by Laura Tiu | Aug 3, 2018
Written By: Laura Tiu, Holden Harris, and Alexander Fogg
Non-containment lionfish traps being tested by the University of Florida offshore Destin, FL. Invasive lionfish are attracted to the lattice structure, then captured by netting when the trap is pulled from the sea floor. The trap may have the potential to control lionfish densities at depths not accessible by SCUBA divers. [ALEX FOGG/CONTRIBUTED PHOTO]
Red lionfish (Pterois volitas / P. miles) are a popular aquarium fish with striking red and white strips and graceful, butterfly-like fins. Native to the Indo-Pacific region, lionfish were introduced into the wild in the mid-1980s, likely from the release of pet lionfish into the coastal waters of SE Florida. In the early 2000s lionfish spread throughout the US eastern seaboard and into the Caribbean, before reaching the northern Gulf of Mexico in 2010. Today, lionfish densities in the northern Gulf are higher than anywhere else in their invaded range.
Invasive lionfish negatively affect native reef communities. They consume and compete with native reef fish, including economically important snappers and groupers. Their presence has shown to drive declines in native species and diversity. Lionfish possess 18 venomous spines that appear to deter native predators. The interaction of invasive lionfish with other reef stressors – including ocean acidification, overfishing, and pollution – is of concern to scientists.
Lionfish harvest by recreational and commercial divers is currently the best means of controlling their densities and minimizing their ecological impacts. Lionfish specific spearfishing tournaments have proven successful in removing large amounts in a relatively short amount of time. This year’s Lionfish Removal and Awareness Day removed almost 15,000 lionfish from the Northwest Florida waters in just two days. Lionfish is considered to be an excellent quality seafood, and they are now being targeted by a handful of commercial divers. Several Florida restaurants, seafood markets, and grocery stores chains are now regularly serving lionfish.
While diver removals can control localized lionfish densities, the problem is that lionfish also inhabit reefs much deeper than those that can be accessed by SCUBA divers. Surveys of deepwater reefs show lionfish have higher densities and larger body sizes than lionfish on shallower reefs. In the Gulf of Mexico, the highest densities of lionfish surveyed were between 150 – 300 feet. While SCUBA diving is typically limited to less than 130 feet, lionfish have been observed deeper than 1000 feet.
For the past several years, researchers have been working to develop a trap that may be able to harvest lionfish from deep water. Dr. Steve Gittings, Chief Scientist for the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has spearheaded the design for a “non-containment” lionfish trap. The design works to “bait” lionfish by offering a structure that attracts them. The trap remains open while deployed on the sea floor, allowing fish to move in and out of the trap footprint. When the trap is retrieved, a netting is pulled up around
Deep water lionfish traps being tested by the University of Florida offshore Destin, FL. [ALEX FOGG/CONTRIBUTED PHOTO]
The researchers are headed offshore to retrieve, redeploy, and collect data on the lionfish traps. Twelve non-containment traps are currently being tested offshore NW Florida. The research is supported by a grant from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. The study will try to answer important questions for a new method of catching lionfish: where and how can the traps be most effective? How long should they be deployed? And, is there any bycatch (accidental catch of other species)?
Recent trials have proved successful in attracting lionfish to the trap with minimal bycatch. Continued research will hone the trap design and assess how deployment and retrieval methods may increase their effectiveness. If successful in testing, lionfish traps may become permitted for use by commercial and recreational fisherman. The traps could become a key tool in our quest to control this invasive species and may even generate income while protecting the deepwater environment.
Outreach and extension support for the UF’s lionfish trap research is provided by Florida Sea Grant. For more information contact Dr. Laura Tiu, Okaloosa and Walton Counties Sea Grant Extension Agent, at lgtiu@ufl.edu / 850-689-5850 (Okaloosa) / 850-892-8172 (Walton).
by Erik Lovestrand | Aug 3, 2018
If you have not seen the news yet, the US Supreme Court provided a ruling on June 27, 2018 regarding the decades-long conflict between Florida and Georgia over water use in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint tri-state river basin. Guess what; the battle continues. Following the previous findings of the court-appointed Special Master and his recommendation to deny Florida relief in the dispute, there were many disappointed people south of the border between the two states. The recent decision to remand the case back to the Special Master for further consideration has taken many by surprise; happy surprise south of the border and not so happy as you look northward (unless you talk to the attorneys litigating the case, maybe).
The resulting decision kept Florida’s hopes alive for an equitable allocation of water resources in the basin that spans nearly 20,000 square miles of the Southeastern US. At stake, from Florida’s perspective, is the productivity and ecosystem integrity of the Apalachicola River and Bay ecosystem. For Georgia, enough water to supply its growing population and thirsty agricultural interests in the Flint River Basin south of Atlanta.
The Court’s 5–4 decision, found that the Special Master had applied too high a standard regarding “harm and redressability” for Florida’s claims. They ordered the case to be reheard so that appropriate considerations could be given to Florida’s arguments. “The amount of extra water that reaches the Apalachicola may significantly redress the economic and ecological harm that Florida has suffered,” said Justice Breyer, who was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonya Sotomayor. “Further findings, however, are needed.”
The Court’s opinion does not actually outline any specific solutions for the water battle, and it in no way guarantees a win for Florida, but it does keep the legal challenge alive – along with the hope of better days for Florida’s oyster industry, which has suffered a major fisheries collapse that began around 2012. Visit this link if you would like to read the syllabus, as well as the full opinion of the High Court.
We should all consider the magnitude of the importance of the Apalachicola River and Bay for our region, due to its connection to the larger Gulf of Mexico. Estuaries like this are crucial links in the life-stages of countless marine organisms, including many we depend on for food and recreation. Blue crabs migrate tremendous distances to spawn in our near shore estuaries. Their young then disperse to populate large areas of coastline. Post-larval shrimp move into our estuaries to grow up after being spawned offshore. Later they swim out as adults to begin the cycle again. It is no wonder the shorelines of our Florida estuaries are dotted with prehistoric shell middens from peoples who thrived near these resource-rich ecosystems. Who knows if the Apalachicola Bay will ever recover to the productivity of its glory days, when a hard-working person could harvest 20 bags of oysters in a day? Regardless, we should all be thankful for what Apalachicola Bay has meant to so many generations of people over such a wide expanse of our Northern Gulf of Mexico coastline. Take just a moment to think about it, please.
by Rick O'Connor | Jul 6, 2018
The manatee may be one of the more iconic animals in the state of Florida. In Wyoming, we think of bison and bears. In Florida, we think of alligators and manatees. However, encountering this marine mammal in the Florida panhandle is a relatively rare occurrence… until recently.
Manatee swimming in Big Lagoon near Pensacola.
Photo: Marsha Stanton
For several years now, visitors to Wakulla Springs – in the eastern panhandle – have had the pleasure of viewing manatees on a regular basis. It is believed about 40 individuals frequent the river. Last year there were eight individuals that frequent the Perdido Key area, and a couple more were seen more than once near Gulf Breeze. This is not normal for us, but already this year one manatee has been spotted in the Big Lagoon area – so we may be seeing more as the summer goes on.
So what exactly is a manatee?
It is listed as a marine mammal, but frequents both fresh and saltwater habitats. Being mammals, they are warm blooded (endothermic). Maintaining your body temperature internally allows you to live in a variety of cold temperature habitats but water can really draw the heat quickly from anyone’s body. Marine mammals counter this problem by having a thick layer of fat within the skin – insulation called blubber. However, the manatees blubber layer is not very thick. So they are restricted to the tropical parts of the world and, in Florida, spend the winter near warm water springs. Many have learned the trick of hanging out near warm water discharges near power plants. In the warmer months, they venture out to find lush seagrass meadows in which to graze.
They are herbivores. Possessing flat-ridged molars for grinding plant material, they are more closely related to deer and cattle than the seal and walrus they look like. They lack canines and incisors, which deer and cattle use to cut the grass blades, but have large extending lips that grab and tear grasses with – very similar to the trunk of an elephant, which is their closest relative. Like many mammalian herbivores, they grow to a large size. Manatees can reach 15 feet in length and over 1000 pounds. They have two forearms that are paddle shaped and used for steering. The tail is a large circular disk called a fluke, which propels them through the water and is often seen breaking the surface. They are generally slow moving animals but can startle you when they decide to kick into “fourth gear” and burst across the river.
They are generally solitary animals, gathering in the wintertime around the warm springs. Males usually leave the females after breeding and do not form family units, or herds. Females are pregnant for 13 months and typically give birth to one calf, which stays with mom for two years. Like all mammals, the young feed on milk from mammary glands, but these glands are close to the armpits on the manatee. This makes it much easier for the calf to feed while both are swimming. This is not the case with dolphins and whales, where the mother must roll sideways to feed her young.
Manatees hanging out in Wakulla Springs.
Photo provided by Scott Jackson
There are three species of manatees in the world today. The Amazonian Manatee (Trichechus inunguis), the West African Manatee (Trichechus senegalensis) and the West Indie Manatee (Trichechus manatus). The Florida Manatee is a subspecies of the West Indian (Trichechus manatus latirostris). In the 1970’s it was estimated there were about 1000 West Indian manatees left in the word. Today, with the help of numerous nonprofits and state agencies, there is an estimated 6600 in Florida. Due to this increase, the manatee has moved from the federal endangered species list to threatened species. That said, human caused mortality still occurs and boaters should be aware of their presence. Since 2012, an average of 500 manatees die in Florida waters. Most of these are prenatal or undetermined, but about 20% are from boat strikes. Manatees tend stay out of the deeper channels, so boats leaving the ICW for a favorite beach or their dock should keep an eye out. Most of the time they are just below the surface and only their nostrils break for a breath of air. They usually breathe every 3-5 minutes when swimming but can remain below for up to 20 minutes when they are resting. Approaching a manatee is still illegal. Though their status has changed from endangered to threatened, they are still protected by state and federal law.
FWC suggest the following practices for boaters, and PWC, near manatees
- Abide by any speed limit signs – no wake zones
- Wear polarized sunglasses to aid in seeing through the water
- Stay in deeper water and channels as much as possible
- Stay out of seagrass beds – there is are numerous reasons why this is important, not just manatees
- If a manatee is seen, keep your boat/PWC at least 50 feet from the animal.
- Please do not discard your hooks and monofilament into the water – again, numerous reasons why this is a bad practice.
So Why are There More Encounters in the Florida Panhandle?
Good question…
Their original range included the entire northern Gulf coast. When their numbers declined in the 1960’s and 70’s there were fewer animals to venture this far north. Manatee sightings at that time did occur, but were very rare. Today, with increasing numbers, encounters are becoming more common. There is actually a Manatee Watch Program for the Mobile Bay area (https://manatee.disl.org/) and they have been seen as far west as Louisiana.
They are truly neat animals and to see one in our area is a real treat. Remember to view and photo, but do not approach. I hope that many of you will get to meet what maybe new summer neighbors.
Manatee swimming by a pier near Pensacola.
Photo: Marsha Stanton
References
2017 Manatee Mortality Data. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. http://myfwc.com/media/4132460/preliminary.pdf.
Florida Manatee Facts and Information. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. http://myfwc.com/education/wildlife/manatee/facts-and-information/.
Manatee Information for Boaters and PWC. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. http://myfwc.com/education/wildlife/manatee/for-boaters/.
Manatee Sighting Network. https://manatee.disl.org/.
West Indian Manatee. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Indian_manatee.
by Rick O'Connor | Jul 6, 2018
This week’s article is a bit different… it is about nature we hope you DO NOT see – but hope you let us know if you do. Most of you know that Florida, along with many other states, continually battle invasive species. From Burmese pythons, to lionfish, to monitor lizards, we have problems with them all. Many of our invasive species are plants, which grow aggressively and take over habitats. They have few, if any, predators to control their populations and can cause environmental or economic problems for us.
The pretty, but invasive, beach vitex. Photo: Rick O’Connor
The best way to tackle an invasive species is to detect it when it first arrives and remove it as quickly as possible – this provides you the best chance of actually eradicating it from an area at the lowest cost. One such invasive plant that has recently invaded Escambia and Santa Rosa county beaches is Beach Vitex (Vitex rotundifolia).
Beach vitex is a vine that grows along the surface of sandy areas, like dunes. It has a main taproot from which the runners (stolons) extend in a radiating pattern, like a skinny-legged starfish. The stolons will develop secondary roots, which can form smaller deep root systems, and the entire maze of vines grows very quickly in the summer. The leaves are ovate, more round than elongated, and have a grayish-blue-green color to them – they tend to stand out from other plants. The plant can grow vertically to about three feet, giving it a bush appearance.
Another key characteristic for identification are the lavender flowers it produces, few other plants in our dunes do – so this is a good thing to look for. The flowers appear in late spring and summer. They are actually quite pretty. In the fall, the flowers are replaced by numerous large seeds, which form in clusters where the flowers were. These seeds are problematic in that they can remain viable for up to six months if they fall into the water – increasing their chance for dispersal.
So what is the problem?
In the Carolina’s this species was planted intentionally. They quickly learned of its aggressive nature and have had a state task force to battle it. The plant is allopathic – it can release toxins that kill neighboring plants allowing them to move into that space – this includes sea oats. Beach vitex has a taproot system, unlike the fibrous one of the sea oat, and cannot stabilize a dune as well – which is a problem during storms. In the Carolina’s there are numerous beach fronts where this is the only plant growing, a problem waiting to happen. Though there are no reports of it happening, it also has the potential to affect sea turtle nesting.
Beach Vitex Blossom. Photo credit: Rick O’Connor
So what do I do if I see it?
Contact us… You can contact me at roc1@ufl.edu, or call (850) 475-5230. Try to give us the best description of where the location is as you can. Many phones now come with an app that has a compass. This app also gives you your latitude and longitude. If your phone does not have this, again, give us the best description of the location you can. If you can include a photograph, that would be great. There are numerous other invasive species roaming our area, and you are welcome to report any you find to us. We hope to stay on top of these early arrivals and keep them under control.
by Rick O'Connor | Jul 6, 2018
Shrimp, oysters, blue crab and fish have been harvested from the Pensacola Bay System (PBS) for decades, although there has been a decline in all in recent years. Annual landings (in pounds) have ranged from
- Fish 66,000 – 4,600,000 (most are scaienids)
- Brown shrimp 43,000 – 906,000
- Oysters 0 – 492,000
- Blue crab 400 – 137,000
There is a concern about the safety of seafood harvested from our estuary… sort of. Many local residents and visitors ask frequently about the safety of these products. However, when programs are held to provide this information they are not well attended, and when articles are posted – few view them. I think there is a concern for the safety of seafood products, particularly those from our estuaries – so I cannot explain the lack of interest in the presentations and articles.
Commercial seafood in Pensacola has a long history.
Photo: Rick O’Connor
One contaminant that gets a lot of press is mercury. The toxic form of mercury is methylmercury. This form of mercury impairs brain development of fetuses – hearing, vision, and muscle function in adults. Studies suggests that the primary source of mercury in the waters of the PBS is the atmosphere. Advisories have been issued for Escambia, Blackwater, and Yellow Rivers. There have also been advisories for local largemouth and king mackerel. This is one of the metals whose concentrations within the PBS is higher than neighboring estuaries – especially in our bayous (see https://blogs.ifas.ufl.edu/escambiaco/2018/06/13/restoring-the-health-of-pensacola-bay-what-can-you-do-to-help-bioaccumulation-of-toxins/.) Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) has issued Total Maximum Daily Loads (TDMLs) for mercury in the PBS.
So How Much is Too Much?
For monitoring purposes, total mercury (THg) is easier and less expensive to than the toxic form methylmercury (MHg). Many believe the amount of THg is equivalent to the concentration of MHg, and so it is used as a proxy for MHg.
Both the U.S. EPA and the FDEP recommend concentrations of THg not be higher than 0.3 ppm, and 0.1 ppm for pregnant women (or women planning a pregnancy).
Fish
Since 2000, four studies have been conducted on six species of fish in the PBS. Concentrations of THg ranged from 0.02 – 0.88 ppm and averaged between 0.2 – 0.4 ppm.
Blue Crab
Two studies have been conducted since 2007 found mercury concentrations ranged from 0.07 – 1.1 ppm.
Oysters
30 years ago, studies were finding concentrations of THg in oysters around 0.02 ppm. Repeated studies between 1986 and 1996 found an increase to 0.3 ppm.
Overall
Studies suggest that shrimp and oysters have lower concentrations of THg than blue crab and fish.
Seafood has a long history along Florida’s panhandle.
Photo: Betsy Walker
How often have samples exceeded the safe levels suggested by EPA, FDEP, and FDA?
| Group |
Recommended highest level |
% of times samples from PBS exceeded this limit |
| Subsistence Fishermen |
0.049 ppm |
50-90%
(89% for blue crab and oysters) |
| Pregnant females |
0.1 ppm |
50-90%
(88% for blue crab) |
| General public |
0.3 ppm |
5-20%
(12% for blue crabs)
(27% for fish) |
| Food and Drug Administration recommendation |
1.0 ppm |
0% |
The concern for mercury in local seafood has led to a reduction of consuming all seafood by pregnant women – period. Recent studies have shown this can have negative effects on the developing baby as well. The recommendation is to avoid fish that have been tested high in THg. Most of these are high on the food chain – such as king mackerel, shark, and swordfish. You can find the latest on seafood safety and advisories at https://myescambia.com/our-services/natural-resources-management/marine-resources/seafood-safety. Another piece of this story is the belief, by many, that selenium can lower the toxicity of MHg. Many believe that molar ratios of selenium and mercury greater than 1.0 can reduce the toxicity. However, there have been no studies on molar ratios of these elements in the PBS.
The bottom line on this issue is to be selective on the seafood products you consume.
The most popular seafood species – shrimp.
Reference
Lewis, M.J., J.T. Kirschenfeld, T. Goodhart. 2016. Environmental Quality of the Pensacola Bay System: Retrospective Review for Future Resource Management and Rehabilitation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Gulf Breeze FL. EPA/600/R-16/169.
by Rick O'Connor | Jun 22, 2018
What is bioaccumulation of toxins?
Our bodies come in contact, and produce, toxins every day. The production of toxins can result during simple metabolism of food. However, our bodies are designed with a system to rid us of these toxins. Toxins are processed by our immune system and removed via our kidneys. Some chemical compounds are structured in a way that they are not as easily removed, thus they accumulate in our bodies over time, often in fatty tissues, and sometimes they are toxic – this is bioaccumulation.
A view of Pensacola Bay from Santa Rosa Island.
Photo: Rick O’Connor
Biomagnification takes it a step further. In many cases, the concentrations of bioaccumulating toxic substances in the water may be in low enough concentrations to have little effect on human health. They are ingested by small organisms in the environment, such as plankton or juvenile marine fish, and – again are at low concentrations. However, they are accumulated in their tissues and as the next level of the food chain begin to consume them – they too accumulate the toxic compounds in their tissues. Small fish consume large amounts of plankton and thus, large amounts of the toxins they have accumulated – increasing the concentration within their own tissues. This continues up the food chain to a point where, in the larger predators, the concentrations of these toxins have increased enough that they now pose a threat to human health – this is biomagnification.
The presence, and amount, of any one bioaccumulating compound varies with species, their size, their age, their gender, their life stage, whether they are mobile or not, their diet, and whether the sample included the skin (which is lipid heavy and a common location for accumulated toxins). In the Pensacola Bay System, about 30 species of marine plants and animals have been analyzed for the presence of these accumulating compounds.
Species collected from Pensacola Bay that were analyzed for contaminants
| Plants |
3 species of seagrass
1 species of seaweed
Colonized algal periphyton |
| Invertebrates |
4 species of freshwater mussels
Eastern oyster
1 species of brackish water clams
1 species of barnacle
Several species of shrimp
Blue crab
Oyster drill (snail) |
| Vertebrates |
2 species of catfish
5 species of scaienids (drums, croakers, trout)
Bluegill
Bluefish
Several species of flounder
2 species of jacks
Largemouth bass
Sheepshead
Striped mullet |
Trace Metal Accumulation
Much of what has been studied in terms of metal accumulation has come from shellfish – particularly eastern oysters. Ten different metals have been found in oysters with zinc being in the highest concentration and lead the lowest. A 2005 study found that levels of arsenic, lead, and nickel collected from mussels collected at selected locations in the PBS were regionally high (meaning higher than other estuaries in the region). Another study (2003) found that levels of 16 different metals in shellfish were three times higher in Bayou Chico than samples from East Bay. A 1993 study found that organisms attached to pieces of treated wood in Santa Rosa Sound had elevated levels of metals. However, another study (2008) found low concentrations of metals in five species of fish collected in Escambia Bay near the I-10 Bridge.
The bioaccumulation potential within plants is less understood than animals. That said – concentrations within seagrass were relatively low when compared to the sediments they were growing in and periphytic algae attached to them.
Total Mercury Concentrations (ng/g – dry weight) for Local Marine Organisms
Lewis and Chaney (2008)
| Range (ng/g) |
Species |
| 0-200 |
Sediments, seagrass, oysters |
| 200 – 400 |
Periphytic algae |
| 400 – 600 |
Mussels |
| 600 – 800 |
Brackish clams, blue crabs |
| 800 and higher |
Fish |
The above table shows biomagnification.
Comparing trace metal concentrations between Pensacola Bay and other Regional Estuaries
(USEPA unpublished data)
| Pensacola Bay, Escambia Bay, Escambia River, Bayou Texar, Bayou Chico, Bayou Grande, Santa Rosa Sound |
Grand Lagoon (Bay Co.), Mississippi Sound, Old River, Suwannee River, Withlacoochee River, Bay La Launch |
| Cadmium |
Higher in PBS; highest in Bayou’s Grande and Texar |
| Chromium |
Similar to other estuaries |
| Copper |
Slightly elevated in Bayou Chico and Escambia River; highest in Withlacoochee |
| Total Mercury |
Much higher in PBS; particularly in the bayous |
| Nickel |
Lower in PBS |
| Lead |
Higher in PBS; particularly in the bayous |
| Zinc |
Higher in PBS; particularly in the bayous |
There are higher concentrations of trace metals in PBS and particularly in the bayous.
One of 39 stormwater drains into Bayou Texar.
Photo: Rick O’Connor
Non-Nutrient Organic Chemicals
These are compounds such as PCBs, DDT, and PAHs; many are actually families of multiple forms of compounds. Information on the bioaccumulation of these compounds in PBS is less common than those of trace metals. However, this information is important since they have long half-lives and magnify within the food web.
That said – there are studies on these compounds that go back to the 1970’s. They looked at DDT, pesticides, and PAHs in oysters and croakers. One study (1986-96) found DDT concentrations in oysters at 60 ppb or less. A follow up study (2004-05) at those same locations found concentrations between 8-20 ppb. One study (2008) found the order of accumulating non-nutrient organic compounds with PAHs as the highest and dieldrin at the lowest. Downward trends were reported (2004-05) for many of these compounds including PAHs and PCBs.
Some of these compounds have entered the PBS via unlined ponds associated with on-land Superfund sites. Creosote and pentachlorophenol were stored for years in such ponds and have leached into area waters such as Bayou Chico and portions of upper Pensacola Bay. A study (1987-88) found oyster drills sampled in these areas had concentrations 10x higher than reference sites in other parts of the PBS.
So what can we do about this?
The compounds that are there – are there. Many of these trace metals are heavy and sink into the sediments. There occurrence within the food web has decreased over time and some have suggested the safest thing to do is to leave them where they are. No doubt, any project requiring sediment movement requires much review and permitting.
To try to remove these compounds would be extremely expensive – hence the Superfund Program. So if we cannot clean the sediments without a lot of labor and money, can we reduce the amount that enters the bay today?
Many of these compounds come from industrial processing of products we really want or need. Reduction of the production of some will be difficult, but there is much industry can do to reduce the chance of those compounds reaching our estuaries – and they are doing this. Point source pollution (direct discharge from an industry) has reduced significantly since the 1970’s. Non-point sources (indirect discharge from you and I) is still a problem. We can choose products that contain less (or none) of the compounds we discussed. Following an IPM program for dealing with household and lawn pests (see article on Florida Friendly Yards – https://blogs.ifas.ufl.edu/escambiaco/2018/06/08/restoring-the-health-of-pensacola-bay-what-can-you-do-to-help-a-florida-friendly-yard/) can help a lot. As can practices that reduce the amount of run-off reaching our bays. Reducing your use of lawn watering, using rain barrels, or rain gardens, and planting living shorelines (all mentioned in the FFY article) can certainly help.
Reference
Lewis, M.J., J.T. Kirschenfeld, T. Goodhart. 2016. Environmental Quality of the Pensacola Bay System: Retrospective Review for Future Resource Management and Rehabilitation. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Gulf Breeze FL. EPA/600/R-16/169.
