CONSERVING FLORIDA’S SEAGRASS RESOURCES:

DEVELOPING A COORDINATED

STATEWIDE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Florida Marine Research Institute

100 Eighth Avenue SE

St. Petersburg, FL 33701-5095

September 2003 
CONSERVING FLORIDA’S SEAGRASS RESOURCES:

DEVELOPING A COORDINATED

STATEWIDE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

A publication of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission funded in part by the 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Florida Coastal Management Program, 

pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration award number NA17OZ2330 

with additional support from the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Program. The views 

expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA, DEP 

or their sub agencies. 

September 2003 
September 2003 

SUMMARY OF KEY RECOMMENDATIONS 

Effective seagrass management programs are currently active at the local level in several of 

Florida’s coastal areas, and a number of federal, state, and local government agencies are 

performing regularly scheduled mapping and monitoring of seagrass habitats within their 

jurisdictions. However, the state of Florida does not yet have a coordinated, statewide program 

for managing its seagrass resources. The following steps are recommended to develop and 

initiate such a program: 

A Development of Regionally-Based Statewide Goals 

1. With coordination and logistical support provided by the Florida Coastal Management 

Program, a combination of state and federal agencies and local governments should work 

cooperatively to identify quantitative, consensus-based, seagrass coverage goals for each of 

Florida’s five seagrass regions. 

2. These goals should be specific, measurable, technically defensible, ecologically 

appropriate, and achievable within a specified time period. 

3. The regional goals should be developed by a statewide technical advisory committee 

(TAC) and should be based on input from a wide range of local stakeholders. 

4. In local areas where seagrass management goals have already been developed, such as 

Tampa Bay and the Indian River Lagoon, those goals should be reviewed and—if found 

appropriate—adopted by the TAC as a component of a larger regional goal. 

5. The sum of these regional goals will represent the statewide seagrass management goal. 

B Development of Management Strategies 

1. The TAC assembled to develop the regional and statewide coverage goals should also be 

tasked with developing clear strategies for achieving those goals. 

2. The strategies should include a list of agency responsibilities and timelines for achieving 

the regional and statewide goals. 

C Implementing the Strategies 

1. Following approval of the strategies, an interagency memorandum of understanding 

(MOU) should be drafted to guide their implementation. 

2. Participation in the MOU should be open to the participating agencies and to other public 

or private organizations that wish to make a significant commitment to statewide seagrass 

management. 

3. The MOU should specify the steps each participating organization proposes to take to 

implement the agreed-upon strategies, the time frame within which those steps are 

proposed to occur, and an estimate of the resources that need to be budgeted to accomplish 

the work. 

D Evaluating and Reporting Progress Toward Goals 

1. The state should develop a methodologically consistent statewide program for mapping 

and monitoring seagrass coverage and condition. 

i 
September 2003 

2. The results of the mapping and monitoring program should be summarized and reported to 

the public in a timely manner (e.g., every 2–3 years) and should be made available to 

managers, scientists, and other interested parties through a relational database that is 

publicly accessible via the Internet. 

3. The 2–3 year summary reports should be used by the state to evaluate the progress made 

toward meeting its seagrass management goals. 

4. On a less frequent basis (e.g., every 4–6 years), the results should be used to assess, and if 

necessary, refine and improve the state’s seagrass management goals and strategies. 

E Management-Related Research 

1. The state should identify and prioritize existing management-related research needs with 

respect to seagrass conservation. 

2. The annual and long-term costs of carrying out the necessary research should be estimated. 

3. Adequate funding should be budgeted to carry out the work. 

F Public Outreach 

1. The state should support existing outreach efforts by assisting in the distribution of 

accurate information about the status of Florida’s seagrasses and stressors affecting them. 

2. A “Citizens’ Report on the Status of Florida’s Seagrasses” should be prepared and 

distributed on a regular basis (e.g., every 2–3 years). 

3. A statewide teaching curriculum introducing students to Florida’s seagrasses, the 

environmental and economic value of seagrasses, and the state’s seagrass conservation 

goals should be developed and implemented. 

ii 
September 2003 

CONTENTS 

Summary of Key Recommendations ...........................................................................................i 

List of Figures ..............................................................................................................................v 

Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................vi 

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

Report Purpose and Scope 

Background 

Another State’s Experience: Some Lessons from Texas 

2. Florida’s Seagrasses ................................................................................................................8 

3. Environmental and Economic Value of Seagrass Habitats.....................................................10 

4. Seagrass Status and Trends.....................................................................................................12 

Background 

Region 1: Panhandle 

Region 2: Big Bend 

Region 3: Gulf Peninsula 

Region 4: Atlantic Peninsula 

Region 5:South Florida 

5. Organizations Involved in Seagrass Management..................................................................17 

6. Setting Seagrass Management Goals ......................................................................................23 

Importance of Quantitative Goals 

Existing (Local) Goals 

Recommendation for the Development of Statewide Goals 

7. Developing and Implementing a Statewide Strategy...............................................................25 

Background 

Identifying Conservation and Restoration Areas 

Developing Management Strategies 

Implementing the Strategies 

8. Evaluation and Reporting.........................................................................................................29 

Importance of Tracking Progress Toward Goals 

Mapping 

Monitoring 

Reporting 

Recommended State Role 

iii 
September 2003 

9. Management-Related Research................................................................................................33 

Background 

Recommended State Role 

10. Public Outreach......................................................................................................................34 

Background 

Recommended State Role 

11. Source Material and Suggested Readings ..............................................................................35 

Appendix A. Federal and Non-Federal Agencies’ Legal Authority, Roles, 

and Responsibilities ..............................................................................................A1 

iv 
September 2003 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Regions of Florida containing significant seagrass resources.......................................2

Figure 2. Seagrass species occurring in Florida............................................................................9

Figure 3. Recommended approach for identifying and addressing seagrass management

in conservation and restoration areas.............................................................................27

v 
September 2003 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

Information and data used in this report were gleaned from a variety of sources including 

technical reports; federal, state, and local seagrass monitoring and management programs; and 

historical documents. Source materials and other suggested readings are listed in Section 11. 

The plan was prepared for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission by Gerold 

Morrison (Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County), Nanette Holland, 

and Holly Greening (Tampa Bay Estuary Program). The Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection, Florida Coastal Management Program provided funding pursuant to National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration award number NA170Z2330. The authors thank 

George Henderson, Kevin Madley, and Bill Sargent (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission-Florida Marine Research Institute) for guiding the project and providing 

administrative, technical, and logistical support. In addition to the contributions of FMRI staff 

members, the following participants provided thoughtful, constructive reviews of an interim 

document that improved the quality of the final report: Dave Ferrell (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service); Eric Fehrmann, Andy Squires, and Scott Dietche (Pinellas County Department of 

Environmental Management); Jaime Greenawalt (Sanibel-Captive Conservation Foundation); 

Graham Lewis (Northwest Florida Water Management District); and Rob Mattson (Suwanee 

River Water Management District).. 

vi 
September 2003 

1. INTRODUCTION 

Report Purpose and Scope 

This report is intended to serve as a non-technical planning document; it provides a conceptual 

framework for the development of a coordinated, statewide seagrass management initiative, 

while recognizing, supporting, and building on the accomplishments of local, community-based 

programs. 

Effective local seagrass management programs are currently underway in several areas of 

Florida, primarily in subtropical portions of the peninsula (e.g., Indian River Lagoon, Florida 

Bay, Sarasota Bay, and Tampa Bay). In addition, a number of federal, state, and local 

government agencies conduct regularly scheduled mapping and monitoring of seagrass habitats 

within their jurisdictions. However, the state of Florida does not yet have a coordinated 

statewide program for managing its seagrass resources. This report recommends a series of steps 

that could be taken to initiate a coordinated, cooperative, multi-agency program. 

The plan outlined herein provides a framework for quantitative management goals for the five 

distinct regions of the state (Fig. 1) that currently have extensive seagrass resources. It also 

provides recommendations regarding the state’s potential role in developing the following: 

• Consensus-based seagrass management strategies at the regional and statewide level 

• A methodologically consistent, statewide seagrass mapping and monitoring program 

• A schedule for reporting regional and statewide status and trends information 

• A schedule for assessing the state’s management strategies and the progress made toward 

achieving the adopted management goals 

• A management-oriented, statewide seagrass research program 

• A statewide, public outreach program focused on seagrass management and conservation 

The process of developing a statewide seagrass management program should not be allowed to 

impede or delay progress in the local areas where effective community-based programs are 

already in place. The statewide program should review and, if appropriate, adopt existing 

seagrass management goals and strategies developed by local stakeholder groups. A primary 

purpose of the statewide program should be to provide increased support for—and greater 

statewide consistency in the implementation of—the various components of seagrass 

management. To avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, the program should build on 

accomplishments at the local level and work cooperatively with local management programs. 

It is assumed that the statewide management program will be guided by a statewide management 

plan. The plan should be a “living document” that is revisited every 4 to 6 years, as statewide 

summaries of seagrass status and trends are updated and reported to the public. Of necessity, this 

initial planning document focuses on basic procedural issues, providing a brief overview of 

Florida’s existing seagrass resources and a list of recommendations for the participating 

organizations to consider as they work to initiate a consistent, coordinated statewide 

management effort. 

1
September 2003 

Figure 1. Regions of Florida containing significant seagrass resources. 

2
September 2003 

Background 

The need for a statewide seagrass management program was formally explored during a 

facilitated workshop held in June 2000 at the Florida Marine Research Institute (FMRI) in St. 

Petersburg. FMRI Director Ken Haddad, now Executive Director of the Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission, convened the session. 

The one-day workshop brought together representatives of key organizations to discuss Florida’s 

approach to seagrass management, focus on the existing roles and activities of state and federal 

agencies, and identify areas in which coordination and oversight could be improved. Various 

regulatory and non-regulatory management issues were discussed. Workshop participants also 

addressed existing seagrass management and monitoring activities, areas in which improved 

collaboration would be beneficial, and “missing links” in data or information that would enable 

them to perform their duties more effectively. 

In general, participants supported the concept of a statewide seagrass management program that 

would serve as an overall blueprint for guiding long-term protection and enhancement of the 

state’s more than 2.7 million acres of seagrass meadows. 

In 2000, Workshop participants identified the following key seagrass management issues: 

• Attention to and understanding of the status of seagrass resources throughout the state is 

uneven. Highly focused management and monitoring programs are underway in some 

areas—such as Florida Bay, Indian River Lagoon, Sarasota Bay, and Tampa Bay—where 

sufficient resources are available to support these activities. Mapping and monitoring 

projects in other portions of the state are conducted on a less frequent and less consistent 

basis, due, in part, to a lack of funding and other resources in those areas. 

• No central database exists for the storage and retrieval of mapping and monitoring data. 

• No strategic plan exists to identify priority management, monitoring, or research 

activities. 

• Standardized statewide mapping or monitoring techniques have not yet been developed. 

• Regulatory activities by federal, state, regional, and local government agencies often 

emphasize a piecemeal, case-by-case view of impacts to individual seagrass habitats, 

rather than a broader, more comprehensive approach capable of preserving the integrity 

of seagrass-based ecosystems. 

Participants offered the following key recommendations: 

• Specific, quantitative targets for seagrass recovery or preservation are important tools. 

• The state has a critical role to play as a facilitator in guiding long-term management of 

seagrass resources. 

• Monitoring and mapping efforts should be coordinated statewide, and standard protocols 

for monitoring and mapping should be developed. 

• Any strategic plan developed by the state should recognize regional differences in 

seagrass resources, impacts, and research and monitoring priorities, as well as successful 

local and regional management activities. 

• Efforts to inform the public about the economic and environmental value of seagrass 

should be expanded and coordinated on a statewide level. 

3
September 2003 

• A central clearinghouse for data related to seagrass coverage, trends, and impacts is 

needed.. 

• Linking science and management is crucial to the success of seagrass conservation effo rts 

and to achieving public support for conservation initiatives. 

• Collaboration at all levels of government, including the regulatory and law enforcement 

arenas, should be improved. Additionally, collaboration is desirable among agencies and 

non-profit or private organizations promoting seagrass protection. 

Another State’s Experience: Some Lessons from Texas 

Texas, like Florida, is a large coastal state with significant seagrass resources. Like Florida, 

legal and regulatory authority for seagrass management in Texas waters is divided among a 

number of state and federal agencies and local governments. No single agency has the authority, 

the funding, or the staff resources to develop and implement a coordinated, statewide seagrass 

management program. Recognizing the environmental and economic importance of seagrass 

habitats and the fragmented nature of the state’s regulatory authority and management resources, 

the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), in partnership with the Texas Natural 

Resource Conservation Commission, the Texas General Land Office (TGLO), and several 

federal resource management organizations, initiated a multi-stakeholder planning effort in 1995. 

That effort produced a plan for the development and implementation of a statewide program to 

coordinate seagrass research, conservation, and management. The plan is available via the 

Internet: www.tpwd.state.tx.us/texaswater/coastal/seagrass/plan/navbar.htm. 

The planning process underway in Texas offers a number of lessons that can be used during the 

development of a comparable statewide management program for Florida. The following 

extended excerpts from the current Texas plan highlight several of those lessons: 

“The development of this planning document started with work by the Resource 

Protection Division, TPW, when evidence of boat propeller scarring was 

extensively noted in many seagrass beds of Texas bays.” 

“A decision was made to initiate a conservation planning effort to identify 

resource management problems, enumerate planning objectives, and develop long 

and short range strategies and actions to protect and preserve Texas seagrasses.” 

“A planning team was organized to draft a conceptua l planning document, 

conduct a Seagrass Symposium and Workshop, and then compile and prepare this 

published document. These activities have taken place over the last three years 

(since 1995). Because of statutory management authority over coastal public 

waters or biological resources therein, three state agencies (Texas Parks and 

Wildlife, Texas General Land Office, and Texas Natural resource Conservation 

Commission) have taken the lead in guiding plan development. In addition, the 

two National Estuary Programs, Corpus Christi Bay and Galveston Bay, were 

actively involved. This multiuser/multistakeholder approach provides a good 

model for resource management and conservation that can be implemented at a 

local level through such a Seagrass Plan.” 

4
September 2003 

Management/Policy Issues 

“A sound management process that coordinates agency policies, public 

awareness, and existing research knowledge is needed to achieve effective 

seagrass conservation, while allowing for economic development. Management 

objectives were identified that address four problem areas: (1) seagrass beds are 

being lost or degraded, and/or species composition is changing; (2) agency 

coordination may prevent adequate management; (3) data synthesis and 

monitoring are insufficient for management decisions and need to be focused on 

management needs; and (4) public outreach is too limited to achieve the goal of 

public awareness. Objectives addressing these problems fall into three primary 

categories – regulatory, management, and educational policies.” 

Regulations 

“Regulatory policies for effective management involve ensuring water and 

sediment quality and coordinating and strengthening the mitigation sequence and 

guidelines. Beneficial water and sediment quality for seagrass communities 

involves establishing seagrass habitat as a specific aquatic life use in the Texas 

Surface Water Quality Standards. Additional evaluation would be needed to 

develop criteria or screening levels, such as suspended sediment, nutrient 

concentrations, turbidity, and salinity, for seagrass protection. Watershed 

management programs can protect water and sediment quality by promoting nonregulatory management activities. Implementation of Best Management Practices 

(BMPs), especially water-based BMPs, are needed to address impacts from 

runoff.” 

“Federal and state regulations and programs that help protect seagrasses are 

primarily the Section 404 and 401 Permits of the Clean Water Act and the Texas 

Coastal Management Program (CMP). The mitigation sequence of avoidance, 

minimization, and compensation is in the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines and is the 

substantive environmental standard by which all Section 404 permit applications 

are evaluated. The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission rules for 

Section 401 Certification and the CMP policies have incorporated key 

components of the Section 404 (b)(1) Guidelines. However, improvement is 

needed in coordinating the permitting process. In addition, the mitigation 

sequence needs to be strengthened and guidelines for avoidance of seagrass 

impacts emphasized.” 

Management Programs 

“Management programs focus on 1) seagrass restoration, enhancement, and 

creation; 2) dredging and shoreline development; 3) policy consistency; and 4) 

research, data acquisition, and monitoring. Restoring and enha ncing seagrasses 

was originally reported as being largely unsuccessful. Recently, many seagrass 

5
September 2003 

restoration projects have been successful, especially the restoration of shoalgrass 

(Halodule wrightii). In order to increase the success rate of restoration projects, 

management efforts need to be directed toward strengthening current restoration 

guidelines and providing increased research on successful planting techniques.” 

“Dredging of new canals and maintenance dredging of channels may cause 

mortality of seagrasses from burial or inhibit growth from turbidity and light 

reduction. Development along shorelines may affect conditions of water depth 

and currents and cause loss of seagrasses. Best Management Practices are needed 

to protect seagrasses while allowing for development of coastal resources.” 

“Consensus among user groups over controversial issues involving natural 

resource use is difficult to achieve. The 1994 Beneficial Uses Group Plan for the 

Houston Ship Channel deep-draft navigation project is an exa mple of a model 

plan or consensus agreement that minimized the ecological and sociological 

impacts of dredging by maximizing the beneficial uses of dredged material.” 

“Policies affecting seagrasses are present in many agencies and may be written 

with only one agency and its specific regulatory authority in mind. Future policies 

should be prepared in a holistic framework and existing policies examined for 

flexibility and to ensure that goals are achieved.” 

“Research, data acquisition, and monitoring need to be focused on management 

needs, i.e., on the water quality requirements of seagrasses. Management efforts 

will depend upon the development of new approaches that utilize a watershed 

approach to using water quality parameters to control import of nutrients into 

estuaries. Monitoring programs are needed for status and trends information and 

to help evaluate management actions. Ecological studies are needed to develop 

dependable restoration techniques. Sound, scientific data are needed to provide 

reliable information for application to management.” 

Education and Outreach Issues 

“Education, not regulation, has the greatest potential for conservation and 

restoration of seagrass ecosystems in Texas estuaries. A diverse group of 

stakeholders in Texas’ coastal ecosystems developed a vision and plan for 

education and outreach in support of seagrass conservation. We envision a Texas 

where awareness, knowledge, concern, and skills will result in responsible 

behavior that conserves the seagrasses of our state. Conservation education 

programs can take citizens from ignorance of seagrass ecosystems through 

awareness, understanding, and concern to practicing responsible behavior in 

regard to this ecosystem.” 

“Education and outreach objectives should assist in developing a sense of 

community stewardship and individual responsibility for seagrass conservation. 

6
September 2003 

Relevant information should be presented clearly, accurately, and with commonsense ideas for the public. State and federal agencies should strengthen their 

commitment to outreach programs.” 

Plan Implementation 

“The final section deals with implementation of immediate, high priority 

strategies and identifies appropriate participants in the process. TPW, TGLO, and 

TNRCC have targeted and committed to a number of the se high priority 

objectives as part of their agency programs. In addition, the roles of the State 

Wetlands Conservation Program, the two Texas National Estuary Programs, and 

public education and outreach programs are clarified and outlined as 

implementation mechanisms.” 

Florida’s seagrass management effort is in a position to learn from and build on the Texas 

experience. Many elements of the Texas program have been incorporated in the planning 

framework described in Sections 2–10. Florida should move from this initial planning 

stage to implementation of a coordinated, statewide seagrass management program as 

expeditiously as possible. 

7
September 2003 

2. FLORIDA’S SEAGRASSES 

Seagrasses are flowering marine plants that live submerged in Florida’s lagoons, bays, and other 

coastal waters. Because seagrasses require sunlight to flourish, the densest and most luxuriant 

beds are usually found in shallow, clear waters at depths of three meters or less. Seagrass health 

is inextricably linked to water quality: the clearer the water, the deeper seagrasses can grow. 

Activities that affect water quality and clarity, such as dredging and filling or excessive nutrient 

loading from urban, industrial, and agricultural land uses, may severely restrict the growth of 

seagrasses or caus e them to disappear altogether. 

Seven species of seagrass are found in Florida waters (Fig. 2). Florida’s largest seagrass species, 

Thalassia testudinum (turtle grass), has long strap-shaped leaves and robust rhizomes. In the 

marine environment, extensive meadows are usually dominated by this species, in combination 

with Syringodium filiforme. Syringodium (manatee grass) can be distinguished by its cylindrical 

leaves, which, because they are brittle and buoyant, are frequently broken off from the parent 

plant, and widely dispersed by winds and currents. Halodule wrightii (shoal grass) has flat, 

narrow leaves and a shallow root system. It is thought to be an early successional species in the 

development of seagrass beds in the gulf and Caribbean and is a dominant species in many 

estuarine environments. Halodule is able to survive more frequent and prolonged exposure 

during periods of low tide; it is often the predominant species at the shallow-water fringe of large 

meadows. In some areas, Halodule also dominates the deep-water edge of many meadows. 

Three additional species (Halophila engelmannii, Halophila decipiens, and Halophila johnsonii) 

are also found in Florida’s coastal waters. Halophila engelmannii is often present in meadows 

dominated by Thalassia and Syringodium, but it also occurs in deeper areas where these species 

are absent. Halophila decipiens is found in both inshore and offshore areas. Reported from 

depths of up to 90 m near the Dry Tortugas, it forms single-species stands (to depths of 20 m or 

more) beyond the deep edge of the extensive Thalassia/Syringodium meadows in the Big Bend 

region. Halophila johnsonii is a relatively newly described species that is morphologically 

similar to H. decipiens. Because of its highly restricted geographic range (northern Biscayne 

Bay to Sebastian Inlet, on Florida’s east coast) and potential vulnerability to extinction due to 

chance disturbance events, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently listed Halophila johnsonii 

as a threatened species. 

A seventh species, Ruppia maritima (widgeon grass), tolerates a wide range of salinities. 

It is often encountered on Florida’s west coast, particularly in estuaries such as 

Homosassa Bay. The species can form dense beds, such as those found in upper Tampa 

Bay. In recognition of its broad salinity tolerance, some researchers have suggested that 

Ruppia maritima might be thought of as a freshwater plant that is also capable of living in 

saline environments. 

8
September 2003 

Figure 2. Seagrass species occurring in Florida (from Sargent et al. 1995, based on 

drawings by Mark D. Moffler). 

9
September 2003 

3. ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC VALUE OF SEAGRASS HABITATS 

The approximately 2.7 million acres of seagrass beds that occur in Florida’s coastal waters 

represent key components of the state’s marine environment and economy. They help to 

maintain water clarity by trapping fine sediments and particles with their leaves and stabilizing 

bottom sediments with their root systems and rhizomes. They provide food and shelter for 

numerous marine organisms, including the endangered West Indian manatee. More than 70% of 

Florida’s recreational and commercial fish, shellfish and crustacean species spend part of their 

lives in seagrass beds. As a result, the environmental and economic values provided by Florida’s 

seagrasses are substantial. The Smithsonian Marine Station at Fort Pierce has provided the 

following summary: 

“A single acre of seagrass can produce over 10 tons of leaves per year. This vast 

biomass provides food, habitat, and nursery areas for a myriad of adult and 

juvenile vertebrates and invertebrates. Further, a single acre of seagrass may 

support as many as 40,00 fish, and 50 million small invertebrates.” 

“Because seagrasses support such high biodiversity, and because of their 

sensitivity to changes in water quality, they have become recognized as important 

indicator species that reflect the overall health of coastal ecosystems.” 

“Seagrasses perform a variety of functions within ecosystems, and have both 

economic and ecological value. The high level of productivity, structural 

complexity, and biodiversity in seagrass beds has led some researchers to describe 

seagrass communities as the marine equivalent of tropical rainforests. While 

nutrient cycling and primary production in seagrasses tends to be seasonal, annual 

production in seagrass communities rivals or exceeds that of terrestrially 

cultivated areas.” 

“As habitat, seagrasses offer food, shelter, and essential nursery areas to 

commercial and recreational fishery species, and to the countless invertebrates 

that are produced within, or migrate to seagrasses. The complexity of seagrass 

habitat is increased when several species of seagrasses grow together, their leaves 

concealing juvenile fish, smaller finfish, and benthic invertebrates such as 

crustaceans, bivalves, echinoderms, and other groups. Juvenile stages of many 

fish species spend their early days in the relative safety and protection of 

seagrasses. Additionally, seagrasses provide both habitat and protection to the 

infaunal organisms living within the substratum as seagrass rhizomes intermingle 

to form dense networks of underground runners that deter predators from digging 

infaunal prey from the substratum. Seagrass meadows also help dampen the 

effects of strong currents, providing protection to fish and invertebrates, while 

also preventing the scouring of bottom areas. Finally, seagrasses provide 

attachment sites to small macroalgae and epiphytic organisms such as sponges, 

bryozoans, forams, and other taxa that use seagrasses as habitat.” 

10
September 2003 

“Economically, Florida’s 2.7 million acres of seagrass supports both commercial 

and recreational fisheries that provide a wealth of benefits to the state’s economy. 

Florida’s Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) reported that in 2000, 

Florida’s seagrass communities supported commercial harvests of fish and 

shellfish valued at over 124 billion dollars. Adding the economic value of the 

nutrient cycling function of seagrasses, and the value of recreational fisheries to 

this number, FDEP has estimated that each acre of seagrass in Florida has an 

economic value of approximately $20,500 per year, which translates into a 

statewide economic benefit of 55.4 billion dollars annually. In Fort Pierce, 

Florida alone, the 40 acres of seagrass in the vicinity of Fort Pierce Inlet are 

valued at over $800,000 annually. When projected across St. Lucie County’s 

estimated 80,000 acres of seagrass, this figure increases to 1.6 billion dollars per 

year.” 

Comparable estimates of the economic value of seagrass habitats have been developed in other 

parts of the state. In 2001, the estimated total value of six seagrass-dependent species (including 

pink shrimp and stone crabs) in Florida was $117 million. The estimated value of the Florida 

shrimp industry in 2001 was $27 million. In Monroe County alone, more than $200 million is 

spent yearly on eco-tourism activities such as wildlife viewing and diving. Seagrass meadows in 

the Indian River Lagoon serve as the backbone of a recreational and commercial fishing industry 

that has an estimated economic impact of about $1 billion per year. 

11
September 2003 

4. SEAGRASS STATUS AND TRENDS 

Background 

Currently in Florida, the only organizations that regularly map seagrasses are the three largest 

water management districts (the Southwest Florida, St. Johns River, and South Florida districts). 

These mapping programs are performed at a regional level. The maps are typically updated every 

two to three years. 

In more localized areas, a variety of state and federal agencies conducted mapping sporadically 

or on a one-time basis. These agencies included the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission-Marine Research Institute, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. 

Geological Survey, and the U.S. Minerals Management Service. 

A review of available information on seagrass status and trends suggests that long-term coverage 

losses have occurred in each of the five regions addressed by this plan. In several regions, the 

most pronounced coverage losses have occurred in highly urbanized estuaries. A regional 

breakdown of seagrass coverage and trends is as follows. 

Region 1: Panhandle 

The Panhandle region includes the coastal waters of Franklin, Gulf, Bay, Walton, Okaloosa, 

Santa Rosa, and Escambia counties. Based on 1992 aerial photography provided by the USGS, 

this region contains about 42,000 acres of seagrasses, or 2% of the statewide total. 

From the 1940s to the early 1970s, a substantial decline in overall submerged aquatic vegetation 

(SAV) was reported in the Escambia-Pensacola Bay system, including Santa Rosa Sound, 

Pensacola Bay, Escambia Bay, and Big Lagoon. In recent years, however, improved water 

quality in three of these four water bodies has led to seagrass expansion. In Santa Rosa Sound 

and Pensacola Bay, SAV showed significant increased growth; horizontal growth rates of some 

beds averaging more than 18 inches over one year. In Escambia Bay, most of the earlier SAV 

losses have been recovered. The most recent study showed continued declines in Big Lagoon. 

Region 2: Big Bend 

The Big Bend region includes the coastal waters of Pasco, Hernando, Citrus, Levy, Dixie, 

Taylor, Jefferson, and Wakulla counties. The region, bounded on the landward side by 

freshwater inflows from 14 river systems and extensive groundwater influx and on the seaward 

side by the Gulf of Mexico, is a unique “low-energy” coastline that could be considered one vast 

estuarine area. The most recent estimate of seagrass coverage in this region (based on 1992 

USGS aerial photography) was 797,000 acres, which represents 27% of the total seagrass 

coverage in the state. This is the second largest contiguous area of seagrass habitat in the eastern 

Gulf of Mexico, making it an important resource not only to Florida but nationally and 

internationally as well. With the exception of some intensive studies carried out by Florida State 

University staff, little research or monitoring has been conducted in the region. Recently, 

12
September 2003 

cooperative mapping and monitoring efforts have been initiated by the Southwest Florida Water 

Management District, the Suwannee River Water Management District, the University of 

Florida, the Florida Marine Research Institute, and the Gulf of Mexico Program. 

Currently, the remoteness of the seagrasses in the Big Bend, combined with the low density of 

the region’s human population, have apparently served to keep seagrass coverage stable. The 

estuary of the Fenholloway River is the only area where an historical loss of seagrass coverage 

has been documented; the loss is due to water quality impacts from an upstream pulp mill 

discharge. Recent improvements in the quality of the mill effluent appear to be permitting some 

seagrass recovery in that area. Anecdotal references in the scientific literature suggest that 

historical seagrass coverage may have been higher than the currently observed levels in 

Suwannee Sound and Waccasassa Bay, but this possibility has not yet been thoroughly 

investigated. 

Based on our understanding of seagrass loss and recovery in other Florida estuaries, maintaining 

adequate water quality and water clarity will be the major emphasis for conserving seagrass 

resources in the Big Bend region. The following management activities need to be implemented 

in the region: 

• Continue the mapping and monitoring work recently begun by the Southwest Florida and 

Suwannee River water management districts. In particular, the Suwannee River Water 

Management District’s work in the northern Big Bend is currently supported by a shortterm grant from the Gulf of Mexico Program; this effort needs a dedicated long-term 

funding source. Long-term programs tracking water clarity and seagrass coverage and 

condition will be key components of a regional management strategy. 

• Conduct the research needed to identify the water quality conditions—including nutrient 

loadings, turbidity levels, and water clarity—that must be maintained to permit adequate 

light to penetrate to the deepest seagrass meadows. These will be important management 

targets, which will be needed to assess the effectiveness of other land use and water 

quality management efforts. 

Region 3: Gulf Peninsula 

The Gulf Peninsula region includes the coastal waters of Pinellas, Hillsborough, Manatee, 

Sarasota, Charlotte, and Lee counties. Based on 1999 aerial photography provided by the South 

Florida and Southwest Florida water management districts, this region contains approximately 

107,000 acres of seagrass, or about 5% of the statewide total. 

Due to reductions in pollutant loads and improvements in water quality, some estuarine areas of 

this region have demonstrated modest to dramatic seagrass coverage gains over the past 25 

years.. In Tampa Bay, for example, 40% of seagrasses were lost between about 1950 and 1982. 

However, from 1982 to 1996, more than 5,000 acres were recovered thanks to improved 

treatment of wastewater and stormwater, as well as restrictions on dredging and filling. Tampa 

Bay seagrasses suffered a recent setback during the El Niño event of 1998–1999, when 2,000 

acres were lost.This was the first decline in bay-wide coverage since 1982. Recent aerial 

13
September 2003 

mapping shows an expansion of about 1,200 acres by 2002, indicating that the system appears to 

be rebounding from that setback. 

Currently, there are about 26,000 acres of seagrass throughout Tampa Bay. Local partners have 

developed a consensus-based goal of restoring more than 12,000 additional acres, which would 

bring total coverage back to the levels that occurred in the early 1950s. 

In Sarasota Bay, seagrass losses during the 1940s to the 1980s are estimated at approximately 

30%. In 1988, the total seagrass coverage was estimated at 8,651 acres. However, changes in 

seagrass coverage in Sarasota Bay have been dramatic since then. Between 1989 and 1990, 

nutrient loadings from wastewater treatment plants were reduced by as much as 25%, 

substantially improving water clarity. Between 1988 and 1996, seagrass coverage in the 

Manatee County portion of the bay increased by roughly 800 acres; in the Sarasota County 

portion, seagrass coverage increased by an estimated 670 acres. Most of these increases 

occurred along the deep edges of existing seagrass beds, suggesting that improved water clarity 

and light availability were important factors contributing to increased seagrass coverage. 

Currently, there are about 9,110 acres of seagrass in Sarasota Bay. The Sarasota Bay National 

Estuary Program has adopted a restoration approach that seeks to control nitrogen loadings 

through the use of “best available technologies” to reduce discharges from point and nonpoint 

sources. 

The greater Charlotte Harbor area—which includes Charlotte Harbor proper, along with Lemon 

Bay, Gasparilla Sound, Pine Island Sound, Matlacha Pass, Estero Bay, and the Caloosahatchee 

River estuary—is generally less urbanized than either Tampa Bay or Sarasota Bay. As a result 

of large-scale dredge and fill projects, a portion of the area, primarily in southe rn Pine Island 

Sound, lost an estimated 30% of its seagrasses prior to the 1980s. Elsewhere in the area, longterm seagrass coverage appears to be relatively stable. 

In 1992, the Southwest Florida Water Management District initiated a biennial mapping project 

to assess seagrass coverage trends in the portion of the area that falls within its jurisdiction. 

Currently this area, which includes Charlotte Harbor proper, Lemon Bay, and Gasparilla Sound, 

contains about 18,000 acres of seagrass. 

Region 4: Atlantic Peninsula 

The Atlantic Peninsula region includes the coastal waters of Volusia, Brevard, Indian River, St. 

Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach counties. This region contains about 3%, or 74,456 acres, of the 

state’s total seagrasses. 

Seagrasses in this region occur primarily within the Indian River Lagoon system, an estuary that 

spans about 160 miles of coastline and includes portions of six counties. All seven of Florida’s 

seagrass species are found in the area. This region displays the highest seagrass diversity of any 

estuary in the Western Hemisphere. One rare species found only in the southern reaches of the 

lagoon, Johnson’s seagrass (Halophila johnsonii), was designated as federally threatened species 

14
September 2003 

in 1998. Conservation of this scarce and epheme ral species presents unique management 

challenges. 

Based on 1943 coverage estimates, potential seagrass coverage in the lagoon is estimated at 

91,570 acres. The Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program has developed specific 

recovery or preservation targets for each segment of the lagoon based on the depths at which 

seagrasses can be expected grow under adequate water quality conditions. 

The Indian River Lagoon Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Plan, updated 

in 2002 and available on the South Florida Water Management District Web site 

(www.sfwmd.gov), provides the following overview of seagrass distribution and trends: 

“Lagoon areas containing the largest seagrass coverages are around N. Merritt 

Island in the federally protected bottomlands of NASA/Kennedy Space Center 

(North IRL and northern Banana River) and the Canaveral National Seashore 

(southern Mosquito Lagoon). These areas experienced little change between 1943 

and 1999.” 

“The largest area with the least seagrass coverage, and with the greatest loss since 

1943 (70% loss), extends from Cocoa to just south of Turkey Creek” 

“Within the SJRWMD portion of the IRL (Mosquito Lagoon, Banana River, 

North and Central IRL), the current (1999) 61,884 acres of seagrass is 63% of the 

potential 98,274 acres of coverage (based on 1.7 m depth). The 1943 seagrass 

coverage was 63,238 acres; 64% of the potential acreage.” 

“Within the SFWMD portion (South IRL), the current (1999) seagrass cover is 

7,808 acres or 39% of the potential 19,799 acres. The early 1940s seagrass 

coverage was nearly the same – 7,668 acres or 39% of the potential acreage.” 

“For the entire IRL, the potential coverage area for seagrass is 118,000 acres; but 

only 59% of that is currently covered in seagrass (69,692 acres in 1999). In 

general, “healthy” seagrass areas are adjacent to relatively undeveloped 

watersheds or in proximity to inlets, whereas areas of extensive losses are 

adjacent to highly developed watersheds and shorelines.” 

15
September 2003 

Region 5: South Florida 

The South Florida region includes the coastal waters of Collier, Monroe, and Dade counties. This 

area contains approximately 63%, or more than 1.4 million acres, of the total seagrasses in 

Florida. The extensive Florida Bay seagrass meadow is among the largest contiguous seagrass 

beds on earth. On the Atlantic side of the Florida Keys, seagrasses are closely associated with 

coral patch reefs. 

Though sparse, long-term coverage data for this region indicate a significant decline in 

seagrasses in urbanized portions such as the Miami-Dade area, where an estimated 43% percent 

of seagrasses in the north section of Biscayne Bay have been lost since the 1940s. Seagrasses in 

Dade and Monroe counties also exhibit some of the highest rates of propeller scarring in Florida. 

Seagrass managers have recommended the implementation of a four-point approach (education, 

channel marking, enforcement, and limited-motoring zones) to reduce propeller scarring in these 

counties and other portions of the state where significant scarring occurs. In addition, the Florida 

Keys National Marine Sanctuary is currently implementing its detailed 10-point program 

addressing channel and reef marking, education and outreach, enforcement, mooring buoys, 

regulation, research and monitoring, submerged cultural resources, volunteers, water quality, and 

zoning issues for the management of seagrasses and other resources in the area under its 

jurisdiction. 

Beginning in 1987, Florida Bay experienced a dramatic bay-wide seagrass decline, substantially 

reducing coverage and biomass. The unexpected and incompletely understood die-off has been 

attributed to a combination of factors, including widespread and persistent microalgae blooms, 

sediment sulfide toxicity, hypersalinity due to multi-year drought, and infection of grasses by the 

slime mold Labyrinthula. Between 1984 and 1994, the estimated biomass of three seagrasses 

declined sharply: turtle grass by 28%; manatee grass by 88%, and shoal grass in Florida Bay 

declined by 92%. Although the rate of decline has slowed considerably in recent years, seagrass 

coverage losses have continued in parts of the bay, possibly jeopardizing their long-term 

viability. Chronic light reductions and increased water turbidity are thought to be important 

factors in the ongoing decline. 

16
September 2003 

5. ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED IN SEAGRASS MANAGEMENT 

A variety of agencies in all branches of government and many non-governmental organizations 

are involved in seagrass management in Florida. A brief overview of these potential partners and 

their roles is provided in the tables that follow. More extended summaries of legal authorizations 

and agency roles and responsibilities are provided in Appendix A. 

As the experience in Texas has shown, successful development of a coordinated statewide 

management program will require the active participation of the full range of agencies and 

stakeholder groups that have an interest in seagrass resources. 

FEDERAL AGENCIES 

Agency Authority Primary Responsibility 

All Federal Agencies National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) 

Provides for consultation among 

applicable agencies, through 

preparation and review of 

environmental assessments (EA) and 

environmental impact statements 

(EIS) regarding proposed federal 

actions 

U.S Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 of the 

Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act 

(Clean Water Act) 

Regulates dredging and discharges 

of fill material 

U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 

National Pollution 

Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) of the 

Clean Water Act 

Regulates domestic and industrial 

wastewater discharges and certain 

municipal stormwater discharges 

Non Point Source 

Program (NPS) of the 

Clean Water Act 

Oversees development of state 

management programs to address 

non-point source runoff; provides 

Section 319 grant funds 

Section 320 of the 

Clean Water Act 

Administers National Estuary 

Programs and Gulf of Mexico 

Program 

Florida Keys National 

Marine Sanctuary 

(FKNMS) and 

Protection Act, under 

the National Marine 

Sanctuaries Act 

Develops and implements water 

quality and resource protection 

programs for the FKNMS 

17
September 2003 

FEDERAL AGENCIES (Cont.) 

Organization Authority Primary Responsibility 

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration 

Coastal Zone 

Management Act 

Approves and oversees state Coastal 

Management Programs 

Section 315 of the 

CZMA 

Administers National Estuarine 

Research Reserves (NERR) 

Magnuson-Stevens 

Fisheries Conservation 

and Management Act 

Establishes national standards for 

fishery conservation and develops 

fishery management plans 

Sustainable Fisheries 

Act; Amendment to 

MSFCMA 

Designates essential fish habitat 

(EFH) areas and develops 

appropriate conservation measures 

for those areas 

Endangered Species Act NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries 

Service implements the ESA for sea 

turtles and Johnson’s seagrass, 

including management of critical 

habitats 

Florida Keys National 

Marine Sanctuary 

(FKNMS) and 

Protection Act of the 

National Marine 

Sanctuaries Act 

Develops and implements 

comprehensive management plans 

and accompanying regulations for 

management of FKNMS 

No-Net-Loss Policy NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries 

Service oversees this policy for 

wetlands protection and mitigation 

in marine waters 

Submerged Aquatic 

Vegetation Policy of 

NOAA’s Atlantic State 

Fisheries Commission 

Provides for the conservation, 

preservation and restoration of SAV 

along the Atlantic Coast of the U.S. 

U.S. Coast Guard Develops regional oil spill response 

plans; enforces federal fisheries and 

marine mammal protection laws 

US Department of the Interior 

Mineral Management Service 

Conducts surveys of nearshore 

coastal waters 

US Department of the Interior 

National Park Service 

Manages National Park lands, 

including those with submerged 

lands and seagrasses 

18
September 2003 

FEDERAL AGENCIES (Cont.) 

Organization Authority Primary Responsibility 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) 

Requires federal agencies to consult 

on activities that affect listed species 

Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act 

Requires federal agencies to consult 

with USFWS on development 

activities in order to conserve 

resources, including seagrasses and 

other submerged aquatic vegetation 

USFWS Mitigation 

Policy 

Establishes policies to mitigate for 

resource losses, including seagrasses 

and other submerged aquatic 

vegetation 

Refuge Administration 

Act 

Establishes and manages National 

Wildlife Refuges 

Coastal Grants Program Provides funding for restoration of 

coastal habitats, including seagrasses 

and other submerged aquatic 

vegetation 

19
September 2003 

NON-FEDERAL ORGANIZATIONS 

(STATE AND REGIONAL AGENCIES, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, NGOs) 

Organization Authority Primary Responsibility 

Board of Trustees of the 

Internal Trust Fund for the 

State of Florida 

Chapter 253 FS; 

Chapter 18 FAC 

(state lands) 

Holds title to the natural resources 

located within three miles of the 

Atlantic coast and nine miles of the 

gulf coast 

Chapter 18-21, FAC 

sovereign submerged 

lands management 

Manages and protects sovereign 

lands, especially those important to 

public drinking water supply, 

shellfish harvesting, public 

recreation, and fish and wildlife 

propagation and management 

Chapter 18-18, FAC 

(Florida Bay Aquatic 

Preserve) and Chapter 

18-20, FAC (other 

aquatic preserves) 

Develops and implements 

comprehensive ma nagement 

programs to preserve, protect, and 

enhance designated aquatic 

preserves 

Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection 

Chapter 62-302, FAC 

Surface Water Quality 

Standards 

Conserves waters of the state to 

protect, maintain, and improve water 

quality for public water supplies, 

propagation of fish and wildlife, and 

other uses; includes nutrient 

enrichment management specifically 

to protect seagrasses 

Chapter 62 FAC Serves as permitting authority for 

waterfront developments, marinas, 

wastewater treatment plants, and 

industrial wastewater discharges 

Manages state parks and aquatic 

preserves 

Coordinates emergency response 

programs for oil spills 

Administers non-regulatory 

stewardship programs such as Clean 

Marina Program 

Guides implementation of the state’s 

Coastal Management Program 

20
September 2003 

NON-FEDERAL ORGANIZATIONS (Cont.) 

Organization Authority Primary Responsibility 

Florida Department of 

Agriculture and Consumer 

Services 

Chapter 5 FAC Ensures safety of shellfish 

harvesting areas 

Protects the state’s agricultural and 

natural resources by promoting 

environmentally safe agricultural 

practices, including aquaculture 

Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission 

Chapter 68 FAC Creates and enforces fish and 

boating laws 

Oversees the Florida Marine 

Research Institute, which conducts 

research in seagrass biology, status 

and trends, and impacts 

Provides regulatory review of 

water-based development 

Establishes state manatee protection 

sanctuaries and speed zones 

Florida Department of 

Community Affairs 

Chapter 9 FAC Coordinates reviews of 

developments of regional impact 

(DRI) 

Oversees implementation of local 

comprehensive land use plans as 

specified by Florida statutes 

Oversees implementation of land use 

plans for state Areas of Critical 

Concern 

Water Management Districts Chapter 40 FAC Regulate projects related to water 

quality and quantity 

Implement the state’s Surface Water 

Improvement and Management 

(SWIM) program 

21
September 2003 

NON-FEDERAL ORGANIZATIONS (Cont.) 

Organization Authority Primary Responsibility 

Port Authorities Laws of Florida 

(separate chapter for 

each authority) 

Regulate docks and other structures 

within their sovereign land 

ownership 

Develop emergency response plans 

for oil or chemical spills 

National Estuary Programs Clean Water Act 

Section 320 

Develop and coordinate 

implementation of watershed 

management plans 

Coordinate data collection and 

distribution 

Develop and distribute outreach 

materials 

Regional Planning Councils Chapter 29 FAC Coordinate local review of DRIs 

Assist communities in long-range 

planning, including natural resource 

protection 

Local Governments Local ordinances, 

delegated permitting 

authority 

Wide range of responsibilities, 

including: 

• Delegated permitting of 

wetland and shoreline 

impacts, point and non-point 

source discharges 

• Managing parks and aquatic 

preserves 

• Regulating (by ordinance) 

boating speeds and manatee 

and seagrass protection zones 

Non-Governmental 

Organizations 

Many activities, including: 

• Lobbying for coastal 

resource use and protection 

• Environmental education, 

public outreach and 

involvement 

22
September 2003 

6. SETTING SEAGRASS MANAGEMENT GOALS 

Importance of Quantitative Goals 

In recent decades, natural resource managers have made increasing use of quantitative planning 

methods that are based on the adoption of numeric, science-based goals and regular assessment 

of progress toward those goals. The approach of adopting and measuring progress toward 

quantitative goals offers a number of benefits: 

• Increased accountability 

• Clearer identification of monitoring priorities 

• Improved efficiency in the allocation of funding and manpower 

• More rapid identification of management actions that are most cost-effective and 

environmentally beneficial 

Setting quantitative, science-based seagrass management goals and regularly measuring and 

reporting progress in achieving them is also critically important for securing support from the 

citizens of Florida and their elected officials. 

Existing (Local) Goals 

Indian River Lagoon and Tampa Bay currently have quantitative, consensus-based seagrass 

coverage goals. 

In the Indian River Lagoon, the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program has developed 

coverage goals for various lagoon segments based on the 1943 total estimated seagrass coverage 

of 91,570 acres. The goals assume sufficient water quality and light attenuation to allow 

seagrasses to grow to approximately 5.6 feet in depth. Achieving coverage targets will be 

accomplished by the adoption of specific pollutant load reduction goals (PLRGs) for each 

segment. The goals, based on the difference between the 1943 estimates and present-day 

coverage, will be updated every 2–3 years through aerial mapping and digitization conducted by 

the St. Johns River Water Management District. 

For Tampa Bay, the Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP) has adopted a long-term goal of 

recovering 12,350 acres of seagrasses bay-wide, which would increase seagrass coverage to 

about 38,000 acres. This is the estimated coverage present in the bay in the early 1950s, 

excluding areas permanently altered by dredging and filling activities. Water clarity in the bay 

has improved dramatically since 1985, and water quality models developed by TBEP indicate 

that clarity is now sufficient to allow achievement of the seagrass recovery goal, over time, 

through natural regrowth. To maintain existing water clarity and sustain the seagrass recovery 

process, TBEP has adopted a nutrient management goal of capping the nitrogen loads entering 

the bay at the average levels observed during 1992–1994. 

Between 1996 and 2010, nitrogen loadings to Tampa Bay are projected to increase by 7 percent 

because of population growth and related development. This equates to an estimated increase in 

annual nitrogen loads of slightly less tha n 17 tons per year; to maintain the bay’s current nitrogen 

23
September 2003 

levels, local governments and industries need to reduce or prevent cumulative increased loadings 

to the bay by this amount. 

The Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium, a public-private partnership, has agreed to 

collectively reach this goal by conducting a variety of nitrogen load reduction projects, including 

land acquisition, habitat restoration, construction of upgraded stormwater treatment systems, and 

reductions in domestic and industrial point source discharges and air emissions. Consortium 

partners report their pollution-control projects to TBEP, which has developed a database to track 

progress by calculating reductions in nitrogen loads for various types of projects. 

Monthly bay-wide water quality monitoring provides an overall measure of the success of these 

efforts. The monitoring, conducted by local governments, is combined with aerial photography 

and digitized mapping of Tampa Bay’s seagrass beds. The Southwest Florida Water 

Management District conducts monitoring every 2–3 years. 

Recommendations for the Development of Statewide Goals 

The state of Florida, through its existing resource management agencies, should take the lead in 

developing quantitative, consensus-based seagrass coverage goals for each of the five regions 

shown in Fig. 1. These goals should be specific, measurable, realistic, and environmentally and 

technically sound. Ideally, they should be achievable within a specified time (e.g., 25 years). 

Goals should be developed based on input from a wide range of stakeholders, including resource 

managers; scientists; resource user-groups; environmental organizations; trade associations; 

agricultural, development and industrial interests, and the public and elected officia ls. The sum 

of these regional goals will represent the statewide seagrass management goal. 

To develop these goals, a statewide seagrass management technical advisory committee (TAC) 

should be assembled. The group could be modeled after the committee DEP recently used in the 

development of the state’s “Impaired Waters Rule” (Chap. 62-302 FAC). TAC members, who 

should be familiar with regional and statewide seagrass management issues and methods, should 

be appointed by the heads of the Department of Environmental Protection, the Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission, the Department of Community Affairs, the Department of 

Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the five water management districts. Each agency 

should also designate one or more senior administrative staff members to review draft 

recommendations developed by the TAC. The Florida Coastal Management Program should 

fund, organize, coordinate, and provide logistical support to the TAC. 

The TAC should hold one or more public meetings in each of the state’s five seagrass regions. 

The meetings should be well-advertised, and provide an opportunity for input from stakeholders 

who are not committee members. Technical staff from organizations involved in seagrass 

management at the regional level sho uld be invited to participate in the regional meetings. These 

organizations could include the estuary programs, estuarine research reserves, other preserves, 

parks and wildlife refuges, local governments, colleges and universities, and relevant NGOs. 

Federal agencies with regulatory responsibilities that affect seagrasses within the regions should 

also be invited to participate in the goal-setting process. 

24
September 2003 

7. DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING A STATEWIDE STRATEGY 

Background 

If the statewide seagrass management effort is to be successful, it must be practical, adaptable, 

and forward-looking. It should allow for flexibility, and revision of goals as conditions change 

and new information becomes available. It should provide clear, concise regional and statewide 

strategies that can be implemented across jurisdictional boundaries. It should serve as a 

blueprint guiding efforts at all levels of government and should also include the private sector, 

civic organizations, and other NGOs. It should recognize, support, and incorporate successful 

existing management programs, building on the accomplishments of local programs rather than 

duplicating their efforts. Moreover, it should promote new policies to fill identified gaps and 

ensure that adequate management attention is paid to seagrasses in all regions of the state. A 

cooperative, coordinated statewide approach of this type will provide managers in each region 

with consistent direction and a means of linking their efforts to the larger goal of protecting and 

enhancing all seagrass resources. 

Once appropriate seagrass coverage goals are identified at the regional level, a logical sequence 

of steps can be used to develop and implement management strategies for individual regions and 

water bodies. A recommended approach, based on a logical framework developed by the 

National Research Council for estuarine water quality management, is shown in flowchart form 

in Figure 3. 

Identifying Potential Conservation and Restoration Areas 

The threats to and health of seagrass communities vary substantially within and between the five 

regions shown in Fig. 1. While some areas need restoration efforts to re-establish seagrasses to 

ideal levels, other areas primarily need conservation to maintain current seagrass abundance and 

health levels. Techniques for managing these areas will necessarily differ. Management efforts 

in restoration areas will focus primarily on reducing and eventually reversing water quality 

degradation, propeller scarring, or other causes of seagrass losses, and restoring seagrass 

habitats. Management efforts in conservation areas will focus primarily on preserving robust 

seagrass resources by preventing potential problems that could lead to future declines in 

coverage or habitat quality. 

Panhandle: Seagrasses in the Panhandle region occur primarily in shallow nearshore areas. 

The limited amount of seagrass present in the region is potentially at risk from inappropriately 

conducted shoreline development, dock construction, and boat operation. In general, seagrasses 

in Panhandle estuaries apparently remain at or near historic levels; although, some areas, such as 

Pensacola Bay, Choctawhatchee Bay, West Bay, and St. Andrew Bay, have experienced losses. 

The recommended regional strategy is a combination of conservation and, in areas where losses 

have occurred, restoration projects. 

Big Bend: Throughout the Big Bend region, large expanses of seagrasses occur. Some of the 

world’s largest low-density, deepwater seagrass meadows exist offshore from the state’s ninemile natural resource boundary. In the near future, the main emphasis of this region’s seagrass 

25
September 2003 

management will presumably focus on conservation rather than restoration. Human population 

growth and associated development pressures are just beginning to occur. To prevent water 

quality degradation, a full range of management practices, including stormwater management, 

centralized wastewater systems, land use BMPs, and public education and outreach will be 

needed. 

Gulf Peninsula: The northern portion of this region, including St. Joseph Sound, Clearwater 

Harbor, Boca Ciega Bay, Tampa Bay, and Sarasota Bay, has a long history of urbanization and 

corresponding reductions in seagrass coverage. Recent assessments by Pinellas County indicate 

that substantial seagrass coverage, which approaches 60% of the coverage currently present in 

Tampa Bay, remains in the Clearwater Harbor and St. Joseph Sound area. The county will seek 

implementation of a combined restoration and conservation effort in those areas in the near 

future. The Tampa Bay Estuary Program and the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program have 

both identified restoration as the primary management strategy for their water bodies. The 

Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program has identified the southern portion of the region, 

which includes Lemon Bay, Gasparilla Sound, Charlotte Harbor, Pine Island Sound, Matlacha 

Pass, Estero Bay, and the Caloosahatchee River estuary, as a seagrass conservation area. 

South Florida: Although it contains most of the state’s nearshore seagrass coverage, much of 

this region appears to be a restoration area. Boat groundings and propeller scarring damage 

seagrasses in the shallow waters of the Florida Keys, Florida Bay, and Biscayne Bay. The 

cumulative effects of these individually localized physical perturbations are so severe that the 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) developed a judicially-based damage 

assessment and restoration process to facilitate the recovery of damaged sites. In addition to 

these clearly anthropogenic seagrass losses, by 1994, the incompletely-understood “die-off” that 

began in Florida Bay in 1987 caused dramatic reductions in the biomass of three seagrasses: 

Thalassia by an estimated 28%; Syringodium by 88%, and Halodule by 92%. Although the loss 

rate from “die-off” has slowed considerably in recent years, researchers have described the longterm future of seagrasses in Florida Bay as “uncertain.” 

Atlantic Peninsula: Assessments conducted by the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary 

Program, in cooperation with the St. Johns River Water Management District and the South 

Florida Water Management District, indicate that the northernmost portion of the Indian River 

Lagoon and adjacent areas of the Mosquito Lagoon and Banana River have experienced 

relatively small amounts of seagrass loss. An emphasis on conservation appears to be the most 

appropriate management approach for these waters. More urbanized areas have reportedly 

experienced significant amounts of seagrass loss due to physical removal through dredging and 

filling and reduced water quality. An emphasis on restoration appears needed in these areas. 

26
September 2003 

Establish quantitative, 

consensus-based 

management goals 

Are goals 

currently being 

met? 

Yes No

Conservation 

Track 

Restoration 

Track 

Develop and refine 

conservation strategy 

Implement 

strategy 

Perform regular monitoring 

and assessment 

Develop and refine 

restoration strategy 

Implement 

strategy 

Perform regular monitoring 

and assessment 

Making 

satisfactory 

progress toward 

goals? Yes No 

Figure 3. Recommended seagrass management process in conservation and restoration areas 

27
September 2003 

Developing Management Strategies 

The TAC assembled to develop the regional and statewide seagrass coverage goals should also 

develop clear strategies for achieving those goals. 

As in the goal-development process, the TAC should hold one or more public meetings in each 

of the state’s five seagrass regions. The meetings should be well advertised, and provide an 

opportunity for input from stakeholders who are not committee members. Invited participants 

should include technical staff members from the estuary programs, parks and preserves, local 

governments, colleges and universities, non-governmental organizations, and other stakeholders 

with an interest in seagrass management at the regional level.. Federal agencies with regulatory 

or resource management responsibilities within each region should also be brought into the 

process. 

For each region, the TAC should develop specific conservation and restoration strategies based 

on the approach shown in Fig. 3. These strategies may involve both regulatory and nonregulatory elements and should include agency responsibilities and timelines for achieving the 

regional and statewide seagrass coverage goals described in Section 2. A summary of these 

regional strategies should be published, in draft form, to provide an additional opportunity for 

review and comment from stakeholders who are not members of the committee. A draft-form 

statewide strategy document, revised in response to stakeholder input, should be provided for the 

review and approval of the heads of the sponsoring agencies. 

Implementing the Strategies 

Following approval of the strategy document by the agency heads, an interagency memorandum 

of understanding (MOU) should be drafted to guide its implementation. Participation in the 

MOU should be open to each sponsoring agency. To the extent possible given the complications 

that arise in the development of multi-party agreements, — participation should also be open to 

other public or private organizations that wish to make a significant commitment to statewide 

seagrass management. The MOU should specify the steps each participating organization 

proposes to take to implement the agreed-upon regional strategies, the timeline on which those 

steps are proposed to occur, and the resources that will need to be budgeted to accomplish the 

work. A multi-party, interlocal agreement developed in the Tampa Bay region in 1998 to guide 

the implementation of a community-based Tampa Bay management plan, could serve as a 

template for the statewide MOU. 

28
September 2003 

8. EVALUATION AND REPORTING 

Importance of Tracking Progress Toward Goals 

Regular evaluations of status and trends in seagrass coverage and condition are essential for 

proper management of the resource. Methodologically consistent long-term mapping and 

monitoring programs, providing information on areal coverage, species composition, health, and 

spatial and temporal fluctuations in the distribution of seagrass communities are particularly 

helpful in assessing progress toward meeting the state’s management goals. This type of 

assessment alerts managers to new problems or issues in a timely fashion and assures Floridians 

of the state’s commitment to protecting seagrass habitats. 

The localized influences of human activities such as dock construction or vessel grounding and 

propeller scarring incidents need to be evaluated. It is important to estimate the ecological and 

economic costs associated with those influences and to assess the success of habitat restoration 

projects that are carried out as mitigation. 

Mapping 

Several local and regional mapping programs have been conducted or are currently underway in 

Florida. These efforts are sponsored by a variety of agencies and organizations. 

Traditionally, assessments of coverage and condition used a combination of aerial photography 

and on-site monitoring While these continue to be the primary methods available to managers, 

research is currently underway on a variety of remote sensing techniques that may become 

available for use by seagrass management programs in the near future. 

Recent and historical mapping data are available from several internet-based sources: 

• NOAA Coastal Services Center, Benthic Habitat Mapping program 

(http://www.csc.noaa.gov/crs/bhm) 

This Web site provides benthic habitat maps of Apalachicola Bay, Estero Bay, Florida 

Bay, Florida Keys, Indian River Lagoon, and deep seagrass beds on Florida’s west 

continental shelf. Data are georeferenced and validated. The files are provided to the 

user in ARC/INFO® Export or ArcView® Shapefile format. All files are zipped, using 

PKZIP®, for quicker downloading. Each zip file contains the polygon files and the 

Federal Geodetic Data Committee (FGDC) compliant metadata file. Projection and 

datum information, as well as classification system, are included in the metadata records. 

29
September 2003 

• USGS National Wetlands Research Center 

(http://sdms.nwrc.gov/pub.metrec.html) 

This Web site contains downloadable GIS maps of Apalachee Bay SAV (1992), 

Choctawhatchee Bay SAV (1992), Florida Panhandle coastal habitats (1996), Pensacola 

Bay SAV (1960s, 1992), Saint Andrew Bay, and Tampa Bay habitats (1956, 1972, 1982). 

• Florida Marine Research Institute (FMRI) 

(http://floridamarine.org/seagrass) 

This Web site contains GIS maps, data, technical reports, and public education and 

outreach products. 

• Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) 

(http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/data/dataonline.htm) 

This Web site provides downloadable GIS maps showing assorted 1988–1999 seagrass 

coverages in Clearwater Harbor, Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay, Lemon Bay, and Charlotte 

Harbor . 

• Florida Institute of Technology 

(http://probe.ocn.fit.edu/SAVproject/SAV.html) 

The Web site provides the description of the development of a protocol to use 

hyperspectral imagery to map seagrass. 

• Florida International University 

(http://serc.fiu.edu/seagrass/!CDreport/DataHome.htm) 

This Web site provides seagrass mapping and monitoring data from the Florida Keys. 

• University of Miami 

(http://library.miami.edu/netguides/environ_fla.html) 

This Web site offers links to sites that provide maps, data, and background information 

on Florida habitats and resource management issues. 

• ESRI Conservation Program Resources 

(http://www.conservationgis.org/links/marine2.html) 

This Web site offers links to sites that provide maps, data, and background information 

on national resource management issues. 

Additionally, private entities have also funded seagrass mapping efforts from time to time. These 

entities are primarily utilities and other companies operating industrial facilities with permitted 

discharges to nearshore waters. Depending on company policies and the purpose and scope of 

30
September 2003 

the mapping effort, the resulting images and maps may be available to researchers and resource 

managers on a case-by-case basis. 

Monitoring 

In Florida, monitoring of seagrass condition has been done in relatively localized areas, such as 

individual bays, estuaries, parks, or other management units, rather than on a regional or 

statewide scale. Local governments, water management districts, or state or federal resource 

management and agencies typically carry out the projects. Information on monitoring program 

design is available from a number of sources (see Section 10). 

Most recent seagrass monitoring programs have included one or more of the following 

components: 

• Species composition 

• Short-shoot density and morphology 

• Standing crop 

• Epiphyte loads 

• Water quality 

• Water clarity 

• Light attenuation/PAR 

• Water depth (with emphasis on the deep edges of seagrass beds) 

• Primary productivity 

In addition to these frequently monitored parameters, topics of emerging interest have included 

the presence and absence of plant pathogens and the potential effects of sediment chemistry on 

the distribution and abundance of individual seagrass species. 

An overview of monitoring programs is provided in the in the Florida Seagrass Manager’s 

Toolkit developed in 2003 for the FWC-Florida Marine Research Institute. The institute also 

maintains a seagrass research and conservation projects database on its Web site at 

http://www.floridamarine.org. 

Reporting 

Presently, only a handful of local initiatives exist to provide regular and timely reports on 

seagrass coverage or condition in Florida; no statewide programs provide this information. 

Perhaps the most extensive local program is that implemented by the Southwest Florida Water 

Management District to support its SWIM program and the National Estuary Programs in Tampa 

Bay, Sarasota Bay, and Charlotte Harbor. In addition to those estuaries, the SWFWMD program 

also includes the waters of Clearwater Harbor and St. Joseph Sound. Aerial photography of 

seagrass beds in these areas is performed every 2–3 years, and the results are ground-truthed and 

digitized on GIS maps. Results are disseminated through regular reports to the TACs associated 

with the SWIM and National Estuary programs, and through occasional SWFWMD publications. 

The Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program, the South Florida Water Management 

District, and St. Johns River Water Management District are conducting a similar program for 

the Indian River Lagoon . 

31
September 2003 

32
September 2003 

Recommended State Role 

With support from the Department of Environmental Protection, the five regional water 

management districts, and other appropriate agencies, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission should take the lead in developing a methodologically consistent statewide program 

for mapping and monitoring seagrass coverage and condition. 

The results of this mapping and monitoring program should be summarized and reported to the 

public in a timely manner (e.g., every 2–3 years) and should be made available to managers, 

scientists, and interested citizens through a relational database that is publicly accessible via the 

Internet. The state should use the 2–3 year summary reports to evaluate progress toward meeting 

its regional and statewide seagrass management goals. On a less frequent basis (e.g., every 4–6 

years), the results should be used to assess, and if necessary refine and improve, the state’s 

regional conservation and restoration strategies, following the NRC-recommended process 

shown in Fig. 3. 

33
September 2003 

9. MANAGEMENT-RELATED RESEARCH 

Background 

Successful resource management is based on solid technical understanding of the target resource 

and the natural and man-made stressors that affect it. There is a general consensus that Florida’s 

previous and current seagrass research efforts are not uniform in all regions and do not 

systematically address some key issues and concerns. 

Managers and scientists participating in various seagrass symposia or workshops in the past 

decade have identified key research needs: 

• Identification of critical water quality conditions for successful seagrass conservation and 

restoration 

• Evaluation of factors, other than water quality, which may influence seagrass recruitment 

and survival (factors include epiphyte coverage, macroalgal density and distribution, 

disease, sediment quality, current velocity, and wave energy) 

• Effects of propeller scarring on seagrass coverage and the habitat value provided by 

scarred beds 

• Improved forecasting of seagrass population trends 

• “Micro” (patch-size) dynamics, related to factors such as sediment deposition rates and 

nutrient availability 

• More detailed evaluation of the economic value of seagrass habitats 

• Additional assessment of seagrass transplanting methods, to determine methods’ 

effectiveness in relation to one another and to natural recruitment 

• Development of an online database documenting the outcomes of seagrass restoration 

and transplant projects 

• Scientific assessment of factors affecting the success of seagrass restoration projects 

• Assessment of the resilience of restored sites in the presence of natural disturbances 

• Additional research on the biology and ecology of native seagrass species (e.g., effects of 

sexual vs. asexual reproduction on regional populations) 

Recommended State Role 

The FWC-Florida Marine Research Institute should take the lead in identifying and prioritizing 

the state’s management-related seagrass conservation and restoration research needs. The 

institute should estimate the costs of carrying out the necessary research and—working in 

cooperation with researchers in the state university system, management agencies, and private 

organizations—seek funding to carry out the work. Potential funding sources include the state 

budget, federal grant programs, private foundations, public-private partnerships, and cooperative 

funding efforts carried out with local governments, water management districts, and public and 

private colleges and universities. 

34
September 2003 

10. PUBLIC OUTREACH 

Background 

Since education can lead to behavioral changes that significantly reduce human impacts to 

seagrasses, fostering public awareness of the importance of seagrass habitats is an integral part of 

a successful statewide management plan. Many current local initiatives target boaters and other 

waterway users as well as waterfront residents whose landscaping practices or septic disposal 

systems may pose a threat to water quality and seagrass health. 

The Florida Seagrass Alliance is a consortium of environmental educators representing key 

government and non-government organizations concerned with seagrass management. The 

alliance recently initiated a statewide public awareness program that led to the Governor’s 

proclamation designating March as Florida’s annual Seagrass Awareness Month. To facilitate 

promotion of Seagrass Awareness Month, alliance members developed and distributed a 

“Seagrass Toolbox” that contains fact sheets, press releases, and radio, print, and television 

public service advertisements. Similar programs could be initiated on a statewide basis. 

Recommended State Role 

The state of Florida should take the following steps to improve public awareness of the value of 

seagrasses: 

• Support existing outreach efforts by assisting in the distribution of accurate information 

about the status of Florida’s seagrasses and stressors affecting them. 

• Prepare and distribute a “Citizens’ Report on the Status of Florida’s Seagrasses” every 

two to three years. 

• Develop a statewide teaching curriculum introducing Florida students to seagrasses, their 

environmental and economic value, and the state’s seagrass conservation goals. 

35
September 2003 

11. SOURCE MATERIAL AND SUGGESTED READING 

Alberdi, P.D., Jr. 2003. A very brief history of sovereign submerged lands in Florida. 

Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen, P.A. Tampa, FL 

Bortone, S.A. (ed.) 2000. Seagrasses: Monitoring, Ecology, Physiology, and Management. 

CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL 

Comp, G.S., and W. Seaman, Jr. 1985. Estuarine habitat and fishery resources of Florida. pp. 

337–435 in W. Seaman Jr. (ed.), Florida Aquatic Habitat and Fisher Resources. Florida Chapter, 

American Fisheries Society. Kissimmee, FL 

Dawes, C., R. Phillips, and H. Greening (eds.). 2003. An Updated Community Profile of 

Seagrasses of the West Coast of Florida. (Draft) Gulf of Mexico Program. Stennis Space Center, 

MI 

Durako, M., R. Phillips, and R. Lewis (eds.). 1985. Proceedings of the symposium on 

subtropical-tropical seagrasses of the Southeastern United States. Florida Marine Research 

Institute. St. Petersburg, FL 

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. 1996. Final Management Plan/Environmental Impact 

Statement. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

Sanctuaries and Reserves Division. Marathon, FL 

Florida Marine Research Institute. 2003. Florida Seagrass Manager’s Toolkit. Florida Marine 

Research Institute. St. Petersburg, FL 

Fonseca, M.S., W.J. Kenworthy and G.W. Thayer. 1998. Guidelines for the conservation and 

restoration of seagrasses in the United States and adjacent waters. National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Decision Analysis Series No. 12. Silver Spring, MD 

Greening, H.S. (ed.) 2002. Seagrass Management: It’s Not Just Nutrients! Aug. 22–24, 2000; 

Tampa Bay Estuary Program. St. Petersburg, FL 

Greening, H.S. 2003. Proceedings of the Seagrass Restoration Workshop, March 11–12, 2003: 

Implementation, Regulatory and Research Priorities for Seagrass Restoration. Tampa Bay 

Estuary Program. St. Petersburg, FL 

Hall, M.O., M.J. Durako, J.W. Fourqurean, J.C. Zieman. 1999. Decadal changes in seagrass 

distribution and abundance in Florida Bay. Estuaries 22:445–459 

Harris, B.A., K.D. Haddad, K.A. Steidinger, and J.A. Huff. 1983. Assessment of fisheries 

habitat: Charlotte Harbor and Lake Worth, Florida. FDNR/Bureau of Marine Research. St. 

Petersburg, FL 

36
September 2003 

Hart, A.W. (ed). 1992. Proceedings and Conclusions for the Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 

Initiative. Indian River Lagoon NEP. Palm Bay, FL 

Hudson, J.H., and W.B. Goodwin. 2001. Assessment of vessel grounding injury to coral reef 

and seagrass habitats in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, Florida: protocol and 

methods. Bulletin of Marine Science 69:509–516. 

Johansson, J.O.R. 2002. Historical overview of Tampa Bay water quality and seagrass: issues 

and trends. pp 1–10 in Greening, H.S. (ed.) 2002. Seagrass Management: It’s Not Just 

Nutrients! Aug. 22–24, 2000; Tampa Bay Estuary Program. St. Petersburg, FL 

Johansson, J.O.R., and H.S. Greening. 2000. Seagrass restoration in Tampa Bay: A resourcebased approach to estuarine management. pp. 279–294 in Bortone, S.A. (ed.) Seagrasses: 

Monitoring, Ecology, Physiology, and Management. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL 

Kemp, W.M. 2000. Seagrass ecology and management: an introduction. Pp. 1–6 in Bortone, 

S.A. (ed.) Seagrasses: Monitoring, Ecology, Physiology, and Management. CRC Press. Boca 

Raton, FL 

Kenworthy, W.J., M.S. Fonseca, P.E. Whitfield, K. Hammerstrom, and A.C. Schwarzschild. 

2000. A comparison of two methods for enhancing the recovery of seagrasses into propeller 

scars: mechanical injection of a nutrient and growth hormone solution vs. defecation by roosting 

seabirds. NOAA Damage Assessment Center, NOAA Marine Sanctuaries Division. Beaufort, 

NC 

Kurz, R.C., D.A. Tomasko, D. Burdick, T.F. Ries, K. Patterson, and R. Finck. 2000. Recent 

trends in seagrass distribution in southwest Florida coastal waters. pp. 157–166 in Bortone, S.A. 

(ed.) Seagrasses: Monitoring, Ecology, Physiology, and Management. CRC Press. Boca Raton, 

FL 

Livingston, R.J. 1984. The relationship of physical factors and biological response in coastal 

seagrass meadows. Estuaries 7:377–390. 

Mattson, R.A. 2000. Seagrass ecosystem characteristics and research and management needs in 

the Florida Big Bend. pp. 259–277 in S.A. Bortone (ed.) Seagrasses: Monitoring, Ecology, 

Physiology, and Management. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL 

Molnar, G., S. Markley, and K. Mayo. 1989. Avoiding and minimizing damage to Biscayne 

Bay seagrass communities from the construction of single family docks. Metro Dade 

Department of Environmental Resources Management Technical Report 89-1. Miami, FL 

Morris, L.J., and D.A. Tomasko (eds). 1993. Proceedings and conclusions of workshops on 

submerged aquatic vegetation and photosynthetically active radiation. Special Publication SJ93-

SP13, St. Johns River Water Management District. Palatka, FL 

37
September 2003 

Morris, L.J., R.W. Virnstein, J.D. Miller, and L.M. Hall. 2000. Monitoring seagrass change in 

the Indian River Lagoon, Florida using fixed transects. pp. 167–176 in Bortone, S.A. (ed.) 

Seagrasses: Monitoring, Ecology, Physiology, and Management. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2000. Draft recovery plan for Johnson’s seagrass 

(Halophila johnsonii). NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Washington, 

DC 

National Research Council (NRC). 2000. Clean Coastal Waters: Understanding and Reducing 

the Effects of Nutrient Pollution. National Research Council. Washington, DC 

Provancha, J.A., and D.M. Scheidt. 2000. Long-term trends in seagrass beds in the Mosquito 

Lagoon and northern Banana River, Florida. pp. 177–196 in Bortone, S.A. (ed.) Seagrasses: 

Monitoring, Ecology, Physiology, and Management. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL 

Saint Johns River Water Management District. 1996. Seagrass Preservation and Restoration: A 

Diagnostic Plan for the Indian River Lagoon. St. Johns River Water Management District. 

Palatka, FL 

Sargent, F.J., T.J. Leary, D.W. Crewz, and C.R. Kreur. 1995. Scarring of Florida’s seagrasses: 

assessment and management options. FMRI Tech. Rept. TR-1/ Florida Marine Research 

Institute, St. Petersburg, FL 

Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program (SBNEP). 1995. The voyage to paradise reclaimed: the 

comprehensive conservation and management plan for Sarasota Bay, Florida. SBNEP. Sarasota, 

FL 

Schwenning, L.M. 2001. Seagrass management plan for Big Lagoon and Santa Rosa Sound. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Pensacola, FL 

Smith, K. 1998. A summary of limited vessel entry zones for managed seagrass protection in 

Florida. FDEP/Bureau of Protected Species Management. Tallahassee, FL 

Staugler, E., and J. Ott. 2001. Establishing baseline seagrass health using fixed transect in 

Charlotte Harbor, Florida. FDEP/Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves. Punta Gorda, FL 

Stowers, J.F., E. Fehrmann, and A. Squires. 2002. Seagrass scarring in Tampa Bay: impact 

analysis and management options. pp. 47–54 in Greening, H.S. (ed.) 2002. Seagrass 

Management: It’s Not Just Nutrients! Aug 22–24, 2000; Tampa Bay Estuary Program. St. 

Petersburg, FL 

Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP). 1996. Charting the course: the comprehensive 

conservation and management plan for Tampa Bay. TBEP. St. Petersburg, FL 

Thayer, G.W., M.S. Fonseca, and J.W. Kenworthy. 1997. Ecological value of seagrasses. Pp. 

5–10 in C.D. Stephan and T.E. Bigford (eds.) Atlantic Coastal Submerged Aquatic Vegetation: a 

38
September 2003 

Review of its Ecological Role, Anthropogenic Impacts, State Regulation, and Value to Atlantic 

Coastal Fish Stocks. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Habitat Management Series 

No. 1. ASMFC. Washington, DC 

Tomasko, D.A. 1992. Seagrass mapping: Sarasota Bay. pp 15–25 in Hart, A.W. (ed) 

Proceedings and conclusions for the submerged aquatic vegetation initiative. Indian River 

Lagoon NEP. Palm Bay, FL 

Tomasko, D.A., C.J. Dawes, and M.O. Hall. 1996. The effects of anthropogenic nutrient 

enrichment on turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum) in Sarasota Bay, Florida. Estuaries 19:448– 

456. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Monitoring guidance for the National Estuary 

Program. EPA 503/8-91-002. Washington, DC 

Virnstein, R.W., and L.J. Morris. 2000. Setting seagrass targets for the Indian River Lagoon. 

pp. 211–218 in Bortone, S.A. (ed.) Seagrasses: Monitoring, Ecology, Physiology, and 

Management. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL 

Zieman, J.C. 1982. The ecology of the seagrasses of South Florida: a community profile. U.S. 

Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82/25. Washington, DC 

Zieman, J.C., and R.T. Zieman. 1989. The ecology of the seagrass meadows of the west coast 

of Florida: a community profile. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 85(7.25) Washington, DC 

39
September 2003 

Appendix A

Federal and Non-Federal Agency

Legal Authority, Roles, and Responsibilities

A-1
September 2003 

FEDERAL AGENCIES 

Legal Authority 

Federal authority addressing protection of submerged aquatic vegetation, including seagrasses, is 

found in the following legislation and executive orders:

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)(42 U.S.C § 321)

This act requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) for every major 

federal action that will significantly affect the environment. The EIS must address the following:

• The environmental effects of the action 

• Alternatives to the proposed action 

• The relationship between local short-term uses of humans’ environment and the 

maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity 

• Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that would be involved in 

the proposed action should it be implemented 

NEPA provides a framework for seeking consultation from applicable federal or state agencies 

with an interest in the environment potentially affected by the project.

Federal Water Pollution Control Act (“Clean Water Act”)(33 U.S.C. § 1251)

The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the basic parameters for restoring and maintaining the 

chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. The primary mechanism 

regulating discharge of pollutants into waterways is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES), administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Under the 

NPDES program, a permit is required from EPA or an authorized state for the discharge of any 

pollutant from a point source into the waters of the U.S.

In 1987, the CWA was amended to include the current non-point sources (NPS) program 

addressing stormwater runoff. Under this program, states must develop management programs to 

address non-point runoff, including the identification of best management practices and 

measures. In addition, section 319 authorizes grants to assist states implementing approved 

management programs. 

The section 404 permit program of the CWA is implemented by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers. Section 404 requires a permit for the discharge of dredged or fill materials into waters 

of the U.S. that lie inside of the baseline for the territorial sea and of fill materials into the 

territorial sea within three miles of shore. Although the COE has the permitting responsibility 

under the section 404 program, in Florida and almost all other states, EPA has the right to review 

and comment on the effects of proposed dredge and fill activities. EPA also has the right to 

prohibit discharges that would have an unacceptable effect on municipal water supplies, shellfish 

beds, fishery areas, wildlife, and recreational areas. 

A-2
September 2003 

Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C. § 1301)

The Submerged Lands Act grants states title to the natural resources located within three miles of 

their coastlines (nine miles for Texas and the gulf coast of Florida). For purposes of the SLA, the 

term “natural resources” includes oil, gas, and all other minerals.

More than one state entity may implement state management authority for oil and gas 

exploration and production on submerged state lands. 

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) (16 U.S.C. § 1451)

CZMA strives to protect and preserve coastal resources. Through the CZMA, states are 

encouraged to develop their own coastal zone management programs (CZMPs) to allow 

economic growth that is compatible with the protection of natural resources, the reduction of 

coastal hazards, the improvement of water quality, and sensible coastal development. CZMA 

provides financial and technical assistance for coastal states to manage their coastal zones in a 

manner consistent with CZMA standards and goals.

For federal approval, a state CZMP must meet certain criteria: 

• Identify the coastal zone boundaries 

• Define the permissible land and water uses within the coastal zone that have a direct and 

significant impact on the coastal zone and identify the state’s legal authority to manage 

these uses 

• Inventory and designate areas of particular concern 

• Provide a planning process for energy facilities siting 

• Establish a planning process to assess the effects of shoreline erosion and to decrease 

those effects 

• Facilitate effective coordination and consultation between regional, state, and local 

agencies. 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provides the requisite federal 

approvals for CZMPs and oversees the programs.

States with approved CZMPs are eligible for financial assistance and are able to review federal 

permits and activities that affect their own coastal zone. The Secretary of Commerce may 

override a state’s objection to a project or activity if the Secretary finds that that the federal 

license or permit is consistent with the objectives of the CZMA or is necessary in the interest of 

national security.

Among several amendments to the CZMA is Section 315, which establishes the National 

Estuarine Research Reserve System. States may seek NERR designation for areas suitable for 

long-term research and conservation that qualify as biogeographic and typological 

representations of estuarine ecosystems. .

Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. § 1801)

This Act assigns to the U.S. sovereign and exclusive fishery management rights over all fish and 

all continental shelf fishery resources within the Exclusive Economic Zone.

A-3
September 2003 

The MSFCMA establishes national standards for fishery conservation and management within 

the EEZ. These standards are created through the efforts of eight regional fisheries management 

councils composed of state officials with fishery management responsibility, the regional 

administrators of the National Marine Fisheries Service, and individuals appointed by the 

Secretary of Commerce. The councils are responsible for developing fisheries management plans 

for each fishery under their authority that warrants conservation and management. The plans 

describe the fisheries and establish conservation and management measures applicable to both 

U.S. and foreign fishing vessels.

Sustainable Fisheries Act: Amendments to MSFCMA (P.L. 104-297)

Enacted in 1996, the SFA establishes guidelines for development of fisheries management plans 

that expand on previously adopted national standards. One of the key guidelines calls for 

designation of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), identifying and describing these areas, and 

evaluating adverse effects and appropriate conservation and enhancement measures.

Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 establishes a process for identifying, protecting, and 

restoring declining plant and animal populations.. The Act authorizes the use of all methods and 

procedures necessary to bring any endangered or threatened species to the point at which those 

measures are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, 

all activities associated with scientific resources management. To protect habitats essential to the 

conservation of a listed species and which may require special management considerations or 

protection, the act also authorizes the designation of "critical habitat" for a threatened or 

endangered species..

The primary federal agencies responsible for implementation of the ESA are the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (i.e. Florida manatee) and NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (i.e. sea 

turtles, Johnson’s seagrass).

Protection of Wetlands (Executive Order 11990, 1974)

This executive order establishes federal policy to “minimize the destruction, loss or degradation 

of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands” when 

carrying out federal activities.

No-Net-Loss Policy (White House Office on Environmental Policy, 1993)

This presidential policy, which applies to all federal agencies, states that wetlands should be 

conserved however possible and that acres of wetlands transformed for other uses must be 

mitigated through restoration and creation of wetlands elsewhere.

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Policy (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission)

This policy provides for the conservation, preservation, and restoration of seagrasses and other 

submerged aquatic vegetation along the Atlantic coast of the U.S.

A-4
September 2003 

FEDERAL AGENCY ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Responsible for maintaining navigational channels; responsible for permitting of projects 

specified in Section 404 requirements; responsible for coordinating Environmental Impact 

Statement reviews and interagency consultations for above projects

U.S. Coast Guard

Develops regional oil spill response plans and is the primary responder when oil spills occur; 

enforces federal fisheries and marine mammal protection laws

U.S. Department of Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National 

Marine Fisheries Service

Responsible for permit reviews of applicable projects under consultation agreement with the 

COE and other federal agencies; responsible for identifying and designating essential fish habitat 

(EFH); responsible for protection of federally listed species, including Johnson’s seagrass; 

responsible for management of National Marine Sanctuaries and associated education and 

enforcement efforts; oversees management of National Estuarine Research Reserves; conducts 

damage assessments related to groundings or oil spills

U.S. Department of Interior/Minerals Management Service

Conducts surveys of nearshore coastal waters to identify and map deposits of commercially 

valuable minerals; oversees mineral extraction leases to private entities 

U.S. Department of Interior/U.S. Geological Survey 

Conducts extensive research, mapping and monitoring programs of coastal habitats, including 

seagrass beds

U.S. Department of Interior/National Park Service

Responsible for management of National Parks, including those with submerged lands 

supporting seagrass beds (Biscayne Bay), and associated education and enforcement efforts 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Responsible for permitting of large-scale projects under the purview of the Clean Water Act, 

including industrial and wastewater facilities, and including NPDES permits; oversees regional 

non-regulatory waterway management programs such as the National Estuary Programs and the 

Gulf of Mexico Program; provides grant funding for upgrades to municipal treatment facilities 

and for innovative technology solution to pollution problems 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The USFWS conducts permit review of applicable water-related deve lopments (dredge/fill 

activities) and federally funded and licensed projects (water diversions and impoundments) 

under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) of 1958, as amended (48 Stat. 401; 16 

U.S.C. 661 et seq.). The FWCA requires federal agenc ies to consult with the USFWS for the 

purpose of conserving fish and wildlife resources and their habitats during the planning of these 

projects.

A-5
September 2003 

The USFWS conducts consultations under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (87 Stat. 884; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) to ensure that the existence of federally listed 

species is not jeopardized, and that adverse effects to such species and their habitat are 

minimized and/or avoided to the extent practicable. The ESA implementing regulations also 

authorize the USFWS to establish Florida manatee refuges and sanctuaries. 

The USFWS also manages National Wildlife Refuges under the authority of the Refuge 

Administration Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668jj), including those submerged lands supporting 

seagrasses and other submerged aquatic vegetation. 

A-6
September 2003 

STATE, REGIONAL AND LOCAL AGENCIES 

Legal Authority 

The Florida legislature has summarized the state’s authority to manage seagrasses and their 

habitats and regulate human activities affecting those habitats in Chap. 253 (sovereign 

submerged lands), Chap. 258 (maintenance of aquatic preserves), Chap. 373 (activities in surface 

waters and wetlands), and Chap. 403 (pollution harming animal, plant, or aquatic life) of Florida 

Statutes (FS). 

The Florida Administrative Code (FAC) summarizes agency rules implementing these and other 

laws relevant to seagrass management in Chap. 18-18 (the Florida Bay Aquatic Preserve), Chap. 

18-20 (other aquatic preserves), Chap. 18-21 (sovereign submerged lands management), Chap. 

62-302 (surface water quality standards), and Chap. 68C-22 (manatee sanctuary act). 

“Sovereign submerged lands” are lands that lie beneath tidal or non-tidal waters held by the 

government by virtue of its sovereignty rather than through a grant, sale, or other conveyance. 

The state of Florida was admitted to the union in 1845. As a state, Florida was given title to all 

sovereign lands previously held by the federal government within the Florida Territory. 

Subsequent legal treatment of the sovereign lands issue in Florida has been quite complex, 

producing an inconsistent body of case law that is still under development. For the purposes of 

this document, however, sovereign submerged lands can be thought of as lands lying beneath 

tidal waters up to the mean high water line. 

Existing statutes and rules addressing management of sovereign submerged lands call on the 

state and its agencies to, “manage and provide maximum protection for all sovereignty lands, 

especially those important to public drinking water supply, shellfish harvesting, public 

recreation, and fish and wildlife propagation and management.” Moreover, the state and its 

agencies are to, “manage, protect, and enhance sovereignty lands so that the public may continue 

to enjoy traditional uses including, but not limited to, navigation, fishing and swimming” (Chap. 

18-21.001 FAC). 

The state may sell submerged tidal lands to which it holds title, but prior to doing so it must 

determine the extent to which the action would create the following issues: 

“interfere with the conservation of fish, marine and other wildlife, or other natural 

resources... and would result in destruction of oyster beds, clam beds, or marine 

productivity, including, but not limited to, destruction of marine habitats, grass 

flats suitable as nursery or feeding grounds for marine life, and established marine 

soils suitable for producing plant growth of a type useful as nursery or feeding 

grounds for marine life, and if so, in what respect and to what extent, and it shall 

consider any other factors affecting the public interests” (Chap. 253.12, FS). 

Aquatic preserves are a subset of state-owned submerged lands, of “exceptional biological, 

aesthetic, and scientific value,” which the Florida legislature has “set aside forever as... 

sanctuaries for the benefit of future generations“(Ch. 258 FS). State rules addressing the 

A-7
September 2003 

management of aquatic preserves, which are summarized in Chap. 18-20 FAC, discuss several 

aspects of seagrass conservation. The intent of the aqua tic preserve management rules (Chap. 

18-20.001 FAC) is summarized in Box 1. 

A number of human activities are regulated within aquatic preserves, including shoreline 

hardening, aquaculture, maintenance of navigational channels, construction of pipelines and 

other linear infrastructure, and placement of public and private docking facilities. The highest 

levels of protection are provided in areas designated as “Resource Protection Area 1” (RPA 1), 

which are defined as areas that contain “resources of the highest quality and condition.” These 

resources include corals, marine grass beds, mangrove swamps, saltwater marsh, oyster bars, 

archaeological and historical sites, endangered or threatened species habitat, and colonial water 

bird nesting sites (Ch. 18-20.003 FAC). 

Chapter 62-302 FAC outlines an additional policy-level mandate for seagrass management in all 

state waters. “Public policy of the State is to conserve the waters of the State to protect, 

maintain, and improve the quality thereof for public water supplies, for the propagation of 

wildlife, fish and other aquatic life, and for domestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational, and 

other beneficial uses.” Because seagrass beds are sensitive to light attenuation due to nutrient 

enrichment, state policy regarding excessive nutrient enrichment is particularly relevant to 

seagrass management efforts: 

“excessive nutrients... constitute one of the most severe water quality problems 

facing the State. It shall be the [State’s] policy to limit the introduction of maninduced nutrients into waters of the State. Particular consideration shall be given 

to the protection from further nutrient enrichment of waters which are presently 

high in nutrient concentrations or sensitive to further nutrient concentrations and 

sensitive to further nutrient loadings. Also, particular consideration shall be given 

to the protection from nutrient enrichment of those waters presently containing 

very low nutrient concentrations.” (Chapter 62-302) 

Under Chap. 62-302.400 FAC, all surface waters of the state have been classified according to 

their designated uses: 

• Class I—Potable Water Supplies 

• Class II—Shellfish Propagation or Harvesting 

• Class III—Recreation, Propagation, and Maintenance of a Healthy, Well Balanced 

Population of Fish and Wildlife 

• Class IV—Agricultural Water Supplies 

• Class V—Navigation, Utility, and Industrial Use 

Water quality classifications are arranged in order of the degree of protection required. Class I 

water generally has the most stringent water qua lity criteria and Class V the least. However, 

Class I, II, and III surface waters share a set of water quality criteria that have been established to 

protect “recreation and the propagation and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population 

of fish and wildlife.” Seagrass habitats are usually found in Class II (shellfish harvesting) or 

Class III (recreation and wildlife) waters. 

A-8
September 2003 

“Impaired waters” are defined in subsection 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, and Sect. 

403.067 FS, as waters that do not meet their designated uses or applicable water quality 

standards due to discharges of pollutants from point or non-point sources. Under Sect. 62-

303.350 FS, a “decrease in the distribution (either in density or areal coverage) of seagrasses or 

other submerged aquatic vegetation” provides potential evidence of impairment due to excessive 

nutrient enrichment. Other potential evidence of excessive nutrient levels include “algal blooms, 

excessive macrophyte growth..., changes in algal species richness, and excessive diel oxygen 

swings” (Sect. 62-303.350 FS). Waters that are designated as “impaired” by the state of Florida 

and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are subject to the development of Total 

Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), pursuant to paragraph 303(d)(1) of the federal Clean Water 

Act. 

A-9
September 2003 

Box 1. Summary of legislative intent in the establishment of Florida’s aquatic preserves 

CHAPTER 18-20 FAC (FLORIDA AQUATIC PRESERVES) 

18-20.001 Intent. 

(1) All sovereignty lands within a preserve shall be managed primarily for the maintenance of essentially 

natural conditions, the propagation of fish and wildlife, and public recreation, including hunting and fishing 

where deemed appropriate by the [Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund], and the 

managing agency. 

(2) Aquatic preserves which are described in Part II of Chapter 258, Florida Statutes, were established for 

the purpose of being preserved in an essentially natural or existing condition so that their aesthetic, 

biological and scientific values may endure for the enjoyment of future generations. 

(3) The preserves shall be administered and managed in accordance with the following goals: 

(a) To preserve, protect, and enhance these exceptional areas of sovereignty submerged lands by 

reasonable regulation of human activity within the preserves through the development and 

implementation of a comprehensive management program; 

(b) To protect and enhance the waters of the preserves so that the public may continue to enjoy the 

traditional recreational uses of those waters such as swimming, boating, and fishing; 

(c) To coordinate with federal, state, and local agencies to aid in carrying out the intent of the 

Legislature in creating the preserves; 

(d) To use applicable federal, state, and local management programs, which are compatible with the 

intent and provisions of the act and these rules, and to assist in managing the preserves; 

(e) To encourage the protection, enhancement or restoration of the biological, aesthetic, or scientific 

values of the preserves, including but not limited to the modification of existing manmade conditions 

toward their natural condition, and discourage activities which would degrade the aesthetic, biological, 

or scientific values, or the quality, or utility of a preserve, when reviewing applications, or when 

developing and implementing management plans for the preserves; 

(f) To preserve, promote, and utilize indigenous life forms and habitats, including but not limited to: 

sponges, soft coral, hard corals, submerged grasses, mangroves, salt water marshes, fresh water 

marshes, mud flats, estuarine, aquatic, and marine reptiles, game and non-game fish species, 

estuarine, aquatic and marine invertebrates, estuarine, aquatic and marine mammals, birds, shellfish 

and mollusks; 

(g) To acquire additional title interests in lands wherever such acquisitions would serve to protect or 

enhance the biological, aesthetic, or scientific values of the preserves; 

(h) To maintain those beneficial hydrologic and biologic functions, the benefits of which accrue to the 

public at large. 

(4) Nothing in these rules shall serve to eliminate or alter the requirements or authority of other 

governmental agencies, including counties and municipalities, to protect or enhance the preserves 

provided that such requirements or authority are not inconsistent with the act and this chapter. 

Specific Authority 120.53, 258.43(1) FS. Law Implemented 258.35, 258.36, 258.37, 258.39, 258.393 FS., Chapter 80-280, Laws 

of Florida. History–New 2-23-81, Amended 8-7-85, Formerly 16Q-20.01, 16Q-20.001, Amended 9-29-97. 

A-10
September 2003 

AGENCY ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 

STATE AGENCIES 

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

Responsible for safeguarding the public and supporting Florida's agricultural economy by: 

ensuring the safety and wholesomeness of foods (including shellfish and shellfish harvesting 

areas) through inspection and testing programs; assisting Florida's agriculture and aquaculture 

industries by supporting the production and promotion of agricultural products; and conserving 

and protecting the state's agricultural and natural resources by promoting environmentally safe 

agricultural practices and managing public lands. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Serves as the state’s primary environmental regulatory agency, with permitting authority over a 

wide range of activities, including large waterfront residential developments, marinas, municipal 

and private wastewater treatment plants, and industrial wastewater discharges. Manages the

state’s network of parks and aquatic preserves. Provides administrative oversight of regulatory 

programs that have been delegated to regional water management districts and local 

governments. Implements non-regulatory stewardship initiatives such as the Clean Marina 

Program. Coordinates emergency response programs for oil spills. Oversees operation and 

management of state parks. Guides implementation of the state’s Coastal Management Program.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Responsible for creation and enforcement of fishing and boating laws. Oversees the state’s 

marine research laboratory (Florida Marine Research Institute), which conducts research in 

seagrass biology, status and trends, and impacts. Provides regulatory review of marinas, piers 

and other water-based development activities in consultation with appropriate state and federal 

agencies. Establishes state manatee protection sanctuaries and speed zones; 

Florida Department of Community Affairs

Coordinates reviews of developments of regional impact (DRI); oversees implementation of 

local comprehensive land use plans as specified by Florida Statutes; oversees implementation of 

land use plans for state “areas of critical concern.”

Regional Agencies 

Water Management Districts

The state’s five water management districts have responsibility for permitting of projects related 

to both water quality and quantity (i.e. regulation of water withdrawals for both the public and 

private sector; regulation of stormwater management systems). They also oversee the state’s 

Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) program to restore and protect key water 

bodies, including the state’s largest estuaries, and develop and implement environmental 

education programs.

A-11
September 2003 

Port Authorities

Responsible for permitting of docks and other structures within their sovereign submerged land 

ownership; responsible for developing emergency response plans for oil or chemical spills

National Estuary Programs

Implement community-based, non-regulatory management plans for specific estuaries designated 

by Congress, including Indian River Lagoon, Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay and Charlotte Harbor; 

conduct research into problems affecting those estuaries and innovative management solutions; 

coordinate data collection and distribution; develop and implement educational outreach 

programs highlighting the importance of estuaries 

Regional Planning Councils

Coordinate local reviews of Developments of Regional Impacts; assist communities in longrange planning, including natural resource protection

Local Governments 

Local governments’ planning, environmental management, and park departments have wideranging responsibilities over a variety of small- and large-scale development activities in and 

adjacent to wetlands and seagrass beds. Local agencies are also responsible for managing and 

maintaining local parks and aquatic preserves and regulating (by ordinance) boating speeds for 

both public safety and environmental protection. Additionally, local entities often maintain their 

own marine law enforcement units. 

Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) 

In Florida, a variety of nonprofit organizations and other NGOs carry out activities that affect 

seagrass conservation efforts, either directly or indirectly. Environmental organizations, such as 

the Ocean Conservancy, National Wildlife Federation, and Save the Manatee Club, lobby at the 

state and national levels in support of laws and government programs supporting the 

organizations’ objectives. Similar lobbying efforts are conducted by trade organizations 

supporting specific occupational (e.g., commercial fishing), industrial (e.g., marine construction, 

shipping), and recreational and commercial (e.g., saltwater fishing and boating) interests. A 

number of NGOs are also involved in environmental education (e.g., the Florida Aquarium) and 

public involvement and outreach efforts (e.g., Tampa BayWatch) that address certain aspects of 

seagrass management. 

A-12