Project Summary

1. Project Identification

Name	Apalachicola River Slough Restoration
Region	Gulf of Mexico
State	FL
Location	Apalachicola River, Navigation Mile 98.0, at the mouth of blue spring run, Jackson county, Florida
Date of this update

2. Problem(s) addressed (check one or more)

Restoration of fishery habitat (thermal refuge) for striped bass and gulf sturgeon.

3. Project Description (100 words or less. Please include qualitative information, e.g. acres of habitat restored, miles of steam reopened to migration, and legislative authorization, e.g. WRDA, ISTEA, CWA/NEP, CZMA, etc.)

The mouth of this spring had become silted in over time and access into the spring was occluded during lower flow conditions. Deepening of the mouth of the spring was proposed in order to provide access to a cool water refuge by Gulf striped bass and other fish during the warm weather months. An approximately 55-foot wide by 200-foot long channel was excavated by barge-mounted dragline at the mouth of the spring, extending from the natural river channel to the mouth and into the mouth of the creek as far as the crane could reach without destroying adjacent trees (approximately 50 feet). The channel was excavated to a depth of 5 feet below the existing bottom, which would provide a depth of approximately 7 feet during low flow conditions. Approximately 1400 cubic yards of excavated material was deposited in the river on the downstream side of the proposed channel., so the material would not wash back into the excavated hole, and with the intent that subsequent flood flows would recapture the material into the river bed load. Follow-on hydrograph surveys were to be completed to assure that the deposited material was adequately recaptured by the high water flows.

4. Goals/Benefits (quantify where possible using measures of success list) Was a cost-benefit study conducted for this project? yes/no If yes, provide a summary of findings.

1. Environmental Benefits: (e.g. acres restored, miles of stream opened to fish migration, etc.)

   Approximately 0.25 acres of thermal refuge fishery habitat was restored by the proposed action. Cool spring water from Blue Spring Run was able to collect in the excavated depression at the mouth of the spring-fed stream, thereby providing for thermal refuge for fish

2. Was a cost-benefit study conducted for the project? (yes or no)

   NO. This action was conducted under the auspices of the ongoing Operations and Maintenance program.

5. Partners (include each participant's responsibilities - funding, permitting, etc.)

• Federal

  Lead:

  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – funding and implementation

  Others:

  National Marine Fisheries Services – Selection of site for Demonstration Project; Agency support under Department of the Army/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Cooperative Agreement to Restore and Create Fish Habitat U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Section 7 Consultation under Endangered Species Act for potential impact to threatened Gulf sturgeon and proposed threatened or endangered mussel species

• Non-Federal

  Florida Department of Environmental Protection – Permitting (Issuance of Section 401 Water Quality Certification)

  Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission – Selection of site for Demonstration Project; Facilitation of permitting process within State of Florida; Monitoring of restoration project before, during and after construction to document fishery use and success of project

  Northwest Florida Water Management District – Agency support for Demonstration Project; Participated in agency review during permit process

6. Funding/Contributions (organization and amount)

• Cash

  Federal: This project was conducted at minimal or no additional cost to the Federal Project, under the DOA/NOAA Cooperative Agreement and under the current Operations and Maintenance Program. Federal Acosts@ limited to approximately 1/2 day for excavation, and before and after survey of the excavation site. Other Federal costs included those associated with interagency coordination and NEPA documentation prior to initiation of the proposed action. These costs have not been documented, but were absorbed into costs for the O&M program, and likely were less than $15,000.

  Non Federal: None

  Total: Less than $15,000

• In-Kind Services (hours, equipment, or other forms of assistance and estimated dollar value)

  Federal:

  Non Federal: FGFC contributed in-kind services by monitoring the restoration following construction to document success of the restoration action (i.e., use of excavated site by fish as thermal refuge)

  Total:

• Volunteers (number of people and hours, and estimated dollar value)

  ---

7. Legislative authorities used by each participant

---

8. Value added by Coastal America Partnership including Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) goals achieved through this collaboration (500 words or less)

1. Would the project have been undertaken by a single agency? (yes or no)

   Yes

2. IF YES: How was the project different as a Coastal America Partnership Project than it would have been as a single agency project? (e.g. size and scope, funding, time frame, etc.)

   Restoration of the mouths of streams and sloughs along the Apalachicola River, on a case-by-case basis, in coordination with the Florida agencies, is currently a condition of water quality certification from FDEP. However, under the DOA/NOAA Cooperative Agreement, efforts were taken by an Interagency Team to prioritize sites appropriate for fishery habitat restoration, and to select a site to serve as a Demonstration Project. The Blue Spring Run site was selected as the Demonstration Project site.

9. Project Status

	scheduled	actual
Initiation date	FALL '93 - SPR '94	MAY '94 (Delayed due to permitting coordination requirements and sustained high flows. FDEP Certification was issued in Mar '94. Project was then scheduled to be conducted in May during controlled lower flows.)
Completion date	SPR '94	MAY '94
Current stage	Project has been completed, and FGFC indicates restored mouth area is successfully being used by Gulf striped bass for thermal refuge and as possible spawning habitat.

10. Contacts

• Project Manager

  Joanne Brandt
  Compliance Manager
  U. S. Army Engineer District, Mobile
  CESAM-PD-EI
  P.O. Box 2288
  Mobile, Alabama 36628-0001
  (334) 690-3260
  (334) 694-3815 (fax)
  Joanne.U.Brandt@sam.usace.army.mil

• Participating Agency/Organization Contacts: (e.g. volunteer groups, conservation groups, state agencies, and other federal agency contacts)

  Charlie Mesing
  Florida Game and Fresh
  Water Fish Commission
  Post Office Box 59
  Midway, Florida 32343
  (904) 487-1645
  (904) 488-6127 (fax)

  Lloyd Stith
  U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
  1612 June Avenue
  Panama City, Florida 33405-3721
  (904) 769-0552
  (904) 763-2177 (fax)

11. Any additional information/comments

---

This page was last updated on Saturday, 24-Jun-2000 11:48:47 EDT
Coastal America * Coastal America Regions
Coastal America Reporters Building 300 7th Street, SW Suite 680 Washington, DC 20250
(202) 401-9928 * (202) 401-9821 (FAX)
comments to lawrencea@fas.usda.gov