CHARTING THE COURSE FOR TAMPA BAY/DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION & MANAGEMENT PLAN
.....
.....
.<
ii'
."',.,.,.\-:;),..,.,'-',',
~,~~;/~~~~~%,~!;c~" "
;;:~;)!~~~i~": );~:,!.~~,~~L'-,;;T',:;
...... .
".'-,\,
"'.i
',"
y ..
::
>:
'.'
". ,
.'
:f
~\:
i.s, --
,.'
,-
x
;
i
.;,-}{<t "
\,
,
.'
........
> ......' .....
;~i~
< ..
"
,:
.i',i'
'",,'....
"<.'
.,:'
.:/
.'/
,.'.....
,.,... ';
>,
'.'......
.... ..> ".X.;.i..";.;~(
".','.. ..' ......,.,..:."'?']'.'.}:.;'
;
"
,'.
(.;..,:-};."'....'.~;
"}',:S';:i"S,., '" 'j
S"" '-;'S'.<c ",','[!,\J.;;,.;
',:'''' ..'..'.." i" ,'..: ":li;';,:",;".'
'i,'.', ,<,'.;.' '.
<.. . '/0 ,
"""""'.." (;~
,Si...';,>,;':';. ",
.w
,
,:.'
: ::. :.;.-:f;~.tt:'~'/)::'2""~:-:' ~
"'"''''''''
"
.- "".".' ..,
),..:'",',,-,::'
. .
i':1
' ,<I
.~ +
"'---,..-:."
,... .,;.:
. .',:1
,g~i~~1
'i"
.
.,." "I,";'.:::,
.::'.,i.
'.....,...;'::
...,..... .,
",,""."
....'.. .'.'"..',.",.'11
,'c....,/...........,,>.,'.'
:,.""......\
'. - '.,.' '.'...., '..... ,....... .................'..'...: .....'..,. .. . .. , ..i ,", ,'; .',.' .. :'. .i',' " .', .\ '" : . .""',"'i'" ... ..i.....11
<;.";("';";;/'."," . .' ", ""'. " ',." ',....;.'.. '. ,...... ....... .... ">' " ':.:. ,. :' " .i'i;....),','..., ":,. ;i:.i'. . ',;' '," ',,' ',' . ........,
C;..);. .....,..;> . ," .'..>:" .i;.,.... . ".,...,'............'......., ",.,,: .i..'(.....; <'r. "i"::';"", ....... '..,:;": ""';',7..,\'.'
':'., · - .:. . ,0 ..i,'; , ,.... <.'i.'./);. .i:; ...,..'..,.'..,....... >"..' ..,' . ,".' "'{","-';,".' ',"i'" .) ;',"". .,..... ".........".,.....,., ,..' "'-:,..; '..'c"/';' ", :.;,' ,.'> '.' '.'..", "".', ',,;1
' " . .." 'i., '.... .';.;,.....,:.!.:'; i',. .......... '- ./" ..... , .,..,.....0'.::,.. .......';.'.:._,.;. CO'. .
>.X'..., , ',.;. .,;i..' .:i.' " '. . ,: '.,...'.: .'i,.p"......i ,i'"".':,;;.......;.'.,'.,.,..... i.'", ','.'."':,,.. ..,.......,'; '..' ',.'.". '''<'' .....;..;," -.,'" :~',! '"t,.:.';,'.'" "r,< ,', :,;' :,:11
/').:,;.F..!'" .' .<(0;;,. :}:;;c: ,;,,'.; ." .\, ""':.U ";'H
'>;',':/':. . ....., . ' , .,,:,.:;T',< ,::( :." ....., '>-"':;"h' ,.t'..,!:, ,..',; "," ;:,;::, :'i.,'.:..",::,'., '" ,::".. :'::":'.'f.::.,:.",.t,~.1
;t;/~::' ~. ':' :' ",' " "".".t.';" if;;'';.:,;':' .. ii"
~:;e:;:;,., ,.:rc! ..' H},:>. .",S/'::.,?:t>';;(';( ,..." ,'. ":<:':;,0/
J','; ...':,'>',' ':".': ,',;:"), :.i., '. '. . .... ',' ,," ,'. ", ,':.",\ ",'. /'(" :<'j:' ..>. ,,;., " ':('r:,,/ .
i?", . . .', , . .,.,' ';{/,.:
;,' ,. ",',),'.,':,::';.. , i,' .' ';,:.~U.itg:
'<! , 'i~i'~:c\\\::1
':, ': , )1:'\';'J.;:.:1
:e,!.. " ", " ,.", ''[IT'''',,,,, """,;ytf' 'e" " ':";:~:t'j
" ..'_:.i"';'
';"--'
, ]?,ROQ
..:'-, '.'.',. .. }: .(:'
.L.....'....", ,"
:'; ":i,..::"":':""',:,,'; ,-, "yO .;R~~~:,C::~;lt",:':':' /::,' ''':,:
'}, . .. , ',' .. 't\\'bEiWi\:r()R,;,.
i': ~'(:Y':;,,:,ii7;'" . ". ',.""
; ':i?~'" T' :'>Q~i8:;." {'Hi!.,?';
'.'''' "iii, . "'..", :,,' '~N~R,,' ":: " ,
';,., "i:,:','~,~ "~'~(~~/~,~i,:,:;:A' ~~ ',>fiT \';;za~t;"i ,,' ,
"i ' ' . 'iii"kii;.o".i~R' ":f;'(':"fl~ .,~~ '~~~~!i::
. ,', .";,,,---" :> ....,re"~. 'C,:~~~, ~". . ......
........ [.. . "
", .i"':,i,:< )"'\r{'ii<. .:~:if:l" ,'" ~;l>;'~'~j>';g:;.....>/,;," ", "";
:. .. '" ql!!'I':YjJ!A:,HE~' "" ;'ZfilJ
\U ". ..... ..... ., ;*i,.. ..:<,' ':'\~~~';~C(t:l; t~II~;~ 'tNt'\I;;' .. ':~;' ...... '. .... ,.
!;r,i\:~, ,. ,.:;r;\'/i!:,:J~:f1~~~~~{!~lt'~!p)) , ..., .~"F.t .....\i,'.,
.\ ) ,",'i ;<",i:.-~P~~8ffES1',QfF1q.EJ(;'." f .. ....i......." ;;:<. ,
Ii', ,..i; 'f ". ',' '>. ". ,:iFE'LlcI'X'R'013INSON.. ,'), '. , ..' "",.\.,..." ';,
.. ..:,..." I. "", ...,; cc; ".) . ..' . ',' .,'. . "''i,,'''.: . .. .,
'..:;.,.",',..:.' : '-':. .' '. ,'. ::.. '.'., ',. '."', t.e ':'. .i,' , ','.;.:."'-,........,.. ..'i'i '.. ..,
.T ,..\,. .' "'<"':}'i<.'i,," '.",),i' ',; i)' "','>'
,';:, "', , ", ,,' "Z:. ,.'.:ew' ,,', .... ";:ii,'i): ", h , "Fi' '. ,',
Y';,': ' ;::':<," c '/')." . , ". :,;,;.,:.., ,'/,...... '......, ' ,.: ..,....'.,' "/i'\': if:
)':', .. ......i\...'.-,c: ,;- .. " ..........,,',.,; ...::('...., '. ."i. ,"',:.:.<.:,."./.r
..............' ';' '., ,......... ,/i';'::/;.',.'.'..cf".... ....... ............ .........';,..): '::> .: .......' "i..", ',' "..>:..\. ..
..':\ct. ,".;','i:.i;"y X' · ic' ':1 :c;," " ,,,: ,'Xc' .,. '.' ." .,i ,. ",'i,
......,,:, <',: .': ,:.;c".. ' . ,><::.,,',' ';";'., .":' "<.:: ;""':':;:":''''<\, " "
";'.',':"".::' ".".' . J', ,,"",",,, '.. ,.;, .:.....;... ........... .'. i i i ,,/,"./' ,r'., .<'" .' '. i': "<':"':":" .!/,
..,............ .......,......., .,.,.......:.........:.. ",'e}..,.TI-IE.PROGRAM 9f.J2iI,CE IS LOQATEe AT: ", '.> ..................., ...\<i.'., '. \,\,>' "<,, "'. "'>_ .
. :, ':,'<:'."""; '.... """'.-.- ",;:",.:,,':'..,;'/." '. ""., :,,:\," .".''-',',',;':'." " "i',,,', ,., ,i'.."',,:.
. . . . .,' ,'.,i..:ii> . ....,. ..........i ..........:.,:,.'.: . .:..' ;.,',.- ..;/X'/: > ;..,.' i... '. 'i, '.. '. ......';..... .' ..' ... >..-:,/;. ......:.-!':
'. .. ....,: .- ............. ....... '.iA 11SJ;lVENTR AYENUE SOP~B:;\'i..-;.i'''..:J', ' :. "'/'::'-'//""'11
"/,,, ""',i>.;'" . i':. ,.............:\6-..' ".i: . ."':.';.,........,.."",',: ,: .' ..- . . .... ',\" ",:' .'. .......- ii'ill
'.. '.....................',...'.:";ie..,i.....-'.. ..StP$TEJ,<SBUR@,FL3:?701:-;.,.>'.'i,..(,.,....'.>de... .". ." .......!.-II
. ..,..........;..........;."......),:.'..:'..,.......; '., . ......;?',!i,;>}.i813-893~2765.'.,.>'."~/ ,....'........:!, ." . ...........,' /1
,....'.:.:>.-::: '>>"', . "'.' , '.; """'>",.'; ".::.' ", ........1
,'.' , ".. . ............. .'.<". "......, ...........:., ". · .- '.c..' . ,:"i;." . . . ';'.-',. ." , I ,', ........... .....1
,.......'........' '.....,:,..,.i., :, ,'. '. ".". . '" ...'............. . " ' .' "..' .'.',' , '.', ',.'.1
.... '.' ",'.... " , .... ".' ," . .".,1
.'.. .- .;i}... ." '. " , .......... . . '. "\i'. .
. ........................ ' ". '.
,'" c
"'.
',. J~J'~,
. ':"i, .
,'I, "_"
"'i
f' jf
!,
'ii'
s':", .:
.. '.- ..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Comments, please!
Thank you for reviewing Charting the Course. The Tampa Bay National Estuary
Program would appreciate your written comments as we continue to evaluate bay
restoration strategies for the Comprehensive Conservation & Management Plan for
Tampa Bay. To reply, simply remove this page and FAX or mail to:
Tampa Bay National Estuary Program
111 Seventh Avenue South
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
FAX: (813) 893-2767
Telephone: (813) 893-2765
Your name:
Address:
(with zip)
Phone:
General Comments
li]lilln1l.,::JlllIF':'lf
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
Illtlllfl'
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
Specific Comments
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Do you concur with the goals for bay restoration presented in the Goals & Priorities
Chapter? What goals would you change or add?
Which specific actions do you consider the highest priority? (Indicate your top five
choices using the assigned codes.)
What specific changes or additions would you recommend to accomplish bay
restoration goals?
How can we improve the plan's format, readability and design?
Thank you!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1[IIIIJ'I:li:lFll'"
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
Charting
the Course
for
Tampa Bay
Draft
January 1996
The Draft Action Plans and text in this document are provided for review
by the Tampa Bay community. Charting the Course was produced by
the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program, and recommendations by
reviewers will be considered for incorporation into the final plan, to be
published and available to citizens in 1996. We welcome your
comments and inquiries and encourage your use of the section entitled
"Comments, Please" that appears at the beginning of the document.
Published by the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program
in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV.
(IRAI:']'"
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
PREFACE
Charting the Course culminates four years of technical investigation and community
outreach by the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program, which was established in 1991
to assist the region in developing a comprehensive plan to restore Tampa Bay. The
Program is a partnership of Hillsborough, Pinellas and Manatee counties; the cities of
Tampa, S1. Petersburg and Clearwater; the Southwest Florida Water Management
District; Florida Department of Environmental Protection; and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Draft Action Plans that have been developed with assistance from bay experts, advo-
cates and citizens are presented for community review. The Program has scheduled a
series of town meetings and community forums to present the plan and solicit addi-
tional public input. Comments and revisions will be incorporated in the final
Comprehensive Conservation & Management Plan published in 1996.
This strategic blueprint reflects broad-based input from individuals, groups and com-
munities that share a common interest in a healthy bay as a cornerstone of a healthy
and prosperous region. Our thanks to these participants for their substantial insights
and contributions.
The Tampa Bay National Estuary Program invites your comments and participation as
we continue to assist the region in charting the course for the future of Tampa Bay.
II
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
How TO USE Charting The Course
Charting the Course has been designed for easy access and review. A detailed table
of contents and index of action plans and associated actions for bay improvement are
located at the beginning of the document on pages V - VIII. Tabs direct you to major
sections. Other important points of information are provided below to further assist
you in your review and understanding of the draft plan for Tampa Bay.
GOALS & PRIORITIES
Goals and priorities for Tampa Bay are summarized in a chapter immediately
preceding bay action plans. These specific and attainable accomplishments,
summarized in text and presented in a table, are the foundation for strategies and
themes advanced in Charting the Course. They relay overall priorities for bay
restoration and protection, so that you can better evaluate the benefits of measures
to protect this vital natural and economic resource.
ACTION PLANS FOR TAMPA BAY
~
Charting the Course contains five action plans for the bay's long-term restoration
and protection, addressing: Water & Sediment Quality, Bay Habitats, Fish &
Wildlife, Dredging & Dredged Material Management, and Spill Prevention &
Response. Tabs provide quick access to these action plans.
Action Plans for Tampa Bay present a range of strategies that allow local commu-
nities to maximize return on their investment in bay recovery and protection.
Many actions also achieve multiple environmental objectives, such as pollution
prevention and water conservation. Each action plan begins with an introduction
that summarizes the topic, presents management objectives, and includes a list of
actions to address those objectives.
As this draft goes to press, some technical investigations and cost-benefit analyses
continue. This work will be completed in 1996 in preparation for the final version
of the Comprehensive Conservation & Management Plan for Tampa Bay.
Ongoing studies are noted in applicable action plans.
References in action plans to local governments under the headline "Responsible
parties" refer to Hillsborough, Pinellas and Manatee counties and the cities of
Tampa, St. Petersburg and Clearwater, unless otherwise noted, although all local
communities in the region are urged to participate.
~
~
~
IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN
~
Actions in Charting the Course represent important measures to aid in the bay's
recovery and long-term protection-to focus resources to accomplish the most
benefit for the bay. However, not all water quality actions may be appropriate for
implementation by all participating communities. For instance, two different
11:J1!ilflli:ll:::'ll:':~"I'"
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
III
ItUlL
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
IV
~
counties may implement different strategies to achieve the same water quality
goal. One county may expand reuse of treated wastewater discharged to the bay
as a means to reduce excess nitrogen loadings that pollute the bay, while another
may implement best management practices to reduce pollution associated with
stormwater runoff to attain the same water quality goal.
As long as water quality goals and a net environmental benefit are achieved, this
flexibility is encouraged. This allows communities that share a common interest
in the bay's health maximum flexibility to tailor a plan that best fits their available
resources. Charting the Course presents a comprehensive slate of actions to assist
community partners in selecting strong and proactive measures to achieve
progress toward goals for the bay's recovery.
While allowing flexibility, all participating communities and agencies are called
upon to adopt the goals for Tampa Bay to assure the bay's long-term health and to
provide the community with meaningful benchmarks in measuring progress in the
bay's recovery. The Tampa Bay National Estuary Program advocates maximizing
the use of existing resources to accomplish goals wherever possible.
The Tampa Bay National Estuary Program is a partnership of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; Florida Department of Environmental
Protection; Southwest Florida Water Management District; The Environmental
Protection Commission of Hillsborough County; Hillsborough, Pinellas and
Manatee counties; and the cities of Tampa, St. Petersburg and Clearwater. These
partners will sign an agreement to implement the final Comprehensive
Conservation & Management Plan for Tampa Bay in late 1996. The Tampa Bay
NEP will oversee implementation of the plan.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
WHAT YOU CAN DO
~
Action Plans conclude with practical tips on What You Can Do at home, at work,
on the water, and in your community, to protect and repair Tampa Bay. We also
encourage you to use the response card located at the front of Charting the
Course to provide the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program with your comments
and questions.
GETTING A HEAD START
~
Since the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program was established in 1991, the pro-
gram has assisted the community in securing more than $1 million in federal and
state grants for restoration of bay habitats and resources. Profiles of these head
start initiatives, which range from wetland restorations to support of bay scallop
recovery, are presented in the chapter on Early Action.
The Tampa Bay NEP also has awarded more than $50,000 in small grants to more
than a dozen communities, schools, and organizations for various bay improve-
ment projects. These community partnerships are profiled in the Public
Involvement chapter.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction..................................................................................................... .1
About the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program......................................................5
Members of the Tampa Bay Management Conference..............................................6
State of the Bay....... ......................... ..... .................................................... ... ..11
State of Bay Management........................................................................................43
Goals and Priorities for Tampa Bay ..............................................................49
Draft Action Plans for Bay Improvement
Introduction.........................................................................................................,....5 7
Water & Sediment Quality Action Plan ..................................................................59
Stormwater Runoff. ........................... .............. ............. .............. ........... ....62
Atmospheric Deposition ................ .......... ...... ................ .... .......... .... ..... .....96
Wastewater........ .......... .............. ......... .............. ..... ...... .............. .... ..........104
Toxic Contamination ..............................................................................119
Public Health ..........................................................................................135
What you can do ......................................................................143
Bay Habitats Action Plan ......................................................................................145
What you can do ......................................................................184
Fish & Wildlife Action Plan ..................................................................................185
What you can do ......................................................................203
Dredging & Dredged Material Management Action Plan ....................................205
What you can do ......................................................................214
Spill Prevention & Response Action Plan ............................................................215
What you can do ......................................................................231
Implementation & Financing ............ .... .... ... ............ .................................. .233
Monitoring Bay Improvement..... ..... ..... .......... ........................ ................... ..241
Public Involvement ... .......... ......... ............................................................. ...247
Early Action for Bay Improvement.... .......... ....... ............. ......... ................. ..255
References, State of the Bay........ ....... ......................... ...................... ....... ...259
Glossary....................................................................................................... .263
List of Acronyms ...................... ................. ..... ........... ......... ........................ ..265
See Index of Action Plans, page VI.
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
v
1[)11:llf:UFlf
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
VI
WATER & SEDIMENT QUALITY
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
INDEX OF ACTION PLANS AND
ACTIONS FOR TAMPA BAY
SW.I
Actions to reduce stormwater runoff and associated pollution:
SW-2
SW-3
SW-4
SW-5
SW-6
SW-7
SW-8
SW-9
SW-IO
SW.ll
Continue implementation of the Florida Yards & Neighborhoods
Program. ................................................................................ ............. .... .64
Assist businesses in implementing best management practices to
reduce stormwater pollution, and develop model landscaping
guidelines for commercial application.....................................................69
Encourage local governments to adopt integrated pest
management policies and implement environmentally
beneficial landscape management practices. ..........................................72
Reduce impervious paved surfaces, focusing on parking space
and design requirements for large commercial developments. ..............75
Require older properties being redeveloped to meet current
stormwater treatment standards for that portion of the site
being redeveloped, or provide equivalent value. ....................................78
Promote compact urban development and redevelopment. ....................81
Improve compliance with and enforcement of stormwater permits. ......84
Enforce and require the timely completion of the consent orders
for the cleanup of fertilizer facilities in the East Bay sector. ..................87
Encourage "fertigation" and low-flow irrigation on farms. ....................89
Improve compliance with agricultural ground and surface
water management plans. ......... ..... ..... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ...92
Determine minimum widths for vegetated buffers along tributaries. ......94
Actions to reduce the effects of air pollution to the bay:
AD-I Identify sources and monitor effects of atmospheric deposition,
and develop an action plan to address this pollution ..............................98
AD-2 Promote public and business energy conservation. ..............................101
Actions to reduce the impact of wastewater discharged to the bay:
WW-I Expand the use of reclaimed water where projects benefit the bay....... 106
WW-2 Establish limits on the amount of nitrogen in industrial wastewater. ....111
WW -3 Extend central sewer service to priority areas around the bay now
served by septic tanks. ..........................................................................113
WW -4 Require standardized monitoring of wastewater discharges from
industrial and municipal facilities. ........................................................115
WW-5 Revise HRS rules to incorporate environmental performance
standards for septic tanks. ........ ............................ .......... ........................117
TX-I
Actions to decrease toxic contamination in the bay:
Direct stormwater improvements and other resources to hot spots
of contamination. ...... ............. .......... ..... ....................... .......... ...............121
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
TX-2
TX-3
TX-4
TX-5
Improve business and homeowner opportunities for hazardous
waste disposal. ............. ............... ... ....... ....... ...... ............. ..... .................124
Reduce toxic contaminants from ports and marinas. ............................127
Promote integrated pest management on farms to reduce
pesticides in runoff. ......... ..... ............. ............... ............. ..... .......... ........ ..130
Establish maximum concentration limits in discharge permits
for toxic contaminants of concern to Tampa Bay. ................................133
Actions to reduce pathogens:
PH-l
PH-2
PH-3
Establish water quality standards for saltwater beaches........................ 137
Assess opportunities to reclassify shellfish beds closed to harvesting. 139
Install additional sewage pump-out facilities for recreational
boaters and live-aboard vessels. ............................................................141
BAY HABITATS
BH-l
Actions to increase and preserve the number and diversity of healthy bay habitats:
BH-2
BH-3
BH-4
BH-5
BH-6
BH-7
BH-8
BH-9
BH-lO
Implement the Tampa Bay master plan for coastal habitat
restoration and protection. ....................................................................147
Establish and implement mitigation criteria for Tampa Bay, and
direct mitigation to high priority restoration projects. ........................151
Reduce propeller scarring of seagrass. ..................................................155
Evaluate whether to establish a special management area for the
protection of coastal habitats. ................................................................158
Restrict impacts to hard bottom communities. ......................................161
Restrict off-road vehicle access along causeways and coastal areas..... 163
Require mandatory education of boaters. ..............................................166
Encourage waterfront homeowners to soften shorelines and limit
runoff from yards. ................ ............ .......... ....... ...... ........ ....... ..... ..... ..... .169
Improve compliance with and enforcement of wetland permits. ........ ..172
Expand habitat mapping programs.........................................................175
Actions to establish and preserve adequate freshwater inflows to Tampa Bay
and its tributaries:
FI-l Establish and maintain minimum freshwater flows downstream
of dams. ................................................................................................. .180
FISH & WILDLIFE
Actions to protect bay fish and wildlife:
FW-l
FW-2
FW-3
FW-4
FW-5
FW-6
Improve on-water enforcement of environmental regulations. ............187
Establish and enforce manatee protection zones. ..................................190
Support restoration of the bay scallop. ..................................................193
Improve public awareness of hazards to bay wildlife. ..........................196
Assess the need to investigate the cumulative effects of power plant
entrainment on fisheries. ................ ............. ...... ................... ....... ...........198
Continue and expand the Critical Fisheries Monitoring Program.........201
11[]111;11::!':I'.II;~~'I"
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
VII
SP-l Establish an integrated ship tracking system for the bay and
permanently fund the PORTS system. ..................................................217
SP-2 Install permanent boom anchors near environmentally
sensitive areas. ..................................................................................... .220
SP-3 Evaluate state piloting requirements and improve state authority
over federal vessels carrying hazardous materials. ..............................222
SP-4 Identify the most appropriate entity to inspect coastal bulk: oil
storage facilities in the Tampa Bay watershed. ....................................225
SP-5 Improve fueling and bilge-pumping practices among pleasure
boaters. ................................................................................................. .228
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11:111; ',"lr
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
DREDGING & DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT
Actions to reduce the impact of dredging and improve material disposal options:
DR-l Develop a long-term, coordinated plan for port dredging and dredged
material disposal. .................. ... .. ............. ..... .................. ....... ..... .......... .207
DR-2 Develop dredge disposal plans for residential canals. ..........................212
SPILL PREVENTION & RESPONSE
Actions to improve spill prevention and response:
VIII
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Dredging and pollution destroyed more than half of the bay's underwater meadows of
seagrass and natural shoreline. Small creeks and streams were straightened to speed
drainage of wetlands and expand access to the bay, altering natural freshwater flows
and allowing fast-growing exotic plants to overtake native wildlife habitats.
Introduction
PORTRAIT
Tampa Bay is the lifeblood of this fast-growing region of more than 1.7 million
people. Reflected in its waters are the images of communities united by a bay
they share and for which they share responsibility.
Local communities depend on the bay for a quality of life that brings both economic
and natural dividends. Tampa Bay contributes more than $5 billion annually from
trade, tourism, development and fishing to the region that bears its name. Its major
seaports and numerous smaller anchorages serve ships from around the world.
Bustling trade through the Port of Tampa, among the busiest in the nation, outpaces
cargo activity at the state's other seaports. Small pleasure craft and commercial ships
the size of modem skyscrapers vie for position on this increasingly popular bay.
Tampa Bay beckons residents and visitors with its magnificent array of waterscapes,
wildlife and recreational opportunities. Nearly 100,000 boats are registered to anglers
and boating enthusiasts within the three counties bordering the bay. Numerous local
and state parks showcase the bay's beauty and bounty. The bay also boasts sizeable
resident populations of bottle-nose dolphins and Florida manatees.
Mangrove islands in Tampa Bay are among the most important bird nesting habitats in
the United States. These vital natural outposts are home to as many as 40,000 breed-
ing pairs of 25 species each year, including pelicans, egrets, herons, cormorants, terns,
ibis and spoonbills. Many other birds such as the American white pelican and several
species of sandpipers spend the winter here, logging thousands of miles on an annual
pilgrimage to Tampa Bay.
TROUBLED WATERS
The bay's natural habitats are the nerve center of this dynamic system, but they have
sustained heavy damage. Most impacts occurred in a span of about three decades
beginning in the 1950s with unchecked development along the bay's shoreline.
Studies by the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program reveal the extent of habitat
declines driven by massive dredge-and-fill projects to develop navigational channels,
waterfront communities and industrial sites.
111]11111)11'.,:lljl~I~2'11""
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
1
1[111R
As the bayscape was redrawn and as water quality deteriorated, fisheries and wildlife
declined. A once-thriving bay scallop fishery was virtually eliminated by the mid-
1960s as partially treated sewage poured into the bay. Harvests of clams and oysters
also plummeted as bacterial contamination forced the closure of productive shellfish-
ing grounds. Seagrass and wetland destruction hastened the decline of many other
popular recreational and commercial species, including seatrout, red drum and snook.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
Likewise, populations of nesting birds in Tampa Bay have declined in the last half-
century. Particularly vulnerable are species such as the white ibis, which nests in
coastal wetlands but requires inland freshwater food sources for survival. White ibis
populations have dropped by as much as 75 percent in Tampa Bay. While scientists
can't point to a specific cause, a similar pattern of decline triggered by destruction of
freshwater wetlands has been documented in the Florida Everglades.
TURNING POINT
Since the 1970s, when the Clean Water Act was established, local communities and
industries have made significant strides in improving water quality to restore the dam-
aged estuary. Nitrogen was the chief target. Excess amounts of this naturally occur-
ring and otherwise beneficial nutrient had fueled algal growth in the bay, clouding the
water and cutting off light to underwater seagrasses.
The year 1979 marked a turning point in the bay's recovery when the City of Tampa
modernized the Howard F. Curren Plant at Hooker's Point, the region's largest waste-
water treatment facility. The $100-million project is credited with sharply reducing
nitrogen from treated wastewater piped into the bay.
Across the bay, the City of St. Petersburg was pioneering new technology to reuse the
nutrient-rich wastewater it pumped to the bay. Started in 1978, this reclaimed water
project was one of the most ambitious in the nation and now provides treated waste-
water for irrigation to more than 7,000 households and dozens of parks, golf courses
and businesses. The City of Clearwater also has contributed to the bay's recovery,
investing more than $50 million in the mid-1980s to upgrade wastewater treatment
plants to advanced treatment standards.
As discharges of pollutants were reduced, nature responded. Monitoring results show
that water quality has improved since 1984. Improved water clarity is believed to
have triggered a return of seagrasses to areas that had been barren for decades.
Between 1982 and 1992, more than 4,000 acres of seagrasses recolonized the bay.
Aggressive fisheries management, coupled with improvements in water quality and
habitats, have helped to reverse the decline of snook and red drum. Monitoring data
now indicates that juvenile stocks of these prized gamefish are on the upswing.
This impressive turnaround owes much to environmental regulation and advances in
sewage treatment that have helped to cleanse the bay of damaging pollutants.
Community support and involvement also have been instrumental in charting the
course for the bay's recovery. Building on St. Petersburg's initiative, many local com-
munities are discovering the dual benefits of reusing treated wastewater to reduce
demand on dwindling water supplies, while helping to rid the bay of excess nutrients.
2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. farmers will be utilizing low-volume irrigation methods that conserve water
and reduce nutrient and pesticide runoff;
Despite this success, other forms of pollution continue to threaten the bay, with poten-
tial impacts far greater than bay managers previously thought. New studies have
identified air pollution as a significant and persistent source of bay pollution. Recent
studies also have revealed the presence of toxic contaminants in bay sediments in
some urban, industrial and agricultural areas that are in the middle ranges of contami-
nation nationwide.
DEFINING THE CHALLENGE
Population in the tri-county region is expected to increase about 20 percent to 2.37
million by the year 2010. The challenge to bay stewards will be to maintain water
quality gains and continue the bay's recovery while accommodating future growth.
The success of local communities over the last 15 years in enhancing water quality
while experiencing rapid growth is a promising indication that this can be achieved.
The signs of environmental distress that prompted the bay cleanup were more visible
20 years ago. Additionally, limited resources and competing social needs now require
that bay restoration be accomplished with a smaller share of funding. Environmental
managers in government and industry will be challenged to define objectives more
clearly and implement the most cost-effective strategies to assist bay recovery.
These efforts should be based upon a clear vision, bolstered by broad community sup-
port, of what Tampa Bay should look like, what uses it should support, and how it
should be managed. This vision is now taking shape and will be refined over the
coming months as Action Plans for bay improvement are presented to the community.
With a well-defined, fiscally sound and united effort, Tampa Bay in the year 2010 can
be a place where:
. surrounding communities will be recycling wastewater, reducing both the
demand on limited drinking water supplies and the amount of excess nitro-
gen and other pollutants discharged to the bay;
. neighborhoods and businesses will have adopted environmentally friendly
landscaping practices, using native and drought-tolerant plants that require
less water, fertilizer and pesticides;
. seagrasses will have responded to increased water clarity and recolonized
thousands of acres of bay bottom, providing vital fish habitat;
. hundreds of additional acres of productive coastal marshes and mangroves
will be in public ownership or otherwise safeguarded, extending permanent
protection to these wetland habitats crucial to wildlife;
. toxic contamination of sediments at "hot spots" around the bay will be
reduced to levels harmless to fish and shellfish through pollution preven-
tion and treatment;
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
3
rOli),AF"lf
Chaning the Course
for Tampa Bay
4
· local governments and the Southwest Florida Water Management District
will have established minimum flows for rivers impounded by dams to
ensure an adequate amount of freshwater to the bay;
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
· water quality and habitat improvements, combined with wise fisheries man-
agement, will have brought about abundant, sustainable catches of trout,
red drum, snook and other popular game fish;
· harbor pilots will guide oil tankers along the bay's shipping channels using
a state-of-the-art vessel tracking system that will greatly reduce the risk of
ship collisions and catastrophic spills;
· bay area port authorities and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will have
expanded beneficial uses of dredged material and developed long-term dis-
posal options through a coordinated management plan;
· goals and actions in Charting the Course will have been incorporated into
permits, providing a clear agenda for bay improvement.
This vision of the bay and its management is attainable. Indeed, some goals have
been nearly met already; others are achievable within the next five years thanks to
measures being taken today by government, citizens and industry. Meeting the
remainder of the challenges defined in this plan, and maintaining the hard-won gains
that already have occurred, will require the community's long-term commitment.
CHARTING THE COURSE
Today's challenges call for a new direction in bay management, one that involves all
stakeholders in developing achievable goals for bay improvement and secures com-
mitments for action. At the heart of this effort is the overall goal of effective and
broad-based watershed management, an evolving process that considers the bay and
its myriad tributaries as one large, inseparable and interdependent ecosystem.
Watershed management respects and takes into account the connections between ani-
mals and their habitats, and between humans and these natural systems. In doing so, it
prescribes a "bottoms-up" regulatory approach that emphasizes flexibility and measur-
able results instead of "top-down" edicts that often fail to take into account the vary-
ing needs and conditions of individual ecosystems within a larger estuary.
Strategies to repair and protect the Tampa Bay ecosystem, in the most cost-effective
manner and adhering to the principles of watershed management, are the foundation
for Charting the Course.
Charting the Course presents preliminary action plans to support and advance bay
recovery. Action Plans for bay improvement identify necessary steps, associated
costs, implementation schedules, and recommendations on ways to use existing
resources most effectively. Action Plans also recognize major initiatives and pro-
grams already underway. Proposed strategies build on these foundations to accomplish
bay recovery.
Charting the Course begins by exploring the state of the bay and the management
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
structure charged with bay protection. Bay restoration has begun, but much work
remains. Recovery will require time, innovative public-private partnerships, and clear
strategies that focus on pollution prevention, conservation of natural resources and
incentive-based alternatives to regulation. Charting the Course presents a vision for
Tampa Bay and a chance for all citizens to participate in its restoration.
Volume II of Charting the Course, which will be published in 1996, will explore the
technical investigations and modeling tools used by the Tampa Bay National Estuary
Program to characterize bay conditions and support bay improvement strategies.
About the Tampa Bay
National Estuary Program
The Tampa Bay National Estuary Program was established in 1991 to assist the com-
munity in developing a comprehensive plan to restore and protect Tampa Bay. The
Program is part of a national network of 29 estuary programs established under the
Clean Water Act and administered nationally by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. The Program receives local administrative support from the Tampa Bay
Regional Planning Council.
The landmark agreement establishing the Tampa Bay Program brought together
Hillsborough, Pinellas and Manatee counties; the cities of Tampa, St. Petersburg and
Clearwater; the Southwest Florida Water Management District; the Environmental
Protection Commission of Hillsborough County; Florida Department of
Environmental Protection; and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in a part-
nership committed to action. These partners will sign an implementing agreement in
1996, pledging their commitment to bay action plans presented in the final
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for Tampa Bay.
The missions of the National Estuary Program are: to set reasonable, achievable goals
for the estuary's recovery; to coordinate the many new and ongoing bay management
initiatives, from small-scale efforts that focus on individual segments of the bay to
broad-based programs that address the estuary as a whole; and to determine how best
to implement these programs in the future to avoid costly and ineffective duplication
of efforts.
Additional roles of the Tampa Bay Program include evaluating potential options and
costs of bay management strategies on a site-specific basis, and developing scientific
and economic models to help bay managers attain the goals of the management plan.
Since 1991, the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program has conducted extensive techni-
cal investigations to define bay conditions, impacts and environmental needs.
Preliminary findings and early action initiatives were reported to the community in
Status & Trends, published by the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program in 1993.
Additionally, the Program has developed a number of educational outreach programs
and provided grants opportunities to involve citizens and communities in efforts to
improve their bay.
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
5
l]lR/~~f~I:::
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
The Tampa Bay National
Estuary Program also
expresses its gratitude to the
following former Policy
Committee members for
their guidance and dedica-
tion to bay improvement:
Phyllis Busansky
Ray Cunningham
Sandra Freedman
George Greer
Jan Platt
Greer Tidwell
B
Members of the Tampa Bay
Management Conference
Charles Towsley
Tampa Port Authority
COMMUNITY ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The work of the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program is guided by a Tampa Bay
Management Conference, which was convened at the program's outset to provide
direction and input into bay problems and solutions from diverse community sectors.
The Conference is comprised of key policy leaders representing local, state and feder-
al government; members of the region's scientific and technical communities; busi-
ness, agricultural and special interest groups; and citizens from throughout the region.
Conference participants are recognized here for their considerable contributions in
charting the course for Tampa Bay.
POLICY COMMITTEE
Allan Antley
U.S. EPA Region IV
Co-Chairman
Pamela McVety
Florida Department of
Environmental Protection
Co-Chairman
Representative
Roxane Dow
Mayor Dick Greco
City of Tampa
Representative
Mike Salmon
Mayor Rita Garvey
City of Clearwater
Mayor David Fischer
City of St. Petersburg
Commissioner Ed Turanchik
Hillsborough County
Commissioner Patricia Glass
Manatee County
Commissioner Bruce Tyndall
Pinellas County
Roy Harrell, Jr.
Governing Board Vice-Chairman
Southwest Florida Water
Management District
MANAGEMENT
COMMITTEE
Allan Antley
U.S. EPA Region IV
Co-Chairman
Dr. Richard Garrity
Florida Department of
Environmental Protection
Co-Chairman
Rob Brown
Interim Co-Chairman
Technical Advisory Committee
Peter Clark
Co-Chairman, Community
Advisory Committee
Karen Collins
Manatee County
Mike Connors
City of St. Petersburg
Julia Greene
Tampa Bay Regional Planning
Council
Robert Gordon
Hillsborough County
George Henderson
Florida Marine Research Institute
Florida Department of
Environmental Protection
Roger Johansson
Co-Chairman, Technical
Advisory Committee
Dena Leavengood
Co-Chairperson, Community
Advisory Committee
Ralph Metcalf
City of Tampa
Thomas H. Miller
City of Clearwater
David Moore
Southwest Florida Water
Management District
Annon Bozeman
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Ron Schmied
Co-Chairman, Technical
Advisory Committee
Roger Stewart
Environmental Protection
Commission of Hillsborough
County
Jake Stowers
Pinellas County
Dena Leavengood
The Florida Aquarium
Co-Chairperson
Peter Clark
Tampa BayWatch
Co-Chairperson
Judith Buhrman
Florida Native Plant Society
Sandra Colbert
Egmont Key Alliance
Elsie Crimaldi
Representing City of Gulfport
Desiree Davis
Faller, Davis & Associates
Eleanor Gilder
Hillsborough Community
College
Bill Goodall
Allen's Creek Homeowners
Association
Ken Hartley
Bait Shrimp Fisherman
Bruce Hasbrouck
HDR Engineering
Julius Houghtaling
Dooley Groves
MaIjorie Karvonen
Harbor Isle Homeowners
Association
Jane Keller
Representing City of Safety
Harbor
Marilyn Kershner
Audubon Society
Torn Levin
Ekistics Design
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Mike McKinney
Hillsborough County
Cooperative Extension Service
Rick Meyers
Manatee County Public Schools
Jan Regulski
Representing City of Clearwater
Penny Rosi
Tampa Bay Engineering
Captain John Timmel
Tampa Bay Pilots Association
Winnie Wilson
Gibbs High School
Alternate
Uta Weingart - Lakewood High
School
TECHNICAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
Ron Schmied
National Marine Fisheries
Service
Co-Chairman
Roger Johansson
City of Tampa - Sanitary
Services Department
Co-Chairman
Rob Brown
Manatee County Department of
Environmental Management
Interim Co-Chairman
Andy Squires
Coastal Environmental, Inc.
Former Co-Chairperson
Kenneth B. Allen
Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer
Services
Shelly Allen
Environmental Resources
(FDEP)
Damann Anderson
Ayres Associates
Elie Araj
Hillsborough County
Engineering Services
William S. Arnold
Florida Marine Research Institute
(FDEP)
Lucilla Ayer
Hillsborough County
Metropolitan Planning
Organization
Dawn Aylesworth
Aylesworth Foundation
William Baker
City of Clearwater - Public
Works Department
Ron Basso
Southwest Florida Water
Management District
Gene Bauer
Bauer Environmental, Inc.
Gordon Beardslee
Pinellas County - Planning
Department
Jim Beever
Florida Game & Freshwater Fish
Commission
Susan Bell
University of South Florida -
Biology Department
Sheila Benz
Tampa Bay Regional Planning
Council
Peter Betzer
University of South Florida -
Marine Science Department
Norm Blake
University of South Florida -
Marine Science Department
Greg Blanchard
Manatee County Environmental
Action Commission
Hamid Bojd
Delta Environmental Consultants
Sheryl Bowman
Hillsborough County Parks
Department
Gregg Brooks
Eckerd College - Marine Science
Department
Otto Bundy, Sr.
Nautilus Environmental
Allen Burdett
Environmental Resources
(FDEP)
Rod Burkhardt
Tampa Electric Company
Michael Burwell
City of Tampa - Stormwater
Management Division
David Camp
Florida Marine Research Institute
(FDEP)
Mary L. Campbell
City of St. Petersburg Parks
Department
Ralph Cantral
Department of Community
Affairs - Florida Coastal
Management Program
Tom Cardinale
Environmental Protection
Commission of Hillsborough
County
Dave Carpenter
Wetland Farms, Inc.
Richard Chinn
Conservation Consultants, Inc.
Lisa A. Chlebowski
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Peter Clark
Tampa BayWatch
Walter J. Conley
S1. Petersburg Junior College
Suzanne Cooper
Agency on Bay Management
Tampa Bay Regional Planning
Council
Roger Copp
Dames & Moore
Charles Courtney
King Engineering
Frank Courtney
Florida Marine Research Institute
(FDEP)
Bruce Cowell
University of South Florida -
Biology Department
Earl Crawley
City of Bradenton
Jack Creighton
U.S. Soil Conservation Service
Tom Cuba
Pinellas County - Department of
Environmental Management
Jim Culter
Mote Marine Laboratory
William Cummings
CSX Transportation
David Dale
National Marine Fisheries
Service
Tony D'Aquila
Environmental Protection
Commission of Hillsborough
County
William Davis
Pinellas County - Department of
Environmental Management
11[]!1!1!:':!il:,'ll;I~:"lr
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
Special thanks to former
Community Advisory
Committee co-chairperson
Bonnie Hite, and the fol-
lowing individuals who
served on the committee
from 1991-1993, for their
contributions:
Kathleen Bamberry
Steve Corsetti
Cliff Donley
Kay Doughty
Gray Gordon
Bob Hite
Janet Hoss
Heidi Lovett
Wit Ostrenko
Nancy Riley
Lisa Solomon
Tom Tamanini
7
.
.
.
OnlliFI .
.
William Davis Steve Graham Paul Mahler
Charting the Course U.S. EPA - Environmental City of Tampa Parks Department Environmental Science and .
for Tampa Bay Research Engineering, Inc. .
Ken Haddad
Bruce DeGrove Florida Marine Research Institute Stu Marvin .
Florida Phosphate Council (FDEP) Hillsborough County - .
City/County Planning
Tommy Denton Penny Hall Commission .
Hillsborough County Florida Marine Research Institute
Engineering Services (FDEP) Fred McLean .
Kellie Dixon Ken Hartley Pinellas County Park Department .
Mote Marine Laboratory Bait Shrimp Fisherman Robert H. McMichael, Jr. .
Florida Marine Research Institute .
Michael Dupes Walid M. Hatoum (FDEP)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Parsons Engineering Science .
Ben McPherson
Mike Durako Mike Hey I U.S. Geological Survey .
Florida Marine Research Institute Camp Dresser & McKee .
(FDEP) Jack Merriam
C.w. Hoeft Hillsborough County .
Craig Dye U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Engineering Services
Southwest Florida Water .
Management District Darrell Howten Ron Miller .
Environmental Protection U.S. Geological Survey
Wayne Echelberger, Jr. Commission of Hillsborough .
University of South Florida - County Michael Milligan .
Civil Engineering Department Center for Systematics and
Gail Huff Taxonomy .
Rob Erdman U.S. Soil Conservation Service
Eckerd College - Marine Don Moores .
Science Department Tony Janicki Pinellas County - Department of .
Coastal Environmental, Inc. Environmental Management
Ernie Estevez .
Mote Marine Laboratory Sam Johnston E. O. Morris
Environmental Science & Cargill Fertilizer, Inc. .
Kent Fanning Engineering, Inc. .
University of South Florida - Gerold Morrison
Marine Science Department Kristi Keane Southwest Florida Water .
Hillsborough County Management District .
Doug Farrell (deceased) Engineering Services Surface Water Improvement &
Water Facilities (FDEP) Jay Leverone Management (SWIM) .
Ross Ferlita Mote Marine Laboratory Nancy Morse .
City of Tampa Parks Department Jordan Lewis University of South Florida .
Terry Finch Department of Health and Gus Muench .
City of Clearwater - Department Rehabilitative Services Commercial Fisherman .
of EngineeringlEnvironmental
Management Roy R. Lewis III Russell Nelson .
Lewis Environmental Services National Marine Fisheries .
Mike Flanery Commission
Pinellas County Health Kathy Liles .
Department Ecosystem Management (FDEP) Joe O'Hop
Ed Long Florida Marine Research Institute .
Sid Flannery (FDEP) .
Southwest Florida Water National Oceanic and
Management District Atmospheric Administration John Ogden .
Hazardous Materials Branch Florida Institute of .
David Flemmer Oceanography
U.S. EPA - Environmental Sheri A. Lovely .
Research Pinellas County - Sewer Systems Shirmatee Ojah-Maharaj
Department City of St. Petersburg - Planning .
Thomas Franques Mark Luther Department .
University of South Florida -
Civil Engineering Department University of South Florida - Ed Olson .
Marine Science Department U.S. Coast Guard .
Boris Galperin
University of South Florida - Dave MacDonald Scott Osbourn .
Marine Science Department Manatee County Port Authority Florida Power Corporation .
Ron Giovanelli Kumar Mahadevan Andreas Paloumpis .
Dames & Moore Mote Marine Laboratory Hillsborough Community
College .
8 .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. Neal Parker, Sr.
. Roger Stewart
Manatee County - Public Works Environmental Protection
. Department Commission of Hillsborough
. Dave Parsche County
. Tampa Port Authority Mark Stewart
University of South Florida -
. John Paul Geology Department
. University of South Florida -
Marine Science Department Yvonne Stoker
. U.S. Geological Survey
. Richard Paul
National Audubon Society Ralph Stone
. City of St. Petersburg - Planning
Michael Perry Department
. Southwest Florida Water
. Management District (SWIM) Richard Stumpf
U.S. Geological Survey
. Kevin Peters
Florida Marine Research Institute Lawrence Swanson
. (FDEP) Environmental Scientist
. Kevin Petrus Don Sweat
. Water Facilities (FDEP) Pinellas County Cooperative
. Extension Service
Richard Pierce
. Mote Marine Laboratory Todd Tanberg
Pinellas County Utilities
. Edward Proffitt
. Coastal & Marine Research, Inc. Janice Taylor
Tampa Electric - Environmental
. Ed Radice Planning Dept.
. Hillsborough County Parks
Department Mark Taylor
. Organized Fishermen of Florida
Thomas Reese (OFF)
. Attorney at Law
. Sally Thompson
Stan Rice City of Tampa - Planning
. University of Tampa - Biology Department
. Department
Bill Tiffany
. Tom Ries Manatee County Port Authority
Southwest Florida Water
. Management District (SWIM) Chris Tolbert
. Pakhoad Dry Bulk Terminals
Mark Ross
. University of South Florida - David Tomasko
. Engineering Department Southwest Florida Water
Management District (SWIM)
. Daniel Savercool
Environmental Scientist Nick Toth
. Cockroach Bay & Aquatic
. Karen Sims-Jackson Preserve
Manatee County - Planning
. Department D. Timothy Travis
. St Petersburg Air and Port
Eric Slaughter Authority
. U.S. EPA
Jane Urquhart-Donnelly
. Ed Snipes Emergency Response (FDEP)
. Water Facilities (FDEP)
Gabriel Vargo
. Bob Stetler University of South Florida -
. Environmental Resources Marine Science Department
(FDEP)
. Sandra Vargo
John Stevely Florida Institute of
. Manatee County Cooperative Oceanography
. Extension Service
Bill Veon
. Scott Stevens Hillsborough County - Planning
. Southwest Florida Water & Zoning
Management District (SWIM)
.
.
.
.
Mark Vincent
University of South Florida -
Marine Science Department
David Voigts
Florida Power Corporation
Chuck Walter
Florida Department of
Transportation
Mike Walters
Dames & Moore
Fred Webb
Hillsborough Community
College
Roger Wehling
City of Tampa - Planning
Department
Robert H. Weisburg
University of South Florida -
Marine Science Department
Mike Wells
Cargill Fertilizer, Inc.
Julie Weston
City of St. Petersburg - Planning
Department
Barry Wharton
HDR Engineering, Inc.
Bob Whitman
Peninsula Design & Engineering
Richard Wilford (retired)
Manatee County - Public Works
Department
Dick Williams
Water Facilities (FDEP)
Greg Williams
IMC-Agrico Company
Michael Wood
Manatee County - Planning and
Zoning Department
Michael D. Young
Environmental Issues
Hans Zarbock
Coastal Environmental, Inc.
John Zimmerman
Manatee County - Public Works
Department
(FDEP) Florida Department of
Environmental Protection
IJ!:'ll'::IILI:l!tl:::::lr
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
9
ml/?ru. . < ..
N .. {.;; ':wr.."..~,~"
~j~J~: ~;: :t . ::;:j
Charting the Course
For Tampa Bay
10
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...,
~
tI:1
OJ
.~
'sallUl ajRnbs OOVlSOUlIR ~UP;}AO:J 'A.mmsa j;}lRM-u;'ldo lSa~jRI S,IlPpoTtI sr AIlg: RdUlRl. 'sllodllas mfRUI aajql sapnpUr pUR SgpUno:J
:lfTOd pUR O:JSRd 'RlOSRjRs.OlUr sgq:JRgi q:JrqM'pgqSjglIlM ARa BdUllll. gnUJ-gjRnbs~ooz'z gql U! gplSgj aldogd uormUl Z URql gjOW
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
State of the Bay
INTRODUCTION
Prom the headwaters of the Hillsborough River to the salty waters off Anna Maria
Island, Tampa Bay encompasses a rich mosaic of underwater and coastal habitats
that support thousands of species of plants and animals. Preserving and restoring
these interdependent habitats - even in the face of continued growth - is critical to
the bay's future.
Estuaries like Tampa Bay, where saltwater from the sea and freshwater from rivers
mix, are among the world's most productive ecosystems. More than 70 percent of all
commercially important species of fish depend on estuaries at some stage in their
development.! Besides marine life, the bay also attracts a remarkable number and
variety of birds and animals that depend on its rich tapestry of habitats.
As Florida's largest open-water estuary, Tampa Bay spans almost 400 square miles
and receives drainage from a 2,200-square-mile watershed more than five times the
bay's size.2 Activity in this watershed has a profound influence on the health of the
bay. Nutrients supplied in stormwater runoff from the watershed fuel the bay's pro-
ductivity. But excess nutrients and contaminants from neighborhoods, industries,
cities and farms pollute the bay.
Achieving a healthy balance of inputs from the land and sea, and redressing past dam-
ages to habitats and protecting them in the future, remain vital to the bay's health.
These tasks become challenging in the context of modem growth. As population in
the tri-county area approaches two million, decisions we make at home, at work and
in our communities about how we use and maintain our land and address pollution
increasingly influence the state of the bay.
This chapter explores the state of the bay - as well as the management structure
charged with the bay's protection - so that the community can direct future efforts
where help is most needed and ensure that increasingly limited public funds are spent
in a manner that best benefits the bay and the people who live around it. Restoration
is a complex, but achievable, task that will require a steady focus on the ecosystem.
Decisions based on ecosystem needs - those that recognize how individual habitats
affect the health of the whole and how fish and wildlife depend upon this network for
survival - can prevent costly and less effective piecemeal treatment.
Achieving the goals set out by the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program will require
a flexible yet comprehensive, watershed management approach. Watershed manage-
ment takes into account the overall needs of the estuary, as well as individual varia-
tions in specific areas. By considering and capitalizing on these differences, watershed
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
11
12
management goes beyond traditional regulatory programs - just as the bay ecosys-
tem itself encompasses a rich mosaic of habitats often far removed from its visible
shoreline. Thus, a plan based on watershed management principles can tailor actions
and policies to better protect the bay's multi-faceted resources.
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
By focusing less on government-imposed regulations and more on the actual require-
ments of the bay's living resources, watershed management offers opportunities for
producing direct, measurable results that are cost-effective and community-specific.
In this approach, success is measured less by compliance with strict laboratory stan-
dards for water quality than by increases in seagrasses, fish stocks and other biologi-
cal indicators of a healthy estuary.
The National Estuary Program is committed to a course of action that emphasizes
watershed management as a common-sense approach for protecting Tampa Bay well
into the next century.
II]tllll:lli,il:II,llf;':'llr
BAY HABITATS
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
While many bay animals prefer the open water of the estuary, others require the
food and shelter supplied by various structural habitats, including seagrasses,
mangroves, salt marshes and uplands. Together, these habitats form a natural network
that sustains vast populations of fish, birds and other wildlife.
Since 1950, about half of the bay's natural shoreline and nearly 40 percent of its sea-
grasses have been destroyed, along with significant portions of upland habitat. 3 Most
casualties were sustained before the mid-1970s, when the need for "managed" growth
gained acceptance.
13
Seagrass gains are largely attributed to upgrades in sewage treatment plants that led to
substantial declines in total nitrogen loadings to the bay. Declines in nitrogen load-
ings resulted in a decline in phytoplankton density and corresponding improvements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
IllilA.lt.~t,F1"
... .... ..
Owning the Course
for Tampa Bay
Now, water quality improvements are helping to fuel the bay's recovery. Seagrasses
have been a key beneficiary. Since the 1980s, grass beds have waged an impressive
comeback in many areas of the bay in response to improving water quality.
Trends for saltwater wetlands are not as clear. Recent studies show a net increase of
3.3 percent in the bay's saltwater wetlands from 1982 to 1990, which is probably
attributed to wetland colonization of new emergent land created from bottom-fill, as
well as to mitigation and restoration.4 However, the data do not indicate the quality or
level of function of these saltwater wetlands.
Seagrasses and other bottom habitats
SEAGRASSES
Seagrasses provide shelter, nursery and feeding habitat for many popular fish and
shellfish, including snook, red drum, seatrout, shrimp and the bay scallop. These shal-
low grass flats also are an important feeding ground for the endangered Florida mana-
tee, of which only about 1,800 are thought to remain.5 Grass beds also help to
improve water clarity by anchoring bottom sediments.
Because seagrasses require light to grow, light limits the depths at which they occur.
Even in the clearest waters of lower Tampa Bay, seagrasses typically grow no deeper
than six to eight feet.
In 1950, about 40,000 acres of seagrass flourished along the shallow shelf of the bay.
By 1982, only 21,600 acres remained, and Hillsborough Bay's 2,700 acres of sea-
grasses had been virtually eliminated.6 Three factors are believed to have caused the
decline: dredging and filling for waterfront development; reduced light penetration as
a result of shading by algae fueled by excess nutrients discharged to the bay by
sewage treatment and industrial plants; and cloudiness (or turbidity) caused by dredg-
ing the main shipping channel.
An estimated 13,200 acres of bay bottom have been filled since the early 1900s, and
more than 90 percent of the activity occurred along the bay's shallow shelf, where
seagrasses once thrived.? Hillsborough Bay is one of the bay's most impacted seg-
ments. Its surface area has been reduced by 14 percent as a result of residential devel-
opment at Davis Islands, creation of spoil islands and construction of port and power
generating facilities. That compares to a surface area reduction of 3.6 percent for the
entire bay caused by filling for development. 8
But seagrasses have rebounded in recent years as a result of improving water quality.
From 1982 to 1992, bay seagrass coverage increased by about 4,000 acres, or 18.5
percent, raising the bay's total acreage to more than 25,600 acres.9 Most incoming
grass is shoal grass (Halodule wrightii), an early-colonizer that may eventually be
replaced in many areas by turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum), a later successional
species.
14
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ii![I~I:llj;,'llIFilr
Historical Trends in Beagrasses
Agure 3
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
Seagrass Decline
80 ................................. m.................................................................
10
. - .. .
. . .",'"
. '." .. ., .
. . .
. . ..
.. ... .
1960 1990
* Estimate, based on bathymetry
70
-
o
~~t 60
T"""
x
~ 50
Q)
....
o
~ 40
rn
rn
ctl
0> 30
ctl
Q)
CJ)
20
SOURCE: LEWIS, HADDAD AND JOHANSSON, BASIS 2
REIS (1994), SWFWMD-SWIM
JANICKI, WADE AND ROBISON (1994), FOR TBNEP
in water clarity. Increased water clarity enabled more light to penetrate to underwater
seagrasses.
Drought conditions prevalent in the 1980s also may have assisted seagrass regrowth,
since less rainfall means fewer nutrients and contaminants that cloud the water wash
into the bay. Continued monitoring will be necessary to document the trends in sea-
grass regrowth.
Although more than 40 percent of seagrasses reveal little or no damage from boat pro-
pellers, seagrass scarring is nevertheless an important problem in some parts of the
bay. Studies by the Florida Marine Research Institute indicate that about 27 percent*
of Tampa Bay's seagrasses are moderately to heavily scarred - second in severity
only to the Florida Keys.lO Signs of chronic damage are evident around many passes
and channels. Intense scarring at Cockroach Bay in southern Hillsborough County and
at Pinellas County's Ft. De Soto Park has prompted boating restrictions and closures
in these areas to protect seagrasses. Early reports indicate that restrictions and caution-
* Includes all Pinellas County seagrasses, including Gulf grass beds outside the boundaries of the
Tampa Bay estuary.
15
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
1950 VI. 1990 Seagrall Coverage
Rgure 4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Land Area
1950 Seagrass Coverage
1990 Seagrass Coverage
Since 1950, pollution and dredging in the heavily industrialized Hillsborough Bay sector have claimed more than 90 percent
(or 2,277 acres) of seagrasses. This compares to an overall seagrass loss in the bay of almost 40 percent (15,200 acres) for the
1950-1990 period. Recent improvements in water quality are beginning to reverse the course of seagrass declines. From
1982-1992, scientists have documented the return of more than 4,000 acres of seagrass baywide, including 20 acres in
Hillsborough Bay. Seagrass coverage in Hillsborough Bay has more than doubled since then.
SOURCE: SWIM (1994) AND R. JOHANSSON (1995)
1&
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ary areas in Ft. De Soto Park are working to reduce scarring, but evaluations of spe-
cific management techniques are still underway.11 Studies at Weedon Island Preserve
suggest that propeller scars in turtle grass may take more than five years to heal.I2
Data have not yet been collected in Tampa Bay to evaluate trends in the quality of
seagrass and its utilization by animals. However, the Southwest Florida Water
Management District recently modified its seagrass monitoring program to include
assessments of seagrass quality at 50 locations around the bay. Monitoring parameters
include seagrass species diversity, density and quantity of epiphytic algae attached to
the grass blades.13
SOFT-BOTTOM
More than 80 percent of the bay bottom is soft mud or sand.14 These bottom sedi-
ments support a large diversity of animals, including parchment worms, clams, tuni-
cates (or sea squirts) and conchs, as well as larger bottom-dwellers that feed on these
creatures. The surface sediments of this dynamic habitat are constantly churned up
and re-deposited by bottom-dwelling animals, as well as by waves, currents and
dredging. Remarkably, one square meter of soft bottom may support more than one
million invertebrates.
Dredging of navigation channels and underwater disposal of dredged material have
impacted an estimated 14,400 acres of bay bottom, mostly in deep-water areas of the
bay. An additional 1,200 acres of deep-water soft bottom has been filled to create
spoil islands and causeways.15
The long-term effects of disposal on these soft-bottom habitats has not been well doc-
umented. However, a recently established benthic monitoring program will enable
bay managers to assess trends in the health of these bottom communities.
HARD-BOTTOM
Although relatively rare in Tampa Bay, hard- or "live"- bottom habitat features a com-
position of plants and animals that are unlike any other in the bay ecosystem. Hard-
bottom habitat is formed when outcroppings of rock or limestone along the bay bot-
tom are colonized by corals, barnacles, sponges and algae that attract small fish and
larger predators. Its colorful inhabitants include sea fans, anemones and tunicates.
A study conducted for the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program revealed major hard-
bottom communities at Rocky Point (Old Tampa Bay); along the Gandy Bridge (Old
Tampa Bay); near Cockroach Bay (Middle Tampa Bay); and in portions of Lower
Tampa Bay.16 Long-term trends in hard-bottom coverage are not yet available, since
this was the first bay-wide attempt to assess the extent of hard-bottom habitat.
Oyster reef communities are another distinct hard-bottom habitat, although they have
not been well-documented locally. The reef's intricate structure provides habitat for
scores of invertebrates and fish species.
While historical estimates of hard-bottom are sketchy, scientists do know that the bay
once supported a thriving oyster fishery. The most recent estimate of oyster coverage
is 8,300 acres in 1972.'7 Oysters are not commercially harvested today since most
111]:il!i')jil.il11Il:I:::'1Ir'
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
17
[lli,~'
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
18
areas of the bay have been closed to shellfishing because of suspected high levels of
bacterial contamination.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Additionally, 11 artificial reefs have been established in Tampa Bay to expand hard-
bottom and enhance fishing. IS Other manmade habitats include bridge and dock pil-
ings, seawalls and spoil islands. Some of these artificial habitats provide additional
structure for attaching organisms such as oysters, sponges and tunicates.
Estuarine Wetlands
The natural shoreline of the bay is bordered by a broad intertidal zone of wetlands,
submerged at high tide and exposed at low tide. These dynamic wet zones, which
include mangroves, marshes and mud flats, provide vital food and protection for vari-
ous marine creatures. They also buffer uplands from storms and help filter nutrients
and particulates in runoff from the surrounding watershed.
MARSHES AND MANGROVES
While mangrove and marsh habitats may occur independently, they often occur
together, with red, white and black mangroves interspersed with smooth cordgrass and
black needlerush. Mangroves outnumber marshes in Tampa Bay by more than a 3-to-
1 ratio.19 Salt marshes, composed of rushes, sedges and grasses, are the dominant nat-
ural habitat along the bay's major tributaries.
Small fish, shrimp and crabs feed on the nutrient-rich detritus formed from decaying
mangrove leaves. The sturdy roots of the mangrove trees anchor the shoreline, while
the mangrove canopies serve as roosts and nests for a remarkable variety of resident
and wintering birds.
Mangroves and marshes also support juvenile fish, such as snook, tarpon, red drum
and mullet, and protect them from larger predators. Mature mangroves in quiet
lagoons and canals in fairly high-salinity areas provide a little known but important
nursery habitat for snook.
Mangroves in Tampa Bay are particularly vulnerable to damage or destruction from
periodic freezes, since the bay is near the northern limit for these species. This under-
scores the importance of maintaining a healthy abundance of these wetland habitats.
Dense stands of mangroves not only are better equipped to survive a freeze, they also
provide more food and better habitat for the animals they support.
About 43 percent (9,700 acres) of Tampa Bay's original saltwater wetlands were lost
between 1950 and 1990, primarily because of dredging and filling for waterfront
development. However, as many as 5,900 acres of new wetlands formed along cause-
ways and other emergent land created from dredged spoil material during this period.
Furthermore, from 1982 to 1990, studies indicate a 3.3 percent increase in saltwater
wetlands in the bay. Precise estimates are difficult to calculate because of differences
in the quality and interpretation of aerial photography. However, the steepest declines
occurred between 1950 and 1980, when efforts to develop coveted waterfront property
for residential and commercial uses proceeded unchecked.20
Recent estimates of wetland habitat in Tampa Bay indicate that about 18,800 acres of
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1[]II:nl;Ji:::II;II~;:~ll":'
1950 vs. 1990 Saltwater Wetland Coverage
Figure 5
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
St.
Petersbu rg
Nearly half of the natural shoreline in Pinellas County's Boca Ciega Bay was lost to waterfront development between 1950 and 1990.
Wetland losses throughout Tampa Bay for this period also have been significant. Scientists report a 43 percent (9,700 acres) decline in
the bay's existing wetland coverage between 1950 and 1990. However, as many as 5,900 acres of wetlands have formed baywide as a
result of newly emerging land along causeways and areas fIlled by spoil material. The quality or functional level of these new wetlands
is unknown.
19
~IJ!II:'ll;:;1"
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
20
mangrove forests and saltmarsh remain.21 However, thousands of acres of this habitat
may be damaged from invasion by exotic plants, such as the Australian pine and
Brazilian pepper, that choke out native habitats.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
MUD FLATS
Non-vegetated mud flats along the bay's perimeter also are an important part of the
estuarine wetland system. While mud flats may appear barren and lifeless to an
untrained eye, these areas actually are highly productive and valuable.
Mud flats support a diverse community of bottom-burrowing creatures, including
worms, clams and crabs, which are pursued by wading birds and raccoons foraging
for food at low tide. At high tide, fish enter the flats in search of food.
Mud flats also are prime feeding areas for a number of migratory birds, including avo-
cets and several species of sandpiper, which seek refuge in Tampa Bay each winter.
Associated uplands
Neighboring upland habitats of pine forest, hammock and shrub also have been heavi-
ly impacted by development. Often overlooked or undervalued, these buffer areas and
associated freshwater wetlands provide critical or essential habitat for numerous ani-
mals, including the wood stork, white ibis, bald eagle and fox squirrel. Many of the
birds and animals that live in coastal wetlands or along the shore hunt for food in
upland forests and fields. Likewise, many upland species depend on adjacent wet-
lands for survival.
Almost all coastal pine forests have been eliminated from the shores of Tampa Bay,
and about 40 percent of this habitat has been lost throughout the watershed.22 Coastal
hammocks and salt barrens also have declined. Coastal hammocks of live oaks and
cabbage palms occur in patches where wetlands transition to uplands. Hammocks are
home to raccoons, bobcats, foxes and other animals that feed in neighboring wetlands.
Fewer than 900 acres of salt barren remain, mostly along the bay's southeastern rim.23
This rare habitat forms in areas where brackish water moves in during very high tides
and evaporates, creating open stretches of salty, dry soil. Historical estimates for
many of these transitional zone habitats are unavailable.
Low-salinity habitats
The bay's four major rivers - Hillsborough, Alafia, Manatee and Little Manatee-
and more than 100 smaller tributaries provide critical low- and medium-salinity habi-
tat for numerous species of fish and shellfish at early stages in their development.
Variations in the salt content of the water, from the low-salinity reaches of the bay's
tributaries to full-strength sea water at the mouth of the bay, determine which areas of
the estuary are inhabitable for some species and not for others. Oysters, for example,
flourish in low-salinity areas of the bay where they are protected from snail predators.
Similarly, fish with wide salinity tolerances use low-salinity areas in rivers to avoid
predators that cannot tolerate these conditions.
Called oligohaline from the Greek oUgos (small) and haline (salty), the low-salinity
areas occur in the upper reaches of the bay's tributaries, where salinities range from
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
zero to 10 parts per thousand (ppt), as compared to about 35 ppt at the mouth of
Tampa Bay. Downstream, mesohaline or medium-salinity zones occur within a salini-
ty range of 11 to 19 ppt.
Low and medium-salinity habitats are a primary nursery for red drum, snook and tar-
pon, as well as numerous non-game species including the black mullet. Some of the
most highly productive juvenile nursery habitat occurs where the waters of these
salinities overlap stationary wetland vegetation. As the fish mature, they typically
move to more saline zones in the estuary or out into the Gulf of Mexico.
Efforts to protect these highly productive nursery habitats depend on maintaining the
proper seasonal balance of fresh water and salt water within the bay's tributaries.
Four major tributaries - the Hillsborough River, Palm River (Tampa Bypass Canal),
Manatee River and Braden River - have dams or reservoirs that divert freshwater to
serve the region's potable water needs. During dry season, when water demand is
highest, reservoirs on the Hillsborough, Palm and Manatee rivers release almost no
water downstream.
The impact of reservoirs on the low and medium-salinity habitats downstream is the
subject of several ongoing assessments. Results from one study of flow variations on
the Manatee River indicate that, on average, river area and volume within the low-
salinity band were reduced 33 percent and 22 percent, respectively, as a result of
reservoir operations for the period 1982-1992. Consequently, the area of wetlands
coinciding with this low-salinity band was reduced by 150 acres or 25 percent.24
Modeling comparisons of historic and modern landscapes indicate that net freshwater
inflows to the main body of Tampa Bay have changed little since the 19508, assuming
the same amount of rainfall each year.25 This is mainly a result of increases in urban
and agricultural stormwater runoff, which have countered decreases in freshwater
flows from rivers. However, long-term measurements of river flows by the U.S.
Geological Survey indicate that many rivers in southwest Florida (including some in
Tampa Bay) have experienced gradual freshwater declines since the 1930s because of
declining rainfall.
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
21
I~JR:", .~.
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
!!
FISH AND WILDLIFE
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Fisheries
The population of many sport and commercial fish species in Tampa Bay is in a
state of flux. Anecdotal reports from sport fishermen indicate some species such
as snook and red drum are responding positively to fishing regulations designed to
increase their numbers. On the other hand, commercial landings of black (or striped)
mullet and spotted seatrout are significantly below historical catches.
A constitutional ban on gill netting, triggered in part by declining mullet stocks, took
effect in July 1995. Supporters believe the ban will lead to increases in mullet popu-
lations, which are fished almost exclusively by commercial netters. The ban also may
benefit other species like trout and sheep shead, targeted by both commercial and
recreational fishermen.
Bait fish such as menhaden and herring also were targeted for increased protection
following precipitous declines in bait fish landings in the late 1980s. The 1993 ban on
purse seining in the bay is expected to stabilize bait fish populations, as well as bene-
fit other fish and birds that feed on the bait fish.
Careful monitoring of fish populations will be necessary to gauge the effectiveness of
these existing regulations and determine the need for further management actions.
Until recently, resource managers have had to estimate populations of important fish-
ery species in Tampa Bay from landings data because direct measurements were not
available. These data, which record the amounts and types of fish brought to Pinellas
and Hillsborough docks by area fishermen, indicate that 3.7 million pounds of 11
commercial species of finfish were harvested from the bay in 1990 - a decrease of
24 percent since 1966. The decrease is largely due to reduced catches of mullet and sea
trout, while landings for the remaining species stayed the same or increased slightly.26
In fact, records going further back to 1950 show that harvests of spotted sea trout
declined 86 percent in the bay by 1990, from 487,000 pounds to 67,000 pounds.27
Similarly, red drum harvests plummeted from 80,000 pounds in 1950 to 15,000
pounds in 1986, the last full year of available data prior to a statewide ban on com-
mercial red drum harvests.28 These raw data do not reflect changes in fishery management
plans or quotas.
Until recently, mullet was the most sought-after commercial species in the bay,
comprising almost half of the 1992 landings of finfish and shellfish, or 2.3 million
pounds. By comparison, bay harvests of spotted seatrout and bait shrimp were only
40,000 pounds and 26,000 pounds, respectively.29
Although useful, landings are an imprecise indicator of stock sizes because changes in
market demand, gear efficiency and fishing regulations may affect them. Recognizing
this, the Florida Marine Research Institute in 1989 initiated a Critical Fisheries
Monitoring Program (CFMP) to provide more reliable estimates of stock sizes and
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
distribution of important species and key prey species. The research also is helping
clarify the crucial role habitat plays in the life cycles of many species.
A summary of results of the first three years of the CFMP (1989-1991) found that 78
percent of the juvenile spotted seatrout collected were captured over seagrass beds,
further validating the importance of seagrass habitat to this species. Small red drum
were found in relative abundance in the bay's major tributaries, while small snook are
known to frequent at least two of the rivers, the Alafia and the Little Manatee.3o
Mirroring declines in fish stocks, Tampa Bay's once-thriving commercial shellfish
industry also has virtually collapsed, although bait shrimping continues. Harvests of
clams and oysters throughout the bay are restricted or prohibited because of docu-
mented or potential bacterial contamination from fecal coliform associated with
human and animal wastes entering the bay in stormwater runoff. In the few unrestrict-
ed areas remaining, shellfish populations are not large enough to support commercial
harvest.
However, reassessments of closed or restricted areas are not routinely performed by
the state, and it is possible that actual water quality conditions in specific areas do not
warrant the restrictions. That's because decisions to classify or reclassify areas
according to public health concerns in most cases are based on land use considerations
and the potential for contamination following a major storm event, rather than actual
water quality conditions.3!
The bay's fisheries also are impacted by entrainment, the capture of planktonic eggs
and larvae of fish and shellfish in power plant cooling intakes. The five power plants
around Tampa Bay take in a daily average of about 2.3 billion gallons of bay water.
An estimated 274 billion fish eggs and 83 billion fish larvae are captured annually in
cooling intakes in Tampa Bay, according to power plant monitoring data from the
early 1980s.32 Assuming 100 percent mortality, the impact of steam electric plants on
the fishery stocks of Tampa Bay is probably significant. However, in the absence of
sufficient baseline data on stock sizes and normal survival rates, it is difficult to fully
assess this impact. Further research is needed to understand the cumulative impacts of
power plant entrainment on the bay's fisheries.
Habitat declines, fishing impacts and water quality are considered the primary factors
responsible for changes in fish populations. The relative impact of each factor is often
hard to discern because of natural fluctuations in stock sizes.
Despite these pressures, improving water quality throughout Tampa Bay is creating
more favorable conditions for fish and shellfish and for the seagrass habitats they
require. One potential beneficiary is the bay scallop, which all but disappeared from
Tampa Bay in the 1960s. While experts can't say why the scallop departed decades
ago, they suspect these highly sensitive creatures were casualties of pollution. Water
quality in Tampa Bay now has improved to levels that may support scallop recovery,
and aggressive restocking efforts are underway.
II:JIII:,'li:IF'llr
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
23
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
24
Important Bird Nesting Colonies of Tampa Bay
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Figure 6
Tampa
LEGEND
1. Island 2D
(Tampa Port Authority)
2. Island 3D
(Tampa Port Authority)
3. Alafia Banks*
4. Cockroach Bay Shell Pit
5. Piney Point
6. Washburn Sanctuary*
(Terra Ceia Bird Key)*
* National Audubon Sanctuary
* *N ational Wildlife Refuge
7. Dot-Dash (mouth of
Braden River)
8. Courtney Campbell
Causeway
9. Alligator lake
10. Howard Frankland
Causeway
11. Florida Power/Weedon
Island
12. Coffee Pot Bayou
13. Dogleg Key
14. John's Pass
15. Tarpon Key**
16. Shell Key
17. Passage Key**
SOURCE: NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY, TAMPA BAY SANCTUARIES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Bay Wildlife
Tampa Bay supports a magnificent array of wildlife, from the familiar brown pelican
to the lowly sea squirt. But many of these animals also are threatened by impacts to
water quality and habitats.
Birds are perhaps the most easily recognized and appreciated creatures in the ecosys-
tem, and mangrove islands in the bay are among the most important nesting sites in
the nation. These islands support as many as 40,000 pairs of approximately 25 species
each season, including brown pelicans, cormorants, ibis, spoonbills and terns.33 The
bay also attracts sizable and diverse colonies of wintering sea birds, including the
American white pelican, which travels more than 2,000 miles on its annual pilgrimage
from the Western United States and Canada.
Bird populations have dramatically declined in the last half-century as the region has
been developed. Most vulnerable are beach-nesting shorebirds and wading birds such
as the white ibis, which lives along the bay but depends upon freshwater food sources
for its young. As these inland sources dry up or are converted for development, popu-
lations plummet. Flocks once as large as 30,000-40,000 pairs have declined by as
much as 75 percent.34
In addition to habitat losses, the bay's bird populations also have been impacted by
human disruption of rookeries and by entanglement in monofilament fishing line.
Marine mammals and sea turtles feed and reproduce in Tampa Bay. More than 500
bottlenose dolphins are estimated to be year-round residents. The bay also is the win-
ter home of one-sixth of the West Coast manatee herd, or upwards of 200 animals,
according to manatee researchers with the Florida Marine Research Institute (FMRI).35
These gentle, plant-eating giants cluster around the warm-water discharges of the
bay's power plants and feed in the grass beds of the bay's perimeter.
Loggerhead turtles also are occasionally observed in the bay near Egmont Key and
Fort DeSoto, where they nest on the sandy beaches. And recent stranding data collect-
ed by FMRI indicates that the bay may also be an important nursery for Kemp's rid-
leys, the most endangered of the sea turtles.
Increased boating activity continues to threaten these larger marine creatures. In
1994, 193 manatees were found dead in Florida, up from 145 in 1993. Boat collisions
with manatees and propellers that slice the thick hides of these shallow-water crea-
tures are a major cause of manatee injuries and deaths in Florida. Whether the recent
upsurge in mortality is an anomaly, or points to an escalating threat from boating
activity, is uncertain. Regardless, further increases could be significant for the manatee
population, which already has dwindled to about 1,800 animals statewide.
Mostly out of sight to casual observers of the bay is a diverse array of bottom-
dwelling creatures known as the benthic community. Included among the more than
1,200 species of benthic organisms documented in the bay are the commonly known
blue crab, pink shrimp, brittle starfish and sea squirt.36 These epifauna, which reside
on the surface of the sediment, and their neighboring infauna, which live below the
surface, are an important link in the bay's food web. They also play an indispensable
role in the cycling of major nutrients, including carbon, phosphorous and nitrogen.
1IIIJI!llll)lt ,tal\I!::::"II'"
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
25
..... ...
.. . ..
Many oHhese species~re ~ependem upon a varieW of djfferenthabitats to Pf()vide foOd for
themseNesandt!1eir young; $MWhiteibis exempllfiestMn~d fonadiversityof
healthy habitats. This familiarkwading birtl; wittHts 10n~kscimitar.;.shapedtedbiIlT is
otiept the most cammon oHhebay's feathered residentStAjac~ otalltrades. it
. .. pokes and . prods for400d jna variew oll1abitatsifmrtrseashnres t~. tivetban kS to
.. . .residential bac~atds/ln~act,. manygardenerScon$ltlerltaW~lpomeguest
. because the ibig devours mole cricketsr grasshoppers and cockroaches.
.. ..... ... . . .. .... ........... . . .. ... ....... ... .... ... .......
.. . . . ... ).. ..... . .... . .
. Several thousand pairs bfibis nest in the oayareaeach yearj including ~bout . .
.Q;OOO pairs ;:tuheNatlonal AUdubon Society hiI'd sanctuanes atthamoum of the ..
. A1afia River. Butthose pumbers are afarcw from tne 30)000-40;000 pairs. count-
eQjustQQyeal'$ ago,. .Whenlmrnensefleecy .flocks pM~eg racefulWtlite. .bitds
soared oVerthe bay.
.0
. s
.l )
t/WOO
H
K
v"'l W
N
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
While their feeding habits vary, these animals mostly scavenge on the bottom, feeding
on decaying plant and animal material or filtering microscopic organisms like phyto-
plankton from bay waters. In doing so, filter feeders like oysters, scallops and sea
squirts help maintain water clarity.
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
Many of the bay's inhabitants require not one, but multiple, habitats to survive. This
points to the critical need for resource management strategies that aim for a balance of
diverse, healthy bay and upland habitats, rather than applying resources piecemeal or
concentrating solely on boosting wetland acreage.
.. . .
.. ..
. . .. ....
. ..
l!lJlflllflJ OE; flJll13 W/lllIE:H IBIS." .
. . ... .
.. . .
. .
... .
.. .. ... . . .
.. ..
.. ..
. .. . . .
.. . .. . .
.. Tampa tlayharborsSomeohhe most irnp6rtantwading and shorebird nesting areas in 1henatinn, Most of these nurseries
arelocatedonnaturalonrnanmadeislanO$Well"protectedfrom all.tM tluman imruders, Wfloincreasingly and often unwit~
· tingly disrupt mating arid nesting behavior. .
.. .
.... ... .
. '. .
. . ..... .. ..
.. ... . '.. . .. '. .. . . .
.. . .
Among the dozens otspecies~hat nest in and ar~und Tampaaay ijre great blue herons, snowy and great egrets, roseate
spoonbills and brown pelican$.The biY also harbors the large$tnesting colony of rare reddish ~retsoutside Texas.
)
. .~
... ..
. . . . . ..
.. ...
.1be plight of the ibis prnvldes a textbook lessonJn why protection aUhe bay must extend . .
beyond ltstraditlon;:tlpoooerstoencompassdfs life'givirigfresijwatersoUfCestFotalthougtl ttle.... ....... .... ... .
ibi$freqiJently nestslnandalnng the bay itself(the surVival of itsotfsprlng de~ndsupcina freshwaterdelicapy, the cray-
. ". . . . . .
. . .
fish.
. . ... .. .
. .
.. .. . .. ........
. . .. . .
. . .
. lodeed, scientists tlavetound that young ibiS fed a dietrictl in cr~jsh grow taster and are more likely to teach adulthood
thaRlbis Mbiested pdmadlyfiddlEmcrabstrom tneShOres 01 the bay, The teasomthey suspect;is thanhelow~saltcray-
...... fishdietiSnealthler totthetlabiesthanthe hlgh~saltfiddler crabmeals:Onceth~blrtJsteachadulthood, they ap~r to
.... ..have: no p~l:)lemdlgestjng insects orsaltierfood sources; b~t Wnentn~areYQung,ctaYtlsh are critical..
. . . .: . . .. . .
.. . .
.. '. .
. '.. . . .. .': .::'" . ..:. ..:: ...... ':,':'. . .. '. .
.. ... Astbe bay's freshwater habitats have given way tpfarms;<blgfiwaY$ a.n~ homesltes, the ibis have bad to fOrliga farther and
farther tofindcray(ish411 tthei.rynimg;Qrresott t() feedingtpem4hemore ..readi lyavailablefiddlett:rabS/Expert$)$aytbis
28
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
WATER AND SEDIMENT QUALITY
Since the 1980s, local communities have made significant strides in improving water
quality in Tampa Bay. The quality of the bay's water and sediments is important not
only to the animals and plants that reside in them, but it also affects human use and
enjoyment of the bay.
Excess amounts of naturally occurring and otherwise beneficial nutrients and chemi-
cals can jeopardize the bay's health. The most striking example of this occurred from
the 1960s to the late 1970s, when excess nitrogen from discharges of partially treated
sewage led to excess algae growth and low dissolved oxygen and light levels in the
bay - a condition known as eutrophication. Degraded water quality contributed to
seagrass losses and inhibited their natural recovery by blocking light to the bay's
underwater grass beds.
Sediment quality also has been impacted by potentially toxic contaminants carried in
stormwater runoff, wastewater and atmospheric deposition to the bay. Recent studies
by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reveal high levels of
these contaminants in sediments at several bay sites, including upper Hillsborough
Bay, Boca Ciega Bay and Bayboro Harbor.3?
New studies show that atmospheric deposition may playa much larger role in the
bay's water quality than previously realized. These airborne pollutants, primarily
from industrial and vehicle emissions, fall to the surface of the bay and its tributaries
or to land, and are carried to the bay in stormwater runoff. Research financed by the
Tampa Bay NEP indicates that about 28 percent of the bay's total nitrogen load may
come from atmospheric deposition directly to the bay.38
Recent attention also has focused on the problem of sanitary sewer overflows caused
by heavy rainstorms that force some municipal treatment plants to shunt raw or par-
tially treated sewage to Tampa Bay. Sewage overflows are of particular concern in St.
Petersburg and Pinellas County, where low land elevations and rapid population
growth have combined to strain existing municipal sewer and storm water systems. In
August 1995, St. Petersburg was forced to shunt more than 15 million gallons of raw
sewage into canals leading to the bay when torrential rains caused sewer backups.39
Corrective actions will be costly and will take time, but they are necessary to mini-
mize associated water quality impacts and allay public concerns about the bay's safety
as a recreational resource.
Since 1974, the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County has
conducted a comprehensive water quality monitoring program in the bay's four major
segments. The wealth of data compiled by the Commission is the principal source of
information for the following status and trends on bay water quality. A benthic moni-
toring program has recently been established by the counties surrounding the bay to
track trends in sediment quality and the abundance and distribution of bottom-
dwelling animals.
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
27
1:lliFlljf;il;;'I':::
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
28
Water clarity
Proper water clarity is essential in maintaining the bay's ecological equilibrium. It
determines how much and where submerged vegetation will grow and also enhances
the aesthetic appeal of the bay. Water clarity is greatest in the lower part of Tampa
Bay because of natural circulation and flushing from the Gulf. Here, visibility (based
on Secchi disk measurements) extends to an average depth of 2.5 meters (8.2 feet). It
naturally decreases moving up the bay, dropping to an average of approximately 2
meters (6.6 feet) in Middle Tampa Bay and Old Tampa Bay. In Hillsborough Bay,
which has poor circulation and receives a larger share of nutrients and sediments from
major rivers, average water clarity drops to 1.5 meters (4.8 feet).4o
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Water clarity changes noticeably with the seasons, improving in cooler months and
declining in summer, when warm temperatures, extended daylight and heavy rains
stimulate the growth of microscopic algae (or phytoplankton), which gives the water a
greenish cast. Suspended algae in the water column reduces the amount of light that
penetrates to underwater seagrasses.
In fact, the ability of seagrasses to recolonize the bay hinges on the amount of sunlight
various grass species require, as well as shading factors, such as the amount of drift
macro-algae and epiphytic or attached algal growth on grass blades. For most bay
species, an estimated 20 to 25 percent of the light striking the bay's surface must pen-
etrate to target depths to allow seagrass regrowth.41 The light requirement for turtle
grass, the most common seagrass species in Tampa Bay, is estimated to be 22.5 per-
cent at the deep edges of the grass beds.42
By maintaining or slightly improving water clarity, light conditions should be sufficient
to gain back a majority of the seagrasses present in Tampa Bay in the 1950s, excluding
areas that have been permanently altered.43
Concentrations of chlorophyll a are a useful indicator of algal biomass. In 1991, mean
annual levels of chlorophyll a for Tampa Bay were near their lowest point since 1974.
Overall, levels from 1989 to 1994 were low enough to allow 20 to 22 percent light
penetration to target depths throughout the bay.44
Nitrogen
Despite progress in bay cleanup, nitrogen continues to be a key focus of concern for
Tampa Bay. Excess amounts of this otherwise beneficial nutrient can pollute the bay
by accelerating algal growth. Excess algae reduces light penetration to seagrasses
and, ultimately, depletes the water of dissolved oxygen.
In 1993, the Tampa Bay NEP set a long-term seagrass restoration goal of 14,000
acres. That goal was based on recovering seagrasses to 1950s levels, except in areas
that have been permanently altered. Studies now indicate that as many as 12,000 acres
of seagrass can be recovered over time by maintaining existing water quality condi-
tions. That would require local communities to reduce their nitrogen loadings to the
bay by about 10 percent by the year 2010 to compensate for increases in nitrogen
loadings associated with population growth.45 Additional seagrass recovery would
require further reductions. Nitrogen loading goals for the bay will be finalized in
early 1996.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
Nitrogen Loading Scenarios
Figure 8
Estimates of Nitrogen Loadings
to Tampa Bay
(Tons/yr)
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
4,653 tons :
I
I
I
I
I
I
2,000
o
Historical
(ca. 1938)
Worst Case
(ca. 1976)
Existing
(ca. 1992-9"4)
Future
(ca. 2010)
SOURCE: COASTAL ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
Estimates of past, present and future loadings of nitrogen are based on computer modeling efforts.
Most increases are expected to come from non-point sources, principally stormwater runoff.
The Program has produced estimates of existing and future nitrogen loadings, by
source and for each of the bay's seven major segments. Workshops with local govern-
ments to apportion nitrogen loading targets will be conducted in 1996 once these
goals are finalized.
Water quality improvements are attributed mainly to advances in domestic and indus-
trial wastewater treatment and associated declines in nitrogen in effluent discharged
from these facilities. Until the late 1970s, most sewage treatment plants operating
along the bay pumped partially treated sewage into Tampa Bay. This nutrient-rich
effluent was a chief cause for the pollution that sparked noxious algal blooms and
depleted oxygen and sunlight from the bay. In 1976, the bay's total annual nitrogen
load was estimated to be 2.5 times greater than the load computed for the years 1985
to 1991.46
Today, all 17 sewage treatment plants discharging to Tampa Bay and bay tributaries
provide Advanced Wastewater Treatment (A WT), a process that can reduce nitrogen
loadings from effluent by as much as 90 percent.47 The retrofit of Tampa's Howard F.
Curren facility at Hooker's Point, the area's largest plant, was a catalyst in the bay's
water quality recovery. St. Petersburg's pioneering wastewater reuse program, which
eliminated almost all its direct discharges of treated wastewater to Tampa Bay, also
contributed to improving water quality. Similar reuse programs now are underway in
many other bay area communities.
1(]l111)lii1J:l\:II;;:"lr
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
29
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
30
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
31
1~11;'t"I:"I
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
32
Taxies 01 Concern lor Tampa Bay
Cadmium. Potentially toxic and may concentrate in food
webs as it is retained for long periods in biological systems.
Does not appear to accumulate in fish or undergo
biomagnification, but does accumulate in sediments. High
levels of cadmium present in sediments from the Hillsborough
Bay/Lower Palm River, Allen's Creek, Cross Bayou and Boca
Ciega Bay.
Chromium. Exhibits varied levels of toxicity in different
fish species. Also listed as a mammalian carcinogen. Highest
levels in bay sediments found in Hillsborough Bay near the
mouth of the Alafia River, in Boca Ciega Bay near Cross
Bayou, and near Bayboro Harbor.
Copper. Widely distributed in the natural environment,
but also demonstrates acute toxicological effects at small
concentrations above essential levels. Exceedingly toxic to
aquatic biota. Highest levels in bay sediments found in Boca
Ciega Bay near Cross Bayou, in Hillsborough Bay near the
Alafia River and Davis Islands, and in Middle Tampa Bay near
Bayboro Harbor and Papys Bayou.
Lead. Causes a number of acute and chronic human health
impacts, and accumulates in sediments. High levels found
in bay sediments from Hillsborough Bay near the Alafia River,
the lower Hillsborough River, and Boca Ciega Bay near Cross
Bayou.
Mercury. Naturally occurring in the environment, but
also bioaccumulates in biota, causing acute toxicity at high
concentrations. Sublethal effects include behavioral changes
in invertebrates and birds, growth reduction in fish and algae,
and impairment of senses and physical and mental
development of children.
Zinc. Toxic at high concentrations and widespread in the
environment. Highest levels in bay sediments found in Boca
Ciega Bay near Cross Bayou and in Hillsborough Bay near
the Alafia River.
DOT. Animal and potential human carcinogen; biomagnifies
in organisms and persists in the environment. Caused wide-
spread contamination of fish and wildlife, especially during
1960-80. Banned in 1972. DOT remains in sediments at
several bay sites. Highest concentrations are reported at
northern Boca Ciega Bay, northern Hillsborough Bay and near
the Alafia River and Papys Bayou.
Common trace element widely employed in
electroplating applications. Also present in paints,
plastics, batteries and domestic sewage sludge.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Atmospheric sources include alloy and metal production,
coal combustion, waste incineration, cement production.
Direct sources include electroplating/metal finishing,
wastewater treatment plants, iron/steel foundries and
other industrial applications, residential runoff and
phosphate fertilizers.
Large number of human-induced sources to marine
environment, including oil and fuel combustion,
antifouling paints, metal cleaning operations, plating
baths and rinses, commercial pigments and dyes, wood
preservatives, leachate from copper pipes, domestic
sewage sludge, and copper sulfate used to control
algae in reservoirs.
Largest source of lead to the environment originates
from its past use as a gasoline additive and from
atmospheric deposition from auto emissions. Paint,
batteries and domestic sewage sludge also are potential
sources.
Atmospheric sources include municipal waste
incinerators, fossil fuel combustion, paint additives
(restricted by 1992), and re-emission from land sources.
Used to produce batteries, electric switches and other
electronic devices. Moves in sediments and water, and
through bio-transportation.
Major application is coating of other metals to protect
against corrosion. Used widely as a component in
batteries and tires. Sources include municipal
wastewater and sludge, direct industrial discharges,
surface runoff, and atmospheric deposition.
Formerly used to control a broad spectrum of
agricultural, silvicultural and household insect pests.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
r.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.\
Chlordane. Environmentally persistent insecticide used
extensively in termite control and also to control certain agricultural
insects. Banned in 1988. Concentrations of chlordane at northern
Boca Ciega Bay, Papys Bayou, Mullet Key and northern Hillsborough
Bay were the highest of any sites measured in the bay.
Mirex . Neuro-toxic pesticide; also known as Dechlorane.
Sublethal effects in the marine environment include decreased
algal growth, reduced fish growth, disrupted blue crab behavior,
reduction in body weight and body lipid in salmon. Sublethal
effects in birds include reduced reproductive capacity. Causes
tumors in rats and mice. Mammalian symptoms include weight
loss, enlarged livers, altered liver enzyme response, reproductive
- failure, fetal abnormalities including cataracts, heart defects,
scoliosis and cleft palate. Concentrations of mirex in oysters from
Tampa Bay are relatively high compared to many other sites around
the nation. Production of mirex discontinued in 1977. Highest
concentrations in bay sediments at Boca Ciega Bay, Mullet Key
and Cockroach Bay.
Endosulfan . Hazardous neuro-toxic pesticide with acute
toxicity to marine organisms, high bioconcentration factor and
fairly long half-life. Although not widely sampled for in Tampa
Bay, endosulfin has been recorded in sediments from Cockroach
Bay and in stormwater from an industrial park in West Tampa.
Dieldrin. Pesticide for soil-dwelling insects including termites.
Sublethal effects include starvation, liver damage, immunological
suppression, decreased fertility, postnatal mortality. A carcinogen
for some animals and a mutagen in cell cultures. Highest levels
in bay sediments reported at the mouths of the Hillsborough River
and Boca Ciega Bay.
PCBs. Among the most persistent and toxic of organic
compounds. Most risk of cancer from consumption of contaminated
seafood attributed to PCBs. Biomagnifies. Manufacture ended in
1976. PCBs at sites in Hillsborough Bay exceed Florida's Probable
Effects Level (PEL) for biological effects from toxic contaminants.
PCBs also found in sediments at Boca Ciega Bay near Cross
Bayou.
PAHs . Many PAHs are potent carcinogens or mutagens. Highest
levels in bay sediments found in Hillsborough Bay near Davis
Islands and the Alafia River, Boca Ciega Bay, and Middle Tampa
Bay near Papys Bayou.
1:[]!!!:li\t.,:Ij,:I!;III:::"lr
Figure 1 0
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
Farmers used granular chlordane mixed with fertilizers
for broad-spectrum insect control on fields. Also
applied occasionally as a liquid spray for some
beetles, and on golf courses. Agricultural and urban
runoff are among the major documented sources.
Widely applied by aircraft to control fire ants on
pastures between 1965 and 1978. Also used as fire
retardant in electrical components, fabrics and
plastics. Sewage sludge also a potential source.
Introduced about 30 years ago and widely used to
control winged insects associated with many row
and field crops. Applied as a liquid spray to crops.
Widely used from 1950-1974 to control soil insects
on cotton, corn and citrus. All uses banned in 1985
except subsurface termite control and some
mothproofing. Dieldrin is a breakdown product of
the pesticide aldrin, both of which are long-lasting
in soils and not highly water-soluble.
Formerly employed in a wide variety of industrial
applications including insulation in electrical
capacitors and transformers; paints, additives,
adhesives, and caulking compounds; hydraulic fluids.
Sources to environment are varied including direct
discharge from production facilities into municipal
sewage systems, leaching from disposal sites, refuse
incineration and reuse of transformer oil.
A group of related compounds present in crude oil
and its products, released to the atmosphere during
combustion. Also released from burning of non-
petroleum substances, such as wood (brush fires).
Sources include treated sewage, stormwater runoff
and oil spills. Suspected sources include aerial fallout,
petroleum refinery wastes, and discharges of drilling
fluids.
33
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
Old Tampa Bay
. 172 tons! 34.5%
-:~ 250 tons! 50.1 %
~ 77 tons! 15.4%
III <1 ton! 0%
Total 499 tons
Middle Tampa Bay
. 340 tons! 48.2%
-j 339 tons! 48.1%
~ 26 tons! 3.7%
III <1 ton! 0%
Total 705 tons
Boca Ciega BaL_
. 83 tons! 43.2%
.; 106 tons! 55.2%
~ 3 tons! 1.6%
Total 192 tons
Lower Tampa Bay
. 1 ton! 0.3%
Ld 302 tons! 82.7%
~ 36 tons! 9.9%
~ 26 tons! 7.1%
11II <1 ton! 0%
Total 365 tons
LEGEND
Existing Annual Nitrogen Loadings to Tampa Bay
by Bay Segment (1992 -1994 average)
Fig. 11
HiIIsborou h Ba
. 982 tons! 52.9%
cc-: 121 tons! 6.5%
~ 322 tons! 17.3%
~ 236 tons! 12.7%
11II195 tons! 10.5%
Total 1,856 tons
~
.J~
Terra Ceia Bay
. 10 tons! 29.4%
- 20 tons! 58.8%
~ 4 tons! 11.8%
Total 34 tons
..
III Stormwater Runoff
[ill Atmospheric Deposition
~ Industrial & Municipal Point Sources
~ Fertilizer Material Losses
III Springs & Groundwater
34
Manatee River
III 384 tons! 63.3%
~_-' 53 tons! 8.7%
~ 170 tons! 28.0%
Total 607 tons
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Although levels of contamination documented locally pose no known risk to humans,
effects of repeated exposure to low levels of contamination remain largely unknown.
Some contaminated sediments remain inert or inactive for many years, but become
disturbed by dredging, shipping, storms or bottom-dwelling organisms. Bottom-
dwellers that filter contaminated sediments - and the fish, birds and humans that ulti-
mately consume them - may be subject to risk, since some toxic substances increase
in concentration as they ascend the food chain.
Toxic contaminants
Toxic contaminants represent the other primary focus of concern for water quality
managers in Tampa Bay. Toxics of concern, identified in Figure 10, include various
trace metals, pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs).48 These substances, some naturally occurring and others syn-
thetic, can be damaging or deadly to marine life when present in sufficiently high
concentration; in addition, they have the potential to negatively affect human health.
Recent studies by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in
cooperation with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection provide the
most complete assessment to date of toxic substances of concern and their distribution
in Tampa Bay.49 Overall, Tampa Bay has relatively low to moderate levels of most
toxic parameters when compared to other urban estuaries. Contamination appears to
be centered around large urban centers, ports and marinas, and concentrations general-
ly diminish from the top of the bay toward the Gulf.
However, the studies revealed relatively high levels of contaminants from some local
sites when compared to others in Southwest Florida. Generally, Hillsborough Bay -
the bay's most industrialized sector and home to the state's busiest port - revealed
the highest levels of contamination among bay sites. Upper Hillsborough Bay
revealed the highest levels of cadmium, copper, mercury, zinc and lead, as well as the
pesticide DDT, which has been banned for more than two decades. Concentrations of
chlordane in sediments at a site in northern Hillsborough Bay were the highest of any
toxic constituent measured in Tampa Bay.50
Boca Ciega Bay and S1. Petersburg's Bayboro Harbor, which both border heavily
urbanized areas, also ranked among the area's hot spots of contamination.
Concentrations of toxic contaminants in sediments at several bay sites exceeded
Florida's Probable Effects Level (PEL), indicating a high probability for biological
impact to marine organisms (see Figure 9).51 Low levels of liver lesions were found
in catfish from one site in Hillsborough Bay.52
Pesticides in sediments and oysters in Tampa Bay were in the mid-range of concentra-
tions for sites sampled by NOAA around the nation. However, concentrations of
chlordane and mirex (no longer manufactured in the United States) in oysters from
Tampa Bay were relatively high when assessed on the national scale. Among mollusk
samples from the 200 NOAA sites, Cockroach Bay in rural Hillsborough County
ranked third nationally in 1988 in total chlordane concentration and fifteenth overall
for a three-year period. Among Tampa Bay sites, Boca Ciega Bay had the highest
concentration of total pesticides.53 The pesticides DDT, endrin and endosulfan were
recently found in surface waters receiving runoff from the Cockroach Bay drainage
basin. 54
1[jllIJ~I" :"i\""::""II'"
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
35
il[lllllililfl'
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
38
Pollution Pathways and Sources
Nitrogen and toxic contaminants follow several pathways to the bay, entering through
stormwater runofffrom urban, residential and agricultural lands; atmospheric deposi-
tion (pollutants transported to the bay in rainfall and dryfall); and municipal and
industrial wastewater discharged to the bay. Septic tanks and spillage of fertilizer
product in handling and transport also contribute to nitrogen loadings in localized bay
sectors.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Sources of nitrogen include nitrogen oxides from power plant and vehicle emissions
(entering the bay from the atmosphere); treated effiuent from municipal and industrial
wastewater plants; fertilizer from yards and farms; leachate from septic tanks and small
package treatment plants; and animal wastes entering the bay in stormwater runoff (see
Figures 11 and 12). Sources of potentially toxic contaminants include metals and
chemicals in industrial and municipal wastewater; pesticides from yards and farms;
contaminants from roadways and paved surfaces washed into the bay in stormwater
runoff; and industrial and vehicle emissions.
STORMWATER RUNOFF
Stormwater runoff from the Tampa Bay watershed contributes about 47 percent of the
bay's total annual nitrogen load.55 Runoff also conveys more than 60 percent of the
annual loadings from each of the following metals: chromium, zinc, mercury and lead,
as well as significant amounts of other potentially toxic pesticides and substances.
Atmospheric deposition and municipal and industrial wastewater transport the bulk of
remaining pollutants.56
Many toxic contaminants enter the bay attached to fine-grained particles in stormwa-
ter runoff. Consequently, total suspended solids (TSS) also are regarded as a pollu-
tant. Solids suspended in the water are of further concern because they reduce water
clarity and sunlight available for seagrass growth. Paved surfaces increase the flow of
runoff and associated pollution from runoff by preventing natural filtration.
Urban stormwater runoff accounts for about 16 percent, or 680 tons, of the bay's total
annual nitrogen loadings. More than half of the nitrogen in urban runoff comes from
residential areas, the region's largest land use. By comparison, commercial/industrial
sites account for about 20 percent of total nitrogen in urban runoff, although their per-
acre contributions are higher than that of residential.57
Runoff from intensive agricultural land uses (mostly citrus and vegetable production)
contributes about 6 percent of total bay nitrogen loadings, along with sediments and
pesticides. Agricultural runoff from pastures and rangelands, which cover roughly 28
percent of the watershed, account for another 13 percent of total bay nitrogen load-
ings. Forest and wetlands (at 8 percent) and mining (at 4 percent) comprise the
remainder of nitrogen loadings in stormwater runoff. 58
ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION
Coastal waters of the United States receive large quantities of nutrients, heavy metals
and chemicals from the air - and Tampa Bay is no exception. Until recently, atmos-
pheric deposition (pollutants carried in rainfall and dryfall, which consist of small par-
ticles and aerosols) had not been identified as a significant problem for Tampa Bay.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Several forms of nitrogen are contained in rainfall and dryfall to Tampa Bay.
Sources 01 Nitrogen Oxide
Agure 12
Sources of NOx (Nitrogen Oxide)
SOURCE: MOTE MARINE LABORATORY, 1994
t:::
~l
I
i~
j
~
~
i
]
~~~
~:~
~:~
I
::~:
I
~
:::::
~
~~
!
"l
I
Tri-County Tampa Bay Region
Total: 160,000 tons per year
State of Florida
Total: 737,000 tons per year
Mobile
Utilities
Other
Stationary
Sources
Other
Stationary
Sources
Mobile
Utilities
Studies now suggest that about 28 percent of the bay's total nitrogen loadings are
from atmospheric pollutants falling directly on the water.59
Nitrogen loadings from atmospheric deposition are actually much higher when pollu-
tants falling in the watershed are included, since many of these will eventually enter
the bay in stormwater runoff. About 1,200 tons of nitrogen fall on the open bay each
year in rainfall and dryfall. An additional 7,500 tons fall in the watershed, although
experts can't say how much of that reaches the bay. EPA estimates that as much as
67 percent of the bay's total nitrogen load could come from the atmosphere. 60
Between 1995 and the year 2010, nitrogen loadings to the bay from all sources are
expected to increase 10 percent, or about 27 tons per year.61 But those figures do not
include changes that may occur if power plants around the bay convert their oil- and
coal-fired facilities to a less expensive Venezuelan fuel called Orimulsion. Florida
Power & Light (FP&L) already has received conditional regulatory approval to bum
Orimulsion at its Port Manatee plant, although the utility still faces administrative
hearings and must receive approval from the Governor and Florida Cabinet.
Preliminary estimates show that the quantities proposed for use could add another 30
tons of nitrogen per year to the bay62. An advanced pollution control technology
called re-burning could lower nitrogen emissions associated with Orimulsion, but the
technology is still untested in the United States and will only be tested on one of the
two FP&L units converting to Orimulsion. If re-burning proves successful, and both
units are converted to Orimulsion, state officials estimate that nitrogen emissions
could be reduced substantially.
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
37
lIulllAI:::'1"
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
38
Nitrogen oxides (NOx) - mostly linked to power plant and vehicle emissions - are
chemically transformed in the air, eventually returning to the Earth in aerosol or dis-
solved forms, such as nitric acid and other soluble nitrates in rainfall. Combined
emissions from motor vehicles and power plants contributed almost 70 percent of the
total nitrogen oxides that fell to the earth in United States in 1984. Industrial sources
provided another 15 percent. 63
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
In the Tampa Bay region, stationary sources (primarily power plants) contribute an
estimated 50 percent of the manmade NOx emissions as compared to 35 percent from
motor vehicles.64 But researchers can't say how much of the local emissions actually
are deposited in the region, since airborne contaminants may travel hundreds (or even
thousands) of miles before settling to Earth. Experts also can't pinpoint what portion
of nitrogen loadings from the atmosphere comes from natural sources, such as light-
ning. Additional research on natural and manmade sources and the relative contribu-
tions from local and distant sources is needed to effectively manage atmospheric
deposition in Tampa Bay, which is expected to increase as population, power con-
sumption and motor vehicle traffic growS.65
Toxic substances also enter the bay from the atmosphere in large quantities. For
example, studies estimate that 44 percent of the bay's total cadmium loading, and
about one-sixth of its copper and lead loadings, come from the air.66 PAHs also enter
the bay from the atmosphere, although loadings and specific sources are unknown.
PAHs are associated with fossil fuel combustion, such as power plant and motor vehi-
cle emissions and waste incineration.
WASTEWATER
While advances in wastewater treatment and increased regulation have helped reduce
pollution, sewage treatment plants and industries discharging directly to the bay
("point" sources) still contribute substantial pollutants to Tampa Bay.
Sewage treatment plants in the watershed contribute about 8 percent (or 340 tons) of
the bay's total annual nitrogen 10adings.67 Although all sewage treatment plants with
surface discharge to the bay or bay tributaries now provide Advanced Wastewater
Treatment, roughly 36 billion gallons of effluent are still discharged to the bay each
year, with Hillsborough Bay receiving the largest portion. In 1991, this sector received
two-thirds of the cumulative nitroge:n load from domestic wastewater treatment plants
discharging to the bay.68
Wastewater discharged from industrial facilities in the Tampa Bay watershed is
responsible for about 6 percent of total nitrogen loadings.69 The largest categories of
industrial sources are fertilizer manufacturing and shipping facilities.
Industrial and municipal point sources also are a major pathway by which toxic sub-
stances enter the bay, contributing roughly 30 percent of the bay's total loadings of
arsenic, cadmium, chromium and copper, as well as low levels of other contami-
nants.70 Homeowners also contribute by discarding toxic cleaners or solvents that
local sewage treatment plants cannot completely remove.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
OTHER SOURCES
Septic tanks, which are estimated to serve about 20 percent of the watershed's popu-
lace, also are a key part of the pollution puzzle in localized sectors of Tampa Bay.
Preliminary studies by the Southwest Florida Water Management District suggest that
nitrogen loadings from septic tanks, as well as septic waste and sewage treatment
sludge, may be substantial in some areas.7l Septic systems located near the bay pose a
particular threat to water quality, since most septic tanks are not designed for nitrogen
removal.
High densities of mostly older septic tanks can contribute to degraded water quality
(nutrients and pathogens) in creeks where circulation is limited and the water table is
near the ground surface. Pinellas County's Allen's Creek and several creeks in
Hillsborough County are among those thought to be at risk.72 Septic tanks along trib-
utaries leading to Tampa's McKay Bay also are believed to be a problem.73 Springs
that feed into the bay's rivers and smaller tributaries also may be impacted by septic
tank leachate, especially in areas with very porous soils.74
Another 7 percent of the bay's total nitrogen loadings had been attributed to losses of
fertilizer - product lost during shiploading and landside en route to port.75 However,
this figure has substantially declined since these estimates were developed in 1991 as
a result of efforts to improve portside facilities.
DREDGING AND DREDGED
MATERIAL MANAGEMENT
Tampa Bay supports three major seaports and a growing cruise ship industry that
contribute more than $5 billion annually to the region's economy. The Port of
Tampa is the state's largest port and consistently ranks among the top ten in the nation
in trade activity. Smaller ports at Port Manatee and St. Petersburg also contribute sub-
stantially to the region.
Maintaining the bay's vast transportation network requires ongoing maintenance
dredging and disposal of sediments that accumulate in shipping channels (see Figure
13), activities that have dramatically changed the bay bottom. The Tampa Harbor
Deepening Project, begun in 1972 and completed in 1988, required the removal of
more than 100 million cubic yards of bay bottom. Another one million cubic yards of
material - enough to fill 100,000 dump trucks - is removed from the bottom of the
bay each year at an estimated cost of $10 million to service the bay's three major
portS.76
With an average depth of only 12 feet, regular dredging of the bay is necessary to
serve ships entering the bay. The main shipping channel has been dredged to a con-
trol depth of 43 feet to allow safe passage of large cargo vessels.77
In areas of impact, dredging can cloud bay waters, inhibiting light penetration neces-
sary for seagrasses. Dredging also smothers bottom-dwelling animals and can release
substances such as ammonia, which can contribute to algal blooms, from the sediments.
iIIJltlll;li;i'~I;IIF<11'"
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
39
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
Tampa Bay Shipping Channels and Spoil Areas
Figure 18
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
40
LEGEND
D Land
UhMMI Approved Spoil Areas
_ Spoil Islands
_ Shipping Channels
SOURCE: COASTAL ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
Long-term disposal of dredged material and expansion of existing channels represents
the greatest challenge in the absence of coordinated planning. Currently, Tampa Bay
has two approved disposal sites within the bay on large manmade islands owned and
operated by the Tampa Port Authority. At current usage, these islands may serve the
disposal needs of the upper bay for another decade.
Officials are exploring options to extend the life of those sites by as many as 20 years
by raising the dikes around them to accommodate more material.78 But beyond then,
the upper bay's long-term disposal needs are unresolved - even though annual main-
tenance dredging is expected to continue to produce one million cubic yards of mater-
ial annually and some construction dredging is anticipated.
EPA has approved designation of an ocean dumping site 18 miles offshore in the Gulf
of Mexico to accommodate approved materials from the middle and lower parts of
Tampa Bay. Port Manatee currently utilizes upland disposal sites for its dredged
material.
Added dredging and disposal needs for the bay's smaller private, industrial and com-
mercial ports, and numerous residential canals, are unaccounted for, though they are
likely to be substantial and must be assessed in developing environmentally sound,
long-term management strategies. Currently, owners and users of these facilities and
throughways must apply for separate federal, state and local permits and develop
independent spoil disposal options, which are not now represented in any strategic
plan.
Effective long-term planning and coordination among ports, the Corps of Engineers,
and environmental and business interests is needed to explore long-term disposal
options and to minimize the ecological impacts of dredging and maximize beneficial
uses of spoil.
SPILL PREVENTION AND RESPONSE
More than four billion gallons of oil and other hazardous materials pass through
Tampa Bay each year on large vessels that must navigate relatively narrow
channels. Another 18 million tons of refined fertilizer products and phosphate rock
are exported from the bay area annually.79 The fertilizer's hazardous compounds, sul-
furic acid and anhydrous ammonia, routinely traverse the bay en route to fertilizer
processing facilities.
While this bustling nautical highway brings billions of dollars in economic rewards to
the region, it also poses an environmental risk to the bay and underscores the need for
effective spill prevention and response.
That risk was brought home to area residents in a dramatic way in August 1993, when
two barges and a tanker met near the mouth of the bay in a fiery collision that resulted
in a spill of nearly 330,000 gallons of oil. 80 Winds and tides pushed most oil offshore,
and the quick response of federal, state and local agencies and the maritime industry
helped to spare the bay serious damage. Still, oil coated hundreds of seabirds, fouled
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
41
IJIRillfJ
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
42
area beaches and blanketed small mangrove islands in the Intracoastal Waterway, with
cleanup costs borne by industry and government exceeding $50 million.81
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Cooperative efforts led by the U.S. Coast Guard, Florida Department of Environ-
mental Protection and Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council have been lauded for
providing critical advance planning and response for such accidents. Local govern-
ments, shipping interests and local utilities are also a part of this local advance plan-
ning network. However, the spill pointed out several important equipment, planning
and navigational needs that could help avoid similar tragedies in the future. In
particular, officials have pledged renewed efforts to focus on ways to prevent spills
from occurring.
Thanks to existing safety protocols, large spills have been relatively rare in Tampa
Bay. In fact, small spills averaging 25 gallons or less constitute 95 percent of the 422
spills reported in the Tampa Bay region from April 1993 through September 1995.82
Many more small spills go undetected. Efforts to address these smaller, chronic dis-
charges are vitally important, since their cumulative impacts may be substantial.
Small spills occur frequently at dockside as boats are refueled. Oily bilge water also
enters the bay from smaller craft when bilge pumps are discharged. Leakage and
spills of oil and hazardous materials from storage tanks, surface and subsurface
pipelines and material-handling accidents and fires also pose a potential threat to the
bay.
The region is currently equipped to handle spills of up to 10,000 gallons on Tampa
Bay. Larger spills require additional support equipment and personnel from through-
out the state and Gulf region.83 Federal regulations requiring double hulls on all oil-
carrying ships constructed after 1997 will assist spill prevention efforts. Existing oil-
transport vessels will be phased in, with retrofits beginning in 1995 and completed by
2015.84
However, no effective containment methods are available for addressing a major
release of water-soluble compounds, such as anhydrous ammonia or sulfuric acid,
which could be devastating to the bay environment.
U.S. Coast Guard statistics reveal that 85 percent of all accidents resulting in spills
stem from human error, not natural conditions or equipment failures.85 These statistics
have important ramifications in Tampa Bay, which has the longest transit of any
Florida port (more than 40 miles) and no coordinated vessel tracking system for com-
mercial vessels.
Ship navigators currently rely on a voluntary broadcast network to relay vessel infor-
mation and destinations when entering and departing port. Large vessels are equipped
with shipboard radar, but the quality and range of these systems vary. In fact, limited
navigational equipment on board some vessels forces pilots to rely heavily on person-
al experience and skills to safely complete each transit.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The State of Bay
Management
INTRODUCTION
The struggle to understand and protect Tampa Bay has evolved in less than 25
years from a grass-roots citizens effort to a complex, multi-layered regulatory net-
work involving three counties, a dozen cities, a variety of regional and federal agen-
cies and numerous special interest groups. All this attention has made the bay among
the most thoroughly studied estuaries in the nation, but it has also resulted in a con-
fusing and often overlapping maze of regulations and programs that at times make it
difficult to discern who is responsible for what.
A major goal of the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program is to bring all parties with
an interest in the bay together to develop a bl~eprint for its future. Finding consensus
on the components of the blueprint, and developing a cost-effective yet comprehen-
sive structure within which it can be brought to life, are keys to the Program's suc-
cess.
This chapter recaps bay management efforts to date and identifies important areas of
duplication and omission in the current framework. This assessment is provided to
assist the community in identifying obstacles to, and opportunities for, more effective
bay management. An inventory of existing regulatory and institutional programs is
being completed and will be available when the bay plan is finalized.
Going to Bat for the Bay
Tampa Bay was an early beneficiary of the burgeoning environmental activism of the
1970s, when a newly formed citizens group called Save Our Bay pushed for a halt to
uncontrolled dredging and sewage disposal in the bay. Years later, the Hillsborough
Environmental Coalition was formed to coordinate and unify local groups with envi-
ronmental concerns, especially those focused on Tampa Bay. The federal government
also was shifting more attention to environmental needs with the establishment of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and passage of the Clean Water Act of 1972.
One of the major initiatives of EPA in its early years was providing federal grants to
upgrade sewage treatment plants.
One of those grants was awarded to the City of Tampa, which had for decades piped
partially treated sewage into Hillsborough Bay from Tampa's Howard F. Curren
IJI:I~il;:'lll:IF':i""
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
43
[11:ltlUl,I:':"'lr
Chaning the Course
for Tampa Bay
44
Treatment Plant. The sewage was believed to be a major reason Hillsborough Bay
was clouded with noxious algae and significantly polluted. This grant enabled Tampa
to install an Advanced Wastewater Treatment system at the plant, one of the first of its
kind in the country. The technological improvements substantially reduced the flow of
nutrients such as nitrogen, an achievement that is recognized today as a cornerstone in
the bay's recovery.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Subsequent state legislation, through the Wilson-Grizzle and Grizzle-Figg initiatives,
required all sewage treatment facilities discharging to the bay to meet advanced treat-
ment standards.
The City of St. Petersburg chose another route to address its sewage disposal prob-
lems when it pioneered the first large-scale wastewater reuse program in the state,
resulting in almost zero discharge to the bay.
In the late 1960s, the Environmental Protection Commission (EPC) of Hillsborough
County was established. Over the years, the EPC has provided a comprehensive
long-term water quality record in the bay - critical for tracking and documenting the
"bad old days" and the bay's progressive recovery.
A decade later, the Hillsborough Environmental Coalition led efforts to fight environ-
mental impacts associated with the Tampa Harbor Deepening project. The Coalition
supported Manatee County's legal action against the federal government regarding the
proposed dumping of dredged material from the project into the Gulf of Mexico. The
group also worked to improve coordination of coastal land acquisition, efforts which
would eventually lead to the establishment of Hillsborough County's Environmental
Lands Acquisition and Protection Program (ELAPP). Efforts such as these reinforced
the importance of bridging jurisdictional boundaries to effectively protect the Tampa
Bay ecosystem.
Residents continued to exert pressure to clean up the bay, and that grounds well of sup-
port reached the state Legislature in the early 1980s. The Legislature established a
bay study commission composed of elected officials and interested citizens to exam-
ine ways to improve bay protection. The study commission resulted in the formation
in 1985 of an advisory group, the Agency on Bay Management. An arm of the Tampa
Bay Regional Planning Council, the agency has become a vigilant guardian of the bay.
The 45-member coalition - which includes elected officials, regulators and represen-
tatives of special interest groups and local governments - has been successful in
focusing public attention on bay problems and in bringing together diverse and often
competing bay users.
The Legislature also created the Surface Water Improvement and Management
(SWIM) program in 1987 to restore and protect the state's most threatened waterways.
At the urging of the Agency on Bay Management, Tampa Bay was named in the
SWIM Act as a priority waterbody within the Southwest Florida Water Management
District. The SWIM program has so far expended more than $6 million of State and
District funds primarily to.restore bay habitats, but also to address pollution in
stormwater runoff.
Despite the progress that has been made, many bay managers believe the bay still
lacks a comprehensive and cohesive protection scheme. Thus, widespread support
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
was given in 1990 to Tampa Bay's adoption into the National Estuary Program by
EPA to assist the region in developing a comprehensive conservation and management
plan for the bay.
A required step in that process is to identify where unnecessary duplication exists in
current environmental programs, ensuring that limited public funds are spent in the
most effective manner.
Bay Management Expenditures,
Overlaps and Gaps
Management of Tampa Bay is currently shared by dozens of federal, state, regional
and local agencies and by different departments within those agencies. A short list
includes the EPA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, the Southwest
Florida Water Management District, and the Tampa Port Authority, which has been
deeded all state-owned or sovereign bay bottom in Hillsborough County. On the local
level, resource management is divided among county and city planning, stormwater,
solid waste, wastewater, and environmental protection departments.
A 1994 survey conducted by the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program attempted to
quantify how much money is spent to manage and monitor bay quality and administer
environmental programs. That study, based on FY 94-95 budgets, indicates that more
than $260 million is spent annually by federal, state and local agencies and govern-
ments on the restoration and management of Tampa Bay.
By far, the largest portion of that figure - 65 percent or roughly $170 million - is
attributed to wastewater collection, treatment and reuse, and activities that directly or
indirectly benefit the bay, even if they aren't performed solely for the bay's benefit.
The second largest allocation of about 13 percent, or $35 million, is expended primar-
ily by local governments and the Southwest Florida Water Management District for
storm water management, including handling and treatment. Budgets for habitat
restoration, preservation and management totalled approximately $17 million or
nearly 7 percent, excluding land acquisition expenditures (nearly 4 percent).
Regulation and enforcement, dredging and dredge material management, environmen-
tal monitoring and public education comprised the remainder of the expenditures (See
Figure 14).
The bay's complex management system has led to duplications in some areas and
gaps in others. Bay managers who responded to the National Estuary Program's 1994
survey generally agreed that duplications occur most frequently in permitting and
research activities, while gaps are most evident in enforcement and monitoring pro-
grams. Bay managers also cited turf-guarding as a problem, and noted the lack of a
comprehensive, readily available database through which valuable information about
the bay's health and living resources could be shared.
The permitting arena serves as an example of what some believe is unnecessary dupli-
cation of effort. An applicant seeking permission to remove or alter wetlands along
the bay may have to obtain permits from as many as half a dozen agencies, depending
on the extent of wetland impacts and the project's location.
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
45
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
4&
Bay Management and Related Expenditures
Federal, State and Local (FY94-95, Dralt)
Rgure 14
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6.7%
Habitat Restoration
& Management
3.7%
Land Acquisition
1.8%
Environmental
Monitoring
2.5%
Dredge Management
5.2%
Regulation &
Enforcement
0.5%
Public Awareness
0.9%
Administration
This chart illustrates how money spent on bay restoration and management is allocated by federal, state
and local agencies and governments, based on FY94-95 expenditures of more than $260 million.
SOURCE: HAZEN AND SAWYER, FUNDING SOURCE INVENTORY FOR CCMP ACTION PLANS
(DRAFT REPORT), JUNE 21, 1995, PREPARED FOR THE TAMPA BAY NATIONAL ESTUARY
PROGRAM
That process may be streamlined soon as a result of the state's new Environmental
Resource Permit, which will consolidate review of existing dredge-and-fill, stormwa-
ter management and sovereign lands permits, and will be issued through the state's
water management districts.
Inconsistencies also characterize the permitting process. Because wetland rules and
their interpretation vary from one agency to another, the applicant's project could be
denied by one agency and approved by another. If the project is approved, the appli-
cant could be required to meet widely varying mitigation and monitoring requirements
imposed by each regulatory agency.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Publicly financed restoration projects are further complicated by state agency require-
ments that they undergo the same rigorous review as private projects - even when
the reviewing agencies have participated in the development of the restoration design.
This process increases the cost of the project and often delays construction by a year
or more.
Indeed, many bay managers believe that permitting is given too much emphasis in the
regulatory arena, while monitoring and enforcement are short-changed. Lack of ade-
quate enforcement personnel has been identified by the DEP as a principal reason so
many mitigation projects required of private developers have neither been properly
constructed, nor constructed at all. The disparity is prevalent throughout the regulatory
community, according to bay managers who responded to the NEP's survey.
A New Approach to Bay Management
Shrinking public funds, combined with increasing demands for government services
and increasing public scrutiny of expenditures, are providing new challenges for
resource managers. In the future, they will be pressed to spend money even more judi-
ciously and on programs that yield quantifiable results.
Concurrently, attitudes about environmental management are shifting away from an
emphasis on piecemeal oversight and toward a holistic view that assesses the cumula-
tive impacts of human actions on entire natural systems. This approach is called
"ecosystem management."
Many bay managers believe the amount of money spent on Tampa Bay is sufficient to
adequately manage it, but that it should be re-directed. In particular, they advocate a
shift in some resources from permitting to monitoring and enforcement. They also
support proactive projects, such as habitat restoration, so long as these projects pro-
vide meaningful results and effectively address ecosystem needs.
These managers see ecosystem management as less, rather than more, expensive,
since it relies less on micro-reviews of individual permits and more on assessing over-
all impacts. A critical component of successful ecosystem management is using bio-
logical living resources - such as seagrass, fish and scallops - as a measure of the
bay's health, in addition to established laboratory standards. Such an approach allows
regulators the flexibility they need to achieve realistic, long-term goals and provides
taxpayers with a better benchmark to judge the return on their investments.
Making ecosystem management a reality in the Tampa Bay watershed will require a
strong management plan backed by a stronger bay management structure that is less
cumbersome, more accountable, and committed to addressing ecosystem needs.
Bringing this plan to life within the existing bay management structure will be an
important focus of the Tampa Bay NEP in overseeing implementation of the master
plan for Tampa Bay.
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
47
48
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1[11:'", . ill!
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
~
o CJ
~o
0>
z ~
.";;1 >
~ z
Z tJ
en
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Goals & Priorities
for Tampa Bay
Charting the Course advances measurable goals and associated strategies to restore
and protect water quality and bay habitats, as the foundation for healthy and diverse
populations of fish and wildlife. These goals and priorities for Tampa Bay are the
focal point of the master plan for Tampa Bay and the subject of this chapter.
When the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program was formed in 1991, local govern-
ment and regulatory agency partners pledged to participate with citizens and scientists
in the development and implementation of a comprehensive conservation and manage-
ment plan for Tampa Bay. Subsequent and extensive efforts by the Program's techni-
cal advisors over the past four years have centered on developing specific resource
goals as long-term measures of success in implementing the bay restoration blueprint.
These goals for Tampa Bay, and the foundation for establishing them, are profiled
below and in the accompanying chart.
Goals for Water & Sediment Quality
Water quality goals focus on maintaining the proper water clarity to support seagrass-
es by controlling nitrogen, which continues to be a major concern in Tampa Bay.
Excess nitrogen in rainfall, stormwater runoff, and from domestic and industrial point
sources accelerates the growth of algae in the bay, limiting light penetration to sea-
grasses, which require sunlight to grow. Past water quality declines contributed to the
loss of nearly half the bay's seagrasses (or almost 19,000 acres) from the 1950s to the
1980s, although seagrasses are now waging a comeback in areas of the bay where
water quality has improved.
In 1993, the Tampa Bay NEP established a long-term seagrass restoration target of
14,000 acres. That goal was based on restoring seagrasses to 1950s levels, excluding
areas that have been permanently altered. Subsequent studies by the NEP indicate that
as many as 12,000 acres of seagrass can be recovered over time by maintaining exist-
ing water quality conditions. That would require local communities to reduce their
nitrogen loadings to the bay by about 10 percent by the year 2010 to compensate for
increases in nitrogen loadings associated with population growth. Additional seagrass
recovery would require further reductions. Nitrogen loading goals for the bay will be
finalized in early 1996.
A workshop sponsored by the Tampa Bay NEP in October 1995 brought together local
governments, regulatory agencies, utilities and industry representatives to review pro-
visional nitrogen loading goals for Tampa Bay and discuss ways to allocate reductions
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
49
Equally important is the fact that some habitats have declined or been degraded more
rapidly than others. The resulting imbalance of habitat types has contributed to
declines in certain fish and wildlife. A strategy to address this imbalance is the center-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1:lflAI:I
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
in nitrogen inputs once loading targets are finalized in early 1996. Technical investi-
gators project increases in nitrogen loadings of about 30 tons per year associated with
population growth, an amount that represents less than 1 percent of present-day levels.
Participants discussed various proportional allocation methods, in which dischargers
would be required to do their fair share to offset anticipated increases in nitrogen.
Those allocations will be reflected in the final bay management plan.
Toxic contaminants in bay sediments represent the other primary focus of concern for
bay managers. Studies by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) and Florida's Department of Environmental Protection in the late 1980s and
early 1990s documented relatively high levels of pesticides, heavy metals and other
contaminants in sediments at some bay sites, and associated impacts to marine life.
Currently, the Tampa Bay NEP is integrating these and other studies on sediment
chemistry and toxicity with analyses depicting the health of the bay's bottom dwelling
communities-the component of the marine ecosystem most impacted by toxics. A
closely related study involves evaluating the level of risk to marine and human health
associated with these contaminants.
These studies, slated for completion in March 1996, will enable bay managers to bet-
ter identify toxics of concern in Tampa Bay. They also will provide the basis for
establishing management objectives to minimize associated risks to marine life and
humans, and to protect relatively clean areas of the bay from being degraded. The
Tampa Bay NEP also is investigating the sources and status of these contaminants in
priority drainage basins, research that will be used to determine cleanup and contain-
ment strategies.
Recent events also have focused the attention of citizens and bay managers on prob-
lems associated with sewer overflows and discharges to the bay during heavy rain-
storms. That problem came to light recently when the City of St. Petersburg was
forced to discharge more than 15 million gallons of raw sewage into Boca Ciega Bay
when excessive rainfall infiltrated and overtaxed the city's wastewater collection net-
work. Other communities around the bay have occasionally experienced similar prob-
lems during periods of high rainfall. To keep the bay safe for swimming and shellfish
harvesting in the future, local communities will need to grapple with infrastructure
improvements that will ensure that the significant investments made to upgrade
sewage treatment facilities are not diminished by chronic failures in collection and
distribution networks.
Goals for Bay Habitats
Charting the Course also sets forth an innovative watershed strategy for coastal habi-
tat restoration and protection that goes further and will accomplish more for Tampa
Bay than existing "no net loss" goals for wetlands, which many suspect fall short of
that aim. About half of the bay's saltwater wetlands have been lost to development
since the 1950s. Development also has exacted an especially heavy toll on the low-
salinity portions of the bay's freshwater tributaries, areas that provide critical nursery
habitat for numerous species of fish.
50
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
piece of the Tampa Bay NEP's forthcoming watershed plan for coastal habitat restora-
tion and protection. The strategy is based on restoring an optimum mix of habitats to
meet the needs of the bay's representative fish and wildlife guilds, groups of animals
that share similar habitat and food requirements.
An overall minimum goal is to restore roughly 100 acres of low-salinity tidal marsh
habitat every five years, while maintaining and enhancing salt marshes and mangroves
at existing levels. The long-term aim is to recover as many as 1,800 acres of these
low-salinity habitats over time, either through habitat restoration or enhancement of
existing areas that have been severely degraded. The strategy effectively targets one
of the major causes of bay wildlife declines-the accelerated decline of a few unique
and absolutely crucial habitats whose losses place a "biological chokehold" on the bay
ecosystem.
Now being finalized, the coastal habitat master plan coordinates existing local, state
and regional restoration programs and identifies priorities for both habitat restoration
and protection, including environmental lands purchases and less-than-fee-simple
methods such as conservation easements.
A preliminary seagrass restoration target for Tampa Bay of approximately 14,000
acres also has been established. That figure is based on the amount of seagrasses lost
predominantly as a result of water quality declines between 1950 and 1990. Water
quality improvements stemming from wastewater and storm water treatment upgrades
in the 1970s and early 1980s already are helping to reap rewards in this endeavor.
From 1982 to 1992,4,000 acres of seagrasses have grown in Tampa Bay as a result of
improving water quality conditions. Even as water quality improvements occur, the
natural lag time in seagrass regrowth indicates that recovery will be a long-term
process.
Goals for Fish & Wildlife
While the Tampa Bay NEP has not adopted any specific goals for increases in fish and
wildlife species, the goals established for water quality and habitat restoration will
provide direct benefits for fish, birds and other bay inhabitants by improving the areas
in which they live, reproduce and feed.
Reductions in nitrogen loading and increases in seagrass coverage, for instance, will
assist efforts to increase fisheries and return the bay scallop to Tampa Bay by provid-
ing suitable water quality and habitat. Achieving the NEP's seagrass recovery target
also will help the bay's population of endangered manatees, which feed in seagrass
beds.
Birds, too, will benefit from the goals set forth in the NEP's habitat restoration master
plan, which will assure protection and enhancement of existing habitats important for
feeding and nesting, and increase other habitats, such as salt barrens and freshwater
ponds, which have been severely reduced because of development. The restoration
and protection of freshwater ponds, for instance, is critical to the survival of the white
ibis, which depends upon freshwater crayfish and insects to feed its young.
Additionally, preserving the flow of freshwater into the bay from its myriad tributaries
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
51
Finally, the Tampa Bay NEP recognizes the need to continue strong community out-
reach and education efforts as the plan is implemented. These efforts are discussed in
the chapter on public involvement.
.
.
.
.
.
,.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'rJRL,~Ur~::'ll'
will yield dividends for a variety of commercially and recreationally valuable fish,
which seek out these sheltered, low-salinity havens as nurseries.
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
Other Bay Improvement Goals
Other goals, aimed at improving spill prevention and response and dredging and
dredge material management, are equally important in preserving the bay's health and
promoting cooperative planning.
Objectives for managing dredging and dredged material focus on the development of
a long-term, coordinated dredging and dredged material disposal plan involving the
bay's three major seaports and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The plan seeks to
reduce the environmental impacts associated with dredging, and maximize beneficial
uses of material dredged from the bay's shipping channels.
Goals for spill prevention and response emphasize the installation of a state-of-the-art
Vessel Traffic System (VTS) that employs a combination of shore-based radar and
global positioning technology to monitor and control shipping traffic in the bay. The
system would greatly reduce the likelihood of an economically and environmentally
devastating spill of oil or hazardous materials.
Measures to Ensure Success
To ensure effective and timely implementation of the bay master plan, local govern-
ment and regulatory agency partners have pledged to continue regular dialogue and
meetings to review actions and evaluate progress toward meeting the bay's goals.
Continued monitoring of the bay's health also is essential to this process (see
Monitoring Bay Improvement). This allows policy leaders and bay managers to
adjust management actions as necessary to keep the plan on track.
Attaining broad-based citizen support for bay restoration and protection will be equal-
ly vital to the success of the plan.
An overall theme expressed in various action plans is to better utilize existing federal,
state and local resources to carry out recommended actions. A strong focus on com-
pliance monitoring and enforcement also is emphasized throughout the plan and in
specific actions to ensure that environmental regulations that have been established
are followed.
52
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
53
~
z~
9~
~~
S~
oo~
~~
~z
~9
~~
OU
~~
000
~~
~~
~
"0
en I C
ttS>1DC'CS
~ 0 en -
..0 O..!.. ~
jg m ~.S!
-0"00
t;.3~~
g . ~~~
U C 0.."0 U
_CfJ ~ ~ ~ ~
>-c-Ec
j'g~~Eo
C1J~co>,
..r:::. c..:+:::: (.) L-
....._c~g;
~~8'b 8
:::::leno CIJ
"U"'C......5L..
c C"O'- .en
.;;; ~ ~:s i'a'
C1Jc"Oc..o
:::::lCIJCIJCIJCIJ
~Ec..E..c
.- ~ CD .!E ~
C1J~>o..CIJ
enc~ECIJ
~ ~..c ._ ~
t-Ea..~o
. UJ Q) +-'
~]!ZE~
~ ~ ~:;:::;~
E1Oco"g2
EE~~CIJ
o "0 c..E C1J..c
c.JQ) >......
"g .g>~ t5 .=
~~CIJ~~
C"O';:;CIJ"O
~ -g.= e ~
~~~i1'l~
t3 ~'13 ~ ~
~ '0, ~ 0 ~
..c"O Cl-'-
"0 ~ ~ .e- ~
..0 "0 "O..c 10
t::: . c ~ .....
~ctSQ)t)
O=enC
~32 t:: t::: t;
:::::l'3: CIJ ~.~
en E "0
="OcCl~
'3: ~ ~ ~ .s
O(/)lo.........
,.....Q)ora
ctS..c::CJ)~..c::
Q)~caU)"'"
enSCIJcti>-
"Oet3oj'g
~ 01.= (!J >-
.?;>~ ~cPE
7ii~~,g~
:::::l2~u..c
O'"CIJECIJ~
..... Cl "0
C1J~OOC
1tS c: ..... ...... "ets
3: Et::.;:;t;
1::~E~~
~Q5:!:..co
o.:=: E .en ~
c..t>Ei'a'CIJ
.~ g 8..0 ~
Q) c.. Q)~ e
i::oc_:g
~-g3:~
~-gen.2CIJ
c..~~cti..o
-
oCIJencen
_"OCIJ~:::::l
E ~.5';:; E
"(ij ~ g Q) 1tS
~...... "'-..c::.J:::
~ ~ .~ ~ -;
-..c CIJ
~CIJt-en"":::::l
E..c......en
:: ~ G .~
~CIJ~UC
.....6000
o u..cen
';~e3:B
cti ii) .en e.E
g,:c i'a' Cl 0
Clg..o~lQ
c CIJ ~
'3: .~ .;:; g i'a'
O~CIJ:;:::;CO
'3Cl~-=~
..... en._ "'0 0..
C1J~t::o..E
f5. 0 8 .= ~
I I C
I en~go c..!!:!
ii) ~ 25 "0 U .- a..
- ~E ~.~ ~ r::
g> ~"O ....."0 t:: '13 .S!
.- E"O CIJ C lU C -
"0 <C ..c ~ E CIJ <CU
~en .t:::"O 01
.2~CIJ2lU:E~~
c ~ E .!:::!..... "0 =
Q) (.) +::::; e cti C) c: ctS
Cl ~ ..... .- c ~ ~ :::::l
O.cCIJ:::::l;;:::Cl 0
.....c>O'" cen
~ "(ij 0 e CD:;:::; E ~
c Cl en "0 ..0 C CIJ 10
i'a'0~"S=EE3:
"O-.....03:lUE
"!"'t:: g3:lQc..~:E
~.~ ~ ~ ~ E 0 en
~ .52..... CIJ g,.- Cl cO
.....:s:: 0 > ClCmC'l
c..i1'len8c~uC'len
Cl CIJ C1J'- 0 0 .- CIJ
s:::::: CD lo... "- "'C.....- :rr.....o,
.c..c g en g.= ~ CIJ ~
'Cij ~o ~ -' ~ "0 E ~
-EO..... '_lU -
.= o. Cl ~ ~ c ~ en
~ lQ N ~ 0 o.~ 0 .....
:2: C1J.- en:;:::; 0.. en Z .2
I
.c
~I
_ ..c
~ ~.!Q ~ en
~ _~~1i)
Clc~~~
ctS.~~ U ~
~~';:-=E
"OooClE
~ t; ~ .= en
e lo- 6"i::
~CIJgc..i5
cti:::::loE-
:::::l .= 0 ._ "0
O'"t:: 0 . c
.....o-.:rCIJ~
~u......Een
ctS "'C U'J :;:::; .~
3:c~""'~
Cl ~ :>. ~ ..c
.= .e3 ~ 0 ~
1Q~E:Scti
x E en'- c
.: lU ~ -g .S!
u 6 Cl..c 10
C1Jlr,...cCl)C1J
15 c..:2 CD u
O:.~.~.~ ~
"0
c
~
.e3gf
C:'~
lU _
E~
C"O
~.=
>
g,23en
_CCIJ
~~E
.9~~
c
CIJ
g>"O .= ~ >-
,"-me: en::]..c
~..c::ctScn .Q)c..c......
c - ~ ~ lU en 0'- c
01 ~ CIJ ~.~ ~ c.. g ~
c: c: > ctS ..... L....c::.- 10...
:;:::; .- 0 E ..... u - t> lU
>- .~ t:: u lU .='S :::::l c..
I-xolUen6"O>"Oo
:::iCIJu;;;~en~~~'-
CC ~ .s .>- 13 lU ~ 10 ~ '5
= :::::l :>.j'g..c ~ .e-'13 CIJ 0
--"0 ~ ~ ~.52 o.=..c
....emC1Jsl.........cn:=1ctS
Z >- ~.;:; e ~ ~ ~ g'b
w +:; 0........ C) Q) L... L..
::E..cEOlUenOen>-en
Q .~ ~ lU ..... 13..... ~ ~ g> .
LL1CiiF~~eng>::cE:ao
Cf.)lo....8:::S+-'Q):;::::;ctS..c::ctSC;
~ 0.. 8 ~t3 ~.23i:.2N
Cen ~~cc c.....
a:'Cij 01 ~ ..... 0 CIJ CIJ e lU ~
LLI _ C.- :::::l 0 c.. Cl Cl Cl lU
....C::c:!:OOEO 0>-
iClC'Cij ~ en u. ..... C ..... CIJ
:3=:2:.9 ~~:;:::8~E:~.;:;
>,. ~ CI)
..c~ g~
"00 tOu.....
~1O..cC'l.....:g
.2"S~~~~
~~~~:::::l.s
QJ.....~l.....rti~
"'C.J::~~1ii1
Q):t=..c ~
:: 3: en""'= -g C
=Ct::"O~o
3: .S! CIJ ~ en:;:::;
en1OE~~U .
~~EC.::;:g
=o..CIJEoCIJ'+:;
~g68enCl.l~
'::; u Cl en ~ ;>.,"E
C').s ~ 5 "E ~ .s
.e-a: 15 ~ ~ lU g
~ ~ ~ .~';;'.;:; U
0'" >- ~ ~ Q5 .= 13
1::~enE;=.f!3l9
CIJ ~.~ -_ = C 0
.~ 0.. g cD 3: ~ g-
~ ~ ~~ ~ 'E "0
CI.lF~.-~~..c
"0 E
C ~
~ Ct.) 1::
~.52 0
=~u
C1J-E
.2 E e
~O"'"
E';: fii'
o~..o
-enlU
.e3 .;:: .;:;
u..c.....
~~ 0
E ~ en
'-..c ~
2g~
'0, -g E'
.Q c..:!:
.S!"O ~
..c~~
~ .~ 1:) c
:::::lUCIJO
""2~o~
a:~c.~
"0
C
~
en en""
_ CIJ
~E
E~~
E"'C c:
~ .~-"~
g,~E
C .
ctilUen
U.!:::! t:::
o:!:o
-' U 0..
"0
C en
>-~C
~ "~
.c g E .=
~~.E~
::: .= "g ~
o E ~.=
~'s~E
lUg=,S
~u~5
~.~.~ ~
~ .s E'x
U 0
>-.= _0-
- ..c
g;~~~~
:;:::;enen3:~
..!!:! ~';::"O ~
euQ)~"'C
...... c:.~ ~ ~
a3'- E'13 U
- E -- 0 ~
ooCeno..
0: .;: 'E ~ .~
I
..0
~e
lUo..
> 3:
80
..c'E
U CIJ
:C6
3: .....
. lU
.2 ~
t>en
:::::l"O
"OlUen
e:;!g
~gt5
.J::en~
.:!:~"'C
~"C ~
..cc..!!:!
(.)~e
.- lU
:C:::::l"O
:::::lenC
o...~ ~
:E.~ E
Cf.)';:;~
CIJ
"0 ..c
c-
~-
:::::l
ClO
C..c
~ctS
~en
i::E
~CIJ
..cU
C
..co
enu
~(.)
Q5=
..c..o .
en:::::lc
..... 0.. 0
~ ~~
Q) = Q)
~ctSu
en "0 CIJ
C .....
>-~.....
j'g " .E
Cl
lUCCIJ
.J::'- en
-E:::::l
~ E.en
~.- >-
oo::::3:~
..::::. en..c
"0
C
~
en
-
C
lU
E
C
.....
lU
>
o~
~c
~CIJ
U.!:::!
O~
-lu
"OCl
lU.=
t>E
~E
E'-
.- ~
c.....
"~ .E
.S! lU
-.....
~~
cen
'E en .
~Q5Cl
_>c
C:Q)+::;
0- en
uoCIJ
cti;,i::
"C ctS~
lU..o
OQ)-;5
~ ..c .-
..c......~
Q)'+-Q)
uO..c
:::::lenen
"O~"O
aJec:
a:~~
.
>- lU
CO ..c
, -
. "0
-b~~ooO
~.2.....0-
~~~~~~~
.;:; ..... g> cti .- CO en
en~"C~c:~
E ~ ~ "S ~.S! ~
e~ OctS......Q)
..... g>.= ..c E g en
en Q) en ._ '+-
t::en~enXOO
lU encelQCl
ECl~Oo..~c
Q).~ Q) ~ c.. Q) "C
>:Eu:.cctSQ)~
o~cc.....Cf.)~
c.. lU'- 0 0 en en
E.....~u>-en.....
.- '" ~ ::>.;; ~ ~
.?;> -€J:2 j'g 6 Cl Q5
7ii~CllUa3~g-
~~c:~~en~
c-"':;:o......-'+- c..
.....enCO~OlU
C1JoCIJ-:::::lenU
_oo>en"OCIJ:::::l
~m~g>~u~
:> .- 0..._ Cl ~ .....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
E.i::'b
C1Jen en
t;:E; ~~
>-- lU"O
enlU>lU
o..coc
U en U.-
C1J"OlUu
>..c:~Q)
~~"O"O
..c..c~Q)-ci
lUen~>CIJ
..c .-.- ~ >-
......'+-u.co
.....0 .....
b~~1tS"t)
en ...... ",.r::. Q)
lU~ -"0
c:~~enc:
0..0 0.. ~ lU
t;~englU
~ ..c: +-' ..c
CIJ cti .e- en lU
E~~~~
8~=E..c
en----
ctien3:~~
:5;: : ~"O ~
C1J:s!~~~
~68..cg>
'=c..e~~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
"0
c
~
19 en en
ClUlU
C1J'-'-
EU:!:
c=
ClU-
..... Cl:::::l
~~en""
g, 23.~
c-
~~~
U._ "0
o ~ c:
-' U._
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.....
o
en
lU
.....
U
~
o
o
o
-<r
.-
en cP
~"O
>-'-
U)~~
~E..o
I-'enen
=~~
cc~en
::J:>~
00,
~a3~
l:ICIa:~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.-
.
C
.S!-o
_C.C .c:
ctl.....ctl Cl
-+oJ Q) ::S'
~1i)~cDeg'
o ctl:;:::; 0> .-
o E';:: 0> -E -g
~ c.g..- ~ ~
- .S! 0... i::' 0> 0)
~t) .ctS"-:c
O)O)-o~Cctl
E 15 ~ ctl'- =
O).....en'JCg!
c.. C. ~ c'o ctl
E-g1O:;~-E
.;; ctl 5: ~ == -;::
- g i'O'~ 5: en
"'7 +:; [D C r::::.~
::r: e ctl ;;:::: _S! g
lD 0 C. 0) 10 0)
ct)E.c-Cl
.S! ~ ~ == ~ ctl
t)-O)5:Eg>
<( .s.c: en 0) .-
CD :.0 +-' ~ "C.. 1;)
J.l ~.E gE'~
0)
, >
.- ctl
_.c.c: -..
ctlctl_ c
c.c: ctl . 0
o..........c::: t).-
'0, 0 +-' ctS t)
Q) Q) ~ a.~
.....oO)Eo
"C c: ~.- ~
c.S!ctl-a.
ctlctlc~-o
_.cooc
~ E 011:: ctl
o::Jcoc
-- E 'ij) a..S!
0).- ::J 0 -
tii "5.. g c.. ~
t)o............B
c - en en
~C'd~~~u)
:;:::;O)=ctl_t
en.....-o O)ctl 0
-X B:S; c,~:j:::
Q)en:>> .cO)
Q) ~ ~~ ~ C
+-' \ow +-' 0
~.8~"O~E
:c ~ 0 ~ E _~
~,--"""'Q)""'::s
OOen-O~
o :j::: - '5';:: U
(.,)O).aeno...ctl
"'C _
~::2:
~~
cen
0)
Eo..:-
cUJ
.....0
~LL.
g,23
c
c;;0)ii:
g:2::2:
..J 0 u..
Cts ..!... E '0
00.= C 10-
+-' C'> C'd "ct; ~ ~
"*l E 'r E-g b,t)
~::J5:O)ctlCctl
-g .~ .2:E :g.2 0
.c:c-5:.c:O)o
_ .E 0 en .c: co_
o enen~l-..-
Q)O)~""'Ecrien
o.c:octl _ctl
c I- ctl g;, _ 0) >-
ctl'o co>c
c;;.l!:!oO)en~ctl
.c = ..-.::: Cl Cl E
""C .......c:c
E = ~ i::"13:;:::; en +-'
::J 5: -g, 0) c.~ ~ .s
E-o::J>ctlx .-
:;:::;coO).c:O)~.c
C.ctl......c:c_o~
O.c:O)enO)ctlo
.c:: en .... ro "C CI) ~ ~
ctl ;;:::: B E c ~ 'c
O)ten ctloB=
o 0 ~ co g> c,.~ ~
- c.. 0 "'C .- - I
:g a. _ :;:::; .!: (ij E 5:
cr. ~ _~ ~.s E'ctj.2
.....
crio-o
.....- c
0) en ctlr-.,:
_::: 5: CJ:) 0>
......20>0>
"C ....... 0') ,.-
0) E"- >-
-g::Jc.c
::J E';;; ~
0._ .... Q)
Ec...!: 0) >
._ E -E;';::
Cl-o E ~
.!: ~ _ -0
~ E~ e
0) lD
.....E"'C"'C
-oocc
"'Coctlctl
ctlO).c:
,.- .... C) OJ
....!...::::::s~
LL.5:e~
go~ ctl
:;:::;::2:en::2:
o~-
<(G:I.5
~3:Q)"'"
enen-E.E
,
c
co~
en 0)
, .....
"'C ctl
-E i::'
-g~
ctl::J
, c
5:-
o.s
= 'S: .c:
~en$
.- ctl
- -
"C CD 0
o 2: en
0)0)0)
g~'~
ctloc..
-E:.cen
0)5:~
-g~e
ctlctlO)
-~ E
o.c ::J
~~c::
o
C:: ~ .E
"'C
- C
~ctl
o en
--
- c
00)
::2:Ei::'
~Ec
G:O)O)
:5:6:2
enClO
.....
0)
-
ctl .
:s: en
.c: .!!:1
en.....
0) ctl
.....-
_ ::J
O):!:!
- .....
ctl_
::J en
C"_
Q)'-
"'C -0
ctlC
O)ctl
>>-
.....ctl
~lD
O)ctl
.....c..
c..E
-g~
ctl
.c:B
.~ en
:05:
ctlO
--
en-
UJ .!:
en
,cc
000
+-' g>E ~ cD
~o-gctSc..
-g 0 8 ~ .~
.c:-O)'C-O
co~>=c
t)oe:5:ctl
~:g a. oC:l ~
o ctl.~.c: ::J
g>~Bo: ~
'ij) ~ en 0) E
~C"15J.lo .
-0 .....:j::: .;;:::: en
"C ~ CD ~ '(3 ~
ctl ctl -0'- 0) ::J
"7 5: ~ ~ ~-g
::r:-g ~5: ~i3
lDctlO-o.c:en
ggo.~15g
~~~~.E~
~ctS~c:'E
~eC)""'C'dQ)
en c...!: .E 0.. E
,
-:.0
~t)ctSQ)
::sQ)...c:::.......
en C-o = .
Cl-o c:!:! E
c.::: ctl.:;; en
.-.c >-:>> -;::
6 _:!:-o 5
c.. ~ cti ~ +-'
E';:: &.c:-o
._ 0) en c
>-7i5~;;:::: ctl
..c~~~5
~'O 5: ~ :;:::;
.cccn~~
~ .~ 1ti..c t5
+-'t5~oQ)
.s~-g~~
en e.c: = .!:
t) c. -g'~ g
ctl -0 ctl ctl
c.. c i::' .c:
Ectl~O)c
.- 0) c > 0)
~g.S!8en
-5 ~.~ ~ -B
0)'- Cl_ 0
cr. ~.!: .s t)
0)
-0 C
c: .;::
ctl ctl
~ i::'::2:
CBctl
O)ctl-o
E"S .;::
c Cl 0
~~o:
> -
g,23:g
co ~'g e
(,).~ Q) +-'
5 15 ~~
o :>e
E ~-o 8 ~ ~
CtS- c:: e~ .g .
~~ctlOctl......S!c
oen-cO)::Jctl
-g:;:::; ~ CI) ctS ~ t:nc..
ctl.S!~tE5:~en
::J..c 0 _ I .-
~c..ctl:j:::ctlCco-E
'ij) 0 .c: UJ g 0 "E c
10.... c.. "'C . - Q) Q)'_
Q)O)c~.c:>E-o
-~ ~ as (.) en e Q)
-o_~ ~~~ c..g g
......-= E ctl E.::: ctl
0) 5: ctl._ -.- > >
....c ::J_en-oc-o
u.. E-o C"ctl 0) C 0) ctl
::i ::J ~ ......~ en ctl - en
o c.c:~ ~g-en~ g
== ~.~ 5: -a = ~ c:;:::;
~...""'" ctSoQ)(.,)
--O)enClClUNEctl
ae en ->- c c en 0) >-
ctl ctl .;::.- >- c U 0)
::E:~.cB~~So~
enoO)en-o 0-0)
U:::~~~~~~~~
t) c6 ' g
0-- c.-
_E:g~t)
o en.- 0) <C
ent)~-g~
e- -6 ~ -::: (/)
o c L... 0 "
(.,) 0 ~'ca ~
>- 0 0 E .-
.c"'Co c
co coO) .!:
>ctSL...~c::D
e~~~~
~ ~ "0 _en ~
ctl ..... . - >- ctl
0) Cl ctl
Cl>c.c:g
.!: 0 -0 0) :;:::;
-0 .c: -0 .c: .;::
c: _52 Q) ..... 0
Q)..c: L... Q)..c:
C. 5: "'C .!: "5
.~ __en> ctl
c;; ~ ~o t
o~.cEo
Cl c 0) .- c.. .
CJ) --..c: CJ) ..... .,.....
:.c g>;::: ~ ~d:
I-UJO:;:::;-oO
J!3~-c
en'- c
oEctl
0--
...~1i!3CJ)
~ E~-g
"'C"'CcO)
CCctlc
~ ctl .:-- co
Q)enctlen
"'C 0)';:: 0
c: ~ Q) c..
.-.-..... en
> ctl.-
-g:gE~
ctl ctl --
=0
enO)oa.
t)~g.CJ)
~.c: _ E
E- 0.....
.c: 0)
--..... r.n~
>-a'- Q) I
ctl5:enCl
.c ::JC
"'C 0
0)0)c;;-
-~ ~ "0 ~
E '13;;:::: 0)
.- 0 Q) lio...
CenC-O
~~~~
,
ctl
.....
a ~t
enOO
c..oc..
.....0_
8.!: ~
>-en.2en
E~-E:E
<( ~';:: 0
en '0 c -E
. c O::J
::>UJ:;:::;ctl
-0
o-g
...J 8ctl
:!: -Cl
a:: E .!:
... ..... Cl
!it ~ -g .
~ c::DL-......
.... C -0 ~
CI .2oE
W ctS....... Q)
~ _cCl
o Cctlctl
... O)-C
a:: E c.. ctl
o Q)"EE
c..0)-
~.... E E-~
<ffi:; ~~
~:Ec~E
z...ctlctl
C;o g-E-g
0<--0 Cl
"'~~~-g
a::;;;;;; 0) ctl.....
O....Oc-o
0)
.c:
.....Q)w cn~J,
E'-E~O)ctl~~
"'C,o~-EEO).E
~CI)(.,)o~~ "'ui
.~ ~:E ;; ~ 0 ~ ==
:0 '0.. g g en -g g, ~
ctl en c..._ ctl ctl
1;) ~ CJ) ~ ....... .,..... ~"~
O)ctlO)-oO'c;;ctl
en 0) ~ c c 0... .- "E
ctl.c:ctlO)oengo
5:::EE~cc..o
~~BE~S:gB
oc~8t)oen~
_ ::J._ 0) C <( 0) 0
~ e 0 ~.::: ~ ~.c
en::J.c: ClOen en 0
.f9~"5.2"""'_ . ~ ~
t)Ci)<(Oc.or--EE
~ '0 t ..2 8l 8l c 0
Q)Q)Ou.,.....~oo
1::.....Ja...~cen:;:;..c
:::i:: {g ~ 0.- ctl ~ c
.:!: .;:: E:t= ~ ~ > 0
~.2ctS~.$~~g'
::2: u.. F _ en 0) c..._
-
en
0) 0) en
en Cl 0)
g c 2:_en
0.. ..Q Q) ~
enO)enctl
e~-ct:)
"'Cen~O)
c ctl .c:
ctS..c:ctS...
c .c::g g>
S .~ .2 :c
c .c: u.. ::J
O)5:C(3
> -.-
~ ~ t _!:
c..co 0 en
== ctl c..t
c..c..>-o
enE~g-
~~'o ~
ec.....L-.
c...-'- 0
E ~ ~ -ca
';':E g E ~
~ ~"~ e ~
>ctl ctl.c:.c: ~
u en....._
"'C
C
ctl
en "'C
_ c
c ctl
Q)ctl en
E :E! 0)
E.E -~
O)u...O)oen
~ - ~..c: ~
Cli::'1O"5en
_CCi)ctl::J
~ .~ '0 t t
O~O)oo
..J 0..J c.. c..
.....' ,
Q) cn .....- I -!...
L-. ~ ~ .~ g"~ cb ~
Q)E-=-O>-o
.c: en _~ -g ~ C. 0 c
15o~c..enenEctl
lio... -- Q) ctS Q) ctS 0.. Q)
~ogEo>c:.cc
z=.....EO)ctlOen.2
oo.c:oen_o_,
a.._uogoeno~
en 0 ~-o c..g ~ c E
... .!Q ::J C :g:;:::; >-.!2 0'
a::=-octl.....ctlctl-
c..0)- -lD ctl"<t .
oe en ..... ctl == c;; .!: en w
o - c c..- ctl"'C- C
Z ._ en 0 en en c....... ~ c
~ -a~ ~ O)'!: E g.c ~
....e~~6~~00)0
ffit)1O g 0.-..... ~-E 5:
> .s E ..... E'~.E e Cl e
W ctl en E .- - E c.. c .....
a::O::Jo"'C~ E.2ctl
a.. _ 0 ..... c Cl ~._ ctl c
...JC-O-ctl en en>-
...J~~.!Q -ii)'>-B"Ew
ii:o)N=.!Q~enO)O)>
cn~~ g-~<c~:c E~
"<t 0)
0> .....
N ::J
C"
0> 0) c::
0> .....
0
..- >-.-
..... ctl-
0 E!i3
-
c:n en c..
c 0
> 0 0
ctl :;:::; 0
en 0-
Cl ctlC
C - 0)
-0 c E
ctl 0) c
.2 E .....
0)
c 0) >
0) > 0
0 Cl
Cl .....
e c..-
~ Ee
c ._ 0)
>-"'C
c ctl.l!:!
0 .c"'C
"'C 0) c
0) E ctl
en
ctl 0 c
.c en 0
co o~
0 ctl
Cl C 0)
>- o >
..... ~~
ctl --
c c en
E 0) .0
E 0)
0) ~O)
..... c.._
0... E.a
.. _ en
58
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1[li.1II ,I1I,IF'I'"
Owning the Course
for Tampa Bay
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Introduction to
Action Plans
The Tampa Bay National Estuary Program was established in 1991 to assist the
community in developing a comprehensive bay restoration plan featuring long-
range strategies for bay improvement. These strategies are the focus of the fol-
lowing five Action Plans, addressing:
· Water & Sediment Quality
Stormwater Runoff
Atmospheric Deposition
Wastewater
Toxic Contamination
Public Health
· Bay Habitats
· Bay Fish & Wildlife
· Dredging & Dredge Material Management
· Spill Prevention & Response
This strategic blueprint for Tampa Bay is presented in draft form to further enlist input
from citizens and community partners. The final Comprehensive Conservation &
Management Plan for Tampa Bay will be published in mid-1996.
Action Plans define the bay's most pressing needs, and present strategies to achieve
bay goals and maximize the community's long-term return on investment. Some
actions can be implemented quickly and with existing resources. Others will require
long-term community commitments. Whenever possible, strategies presented in
Charting the Course seek to strengthen or redirect existing bay programs to accom-
plish more with available resources.
Action Plans have been developed with assistance from bay experts and advocates
working through the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program's management, technical
and community advisory committees. Each Action Plan begins with an introduction
that summarizes the issue and includes an index of actions, and concludes with ideas
on What You Can Do to promote and support bay improvement. Cost estimates are
presented for each action, but some analyses continue as this goes to press.
Strategies advanced in Charting the Course represent important measures to aid in the
bay's long-term recovery and protection, but some actions may not be appropriate in
all areas. For instance, different land uses may direct local governments to select dif-
ferent strategies to address pollution to the bay. So long as the bay's water quality
goals are met, this flexibility is encouraged to enable community partners to select the
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
57
I[Jlill;Jlf'lf
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
58
most cost-effective course for bay restoration. While flexibility is emphasized, all
participants are called upon to achieve the overall goals for bay restoration and protec-
tion (see Goals & Priorities) to preserve the bay's health.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The Tampa Bay National Estuary Program is a partnership of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; Florida Department of Environmental Protection; Southwest
Florida Water Management District; Hillsborough County and the County's
Environmental Protection Commission; Manatee County; Pinellas County; and the
cities of Tampa, St. Petersburg and Clearwater. These partners will sign an agreement
to implement the final Comprehensive Conservation & Management Plan for Tampa
Bay in 1996. They are joined by numerous other agencies, citizens, and technical and
private-industry advisors who have participated in the development of the bay master
plan.
Preliminary analyses suggest that the cost to meet certain water quality goals may be
relatively minimal over the plan's lifetime (see Implementation & Financing chapter).
Nitrogen loadings to the bay, which continue to be a major focus of concern, may
only require an annual reduction of about 1 percent by 2010 to offset anticipated
increases associated with population growth in order to provide optimum conditions
for seagrass recovery. Several of the proposed actions to reduce excess nitrogen
enhance ongoing efforts in pollution prevention and environmental stewardship, and
many of those actions could be accomplished with existing bay management
resources. Others may require a re-direction of resources to achieve more with exist-
ing tax dollars. Additionally, a number of actions seek to improve coordination and
planning among local governments and agencies, and may actually result in savings
for currently funded activities.
Although costs for meeting other goals have not been fully determined, recommended
actions will focus on cost-effective use of existing resources and a clear return on
investment. Any additional funds required to restore Tampa Bay will be documented
in the final bay management plan, and subject to public consideration to ensure that
issues of affordability, accountability and environmental results are given fair hearing.
The Tampa Bay National Estuary Program invites and encourages your comments as
we continue to assist the community in developing this important management blue-
print for Tampa Bay.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Water &
Sediment Quality
Tampa Bay is rebounding from decades of pollution that reached an apex in the late
1970s, when vast algal blooms clouded the water in some bay sectors and seagrasses
struggled to survive.
Now, water quality improvements are helping to chart a course for the bay's recovery.
Since 1982, more than 4,000 acres of seagrasses-which provide life-support to many
of the bay's fisheries-have either sprouted in once-barren areas or filled in previous-
ly patchy meadows as a result of water quality gains. Improved conditions also may
be setting the stage for recovery of the bay scallop, which disappeared in the 1960s
when the bay was badly polluted.
Most water quality gains are attributed to advanced wastewater treatment technolo-
gies, which can eliminate up to 90 percent of the nitrogen from treated wastewater
discharged to the bay. Municipal sewage treatment facilities now contribute just nine
percent of total bay nitrogen loadings, down from 40 percent in the mid-1970s.
Maintaining these water quality improvements as the region grows represents the fore-
most challenge for the stewards of Tampa Bay. While direct or "point" discharges of
pollution to the bay have declined, other sources such as storm water runoff and
atmospheric deposition have increased and are expected to grow as more people settle
in the region. Population in the three counties bordering the bay is expected to
increase about 20 percent to nearly 2.4 million by 2010. At current treatment levels,
that growth will be accompanied by increases in nitrogen loadings.
Nitrogen and potentially toxic contaminants (including heavy metals and pesticides)
are the key pollutants of concern to Tampa Bay. Pollution pathways, including
stormwater runoff, atmospheric deposition and wastewater are summarized in this sec-
tion. For more in-depth coverage, please refer to the State of the Bay chapter, which
precedes this section.
Nitrogen is a naturally occurring and beneficial nutrient that pollutes the bay and
inhibits seagrass growth when excess amounts are present. The Tampa Bay National
Estuary Program has established a preliminary goal for the amount of nitrogen the bay
can safely assimilate. That goal is to maintain or slightly reduce present-day nitrogen
loadings, even in the face of continued population growth and its attendant increase in
pollution. To maintain existing levels, local communities would need to gradually
reduce total nitrogen loadings to the bay by approximately 10 percent by the year
2010.
II]lllfl~l!lJl:lf;;"lr'
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
59
rlllR,IlF'lf'
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
80
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Studies suggest that staying within those limits will maintain water quality suitable for
the regrowth of as many as 12,000 acres of seagrasses, an amount that represents
more than 90 percent of 1950s seagrass levels, minus areas that have been permanent-
ly altered.
Potentially toxic contaminants entering the bay in stormwater runoff, wastewater, and
from the air represent the other primary focus of concern for bay managers, following
studies that identified high levels of heavy metals, pesticides and other substances in
sediments at various urban and agricultural sites, including Hillsborough Bay and
Boca Ciega Bay. While contamination appears to be localized and few biological
impacts have been documented, the persistence of these substances in the marine
environment and the prospect of increased contamination associated with population
growth support the need for action now before the problem escalates. Additional
investigations by the Tampa Bay NEP are underway to identify the sources and status
of contaminants in priority drainage basins.
Local governments already are making significant investments each year in stormwa-
ter improvements and pollution prevention in the watershed. These actions will con-
tinue to be important catalysts in protecting the bay from pollution. Strategies
advanced in the National Estuary Program's Water & Sediment Quality Action Plan
are designed to focus these substantial efforts and resources to achieve the greatest
long-term benefit for the bay.
Local communities may choose different paths to achieve the same water and sedi-
ment quality goals. As long as the goals for the bay are achieved, this flexibility is
encouraged to assure the most cost-effective course for bay recovery.
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
· Maintain or slightly reduce existing nitrogen loadings to Tampa Bay to encourage
the regrowth of as many as 14,000 acres of seagrass over time. Compensating for
anticipated increases associated with population growth may require a gradual
reduction in nitrogen loadings of about 10 percent by the year 2010.
· Protect relatively clean areas of the bay from increases in toxic contamination,
and minimize risks to marine life and humans associated with toxic contaminants
in impacted areas.
Note: Sediment quality guidelines are being developed by the Tampa Bay NEP in
cooperation with state and federal environmental agencies and local governments
for review in March 1996. These will be used to determine specific strategies and
goals for management of toxic contaminants.
· Reduce bacterial contamination in impacted areas of the bay to levels safe for
swimming and shellfish harvesting.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Per-Acre Nitrogen Loadings
from Non-Point Sources
% Loading
Residential 11
Commercial Industrialllnstitutional 5
Mining 4
Range and Pasture 13
Intensive Agriculture 6
Undeveloped Land 8
% Watershed
15.5
6.4
3.2
28.4
6.5
39.93
Total Nitrogen Loadings to Tampa Bay (1992-1994 average)
28%
Atmospheric
Deposition
6%
Industrial
Wastewater
8%
Municipal
Wastewater
6%
Accidental
Fertilizer Losses
4%
Groundwater
Yield Ibslaclyr
4.52
5.26
4.97
2.81
5.63
1.15
11%
Residential
Runoff
4%
Mining
5%
Commercial!
Industrial Runoff
13%
Pasture/Range
Lands
SOURCE: COASTAL ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
8%
Undeveloped
Land
6%
Intensive
Agriculture
Illllll;rj,Jtl\;IIF'II':'
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
81
11:11 Rt'f"lf
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
82
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
STORMWATER RUNOFF
Storm water runoff carrying fertilizer, pesticides, oils and other contaminants from
urban and agricultural lands contributes nearly half of the bay's total annual nitrogen
loadings and more than 60 percent of the annual loadings of zinc, mercury, lead and
chromium.
Contaminants in runoff come from land-use activities and from air pollutants that fall
to the bay's watershed. In fact, air pollutants are believed to be a significant contribu-
tor to stormwater runoff to the bay, although scientists still don't know the full mea-
sure of those impacts locally (see Atmospheric Deposition).
Approximately 16 percent of the bay's total nitrogen loadings comes from stormwater
runoff from urban residential and commerciallindustrialland uses, an amount exceed-
ing all direct or "point" discharges of wastewater to the bay from wastewater treat-
ment and industrial plants. Of that, 11 percent comes from residential areas, which
dominate the urban landscape. Commercial and industrial sites, by comparison, con-
tribute the other five percent of total bay nitrogen loadings.
Runoff from intensely cultivated agricultural lands (mostly citrus and vegetable pro-
duction) contributes another six percent of total bay nitrogen loadings, as well as
potentially significant quantities of pesticides and sediments from erosion. The pesti-
cide DDT (which has been banned for more than a decade) and endosulfan (an insec-
ticide used to control white flies) have recently been found in surface waters receiving
runoff from the Cockroach Bay drainage basin in southern Hillsborough County.
Agricultural runoff also originates from pastures and rangelands, which cover roughly
28 percent of the watershed and account for another 13 percent of total bay nitrogen
loadings. Compared to lands in intensive agriculture, these areas may be less cost-
effective to treat, since total loadings per acre are relatively small. Undeveloped land
(at eight percent) and mining (at four percent) comprise the remainder of nitrogen
loadings carried to the bay in storm water runoff.
Bay water quality is improving, thanks to stricter environmental controls and
advances in sewage and stormwater treatment, and associated declines in nitrogen
loadings. But concerns about toxic contamination of bay sediments are growing, fol-
lowing studies that revealed concentrations of heavy metals and pesticides at several
sites which were damaging to marine life. Many toxic contaminants enter the bay
attached to sediments in storm water runoff, making treatment of sediments in runoff a
key component in the strategy to address storm water pollution.
In fact, stormwater treatment in conventional wetland retention and detention systems
can be highly effective in removing sediments from runoff. However, wetland reten-
tion/detention is not as effective for reducing nitrogen. Thus, efforts to reduce nitro-
gen emphasize strategies such as wastewater reuse and pollution prevention measures,
as well as efforts to reduce atmospheric deposition of nitrogen to the bay.
The Tampa Bay National Estuary Program has developed a computer model to assist
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.o.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
local governments in selecting the most cost-effective best management techniques to
employ in battling stormwater pollution. An overall strategy must focus on pollution
prevention, storm water treatment and monitoring to assure compliance with stormwa-
ter permits.
Efforts to address pollution from agricultural runoff will focus on water conservation,
integrated pest management and improved compliance with surface water manage-
ment plans.
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS TO ADDRESS STORMWATER RUNOFF
SW-l Continue implementation of the Florida Yards & Neighborhoods Program.
SW-2 Assist businesses in implementing best management practices to reduce
stormwater pollution and develop model landscaping guidelines for com-
mercial application.
SW-3 Encourage local governments to adopt integrated pest management policies
and implement environmentally beneficial landscaping practices on public
properties.
SW-4 Reduce impervious paved surfaces, focusing on parking space and design
requirements for large commercial developments.
SW-5 Require older properties being redeveloped to meet current stormwater
treatment standards for that portion of the site being redeveloped, or pro-
vide equivalent compensation.
SW-6 Promote compact urban development and redevelopment.
SW-7 Improve compliance with and enforcement of stormwater permits.
SW-8 Enforce and require the timely completion of consent orders for the
cleanup of fertilizer facilities in Tampa's East Bay sector.
SW-9 Encourage "fertigation" and low-flow irrigation on farms to reduce and
improve the quality of runoff.
SW-lO Improve compliance with agricultural ground and surface water manage-
ment plans.
SW-ll Determine minimum widths for vegetated buffers along tributaries.
Il.lillt:::li: ,::JJI:~I::'l'"
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
83
~th\\E%n. R:>>.Y
:.... ~..:t"'&- =*.~~:. :::::..... ,}~:
l.;il~ t;.tm~ :@
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.......',..' ".'..'.....-.'.'......-................
...................... .....................
.......-.', ...... ..........................
',.",',". -....... ....................
.....................1.11..........
B4
ACTION PLAN
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Water & Sediment Quality
Continue Implementation of the Florida Yards &
Neighborhoods Program
ACTION:
Continue implementation of the Florida Yards & Neighborhoods Program to encourage
residents to use environmentally beneficial landscape management practices to reduce
fertilizer, pesticide and water use contributing to pollution in stormwater runoff, and to
enhance natural habitats. Enlist home-and-garden retailers, developers, and the land-
scaping and pest control industries to practice and promote these concepts.
BACKGROUND:
Urban runoff from residential areas contributes an estimated 13 percent of the total
nitrogen loadings to Tampa Bay, and also carries potentially toxic substances used in
landscape maintenance. Fertilizers from yards and atmospheric deposition to residen-
tiallands, are believed to be key sources of the nitrogen loadings.
Residents within the bay's 2,200-square-mile watershed often do not connect their
landscape design and maintenance practices with environmental impacts to Tampa
Bay. This is especially true for those who do not live on or near the waterfront.
Many residents continue to view a highly maintained lawn as the benchmark for a
well-landscaped home, and often apply excess fertilizer, pesticides and water to main-
tain their turfgrass.
However, residents are beginning to grasp the principles of environmentally beneficial
landscaping as they learn more about these concepts from the Florida Cooperative
Extension Service's Environmental Landscape Management (ELM) program, and
from local governments and the Southwest Florida Water Management District, which
promote Xeriscape1M concepts.
These concepts have been integrated in the Florida Yards & Neighborhoods Program
(FY&N), which was established in 1991 by the National Estuary Programs of Tampa
Bay and Sarasota Bay and the Florida Cooperative Extension Service (FCES), which
administers the program locally. FY &N promotes least-toxic yard maintenance and
the use of beneficial native and drought-tolerant plants to create Florida Yards that
reduce runoff and enhance the environment.
From 1993-1995, the FY&N Program worked primarily with neighborhoods in
Hillsborough, Pinellas and Manatee counties. Additional funding in 1995 from the
West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority (WCRWSA) enabled the program to
expand to Pasco County.
But, to achieve broader changes in residential landscape practices, efforts must be
directed to reach a larger and more diverse audience. FY &N has already begun
expanding its outreach to individual homeowners and lawn service professionals.
These efforts should be expanded to reach a larger, more diverse audience, including
retailers and developers, and members of the landscaping and pest control industries.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
STRATEGY:
Strategies to continue and broaden the Florida Yards & Neighborhoods Program and
to enlist developers, retailers and the horticulture/pest control industries in promoting
these concepts are proposed below. Implementation of these strategies is contingent
upon funding.
The overall objectives of Florida Cooperative Extension Service in administering the
FY&N Program are to:
· Develop a stable funding and administrative source for the Program.
· Explore cost-share and cross-promotion of FY &N and other educational programs
among local governments and agencies to maximize outreach and impact.
Additionally, continue local government and agency input into the FY &N
Program through existing advisory committees.
· Maintain a uniform educational program throughout the watershed to provide a
consistent message to residents who share common broadcast and print media,
while allowing participating counties the flexibility to address specific needs.
· Continue to explore statewide implementation through FCES.
Individuals and Neighborhoods
STEP I Continue FY&N outreach to organized community and homeowner associ-
ations, with presentations and distribution of the Florida YardStick and the
Florida Yards & Neighborhoods handbook.
STEP 2 Expand outreach to enlist individuals in implementing FY &N concepts.
A. Promote Florida Yard concepts at major home improvement outlets, The
Florida Aquarium, home and garden shows, and other well-attended public
events; provide educational opportunities through these venues.
B. Pursue arrangements to distribute and bar-code FY&N materials so they
may be sold at cost through retail establishments, with revenues tagged for
additional reprints. Cost recovery through resale will make these materials
self-supporting.
C. Increase news publicity efforts and article placements, and promote use of
public service announcements on cable, network and government access
stations. Encourage individual counties to consider paid media placement
campaigns to broaden public interest and awareness of Florida Yard mes-
sages.
D. Increase the number of individuals pursuing Florida Yard certification.
Responsible parties: Florida Cooperative Extension Servke (FY&N
Program), in cooperation with local governments, SWFWMD and
WCRWSA
l[llll)I"I;ri\ri::::;*lr'
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
............................."""'.,.-----.
........................................................
.......................".. '''''. .. ."
......................................"",....
..........................'".."',."'...'..--..
..........................................................
....... .............. '" ..... "'. . -- . .
......11........-......................... .........................
..... '.. ....... .-.....".
..... ."' ....... ....................
..... . . ......, .,
..... '. '. ,..... .............'...
.... . ..". ...
..... .... ...... .""""..
..... ... """ '..........
........ ". ........
:::;-::;:...... ::. . '.:: :::::: ::.::.::.'.'.'.:':
..... ... .,-......
;:;:;::::;;::.........::::;:;::...:.::;::...:-::::;:::::;:;:;:;::-:,:-:::::::;:;'"
85
1:ltlt/til:"Ilf'
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
................................
. .""",....."................................
,.--........"........................................
..".....""...-.. - ...........................
, ..."."..."..-.........................
......................."..."....................-.......
.............8.............................................
....... ." ....... .....
.".................................... ... ......... .......
. ...... .....
........", .' ..... ......
0.. _. ..... .....
.",."" -.. . ..... ......
.>> . .::. jil('" ........::
.." . ........ .....
. . . ......... .....
....... ,.. . ........ .....
::;:::::::':':'::::':'."":::::::::':':':::':':':'::::::::::::;::::::.:.:.::::::;:;:
II
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
COST:
Costs for staff and materials for program elements above is estimated at approximate-
ly $75,000 per county (Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco and Manatee). Cooperative
funding may be sought from participating local governments, river basin boards of the
SWFWMD, WCRWSA, and the Coastal Zone Management Program.
Retailers, Landscape Management and Horticulture Industry
Large and small retailers of gardening products, as well as landscape maintenance and
pest control companies, provide a direct link to consumers. That link can be used to
promote FY &N practices and consumer purchases of environmentally beneficial
plants and yard care products.
A proactive strategy to educate retailers and landscape service companies about
FY &N concepts and the potential business value of marketing these concepts and
products to environmentally conscious residents is stressed in this Action Plan.
For homeowners who contract with yard maintenance companies, the prospect of
adopting environmentally beneficial landscaping practices can be even more challeng-
ing. While companies may be willing to reduce "broadcast" spraying of pesticides,
their profits often remain linked to the routine application of these chemicals.
Yard maintenance companies and other members of the horticulture industry also must
continue to be targeted through the FY &N program.
The following strategies are proposed for the FY &N program, contingent upon FCES
securing funding for implementation.
STEP 1 Develop partnerships with key nursery/garden supply retailers in each
county to promote FY &N literature, and with other resources who advocate
environmentally friendly landscaping, at point-of-purchase.
STEP 2 Expand existing training programs or develop new ones, as necessary, to
educate retail/landscape management personnel about FY &N concepts.
STEP 3 Review existing industry certification programs and recommend changes to
incorporate FY &N concepts.
Responsible Parties: Florida Cooperative Extension Service (FY&N
Program), in cooperation with local governments, SWFWMD and
WCRWSA
COST:
Implementation of steps is contingent upon funding. Costs for development of a
point-of-purchase displays/materials depends on design criteria and materials selected
for distribution.
Developers and Property Managers
Opportunities exist to promote Model Florida Yards at new residential developments,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
or during the annual Parade of Homes, to illustrate to potential homebuyers the beau-
ty, reduced maintenance and environmental benefits of a Florida Yard. Developers
could promote Florida Yards as a home purchase feature for the discriminating, envi-
ronmentally conscious homebuyer. By creating partnerships between developers and
nurseries, a Model Florida Yard could be included among new development models.
A companion educational brochure that highlights FY &N landscaping principles also
could be made available, as part of a developer's sales kit, to potential home buyers.
The following strategies are proposed for the FY &N program, contingent upon FCES
receiving funding for implementation.
STEP 1 Promote the development of Model Florida Yards at residential model
home developments in each county. Work with homebuilders' associations
and realtors to identify appropriate new housing developments.
A. Identify nurseries/landscape architects who will cooperate with developers
in landscaping model homes using FY &N design and maintenance princi-
ples.
B. Schedule one-on-one meetings and/or a workshop with developers to out-
line the program.
C. Secure the developer's agreement to include an educational brochure,
which highlights Florida Yard landscaping advantages, in the company's
sales kit.
Responsible parties: This action could be coordinated by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service (FY&N Program) and local governments.
STEP 2 Develop interpretive signage (incorporating developer and nursery logos),
and Florida Yards promotional brochure that includes a cost-benefit analy-
sis of a Florida Yard vs. a conventional, maintenance-intensive landscape
(see SWFWMD Xeriscape Model Ordinance for reference).
Responsible parties: FCES
STEP 3 Enlist realtors and property managers to adopt and promote FY &N con-
cepts by providing educational workshops and opportunities to earn
Continuing Education Units (CEUs).
Responsible parties: FCES
COST:
Implementation of steps is contingent upon funding. Costs to develop a Model
Florida Yard at a residential development are estimated at $5,000, based on plant
material, irrigation and interpretive signage. Plants and irrigation costs would be
borne by developers, with interpretive signage and consulting provided by FCES.
Costs for interpretive signage to promote Model Florida Yards could range from $500-
$1,000 per site. Funding sources include participating developers, local governments,
river basin boards, board of county realtors and builders' associations.
[11]11:1.;11.41:::;':'111'"
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
......-.-........-.-....-.-..........
....................................
....................... ................
.......................................
.........................................
....................................". '..
.......................... ...".........
.........8...........11..........................
..... .. '.'''.....
..... .". --....
..... '. .."..
..... ... ...
...... . ..... .."
........ .....
..... ... ..,,,..
:.:.::::>. ::: . '::.:' >{.
:::::::::::::.........:,:;::::..:.::::..:::::::::::::::...:::
87
'1[]lfl;,'i~I:;:"lr
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
".................-..---...........
...................................
...'.........'....-..-...-.....................
,. "..................",...........
\5................................................... il".
.... ...... ......... ......
. ........ ....
, ......... .....
."..................
,.-.-.-.............,...........
.."".........................
88
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
SCHEDULE:
FY &N neighborhood programs are ongoing. Other steps may be initiated beginning
in 1996, if FCES is able to secure additional funding from local governments or other
cooperating partners.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Reduction in fertilizers, pesticides and water use should result in reduced pollutant
loads from urban runoff. Increases in the use of native and other beneficial drought-
tolerant plants also can enhance habitat value.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
FCES surveys participants to assess landscape management changes as a result of the
program. Public interest in FY &N also can be gauged by tracking distribution of
materials and sales at major retail outlets promoting these concepts, number of profes-
sionals certified in FY &N concepts, and number of certified Florida Yards.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
None anticipated.
RELATED ACTIONS:
SW-2, SW-3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(j
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
AcnON PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Assist Businesses in Implementing Best
Management Practices to Reduce Stormwater
Pollution, and Develop Model Landscaping
Guidelines for Commercial Application
ACTION:
Encourage and assist businesses in implementing best management practices to reduce
storm water pollution, and develop model landscaping guidelines based on Florida
Yards & Neighborhoods principles for commercial application.
BACKGROUND:
Local communities offer various levels of assistance to businesses in assessing site
management practices that can contribute to storm water pollution, and in developing
pollution prevention strategies. These efforts can provide bottom-line dividends to
participating businesses, by cutting costs of consumable materials such as water or
pesticides, and to local governments, by emphasizing pollution prevention as a strate-
gy to reduce costly cleanup or end-of-pipe treatment.
One example is Hillsborough County's Operation BayWorks-Businesses for a
Cleaner Future, established with help from a Tampa Bay NEP grant. The program
enlists and aids businesses in the construction, manufacturing, landscaping and auto-
motive repair industries in the development of pollution prevention plans.
Participants learn industry-specific best management practices to reduce stormwater
pollution associated with landscape management, construction equipment and repair,
and hazardous materials use and disposal. Programs such as this often target smaller,
specialty businesses, like automotive repair, whose collective impact on stormwater
pollution can be substantial. These smaller businesses typically lack knowledge about
their potential impact on the environment, as well as the resources to research best
management practices on their own.
Local communities should evaluate programs such as Operation BayWorks as a model
for implementation in their own communities to reduce storm water pollution from
commercial sites. Efforts such as these may help local governments meet federal
mandates for pollution prevention as required in NPDES (National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System) permits.
Additional steps should be taken throughout the region to encourage businesses to
adopt principles of environmental landscape management that are also taught to resi-
dents through the Florida Cooperative Extension Services' Florida Yards &
Neighborhoods (FY &N) Program. Commercial landscapes typically feature large
areas of high maintenance turf grass and exotic plants, which often demand extensive
amounts of fertilizer, pesticide and water. Stormwater pollution from these commer-
ciallandscapes can be reduced with changes in maintenance practices and landscape
design, such as downsizing turf areas and expanding the use of beneficial drought-tol-
erant and native plants, which require less fertilizer, pesticides and water.
IDI 1:1. ,,;[; "r2:'tr
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.......-..............................---.,
...............................................'...............'.'............,...,.,.
...............................:.............................'.'.'..,...,.....,.,.,.,.:.:.
.........................:-.......;.......................'.'.'..,.,.,.,.,.....,..'.....<->:..".
""""'8'..........._..'."..."'.".1.'...."""...
..... ". ..... d",...
......... .,.... . ,.......... .'. '.:.
}.':'.'. } , J....:>. .,>. <>
.... ... ....,.. ...'....
.,.... ... .....
:::::::::::::.........:.:::::::.:,.,::::......:::::.::::::::,.,.........,.::::....:.:'.
89
IJillfti' i'
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.............--..................................
.. "..., ... ... ......... ..............
, ................,.......................
.......... ...........................
."'...---............."....................
.....5...................................................
....,.,.,-,-,-.:........ ",', .", ............ .........
................ ." ...... ....
.... .. ...... n.
o . .... ..
. . .' .........
0'" ...... '"
>.. ..... . ...:.' ..'.;:;
>..111
10
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
These concepts can be packaged for commercial application by developing model
landscaping guidelines for incorporation into local government landscape ordinance
codes. Guidelines could then be incorporated into the site review process for new
developments. They also should be promoted to existing businesses, along with cost
analyses that illustrate potential cost savings in maintenance.
Improvements in landscaping practices are one important part of an overall pollution
prevention strategy. One highly effective action to curb stormwater pollution from
commercial sites and malls is to reduce the amount of impervious surface devoted to
parking, by reducing parking space requirements in building codes and promoting
alternative, pervious materials for overflow parking (see Action SW-4).
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Target and assist businesses in implementing site management practices to
reduce stormwater pollution. Evaluate Hillsborough County's Operation
Bay Works as a model for implementation.
A comprehensive program might focus on best management practices for
landscaping and landscape maintenance, erosion control, and hazardous
materials use and disposal. Workplans may include: business workshops;
industry-specific workbooks that promote best management practices and
include templates for self-assessment and site management plans; model
commercial landscape demonstration sites; follow-up surveys or on-site
visits to track progress; regulatory incentives; and recognition through
existing environmental awards program and on-site promotional materials
or emblems that participating businesses can display.
A. Identify and prioritize local target industries and businesses.
B. Form a business steering committee or utilize an existing structure such as
environmental committees of local chambers of commerce to oversee
development of the program and materials, with representation from local
target industries, environmental agencies and the cooperative extension ser-
vice. Materials developed for Operation BayWorks may be modified for
these purposes.
C. Implement program, including provisions for monitoring results of efforts.
Responsible parties: local governments in cooperation with chambers of
commerce
STEP 2 Develop and incorporate succinct and user-friendly model landscaping
guidelines for local governments and commercial businesses, based on
FY &N concepts, into local government landscape codes throughout the
Tampa Bay watershed. Guidelines should include cost comparisons for
maintenance of traditional landscapes vs. model landscapes.
Responsible parties: local governments, in cooperation with Florida
Cooperative Extension Service, Southwest Florida Water Management
District, West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
STEP 3 Incorporate model landscape guidelines into local government site review
process for new development or, alternatively, provide incentives such as
reductions in stormwater utility fees to developers who agree to meet these
heightened environmental landscaping standards.
Responsible parties: local governments
STEP 4 Incorporate Steps 1-2 as part of the comprehensive stormwater manage-
ment plan in NPDES permits, as examples of efforts to meet federal man-
dates for pollution prevention.
Responsible parties: local governments
STEP 5 Aggressively promote model landscape design and maintenance guidelines
and cost-benefit analyses to businesses, developers, real estate management
companies and commercial realty enterprises to promote retrofits of exist-
ing landscapes and landscape maintenance practices.
Responsible parties: local governments, chambers of commerce, Florida
Association of Environmental Professionals, builders associations,
Florida Native Plant Society
SCHEDULE:
All steps can be initiated in 1996.
COST:
Second-year implementation costs for Operation BayWorks are estimated at $20,000,
plus administrative time. Costs to develop model landscape guidelines, including
landscape cost-comparison analysis, are estimated at $20,000.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Improved landscaping and site management practices and implementation of model
landscaping guidelines will reduce storm water runoff pollution from commercial sites.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Surveys can be used to track pre-and post-business progress in implementing best
management practices to reduce storm water pollution. Local governments also can
gauge business participation by the number of pollution prevention plans developed as
a direct result of their outreach. Storm water sampling also can be employed to moni-
tor pre-and post-water quality at large commercial sites that agree to implement model
landscaping guidelines.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Dependent upon work plan, but may include amendments to local comprehensive
plans, landscape ordinances, criteria for commercial site permitting review, and
changes to NPDES permits.
RELATED ACTIONS:
SW-1, SW-3, SW-4
Il]tlI1,III:::lf
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.............................."'....,..--.-.
.............................................,...........
.,........................" ...."
..................,".........,........."...
IllIlli
71
:11:11811:', . m
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
......."."'...............-............-......
". ..................... .." ,....................
... ,........... ...............
"'il.11
72
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Encourage Local Governments to Adopt Integrated
Pest Management Policies and Implement
Environmentally Beneficial Landscaping Practices
ACTION:
Encourage local governments to adopt integrated pest management policies and use
environmentally beneficial landscaping practices on public properties to reduce pollu-
tion from storm water runoff. As part of this effort, communities are encouraged to
commit a minimum of 50 percent of all new public landscapes and retrofits to existing
landscapes to low-maintenance designs featuring native and other beneficial drought-
tolerant plants.
BACKGROUND:
Local government facilities and parks are visited frequently by the public, providing
an excellent opportunity to expose residents to environmentally sensitive concepts for
landscape design and maintenance.
Many communities already have begun to develop some public sites in accordance
with Xeriscape™ principles. However, as new landscapes are planned or as existing
landscapes are retrofitted, local governments have an opportunity to further reduce
runoff pollution and lead by example, serving as models to citizens who are being
asked to conserve water and limit pesticide and fertilizer use.
Changes to comprehensive plans and landscape codes continue to reflect environmen-
tal impact concerns, but additional steps can help achieve a broad-based impact within
a local government's sphere of influence. Additionally, such efforts can be referenced
in the required annual reports for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits.
This action seeks a commitment from local governments to devote half of the acreage
of all new public landscapes or retrofits to existing landscapes to low-maintenance
designs featuring beneficial native or drought-tolerant vegetation that reduce the need
for water, fertilizer and pesticides. It also calls on local governments to adopt resolu-
tions to use Integrated Pest Management (IPM), least-toxic landscape maintenance
practices that employ pesticides only as a last resort. These efforts should be refer-
enced in local government applications for NPDES permits, which require increased
emphasis on pollution prevention.
Furthermore, information about environmental landscape management (ELM) con-
cepts taught by county cooperative extension services should be communicated regu-
larly to government employees involved in landscape maintenance or the purchase of
fertilizers, pesticides and plant materials. Annual training sessions with those employ-
ees could provide updates on new products and techniques that relate to ELM.
Sessions of this type also serve to reinforce the commitment made by elected officials
and senior staff to environmental quality and pollution prevention.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
STEP 1 Commit a minimum of 50 percent of all new public landscapes and retro-
fits to existing landscapes to low-maintenance designs featuring native or
beneficial drought-tolerant plants, with allowances for areas where
reclaimed water precludes the use of xeric vegetation.
Responsible parties: local governments
STEP 2 Adopt a resolution to use Integrated Pest Management (IPM) on all pub-
licly owned lands, including parks and government facilities. IPM employs
biological, cultural and chemical techniques to control pests, and empha-
sizes pesticides as a last resort.
Responsible parties: local governments
A model resolution, based on Sarasota County's [PM Policy, has been
developed by the Sarasota County Cooperative Extension Service.
STEP 3 Review purchasing specifications for fertilizer and pesticides to assure gov-
ernment use of least-toxic pesticides and slow-release fertilizers as well as
cleaning products and other substances and equipment that may be used in
site maintenance.
Responsible parties: local governments, in cooperation with county coop-
erative extension services
STEP 4 Establish annual training sessions for landscape maintenance and purchas-
ing personnel to assure proper use of ELM concepts, BMPs and least-harm-
ful products. Coordinate with the county cooperative extension services to
determine if continuing education credits can be provided for approved
training.
Responsible parties: local governments
STEP 5 Identify and develop interpretive signage for a minimum of three high-traf-
fic sites where native plants and Florida Yard design and maintenance con-
cepts can be promoted as an attractive alternative to turf grass and exotic
plants. Also, distribute materials, such as the Florida Yards &
Neighborhoods brochure and Florida YardStick, available through the
Cooperative Extension Service, to promote residents' use of Florida Yards
concepts and provide citizens with resources for assistance and additional
information. Provide incentives, such as plant giveaways and free design
consultations, whenever possible.
Responsible parties: local governments
See also Action SW-2 regarding development of model landscaping guidelines, based
on Florida Yards & Neighborhoods principles, for incorporation into local govern-
ment landscape codes.
SCHEDULE:
All steps can be initiated in 1996 for implementation in 1997.
1]lilll':I,:jll'lll!~;"lr
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
................................,...-
......................................
..................................""...
.......................................,.,.
.................................... "
...................... .............
................................,....
.........8.........._.................8... ........
..... ... n. .....
..... .. ..... .."
..... ".... ......... . .........
..... . .....
.....". ..
........ .....,,,
..... ... """., ....
......... .............
::::::;:;..... ;:: : ;::.......'... ,:.::.;:
..... .... .",.,
...... ... ....... .,.
::::::;::::::.........;::::::::.;....::::.....:::::::::::::::::'.'.'.':':::'::;
73
I~Jn1AI:::::lr
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
--..-- ................................-..
........',,-........,..........................
.--...................................
......................1.11.....
74
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
COST:
Steps 1-4 can be implemented with existing resources. Implementation of IPM and
other landscaping best management practices may result in cost savings to govern-
ments. Costs to develop model landscapes (Step 5) will vary according to site size
and specifications. For example, plant materials and signage for a 7,200-square-foot
site could be installed for about $5,000.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Improvements in landscaping and landscape maintenance will reduce storm water pol-
lution, conserve water and enhance native habitat. The establishment of environmen-
tal landscapes at public locations will provide homeowners with an "in-ground"
demonstration of these methods.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Local governments monitor water quality. They also can track the amount of consum-
able materials used to maintain public landscapes to quantify reductions and possible
cost-savings.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Possible revisions to Local Government Comprehensive Plans and landscape codes.
RELATED ACTIONS:
SW-1, SW-2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Reduce Impervious Paved Surfaces
ACTION:
Reduce impervious paved surfaces in the watershed to reduce storm water runoff and
associated pollution by allowing more storm water to filter through the soil.
BACKGROUND:
The large amount of impervious paved surfaces in the Tampa Bay watershed has
greatly increased stormwater runoff and associated pollution of surface waters by pre-
venting stormwater from naturally percolating through the soil. Paved surfaces such
as roads, rooftops and parking lots increase both the amount and speed of runoff by
channeling rainwater to rivers and bays.
Existing regulations both address and cause the problem. Stormwater systems are
designed to move rainwater off roads as quickly as possible to prevent flooding, limit-
ing storm water infiltration. Additionally, many development standards require that
large amounts of impervious surface be incorporated to support traffic or parking. For
example, commercial developments are typically required to provide a particular num-
ber of parking spaces based on the development's total square footage or anticipated
absolute maximum demand. On the other hand, water management district rules
require that a certain volume of stormwater be retained on-site to provide water quali-
ty treatment. That volume is often tied to the amount of a site's new impervious sur-
face. These apparent contradictions reflect the varied and sometimes competing
objectives bay managers and engineers must seek to accommodate.
This action calls for the development of target ratios for impervious-to-pervious sur-
face to guide local governments in efforts to minimize impervious surface, and pro-
motes the use of alternative pervious materials wherever feasible and effective. It also
encourages local governments to provide incentives to reduce impervious surface
within existing developments, including abandoned or underutilized parking areas.
Parking lots present a major opportunity for alternatives to impervious surface, partic-
ularly in overflow areas. Options may include turf block (concrete blocks with holes
that allow turf growth and ground water infiltration), grass and specialized pervious
hard-surface materials. The cost-effectiveness of alternatives such as these has not yet
been evaluated for the Tampa Bay watershed-a shortcoming this action addresses.
Communities can also reduce impervious surface by reducing the required number or
size of parking spaces in large developments or malls. For example, the reduction of
a standard 10' X 20' parking space to 8' X 18' results in a 17 percent reduction in sur-
face area, or a savings of 510 square feet, for a 3,OOO-square-foot parking lot with a
350-square-foot drive aisle. Currently, parking space requirements are based on peak
usage that may be overestimated and can be addressed with overflow parking utilizing
pervious surfaces.
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
....................................",....."....""..
.........................., ....... ... ",.
.........................................."..." ,- ,
............................".... .........................
...................................".......
.........'..11.........................
75
'I[JII Ilf:"I
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.,.,-.-,'..-,.,.....,...,..............:.........-................................
..............................."..................
'C.... . .....-..........................
........................" .....................
..............5..................................................
',',',",",",'" .... ....... ....
.. ." ". ....... ....
.,.,.,.,.,_..... .. ....... ....
.. . . ....... ....
. ...... ....
.. ..". ..... ....
',',""" ,. . ...... ....
..-..........'.-.' .... ...... ....
'...............". .., ..JiII...... .."""
....... ... ... ...
.../.11,.,.1
7&
ACTION PLAN
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Water & Sediment Quality
STRATEGY:
This strategy calls for the development of target ratios for pervious-to-impervious sur-
face to guide local governments in minimizing impervious surface in their communi-
ties, as well as recommendations and evaluations of management options. Local gov-
ernments also are encouraged to provide incentives to developers in reducing or con-
verting impervious surface.
STEP 1 Develop target ratios for pervious-to-impervious surface for parking lots
and new development. Provide recommendations and cost-benefit evalua-
tions in a report to the Tampa Bay NEP Management Committee in early
1997.
A. Assess existing development regulations regarding impervious surface, as
well as model rules from other watersheds.
B. Evaluate pervious surface options appropriate for use in the Tampa Bay
watershed. Analysis should include costs, benefits, site requirements,
effectiveness (pollutant-removal capability and durability) and maintenance
requirements.
C. Develop target ratios for pervious-to-impervious surface for new develop-
ments as guidelines for local governments, along with specific recommen-
dations for reducing impervious surface through efforts such as reducing
parking space requirements or requiring pervious surfaces for overflow
parking.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay National Estuary Program
STEP 2 Based on results from Step 1, revise local government and agency regula-
tions to incorporate target ratios, encourage the use of pervious surface
materials and reduce impervious surface. Options may include amend-
ments to storm water or local development rules and plans to:
· require fewer and/or smaller parking spaces for new developments,
particularly malls and multi-family dwellings;
· set a maximum percentage for impervious material for a new site;
· require existing developments to demonstrate the need for their
impervious surface, such as parking, or replace or remove excess
amounts at time of redevelopment;
· encourage pervious paving materials for overflow parking and
multi-level parking for new development projects;
· base stormwater utility rates on impervious surface, not simply
property size.
Responsible parties: local governments, SWFWMD
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
STEP 3 Provide incentives for the replacement or removal of existing impervious
surface in underutilized or abandoned areas as properties are redeveloped.
Examples of incentives include credits toward storm water requirements,
reductions in stormwater utility fees and density bonuses.
Responsible parties: local governments, SWFWMD
SCHEDULE:
Recommendations from Step 1 are due in early 1997. Implementation of Steps 2 and
3 can be initiated in 1997, based on recommendations.
COST:
Evaluations outlined in Step 1 can be completed within existing NEP budgets. Steps
2 and 3 will require administrative and staff time of local governments and
SWFWMD. Costs for incentives for the removal of impervious surface have not yet
been estimated, but may be offset by reduced municipal costs in treating storm water
runoff. Costs associated with incentives to property owners to replace or remove
impervious surface at the time of redevelopment have not yet been estimated, but will
be based on demonstrating a clear return on investment.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Reductions in the amount of impervious surface in the watershed will reduce pollu-
tants such as heavy metals, oil and grease, and nitrogen in stormwater discharged to
the bay from urban areas.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Local governments monitor ambient water quality in Tampa Bay.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Possible revisions to local development standards and storm water regulations.
RELATED ACTIONS:
SW-5, TX-l
IIl:illllfl:::llll!:lii:::::"'lr
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
..................-.............'......'...................
................... .."..........
......-.....................""......"'..............
.................................. -.
..............................."'....".........
.................. """"."" - ,..
....-........................""'...""...
.......8......_.........................
..... ... ........ --. .......
..... .... ,. "'..
..... ". "..... --. ,,"'"''
..... ." "'."" "......
..... . "... . ....."..
..... .... ......... ................
..... ... . ." . -,
........... ..... ...
;:;:;:;:;....... ;:; : .:::........ .'.::.::.::.::.::..
..... .. ...
;:;:;:;::::::.........:::::::::.....:::::.:.:.::::::;:;::::::::::::.:....:::::::::::.:
n
IIJRA,f:I'
Owning the Course
for Tampa Bay
,-."...".."'...-...........................
. .........'....'...........................................
.",. . ... .....................
..-..............".............................
..\1.11
78
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Require Older Properties Being Redeveloped to
Meet Current Stormwater 1reatment Standards,
or Provide Equivalent Value
ACTION:
Require older properties being redeveloped to meet current stormwater treatment stan-
dards, but only for that portion of the property undergoing redevelopment, plus any
stormwater "co-mingling" areas * , when more than 3,000 square feet of impervious
surface is added or reconstructed. Eliminate other exemptions. Where on-site
stormwater treatment is not feasible, allow and require equivalent compensation
through off-site mitigation, payments to stormwater "banks", or implementation of
other best management practices.
BACKGROUND:
Redevelopment of existing properties is often encouraged and can be highly desirable
as a means of re-energizing a community's urban core. Infrastructure and public ser-
vices are already in place, and development remains concentrated where impacts have
already occurred-a strategy many urban planners advocate as a means of discourag-
ing urban sprawl and associated storm water pollution. To encourage and improve the
cost-effectiveness of this option, many local governments offer financial incentives or
exemptions to developers. For instance, local governments may offer a developer an
exemption from meeting regulatory criteria for stormwater treatment even if signifi-
cant amounts of new impervious surface are added in redevelopment.
However, properties being redeveloped also are a logical target in efforts to reduce
pollution from urban stormwater runoff, since many of these properties were devel-
oped prior to the adoption of state storm water regulations that set criteria for on-site
stormwater management. Properties developed prior to 1982 were not required to
provide storm water detention and few of these sites have any means of managing and
providing water quality treatment for storm water. Redeveloped sites also are typically
utilized at a higher intensity, further contributing to overall storm water impacts.
These areas are often land-limited, concentrated in downtown business and commer-
cial districts, and in drainage basins that continue to be significant contributors to
stormwater pollution.
Local government requirements for redevelopment vary, but most offer exemptions of
one form or another from current Southwest Florida Water Management District
(SWFWMD) stormwater treatment standards, either for projects under a particular
size or in special areas, such as historical districts and downtowns. SWFWMD cur-
rently requires that permittees meet new development stormwater treatment standards
only if there is an increase in pollution or the discharge point is altered.
* areas where existing property runoff mixes with additional stormwater runoff associated with the
redevelopment.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
This action seeks to require that properties being redeveloped meet current storm water
standards for that portion that is redeveloped plus storm water co-mingling areas, but
also adds flexibility for alternative means to meet this requirement when on-site treat-
ment is not feasible. It is based on an existing model ordinance for redevelopment in
the City of St. Petersburg, which was adopted in 1994 and is widely considered to be
fair and equitable as well as environmentally beneficial. Since its adoption, the City
has granted only one exemption.
By allowing alternative on-site stormwater treatment or off-site mitigation, communi-
ties can still encourage redevelopment without sacrificing storm water treatment and
associated impacts to the bay. This action also provides an assessment of those alter-
native best management practices that may be allowed when traditional on-site treat-
ment is not feasible. Options may include contributions to a regional storm water
facility located in the same drainage area (possibly through payments to a storm water
"bank"), the collection of stormwater in cisterns or underground vaults, or improve-
ments to existing stormwater systems adjacent to the site, as well as non-structural
BMPs such as street sweeping.
STRATEGY:
This strategy calls for revisions to existing rules and regulations to require that proper-
ties more than 3,000 square feet being redeveloped meet current storm water treatment
requirements for only that portion of the site that is impacted, except in cases in which
on-site treatment is not feasible. In these instances, rule revisions should allow and
require developers to provide equivalent value, either through contributions to a
stormwater "bank," off-site mitigation, or by implementing approved best manage-
ment practices.
STEP 1 Compare alternative stormwater treatments (both structural and non-struc-
tural) that may be employed in redevelopment projects in the Tampa Bay
watershed. Provide cost-benefit analysis for each option that includes limi-
tations, effectiveness for removing pollutants, and site and maintenance
requirements. Recommendations shall be reviewed by the Tampa Bay
NEP's Technical Advisory Committee in early 1997 and forwarded to the
Management Committee for review.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEP
STEP 2 Revise local government comprehensive plans and agency regulations to
require that properties being redeveloped meet existing stormwater treat-
ment standards for that portion of the site being redeveloped, plus any
stormwater co-mingling areas, when more than 3,000 square feet of new
and/or reconstructed impervious surface is added. When on-site treatment
is not feasible, allow and require equivalent off-site mitigation or compen-
sation. This would include:
· amendments to SWFWMD storm water rules to allow alternative
stormwater treatments as options for properties being redeveloped
· amendments to local development standards including zoning laws
and comprehensive plans to require stormwater treatment for prop-
I!JII/11;,II[;I::"lr
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
....................................................:.:........,.,','.'.'.'.',:.:
...............................................,................,.....'...'.'.
.................................",..
......n..................'."..",..."."
.........9....................................................
...... . . . ...., ".
..... ... ,.". ...,
..... .. .......... .......
..... ". ,
..... ... ...... ...
..... -... . .'.'.'.'.' --','.'.
:':':)... H \ , .::.. .}<.
",11'.1
79
..., W.. w f."'~.
;.:-:..-:-:. ,.....~: ~>>-: "~'~.~:o.\'~
iJ]~t~tft~ ~~: :~~\
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
...............'.""'................--.........'...
.....",.............................
.."'.........'....".-..."....................
.. .................................,
.................1.11......
80
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
erties being redeveloped and to remove exemptions, and to allow
the use of alternative options to meet storm water requirements that
are not feasible on-site
Responsible parties: local governments and regulatory agencies, especial-
ly SWFWMD
SCHEDULE:
Step 1 can be initiated by the NEP in 1996 with available funds. Step 2 can be initiat-
ed in 1997, following adoption of the final bay comprehensive plan and regulatory
approval to allow developers to meet requirements using alternative means in cases
where on-site treatment is not feasible.
COST:
Step 1 has been funded by the Tampa Bay NEP. Implementation of Step 2, if
approved, will require local government and staff time, as well as costs associated
with stormwater treatment or alternative options called for at the time of redevelop-
ment. In-lieu fees deposited by developers into a "stormwater bank" could help
finance implementation of alternative storm water treatment options, such as develop-
ment of a regional storm water facility or additional street sweeping. A cost-benefit
evaluation of alternative treatments is being developed as part of an ongoing project
referenced in Step 1.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Additional stormwater treatment from older properties and in the urban areas of the
watershed will reduce pollution in stormwater runoff from areas that are traditionally
higher contributors. Options built into this action provide flexibility in implementa-
tion without sacrificing the need for storm water treatment or the valuable emphasis on
redevelopment.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Local governments monitor ambient water quality.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Revisions to local development criteria and SWFWMD storm water permit rule.
RELATED ACTIONS:
SW-2, SW-4, SW-6, TX-l
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Promote Compact Urban Development and
Redevelopment
ACTION:
Convene a conference of local government and regional planners, architects and
neighborhood councils to evaluate and recommend actions to more effectively pro-
mote compact urban development and redevelopment to minimize urban sprawl and
associated environmental impacts.
BACKGROUND:
Suburban growth in the Tampa Bay region and elsewhere has given rise to some inef-
ficient patterns of development that can contribute to increased stormwater pollution
and costly infrastructure needs by promoting low-density, single-use development at
the expense of fostering compact urban development and redevelopment of previously
impacted land.
Most new development today is suburban and characterized by low-density residential
and commercial land uses. Single-use land patterns that separate residential develop-
ment from retail and business sectors are most prevalent. Although commercial uses
are usually grouped together in linear corridors flanking major roadways, there are
rarely interconnections between sites, increasing the public's dependence on automo-
biles.
While new developments are subject to various stormwater and land-use regulations,
the overall effect of this low-density, single-use development is to commit an ever-
increasing per capita share of land resources within the watershed to suburban uses
that increase impervious surface and ultimately result in more runoff pollution. Low-
density development also results in greater distances between sites, resulting in longer
and more frequent vehicle use and associated atmospheric pollution. Perhaps most
important, it limits opportunities for efficient mass transit.
Costs to extend infrastructure (utilities, roads, stormwater systems) into outlying areas
are extensive and ultimately borne by the community as a whole. As suburban areas
expand, large tracts of urban areas are vacated, abandoned, or maintained at less than
optimal density, factors which discourage reinvestment and reduce the viability of
these inner cores. Existing growth management and concurrency guidelines (primari-
ly related to transportation) often penalize existing urban areas of development for
congestion, while further promoting development in outlying areas.
STRATEGY:
This strategy is to convene a conference of experts from related fields and neighbor-
hood interests to evaluate existing growth management strategies and recommend
environmentally sensitive policies and actions to more effectively promote compact
urban development and redevelopment. Recommendations would focus on encourag-
ing reinvestment and redevelopment of the urban core and the development of mixed-
IIJlil)I,::f{lll:;::':11':
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
"....----..............................'."'.'.'.'.'.'_..
................................,"........
......................"................ ..............
................................,'.' .....
..........1.11............................
81
1I]IIIYt1j'~ICl'
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
......"...."."................................
.._,.............--......................
.................'."..................
.....-....................
..............................._1111......
........""..................................
._-.... .........................
82
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
use master-planned communities that cluster uses to conserve land and resources.
STEP 1 Organize a Future of the Region conference to evaluate and recommend
environmentally sensitive policies and actions to encourage redevelopment
of the urban core and mixed-use, clustering concepts for new development.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council (to sponsor
and organize conference), in partnership with metropolitan planning
organizations and local governments.
The conference should include local government planners and metropolitan planning
and transportation organizations, as well as the APA (American Planning Association),
AlA (America Institute of Architects) and ASLA (American Society of Landscape
Architects), councils of neighborhood associations, and environmental/bay interests.
To promote and encourage reinvestment and redevelopment of the urban core, partici-
pants may evaluate ways to:
· Define neighborhood boundaries and plan major traffic corridors to reinforce
these boundaries rather than divide neighborhoods. Identify and protect the char-
acter and value (i.e., positive factors influencing quality of life) of existing neigh-
borhoods whenever feasible.
· Encourage private reinvestment in declining urban neighborhoods by promoting
community appearance, public safety, public services (libraries, schools), and his-
toric preservation.
· Develop a separate zoning category and criteria for small-scale retail and service
uses within neighborhoods.
· Develop criteria to support the development of high-density residential uses with-
in existing strip commercial corridors.
· Promote mixed-use corridors and multi-use buildings to help support the use of
mass transit.
· Require new development or projects being redeveloped to evaluate potential
pedestrian interconnections between commercial and residential/commercial uses.
Amend land development codes to require pedestrian connections during commer-
cial plan review.
· Amend Local Government Comprehensive Plans and land development codes to
allow an increase in the floor-area ratio (allowable square-footage per acre) within
targeted commercial and business corridors as a conditional incentive to encour-
age vertical parking garages and more efficient use of land resources.
· Provide incentives for development in targeted urban areas by expanding enter-
prise zones, lowering development exactions, and modifying concurrency require-
ments.
To encourage the development of mixed-use, master-planned developments that utilize
concepts such as clustering and transfer of development rights for environmental,
open-space and habitat protection, participants may evaluate whether and/or ways to:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
· Amend land development codes to require that all site plans and submittals for
subdivisions include a master plan for pedestrianlbicycle traffic. Support the
development of Greenways as "alternative" transportation by earmarking ISTEA
(Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act) funds to support these types of
projects.
· Establish criteria for a balanced and mutually supportive ratio for commercial-to-
residential uses.
· Ensure that comrepehensive plans encourage commercial development along
established corridors to provide residential uses as part of a mixed-use develop-
ment concept. Provide incentives, such as residential density credits, lower park-
ing ratios, and impact fee credits, to encourage mixed-use projects.
· Identify long-range transit corridors and encourage higher density and intensity of
development near future transit stops. Include an overlay district with criteria for
development standards in comprehensive plans and development codes.
STEP 2 Implement recommendations from Step 1 through local government com-
prehensive plans, development codes and long-range transportation plans.
Responsible parties: local governments, Tampa Bay Regional Planning
Council
SCHEDULE:
The conference can be planned in 1996, for implementation in early 1997.
COST:
Staff and administrative time is anticipated for implementation of these steps.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Redevelopment of existing areas and higher density and mixed-use development in
suburban areas will conserve land and water resources, limit urban sprawl, and reduce
pollution.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Local governments conduct water quality monitoring and periodic planning studies
that can gauge the net benefit from implementation of these policies.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Possible amendments to Local Government Comprehensive Plans, land development
and zoning codes, and MPO plans
RELATED ACTIONS:
SW-4, SW-5
1II]llIFIII:i,~:lIF~lr
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.........................."....................'............
........................... .--.
.....................................,".......
...............................,-.....
....................................."""...
.....................................,.., ,,'"
.......S...........................................
...... . . " ...... ,.."...
..... ." ...... ...
..... .. ..... ",,-..
..... ... ....
..... '.. ,,_n ",_.
..... . ..., , ,.
..... ..... ,..... -...............
..... "' ....
..... . ,.,-. .,,-..
..... .. .
IIIml>.......
83
rjllfl;,ItFlr
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.....-..."...............................
..................."..................................'"
. ..., ...-...........................
.."'...................................
. ............i...........S........................... ...........i.i............. \
............. .... ............ ....
..................................
.."". ". ....... .....
. ..-. -.. ........ ......
',"'" ,., , ....... .....
.......... ..',....,',.,...................
. .-, -----........................
84
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Improve Compliance With and Enforcement of
Stormwater Permits
ACTION:
Improve compliance with and enforcement of permits for the construction and opera-
tion of stormwater systems by establishing level-of-service targets, providing periodic
performance assessments, and continuing efforts to coordinate permitting and enforce-
ment staff to improve continuity in permit oversight.
BACKGROUND:
Noncompliance with permits for the construction and operation of stormwater treat-
ment systems continues to be a major problem facing regulators, despite recent efforts
to boost enforcement efforts and improve and streamline permitting oversight. Some
stormwater treatment facilities are not constructed to specifications or operated and
maintained properly, resulting in increased pollution in runoff to the bay.
In the Tampa Bay watershed, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP) and the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) share
responsibility for stormwater permitting. Implementation of the new Environmental
Resource Permit (ERP), which consolidates various environmental permits into a sin-
gle application, provides important opportunities to improve permit compliance moni-
toring and enforcement through increased coordination.
A reorganization of the District in 1994 to increase compliance monitoring and
enforcement brought all enforcement and permitting staff together to improve admin-
istrative efficiency and communication. A chief engineer for enforcement now
reviews major projects from the District field offices for consistency and evaluates
enforcement programs.
The District also reassigned four Environmental Specialists and four Engineers, creat-
ed a Director of Enforcement position, and hired three new field technicians for each
of the four District offices within the last three years.
From October 1992 to December 1994, the District issued more than 1400 surface
water or wetland management permits in Hillsborough, Pinellas, Manatee and Pasco
counties. The District's staff has inspected an estimated 99 percent of those facilities
that were constructed. However, thousands of stormwater projects permitted between
1984, when stormwater rules were established, and the early 1990s may not have been
monitored due to limitations in enforcement personnel. Some older storm water pro-
jects that were not in compliance with design and monitoring standards have been
identified as applicants have sought to renew water-use permits, which the District
will not issue unless stormwater systems are in compliance. But existing staff and
funding levels may be inadequate to achieve adequate oversight of these older systems
which may be poorly maintained or abandoned.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
FDEP also has taken steps to improve coordination in these areas. For instance,
FDEP's Submerged Lands and Environmental Resource Program has adopted a "cra-
dle to grave" pilot program in which all aspects of project management are assigned,
by county, to one individual. All phases of permitting, compliance monitoring and
enforcement are handled by that individual. This new approach should increase effi-
ciency since project managers will be more familiar with both the permittees and the
specifics of a particular project.
STRATEGY:
A strategy to improve compliance monitoring and enforcement of storm water permits
includes the development of level-of-service targets, continued implementation and
assessment of an integrated team-permitting approach, identification and monitoring
of older storm water ponds that may be out of compliance, and evaluation of existing
funding and staffing levels as the basis for recommendations for improvement.
STEP 1 Establish "level-of-service" targets for compliance monitoring and enforce-
ment of permits for stormwater construction and maintenance. Targets
should include monitoring frequency by compliance monitoring personnel
and maintenance frequency for permitted storm water treatment systems.
Level-of-service targets shall be established and made available for review
by the Management Committee of the Tampa Bay National Estuary
Program (NEP) by December 1996.
Responsible parties: FDEP, SWFWMD, local governments with delegated
authority for storm water permitting, compliance monitoring and enforce-
ment
STEP 2 Identify and monitor older major stormwater systems to determine whether
they are in compliance with permit design and maintenance criteria, and
bring and enforce compliance where necessary. Monitoring candidates
should be targeted based on size of service area and the treatment type
(some designs may be more problematic than others).
Responsible parties: FDEP, SWFWMD, local governments
STEP 3 Continue implementation of a team approach that integrates permitting and
compliance monitoring and enforcement personnel to maximize efficiency
and provide "cradle-to-grave" permit oversight including maintenance
monitoring.
Responsible parties: FDEP, SWFWMD, local governments
STEP 4 Evaluate needs for additional funding, staff and/or resources to meet level-
of-service targets for compliance monitoring and enforcement. Provide
recommendations to the Tampa Bay NEP by December 1996.
Responsible parties: FDEP, SWFWMD, with recommendations to the
Tampa Bay NEP
STEP 5 Assess the effectiveness of efforts to improve compliance monitoring and
enforcement in the Tampa Bay watershed, including progress toward level-
of-service targets (particularly compliance rates), results of integrating per-
sonnel for team permitting management, and associated costs to agency and
'Illlljl~U;l"
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
,.........................................."',..
....,........................... ,-""'"''
......................................'......,...............'.'.............'....,.,.,.......
................................... ""..........
......................,..........'.'...'...., ,
............................................."............
.........11...... ....II.... ... ...........'1......
..... ... ....... ',..
..... ..., "...
..... ..' ...... ..".".,.
..... ... ..., ".........
..... ,.......
..... ...... ,. '...... .,.....'........:.\::
..... . .............
.......... .. ..............
:::::::::...... ::: : ::: .:;::- :::;::::::::::::::
..... .... .......... .....
...... ..,.. ".' . ,...
...... ...... .......... ...........
.....,. ......,...,.. ','".. ,...
....................................,....'............,.,.......'..,',",
85
IJIR,Af~.I'"
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.;.;.'..,.,'...:.:.-,..;.:.-,....:.:'-.;...........................-.....-.-...........
..........................1.11..1...
88
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
applicant. Results of evaluation should be reported in the Agency on Bay
Management's (ABM) State of the Bay Report as well as the Biennial Bay
Monitoring Report produced by agency and government partners in the
Tampa Bay NEP.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEp' ABM
SCHEDULE:
Steps 1-4 can be initiated in 1996, with timetable as indicated in steps. Evaluation
identified in Step 5 can be conducted every two years, beginning in 1997.
COST:
Costs associated with existing staff time to complete Step 1 is estimated at $6,000
based on two months mid-level management time, provided through SWFWMD's
existing operating funds. Steps 2-3 can also be implemented with existing staff,
although costs associated with this effort estimates have not yet been developed. Costs
for additional resources to assist compliance monitoring and enforcement will vary,
but sources estimate the annual cost of additional field technicians at approximately
$22,000 plus overhead. Support equipment (field truck and survey equipment) is esti-
mated at $20,000 per team.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Increased compliance with storm water permits will decrease pollution from stormwa-
ter runoff. An integrated team permitting approach is also expected to improve staff
efficiency and cost-effectiveness in permit oversight.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Efforts to improve compliance monitoring and enforcement will be assessed periodi-
cally against targets for level of service. Ambient water quality monitoring is con-
ducted by local governments.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Possible revisions to agency policies.
RELATED ACTIONS:
BH-9
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Enforce and Require the Timely Completion of the
Consent Orders for the Cleanup of Fertilizer
Facilities in the East Bay Sector
ACTION:
Enforce and require the timely completion of conditions in the consent orders entered
into by CF Industries, CSX Transportation, EAT Terminals, IMC-Agrico and Pakhoed
Dry Bulk, for the cleanup of wastewater entering the East Bay sector.
BACKGROUND:
In 1990, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the
Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County (EPCHC) discovered
that five fertilizer shipping facilities in the East Bay area were discharging high levels
of nutrients into the bay. A subsequent investigation determined that storm water was
mixing with fertilizer product from these facilities and that the wastewater discharges
were not meeting current water quality standards.
Following lengthy negotiations, the five facilities-CF Industries, CSX
Transportation, EAT Terminals, IMC-Agrico and Pakhoed Dry Bulk-entered into
joint consent orders with FDEP and EPCHC in late 1991. The consent orders includ-
ed requirements for regular sampling of storm-induced discharges, assessments of
wastewater flows and concentrations at the facilities, and sediment sampling at the
facilities and at adjacent loading docks. Upon completion of the assessment phase,
each facility was to construct or implement the best management practices (BMPs) to
manage its nutrient-enriched stormwater discharges.
While all five facilities have begun complying with the terms of their consent orders,
progress has varied widely. Some facilities continue to fall short of required water
quality standards, and deadlines for completion of site improvements remain undeter-
mined.
IMC-Agrico has completed construction of a detention/treatment facility and is rou-
tinely monitoring its outfall, effectively completing the terms of its consent order.
CF Industries is also in its final phase, having completed its assessment, and has
applied for a permit to construct a detention facility that would contain a 25-year/24-
hour storm event.
Of the five facilities, CSX Transportation is believed to discharge the largest amount
of nutrients to the bay. CSX has submitted a permit application and preliminary
design plans to construct a retention and treatment system capable of containing a 25-
year/24-hour storm event. The adjacent EAT Terminal is still in the process of devel-
oping and implementing a treatment strategy for its facility.
Pakhoed Dry Bulk, the smallest of the facilities, is implementing BMPs to reduce the
11[lil~I:,:;~1[11;IF"II:':'
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.................-....."............"...
.......................,........."'.......
...................,..................'.......'..'.'.'.'.'.'.'....,.,.......'.......
...........................,......... .
11111.>
87
'1[llljliRF~\r
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
....,...........'-.'...........,.,.......,.,.,....'........................................
........... ...............................
..\1_11
88
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
amount of fertilizer product entering storm water. These improvements include outside
conveyer belts, truck load-out areas, and roofing improvements at storage warehouses.
Additionally, the company has submitted a permit application and design plans to
retain the first inch of rainfall at the facility.
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Enforce and require the timely completion of the consent orders.
A. Continue to require implementation of best management plans and the con-
struction of systems to detain and treat storm-induced discharges, and
develop criteria to determine "compliance."
B. Set deadlines for the final completion of the terms of the consent orders.
C. Bring facilities into full compliance so they may enter a wastewater permit-
ting and monitoring mode.
Responsible parties: FDEP and EPCHC, in cooperation with the five
facilities
SCHEDULE:
Step I-A is ongoing. All facilities should be in full compliance within 12 months of
completing construction of treatment systems.
COST:
Costs to implement best management practices at these sites vary according to design
and magnitude, and are borne by the facilities under the consent order.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Reduced nutrient loadings to the already nutrient-enriched East Bay sector of Tampa
Bay.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Individual facilities will monitor outfalls. Ambient bay water quality is monitored by
EPCHC and other local governments.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
No further regulatory needs are anticipated.
RELATED ACTIONS:
SW-7
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Encourage "Fertigation" and
Micro-Irrigation on Farms
ACTION:
Encourage farmers to install "fertigation" and micro-irrigation systems that reduce
runoff from agricultural operations.
BACKGROUND:
Stormwater runoff from agricultural operations contributes significant amounts of
nitrogen, pesticide residues and suspended solids to waterways. This action is aimed
at reducing pollutant loadings to the bay from runoff associated with agricultural
operations.
While agriculture accounts for only six percent of the bay's total nitrogen loading,
studies commissioned by the Tampa Bay NEP indicate it is a major contributor in
localized areas of south Hillsborough and Manatee counties. The studies indicate that
23 percent of the land in the Little Manatee River basin is intensively farmed, mainly
with row crops and citrus groves. These operations contribute an estimated 23 percent
of the total nitrogen load entering the bay from that watershed. In the Manatee River
segment, farming operations comprise an estimated 13.5 percent of the nitrogen load.
Agricultural practices have become increasingly more sophisticated and improvements
aimed at conserving water also may be adapted to reduce fertilizer use and, subse-
quently, farm runoff. One technique developed in recent years allows fertilizer to be
applied through drip or microjet irrigation systems. This practice, called "fertigation,"
enables farmers to apply liquid fertilizer in smaller, more precise doses, reducing the
chance of over-fertilization. Use of fertigation can benefit the farmer, as well as the
bay, by lowering overall operating costs.
Although liquid fertilizer is generally more expensive than granular forms, fertigation
can be more cost-effective since less is used in well-managed fertigation systems.
However, to realize these costs savings, farmers must be properly instructed in the
operation of fertigation systems, which are computer-controlled and require some
training to master.
Farmers are not required to install fertigation systems. Nevertheless, more than 95
percent of Florida strawberry growers use drip irrigation, and most of those fertigate.
A smaller percentage of vegetable growers has converted to micro-irrigation, but most
who have also fertigate. The situation is reversed among citrus growers: most have
converted to micro-irrigation, but a smaller percentage fertigate. However, rules
developed by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) offer
opportunities to encourage and expand use of fertigation where practicable.
Rules adopted by SWFWMD for the Southern Water Use Caution Area require farm-
ers to reduce water use by specific amounts over a period of years. The farmers may
'nl'nl;t';'I:~"~r
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.............................."",.",..,"""
.....................................'............,:.......:.:..,>>...,',.,.,'.'..-,-,-,.,.,.,:...
..........................................'....,........,.,.,.,..'.........'.'.',.,-,-,-'.,...
............... ............................"........... .
........-..................................................
...... .. . ." ....., ........
..... ..." ...... ".
..... . ... ...
..... .......
..... .. ......... ...
..... ...
..... ....... ........
...... .
............ ........ ...
:::::::::...... ::: ' .;: c.," :::::::>>:':
..... ... ...
"""",,"'.........,.,,11I,:,:1.
89
tt. f::1"
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
...."..'........."...-.........-..........--.......
.......,.................... ......,.................
, ..................................
........................... ...... .............."
......<1.111:
80
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
utilize a variety of irrigation methods to achieve the efficiencies required. One
method of reducing water consumption is through the use of micro-irrigation systems,
which deliver controlled amounts of water directly to a plant's root zone. These sys-
tems also can be used to apply liquid fertilizer in the same controlled manner. If
growers choose micro-irrigation systems to comply with new water use restrictions,
they will have the opportunity to fertigate as well. Growers should be aware of the
environmental benefits as well as the costs associated with fertigation so they can
make the best choices for their irrigation systems.
The district's Agricultural Ground and Surface Water Management Plan program
(AGSWM) for farmers provides another opportunity to promote the use of fertigation.
This program allows farmers to implement a surface water management plan in lieu of
obtaining an Environmental Resource Permit. The voluntary plans are developed by
the Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service)
and administered by SWFWMD. The plans could be strengthened by encouraging the
use of fertigation, particularly where micro-irrigation systems already exist.
Ongoing actions: Implementation of SWFWMD water conservation rules for agricul-
tural users.
STRATEGY:
The strategy for this action focuses on more aggressive promotion of fertigation tech-
niques, improved instruction in the use of fertigation systems, and the investigation of
funding programs that could provide financial assistance to farmers who wish to
install fertigation systems.
SlEP 1 Include fertigation among the techniques considered Best Management
Practices by the state Institute of Food and Agricultural Services (IFAS).
Fertigation is currently not listed as a BMP in materials provided by IFAS
through its cooperative extension services.
Responsible parties: IFAS, local cooperative extension services
SlEP 2 Investigate the potential for strengthening Agricultural Ground and Surface
Water Management Plans to strongly encourage fertigation systems where
micro-irrigation systems already are in place. Where micro-irrigation is not
already being used, encourage its use along with fertigation.
Responsible parties: SWFWMD, Natural Resources Conservation
Service, local soil and water conservation districts
SlEP 3 Hold workshops and provide instructional materials about the correct use
of fertigation systems. Contact local suppliers of fertigation systems and
urge them to provide detailed guidance and support in the use of the sys-
tems.
Responsible parties: local cooperative extension services
SlEP 4 Explore possible cost-sharing programs, such as low-interest revolving
loans, to provide financial assistance for the installation of micro-irrigation
systems coupled with fertigation systems. For example, a fund might be
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
established from nitrogen trading credits and administered through the
Florida Farm Bureau. Ensure that the funding assistance available is suffi-
cient to warrant participation by growers.
Responsible parties: Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Florida Department of Agriculture &
Consumer Services, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service,
and local soil and water conservation districts
SCHEDULE:
Steps 1 and 2 can be accomplished in 1996. Steps 3 and 4 can be initiated in 1996,
with a cost-sharing program identified or established in 1997.
COST:
Steps 1,2 and 3 involve administrative costs. Costs for Step 4 have not yet been iden-
tified. Representative costs for a fertigation system are estimated at about $700 (for
mixing and nurse tank), plus installation at $1,000 an acre. This estimate includes
both the cost of the micro-irrigation system and fertigation components.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Use of fertigation systems is expected to reduce the amount of nitrogen entering the
bay in agricultural runoff. Research being conducted by the Hillsborough County
Engineering Services Department in cooperation with local growers may help quantify
the benefits of fertigation versus conventional fertilization practices. Farmers
installing fertigation systems can monitor and report fertilization application rates
using fertigation systems to compare to baseline applications without these systems in
place.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Ambient water quality in surface waters receiving runoff from agricultural lands
is monitored by local governments and will be reported in a biennial Bay
Environmental Monitoring Report.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Revision to SWFWMD guidelines for Agriculture Ground and Surface Water
Management Plans to encourage fertigation systems where micro-irrigation already is
in use.
RELATED ACTIONS:
SW-10, TX-4
II[Jljl,lit~II'::':;li;'
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
............................................-..,""......
........................ . ..........,'"
........................................................,.........,.....'.'.'......,.,.,...
..............................................."'................
111.19........................................
..................... ,......... ....-....
.............................. ""..
91
$.%" , Z'W"
~t~~ r :j@~
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
....".--....-..................-.........
.............................. ...............
. ............,........................
..............."...........................
...............1.'..1....1.....
92
ACTION PLAN
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Water & Sediment Quality
Improve Compliance with Agricultural Ground
and Surface Water Management Plans
ACTION:
Improve compliance with Agricultural Ground and Surface Water Management plans
to reduce nutrient and pesticide runoff to the bay.
BACKGROUND:
Florida Statutes exempt certain agricultural activities from surface water permitting
requirements designed to minimize impacts to wetlands, flooding and water quality
degradation. However, confusion about or misinterpretation of the exemptions has led
to agricultural activities which may have adverse environmental impacts.
In an effort to boost compliance with surface water rules, the Southwest Florida Water
Management District (SWFWMD) and the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NCRS), formerly the Soil Conservation Service, have developed a voluntary program
that assists farmers in protecting water resources. The Agricultural Ground and
Surface Water Management Program, or AGSWM, educates farmers about exemptions
and helps farmers develop water management plans that often enable them to qualify
for a permit exemption.
A matrix of Best Management Practices has been developed for the program, listing
each BMP and its potential benefits. Using this matrix, NRCS specialists inspect an
agricultural operation and evaluate which BMPs are suitable. A plan is developed and
the farmer is asked to implement its recommendations, providing a faster, non-regula-
tory avenue for compliance with surface water rules.
Since the program's creation in 1991, surface water management plans have been
developed for more than 3,000 acres of farmland in Hillsborough and Manatee coun-
ties. While these efforts are impressive, the percentage of agricultural lands managed
under these plans remains small in comparison to the farmed acreage in the region.
Both Hillsborough and Manatee counties, for example, had more than 112,000 acres
devoted to citrus, vegetables or some other form of intensive agriculture in 1990.
Compliance also has been a lingering problem for the program. Few if any follow-up
inspections are conducted to ensure that farm operators have implemented the plans.
Lack of sufficient staff has been identified as a major reason for the lack of follow-up.
The AGSWM program provides a streamlined, less cumbersome approach for growers
to comply with the intent of SWFWMD's wetlands and water quality protection rules.
But without a reasonable effort to check on the implementation of the AGSWM plans,
the effectiveness of the program cannot be determined.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
STRATEGY:
The strategy for this action involves one regulatory action to monitor compliance with
AGSWM plans and one voluntary action to encourage greater participation in the pro-
gram.
STEP 1 When SWFWMD visits a farm in conjunction with a water use renewal
permit, it can use that occasion to check compliance with the farm's
AGSWM plan. The site visit made at the time of water use permit renewal
provides a convenient time to verify that an existing AGSWM plan is being
implemented as agreed to by the grower.
If the inspection shows that a farming operation is not in compliance with
the approved AGSWM plan, SWFWMD could allow a grace period during
which to comply. Failure to comply within the grace period could be
grounds to nullify the permit exemption and require a formal
Environmental Resource Permit.
Responsible parties: SWFWMD, NRCS
STEP 2 Recruit growers in Hillsborough and Manatee counties who have success-
fully implemented AGSWM plans to showcase the results of their efforts to
other growers who qualify for the AGSWM program.
Responsible parties: SWFWMD, NRCS, local extension services
SCHEDULE:
Both steps could be implemented in 1996.
COST:
Both steps could be accomplished with existing resources.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
More widespread participation in and compliance with the AGSWM program will
reduce agricultural runoff and wetland impacts, improving water quality in the bay.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Ambient surface water quality and sediment monitoring will be conducted as part of
the biennial Bay Environmental Monitoring Report.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Possible amendments to SWFWMD permitting criteria to require farmers with
approved surface water management plans to undergo site inspections at the time of
their water use permit renewal.
RELATED ACTIONS:
SW-9, TX-4
l[lf.iflli.lil;rl::J
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
................................"".-.-,..
............................,........'..............
.................................... '"
............................,""....'...................
.................................. ..-..
............ ......"....,...,,"....................
.........11....................................................d........
...... ... .......
..... .....
..... .' ............. ....
..... . .
..... .., ........ '.'
..... .".,"
....... "" ...... ....
...." ""..
..... . ....... ....
..... -, ".
......, . nO ..
).....111,10
93
i'MW t.l ~~"
"db>;>> i,V.,;s W. .~,
~:~J}; ~:; w,::-: ':;::: 1 [:
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
..-'-'...'-.-.,-...'.....,...............................
....,...,.....-.,...;.:.;..........,..........'.'.....'.....................:
..:.:.:.:.;,-':.>>>.,...,...,:...,...............,............'...'.'.'...................
5'........'......'."'.1.'.'.....'.'.'.1..'.'.....'.'.,.,.,.
....... ..... .....
. - ....... "." .....
..... ... .....
.... ... .....
..... .... .....
.. . ..... .. .....
... ... .....
.. . .., .Jiik:,: ::.':': :'..
.."..... ..... .....
".::. ...::.....' ," - ,:............ ..... .....
. .. ",. ..... .....
".'/'.'..""""""""'.'.'."""'Z'...'.",','".,j
94
ACTION PLAN
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Water & Sediment Quality
Determine Minimum Widths for Vegetated Buffers
ACTION:
Determine minimum widths for vegetated buffers along the bay and its tributaries by
developing performance guidelines and evaluating existing requirements against these
standards. Amend stormwater regulations to include these minimum widths.
BACKGROUND:
Vegetated buffers along tributaries can reduce pollutant loads of metals, solids and
nutrients by more than 50 percent. Vegetation or grass within these buffer strips slows
runoff, allowing solids and contaminants to settle out before reaching the bay or its
tributaries. Buffers also can enhance habitat and stabilize shorelines. For these rea-
sons, vegetated buffers along surface waters are considered a vital and highly effective
component in overall stormwater management planning and pollution prevention.
But while all local governments require setbacks, setback widths vary and no studies
have been conducted to determine their effectiveness in protecting water quality or
enhancing habitat-a need which this action addresses. Existing local government
setbacks range from 25-50 feet. This action calls for the development of "perfor-
mance" guidelines for vegetated buffers and an evaluation of existing regulations
against these criteria. Findings will be used to develop minimum widths for vegetated
buffers based on site-specific conditions as the basis for revisions to existing stan-
dards.
STRATEGY:
This strategy involves the development of minimum widths for vegetated buffers
based on performance guidelines, and calls for revisions to existing standards, where
necessary, to properly protect the bay and maximize the effectiveness of these buffers.
STEP 1 Develop "performance" guidelines (e.g., percentage of total suspended
solids removed or amount of water percolating through the soil) for vege-
tated buffers along tributaries. In developing guidelines, reviewers should
consider reductions in total suspended solids (TSS) and other pollutants
such as nitrogen; shoreline stabilization; and habitat enhancement value.
Responsible parties: SWFWMD-SWIM
STEP 2 Develop a technically sound means for determining minimum widths for a
variable or constant buffer based on performance guidelines. Calculations
should be based on site-specific conditions such as slope, adjoining land
use, soil type, vegetation and land cover. Water quality monitoring at select
test sites will be required to validate methods.
Responsible parties: SWFWMD-SWIM
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
None anticipated.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
STEP 3 Based on results of Steps 1 and 2, evaluate the adequacy of existing
requirements for vegetated buffers, and revise to include minimum widths.
Revisions may include amendments to storm water rules and local develop-
ment standards (zoning laws and comprehensive plans) to require minimum
widths. Alternatively, allow developers to incorporate these minimum
widths into their projects to meet existing stormwater quality requirements.
Responsible parties: local governments
SCHEDULE:
Steps 1 and 2 can be initiated in 1996, if funding is available. Step 3 can be imple-
mented in 1997.
COST:
Estimated costs for Step 1 are $40,000. Methods testing in Step 2 is also estimated at
$40,000, including a pilot monitoring program. Staff time to evaluate the adequacy of
existing requirements may entail one mid-level staff person for two weeks ($2,000)
with support from each local government. Legal and staff time only are anticipated in
Step 3.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Performance guidelines will allow local governments to fully evaluate the effective-
ness of this best management practice. Minimum buffer widths also will lead to
improved water quality and reduced runoff, as well as improved habitat enhancement
and shoreline stabilization.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Water quality is monitored by local governments. However, to test the effectiveness
of performance guidelines, additional monitoring at representative sites will be neces-
sary.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Possible revisions to local development criteria and storm water rules.
RELATED ACTIONS:
I'll 11"1. i'll[; IF"lr
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
...................................................
................ ............. "................
.................................."................
............... "." ......... '" ...............
..........................................,"
............... ............. ".................
..................'.............................,
.........11..... ...11........ .............. ...............
..... . . ..... ,...... .....
..... ."' ........ ......
..... . ," ..... ..
..... . . . . ...... ".'
.... ........ ',"
.......... ..,.... '.'':'.<', "
.......... .'. .... ......, ".
;:;:;:;:;...... ::: : :::__.::;::: ::::;::::: :;'
;:;:;:;:::;:;.........:::::::::...,..::::.....:::::::::::::::::::...:.::::::;::.:.:,:,:
95
";>"'~WI""""'l"
{H%W illt . '", 'l,
k$@ll?,b, m
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
98
ACTION PLAN
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Water & Sediment Quality
ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION
Research emerges as the priority need in evaluating and addressing pollution that
enters the bay from the atmosphere.
As recently as 1991, researchers believed that atmospheric deposition had minimal
impact on the bay's water quality. Studies now suggest that about 28 percent of the
bay's total nitrogen load falls directly to the bay from the atmosphere.! The bay also
receives significant quantities of potentially toxic contaminants from the air, including
heavy metals such as cadmium, copper, lead and zinc, which are primarily industrial
in origin, although vehicle emissions also are a source.2
In fact, experts estimate that about 44 percent of the bay's total cadmium loading of
more than 7,000 pounds come from the atmosphere. Cadmium is associated with elec-
troplating and battery production.2 Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PARs) associ-
ated with fossil fuel combustion also enter the bay from the air, although specific
sources are unknown.
Actual pollution figures are probably much higher if contaminants falling on the
watershed are considered, since some of these eventually will enter the bay in
storm water runoff. About 650 tons of nitrogen fall on the open bay each year; another
3,600 tons are estimated to fall in the watershed, a portion of which enters Tampa Bay
as stormwater runoff.!
But while experts now know that the contribution to pollutant loadings from atmos-
pheric deposition is substantial, little empirical evidence exists to tie pollution to
sources. For example, stationary sources (primarily coal-fired power plants, but also
waste incineration and industrial facilities) are estimated to be a major manmade
source of local nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions, contributing about 66 percent as
compared to about 34 percent from motor vehicles.3 But researchers can't say how
much of the emissions generated locally come back to Tampa Bay, since airborne con-
taminants may travel hundreds (or even thousands) of miles before settling to the
earth. Wastewater treatment plants also may contribute nitrogen as gaseous ammonia
generated as a byproduct. Bay managers also can't pinpoint what portion of nitrogen
loadings from the atmosphere come from natural sources, such as lightning or natural
releases from wetlands.
These and other important questions must be addressed in order to develop effective
long-term strategies to manage sources of atmospheric deposition. Atmospheric depo-
sition to Tampa Bay is expected to increase as population, power consumption and
traffic grows, although increases may be mitigated in part by provisions in the Clean
Air Act, which requires utilities and motor vehicles to reduce emissions. Future man-
agement will require coordination at the regional and national level to assure broad
implementation and enforcement of pollution controls. Pollution prevention through
energy conservation also must be emphasized.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Between 1995 and the year 2010, nitrogen loadings to the bay from all sources are
expected to increase 10 percent, or about 27 tons per year.4 But those figures do not
include changes that may occur if power plants around the bay convert their oil- and
coal-fired facilities to a less expensive Venezuelan fuel called Orimulsion. Florida
Power & Light already has received conditional regulatory approval to bum
Orimulsion at its Port Manatee plant, although the utility still faces administrative
hearings and must receive approval from the Governor and Florida Cabinet.
Preliminary estimates show that the quantities proposed for use could add another 30
tons of nitrogen per year to the bay. An advanced pollution control technology called
re-burning could lower nitrogen emissions associated with Orimulsion, but the tech-
nology is still untested in the United States and will only be tested on one of the two
FP&L units converting to Orimulsion. If re-burning proves successful, and both units
are converted to Orimulsion, state officials estimate that nitrogen emissions could be
reduced substantially.
Tampa Bay was recently selected for participation in EPA's Great Waters Program,
which provides funding to assist research of atmospheric deposition to the nation's
great waters. The $100,000 award will help support a three-year project to investigate
sources of atmospheric deposition and its contribution to storm water pollution, infor-
mation that will be used in the development of a long-term strategy to address the
problem. That study begins in 1995, and will be assisted by researchers from
Chesapeake Bay and local and state agencies.
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS FOR ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION
AD-1
Identify sources and monitor effects of atmospheric deposition to Tampa
Bay, and develop an Action Plan to address atmospheric deposition.
AD-2
Promote public and business energy conservation.
I Estimates of Total Nitrogen, Total Phosphorus, and Total Suspended Solids Loadings to Tampa Buy, Florida. TBNEP Technical
Publication #04-94 and addenda. (1994)
2 Chemical Contaminants in the Tampa Buy Estuary: A Summary of Distributions and Inputs. TBNEP Technical Publication
#01-95. (1995)
3 Literature Compilation and Data Synthesis for Atmospheric Deposition to the Tampa Bay Watershed. TBNEP Technical
Publication (Draft).
4 Estimating Critical Nitrogen Loads for the Tampa Buy Estuary: An Empirically Based Approach to Setting Management Targets.
TBNEP Technical Publication #03-95 and addenda. (1995)
111]11 IJI.il'i IIF'lf"
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
97
1:J!fl,fti.FI
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
,.,',..,"",.......................................
.".",...,.,."..,................................
. ..,.,.'..,-,-,-,:0......-:.....;...:.....'.'<.:........................................
.................'.............,........',........................................
.......................................................
............... ..... ...... ......... .....
............. ....... ......
'.. .'" .", ...... .....
........... ,. . ..... ......
.... .,"" .. ..... .....
. '.' .. ..... ......
....'.".'.,. .. ..... .....
.:}........:., .. '.' .':" }}:.
'.",',.. . ........ .....
. ..... ......... .....
..., - ......... .....
..............................................
". .. .................
98
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Identify Sources and Monitor Effects of
Atmospheric Deposition to Tampa Bay
ACTION:
Identify sources and monitor effects of atmospheric deposition to Tampa Bay. Based
on the results of these investigations, develop an action plan to reduce atmospheric
deposition.
BACKGROUND:
Recent studies by the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program estimate that about 28
percent of the bay's total nitrogen loadings are directly deposited to the bay from the
atmosphere. Atmospheric deposition also contributes significant quantities of toxic
substances to the bay, including heavy metals and PCBS.l.2
While specific sources of atmospheric deposition to Tampa Bay have not yet been
identified, studies suggest that power plants and vehicles are major contributors.
Stationary sources in Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties alone produce more than
120,000 tons of nitrogen oxides or NOx emissions per year, mostly from coal-burning
power plants. Mobile or vehicle sources in those counties contribute an additional
60,000 tons of NOx emissions per year.3 But experts don't know what proportion of
local emissions come back to Tampa Bay in the form of atmospheric deposition, since
air pollutants can travel hundreds or even thousands of miles before settling to the
earth.
This action calls for additional research to identify sources of emissions, their contri-
butions to atmospheric deposition in the bay and watershed, and their effects on the
bay. Tampa Bay was recently nominated by the Tampa Bay NEP and selected for par-
ticipation in the EPA Great Waters Program, which provides funding and assistance in
the research of atmospheric deposition. Other national waterways assisted by this
program include the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay. Results of the Great Waters
study, which begins in 1995, will be used in the development of an action plan to
reduce atmospheric deposition to Tampa Bay.
A task force* of national researchers and representatives from local governments,
agencies and utilities has been established to oversee the Great Waters study of Tampa
Bay. A detailed study plan is being developed and will include research to identify
sources, the amount and relative contribution of nutrient and toxic emissions and
related deposition to the bay, as well as the contribution to stormwater pollution from
atmospheric deposition to the watershed.
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Implement the Great Waters research plan for Tampa Bay, which is expect-
ed to require three to four years for completion. The plan will investigate:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.,
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality
· the relative contribution to atmospheric deposition from local and
remote sources;
· the importance of ammonia to the total nitrogen input budget for
Tampa Bay;
· the distribution of nitrogen deposition in the watershed;
· the contribution of dryfall to local atmospheric deposition;
· the contribution to storm water from atmospheric deposition in the
watershed.
Staff from the Tampa Bay NEP and FDEP Air Quality Division will coordi-
nate the efforts of the Great Waters Study in its inaugural year.
Responsible parties: Great Waters Task Force
STEP 2 Based on results of the Great Waters Study, design and implement addition-
al studies, if warranted, to determine specific sources of atmospheric depo-
sition to Tampa Bay.
Responsible parties: Great Waters Task Force, local governments
STEP 3 Based on Great Waters findings, develop an action plan that includes cost-
benefit analyses of options to reduce atmospheric deposition. Options
could include voluntary reductions in emissions; additional regulatory crite-
ria for permits and other requirements associated with power plants and
motor vehicles; reductions in the incineration of toxic materials through
expanded mandatory or voluntary recycling and higher quality fuels; and
more stringent local and state air pollution rules. A preliminary draft of this
action plan will be prepared by the Tampa Bay NEP in cooperation with the
Great Waters Task Force by October 1998.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEP in cooperation with Great Waters
Task Force
SCHEDULE:
Steps 1 and 2 will be initiated in 1995 and 1996. A draft action plan to address
atmospheric deposition to Tampa Bay will be released in October 1998.
COST:
Costs for research associated with Great Waters projects (Steps 1 and 2) are estimated
to range from $200,000-$500,000. Potential funding sources include the EPA Great
Waters Program; EPAlFDEP 319(h) grant funds; Florida Pollution Recovery Trust
Fund: SWFWMD-SWIM; Florida Department of Transportation; local government air
programs; local utilities; Electric Power Research Institute; and air emission permits
or permit violation fees. More than $100,000 in federal funds already has been com-
mitted.
1[1 If I ,I;'f: I: <iI"
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.-....................................
............................"'.,, ..
....................................
...........................,.." ."'...........
.......................................
...........................""."
11111. I_i.
.................................
................................
99
wtm~ tt W''''ff'
"..... '*1 ~,~ 11'<<, ''''l
]~~t;~~'~) m,t":~* i :~~
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.....__.d........'.....................
""" ,...............................
.......................".....................
.",..-......... .................
. ,.........................................
"'.....'._111_
...',',................................
.............................
100
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
While action plans have not yet been developed, the following comparison illustrates
the costs associated with reducing a ton of NOx from both power plants and motor
vehicles.
Estimated costs to retrofit power plant "wet bottom" or "cyclone" (Group 2) boilers
(used by some local plants) to reduce NOx range from $2,000-$4,500 per ton of NOx
reduction. Ratepayer increases would most likely finance these emission controls.
By comparison, vehicle emission controls might entail engine controls ranging any-
where from $1,000-$1,500 per car. Reformulated fuel associated with these engine
upgrades could raise gas prices by an additional $.05-$.15 per gallon. All told, the
price tag associated with a ton of NOx reduction from motor vehicles is estimated at
about $30,000-about 10 times higher than the cost to reduce a ton of NOx from
power plants.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Research will enable bay managers to allocate responsibility for cleanup and direct
resources to areas of greatest need. The bay's air, water and sediment quality are all
expected to benefit from actions to reduce or maintain NOx and toxic emissions,
which also will affect pollution in stormwater runoff that captures deposition to the
watershed.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Atmospheric deposition monitoring will begin in 1995 and will continue throughout
the duration of the three-year Great Waters project. Long-term monitoring needs have
not yet been determined.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
None anticipated for Steps 1-2, however regulatory changes may be called for in the
action plan developed in 1998.
RELATED ACTIONS:
AD-2
1 Estimates of Total Nitrogen, Total Phosphorus, and Total Suspended Solids Loadings to Tampa Bay, Florida, TBNEP Technical
Publication #04-94 and addenda (1994).
2 Chemical Contaminants in the Tampa Bay Estuary: A Summary of Distributions and Inputs, TBNEP Technical Publication #01-95
(1995).
, AttainmentlMaintenance Plan for the Tampa Bay Florida Ozone Nonattainment Area, Environmental Protection Commission of
Hillsborough County and Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners (1994).
. Tbe Great Waters Task Force is comprised of representatives from EPA Region IV and the Great Waters Program; the Tampa Bay
National Estuary Program; local government air, water quality and transportation departments; local utilities, and the state
departments of transportation and environmental protection.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Promote Business and Public Energy Conservation
ACTION:
Promote energy conservation to businesses by increasing participation in EPA's Green
Lights and Energy Stars programs. Continue to promote public energy conservation.
BACKGROUND:
An estimated 28 percent of the bay's total nitrogen loading comes from atmospheric
deposition to the surface of the bay. That figure climbs as high as 66 percent when
contaminants falling in the watershed are included, since a portion of these will even-
tually enter the bay in stormwater runoff.
Power plants are a major source of nitrogen emissions, along with motor vehicles, and
energy conservation may provide a viable source-reduction strategy at the local level.
Local utilities already devote considerable efforts to promote energy conservation to
residents, with incentives such as rebates for energy-smart heat pumps and energy
audits to pinpoint problems and identify opportunities for energy savings. These pro-
grams should be continued, and the public information literature developed for distrib-
ution with customer billings expanded to emphasize the link between energy use, air
pollution and bay water quality, since residents don't automatically make the connec-
tion.
Of particular importance are businesses that are heavy energy users. Voluntary pro-
grams that help businesses reduce energy consumption are appealing because they
prevent pollution, are non-regulatory and decrease overhead costs. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency sponsors three such programs: Green Lights, which
targets light-intensive businesses such as hospitals and shopping malls; Energy Star
Buildings, which focuses on a holistic approach to building efficiency; and Energy
Star Office Equipment, which addresses energy-intensive computers, copiers, moni-
tors, fax machines and printers.
Lighting accounts for 20-25 percent of all electricity sold in the United States-and
lighting for industry, stores, offices and warehouses represents 80-90 percent of total
lighting electricity use, so the use of energy-efficient lighting has a direct effect on
pollution prevention. Every kilowatt-hour of lighting electricity not used prevents
emissions of 1.5 pounds of carbon dioxide, 5.8 grams of sulfur dioxide, and 2.5 grams
of nitrogen oxides, which are of particular concern in Tampa Bay. Energy Stars' par-
ticipants further increase bottom line business and environmental payback by address-
ing additional energy-demanding features within their facilities such as heating and
cooling. Implementation of Energy Star programs may also reduce other pollutants
associated with coal- or oil-fired power plants, such as mercury, a pollutant of concern
within the Tampa Bay watershed.
Cox Newspapers, a Green Lights participant and owner of the Atlanta Journal and
Constitution, estimates its annual savings at more than $55,000 since upgrading its
lighting. The company reduced its total annual electricity and its lighting electricity
11[lflrl'll:.,:tit~~II::::;"lii':'
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.............-......................"'.....---
................................."'''........................
................................
.".........................,...".....,.,..,.
...........,............................'...........'..'....,...,..............
..................................
.:.'.'.'....'.'......'.'.11........'.'.'."'1'...'.'.'..'.'.".
....... .., .....
....... .... "'''.' ........
.....~. .. .... .
..... "." '''''. .........
........ .... .... ,. .........
..... .. '" ..... . .......
~{{:'. . "':' '" ,-}' {}:.::::'
.... ...... -.....
..... ..... --,-.. ............
..... .--.... ,
...... .......... ........... . ...........
.... .... ....,. ,.... .........., ,
",...................................
101
tttW! *.
~: MfkPt
i1:::.-::." .Z;: .:;~;~.~.~: :~:~:
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
......."".........""...........-......................
""". ..... .............................
....".........""......... ..........................
"",. ....,. ... .......................
.... ',...,...'-'-'.'..,....'.... ,...,.......'.',..,.... ..'..,.,.,.,.............................
............ ....................g...........
....................................... .." ........ ....
,." .. '.' 'P' ...
.',.""...."".... .. ...... ...
"',," ,. ..... '"
."".... "' .........
,.,---"- '~ .. ..... . ."
............. .' '" ........ ...
....... .... ....... ....
:-:::--'-';:<:::::::::;::::::: . ::: .;-" :~:::., ....::::::
. ......... .' ..... ...
..., .,. ", ...... ..
...." " ...... ...
.. "..""........'...."............. .....
..."...... .............................
. . .... ..........................
102
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
usage by more than 1.2 million kilowatt hours and 63 percent per kilowatt hour
respectively at a 350,000-square-foot facility. These energy savings translated into the
prevention of 1.6 million pounds of C02, 7.6 million grams of S02 and 2.7 million
grams of NOx per year.
Nationally, more than 1,800 businesses participate in Green Lights and Energy Stars,
including approximately a dozen partners in the Tampa Bay region. This action calls
for targeting an additional 100 businesses, and expanding cross-marketing opportuni-
ties through environmental agencies and local governments. For example, local gov-
ernments promoting best management practices to reduce storm water pollution
through programs such as Hillsborough County's Operation BayWorks should also
promote business participation in Green Lights and Energy Stars to increase bottom
line benefits for participants and the environment. Utilities also are encouraged to
work through the Florida Yards & Neighborhoods program administered by local
county cooperative extension services to promote household energy audits.
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Develop and provide the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency with a tar-
get list of 100 light- and equipment-intensive businesses in the watershed
for possible participation in the program. Also investigate exterior lighting
sources to determine if energy reductions can be made without compro-
mising public safety. Additionally, encourage local government partners in
the Tampa Bay NEP, and local newspapers to participate as Green
Lights/Energy Stars partners.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEp' in cooperation with local electric
utilities (Tampa Electric Company, Florida Power Corporation, Florida
Power & Light) and chambers of commerce
STEP 2 Sponsor a biennial workshop with U.S. EPA in Hillsborough, Pinellas and
Manatee counties, in partnership with the local utilities and chambers of
cornmerce. Also, request that EPA evaluate administrative requirements of
volunteer participants to investigate opportunities to streamline reporting
requirements.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEp' local utilities, EPA
STEP 3 Promote Green Lights and Energy Stars through local chambers of com-
merce, business associations and downtown partnerships, and seek their
endorsements and commitments to promote these initiatives.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEp' Agency on Bay Management, local
utilities
STEP 4 Increase cross-promotion of Green Lights and Energy Stars by local gov-
ernments and environmental agencies in their contacts with businesses, and
incorporate Green Lights concepts into their programs where applicable.
Responsible parties: local government storm water and environmental
management departments
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
STEP 5 Encourage utilities to include information in customer billing newsletters
about the link between energy usage and bay water quality and the benefits
of energy conservation.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEp' Agency on Bay Management
SCHEDULE:
All steps can be initiated in 1996. Target lists should be completed by December
1996, for April 1997 workshops.
COST:
Staff time is involved in all steps. Business partners can expect cost savings associat-
ed with reduced energy use as a result of implementation.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Energy conservation will result in reduced emissions from power plants and atmos-
pheric deposition to the bay.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
An atmospheric deposition monitoring program will provide estimates of nitrogen
deposition in the Tampa Bay area.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
None anticipated.
RELATED ACTIONS:
AD-I
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
..............................'.'...-.....'."..-. ,
..........., ......",.......... "",.....-......
.............................'.".".......,.".
..............................."".......
...............................""".....---."'..."
........... ....."""....... .,",................
11.......'.'.......11............. II>II
........ ,.............".."
............,...................,.."
loa
trJlll;Iil:::'lt
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.."",......................................
.--.......-..............................
.....................................
-,-..-..-."".......'........................
. .",.........."............................
.---.."."......".........................
..........-..........................
......",.. ... . . n'
0..'.'...... .. ....
"........ ,... . ...
..-"",...... ,.. ...
"""......",.. . ...
........."............ ,. ....
...... .n . ...
"""...." . ...
............. .. ....
.......... .. ....
....... "... .. ....
.."........... ",". .....
........"",... .. ....
..,",........". ' .," . .....
........, ,.... ..n ....
........"" . ,.. . .....
::::",;""",."""..,.",.,.,."""",.,.,."".,.,."""",,:
104
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
WASTEWATER
Reclaiming treated wastewater for commercial and residential uses represents one of
the most promising opportunities for reducing nitrogen loadings to Tampa Bay and
conserving precious water supplies in the future. St. Petersburg's pioneering effort in
reuse in the 1970s which drastically reduced the city's direct discharges to the bay
from the its four treatment plants paved the way for many of the projects now planned
and underway. The City of Tampa is currently exploring ways to reclaim up to 50
million gallons of nutrient-rich wastewater it now discharges daily to Hillsborough
Bay, to relieve pressure on the region's potable water supplies.
But evaluations of reclaimed water projects must consider the net effect to the bay and
its tributaries when large discharges are withdrawn. For instance, declines in nutrient
loadings that may pollute the bay must be weighed against the impact of redirecting a
fresh water source from the bay.
Once a pervasive problem for the bay, point-source pollution has declined substantial-
ly with improved regulation and advances in treatment technologies. In fact, the
retooling of Tampa's Howard F. Curren wastewater treatment plant at Hooker's Point
in 1979 is widely regarded as a chief catalyst in the bay's water quality recovery.
Advanced wastewater treatment technologies employed there and at other upgraded
facilities can curb up to 90 percent of the nitrogen from treated wastewater discharges.
Direct or "point" discharges of wastewater to Tampa Bay from municipal sewage
treatment plants and industries now contribute about 14 percent of total bay nitrogen
loadings, roughly one-quarter of the amount contributed from "non-point" sources
represented in storm water runoff. These regulated point sources also contribute
roughly 30 percent of the bay's total loadings of arsenic, cadmium, chromium and
copper, as well as low levels of other contaminants.
Experts expect continued declines in point source pollution as the use of reclaimed
water expands. Because point sources are concentrated and easily identified, they
often are among the most cost-effective to treat. The strategy to address wastewater
from point sources focuses on expanding the use of reclaimed water where projects
are beneficial to the bay; improved treatment of industrial effluent; pollution preven-
tion; and monitoring to improve compliance with discharge permits.
SEPTIC SYSTEMS
In some bay sectors, leachate from septic tanks, which serve about 20 percent of the
region's populace, may contribute substantially to nitrogen loadings. Preliminary
studies by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) also sug-
gest that a proportionate amount of nitrogen loadings to the bay may come from dis-
posal of septage waste and sewage treatment plant sludge containing nitrogen and
heavy metals.
Septic tanks located near the bay pose the greatest potential threat to water quality,
particularly along creeks where flushing is limited and the water table is near the
ground surface.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS FOR WASTEWATER
WW-I Expand the use of wastewater reuse where reuse benefits the bay.
WW-2 Establish maximum limits on the amount of nitrogen discharged to the bay
in industrial wastewater.
WW-3 Extend central sewer service to priority areas around the bay now served by
septic systems.
WW-4 Require standardized monitoring of wastewater discharges.
WW-5 Revise HRS rules to incorporate environmental performance or design
standards for septic tanks.
1I:IIll::irrf.:' ~};
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
......-......................,.....,........."....
..................... ............ ,- -.",,-.
..............................,...............',..
..................... ............ ."",
........................................................
..................... ........", .."
..........................................................
.........-.............................................. .
.... .. .. "
...... '.. ....................
.... . . ... ......
...... . ......"
..... ,. . ...................
..... . ..."
..... ,. ...............
..... .. ..."
..... ,. ..............
...... .. .. " ,.."
..... "', ...........................
...... .... .
...... . ... ...............
...... .... "".....".
...... . ... ...."......"".
...... . . ... , .......,.
::;:;:;:;:;:;.....;.;:;......:;:;:;::...:.:.:.:.......;:::::::::::.:.:..
105
I)R:~t~f;l'
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.........................................
.d'''' ...... ,............................
..-,>:-................... ......-..".....................
. .. ................................
.........,... ,............................
,....",.",.......................................
....>_.............................................1..I..........
.. "' ...............................
lOB
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Expand Wastewater Reuse Where
Reuse Benefits the Bay
ACTION:
Expand and encourage the reuse of highly treated domestic and industrial wastewater
where reuse produces a net benefit for Tampa Bay.
BACKGROUND:
St. Petersburg's pioneering efforts in wastewater reuse for residential irrigation in the
late 1970s were at the forefront of a technological movement that would offer both
substantial benefits and some important challenges to a region anxious to conserve its
dwindling freshwater supplies and at the same time save the bay from an overly rich
diet of nutrients discharged in wastewater.
Today, projects to reclaim wastewater for irrigation and other applications are under-
way in all three counties bordering the bay. Local governments now reuse roughly 40
million* gallons of treated wastewater per day, mostly for urban and agricultural irri-
gation, but also for industrial purposes. Projects planned or underway in local com-
munities (see reuse table) will more than triple that amount.
The Wilson-Grizzle Bill, which called for advanced technology to limit pollutants dis-
charged to the bay from domestic wastewater facilities, was a driving force behind
these early efforts and a lifeline for a polluted bay. The legislation prompted the City
of Tampa in 1979 to upgrade its wastewater treatment plant at Hooker's Point, a
change that helped bring about sweeping improvements in the bay's water quality. At
the same time, St. Petersburg was launching its reclaimed water project, which elimi-
nated most of its direct wastewater discharges to the bay. The Wilson-Grizzle legisla-
tion was eventually repealed but a subsequent Grizzle-Figg bill reinstated the require-
ments for advanced wastewater treatment.
The potential benefits of reuse to the bay and to a water-thirsty region are substantial.
Reuse has helped to reduce annual nitrogen loadings to the bay by approximately 150
million tons and will playa key role in the strategy to reduce future loadings. It is
also widely recognized as a cost-effective, long-term alternative source of water for
irrigation and commercial applications and potentially for potable needs. Reuse is a
key element of the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) strate-
gy to protect the Floridan Aquifer from saltwater intrusion in highly sensitive portions
of southern Hillsborough and Manatee counties, collectively known as the Southern
Water Use Caution Area. Reclaimed water also may be used to augment wellfields
and freshwater inflows to the bay.
Nevertheless, projects to reclaim wastewater should be evaluated carefully to deter-
mine their net impact to the bay and to address various public health and logistical
concerns. The City of Tampa is now proposing a project to reclaim as much as 50
million gallons of the treated wastewater it discharges daily to Hillsborough Bay from
* as of 1990, seeking update of figures
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
its Howard F. Curren facility at Hooker's Point. Discharges from this facility now
represent about 7 percent of the total freshwater inflow to Hillsborough Bay during
the dry months of the year.
While the bay will benefit from the reduction in nutrients to this heavily impacted har-
bor, a portion of this nutrient-rich load may be rerouted to the Tampa Bypass Canal,
mixed with canal water, and then pumped to the Hillsborough Reservoir.
Additionally, Hillsborough Bay will lose 7 percent of its fresh water inflow. A plan-
ning and environmental impact assessment for this project began in late 1995.
STRATEGY:
This strategy is to evaluate and recommend implementation of reclaimed water pro-
jects that result in a net benefit to Tampa Bay.
SlEP 1 Evaluate the environmental impacts of the major reuse projects planned for
the Tampa Bay region, including the net effects of reducing or eliminating
the discharge (changes in salinity and pollutant loadings) and any corre-
sponding impacts to rivers and reservoirs. Evaluations also should ade-
quately address the project's ability to satisfy any public health concerns or
perceptions stemming from the use of reclaimed water to augment potable
water supplies.
The Tampa Bay National Estuary Program recommends implementation of
those reuse projects that benefit the bay.
Responsible parties: local governments, SWFWMD, Florida Department
of Environmental Protection (FDEP)
SlEP 2 If current reuse expansion plans coupled with other efforts to reduce pollu-
tion are insufficient to meet long-term goals for nitrogen reduction in the
bay, investigate additional opportunities to expand reuse by inter-connect-
ing distribution systems or constructing larger storage facilities.
Responsible parties: local governments, SWFWMD, in cooperation with
the Tampa Bay NEP
SCHEDULE:
The status of major reuse projects that are planned or underway is provided in Table
1. Evaluation of the City of Tampa project to reclaim treated wastewater currently
discharged to Hillsborough Bay began in 1995.
COST:
Estimated costs and funding sources for major projects are provided in Table 1.
Information was provided by wastewater reuse coordinators, utility officials and envi-
ronmental planners associated with these projects.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Reuse projects have the potential to substantially reduce long-term nitrogen loadings
11]11"J!'\I~::;"'lr
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.................-..........."...........
................................. .. "........
.........................." ..........
...............................,...."""
.......,.............. ...'....................
.............................. ,
..............................................
.........-..............................
.... .. .. ".""-
..... '. .. ,."" ",,--...
.... .... '..........
...... . ...
..... '. , ......
....... .., "."
..... '. ........... .........
........... ....... ........
........ " .
..... ... -. ,..
....,.....,... ..,.,.... ...............,.,.............
...... ." .... .... ... ::::1
........ . ..... ............
................... ..........
..............................
107
1[lffiiftf:l'
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
. ,,-.- ..........................-..-.............
......................."...........................
. -' ,. "................................
.......................................
",",',.."-- ............................
. d. .".......... .....................
-:.......::.:::..:...:::::
"',"--. . . . . . ..... .....
.... . ..... .....
0":":'->"'-' . ," . ........... ..........
?:.::......:)::...:~m
108
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
to Tampa Bay, and also help to conserve the region's dwindling water supplies. Both
the amount of water conserved through a project and the anticipated reduction in
nitrogen loadings are presented in Table 1. However, major projects should be evalu-
ated to identify any potential drawbacks for the bay or public health concerns associ-
ated with reuse.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Ambient water quality is monitored by local governments. Local government and
industrial applicants for reuse permits also will be required to conduct water quality
monitoring as a condition of the permit.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
FDEP regulations currently discourage the discharge of reclaimed water to natural
wetlands. Since wetland rehydration is one of the potential uses for reclaimed water
in the Tampa Bay region, amendments to FDEP regulations or policies may be needed
to allow these uses in cases where there is a net environmental benefit for the bay.
The issue of "ownership" of reclaimed water and control over how that water can be
used also should be clarified.
RELATED ACTIONS:
PI-I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
l'Illt.,'f';I:::;'~fr
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
Table 1. Summary 01 major projected or funded domestic wastewater
reuse projects In the Tampa Bay region
Total
Reuse TN
Local Vol. Cost Funding reduction Project
Government Plant/Project (mgd) ($110D) Source (tons/yr) Status
Hillsborough NW Service Area:
County 1) River Oaks, NW RegWWTP - 15.0 15.0 County CIP, 34.5 9-phase county project to be
Service to residential and SWFWMD completed by the year 2000, as
commercial uses and golf courses, part of 5-year CIP*.
and connection to Dale Mabry/ 44.0 RWIU* Distribution to individual
Van Dyke WWTP- residences is part of 20-year
2) Dale MabryNan Dyke WWTP - plan with expected completion
extend service to an additional in 2015.
1,550 residences
Central Service Area: 16.0 10.0 County CIP, 36.5 WWTP connection lines and
1) Connect Valrico & Faulkenburg user fees, storage facilities in design
WWTPs; extend service to golf SWFWMD phase. Construction part of 5-
courses and residential areas; year CIP with expected comple-
construct storage facilities; inter- 15.0 RWIU tion in 2000.
connect with raw water line to
Carg i II plant.
South Service Area: 6.5 3.3 County CIP, 14.8 Part of 20-year plan, with
1) South County Reg.! user fees expected completion in 2015.
Summerfield WWTP -
Extend service area and
hook up additional homes
Tampa Howard Curran WWTP - AWT 50.0 100 Use r fees, 137.0 Begin design in 1996. Projected
effluent to Hillsborough River SWFWMD, to be on-line in 2000.
Reservoir or Tampa Bypass Canal, State,
to augment potable water supply bonds
Plant City Effluent to CF Industries, 8.0 14.0 Plant City Util. 18.3 Pending; expected to be on-line
agricultural users board, by 1998-1999.
SWFMWD
(Gov. board &
Hills. River
Basin Board)
Pinellas North Plant - extend service 9.0 NA NA 20.6 Underway; expected completion
County to 500 additional homes by 1998-1999. This represents
(if flow available) the county's maximum reuse
capacity.
McKay Creek & South Cross 23.0 23.0 User fees, 52.5
Bayou -WWTP upgrade, phase 1 bonds, CIP,
transmission main, infilllines 60.0 SWFWMD,
phase 2 State
St. Petersburg NE, SE, SW, Albert Whitted Plants - 4.2 20.0 User fees, 11.4 Expected completion by 2005.
expand overall distribution network, SWFWMD
adding 5000 additional homes
109
DR,~lf1"'
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Table 1. Summary 01 major projected or lunded domestic wastewater
reuse projects in the Tampa Bay region (continued)
Total
Reuse TN
Local Vol. Cost Funding reduction Project
Government PlantJProject (mgd) ($x106) Source (tonsfYr) Status
Clearwater No new reuse projects are planned
Oldsmar No new reuse projects are planned
Safety Harbor City to treat East Lake Woodlands 0.3 4.5 User fees, 0.68 Expected completion by
effluent, return to golf courses SWFWMD 1997.
Largo Increase reuse from 6 to 12 mgd 6.0 8.0 User fees, 13.7 Expected completion by
SWFWMD 2000.
Manatee Network SW, SE, and N Plants - 17.2 50.0 Federal 39.3 Expected completion by
County expand distribution to county grant, 50/50 1999.
residences and homes in west SWFWMD
Bradenton, and east to
agricultural areas (MARS*)
Bradenton AWT Discharge to augment 6.0 3.5 User fees, 13.7 Feasability study initiated;
Braden River flow bonds, timetable not projected for
SWFWMD implementation.
PalmeUo 1) Distribution main to Frog Creek 1) 0.9 1) 3.5 Use r fees, 2.74 Will reuse 90% of their
area (agriculture), in cooperation CIP funds, effluent by 2000.
with Manatee Co. (MARS) SWFWMD
funds,
2) Distribution system to city 2) 0.3 2) 1.1 County
parks, golf course, schools funds
Polk County no new reuse projects are
planned
Lakeland no new reuse projects are
planned
. RWIU - Reclaimed Water Improvement Unit. Similar to special taxing district,
used to fund reuse water systems within county subdivisions.
CIP - Capital Improvement Plan
MARS - Manatee Agricultural Reuse System
Calculation of TN reduction is based on the difference between TN load from direct surface discharge
to the bay from WWTPs and TN load associated with wastewater reuse.
110
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Establish Maximum Limits on the Amount of
Nitrogen Discharged to the Bay in Industrial
Wastewater
ACTION:
Establish maximum limits on the amount of nitrogen in industrial wastewater dis-
charged to the bay, based on loading targets established through the Tampa Bay
National Estuary Program.
BACKGROUND:
This action seeks to establish limits on the amount of nitrogen discharged to the bay
from industrial point sources to assist in long-term efforts to hold the line on nitrogen
loadings. Industrial point sources contribute an estimated 6 percent (255 tons) of the
bay's total annual nitrogen loading and about 14 percent of its total suspended solids
(TSS) loading. Municipal point sources, by comparison, respectively contribute an
estimated 8 percent of the bay's nitrogen loadings and less than 1 percent of its TSS
loadings. TSS loadings are a focal point of concern for bay managers because they
contribute to turbidity in some bay sectors.
Existing state standards governing industrial discharges to Tampa Bay (called
WQBELs) allow discharges up to the receiving water body's ability to assimilate the
pollution. But these standards were set before the water quality requirements for the
bay's seagrasses were established by the Tampa Bay NEP. The Program has now
computed the amount of nitrogen the bay can safely assimilate without impeding the
health and recovery of seagrasses. These loading estimates should be the basis for the
development of maximum limits on the amount of nitrogen discharged from industrial
point sources.
Maximum limits would be incorporated into permits as permits are renewed or issued.
Relatively little would be required of existing point sources, unless existing discharges
increased. New industrial point sources would be required to compensate in one of
several ways for the amount of nitrogen discharged to the bay. For example, an appli-
cant might choose to implement on-site treatment of wastewater or contribute to a
"bank" for improvements elsewhere.
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Allocate Total Nitrogen (TN) loadings for Tampa Bay to each of the bay's
seven segments, as well as to major municipal and industrial point sources.
A series of workshops to allocate the bay's nitrogen loadings to responsible
parties will be conducted by the Tampa Bay NEP in 1996.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEP
STEP 2 Amend the Florida Administrative Code to link loading targets established
in Step 1 to NPDES point source discharge permits to require that industri-
:i![]II":II.:::~I:::II;':';'llr
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.........................._----.-...
.................................
..........................................
..........................., ...",......
..........................................."..,
........................, ... ,....,,-.-..
...............................................
........._...........................2...
.... ",. .. ..
..... .. .. .....
.... .. ., "'"
...... . .....
..... .. '''''',
..... . ...... ,.
..... '. "
..... .. ......
..... .. ,'..
........~!~k..
111
11111;i1. !~
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.........................................-......
......-.......................
................................................
..............................
...................,..................
........................
.....'.......'...'...""a......""
. - .. ..... ....
" '. H'" ...
.. .........
.. , .........
. ..........
i. ..i. . ,'.f/ ..i'{
::,..i"",.,.,.""..,."""""".,.......,.,.,."",,:
112
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
al dischargers meet a particular bay segment's load allocation. Loading tar-
gets should be tailored to specific industries to account for variations in
wastewater among different manufacturing processes.
Responsible parties: Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
SlEP 3 Assign loading limits to existing industrial discharges as permits are
renewed, and allow flexibility in how those targets are met. For example, a
business may meet a net loading target by implementing various point or
non-point source controls, or possibly by contributing to a "bank" for bay
pollution controls implemented off site. Additionally, dischargers should
be allowed to trade with other nitrogen sources.
Responsible parties: FDEP
SlEP 4 Require new permit applicants to demonstrate how they will meet allocated
targets for TN loads for a particular bay segment. Since targets most likely
will involve holding the line on these loadings, an applicant would need to
be prepared to compensate by some means for all new point source load-
mgs.
Responsible parties: FDEP
SCHEDULE:
Step I will be initiated in 1995. Remaining steps can be initiated in 1996/1997, if
warranted.
COST:
Staff time will be required to develop amendments to regulations. Costs to comply
with TN limits would be borne by private industry. A cost-benefit analysis is under-
way.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
The establishment of maximum limits for nitrogen discharged in industrial wastewater
will assist bay managers in maintaining the bay's existing nitrogen loadings to support
seagrass recovery.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Pollutants in industrial wastewater discharges will be monitored as a condition of per-
mit. Ambient water and sediment quality is monitored monthly by local governments.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Amendments to the Florida Administrative Code.
RELATED ACTIONS:
Not applicable.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Extend Central Sewer Service to Priority Areas
Now Served by Septic Tanks
ACTION:
Extend central sewer service to high density areas along the bay and its tributaries
where water quality problems associated with septic tanks have been documented.
BACKGROUND:
Preliminary studies conducted for the Southwest Florida Water Management District
(SWFWMD) suggest that leachate from septic tank drainfields may contribute about 5
percent of the bay's total annual nitrogen loadings and significantly more in localized
areas. Malfunctioning septic systems can also contribute bacteria and viruses
(pathogens) associated with fecal coliform in human waste to surface waters. Ground
water carries nitrogen from septic tank drainfields to surface waters. Septic systems
located closest to the bay and its tributaries pose a particular concern.
There are nearly 100,000 septic tanks in the Tampa Bay watershed. Areas that
demand close scrutiny for water quality impacts from septic tanks include creeks,
where flushing is limited and the water table is close to the surface of the land, and
other nearshore areas of the watershed with high densities of mostly older tanks.
Among these are Allen's Creek in Pinellas County, several creeks and the Ruskin inlet
near the mouth of the Little Manatee River, and Tampa's McKay Bay.
Elevated levels of fecal coliform and nitrogen have been reported in many of these
and other areas around the bay. But few site-specific studies have been conducted to
directly link septic tanks to these impacts, which may be due to natural causes or ani-
mal waste carried in storm water runoff. Nevertheless, the sandy soils in Southwest
Florida are not highly suitable for septic tanks, and preliminary studies point to the
potential for nitrogen impacts in some areas.
This action calls for further investigations at suspected problem sites to document the
impact from septic tanks, along with efforts to extend central sewer service to areas
where problems are identified. Nearshore areas with high densities of septic tanks
(more than two per acre) should be evaluated first.
Conversion from septic to central sewer service can be costly, with hook-up fees rang-
ing anywhere from $2,000 to $5,000 or more. This underscores the need to investi-
gate financing options such as interest-free loans and cost-share grants or partnerships
to assist residents in areas slated for central sewer service.
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Identify areas adjacent to the bay and its tributaries where septic tanks are
suspected of causing water quality impacts. Areas with septic tanks
installed prior to 1983, when siting criteria was established, should be
given high priority status.
Responsible parties: local governments
IIIII:::i:I,'l.l~[(F'1r
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
...'........-.....-..................................
.......................... "
.....................".................
..........................."....
..............................'.""....-..
........................""....
......................,......,.,.,-..--..
........_..........._...........S...
.... .. .,....
..... . . . .
.... . .,
...... . ..,-
..... ., ,.....
....... ..", .. ....
..... .. "....". ,,-
............ .........
:::::::::::. .' .::::. . .::: :"',;. :>:-:-:
...... . '" , ......
.....i.....i....
113
""<t~ ;!:i':' w:<<<.,,>:
lU;li~it< I
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
...................-.....--.......---.....
,_.._, ... d.."............................
............................,',.............
..."..."............................
..".....................,.,...............
d""_' ,...."............................
....dd... d.......S.................
..... ., .. ..... ....
",',",,'. '," ,"' ..... ....
o. . ..... ....
0.. '. .... ...
. ," ...... ....
. ...,.... ....
., .. .......
. . ,... ....
.iI...i.........il..../
114
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
STEP 2 Analyze worst-case scenarios for nitrogen loadings from septic tanks based
on their proximity to the creek or surface water. Where necessary and cost-
effective, install meters and wells to monitor groundwater seepage into the
creeks or affected areas.
Responsible parties: local governments
STEP 3 Based on results from steps 1 and 2, extend central sewer service to coastal
areas where water quality problems have been documented.
Responsible parties: local governments
STEP 4 For new developments where central sewer service is available or feasible,
develop and implement a local regulation to require its utilization. Where
central sewer service is not feasible, determine the most environmentally
beneficial means to provide sewage treatment.
Responsible parties: local governments
SCHEDULE:
Local governments and agencies can begin implementation of Steps 1 and 2 in 1996.
Implementation of Step 3 will depend on results from analyses and cost and financing
factors. Step 4 can be pursued in 1997. Conversion from septic to central sewer ser-
vice is already underway in some areas as part of existing capital improvement plans.
COST:
Costs to analyze water quality in suspected problem areas may cost upwards of
$2,000, based on 10 samples at $200 each. Monitoring of wells and seepage meters is
estimated at $125-$250 per station. Funding options for residents converting to cen-
tral sewer service must be developed to make implementation affordable and feasible.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Efforts to convert high density coastal areas served by septic tanks to central sewer
service will help to reduce nitrogen and pathogen levels in the bay and bay tributaries.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Nutrient loadings from on-site septic systems traditionally have been hard to quantify,
however monitoring and modeling called for in this action will assist in this effort.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Revisions to local government comprehensive plans and the development of imple-
menting ordinances.
RELATED ACTIONS:
WW-4, PH-2, PH-3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Require Standardized Monitoring of Wastewater
Discharges
ACTION:
Require standardized monitoring of wastewater discharges from industrial and munici-
pal facilities, and improve regulatory and public access to permit compliance monitor-
ing data.
BACKGROUND:
Improvements in the monitoring and reporting standards governing industrial and
municipal facilities discharging wastewater to Tampa Bay will improve the accuracy
of information used to develop bay water quality models and pollution control stan-
dards--efforts that will lead to improved environmental oversight. Inadequacies in
the existing system prevent effective trends analysis and limit the public's and regula-
tory community's ability to effectively monitor discharges.
Standardized units of measurement for wastewater concentrations and flows are nec-
essary to calculate wastewater loadings to the bay. Municipal wastewater treatment
facilities currently are required to report standardized flow measurements, but some
industrial point sources are not. Furthermore, requirements to report the concentration
of nutrients or other contaminants in wastewater vary considerably among facilities
with permits to discharge.
Efforts also are needed to improve local government, agency and public access to data
collected from these facilities. Most computerized permit compliance data is avail-
able only through the Tallahassee office of the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP), and often requires extensive time and effort for retrieval.
This action calls for the standardized reporting of a core group of parameters from all
point-source facilities discharging more than 100,000 gallons per day, and improved
access to monitoring data collected from these facilities.
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Revise FDEP Rule 62.4 to require the measurement and reporting of a core
group of parameters from all point-source facilities with NPDES permits
discharging an average daily flow of more than 100,000 gallons of waste-
water. The core group should include concentrations of total nitrogen, total
phosphorus, total suspended solids, total ammonia, and average daily or
monthly flow (actual discharges, not values estimated in permits). These
core parameters are in addition to any permit-specific reporting that may be
required. An exemption may be allowed for parameters which that facility
is not reasonably expected to discharge. Revisions to existing permit crite-
ria should be added as permits are renewed.
Responsible party: FDEP
~~~nMtim:: if.~~; jt:::~lt
f:l$l~ '~@~jrgB ~~i
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
....................................,..".".
...................,'.....,',,,..,'.................
.................,... ............. --,
.....................".."'...."....................
.....................,....,......... .,
............................................'....'.'.'.'....,....'.'...,.,.,....'.'....,...
.........-............................................
. .......... .....................................................................
...... ... ... "..
.... . .. ........" ,,,,...
...... . ... ....
..... '.. . ..........
..... . .
i.. .....11I >
115
II:JFI1)~~FI
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
..,',.....---....--.....................--..
..........'..................--......................
' .... . .......................
..........'......................................
...-. . .......................
.......................................
..""., .......................
... ., ....... ....
. . ....... ....
. .. ....... ....
. ...... ....
.--, .. . ".... ....
.., -. ....... ....
.,-" .. . ...... ....
.< . } ...... <,}
,'" . ,., . ....., ....
...'..... .an........ ...~
... ............... ............
"., .". .......................
. ,......... .........................
11&
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
STEP 2 Enforce the use of standard reporting units for the core group of parame-
ters, including flow rate. Nutrient concentrations are required as mgll-
flow as average daily flow or monthly flow (mgd or mgm).
Responsible party: FDEP (for permitting), applicable point-source facili-
ties (for standardized monitoring and reporting)
STEP 3 Accelerate the data entry and internal quality assurance process followed
by FDEP to allow access to permit compliance data within 90 days from
the time a compliance report is submitted.
Responsible party: FDEP
STEP 4 Provide access to the FDEP computerized database for permit compliance
at the regional level through District offices. Access to this database
should be available by modem or on disk.
Responsible party: FDEP Tallahassee and District offices
SCHEDULE:
All steps can be initiated in 1996.
COST:
Staff time is anticipated in revisions to the existing FDEP Rule 62.4 and with efforts
to improve and provide more timely access to the compliance monitoring database.
Costs to comply with standardized sampling and monitoring criteria will be incurred
by point-source facilities and are expected to be minimal.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Improved monitoring standards will improve the data used to develop bay water quali-
ty models that are the basis for many of the most significant management actions for
the bay.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Results will be measured in improved data quality and accessibility.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Revisions to FDEP Rule 62.4, to include measuring and reporting standards for a core
group of parameters in each NPDES permit.
RELATED ACTIONS:
WW-2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
AcnON PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Revise HRS Rules to Incorporate Environmental
Performance or Design Standards for Septic Tanks
ACTION:
Revise the rules of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) gov-
erning septic tank siting and monitoring to incorporate environmental performance or
design standards to protect the bay environment and further assure public health and
safety.
BACKGROUND:
Preliminary studies conducted for the Southwest Florida Water Management District
(SWFWMD) indicate that as much as 5 percent of the bay's total nitrogen loadings
may come from the nearly 100,000 septic tanks in the Tampa Bay watershed.
The Florida Department of HRS currently oversees and approves the siting and moni-
toring of all on-site sewage treatment systems with a capacity of 10,000 gallons per
day or less, including septic tanks and other on-site systems. Existing permitting cri-
teria (Florida Administrative Code (pAC), Chapter lOD-6) focuses mainly on public
health interests and does not include potential impacts from water pollution except
those that relate to bacteria and viruses and the contamination of public drinking water
supplies.
A January 1995 revision allows HRS to consider impacts to ground and surface waters
from septic systems, but leaves the basic siting and design standards essentially
unchanged. For example, the rule does not contain effluent quality standards pertain-
ing to nutrients that leach from septic systems to ground water and surface water,
except in the Florida Keys. Proposed maintenance schedules are included, but they
are advisory only. Furthermore, septic systems constructed prior to the establishment
of the current design criteria may continue to operate---even in high-density areas
where their presence may aggravate local water quality problems-as long as the load
to them does not change substantially.
This action is to develop environmental performance or design standards for the
design and siting of septic tanks and to incorporate these guidelines into HRS regula-
tory guidelines. This process should begin with a determination of the allowable con-
centrations or loadings of nitrogen and pathogens to surface waters. Environmental
performance standards could then be established to require a minimum level of nitro-
gen removal from a septic system. However, since these criteria may be difficult to
establish and enforce, officials may opt to develop design and operating standards that
would help to prevent nitrogen contamination of ground or surface waters from septic
tanks. Design standards could include stricter setbacks from surface waters, minimum
wet-season water table depths, soil permeability and content, and recommended main-
tenance intervals. At sites where performance standards cannot be met, local govern-
ments may require septic tanks with nitrogen-removal capability.
"1.JI!I;U.::'l.~.I';;'"if
... ....
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
......--......................."""'..
................................................
......-.......... ~ ........ "" ,
.....................................................
................. . ........,
...........................................................
................... ......
........_...................5...
.... .. '. ,....
...... .. ......
.... . .. "..
...... . ....
..... .. ''''', "
..... - ..... --.
}}:, ..' . ).....>
...... . ".' . ...." .
:.:.:.:.:.:........:0......::..............>.....;.........;.
117
I~JR"I::T
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
, .'.'.'.-,','.....'.'........,...,...,......................-............................
.'..",."".",...................................
..,.,.-'-'-..'.'..,..;...'......,..:-:.:............'....................................
.'..".....".....".....""""5.'............""'"'
. .. ..... ....
"")""",1",,
118
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Request that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Region IV)
organize a regional panel of experts that includes representatives from
HRS, the Florida National Estuary Programs and the Gulf of Mexico
Program to develop environmental performance or design standards for
septic tanks.
Responsible parties: EPA, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program, HRS
STEP 2 Revise FAC Chapter lOD-6 to incorporate environmental performance or
design standards established in Step 1.
Responsible parties: HRS
STEP 3 Determine and promote the minimum schedules for septic tank mainte-
nance based on environmental standards in cooperation with private com-
panies that provide pump-out services. Additionally, require that septic
tanks be pumped out at time of property transfer, or that the property owner
provide documentation that the system has been pumped out within the
previous three years.
Responsible parties: local governments
SCHEDULE:
All steps can be initiated in 1996.
COST:
Administrative costs and staff time only are anticipated in this action, but the environ-
mental standards that are developed may require additional resources for environmen-
tal protection. HRS and legal staff time to revise the current rule is estimated at
$50,000.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
The establishment of environmental performance or design standards for septic tanks
will help reduce nitrogen loadings to the bay and prevent future siting of septic tanks
in areas vulnerable to water quality impacts.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Ambient water quality is monitored by local governments.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Revisions to FAC Chapter lOD-6 to incorporate environmental performance or design
standards for septic tanks.
RELATED ACTIONS:
WW-3, PH-I, PH-2
.
.
.
.
.
e\
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A key initiative this year is to develop resource-based sediment quality guidelines to
serve as the benchmark in evaluating the relative magnitude and risks associated with
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
TOXIC CONTAMINATION
Storm water treatment, pollution prevention and improved access to hazardous waste
disposal are key components of the strategy to reduce the amount of toxic contami-
nants entering the bay.
Recent studies by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) point
to contamination of bay sediments at several sites around the bay by heavy metals,
pesticides and other substances that at sufficiently high concentration can be damag-
ing or deadly to marine life.
Sediments from Hillsborough Bay, the bay's most industrialized sector and home to
the Port of Tampa, generally revealed the highest levels of contaminants.
Concentrations of cadmium, lead and zinc at Hillsborough Bay exceeded Florida's
Probable Effects Level (PEL) for toxic contamination, guidelines that predict biologi-
cal impact to marine life. Pinellas County's Boca Ciega Bay and Bayboro Harbor
also ranked among the bay's hot spots of contamination.
Many toxic pollutants enter the bay attached to sediments in storm water runoff, but
atmospheric deposition (associated with industrial and vehicle emissions) and waste-
water discharges also contribute significant quantities of contaminants to the bay.
Pollutants tend to concentrate around ports, marinas and industrial harbors, as well as
major stormwater outfalls.
Overall, toxic parameters in the bay's sediments are in the middle ranges nationally.
Among 200 sites studied nationwide, samples of oysters from rural Cockroach Bay
ranked third nationally in 1988 in total concentrations of the agricultural insecticide
chlordane, which was banned that year. Sediments there also revealed high levels of
the pesticide DDT, which was banned in the early 1970s, but persists in the marine
environment.
The Tampa Bay NEP will utilize a trio of tests-evaluating sediment chemistry, toxic-
ity, and the health and diversity of bay bottom communities-to assess overall bay
bottom quality. Results from these analyses will be used to classify areas of the bay
that are heavily contaminated, exceeding threshold levels for biological impact, and
for which sediment capping or removal may be considered; those that are polluted but
more readily restorable by reducing or maintaining existing pollutant loads; and toxic-
free areas that should be protected from contamination. Management actions will
vary according to sediment classifications.
In a related study, the Tampa Bay NEP is investigating the sources and status of toxic
contaminants in priority water basins, information that will be used to develop a more
comprehensive action plan in 1996. That investigation will help identify which pollu-
tants pose a continuing threat to the bay and those that represent past or inactive
sources of pollution.
111]1111)11.J;II~lfI
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
119
~ri~I.@:~. :~{:
ir:i:'%'llii~ ,l,:,
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
120
ACTION PLAN
.
.
.
.
.
Ie
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Water & Sediment Quality
toxic contaminants in Tampa Bay. Sediment contamination may increase as the
region grows. Addressing the problem now, before it escalates, is crucial to the bay's
long-term health.
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS TO ADDRESS TOXIC CONTAMINATION
TX-I Direct stormwater improvements and other resources to hot spots of conta-
mination.
TX-2 Improve business and homeowner opportunities for hazardous waste dis-
posal.
TX-3 Reduce toxic contaminants from ports and marinas.
TX-4 Promote integrated pest management on farms to reduce pesticides in
runoff.
TX-5 Establish maximum concentration limits in discharge permits for toxic con-
taminants of concern to Tampa Bay.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Direct Stormwater Improvements and Other
Resources to Hot Spots of Contamination
ACTION:
Direct stormwater improvements and other resources to hot spots of sediment contam-
ination.
BACKGROUND:
Studies by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have
revealed relatively high levels of potentially toxic metals and contaminants in sedi-
ments from several sites in Tampa Bay. Areas of heaviest contamination include por-
tions of Hillsborough Bay (particularly along Ybor Channel, Garrison Channel and the
base of the Hillsborough and Palm rivers) and Boca Ciega Bay. Levels of several
contaminants in sediment samples from these sectors exceeded Florida's Probable
Effects Level (PEL) for toxic materials, indicating that some biological impact to
marine life could be expected.
Several other bay sites registered below the PEL but above the No Observable Effects
Level (NOEL), which serves as a threshold for the probability of biological impact.
These sites include Allen's Creek and Cross Bayou (Pinellas shore/Old Tampa Bay);
Bayboro Harbor, Lower Coffee Pot Bayou, the Municipal Marina (City of St.
Petersburg) and Bear Creek (City of Gulfport).
A key effort in 1996 will be to develop sediment quality guidelines to determine the
amount of a potentially toxic contaminant the bay can safely assimilate. This infor-
mation will enable bay managers to devise appropriate strategies for cleanup or con-
tainment. The Tampa Bay NEP also is investigating the sources and status of toxic
contaminants in several of the bay's most impacted drainage basins.
This action is to direct stormwater improvements and other resources to the bay's hot
spots to reduce or contain sediment contamination. The Tampa Bay NEP also recom-
mends continued monitoring and sampling to assess trends in the quality of bay sedi-
ments and the animal communities they support. Efforts to reduce pesticides in agri-
cultural runoff are presented in a separate action promoting integrated pest manage-
ment in the stormwater section of this action plan. Also see Action TX-3, which
focuses on important pollution prevention measures and the development of a more
detailed action plan once technical studies by the NEP are finalized in 1996.
Many toxic contaminants enter the bay attached to sediments in storm water runoff,
making stormwater treatment a key strategy in toxics reduction. BMPs to reduce total
suspended solids (TSS) in runoff include retention ponds, vegetated buffer strips,
swales and underdrains, as well as non-structural means such as street sweeping or
stricter zoning standards to limit development density in sensitive areas. Treatment
methods that address large or multi-parcel sites are preferred, since they increase the
likelihood of operational success and may offer an added opportunity for habitat cre-
ation.
I:;'ll:flli.i""t;t:lr
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
121
Illl' "I
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
122
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.0,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
In areas of long-standing sediment contamination, where the source of pollution is no
longer active, this action encourages bay managers to consider other opportunities for
the cleanup or containment of sediments.
STRATEGY:
Based on the identification of hot spots of sediment contamination in the bay and in
accordance with sediment quality guidelines developed in early 1996:
STEP I Direct stormwater improvements to drainage basins where stormwater
runoff is contributing to hot spots of sediment contamination.
The Tampa Bay NEP has developed a computer model to assist local gov-
ernments in selecting the most cost-effective mix of best management prac-
tices to employ in a given area.
Responsible parties: local governments
STEP 2 Address contamination from sources that are no longer active or from pol-
lutants that have been banned such as DDT; examine options for and assess
the feasibility of sediment cleanup or containment.
Responsible parties: local governments, SWFWMD-SWIM department
STEP 3 Continue local government monitoring of sediment chemistry and benthic
communities to track changes and trends in bay sediment quality.
Responsible parties: local governments
SCHEDULE:
All steps can be initiated in 1996, after the sources and status of contaminants are
identified and sediment quality guidelines are finalized. The computer model refer-
enced in Step 1 will be made available to local governments in 1996.
COST:
Costs to implement stormwater improvements and other controls are dependent on the
BMP selected. Funding options include SWFWMD-SWIM (through District basin
boards), local government stormwater utilities and operating and maintenance bud-
gets, and permit application fees. Sediment chemistry and benthic monitoring for the
bay is estimated at $150,000 per year. The best management practices "optimization"
model (see Step 1) will evaluate the cost-effectiveness of various practices to address
storm water pollution.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Reduced toxic contamination of bay sediments and associated impacts to marine life
as a result of reduced pollutant loadings and other efforts to contain or restore heavily
impacted areas.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Ongoing benthic and sediment chemistry monitoring by local governments, together
with monitoring requirements for NPDES permits, will be used to assess the effective-
ness of management actions to reduce toxic contaminants in the bay.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
None anticipated.
RELATED ACTIONS:
TX-3, TX-4, SW-5
I!Jllllt\l,:'\t;lIi::::';'lI':::
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
123
101\8;"f::]"
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
..............................
......................................................
..................................
".....-........ .........'.....................
...""......---. .......................
....................................................
.....jI. ..................-.................
..."",... ,.........
".----,... . ...... ...
....."".... . ...... ...
......." . ...... ..
....".....- ..... ........ ...
, ..."."" -. ....... ..
........................ ,"-","." ........ ...
" .. ,......... ...
....",..-.... ...,. .. ... .."
................................... .................. ..........
.. ." .....
... ........ ..... .. ...
.. .""... ,... ...
.. ...... ..... ...
.. . ..... '"
......... ......... .... ...
,,-. ......................
..........................................
. .... .........................
124
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Improve Business and Homeowner Opportunities
for Hazardous Waste Disposal
ACTION:
Improve hazardous waste disposal by small businesses and residents by evaluating
opportunities to better serve or educate these markets through existing programs, or
develop new collection facilities in large metropolitan areas that are not served.
BACKGROUND:
Florida generates about 718,000 tons of regulated hazardous waste each year, including
approximately 116,000 tons from the Tampa Bay region. Experts estimate that another
10-20 percent is generated by unregulated sources such as conditionally exempt small
quantities generators* (CE-SQGs) and residentsl. CE-SQGs are businesses that gener-
ate less than 100 kg (approx. 25 gallons) of hazardous waste per month (or 1 kg of
acutely toxic hazardous waste), and whose waste disposal is not strictly regulated.
Households and CE-SQGs pose a potentially significant source of pollution.
Improper handling, storage and disposal of hazardous materials can lead to air, soil,
surface water and groundwater contamination, which can directly or indirectly impact
the bay and public health and safety. Of key concern are hazardous materials such as
paints, pesticides, batteries and other chemicals discarded with trash, and materials
released (accidentally or intentionally) on the ground, in storm drains or in sanitary
sewer systems. Landfills receiving hazardous waste discarded with trash are not spe-
cially equipped to deal with these materials, which may be burned or buried in pits.
These materials are often discarded with trash because access to hazardous waste col-
lection facilities in most areas is limited, either by hours of operation or by location.
Hillsborough County, for example, operates two household hazardous waste facilities,
in Apollo Beach and on Sheldon Road (Town & Country), which are open one week-
end per month at alternating sites. But major metropolitan areas such as the City of
Tampa and Brandon are not served by household hazardous waste collection facilities,
although residents may use sites in unincorporated Hillsborough County.
Options for small businesses also are limited, mainly because increasing service to
these markets can be costly and complex. In Hillsborough County, CE-SQGs may
transport their waste to the County's Orient Road facility on Wednesday mornings,
under an arrangement with Universal Waste, which operates the facility. However,
there are no real incentives for businesses to use the facility, which assesses a charge
for the waste it receives. Pinellas and Manatee counties also provide household haz-
ardous waste collection and attempt to assist small businesses in properly disposing of
hazardous wastes.
This action calls for improving community and CE-SQG opportunities for proper haz-
ardous waste disposal by aggressively exploring options to better serve and educate
these markets, including establishing permanent household hazardous waste collection
facilities in communities not currently served.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PlAN
Water & Sediment Quality
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Organize a task force and meeting to evaluate methods to improve opportu-
nities for hazardous waste disposal for small businesses and residents, such
as:
· promote "milk run" services, in which haulers arrange to pick up
waste from CE-SQGs on days they service municipal landfills;
· allow CE-SQGs to use household hazardous waste collection facili-
ties;
· provide mobile collection service at central sites several times a
year, perhaps in conjunction with large events that draw high atten-
dance;
· expand existing service either by expanding weekend hours of oper-
ation, providing recycling services such as "swap shops," or siting
additional permanent facilities where demand has been justified;
· encourage broader utilization of existing facilities by increasing
promotion, and develop partnerships with major retail stores to pro-
mote municipal collection facilities;
· develop partnerships with manufacturers to assist in the collection
and recycling of materials such as paint.
Additionally, evaluate ways to reduce consumer demand/consumption of
hazardous waste materials by promoting "green" shopping through partner-
ships with major retailers.
Responsible parties: taskforce to include city and county hazardous
waste/solid waste coordinators, FDEP, SQG program coordinators, user
groups, Tampa Bay NEP
STEP 2 Encourage the City of Tampa and other unserved communities to evaluate
establishing permanent household hazardous waste collection facilities.
Responsible parties: City of Tampa, FDEP, Tampa Bay NEP
STEP 3 Cross-market and aggressively promote pollution prevention programs such
as the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's P2 Program and
Hillsborough County's Operation BayWorks. The P2 program offers busi-
nesses free and confidential on-site assessments to assist them in reducing
their waste stream and costs. Operation BayWorks assists target business
sectors in developing pollution prevention plans by offering industry-spe-
cific best management practices and technical assistance.
· Distribute promotional flyers on the P2 Program (and Operation
BayWorks in Hillsborough County) in mailings to/meetings with
SQGs.
· Promote these programs through local chambers of commerce and
the USF small business development center, through chamber publi-
cations and presentations. Invite chambers to serve as partners in
promoting the concept of Businesses for a Cleaner Future by
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::.::::.:::::::'.'
...........,..................,.....,....
....................,............",'.',,'.,......
""""'E...........'II]....."'....."""'2"...."""',i'.'.'......,.,
..,..... ,", ........... '.....'.'.'..;.:-::-.
............ ,..... ,......',.,. ,', .'...'...'.....'....
.,.,.,.,.,..., ,.,.,.,'..'..'.'.............. '.....'...........'.................'
.......... .. ,
....... ..... .. '. .............."..
........... ,. ., ....
....... .... ... ...........
.......... .... ,.
.............. ...... '. ......... .........
............... ...... ................... ...
................................................................,...
125
ltllt:iAlf:l'
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
,. ,.-'---,.............................
"""............................................
...............",.".....,........................
..........".........."....................
..., ,P" ,......................
.........",..., "".................
......1j...........................g.................
. ..... ....
. . ...... ..,
. ...... ...
.. . ...... ..
:::...:.;....;...;....;.....:-....'.....'...:....:::.....'... . ..' .......... n'
o ... ....... ..
. .....,>>>>> .<>. <aij:::'/ ...>,,~
,,,' """." .... .,... ...
.............".. ,.. . .... ...
, ,,' ""." ... . ..... ...
............".. .. ...... ...
" """.,.,."..',.......,........ ....,
........ ,................................
... ........................
128
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
aggressively promoting these services and targeting 100 chamber
members for participation/sign-up during a given time period.
Responsible parties: local governments, in cooperation with chambers of
commerce, FDEP
STEP 4 Develop summary recommendations from steps 1-3 for review by the
Community Advisory and Management Committees of the Tampa Bay
National Estuary Program by May 1996.
Responsible parties: task force identified in Step 1
SCHEDULE:
Steps 1-3 shall be initiated in 1996, with final recommendations (Step 4) provided by
May 1996.
COST:
All steps require staff and administrative time. Implementation costs will vary
according to recommendations. Costs to construct and operate a permanent household
hazardous waste collection facility vary depending on design and level of service.
The Pinellas County facility, built within a Class 1 landfill, cost between $300,000 to
$400,000 to construct. Potential funding sources include local governments and state
agency grants.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Expanded hazardous waste disposal will help to reduce toxic contaminants that enter
the bay in stormwater runoff, or through groundwater, wastewater, or atmospheric
deposition.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Municipal solid waste departments track both the amount of hazardous waste they
receive and statistics on usage. These can be evaluated as recommendations are
implemented to measure progress. Local governments conduct bay sediment sam-
pling to track the amount and distribution of toxic contaminants in the bay.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
None anticipated.
RELATED ACTIONS:
TX-3
I 1991 figures (most recent available) from FDEP, reported by the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council in the proposed Strategic
Regional Policy Plan, 1995.
* The Florida State Legislature requires all counties to implement a Small Quantity Generator (SQG) program to notify and verify
all businesses that are potential generators of hazardous waste. Counties can assess up to $50 per occupational license to fund this
program.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Reduce Toxic Contaminants
from Ports and Marinas
ACTION:
Reduce toxic contaminants from ports and marinas by aggressively promoting volun-
tary waste stream assessments by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP). Additionally, develop and implement an Action Plan that targets specific
sources of toxicants after these sources have been identified by the Tampa Bay
National Estuary Program in 1996.
BACKGROUND:
Studies by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reveal rela-
tively high levels of toxicity in sediments at some sites in Tampa Bay as compared to
other areas in southwest Florida and the nation. Sediment toxicity was highest overall
in northern Hillsborough Bay near the Port of Tampa, especially in Ybor Channel and
adjoining waterways. Other hot spots of contamination were reported in Bayboro
Harbor, Boca Ciega Bay and portions of western Middle Tampa Bay.
Overall, sediments around ports, marinas and industrial harbors, and near major
storm water outfalls, exhibit relatively high levels of some toxic substances, as recent
studies on Tampa Bay confirm. Shipyards and associated port and industrial facilities
use and release toxic substances to the bay mainly in storm water runoff and through
direct or point discharges. Substances may include petroleum products, metals, metal
treatment chemicals and anti-fouling paints, and contaminants associated with ship
repair and scrap iron stockpiles.
Like ports, marinas located at the water's edge are often key point sources of contami-
nation. Pollutants associated with marinas and boating include oil and oil-based prod-
ucts discharged to the bay in bilge water and during engine maintenance, boat repair
and fueling; paints, lacquers, thinners, strippers and solvents; and sewage, detergents
and gray water, discharged directly from boats.
This action calls for confidential waste stream assessments of the bay's ports and
major marinas through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's P2
Program, along with the development of a more comprehensive Action Plan to
address toxic contaminants once sources have been identified by the Tampa Bay
National Estuary Program. P2 includes free assessments and recommendations on
ways to curb and properly dispose of hazardous materials.
This action also calls for evaluation of several nationally renowned best management
and pollution prevention programs and publications from Puget Sound and
Chesapeake Bay for marinas and boaters for possible implementation in Tampa Bay in
1996.
All states are required by recent amendments to the Coastal Zone Reauthorization Act
(CZRA) of 1990 to adopt programs to control various sources of coastal non-point
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
............................,............
..................".................................
........................ '''"
......................".........................
.............,..,........... ",'
......................,......................
.........................." ""
........._.........._...............S.............. .
.... . ,...... ....'.'.'.'.'...'.'.'..
..... .. ....... ""'",
.... . ... ..........
..... ,. ...... """" "
.... ., ....... .............
......... .... ',..... ,"
/ '.::. /::..:..............:i./i
....... . . . .." ..",..
....... ... . "' '. . ,..
....... ... .. .." ."",
......... ........ "........................
.......,............. "
.,.....................,....,........
127
IIR.A: .. m
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
............................--.......-....................
".......",.....................,
................."..-.-................................
...""......"........................
............""...........,..........................
... "......",......................
..............m.....................I.................
....................... -. ..... .....
..0 . . .... ". .
...' .. ...... ...
..."..... . ...... ....
..................".. .' ..........
i......m..
128
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
e.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
pollution. Section 6217 of CZRA includes recommendations on best management
practices for marinas and boaters, which will be evaluated as part of the effort to
design an effective pollution prevention campaign for Tampa Bay.
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Work with local port authorities to promote free and confidential waste
stream assessments conducted by the P2 Program to port tenants.
Participants would then receive a free on-site assessment followed by a
report identifying pollution prevention and cost-saving strategies.
Responsible parties: FDEP P2 Program, in cooperation with the port
authorities and the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program
STEP 2 Following completion of a 1995 NEP study to identify the sources and sta-
tus of toxic contamination in priority basins, develop an Action Plan that
presents strategies to reduce or prevent pollution from these sources.
Action Plan shall be completed for review by the Tampa Bay NEP
Management Committee by May 1996.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay National Estuary Program, target
groups, local governments
STEP 3 Encourage marinas to request a free and confidential P2 environmental
audit to identify pollution sources and appropriate best management prac-
tices. Target the bay's 10 largest marinas for participation and audits by
December 1996.
Identify major marinas and yacht clubs in the Tampa Bay area and promote
the program through direct mail, telephone follow-up and presentations to
marina associations. Seek endorsements and co-promotion through these
membership associations and from the Center for Marine Conservation and
the Clean Water Trust program of BOAT US.
Responsible parties: FDEP P2 Program, with assistance from local
Florida Sea Grant Extension Program, Tampa Bay Watch
STEP 4 Review model programs from other regions that promote environmentally
responsible marina and boat maintenance practices as models for imple-
mentation in the Tampa Bay region, and submit recommendations to the
Tampa Bay Management Conference by May 1996. Pursue public-private
partnerships to maximize promotion and cost-share opportunities.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay National Estuary Program, Center for
Marine Conservation, Tampa Bay Watch, user groups
STEP 5 Promote the P2 Program to expand business and local government aware-
ness and participation in the program.
Evaluate P2's existing marketing plan and business utilization, and make
recommendations on how to more aggressively target and expand business
participation. Submit recommendations to FDEP by February 1996.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEp' in cooperation with FDEP and
local chambers of commerce.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(i
.
.
.
.
RELATED ACTIONS:
TX-1, TX-2
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
SCHEDULE:
Steps 1 through 5 can be initiated in 1996. Dates for completion of actions or recom-
mendations are noted in steps.
COST:
P2 assessments are provided free to businesses that request them, and frequently result
in cost savings as a result of reducing toxic materials use and properly disposing on
substances. Costs to implement toxic contaminant reduction strategies developed
through Step 2 will depend on actions recommended. Cost-effective educational pro-
grams can be developed by tailoring existing model programs from other regions, and
by aggressively pursuing funding partnerships. Financing may be pursued from local
governments, educational grants or the West Coast Inland Navigational District.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Waste stream assessments and implementation of best management practices at ports
and marinas will reduce pollution to the bay.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Sediment quality monitoring by local governments, and waste stream reports that
identify reductions, can assess progress in reducing toxic contamination.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
None anticipated.
li]IIIlI.:i"l;fJ'
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
......-....................................,
........................,."....'..,,"....'...
.........................................
..............................".,.......................
........................-.....
................................."",,---.-.
................,....,.........................",..
........._........._.................S.........
.... . ...... "'"'' ,..
..... .. ...... -.-.-_..,.
.... . .... ",,",',..
..... .. ..... '-'--.'
.... .. ....." "".,
....... .... .......' .........
....... ..... ......"" "" "..
;\\\; ;}}"')iif'< '\\>,.
....... ... . .....
....... ... . ",",' ,.,-,..,....
:::::::::::::::...:..::::::.......:::::.,.,.:.::.,:::.:::,:..,.,:,:,:'.'.:.'.
129
:11]lI141;!~I\fl:
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
............-..............................
.,.....,. ...... .....................
............... ....................................
."....... ..... .....................
....... ..................."................
......,. ..... ...................
.....'...81.....................................
........... ,. .....,. ....
...................... .......... ......... ......,
. ..... ....
.. ... ....... .....
................. ... ,....... ....
... ..... ....... .....
. '...'..'........ "'. '..'. 'jiiif. .',},
.. -. .... ....
......... ...... , ,........ ....
... . ........ ....
...... ...... " .,...... ....
. --......................
..............................
130
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
--
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Promote Integrated Pest Management on Farms
ACTION:
Encourage the use of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques on farms to
reduce pesticide residues in the bay from agricultural runoff.
BACKGROUND:
Agriculture is an important component of the bay region's economy, with an estimated
value of $1.3 billion a year. About one-third of all the land in the bay watershed is
used for some form of agriculture. Pasture and range lands comprise the majority of
that acreage, followed by citrus groves and row crops.
Because Florida's wet, humid climate promotes the growth of weeds, molds and
insects that can damage crops, use of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides is greater
in Florida than in any other state. These chemicals tend to adhere to fine soil particles
that may be carried in runoff to streams, lakes and bays, where they can be assimilat-
ed by aquatic animals through the food chain, impairing reproduction or growth.
A recent comprehensive study conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) assessed the levels and effects of pesticides in bay sediments.
While concentrations of most substances were below levels expected to cause biologi-
cal harm, the Tampa Bay NEP has identified five pesticides of special concern to
Tampa Bay: chlordane, dieldrin, DDT, endosulfan and mirex. Of these, onlyendosul-
fan is still actively used by farmers in the Tampa Bay watershed, to control whiteflies
and other insects on tomatoes. The remainder are banned or severely restricted.
IPM, a program utilizing biological and chemical weapons to efficiently control pests,
is a proven method of reducing use of toxic chemicals and minimizing their release to
the environment. IPM techniques include examination of crops to identify pest infes-
tations; use of least toxic control materials such as soaps or oils; use of pheromones to
disrupt insect reproductive cycles; and release of pest predators such as ladybugs.
Many farmers employ "scouts," full-time or contract employees trained to identify
and assess the severity of pest problems and recommend solutions based on IPM prin-
ciples.
Because no requirements currently exist for IPM use, it is not known how many
Florida farmers employ IPM practices, although local extension agents report that
most farmers use at least some aspects in their pest management programs. Surveys
now being conducted by the University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural
Sciences (IFAS) will clarify the extent ofIPM usage.
Local agricultural extension agents provide educational materials and assistance to
farmers who wish to learn about IPM. They incorporate IPM concepts in training sem-
inars that farm operators attend to earn Continuing Education Credits, which can be
applied toward the renewal of their pesticide applicator's license. Additionally, IFAS
scientists have prepared brochures describing pesticides least likely to pollute ground
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
or surface water, based on soil types and leaching potential. These "grower's guides"
offer a range of pesticide options for 54 different crops grown in Florida.
However, many farmers are not aware or do not take advantage of these resources.
Compounding this problem is the rise in growth of "corporate farming," in which
packing houses own or lease the land and contract with growers to produce the crops.
One effect of this has been to shift some of the decision-making from the growers to
the packing houses. Hence, packing house managers, as well as growers, may need to
be targeted by !PM educational programs.
Because most farm operators obtain pesticide application licenses from the state
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, tying !PM education to the licens-
es would ensure that farmers are exposed to !PM concepts. The licenses must be
renewed every five years, and a farmer can meet the renewal requirements either by
passing an exam or taking courses equal to eight Continuing Education Units (CEUs).
Requiring that one section of the exam pertain specifically to IPM practices, or that at
least one CEU credit be devoted to !PM training, would offer farmers an incentive to
learn more about !PM concepts.
Endosulfan has been targeted for special attention by the Tampa Bay NEP because it
alone of the five pesticides of special concern in Tampa Bay is still in use and because
little is known about the quantities applied. Sold under the brand names of Thiodan
and Phaser, it was until recently practically the only effective treatment for whiteflies,
although its use probably has declined in the last two years because of the availability
of newer compounds. However, it remains a part of many farmers' pesticide rotation
schedules. In fact, nearly one-quarter of all the water quality samples collected in
1991 through 1994 from freshwater creeks and streams draining agricultural lands in
Cockroach Bay contained at least one form of endosulfan, according to Hillsborough
County's Environmental Protection Commission. As an unrestricted-use pesticide sold
over-the-counter, endosulfan also may be purchased by homeowners.
A working group composed of experts from the agricultural and scientific sectors
could help gather data on who is buying endosulfan, what it is being used for, and
how much is being applied. The group also could recommend ways to reduce or
restrict its usage.
STRATEGY:
STEP I Revise the state pesticide applicator licensing renewal criteria to incorpo-
rate in the renewal exam a specific section on !PM. For applicants who
choose to earn CEU credits instead of taking the exam, at least one of the
credits should encompass !PM training.
Responsible parties: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services, state pesticide coordinator
STEP 2 Seek increased federal support from the federal government to implement
existing !PM educational and application programs.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEp' Agency on Bay Management
STEP 3 Convene a task force to explore:
;l[JIII~ili,"I~llf~~'I
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
......................................_-,..,.,.
............................,"",...'.................
...........................................". ,
........................... .....................
................................. , '"
........................""",...............
.....-......................................"'..."""
.......Ij......-.......................
..... . ......" '.....................
.... .. .......
... . ......
..... .. .......
...... ." ....... ..............
...... ... .......
:}:{{ }{:>'{iIi'. ,.>:}:
...... ... . ........ ..
:::::::::::::::-.....::::::.......:::::-.-:.>>>:::::.......::-::::.:::::.
131
1[IR'li . ill1
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.......................................
.._"""...............................
......................................
....".",...............................
........................................
........".",....."..."""............
.............................................
....... .. ....... ....
. ....... ....
. . ....... ....
,,", . ........ ....
...... ,. ....... ....
,,,,,..,,," ..... ....... ....
i i> <if.i
............ ". .......... ....
, "........... ..... ." ...... ....
...... ... . ........ ....
. .. ..-...........-................
.."............................
132
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality
· the extent of endosulfan use in the Tampa Bay watershed
· associated environmental effects, by analyzing existing information
· specific recommendations to reduce or restrict the use of endosul-
fan, including less toxic alternatives
The task force should include local growers, extension agents, university
researchers, manufacturers representatives, and pest scouting services, as
well as EPA, FDEP, SWFWMD and the Florida Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEp' local extension services, area pest
scouting services and representatives of chemical manufacturers
STEP 4 Implement the recommendations of the endosulfan task force (Step 3),
preferably through voluntary cooperation by manufacturers and area farmers.
Responsible parties: areafarmers, regulatory agencies as applicable
SCHEDULE:
Step 1 could be initiated in 1996 or at the next review of the pesticide license renewal
criteria, with the development of new guidelines focusing on knowledge of IPM.
Steps 2 and 3 can be initiated in 1996, with a report due from the endosulfan task
force in fall 1997. Recommendations could be implemented in 1998.
COST:
The costs of revising pesticide license renewal criteria need to be determined. Steps 2,
3 and 4 can be accomplished with existing resources.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Reduced use of pesticides, particularly endosulfan, by area farmers will reduce the
risks to birds, fish and other aquatic life in Tampa Bay.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Periodic measurements of pesticide concentrations in sediments will be conducted by
local governments as part of the benthic monitoring program for Tampa Bay.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Revisions to the pesticide applicator licensing renewal criteria developed by the
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
RELATED ACTIONS:
SW-9, SW-lO
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Establish Maximum Concentration Limits in
Discharge Permits for Toxics of Concern to Tampa
Bay
ACTION:
Establish maximum concentration or loading limits in point-source discharge permits
for toxics of concern to Tampa Bay.
BACKGROUND:
A toxics characterization study conducted for the Tampa Bay NEP identified domestic
and industrial point sources as significant contributors to loadings of key toxic sub-
stances of concern to Tampa Bay. For example, industrial point sources contribute
more than 30 percent of the bay's total annual loadings of the heavy metals cadmium
and copper, and about 27 percent of the bay's chromium loadings.
The Tampa Bay NEP is identifying point- and non-point sources of contamination in
three basins draining to the bay's most heavily contaminated sectors. This investiga-
tion will help pinpoint where concentration or loading limits may be necessary. A
companion study is underway to classify areas of the bay where sediments are at or
above threshold levels for biological impact to marine life, areas that are restorable,
and relatively toxic-free areas that should be protected from contamination.
This action is to establish maximum concentrations or loading limits in permits for
point source facilities discharging toxics of concern to heavily impacted areas of the
bay-where pollutants pose a threat to the bay's living resources-and to enforce
compliance with these standards. The toxics of concern to Tampa Bay are the metals
cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, zinc and copper, PAHs, PCBs and several pesti-
cides including DDT.
Existing permit limits for point-source discharges cover some contaminants of con-
cern. This action calls for revisions to existing discharge limits where warranted.
Some larger facilities are required to periodically test for many potentially toxic
chemicals, but this requirement does not extend to smaller industrial facilities whose
collective impact may be substantial. Compliance with these new limits may entail
additional wastewater treatment or the use of alternative materials in manufacturing
and processing.
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Identify specific point sources contributing toxics of concern to the bay's
hot spots of sediment contamination.
(Tampa Bay NEP is now investigating the sources and status of contami-
nants in basins draining to the bay's most heavily contaminated sectors.
This step calls for further investigations to identify sources of toxics of
11[lli ill::!ll :iJ'II;:::~<llr
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.............................'................-."...
.............. ......... ....... ".,--,
................................",.....
............................,......."".
........................."........""..............
......................... ....... ....
........................,......".,....."...
........_........_.........5...........
.... . ...... ..",.....
..... .. .,... "".--"
.... . ..... ... "..
..... .. ...... "....."..
.... .. ...... --......,..
....... ..... .."..... .........................
....... .... ..... .
:''''''}}). .........""""....
,......... ..... ..
....... ... . .....
....... ... " ..... ..
...................".... ,
...............'",.........".....
.......................,........
133
1[ll~Ii:.I\I:I
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
................."....-- -.-.........................
............................................
.,.-.,..,',.'....." .. .......................
.... .........................................
..-,._.,.,................ .- ........................
......................... ..................
............................-...............
.................................. .. ....... ....
.... . . "' ...
................ . ...... ....
. . ...... ...
.. ." ....... '" ....
.......... ...... ....... ....
............ ..... .... ....... ....
........ ..... ....... ......
:::::::::::::.::::::::::: ;:::::::" .<:..:....> ::::;:
...... ... . .... ...
.... "." ... . ..... ...
.............. .." "' ..... ....
....-.-. ................. .....
........"........................
.. .., ......... ..................
134
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
concern in the bay's remaining impacted basins.)
Responsible parties: FDEP
STEP 2 For point sources identified in Step 1, establish maximum concentrations or
loading limits needed to reduce or eliminate the continued contribution of
these contaminants of concern.
Responsible parties: FDEP
STEP 3 Revise discharge permits to include these limits, and the necessary report-
ing and monitoring requirements to ensure compliance.
Responsible parties: FDEP, Environmental Regulation Commission
SCHEDULE:
All steps can be initiated in 1996. Efforts to identify applicable point sources should
be completed by March 1996 for the first three drainage basins, and limits established
by March 1997. Monitoring and reporting should commence within six months of the
adoption of these limits.
COST:
Staff time only is anticipated in the establishment of loading limits for application
point-source facilities and in the revisions to permit criteria. Costs to identify point
sources contributing contaminants of concern to hot spots around the bay are estimat-
ed at $150,000. Point-source dischargers will be responsible for costs associated with
compliance with discharge and monitoring criteria.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Loading limits on the toxics of concern discharged from point sources to already
heavily impacted areas of the bay will reduce the pollution and the potential for bio-
logical impact to marine life in the bay, and improve the reporting standards for toxics
of concern that are not now effectively traced.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Monthly monitoring reports of effluent quality by point-source dischargers will docu-
ment the success of this action. Ambient water quality is monitored by local govern-
ments.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
In cases where the State standard may not be adequate, revisions to FDEP rules may
be required to lower loading limits in NPDES permits.
RELATED ACTIONS:
TX-l, WW-2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
PuBLIC HEALTH
Despite recent strides toward bay recovery, many residents still regard the bay as too
polluted to swim in, and its fish and shellfish too contaminated to eat. This lingering,
and largely incorrect, perception stems from the 1960s and 1970s, when the piping of
raw or partially treated sewage into the bay resulted in algal blooms that decomposed,
producing noxious odors, and bacterial contamination made some segments unsafe
even for swimming.
Today, state laws require sewage treatment of the highest level, and the bay is begin-
ning to regain its status as a premier recreational resource. However, substantial
emergency discharges of raw or partially treated sewage still occur when heavy rains
cause stormwater to seep into some municipal sewer systems, and bacterial contami-
nation still results in the occasional closure of bay beaches to swimming and shellfish
beds to recreational harvesting. Correcting these problems would be a significant step
toward maximizing recreational enjoyment of the bay and allaying public fears about
its safety.
Both swimming and shellfish harvesting are restricted when heavy rains wash storm-
water, with its potentially high bacteria content from animal wastes and soils, into
areas where those activities are permitted and monitored. However, decisions about
when to close shellfish beds or public beaches are usually based on the threat of cont-
amination, and not on actual sampling that detects high levels of coliform bacteria.
In the case of public beaches, local health agencies around the bay use different crite-
ria to determine when a beach should be closed. No common water quality standards
exist for the bay's beaches-a shortfall that this action plan addresses.
Shellfish beds, on the other hand, are closely regulated by the state. Limitations on
funding and manpower, however, as well as the lack of a substantial harvestable
resource, often mean that Tampa Bay's remaining approved or conditionally approved
shellfish harvesting beds are not reevaluated as thoroughly or as frequently as areas
with more significant shellfish resources. Many scientists believe water quality in the
bay may have improved enough in recent years to explore the potential of reclassify-
ing and upgrading some areas-another idea addressed in this action plan.
Knowing the bay's beaches and shellfish beds are monitored routinely and compre-
hensively, and that decisions about closures or restrictions are based upon hard scien-
tific evidence of contamination-not merely the potential of pollution-is critical to
restoring positive public attitudes about the bay and fostering appreciation of its wide-
ranging recreational opportunities.
Additionally, public health concerns can be reduced by corrective actions aimed at
eliminating accidental or intentional discharges of sewage to the bay during severe
storm events. Sewage overflows are of particular concern in St. Petersburg and
Pinellas County, where low land elevations and rapid population growth have con-
tributed to strain existing municipal sewer and stormwater systems. In August 1995,
St. Petersburg was forced to shunt 15.6 million gallons of raw sewage into canals
IIIJIlfllll,I;;::lr
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
135
S?=~~::::::~~::, I' -:<<:-X~
::::: '7:-~::' ~::' t: m-. @
tWHlL; dl' M
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
13B
ACTION PLAN
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Water & Sediment Quality
leading to Tampa Bay when torrential rains caused massive sewer backups in portions
of the city. Pinellas County has experienced similar problems at its McKay Creek and
South Cross Bayou facilities, and Hillsborough County also has occasionally been
forced to discharge partially treated sewage to bay tributaries in times of excessive
rainfall.
It will be important in future years for communities to correct these problems, through
aggressive investigations and upgrading of their systems, to ensure that the substantial
water quality gains achieved by improved treatment facilities are not offset by inade-
quate collection and distribution networks.
Actions Summary for Public Health
PH-l
PH-2
PH-3
Establish water quality standards for saltwater beaches.
Assess opportunities to reclassify shellfish beds closed to harvesting.
Install additional sewage pump-out facilities for recreational boaters and live-
aboard vessels.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Establish Water Quality Standards for Saltwater
Beaches
ACTION:
Develop local water quality standards for beaches and encourage all counties and
cities in the Tampa Bay region to use those standards for monitoring public beaches.
BACKGROUND:
Beach closures resulting from fecal coliform in the water have been a problem in
some parts of the bay where swimming is permitted, such as Spa Beach in St.
Petersburg and Picnic Island Park in Tampa. The closures are usually a result of poor
water quality, as evidenced by the presence of fecal coliform, usually found in small
areas in high concentrations after heavy rainstorms.
Sampling of area beaches is typically conducted monthly by local public health units.
However, there are no uniform standards for restricting swimming and other water-
contact recreation, such as windsurfing, in saline waters. Consequently, bay area com-
munities have applied different standards to determine whether beaches should be
temporarily closed, possibly analyzing different parameters and using different sam-
pling techniques. Consistent standards would improve public health protection and
maximize recreational use of the bay while helping to identify sources of water quali-
ty problems at bay beaches.
STRATEGY:
STEP I Review existing standards, parameters and sampling techniques used by
local governments and public health units for testing of beach waters. An
assessment of these standards has been completed as part of a technical
study for the Tampa Bay NEP.
Responsible Parties: local government health units and environmental
management departments
STEP 2 Establish uniform standards, sampling techniques and monitoring schedules
for waters near public beaches. The standards should be parameters com-
monly monitored for public health concerns and should be formally adopt-
ed by each government in the form of a local regulation.
Responsible Parties: Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEPj-to organize and direct effort, local government health units
and environmental management departments
SCHEDULE:
Step 1 can begin in 1996, with standards available for adoption in 1997.
COST:
Only staff time, document preparation and administrative costs are anticipated.
11l[]1111;1~::I~I:~III:::::.:.lr
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.......-................................
......,................... ..",...,
............................,.,..,.,.,....,.....-
....,...............,..:-................,............,.-:.,.,.,.;.......'...'.'.'.'...
::::::::::11.:.:.:.:.::..::::.:.:.:::::::.:::::::...:::.:...:.:....:..::::/::.
..... ....... ".."..,,,,,,
..... ". ... ........ .......-................
..... .. ...... ",.."
..... . ... ."... .....--..-.
..... . . .. ..... """"
...... ",'"'" ....--.....",
..... .. ..... "".."""...
~:~::::::: .......i.:.:.:>.: :.:..::.:..::.:...:..:..}:::......
:}:::::.:...::::::::::B::::::::::I::::::
137
IJRlftf:I
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
...........................,..-....--........
........ ...........................
........,',..................................
......"""........ ...........................
.........'.......................................
,"""" ... .. ............................
.........................................................................
.. '.. ....... .....
... ... ....... ......
................ .. ...... .....
. .. ..... ......
................... ... ,...... .....
. . ..... ......
.....". . ...... .....
..... . ....... ......
:,:,;.;.:.:;:,:,:.:.:;:: ..-:-::: ;.:. :....<:::: ;:;::::::::
:.:.:::,.::..'.............. ........... .. ,......'... .....
." ........ ......
.... . ..... .. ........ .....
......................................,
...............................
138
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Increased public health protection and increased knowledge about the status and prob-
lems of bay waters.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
U sing a uniform set of standards and sampling techniques to test beach waters will
increase the effectiveness of bay monitoring programs. Sampling can be done more
frequently and results can be compared to other portions of the bay, so trends in water
quality can be determined and problem areas more readily identified.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Amendments to local or state regulations will be needed to adopt a uniform standard
for marine water quality monitoring.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Assess Opportunities to Reclassify Shellfish Beds
Closed to Harvesting
ACTION:
Reevaluate shellfish harvesting areas in the bay to identify pollution sources and
potential for upgrading to less restrictive classifications.
BACKGROUND:
Development and overharvesting have taken a severe toll on Tampa Bay's once-thriv-
ing oyster, clam and scallop fisheries. Currently, no commercial harvest of shellfish
takes place in Tampa Bay, and recreational harvests of clams-the only bay shellfish
approved for consumption-are restricted by poor water quality. The declines in
Tampa Bay mirror those throughout the state, where approved shellfish harvesting
areas are shrinking by an average of I percent a year.!
Shellfish are extremely vulnerable to environmental changes and tend to concentrate
bacteria and other pollutants in their systems, where they can be transmitted to
humans. Consumption of raw contaminated shellfish is the primary cause of shellfish-
related illnesses in humans. For this reason, the state closely regulates shellfish har-
vesting waters, using fecal coliform (a type of bacteria contained in the intestinal
tracts of warm-blooded animals) as an indication of pollution. The Florida
Department of Environmental Protection's (FDEP'S) Shellfish Assessment Section is
responsible for monitoring and classifying shellfish beds.
Fecal coliform enters a body of water in rainfall runoff, and shellfish harvesting areas
are graded according to their potential for contamination after a heavy rainfall. Land
use surrounding a harvesting area is the major factor in determining the presence of
coliform; thus, an area bordered by dairy farms, sewage treatment plants or septic
tanks may not be considered appropriate for shellfishing. Harvesting areas are moni-
tored by the state at least once a month to gauge water quality, and areas can be
opened or closed as needed. Comprehensive surveys are conducted every five to six
years.
Three classified shellfish areas remain in Tampa Bay: two are approved for condition-
al harvests, and one is closed. Conditionally approved areas meet water quality stan-
dards that allow harvesting some of the time. These areas are located in Boca Ciega
Bay near Mullet Key and south of Port Manatee in Manatee County. The third area,
Cockroach Bay, is closed because of persistent coliform contamination.2
With improving water quality throughout much of the bay, better control of stormwa-
ter runoff and the potential for restocking the bay scallop, some scientists believe new
recreational shellfish harvesting areas could be established and existing areas upgrad-
ed to less restrictive classifications in the next decade. However, limited state
resources likely mean that any effort to expand or reclassify harvesting areas will have
to come from local governments. The state Department of Environmental Protection
can certify local laboratories and personnel to administer such a program.
II[fft}1;11,:jl!ii1:1::~"I!r
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.......-.............-.........."',
...................................--.-......
..............................."""""..." "..
....................................---.......
.....................'........'.""...........................
................ ................... ",
......................... '.......................
..........11...........11......................_.. ... .....
..... ..,. ....... ,.....',
..... . ... ..... ........
..... .. ..... "
..... ... ..... ..
...... "...." "'"
...... ..... .. .....
..... . '."" , "'"
'"""", .....,....'i1i.},..,.'..,..,..,.
..... ..... ,.. ...
..... ...... .. ,...... .
..... ..... .. ....
..... ...... ............... ........,.....:.
..... ...... . .
........................................
....................
139
[llt:AI;:~lr
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
,......."""...-. ............................
.........-,...................-.............,...............
"",," . .............................
................--.................,.......................,
"".. ..............................
...III.II
140
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
STRATEGY:
SlEP 1 Monitor restricted or closed shellfish harvesting areas to identify land-
based sources of potential or actual water quality problems.
Responsible parties: local government environmental management
departments, with assistance from the FDEP's Shellfish Assessment
Division
SlEP 2 Identify a clear process to reclassify areas as harvestable and establish local
shellfish monitoring programs--certified by the state-to survey and test
selected areas with the potential for reclassification.
Responsible parties: local government environmental management
departments, with assistance from the FDEP's Shellfish Assessment
Division
SlEP 3 If economically feasible, pursue reclassification of areas with sufficient
water quality to allow recreational harvests of shellfish.
Responsible parties: local governments, with support from the Agency on
Bay Management
SCHEDULE:
All steps can be initiated in 1996.
COST:
Laboratory, personnel, equipment and administrative costs for a local shellfish moni-
toring program are estimated at $100,000 yearly for each participating government.
This figure could be reduced by training existing personnel to perform some monitor-
ing and testing duties.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Increased water quality protection for classified shellfish harvesting areas and
increased public use of the bay for recreation.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Identifying sources of potential contamination of shellfish beds helps pinpoint reme-
dial actions to improve those areas. Additionally, a local shellfish monitoring program
could conduct more frequent surveys of shellfish harvesting areas and more closely
track improvements in water quality.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
None anticipated.
1. Personal communication with David Hell, FDEP Shellfish Assessment Section
2. Ibid.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Install Additional Sewage Pump-out Facilities for
Recreational Boaters and Live-aboard Vessels
ACTION:
Assist local governments in obtaining assistance through the Florida Clean Vessel Act
grant program to construct sewage pump-out facilities at publicly owned marinas bor-
dering Tampa Bay.
BACKGROUND:
In the past, efforts to reduce sewage discharges in Tampa Bay justifiably have focused
on improvements to land-based wastewater treatment plants serving one or more
municipalities. But with these facilities now operating under strict pollution preven-
tion rules, attention should be shifted to the smaller, yet continual discharges of the
thousands of boaters who routinely ply the bay.
While many private marinas offer sewage pump-out facilities, currently only two pub-
lic marinas in the region have pump-out stations. Only one of the two, in downtown
St. Petersburg, is located directly on the bay. Providing more pump-out facilities
would help reduce fecal coliform as well as nitrogen loadings and suspended solids
associated with sewage while encouraging boaters to become more responsible stew-
ards of the bay they enjoy.
Pathogens associated with human wastes can severely impact a body of water, leading
to restrictions on bathing, swimming and shellfish harvesting. Although the exact
effect of sewage discharges from boats on Tampa Bay is not known, studies in other
waterways indicate the untreated human wastes of one boater can be equal to the
treated wastes of thousands of people. More than 100,000 boats are registered in the
three-county area surrounding Tampa Bay, and many more transient boaters pass
through. In addition, an unknown number of live-aboards reside at bay area marinas.
Guidelines proposed by the U.S. Clean Vessel Act call for one pump-out station for
every 300-600 boats. Additionally, a new state law, effective October 1994, prohibits
boaters from dumping raw sewage into Florida waters and requires many boats 26 feet
or longer to have a working toilet with waste storage on board when in state waters.
To aid compliance, the state is offering grants for the next five years to assist marinas
in adding or improving pump-out facilities. The grants, administered by the Florida
Marine Patrol, will cover 75 percent of the project's cost, and can be used for public
education and for planning, permitting, purchasing and installation of pump-out equip-
ment and portable toilet dump stations. Marinas awarded funds may charge boaters up
to $5 for a pump-out.
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Identify public marinas on the bay used by a large volume of boaters, par-
ticularly within the City of Tampa. The U.S. Coast Guard or community
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
-....-........................,..........'...'.'...:.'...........;.;.'......_'.','.'.'.'.'.,.'.'.
.........................,...,.,....'.............................'.......'...'.'.'.'.
.,.....-......................... ""."""
..............,',......................................,-,-.
......."...................................
........_......._...............S...................
..... ." .'....., .._d....
..... . ... .. .... "".,.",
..... .. ........ ........
..... . ... . "'"
..... . , " ......... . ..........
...... ",_.",'
....~ ........ ",.,
.... . ...... .........
i.....:...i
141
(!~RJ'fI
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
,--.,.---...,..,.,.........................-...--.
..,'............................".............................
.................................
. .............................."......"......................
................................
.........................'...............
. .................... . ......1..............
..................... .."" ...... ....
. .. ..... ...
........... .. ...... n.
" , ,.. ..... ...
............ . ..... . ...
,- . .. ..... . ...
.......... ........ ...
..-" ' ...........
...... . n. ...
,.".. . . .... ...
)!!/
142
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
boating groups may be able to assist in identifying the most frequently used
marinas.
Responsible parties: City of Tampa and other municipalities, Florida
Marine Patrol, Agency on Bay Management (ABM)
STEP 2 Based on results of Step 1, encourage the responsible municipality to apply
for a state grant to construct a sewage pump-out station at the marina.
Responsible parties: local government environmental management
departments, ABM, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program
STEP 3 Construct a sewage pump-out facility at marinas awarded grants and pro-
vide educational materials to boaters on-site explaining the importance of
the facility and how to use it. Disseminate educational materials to boating
clubs in the region making them aware of the facility.
Responsible parties: local governments
SCHEDULE:
Steps 1 and 2 can be initiated in 1996. Step 3's schedule is dependent upon awarding
of grant, but construction could begin in 1997.
COST:
Installation and construction costs vary depending on type of equipment selected.
Costs for a stationary or portable pump-out unit range from approximately $2,000-
$6,000. Costs for a portable toilet waste station vary from $1,100-$1,800. With a state
grant paying 75 percent of the construction costs, the project's costs to a municipality
would be substantially reduced. In addition, construction and maintenance costs could
be recouped by charging boaters a minimal user fee.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Providing sewage pump-out services for boaters will help reduce pathogens as well as
nitrogen and solids in Tampa Bay.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Use of the pump-out stations can be tracked to determine effectiveness. Boaters at the
participating facility also can be surveyed to ascertain if they are using the pump-out
service and how it can be improved.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
None anticipated, with the exception of permits required for installation.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...... :::':.,::':'.>:. :.:y:.,.,....,.:.:::::<.. .:::"" ....: ......:..,.::'.. .::.':.' :::.< ...., ..... ... .......". ":.,..",.,:.,."<'."...:::.:,.:,:,:::,':.,,:,.', ".
.,...:.......'.:...........'..............................'...:'..:,.............:..'.....'........._............:...111< ... '.. .~.. ..:'.:../..11..'...:.....'.....'.'...:............'.....................................,....
<) .:..:'. ..:...... ..,D;/<IFiI...- ...~....... :.. '.... .i
I.................'...........:......:.'...':.........>>'11;".; BJ;r;lf . ......1 '~~I..Ii...Lt ..... . ami.." :1,iIi.ccI/[ .I.'::.~...,"""~,.~...~.:..........'...........
li:</:.,' :.:'. ::":.::' ':":: ":. :::':. ,,: .:. ..'..:..... ...:..:'I:..:'
. .".... """':::: .' .'. ....,."...,.. " .. ..". ,..... . '~jE..l~2jlI
1.................:...~!....I~lllht,..~I~.....,~~.....~romw~~~~.....131~~~iln.:...
Ii" .df?a~t;tolerantpl~tsthafteduce..the.needforwai~I".fertilizetiilid pestiPI
.::~i4~$;~d.impro"ehabitatfQt\Vildlife,Irifonnati()nancl.ass~stanc~~s ... ...'..,....... .. I.. .
~vatl~JjlefiOrijY(')uLcountYextensiQnseI"vice,which~(fiffiliistetsth~.:....:, '.: . ...: .: . ...... "
H=I==i:=~-p;Mdjml~];jfl~Er
111111: ...!iJ::tt:~~;::t~lliji!~1ti:1I.~I!.!!....
;~...II!liii;:f:JE:~.,UEill!I!11
:.
.:,',..:......,..::.}y.,:"m .. '~J?I??I'[I /1" . ":j:'g' "1' ,:.~:::~.,IJi .....:...,., ,,:::.,'
~$~~f~~lo~~i: '. ..?,' '..:.....".. .., ,:.. "'., ...:.' ..:..... ... :......,...:"......./T
.'.',:/: :., .....:fiic9fPomt~natiy~ plants andenYi.t"Qnrnentiillybeneficial.land.~ping6oi1",. ..,.: ,
. ... 'cepiS~nybUrde,,~lopll1en.LC()jjtactthe Tamp! A.udubon SQcier;yoriHe/ .' '.
...f!!~ti[tti5if==:S~i;iilliillill
. . .pay(:ds~ace~inn~warKleXistirigdevel9Pmentsarid forincomRr~gpg .... ... ......
.. ...~dS~~@~si~tltat~llhanc~theenvirPJUl}~nL .< ....... . ...... . ... . .'. ..... .. . ..
. ...~ ... Clustetbuildihgsanu pavedareastoilieextentllJlowedhyregQlati(')n~tc; i ·
mWN~q,::!;:1itll!1Irdo~'i .... ...... ..... .... ... · ......i ..
..... ...Practiceecnvirdnm~ntaUyfriefullylaridscapiligatyour b~siness and install..
ittljil- ;~7wJT~~on~~::;:;~ilt:~
_~tlW8IIrn'of ...
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
:[I~II:II.,jlt11:; fP"'lr
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
143
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
144
ACTION PLAN
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Water & Sediment Quality
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
Bay Habitats
Tampa Bay's rich mosaic of underwater and coastal habitats support hundreds of
. species of fish and wildlife, from the familiar brown pelican to the bottom-hug-
ging sea squirt. Since the 1950s, almost half of the bay's original saltwater
wetlands have been lost to dredging and filling for shoreline and port development.
Bay seagrasses declined by nearly 40 percent in this same period, although they are
waging a comeback in some areas thanks to recent improvements in water quality.
Neighboring upland habitats of pine forest, oak hammock and shrub also have been
heavily impacted by development. Almost all coastal pine forests have been eliminat-
ed from the shores of Tampa Bay. These buffer zones and associated freshwater wet-
lands provide critical habitat for numerous animals, including the wood stork, white
ibis, bald eagle and fox squirrel.
Highly productive up-river, low-salinity habitats that provide life-support to many of
the bay's juvenile fisheries also have sustained damage from invasive exotic plants
and diversions of freshwater for drinking and irrigation.
The restoration and protection of these diverse habitats is crucial to the bay's health.
Studies now being finalized suggest that as many as 12,000 acres of seagrass can be
recovered along the bay's shallow shelf by maintaining existing water quality condi-
tions.
Strategies to repair and preserve the bay's coastal habitats will be directed by a habitat
restoration and land acquisition master plan, produced by the Tampa Bay National
Estuary Program in 1995 in cooperation with area agencies and governments. The
plan includes a preliminary list of priority projects, and seeks to restore a productive
balance and diversity of coastal and associated upland habitats. Targets include the
restoration of at least 100 acres of low-salinity tidal stream habitat every five years-
or as much as 1,800 acres over time-while maintaining or enhancing mangroves and
salt marshes at existing levels.
Land acquisition and habitat protection, through conservation easements and other
special arrangements with property owners, also are vitally important components of
the habitat master plan for Tampa Bay. A key priority will be the purchase of nearly
1,500 acres of bayfront property at Terra Ceia Isles in Manatee County. Acquisition
of this important tract would bring more than 6 percent of the bay's total mangrove
acreage, and several hundred acres of vital low-salinity, freshwater and upland habitat,
into public ownership, and substantially boost restoration opportunities.
Finger-fill residential canals constructed in the 1950s and 1960s require special focus
because of degraded water quality, habitat loss and siltation. A key effort will be to
111]ll!ll::llf.Jlii":':<r~r
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
145
rnW~\f~o:~:o ~~'W'
"o"o,);,',{, b' $0. %
~t>>t~ ~[f ~il ~~~:
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
148
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
provide incentives and opportunities for homeowners to enhance canal habitats and
soften shorelines.
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
. Increase and preserve the quantity, quality and diversity of seagrass communities,
recovering as many as 14,000 acres over time.
. Restore and preserve an optimum balance of wetland and associated upland habi-
tats to support bay wildlife, specifically:
_ restore at least 100 acres of low-salinity tidal marsh every five years
_ protect existing levels of mangroves and salt marshes
. Protect hard bottom, oyster reef, and soft bottom communities.
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS FOR BAY HABITATS
BH-1 Implement the Tampa Bay master plan for habitat restoration and protec-
tion.
BH-2 Establish and implement mitigation criteria for Tampa Bay, and direct miti-
gation to high priority projects.
BH-3 Reduce propeller scarring of seagrass.
BH-4 Evaluate whether to establish a special management area for the protection
of coastal habitats in Tampa Bay.
BH-5 Restrict impacts to hard-bottom communities.
BH-6 Restrict off-road vehicle access along causeways and coastal areas.
BH-7 Require mandatory education for recreational boaters.
BH-8 Encourage waterfront residents to enhance shorelines and limit runoff from
yards.
BH-9 Improve compliance with and enforcement of wetland permits.
BH-10 Expand habitat mapping and monitoring programs.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
Implement the Tampa Bay Master Plan for
Habitat Restoration and Protection
ACTION:
Implement the Tampa Bay master plan for habitat restoration and protection, devel-
oped by the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (NEP) in 1995 in cooperation with
local, regional and state agencies and interests.
BACKGROUND:
The Tampa Bay NEP will finalize a master plan for habitat restoration and protection
in early 1996 to coordinate and strategically focus the many existing state, regional
and local programs now engaged in these efforts.
The plan, designed in cooperation with these programs, recognizes that some habitats
have declined faster than others and seeks to "restore the balance" to more environ-
mentally beneficial proportions. It emphasizes the restoration of tidal stream habitats
in tributaries to Tampa Bay, low-salinity areas that are vital to juvenile fisheries.
Overall, the plan establishes a minimum restoration goal of 100 acres of low-salinity
tidal marsh every five years--or as many as 1,800 acres over time-while preserving
mangroves and salt marshes at existing levels.
The plan also identifies a preliminary list of priority projects for restoration and pro-
tection, through outright purchase or special arrangements such as conservation ease-
ments on private property.
This new strategic focus has important implications in Tampa Bay and elsewhere.
Traditionally, habitat restoration and land acquisition have been largely opportunistic
endeavors: Agencies and communities have sought to purchase and restore habitat
based on what was available or, in some cases, most visibly connected to the bay.
This approach toward highly visible projects helped to build community awareness of
the environmental plight and needs of the bay at a time when this was critically need-
ed. It also demonstrated to skeptics that habitat restoration was possible.
In recent years, agencies and local governments have increasingly focused on restor-
ing a mosaic of habitat types within a given project to maximize the benefits to fish
and wildlife. The emerging habitat master plan for Tampa Bay takes this concept a
step further by pursuing and selecting sites based on their potential to support the crit-
ical needs of certain species.
The draft plan identifies a series of wildlife "guilds" or groups of animals that have
common habitat and feeding needs. By tuning restoration and protection efforts to
meet these needs, efforts and resources can be more effectively utilized.
The white ibis provides a textbook example of how this new planning approach might
protect an impacted species. Populations of the white ibis have declined dramatically
IltJliltl,:I.I;lf;::"'Ir'
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
._-..--..........."'..~"'" ----- '"
.........................................',......,..,....'.....'.'......'..,.,.,.,.,.
.."........................ . ............'.'..'.
.........................'.'............ ",..,
""............................. .................
............""........ ............
.......8........11.................1..............
.... .... .... ......
'."" ." ..."...... .'
... ".. .... ...d..
....... ." ....., .""'"
.. . . .. ..... ......
.".. .. ...." "'"''
.... " ..... ........
........... .......... ......
;:;:;:;:; ,", ;: .:< :.....:..'::: :::;:::.::.::.:
.... . ,. '" . ...
".... ... ...,...,.... .""
;:;.:::::....,......:.::::::....,.:::::.:.;.:.:.:,:.:.:::::::.:.,.:.:::::":';
147
llRAf'1"
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
, """ "",. ."..._............_d.__.......
..................................,-.................................
..... . .....,_........."...............
.......,................................
I 1.111
148
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
in the last half-century, resulting in its listing by the Florida Game & Freshwater Fish
Commission (FGFWFC) as a species of special concern. Adult ibis nest along the
bay, but require inland freshwater sources of food for their young. These shallow
freshwater wetlands or "frog" ponds, as they are sometimes known, have been hit
hard by inland development-forcing ibis to travel farther and farther to find food for
their young. A habitat restoration strategy devised with the ibis in mind might seek to
restore small freshwater ponds on properties that are closer to the birds' nesting areas
to compensate for the loss of these food sources in the watershed.
Another habitat strategy might direct bay managers to eradicate Brazilian pepper from
various small but highly valuable low-salinity portions of creeks and streams that
serve as juvenile nurseries for many species of fish. Such results-oriented strategies
bode well for communities seeking to maximize their return on bay improvement
expenditures.
A draft of the plan is available from the Tampa Bay NEP. Provisions to direct public
and private mitigation credits to these priority projects also are a part of the plan (See
Action BH-2).
Ongoing efforts:
Pinellas, Hillsborough and Manatee counties all have administrative programs for the
public purchase of environmentally sensitive lands. Pinellas and Hillsborough coun-
ties' programs are funded by local taxes that complement state-funded public land
acquisition programs such as Preservation 2000, Save-Our-Rivers, and Conservation
and Recreational Lands (CARL). Manatee County's program is for the purchase of
land in the Lake Manatee Reservoir and is financed by the County's Water Utilities
Enterprise Fund. Private land acquisition programs such as the Nature Conservancy
also contribute to the preservation of upland and wetland habitats.
State environmental agencies such as the Southwest Florida Water Management
District (SWFWMD) and its Surface Water Improvement & Management (SWIM)
Program, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the Florida
Marine Research Institute (FMRI), are the principal players in habitat restoration and
enhancement. Local municipalities and other agencies such as the Florida Department
of Transportation (FDOT), and local port authorities and utilities also engage in large-
scale habitat mitigation and restoration. Like habitat protection efforts, these pro-
grams have been only minimally coordinated and are driven largely by opportunity
and permitting considerations.
STRATEGY:
This action presents steps to implement the Tampa Bay master plan for habitat restora-
tion and protection, including elements to assure and more effectively direct key fund-
mg sources.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
STEP 1 Convene implementing groups by April 1996 to develop a written strategy
to implement the master plan according to its established priorities.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEP (to organize workshop),
SWFWMD, FDEP, FMRI, FGFWFC, local governments
Reconvene work group of implementing agencies, local governments and
organizations every two years, beginning in 1998, to assess progress toward
goals and reevaluate priorities.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEP
STEP 2 Direct credits from public and private mitigation projects to priority pro-
jects identified in the plan. (See Action BH-2 on mitigation banking)
STEP 3 Ensure that the list of priority projects for habitat restoration and protection
is incorporated into local government and agency permit reviews and con-
ditions.
Responsible parties: local governments, FDEP, SWFWMD
STEP 4 To assist in and more effectively direct funding to implement the habitat
restoration master plan:
Pursue a permanent source of funding for the SWIM Program;
Amend provisions of the State Pollution Recovery Trust Fund to require
that monies from fines collected in the Tampa Bay region be spent in this
region and within a specific period of time (e.g., five years)
Secure a permanent source of funding for Preservation 2000, the state envi-
ronmentallands acquisition program.
Amend provisions of the Hillsborough County Pollution Recovery Trust
Fund to require that monies collected from fines be spent within a reason-
able period of time.
[Note: These financing elements are part of the Tampa Bay NEP's 1996
state legislative agenda.]
SCHEDULE:
Implementation to begin in 1996. Timetables for various priority projects will be list-
ed in the habitat master plan.
COST:
Costs associated with implementation of the plan will be finalized in early 1996.
However, existing SWIM habitat restoration projects may provide some basis for
comparison. The current SWIM plan for Tampa Bay includes proposed projects for
FY 91-92 through FY 93-94, a total of 16 major and 15-21 smaller projects for a total
budget of $4.5 million or about $1.5 million annually. SWFWMD cost analyses indi-
cate that the cost for the creation/restoration of intertidal wetlands (including design,
iliJjlll1,,~II\llf;:;I
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.................-....-.--..--.--."'..
................. ............... .............,.......
......................................... ...
.................. .............. ..,.,,'......,..,..
..........................................................'.......'..,.,..........................'.-.
.............................."..-.
.........11........11...............-...............................
.... .. ,. ........ .".............
..... .." .......,' ................. .
.... ........ ..................
..... ... ...... '.
.... . .. " ...., ..........
..... .. ......, ....
.... ." "..,..
......... .... ...............
::::::::: .'. :: ..... :. :::.:: :::-.::::::::.::::-:::.,:-.
..... .. "...., ,.........
.... .... ....". ..,,'
...... ." ........ '...........
... .... ....... .
..... ...... ... .."..., ",....
.................................
........................,.,..
149
1:IR:111f1"
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.""...............................
....................n.............
......,............................
.....................................
...........................
..".......".................
..........................................
.. ....
. ... ....... .....
. .. ...... .....
..",...... .. ..... .....
-",-.....-. . ...... .....
... .......... ........
.. '"".:.::::::: ... : ',", :- :::::; :::::::::::
." . ,. ....... .....
. ,.. ........ .....
o ,. ....... .....
n .. ........ .....
........"....................
.----......,........................
150
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
permitting, plans, construction and monitoring) range from $30,000 (managed in-
house) to $50,000 (contracted to private firm) per acre.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Implementation of this strategic watershed plan for habitat restoration and preserva-
tion will improve the quality, diversity and quantity of critical coastal habitats that
support bay wildlife.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Progress in implementing the habitat restoration and land acquisition master plan-
and in meeting specific targets for habitat recovery-will be monitored by local gov-
ernments and agencies and reported in the Biennial Bay Monitoring Report.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Revisions to trust fund provisions and other regulatory changes to ensure and more
equitably direct long-term funding for habitat restoration and acquisition.
RELATED ACTIONS:
BH-2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
Establish and Implement Mitigation Criteria for
Tampa Bay
ACTION:
Establish criteria for mitigation of impacts to tidal habitats in the Tampa Bay water-
shed, and develop a regional mitigation banking plan that implements those criteria.
BACKGROUND:
Mitigation-the process by which applicants whose projects include impacts to wet-
lands create new ones in their place or restore or enhance existing wetlands-in
Florida is required of both private developers and public agencies to compensate for
loss of natural habitats. Typically, these manmade wetlands are established on the
same site as the project, in an area not slated for development.
But keeping track of these projects-and how closely they mimic natural wetlands-
has proven difficult with the government's limited resources. Studies by the Florida
Department of Natural Resources Aquatic Preserves Division and Marine Research
Institute in 1988 reported a failure rate of more than 80 percent for mitigation projects
in Southwest Florida and Tampa Bay. A follow-up study by the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) showed that one-third of applicants issued permits
by the agency had never even attempted the required mitigation. Of those that had,
only 13 of 62 mitigation projects were deemed "ecologically successful," meaning
they generally provided the same functions as natural wetlands destroyed by the pro-
ject.
In addition to problems with enforcing mitigation requirements, some bay managers
believe the mitigation criteria used by the state is insufficient to protect some particu-
larly valuable bay habitats.
Problems with the current mitigation program, and pressures from private interests
who view it as too cumbersome, have led to a new concept called "mitigation bank-
ing." It allows developers to compensate for wetland losses in one place by preserv-
ing, restoring or creating wetlands in another to achieve a no-net loss of wetlands.
A new FDEP rule allows mitigation banking in some instances, although it remains a
controversial issue. Proponents say mitigation banking can consolidate manmade
marshes into central areas, increasing the odds for success and making the permits
easier to monitor and enforce. Proponents also say it will result in larger wetland
areas that are more useful for birds and other wildlife than, for instance, a tiny wet-
land in the middle of a shopping center or along a busy road. Critics say mitigation
banking will make it easier to destroy wetlands. If an applicant can simply pay to
restore marshes somewhere else, they fear there will be little incentive to preserve
wetlands on site.
Many concerns about mitigation banking stem from provisions (or lack of provisions)
in the new state rule.
liii]!llrnl! ,. [i
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
;:::::::;:::::::::::::;:;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;::::::::::::::::::::::::::::..-..
11111
....,...,..........................................'......,....
151
(lfRl~~tiF~I
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
, ,.."..." -................-.
.-.,-,-.....,-"",......"...............-.-.-.-.-.-.',-.
.",......................................
.....",..."""........"".....................
......'-.--..".....--.........--......................
.........."",........""....................
....Bd.II................._................
,--_..,,-.-.. . ,. ...... ....
....",..."". ." ...... ...
. ,,---,.....-. ... ...... ...
..",...."..., . ,. ..... ...
,--",------ - . .. ...... . ...
.........""., .. ...... P'
-,-.."...... . ,..... ...
. ,...""... ,. ........ ....
".....- . .... ...
............}
152
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
Under the rule, mitigation banks are optional and can be either publicly or privately
owned or operated. The state encourages a free-market approach, so does not specify
how much a developer can be charged for mitigation credits. Generally, the price of
credits covers the cost of the restoration and monitoring for several years, in addition
to providing a margin of profit for the private restoration company. Banks are jointly
administered by the FDEP and the state's water management districts.
The state rule also allows private companies to purchase lands for mitigation banks, or
developers themselves to purchase and operate mitigation banks. Additionally, the
new rule permits developers to transfer their mitigation to publicly owned lands if the
landowner agrees, as is the case with a bank on state-owned property at Little Pine
Island in Lee County.
Whether mitigation banks should be permitted on publicly owned lands is a key area
of disagreement among bay managers. Some believe mitigation should only be
allowed on private lands, with those lands subsequently turned over to a public
agency for management. Others say mitigation banking offers a chance to restore
damaged public lands much faster than limited government funds currently permit.
The shortcomings of the current mitigation program and the lack of a significant track
record with wetland mitigation banking will continue to make the issue of how and
where banks should be used complex and controversial.
The Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (NEP) supports the creation of mitigation
criteria designed specifically for the Tampa Bay region, including the development of
a regional mitigation banking plan tailored to the needs of the bay ecosystem.
A regional mitigation banking plan would accomplish several goals. First, it would
ensure appropriate siting of banks in areas where they are most likely to succeed and
where other valuable habitats, such as mature pine forests, are not sacrificed for wet-
lands. A regional plan also would prevent a profusion of widely scattered banks that
are difficult to monitor, and would give local governments guidance in drafting future
land use plans.
This action also directs mitigation to priority projects for habitat restoration and
enhancement identified in the Tampa Bay NEP's habitat master plan (see Action BH-
1).
STRATEGY:
SlEP 1 Identify areas where mitigation banks should be used in the Tampa Bay
watershed, and develop criteria for management and operation of those
banks.
Convene a workgroup of the Natural Resources Committee of the Agency
on Bay Management (ABM) by April 1996 to evaluate and develop recom-
mendations. Recommendations shall be forwarded to the Tampa Bay NEP
by September 1996. Consult existing banking criteria guidance developed
by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Army Corps of
Engineers (ACOE), Florida Game & Freshwater Fish Commission
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
(FGFWFC), Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS), National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) and the Southwest Florida Water Management District
(SWFWMD) for reference. Private industry and other non- governmental
and environmental groups should be urged to participate.
Permitting agencies should continue to emphasize avoidance of wetland
impacts in lieu of on- or off-site mitigation. Where wetlands impact cannot
be avoided, on-site mitigation should be encouraged. If on-site compensa-
tion is not feasible or likely to be effective, mitigation banking should be
considered.
The workgroup should consider:
· evaluating whether mitigation conducted by local governments and private devel-
opers should count toward overall habitat restoration goals for Tampa Bay
· establishing specific criteria to decide when on- or off-site mitigation is most
appropriate
· ownership, management and associated cost issues, including whether mitigation
banks operated on private lands purchased by the developer or private bank opera-
tor should be deeded to a public agency
· limitations on the total number of mitigation banks, and the number that one pri-
vate operator can manage, and provisions to make banks large enough to increase
ecological values and prevent a glut of banks with no "customers"
· siting considerations, to ensure that wetland values lost in one area are replaced in
the same general area, thus preventing an overall decline in water quality or habi-
tat within one watershed (for example, positioning banks adjacent to existing wet-
lands could make replicating the types of wetlands lost easier, increase its proba-
bility of success, and boost its value to wildlife)
· provisions to ensure the bank mimics as closely as possible the values, appearance
and function of the original habitat. Where this is not practical, mitigation credits
should be granted at a higher ratio, as in the case of red mangroves, salt barrens or
other critical habitats within Tampa Bay
· bank monitoring, enforcement and penalties for noncompliance with banking cri-
teria
· whether the state should establish minimum standards for environmental profes-
sionals conducting mitigation projects to increase the chances that manmade
marshes will flourish
· provisions for enhancement and preservation of existing wetlands within a mitiga-
tion bank as compensation if the environmental benefits of such activity will sig-
nificantly exceed the level of impact
· whether mitigation banks should be considered a replacement for publicly
financed restoration projects
· safeguards to protect productive native uplands from conversion to wetlands
li!)1 "il i"\li;:~I'"
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
..............'...-.-...-.-...-......,.,.,..;.'.;.;.'.......-:-:.
...........................................,......'......:-:..,....
..................................................................,...:-:.:-:...........
.................................."..
........................................'......"".....'.'.""
......... '," ,.... .......'.... ,.,.'.,.,:,:,;,:.:,:.
.... .." ...... "",.....'..
..... ... ..... ......",
.... . '" .. ....." , ""......
..... .. ,.... ..."""
} ... .... .....<
.......,.11..11.........1........
153
,l}'%<.i'>"1l; ;@ W''W'
'" .'Sl,'Z""., ndik .,~
KWnJ1kf @1
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.,.,.........., ,.----.-..........................
..............".' ...........................
--..-.., , ." ..,..........................
.""'.......................-.........................
.. .---' . .... ..........................
>81111
... ........--.-..........................
. ..... ...........................
154
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
. mandating the establishment of a trust fund to ensure long-term management of
the mitigation bank. The trust fund could be managed by a public agency, with
additional oversight by a non-profit group such as the Nature Conservancy
Responsible parties: ABM
STEP 2 Implement recommendations from Step 1, and direct mitigation credits to
high-priority restoration areas, as identified in the Tampa Bay NEP habitat
restoration and protection master plan.
(See Action BH-1)
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEp' in conjunction with FDEP,
SWFWMD, FGFWFC and local governments
SCHEDULE:
Step 1 can be initiated in April 1996 with recommendations by September. Step 2 can
be initiated in 1996 and completed in 1997.
COSTS:
To be determined, based on recommendations in Step 1.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
The establishment of regional mitigation criteria enables bay managers and the com-
munity to provide safeguards for and more effectively utilize mitigation banking for
the benefit of the region.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Bay marsh and mangrove habitats are monitored every five years using photo inter-
pretation methods. The success of mitigation banks will be monitored through per-
mits.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Possible amendments to local permitting rules and/or the state mitigation banking
rule.
RELATED ACTIONS:
BH-1, BH-4, BH-5
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
Reduce Propeller Scarring of Seagrass
ACTION:
Reduce propeller scarring of seagrasses and other shallow water habitats by installing
channel markers or implementing other management actions where seagrass scarring
is severe and by increasing boater awareness of these habitats and methods for protec-
tion.
BACKGROUND:
Boating activity on Tampa Bay, where there are nearly 100,000 registered recreational
boats, is intense and increasing-along with damage to seagrass meadows and other
sensitive marine habitats.
Propeller scars from boats that cut through shallow seagrasses beds or run aground
can leave sandy trenches that may stay barren for years. Seagrasses in some sections
of Tampa Bay-including portions of Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve, Ft. DeSoto
Park, Bishops Harbor and the Double Branch/Rocky Creek portion of Upper Tampa
Bay-are severely scarred, particularly around narrow channels and passes.
The Florida Marine Research Institute (FMRI), which recently completed a statewide
survey of prop scarring, is investigating the most appropriate methods for protection
in areas of Tampa Bay where scarring is severe, including marking of existing chan-
nels. Findings from this study will comprise the basis for specific recommendations
by the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program to reduce prop scarring in the bay. This
action also calls for continued efforts to emphasize boater education by expanding dis-
tribution of the Boater's Guide to Tampa Bay and installing additional interpretive sig-
nage at high-use boat ramps where warranted.
Studies are underway at Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve in Hillsborough County and
Ft. DeSoto Park in Pinellas County, where boating restrictions to protect seagrasses
are in place, to monitor the effectiveness of various management methods employed.
These management efforts range from motor boat exclusion zones and restricted
access areas posted with signs to unrestricted areas where sensitive areas are posted
with educational signs.
FMRI will use findings from these studies along with other efforts around the state to
develop recommendations of the most effective strategies for protection at these and
other heavily impacted bay sites, and to develop a cost-effective program to monitor
prop scarring and associated seagrass reestablishment.
Additionally, interpretive signage installed at high-use boat ramps around the bay can
help to raise boater awareness of sensitive seagrass meadows and other vital marine
habitats. Expanding this effort to other areas of intense use around the bay is another
important part of a comprehensive habitat protection strategy. Boaters also can be
reached through expanded distribution of the Boater's Guide to Tampa Bay, which
was produced in 1992 by FMRI and Tampa Bay NEP for distribution to boaters in
Hillsborough, Pinellas and Manatee counties.
11~~J:I!lj,j11llr:;"I'"
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
...---................ ..,,,,,,
.....................,-,-,-.-..-.-,-,,-,-,-,.............-".
...................................""",......
...................... ........... ..........................
................................ .....
....................." '........ .....................-.....
.....".............................. .."
........_..........11..... .........3... ................. .
",n ...." .._, ........
..... ." ........ ",,,...._-,
.... .... ". ....",,"..>>..
..... ." ......... . ""............
n., . ...., ...
..... .. ...... "........
.... .. ",..". "--,, ,,-.
... .. .-.---.. ...,,--.-...
...... '" .."""",
'.".,.,., .... '.....,....,..,..,.,.,.....,........,..........',
..... .
..... ... ....... ,.......
.--. ...... '" ",,"
..... ... ...., ,...........
.... ..... ...... ""',
...... .... ... ...-... ...........
..........-...........................
........................... ..... .
155
rn)[ji % W"'W
,.:.: iJ',i(~':" 1t W' ."
1M/ill ,UI t
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
, " "...........-..".--.......--.--------.'
...."'.'-'-"" ..................,............
'...,.......,...,........"...............
.."................,,,..........
................".....".""."..............
..".... ,.....................
................_...................1..................
. ii...,.....,.i..",.m,J
15&
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Evaluate results of the FMRI investigation of methods to reduce prop scar-
ring in severely damaged areas, which will be based, in part, on an evalua-
tion of existing management efforts in boat-restricted areas.
Recommendations should stress the need for uniformity in management
methods employed around the bay, especially in boat restriction zones. A
draft report will be submitted to the Tampa Bay NEP in January 1996.
Recommendations will be incorporated into the final Comprehensive
Conservation & Management Plan for Tampa Bay.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEP
STEP 2 Implement and monitor seagrass protection strategies advanced in Step 1.
Periodically monitor seagrass scarring in Tampa Bay to evaluate impacts,
recovery, and associated management needs, and to reclassify restricted
areas where appropriate.
Responsible parties: local governments and FDEP
STEP 3 Expand distribution of the Boater's Guide to Tampa Bay through major
marinas, boating and fishing clubs, The Florida Aquarium, boat ramps, and
retail outlets in accordance with existing terms and conditions.
Note: First-tier distribution to county tax collectors' offices, Florida Marine
Patrol and county marine sheriff's units has been completed by the Tampa
Bay NEP and the FDEP/FMRI; reorder process for these public and non-
profit entities is in place.
A. Develop target list of distribution outlets and identify major boat
shows and fishing tournaments for targeted events distribution.
Evaluate corporate sponsorship and distribution partnership with a
major sporting goods or boating retail operation.
B. Distribute letter with sample, order form and terms and conditions.
Follow up by phone with major distribution outlets.
C. Distribute orders with reorder form/procedures.
Responsible parties: FDEP/FMRI, with assistance from Florida Marine
Patrol, Coast Guard Auxiliary, Tampa BAYWATCH, Florida Sea Grant
Extension Program
STEP 4 Identify high-use boat ramps not already posted and design and install
interpretive signage in these areas to educate boaters about bay habitats and
their role in habitat protection. Ideally, sign design should be uniform
throughout the watershed to maximize cost-efficiency and impact.
[Note: Evaluate opportunities to modify or duplicate the existing bay sig-
nage series developed for the Tampa Bay NEP and installed at more than a
dozen boat ramps around Tampa Bay.]
Responsible parties: FMRI, with assistance from local governments and
Tampa Bay Watch
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
c
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
STEP 5 Design, develop and distribute a boat decal about prop scarring to boaters,
boat rental and sales outlets, and tackle shops.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEP (for design and initial production),
FMRI, Tampa Bay Watch, Florida Marine Patrol and local government
marine units and tax collectors' offices (for distribution)
[Note: Preliminary designs for a boater decal have been developed by the
Tampa Bay NEP. J
SCHEDULE:
FMRl's report is due to the NEP in January 1996. Implementation of Steps 2 through
5 can begin in 1996.
COST:
Costs to implement management actions to protect seagrasses in areas where there is
intense scarring will vary depending on recommendations. For example, the cost to
purchase and install a channel marker or buoy is estimated at $500. Costs to reprint
an additional 30,000 copies of the Boater's Guide to Tampa Bay on recycled stock are
estimated at $8,300, and could be financed through the Sport Fish Restoration Fund.
Costs to reproduce the imbedded fiberglass master sign on Tampa Bay produced for
the Tampa Bay NEP by Pannier Graphics in Pennsylvania is approximately $1,000,
excluding any design modifications. The sign is designed with a space for the logo of
the local municipality or project sponsor.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Targeted efforts to educate boaters, coupled with more direct management actions and
channel marking where warranted and enforcement of these actions, can reduce prop
scarring of seagrasses. Other sensitive bird and coastal habitats also will benefit as
boaters become more aware of them and how to protect them.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Prop scarring is monitored where management actions are implemented to test the
effectiveness of these methods. Prop scarring trends baywide will be monitored as
part of a program now being designed by FMRI (recommendations due in January).
Seagrass coverage is monitored every two years by SWFWMD-SWIM.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Pending final recommendations
RELATED ACTIONS:
BH-1, BH-lO, FW-1
1I.'IIIt:kl\t\IFJ
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.........-.-.-......'.'.............-...-.-.-..,-,.....................
..................................... .
....................,...... ..........
......................................................
.................. ........ .... ..............
.............. ................... ,....
.'.'.'.'.11........"11...'......'.'.".'3.."....'.'..'..... .
..... . .... ...... .........
.... .. .... "..."'.',"
..... '. .... ..... . ....... ..
.... '. ..... ..........
..... .. ...... ......,
.... .. ....-...... "'..............
.......... ........... ...
;:::::::: ,", :: -:.; : .""":' :;:;:::;:::::::>:::
.... . '.' ....'.. ......-..
..... .. .... """,.
.... ...... .....," ..........
..... .... ... . ......
........................... .......
.....-...........................
157
IJfltftifI
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.>........-.-.'.-.....'..........................-...-.-....-.......
..."......,.........................
., ,-, ,..........................
..-,.,-,-,...................,......'..,.,..........................................................
.B...........................................
............ ....
. ." . .. ....... ....
................ . ." ....... ....
....... .' ...... ....
.... .. ....... ....
.......'.. -. ...... ....
.... . ...... ....
........... ....... ........
::;>:::.::.::.:::: '.'. . .....: :::::::
. ." . .... ....
.... ... ......... ....
... .... ........ .....
...., .......... ......... ....
...."... . ......................
..',..................................
158
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
i
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
Evaluate Whether to Establish a Special
Management Area for the Protection of Coastal
Habitats in Tampa Bay
ACTION:
Evaluate whether to establish a special management area to improve protection of
coastal habitats within Tampa Bay, or pursue classification of those habitats as a state
Ecosystem Management Area.
BACKGROUND:
Current state Wetland Resource (Dredge and Fill) permitting rules typically require
permittees to provide compensatory mitigation (e.g., wetland creation, restoration,
enhancement) for permitted wetland impacts after the impacts have been incurred.
The amount of mitigation required is based upon general guidelines for the ratio of
impacted acreage to mitigation acreage, but is usually negotiated on a case-by-case
basis depending upon the type (e.g., forested vs. herbaceous wetlands) and functional
quality of the wetland systems involved. These compensatory mitigation guidelines
have been developed to theoretically result in a "no-net-loss" of wetland resources.
However, according to a study completed by FDER in 1992, the majority of wetland
mitigation sites required as a condition of permit issuance have either not been con-
structed, or are out of compliance with the terms and conditions set forth in their
respective permits.
Additionally, current rules may not provide adequate protection for some important
marine habitats for which mitigation is especially difficult, such as seagrasses and
hard bottom communities.
Studies show a 43 percent decline (9,700 acres) in the bay's existing wetland coverage
from 1950 to 1990, although several thousand acres of new wetlands were formed
during this period as a result of newly developed emergent land. The vast majority of
these losses can be attributed to the physical impacts associated with dredge and fill
activities. During the same time period, there has been a net loss of about 15,000
acres of seagrasses because of dredge-and-fill impacts and past water quality declines,
although seagrasses are now staging a comeback in some areas thanks to improving
water clarity. Little information is available on historic impacts to hard-bottom com-
munities, but bridge and dock construction has destroyed oyster reefs and other hard-
bottom in some of these areas.
This action is to investigate the costs and benefits of providing stricter protection for
tidal wetlands, seagrasses and other coastal habitats in Tampa Bay, through either the
existing state Ecosystem Management Area designation or a new "special manage-
ment area" classification. Within this special area, more stringent rules would apply
to mitigation requirements. For example, amended rules might require:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
· all mitigation to be constructed and an approved monitoring program initiated
prior to the permittee being allowed to incur the permitted wetland impacts. The
permittee will be required to attain a "successful" mitigation at project comple-
tion.
· higher bonding requirements for projects within the designated area, and higher
mitigation ratios that will result in a "net gain" in wetland acreage.
· development of an ecologically defensible, quantitative mitigation formula for
specific estuarine habitats so regulated interests could predict their mitigation
requirements.
Efforts such as these could contribute significantly to the attainment of the habitat
recovery targets established by Tampa Bay NEP for emergent tidal wetlands and sea-
grasses.
STRATEGY:
This action calls for the Agency on Bay Management (ABM) to evaluate whether and
by what means a special management area should be established for the protection of
special habitats surrounding the bay, preferably through an existing state classifica-
tion.
STEP 1 Convene a workgroup of Tampa Bay area wetland resource regulators from
applicable federal, state and local agencies, and local governments, to fur-
ther evaluate the need and means for designating the coastal habitats of
Tampa Bay as a "special management area" with permitting criteria neces-
sary to attain habitat recovery targets. The group also would define the
boundaries of this area.
Permitting criteria could include the development of a quantitative habitat
evaluation and mitigation formula, for all specific estuarine habitat types.
The rules for the "special management area" also could include provisions
for off-site mitigation and payment into mitigation banks where on-site mit-
igation is not feasible.
Responsible parties: ABM
STEP 2 Based upon the consensus findings of the workshop, ABM and the Tampa
Bay NEP will work with local legislators to develop and support state leg-
islation to designate the tidal wetlands of Tampa Bay as a "special manage-
ment area" with permitting criteria necessary to attain long-term habitat
recovery targets established by the Tampa Bay NEP Management
Committee.
Responsible parties: ABM, Tampa Bay NEp' local legislators
STEP 3 FDEP, SWFWMD, and counties with delegated wetland permitting authori-
ty establish new rules, or amend existing rules, to incorporate the provi-
sions of the special management area.
Responsible parties: FDEP, SWFWMD, Pinellas County, Manatee
County and Hillsborough County EPC
illlJIRIl.!.;:'')r'
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
...........---,.-.--.-.----..-.,--." ,,-
.............................."",.........
................,.,.....................,,"..
.............................. ,......
..........................................,.,
............................... ,.......
..............."......,.................",..
.........8.............11...................-...... ........
.... '.' '.' ..........., ,............................
..... . .. '" .
.... .... ....... "........
..... ". '." .."." ...."..,,'............
.... .. ...... .........
..... .. ...." ...."..,'..........
.... .. ..... ",---.
............ ...... ..... .....
;:;:;:;:; .'. ;: -:.: ; '" :;:;:>:;:;:;:""'.""
.... ... ......... ".
..... ... ......., ........
.... ..... ......... '" .."..
..... .... "........".. ....."...
.....................,............,'" .
..................,.......",..,'....
159
I[JR~ ~::1':
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
...__......,........d__.....
.'......- ...............................
..........",...................................
, ,...,...--........,...........................
... ....".."................................
...--.......,...........................
........._...........iJlT
.}}.IW
lGo
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
SCHEDULE:
Pending assessment to determine the need and associated costs and benefits of a
Special Management Area. If endorsed by the Technical Advisory Committee of the
Tampa Bay NEP, the work group could be convened in Spring 1996 to further define
the boundaries and provisions of the designation.
COST:
A cost-benefit analysis for implementing this action will be conducted based on rec-
ommendations from ABM.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
A special management area could produce a net gain in, and provide heightened pro-
tection for, designated bay habitats.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Mitigation monitoring is required of the permittee to document "success." A baywide
monitoring program has been established to monitor trends in habitat quantity.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Possible amendments to chapters 17-312 and 40D-4, Florida Administrative Code.
Passage of state laws designating the tidal wetlands of Tampa Bay as an ecosystem or
special management area.
RELATED ACTIONS:
BH-2,BH-3,BH-5,BH-9
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
Restrict Impacts to Hard Bottom Communities in
Tampa Bay
ACTION:
Amend Wetland Resource (Dredge and Fill 17-312, Florida Administrative Code (FAC))
and Management and Storage of Surface Waters (40D-4, FAC) permitting rules to rec-
ognize estuarine hard-bottom communities as unique resources, and to provide for
increased protection of these resources.
BACKGROUND:
The vast majority of the submerged bay bottom in Tampa Bay is characterized by loose
sediments such as sand or mud. Subtidal hard-bottom, or live-bottom, communities
exist in sparse areas of the bay bottom where natural rock outcrops protrude into the
overlying water column. The hard surface of the rock provides an ideal substrate for
colonization of a diverse assemblage of marine invertebrates including sponges, gor-
gonians and corals, and the shelter afforded by the rock outcrops attracts large numbers
of a wide variety of fishes. These characteristics make hard-bottom communities some
of the most unique and highly productive natural habitats in Tampa Bay.
Hard bottom communities are known to exist in Old Tampa Bay near Rocky Point and
the Gandy Bridge, as well as southwest of the Skyway Bridge near Terra Ceia Bay.
However, the baywide distribution of these important habitats-particularly in deeper
waters-remains undocumented.
Oyster reefs are another type of hard-bottom community found in Tampa Bay. They
typically occur in shallower waters along the shoreline, predominantly within the inter-
tidal zone and provide a unique substrate for other encrusting organisms. Relatively little
is known about the distribution and health of Tampa Bay oyster reefs despite their rec-
ognized importance and potential economic value.
Current state Wetland Resource (Dredge and Fill) permitting rules typically require per-
mitees to provide compensatory mitigation (e.g., wetland creation, restoration, enhance-
ment) for permitted wetland impacts after the impacts have occurred. The amount of
mitigation required is based upon guidelines for the ratio of impact acreage to mitigation
acreage, but is usually negotiated on a case-by-case basis. Current rules, however, do
not distinguish estuarine hard-bottom communities from other types of regulated wet-
lands and submerged bottom types. Consequently, these unique habitats are typically
not afforded any additional regulatory protection. While it is not clear how many acres
of natural hard-bottom communities have been lost in Tampa Bay, it is clear that impacts
to these unique habitats are not easily mitigated, and that a greater recognition and pro-
tection is needed.
This action would provide for the identification and protection of hard-bottom commu-
nities in Tampa Bay by including them in the "Special Management Area" proposed by
the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. The designation would allow for changes to
existing permitting criteria necessary to provide needed protection to these communities.
1l:11:1::illl:::::J
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
...................--.".........,.........
.......................... ..... "....
.....................................-..........
............... ......... ......,....',.
........................'.................'..........,....:.'.;.'.,.",..
'.'.'."11.............'.'.11.....'.'...'...'5.............,..'.','....,.'....'... ,
.... .... ,..... '........ ,
..... '.. ....., '................"...
.... .... ..... .., .......
..... .." ...... ...........
.... . .. . ...." ",
..... '. """. .............
.... " ..... . ".'....
......... ... ...... .............
:=:;::::: .', ;: .:-: : ,'."<: :::::::::;:::::..
.... "., ..... ..........-.
..... ... ......
..., ........ ........ ............
..... . "........,.. .'
...............-.'....,.,...............................,.,.,....
181
r(:JfCt~I::'lr
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
",,," .........---....................
...'.........". ...........................
. ...................................
...,............,..........,..................,
...............'....,....-.'.........,.,.,.,..........................................
..................... d..........d..........I..............
........ ... ..... ....
0" ... ..... ....
....... ... ...... ....
"" ".. .. ..... ....
......... ..- ...... ......
.... .." ..... ....
. ..... ....
d..................... .. ..... ....
.. . . ...
....'. . . ...
}."::.,, .... ... "" ,......... "",,;
.:.:.:.:.:.:.-.-:.:......... ._." ...... n.:
. .. ..... ....
..- ,.,......-....,............. ......
...'.'..............................................................
182
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Undertake a comprehensive benthic survey of Tampa Bay with the objective
of mapping the detailed distribution of natural hard-bottom communities,
including both oyster reefs and rocky outcrop live-bottoms. A small-scale
survey of hard-bottom communities has been completed, but a more detailed
investigation is needed. The survey would document the species composi-
tion and ecology of natural hard-bottom communities and compare them to
artificial reef communities. Volunteers could be enlisted to help identify and
map these areas.
Ensure the distribution of these maps to applicable regulatory agencies and
local governments so that these areas are recognized in permitting decisions.
Responsible parties: Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP) Marine Research Institute, Tampa BayWatch Bay Conservation
Corps, Florida Sea Grant Extension Program
STEP 2 Designate hard-bottom communities as part of the Special Management Area
for Tampa Bay, with special permitting criteria. [See Action BH-5]
Responsible parties: local governments
SCHEDULE:
Step 1 can be initiated in 1996 and completed in 1997. Step 2 can be accomplished in
1996, pending recommendation from the Agency on Bay Management regarding the
establishment of a Special Management Area for the protection of specific habitats.
COST:
The benthic survey could be conducted for approximately $50,000. Financing options
include Florida Seagrant, local governments and research funds available through
Florida Salt Water Fishing License revenues.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
More effective protection of natural hard-bottom communities in Tampa Bay.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
The bay monitoring program will include a hard-bottom mapping element, to be updat-
ed periodically (every five years).
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Amendments to chapters 17-312 and 40D-4, FAC. Passage of state laws designating
the tidal wetlands of Tampa Bay a "Special Management Area."
RELATED ACTIONS:
BH-1, BH-lO
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
Restrict Off-Road Vehicle Access Along Causeways
and Coastal Areas
ACTION:
Restrict off-road vehicle access in environmentally sensitive areas of causeways and
coastal areas.
BACKGROUND:
The sandy shoulders along the bay's causeways have become popular impromptu
recreation spots. On any weekend, the "beaches" along the Gandy and Courtney
Campbell causeways, the Pinellas Bayway and the approach to the Sunshine Skyway
Bridge are packed with cars, people, jet-powered personal watercraft and dogs.
Most of these makeshift beaches along the bay have no parking or sanitary facilities
and few restrictions on use. Vehicles travel up and down the beach, eroding it and pre-
venting emergent vegetation from growing along the shoreline. On the Gandy
Causeway, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) periodically dumps new
sand on the beach, but much of it is washed into the water by the constant traffic and
is forming a large sandbar just offshore.
At all the sites, vehicles have carved paths through mangroves in order to park right
on the edge of the bay. Mangroves also are "trimmed" by beachgoers for campfIres.
Lack of sewage and trash facilities pose aesthetic and water quality problems for the
bay, while the varied and often incompatible activities that occur there (i.e., personal
watercraft users sharing a relatively limited space with swimmers and anglers) often
present a safety concern.
No information exists on exactly how many people visit these areas, but observations
indicate that hundreds use these areas every weekend, especially during the spring and
summer.
Limiting vehicle access by creating designated parking areas on these beaches would
reduce erosion and impacts to mangroves, while still allowing people to enjoy the bay
shoreline. These parking areas could be created inexpensively by the use of natural
landscaped berms or bollards-sections of telephone poles buried in the ground at
widths too narrow for a vehicle to pass through. Beachgoers would park landward of
the bollards and then walk to the water.
If more control over these areas is desired, sanitary and trash facilities, security lights
and picnic facilities could be installed. Mangroves and marsh grass could be planted
to revegetate sections of the shoreline, and a small fIshing pier or boardwalk could
discourage foot traffic through these vegetated areas.
Limiting access to these areas will be the responsibility of whoever maintains the road
or causeway. In most cases, that will be either the FDOT or a county transportation
department. Enforcement would be provided by local law enforcement agencies.
iIJJI!I'lll,'lll;F~lf
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
..................."....",...
...............................""'.......--..
.........................."..........""",...
.............................."-,,,.,.._-.._- .
......................................."""..
............................."""""..--..
....................................
.......................-.............&.............................
.... ,".. ....." ......-....--
..... ." ..... ....",,-.
.... .... ..... "'.d....
..... . d .d.. . ..
.... . .. .. ........ .....................
..... .. d ...
.... .. .... ""d.....
......... .... ..........
::::::::: .'. :: -:-: : .' ':. :::::::::;:::;:;:.
.... ... ..... "".....
..... . ,. ....... ,,_.. ,
.... .... ..... .".....
..... ........ .". d."....................
...........,............
..................,............"",
183
1]~R',:f\f;"lt
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
'" ................-......"
......-,-.-..-...-.........................
....",.................,.................
....."..............................
....'....................,.................
.-.. ,-..............................
.........................-................
.."'" . '. ...... ....
..... ... ..... ...
.......... .. ,. ..... ...
.. .. ..... ...
" ,.. ....... n'
.. .. .... ....
" . ..... ....
.... ...... ....
::::::: .', : ',", : . '," ";::::
. .. ..... ...
"',' . ,. ...... '"'
i:c......,.....,.,........,.,.,.,.,...............,.,.,.i
184
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Identify areas along the bay shoreline where off-road vehicle access should
be controlled. Recommendations from the Agency on Bay Management
(ABM) should be submitted to the FDOT by the Tampa Bay Regional
Planning Council and respective local governments by September 1996.
Responsible parties: ABM, Tampa Bay Watch
STEP 2 Implement restrictions on designated causeways and Coastal roads. A pilot
project at a single site could be implemented first, to gauge public reaction
and effectiveness. Other sites could follow, drawing upon the lessons
learned at the test site. One site that might serve as a test area is located in
Tampa off Cypress Street, where Hillsborough County and the City of
Tampa are participating in a joint effort to clean up and restrict access to
that bayside beach.
Responsible parties: FDOT, local transportation departments in Manatee,
Pinellas and Hillsborough counties
STEP 3 Develop and implement a recreation plan for causeway beaches that
enhances the environmental integrity of the areas while still allowing pas-
sive recreation. The plans could include sanitary and trash facilities, board-
walks and habitat restoration components. This is an optional step that
depends heavily upon availability of local government funding, although
some components -such as shoreline cleanups and habitat restoration pro-
jects-could be accomplished with volunteer labor.
Responsible parties: local government parks and transportation depart-
ments, volunteer groups such as the Bay Area Environmental Action
Team and the Bay Conservation Corps of Tampa Bay Watch.
SCHEDULE:
STEP 1 can be accomplished in 1996, with Step 2, a pilot project, implemented in
1997. Other sites could follow in 1998, with a detailed causeway recreation plan
developed in future years as funding becomes available.
LOCATION:
Identified causeways and coastal areas throughout the bay and its tributaries.
COST:
Identification of areas in need of vehicle access restrictions can be accomplished at no
cost by the ABM and Tampa BayWatch. Implementation of the restrictions varies con-
siderably according to how extensive the measures are. The cost of installing bollards
in designated parking areas is approximately $32 per bollard. At least 20-30 bollards
would be needed at most sites, for a total cost of about $1,000 per site. Implementing
a full-scale recreational facility, with restrooms, picnic tables and other amenities
would cost a minimum of $100,000 per site, with annual operating expenses estimated
at as much as $80,000, based on two full-time staff people, one vehicle, regular trash
pickup and other services.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
AClIlI\I PLAN
Bay Habitats
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Controlling vehicle access will permit emergent vegetation to recolonize along now-
barren areas of the bay shoreline, improving fish and wildlife habitat, reducing erosion
and adding to the aesthetic appeal of the bay.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Any marsh or mangrove plantings conducted at the sites will be monitored by the
appropriate state or local agency.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
None anticipated. Enforcement of the vehicle access restrictions can be accomplished
under existing local ordinances.
RELATED ACTIONS:
BH-l
1!]I:ll;::iljl\I~:"lr
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.-......-...-.-.-.-.-.....'...'..-...-.......'...-.-.-'..
..........................................
.................................... """..............
.................. ....................
.....................................""...........'...
................". ......... ..... ....
.........-.......-..................&............
.... ... ...... .
..... .. .... .......... .....................................................
.... ...... ....
..... ." ...". ,..... ,.
.... . .. " ""." - ..............
..... .. ....
.... ,. "". ................
........ ... .. ....
::;:::::; .-. ;: .:-: : .' .:. ::::::::
.... ... ...., ".
..... ." H.... .."....
.... .... ...... ,
..... ......."."................
..................-......." "'"
..............,.......,.........-......
185
IJllAi. ~~
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
, ---- ".... --......_--.........
:.:::....-...-:.:.....,..'.'.'-'....,.;::.;.....,'........,..'......,.,..........................
............".........."..........................
. ",'" -.... ...... ..................
................................'.........................
......................... .........................1.............
. ..... ...
. ".-.... ... ..... ...
.. ..... ...
........... . ." .. ..... ....
.. ........ ...
',-,' '," ............
............................ .... ..... ... .Iii..................:
.. ."... .....
'" ....... ......
.. ...... .....
:-::-;::::;:.:.;.:.:.:.:.::;:;.:.:.:.:::::.:.;.;:;:;:;:::::;:;';'.'::;:::::::::
lBB
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
Require Mandatory Education for Recreational
Boaters
ACTION:
Improve boating safety, increase environmental awareness and reduce destruction of
bay habitats by supporting statewide legislation to require mandatory education of
boaters. (Note: Bill number will be inserted once established for 1996 legislative ses-
sion)
BACKGROUND:
During the 1996 legislative session, Florida will again consider legislation to require
boaters to complete an approved boating instruction course or pass a course equiva-
lency exam to operate vessels of 20 hp or more. The education requirements will be
phased in, with boaters bom after October 1980 subject to the course requirements
first. In the year 2000, the legislation will expand to cover boaters born after October
1975.
Under the proposal, affected boaters must have completed an education course before
operating a boat in state waters. Exemptions are provided for boats operating on pri-
vate (one-owner) lakes or ponds, or persons licensed by the Coast Guard. The bill
offers an equivalency exam for experienced boaters and a temporary certification for
boat renters.
A similar bill was tendered during the 1995 legislative session, but had no sponsors in
the House or Senate and failed to make it out of committee. However, the 1996 ver-
sion of the legislation has received sponsorship from Sen. Karen Johnson and Rep.
Emmett Kelly, and also is supported by the Marine Industry Association, the Personal
Watercraft Association and other marine businesses.
More than 700,000 recreational boats are registered in Florida, with about 100,000 of
those in the tri-county Tampa Bay region. Approximately 6,200 teenage Floridians
would be required to comply with the first phase of the mandatory education.
In 1994, there were 1,017 boating accidents and 74 boating fatalities in Florida. The
Florida Marine Patrol reports that most accidents involved 22- to 35-year-olds,
emphasizing the importance of legislation that eventually will require mandatory edu-
cation for that age group. In addition, the marine patrol reports that 73 percent of all
boat operators have no formal training in boating safety.
Increasing boating activity also has led to extensive damage and destruction of marine
habitats-and the deaths or injuries of manatees, sea turtles and other marine animals.
Studies by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) estimate that
more than one-third of the 25,000 acres of seagrasses in Tampa Bay are scarred as a
result of boats that carve through shallow grass flats or run aground and dredge their
way free. Additionally, between 1976 and 1992,22 manatee deaths in Tampa Bay
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PlAN
Bay Habitats
were attributed to collisions with boats. To protect the state's marine habitats and
inhabitants, the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (NEP) believes that environ-
mental impacts should be addressed in any boating education program approved by
the state.
The proposed legislation would immediately instruct an emerging group of Florida
boaters in basic boating skills, making them better equipped to navigate safely and
more responsibly in Florida waters. Just as important, it would-over time--ensure
that the age groups traditionally involved in the most boating accidents receive boat-
ing safety instruction before they take to the water. However, because of the age
thresholds included in the bill, the vast majority of the state's current boaters will be
exempt. At its best, only those born after 1975 will be subject to mandatory education.
Thus, it will be many years before a largely uneducated boating public is replaced by
a largely educated one.
Candidates would be able to choose from one of any number of courses approved by
the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators (which requires a mini-
mum eight hours of instruction) or pursue a home correspondence option with course-
equivalency exam. Those who pass the exam receive a lifetime certification, which
verifies that the operator has successful by completed basic boating safety instruction;
it is not a license. Certification cannot be revoked and does not require renewal.
However, failure to obtain the certification will be a second degree misdemeanor, pun-
ishable by a $250 fine or six months in jail.
Support for this initiative is widespread. Backers include the major marine industry
groups, a variety of state agencies and environmental groups and Mothers Against
Drunk Drivers. A public opinion poll conducted by the Tampa Bay NEP in 1992
showed that almost 90 percent of the Tampa Bay respondents-and approximately 75
percent from a boaters-only sample-favored mandatory boater education.
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Organize formal support for a mandatory boater education bill that requires
phased-in instruction for the majority of Florida boaters and includes envi-
ronmental education elements. Draft a letter of support from the Tampa
Bay NEP to the Tampa Bay legislative delegation, Governor and Cabinet
members, and key legislators chairing committees likely to review the bill,
with distribution to area press.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEP
Organize additional support for legislation through businesses, community
and environmental advocacy groups, and individuals represented on the
Tampa Bay NEP community advisory committee.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEP Community Advisory Committee,
Agency on Bay Management, Tampa Bay Watch
STEP 2 Ensure that approved courses include environmental awareness elements
such as potential impacts to seagrasses, manatees and sea turtles, and that
course instructors have adequate training and materials for such instruction.
This effort is being led by the Center for Marine Conservation in coopera-
[1![llll::i\~i'jl\:I;:'llf'
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.....---...------.....-.....--.-." , , , --
...................... ..............-_....
.............,............,....."
................,............................'............'C,',',',',','
.......... ......... .............
....................'.........."...",
........._.........11........ ......7;..................... .
....1./
187
iUllll'i~iF:I
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.---,,-.,---.-....-.......------_.---_.
..""".....................................
.........,................,...............
..."""...."............................
."...--....."'.................................
.",...."",....-.............................
.......B..................._.............
"..,. . ,. ..... ...
.--'...-....".,.,.,. ,,-- ..... ...
'" "...... ... ..... ...
........"... . -. "." ".
...... ". ...... ...
.'..'.'.'............... ..' ............
"' ........ ....
... '" .. ............
,". '. . ... .....
.!!'m
188
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
tion with the Coast Guard.
Responsible parties: FDEP, Center for Marine Conservation, Coast
Guard Auxiliary
SCHEDULE:
Step 1 will coincide with the 1996 state legislative session. Step 2 can be initiated in
1996 and continue through 1998, since Florida Marine Patrol staff estimates it will
take two years to establish approved boating safety courses in all 67 counties.
COST:
No costs are anticipated for Step 1 beyond staff time to prepare letters of support.
Step 2 will require FDEP administrative costs and costs for production of materials to
address environmental impacts from boating. Potential sources of funding for these
materials include boat registration fees and saltwater fishing license fees. Boaters will
likely pay a modest registration fee for the boating course to cover administrative
costs.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Trained and informed boat operators will result in fewer boating accidents and may
result in decreased impacts to shallow water habitats and marine animals.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
The FDEP's ongoing seagrass scarring studies and marine mammal monitoring pro-
grams will help determine if boater education is instrumental in reducing environmen-
tal impacts.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Legislative passage of [Bill name and number].
RELATED ACTIONS:
BH-3, FW-l, FW-2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
Encourage Waterfront Residents to Enhance
Shorelines and Limit Runoff from Yards
ACTION:
Encourage waterfront residents to enhance or naturalize shorelines and limit runoff
from yards.
BACKGROUND:
About half of Tampa Bay's natural shoreline has been altered by development or hard-
ened through the construction of seawalls, piers and jetties that limit plant and animal
life. These changes have led to significant declines in intertidal marsh and mangrove
habitat, which supply food and shelter to numerous species of fish, shellfish and
invertebrates.
This action presents steps to encourage waterfront residents to soften or enhance sea-
walls and shorelines with native vegetation, limestone rip-rap, terracing or habitat
reefs. When properly designed, these improvements not only benefit the environment,
but also can boost property values by improving shoreline stability and aesthetic
appeal. However, cost, permitting complexity, and lack of information about suitable
options are often key deterrents to homeowners, who also are limited by site-specific
considerations.
Local communities seeking to encourage waterfront residents to enhance shorelines
may gain the most by targeting larger, finger-fill communities, where group permits
are feasible, especially when seawalls are replaced or repaired.
Limiting pollution in runoff from waterfront yards also is encouraged. Residents can
help to reduce pollution to Tampa Bay by applying the eco-landscaping techniques
prescribed by the Florida Yards & Neighborhoods (FY &N) Program, which is admin-
istered by local cooperative extension services. A companion FY &N homeowner's
guide, which features low-maintenance landscape design and maintenance tips, is ide-
ally suited to the environmentally conscious waterfront resident. Adopt-A-Canal pro-
grams also may be effective in select areas in improving water and habitat quality in
canals through public stewardship and education. Another issue of concern to canal-
front residents is maintenance dredging, which is addressed as a separate action plan
(See Action DR-2).
STRATEGY:
The following strategy focuses on incentives and efforts to streamline procedures for
residential shoreline enhancement, as well as informational resources to assist water-
front residents in evaluating shoreline options and implementing landscaping practices
to reduce runoff from their yards.
STEP 1 Develop property tax incentives or dis-incentives to encourage habitat
enhancement along seawalls, and establish cost-share programs to promote
1'111::tli"if:I;[f::'I
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
...----.--.-............., -- ,-
............................,."....."
......................".......,.,','........
................."........."...........
........................, ...... "
................. ,........................
........................... ......... .......
........._. ........11. ..........8....
.... .... .....,. ....
..... ... ..... ,...
.... ,'.. ...... ..................
..... .......
.... . .. .. ..." , ..........
..... .. .......... .""""
......... ... .... ..... ............ ....i
.... ... .. ....."".
..... ." ......, "
.....................................................::::
lG9
(I~RA
:~
.~:
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
..-.........................'....-.....-.'...........'..............-.-.....-.-.-..
.. "...., ..........................
.........................-.........................
... .. "...............................
IIII
170
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
group-permit shoreline enhancement projects.
Responsible parties: local governments, Southwest Florida Water
Management District (SWFWMD), in cooperation with Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Beaches and Shores
Division
STEP 2 Initiate rule-making to develop a low-fee or cost-free General Permit that
streamlines application process for group and individual shoreline enhance-
ment.
Responsible parties: SWFWMD, FDEP, local governments
STEP 3 Amend state rules to require that habitat enhancement features be incorpo-
rated when seawalls are constructed or repaired.
Responsible parties: FDEP
STEP 4 Develop and distribute a resource card (#lO-envelope size) to waterfront
residents through annual property tax notices to promote available
resources and publications addressing shoreline enhancement, waterfront
landscaping, exotic plant control and canal dredging. Publications noted
below should be featured, as well as brochures on exotic species control
and residential canal dredging. The resource card also should reference
local property tax incentives and cost-share programs available for group
shoreline enhancement projects.
Responsible parties: local governments and the Tampa Bay National
Estuary Program (NEP) (production), Tax Assessors Offices (distribu-
tion), also distribute through Tampa BayWatch, Agency of Bay
Management (ABM)
4.1 SWFWMD's 1993 report on Best Management Practices for Improvement
of Residential Canals includes informative boilerplate text for a public
brochure on enhancement of hardened shorelines. Text should be expanded
to provide more detail on general shoreline design options, associated
costs, and appropriate contacts, and then produced as a brochure for public
distribution.
Responsible parties: SWFWMD (brochure), SWFWMD and local gov-
ernments (distribution), Florida Sea Grant Extension Program
4.2 The FY &N Handbook, produced by the Florida Cooperative Extension
Service and the National Estuary Programs of Tampa Bay and Sarasota
Bay, assists residents in designing and maintaining low-maintenance, envi-
ronmentally beneficial Florida Yards, which minimize fertilizer, pesticide
and water use. Special sections are devoted to waterfront landscaping,
shoreline enhancement, and septic tank maintenance. Local governments
may arrange for reprints of this publication through FCES or refer inquiries
to local cooperative extension services.
Responsible parties: local governments, Florida Cooperative Extension
Service
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
AcnON PLAN
Bay Habitats
STEP 5 Explore the costs and benefits of implementing Adopt-A-Canal programs in
areas with strong neighborhood associations. Include existing materials as
core of a curriculum, but also promote proper boat maintenance and oil-
sorb products for boat bilges. Encourage backyard maintenance-free (or
low-maintenance) buffer zones to limit fertilizer and pesticides in direct
runoff.
Responsible parties: local governments, Florida Seagrant (Marine
Extension agents)
SCHEDULE:
All projects can be initiated in 1996 for implementation in 1997. Incentives and cost-
share options will be investigated by the Tampa Bay NEP, which also will develop
boilerplate design and text for the resource card (Step 4) to provide to local govern-
ments. These elements will be included in the final version of the plan.
COST:
The Program is investigating costs to produce: 1. Resource card-lOOK quantity, #10
envelope-size color cardstock, printed 2 sidesll color; 2. Brochure on shoreline
options, 25K quantity, first run. Reprint costs for the FY &N handbook are $1 per
book. Local governments can achieve cost-recovery by providing these materials at
cost of production as an alternative to free distribution.
Tax incentives and cost-share programs may be pursued through existing ad valorem
taxes and river basin boards.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Improved shoreline habitat and water quality and associated increases in fisheries.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Existing bay monitoring programs will track trends in water quality and habitats.
Environmental response also may be assessed by monitoring group permits for shore-
line enhancement.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Possible amendments to Florida Administrative Code, Chapters 40D-4, 17-4, 17-312.
RELATED ACTIONS:
SW-1, DR-2, BH-1
lii]iill::I.,:'(t~liF"ll"
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
... ......................."..."
.-....-.-...........................".,.....,
..................................."",..
....................................."....
............. .........., .......""...
.................................",......,
11.....11.11..............
.............",....................
........................."."""".
171
Z%Rlf,:l"
W.HL1x! ;li.l @
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
"""". ",......-.--------------....
,..........,,-........-,,-,,....................-.
.."",.".....,...............................
......,..................................
"""...",-.,...........................
1111111
172
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
Improve Compliance with and Enforcement of
Wetland Permits
ACTION:
Improve compliance with and enforcement of permits governing wetland mitigation
by establishing level-of-service targets, providing periodic performance assessments,
and continuing efforts to coordinate permitting and enforcement staff to provide
greater continuity in oversight.
BACKGROUND:
State rules regarding mitigation for wetland impacts have been developed to offset
wetland losses. However, a study of mitigation compliance completed by the Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation (now FDEP) in 1992 concluded that the
majority of mitigation projects had either never been constructed or failed to comply
with the terms of their permit and did not function properly. The generally low suc-
cess rate statewide has been largely attributed to staffing shortfalls and organizational
structures that have traditionally segmented rather than integrated permitting, compli-
ance monitoring and enforcement functions. Without strong compliance monitoring
and enforcement, regulated interests often have little incentive to perform compen-
satory mitigation in a manner consistent with the rules.
Wetland mitigation rules are administered by the FDEP (through the agency's wetland
resource permitting program), SWFWMD (through the Management and Storage of
Surface Waters [MSSW] program), and by local governments with delegated or leg-
islative authority for wetland permitting. *
Non-compliance with wetland mitigation permits in the Tampa Bay watershed has
likely contributed to a net loss of both freshwater and tidal wetlands. However, docu-
menting these trends has been extremely difficult because efforts to track compliance
between and within various regulatory agencies has been inconsistent and lacking in
sufficient detail. Inconsistent mitigation ratios, wetland delineation criteria, and
design and performance standards have further complicated efforts to assess results.
Improving permit compliance will require that agencies focus first on recognizing and
permitting effective mitigation designs, as well as increasing inspections during and
after construction, and following up to promote better project maintenance by regulat-
ed interests. Access to mitigation sites also is a factor. In this regard, locally adminis-
tered programs may have an advantage over state or regional programs.
The state's new Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP) program, which consoli-
dates existing Wetland Resource, MSSW, and Sovereign Lands regulatory programs
into a single permitting function, is expected to improve compliance monitoring and
enforcement by increasing interagency coordination and reducing inconsistencies and
duplication. Implementation of the ERP will create key opportunities for the consoli-
* Pinellas County has been delegated authority from SWFWMD to administer its own wetland and
stormwater permits. The Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County (EPCHC) has
received legislative authority from the state for local permitting.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
STEP 4 Based on recommendations from Step 1, standardize mitigation success cri-
teria as well as monitoring and reporting requirements for created and
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
dation and reorganization of these functions within regulatory agencies and participat-
ing local governments, and the creation of uniform standards for wetland delineation.
STRATEGY:
The strategy to improve wetland permit compliance monitoring and enforcement
focuses on establishing level-of-service targets, continued implementation and period-
ic assessment of integrated permitting concepts advanced through the ERP program,
and evaluation of existing staffing and funding resources and needs as the basis for
recommendations for action. This strategy also calls for standardization of monitoring
and reporting requirements within and between enforcing agencies and municipalities.
STEP 1 Conduct a workshop to establish level-of-service targets for wetland per-
mits (performance criteria and monitoring requirements) and compliance
monitoring and enforcement within the Tampa Bay watershed, and assess
associated staff and funding needs. Participants also should evaluate ways
to standardize reporting and monitoring methods between and within agen-
CIes.
Recommendations. of actions to improve compliance monitoring and
enforcement shall be submitted by the group to the Tampa Bay NEP by
March 1997. As a first step, participants are called upon to define steps
and issues to be addressed in the workshop and make recommendations by
May 1996, for incorporation into the final Comprehensive Conservation
Management Plan (CCMP) for Tampa Bay.
Responsible parties: FDEP and SWFWMD (to organize workshop): par-
ticipants to include u.s. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), EPCHC,
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), Florida Game and Fresh Water
Fish Commission (FGFWFC), Pinellas County, and other local govern-
ments that may be seeking delegated authority for wetland permitting
Note: See Action SW-7 addressing stormwater compliance monitoring and
enforcement. Strategy elements for assessment of stormwater and wetland
compliance monitoring/enforcement needs may be combined.
STEP 2 Expand agency and local government permitting staff training and regular
retraining to increase the emphasis on recognizing quality wetland mitiga-
tion designs as a first step to ensure that quality projects are permitted.
Responsible parties: SWFWMD and FDEP, USACE, EPCHC, USFWS,
FGFWFC, Pinellas County
STEP 3 Continue to integrate permitting and compliance monitoring and enforce-
ment functions in an effort to maximize efficiency and provide "cradle to
grave" permit oversight. Also, encourage interagency compliance monitor-
ing teams where feasible, including federal agencies.
Responsible parties: FDEP, SWFWMD, EPCHC, USFWS, FGFWFC,
applicable local governments
1]llll'liiI1!I\f:"11"
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.'......-............-.-...'..-.-.-.-.-.'.'.'.-.-.'.-..',,-.-.
........................."..............
................................ ',....
...................",................
.......................................................
................... ....................
....................................9... .
.... .. ". ...... '.........
..... .. .... -... ............
.... .... ..... '......
..... ... ..... .. ..........................
.... . .. .. ....
..... .. ....... ....
.... .. ......
........... ....... ..................
;:;:;:;:: .'. ;: .:< : ...>-.. ....::.::.::.::.::::.::
.... ... ..... .. .
..... ... ..... ....
.... ...... .... ......... .................\
..... .........
............................"""". ...
.,.........,..........................
173
IIRif'FI
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
"-..,,,......_--...,---.........
..........................................
..........' - ............................
..............,...................
,.,',.......,",......,.........................
.....--....-...-.."..........."................
'" "'......"""....".--.......................
.....,....---- -.... ..... .....
",,' ..".." ,.. ,..... ....
............................................... .".. ..... ...
.. ..... ....
. ".... ...
" -, , . ,.... . ...
... ,. ........
... ... ..... .....
.....(lIlIml?
174
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
restored wetlands.
Responsible parties: FDEP, SWFWMD, EPCHC, USFWS, FGFWFC,
applicable local governments
STEP 5 Assess the effectiveness of efforts to improve compliance monitoring and
enforcement in the Tampa Bay watershed, including progress toward level-
of-service targets (particularly compliance rates), results of integrating staff
to assist in these efforts, and associated costs to agencies and applicants.
Results of the assessment should be reported in the Agency on Bay
Management's State of the Bay report and in periodic progress reports
tracking implementation of the CCMP.
Responsible parties: FDEP, SWFWMD, EPCHC, USFWS, FGFWFC,
applicable local governments
SCHEDULE:
A preliminary "scope" for the workshop is requested by February 1996, for incorpora-
tion into the final CCMP. Recommendations from the workshop are due March 1997.
Implementation of Steps 3 and 4 can begin in 1997.
COST:
Only staff time is anticipated in the implementation of this strategy, although recom-
mendations from step 1 may call for additional resources or changes in existing allo-
cations.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Improved permit compliance monitoring, enforcement and reporting.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
See Step 5.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Possible amendments to procedural and administrative rules of the Florida
Administrative Code, Chapter 40D-4.
RELATED ACTIONS:
SW-7
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
Expand Habitat Mapping and Monitoring
Programs
ACTION:
Ensure implementation of adequate habitat mapping and monitoring programs to track
trends in areal extent and quality of seagrass, mangroves, coastal marshes and oligo-
haline habitats in Tampa Bay over time.
BACKGROUND:
A critical element of the bay's management plan is the establishment and maintenance
of a monitoring program to measure progress toward meeting the goals of the Tampa
Bay National Estuary Program (NEP). This is very important to the local and state
governments implementing actions, since counties, cities and state agencies must have
adequate information to evaluate whether efforts spent on pollution abatement or other
changes in the watershed are reflected in improvements in bay quality. Monitoring of
habitats is also necessary to track progress toward reaching long-term restoration and
protection goals set by the program, and provide essential information that can be
used to redirect and refocus the plan.
One of the first efforts of the Tampa Bay NEP was to initiate a multi-year effort to
develop a baywide monitoring program capable of reliably measuring changes in bay
quality. This plan incorporates and expands on existing programs where possible, and
consists of seven major elements: water quality, benthic, seagrass, bay scallop, fish-
eries, coastal marshes and mangroves, and oligohaline habitats.
This action ensures implementation of habitat monitoring elements defined in the bay-
wide monitoring plan.
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Continue existing Southwest Florida Water Management District-Surface
Water Improvement and Management (SWFWMD-SWIM) monitoring pro-
gram mapping areal extent of seagrass in Tampa Bay, to track trends in
areal extent and progress toward restoration goal.
The extent of seagrass coverage in all areas of Tampa Bay is currently
being monitored by SWFWMD-SWIM every two years. To date, no per-
manent funding source for the mapping program has been identified.
Responsible parties: SWFWMD
STEP 2 Implement the Seagrass Conditions Monitoring Program as developed by
the Tampa Bay NEP Technical Advisory Committee. Hillsborough County
monitors seagrass conditions in Cockroach Bay, and Pinellas County con-
ducts seagrass monitoring in Fort DeSoto Park.
SWFWMD-SWIM is conducting the first year of the Seagrass Conditions
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.........-----.......---."'.'" ""'"
........................................................
........................... , , , ..
.........................................................
....................... .... '" .."..
.......................,"..........................................
............ ............. . .
........_..........11...................1.........0.... ...
...... ........................................ ..................................
..... ... ....... .
.... --.. .... '"
..... '.. ......... ., -,
.... . --.. .. '" , ,..
..... '.' ....... ....
.... - ....
......... .... ........ ... ....
..... . . .., "..
.... '. .
i}t ......:.:.:.. .J...:Y... ;.;.;. (ii... >:. ',' :'i';::::
175
[IRA
:~~
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
--. "..'.'.'.............,..-..,......'.....-..,....................................-.-.
"-,-".,-.'..--.. .......,... .................
, ,,,..,.............,..............................
<11111
178
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
Monitoring Program throughout the bay as a pilot project. Potential respon-
sible entities for conducting quarterly seagrass conditions monitoring in
upcoming years remain to be identified. The City of Tampa conducts sea-
grass quality monitoring in Hillsborough Bay.
Responsible parties: SWFWMD, Florida Department of Environmental
Protection-Florida Marine Research Institute (FDEP/FMRI)
STEP 3 Continue existing annual benthic monitoring through 1996. Evaluate
results of the four-year baseline in 1997 and redirect the program as appro-
priate.
Responsible parties: Hillsborough, Pinellas and Manatee counties
STEP 4 Develop and implement a monitoring program to track habitat quantity and
quality in mangroves, coastal marshes, oligohaline habitats and associated
uplands.
Development of these elements of the habitat monitoring program will be
initiated as part of the habitat restoration and protection master plan. This
plan will identify responsible entities for implementation.
Responsible parties: to be determined. Responsible parties may include
SWFWMD, FDEP, local governments
STEP 5 Report results and integration of environmental monitoring programs to
bay managers on a regular basis, to allow for redirection and refocus of
management programs as necessary.
A template Biannual Environmental Monitoring Report (BEMR) is under
development. Each ongoing monitoring program is responsible for the
development of a summary chapter in the BEMR. An integral element of
the report will be the bay managers' summary, which will contain an inte-
grated analysis of conditions and trends in Tampa Bay. Areas of the bay
that show signs of degradation or improvement will be noted in the bay
managers' summary, to allow for changes in management actions as war-
ranted.
Responsible parties: initial effort part of a 1995 Tampa Bay NEP project.
The long-term coordinator for production of the report has not yet been
determined.
SCHEDULE:
Steps 1 and 3 are ongoing. Implementation of Step 4 should begin in 1996. The first
biannual monitoring report will be produced in October 1995 as part of an ongoing
Tampa Bay NEP project.
COST:
Seagrass mapping: $40,000 every two years for update
Seagrass quality: $36,000 every two years
Estimated marsh/mangrove/coastal upland mapping: $120,000 for true color and color
infrared baseline maps; $45,000 every two years for update
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
Benthic monitoring: $150,000 annually ($50k per county)
Estimated marsh/mangrove/coastal upland quality: $40,000 every two years
BEMR: Production, printing and distribution costs every two years, estimated at
$10,000.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Implementation will provide adequate information to track trends in habitat extent and
quality, and will provide managers with an "early warning system" to detect areas that
may need additional management action.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Results of all bay monitoring programs will be included in the BEMR.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
None anticipated
RELATED ACTIONS:
BH-l, BH-2, BH-5,
1111 rfl;:"'i\II;;~.lf
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.-.-.-....,..........-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.'...'.'.'...'...'"""".""
..........................."..",...................
................. ............" . ",...
..............................".""................
................. ..........", " .
11~lli
171
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1:"i w:::~ & l'r"'~":!:"
~tt~tftii~~r~: ~t
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
178
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION TO ADDRESS FRESHWATER INFLOW
PI-I Establish and maintain minimum seasonal freshwater flows downstream of
dams.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
FRESHWATER INFLow
Maintaining an adequate supply of fresh water to Tampa Bay and its tributaries is cru-
cial to preserving the bay's health. This is especially important for rivers impounded
by dams that drastically restrict those flows at certain times of the year.
The bay's four major rivers and numerous smaller tributaries provide critical low-
salinity habitats to dozens of species of fish and shellfish at important stages in their
development. They are the primary nursery habitat for red drum, snook and striped
mullet. While these dynamic habitats tend to be small, they may support thousands of
juvenile fish each year. As these fish mature, they typically move to more saline areas
of the bay or out into the Gulf of Mexico, although some species return to these rivers
during various seasons.
These vital ecosystems have declined as dams and development have altered the
amount and timing of freshwater inflows to the bay. Additionally, many smaller creeks
and streams that once served as nurseries to fish have now been channeled, filled or
altered through development.
The area's largest dams, on the Hillsborough and Manatee Rivers, release almost no
water downstream during peak periods of the dry season; annually, they retain about
35 percent and 29 percent of their respective up-river flows for drinking, irrigation,
and industrial uses.
Recent studies show little overall change in the amount of freshwater entering the bay
proper since the 1950s, because declines in natural flows have been partially coun-
tered by steady increases in stormwater runoff from the watershed. But some signifi-
cant changes have occurred upstream in the low-salinity zones favored by the young
of many of the bay's most popular fish. Declines here and associated declines in fish-
eries make preservation and restoration of remaining low-salinity habitats vital.
Strategies to preserve and restore Tampa Bay's freshwater tidal streams are addressed
in the Tampa Bay NEP's master plan for habitat restoration, which will be finalized in
early 1996 (see BH-l). The following action focuses on establishing seasonal freshwa-
ter inflows to the bay from rivers impounded by dams.
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
· Maintain optimal freshwater inflows to Tampa Bay and its tributaries.
· Establish and maintain minimum seasonal freshwater inflows for rivers
impounded by dams: Hillsborough River, Manatee River, Braden River and
Palm River.
II[JIII;111111Ili~t~;"lr
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
179
~t~f::.~: -m~j: ~~~r~:
.....,....~~* ;:::.....;:::;::0..: ,:=;:,
lin~l; :i.i41Mf m
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
180
ACTION PLAN
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Bay Habitats
Establish and Maintain Minimum Seasonal
Freshwater Flows Downstream of Dams
ACTION:
While safeguarding water supply and flood control functions, establish and maintain
minimum seasonal freshwater inflows downstream of dams on the Hillsborough,
Manatee and Braden rivers, and below Control Structure S-160 on the Palm River, to
restore and preserve the biological productivity of the estuary's critical juvenile fish-
eries habitats.
BACKGROUND:
Estuaries, where fresh water and salt water mix, are highly productive natural habitats
for fish and other marine life. The juveniles of many aquatic species, including spot-
ted seatrout, snook, red drum and tarpon, depend on the low- and medium-salinity
portions of these shallow waters, especially in the tidal sections of rivers and streams.
However, the productivity of these habitats as nurseries and feeding areas depends
largely on maintaining an adequate supply of freshwater from upstream at various
times of the year.
In this region, fresh water from reservoirs and ground water supply potable water for
drinking, irrigation and industrial uses. Demand for fresh water in the tri-county area
is expected to increase from 544 million gallons per day (mgd) in 1990 to 765 mgd in
2020, according to the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD).
Florida Statutes Section 373.042 (1991) directs the state's water management districts
to establish "minimum flows" for watercourses and "minimum levels" for surface
waters and aquifers. Minimum flows are defined in the statute as the limits at which
further withdrawals would be "significantly harmful to the water resources or ecology
of the area." Additionally, district Water Management Plans (DWMPs) identify strate-
gies to address ecosystem needs, including schedules for establishing minimum flows
and levels [Chapter 62-40.473, FAC].
Minimum flows based on river ecology have not yet been set for the Hillsborough,
Palm and Braden rivers. A preliminary minimum flow of 0.425 cubic feet per second
(roughly 275,000 gallons per day), which is the estimated leakage from the dam, was
set for the Manatee River in 1991; the flow's adequacy is now being examined by
SWFWMD in cooperation with Manatee County.
Minimal flows were not required when control structures were constructed on the
Hillsborough, Palm, Braden and Manatee rivers (all before 1972). Nevertheless, a
series of ongoing and recently completed studies should provide SWFWMD with suf-
ficient information to set thresholds for each river to protect the productivity of the
river and the bay downstream.
A minimum flow is not planned for the Alafia River because the SWFWMD Needs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
and Sources Study concluded that water supplies were not needed from the Alafia for
the 1990-2020 planning horizon.
Other studies on the Braden, Hillsborough, Manatee and Little Manatee rivers, and the
Tampa Bypass Canal, have addressed various aspects of river flow and ecology.
Evaluation of these studies will provide information necessary to set minimum flow
requirements.
STRATEGY:
This action is to evaluate and set minimum seasonal freshwater inflows to Tampa Bay
to protect the ecological integrity of vital downstream fisheries habitats.
STEP 1 Conduct technical workshops for each impounded river to evaluate results
of freshwater studies and develop recommendations for minimum freshwa-
ter flow requirements.
Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (NEP)-sponsored workshops are
ongoing and include analysis of technical studies, discussions of alterna-
tives, and efforts to gain commitments from participants for consensus rec-
ommendations. An initial workshop on the Manatee River was held in
August 1995. Workshop participants include representatives of local gov-
emments, SWFWMD, Florida Department of Environmental Protection,
scientists and engineers, utilities and interest groups.
In assessing available studies, participants will consider:
· whether flows to the downstream portions of impounded rivers have
been quantified
· whether sufficient information exists to identify a set of target "liv-
ing resources" and their environmental requirements as a basis for
establishing minimum flow recommendations
· if appropriate flows to restore and maintain low-salinity habitats can
actually be determined from the studies
· the impacts of various flow release scenarios on public water sup-
plies and economic development.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEP
STEP 2 Establish seasonal flow requirements by renewal dates for water use per-
mits for the Hillsborough, Palm, Manatee and Braden rivers, incorporating
recommendations from Step 1, along with other socio-economic and envi-
ronmental factors.
Responsible parties: SWFWMD
STEP 3 Implement minimum seasonal flows. Implementing parties may evaluate
and pursue various options to meet minimum flow requirements, including
water conservation to reduce demand on impounded water; augmentation
of wellfields or reservoirs with highly treated wastewater or stormwater, as
long as public health concerns are addressed; and relocating point source
It:]lltlll,rj.I1IF"!'"
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
181
i:::::t.~,::=t"*. ::::::::
'[ '<\''4.,,;$'',
)j""IDm @Jil
~::::
~i~!
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
182
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
discharges to augment freshwater flows downstream of dams.
Responsible parties: local governments, West Coast Regional Water
Supply Authority (WCRWSA)
STEP 4 Monitor the environmental response. Develop and implement a program to
determine spatial and temporal changes in water quality and in-stream biol-
ogy in response to these limits, perhaps by expanding local government
water quality and benthic monitoring programs to address these monitoring
needs.
Responsible parties: to-be-determined (possibly permit applicant)
SCHEDULE:
Ecological assessment studies are now being conducted as a permit condition for
water use withdrawals. SWFWMD will evaluate withdrawal rates and recommended
minimum flows for each river by the permit renewal dates, which are:
Manatee River & Braden River
Hillsborough River & Palm River
1997
2000 (flows will be set in 1995-96)
COST:
Steps 1 and 2 require administrative and staff time and associated studies, which are
financed by the local governments seeking permits for water withdrawals. Costs to
comply with seasonal minimum flows (Step 3) will depend on the magnitude of the
effort. One basis for cost analysis is to compute the cost and yield for various alterna-
tive sources of water, such as construction of a new reservoir, to replace the amount of
additional water released downstream.
For example, Manatee County residents now pay about $1.62 per 1,000 gallons to
have water delivered to their homes, which includes reservoir and treatment costs and
a Readiness to Serve charge. To meet a 5.0 cfs freshwater flow (up from .0425) from
the existing dam would require new alternative potable water sources, ranging from
$.08 per 1,000 gallons for construction of a new reservoir at Gilley Creek to nearly
$.80 per 1,000 gallons for development of an off-stream reservoir. Both options
would increase potable yields, in addition to allowing more water over the dam to sus-
tain the biological needs of downstream ecosystems.
For the average Manatee County household, which uses roughly 6,500 gallons per
month indoors, the Gilley Creek option would increase monthly water bills by about
4.9 percent or $0.52 per month. For the off-stream reservoir option, monthly water
bills would rise 49 percent or an additional $5.14 per month.
The costs to monitor the environmental response to minimum flows have not yet been
finalized. However, Manatee County estimates that it spends about $100,000 now to
monitor water quality downstream of the reservoir, which is about half of the county's
annual bay monitoring expenditure.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Establishing and maintaining appropriate freshwater inflows to the bay from rivers
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
impounded by dams will restore and protect vital fisheries habitat downstream of
those control structures. Low-salinity portions of these tributaries are vital nursery
areas for several species of fish, including red drum and snook.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Ongoing fisheries, water quality and benthic monitoring programs (summarized in
Monitoring Bay Improvement) are used to track the overall environmental quality of
the bay and its tributaries. Water flows or release rates are recorded by Manatee
County at the Lake Manatee dam on the Manatee River, and by the City of Bradenton
at the Evers Reservoir dam on the Braden River. SWFWMD records flow at the
Tampa Bypass Canal (Palm River), and USGS records flow at the Hillsborough
Reservoir dam.
Monitoring to detect environmental responses to new freshwater inflows set as a result
of this action may be required as a condition for the renewal of water use permits.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
None anticipated.
RELATED ACTIONS:
BH-l, WW-l
11'1!11:1Ii,"11::::I
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
183
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
184
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Fish & Wildlife
Fish & Wildlife
Efforts by the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (NEP) to protect and
enhance Tampa Bay's diverse fish and wildlife resources focus primarily on
establishing healthy environments through improvements in water quality and
habitats. But increased enforcement of existing regulations to limit physical impacts
associated with fishing, boating, and foot traffic in bird rookery areas also is a priority.
Hundreds of species of marine and terrestrial animals rely on Tampa Bay and the rich
tapestry of environments it provides. Mangrove islands in Tampa Bay are among the
most productive nesting sites in the nation for birds such as the brown pelican, roseate
spoonbill, white ibis and reddish egret. As many as 40,000 pairs of birds nest each
year on these islands, which support two of the state's five largest brown pelican
colonies. Other birds, such as the American white pelican from Canada and several
species of the sandpiper, are seasonal visitors to the bay.
Tampa Bay also attracts as many as 200 endangered manatees during the winter
months, when the gentle marine mammals gather at the warm-water plumes dis-
charged by the power plants bordering the bay. About 50-100 of these gentle giants
are year-round residents. Manatee mortality has tripled in Tampa Bay from an annual
average of about 4 (from 1976-1985) to more than 12 (from 1990-1994). Boating col-
lisions and propeller strikes claimed about 20 percent of the 61 manatees that died in
the bay during this last four-year period.
Three species of sea turtles-loggerhead, green and Kemp's ridley-feed in the bay,
and as many as 500 bottle-nose dolphins reside here year-round. Like the manatee,
these larger marine creatures are threatened by accidental boat strikes and ingestion of
and entanglement by marine debris, particularly monofilament fishing line.
The bay's once plentiful supplies of fish and shellfish have declined in recent decades,
a result of habitat loss and historic declines in water quality as well as pressures from
overharvesting. Recent bans on purse seines and gill nets are expected to sharply
reduce commercial harvesting of some species, such as spotted seatrout. While a pre-
cise figure of the historical decline is difficult to estimate, fisheries scientists report
that the amount of bay finfish brought to market at local ports in Hillsborough and
Pinellas counties decreased by more than 24 percent between 1966 and 1990, from 4.8
million pounds to 3.7 million pounds.
Records going back even further, to 1950, show that catches of spotted sea trout
declined by 86 percent by 1990, from 487,000 pounds to 67,000 pounds. Similarly,
red drum harvests between 1950 and 1986 plummeted by 81 percent, from 80,000
pounds to 15,000 pounds, although these raw landings data do not reflect changes in
111]111Itll\.,11~I;fll:':';"'lr
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
185
.,,'~~ ~',il
*'N*-#i€i
fJl[ftNi~
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
18B
ACTION PLAN
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Bay Fish & Wildlife
fishery management or quotas. Loss of seagrass habitat and overharvesting are sus-
pected in the decline of these popular sportfish.
Recent water quality gains and associated seagrass recovery have made some bay
managers hopeful that the bay may again support scallops, which disappeared from
these waters more than three decades ago. While scientists can't pinpoint the cause
for the collapse of the local population, they suspect declining water quality was to
blame. Stocking efforts designed to jump-start a self-sustaining scallop population are
now underway, primarily in the lower portions of the bay where seagrasses and salini-
ties are most favorable.
Harvests of oysters and clams have been severely limited in the bay because of actual
or suspected contamination (see Public Health actions, Water & Sediment Quality
Action Plan).
Preserving Tampa Bay's rich fish and wildlife bounty will require continued focus on
water and sediment quality, improved enforcement to minimize impacts to habitats
and wildlife, and restoration and protection of habitats and food sources.
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
· Increase the number, diversity and health of the bay's fish and shellfish popula-
tions, and restore a self-sustaining bay scallop population.
· Restore and protect wildlife habitats and food sources, and promote regional
wildlife habitat planning.
· Minimize physical impacts to bay wildlife and habitats.
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS FOR FISH & WILDLIFE
[Reader note: Many of the strategies to support fisheries and wildlife focus on water
quality and bay habitats. Please refer to the draft bay action plans addressing Water
Quality and Bay Habitats for these related actions.]
FW-l
Improve on-water enforcement of environmental regulations.
FW-2
Establish and enforce manatee protection zones.
FW-3
Support restoration of the bay scallop.
FW-4
Improve public awareness of hazards to bay wildlife.
FW-5
Assess the need to investigate the cumulative impacts of power plant
entrainment on bay fisheries.
FW-6
Continue and expand the Critical Fisheries Monitoring Program.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
AcnON PLAN
Bay Fish & Wildlife
Increase Enforcement of Environmental
Regulations on the Bay
ACTION:
Increase enforcement of environmental regulations on Tampa Bay by obtaining sup-
port for increased allocation of Salt Water Fishing License revenues to marine law
enforcement.
BACKGROUND:
Efforts by the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (NEP) to protect Tampa Bay's
diverse fish and wildlife resources have focused largely on establishing optimum
water quality and habitat environments. But increased enforcement of existing envi-
ronmental regulations to minimize impacts associated with fishing, boating and foot
traffic in bird rookeries, is also a key priority of the Program's strategic blueprint for
the bay.
When the Salt Water Fishing License Rule was enacted by the state in 1989, anglers
and local communities alike expected it to be a boon for local marine enforcement.
The rule was established to identify and collect a user fee from saltwater anglers for
the conservation and management of fishery resources. It stipulates that marine
research and marine enhancement/habitat restoration shall each receive not less
than 30 percent of the revenues collected, and that no more than 30 percent be allocat-
ed for marine law enforcement. Remaining revenues are split among the Marine
Fisheries Commission (2.5 percent), administration (5 percent), and a state environ-
mental education trust fund (2.5 percent).
In fact, statewide allocations for marine enforcement have averaged about 20 percent
over the past five years, which is two-thirds of the 30 percent maximum allowed by
law and anticipated by many supporters of the bill. Despite allocations statewide, five
fewer marine patrol officers are assigned to the Tampa Bay district today than when
the Rule was enacted in 1989.
Overall, the state has collected more than $68 million since the Salt Water Fishing
License Rule was enacted. Of $11.8 million in revenues collected from salt water
fishing licenses and special stamps statewide in FY 93-94, about 17 percent or $2.3
million was allocated by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)
to the Florida Marine Patrol for statewide law enforcement. It is not known how
much of that allocation came back to the Tampa Bay region (District IV, Florida
Marine Patrol *), which contributed more than $1.4 million in revenues that year.
District IV's budget has increased by only about 5 to 10 percent annually since the
passage of the Rule, mostly to compensate for increasing fuel prices, and declined in
FY 94-95. Requests for additional Marine Patrol officers have not been granted.
Some suspect that general revenues for the Florida Marine Patrol have been depleted
as salt water fishing license revenues have been established - a "lottery syndrome"
11!]llll::'I!. ,~:::I\ rl::::~.1""
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.-.-............-.-........'......,-,-.-....'.'.'...'..,',-,-,.-.."
........................... .......,. ,._,....,
....................................,......'..'.'.'.....'.......'.'.'......,......................
......................... ....", .....
.......................................... ...,,-..
..................-......................................................
.... ... ......." "..............................
..... .. ..... . ..... .
.... . ....... ,......"
..... . . ...... """"""','
......... .'...... . . ....,.,.,. ,.........,.,.,.....,..'..
..... ...... ...........
....... ...." "".".......
.... .. . ... ..."......
Lm.i
187
Dlir;A\fI
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
, ..'.',-...;.'-:.',..-.....-.-.........'.......-.....-.-.-.-...............
:::-..:.:,.,.,.,.,......,.,.....'.'..................'.'........,.......................,
. ........"... ,...........,.................
.....................................................
......................................................
-""" '" ." ....... .....
.,.,.,.........,. .. ....... ......
..........'-'-'.-....'.... .. . . ....... .......
""",. ,., ..... ....
......"..."". ,.... ,..... ......
,.."...... ...... .....
....... ....... .......... .........
',',"""""" ,. .. ,.. .....
:::::::::::.::.::::.:-: :-:-:.;:::. .. .::, ,,:::::: .:::::::::
..".... ", ,",','" ........ .....
::. ..'."<...:....,.,.,-..:,..<::;::.......::........:::::::::::::::::.......::::::)
188
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Fish & Wildlife
that results in few or no net increases in available funding to address resource needs.
The Florida Marine Patrol, a part of the state's Division of Law Enforcement, enforces
state saltwater fishing regulations, boating safety rules and other wildlife and habitat
protection measures. It also is the first line of defense in emergencies such as marine
accidents and hurricanes, and employs a select number of special environmental
enforcement officers to investigate land-based environmental crimes such as illegal
dumping.
Enforcement needs are growing on Tampa Bay, which has one of the lowest ratios of
marine patrol officers per registered boats--only 1-2 officers per shift per county for
nearly 100,000 registered recreational boats. Local municipal marine enforcement
units pick up the slack in some counties, but cannot provide the coverage needed to
effectively monitor the 400-square-mile bay and adjoining Gulf coastline, according to
local Marine Patrol officials. Enforcement needs have increased further with the
recent passage of the marine net ban.
* District IV, which includes Tampa Bay and Sarasota Bay, stretches north to Levy
County, south to Sarasota County and east to Polk and Highland counties.
STRATEGY:
This strategy calls for a review of saltwater fishing license revenue expenditures for
marine law enforcement to secure additional marine patrol officers for Tampa Bay,
and possible revisions to the state Salt Water Fishing License Rule to require a mini-
mum allocation for marine law enforcement.
SlEP 1 Evaluate allocations and expenditures of revenues collected through the
Salt Water Fishing License, as well as general revenue and other related
expenditures by the FDEP marine law enforcement statewide. The Agency
on Bay Management (ABM) has requested and received information about
these revenues, and ABM and NEP may be developing a formal position on
this issue in the near future.
Responsible parties: ARM, TRNEp' FDEP
SlEP 2 Seek FDEP support for the additional allocation of revenues to marine law
enforcement officers in Tampa Bay. Additionally, NEP may consider a for-
mal legislative request to require that a minimum percentage of Salt Water
Fishing License revenues be directed to marine law enforcement.
Responsible parties: ARM, TRNEp' FDEP
SCHEDULE:
All steps will be initiated in 1996.
COST:
This action calls for a reallocation of existing funds, rather than new expenditures, to
address environmental enforcement needs.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
s
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Fish & Wildlife
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Increased enforcement of the bay's fisheries and environmental regulations will
improve protection of fish and wildlife, as well as the habitats they depend upon.
Efforts to bolster enforcement also send a message to resource users and anglers that
existing regulations are important, and that the quality of the public's natural resource
won't be sacrificed for the illegal actions of a few.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Florida Marine Patrol can provide information annually on enforcement actions and
associated benefits to the resource. District IV is encouraged to provide this informa-
tion in the State of the Bay report published annually by the ABM.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Revisions to the state Salt Water Fishing License Rule.
RELATED ACTIONS:
BH-8
* Revenue and salt water fishing license data provided by FDEP, August 1995
ItJl!lll:i'tl. :i~ll.II;::;"ill"
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
-..............-----.-...--.-"'.".
...................,",........'............
......................... .... ... ....."",
............................., "..............................
............ ............. ....... . .
..................."" ..... ..............
................................. .
.........-........-..... .........................
.... ." ..'.... .....'.'...'.
..... .. ....... "'"
.... . .... .........,
..... . ..... """".,,-.....
.... .dO. ",." ..........",
..... ..... . ......... """",.......
..... .. .........
........... ..................
......, . ,.. '.
::::::::: :'>>::::, . .'::.....:.:::: ':.::.::.::.::.::
.... ..... . ....-.
;::::::::.......::::::::::::......:::...:.:.:::::::::::::::::::.:.:.::::;:::.:
189
IJR.ff,'~fltr
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
. "".",-.-.-,.,.,.,.,-..,.,.,...,.,-.-.-.-.......-.-. ...-..-....
. . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. '" "",....,,,...................
.........................................
"..............",...".............
..................................-.................
'-'-"0" .. ..... ....
.""".... .. ...... ....
-..--- ,.. . ...... ...
."""... . ,.... ...
.-,-,-.','.','.'.'. ".'S. . ,.... . ..
........... ................
::::::::::::::;:::: >>>::::: : ::.. ::>. ,':-=:::::'
..'::.::.::.::.......... ......'....... .." ....... ..
. ........ ...
..............-......-............ ....
.,."............................
......................
190
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
a
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Fish & Wildlife
Establish and Enforce Manatee Protection Zones
ACTION:
Officially designate through local ordinance or state rule 10 manatee protection zones
in Tampa Bay. Encourage the use of boat propeller guards outside designated manatee
protection zones.
BACKGROUND:
Research continues to bolster evidence that Tampa Bay is an important year-round or
seasonal home to many endangered manatees. In fact, more than 200 of the estimated
1,800 manatees remaining in the state, or one-sixth of the Florida Gulf Coast popula-
tion, seek refuge in the winter at the warm-water discharges surrounding the bay's
power plants.! Additionally, the bay's seagrass meadows and numerous natural and
manmade fresh water sources provide critical feeding and gathering areas for mana-
tees throughout the year.
Although several no-wake areas were established in the bay for boater safety, only
one, a protected area in St. Petersburg's Coffeepot Bayou, was created primarily to
protect manatees. Increases in manatee deaths associated with propeller strikes or col-
lisions reinforce the need for more protective measures in Tampa Bay. Manatee
deaths in Tampa Bay and adjacent coastal waters have risen from an average of 4.1
manatees a year between 1976 and 1985, to an average of 10.1 manatees a year from
1986 to 1994. Of the 141 manatee deaths verified in the bay area from 1976 to 1994,
29 (17 percent) died from collisions with watercraft,2
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection's (FDEP's) Florida Marine
Research Institute (FMRI) and local manatee experts in academia have identified 10
areas of the bay where manatees would benefit from increased protection, based on
the best available manatee population and distribution data. The areas are important as
either winter refuges from cold water, seagrass feeding areas, sources of fresh water,
or migration routes. The recommended zones are:
· warm-water outfalls of Florida Power Corporation's (FPC's) Bartow and Tampa
Electric Company's (TECO's) Port Sutton power plants ( winter sanctuaries)
· Culbreath Bayou in Tampa (seagrass beds and fresh water source)
· Anna Maria Sound near Perico Island (seagrasses)
· lower Manatee River near Palmetto (fresh water and seagrasses)
· upper Braden River near Bradenton (fresh water source)
· Hillsborough River near Sulphur Springs (fresh water)
· Upper Terra Ceia Bay near the U.S. 19 Bridge (seagrasses)
· Terra Ceia Bay near the wastewater treatment plant discharge in Palmetto (fresh
water)
· the mouth of the Little Manatee River up to E.G. Simmons Park (seagrass beds)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
STEP 4 Organize and train qualified volunteers to monitor and report speed or entry
violations within the protection zones.
Responsible parties: FDEP, working with local environmental action
groups such as Tampa BAYWATCH.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Fish & Wildlife
· the Rocky Point area, southwest side of the Courtney Campbell Causeway (sea-
grass beds)
Designation of the zones could be done unilaterally by local governments, or in con-
junction with rules developed by the FDEP. Once designated, maximum boating
speeds and entry restrictions would be put into place for the zones. The limits might
require boaters to travel at idle speeds year-round within the zones, and forbid boat
entry entirely during certain times of the year such as winter, when large numbers of
manatees congregate in just a few small areas. The restrictions would be periodically
re-evaluated and adjusted as needed, based on updated manatee population data.
Consequently, continued research into manatee movements, habitat requirements and
mortality should continue.
The Florida Marine Patrol (FMP) and local marine law enforcement units would
enforce the restrictions in the manatee zones. However, the amount of money allocat-
ed to FMP activities in the Tampa Bay area currently is not sufficient to ensure ade-
quate enforcement, thus this action also proposes additional funding for the FMP
through the existing Salt Water Fishing License to compensate for any increased
needs. Enforcement also could be enhanced through public education, as well as citi-
zen monitoring and reporting of speed violations.
Recognizing that manatees travel great distances and will not always remain within
the protected zones, this action also encourages boaters to install special cage-like
guards on their propellers to avoid causing propeller injuries to manatees outside the
protected areas. These guards, which now are manufactured commercially and cost
about $100 each, also can protect the bay's seagrasses from propeller damage.
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Hold a joint meeting of the Tampa Bay NEP and the Agency on Bay
Management, including a presentation from FMRI, to discuss the justifica-
tion and ramifications of establishing the proposed manatee protection
zones. These groups should make a recommendation on implementation to
the NEP's Policy Committee.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEp' Agency on Bay Management
(ABM), FDEPIFMRI
STEP 2 Implement recommendations from Step 1.
Responsible parties: FDEP, local governments
STEP 3 Increase funding for the Florida Marine Patrol in Tampa Bay (see Action
FW-l) and local law enforcement marine units to ensure adequate enforce-
ment of boating speed and entry restrictions within the manatee protection
zones.
Responsible party: Florida Legislature (through Salt Water Fishing
License revenues), local governments
II:111Ii'::I:~Fllt
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.............-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:':':':':':':':',',-,',',-,'.'.'.'.
::::::::::;:::;:::::::::::::::;:::::::::::;:::;:::::::;::::::::::::::::::::;:::::::::':::::::;:;:;
.'.'.'.'.........._....'....'.'...'.'.".2.'......'....'.....,...
..... .. ...... "........
.... . ., ". ..
..... . ..... "'......--.
......... ......... ' . '.......... .' .,..,.,'.......'.'.'.'.',.
.... ., .".., " ..".,,'..............,.
....... .d.".__ "".....
.... .. . ". ""'-,"",..
....,.. .... ."...""..
t......:...>.....
191
Ilf&,"
~:;~
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
'. "".'.'..'.'.'.',..'...'...'...'.........-.-.-..,....-.-.',-.-.-.-,-,
...................." ".......-....,,".....................
......................................
..............................
.................. ............,..........
......&1................._...............
. . ..... ....
.."" .. ...... ",.
............. . ..... ...
......... . . ..... ..
.. 'd' ..........
.... ..... ........
........... ..........
......... ........... ......
... .. . ... ....
',',',', .. ... .....
'::"'" :.:->>:-: . :-...:.' ..'-:.:.:
... ....... .. ....... ...
",.. .. ".,' ...
::,.."""""".,.,..,.,.,.,."""",.",..............."",,:
182
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Fish & Wildlife
STEP 5 Continue ongoing manatee population and mortality studies in Tampa Bay.
Reassess justification for the protection zones periodically based on moni-
toring data to determine the need for changes.
Responsible parties: FDEPIFMRI
STEP 6 Promote the use of propeller guards to avoid injuring manatees outside the
protection zones.
Responsible parties: Tampa BAYWATCH, Florida Conservation
Association, local boating and environmental groups and fishing clubs
SCHEDULE:
Steps 1-4 can be initiated in 1996, with appropriate rulemaking and financing in place
in 1997. Step 6 also be can initiated in 1996, with demonstrations of the propeller
guards to various boating and fishing groups. Step 5 is an ongoing project that should
continue indefinitely.
COST:
Designation of manatee protection zones would involve administrative and noticing
requirements, as well as posting of designated areas. However, gaining public and
boater support for designation of the zones and associated boating restrictions is
expected to be a staff-intensive effort. Step 3 could be accomplished with a greater
allocation of revenues from the state Salt Water Fishing License, or legislative autho-
rization of a law requiring local governments to transfer 25 percent of funds received in
fines and penalties to the FDEP's FMP for those violations where arrests were made by
FMP officers. The funds received from those transfers should be used exclusively for
increasing enforcement capabilities of the FMP in the district generating the funds.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Designation of manatee protection zones will increase protection of manatees and
vital seagrass habitats within Tampa Bay.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
FDEPIFMRI currently monitors manatee abundance, distribution and mortality in
Tampa Bay. These reports can be incorporated within the Tampa Bay NEP's Biennual
Environmental Monitoring Report.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Passage of local ordinances and/or state rules designating manatee zones. Legislative
action also may be needed to ensure adequate funding for FMP and local enforcement
of the restrictions.
RELATED ACTIONS:
BH-4, BH-7, FW-1, FW-4
1 August 1995 data from Dona Banowitz, manatee statistics coordinator at FMRl
'Ibid.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Fish & Wildlife
Support Bay Scallop Restoration
ACTION:
Support bay scallop restoration by assisting stocking, spawning and monitoring
efforts.
BACKGROUND:
Improving water quality in Tampa Bay has created opportunities in the southern por-
tion of the bay for recovery of the bay scallop, which all but disappeared from the bay
in the 1960s. Experts suspect that bay pollution was a key factor in the collapse of
this highly sensitive species.
Studies by the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (NEP) indicate that bay water
quality has improved to levels necessary to support the reintroduction of this mollusk.
However, stock sizes are so depleted that seeding is needed to jumpstart a sustainable
population.
To assist recovery, the Tampa Bay NEP has supported pilot projects by the University
of South Florida (USF) to seed the bay with almost a quarter-million juvenile scallops
raised in laboratories. Large seed stocks are necessary since natural predation and
mortality of young scallops is high.
While improving water quality and observed growth and reproduction of caged scal-
lops at several bay locations indicate that scallop restoration may be achievable, the
Tampa Bay NEP also is conducting a study through the Florida Marine Research
Institute (FMRI) to evaluate the effectiveness of existing stocking strategies. That
study, due in January 1996, will help bay managers tailor and evaluate the effort.
Funding from the Program is now directed to the second phase of this effort, which
has allowed USF to seed an additional 100,000 juvenile scallops with the help of citi-
zen volunteers recruited along the bay. More than 50 waterfront residents in the
southern portion of the bay have each adopted as many as 500 juvenile scallops,
placed in "scallop condominiums" along docks until they spawn. A single adult may
release as many as 500,000 eggs, but fewer than 5 percent are expected to survive to
adulthood. Most adult bay scallops die shortly after spawning.
Other groups also are assisting in efforts to bring about return of the bay scallop. In
August 1995, Tampa BAYWATCH directed a scallop air lift, with assistance from
WFLA- TV, the Florida Marine Patrol and the Florida Conservation Association, trans-
porting nearly 2,000 adult scallops by helicopter to Tampa Bay from the Steinhatchee
River. The caged mollusks, expected to spawn this fall, have been placed at protected
sites in Ft. DeSoto Park Aquatic Preserve.
[1[]lrllfl!:J.~I~IFJ
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
. ................._---.-,-."".",,,
..-.-..................,............",......",
..............................,"".,.,,",.......
....................................... "'-."""
......................... ... "'",........
...................................................
......................"... ....... ...................
........._......._.....................3..........
.... ... ....... ....".
..... ..... ""...
.... , ....... ..,-",
..... . .... .............
.... n,_, ..... ..' ..
..... ..... '.," ".....
.... ., ..""" -."..,
....... ,.......... .............
.... ... ,
c...... .' '.. ,.....
:.}
183
1':llll!1.j;i.~',Flr
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
......................'.'.'.-.-...-.-.-.....-,-.-.-...-.-.-..-.-.-.-...-............
"...............................
....-........,',........."..........
, "...............................
....".......".....,..,...........
...........................1...............
.." .. ..... ....
. . ,.... ...
''','''. . ...... ...
. ,..' . ' .... .. ...
..' ,,',.. '...... ...
............. .........
;::::::.::.::::: :-:.<:::: . ::~:'-'" :::::::
,- -. ..... . ....... ....
:::.....:.:.....:........,.:.:.:.:.:.............,.....:
184
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
&
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Fish & Wildlife
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Continue support for the scallop stocking program, which is directed by
USE Phase 1, involving the seeding of almost 250,000 stock, and Phase 2,
which placed an additional 100,000 juvenile scallops at waterfront docks in
the southern portion of the bay, have been completed.
Pending a full program evaluation, Phase 3 would support placement of as
many as. two million additional scallops annually over a period of about
five years.
Responsible parties: USF
STEP 2 Monitor the bay to assess trends in scallop recovery.
· Define monitoring objectives and evaluate the effectiveness of
using citizens to meet these monitoring needs.
· Develop an alternative monitoring program if existing citizens-mon-
itoring is deemed insufficient.
Responsible parties: FMRI (for monitoring objectives, evaluation of citi-
zens monitoring), to-be-determined (for long-term monitoring) in 1996
STEP 3 Evaluate the effectiveness of existing stocking techniques in assisting bay
scallop recovery, and provide recommendations to the Tampa Bay NEP by
early 1996.
Responsible parties: FMRI in cooperation with USF
STEP 4 Fully evaluate the stocking program in Tampa Bay in 1997 to assess
progress and initial efforts toward re-establishing a sustainable bay scallop
population in the southern portion of the bay.
If a scallop population has not been re-established, and if monitoring and
program evaluation fail to indicate a reasonable probability for success,
determine whether the program should continue, or explore alternative
techniques that may be more cost-effective. Provide recommendations to
the Bay Management Coordinating Council by June 1998.
Responsible party: FMRI in cooperation with USF
SCHEDULE:
STEP 1 (Phase 1: 1992-1993) (Phase 2: 1994-1995) (Phase 3, pending evaluation
of stocking techniques)
STEPS 2,3 Pending results of 1995 studies by FMRI
STEP 4 1997
COST:
Scallops costs for Phase 3, which is pending, are estimated at $.05 each, which
includes administrative support and overhead. Placing 2,000,000 scallops annually
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Fish & Wildlife
would cost about $100,000. Costs for monitoring and program performance review
are to-be-determined.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Recovery of this popular shellfish species, which depends on healthy seagrasses and
favorable water quality conditions, may provide some of the most important evidence
to date that Tampa Bay is on the course to recovery.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
The bay will be monitored to track population trends, and sightings and data from
commercial fishermen will be incorporated. Evaluations will factor in appropriate
recovery lag time for population recovery.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
None anticipated.
RELATED ACTIONS:
FW-6
;llil)ll:iIIlll:::"I'"
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
..........................,......-.-,-.-,.,-.-.......-.-""-""""'-'--:';',-:',"
...........................,...........,.,...,...,....'.'.','.",',-,-,-,-,-,".
.........................................
....................".........".,.'.'..,.,...
'.'.'.'.'&...............-.....'.'.....'.....'...'....,.,................
.... ." ..... ".................
..... .. ..... - - d._.
.... . ,.... '....-,',.....
......... .... . . ..,.,'.... " .,........
..... ..... . ..... . .
..... ".,.." '.".........,...
..... ". ......... ........
..... "'. ...........
....... . .... '..
",i:1
195
111RJ'J:'1f'
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
."".."."...................
...........................................................
,', ." ,..... ......................
... ".........................................
."""........,.....,...................
.......1;..........................11...................
..... .. ....... ....
''''''... ",...... .....
...... . ...... ....
....".." . . ....... .....
..", ",.. ..........
"." ..... . ...... .....
..", . ,..... ....
.""..." ,.... .....
......". .. . . ....
iT:)
lIB
ACTION PLAN
Bay Fish & Wildlife
Improve Public Awareness of Hazards to Bay Wildlife
ACTION:
Improve public awareness of the hazards of marine debris, feeding and other human
impacts to bay wildlife.
BACKGROUND:
Coastal environments are among the most popular recreation areas for people, but
human activities can be detrimental to bay habitats and wildlife. Some activities that
may cause harm include boating and the use of jet skis, propeller scarring of seagrasses,
human and pet intrusion into bird and turtle nesting areas, wildlife feeding, and littering
of bays and beaches with debris and monofilament fishing line.
Plastic bags and monofilament fishing line are among the most hazardous types of
marine debris. Birds and marine animals, such as sea turtles and bottlenose dolphins,
and seabirds that utilize coastal areas for feeding and nesting can become entangled in
fishing line, causing injury or death. During a single coastal clean-up day, 36 miles of
monofilament line were retrieved from 20 bird nesting islands by citizen volunteers in and
around Tampa Bay. Ingestion of plastic bags or other marine debris also can kill wildlife.
Impacts to wildlife also are caused by people who feed them and by human intrusion
into nesting sites. For example, dolphin or seabird feeding can cause injuries and create
a dependency on humans for food. Human and pet intrusion into the bay's bird nesting
colonies, and destruction of nests, also is a pervasive problem.
The strategy to improve public awareness about these impacts to wildlife focuses on
placing educational signage in bayside locations where boaters, recreational fishermen,
residents and tourists congregate-at fishing piers and public boat ramps. Signage also
is needed to protect the bay's numerous bird rookeries.
The Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (NEP) also strongly supports continuation of
the annual Florida Coastal Cleanup, sponsored by the Center for Marine Conservation.
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Survey local and state governments to determine who is responsible for fish-
ing piers and public boat ramps and their trash receptacles. Also, survey
existing signage and the environmental messages they contain.
Responsible parties: Tampa BAYWATCH, Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP)/Florida Marine Research Institute
(FMRI), Center for Marine Conservation
STEP 2 Develop educational signage that can be affixed to trash receptacles or
dock/sign posts. Signage will educate boaters/fishers about the adverse
impacts to wildlife caused by marine debris, the feeding of wildlife, and other
disturbances. Particularly at fishing piers, develop signage that discourages
feeding birds, identifies the problems of monofilament fishing line and fish-
ing line recycling options, and steps to release hooked/entangled birds.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
RELATED ACTIONS:
FW-1, FW-2
AcnON PLAN
Bay Fish & Wildlife
Responsible parties: local governments, Tampa BAYWATCH, National
Audubon Society, Pinellas Seabird Rehabilitation Center, FDEP/FMRI,
Center for Marine Conservation
STEP 3 Install signage. Assure that pick-up of trash is timely, especially after
weekends and holidays.
Responsible parties: local governments
STEP 4 Conduct annual cleanups at colonial bird nesting sites during the non-nest-
ing season to remove monofilament fishing line and debris.
Responsible parties: Tampa BAYWATCH, National Audubon Society,
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS)
STEP 5 Work with the USFWS and the National Audubon Society to develop and
install signage, as appropriate, designed to protect bird rookeries through-
out Tampa Bay from human intrusions.
Responsible parties: USFWS, National Audubon Society, Tampa BAY.
WATCH
STEP 6 Work with local "Adopt-a-Shore" coordinators to include fishing piers,
docks and boat ramps as "adoptable" sites, and encourage their adoption
and routine cleaning a minimum of three times per year.
Responsible parties: local Keep Florida Beautiful affiliates, Tampa BAY.
WATCH, Center for Marine Conservation
SCHEDULE:
All steps can be initiated in 1996.
COST:
Costs for the development and installation of signage are estimated at $300 per sign.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Increased public awareness of the harmful effects of marine debris, wildlife feeding
and other intrusive activities.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
The National Audubon Society monitors bird populations and mortality. FMRI
records bottlenose dolphin and sea turtle strandings. Beach/bay cleanups coordinated
by the Center for Marine Conservation, Keep Florida Beautiful affiliates, Tampa
BAYWATCH and other partners track the amount of marine debris collected by volun-
teers at various sites throughout the bay.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
None anticipated.
~~r~Hili~~~~;: i~~~t, ~~~l~~~~~:1XW::
:~;~;:::~~:m j;m~r:~&;~~; ;1~;
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
,-,-,-,-,-,',-,-,-.-,-,",-,-,',-.-.-.-,',',".-.-.-.-.-...-.-..........'...
..................................,.".....,.
.................. ,.........".........".
...................................,.,...,.
....................................
........................,........,.,-,...."..
.........1........-..................-..................
.... ." ....", .."..."
..... .. "..... "
.... . ....." .....-....
..... . ",.... "".""".
.... ..... ....." .........
..... ..... . "."" "..
..... ..... .........,
......... .... ....... .........
....... . ""
.... .. . .....
;:;:;:;:; ::::::::::: -: :;:,..'..'-,.'.' ,::
.... ....... . .................... ....::::
..... ...... .. .. . .
..........."........"..,....""",
.........................,."......
197
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
"",.., ,.......",.....................
.............'.,.............................
...."".",,,,,...,......,,....................
..............................'..............................
...............................
..........................................
.................................R............................1.............
. ..... ....
............. .. ..... n,
, ..... ....
\..........1...
198
ACTION PLAN
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Bay Fish & Wildlife
Assess the Need to Investigate the Cumulative
Impacts of Power Plant Entrainment on Bay
Fisheries
ACTION:
Determine whether a comprehensive study to assess the cumulative impacts of multi-
ple power plant operations on Tampa Bay fish populations is needed. If a study is
warranted and shows cumulative adverse impacts, adjust plant operations and mainte-
nance schedules as appropriate to reduce power plant entrainment.
BACKGROUND:
Currently there are five steam electric plants utilizing open-cycle cooling systems on
Tampa Bay: Tampa Electric Company's (TEeD's) Big Bend, Gannon and Hooker's
Point facilities and Florida Power Corporation's (FPC's) Higgins and Bartow plants
(currently, FPC's Higgins Plant in not operating). Open-cycle, or once-through, cool-
ing is the most economical method of condensing steam from the turbines of steam
electric plants. However, the volumes of ambient bay water used for this purpose, and
the quantities of waste heat added to the bay as a result, can be significant.
Although the discharge of heated bay water from the power plants into the subtropical
Tampa Bay estuary produces temperature changes that have demonstrable impacts
(subject of a Florida Department of Environmental Protection [FDEP] study), another
problem results from the capture of planktonic eggs and larval fish and shellfish in the
cooling-water intakes of the power plants. This process, called entrainment, can lead
to high rates of mortality from physical and thermal stress. Estimates from power
plant monitoring in the early 1980s project that 274 billion fish eggs and 83 billion
fish larvae are entrained annually in Tampa Bay. However, in the absence of sufficient
baseline information on current stock sizes, natural survival rates and losses caused by
habitat degradation, fishing pressure and other factors, it is extremely difficult to
assess the impact of power plant entrainment on overall bay fisheries populations.
Under the current regulatory system, each power plant must obtain operating permits
from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the FDEP. But the permit
review process only examines the localized impacts of each individual plant; the
cumulative impacts of multiple facilities on the fish populations of the bay are rarely
evaluated or considered.
Conducting a comprehensive study of cumulative impacts is an expensive and lengthy
task, and could be fraught with legal complications. There currently is no requirement
in the state rules governing power plants that cumulative impacts be addressed, and
initiating such a study in Tampa Bay may necessitate a rule change. Additionally, the
lack of suitable background information of fish populations, and the effects of other
human-related impacts such as fishing, may make a study on entrainment inconclu-
sive. Finally, the cost of a cumulative impacts study would be substantial, as would
the installation of best available technologies to reduce the capture of eggs and larvae.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Fish & Wildlife
Entrainment and impingement studies financed by power companies in the Hudson
River exceeded $2 million a year for monitoring and $1 million for analysis. And
while some techniques to decrease entrainment are relatively low in cost (i.e., TECO's
installation of fine-mesh screens on intake pipes at its Big Bend plant), other solutions
such as the construction of cooling towers to reduce the need for bay water can cost
hundreds of millions of dollars.
Thus, the need to assess the cumulative effects of entrainment must first be demon-
strated and the possible benefits of such a study balanced against its cost implications
for utilities and their customers. This action seeks to develop a consensus on whether
further research into power plant entrainment is warranted.
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Conduct a joint workshop involving regulators, fisheries scientist and rep-
resentatives of the electric utility industry to evaluate the need, costs,
cost/benefit and ramifications of conducting a study of the cumulative
impacts of entrainment.
Responsible parties: EPA, FDEP, Florida Marine Research Institute
(FMRI), local power plant representatives
STEP 2 (Contingent upon Step 1) If a study is deemed necessary and justified,
workshop participants should design a scope, identify potential data needs
and funding sources, and conduct a comprehensive entrainment study.
Based upon the results of that investigation, a plan to minimize entrainment
through measures such as adjusting the operating or maintenance schedules
of power plants for periods of peak plankton and juvenile abundance
should be developed.
Responsible parties: EPA, FDEP, FMRI, local power plant representa-
tives
STEP 3 If warranted, amend state and federal rules to require a cumulative impact
review for all future power plant siting and operating permits located on
Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (NEP) waterways.
Responsible parties: EPA, FDEP
SCHEDULE:
Step 1 can be accomplished in 1996. Step 2, if necessary, can be initiated in 1997.
Step 3 can be initiated following the completion of the study, if the results of the study
show a need for further action to reduce entrainment.
COST:
Step 1 entails only administrative costs. Step 2, the comprehensive cumulative
impacts assessment, will likely involve extensive field, lab work and data analysis that
could cost from $1 million to $5 million. The costs of remedial action to reduce
entrainment have not yet been determined, but are expected to be substantial and
should be evaluated in detail.
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
;...;.;.;.;.;.;.;.;.....;..:.;.;.;.;.;.,.:.;.;.;.;.;.;';':';';';';';';',':'
...,....................".......,"......
.................... ....... .... .
.,......,....................."......., '........
.......,......... .... .... .
.........&......._...................5...................
.... '. .. ....... ...
..... ..... ,---,
d_' '. ....... ...
..... . ... ...
u" 'H' ...... "".."
..... ..... "..., "..
..... "...... ...
.... .........
;:::::::; ;:;:;:;:;:; .: <..../..,... ::;
.... ........... ............ .....
..... ...... .. ,,'" . .'
..................................................,.,..'.'.'.',",'
199
w~~
,,' $~
'lll'
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
..-."................,..
."...,-,.-..................................
......-..........................
....,....,..........................
.........................
...........&1111
foo
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Fish & Wildlife
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Enhanced fish stocks in Tampa Bay.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
FDEP is the state agency responsible for power plant siting and permitting. EPA has
authority over power plant siting and operation permits. Monitoring of fish stocks is
conducted by the FMRI. Results of any entrainment study, and subsequent actions to
reduce the problem, will be reported in the Tampa Bay NEP's Biennial Environmental
Monitoring Report.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Possible amendments to the federal Water Pollution Control Act (Sections 316a, 316b
and 402) and the Florida Electric Power Plant Siting Act (Sections 403.501 through
403.517, F.S.).
RELATED ACTIONS:
FW-6
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Fish & Wildlife
Continue and Expand the Critical Fisheries
Monitoring Program
ACTION:
Continue the state's Critical Fisheries Monitoring Program and expand it to include
oligohaline portions of the bay's tributaries.
BACKGROUND:
Tracking the long-term health of bay fisheries is an important component of the ongo-
ing monitoring program being developed for the Tampa Bay management plan.
Recent water quality improvements in the bay, along with new regulations on com-
mercial and recreational fishermen, make a regular assessment of fisheries trends even
more critical for bay managers. The fisheries surveys will serve as a barometer for the
success of management efforts, and provide an early-warning system to alert man-
agers to potential problems that may require additional actions.
Currently, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's (FDEP's) Critical
Fisheries Monitoring Program (CFMP) provides the most comprehensive sampling of
fisheries in the bay. This program, conducted by the FDEP's Florida Marine Research
Institute (FMRI), employs stratified random and fixed-station monitoring to assess the
abundance and distribution of fish and macroinvertebrates in Tampa Bay. The strati-
fied random sampling divides the bay into specific habitat types (i.e., seagrasses,
deep-water, riverine), which are sampled at varying locations twice a year, usually in
the spring and fall and using gear suited to that particular bottom type. The fixed-sta-
tion monitoring samples 24 stationary sites scattered throughout the bay once a
month, using a single type of fishing gear. Both survey methods record the number,
species and length of fish and invertebrates captured, as well as the temperature and
salinity of the water.
The program is financed by revenues from the state's Salt Water Fishing License.
More than $3.2 million was allocated statewide to CFMP in fiscal year 1994-1995,
with about $700,000 of that dedicated to sampling in Tampa Bay.
While the monitoring attempts to be as thorough as possible, funding and manpower
limitations mean that some areas of the bay potentially important to fish recruitment
and survival are not surveyed. For example, of the bay's myriad tributaries, only the
Little Manatee, Manatee and Alafia rivers are sampled. The Hillsborough and Palm
rivers and numerous tidal creeks in Upper Tampa Bay, such as Double Branch and
Rocky Creek, are not assessed. The existing program could be expanded to include
more oligohaline areas, using cost-effective fixed-station monitoring. Additionally, a
quick visual examination of fish and invertebrates for the presence of visible lesions
could be added to assist bay managers in tracking the long-term movement of toxic
contaminants through the bay system.
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
............_---"...........", ,
.........................,..,..",.. .,.,
....................................,..
.................:..........................,............'.....'.'.'.'.,.'.;.:.
...............-......................,..........'.'.....'.....'.'.','...........
........110......._..............11........
.... . ".. .""... .. ...
..... . ". ,,",','
...... ,.'.'.'..... "..
.... ,.. .,.,.. "'..
..... ..... ,..... "....
..... ""'.
........ .... .......
....... . """....
.... .. . ,. .",.
;:;:;:;:; ;:::::::::: :: :::;""':' '. >::::>:-:-:
.... ....... . ................. ...
..... ........ ..... ..
........... .... ...................
.......................,..,..,..",.
201
1~)RtA;f~T:
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
............"".......................
".,..".................................
.......... d,'''''''' ..............
. . ..."",..................................
."-,-,-,.-,..-.............,...,,...,.,.................
...............E..........................._.................
., ""'" ,. ..... ....
...'.'....-... .. ..... ....
, -, ""., . ..... ...
.'.-.-...'.-.-..-.... . ..... ....
""." .... .... .. ...
.'.'.'........ ",., ".... ....
. .......""'''. ...... ....
....... ..... .......
:-,:::<;:::;::::::: ,-'c.:::;' :::. "," '::::;:
......". ,..... . ,-,,,. ....
" C"" . ....... ...
"":::';:;:;::..:.:.:.;:::;:;:;:;::.:.:.-:;:..;.:.::;:;:;:;:;:;:;::.......:.;:;:;:::;
202
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Fish & Wildlife
STRATEGY:
SlEP 1 Evaluate the need and costs to expand Critical Fisheries Monitoring into
small tributaries and oligohaline areas, and identify candidate tributaries.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (NEP) and
FDEPIFMRI
SlEP 2 Require field scientists conducting the sampling to perform a quick visual
examination for lesions on the fish and invertebrates they collect, and
record the species, lesion type and location of the lesions, as well as the
location the affected fish were caught.
Responsible parties: FDEPIFMRI
SlEP 3 Incorporate results of the CFMP in Tampa Bay in the Biennial
Environmental Monitoring Report, and redirect sampling efforts as needed.
Responsible parties: FDEPIFMRI, Tampa Bay NEP
SCHEDULE:
The Tampa Bay NEP and FDEPIFMRI will evaluate the feasibility of expanding fish-
eries sampling and develop a formal recommendation by April 1996. The detection of
lesions indicative of toxic contamination could begin in 1996. The first expanded
sampling could begin in 1997.
COST:
The estimated annual cost for the current Tampa Bay sampling program is $700,000.
The cost of sampling six or seven additional sites is estimated at $50,000, based on
salary estimates for two additional full-time staff personnel. Financing sources for
additional sampling (if needed) could be pursued through a change in FMRI's current
allocation from the Salt Water Fishing License revenues or identification of new rev-
enue sources.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Implementation will provide more comprehensive information about the status and
trends of bay fisheries, and will provide managers with an early-warning system to
detect areas that may need additional management action.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
FDEPIFMRI currently monitors the health and abundance of fisheries within Tampa
Bay. These reports can be incorporated in the Tampa Bay NEP's Biennial
Environmental Monitoring Report for the bay.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
None anticipated.
RELATED ACTIONS:
TX-l, TX-3, BH-l, FW-l, FW-3, FW-5
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Fish & Wildlife
. W _. I[ !I II III
.. ..... . ....
.. .......... .. .... ... .. . .
.. ........ .... . .. .. .....
.. ........ ... .... . ..... ..
. . . ....... do' . . . . . ....
... .. ..... . ..... . ....... .... .
... ....... ...... . .' . . ... ... .
.. ....................... . .. .. ........ ..' ...... . ... ..... ..
... ........ . ..... . . .' ... ..
... . ...... . .. "...." ... .. ... .
..... .......... .... .... . ....
.. ....... ... ........ ... .... .
,.. ........ .... ..... . .......
.... ...... .. . .. .' .. .......
~ >~ : :: : :::: ~ :" : . . : . :', ,,:'::' ..' : : : : : : : . "'. :>:: :" : '. :. '. .: .::: : : : : ......:: . ::: .::.: : : : :
... ... ..... ..........
.".'" ",.....,.."., ..... ..... ........... .". ... ..........,. ~[ ...,., ..".....
....... ........ ... . ." . .. ................ . ......... .. .. ..........
... .... ...... ..... ... ......... ........ .. ... ........ . . . .. ..........
... .... . ..... ... .. ..... ......
... ...... . . .. . . .. .. .
.. ... .. .... .. ..... . .. .
.. ... . . ...... . . . ..
..... .. . . .
... ............ ... .. .... ..... ... ....... ....
'~I~(j~ectll!(J IIlDI()~t> ... ... .... ..... .. .. .... .... ....
)j~r!Atrtilil$aIl(1 ~illllire:. . ....... m .d'
,.",i.
. .... ... ............ ..
ii!I::...m:L,~.,...J::JO=:Jii=i~~. ...
. .~e~1~rsn;ggeqfi~fi~~~~~~~l1qOrneupon whil~fishing. .... ... .. . ......... ... ....... ... ...
......jt.... ..b........ ..... ......... ................... . .. ... ...
sai o4ter: ... .. .... ..... <>>> .......... ... .. .... . ..... ... ..... ......
.',,':., .?}"" ,.... ,.. ...,'..'...' ....<>, ..: . ... ",..,....<>...'",... ,.".,,'''''''' ,'..,. .. ., , .. .,.. ..',. "
.. .. ... ..... .... ....... ... ......... .... .. ........
.1na.tbialsareavailaljl~fiomlIi1lsborouglI, PinellliSatidManatee couJjiy ..
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
203
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
204
ACTION PLAN
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Bay Fish & Wildlife
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Dredging & Dredged Material Management
Dredging & Dredged
Material Management
Coordination among local ports in long-term planning for dredging and dredged
material disposal is essential in Tampa Bay to minimize environmental impacts and
maximize cost-sharing opportunities and beneficial uses of spoil material.
With an average depth of only 12 feet, regular dredging of the bay is necessary to
maintain safe passage through shipping channels serving the bay's three major sea-
ports, its shore-based power plants and industries, and recreational boaters. But
dredging can take a toll in areas of immediate impact, clouding the water, smothering
bottom life and releasing potentially harmful substances that bind to fine particles in
sediments.
Disposal of dredged material presents another important challenge. Deepening of the
40-mile main shipping channel in the 1970s required the removal of almost 100 mil-
lion cubic yards of sediment. Maintenance dredging to support the bay's three com-
mercial ports scoops another 1 million cubic yards of material from the bottom of the
bay each year-enough to fill about 100,000 dump trucks. Most material is generated
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to maintain the main ship channel, which serves
the ports and numerous port-related industries.
Not yet reflected in any long-term plans are dredging and disposal needs of smaller
industrial ports and the extensive network of finger-fill canals serving residential com-
munities. These needs must be assessed and recognized in developing environmental-
ly sound, long-term management strategies.
Currently, most dredged material from the upper segments of the bay is deposited on
two large spoil islands located in Hillsborough Bay and managed by the Tampa Port
Authority. These sites are expected to serve this sector's disposal needs for another
decade. Officials are exploring the feasibility and options for extending the life of the
islands another 15 years by raising the dikes to contain more material. Beyond then,
long-term disposal needs for upper Tampa Bay are unresolved.
There are no long-term plans for disposal of material from the southern half of the
main shipping channel. Although EPA has approved a dumping site 18 miles out into
the Gulf of Mexico, this site is expected to accommodate material from only a small
portion of the lower part of Tampa Bay. Shipping distances and associated costs cur-
rently preclude use of this site to accommodate the vast quantities of material generat-
ed in the bay's upper sector surrounding the Port of Tampa.
~:::.::;:::: :::::~:~::; ;:::::~: :::;:::::::::::m::
~jjLf: :~~r~1~ i~1~)~~1; ij;:;:: f~j~
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay.
205
I]Ri~lF:l'
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
2DB
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Dredging & Dredged Material Management
Coordination of individual port plans by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which
oversees and conducts most of the major dredging projects on Tampa Bay, will be an
important first step in effective long-term management. Representation from other
maritime, business, utility and environmental interests also is important to assure a
compatible coexistence in the future between protection of the bay ecosystem and
continued growth of the ports and industries dependent upon the bay's shipping chan-
nels.
Momentum for cooperative planning already is building thanks to a recent state-
financed study by the port authorities that explore areas of mutual concern and ways
to increase cooperation. Among the more than a dozen proposals approved by the
bay's three port authorities is an effort to establish and maintain shared dredged dis-
posal sites, an action endorsed by the NEP in this plan.
The June 1995 report was prepared by an independent consultant and proposes other
priority measures, such as the establishment of a vessel tracking system for the bay,
permanent funding for the PORTS navigational network, and the development of an
oil spill model.
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
· Improve planning and coordination for dredging and for long-term spoil disposal.
· Minimize environmental impacts from dredging and spoil disposal.
· Maximize beneficial uses of dredged material.
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS FOR DREDGING &
DREDGE MATERIAL MANAGEMENT
DR-1 Develop a long-term, coordinated strategy for dredging and dredged mate-
rial management for Tampa Bay.
DR-2 Develop dredge disposal plans for residential canals.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The Tampa Port Authority (TPA) estimates that about 840,000 cubic yards of material
ACTION PLAN
Dredging & Dredged Material Management
Develop a Long-Term, Coordinated Strategy for
Dredging and Dredged Material Management for
Tampa Bay
ACTION:
Develop a long-term management plan that coordinates individual dredging and
dredged material management plans of the bay's three major seaports and the utilities
and industries that rely on the bay's navigational channels.
BACKGROUND:
Tampa Bay serves three major seaports with independent, tax-supported port authori-
ties. Various utilities and industries also share the bay's 40-mile-Iong deepwater trans-
portation highway. This action calls for the development of a long-range plan to coor-
dinate dredging and dredged material management for Tampa Bay to maximize shared
disposal and beneficial use opportunities while minimizing the environmental impacts
and costs associated with these activities in the future. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (US ACE), as the major coordinator and sponsor of dredging projects in the
bay, is the logical choice to spearhead this comprehensive planning effort.
On average, about 13 million gallons of petroleum products pass through Tampa Bay
each day on tankers and barges carrying fuel for power plants, jetliners, and automo-
biles. Another 18 million tons of fertilizer is exported from Tampa Bay each year to
ports around the world, along with vast quantities of other cargoes. Indeed, water-
borne commerce is a cornerstone in the region's economy, contributing an estimated
$5 billion per year.
With an average depth of only 12 feet, regular dredging of ship channels and berths is
needed to serve these seaports and industries. Ship channels, which are dredged to
depths of up to 43 feet, must be cleared periodically to remove silty sediments.
Coordinated planning among ports and area industries will help ensure that the most
environmentally sensitive and cost-effective strategies are pursued, especially in
regard to long-range dredge material disposal, for which there are only limited exist-
ing plans. Cooperative planning also enables bay managers to investigate options for
beneficial uses of spoil material, ensure minimal impacts to nesting birds on dredge
disposal islands, and explore best available technologies to reduce sediment resuspen-
sion during dredging.
In fact, local port authorities already have begun working together to examine mutual
concerns and foster cooperation. Results of a study conducted for Tampa Bay's port
authorities and the Florida Department of Transportation in 1995 cited the establish-
ment and maintenance of shared dredge disposal sites as one of 13 recommendations
adopted by the participants.
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.-.-.-...-.-.-.....-...-.-.-...-.-.-,-,-,-.-...-.',..'.'.-.'..'"".,.,-,',.,-....,
.........................."".......... "",.
................"",...........""".,
..................................'.............
.............. """.,,-.... '''' '"
B.llilI
..................",..........
...............,.............
207
m~l.@j il~:
:~~ :::~:t~~~ <<t :-: ...
~i-l~: }.~: :*t~~! .!
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
" ." ,.." ...."....................
.......",.."...........',.........................
,-".,-,. .,,-..........................
......................................"..'.'..........................
..,......"...................
...............................'.............................
....... .d...'.". "II.. d."""I.'d.'"''
:...,....'..,..',.,',.::,'..'.',.',.."..'..,'.,'............'. . ....... ......
. ...... .....
........... ..... ......
... , . ,. ..... .....
...,,,..,,.. .. ..... ......
., ,. ...... .....
. . "'......' , d '...."" ......}.
..",. ... ....... ......
. ....... .....
0'" ... ....... ......
... .. ....... .....
................... .....
..",................................
"...,..".......",...............
208
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Dredging & Dredged Material Management
will be generated annually to maintain the upper part of the main ship channel, which
extends south to the Gadsen Point widener. Associated long-term disposal needs
exceed the current 8.5-million- cubic-yard capacity of the Port Authority's two spoil
islands in Hillsborough Bay. TPA has proposed to meet the shortfall by raising the
islands' dikes from 20 to 30 feet, a strategy being reviewed by the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the USACE, which issue and periodically
reassess the port's maintenance dredging permit.
Maintenance dredging of the main ship channel between Gadsen Point and the mouth
of Tampa Bay is expected to generate another 350,000 cubic yards of material a year.
Dredged material from the lower segment of that channel, below CUT B, will be dis-
carded at a recently-approved ocean disposal site 18 miles from the bay's entrance.
There are no long-term plans for disposal of the remainder of the material.
Port Manatee's development blueprint includes plans to enlarge its turning basin and
widener, and dredge its harbor channel to maintain a 40-foot mean low water depth.
A total of about 3.1 million cubic yards of material will be removed for these projects
in order to keep pace with the anticipated shoaling of some 220,000 cubic yards of
material each year. To avoid impacts to nearby Aquatic Preserves, the Port Authority
will contain all construction and maintenance dredging material at several upland sites
on its property. However, the Port Authority has not yet analyzed whether these
upland sites can handle the entire 25-year payload that is anticipated.
The Port of St. Petersburg, the smallest of the bay's three major seaports, has no exist-
ing long-term dredged material disposal plans, relying instead on land disposal for its
sporadic dredging needs. Also unknown is how private facilities plan to dispose of
their dredged material, an issue which should be addressed in long-term planning sce-
nanos.
STRATEGY:
This strategy focuses on establishing an advisory committee to support development
and implementation of a long-range plan to coordinate dredging and dredged material
management for Tampa Bay, and highlights additional planning needs that must be
addressed to complete this coordinated strategy.
STEP 1 Establish a committee directed by the Corps of Engineers and comprised of
the bay's three major seaports, port-related industries and utilities, and
major commerciaVprivate ports, as well as FDEP, EPA, local governments
and environmental interests including representatives of Egmont Key State
Park, for the purposes of:
· coordinating existing port and industry plans for dredging and
dredged material management, and developing a long-range strate-
gy that integrates these plans for environmental as well as economic
benefits
· exploring beneficial uses for spoil material
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN Dredging & Dredged Material Management
· investigating and encouraging best available technologies to reduce
sediment resuspension during dredging and for dredged material
disposal and containment
Responsible parties: u.s. Army Corps of Engineers, in cooperation with
local port authorities
STEP 2 Develop a 25-year plan for disposal of maintenance material removed from
the southern segment of the main ship channel from the Gadsen Point
widener to the western end of Cut A, at the mouth of the bay. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (US ACE) should develop the plan in consulta-
tion with the advisory committee established in step 1. Planning should
incorporate relevant elements of the Corps' former Long-Term
Management Strategy (LTMS) procedures for dredging management.
Responsible parties: USACE, in cooperation with the step 1 advisory
committee
STEP 3 Confirm the ability of Port Manatee's existing and future upland spoil dis-
posal sites to accommodate spoil material from channel and berthing areas
for the next 25 years. Amend the Manatee County Port Authority's Master
Plan to reflect the results of that analysis.
Responsible parties: Manatee County Port Authority
STEP 4 Develop and adopt a long-range plan for disposal of dredged material from
the Port of St. Petersburg and its channel.
Responsible parties: St. Petersburg Port Authority
STEP 5 Determine status of long-term spoil disposal plans for privately maintained
shipping channels in the Bay, particularly channels serving Big Bend and
other utilities.
Responsible parties: Advisory Committee, Step 1
SCHEDULE:
Establishment of a committee to oversee coordination of the bay's dredging and
dredged disposal planning could be accomplished in 1996, pending federal approval
and funding for the Corps to direct these efforts.
COST:
Step 1 involves administrative costs on the part of USACE. Costs to implement step
2 are estimated at $150,000, with possible cooperative funding from the Tampa Bay
port authorities, Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of
Transportation. Estimates for steps 3 and 4, which would be funded by responsible
port authorities, are in development. Implementation and costs associated with step 5
are dependent on recommendations of the committee.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Coordinated, long-range planning will help to minimize impacts to bay habitats and
water quality from dredging and dredged material disposal and maximize beneficial
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.................
.................,..............-...,,'.
.....................................,...."..
............ .................
.............................."",.,...
.............."...................-"..
.............................."",.,..""",
......................................-...........
........ " .....-...
........ .. ..,.""."
....... . ....... ,',...
........ . ...
.......... - ........ ..........
....... -. . .. P. .
)i .... . ....i>
........ ... d..... "....
........ .... .,....,.
....................................................................................
209
~.".? 'j:~~..'
.;.:. ~
t-: ~:
'ff"1..'
b.' ,~
i ::::~
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
" "",.............................
.....-,-......".....,-.....................
........"....".........................
..",.........................
..._,...............................
....",.....,.....................
............................................
. ._-...................................... . ... ............. .....
. ..... ... ....
.., . ....... .....
..., ..... .....,
...' . . .. ...... .....
" ." , ...... ....,
ii/ .. .....i,:}):
.. ... ....... .....
.. ... ....... ......
... .. ....... .....
. ....-.,...."""..................
. -..--."........................
210
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Dredging & Dredged Material Management
uses of spoil material, while fostering cooperation that is likely to yield cost-savings
for taxpayer-supported port authorities. Removal of muck from channels also can
help to improve water quality in localized areas.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
The Army Corps of Engineers will be responsible for monitoring progress on long-
range planning and implementation.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
None anticipated.
RELATED ACTIONS:
DR-2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Dredging & Dredged Material Management 11[llllmi.,II:III:~.II;;:<ililr
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
ACTION PLAN
Tampa Bay Shipping Channels
Tampa
N
A
SOURCE: TAMPA PORT AUTHORITY
211
,'.;.:"';0, '~>>., ,.;<<+ ~x<<-*..,
"."',.'lw. "'$ b""""""
~lJ1: '*~tl~ ~i "5: ~~~!
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
......'. ----,-----...--,.....-
.,._'.'............... ,.........................
. .......................,...........
...,'.'...'.'.'....... .........................
...................................
................111.1......
212
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Dredging & Dredged Material Management
Develop Dredge Disposal Plans
for Residential Canals
ACTION:
Assess the long-term spoil disposal needs associated with maintenance dredging of
existing residential canals and commercial marinas; and develop a plan to address
those needs.
BACKGROUND:
Shoreline developments featuring finger-fill canals are a prominent fixture in Tampa
Bay. Construction of most of these canals occurred in the 1950s and 1960s, and many
now are experiencing severe siltation that, in some cases, renders them unusable by
adjacent landowners who purchased the property specifically for its boating access.
Silting of commercial and private marinas also is a widespread problem throughout the
bay.
These dead-end canals and marina basins often 3!e plagued by poor water quality
caused by a lack of tidal flushing, the build-up of oxygen-deficient sediments, and
contamination with nutrients, petroleum hydrocarbons, and toxic chemicals.
Routine, coordinated dredging of these areas could improve water quality in these
canals, as well as preserving the cumulative economic value of existing residential
and commercial waterfront property. However, costs to dredge residential canals and
dispose of dredge materials will be borne largely, if not exclusively, by the waterfront
residents that are direct beneficiaries of improvements.
Currently, maintenance dredging of privately owned waterways is rarely done because
local governments are reluctant to assume the financial responsibility for the dredging
and there are no federally or state-approved disposal sites for the dredge spoil. In
addition, the high costs of the dredging (removing 20,000 cubic yards of muck from a
200-yard long canal may cost as much $200,000) put the work beyond reach of many
private residents and homeowner groups. But failing to address this chronic problem
may compound the environmental damage to canals, as frustrated homeowners resort
to propeller dredging, or other undesirable methods, to keep their canals navigable.
In the Tampa Bay area, only Manatee County performs maintenance dredging of resi-
dential finger canals and other private navigation channels within its jurisdiction. This
is because Manatee County historically has required developers to deed the canal bot-
toms to the county as rights-of-way. Homeowners here petition the county to have
their canal dredged at the residents' expense, usually through a special assessment.
This action calls upon local governments to assess dredging needs for residential
canals and marine basins, and to develop long-term plans for the disposal of dredge
materials from these areas. A key effort will be to identify landside disposal sites that
can accommodate this material. If successful, the planning effort may result in a
streamlined permitting process for homeowners who do wish to dredge their canals.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Dredging & Dredged Material Management
To obtain this faster permit, the applicants could be asked to enhance or replace por-
tions of hardened seawalls along the canal sides with more environmentally friendly
materials, such as rip-rap, vegetation, or terraced blocks that help support vegetation
and sealife (see Action BH-8).
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Conduct a simple water-depth survey of canals and marina basins in the
bay, and interview waterfront residents, to assess the severity of siltation in
those waterways, and prioritize dredging needs.
Responsible parties: local governments
STEP 2 Incorporate dredge disposal projections for finger canals and marina basins
into long-term dredge material management plans, and identify land-side
disposal sites to accommodate the material.
Responsible parties: local governments
STEP 3 Identify funding mechanisms to finance maintenance dredging of private
waterways. Options include special assessments and user fees.
Responsible parties: local governments
SCHEDULE:
All steps can be initiated in 1997, with appropriate funding.
COST:
Costs to perform dredging and removal of spoil to an approved site will be borne in
some fashion by the adjacent property owners who will benefit from the work, and
those costs are likely to be substantial. Conducting a simple water-depth survey to
determine depths and muck layers in canals and marina basins throughout Tampa Bay
is estimated to cost from $50,000-$100,000, depending on level of detail. Identifying
upland disposal sites to contain the material may require the purchase of land or land
easements. Step 3 involves administrative costs only.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
The primary beneficiaries of this action are waterfront homeowners, who also will pay
for any dredging and dredge material disposal. Routine dredging of dead-end canals
and marina basins may also improve local water quality.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
The impacts of dredging projects in these canals will be monitored as a result of
permits issued for these activities.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Local governments may need to enact rules or special taxing districts to establish a
funding mechanism for maintenance dredging of private waterways.
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.........-.-.-.-.-.-.-.............'.'..'.'.....'..'.-.'..-........"
..................... ....."..,,"..........
............ ...................... ...",
.......................,...,..,'........................
................................ ..
11..........8........................1....1................................ Ii.
......... . ".... .
....................................
213
l]l'~J'f;:I
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
214
ACTION PLAN
Dredging & Dredged Material Management
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Spill Prevention & Response
Spill Prevention
& Response
Installation of an integrated vessel tracking system to guide large ships through Tampa
Bay ranks as one of the highest priorities in the prevention of oil and hazardous mate-
rials spills.
On average, about 14 million gallons of oil and other hazardous materials pass
through Tampa Bay each day on huge ships the size of modem skyscrapers. These
ships traverse a long, relatively narrow shipping channel that leaves little room for
navigational errors.
In addition, billions of gallons of hazardous materials and chemicals-including
petroleum products, phosphoric and sulfuric acid and anhydrous ammonia-are stored
in tanks at various ports and industries along the bay. While spill prevention efforts
are essential for all hazardous materials, they are particularly significant in dealing
with highly toxic, water-soluble compounds such as anhydrous ammonia or sulfuric
acid. A spill of these materials could have a severe, but relatively short-term, impact
on the bay's fish and wildlife, as well as threaten public safety.
A three-vessel collision at the entrance to Tampa Bay in August 1993 was a vivid
reminder of the bay's vulnerability. More than 330,000 gallons of oil escaped, fouling
area beaches and mangroves and killing dozens of seabirds. But more extensive dam-
age was averted due to favorable tide and weather conditions and quick deployment of
response crews.
While large spills have been rare in Tampa Bay, the cumulative impact of countless
small spills of less than 25 gallons from fuel and bilge pump discharges and uninten-
tionalleaks represent a chronic problem.
Tampa Bay is currently equipped to handle cleanup of oil or fuel spills of up to 10,000
gallons with mobile equipment transported by response crews. Larger spills require
that equipment and personnel be brought in from other parts of the state and Gulf
region. That makes effective advance planning and coordination essential.
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
215
l)r4i~:f;:I
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
21&
ACTION PLAN
Spill Prevention & Response
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
· Prevent catastrophic spills of oil and hazardous materials.
· Reduce chronic smaller discharges from boats, ships, marinas and other sources.
· Minimize the environmental impact of spills through planning and response.
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS FOR SPILL PREVENTION & RESPONSE
SP-l Establish an integrated vessel tracking system for Tampa Bay and perma-
nently fund the PORTS system.
SP-2 Install permanent boom anchors near environmentally sensitive areas.
SP-3 Evaluate state piloting requirements and improve state authority over fed-
eral vessels carrying hazardous materials.
SPA Identify the most appropriate entity to inspect coastal bulk oil storage
facilities in the Tampa Bay watershed.
SP-5 Improve fueling and bilge-pumping practices among recreational boaters.
Reader note: An additional action to "evaluate the need for a risk assessment of
overland and underwater pipelines carrying hazardous materials" is in review, and
will be the focus of a meeting organized by the Tampa Bay NEP in 1996, involving
industry and environmental agency representatives.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Spill Prevention & Response
Establish an Integrated Vessel Traffic System for
Tampa Bay and Permanently Fund the PORTS
System
ACTION:
Establish an integrated vessel traffic system for Tampa Bay to reduce the potential for
maritime collisions and spills of hazardous materials. Additionally, secure a perma-
nent source of funding for PORTS, which provides real-time tide and current data to
recreational and commercial mariners and to the spill response community.
BACKGROUND:
Tampa Bay is home to three major seaports, a growing cruise ship industry, and
dozens of power plants and businesses that utilize the bay for transportation.
Approximately 10,000 ships and large vessels pass through Tampa Bay annually,
transporting more than 4 billion gallons of oil, petroleum products, and other haz-
ardous materials.
Guiding large tugs and ships along the bay's 44-mile main ship channel, in fair and
foul weather, through shallow depths, and amid increasing boating activity challenges
even the most experienced mariner. The absence of a coordinated vessel tracking sys-
tem for the bay increases this pressure, as well as the potential for spills resulting from
accidents.
Currently, pilots and ship captains on Tampa Bay utilize a voluntary radio broadcast
network to relay vessel information when entering or departing port. Large vessels
are equipped with ship-board radar, but the quality and range of these systems vary.
In fact, limited navigational systems on some vessels force pilots to rely heavily on
personal knowledge and skills to safely complete each transit.
Tampa Bay had been one of several ports scheduled to receive a U.S. Coast Guard
vessel traffic system (VTS) in 2002, but this acquisition now appears unlikely. That
system would have consisted of a shore-based radar system and personnel to coordi-
nate traffic flow and transmit data to vessels via radio.
However, even this enhanced system would have limitations due to its exclusive
reliance on radar. While radar can pierce fog and darkness, its accuracy and range is
limited in heavy rain. Severe and sudden thunderstorms-a summer signature in
Tampa Bay--can reduce visibility and radar capabilities to zero, increasing the poten-
tial for groundings and accidents.
Some new technologies available would reduce or eliminate this risk. One of those is
a differential global positioning system (DGPS), which transmits high-precision data
on vessel movements directly to the ship-in all weather conditions. A key feature of
the system is a lap-top, computerized piloting tool that can be carried aboard vessels
or installed on ships. This lap-top device enables pilots to view the position and
movements of other large vessels as they occur. Collision-avoidance data and weather
11]::1[11; ,''';If:::~''ii:r
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.-,'...-..-.-.-..........-......,.,-........'.'.'.'...'.','.'.'.'.'.'.',.,'.
..........................,......""".."".......
.....................'.......................,.....,
.................................'...'..."'..-..
................. ......................
...............................,..."""""".
.....:......'.....1.111.._.............
217
-=:::}.~.:t.r-::-,;: W\<<::-.x<<::::::-;
>>. ~:-:,s;::~,..-:> ..... :0:.. ......
~Uhr~i~f- ~~~ :~
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.."...".........................
......................................
...",.."..,...........,...................
.....................,',......................
............................
....S...........................................
........... " ......... ......
.. .. ........ .....
...... . ....... ....
... .'.".... ..... .....
..... . ..... .....
.. - . , ..... .....
..... .".. .... ....
. "' ..... .....
....". . ...... .....
,".. ... .....
......., ... ......
y\.............Elmlw
218
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Spill Prevention & Response
information also are provided by the system, which would be fully integrated with
radar surveillance to provide 100 percent coverage of vessel traffic on Tampa Bay.
Global positioning technology, coupled with shore-based radar, provides the safest
available means for navigation. This added protection is particularly vital to Tampa
Bay, which has the longest transit of any port in Florida. Because there are no
anchorages along the route, once a pilot has committed to a transit, he must proceed
or risk grounding.
While collisions and spills are infrequent, they do occur. Since 1970, several major
spills have occurred in Tampa Bay. The largest of these occurred in August 1993,
when more than 330,000 gallons of oil flowed from a collision of three vessels at the
mouth of Tampa Bay. Clean-up costs to contain the spill and scour oil-soaked beach-
es exceeded $50 million. Investment in a more technologically sophisticated vessel
tracking system for Tampa Bay could easily be recouped by avoiding even a single
accident involving hazardous materials.
The Tampa Bay National Estuary Program supports implementation of the best avail-
able vessel positioning technology as soon as possible. A legislative report summariz-
ing a state study of navigational needs for Florida ports was completed in January
1995. The draft of this report noted compelling reasons to install a more sophisticated
VTS for Tampa Bay, in advance of the proposed Coast Guard system. It recommended
that a local technology committee be established to investigate various configurations
and financing mechanisms for a combined GPS-radar system for implementation by
July 1, 1997. That committee has been organized under the purview of the Tampa
Port Authority, with preliminary recommendations expected in early 1996.
Meanwhile, Tampa Bay pilots will be supplied with prototype lap-top navigators to
help evaluate this new technology.
The Tampa Bay Program also supports permanent funding for the ongoing manage-
ment of Tampa Bay's Physical Oceanographic Real-Time System (PORTS), which
provides tide and current data to navigators. The system's "real-time" measurements
are most critical to pilots of large commercial vessels and to spill response crews who
must carefully execute containment and cleanup.
In recent years, the PORTS system-which is based in St. Petersburg-has received
funding from maritime industries and the Hillsborough County phosphate severance
tax. In 1995, the Florida Legislature approved a one-time loan of $77,000 through the
Coastal Protection Trust Fund for maintenance of the system. However, no permanent
funding source exists for this unique system, which is currently the only one of its
kind in the nation.
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Support efforts to implement a vessel tracking system utilizing best avail-
able technology as soon as possible in Tampa Bay.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEp' in cooperation with local govern-
ment partners and the Agency on Bay Management
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
--
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Spill Prevention & Response
SlEP 2 Establish a permanent source of funding for PORTS. Funding options
include: county boater registration fees, navigation districts, port user fees,
Florida Coastal Protection Trust Fund, Hillsborough County Phosphate
Severance Tax. The last two sources currently provide maintenance fund-
ing, but long-term commitments have not been secured.
Responsible parties: local governments and Florida Legislature
SCHEDULE:
Steps 1 and 2 are both ongoing.
COST:
Sources estimate that a combined GPS-radar system will cost $2 million, including
installation and training, and another $450,000 annually to maintain the system.
Funding options for installation and maintenance include: user fees (all vessels enter-
ing port), Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development Trust Fund,
State Transportation Trust Fund, General Revenue and the Coastal Protection Trust
Fund.
Ongoing maintenance funding for the $1.2-million federally financed PORTS system,
which was installed in 1991, is estimated at $220,000.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
A combined vessel positioning and information system and real-time weather and cur-
rent data will ensure the highest level of spill prevention and response for Tampa Bay.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Collision-avoidance data from the new vessel traffic system could be used to measure
the success of this technology to aid in spill prevention. The Coast Guard Marine
Safety Office tracks all oil and hazardous materials spills.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
None anticipated.
RELATED ACTIONS:
SP-2, SP-3
:1[I!llll;li.,;J.:I:\:lii;;~"':lr
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.______n....."",.... '" " '"
.-.-.....................,.,,-,-,-..-.-........................
.............,',.............. '"
............................ ......................
.............,................. .",
1111......... I.
...................,...............
........................" ....,
219
1ft. ffl:4:,w.<'W:
i &M% ff. Jrt.
~, ~~ t:::,::~. _ _ ~~. w.
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
'" "" . ".....,-.---.-...----_.....,....
.'.,..................'.'......:.:...,.,...........,.,..........'.'......................................
. ,..........."......................
..., ....'.-.-_...........................
/1111
220
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Spill Prevention & Response
Install Permanent Boom Anchors Near
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
ACTION:
Install permanent boom anchors, along with risers and equipment storage facilities,
near environmentally sensitive areas of Tampa Bay to enable quick and effective
deployment of oil containment equipment in the event of an oil or hazardous materials
spill.
BACKGROUND:
An environmental workgroup supporting the development of Tampa Bay's Area
Contingency Plan (ACP) on oil spills met several years ago to prioritize areas of the
bay for protection from spills. That workgroup identified the following seven priority
areas, along with site-specific protection strategies to guide response:
. Terra Ceia Bay - Block off sensitive inner embayments and direct material east to
a causeway collection area.
. Bishops Harbor - Protect inner portions of the harbor and direct material south to
causeway collection area.
. Cockroach Bay/Little Manatee River - Protect inner areas portions of Cockroach
Bay and Piney Point and direct material south to Port Manatee or north to Bahia
Beach or Apollo Beach.
· Bullfrog Creek - Protect the creek and direct material to Cargill along the north
side of the Alafia for collection, or south to TECO property.
. Bower Tract - Block entrances to creek and direct material to Courtney Campbell
Causeway for collection.
. Weedon Island - Implement Island's own spill response plan and direct material to
nearby causeway for collection.
. Ft. DeSoto - Protect inside "arrow" of Ft. DeSoto Park, directing material to Ft.
DeSoto Beach for collection.
For each area, the group recommended the development of more detailed response
plans, including maps identifying response staging, equipment storage and material
collection areas; access points; boat ramps and channel markers; and water depths.
The group also strongly urged the installation of permanent boom anchors, where fea-
sible and appropriate, to improve spill response and reduce boom deployment time.
Permanent boom anchors are most effective in small areas that are easily contained,
such as creeks, embayments or canals. They provide a permanent fixed point from
which to deploy floating oil booms that are used to surround and contain spilled mate-
rial, or deflect it to other areas for cleanup, saving critical time for spill response
crews.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
<I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Spill Prevention & Response
This action is to determine the best locations for these boom anchors, a task that the
Florida Marine Research Institute has begun with a grant from the Tampa Bay NEP,
and to promote installation of these anchors to aid in the protection of these vital areas
of the bay.
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Reconvene the Oil Spill Contingency Plan's environmental workgroup in
the spring of 1996 to consider results and recommendations on boom
anchor locations by the Florida Marine Research Institute. Proposed
anchor sites will be evaluated on the basis of technical and permitting feasi-
bility, potential for navigational hazard, liability considerations, and cost of
implementation. Recommendations from the workgroup will be presented
in the final Comprehensive Conservation & Management Plan for Tampa
Bay, which will be completed in mid 1996.
Responsible parties: US Coast Guard Marine Safety Office
STEP 2 Secure commitment for installation and maintenance of boom anchors, and
install them at recommended sites.
Responsible parties: Based on Step 1
SCHEDULE:
Step 1 will occur in 1996, with the goal of having boom anchors installed by 1998.
COST:
No additional costs are anticipated for step 1. While installation and construction
costs for permanent boom anchors will vary, costs are estimated $3,000-5,000 per
anchor. Long-term maintenance costs are additional.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Installation of permanent anchors will save critical time in boom deployment, enhanc-
ing protection of the bay's most ecologically sensitive resources in the event of a spill.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Bureau of Emergency
Response monitors environmental responses to oil spills.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Permits will be required for anchor installations.
RELATED ACTIONS:
P-1
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
. .....----..............,......"""" '"
..:...........................,...,....,..........,....,...,',',','''.',',',',',",",'
....................." '"
................ ......,.....
..............................-,.,.,.,',...,.,.,'.'.'..'.'.'.
..................11.............................................
..........., .....
.................... ',' '....,'.'..
................... ," ....'.',.;
,......... . . , ...., . ...'.'.'.','.'.
.......... ,.. .. .... " "",,'"
)q ... ...:......................................
.......... . ...-.
................... ....11........................
.....................
..............................,.......,.....,...,...,................
221
IDRAI~'I"
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
'. "..-.-.,................................
........"",.............."...................
.--...',...."..........................
....1111
222
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Spill Prevention & Response
Evaluate State Piloting Requirements and Improve
State Authority Over Federal Vessels Carrying
Hazardous Materials
ACTION:
Improve state oversight of harbor pilots and expand state authority over federal ves-
sels carrying hazardous materials.
BACKGROUND:
More than 5,000 vessels traversed Tampa Bay in 1993 on their way to or from the
bay's three ports, located at Tampa, St. Petersburg and Port Manatee. Together, these
ports provide more than 75,000 jobs and generate a combined economic impact of
more than $5 billion a year. The Port of Tampa alone is the nation's seventh largest in
terms of cargo tonnage.
But this bustling waterborne commerce puts the environmental resources of the bay at
risk from collisions and groundings that can result in massive spills of oil and other
hazardous materials. An estimated 14 million gallons of petroleum products pass over
the bay daily, along with anhydrous ammonia, sulfuric acid and other products associ-
ated with the bay area's thriving fertilizer industry.
The nature of the bay itself compounds the risk of accidents. With an average depth of
only 12 feet, the skyscraper-sized ships plying its waters must rely upon a meandering
80-mile network of dredged deep-water channels to safely reach their destination.
Some of the bay's most ecologically productive mangrove forests, marshes and sea-
grasses lie just a few hundred yards from the edge of the shipping channel, and shoal-
ing along these steep edges provides a constant navigational hazard.
A journey from the Gulf of Mexico into the Port of Tampa can take three to seven
hours, and mariners at the helm of the ships must make split-second decisions to
avert catastrophes. Highly skilled and locally knowledgeable harbor pilots are the first
line of defense against accidents, and are especially important given that there
presently are no emergency anchorages for ships to pull into in case of emergency,
and a huge container vessel may require a mile or more to come to a complete halt.
Currently, the bay's harbor pilots undergo a rigorous training, examination and
apprenticeship period before being allowed to guide a ship on their own. The piloting
system is governed by the state Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) and
appointed representatives of the piloting and maritime industries, who serve on the
state Board of Pilot Commissioners. All state pilots must have a federal pilot's license,
but federal pilots are not required to obtain a state license.
A fiery three-way ship and barge collision that occurred at the mouth of Tampa Bay in
August 1993 served as the catalyst for a reexamination of the current oversight mech-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Spill Prevention & Response
anisms. That accident resulted in a spill of more than 330,000 gallons of oil, coating
nearby beaches and mangrove islands for weeks and killing dozens of seabirds.
Following the spill, the state Legislature passed a bill expanding the grounds for disci-
pline of state pilots, to include actions against a driver's license for alcohol- or
drug-related reasons, and piloting while in an impaired state. The bill also closed a
loophole which had prevented discipline of state pilots whose federal licenses had
been placed on probation or who had voluntarily surrendered their federal license in
lieu of prosecution. Enhanced access to the piloting system was also granted to quali-
fied minority and women applicants.
Despite these improvements, additional changes could further reduce the risk of an oil
or hazardous materials spill in the bay. Requiring that state pilots be used on more
vessels is one suggestion. For example, state pilots are not required on U.S.-flagged
vessels under 1,600 gross tons and tugs and barges under 10,000 gross tons. This cate-
gory encompasses vessels such as small ammonia tankers and propane gas barges,
which require an exclusion or "safety zone" while in the shipping channels because of
the hazardous nature of their cargoes.
Vessels over 1600 gross tons and petroleum barges over 10,000 gross tons require
only a federal pilot with minimal local experience, while barges of any size not carry-
ing petroleum products are exempt from all pilotage requirements.
Enhancing the licensing requirements and disciplinary procedures governing state
pilots is another way to improve navigational safety. Training of state pilots could be
expanded to mandate the successful completion of at least one continuing education
course every two years at a facility approved by the Board of Pilot Commissioners.
Since pilots currently are not required to take an exam to renew their license, these
refresher courses would ensure that their skills remain sharp and up-to-date.
Additionally, pilots involved in a major accident should have their licenses suspended
pending the outcome of an investigation into the cause of the accident.
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Require a state-licensed pilot on board any vessels carrying hazardous
materials and requiring a "safety zone" while traversing the bay.
Responsible parties: Florida Department of Business Regulation, Florida
Legislature, U.S. Coast Guard
STEP 2 Suspend the license of any pilot involved in a major accident until the com-
pletion of a preliminary investigation into the cause of the mishap.
Responsible parties: Florida DPR, State Board of Pilot Commissioners
STEP 3 Require that state pilots successfully complete at least one continuing edu-
cation course at an approved facility every two years in order to renew their
license.
Responsible parties: Florida DPR, State Board of Pilot Commissioners
IrJrllf'j.,:i't\II~;"lr
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
....------.......................---.""
.................. .,.........".
......................................" "..............
................ ..........
....................................."."",
.................. '. ...........
.......................... ...",.". ",-".
......8.........................8............. '.
.... .. ....... -........................
.... .. .... "..
.... . ...... ...........
.... . .... ",,""
... . . . ........ .'. ..-.................
.... ...... . ....
... ". ............. .................
::::::>.... .......:..> }:.,...,.
.... . ......... .........
.... . ........ ,..
..... .. .......... c,",','
:::::::::::......,..;::::.......:::::::::::::::::::::-:-.'..:.:-:-:::,.':
223
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
,,,,,- ",...........-.--_.........
..................................,.......................
.........................
.............................................................................
SIll
224
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Spill Prevention & Response
SCHEDULE:
Step 1 will require at least administrative rule changes, and possibly legislative action
that could be initiated in 1996 or 1997. Steps 2 and 3 could be accomplished through
administrative rule changes by the Board of Pilot Commissioners, commencing in
1996.
COST:
Three to four of the ships crossing Tampa Bay each week require a safety zone for
passage, but do not currently require pilots on board. Given this relatively low num-
ber, it is not anticipated that additional harbor pilots will be needed to handle this
small increase in their workload. Therefore, the costs associated with Steps 1 and 2
are only administrative. The cost of Step 3, requiring ongoing education, will be borne
by the Tampa Bay Harbor Pilots, who already send many of their members to refresh-
er course.s. The estimated cost of a one-week seminar at a facility such as the Marine
Institute of Training and Graduate Studies in Maryland is $4,000.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
The risk of a catastrophic spill of oil or other hazardous materials in Tampa Bay will
be reduced.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
The measure of success for this action will be its implementation, which will help to
prevent spills to the bay.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Possible changes to Chapter 310 of the Florida Statutes, governing regulation of
licensed industries in the state. Possible federal legislation to address the need for
pilots on cruise ships. Administrative rule changes by the Florida Department of
Professional Regulation, through the Board of Pilot Commissioners.
RELATED ACTIONS:
SP-l, SP-2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Spill Prevention & Response
Identify the Most Appropriate Authority To
Inspect Coastal Bulk Oil Storage Facilities In The
Tampa Bay Watershed
ACTION:
Identify the most appropriate entity to conduct annual inspections of coastal bulk oil
storage facilities.
BACKGROUND:
Petroleum products comprise the largest cargo category at the Port of Tampa, and vast
quantities of oil and other fuels are stored in tanks at and near the port. Tank failures
caused by equipment malfunctions, structural problems or an airplane or vehicle colli-
sion could result in a spill of millions of gallons of oil into the bay, with potentially
devastating economic and environmental damage.
Under the federal Oil Pollution Act (OPA) of 1990, 21 bulk oil storage facilities at the
Port of Tampa with a combined capacity of more than 471 million gallons of oil were
designated Significant and Substantial Harm Facilities, with special inspection and
planning requirements. OPA gave responsibility for inspecting the waterfront compo-
nents of these facilities-including docks-transfer pipelines and vessel safety to the
U.S. Coast Guard, while inspection of the landside components-including contain-
ment berms, fencing and the tanks themselves-was assigned to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
This division of responsibilities has some disadvantages, however. One drawback is
that EPA's manpower limitations may prevent it from inspecting all the coastal storage
facilities it is assigned, increasing the risk of a spill. The cost of performing the
inspections also is a limiting factor, since the inspections are done by personnel from
EPA's regional office in Atlanta. Additionally, the inspectors are not able to work with
facility managers on a regular basis to ensure that their spill prevention safeguards are
the best possible.
Because spill prevention is critical to preserving the natural resources of Tampa Bay,
this action seeks to determine whether EPA authority over inspections of these facili-
ties should be delegated and, if so, to identify the authority best equipped to take over
this responsibility.
The Coast Guard is one potential candidate to assume this duty, since it already con-
ducts inspections of the docks, vessels and oil transfer components associated with
the oil storage facilities. The Coast Guard also maintains a high profile among local
maritime interests through its local Marine Safety Office, and would be a convenient
and familiar contact point. However, Coast Guard officials are concerned about the
costs of training their personnel to conduct the additional inspections, as well as legal
and enforcement ramifications.
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
:::::::::::;:::;:::;:;:::::::::;:;:::::::::::;::::::::::::::::::::::;:::::;:::;:;:
..............................................................'.'.'.,.'.
"""'8.'.........""'11........'."""""11."""....",,> ""
....... ',' .............. .'.'......<<<.;..:.:
.... . ,..... ..,....,,,
... . . . ..... -..,...."",.-..
Un.. ......ri
..... .. ............... ..."'"
..... . ",.."".. .
:.:.:.;.:.:.........:.;.:....'..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:':':'.':':':':
225
~l::IRAI;"(,
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.'............-..-.-...-.-.......-.-.............................
.- ..",............................
....................."..,.......................
............................
........S........................................
',','" -. ......... .....
.'.' '. ....... .....
..-..--_._-"'" ..........
. . ...... ....
.....'.. ... " ..... .....
o .. ..... ....
.-- . ,.... ....
i....RII/
228
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Spill Prevention & Response
State or local government environmental and emergency response personnel represent
another possible solution. Like the Coast Guard, their proximity to the facilities
increases the likelihood that inspections would be performed regularly, and they have
a vested interest in preventing pollution from entering Tampa Bay. However, financ-
ing obstacles exist with this option as well.
Even if the authority to conduct the coastal facility inspections is delegated, EPA like-
ly would retain control of enforcement and compliance issues. The local entity, how-
ever, would serve as an early warning system to identify problems and target facilities
with a history of non-compliance, forwarding its observations and concerns to EPA.
EPA also would continue to conduct inspections of inland oil storage facilities.
STRATEGY:
This action proposes a workshop to identify whether delegation of the inspections of
coastal bulk oil storage facilities is appropriate; what authority is best suited to assume
the duty; and what training and additional funding would be necessary to test this
approach in the Tampa Bay watershed.
SlEP 1 Sponsor a workshop to evaluate options for improving inspections of
coastal bulk oil facilities in the Tampa Bay watershed. The workshop
should involve spill response experts from EPA, the Coast Guard, Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and maritime interests, as
well as local environmental management and emergency response person-
nel. The workshop should explore cooperative planning, delegation of
authority if appropriate, training and funding requirements, development of
uniform inspection forms and criteria, and legal and enforcement issues.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEp' Coast Guard, EPA, FDEP, mar-
itime interests, local government environmental management and emer-
gency response personnel
SlEP 2 Forward the recommendations of the workshop participants to the Coast
Guard and EPA representatives serving on the Regional Response Team,
which has authority to implement spill prevention plans and inspections.
The recommendations can be implemented regionally, or just in Tampa
Bay, through a letter of agreement between EPA and the delegated agency.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEP
SCHEDULE:
The workshop (Step 1) should be held in early 1996, with the recommendations for-
warded to the Regional Response Team for implementation in FY 1996-97.
COST:
Organizing a workshop will involve only administrative and staff costs. The Oil
Pollution Act already provides a mechanism for funding inspections of coastal oil
storage facilities, so no additional funds will be needed to conduct the inspections.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
RELATED ACTIONS:
SP-I, SP-2, SP-3
ACTION PLAN
Spill Prevention & Response
However, some additional training of personnel may be necessary if authority for the
inspections is delegated.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Consolidating inspections of bulk oil storage facilities along Tampa Bay will improve
spill prevention efforts, reducing the potential risks to bay fisheries and wildlife from
a spill.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Not applicable.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
None anticipated.
r[111;111;1!:I[;II:';~lr
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
..................,,,,,-------, ,--
..................................".--...
.......................'.'.............,....,,'...........
......................... n. ,.__. _ ,...
......................"...................................
.......1.1111...................................
227
~"':-'",',','......-. ~.. *-...,-:~:-..,
~... '~i: .".;... . -' .....'.;-: ....
iJ~~ lii;t 1 ~~~~: :m[
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.",..................
',',',',.....,.......,...................
"..., .... ...... ...................
",',',",.,..................................
.-....,...............................
""""""S"""""""""''''''''''''''''''''''''''',',','
",',',',',',',',',',',' .. ....... n'
o. ...... ....
',',' -' ..... '"'
',',',',","'" . "... ....
",.... - -' ..... .....
',',"',',',',' ..... .... ....
.... ." .... ....
','",',',',',' , .' ',',',
::::,::,::,::,::,","',.:::::"'-,. " ,.....: ;....:. .:::::
',', ",.....".. ..,
....111<
228
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Spill Prevention & Response
Improve Fueling and Bilge Pumping Practices
Among Recreational Boaters
ACTION:
Improve fueling and bilge pumping practices among recreational boaters.
BACKGROUND:
As the number of recreational boaters utilizing Tampa Bay increases, the incidences of
small fuel spills and releases of oily bilge water also are expected to escalate. Small,
but chronic, spills occur routinely through careless fueling habitats, operation of out-
board motors, discharges of oily bilge water, and improper disposal of used oil prod-
ucts. According to the National Research Council, these small spills account for 90
percent of the oil that ends up in the nation's waterways.
Although many boaters store their boats on land, thousands of vessels remain in the
bay at marinas, yacht clubs and countless docks. Some boat insurance policies require
automatic bilge pumps, but boat owners also pump their bilges manually. The cumu-
lative amount of oil entering the bay as a result of recreational vessel bilge pumping
can be substantial.
Typically, recreational vessels stored dockside use automatic bilge pumps to prevent
accidental sinkings from equipment failures or storms. These pumps are activated
when the interior volume of water reaches a certain level. The bilge water that is
automatically pumped from vessels with internal engines may contain small amounts
of fuel, cleaning solutions, and other chemicals that pollute the bay.
In addition, fuel spills frequently occur when boat owners fill their tanks. Boat own-
ers often can't tell when the tank is full until the overflow valve discharges diesel or
gasoline into the bay.
Federal and state laws prohibit the discharge of any fuel or oil within 12 nautical
miles of shore. As little as one cup of fuel can cause a "fuel sheen," which is a misde-
meanor that can result in a warning or fine. To help prevent discharges, very large
commercial vessels are required to have oil-water separators. However, these are not
required, and are often impractical, for smaller vessels. Additionally, only vessels
longer than 26 feet in length are required to have a placard reminding the operator that
oil discharges are prohibited.
If a substantial amount of fuel or oil is spilled in a bilge, the vessel owner or operator
is required to hire an oil recycling contractor to pump the water-oil mixture into an
approved container. If a spill empties directly into navigable waters, operators also
must also immediately notify the U.S. Coast Guard. State law also prohibits the dis-
charge of oil dispersants or bilge cleaners into bay waters.
Though enforcement of these regulations is difficult because of the number of boaters
and marinas on the bay, current U.S. Coast Guard procedures since April 1995 allow
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Spill Prevention & Response
enforcement officers to cite violators. The Tampa Marine Safety Office conducts
daily patrols and has written 33 tickets to recreational boaters (and 22 to commercial
boaters). Fines range from $50 to $1,000 for a first offense, depending on the size of
the spill and can escalate up to $25,000 a day for large spills.
Boater education remains the most effective long-term strategy for reducing chronic
spills of oil, fuel and oily bilge water to the marine environment. According to a 1992
survey by the Tampa Bay NEP, boaters are more concerned than land-bound residents
about environmental impacts, so heightened awareness may accelerate responsible
actions by this group.
There are no recreational bilge pump-out facilities in Tampa Bay. If a marina has
drums set up to receive oily-water, boat owners often have to manually pump their
bilge water into buckets and transfer it to a drum-a cumbersome practice that dis-
suades all but the most environmentally conscientious boaters. Davis Island Yacht
Club has established such an operation; boat owners are charged 55 cents per gallon,
which pays for the drums to be hauled away properly.
Use of existing commercial products can assist these efforts. Bilge pillows, diapers,
and oil-absorbent pads, available at most marine stores, act like a magnet in separating
oil from bilge water. Boat owners put them in their bilges and dispose saturated pads,
oil-water mixtures, and other hazardous boat chemicals in a proper waste container or
with a recycler. Various fuel-air separators, designed to fit most vessels, also are
available for less than $50 for installation in the vent line.
Boater education courses, offered by the Coast Guard Auxiliary now include environ-
mental protection and fueling safety components. Coast Guard Reservists that are
SEA PARTNERS present environmental programs and attend boat shows to educate
the public and boaters. This action seeks to reduce small spills by improving educa-
tion of new boaters and boat owners who store their vessels in the water.
STRATEGY:
The strategy to improve fueling and bilge-pumping practices encourages boat owners
with internal engines and fuel tanks to install fuel-overfill protection devices and oil-
water separators, where feasible. It also emphasizes boater education and outreach to
yacht clubs, sailing organizations, marinas, and "high-dry" facilities where boats are
stored.
SlEP 1 Encourage registered boat owners to install fuel overfill protection devices
and oil-water separators in automatic bilge pumps. Encourage boat owners
to switch bilge pumps "off" when fueling, and to visually inspect bilges
after fueling.
Responsible parties: Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP), U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary, Marine Manufacturers Association,
Sea Grant
I:Jll1lli.ill.lJI,:ll::;:;"!i":'
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
.........----......,...."'...... -,'-
...........................'...:......'........,......'.'.'.'.'.':':',',-,-,-,',',',',',-.'.',','
...........................'.'.,.....;...'N.........'.,.,.,.,.,.,."<""""",:.-"",,.,..'.
.:.:.:.5..:.:.:......:.......:.:.:...:......:.:.:.:.:..:...:........:.::..::..
."" .... ....... ..."....................
.... ........" .
.... "." ..... ...'...............
... ,..... '" "d.
.... . ..... ..."....................
... . . . ,... ""..,_.
.... ...... ..... """".",','
....... '..,. .',...... '.',.,',............
.... . " "... "",
...... """'''............
II,S.}..
229
IlIJll1iftl}:l:
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
....................
........,...................................
.....".... ................................
, "......,',..................................
......."........... .........................
.......S..............................................
..., .. ....... ....
..."..,,,. . ...... ....
,.....",... . ..... P.
.............. ...... ....
....".. . .... n.
,".",. - '...... ......
,....",.. ... -, .... .....
,,,,,,...., .. .... ....
:;i;i/;... .'; ......:......:....:. ",::,
1I1,{
230
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Spill Prevention & Response
STEP 2 Develop education materials that will stimulate solutions to bilge contami-
nation and fuel handling situations. Ideally, materials will include a free
sample "oil sorb" product that will allow the recreational boater to see, first
hand, the practical application of such a product.
Responsible parties: FDEP, U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary, SEA PART-
NERS, Sea Grant
Note: Extensive educational material produced by manufacturers and other boater
environmental education programs (Puget Sound Alliance, Chesapeake Bay
Foundations, CMC etc.) already exists and can be tailored for local use.
STEP 3 Distribute educational materials to yacht clubs, sailing schools, boating
organizations, and boat shows around the bay, as well as to all marinas that
store boats in the water and in "high and dry" facilities. Form or utilize an
existing speakers bureau to address these groups and possibly distribute
free oil-sorb samples in partnership with one of the leading manufacturers.
Responsible parties: FDEP, U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliarists, SEA PART-
NERS, Sea Grant Marine Extension, CMC
SCHEDULE:
The Tampa Bay National Estuary Program will convene the organizations listed above
to evaluate on-going programs and materials, and develop a plan to implement the
Steps 1 - 3 (with new or existing materials) in 1996.
COST:
Costs will to develop and distribute educational materials will be determined based on
format selected, but should be accomplished through existing resources or available
grants. Manufacturer and boat dealership sponsors should be aggressively pursued.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Reduced small spills during fueling and during automatic bilge pumping.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
The measure of success for this action will be a reduction in the number of minor
spills reported.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
None anticipated.
RELATED ACTIONS:
BH-4, TX-3, PH-3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACTION PLAN
Spill Prevention & Response
11]1; IIHI:,,!I;ll,III:::;':'lr'
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
231
232
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1[l'R:~ft;f:T
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
...... :C.i;.:,;
'.'. .: .... .......:......
Ti.<;, ........ ........... ""'.i ." ..........
h"'i/. .............. .....~~j
II ~ ..~...~...... 'tj" ";i'(Ci'i' ..< <i
I:;:; ~ ........J
..
, L.
<;;i~-
.........'..
.' ..'
',.
'.'>;.
<".:,.'i . '.
;:'~f ..' r1 (\l -,
;..'.:/ ~..
'.
........;.. ....... .~,.[" "1,.
.,i" 8.:, '..iT,.
......'i;.)C ."
.... ";.i '>.J.
. ..;,t:..; .........
, ". '. .'. 'e- ' ...... ......
.0, . ". ':"-'':or
"'1".1:, r:l"l"
i,"".' :i"F1 ~: ,l ,
I ~:)}f' Ii" 1", ,'1.
I~,:~,.
"';;;!'l;;'+" ! .......f.;.>
'"f'iI;,",. i':::i\~
::.".:"
I' U "..
';)~1>
i:" . ',t~<,
". ';j'!>.:ri"~i~;tj"
, -', , -', ,'- - ~- \-
(;"""";~""".';""':'JJ"":";
~< ^-,<~, ,,/" <.' " "')
..: :: ,,',r. '.;
"~MJ~~ ...... ,#
t j~I~A;;
......;
c.
ii;
.;'
.,"
'.
...'
i"
,
.....,......,.. . ....:..;,..,,'.: .'.... ................ .... ....
'. "r ...../' ."".;(.."....: ""',;
; ..' ....i.;;;:;: ......'.,.:.... ..............:::;:
.[ ii: .... .("~~1:G~::::..!,::.......,...
"'i';';':"\),;;
(........... i'. "i',' 'l,; ..'
,.....,,, ,,!W.: ';.~OJ .........
',,' .. .:.:~~!tt<~:. '.'
i. .";i. . i,
.. "'.' '.'
~".
;;
.,'
!{
:~:'i':t
'('!.;/~C,tt"."
· .", 1. <'''."~",.!,.
'ii,
,,'
it;j
:t
,.';'
:L
~
r..,
;...,.:..:........ .....",
....'.,.., ',',..,
.
..
..' ;. i';;:i"{' '.. '.' ,7;
, Vi,::., '..'.
',' if. .i' '; ,
; : ";.:
....,.. ,.
,....,
..
"
""..,.
..'
>,',
,
",
,,'
,ii:,,!,.
":::,.:i~#'
:i.. ';ii' , :
"
.
. .
......
~., ~
ti ~
:E ~
Z tI1
~"".~,
n ....~
Z ......
o ~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Implementing the Plan for Tampa Bay
Successful implementation of the bay restoration blueprint will require firm commit-
ments for action, flexibility for local governments to pursue the most cost-effective
strategies to achieve a particular goal, integration of goals and strategies into existing
hnplementation &
Financing
Introduction
This chapter describes how the comprehensive management plan will be implemented
by local governments, agencies and other bay stakeholders, and discusses the over-
sight role of the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program in ensuring that the goals of
the plan are achieved.
Local government and agency partners in the Tampa Bay NEP will sign an agreement
in late 1996 pledging to carry out the recommendations of the final management plan.
The agreement will include specific goals for the recovery of vital resources, such as
seagrasses and wetlands, as well as water and sediment quality goals for nitrogen and
toxic contaminants. It also will spell out each partner's responsibility for meeting
those goals, and a timetable for achieving them.
But how those targets are reached will be left up to individual communities, who may
select the most suitable options from among a range of alternatives. Many of those
options are described in this plan as examples of how a community might comply
with its commitment to reduce pollution in the bay. This approach not only empha-
sizes flexibility, but allows local governments to focus their limited resources in the
most cost-effective and environmentally beneficial manner.
Additionally, the implementation strategy outlined in this chapter addresses how these
goals and initiatives for Tampa Bay will be integrated into existing management plans
and regulatory programs.
Existing bay management expenditures also are presented to provide readers with an
understanding of how much money is currently allocated and where it is going.
Financing options that follow illustrate possible sources of revenue and approaches to
accomplish goals of the plan that might not otherwise be achieved with existing
resources. Wherever possible, the Tampa Bay NEP advocates the reallocation or more
efficient use of existing revenues to carry out recommended actions.
Charting {he Course
for Tampa Bay
233
~'::Jlil,';iil~F~!f
Charting the .Course
for Tampa Bay
234
regulatory programs and rules, and effective oversight to ensure that actions are car-
ried out in a timely manner.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Commitments will be secured through an implementing agreement signed by
regulatory and local government partners in the Tampa Bay NEP in 1996, after the
bay management plan has been finalized. These partners include Hillsborough,
Pinellas and Manatee counties; the cities of Tampa, St. Petersburg and Clearwater; the
Southwest Florida Water Management District; Florida Department of Environmental
Protection; and U.S. EPA. Other relevant agency and industry partners also will be
encouraged to become part of the formal implementing agreement.
This agreement will incorporate the finalized goals for Tampa Bay and equitably
assign responsibility for achieving them. A draft version of the goals and priorities for
Tampa Bay is presented in Chapter Three, immediately preceding the section on Bay
Action Plans.
To strengthen this agreement, the Tampa Bay NEP has applied to the U.S. EPA to par-
ticipate as a community pilot project under the President's new XL Initiative on
Reinventing Environmental Regulation. Acceptance into this program will give EPA
the flexibility it needs to allow other regulatory agencies, local governments and
industries to pursue the most environmentally beneficial and cost-effective strategies
for bay restoration and protection. Concurrent flexibility from the state, the Southwest
Florida Water Management District, and local regulatory agencies is anticipated.
A key focus of the Tampa Bay NEP over the coming months will be to secure final
commitments from those agencies, local governments and community partners identi-
fied as "responsible parties" to implement specific actions advanced in Charting the
Course.
Allocations of nitrogen loading targets for Tampa Bay to local governments and possi-
bly to other dischargers also will be finalized in 1996. To ensure that these allocations
are equitable, the Tampa Bay NEP is investigating proportional allocation schemes, in
which dischargers are assigned a fair share of the cleanup burden based on their con-
tribution to the problem. Additionally, the Program is investigating the use of loading
reduction credits, to allow public and private interests who discharge less than their
pollutant allocation to sell or trade the remaining amount to another discharger that
cannot meet its limits.
The NEP also advocates public and private partnerships to achieve more cost-effective
results than could be attained through individual actions.
Action Plans to Achieve Bay Goals
In accordance with a schedule agreed to in the implementing agreement, each partici-
pating local government and agency will be asked to submit an action plan detailing
how it intends to achieve the bay goals and associated responsibilities for review by
the NEP's Management and Policy Committees. Communities may select from vari-
ous strategies advanced in the plan to reach water quality, habitat restoration, and
other applicable bay improvement goals. These action plans should include descrip-
tions of proposed projects, how that project contributes to achieving goals (quantified,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
where applicable) with supporting documentation of benefits, an implementation
schedule, and a cost and financing plan.
These action plans are particularly important in relation to nitrogen loading goals,
because they will be incorporated into regulatory permits and may replace existing
standards where a net benefit to the bay can be demonstrated. These action plans may
be based on ongoing watershed initiatives begun prior to the adoption of the compre-
hensive plan for Tampa Bay, as long as these watershed plans are consistent with the
bay plan's objectives. In fact, watershed action plans that address specific basins
within the larger bay ecosystem can be an excellent tool for implementing the bay plan.
Goals for habitat restoration and protection are being finalized now. Both local gov-
ernments and agencies at the local, regional and state level that participated in the
development of the habitat master plan will promote these goals and overall strategies
in their respective plans. Furthermore, as part of the implementing agreement, the
Tampa Bay NEP will secure commitments from these partners to devote a significant
percentage of their planned expenditures for habitat restoration and protection along
Tampa Bay to these common goals and priority projects.
Integrating the Plan into Existing
Environmental Rules & Programs
Charting the Course has been developed in cooperation with the bay area's six largest
local governments, and environmental agencies at the local, state and federal levels, to
reach consensus on bay restoration goals and strategies. Once government and
agency action plans to achieve bay goals are submitted and approved by the
Program's Policy Committee, these action plans will be incorporated into state and
federal water quality permits addressing direct or point discharges and stormwater
management, and become part of local government comprehensive plans.
The Tampa Bay NEP also has coordinated closely with numerous environmental
alliances devoted to improving and protecting specific portions of the bay, including
the Hillsborough River Greenways Task Force, the McKay Bay initiative, and the
Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Team. These public-private alliances
of environmental and economic stakeholders are excellent models for community-
based planning.
A key partner in the Tampa Bay NEP has been the Southwest Florida Water
Management District and its Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM)
Program, which is expected to play an important role in implementing the bay plan.
The Tampa Bay NEP also works closely with the Agency on Bay Management
(ABM), which serves as the natural resources committee of the Tampa Bay Regional
Planning Council. ABM will be spearheading efforts to investigate and make final
recommendations to the NEP for several key actions in the habitat restoration and
protection action plan.
Results of a Federal Consistency Review, to evaluate and rectify possible inconsisten-
cies among the goals of other federal programs and those established for Tampa Bay,
will be included in the final bay plan.
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
235
11111lIClf
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
238
Roles of the Tampa Bay NEP in
Overseeing Implementation
The success of the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program ultimately will be measured
in bay improvement achieved through implementation of the comprehensive bay man-
agement plan. Consequently, a key ingredient for success is defining who should
oversee implementation of the plan and what oversight should entail.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The primary oversight roles of the Tampa Bay NEP will be to monitor progress (in
implementation and the bay's recovery), assist implementation, continue public out-
reach and involvement, and help improve data management. Specific efforts associat-
ed with these functions are outlined below.
One of the strengths of the Tampa Bay NEP is the precedent-setting alliance of local
governments and regulatory agencies represented on the NEP's Policy Committee,
which sets overall direction and contributes funding for the Program. In fact, local
government and agency partners feel that maintaining this decision-making struc-
ture-with regulators and regulated interests working together toward common goals
and assisted by scientific and community advisors-is critical to assuring implementa-
tion of the plan for Tampa Bay. This bottoms-up approach to environmental manage-
ment gives all partners a voice in the future of Tampa Bay.
The Policy Committee also is evaluating options for expanding committee member-
ship to broaden representation by smaller local governments and other interests.
The U.S. EPA, which administers the National Estuary Program, has set aside $1.2
million or $300,000 over four years beginning in April 1997 to assist the Tampa Bay
National Estuary Program in overseeing implementation of the bay restoration blue-
print. This federal contribution requires a 25 percent local match from the communi-
ties and agencies now participating in the NEP, a percentage equal to their current
contributions.
Oversight Roles
Monitor & Report Progress
· Monitor progress in implementing bay action plans and achieving goals for
Tampa Bay
· Produce periodic updates to action plans
· Prepare an annual progress report to policy leaders and the community on
progress in charting the course for Tampa Bay
· Produce a biennial bay monitoring report for bay managers
Assist Implementation
· Seek timely implementation of priority actions
· Pursue grants and other funding to support bay restoration
· Direct or coordinate technical investigations and other efforts to assist implemen-
tation (especially EPA's Great Waters Program, which is funding research studies
of atmospheric deposition to Tampa Bay)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
--
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Budgets for habitat restoration, preservation and management total approximately $17
million or nearly seven percent, excluding land acquisition (another four percent).
Regulation and enforcement funding, dredging and dredged material management,
environmental monitoring and public education comprise the remainder of the expen-
ditures. General revenues, in combination with ad valorem taxes and special fees and
licenses, are used to finance these various efforts.
· Provide staff support for the committees of the Tampa Bay NEP, comprised of
participating local governments, agencies, and technical and community interests
devoted to bay improvement
· Assist in conflict resolution if mediation is needed
Public Outreach and Involvement
· Continue community outreach and involvement efforts, promoting priority issues,
progress in charting the course for bay restoration, and bay stewardship and
appreciation
Data Management
· Improve public and agency access to bay management data and information, par-
ticularly on the Internet
Cost & Financing
Costs associated with individual actions presented in Charting the Course are present-
ed in those action summaries. In many cases, these represent the level of effort that
an implementing party might anticipate in budgeting these tasks. However, these
should not automatically be construed as requirements for new sources of revenues,
since some of these initiatives can be accomplished with existing resources or by re-
directing current funding allocations to better address the bay's needs.
Additionally, a number of actions seek to improve coordination and planning among
local governments and agencies, and may actually result in cost savings for currently
funded activities.
In fact, the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program strongly advocates the reallocation
or more efficient use of existing resources to carry out recommended actions. A study
by the NEP indicates that existing bay-related expenditures at the local, state and fed-
erallevels exceed $260 million per year (based on FY94-95 budgets). Of that
amount, 65 percent, or roughly $170 million, is devoted to wastewater collection,
reuse and treatment-activities that either indirectly or directly benefit the bay, even if
they aren't performed solely for the bay's benefit. These activities are funded largely
through wastewater utility enterprise funds, created by local governments expressly
for these purposes.
The next largest allocation of 13 percent, or nearly $35 million, is expended primarily
by local governments and the Southwest Florida Water Management District for
stormwater management, including handling and treatment. About half of these pro-
grams are financed through storm water utility funds. The remainder comes from ad
valorem taxes, energy utility taxes, permit fees and licenses, pollution trust funds, and
state and federal general revenues.
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
237
rIJltll~. ,~
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
238
Preliminary analyses indicate that the cost to maintain existing nitrogen loadings to
the bay may be relatively minimal over time. However, additional water quality
improvements may be necessary to achieve further progress. Offsetting anticipated
nitrogen loadings associated with growth may require an overall nitrogen reduction of
about 10 percent by the year 2010, or approximately one percent per year. Annual
costs to reduce nitrogen loadings are estimated at approximately $100,000 per ton of
nitrogen, or about $3 million per year for every percent decline in nitrogen.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Preliminary costs also have been established for habitat restoration, another focal
point of the comprehensive plan for Tampa Bay. Those figures suggest existing annu-
al expenditures of approximately $350,000 can be used to restore an optimum balance
of habitats for Tampa Bay. That amount is based on restoring about 20 acres of low-
salinity tidal marsh habitat per year.
Although costs for meeting other goals have not been fully determined, recommended
actions will focus on cost-effective use of existing resources and a clear return on
investment. Any additional funds required to restore Tampa Bay will be documented
in the action plans submitted by local governments and subject to public consideration
to ensure that issues of affordability, accountability, and environmental responsibility
are given a fair hearing.
In keeping with this theme, the Tampa Bay NEP advocates the following approach for
funding the comprehensive management plan for Tampa Bay:
· Maintain existing levels of expenditures for programs making cost-effective con-
tributions to bay restoration goals;
· Evaluate programs that fall short of these aims and investigate opportunities to re-
direct resources to accomplish more with public tax dollars;
· Aggressively pursue state and federal funding assistance for environmental
improvement;
· Promote public-private partnerships with the potential for bottom-line benefits for
the bay and businesses;
· Pursue new funding sources only if strategies above fail to achieve adequate
progress toward bay improvement;
· Aggressively pursue permit streamlining for projects advanced in the bay plan, in
conjunction with overall regulatory flexibility in areas where a net benefit to the
bay can be achieved.
If additional funds are necessary in the future, the Tampa Bay NEP has identified vari-
ous funding sources for local and state partners to consider. These include three broad
categories of revenue sources:
· debt instruments, such as long-term municipal bonds or the state revolving loan
fund, which support large projects involving substantial engineering and construc-
tion, such as wastewater treatment and reuse facilities and associated pipeline
infrastructure;
· recurring sources, such as taxes or user fees, that might be tapped for bay restora-
tion purposes, although this would probably require budget reallocations on the
part of local governments, and;
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
'.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
· short-term revenue sources, such as federal, state and private grants, which can
provide short-term capital for bay improvement projects. Their long-term avail-
ability is uncertain, but these sources have been aggressively and successfully
pursued by the Tampa Bay NEP and other agency and local government partners.
Revenue sources are summarized and evaluated in a separate report available from the
Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. That report notes that some revenue sources
are currently not being used to their full legal capacity. Federal grants and various
debt instruments fall into this category. Ad valorem taxes also may apply, since all
major local governments currently operate below the maximum millage cap, although
the margin is small in some cases. Impact and user fees as a funding mechanism for
environmental programs also appear to be under-utilized by local governments.
The report also notes other funding mechanisms that are allowed by law but have
never been implemented locally, such as a saltwater fishing license surcharge and a
marine fuel surtax. Some of these same revenue sources may even serve as incentives
for environmentally responsible behavior, as this chart illustrates:
Funding Source
Incentive Mechanism
User fees
When fee based on usage, reduces impact on
resource
Anchorage fees
Privilege fees
Reduce anchor damage to near-shore areas
Can be implemented to manage use at public
facilities
May reduce runoff pollution from properties
by encouraging on-site retention/storm water
treatment
Reduce septic tanks and package treatment
plants
Encourage compliance with environmental
laws
Reduce use of marine fuels and associated
pollution
Encourage local shellfish management plans.
Storm water utility fees
Impact fees
Fines & penalties
Marine fuel surtax
Shellfish license fees
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
239
240
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
WVlt$'", '
:~~ ::~ %-.,;: ~~ :
~~.:;.~::' ~~:: :;:;t..:.:;f. ::;:::
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
~..6
......~. ~
~ ~
~ C:l
~
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Monitoring Bay
hnprovement
Efforts to monitor the bay's health are central to the success of bay restoration
efforts, for monitoring enables communities to measure return on investment and
helps environmental managers validate or refocus existing strategies for bay improve-
ment.
An effective monitoring program provides the data necessary to assess the status and
trends in the health and abundance of the bay's wildlife and habitats. This informa-
tion allows local governments and agencies to evaluate progress made in the restora-
tion and protection of Tampa Bay. The data also provides insights into the effective-
ness of current management strategies, indicating when goals have been met, if
actions should continue, or whether more stringent efforts are warranted.
Monitoring the changes caused by management actions in an estuary is not as simple
as counting fish or measuring water quality. Estuaries, by their very nature, are
dynamic systems. Populations of fish, birds and other organisms fluctuate following
natural cycles. Water quality also varies, particularly as seasonal and annual weather
patterns change. The task of tracking environmental changes in an estuary can be dif-
ficult - and distinguishing changes caused by human actions from natural variations
can be even more difficult.
The coordinated bay monitoring program devised by the Tampa Bay NEP in coopera-
tion with local governments is designed to address many of these challenges by build-
ing on existing efforts to more fully and clearly assess progress in the bay's recovery.
Tampa Bay benefits from several existing water quality, habitat and fisheries monitor-
ing programs, including an ambient water quality monitoring program operated by the
Environmental Protection Commission (EPC) of Hillsborough County since 1974.
These programs have contributed significantly to the wealth of knowledge available
on the Tampa Bay estuary.
The monitoring design devised by the Tampa Bay NEP builds on this existing founda-
tion. Existing monitoring programs have been standardized and expanded in some
areas, and new components - to measure atmospheric deposition, bay sediment
chemistry and the health of benthic communities - have been added.
A series of workshops with local government and agency partners helped to define
five general monitoring objectives for the water quality, fisheries, benthic and habitat
components of the program. These objectives are to:
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
241
1. Water quality
2. Benthos and sediment chemistry
3. Atmospheric deposition
4. Bay habitats (including seagrasses, emergent wetlands and
oligohaline areas)
5. Bay fisheries and wildlife.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
[ltlA\I:lf
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
· estimate the areal extent of the bay that does not provide adequate water quality
conditions to support seagrasses and other living resources
· assess the abundance and health of bay fish populations over time
· estimate the areal extent of degraded benthic habitat in the bay and within each
bay segment
· estimate the areal extent and quality of seagrasses, mangroves and emergent bay
wetlands
· estimate the areal extent of oligohaline (low-salinity) habitat in the bay and its
tributaries.
This focus on measuring the areal extent of bay conditions expands upon traditional
methods and can dramatically increase the value of information collected. For
instance, simply considering the average concentration of dissolved oxygen through-
out the bay may appear to indicate that water quality standards have been met. But, in
fact, this may not be the case, since water quality in some portions of the bay may still
be inadequate - or much better than average. The new approach will indicate how
much of the bay, by percentage or number of acres, is not meeting water quality con-
ditions to support seagrass recovery targets. It also allows more effective assessment
of trends in cases where some areas decline and others improve but the overall condi-
tion does not change.
Another new element in the monitoring program for Tampa Bay is an increased
emphasis on communicating information in a standard and more meaningful format.
Prior to standardization, monitoring programs used various methods to communicate
their results. The monitoring framework has been specifically designed to provide a
forum and format for compiling and synthesizing results from major monitoring pro-
grams in a single comprehensive document - the Biennial Environmental Monitoring
Report.
Monitoring workshops will be held regularly, every second or third year, allowing
environmental professionals from various programs to meet and review findings. A
separate report will be written for decision-makers at government agencies responsible
for the management of the Tampa Bay estuary.
Monitoring Components
The environmental monitoring program for Tampa Bay encompasses five
components:
Each of these bay monitoring components is summarized below.
242
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Water Quality
While current programs measure trends in water quality over time very effectively,
they were not originally designed to provide estimates of the spatial extent of condi-
tions in the bay. Four local governments measure water quality (including nutrients,
chlorophyll a and other parameters) at 125 stations in Tampa Bay. Those stations
were selected to meet the needs of their respective programs and may not entirely sat-
isfy the needs of the bay-wide environmental monitoring program. To truly determine
the extent of conditions reported, stations must be randomly selected.
About 70 percent of the 125 stations have been incorporated into a statistically valid
bay-wide monitoring design. This design is based upon EPA's Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) grid, which allows for random station
selection. It enables local governments to continue their long-term study at many sta-
tions while providing a more rigorous method to evaluate the spatial extent of condi-
tions in specific segments of the bay.
The EPC of Hillsborough County, Pinellas County, Manatee County and the City of
Tampa conduct water quality monitoring in the bay. Coordination between team par-
ticipants includes standardizing collection and analysis methods, sharing and compari-
son of collected data and collation of all data into biennial monitoring reports. These
governments also are participating in the West Coast Regional Ambient Monitoring
Program (RAMP), an ongoing program initiated by Tampa Bay and Sarasota Bay
NEPs, the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) and local gov-
ernments to coordinate environmental monitoring data from Tampa Bay to Charlotte
Harbor.
Benthic Communities and Sediment Analysis
A new component in Tampa Bay's monitoring program will focus on measuring the
quality of bay-bottom sediments and their effects on bottom-dwelling sea life.
Collection stations will match those randomly selected for water quality sampling.
The Tampa Bay monitoring program will evaluate the abundance and composition of
benthic species found throughout the bay to identify those areas that differ from
expected patterns. Since some species of benthos are more sensitive to environmental
stress, these areas may indicate impacts from contaminants, habitat alteration or other
trauma.
The health and abundance of benthic organisms are indicators of the bay's overall
health. If contaminants are present in the water column or sediment, filter-feeding
benthic organisms and detritivores can accumulate these contaminants in their tissue.
They also are an important link in a food web that supports many forms of marine
life, and can therefore pass on accumulated contaminants to other organisms that feed
on them.
Dissolved oxygen is another indicator scientists use to gauge the health of the bay's
benthic communities. Research in nearby Sarasota Bay indicates that stressed sea-
grass beds may not support the fish and other aquatic life typically associated with
healthy grass beds. The lack of sealife may be a result of low levels of dissolved oxy-
gen during pre-dawn hours, an issue that will be addressed in Tampa Bay as an ele-
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
243
Wll:.!ni, A' It'"W'''
'l::m*%lH0<11
$~*, ~l ~f*: :h~j m
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
244
ment of the benthic monitoring program.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The bay monitoring program also calls for local governments to monitor levels of
contaminants in sediments as part of their assessments. Initial studies indicate that
some areas of the bay contain contaminated sediments, but the severity and spatial
extent of contamination in these areas are currently unknown. In future years, the
effect of contaminants on benthic life also is scheduled to be studied with bioassays
that subject test organisms to benthic sediments. Observing the health of benthos
exposed to sediment samples in a laboratory will help to indicate toxic sites or areas
of healthy benthic communities.
Sediment chemistry and toxicity measurements also are designed to correlate with
other monitoring programs and allow comparison of toxicity data across the country.
The EPC of Hillsborough County, Pinellas County and Manatee County are partici-
pants in the benthic monitoring program, which was initiated in 1993.
Atmospheric Deposition
Preliminary research indicates that up to 28 percent of nitrogen loading in Tampa Bay,
as well as a significant percentage of cadmium, copper and lead, may come from
atmospheric deposition.
The Tampa Bay NEP has funded a pilot program to measure nutrient and heavy metal
loadings from atmospheric deposition at seven sites in the Tampa Bay watershed.
Pesticides (including DDT) and other organic pollutants also are being measured at
selected sites. Weekly samples will be monitored for levels of copper, lead, zinc,
nitrates and phosphorus. Mercury, which also is associated with atmospheric deposi-
tion, is being monitored under a separate program through the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection. The pilot program will provide new insights into the distri-
bution of contaminants transported by rainfall and dustfall.
Air and water quality divisions of the EPC of Hillsborough County, Pinellas County
and Manatee County, as well as SWFWMD, the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP) and the Florida Department of Transportation, will be participating
in a long-term monitoring program for atmospheric deposition throughout the water-
shed, in association with EPA's Great Waters initiative.
Bay Habitats
The extent and quality of habitat available for fish and wildlife is critical to maintain-
ing and restoring Tampa Bay. Many species have specific habitat requirements that
must be met for their survival.
Among the most vital habitats in Tampa Bay are the seagrass meadows that once cov-
ered much of the bay's shallow regions. Ongoing monitoring efforts have demonstrat-
ed recovery of seagrasses in some areas of the bay, but more comprehensive monitor-
ing efforts are needed to document the overall health of these existing and recovering
grass beds.
SWFWMD maps seagrass beds using aerial photographs taken every two years and
verifies the data with field checks gathered from 73 randomly selected sites. The
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The bay's colonial breeding bird populations are monitored by Audubon Society's
Tampa Bay Sanctuaries, which conducts an annual ground survey and census at island
health of seagrasses in randomly selected areas also will be monitored by measuring
density of plants, the number of blades per plant and the relative density of epiphytic
algae attached to the grass blades. More frequent sampling may be required if signifi-
cant declines in seagrass coverage or health are noted in the future.
SWFWMD is responsible for mapping and seagrass quality monitoring. The City of
Tampa is conducting more detailed monitoring in Hillsborough Bay.
Oligohaline - or low-salinity - habitats also are critical for fisheries. Located in
portions of tributaries where salinities range from zero to 10 parts per thousand, the
boundaries of these low-salinity habitats fluctuate with the flow of fresh water in nat-
ural cycles. They also have been hard-hit by development along the tributaries and
diversions of fresh water to serve the region's potable water needs.
Until recently, little effort had been made to quantify the loss of low-salinity habitats,
but new studies by regional and state agencies have mapped marshes, mangroves and
other wetland vegetation. The studies also are measuring salinity and other parame-
ters in major rivers.
An ongoing project to develop a watershed master plan for habitat restoration and pro-
tection will evaluate methods of tracking the extent and quality of oligohaline habi-
tats, as well as marshes and mangroves. A separate study also is underway to deter-
mine the effects of changes in freshwater inflows to Tampa Bay, including their
effects on fisheries and other aquatic life.
Parties responsible for monitoring oligohaline habitats will be identified as part of an
ongoing technical project.
Fish & Wildlife
Both fish and wildlife in the Tampa Bay region have shown steep declines over the
past 30 years. Activities to document their resurgence as new bay management prac-
tices are implemented are necessary to maintain ongoing support for bay restoration.
The FDEP's Critical Fisheries Monitoring Program, established in 1990, provides the
most comprehensive sampling of fisheries in the bay. This program, conducted by
FDEP's Florida Marine Research Institute, employs stratified random and fixed-sta-
tion monitoring to assess the abundance and distribution of the bay's fish and
macroinvertebrates.
To monitor potential environmental effects from toxic or hazardous materials, the
Tampa Bay NEP has recommended that the program be expanded to document abnor-
malities in all fish over 75mm long, including tumors, parasites, skeletal malforma-
tions and deformities in the gills, mouths and eyes. The largest five fish in each target
species also would be analyzed for chemical contaminants.
DEP also monitors the numbers of endangered sea turtles, manatees and bottle-nose
dolphins in Tampa Bay with aerial surveys conducted over nearshore waters. Data
collected includes location, species, number of adults and calves, and animal behavior.
'.l.![]:i:II:ll.;:~.f.:~1.;jFlr
.. .. . ...
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
245
i'~
~tM
nesting sites in the region. Audubon also sponsors an annual Christmas count
fundraiser, dispatching teams of volunteers to various places to note numbers and
varieties of birds. Aerial surveys of pelicans and mid-winter surveys of waterfowl are
conducted annually by Florida's Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission throughout
the state.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
Evaluating Progress
Participants in the Tampa Bay monitoring program recognize that monitoring efforts
are only as good as our ability to get current and correct data to appropriate managers
in a timely manner. A bay monitoring report, to be published every two years begin-
ning in 1996, will compile data from various governmental agencies and communities
responsible for monitoring into a common format. One of its objectives is to report
progress toward achieving restoration and protection targets set forth in the
Comprehensive Plan for Tampa Bay.
The format will include updated environmental data focusing on both status and
trends within Tampa Bay and its watershed. The report also will highlight areas
where additional management actions may be needed to restore the diverse habitats
within the bay and function as an early warning system for local and state govern-
ments responsible for maintaining the environmental integrity of Tampa Bay.
246
~
e
t:d
t"""
-
n
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Public Involvement
Awell-crafted community outreach program that enlists and involves diverse inter-
ests as partners in bay restoration and protection is a hallmark of all successful
National Estuary Programs.
This principle has guided the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program since it was estab-
lished in 1991. A public opinion poll conducted for the Program found citizens gener-
ally were willing to pay more to restore the bay - but wanted assurances that current
programs "work smart" to effectively apply existing regulations and resources before
adding new mandates. Responses also indicated that citizens didn't fully understand
the bay's most pressing problems, or how actions at home impact the health of the bay.
Survey results confirmed the need for diverse public input from the outset of the pro-
gram in the development of the Comprehensive Conservation & Management Plan for
Tampa Bay. Findings also pointed to the need for a broader community outreach
campaign to educate and involve the public in pollution prevention and bay steward-
ship.
These findings became the springboard for a tri-county community outreach program
initiated by the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program in 1991. From these three com-
munities, the Tampa Bay Program recruited citizen representatives with diverse per-
spectives and backgrounds to form a Community Advisory Committee.
This 25-member forum has provided structured input from citizens who share a com-
mon interest in a healthy bay that supports both recreation and commerce. Advisors
are appointed by the Program's Policy Committee and include community leaders and
representatives of homeowner's associations, agriculture, industry, education, fishing,
and the environment, who also share their perspectives as citizen-taxpayers. The
Committee assists the Program in understanding community concerns. Members also
provide information to constituents and help design and execute community outreach
programs.
This chapter profiles key elements of the Program's public education and involvement
efforts and recommends ways to maximize community participation in the future to
continue the positive course of the bay's recovery.
Addressing the Bay's Priority Problems
Priority issues, such as storm water runoff and seagrass protection, have provided a
focal point for educational outreach by the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program.
Studies by the Tampa Bay NEP estimate that storm water runoff contributes about half
of the bay's total nitrogen input and significant amounts of heavy metals and pesti-
cides. Yet, fewer than half of the citizens responding to a public opinion poll on
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
247
· the Florida Yards & Neighborhoods Handbook - a citizens' comprehensive
guide to creating and maintaining an environmentally beneficial Florida yard;
· the Florida Yardstick - an interactive poster that asks homeowners "Does Your
Yard Measure Up?" and provides a self-test and actions to measure progress in
implementing environmental landscaping concepts. Homeowners who tally suffi-
cient points can have their yard certified as a Florida Yard;
· educational slide programs and the FY &N Newsletter, a publication designed to
stimulate and educate program participants.
Actions presented in Charting the Course seek to expand these efforts to reach more
people by enlisting retailers, developers and landscaping professionals, as well as
other non-profit educational groups, to promote FY &N concepts. Local governments
also are called upon to lead by example by landscaping and maintaining public prop-
erties in accordance with these environmental principles. These groups can help stim-
ulate consumer demand for Florida Yards that are less maintenance-intensive, result-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.>>:-~'
AF"ii'>'
<<,
~ '::::
it .", i"
,:.:: ~~:;:;: ~~
,.
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
Tampa Bay in 1991 were able to identify stormwater runoff as a major source of bay
pollution.
Even fewer recognized their own potential contribution to stormwater pollution. In
fact, while most residents believe businesses are the major source of bay pollution,
residences - which far outnumber commercial sites - actually contribute more to
the bay's total nitrogen input. And that contribution could grow as more people move
into the region.
Yards & Neighborhoods as Pathways to the Bay
Yards and neighborhoods are one of the bay's first lines of defense against pollution in
storm water runoff. Yet many homeowners fail to understand the potential impact of
excess fertilizer, pesticides and water used in landscape care on the long-term health
of Tampa Bay. The connection may be immediate in a waterfront neighborhood, or
gradual, through the flow of stormwater drains, ditches, streams or rivers.
To publicize these concepts and to enlist residents in pollution prevention, the
National Estuary Programs of Tampa Bay and Sarasota Bay, and the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service established the Florida Yards & Neighborhoods
(FY &N) Program in 1991. Experts from county extension services, which administer
the program, teach residents techniques to reduce runoff pollution and enhance their
environment by improving home and landscape management. The program promotes
the establishment of Florida Yards, which emphasize native and other beneficial plants
that blend beauty and environmental benefits. The program also emphasizes least-
toxic techniques for landscape maintenance to reduce pesticides in runoff to the bay.
In 1994, the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority joined the FY &N founding
partners in a move to expand the program's outreach to neighborhoods and individual
residents in Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco and Manatee counties. Neighborhoods
accepted into the program participate in an extended effort to learn and apply environ-
mental landscaping techniques and other pollution prevention practices. To advance
these concepts, the FY &N program has produced a number of learning tools and
materials. These include:
248
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ing in reduced pesticides and fertilizers in runoff to the bay.
Educating Boaters to Protect Seagrasses
Seagrass protection has been another educational priority of the Tampa Bay Program.
Studies estimate that roughly one-third of the bay's seagrasses are moderately to heav-
ily scarred as a result of propeller scarring by boats that cut through shallow grass
flats or dredge their way free after running aground. Prop scars produce sandy trench-
es that may stay barren for years. Intense scarring at several bay locations, including
Weedon Island Preserve, Cockroach Bay and Ft. DeSoto Park, has led to boating
restrictions and an increased emphasis on boater education. Other sections of the bay
also have sustained damage and remain vulnerable to damage from propellers.
To promote protection of seagrasses and other vital bay habitats, the Tampa Bay NEP
and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) published a Boater's
Guide to Tampa Bay in 1992. While bay stewardship is the central theme of the
guide, the guide's strength is that it features information that boaters want in a handy
format that invites use. The guide's focal point is a 34" x 22" color chart of Tampa
Bay that identifies ship channels, seagrasses, aquatic preserves, reefs and public boat
ramps. The chart's flip side features profiles and illustrations of native habitats, man-
atees and birds of the bay. It folds to 9" x 4" (standard road map-size for easy on-boat
storage) and is available in both water-resistant and recycled stocks.
More than 80,000 Boater's Guides have been distributed in Hillsborough, Pinellas and
Manatee counties through marine patrol units, marinas, tax collector's offices, local
agencies and special events. A companion Boater's Guide to Charlotte Harbor has
since been produced by FDEP, which hopes to use the Tampa Bay guide as a model
for statewide implementation.
To further seagrass protection, the Tampa Bay NEP also produced a series of high
quality interpretive signage for installation at more than a dozen high-use boat ramps
and waterfront parks along the bay. The set includes a master sign featuring a map of
the Tampa Bay estuary, which highlightsseagrass areas. The accompanying text sug-
gests ways for boaters to avoid impacts to seagrasses and other shallow marine habi-
tats. Smaller companion signs in the series profile topics ranging from mangroves
and seagrasses to the brown pelican and manatee.
Enlisting Volunteers for Bay Improvement
The Tampa Bay NEP also has been instrumental in supporting volunteer efforts for
bay restoration and protection. In 1993, the Program helped establish a Bay
Conservation Corps under the direction of Tampa BayWatch, a non-profit bay stew-
ardship group. Since then, BayWatch has introduced more than 1,000 adults and stu-
dents to the wonders of Tampa Bay through dozens of salt marsh plantings, bird island
and coastal cleanups, storm drain stenciling projects, and an innovative coastal wet-
land nursery program (see profile in Community Partnerships below). The organiza-
tion serves as a clearinghouse, matching interested volunteers with hands-on activities
around the bay sponsored by various agencies and communities.
Each year, the Tampa Bay NEP and Tampa BayWatch host the Great Bay Scallop
Search, in which teams of volunteers don snorkels, masks and fins to comb the bay's
IIIJIJII:lii" ,1Ijll,II;;/"ilii":'
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
249
ImR,~\
:~~~
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
250
grassbeds in search of the elusive bay scallop. The scallop disappeared from Tampa
Bay in the 1960s when the bay was badly polluted. Recent studies have documented
the bay's improving water quality and emerging seagrass recovery, rekindling hope that
scallops can again thrive in Tampa Bay. Experimental stocking efforts are underway.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Developing Community Partnerships
for Bay Restoration
A Bay Grants program established by the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program in
1992 has been an important catalyst in developing community partnerships for bay
restoration. Since 1992, the NEP has awarded small grants totalling more than
$50,000to more than a dozen organizations, schools and communities for projects to
educate and involve diverse interests in bay restoration and protection. These initia-
tives have leveraged the talents and resources of many varied organizations, maximiz-
ing the community's and the bay's return on investment. Profiles of our community
partners and their projects for bay improvement are provided below.
~
Tampa Bay Docents - A grant from the Tampa Bay NEP helped The Florida
Aquarium establish a Bay Docents program in 1992 to train interested volun-
teers to lead weekend BayWalks on Tampa Bay at Tampa's McKay Bay Nature
Park and Weedon Island Preserve in Pinellas County. The Program has trained
more than 30 guides and introduced hundreds of children and adults to the
bay's coastal ecosystems. To become a BayWalk guide, volunteers complete a
nine-week class and field course conducted by The Florida Aquarium, and com-
mit to leading a minimum of six BayWalks per year. The BayWalks on Tampa
Bay Program has now become an ongoing component of the Aquarium's out-
reach curriculum, and is serving as a model for other NEPs and communities.
~
Operation Bay Works - This project by Hillsborough County assists businesses
in developing pollution prevention plans and implementing best management
practices to reduce stormwater runoff. Nearly 100 businesses from targeted
industry sectors, including landscape maintenance, construction and automotive
repair, are participating in the pilot program. Participants receive pollution pre-
vention workbooks designed specifically for their industries, along with instruc-
tional and promotional literature. This program blueprint will be evaluated for
implementation in other watershed counties.
~
Coastal Wetland Nursery Program - This project, directed by Tampa
BayWatch, enlists high school ecology clubs in cultivating wetland plants for
coastal restorations. Grants assistance from the Tampa Bay NEP enabled devel-
opment of an operations guide for culturing mangrove and salt marsh vegeta-
tion and the construction of a wetland nursery at St. Petersburg's Lakewood
High School, which produced more than 2,000 salt marsh plants. The idea is
taking root at other bay area schools and BayWatch eventually hopes to produce
about 75,000 salt marsh plants each year to aid in local restorations.
~
Eco-Landscaping for Businesses - Businesses are beginning to understand the
bottom-line benefits of Florida landscapes that feature native and other benefi-
cial drought-tolerant plants that demand less water, fertilizer and pesticides.
The bay- and cost-saving message is the central theme of an educational and
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
promotional campaign led by the Tampa Audubon Society in cooperation with
the Florida Association of Environmental Professionals, Westshore Alliance,
Lewis Environmental Services and the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program.
A $4,500 grant from the Tampa Bay NEP to the Tampa Audubon Society assist-
ed in the development of a corporate "pitch" brochure and slide presentation
that features cost-benefit analyses for interested parties. The group hopes to tar-
get large commercial developments where landscape modifications may be
cost-effective; another target is urban and landscape designers involved in plan-
ning new commercial projects.
:t
Least-Toxic Pest Controls - The effectiveness of natural predatory insects as
an alternative to pesticides was tested in a six-month trial using various orna-
mental crops, under the direction of the Manatee County Cooperative Extension
Service. Results showed important cost and labor savings, in addition to envi-
ronmental benefits associated with reduced pesticide use. Workshops also were
conducted to promote least-toxic pest management techniques to nurserymen
and growers.
:t
Emerson Point Restoration - Volunteers under the direction of the Manatee
County Soil & Conservation District teamed up to restore severely damaged
mangroves and salt marshes at this key conservation site. The project also pro-
duced a plant and conservation guide to Emerson Point and neighboring Terra
Ceia Aquatic Preserve.
:t
Egmont Key Seagrass Protection - Navigational buoys were installed by the
Egmont Key Alliance at this popular coastal barrier island to deter boat traffic
from heavily scarred seagrass beds. Interpretive signage on the island educates
boaters about the importance of protecting these vital cornerstones of the bay
ecosystem.
:t
Model Florida Yard Landscaping Demonstration - This project by
Hillsborough County's Public Utilities Department involved the design and
installation of a low-maintenance Florida landscape and interpretive signage at
northwest Hillsborough's Austin Davis Library, where visitors can learn about
and view bay-friendly landscape concepts that can be applied at home.
:t
Shell Key Bird Nesting Protection - The St. Petersburg Audubon Society
received a $500 grant from the Tampa Bay NEP to develop an educational sign
for installation at this important bay bird nesting site to enlist visitors in protect-
ing the island's feathered inhabitants.
A special community partnership between the Tampa Bay NEP and The Florida
Aquarium was formed in 1995 to support the development of the Florida Landscapes
gardens at the entrance to the Aquarium. This living exhibit features a mosaic of
native habitats, from beaches and wetlands to wildflower gardens, with interpretive
signage that emphasizes the beauty and environmental benefits of landscaping with
native plants. Funding from the Tampa Bay NEP also will support educational pro-
grams at the Aquarium and off-site at various bayside venues.
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
251
W4~"%@
::::: :;.::::~~ ;;;::;:::- : ~::~
1tWm Ht't:.,; m
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
252
Outreach to Schools
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
While many NEP programs have targeted adults, the Program also recognizes the
value of fostering an environmental ethic among students who represent the future
decision-makers.
Through partnerships with school districts in Hillsborough, Pinellas and Manatee
counties and The Florida Aquarium, the Tampa Bay NEP has sponsored field trips and
workshops for several thousand students and hundreds of instructors. The Program
also has participated in the development of classroom materials focusing on the
Tampa Bay estuary for incorporation into core curriculums and supported field trips.
Junior high and high school students participated in outdoor learning labs at
Cockroach Bay, McKay Bay, Emerson Point and Weedon Island. The NEP targeted
younger schoolchildren with performances by the Marine Gang, a group of costumed
sea creatures whose creative mix of music and theater bring the bay to life on stage.
With support from the Tampa Bay NEP, the Marine Gang introduced more than
65,000 elementary school students to the wonders of the estuary and kid-friendly con-
cepts for pollution prevention. The Marine Gang is administered through the Museum
of Science & Industry (MOSI), which continues to offer this program to schools
thanks to funding from the Southwest Florida Water Management District.
Teacher's workshops sponsored by the Tampa Bay NEP have provided an additional
opportunity for educational impact by bringing instructors in touch with the bay and
supplying them with resources to take back into the classroom.
Charting the Course for Tampa Bay
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAN FOR TAMPA BAY
The Tampa Bay NEP has brought together diverse sectors of the community as part-
ners in the development of the plan for Tampa Bay. This effort began in 1991 with
the establishment of the Community Advisory Committee and has continued into 1996
with increasingly focused efforts to expand public participation in the plan's review
and finalization. In 1993, the Tampa Bay NEP began publishing a series of bay issues
briefs - on topics ranging from stormwater pollution and habitat loss to dredging and
spill prevention - that outlined various management options to address the bay's pri-
ority problems. These briefs were the springboard for a series of meetings with the
NEP's technical and community advisory committees and key community groups to
discuss and improve management options and then rank strategies for bay improve-
ment.
As part of this initiative, the Community Advisory Committee hosted a series of focus
groups in 1994 with students, seaport interests, farmers and homeowners to invite
groups with diverse perspectives and interests in the bay to contribute to the emerging
action plans for bay restoration. These focus groups have helped strengthen commu-
nity investment in the work of the National Estuary Program and assisted the Program
in better understanding and anticipating the concerns of key constituent groups.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
· continuation of the quarterly newsletter Bay Guardian to spotlight the state of the
bay and progress in the bay's recovery; aggressive efforts to publicize bay issues
in the media to inform and educate the public;
A preliminary outline of the action plans for Tampa Bay was developed from this
process and released for review by the Tampa Bay Management Conference in
January 1995. Further research and more than 200 responses from technical and citi-
zen reviewers were instrumental in shaping the draft of Charting the Course, which is
now presented for full community review.
In conjunction with its release, the Tampa Bay NEP is sponsoring a series of industry
briefings and community forums to further enlist participation from specific audiences
who may be affected by the plan and who may be able to assist in crafting effective
strategies with broad-based support. More formal Town Meetings, which also will ful-
fill legal requirements for public hearings, will be conducted in February 1996 to pre-
sent and discuss the draft plan with the community.
The Tampa Bay NEP also has hosted an occasional series of point-counterpoint
forums on bay topics of key concern such as the public referendum to 1994's Ban-
The-Nets, and mitigation banking, the practice of pooling credits from on-site wetland
impacts for the purposes of off-site mitigation.
The Program also has examined a series of complex bay issues through its quarterly
newsletter, Bay Guardian, which is distributed to policy leaders, citizens and other
bay advocates and interested parties.
Planning for the Future
The Tampa Bay National Estuary Program will complete the Comprehensive
Conservation & Management Plan (CCMP) for Tampa Bay in 1996, and through an
intergovernmental agreement with participating communities and agencies, begin
implementation of this strategic blueprint for bay restoration and protection. As atten-
tion shifts from planning to implementation, the focus of public involvement and edu-
cation also will shift to address long-term, but vitally important, needs. Future out-
reach to the community should seek to:
· foster continued community support for bay restoration and implementation of the
CCMP by continuing to educate citizens on bay issues and publicize the bay's
progress and needs;
· improve public faith in the ability of bay managers and organizations dedicated to
the bay's restoration and protection to "work smart" to leverage resources, avoid
duplication and focus on priorities;
· maximize direct opportunities for public involvement in bay restoration and envi-
ronmental improvement.
These objectives for community outreach and education are part of a public affairs
blueprint the Community Advisory Committee of the Tampa Bay NEP will finalize in
1996. The committee's recommendations will help guide the Tampa Bay NEP as it
oversees implementation of the bay master plan, and may call for:
iUt r":!~ ,:I;::i::;:I"::"lr'
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
253
n&>>
i$~FI
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
254
· continued advocacy of bay restoration and protection efforts in cooperation with
other public policy and interest groups; continued efforts to educate the public on
topical issues affecting the bay;
· efforts to support and enhance environmental organizations that enlist and effec-
tively utilize volunteers, such as Tampa BayWatch, The Florida Aquarium, Florida
Native Plant Society and the National Audubon Society. This represents an ongo-
ing commitment and emphasis of the Tampa Bay NEP to utilize and promote
existing organizations that are specifically organized to conduct outreach and edu-
cational programs rather than relying solely on in-house programming that may be
duplicative;
· annual "spotlight on solutions" field trips targeted to and co-sponsored by various
audiences with regulatory and natural resource interests. For example, a field trip
co-sponsored by a local alliance of developers might target urban designers and
showcase exemplary commercial landscapes that enhance the environment and
substantially reduce the need for fertilizer, pesticide and water use, and provide
resources and cost-benefit analyses for implementing these bay-friendly and cor-
porate image-enhancing ideas at other commercial sites. Public field trips to bay
restoration sites and parks, and visits by boat over the waterways also might be
offered in cooperation with The Florida Aquarium;
· annual progress reports to the community on Charting the Course for Tampa Bay,
in conjunction with an existing organization such as the Agency on Bay
Management and its annual published State of the Bay report, and companion
written progress report summaries for local legislators and policy leaders;
· a graphic-and-text state of the bay environmental index to be published on an
occasional basis in partnership with one of the bay area's daily newspapers.
These are among the ideas that will be evaluated as the Tampa Bay National Estuary
Program continues its efforts to build strong advocacy for bay restoration and provide
interested citizens with a more personal and direct opportunity to improve and protect
the bay.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Extensive removal of exotic vegetation such as Brazilian pepper already has been
accomplished, and construction of the storm water improvements is scheduled to begin
in December 1995.
Early Action
Since its inception, the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program has demonstrated its
commitment to improving Tampa Bay by investing in early action projects designed
to jumpstart restoration efforts and build a community consensus for the bay's recov-
ery. To this end, the Tampa Bay NEP has secured almost $1 million in matching
grants and federal funds to support a wide variety of restoration and outreach projects.
These diverse projects have allowed researchers to test new techniques and concepts
for reducing pollution and restoring degraded habitats; identify and fill in gaps in cur-
rent protection programs; and educate bay area citizens about threats facing the bay-
and how they can help overcome them.
Several of these key early action initiatives are summarized below:
Cockroach Bay Restoration
This secluded inlet on Tampa Bay's eastern shore harbors some of the most productive
mangrove forests and seagrass meadows in the entire bay system. However, the
long-term health of this area has been jeopardized by intensive alteration of its upland
fringe, primarily from agricultural and mining operations.
The Tampa Bay NEP, together with regional and state agencies providing matching
funds, secured $700,000 in federal grants to assist in the restoration of this area -
$300,000 from the Coastal America Program and $400,000 in grants under Section
319(h) of the federal Clean Water Act. The effort is part of a $2.3-million restoration
directed by the Southwest Florida Water Management District's Surface Water
Improvement & Management (SWIM) Program, in cooperation with Tampa Bay NEP
and more than a dozen other public- and private-sector partners. Hillsborough County
spent $2.1 million to purchase the restoration site.
The SOD-acre project is the largest saltwater restoration of its kind conducted in
Florida. The project is unique in its multi-faceted focus on creating a mosaic of habi-
tats, including brackish and freshwater marshes, grass beds, oyster and live-bottom
reefs, salt barrens, and upland pine and hardwood forests. In addition, the project will
provide much-needed treatment of storm water runoff from the surrounding farmlands
by building a treatment pond in which runoff will be filtered before being discharged
naturally to a restored stream bed leading to the bay.
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
255
~f)'\R~ ""
j~F" :it .$l
~W, ~;,~~.'~
l~
Charting the Course
for TampaBay
258
Bay Scallop Recovery
The bay scallop was once a common resident of Tampa Bay, but virtually disappeared
in the mid-1960s. Many scientists blame declining water quality for the scallop's
demise and speculate that the dramatic improvements now occurring in the bay's
health may offer hope for restoring bay populations of these sensitive mollusks.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The Tampa Bay NEP has contributed more than $130,000 to research aimed at pin-
pointing the water quality conditions necessary to support bay scallops and to aggres-
sively restock suitable bay segments with scallops. That effort, directed by the
University of South Florida, has so far raised more than one million juvenile scallops
in laboratories, using strips of artificial turf that mimic the seagrasses to which the
scallops cling in the wild. Hundreds of thousands of these juvenile scallops have been
released in lower Tampa Bay, and monitoring is underway to determine whether these
exploratory transplant efforts can help bring back a sustainable scallop population.
Gandy Shoreline Alternatives
Construction of vertical seawalls along the bay's borders has destroyed much of the
bay's sloping fringe of ecologically valuable mangroves and salt marshes. This pro-
ject, financed with $65,000 from the Tampa Bay NEP, tested different techniques for
"softening" seawalls along the industrialized southeast shoreline of the approach to
the Gandy Bridge. Funds from the Tampa Bay NEP were matched with about
$150,000 from partners in the Bay Area Environmental Action Team (BAEAT),
including SWIM, which directed the project.
The project evaluated structurally sound and environmentally friendly alternatives to
seawalls that enhance habitat values while still providing protection of upland proper-
ties. The techniques were tested on an existing seawall extending along 1,200 linear
feet of the Gandy Bridge approach, in an area subject to heavy boat wakes and ero-
sion. The methods evaluated included: lowering the elevation of the original seawall
to create a gentler slope and installing riprap to allow tidal flushing and pools for
juvenile fish; planting salt marsh grass behind the riprap to stabilize the shoreline;
adding riprap to both ends of a remnant seawall offshore to provide habitat for oysters
and crabs and to create a small lagoon behind the structure; and installing "MacBlox,"
cement blocks with scalloped contours and multiple openings that provide more sur-
face areas for oysters, barnacles and fish to utilize.
Information gleaned from this project, which was completed in 1993, gave officials
insight into how to design more ecologically benign shoreline stabilization structures.
Techniques evaluated by the project are now being recommended by regulatory offi-
cials for commercial and residential use.
In addition to the seawall studies, the project also restored the littoral marsh and man-
grove habitat upland of the seawall, constructed a boardwalk, and installed signs
describing the restoration and the seawall alternatives demonstrated there.
Pepper Busters Brochure
Brazilian pepper is the most invasive and persistent of the exotic plants to gain a toe-
hold along Tampa Bay. This tall shrub, sometimes called Florida holly because of its
red berries, quickly moves into disturbed shoreline areas, strangling mangroves and
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
forming a dense monoculture that provides little ecological benefit and is extremely
difficult to eradicate.
The Tampa Bay NEP funded a $3,000 project by the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve
Management Team (CAPMAT) and its South Hillsborough Pepper Patrol to create an
illustrated brochure explaining the environmental hazards of this plant and how to get
rid of it. It also explained the importance of preserving native plant communities.
This popular brochure, one of the first of its kind written for the general public, is
widely distributed by county and state environmental agencies, county extension
agents and public libraries.
Assessment of Management Efforts
to Protect Seagrass
Propeller scarring of seagrass beds in Tampa Bay is widespread and impairs the ability
of these underwater meadows to protect against erosion and provide habitats for
marine life. This project, financed in part with $14,000 from the Tampa Bay NEP,
enabled Pinellas County to assess the extent of seagrass scarring in one area of the
bay through aerial mapping and interpretation and to evaluate various methods of pro-
tecting those seagrasses from further damage.
The site chosen for the project encompassed 420 acres of severely scarred seagrass
around Fort DeSoto Park in Pinellas County, in a large embayment called Boca Ciega
Bay. Scarred areas were mapped in March and October 1993, and again in October
1994. Mapping will continue annually for three more years.
After examining results of the baseline survey, two protection zones were established
in the seagrass beds. Signs were posted restricting boating access in one area except
at high tide, while motor boats were completely prohibited in the second area. The
losses were virtually the same for both the closed and restricted-access areas, indicat-
ing that signs alone may be effective deterrents to seagrass scarring and that complete
closures may not be necessary to reduce propeller scarring.
This project is providing important information about what protective measures are
effective in reducing seagrass scarring, and may help bay managers develop uniform,
easily recognizable guidelines that can be implemented throughout not only the bay,
but also the entire state.
Data-Sharing Through GIS
Tampa Bay is among the most well-studied waterways in the nation, yet valuable
information from research and monitoring projects is not always shared among bay
managers. This is often because the data bases and formats used by one agency are
incompatible with those of another.
Maps are a particularly important and visible management tool, with their ability to
relate a vast amount of information, including land uses, natural resources, drainage
patterns, pollution sources and political boundaries. This project, supported with near-
ly $20,000 from the Tampa Bay NEP, enabled the Environmental Protection
Commission (EPC) of Hillsborough County to create a comprehensive, readily
retrievable data base for the bay based on computer-generated maps utilizing
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
257
W'#wt ft.
"'~W%
'4~_d~~~i .:
:0.;::;
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
258
Geographic Information System (GIS) technology.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Cockroach Bay was selected as a testing ground for this innovative approach.
Officials with the EPC compiled information about Cockroach Bay from various
sources and imported those files into their data banks. They then produced GIS maps
that synthesized the information in a format compatible with other agencies, govern-
ment organizations and research institutions. These techniques will be expanded bay-
wide, providing across-the-board information that will result in less duplication and
promote greater cooperation among bay managers in the future.
Seabird Rescue Initiative
Although Tampa Bay has largely been spared the damaging effects of major oil spills,
those that have occurred have pointed to the need for a trained corps of volunteers to
rescue and rehabilitate injured wildlife, especially seabirds.
In conjunction with the Pinellas Seabird Rehabilitation Center and the Tampa Bay
Regional Planning Council, the Tampa Bay NEP contributed $7,500 to finance the
organization and training of nearly 100 citizen-volunteers to assist in seabird rescue
efforts, in addition to the production of a volunteer training manual. Beginning in
October 1991, the volunteers attended several seminars featuring leading wildlife
rehabilitators; the group also received rescue kits, nets and communication equipment.
In August 1993, more than 330,000 gallons of oil and jet fuel were spilled in the bay
when two barges and a tanker collided near the Sunshine Skyway Bridge. The seabird
rescue teams put their training to good use, rescuing and treating 371 birds at a tempo-
rary "hospital" at Fort DeSoto Park. Eventually 318 birds, or 85 percent, were recov-
ered and released - an extraordinary success rate when compared to similar efforts in
other regions. The advance planning, organization and chain-of-command structure
demonstrated by this network serves as a model for similar groups throughout the
nation.
Emerson Point Project
Emerson Point is a historically and ecologically rich coastal area at the mouth of the
Manatee River. The cultural resources of the 195-acre site include American Indian
mounds and middens that were studied by researchers with the Smithsonian
Institution, and the remains of a 19th century plantation. Natural resources include
extensive hardwood hammocks, mangroves and salt marshes, as well as colorful and
rare live-bottom reefs in the shallow waters offshore.
The Tampa Bay NEP provided $50,000 to Manatee County to aid in the protection
and restoration of this area, which was purchased by the state in 1991 and is now
managed by the County as Emerson Point Park. The project focuses on providing
public access to the site for education and recreation, while preserving its unique cul-
tural and natural attributes. Work includes removal of exotic vegetation, excavation
and stabilization of the Indian mounds and plantation, and the construction of board-
walks and trails for public access. Signs will be posted to describe the land, its human
and natural history, and resident wildlife, and plans are now underway to develop a
county environmental education center on the site to teach schoolchildren about this
priceless ecological and historical heritage.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1. K Haddad, Habitat Trends and Fisheries in Tampa and Sarasota Bays, NOAA Estuary of the
Month, Tampa and Sarasota Bays: Issues, Resources, Status and Management, Seminar Series No.
11, 1989.
2. H. Zarbock, A.J. Janicki, D.L. Wade, D. Heimbuch, and H. Wilson, Estimates of Total Nitrogen,
Total Phosphorus, and Total Suspended Solids Loadings to Tampa Bay, Florida, Tampa Bay
National Estuary Program Technical Publication #04-94, May 1994.
3. Coastal Environmental, Inc., Physical Impacts to Habitats in Tampa Bay, Tampa Bay National
Estuary Program Technical Publication #03-93, May 1994 (shoreline modifications).
AJ. Janicki, D.L. Wade, and D.E. Robison, Habitat Protection and Restoration Targets for Tampa
Bay, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program Technical Publication #07-93, June 1995 (seagrass
losses).
4. K Haddad, Habitat Trends and Fisheries in Tampa and Sarasota Bays, NOAA Estuary of the
Month, Tampa and Sarasota Bays: Issues, Resources, Status and Management, Seminar Series No.
11, 1989 (1982 emergent wetland acreage, proportional estimates).
AJ. Janicki, D.L. Wade, and D.E. Robison, Habitat Protection and Restoration Targetsfor Tampa
Bay, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program Technical Publication #07-93, June 1995 (1990
emergent wetland acreage).
5. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Marine Research Institute, unpublished data;
personal communication, Brad Weigle, 1995.
6. RR Lewis, KD. Haddad, and J.O.R. Johansson, Recent Areal Expansion of Seagrass Meadows in
Tampa Bay, Florida: Real Bay Improvement or Drought-Induced?, Proceedings, Tampa Bay Area
Scientific Information Symposium 2 - The Watershed (BASIS 2), 1991 (1950 and 1982 seagrass
acreage estimates).
AJ. Janicki, D.L. Wade, and D.E. Robison, Habitat Protection and Restoration Targets for Tampa
Bay, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program Technical Publication #07-93, June 1995 (1950 and
1990 seagrass acreage estimates).
7. Coastal Environmental, Inc., Physical Impacts to Habitats in Tampa Bay, Tampa Bay National
Estuary Program Technical Publication #03-93, May 1994.
8. C.R Goodwin, Tidal flow, Circulation, and Flushing Changes Caused by Dredge and Fill in
Tampa Bay, Florida, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2282, 1987.
9. RR Lewis, KD. Haddad, and J.O.R Johansson, Recent Areal Expansion of Seagrass Meadows in
Tampa Bay, Florida: Real Bay Improvement or Drought-Induced?, Proceedings, Tampa Bay Area
Scientific Information Symposium 2 - The Watershed (BASIS 2),1991 (1982 seagrass acreage
estimates).
Tom Ries, Southwest Florida Water Management District, SWIM, unpublished data; personal
communication, 1994 (1992 seagrass acreage estimates).
Doug Robison, Coastal Environmental, Inc., personal communication, 1995 (percentage of change
between 1982 and 1992).
10. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Marine Research Institute, Scarring of Florida's
Seagrasses: Assessment and Management Options, FMRI Technical Report TR-l, 1995.
11. J.N. Ehringer, Results of Analysis of Prop Scar Damage at the Fort Desoto Aquatic Habitat
Management Area 1992/1993, Tampa Bay National Estuary Technical Publication #05-94, August
1994.
12. Penny Hall, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Marine Research Institute,
unpublished data; personal communication, 1995.
13. Tom Ries, Southwest Florida Water Management District, SWIM; personal communication, 1995.
14. RR Lewis, III, and E.D. Estevez, The Ecology of Tampa Bay, Florida: An Estuarine Profile, U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7.18), September 1988.
15. Coastal Environmental, Inc., Physical Impacts to Habitats in Tampa Bay, Tampa Bay National
Estuary Program Technical Publication #03-93, May 1994.
16. Lewis Environmental Services, Inc., Hard Bottom Mapping of Tampa Bay, Tampa Bay National
Estuary Program Technical Publication #07-94, 1994.
REFERENCES, STATE OF THE BAY
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
259
nfliP.: ..
~..~.,' ~. .....,J~ ::;~:
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
280
17. R.R. Lewis, ill, and E.D. Estevez, The Ecology of Tampa Bay, Florida: An Estuarine Profile, U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7.18), September 1988.
18. Tampa Bay National Estuary Program and Florida Marine Research Institute, Boaters Guide to
Tampa Bay, 1993.
19. AJ. Janicki, DL Wade, and D.E. Robison, Habitat Protection and Restoration Targets for Tampa
Bay, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program Technical Publication #07-93, June 1995
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid.
22. Based on information from LANDSAT Ground Cover Database; Jim Beever, Florida Game &
Freshwater Fish Commission, personal communication, 1995.
23. AJ. Janicki, D.L. Wade, and D.E. Robison, Habitat Protection and Restoration Targets for Tampa
Bay, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program Technical Publication #07-93, June 1995
24. Dames & Moore and Mote Marine Laboratory, Impact of Freshwater Flow Variations in the
Manatee River, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program Technical Publication #09-94, December
1994.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
25. H. Zarbock, AJ. Janicki, D.L. Wade, D. Heimbuch, and H. Wilson, Current and Historical
Freshwater Inflows to Tampa Bay, Florida, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program Technical
Publication #01-94, July 1995.
26. Landings data from the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection; personal communication, Martha Norris, 1995. Landing data includes
bluefish, black drum, flounder, jack crevalle, whiting, Spanish mackerel, menhaden, mullet, sea
trout, sheepshead, and gray snapper. Some fish landed in Manatee County may have been caught in
Tampa Bay, but those harvests cannot be segregated from catches in Sarasota Bay. Regardless, the
inclusion of Manatee landings does not change the percent declines noted here.
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid.
29. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Marine Research Institute, unpublished data;
personal communication, M. Norris, 1994.
30. Coastal Environmental, Inc., Distribution of Selected Fish Species in Tampa Bay, Tampa Bay
National Estuary Program Technical Publication #05-92), May 1992.
31. Based on the National Shellfish Sanitation Program Guidelines; Brian Pierce, Florida Department
of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Marine Resource Regulation and Development, personal
communication, October 1995.
32. Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, The Future of Tampa Bay, 1985.
33. Richard Paul, National Audubon Society, Tampa Bay Sanctuaries, unpublished data; personal
communication, 1995.
34. Ibid.
35. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Marine Research Institute, unpublished data;
personal communication, Brad Weigle, 1995.
36. J.L. Simon and S.K. Mahadevan, Benthic Macroinvertebrates of Tampa Bay, Proceedings, Tampa
Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium (BASIS), 1985.
37. E.R. Long, D. MacDonald, and C. Caimcross, Status and Trends in Toxicants and the Potential for
Their Biological Effects in Tampa Bay, Florida, NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 58,
June 1991.
38. H. Zarbock, AJ. Janicki, DL Wade, D. Heimbuch, and H. Wilson, Estimates of Total Nitrogen,
Total Phosphorus, and Total Suspended Solids Loadings to Tampa Bay, Florida, Tampa Bay
National Estuary Program Technical Publication #04-94, May 1994.
39. City of St. Petersburg, unpublished data, 1995.
40. Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County, Surface Water Quality Report,
1992-1994, 1995.
41. A Janicki and D. Wade, Estimating Critical Nitrogen Loadsfor the Tampa Bay Estuary: An
Empirically Based Approach to Setting Management Targets, Tampa Bay National Estuary
Program Technical Publication #03-95, April 1995.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
60. AS. Patwardhan and A.S. Donigian, Jr., Assessment of Nitrogen Loads to Aquatic Systems,
Prepared by Aqua Terra Consultants for the Office of Research and Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1994.
61. H. Zarbock, AJ. Janicki, D.L. Wade, D. Heimbuch, and H. Wilson, Estimates of Total Nitrogen,
Total Phosphorus, and Total Suspended Solids Loadings to Tampa Bay, Florida, Tampa Bay
National Estuary Program Technical Publication #04-94, May 1994.
62. Tampa Bay National Estuary Program, unpublished data based on Sept. 26, 1995 letter from
Hopping, Green, Sams & Smith to Buck Oven, Florida Power & Light, regarding supplemental
nitrogen deposition analyses and nitrogen loads from all sources estimated by TBNEP.
63. D. Fisher, J. Ceraso, T. Mathew, and M. Openheirner, Polluted Coastal Waters: The Role of Acid
Rain, Environmental Defense fund, New York, New York, 1988.
42. L.K Dixon and l.R. Leverone, Light Requirements of Thallassia testudinum in Tampa Bay,
Florida, Prepared for Southwest Florida Water Management District SWIM Program, May 41995.
43. AJ. Janicki, D.L. Wade, and D.E. Robison, Habitat Protection and Restoration Targets for Tampa
Bay, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program Technical Publication #07-93, June 1995.
44. A. Janicki and D. Wade, Estimating Critical Nitrogen Loads for the Tampa Bay Estuary: An
Empirically Based Approach to Setting Management Targets, Tampa Bay National Estuary
Program Technical Publication #03-95, Apri11995.
45. L.K Dixon and J.R. Leverone, Light Requirements of Thalassia testudinum in Tampa Bay, Florida,
Prepared for Southwest Florida Water Management District SWIM Program, May 4, 1995.
46. H. Zarbock, A.J. Janicki, D.L. Wade, D. Heimbuch, and H. Wilson, Estimates of Total Nitrogen,
Total Phosphorus, and Total Suspended Solids Loadings to Tampa Bay, Florida, Tampa Bay
National Estuary Program Technical Publication #04-94, May 1994.
47. Roger Johansson, City of Tampa Sanitary Sewers Department; personal communication, 1994.
48. Versar, Inc., and Coastal Environmental, Inc., Chemical Contaminants in the Tampa Bay Estuary: A
Summary of Distributions and Inputs, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program Technical Publication
#01-95, June 1995.
49. E.R. Long, D. MacDonald, and C. Cairncross, Status and Trends in Toxicants and the Potential for
Their Biological Effects in Tampa Bay, Florida, NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 58,
June 1991.
50. Ibid.
51. E.R. Long, D.A Wolfe, R.S. Carr, KJ. Scott, G.B. Thursby, H.L. Windom, R. Lee, ED. Calder,
G.M. Sloane, and T. Seal, Magnitude and Extent of Sediment Toxicity in Tampa Bay, Florida,
NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 78, June 1994.
(PELs are based on "effects range median" (ERM) as cited in this report.)
52. McCain, B.B., D.W. Brown, T. Horn, M.S. Myers, S.M. Pierce, T.K Collier, J.E. Stein, S-L. Chan,
U. Varanasi, Chemical Contaminant Exposure and Effects in Four Fish Species From Tampa Bay,
FL, Estuaries. Journal of the Estuarine Research Federation, IN PRESS.
53. E.R. Long, D.A Wolfe, R.S. Carr, K.J. Scott, G.B. Thursby, H.L. Windom, R. Lee, ED. Calder,
G.M. Sloane, and T. Seal, Magnitude and Extent of Sediment Toxicity in Tampa Bay, Florida,
NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 78, June 1994.
54. Hillsborough County, unpublished data; personal communication, Jack Merriam, 1995.
55. H. Zarbock, AJ. Janicki, D.L. Wade, D. Heimbuch, and H. Wilson, Estimates of Total Nitrogen,
Total Phosphorus, and Total Suspended Solids Loadings to Tampa Bay, Florida, Tampa Bay
National Estuary Program Technical Publication #04-94, May 1994.
56. Versar, Inc., and Coastal Environmental, Inc., Chemical Contaminants in the Tampa Bay Estuary: A
Summary of Distributions and Inputs, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program Technical Publication
#01-95, June 1995.
57. H. Zarbock, AJ. Janicki, D.L. Wade, D. Heimbuch, and H. Wilson, Estimates of Total Nitrogen,
Total Phosphorus, and Total Suspended Solids Loadings to Tampa Bay, Florida, Tampa Bay
National Estuary Program Technical Publication #04-94, May 1994.
58. Ibid.
59. Ibid.
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
281
fU'~l~ lffi\f
. W%. t:l. :~~
. ,~K" ,^." ~:l
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
282
64. L.K. Dixon, Literature Compilation and Data Synthesis for Atmospheric Deposition in the Tampa
Bay Watershed, Prepared for the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program by Mote Marine
Laboratory, Technical Report #370, March 1994.
65. D. Fisher, J. Ceraso, T. Mathew, and M. Openheimer, Polluted Coastal Waters: The Role of Acid
Rain, Environmental Defence Fund, April 1988.
66. Versar, Inc., and Coastal Environmental, Inc., Chemical Contaminants in the Tampa Bay Estuary: A
Summary of Distributions and Inputs, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program Technical Publication
#01-95, June 1995.
67. H. Zarbock, A.J. Janicki, D.L. Wade, D. Heimbuch, and H. Wilson, Estimates of Total Nitrogen,
Total Phosphorus, and Total Suspended Solids Loadings to Tampa Bay, Florida, Tampa Bay
National Estuary Program Technical Publication #04-94, May 1994.
68. Ibid.
69. Ibid.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
70. Versar, Inc., and Coastal Environmental, Inc., Chemical Contaminants in the Tampa Bay Estuary: A
Summary of Distributions and Inputs, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program Technical Publication
#01-95, June 1995.
71. Owen Ayres and Associates, Inc., An Estimate of Nutrient Loadings from Wastewater Residuals
Management and Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems in the Tampa Bay Watershed, Southwest
Florida Water Management District, April 1995.
72. Hans Zarboch, Coastal Environmental, Inc.; personal communication, 1995.
73. Tom Cardinale, Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County; personal
communication, 1995.
74. G.W. Jones and S.B. Upchurch, Origins of Nutrients in Ground Water Discharging from Lithia and
Buchhom Springs, Southwest Florida Water Management District, 1993.
75. H. Zarbock, A.J. Janicki, D.L. Wade, D. Heimbuch, and H. Wilson, Estimates of Total Nitrogen,
Total Phosphorus, and Total Suspended Solids Loadings to Tampa Bay, Florida, Tampa Bay
National Estuary Program Technical Publication #04-94, May 1994.
76. Greiner, Tampa Port Authority Dredged Material Management Plan, DRAFT REPORT, Tampa
Port Authority, September 1994.
77. Ibid.
78. Ibid.
79. Tampa Port Authority, 1994 Fiscal Year Annual Cargo Report, 1994.
80. Trustee Council, Natural Resource Damage Assessment Strategy, Tampa Bay, Florida for the
Bouchard BARGE 155, Maritrans BArge OCEAN 255, and MV BALSA 37 Collission and Spill, 10
August 1993, 1994.
81. Jane Urquhart-Donnelly, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Law
Enforcement, Bureau of Emergency Response; personal communication, March 1994.
82. United States Coast Guard, Marine Safety Office, Tampa, Florida, unpublished data; personnel
communication, 1994.
83. Chapter 376, Florida Statutes, Pollutant Discharge Prevention and Control Act (as amended, 1992).
84. U.S. Public Law 101-380, Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 1990).
85. Chris Rossbach, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Law Enforcement,
Bureau of Emergency Response; personal communication, September 1995.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
INVERTEBRATES - animals without backbones; examples include insects, worms,
crustaceans, mollusks and sponges.
MANGROVES - a salt-tolerant tropical or subtropical tree that grows near the shore-
line. Mangroves provide food and habitat for many types of wildlife, stabilize shore-
lines and filter pollutants that run off the land.
MARSH - a wetland where the dominant plants are grasses and sedges, as opposed to
a swamp, where woody plants like shrubs and trees are the dominant vegetation.
MOLLUSKS - a group of invertebrates including clams, snails, oysters, conchs and
other soft-bodied animals. Most mollusks have a thick, hard outer shell; squid and
octopus are exceptions.
GLOSSARY
ALGAE - simple plants that grow in aquatic environments. Excess nutrients may
accelerate the growth of algae, resulting in an algal bloom.
ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION - refers to materials discharged to the atmosphere
from natural sources and anthropogenic (manmade) sources, such as automobiles,
power plants and industries that fall on the surface of water or land in rainfall or as
dry particles.
BENTHOS - the community of animals living in and on the bottom sediments of a
body of water.
CRUSTACEANS - a group of mostly aquatic invertebrates with a hard, jointed shell
(exoskeleton); examples include crabs, lobsters and shrimp.
DETRITUS - small particles of organic matter, largely derived from the decomposi-
tion of vegetation; an important food source for many small marine animals.
DREDGE-AND-FILL - commonly refers to the removal of bottom sediments (dredg-
ing) to construct and maintain canals and ship lanes, and the use of dredged material
(spoil) as fill for development.
ECOSYSTEM - the system of ecological relationships between organisms (plants
and animals) and their physical and chemical environment; a functional unit that
includes both the organisms and their nonliving surroundings.
ESTUARY - a partially enclosed body of water where fresh water from rivers and
streams mixes with salt water from the sea.
EUTROPHIC - refers to water that is rich in nutrients such as nitrogen and phospho-
rous, but often deficient in dissolved oxygen. Excess nutrients promote the growth of
algae; as the algae dies and decomposes, it depletes the water of oxygen.
Eutrophication occurs naturally in many bodies of water, but can be accelerated by
pollution.
EXOTIC - refers to non-native plants and animals that have been introduced (acci-
dentally or intentionally) to a region. Some exotic species establish and grow quickly,
crowding out native species.
HABITAT - the sum of environmental conditions in a place where a plant or animal
lives.
II)lll!'II:.i"i:IF"lir
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
2B3
WHlfuj1"' :' .x
I ~ ~~~::::: ~::::
%;~.@~l,. """
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
284
NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION - refers to pollution that comes from many
sources and cannot be traced to one specific point, such as pollution from storm water
runoff and the atmosphere.
OLIGOHALINE - refers to water with a very low salinity (salt content), ranging
from 0.5 to 10 parts per thousand (ppt). Freshwater is characterized by salinity of less
than 0.5 ppt; seawater contains about 35 ppt.
PHYTOPLANKTON - free-floating aquatic plants and plant-like organisms, usually
algae; an important food source for many animals.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
POINT-SOURCE POLLUTION - refers to pollution that comes from a specific
source or point of origin, such as a discharge pipe or outfall.
RUNOFF - water from rain or irrigation that flows over land. Runoff often carries
pollutants such as oils, fertilizers and pesticides and is frequently a major component
of non-point-source pollution.
SALT MARSH - a marsh growing in the intertidal and upper coastal zone, where salt
water from the sea has a strong influence on the types of plant life. Salt marshes are
important wetland habitats for many kinds of fish and wildlife.
SEAGRASSES - true flowering plants (not grasses) that grow underwater in shallow
bays and estuaries. Seagrass meadows provide food and refuge for many marine ani-
mals.
SHELLFISH - a generic term that includes both crustaceans and mollusks, especially
those used for food. The term finfish, by contrast, refers to true fishes.
SPOIL - sediments removed during dredging. Spoil may be deposited underwater or
on islands created specifically for spoil disposal.
TOXIC - poisonous or directly harmful.
TURBIDITY - cloudiness of water from suspended material or particles. As the
cloudiness increases, so does the turbidity; low turbidity indicates clear water and may
be associated with good water quality.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT - processes that help remove solids, nutrients and
other pollutants from water before it is discharged or reused.
WATER COLUMN - an inclusive term, covering the area that extends from the bot-
tom sediments to the surface, for the water in a lake, estuary or ocean.
WATERSHED - the geographic region that drains into a particular stream, river or
body of water. The Tampa Bay watershed covers more than 2,200 square miles in six
counties.
WETLAND - land where the water table is usually at or near the surface. Some wet-
lands contain water year-round; others may remain relatively dry for months, becom-
ing moist only during periods of heavy rain. Wetlands are vital habitats for many
species of plants and animals; they are protected by local, state and federal regula-
tions.
ZOOPLANKTON - free-floating aquatic animals ranging in size from microscopic,
single-celled organisms to large jellyfish. Zooplankton are an important source of food
for many types of fish and animals.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ACOE
ACP
AWT
BEMR
BMP
CARL
CCMP
CERCLlS
CFMP
CIP
DOT
DGPS
DHRS
ELM
EPA
EPC
ERP
FAC
FADS
FCES
FDEP
FOOT
FERC
FG FWFC
FMRI
FPC
FPL
FWPCA
FY
FY&N
GPS
IMC
LTMS
MGD
MSSW
NOAA
NOEL
NOx
NPDES
NPL
O&M
OSDS
PAH
PCB
PEL
PORTS
PRTF
RCRA
SWFWMD
SWIM
TBNEP
TBRPC
TECO
TKN
TN
TPA
TSS
USACOE
USDOT
USEPA
USF
UST
VTS
WAFR
WCRWSA
WWTP
IUllt~~I~;II:':':"'lii.'"
ACRONYMS
Charting the Course
for Tampa Bay
ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS
AREA CONTINGENCY PLAN
ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT
BIENNIAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING REPORT
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
CONSERVATION AND RECREATION LANDS
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION & MANAGEMENT PLAN
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION AND LIABILITY INFORMATION
CRITICAL FISHERIES MONITORING PROGRAM
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
DICHLORODI PHENYL-TRICHLOROETHYLENE
DIFFERENTIAL GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM
(Florida) DEPT. OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES
ENVIRONMENTAL LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMISSION (HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY)
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT
FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
FLORIDA ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION SYSTEM
FLORIDA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION
FLORIDA MARINE RESEARCH INSTITUTE
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
FISCAL YEAR
FLORIDA YARDS AND NEIGHBORHOODS
GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM
IMC-AGRICO
LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
MANAGEMENT AND STORAGE OF SURFACE WATERS
NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
NO OBSERVABLE EFFECTS LEVEL
NITROGEN OXIDES
NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST
OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE (BUDGET)
ON-SITE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS
PROBABLE EFFECTS LEVEL
PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHIC REAL-TIME SYSTEM
POLLUTION RECOVERY TRUST FUND
RESOURCE CONSERVATION & RECOVERY ACT
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
SURFACE WATER IMPROVEMENT AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (SWFWMD)
TAMPA BAY NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
TAMPA BAY REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
TAMPA ELECTRIC COMPANY
TOTAL KELDAHL NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
TAMPA PORT AUTHORITY
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
VESSEL TRACKING SYSTEM
WASTEWATER FACILITY REGULATION DATABASE
WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
285