepage Wetlands Group. Wetland with peat substrate at base of slope; maintained by 

downslope seepage, usually saturated and occasionally inundated; subtropical or temperate; rare 

or no fire; bays and/or titi and/or dahoon holly and/or red maple and/or mixed hardwoods. Rank 

= S4? (apparently secure statewide).

Seepage Slope: Seepage Wetlands Group. Wetland on or at base of slopewith organic or 

sand/clay substrate; maintained by downslope seepage, usually saturated but rarely inundated; 

subtropical or temperate; frequent or occasional fire; sphagnum moss, mixed grasses and herbs 

or mixed hydrophytic shrubs. Rank = S2 (imperiled in Florida because of rarity).

Floodplain Swamp: Floodplain Wetlands Group. Floodplain with organic or alluvial substrate; 

usually inundated; subtropical or temperate; rare or no fire; vegetation characterized by cypress, 

gums, and/or green ash. Rank = S4? (apparently secure statewide).

Basin Marsh: Basin Wetlands Group. Large basin with peat substrate; seasonally inundated; 

temperate or subtropical; frequent fire; saw grass, cattail, buttonbush, or mixed emergents. Rank 

= S4? (apparently secure statewide).

Basin Swamp: Basin Wetlands Group. Large basin with peat substrate; seasonally inundated, 

still water; subtropical or temperate; occasional or rare fire; cypress, black gum, bays, and/or 

mixed hardwoods. Rank = S3 (either very rare or local throughout its range or found locally in 

a restricted range or vulnerable to other factors).
114

Bog: Basin Wetlands Group. Wetland on deep peat substrate; moisture maintained by capillary 

action, soil usually saturated, occasionally inundate; subtropical or temperate; rare fire; 

sphagnum moss and titi an/or bays and/or dahoon holly, and/or mixed hydrophytic shrubs. Rank 

= S3 (either very rare or local throughout its range or found locally in a restricted range or 

vulnerable to other factors).

Coastal Interdunal Swale: Basin Wetlands Group. Long narrow depression wetlands in sand or 

peat-sand substrate; seasonally inundated, fresh to brackish, still water; temperate; rare fire; 

graminoids and mixed wetland forbs. Rank = S2 (imperiled in Florida because of rarity).

Dome Swamp: Basin Wetlands Group. Rounded depression in sand/limestone substrate with 

peat accumulating toward center; seasonally inundated; still water; subtropical or temperate; 

occasional or rare fire; pond cypress, and/or black gum. Bays, often tallest in center. Rank = S3?

(either very rare or local throughout its range or found locally in a restricted range or 

vulnerable to other factors).

Lacustrine Category

Sandhill Upland Lake: No Group designation. Generally a rounded solution depression in deep 

sandy uplands or sandy uplands shallowly underlain by limestone; predominantly without 

surface inflows/outflows; typically sand substrate with organic accumulations toward middle; 

clear, acidic, moderately soft water with varying mineral content; ultra-oligotrophic to 

mesotrophic. Rank = S2 (imperiled in Florida because of rarity).

Sinkhole Lake: No Group designation. Typically deep, funnel-shaped depression in limestone 

base; occurs in most physiographic regions; predominantly without surface inflows/outflows, but 

frequently with connection to the aquifer; clear, alkaline, hard water with high mineral content 

(calcium, bicarbonate, magnesium). Ranking = S3 (either very rare or local throughout its 

range or found locally in a restricted range or vulnerable to other factors).

Riverine Category

Blackwater Stream: No Group Designation. Perennial or intermittent/seasonal watercourse 

characterized by tea-colored water with a high content of particulate and dissolved organic 

matter derived from drainage through swamps and marshes; generally lacking an alluvial 

floodplain. Rank = S2 (imperiled in Florida because of rarity).

Seepage Stream: No Group designation. Upper perennial or intermittent/seasonal watercourse 

characterized by clear to lightly colored water derived from shallow groundwater seepage. Rank 

= S2 (imperiled in Florida because of rarity).

Spring-run Stream: No Group designation. Perennial watercourse with deep aquifer 

headwaters and characterized by clear water, circumneutral pH and, frequently, a solid limestone 

bottom. Rank = S2 (imperiled in Florida because of rarity).

Subterranean Category 

Terrestrial Cave: No Group designation. Cavernicolous area lacking standing water; often 

characterized by bats, such as Myotis, and other terrestrial vertebrates and invertebrates; includes 
115

interstitial areas above standing water such as fissures in the ceiling of caves. Rank = S1 

(critically imperiled in Florida because of extreme rarity).

Marine/Estuarine Category

Unconsolidated Substrate: No Group designation. Expansive subtidal, intertidal, and 

supratidal area composed primarily of loose mineral matter (e.g., mud, sand, shell); octocorals, 

sponges, stony corals, nondrift macrophytic algae, bluegreen mat-forming algae and seagrasses 

sparse, if present. Rank = S5 (demonstrably secure statewide).

Grass Bed: No Group designation. Expansive subtidal or intertidal area, occupied primarily by 

rooted vascular macrophytes (e.g., shoal grass, Halophila, widgeon grass, manatee grass, turtle 

grass); may include various epiphytes and epifauna; octocorals, sponges, stony corals, and 

attached macrophytic algae sparse, if present. Rank = S2 (imperiled in Florida because of 

rarity).

Mollusk Reef: No Group designation. Substantial subtidal or intertidal area with relief from 

concentrations of sessile organisms of the Phylum Mollusca, Class Bivalvia (e.g., molluscs, 

oysters, & worm shells); octocorals, sponges, stony corals, macrophytic algae, and seagrasses 

sparse if present. Ranking = S3 (either very rare or local throughout its range or found locally in 

a restricted range or vulnerable to other factors).

Tidal Marsh: No Group designation. Expansive intertidal or supratidal area occupied by rooted, 

emergent vascular macrophytes (e.g. cord grass, needlerush, saw grass, saltwort, saltgrass, and 

glasswort); may include various epiphytes and epifauna. Rank = S4? (apparently secure 

statewide).

Man Made Marine/Estuarine Substrates

Rock Jetties: Although not a natural component of the St. Andrew Bay marine/estuarine system, 

rock structures such as the jetties along the man-made channel into St. Andrew Bay and at the 

Landmark Apartments serve as consolidated substrate and support a diverse community of 

organisms associated with such natural structures. Man-made substrates are not ranked because 

they are artificial areas rather than naturally occurring substrates.
116

APPENDIX 2. Protected, Rare, or Endemic Biota of the St. Andrew Bay 

Ecosystem

The following tables of species that are considered protected by the responsible state and federal 

agencies are presented as major groups of organisms. The sources of the tables are provided 

below. The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs, through the Endangered 

Plant Advisory Council, is responsible for determining the status of protected plants. The Florida 

Fish and Wildlife Commission is responsible for determining the status of protected animals, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service are responsible for 

determining the status of plants and animals under the federal Endangered Species Act. The 

tables of protected species provided below are constructed in a similar fashion. The heading 

“State” refers to the status of the organism as determined by the responsible Florida agency, the 

heading “Federal” refers to the status as provided by the responsible federal agency, and 

“County” is the county or counties within the watershed where that organism may be found. The 

designations are: E = endangered, T = threatened, SSC = species of special concern, N = not 

listed, S1 = critically imperiled in Florida because of extreme rarity, S2 = imperiled in Florida 

because of rarity, S3 = either very rare or local throughout its range or found locally in a 

restricted range or vulnerable to other factors, B = Bay County, C = Calhoun County, G = Gulf 

County, J = Jackson County, and W = Washington County.

Bay County is the only county entirely within the St. Andrew Bay watershed. Therefore, those 

protected species known to occur in Bay County are confirmed as present in the watershed. 

Relatively small portions of the other counties are included in the watershed. It was not possible 

within the time available to determine the exact locations of the species listed as protected in the 

other counties in the watershed. Therefore, some to many of the protected species listed for the 

other counties may not actually occur within the St. Andrew Bay watershed. The Lake Powell 

watershed extends a short distance into Walton County. Walton County is not included for the 

purposes of protected species because the Lake Powell subdrainage basin has been excluded 

from this plan. The species designated as protected in the official lists change periodically, and 

one should consult the most recent document for the current designations and status.

Vascular Plants

Wunderlin et al. (1996) listed 856 species and varieties of vascular plants from Bay County. In 

1998, the BEST, Inc. received a grant from the Norcross Wildlife Foundation to perform a

survey of the vascular plants of Bay County and to develop a herbarium for the specimens 

collected. Keppner and Keppner (2001a) completed the work and provided 1000 specimens of 

over 900 species from Bay County for the herbarium and a list of the vascular plants reported 

from Bay County. That work has continued and the current list of vascular plants known from 

Bay County currently totals 1271 species in 512 genera in 151 families. 

The lists of vascular plants from the other counties in the watershed were obtained from 

Wunderlin et al. (1996). According to that work, there are 844 species known from Calhoun 

County, 726 species known from Gulf County, 1377 from Jackson County, 1275 from Walton 

County, and 804 from Washington County. There is, of course, a significant similarity in species 

between the counties so that a simple addition of the number of species from each county is not 

valid. The following table of protected vascular plants was taken from the Florida Department of 

Agriculture and Consumer Affairs document prepared by Coile (2000). Scientific and common 
117

names are from Coile (2000). The federal status of the plants on the list was obtained from 

FNAI (2000). 

The St. Andrew Bay ecosystem supports about 130 species of plants listed by the State of Florida 

and/or the federal government and/or tracked by FNAI (Table 1). One can not be sure which 

species reported from counties other than Bay County actually occur in the St. Andrew Bay 

ecosystem because the location records have not been analyzed. However, Bay County supports 

populations of 53 of the listed plant species or 42% of the possibly occurring species in the 

ecosystem.

Animals

As with the plants in the ecosystem, the total number of species of animals that are actually 

present in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem is impossible to determine for those counties that are 

only partly located in the ecosystem. No one has attempted to develop a list of all the animals 

that might occur in the ecosystem. Keppner (1996) provided information on the animals 

reported from the St. Andrew Bay estuary, but did not include animals from any other habitat in 

the ecosystem.

The animals that are designated as protected and/or tracked in the ecosystem were obtained from 

Wood (1996), from the document dated 1997 on the Florida Game and Fish Commission 

website, and from FNAI (2000). None of these references provided information pertaining to the 

counties from which each species is known. However, Peterson (1997) did provide a list of the 

counties from which the species designated as protected at the time of his compilation have been 

reported. This document was used to determine the protected animals that occur in the counties 

in the St. Andrew Bay ecosystem. Additional records of protected birds were obtained from 

Loftin et al. (1987) for Bay County. Barkuloo (pers. comm. 2001) stated that the alligator gar, 

Atractosteus spatula, was collected from Bay County, and the specimens are at Tulane 

University. The State of Florida or the federal government does not list this species, but it is 

tracked by FNAI.

There are 60 protected and/or tracked species of animals known from the ecosystem. Bay 

County supports 33+ or 80% of those species. FNAI tracks a much larger number of animals 

including many invertebrates. However, they are not listed because the species on the list are not 

known to be present in the ecosystem. A search of the literature and a search of specimens in 

taxonomic collections would provide the species present in the most accurate manner (Table 2).

Beck et al. (2000) provided records of the occurrence of certain species of animals from the St. 

Andrew Bay estuarine system and Gulf of Mexico waters not encountered in the other literature. 

They list three records of occurrence for the Manatee, 2 records of occurrence for the Fringed 

Pipefish, and 23 records of occurrence for Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle listed as endangered by the 

federal government. The Fringed Pipefish is neither a candidate nor listed under the Endangered 

Species Act according to the National Marine Fisheries Service (pers. comm. 2001).
118

Table 1. Protected Plants in the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem

 

Scientific Name Common Name FNAI State Federal County

Andropogon arctatus Pinewood Bluestem S3 T N B,C,G,J,W

Arabis canadensis Sicklepod N E N J

Aristolochia tomentosa Pipevine N E N B,C,G,J,W

Asclepias viridula Green Milkweed S2 T N B,G,W

Asplenium verecundum Delicate Sleenwort S1 E N J

Aster hemisphericus Aster S1 E N W

Aster spinulosus Pinewoods Aster S1 E N B,C,G,W

Baptisia megacarpa Apalachicola Wild Indigo S2 E N W

Bigelowia nuttallii Nuttall's Rayless Goldenrod S1 E N W

Brickellia cordifolia Flyer's Nemesis S1 E N J

Sideroxylon lycioides Buckthorn N E N J

Sideroxylon thornei Thorn's Buckthorn N E N G,J

Arnoglossum diversifolia Indian-plantain N T N C,J,W

Calamintha dentata Toothed Savory S3 T N B,J,W

Calamovilfa curtissii Curtiss's Sandgrass S3 T N B

Callirhoe papaver Poppy Mallow S2 E N J

Calycanthus floridus Sweetshrub S2 E N J

Calystegia catesbaeiana Catesby's Bindweed SH E N J

Carex baltzellii Baltzell's Sedge S3 T N B,C,W

Cheilanthes microphylla Southern Lip Fern S3 E N W

Chrysopsis cruiseana Cruise's Goldenaster S2 E N B

Chrysopsis godfreyi Godfrey's Goldenaster S2 E N B

Cleistes divaricata Spreading Pogonia N T N B,C,G

Coelorachis tuberculosa Florida Jointail S3 T N B*,W

Coreopsis integrifolia Fringleaf Tickseed S1 E N C,J,W

Cornus alternifolia Pagoda Dogwood S2 E N C,J,W

Crataegus phaenopyrum Washington Thorn S1 E N W

Cryptotaenia canadensis Honewort S1 E N J

Cuphea aspera Tropical Waxweed S1 E N C,G

Dirca palustris Leatherwood S2 E N J

Drosera filiformis Threadleaf Sundew S1 E N B,W

Drosera intermedia Water Sundew S3 T N B,C,G

Eriocaulon nigrobracteatum Darkheaded Hatpins S1 E N B,C

Euphorbia commutata Wood Spurge S2 E N J

Euphorbia telephioides Telephus Spurge S1 E N B,G

Forestiera godfreyi Godfrey's Swamp Privet S2 E N J

Gentiana pennelliana Wiregrass Gentian S3 E N B,C,G,W

Hexalectris spicata Crested Coralroot N E N C,J

Hexastylis arifolia Heartleaf Wild Ginger S3 T N W

Hymenocallis henryae Henry's Spiderlily S2 E N B,G

Hypericum lissophloeus Smoothbark St. John's-wort S2 E N B,W 

Ilex amelanchier Serviceberry Holly S2 T N J

Isopyrum biternatum False Rue-anemone S1 E N J,W 

Isotria verticillata Whorled Pogonia S1 E N W

Juncus gymnocarpus Coville's Rush S2 E N B,W

Justicia crassifolia Thickleaved Waterwillow S2 E N G 

Kalmia latifolia Mountain Laurel S3 T N B,C,W

Lachnocaulon digynum Panhandle Bog Buttons S3 T N B,C,

Liatris provincialis Godfrey's Gayfeather S2 E N B*
119

Table 1. Protected Plants in the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem

 

Scientific Name Common Name FNAI State Federal County

Lilium catesbaei Catesby Lily N T N B,C,G,J,W

Lilium michauxii Carolina Lily S2 E N J

Linum westii West's Flax S2 E N C,G,J

Lilaeopsis carolinensis Carolina Lilaeopsis S3 N N B

Listera australis Southern Tway Blade N T N J

Lobelia cardinalis Cardinal Flower N T N C,J

Lupinus westianus Gulf Coast Lupine S2 T N B,G,W

Macbridea alba White Birds-in-a-nest S2 E T B,G

Macranthera flammea Hummingbird Flower S2 E N B,C,J

Magnolia ashei Ashe's Magnolia S2 E N B,W

Magnolia pyramidata Pyramid Magnolia S3 E N B,C,J

Malaxis uniflora Green Addersmouth S3 E N J,W

Malus angustifolia Southern Crabapple N T N C,J,W

Marshallia obovata Barbara's Buttons S1 E N J

Marshallia ramosa Barbara's Buttons S1 E N W

Matelea alabamensis Alabama Spinypod S2 E N J

Matelea baldwiniana Baldwin's Spinypod S1 E N J

Matelea flavidula Yellowflowered Spinypod S1 E N W

Matelea gonocarpus Angle-pod N T N B,C,G,J,W 

Myriophyllum laxum Piedmont Water-milfoil S3 N N **

Nyssa ursina Bog Tupelo S2 N N B

Opuntia stricta Shell Mound Prickly Pear N T N G

Oxypolis greenmanii Giant Water-dropwort S3 E N B,C,G

Pachysandra procumbens Allegheny Spurge S1 E N J

Panicum nudicaule Naked-stemmed Panicgrass S3 LT N B

Paronychia chartacea Papery Whitlow-wort S1 E T B,W

Pellaea atropurpurea Hairy Cliff-brake Fern S1 E N W

Phoebanthus tenuifolius Narrowleaf Phoebanthus S3 LT N **

Physocarpus opulifolius Ninebark S1 E N C,J

Physostegia godfreyi Apalachicola Dragonhead S3 T N B,C,G

Pinckneya bracteata Fever Tree N T N B,C,G,J,W

Pinguicula ionantha Panhandle Butterwort S2 E T B,G

Pinguicula lutea Yellow Butterwort N T N B,C,G,J,W

Pinguicula planifolia Swamp Butterwort N T N B,C,G,J,W

Pinguicula primuliflora Primrose-flowered Butterwort S3 E N B,W

Platanthera blephariglottis Whitefringed Orchid N T N J,W

Platanthera ciliaris Yellowfringed Orchid N T N B,C,J,W

Platanthera clavellata Green Rein Orchid SH E N C

Platanthera integra Orange Rein Orchid S3 E N C,G,J,W

Platanthera nivea Snowy Orchid N T N B,C,J,W

Podophyllum peltatum Mayapple S1 E N J

Pogonia ophioglossioides Rose Pogonia N T N B,C,G,W

Polygonella macrophylla Largeleaf Jointweed S2 T N B

Polymnia laevigata Tennessee Leaf-cup S1 E N J

Quercus arkansana Arkansas Oak S3 T N C

Rhexia parviflora Apalachicola Meadowbeauty S2 E N B,C,G

Rhexia salicifolia Panhandle Meadowbeauty S2 T N B,C,W

Rhododendron austrinum Florida Flame Azalea S3 E N C,J,W
120

 

Table 1. Protected Plants in the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem

Scientific Name Common Name FNAI State Federal County

Rhododendron chapmanii Chapman's Rhododendron S1 E E G

Rhynchospora crinipe Hairypeduncled Beakrush S1 N N **

Rhynchospora stenophylla Narrowleaf Beakrush S3 T N B,W

Rudbeckia nitida St. John's Susan S2 E N B

Ruellia noctiflora Nightflowering Ruellia S2 E N G,J

Salix eriocephala Heartleaved Willow S1 E N J

Salvia urticifolia Nettle-leaved Sage S1 E N J

Sarracenia leucophylla Whitetop Pitcher Plant S3 E N B,C,G

Sarracenia psitticina Parrot Pitcher Plant N T N B,C,G,J,W

Sarracenia purpurea Decumbent Pitcher Plant N T N B,C,W

Sarracenia rubra Sweet Pitcher Plant S3 N LT **

Schisandra coccinea Bay Star Vine S2 E N J,W

Scutellaria floridana Florida Skullcap S1 E T B,G

Silene virginica Fire Pink S1 E N **

Spigelia gentianoides Gentian Pinkroot S1 E E C,J,W

Spiranthes laciniata Lace-lip Ladies'-tresses N T N B

Spiranthes longilabris Long-lip Ladies'-tresses N T N G

Spiranthes ovalis Lesser Ladies'-tresses N E N J

Spiranthes tuberosa Little Pearl-twist N T N J,W

Stachydeoma graveolens Mock Pennyroyal S2 E N B,C

Stewartia malacodendron Silky Camelia S3 E N B,C,W

Tipularia discolor Crane-fly Orchid N T N J

Trillium lancifolium Narrowleaf Trillium S2 E N J

Verbesina chapmanii Chapman's Crownbeard S3 T N B,C,G,J

Xanthorhiza simplicissima Yellowroot S1 E N J

Xyris chapmanii

Chapman's Yelloweyed 

Grass S1 E N C

Xyris drummondii

Drummond's Yelloweyed 

Grass S3 N N B

Xyris isoetifolia Quillwort Yelloweyed Grass S1 E N B,G,W 

Xyris longisepala Kral's Yelloweyed Grass S2 E N B,W

Xyris louisianica Louisiana Yelloweyed Grass S1 E N C

Xyris stricta var. obscura Pineland Yelloweyed Grass S1 N N **

Xyris scabrifolia Harper's Yelloweyed Grass S3 T N B,C,G,J

Zephranthes atamasco Rainlily N T N J

** = FNAI list, Counties not designated
121

Table 2. Protected Animals in the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem

Scientific Name Common Name FNAI State Federal Counties

Invertebrates

Caecidotea sp. 8 Econfina Springs Cave Isopod S1 N N **

Dasyscias franzi Shaggy Ghostsnail S1 N N **

Medionidus penincillatus Gulf Moccasinshell S2 N LE **

Panopea bitruncata Atlantic Geoduck S3? N N **

Pleurobrema pyriforme Oval Pigtoe S? N LE

Procambarus econfinae Panama City Crayfish S1 SSC N B

Sphodros abboti Blue Purse-web Spider S4 N N **

Libellula jesseana Purple Skimmer S? N N B

** = FNAI list, Counties undesignated

Freshwater Fish

Acipenser oxyrhyncus desotoi Gulf Sturgeon S2 SSC T B,C,G

Ameirus serracanthus Spotted Bullhead S3 N N **

Atractosteus spatula Alligator Gar S3 N N B*

* = Barkuloo, pers. Comm. See text

** = FNAI list, counties undesignated

Saltwater Fish

Micrognathus crinigerus* Fringed Pipefish

* = Considered imperiled by Beck et al. (2000)

Amphibians

Ambystoma cingulatum Flatwoods Salamander S2S3 N T C,J,W

Rana capito Gopher Frog S3 SSC N B,C,G,J,W

Reptiles

Alligator mississippiensis American Alligator S4 SSC T B,C,G,J,W

Caretta caretta Atlantic Loggerhead Turtle S3 T T B,G

Chelonia mydas Atlantic Green Turtle S2 E E B,G

Crotalis adamanteus Eastern Diamondback Rattlesanake S3 N N B,C,J,G,W

Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback Turtle S2 T T B,G

Drymarchon corias couperi Eastern Indigo Snake S3 T T B,C,J,W

Gopherus polyphemus Gopher Tortoise S3 SSC N B,C,J,G,W

Graptomys barbouri Barbour's Map Turtle S2 SSC N G

Lepidochely kempii Kemp's ridley S1 E E B

Macroclemys temminckii Alligator Snapping Turtle S3 SSC N C,G,W

Nerodia clarkii clarkii Gulf Salt Marsh Snake S3? N N B

Pituophis melanoleucas Florida Pine Snake S3 SSC N B,C,W

Birds

Accipiter cooperi Cooper's Hawk S3? N N B,C,G,J,W

Ajaia ajaja Roseate Spoonbill S2 SSC N B*

Ammodramus maritimus peninsulae Scott's Seaside Sparrow S2 SSC N **

Aramus guarauna Limpkin S3 SSC N B*,G,J

Ardea alba Great Egret S4 N N B,C,G,J,W

Charadrius alexandrius Snowy Plover S2 LT N B
122

Table 2. Protected Animals in the St. Andrew Bay Ecosystem

Scientific Name Common Name FNAI State Federal Counties

Charadrius melodus Piping Plover S2 T T B,G

Cistothorus palustris marianae Marian's Marshwren S3 SSC N B

Dendroica kirtlandii Kirtland's Warbler S1 E E B*

Egretta caerulea Little Blue Heron S4 SSC N B,C,G,J,W

Egretta rufescens Reddish Egret S2 SSC N B

Egretta thula Snowy Egret S3 SSC N B,C,G,J,W

Egretta tricolor Tricolored Heron S4 SSC N B

Eudocimus albus White Ibis S4 SSC N C,J

Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon S2 E N B

Falco sparvarius paulus Southeastern American Kestrel S3 T N B

Haematopus palliatus American Oystercatcher S2 SSC N B,G

Haliaeetus leucocephala Bald Eagle S3 T T B,G

Ixobrychus exilis Least Bittern S4 N N B,C,G,J,W

Myctera americana Wood Stork S2 E E C,G,J

Pandion haliatus Osprey S3S4 SSC N B,G,J

Pelecanus occidentalis Brown Pelican S3 SSC N B,G

Picoides borealis Red-cockaded Woodpecker S2 T E B

Rhynchops niger Black Skimmer S3 SSC N B,G

Sterna antillarum Least Tern S3 T N B,G

Sterna maxima Royal Tern S3 N N B,G

Sterna sandvicensis Sandwich Tern S2 N N B,G

** = FNAI list, Counties undesignated

* records in Loftin et. al. 1987

Mammals

Mustela frenata olivacea Southeastern Weasel S3? N N **

Myotis grisescens Gray Bat S1 E E J,W

Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat SA E E J

Peromyscus polionotus allophrys Choctawhatchee Beach Mouse S1 E E B

Peromyscus polionotus peninsularis St. Andrews Beach Mouse S1 E N B,G

Sciuris niger shermani Sherman's Fox Squirrel S3 SSC N W

Trichechus manatus West Indian Manatee S2 E E B,G

Ursus americanus floridanus Florida Black Bear S2 T N B,C,G

** = FNAI list, Counties undesignated