DATE:
28 March 2000
TO:
Keith Mille, Environmental Specialist
Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems
FROM:
Jennifer Wheaton, Research Administrator
Coral Reefs and Hardgrounds, Resource Health & Assessment
FWC FMRI
Indian River County Beach Restoration
SUBJECT:
Phragmatopoma caudata Mrch, 1863, the current correct name for the species,
occurs in tropical high-energy coastal areas. In Florida, if occurs only on the east coast
south from Cape Canaveral to just south of Key Biscayne, in the intertidal zone to depths
of about 10 m. In central eastern Florida, Phragmatopoma lives principally on the
exposed longitudinal ridges of coquinoid rock that occur from Brevard County south of
Cape Canaveral to Jupiter Inlet in northern Palm Beach County. Reefs that occur on the
southeast central coast of Florida are actually “coquinoid rock-sabellariid reefs”. The
majority of this hardbottom habitat extends in an almost continuous band from just north
of Sebastian Inlet in southern Brevard County south to Jupiter Inlet in Palm Beach
County. In Indian River County, it extends for more than ½ mile offshore.
Phragmatopoma typically occupies about 5% or less of the exposed coquinoid rock.
However, Phragmatopoma colonies are the most conspicuous component of the attached
biota. This is especially true in the high to middle intertidal zone, where colonies may
cover most of the available hardbottom substrate because Phragmatopoma out-competes
other reef types that have low tolerance to exposure at low tide. Other attached fauna
(tunicates, sponges, and corals) and a diverse flora of attached filamentous algae occupy
the remainder of the rock. The filamentous algae are probably the most important
component. The hardbottom habitat is composed of all of these elements including the
sandy areas between the ridges of the rock (Perkins et al 1997, & pers. comm).
The State of Florida and Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary have recently
(January 1998) prohibited collection of live sand within the Sanctuary stating that the
resources exist due to the dynamic ecosystem of which sand and its associated
meiofaunal communities are a major component. The Department of Environmental
Protection denied permission for removal of “live sand” stating that the sand substrate is
important habitat for grazers and detritivores and it contains an extensive and diverse
macro-invertebrate community. Removal of live sand from the Sanctuary was
determined to cause impacts to adversely affect marine productivity, fisheries, wildlife
habitat and water quality. Thousands of species of infauna were identified in a study of
soft bottom habitats off Hutchinson Island The sand borrow areas for the proposed
Indian River County project impact an additional 522.3 acres of sovereign submerged
lands when ecosystem function is considered.
Numerous invertebrates and fishes, including tropical fishes occupy the
hardbottom habitat. Gilmore et al. (1981) stated that about 40 of these fishes are
commercially or recreationally important. The coquinoid rock-sabellariid reef is also an
important habitat for immature stages of the threatened green sea turtle (Ehrhart, 1992)
which feed on the diverse assemblage of benthic algae. Along with Phragmatopoma, a
suite of animals are apparently restricted to the principal area of the habitat including the
spiny lobster Panulirus laevicauda, the xanthid crab Menippe nodifrons (which lives in
burrows within the Phragmatopoma colonies), the star shell Lithopoma tuber, and the
croaker Bairdiella sanctaeluciae, a species of special concern (Gilmore, 1992). Gilmore
stated that B. sanctaeluciae has only been found on the east coast in the principal area of
the coquinoid rock-sabellariid reefs. In a letter to the National Marine Fisheries Service
protesting certain proposed fishing regulations, David Hefflebower, President of
Harbortown Marina stated “the fishing area from just South of Ft. Pierce to just North of
Sebastian is the most productive area along the coast” (Appendix B, Final
Comprehensive Amendment, 1998).
The accompanying SEAMAP figures (1, 2) show the distribution of nearshore
hardbottom, off Indian River County. In 1998, the South Atlantic Fishery Management
Council published its Final Habitat Plan for the South Atlantic Region which includes
Indian River County, Florida. The plan defined essential fish habitat for the region and
requirements for Fishery Management Plans specifically including the snapper/grouper
fishery plan and the coral, coral reefs, and live/hard bottom habitat fishery management
plan. The zoogeographic break between the temperate to tropical component of the
Region occurs between Cape Canaveral and Jupiter Inlet. Indian River County lies
within this transition zone. Off mainland southeast Florida the nearshore hardbottom
habitats are the primary natural reef structures in this subregion. Use of hardbottom
habitats was documented for newly settled stages of over 20 fish species. To date 192 fish
species have been recorded in association with nearshore hardbottom habitats of
mainland southeast Florida. In a 1997 study (Lindeman, 1997) nearshore hardbottom
habitats had over 30 times the number of individuals per sample than natural sand
habitats.
Hardbottom habitats are often centrally placed between mid-shelf reefs to the east
and inlet habitats to the west. The Indian River Lagoon (primarily Aquatic Preserve)
along with the offshore worm reefs and other hardbottom exemplifies this situation
(Figure 3). The cross-shelf positioning, coupled with their role as the only natural
structures in the area, indicates nearshore hardbottom may represent important Essential
Fish Habitat resources.
Additional attention was sought for hardbottom essential fish habitat as habitat
areas of particular concern (HAPC). Nearshore hardbottom habitats of southeast Florida
ranked high in terms of ecological function, sensitivity, rarity, and probability of stressor
induction. It was concluded that these rare habitats represent Essential Fish HabitatHabitat Areas of Particular Concern for species managed under the Snapper/Grouper
Fishery Management Plan and dozens of other species which co-occur with species in
that management unit (SAFMC Habitat Plan, p. 107). The plants and animals that
live in these nearshore hardbottom habitats are highly adapted to the habitat which
is a high energy environment and which can not be replaced by proposed mitigation.
In the applicant’s videotape viewing guide, 5 bottom types were categorized and
their distribution in sectors were described. Time available only allowed selected review
of 16 (2hr) tapes originally forwarded. Sector 5 (tape 18,19) was not represented; tape 19
was forwarded 3/24 however the applicant was unable to locate tape 18. Hardbottom
communities viewed in underwater video tapes of sectors 3 and 5 in particular fit the
concept of essential fish habitat. Even the low relief segments have significant
undercutting and overhangs and nooks and crannies offering tremendous spatial
heterogeneity for the attached benthos (sponges, corals, algae) as well as the associated
mobile fauna which included urchins, numerous species of tropical fish, fish important to
anglers (snook, snappers etc) and even sharks.
Summary of Indian River County Beach Restoration Project
Sector
Fill (acres) Hardbottom
Private Private Fill Public Public Fill
(acres)
1
2
3
5
7
All
42.2
36.1
99.7
102.8
84.9
365.7 acres
3.17
8.04
16.68
12.91
15.58
56.38 acres
0%
92%
87%
75%
100%
72%
0 acres
33.2 acres
86.7 acres
77.1 acres
84.9 acres
281.9 acre
100%
8%
13%
25%
0%
28%
42.2 acres
2.8 acres
12.9 acres
25.7 acres
0 acres
83.6 acres
According to the applicant information, proposed beach restoration activities will
provide 281.9 acres of fill for 72% of shoreline in private ownership and only 83.6 acres
of fill for 28% of shoreline in public ownership. The total proposed fill of 365.7 acres
will result in covering 56.38 acres of hardbottom outright. However, the hardbottom
habitat is actually comprised of the hardbottom and the interstitial sand. Total impacted
habitat is therefore not enumerated by the applicant.
Although the applicant has categorized the hardbottom as types 2-5, it should be
noted that although high relief hardbottoms provide shelter for adult species, the habitat
complexity of low relief hardbottoms is critical to newly settled and older juvenile life
stages especially when they represent the only hardbottom habitat available. The
hardbottom represented by the worm reefs (Phragmatopoma caudata) provides
habitat for certain species which are unique to that habitat (Perkins, pers. comm.).
Although the scale is different in Figure 4 and Figure 5, the southern borrow area
of 295.7 acres (Figure 4, application documents) definitely lies in the highly productive
area of the South Atlantic Bight Oculina/hardbottom depicted in Figure 5 (Appendix C,
Final Comprehensive Amendment, 1998). The central borrow site of 194.6 acres may
also impinge into this area. Florida statutes protect reefs and corals. Corals are
protected from harvest, sale, and environmental impacts that cause on-site mortality. The
State of Florida has successfully prosecuted for damages to coral communities on the
Florida east coast: grounding of the U.S. Navy nuclear submarine Memphis and the
freighter Firat (Continental Shelf Associates, 2000), damages from ATT submarine fiber
optic cable deployments off Dania, and beach renourisment dredging incidents off
Sunny Isles (Blair et al. 1990) Dade County.
From a resource management perspective. loss of 56.38 acres of hardbottom and
ancillary environmental perturbations for the proposed project is not in the public
interest. Activities not in the public interest as stated in Section 373.414 (1) (a), FS:
Adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife ….diminish the current condition
and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed
activity…..adversely affect the functions and relative value of the habitat within the area
of the proposed project…..adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine
productivity in the vicinity of the activity.
Mining sand, transporting, and depositing it on barrier island beaches has a
history of resultant damages to marine benthic communities (Courtenay et al., 1974;
Salvat, 1987; Kuehlmann, 1988; Blair et al., 1990). The dredges chronically stray
resulting in physical damage including losses in structural rugosity, and taxonomic
diversity (Brown et al., 1990; Rogers, 1990). Additionally, silt and sediments created by
the dredging are detrimental to light quality and quantity at depth. Survival of corals
exposed to elevated sedimentation implies that the most hardy of the species (Siderastrea
radians and Stephanocenia michelinii ) tolerate 15 days of chronic sedimentation-burial
(Rice and Hunter, 1992). Chronic sedimentation weakens community
composition/structure (Clarke et al. 1993). Corals, in particular noted in sector 3 and
sector 5, could tolerate short-term exposure to high turbidity; however, when the water is
chronically turbid for extended periods of time, corals loose the ability to clear sediment
because of energy losses. Teleniski and Goldberg (1995a; 1995b) demonstrated negative
effects of sediment loads on hard corals at turbidity levels of about 18 NTU’S. The
Florida administative threshold for temporary shut-downs of dredge operations is
substantially higher at 29 NTU’s. Herrnkind et al (1988) showed increased siltation
causes direct loss of critical habitat for spiny lobster recruitment.
In addition, sponges, algae, and other benthic dwelling sessile organisms become
buried by the suspended sediments that are associated with the dredging. When
sediment material is piped up on the beach there is a chronic runoff of silt-laden water.
This further contributes to degrading the nearshore hardbottom habitats including corals,
sponges, Phragmatopoma worm reefs, and mobile organisms.
The President of the United States issued an executive directive to form a Coral
Reef Task Force. All federal agencies (including the United States Army Corps of
Engineers) are required to participate and review programs and actions that impact on
coral reefs. The Task force issued an Action Plan on 9 March that emphasizes conserving
corals and reefs. Dredging is a major detriment to coral reef communities off southeast
Florida and should be reviewed in the context of the Action plan: http://coralreef.gov/.
State Statutes require that activities on sovereignty lands shall be designed to
minimize or eliminate adverse impacts on fish and wildlife habitat. The applicant states
mitigative measures must be mutually agreed upon to compensate for the unavoidable
environmental impacts of the proposed beach renourishment project. The transmittal
memo states an artificial reef is proposed for hardbottom mitigation. It should be
recognized by all parties that deployment of artificial structures in already productive
areas carries a certain degree of risk and although sparse, the hardbottom may constitute
valuable juvenile habitat and refugia that may be severely compromised by creating
addtitional habitat conducive to predators (SAFMC Habitat Plan, p. 120). The cost of inkind replacement for artificial substrate to replace even the amount of hardbottom
proposed for direct burial would be prohibitive.
In Appendix C to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, accompanying a
December, 1995, Brevard County, Florida, Shore Protection Project Review Study:
Feasibility Report, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service recommended that beach
renourishment not take place in the area of the live worm reef-coquinoid reef habitat, and
that other options should be explored. The Florida Game and Freshwater Fish
Commission, in a letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concurred with the findings
and recommendations of the USFWS.
LITERATURE CITED
Blair, S.M., B.S. Flynn, and S. Markley, 1990. Characteristics and assesment of Dredge
related mechanical impact to hard bottom reef areas off northern Dade County, Florida.
P.p. 5-14 in W. Jaap (editor), Proc. of the 10th American Academy of Underwater
Sciences Diving for Science Symp., St. Petersburg.
Brown, B.E., M.D.A. LeTissier, T.P. Scoffin, and A.W. Tudhope 1990. Evaluation of
the environmental impact of dredging on intertidal coral reefs at Ko Phuket, Tialand
using ecological and physiological parameters. Mar.Ecol. Prog. Ser. 65(3): 273-281.
Clarke, K.R., R.M. Warwick, and B.E. Brown, 1993. An index of seriation related to
disturbance in a coral reef assemblage. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 102 (1-2): 153-160.
Continental Shelf Associates, 2000. Survey II. Monitoring reattached hard corals at the
Firat grounding site. Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. Jupiter, Florida, 310 pp.
Courtenay, W.R., D.J. Herrema, M.J. Thompson, W.P. Azzinaro, and J. Montfrans, 1974.
Ecological monitoring of beach erosion control projects, Broward County, Florida, and
adjacent areas. U.S. Army corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort
Belvior, Va. Tech. Memo. 41. 88 pp.
Ehrhart, L. 1992. Turtles of the worm rock reefs. The Florida Naturalist, Summer 1992:
9-11.
Gilmore, R. G, 1992. Striped Croaker, Bairdiella sanctaeluciae, Family Sciaenidae,
Order Perciformes. Pp. 218-222 in C. R. Gilbert, ed., Rare and Endangered Biota of
Florida: Volume II. Fishes, University Presses of Florida.
Herrnkind, W. F., M. J. Butler IV, and R. A. Tankersley 1988. The effects of siltation on
recruitment of spiny lobsters, Panulirus argus. Fish. Bull. U. S. 86(2): 331-338..
Kuehlmann, D.H.H. 1988. The sensitivity of coral reefs to environmental pollution.
Ambio 17(1): 13-21.
Kaufman, W. and O. Pilke, 1979. The Beaches are Moving. Doubleday, New York 326
pp.
Lindeman,, K. C. 1997. Development of grunts and snappers of southeast Florida: crossshelf distributions and effects of beach management alternatives. PH.D. Dissertation,
University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida. 419 pp.
Perkins, T. H. et al 1997. Distribution of Hard-Bottom Habitats on the Continental Shelf
off the Northern and Central East Coast of Florida. Final Report, submitted to the
Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program and National Marine Fisheries
Service Pursuant to National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Award No.
NA47FS0036, 54 pp., plus Appendices.
Rice, S.A. and C.L. Hunter, 1992. Effects of suspended sediment and burial on
Scleractinian corals from west, central Floriida. Bull. Mar. Sci. 51(3): 429-442.
Rogers, C.S. 1990. Responses of coral reefs and reef organisms to sedimentation. Mar.
Ecol. Prog. Ser. 62(1-2): 185-202.
South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council 1998. Final habitat plan for the South
Atlantic Region: essential fish habitat requirements for fishery management plans of the
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, SAFMC 1 Southpark Circle, Charleston,
South Carolina, 457 pp.
South Atlantic Fishery Management Council 1998. Final Comprehensive Amendment
addressing essential fish habitat in Fishery Management Plans of the South Atlantic
Region. SAFMC 1 Southpark Circle, Charleston, South Carolina, 142 pp.
Salvat, B. 1987. Impacts des activites humanines sur les Recifs coralliens: Connaissances
et Recommandations. Paris 184 pp.
Teleniski G. J. and W. M. Goldberg 1995a. Effects of turbidity on the photosynthesis
and respiration of two South Florida reef coral species. Bull. Mar. Sci. 57(2): 527-539
__________1995 b.Comparison of turbidity measurement by transmissometry and its
relevance to water quality standards. Bull. Mar. Sci. 57(2): 540-547.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1995. Brevard County, Florida, Shore Protection
Project Review Study: Feasibility Report with Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
December, 1995.