Coral Transplantation as a Planning and Cost Factor for Storm Damage Reduction Projects

Transcription

1 Coral Transplantation as a Planning and Cost Factor for torm Damage Reduction Projects Terri Jordan-ellers UACE-Jacksonville District Martha Robbart Dial Cordy & Associates Craig Kruempel Tetra Tech, Inc. Harold Hudson Reef Tech Inc.

2 Abstract Coral reefs and hardbottom habitat are common features of southeastern and southwestern Florida coastal waters. As coastal development including shore protection projects have increased throughout coastal environments in Florida, potential impacts to these fragile ecosystems have also increased. In order to mitigate or restore significant marine resources from the effects of projects on coral reef and hardbottom habitats, hard coral (scleractinian) and soft coral (octocorals) are often transplanted to an appropriate receiver site. tandards for the transplantation of hard and soft corals have often been applied differently, depending on the project, location and other factors. cience and the biology of the transplanted organisms (hard and soft corals) have not been used in a consistent manner to guide decisions on transplantation planning.

3 Coastal Protection Paradigm hift 1970 s 2008: President s budget & Congressional adds for federal dollars Dedicated state funds for shore protection projects (tamp tax) 2008-current: $$ are harder to come by. Projects requiring federal match must compete NATIONALLY to get on the President s budget (Cost/benefit ratio important!) Project must COMPETE for TATE funds and having Federal matching funds helps improve ranking.

4 Project Costs and Planning Project costs are estimated at the planning stage. Environmental surveys reveal project impacts and project planners determine costs associated with avoiding/minimizing/mitigating for those impacts. Changes (ie increases) in those cost estimates, after completion of planning phase, during project permitting can adversely impact ranking of a project for funding. This may result in increased, previously unanticipated costs to local sponsors (county, city, etc).

5 Coastal Zone Management Act and Coral Relocation Impacts to corals in nearshore hardbottom habitats are managed by the state of Florida under the Coastal Zone Management Act s Coastal Zone Management Program. Unlike some species listed as endangered and threatened (turtles, manatees & Acropora sp.), there are no state laws requiring relocation of non-listed corals. FLDEP uses the minimization language from Beach & hore Preservation Act - F , as the enforceable policy under CZMA to require coral relocation..the Department shall require the applicant to revise the project design to avoid or minimize those impacts.

6 What does CMZA say? 15 CFR states that enforceable policies (of a Coastal Zone Management Plan) shall contain standards of sufficient specificity to guide public and private use. The minimization standard does not meet this requirement. Currently, the state lacks specific standards to allow shore protection project planners to estimate the costs of coral relocation at the beginning of a project associated with minimization of impacts.

7 Hardbottom/Reef impact minimization and mitigation Analyzed 60 permits and permit modifications for over 25 shore protection projects since the 1980 s: ~42 acres of hardbottom impact has been mitigated with the construction of ~44 acres of artificial reefs. Innovative design and/or research / active management features included in the mitigation / monitoring program accounted for a reduction in compensatory mitigation in 2 projects Mitigation requirements determined primarily using ratio method, with UMAM applied or referenced primarily as the preferred assessment technique for unanticipated impacts in a limited number of projects.

8 Permits (cont.) In situ surveys identified hard corals within the impact area in 11 of 16 projects, yet scleractinian coral relocation from impact areas was required in 3 of 16 mitigation projects. Transplantation based on colony size ranging from >10cm to >25cm in the two projects that defined minimum colony size for transplants. Gorgonian (soft coral) reattachment / relocation required in two projects one as a preconstruction protection measure and one as a remedial requirement if an effect was realized.

9 outheast Florida Coral Reefs Three ancient reef lines, accreted during Holocene. Modern assemblage non-accretional (Banks et al. 2007). oft corals/octocorals are predominant biological group colonizing southeast Florida coral reefs (Goldberg 1973; Moyer et al. 2003). Hard corals represent much smaller contribution to live cover in comparison, in general (Moyer et al. 2003; Gilliam et al. 2011). However, there are localized areas of with much greater cover of live hard corals (Gilliam et al. 2011) Localized areas of Acropora cervicornis thickets where live cover is high (Gilliam et al. 2011). Acropora palmata recently identified in egment II, Broward County (Pers. comm. Broward Co 2012).

10 Hard Coral Biology M. Franksi spawning. Photo by Emma Hickerson/FGBNM.

11 Hard Coral Biology Brooding corals: internal fertilization and planulae development. Planulae settle near parent colony to become mature adult colony. e.g. Porites astreoides Broadcast spawners: eggs and sperm released separately, fertilization in water column. Planulae dispersed by currents, can settle near or far from parent colonies. e.g. Montastraea cavernosa

12 Hard Coral Biology Brooding corals cont d: not significant for reef building, shorter life span (e.g years), smaller colony size (5-20 cm). Broadcast spawners cont d: dominant reef building corals, longer life span (10-100s years), larger colonies (10->150 cm).

13 Hard Coral Biology

14 Understanding Goals Any minimization/restoration must factor: Minimization/Avoidance Compensatory Mitigation What are the local benthic resources groups of interest pecies diversity urvivorship of these organisms after transplantation Handling effort per unit

15 Clearly tate Goal of Avoidance/Minimization or Compensatory Mitigation Goal must be clear, quantifiable, and obtainable: Preserve biological diversity Preserve relative live cover Consider handling effort per unit

16 pecific Example Imagine a beach project in Broward County that was going to impact hardbottom habitat and affect 1000 hard corals, which were a mix of typical species (Gilliam et al. 2011, Dial Cordy 2009). For Broward County, we know:

17 Hard Coral Biology for Broward County Most common coral species (colony counts) (Gilliam et al. 2011; Dial Cordy 2009;) iderastrea siderea broadcast/massive Montastraea cavernosa broadcast/massive tephanocoenia intersepta broadcast and brooder (Vermeji 2010)/massive Porites astreoides brooder/plating Assume moving healthy corals only

18 Most common coral species in southeast Florida (colony counts) (Gilliam et al. 2011; Dial Cordy 2009; Dial Cordy 2011) pecies Growth Rate Citation Reproductively active* Montastrea cavernosa Porites astreoides iderastra siderea tephanocoenia intersepta 3.6 to 6.8 mm/yr Avg = to 5.0 mm/yr Avg = 3.65 Weber and White 1977, Huston 1985 Kissling 1977, Gladfelter et al. 1978, Huston 1985, Torres and Morelock 2002 ~13 cm = ~ 25 years ~ 2-4 cm = ~5-11 years Citation zmant 1991 Personal communication Cooper 2012 Recommended Transplant ize 10cm 10 cm 2.2 to 7.1 mm/yr Vaughan 1916, 2-4 cm = 4-8 years t. Gelais et al. in 10cm Avg = 4.65 Landon 1975, press Jaap 1984, Huston 1985, Torres and *As found in peer reviewed literature, results Morelock of reproductive 2002, experimental PhD data, or commonly accepted practice for sampling reproductively viable corals for reproductive experiments. 10cm < 8.0 mm/yr hinn et al unknown Personal communication Moulding 2012

19 Most common coral species in southeast Florida (spatial coverage) (Gilliam et al. 2011; Dial Cordy 2009; 2012) pecies Name Growth Rate Citation Montastrea cavernosa mm/yr Avg = 5.2 Weber and White 1977, Ghihold and Enos 1982, Huston 1985

20 Decision Matrix for Relocation pecies Diversity Cover Growth Rate urvivorship Handling effort/unit M. cavernosa Yes Yes Low High $ Yes Transplant P. astreoides Yes Yes Medium Medium $$ Maybe. siderea Yes Yes Low High $ Yes. intersepta Yes Yes Low High $ Yes A. cervicornis* Yes No High Medium $$$ No

21 * May not move A. cervicornis using handling effort/unit definition, however because of EA listing, required to transplant, at any cost.

22 Recommendations Develop species and size standards for hard coral relocation based on goals of minimization/restoration action. These will be specific to each project, and based on the best available peer reviewed data for the area. This should be developed before any surveys are conducted and will set the standard for relocation specific to that project. The project-specific standard is captured in the planning phase early in project development and is carried forward through project development and through the permitting phase. pecies and size standards may be developed for regions or sub-regions (e.g. Dade, Broward and Palm Beach).

23 Recommendations (cont) tandard survey protocol to characterize impacts Tier 1 pilot study to map the physical area of impact (sidescan; multibeam; backscatter; towed-video; diver surveys) and biologically assess how site specific data should be collected: species-area curves; power analysis; etc. Tier 2 - Based on results of Tier 1 detailed assessment of direct and secondary impact sites collecting functional group; species composition and rugosity aspects of the project area.

24 pawning coral Final lide