This contains the entire document Charting the Course from 

the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for 

Tampa Bay. 

The report (tampabay_ccmp.pdf) can be downloaded from: 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/ccmp/documents/tampa

bay.html

File 1 of 1 

December 1996 
the

THE COMPREHENSIVE

AND MANAGEMENT PLAN

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

VIa E-mail: tbnep@tampabayrpc.org

To explore Tampa Bay On-line, visit us on the World Wide Web at:

http://access.tampabayrpc. orglnep
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 EstuaryProgram

in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV.

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY
CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

II

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 protection. The Program is a partnership of Hillsborough, Pinellas and Manatee counties; the

cities of Tampa, St. Petersburg and Clearwater; the Southwest Florida Water

Management District; Florida Department of Enviromuental Protection; and the U.S.

Enviromuental Protection Agency.

Action Plans for bay improvement have been developed with assistance from bay

experts, advocates, community interests and citizens. More than 250 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 citizen advisors

also conducted a series of smaller focus groups to solicit feedback from specific interest groups. A summary of public comments is available from the NEP.

This strategic blueprint reflects broad-based input from individuals, groups and communities 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 conunents and participation as

we continue to assist the region in charting the course for the furure 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 located at the beginning of the document on pages V-VIII. Other important points of information 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 Esruary Program is a 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 effective 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 partners 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

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

III
CHARTING

theCOURSE

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 objectives.

As implementation of the bay plan begins, some important technical investigations continue. Studies are underway to more clearly identify the amount and sources of atmospheric 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 parties" refer to Hillsborough, Pinellas and Manatee counties and the cities of Tampa, St.

Petersburg and Clearwater, unless otherwise noted, although all local communities in

the region are urged to participate.

IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN 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 committing 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 managers 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. Anny Corps of

Engineers in developing a long-tenn, 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 enviromnentally sensitive coast lands.

Since its inception in 1991, the Tampa Bay NEP has assisted the community in securing more than $1 million in federal and state grants for restoration of bay habitats and

resources. Profiles ofthese 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 of the 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 107

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

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

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

v
CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

INDEX OF ACTION PLANS AND

ACTIONS FOR TAMPA BAY

WATER & SEDIMENT QUALITY

WQ-l Implement nitrogen management goals for Tampa Bay 64

Actions to reduce pollution from stormwater runoff:

SW-l

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 govermnents 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

Actions to reduce the effects ofair pollution on the bay:

AD-l

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-I

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

Actions to reduce toxic contaminants in the bay:

VI

TX-I

TX-2

TX-3

Address hot spots of contamination 124

Improve opportunities for proper hazardous waste disposal.. I27

Reduce toxic contaminants from ports and marinas 131
TX-4 Promote integrated pest management on farms to reduce

pesticides in runoff 134

CHARTING

theCOURSE

Actions to reduce pathogens:

FOR TAMPA BAY

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

Actions to increase and preserve the number and diversity ofhealthy bay habitats:

BH-l

BH-2

BH-3

BH-4

BH-S

BH-6

BH-?

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 seagrass and pursue seagrass

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

Actions to protect and enhance bay fisheries and wildlife:

FW-l

FW-2

FW-3

FW-4

FW-S

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

Actions to reduce the impact ofdredging and improve dredged material management:

DR-l Develop a long-term dredging and dredged

material management plan for Tampa Bay 206

VII
CHARTING theCOlJRSE

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 thonsands of miles on their annnal pilgrimage to Tampa Bay.

TROUBLED WATERS

The bay's natural habitats are the nerve center of this dynamic system, bnt they have

sustained heavy damage. Most impacts occurred in a span of about three decades

beginning in the 1950s with unchecked development along the bay's shoreline.

Studies by the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (NEP) and other environmental

agencies reveal the extent of habitat declines driven by massive dredge-and-fill projects 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 mid1960s; 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 halfcentury. 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 docnmented 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 qnality to restore the damaged estnary. 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 wastewater treattnent facility. The $lOO-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
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 standards.

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 St. Petersburg's initiative, many local communities 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 potential impacts far greater than bay managers previously thought. New studies have identified air pollution as a significant and persistent source of bay pollution. Recent studies also have revealed the presence of toxic contaminants in bay sediments in localized 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 managers in government and industry will be challenged to define objectives more clearly

and implement the most cost-effective strategies to assist bay recovery.

These efforts should be based upon a clear vision, bolstered by broad community support, 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

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

3
CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

4

pollutants discharged to the bay;

neighborhoods and businesses will have adopted environmentally friendly landscaping practices, using native and drought-tolerant plants that require less water,

fertilizer and pesticides;

seagrasses will have responded to increased water clarity and recolonized thousands of acres of bay bottom, providing vital fish habitat;

hundreds of additional acres of productive coastal marshes and mangroves will be

in public ownership or otherwise safeguarded, extending permanent protection to

these wetland habitats 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 adequate 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 dolphius,

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 collisions and catastrophic spills;

bay area port authorities and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will have expanded beneficial uses of dredged material and developed long-term 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 measures being taken today by government, citizens and industry. Meeting the remainder

of the challenges defined in this plan, and maintaining the hard-won gains that already

have occurred, will require the community's long-tenn 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 commitments for action. At the heart of this effort is the overall goal of ecosystem management, 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 alteruatives 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 characterize bay conditions and support bay improvement strategies.

About the Tampa Bay

National Estuary Program

The Tampa Bay National Estuary Program was established in 1991 to assist the community 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 partners 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 management 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 developed a number of educational outreach programs and provided grants to involve

citizens and communities in efforts to improve their bay. These efforts, and a summary of the community's response to the draft CCMP, are presented in the chapter on

public involvement.

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

5
FOR TAMPA BAY

B

Figure 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 asignificant 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 11, 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

• Hazardous/toxic contamination, including sediment contamination and oil/hazardous

materials spills

Source: Management Conference Agreement, Tampa Bay NEP. March 1991
Figura 2

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

1991

1994-1996

1993-1996

1991-1996

December 1996

January 1995

January 1996

Spring 1996

November 1996

Town Meetings & Community Focus Groups

Management Conlerence Approval of the Comprehensive

Conservation & Management Plan for Tampa Bay

Plan submitted to EPA and Governor

Identify and Rank Priority Problems

-------------------------

Assess Bay Conditions &Needs ------,*,.-----------

Establish Specilic Goals lor Tampa Bay

Develop & Review Management Options

----,----------

Comprehensive Conservation &Management Plan lor Tampa Bay

Preliminary Action Plans Released

Drall Plan Released

Spring 1997

Revise Goals and Strategies as Needed

-4J;------

Implementing Agreement Signed by Community and

Agency Partners as Part 01 Ceremony Celebrating the

Adoption 01 the Tampa Bay Plan

-~,..-------

Monitor

Implement

Progress

Plan &*

IIlSJV

7
CHARTING Ernie Estevez Rob Heath Stu Marvin

theCOURSE Mote Marine Laboratory Hillsborough County Parks Hillsborough County -

Kent Fanning Department City/County Plamring

FOR TAMPA BAY University of South Florida - Brandt Henningsen Commission

Marine Science Department Southwest Florida Water Heidi· McCree

Doug Farrell (deceased)

Management District - SWIM

Hillsborough River Greenways

Water Facilities (FDEP) Mike Heyl Task Force

Terry Finch

Camp Dresser & McKee

Robert H. McMichael, Jr.

City of Clearwater - Department Mark Hilton Florida Marine Research Institute

of Engineering/Environmental Sarasota Bay National Estuary (FDEP)

Management Program

Darrell Howten

Ben McPherson

Mike Flanery U.S. Geological Survey Pinellas County Health Environmental Protection

Department Commission of Hillsborough Jack Merriam

County Hillsborough County Sid Flannery

Southwest Florida Water Gail Huff Engineering Services

Management District U.S. Soil Conservation Service

Ron Miller

Mark J. Flint Tony Janicki u.s. Geological Survey

Post Buckley Schuh & Jernigan Coastal Environmental, Inc.

Siamak Mollanazar

Thomas Franques Dennis Kellenberger Manatee County Public Works

University of South Florida - Clearwater Marine Science

Civil Engineering Department Center Don Moores

Boris Galperin Marty Kelly Pinellas County - Department of

University of South Florida - Southwest Florida Water Environmental Management

Marine Science Department Management District - (SWIM) E. O. Morris

Ron Giovanelli Steve Kent Cargill Fertilizer, Inc.

Dames & Moore Tree of Life Nursery, Inc.

Gerold Morrison

Bob Gordon Jay Leverone Southwest Florida Water

Hillsborough County Mote Marine Laboratory Management District (SWIM)

Engineering and Construction Jordan Lewis Gus Muench Services Department of Health and Commercial Fisherman

Steve Grabe Rehabilitative Services

Hillsborough Environmental Roy R. Lewis III Fritz Musselman

Protection Commission Lewis Environmental Services Southwest Florida Water

Andrea Grainger Management District/Land

Kathy Liles Resources

FDEP Ecosystem Management (FDEP)

Jim Greenfield Frank Nearhoof

Eric Livingston FDEP - Bureau of Water U.S. Environmental Protection FDEP - Stormwater Management Agency - Region IV Division Joe O/Hop

Kurt Gremley Ed Long Florida Marine Research Institute

Hillsorough County ELAPP National Oceanic and (FDEP)

Mark Haberman Atmospheric Administration JOM Ogden

Southwest Florida Water Hazardous Materials Branch

Florida Institute of

Management District - Water Use Sheri A. Lovely Oceanography

Permitting Pinellas County - Sewer Systems

Ken Haddad Department Shinnatee Ojah-Maharaj

City of St. Petersburg - Planning Florida Marine Research Institute Mark Luther Department (FDEP) University of South Florida -

Penny Hall

Marine Science Department Scott Osbourn

Florida Marine Research Institute Kumar Mahadevan Florida Power Corporation

(FDEP) Mote Marine Laboratory Christine Owen

Ken Hartley Deborah Manz City of Tampa Water Department

Bait Shrimp Fisherman US Fish & Wildlife Service Neal Parker, Sr.

Walid M. Hatoum James Martin Manatee County - Public Works

Parsons Engineering Science ASCI Corporation Department

10
Dave Parsche Ed Snipes David Voigts CHARTING

Tampa Port Authority Water Facilities (FDEP) Florida Power Corporation theCOURSE

John Paul Elmer Spence Jan Vorhees

University of South Florida - Pinellas County Public Works Environmental Specialist FOR TAMPA BAY

Marine Science Department Bob Stetler

Richard Paul Environmental Resources Chuck Walter

National Audubon Society (FDEP) Florida Department of

John Stevely Transportation

Michael Peny

Southwest Florida Water Manatee County Cooperative Mikc Walters

Management District (SWIM) Extension Service Dames & Moore

Kevin Peters Scott Stevens Fred Webb

Florida Marine Rcsearch Southwest Florida Water

Institute (FDEP) Management District (SWIM) Hillsborough Community

College

Kevin Pctrus Mark Stewart

Water Facilities (FDEP) University of South Florida - Robert H. Weisburg

Geology Department University of South Florida - Richard Pierce

Mote Marine Laboratory Yvonne Stoker Marine Science Department

U.S. Geological Survey Mike Wells Edward Proffitt

Coastal & Marine Research, Inc. Richard Stumpf Cargill Fertilizer, Inc.

U.S. Geological Survey

Ed Radice Julie Weston

Hillsborough County Parks Lawrence Swanson City of S1. Petersburg - Planning

Deparunent Environmental Scientist Department

Ed Rathke Don Sweat

Florida Power & Light Pinellas County Cooperative Barry Wharton

Company Extension Service HDR Engineering, Inc.

Thomas Reese Todd Tanberg Bob Whitman

Attorney at Law Pinellas County Utilities Peninsula Design & Engineering

Stan Rice Sally Thompson Dick Williams

University of Tampa - Biology City of Tampa - Planning Water Facilities (FDEP)

Department Department

Tom Ries Bill Tiffany Greg Williams

Southwest Florida Water Manatee County Port Authority IMC-Agrico Company

Management District (SWIM) Chris Tolbert Michael Wood

Doug Robinson Pakhoad Dry Bulk Tcrminals Manatee County - Planning and

Coastal Environmental, Inc.

David Tomasko Zoning Department

Tom Rogers Southwest Florida Water David Worley FDEP - Air Quality Management District (SWIM) FDEP

Mark Ross Nick Toth

University of South Florida - Cockroach Bay & Aquatic Jay Yingling

Engineering Department Preserve Southwest Florida Water

Melody Russo Jane Urquhart-Donnelly Management District - Planning

Cargill Fertilizer, Inc. Emergency Response (FDEP) Department

Daniel Savercool Gabriel Vargo Hans Zarbock

Damcs & Moore University of South Florida - Coastal Environmental, Inc.

Julie Schulten

Marine Science Department

John Zimmerman

Parsons Engineering Science, Sandra Vargo Manatee County - Public Works

Inc. Florida Institute of Department

Gary M. Serviss

Oceanography

cel Environmental Services, Bill Veon

Inc. Hillsborough County - Planning

Patrick Shell

& Zoning (FDEP) Florida Department of

Hillsborough County Mark Vincent Environmental Protection

Enviromnental Protection University of South Florida -

Commission/Air Management Marine Science Department

11
CHARTING

theCOURSE Tampa Bay Watershed Boundaries and Bay Segments Figure 3

FOR TAMPA BAY

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

, , L . __ l

,

,

,

,

_1- _

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY

MANATEE COUNTY

'".~.t"" /Y/"ver

~t. Petersburg

SARASOTA COUNTY

More than 2 million people reside in the 2,200-square-mite 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 ofthe Bay

Prom the headwaters of the Hillsborough River to the salty waters off Anna

Maria Island, Tampa Bay encompasses a rich mosaic of underwater and coastal

habitats that support thousands of species of plants and animals. Preserving and

restoring these interdependent habitats - even in the face of continued growth - is

critical to the bay's future.

Estuaries like Tampa Bay, where 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 animals 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.' 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 modem 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 management. Decisions based on ecosystem needs - those that recognize how individual

habitats affect the health of the whole and how fish and wildlife depend upon this network for survival - can prevent costly and less effective piecemeal treatment.

Achieving the goals set out by the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (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 differences, ecosystem management goes beyond traditional program boundaries - just

as the bay ecosystem itself extends far beyond its visible borders. Thus, a plan based

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

13
CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

14

on these principles can integrate actions and policies to better protect the bay's multifaceted resources.

By focusing less on government-imposed regulations and more on the actual requirements 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 generated 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 conducted by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the

Florida Department of Enviromnental 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.'

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 partially 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.' Corrective

actions will be costly and will take time, but they are necessary to minimize associated water quality impacts and allay public concerns about the bay's safety as a recreational and fisheries resource.

Since 1974, the Enviromnental Protection Commission (EPC) 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 information 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

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

15
Existing Annual Mtrogen Loadings to Tampa Bay

by Bay Segment <1992 -1994 average)

Figure 5

FOR TAMPA BAY

OldJaml'''JlaY __~. • 174 tons/ 35.8% ::.. • D 227 tons/ 46.2% ..•

!S:! 85 tons! 17.5%

III <1 tonI 0%

Total 486 tons

lII1iddl~!<Impa Bay

• 415 tons/ 51.9% D 306 tons! 38.3%

78 tons! 9.8%

III <1 toni 0%

Total 799 tons

Boca Ciega Bay

• 69 tons/ 39.0%

D 93 tons/ 52.5%

!S:! 15 tons! 8.5%

Total 177 tons

L.ow",_!amp,,__Bay _

• 36 ton! 10.3%

~88 :~~:; 8~:~~ ~_ I22i 24 tons! 6.9% •

III <1 tonI 0%

Total 349 tons

LEGEND

• Stormwater Runoff

D Atmospheric Deposition

Industrial & Municipal Point Sources

Fertilizer Material Losses

.. Springs & Groundwater

18

Hills_bQroU~Elay

• 596 tons/ 41.1 %

D 115 tons! 7.9%

!S:! 300 tons! 20.7%

I22i 233 tons! 16.1 %

• 207 tons/ 14.2%

Total 1,451 tons

Ter",_c::eia_BllL

• 11 tons! 31.4% - ~._ D 20 tonsl 57.2% ...,

4 tons! 11.4%

Total 35 tons

Manatee River " • 422 tOIlS/83.9% - _

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 govermnents and industry are being conducted

to determine equitable allocations of the bay's nitrogen management goals to the jurisdictions and sources from which they originate. These commitments will form the

basis of an agreement signed by community and agency partners in 1997 to implement 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 complete 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 ltigh 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. 17

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. Bottomdwellers that filter contaminated sediments - and the fish, birds and humans that ultimately consume them - can be placed at risk, since some toxic substances increase

in concentration as they ascend the food web.

CHARTING thCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

19
CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Toxics of Concern for Tampa Bay

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 amammalian 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 ievels 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 anumber of acute and chronic human health

impacts, and accumulates in sediments. High leveis 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 leveis in bay sediments found in Boca

Ciega Bay near Cross Bayou and in Hillsborough Bay near

the Alafia River.

DDT - Animal and potential human carcinogen; biomagnifies

in organisms and persists in the environment. Caused widespread contamination of fish and wildiife, 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 Alalia River and Papys 8ayou.

Sources

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 piants, 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 siudge, and copper sulfate used to control

algae in reservoirs.

Largest source of lead to the environment originates

from its past use as agasoline 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 ',s coating of other metals to protect

against corrosion. Used widely as acomponent in

batteries and tires. Sources include municipal

wastewater and sludge, direct industrial discharges,

surface runoff, and atmospheric deposition.

Formerly used to control abroad spectrum of

agricultural, silviculturai and househoid insect pests.

22
Figure 7

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ConlaminanlllmpaCIS

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. Acarcinogen

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.

Sources

Farmers used granular chlordane mixed with fertilizers

for broad-spectrum insect control on fields. Also

applied occasionally as aliquid 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 apotential source.

Introduced about 30 years ago and widely used to

control winged insects associated with many row

and field crops. Applied as aliquid 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 abreakdown product of

the pesticide aldrin, both of which are long-lasting

in solis and not highly water-soluble.

Formerly employed in awide 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.

Agroup of related compounds present in crude oil

and its products, released to the atmosphere during

combustion. Also released from burning of nonpetroleum 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
CHARTING

theCOURSE

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, atmospheric deposition (pollutants carried in rainfall and dryfall, which consist of small particles 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 pollutants 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."

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 percent.26

In the Tampa Bay region, stationary sources (primarily power plants) contribute an estimated 70 percent of the manmade NOx emissions as compared to 30 percent from

motor vehicles." One utility, Tampa Electric Company - which operates two coalfired 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 airborne 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 lightuing. Additional research on natural and manmade 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 year30 But those estimates do

not include changes that could occur as a result of new and unforeseen industrial discharges to the bay, or increased power generation at local utilities. Florida Power &

Light (FP&L) Company's request to bum the controversial new fuel called Orimulsion,
Sources of Nitrogen Oxide

Sources of NOx Emissions, 1994

A Comparison of Major Urban Areas in Florida

Figure 8

CHARllNG

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Tampa Bay Region*

Total: 160,200 tons yr.

.. Pinellas, Hillsborough

and Manatee counties.

Southeast Florida*

Total: 136,200 tons yr.

.. Dade, Broward and

Palm Beach counties.

Jacksonville

Total: 59,200 tons yr.

31.1%

64%

36%

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 example, studies estimate that 44 percent of the bay's total cadmium loading, and about

one-sixth of its copper and lead loadings, come from the air." PAHs also enter the

bay from the atmosphere, although loadings and specific sources are unknown. PAHs

are associated with fossil fuel combustion, such as power plant and motor 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 10adings.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 Hillsborough Bay receiving the largest portion. In 1991, this bay

25
CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

28

segment received two-thirds of the cumulative nitrogen load from domestic wastewater 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,

clnomium and copper, as well as low levels of other contaminants. 35 Residents also

can contribute to the problem by pouriug 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 populace, 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 overall nitrogen 10adings.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."

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"o

Preliminary estimates developed for the NEP suggest that ground water and springs

contribute about 5 percent of the bay's total nitrogen 10adings.4l Nitrogen (particularly nitrate) concentrations in springs in the area appears to be increasing, possibly due

to changes in land use in the spring recharge areas'2

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

Tampa Bay's food web provides a"who eats who" perspective of the ecosystem. But in reality, it is lar more complex. The

marine food web, as its name implies, travels in various directions, bbund together by common, interdependent threads.

Impacts to any part of the food web affect the health 01 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 01 the bay's primary producers. Light also is absorbed by seagrassesCand other underwater plants. There are

270 species of phytoplankton in Tampa Bay, and asingle quart 01 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 zooplanktonDand larger bottom-dwelling filter feeders lorm the next thread in the web. Filter

feeders such as the bay scaliopE and the sea squirtFare 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 manateesGand

green sea turtlesH, consume bigger plants like seagrasses.

• Carnivores and omnivores (opportunistic leeders that eat plants and animals) prey on the zooplankton and the filter feeders.

Small carnivores such as the blue crab' and pinlishJ 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 pelicansNand cormorants, also eat the

small lish and invertebrates.

• When plants and animals die, their remains sustain another thread in the web, the scavengers. Some of these, such as fiddler crabsDand snails, live in burrows along the shoreline. Others, like worms and shrimpP, dwell in the muds at the bottom 01 the bay. The muds 01 the shore and bay bottom may look barren to acasual observer, but they teem with life.

• The scavengers begin another circle of life, providing food for avariety of shorebirds such as the white ibisOand the

roseate spoonbill, which frequent the bay's shallows. Small mammals such as raccoons also prey on crabs and snails.

27
CHARTING

theCOURSE 1950 vs. 1990 Seagrass Coverage Figure 11

FOR TAMPA BAY

". Tampa

Hillsborough

Bay

LEGEND

o LandArea

l1li 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 morc 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 success 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 propellers, 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 epiphytic algae attached to the grass blades, as well as physical parameters such as salinity, pH and water depth.60

SOFT-BOTTOM

More than 80 percent of the bay bottom is sand or mud, although the term "soft bottom" can be misleading since a large part of the bay floor is actually hard-packed sand

and shell.'1 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 bottomdwelling animals, as well as by waves, currents and dredging." 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.64

The long-term effects of disposal on these soft-bottom habitats has not been well documented. 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

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

31
CHARTING

theCOURSE

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 underscores 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 damage 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).'o

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 wetland coverage since 1982, due to recent habitat restoration efforts and natural colonization of marshes and mangroves along causeways and other filled lands. 71

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 estuarine 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 phytoplankton in overlying waters. 73

Mud flats support a diverse community of bottom-burrowing creatures, including
wonns, 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."

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 stretches 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 animals, including the wood stork, white ibis, osprey, bald eagle and Shennan'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." Coastal hammocks 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 salinity range of 11 to 19 ppt.

Low and medium-salinity habitats are a primary nursery for red drum, snook and tarpon, as well as numerous non-game species such as the striped mullet. Some of the

most highly productive juveuile nursery habitat occurs where these low-salinity waters

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

35
CHARTING

theCOURSE

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 enviromnental impacts assessment will be conducted as part of this project.??

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 operations for the period 1982-1992. Consequently, the area of wetlands coinciding with

this low-salinity band was reduced by 150 acres, or 25 percent."

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 stormwater runoff, which have countered decreases in freshwater

flows from rivers. However, long-term measurements of river flows by the U.S.

Geological Survey indicate that some rivers in southwest Florida (including the

Hillsborough River) have experienced gradual freshwater declines since the 1930s,

partly because of declining rainfal]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 fishennen 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 commercial and recreational fishermen.

Bait fish such as menhaden and herring also were targeted for increased protection

following precipitous declines in bait fish landings in the late 1980s. The 1993 ban on

purse seining in the bay is expected to stabilize bait fish populations, as well as benefit 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 fishery species in Tampa Bay from landings data because direct measurements were not

available. These data, which record the amounts and types of fish brought to Pinellas

and Hillsborough docks by area fishermen, indicate that 3.7 million pounds of 11

commercial species of finfish were harvested from the bay in 1990 - a decrease of

24 percent since 1966. The decrease is largely due to reduced catches of mullet and

sea trout, while landings for the remaining species stayed the same or increased slightly."

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 commercial red drum harvests." These raw data do not reflect changes in fishery management 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."

Although useful, landings can be a misleading indicator of population stocks because

natural fluctuations and changes in market demand, gear efficiency and fishing regulations 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 seagrass beds,

further validating the importance of seagrass habitat to this species. Small red drum

were found in relative abundance in the bay's major tributaries, while small snook are

known to frequent at least two of the rivers, the Alafia and 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 shrimping continues. Harvests of clams and oysters throughout the bay are restricted or prohibited because of documented or potential bacterial contamination from fecal colCHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

37
CHARTING

theCOURSE

38

ifonn associated with human and animal wastes entering the bay in stormwater runoff.

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 perfonned 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 stonn event, rather than actual water quality conditions. 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 baseline data on stock sizes and nonnal survival rates, it is difficult to fully assess this

impact. Further evaluation is needed to understand the cumulative impacts of power

plant entraimnent 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 throughout 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 casualties 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, according 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 scallops 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.90

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 ecosystem, and mangrove islands in the bay are among the most important nesting sites in
Important Bird Nesting Colonies 01 Tampa Bay Figure 13

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

r-----------------------------,

Tampa

Clearwater Old Tampa

Bay

Gulfof

Mexico

St. Petersburg

Boca Ciega

Bay

11'''~

?,ili;; .~

Middle Tampa Bay

[~I llilisborouii·.·.·).~~:)"1 Bai2! ')$'

fjfiI

IZ!UI Lower Tampa Bay

Terra Ceia

~ay L!t2r

Manatee Riverl~i: I

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)'

7. Dot-Dash (mouth of

Braden River)

8. Courtney Campbell

Causeway

9. Alligator Lake

10. Howard Frankland

Causeway

11. Florida Power

Rooftop/Weedon

Island

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 Sancluary

**National Wildlife Refuge

SOURCl:'::~ NATIONAL AUDUBON SOClfTV, TAMPA BAY SANCTUARIES 39
CHARTING

theCOURSE Tampa Bay Shipping Channels and Spoil Areas Figure 14

FOR TAMPA BAY

. ..... .!I~

/

.;:t. . LEGEND

OLand

o 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 ecological 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 million. lOs

Cooperative efforts led by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), Florida Department of

Environmental Protection and Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council have been lauded for providing critical advance planning and response for such accidents. Local governments, 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 occurring.

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 containment 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 discharges 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

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

43
CHARTING

theCOURSE

46

Subsequent state legislation, through the Wilson-Grizzle and Grizzle-Egg initiatives,

required all sewage treatment facilities discharging to the bay to meet advanced treatment 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 documenting 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 protection 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 support 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, regulators 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 preserves, 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 no 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 envirornnental 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 TBRPC, 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 management is divided among county and city planning, stormwater, solid waste, wastewater,

and envirornnental 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 envirornnental programs. That study, based on FY94-95 budgets, indicates that more than $250 million

is spent annually by federal, state and local agencies and goverrnnents on the restoration 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 goverrnnents and the SWFWMD for stormwater management, including handling 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, environmental 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 turfguarding as a problem, and noted the lack of a comprehensive, readily available data

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

47
CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

base through which valuable infonnation about the bay's health and living resources

could be shared.

The pennitting arena serves as an example of what some believe is unnecessary duplication of effort. An applicant seeking pennission to remove or alter wetlands along the

bay may have to obtain pennits 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 Pennit (ERP), which consolidated review of existing dredgeand-fill, stonnwater management and sovereign lands pennits into a single pennit 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 pennit, from review and approval to compliance monitoring and

Bay Management and Related Expenditures

Federal, State and Local (FY94-95)

13.8%

Stormwater

Figure 15

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

48

This chart illustrates how money spent on bay restoration and management is allocated by federal, state

and local agencies and govenunents, based on FY94-95 expenditures of more than $250 million.

SOURCE: HAZEN AND SAWYER (1996), FUNDING SOURCE INVENTORY FOR CCMPACTION

PLANS. PREPARED FOR THE TAMPA BAY NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
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 regulatory 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 restoration design. This process increased the cost of the project and often delayed construction by a year or more. The SWIM program, however, has made progress in streamlining the process based on its record of success, close monitoring and reporting to regulatory agencies, and montWy 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 regulatory 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 community, 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 regulatory 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 goverument 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 judiciously 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 cumulative 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 provide 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

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

49
CHARTING

theCOURSE

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 populations of fish and wildlife. These goals and priorities for Tampa Bay are the focal

point of the master plan for Tampa Bay and the subject of this chapter.

When the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program was formed in 1991, local government 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 focns on maintaining the proper water clarity to support seagrasses 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 seagrasses, 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, althongh seagrasses are gradnally 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 nitrogen 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 significant 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

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

51
CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

52

attributed to stormwater runoff and discharges from municipal point sources. A nitrogen management consortium of key industries, local governments and regulatory

agencies has been established to develop a plan to address the remaining II 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 Enviromnental 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 Hillsborough 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 (PAHs), polycWorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and chlorinated

pesticides. Most of these pollutants enter the bay in stormwater 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, following completion of the second phase of the risk assessment.

Recent events also have focused the attention of citizens and bay managers on problems 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 communities around the bay and nationwide have experienced similar problems during periods 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 tbe vital underwater seagrass meadows to 1950s levels, 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 seagrass regrowth.

More than 4,000 acres of new or expanded seagrass 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 populations, recognizing that some vital habitats have declined more rapidly than others.

Declines have been particularly severe for tidal streams and tributaries, which are critical 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 "habitat mosaics. ~l

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 designated by SWFWMD as priorities for acquisition in their Save Our Rivers/Preservation 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 establishing 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 recommendations 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 providing suitable water quality and habitat. Achieving the NEP's seagrass recovery target

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

53
CHARTING

theCOURSE

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 tributaries 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 shorebased 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 dredging 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 disposal 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 compliance monitoring and enforcement also is emphasized throughout the plan and in specific actions to ensure that environmental regulations are followed.
CHARTING

theCOURSE

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.

• Establishing and maintaining adequate freshwater flows to

Tampa Bay and its tributaries to increase crucial low-salinity habitat.

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 aconcerted, long-term restoration effort. Goals and priorities for improving bay habitats include:

Status: More than 750 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-l. Aschedule for establishing minimum freshwater

flows from impounded rivers was adopted by SWFWMD in

1996. Action FI-l provides details.

Bay Habitats

• 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 every five years, for atotal increase over time

of 1,800 acres.

• Preserving and enhancing the bay's 18,800 acres of existing 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.

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:

Status: Local government partners in the NEP have tentativeiy pledged to reduce their future nitrogen loadings to the bay

by about 6 tons per year - that portion of bay loadings attributed

to stormwater runoff and municipal point sources. A Nitrogen

Management Consortium of local utilities, industries, agricultural

Interests, local governments and environmental agencies was

established in f996 to develop a plan to address the remaining

balance of f f tons of nitrogen per year, which is expected to

come from atmospheric deposition. industrial point sources, fertilizer shipping and handling, and intensive agriculture. See

Action WQ-l for details.

Ongoing studies of atmospheric deposition (Action AD-I) and

toxic contaminants (Action TX- f) are improving bay managers'

understanding of these important issues. Action PH-I calls for

the development of maintenance plans by local governments to

address sewer overflow problems.

Water &Sediment Quality

• 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 conditions, 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.
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 populations in the bay is:

• Improving the on-water enforcement of fishing and

environmental regulations.

Additionally, Charting the Course calls for the establishment

of aworking group of the Agency on Bay Management to

evaluate and develop recommendations for local manatee

protection zones.

Status: See Actions WO-l, BH-l and FI-l for updates

on efforts to improve water quality and bay habitats. Local

enforcement needs are discussed In Action FW-l. Additional

recommendations are discussed in the Fish & Wildlife Action

Plan.

Spill Prevention

&R£sponse

The oil spill that occurred in Tampa Bay in August 1993 spotlights 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 prevention and response is to:

• Install astate-of-the-art vessel traffic and information

system (VTIS) to improve coordination of ship movements along the bay's narrow shipping channel

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 VTIS Consortium to

develop and implement a Vessel Traffic and Informalion

System; Action SP-l provides details.

Dredging &Dredged

Material NIanagement

Maintenance of the bay's network of navigational channels is

important both to commercial maritime industries and recreational interests. But amore 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:

• 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 interests. See Action DR- f.
CHARTING

theCOURSE

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 outlined in the following Action Plans for bay improvement. This approach not only

emphasizes flexibility, but allows local govermnents 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-term return on investment.

Some actions can be implemented quickly and with existing resources. Others will

require long-term community commitments. Whenever possible, strategies presented

in Charting the Course seek to strengthen or redirect existing bay programs to accomplish 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 adviCHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

59
CHARTING

theCOURSE

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.

Prelimiuary 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 seagrass

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 implementation of the management plan for Tampa Bay.
Bathers at Spa Beach

and City Pier in St.

Petersburg (1925).

~-_._.

Water &

Sediment Quality

.: .,

...

PHOTO: BURGERT BROTHERS

CID\RTlNG

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

WQ

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 seagrasses

struggled to survive.

Today, water quality improvements are helping to chart a course for the bay's recovery. Since 1982, more than 4,000 acres of seagrasses - which provide life-support to

many of the bay's fisheries - have either sprouted in once-barren areas or filled in

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 technologies, 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.

61
Maintaining these water quality improvements as the region grows represents the foremost 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.

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

WQ

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

62

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 precedes 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 industries 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 management 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 managers, 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 enviromnent 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 stonnwater improvements and pollution prevention in the watershed. These actions will continue 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
for anticipated increases in nitrogen loadings, local governments and industries

will need to reduce their future nitrogen loadings to Tampa Bay by about 7 percent 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.

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

WQ

83
CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN

Implement Nitrogen Management

Goals for Tampa Bay

ACTION:

Water & Sediment Quality

B4

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 seagrass 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 enviromnent, 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 stabilize the soil on dry land.

Since the tum 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 seagrass.

In July 1996, the Tampa Bay NEP adopted a five-year management goal to cap nitrogen 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 governments 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 partuers already have tentatively accepted responsibility 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
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 reductions or preventing anticipated increases.

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

WQ·1

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 atmospheric deposition, industrial point sources, fertilizer shipping and handling, and intensive agriculture. Participants also are exploring ways to equitably assign the responsibility for managing nitrogen loadings among dischargers, based on their contribution

to the problem.

The Consortium is comprised of local utilities, phosphate mining and fertilizer handling 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-effective 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

govemments and industries may select from among a range of options - as long as

the overall goals for nitrogen management are met. This flexibility allows communities 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 developing 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.

85
A. Identify all nitrogen management projects completed, underway or proposed by Consortium members since January 1995 for completion by the

year 2005.

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

WQ·1 B. Develop a method for detennining 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 Florida Yards & Neighborhoods Program.

GG

C. Detennine the difference between estimated reductions associated with projects 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.
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 additional 12,000 acres of seagrasses, which are vital to countless marine animals.

ACTION PLAN

EXPECTED BENEFITS:

Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

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 community and Policy Board review. Details of the overall bay monitoring program are

provided in the chapter on Monitoring Bay Improvement.

REGULATORY NEEDS:

To be determined, based on projects identified in action plans.

RELATED ACTIONS:

See stormwater, wastewater and atmospheric deposition actions for discussion of

nitrogen management strategies.

WQ·1

87
CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN

STORMWATER RUNOFF

Water & Sediment Quality

swu

88

Stormwater runoff carrying fertilizer, pesticides, oils and other contaminants from

urban and agricultural lands contributes nearly half of the bay's total aunual nitrogen

loadings and more than 60 percent of the aunualloadings of zinc, mercury, lead and

chromium.

Contaminants in runoff come from land-use activities and from air pollutants that settle in the bay's watershed. In fact, air pollutants are believed to be a significant contributor 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 industrial sites, by comparison, contribute the other 5 percent of total bay nitrogen loadings.

Runoff from intensely cultivated agricultural lands (mostly citrus and vegetable production) contributes another 6 percent of total bay nitrogen loadings, as well as potentially 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 to 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 stormwater 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 several 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 retention/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 as 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 stormwater permits.
ACTIONS TO ADDRESS STORMWATER

RUNOFF

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality CHAR11NG

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Actions to address pollution from stormwater runoff range from recommendations for

improved landscape management and urban plauning to increased stormwater treatment. Actions to address agricultural runoff focus on water conservation and integrated pest management.

sw

SW-l

SW-2

SW-3

SW-4

SW-5

SW-6

SW-7

SW-8

SW-9

Continue implementation of the Florida Yards & Neighborhoods Program

and similar pollution prevention initiatives.

Assist businesses in implementing best management practices to reduce

stormwater pollution, and develop model landscaping guidelines for commercial use.

Encourage local govemments to adopt integrated pest management policies

and implement enviromnentally beneficial landscaping practices on public

properties.

Reduce impervious paved surfaces, focusing on parking space and design

requirements for large commercial developments.

Require older properties being redeveloped to meet current stormwater

treatment standards for that portion of the site being redeveloped, or provide equivalent compensation.

Promote compact urban development and redevelopment.

Enforce and require the timely completion of consent orders for the cleanup

of fertilizer facilities in Tampa's East Bay sector.

Encourage best management practices on farms.

Improve compliance with agricultural ground and surface water management plans.

ADDITIONALLY...

The NEP recommends a workshop in 1997 to discuss the overall issue of compliance

monitoring and 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 permitting and too few available for compliance 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.

G9
Total Nitrogen Loadings to Tampa Bay (1b92-1994 average)

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

sw

All Sources = 3,800 tons/year

29%

Atmospheric

Deposition

4%

Industrial

Wastewater

10%

Municipal

Wastewater

7%

Accidental

Fertilizer Losses

5%

Groundwater

and Springs

4%

Mining

7%

Undeveloped

Land 13%

Pasture/Range

Lands

10%

Residential

Runoff

5%

Commercial/

Industrial Runoff

6%

Intensive

Agriculture

Per-Acre Nitrogen Loadings from Non-Point Sources

Residential

Commercial Industrial/Institutional

Mining

Range and Pasture

Intensive Agriculture

Undeveloped Land

% Loadin9

10

5

4

13

6

7

% Watershed

15.5

6.4

3.2

28.4

6.5

39.93

Yield Ibs/ac/yr

4.52

5.26

4.97

2.81

5.63

1.15

70

SOURCE: COASTAL ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
Continue Support for the Florida Yards &

Neighborhoods Program and Similar Pollution

Prevention Initiatives

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

SW·1

ACTION:

Continue support for the Florida Yards & Neighborhoods Program and similar pollution prevention and education initiatives which encourage homeowners to reduce pollution in residential runoff. Continue to enlist retailers, developers, and the landscaping 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 contribute 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 stormwater 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 govermuents.

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 iu 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.

71
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.

CID\RTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

SW-1:

72

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 funding.

INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS AND NEIGHBORHOODS

STEP I Continue FY&N outreach to organized community and neighborhood associations, 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 revenues tagged for additional reprints.

C. Increase mass-media publicity efforts and promote the use of existing public service announcements on cable, network and government 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 certification.

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 estimated 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.
Retailers, Landscape Management and Horticulture Industry

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

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 fnnding may be required to implement steps 2-3.

DevelopersfProperty Managers

STEP 1 Promote the development of Model Florida Yards at model home developments 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 promotional brochure that includes a comparison of the costs to develop and

maintain a Florida Yard vs. a conventional, maintenance-intensive landscape (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 irrigation costs would be borne by developers, with interpretive signage and consulting provided by FCES. Costs for interpretive signage to promote Model Florida Yards could

range from $500-$1,000 per site. Funding sources include participating developers,

local governments, river basin boards, county realtors' boards and builders' associations.

SW·1

73
SCHEDULE:

FY&N programs are ongoing. Other steps may be initiated in 1997, if FCES is able to

secure additional funding from local govermnents or other cooperating partners.

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

SW·1

74

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 vegetation in yards is also expected to improve the quality and availability of wildlife habitat.

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 professionals certified in FY&N concepts, and number of certified Florida Yards.

REGULATORY NEEDS:

None anticipated.

RELATED ACTIONS:

SW-2, SW-3, SW-8
Assist Businesses in Implementing Best

Management Practices to Reduce Stormwater

Pollution, and Develop Model Landscaping

Guidelines for Commercial Use

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

SW·2

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 stonnwater 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 hazardous 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 substantial. These smaller businesses typically lack knowledge about their potential impact on

the environment, as well as the resources to research best management practices on

their own.

Local communities are encouraged to evaluate programs such as Operation BayWorks

as a model for regional implementation to reduce stonnwater pollution from commercial sites. Efforts such as these may help local governments meet federal mandates for

pollution prevention as required in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) stonnwater pennits.

The Tampa Bay NEP also recommends the development of model landscaping guidelines for incorporation into local government landscape ordinance codes. These guidelines could then become incorporated into the site review process for new development 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.

Stonnwater pollution from commercial sites can be reduced with changes in maintenance practices and landscape design, such as downsizing turf areas and expanding

the use of water-thrifty and pest-resistant plants.

75
Improvements in landscaping practices are just one important part of an overall strategy to reduce pollution from commercial sites. Another strategy, discussed in Action

SW-4, is to reduce the amount of impervious surface associated with large developments by lowering parking space requirements in building codes and promoting alternative pervious materials for overflow parking.

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

SW·2

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

7G

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 enviromnental 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

enviromnental committees of local chambers of commerce to oversee

development of the program and materials, with representation from local

target industries, enviromnental 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 enviromnentallandscaping standards.

Responsible parties: local governments
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

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

STEP 5 Aggressively promote model landscape design guidelines and maintenance

practices throughout the development, business and real estate community,

emphasizing cost-savings and enviromuental benefits.

Responsible parties: local governments, chambers of commerce and private industry councils, Florida Association ofEnvironmental

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 stormwater pollution. Local govermuents 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-l, SW-3, SWA

SW·2

n
Encourage Local Governments to Adopt

Integrated Pest Management Policies and

Implement Environmentally Beneficial

Landscaping Practices

CHARTING

theCOURSE

SW·3

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

78

ACTION:

Encourage local governments to adopt integrated pest management policies and use

enviromnentally beneficial landscaping practices on public properties to reduce pollution 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 existing landscapes to low-maintenance designs featuring native or drought-tolerant 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 enviromnentally sensitive concepts

for landscape design and maintenance.

Many communities already have begun to develop some public sites in accordance

with Xeriscape TM 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 environmental 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-maintenance 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 pesticide use.

Furthermore, information about environmental landscape management (ELM) concepts taught by county cooperative extension services should be communicated regularly to government employees involved in landscape maintenance or the purchase of
fertilizers, pesticides and plant materials. Annual training sessions with those employees could provide updates on new products and techniques that relate to ELM.

Sessions of this type also serve to reinforce the commitment made by elected officials

and senior staff to environmental quality and pollution prevention.

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Hillsborough County is currently revising its landscape ordinance and may incorporate this action.

STRATEGY:

STEP 1 Commit a minimum of 50 percent of all new public landscapes and retrofits to existing landscapes to low-maintenance designs featuring site-appropriate 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 publicly 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 [PM 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 cooperative extension services

STEP 4 Establish annual training sessions for landscape maintenance and purchasing personnel to assure proper use of ELM concepts, BMPs and leastharmful products. Coordinate with the county cooperative extension services to determine if continuing education credits can be provided for

approved training.

Responsible parties: local governments

STEP 5 Identify and develop interpretive signage for a minimum of three high-traffic sites where native plants and Florida Yard design and maintenance concepts 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-landscaping techniques can be utilized by homeowners.

Also, distribute materials, such as the Florida Yards & Neighborhoods

brochure and Florida YardStick, available through the Cooperative

SW·3

79
Extension Service, at these sites. Provide incentives, such as plant giveaways and free design consultations, whenever possible.

Responsible parties: local governments

See also Action SW-2 regarding development ofmodel landscaping

guidelines, based on Florida Yards & Neighborhoods principles, for

incorporation into local government landscape codes.

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

80

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 governments. 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 pollution, conserve water and enhance native habitat. The establishment of environmental

landscapes at public locations will provide homeowners with an "in-ground" demonstration of these methods.

MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:

Local governments monitor water quality. They also can track the amount of consumable 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 associated 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 pollution 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 anticipated 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 hardsurface 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 incentives for developers to incorporate these materials in new developments and redevelopment projects in urban areas closest to hot spots of contamination in the bay.

STEP I 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 recommendations to the NEP Management Committee in 1997. Much of this information already is available. The assessment should include:

costs of materials and parking construction

liability issues

life expectancy of materials

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

SW·4

81
CHARTING

theCOURSE

ACTION PLAN

maintenance costs and considerations

Water & Sediment Quality

FOR TAMPA BAY

SW·4

82

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 recommendations 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 I and 2, revise local government and agency regulations 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 I 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 annual workplan. The actual costs and cost-effectiveness of these materials will be identified 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
reduced municipal costs in treating stormwater runoff. Cost considerations will be

closely evaluated in developing recommendations.

ACTION PLAN

EXPECTED BENEFITS:

Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Reductions in the amount of impervious surface in the watershed will reduce pollutants such as heavy metals, oil and grease, and nitrogen in stormwater discharged to

the bay from urban areas.

MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:

Local governments monitor ambient water and sediment quality in Tampa Bay.

REGULATORY NEEDS:

Possible revisions to local development standards and stormwater regulations.

RELATED ACTIONS:

SW-5, TX-l

SW·4

83
CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

SW·5

88

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

ment for properties being redeveloped, and to alIow alternative

means to satisfy those requirements when on-site treatment is not

feasible.

Responsible parties: local governments and regulatory agencies, especiallySWFWMD

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 alIow 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 welI as the costs associated with stormwater treatment or alternative options required. In-lieu fees deposited

by developers into a "stormwater bank" could help finance implementation of alternative stormwater treatment options, such as development of a regional stormwater

facility or additional street sweeping. A cost-benefit evaluation of alternative treatments is being developed as part of an ongoing project referenced in Step 1.

EXPECTED BENEFITS:

Stormwater treatment from older properties and in the urban areas of the watershed

helps to reduce polIution 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-l
Promote Compact Urban Development and

Redevelopment

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION:

Convene a conference of local government and regional planners, architects and

neighborhood councils to evaluate and recommend actions to more effectively promote 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 inefficient patterns of development that can contribute to increased stomawater 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 development 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 automobiles.

While new developments are subject to various stomawater and land-use regulations,

the overall effect of this low-density single-use development is to commit an everincreasing share of land resources within the watershed to suburban uses that increase

impervious surface and ultimately result in more runoff pollution. Low-density development also results in greater distances between sites, resulting in longer and more

frequent vehicle use and associated atmospheric pollution. Perhaps most importantly,

it limits opportunities for efficient mass transit.

Costs to extend infrastructure (utilities, roads, stomawater 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 neighborhood 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 encouragSW·6

87
ing reinvestment and redevelopment of the urban core and the development of mixeduse master-planned communities that cluster uses to conserve land and resources.

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

SW-6.

BB

STEP I 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 communities. For example, conference participants could be divided into smaller working groups and assigned the theoretical task of "redesigning" an

existing urban or suburban neighborhood to address conunon concerns

about these mixed-use areas such as parking, setbacks between commercial 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 forwarded to local governments. Participants should propose specific recommendations on ways their suggestions can be implemented by local governments, 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 neighborhood associations, and environmental/bay interests.

Responsible parties: Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council (TBRPC) to

sponsor and organize conference, in partnership with metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and local governments.

STEP 2 Implement recommendations from Step I 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.
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.

ACTION PLAN

EXPECTED BENEFITS:

MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:

Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

·SW·6

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

89
Enforce and Require the Timely Completion ofthe

Consent Orders for the Cleanup of Fertilizer

Facilities in the East Bay Sector

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

SW·7

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

90

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 Enviromnental Protection (FDEP) and the

Environmental Protection Commission (EPC) 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 regular sampling of storm-induced discharges, assessments of wastewater flows and concentrations at the facilities, and sediment sampling at the facilities and at adjacent

loading docks. Upon completion of the assessment phase, each facility was to construct or implement the best management practices (BMPs) to manage its nutrientenriched 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 undetermined.

IMC-Agrico has completed construction of a detention/treatment facility and is routinely 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 testing its adequacy.
Pakhoed Dry Bulk, the smallest of the facilities, is implementiug 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.

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

SW·7

STRATEGY:

STEP I Enforce and require the timely completion of the consent orders.

A. Continue to require implementation of BMPs and the construction of systems to detain and treat storm-induced discharges, and develop criteria to

determine "compliance."

B. Set deadlines for the fiual completion of the terms of the consent orders.

C. Bring facilities into full compliance so they may enter a wastewater permittiug and monitoring mode.

Responsible Parties: FDEP and EPC, in cooperation with the five facilities

SCHEDULE:

Step I-A is ongoing. All facilities should be in full compliance within 12 months of

completing construction of treattnent 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:

N/A

91
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

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

SW·8

94

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 nitrogen trading credits and administered through the Florida Farm Bureau.

Ensure that the funding assistance available is snfficient to warrant participation by growers.

Responsible parties: NRCS, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Florida

Department ofAgriculture and Consumer Services, Agricultural

Stabilization and Conservation Service, and local soil and water conservation districts

SCHEDULE:

Steps I 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 I, 2 and 3 involve administrative costs. Costs for Step 4 have not yet been identified. Representative costs for a fertigation system are estimated at about $700 (for

mixing and nurse tank), plus installation at $1,000 an acre. This estimate includes both

the cost of the micro-irrigation system and fertigation components.

EXPECTED BENEFITS:

Use of fertigation systems is expected to reduce the amount of nitrogen entering the

bay in agricultural runoff. Research being conducted by the Hillsborough County

Engineering Services Department in cooperation with local growers may help quantify

the benefits of fertigation vs. conventional fertilization practices. Farmers installing

fertigation systems can monitor and report fertilization application rates, using fertigation systems to compare to baseline applications without these systems in place.

MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:

Ambient water quality in surface waters receiving runoff from agricultural lands is

monitored by local governments and will be reported in a bieunial 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
Improve Compliance with Agricultural Ground

and Surface Water Management Plans

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION:

Improve compliance with Agricultural Ground and Surface Water Management plans

to reduce nutrient and pesticide runoff to the bay.

BACKGROUND:

Florida statutes exempt certain agricultural activities from surface water permitting

requirements designed to minimize impacts to wetlands, flooding and water quality.

However, confusion about or misinterpretation of the exemptions has led to agricultural 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 developed 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 farmland in Hillsborough and Manatee counties. While these efforts are impressive, the percentage of agricultural lands managed

under these plans remains small in comparison to the farmed acreage in the region.

Hillsborough and Manatee counties, for example, had more than 112,000 acres devoted to citrus, vegetables, or some other form of intensive agriculture in 1990.

Compliance also has been a lingering problem with the program. Once the plan is

approved, few if any follow-up inspections are conducted to ensure that farm operators have implemented the plans. Lack of sufficient staff to handle these responsibilities 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.

SW·9

95
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 program.

STEP 1 When SWFWMD visits a fann in conjunction with a water use renewal

pennit, it can use that occasion to check compliance with the fann'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.

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN

STRATEGY:

Water & Sediment Quality

96

If the inspection shows that a fanning 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 pennit exemption and require a fonnal

Environmental Resource Pennit.

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 successfully 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 pennits to compliance with AGSWM plans.

RELATED ACTIONS:

SW-8, TX-4
ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

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 pollution 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 stormwater runoff. About 1,100 tons of nitrogen

fall on the open bay each year; another 6,600 tons are estimated to fall in the watershed.'

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 example, 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 associated with oil- and coal-fired utilities and waste incinerators.' Polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons (PAHs) 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 stationary 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.' 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).' 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,

AD

97
the Tampa Bay area was designated as a non-attaimnent zone for ozone because the

region periodically exceeded federal health standards for this pollutant. In addition to

the health risks, the region's non-attaimnent 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.

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

AD

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

As part of its request for re-designation, local communities and the FDEP developed a

maintenance plan to preserve the area's attaimnent 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 regulatory 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 atmospheric deposition. This effort received a boost in 1995 when the Tampa Bay NEP was

selected to participate in the U.S. Enviromnental 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 threeyear Tampa Bay Atmospheric Deposition Study to investigate where the atmospheric

deposition is corning from and how large a role it plays in storrnwater pollution.

As part of this initiative, the Enviromnental 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 l8-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

98

AD-l

AD-2

Continue atmospheric deposition studies and develop an action plan to

address this important enviromnental issue.

Promote public and business energy conservation.
ACTION PLAN

References, Atmospheric Deposition:

Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

theCOURSE

Estimates of Total Nitrogen, Total Phosphorus, and Total Suspended Solids Loadings to Tampa Bay, Florida. Technical

Appendix: 1992-1994, Total Nitrogen Loadings to Tampa Bay, Florida. TSNEP Teclmical Publication # 19-96. (1996)

2 Chemical Contaminants in the Tampa Bay Estuary: A Summary of Distributions and Inputs. TBNEPTechnical Publication

#01-95. (1995)

3 Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1994. Air Quality RepoTt, 1994.

FOR TAMPA BAY

4 Ibid.

AD

99
Continue Atmospheric Deposition Studies and

Develop An Action Plan to Address this Important

Environmental Issue

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

AD·1

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

100

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 directly deposited to the bay from the air. Atmospheric

deposition also contributes significant quantities of toxic substances to the bay, including heavy metals and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).J.2

While specific sources of atmospheric deposition have not yet been identified, emissions 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.'

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.' But experts still don't know how much nitrogen 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 representatives from local governments, agencies and utilities has been established to oversee the Tampa Bay Attnospheric Deposition Study. The detailed study plan includes

research to identify sources, nutrients and toxic emissions in atmospheric deposition,

as well as the impact of attnospheric deposition on stormwater 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.
STRATEGY:

STEP I Implement the Tampa Bay Atmospheric Deposition Study, which is expected to require three to four years for completion. The study will investigate:

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

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 analyses of options to reduce atmospheric deposition. Options could include voluntary reductions in emissions; additional regulation or other requirements

of power plants or motor vehicles; pollution prevention programs; reductions 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 I 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; EPAjFDEP 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

AD·1

101
Research Institute; and air emission permit or permit violation fees.

CHARTING

theCOURSE

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

FOR TAMPA BAY

AD-1

102

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 determined.

REGULATORY NEEDS:

Regulatory changes may be called for in the action plan that is developed

RELATED ACTIONS:

AD-2
ACTION PLAN

References, Atmospheric Deposition:

Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

theCOURSE * TIIC Task Force for Ille Tampa Bay Atmospheric Deposition Study is comprised of representatives from EPA Region IV and the

Great Water:; 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 PhosphofllS, and Total Suspended Solids Loadings to Tampa Bay, Florida, Technical Appendix.

TBNEP Technical Publication #19-96 (1996).

2 Chemical Contaminants in the Tampa Bay Estuary: A Summary of Distributions and Inputs, TBNEP Technical Publication #01-95

(1995).

Auainment/Maintenance Plan for the Tampa Bay Florida Ozone Non-attaitunent Area, Environmental Protection Commission of

Hillsborough County and Pinellas County Board of COlUlty Conunissioncrs (1994).

4 Florida Department of Envirotunenta! Protection. 1994. Air Quality Report, 1994.

5 Ibid.

6 Preliminary data report for the July Tampa 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.

8 D. Brezenski, EPA, personal communication to Tom Rogers, FDEP, 1996.

FOR TAMPA BAY

AD-1

103
Promote Business and Public Energy Conservation

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

AD-a

104

ACTION:

Promote business energy conservation through participation in the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency's (EPA) Green Lights and Energy Stars programs. Continue to promote public energy conservation.

BACKGROUND:

Atmospheric deposition from stationary and mobile sources contributes nearly onethird 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 pollution and bay water quality, since that connection isn't readily made by most residents.

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 hospitals and shopping malls; Energy Star Buildings, which focuses on a holistic approach

to building efficiency; and Energy Star Office Equipment, which addresses energyintensive 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 environmental 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.
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 opportunities through environmental agencies and local goverrnnents. For example, local goverrnnents promoting best management practices to reduce stormwater pollution

through programs, such as Hillsborough County's Operation BayWorks and Adopt-APond, can also promote business participation in Green Lights and Energy Stars to

increase bottom-line benefits for participants and the environment.

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

AD·2

STRATEGY:

STEP 1 Develop and provide EPA with a target list of 100 light- and equipmentintensive businesses in the watershed, including hospitals and newspapers,

for possible participation in the program. Also investigate possible reductions in exterior lighting if energy reductions can be made without compromising 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 partnership with other organizations.

Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEp, local utilities, EPA

STEP 3 Promote Green Lights and Energy Stars through local chambers of commerce, 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 governments and envirornnental agencies in their contacts with businesses, and

incorporate Green Lights concepts into their programs where applicable.

Responsible parties: local government stormwater 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 and ABM

105
SCHEDULE:

Target lists should be completed by September 1997 for 1998 workshops. All other

steps can be initiated in 1997.

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

AD·2

108

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-I
ACTION PLAN

WASTEWATER

Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Reclaiming treated wastewater for commercial and residential uses represents one of

the most promising opportuuities 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 million 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 substantially with improved regulation and advances in treatment technologies. 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 represented 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 prevention; and monitoring to improve compliance with discharge permits.

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 suggest that a proportionate amount of nitrogen loadings to the bay may come from disposal 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.

ww

107
CHARTING

theCOURSE

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

SUMMARY OF ACTIONS FOR WASTEWATER

FOR TAMPA BAY WW-l Expand the use of reclaimed water where reuse benefits the bay.

108

WW-2 Extend central sewer service to priority areas around the bay now served by

septic systems.

WW-3 Require standardized monitoring of wastewater discharges.

WW-4 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:

St. Petersburg's pioneering efforts in wastewater reuse for residential irrigation in the

late 1970s were at the forefront of a technological movement that would offer both

substantial benefits and some important 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 underway 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 irrigation, but also for industrial purposes. Projects planned or underway in local communities will more than triple that amount (see reuse table).

The Wilson-Grizzle Bill, which called for advanced technology to limit pollutants discharged 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, St. Petersburg was launching its reclaimed water project, which eliminated 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 annual 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 storrnwater 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 rednce 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 carefnlly to determine their net impact to the bay and to address various public health and logistical

concerns. The City of Tampa is now proposing a project to reclaim as much as 50 million gallons of the treated wastewater it discharges daily to Hillsborough Bay from its

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

WW·1

109
Howard F. Curren facility at Hookers Point. Discharges from this facility now represent about 7 percent of the total freshwater inflow to Hillsborough Bay during the dry

months of the year.

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

ww110

While the bay will benefit from the reduction in nutrients to this heavily impacted sector 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 environmental impact assessment for this project began in late 1995.

STRATEGY:

This strategy is to evaluate and recommend implementation of reclaimed water projects 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 corresponding 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

ofEnvironmental 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 managemeut in the bay, iuvestigate additional opportunities to

expand reuse by interconnecting distribution systems or constructing larger

storage facilities.

Responsible parties: local governments, SWFWMD, WCRWSA, in cooperation with the Tampa Bay NEP

SCHEDULE:

The status of major reuse projects that are planned or underway is provided in Table

1. Evaluation of the City of Tampa project to reclaim treated wastewater currently discharged to Hillsborough Bay began in 1995.

COST:

Estimated costs and funding sources for major projects are provided in Table 1.

Information was provided by wastewater reuse coordinators, utility officials and environmental planners associated with these projects.
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 loadings are presented in Table I. However, major projects should be balanced against any

potential drawbacks for the bay or public health concerns associated with reuse.

ACTION PLAN

EXPECTED BENEFITS:

Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

WW-1

MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:

Ambient water quality is monitored by local governments. Local government and

industrial applicants for reuse permits also will be required to conduct water quality

monitoring as a condition of the permit.

REGULATORY NEEDS:

FDEP regulations governing water reuse (FAC 62-610) are currently being revised to

allow the use of reclaimed water to rehydrate wetlands within wellfields under specific 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 environmental benefit for the bay. The issue of "ownership" of reclaimed water and control over

how that water can be used also should be clarified.

RELATED ACTIONS:

FI-l, WQ-l

111
CHARTING

theCOURSE

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

g

Total

Reuse Cost TN

Local Vol. (io Funding reduction Project

Government Planl/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 MabryNan Dyke WWTP - plan with expected completion

extend service to an additional in 2015.

1,550 residences

Central Service Area: 16.0 10.0 County CIP, 36.5 WWTP connection lines and

1) Connect Valrico & Faulkenburg user fees, storage facilities in design

WWTPs; extend service to golf SWFWMD phase. Construction part of 5-

courses and residential areas; year CIP with expected com pleconstruct storage facilities; inter- 15.0 RWIU tion in 2000.

connect with raw water line to

Cargill plant.

South Service Area: 6.5 33 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)

Pinellas North Plant - extend service 9.0 NA NA 20.6 Underway; expected completion

County to 500 additional homes by 1998-1999. This represents

(if flow available) the county's maximum reuse

capacity.

McKay Creek & South Gross 23.0 23.0 User tees, 52.5

Bayou -WWTP uP9rade, phase 1 bonds, GIP,

transmission main, infill lines 60.0 SWFWMD, phase 2 State

5t. 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

112
ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

theCOURSE

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, refurn to golf COurses SWFWMD 1997.

Largo Increase reuse from 6 to 12 mgd 6.0 80 User tees, 13.7 Expected completion by

SWFWMD 2000.

Manatee Network SW, SE, and NPlants - 17.2 50.0 Federal 39.3 Expected completion by

County expand distribution to county grant, SO/50 1999

residences and homes in west SWFWMD

Bradenton, and east to

agricultural areas (MARS')

Bradenton AWT Discharge to augment 60 3.5 User fees, 13.7 Feasability study initiated;

Braden River flow bonds, timetable not projected for

SWFWMD implementation.

Palmetto 1) Distribution main to Frog Creek 1) 0.9 1) 3.5 User fees, 2.74 Will teuse 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
Extend Central Sewer Service to Priority Areas

Now Served by Septic Systems

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

114

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 systems 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 conducted to directly link septic systems to these impacts, which may also be due to natural causes or animal waste carried in stormwater runoff. Nevertheless, the sandy soils

in Southwest Florida are not highly suitable for septic systems, and preliminary studies point to the potential for nitrogen impacts in some areas.

This action calls for further investigations at suspected problem sites to document the

impact from septic 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 hookup 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

partuerships 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.
STRATEGY:

STEP 1 Identify areas adjacent to the bay and its tributaries where residential and

commercial 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

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

WW-2

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 coliform as an indicator of public 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 utilization. Where central sewer service is not feasible, determine the

most environmentally beneficial means to provide sewage treatment.

Responsible parties: local governments

SCHEDULE:

Local governments 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 esti115
mated at $125-$250 per station. Funding options for residents converting to central

sewer service must be developed to make implementation affordable and feasible.

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

118

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 govemment comprehensive plans and the development of implementing ordinances.

RELATED ACTIONS:

WW-4, PH-3
Require Standardized Monitoring ofWastewater

Discharges

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION:

Require standardized monitoring of wastewater discharges from industrial and municipal facilities, and improve regulatory and public access to permit compliance monitoring data.

BACKGROUND:

hnprovements 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 standards -efforts that will lead to improved environmental oversight. Inadequacies in

the existing system prevent effective trends analysis and limit the public's and regulatory community's ability to effectively monitor discharges.

Standardized units of measurement for wastewater concentrations and flows are necessary 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 Environmental Protection (FDEP), and often requires extensive time and effort for retrieval.

This action calls for the standardized reporting of a core group of parameters from all

point-source facilities discharging more than 100,000 gallons per day, and improved

access to monitoring data collected from these facilities.

STRATEGY:

STEP I 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 phosphorus, total suspended solids, total ammonia, and average daily or monthly flow (actual discharges, not values estimated in permits). These core

parameters are in addition to any 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 criteria should be added as permits are renewed, pending an evaluation of additional costs associated with additional sampling requirements.

Responsible party: FDEp, local governments

WW-3

117
STEP 2 Enforce the use of standard reporting units for the core group of parameters, including flow rate. Nutrient concentrations are required as milligrams

per liter (mg/I); flow is reported as average daily flow or monthly flow

(mgd or mgm).

Responsible party: FDEP (for permitting), applicable point-source facilities (for standardized monitoring and reporting)

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

118

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 interested 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 monitoring criteria should be evaluated.

EXPECTED BENEFITS:

Improved monitoring standards will improve the data used to develop bay water quality 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
Revise HRS Rules to Incorporate Environmental

Performance or Design Standards for Septic

Systems

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

WW·4

ACTION:

Revise the rules of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) governing 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 monitoring 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 IOD-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 pertaining to nutrients that leach from septic systems to ground water and surface water,

except in the Florida Keys. Proposed maintenance schedules are included, but they are

advisory only.

Furthermore, septic systems constructed prior to the establishment of the current

design criteria may continue to operate - even in high-density areas where their presence may aggravate local water quality problems - as long as the load to them does

not change substantially.

This action is to develop environmental performance or design standards for the

design and siting of septic systems and to incorporate these guidelines into HRS regulatory 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 nitrogen removal from on-site disposal systems. However, since these criteria may be difficult to establish and enforce. officials may opt to develop design and operating standards that would help to prevent nitrogen contamination of ground or surface waters

from septic tanks. Design standards could include stricter setbacks from surface

waters, minimum wet-season water table depths, soil permeability and content, and

recommended maintenance intervals. At sites where performance standards cannot be

119
met, local governments may require on-site disposal systems with nitrogen-removal

capability.

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

120

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 disposal 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 disposal sites. Different agencies regulate disposal sites and it is difficult to determine

how much material is being spread and how it is handled.

STRATEGY:

STEP 1 Conduct a workshop to develop environmental performance or design standards 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 docnmented

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 maintenance based on environmental standards in cooperation with private companies 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

SCHEDULE:

All steps can be initiated in 1997.

Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

COST:

Administrative costs and staff time only are anticipated in this action,

but !be environmental standards !bat are developed may require additional

resources for environmental protection. If a statewide rule revision is deemed necessary, HRS and legal staff time to revise !be 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 !be 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 PAC Chapter lOD-6 or local ordinances to incorporate environmental performance or design standards for septic systems.

RELATED ACTIONS:

WW-2, PH-I

VlW·4

121
CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

122

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

TOXIC CONTAMINATION

Stonnwater treatment, pollution prevention and improved hazardous waste disposal

are key components of the strategy to reduce the amount of toxic contaminants entering the bay.

Recent studies by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) point

to contamination of bay sediments at several sites around the bay by heavy metals,

pesticides and other substances that at sufficiently high concentrations can be damaging 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 biological 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 stonnwater runoff, but

atmospheric deposition (associated with industrial and vehicle emissions) and wastewater discharges also contribute significant quantities of contaminants to the bay.

Pollutants tend to concentrate around ports, marinas and industrial harbors, as well as

major stonnwater 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 readily restorable by reducing or maintaining existing pollutant loads; and toxic-free areas

that should be protected from contamination. Management actions will vary according

to sediment 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 sediments, 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 pollutants in Hillsborough and Boca Ciega bays, two of Tampa Bay's most impacted sectors.
The primary contaminants of concern identified in the study include metals (particularly chromium, copper, mercury and nickel); PAHs; PCBs; and chlorinated pesticides.

Stormwater runoff and atmospheric deposition transport the vast majority of these pollutants to the bay. Both PCBs and chlorinated pesticides aggressively persist in the

marine enviromnent, posing potential hazards long after the use of a particular chemical has been restricted.

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

TX

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 nervous system. Children are particularly sensitive to mercury. Exposure during pregnancy is known to cause toxic effects in the fetus. The Florida Department of

Enviromnental Protection is sponsoring research into the causes of the mercury problem 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 represent 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-I 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,

Stormwater Runoff and Wastewater.

123
Address Hot Spots of Contamination

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

124

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 significant harm to fish and wildlife either through direct contact with the sediments or indirectly 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 bioaccumulation, 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 assessment, 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 metals (chromium, copper, mercury, silver and nickel); PAHs; PCBs; and chlorinated pesticides. Atmospheric deposition and stormwater runoff convey the bulk of these pollutants to the bay. Mercury loadings are linked to atmospheric deposition, while chromium and copper tend to enter the bay in stormwater runoff. A 1995 state health advisory 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

chlorinated 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 chlorinated 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 dne to its

potential toxicity to fish and wildlife. Banned in 1972, the insecticide DDT was primarily 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
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.

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Stormwater treatment is a key strategy in toxics reduction, since many toxic contaminants 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 multiparcel 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.

TX·1

125
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 government stormwater utilities' operating and maintenance budgets, and permit application fees. Sediment chemistry 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.

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

TX.1~

ACTION PLAN

COST:

Water & Sediment Quality

128

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 governments,

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, including approximately 116,000 tons from the Tampa Bay region. Experts estimate that

another 10-20 percent is generated by unregulated sources, including residents and

conditionally exempt small quantities generators (CE-SQGs) - businesses that generate less than 100 kilograms (kg), approximately 25 gallons, of hazardous waste per

month (or I 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 (accidentally 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 collection 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 weekend 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 collection facilities, although residents may use sites in unincorporated Hillsborough

County.

Options for small businesses also are limited, mainly because increasing service to

these markets can be costly and complex. In Hillsborough County, CE-SQGs may

transport their waste to the County's Orient Road facility on Wednesday mornings,

under an arrangement with Universal Waste, which operates the facility. However,

there are no real incentives for businesses to use the facility, which assesses a charge

for the waste it receives. Pinellas and Manatee counties also provide household hazardous waste collection and attempt to assist small businesses in properly disposing of

hazardous wastes.

This action calls for improving community and CE-SQG opportnnities for proper hazardous waste disposal by exploring options to better serve and educate these markets,

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

TX·2

127
including whether to establish permanent household hazardous waste collection facilities in major communities not currently served.

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

128

STRATEGY:

STEP I Organize a task force to evaluate methods to improve opportunities for hazardous waste disposal for small businesses and residents, such as:

promote "milk run" services, in which haulers arrange to pick up

waste from CE-SQGs on days they service municipal landfills;

evaluate the feasibility of raising occupational license fees to "prepay" waste disposal costs, instead of charging for the service later;

allow CE-SQGs to use household hazardous waste collection facilities;

provide mobile collection service at central sites several times a

year, perhaps in conjunction with large events that draw high attendance;

expand existing service either by expanding weekend hours of operation, providing recycling "swap shops" - such as the one operated 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 promote municipal collection facilities;

organize neighborhood pick-up days in cooperation with programs

such as Adopt-A-Pond, Florida Yards & Neighborhoods and

LakeWatch;

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 partnerships with major retailers.

Responsible parties: Florida Department ofEnvironmental Protection

(FDEP) and Tampa Bay NEP to organize workshop

The task force should include city and county hazardous waste/solid

waste coordinators, FDEp, CE-SQG program coordinators, user groups

andtheNEP

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
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.

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

TX·2

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 targeting 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 cooperation 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 according to recommendations. Costs to construct and operate a permanent household hazardous waste collection facility vary depending on design and level of service. The

Pinellas County facility, built within a Class I landfill, cost between $300,000 to

$400,000 to construct. Potential funding sources include local govemments and state

agency grants.

EXPECTED BENEFITS:

Improvements in hazardous waste disposal will help to reduce toxic contaminants

that enter the bay in stormwater runoff, or through groundwater, wastewater or atmospheric deposition.

129
CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

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 goverurnents conduct bay sediment sampling

to track the amount and distribution of toxic contaminants in the bay.

REGULATORY NEEDS:

None anticipated.

RELATED ACTIONS:

TX-l, 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 voluntary 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 contamination 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 associated 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, lacquers, thinners, strippers and solvents; and sewage, detergents and gray water discharged 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 government waste management programs to focus more attention on these businesses. P2

provides confidential and free waste stream assessments and recommendations on

ways companies can reduce pollution from their facilities. Local govemments 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
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 onsite 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

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

132

STEP 2 Encourage marinas to request a P2 environmental audit to identify pollution 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 BayWatch

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 promotion and cost-share opportunities.

Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEp, FDEp, Centerfor Marine

Conservation, Tampa BayWatch, user groups

STEP 4 Aggressively promote P2 to the business community and local governments 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.
Waste stream assessments and implementation of best management practices at ports

and marinas will reduce pollution to the bay.

ACTION PLAN

EXPECTED BENEFITS:

MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:

Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

TX·3

Sediment quality monitoring by local governments, and waste stream reports that

identify reductions, can assess progress in redncing toxic contamination.

REGULATORY NEEDS:

None anticipated.

RELATED ACTIONS:

TX-l, TX-2, PH-3

133
Promote Integrated Pest Management on Farms to

Reduce Pesticides in Runoff

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

134

ACTION:

Encourage the use of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques on fanns 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 fonu 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 nmoff to streams, lakes and bays, where they can be assimilated 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 biological 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 fanuers in the Tampa Bay

watershed, to control whiteflies and other insects on tomatoes. The remainder are

barmed 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 enviromnent. IPM techniques include examination of crops to identify pest infestations; 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 fanuers employ "scouts," full-time or contract employees trained to identify

and assess the severity of pest problems and recommend solutions based on IPM principles.

Because no requirements currently exist for IPM use, it is not known how many farmers employ IPM practices, although local extension agents report that most fanuers

use at least some aspects in their pest management programs. Surveys now being conducted by the University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences

(IFAS) will clarify the extent of IPM usage.

Local agricultural extension agents provide educational materials and assistance to

fanuers who wish to learn about IPM. They incorporate IPM concepts in training seminars that fanu operators attend to earn Continuing Education Credits, which can be

applied toward the renewal of their pesticide applicator's license. Additionally, IFAS
scientists have prepared brochures describing pesticides least likely to pollute ground

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.

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

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 rPM educational programs.

Because most farm operators obtain pesticide application licenses from the state

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS), tying rPM education to

the licenses would ensure that farmers are exposed to rPM 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 rPM practices,

or that at least one CEU credit be devoted to rPM training, would offer farmers an

incentive to learn more about rPM 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 sponsoring 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 recommendations on restricting or reducing the use of certain pesticides.

STRATEGY:

STEP I Revise the state pesticide applicator licensing renewal criteria to incorporate in the renewal exam a specific section on rPM. For applicants who

choose to earn CEU credits instead of taking the exam, at least one of the

credits should encompass rPM training.

Responsible parties: FDACS, IFAS, State Pesticide Coordinator

STEP 2 Seek increased federal support from the federal government to implement

existing rPM 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

TX·4

135
present a risk to the bay and bay wildlife

Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEp, FDACS, EPA

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

13B

STEP 4 hnplement 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 rPM.

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

PuBLIC HEALTH

Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

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 segments unsafe even for swimming.

Today, state laws require sewage treatment of the highest level, and the bay is beginning to regain its status as a premier recreational resource. However, substantial emergency discharges of raw or partially treated sewage still occur when heavy rains cause

stormwater to seep into some municipal sewer systems, and bacterial 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 safety.

Both swimming and shellfish harvesting are restricted when heavy rains wash

stormwater, with its high bacteria content, into areas where those activities are permitted 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 levels 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 population growth straiu 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 maiutain 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.

PH

137
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS TO ADDRESS PUBLIC HEALTH

CHARTING

theCOURSE

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

FOR TAMPA BAY

PH

PH-l

PH-2

Reduce the occurrence of municipal sewer overflows to the bay.

Establish water quality standards for saltwater beaches.

138

PH-3 Install additional sewage pump-out facilities for recreational boaters and

live-aboard vessels.
Reduce the Occurrence of Municipal Sewer

Overflows to the Bay

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION:

Require local governments to prepare maintenance plans identifying overllow areas

within their sewage collection systems, and address those areas in their maintenance

program.

BACKGROUND:

Unintentional sewer overllows 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 problem 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 partially 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 overllows 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 overllow 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 higWighted 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 overllow 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 overllows 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 unintentional overllows, 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

PH·1

139
CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

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 monitoriug public beaches.

BACKGROUND:

Beach closures resulting from fecal coliform in the water have been a problem iu

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 iu 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 restrictiug swimming and other watercontact recreation, such as windsurfing, in saline waters. Consequently, bay area communities have applied different standards to determine whether beaches should be

temporarily closed, possibly analyzing different parameters and using different sampling techniques. Additionally, new research iudicates 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 indicators have been fully developed, local governments may want to consider using those

as a substitute or in combination with testiug for fecal coliform. Consistent standards

throughout the region would improve public health protection and maximize recreational use of the bay while helping to identify sources of water quality problems at

bay beaches.

STRATEGY:

142

Step I

Step Z

Review existing standards, parameters and sampling techniques used by

local governments and public health units for testiug 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 ofHealth and Rehabilitative

Services (HRS) is responsible for establishing water quality parameters

for public health purposes and should lead this effort, with local coordination provided by the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. Local

health units and environmental agencies also should participate.

Estoblish uniform stondords. smnpling techniques aud mouitoring schedules

for waters near public beaches. The standards should be parameters commonly monitored for public health concerns and should be formally adopt-
ed by each government in the form of a local regulation.

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

theCOURSE

Responsible Parties: HRS, local government health units and environmental management departments

SCHEDULE:

Step I 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 recommended, additional sampling and testing costs will have to be determined.

EXPECTED BENEFITS:

Increased public health protection and increased knowledge about the status and problems 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

FOR TAMPA BAY

PH·2

143
Install Additional Sewage Pump-out Facilities for

Recreational Boaters and Live-aboard Vessels

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

PH-a

144

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 bordering 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 prevention 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 colifonn 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, effective October 1994, prohibits boaters from dumping raw sewage into Florida waters

and requires many boats 26 feet or longer to have a working toilet with waste storage

on board when in state waters. To aid compliance, the state is offering grants for the

next five years to assist marinas in adding or improving pump-out facilities. The

grants, administered by the Florida Office of Waterway Management, will cover 75

percent of the project's cost, and can be used for public education and for planning,

pennitting, 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 implement a portable collection system, called a "honey barge," that travels to boaters on

the water and perfonns pump-outs.
To further encourage responsible stewardship, the Florida Department of

Environmental Protection (FDEP) is developing a Clean Marina Program to encourage marinas to adopt best management practices (BMPs) - emphasizing that what is

good for the environment also is good for business.

ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

PH·3

STRATEGY

Step I

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

Identify public marinas on the bay used by a large volume of boaters, particularly 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

marinas.

Responsible parties: City of Tampa and other municipalities, Florida

Marine Patrol, Agency on Bay Management (ABM)

Based on the results of Step I, 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

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 system 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

Encourage participation in FDEP's BMP program for marinas. Consider

implementing the program at a publicly owned marina to serve as an example 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.

145
CHARTING

theCOURSE

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 snrveyed 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: NICKTOTH

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-hugging sea squirt. However, since the 1950s, almost half of the bay's original saltwater wetlands have been lost to dredging and filling for shoreline and port development. Bay seagrasses declined by nearly 40 percent in this same period, although they

are waging a comeback in some areas thanks to recent improvements in water quality

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 eliminated from the shores of Tampa Bay. These buffer zones and associated freshwater wetlands 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 development, 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

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

BH

147
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 governments. 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.

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats

148

Habitat protection, through public land acquisition and conservation easements on private 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 opportunities. 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 communities. The long-term goal is to restore 12,350 acres of seagrass and protect 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-l Implement the Tampa Bay master plan for habitat restoration and

Protection.

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

8M

BH-2

BH-3

BH-4

BH-5

BH-6

BH-7

BH-8

Establish and implement mitigation criteria for Tampa Bay, and direct mitigation to high priority projects.

Reduce propeller scarring of seagrass and pursue seagrass 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.

149
Implement the Tampa Bay Master Plan for

Habitat Restoration and Protection

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats

150

ACTION:

Implement the Tampa Bay Master Plan for Habitat Restoration and Protection, developed 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 others, 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, critical 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

tum 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 substantial 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 vegetation. 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 envirornnental plight and needs of the
bay at a time when this was critically needed. It also demonstrated to skeptics that

habitat restoration was possible.

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

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 their 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 foraging habitat within a certain distance from the bird colonies in Tampa Bay. The second 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 properties for habitat restoration and protection, and especially for seasonal marsh restoration.

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 priority 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) program and the Florida Department of Enviromnental 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 enviromnentally sensitive lands. Pinellas and Hillsborough counties' 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

BH-1

151
Enterprise Fund. Private land acquisition programs such as the Nature Conservancy

also contribute to the preservation of upland and wetland habitats.

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats

152

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 I Finalize the list of priority restoration projects compiled from the individual plans of various agencies and local governments.

Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEp, in cooperation with the established

workgroup ofagencies, 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 priorities. (See Action BH-2 on mitigation banking)

Responsible parties: FDEp, SWFWMD, FGFWFC, Environmental

Protection Commission (EPC) ofHillsborough 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 environmentallands acquisition program;

• Amend provisions of the Hillsborough County Pollution Recovery Trust

Fund to require that monies collected from fines be spent within a reasonable 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.
Implementation costs for specific projects will be included in the action plans of

responsible agencies and local governments. However, existing SWIM habitat restoration 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 armually. SWFWMD cost analyses indicate that

the cost for the creation/restoration of intertidal wetlands (including design, permitting, plans, construction and monitoring) range from $30,000 (managed in-house) to

$50,000 (contracted to private firm) per acre, excluding land costs.

ACTION PLAN

COST:

Bay Habitats CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

BH-1

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 governments and agencies and reported in a Biermial 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

153
Establish and Implement Mitigation Criteria for

Tampa Bay and Identify Priority Sites for

Mitigation

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

BtI~2

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats

154

ACTION:

Establish criteria for mitigation of impacts to tidal habitats in the Tampa Bay watershed, 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 wetlandshas 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 successful," 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 particularly 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 banking." It allows developers to compensate for wetland losses in one place by preserving, 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.
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.

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

·BH·2

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 mitigation criteria for the Tampa Bay region, including the development of a regional mitigation 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 mitigation 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 priorities for restoration and protection established in the NEP's Master Plan for Habitat

Restoration and Protection (see Action BH-l).

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 wetlands. 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.

155
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.

ACTION PLAN CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

BH·~ A.

Bay Habitats

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.

156

B. Evaluate and recommend criteria for mitigation banking in the Tampa Bay

region. The ABM workgroup has considered:

• whether mitigation conducted by local govermnents 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 restoration goals for Tampa Bay.

• specific criteria to decide when on- or off-site mitigation is most appropriate. Recommendations being developed.

• ownership, management and associated cost issues, including whether mitigation banks operated on private lands purchased by the developer or private 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 grauted at a higher ratio, as in low-salinity

tidal streams, salt barrens, hard-bottom communities or other critical habitats within Tampa Bay. The following ratios have been presented for consideration: 2:1 (creation), 4:1 (restoration/enhancement), 10:1 (preservation). [from Scientifically Defensible Compensation Ratios for Wetland

Mitigation]
• bank monitoring, enforcement and penalties for noncompliance.

Recommendations being developed.

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

• provisions for preservation of existing wetlands within a mitigation bank as

compensation if the environmental benefits of such activity will significantly 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 publicly financed restoration. However, the potential exists for some mitigation

banking credits to be generated by local governments for restoration projects 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 wetlands. 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 management of the mitigation bank. The trust fund could be managed by a public

agency, with additional oversight by a non-profit group such as The Nature

Conservancy. 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 I, and direct mitigation of estuarine impacts to high-priority restoration areas identified in the Tampa Bay

NEP Habitat Restoration and Protection Master Plan. (See Action BH-I)

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 ofHillsborough 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

BH·2

157
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 beneficial manner.

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats

158

MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:

Wetland habitats are monitored every five years using photo interpretation. The success of mitigation banks will be monitored through pennits.

REGULATORY NEEDS:

Possible amendments to local pennitting rules and/or the state mitigation banking

rule.

RELATED ACTIONS:

BH-l
Reduce Propeller Scarring of Seagrass and

Pursue Seagrass Transplanting Opportunities at

Select Sites

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

BH-3

ACTION:

Reduce propeller scarring of seagrasses and other shallow marine habitats through

boater education and by installing channel markers in appropriate areas to direct traffic. 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 seagrass meadows and other sensitive marine habitats. Nearly 100,000 boats are registered 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 seagrasses 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 recommendations 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 evaluate 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

159
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.

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats

1GO

Seagrass transplanting also should be pursued at select sites to assist natural seagrass

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 suitable 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 natural seagrass recovery efforts.

Responsible parties: FMRI, NEp, Tampa BayWatch

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, (oast GuardAuxiliary, Tampa BayWatch, 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 watercraft users about bay habitats and their role in habitat protection. Ideally,

sign design should be uniform throughout the watershed to maximize costefficiency and impact.

Responsible parties: FMRI, with assistance from local governments and

Tampa BayWatch
Note: Preliminary designs for a boater decal have been developed by the

Tampa Bay NEP.

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),

FMRI, Tampa BayWatch, Florida Marine Patrol and local government

marine units and tax collectors' offices (for distribution)

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

BH·3

SCHEDULE:

Step I 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 I 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 baywide 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-I, FW-I

181
Restrict Impacts to Hard-Bottom Communities

in Tampa Bay

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats

BH~4

162

ACTION:

Evaluate the extent of hard-bottom communities in Tampa Bay and develop special

pennitting 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, communities exist in sparse areas of the bay bottom where natural rock outcrops protrude into

the overlying water column. The hard surface of the rock provides an ideal substrate

for colonization 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 communities among the most unique and highly productive natural habitats in Tampa Bay.

Hard-bottom communities are kuown 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 kuown about the distribution and health of Tampa Bay oyster reefs

despite their recognized importance and potential economic value.

The new state Enviromnental Resource Pennittypically requires pennittees to provide

compensatory mitigation (e.g., wetland creation, restoration, enhancement) for pennitted wetland impacts after the impacts have occurred. The amount of mitigation

required is based upon guidelines for the ratio of impact acreage to mitigation acreage,

but is usually negotiated on a case-by-case basis. Current rules, however, do not distinguish estuarine hard-bottom communities from other types of regulated 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-bottom 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 pennitting 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.
STRATEGY:

STEP 1 Undertake a comprehensive benthic survey of Tampa Bay with the objective of mapping the detailed distribution of natural hard-bottom communities, including both oyster reefs and rocky outcrop live-bottoms. A smallscale 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 hardbottoms such as nearshore oyster reefs. Ensure the distribution of resulting

maps to applicable regulatory agencies and local govermnents so that these

areas are recognized in permitting decisions.

Responsible parties: Florida Department of Environmental Protection

(FDEP), EPC, Tampa BayWatch, Florida Sea Grant Extension Program

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

BH·4

STEP 2 Evaluate the effectiveness of current permitting and mitigation rules in preserving hard-bottom habitats, and recommend ways to provide increased

protection. (This process should be integrated with development ofspecial

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 rale changes are deemed necessary)

or local governments

SCHEDULE:

Step 1 can be initiated in 1998. Step 2 can be accomplished in 1998, with recommendations 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 govermnents and research funds

available through Florida Salt Water Fishing License revenues.

EXPECTED BENEFITS:

More effective protection of natural hard-bottom communities in Tampa Bay.

183
The bay monitoring program will include a hard-bottom mapping element, to

be updated periodically (every 10 years).

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

BH~

184

ACTION PLAN

MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:

REGULATORY NEEDS:

Possible amendments to Chapters 62-312 and 40D-4, FAC.

RELATED ACTIONS:

BH-I, BH-2, BH-8

Bay Habitats
Improve Management of Parking and Vehicle

Access Along Causeways and Coastal Areas

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

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 parkiug 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 (FOOT) 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 (Le., personal

watercraft users sharing a relatively limited space with swimmers and anglers) often

present a safety concern.

No information exists on exactly how many people visit these areas, but observations

indicate that hundreds use these areas every weekend, especially during the spring and

summer.

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 parkiug

would improve the safety of beachgoers and reduce the environmental 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 Canseway

On the southern shoreline, ABM recommends installing bollards along the future

FOOT 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.

Umestricted 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.

BH·5

185
On the northern shoreline, ABM reconnnends 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.

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats

lGG

• Fourth Street at 1-275

ABM recommends lining both sides of the causeway with bollards above the jurisdictionalline. 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 prevent 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 watercraft 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, security lights and picnic facilities could be installed. Mangroves and marsh grass could be

planted to revegetate sections of the shoreline, and a small fishing pier or boardwalk

could discourage foot traffic through these vegetated areas.

Limiting access to these areas will be the responsibility of whoever maintains the road

or causeway. In most cases, that will be either the FOOT 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 FOOT's Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA] grant

program) and local governments. Local utility companies also may be willing to provide bollards at no cost.

STRATEGY:

STEP 1 Obtain local and state approval of the management reconnnendations

developed by the ABM. The ABM reconnnendations are expected to be

considered by PiIiellas 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 TBRPG, FDOT and

applicable local governments
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 BaywayfTierra Verde approach to Fort DeSoto Park, where

improvements would facilitate increased protection of the park's outstanding resources.

Responsible parties: FDOT, local government transportation departments

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

BH·5

STEP 3 Develop and implement a recreation plan for causeway beaches that

enhances the environmental integrity of the areas while still allowing passive recreation. The plans could include sanitary and trash facilities, boardwalks 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 projects-could be accomplished with volunteer labor.

Responsible parties: local government parks and transportation departments, volunteer groups such as the Bay Area Environmental Action

Team and the Bay Conservation Corps of Tampa BayWatch.

SCHEDULE:

Steps I 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 bollard. 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 operating 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.

187
None anticipated. Enforcement of the vehicle access restrictions can be accomplished

under existing local ordinances.

CHARTING

theCOURSE

BH·I'

168

ACTION PLAN

REGULATORY NEEDS:

RELATED ACTIONS:

BH-I

Bay Habitats
Encourage Waterfront Residents to Enhance

Shorelines and Limit Runoff from Yards

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

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 hardened 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 contained in runoff.

This action presents steps to encourage waterfront residents to soften or enhance seawalls and degraded natural shorelines with native vegetation, limestone rip-rap, terracing or habitat reefs. When properly designed, these improvements not only benefit the

environment, but also can boost property values by improving shoreline stability and

aesthetic appeal. However, cost, permitting complexity and lack of information about

suitable options are often key deterrents to homeowners, who also are limited by sitespecific 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 possibility 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-landscaping techniques

prescribed by the Florida Yards & Neighborhoods (FY&N) Program, which is administered by local cooperative extension services. A companion FY&N homeowner's

guide, which features low-maintenance landscape design and maintenance tips, is ideally suited to the environmentally conscious waterfront resident. Adopt-A-Canal proBH-6

lG9
grams also may be effective in select areas in improving water and habitat quality in

canals tluough public stewardship and education.

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats

B

STRATEGY:

The following strategy focuses on incentives and efforts to streamline procedures for

residential shoreline enhancement, as well as informational resources to assist waterfront residents in evaluating shoreline options and implementing landscaping practices

to reduce runoff from their yards.

STEP I 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, propertyowners currently are entitled to lower property valuations if part of their property 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 Enviromnental 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 eligible 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 incorporated when seawalls are constructed or repaired.

Responsible parties: FDEP

STEP 4 Develop and distribute a resource card (#lO-envelope size) to waterfront

residents tluough 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 maintenance 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 BayWatch, 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.

170
Responsible parties: SWFWMD (brochure), SWFWMD and local governments (distribution), Florida Sea Grant Extension Program

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

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-maintenance, environmentally beneficial Florida Yards, which minimize fertilizer,

pesticide and water use. Special sections are devoted to waterfront landscaping, shoreline enhancement and septic tank maintenance. Local governments may arrange for reprints of this publication through FCES or

refer inquiries to local cooperative extension services.

Responsible parties: local governments, FeES

BH-&

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 oilsorb 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 costshare 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 governments.

COST:

NEP is investigating costs to produce: I. Resource card-lOOK quantity, # 10 envelopesize color cardstock, printed 2 sides/l 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 valorem 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 shoreline enhancement.

171
CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

B

172

ACTION PLAN

REGULATORY NEEDS:

Possible amendments to state statutes governing dredge and fill activities.

RELATED ACTIONS:

SW-l, BH-l

Bay Habitats
Improve Compliance with and Enforcement of

Wetland Permits

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION:

Improve compliance with and enforcement of permits governing wetland mitigation

by establishing level-of-service targets, providing periodic performance assessments,

and continuing efforts to coordinate permitting and enforcement staff to provide

greater continuity in oversight.

BACKGROUND:

State rules regarding mitigation for wetland impacts have been developed to offset

wetland losses. However, a study of mitigation compliance completed by the Florida

Department of Environmental Regulation - now Florida Department of

Environmental Protection (FDEP) - in 1992 concluded that the majority of mitigation projects had either never been constructed or failed to comply with the terms of

their permit and did not function properly. The generally low 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, regulated 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, documenting 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 regulated interests. Access to mitigation sites also is a factor. In this regard, locally administered 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 consolidates 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 coordination 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

BH·7

173
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 compliance 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.

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats

174

STRATEGY:

The strategy to improve wetland permit compliance monitoring and enforcement

focuses on establishing level-of-service targets, continued implementation and periodic 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 I Conduct a workshop to establish level-of-service targets for wetland permits (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): participants to include U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers (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 permitting

STEP 2 Expand agency and local goverrunent permitting staff training and regular

retraining to increase the emphasis on recognizing quality wetland mitigation designs as a first step to ensure that quality projects are permitted. The

FDEP's statewide mitigation coordinator may be able to assist in organizing 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 enforcement 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.
Responsible parties: FDEp, SWFWMD, EPC, USFWS, FGFWFC,

applicable local governments

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

STEP 4 Based on recommendations from Step I, standardize mitigation success criteria 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 levelof-service targets (particularly compliance rates), results of integrating staff

to assist in these efforts, and associated costs to agencies and applicants.

Results of fhe assessment should be reported in fhe Tampa Bay NEP's

Biennial Enviromuental Monitoring Report and the Agency on Bay

Management's State of fhe 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 fhe 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 recommendations from Step I may call for additional resources or changes in existing allocations. For instance, additional training of wetlands permitting and enforcement personnel is estimated at $50,000 a year for fhe first five years of the program, and

$25,000 after fhat.

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 accomplished without rule revisions.

RELATED ACTIONS:

N/A

BH-7

175
Expand Habitat Mapping and Monitoring

Programs

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats

178

ACTION:

Ensure implementation of adequate habitat mappiug and monitoring programs to track

trends in areal extent and quality of seagrass, mangroves, coastal marshes and oligohaline 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 slate

governments implementiug actions, siuce 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, fisheries, coastal marshes and mangroves, and oligohaline habitats.

This action ensures implementation of habitat monitoring elements defined in the baywide monitoriug plan.

STRATEGY:

STEP 1 Continue the existing Southwest Florida Water Management DistrictSurface Water Improvement and Management (SWFWMD-SWIM) monitoriug program mapping areal extent of seagrass 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 permanent 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 conducts seagrass monitoring in Fort DeSoto Park to track rates of seagrass
scarring. The City of Tampa conducts seagrass quality monitoring in

Hillsborough Bay.

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA 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 ofEnvironmental

Protection-Florida Marine Research Institute (FDEP/FMRI)

STEP 3 Continue existing annual benthic monitoring through 1996. Evaluate results

of the four-year baseline in 1997 and redirect the program as appropriate.

In 1996, sediment toxicity was added to the benthic community and sediment 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 monitoring program is responsible for the development of a summary chapter in

the BEMR. An integral element of the report will be the bay managers'

summary, which will contain an 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 coordinatorfor production ofthe report has not yet been

determined.

SCHEDULE:

Steps I 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.

BH·8

In
• 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, estimated at $10,000.

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN

COST:

Bay Habitats

178

EXPECTED BENEFITS:

hnplementation 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

FRESHWATER INFLOW

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Maintaining an adequate supply of fresh water to Tampa Bay and its tributaries is crucial 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 lowsalinity 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 thousands of juvenile fish each year. As these fish mature, they typically move to more

saline areas of the bay or out into the Gulf of Mexico, although some species return to

these rivers during various seasons.

These vital ecosystems have declined as darns 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, irtigation

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 project 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 working 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 countered by steady increases in storruwater runoff from the watershed. But some significant 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 fisheries make preservation and restoration of remaining low-salinity habitats vital.

179
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.

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats

180

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-1 Establish and maintain minimum seasonal freshwater flows downstream of

dams.
Establish and Maintain Minimum Seasonal

Freshwater Flows Downstream of Dams

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

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 fisheries 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 spotted 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 priority 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

(cfs) - 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 sufficient infonnation 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

FI-1

181
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).

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats

182

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 teclmical workshops for each impounded river to evaluate results

of freshwater studies and develop recommendations for minimum freshwater 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 Hillsborough/Palm River system by October 1997.

NEP also sponsored an initial workshop on the Manatee River in August

1995, which included local govermnent and agency representatives, scientists, 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 supplies 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 recommendations 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 wellfields or reservoirs with highly treated wastewater or stormwater, as long
as public health concerns are addressed; and relocating point source discharges to augment freshwater flows downstream of darns.

Responsible parties: local governments, WCRWSA

ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

STEP 4 Monitor the environmental response. Develop and implement a program to

determine spatial and temporal changes in water qnality and in-stream biology 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:

FI-1

Hillsborough River/Palm River

Manatee, Little Manatee and Braden rivers

COST:

October 1, 1997

1999

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 darn 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 darn 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 county's annual bay monitoring expenditure.

183
CHARTING

theCOURSE

ACTION PLAN

EXPECTED BENEFITS:

Bay Habitats

FOR TAMPA BAY

Fa-it

184

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 resnlt

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
Mr,SIf.e11l

>A'rVithq'f!J~>

" in, Ta11lpa 1J .- '''.'..:.' /:.' .... ,L

PHOTO: BURGERT BROTHERS

Fish &Wildlife

Efforts by the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (NEP) to protect and enhance

Tampa Bay's diverse fish aud 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 sandpiper, are seasonal visitors to the bay.

Tampa Bay also attracts as many as 200 endangered manatees during the winter

months, when the gentle marine mammals gather at the warm-water plumes discharged 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

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

FW

185
'Three species of sea turtles - loggerhead, green and Kemp's ridley - feed in the

bay, and as many as 500 bottle-nose dolphins reside here year-round. Like the manatee, these larger marine creatures are threatened by accidental boat strikes and ingestion of and entanglement by marine debris, particularly monofilament fishing line.

The bay's once plentiful supplies of fish and shellfish have declined in recent decades,

a result of habitat loss and historic declines in water quality as well as pressures from

overharvesting. Recent bans on purse seines and gill nets are expected to sharply

reduce commercial harvesting of some species, such as spotted seatrout. While a precise 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.

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

FW

ACTION PLAN Bay Fish & Wildlife

188

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 suspected in the decline of these popular sportfislt.

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 salinities 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 populations, 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

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FW-I

FW-2

Increase on-water enforcement of environmental regulations.

Establish and enforce manatee protection zones.

FOR TAMPA BAY

FW

FW-3 Support bay scallop restoration.

FW-4 Assess the need to investigate the cumulative impacts of power plant

entraimnent on bay fisheries.

FW-5 Continue and expand the Critical Fisheries Monitoring Program.

[Note: Many ofthe strategies to supportfisheries 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.]

187
Increase On-Water Enforcement of

Environmental Regulations on the Bay

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Bay Fish & Wildlife

FW-1 ..

188

ACTION:

Increase enforcement of envirornnental regulations on Tampa Bay by obtaining support 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 envirornnental 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 envirornnental education trust fund (2.5 percent).

In fact, statewide allocations for marine enforcement have averaged about 20 percent

over the past five years, which is two-thirds of the 30 percent maximum allowed by

law and anticipated by many supporters of the bill. Despite allocations statewide, five

fewer marine patrol officers are assigned to the Tampa Bay district today than when

the rule was enacted in 1989. 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 fishing licenses and special stamps statewide in FY 93-94, about 17 percent or $2.3 million was allocated by the Florida Department of Envirornnental 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
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 saltwater fishing license revenues have been established - a "lottery syndrome" that

results in few or no net increases in available funding to address resource needs.

ACTION PLAN Bay Fish & Wildlife CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

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 measures. It also is the first line of defense in emergencies such as marine accidents and

hurricanes, and employs a select number of special environmental enforcement officers to investigate land-based environmental crimes such as illegal dumping.

Enforcement needs are growing on Tampa Bay, which has one of the lowest ratios of

marine patrol officers per registered boats - only 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 provide the coverage needed to effectively monitor the 400-square-mile bay and adjoining Gulf coastline, according to local Marine Patrol officials. Enforcement needs have

increased further with the recent passage of the marine net ban.

* District IV, which includes Tampa Bay and Sarasota Bay,stretches north 10 Levy County, south to Sarasota Coullty and east to

Polk and Highland counties.

STRATEGY:

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 minimum 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 formal legislative request to require that a minimum percentage

of Salt Water Fishing License revenues be directed to marine law enforcement.

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

FW·1

189
marine enforcement.

Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEP; FDEP/FMP; boat manufacturers

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Bay Fish & Wildlife

FW·1~

190

STEP 4 Continue to monitor Salt Water Fishing License revenues to ensure an equitable 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

Establish and Enforce

Manatee Protection Zones

ACTION:

Bay Fish & Wildlife CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

FW·2

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 surrounding the bay's power plants. Additionally, the bay's seagrass meadows and

numerous natural and manmade freshwater sources provide critical feeding and gathering 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 commlll1ities are using boater safety zones for manatee 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 identified 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 (winter 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 seagrasses)

upper Braden River near Bradenton (freshwater source)

191
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 (seagrass beds)

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

FW..2

ACTION PLAN Bay Fish & Wildlife

192

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 establishing manatee protection zones in Tampa Bay. Participants concluded that a formal

workgroup composed of environmental officials, manatee researchers and other interested parties should be created to develop specific recommendations.

Designation of manatee protection zones could be done unilaterally by local governments, 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 restrictions would be put into place for the zones. The limits might require boaters to travel

at idle speeds year-round within the zones, and forbid boat entry entirely during certain times of the year such as winter, when large numbers of manatees congregate in

just a few small areas. The restrictions would be periodically re-evaluated and adjusted as needed, based on updated manatee population data. Consequently, continued

research into manatee movements, habitat requirements and mortality should continue.

The Florida Marine Patrol (FMP) and local marine law enforcement units would

enforce the restrictions in the manatee zones. However, the amount of money allocated to FMP activities in the Tampa Bay area currently is not sufficient to ensure adequate 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-l for a more extensive discussion

of these options.)

Enforcement also could be enhanced through public education, as well as citizen monitoring and reporting of speed violations.

Recognizing that manatees travel great distances and will not always remain within

the protected zones, this action also encourages boaters to install special cage-like

guards on their propellers to avoid causing propeller injuries to manatees 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 hoat 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

STRATEGY:

Bay Fish & Wildlife CHARTING

theCOURSE

STEP I Establish a workgroup to explore recommendations for establishing manatee protection zones in Tampa Bay. The workgroup's members should

include environmental officials, manatee researchers and representatives

from enviromuental 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 I, 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 BayWatch 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 monitoring data to determine the need for changes.

Responsible parties: FDEP/FMRI

STEP 6 Promote the use of propeller guards to avoid injuring manatees throughout

Tampa Bay.

Responsible parties: Tampa BayWatch, 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.

FOR TAMPA BAY

FW·2

193
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 violations where arrests were made by FMP officers. The funds received from those transfers should be used exclusively for increasing enforcement capabilities of the FMP in

the district generating the funds.

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

FW·2

ACTION PLAN

COST:

Bay Fish & Wildlife

194

EXPECTED BENEFITS:

Designation of manatee protection zones will increase protection of manatees and

vital seagrass habitats within Tampa Bay.

MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:

FDEP/FMRI 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

Support Bay Scallop Restoration

Bay Fish & Wildlife CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

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 portion 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 (USF) to seed the bay with almost a quarter-million juvenile scallops

raised in laboratories. Large seed stocks are necessary since natural predation and

mortality of young scallops is high.

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, transporting 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

FW·3

195
as a result of the transplanting and seeding efforts. The most recent ScaHop Search, conducted in September 1996 and sponsored by Tampa BayWatch, found 75 scallops in

seagrass meadows within Boca Ciega Bay, Pinellas Point and Ft. DeSoto.

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Bay Fish & Wildlife

,' ... '-.-.

FW·3·

198

STRATEGY:

STEP 1 Identify funding sources to continue the scaHop 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 labreared scallops annually in the bay over a period of about five years.

Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEp, USF, FMRl

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 substantially.

Responsible party: Tampa BayWatch (for the Great Bay Scallop Search),

FMRl

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 techniques 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 seeding 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 perforruance review are to be determined.
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.

ACTION PLAN

EXPECTED BENEFITS:

MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:

Bay Fish & Wildlife CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

FW·3

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

197
Assess the Need to Investigate the Cumulative

Impacts of Power Plant Entrainment on Bay

Fisheries

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

FW·4:

ACTION PLAN Bay Fish & Wildlife

198

ACTION:

Detennine whether a comprehensive study to assess the cumulative impacts of multiple power plant operatious on Tampa Bay fish populations is needed. If a study is

warranted and shows cumulative adverse impacts, adjust plant operations and maintenance schedules as appropriate to reduce power plant entrairunent.

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 electric plants. However, the volumes of ambient bay water used for this purpose, and the

quantities of waste heat added to the bay as a result, can be significant.

Although the discharge of heated bay water from the power plants into the subtropical

Tampa Bay estuary produces temperature changes that have demonstrable impacts,

according to a Florida Department of Envirorunental 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 entrairunent, can lead

to high rates of mortality from physical, chemical and thennal 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 infonnation on current stock sizes, natural survival rates and losses

caused by habitat degradation, fishing pressure and other factors, it is extremely difficult to assess the impact of power plant entrairunent on overall bay fisheries populations.

Under the current regulatory system, each power plant must obtain operating pennits

from the Envirorunental Protection Agency (EPA) and the FDEP. But the pennit

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 considered.

Conducting a comprehensive study of cumulative impacts is an expensive and lengthy

task, and could be fraught with legal complications. There currently is no requirement

in the state rules governing power plants that cumulative impacts be addressed, and

initiating such a study in Tampa Bay may necessitate a rule change. Additionally, the

unique nature of each facility's operating processes, along with a lack of suitable
background infonnation on fish populations and the effects of other human-related

impacts such as fishing, may make a study on entraimnent inconclusive.

ACTION PLAN Bay Fish & Wildlife CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

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 eightweek entraimnent sampling effort required for a TECO pennit renewal cost $250,000.

And while some techniques to decrease entrainment are relatively low in cost (I.e.,

TECO's installation of fine-mesh screens on intake pipes at its Big Bend plant), other

solutions such as the construction of cooling towers to reduce the need for bay water

can cost hundreds of millions of dollars. These costs potentially could be reduced by

the utilization of alternative sources of water, such as wastewater or industrial effluent, and further investigation of such alternative technologies should be encouraged.

Thus, the need to assess the cumulative effects of entraimnent must first be demonstrated 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 encourages 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 I Participate in the EPA national workgroup on power plant entraimnent.

Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEp, FDEp, Florida Marine Research

Institute (FMRl), local power plant representatives

STEP 2 Depending on the results of the EPA workgroup, detennine 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 entraimnent

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, FMRl, local power plant representatives

STEP 3 If warranted, amend state rules to require a cumulative impact review for

all future power plant siting and operating pennits located on Tampa Bay

or its tributaries.

Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEp, local power plants, FDEP

FW·4

199
SCHEDULE:

Step 1 was initiated in 1996 and workshops will continue through 1997, with regulatory action to be proposed in 1999 and implemented in 2001. Steps 2 and 3 are contingent 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 further action to reduce entrainment, beyond what new federal rules may require.

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Bay Fish & Wildlife

200

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 ofremedial 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
Continue and Expand the Critical Fisheries

Monitoring Program

ACTION PLAN Bay Fish & Wildlife CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

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 ongoing monitoring program being developed for the Tampa Bay management plan.

Recent water quality improvements in the bay, along with new regulations on commercial 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 managers 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 macroinvertebrates in Tampa Bay. The stratified random sampling divides the bay into six habitat types (i.e., seagrasses, deepwater, 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 monitoring. Additionally, a quick visual examination of fish and invertebrates for the presence of visible lesions could be added to assist bay mangers in tracking the long-term

movement of toxic contaminants through the bay system.

FW·5

201
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

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Bay Fish & Wildlife

202

STEP 2 Require field scientists conducting the sampling to perform a quick visual

examinatiou 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

Envirornnental Monitoring Report, and redirect sampling efforts as needed.

Responsible parties: FDEP/FMRI, Tampa Bay NEP

SCHEDULE:

The Tampa Bay NEP and FDEPjFMRI will evaluate the feasibility of expanding fisheries sampling and develop a formal recommendation by Apri11997. The detection of

lesions indicative of toxic contamination could begin in 1997. The first expanded sampling 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 estimates for two additional full-time staff personnel. Financing sources for additional

sampling (if needed) could be pursued through a change in FMRI's current allocatiou

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 Envirornnental

Monitoring Report for the bay.

REGULATORY NEEDS:

None anticipated.

RELATED ACTIONS:

TX-l, TX-3, BH-l, FW-l, FW-3, FW-4
Dredging to create Davis

Islands, Tampa (/925).

PHOTO: BURGERT BROTHERS

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 environmental 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 seaports, 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 bottom 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
Develop a Long-Term Dredging and Dredged

Material Management Plan for Tampa Bay

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Dredging & Dredged Material Management

DR-1>

20B

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 utilities 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-long deep-water transportation highway. This action calls for the development of a long-range plan to coordinate dredging and dredged material management for Tampa Bay to maximize shared

disposal and beneficial use opportunities while minimizing the enviromnental 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 funding 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

enviromnentally 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 available 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 recommendations adopted by the participants.

The Tampa Port Authority (TPA) estimates that about 840,000 cubic yards of material

will be generated armually to maintain the upper part of the main ship charme1, 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 (estimated 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 Enviromnental Protection (FDEP) and the USACOE, which

issues and periodically reassesses the port's maintenance dredging permit.
Maintenance dredging of the main ship channel between Gadsen Point and the mouth

of Tampa Bay is expected to generate 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-term plans for disposal of the remainder of the material.

Port Manatee's development blueprint includes plans to enlarge its turning basin and

widener, and dredge its harbor channel to maintain a 40-foot mean low water depth. A

total of about 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 material each year. The Port Authority will contain all construction and maintenance dredging material at several upland sites on its property. These sites can accommodate

material for at least another 25 years.

ACTION PLAN Dredging & Dredged Material Management CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

DR-1

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-term planning scenarios.

A strong emphasis on coordinated planning 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 management 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 higWights

additional planning needs that must be addressed to complete this coordinated strategy.

STEP I 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 agencies, local governments, recreational and environmental interests and a representative 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 dredgiug and

dredged material management; identify capacity short-falls; and

develop a long-range strategy that integrates these plans to minimize costs and enviromnental impacts

207
CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

DR....

208

ACTION PLAN Dredging & Dredged Material Management

explore long-term options for the disposal of spoil material, including beneficial uses such as habitat restoration

promote best available technologies to reduce sediment resuspensian and nutrient releases during dredging, spoil disposal and contaimnent

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 serving Big Bend and other utilities.

Responsible parties: USACOE, in cooperation with local poris 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 longterm management plan. The Corps is contributing a minimum of $5,000 in-kind services. 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 planning and implementation.
ACTION PLAN

Tampa Bay Shipping Channels

Dredging & Dredged Material Management CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Tampa

Port

Sutton

Rattlesnake

Port

Tampa

t"'

t"'

"" J;;::1to

;,.0

>0<\:'0 a

o .~

e.g

Q~

t:r,;r

30 mi.

St. Petersburg

)(".........-.,.....,~:.- Big

Bend

Cl

~c

t"It""

Y-,"<\

-(").0

0'"<\

Omi.

A Y

N

A

SOURCE: TAMPA PORT AUTHORITY

209
CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

210

ACTION PLAN

REGULATORY NEEDS:

None anticipated.

RELATED ACTIONS:

BH-l

Dredging & Dredged Material Management
August1(), 1993 ~A

Brown Pelh:an surveys

the scene in the

aftermath ofa fiery,

three vessel collision at

the mouth ofTampa Bay

that left more than

300,000 gallons ofoil

in its wake.

PHOTO: PETER CLARK, TAMPA BAYWATCH

Spill Prevention

&Response

I

nstallation of an integrated, vessel tracking system to guide large ships through

Tampa Bay ranks as one of the highest priorities in the prevention of oil and hazardous materials spills. Securing a permanent source of funding for the maintenance of the bay's Physical Oceanographic Real-Time Systems (PORTS), which provides 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 modem skyscrapers. These ships traverse a long, relatively narrow shipping channel that leaves little room for navigational errors.

In addition, billions of gallons of hazardous materials and chemicals - including

petroleum products, phosphoric and sulfuric acid and anhydrous ammonia - are

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

SP

211
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.

stored in tanks at various ports and industrial facilities along the bay. While spill prevention efforts are essential for all hazardous materials, they are particularly significant in dealing with highly toxic, water-soluble compounds such as anhydrous ammonia or sulfuric acid. A spill of these materials could have a severe, although relatively

short-term, impact on the bay's fish and wildlife and threaten public safety.

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Spill Prevention & Response

212

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 planniug 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 unintentionalleaks 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 planning and response.

SUMMARY OF ACTIONS FOR

SPILL PREVENTION & RESPONSE

SP-l Establish an integrated vessel tracking system for Tampa Bay and permanently 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 workshop 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-
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.

ACTION PLAN Spill Prevention & Response CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

SP

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 federallaw, 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 adequate continuing education for harbor pilots, deserve careful consideration.

213
Establish an Integrated Vessel Traffic System

for Tampa Bay and Permanently Fund the

PORTS System

CHARTING

theCOURSE

ACTION PLAN Spill Prevention & Response

214

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 accidents.

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 personal 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 signature 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. Collisionavoidance 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 available means for navigation. This added protection is particularly vital in Tampa Bay,
which has the longest transit of any port in Florida and no intermediate deep-draft

anchorages.

ACTION PLAN Spill Prevention & Response CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

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 implementation 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-channel 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 containment 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 I Support efforts to implement a VTIS utilizing the best available technology

as soon as possible.

Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEp, in cooperation with local governments 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.

SP·1

215
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 entering port), Florida Seaport Transportation and Economic Development Trust Fund,

State Transportation Trust Fund, General Revenue and the Florida Coastal Protection

Trust Fund (FCPTF).

CHARTING

theCOURSE

ACTION PLAN

COST:

Spill Prevention & Response

218

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: county 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
Evaluate and Update Spill Response Plans for

Priority Areas in Tampa Bay

ACTION PLAN Spill Prevention & Response CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR 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 material to nearby causeway for collection.

Ft. DeSoto - Protect inside "arrow" of Ft. DeSoto Park, directing material to Ft.

DeSoto Beach for collection.

For each area, the group recommended the development of more detailed response

plans, including maps identifying response staging, equipment storage and 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.

SP·2

217
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 parnes: U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office, in cooperation with FMRI, FDEP and NEP

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

.5

ACTION PLAN

STRATEGY:

Spill Prevention & Response

218

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:

Al1 steps will be initiated in 1997.

COST:

To be determined, based on recommendations of the subcommittee and the scope of

plarming.

EXPECTED BENEFITS:

Detailed response plans for these priority areas wil1 help protect the bay's most environmentalIy 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-I
Improve Fueling and Bilge-Pumping Practices

Among Recreational Boaters

ACTION PLAN Spill Prevention & Response CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

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, discharges 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 cumulative 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 stOims. These pumps are activated

when the interior volume of water reaches a certain level. The bilge water that is automatically pumped from vessels with internal engines may contain small amounts of

fuel, cleaning solutions and other chemicals that pollute the bay.

In addition, fuel spills frequently occur when boat owners fill their tanks. Boat owners

often can't tell when the tank is full until the overflow valve discharges diesel or gasoline into the bay.

Federal and state laws prohibit the discharge of any fuel or oil within 12 nautical

miles of shore. As little as 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

fSP·3

219
Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (NEP), boaters are more concerned than landbound residents about enviromnental impacts, so heightened awareness may accelerate responsible actions by this group.

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Spill Prevention & Response

220

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 dissuades all but the most enviromnentally 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 container 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 environmental protection and fueling safety components. Coast Guard Reservists who are

SEA PARTNERS present enviromnental 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 oilwater 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 I 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 ofEnvironmental Protection

(FDEP), U.S. Coast GuardAuxiliary, Marine Manufacturers Association,

Florida Sea Grant

STEP 2 Develop educational materials that will stimulate solutions to bilge contamination 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 PARTNERS, Florida Sea Grant

Note: Extensive educational material produced by manufacturers and

other boater environmental education programs (Puget Sound Alliance,
Chesapeake Bay Foundations, Centerfor Marine Conservation fCMC}

etc.) already exists and can be tailoredfor local use.

ACTION PLAN Spill Prevention & Response CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

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 speakers bureau to address these groups and possibly distribute free oil-sorb

samples in partnership with one of the leading manufacturers.

Responsible parties: FDEp, U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary, SEA PARTNERS, 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 determined based on format selected, but should be accomplished through existing resources or available

grants. Manufacturer and boat dealership sponsors should be aggressively pursued.

EXPECTED BENEFITS:

Reduced small spills during fueling and during automatic bilge pumping.

MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE:

The measure of success for this action will be a reduction in the number of minor

spills reported.

REGULATORY NEEDS:

None anticipated.

RELATED ACTIONS:

TX-3, PH-3

SP·3

221
CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

222

ACTION PLAN Spill Prevention & Response
ACTION PLAN Public Education & Involvement

EPA

Administrator

Carol Browner

lends a helping

to Lakewood

oJ.students

rs/ilfll:ass

sio_r~,~ 'lIPa (1994). .,r--

PHOTO: TAMPA BAY NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

PE

Public Education &

Involvement

Acommunity Advisory Committee established in 1991 has assisted the Tampa

Bay National Estuary Program in developing outreach strategies and understanding 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 citizentaxpayers 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 informal 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).

223
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.

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

ACTION PLAN Public Education & Involvement

224

Future community outreach should seek to:

foster continued community support for bay restoration and CCMP implementation 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 protection.

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;
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 showcase 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.

ACTION PLAN Public Education & Involvement CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

PE

Funding to implement these initiatives will be covered in the NEP's annual workplan

or secured through grants and community partnerships.

225
CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

226

ACTION PLAN
Implerrlentation &

Financing

This chapter describes how the Comprehensive Conservation & Management

Plan (CCMP) for Tampa Bay will be implemented by local govermnents, agencies 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 govermnent and agency partners in the Tampa Bay NEP anticipate signing an

agreement in early 1997 pledging to carry out the recommendations of the final management plan. The agreement will include specific goals for the recovery of natural

resources, such as seagrasses and wetlands, as well as water and sediment quality

goals, and priorities for spill prevention and response and dredging and dredged material 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 cormnunities, 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 emphasizes flexibility, but allows local govermnents to focus their limited resources in the

most cost-effective and enviromnentally 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 currently allocated and where it is going. Financing options

that follow illustrate possible sources of revenue and approaches to accomplish goals

of the plan that might not otherwise be achieved with existing resources. Wherever

possible, the Tampa Bay NEP advocates the reallocation or more efficient use of existing revenues to carry out recommended actions.

Implementing the Plan for Tampa Bay

Successful implementation of the CCMP will require firm commitments for action,

flexibility for local govermnents 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 carried out in a timely

manner.

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

227
CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

228

Commitments will be secured through an implementing agreement which NEP partners 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 Enviromnental 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 implementing agreement, which will require agencies and local govermnents to develop individual 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 govermnent action plans

will address that portion of the nitrogen goal which relates to stormwater runoff and

municipal point sources. A Nitrogen Management Consortium of local electric utilities, industries and agricultural interests, as well as local govermnent 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 govermnent 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

govermnent 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 implementation 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 within the larger bay ecosystem can be an excellent tool for implementing the bay plan.

Integrating the Plan into Existing

Environmental Rules & Programs

Once govermnent and agency action plans to achieve bay goals are approved by the

Program's Management and Policy committees, these action plans will be incorporated into state and federal water quality permits addressing direct or point discharges

and stormwater management. Local govermnents 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 strategies. 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 community-based planning.

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, identifying 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 recommendations 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 govenunent 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 governments and agencies comprising the Tampa Bay Management

Conference elected to continue their participation in the NEP to oversee implementation of the plan. The primary oversight roles of the Tampa Bay NEP will be to monitor progress (in implementation and the bay's recovery), assist implementation, continue public 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

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

229
CHARTING

theCOURSE

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 implementation (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 community interests devoted to bay improvement

Assist in conflict resolution if mediation is needed

Public Outreach and Involvement

Continue community outreach and involvement efforts, promoting priority issues,

progress in charting the course for bay restoration, and bay stewardship and

involvement

Data Management

Improve public and agency access to bay management data and information, particularly on the Internet
Cost & Financing

Costs associated with individual actions presented in Charting the Course are presented 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 planning 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 treattnent - activities

that either indirectly or directly benefit the bay, even if they aren't performed solely

for the bay's benefit. These activities are funded largely through wastewater utility

enterprise funds, created by local governments expressly for these purposes.

The next largest allocation of 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 programs are financed through 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, environmental

monitoring and public education comprise $13.5 million, or 5.4 percent of the expenditures. 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 expected 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 $100,000 per ton of nitrogen*, 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 approximately $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

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

231
CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

234
PHOTO: BOB WESTENHOUSERfTAMPA TRIBUNE

MonitoringBay

Improvement

Efforts to monitor Tampa Bay's health are central to the success of bay restoration efforts, for monitoring enables communities to measure return on investment and helps environmental managers validate or refocus existing strategies

for bay 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 fluctuate 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

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

235
CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

236

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 monitoring programs, including an ambient water quality monitoring program conducted by

the Enviromnental Protection Commission (EPC) of Hillsborough County since 1974.

These programs have contributed significantly to the wealth of knowledge available

on the Tampa Bay estuary.

The monitoring design devised by the Tampa Bay NEP builds on this 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 infonnation collected. For

instance, simply considering the average concentration of dissolved oxygen throughout 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 conditions 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 condition 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 fonnat.

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 document 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 (iucluding 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 budgets 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 -

and by bay 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 conditions 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 environmental 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 statistically valid baywide monitoring design. The design is based upon the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency's (EPA) Enviromnental 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 enviromnental monitoring data from Tampa Bay
to Charlotte Harbor. All field and analytical methods employed, and QA/QC protocols, 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 benthic species found throughout the bay to identify those areas that differ from expected

patterns. Since some species of benthos are more sensitive to environmental stress,

these areas may indicate impacts from contaminants, habitat alteration or other trauma.

The health and abundance of benthic organisms are indicators of the bay's overall

health. 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 accumulate these contaminants in their tissue. They also are an important link in a food

web that supports many forms of marine life, and can therefore pass on accumulated

contaminants to other organisms that feed on them.

Dissolved oxygen is another indicator scientists use to gauge the health of the bay's

benthic communities. Research in nearby Sarasota Bay indicates that stressed 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 during 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 contaminants in sediments as part of their assessments. Initial studies indicate that some areas

of the bay contain contaminated sediments, but the severity and spatial extent of contamination in these areas are currently unknown. Beginning in 1996, sediments will be

tested for whole-sample toxicity using the Microtox method. In addition, the NEP recommends 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 toxicity 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 monitoring program, available from the Tampa Bay NEP, details QA/QC protocols. Its methods are based on standard EMAP methodology tested and reviewed by the EPA.

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

239
CHARTING

theCOURSE

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 divisions, 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 18-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 aud 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 wetfall/dryfall deposition monitoring, the Tampa Bay NEP has recently completed a pilot program to examine the spatial 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 selected 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 provide 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 maintaining and restoring Tampa Bay. Many species have specific habitat requirements that

must be met for their survival.

Ongoing monitoring efforts have demonstrated recovery of seagrasses 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 seagrass recovery. The health of

seagrasses 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 significant declines in seagrass 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 fluctuate 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, conducted 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 abnormalities in all fish over 75mm long, including tumors, parasites, skeletal malformations 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, dispatching teams of volunteers to various places to note numbers and varieties of birds.

Aerial surveys of pelicans and mid-winter surveys of waterfowl are conducted 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

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

241
CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

242

provide this documentation when transferring data. Agencies maintaining water quality databases must periodically submit their monitoring data to Florida's STORET system. 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 sampling could result in a monitoring program incapable of detecting anything but catastrophic change. Extensive sampling, on the other hand, may unnecessarily waste

resources to measure changes of little importance. Water quality and habitat monitoring 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 managers 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 common 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 monitoring 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 opinion 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 conducted 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) feecling 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 seagrass transplanting techniques and suitable 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

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

243
CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

244
Public Involvement

A Well-Crafted community outreach program that enlists and involves diverse

interests as partners in bay restoration and protection is a hallmark of all successful National Estnary 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 regulations and resources before adding new mandates. Responses also indicated that citizens didn't fully understand the bay's most pressing problems, or how actions at home

impact the health of the bay.

Survey results confirmed the need for diverse public input 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 enviromnental and economic

resource.

These findings became the springboard for a Community Advisory Committee established by the Tampa Bay NEP in 1991. Composed of citizens with diverse perspectives 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 residents and representatives of agriculture, industry, education, fishing, and enviromnental experts and activists, who also share their perspectives as citizen-taxpayers.

Members also provide information to constituents and help design and execute community 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 pesticides. Yet fewer than half of the citizens responding to a public opinion poll on Tampa

Bay in 1991 were able to identify stormwater runoff as a major source of bay pollution.

CHARTING

the COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

245
CHARTING

theCOURSE

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 potential impact of excess fertilizer, pesticides and water used in landscape care on the

long-term health of Tampa Bay. The connection may be immediate in a waterfront

neighborhood, or gradual, through the flow of stormwater drains, ditches, streams or

rivers.

To publicize these concepts and 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 establishment of Florida Yards, which emphasize native and other beneficial plants that blend

beauty and environmental benefits. The program also emphasizes least-toxic techniques for landscape maintenance to reduce pesticides in runoff to the bay.

In 1994, the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority joined the FY&N founding partners in a move to expand the program in Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco and

Manatee counties. Participating neighborhoods learn and apply environmental landscaping techniques and other pollution prevention practices. To advance these concepts, 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 landscape; 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 maintenanceintensive, 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 seagrasses 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 seagrass 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 important catalyst in developing community partnerships for bay restoration. Since then, the

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

247
CHARTING

theCOURSE

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 improvement. These initiatives have leveraged the talents and resources of numerous organizations, 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 complete 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 component of the aquarium's community programming, providing an excellent model for

other communities.

Operation BayWorks-This Hillsborough County project assists businesses in developing 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 automotive 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 bottomline benefits and beauty of native Florida landscapes, which require less water, fertilizer 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 benefits. The group will target large commercial developments where landscape modifications may be cost-effective, as well as urban and landscape designers involved in

plarming new commercial projects.

Least-Toxic Pest Controls-The effectiveness of natural predatory insects as an alternative 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 associated with reduced pesticide use. Workshops also were conducted to promote leasttoxic 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 lowmaintenance 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 paltnership between the Tampa Bay NEP and The Florida

Aquarium was formed in 1995 to support development of a Florida Landscapes exhibit at the entrance to the aquarium. This living exhibit features a mosaic of native habitats, 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 Poiut 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

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

249
-------------------~-----'''"-:'~--~-----~..~.-~

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Charting the Course 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 partners 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 management plan for Tampa Bay. The Spring 1996 issue of

Bay Guardian, the NEP's quarterly newsletter,

recl'\ps public response and some ofthe most frequent questions NEP received. Comments from the

community were overwhelmingly positive, especialiy

regarding goals for nitrogen management, seagrass

recovery and habitat restoration. Citizens gave particularly high marks to the NEP for the writing and

organization of the plan, which they say facilitated

their review and understanding of the issues.

However, some residents were diSSatisfied that the

Tampa Bay NEP did not take a formal position

against Florida Power & Light Company's request to

burn a controversial Venezuelan fuel calied

Orimulsion at its Parrish plant in Manatee County.

This would have added an additional 20 tons of

nitrogen to the bay each year, unless steps to mitigate 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 residents 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 discnss

the bay restoration blueprint with panels of experts

from their communities. The forums were co-sponsored

by the League of Women Voters and rebroadcast extensively 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 residents. Community focus groups also played an important part in developing strategies advanced in the plan.

These focus groups have helped to strengthen community investment in the bay plan and have assisted the

NEP in understanding the concerns of kcy constituent

groups.

A special 12-page newspaper supplement on Charting

the Course distributed to more than 700,000 area residents 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 duplication and focus on priorities;

maximize direct opportunities for public involvement in bay restoration and envirornnental 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

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

251
-~-----~-~-------~--,,-----

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

252
Early Action

S

ince 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 current 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 productive mangrove forests and seagrass meadows in the entire bay system. However,

the long-term health of this area has been jeopardized by intensive alteration of its

upland fringe, primarily from agricultural and mining operations.

The Tampa Bay NEP, together with regional and state agencies providing matching

funds, secured $700,000 in federal grants to assist in the restoration of this area -

$300,000 from the Coastal America Program and $400,000 in grants under Section

319(h) of the federal Clean Water Act. The effort is part of a $2.6 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 500-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 habitats, 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 stormwater 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 completed, and the tidal stream restoration accomplished. Construction of further

stormwater improvements began in 1996.

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

253
__________________________

__c.__

Cffi\RTING

theCOURSE

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 pinpointing the water quality conditions necessary to support bay scallops and to aggressively 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 scallops cling in the wild. Hundreds of thousands of these juvenile scallops have been

released in lower Tampa Bay, and monitoring is underway to determine whether these

exploratory transplant efforts can help bring back a sustainable scallop population.

Gandy Shoreline Alternatives

Construction of vertical seawalls along the bay's borders has destroyed much of the

bay's sloping fringe of ecologically valuable mangroves and salt marshes. This project, 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 properties. Methods evaluated included: lowering the elevation of the original seawall to create a gentler slope and installing riprap to allow tidal flushing and pools for juvenile

fish; planting salt marsh grass behind the riprap to stabilize the shoreline; adding

riprap to both ends of a remnant seawall offshore to provide habitat for oysters and

crabs and to create a small lagoon behind the structure; and installing "MacBlox,"

cement blocks with scalloped contours and multiple openings that provide more surface 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 officials for commercial and residential use.

In addition to the seawall studies, the project also restored the littoral marsh and mangrove 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 toehold along Tampa Bay. Thistall 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 seagrass scarring in a section of the

bay through aerial mapping and interpretation and to evaluate various methods of protecting those seagrasses from further damage.

The site chosen for the project encompassed 420 acres of severely scarred seagrass

around Fort DeSoto Park in Pinellas County, in a large embayment called Boca Ciega

Bay. Scarred areas were mapped in March and October 1993, 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 officers. 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 necessary to reduce propeller scarring.

This project is providing important information about what protective measures are

effective in reducing seagrass scarring, and may help bay managers develop uniform,

easily recognizable guidelines that can be implemented throughout not only the bay,

but also the entire state.

Data-Sharing Through GIS

Tampa Bay is among the most well-studied waterways in the nation, yet valuable

information from research and monitoring projects is not always shared among bay

managers. This 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 nearly $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

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

255
-------------------_._-~-~-~---.-.~~--<'

CHARTING

theCOURSE

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, government organizations and research institutions. These techniques will be expanded baywide, 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 temporary "hospital" at Fort DeSoto Park. Eventually 310 birds, or 88 percent, were recovered 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 public access to the site for education and recreation, while preserving its unique cultural

and natural attributes. Work includes removal of exotic vegetation, excavation and stabilization 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.
4.

3.

7.

2.

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

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.

Zarbock, H., AJ. Janicki, D.L. Wade, D. Heimbuch, and H. Wilson. 1994. Estimates aftotal nitrogen, 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.

Long, E.R., D. MacDonald, and C. Caimcross. 1991. Status and trends in toxicants and the potential/or their biological effects in Tampa Bay, Florida. NOAA Tech. Mem, NOS OMA 58. Silver

Spring, MD.

Zarbock, H.W., AJ. Janicki, and 8.S. Janicki. 1996. Estimates o/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.

City of St. Petersburg, unpublished data. 1995.

Enviromnental Protection Conunission of Hillsborough County. 1995. Surface Water Quality

Report, 1992-1994. Tampa, FL.

Janicki, A. and D.L. Wade. 1996. Estimating critical nitrogen loadsfor 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.

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.

Janicki, AJ. and D.L. Wade. 1996.

ibid

Zarbock, H.W., et.al. 1994; 1996. Martin, J.L., P.P. 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, AJ., D.L. Wade, and D.E. Robison. 1994. Habitat protection and restoration targetsfor

Tampa Bay. Tech. Pub. #07-93, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. Prepared by Coastal

Environmental, Inc.

9.

10.

11.

8.

REFERENCES, STATE OF THE BAY

1.

5.

6.

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 ofdistributions and inputs. Tech.

Pub. #01-95, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. Prepared by Versar, mc. and Coastal

Environmental, Inc.

16. Long, E.R., D. MacDonald, and C. Caimcross. 1991. Zarbock, H.W, A.J. Janicki, D.T. Logan and

D.D. MacDonald. 1996. An assessment ofsediment contamination in Tampa Bay, Florida using

the sediment quality triad approach. Tech. Pub. #04-96, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program.

Prepared by Coastal Environmental, me. Parsons Engineering Science, Inc. 1996. Toxic contamination sources assessment: Risk assessmentfor chemicals ofpotential concern and methodsfor

identification ofspecific 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.al. 1996.

21. Frithsen, J.B., et.aL. 1995.

22. Zarbock, H.W, et.al. 1996.

23. Ibid.

24. Ibid.

25. Patwardhan, A.S., and A.S. Donigian, Jr. 1994. Assessment of nitrogen loads to aquatic systems.

Prepared by Aqua Terra Consultants for the Office of Research and Development, USEPA.

257
CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

258

26. Fisher, D., J. Ceraso, T. Mathew, and M. Openheimer. 1988. Polluted coastal waters: The role.o!

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 COlUlty. 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., ct. al. 1996.

31. Frithsen, I.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 a/nutrient loadingsfrom 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 o/nutrients in ground water discharging/rom

Lithia and Buchhorn Springs. SWFWMD.

41. Brooks, G., TL. Dix and L. Doyle. 1993. Groundwateriswfacewater interactions in Tampa Bay:

Implications for nutrientfluxes. Tech. Pub. #06-93, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program.

Prepared by Center 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 Environmental, Inc. (shoreline modifications). 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, R.R., 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.P. Treat & P.A. Clark (Eels.) 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 AJ. Janicki. 1993.

50. Goodwin, C.R. 1987. Tidalflow, circulation, andflushing changes caused by dredge andfili in

Tampa Bay, Florida. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2282.

51. Lewis, R.R., 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 conununication. 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.J. 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, lO.R. 1995. Reestablishment ofseagrass 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 ofthe Tampa Bay National Estuary Program.

56. Sargent, P.J., T.J. Leary, D.W. Crewz, and c.R. Kruer. 1995. Scarring ofFloridas seagrasses:
Assessment and management options. FMRI Tech. Rep. TR-l. Florida Marine Research Institute,

St. Petersburg, FL. 37p. plus appendices.

57. Durako, M.J., M.O. Hall, F. Sargent, and S. Peck. 1992. Propeller scars in seagrass beds: an

assessment and experimental study ofrecolonization in Weedon Island State Preserve, Florida.

Pp. 42-53 in Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of Wetlands Restoration and Creation.

Hillsborough County Commtmity College, Tampa, FL.

58. Ehringer, J.N. 1994. Results ofanalysis ofprop scar damage at the Fort Desoto Aquatic Habitat

Management Area 1992/1993. Tech. Pub. #05-94, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program.

59. Sargent, F.J., T.J. Leary, P. Rubec, M. Colby, D.Kuhl, and A Lamb. 1996. Assessment ofseagrass

scarring in Tampa Bay and recommendationsfor 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 AJ. Janicki. 1993

62. Lewis, R.R., III and E.D. Estevez. 1988. The ecology of Tampa Bay, Florida: An estuarine profile.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service BiD. Rep. 85(7.18).

63. Grabe, S.A, C.M. COUl1ney, Z. Lin, D. Alberdi, H.T. Wilson and G. Blanchard. 1996. Technical

report: A synoptic survey ofthe benthic macroinvertebrates and demersal fishes ofthe 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. and AJ. Janicki. 1993.

65. Grabe et.al. 1996.

66. Savercool, D.M. and RR Lewis, III. 1994. Hard bottom mapping ofTampa Bay. Tech. Pub. #07-

94, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. Prepared by Lewis Environmental Services, Inc.

67. Lewis, R.R., 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, A.J., D.L. Wade, and D.E. Robison. 1994.

70. Ibid.

71. Ibid.

72. Ibid.

73. MacIntyre, H.L., R.J. 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 information from LANDSAT Ground Cover Database. FGFWFC.

76. Killam, K.A., R.J. Hochberg, and E.C. Rzemien. 1992. Synthesis ofbasic life histories of Tampa

Bay species. Tech. Pub. #10-92 of the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program.

77. CH2Hill. 1995. Tampa 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., M.N. Ritter, RK. Karkowski, E.D. Estevez and M. Marshall. 1994. Impact of

freshwaterflow 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 historical freshwater inflows to Tampa Bay, Florida. Tech. Pub. #01-94, Tampa Bay National Estuary

Program. Prepared by Coastal Environmental, Inc.

8t. Coastal Environmental, Inc. 1996. Living resource-basedfreshwater inflow and salinity targetsfor

the tidal Peace River. Prepared for the Southwest Florida Water Management Dist. Surface Water

Improvement and Management (SWIM) Dept.

82. Norris, M., personal communication. 1995. Unpublished data of landings from the National

Marine Fisheries Service and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Landing data

includes bluefish, black drum, flounder, jack crevalle, whiting, Spanish mackerel, menhaden, mullet, sea trout, sheepshead, and gray snapper. Some fish landed in Manatee County may have been

caught in Tampa Bay, but those harvests cannot be segregated from catches in Sarasota Bay.

Regardless. the inclusion of Manatee landings does not change the percent declines noted here.

CHARTING

theCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

259
CHARTING

theCOURSE

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 animals.

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 bottom 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 usu~lly at or near the surface. Some wetlands contain water year-round; others may remain relatively dry for months, becoming 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 regulations.

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

theCOURSE

ACP

AWT

BEMR

BMP

CARL

CCMP

CFMP

CIP

DDT

DGPS

DHRS

ELM

EPA

EPC

ERP

FAC

FADS

FCES

FDEP

FDDT

FERC

FGFWFC

FMRI

FPC

FPL

FWPCA

FY

FY&N

GPS

IMC

LTMS

MGD

MSSW

NOAA

NOEL

NOx

NPDES

NPL

O&M

OS OS

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

CDMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION & MANAGEMENT PLAN

CRITICAL FISHERIES MONITORING PROGRAM

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

DICHLORODIPHENYL-TRICHLOROETHYLENE

DIFFERENTIAL GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM

(Florida) DEPT. OF HEALTH ANO REHABILITATIVE SERVICES

ENViRONMENTAL LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMISSION (HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY)

ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMIT

FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE

FLORIDA ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION SYSTEM

FLORIDA CDOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE

FLDRIOA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRDNMENTAL PROTECTION

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

FLORIOA 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 ANO STORAGE OF SURFACE WATERS

NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

NO OBSERVABLE EFFECTS LEVEL

NITROGEN OXIDES

NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM

NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST

OPERATING ANO MAINTENANCE (BUDGET)

ON-SITE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS

POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS

POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS

PROBABLE EFFECTS LEVEL

PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHIC REAL-TIME SYSTEM

POLLUTION RECOVERY TRUST FUNO

RESOURCE CDNSERVATION & 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 OATABASE

WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

FOR TAMPA BAY

283


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 CITIZEN ADVISORS ALSO CONDUCTED A SERIES OF SMALLER FOCUS GROUPS TO

SOLICIT FEEDBACK FROM SPECIFIC INTEREST GROUPS.

THIS STRATEGIC BLUEPRINT REFLECTS BROAD-BASED INPUT FROM INDIVIDUALS, 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

S1. Petersburg, FL 33701