Attachment_A_Feasibility_Study_(2).pdf

Citrus County Inshore Artificial Reef Project

Summary Feasibility Report

August 10, 2023

Prepared for:

Citrus County

Prepared by:

Stantec Consulting Services Inc.

777 S. Harbour Island Blvd., Suite 600 Tampa, FL 33602

CITRUS COUNTY INSHORE ARTIFICIAL REEF PROJECT

Revision Description Author Quality Check Independent Review Draft 3/30/23 BSJ 04/03/23 LW 4/7/23 KBC

1 Final 4/6/2023 BSJ 4/7/2023 KBC 4/10/23 JSL

This document entitled Citrus County Inshore Artificial Reef Feasibility Report was prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (“Stantec”) for the account of Citrus County (the “Client”). Any reliance on this document by any third party is strictly prohibited. The material in it reflects Stantec’s professional judgment in light of the scope, schedule and other limitations stated in the document and in the contract between Stantec and the Client. The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information existing at the time the document was published and do not take into account any subsequent changes. In preparing the document, Stantec did not verify information supplied to it by others. Any use which a third party makes of this document is the responsibility of such third party. Such third party agrees that Stantec shall not be responsible for costs or damages of any kind, if any, suffered by it or any other third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this document.

Prepared by (signature)

Brandon Johnson, ENV SP, LEED GA

Reviewed by (signature)

Katie Castor, MS, PWS

Approved by (signature)

Jason Lancaster, CEP, CE, PWS, TN-QHP

Table of Contents

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.0 PRIOR STUDIES

2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS DESKTOP ANALYSIS

2.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES DESKTOP STUDY

2.3 PUBLIC OUTREACH

2.4 BENTHIC SURVEY FINDINGS REPORT

2.5 PRELIMINARY SITE RANKINGS AND ENGINEERING ESTIMATE OF COSTS

3.0 DATA GAPS AND NEXT STEPS

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Initial Potential Inshore Reef Site Locations Table 2. Initial Potential Inshore Reef Site Locations

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Initial Artificial Reef Sites Figure 2. Initial Artificial Reef Sites Figure 3. Artificial Reef Site Suitability Map Figure 4. Artificial Reef Site Suitability Map Figure 5. Example of a “Pallet Ball” by Reef Innovations, Inc

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A EXISTING CONDITIONS DESKTOP ANALYSIS

APPENDIX B CULTURAL RESOURCES DESKTOP STUDY REPORT

APPENDIX C PUBLIC OUTREACH

APPENDIX D BENTHIC SURVEY FINDINGS REPORT

APPENDIX E PRELIMINARY SITE RANKINGS AND COST ESTIMATES REPORT

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Artificial reefs can introduce complexity and structure to benthic environments, providing habitat for marine life and increasing biodiversity of an area. Due to this increased use by fish and other marine organisms, artificial reefs are utilized by recreational and commercial anglers, divers, and other user groups, resulting in a variety of economic activities that provide benefits to the coastal communities near the reefs. Citrus County, Florida (County) has previously developed artificial reef sites in deeper offshore waters adjacent to the County, though the closest existing site is located approximately 25 miles from the coast. Accordingly, recreational users such as residents and visitors to Citrus County face challenges with accessing the existing offshore reef. The County is now proposing to improve its network of artificial reefs by constructing additional inshore artificial reef sites within County coastal waters to promote ecological enhancement and recreational opportunities in locations that are closer to shore and relatively more assessable for both residents and tourists to the area.

To help assess the feasibility of developing the inshore artificial reef sites, the County retained Stantec Consulting Services, Inc (Stantec) to lead a series of studies for the Citrus County Inshore Reef Project (Project). Through these studies (described below), potential sites were identified and assessed based on a variety of environmental, ecological, and social considerations. Additionally, the County engaged in public outreach with residents and regional stakeholders to evaluate public sentiment towards the artificial reef program and to learn about regional interest in advancing the Project.

Stantec’s team located, evaluated, and assessed the suitability of 20 initial potential locations, which were subsequently narrowed down to 11 sites. Of these 11 sites, up to 10 may be considered for detailed analysis leading to eventual site-specific design and development of artificial reefs. The construction of new inshore reefs will provide multiple benefits to the County including providing additional hard-bottom substrate for colonization by marine and benthic organisms in an area where shallow water habitats are dominated by seagrass beds that lack significant topographic relief. The fish habitat created by the inshore artificial reefs will ultimately support greater recreation and economic opportunities for the area.

2.0 PRIOR STUDIES

2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS DESKTOP ANALYSIS

The study area for this Project is within a 15-mile boundary from the Citrus County shoreline, extending into the Gulf of Mexico (see Figure 1 - Project Overview Map). Stantec evaluated existing conditions in the study area through a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to help facilitate the selection of potential new inshore reef sites based on criteria such as water depth; presence/absence of benthic resources such as submerged aquatic vegetation (seagrass, attached algae), soft/hard corals, oysters, etc.; as well as distance from the coastline, fishing ports, and recreational areas.

The MCDA was used to logically evaluate and compare the data assembled during the desktop evaluation and identified 20 sites within the study area as having the potential to support the new inshore reefs. Table 1 presents the location (latitude and longitude) and general distance from shore for the initial artificial reef sites.

Table 1. Initial Potential Inshore Reef Site Locations

Potential Reef Site Distance From Shore Latitude Longitude

1 5-10 miles 28.98557 -82.85606

2 5-10 miles 28.98977 -82.90172

3 5-10 miles 28.92178 -82.81268

4 5-10 miles 28.92419 -82.84255

5 5-10 miles 28.91868 -82.88295

6 10-15 miles 28.85284 -82.90429

7 0-5 miles 28.98738 -82.81994

8 5-10 miles 28.95600 -82.86600

9 5-10 miles 28.95200 -82.89800

10 5-10 miles 28.86100 -82.79500

11 5-10 miles 28.87600 -82.82000

12 5-10 miles 28.96200 -82.84400

13 0-5 miles 28.90702 -82.77423

14 0-5 miles 28.92195 -82.75040

15 5-10 miles 28.89670 -82.83782

16 5-10 miles 28.88158 -82.85575

17 10-15 miles 28.87818 -82.89167

18 10-15 miles 28.87575 -82.92998

19 5-10 miles 28.74726 -82.74166

20 5-10 miles 28.75178 -82.73330

Figure 1 shows the location of the 20 initial artificial reef site locations within the study area. Potential reef sites were grouped according to the approximate distance from shore.

Figure 1. Initial Artificial Reef Sites

The Existing Conditions Desktop Analysis report is provided in Appendix A, and summarizes potential impacts or concerns regarding the potential artificial reef sites as they relate to:

• Wetlands and Surface Waters Desktop Assessment;

• Essential Fish Habitat, Critical Habitat, Seagrass, and Mandated Closures; and

• Regulatory Considerations.

Based on the MCDA and desktop evaluation, the 20 initial artificial reef sites presented above were selected for field verification to document existing site-specific benthic conditions. The results of the field observations are summarized in Section 2.4 below.

2.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES DESKTOP STUDY

In addition to the desktop ecological evaluation, Stantec conducted a cultural resources desktop assessment of the study area. This desktop assessment reviewed all known cultural resources within a one-mile radius of the inshore reef potential locations associated with the Project. This included a search of the current Florida Master Site File (FMSF) in geographical information system (GIS) format for archaeological and historical resources.

A search of the FMSF (updated July 2022) found that no cultural resource field surveys have been conducted within one mile of the proposed study area and only one cultural survey is recorded within the vicinity of the proposed study area (Figure 2). Survey #19573 was an archaeological resource sensitivity model for the northeast portion of Florida, sponsored by the Florida Park Service. It is mapped between 2 and 4 miles to the east of the potential reef areas. Neither survey involved underwater or subsurface archaeological testing.

The cultural desktop analysis included archaeological sites (including known historic sunken vessels), resource groups, historic structures, cemeteries, and bridges. The results of the FMSF search suggested the likelihood of significant archaeological resources existing within the proposed reef areas was very low.

The Cultural Resources Desktop Study Report is presented in Appendix B.

Figure 2. Initial Artificial Reef Sites

2.3 PUBLIC OUTREACH

In conjunction with the desktop studies described above, public outreach efforts were conducted by the County to gain stakeholder input on the Project and determine if there were any other areas that should be focused on or ruled out. Information was disseminated to stakeholders in May 2022, and a public meeting was held on June 15, 2022.

Outreach efforts included social media posts and an email sent to county residents and regional stakeholders which read:

Citrus County is conducting a feasibility study for the installation of up to 10 inshore artificial reefs within county coastal waters. Installation of new reefs will provide multiple benefits to marine life and to the county, providing greater recreation and economic opportunities for commercial industry, as well as local recreation use and tourism.

Town Hall will be held at a future date to discuss the results of the survey and an overall update of the study.

Follow us on social media for the latest news and announcements.

Additionally, a survey was conducted which contained 7 questions aimed at understanding the public’s use of existing coastal areas and resources, perceived conflicts and benefits from the Project, potential value to recreation and commercial use, and stakeholder demographics (i.e., which county do respondents live in). The County received over 100 responses to the survey and the public involvement data indicated all 20 initial artificial reef site locations were acceptable to those who provided feedback.

Additionally, a virtual Town Hall meeting was conducted online on June 15, 2022 and no concerns were expressed by the public. The public survey questions and tally of responses, as well as the Town Hall presentation are presented in Appendix C. Stakeholders included boaters, commercial fisherman/shrimpers, and relevant public and private organizations.

Public engagement is ongoing and will include a public presentation of the findings of this Summary Feasibility Report.

2.4 BENTHIC SURVEY FINDINGS REPORT

As described above, 20 potential artificial reef sites were identified which, based on the desktop studies, meet the criteria for initial site selection including: water depth, potential bottom type (i.e., hard/stable substrate, bare sandy areas, etc.), apparent absence of benthic resources such as submerged aquatic vegetation, known areas of corals, oysters, etc., as well as distance to the coastline, fishing ports, and recreational areas. Subsequently, a benthic survey was conducted to field verify the actual existing conditions at these locations in an effort to further refine the list of suitable sites for placement of artificial reef material.

In August 2022, a Stantec survey team consisting of experienced scientific divers and a qualified boat operator, conducted a benthic survey to document the underwater conditions at each of the 20 potential inshore reef locations. A sub-meter accuracy geographic positioning system (GPS) was used to locate and deploy a marker buoy at each site and a series of observation dives were commenced within the site footprint. The potential reef sites were assumed to be approximately 0.25 acre; therefore, multiple meandering transects were surveyed at each site from varying approaches to allow the divers to observe bottom conditions and note the presence/absence of marine resources within an approximately 100’ x 100’ area. Aside from the visual observations, bottom sediments were examined by manually inserting a small PVC probe into the substrate to determine the relative depth of penetration to qualitatively assess sediment consistency and relative density/hardness.

Following the benthic survey, the initial 20 potential reef sites were refined based on the existing conditions verified in the field and ranked based on their suitability for further evaluation (i.e., detailed mapping, quantitative measurement of resources present, etc.) towards a final selection for the development of an artificial inshore reef. Suitability traits were examined against preferred site criteria including:

• Adequate water depth: Minimum 10-foot sea water (FSW) is required for navigational purposes once potential reef material is deployed.

• Absence of onsite existing benthic resources: The objective of the project is to enhance the marine environment by supplementing existing natural resources; therefore, impacts to existing seagrasses, corals, etc. from the development of the artificial reef(s) is contrary to project goals and may create additional permitting constraints over sites without existing resources.

• Proximity to existing benthic resources: Whereas the presence of existing resources within the footprint of a potential site is detrimental to the selection process (due to potential impacts to those resources), sites with established resources nearby may enhance the utilization of the newly developed artificial reefs and/or contribute to the known benefits of establishing a mosaic of habitat types in a given area.

• Bottom sediment characteristics: Sites with stable, consistent bottoms (such as bare consolidated sand and sand/shell) are preferred over sites with softer/looser bottoms which may have higher mud/muck content and be prone to accumulate organic materials or have the potential for greater subsidence of developed reefs.

• Proximity to shore/existing recreational sites and general site access: Generally, each prescreened site surveyed had been previously assessed as generally accessible. However, this criterion remains relevant when comparing two or more otherwise suitable sites.

Based on the criteria above, the potential reef sites were ranked based on three (3) distinct categories:

• Suitable,

• Potentially Suitable, and

• Unsuitable.

Figure 3 provides an overview map showing the potential reef sites and bathymetric contours derived from available National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data. The map categorizes the sites according to the initial suitability determinations developed as described above.

Figure 3. Artificial Reef Site Suitability Map

The field verification survey identified 11 suitable sites, 3 potentially suitable sites, and 6 sites that were determined to be non-suitable for further assessment. The Benthic Survey Findings Report (Appendix D) provides further detail regarding the types of resources identified at each site, their general ecological condition, and representative photos of each habitat type encountered at the time of survey.

2.5 PRELIMINARY SITE RANKINGS AND ENGINEERING ESTIMATE OF

COSTS

INTERA Incorporated (INTERA) was subcontracted by Stantec to provide a preliminary engineering evaluation of the reef sites based on the Benthic Findings Survey Report in combination with the evaluation factors listed below. Based on the County’s desire to develop up to 10 artificial reef sites, only the 11 sites determined to be suitable from the Benthic Findings Survey Report were assessed as part of this study. INTERA subsequently prepared a Preliminary Site Rankings and Cost Estimates Report (Appendix E) to identify the top 10 sites the County should prioritize for further evaluation during the next project phase, based on the engineering and logistical considerations of constructing an artificial reef at those locations. In addition, INTERA computed a total cost estimate for the mobilization, material, and construction of the proposed artificial reefs. This rough estimate is scalable based on improved estimates for the proposed reef area and the density of reef module placement.

INTERA generally evaluated the reef sites according to the following factors:

1) Limit conflicts and disruption to navigation channels, boating corridors, and existing habitat;

2) Close proximity to ports is preferred to minimize travel distance;

3) Central locations enhance accessibility from multiple ports;

4) Deep water is preferred to minimize limitations on construction equipment (e.g., placing limits on vessel draft), minimize the risk of the reef creating a navigation hazard, and reduce vulnerability to wave damage;

5) The water depths of all sites are suitable for reefs to achieve the targeted ecological objective; this assumption is based on the observed resources in sites 1, 3, 6, 7, and 20 and the documented resources at existing artificial reefs;

6) A sandy bottom allows some reef settlement which enhances reef stability;

7) A thick sediment layer may cause excess reef settlement and dimmish reef functionality; and

8) A very thin sand layer with harder underlayers could cause material to move laterally, particularly during storms.

Table 2 summarizes the characteristics of the potential reef sites as reported in the Benthic Survey Findings Report and ranks the sites in order of initial priority based on the factors described above. As shown, those sites initially characterized as “unsuitable” and “potentially suitable” were excluded from the rankings as a sufficient number of “suitable” sites are available for further assessment. Notable factors that contributed to the rankings is presented for each site. Overall, the primary factors include proximity to ports and general characteristics that would affect constructability. The suitability of the top eight sites (Site #s: 15, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 5, 4) is similar and primarily distinguished by their proximity to ports.

Table 2. Initial Potential Inshore Reef Site Locations

Upon implementation of the Project, the proposed staging area identified by the County lies along the north bank of the Cross Florida Barge Canal, adjacent to U.S. Highway 98, located approximately 4.5 miles east of the coast. The staging area is located where the Cross Florida Barge Canal Boat Ramp is planned. The protection and relatively deep waters of the canal (17-foot maximum water depth) and sparsely vegetated bank should provide favorable conditions for loading of reef material onto a barge.

Travel distance to the various potential reef sites ranges from approximately 11.5 miles (site 12) to 19 miles (site 10). Figure 4 shows the staging area relative to the ten highest ranked reef sites (as presented in Table 2).

Figure 4. Artificial Reef Site Suitability Map

While artificial reefs may consist of various material, the County has determined that manufactured concrete reef modules will be used at all sites for the Project. Accordingly, this feasibility level analysis developed cost estimates based on Reef Balls, a widely used artificial concrete reef module produced by Reef Innovations Inc., which has been successfully used throughout Florida. Of the numerous sizes and styles of Reef Balls, the “Pallet Ball” (described in Figure 5 below) is likely the most suitable for offering sufficient stability while avoiding creation of a navigation hazard (per INTERA’s personal communication with Reef Innovations Inc.), given the reported water depths and anticipated wave climate at the potential reef sites. For consistency, construction costs discussed below are based solely on deploying Pallet Balls.

Figure 5. Example of a “Pallet Ball” by Reef Innovations, Inc.

The cost estimates for the proposed artificial reefs considered the location of the staging area (mobilization costs), the cost of the artificial reef material, and the estimated construction costs. It should be noted that the estimated costs are scalable depending on the finalized list of sites and desired density of reef modules. The potential reef sites were assumed to be approximately 0.25 acre and generally consist of 100’ x 100’ areas suitable for reef material placement (i.e., clear of seagrass or other benthic resources, as observed during the benthic survey). Based on this size, each site may theoretically accommodate a maximum of 625 Pallet Balls (i.e., 25 rows of 25 Pallet Balls with no spacing); however, appropriate artificial reef design is not based simply on placing the maximum amount of material at a given site. Rather, the installation of numerous clusters of reef balls spaced throughout each site is more typical for recreational artificial reefs. Several factors drive the potential construction cost, such as reef location and water depth that affect travel time and barge capacity, as well as desired size of the reefs if certain areas are determined to be suitable for larger reefs during future detailed site delineation efforts.

INTERA initially came up with preliminary cost estimates based on assumptions (construction methods and a mobilization plan) that have since been determined non-feasible; therefore, Stantec has developed updated cost estimates for the project. For the purposes of this Feasibility Study, the County has requested two preliminary cost estimate scenarios. The first scenario assumes that all 11 potentially suitable reef locations will move forward through design, permitting, and construction. The second scenario assumes that only the four (4) sites closest to shore will move forward through design, permitting, and construction. The preliminary cost estimate for construction of first scenario (11 reefs) is approximately $1.1 to $3.3 million. The preliminary cost estimate for construction of the second scenario (4 reefs) is approximately $400,000 to $1.2 million. Note that launch point, reef location and size, and other factors can be determined at a later date in order to evaluated detailed costs.

3.0 DATA GAPS AND NEXT STEPS

The information offered in this Summary Feasibility Report is presented as an assessment of viability of the overall Project. Based on the data gathered from the studies presented above, it is apparent that adequate conditions exist within the study area which may support the development of the 10 inshore artificial reefs that the County has requested. However, determining the 10 inshore artificial reefs suitable for development is just the first step in the process. Many additional tasks remain, including design, permitting, procurement, contracting, and ultimately construction.

Beyond the investigations involved in the studies above, additional information will be required to support the various federal, state, and local permitting efforts that will be required. An initial evaluation has determined that the Project is located within a designated coastal zone. The Project is consistent with the state’s Coastal Zone Management Plan as it does not propose any structures or activities that could adversely affect shorelines, beaches, dunes, or estuaries. Therefore, concurrence with the state’s Coastal Zone Management Agency is not anticipated to be required. No wetlands will be impacted by the proposed Project. Surface water impacts include the placement of artificial reef structures within the Gulf of Mexico, which constitutes as “fill” under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). An Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) in addition to Sovereign Submerged Lands authorization will be required from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), and a Section 404 permit will be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The permitting process will require consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). Additionally, coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) is expected.

Each site selected for artificial reef development will require a detailed delineation of existing benthic resources within and adjacent to the site. Surveys are required to occur within one year of environmental permit application submittal, and are only authorized during the peak growing season (April 1st – September 30th).

To support detailed design, further analysis of the substrate and sediment will be required. Geotechnical samples consisting of sediment cores (or similar) will be needed to determine possible settlement of the reef material.

To assess the stability of reef modules at the various reef sites under design sea conditions, a wave analysis will evaluate the wave characteristics and calculate design wave forces acting on the proposed reefs. In general, reefs in shallower waters are more vulnerable to destabilizing wave forces capable of moving individual reef modules under more frequent conditions. However, storm conditions with elevated water levels allow larger waves to reach the potential sites, and some sites will be more susceptible than others depending on the nearby bathymetry. Thus, final design must ensure the reef modules can withstand — based on weight, geometry, and other design elements and expected settling — the wave forces under a variety of storm conditions.

Once a more detailed site survey is conducted, the reef designs may potentially improve by incorporating a variety of reef module sizes and/or layouts. The sediment characteristics, locations, depths, and available acreages for each reef should be included in the more detailed site survey.

Finally, as mentioned above, further public outreach efforts will be conducted, including a public presentation of the findings of this Summary Feasibility Report. The purpose of the Project is to provide opportunities for the public to use and enjoy the various benefits of these artificial reefs, and the County intends to remain engaged with stakeholders throughout the process.

APPENDICIES

Prior Study Reports

Appendix A Existing Conditions Desktop Analysis

Appendix A EXISTING CONDITIONS DESKTOP ANALYSIS

Citrus County Inshore Artificial Reef Project Existing Conditions Desktop Analysis July 2022

Citrus County Inshore Artificial Reef Project

July 2022 Cardno, now Stantec Document Information i Citrus Co Inshore Reef Existing Conditions Report_FINAL

Contact Information Cardno 3905 Crescent Park Drive Riverview, FL 33578 USA Telephone: 813 664 4500 www.cardno.com www.stantec.com

Document Information Prepared for Citrus County

Project Name Citrus County Inshore Artificial Reef Project Existing Conditions Desktop Analysis

File Reference Citrus Co Inshore Reef Existing Conditions Report_FINAL.docx

Job Reference 237800254

Date July 2022 Author(s) Monica Downer, MS Senior Staff Scientist

Ed Call Senior Land Planner

Document History Version Effective Date Description of Revision Prepared by Reviewed by

1.0 7/15/2022 Draft Report Monica Downer Neisa Smith

2.0 7/15/2022 Technical Edit Review Neisa Smith Katie Castor

3.0 7/18/2022 Technical Edit Review Monica Downer Ed Call

© Cardno. Copyright in the whole and every part of this document belongs to Cardno and may not be used, sold, transferred, copied or reproduced in whole or in part in any manner or form or in or on any media to any person other than by agreement with Cardno.

This document is produced by Cardno solely for the benefit and use by the client in accordance with the terms of the engagement.

Cardno does not and shall not assume any responsibility or liability whatsoever to any third party arising out of any use or reliance by any third party on the content of this document.

http://www.cardno.com/ http://www.stantec.com/

July 2022 Cardno Table of Contents ii

Table of Contents 1 Introduction/Overview ...................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Project Description ........................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Study Area and Site Selection Criteria ............................................................................. 1-1

1.3 Existing Conditions Desktop Analysis .............................................................................. 1-2

2 Wetland and Surface Waters ........................................................................................2-1

2.1 Desktop Assessment ........................................................................................................ 2-1

3 Essential Fish Habitat, Critical Habitat, Seagrass and Mandated Closures ..............3-1

3.1 Desktop Assessment ........................................................................................................ 3-1

4.1 State and Federal Permitting ............................................................................................ 3-1

5 References .....................................................................................................................5-2

Appendices Appendix A Figures

Figure 1 Project Overview Map

Figure 2 USGS Quadrangle Map

Figure 3 Essential Fish Habitat Map

Figure 4 Manatee Critical Habitat Map

Figure 5 Gulf Sturgeon Critical Habitat Map

Figure 6 Seagrass Habitat in Florida Map

Figure 7 Closure Dates for Commerical Shrimp and Stone Crab Map

Figure 8 Bathymetry Map

Appendix B FNAI Biodiversity Matrix

Appendix C USFWS Official Species List

Tables Table 1. Potential Inshore Reef Sites ........................................................................................................ 1-2

Table 2. Potential Occurrence of Listed Species in the Vicinity of the Project, Citrus County, Florida .............................................................................................................................. 3-3

Table 3. Shrimp Trawling and Stone Crab Trapping Closures .................................................................. 3-3

July 2022 Cardno Citrus Co Inshore Reef Existing Conditions Report_FINAL

1 Introduction/Overview

1.1 Project Description

Citrus County (County) Florida is proposing the construction of up to ten (10) inshore artificial reefs within County coastal waters to promote ecological enhancement, recreational opportunity, and economic benefit.

Due to the lack of significant topographic relief and deep depths close to shore, the existing offshore reef adjacent to Citrus County is located approximately 25 miles offshore. Recreational users such as residents and visitors to Citrus County face challenges with accessing the existing offshore reef. Construction of new inshore reefs will provide multiple benefits to the County such as, improving the Counties network of artificial reefs, providing additional hard-bottom substrate for colonization of marine and benthic organisms and fish habitat and ultimately provide greater recreation and economic opportunities for both residents and tourists to the area.

The County retained Cardno, now Stantec (Cardno), to conduct an Existing Conditions Report for the Citrus County Inshore Reef Project (Project). A geospatial team performed a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to help facilitate the selection of new inshore reefs in the study area based on criteria such as water depth, potential bottom type (hard bottoms), existing seagrass, bare sandy areas, distance to coast, as well as distance to fishing ports and recreational areas. The MCDA was used to logically evaluate and compare the data collected during the desktop evaluation of the study area. At this time, twenty (20) sites have been identified as having the potential to help facilitate the new inshore reefs based on criteria such as water depth, potential bottom type (hardbottom), existing seagrass, bare sandy areas, distance to coast, distance to fishing ports, and distance to recreational areas.

Additionally, public involvement efforts were conducted in order to determine if there are any other areas that should be focused on or ruled out. Information was disseminated to stakeholders in May 2022, and a public meeting was held on June 15, 2022. Public involvement data indicated that all of the selected 20 site locations are acceptable to those who provided feedback. Public involvement is ongoing and once complete, information will be detailed in a separate report.

This Existing Conditions Desktop Analysis evaluates these 20 sites. The general location of the Project is shown in Appendix A - Figure 1 (Project Overview Map) and Figure 2 (USGS Quadrangle Map).

1.2 Study Area and Site Selection Criteria

The study area for this Project is a 15-mile boundary from shore within the extended limits of Citrus County into the Gulf of Mexico (see Project Overview Map - Figure 1) and USGS Quadrangle Map (Figure 2)).

Table 1 below lists the proposed potential inshore reef sites, their proximity to shore, and coordinates.

Site selection criteria consisted mainly of water depth, documented bottom type (hardbottom vs.

sandy/open water), existing seagrass data, and distance to coast. The 20 sites selected for further review (benthic assessments utilizing divers) were chosen based on a combination of conditions that meet these criteria. Water depth was required to be a minimum of 10 feet using the NOAA Ocean Planning Information System (OPIS) (Figure 8 – Bathymetry Map); no maximum depth was required. All potential reef sites are within 10 feet in depth or greater. Habitat to be avoided was hardbottom and dense seagrass, although three (3) of the 20 sites are within documented sparse seagrass (Figure 6 – Seagrass and Hardbottom) habitat. Based on OPIS, none of the 20 potential reef sites are located within composite or continuous seagrass. Since there is potential within these sparse seagrass areas to identify bare sandy areas, these areas were not ruled out. All sites were required to fall within 15 miles of the shore in order to provide practicable access for recreational users. Additionally, public involvement was considered during the site selection process. Public involvement data indicated that all of the selected 20 site locations are acceptable

July 2022 Cardno Citrus Co Inshore Reef Existing Conditions Report_FINAL to those who provided feedback (public involvement is ongoing and a report will be prepared at a later date).

Table 1. Potential Inshore Reef Sites

Potential Reef Site Distance From Shore Latitude Longitude

1 5-10 miles 28.98557 -82.85606

2 5-10 miles 28.98977 -82.90172

3 5-10 miles 28.92178 -82.81268

4 5-10 miles 28.92419 -82.84255

5 5-10 miles 28.91868 -82.88295

6 10-15 miles 28.85284 -82.90429

7 0-5 miles 28.98738 -82.81994

8 5-10 miles 28.95600 -82.86600

9 5-10 miles 28.95200 -82.89800

10 5-10 miles 28.86100 -82.79500

11 5-10 miles 28.87600 -82.82000

12 5-10 miles 28.96200 -82.84400

13 0-5 miles 28.90702 -82.77423

14 0-5 miles 28.92195 -82.75040

15 5-10 miles 28.89670 -82.83782

16 5-10 miles 28.88158 -82.85575

17 10-15 miles 28.87818 -82.89167

18 10-15 miles 28.87575 -82.92998

19 5-10 miles 28.74726 -82.74166

20 5-10 miles 28.75178 -82.73330

1.3 Existing Conditions Desktop Analysis

Existing conditions summarized in this report consist of the following activities:

• Wetlands and Surface Waters Desktop Assessment;

• Essential Fish Habitat, Critical Habitat, Seagrass, and Mandated Closures and;

• Regulatory Considerations.

2 Wetland and Surface Waters

2.1 Desktop Assessment

The study area lies wholly within the Gulf of Mexico. The individual potential reef sites lie within 0-15 miles from the shore. No wetlands will be impacted by the proposed Project. Surface water impacts include the placement of artificial reef structures within the Gulf of Mexico.

Until a benthic survey is conducted, surface water conditions and potential substrate resources are unknown. Field verification of all 20 potential inshore reef locations will be conducted, where trained marine ecologists will dive each of the proposed inshore reef locations identified during the feasibility study. All survey transects will include the location and abundance of resources adjacent to reef location including sediment depth. The field survey will record resource locations using sub-meter GPS and an underwater camera to document habitat types and where possible, the general condition or apparent health of the organisms will be noted. The project intends to minimize and avoid impacts to benthic resources.

The Project is located within a designated coastal zone. The Project is consistent with the state’s Coastal Zone Management Plans as it does not propose any structures or activities that could adversely affect shorelines, beaches, dunes, or estuaries. Therefore, concurrence with the state’s Coastal Zone Management Agency is not anticipated to be required.

3 Essential Fish Habitat, Critical Habitat, Seagrass and Mandated Closures

3.1 Desktop Assessment

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) and Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) databases initially identified nine (9) federal and state listed species with the potential to occur in Citrus County. Further review of the available databases of existing onsite habitat, Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification (FLUCFCS) land use, and species habitat requirements during the desktop evaluation reduced this list to four (4) potential fauna species (Table 2). Upland species were removed from this report as the project is wholly within the Gulf of Mexico.

Common Name

Scientific Name

Listing Status Preferred Habitat

Survey Window

Occurrence in Project

Area Federal State

West Indian Manatee

Trichechus manatus

T/LE FT/FE Live in marine, brackish, and freshwater systems in coastal and riverine areas throughout their range. They feed along seagrass bed margins with access to deep water channels.

Florida manatees can be found throughout Florida for most of the year.

Year-round

Possible

Loggerhead Sea Turtle

Caretta caretta T FT Marine coastal and oceanic waters; nests on coastal sand beaches, often near the dune line, sufficiently high to avoid tidal inundation.

May-Oct (nesting only)

Possible swimming, no nesting habitat

Green Sea Turtle

Chelonia mydas

T FT Estuarine and marine coastal, and oceanic waters, nest on coastal sand beaches often near dune line.

May-Oct (nesting only)

Possible swimming, no nesting habitat

Gulf sturgeon Acipenser axyrinchus desotoi

T FT Forages in Gulf of Mexico and associated

Year-round

Unlikely to occur within

July 2022 Cardno Citrus Co Inshore Reef Existing Conditions Report_FINAL

Common Name

Scientific Name

Listing Status Preferred Habitat

Survey Window

Occurrence in Project

Area Federal State estuaries;

spawns in most major coastal rivers in areas with limestone outcrops. Spend the coldest three to four months in the Gulf and the remainder of the year in rivers where spawning occurs.

Spawning typically takes place February – April.

the Project study area

State: ST = State Threatened, FE = Federally Endangered, FT = Federally Threatened Federal: E = Endangered, T = Threatened, PT = Proposed Threatened

Essential Fish Habitat Essential Fish Habitats (EFHs) are areas identified as being vital for sustaining marine or anadromous fish populations and include waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to maturity (USDA/NRCS). Cardno reviewed EFHs for Reef Fish, Shrimp, Red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus), Corals, and Spiny Lobster (Figure 3 - Essential Fish Habitat Map) (OPIS). All of the potential reef sites lie within EFH for Reef Fish and Shrimp, while none of the sites lie within EFH for Red Drum, Corals or Spiny Lobster.

Manatee Critical Habitat West Indian Manatee (Trichechus manatus) is listed as federally threatened by the USFWS under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and is afforded further protections under the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act. At the state level, manatees are protected by the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act (379.2431 (2)). The Project study area does not fall within the USFWS designated West Indian Manatee Critical Habitat (Figure 4 - Manatee Critical Habitat Map) (OPIS).

It is recommended that construction activities comply with the USFWS Standard Manatee Conditions for In-Water Work (2011), including construction personnel species education, species signage during construction activities, vessel operation at “Idle Speed/No Wake”, proper construction and installation of siltation control, daily monitoring during in-water work, and prompt reporting to the FWC hotline, and USFWS office.

Gulf Sturgeon Critical Habitat Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) is listed as federally threatened by NOAA Fisheries under the ESA. The reproducing populations in the Gulf of Mexico and its major rivers have been observed from Lake Pontchartrain and Pearl River systems in Louisiana to the Suwannee River in Florida and are under the jurisdiction of the USFWS. Non-breeding individuals have been observed along the Florida Gulf Coast as far south as Charlotte Harbor, and are under the jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries. As the Project is outside of gulf sturgeon critical habitat (Figure 5 - Gulf Sturgeon Critical Habitat Map) (OPIS), Cardno assumes the effect to gulf sturgeon would be insignificant, and the Project is not likely to adversely affect gulf sturgeon.

July 2022 Cardno Citrus Co Inshore Reef Existing Conditions Report_FINAL

Sea Turtles Multiple species of sea turtles have the potential to traverse waters within the Project study area boundary, including the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) and green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas).

The green sea turtle and the loggerhead sea turtle are both listed as federally threatened. The species are further protected by state and local laws. Threats to sea turtles include artificial lighting and urban sky glow, boating traffic, pollution, and plastic ingestion, entanglement with fishing gear, and loss of forage and nesting habitat due to coastal development. Sea turtle nesting and hatching season in Pinellas County occurs between May 1st and October 31st, with a peak in June and July. Nesting occurs primarily at night. There is no habitat for nesting within the Project study area.

Since no foraging habitat exists within the Project study area, the Project is not likely to adversely affect sea turtles. Since sea turtles have the potential to traverse the area, it is recommended that construction complies with the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) Sea Turtle and Small-tooth Sawfish Construction Conditions, dated March 23, 2006, throughout the duration of the proposed work

Seagrass A stipulation in choosing the potential reef sites is that the placement of the artificial reefs would not impact seagrasses. While potential reef sites 6, 17, and 20 lie within mapped seagrass areas (Figure 6 - Seagrass Habitat in Florida Map) (OPIS), a field verification by trained marine ecologists is required for all 20 sites.

Divers will assess the proposed reef site locations to record and document resource locations with sub-meter GPS, and an underwater camera will be deployed before the reef sites are ultimately chosen. Cardno will prepare a brief report presenting the findings that will include one or more maps of the project area indicating the location and extent of identified resources. The report will discuss the types of resources located and their general ecological condition and include representative photos of each habitat type encountered. This report will be used in support reef site locations and for future permitting efforts.

Coordination is expected with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), National Marine Fisheries Service (NFMS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC), and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). Reef sites will be chosen based on minimization and avoidance of submerged resources.

Shrimp Trawling and Stone Crab Trapping Closures Table 2 below lists the anticipated closure dates for Shrimp Trawling and Stone Crab Trapping (Figure 7 - Closure Dates for Commercial Shrimp and Stone Crab Map). While some potential reef sites may be closed at times, others will remain available for commercial and recreation activities.

Table 3. Shrimp Trawling and Stone Crab Trapping Closures

Potential Reef Site Distance From Shore Latitude Longitude

Shrimp Trawling Closures

Stone Crab Trapping Closures

1 5-10 miles 28.98557 -82.85606 October 5 – May 20 No Closures

2 5-10 miles 28.98977 -82.90172 October 5 – May 20 No Closures

3 5-10 miles 28.92178 -82.81268 October 5 – May 20 No Closures

4 5-10 miles 28.92419 -82.84255 October 5 – May 20 No Closures

5 5-10 miles 28.91868 -82.88295 October 5 – May 20 No Closures

6 10-15 miles 28.85284 -82.90429 October 5 – May 20 No Closures

7 0-5 miles 28.98738 -82.81994 October 5 – May 20 No Closures

8 5-10 miles 28.95600 -82.86600 October 5 – May 20 No Closures

July 2022 Cardno Citrus Co Inshore Reef Existing Conditions Report_FINAL

9 5-10 miles 28.95200 -82.89800 October 5 – May 20 No Closures

10 5-10 miles 28.86100 -82.79500 No Closures October 5 – May 20

11 5-10 miles 28.87600 -82.82000 No Closures October 5 – May 20

12 5-10 miles 28.96200 -82.84400 October 5 – May 20 No Closures

13 0-5 miles 28.90702 -82.77423 No Closures October 5 – May 20

14 0-5 miles 28.92195 -82.75040 October 5 – May 20 No Closures

15 5-10 miles 28.89670 -82.83782 No Closures October 5 – May 20

16 5-10 miles 28.88158 -82.85575 No Closures October 5 – May 20

17 10-15 miles 28.87818 -82.89167 October 5 – May 20 No Closures

18 10-15 miles 28.87575 -82.92998 October 5 – May 20 No Closures

19 5-10 miles 28.74726 -82.74166 No Closures October 5 – May 20

20 5-10 miles 28.75178 -82.73330 No Closures October 5 – May 20

July 2022 Cardno, now Stantec Citrus Co Inshore Reef Existing Conditions Report_FINAL

4 Regulatory Considerations

4.1 State and Federal Permitting

An Environmental Resource Permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) in addition to Sovereign Submerged Lands authorization, will be required. In addition, a Section 404 permit will be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The permitting process will require coordination with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). Additionally, coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) is expected.

July 2022 Cardno, now Stantec Citrus Co Inshore Reef Existing Conditions Report_FINAL

5 References

FWC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2016. Florida’s Imperiled Species Management Plan. Available at: https://myfwc.com/media/2030/imperiled-species-management-plan.pdf.

Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI). 2022. Tracking List. Citrus County, Florida. FNAI Tallahassee, Florida.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2006. Sea Turtle and Small-tooth Sawfish Construction Conditions. NMFS Southeast Regional Office, St. Petersburg, Florida.

United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2017. Jacksonville District’s Programmatic Biological Opinion (JAXBO): Authorization of Minor In-Water Activities throughout the Geographic Area of Jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-Jacksonville District, including Florida and the U.S. Caribbean. USACE Jacksonville, Florida.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021a. Information for Planning and Consultation:

Species List. USFWS North Florida Ecological Services Field Office. Jacksonville, Florida.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. Standard Manatee Conditions for In-Water Work.

USFWS North Florida Field Office, Jacksonville, Florid

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2022. “Essential Fish Habitat.” Available at:

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/habitat-conservation/essential-fish-habitat

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).

2012. “Essential Fish Habitat.” Available at:

https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/va/EssentialFishHabitat.pdf.

https://myfwc.com/media/2030/imperiled-species-management-plan.pdf https://myfwc.com/media/2030/imperiled-species-management-plan.pdf http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/habitat-conservation/essential-fish-habitat https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/va/EssentialFishHabitat.pdf

Existing Conditions Desktop Analysis

APPENDIX

A

FIGURES

121 Continental Dr., New ark, DE 19713 U SA Phone (+1) 302-395-1919 Fax (+1) 302-395-1920 w w w .stantec.com

Inshore Reef Feasability Study Citrus County, Florida

Project OverviewThis m ap and all data contained w ithin are sup p lied as is w ith no w arranty. Cardno, Inc.

ex pressly disclaim s responsibility for dam ag es or liability from any claim s that m ay arise out of the use or m isuse of this m ap. It is the so le responsibility of the user to determ ine if the data on this m ap m eets the user’s needs. This m ap w as not created as survey data, nor should it be used as such. It is the user’s responsibility to obtain proper survey data, prepared by a licensed surveyor, w here req uired by law .

² Project No. 237800254

0 1 2 3 4 5 Miles

Legend Project Scope 0-5 Miles from Shore 5-10 Miles from Shore 10-15 Miles from Shore

File Path: S:\GIS\Misc\Citrus\MXD\Report Fig ures\Project Overview .m x dDate Revised: 7/13/2022 Data Sources:

Date Created: 7/13/2022 GIS Analyst: Peter.Marsey w w w .stantec.com

Inshore Reef Feasability Study Citrus County, Florida

USGS QuadrangleThis m ap and all data contained w ithin are sup p lied as is w ith no w arranty. Cardno, Inc.

ex pressly disclaim s responsibility for dam ag es or liability from any claim s that m ay arise out of the use or m isuse of this m ap.