Biological Monitoring: An Underwater Perspective

Transcription

1 A World of Solutions 2015 National Annual Conference September 23-25, 2015; Hawks Cay, Duck Key, FL Biological Monitoring: An Underwater Perspective Lauren Floyd and Stacy Buck, CB&I

2 Overview Florida s Reefs The Path of a Florida Marine Biologist Biological Monitoring for Beach Nourishment Background Monitoring Protocol Challenges Efforts to Improve the Protocol Input from Biological Monitoring Firms FDEP Initiatives Conclusion A World of Solutions 1

3 Duck Key Florida Reefs

4 Florida Reefs Pinellas Pinellas Co. Co. wormrock Manatee Co. Palm Beach Co. Longboat Key Deerfield Beach Siesta Key Collier Co. Broward Co.

5 The Path of a Florida Marine Biologist A World of Solutions 4

6 Beach Nourishment A World of Solutions 5

7 Biological Monitoring for Beach Nourishment Eroded Beach Design and Permitting of Beach Nourishment Project If Nearshore Hardbottom Present: Mitigate for anticipated impacts (ETOF) A World of Solutions 6

8 Biological Monitoring for Beach Nourishment PROFILE EVOLUTION OF BEACH NOURISHMENT Post-Construction Adjustment in 1-3 years Equilibrium Toe of Fill (ETOF) Design Beach A World of Solutions 7

9 Biological Monitoring for Beach Nourishment PROFILE EVOLUTION OF BEACH NOURISHMENT Post-Construction Adjustment in 1-3 years Equilibrium Toe of Fill (ETOF) Design Beach A World of Solutions 8

10 Biological Monitoring for Beach Nourishment Eroded Beach Design and Permitting of Beach Nourishment Project If Nearshore Hardbottom Present: Mitigate for anticipated impacts (ETOF) Biological monitoring conducted beyond ETOF for potential unanticipated impacts A World of Solutions 9

11 Biological Monitoring for Beach Nourishment Why do we monitor? FDEP has the responsibility and statutory authority to protect and manage the waters of the State (Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S.) Monitoring programs required for any coastal construction permitted that is determined to have an adverse impact, and that Monitoring programs shall include sufficient pre-project data to establish an adequate baseline for project construction and post construction comparison. (FAC Chapter 62B- 41) Regulatory monitoring plans will provide reasonable assurance under State regulatory requirements that approved projects will have no unpermitted impacts to nearshore hardbottom and their associated benthic communities. (Chapter 161 and Part IV of 373, F.S.) Who pays for monitoring? Typically cost-shared between the State and local municipalities Annual surveys can cost between $150,000 and $500,000 A World of Solutions 10

12 Biological Monitoring Protocol Timing Pre-Construction Immediate and Annually Post-Con (3-5 yrs) Summer Surveys Each survey documents Location hardbottom edge Sedimentation Benthic community Submittals Raw data - 45 days Report - 90 days A World of Solutions 11

13 Hardbottom Edge Delineation Determines location of sand/hardbottom edge Divers swim hardbottom edge while towing DGPS buoy Edged either continuous hardbottom or emergent epifauna Seaward shifts of edge indicate burial A World of Solutions 12

14 Mean Sediment Depth (cm) Sedimentation Interval Sediment Depth Measurements X X X 20.0 Mean Interval Sediment Depth per Transect CQ4 TR 1 CQ5 TR 2 TR CQ8 3 CQ9 TR 4 TR TS Pre-Con Project Yr Project Post-Con 2014 Project 2014 Project One-Year Post-Con Two-Year Yr Post-Con 2 Yr Post-Con 3 Yr Yr Post Pre-Con Post-Con Immed Post-Con 1-Yr 3 Yr Yr Post-Con Post A World of Solutions 13

15 Sedimentation Line-Intercept Method Hardbottom Sand Hardbottom Sand hardbottom sand 1-Yr Post Pre-Con Meter A World of Solutions 14

16 Benthic Community Characterization Quadrat Assessment 81% 10% 1% A World of Solutions 15

17 Benthic Community Characterization Quadrat Assessment Sample Name or # Max Relief (cm) 2.5 Max Sediment Depth (cm) Sessile Benthos Sediment- (circle all: sand shell mud) Macroalgae- Fleshy+Calcareous Turf- algae+cyanobacteria (circle all: g r b ) Encrusting Red Algae Sponge Hydroid Octocoral Stony Coral Tunicate Bare Hard Substrate 4 1 % Cover List macroalgae Genus List every coral colony ~and coral condition(s) Hypnea Gracilaria % cover max size (cm) 1 1 S. hyades 14 S. siderea 5 other- Total Must = 100% A World of Solutions 16

18 Video and Photo Video and Photos A World of Solutions 17

19 Video and Photo Video and Photos Document biota along the transect A World of Solutions 18

20 Video and Photo Video and Photos Document biota along the transect Document substrate types A World of Solutions 19

21 Video and Photo Video and Photos Document biota along the transect Document substrate types Document site conditions A World of Solutions 20

22 Video and Photo Video and Photos Document biota along the transect Document substrate types Document site conditions Analyzed in the lab for additional data (if high quality) A World of Solutions 21

23 Video and Photo Video and Photos Document biota along the transect Document substrate types Document site conditions Analyzed in the lab for additional data (if high quality) A World of Solutions 22

24 Additional Methods Coral Stress Rugosity Species Area Curves Motile Invertebrate Census Macroalgae height Coral Census Coral Fate Tracking A World of Solutions 23

25 Challenges Weather A World of Solutions 24

26 Challenges A World of Solutions 25

27 Challenges Locating Pins A World of Solutions 26

28 Challenges Mapping A World of Solutions 27

29 Challenges Long Transects A World of Solutions 28

30 Biological Monitoring Efforts to Improve the Protocol Input from other Firms Many respondents say current protocol does not accurately determine project impact Specific methods that received comments Pre-construction surveys and/or more frequent aerials Mapping need to differentiate hardbottom from emergent epifauna and rubble, add relief measurements Line-intercept add emergent epifauna and rubble Permanent vs. temporary transects/quadrats Questionable usefulness of additional methods Concerns that submittals are due too soon Question as to what is done with the data/how is it used Why is monitoring reinitiated for repeat projects Most cited improved coordination, communication and assistance from FDEP biologists A World of Solutions 29

31 Biological Monitoring Efforts to Improve the Protocol FDEP SOP for Nearshore Hardbottom Monitoring of Beach Nourishment Projects Reaching out to biological monitoring firms for input Workshops to discuss methods/changes Addressing comments in next draft of SOP More workshops Training FDEP Site visits Opportunity for FDEP biologists to put data into context of project area conditions Opportunity for biological monitoring firm and permittee to discuss questions and provide recommendations for improvement A World of Solutions 30

32 Biological Monitoring Efforts to Improve the Protocol Discussions with FDEP Understand that each additional method and transect adds cost, trying to balance quality of data with cost efficiency More pre-construction surveys add cost, as does the much greater number of temporary transects that would be required Will be including additional habitat classifications and relief measurements for mapping Have begun including sediment only transects to get greater detail on sedimentation but without over-burdening monitoring firms and permittee Eliminated quantitative video surveys, but video archive can provide additional data if needed Still addressing comments to SOP, will circulate next draft and hold a webinar to discuss A World of Solutions 31

33 Conclusions General consensus is that hardbottom biological monitoring protocol still needs work but is improving FDEP is working to improve effectiveness and consistency of monitoring, keeping in mind associated cost/time required Suggest that permittees/biological monitoring firms continue to provide input to FDEP on concerns and recommendations Keep in mind that SOP is needed but that project-specific considerations must still be made Apply data to form greater understanding of project impacts A World of Solutions 32

34 Thank You A World of Solutions 33