Download Report

1
2
3
4
Reclassification of the shellfish areas stemmed from 1992-1994 water quality monitoring
by DEP; which found high levels of fecal.
Reasons of why public was upset:
1. Reclassified waters included shellfish waters.
2. Within waters that are estuarine area designated as an Outstanding Florida Water--which are NOT permitted to be degraded. However with a reclassification, waters have
been degraded.
3. Within waters that are the Guana River Marsh Aquatic Preserve--- which are subject to
management and stewardship practices designed to maintain environmental quality.
4. Within waters that were the newly designated GTMNERR which was approved on
November 22, 1994, the same date that the DEP survey reported reclassification.
5. Elevated fecal co-occurs with bacterial viruses, which leads to poor water quality.
5
6
7
8
9
This effort is the continuation of previous efforts since the controversial oyster
harvest bed closures in 1995. Since the closure of the majority of the northern
harvesting beds, numerous stakeholders and agencies have joined together in order
to understand the waters of Northeast Florida and what in particular needs to be
done in order to maintain a water quality that passes standards and sustains
shellfish populations. Since the 1995 Task Force formation and their 1997 report,
this will be a “follow-up”, almost 20 years later. Highlighted in orange are the
portions of the situation report that are the furthest along at this time.
10
Other data that was collected at this time include the temperature, conductivity, salinity,
pH, and DO. Tidal flow was estimated from tide tables for Mayport, FL.
NO DIRECT CORRELATION between total/ fecal coliforms and environmental parameters
(including rainfall). However, estimating tidal flow is not necessarily accurate because the
stations more northern are influenced tidally by the Mayport Inlet while the stations more
southern are influenced by the Guana River and St. Augustine Inlet.
Interesting because there are several stations between these hotspot clusters that do not
have elevated levels.
11
12
13
Class I
Class II
Class III
Class IV
Class V
Potable water supplies
Shellfish propagation or harvesting
Recreation, propagation, well balanced population of fish and wildlife
Agricultural water supplies
Navigation, utility, industrial uses
These waterbodies are designated by the FDEP and receive additional protection
due to their natural attributes (Section 403.061(27) Florida Statutes). Waters that
are classified as an OFW must maintain the ambient water quality, allowing for it to
never degrade.
The current TMDLs that have been developed for the Upper East Coast Basin
include (DEP TMDL Tracker, online):
Spruce Creek (2674A) TMDL for Dissolved Oxygen (development year
2008)
Spruce Creek (2674A) TMDL for Nutrients (development year 2008)
Spruce Creek (2674) TMDL for Fecal Coliforms (development year
2008)
Pellicer Creek (2580B) TMDL for Fecal Coliforms (development year
2012)
Guana River (2320) TMDL for Fecal Coliforms (development year
14
2012)
Halifax River (2363B) TMDL for Nutrients (development year 2013)
Palm Coast (2363D) TMDL for Nutrients (development year 2013)
14
Class I
Class II
Class III
Class IV
Class V
Potable water supplies
Shellfish propagation or harvesting
Recreation, propagation, well balanced population of fish and wildlife
Agricultural water supplies
Navigation, utility, industrial uses
These waterbodies are designated by the FDEP and receive additional protection
due to their natural attributes (Section 403.061(27) Florida Statutes). Waters that
are classified as an OFW must maintain the ambient water quality, allowing for it to
never degrade.
The current TMDLs that have been developed for the Upper East Coast Basin
include (DEP TMDL Tracker, online):
Spruce Creek (2674A) TMDL for Dissolved Oxygen (development year
2008)
Spruce Creek (2674A) TMDL for Nutrients (development year 2008)
Spruce Creek (2674) TMDL for Fecal Coliforms (development year
2008)
Pellicer Creek (2580B) TMDL for Fecal Coliforms (development year
2012)
Guana River (2320) TMDL for Fecal Coliforms (development year
15
2012)
Halifax River (2363B) TMDL for Nutrients (development year 2013)
Palm Coast (2363D) TMDL for Nutrients (development year 2013)
15
16
17
18
19
The Department does not use the NSSP sanitary survey; however it does appear
some of the criteria are similar for the fecal coliform criterion.
The Department does apply the shellfish harvesting status of approved,
conditionally approved, restricted, etc. based on the FDACS classification of shellfish
waters. One in particular that is unique is the prohibited waters. There are
situations where FDACS classified waters as “Prohibited”, but DEP would not list as
impaired and that is if the prohibited designation is only based on administrative
reasons, not actually water quality data. An example of this is in the Cocohatchee
River estuary, where FDACS does not actually monitor for fecal coliform bacteria
levels.
You may notice that there are open areas from FDACS harvesting maps that do have
fecal impairments. DEP does not take into consideration whether a shellfish
designated area is open or closed. So there may be areas that are downgraded
from “approved”, but that may be open through the harvesting season.
Another item to consider is that FDACS will use a different sample size of bacteria
results for their analysis. They would use the shellfish areas as the geographic
boundaries. The DEP restricts the sample size to data collected from stations within
a single WBID, which may not overlap the geographic boundary of the shellfish
20
area. DEP also uses the assessment periods identified in the IWR Rule (62-303,
F.A.C.) for the planning (10 year) and verified (7.5 year) periods.
FDACS would limit their bacteria analysis to only data collected by them; while the
DEP for IWR assessments, uses all readily available data in Florida STORET, which
includes multiple agencies.
The bacteriological survey identifies waters meeting NSSP fecal coliform standards. A
comprehensive shellfish harvesting area survey is written for each shellfish
harvesting area to document the methods and findings of these surveys, as well as
proposed changes in classification and management. NSSP guidelines require that
these reports be maintained annually, reevaluated every three years and
resurveyed every 12 years.
20
Sampling stations since 1978
At least 40 stations regularly since 1993
21
22
7 participants including
Current oyster harvesters
Past oyster harvesters
Oystermen with leases
Oystermen that aquaculture
Oystermen that harvest for recreation as well as those who sell to seafood
businesses and industries
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Alligator Harbor previously harvested clams. They culturing oyster in bottom cages that
were made of polyvinyl coated wires. Looked into modifying their leases to add water
columns. Off bottom growing of oysters allows for better dissolved oxygen levels,
phytoplankton, improved water flow, and less predation of benthic predators. Has been
done around the world since the 70s, even in the Chesapeake Bay over the past few years.
http://gulfseafoodnews.com/2014/01/29/off-bottom-oyster-farming/
Traditional on-bottom production (from either public oyster reefs or private oyster
grounds) yields very large quantities of oysters that tend to obtain lower prices than
farm-raised oysters. For example, the 5-year average price of Gulf Coast oysters
(from 2006-2010) was $3.17/pound (in shell) versus the same 5-year average price
of New England oysters of $33.67/pound (National Marine Fisheries Service)
30