CHAPTER 26 Tampa Bay Estuary Case Study Identifying Blue Carbon Incentives to Further Bolster Future Critical Coastal Habitat Restoration and Management Efforts Edward T. Sherwood, Holly S, Greening, and Gary E, Raulerson “Tampa Bay Estuary Program Lindsey Sheehan, Dave Tomasko, and Doug Robison Environmental Science Associetes Stephen Crooks SivestrumClimate Associates, LLC Ryan P. Moyer and Kara R. Radabaugh Fish& Wildlife Research Insitute Stefanie Simpson and Steve Emmett-Mattox Restore America’s Estuaries Kimberly Yates S.Gooiogical Survey CONTENTS: 3 latoduction: Tampa Bay, an Urban Estuary in Recovery. 2 Tampa Bay's Blue Carbon Ecosystems... 26.2.1 Subtidal Blue Carbon Beosystems 262.1.1 Seagrass Meadows. . 2622 Emergent Tidal Wetland Blue Carbon Ecosystems 26.2.2.1 Mangrove Forests. 26.2.2.2 Salt Marshes, 26.2.2.3 Salt Barrens,368 ABLUE CARBON Prien 26.3 Current Blue Carbon Ecosystem Status and Trends, a 263.1 Areal Extent, 3 26.3.2 Current Blue Carbon Ecosystem Benefits... 33 Projected Changes to Blue Carbon Ecosystems 395 264.1 Areal Extont, a : 35 26.4.2 Sequestration Value and Benefits a 35 5 Incorporating Blue Carbon Benefits into Tampa Bay's Coastal Habitat Restoration and Protection Strategy 3 HIGHLIGHTS. Tampa Bay bive carbon ecosysems are curently being restored despite continuing urbanization within the watershed ‘Tampa Bay blue carbon ecosystems have been providing significant earbon sequestration benefits o the estuary over contemporary periods (carbon burial rates range from 0.71 Mg C ha ear for cay marsh to 1.78 Mg C ha! year* for mature mangroves) 5. Continued urbanization and etimate change stressors were simulated to potentilly change the distribution and extent of blue carbon ecosystems in the future Maintenance and potential future expansion of bue carbon ecosystem in the Tampa Bay estary Will require continuing improvements in bay water quality and allowance/planning for habitc ‘migrations upslope from the developed coast 26.1 INTRODUCTION: TAMPA BAY, AN URBAN ESTUARY IN RECOVERY Tampa Bay has supported @ thriving coastal community since atleast the mid-1800s, Since that time, coastal development patterns to expand industrial, commercial, and residential land uses within the watershed have impacted critical coastal habitats to varying degrees (Simon i974) Beginning in the 1950s, the mos significant impacts to emergent tidal and subtidal habitats stared ‘o occur. Large-scale dredge and fil activites to create shoreline residential and commercial devel ‘opment opportunites resulted in the burial or removal of many ofthe Bay's critical coastal habitats LES and CE 1996). It was not until the late 1970s and early 1980s that more stringent development regulations and environmental standards were implemented to prevent further loss of Tampa Bay's coastal habitats and helped foster the recovery of bay water quality Greening etal 2014, Since that time, bay resource managers have had varying success in restoring Tampa Bay's coastal blue carbon ecosystems, which include seagrass meadows, mangrove forests, salt marshes, and salt barrens, As depicted in Figure 26.1, in 2011 urban and suburban land uses dominated (260% of the land area or ~180,614ha) the upland and coastal land cover within 15km of Tampa Bay's shoreline (SWEWMD 2011). An additional 13.8% (41,572) has been developed for agricultural purposes Within a 15-km shoreline buffer area. The coastal habitats contained within this area have been recognized for their importance to the life history of specific estuarine species guilds, as well as for the varied ecosystem services to which they contribute (LES and CE: 1996; TAS 1999, Cicchetti and Greening 2011; Russell and Greening 2015). Consequently, Figure 26.1 also shows that the remain ing natural uplands, freshwater and estuarine wetlands, and restored natural lands now only encom- pass about 25.6% (76,957ha) of the 15km buffer area along Tampa Bay's shoreline (as of 2011), Despite these significant, historic conversions of coastal habitats to developed land uses, Tampa Bay continues to support a thriving estuarine ecosystem. In tura, the ecosystem services provided by the Bay’scoastal habitats support and directly contribute toward a substantial regional economy (TBRPC 2015). About half ofthe regional employment is dependent upon the Bay itself, and inCARBON PRI a3 33 73 375, 315 318 vration and 379 ally change the pe Bay estuary sing For habitat :COVERY nid-1800s. Since residential land s (Simon 1974), habitats started ommercial devel coastal habitats gent development s of Tampa Bay's 2014). Since that astal blue carbon {salt barrens. ed (560% of the a Bay's shoreline sultural purposes ‘area have been lds, as well as for 99; Cicchetti and that the remain= now only encom: » (as of 2011), and uses, Tampa ervices provided -gional economy tay itself, and in 300 “TAMPA BAY ESTUARY CASE STUDY c Figure 26.1. (See color insert following page 256.) Curent (as of 2011 for emergent areas and 2016 for (ftidal seagrass moadows), generalized land use, and land cover along coastal Tampa Say. (Gourcas: SWFWMD 2011, 2016) total, 1 in 5 jobs in the region depends on a “healthy” Tampa Bay. In total, a healthy Tampa Bay ‘contributes about $22 billion to the local regional economy in the form of jobs and commerce (TBRPC 2015). In addition, Russell and Greening (2015) estimated specific ecosystem service val- tues for seagrass and estuarine wetland restoration efforts in Tampa Bay over the 1990-2008 period Russell and Greening (2015) conservatively estimated thatthe habitats generate $24 million year"! in denitrification and carbon sequestration ecosystem services that are not necessarily reflected in the regional economic estimates for “healthy” Tampa Bay. ‘A growing regional economy and a recovering, healthy estuary and waterfront may create new pressures for the future management of the Bay's limited coastal habitats. Future development patterns and an anticipated doubling of the current population by 2050 could diminish both the economic and environmental integrity of Tampa Bay’s coastal habitat resources. Not only does the expanding human populace pose a threat through both direct and indirect land development.Figure 26-1 Current (as of 2011 for emergent areas and 2016 for subtidal seagrass meadows), goneraized [and uve. and land cover along coastal Tampa Gay. (Sources: SWFWMD 2011, 2016)370 [ABLUE CARBON Pate, stressors, but new, emerging climate change stressors may also work synergistically to alter the extent, distribution, quality, and ecosystem services provided by the remaining critical coastal habj. tats in Tampa Bay, As such, bay managers have been looking to develop new incentives and policies to promote the protection and expansion of these important estuarine habitats Because Tampa Bay hosts three primary blue carbon ecosystems (Seagrass, mangrove, and sal. marsh), opportunities to encourage continued public and private investment in new restoration and conservation measures is being investigated. Recent research has focused on the blue carbon ben, efits of Tampa Bay habitats and has aimed to: 1. determine the greenhouse gas (GHG) sequestration benefits of existing coastal habitats and the climate change mitigation benefits derived from coastal habitat restoration efforts to date; 2, determine the aticipted changes in GHG emission and removal from coastal habitats in response to anticipated future land development, sea level rise (SLR), and climate change impacts; and, 3, identity future land management options that sustain and expand upon current coastal habitat extent and earbon sequestation potential ‘Outcomes from this research are helping to guide future coastal restoration and habitat manage- ment objectives in Tampa Bay and will contribute to both local and global efforts to restore coastal ‘ecosystems for the added incentive of mitigating future GHG impact. 26.2 TAMPA BAY'S BLUE CARBON ECOSYSTEMS, ‘Tampa Bay is located on Florida's west-central, Gulf of Mexico coast between 27.5° and 28.0° latitude, as depicted in Figure 26.1, The northern extent of the watershed borders between subtropical and temperate climates (Yates et al. 2011), though recent temperatures are trending toward a more subtropical climate (Martinez et al, 2012). As a result, a mosaic of subtidal and emergent estuarine. wetlands tolerant to mild subtropical climates is present, These habitats eagrass meadows, mangrove forests, salt marshes, and salt barrens) are colloctively referred to as blue carbon ecosystems through- ‘out this chapter, Recently, Raabe et al. 2012 demonstrated that Tampa Bay emergent blue carbon eco systems are now trending toward subtropical-dominant mangrove forest habitats. Raabe et al. (2012) hypothesized that salt marsh to mangrove forest conversion over the 19th to 20th centuries was due to three primary drivers: global climate change, hydrologic alterations to emergent tidal wetlands, and the changes to freshwater inflows from continued landscape development and urbanization. A descrip tion of the subtidal and emergent estuarine habitats now present in coastal Tampa Bay follows. 26.2.1 Subtidal Blue Carbon Ecosystems 26.2.1.1 Seagrass Meadows Five seagrass species occur in Tampa Bay; however, three species are the most predominant. Stable seagrass beds in the higher salinity regions of Tampa Bay—typically toward the mouth of the Bay and adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico—are primarily composed of Thalassia testudinum ((urtle grass). Turtle grass is the largest seagrass species, with long strap-shaped leaves and robust rhizomes, which can provide significant carbon storage and GHG sequestration potential (McLeod et al. 2011; Fourqurean et al. 2012; Greiner et al. 2013). In the more dynamic salinity regions of the Bay—typically adjacent othe headwaters and ranging down to Middle Tampa Bay—Halodule wright (hoal grass) is the dominant species. It has flat, narrow leaves and a shallow root systett Shoal grass can tolerate more frequent exposure from low tides than other Tampa Bay seagrass species, and thus usually occupies shallow, fringing areas adjacent to mote dense turtle grass beds. Shoal grass may also dominate the deep-water edge of Tampa Bay seagrass meadows, dependingi UE CARBON PRIMER, TAMPA BAY ESTUARY CASE STUDY ant istically to alter the upon the region, The third dominant species, Syringodium filiforme (manatee grass), is usually critical coastal habi- found in the higher salinity regions of Tampa Bay, in association with turtle grass, but typically entives and policies, toward the deeper extent of these meadows. Manatee grass can be distinguished by its long, cylin- drical leaves. Two other minor species occur in patchy, ephemeral distributions primarily in the | mangrove, and salt upper, lower salinity portions of Tampa Bay primarily adjacent to shoal grass-dominated meadows: new restoration and Ruppia maritima (widgeon grass) and Halophila engelmannit (star gas). he blue carbon ben. Globally, subtidal seagrass beds are highly valued coastal habitats that are experiencing rapid decline (Waycott etal. 2009; Unsworth etal. 2015). In'Tampa Bay, historic declines in seagrass have Iso been documented (Greening et al. 2014), though recent efforts to restore Bay water quality have 1 habitats and the resulted in a significant recovery of these habitats (Greening etal. 2014; Sherwood etal. 2015; 201; sto dat Contemporary restoration efforts continue to focus on maintaining of improving water quality con abtats in response ditions in Tampa Bay so that adequate ight reaches shallow (<2m), subtidal flats located throughout eae the Bay (Yates et al, 2011; Greening et al. 2014). Of the seagrass species present, turtle and shoal it eneay grass probably form the greatest complex of seagrass meadows that possess inherent blue carbon benefits in Tampa Bay. Both species can form dense, stable, climax se quality and available light are conducive to a particular species’ growth, reproduction, and rhizome expansion, Additionally, carbonate-rich sediments in Tampa Bay may also provide a mechanism for enhanced blue carbon benefits from seagrass meadows. Chemically driven carbon sequestration through the “bicarbonate pathway” (Smith 1981; Burdidge and Zimmerman 2002; Tomasko et al 2016) may account for the disparity between high production rates and low soil-carbon content for seagrass meadows in carbonate-rich, subtropical environments. meadows if water and habitat manage 15 to restore coastal een 275° and 280° 26.2.2 Emergent Tidal Wetland Blue Carbon Ecosystems between subtropical ding toward a more ‘emergent estuarine neadows, mangrove As is the case for seagrass meadows, a mosaic of emergent tidal wetland habitats consisting of mangrove, salt matsh, and salt barren species occur in specific salinity gradients and intertidal clevations throughout Tampa Bay proper and the tidal tributaries flowing into the Bay (LES & osystems through CE 1996; PBS&I 2010; Cicchetti and Greening 2011; Yates ct al. 2011), These emergent habitats ent blue carbon eco- ypically occur along the Bay’s low-energy, natural, shallow-sloping, intertidal shelves that have Raabe et al, (2012) not been converted to alternative land uses as a result of ‘Tampa Bay’s historic suburban and urban velopment patterns, They can also fringe the more developed areas throughout the bay, includ ing bulkhead and seawalled shorelines—though the ecosystem function and service value of thes altered shoreline habitats are presumed to be reduced. centuries was due to tidal wetlands, and nization. A descrip- Bay follows. 26.2.2.1 Mangrove Forests | Mangrove forests are the dominant emergent tidal wetland in Tampa Bay, consisting of | four primary species. At the lowest elevation usually along the fringing intertdalishoreline zone, red mangroves (Rhizophora mangle) are typical. Black mangroves (Avicennia germ most predominant hans), white mangroves (Laguncularia racemosa), and buttonwood (Conocarpus erectus) typi- ward the mouth of cally follow, in that order, upslope along the intertidal zone (PBS&J 2010; Yates ct al. 2011) sia testudinum | Mangrove forests produce, sequester, and export large pools of organic carbon (Odum and d Teaves and robust Melvor 1990), and as such are an important global blue carbon ecosystem (Donato et al. 2011 potential (McLeod Murdiyarso et al. 2015), salinity regions of ‘Some of the more successful emergent tidal wetland restoration projects in Tampa Bay have ipa Bay—Halodule involved the creation of mangrove forests, though the planting of salt marsh was generally a precur. rallow root system. sor to mangrove succession, The functional equivalence of restored mangrove habitats in terms of ampa Bay seagrass soil-carbon storage and accumulation, however, has not yet approached natural systems (Osland turtle grass beds. et al 2012; Gonneea 2016), Nonetheless, mangrove forests and soils collectively represent a signifi eadows, depending ccant carbon stock within the Tampa Bay estuary,‘ABLUE CARBON PRIMER, 26.2.2.2 Salt Marshes 26,2,2.2.1 Polyhaline Salt Marshes Polyhlne salt marshes may oceur seaward of te fringing mangrove coast in Tampa Bay proper wiete salinities generally remain above 20 psu throughout the rainy season (nominally Jane. September), Smooth cordgrass (Spartina alteriflora isthe common species in these cit umotanees; however at higher shoreline elevations around seasonal hgh tide levels other species tiay occur parculry around beach and dune formations inthe lower part of Tampa Ba. In thege regions saltmeadow cordgrass Spartina paens), saligrass (Distichlis spicata), satwort Bats martina) and sat jointgass Paspalum vaginatum) may also be present. For Tampa Bay habitat Thanagement porposes, polyline salt marshes are typically included as a component of mangrove forests duet the difficulty in partitioning these habitats from mapping and land use cover analyses Further tidal wedand restoration practices in Tampa Bay have evolved to include careful grading dnd planting of pionecring salt marsh species (eg, Spartina spp) to encourage reeuitment and teretion of mangrove seedings in order to revegetate and restore intertidal sites toa climax man- trove forest condition (Henningsen etal. 2008; Ries 2009; Osland et al. 2012), 26.2.2.2.2 Meso-Oligohaline Salt Marshes Distinct meso-oligohaline salt marsh plant communities are found predominantly in Tampa Bay tidal rivers and creeks where freshwater inflow reduces salinities year-round to between 0.5 and 20 psu (PBS&J 2010). In the upper tidal reaches, oligohaline marshes persist where salinities typi cally range between 0.5 and 5 psu, Within the upper tidal reaches, the plant community exhibits a mixture of true marine plants and typical freshwater taxa such as cattails (Typha domingensis) and sawagrass (Cladium jamaicense) that tolerate low-salt concentrations. The predominant plant species of oligohaline marshes include black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus), leather fern (Acrostichum danaeifolium), cattails, sawgrass, bulrush (Scirpus robustus), and spider lily (Hymenocallis palm- tr’), A transition to mesohaline salt marshes typically occurs in the lower tidal reaches where black. needlerush and leather fern tend to dominate and mangrove species start to invade the mesohatine salt marsh habitats. Ecologically, these low salinity tidal reach marshes have been identified as critical nursery habitats to commercially and recreationally important fisheries (Wessel and Dixon 2016), In addition, the organic-rich sediments have been recognized as important carbon sinks that provide substantial blue carbon benefits (McLeod et al. 2011). 26.2.2.3 Salt Barrens Tampa Bay salt barrens are typically located slightly upslope of mangrove forest or salt marsh habitats at somewhat higher elevations where tidal inundation periodically occurs due to spring tides. {As result, soils are typically hypersaline and seasonal expansion of low-growing, succulent, salt- tion occurs during the rainy season June-September). Annual glasswort (Salicornia Digelovi), perennial glasswort (Salicornia virginica), key grass (Monoanthochloe litoralis), sea lv- ender (Limonium carolinianun, samphire (Blutaparon vermiculare), and sea purslane (Sesuvium portulacastrum) are comton plant species that occupy Tampa Bay salt barren habitats. Due to their Tow structural complexity and apparent lack of numerous fauna, salt barrens are often assumed 10 have low ecological value; however, these tidally inundated habitats can be important wading bird forage areas and are occupied by fiddler crab species (Uca spp) that actively process sediment depos its. As such, the inherent blue carbon benefits elicited by this habitat type are not well known, though recent research by Moyer etal. 2016) and Gonneea (2016) suggest that salt barrens provide some above- and below-ground carbon sequestration benefits in the Tampa Bay estuary. ‘TAMPA BAY es 26.3 26.3.1 Areal As shown the 1900s ane in the expans land consery, primarily by est gains in g cant and cont to document seagrass hal Tampa Bay | the commun Managemen Hagy 2017). emergent bi 9.6 x 10°L of consumed gasoline every year between 2007 and 2100 (USEPA 2016). Specifically for Tampa Bay blue carbon ecosystems, Figure 26.4b shows that, on average, addi- tional net positive GHG sequestration was estimated for all blue carbon ecosystems under the Six scenarios except for salt marsh—a result of direct loss in salt marsh extent and conversions to brack ish marsh habitats that emit higher methane levels in the future. Figure 26.4a shows that although ‘on average the total mangrove extent was estimated to be reduced by 2100, mangrove habitats were still expected to provide net positive GHG sequestration potential in the future due to continued soil C accumulation, as depicted in Figure 264b, Collectively, seagrass and mangrove habitats are TAMPA BAY Es projected to pn nificant loss ar total, blue cart of 3521.8 mil emissions frog 2016). 26.5 | coy Over reve cessful in inc ved coastal d Greening 201 iment efforts i ment and fat from contemp and also prov 2015; TBRPC the potential the Future. a significant 2016) would However, ray not be ¢ blue carbon sequestration types with provide impo fishery produ of greater Cl exotic plant invasives] thd porartyiner C pools (see weigh and dg agement and Regard ‘Tampa Bay ¢ and incentive as depicted | provi, in fisheries and} ment into 25 Leveraging 4 apitalizing | scope o ft ment, So, thé entrance intLUE CARBON PRIMER ‘and Uses Simulatod gh Regional Estima }-and Management ilo Undeveloped ang multe _Net cia CHE” seqesttg guotred 8) 210 Sy2G0" live nen 60,2087 (ones sau) CO, eauh) 7,156 507 2.218 5DS 74,107899 270.611 1,478,189 316.851 2,079,964 9,559,201 1,622,374 4,649,798 ons from >9.6 x 10°L lat, on average, add: jr the six conversions to brack- shows that although nigrove habitats were ure due t0 continued wangrove habitats are ystems unk ‘TAMPA BAY ESTUARY CASE STUDY 379 projected to provide the greatest GHG sequestration potential forthe future, and compensate for si nificant loss and emissions projected by salt marsh habitats by 2100, as depicted in Figure 26.46. In ‘otal, blue carbon ecosystems were estimated to provide a net positive GHG sequestration potential of 3.51.8 million tonnes CO; eq. ( 2100. Th e is equivalent to eliminating CO, emissions ftom ~16.1 x 10° L of consumed gasoline every year between 2007 and 2100 (USEPA 2016) 26.5 INCORPORATING BLUE CARBON BENEFITS INTO TAMPA BAY'S ‘COASTAL HABITAT RESTORATION AND PROTECTION STRATEGY ‘Over recent decades, the Tampa Bay environmental resource community has been largely suc cessfll in increasing the extent of important coastal habitats within the estuary, despite contin. ‘ved coastal development and an expanding human populace within the watershed (Cicchetti and reening 2011; Greening et al, 2014; Sherwood et al. 2017). The challenge for future bay mana ment efforts isto sustain this momentum with the looming pressures of additional coastal develop. ment and future climate change impacts. The existing ecosystem benefits and services garnered from contemporary management efforts have been well documented for Tampa Bay coastal at and also provide significant regional economic benefits (Greening et al. 2014; Russell and Greening 2015; TBRPC 2015), Further, the current 72 million tonnes CO; ¢q, carbon stock of all land uses has the potential to provide additional GHG sequestration ecosystem benefits, if properly managed into the future. If improperly managed and important blue carbon ecosystems are completely Tost, then ‘ significant C pool equal to the one-year emissions of about 21 coal-fired power plants (USEPA 2016) would be expected to further exacerbate the USA’s contributions to global climate change. However, managing Tampa Bay coastal habitats for their inherent blue carbon benefits alone may not be entirely compatible with existing management objectives. For example, maximizing blue carbon benefits by focusing restoration efforts only toward those habitat ypes with high GHG sequestration rates (ie, mangroves and/or seagrasses) could preclude inclusion of other habitat types with lower sequestration rates (salt barrens, oligohaline habitat) into restoration plans that may provide important ecosystem function of other ecosystem benefits in the future (€.g., neglecting the fishery production benefits of restoring meso- and cligobaline nursery salt marsh habitats because of greater CH, emissions when compared to mangrove or polyhaline salt marsh habitats). Also, sxotic plant species removals [e.g., Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) and other woody invasives) that support restoration and recovery activities of native coastal habitat species can tem. porarily increase CO, emissions by removing mature vegetation and temporarily exposing sediment C pools (Gee 26.3.2). Thus, future Tampa Bay coastal habitat restoration initiatives must carefully ‘weigh and determine any added blue carbon benefits that may be provided through different man- ‘agement and restoration practices. Regardless, knowledge of the blue carbon benefits resulting from impl Tampa Bay coastal habitat restoration and protection strategy could provide additional rationale ‘and incentive to invest in future restoration efforts in a watershed limited by undeveloped lands, as depicted in Figure 26.1. Determining the added GHG sequestration benefits that these habitats provide, in addition to the mote traditionally understood ecosystem service values and benefits for isheries and wildlife, nutrient reduction and coastal protection values, could further drive invest ment into restoration activities on managed public lands as well as privately held undeveloped lands. Leveraging additional investment capital within the region for new restoration projects focused on capitalizing on the blue carbon benefits of these habitats may be a challenge, though. The size and scope of future restoration activiti mpa Bay watershed is limited due to existing develop ment, So, the costs associated with intially scoping a blue carbon ecosystem restoration project for ‘entrance into a voluntary C market cun be prohibitive. The voluntary C markets are currently the nentation of a refined in the380 Au "ARBON PRIMER, only mechanism available in the USA to potentially help finance restoration activities through GHG, accounting. As such, the TBEP has begun to investigate the potential for a “grouped” watershed restoration activity whereby GHG accounting could be collectively implemented across both publig and private land management interests and the resulting voluntary C market incentives invested and shared among partnering entities (Simpson 2016). In this approach, restoration and GHG sequestra. ‘ion accounting would be pooled across multiple restoration projects that may be too small a scale (0 initiate a C financing program on their own, The potential for voluntary C market financing of blue carbon ecosystem restoration in Tampa Bay would be an additional resource management tool that would help sustain momentum for the Bay's continued ecosystem recovery. The added monetary incentives could influence alternative t practices within the watershed, especially for areas that could become highly idal inundation in the future. The projected changes in ted R, as referenced in earlier sections, highlighis the potential and need for blue carbon ‘ecosystem restoration opportunities along vulnerable coastal areas inthe Bay. If higher SLR projec tions are realized, creating more space for landward habitat migration will be necessary along the undeveloped and “softly” developed coust to maintain the current balance of ecosystem types. AS depicted in Figure 26.3, public and private land owners in vulnerable areas could also c fon the added incentives of increasing net GHG sequestration through the voluntary C market by accounting for and allowing blue carbon ecosystem migration and establishment to occur along the periphery of the Bay. The same could be true for newly inundated subtidal areas that will eventually become held in the public interest. Public entities who become owners of newly inundated subtidal areas that establish new seagrass meadows could capitalize on the GHG sequestration potential of these habitats. This scenario would be highly dependent on maintaining adequate water quality and. ensuring that seagrass expand into these newly inundated areas in the future. This, in turn, could provide additional incentive to invest in watershed restoration activites that continue to improve water quality throughout the Bay—the overarching management paradigm of the TBEP and its partners since the 1990s that has led to positive seagrass recovery in Tampa Bay Greening etal 2014), These examples highlight that establishing future subtidal and upland refugia is a viable bon ecosystem restoration and protection and that public and fugia areas could capitalize on the GHG sequestration abitats in these vulnerable areas through a collaborative, “grouped” from future management mechanism for blue private land owners in these potential r potential of sustaining these approach (Simpson 2016). Other ecosystem benefits may also arise from continued blue carbon ecosystem protection and restoration in Tampa Bay. For example, water column pHi throughout Tampa Bay has been increasing since the mid-1980s, coincident with the expansion of seagrass meadows observed over, ihe 190-2016 period and contrar jon (OA) trends (Sherwood et a 2015; 2017). The role that seagrass may play in buffering coastal OA processes within the Tampa Bay estuary is currently being investigated. Yates et al. (2016) has initially found that seagrass meadows in parts of Tampa Bay are capable of increasing daytime pH values by 0.5 units, consis tent with the expectation that inorganic carbon is assimilated through photosynthesis. In addition, Yates et al. (2016) found that seagrass meadows increased, at least locally, carbonate saturation ‘ates in the water column, consistent with the findings of Manzello etal. (2012) and suj the mechanisms involved in the bicarbonate pathway outlined by Burdige and Zim could be occurring in Tampa Ba blue carbon ecosystem in Tampa Bi to global ocean aciditic seagrass meadows. Thus, continued expansion of an important ould mitigate global and coastal OA processes that are & direct result of increasing, global atmospheric CO, concentrations, and allow the Bay to become & regionally significant OA refugia along the Gulf of Mexico coast for estuarine species, including ‘commercially and recreationally important fisheries susceptible to OA impacts, This further adds support for the economic and ecologic benefit of continued blue carbon ecosystem restoration in ‘Tampa Bay, TAMPA BAY In sum sider the imp long-term ha tool 10 engag provide the the barriers ing, restorab verily the in project appr already work management {oensure tha salt marshes» 4 SLUE CARBON PRIMER ctivites through GHG “grouped” watershed ed across both public ncentives invested ang n and GHG sequestra, y be too small a scale influence alternative cou hesomne highly a habits anticipated need for be carbon higher SLR pre Je necessary along the f ecosystem types. As could also capitalize olny C market by nt 0 occur along the as thal evenually ly inundated suid vestaton potential of | vate water quality and This in tur, could mini to ipprove of the TBEP and Bay (Greening ea mand that public © GHG sequestration borate, "grouped cosystom protection Tampa Bay has been -adows observed over nds (Sherwood et al ses within the Tampa y found that seagrass s by 0.5 units, consis- yathesis. In addition, carbonate 2) and suggesting that 4 Zimmerman (2002) ision of an important processes that are & to becon no species, including sts. This further adds system restoration in aturation TAMPA BAY ESTUARY CASE STUDY 381 In summary, future Tampa Bay coastal habitat protection and restoration initiatives must con sider the impending pressures of ongoing: in activities that promote term habitat persistence, succession, and migration. Resource managers now have an added opment and climat 1. market financing incentives that would tool to engage public and private landowners in pote! provide the needed space for Tampa Bay blue carbon e the barriers to attempt this management approach are cc ing, restorable lands within the watershed and the prohibitively high costs to register, monitor, and verify the individual, small-seale projects. A solution to this could be a collaborative, “groupe; project approach throughout the Tampa Bay watershed, A collaborative restoration approach has already worked for the recovery of seagrass in Tampa Bay (Greening et al. 2014), now the management community will need to implement additional strategies, such as C market financing to ensure that all of Tampa Bay's blue carbon ecosystems, including seagrass meadows, mangroves, salt marshes and salt barrens, are maintained and allowed to expand in the future. systems to thrive in the future. Currently, ered on the limited-scale of the remain-