CHARTING THE COURSE - THE COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR TAMPA BAY
the
THE COMPREHENSIVE
N D MAN A GE ME NT P LA N
CONSERVATION
FOR TAMPA BAY
TAMPA BAY NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
RICHARD ECKENROD
DIRECTOR
HOLLY GREENING
SENIOR PROGRAM SCIENTIST
MARY KELLEY HOPPE
PUBLIC AFFAIRS COORDINATOR
JESSICA LAUGHLIN WHITE
OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR
CHERYL HEATON
SECRETARY
JACQUELINE DEBEER
PROJECT ASSISTANT
CONTRIBUTORS:
NANETTE HOLLAND
HEIDI LOVETT
FELICIA ROBINSON
EPA PROJECT OFFICER
THE PROGRAM OFFICE IS LOCATED AT:
111 SEVENTH AVENUE SOUTH
ST. PETERSBURG,FL 33701
TELEPHONE:813-893-2765
FACSIMILE: 813-893-2767
Vza E-mail: tbnep@tampabay,pc.org
To explore Tampa Bay On-line, visit llS on the World Wide Web at:
httP.//access.tampabayrpc.org/nep
CHARTING THE COURSE CAPS FIVE YEARS OF
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH BY THE TAMPA BAY
NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM (NEP), WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1991
TO ASSIST THE REGION IN DEVELOPING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR BAY
RESTORATION AND PROTECTION.
ACTION PLANS FOR BAY IMPROVEMENT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED WITH
ASSISTANCE FROM BAY EXPERTS, ADVOCATES, COMMUNITY INTERESTS
AND CITIZENS. RESIDENTS ATTENDED A SERIES OF TOWN MEETINGS ON
TAMPA BAY IN THE SPRING OF 1996 TO DISCUSS THE DRAFT PLAN WITH
PANELS OF EXPERTS FROM THEIR COMMUNITIES. THE NEP AND ITS CITI-
ZEN ADVISORS ALSO CONDUCTED A SERIES OF SMALLER FOCUS GROUPS TO
SOLICIT FEEDBACK FROM SPECIFIC INTEREST GROUPS.
THIS STRATEGIC BLUEPRINT REFLECTS BROAD-BASED INPUT FROM INDI-
VIDUALS, GROUPS AND COMMUNITIES THAT SHARE A COMMON INTEREST
IN A HEALTHY BAY AS A CORNERSTONE OF A HEALTHY AND PROSPEROUS
REGION.
CHARTING THE COURSE WAS PRODUCED BY THE TAMPA BAY NATIONAL
ESTUARY PROGRAM, IN COOPERATION WITH THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND AGENCY PARTNERS.
III Seventh Avenue South
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
Charting
the Course
for
Tampa Bay
December 1996
Charting the Course is the Comprehensive Conservation & Management Plan
for Tampa Bay. A draft of this document was released in January 1996
for public discussion and review, and recommendations from reviewers were
considered for incorporation into the plan. Charting the Course was produced
by the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program, in cooperation with local
government and agency partners. We welcome your comments and inquiries.
Published by the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program
in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
"
PREFACE
Charting the Course caps five years of scientific research and community outreach by
the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (NEP), which was established in 1991 to
assist the region in developing a comprehensive plan for bay restoration and protec-
tion. 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.
Action Plans for bay improvement have been developed with assistance from bay
experts, advocates, community interests and citizens. More than 250 residents attend-
ed a series of Town Meetings on Tampa Bay in the Spring of 1996 to discuss the draft
plan with panels of experts from their communities. The NEP and its citizen advisors
also conducted a series of smaller focus groups to solicit feedback from specific inter-
est groups. A summary of public comments is available from the NEP.
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.
ABOUT 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 locat-
ed at the beginning of the document on pages V- VIII. Other important points of infor-
mation are provided below to further assist you in your review and understanding of the
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) for Tampa Bay.
THE TAMPA BAY NEP
~
The Tampa Bay National Estuary Program isa partnership of the u.s. Environmental
Protection Agency; Florida Department of Environmental Protection; Southwest Florida
Water Management District; Hillsborough, Pinellas and Manatee counties; and the cities
of Tampa, St. Petersburg and Clearwater. The Program was established in 1991 to assist
the community in developing a comprehensive plan to restore and protect Tampa Bay.
STATE OF THE BAY
~
This chapter explores the state of the bay along with the management structure charged
with the bay's protection. Because restoration is a complex task that demands effec-
tive ecosystem management, this chapter describes the rich mosaic of underwater and
coastal habitats and diverse animal communities that comprise Tampa Bay. Important
trends in these living resources, as well as the water and sediment quality upon which
their health depends, are presented.
GOALS & PRIORITIES
~
Goals and priorities for Tampa Bay are summarized in a chapter immediately preceding
bay action plans. These specific and attainable targets, outlined in text and a chart, 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 BAY IMPROVEMENT
~
Charting the Course presents a comprehensive slate of actions to assist community part-
ners in selecting cost-effective and environmentally beneficial improvements in five
key areas: Water & Sediment Quality, Bay Habitats, Fish & Wildlife, Dredging &
Dredged Material Management and Spill Prevention & Response. A sixth action plan
outlines strategies for continued Public Education and Involvement and describes some
of the many opportunities available to bay area residents who wish to get involved.
Action plans for Tampa Bay identify a range of strategies that allow local communities
to maximize return on their investment in bay recovery and protection. Many actions
also achieve multiple environmental objectives, such as pollution prevention and water
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
III
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
IV
conservation. Each action plan begins with an introduction that summarizes the topic,
presents management objectives, and includes a list of actions to address those objec-
tives.
~
As implementation of the bay plan begins, some important technical investigations con-
tinue. Studies are underway to more clearly identify the amount and sources of atmos-
pheric deposition to the bay, and to evaluate the risks of toxic contaminants in various
bay sectors. This work will help the community to finalize action plans addressing these
important environmental concerns.
~
References in action plans to local governments under the headline "Responsible par-
ties" 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 AND MONITORING BAY
IMPROVEMENT
~
The NEP partners will sign an agreement to implement the CCMP for Tampa Bay in the
Spring of 1997, pledging to achieve the goals of the bay management plan and com-
mitting. to specific actions and timetables. The Implementation & Financing chapter
describes the agreement and the NEP's role in overseeing implementation, as well the
costs associated with key elements of the plan such as nitrogen management.
~
The monitoring of Tampa Bay's health is central to the success of bay restoration
efforts, enabling communities to measure return on investment and helping bay man-
agers refocus their efforts when necessary. The bay monitoring program devised by the
NEP in cooperation with local governments and agencies is presented in the Monitoring
chapter.
GETTING A HEAD START
~
Some key strategies for bay improvement included in Charting the Course already are
being implemented. For example, the NEP has provided a $40,000 grant to upgrade an
existing ship surveillance system to reduce the potential for spills of oils or hazardous
materials in the bay. NEP also has pledged $40,000 to assist the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers in developing a long-term, coordinated dredged material disposal plan for
Tampa Bay. Additionally, several major habitat restoration projects are underway and
other critical projects are planned, along with efforts to preserve environmentally sensi-
tive coast lands.
.~
Since its inception in 1991, the Tampa Bay NEP has assisted the community in secur-
ing 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 improvement projects.
These community partnerships are profiled in the Public Involvement chapter.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction..................................................................................................... .1
About the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program
and the development ofthe Bay Master Plan ............................................................5
Members of the Tampa Bay Management Conference..............................................8
State of the Bay............................................................................................ ..13
State of Bay Management.... ......... ......... ......... .................................... ..... .......... ......45
Goals and Priorities for Tampa Bay ............................................................. .51
Introduction to Action Plans ........................................................................................59
Water & Sediment Quality Action Plan ..................................................................61
Nitrogen Management . ........... ............... ............................................... ....64
Stormwater Runoff ......... ............... .......................................................... ..68
Atmospheric Deposition........................................................................... .97
Wastewater ......... ......... ......... ............. ................................................... ...1 07
Toxic Contamination ..............................................................................122
Public Health ......................................................................................... .137
Bay Habitats Action Plan ......................................................................................147
Freshwater Inflow ..................................................................................179
Fish & Wildlife Action Plan ..................................................................................185
Dredging & Dredged Material Management Action Plan ....................................203
Spill Prevention & Response Action Plan ............................................................211
Public Education and Involvement Action Plan....................................................223
~
Implementation & Financing ..................................................................... .227
Monitoring Bay Improvement..................................................................... .235
Research Priorities for Tampa Bay........................................................... .243
,
r
,
Public Involvement in the NEP............. ...................................................... .245
Early Action for Bay Improvement............................................................. .253
References, State of the Bay...................................................................... ..257
Glossary....................................................................................................... .261
List of Acronyms ......................................................................................... .263
See Index of Action Plans, page VI.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
v
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
VI
INDEX OF ACTION PLANS AND
ACTIONS FOR TAMPA BAY
WATER & SEDIMENT QUALITY
WQ-l Implement nitrogen management goals for Tampa Bay........................64
SW-l
Actions to reduce pollution from stormwater runoff:
SW-2
SW-3
SW-4
SW-5
SW-6
SW-7
SW-8
SW-9
Continue support for the Florida Yards & Neighborhoods
Program and similar pollution prevention initiatives ............................71
Assist businesses in implementing best management practices
to reduce stormwater pollution, and develop model landscaping
guidelines for commercial use......... .... ......... ......................... ................75
Encourage local governments to adopt integrated pest
management policies and implement environmentally
beneficial landscaping practices......................... .... ..................... ..........78
Reduce impervious paved surfaces...................... .... ......... ..... ... ............ .81
Require older properties being redeveloped to meet current
stormwater treatment standards for that portion of the site being
redeveloped, or provide equivalent compensation ................................84
Promote compact urban development and redevelopment....................87
Enforce and require the timely completion of the consent orders
for the cleanup of fertilizer facilities in the East Bay sector.................90
Encourage best management practices on farms...................................92
Improve compliance with agricultural ground and surface
water management plans....................... ..... .... ............ ..... ...................... .95
AD-l
Actions to reduce the effects of air pollution on the bay:
AD-2
Continue atmospheric deposition studies and develop an
action plan to address this important environmental issue................. .100
Promote public and business energy conservation............................ ..104
Actions to reduce pollution from wastewater discharged to the bay:
WW-l
WW-2
WW-3
WW-4
Expand the use of reclaimed water where reuse benefits the bay....... 109
Extend central sewer service to priority areas now served
by septic systems................................ .............................................. ....114
Require standardized monitoring of wastewater discharges.............. .117
Revise HRS rules to incorporate environmental performance
or design standards for septic systems................................................. 119
1
Actions to reduce toxic contaminants in the bay:
TX-l
TX-2
TX-3
Address hot spots of contamination..................................................... 124
Improve opportunities for proper hazardous waste disposal...............127
Reduce toxic contaminants from ports and marinas ...........................131
.~
I
TX-4
Promote integrated pest management on farms to reduce
pesticides in runoff.. ........ .,. ..... .... .... .... .... ..... ................. ..... .... ..... .... .... .134
Actions to reduce pathogens:
PH-l
PH-2
PH-3
Reduce the occurrence of municipal sewer overflows to the bay....... 139
Establish water quality standards for saltwater beaches .....................142
Install additional sewage pump-out facilities for recreational
boaters and live-aboard vessels ...........................................................144
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
Implement the Tampa Bay master plan for habitat
restoration and protection................................................................... .150
Establish and implement mitigation criteria for Tampa Bay,
and identify priority sites for mitigation.............................................. 154
Reduce propeller scarring of sea grass and pursue sea grass
transplanting opportunities at select sites ............................................159
Restrict impacts to hard-bottom communities..................................... 162
Improve management of parking and vehicle access along
causeways and coastal areas ................................................................165
Encourage waterfront residents to enhance shorelines
and limit runoff from yards .................................................................169
Improve compliance with and enforcement of wetland permits .........173
Expand habitat mapping and monitoring programs ............................176
Actions to establish and preserve adequate freshwater inflows to Tampa Bay and its
tributaries:
FI-l Establish and maintain minimum seasonal freshwater flows
downstream of dams .... ..... .... ........... .... .... ...... .... .... ........ ......... .... ..... ... .181
FISH & WILDLIFE
FW-l
Actions to protect and enhance bay fisheries and wildlife:
FW-2
FW-3
FW-4
FW-5
Increase on-water enforcement of environmental
regulations on the bay......................................................................... .188
Establish and enforce manatee protection zones................................ .191
Support bay scallop restoration ...........................................................195
Assess the need to investigate the cumulative impacts of
power plant entrainment on fisheries................................................... 198
Continue and expand the Critical Fisheries Monitoring Program.......201
DREDGING & DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT
DR-l
Actions to reduce the impact of dredging and improve dredged material management:
Develop a long-term dredging and dredged
material management plan for Tampa Bay..........................................206
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
VII
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TA M P A BAY
VIII
SPILL PREVENTION & RESPONSE
SP-l
Actions to improve spill prevention and response:
SP-2
SP-3
Establish an integrated vessel traffic system for Tampa Bay
and permanently fund the PORTS system...........................................214
Evaluate and update spill response plans for priority areas ................217
Improve fueling and bilge-pumping practices
among pleasure boaters.... .................... ..... .... ..... ........ ...................... ... .219
PUBLIC EDUCATION & INVOLVEMENT ................................................223
PHOTO: DAVID WADE
Introduction
PORTRAIT
Tampa. Bay is the lifeblood of this fast-growing region of more than 2 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 billions of dollars 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 nation's busiest ports, 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 bottlenose dolphins and 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-
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
1
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
2
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 their annu-
al 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 inthe 1950s with unchecked development along the bay's shoreline.
Studies by the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (NEP) and other environmental
agencies reveal the extent of habitat declines driven by massive dredge-and-fill pro-
jects to develop navigational channels, waterfront communities and industrial sites.
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.
As the bayscape was redrawn and water quality deteriorated, fisheries and wildlife
declined. A once-thriving bay scallop fishery was virtually eliminated by the mid-
1960s; although scientists don't know why, many suspect pollution was to blame.
Harvests of clams and oysters also plummeted as bacterial contamination forced the
closure of productive shellfishing grounds. Seagrass and wetland destruction hastened
the decline of many other popular recreational and commercial species, including
seatrout, red drum and snook.
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. 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 enacted, 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 occurring
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 Hookers 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 re-use
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
--
,
I
I
wastewater for irrigation to more than 8,500 homes 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 stan-
dards.
As discharges of pollutants were reduced, nature responded. Monitoring results show
water quality improvements 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 new or expanded seagrass beds have been
documented in 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 81. Petersburg's initiative, many local com-
munities are discovering the dual benefits of re-using treated wastewater to reduce
demand on groundwater supplies, while helping to rid the bay of excess nutrients.
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 iden-
tified air pollution as a significant and persistent source of bay pollution. Recent stud-
ies also have revealed the presence of toxic contaminants in bay sediments in local-
ized urban, industrial and agricultural areas. The NEP is conducting risk assessments
to identify the contaminants of greatest concern.
DEFINING THE CHALLENGE
Population in the tri-county region is expected to increase about 17 percent to 2.34
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. However, limited resources and competing social needs now require that
bay restoration be accomplished with a smaller share of funding. Environmental man-
agers 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. 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 nitrogen and other
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
3
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
4
~
pollutants discharged to the bay;
neighborhoods and businesses will have adopted environmentally friendly land-
scaping practices, using native and drought-tolerant plants that require less water,
fertilizer and pesticides;
seagrasses will have responded to increased water clarity and recolonized thou-
sands 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 so crucial to birds and other animals;
toxic contamination of sediments at "hot spots" around the bay will be reduced to
levels harmless to fish and shellfish through pollution prevention and treatment;
citizens will have a heightened awareness and understanding of the issues facing
Tampa Bay and how they can help the bay;
farmers will be utilizing low-volume irrigation methods that conserve water and
reduce nutrient and pesticide runoff;
local governments and the Southwest Florida Water Management District will
have established minimum flows for rivers impounded by dams to ensure an ade-
quate supply of fresh water to the bay;
bay improvements, combined with effective wildlife and fisheries management,
will have brought about healthy populations of manatees, sea turtles and dolphins,
and increased catches of trout, red drum, snook and other 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 col-
lisions and catastrophic spills;
bay area port authorities and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will have expand-
ed beneficial uses of dredged material and developed long-term disposal options
through a coordinated management plan;
goals and actions in Charting the Course will have been incorporated into permits
and programs, providing a clear and common 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 mea-
sures 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 ecosystem man-
agement, an evolving process that considers the bay and its myriad tributaries as one
large and interdependent ecosystem.
Strategies to repair and protect the Tampa Bay ecosystem, in the most cost-effective
manner and adhering to the principles of ecosystem management, are the foundation
for Charting the Course.
Action Plans presented in Charting the Course support and advance bay recovery.
These plans identify necessary steps, associated costs, implementation schedules and
recommendations on ways to use existing resources most effectively.
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 1997, will detail the
technical investigations and modeling tools used by the Tampa Bay NEP to character-
ize 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 28 estuary programs established under the
Clean Water Act and administered nationally by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). Local administrative support is provided through the Tampa Bay
Regional Planning Council.
The landmark agreement establishing the Tampa Bay NEP brought together
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 EPA in a partnership committed to action. These part-
ners will sign an implementing agreement in the Spring of 1997, pledging to achieve
the goals of the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) for
Tampa Bay.
Since 1991, the Tampa Bay NEP has conducted extensive technical investigations to
define bay conditions, impacts and environmental needs. Steps in developing the
CCMP are outlined in Figures 1 and 2, beginning with efforts to define the bay's
priority problems. A key focus of the NEP has been to coordinate existing bay man-
agement programs to maximize benefits to the bay and the people who share this
magnificent resource.
Early technical findings and actions were reported to the community in Status &
Trends, published by the Tampa Bay NEP in 1993. Additionally, the NEP has devel-
oped a number of educational outreach programs and provided grants to involve
citizens and communities in efforts to improve their bay. These efforts, and a summa-
ry of the community's response to the draftCCMP, are presented in the chapter on
public involvement.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
5
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
B
j
1
Agure 1
Scientists and citizens from the Tampa Bay region participated in a series of meetings
in late 1990 and early 1991 to identify and rank the bay's priority problems. Advisors
completed data sheets identifying their concerns and were asked to evaluate for each:
the extent of the problem; associated risks to the estuary; available knowledge and data
needs; and current management efforts.
Summarized below, the initial list of seven priority problems was formally adopted by
the NEP's Policy Committee in 1991 and became the springboard for studies to investigate
bay conditions and for a multi-faceted public education and outreach campaign.
Atmospheric deposition was not originally believed to be a significant issue. Scientists
now estimate that about one-third of the total nitrogen entering the bay comes from the
air. Important research is underway to more closely identify the magnitude and sources
of this pollution.
List of Priority Problems for Tampa Bay
Adopted January ", 1991
. Water quality declines/eutrophication, resulting from excess nitrogen in stormwater
runoff, direct discharges to the bay and from atmospheric deposition
. Declines and impacts to living resources and habitats
. Increased user conflicts and impacts associated with recreational, commercial and
shipping activity
. Lack of agency coordination and response
. Lack of community awareness, noting the specific need for improved boater
education, general public outreach and efforts to make the bay more accessible to
residents
!. Circulation and flushing
ali Hazardous/toxic contamination, including sediment contamination and oil/hazardous
materials spills
Source: Management Conference Agreement, Tampa Bay NEP, March 1991
......................................--................-.-..-....-..........,'.......,'....,..............
:::::::::::::::::.:::::::':::::':'.:':::::::".'::::::::::::::::.:::::':::::::':::::::::::'.:'::::::::::::::.:::':::':::::::::'.::.'.:::'::::::::.:::-.::::::.'.".:::.::::::::.'.:':':-:-.::.'..'..'..'.'.'
................-.................-....--.--.--.................... .................... ...........
..':.'...'... /.:........//.::./................../............"....../......././.../......'......(III.:.........:...........:..:.........'...'..'1/.:..../..'.........,... /
II I 11< BIll::
Identify and Rank Priority Problems
---.;..,',.',.',,',:',:.',:',.'.,
.
Assess Bay Conditions & Needs
---
+
Establish Specific Goals for Tampa Bay
.
Develop & Review Management Options
.
Comprehensive Conservation & Management Plan for Tampa Bay
Preliminary Action Plans Released
Draft Plan Released
Town Meetings & Community Focus Groups
Management Conference Approval of the Comprehensive
Conservation & Management Plan for Tampa Bay
Plan submitted to EPA and Governor
-.
Implementing Agreement Signed by Community and
Agency Partners as Part of Ceremony Celebrating the
Adoption of the Tampa Bay Plan
.
Implement Plan &
Monitor Progress
~.:.:..i
~
Revise Goals and Strategies as Needed
Rgure 2
1991
1991-1996
1993-1996
1994-1996
January 1995
January 1996
Spring 1996
November 1996
December 1996
Spring 1997
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
7
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
The Tampa Bay National
Estuary Program expresses
its gratitude to the following
former Policy Committee
members for their guidance
and dedication to bay
improvement:
Phyllis Busansky
Ray Cuuuingham
David Fischer
Sandra Freedman
George Greer
Roy Harrell, Jr.
Mike Salmon
Greer Tidwell
Ed Turanchik
Bruce Tyndall
RON SCHMIED,
CO-CHAIRMAN OF THE
TECHNICAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE FROM 1991
TO 1995, IS FONDLY
REMEMBERED FOR HIS
CONTRIBUTIONS. RON
DIED IN 1996 OF
COMPUCATlONS FROM
LEUKEMIA.
8
Members of the Tampa Bay
Management Conference
..,
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
Richard Garrity
Florida Department of
Environmental Protection
Co-Chairman
Ralph Metcalf
City of Tampa
Mayor Rita Garvey
City of Clearwater
Councilman David Welch
City of St. Petersburg
Commissioner Jan Platt
Hillsborough County
Commissioner Patricia Glass
Manatee County
Commissioner Steve Seibert
Pinellas County
Ray Campo
Governing Board
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
Co-Chairman
Technical Advisory COlnmittee
Peter Clark
Co-Chainnan, Community
Advisory Committee
Karen Collins
Manatee County
Mike Connors
City of St. Petersburg
Robert Gordon
Hillsborough County
Julia Greene
Tampa Bay Regional Planning
Council
George Henderson
Florida Marine Research Institute
Florida Department of
Enviromnental Protection
Roger Johansson
Co-Chairman, Technical
Advisory Committee
Dena Leavengood
Co-Chairperson, COlnmunity
Advisory Committee
Ralph Metcalf
City of Tampa
Thomas H. Miller
City of Clearwater
David Moore
Southwest Florida Water
Management District
A.J. Salem
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Roger Stewart
Environmental Protection
Commission of Hillsborough
County
Jacob Stowers
Pinellas County
Charles Towsley
Tampa Port Authority
COMMUNITY ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
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
Representing City of Tampa
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
Laddie Irion
Representing City of
Safety Harbor
Marjorie Karvonen
Representing City of
St. Petersburg
Marilyn Kershner
Audubon Society
Robert Kim
Marine Industries Association
Tom Levin
Ekistics Design
Mike McKimley
Hillsborough County
Cooperative Extension Service
Rick Meyers
Manatee County Public Schools
Jan Regulski
Representing City of Clearwater
Penny Rosi
Representing City of Tampa
Winnie Wilson
Gibbs High School
Alternate
Lita Weingart - Lakewood High
School
TECHNICAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
Roger Johansson
City of Tampa - Sanitary
Services Department
Co-Chairman
Rob Brown
Manatee County Department of
Envirornnental Management
Co-Chairman
Andy Squires
Coastal Envirornnental, Inc.
Former Co-Chairman
Danny Alberdi
Hillsborough County
Environmental Protection
Commission
Shelly Allen
Envirornnental 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
Ron Basso
Southwest Florida Water
Management District
Gordon Beardslee
Pine lias County - Planning
Department
Jim Beever
Florida Game & Freshwater Fish
Commission
Susan Bell
University of South Florida -
Biology Department
Peter Betzer
University of South Florida -
Marine Science Department
Al Bishop
FDEP
Norm Blake
University of South Florida -
Marine Science Department
Greg Blanchard
Manatee County Envirornnental
Action Commission
Dan Blood
Hillsborough County Planning
and Development Management
Department
Hamid Bojd
Delta Environmental Consultants
Richard Boler
Hillsborough County
Environmental Protection
Commission
Sheryl Bowman
Hillsborough County Parks
Department
Gregg Brooks
Eckerd College - Marine Science
Department
Otto Bundy, Sr.
Nautilus Envirornnental
Allen Burdett
Envirornnental Resources
(FDEP)
Rod Burkhardt
Tampa Electric Company
Michael Burwell
City of Tampa - Stormwater
Management Division
David Camp
Florida Marine Research Institute
(FDEP)
Ralph Cantral
Department of Community
Affairs - Florida Coastal
Management Program
Tom Cardinale
Envirornnental Protection
Commission of Hillsborough
County
Lisa Carter
FDEP
Kristi Cassady
Hillsborough County
Engineering Services
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
(FD EP)
Alfredo Crafa
City of S1. Petersburg
Earl Crawley
City of Bradenton
Jack Creighton
U.S. Soil Conservation Service
Torn Cuba
Delta Seven
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
Pine lias County - Department of
Environmental Management
Bruce DeGrove
Florida Phosphate Council
Tommy Denton
Hillsborough County
Engineering Services
Mike Devaney
NOAA/NMFS Restoration
Center
Kellie Dixon
Mote Marine Laboratory
Mike Durako
Florida Marine Research Institute
(FDEP)
Craig Dye
Southwest Florida Water
Management District
Wayne Echelberger, Jr.
University of South Florida -
Civil Engineering Department
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
Special thanks to former
Community Advisory
Committee co-chairpersons
Bonnie Hite and John
Timmel, and the following
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
Bill Wadsworth
9
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
10
Ernie Estevez
Mote Marine Laboratory
Kent Fanning
University of South Florida -
Marine Science Department
Doug Farrell (deceased)
Water Facilities (FDEP)
Terry Finch
City of Clearwater - Department
of Engineering/Environmental
Management
Mike Flanery
Pinellas County Health
Department
Sid Flannery
Southwest Florida Water
Management District
Mark J. Flint
Post Buckley Schuh & Jernigan
Thomas Franques
University of South Florida -
Civil Engineering Department
Boris Galperin
University of South Florida -
Marine Science Department
Ron Giovanelli
Dames & Moore
Bob Gordon
Hillsborough County
Engineering and Construction
Services
Steve Grabe
Hillsborough Environmental
Protection Commission
Andrea Grainger
FDEP
Jim Greenfield
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Region IV
Kurt Gremley
Hillsorough County ELAPP
Mark Haberman
Southwest Florida Water
Management District - Water Use
Permitting
Ken Haddad
Florida Marine Research Institute
(FDEP)
Penny Hall
Florida Marine Research Institute
(FDEP)
Ken Hartley
Bait Shrimp Fisherman
Walid M. Hatoum
Parsons Engineering Science
Rob Heath
Hillsborough County Parks
Department
Brandt Henningsen
Southwest Florida Water
Management District - SWIM
Mike Heyl
Camp Dresser & McKee
Mark Hilton
Sarasota Bay National Estuary
Program
Darrell Howten
Environmental Protection
Commission of Hillsborough
County
Gail Huff
U.S. Soil Conservation Service
Tony Janicki
Coastal Environmental, Inc.
Dennis Kellenberger
Clearwater Marine Science
Center
Marty Kelly
Southwest Florida Water
Management District - (SWIM)
Steve Kent
Tree of Life Nursery, Inc.
Jay Leverone
Mote Marine Laboratory
Jordan Lewis
Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services
Roy R. Lewis III
Lewis Environmental Services
Kathy Liles
Ecosystem Management (FDEP)
Eric Livingston
FDEP - Stormwater Management
Division
Ed Long
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
Hazardous Materials Branch
Sheri A. Lovely
Pinellas County - Sewer Systems
Department
Mark Luther
University of South Florida -
Marine Science Department
Kumar Mahadevan
Mote Marine Laboratory
Deborah Manz
US Fish & Wildlife Service
James Martin
ASCI Corporation
Stu Marvin
Hillsborough County -
City/County Planning
Commission
Heidi McCree
Hillsborough River Greenways
Task Force
Robert H. McMichael, Jr.
Florida Marine Research Institute
(FDEP)
Ben McPherson
U.S. Geological Survey
Jack Merriam
Hillsborough County
Engineering Services
Ron Miller
U.S. Geological Survey
Siamak Mollanazar
Manatee County Public Works
Don Moores
Pinellas County - Department of
Environmental Management
E. O. Morris
Cargill Fertilizer, Inc.
Gerold Morrison
Southwest Florida Water
Management District (SWIM)
Gus Muench
Commercial Fisherman
Fritz Musselman
Southwest Florida Water
Management District/Land
Resources
Frank Nearhoof
FDEP - Bureau of Water
Joe O'Hop
Florida Marine Research Institute
(FD EP)
John Ogden
Florida Institute of
Oceanography
Shirmatee Ojah-Maharaj
City of St. Petersburg - Planning
Department
Scott Osbonrn
Florida Power Corporation
Christine Owen
City of Tampa Water Department
Neal Parker, Sr.
Manatee County - Public Works
Department
Dave Parsche
Tampa Port Authority
John Paul
University of South Florida -
Marine Science Department
Richard Paul
National Audubon Society
Michael Perry
Southwest Florida Water
Management District (SWIM)
Kevin Peters
Florida Marine Research
Institute (FDEP)
Kevin Petrus
Water Facilities (FDEP)
Richard Pierce
Mote Marine Laboratory
Edward Proffitt
Coastal & Marine Research, Inc.
Ed Radice
Hillsborough County Parks
Department
Ed Rathke
Florida Power & Light
Company
Thomas Reese
Attorney at Law
Stan Rice
University of Tampa - Biology
Department
Tom Ries
Southwest Florida Water
Management District (SWIM)
Doug Robinson
Coastal Envirornnental, Inc.
Tom Rogers
FDEP - Air Quality
Mark Ross
University of South Florida -
Engineering Department
Melody Russo
Cargill Fertilizer, Inc.
Daniel Savercool
Dames & Moore
Julie Schulten
Parsons Engineering Science,
Inc.
Gary M. Serviss
CCI Envirornnental Services,
Inc.
Patrick Shell
Hillsborough County
Envirornnental Protection
Commission/Air Management
Ed Snipes
Water Facilities (FDEP)
Elmer Spence
Pine lias County Public Works
Bob Stetler
EnvirOlllilental Resources
(FDEP)
John Stevely
Manatee County Cooperative
Extension Service
Scott Stevens
Southwest Florida Water
Management District (SWIM)
Mark Stewart
University of South Florida -
Geology Department
Yvonne Stoker
U.S. Geological Survey
Richard Stumpf
U.S. Geological Survey
Lawrence Swanson
Envirornnental Scientist
Don Sweat
Pinellas County Cooperative
Extension Service
Todd Tanberg
Pinellas County Utilities
Sally Thompson
City of Tampa - Planning
Department
Bill Tiffany
Manatee County Port Authority
Chris Tolbert
Pakhoad Dry Bulk Terminals
David Tomasko
Southwest Florida Water
Management District (SWIM)
Nick Toth
Cockroach Bay & Aquatic
Preserve
Jane Urquhart-Donnelly
Emergency Response (FDEP)
Gabriel Vargo
University of South Florida -
Marine Science Department
Sandra Vargo
Florida Institute of
Oceanography
Bill Veon
Hillsborough County - Plarnring
& Zoning
Mark Vincent
University of South Florida -
Marine Science Department
David Voigts
Florida Power Corporation
Jan Vorhees
Envirornnental Specialist
Chuck Walter
Florida Department of
Transportation
Mike Walters
Dames & Moore
Fred Webb
Hillsborough Community
College
Robert H. Weisburg
University of South Florida-
Marine Science Department
Mike Wells
Cargill Fertilizer, Inc.
Julie Weston
City of St. Petersburg - Plarnring
Department
Barry Wharton
HDR Engineering, Inc.
Bob Whitman
Peninsula Design & Engineering
Dick Williams
Water Facilities (FDEP)
Greg Williams
IMC-Agrico Company
Michael Wood
Manatee County - Planning and
Zoning Department
David Worley
FDEP
Jay Yingling
Southwest Florida Water
Management District - Planning
Department
Hans Zarbock
Coastal Environmental, Inc.
John Zimmerman
Manatee County - Public Works
Department
(FDEP) Florida Department of
Environmental Protection
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
11
CHARTING
the COURSE
Tampa Bay Watershed Boundaries and Bay Segments
Figure 3
FOR TAMPA BAY
. ~:.I>ort of
.Tampa
~\\Jer
~~\'3-
Tampa
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY
SARASOTA COUNTY
More than 2 million people reside in the 2,200-square-mile Tampa Bay watershed, which reaches into Sarasota, Pasco and Polk
counties and includes three major seaports. Tampa Bay is Florida's largest open-water estuary, covering almost 400 square miles.
12
State of the Bay
From 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 salt water from the sea and fresh water 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.l The bay also attracts a remarkable number and variety of birds and ani-
mals that depend on its rich tapestry of habitats and diverse food supply.
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 in runoff from the watershed fuel the bay's productivity, but excess
amounts of nutrients, as well as contaminants from neighborhoods, industries, cities
and farms, pollute the bay.
Achieving a healthy balance of nutrients from the land and sea, and redressing past
damage to habitats and protecting them in the future, remain vital to the bay's health.
These tasks become challenging in the context of modern growth. As population in
the tri-county area surpasses 2 million people, actions we take at home, at work and in
our communities 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 ecosystem manage-
ment. 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 net-
work for survival - can prevent costly and less effective piecemeal treatment.
Achieving the goals set out by the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (NEP) will
require a flexible, yet comprehensive, ecosystem management approach that takes into
account the overall needs of the estuary. By considering and capitalizing on these dif-
ferences, ecosystem management goes beyond traditional program boundaries - just
as the bay ecosystem itself extends far beyond its visible borders. Thus, a plan based
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
13
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
14
on these principles can integrate actions and policies to better protect the bay's multi-
faceted resources.
By focusing less on govermnent-imposed regulations and more on the actual require-
ments of the bay's living resources, opportunities for producing direct, measurable
results that are cost-effective and community-specific can be identified. In this
approach, success is measured less by compliance with laboratory standards for water
quality than by increases in seagrasses, fish stocks and other biological indicators of a
healthy estuary.
The NEP is committed to a course of action that emphasizes ecosystem management
as a common-sense approach for protecting Tampa Bay well into the next century.
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 to the
animals and plants that reside in them, and also affects human use and enjoyment of
the bay.
Excess amounts of nutrients and chemicals - some naturally occurring, others gener-
ated by humans - 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 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. Studies con-
ducted by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) in the last decade have
revealed 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 of pollutants may playa much larger
role in the bay's water quality than previously realized. Nitrogen and potentially toxic
pollutants, primarily from industrial and vehicle emissions, fall to the surface of the
bay and its tributaries or on the land where they are carried to the bay in stormwater
runoff. Research financed by the Tampa Bay NEP indicates that almost one-third of
the bay's total nitrogen load may come from atmospheric deposition directly to the
surface of the bay.4
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, where low land elevations and rapid population growth have combined to
strain existing municipal sewer and stormwater 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.5 Corrective
actions will be costly and will take time, but they are necessary to minimize associat-
ed water quality impacts and allay public concerns about the bay's safety as a recre-
ational and fisheries resource.
Since 1974, the Environmental Protection Commission (EPe) of Hillsborough County
has conducted a comprehensive water quality monitoring program in the bay's four
major segments. The wealth of data compiled by EPC is the principal source of infor-
mation for the following status and trends on bay water quality. A benthic monitoring
program recently established by the counties surrounding the bay will track trends in
sediment quality and the abundance and distribution of bottom-dwelling animals.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
15
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
18
Water Clarity
Proper water clarity is essential in maintaining the bay's ecological equilibrium. It
determines where and how well 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 annual depth of 2.5 meters (8.2
feet). It naturally decreases moving up the bay, dropping to an average of approxi-
mately 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).6
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). Suspended algae in the
water column reduces the amount of light that penetrates to underwater seagrasses.
In fact, the ability of sea grasses to recolonize the bay hinges on the amount of sunlight
various grass species receive, as well as shading factors, such as the amount of drift
macro-algae and epiphytic or attached algal growth on grass blades. For most seagrass
species, an estimated 20 to 25 percent of the light striking the bay's surface must pen-
etrate to the bay bottom to allow seagrass regrowth.? The light requirement for turtle
grass, the most common seagrass species in Tampa Bay, is estimated to be 20.5 per-
cent of incoming light at the deep edges of the grass beds.8
By maintaining or slightly improving water clarity, light conditions should be suffi-
cient to gain back a majority of the sea grasses present in Tampa Bay in the 1950s,
excluding areas that have been permanently altered.9
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 throughout the bay to allow 20 to
22 percent of the surface light to penetrate to depths where sea grasses grew in the
1950s.1O
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 sea grasses and,
ultimately, depletes the water of dissolved oxygen.
Water quality improvements are attributed mainly to advances in domestic and indus-
trial wastewater treatment and associated declines of 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 in the bay. Scientists estimate that the bay's total annual
nitrogen loading in 1976 was more than 2.5 times greater than the load for the years
1992-1994.11
Today, all sewage treatment plants discharging to the bay and its tributaries provide
Advanced Wastewater Treatment (A WT), a process that substantially reduces nitrogen
in effluent. The retrofit of Tampa's Howard F. Curren facility at Hookers 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 waste-
water discharges to Tampa Bay, also contributed to improving water quality. Similar
reuse programs now are underway in many other bay area communities.
A number of smaller package plants also operate along the bay, although none dis-
charge directly to the bay. One of these facilities is located at Tampa's MacDill Air
Force base, which is home to the U.S. Central Command. The treated effluent is
reused for spray irrigation at the 5,600-acre base.12
A key focus of the NEP has been to establish and allocate nitrogen loading goals for
Tampa Bay to encourage sea grass recovery. In 1996, local government and agency
partners in the NEP approved a long-term seagrass restoration goal for Tampa Bay of
12,350 acres, and pledged to protect the bay's existing 26,650 acres of seagrass. The
restoration goal is based on restoring sea grasses to levels documented in the 1950s,
excluding areas that have been permanently altered.13
These participants further agreed to maintain nitrogen loadings at existing levels
(1992-94 average) in order to provide suitable conditions for sea grass recovery. This
means that local governments and industries must offset nitrogen loadings to the bay
by about 7 percent by the year 2010 to compensate for nitrogen increases anticipated
with population growth. 14
Figure 4
Nitrogen Loading Scenarios
Estimates of Nitrogen Loadings
to Tampa Bay
(Tons/yr)
10,000
3,800 tons
I 4,066 tons
I
I
I
I
I
I
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
o
Worst Case
(ca. 1976)
Existing
(ca. 1992.9"4)
Future
(ca. 2010)
Historical
(ca. 1938)
SOURCE: COASTAL ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. (1994,1996)
Estimates of past, present and future loadings of nitrogen are based on computer modeling and existing
data. Most increases are expected to come from non-point sources, principally stormwater runoff.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
17
Old Tampa Bay'- .
. 174 tons/ 35.8% . .................................................................. I'i"
o 227 tons/ 46.2% . . II'
~ 85 tons/ 17.5%
. <1 ton/ 0% ..
Total 486 tons
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
Boca Ciega Bay
. 69 tons/ 39.0%
D 93 tons/ 52.5%
~ 15 tons/ 8.5%
Total 177 tons
Existing Annual Nitrogen Loadings to Tampa Bay
by Bay Segment (1992 - 1994 average)
Figure 5
tHllsbor()ugh. Bay___
. 596 tons/ 41.1 %
0115 tons/ 7.9%
~ 300 tons/ 20.7%
~ 233 tons/ 16.1 %
. 207 tons/ 14.2%
Total 1 ,451 tons
I/,
/7;y
/I /.
/. Y /./L.
/~
· ::t.; \'. ii.>
..........,..
';,~..
<....
.\i{'i ." ......
....
........<.I.J
Tampa "\ ~~
,~
t
.
.
<i..
. ..............
i.,. ...... ..... ...,......;.
.. .... .; ../.. <ii.c~ '.i__... .
.ii' ...... ;.. ,......
~'..i.,....' ........ it
St. Petersburg ~ ................... ..' . ....'................. .......
'1'!,-, ............,.....'......
............ ,',,", ...?>....... ........... . .....i......'i'
"'.'>,.'i..i'.' ................. ....... '.ii .....
..........'.i ...._:~....i:,;,. ..i,' . ................ .'. .
.........> , ".c.----..-" ---., ...........
..\"" '.~.
,...~~~y-. .........................
.,.... .......... ...... ~>'. ...................
....g!":~> ..'; ". .'..i. ..i.d.i ." .
........'....r!~X1 . ........, ..'. ...., .....
,i"<;.. ...... ........".. .....
, .................... '.i'. . ......... ........ ......
. . "..... .......... ....... ........i. ...... .'.
,i ...... ..i.'.......... ........................
I... .... ......... 't :,.,i ......, .......... ".......... . ......'.
IiIIIiII....... ..... \ ......., , ...... ............. . .;.i. .........
.......... .'. -....... ........ ...... ....'
. ......i..:.... ....i..............i,...........
.' ...... .'....,........ .... ....... ........~.'.;i
I. ....... .......,. ..<> ...............>ii ..i,.. .... ,i i..
r>.,.i,'..i '. ...........'.........>..i.-,j~:eza
"'i. .."........... ..........i:.. "'i, ........ ..',' . ...,......>i JJuy
..... .......... ......... ................... ..............,... ..................i..,;.. ...........i....
I.........,.....i.i'.. .. .... .'" "". ....'''';.::;.
1"..,1'..:'" ..............,......... .' ....,~.... "'
......
'.'
."
.
.........
1.\,.
p.. ..... ...
I .....
~
....
Lower TalT1~B~___
. 36 ton/ 10.3%
D 288 tons/ 82.5%
~ 1 tons/ 0.3%
~ 24 tons/ 6.9%
. <1 ton/ 0%
Total 349 tons
CJ)
Ter_~Qeia BliY__ ~
. 11 tons/ 31.4% .' ........,
D 20 tons/ 57.2% C./
~ 4 tons/ 11.4%
Tota] 35 tons
LEGEND
. Stormwater Runoff
D Atmospheric Deposition
~ Industrial & Municipal Point Sources
~ Fertilizer Material Losses
. Springs & Groundwater
18
Manatee River "
. 422tons( 83.90;;'- .
D 54 tons/ 10.7%
~ 27 tons/5.4%
Total 503 tons
Estimates of existing and future nitrogen loadings to Tampa Bay are presented in
Figures 4 and 5. Workshops with local governments and industry are being conducted
to determine equitable allocations of the bay's nitrogen management goals to the juris-
dictions and sources from which they originate. These commitments will form the
basis of an agreement signed by community and agency partners in 1997 to imple-
ment the Tampa Bay restoration plan.
Toxic Contaminants
Toxic contaminants represent another primary focus of concern for bay managers.
Overall, Tampa Bay has relatively low to moderate levels of most toxic parameters
when compared to other urban estuaries.
Toxics of concern, identified in Figure 7, include various trace metals, pesticides,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).15
These substances, some naturally occurring and others synthetic, can be damaging or
deadly to marine life when present in sufficiently high concentration. In addition, they
have the potential to affect human health.
Recent studies by NOAA, the FDEP and the Tampa Bay NEP provide the most com-
plete assessment to date of toxic substances of concern and their distribution in Tampa
Bay.16 Contamination appears to be centered around large urban centers, ports and
marinas, and concentrations generally diminish from the top of the bay toward the
Gulf.
Results of a recent risk assessment conducted for the Tampa Bay NEP indicate that
some contaminants are present at concentrations high enough to be harmful to fish
and wildlife, either through direct exposure to bay sediments or indirectly through the
food web. The first phase of the study, completed in 1996, assessed the risk to human
health and marine life from contaminants in Hillsborough Bay and Boca Ciega Bay,
two of Tampa Bay's most impacted sectors. I?
The primary contaminants of concern identified in the study include metals, PAHs,
PCBs, and chlorinated pesticides. Most of these pollutants enter the bay in stormwater
runoff or through atmospheric deposition.
The second phase of the NEP risk assessment will focus on Bayboro Harbor and the
western edge of Old Tampa Bay near Allen's Creek. These investigations will help
identify which pollutants pose a continuing threat to the bay and those that represent
past or inactive sources of pollution. Findings from the studies will be used to develop
a more specific action plan addressing toxic contamination in 1997.
Although levels of most contaminants documented locally pose no known risk to
humans, effects of repeated exposure to small amounts of these materials remain
largely unknown. Some contaminated sediments remain inert or inactive for many
years, then are disturbed by dredging, shipping, storms or animal activity. Bottom-
dwellers that filter contaminated sediments - and the fish, birds and humans that ulti-
mately consume them - can be placed at risk, since some toxic substances increase
in concentration as they ascend the food web.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
19
CHARTING
the COURSE
Contaminated Sediments in Tampa Bay
Figure 6
FOR TAMPA BAY
,'/
/~,
(?~ '~
/'/',0.j" '..
'c5/;
:.~
. . <>:0
;)3~
'. "f~" ,
:.:
St.
Petersburg
LEGEND
D Land Area
_ Most Contaminated Areas
~ Slightly Contaminated Areas
I"j Least Contaminated Areas
D Insufficient Data
Bradenton
Figure 7 identifies general areas of sediment contamination in Tampa Bay based on 674 sediment samples collected by vari-
ous federal, state and local agencies. "Most contaminated areas" are those in which 65 percent of sediment samples revealed
contamination - exceeding one or more threshold levels and including at least one positive test for sediment toxicity. In
"slightly contaminated areas," less than half of the samples revealed sediment contamination. Almost 65 percent of the sam-
ples from "least contaminated areas" show no evidence of contamination.
20
POLLUTION PATHWAYS AND SOURCES
Nitrogen and toxic contaminants follow several pathways to the bay, entering in
stormwater runoff from urban, residential and agricultural lands; atmospheric deposi-
tion (pollutants transported to the bay in rainfall and dryfall); and municipal and
industrial wastewater. Septic systems and spillage of fertilizer product in handling and
transport also can contribute significantly to nitrogen loadings in localized bay sec-
tors.
Anthropogenic sources of nitrogen include nitrogen oxides from power plant and
vehicle emissions (entering the bay from the atmosphere); treated effluent 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.
Sources of potentially toxic contaminants include metals and chemicals in industrial
and municipal wastewater; pesticides from yards and farnls; contaminants from road-
ways and paved surfaces washed into the bay in stornlwater runoff; and industrial and
vehicle emissions.
Nine toxic waste sites on the federal government's Superfund list are located in the
Tampa Bay watershed in basins draining to Old Tampa Bay and Hillsborough Bay.
Additional sites are proposed for designation. Although impacts to the bay from these
sites vary and are difficult to quantify, they will be evaluated by NEP as possible con-
tributors to hot spots of contamination. IS EPA also has identified 38 smaller haz-
ardous materials sites at MacDill Air Force Base, which are in various stages of evalu-
ation and remediation.19
STORMWATER RUNOFF
Stormwater runoff from the Tampa Bay watershed contributes about 45 percent of the
bay's total annual nitrogen load; a significant portion of that amount may actually
come from the air when nitrogen compounds fall to the ground and enter the bay in
runoff. 20 Runoff also conveys more than 60 percent of the aImualloadings for each of
the following metals: chromium, zinc, mercury and lead, as well as significant
amounts of other potentially toxic pesticides and substances. Atmospheric deposition
directly to the bay's surface, and municipal and industrial wastewater, carry the bulk
of remaining pollutants.21
Fine-grained particles carried in storm water nmoff also are regarded as pollutants.
These total suspended solids (TSS) may reduce water clarity and sunlight available for
seagrass growth, and convey toxic contaminants to the bay.
Urban stormwater runoff accounts for about 15 percent, or 570 tons, of the bay's total
annual nitrogen loadings. Of that amount, approximately two-thirds comes from resi-
dential areas. By comparison, commercial/industrial sites account for about one-third
of the total nitrogen in urban runoff, although their per-acre contributions are higher
than that of residential land uses.22
Runoff from intensive agricultural land uses (mostly citrus and vegetable production)
contributes about 6 percent of total bay nitrogen loadings, as well as sediments and
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
21
CHARTING
the COURSE
Toxics 01 Concern lor Tampa Bay
FOR TAMPA BAY
22
ContaminanUlmpacts
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.
'1
i
J
.
j
Cohtaminantllmpacts
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.
Endosullan - 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, endosulfan 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.
Figure 7
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
Sources
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.
23
CID\RTlNG
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
24
pesticides. Agricultural runoff from pastures and rangelands, which cover roughly 28
percent of the watershed, account for another 13 percent of total bay nitrogen loadings.
Forests and wetlands (at 7 percent) and mining (at 4 percent) comprise the remainder of
nitrogen loadings in stormwater runoff. 23
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 parti-
cles and aerosols) had not been identified as a significant problem for Tampa Bay.
Studies now suggest that about 29 percent of the bay's total nitrogen loadings are from
atmospheric pollutants falling directly on the water.24
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 1,100 tons of nitrogen is estimated to fall on the open
bay each year in rainfall and dryfall. Another 6,600 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.25
Several forms of nitrogen are contained in rainfall and dryfall to Tampa Bay. Nitrogen
oxides (NOx) - mostly linked to power plant and vehicle emissions - are chemically
transformed in the air, eventually returning to earth in aerosol or dissolved 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 the United States in 1984. Industrial sources provided another 15 per-
cent. 26
In the Tampa Bay region, stationary sources (primarily power plants) contribute an esti-
mated 70 percent of the manmade NOx emissions as compared to 30 percent from
motor vehicles.27 One utility, Tampa Electric Company - which operates two coal-
fired power plants on the bay - is the single largest source of NOx emissions in the
region. According to the EPC of Hillsborough County, these two facilities emitted
approximately 90,000 tons of NOx in 1994, representing nearly two-thirds of the total
NOx emissions for Hillsborough and Pinellas counties.28
However, researchers can't say how much of what is emitted locally stays in the region
or what percentage of emissions from outside the region are deposited here, since air-
borne contaminants may travel hundreds (or even thousands) of miles before settling to
Earth. They also can't pinpoint what portion of nitrogen loadings from the atmosphere
comes from natural sources, such as lightning. Additional research on natural and man-
made sources and the relative contributions from local and distant sources is needed to
effectively manage atmospheric deposition in Tampa Bay, which is expected to increase
as population, power consumption and motor vehicle traffic grow. 29
Between 1995 and the year 2010, nitrogen loadings to the bay from all sources are
expected to increase by about 7 percent, or 17 tons per year.30 But those estimates do
not include changes that could occur as a result of new and unforeseen industrial dis-
charges to the bay, or increased power generation at local utilities. Florida Power &
Light (FP&L) Company's request to burn the controversial new fuel called Orimulsion,
r
Sources 01 Nitrogen Oxide
Figure 8
Sources of NOx Emissions, 1994
A Comparison of Major Urban Areas in Florida
Tampa Bay Region*
Total: 160,200 tons yr.
Southeast Florida*
Total: 136,200 tons yr.
Jacksonville
Total: 59,200 tons yr.
* Pinel/as, Hillsborough
and Manatee counties.
* Dade. Broward and
Palm Beach counties.
64%
31.1%
w_-
36%
m.
~ -
Mobile Stationary
Mobile Stationary Mobile Stationary
SOURCE: FDEP AIR QUALITY REPORT 1994
Emissions data presented includes major stationary sources and "on-road" mobile sources, excluding
other mobile sources such as boats.
for example, would have resulted in increased activity at its Manatee County plant.
That increase in power generation would have resulted in an additional 20 tons of
nitrogen loadings to the bay each year, according to the company. FP&L's request to
burn the fuel was denied in April 1996 by the Governor and Cabinet in a 4-3 vote.
The decision is now being appealed.
Toxic substances also enter the bay from the atmosphere in large quantities. For exam-
ple, 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.3! PARs also enter the
bay from the atmosphere, although loadings and specific sources are unknown. PARs
are associated with fossil fuel combustion, such as power plant and motor vehicle
emissions and waste incineration.
WASTEWATER
While advances in wastewater treatment and increased regulation have helped reduce
pollution, permitted sewage treatment plants and industries discharging directly to the
bay ("point" sources) still contribute substantial pollutants to Tampa Bay.
Municipal sewage treatment plants in the watershed contribute about 10 percent (or
360 tons) of the bay's total annual nitrogen loadings.32 Although all sewage treatment
plants with surface discharge to the bay or its tributaries now provide Advanced
Wastewater Treatment, roughly 36 billion gallons of effluent are still discharged to the
bay each year, with Rillsborough Bay receiving the largest portion. In 1991, this bay
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
25
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
28
~
segment received two-thirds of the cumulative nitrogen load from domestic waste-
water treatment plants discharging to the bay.33
Wastewater discharged from industrial facilities in the Tampa Bay watershed is
responsible for about 4 percent of total nitrogen loadings.34 Fertilizer manufacturing
and shipping facilities are the largest industrial point Sources.
Industrial and municipal point sources also are a major pathway for toxic substances,
contributing roughly 30 percent of the bay's total loadings of arsenic, cadmium,
chromium and copper, as well as low levels of other contaminants.35 Residents also
can contribute to the problem by pouring down drainpipes 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 conducted for the Southwest Florida Water Management District
(SWFWMD) suggest that nitrogen loadings from septic systems, as well as septic
waste and sewage treatment sludge, contribute as much as 4 percent to the bay's over-
all nitrogen loadings.36 Older septic systems located near the bay pose a particular
threat to water quality, since most are not designed for nitrogen removal.
Disposal of sewage sludge poses a special problem, particularly in the Hillsborough
and Manatee river basins, because of the number of permitted disposal sites. Different
agencies regulate disposal sites and it is difficult to determine how much material is
being spread and how it is handled. Additionally, some of the sludge disposed of in
the Tampa Bay watershed actually comes from outside the region.37
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.38 Septic systems along
tributaries leading to Tampa's McKay Bay also are believed to be a problem.39
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.40
Preliminary estimates developed for the NEP suggest that ground water and springs
contribute about 5 percent of the bay's total nitrogen loadings.41 Nitrogen (particular-
ly nitrate) concentrations in springs in the area appears to be increasing, possibly due
to changes in land use in the spring recharge areas.42
Another 7 percent of the bay's total nitrogen loadings is attributed to fertilizer lost
during shiploading and landside on route to port.43 However, the amount has declined
substantially since 1991 as a result of efforts to improve portside facilities.
BAY HABITATS
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.
Tampa Bay Food Web
Figure 9
~@
di.-q(
@o. fQJ~?i
N at}
~~
.:. ~::~@.
". .. ..
.": .... ..
',.: .".
. .
, J ,., ...., ,
",' "~. .
, : J , '~,
,
~Q)~
~~
Tampa Bay's food web provides a "who eats who" perspective of the ecosystem. But in reality, it is far more complex. The
marine food web, as its name implies, travels in various directions, bound together by common, interdependent threads.
Impacts to any part of the food web affect the health of the whole.
. The bay's food web begins with sunlightA, which penetrates through the water column.
. The sun's energy is absorbed by tiny one-celled organisms called phytoplanktonB, microscopic algae that are the
most prolific of the bay's primary producers. Light also is absorbed by seagrassesC and other underwater plants. There are
270 species of phytoplankton in Tampa Bay, and a single quart of bay water may contain as many as 1
million of these minuscule creatures, which give the water its greenish cast. By comparison, the bay supports only four
major seagrass species.
. Small grazing animals called zooplanktonD and larger bottom-dwelling filter feeders form the next thread in the web. Filter
feeders such as the bay scallopE and the sea squirtF are a prime cleaning service for the bay, siphoning in water containing
phytoplankton, skimming off the tiny organisms, and discharging clear water. Larger herbivores, such as manateesG and
green sea turtlesH, consume bigger plants like seagrasses.
. Carnivores and omnivores (opportunistic feeders that eat plants and animals) prey on the zooplankton and the filter feeders.
Small carnivores such as the blue crabl and pinfishJ are in turn eaten by larger carnivores such as snookK, redfish and
trout, which are eaten by sharksL, dolphins and humansM Some birds, such as pelicansN and cormorants, also eat the
small fish and invertebrates.
. When plants and animals die, their remains sustain another thread in the web, the scavengers. Some of these, such as fid-
dler crabsD and snails, live in burrows along the shoreline. Others, like worms and shrimpP, dwell in the muds at the bot-
tom of the bay. The muds of the shore and bay bottom may look barren to a casual observer, but they teem with life.
. The scavengers begin another circle of life, providing food for a variety of shorebirds such as the white ibisQ and the
roseate spoonbill, which frequent the bay's shallows. Small mammals such as raccoons also prey on crabs and snails.
27
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
28
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.44 Most
casualties were sustained before the mid-1970s, when the environmental impacts of
unmanaged growth became evident.
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. Between 1950 and 1990, the bay expe-
rienced a net loss of approximately 5,128 acres, or 21 percent, of emergent tidal wet-
lands. Of that amount, a disproportionate baywide loss of tidal marsh (-38 percent)
and salt barren (-36 percent) habitat has occurred compared to mangrove habitat (-13
percent). Recent studies show a slight increase in the bay's saltwater wetlands from
1982 to 1990, which is generally attributed to wetland colonization of new emergent
land created from bottom-fill, as well as wetland creation and restoration.45 However,
the quality or productivity of these new wetlands is not fully known.
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 2,600 are thought to remain.46 Grass beds also help to
improve water clarity by anchoring bottom sediments and reducing nutrients in the
water column. Their importance and environmental requirements make sea grasses an
excellent indicator of the bay's overall health.
Because sea grasses 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 6 to 8 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.47 Three factors are believed to have caused the
baywide decline: dredging and filling for waterfront development; reduced light pene-
tration as a result of shading by algae and epiphytic growth fueled by excess nutrients
discharged to the bay in wastewater andstormwater runoff; and cloudiness (or turbidi-
ty) caused by sediment resuspension.48
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 sea-
grasses once thrived.49 Hillsborough Bay is one of the bay's most impacted segments.
Its surface area has been reduced by 14 percent as a result of residential development
at Davis Islands, creation of spoil islands, and construction of port and power generat-
ing facilities. That compares to a surface area reduction of 3.6 percent for the entire
bay caused by filling for development.5o
Historical Trends in Seagrasses
Figure 10
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
Seagrass Decline
80
10
.~ J t.B\
1i6~\
'I' * Estimate, based on bathymetry
70
,..-...
o
8 60
T"""
><
';;;' 50
Q)
....
u
~ 40
rJJ
rJJ
ro
0, 30
ro
Q)
CJ)
20
SOURCE: LEWIS, HADDAD AND JOHANSSON, BASIS 2
RIES (1994), SWFWMD-SWIM
JANICKI, WADE AND ROBISON (1994), FOR TBNEP
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.5l Most of the incoming grass
is shoal grass (Halodule wrightii), a early-colonizer that may eventually be replaced in
many areas by turtle grass (Thalassia testudillum), a later successional species.52
Seagrass gains are largely attributed to upgrades in sewage treatment plants that led to
substantial declines in nitrogen loadings to the bay. Declines in nitrogen loadings result-
ed in lower phytoplankton density and corresponding improvements 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 brings fewer nutrients and contaminants into the bay. Seagrass recov-
ery efforts of the NEP focus mainly on regulating the bay's nitrogen intake, but other
factors, such as turbidity and water color, also influence sea grasses by determining how
much light reaches the grass beds. These factors may be increasingly significant in areas
of the bay where nitrogen management alone does not achieve seagrass restoration
goals.
29
~
CHARTING
theCOURSE
1950 vs. 1990 Seagrass Coverage
Figure 11
FOR TAMPA BAY
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)
30
Seagrass transplanting also may be viable in some areas of the bay, although its suc-
cess rate varies and it is still experimental. Pioneering efforts by scientists at the
Florida Marine Research Institute (FMRI) show promise in laboratory cultivation of
plant fragments for large-scale restorations.53 And some local transplanting projects,
such as the City of Tampa's in Hillsborough Bay, have been successful.54 The NEP
will evaluate suitable areas for transplanting projects as part of its overall seagrass
recovery strategy. 55 Continued monitoring will be necessary to document the trends in
seagrass 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 FMRI indicate that about 27 percent of Tampa Bay's seagrasses
are moderately to heavily scarred - second in severity only to the Florida Keys.56
Signs of chronic damage are evident around many passes and channels. Studies at
Weedon Island Preserve suggest that propeller scars in turtle grass may take more than
five years to heal. 57
Intense scarring at Cockroach Bay in southern Hillsborough County and at Pinellas
County's Ft. DeSoto Park has prompted boating restrictions and other measures in
these areas to protect seagrasses.58 Channel marking and education appear to be the
most effective techniques for reducing damage to grass beds.59
The quality of the bay's seagrasses, and their utilization by animals, has not yet been
fully evaluated. However, the SWFWMD recently modified its seagrass monitoring
program to include assessments of seagrass quality at 60 locations around the bay.
Monitoring parameters include seagrass species diversity, density and quantity of epi-
phytic algae attached to the grass blades, as well as physical parameters such as salini-
ty, pH and water depth. 60
SOFT-BOTTOM
More than 80 percent of the bay bottom is sand or mud, although the term "soft bot-
tom" can be misleading since a large part of the bay floor is actually hard-packed sand
and shell.61 These bottom sediments support a large variety of organisms, including
parchment worms, clams, tunicates (or sea squirts) and conchs. The surface sediments
of this dynamic habitat are periodically churned up and re-deposited by bottom-
dwelling animals, as well as by waves, currents and dredging.62 More than 500 types
of macroinvertebrates baywide and an average of 10,000 organisms per square meter
were documented in 1993 - the first year of benthic sampling conducted by the EPC
of Hillsborough County and Manatee County for the Tampa Bay NEp'63
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. 6~
The long-term effects of disposal on these soft-bottom habitats has not been well doc-
umented. However, the benthic monitoring program established in 1993 by NEP and
the bay's three surrounding counties will eventually enable scientists to assess trends
in the quality of these bottom communities. Samples are taken each year during the
critical monitoring period (September and October) at more than 100 stations, and
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
31
CID\RTJNG
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
32
analyzed for the number and diversity of organisms, as well as sediment quality and
chemistry.6s A sediment toxicity analysis was added in 1996.
HARD-BOTTOM
Although relatively rare in Tampa Bay, hard- or "live-" bottom habitat features a com-
position of plants and animals that is unlike any other in the bay ecosystem. Hard-bot-
tom habitat is formed when natural outcroppings of rock or limestone - or man-made
bridge pilings or reefs - along the bay bottom 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 preliminary study conducted for the Tampa Bay NEP revealed more than 850 acres
of hard-bottom habitat in Tampa Bay.66 Major communities are located at Rocky
Point (Old Tampa Bay); near Cockroach Bay (Middle Tampa Bay); and in portions of
Lower Tampa Bay. Long-term trends in hard-bottom coverage are not yet available.
Oyster reef communities are another distinct hard-bottom habitat, although they have
not been well-documented in Tampa Bay. The reef's intricate structure provides habi-
tat for scores of invertebrates and fish species.
While historical estimates of hard-bottom are sketchy, the bay once supported a thriv-
ing oyster fishery. The most recent estimate of oyster coverage was 8,300 acres in
1972.67 Oysters are no longer commercially harvested, since most areas of the bay
have been closed to shellfishing because of unsafe or suspected high levels of bacteri-
al contamination.
Additionally, eight artificial reefs have been established in Tampa Bay to expand nat-
ural hard-bottom and enhance fishing.6s Other man-made habitats include bridge and
dock pilings, seawalls and spoil islands. 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 salt marsh species,
such as smooth cordgrass and black needlerush. Mangroves outnumber marshes in
Tampa Bay by more than a 3-to-1 ratio.69 However, salt marshes composed of rushes,
sedges and grasses are the dominant natural habitat along the bay's major tributaries.
Decaying mangrove leaves provide a nutrient-rich food called detritus for small fish,
shrimp and crabs. 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.
1950 VS. 1990 Saltwater Wetland Coverage
Figure 12
CHARTING
the COURSE
i
!
~
,"fJ
if,...........
,/~~:\,":,
.-'
'~.:.t.:.
.# . \
"
5t.
Petersburg
...14.... .
. .
~ '-',
't'1J
'.,
"'"
~
.'
....,
Boca Ciega
Bay
., . L
... "
t\~
\
'\
#
I
'i
~.t.
,;
FOR TAMPA BAY
LEGEND
D Land Area
1950 Wetland Coverage
_ 1990 Wetland Coverage
Nearly half of the natural shoreline in Pinellas County's Boca Ciega Bay was lost to waterfront development between 1950 and 1990.
Throughout Tampa Bay, scientists report a net loss of approximately 5,128 acres, or 21 percent, of emergent tidal wetlands for that
period. Declines were steepest for low-salinity tidal marsh (38%) and salt barrens (36%), as compared to mangrove habitat (13%).
33
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
34
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 an 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.
Pruning of mangroves can affect their productivity. Public outcry against a 1995 law
that made it easier for residents to trim mangroves prompted the Florida Legislature to
revisit the issue in 1996. A new mangrove trimming bill was passed, reinstating some
trimming restrictions and providing additional penalties for violators. State officials do
not know how many acres of mangroves were trimmed during 1995, but say the dam-
age was severe in many cases.
About 21 percent (5,128 acres) of Tampa Bay's original saltwater wetlands were
destroyed between 1950 and 1990, primarily due to dredging and filling for waterfront
development. These losses were not distributed equally among bay habitats, with the
greatest declines documented for tidal marshes (38 percent), followed by salt barrens
(36 percent) and mangroves (13 percent).70
The steepest declines occurred during the 1950s and 1960s, when efforts to develop
coveted waterfront property for residential and commercial uses proceeded
unchecked. The passage of wetlands protection laws during the mid-1970s and 1980s
has greatly slowed the rate of loss, and studies indicate a slight increase in tidal wet-
land coverage since 1982, due to recent habitat restoration efforts and natural colo-
nization of marshes and mangroves along causeways and other filled lands.?!
Recent estimates of wetland habitat in Tampa Bay indicate that about 18,800 acres of
mangrove forests and salt marshes remain.72 However, thousands of acres of these
native habitats have been displaced by invasive exotic plants, such as the Australian
pine and Brazilian pepper.
MUD FLATS AND SALT BARRENS
Mud and sand flats along the bay's perimeter also are an important part of the estuar-
ine wetland system. While these largely non-vegetated areas may appear barren and
lifeless to an untrained eye, they are highly productive and valuable.
On closer inspection, so-called "non-vegetated" shallow bottom areas more closely
resemble a secret garden teeming with microscopic plant life. Invisible to the
untrained eye, single-celled algae and bacteria proliferate here, giving the bay floor a
subtle brown or greenish cast. What's more, these diminutive residents pack a sizeable
punch as fuel for the bay's primary productivity. Indeed, in shallower ecosystems, the
sheer number of these bottom-dwelling organisms often exceeds the amount of phyto-
plankton in overlying waters.73
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.
These areas also are prime feeding areas for a number of migratory birds, including
ducks, gulls, avocets and several species of sandpiper, which seek refuge in Tampa
Bay each winter.
Fewer than 900 acres of salt barren remain, mostly along the bay's southeastern rim.74
Historical estimates of this habitat are unavailable. Salt barrens forms in areas where
brackish water moves in during very high tides and evaporates, creating open stretch-
es of salty, dry soil. This hyper-saline terrain supports low-growing succulent plants
and serves as a seasonal feeding habitat for wading birds.
ASSOCIATED UPLANDS
Neighboring upland habitats of pine forests, hammocks and shrubs also have been
heavily impacted by development. Often overlooked or undervalued, these buffer
areas. and associated freshwater wetlands provide important habitat for numerous ani-
mals, including the wood stork, white ibis, osprey, bald eagle and Shernlan's 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 wetlands for survival.
Almost all coastal pine forests, which are critical nesting sites for bald eagles, have
been eliminated from the shores of Tampa Bay, and about 40 percent of this habitat
has been lost throughout the watershed.75 Coastal halmnocks also have declined.
Coastal hammocks of live oaks and cabbage palms occur in patches where wetlands
transition to uplands, and are home to raccoons, bobcats, foxes and other animals that
feed in neighboring wetlands.
LOW-SALINITY HABITATS
The bay's four major rivers - the Hillsborough, Alafia, Manatee and Little Manatee
_ and more than 100 smaller tributaries provide critical low- and medium-salinity
habitat 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, detennine 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 oligos (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 dnlln, snook and tar-
pon, as well as numerous non-game species such as the striped mullet. Some of the
most highly productive juvenile nursery habitat occurs where these low-salinity waters
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
35
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA
38
overlap with shoreline or submerged vegetation. As the fish mature, they typically
move to more saline zones in the estuary or out into the Gulf of Mexico.76
Efforts to protect these highly productive nursery habitats depend on maintaining the
proper timing and flows 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 fresh water to
serve the region's drinking water and irrigation needs. During dry season, when water
demand is highest, reservoirs on the Hillsborough, Palm and Manatee rivers release
almost no water downstream.
Local water supply development plans may further reduce the flow of fresh water into
already impacted tributaries and bay segments. For example, the Tampa Water
Resource Recovery Project would remove up to 50 million gallons per day (mgd) of
fresh water currently discharged to Hillsborough Bay from the City of Tampa's sewage
treatment plant, and possibly reduce flows to the Tampa Bypass Canal and McKay
Bay. However, the project also will remove a major source of excess nitrogen to the
bay. An environmental impacts assessment will be conducted as part of this project.77
Additionally, the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority proposes to remove 7
mgd from the Alafia River during the first phase of its 1995 Water Resource
Development Plan (1995-2000).78
The impact of reservoirs on the low and medium-salinity habitats downstream is the
subject of several ongoing assessments. One study of flow variations on the Manatee
River indicates 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 opera-
tions for the period 1982-1992. Consequently, the area of wetlands coinciding with
this low-salinity band was reduced by 150 acres, or 25 percent,79
Modeling comparisons of historic and modem landscapes indicate that net freshwater
inflows to the main body of Tampa Bay have changed little since the 1950s, assuming
the same amount of rainfall each year.80 This is mainly a result of increases in urban
and agricultural storm water 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 some rivers in southwest Florida (including the
Hillsborough River) have experienced gradual freshwater declines since the 1930s,
partly because of declining rainfall. 81
Fish and Wildlife
FISHERIES
The populations of many sport and commercial fish species in Tampa Bay are 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 popula-
tions, which are fished almost exclusively by commercial netters. The ban also may
benefit other species like spotted seatrout and sheepshead, targeted by both commer-
cial 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 slight-
ly.82
However, 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.
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.83 These raw data do not reflect changes in fishery manage-
ment plans or quotas.
Prior to the net ban, 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. 84
Although useful, landings can be a misleading indicator of population stocks because
natural fluctuations and changes in market demand, gear efficiency and fishing regula-
tions may affect them. Additionally, commercial landings are often under-reported and
tend to decline as recreational fishing increases. Recognizing this, the FMRI 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 sea grass beds,
further validating the importance of sea grass 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 Little Manatee.85
Mirroring declines in fish stocks, Tampa Bay's once-thriving commercial shellfish
industry also has virtually collapsed, although bait shrimping and some food shrimp-
ing continues. Harvests of clams and oysters throughout the bay are restricted or pro-
hibited because of documented or potential bacterial contamination from fecal col-
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
37
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
38
iform associated with human and animal wastes entering the bay in storm water nmoff.
In the few unrestricted 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 in most
cases are based on land use considerations and the documentation of or potential for
contamination following a major storm event, rather than actual water quality condi-
tions.86
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.87
Assuming 100 percent mortality, the impact of steam electric plants on the fishery
stocks of Tampa Bay may be significant. However, in the absence of sufficient base-
line data on stock sizes and normal survival rates, it is difficult to fully assess this
impact. Further evaluation is needed to understand the cumulative impacts of power
plant entrainment on the bay's fisheries.
Habitat declines, water quality and fishing impacts 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 and restoration of habitats through-
out Tampa Bay are 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 casu-
alties of pollution. Water quality in Tampa Bay now has improved to levels that may
support scallop recovery,88 and some restocking efforts have been undertaken. 89
Mortality for scallops transplanted in the bay was unacceptably high in 1995, accord-
ing to a 1996 report from the FMRI for the Tampa Bay NEP. Researchers say red tide
- a common Gulf coast nemesis - is likely to blame. FMRI believes that bay scal-
lops can be successfully cultured and reintroduced to Tampa Bay, but recommends
selecting a variety of transplant sites within the lower bay to minimize exposure and
localized impacts.9o
BAY WILDLIFE
Tampa Bay supports a magnificent array of wildlife, from the familiar brown pelican
to the bottom-hugging 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
~
Important Bird Nesting Colonies 01. Tampa Bay
~."...",.,".'.......'...".'..".."....'..
~
St. Petersburg
LEGEND
1. Island 20
(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)*
Tampa
D
Old Tampa
Bay
EJ
[J
~.~:.;;
~
Middle Tampa Bay
~
[[]
Terra Ceia
l!JBay
Manatee RiverE:]
7. Dot-Dash (mouth of
Braden River)
8. Courtney Campbell
Causeway
9. Alligator Lake
10. Howard Frankland
Causeway
11. Florida Power
Rooftop/Weedon
Island
Figure 13
D
Hillsborougl.rs-l
Bay[] "LJ
12. Coffee Pot Bayou
13. Dogleg Key
14. John's Pass
15. Tarpon Key**
16. Shell Key
17. Egmont Key
18. Passage Key**
* National Audubon Sanctuary
**National Wildlife Refuge
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
SOURCE: NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY, TAMPA BAY SANCTUARIES
39
CHAR1lNG
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
40
the nation. These islands support as many as 40,000 pairs of approximately 25 species
each season, including brown pelicans, cormorants, ibis, spoonbills, herons, egrets and
skimmers. 91 The bay also attracts a sizable and diverse number of wintering water-
birds, including the white pelican, which travels more than 2,000 miles on its annual
pilgrimage from the Western U.S. and Canada.
Bird populations have dramatically declined in the last half-century as the region has
been developed. Most vulnerable are beach-nesting shorebirds such as the black skim-
mer and wading birds such as the white ibis, which lives along the bay but depends
upon freshwater crayfish and insects to feed its young. As these small, inland ponds
and marshes dry up or are converted for development, ibis populations have plummet-
ed. Since the 1940s, the Tampa Bay breeding population of the ibis has declined by as
much as two-thirds, from an estimated 30,000 pairs to 11,000 pairs.92 In addition to
habitat losses, the bay's bird populations also have been impacted by human intrusion
into rookeries and by entanglement in monofilament fishing line.
Marine mammals and sea turtles also make their home in Tampa Bay. More than 500
bottlenose dolphins are estimated to be year-round residents. The bay also is the win-
ter home of as many as 200 manatees, according to FMRI researchers.93 These gentle,
plant-eating giants cluster around the warm-water discharges of the bay's power plants
and feed in the grass beds at the bay's perimeter.
An unprecedented die-off in early 1996 brought the total number of manatee deaths in
Florida for the first six months of the year to 302 - more than twice the previous
record set in 1990. The single event, believed to be caused by red tide, claimed about
11 percent of the state's estimated 2,600 manatees.94 Even without this unusual event,
manatee deaths statewide - including Tampa Bay - through October .1996 were still
higher than previous years, and collisions with watercraft remain the primary human-
related cause of manatee mortalities.95
Although often inconspicuous, marine turtles are common inhabitants of the bay. The
loggerhead (a threatened species) and Kemp's ridley (one of the 12 most endangered
animals in the world) are year-round residents. Green turtles and hawksbills also visit
the bay, although the latter, a more tropical species, is quite rare. Nesting season
brings the female turtles on shore at Anna Maria Island, Egmont Key and at beaches
along Pinellas County.96
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.97 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.
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.
'I
Dredging and Dredged Material Management
Tampa Bay supports three major seaports and a cruise ship industry that contribute
more than $10 billion dollars ammally to the region's economy.98 The Port of Tampa is
the state's largest port and consistently ranks among the top 10 in the nation in trade
activity. Smaller harbors at Port Manatee and St. Petersburg also are economically
important to the region.
Maintaining the bay's vast transportation network requires ongoing maintenance dredg-
ing and disposal of sediments that accumulate in shipping channels (see Figure 14),
activities that have dramatically changed the bay bottom.99 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 million cubic yards of mate-
rial - 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. 100
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 control depth
of 43 feet to allow safe passage of large cargo vessels. 101
In impacted areas, dredging can cloud bay waters, inhibiting light penetration to sea-
grasses. Dredging also smothers bottom-dwelling animals and can release substances
such as ammonia, which can contribute to algal blooms, from the sediments. However,
in some instances, dredging benefits the bay, by improving t1ushing and removing con-
taminated sediments.
Long-term disposal of dredged material represents the greatest challenge in the absence
of coordinated planning. Currently, Tampa Bay has two approved disposal sites within
the bay on large man-made 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.
The Tampa Port Authority is exploring options to extend the life of those sites by as
much as 20 years by correcting erosion problems and raising the dikes around them to
accommodate more material.l02 But beyond that, the upper bay's long-tenn disposal
needs are unresolved - even though annual maintenance dredging is expected to con-
tinue to produce nearly a million cubic yards of material annually and some construc-
tion 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, as well as numerous residential canals, are unaccounted for, though they
are likely to be substantial. Currently, owners and users of these facilities and through-
ways must apply for separate federal, state and local permits and develop independent
spoil disposal options, which are not now represented in any strategic plan.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
41
CHARTING
the COURSE
Tampa Bay Shipping Channels and Spoil Areas
Figure 14
FOR TAMPA BAY
~.'.
LEGEND
D Land
D Former Spoil Areas
~ Spoil Islands
_ Shipping Channels
SOURCE: COASTAL ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
42
Effective long-term planning and coordination among ports, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and environmental and business interests is needed to explore long-term
disposal options, including beneficial uses of spoil material, and to minimize the eco-
logical impacts of dredging.
Spill Prevention and Response
More than 4 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.103 Sulfuric acid and anhydrous ammonia, used in the processing of
fertilizer, 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 dramatic fashion in August 1993,
when two barges and a freighter collided near the mouth of the bay in a fiery collision
that resulted in a spill of nearly 330,000 gallons of oil. 104 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 numerous
seabirds, fouled area beaches and blanketed small mangrove islands in the Intracoastal
Waterway, with cleanup costs borne by industry and government exceeding $100 mil-
lion. 105
Cooperative efforts led by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), Florida Department of
Environmental Protection and Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council have been laud-
ed for providing critical advance planning and response for such accidents. Local gov-
ernments, shipping interests and utilities are also a part of this local advance planning
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 occur-
rmg.
Public concerns about the impacts of oil spills on the bay were heightened again when
Florida Power & Light proposed to bum Orimulsion at its Manatee County plant.
Because the thick, emulsified fossil fuel disperses in the water colunm rather than
floating on top where it can be skimmed off, removal with current cleanup and con-
tainment technology would be nearly impossible.
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 1995.107
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
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
43
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
44
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.
All ports and vessels are required to develop contingency plans for spills under the
federal Oil Pollution Act of 1990. This law mandates that the maritime community be
prepared to handle any size spill. However, large spills in Tampa Bay may require
additional support equipment and personnel from outside the area. Additionally, feder-
al 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 2015.108
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. Because of the potential for vapor
explosions, gasoline and other light petroleum products also cannot be contained.
USCG statistics reveal that 85 percent of all accidents resulting in spills stem from
human error, not natural conditions or equipment failures. 109 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 commercial
vessels.
Ship navigators currently broadcast vessel information 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 personal experience and skills to safely
complete each transit.
In November 1996, a local Vessel Traffic and Information Service (VTIS)
Consortium, which includes the bay's three major seaports, submitted its final report
to the Governor and Legislature for a VTIS system to guide ships through Tampa Bay.
The plan envisions a phased implementation with operation and funding shared by the
USCG and maritime community.
The State of Bay
Management
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 governmental network
involving three counties, a dozen cities, a variety of regional and federal agencies 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 confusing 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 (NEP) is to bring all parties
with an interest in the bay together to develop a blueprint for its future. Finding con-
sensus on the components of the blueprint, and developing a cost-effective yet com-
prehensive structure within which it can be brought to life, are keys to the Program's
success.
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 finalized and will be available as an appendix to the final plan.
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. At the same time, the federal
government also was shifting more attention to environmental needs with the estab-
lishment of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and passage of the
Clean Water Act of 1972. One of the major accomplishments 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 the Howard F. Curren Treatment
Plant at Hookers Point. The sewage was believed to be a major reason why
Hillsborough Bay was clouded with noxious algae and badly 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.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
45
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
48
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 problems
when it pioneered the first large-scale wastewater reuse program in the state, resulting
in almost zero discharge to the bay. However, the city had problems during abnormal
wet weather conditions with discharges into Boca Ciega Bay caused by unintentional
sewer overflows during the late summer of 1995.
In the late 1960s, the Environmental Protection Commission (EPC) of Hillsborough
County was established. Over the years, the EPC has provided a comprehensive
record of long-term water quality record in the bay - critical for tracking and docu-
menting the "bad old days" and the bay's progressive recovery. EPC was one of the
first agencies to identify sewage treatment problems in the bay, and its wetlands pro-
tection rules are among the strictest in the state.
A decade later, the Hillsborough Environmental Coalition, a grass-roots citizens
group, led efforts to fight environmental impacts associated with the Tampa Harbor
Deepening Project. The Coalition supported Manatee County's legal actions 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 groundswell 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 examine
ways to improve bay protection. The study commission resulted in the formation in
1985 of an advisory group, the Agency on Bay Management (ABM). An arm of the
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council (TBRPC), the Agency has become a vigilant
guardian of the bay. The 45-member coalition - which includes elected officials, reg-
ulators and representatives 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 established four Aquatic Preserves in the Tampa Bay watershed
to protect remaining natural areas. Stricter permitting standards apply within the pre-
serves, which encompass more than 370,000 acres of submerged lands in
Hillsborough, Pinellas and Manatee counties.
Stormwater permitting for new development was initiated in the mid-1970s by the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and later delegated to the
Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD). In 1984, SWFWMD
adopted new rules for the management and storage of surface waters, launching a
comprehensive surface water management program for new development which
included permitting requirements for stormwater treatment as well as flood control.
~
In 1987, the Legislature created the Surface Water Improvement and Management
(SWIM) program to restore and protect the state's most threatened waterways. At the
urging of the ABM, Tampa Bay was named in the SWIM Act as a priority waterbody
within SWFWMD. Since 1989, SWIM has created or restored more than 110 acres of
estuarine and coastal habitats and provided stormwater treatment for more than 5,000
acres of urban lands in the bay watershed.
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 identifying where unnecessary duplication exists in
current environmental programs to ensure 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 FDEP, the TBRPe, the
SWFWMD, and the Tampa Port Authority, which has been deeded all state-owned or
sovereign bay bottom in Hillsborough County. On the local level, resource manage-
ment is divided among county and city planning, stormwater, solid waste, wastewater,
and environmental protection departments.
A 1994 survey conducted by the Tampa Bay NEP attempted to quantify how much
money is spent to manage and monitor bay quality and administer environmental pro-
grams. That study, based on FY94-95 budgets, indicates that more than $250 million
is spent annually by federal, state and local agencies and governments on the restora-
tion and management of Tampa Bay.
By far, the largest portion of that figure - 68 percent or roughly $170 million - is
attributed to wastewater collection, treatment and reuse, activities which directly or
indirectly benefit the bay even if they aren't performed solely for the bay's benefit.
The second largest allocation of about 14 percent or $35 million is expended primarily
by local governments and the SWFWMD for stormwater management, including han-
dling and treatment. Regulation and enforcement activities comprised 5 percent or
$13.5 million of total expenditures. Habitat restoration, preservation and management
totalled approximately $7 million or nearly 3 percent, excluding land acquisition
expenditures (nearly 4 percent). Dredging and dredge material management, environ-
mental monitoring and public education comprised the remainder of the expenditures
(See Figure 15).
The bay's complex management system has led to duplications in some areas and
gaps in others. Bay managers who responded to the NEP's 1994 survey generally
agreed that duplications occur most frequently in permitting activities, while gaps are
most evident in enforcement and monitoring programs. Bay managers also cited turf-
guarding as a problem, and noted the lack of a comprehensive, readily available data
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
47
CHARTING
the COURSE
base through which valuable information about the bay's health and living resources
could be shared.
FOR TAMPA BAY
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.
That process was streamlined in October 1995 as a result of the state's new
Environmental Resource Permit (ERP), which consolidated review of existing dredge-
and-fill, stormwater management and sovereign lands permits into a single permit to
be issued by either FDEP or the water management district, depending on the type of
project.
SWFWMD now utilizes a "cradle-to-grave" system, in which one person oversees all
facets of a given permit, from review and approval to compliance monitoring and
Bay Management and Related Expenditures
Federal, State and Local (FY94-95)
Figure 15
13.8%
Stormwater
2.8%
Habitat Restoration
& Management
3.9%
land Acquisition
1.8%
Environmental
Monitoring
2.6%
Dredge Management
5.4%
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 $250 million.
SOURCE: HAZEN AND SAWYER (1996), FUNDING SOURCE INVENTORY FOR CCMP ACTION
PLANS. PREPARED FOR THE TAMPA BAY NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
-I
~
I
48
enforcement. This approach is highly efficient because it provides responsibility for
all follow-up activities to the staff member most familiar with the project.
Inconsistencies also characterize the permitting process. Because communities have
adopted individual wetlands rules based upon their residents' perceptions of important
environmental concerns, an applicant's project could be denied by one agency and
approved by another. If the project is approved, the applicant could be required to
meet widely varying mitigation and monitoring requirements imposed by each regula-
tory agency.
Until recently, publicly financed restoration projects were further complicated by state
agency requirements that they undergo the same rigorous review as private projects -
even when the reviewing agencies have participated in the development of the restora-
tion design. This process increased the cost of the project and often delayed construc-
tion by a year or more. The SWIM program, however, has made progress in streamlin-
ing the process based on its record of success, close monitoring and reporting to regu-
latory agencies, and monthly meetings with all jurisdictional agencies. Additionally,
the new ERP process waives monitoring requirements for restoration projects.
Many bay managers believe that permitting is given too much emphasis in the regula-
tory arena, while monitoring and enforcement are short-changed. Lack of adequate
enforcement personnel has been identified by the FDEP as a principal reason why so
many mitigation projects required of private developers have either not been properly
constructed, or constructed at all. This is true not only for mitigation projects, but also
for stormwater facilities. The disparity is prevalent throughout the regulatory commu-
nity, according to bay managers who responded to the estuary program survey, and
may be as much a function of allocation of resources rather than the fault of the regu-
latory system itself. There are exceptions, such as Hillsborough County's EPC, which
devotes a substantial portion of its resources to compliance and enforcement.
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 redirected. In particular, they advocate a
shift in some resources from permitting to monitoring and enforcement. They also
support pro-active projects, such as habitat restoration, so long as these projects pro-
vide meaningful results and effectively address ecosystem needs. Support also is
growing for cooperative partnerships such as team permitting, a concept that is being
pursued by the FDEP as part of its Ecosystem Management initiative.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
49
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
50
Those managers see Ecosystem Management as more effective than traditional
resource management, since it relies less on micro-reviews of individual permits and
more on assessing overall impacts. A critical component of successful Ecosystem
Management is using biological living resources - such as seagrass, fish and scallops
- as a measure of the bay's health. 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.
Ecosystem Management also emphasizes the role that watersheds and tributaries play
in Tampa Bay's overall health. A new SWFWMD initiative will focus attention on
these vital areas through the creation of "watershed teams" which will prepare and
implement detailed plans for key watersheds.
Making Ecosystem Management a reality in the Tampa Bay watershed will require a
strong management plan backed by a stronger administrative 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.
Goals and Priorities
for Tampa Bay
Charting the Course advances specific goals and associated strategies to restore and
protect water quality and bay habitats, as the foundation for healthy and diverse popu-
lations 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
Management Plan for Tampa Bay. Efforts by the Program's technical advisors over
the past five 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, which also identifies priority actions.
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 of the bay's seagrasses (or almost 19,000 acres) from the 1950s to
the 1980s, although seagrasses are gradually returning in areas of the bay where water
quality has improved.
In July 1996, the Tampa Bay NEP adopted a five-year management goal to cap nitro-
gen loadings to the bay at existing levels (1992-1994 average). This effort is expected
to provide water quality conditions suitable for the regrowth of more than 12,000
acres of seagrass over time. Nitrogen loadings to Tampa Bay are expected to increase
7 percent by 2010, or about 17 tons per year, as a result of population growth.
Therefore, local governments and industries will need to offset loadings to the bay by
this amount to maintain existing nitrogen loadings. The NEP will revisit the nitrogen
goal and associated management strategies every five years, or more often, as signifi-
cant new information becomes available.
Local government partners have tentatively agreed to reduce their future nitrogen
loadings to the bay by at least 6 tons per year - that portion of the load which is
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
51
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
52
attributed to storm water runoff and discharges from municipal point sources. A nitro-
gen management consortium of key industries, local governments and regulatory
agencies has been established to develop a plan to address the remaining 11 tons of
nitrogen, which comes from atmospheric deposition, industrial point sources, fertilizer
shipping and handling, and intensive agriculture.
Toxic contaminants in bay sediments represent another primary focus of concern for
Tampa Bay. Studies by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) in the late
1980s and early 1990s documented relatively high levels of pesticides, heavy metals
and other contaminants in sediments, and associated impacts to marine life at some
bay sites.
The goal is to protect relatively clean areas of the bay from toxic contamination, and
minimize risks to bay wildlife and humans associated with contamination in impacted
areas.
Results of recent risk assessment conducted for the Tampa Bay NEP indicate that
some contaminants are present at concentrations high enough to be harmful to fish
and wildlife, either through direct exposure or indirectly via the food web. The first
phase of the risk assessment, completed in 1996, evaluated the risk to human health
and marine life from contaminants in Rillsborough Bay and Boca Ciega Bay, two of
Tampa Bay's most impacted sectors.
Contaminants of concern identified in the study include several metals, polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PARs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and chlorinated
pesticides. Most of these pollutants enter the bay in storm water runoff or through
atmospheric deposition. An action plan to address toxic contaminants in the bay and
outline more specific management goals will be developed by November 1997, fol-
lowing completion of the second phase of the risk assessment.
Recent events also have focused the attention of citizens and bay managers on prob-
lems associated with sanitary sewer overflows and discharges to the bay during heavy
rainstorms. That problem came to light during the summer of 1995 when the City of
St. Petersburg was forced to discharge about 15 million gallons of untreated sewage
into Boca Ciega Bay to minimize sewage backup into homes. Excessive rainfall had
infiltrated the wastewater collection system and caused the overflows. Other commu-
nities around the bay and nationwide have experienced similar problems during peri-
ods of heavy 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 networks.
GOALS FOR BAY HABITATS
The restoration and protection of seagrasses is a key goal of Charting the Course,
which establishes a nitrogen management strategy to encourage seagrass recovery.
The goal is to restore 12,350 acres and protect the bay's existing 25,600 acres of grass
beds. This is based on restoring the vital underwater seagrass meadows to 1950s lev-
els, except in areas that have been permanently altered. It will be achieved largely by
controlling the bay's nitrogen intake-although other factors, such as turbidity and
water color, also influence sea grass regrowth.
More than 4,000 acres of new or expanded sea grass beds have been documented in
the bay since 1982, thanks to improvements in water quality. But recovery will be a
long-term process because of the time it takes for seagrasses to recolonize an area
once conditions have improved. For coastal habitats, the plan is to restore the historic
balance of coastal habitats in order to better support the bay's fish and wildlife popu-
lations, recognizing that some vital habitats have declined more rapidly than others.
Declines have been particularly severe for tidal streams and tributaries, which are crit-
ical nurseries for numerous species of fish, such as snook and mullet.
The goal is to restore at least 100 acres of low-salinity tidal stream habitat every five
years, for a total increase over time of 1,800 acres, while preserving existing salt
marshes and mangroves. This may be accomplished either through habitat restoration
or enhancement of existing areas that have been severely degraded. Strategies outlined
in the plan build on existing efforts, including SWFWMD's practice of creating "habi-
tat mosaics."
The NEP habitat restoration and protection master plan, available under separate
cover, also identifies 28 sites as priorities for protection, either through direct purchase
or methods such as conservation easements. The majority of these sites have been des-
ignated by SWFWMD as priorities for acquisition in their Save Our Rivers/Preserva-
tion 2000 plan.
While the plan's primary focus is on repairing tidal streams, other habitats also will be
gradually restored. A key effort will be to identify and restore small freshwater ponds
that are critical to the survival of the white ibis, which lives along the bay but depends
upon freshwater crayfish and insects to feed its young. Additional work is planned for
upland forests, mud flats and salt barrens (extremely salty high marsh), all of which
play an important role in the Tampa Bay ecosystem.
The NEP also seeks the establishment of adequate freshwater inflows to Tampa Bay
and the lower reaches of its tributaries, particularly from rivers impounded by dams.
This is essential to preserving the overall health of the estuary. A schedule for estab-
lishing these flows has been set for the bay's major rivers. NEP will participate with
SWFWMD in this process by convening an advisory group to develop technical rec-
ommendations for flows on the HIllsborough River and Palm River/Tampa Bypass
Canal.
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
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
53
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
54
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.
Additionally, preserving the flow of fresh water into the bay from its myriad tribu-
taries will yield dividends for a variety of commercially and recreationally valuable
fish, which seek out these sheltered, low-salinity havens as nurseries.
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.
The goal for spill prevention and response is the installation of a state-of-the-art
Vessel Traffic and Information System (VTIS) 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 other hazardous materials.
Charting the Course also calls for the development of a long-term, coordinated dredg-
ing and dredged material disposal plan, directed by the u.s. Army Corps of Engineers
and involving the bay's three major seaports. The plan would address long-term dis-
posal needs, seek to reduce the environmental impacts associated with dredging, and
maximize beneficial uses of material dredged from the bay's shipping channels.
MEASURES TO ENSURE SUCCESS
Local government and agency partners have pledged to continue their participation in
the NEP to ensure regular dialogue, 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.
Sustaining broad-based citizen support for bay restoration and protection will be
equally vital to the success of the plan. The Tampa Bay NEP will continue strong
community outreach and education efforts as the plan is implemented. These efforts
are discussed in the chapter on Public Education and Involvement Action 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 compli-
ance monitoring and enforcement also is emphasized throughout the plan and in spe-
cific actions to ensure that environmental regulations are followed.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
55
Charting the Course, the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program's management blueprint for Tampa Bay, details progress
made in restoring and protecting Florida's largest open-water estuary and strategies for continuing improvements well
into the next century. The following goals and priorities have been adopted by the Tampa Bay Management Conference
and will be the focal point of the implementing agreement signed by NEP partners in 1997.
Water & Seillment Quality
Aided by laws requiring construction of better sewage treatment
facilities and improvements in stormwater management, water
quality in Tampa Bay is improving. However, excess nitrogen and
toxic contaminants continue to be key concerns. Goals for
improving water and sediment quality include:
. Preventing increases in the bay's nitrogen levels to provide
water clarity suitable for the gradual recovery of 12,350
acres of seagrass. To maintain existing water quality condi-
tions, local governments and industries will need to reduce
their future nitrogen contributions to the bay by about 7
percent by the year 2010, or approximately 17 tons per
year.
. Reducing the amount of toxic chemicals in contaminated
bay sediments and protecting relatively clean areas of the
bay from contamination.
. Gaining a better understanding of the role that air pollution
plays in the bay's water quality, and identifying and
addressing the sources of air pollution.
. Reducing bacterial contamination now present in the bay to
levels safe for swimming and shellfish harvesting.
Status: Local government partners in the NEP have tenta-
tively pledged to reduce their future nitrogen loadings to the bay
by about 6 tons per year - that portion of bay loadings attributed
to storm water runoff and municipal point sources. A Nitrogen
Management Consortium of local utilities, industries, agricultural
interests, local governments and environmental agencies was
established in 1996 to develop a plan to address the remaining
balance of 11 tons of nitrogen per year, which is expected to
come from atmospheric deposition, industrial point sources, fer-
tilizer shipping and handling, and intensive agriculture. See
Action WQ-1 for details.
Ongoing studies of atmospheric deposition (Action AD-1) and
toxic contaminants (Action TX-1) are improving bay managers'
understanding of these important issues. Action PH-1 calls for
the development of maintenance plans by local governments to
address sewer overflow problems.
Bay HabHats
Water quality improvements are aiding the return of seagrasses
to the bay, but other habitats - particularly tidal streams and
marshes critical to fish and wildlife - also will require a concert-
ed, long-term restoration effort. Goals and priorities for improv-
ing bay habitats include:
. Recovering an additional 12,350 acres of seagrass over
1992 levels, while also preserving the bay's existing 25,600
acres and reducing propeller scarring of seagrasses.
. "Restoring the historic balance" of coastal wetland habitats
in Tampa Bay by restoring at least 100 acres of low-salinity
tidal marsh e\(ery five years, for a total increase over time
of 1,800 acres.
. Preserving and enhancing the bay's 18,800 acres of exist-
ing mangrove/salt marsh habitats, including the 28 coastal
habitat sites designated as priorities for protection, either
through public purchase or methods such as conservation
easements.
. Establishing and maintaining adequate freshwater flows to
Tampa Bay and its tributaries to increase crucial low-salin i-
ty habitat.
Status: More than 150 acres of new or expanded seagrass
beds have been documented since 1992; by preventing future
increases in nitrogen entering the bay, water clarity should be
sufficient to achieve seagrass recovery goals. Details on
progress in habitat restoration and protection are provided in
Action BH-1. A schedule for establishing minimum freshwater
flows from impounded rivers was adopted by SWFWMD in
1996. Action F1-1 provides details.
GOALS & PRIORITIES OF
THE TAMPA BAY PLAN
Fish & Wildlife
Charting the Course seeks to increase the number, diversity
and health of the bay's fish and wildlife populations by
improving the areas in which they live, feed and reproduce.
Restoring water quality and bay habitats will be the primary
focus. Another priority to bolster fish and wildlife popula-
tions in the bay is:
. Improving the on-water enforcement of fishing and
environmental regulations.
Additionally, Charting the Course calls for the establishment
of a working group of the Agency on Bay Management to
evaluate and develop recommendations for local manatee
protection zones.
Status: See Actions WQ-1, BH-1 and F1-1 for updates
on efforts to improve water quality and bay habitats. Local
enforcement needs are discussed in Action FW-1. Additional
recommendations are discussed in the Fish & Wildlife Action
Plan.
Dredging & Dredged
Material Management
Maintenance of the bay's network of navigational channels is
important both to commercial maritime industries and recre-
ational interests. But a more coordinated approach is needed to
protect the bay from the potentially damaging effects of such
activities and address long-term disposal needs. The priority for
dredging and dredged material management is:
Spill Prevention
& Response
. Developing a long-range dredged material management plan
for the bay that will minimize environmental impacts and
maximize beneficial uses of the dredged material.
Status: The NEP has allocated $40,000 to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to begin development of the long-term plan
in 1997, in cooperation with local port authorities and bay inter-
ests. See Action DR-1.
The oil spill that occurred in Tampa Bay in August 1993 spot-
lights the need for preventive measures to avoid future spills
of oil and other hazardous materials, and to ensure rapid
cleanup of spills that do occur. The priority for spill preven-
tion and response is to:
Status: NEP approved $40,000 in 1996 to support
improvements to the existing ship monitoring system. This is
part of an overall plan by the Tampa Bay VTlS Consortium to
develop and implement a Vessel Traffic and Information
System; Action SP-1 provides details.
. Install a state-of-the-art vessel traffic and information
system (VTIS) to improve coordination of ship move-
ments along the bay's narrow shipping channel
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
58
Introduction to
Action Plans
The Tampa Bay National Estuary Program was established in 1991 to assist the
community in developing a Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plan (CCMP) for Tampa Bay. The CCMP includes six Action Plans for bay
improvement, addressing:
. Water & Sediment Quality
Nitrogen Management
Stormwater Runoff
Atmospheric Deposition
Wastewater
Toxic Contamination
Public Health
Bay Habitats
Freshwater Inflow
. Fish & Wildlife
Dredging & Dredged Material Management
Spill Prevention & Response
Public Education & Involvement
Local govermnent and agency partners in the Tampa Bay NEP expect to sign an
agreement in 1997 pledging to achieve the goals for water quality and natural resource
recovery, as well as priorities for spill prevention and response, and dredging and
dredged material management (see preceding chapter).
How those goals are achieved will be left up to individual communities, who may
select from among a range of acceptable alternatives. Many of these options are out-
lined in the following Action Plans for bay improvement. This approach not only
emphasizes flexibility, but allows local governments to focus their limited resources in
the most cost-effective and environmentally beneficial manner.
Bay Action Plans define the bay's most pressing needs, and present strategies to
achieve bay goals and maximize the community's long-tenn 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 NEP's management, technical and community advi-
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
59
CHARTfNG
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
GO
sory committees. Each Action Plan begins with an introduction to the issue followed
by the proposed actions. Cost estimates are presented for each action.
A key addition since the release of the draft CCMP in January 1996 is an overall
water quality action describing nitrogen management goals for Tampa Bay and the
process for achieving them. New information also is provided in the Action Plans on
Atmospheric Deposition and Toxic Contamination, including updates on important
research already underway.
Preliminary analyses suggest that the cost to meet certain water quality goals for
Tampa Bay will be relatively minimal over the plan's lifetime (see Implementation &
Financing chapter). For example, local communities and industries will need to reduce
future nitrogen loadings to the bay by about 17 tons (or about one-half percent of the
total load) per year to maintain water quality levels and provide for continued sea grass
recovery. The cost of achieving that goal is estimated at an additional $2 to $4 million
per year over current expenditures, or about $2 per bay area resident.
The Tampa Bay NEP invites and encourages your comments as we begin implementa-
tion of the management plan for Tampa Bay.
Bathers at Spa Beach
and City Pier in St.
Petersburg (1925).
-II: t
,
PHOTO: BURGERT BROTHERS
Water &
Sedilnent Quality
Tampa Bay is rebounding from decades of pollution that reached an apex in the
1970s, when vast algal blooms clouded the water in some bay sectors and sea grasses
struggled to survive.
Today, water quality improvements are helping to chart a course for the bay's recov-
ery. 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
previously patchy meadows as a result of water quality gains. Improved conditions
also may be setting the stage for a recovery of the bay scallop in lower Tampa Bay,
which disappeared in the 1960s when the bay was badly polluted.
Most water quality gains are attributed to Advanced Wastewater Treatment technolo-
gies, which have significantly reduced nitrogen in wastewater discharged to the bay.
Municipal sewage treatment facilities now contribute just 10 percent of total bay
nitrogen loadings, as compared to 40 percent in the mid-1970s.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
WQ
81
CID\RTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
WQ
82
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
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 stormwater 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 17 percent to more than 2.3 million by 2010. Without further action, 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
section. Additional information is provided in the State of the Bay chapter which pre-
cedes this section.
Nitrogen is a naturally occurring and beneficial nutrient that pollutes the bay and
inhibits seagrass growth when excess amounts are present. In 1996, the Tampa Bay
NEP adopted a five-year management goal to cap nitrogen loadings to the bay at
existing levels (1992-1994 average). Studies suggest that staying within those limits
will provide water quality that is suitable for the regrowth of more than 12,000 acres
of seagrass, a key objective of the NEP management plan.
Nitrogen loadings to Tampa Bay are expected to increase 7 percent between 1995 and
2010, as a result of population growth. This equates to an increase of 17 tons per year,
or a total of 266 tons per year by 2010. Consequently, local governments and indus-
tries will need to offset the bay's total nitrogen loadings to the bay by this amount in
order to maintain current nitrogen levels. Action WQ-1 discusses the nitrogen man-
agement goals for Tampa Bay and the process for achieving them.
Potentially toxic contaminants entering the bay in stormwater runoff, atmospheric
deposition and wastewater represent another important focus of concern for bay man-
agers, following studies that identified high levels of contaminants in sediments at
various sites, including Hillsborough Bay and Boca Ciega Bay. While contamination
appears to be localized, some biological impacts have been documented and others are
anticipated. 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. Risk assessments being conducted
for the NEP are helping to identify which contaminants pose the greatest concern in
heavily impacted areas.
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 NEP'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.
WATER & SEDIMENT QUALITY GOALS:
Cap nitrogen loadings to Tampa Bay at existing levels (1992-1994 average) to
encourage the regrowth of an additional 12,350 acres of seagrass. To compensate
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
for anticipated increases in nitrogen loadings, local governments and industries
will need to reduce their future nitrogen loadings to Tampa Bay by about 7 per-
cent between 1995 and 2010. A key effort will be gaining a better understanding
of the role air pollution plays in the bay's water quality, and addressing the
sources of this pollution.
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.
Reduce bacterial contamination in impacted areas of the bay to levels safe for
swimming and shellfish harvesting.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
WQ
83
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
WQ.1
G4
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Implement Nitrogen Management
Goals for Tampa Bay
ACTION:
Implement the nitrogen management goals for Tampa Bay to maintain water quality
conditions suitable for the recovery of more than 12,000 acres of seagrasses.
BACKGROUND:
Controlling the bay's nitrogen intake as a means of regaining vital underwater sea-
grass beds has been one of the most prominent initiatives of the Tampa Bay NEP.
Seagrasses were selected by NEP as a yardstick by which efforts to improve the bay
will be measured because of their overall importance to the bay ecosystem, and
because they are an important barometer of their environment, signaling changes in
long-term water quality trends.
An incredible variety of marine creatures - from the stately seahorse to the blue-eyed
scallop to the portly manatee - find food, shelter or protection from predators in
these dense underwater pastures. In fact, studies show that seagrass beds harbor 50
percent more fish and invertebrates than sand-bottom areas of the bay. Seagrasses also
anchor shifting sand and filter pollutants from the water, much as grasses help stabi-
lize the soil on dry land.
Since the turn of the century, pollution and dredging have destroyed more than half of
the bay's seagrass beds. But surveys have recorded more than 4,000 acres of new or
expanded seagrass beds in Tampa Bay since 1982, some in areas like Hillsborough
Bay that had been barren for decades.
This remarkable comeback is largely credited to improvements in sewage treatment
that have reduced the amount of nitrogen flowing into the bay, since excess nitrogen
causes algae blooms that cloud the water and keep sunlight from reaching the grasses.
Using computer models, scientists with the NEP calculate that water quality is now
good enough to allow the natural growth, over time, of more than 12,000 acres of sea-
grass.
In July 1996, the Tampa Bay NEP adopted a five-year management goal to cap nitro-
gen loadings at existing levels (1992-94 average) to assist the seagrass recovery
process. Nitrogen loadings to Tampa Bay are expected to increase 7 percent by the
year 2010 as a result of population growth. This equates to an increase of 17 tons per
year, or a total of 266 tons of nitrogen per year by 2010. Consequently, local govern-
ments and industries will need to offset loadings to the bay by this amount in order to
maintain the bay's current nitrogen levels.
Local government and agency partners already have tentatively accepted responsibili-
ty for reducing their future nitrogen contributions by at least 6 tons per year, or 90
tons per year by 2010. This is the amount associated with stormwater runoff and
municipal point-source discharges. These partners - Hillsborough, Pinellas and
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Manatee counties, the cities of Tampa, St. Petersburg and Clearwater and participating
agencies - are now developing plans which identify specific projects to address their
share of the cleanup. Nitrogen reductions will be carried over from year to year and
credited against the remaining shortfall. Additionally, communities may achieve their
target loadings more rapidly by implementing projects with greater nitrogen reduc-
tions or preventing anticipated increases.
A Nitrogen Management Consortium was established in October 1996 to develop a
plan to address the remaining 11 tons per year of nitrogen, which comes from atmos-
pheric deposition, industrial point sources, fertilizer shipping and handling, and inten-
sive agriculture. Participants also are exploring ways to equitably assign the responsi-
bility for managing nitrogen loadings among dischargers, based on their contribution
to the problem.
The Consortium is comprised oflocal utilities, phosphate mining and fertilizer han-
dling companies and agricultural interests, as well as the NEP's six local government
partners and regulatory agencies. Working together, the group will identify nitrogen
management projects to satisfy the nitrogen management goals established for Tampa
Bay. The NEP will assist the Consortium by developing a list of the most cost-effec-
tive projects to pursue.
The approach advocated by NEP stresses cooperative solutions and flexible strategies
over rigid "command and control" regulatory requirements. Under this plan, local
governments and industries may select from among a range of options - as long as
the overall goals for nitrogen management are met. This flexibility allows communi-
ties to focus their limited resources on the most cost-effective and environmentally
beneficial actions.
Without this consensus-building approach to bay management, regulators would have
to rely on the traditional permitting and compliance process to achieve the goals of the
bay plan. That method can be more time-consuming and expensive, and lacks the
flexibility the NEP partners have endorsed.
The NEP will review and revise nitrogen management goals every five years, or more
often, if significant new information becomes available.
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Complete local government and agency Action Plans and estimate the total
amount of nitrogen reduction associated with these partners' projects.
Responsible parties: local governments, Southwest Florida Water
Management District (SWFWMD), Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP)
STEP 2 Continue the Nitrogen Management Consortium with the goal of develop-
ing an action plan to reduce future nitrogen loadings to the bay by 11 tons
per year, that portion of the future nitrogen load which is attributed largely
to atmospheric, industrial and agricultural sources.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
WQ.1
85
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
WQ.1
BB
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
A. Identify all nitrogen management projects completed, underway or pro-
posed by Consortium members since January 1995 for completion by the
year 2005.
B.
Develop a method for determining how much credit each project will
receive for nitrogen reduction. In fairness to all participants, a consistent
method must be developed for estimating credits both for structural
improvements, such as stormwater ponds, and non-structural efforts, such
as support for the FloridaYards & Neighborhoods Program.
C. Determine the difference between estimated reductions associated with pro-
jects that are planned and the nitrogen management goals established for
Tampa Bay.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEp' in cooperation with Consortium
members
STEP 3 Develop and implement an Action Plan identifying projects that address
any shortfall in nitrogen reduction. The NEP will assist the Consortium by
identifying the most cost-effective projects for nitrogen reduction in the
watershed.
Responsible parties: Nitrogen Management Consortium, in cooperation
with the Tampa Bay NEP
SCHEDULE:
The Tampa Bay NEP has received draft Action Plans from its local government and
agency partners. These Action Plans will be finalized for review by the Tampa Bay
Management and Policy Boards in 1997 and must be adopted no later than one year
after the signing of the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP)
implementing agreement in Spring 1997.
The Nitrogen Management Consortium was established in October 1996. Steps 2 and
3 will be completed no later than one year after the signing of the implementing
agreement. The NEP will request a preliminary action plan from the Consortium by
August 1997.
COST:
Preliminary analyses suggest that the cost to meet nitrogen management goals for
Tampa Bay will be relatively small over the plan's lifetime. Local communities and
industries will need to reduce future nitrogen loadings to the bay by about 17 tons (or
about one-half percent of the total existing nitrogen load) per year to maintain water
quality levels and provide for continued seagrass recovery. The cost of achieving that
goal is estimated at an additional $2-$4 million per year over current expenditures, or
about $2 per bay area resident per year.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Achieving the nitrogen management goals for Tampa Bay will prevent increases in the
bay's nitrogen burden and provide conditions suitable for the regrowth of an addition-
al 12,000 acres of seagrasses, which are vital to countless marine animals.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Individual projects will be monitored through regulatory permits. Additionally, NEP
will prepare an annual report summarizing progress made by each participant for com-
munity and Policy Board review. Details of the overall bay monitoring program are
providedinthe chapter on Monitoring Bay Improvement.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
To be determined, based on projects identified in action plans.
RELATED ACTIONS:
Seestormwater, wastewater and atmospheric deposition actions for discussion of
nitrogen management strategies.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
WQ.1
87
CID\RTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
sw
SB
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
STORMWATER RUNOFF
Stormwater 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 set-
tle in the bay's watershed. In fact, air pollutants are believed to be a significant con-
tributor to pollution in stormwater runoff to the bay.
Approximately 15 percent of the bay's total nitrogen loadings is attributed to urban
stormwater runoff, an amount exceeding all direct or "point" discharges of wastewater
to the bay from wastewater treatment and industrial plants. Of that, 10 percent comes
from residential areas, which dominate the urban landscape. Commercial and industri-
al sites, by comparison, contribute the other 5 percent of total bay nitrogen loadings.
Runoff from intensely cultivated agricultural lands (mostly citrus and vegetable pro-
duction) contributes another 6 percent of total bay nitrogen loadings, as well as poten-
tially significant quantities of pesticides and sediments from erosion. 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 t6 lands in intensive agriculture, pastures and rangelands are probably less
cost-effective to treat, since total loadings per acre are relatively small (see chart).
Undeveloped land (at 7 percent) and mining (at 4 percent) comprise the remainder of
nitrogen loadings carried to the bay in storm water runoff.
Bay water quality is improving, thanks largely to improvements in sewage and
stormwater treatment and associated declines in nitrogen loadings. But concerns about
toxic contamination of bay sediments are growing, following studies that have
revealed concentrations of heavy metals and pesticides harmful to marine life at sever-
al sites. Many toxic contaminants enter the bay attached to sediments in stormwater
runoff, making treatment of sediments in runoff a key component in the strategy to
address toxic contaminants.
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 nitrogen
emphasize strategies such as wastewater reuse and pollution prevention measures, as
well m; efforts to reduce atmospheric deposition of nitrogen to the bay.
The Tampa Bay National Estuary Program has developed a computer model to assist
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, stormwater treatment and monitoring to assure compliance with stormwa-
ter permits.
i
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
ACTIONS TO ADDRESS STORMWATER
RUNOFF
Actions to address pollution from stormwater nmoff range from recommendations for
improved landscape management and urban planning to increased stormwater treat-
ment. Actions to address agricultural runoff focus on water conservation and integrat-
ed pest management.
SW-l
Continue implementation of the Florida Yards & Neighborhoods Program
and similar pollution prevention initiatives.
SW-2
Assisf businesses. in implementing best management practices to reduce
stormwaterpollution, and develop model landscaping guidelines for com-
mercial use.
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.
SWc6
Promote compact urban development and redevelopment.
SW-7
Enforce and require the timely completion of consent orders for the <(leanup
of fertilizer facilities in Tampa's East Bay sector.
SW-8
Encourage best management practices on farms.
SW-9
Improve compliance with agricultural ground and surface water manage-
ment plans.
ADDITIONALLY...
The NEP recommends a workshop in 1997 to discuss the overall issue of compliance
monitorirtgand enforcement of stormwater permits. Compliance monitoring and
enforcement was considered a major problem by many advisors to the NEP who
helped develop and rank the initial list of actions for the draft Comprehensive
.. Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) - and is still considered a problem by
some people. Many believe that the regulatory system is "front-loaded" - with too
many staff allocated to project review and penniuing and too few available for com-
pliance monitoring and enforcement. They advocate a shift in resources to address the
imbalance. This issue was the subject of an action in the draft CCMP released in
January 1996 and requires additional discussion before recommendations are made.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
sw
89
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
sw
10
ACTION. PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Total Nitrogen Loadings to Tampa Bay (1992-1994 average)
All Sources = 3,800 tons/year
4%
Industrial
Wastewater
29%
Atmospheric
Deposition
4%
Mining
10%
Municipal
Wastewater
7%
Accidental.
Fertilizer Losses
5%
Groundwater
and Springs
10%
Residential
Runoff
5%
Commercial/
Industrial Runoff
7%
Undeveloped
Land
6%
Intensive
Agriculture
13%
Pasture/Range
Lands
Per-Acre Nitrogen Loadings .from Non-Point Sources
% Loading. . % Watershed
Residential
Commercial Industrial/Institutional
Mining
Range and Pasture
Intensive Agriculture
Undeveloped Land
10 15.5
5 6.4
4 3.2
13 28.4
6 6.5
7 39.93
Yield Ibs/ac/yr
4.52
5.26
4.97
2.81
5.63
1.15
SOURCE: COASTAL ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Continue Support for the Florida Yards &
Neighborhoods Program and Similar Pollution
Prevention Initiatives
ACTION:
Continue support for the Florida Yards & Neighborhoods Program and similar pollu-
tion prevention and education initiatives which encourage homeowners to reduce pol-
lution in residential runoff. Continue to enlist retailers, developers, and the landscap-
ing and pest control industries to practice and promote these concepts.
BACKGROUND:
Yards and neighborhoods are among the bay's first lines of defense against pollution
in stormwater runoff. Yet many homeowners fail to understand the potential impact of
excess fertilizer, pesticides and water used in landscape maintenance on the health of
Tampa Bay.
In fact, scientists estimate that residential land uses in the Tampa Bay watershed con-
tribute about 10 percent of the bay's total nitrogen loadings, as well as other pollutants
such as pesticides and herbicides. The impact on Tampa Bay may be immediate in a
waterfront neighborhood, or gradual, through the flow of storm water drains, ditches,
streams or rivers.
These findings became the springboard for the development of the Florida Yards &
Neighborhoods (FY &N) Program, established in 1991 to enlist residents in pollution
prevention by improving their landscaping practices. Experts from the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service (FCES), which administers the Program statewide,
encourage residents to conserve water and limit their use of fertilizers and pesticides
- techniques that can save homeowners considerable time and money. The Program
also promotes the establishment of true Florida Yards, featuring plants suited to local
conditions, climate and wildlife.
FY &N was developed by the National Estuary Programs of Tampa Bay and Sarasota
Bay and the FCES. The West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority (WCRWSA) is
currently the major funding source for the Tampa Bay FY&N program, which also
draws support from some local governments.
Since its inception, the FY &N Program has assisted dozens of neighborhoods and
thousands of individual homeowners through workshops, neighborhood evaluations
and plantings, educational literature and the development of model Florida Yards at
public venues. The Program also coordinates with local developers and retailers to
promote these concepts. A Florida Yard featured in the 1996 Parade of Homes at Fish
Hawk Trails in Hillsborough County received extensive publicity and attention. Home
Depot recently began publicizing FY &N tips in its in-store literature and advertising
inserts.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
SW.1
71
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
SW.1
72
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
This action seeks to continue support for FY &N to effectively reach a larger and more
diverse audience in the Tampa Bay region. The NEP also recognizes and supports the
efforts of several local initiatives, such as the Hillsborough County Adopt-A-Pond
Program, which promote water quality stewardship and neighborhood action.
STRATEGY:
Strategies to continue and expand the FY &N Program, and further enlist developers,
retailers and the horticulture/pest control industries in promoting these concepts, are
proposed below. The implementation of some strategies will require additional fund-
ing.
INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS AND NEIGHBORHOODS
STEP 1 Continue FY &N outreach to organized community and neighborhood asso-
ciations, with presentations and distribution of the Florida YardStick and
the FY &N handbook.
STEP 2 Expand outreach to individual homeowners.
A. Promote Florida Yard materials and messages at major retail outlets,
home and garden shows, public events, and public venues such as
The Florida Aquarium.
B. Pursue arrangements to distribute and bar-code FY &N materials so
they may be sold at cost through retail establishments, with rev-
enues tagged for additional reprints.
C. Increase mass-media publicity efforts and promote the use of exist-
ing public service announcements on cable, network and govern-
ment access stations. Counties also should consider paid media
placement campaigns to broaden public interest and awareness of
FY &N messages. Media efforts should be coordinated on a regional
basis to maximize cost-efficiency and audience reach.
D. Increase the number of individuals pursuing Florida Yard certifica-
tion.
Responsible parties: FCES, in cooperation with local governments,
WCRWSA and the Southwest Florida Water Management District
(SWFWMD)
COST:
Annual costs for staff and materials for program components outlined above are esti-
mated at approximately $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.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Retailers, Landscape Management and Horticulture Industry
STEP 1 Pursue partnerships with nursery/garden supply retailers in each county to
promote FY &N materials and messages.
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: FCES, in cooperation with local governments,
WCRWSA and SWFWMD
COST:
Step 1 is being implemented with existing funding, but additional funding could
enable the development of point-of-purchase displays and cover costs for reprinting
materials. Additional funding may be required to implement steps 2-3.
Developers/property Managers
STEP 1 Promote the development of Model Florida Yards at model home develop-
ments in each county and at annual Parade of Homes events. Work with
homebuilders' associations and realtors to identify appropriate new housing
developments to enlist.
Responsible parties: FCES, with support from local governments
STEP 2 Develop interpretive signage (including recognition of sponsors) and a pro-
motional brochure that includes a comparison of the costs to develop and
maintain a Florida Yard vs. a conventional, maintenance-intensive land-
scape (see SWFWMD Xeriscape Model Ordinance for reference).
Responsible parties: FCES
STEP 3 Encourage realtors and property managers to adopt and promote FY &N
concepts by providing educational workshops and opportunities to earn
Continuing Education Units (CEUs).
Responsible parties: FCES
COST:
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 irriga-
tion costs would be borne by developers, with interpretive signage and consulting pro-
vided 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, county realtors' boards and builders' associa-
tions.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
.SW-1
73
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
SW.1
74
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
SCHEDULE:
FY &N programs are ongoing. Other steps may be initiated in 1997, if FCES is able to
secure additional funding from local governments or other cooperating partners.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Reduction in fertilizer, pesticide and water use will reduce pollution in runoff to the
bay. The increased use of native plants and other beneficial drought-tolerant vegeta-
tion in yards is also expected to improve the quality and availability of wildlife habi-
tat.
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, SW-8
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Assist Businesses in Implementing Best
Management Practices to Reduce Stormwater
Pollution, and Develop Model Landscaping
Guidelines for Commercial Use
ACTION:
Encourage and assist businesses in implementing best management practices to reduce
pollution in runoff, and develop model landscaping guidelines for commercial use.
BACKGROUND:
Local communities offer various levels of assistance to businesses in assessing site
management practices and developing pollution prevention strategies. These programs
can benefit businesses by identifying opportunities for cost-savings, such as reducing
a company's expenditures for fertilizer and pesticides used in landscape maintenance.
Pollution prevention programs also benefit local government sponsors, who might
otherwise be forced to rely exclusively on costlier stormwater treatment.
One example is Hillsborough County's Operation BayWorks - Businesses for a
Cleaner Future, established in 1993 with a small grant from the Tampa Bay NEP. The
program enlists and aids businesses in the construction, manufacturing, landscaping
and automotive repair industries in the development of pollution prevention plans.
Participants learn industry-specific best management practices to reduce pollution
associated with landscape management, construction equipment and repair, and haz-
ardous materials use and disposal. Specialty businesses such as auto repair shops are a
key target because their collective contribution to pollution in runoff can be substan-
tial. 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 are encouraged to evaluate programs such as Operation BayWorks
as a model for regional implementation to reduce stonnwater pollution from commer-
cial sites. Efforts such as these may help local governments meet federal mandates for
pollution prevention as required in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) stormwater permits.
The Tampa Bay NEP also recommends the development of model landscaping guide-
lines for incorporation into local government landscape ordinance codes. These guide-
lines could then become incorporated into the site review process for new develop-
ment and promoted throughout the development community.
Commercial landscapes often feature large areas of high-maintenance turf grass and
exotic plants that demand a steady stream of fertilizer, pesticides and water.
Stormwater pollution from commercial sites can be reduced with changes in mainte-
nance practices and landscape design, such as downsizing turf areas and expanding
the use of water-thrifty and pest-resistant plants.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
SW.2
75
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
SW.2
78
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Improvements in landscaping practices are just one important part of an overall strate-
gy to reduce pollution from commercial sites. Another strategy, discussed in Action
SW-4, is to reduce the amount of impervious surface associated with large develop-
ments by lowering parking space requirements in building codes and promoting alter-
native pervious materials for overflow parking.
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Target and assist businesses in implementing site management practices to
reduce stormwater pollution. Evaluate Hillsborough County's Operation
BayWorks as a model for regional 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 programs 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 Florida Cooperative
Extension Service (FCES). Materials developed for Operation BayWorks
may be modified for these purposes.
C. Implement program and monitor results.
Responsible parties: local governments, in cooperation with chambers of
commerce, private industry councils and local government small quantity
generators (SQG) programs, which focus on hazardous waste prevention
and remediation
STEP 2 Develop a model landscaping ordinance for adoption throughout the region.
The guidelines should be succinct, user-friendly and include a comparison
of costs to develop and maintain traditional landscapes vs. a model Florida
landscape based on FY&N principles (see SW-l).
Responsible parties: local governments, in cooperation with FCES,
Southwest Florida Water Management District, West Coast Regional
Water Supply Authority
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
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
STEP 4 Incorporate Steps 1-3 into NPDES stormwater permits, as examples of
efforts to meet federal mandates for pollution prevention.
Responsible parties: local governments
STEP 5 Aggressively promote model landscape design guidelines and maintenance
practices throughout the development, business and real estate community,
emphasizing cost-savings and environmental benefits.
Responsible parties: local governments, chambers of commerce and pri-
vate industry councils, Florida Association of Environmental
Professionals, builders associations, Florida Native Plant Society
SCHEDULE:
All steps can be initiated in 1997.
COST:
Second-year implementation costs for Operation BayWorks are estimated at $20,000,
plus administrative time. Costs to develop a model landscape ordinance, 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 pollution in stormwater runoff from commercial
sites.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Surveys can be used to track pre-and post-business progress in implementing best
management practices to reduce stormwaterpollution. Local governments also can
gauge business participation by the number of pollution prevention plans developed as
a direct result of their outreach.
Stormwater sampling also can be employed to monitor 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
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
iSW-2
77
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
SW-3
78
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 pol-
lution from stormwater runoff. As part of this effort, communities are encouraged to
commit a minimum of 50 percent of all new public landscapes and retrofits to exist-
ing landscapes to low-maintenance designs featuring native or drought-toler-
ant plants appropriate to the site.
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. For instance, Hillsborough County, in cooperation with
the Tampa Audubon Society, is landscaping the planters at its main county office
building in Tampa with native plants. 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 environ-
mental 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, which call for increased pollution prevention.
This action seeks a commitment from local governments to devote at least half of the
acreage of all new public landscapes or retrofits to existing landscapes to low-main-
tenance designs featuring site-appropriate native or drought-tolerant vegetation. It
also calls on local governments to adopt resolutions to use Integrated Pest
Management (IPM), least-toxic landscape maintenance practices that reduce pesti-
cide use.
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
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
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.
Hillsborough County is currently revising its landscape ordinance and may incorpo-
rate this action.
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Commit a minimum of 50 percent of all new public landscapes and retro-
fits to existing landscapes to low-maintenance designs featuring site-appro-
priate native or drought -tolerant plants, with allowances for areas where
turf grass is necessary for recreational use or land application of treated
wastewater.
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 promotes
the selective use of pesticides.
Responsible parties: local governments
A model resolution, based on Sarasota County's IPM Policy, has been
developed by the Sarasota County Cooperative Extension Service.
STEP 3 Review purchasing specifications for fertilizer and pesticides to assure
government 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-
harmful products. Coordinate with the county cooperative extension ser-
vices 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. Government-owned facilities that resemble residential sites, such as
a license tag or utility office, may make ideal candidates for demonstrating
how eco-Iandscaping techniques can be utilized by homeowners.
Also, distribute materials, such as the Florida Yards & Neighborhoods
brochure and Florida YardStick, available through the Cooperative
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
SW-3
79
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
SW...3
80
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Extension Service, at these sites. Provide incentives, such as plant give-
aways 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 government landscape codes.
SCHEDULE:
All steps can be initiated in 1997.
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 stormwater pol-
lution, conserve water and enhance native habitat. The establishment of environmental
landscapes at public locations will provide homeowners with an "in-ground" demon-
stration 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-l, SW-2
ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality
Reduce Impervious Paved Surfaces
ACTION:
Reduce impervious surfaces in the watershed to reduce stormwater runoff and associ-
ated pollution by allowing more water to filter through the soil.
BACKGROUND:
Like all growing metropolitan areas, the Tampa Bay region contains large amounts of
impervious surfaces that increase stormwater runoff and associated surface water pol-
lution by preventing stormwater from seeping into the ground. The impact may be
immediate in a waterfront area, or gradual, through the flow of stormwater drains,
ditches, ponds and streams.
Existing regulations complicate the problem. Many development standards require
that large amounts of impervious surface be incorporated into projects to support
parking. Commercial developments, for example, are often required to have a certain
number of parking spaces based on a development's total square footage or anticipat-
ed absolute maximum demand. These requirements may over-estimate actual parking
needs, which may be better served through a combination of traditional surfaces for
main parking lots and pervious surfaces for overflow areas.
The use of pervious materials may also be appropriate for parking lots being enlarged
or reconstructed in the urban core. Options include turf block (concrete blocks with
holes to allow turf growth and water infiltration), grass and specialized pervious hard-
surface materials. The cost-effectiveness of these alternative surfaces will be evaluated
as part of this action. Some materials can cost as much as three times the amount of
traditional pavement.
STRATEGY:
This action calls for an evaluation of the costs and suitability of pervious surface
materials, and promotion of their use where appropriate. It also recommends incen-
tives for developers to incorporate these materials in new developments and redevel-
opment projects in urban areas closest to hot spots of contamination in the bay.
STEP 1 Using product information supplied by manufacturers and engineering
analyses, evaluate the performance and costs of various pervious surface
materials and compare them to traditional paving. Provide recommenda-
tions to the NEP Management Committee in 1997. Much of this informa-
tion already is available. The assessment should include:
costs of materials and parking construction
liability issues
life expectancy of materials
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
SW-4
81
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
SW.4
82
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
maintenance costs and considerations
Responsible parties: NEp' in cooperation with builders and contractors
associations, chambers of commerce and local governments
STEP 2 Identify target areas in which the use of alternative surface materials should
be encouraged, and suggest draft revisions to agency rules regulating
stormwater to allow credits for pervious pavement. Provide recommenda-
tions to the NEP Management Committee in 1997.
Establish target boundaries for urban sub-basins near bay hot spots
of sediment contamination, and overlay information on the areas
where local governments are encouraging redevelopment.
In other areas of the watershed, identify areas where soils may be
conducive to the use of pervious pavement.
Suggest draft rule revisions, including credits for pervious paving.
Responsible parties: NEp' local governments, Southwest Florida Water
Management District (SWFWMD)
STEP 3 Based on results of steps 1 and 2, revise local government and agency reg-
ulations to encourage the use of pervious alternatives to traditional paving.
Options may include:
basing parking space requirements on expected demand rather than
absolute maximum demand, particularly for large developments
such as malls, and commercial developments and multi-family
dwellings
providing tax incentives or credits within new taxing sub-districts
for the use of pervious paving.
increasing the ratio of landscaping to site size to reduce impervious
surface.
Responsible parties: local governments, SWFWMD
SCHEDULE:
Step 1 can be initiated in 1997. Steps 2 and 3 can be initiated in 1998, based on the
recommendations.
COST:
The assessment of pervious paving options can be accomplished through NEP's annu-
al workplan. The actual costs and cost-effectiveness of these materials will be identi-
fied as part of the assessment. Steps 2 and 3 will require administrative and staff time
of local governments and SWFWMD. Costs to provide incentives or credits for the
replacement of impervious surface have not yet been estimated, but may be offset by
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
reduced municipal costs in treating stormwater runoff. Cost considerations will be
closely evaluated in developing recommendations.
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 govermnents monitor ambient water and sediment quality in Tampa Bay.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Possible revisions to local development standards and stormwater regulations.
RELATED ACTIONS:
SW-5, TX-l
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
SW-4
83
CID\RTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
SW-5
84
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Require Older Properties Being Redeveloped to
Meet Current Stormwater Treatment Standards,
or Provide Equivalent Compensation
ACTION:
Require older properties being redeveloped to meet current stormwater treatment stan-
dards for that portion of the property undergoing redevelopment, when the area of
new construction exceeds 3,000 square feet. If on-site treatment is not feasible, allow
equivalent compensation through off-site mitigation, payments to stormwater "banks,"
or implementation of other best management practices (BMPs).
BACKGROUND:
Redevelopment of existing properties is encouraged and can be highly desirable as a
means of re-energizing a community's urban core. Infrastructure and public services
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 stormwater pollution. To encourage redevelopment,
many communities offer financial incentives or exemptions to developers. For
instance, local governments may offer a developer an exemption from meeting regula-
tory criteria for stormwater treatment even if significant amounts of new impervious
surface are added in redevelopment.
However, properties being redeveloped must be considered in efforts to reduce pollu-
tion from urban stormwater runoff, since many of these properties were developed
prior to the adoption of state stormwater regulations that set criteria for on-site
stormwater management. Most properties developed prior to 1982 were not required
to provide storm water detention and few of these sites have any means of managing
or providing water quality treatment for stormwater. Redeveloped sites also are typi-
cally utilized at a higher intensity, further contributing to overall stormwater 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
storm water pollution.
Furthermore, while new development standards may control stormwater runoff, they
are only as effective as the BMPs they utilize. Overall increases in pollution from
stormwater runoff will still occur, making it necessary to retrofit some older urban
areas. This may be accomplished through regional storm water treatment, in areas
where this is feasible and affordable.
Local government requirements for redevelopment vary, but most offer exemptions of
one form or another from stormwater treatment standards, either for projects under a
particular size or in special areas, such as historical districts and downtowns. The
Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) currently requires that
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
permittees meet new development stormwater treatment standards only if there is an
increase in pollution or change in the discharge point. This action seeks to require that
properties being redeveloped meet current storm water standards, but only for that por-
tion of the property that is impacted. Furthermore, when on-site treatment is not feasi-
ble, developers should be given the f1exibility to satisfy their requirements in other
ways. These recommendations are based on an existing redevelopment ordinance for
the City of S1. Petersburg, which was adopted in 1994 and widely considered to be
fair as well as environmentally beneficial. Since its adoption, the City has granted
only one exemption.
By allowing alternative on-site treatment or oft-site mitigation, communities can con-
tinue to encourage redevelopment without sacrificing stormwater treatment and asso-
ciated impacts to the bay. As part of this effort, the NEP will evaluate the alternative
best management practices that might be used when on-site treatment is not feasible.
Options include contributions to a regional stormwater facility located in the same
drainage area (possibly through payments to a stormwater "bank"), the collection of
stormwater in cisterns or underground vaults, the use of sediment sumps, 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 being redeveloped meet current storm water treatment standards. This would apply
only to that portion of the site being redeveloped and in cases where more than 3,000
square feet of impervious surface are added or reconstructed. When on-site treatment
is not feasible, rule revisions should allow developers to provide equivalent value,
either through contributions to a stormwater "bank," off-site mitigation or by imple-
menting approved BMPs.
STEP 1 Compare alternative stormwater treatments (structural and non-structural)
appropriate for local redevelopment projects. Provide cost-benefit analysis
for each option, addressing limitations, performance, siting and mainte-
nance requirements. Recommendations will be reviewed by the NEP's
Technical Advisory Committee in 1997 before being forwarded to the
Management Committee.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEP
STEP 2 Revise local government comprehensive plans and codes and SWFWMD
regulations to require that properties being redeveloped meet existing
stormwater treatment standards according to criteria outlined above. If on-
site treatment is not feasible, allow equivalent off-site mitigation or com-
pensation. This may entail:
amendments to SWFWMD stonnwater rules to allow alternative
stormwater treatment options for properties being redeveloped
amendments to local development standards, including zoning laws
and comprehensive plans and codes, to require stormwater treat-
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
SW-5
85
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
SW-5
BS
ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality
ment for properties being redeveloped, and to allow alternative
means to satisfy those requirements when on-site treatment is not
feasible.
Responsible parties: local governments and regulatory agencies, especial-
ly SWFWMD
SCHEDULE:
Step 1 can be initiated by the NEP in 1997 pending availability of funds. Step 2 can
be initiated in 1998 after the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
(CCMP) has been adopted and regulatory flexibility is granted to allow developers to
use alternative means to meet requirements when on-site treatment is not feasible.
COST:
Funding for Step 1 is provided in the NEP's FY96 Workplan. Implementation of Step
2, if approved, will require local government and staff time, as well as the costs asso-
ciated with stormwater treatment or alternative options required. In-lieu fees deposited
by developers into a "stormwater bank" could help finance implementation of alterna-
tive stormwater treatment options, such as development of a regional stormwater
facility or additional street sweeping. A cost-benefit evaluation of alternative treat-
ments is being developed as part of an ongoing project referenced in Step 1.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Stormwater treatment from older properties and in the urban areas of the watershed
helps to reduce pollution in stormwater runoff from heavily impacted areas. Flexibility
is built in to assure stormwater treatment while still encouraging redevelopment.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Local governments monitor ambient water and sediment quality.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Revisions to local development criteria and SWFWMD stormwater permit
rule.
RELATED ACTIONS:
SW-2, SW-4, SW-6, TX-1
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 share of land resources within the watershed to suburban uses that increase
impervious surface and ultimately result in more runoff pollution. Low-density devel-
opment also results in greater distances between sites, resulting in longer and more
frequent vehicle use and associated atmospheric pollution. Perhaps most importantly,
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 (primarily
related to transportation) often penalize existing urban areas of development, 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-
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
SW-&
87
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
SW-&
88
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
ing reinvestment and redevelopment of the urban core and the development of mixed-
use master-planned communities that cluster uses to conserve land and resources.
STEP 1 Organize a Future of the Region conference to develop recommendations
for promoting compact urban development and redevelopment by focusing
on real-life scenarios with practical applications for Tampa Bay area com-
munities. For example, conference participants could be divided into small-
er working groups and assigned the theoretical task of "redesigning" an
existing urban or suburban neighborhood to address common concerns
about these mixed-use areas such as parking, setbacks between commer-
cial and residential uses, traffic flow and open space. Demonstrating that
urban or commercial areas can be compatible with residential areas in a
well-designed plan will engender discussion about how these concepts can
be incorporated into existing growth management strategies and may help
to educate the public about these concepts.
Recommendations developed as a result of the conference can then be for-
warded to local governments. Participants should propose specific recom-
mendations on ways their suggestions can be implemented by local gov-
ernments, and identify roadblocks that might prevent implementation.
Additional details about possible concepts that might be considered by the
workgroups are found in the January 1996 draft of Charting the Course.
The conference should include local government planners and metropolitan
planning and transportation organizations, as well as the American
Planning Association (APA), America Institute of Architects (AlA) and
American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA), councils of neighbor-
hood associations, and environmental/bay interests.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council (TBRPC) to
sponsor and organize conference, in partnership with metropolitan plan-
ning organizations (MPOs) and local governments.
STEP 2 Implement recommendations from Step 1 through local government
comprehensive plans, development codes and long-range transportation
plans.
Responsible parties: local governments, TBRPC
SCHEDULE:
The conference can be planned in 1997, for implementation in early 1998.
COST:
Staff and administrative time is anticipated for implementation of these steps.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
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
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
SW-6
89
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
SW-7
90
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 (EPe) of Hillsborough County 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 stormwater 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 entered into joint consent orders
with FDEP and EPC in late 1991. The consent orders included requirements for regu-
lar sampling of storm-induced discharges, assessments of wastewater flows and con-
centrations at the facilities, and sediment sampling at the facilities and at adjacent
loading docks. Upon completion of the assessment phase, each facility was to con-
struct 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 has installed pollution control equipment and is now test-
ing its adequacy.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Pakhoed Dry Bulk, the smallest of the facilities, is implementing BMPs to reduce the
amount of fertilizer product entering stormwater. 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 BMPs and the construction of sys-
tems to detain and treat storm-induced discharges, and develop criteria to
determine "compliance."
B. Set deadlines for the final completion of the tenns 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 EPC, in cooperation with the five facili-
ties
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 BMPs 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 and sediment quality is
monitored by EPC and other local governments.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
No further regulatory needs are anticipated.
RELATED ACTIONS:
NjA
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
SW-7
91
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
SW.8
92
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Encourage Best Management Practices on Farms
ACTION:
Encourage farmers to use best management practices (BMPs) that reduce runoff from
agricultural operations.
BACKGROUND:
Stormwater nmoff from agricultural operations contributes significant amounts of nitro-
gen, pesticide residues and suspended solids to waterways. This action is aimed at reduc-
ing nitrogen loadings to the bay from nmoff associated with agricultural operations.
While intensive agriculture accounts for only 6 percent of the bay's total nitrogen
loading, studies commissioned by the Tampa Bay NEP indicate it is a major contribu-
tor in localized areas of south Hillsborough and Manatee counties. The studies indi-
cate 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 esti-
mated 23 percent of the total nitrogen load entering the bay from that watershed. In
the Manatee River segment, intensive fanning operations comprise an estimated 9
percent of the nitrogen load.
The use of BMPs developed by agricultural experts can assist farmers in minimizing
impacts to water and sediment quality while ensuring profitable crop production.
BMPs generally include a broad array of structural and non-structural recommenda-
tions; many are targeted specifically at reducing fertilizer or. pesticide use and improv-
ing water management.
Most bay area farmers utilize some BMPs in their daily operations. However, more
widespread acceptance and promotion of BMPs - with recommendations tailored
specifically for different crops - are needed. A first step might be to expand and
update the BMP selector guides produced by the University of Florida's Institute of
Food and Agricultural Services (IFAS) to reflect new teclmologies available since the
guide was last revised in 1983. The BMP guides also could be tailored to specific seg-
ments of the agricultural industry.
Additionally, some types of agricultural operations which generate intensive nutrient
loadings, such as dairy farming, may warrant cost-sharing programs to assist farmers
in making the improvements necessary to retain and/or treat runoff on site. Dairy
farmers, for instance, face costly mandates to retain runoff on their property by con-
structing lagoons and upgrading cooling ponds to prevent ground or surface water
contamination by nitrates.
BMPs aimed at conserving water also may be adapted to reduce fertilizer use and,
subsequently, farm runoff. One teclmique developed in recent years allows fertilizer to
be applied through drip or microjet irrigation systems. This practice, called "fertiga-
tion," enables farmers to apply liquid fertilizer in smaller, more precise doses, reduc-
ing the chance of overfertilization. Use of fertigation can add flexibility and precision
to a fertilizer management program, thus benefiting the farmer as well as the bay,
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
although it is not economically feasible for every type of crop. However, to realize
these benefits, farmers must be properly instructed in the operation of fertigation sys-
tems, 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 have 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. Fertigation and
micro-irrigation are often cost-prohibitive for lower market value crops such as water-
melons, and currently considered too labor-intensive for non-mulched crops such as
cabbage and potatoes. 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
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 roots. These systems also can
be used to apply liquid fertilizer in the same controlled manner. If growers chose
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 bene-
fits 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 program
(AGSWMP) provides another opportunity to promote the use of BMPs. This program
allows farmers to implement a surface and ground water management plan in lieu of
obtaining an Environmental Resource Permit. The voluntary plans are developed by
the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)-formerly the Soil Conservation
Service-and administered by SWFWMD. The plans could be strengthened by
encouraging the use of fertigation and other runoff-reducing BMPs as applicable.
STRATEGY:
The strategy for this action focuses on more aggressive promotion of BMPs, improved
instruction in the use of fertigation systems, and the investigation of funding pro-
grams that could provide financial assistance to farmers who wish to utilize BMPs.
STEP 1 Update the BMP selector guides produced by IFAS to include new
advancements such as fertigation, with consideration given to preparing
crop-specific guidelines.
Responsible parties: IFAS, local cooperative extension services
STEP 2 Investigate the potential for strengthening AGSWMPS to strongly encour-
age runoff-reducing BMPs, where economically feasible, including fertiga-
tion and micro-irrigation systems. Where effective BMPs are not already in
use, encourage their use.
Responsible parties: SWFWMD, NRCS, local soil and water conservation
districts
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
SW-8
93
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
SW..8
94
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
STEP 3 Hold workshops and provide instructional materials in the correct use of
fertigation systems. Contact local suppliers of fertigation systems and urge
them to provide detailed guidance and support in use of the systems.
Responsible parties: local Cooperative Extension Service offices
STEP 4 Explore possible cost-sharing programs, such as low-interest loans and
grants, to provide financial assistance for the utilization of BMPs, especially
for the dairy industry. For example, a fund might be established from nitro-
gen trading credits and administered through the Florida Farm Bureau.
Ensure that the funding assistance available is sufficient to warrant partici-
pation by growers.
Responsible parties: NRCS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service, and local soil and water conser-
vation districts
SCHEDULE:
Steps 1 and 2 can be accomplished in 1997. Steps 3 and 4 can be initiated in 1997,
with a cost-sharing program identified or established in 1998.
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 offertigation 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 vs. conventional fertilization practices. Farmers installing
fertigation systems can monitor and report fertilization application rates, using fertiga-
tion 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 govermnents and will be reported in a biennial Bay Environmental
Monitoring Report.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Revision to SWFWMD guidelines for AGSWMP to encourage fertigation systems
where feasible and where micro-irrigation already is in use.
RELATED ACTIONS:
SW-9, TX-4
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 nmoff 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.
However, confusion about or misinterpretation of the exemptions has led to agricultur-
al activities which may have adverse environmental impacts.
In an effort to ensure that surface water degradation is minimized or eliminated, the
Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) and the Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS), formerly the Soil Conservation Service, have devel-
oped a voluntary program that assists farmers in protecting water resources. The
Agricultural Ground and Surface Water Management Program, or AGSWMP, 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 (BMPs) 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-regulatory 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 fannland 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 fanned acreage in the region.
Hillsborough and Manatee counties, for example, had more than 112,000 acres devot-
ed to citrus, vegetables, or some other form of intensive agriculture in 1990.
Compliance also has been a lingering problem with the program. Once the plan is
approved, few if any follow-up inspections are conducted to ensure that farm opera-
tors have implemented the plans. Lack of sufficient staff to handle these responsibili-
ties 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.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
SW-9
95
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
SW..9
98
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 I 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 in
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, with assistance in promoting
compliance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
Pesticides Section
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 1997.
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:
Existing SWFWMD surface water management rules would allow the agency to link
renewal of water use permits to compliance with AGSWM plans.
RELATED ACTIONS:
SW-8, TX-4
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION
Scientists searching for the causes of bay pollution have only recently turned their
attention to the skies. What they've found has led to a major revision in the bay's pol-
lution portrait.
Studies by the NEP estimate that about 29 percent of the bay's total nitrogen burden
falls directly to the surface of the water from the atmosphere. That figure is probably
much higher if pollutants falling in the watershed are considered, since a portion of
these will eventually enter the bay in stornlwater runoff. About 1,100 tons of nitrogen
fall on the open bay each year; another 6,600 tons are estimated to fall in the water-
shed.1
Air pollution also transports significant quantities of potentially toxic contaminants to
the bay, including heavy metals such as cadmium, copper, lead and zinc, which are
primarily industrial in origin, although vehicle emissions are also a source. For exam-
ple, experts estimate that about 44 percent of the bay's annual cadmium loading of
more than 7,000 pounds comes from the air. Airborne emissions of cadmium are asso-
ciated with oil- and coal-fired utilities and waste incinerators.2 Polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PARs) associated with the combustion of fossil fuels and other organic
compounds also enter the bay from the air, although specific sources are unknown.
While experts have estimated the amount of atmospheric deposition, they still can't
pinpoint how much of the nitrogen in emissions generated locally end up in Tampa
Bay - or what impact distant emissions have on the bay. They do know that station-
ary sources such as coal-fired power plants and garbage incinerators contribute about
70 percent of the nitrogen oxides (NOx) released locally. Mobile sources such as cars
and boats account for the other 30 percent. 3 Fertilizer plants, which use ammonia in
manufacturing their product, also release nitrogen to the air. Wastewater treatment
plants may be another source of gaseous ammonia.
Nitrogen is a common element that appears naturally in the environment. Part of the
challenge facing researchers is identifying how much of the bay's nitrogen loadings
come from natural sources, such as lightning, trees or natural wetland discharges.
The largest single source of NOx emissions in the region is Tampa Electric Company,
whose Big Bend and Gannon plants together emitted about 88,000 tons of NOx in
1994. In fact, these two facilities are the first and third largest NOx emitters in
Florida, according to a report from the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP).4 Eight of the 10 boilers at these facilities are older "Group 2"
units that have no NOx controls in place.
The Tampa Bay NEP supports proposed rules under the Clean Air Act which would
require improvements to the Group 2 boilers at these and other facilities in the region,
resulting in substantial reductions in NOx emissions - and other important air quality
benefits. EPA's final rule governing Group 2 boilers is expected in December 1996.
Ozone is also a pollutant of concern in the Tampa Bay airshed. From 1980 to 1995,
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
AD
97
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
AD
98
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
the Tampa Bay area was designated as a non-attainment zone for ozone because the
region periodically exceeded federal health standards for this pollutant. In addition to
the health risks, the region's non-attainment status also restricted economic growth.
Ensuing controls focused on reducing industrial and vehicular emissions of volatile
organic compounds or VOCs, a precursor of ozone. Subsequent improvements led to
the area's reclassification in 1996 as attaining National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for ozone.
As part of its request for re-designation, local communities and the FDEP developed a
maintenance plan to preserve the area's attainment status for a minimum of 10 years.
The plan includes regular tracking for total airborne emissions of VOCs and NOx,
which must remain level or decrease in order to prevent additional analysis and regu-
latory action. Action might include limitations on stationary or mobile sources of NOx
which, unlike VOCs, have not previously been subject to control.
Atmospheric deposition to Tampa Bay is expected to increase as population, power
consumption and traffic grows, although increases may be mitigated in part by Clean
Air Act provisions, which require utilities and motor vehicles to reduce emissions.
Local communities ultimately should be held accountable only for that portion of
atmospheric deposition which comes from local sources. Coordination at the regional
and national levels will be necessary to assure broad implementation and enforcement
of pollution controls. Pollution prevention through energy conservation also must be
emphasized.
Research will continue to be a priority in the effort to understand and address atmos-
pheric deposition. This effort received a boost in 1995 when the Tampa Bay NEP was
selected to participate in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Great
Waters Program, which focuses on atmospheric deposition and its effects on water
quality. In cooperation with local communities, this program is sponsoring a three-
year Tampa Bay Atmospheric Deposition Study to investigate where the atmospheric
deposition is coming from and how large a role it plays in storm water pollution.
As part of this initiative, the EnviroillnentaI Protection Commission (EPC) of
Hillsborough County has established an air sampling station at its Gandy Boulevard
monitoring site to collect daily wet deposition samples and weekly dryfall samples
with assistance from Pinellas County. The I8-month study, funded by NEP and EPA,
began in August 1996. Results of the investigation will help quantify the amount of
atmospheric nitrogen entering the bay and provide additional clues to researchers
investigating the sources of the pollution.
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS FOR ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION
AD-l
Continue atmospheric deposition studies and develop an action plan to
address this important environmental issue.
AD-2
Promote public and business energy conservation.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
References, Atmospheric Deposition:
2
Estimates of Total Nitrogen, Total Phosphorus, and Total Suspended Solids Loadings La Tampa Bay, Florida. Technical
Appendix: 1992-1994, Total Nitrogen Loadings to Tampa Bay, Florida. TBNEP Technical Publication #19-96. (1996)
Chemical Contaminants in the Tampa Bay Estuary: A Summary of Distributions and Inputs. TBNEP Technical Publication
#01-95. (1995)
4
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1994. Air Quality Report, 1994.
Ibid.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
AD
99
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
AD-1
100
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Continue Atmospheric Deposition Studies and
Develop An Action Plan to Address this Important
Environmental Issue
ACTION:
Continue to investigate the sources and effects of atmospheric deposition, and develop
an action plan to address the issue.
BACKGROUND:
The Tampa Bay National Estuary Program estimates that about 29 percent of the bay's
total nitrogen loadings are ditectly deposited to the bay from the air. Atmospheric
deposition also contributes significant quantities of toxic substances to the bay, includ-
ing heavy metals and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).!,2
While specific sources of atmospheric deposition have not yet been identified, emis-
sions inventories suggest that power plants and vehicles are major contributors. The
largest single source of NOx emissions in the region is Tampa Electric Company,
whose Gannon and Big Bend facilities emitted a total of 88,000 tons of nitrogen
oxides, or NOx, in 1994.3 Annual NOx emissions from all stationary sources in
Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties exceeds 100,000 tons.4
Mobile sources such as cars and boats release an additional 45,000 tons of NOx into
the air each year in the tri-county area.5 But experts still don't know how much nitro-
gen from the emissions enters Tampa Bay, or what percentage of stormwater pollution
entering the bay actually comes from the air.
The initial action plan for addressing atmospheric deposition relies heavily on
research. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) selection in 1995 of the
Tampa Bay NEP to participate in the Great Waters Program brought federal attention
and funding to this effort. A task force comprised of researchers from EPA and repre-
sentatives from local governments, agencies and utilities has been established to over-
see the Tampa Bay Atmospheric Deposition Study. The detailed study plan includes
research to identify sources, nutrients and toxic emissions in atmospheric deposition,
as well as the impact of atmospheric deposition on storm water runoff to the bay.
In 1996, the Environmental Protection Commission (EPC) of Hillsborough County
and Pinellas County began an intensive air sampling study with funding from the
NEP. Results of that effort will help quantify the amount of nitrogen entering the bay
and provide additional clues to researchers investigating the sources of the pollution.
Also in 1996, EPA's research vessel, the OSV Anderson, was deployed to Tampa Bay
for a two-week tour to measure ammonia over the bay. That investigation revealed
concentrations of gaseous ammonia in the East Bay sector of Hillsborough Bay that
were more than 15 times higher than other stations monitored in Tampa Bay.6
Researchers are now investigating the sources of that ammonia and its relative impact
on bay water quality.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
STRATEG Y:
STEP 1 Implement the Tampa Bay Atmospheric Deposition Study, which is expect-
ed to require three to four years for completion. The study will investigate:
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 stormwater runoff from atmospheric deposition
in the watershed.
Staff from the Tampa Bay NEP and Florida Department of Environmental
Protection's (FDEP) Air Quality Division will coordinate the study's first
phase. Additional studies may be needed to identify specific sources of
atmospheric deposition.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEp' in association with the
Atmospheric Deposition Task Force
STEP 2 Based on findings, develop an action plan that includes cost-benefit analy-
ses of options to reduce atmospheric deposition. Options could include vol-
untary reductions in emissions; additional regulation or other requirements
of power plants or motor vehicles; pollution prevention programs; reduc-
tions in the incineration of toxic materials through recycling; and revisions
to federal, state and local rules.
A preliminary draft of this action plan will be prepared by the Tampa Bay
NEP in cooperation with the Task Force by October 1998.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEP and EPA, in cooperation with the
Atmospheric Deposition Task Force
SCHEDULE:
Step 1 was initiated in 1995. Intensive sampling studies began in August 1996. A draft
action plan to address atmospheric deposition to Tampa Bay will be prepared for
Management Conference review in October 1998.
COST:
Costs for research associated with the Tampa Bay Atmospheric Deposition Study are
estimated to range from $200,000-$500,000. More than $400,000 has already been
allocated by the NEP and EPA for this project. Other possible funding sources include
the EPA Great Waters Program; EPAfFDEP 319(h) grant funds; Florida Pollution
Recovery Trust Fund: Southwest Florida Water Management District's Surface Water
Improvement & Management (SWFWMD-SWIM) program; Florida Department of
Transportation; local government air programs; local utilities; Electric Power
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
AD.1
101
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
AD-1
102
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Research Institute; and air emission permit or permit violation fees.
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,
which are used by some local facilities, range from a median of $73 per ton of NOx
removal from emission for wall-fired/wet bottom boilers up to $635 per ton for
cyclone furnace/wet bottom boilers.7 Assuming (only for purposes of comparison)
that 100 tons of NOx translates into 1 ton of nitrogen entering the bay (as estimated in
Chesapeake Bay studies), the costs to reduce 1 ton of nitrogen deposition to the bay
range from $7,300 to $63,500. The four largest units in the region (TECO's Gannon
5-6 and Big Bend 1-2) are wall-fired units which may be able to reduce nitrogen
deposition to the bay for less than $10,000 per ton.
By comparison, EPA estimates that the cost of NOx control through vehicle inspection
and maintenance programs to be about $1,000 per ton of NOx removed from the air,
or an estimated $100,000 per ton of nitrogen deposition. 8
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Research will enable bay managers to allocate responsibility for the bay's cleanup and
direct resources to areas of greatest need. Local air, water and sediment quality are all
expected to benefit from actions to reduce or cap NOx and toxic emissions.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Atmospheric deposition monitoring began in 1996 and will continue throughout the
duration of the three-year study. Long-term monitoring needs have not yet been deter-
mined.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Regulatory changes may be called for in the action plan that is developed
RELATED ACTIONS:
AD-2
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
References, Atmospheric Deposition:
* The Task Force for the Tampa Bay Atmospheric Deposition Study 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.
Estimates of Total Nitrogen, Total Phosphorus, and Total Suspended Solids Loadings to Tampa Bay, Florida, Technical Appendix.
TBNEP Teclmical Publication #19-96 (1996).
2 Chemical Contaminants in the Tampa Bay Estuary: A Summary of Distributions and Inputs, TBNEP Technical Publication #01-95
(1995).
3 Attainment/Maintenance Plan for the Tampa Bay Florida Ozone Non-attainment Area, Environmental Protection COll1mission of
Hillsborough County and Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners (1994).
4 Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1994. Air Quality Report, 1994.
5 Ibid.
6 Preliminary data report for the July 1ampa Bay ammonia project in 1996. Prepared by Pai- Yei Whung for Tampa Bay
Atmospheric Deposition Study. (1996)
7 EPA Federal Register Vol. 61, No. 13, January 19, 1996.
D. Brezenski, EPA, personal conmlllnication to Tom Rogers, FDEP, 1996.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
AD-1
103
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
AD~2
104
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Promote Business and Public Energy Conservation
ACTION:
Promote business energy conservation through participation in the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) Green Lights and Energy Stars programs. Continue to pro-
mote public energy conservation.
BACKGROUND:
Atmospheric deposition from stationary and mobile sources contributes nearly one-
third of the bay's total nitrogen loading. Power plants are a major source of these
emissions, and energy conservation can help to reduce demand on these facilities
while saving customers money on their utility bills.
Local utilities already promote energy conservation to residents and businesses
through incentives such as rebates for energy-smart heat pumps and free energy
audits. These programs should be continued, and ratepayer literature developed for
distribution with customer billings that discusses the link between energy use, air pol-
lution and bay water quality, since that connection isn't readily made by most resi-
dents.
Of particular interest are businesses that are heavy energy users. Voluntary programs
that help businesses reduce energy consumption are appealing because they prevent
pollution, are non-regulatory and decrease overhead costs. The EPA sponsors three
such programs: Green Lights, which targets light-intensive businesses such as hospi-
tals 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, monitors, fax machines and printers.
Lighting accounts for 20-25 percent of all electricity sold in the United States-and
lighting for industries, 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 0.7 kilograms of carbon dioxide (C02), 5.8 grams of sulfur dioxide
(S02) and 2.5 grams of nitrogen oxides (NOx), which are of particular concern in
Tampa Bay. Energy Stars' participants further increase bottom-line business and envi-
ronmental paybacks by addressing 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 for Tampa Bay.
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
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 a
reduction of 1.6 million pounds of C02, 7.6 million grams of S02 and 2.7 million
grams of NOx per year.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
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 stormwater pollution
through programs, such as Hillsborough County's Operation BayWorks and Adopt-A-
Pond, can also promote business participation in Green Lights and Energy Stars to
increase bottom-line benefits for participants and the environment.
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Develop and provide EPA with a target list of 100 light- and equipment-
intensive businesses in the watershed, including hospitals and newspapers,
for possible participation in the program. Also investigate possible reduc-
tions in exterior lighting if energy reductions can be made without compro-
mising public safety.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEp' in cooperation with local electric
utilities, local government air quality and road departments, the Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT) and chambers of commerce.
STEP 2 Sponsor a biennial workshop with EPA in the Tampa Bay Area, in partner-
ship with other organizations.
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
(ABM), local utilities
STEP 4 Encourage municipalities to promote energy conservation by requiring
energy-efficient lighting and equipment in government buildings or by
becoming Green Lights partners.
Responsible parties: local governments
STEP 5 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
STEP 6 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' utilities andABM
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
AD.2
105
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
AD-2
lOG
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
SCHEDULE:
Target lists should be completed by September 1997 for 1998 workshops. All other
steps can be initiated in 1997.
COST:
Staff time is involved in all steps. Business partners can expect cost savings associated
with reduced energy use as a result of implementation.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Energy conservation will result in reduced emissions from power plants and
atmospheric deposition to the bay.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Local participation in these EPA programs and associated pollutant reductions will
provide a yardstick for measuring the success of this initiative. A study is underway to
measure atmospheric deposition to Tampa Bay.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
None anticipated.
RELATED ACTIONS:
AD-1
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 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 mil-
lion gallons of 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
freshwater source from the bay if that fresh water serves an important ecological role.
Once a pervasive problem for the bay, point-source pollution has declined substantial-
ly with improved regulation and advances in treatment teclmologies. In fact, the
retooling of Tampa's Howard F. Curren wastewater treatment plant at Hookers 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-third of the amount contributed from "non-point" sources repre-
sented in stormwater 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 pennits.
SEPTIC SYSTEMS
In some bay sectors, leachate from septic systems, 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 systems 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.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
ww
107
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
ww
108
ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS FOR WASTEWATER
WW-I
WW-2
WW-3
WW-4
Expand the use of reclaimed water where reuse benefits the bay.
Extend central sewer service to priority areas around the bay now served by
septic systems.
Require standardized monitoring of wastewater discharges.
Revise HRS rules to incorporate environmental performance or design
standards for septic systems.
ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality
Expand the Use of Reclaimed Water
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:
S1. 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 challenges9- to a region anxious to conserve
its 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 irriga-
tion, but also for industrial purposes. Projects planned or underway in local communi-
ties will more than triple that amount (see reuse table).
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 Hookers Point, a
change that helped bring about sweeping improvements in the bay's water quality. At
the same time, S1. Petersburg was launching its reclaimed water project, which elimi-
nated most of its direct wastewater discharges to the bay. The Wilson-Grizzle
legislation was eventually repealed but a subsequent Grizzle-Figg bill reinstated the
requirements for advanced wastewater treatment.
The potential benefits of reuse to the bay and to a water-thirsty region are substantial.
Reuse already has helped to reduce mmual nitrogen loadings to the bay and will playa
key role in the strategy to reduce future nitrogen loadings - although reuse does not
completely eliminate nitrogen loadings since some portion will eventually enter the
bay in stormwater runoff. 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's (SWFWMD) New Water Source Initiative, a strategic blueprint
designed to reduce the area's dependence on groundwater and protect the Floridan
Aquifer from saltwater intrusion. SWFWMD's regional basin boards also have been
instrumental in providing cooperative funding for innovative reuse programs.
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 mil-
lion gallons of the treated wastewater it discharges daily to Hillsborough Bay from its
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
WW.1
109
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
WW-1
110
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Howard F. Curren facility at Hookers Point. Discharges from this facility now repre-
sent 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 sec-
tor of the bay, a part of this 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 a portion of its freshwater inflow. A planning and environ-
mental 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.
STEP 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. (See related action PI-I).
Evaluations also should adequately address the project's ability to satisfy
any public health concerns or perceptions stemming from the use of
reclaimed water. Any environmental impacts associated with reuse projects
should be balanced against the public need for cost-effective water supply
alternatives.
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), West Coast Regional Water Supply
Authority (WCRWSA), Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission
(FGFWFC)
STEP 2 If current municipal and industrial reuse expansion plans coupled with
other efforts to reduce pollution are insufficient to meet long-term goals for
nitrogen management in the bay, investigate additional opportunities to
expand reuse by interconnecting distribution systems or constructing larger
storage facilities.
Responsible parties: local governments, SWFWMD, WCRWSA, in coop-
eration 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 dis-
charged 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.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Reuse projects have the potential to substantially reduce long-term nitrogen loadings
to Tampa Bay, and also help to conserve the region's water supplies. Both the amount
of water conserved through a project and the anticipated reduction in nitrogen load-
ings are presented in Table 1. However, major projects should be balanced against any
potential drawbacks for the bay or public health concerns associated with reuse.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Ambient water quality is monitored by local govermnents. Local government and
industrial applicants for reuse permits also will be required to conduct water quality
monitoring as a condition of the pernlit.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
PDEP regulations governing water reuse (PAC 62-610) are currently being revised to
allow the use of reclaimed water to rehydrate wetlands within wellfields under specif-
ic conditions. A draft of the proposed rule changes is expected by late 1996. However,
additional amendments may be needed to allow uses where there is a net environmen-
tal 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, WQ-l
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
WW-1
111
CHARTING
the COURSE
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
FOR TAMPA BAY
Table 1. Summary of major projected or funded domestic wastewater
reuse projects in the Tampa Bay region
Total
Reuse Cost TN
Local Vol. (in Funding reduction Project
Government Plant/Project (mgd) millions) 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 Mabry/Van 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
Cargill 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 User 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)
Pine lias 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
addin 5000 additional homes
g
112
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
Table 1. Summary of major projected or funded domestic wastewater
reuse projects in the Tampa Bay region (continued)
Total
Reuse Cost TN
Local Vol. (in Funding reduction Project
Government Plant/Project (mgd) millions) Source (tons/yr) Status
Clearwater No new reuse projects are planned
Safety Harbor No new reuse projects are planned
Oldsmar City to treat East Lake Woodlands 0.3 4.5 User fees, 0.68 Expected completion by
wastewater, 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
SWFWM D implementation.
Palmetto 1) Distribution main to Frog Creek 1) 0.9 1) 3.5 User 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.
113
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
WW~2
114
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Extend Central Sewer Service to Priority Areas
Now Served by Septic Systems
ACTION:
Extend central sewer service to high-density areas along the bay and its tributaries
where water quality problems associated with residential and commercial septic sys-
tems 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 systems in the Tampa Bay watershed. Areas that
demand close scrutiny for water quality impacts from these systems 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 systems.
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 only a few site-specific studies have been con-
ducted to directly link septic systems to these impacts, which may also be due to nat-
ural causes or animal waste carried in stormwater runoff. Nevertheless, the sandy soils
in Southwest Florida are not highly suitable for septic systems, and preliminary stud-
ies 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 systems, along with efforts to extend central sewer service to areas
where problems are identified. Areas with septic systems installed prior to 1983 and
nearshore areas with high densities of septic systems should be evaluated first.
Conversion from septic to central sewer service can be costly, with residential hook-
up fees ranging anywhere from $2,000 to $5,000 or more. This underscores the need
to investigate financing options such as interest-free loans and cost-share grants or
partnerships to assist residents in areas slated for central sewer service. Additionally,
the availability of central sewer service may encourage higher-density development in
these environmentally sensitive areas, and local governments should take this into
consideration in their long-range planning programs.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Identify areas adjacent to the bay and its tributaries where residential and
connnercial septic systems are suspected of causing water quality impacts.
Areas with septic systems installed prior to 1983, when siting criteria was
established, should be given high-priority status.
Responsible parties: local governments, public health departments
STEP 2 Analyze worst-case scenarios for nitrogen loadings from septic systems
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. A remote sensing technique employed by
the Tennessee Valley Authority to detect areawide drainfield failures may
be a useful monitoring tool.
Responsible parties: local governments, Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP), public health departments
STEP 3 Based on results from steps 1 and 2, extend central sewer service to coastal
areas where water quality problems have been documented, except where
legal or budgetary constraints exist.
Responsible parties: local governments
STEP 4 Distribute educational brochures promoting best management practices
(BMPs) for septic tanks (see Pinellas County brochures developed for the
Allen's Creek watershed).
Responsible parties: local government
STEP 5 Evaluate the use and effectiveness of fecal colifornl as an indicator of pub-
lic health concerns.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEP
STEP 6 For new or existing developments where central sewer service is available
or feasible, develop and implement a local regulation to require its uti-
lization. Where central sewer service is not feasible, determine the
most environmentally beneficial means to provide sewage treat-
ment.
Responsible parties: local governments
SCHEDULE:
Local governments can begin implementation of Steps 1 and 2 in 1997.
Implementation of Step 3 will depend on results from analyses and cost and financing
factors. Step 4 will be initiated as funding becomes available. Step 5 can be pursued
in 1997. Conversion from septic to central sewer service is already underway in some
areas as part of existing capital improvement plans.
COST:
Costs to analyze water quality in suspected problem areas may be upwards of $2,000,
based on 10 samples at $200 each. Sampling for viruses or other pathogens, if deemed
necessary, would increase those costs. Monitoring of wells and seepage meters is esti-
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
WW.2
115
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
WW;'2
118
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
mated at $125-$250 per station. Funding options for residents converting to central
sewer service must be developed to make implementation affordable and feasible.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Efforts to convert high-density coastal areas served by septic systems to central sewer
service will help to reduce nitrogen and pathogen levels in the bay and bay tributaries,
making these areas safer for swimming and other watersports. Additionally, improved
conditions may allow for the re-classification of restricted shellfish harvesting areas.
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 govermnent comprehensive plans and the development of imple-
menting ordinances.
RELATED ACTIONS:
WW-4, 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.
Efforts also are needed to improve local government, agency and public access to data
collected from these facilities. Most computerized permit compliance data is available
only through the Tallahassee or District offices of the Florida Department of Environ-
mental 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 Require the measurement and reporting of a core group of parameters from
all point-source facilities in the Tampa Bay watershed with National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits discharging an
average daily flow of more than 100,000 gallons of wastewater.
The core group should include concentrations of total nitrogen, total phos-
phorus, total suspended solids, total ammonia, and average daily or month-
ly flow (actual discharges, not values estimated in permits). These core
parameters are in addition to any pennit-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, pending an evaluation of addi-
tional costs associated with additional sampling requirements.
Responsible party: FDEP, local governments
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
WW-3
117
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
WW-3
118
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 milligrams
per liter (mg/l); flow is reported 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 Monitor the centralized data entry process instituted in 1996 by the FDEP
to ensure timely updating of permit files within 30 days from the time a
compliance report is submitted.
Responsible party: Tampa Bay NEP
STEP 4 Improve access to the FDEP computerized database for permit compliance
at the regional level through District offices. Currently, FDEP's Southwest
District and the Environmental Protection Commission (EPC) of
Hillsborough County have access to the main data base, but other interest-
ed parties must request data retrievals from FDEP District or Tallahassee
staff. They must either go to the District office to review the information,
or have it mailed to them. Access to this database should be available in a
more timely fashion through the Internet or on disk.
Responsible party: FDEP Tallahassee and District offices
SCHEDULE:
All steps can be initiated in 1997.
COST:
Staff time is associated with efforts to improve and provide more timely access to the
compliance monitoring database. Administrative costs also will be incurred if rule
revisions are needed to mandate additional sampling of core parameters. The costs
incurred by point-source facilities to comply with standardized sampling and monitor-
ing criteria should be evaluated.
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 Rules 62-4 or 62-620 may be necessary to include measuring and
reporting standards for a core group of parameters in each NPDES permit.
RELATED ACTIONS:
WW-2
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Revise HRS Rules to Incorporate Environmental
Performance or Design Standards for Septic
Systems
ACTION:
Revise the rules of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) gov-
erning septic system siting and monitoring to incorporate environmental performance
or design standards that protect the bay 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 systems 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 and other on-site disposal systems. Although Florida's
septic system permitting criteria (Florida Administrative Code [FAC], Chapter 1OD-6)
are more stringent than most other states, regulations focus mainly on public health
interests and do 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 pres-
ence 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 systems and to incorporate these guidelines into HRS regu-
latory guidelines. This process should begin with a determination of the allowable
concentrations 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 on-site disposal systems. However, since these criteria may be diffi-
cult to establish and enforce, officials may opt to develop design and operating stan-
dards 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 maintenance intervals. At sites where performance standards cannot be
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
WW-4
119
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
WW.4
120
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
met, local governments may require on-site disposal systems with nitrogen-removal
capability.
Regular and timely maintenance of existing septic systems also is important, and
could negate the need for more stringent design criteria. The cost of pumping out a
septic system is about $250. Although health officials recommend that septic systems
be pumped out at least every three years, many residents postpone maintenance until a
problem is apparent. Thus, this action also seeks to better educate residents about the
link between septic systems and potential water quality problems, and promote regular
maintenance of these systems.
Finally, this action calls for the development of a statewide septage and sludge dispos-
al tracking system to more effectively monitor handling and disposal practices and
associated impacts. Monitoring sewage sludge is an important problem, particularly in
the Hillsborough and Manatee river basins, because of the number of permitted dis-
posal sites. Different agencies regulate disposal sites and it is difficult to determine
how much material is being spread and how it is handled.
STRATEG Y:
STEP 1 Conduct a workshop to develop environmental performance or design stan-
dards for septic systems. Participants should include the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), HRS, Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP), local health departments and the Florida
National Estuary Programs. Workshop participants should also explore the
feasibility and availability of cost-sharing programs to assist homeowners
in retrofitting or replacing existing septic systems in areas with documented
water quality problems.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEp' FDEP, HRS, local governments
STEP 2 Evaluate whether the environmental design criteria should be implemented
through a statewide rule change or local ordinances.
Responsible parties: HRS, local governments
STEP 3 Determine and promote the minimum schedule for septic system mainte-
nance based on environmental standards in cooperation with private com-
panies that provide pump-out services. Residents also could be encouraged
to perform routine inspections and maintenance of septic systems by
including reminders and educational materials in local utility or water bills.
Additionally, require that septic systems 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 with assistance from local health
departments in implementing property transfer criteria
STEP 4 Develop a statewide septage and sewage sludge tracking and monitoring
program to improve oversight of material handling and disposal.
Responsible parties: FDEP and HRS
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
SCHEDULE:
All steps can be initiated in 1997.
COST:
Administrative costs and staff time only are anticipated in this action,
but the environmental standards that are developed may require additional
resources for environmental protection. If a statewide rule revision is deemed neces-
sary, 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 systems will help reduce nitrogen loadings to the bay and prevent
future siting of septic systems in areas vulnerable to water quality impacts.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Ambient water quality is monitored by local governments.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Possible revisions to FAC Chapter lOD-6 or local ordinances to incorporate environ-
mental performance or design standards for septic systems.
RELATED ACTIONS:
WW-2, PH-1
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
WW-4
121
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
TX
122
ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality
TOXIC CONTAMINATION
Stormwater treatment, pollution prevention and improved hazardous waste disposal
are key components of the strategy to reduce the amount of toxic contaminants enter-
ing 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 concentrations 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 stormwater 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 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.
To assess overall bay bottom quality, the Tampa Bay NEP will utilize a trio of tests,
evaluating sediment chemistry, toxicity, and the health and diversity of bay bottom
communities. 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 remediation may be considered; those that are polluted but more read-
ily 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 classification, the type of pollutants present and technical feasibility.
Results of a recent risk assessment conducted for the Tampa Bay NEP indicate that
some metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons(PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) and pesticides are present at concentrations with a significant potential for
causing toxic effects to fish and wildlife, either through direct exposure to the sedi-
ments, or indirectly through the food web. The first phase of the study, completed in
1996, evaluated the potential risks to marine organisms and human health from pollu-
tants in Hillsborough and Boca Ciega bays, two of Tampa Bay's most impacted sec-
tors.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
The primary contaminants of concern identified in the study include metals (particu-
larly chromium, copper, mercury and nickel); PAHs; PCBs; and chlorinated pesticides.
Stormwater runoff and atmospheric deposition transport the vast majority of these pol-
lutants to the bay. Both PCBs and chlorinated pesticides aggressively persist in the
marine environment, posing potential hazards long after the use of a particular chemi-
cal has been restricted.
Several state advisories have been issued urging limited consumption of Gafftopsail
catfish, Crevalle jack, ladyfish, Spanish mackerel and certain shark species in Tampa
Bay and other Florida coastal waters based on the total mercury detected in them. The
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services recommends that these fish not be
consumed more than once a month by children or women of childbearing age, or more
than once a week by other adults.
Mercury in fish flesh appears predominantly as methylmercury which is readily
absorbed by the human digestive system. Consumption of excess amounts of
methylmercury over a prolonged period of time produces toxicity in the central ner-
vous system. Children are particularly sensitive to mercury. Exposure during pregnan-
cy is known to cause toxic effects in the fetus. The Florida Department of
Environmental Protection is sponsoring research into the causes of the mercury prob-
lem in Florida and potential control strategies.
The second phase of the NEP risk assessment will focus on Bayboro Harbor and the
western edge of Old Tampa Bay near Allen's Creek. These investigations are helping
to identify which pollutants pose a continuing threat to the bay and those that repre-
sent past or inactive sources of pollution. The findings will be used to develop a more
targeted action plan to address toxic contamination in 1997.
Summary of Actions to Adress Toxic Contamination
TX -1 Address hot spots of toxic contamination.
TX-2 Improve opportunities for proper hazardous waste disposal.
TX-3 Reduce toxic contaminants from ports and marinas.
TX-4 Promote integrated pest management on farms to reduce pesticides in runoff.
Toxic contaminants also are addressed in the Action Plans on Atmospheric Deposition,
Storm water Runoff and Wastewater.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
TX
123
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
TX~1/
124
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Address Hot Spots of Contamination
ACTION:
Address hot spots of toxic contamination in the bay's most heavily impacted basins.
BACKGROUND:
A 1996 risks assessment conducted for the NEP in Hillsborough and Boca Ciega bays
indicates the presence of some contaminants at concentrations that could pose signifi-
cant harm to fish and wildlife either through direct contact with the sediments or indi-
rectly through the food web. These contaminants include metals, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and pesticides.
To evaluate the risks associated with sediment contaminants, researchers compared
toxicity levels for each contaminant with potential exposures to fish and wildlife. A
key aspect of the investigation was to assess toxic effects resulting from bioaccumula-
tion, the tendency for some contaminants to increase in concentration as they travel up
the food chain. This poses a greater risk to predators that consume smaller fish and
organisms. The study also assessed the potential for human health risks from eating
fish caught in Hillsborough and Boca Ciega bays. The second phase of the risk assess-
ment, focusing on Bayboro Harbor and the western coast of Old Tampa Bay, will be
finalized in early 1997.
The primary contaminants of concern in Hillsborough and Boca Ciega Bays are met-
als (chromium, copper, mercury, silver and nickel); PAHs; PCBs; and chlorinated pes-
ticides. Atmospheric deposition and stormwater runoff convey the bulk of these pollu-
tants to the bay. Mercury loadings are linked to atmospheric deposition, while chromi-
um and copper tend to enter the bay in stormwater runoff. A 1995 state health adviso-
ry urged Florida residents to limit their consumption of certain fish in Tampa Bay and
other coastal waters because they contained elevated levels of mercury.
The top anthropogenic sources of PAHs include air pollution from the combustion
of fossil fuels, waste incinerators and open-burning fires, as well as runoff from
roadways.
Atmospheric deposition also is considered responsible for the majority of PCBs and
cWorinated pesticides entering the bay. PCBs are released in direct discharges from
industrial facilities to municipal sewage treatment plants, leachate from waste disposal
sites, incineration and the re-use of transformer oil. They also can enter the bay in
stormwater runoff when contaminated soils are disturbed, for example, during farming
or construction. Both PCBs and cWorinated pesticides are very persistent in sediments
and tend to bioaccumulate in organisms.
Chlorinated pesticides of significant concern are DDT, chlordane, endrin, heptachlor
epoxide and lindane. Each of these has been banned or heavily restricted due to its
potential toxicity to fish and wildlife. Banned in 1972, the insecticide DDT was pri-
marily used on crops, but also employed extensively in ditches, swamps and marshes
for mosquito control. Endrin was used as a general pesticide to control insects, rodents
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
and birds until 1986. Heptachlor was manufactured for use as an insecticide, but has
been restricted since 1983 except for use in controlling termites. Lindane has not been
produced in the u.s. since 1977. Lindane is less toxic to fish and wildlife and less
likely than other chlorinated pesticides to bioaccumulate in animals tissues.
Stormwater treatment is a key strategy in toxics reduction, since many toxic contami-
nants enter the bay attached to sediments in runoff. The NEP is funding a project in
1997 to identify local and regional stormwater treatment projects that reduce the flow
of contaminants to areas of greatest concern.
Best management practices (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 creation.
In areas of long-standing sediment contamination, where the source of pollution is no
longer active, bay managers may consider the cost-effectiveness of other techniques
such as sediment capping or removal.
STRATEGY:
The NEP strategy to address hot spots of contamination is to identify and implement
priority stormwater treatment projects, continue efforts to identify specific sources of
contamination and source-control strategies, and continue to monitor the bay to assess
changes and trends. Atmospheric deposition, which is responsible for a significant
amount of toxic contaminants loadings, is addressed in a separate action plan.
STEP 1 Implement local and regional projects identified in the NEP's Priority List
of Projects to Address Toxic Contamination, slated for completion in 1997.
Projects will emphasize stormwater improvements in heavily contaminated
basins, but may also include point -source control or pollution prevention
strategies in specific basins.
If stormwater improvements and source-control strategies fail to achieve
adequate results, consider options for and feasibility of sediment cleanup or
containment.
Responsible parties: local governments, Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP)
STEP 2 Continue to monitor sediment chemistry, toxicity and benthic communities
to assess changes and trends.
Responsible parties: local governments
SCHEDULE:
Step 1 can be initiated in 1997 following completion of the second phase of the risk
assessment and identification of priority projects to address toxic contaminants. Step 2
is ongoing.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
i:TX.1
125
CID\RTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
TX.1...
128
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
COST:
Costs to implement stormwater improvements and other controls depend on the
method selected. Possible funding sources include Southwest Florida Water
Management District's Surface Water Improvement & Management program
(SWFWMD-SWIM) through District basin boards, local govermnent stormwater utili-
ties' operating and maintenance budgets, and permit application fees. Sediment chem-
istry and benthic monitoring for the bay is estimated to cost $195,000 per
year. The Tampa Bay NEP has developed a computer model to use in selecting the
most cost-effective mix of techniques to employ in a given area.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Reduced toxic contamination of bay sediments and associated risks to marine life and
human health as a result of reduced pollutant loadings and other efforts to contain or
restore heavily impacted areas.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Ongoing benthic and sediment chemistry monitoring by local govermnents,
together with monitoring requirements for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits, will be used to assess the effectiveness of management
actions to reduce toxic contaminants in the bay. Local monitoring will supplement
NOAA studies.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
None anticipated.
RELATED ACTIONS:
AD-I, TX-3, SW-4
ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality
Improve Opportunities for
Proper Hazardous Waste Disposal
ACTION:
Improve hazardous waste disposal by small businesses and residents by evaluating
opportunities to better serve or educate these markets.
BACKGROUND:
Florida generates about 718,000 tons of regulated hazardous waste each year, includ-
ing approximately 116,000 tons from the Tampa Bay region. Experts estimate that
another 10-20 percent is generated by umegulated sources, including residents and
conditionally exempt small quantities generators (CE-SQGs) - businesses that gener-
ate less than 100 kilograms (kg), approximately 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 are an important 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 (accidental-
ly or intentionally) on the ground, in storm drains or in sanitary sewer systems.
Landfills receiving hazardous waste are not specially equipped to deal with these
materials, which are 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 cities such as Tampa and Temple Terrace, and
communities such as Brandon, are not served by household hazardous waste collec-
tion 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 exploring options to better serve and educate these markets,
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
TX.2
127
CID\RTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
TX-2
128
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
including whether to establish permanent household hazardous waste collection facili-
ties in major communities not currently served.
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Organize a task force to evaluate methods to improve opportunities for haz-
ardous 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;
evaluate the feasibility of raising occupational license fees to "pre-
pay" waste disposal costs, instead of charging for the service later;
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 "swap shops" - such as the one operat-
ed by Pinellas County - 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;
organize neighborhood pick-up days in cooperation with programs
such as Adopt-A-Pond, Florida Yards & Neighborhoods and
Lake Watch;
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: Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP) and Tampa Bay NEP to organize workshop
The taskforce should include city and county hazardous waste/solid
waste coordinators, FDEP, CE-SQG program coordinators, user groups
and the NEP
STEP 2 Encourage the City of Tampa and other unserved communities to evaluate
the cost-effectiveness of establishing permanent household hazardous waste
collection facilities.
Responsible parties: Local governments, FDEP
Water & Sediment Quality
ACTION PLAN
STEP 3 Cross-market and aggressively promote pollution prevention programs such
as the FDEP's P2 Program and Hillsborough County's Operation
BayWorks. The P2 program offers businesses 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-specific best management practices
and technical assistance.
Distribute promotional flyers on the P2 Program (and Operation
BayWorks in Hillsborough County) in mailings to/meetings with
CE-SQGs.
Promote these programs through local chambers of commerce and
the University of South Florida small business development center,
through chamber publications and presentations. Invite chambers to
serve as partners in promoting the concept of Businesses for a
Cleaner Future by aggressively promoting these services and target-
ing 100 chamber members for participation/sign-up during a given
time period.
Responsible parties: local governments, Hillsborough County
Environmental Protection Commission's CE-SQG Program, in coopera-
tion with chambers of commerce, FDEP
STEP 4 Develop summary recommendations from steps 1 to 3 for review by the
Community Advisory and Management Committees of the Tampa Bay
National Estuary Program.
Responsible parties: Task Force
SCHEDULE:
All steps can be initiated and completed in 1997.
COST:
All steps require staff and administrative time. Implementation costs will vary accord-
ing to recommendations. Costs to construct and operate a permanent household haz-
ardous 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:
Improvements in hazardous waste disposal will help to reduce toxic contaminants
that enter the bay in storm water runoff, or through groundwater, wastewater or atmos-
pheric deposition.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
TX.2
129
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
TX.2
130
- -----------
ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality
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 govermnents conduct bay sediment sampling
to track the amount and distribution of toxic contaminants in the bay.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
None anticipated.
RELATED ACTIONS:
TX-I, TX-3
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 business waste stream assessments and pollution prevention programs.
BACKGROUND:
Studies by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have
revealed relatively high levels of sediment contamination at some sites in Tampa Bay.
The most tainted sediments were found in northern Hillsborough Bay near the Port of
Tampa, especially in Ybor Channel and adjoining waterways. Other hot spots of cont-
amination include Bayboro Harbor, Boca Ciega Bay and portions of western Middle
Tampa Bay.
Toxic contaminants in Tampa Bay tend to concentrate around ports and marinas,
industrial harbors and major stormwater outfalls. Shipyards and related port and
industrial facilities release toxic substances to the bay mainly in stormwater runoff,
but also through industrial wastewater discharges and through the air. Substances may
include petroleum products, metals, metal treatment chemicals and anti-fouling paints,
and contaminants associated with ship repair and scrap iron stockpiles.
Marinas located at the water's edge also are key sources of pollution. Pollutants asso-
ciated with marinas and boating include oil and oil-based products discharged to the
bay in bilge water and during engine maintenance, boat repair and fueling; paints, lac-
quers, thinners, strippers and solvents; and sewage, detergents and gray water dis-
charged directly from boats.
This action calls on the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) to
promote its P2 Program to local ports and marinas. The NEP also urges local govern-
ment waste management programs to focus more attention on these businesses. P2
provides confidential and free waste stream assessments and reCOlnnlendations on
ways companies can reduce pollution from their facilities. Local goveruments provide
education and outreach through their hazardous waste and small quantities generator
(SQG) programs.
Additionally, the NEP recommends that a local workgroup evaluate several of the top
regional and national pollution prevention programs targeting marinas and boaters,
including materials from Puget Sound and Chesapeake Bay, for possible application in
Tampa Bay.
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
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.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
TX.3
131
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
TX~3
132
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Work with local port authorities and FDEP to promote P2 waste stream
assessments to port tenants and users. Participants would 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 NEP
STEP 2 Encourage marinas to request a P2 environmental audit to identify pollu-
tion sources and appropriate best management practices. Target the bay's
10 largest marinas for participation and audits by October 1997.
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 3 Review model programs that promote environmentally responsible marina
and boat maintenance practices - including FDEP's emerging Clean
Marina Program - for implementation in the Tampa Bay region. Provide
recommendations to the Management Conference of the Tampa Bay NEP
by October 1997. Pursue public-private partnerships to maximize promo-
tion and cost-share opportunities.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEp' FDEP, Center for Marine
Conservation, Tampa Bay Watch, user groups
STEP 4 Aggressively promote P2 to the business community and local govern-
ments who can also boost local business participation. As part of this effort,
evaluate P2's existing marketing plan and business utilization for ways to
improve its coverage. Provide recommendations to FDEP by October 1997.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEp' in cooperation with FDEP and
local governments
SCHEDULE:
The NEP, Tampa Port Authority and FDEP targeted Tampa port tenants and users in
1996 through a direct mail solicitation. Other ports and marinas will be targeted in
1997. Steps 3 and 4 also will be initiated in 1997.
COST:
P2 assessments are provided free to businesses that request them, and frequently result
in cost savings to participants by reducing their use of toxic materials and associated
disposal costs. Cost-effective educational programs 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.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
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 govermnents, and waste stream reports that
identify reductions, can assess progress in reducing toxic contamination.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
None anticipated.
RELATED ACTIONS:
TX-I, TX-2, PH-3
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
TX.3
133
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
TX-4
134
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Promote Integrated Pest Management on Farms to
Reduce Pesticides in Runoff
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 web, 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 several pesticides of concern to Tampa
Bay: chlordane, dieldrin, DDT, endosulfan, endrin, heptachlor epoxide, lindane and
mirex. Of these, only endosulfan 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 farm-
ers employ IPM practices, although local extension agents report that most farmers
use at least some aspects in their pest management programs. Surveys now being con-
ducted by the University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
(IFAS) will clarify the extent of IPM 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
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
scientists have prepared brochures describing pesticides least likely to pollute ground
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 IPM educational programs.
Because most farm operators obtain pesticide application licenses from the state
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS), tying IPM education to
the licenses would ensure that farmers are exposed to IPM 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 IPM training, would offer farmers an
incentive to learn more about IPM concepts.
The FDACS is coordinating a cooperative task force, composed of experts from the
agricultural and scientific sectors, to encourage the proper or limited application of
potential harmful pesticides near waterways. Representatives of various chemical
companies also serve on this group, which has concentrated its efforts to date in South
Florida. This action calls for the Tampa Bay NEP to participate in this effort by spon-
soring a meeting of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) task force in the
bay region to share information with local farmers and scientists and obtain recom-
mendations on restricting or reducing the use of certain pesticides.
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Revise the state pesticide applicator licensing renewal criteria to incorpo-
rate in the renewal exam a specific section on IPM. For applicants who
choose to earn CEU credits instead of taking the exam, at least one of the
credits should encompass IPM training.
Responsible parties: FDACS, IFAS, State Pesticide Coordinator
STEP 2 Seek increased federal support from the federal government to implement
existing IPM educational and application programs.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEp' Agency on Bay Management
STEP 3 Hold a one-day workshop of the pesticide task force in the bay region and
encourage participation by local growers, scientists and environmental
managers. The workshop should explore:
the extent and associated environmental effects of pesticides
specific recommendations to reduce or restrict the use of those that
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
TX.4
135
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
"HUU"
TX~4
13G
ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality
present a risk to the bay and bay wildlife
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEp' FDACS, EPA
STEP 4 Implement the recommendations of the task force (Step 3), preferably
through voluntary cooperation by manufacturers and area farmers.
SCHEDULE:
Step 1 could be initiated in 1997 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 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 by area farmers will reduce the risks to birds, fish and other
aquatic life in Tampa Bay.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Annual 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-8, SW-9
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 1970s, when
the piping of raw or partially treated sewage into the bay resulted in algae blooms that
decomposed, producing noxious odors, and bacterial contamination made some seg-
ments 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 emer-
gency discharges of raw or partially treated sewage still occur when heavy rains cause
stormwater to seep into some municipal sewer systems, and bacterial contamination
still results in the occasional closure of bay beaches to swimming and shellfish beds to
recreational harvest. Correcting these problems would be a significant step toward
maximizing recreational enjoyment of the bay and allaying public fears about its safe-
ty.
Both swimming and shellfish harvesting are restricted when heavy rains wash
stormwater, with its high bacteria content, into areas where those activities are permit-
ted and monitored. However, decisions about when to close public beaches are usually
based on the threat of contamination, and not on actual sampling that detects high lev-
els of coliform bacteria.
Local health agencies around the bay use different criteria to determine when a beach
should be closed. No common water quality standards exist for the bay's saltwater
beaches - a shortfall that this action plan addresses.
Knowing that the bay's beaches are monitored routinely and comprehensively, and
that decisions about closures or restrictions are based upon current scientific evidence
of contamination - not merely the potential of pollution based on past problems- 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, aging collection systems and rapid popu-
lation growth strain existing municipal sewer systems. As a result of recent emergency
discharges of sewage into waterways during heavy rains, St. Petersburg is now under
a consent order issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)
and is working to remedy problems in its collection system. It will be important in
future years for all communities to properly manage and maintain their sewer systems
to ensure that the substantial water quality gains achieved by improved treatment
facilities are not offset by inadequate collection and distribution networks.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
I:IH
137
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
PH
138
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS TO ADDRESS PUBLIC HEALTH
PH-I
Reduce the occurrence of municipal sewer overflows to the bay.
PH-2
Establish water quality standards for saltwater beaches.
PH-3 Install additional sewage pump-out facilities for recreational boaters and
live-aboard vessels.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
Reduce the Occurrence of Municipal Sewer
Overflows to the Bay
ACTION:
Require local governments to prepare maintenance plans identifying overflow areas
within their sewage collection systems, and address those areas in their maintenance
program.
BACKGROUND:
Unintentional sewer overflows are a growing problem nationwide, as sewage transport
and collection systems age and increasing population growth taxes the capacity of
these networks to accommodate increased flows. In the Tampa Bay region, the prob-
lem is compounded by low land elevations, high groundwater tables and heavy rains,
which can result in vast amounts of stormwater infiltrating sanitary sewer systems,
prompting emergency bypasses of treatment plants and direct discharge of raw or par-
tially treated sewage to Tampa Bay.
In August 1995, excessive rains overloaded sanitary sewers in St. Petersburg, causing
sewage backups in homes and forcing officials to shunt about 15 million gallons of
raw sewage into canals and creeks leading to Tampa Bay. Further investigation
revealed that the city had experienced several overflows in the past. St. Petersburg
utility officials commissioned intensive studies to determine the extent of the problem
and appropriate corrective actions, and the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP) subsequently initiated an enforcement action against the city.
Similar overflow problems have occurred in Pinellas and Hillsborough counties, and
environmental officials expect continued problems as existing collection and transport
systems age or become inadequate for increased flows due to growth.
St. Petersburg's experience has highlighted the extent of the problem in the bay area,
and helped to identify areas in which improvements are needed to ensure adequate
notification, investigation and correction of these problems. For instance, current
wastewater regulations only address the operation and maintenance of wastewater
treatment plants, with no review of collection systems. Although utilities are required
to report unpermitted emergency discharges to the FDEP within 24 hours, there is
often no way to know what problems exist until an overflow has occurred. Then the
utility is often placed in an enforcement mode, and reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Additionally, utilities are often blamed for overflows in systems owned by their
wholesale customers - usually smaller communities with no treatment plants of their
own - since the wastewater permit is issued to the utility owning and operating the
treatment plant.
Recognizing the serious threats posed to water quality and human health by uninten-
tional overflows, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region IV office
in Atlanta convened an internal working group in early 1996 to discuss ways to
improve compliance and enforcement strategies. Among the products being developed
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
'PH-1
139
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
PH.1
140
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
by this group is an updated Operation, Maintenance and Management (OMM) manual
which provides regulators with uniform guidelines for compliance and enforcement
strategies pertaining to overflow events. EPA also has organized a nationwide adviso-
ry committee composed of utility experts to recommend appropriate actions for reduc-
ing the incidence of overflows.
This action calls for the creation of a local task force, composed of utility managers,
environmental officials and other interested parties, to review current policies on
sewer collection system overflows and develop regionally specific guidelines, or best
management practices (BMPs), for improved operation and maintenance of sewer
systems, using the new EPA manual as a reference. The action also directs the task
force to explore the feasibility of amending the state wastewater rule (Florida
Administrative Code 62-600) to require utilities to submit maintenance plans utilizing
BMPs that address problem areas of their collection networks at the time they renew
the operating permit for their treatment plant (generally every five years). Inclusion of
the maintenance plans would be a condition of permit renewal.
The task force also is urged to explore the potential for issuing a separate "short-form
permit" for wholesale customers of the treatment plant. Requiring all municipalities to
prepare a management plan for their sewer collection systems, based on commonly
agreed-upon guidelines, will ensure that communities identify and correct problem
areas and engage in adequate long-range maintenance programs.
STRATEGY:
STEP I Establish a task force to review current policies relating to sewer over-
flows, suggest improvements, and develop basic guidelines for improved
operation and maintenance of sewer collection and transport systems. It is
recommended that the task force utilize the new OMM manual prepared by
EPA Region IV as the framework for development of a regionally appropri-
ate checklist that can be used by utility managers to identify and prioritize
maintenance needs and activities. The task force also should address the
need for a rule amendment that requires communities to submit mainte-
nance plans for their sewer collection systems at the time of their waste-
water plant permit renewal, and the need for a short-form permit to address
collection systems of smaller communities with no treatment plant of their
own. These small community collection systems should be permitted sepa-
rately and not as part of the treatment facility permit.
Responsible parties: FDEP to serve as lead agency, with participation
from local utilities and the Department of Health and Rehabilitative
Services, along with representatives from other interested parties such as
the Florida Association of Counties, League of Cities, the Florida
Engineering Society and the Florida Water Environment Federation
STEP 2 If determined to be feasible and necessary, amend the state wastewater rule
to require communities to submit maintenance plans for their sewer collec-
tion system as a condition of receiving an operating permit for their treat-
ment plants. Using guidelines developed by the task force would assure
consistency and cost-effectiveness of the maintenance plans, as well as pro-
viding guidance to FDEP in reviewing the plans. Reviews should be limited
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
to ensuring that the required elements are included in the plans, leaving
decisions about setting and funding of maintenance priorities to local utili-
ties.
Responsible parties: FDEP, local governments, Environmental
Regulatory Commission (ERC)
SCHEDULE:
The task force could be convened in early 1997, with recommendations forwarded to
the ERe in the fall of 1997.
COST:
Since most local utilities already have routine maintenance programs for their sewer
systems, the action should not involve additional cost, but instead should help to
direct expenditures to areas where specific problems have been identified.
Additionally, an aggressive preventive maintenance program may prove most cost-
effective in the long run. Although reviewing the maintenance plans will be an addi-
tional task for FDEP employees, costs associated with the reviews should be minimal,
since they will be done at permit renewal time. Maintenance plans submitted with the
short-form permit by wholesale customers of the treatment facility could be reviewed
in advance of renewal of treatment facility permits, and should not be a condition of
approval of those permits.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Regular inspections and maintenance of sewer collection systems, utilizing BMPs,
will reduce the occurrence of sewer overflows, resulting in increased public health
and water quality protection.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Routine water quality monitoring by both local and state govemments will document
the success of efforts to reduce municipal sewer overflows and resulting benefits to
the bay.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Possible amendments to FA.C. 62-600 (the state wastewater rule).
RELATED ACTIONS:
PH-2, PH-3, WW-3
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
,PH.1
141
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
PH-2
142
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. Additionally, new research indicates that fecal coliform may not be
an accurate indicator of potential public health problems, since it does not detect
viruses or other pathogens that may be present. When more accurate analytical indica-
tors have been fully developed, local govermnents may want to consider using those
as a substitute or in combination with testing for fecal coliform. Consistent standards
throughout the region would improve public health protection and maximize recre-
ational use of the bay while helping to identify sources of water quality problems at
bay beaches.
STRATEGY:
Step 1
Review existing standards, parameters and sampling techniques used by
local governments and public health units for testing of beach waters. A
summary of these standards has been completed as part of a technical study
for the Tampa Bay NEP.
Responsible Parties: the state Department of Health and Rehabilitative
Services (HRS) is responsible for establishing water quality parameters
for public health purposes and should lead this effort, with local coordi-
nation provided by the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. Local
health units and environmental agencies also should participate.
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-
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
ed by each government in the form of a local regulation.
Responsible Parties: HRS, local government health units and environ-
mental management departments
SCHEDULE:
Step 1 can begin in 1997, with standards available for adoption in 1998.
COST:
Only staff time, document preparation and administrative costs are anticipated if fecal
coliform is retained as the primary analytical indicator. If new indicators are recom-
mended, additional sampling and testing costs will have to be determined.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Increased public health protection and increased knowledge about the status and prob-
lems of bay waters.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Using 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.
RELATED ACTIONS:
PH-I, PH-3
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
r:
PH.2
143
CHARTING
theffiURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
PH.3
144
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.
There are 214 marinas in the three counties surrounding the bay. Of the 25 that have
pump-out facilities, 19 are in Pinellas County, and three each are in Hillsborough and
Manatee. Of the two public marinas in the region with pump-out stations, only one, 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
stewards 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 a single 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. Following those recommendations, Hillsborough County should
have 18 pump-outs, Pinellas 25, and Manatee 7. Additionally, a new state law, effec-
tive 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 Office of Waterway Management, 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 equipment and portable toilet
dump stations. Marinas awarded funds may charge boaters up to $5 for a pump-out. If
economically feasible, the pumpout stations should be connected to municipal sewer
systems, rather than septic tanks or package plants. Another option would be to imple-
ment a portable collection system, called a "honey barge," that travels to boaters on
the water and performs pump-outs.
ACTION PLAN
Water & Sediment Quality
To further encourage responsible stewardship, the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) is developing a Clean Marina Program to encour-
age marinas to adopt best management practices (BMPs) - emphasizing that what is
good for the environment also is good for business.
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
boating groups may be able to assist in identifying the most frequently used
mannas.
Responsible parties: City of Tampa and other municipalities, Florida
Marine Patrol, Agency on Bay Management (ABM)
Step 2
Based on the results of Step 1, encourage the responsible municipality to
apply for a state grant to construct sewage pump-out stations at marinas.
Responsible parties: local governmental environmental management
departments, ABM, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program
Step 3
Construct a sewage pump-out facility or explore portable methods of
sewage collection at marinas awarded grants. Provide educational materials
to boaters on-site explaining the importance of the facility or portable sys-
tem and how to use it. Disseminate educational materials to boating clubs
in the region making them aware of the facility.
Responsible parties: local governments, local boating clubs
Step 4
Encourage participation in FDEP's BMP program for marinas. Consider
implementing the program at a publicly owned marina to serve as an exam-
ple for commercial marinas.
Responsible Parties: local governments, ABM, Tampa Bay NEP
SCHEDULE:
Steps 1 and 2 were initiated in 1996. Step 3's schedule is dependent upon awarding of
grant, but construction could begin in 1997. Step 4 also can be initiated 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.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
PH.3
145
CID\RTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
PH.3
148
ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality
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.
RELATED ACTIONS:
PH-I, PH-2, WW-2
PHOTO: NICK TOTH
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. However, since the 1950s, almost half of the bay's original salt-
water wetlands have been lost to dredging and filling for shoreline and port develop-
ment. 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
and reduced dredging and filling.
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 low-salinity tidal streams along rivers, which provide life-support
to many of the bay's juvenile fisheries, also have sustained damage from develop-
ment, invasive exotic plants and diversions of fresh water for irrigation.
The restoration and protection of these diverse habitats is crucial to the bay's health.
Studies by the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (NEP) suggest that more than
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
IBH
147
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
BH
148
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
12,000 acres of seagrass can eventually be recovered along the bay's shallow shelf by
"holding the line" on existing nitrogen loadings and offsetting any new nitrogen
increases that are expected to occur with growth. Additionally, the NEP will pursue
opportunities for seagrass transplanting at select sites. Strategies to repair and preserve
the bay's coastal habitats are outlined in a Habitat Restoration and Protection Master
Plan finalized by the NEP in 1996 in cooperation with area agencies and local govern-
ments. The plan seeks to restore a productive balance and diversity of coastal and
associated upland habitats and includes a preliminary list of priority projects for
restoration. The overall target is to restore a minimum of 100 acres of low-salinity
tidal marsh habitat every five years and to protect and enhance the bay's existing salt
marsh and mangrove areas.
Habitat protection, through public land acquisition and conservation easements on pri-
vate property, is the other focal point of the habitat master plan for Tampa Bay, which
identifies 28 specific sites as priorities for protection. The majority of these sites were
incorporated into the 1996 Save Our Rivers/Preservation 2000 Plan of the Southwest
Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), dramatically increasing the chances
that these vital coastal lands will be acquired and protected given available funding.
Recent developments have brought more good news. In December 1995, SWFWMD
purchased nearly 1,600 acres of bayfront property at Terra Ceia Isles in Manatee
County. Acquisition of this important tract brings 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 boosts restoration opportuni-
ties. Several adjacent parcels of land totaling about 4,700 acres have been proposed
for purchase under the state's Conservation and Recreational Lands (CARL) Program.
Finger-fill residential canals constructed in the 1950s and 1960s are a special area of
focus because of degraded water quality, habitat loss and siltation. This action plan
outlines incentives and opportunities for homeowners to enhance canal habitats and
soften shorelines.
GOALS FOR BAY HABITATS
. Increase and preserve the quantity, quality and diversity of seagrass com-
munities. The long-term goal is to restore 12,350 acres of seagrass and pro-
tect the bay's existing 25,600 acres.
. Restore an optimum balance of wetland and associated upland habitats for
fish and wildlife, while protecting and enhancing existing habitats. Specific
targets include:
restoration of a minimum of 100 acres of low-salinity tidal marsh
every five years, for a total increase over time of 1,800 acres, and
the preservation of the existing habitat
protection and enhancement of the bay's mangrove and salt marsh
communities which total nearly 14,000 acres
restoration over time of 150 acres of salt barren habitat
ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats
. 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
Protection.
BH-2
BH-3
BHA
BH-5
BH-6
BH-7
BH-8
Establish and implement mitigation criteria for Tampa Bay, and direct miti-
gation to high priority projects.
Reduce propeller scarring of sea grass and pursue sea grass transplanting
opportunities at select sites.
Restrict impacts to hard-bottom communities.
Improve management of parking and access areas along causeways and
coastal areas.
Encourage waterfront residents to enhance shorelines and limit runoff from
yards.
Improve compliance with and enforcement of wetland permits.
Expand habitat mapping and monitoring programs.
NOTE: An additional action in the draft Tampa Bay management plan recommended
the passage of a law requiring mandatory education of boaters. The Florida
Legislature approved a phased-in boater education bill in 1996.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
BH
149
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
BH-.t
150
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 cooperation with local,
regional and state agencies and interests.
BACKGROUND:
Recognizing that some coastal habitats have been lost in greater proportion than oth-
ers, the NEP Master Plan for Habitat Restoration and Protection seeks to restore the
historic balance of habitats in Tampa Bay. The Plan outlines specific strategies and
goals to increase certain habitats while preserving and enhancing those that now exist.
The Plan emphasizes the restoration of low-salinity tidal streams found along the
dozens of meandering creeks that eventually enter Tampa Bay. These quiet areas, criti-
cal to the life cycle of fish such as snook and mullet and birds like the great blue
heron and snowy egret, comprised about half of all estuarine wetland habitats at the
turn of the century. Today, these low-salinity habitats make up about 22 percent of the
total. In contrast, mangrove forests also made up about 50 percent of the shoreline in
1900. Today, they account for about 73 percent of the remaining shoreline vegetation
- although mangroves - like all of the bay's habitats - have experienced substan-
tial declines in acreage.
The plan seeks to restore a minimum of 100 acres of low-salinity tidal streams every
five years, while preserving and enhancing existing mangrove and salt marsh vegeta-
tion. The Plan also identifies 28 sites as priorities for habitat protection, either through
direct purchase of lands or other means such as conservation easements on private
property. Most of these sites were recently incorporated into the Southwest Florida
Water Management District's (SWFWMD) Save our Rivers/Preservation 2000 Plan,
which sets priorities for public lands acquisition.
While the NEP Plan most heavily focuses on repairing tidal streams, other habitats
also will be gradually restored. Attention will be directed to salt barrens (extremely
salty high marsh), upland forests and mud flats, all of which play an important role in
the Tampa Bay ecosystem. The NEP's Habitat Restoration Subcommittee has adopted
the Florida Game & Freshwater Fish Commission's (FGFWFC) strategies for upland
restoration. Upland protection needs will be met in part through local land acquisition
efforts.
The concept of restoring the balance is relatively new and has important implications
for Tampa Bay and other coastal areas. 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
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
bay at a time when this was critically needed. It also demonstrated to skeptics that
habitat restoration was possible.
In recent years, restoration efforts have increasingly focused on providing a mosaic of
habitat types within a given project to maximize the benefits to fish and wildlife. The
NEP Plan takes this concept a step further by developing restoration and protection
goals based on the needs of key wildlife "guilds," or groups of animals that share
common habitat and feeding preferences.
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
in the last half-century, resulting in its listing by the FGFWFC as a species of special
concern. Adult ibis nest along the bay, but require inland freshwater sources of food
for theit young. These shallow freshwater wetlands or "frog" ponds have been hard hit
hard by development - forcing the ibis to travel farther and farther to find food for
their young.
The NEP Plan outlines four management strategies for the protection and restoration
of seasonal freshwater ponds. The first is to identify and protect all potential ibis for-
aging habitat within a certain distance from the bird colonies in Tampa Bay. The sec-
ond is to create a wetland mitigation banking system that creates or restores seasonal
marshes within these foraging areas before these impacts become unavoidable. One
potential location for such a bank is the combined TECO and Reeder Farms property
south of Cockroach Bay where three of the four white ibis foraging zones overlap.
The third strategy is to create or restore marshes on publicly owned land. Finally, the
Plan recommends that communities and agencies actively seek to acquire new proper-
ties for habitat restoration and protection, and especially for seasonal marsh restora-
tion.
Other components of the NEP Plan address management of public lands, especially
exotic species control and eradication. The Plan also seeks to direct mitigation to pri-
ority restoration projects using criteria discussed in Action BH-2. The Habitat
Restoration and Protection Master Plan for Tampa Bay is available under separate
cover from the NEP.
ONGOING EFFORTS:
Already, about 100 acres along Tampa Bay have been restored through projects
financed primarily by the SWFWMD's Surface Water & Management (SWIM) pro-
gram and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Pollution Recovery
Trust Fund. Several projects now underway and in the planning stages will boost that
number by up to 1,000 acres.
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
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
BH-1
151
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
BH~.1
152
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
Enterprise Fund. Private land acquisition programs such as the Nature Conservancy
also contribute to the preservation of upland and wetland habitats.
STRATEGY:
This action presents steps to implement the Tampa Bay Master Plan for Habitat
Restoration and Protection, including elements to secure and preserve funding
sources.
STEP 1 Finalize the list of priority restoration projects compiled from the individ-
ual plans of various agencies and local governments.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEp' in cooperation with the established
workgroup of agencies, organizations and local governments
STEP 2 Ensure that priorities for habitat restoration and protection are incorporated
into the 1997 action plans submitted to NEP by local governments and
agencies for implementation of the CCMP. Additionally, ensure that these
projects are incorporated into local government and agency permit reviews
and conditions.
Responsible parties: local governments, FDEP, SWFWMD, FGFWFC
STEP 3 Direct public and private mitigation to restoration projects identified as pri-
orities. (See Action BH-2 on mitigation banking)
Responsible parties: FDEP, SWFWMD, FGFWFC, Environmental
Protection. Commission (EPC) of Hillsborough County
STEP 4 Reconvene work group every two years, beginning in 1998, to assess
progress toward goals and to reevaluate priorities.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEP
STEP 5 To support implementation of restoration and protection efforts:
. . Pursue a permanent source of funding for the SWIM Program;
. Secure funding for the Florida Marine Research Institute's Marine Habitat
and Restoration Program, which was discontinued recently due to state
funding cutbacks;
. 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.
SCHEDULE:
Step 1 is ongoing with finalization of priorities anticipated in early 1997. Several
restoration projects are already underway and considerable progress is being made in
the area of public lands acquisition and preservation. Remaining steps will be initiated
in 1997.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
COST:
Implementation costs for specific projects will be included in the action plans of
responsible agencies and local governments. However, existing SWIM habitat restora-
tion projects may provide some basis for comparison. The current SWIM plan for
Tampa Bay includes a total of 16 major and 15-21 smaller projects with a total budget
of $4.5 million or about $1.5 million annually. SWFWMD cost analyses indicate that
the cost for the creation/restoration of intertidal wetlands (including design, permit-
ting, plans, construction and monitoring) range from $30,000 (managed in-house) to
$50,000 (contracted to private firm) per acre, excluding land costs.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Implementation of this plan 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 govern-
ments and agencies and reported in a Biennial Bay Monitoring Report.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Revisions to trust fund provisions and other regulatory changes may be necessary to
ensure consistent funding for habitat restoration and acquisition.
RELATED ACTIONS:
BH-2, BH-8
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
BH.1
153
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
BH.2
154
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
Establish and Implement Mitigation Criteria for
Tampa Bay and Identify Priority Sites for
Mitigation
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 impact wetlands create
new ones in their place or restore or enhance existing wetlands-is required of both
private developers and public agencies in Florida 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 conducted by the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) revealed 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 success-
ful," meaning they generally provided the same functions as natural wetlands
destroyed by the project.
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 man-made
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 wetland 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.
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 on 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 development of mitiga-
tion criteria for the Tampa Bay region, including the development of a regional miti-
gation banking plan that addresses specific habitat needs and priorities. A workgroup
of the Natural Resources Committee of the Agency on Bay Management (ABM) was
convened in May 1996 to evaluate existing guidelines and develop recommendations.
Participants have reviewed and compared federal, state and local criteria for mitiga-
tion banking, as a first step in developing recommendations for the Tampa Bay region.
The group also is identifying areas that may be desirable for banking, based on priori-
ties for restoration and protection established in the NEP's Master Plan for Habitat
Restoration and Protection (see Action BH-1).
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.
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 it is likely to be effective. If on-site compensation
is not feasible, mitigation banking should be encouraged.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
BH-2
155
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
BH~2i
158
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
STRATEGY:
STEP .1 Identify areas where mitigation banks should be used in the Tampa Bay
watershed, and develop criteria for management and operation of those
banks.
A.
Generate a map that identifies all existing and proposed preserves and
major conservation easements, using the NEP's 1996 base map from the
Habitat Restoration and Protection Plan for Tampa Bay and the Game &
Fresh Water Fish Commission's Regional Wildlife Habitat Plan (1996).
Identify areas best suited to mitigation banking.
B. Evaluate and recommend criteria for mitigation banking in the Tampa Bay
region. The ABM workgroup has considered:
. whether mitigation conducted by local governments and private developers
should count toward overall habitat restoration goals for Tampa Bay.
Projects which produce a net increase in valuable estuarine, oligohaline and
native upland watershed habitats should "count" toward the overall restora-
tion goals for Tampa Bay.
. specific criteria to decide when on- or off-site mitigation is most appropri-
ate. Recommendations being developed.
. ownership, management and associated cost issues, including whether miti-
gation banks operated on private lands purchased by the developer or pri-
vate bank operator should be deeded to a public agency. Recommendations
being developed.
. limitations on the total number of mitigation banks, and the number that
one private operator can manage, and provisions to make banks large
enough to increase ecological values and prevent a glut of banks with no
"customers." Recommendations being developed.
. 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 habitat within one watershed (for example, positioning
banks adjacent to existing wetlands could make replicating the types of
wetlands lost easier, increase its probability of success, and boost its value
to wildlife). Another issue involves siting banks in areas that fill gaps in
existing wildlife habitat corridors. Workgroup is evaluating FDEP language
to decide if changes are needed.
. 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 low-salinity
tidal streams, salt barrens, hard-bottom communities or other critical habi-
tats within Tampa Bay. The following ratios have been presented for con-
sideration: 2: 1 (creation), 4: 1 (restoration/enhancement), 10: 1 (preserva-
tion). [from Scientifically Defensible Compensation Ratios for Wetland
Mitigation]
ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats
. bank monitoring, enforcement and penalties for noncompliance.
Recommendations being developed.
. provisions for preservation of existing wetlands within a mitigation bank as
compensation if the environmental benefits of such activity will significant-
ly exceed the level of impact. Recommendations being developed.
. whether mitigation banks should be considered a replacement for publicly
financed restoration projects. Mitigation banking should not replace pub-
licly financed restoration. However, the potential exists for some mitigation
banking credits to be generated by local governments for restoration pro-
jects that produce a net habitat gain and help achieve the goals of the bay
restoration plan.
. safeguards to protect productive native uplands from conversion to wet-
lands. The group is strongly opposed to converting productive native
uplands to wetlands. Recommendations being developed.
. mandating the establishment of a trust fund to ensure long-term manage-
ment 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. The group supports this concept. Most existing mitigation
banking criteria address this issue.
Private industry and other non-governmental and environmental groups
have been urged to participate. Recommendations will be forwarded to the
Tampa Bay NEP in early 1997 following review by the full Agency.
Responsible parties: ABM
STEP 2 Implement recommendations from Step 1, and direct mitigation of estuar-
ine impacts to high-priority restoration areas identified in the Tampa Bay
NEP Habitat Restoration and Protection Master Plan. (See Action BH-l)
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEp' in conjunction with U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, FDEP, Southwest Florida Water Management
District, Florida Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission, Environmental
Protection Commission of Hillsborough County and local governments
SCHEDULE:
Step 1 is underway with recommendations to be provided to NEP in early 1997. Step
2 can be initiated in 1997.
COSTS:
To be determined, based on recommendations of the workgroup.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Effective mitigation banking can consolidate manmade wetlands into central areas,
increasing the odds for success and making permits easier to monitor and enforce. It
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
BH.2
157
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
BH-2
158
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
also can result in larger wetland areas that are more useful for birds and other wildlife.
The development of specific criteria for mitigation banking in the Tampa Bay region
will help assure that mitigation banking is conducted in the most environmentally ben-
eficial manner.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Wetland habitats are monitored every five years using photo.interpretation. The suc-
cess of mitigation banks will be monitored through permits.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Possible amendments to local permitting rules and/or the state mitigation banking
rule.
RELATED ACTIONS:
BH-l
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
Reduce Propeller Scarring of Seagrass and
Pursue Seagrass Transplanting Opportunities at
Select Sites
ACTION:
Reduce propeller scarring of sea grasses and other shallow marine habitats through
boater education and by installing channel markers in appropriate areas to direct traf-
fic. Additionally, pursue seagrass transplanting opportunities at select sites to assist
natural seagrass recovery efforts.
BACKGROUND:
Boating activity on Tampa Bay is intense and increasing - along with damage to sea-
grass meadows and other sensitive marine habitats. Nearly 100,000 boats are regis-
tered to anglers and boating enthusiasts in the three counties bordering the bay, along
with dozens of smaller commercial fishing vessels.
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, Fort DeSoto
Park, Bishops Harbor, Rattlesnake Key and the Double Branch/Rocky Creek portion
of Upper Tampa Bay - are severely scarred, particularly around narrow channels and
passes.
Additionally, turbidity created when jet-powered personal watercraft repeatedly stir up
the bottom sediments in shallow areas of the bay may cause long-term damage to
grass beds.
The Florida Marine Research Institute (FMRI) recently completed a study for NEP
investigating methods to protect sea grasses in heavily scarred areas of Tampa Bay.
FMRI also conducted extensive mapping of seagrass scarring in the bay and evaluated
management methods used through the state. Their reconmlendations are to install
channel markers in Miguel Bay and Bishops Harbor in Manatee County and at Tierra
Verde in Pinellas County, along with interpretive signage at boat ramps and near grass
beds. The NEP approved $30,000 in 1996 to fund these projects.
Boating restriction zones have been established at Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve in
Hillsborough County and Fort DeSoto Park, Weedon Island State Preserve and
Honeymoon Island State Park in Pinellas County, and monitoring is underway to eval-
uate the effectiveness of various management methods. These range from motor boat
exclusion and restricted access areas to unrestricted areas where sensitive grass beds
are posted with interpretative signs. Channel marking and education appear to be the
most cost-effective techniques for reducing prop scarring.
Interpretive signs at high-use boat ramps around the bay can help to raise boater
awareness of sensitive seagrass meadows and emphasize the importance of using
CHAR1ING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
BH.3
159
CID\RTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
BH..3
160
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
marked channels to avoid damaging grass beds. Expanding this effort to other areas of
intense use is another important strategy advocated by the NEP. The Boater's Guide to
Tampa Bay also is an excellent educational tool. More than 100,000 guides have been
distributed to boaters in the bay's three surrounding counties since its first printing in
1992. An updated version of the Boater's Guide, which is produced by the Tampa Bay
NEP and FMRI, will be available in March 1997.
Seagrass transplanting also should be pursued at select sites to assist natural sea grass
recovery efforts, which can take up to 10 years for some species. Pioneering efforts by
scientists at the FMRI to culture plant fragments in the laboratory for transplanting in
the bay show promise, although the process is lengthy and expensive. Use of "donor"
grasses transplanted from existing meadows may be a more cost-effective approach
and has already been successful in some areas of the bay. The NEP will evaluate suit-
able areas for smaller-scale projects as part of the overall seagrass restoration strategy.
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Install channel markers and interpretive signs at Bishops Harbor, Tierra
Verde and other priority sites where boating or personal watercraft activity
pose a threat to seagrasses.
Responsible parties: local governments, with funding assistance from the
Tampa Bay NEP
STEP 2 Continue to monitor seagrass scarring and protection methods to evaluate
impacts, recovery and opportunities to reclassify restricted areas.
Responsible parties: local governments and FMRI
STEP 3 Pursue seagrass transplanting opportunities at suitable sites to enhance nat-
ural seagrass recovery efforts.
Responsibleparties: FMRI, NEp' Tampa Bay Watch
STEP 4 Expand distribution of the Boater's Guide to Tampa Bay at boat shows and
through major marinas, boating and fishing clubs, retail outlets and boat
ramps.
Note: More than 100,000 Boater's Guide have been distributed in the three
counties bordering the bay. Reprints of the Boater's Guide with new and
updated information will be available in March 1997.
Responsible parties: FMRI and NEp' with assistance from Florida
Marine Patrol, Coast Guard Auxiliary, Tampa Bay Watch, Florida Sea
Grant Extension Program
STEP 5 Identify high-use boat ramps not already posted and design and install
interpretive signage in these areas to educate boaters and personal water-
craft users about bay habitats and their role in habitat protection. Ideally,
sign design should be uniform throughout the watershed to maximize cost-
efficiency and impact.
Responsible parties: FMRI, with assistance from local governments and
Tampa Bay Watch
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
STEP 6 Finalize and distribute a boat decal on prop scarring to boaters, boat rental
and sales outlets, and tackle shops.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEP (for design and initial production),
FMRl, 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.
SCHEDULE:
Step 1 will be implemented in 1997 with funding from the Tampa Bay NEP. Steps 2-4
are ongoing. Steps 5 and 6 will be initiated in 1997.
COST:
The costs to install channel markers and interpretive signage in areas identified in
Step 1 is approximately $15,000 per site. Funding for these projects will be provided
by the NEP. The cost of transplanting seagrasses varies considerably, from about
$1.50 to $2 per unit of seagrass. On average, transplant costs are estimated to be about
$200 a day, based on two people working eight hours and transplanting between 100-
200 units.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Targeted efforts to educate boaters, coupled with channel marking and enforcement of
management zones, will reduce prop scarring of seagrasses. Other sensitive bird and
coastal habitats also will benefit as boaters become aware of how to protect them.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
Prop scarring is monitored by local governments in areas where boating restrictions
have been established. A responsible party for bay wide prop scarring monitoring has
not yet been determined. Seagrass coverage is monitored every two years by
Southwest Florida Water Management District's Surface Water Improvement and
Management Program.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
None anticipated.
RELATED ACTIONS:
BH-1, FW-1
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
BH~3
181
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
BH-4
182
--------,
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
Restrict Impacts to Hard-Bottom Communities
in Tampa Bay
ACTION:
Evaluate the extent of hard-bottom communities in Tampa Bay and develop special
permitting and mitigation criteria to reduce impacts to those communities.
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, communi-
ties exist in sparse areas of the bay bottom where natural rock outcrops protrude into
the overlying water colunm. The hard surface of the rock provides an ideal substrate
for colonization by a diverse assemblage of marine invertebrates including sponges,
gorgonians and corals, and the shelter afforded by the rock outcrops attracts large
numbers of a wide variety of fishes. These characteristics make hard-bottom commu-
nities among 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
intertidal 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 recognized importance and potential economic value.
The new state Environmental Resource Permit typically requires permittees to provide
compensatory mitigation (e.g., wetland creation, restoration, enhancement) for permit-
ted 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 dis-
tinguish estuarine hard-bottom communities from other types of regulated wetlands
and submerged bottom types. Consequently, these unique habitats are typically not
afforded any additional regulatory protection - except in the Florida Keys, where a
model rule expanding protection of that area's unique seagrasses, microalgae and
corals has been developed. While it is not clear how many acres of natural hard-bot-
tom communities have been lost in Tampa Bay, it is clear that impacts to these unique
habitats are not easily mitigated, and that greater recognition and protection is needed.
This action would provide for the identification of hard-bottom communities in the
bay through a comprehensive survey, and subsequent protection of identified areas
through the development of special permitting and mitigation criteria. The additional
protections could be achieved either through statewide rulemaking or amendments, or
through adoption of local rules or policies specifically targeting Tampa Bay.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Undertake a comprehensive benthic survey of Tampa Bay with the objec-
tive of mapping the detailed distribution of natural hard-bottom communi-
ties, 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
composition and ecology of natural hard-bottom communities and compare
them to artificial reef communities, which often are used to mitigate
impacts to live-bottom communities. The Environmental Protection
Commission (EPC) of Hillsborough County could assume this task as part
of its annual benthic sampling program in Tampa Bay, if additional funding
is secured. Volunteers also could be utilized to survey shallow-water hard-
bottoms such as nearshore oyster reefs. Ensure the distribution of resulting
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), EPC, Tampa Bay Watch, Florida Sea Grant Extension Program
STEP 2 Evaluate the effectiveness of current permitting and mitigation rules in pre-
serving hard-bottom habitats, and recommend ways to provide increased
protection. (This process should be integrated with development of special
mitigation criteria for Tampa Bay as directed in Action BH-2) The advisory
group may wish to use the Florida Keys model rule as a starting point for
comparison. Additionally, the group should explore whether regulatory
agencies already have authority to adequately protect live-bottom habitats,
or whether new statewide or local rules, or expansion of existing rules, is
needed.
Responsible parties: Agency on Bay Management (ABM)
STEP 3 Implement the ABM recommendations regarding the protection of specific
hard-bottom habitats.
Responsible parties: FDEP (if state rule changes are deemed necessary)
or local governments
SCHEDULE:
Step 1 can be initiated in 1998. Step 2 can be accomplished in 1998, with recommen-
dations forwarded to the Tampa Bay NEP and FDEP by the end of that year.
COST:
The benthic survey could be conducted for approximately $50,000-$100,000.
Financing options include Florida Sea Grant, 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.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
8H.4
183
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
BH~4
184
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
The bay monitoring program will include a hard-bottom mapping element, to
be updated periodically (every 10 years).
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Possible amendments to Chapters 62-312 and 40D-4, FAC.
RELATED ACTIONS:
BH-1, BH-2, BH-8
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
Improve Management of Parking and Vehicle
Access Along Causeways and Coastal Areas
ACTION:
Improve management of parking and vehicle access along environmentally sensitive
areas of bay 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 shoreline, eroding it and
preventing emergent vegetation from growing. On the Gandy Causeway, the Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT) periodically dumps and grades new sand on the
access area, but much of it is washed into the water by the constant traffic.
At all the sites, people 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 infonnation 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.
At the request of the Tampa Bay NEP, the Agency on Bay Management (ABM) has
identified four areas along Tampa Bay where improvements in traffic and parking
would improve the safety of beachgoers and reduce the enviromnental damage done
to these areas, while still allowing people to enjoy the shoreline. Recommendations
include the installation of bollards - short wooden or cement poles planted vertically
in the ground close together - to keep vehicles out of environmentally sensitive
areas. These areas, and specific management recommendations, are as follows:
. Gandy Causeway
On the southern shoreline, ABM recommends installing bollards along the future
FDOT access road to allow parking but prevent vehicles from driving near mangrove
areas. The bollards will protect the mangroves that currently exist and allow for
growth of new intertidal plants.
Unrestricted parking will still be available at the western end for the private boat ramp
and restaurant, and all along the eastern sandy shore area - which is the most popular
gathering place for beachgoers.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
BH-5
185
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
BH.5
lBB
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
On the northern shoreline, ABM recommends placing bollards along the roadway to
prevent vehicles from pulling off the road and into mangrove areas. This action
would guard against an increase in off-road traffic in this area once FDOT completes
removal of Brazilian pepper trees there.
. Fourth Street at 1-275
ABM recommends lining both sides of the causeway with bollards above the jurisdic-
tionalline. This will allow vehicle access along the causeway and foot access down to
the water, while preventing vehicles from entering the mangrove fringe or high marsh
areas. Ideally, this project should be timed to coincide with the Gandy bollard project,
to prevent a shift in beach traffic from Gandy to Fourth Street.
. Pinellas BaywaY/Tierra Verde
ABM recommends placing bollards above the jurisdictional line on the northern side
of the Bayway, between the first bridge and the golf course. This project would pre-
vent vehicle intrusion into wetland areas, while still permitting vehicles to pull off the
road and park. Bollards also should be placed across the sand spits on either side of
the bridge to keep vehicles out, but allow personal watercraft, sailboards and other
recreational equipment to be carried or pulled to the water's edge. A similar bollard
barrier should be placed as needed along the causeway approach to Fort DeSoto Park.
. Sunshine Skyway Causeway
ABM recommends installing bollards above the jurisdictional line on the south side of
the causeway across from the Blackthorne Memorial. Windsurfers and personal water-
craft users will still be able to carry or pull their equipment to the water's edge. ABM
also suggests that consideration be given to installing bollards on either side of the
two short bridges along the Skyway approach.
If additional management of these areas is desired, sanitary and trash facilities, securi-
ty 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.
Possible sources of funding for the improvements include federal and state grants
(such as FDOT's Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act [IS TEA] grant
program) and local governments. Local utility companies also may be willing to pro-
vide bollards at no cost.
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Obtain local and state approval of the management recommendations
developed by the ABM. The ABM recommendations are expected to be
considered by Pinellas County and the Tampa Bay Regional Planning
Council (TBRPC) in late 1996, and then submitted to the FDOT shortly
afterwards.
Responsible parties: ABM in cooperation with the TBRPC, FDOT and
applicable local governments
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
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 the
Pinellas Bayway/Tierra Verde approach to Fort DeSoto Park, where
improvements would facilitate increased protection of the park's outstand-
mg resources.
Responsible parties: FDOT, local government transportation departments
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:
Steps 1 and 2 can be implemented in 1997, following approval of recommendations.
Other sites could follow in 1998, with a detailed causeway recreation plan developed
in future years as funding becomes available.
COST:
Implementation varies considerably according to how extensive the measures are. The
cost of installing bollards in designated parking areas is approximately $32 per bol-
lard. At least 20-30 bollards would be needed at most sites, for a total cost of about
$1,000 per site. That cost could be significantly lower if utilities provide bollards free
of charge. Implementing a full-scale recreational facility, with restrooms, picnic tables
and other amenities would cost a minimum of $100,000 per site, with annual operat-
ing expenses estimated at as much as $80,000, based on two full-time staff people,
one vehicle, regular trash pickup and other services.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Controlling vehicle access will permit emergent vegetation to recolonize 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.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
BH-5
187
Cffi\RTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
,- "
BH..5
1G8
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
REGULATORY NEEDS:
None anticipated. Enforcement of the vehicle access restrictions can be accomplished
under existing local ordinances.
RELATED ACTIONS:
BH-l
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 for marine creatures and filter pollutants con-
tained in runoff.
This action presents steps to encourage waterfront residents to soften or enhance sea-
walls and degraded natural shorelines with native vegetation, limestone rip-rap, terrac-
ing 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.
Currently, residents who wish to stabilize their shoreline may need to obtain a general
permit to install rip-rap or to soften existing structures, but the criteria for obtaining
this permit vary according to the nature of the surrounding shoreline and the type and
amount of work proposed. Exempting certain types of enhancement activities from the
permit requirement, or mandating only that the homeowner notify Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) of the work - a noticed exemption
_ may encourage more residents to undertake these projects.
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. The City of
Clearwater's Environmental Advisory Board, for example, has discussed the possibili-
ty of allowing homeowner groups to adopt a management plan for their shorelines to
encourage the planting or preservation of mangroves. The management plan would
specify mangrove trimming guidelines, and homeowners who agree to abide by the
guidelines could do the pruning themselves, instead of having to hire a landscape
architect as mandated by the current state mangrove trimming rule.
Limiting pollution in runoff from waterfront yards also is encouraged. Residents can
help to reduce pollution to Tampa Bay by applying the eco-Iandscaping 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-
a\\~ &\l\te(\ to the environmentally conscious waterfront resident. Adopt-A-Canal pro-
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
.8H-6
189
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
BH.6
170
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
grams also may be effective in select areas in improving water and habitat quality in
canals through public stewardship and education.
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 or other financial incentives to encourage habitat
enhancement along seawalls, and establish cost-share programs to promote
group-permit shoreline enhancement projects. For instance, property own-
ers currently are entitled to lower property valuations if part of their prop-
erty is placed in a conservation easement; perhaps a similar program could
be instituted for homeowners who use alternative shoreline stabilization
and enhancement techniques. Additionally, a shoreline management plan
such as that proposed by the Clearwater's Environmental Advisory Board
could result in significant cost-savings to participating homeowners by
allowing them to trim their own mangroves under approved guidelines.
Responsible parties: local governments, Southwest Florida Water
Management District (SWFWMD), in cooperation with FDEP
STEP 2 Evaluate whether a low-cost or no-cost general permit, a noticed exemption
or a full exemption is the best mechanism for encouraging shoreline
enhancement, and develop criteria for review of projects that will be eligi-
ble for the streamlined permit process. Rule revisions may be needed to
incorporate exemptions into existing rules.
Responsible parties: SWFWMD, FDEP, local governments
STEP 3 Amend state statutes to require that habitat enhancement features be incor-
porated when seawalls are constructed or repaired.
Responsible parties: FDEP
STEP 4 Develop and distribute a resource card (#IO-envelope size) to waterfront
residents through annual property tax notices to promote available tax
incentives for shoreline enhancement, as well as resources and publications
addressing waterfront landscaping and exotic plant control, and canal main-
tenance and improvement. Publications noted below should be featured.
Responsible parties: local governments and the Tampa Bay National
Estuary Program (NEP) (production), local government tax assessors
offices (distribution), also distribute through Tampa Bay Watch, Agency
on 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.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
Responsible parties: SWFWMD (brochure), SWFWMD and local govern-
ments (distribution), Florida Sea Grant Extension Program
4.2
The FY &N Handbook, produced by the Florida Cooperative Extension
Service (FCES) and the National Estuary Programs of Tampa Bay and
Sarasota Bay, assists residents in designing and maintaining low-mainte-
nance, environmentally beneficial Florida Yards, which minimize fertilizer,
pesticide and water use. Special sections are devoted to waterfront land-
scaping, shoreline enhancement and septic tank maintenance. Local gov-
ernments may arrange for reprints of this publication through FCES or
refer inquiries to local cooperative extension services.
Responsible parties: local governments, FeES
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 Sea Grant (Marine
Extension agents)
SCHEDULE:
All projects can be initiated in 1997 for implementation in 1998. 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.
COST:
NEP is investigating costs to produce: 1. Resource card-WOK quantity, #10 envelope-
size color cardstock, printed 2 sidesfl color; 2. Brochure on shoreline options, 25K
quantity, first run.
Reprint costs for the FY &N handbook are $1 per book. Local governments can
recoup expenses by providing these materials at cost of production as an alternative to
free distribution.
Financial incentives and cost-share programs may be pursued through existing ad val-
orem taxes, river basin boards and local governments.
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.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
BH~6
171
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
BH-.6
172
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Possible amendments to state statutes governing dredge and fill activities.
RELATED ACTIONS:
SW-I, BH-I
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 pernlitting 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 Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) - in 1992 concluded that the majority of mitiga-
tion projects had either never been constructed or failed to comply with the terms of
their permit and did not function properly. The generally low success rate statewide
has been largely attributed to staffing shortfalls and organizational structures that have
traditionally segmented rather than integrated permitting, compliance monitoring and
enforcement functions. Without strong compliance monitoring and enforcement, regu-
lated interests often have little incentive to perform compensatory mitigation in a
manner consistent with the rules.
Wetland mitigation rules are administered by the FDEP, Southwest Florida Water
Management District, and by local governments with delegated or legislative 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 have 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, although the
costs of absorbing these additional responsibilities may be an obstacle.
The state's new Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP) program, which consoli-
dates existing wetland resource, management and storage of surface waters, and
sovereign lands regulatory programs into a single permitting function, is expected to
improve compliance monitoring and enforcement by increasing interagency coordina-
tion and reducing inconsistencies and duplication. Implementation of the ERP will
create key opportunities for the consolidation and reorganization of these functions
within regulatory agencies and participating local governments, and the creation of
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
BH~7
173
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
BH-7
174
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
uniform standards for wetland delineation. Additionally, the Environmental Protection
Commission (EPC) of Hillsborough County is currently developing a Memorandum
of Understanding with SWFWMD which will allow EPC to conduct all wetland com-
pliance and enforcement tasks within Hillsborough County. This agreement would
result in more timely and consistent reviews of mitigation projects, while eliminating
duplication of services and the potential for conflicting compliance criteria.
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. In establishing level-of-service targets,
participants should explore how principles of ecosystem management -
which emphasize overall environmental benefits to the watershed - can be
integrated into permitting and compliance programs. Additionally, they
should evaluate ways to standardize reporting and monitoring methods
between and within agencies.
Recommendations of actions to improve compliance monitoring and
enforcement shall be submitted by the group to the Tampa Bay NEP by
September 1997.
Responsible parties: FDEP and SWFWMD (to organize workshop): par-
ticipants to include U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), EPC, U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission (FGFWFC), and local governments requiring mitigation
through local permitting or seeking delegated authority for wetland per-
mitting
STEP 2 Expand agency and local govennnent 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. The
FDEP's statewide mitigation coordinator may be able to assist in organiz-
ing regular regional training seminars.
Responsible parties: FDEP and SWFWMD, USACOE, EPC, USFWS,
FGFWFC, applicable local governments
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, in which the same personnel that conduct permit
reviews also are responsible for compliance follow-up. Also, encourage
interagency compliance monitoring teams where feasible, including federal
agenCies.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
Responsible parties: FDEP, SWFWMD, EPC, USFWS, FGFWFC,
applicable local governments
STEP 4 Based on recommendations from Step 1, standardize mitigation success cri-
teria as well as monitoring and reporting requirements for created and
restored wetlands.
Responsible parties: FDEP, SWFWMD, EPC, 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 Tampa Bay NEP's
Biennial Environmental Monitoring Report and the Agency on Bay
Management's State of the Bay report.
Responsible parties: FDEP, SWFWMD, EPC, USFWS, FGFWFC,
applicable local governments
SCHEDULE:
A preliminary "scope" for the workshop is requested by May 1997. Recommendations
from the workshop are due September 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. For instance, additional training of wetlands permitting and enforcement per-
sonnel is estimated at $50,000 a year for the first five years of the program, and
$25,000 after that.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Improved permit compliance monitoring, enforcement and reporting.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
See Step 5.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Improved coordination of permitting, compliance and enforcement can be accom-
plished without rule revisions.
RELATED ACTIONS:
NjA
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
BH-7
175
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
BH.8
178
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
govermnents 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 the existing Southwest Florida Water Management District-
Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWFWMD-SWIM) moni-
toring program mapping areal extent of sea grass in Tampa Bay to track
trends in areal extent and progress toward restoration goals.
The extent of seagrass coverage in all areas of Tampa Bay is currently
being monitored by SWFWMD-SWIM every two years. To date, no perma-
nent 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 to track rates of seagrass
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
scarring. The City of Tampa conducts seagrass quality monitoring in
Hillsborough Bay.
SWFWMD-SWIM is conducting the second year of the Seagrass
Conditions Monitoring Program throughout the bay as a pilot project.
Potential entities responsible for conducting biannual seagrass conditions
monitoring in upcoming years remain to be identified.
Responsible parties: SWFWMD, Florida Department of Environmental
Protection-Florida Marine Research Institute (FDEP/FMRl)
STEP 3 Continue existing annual benthic monitoring through 1996. Evaluate results
of the four-year baseline in 1997 and redirect the program as appropriate.
In 1996, sediment toxicity was added to the benthic community and sedi-
ment chemistry analyses.
Responsible parties: Hillsborough, Pinellas and Manatee counties
STEP 4 Develop and implement a monitoring program to track habitat quantity and
quality in coastal marshes, oligohaline habitats and associated uplands, as
well as restored habitats.
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: SWFWMD-SWIM is currently monitoring some of
these elements. Other responsible parties may include FDEP, the Florida
Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, and 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.
The first Biennial Environmental Monitoring Report (BEMR) was released
in 1996. Local monitoring groups evaluated progress toward implementing
the baywide monitoring program in the fall of 1996. Each ongoing moni-
toring 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 integrated 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 warranted.
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 began in 1996. The first biennial
monitoring report was produced in October 1996 as part of an ongoing Tampa Bay
NEP project.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
BH-8
111
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
BH-8...
178
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
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
. Benthic monitoring: $150,000 annually ($115,000 from Hillsborough
County, $19,000 from Pinellas County and $16,000 from Manatee County)
. Estimated marsh/mangrove/coastal upland quality: $40,000 every two years
. BEMR: Production, printing and distribution costs every two years, esti-
mated 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
ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats
FRESHVVATERINFLOVV
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
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 FI
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 many thou-
sands 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.
Local water supply development plans may further restrict the flow of fresh water into
already impacted tributaries and bay segments. For example, the Tampa Water
Resource Recovery Project would remove up to 50 million gallons per day (mgd) of
fresh water currently discharged from the City of Tampa's sewage treatment plant, and
possibly reduce flows to the Tampa Bypass Canal and McKay Bay. However, the pro-
ject also would remove a significant source of excess nitrogen from the bay.
Additionally, the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority plans to remove 7 mgd
from the Alafia River during the first phase of its 1995 Water Resource Development
Plan (1995-2000).
Legislation passed in 1996 requires the Southwest Florida Water Management District
(SWFWMD) to establish minimum flow requirements for priority surface waters in
the northern Tampa Bay area by October 1, 1997. The District already had been work-
ing on a priority list, which includes the lower reaches of the Hillsborough
River/Tampa Bypass Canal. An evaluation of the cumulative environmental impacts
associated with the Tampa reuse project will be conducted as part of the effort to
establish minimum flows for the Hillsborough River.
Recent studies show little overall change in the amount of fresh water 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.
179
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
FI
180
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
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 was finalized in
1996 (see BH-l). The following action focuses on establishing seasonal freshwater
inflows to the bay from rivers impounded by dams.
GOALS FOR FRESHWATER INFLOW
. 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.
ACTION TO ADDRESS FRESHWATER INFLOW
PI-I Establish and maintain minimum seasonal freshwater flows downstream of
dams.
j
j
j
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 fresh water upstream at certain times of
the year.
In this region, potable water for drinking, irrigation and industrial uses comes from
reservoirs and from groundwater sources. 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 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. The statute defines minimum flows as the limits at which further
withdrawals would be "significantly harmful to the water resources or ecology of the
area." Legislation passed in 1996 requires the District to set minimum flows for pri-
ority surface waters in the northern Tampa Bay area by October 1, 1997.
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
(ds) - or roughly 275,000 gallons per day which is the current 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 prior to 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 of the dams.
A minimum flow study is not planned for the Alafia River because the SWFWMD
Needs and Sources Study concluded that water supplies were not needed from the
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
FI.1
181
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
FI-1
182
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
Alafia for the 1990-2020 planning horizon. However, the West Coast Regional Water
Supply Authority (WCRWSA) has recently proposed to remove 7 mgd of fresh water
from the Alafia in the first phase of its 1995 Water Resource Development Plan
(1995-2000).
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 vital information in establishing minimum
flow requirements.
STRATEGY:
This action is to evaluate and set minimum seasonal freshwater inflows to Tampa Bay
from rivers impounded by dams 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.
At the request of SWFWMD, the Tampa Bay NEP convened an advisory
committee in October 1996 to assist in establishing flow requirements for
the HillsboroughfPalm River system by October 1997.
NEP also sponsored an initial workshop on the Manatee River in August
1995, which included local government and agency representatives, scien-
tists, engineers, utilities and community interest groups.
In evaluating available studies, participants are considering:
whether flows to the downstream portions of impounded rivers have
been quantified
if appropriate flows to restore and maintain critical low-salinity
habitats can 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' SWFWMD and local governments
STEP 2 Establish seasonal flow requirements by the state-mandated deadlines for
the Hillsborough, Palm, Manatee and Braden rivers, incorporating recom-
mendations from advisors in Step 1 and considering other socio-economic
and environmental factors.
Responsible parties: SWFWMD
STEP 3 Implement minimum seasonal flows. Implementing parties may evaluate
various options for meeting minimum flow requirements, including water
conservation to reduce demand on impounded water; augmentation of well-
fields or reservoirs with highly treated wastewater or stormwater, as long
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
as public health concerns are addressed; and relocating point source dis-
charges to augment freshwater flows downstream of dams.
Responsible parties: local governments, 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 according to the following state-mandated schedule:
Hillsborough River/Palm River
Manatee, Little Manatee and Braden rivers
October 1, 1997
1999
COST:
Steps 1 and 2 require administrative and staff time. Associated studies are financed by
the local governments seeking permits for water withdrawals. Costs to comply with
seasonal minimum flows (Step 3) will depend on the minimum flow established. One
basis for cost analysis is to compute the cost and yield for various alternative 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 0.425 cfs)
from the existing dam would require new alternative potable water sources, with costs
ranging from an additional $.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 sustain 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 currently spends about $100,000
per year to monitor water quality downstream of the reservoir, about half of the coun-
ty's annual bay monitoring expenditure.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
FI1II1
183
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
FI-1
184
ACTION PLAN
Bay Habitats
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Establishing and maintaining appropriate freshwater inflows to the bay from rivers
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) provide an overall assessment of the 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 the u.s. Geological Survey (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
PHOTO: BURGERT BROTHERS
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 and several species of sand-
piper, 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 wann-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 four (from 1976-1985) to more than 12 (from 1990-1994). Boating
collisions and propeller strikes claimed about 20 percent of the 61 manatees that died
in the bay during this last four-year period.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
FW
185
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
FW
18G
ACTION PLAN
Bay Fish & Wildlife
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 mana-
tee, these larger marine creatures are threatened by accidental boat strikes and inges-
tion 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 landings data show
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
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.
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.
ACTION PLAN Bay Fish & Wildlife
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS FOR FISH & WILDLIFE
FW-I
Increase on-water enforcement of environmental regulations.
FW-2
Establish and enforce manatee protection zones.
FW-3 Support bay scallop restoration.
FW-4 Assess the need to investigate the cumulative impacts of power plant
entrainment on bay fisheries.
FW-5 Continue and expand the Critical Fisheries Monitoring Program.
[Note: Many of the strategies to support fisheries and wildlife focus on water
quality and bay habitats. Please refer to the bay Action Plans addressing Water
Quality and Bay Habitats for these related actions.]
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
FW
187
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
FW-1\
lBB
ACTION PLAN
Bay Fish & Wildlife
Increase On-Water 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 allocated for
marine law enforcement. Remaining revenues are split among the Marine Fisheries
Commission (2.5 percent), administration (5 percent), and a state environmental edu-
cation 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. In the first few years the license fees were collected,
most of the revenues allocated to marine law enforcement were spent on capital outlay
expenditures such as boats and vehicles. However, with those needs now addressed, it
is possible that more of the revenues dedicated to law enforcement may be used to
hire additional personnel.
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 saltwater fish-
ing licenses and special stamps statewide in FY 93-94, about 17 percent or $2.3 mil-
lion was allocated by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) to
the Florida Marine Patrol (FMP) for statewide law enforcement. It is not known how
much of that allocation came back to the Tampa Bay region (FMP, District IV*),
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
ACTION PLAN
Bay Fish & Wildlife
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" that
results in few or no net increases in available funding to address resource needs.
The FMP, a part of the state's Division of Law Enforcement, enforces state saltwater
fishing regulations, boating safety rules and other wildlife and habitat protection mea-
sures. 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 offi-
cers 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 one or two officers per shift per
county for nearly 100,000 registered recreational boats. Local municipal marine
enforcement units (financed in Hillsborough, Pinellas and several other counties by
local boater registration add-on fees) pick up the slack in some areas, but cannot pro-
vide the coverage needed to effectively monitor the 400-square-mile bay and adjoin-
ing 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 COllnty, south to Sarasota County and east to
Polk and Highland counties.
STRATEG Y:
This strategy calls for a review of Salt Water 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.
STEP 1 Conduct a workshop to review allocations and expenditures of Salt Water
Fishing License revenues, as well as general revenue and other related
expenditures by the FDEP marine law enforcement division statewide. The
workshop should explore alternatives for increasing enforcement spending
- including a reallocation of Salt Water Fishing License revenues - and
involve representatives of the FDEP in Tallahassee, the Agency on Bay
Management (ABM) and other interested parties.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEp' FDEP, ABM
STEP 2 Depending on the results of the workshop, pursue options for increasing
environmental enforcement capabilities in Tampa Bay. If a reallocation of
Salt Water Fishing License revenues is deemed the best solution, NEP may
consider a fonnallegislative request to require that a minimum percentage
of Salt Water Fishing License revenues be directed to marine law enforce-
ment.
Responsible parties: ABM, Tampa Bay NEp' FDEP
STEP 3 Explore partnerships between the FMP and boat manufacturers to provide
new boats to new marine officers to help maximize available dollars for
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
FW.1
189
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
FW.1
190
ACTION PLAN
Bay Fish & Wildlife
marine enforcement.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEp' FDEP/FMP, boat manufacturers
STEP 4 Continue to monitor Salt Water Fishing License revenues to ensure an equi-
table distribution of proceeds as outlined in the original legislation.
Monitoring information could be included in the Tampa Bay NEP's
Biennial Environmental Monitoring Report and the ABM's annual State of
the Bay report.
Responsible parties: FDEP, ABM, Tampa Bay NEP
SCHEDULE:
All steps will be initiated in 1997.
COST:
This action stresses a reallocation of existing funds, rather than new expenditures, to
address environmental enforcement needs.
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:
FMP can provide information annually on enforcement actions and associated benefits
to the resource. District IV is encouraged to provide this information in the State of
the Bay report published annually by the ABM. Additionally, information on Salt
Water Fishing License revenues, and local allocations, can be included in the Biennial
Environmental Monitoring report of the Tampa Bay NEP.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Possible revisions to the state Salt Water Fishing License Rule.
RELATED ACTIONS:
FW-2, BH-3
* Revenue and salt water fishing license data provided by FDEP, August 1995
ACTION PLAN
Bay Fish & Wildlife
Establish and Enforce
Manatee Protection Zones
ACTION:
Enact local ordinances designating manatee protection zones in Tampa Bay.
Encourage the use of boat propeller guards throughout the bay.
BACKGROUND:
Research continues to bolster evidence that Tampa Bay is an important year-round or
seasonal home to many imperiled manatees, which are protected under the federal
Endangered Species Act. In fact, as many as 200 of the more than 2,600 manatees
remaining in the state seek refuge in the winter at the warm-water discharges sur-
rounding the bay's power plants. Additionally, the bay's sea grass meadows and
numerous natural and manmade freshwater sources provide critical feeding and gath-
ering areas for manatees 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. However, many communities are using boater safety zones for man-
atee protection.
Increases in manatee deaths associated with propeller strikes or collisions 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 164 manatee deaths verified in the bay area from 1976 through March 1996,34, or
21 percent, died from collisions with watercraft.
Manatee researchers with the Florida Marine Research Institute (FMRI) have identi-
fied several 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. Among these sites are:
warm-water outfalls of Tampa Electric Company's Big Bend power plants (winter
sanctuaries)
the warm-water outfall of Florida Power Corporation's Bartow power plant (win-
ter sanctuary) and adjacent seagrass beds near Weedon Island (feeding area)
Culbreath Bayou in Tampa (seagrass beds and freshwater source)
Anna Maria Sound near Perico Island (seagrasses)
lower Manatee River near Palmetto (fresh water and sea grasses)
upper Braden River near Bradenton (freshwater source)
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
FW-2
191
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
FW.2
192
ACTION PLAN
Bay Fish & Wildlife
Hillsborough River near Sulphur Springs (fresh water)
portions of Terra Ceia Bay
portions of McKay Bay (seagrasses)
the mouth of the Little Manatee River up to E.G. Simmons Park (seagrass beds)
the Rocky Point area, southwest side of the Courtney Campbell Causeway (sea-
grass beds)
A joint meeting of the Tampa Bay NEP and the Agency on Bay Management (ABM)
was held in November 1996 to discuss the justification and ramifications of establish-
ing manatee protection zones in Tampa Bay. Participants concluded that a formal
workgroup composed of environmental officials, manatee researchers and other inter-
ested parties should be created to develop specific recommendations.
Designation of manatee protection zones could be done unilaterally by local govern-
ments, or in conjunction with rules developed by the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP). Creation of zones by local ordinance is generally
faster than the state rulemaking process and should be pursued first, followed by state
adoption if necessary. Once designated, maximum boating speeds and entry restric-
tions 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 cer-
tain 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 adjust-
ed 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 investigating sources of additional
funding for the FMP. Possible sources include a local boater registration add-on fee
(already in place in Pinellas and Hillsborough counties) or a reallocation of revenues
from the state Salt Water Fishing License. (See FW-1 for a more extensive discussion
of these options.)
Enforcement also could be enhanced through public education, as well as citizen mon-
itoring 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 throughout
Tampa Bay. These guards, which now are manufactured commercially and cost about
$100 each, also can protect the bay's seagrasses from propeller damage and reduce
human injuries from boat propellers. Newer prop guard models have made substantial
progress in resolving concerns about boat performance, and the FDEP's Bureau of
Protected Species Management has budgeted money in FY 97-98 to test the various
models on the market.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Fish & Wildl~fe
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Establish a workgroup to explore recommendations for establishing mana-
tee protection zones in Tampa Bay. The workgroup's members should
include environmental officials, manatee researchers and representatives
from environmental and boating clubs, as well as boat manufacturers. The
workgroup should submit recommendations to the NEP Policy Committee
by September 1997.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEp' ABM, FDEP
STEP 2 Implement recommendations from Step 1, including adoption of zones
through local ordinances and installation of signs denoting protection areas.
Responsible parties: FDEP, local governments,
STEP 3 Increase funding for the FMP in Tampa Bay (see Action FW-I) and local
law enforcement marine units to ensure adequate enforcement of boating
speed and entry restrictions within the manatee protection zones. Among
the possible revenue sources are a local boater registration add-on fee, or
reallocation of state Saltwater Fishing License fees.
Responsible parties: Local governments, Florida Legislature (for Salt
Water Fishing License revenues)
STEP 4 Organize and train qualified volunteers to monitor and report speed or entry
violations within the protection zones. Volunteers also could assist with
monitoring new zones to gauge the effectiveness of the restrictions.
Responsible parties: FDEP, working with local environmental action
groups such as Tampa Bay Watch and the FMP's Coast Watch program.
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: FDEPjFMRI
STEP 6 Promote the use of propeller guards to avoid injuring manatees throughout
Tampa Bay.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay Watch, Florida Conservation Association,
local boating and environmental groups and fishing clubs
SCHEDULE:
Steps 1-4 can be initiated in 1997, with appropriate rulemaking and financing in place
in 1998. Step 6 also be can initiated in 1997, with demonstrations of the propeller
guards to various boating and fishing groups. Step 5 is an ongoing project that should
continue indefinitely.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
FW..2
193
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
FW.2
194
ACTION PLAN
Bay Fish & Wildlife
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 through a local
boater registration add-on fee, or through a greater allocation of revenues from the
state Salt Water Fishing License. Enforcement revenues also could be generated
through legislative authorization of a law requiring local governments to transfer 25
percent of funds received in fines and penalties to the FDEP's FMP for those viola-
tions where arrests were made by FMP officers. The funds received from those trans-
fers 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:
FDEPjFMRI currently monitors manatee abundance, distribution and mortality in
Tampa Bay. These reports can be incorporated within the Tampa Bay NEP's Biennial
Environmental Monitoring Report.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
Passage of local ordinances designating manatee zones. Legislative action also may be
needed to ensure adequate funding for FMP and local enforcement of the restrictions.
RELATED ACTIONS:
FW-l, BH-3
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 water pollution was a key factor in the collapse of
this higWy 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 jump-start a sustainable
population.
To assist recovery, the Tampa Bay NEP has supported pilot projects by the University
of South Florida (US F) 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.
The Tampa Bay NEP also sponsored a study through the Florida Marine Research
Institute (FMRI) to evaluate the effectiveness of existing stocking strategies. That
study, completed in January 1996, indicates that current efforts can be successful, but
must be continued for several years to compensate for variations in habitat quality and
weather that may dramatically affect year-to-year scallop reproduction and survival.
For example, an extensive red tide that plagued the Southwest Florida coast in 1995
adversely affected the survival of bay scallops that year.
Funding from the Program also supported the second phase of this project, which has
allowed USF to seed an additional 100,000 juvenile scallops with the help of citizen
volunteers. 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. This effort was repeated in 1996. The caged mollusks were placed at protected
sites in Ft. DeSoto Park Aquatic Preserve where they could safely spawn.
Another NEP-initiated project, the Great Bay Scallop Search, dispatches teams of
snorkelers yearly to designated portions of the bay to look for live scallops produced
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
FW.3
195
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
FW-3
198
ACTION PLAN
Bay Fish & Wildlife
as a result of the transplanting and seeding efforts. The most recent Scallop Search, con-
ducted in September 1996 and sponsored by Tampa BayWatch, found 75 scallops in
seagrass meadows within Boca Ciega Bay, Pinellas Point and Ft. DeSoto.
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Identify funding sources to continue the scallop stocking program, which is
directed by USE The USF scallop laboratory is currently shut down due to
lack of funding. Initial projects, which involved the seeding of almost
250,000 stock, and the placement of an additional 100,000 juvenile scallops
at waterfront docks in the southern portion of the bay, have been completed.
Additional work would support placement of as many as two million lab-
reared scallops annually in the bay over a period of about five years.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEp, USF, FMRI
STEP 2 Monitor the bay to assess trends in scallop recovery. A study by FMRI
researchers concluded that volunteer surveys such as the Great Bay Scallop
Search are successful and should be continued, but an expanded monitoring
program may be needed if scallop populations in the bay increase substantial-
ly.
Responsible party: Tampa Bay Watch (for the Great Bay Scallop Search),
FMRI
STEP 3 Fully evaluate the stocking program in Tampa Bay in 1999 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 tech-
niques that may be more cost-effective. Provide recommendations to the
Tampa Bay Management Board.
Responsible party: Tampa Bay NEP staff
SCHEDULE:
The first stocking project was accomplished in 1992-1993, followed by additional seed-
ing of scallops in 1994-1995. Further stocking efforts are on hold pending funding
availability. Monitoring of scallop populations and distribution began in 1994, and will
continue yearly. A comprehensive evaluation of the success of the stocking program will
be conducted in 1999.
COST:
Scallop costs for Phase 3, which is pending, are estimated at $.05 each, which includes
administrative support and overhead. Placing 2,000,000 scallops annually would cost
about $100,000. Costs for monitoring and program performance review are to be deter-
mined.
ACTION PLAN
Bay Fish & Wildlife
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 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:
BH-l, BH-3, BH-4
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
FW-3
197
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
FW-4
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 (TECO's) Big Bend, Gannon and Hooker's
Point facilities and Florida Power Corporation's (FPC's) Higgins and Bartow plants
(FPC's Higgins Plant is not currently operating). Open-cycle, or once-through, cooling
is the most economical method of condensing steam from the turbines of steam elec-
tric 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,
according to a Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) study, another
impact 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, chemical 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 diffi-
cult to assess the impact of power plant entrainment on overall bay fisheries popula-
tions.
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, and only
two of the bay's five power plants have been required to conduct extensive studies of
their fisheries impacts under Clean Water Act regulations. The cumulative impacts of
multiple facilities on the fish populations of the bay have not been evaluated or con-
sidered.
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
unique nature of each facility's operating processes, along with a lack of suitable
ACTION PLAN
Bay Fish & Wildlife
background information on fish populations and the effects of other human-related
impacts such as fishing, may make a study on entrainment inconclusive.
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.
Entrainment and impingement studies financed by power companies in the Hudson
River exceeded $2 million a year for monitoring and $1 million for analysis. An eight-
week entrainment sampling effort required for a TEeO permit renewal cost $250,000.
And while some techniques to decrease entrainment are relatively low in cost (i.e.,
TEeO'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. These costs potentially could be reduced by
the utilization of alternative sources of water, such as wastewater or industrial efflu-
ent, and further investigation of such alternative technologies should be encouraged.
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. EPA is currently involved in a national workgroup
that is examining the biological effects of power plants, and this effort may lead to
new regulations requiring power plants to minimize those impacts. This action encour-
ages the participation of local and state regulators in the workgroup to assist them in
reaching a consensus on whether a cumulative impacts study of power plants in
Tampa Bay is warranted.
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Participate in the EPA national workgroup on power plant entrainment.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEp' FDEP, Florida Marine Research
Institute (FMRI), local power plant representatives
STEP 2 Depending on the results of the EPA workgroup, determine whether a
cumulative impacts study is necessary and justified. If it is, local, state and
federal regulators 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. The plan should be compatible with any new federal
regulations adopted by EPA.
Responsible parties: EPA, FDEP, FMRI, local power plant representa-
tives
STEP 3 If warranted, amend state rules to require a cumulative impact review for
all future power plant siting and operating permits located on Tampa Bay
or its tributaries.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEp' local power plants, FDEP
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
FW.4
199
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
FW..4
200
ACTION PLAN
Bay Fish & Wildlife
SCHEDULE:
Step 1 was initiated in 1996 and workshops will continue through 1997, with regula-
tory action to be proposed in 1999 and implemented in 2001. Steps 2 and 3 are contin-
gent upon Step 1. 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 fur-
ther action to reduce entrainment, beyond what new federal rules may require.
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
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Enhanced fish stocks in Tampa Bay.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
FDEP is the state agency responsible for power plant siting and permitting. EPA also
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, ES.).
RELATED ACTIONS:
FW-5
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 tributaries of the bay.
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 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 state 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 macro invertebrates in Tampa Bay. The strati-
fied random sampling divides the bay into six 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-station
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 $2 million was allocated statewide to Critical Fisheries Monitoring in fiscal
year 1995-1996, with about $500,000 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. Oligohaline segments of the
Hillsborough and Palm rivers and numerous tidal creeks in Upper Tampa Bay, such as
Double Branch Creek and Rocky Creek, are not assessed. The existing program could
be expanded to include more oligohaline areas, using cost-effective fixed-station mon-
itoring. Additionally, a quick visual examination of fish and invertebrates for the pres-
ence of visible lesions could be added to assist bay mangers in tracking the long-term
movement of toxic contaminants through the bay system.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
FW.5
201
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
FW.5
202
ACTION PLAN
Bay Fish & Wildlife
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Evaluate the need and costs to expand CFMP into small tributaries and
oligohaline areas, and identify candidate tributaries.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (NEP) and
FDEP/FMRI
STEP 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 where the affected fish were caught.
Responsible parties: FDEP/FMRI
STEP 3 Incorporate results of the CFMP in Tampa Bay in the Biennial
Environmental Monitoring Report, and redirect sampling efforts as needed.
Responsible parties: FDEP/FMRI, Tampa Bay NEP
SCHEDULE:
The Tampa Bay NEP and FDEP/FMRI will evaluate the feasibility of expanding fish-
eries sampling and develop a formal recommendation by April 1997. The detection of
lesions indicative of toxic contamination could begin in 1997. The first expanded sam-
pling also could begin in 1997.
COST:
The estimated annual cost for the current Tampa Bay sampling program is $500,000.
The cost of sampling 6-7 additional sites is estimated at $50,000, based on salary esti-
mates 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 revenue
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:
FMRI 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-1, TX-3, BH-1, FW-1, FW-3, FW-4
Dredging to create Davis
Islands, Tampa (1925).
Dredging & Dredged
Material Management
Coordination among local ports and bay interests in long-term planning for
dredging and dredged material management is essential to minimize environ-
mental impacts and costs, address disposal needs, and maximize opportunities
to use spoil material for beneficial uses such as habitat restoration.
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. Dredging
can benefit the bay by removing contaminated sediments and improving circulation in
poorly flushed areas. But it also takes a toll by clouding the water and impacting bot-
tom life in localized areas. Inertial ammonia also may be released to the water column
and atmosphere as a result of dredging sediments with high organic content.
Disposal of dredged material presents another important challenge. Deepening of the
40-mile main shipping channel in the 1970s required the removal of up to 100 million
cubic yards of sediment. Maintenance dredging to support the bay's three commercial
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
DR
203
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
DR
204
ACTION PLAN
Dredging & Dredged MaterialManagement
ports removes another 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 (USACOE) 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 extensiv~ network of finger-fill canals serving residential com-
munities. These needs should be assessed and recognized in developing environmen-
tally 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 20 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, which has required only limited maintenance dredging due to
low deposition rates and natural flushing. Although the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (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. High silt content, shipping distances and associated costs currently pre-
clude use of this site to accommodate the vast quantities of material generated in the
bay's upper sector.
Coordination of individual port plans by the USACOE, 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 channels.
This effort received a boost in 1996 when the NEP committed $40,000 to assist the
Corps in developing a long-range dredging and dredged material management plan for
Tampa Bay (see DR-I). Momentum already was building, thanks to a 1995 state-
financed study by the port authorities that explored areas of mutual concern and
includes a recommendation for shared dredge disposal sites.
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
. Improve planning and coordination for dredging and long-term spoil dis-
posal.
. Minimize environmental impacts associated with dredging and spoil dis-
posal.
. Maximize beneficial uses of dredged material for purposes such as habitat
restoration.
ACTION PLAN
Dredging & Dredged Material Management
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS FOR DREDGING
& DREDGE MATERIAL MANAGEMENT
DR-l Develop a long-term, coordinated dredging and dredged material manage-
ment plan for Tampa Bay.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
..<DR
205
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
DR-1
208
ACTION PLAN
Dredging & Dredged Material Management
Develop a Long-Term Dredging and Dredged
Material Management Plan for Tampa Bay
ACTION:
Develop a long-term management plan that coordinates the individual dredging and
dredged material management plans of the bay's three major seaports, as well as utili-
ties and industries and other users that rely on the bay's navigational channels.
BACKGROUND:
Tampa Bay serves three major seaports managed by independent port authorities.
Various utilities and industries also share the bay's 40-mile-Iong deep-water 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 (USACOE), as the major coordinator and sponsor of dredging projects in
the bay, has tentatively agreed to direct this comprehensive planning effort with fund-
ing assistance from the NEP.
With an average depth of only 12 feet, regular dredging of ship channels and berths is
needed to serve area ports 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, which has only been partially
addressed. It also allows bay managers to explore options for beneficial uses of spoil
material, minimize impacts to nesting birds on spoil islands, and promote best avail-
able technologies to reduce sediment resuspension during dredging.
In fact, local port authorities already have begun working together to examine mutual
concerns and foster cooperation. A study conducted for Tampa Bay's port authorities
and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) in 1995 cited the establishment
and maintenance of shared dredged material disposal sites as one of 13 recommenda-
tions adopted by the participants.
The Tampa Port Authority (TPA) estimates that about 840,000 cubic yards of material
will be generated annually to maintain the upper part of the main ship channel, which
extends south to the Gadsen Point widener. Long-term disposal needs will exceed the
remaining capacity of the Port Authority's two spoil islands in Hillsborough Bay (esti-
mated to be about 6 million cubic yards) in about seven years.
TPA has proposed to meet the shortfall by raising the islands' perimeter dikes from
20-30 feet, a strategy being reviewed by TPA's engineering department, as well as the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the USACOE, which
issues and periodically reassesses the port's maintenance dredging permit.
ACTION PLAN
Dredging & Dredged Material Management
Maintenance dredging of the main ship channel between Gadsen Point and the mouth
of Tampa Bay is expected to generate about another 200,000 cubic yards of material a
year. Dredged material from the lower segment of that channel (below Cut B) will be
placed at a recently approved ocean disposal site 18 miles from the bay's entrance.
There are no long-tenn 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 1.3 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 mate-
rial each year. The Port Authority will contain all constrnction and maintenance dredg-
ing material at several upland sites on its property. These sites can accommodate
material for at least another 25 years.
The Port of St. Petersburg, the smallest of the bay's three major seaports, will rely on
the ocean disposal site for its sporadic dredging needs, unless cost-effective beneficial
uses are identified for the material.
An unknown factor is how private facilities throughout the bay plan to dispose of their
dredged material, an issue which should be addressed in long-tenn plamling scenarios.
A strong emphasis on coordinated plalming is reflected in 1996 guidance from the
National Dredging Team, a consortium of federal agencies led by the EPA, Corps of
Engineers and Department of Transportation. The draft guidance calls for the creation
of regional planning committees to aid in the development of dredged material man-
agement plans.
STRATEGY:
This strategy calls for the 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 Tampa Bay Dredging and Dredged Material Management
Committee, directed by the Corps of Engineers and co-chaired by the
FDEP, to develop and implement a long-term management plan. The
Committee should include the bay's three major seaports, port-related
industries and utilities, major commercial/private ports, government agen-
cies, local governments, recreational and environnlental interests and a rep-
resentative of Egmont Key State Park. The Tampa Port Authority's existing
Dredge Advisory and Migratory Bird committees, which include many of
these same parties, may provide an initial membership base.
The Dredging and Dredged Material Management Plan for Tampa Bay
should:
coordinate existing port and industry plans for dredging and
dredged material management; identify capacity short-falls; and
develop a long-range strategy that integrates these plans to mini-
mize costs and environmental impacts
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
DR.1
207
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
DR-1
208
ACTION PLAN Dredging & Dredged Material Management
explore long-term options for the disposal of spoil material, includ-
ing beneficial uses such as habitat restoration
promote best available technologies to reduce sediment resuspen-
sion and nutrient releases during dredging, spoil disposal and con-
tainment
Responsible parties: USACOE and FDEP, in cooperation with local port
authorities and the Committee
STEP 2 Develop a 25-year plan for the management of maintenance material
removed from the southern segment of the main ship channel from the
Gadsen Point widener to the point where the main shipping channel enters
the bay. The Corps should develop the plan in consultation with the
Committee established in step 1. The Plan should be consistent with 1996
draft guidance from the National Dredging Team.
As part of the overall plan:
Determine status of long-term spoil disposal plans for privately
maintained shipping channels in the Bay, particularly channels serv-
ing Big Bend and other utilities.
Responsible parties: USACOE, in cooperation with local ports and the
Committee
SCHEDULE:
With funding assistance from NEP, the project is expected to get underway in Spring
1997.
COST:
The Tampa Bay NEP has set aside $40,000 to assist the Corps in developing a long-
term management plan. The Corps is contributing a minimum of $5,000 in-kind ser-
vices. In-kind support also is anticipated from the area's three port authorities, the
FDOT and other entities serving on 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
uses of spoil material, while fostering cooperation that is likely to yield cost-savings
for community-supported port authorities. Removal of muck from channels also can
help to improve water quality in localized areas.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
The USACOE will be responsible for monitoring progress on long-range plan-
ning and. implementation.
ACTION PLAN
Dredging & Dredged Material Management
Tampa Bay Shipping Channels
St. Petersburg
00
O--n
o mi.
SOURCE: TAMPA PORT AUTHORITY
Tampa
::r,
Rattlesnake
t'"
t"'"
t/l
toto
;>0
>-<'"
o
c::'. g
o~
....J
::r,5:
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
N
A
209
CHARTING
theCOURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
DR-1
210
ACTION PLAN
Dredging & Dredged Material Management
REGULATORY NEEDS:
None anticipated.
RELATED ACTIONS:
BH-l
August 10, 1993 - A
Brown Pelican surveys
the scene in the
aftermath of a fiery,
three vessel collision at
the mouth of Tampa Bay
that left more than
300,000 gallons of oil
in its wake.
....',,'~
PHOTO: PETER CLARK, TAMPA BAYWATCH
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 haz-
ardous materials spills. Securing a permanent source of funding for the mainte-
nance of the bay's Physical Oceanographic Real-Time Systems (PORTS), which pro-
vides valuable tide and current data to commercial and recreational boaters, also is a
priority.
On average, about 4 billion gallons of oil and other hazardous materials pass through
Tampa Bay each year on huge ships the size of modern skyscrapers. These ships tra-
verse a long, relatively narrow shipping channel that leaves little room for navigation-
al errors.
In addition, billions of gallons of hazardous materials and chemicals - including
petroleum products, phosphoric and sulfuric acid and anhydrous ammonia - are
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
SP
211
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
SP
212
ACTION PLAN
Spill Prevention & Response
stored in tanks at various ports and industrial facilities along the bay. While spill pre-
vention efforts are essential for all hazardous materials, they are particularly signifi-
cant in dealing with highly toxic, water-soluble compounds such as anhydrous ammo-
nia or sulfuric acid. A spill of these materials could have a severe, although relatively
short-term, impact on the bay's fish and wildlife and 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. More extensive damage
was averted due to favorable tide and weather conditions and quick deployment of
response crews.
Federal law requires that commercial shippers and facilities be capable of handling the
cleanup of a worst -case scenario oil or fuel spill. However, large spills can require that
additional equipment and personnel be brought in from other parts of the state and
Gulf region. That makes effective advance planning and coordination essential.
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 represents a chronic problem.
MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
Prevent catastrophic spills of oil and other hazardous materials.
Reduce chronic smaller discharges from boats, ships, marinas and other sources.
Minimize the environmental impact of spills through plamling 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 Evaluate and update spill response plans for priority areas.
SP-3 Improve fueling and bilge-pumping practices among recreational boaters.
ADDITIONALLY...
The Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (NEP) has recommended that the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Emergency Response and Removal Branch
sponsor a local workshop to assist operators of oil transport and storage facilities in
complying with the mandates imposed by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. The work-
shop would help dispel the confusion over the differing requirements of EPA, the
Coast Guard and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. An estimated
471 million gallons of oil are stored in tanks at area ports. EPA is considering the
request.
Improving state authority over harbor pilots is another issue that merits further atten-
ACTION PLAN
Spill Prevention & Response
tion. 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.
Highly skilled and locally knowledgeable harbor pilots are the first line of defense
against accidents. They are especially important given that there presently are no
emergency anchorages available for ships to pull into in case of an 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.
The 1993 oil spill served as the catalyst for a re-examination of the current oversight
mechanisms. Following the spill, the Legislature passed a bill expanding the grounds
for discipline 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.
Despite these improvements, additional changes could further reduce the risk of a spill
or collision in the bay. One proposal is for Florida to follow the federal policy of
requiring a pilot to prove that he is not negligent if he hits a fixed object. Under feder-
allaw, a pilot must show that the ship malfunctioned, someone disobeyed orders or
some other factor led to the accident. Another proposal is for voice recorders to be
placed on ships to document an accident. These proposals, and steps to ensure ade-
quate continuing education for harbor pilots, deserve careful consideration.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
213
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
SP-1
214
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. Additionally, secure a permanent funding source for the
bay's Physical Oceanographic Real-Time System (PORTS), which provides real-time
tide and current data to commercial and recreational 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. More
than 4,000 ships enter Tampa Bay each year, transporting over 4 billion gallons of oil,
petroleum products and other hazardous materials.
Guiding large vessels 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 system for
the bay increases this pressure, as well as the potential for spills resulting from acci-
dents.
Currently, pilots and ship captains on Tampa Bay rely on a radio broadcast network to
exchange 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 per-
sonal knowledge and skills to safely complete each transit.
Tampa Bay was one of several ports scheduled to receive a U.S. Coast Guard Vessel
Traffic System (VTS) in 2002, although federal funds have not been appropriated and
the acquisition appears unlikely. The proposed system's exclusive reliance on radar is
another important limitation. While radar can pierce fog and darkness, its accuracy
and range is limited in heavy rain. Severe and sudden thunderstorms - a summer sig-
nature in Tampa Bay - can reduce visibility and radar capabilities to zero, increasing
the potential for groundings and accidents.
Differential global positioning systems (DPGS) can reduce or eliminate these risks.
DPGS transmits high-precision data on vessel movements in all weather conditions,
using a lap-top computer that can be carried aboard or installed on ships. The device
enables pilots to view the position and movement of vessels in real time. Collision-
avoidance data and weather information also are provided, and the system can be fully
integrated with radar surveillance to provide 100 percent coverage of vessel traffic on
Tampa Bay. When combined with shore-based radar, DGPS provides the safest avail-
able means for navigation. This added protection is particularly vital in Tampa Bay,
ACTION PLAN
Spill Prevention & Response
which has the longest transit of any port in Florida and no intermediate deep-draft
anchorages.
The Tampa Bay NEP supports implementation of the best available DPGS technology
as soon as possible. A 1995 state legislative report confirmed the need for a more
sophisticated system and led to the formation of a Tampa Bay Area Vessel Traffic and
Information Service (VTIS) Consortium to investigate options and develop an imple-
mentation plan. The group includes the area's three port authorities, the Coast Guard
and representatives of local shipping and piloting interests.
A preliminary report released by the Consortium in March 1996 suggests a phased
implementation, beginning with upgrades to the existing system. A $40,000 grant
from the NEP will be used to purchase a closed-circuit television for surveillance at
Pendola Point near the Port of Tampa to augment a system proposed for installation at
the Skyway Bridge. NEP funds also will provide a multi-chalmel transceiver to back
up existing communications and recording equipment in the event of an equipment or
power failure. These components are part of an overall plan for a formal Vessel Traffic
Information Service (VTIS) jointly operated by the Coast Guard and the Tampa Bay
maritime community.
The Tampa Bay NEP also supports permanent funding for the ongoing management of
Tampa Bay's PORTS system, which provides vital 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 quickly and carefully execute contain-
ment and cleanup plans. In the 1995 spill, PORTS was instrumental in tracking and
predicting the movement of the oil slick.
In recent years, the PORTS system has received funding from maritime industries, the
Hillsborough County phosphate severance tax, the Coastal Protection Trust Fund and
the Florida Department of Transportation for maintenance of the system. However, no
permanent funding has been secured.
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Support efforts to implement a VTIS utilizing the best available technology
as soon as possible.
Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEp' in cooperation with local govern-
ments and the Tampa Bay VTIS Consortium
STEP 2 Secure a permanent source of funding for PORTS.
Responsible parties: local governments and Florida Legislature
SCHEDULE:
The final VTIS implementation plan was submitted to the Florida Legislature in
November 1996. The NEP already has committed $40,000 for upgrades to the existing
navigational monitoring system. Step 2 is ongoing.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
SP-1
215
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
SP~1
218
ACTION PLAN
Spill Prevention & Response
COST:
Sources estimate that a combined DGPS-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 Florida Coastal Protection
Trust Fund (FCPTF).
Ongoing maintenance funding for the $1.2-million federally financed PORTS system,
which was installed in 1991, is estimated at $220,000. Funding options include: coun-
ty boater registration fees, navigation districts, port user fees, FCPTF, Hillsborough
County phosphate severance tax. The last two sources currently provide maintenance
funding, but long-term commitments have not been secured.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
A combined vessel traffic and information system and real-time weather and current
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
ACTION PLAN
Spill Prevention & Response
Evaluate and Update Spill Response Plans for
Priority Areas in Tampa Bay
ACTION:
Develop detailed spill response plans for environmentally sensitive areas of Tampa
Bay to enable quick and effective deployment of crews and containment/cleanup
equipment in the event of an oil or hazardous materials spill.
BACKGROUND:
A scientific support subcommittee participating in the development of Tampa Bay's
Area Contingency Plan (ACP) - the U.S. Coast Guard's strategic plan for responding
to oil spills in Southwest Florida - met several years ago to prioritize areas of the
bay most vulnerable to spills and develop site-specific response strategies. The seven
priority areas, and recommended protection strategies, identified by the group were:
Terra Ceia Bay - Block off sensitive inner embayments and direct oil east to a
causeway collection area.
Bishop 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 River 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 the island's own spill response plan and direct materi-
al 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 materials
collection areas; access points; boat ramps and channel markers; and water depths.
The group also urged the installation of permanent boom anchors, where appropriate
and technically feasible, to improve spill response and reduce boom deployment time.
Overall response planning has been aided by a computerized forecasting and analysis
program developed by the Florida Marine Research Institute (FMRI). That analysis
program was tailored for use in Tampa Bay in 1996 with NEP funding. The Marine
Spill Analysis System includes a series of data layers depicting existing conditions in
the bay, sensitive resources and physical landmarks such as roads and boat ramps. The
system can be used to create maps that show the extent of a spill and project its
course.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
SP-2
217
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
Sp.~..2i..
218
ACTION PLAN
Spill Prevention & Response
STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Reconvene the ACP's scientific support subcommittee to evaluate and
update response plans for each of the seven priority sites identified. Ensure
that these plans are consistent with the methodology employed in the
development of the Tidal Inlet Protection Strategies for Oil Spill Response
for the Southwest Coast of Florida, a 1995 report based on research by the
Marine Spill Response Corporation and the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP).
Responsible parties: U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office, in coopera-
tion with FMRI, FDEP and NEP
STEP 2 Continue to work with the FDEP, Coast Guard and local emergency
response groups to ensure consistency in planning and response strategies.
Responsible parties: NEP
SCHEDULE:
All steps will be initiated in 1997.
COST:
To be determined, based on recommendations of the subcommittee and the scope of
planning.
EXPECTED BENEFITS:
Detailed response plans for these priority areas will help protect the bay's most envi-
ronmentally sensitive resources and enable quick and effective deployment of
response crews and equipment.
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:
The FDEP's Bureau of Emergency Response monitors the environmental impacts
from and response to oil spills.
REGULATORY NEEDS:
None anticipated
RELATED ACTIONS:
SP-1
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, 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 outboard motors, dis-
charges of oily bilge water and improper disposal of used oil products. 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 cumula-
tive 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 auto-
matically 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 owners
often can't tell when the tank is full until the overflow valve discharges diesel or gaso-
line into the bay.
Federal and state laws prohibit the discharge of any fuel or oil within 12 nautical
miles of shore. As little as a single cup of fuel can cause a "fuel sheen," which is a
misdemeanor 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.
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
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
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
SP-3
219
Cffi\RTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
SP:3.
220
ACTION PLAN
Spill Prevention & Response
Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (NEP), boaters are more concerned than land-
bound residents about environmental impacts, so heightened awareness may acceler-
ate 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
for a pump-out, which pays for the proper disposal of drums.
Use of existing commercial products can assist these efforts. Bilge pillows, diapers
and oil-absorbent pads, available at most marine stores, act like magnets in separating
oil from bilge water. Boat owners put them in their bilges and dispose of saturated
pads, oil-water mixtures and other hazardous boat chemicals in a proper waste con-
tainer or with a recycler. Various oil-water 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 who 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 education 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.
STEP 1 Encourage registered boat owners to install fuel overfill protection devices
and fuel-water and oil-water separators in automatic bilge pumps.
Responsible parties: Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP), U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary, Marine Manufacturers Association,
Florida Sea Grant
STEP 2 Develop educational materials that will stimulate solutions to bilge contam-
ination 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 GuardAuxiliary, SEA PART-
NERS, Florida Sea Grant
Note: Extensive educational material produced by manufacturers and
other boater environmental education programs (Puget Sound Alliance,
ACTION PLAN
Spill Prevention & Response
Chesapeake Bay Foundations, Center for Marine Conservation [CMC]
etc.) already exists and can be tailored for local use.
STEP 3 Distribute 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 speak-
ers 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 Auxiliary, SEA PART-
NERS, Florida Sea Grant, CMC
SCHEDULE:
The Tampa Bay National Estuary Program will enlist the organizations listed above to
evaluate on-going programs and materials, and develop a plan to implement the steps
outlined above in 1997.
COST:
Costs to develop and distribute educational materials will be detennined based on for-
mat 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:
TX-3, PH-3
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
SP-3
221
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
222
ACTION PLAN
Spill Prevention & Response
ACTION PLAN
Public Education & Involvement
PHOTO: TAMPA BAY NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
Public Education &
Involvement
Acommunity Advisory Committee established in 1991 has assisted the Tampa
Bay National Estuary Program in developing outreach strategies and under-
standing public concerns and perceptions about the bay. Appointed by the
NEP's Policy Committee, members include representatives of agriculture, business,
education, fishing and the environment, who also share their perspectives as citizen-
taxpayers and residents of the communities they represent.
The Committee has played a key role in soliciting public feedback on strategies for
bay improvement. In 1995, citizen advisors hosted a series of infonnal focus groups to
discuss the bay's most pressing needs and options for addressing them with neighbors,
business associates, maritime and fishing groups, and other community interests.
Feedback from these participants identified areas of broad support and issues of
potential controversy. A second and highly successful series of focus groups and larger
Town Meetings on Tampa Bay were conducted in 1996, following the January 1996
release of the draft Comprehensive Conservation & Management Plan (CCMP).
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
PE
223
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
PE
224
ACTION PLAN
Public Education & Involvement
This action plan, developed by the Committee, recommends priorities and plans for
public education and involvement in the future as the NEP and its community partners
begin implementation of the CCMP.
Future community outreach should seek to:
foster continued community support for bay restoration and CCMP implementa-
tion by continuing to educate residents about bay issues, and publicize the bay's
progress and needs
improve public faith in the ability of bay managers and organizations dedicated to
its restoration to "work smart" to leverage resources, avoid duplication and focus
on priorities
maximize direct opportunities for public involvement in bay restoration and pro-
tection.
A top priority in 1997 will be the development and distribution of a public summary
of the final CCMP for residents, legislators and community leaders. This will lay the
foundation for a series of annual progress reports to the community documenting
progress in the implementation of the bay plan.
Other 1997 initiatives proposed by the Community Advisory Committee include:
a public opinion poll to identify community concerns and comprehension of bay
issues, as well as gauge support for bay restoration initiatives and funding
a small grants program to support grass-roots bay restoration and improvement
projects by community groups and schools, with special outreach to low-income
and minority groups
periodic public forums, sponsored by NEP, on controversial and important bay
issues, such as NEP's televised debate on the Ban-The-Nets referendum
development of a graphic-and-text environmental index on the state of Tampa Bay
for periodic publication in local newspapers
The Committee and NEP also will evaluate the need for a companion to the 1996
Teachers Guide to Tampa Bay, a middle-school curriculum kit developed by the NEP
and Tampa Tribune for distribution to more than 350 schools. Additionally, the
Committee recommends:
continued distribution of the Boater's Guide to Tampa Bay, a publication of the
NEP and Florida Marine Research Institute which already has been distributed to
more than 100,000 boaters.
continuation of the NEP newsletter, Bay Guardian, to spotlight the state of the bay
and progress in the bay's recovery, and aggressive efforts to publicize bay issues
in the media to inform and educate the public;
ACTION PLAN
Public Education & Involvement
continued advocacy of bay restoration and protection efforts in cooperation with
other public policy and interest groups, and efforts to educate the public on issues
affecting the bay;
continued support for organizations that enlist and effectively utilize volunteers,
such as Tampa BayWatch, The Florida Aquarium and the National Audubon
Society.
periodic "spotlight on solutions" field trips targeting and co-sponsored by various
audiences with regulatory and natural resource interests. For example, a field trip
hosted by a local alliance of developers might target urban designers and show-
case exemplary commercial landscapes that enhance the environment. Public field
trips to bay restoration sites and parks also might be offered in cooperation with
The Florida Aquarium.
Funding to implement these initiatives will be covered in the NEP's annual workplan
or secured through grants and community partnerships.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
PE
225
CID\RTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
228
ACTION PLAN
hnplementation &
Financing
This chapter describes how the Comprehensive Conservation & Management
Plan (CCMP) for Tampa Bay will be implemented by local govennnents, agen-
cies and other bay stakeholders, and discusses the oversight role of the Tampa
Bay National Estuary Program (NEP) in ensuring that the goals of the plan are
achieved.
Local government and agency partners in the Tampa Bay NEP anticipate signing an
agreement in early 1997 pledging to carry out the recommendations of the final man-
agement plan. The agreement will include specific goals for the recovery of natural
resources, such as sea grasses and wetlands, as well as water and sediment quality
goals, and priorities for spill prevention and response and dredging and dredged mate-
rial management. 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 an understanding
of how much money is cUlTently 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 exist-
ing revenues to calTY out recommended actions.
Implementing the Plan for Tampa Bay
Successful implementation of the CCMP will require firm commitments 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 regulatory programs
and rules, and effective oversight to ensure that actions are calTied out in a timely
manner.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
227
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
228
Commitments will be secured through an implementing agreement which NEP part-
ners expect to sign in 1997, after the bay management plan has been approved. These
partners include Hillsborough, Pinellas and Manatee counties; the cities of Tampa, St.
Petersburg and Clearwater~ the Southwest Florida Water Management District
(SWFWMD); Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County; the
Tampa Port Authority; Florida Department of Environmental Protection; U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Other agencies,
such as the Florida Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission, also will be encouraged
to sign the formal agreement.
The goals of the CCMP (Chapter 4 of this document) are the goals of the implement-
ing agreement, which will require agencies and local governments to develop individ-
ual action plans detailing projects that will satisfy those goals.
A key objective of the agreement is to achieve nitrogen management goals approved
by the Tampa Bay Management Committee in 1996. Local government action plans
will address that portion of the nitrogen goal which relates to stormwater nmoff and
municipal point sources. A Nitrogen Management Consortium of local electric utili-
ties, industries and agricultural interests, as well as local government and regulatory
agency representatives, has been established to develop an action plan to address the
remainder, which is attributed to atmospheric deposition, industrial and agricultural
sources and springs. The consortium, which includes local government and agency
representatives, is to deliver its action plan by August 1997.
Action Plans to Achieve Bay Goals
Within 12 months of signing the implementing agreement, each participating local
government and agency will submit an action plan to the NEP's Management and
Policy committees detailing how it will meet its responsibilities. Communities may
employ various strategies to reach their respective goals. Action plans will include
descriptions of proposed projects, how that project contributes to achieving goals
(quantified, where applicable), with supporting documentation of benefits, an imple-
mentation schedule, and a cost and financing plan.
These action plans are particularly important in relation to nitrogen loading goals,
because relevant aspects of these plans will be incorporated into regulatory permits.
These action plans may be based on ongoing watershed initiatives begun prior to the
adoption of the comprehensive plan for Tampa Bay, such as Pinellas County's Allen's
Creek watershed initiative, as long as these watershed plans are consistent with the
bay plan's objectives. In fact, watershed action plans that address specific basins with-
in the larger bay ecosystem can be an excellent tool for implementing the bay plan.
Integrating the Plan into Existing
Environmental Rules & Programs
Once government and agency action plans to achieve bay goals are approved by the
Program's Management and Policy committees, these action plans will be incorporat-
ed into state and federal water quality permits addressing direct or point discharges
and stormwater management. Local governments will amend their comprehensive
plans to promote, and assure consistency with, the approved action plans.
The CCMP has been developed in cooperation with the bay area's six largest local
governments, broad-based community interests, and environmental agencies at the
local, state and federal levels, to reach consensus on bay restoration goals and strate-
gies. The Tampa Bay NEP also has coordinated closely with local environmental
alliances devoted to improving and protecting specific regions of the bay, including
the Hillsborough River Greenways Task Force and related greenways initiatives and
the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Team. Both these public-private
alliances of environmental and economic stakeholders are excellent models for com-
munity-based plmming.
A key partner in the Tampa Bay NEP has been SWFWMD and its Surface Water
Improvement and Management (SWIM) Program, which is expected to play an
important role in implementing the bay plan. Because of its prominent role, identify-
ing a permanent source of funding for the SWIM program will be crucial to long-term
bay restoration efforts.
The Tampa Bay NEP also works closely with the Agency on Bay Management
(ABM), which is the natural resources committee of the Tampa Bay Regional
Planning Council. ABM is spearheading efforts to investigate and make final recom-
mendations to the NEP for several important actions in the Bay Habitats Action Plan.
Results of a Federal Consistency Review, to evaluate and address any inconsistencies
among goals of other government programs and those established for Tampa Bay, are
available as an appendix to this document.
Roles of the Tampa Bay NEP in Overseeing
Implementation
The success of the Tampa Bay NEP ultimately will be measured in bay improvement
achieved through implementation of the CCMP. Consequently, a key ingredient for
success is defining who should oversee implementation of the plan and what oversight
should entail.
In 1996, the local governnlents and agencies comprising the Tampa Bay Management
Conference elected to continue their participation in the NEP to oversee implementa-
tion of the plan. The primary oversight roles of the Tampa Bay NEP will be to moni-
tor progress (in implementation and the bay's recovery), assist implementation, con-
tinue public outreach and involvement and improve data management. Specific efforts
associated 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 structure
- with regulators and regulated interests working together toward common goals and
assisted by scientific and community advisors - is critical to assuring implementation
of the plan for Tampa Bay. This bottoms-up approach to environmental management
gives all partners a voice in the future of Tampa Bay.
The Policy Committee also is evaluating options for expanding Management
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
229
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
230
Conference membership to broaden representation by smaller local governments and
private industry, as well as other agencies that may play an important role in the bay's
future.
EPA has set aside $1.2 million, or $300,000 per year over four years beginning in
1997 to assist the Tampa Bay NEP in overseeing implementation of the CCMP. The
federal contribution requires a local funding match of 25 percent, to be provided by
the NEP's local governments and agency participants.
A comprehensive evaluation of the goals and strategies established through the NEP
for Tampa Bay will be conducted five years after the adoption of the plan to ensure
that restoration efforts and funding are effectively targeted.
Oversight Roles
Monitor & Report Progress
Monitor progress in implementing bay action plans and achieving goals for
Tampa Bay
Revise action plans and goals as necessary, based on new findings
Prepare an annual progress report for the NEP Management and Policy Boards,
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 studies on atmospheric deposition conducted in partnership with
EPA)
Provide staff support for the Management Conference of the Tampa Bay NEP,
comprised of participating local governments, agencies, and technical and com-
munity 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
involvement
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 redirecting
current funding allocations to better address the bay's needs.
Additionally, a number of actions seek to improve coordination and plamling among
local governments and agencies, and may actually result in cost savings for currently
funded activities.
In fact, the Tampa Bay NEP 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 federal levels exceed $250
million per year (based on FY94-95 budgets). Of that amount, 68 percent, or roughly
$170 million, is devoted to wastewater collection, reuse and treatment - activities
fuat either indirectly or directly benefit the bay, even if they aren't perfonned 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 14 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 tlrrough stormwater 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.
Budgets for habitat restoration, preservation and management total approximately $7
million or nearly 3 percent, excluding land acquisition (another 4 percent). Regulation
and enforcement funding, dredging and dredge material management, enviromnental
monitoring and public education comprise $13.5 million, or 5.4 percent of the expen-
ditures. General revenues, in combination with ad valorem taxes and special fees and
licenses, are used to finance these various efforts.
Preliminary analyses indicate that the cost to maintain existing nitrogen loadings to
the bay may be relatively minimal over time. Nitrogen loadings to the bay are expect-
ed to increase 7 percent by 2010, or about one-half of one percent per year. Annual
costs to offset those loads are estimated at approximately S 100,000 per ton of nitro-
gen*, or about $1.7 million per year.
Preliminary costs also have been established for habitat restoration, another focal
point of the comprehensive plan for Tampa Bay. Those figures suggest that approxi-
mately $350,000 of existing annual expenditures (excluding land purchase costs)
would be necessary to restore about 20 acres of low-salinity tidal stream 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
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
231
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
232
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
redirect resources to accomplish more with public dollars;
Aggressively pursue state and federal funding assistance for bay improvement,
including efforts to secure a permanent source of funding for SWIM;
Promote public-private partnerships with the potential for bottom-line benefits for
the bay and businesses;
Support local option sales taxes, such as the Penny for Pinellas, when deemed
essential for the implementation of action plans;
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
restoration 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 availability in the
future is uncertain, but these sources have been aggressively and successfully pur-
sued 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 NEP. 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 underutilized 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 environmental-
ly responsible behavior, as this chart illustrates:
Funding Source
Incentive Mechanism
User fees
Fee based on usage, reduces impact
on resource
Anchorage fees
Reduce anchor damage to near-shore areas
Privilege fees
Can be implemented to manage use at
public facilities
Stormwater utility fees
May reduce runoff pollution from properties
by encouraging on-site retentionjstormwater
treatment
Impact fees
Reduce septic tanks and package
treatment plants
Fines and penalties
Encourage compliance with
environmental laws
Marine fuel surtax
Reduce use of marine fuels and
associated pollution
Shellfish license fees
Encourage local shellfish
management plans.
* "Supporting the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program's ~itrogen Allocation \Vorkshops: A Compilation of Selected Analyses."
Prepared by Apogee Research, Inc. for the Tampa Bay l\atlonal Estuary Program, 1996.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
233
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
234
PHOTO: BOB WESTENHOUSERjTAMPA TRIBUNE
Monitoring B~y
hnprovement
Efforts to monitor Tampa Bay's health are central to the success of bay restora-
tion efforts, for monitoring enables communities to measure return on invest-
ment and helps environmental managers validate or refocus existing strategies
for bay improvement.
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 information
allows local governments and agencies to evaluate progress made in the restoration
and protection of Tampa Bay. The data also provides insights into the effectiveness 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 t1uctuate with 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 difficult -
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
235
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
238
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 National Estuary
Program (NEP) in cooperation with local govermnents and agencies is designed to
address many of these challenges by building 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 conducted by
the Environmental Protection Commission (EPe) 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 foundation.
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 govermnent 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:
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 enables 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 compile and
synthesize results from major monitoring programs in a single comprehensive docu-
ment produced every two years and first published in the Fall of 1996. A separate
summary report will be written for decision-makers responsible for the management
of Tampa Bay.
Monitoring workshops will be held every two or three years, allowing environmental
professionals from various programs to meet and review findings. A comprehensive
report detailing the bay monitoring plan is available from the Tampa Bay NEP.
MONITORING COMPONENTS
The environmental monitoring program for Tampa Bay addresses five components:
1. Water quality
2. Benthos, sediment chemistry and composition
3. Atmospheric deposition
4. Bay habitats (including seagrasses, emergent wetlands and oligohaline areas)
5. Bay fisheries and wildlife.
Two of the monitoring components - for benthos and atmospheric deposition - are
new. The monitoring plans for water quality, bay habitats, and fisheries and wildlife
build on existing programs. Monitoring costs are covered through the operating bud-
gets of participating local governments.
Components of the environmental monitoring plan for Tampa Bay are summarized
below.
HYPOTHESES ADDRESSED
Monitoring results will enable bay managers to assess whether conditions baywide -
andbybay segment, in most cases - are improving or declining. The monitoring
program for Tampa Bay is designed to answer the following questions:
Water Quality
Are phytoplankton biomass levels (chlorophyll-a concentrations) above, below or
consistent with established bay segment targets?
Are nutrient concentrations increasing, decreasing or remaining stable?
Is water clarity increasing, decreasing or remaining stable?
Is the areal extent of low dissolved oxygen concentrations (< 2mgjL) increasing,
decreasing or remaining stable?
Benthos
Is the composition of benthic species changing?
Are sediment characteristics changing?
Is the composition of bottom-dwelling finfish changing?
Are the frequency and spatial distribution of fish pathogens increasing, decreasing
or remaining stable?
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
237
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
238
Atmospheric Deposition
Are nutrient loads and toxic materials from atmospheric deposition directly to the
surface of Tampa Bay increasing, decreasing or remaining stable?
Bay Habitats
Is the areal coverage of seagrass increasing, decreasing or remaining stable, and
how does this compare with baywide restoration/protection targets?
Is the areal coverage of saltwater wetlands, low-salinity wetlands and associated
uplands increasing, decreasing or remaining stable, and how does this compare to
baywide restoration/protection targets?
Fish and Wildlife
Are fish populations increasing, decreasing or remaining stable?
Are manatee populations increasing, decreasing or remaining stable?
Are bottlenose dolphin populations increasing, decreasing or remaining stable?
Are colonial water-bird populations increasing, decreasing or remaining stable?
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 at 126 stations in
Tampa Bay, including 21 sites in Old Tampa Bay; 23 in Hillsborough Bay; 22 in
Middle Tampa Bay; 17 in Lower Tampa Bay; 21 in Boca Ciega Bay; and 22 in the
Manatee River and Terra Ceia Bay. These stations were selected to meet the needs of
their respective programs and may not entirely satisfy the needs of the baywide envi-
ronmental monitoring program. To truly determine the extent of conditions reported,
stations must be randomly selected.
Samples are measured for dissolved oxygen, phytoplankton biomass (chlorophyll-a),
water clarity (Secchi depth, photosynthetically active radiation, color, total suspended
solids and turbidity), and water column nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus and organic
carbon).
Nearly 70 percent of the 126 original stations have been incorporated into a statistical-
ly valid baywide monitoring design. The design is based upon the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) 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 stations while providing a more rigorous
method to evaluate the spatial extent of conditions in specific bay segments.
The bay's three surrounding counties and the City of Tampa monitor water quality in
the bay. These parties have agreed to standardize collection and analysis methods,
share data and contribute collated data for the development of the biennial monitoring
report. These communities also are participating in the West Coast Regional Ambient
Monitoring Program (RAMP), an ongoing effort, initiated by the Tampa Bay and
Sarasota Bay NEPs, the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD)
and local governments to coordinate environmental monitoring data from Tampa Bay
to Charlotte Harbor. All field and analytical methods employed, and QAfQC proto-
cols, are in accordance with approved methods of the EPA and/or the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP).
BENTHIC COMMUNITIES AND SEDIMENT ANALYSIS
A new component in Tampa Bay's monitoring program was established in 1993 to
evaluate the quality of bay-bottom sediments and their effects on bottom-dwelling sea
life. Samples are collected annually during an "index" period (September to October)
that is representative of worst-case conditions for each year. Collection sites match
those randomly selected for water quality sampling.
The benthic monitoring program is evaluating the abundance and composition of ben-
thic 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. Specific indicators include species richness and diversity, as determined by
detailed taxonomic analyses of collected specimens. If contaminants are present in the
water column or sediments, filter-feeding benthic organisms and detritivores can accu-
mulate 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 seagrass
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 oxygen dur-
ing pre-dawn hours, an issue that will be addressed in Tampa Bay as an element of the
benthic monitoring program.
Sediment quality also is addressed in the benthic monitoring program, in addition to
taxonomic and dissolved oxygen measurements. Indicators include chemical content
(trace metals) and grain-size analysis.
The benthic monitoring program also calls for local governments to monitor contami-
nants 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 cont-
amination in these areas are currently unknown. Beginning in 1996, sediments will be
tested for whole-sample toxicity using the Microtox method. In addition, the NEP rec-
ommends that the effects of contaminants on benthic life be studied in future years
using bioassays that subject test organisms to benthic sediments. Observing the health
of benthos exposed to sediment samples in a laboratory will help to identify toxic sites
or areas of healthy benthos. Sediment chemistry and toxicity measurements have been
designed to correlate with other monitoring programs and allow comparison of toxici-
ty data across the country.
Currently, the bay's three surrounding counties participate in the benthic monitoring
program. A field and laboratory methods manual for the Tampa Bay benthic monitor-
ing program, available from the Tampa Bay NEP, details QA/QC protocols. Its meth-
ods are based on standard EMAP methodology tested and reviewed by the EPA.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
239
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
240
ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION
Preliminary research indicates that roughly a third of the nitrogen loading in Tampa
Bay, as well as a significant percentage of cadmium, copper and lead, comes from
atmospheric deposition directly to the surface of the bay.
In cooperation with EPA's Great Waters initiative, local air and water quality divi-
sions, as well as SWFWMD, the FDEP and the Florida Department of Transportation
(FDOT), are participating in a long-term monitoring program for local atmospheric
deposition. The IS-month daily sampling effort, which began in August 1996, is
designed to assess atmospheric contributions of nitrogen to Tampa Bay by measuring
rainfall and dryfall, according to procedures and protocols established by the National
Atmospheric Deposition Program (AIRMoN) and peer-reviewed by researchers from
National Oceanographic Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Air Resources
Laboratory.
In addition to the intensive single-site Great Waters wetfalljdryfall deposition monitor-
ing, the Tampa Bay NEP has recently completed a pilot program to examine the spa-
tial variability of atmospheric deposition. Nutrient and heavy metal loadings from
atmospheric deposition at seven sites were measured in the Tampa Bay watershed.
Pesticides (including DDT) and other organic pollutants also were measured at select-
ed sites. Weekly samples were monitored for levels of copper, lead, zinc, nitrates and
phosphorus. Mercury, which also is associated with atmospheric deposition, is being
monitored under a separate program through the FDEP. The pilot program will pro-
vide new insights into the distribution of contaminants transported by rainfall and
dustfall.
BAY HABITATS
The amount and quality of habitat available for fish and wildlife is critical to main-
taining and restoring Tampa Bay. Many species have specific habitat requirements that
must be met for their survival.
Ongoing monitoring efforts have demonstrated recovery of sea grasses in some areas
of the bay. SWFWMD maps seagrass beds using aerial photographs taken every two
years and verifies the data with field checks gathered from 60 randomly selected sites,
providing an important indicator of the success of sea grass recovery. The health of
sea grasses in randomly selected areas also is monitored every two years 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 monitoring may be required if sig-
nificant declines in sea grass coverage or health are noted in the future.
The City of Tampa conducts more detailed seagrass monitoring in Hillsborough Bay.
Low-salinity or oligohaline habitats along tributaries (where salinities range from 0-10
parts per 1000) are critical for juvenile fisheries. The boundaries of these habitats fluc-
tuate with the flow of fresh water in natural cycles. These habitats have been hard-hit
by development and diversions of fresh water to serve the region's potable water
needs.
Until recently, few efforts had been made to quantify the loss of low-salinity habitats,
but new studies by regional and state agencies have mapped these wetland areas and
provided salinity measurements from area rivers. Separate studies by SWFWMD, con-
ducted as part of their minimum flow permit requirements, will determine the effects
of changes in freshwater inflows to Tampa Bay, including impacts to fisheries and
other aquatic life. Responsibility for long-term monitoring of oligohaline habitats has
not yet been assigned.
FISH & WILDLIFE
Fish and wildlife in the Tampa Bay region have declined sharply over the past 30
years. Activities to document their resurgence as new bay management practices are
implemented will be 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 (FMRI), employs stratified random and
fixed-station 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.
FDEP also monitors the numbers of endangered sea turtles, manatees and bottle-nose
dolphins in Tampa Bay with aerial surveys conducted annually over nearshore waters.
Data collected includes location, species, number of adults and calves and animal
behavior.
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
nesting sites in the region. Audubon also sponsors an annual Christmas count, dis-
patching 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 by
Florida's Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission annually throughout the state. In
the future, it may be beneficial to establish specific goals for populations of colonial
waterbirds and nesting birds, as additional measures of the overall health of the bay.
DATA MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS
To facilitate data sharing, monitoring data will be available through a decentralized
system maintained by the Florida Growth Management Data Network Coordinating
Council located in the Governor's office in Tallahassee.
In this system, participants check, verify and maintain their own databases, often in a
variety of physical locations using various software and hardware. The Council has
developed a central subject directory (CSD) for Tampa Bay to allow users to easily
and rapidly access data. The CSD was created from an existing computer database as
an element of the Council's statewide directory.
Agencies collecting data agree to submit entries to the CSD describing their in-house
databases; meet minimum standards for in-house data documentation; and routinely
CID\RTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
241
CHARTING
theCOURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
242
provide this documentation when transferring data. Agencies maintaining water quali-
ty databases must periodically submit their monitoring data to Florida's STORET sys-
tem. Use of the STORET system ensures that the water quality data will be stored
securely and available to a wide variety of users nationwide.
MONITORING PERFORMANCE
Performance criteria are explicit levels of environmental change that may be detected
through monitoring. These criteria, and periodic evaluations of how well the program
meets those criteria, will ensure that the sampling intensity is appropriate to the level
of change anticipated as a result of management actions. For example, infrequent sam-
pling could result in a monitoring program incapable of detecting anything but cata-
strophic change. Extensive sampling, on the other hand, may unnecessarily waste
resources to measure changes of little importance. Water quality and habitat monitor-
ing will allow comparisons of bay conditions to established targets for bay restoration
and protection. The sampling regime has been designed to detect spatial and temporal
changes at meaningful ecological scales. Biological monitoring will evaluate whether
water quality and habitat enhancements are providing a suitable environment for
healthy populations of plants and animals. Statistical power analysis will be used
every 2-3 years, or as needed, to modify the monitoring programs.
EVALUATING PROGRESS
Participants in the Tampa Bay monitoring program recognize that monitoring efforts
are only as good as their ability to get current and accurate data to appropriate man-
agers in a timely manner. A bay monitoring report, first published in 1996 by the NEP,
incorporates data from various governmental agencies and communities into a com-
mon format. Information for the biennial report will be compiled by SWFWMD,
using in-house resources for data analysis and presentation.
A key objective of the report is to assess progress toward achieving restoration and
protection targets set forth in the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
(CCMP) for the scientific community and general public both.
The format includes updated environmental data focusing on both status and trends
within Tampa Bay and its watershed. The report also highlights areas where additional
management actions may be needed as an early warning system for local and state
governments responsible for maintaining the environmental integrity of Tampa Bay.
Finally, the report provides a periodic assessment of the effectiveness of monitoring
efforts, enabling managers to modify elements as needed to meet program objectives
and goals.
In addition to monitoring the bay's vital signs, efforts also will be directed to monitor-
ing the success of specific actions or outreach efforts. For example, while it may be
impossible to measure impacts to water quality resulting from reduced use of fertilizer
in the watershed, public awareness and practices can be measured using public opin-
ion polls or by evaluating product sales at retail outlets. A monitoring component is
included with each individual action presented in Charting the Course.
A comprehensive review of the goals and strategies for bay restoration will be con-
ducted every five years.
Research Priorities for Tampa Bay
Technical advisors to the Tampa Bay NEP have identified several research priorities
for the bay to be pursued as funding becomes available. They are to:
Continue research on the impact and sources of atmospheric deposition.
Determine the impacts of changes in freshwater inflow on oligohaline habitats.
Investigate the effects of toxic contaminants on fish and wildlife in key areas such
as McKay Bay.
Continue identification of sources of sediment contamination.
Evaluate potential for contamination of wildlife (fish and birds) feeding in
stormwater ponds.
Identify causes of sediment resuspension and non-chlorophyll a turbidity.
Determine the need and best locations for regional stormwater facilities.
Identify light requirements for seagrasses in all bay segments.
Determine the extent and natural and anthropogenic sources of hypoxia.
Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pollution prevention programs such as the
Florida Yards & Neighborhoods Program.
Other research needs identified by the NEP's Technical Advisory Committee focus on:
Determining minimum widths for vegetated buffers.
Assessing anthropogenic influences on the duration of red tide.
Continuing research on experimental sea grass transplanting techniques and suit-
able sites.
Assessing the impacts of thermal discharges.
Assessing the distribution and abundance of oyster reefs and other shellfish
resources in Tampa Bay, and evaluating alternative methods of assessing public
health concerns.
Assessing the threat of invasive exotic species entering the bay in ship ballasts.
Assessing the need for zooplankton monitoring.
Assessing filling of deep dredged holes in the Palm River and other dredged
channels.
Assessing evaluation techniques used for determining public health issues.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
243
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
244
Public Involvement
Awell-crafted community outreach program that enlists and involves diverse
interests as partners in bay restoration and protection is a hallmark of all suc-
cessful National Estuary Programs.
This principle has guided the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (NEP) since it
was established in 1991. A public opinion poll conducted for the Program that year
found citizens generally were willing to pay more to restore the bay-but wanted
assurances that current programs "work smart" to effectively apply existing regula-
tions and resources before adding new mandates. Responses also indicated that citi-
zens 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 in developing the
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) for Tampa Bay.
Findings also pointed to the need for a broader campaign to educate the community
about the bay and foster public stewardship of this environmental and economic
resource.
These findings became the springboard for a Community Advisory Committee estab-
lished by the Tampa Bay NEP in 1991. Composed of citizens with diverse perspec-
tives and backgrounds from the bay's three surrounding counties, the 25-member
forum has provided structured input from people who share a common interest in a
healthy bay. Advisors are appointed by the NEP's Policy Committee and include resi-
dents and representatives of agriculture, industry, education, fishing, and environmen-
tal experts and activists, who also share their perspectives as citizen-taxpayers.
Members also provide information to constituents and help design and execute com-
munity outreach programs.
This chapter profiles key elements of the NEP's public education and involvement
efforts and recommends ways to maximize community participation in the future. It
also details public participation in the development of the CCMP and concerted efforts
to solicit feedback on the draft plan released in January 1996.
Addressing the Bay's Priority Problems
Priority issues, such as stormwater runoff and seagrass protection, have provided a
focal point for educational outreach.
Studies by the Tampa Bay NEP estimate that stormwater 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 Tampa
Bay in 1991 were able to identify stormwaterrunoff as a major source of bay pollu-
tion.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
245
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
246
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 stormwater runoff. Nevertheless, many homeowners fail to understand the poten-
tial 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 storm water drains, ditches, streams or
flvers.
To publicize these concepts and 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 ways to reduce runoff pollution and enhance their environment by
improving home and landscape management. The program promotes the establish-
ment of Florida Yards, which emphasize native and other beneficial plants that blend
beauty and environmental benefits. The program also emphasizes least-toxic tech-
niques for landscape maintenance to reduce pesticides in runoff to the bay.
In 1994, the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority joined the FY &N found-
ing partners in a move to expand the program in Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco and
Manatee counties. Participating neighborhoods learn and apply environmental land-
scaping techniques and other pollution prevention practices. To advance these con-
cepts, the FY &N Program has produced a number of educational tools, including a
Florida Yards & Neighborhoods handbook, a Florida YardStick poster which helps
homeowners measure progress in improving the environmental quality of their land-
scape; and various slide shows and newsletters.
Actions presented in Charting the Course seek to expand these efforts and reach
more people by further 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 properties in accordance with these environmental principles. These groups
can help stimulate consumer demand for Florida Yards that are less maintenance-
intensive, resulting 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 NEP.
Studies estimate that roughly one-third of the bay's sea grasses are moderately to
heavily scarred as a result of prop scarring by boats that cut through shallow grass
flats or dredge their way free after running aground. 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.
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 helpful boating information in a handy format
that invites use. The guide's focal point is a 34"-by-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, manatees and
birds of the bay. It folds to 9"-by-4" standard road map size for easy on-boat storage
and is available in both water-resistant and recycled stocks.
More than 100,000 Boater's Guides have been distributed to boaters locally through
marine patrol units, marinas, tax collector's offices, local agencies and special events.
FDEP, which is using the Tampa Bay guide as a template for the development of
boater's guides throughout Florida, has since produced six additional boaters guides
in a statewide series.
The Tampa Bay NEP also produced a series of high-quality interpretive signs 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 and sea-
grass areas, and companion signs on various bay wildlife and habitats.
Enlisting Volunteers for Bay Improvement
The Tampa Bay NEP 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 stewardship group.
Since then, BayWatch has enlisted more than 3,000 citizens for dozens of bay
improvement projects, including salt marsh plantings, bird island cleanups and an
award-winning wetland nursery program with area high schools (see profile in
Community Partnerships below). The organization serves as a clearinghouse to match
interested volunteers with hands-on activities around the bay sponsored by various
agencies and communities.
The Southwest Florida Water Management District's (SWFWMD) Surface Water
Improvement and Management (SWIM) program, and numerous other community
organizations, also utilize volunteers for bay restoration efforts.
Since 1993, the Tampa Bay NEP and BayWatch have hosted an annual Great Bay
Scallop Search, in which teams of volunteers don snorkels, masks and fins to comb
seagrass beds in search of the elusive bay scallop. The scallop disappeared from
Tampa Bay in the 1960s when the bay was badly polluted. Improved water quality
and seagrass conditions have rekindled hope that the bay can once again support a
self-sustaining scallop population. Experimental stocking efforts, initiated several
years ago, are being evaluated.
Developing Community Partnerships
for Bay Restoration
A Bay Grants program established by the Tampa Bay NEP in 1992 has been an impor-
tant catalyst in developing community partnerships for bay restoration. Since then, the
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
247
CID\RTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
~
248
NEP has awarded over $50,000 in small grants to more than a dozen organizations,
schools and communities for projects to educate and involve citizens in bay improve-
ment. These initiatives have leveraged the talents and resources of numerous organiza-
tions, maximizing the community's return on investment and benefits to the bay.
Profiles of projects and partners are provided below.
~
Tampa Bay Docents-An NEP grant helped The Florida Aquarium establish a Bay
Docents program in 1993 to train interested volunteers to lead weekend BayWalks on
Tampa Bay at Tampa's McKay Bay Nature Park and Weedon Island Preserve in
Pinellas County. The Program has since trained more than 30 guides and introduced
hundreds of children and adults to the bay's coastal ecosystems. Docents must com-
plete a class and field course conducted by The Florida Aquarium, and commit to
leading a minimum of six BayWalks per year. BayWalks are now a permanent compo-
nent of the aquarium's community programming, providing an excellent model for
other communities.
~
Operation Bay Works- This Hillsborough County project assists businesses in devel-
oping and implementing pollution prevention plans to reduce stormwater runoff. The
pilot in 1995 and subsequent workshops have attracted nearly 100 businesses from
targeted industry sectors, including landscape maintenance, construction and automo-
tive repair. Participants receive pollution prevention workbooks designed specifically
for their industries, along with instructional and promotional literature. The program
will be evaluated for implementation in other watershed counties.
~
Coastal Wetland Nursery Program-With funding from the NEP, Tampa BayWatch
enlists high school ecology clubs in cultivating wetland plants for coastal restorations.
The initial NEP grant financed the construction of a wetland nursery at St.
Petersburg's Lakewood High School, where students cultivated and transplanted more
than 2,000 salt marsh plants, and development of an instructional guide to assist other
interested high schools. 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 appreciate the bottom-
line benefits and beauty of native Florida landscapes, which require less water, fertil-
izer and pesticides, thanks to an educational 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 NEP. A $4,500
grant to the Tampa Audubon Society assisted in the development of a corporate
"pitch" brochure and slide show that highlights cost-savings and environmental bene-
fits. The group will target large commercial developments where landscape modifica-
tions may be cost-effective, as well as urban and landscape designers involved in
planning new commercial projects.
Least-Toxic Pest Controls-The effectiveness of natural predatory insects as an alter-
native to pesticides was tested in a six-month trial using various ornamental crops,
under the direction of the Manatee County Cooperative Extension Service. Results
showed important cost and labor savings, in addition to environmental benefits associ-
ated with reduced pesticide use. Workshops also were conducted to promote least-
toxic pest management techniques to nurserymen and growers;
~
Emerson Point Restoration- Volunteers led by the Manatee County Soil &
Conservation District teamed up to restore severely damaged mangroves and salt
marshes at this conservation site. The project also produced a plant and conservation
guide to Emerson Point and neighboring Terra Ceia Aquatic Preserve.
~
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 grassbeds.
~
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.
~
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 educate visitors about the island's feathered
inhabitants.
A special community partnership between the Tampa Bay NEP and The Florida
Aquarium was formed in 1995 to support development of a Florida Landscapes exhib-
it at the entrance to the aquarium. This living exhibit features a mosaic of native habi-
tats, from beaches and wetlands to wildflower gardens, along with interpretive signage
that promotes the environmental benefits of native landscaping. Funding from the
NEP also supported educational programs to promote Florida Yard concepts and will
be used in 1997 to develop an interactive software kiosk on Tampa Bay for visitors.
Outreach to Schools
Fostering an environmental ethic among students, who represent the region's future
decision-makers, is particularly important.
Through partnerships with local school districts and The Florida Aquarium, the Tampa
Bay NEP has sponsored field trips and workshops for several thousand area students
and hundreds of instructors. Most recently, the NEP and the Tampa Tribune produced
a six-unit curriculum kit on Tampa Bay for middle school students in the Tampa Bay
area.
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 tips
for pollution prevention. The Marine Gang is administered through the Museum of
Science & Industry, which continues to offer the program to schools and community
groups thanks to funding from the SWFWMD.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
249
CHARTING
the COURSE
Charting the Course for Tampa Bay
FOR TAMPA BAY
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND
REVIEW OF THE BAY PLAN
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 continued in 1996 with
increasingly focused efforts to expand public participation in the plan's review and
finalization.
What you had to say
Hundreds of residents and representatives of local
governments, agencies and organizations shared
their views with the NEP on the proposed manage-
ment plan for Tampa Bay. The Spring 1996 issue of
Bay Guardian, the NEP's quarterly newsletter,
recaps public response and some of the most fre~
quent questions NEP received. Comments from the
community were overwhelmingly positive, especially
regarding goals for nitrogen management, seagrass
recovery and habitat restoration. Citizens gave par-
ticularly high marks to the NEP for the writing and
organization of the plan, which they say facilitated
their review and understandihg of the issues.
However, some residents were dissatisfied that the
Tampa Bay NEP did not take a formal position
against Florida Power & LightCompany's request to
burn a controversial Venezuelan fuel called
Orimulsion at its Parrish pJantin Manatee County.
This would have added an additional 20 tons of
nitrogen to the bay each year, unless steps to miti-
gate for those impacts had been required.
Despite a recommendation for approval from the
state hearing officer and the FDEp, the Governor
and Cabinet voted in April 1996 to deny the utility's
request, citing unresolved public concerns about
increased nitrogen oxide (or NOx) loadings to the
bay, traffic impacts and the adequacy of spill
response capabilities. The. decision. has been
appealed. The Tampa Bay NEP provided depositions
in the case emphasizing the need to cap nitrogen
loadings at existing levels, based on preliminary
water quality modeling analyses. Nitrogen loading
goals for Tampa Bay were finalized and approved in
June 1996.
250
An early outline of the five environmental action plans
presented in Charting the Course was developed and
presented for review in January 1995. Additional
research and more than 200 responses from technical
and citizen advisors were instrumental in shaping the
draft bay management plan, released in January 1996
and now finalized for adoption.
Since the release of the draft plan, the Tampa Bay NEP
has received hundreds of written comments from resi-
dents and agency and government partners. More than
250 citizens attended a series of four Town Meetings on
Tampa Bay during February and March 1996 to discuss
the bay restoration blueprint with panels of experts
from their communities. The forums were co-sponsored
by the League of Women Voters and rebroadcast exten-
sively on local government and cable channels.
The NEP and its Community Advisory Committee also
hosted a series of eight smaller focus groups to obtain
feedback from specific interests, such as farmers,
anglers, developers, the maritime community and resi-
dents. Community focus groups also played an impor-
tant part in developing strategies advanced in the plan.
These focus groups have helped to strengthen commu-
nity investment in the bay plan and have assisted the
NEP in understanding the concerns of key constituent
groups.
A special 12-page newspaper supplement on Charting
the Course distributed to more than 700,000 area resi-
dents through local newspapers in April of 1996 further
enlisted interest and comments from the community.
The news tab also was distributed through local
libraries, bookstores, area attractions and government
offices.
Planning for the Future
Local communities and agencies participating in the Tampa Bay NEP will sign an
agreement in early 1997 accepting specific responsibilities for implementing the bay
master plan. As attention shifts from planning to implementation, the focus of public
involvement and education also will shift to address long-term but vitally important
needs.
Future outreach 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
its restoration and protection to "work smart" to leverage resources, avoid dupli-
cation and focus on priorities;
maximize direct opportunities for public involvement in bay restoration and envi-
ronmental improvement.
These objectives are part of an action plan on Public Education and Involvement (see
Action Plans) developed in 1996 by the NEP and its Community Advisory
Committee. The committee's recommendations will help guide the NEP as it oversees
implementation of the bay masterplan.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
251
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
252
Early Action
Since its inception, the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program has secured almost
$1 million in matching grants and federal funds for early action projects
designed to jump-start restoration efforts and build community support for the
bay's recovery.
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 southeastern shore harbors some of the most pro-
ductive 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 $2.6 million restoration
directed by the Southwest Florida Water Management District's (SWFWMD) 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, while
SWFWMD-SWIM has dedicated or spent more than $1.1 million to date for design,
permitting and construction of the project's first phase.
The SOO-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 stonnwater 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.
Removal of exotic vegetation such as Brazilian pepper already has been partially com-
pleted, and the tidal stream restoration accomplished. Construction of further
stormwater improvements began in 1996.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
253
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
254
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 a million juvenile scallops in
laboratories, using strips of artificial turf that mimic the seagrasses to which the scal-
lops 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 implemented 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. Methods evaluated included: lowering the elevation of the original seawall to cre-
ate 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 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 the 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 sea grass scarring in a section of the
bay through aerial mapping and interpretation and to evaluate various methods of pro-
tecting those sea grasses 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, in October 1994 and
again in December 1995. Mapping will continue annually for three more years.
After examining results of the baseline survey, two protection zones were established
in the seagrass beds. A "caution zone" allows boats to enter under power as long as
they don't damage seagrass beds. This directive is enforced by Sheriff's marine offi-
cers. A second "restricted zone" prohibits use of internal combustion engines within
the area, although boaters may pole or drift in. The seagrass scarring was virtually the
same for both the closed and restricted-access areas, indicating that signs alone may
be effective deterrents to seagrass scarring and that complete closures may not be nec-
essary to reduce propeller scarring.
This project is providing important information about what protective measures are
effective in reducing sea grass 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 occurs often because the data bases and formats used by the agencies
are incompatible with each other.
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
Geographic Information System (GIS) technology.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
255
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
258
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 361 birds at a tempo-
rary "hospital" at Fort DeSoto Park. Eventually 310 birds, or 88 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 saltmarshes, 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 pub-
lic access to the site for education and recreation, while preserving its unique cultural
and natural attributes. Work includes removal of exotic vegetation, excavation and sta-
bilization of the Indian mounds and plantation, and the construction of boardwalks
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.
REFERENCES, STATE OF THE BAY
1. Haddad, K. 1989. Habitat trends and fisheries in Tampa and Sarasota Bays. Pages 113-128. In:
E.D. Estevez (Ed.) Tampa and Sarasota Bays: Issues, Resources, Status and Management. NOAA
Estuary-of-the-month Seminar Series No. 11.
2. Zarbock, H., AJ. Janicki, D.L. Wade, D. Heimbuch, and H. Wilson. 1994. Estimates of total nitro-
gen, total phosphorus, and total suspended solids loadings to Tampa Bay, Florida. Tech. Pub.
#04-94, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. Prepared by Coastal Environmental, Inc.
3. Long, E.R., D. MacDonald, and C. Cairncross. 1991. Status and trends in toxicants and the poten-
tialfor their biological effects in Tampa Bay; Florida. NOAA Tech. Mem. NOS OMA 58. Silver
Spring, MD.
4. Zarbock, H.W., A.J. Janicki, and S.S. Janicki. 1996. Estimates of total nitrogen, total phosphorus,
and total suspended solids to Tampa Bay, Florida. Technical Appendix: 1992-1994 total nitrogen
loadings to Tampa Bay, Florida. Tech. Pub. #19-96, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program.
Prepared by Coastal Environmental, Inc.
5. City of St. Petersburg, unpublished data. 1995.
6. Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County. 1995. Surface Water Quality
Report, 1992-1994. Tampa, FL.
7. Janicki, A. and D.L. Wade. 1996. Estimating critical nitrogen loads for the Tampa Bay estuary:
An empirically based approach to setting management targets. Tech. Pub. #06-96, Tampa Bay
National Estuary Program. Prepared by Coastal Environmental, Inc.
8. Dixon, L.K. and J.R. Leverone. 1995. Light requirements of Thalassia testudinum in Tampa Bay,
Florida. Prepared for Southwest Florida Water Management District SWIM Program, by Mote
Marine Laboratory.
9. Janicki, A.J. and D.L. Wade. 1996.
10. ibid
11. Zarbock, H.W., et.a/. 1994; 1996. Martin, J.L., P.F. Wang, T. Wool, and G. Morrison. 1996. A
mechanistic management-oriented water quality model for Tampa Bay. Prepared for Southwest
Florida Water Management District SWIM Department by AScI Corporation and the SWIM
Department.
12. Department of the Air Force, United States of America. 1996. Proposed mission realignment,
MacDill AFB, Florida. Prepared by Air Mobility Command, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois.
13. Janicki, A.J., D.L. Wade, and D.E. Robison. 1994. Habitat protection and restoration targets for
Tampa Bay. Tech. Pub. #07-93, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. Prepared by Coastal
Environmental, Inc.
14. Janicki, AJ and D.L. Wade. 1996.
15. Frithsen, J.B., S.P. Schreiner, D.E. Strebel, R.M. Laljani, D.T. Logan, and H.W. Zarbock. 1995.
Chemical contaminants in the Tampa Bay estuary: A summary of distributions and inputs. Tech.
Pub. #01-95, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. Prepared by Versar, Inc. and Coastal
Environmental, Inc.
16. Long, E.R., D. MacDonald, and C. Cairncross. 1991. Zarbock, H.W., A.J. Janicki, D.T. Logan and
D.D. MacDonald. 1996. An assessment of sediment contamination in Tampa Bay, Florida using
the sediment quality triad approach. Tech. Pub. #04-96, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program.
Prepared by Coastal Environmental, Inc. Parsons Engineering Science, Inc. 1996. Toxic contami-
nation sources assessment: Risk assessment for chemicals of potential concern and methods for
identification of specific sources. Tech. Pub. #09-96, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program.
17. Parsons Engineering Science, Inc. 1996.
18. Parsons Engineering Science, Inc. 1996.
19. Heintz, C. 1992. MacDill Air Force Base (AFB) installation restoration program (IRP) sites'
report. Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County. In: MacDill reuse environ-
mental committee report appendix. March 1992.
20. Zarbock, H.W., et.a/. 1996.
21. Frithsen, J.B., et.a/. 1995.
22. Zarbock, H.w., et.al. 1996.
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid.
25. Patwardhan, A.S., and A.S. Donigian, Jf. 1994. Assessment of nitrogen loads to aquatic systems.
Prepared by Aqua Terra Consultants for the Office of Research and Development, USEPA.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
257
CID\RTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
258
26. Fisher, D., J. Ceraso, T. Mathew, and M. Openheimer. 1988. Polluted coastal waters: The role of
acid rain. Environmental Defense Fund, New York, NY.
27. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1994. Air Quality Report 1994. FDEP Div. of
Air Resources Management.
28. Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County. 1996. 1994-1995 Annual air
quality report for Hillsborough County. HCEPC Air Management Div. Page 6.
29. Fisher, D., et.al. 1988.
30. Zarbock, H.W., et. al. 1996.
31. Frithsen, J.B., et.al. 1995.
32. Zarbock, H.W., et.al. 1996.
33. Zarbock, H.W. et.al. 1994
34. Zarbock, H.W., et.al. 1996.
35. Frithsen, J.B., et.al. 1995.
36. Owen Ayres and Associates, Inc. 1995. An estimate of nutrient loadings from wastewater residuals
management and onsite wastewater treatment systems in the Tampa Bay Watershed. Prepared for
Southwest Florida Water Management District.
37. Ibid.
38. Zarbock, H.W., personal communication. 1995. Coastal Environmental, Inc.
39. Cardinale, T., personal communication. 1995. Environmental Protection Commission of
Hillsborough County.
40. Jones, G.W. and S.B. Upchurch. 1993. Origins of nutrients in ground water dischargingfrom
Lithia and Buchhorn Springs. SWFWMD.
41. Brooks, G., T.L. Dix and L. Doyle. 1993. Groundwater/surfacewater interactions in Tampa Bay:
Implicationsfor nutrient fluxes. Tech. Pub. #06-93, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program.
Prepared by Cehter for Nearshore Marine Science, Univ. of South Florida.
42. Jones, G.w., and S.B. Upchurch. 1993.
43. Zarbock. H.W., et.al. 1996.
44. Wade, D.L. and A.J. Janicki. 1993. Physical impacts to habitats in Tampa Bay. Tech. Pub. #03-93,
Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. Prepared by Coastal Enviromnental, Inc. (shoreline modi-
fications). Janicki, A.J., D.L. Wade, and D.E. Robison. 1994.(seagrass losses).
45. Janicki, A.J., D.L. Wade, and D.E. Robison. 1994.
46. Weigle, Brad, personal communication. 1995. FDEP Marine Research Institute.
47. Lewis, RR, III, K.D. Haddad, and J.O.R Johansson. 1991. Recent areal expansion of seagrass
meadows in Tampa Bay, Florida: Real bay improvement or drought -induced? Pages 189-192. In:
S.E Treat & P.A. Clark (Eds.) Proc. Tampa Bay Area Sci. Information Symp. 2, The Watershed.
TEXT. Tampa, FL. 528 p. (1950 and 1982 seagrass acreage estimates) Janicki, A.J., D.L. Wade,
and D.E. Robison. 1994. (1950 and 1990 seagrass acreage estimates)
48. Lewis et.al. 1991.
49. Wade, D.L. and A.J. Janicki. 1993.
50. Goodwin, C.R 1987. Tidalflow, circulation, andflushing changes caused by dredge andfill in
Tampa Bay, Florida. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2282.
51. Lewis, RR, III, K.D. Haddad, and J.O.R Johansson. 1991. (1982 seagrass acreage estimates)
Ries, T., personal communication. 1994. Unpublished data. SWFWMD-SWIM. (1992 seagrass
acreage estimates) Robison, D., personal communication. 1995. Unpublished data. Coastal
Environmental, Inc. (percentage of change between 1982 and 1992)
52. Ries, T., personal communication. 1996.
53. Durako, M.J., J.J. Shup, c.r. Andress, and D.A. Tomasko. 1993. Restoring seagrass beds: some
new approaches with Ruppia maritima L. (widgeon-grass). Pg. 88-101 in Proceedings of the
Twentieth Annual Conference of Wetlands Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough County
Community College, Tampa, FL.
54. Johansson, J.O.R 1995. Reestablishment of sea grass meadows in Hillsborough Bay. IN: State of
Tampa Bay 1995. Prepared by Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council and its Agency on Bay
Management.
55. Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (in preparation). Issues & options: Final characterization
report of the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program.
56. Sargent, EJ.,TJ. Leary, D.W. Crewz, and C.R Kruer. 1995. Scarring of Florida's seagrasses:
Assessment and management options. FMRI Tech. Rep. TR-1. Florida Marine Research Institute,
St. Petersburg, FL. 37p. plus appendices.
57. Durako, MJ., M.O. Hall, F Sargent, and S. Peck. 1992. Propeller scars in seagrass beds: an
assessment and experimental study of recolonization in Weedon Island State Preserve, Florida.
Pp. 42-53 in Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of Wetlands Restoration and Creation.
Hillsborough County Community College, Tampa, FL.
58. Ehringer, J.N. 1994. Results of analysis of prop scar damage at the Fort Desoto Aquatic Habitat
Management Area 1992/1993. Tech. Pub. #05-94, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program.
59. Sargent, FJ., T.J. Leary, P. Rubec, M. Colby, D.Kuhl, and A Lamb. 1996. Assessment of sea grass
scarring in Tampa Bay and recommendations for monitoring. Tech. Pub. #14-96, Tampa Bay
National Estuary Program.
60. Ries, T., personal communication. 1995. Unpublished data. SWFWMD-SWIM.
61. Wade, D.L., and A.J. Janicki. 1993
62. Lewis, RR, III and E.D. Estevez. 1988. The ecology of Tampa Bay, Florida: An estuarine profile.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Bio. Rep. 85(7.18).
63. Grabe, S.A., C.M. Courtney, Z. Un, D. Alberdi, H.T. Wilson and G. Blanchard. 1996. Technical
report: A synoptic survey of the benthic macroinvertebrates and demersalfishes of the Tampa Bay
estuarine system. Tech. Pub. #12-95b, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. Prepared by
Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County, Coastal Environmental, Inc., and
Manatee County Dept. of Environmental Management.
64. Wade, D.L. andAJ. Janicki. 1993.
65. Grabe et.al. 1996.
66. Savercool, D.M. and RR Lewis, III. 1994. Hard bottom mapping (if Tampa Bay. Tech. Pub. #07-
94, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. Prepared by Lewis Environmental Services, Inc.
67. Lewis, RR, III and E.D. Estevez, 1988.
68. Boaters Guide to Tampa Bay. 1993. Tampa Bay National Estuary Program and Florida Dept. of
Environmental Protection, Marine Research Institute.
69. Janicki, AJ., D.L. Wade, and D.E. Robison. 1994.
70. Ibid.
71. Ibid.
72. Ibid.
73. MacIntyre, H.L., RJ. Geider and D.C. Miller. 1996. Microphytobenthos: The ecological role of
the "Secret Garden" of unvegetated, shallow-water marine habitats. I. Distribution, abundance and
primary production. Estuaries, 19(20a):186-201.
74. Janicki, AJ., D.L. Wade, and D.E. Robison. 1994.
75. Beever, J., personal communication. 1995. Unpublished data based on infomlation from LAND-
SAT Ground Cover Database. FGFWFC.
76. Killam, K.A, RJ. Hochberg, and E.C. Rzemien. 1992. Synthesis of basic life histories of Tampa
Bay species. Tech. Pub. #10-92 of the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program.
77. CH2Hill. 1995. uunpa Water Resource Recovery Project Summary. Prepared for City of Tampa,
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, and West Coast Regional Water Supply
Authority.
78. Ibid.
79. Walters. M. 0., MS. Ritter, RK. Karkowski, E.D. Estevez and M. Marshall. 1994. Impact of
freslnl'Gterf7o\\ variations in the Manatee River. Tech. Pub. #09-94, Tampa Bay National Estuary
Program. Prepared by Dames & Moore and Mote Marine Laboratory.
80. Zarbock, H.W., AJ. Janicki, D.L. Wade, D. Heimbuch, and H. Wilson. 1995. Current and histori-
calfresh\\'ater i/!t1ows to Tampa Bay, Florida. Tech. Pub. #01-94, Tampa Bay National Estuary
Program. Prepared by Coastal Environmental, Inc.
81. Coastal Environmental, Inc. 1996. Living resource-basedfreslnvater inflow and salinity targets fi)r
the tidal Peace Ri\'er. Prepared for the Southwest Florida Water Management Dist. Surface Water
ImproYement and ~lanagement (SWIM) Dept.
82. :\'orris. ~L personal communication. 1995. Unpublished data of landings from .the Natio~al
~larine Fisheries Service and the Florida Department of En\lronmental ProtectlOn. Landmg data
includes bluefish. black drum, flounder, jack crevalle, whiting, Spanish mackerel, menhaden, mul-
let sea trout, sheepshead, and gray snapper. Some fish landed in Manatee C?unty may have been
caught in Tampa Bay, but those harvests cannot be segregated from catches m ~arasota Bay.
Regardless, the inclusion of Manatee landings does not change the percent declmes noted here.
~.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
259
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
280
83. Ibid.
84. Norris, M., personal communication. 1994. Unpublished data. FDEP Marine Research Institute.
85. Wade, D.L., S. Cairns and AJ. Janicki. 1992. Distribution of selected fish species in Tampa Bay.
Tech. Pub. #05-92, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. Prepared by Coastal Environmental,
Inc.
86. Pierce, B., personal communication 1995. Unpublished data based on the National Shellfish
Sanitation Program Guidelines. FDEP Bur.of Marine Resource Regulation and Development.
87. Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. 1985. The Future of Tampa Bay. St. Petersburg, FL.
88. Leverone, J. 1993. Environmental requirements assessments of the bay scallop Argovectin irradi-
ans concentricus. Tech. Pub. #01-93, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. Prepared by Mote
Marine Laboratory.
89. Blake, N.J., Y. Lu, and M. Moyer. 1993. Evaluation of Tampa Bay waters for the survival and
growth of southern bay scallop larvae and juveniles. Tech. Pub. #04-93, Tampa Bay National
Estuary Program. Prepared by Department of Marine Science, University of South Florida.
90. Arnold, W.S., KG. Hagner and D.C. Marelli. 1996. Monitoring bay scallop recovery and stocking
efforts in Tampa Bay. Tech. Pub. #11096, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. Prepared by
Florida Department of Environmental Protection Florida Marine Research Institute.
91. Paul, R, personal communication. 1995. Unpublished data. National Audubon Society, Tampa
Bay Sanctuaries.
92. Ibid.
93. Wright, LE., J.E. Reynolds, III, B.B. Ackerman, L.L Ward, B.L. Weigle, and W.A Szelistowski.
1996. Aerial surveys o.fmanatees (Trichochus manatus latirostrisl in Tampa Bay, Florida, 1987-
94. In preparation.
94. FDEP, Florida Marine Research Institute. 1996 Manatee Salvage Database, Summary Report.
Banowetz, D.J. Personal communication.
95. Weigle, B. (ed). 1996. Assessment of manatee monitoring programs in Tampa Bay; 1996. Tech.
Pub. #13-96, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. Prepared by Florida Department of
Environmental Protection Florida Marine Research Institute.
96. Meylan, A., A. Mosier, K Moody and A. Foley. 1996. Assessment of sea turtle monitoring pro-
grams in Tampa Bay. Tech. Pub. #12-96, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. Prepared by
Florida Marine Research Institute.
97. Simon, J.L. and S'K Mahadevan. 1985. Benthic macroinvertebrates of Tampa Bay (abstract).
Page 384. In: S.P. Treat, J.L: Simon, RR Lewis, III, & RL. Whitman, Jr. (Eds.) Proc. Tampa Bay
Area Sci. information Symp. Tampa, FL. 663 p.
98. DeSalvo, J.S. 1995. Executive summary: the economic impact of the Port of Tampa, Fiscal Year
1994-95. Tampa Port Authority. Prepared by the Department of Economics, University of South
Florida.
99. Wade, D.L. andAJ. Janicki. 1993.
100. Ibid
101. Parsche, D., personal communication. 1996. Tampa Port Autbority.
102. Tampa Port Authority. 1996. Tampa Port Authority dredged material management plan. TPA,
Engineering Department. Page 2.
103. Davis, D., personal communication. 1996. Tampa Port Authority.
104. Trustee Council. 1994. Natural resource damage assessment strategy, Tampa Bay, Floridafor the
Bouchard BARGE 155, Maritrans barge OCEAN 255, and MV BALSA 37 collision and spill, 10
August 1993.
105. Tampa Bay Area VTIS Consortium. March 1996. A plan to implement a vessel traffic in/ormation
servIce sen.ing the Tampa Bay area. Tampa, FL
106. Florida Power and Light Company. December 199:'. .\lonatee Orimulsion Conversion Project:
Questions and Ansllers.
107. U.S. Public Law 101-380. Oil Pollution Act of 1990 I OrA. 1990).
108. United States Coast Guard, Marine Safety Office. re~"c'na] communication. 1994. Tampa, FL.
109. Rossbach, c., personal communication. 1995. FDEP Di\. of Law Enforcement, Bur. of
Emergency Response.
'il
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 (man-made) 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 enviromnental conditions in a place where a plant or animal
lives.
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.
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
281
CHARTING
the COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY
282
NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION - refers to pollution that comes from many
sources and cannot be traced to one specific point, such as pollution from stormwater
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). Fresh water is characterized by salinity of less
than 0.5 ppt; sea water 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.
ACRONYMS
CHARTING
the COURSE
ACP
AWT
BEMR
BMP
CARL
CCMP
CFMP
CIP
DDT
DGPS
DHRS
ELM
EPA
EPC
ERP
FAC
FADS
FCES
FDEP
FDOT
FERC
FGFWFC
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
AREA CONTINGENCY PLAN
ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT
BIENNIAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING REPORT
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
CONSERVATION AND RECREATION LANDS
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION & MANAGEMENT PLAN
CRITICAL FISHERIES MONITORING PROGRAM
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
DICHLOROD I PHENYL - TR I CHLOROETHYLEN E
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
FOR TAMPA BAY
283