# 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 BAYTAMPA 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, visitus on the World Wide Web at: http://access.tampabayrpc. orglnep

# Charting the Course for 

# TampaBay

December 1996

Charting the Course 

### is the Comprehensive Conservation & 

### ManagementPlan 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 yourcomments and inquiries.

Published by the Tampa Bay National EstuaryProgram in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## II 

# PREFACE
Charting the Course 

### caps five years ofscientific 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 ofHillsborough, Pinellas and Manatee counties; the cities ofTampa, St. Petersburg and Clearwater; the Southwest Florida Water Management District; Florida Department ofEnviromuental Protection; and the U.S. Enviromuental ProtectionAgency. Action Plans for bay improvementhave been developed with assistance from bay experts, advocates, community interests and citizens. More than 250 residents attended a series ofTown Meetings onTampa Bay in the Spring of 1996 to discuss the draft plan withpanels ofexperts from their communities. The NEP and its citizen advisors also conducted a series ofsmaller focus groups to solicitfeedback from specific interest groups. A summary ofpublic comments is available from the NEP. This strategic blueprintreflects broad-based inputfrom individuals, groups and communities that share a common interest in a healthy bay as a cornerstone ofahealthy andprosperous 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 ofTampa Bay.

# ABOUT 

# CHARTING THE COURSE

Charting the Course has been designed for easy access and review. A detailed table of contents and index ofactionplans and associated actions forbay improvementarelocated at the beginning ofthe document on pages V-VIII. Other important points ofinformation are providedbelowto further assistyou inyourreview andunderstanding ofthe Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) for Tampa Bay. 

### THE TAMPABAY NEP The Tampa Bay National Esruary Program is a partnership ofthe U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency; FloridaDepartmentofEnvironmental Protection; SouthwestFlorida WaterManagementDistrict; Hillsborough, Pinellas andManateecounties; andthe cities ofTampa, St. Petersburg and Clearwater. TheProgramwas establishedin 1991 to assist the community in developing a comprehensive plan to restore and protectTampa Bay. 

### STATE OF THE BAY This chapterexplores the state ofthe 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 ofunderwater 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 theirhealth depends, are presented. 

### GOALS & 

### PRIORITIES Goals and priorities forTampaBay are summarized in a chapterimmediately 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 ofmeasures to protect this vital natural and economic resource. 

### ACTION PLANS FOR BAY IMPROVEMENT Charting the Course presents acomprehensive slate ofactions 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 ofthe many opportunities available to bay area residents who wish to get involved. Action plans forTampa Bay identify a range ofstrategies that allow local communities to maximize return on their investment in bay recovery and protection. Many actions also achieve multiple environmental objectives, such as pollutionprevention and water 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## III

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## IV conservation. Each action plan begins with an introduction that summarizes the topic, presents management objectives, and includes a list ofactions to address those objectives. As implementation ofthe bay planbegins, someimportanttechnical investigations continue. Studies are underway to more clearly identify the amount and sources ofatmospheric deposition to the bay, and to evaluate the risks oftoxic contaminants in various bay sectors. This workwill helpthecommunitytofinalize actionplans 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 ofTampa, St. Petersburg and Clearwater, unless otherwise noted, although all local communities in the region are urged to participate. 

### IMPLEMENTING THE PLANAND MONITORING BAY IMPROVEMENT TheNEPpartners will sign an agreementto implementthe CCMPforTampaBay inthe Spring of 1997, pledging to achieve the goals ofthe 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 withkey elements ofthe 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 theirefforts when necessary. Thebay monitoring programdevisedby the NEPin cooperation withlocal governments and agencies is presentedinthe Monitoring chapter. 

### GETTING A HEAD START Some key strategies for bay improvement included in Charting the Course 

### already are being implemented. Forexample, the NEP has provided a $40,000 grantto upgrade an existing ship surveillance system to reduce the potential for spills ofoils 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 othercriticalprojects 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 ofbay habitats and resources. Profiles ofthesehead-startinitiatives, whichrangefrom wetlandrestorations to support ofbay 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 adozencommunities, schools, and organizations forvarious bay improvementprojects. These community partnerships are profiled in the Public Involvement chapter.

# TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1 About theTampa Bay National Estuary Program and the development ofthe Bay Master Plan 5 Members ofthe Tampa Bay Management Conference 8 

### State ofthe Bay 13 State ofBay Management 45 

### Goals and Priorities for Tampa Bay 51 Introduction to Action Plans .59 Water & Sediment Quality Action Plan 61 Nitrogen Management 64 StormwaterRunoff 

### 68 Atmospheric Deposition 97 Wastewater 107 Toxic Contamination 122 Public Health 137 Bay Habitats Action Plan 147 Freshwater Inflow 179 Fish & WildlifeAction Plan 

### 185 Dredging & Dredged Material ManagementAction Plan 203 Spill Prevention & Response Action Plan 211 Public Education and InvolvementAction 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 ofthe Bay 257 Glossary 261 

### List ofAcronyms 263

See Index ofAction Plans, page VI. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



# v

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

# INDEX OFACTION PLANS AND ACTIONS FOR TAMPA BAY

WATER & 

### SEDIMENT QUALITY WQ-l Implement nitrogen management goals for Tampa Bay 64 Actions to reducepollutionfrom 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 similarpollution prevention initiatives 71 Assistbusinesses in implementing bestmanagementpractices to reduce stormwaterpollution, 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 olderproperties being redeveloped to meet current stormwatertreatment standards for that portion ofthe site being redeveloped, orprovide equivalent compensation 84 Promote compacturban development and redevelopment.. 87 Enforce and require the timely completion ofthe consent orders for the cleanup offertilizer facilities in the East Bay sector 90 Encourage bestmanagementpractices on farms 

### 92 Improve compliance with agricultural ground and surface water management plans 95 Actions to reduce the effects of airpollution 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 reducepollutionfrom wastewaterdischarged to the bay: WW-I WW-2 WW-3 WW-4 Expand the use ofreclaimed water where reuse benefits the bay

....... 109 Extend central sewer service to priority areas now served by septic systems 114 Require standardized monitoring ofwastewater 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 ofcontamination 124 Improve opportunities for properhazardous waste disposal.. I27 Reduce toxic contaminants from ports and marinas 131TX-4 Promote integratedpestmanagement on farms to reduce pesticides inrunoff 134 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

Actions to reducepathogens: FOR TAMPA BAY PH-l PH-2 PH-3 Reduce the occurrence ofmunicipal seweroverflows to the bay 139 Establish water quality standards for saltwaterbeaches 142 Install additional sewage pump-outfacilities for recreational boaters and live-aboard vessels 144


### BAY HABITATS Actions to increase andpreserve the number anddiversity of healthy bay habitats: BH-l BH-2 BH-3 BH-4 BH-S BH-6 BH-? BH-8 Implement the Tampa Bay masterplan for habitat restoration and protection 150 Establish and implementmitigation criteria for Tampa Bay, and identify priority sites for mitigation 154 Reduce propeller scarring ofseagrass and pursue seagrass transplanting opportunities at select sites 159 Restrict impacts to hard-bottom communities 162 Improve management ofparking and vehicle access along causeways and coastal areas 165 Encourage waterfront residents to enhance shorelines and limitrunofffrom yards 169 Improve compliance with and enforcement ofwetland permits 173 Expand habitat mapping and monitoring programs 176 Actions to establish andpreserve adequatefreshwater inflows to Tampa Bay andits tributaries: FI-l Establish and maintain minimum seasonal freshwater flows downstream ofdams 181 

### FISH & 

### WILDLIFE Actions toprotectandenhance bayfisheries and wildlife: FW-l FW-2 FW-3 FW-4 FW-S Increase on-water enforcement ofenvironmental regulations on the bay 188 Establish and enforce manatee protection zones 191 Supportbay scallop restoration 195 Assess the need to investigate the cumulative impacts of powerplant entrainment on fisheries 198 Continue and expand the Critical Fisheries Monitoring Program 201


### DREDGING & 

### DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT Actions to reduce the impact of dredging andimprove dredgedmaterial management: 

### DR-l Develop a long-term dredging and dredged material management plan forTampa Bay 206


## VII

# CHARTING 

# theCOlJRSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 2 ing pairs of25 species each year, including pelicans, egrets, herons, cormorants, terns, ibis and spoonbills. Many otherbirds such as theAmerican white pelican and several species ofsandpipers spend the winterhere, logging thonsands ofmiles on their annnal pilgrimage to Tampa Bay. 

### TROUBLED WATERS
The bay's natural habitats are the nerve center ofthis dynamic system, bnt they have sustained heavy damage. Mostimpacts occurred in a span ofabout 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 ofhabitat declines driven by massive dredge-and-fill projects to develop navigational channels, waterfront communities and industrial sites. Dredging andpollution destroyed more than halfofthe bay's underwatermeadows of seagrass and natural shoreline. Small creeks and streams were straightened to speed drainage ofwetlands 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 waterquality deteriorated, fisheries and wildlife declined. Aonce-thriving bay scallop fishery was virtually eliminatedby the mid1960s; although scientists don't know why, many suspect pollution was to blame. Harvests ofclams and oysters also plummeted as bacterial contaminationforced the closure ofproductive shellfishing grounds. Seagrass and wetland destruction hastened the decline ofmany otherpopular recreational and commercial species, including seatrout, red drum and snook. Likewise, populations ofnesting birds inTampa 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 inTampa Bay. A similarpattern ofdecline triggered by destruction offreshwater wetlands has been docnmented in the Florida Everglades. 

### TURNING POINT
Since the 1970s, when the CleanWaterAct was enacted, local communities and industries have made significant strides in improving water qnality to restore the damaged estnary. Nitrogen was the chieftarget. Excess amounts ofthis naturally occurring and otherwise beneficial nutrienthadfueled algal growth in the bay, clouding the water and cutting offlight to underwater seagrasses. The year 1979 marked a turning point in the bay's recovery when the City ofTampa modernized the Howard F. 

### Curren Plant at Hookers Point, the region's largest wastewatertreattnentfacility. The $lOO-million project is creditedwith sharply reducing nitrogen from treated wastewaterpiped into the bay. Across the bay, the City ofSt. Petersburg was pioneering new technology to re-use the nutrient-rich wastewaterit pumped to the bay. Started in 1978, this reclaimed waterproject was one ofthe most ambitious in the nation and now provides treatedwastewaterfor irrigation to more than 8,500 homes and businesses. The City of Clearwateralso has contributed to the bay's recovery, investing more than $50 million in the mid-1980s to upgrade wastewater treatmentplants to advanced treatment standards. As discharges ofpollutants were reduced, nature responded. Monitoring results show water quality improvements since 1984. Improved waterclarity is believed to have triggered a return ofseagrasses to areas that had beenbarren for decades. Between 1982 and 1992, more than 4,000 acres ofnew orexpanded 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 ofsnook and red drum. Monitoring data now indicates thatjuvenile stocks ofthese prized gamefish are on the upswing. This impressive turnaround owes much to environmental regulation and advances in sewage treatment thathave helped to cleanse the bay ofdamaging 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 ofre-using treated wastewaterto reduce demand on groundwater supplies, while helping to rid the bay ofexcess nutrients. Despite this success, other forms ofpollution continue to threaten the bay, with potential impacts far greater than bay managers previously thought. New studies have identified airpollution as a significant and persistent source ofbay pollution. Recent studies also have revealed the presence oftoxic contaminants in bay sediments in localizedurban, industrial and agricultural areas. The NEP is conducting risk assessments to identify the contaminants ofgreatest concern. 

### DEFINING THE CHALLENGE Population in the tri-county region is expectedto 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 oflocal communities over the last 15 years in enhancing water quality while experiencing rapid growth is a promising indication that this canbe achieved. The signs ofenvironmental distress that promptedthe 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 offunding. 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, ofwhatTampa 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 canbe aplace where: surrounding communities will be recycling wastewater, reducing both the demand on limited drinking water supplies and the amount ofexcess nitrogen and other 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 3

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 4 pollutants discharged to the bay; neighborhoods and businesses will have adopted environmentally friendly landscaping practices, using native and drought-tolerantplants thatrequire less water, fertilizer and pesticides; seagrasses will have responded to increased water clarity and recolonized thousands ofacres ofbay bottom, providing vital fish habitat; hundreds ofadditional acres ofproductive coastal marshes and mangroves will be in public ownership or otherwise safeguarded, extending permanentprotection to these wetlandhabitats so crucial to birds and other animals; toxic contamination ofsediments 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 ofthe issues facing Tampa Bay andhow they canhelp 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 establishedminimum flows for rivers impounded by dams to ensure an adequate supply offresh waterto the bay; bay improvements, combined with effective wildlife and fisheries management, will have brought abouthealthy populations ofmanatees, sea turtles and dolphius, and increased catches oftrout, red drum, snookand other game fish; harborpilots will guide oil tankers along the bay's shipping channels using a state-of-the-art vessel tracking system that will greatly reduce the riskofship collisions and catastrophic spills; bay area port authorities and the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers will have expanded beneficial uses ofdredged material and developed long-term disposal options through a coordinated management plan; goals and actions in Charting the Course 

### will have beenincorporated into permits and programs, providing a clear and common agenda for bay improvement.
This vision ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthis effort is the overall goal ofecosystem 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 ofecosystem 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 ofthe 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 thatfocus on pollutionprevention, conservation ofnatural 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 ofCharting 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 supportbay improvement strategies. 

# About the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program
The TampaBay National Estuary Programwas established in 1991 to assistthe community in developing a comprehensive plan to restore and protectTampa Bay. The program is part ofa national network of28 estuary programs established under the CleanWaterAct 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 ofTampa, St. Petersburg and Clearwater; the Southwest Florida WaterManagementDistrict; 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 ofthe Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) for Tampa Bay. Since 1991, the Tampa Bay NEPhas 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. Akey focus ofthe 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 ofeducational outreachprograms and provided grants to involve citizens and communities in efforts to improve their bay. These efforts, and a summary ofthe community's response to the draft CCMP, are presented in the chapter on public involvement. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 5FOR TAMPA BAY



## B 

## Figure 

# 1

Scientists and citizens from theTampa Bayregion participated in aseries of meetings in late 1990and early 1991 to identifyand rankthe bay's priority problems. Advisors completed data sheets identifying theirconcerns and were asked to evaluate for each: the extentofthe problem; associated risksto the estuary; available knowledge and data needs; and current management efforts. Summarized below, the initial list of seven priority problems was formallyadopted by the NEP's PolicyCommittee in 1991 and becamethe springboard forstudiesto investigate bayconditions and foramulti-faceted public education and outreach campaign. Atmospheric deposition was not originally believed to be asignificant issue. Scientists nowestimate thatabout one-third ofthetotal nitrogen entering the baycomesfrom the air. Important research is underwayto more closely identifythe magnitudeand sources ofthis pollution.

## List of Priority Problems forTampa Bay AdoptedJanuary11, 1991

• Waterquality declines/eutrophication. resulting from excess nitrogen in stormwater runoff, direct dischargesto the bayand from atmospheric deposition

• Declinesand impactsto living resources and habitats

• Increased userconflicts and impacts associated with recreational, commercial and shipping activity

• Lackofagencycoordination and response

• Lack of community awareness, noting the specific need for improved boater education, general public outreach and efforts to make the bay more accessibleto residents

• Circulation and flushing

• Hazardous/toxiccontamination, including sedimentcontamination and oil/hazardous materials spillsSource: ManagementConferenceAgreement, Tampa Bay NEP. March 1991

## Figura

## 2 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE
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 ofthe Comprehensive Conservation &Management Plan forTampa Bay Plan submitted to EPAand Governor Identifyand Rank Priority Problems



# ------------------------- Assess Bay Conditions &Needs 

# ------,*,.-----------

Establish Specilic Goals lorTampa Bay
Develop &

### Review Management Options 

# ----,---------- Comprehensive Conservation &Management Plan lorTampa Bay 

### PreliminaryAction Plans Released Drall Plan Released

Spring 1997

Revise Goals and Strategies as Needed 

# -4J;------ Implementing AgreementSigned by Communityand Agency Partners as Part01 Ceremony Celebrating the Adoption 01 the Tampa Bay Plan

# -~,..------- Implement Plan & 

# *

Monitor Progress 

# IIlSJV

7

# CHARTING Ernie Estevez Rob Heath Stu Marvin 

# the

# COURSE Mote Marine Laboratory Hillsborough County Parks Hillsborough County

- Kent Fanning Department City/County Plamring FOR TAMPA BAY University ofSouth Florida

- Brandt Henningsen Commission Marine Science Department Southwest FloridaWater 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 ofClearwater

- Department Mark Hilton Florida Marine Research Institute ofEngineering/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 ofHillsborough Jack Merriam County Hillsborough County Sid Flannery Southwest FloridaWater Gail Huff Engineering Services Management District U.S. Soil Conservation Service Ron Miller MarkJ. 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 ofSouth Florida

- Clearwater Marine Science Civil Engineering Department Center Don Moores Boris Galperin Marty Kelly Pinellas County

- Department of University ofSouth Florida

- Southwest FloridaWater Environmental Management Marine Science Department Management District

- (SWIM) E. O. Morris Ron Giovanelli Steve Kent Cargill Fertilizer, Inc. Dames & Moore Tree ofLife Nursery, Inc. Gerold Morrison Bob Gordon Jay Leverone Southwest FloridaWater Hillsborough County Mote Marine Laboratory Management District (SWIM) Engineering and Construction Jordan Lewis Gus Muench Services Department ofHealth 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 FrankNearhoof Eric Livingston FDEP

- Bureau ofWater U.S. Environmental Protection FDEP

- StormwaterManagement 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 FloridaWater 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 ofSt. Petersburg

- Planning Florida Marine Research Institute MarkLuther Department (FDEP) University ofSouth 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 ofTampa 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 

## 10Dave Parsche Ed Snipes David Voigts 

# CHARTING
Tampa PortAuthority Water Facilities (FDEP) Florida Power Corporation 

# the

# COURSE

John Paul Elmer Spence Jan Vorhees University ofSouth Florida

- Pinellas County Public Works Environmental Specialist FOR TAMPA 

### BAY Marine Science Department Bob Stetler Richard Paul Environmental Resources ChuckWalter 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 ofSouth Florida

- Robert H. Weisburg Geology Department University ofSouth 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 ofS1. 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 DickWilliams University ofTampa

- Biology City ofTampa

- Planning Water Facilities (FDEP) Department Department Tom Ries BillTiffany Greg Williams Southwest FloridaWater Manatee County Port Authority IMC-Agrico Company Management District (SWIM) Chris Tolbert Michael Wood Doug Robinson Pakhoad Dry BulkTcrminals Manatee County

- Planning and Coastal Environmental, Inc. DavidTomasko Zoning Department Tom Rogers Southwest Florida Water David Worley FDEP

- Air Quality Management District (SWIM) FDEP Mark Ross NickToth University ofSouth 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 ofSouth 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 ofSouth Florida

- Commission/AirManagement Marine Science Department 

## 11

# CHARTING the

# COURSE Tampa BayWatershed Boundaries and Bay Segments Figure 3 FOR TAMPA BAY



## , , , , , , , , 

## , , , 

## , , , 

## , L

. __ l 

### , 

## , , 

## ,

_1-

_



## , , , 

## , , , , , , 

## , , , , , , , , , 

## , , , 

## , , HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY

MANATEE COUNTY 

# '"**.~.**

## t""/Y/"v

### er**~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-waterestuary, covering almost400 square miles. 

## 12

# StateoftheBay


# Prom the headwaters ofthe Hillsborough River to the salty waters offAnna Maria Island, Tampa Bay encompasses arich mosaic ofunderwater and coastal habitats that supportthousands ofspecies ofplants and animals. Preserving and restoring these interdependenthabitats

- even in the face ofcontinued 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 mostproductive ecosystems. More than 70 percent ofall commercially important species offish depend on estuaries at some stage in their development. l The bay also attracts aremarkable number and variety ofbirds and animals that depend on its rich tapestry ofhabitats 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 watershedhas a profound influence on the health ofthe bay. Nutrients in runofffrom the watershed fuel the bay's productivity, but excess amounts ofnutrients, as well as contaminants from neighborhoods, industries, cities and farms, pollute the bay. Achieving a healthy balance ofnutrients 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 ofmodem growth. As population in the tri-county area surpasses 2 million people, actions we take athome, at work and in ourcommunities increasingly influence the state ofthe bay. This chapter explores the state ofthe bay

- as well as the management structure charged with the bay's protection

- so that the community can directfuture efforts where help is most needed and ensure that increasingly limited public funds are spent in a mannerthatbestbenefits the bay and the people who live around it. Restoration is a complex but achievable taskthat will require a steady focus on ecosystem management. Decisions based on ecosystem needs

- those that recognize how individual habitats affect the health ofthe whole and how fish and wildlife depend upon this network for survival

- can prevent costly and less effective piecemeal treatment. Achieving the goals set outby the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (NEP) will require a flexible, yet comprehensive, ecosystemmanagement approach that takes into account the overall needs ofthe estuary. By considering and capitalizing on these differences, ecosystem management goes beyondtraditional program boundaries

- just as the bay ecosystem itselfextends far beyond its visible borders. Thus, aplan based 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 13

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 14 on these principles can integrate actions and policies to betterprotect the bay's multifaceted resources. By focusing less on government-imposed regulations and more on the actual requirements ofthe 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 otherbiological indicators ofa healthy estuary. The NEP is committed to a course ofaction 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 ofthe bay's water and sediments is importantto the animals and plants thatreside in them, and also affects human use and enjoyment of the bay. Excess amounts ofnutrients and chemicals

- some naturally occurring, others generatedby humans

- canjeopardize the bay's health. The most striking example ofthis 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 impactedby potentially toxic contaminants carried in stormwaterrunoff, wastewater and atmospheric deposition to the bay. Studies conducted by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Florida Department ofEnviromnental Protection (FDEP) in the last decade have revealed high levels ofthese contaminants in sediments at several bay sites, including upper Hillsborough Bay, Boca Ciega Bay and Bayboro Harbor.' New studies show that atmospheric deposition ofpollutants 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 ofthe 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 ofthe bay.4 Recent attention also has focused on the problem ofsanitary sewer overflows caused by heavy rainstorms that force some municipal treatmentplants to shunt raw orpartially treated sewage to Tampa Bay. Sewage overflows are ofparticular concern in St. Petersburg, where low land elevations and rapid population growth have combinedto strain existing municipal sewer and stormwater systems. In August 1995, St. Petersburg was forced to shunt more than 15 million gallons ofraw sewage into canals leading to the bay when torrential rains caused sewerbackups.' 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) ofHillsborough County has conducted a comprehensive waterquality monitoring program in the bay's four major segments. The wealth ofdata compiledby EPC is the principal source ofinformation for the following status and trends on bay water quality. Abenthic monitoring program recently established by the counties surrounding the bay will tracktrends in sediment quality and the abundance and distribution ofbottom-dwelling animals. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

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 tonsEstimates ofexisting 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 ofthe bay's nitrogen management goals to thejurisdictions and sources from which they originate. These commitments will form the basis ofan agreement signed by community and agency partners in 1997 to implement the Tampa Bay restoration plan. 

# Toxic Contaminants

Toxic contaminants represent another primary focus ofconcern for bay managers. Overall, Tampa Bay has relatively low to moderate levels ofmost toxic parameters when compared to otherurban estuaries. Toxics ofconcern, 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 affecthuman health. Recent studies by NOAA, the FDEP and the Tampa Bay NEPprovide the most complete assessmentto date oftoxic substances ofconcern 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 ofthe bay toward the Gulf. Results ofa recentrisk assessment conductedfor the Tampa Bay NEP indicate that some contaminants are present at concentrations ltigh enough to be harmful to fish and wildlife, eitherthrough direct exposure to bay sediments or indirectly through the food web. The first phase ofthe study, completed in 1996, assessed the risk to human health and marine life from contaminants in Hillsborough Bay and Boca Ciega Bay, two ofTampa Bay's most impacted sectors. 17 The primary contaminants ofconcern identified in the study include metals, PAHs, PCBs, and chlorinatedpesticides. Most ofthese pollutants enterthe bay in stormwater runoffor through atmospheric deposition. The second phase ofthe NEP risk assessment will focus on Bayboro Harbor and the western edge ofOld Tampa Bay nearAllen's Creek. These investigations will help identify which pollutants pose a continuing threat to the bay and those that represent past or inactive sources ofpollution. Findings from the studies will be used to develop a more specific action plan addressing toxic contamination in 1997. Although levels ofmost contaminants documented locally pose no known risk to humans, effects ofrepeated exposure to small amounts ofthese 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 atrisk, since some toxic substances increase in concentration as they ascend the food web. 

# CHARTING 

# thCOURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



### 19

# CHARTING the

# COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY 

## Toxics ofConcern forTampa Bay 

# ContaminanUlmpacts Cadmium- Potentiallytoxic and mayconcentrate in food webs as it is retained for long periods in biological systems. Does notappearto accumulate in fish or undergo biomagnification, but does accumulate in sediments. High levels of cadmium presentin sedimentsfrom the Hillsborough Bay/Lower Palm River, Allen's Creek, Cross Bayou and Boca Ciega Bay. 

## Chromium- Exhibits varied levels oftoxicity in different fish species. Also listed as amammalian carcinogen. Highest levels in bay sediments found in Hillsborough Bay nearthe mouth ofthe 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. Exceedinglytoxicto aquatic biota. Highest ievels in bay sediments found in Boca Ciega Bay near Cross Bayou, in Hillsborough Bay nearthe Alafia Riverand Davis Islands, and in MiddleTampa Bay near Bayboro Harborand Papys Bayou. 

## Lead-Causesanumberofacute and chronic human health impacts, and accumulates in sediments. High leveisfound in baysedimentsfrom Hillsborough Bay nearthe Alafia River, the lower Hillsborough River, and Boca Ciega Bay nearCross 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 ofsenses and physical and mental development of children. 

## Zinc· Toxic at high concentrations and widespread in the environment. Highest leveis in baysediments 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 offish 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 Bayand near the Alalia Riverand Papys 8ayou. 

# Sources

Common trace elementwidely employed in electroplating applications. Also present in paints, plastics, batteries and domestic sewage sludge.

Atmosphericsources include alloyand metal production, coal combustion, waste incineration, cement production. Direct sources include electroplating/metal finishing, wastewatertreatment piants, iron/steel foundries and other industrial applications, residential runoff and phosphate fertilizers. Large numberof human-induced sources to marine environment, including oil and fuel combustion, antifouling paints, metal-cleaning operations, plating bathsand rinses, commercial pigments and dyes, wood preservatives, leachate from copper pipes, domestic sewage siudge, and coppersulfate 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, batteriesand domesticsewage 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. Majorapplication ',s coating of other metalsto protect against corrosion. Used widely as acomponent in batteries and tires. Sources include municipal wastewaterand sludge, direct industrial discharges, surface runoff, and atmospheric deposition. Formerly used to control abroad spectrum of agricultural, silviculturai and househoid insect pests.



## 22

## Figure7 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

# ConlaminanlllmpaCIS Chlordane· Environmentally persistent insecticide used extensivelyintermitecontrol and alsoto control certain agricultural insects. Banned in 1988. Concentrations of chlordane at northern Boca Ciega Bay, Papys Bayou, Mullet Keyand northern Hillsborough Baywere 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 bodyweight 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 liverenzyme response, reproductive failure, fetal abnormalities including cataracts, heart defects, scoliosis and cleft palate. Concentrations of mirex in oysters from Tampa Bayare relatively high comparedto manyothersitesaround 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 toxicityto marine organisms, high bioconcentration factor and fairly long half-life. Although notwidely sampled for in Tampa Bay, endosulfan has been recorded in sediments from Cockroach Bayand in stormwaterfrom an industrial park in WestTampa. 

## Dieldrin· Pesticideforsoil-dwelling insects including termites. Sublethal effects include starvation, liverdamage, immunological suppression, decreased fertility, postnatal mortality. Acarcinogen for some animals and amutagen in cell cultures. Highest levels in baysediments reported atthe mouths ofthe Hillsborough River and Boca Ciega Bay. 

## PCBs· Among the most persistent and toxic of organic compounds. Most riskofcancerfrom consumption ofcontaminated seafood attributed to PCBs. Biomagnifies. Manufacture ended in 1976. PCBs atsites in Hillsborough Bayexceed Florida's Probable Effects Level (PEL) for biological effectsfrom 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 MiddleTampa Bay near Papys Bayou. 

# Sources

Farmers used granularchlordane mixed with fertilizers for broad-spectrum insect control on fields. Also applied occasionally as aliquid spray for some beetles, and on golfcourses. Agricultural and urban runoff are among the major documented sources. Widely applied by aircraftto 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 about30 years ago and widely used to control winged insects associated with many row and field crops. Applied as aliquid sprayto crops.
Widely used from 1950-1974to 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 ofwhich are long-lasting in solis and not highly water-soluble. Formerlyemployed in awide variety of industrial applications including insulation in electrical capacitors and transformers; paints, additives, adhesives, and caulking compounds; hydraulicfluids. Sources to environment are varied including direct discharge from production facilities into municipal sewage systems, leaching from disposal sites, refuse incineration and reuse oftransformer 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 the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 24 pesticides. Agricultural runofffrom pastures andrangelands, which cover roughly 28 percent ofthe watershed, account for another 13 percent oftotal bay nitrogen loadings. Forests and wetlands (at 7 percent) and mining (at4 percent) comprise the remainder of nitrogen loadings in stormwaterrunoff.23 

### ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION
Coastal waters ofthe United States receive large quantities ofnutrients, heavy metals and chemicals from the air

- and Tampa Bay is no exception. Until recently, atmospheric deposition (pollutants carried in rainfall and dryfall, which consistofsmall particles and aerosols) had not been identified as a significant problem for Tampa Bay. Studies now suggestthat about 29 percent ofthe 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 ofthese will eventually enterthe bay in stormwaterrunoff. About 1,100 tons ofnitrogen 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 ofthatreaches the bay. EPA estimates that as much as 67 percent ofthe bay's total nitrogen load could come from the atmosphere." Several forms ofnitrogen are contained inrainfall and dryfall to Tampa Bay. Nitrogen oxides (NOx)

- mostly linked to powerplant and vehicle emissions

- are chemically transformed in the air, eventually returning to earth in aerosol ordissolved forms, such as nitric acid and other soluble nitrates in rainfall. Combined emissions from motor vehicles and powerplants contributed almost 70 percent ofthe 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 ofthe manmade NOx emissions as compared to 30 percent from motorvehicles." One utility, Tampa Electric Company

- which operates two coalfired power plants on the bay

- is the single largest source ofNOx emissions in the region. According to the EPC ofHillsborough County, these two facilities emitted approximately 90,000 tons ofNOx in 1994, representing nearly two-thirds ofthe total NOx emissions for Hillsborough and Pinellas counties. 28 However, researchers can't say how much ofwhat is emitted locally stays in the region or what percentage ofemissions from outside the region are deposited here, since airborne contaminants may travel hundreds (or even thousands) ofmiles before settling to Earth. They also can't pinpoint whatportion ofnitrogen 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, powerconsumption and motorvehicle traffic grow. 29 Between 1995 and the year 2010, nitrogen loadings to the bay from all sources are expectedto increase by about 7 percent, or 17 tons per year30 But those estimates do not include changes that could occur as a result ofnew 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 ofNO xEmissions, 1994 A Comparison ofMajor Urban Areas in Florida 

## Figure 8 

# CHARllNG the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Tampa Bay Region* Total: 160,200 tons yr.

.. Pinellas, Hillsborough

andManatee counties. Southeast Florida* Total: 136,200 tons yr
.

.. Dade, Browardand

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 othermobile 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 requestto burn the fuel was denied inApril 1996 by the Governor and Cabinet in a 4-3 vote. The decision is now being appealed. Toxic substances also enterthe bay from the atmosphere in large quantities. For example, studies estimate that 44 percent ofthe bay's total cadmium loading, and about one-sixth ofits 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 powerplant and motor vehicle 

### emissions and waste incineration. 

### WASTEWATER
While advances in wastewatertreatment and increased regulation have helped reduce pollution, permitted sewage treatmentplants 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) ofthe bay's total annual nitrogen 10adings.32 Although all sewage treatment plants with surface discharge to the bay orits tributaries now provideAdvanced WastewaterTreatment, roughly 36 billion gallons ofeffluent are still discharged to the bay each year, with Hillsborough Bay receiving the largest portion. In 1991, this bay 

## 25

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 28 segment received two-thirds ofthe 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 percentoftotal nitrogen loadings. 34 Fertilizermanufacturing 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 ofthe bay's total loadings ofarsenic, cadmium, clnomium and copper, as well as low levels ofother contaminants.35 Residents also can contribute to the problem by pouriug down drainpipes toxic cleaners or solvents that local sewage treatmentplants cannot completely remove. 

### OTHER SOURCES Septic tanks, which are estimated to serve about 20 percent ofthe watershed's populace, also are a key part ofthe pollution puzzle in localized sectors ofTampa Bay. Preliminary studies conducted for the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) suggestthat 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 nearthe bay pose a particular threat to water quality, since most are not designed for nitrogen removal. Disposal ofsewage sludge poses a special problem, particularly in the Hillsborough and Manatee riverbasins, because ofthe number ofpermitted 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 ofthe sludge disposed ofin the Tampa Bay watershed actually comes from outside the region." High densities ofmostly older septic tanks can contribute to degraded waterquality (nutrients and pathogens) in creeks where circulation is limited and the watertable is near the ground surface. Pinellas County's Allen's Creek and several creeks in Hillsborough County are among those thought to be atrisk. 38 Septic systems along tributaries leading to Tampa's McKay Bay also are believed to be a problem.39 Springs thatfeed 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 ofthe 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 Another7 percent ofthe bay's total nitrogen loadings is attributed to fertilizer lost during shiploading and landside on route to port.43 However, the amounthas declined substantially since 1991 as a result ofefforts to improve portside facilities. 

### BAY HABITATS While many bay animals preferthe open water ofthe estuary, others require the food and shelter supplied by various structural habitats, including seagrasses, mangroves, saltmarshes and uplands. Together, these habitats form a natural network that sustains vast populations offish, 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, interdependentthreads. Impactsto any part ofthe food web affectthe health 01 the whole.

• The bay's food web begins with sunlightA, which penetrates through the water column.

• The sun's energy is absorbed bytiny 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 ofthese 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 nextthread in the web. Filter feeders such as the bay scaliopE and the sea squirtFare aprime cleaning service forthe bay, siphoning in water containing phytoplankton, skimming offthe tiny organisms, and discharging clear water. Larger herbivores, such as manateesGand green seaturtlesH, 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 eatthe 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 the

# COURSE 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 sectorhave claimed more than 90 percent (or 2,277 acres) ofseagrasses. This compares to an overall seagrass loss in the bay ofalmost 40 percent (15,200 acres) for the 1950-1990 period. Recent improvements in water quality are beginning to reverse the course ofseagrass declines. From 1982-1992, scientists have documented the return ofmore than 4,000 acres ofseagrass 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) 

## 30Seagrass transplanting also may be viable in some areas ofthe 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 ofTampa's in Hillsborough Bay, have been successful.54 The NEP will evaluate suitable areas for transplanting projects as part ofits overall seagrass recovery strategy.55 Continued monitoring will be necessary to document the trends in seagrass regrowth. Although more than 40 percent ofseagrasses reveal little orno damage from boatpropellers, seagrass scarring is nevertheless an importantproblem in some parts ofthe bay. Studies by the FMRI indicate that about 27 percent ofTampa Bay's seagrasses are moderately to heavily scarred

- second in severity only to the Florida Keys.56 Signs ofchronic damage are evident around many passes and channels. Studies at Weedon Island Preserve suggestthat 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 Parkhas 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 ofthe bay's seagrasses, and theirutilization by animals, has not yet been fully evaluated. However, the SWFWMD recently modified its seagrass monitoring program to include assessments ofseagrass quality at 60 locations around the bay. Monitoring parameters include seagrass species diversity, density and quantity ofepiphytic 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 ofthe bay bottom is sand or mud, although the term "softbottom" can be misleading since a large part ofthe bay floor is actually hard-packed sand and shell.'1 These bottom sediments support a large variety oforganisms, including parchment worms, clams, tunicates (or sea squirts) and conchs. The surface sediments ofthis dynamic habitat are periodically churnedup and re-deposited by bottomdwelling animals, as well as by waves, currents and dredging." More than 500 types ofmacroinvertebrates baywide and an average of 10,000 organisms per square meter were documented in 1993

- the first year ofbenthic sampling conducted by the EPC ofHillsborough County and Manatee County for the Tampa Bay NEP.63 Dredging ofnavigation channels and underwater disposal ofdredged material have impacted an estimated 14,400 acres ofbay bottom, mostly in deep-water areas ofthe bay. An additional 1,200 acres ofdeep-water soft bottomhas been filled to create spoil islands and causeways.64 The long-term effects ofdisposal on these soft-bottom habitats has notbeen 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 ofthese bottom communities. Samples are taken each year during the critical monitoring period (September and October) at more than 100 stations, and 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 31

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 34 Mangroves and marshes also supportjuvenile 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 inTampa Bay are particularly vulnerable to damage ordestruction from periodic freezes, since the bay is nearthe northern limit for these species. This underscores the importance ofmaintaining a healthy abundance ofthese wetland habitats. Dense stands ofmangroves not only are better equipped to survive a freeze, they also provide more food and betterhabitat for the animals they support. Pruning ofmangroves can affect theirproductivity. 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. Anew mangrove trimming bill was passed, reinstating some trimming restrictions and providing additional penalties for violators. State officials do not know how many acres ofmangroves were trimmed during 1995, but say the damage was severe in many cases. 

### About 21 percent (5,128 acres) ofTampa 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 waterfrontproperty for residential and commercial uses proceeded unchecked. The passage ofwetlands protection laws during the mid-1970s and 1980s has greatly slowedthe rate ofloss, and studies indicate a slight increase in tidal wetland coverage since 1982, due to recenthabitat restoration efforts and natural colonization ofmarshes and mangroves along causeways and other filled lands.71 

### Recent estimates ofwetland habitat inTampa Bay indicate that about 18,800 acres of mangrove forests and saltmarshes remain. 72 

### However, thousands ofacres ofthese native habitats have been displaced by invasive exotic plants, such as theAustralian pine and Brazilian pepper. 

### MUD FLATS AND SALT BARRENS Mud and sand flats along the bay's perimeter also are an important part ofthe estuarine wetland system. While these largely non-vegetated areas may appearbarren 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 sheernumber ofthese bottom-dwelling organisms often exceeds the amount ofphytoplankton in overlying waters. 73 

### Mudflats support a diverse community ofbottom-burrowing creatures, includingwonns, clams and crabs, which are pursued by wading birds and raccoons foraging for food at low tide. Athigh tide, fish enter the flats in search offood. These areas also are prime feeding areas for anumber ofmigratory birds, including ducks, gulls, avocets and several species ofsandpiper, which seekrefuge in Tampa Bay each winter. Fewerthan 900 acres ofsaltbarren remain, mostly along the bay's southeastern rim." Historical estimates ofthis habitat are unavailable. Saltbarrens forms in areas where brackish water moves in during very high tides and evaporates, creating open stretches ofsalty, dry soil. This hyper-saline terrain supports low-growing succulent plants and serves as a seasonal feeding habitatfor wading birds.


### ASSOCIATED UPLANDS Neighboring upland habitats ofpine forests, hammocks and shrubs also have been heavily impacted by development. Often overlooked orundervalued, these buffer areas and associated freshwater wetlands provide importanthabitat for numerous animals, including the wood stork, white ibis, osprey, bald eagle and Shennan's fox squirrel. Many ofthe 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 eliminatedfrom the shores ofTampa Bay, and about 40 percent ofthis habitat has been lost throughout the watershed." Coastal hammocks also have declined. Coastal hammocks oflive 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 offish and shellfish at early stages in their development. Variations in the salt content ofthe water, from the low-salinity reaches ofthe bay's tributaries to full-strength sea water atthe mouth ofthe bay, detennine which areas of the estuary are inhabitable for some species and not for others. Oysters, for example, flourish in low-salinity areas ofthe 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 upperreaches ofthe bay's tributaries, where salinities range from zero to 10 parts per thousand (ppt), as comparedto about 35 ppt atthe 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 ofthe mosthighly productivejuveuile nursery habitat occurs where these low-salinity waters 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 35

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA



## 38 overlap with shoreline or submerged vegetation. As the fish mature, they typically move to more saline zones in the estuary or out into the GulfofMexico.76 Efforts to protect these highly productive nursery habitats depend on maintaining the proper timing and flows offresh water and saltwater within the bay's tributaries. Four major tributaries

- the Hillsborough River, Palm River (Tampa Bypass Canal), Manatee River and Braden River

- have dams orreservoirs that divertfresh waterto 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 developmentplans may further reduce the flow offresh water into already impactedtributaries and bay segments. Forexample, theTampaWater Resource Recovery Projectwouldremove up to 50 million gallons per day (mgd) of fresh water currently discharged to Hillsborough Bay from the City ofTampa's sewage treatmentplant, and possibly reduce flows to the Tampa Bypass Canal and McKay Bay. However, the project also will remove amajor source ofexcess nitrogen to the bay. An enviromnental impacts assessment will be conducted as part ofthis project.?? Additionally, the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority proposes to remove 7 mgd from theAlafia River during the first phase ofits 1995 WaterResource Development Plan (1995-2000).78 The impact ofreservoirs on the low and medium-salinity habitats downstream is the subject ofseveral ongoing assessments. One study offlow 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 ofreservoir operations for the period 1982-1992. Consequently, the area ofwetlands coinciding with this low-salinity band was reduced by 150 acres, or 25 percent." Modeling comparisons ofhistoric and modem landscapes indicate that net freshwater inflows to the main body ofTampa Bay have changed little since the 1950s, assuming the same amount ofrainfall each year.80 This is mainly a result ofincreases in urban and agricultural stormwater runoff, which have countered decreases in freshwater flows from rivers. However, long-term measurements ofriverflows by the U.S. Geological Survey indicate that some rivers in southwestFlorida (including the Hillsborough River) have experienced gradual freshwater declines since the 1930s, partly because ofdeclining rainfal]81 

# Fish and Wildlife

FISHERIES The populations ofmany sport and commercial fish species in Tampa Bay are in a state offlux. Anecdotal reports from sport fishennen indicate some species such as snookand red drum are responding positively to fishing regulations designed to increase their numbers. On the other hand, commercial landings ofblack (or striped) mullet and spotted seatroutare significantly below historical catches. Aconstitutional ban on gill netting, triggered in partby 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 expectedto stabilize baitfish populations, as well as benefit otherfish and birds that feed on the bait fish. Careful monitoring offish 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 ofimportant fishery species in Tampa Bay from landings data because direct measurements were not available. These data, which record the amounts and types offish brought to Pinellas and Hillsborough docks by area fishermen, indicate that 3.7 million pounds of 11 commercial species offinfish were harvested from the bay in 1990 - a decrease of 24 percent since 1966. The decrease is largely due to reduced catches ofmullet 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 ofspotted 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 ofavailable datapriorto a statewide ban on commercial red drum harvests." These raw data do not reflect changes in fishery managementplans orquotas. Priorto the netban, mullet was the most sought-after commercial species in the bay, comprising almosthalfofthe 1992 landings offinfish and shellfish, or 2.3 million pounds. By comparison, bay harvests ofspotted seatrout and bait shrimp were only 40,000 pounds and 26,000 pounds, respectively." Although useful, landings canbe a misleading indicator ofpopulation 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 ofstock sizes and distribution ofimportant 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 ofresults ofthe first three years ofthe CFMP (1989-1991) found that 78 percent ofthejuvenile spotted seatrout collected were captured over seagrass beds, further validating the importance ofseagrass habitatto this species. Small red drum were found inrelative abundance in the bay's major tributaries, while small snook are known to frequent at least two ofthe 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 ofclams and oysters throughoutthe bay are restricted orprohibited because ofdocumented or potential bacterial contamination from fecal col

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 37

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

38 ifonn associated with human and animal wastes entering the bay in stormwaterrunoff. In the few unrestricted areas remaining, shellfish populations are not large enough to support commercial harvest. However, reassessments ofclosed orrestricted areas are notroutinely 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 landuse considerations and the documentation oforpotential for contamination following a major stonn event, ratherthan actual water quality conditions.86 

### The bay's fisheries also are impacted by entrainment, the capture ofplanktonic eggs and larvae offish and shellfish in power plant cooling intakes. The five power plants around Tampa Bay take in a daily average ofabout 2.3 billion gallons ofbay water. An estimated 274 billion fish eggs and 83 billion fish larvae are captured annually in cooling intakes inTampa Bay, according to powerplant monitoring data from the early 1980s.87 

### Assuming 100percent mortality, the impact ofsteam electric plants onthe fishery stocks ofTampa Bay may be significant. However, in the absence ofsufficient 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 ofpower 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 ofeach factor is often hard to discern because ofnatural fluctuations in stock sizes. Despite these pressures, improving water quality and restoration ofhabitats throughoutTampa 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 ofpollution. Waterquality inTampa Bay now has improved to levels that may support scallop recovery,88 and some restocking efforts have beenundertaken. 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 Gulfcoastnemesis

- is likely to blame. FMRI believes thatbay scallops can be successfully cultured andreintroduced to Tampa Bay, butrecommends selecting a variety oftransplant sites within the lower bay to minimize exposure and localized impacts.90


### BAY WILDLIFE Tampa Bay supports a magnificent array ofwildlife, from the familiar brown pelican to the bottom-hugging sea squirt. But many ofthese 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 importantnesting sites in

## Important Bird Nesting Colonies 01 Tampa Bay Figure 13 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE
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 LowerTampa 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:'::~** NATIONALAUDUBON SOClfTV, TAMPA BAY SANCTUARIES 

## 39

# CHARTING the

# COURSE 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.


## 42Effective long-termplanning 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 ofspoil material, and to minimize the ecological impacts ofdredging. 

# Spill Prevention and Response

More than 4 billion gallons ofoil and other hazardous materials pass through Tampa Bay each year on large vessels that must navigate relatively narrow channels. Another 18 million tons ofrefined 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 ofdollars 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 afreighter collided nearthe mouth ofthe bay in a fiery collision that resulted in a spill ofnearly 330,000 gallons ofoil. 104 Winds and tides pushed most oil offshore, and the quickresponse offederal, 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 ofthis local advance planning network. However, the spill pointed out several important equipment, planning and navigational needs that could help avoid similartragedies in the future. In particular, officials have pledged renewed efforts to focus on ways to prevent spills from occurring. Public concerns about the impacts ofoil 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 canbe 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 ofthe 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 occurfrequently at dockside as boats are refueled. Oily bilge water also enters the bay from smaller craft when bilge pumps are discharged. Leakage and spills 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



### 43

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

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 ofSt. Petersburg chose another route to address its sewage disposal problems when itpioneeredthe first large-scale wastewaterreuse program in the state, resulting in almost zero discharge to the bay. However, the city hadproblems 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) ofHillsborough County was established. Over the years, the EPC has provided a comprehensive record oflong-term water quality record in the bay

- critical for tracking and documenting the "bad old days" and the bay's progressiverecovery. EPC was one ofthe first agencies to identify sewage treatmentproblems in the bay, and its wetlands protection rules are among the strictest in the state. A decade later, the HillsboroughEnvironmental 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 ofdredged material from the project into the GulfofMexico. 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 ofbridgingjurisdictional boundaries to effectively protectthe Tampa Bay ecosystem. Residents continued to exertpressure to cleanup the bay, and that groundswell ofsupport reached the state Legislature in the early 1980s. The Legislature established a bay study commissioncomposed ofelected officials and interested citizens to examine ways to improve bay protection. The study commission resulted in the formation in 1985 ofan advisory group, the Agency on Bay Management (ABM). An arm ofthe Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council (TBRPC), the Agency has become a vigilant guardian ofthe bay. The 45-member coalition

- which includes elected officials, regulators and representatives ofspecial interest groups and local governments

- has been successful in focusing public attention onbay problems and in bringing together diverse and often competing bay users. The Legislature also establishedfourAquatic Preserves in the Tampa Bay watershed to protect remaining natural areas. Stricterpermitting standards apply within the preserves, which encompass more than 370,000 acres ofsubmerged lands in 

### Hillsborough, Pinellas and Manatee counties. Stormwater permitting for new developmentwas initiated in the mid-1970s by the Florida Department ofEnvironmental Protection (FDEP) and laterdelegated to the Southwest FloridaWater Management District (SWFWMD). In 1984, SWFWMD adopted new rules for the management and storage ofsurface waters, launching a comprehensive surface watermanagement program for new development which included permitting requirements for stormwater treatment as well as flood control.In 1987, the Legislature created the Surface WaterImprovement and Management (SWIM) program to restore and protect the state's most threatened waterways. At the urging oftheABM, Tampa Bay was named in the SWIMAct as a priority waterbody within SWFWMD. Since 1989, SWIM has created orrestored more than 

## no acres of estuarine and coastal habitats and provided stormwatertreatmentfor more than 5,000 acres ofurban lands in the bay watershed. Despite the progress thathas 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 managementplan for the bay. Arequired step in thatprocess is identifying where unnecessary duplication exists in current envirornnental programs to ensure that limitedpublic funds are spentin the most effective manner. 

### BAY MANAGEMENT EXPENDITURES, OVERLAPS AND GAPS ManagementofTampa Bay is currently shared by dozens offederal, state, regional and local agencies and by different departments within those agencies. A short list includes the EPA, the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, the FDEP, the TBRPC, the SWFWMD, and the Tampa PortAuthority, which has been deeded all state-owned or sovereignbay 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 spentto manage and monitorbay quality and administerenvirornnental 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 ofTampa Bay. By far, the largest portion ofthatfigure

- 68 percent or roughly $170 million

- is attributed to wastewatercollection, treatment and reuse, activities which directly or indirectly benefit the bay even ifthey aren't performed solely for the bay's benefit. The second largest allocation ofabout 14 percent or $35 million is expendedprimarily by local goverrnnents and the SWFWMD for stormwater management, including handling and treatment. Regulation and enforcement activities comprised 5 percent or $13.5 million oftotal expenditures. Habitatrestoration, preservation and management totalled approximately $7 million ornearly 3 percent, excluding land acquisition expenditures (nearly 4 percent). Dredging and dredge material management, environmental monitoring and public education comprised the remainder ofthe 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 evidentin enforcement and monitoring programs. Bay managers also cited turfguarding as aproblem, and noted the lack ofa comprehensive, readily available data 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 47

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY base through which valuable infonnation aboutthe bay's health and living resources could be shared. The pennitting arena serves as an example ofwhat some believe is unnecessary duplication ofeffort. An applicant seeking pennission to remove or alter wetlands along the bay may have to obtain pennits from as many as halfa dozen agencies, depending on the extent ofwetland impacts and the project's location. Thatprocess was streamlined in October 1995 as a result ofthe state's new Environmental Resource Pennit (ERP), which consolidatedreview ofexisting dredgeand-fill, stonnwatermanagement 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 ofa 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 ofmore than $250 million.
SOURCE: HAZEN AND SAWYER (1996), FUNDING SOURCE INVENTORYFOR CCMPACTION PLANS. PREPARED FOR THE TAMPA BAY NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAMenforcement. This approach is highly efficientbecause it provides responsibility for all follow-up activities to the staffmembermostfamiliar with the project. Inconsistencies also characterize the permitting process. Because communities have adopted individual wetlands rules basedupon their residents' perceptions ofimportant environmental concerns, an applicant's project couldbe denied by one agency and approved by another. Ifthe project is approved, the applicant couldbe required to meet widely varying mitigation and monitoring requirements imposed by eachregulatory agency. Until recently, publicly financed restoration projects were further complicatedby state agency requirements that they undergo the same rigorous review as private projects

- even when the reviewing agencies have participated in the development ofthe restoration design. This process increased the cost ofthe 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 ofsuccess, close monitoring and reporting to regulatory agencies, and montWy meetings with alljurisdictional agencies. Additionally, the new ERPprocess waives monitoring requirements for restoration projects. Many bay managers believe thatpermitting is given too much emphasis in the regulatory arena, while monitoring and enforcement are short-changed. Lack ofadequate enforcementpersonnel has been identifiedby the FDEP as aprincipal reason why so many mitigation projects required ofprivate developers have eithernot been properly constructed, orconstructed at all. This is true not only for mitigation projects, but also for stormwater facilities. The disparity is prevalent throughoutthe regulatory community, according to bay managers who responded to the estuary program survey, and may be as much a function ofallocation ofresources ratherthan the fault ofthe regulatory system itself. There are exceptions, such as Hillsborough County's EPC, which devotes a substantial portion ofits resources to compliance and enforcement. 

### A 

### NEWAPPROACH TO BAY MANAGEMENT Shrinking public funds, combined with increasing demands for goverument services and increasing public scrutiny ofexpenditures, are providing new challenges for resource managers. In the future, they will be pressed to spend money even morejudiciously and on programs thatyield 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 ofhuman actions on entire natural systems. This approach is called "Ecosystem Management." Many bay managers believe the amount ofmoney spent onTampa Bay is sufficientto adequately manage it, but that it shouldbe 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 ecosystemneeds. Support also is growing for cooperative partnerships such as team permitting, a concept that is being pursued by the FDEP as part ofits Ecosystem Management initiative. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY



## 49

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

50 Those managers see Ecosystem Management as more effective than traditional resource management, since itrelies less on micro-reviews ofindividual permits and more on assessing overall impacts. A critical component ofsuccessful Ecosystem Management is using biological living resources - such as seagrass, fish and scallops

- as a measure ofthe bay's health. Such an approach allows regulators the flexibility they need to achieve realistic, long-term goals and provides taxpayers with a better benchmarktojudge the return on theirinvestments. 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 managementplan backedby a stronger administrative structure that is less cumbersome, more accountable, and committed to addressing ecosystemneeds. Bringing this plan to life within the existing bay management structure will be an important focus ofthe TampaBay NEP in overseeing implementation ofthe master planfor Tampa Bay.

# GoalsandPriorities for

# TampaBay

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 offish and wildlife. These goals and priorities for Tampa Bay are the focal point ofthe master plan for Tampa Bay and the subject ofthis 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 ofa Comprehensive Conservation and ManagementPlan 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 ofsuccess in implementing the bay restoration blueprint. These goals forTampa 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 properwater 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 ofalgae in the bay, limiting lightpenetration to seagrasses, which require sunlight to grow. Pastwater quality declines contributed to the loss ofnearly halfofthe bay's seagrasses (or almost 19,000 acres) from the 1950s to the 1980s, althongh seagrasses are gradnally returning in areas ofthe 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 ofmore than 12,000 acres ofseagrass over time. Nitrogen loadings to Tampa Bay are expectedto increase 7 percent by 2010, or about 17 tons per year, as a result ofpopulation growth. Therefore, local governments and industries will need to offset loadings to the bay by this amountto maintain existing nitrogen loadings. The NEP will revisitthe nitrogen goal and associated management strategies every five years, or more often, as significant new information becomes available. Local governmentpartners have tentatively agreed to reduce their future nitrogen loadings to the bay by atleast 6 tons peryear - thatportion ofthe load which is 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 51

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 52 attributed to stormwaterrunoffand discharges from municipal point sources. Anitrogen management consortium ofkey 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 ofconcern for Tampa Bay. Studies by the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Florida Department ofEnviromnental Protection (FDEP) in the late 1980s and early 1990s documented relatively high levels ofpesticides, heavy metals and othercontaminants in sediments, and associated impacts to marine life at some bay sites. The goal is to protectrelatively clean areas ofthe bay from toxic contamination, and minimize risks to bay wildlife and humans associated with contamination in impacted areas. Results ofrecent risk assessment conductedfor 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 ofthe risk assessment, completed in 1996, evaluated the riskto human health and marine life from contaminants in Hillsborough Bay and Boca Ciega Bay, two of Tampa Bay's mostimpacted sectors. Contaminants ofconcern identified in the study include several metals, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polycWorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and chlorinated pesticides. Most ofthese pollutants enter the bay in stormwaterrunofforthrough 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 ofthe second phase ofthe risk assessment. Recent events also have focused the attention ofcitizens and bay managers onproblems associated with sanitary sewer overflows and discharges to the bay during heavy rainstorms. Thatproblem came to light during the summerof 1995 when the City of St. Petersburg was forced to discharge about 15 million gallons ofuntreated 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 similarproblems during periods ofheavy rainfall. To keep the bay safe for swimming and shellfishharvesting 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 ofseagrasses 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 ofgrass beds. This is based on restoring tbe vital underwater seagrass meadows to 1950s levels, except in areas that have beenpermanently altered. It will be achieved largely bycontrolling the bay's nitrogen intake-although otherfactors, such as turbidity and water color, also influence seagrass regrowth. More than 4,000 acres ofnew or expanded seagrass beds have been documented in the bay since 1982, thanks to improvements in water quality. Butrecovery will be a long-term process because ofthe time it takes for seagrasses to recolonize an area once conditions have improved. Forcoastal habitats, the plan is to restore the historic balance ofcoastal habitats in orderto better support the bay's fish and wildlife populations, recognizing that some vital habitats have declined more rapidly than others. Declines have beenparticularly severe for tidal streams and tributaries, which are critical nurseries for numerous species offish, such as snook and mullet. The goal is to restore at least 100 acres oflow-salinity tidal streamhabitat every five years, for a total increase overtime of 1,800 acres, while preserving existing salt marshes and mangroves. This may be accomplished eitherthrough habitat restoration or enhancement ofexisting areas thathave been severely degraded. Strategies outlined in the plan build on existing efforts, including SWFWMD's practice ofcreating "habitat 

### mosaics.**~l** The NEP habitat restoration and protection master plan, available under separate cover, also identifies 28 sites as priorities for protection, eitherthrough directpurchase or methods such as conservation easements. The majority ofthese sites have been designated by SWFWMD as priorities for acquisition in their Save OurRivers/Preservation 2000 plan. While the plan's primary focus is on repairing tidal streams, otherhabitats also will be gradually restored. Akey effort will be to identify and restore small freshwater ponds that are critical to the survival ofthe white ibis, which lives along the bay but depends upon freshwater crayfish and insects to feed its young. Additional workis plannedfor upland forests, mud flats and saltbarrens (extremely salty high marsh), all ofwhich play an importantrole in the Tampa Bay ecosystem. The NEP also seeks the establishment ofadequate freshwater inflows to Tampa Bay and the lowerreaches ofits tributaries, particularly from rivers impoundedby dams. This is essential to preserving the overall health ofthe estuary. A schedule for establishing these flows has been setfor the bay's majorrivers. 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 NEPhas not adopted any specific goals for increases in fish and wildlife species, the goals established for water quality and habitatrestoration will provide directbenefits for fish, birds and otherbay 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 the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 53

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

54 also will help the bay's population ofendangered manatees, which feed in seagrass beds. Birds, too, will benefitfrom the goals setforth in the NEP's habitatrestoration master plan, which will assure protection and enhancement ofexisting habitats importantfor feeding and nesting, and increase otherhabitats, such as saltbarrens and freshwater ponds, which have been severely reduced because ofdevelopment. Additionally, preserving the flow offresh water into the bay from its myriad tributaries will yield dividends for a variety ofcommercially andrecreationally 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 cooperativeplanning. The goal for spill prevention and response is the installation ofa state-of-the-art Vessel Traffic and Information System (VTIS) that employs a combination ofshorebasedradar and global positioning technology to monitor and control shipping traffic in the bay. The system would greatly reduce the likelihood ofan economically and environmentally devastating spill ofoil orother hazardous materials. Charting the Course also calls for the development ofa long-term, coordinated dredging and dredged material disposal plan, directedby the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers and involving the bay's three major seaports. The plan would address long-term disposal needs, seekto reduce the environmental impacts associated with dredging, and maximize beneficial uses ofmaterial dredged from the bay's shipping channels. 

### MEASURES TO ENSURE SUCCESS
Local government and agency partners have pledgedto continue theirparticipation in the NEPto ensure regular dialogue, review actions and evaluate progress toward meeting the bay's goals. Continued monitoring ofthe 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 supportfor bay restoration and protection will be equally vital to the success ofthe 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 InvolvementAction Plan. An overall theme expressed in various action plans is to betterutilize existing federal, state and local resources to carry outrecommended 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 the

# COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY



## 55Charting the Course, the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program's management blueprint forTampa 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 ofthe 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 750acres ofneworexpandedseagrass beds have been documentedsince 1992; bypreventing future increases in nitrogen entering the bay, waterclarityshouldbe sufficientto achieve seagrass recoverygoals. Details on progress in habitatrestoration andprotectionareprovidedin Action BH-l. Aschedule forestablishingminimum freshwater flows from impoundedrivers was adoptedbySWFWMDin 1996. Action FI-lprovides details. 

# BayHabitats

• Recovering an additional 12,350 acres of seagrass over 1992 levels, while also preserving the bay's existing 25,600 acres and reducing propellerscarring of seagrasses.

• "Restoring the historic balance" of coastal wetland habitats in Tampa Bay by restoring at least 100 acres of low-salinity tidal marsh everyfive years, for atotal increase overtime 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: Localgovernmentpartners in the NEPhave tentativeiypledgedto reduce theirfuture nitrogen loadings to the bay byabout6 tonsperyear- thatportion ofbayloadings attributed to stormwaterrunoffandmunicipalpointsources. ANitrogen ManagementConsortium oflocalutilities, industries, agricultural Interests, localgovernmentsandenvironmentalagencies was establishedin f996 to develop aplan to address the remaining balance off f tons ofnitrogenperyear, which is expectedto come from atmosphericdeposition. industrialpointsources, fertilizershippingandhandling, andintensive agriculture. See Action WQ-l fordetails. Ongoing studies ofatmospheric deposition (ActionAD-I) and toxic contaminants (Action TX-f) are improving baymanagers' understanding ofthese importantissues. Action PH-I calls for the developmentofmaintenanceplans bylocalgovernments to address seweroverflowproblems.



# Water& 

# SedimentQuality

• Preventing increases in the bay's nitrogen levels to provide water clarity suitable forthe gradual recovery of 12,350 acres of seagrass. To maintain existing water quality conditions, local governments and industries will need to reduce theirfuture nitrogen contributions to the bay by about 7 percent bythe year 2010, or approximately 17tons per year.

• Reducing the amount of toxic chemicals in contaminated bay sediments and protecting relatively clean areas ofthe bayfrom contamination.

• Gaining abetter understanding ofthe 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 Courseseeks 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 priorityto bolster fish and wildlife populations in the bay is:

• Improving the on-water enforcement offishing and environmental regulations. Additionally, Charting the Course calls forthe establishment of aworking group of the Agency on Bay Management to evaluate and develop recommendations for local manatee protection zones. 

# Status: SeeActions WO-l, BH-l andFI-l forupdates on efforts to improve waterqualityandbayhabitats. Local enforcementneedsare discussedInAction FW-l. Additional recommendations are discussedin the Fish & Wildlife Action Plan. 

# SpillPrevention &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 isto:

• Install astate-of-the-artvessel traffic and information system (VTIS) to improve coordination of ship movements along the bay's narrow shipping channel 

# Status: NEPapproved$40,000in 1996 to support improvements to the existingship monitoringsystem. This is partofan overallplan bythe Tampa Bay VTIS Consortium to develop andimplementa Vessel TrafficandInformalion System;Action SP-lprovides details. 

# Dredging& Dredged MaterialNIanagement

Maintenance ofthe bay's network of navigational channels is important both to commercial maritime industries and recreational interests. But amore coordinated approach is needed to protectthe bay from the potentially damaging effects of such activities and address long-term disposal needs. The priorityfor dredging and dredged material management is:

• Developing along-range dredged material management plan forthe bay that will minimize environmental impacts and maximize beneficial uses ofthe dredged material. 

# Status: The NEPhasallocated$40,000 to the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers to begin developmentof the long-termplan in 1997, in cooperation with localportauthoritiesandbayinterests. SeeAction DR-f.

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 58

# Introductionto ActionPlans 

# 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 CCMPincludes six Action Plans for bay improvement, addressing: Water & Sediment Quality Nitrogen Management Stormwater Runoff Atmospheric Deposition Wastewater Toxic Contamination Public Health Bay Habitats FreshwaterInflow Fish & Wildlife Dredging & Dredged Material Management Spill Prevention & Response Public Education & Involvement Local govermnent and agency partners in the Tampa Bay NEP expectto sign an agreement in 1997 pledging to achieve the goals for waterquality 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 leftup to individual communities, who may selectfrom among a range ofacceptable alternatives. Many ofthese options are outlined in the following Action Plans for bay improvement. This approach not only emphasizes flexibility, but allows local govermnents to focus their limitedresources 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 canbe implemented quickly and with existing resources. Others will require long-term community commitments. Wheneverpossible, strategies presented in Charting the Course seekto strengthen orredirect 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 advi

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 59

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



# GO sory committees. EachAction Plan begins with an introduction to the issue followed by the proposed actions. Cost estimates are presented for each action. Akey addition since the release ofthe draft CCMPin January 1996 is an overall water quality action describing nitrogen management goals forTampa Bay and the process for achieving them. New information also is provided in theAction Plans on Atmospheric Deposition and Toxic Contamination, including updates on important research already underway. Prelimiuary analyses suggest that the cost to meet certain waterquality 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-halfpercent ofthe total load) per yearto maintain water quality levels and provide for continued seagrass recovery. The cost ofachieving that goal is estimated at an additional $2 to $4 million peryear over current expenditures, or about $2 perbay arearesident. The Tampa Bay NEP invites and encourages yourcomments as we begin implementation ofthe management plan for Tampa Bay.Bathers at Spa Beach and City Pier in St. Petersburg (1925).**~-_._.** 

# Water

# & SedimentQuality .:

# . ,



# .. .

PHOTO: BURGERT BROTHERS 

# CID\RTlNG the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



# WQ

Tampa Bay is rebounding from decades ofpollution that reached an apex in the 1970s, when vast algal blooms clouded the water in some bay sectors and seagrasses struggled to survive. Today, waterquality improvements are helping to chart a course for the bay's recovery. Since 1982, more than 4,000 acres ofseagrasses - which provide life-support to many ofthe bay's fisheries

- have either sprouted in once-barren areas orfilled in previously patchy meadows as a result ofwater quality gains. Improved conditions also may be setting the stage for a recovery ofthe bay scallop in lowerTampa Bay, which disappeared in the 1960s when the bay was badly polluted. Most water quality gains are attributed to AdvancedWastewaterTreatment technologies, which have significantly reduced nitrogen in wastewater discharged to the bay. Municipal sewage treatment facilities now contributejust 10 percent oftotal bay nitrogen loadings, as comparedto 40 percent in the mid-1970s. 

## 61Maintaining these water quality improvements as the region grows represents the foremost challenge for the stewards ofTampa Bay. While direct or "point" discharges of pollutionto the bay have declined, other sources such as stormwaterrunoffand 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 the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

# WQ ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality



## 62 Nitrogen and potentially toxic contaminants (including heavy metals and pesticides) are the key pollutants ofconcernto Tampa Bay. Pollution pathways, including stormwater runoff, atmospheric deposition and wastewater, are summarized in this section. Additional information is provided in the State ofthe Bay chapter which precedes this section. Nitrogen is anaturally occurring andbeneficial nutrientthatpollutes 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 ofmore than 12,000 acres ofseagrass, a key objective ofthe NEP management plan. Nitrogen loadings to Tampa Bay are expected to increase 7 percent between 1995 and 2010, as a result ofpopulation growth. This equates to an increase of 17 tons per year, or a total of266 tons peryearby 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. ActionWQ-1 discusses the nitrogen management goals for Tampa Bay and the process for achieving them. Potentially toxic contaminants entering the bay in stormwaterrunoff, atmospheric deposition and wastewaterrepresent another important focus ofconcern for bay managers, following studies that identified high levels ofcontaminants in sediments at various sites, including Hillsborough Bay and Boca Ciega Bay. While contamination appears to be localized, somebiological impacts have been documented and others are anticipated. The persistence ofthese substances in the marine enviromnent and the prospect ofincreased 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 benefitfor the bay. 

### WATER & 

### SEDIMENT QUALITY GOALS: Cap nitrogen loadings to Tampa Bay at existing levels (1992-1994 average) to encourage the regrowth ofan additional 12,350 acres ofseagrass. To compensatefor anticipated increases in nitrogen loadings, local governments and industries will need to reduce their future nitrogen loadings to Tampa Bay by about 7 percentbetween 1995 and 2010. Akey effortwill be gaining a betterunderstanding ofthe role airpollution plays in the bay's water quality, and addressing the sources ofthis pollution. Protect relatively clean areas ofthe 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 ofthe bay to levels safe for swimming and shellfishharvesting. 

## ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



# WQ

83

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTIONPLAN 

# ImplementNitrogenManagement Goals forTampa Bay

ACTION: Water & Sediment Quality



## B4 Implement the nitrogen management goals for Tampa Bay to maintain water quality conditions suitable for the recovery ofmore than 12,000 acres ofseagrasses. 

### BACKGROUND: Controlling the bay's nitrogen intake as a means ofregaining vital underwater seagrass beds has been one ofthe mostprominent initiatives ofthe TampaBay NEP. Seagrasses were selected by NEP as a yardstickby which efforts to improve the bay will be measured because oftheir overall importance to the bay ecosystem, and because they are an importantbarometer oftheirenviromnent, signaling changes in long-term water quality trends. An incredible variety ofmarine creatures

- from the stately seahorse to the blue-eyed scallop to the portly manatee

- find food, shelter orprotection from predators in these dense underwater pastures. In fact, studies show that seagrass beds harbor 50 percentmore fish and invertebrates than sand-bottom areas ofthe 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 ofthe century, pollution and dredging have destroyed more than halfof the bay's seagrass beds. But surveys have recorded more than 4,000 acres ofnew or expanded seagrass beds in Tampa Bay since 1982, some in areas like Hillsborough Bay that had been barrenfor decades. This remarkable comeback is largely credited to improvements in sewage treatment thathave reduced the amount ofnitrogen flowing into the bay, since excess nitrogen causes algae blooms that cloud the water and keep sunlightfrom reaching the grasses. Using computermodels, scientists with the NEP calculate that waterquality is now good enough to allow the natural growth, over time, ofmore than 12,000 acres ofseagrass. 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 ofpopulation growth. This equates to an increase of 17 tons per year, or a total of266 tons ofnitrogen per yearby 2010. Consequently, local governments and industries will need to offset loadings to the bay by this amount in order to maintain the bay's currentnitrogen levels. Local government and agency partuers already have tentatively accepted responsibility for reducing their future nitrogen contributions by at least 6 tons peryear, or90 tons per yearby 2010. This is the amount associated with stormwater runoffand municipal point-source discharges. These partners

- Hillsborough, Pinellas andManatee counties, the cities ofTampa, St. Petersburg and Clearwater and participating agencies

- are now developing plans which identify specific projects to address their share ofthe cleanup. Nitrogen reductions will be carried overfrom yearto year and credited against the remaining shortfall. Additionally, communities may achieve their target loadings more rapidly by implementing projects with greaternitrogen reductions orpreventing anticipated increases. 

## ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

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 ofnitrogen, 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 oflocal 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 managementprojects to satisfy the nitrogen management goals established forTampa Bay. The NEP will assist the Consortiumby developing a list ofthe 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 selectfrom among a range ofoptions

- 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 ofthe bay plan. Thatmethod canbe more time-consuming and expensive, and lacks the flexibility the NEPpartners have endorsed. The NEP will review and revise nitrogen management goals every five years, ormore often, ifsignificant new information becomes available.



### STRATEGY: STEP 1 Complete local government and agency Action Plans and estimate the total amount ofnitrogen reduction associated with these partners' projects. Responsibleparties: localgovernments, SouthwestFlorida Water ManagementDistrict (SWFWMD), Florida Departmentof EnvironmentalProtection (FDEP) STEP 2 Continue the Nitrogen Management Consortium with the goal ofdeveloping an action plan to reduce future nitrogen loadings to the bay by 11 tons peryear, that portion ofthe future nitrogen load which is attributed largely to atmospheric, industrial and agricultural sources. 

## 85A. Identify all nitrogen managementprojects completed, underway or proposed by Consortiummembers since January 1995 for completionby the year 2005. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality



# WQ·1 B. Develop a method for detennining how much credit each projectwill receive for nitrogen reduction. In fairness to all participants, a consistent method must be developed for estimating credits both for structural improvements, such as stormwaterponds, and non-structural efforts, such as support for the FloridaYards & Neighborhoods Program.



# GG C. Detennine the difference between estimatedreductions associated with projects that are planned and the nitrogen management goals established for Tampa Bay. 

### Responsibleparties: Tampa Bay NEp, in cooperation with Consortium members STEP 3 Develop and implementanAction 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 NEPhas received draftAction Plans from its local government and agency partners. TheseAction Plans will be finalized for review by the Tampa Bay Management and Policy Boards in 1997 and mustbe adopted no laterthan one year afterthe signing ofthe 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 afterthe signing ofthe implementing agreement. The NEP will request a preliminary action planfrom the Consortium by August 1997. 

### COST: Preliminary analyses suggest that the cost to meetnitrogen managementgoals for Tampa Bay will be relatively small overthe plan's lifetime. Local communities and industries will need to reduce future nitrogen loadings to the bay by about 17 tons (or about one-halfpercent ofthe total existing nitrogen load) peryearto maintain water quality levels and provide for continued seagrass recovery. The costofachieving that goal is estimated at an additional $2-$4 million peryear over current expenditures, or about $2 perbay area residentperyear.Achieving the nitrogen management goals for Tampa Bay will prevent increases in the bay's nitrogen burden and provide conditions suitable for the regrowth ofan additional 12,000 acres ofseagrasses, which are vital to countless marine animals. 

## ACTIONPLAN
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 participantfor community and Policy Boardreview. Details ofthe 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 the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTIONPLAN 

# STORMWATER RUNOFF Water & Sediment Quality



# swu



## 88 Stormwaterrunoffcarrying fertilizer, pesticides, oils and other contaminants from urban and agricultural lands contributes nearly halfofthe bay's total aunual nitrogen loadings and more than 60 percent ofthe aunualloadings ofzinc, mercury, lead and chromium. Contaminants in runoffcome from land-use activities and from airpollutants that settle in the bay's watershed. In fact, air pollutants are believed to be a significant contributorto pollution in stormwaterrunoffto the bay. Approximately 15 percent ofthe bay's total nitrogen loadings is attributed to urban stormwaterrunoff, an amount exceeding all direct or "point" discharges ofwastewater to the bay from wastewatertreatment and industrial plants. Ofthat, 10 percent comes from residential areas, which dominate the urban landscape. Commercial and industrial sites, by comparison, contribute the other 5 percent oftotal bay nitrogen loadings. Runofffrom intensely cultivated agricultural lands (mostly citrus and vegetable production) contributes another 6 percent oftotal bay nitrogen loadings, as well as potentially significant quantities ofpesticides and sediments from erosion. Agricultural runoffalso originates from pastures and rangelands, which coverroughly 28 percent ofthe watershed and account for another 13 percent oftotal bay nitrogen loadings. Compared to lands in intensive agriculture, pastures andrangelands 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 stormwaterrunoff. Bay waterquality is improving, thanks largely to improvements in sewage and stormwater treatment and associated declines in nitrogen loadings. But concerns about toxic contamination ofbay sediments are growing, following studies that have revealed concentrations ofheavy metals and pesticides harmful to marine life at several sites. Many toxic contaminants enterthe bay attached to sediments in stormwater runoff, making treatment ofsediments in runoffa key component in the strategy to address toxic contaminants. In fact, stormwatertreatment in conventional wetlandretention and detention systems canbe highly effective in removing sediments from runoff. However, wetlandretention/detention is not as effective for reducing nitrogen. Thus, efforts to reduce nitrogen emphasize strategies such as wastewaterreuse andpollution prevention measures, as well as efforts to reduce atmospheric deposition ofnitrogen to the bay. The Tampa Bay National Estuary Program has developed a computermodel to assist local governments in selecting the most cost-effective best management techniques to 

### employ inbattling stormwater pollution. An overall strategy mustfocus onpollution prevention, stormwatertreatment and monitoring to assure compliance with stormwaterpermits.

# ACTIONS TOADDRESS STORMWATER RUNOFF ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality 

# CHAR11NG the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY
Actions to address pollution from stormwater runoffrange from recommendations for improved landscape management and urban plauning to increased stormwater treatment. Actions to address agricultural runofffocus on water conservation and integrated pestmanagement. 

# sw

SW-l

SW-2

SW-3

SW-4

SW-5

SW-6 SW-7

SW-8 SW-9 Continue implementation ofthe Florida Yards & Neighborhoods Program and similar pollution prevention initiatives. Assistbusinesses in implementing best management practices to reduce stormwaterpollution, 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 ofthe site being redeveloped, or provide equivalent compensation. Promote compacturban development and redevelopment. Enforce and require the timely completion ofconsent orders for the cleanup offertilizer facilities in Tampa's East Bay sector. Encourage bestmanagementpractices on farms. Improve compliance with agricultural ground and surface water managementplans.


### ADDITIONALLY... The NEPrecommends a workshop in 1997 to discuss the overall issue ofcompliance monitoring and enforcement ofstormwater permits. Compliance monitoring and enforcement was considered a majorproblem by many advisors to the NEP who helped develop and rankthe initial list ofactions 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 staffallocated to projectreview 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 ofan action in the draft CCMPreleased in January 1996 and requires additional discussion before recommendations are made. 

## G9

## Total Nitrogen Loadings to Tampa Bay (1 

## b92-1994 average) 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

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 SupportfortheFloridaYards & 

# NeighborhoodsProgram and SimilarPollution PreventionInitiatives ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



# SW·1
ACTION: Continue supportfor the FloridaYards & Neighborhoods Program and similar pollution prevention and education initiatives which encourage homeowners to reduce pollution inresidential runoff. Continue to enlist retailers, developers, and the landscaping and pestcontrol industries to practice and promote these concepts. 

### BACKGROUND: Yards and neighborhoods are among the bay's first lines ofdefense againstpollution in stormwaterrunoff. Yetmany homeowners fail to understand the potential impact of excess fertilizer, pesticides and waterused in landscape maintenance on the health of Tampa Bay. In fact, scientists estimate thatresidential landuses in the Tampa Bay watershed contribute about 10percent ofthe bay's total nitrogen loadings, as well as otherpollutants such as pesticides and herbicides. The impact on Tampa Bay may be immediate in a waterfrontneighborhood, or gradual, through the flow ofstormwater drains, ditches, streams or rivers. These findings became the springboardfor the development ofthe FloridaYards & Neighborhoods (FY&N) Program, established in 1991 to enlist residents in pollution preventionby improving their landscaping practices. Experts from the Florida Cooperative Extension Service (FCES), which administers the Program statewide, encourage residents to conserve water and limittheir use offertilizers and pesticides

- techniques that.can save homeowners considerable time and money. The Program also promotes the establishment oftrue FloridaYards, featuring plants suited to local conditions, climate and wildlife. FY&N was developed by the National Estuary Programs ofTampa Bay and Sarasota Bay and the FCES. The West CoastRegional 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 ofneighborhoods and thousands ofindividual homeowners through workshops, neighborhood evaluations and plantings, educational literature and the development ofmodel FloridaYards at public venues. The Program also coordinates with local developers and retailers to promote these concepts. AFloridaYard featured iu the 1996 Parade ofHomes at Fish HawkTrails in Hillsborough County received extensive publicity and attention. Home Depot recently beganpublicizing FY&N tips in its in-store literature and advertising inserts. 

## 71This 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 ofseveral local initiatives, such as the Hillsborough CountyAdopt-A-Pond Program, which promote water quality stewardship and neighborhood action. 

# CID\RTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTIONPLAN 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 ofsome strategies will require additional funding. 

### INDIVIDUALHOMEOWNERS AND NEIGHBORHOODS STEP I Continue FY&N outreach to organized community and neighborhood associations, with presentations and distribution ofthe FloridaYardStick and the FY&N handbook. STEP 2 Expand outreach to individual homeowners. A. Promote Florida Yard materials and messages at majorretail outlets, home and garden shows, public events, and public venues such as The FloridaAquarium. 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 ofexisting public service announcements on cable, network and government access stations. Counties also should considerpaid 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 ofindividuals pursuing FloridaYard certification. 

### Responsibleparties: FCES, in cooperation with localgovernments, WCRWSA andthe SouthwestFlorida WaterManagementDistrict (SWFWMD)



### COST: Annual costs for staffand materials for program components outlined above are estimated at approximately $75,000 per county (Hillsborough, Pinellas, Pasco and Manatee). Cooperative funding may be soughtfrom participating local governments, river basin boards ofthe SWFWMD, WCRWSA, and the Coastal Zone Management Program.

### Retailers, Landscape Management and Horticulture Industry 

## ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

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 certificationprograms and recommend changes to incorporate FY&N concepts. 

### Responsible Parties: FCES, in cooperation with localgovernments, WCRWSA andSWFWMD 

### COST: Step 1 is being implemented with existing funding, but additional funding could enable the development ofpoint-of-purchase displays and covercosts for reprinting materials. Additional fnnding may be required to implement steps 2-3. 

### DevelopersfProperty Managers STEP 1 Promote the development ofModel Florida Yards at model home developments in each county and at annual Parade ofHomes events. Work with homebuilders' associations and realtors to identify appropriate new housing developments to enlist. 

### Responsibleparties: FCES, with support from localgovernments STEP 2 Develop interpretive signage (including recognition ofsponsors) and a promotional brochure that includes a comparison ofthe costs to develop and maintain a Florida Yard vs. a conventional, maintenance-intensive landscape (see SWFWMD Xeriscape Model Ordinance for reference). 

### Responsibleparties: 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). 

### Responsibleparties: FCES 

### COST: Costs to develop a Model Florida Yard at a residential development are estimated at $5,000, based on plantmaterial, 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, ifFCES is able to secure additional funding from local govermnents or other cooperating partners. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality



# SW·1

74 EXPECTED BENEFITS: Reduction in fertilizer, pesticide and wateruse will reduce pollution inrunoffto the bay. The increased use ofnative plants and other beneficial drought-tolerant vegetation in yards is also expectedto improve the quality and availability ofwildlife habitat. 

### MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE: FCES surveys participants to assess landscape managementchanges as a result ofthe program. Public interest in FY&N also can be gauged by tracking distribution of materials and sales atmajorretail outlets promoting these concepts, number ofprofessionals certified in FY&N concepts, and number ofcertified Florida Yards. 

### REGULATORY NEEDS: None anticipated.


### RELATED ACTIONS: SW-2, SW-3, SW-8

# AssistBusinesses in ImplementingBest ManagementPractices to Reduce Stormwater Pollution,and DevelopModelLandscaping Guidelinesfor CommercialUse ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



# SW·2

ACTION: Encourage and assistbusinesses in implementing best management practices to reduce pollution inrunoff, and develop model landscaping guidelines for commercial use. 

### BACKGROUND: Local communities offervarious levels ofassistance to businesses in assessing site managementpractices and developing pollutionprevention strategies. These programs canbenefitbusinesses 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 otherwisebe forced to rely exclusively on costlier stonnwater treatment. One example is Hillsborough County's Operation BayWorks

- Businesses for a CleanerFuture, 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 repairindustries in the development ofpollution preventionplans. Participants learn industry-specific best managementpractices 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 runoffcan be substantial. These smallerbusinesses typically lack knowledge about theirpotential impact on the environment, as well as the resources to research bestmanagementpractices on their own. Local communities are encouraged to evaluate programs such as Operation BayWorks as a model for regional implementation to reduce stonnwater pollutionfrom commercial sites. Efforts such as these may help local governments meetfederal mandates for pollutionprevention as required in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stonnwaterpennits. The Tampa Bay NEP also recommends the development ofmodel landscaping guidelines for incorporation into local government landscape ordinance codes. These guidelines couldthen become incorporated into the site review process for new development and promoted throughout the development community. Commercial landscapes often feature large areas ofhigh-maintenance turfgrass and exotic plants that demand a steady stream offertilizer, pesticides and water. Stonnwater pollution from commercial sites canbe reduced with changes in maintenance practices and landscape design, such as downsizing turfareas and expanding the use ofwater-thrifty and pest-resistantplants. 

## 75Improvements in landscaping practices arejust one important part ofan overall strategy to reduce pollution from commercial sites. Another strategy, discussed inAction SW-4, is to reduce the amount ofimpervious surface associated with large developments by lowering parking space requirements inbuilding codes and promoting alternative pervious materials for overflow parking. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

# SW·2 ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality



## 7G STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Target and assistbusinesses in implementing site managementpractices to reduce stormwater pollution. Evaluate Hillsborough County's Operation BayWorks as a model for regional implementation. Acomprehensive program might focus on best managementpractices for landscaping and landscape maintenance, erosion control, and hazardous materials use and disposal. Workplans may include: business workshops; industry-specific workbooks thatpromotebest managementpractices and include templates for self-assessment and site managementplans; model commercial landscape demonstration sites; follow-up surveys or on-site visits to trackprogress; 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 abusiness steering committee orutilize an existing structure such as enviromnental committees oflocal chambers ofcommerce to oversee development ofthe program and materials, with representation from local target industries, enviromnental agencies and the Florida Cooperative Extension Service (FCES). Materials developed for OperationBayWorks may be modified for these purposes. C. Implement program and monitor results. 

### Responsible parties: localgovernments, in cooperation with chambers of commerce, private industry councils andlocalgovernmentsmallquantity generators (SQG)programs, whichfocus on hazardous wasteprevention andremediation STEP 2 Develop a model landscaping ordinance for adoption throughoutthe region. The guidelines should be succinct, user-friendly and include a comparison ofcosts to develop and maintain traditional landscapes vs. a model Florida landscape based on FY&N principles (see SW-l). 

### Responsibleparties: localgovernments, in cooperation with FCES, SouthwestFlorida WaterManagementDistrict, West CoastRegional Water SupplyAuthority 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. 

### Responsibleparties: localgovernmentsSTEP4 Incorporate Steps 1-3 into NPDES stormwaterpermits, as examples of efforts to meet federal mandates for pollution prevention. 

### Responsibleparties: localgovernments 

## ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

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 enviromuentalbenefits. 

### Responsibleparties: localgovernments, chambers ofcommerce andprivate industry councils, FloridaAssociation of Environmental Professionals, builders associations, Florida Native PlantSociety


### SCHEDULE: All steps canbe 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 ofmodel landscaping guidelines will reduce pollution in stormwater runofffrom commercial sites. 

### MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE: Surveys canbe used to track pre-and post-business progress in implementing best managementpractices to reduce stormwaterpollution. Local govermuents also can gauge business participation by the number ofpollution preventionplans developed as a direct result oftheir outreach. Stormwater sampling also canbe employed to monitorpre-and post-water quality at large commercial sites that agree to implementmodel landscaping guidelines.


### REGULATORY NEEDS: Dependent upon workplan, 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 toAdopt Integrated PestManagementPolicies and ImplementEnvironmentallyBeneficial Landscaping Practices 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE
SW·3 ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality



## 78 ACTION: Encourage local governments to adopt integrated pest managementpolicies and use enviromnentally beneficial landscaping practices on public properties to reduce pollution from stormwaterrunoff. As part ofthis effort, communities are encouraged to commit a minimum of50 percent ofall new public landscapes andretrofits 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 TampaAudubon 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 runoffpollution 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 canhelp achieve a broad-based impact within a local government's sphere ofinfluence. Additionally, such efforts canbe referenced in the required annual reports for National PollutantDischarge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, which call for increased pollution prevention. This action seeks a commitment from local governments to devote at least halfofthe acreage ofall new public landscapes orretrofits 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 IntegratedPest Management (IPM), least-toxic landscape maintenance practices that reduce pesticide use. Furthermore, information about environmental landscape management (ELM) concepts taughtby county cooperative extension services shouldbe communicated regularly to government employees involved in landscape maintenance orthe purchase of

### fertilizers, pesticides andplant materials. Annual training sessions with those employees could provide updates on new products and techniques that relate to ELM. Sessions ofthis type also serve to reinforce the commitmentmade by elected officials and senior staffto environmental quality and pollutionprevention. 

## ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY


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

### STRATEGY:
STEP 1 Commit aminimum of50 percent ofall new public landscapes andretrofits to existing landscapes to low-maintenance designs featuring site-appropriate native or drought-tolerantplants, with allowances for areas where turfgrass is necessary for recreational use or land application oftreated wastewater. 

### Responsibleparties: localgovernments STEP 2 Adopt a resolution to use IntegratedPestManagement (IPM) on all publicly owned lands, including parks and governmentfacilities. IPM employs biological, cultural and chemical techniques to control pests, and promotes the selective use ofpesticides. Responsibleparties: localgovernments A model resolution, basedon Sarasota County's [PM

### Policy, has been developedby the Sarasota County Cooperative Extension Service. STEP 3 Review purchasing specifications for fertilizer andpesticides to assure governmentuse ofleast-toxic pesticides and slow-release fertilizers as well as cleaning products and other substances and equipment thatmay be used in site maintenance. 

### Responsibleparties: localgovernments, in cooperation with county cooperative extension services STEP4 Establish annual training sessions for landscape maintenance and purchasing personnel to assure proper use ofELM concepts, BMPs and leastharmful products. Coordinate with the county cooperative extension services to determine ifcontinuing education credits canbe provided for approved training. Responsibleparties: localgovernments STEP5 Identify and develop interpretive signage for a minimum ofthree high-traffic sites where native plants and FloridaYard design and maintenance concepts can be promoted as an attractive alternative to turfgrass and exotic plants. Government-owned facilities thatresemble residential sites, such as a license tag orutility office, may make ideal candidates for demonstrating how eco-landscaping techniques can be utilized by homeowners. Also, distribute materials, such as the FloridaYards & 

### Neighborhoods brochure and Florida YardStick, available through the Cooperative 

# SW·3

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

### Responsibleparties: localgovernments See alsoAction SW-2 regarding development of modellandscaping guidelines, basedon Florida Yards & 

### Neighborhoodsprinciples,for incorporation into localgovernmentlandscape codes. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality



## 80 SCHEDULE: All steps canbe initiated in 1997. 

### COST: Steps 1-4 can be implemented with existing resources. Implementation ofIPM and otherlandscaping bestmanagement practices may result in cost savings to governments. Costs to develop model landscapes (Step 5) will vary according to site size and specifications. Forexample, 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 ofenvironmental landscapes atpublic locations will provide homeowners with an "in-ground" demonstration ofthese methods. 

### MONITORING ENVIRONMENTALRESPONSE: Local governments monitor water quality. They also can trackthe amount ofconsumable materials used to maintainpublic 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

## ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality 

# ReduceImpervious Paved Surfaces

ACTION: Reduce impervious surfaces in the watershed to reduce stormwaterrunoffand associated pollution by allowing more waterto filter through the soil.


### BACKGROUND: Like all growing metropolitan areas, the Tampa Bay region contains large amounts of impervious surfaces that increase stormwaterrunoffand associated surface waterpollution by preventing stormwaterfrom seeping into the ground. The impact may be immediate in a waterfront area, or gradual, through the flow ofstormwater drains, ditches, ponds and streams. Existing regulations complicate the problem. Many development standards require that large amounts ofimpervious surface be incorporated into projects to support parking. Commercial developments, for example, are oftenrequired to have a certain number ofparking 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 oftraditional surfaces for main parking lots and pervious surfaces for overflow areas. The use ofpervious materials may also be appropriate for parking lots being enlarged orreconstructed in the urban core. Options include turfblock (concrete blocks with holes to allow turfgrowth and waterinfiltration), grass and specializedpervious hardsurface materials. The cost-effectiveness ofthese alternative surfaces will be evaluated as part ofthis action. Some materials can cost as much as three times the amount of traditional pavement. 

### STRATEGY: This action calls for an evaluation ofthe costs and suitability ofpervious surface materials, and promotion oftheiruse 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 ofcontamination in the bay.

STEP I Using product information supplied by manufacturers and engineering analyses, evaluate the performance and costs ofvarious pervious surface materials and compare them to traditional paving. Provide recommendations to the NEP Management Committee in 1997. Much ofthis information already is available. The assessment should include:

costs ofmaterials and parking construction liability issues life expectancy ofmaterials 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



# SW·4

81

# CHARTING the

# COURSE ACTIONPLAN

maintenance costs and considerations 

### Water & 

### Sediment Quality

FOR TAMPA BAY 

# SW·4

82 Responsibleparties: NEp, in cooperation with builders andcontractors associations, chambers ofcommerce andlocalgovernments STEP 2 Identify target areas in which the use ofalternative surface materials should be encouraged, and suggest draftrevisions to agency rules regulating stormwaterto allow credits for pervious pavement. Provide recommendations to the NEP Management Committee in 1997. Establishtarget boundaries for urban sub-basins near bay hot spots ofsediment contamination, and overlay information on the areas where local governments are encouraging redevelopment. In other areas ofthe watershed, identify areas where soils may be conducive to the use ofpervious pavement. Suggest draftrule revisions, including credits for pervious paving. 

### Responsibleparties: NEp, localgovernments, SouthwestFlorida Water ManagementDistrict (SWFWMD) STEP 3 Based on results ofsteps I and 2, revise local government and agency regulations to encourage the use ofpervious 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 ofpervious paving. increasing the ratio oflandscaping to site size to reduce impervious surface. 

### Responsibleparties: localgovernments, SWFWMD 

### SCHEDULE: Step I can be initiated in 1997. Steps 2 and 3 canbe initiated in 1998, based on the recommendations. 

### COST: The assessment ofpervious paving options canbe accomplishedthrough NEP's annual workplan. The actual costs and cost-effectiveness ofthese materials will be identified as part ofthe assessment. Steps 2 and 3 will require administrative and stafftime oflocal governments and SWFWMD. Costs to provide incentives orcredits for the replacement ofimpervious surface have not yet been estimated, butmay be offset byreduced municipal costs in treating stormwater runoff. Cost considerations will be closely evaluated in developing recommendations. 

## ACTIONPLAN

EXPECTED BENEFITS: Water & Sediment Quality 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Reductions in the amount ofimpervious 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 ENVIRONMENTALRESPONSE: Local governments monitor ambient water and sediment quality in Tampa Bay. 

### REGULATORY NEEDS: Possible revisions to local development standards and stormwaterregulations.


### RELATED ACTIONS: SW-5, TX-l 

# SW·4

83

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

# SW·5

88 ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality



### ment for properties being redeveloped, and to alIow alternative means to satisfy those requirements when on-site treatment is not feasible. Responsibleparties: localgovernments andregulatory agencies, especiallySWFWMD 

### SCHEDULE: Step 1 can be initiated by the NEP in 1997 pending availability offunds. Step 2 can be initiated in 1998 after the Comprehensive Conservation andManagement Plan (CCMP) has been adopted andregulatory flexibility is granted to alIow developers to use alternative means to meetrequirements when on-site treatment is notfeasible. 

### COST: Funding for Step 1 is provided in the NEP's FY96 Workplan. Implementation ofStep 2, ifapproved, will require local government and stafftime, as welI as the costs associated with stormwater treatment oralternative options required. In-lieu fees deposited by developers into a "stormwaterbank" could help finance implementation ofalternative stormwatertreatment options, such as development ofa regional stormwater facility or additional street sweeping. Acost-benefit evaluation ofalternative treatments is being developed as part ofan ongoing projectreferenced in Step 1. 

### EXPECTED BENEFITS: Stormwatertreatment from olderproperties and in the urban areas ofthe watershed helps to reduce polIution in stormwaterrunofffrom heavily impacted areas. Flexibility is built in to assure stormwater treatment while still encouraging redevelopment. 

### MONITORING ENVIRONMENTALRESPONSE: 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 CompactUrbanDevelopmentand Redevelopment ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



### ACTION: Convene a conference oflocal government and regional planners, architects and neighborhood councils to evaluate and recommend actions to more effectively promote compacturban development and redevelopmentto minimize urban sprawl and associated environmental impacts.


### BACKGROUND: Suburban growth in the Tampa Bay region and elsewhere has given rise to some inefficient patterns ofdevelopment that can contribute to increased stomawater pollution and costly infrastructure needs by promoting low-density, single-use development at the expense offostering compacturban development and redevelopment ofpreviously impacted land. Mostnew development today is suburban and characterized by low-density residential and commercial landuses. Single-use land patterns that separateresidential development from retail and business sectors are mostprevalent. 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 ofthis low-density single-use development is to commit an everincreasing share ofland resources within the watershed to suburban uses that increase impervious surface and ultimately result in more runoffpollution. 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 ofurban 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) oftenpenalize existing urban areas ofdevelopment, while further promoting development in outlying areas. 

### STRATEGY: This strategy is to convene a conference ofexperts 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 encourag

# SW·6

87ing reinvestment and redevelopment ofthe urban core and the development ofmixeduse master-planned communities thatclusteruses to conserve land and resources. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality



# SW-6.

BB STEP I Organize aFuture ofthe Region conference to develop recommendations for promoting compacturban development and redevelopment by focusing on real-life scenarios with practical applications for Tampa Bay area communities. Forexample, 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 canbe compatible withresidential areas in a well-designed plan will engenderdiscussion abouthow 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 ofthe 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 preventimplementation. Additional details about possible concepts thatmightbe consideredby 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 theAmerican Planning Association (APA), America Institute ofArchitects (AlA) and American Society ofLandscapeArchitects (ASLA), councils ofneighborhood associations, and environmental/bay interests. 

### Responsibleparties: Tampa Bay RegionalPlanning Council (TBRPC) to sponsorandorganize conference, inpartnership with metropolitanplanning organizations (MPOs) andlocalgovernments. STEP 2 Implement recommendations from Step I through local government comprehensive plans, development codes and long-range transportation plans. 

### Responsibleparties: localgovernments, TBRPC 

### SCHEDULE: The conference canbe planned in 1997, for implementation in early 1998. 

### COST: Staffand administrative time is anticipated for implementation ofthese steps.Redevelopment ofexisting areas and higher density and mixed-use development in suburban areas will conserve land and water resources, limiturban sprawl and reduce pOllution. 

## ACTIONPLAN
EXPECTED BENEFITS:

MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE: Water & Sediment Quality 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

# ·SW·6
Local governments conduct water quality monitoring and periodic planning studies that can gauge the netbenefitfrom implementation ofthese 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 theTimely Completionofthe ConsentOrdersforthe Cleanup ofFertilizer Facilities intheEastBay Sector 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

# SW·7 ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality



## 90 ACTION: Enforce andrequire the timely completion ofconditions in the consent orders entered into by CF Industries, CSX Transportation, EATTerminals, IMC-Agrico and Pakhoed Dry Bulkfor the cleanup ofwastewater entering the East Bay sector. 

### BACKGROUND: In 1990, the Florida DepartmentofEnviromnental Protection (FDEP) and the Environmental Protection Commission (EPC) ofHillsborough County discovered that five fertilizer shipping facilities in the EastBay area were discharging high levels of nutrients into the bay. A subsequent investigation determined that stormwaterwas mixing with fertilizer productfrom these facilities and thatthe wastewater discharges were not meeting currentwater quality standards. Following lengthy negotiations, the five facilities entered intojoint consent orders with FDEP and EPC in late 1991. The consent orders includedrequirements for regular sampling ofstorm-induced discharges, assessments ofwastewaterflows and concentrations at the facilities, and sediment sampling at the facilities and at adjacent loading docks. Upon completion ofthe assessment phase, eachfacility was to construct orimplementthe bestmanagement practices (BMPs) to manage its nutrientenriched stormwater discharges. While all five facilities have begun complying with the terms oftheir consent orders, progress has varied widely. Some facilities continue to fall short ofrequired water quality standards, and deadlines for completion ofsite improvements remain undetermined. IMC-Agrico has completed construction ofa detention/treatmentfacility and is routinely monitoring its outfall, effectively completing the terms ofits consent order. CFIndustries is also in its final phase, having completed its assessment, and has applied for a permitto construct a detention facility that would contain a 25-year/24- hour storm event. Ofthe five facilities, CSX Transportation is believed to discharge the largest amount ofnutrients to the bay. CSX has submitted a permit application and preliminary design plans to construct aretention and treatment system capable ofcontaining 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 ofthe facilities, is implementiug BMPs to reduce the amount offertilizer product entering stormwater. These improvements include outside conveyerbelts, 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 ofrainfall at the facility. 

## ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



# SW·7 STRATEGY: STEP I Enforce and require the timely completion ofthe consent orders. A. Continue to require implementation ofBMPs and the construction ofsystems to detain and treat storm-induced discharges, and develop criteria to determine "compliance." B. 

### Set deadlines for the fiual completion ofthe terms ofthe consent orders. C. Bring facilities into full compliance so they may enter a wastewaterpermittiug and monitoring mode. 

### Responsible Parties: FDEPandEPC, in cooperation with thefivefacilities 

### SCHEDULE: Step I-A is ongoing. All facilities should be in full compliance within 12 months of completing construction oftreattnent systems. 

### COST: Costs to implement BMPs atthese sites vary according to design and magnitude, and are borne by the facilities underthe consent order. 

### EXPECTED BENEFITS: Reduced nutrient loadings to the already nutrient-enriched East Bay sector ofTampa Bay. 

### MONITORING ENVIRONMENTALRESPONSE: Individual facilities will monitor outfalls. Ambientbay water and sediment quality is monitored by EPC and other local governments. 

### REGULATORY NEEDS: No further regulatory needs are anticipated. 

### RELATED ACTIONS: N/A



## 91STEP 3 Hold workshops and provide instructional materials in the correctuse of fertigation systems. Contact local suppliers offertigation systems and urge them to provide detailed guidance and support in use ofthe systems. 

### Responsibleparties: local Cooperative Extension Service offices 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality



# SW·8

94 STEP4 Explore possible cost-sharing programs, such as low-interestloans and grants, to provide financial assistance for the utilization ofBMPs, especially for the dairy industry. For example, a fund mightbe established from nitrogen trading credits and administered through the Florida Farm Bureau. Ensure thatthe funding assistance available is snfficientto warrantparticipationby growers. 

### Responsibleparties: NRCS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Florida Departmentof Agriculture and ConsumerServices, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, andlocalsoilandwaterconservation 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 orestablished in 1998. 

### COST: Steps I, 2 and 3 involve administrative costs. Costs for Step 4 have not yetbeen 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 ofthe micro-irrigation system and fertigation components. 

### EXPECTED BENEFITS: Use offertigation systems is expected to reduce the amount ofnitrogen entering the bay in agricultural runoff. Research being conductedby the Hillsborough County Engineering Services Department in cooperation with local growers may help quantify the benefits offertigation 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 ENVIRONMENTALRESPONSE: Ambient waterquality in surface waters receiving runofffrom agricultural lands is monitoredby local governments and will be reported in a bieunial Bay Environmental Monitoring Report. 

### REGULATORY NEEDS: Revision to SWFWMD guidelines forAGSWMP to encourage fertigation systems where feasible and where micro-irrigation already is in use. 

### RELATED ACTIONS: SW-9, TX-4

# Improve CompliancewithAgricultural Ground and SurfaceWaterManagementPlans ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



### ACTION: Improve compliance with Agricultural Ground and SurfaceWater Management plans to reduce nutrient and pesticide runoffto 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 ofthe 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 WaterManagement District (SWFWMD) and the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), formerly the Soil Conservation Service, have developed a voluntary program that assists farmers in protecting waterresources. The Agricultural Ground and SurfaceWater ManagementProgram, orAGSWMP, educates farmers about exemptions and helps farmers develop watermanagement plans that often enable them to qualify for a permit exemption. Amatrix ofbestmanagement 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. Aplan is developed and the farmer is asked to implement its recommendations, providing a faster, non-regulatory avenue for compliance with surface waterrules. Since the program's creation in 1991, surface watermanagement plans have been developed for more than 3,000 acres offarmland in Hillsborough and Manatee counties. While these efforts are impressive, the percentage ofagricultural lands managed underthese 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 ofintensive agriculture in 1990. Compliance also has been a lingering problem with the program. Once the plan is approved, few ifany follow-up inspections are conductedto ensure that farm operators have implemented the plans. Lackofsufficient staffto handle these responsibilities has been identified as a major reason for the lack offollow-up. The AGSWM program provides a streamlined, less cumbersome approach for growers to comply with the intent ofSWFWMD's wetlands and water quality protection rules. But without areasonable effortto checkon the implementation ofthe AGSWM plans, the effectiveness ofthe program cannot be determined. 

# SW·9

95The strategy for this action involves oneregulatory action to monitorcompliance with AGSWM plans and one voluntary action to encourage greater participationin the program. STEP 1 When SWFWMD visits a fann in conjunction with a wateruse renewal pennit, 

### it can usethat occasionto check compliance with the fann's AGSWM plan. The site visitmade at the time ofwateruse permitrenewal provides a convenient time to verify that an existing AGSWM planis being implemented as agreed to by the grower. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTIONPLAN
STRATEGY: Water & Sediment Quality



## 96 Ifthe inspection shows that a fanning operationis not in compliance with the approvedAGSWM plan, SWFWMD could allow a grace period in which to comply. Failure to comply within the grace period couldbe grounds to nullify the pennit exemption and require a fonnal Environmental Resource Pennit. 

### Responsibleparties: S

### WFWMD, NRCS, with assistance inpromoting compliancefrom the U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency's (EPA) Pesticides Section STEP 2 Recruit growers in Hillsborough and Manatee counties who have successfully implementedAGSWM plans to showcase the results oftheir efforts to other growers who qualify for theAGSWM program. 

### Responsibleparties: SWFWMD, NRCS, local extension services 

### SCHEDULE: Both steps could be implemented in 1997. 

### COST: Both steps couldbe accomplished with existing resources. 

### EXPECTED BENEFITS: More widespread participation in and compliance with the AGSWM program will reduce agricultural runoffand wetland impacts, improving water quality in the bay. 

### MONITORING ENVIRONMENTALRESPONSE: Ambient surface water quality and sediment monitoring will be conducted as part of the biennial Bay Environmental Monitoring Report. 

### REGULATORY NEEDS: Existing SWFWMD surface watermanagementrules would allow the agency to link renewal ofwateruse pennits to compliance withAGSWM plans. 

### RELATED ACTIONS: SW-8, TX-4

# ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY
Scientists searching for the causes ofbay pollution have only recently turned their attention to the skies. Whatthey've found has led to a major revision in the bay's pollution portrait Studies by the NEP estimate that about 29 percent ofthe bay's total nitrogen burden falls directly to the surface ofthe water from the atmosphere. That figure is probably much higher ifpollutants falling in the watershed are considered, since a portion of these will eventually enter the bay in stormwaterrunoff. About 1,100 tons ofnitrogen fall on the openbay each year; another 6,600 tons are estimated to fall in the watershed.' Air pollution also transports significant quantities ofpotentially 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 ofthe bay's annual cadmium loading of more than 7,000 pounds comes from the air. Airborne emissions ofcadmium are associated with oil- and coal-fired utilities and waste incinerators.' Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) associated with the combustion offossil fuels and other organic compounds also enter the bay from the air, although specific sources are unknown. While experts have estimated the amount ofatmospheric deposition, they still can't pinpoint how much ofthe nitrogen in emissions generated locally endup in Tampa Bay

- or what impact distant emissions have on the bay. They do know that stationary sources such as coal-fired powerplants and garbage incinerators contribute about 70 percent ofthe 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 theirproduct, also release nitrogen to the air. Wastewater treatment plants may be another source ofgaseous ammonia. Nitrogen is a common element that appears naturally in the environment. Part ofthe challenge facing researchers is identifying how much ofthe bay's nitrogen loadings come from natural sources, such as lightning, trees or natural wetland discharges. The largest single source ofNOx emissions in the region is Tampa Electric Company, whose Big Bend and Gannon plants together emitted about 88,000 tons ofNOx 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 ofEnvironmental Protection (FDEP).' Eight ofthe 10boilers atthese facilities are older "Group 2" units thathave no NOx controls in place. The Tampa Bay NEP supports proposed rules under the Clean AirAct 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 ofconcern in the Tampa Bay airshed. From 1980 to 1995, 

# AD

97the Tampa Bay area was designated as a non-attaimnent zone for ozone because the region periodically exceededfederal health standards for this pollutant. In addition to the healthrisks, the region's non-attaimnent status also restricted economic growth. Ensuing controls focused onreducing industrial and vehicular emissions ofvolatile organic compounds orVOCs, a precursor ofozone. Subsequent improvements ledto the area's reclassification in 1996 as attaining National AmbientAir Quality Standards for ozone. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

# AD ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality

As partofits request for re-designation, local communities and the FDEP developed a maintenance plan to preserve the area's attaimnent status for a minimum of 10years. The plan includes regulartracking for total airborne emissions ofVOCs and NOx, which must remain level or decrease in orderto prevent additional analysis andregulatory action. Action might include limitations on stationary ormobile sources ofNOx 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 partby Clean AirActprovisions, whichrequire utilities and motorvehicles to reduce emissions. Local communities ultimately shouldbe held accountable only for that portion of atmospheric deposition which comes from local sources. Coordination atthe regional and national levels will be necessary to assure broad implementation and enforcement ofpollution controls. Pollutionprevention through energy conservation also must be emphasized. Research will continue to be a priority in the effortto 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 ProtectionAgency'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 threeyearTampa BayAtmospheric Deposition Study to investigate where the atmospheric deposition is corning from and how large a role itplays in storrnwaterpollution. As part ofthis 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 inAugust 1996. Results ofthe investigation will help quantify the amount of atmospheric nitrogen entering the bay and provide additional clues to researchers investigating the sources ofthe pollution. 

### SUMMARY OFACTIONS FORATMOSPHERIC 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.

## ACTIONPLAN
References, Atmospheric Deposition: Water & Sediment Quality 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

Estimates ofTotal Nitrogen, Total Phosphorus, and Total Suspended Solids Loadings to Tampa Bay, Florida. Technical Appendix: 1992-1994, Total Nitrogen Loadings to Tampa Bay, Florida. TSNEPTeclmical Publication #19-96. (1996) 2 Chemical Contaminants intheTampaBay Estuary: ASummary ofDistributions andInputs. TBNEPTechnical Publication #01-95. (1995) 3 Florida Department ofEnvironmental Protection. 1994. Air Quality RepoTt, 1994. FOR TAMPA BAY 

# AD 4 Ibid.



## 99

# ContinueAtmosphericDepositionStudiesand DevelopAnActionPlan toAddress this Important EnvironmentalIssue 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

# AD·1 ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality



## 100 ACTION: Continue to investigate the sources and effects ofatmospheric deposition, and develop an action plan to address the issue. 

### BACKGROUND: The Tampa Bay National Estuary Program estimates that about 29 percent ofthe bay's total nitrogen loadings are directly deposited to the bay from the air. Atmospheric deposition also contributes significantquantities oftoxic substances to the bay, includingheavy metals and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).J.2 While specific sources ofatmospheric deposition have not yet been identified, emissions inventories suggest that powerplants and vehicles are majorcontributors. The largest single source ofNOx emissions in the region is Tampa Electric Company, whose Gannon and Big Bend facilities emitted a total of88,000 tons ofnitrogen oxides, orNOx, 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 ofNOx into the air each year in the tri-county area.' But experts still don'tknow how much nitrogen from the emissions enters Tampa Bay, or what percentage ofstormwaterpollution entering the bay actually comes from the air. The initial action plan for addressing atmospheric deposition relies heavily on research. U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency's (EPA) selection in 1995 ofthe Tampa Bay NEPto participate in the GreatWaters Programbrought federal attention and funding to this effort. Atask force comprised ofresearchers 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 ofattnospheric deposition on stormwater runoffto the bay. In 1996, the Environmental Protection Commission (EPC) ofHillsborough County and Pinellas County began an intensive air sampling study with funding from the NEP. Results ofthat effort will help quantify the amount ofnitrogen entering the bay and provide additional clues to researchers investigating the sources ofthe pollution. Also in 1996, EPA's research vessel, the OSVAnderson, was deployed to Tampa Bay for a two-weektour to measure ammonia overthe bay. Thatinvestigation revealed concentrations ofgaseous ammonia in the East Bay sector ofHillsborough Bay that were more than 15 times higherthan other stations monitored in Tampa Bay.6 Researchers are now investigating the sources ofthat ammonia and its relative impact on bay waterquality.

### 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: 

## ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

the relative contribution to atmospheric deposition from local and remote sources; the importance ofammonia to the total nitrogen input budget for Tampa Bay; the distribution ofnitrogen deposition in the watershed; the contribution ofdryfall to local atmospheric deposition; the contribution to stormwater runofffrom atmospheric deposition in the watershed.
Stafffrom the Tampa Bay NEP and Florida Department ofEnvironmental 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. Responsibleparties: 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 ofoptions to reduce atmospheric deposition. Options could include voluntary reductions in emissions; additional regulation or other requirements ofpower plants or motor vehicles; pollution prevention programs; reductions in the incineration oftoxic materials through recycling; and revisions to federal, state and local rules. Apreliminary draft ofthis action plan will be prepared by the Tampa Bay NEP in cooperation with the TaskForce by October 1998. Responsibleparties: Tampa Bay NEPandEPA, in cooperation with the Atmospheric Deposition Task Force 

### SCHEDULE: Step I was initiated in 1995. Intensive sampling studies began inAugust 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. Otherpossible funding sources include the EPA GreatWaters Program; EPAjFDEP 319(h) grantfunds; Florida Pollution Recovery TrustFund: SouthwestFloridaWater Management District's SurfaceWater Improvement & Management (SWFWMD-SWIM) program; Florida Department of Transportation; local government air programs; local utilities; Electric Power 

# AD·1

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

# CHARTING the

# COURSE ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality

FOR TAMPA BAY 

# AD-1

102 While action plans have not yetbeen developed, the following comparison illustrates the costs associated with reducing a ton ofNOx from both power plants and motor vehicles. Estimated costs to retrofitpowerplant "wetbottom" or "cyclone" (Group 2) boilers, which are used by some local facilities, range from a median of$73 perton ofNOx removal from emission for wall-fired/wet bottom boilers up to $635 perton for cyclone furnace/wet bottom boilers.7 Assuming (only for purposes ofcomparison) that 100 tons ofNOx translates into 1 ton ofnitrogen entering the bay (as estimated 

### in Chesapeake Bay studies), the costs to reduce 1 ton ofnitrogen 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 ofNOx control through vehicle inspection and maintenance programs to be about $1,000 perton ofNOx removed from the air, or an estimated $100,000 perton ofnitrogen deposition.8 

### EXPECTED BENEFITS: Research will enable bay managers to allocate responsibility for the bay's cleanup and directresources to areas ofgreatestneed. 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 ofthe three-year study. Long-term monitoring needs have not yet been determined. 

### REGULATORY NEEDS: Regulatory changes may be called for in the action plan thatis developed 

### RELATED ACTIONS: AD-2

## ACTIONPLAN
References, Atmospheric Deposition: Water & Sediment Quality 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

* TIIC Task Force for Ille Tampa Bay Atmospheric Deposition Study is comprised ofrepresentatives 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 oftransportation and environmental protection. Estimates ofTotal Nitrogen, Total PhosphofllS, and Total Suspended Solids Loadings to Tampa Bay, Florida, Technical Appendix. TBNEPTechnical Publication #19-96 (1996). 2 Chemical Contaminants in the Tampa Bay Estuary: A Summary ofDistributions and Inputs, TBNEP Technical Publication#01-95

(1995). Auainment/Maintenance Plan for the Tampa Bay Florida Ozone Non-attaitunentArea, Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County and Pinellas County Board ofCOlUlty Conunissioncrs (1994). 4 Florida Department ofEnvirotunenta! 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 EPAFederal 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 andPublicEnergy Conservation 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality



# AD-a

104 ACTION: Promote business energy conservation through participation in the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency'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 ofthe bay's total nitrogen loading. Power plants are a major source ofthese emissions, and energy conservation can help to reduce demand on these facilities while saving customers money on theirutility bills. Local utilities already promote energy conservationto residents and businesses through incentives such as rebates for energy-smartheatpumps and free energy audits. These programs shouldbe continued, and ratepayer literature developed for distribution with customerbillings that discusses the linkbetween energy use, airpollution andbay water quality, since that connectionisn't readily made by mostresidents. Ofparticularinterest are businesses that are heavy energy users. Voluntary programs thathelp businesses reduce energy consumption are appealing because they prevent pollution, are non-regulatory and decrease overhead costs. The EPAsponsors three such programs: Green Lights, which targets light-intensive businesses such as hospitals and shopping malls; Energy StarBuildings, 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 ofall electricity sold in the United States-and lighting for industries, stores, offices and warehouses represents 80-90 percentoftotal lighting electricity use, so the use ofenergy-efficient lighting has a direct effect on pollution prevention. Every kilowatt-hour oflighting electricity not used prevents emissions of0.7 kilograms ofcarbon dioxide (C02), 5.8 grams ofsulfur dioxide (S02) and 2.5 grams ofnitrogen oxides (NOx), which are ofparticularconcern in Tampa Bay. Energy Stars' participants further increase bottom-linebusiness and environmental paybacks by addressing additional energy-demanding features within their facilities such as heating and cooling. Implementation ofEnergy Starprograms may also reduce otherpollutants associated with coal- oroil-fired power plants, such as mercury, a pollutant ofconcernfor Tampa Bay. Cox Newspapers, a Green Lights participant and owneroftheAtlantaJournal and Constitution, estimates its annual savings atmore 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 percentper kilowatthour respectively at a 350,000-square-footfacility. These energy savings translated into a reduction of 1.6 million pounds ofC02, 7.6 million grams ofS02 and 2.7 million grams ofNOx per year.

### Nationally, more than 1,800 businesses participate in GreenLights 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 andAdopt-APond, can also promote business participation in Green Lights and Energy Stars to increase bottom-linebenefits for participants and the environment. 

## ACTIONPLAN Water & 

### Sediment Quality 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

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 participationin the program. Also investigate possiblereductions in exterior lighting ifenergy reductions can be made without compromising public safety. Responsibleparties: Tampa Bay NEp, in cooperation with local electric utilities, localgovernmentairquality androaddepartments, the Florida DepartmentofTransportation (FDOT) andchambers ofcommerce. STEP 2 Sponsor a biennial workshop withEPA in the Tampa Bay Area, in partnership with other organizations. Responsibleparties: Tampa Bay NEp, local utilities, EPA STEP 3 Promote Green Lights and Energy Stars through local chambers ofcommerce, business associations and downtown partnerships, and seektheir endorsements and commitments to promote these initiatives. Responsibleparties: Tampa Bay NEp, Agency on Bay Management (ABM), local utilities STEP4 Encourage municipalities to promote energy conservation by requiring energy-efficient lighting and equipment in government buildings orby becoming Green Lights partners. Responsibleparties: localgovernments STEP 5 Increase cross-promotion ofGreen 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. Responsibleparties: localgovernmentstormwaterandenvironmental managementdepartments STEP 6 Encourage utilities to include information in customerbilling newsletters about the linkbetween energy usage and bay water quality and the benefits ofenergy conservation. Responsibleparties: Tampa Bay NEP; utilities andABM



## 105

### SCHEDULE: Target lists should be completedby September 1997 for 1998 workshops. All other steps can be initiated in 1997. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality



# AD·2

108 COST: Stafftime is involved in all steps. Business partners can expect cost savings associated withreduced energy use as a result ofimplementation. 

### EXPECTED BENEFITS: Energy conservation will result in reduced emissions from powerplants and atmospheric deposition to the bay.


### MONITORING ENVIRONMENTALRESPONSE: Local participation in these EPAprograms and associated pollutantreductions will provide a yardstickfor measuring the success ofthis initiative. A study is underway to measure atmospheric deposition to Tampa Bay. 

### REGULATORY NEEDS: None anticipated.


### RELATED ACTIONS: AD-I

## ACTIONPLAN 

# WASTEWATER Water & Sediment Quality 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY Reclaiming treated wastewaterfor 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 ofthe projects now planned and underway. The City ofTampa is currently exploring ways to reclaim up to 50 million gallons ofwastewater itnow discharges daily to Hillsborough Bay, to relieve pressure on the region's potable water supplies. But evaluations ofreclaimed waterprojects must consider the net effect to the bay and its tributaries when large discharges are withdrawn. Forinstance, declines in nutrient loadings that may pollute the bay mustbe weighed against the impact ofredirecting a freshwater source from the bay ifthatfresh water serves an important ecological role. Once apervasive problem for the bay, point-source pollutionhas declined substantially with improved regulation and advances in treatment technologies. In fact, the retooling ofTampa's Howard 

### F. Curren wastewatertreatment plant at Hookers Point in 1979 is widely regarded as a chiefcatalyst in the bay's water quality recovery. Advanced wastewatertreatment technologies employed there and at otherupgraded facilities can curb up to 90 percent ofthe nitrogen from treated wastewaterdischarges. Director "point" discharges ofwastewaterto Tampa Bay from municipal sewage treatment plants and industries now contribute about 14 percent oftotal bay nitrogen loadings, roughly one-third ofthe amount contributed from "non-point" sources represented in stormwaterrunoff. These regulated point sources also contribute roughly 30 percent ofthe bay's total loadings ofarsenic, cadmium, chromium and copper, as well as low levels ofother contaminants. Experts expect continued declines in point source pollution as the use ofreclaimed 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 ofreclaimed water where projects are beneficial to the bay; improved treatment ofindustrial 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 percentof the region's populace, may contribute substantially to nitrogen loadings. Preliminary studies by the Southwest FloridaWaterManagement District (SWFWMD) also suggest that a proportionate amount ofnitrogen loadings to the bay may come from disposal ofseptage waste and sewage treatment plant sludge containing nitrogen and heavy metals. Septic systems located nearthe bay pose the greatest potential threatto water quality, particularly along creeks where flushing is limited and the watertable is nearthe ground surface. 

# ww

107

# CHARTING the

# COURSE ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality


### SUMMARY OFACTIONS FOR WASTEWATER FOR TAMPA BAY 

### WW-l Expand the use ofreclaimed 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 ofwastewater discharges. WW-4 Revise HRS rules to incorporate environmental performance or design standards for septic systems.

## ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality 

# ExpandtheUse ofReclaimed Water Where Reuse BenefitstheBay

ACTION: Expand and encourage the reuse ofhighly treated domestic and industrial wastewater where reuse produces anet benefitforTampa Bay. 

### BACKGROUND: St. Petersburg's pioneering efforts in wastewaterreuse for residential irrigation in the late 1970s were at the forefront ofa technological movement that would offer both substantial benefits and some importantchallenges9- to a region anxious to conserve its freshwater supplies, and atthe same time, save the bay from an overly rich diet of nutrients discharged in wastewater. Today, projects to reclaim wastewaterfor irrigation and other applications are underway in all three counties bordering the bay. Local governments now reuse roughly 40 million gallons oftreated wastewaterperday, mostly for urban and agricultural irrigation, but also for industrial purposes. Projects planned orunderway in local communities will more than triple that amount (see reuse table). The Wilson-Grizzle Bill, which calledfor 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 ofTampa in 1979 to upgrade its wastewater treatment plant at Hookers Point, a change thathelpedbring about sweeping improvements in the bay's water quality. At the same time, St. Petersburg was launching its reclaimed water project, which eliminated most ofits direct wastewater discharges to the bay. The Wilson-Grizzle legislation was eventually repealed but a subsequent Grizzle-Figg bill reinstated the requirements for advanced wastewatertreatment. The potential benefits ofreuse 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 storrnwaterrunoff. It is also widely recognized as a cost-effective, long-term alternative source ofwater for irrigation and commercial applications and potentially for potable needs. Reuse is a key element ofthe 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 Aquiferfrom saltwaterintrusion. 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 theirnet impact to the bay and to address various public health and logistical concerns. The City ofTampa is now proposing a project to reclaim as much as 50 million gallons ofthe treated wastewater it discharges daily to Hillsborough Bay from its 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



# WW·1

109Howard 

### F. Curren facility at Hookers Point. Discharges from this facility now represent about 7 percent ofthe total freshwater inflow to Hillsborough Bay during the dry months ofthe year. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTIONPLAN Water & 

### Sediment Quality



# ww110 While the bay will benefit from the reduction in nutrients to this heavily impacted sector ofthe bay, a part ofthis 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 ofits freshwater inflow. Aplanning and environmental impact assessmentfor this project began in late 1995. 

### STRATEGY: This strategy is to evaluate and recommend implementation ofreclaimed water projects thatresult in anetbenefit to Tampa Bay. STEP 1 Evaluate the environmental impacts ofthe majorreuse projects planned for the Tampa Bay region, including the net effects ofreducing 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 orperceptions stemming from the use of reclaimed water. Any environmental impacts associated with reuse projects shouldbe balanced againstthe public need for cost-effective water supply alternatives. The TampaBay National Estuary Programrecommends implementation of those reuse projects thatbenefitthe bay. 

### Responsibleparties: localgovernments, SWFWMD, Florida Department of EnvironmentalProtection (FDEP), West CoastRegional Water Supply Authority (WCRWSA), Florida Game andFresh WaterFish Commission (FGFWFC) STEP 2 Ifcurrentmunicipal and industrial reuse expansion plans coupled with other efforts to reduce pollution are insufficientto 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. 

### Responsibleparties: localgovernments, SWFWMD, WCRWSA, in cooperation with the Tampa Bay NEP 

### SCHEDULE: The status ofmajorreuse projects that are planned or underway is provided in Table 1. Evaluation ofthe City ofTampa project to reclaim treated wastewatercurrently discharged to Hillsborough Bay began in 1995. 

### COST: Estimated costs and funding sources for major projects are provided inTable 1. Information was providedby wastewaterreuse coordinators, utility officials and environmental planners associated with these projects.Reuse projects have the potential to substantially reduce long-termnitrogen loadings to Tampa Bay, and also help to conserve the region's water supplies. Both the amount ofwater conserved through a project and the anticipated reduction in nitrogen loadings are presented in Table I. However, majorprojects should be balanced against any potential drawbacks for the bay or public health concerns associated with reuse. 

## ACTIONPLAN
EXPECTED BENEFITS: Water & Sediment Quality 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



# WW-1
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTALRESPONSE: Ambient water quality is monitoredby local governments. Local government and industrial applicants for reuse permits also will be required to conductwater quality monitoring as a condition ofthe permit. 

### REGULATORY NEEDS: FDEPregulations governing waterreuse (FAC 62-610) are currently being revised to allow the use ofreclaimed waterto rehydrate wetlands within wellfields under specific conditions. A draft ofthe proposedrule changes is expectedby 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" ofreclaimed water and control over how that water canbe used also should be clarified. 

### RELATED ACTIONS: FI-l, WQ-l



## 111

# CHARTING the

# COURSE ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## Table 1. Summaryof major projected orfunded domesticwastewater reuse projects intheTampa 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 compleconstruct 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.! userfees 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 orTampa 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 (ifflow 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 Userfees, 11.4 Expected completion by 2005. expand overall distribution network, SWFWMD addin 5000 additional homes 

## 112

## ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

Table 1. Summaryofmajorprojectedorfundeddomesticwastewater reuseprojectsintheTampaBayregion (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 6to 12 mgd 6.0 80 Usertees, 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 Userfees, 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% oftheir 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. Similarto special taxing district, used to fund reuse water systems within county subdivisions. CIP - Capital Improvement Plan MARS - Manatee Agricultural Reuse System
Calculation ofTN 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 SewerServicetoPriorityAreas Now Served by Septic Systems 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTIONPLAN 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 SouthwestFloridaWaterManagement District (SWFWMD) suggestthat leachate from septic tankdrainfields may contribute about 5 percent ofthe 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 watercarries nitrogen from septic tankdrainfields to surface waters. Septic systems located closestto the bay and its tributaries pose a particularconcern. 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 ofthe land, and othernearshore areas ofthe watershed with high densities ofmostly older systems. Among these areAllen's Creek in Pinellas County, several creeks and the Ruskin inlet near the mouth ofthe Little Manatee River, and Tampa's McKay Bay. Elevated levels offecal coliform and nitrogen have been reported in many ofthese 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 stormwaterrunoff. Nevertheless, the sandy soils in SouthwestFlorida are nothighly suitable for septic systems, and preliminary studies pointto the potential for nitrogen impacts in some areas. This action calls for further investigations at suspectedproblem 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 priorto 1983 and nearshore areas with high densities ofseptic systems shouldbe evaluated first. Conversion from septic to central sewer service canbe costly, withresidential hookup fees ranging anywhere from $2,000 to $5,000 ormore. 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 ofcentral sewer service may encourage higher-density developmentin these environmentally sensitive areas, and local governments should take this into consideration in their long-range planning programs.

### STRATEGY: STEP 1 Identify areas adjacentto the bay and its tributaries where residential and commercial septic systems are suspected ofcausing water quality impacts. Areas with septic systems installed priorto 1983, when siting criteria was established, should be given high-priority status. Responsibleparties: localgovernments, public health departments 

## ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



# WW-2
STEP 2 Analyze worst-case scenarios for nitrogen loadings from septic systems based on their proximity to the creekor surface water. Where necessary and cost-effective, install meters and wells to monitor groundwater seepage into the creeks or affected areas. Aremote sensing technique employed by the Tennessee Valley Authority to detect areawide drainfield failures may be a useful monitoring tool. Responsibleparties: localgovernments, Florida Departmentof EnvironmentalProtection (FDEP), public health departments 

### STEP 3 Based onresults from steps 1 and 2, extend central sewer service to coastal areas where water quality problems have been documented, exceptwhere legal orbudgetary constraints exist. Responsibleparties: localgovernments 

### STEP4 Distribute educational brochures promoting best managementpractices (BMPs) for septic tanks (see Pinellas County brochures developedfor the Allen's Creekwatershed). Responsibleparties: localgovernment 

### STEP 5 Evaluate the use and effectiveness offecal coliform as an indicator ofpublic health concerns. Responsibleparties: 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. Responsibleparties: localgovernments 

### SCHEDULE: Local governments canbegin implementation ofSteps 1 and 2 in 1997. Implementation ofStep 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. Conversionfrom septic to central sewer service is already underway in some areas as part ofexisting 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 otherpathogens, ifdeemed necessary, would increase those costs. Monitoring ofwells and seepage meters is esti

## 115mated at $125-$250 per station. Funding options for residents converting to central sewer service must be developed to make implementation affordable and feasible. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality



## 118 EXPECTED BENEFITS: Efforts to converthigh-density coastal areas servedby 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 ofrestricted shellfishharvesting areas. 

### MONITORING ENVIRONMENTALRESPONSE: Nutrientloadings from on-site septic systems traditionally have beenhard to quantify, howevermonitoring and modeling calledfor in this action will assist in this effort. 

### REGULATORY NEEDS: Revisions to local govemment comprehensive plans and the development ofimplementing ordinances.


### RELATED ACTIONS: WW-4, PH-3

# Require StandardizedMonitoringofWastewater Discharges ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



### ACTION: Require standardized monitoring ofwastewaterdischarges from industrial and municipal facilities, and improve regulatory and public access to permitcompliance monitoring data.


### BACKGROUND: hnprovements in the monitoring and reporting standards governing industrial and municipal facilities discharging wastewaterto Tampa Bay will improve the accuracy ofinformation used to develop bay water quality models and pollution control standards -efforts that will leadto 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 ofmeasurementfor wastewater concentrations and flows are necessary to calculate wastewater loadings to the bay. Municipal wastewatertreatment facilities currently are required to report standardized flow measurements, but some industrial point sources are not. Furthermore, requirements to reportthe concentration ofnutrients 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. Mostcomputerized permit compliance data is available only through the Tallahassee orDistrict offices ofthe Florida Department ofEnvironmental Protection (FDEP), and oftenrequires extensive time and effortfor retrieval. This action calls for the standardized reporting ofa core group ofparameters 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 ofa core group ofparameters from all point-source facilities in the Tampa Bay watershed with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits discharging an average daily flow ofmore than 100,000 gallons ofwastewater. The core group should include concentrations oftotal nitrogen, total phosphorus, total suspended solids, total ammonia, and average daily ormonthly flow (actual discharges, not values estimated in permits). Thesecore parameters are in addition to any pennit-specific reporting that may be required. An exemption may be allowed for parameters which thatfacility is notreasonably expected to discharge. Revisions to existing permit criteria should be added as permits are renewed, pending an evaluation ofadditional costs associated with additional sampling requirements. Responsibleparty: FDEp, localgovernments 

# WW-3

117STEP 2 Enforce the use ofstandard reporting units for the core group ofparameters, including flow rate. Nutrient concentrations are required as milligrams per liter (mg/I); flow is reported as average daily flow ormonthly flow (mgd ormgm). 

### Responsibleparty: FDEP(for permitting), applicablepoint-sourcefacilities (for standardizedmonitoring andreporting) 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality



## 118 STEP 3 Monitorthe centralized data entry process instituted in 1996 by the FDEP to ensure timely updating ofpermit files within 30 days from the time a compliance report is submitted. 

### Responsibleparty: Tampa Bay NEP STEP4 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 mustrequest dataretrievals from FDEP District or Tallahassee staff. They must either go to the District office to review the information, orhave it mailed to them. Access to this database shouldbe available in a more timely fashion through the Internet or on disk. 

### Responsibleparty: FDEP Tallahassee andDistrictoffices 

### SCHEDULE: All steps can be initiated in 1997. 

### COST: Stafftime is associated with efforts to improve and provide more timely access to the compliance monitoring database. Administrative costs also will be incurred ifrule revisions are needed to mandate additional sampling ofcore parameters. The costs incurredby 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 ofthe most significant management actions for the bay. 

### MONITORING ENVIRONMENTALRESPONSE: 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 ofparameters in each NPDES permit. 

### RELATED ACTIONS: WW-2

# Revise HRS Rules to IncorporateEnvironmental PerformanceorDesign Standardsfor Septic Systems ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



# WW·4
ACTION: Revise the rules ofthe Department ofHealth 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 conductedfor the SouthwestFloridaWater Management District (SWFWMD) indicate that as much as 5 percent ofthe bay's total nitrogen loadings may come from the nearly 100,000 septic systems in the Tampa Bay watershed. The Florida Department ofHRS currently oversees and approves the siting and monitoring ofall on-site sewage treatment systems with a capacity of 10,000 gallons per day or less, including septic and otheron-site disposal systems. Although Florida's septic system permitting criteria (FloridaAdministrative 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 waterpollution exceptthose that relate to bacteria and viruses and the contamination ofpublic drinking water supplies. AJanuary 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, butthey are advisory only. Furthermore, septic systems constructed prior to the establishmentofthe current design criteria may continue to operate

- even in high-density areas where theirpresence 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 ofseptic systems and to incorporate these guidelines into HRS regulatory guidelines. This process should begin with a determination ofthe allowable concentrations or loadings ofnitrogen and pathogens to surface waters. Environmental performance standards could then be established to require a minimum level ofnitrogen 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 preventnitrogen contamination ofground or surface waters from septic tanks. Design standards could include stricter setbacks from surface waters, minimum wet-season watertable depths, soil permeability and content, and recommended maintenance intervals. At sites where performance standards cannot be 

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

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTIONPLAN Water & 

### Sediment Quality



## 120 Regular and timely maintenance ofexisting septic systems also is important, and could negate the need for more stringent design criteria. The cost ofpumping 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 aboutthe linkbetween septic systems and potential water quality problems, and promote regular maintenance ofthese systems. Finally, this action calls for the development ofa statewide septage and sludge disposal tracking system to more effectively monitorhandling and disposal practices and associated impacts. Monitoring sewage sludge is an important problem, particularly in the Hillsborough and Manatee riverbasins, because ofthe number ofpermitted disposal sites. Different agencies regulate disposal sites and itis difficultto 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 ProtectionAgency (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 ofcost-sharing programs to assisthomeowners inretrofitting orreplacing existing septic systems in areas with docnmented water quality problems. 

### Responsibleparties: Tampa Bay NEp, FDEp, HRS, localgovernments STEP 2 Evaluate whetherthe environmental design criteria shouldbe implemented through a statewide rule change or local ordinances. 

### Responsibleparties: HRS, localgovernments 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 ofseptic systems by including reminders and educational materials in local utility or waterbills. Additionally, require that septic systems be pumped out attime ofproperty transfer, or that the property ownerprovide documentation that the system has beenpumped outwithin the previous three years. 

### Responsibleparties: localgovernments with assistancefrom localhealth departments in implementingproperty transfercriteria STEP4 Develop a statewide septage and sewage sludgetracking and monitoring program to improve oversight ofmaterial handling and disposal. 

### Responsibleparties: FDEPandHRS

## ACTIONPLAN
SCHEDULE: All steps can be initiated in 1997. Water & Sediment Quality 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

### COST: Administrative costs and stafftime only are anticipated in this action, but !be environmental standards !bat are developed may require additional resources for environmental protection. Ifa statewide rule revision is deemed necessary, HRS and legal stafftime to revise !be current rule is estimated at $50,000. 

### EXPECTED BENEFITS: The establishment ofenvironmental performance or design standards for septic systems will help reduce nitrogen loadings to !bebay and prevent future siting ofseptic systems in areas vulnerable to water quality impacts. 

### MONITORING ENVIRONMENTALRESPONSE: 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 the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 122 ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality 

# TOXIC CONTAMINATION

Stonnwatertreatment, pollution prevention and improvedhazardous waste disposal are key components ofthe strategy to reduce the amount oftoxic contaminants entering the bay. Recent studies by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) point to contamination ofbay sediments at several sites around the bay by heavy metals, pesticides and other substances that at sufficiently high concentrations can be damaging ordeadly to marine life. Sediments from Hillsborough Bay, the bay's mostindustrialized sector and home to the PortofTampa, generally revealed the highest levels ofcontaminants. Concentrations ofcadmium, lead and zinc at Hillsborough Bay exceeded Florida's Probable Effects Level (PEL) for toxic contamination, guidelines that predictbiological impact to marine life. Pinellas County's Boca Ciega Bay and Bayboro Harbor also ranked among the bay's hot spots ofcontamination. Many toxic pollutants enterthe bay attached to sediments in stonnwaterrunoff, but atmospheric deposition (associated with industrial and vehicle emissions) and wastewater discharges also contribute significantquantities ofcontaminants 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 ofoysters from rural CockroachBay ranked third nationally in 1988 in total concentrations ofthe insecticide chlordane, which was bannedthat year. Sediments there also revealedhigh levels ofthe pesticide DDT, which was bannedin the early 1970s, but persists in the marine environment. To assess overall bay bottom quality, the Tampa Bay NEP will utilize a trio oftests, evaluating sedimentchemistry, toxicity, and the health and diversity ofbay bottom communities. Results from these analyses will be used to classify areas ofthe bay that are heavily contaminated, exceeding threshold levels for biological impact, and for which sedimentremediation may be considered; those that are polluted butmore readily restorable by reducing or maintaining existing pollutant loads; and toxic-free areas that shouldbe protectedfrom contamination. Management actions will vary according to sediment classification, the type ofpollutants present and technical feasibility. Results ofa recent risk assessment conductedfor the Tampa Bay NEP indicate that some metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons(PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and pesticides are present at concentrations with a significantpotential for causing toxic effects to fish and wildlife, eitherthrough directexposure to the sediments, or indirectly through the food web. The first phase ofthe study, completed in 1996, evaluated the potential risks to marine organisms and human health from pollutants in Hillsborough and Boca Ciegabays, two ofTampa Bay's most impacted sectors.The primary contaminants ofconcern identified in the study include metals (particularly chromium, copper, mercury and nickel); PAHs; PCBs; and chlorinated pesticides. Stormwaterrunoffand atmospheric deposition transport the vast majority ofthese pollutants to the bay. Both PCBs and chlorinated pesticides aggressively persist in the marine enviromnent, posing potential hazards long afterthe use ofa particularchemical has beenrestricted. 

## ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



# TX
Several state advisories have been issuedurging limited consumption ofGaff topsail catfish, Crevallejack, ladyfish, Spanishmackerel and certain shark species in Tampa Bay and other Florida coastal waters based on the total mercury detected in them. The DepartmentofHealth and Rehabilitative Services recommends thatthese fish not be consumed more than once a month by children or women ofchildbearing age, ormore than once a weekby other adults. Mercury in fish flesh appears predominantly as methylmercury which is readily absorbedby the human digestive system. Consumption ofexcess amounts of methylmercury over a prolongedperiod oftime 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 ofthe mercury problem in Florida andpotential control strategies. The second phase ofthe NEP risk assessment will focus on Bayboro Harbor and the western edge ofOldTampaBay nearAllen's Creek. These investigations are helping to identify which pollutants pose a continuing threatto the bay and those thatrepresent past or inactive sources ofpollution. The findings will be used to develop amore targeted action plan to address toxic contamination in 1997. 

### Summary ofActions to Adress Toxic Contamination TX-I Address hot spots oftoxic contamination. TX-2 Improve opportunities for properhazardous waste disposal. TX-3 Reduce toxic contaminants from ports and marinas. TX-4 Promote integrated pest management on farms to reduce pesticides inrunoff. Toxic contaminants also are addressed in the Action Plans onAtmospheric Deposition, StormwaterRunoffandWastewater.



## 123

# Address Hot Spots ofContamination 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality



## 124 ACTION: Address hot spots oftoxic contamination in the bay's mostheavily impactedbasins. 

### BACKGROUND: A 1996 risks assessment conductedfor the NEP in Hillsborough and Boca Ciega bays indicates the presence ofsome contaminants atconcentrations that couldpose significantharm to fish and wildlife eitherthrough direct contact with the sediments orindirectly 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 ofthe 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 greaterriskto predators that consume smallerfish and organisms. The study also assessed the potential for human healthrisks from eating fish caught in Hillsborough and Boca Ciega bays. The second phase ofthe risk assessment, focusing on Bayboro Harbor and the western coast ofOldTampa Bay, will be finalized in early 1997. The primary contaminants ofconcern in Hillsborough and Boca Ciega Bays are metals (chromium, copper, mercury, silver and nickel); PAHs; PCBs; and chlorinated pesticides. Atmospheric deposition and stormwaterrunoffconvey the bulk ofthese pollutants to the bay. Mercury loadings are linkedto atmospheric deposition, while chromium and coppertend to enter the bay in stormwaterrunoff. A 1995 state health advisory urged Florida residents to limit their consumption ofcertain fish in Tampa Bay and other coastal waters because they contained elevated levels ofmercury. The top anthropogenic sources ofPAHs include air pollution from the combustion offossil fuels, waste incinerators and open-burning fires, as well as runofffrom roadways. Atmospheric deposition also is consideredresponsible for the majority ofPCBs 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 oftransformer oil. They also can enter the bay in stormwater runoffwhen contaminated soils are disturbed, for example, during farming or construction. Both PCBs and chlorinated pesticides are very persistentin sediments and tend to bioaccumulate in organisms. Chlorinatedpesticides ofsignificant concern are DDT, chlordane, endrin, heptachlor epoxide and lindane. Each ofthese has been banned orheavily 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, rodentsand birds until 1986. Heptachlor was manufactured for use as an insecticide, buthas been restricted since 1983 except for use in controlling termites. Lindane has notbeen 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. 

## ACTIONPLAN Water & SedimentQuality 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

Stormwater treatment is a key strategy in toxics reduction, since many toxic contaminants enterthe bay attached to sediments in runoff. The NEP is funding a project in 1997 to identify local and regional stormwater treatmentprojects that reduce the flow ofcontaminants to areas ofgreatest concern. Best management practices (BMPs) to reduce total suspended solids (TSS) inrunoff include retention ponds, vegetatedbuffer strips, swales and underdrains, as well as non-structural means such as street sweeping or stricterzoning standards to limit development density in sensitive areas. Treatmentmethods that address large or multiparcel sites are preferred, since they increase the likelihood ofoperational success and may offer an added opportunity for habitat creation. In areas oflong-standing sediment contamination, where the source ofpollution is no longer active, bay managers may considerthe cost-effectiveness ofothertechniques such as sediment capping orremoval. 

### STRATEGY: The NEP strategy to address hot spots ofcontamination is to identify and implement priority stormwatertreatment 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 oftoxic contaminants loadings, is addressed in a separate action plan. STEP 1 Implement local and regional projects identified in the NEP's Priority List ofProjects to Address Toxic Contamination, slatedfor 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. Ifstormwater improvements and source-control strategies fail to achieve adequate results, consider options for and feasibility ofsediment cleanup or containment. Responsibleparties: localgovernments, Florida Departmentof EnvironmentalProtection (FDEP) STEP 2 Continue to monitor sediment chemistry, toxicity and benthic communities to assess changes and trends. Responsibleparties: localgovernments 

### SCHEDULE: Step 1 can be initiated in 1997 following completion ofthe second phase ofthe risk assessment and identification ofpriority projects to address toxic contaminants. Step 2 is ongoing. 

# TX·1

125Costs to implement stormwaterimprovements and other controls depend on the method selected. Possible funding sources include SouthwestFloridaWater Management District's SurfaceWaterImprovement & Managementprogram (SWFWMD-SWIM) through Districtbasinboards, local government stormwaterutilities' operating and maintenance budgets, and permit application fees. Sedimentchemistry and benthic monitoring for the bay is estimatedto cost $195,000 per year. The Tampa Bay NEP has developed a computer model to use in selecting the most cost-effective mix oftechniques to employ in a given area. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

# TX.1~ ACTIONPLAN
COST: Water & Sediment Quality



## 128 EXPECTED BENEFITS: Reduced toxic contamination ofbay sediments and associatedrisks to marine life and human health as a result ofreduced pollutantloadings and otherefforts 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 PollutantDischarge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, will be used to assess the effectiveness ofmanagement 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

## ACTIONPLAN 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 about718,000 tons ofregulated hazardous waste each year, including approximately 116,000 tons from the Tampa Bay region. Experts estimate that another 10-20percentis 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, ofhazardous waste per month (or I kg ofacutely toxic hazardous waste) and whose waste disposal is not strictly regulated. Households and CE-SQGs are an important source ofpollution. Improperhandling, storage and disposal ofhazardous materials can lead to air, soil, surface water and groundwater contamination, which can directly or indirectly impact the bay and public health and safety. Ofkey 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 ofoperation orby location. Hillsborough County, for example, operates two household hazardous waste facilities, inApollo Beach and on Sheldon Road (Town & Country), which are open one weekend permonth 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 canbe costly and complex. In Hillsborough County, CE-SQGs may transporttheir waste to the County's Orient Road facility onWednesday 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 itreceives. 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 properhazardous waste disposal by exploring options to better serve and educate these markets, 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



# TX·2

127including whetherto establishpermanenthousehold hazardous waste collection facilities in major communities not currently served. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality



## 128 STRATEGY: STEP I Organize a taskforce to evaluate methods to improve opportunities for hazardous waste disposal for small businesses andresidents, such as: promote "milkrun" services, in which haulers arrange to pickup waste from CE-SQGs on days they service municipal landfills; evaluate the feasibility ofraising occupational licensefees to "prepay" waste disposal costs, instead ofcharging for the service later; allow CE-SQGs to use household hazardous waste collection facili

### ties; provide mobile collection service atcentral sites several times a year, perhaps in conjunction with large events that draw high attendance; expand existing service eitherby expanding weekend hours ofoperation, providing recycling "swap shops"

- such as the one operated by Pinellas County

- or siting additional permanentfacilities where demand has beenjustified; encouragebroaderutilization ofexisting facilities by increasing promotion, and develop partnerships with majorretail stores to promote municipal collectionfacilities; 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 ofmaterials such as paint. Additionally, evaluate ways to reduce consumerdemand/consumption of hazardous waste materials by promoting"green" shopping through partnerships with majorretailers. 

### Responsibleparties: Florida Departmentof EnvironmentalProtection (FDEP) and Tampa Bay NEPto organize workshop The taskforce shouldinclude city andcounty hazardous waste/solid waste coordinators, FDEp, CE-SQGprogram coordinators, usergroups andtheNEP STEP 2 Encourage the City ofTampa and otherunserved communities to evaluate the cost-effectiveness ofestablishing permanent household hazardous waste collectionfacilities. 

### Responsibleparties: Localgovernments, FDEPSTEP 3 Cross-market and aggressively promote pollutionprevention 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 targetbusiness sectors in developing pollution prevention plans by offering industry-specific best managementpractices and technical assistance. 

## ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

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 ofcommerce and the University ofSouth Florida small business development center, through chamber publications and presentations. Invite chambers to serve as partners in promoting the concept ofBusinesses for a Cleaner Future by aggressively promoting these services and targeting 100 chamber members for participation/sign-up during a given time period. 

### Responsibleparties: localgovernments, Hillsborough County EnvironmentalProtection Commission's CE-SQG Program, in cooperation with chambers ofcommerce, FDEP STEP4 Develop summary recommendations from steps 1 to 3 for review by the Community Advisory and Management Committees ofthe Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. 

### Responsibleparties: Task Force 

### SCHEDULE: All steps canbe initiated and completed in 1997. 

### COST: All steps require staffand administrative time. Implementation costs will vary according to recommendations. Costs to construct and operate apermanent household hazardous waste collectionfacility vary depending on design and level ofservice. The Pinellas County facility, builtwithin a Class I landfill, costbetween $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 enterthe bay in stormwaterrunoff, orthrough groundwater, wastewateror atmospheric deposition.



## 129

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 130 ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality


### MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE: Municipal solid waste departments trackboth the amount ofhazardous waste they receive and statistics on usage. These canbe evaluated as recommendations are implementedto measure progress. Local goverurnents conductbay sediment sampling to track the amount and distribution oftoxic contaminants in the bay. 

### REGULATORY NEEDS: None anticipated.


### RELATED ACTIONS: TX-l, TX-3

## ACTIONPLAN 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 preventionprograms. 

### BACKGROUND: Studies by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have revealed relatively high levels ofsediment contamination at some sites in Tampa Bay. The mosttainted sediments were found in northern Hillsborough Bay nearthe Port of Tampa, especially inYbor Channel and adjoining waterways. Otherhot spots ofcontamination include Bayboro Harbor, Boca Ciega Bay and portions ofwestern Middle Tampa Bay. Toxic contaminants inTampa 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 stormwaterrunoff, but also through industrial wastewater discharges and through the air. Substances may include petroleumproducts, metals, metal treatment chemicals and anti-fouling paints, and contaminants associated with ship repair and scrap iron stockpiles. Marinas located atthe water's edge also are key sources ofpollution. 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 waterdischarged directly from boats. This action calls on the Florida Department ofEnvironmental Protection (FDEP) to promote its P2 Programto local ports and marinas. The NEP also urges local government waste managementprograms to focus more attention on these businesses. P2 provides confidential and free waste stream assessments and recommendations on ways companies can reduce pollutionfrom theirfacilities. Local govemments provide education and outreachthrough theirhazardous waste and small quantities generator (SQG) programs. Additionally, the NEP recommends that a local workgroup evaluate several ofthe top regional and national pollutionpreventionprograms 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 ReauthorizationAct (CZRA) of 1990 to adopt programs to control various sources ofcoastal non-point pollution. Section 6217 ofCZRAincludes recommendations onbestmanagement practices for marinas and boaters, which will be evaluated as part ofthe effort to design an effective pollutionprevention campaign for Tampa Bay. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



# TX·3

131

### STRATEGY: STEP 1 Workwith local port authorities and FDEPto promote P2 waste stream assessments to port tenants and users. Participants would receive a free onsite assessment followed by a report identifying pollutionprevention and cost-saving strategies. 

### Responsibleparties: FDEPP2 Program, in cooperation with theport authorities andthe Tampa Bay NEP 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTIONPLAN Water & 

### Sediment Quality



## 132 STEP 2 Encourage marinas to request a P2 environmental audit to identify pollution sources and appropriate bestmanagementpractices. Targetthe bay's 10 largestmarinas for participation and audits by October 1997. Identify majormarinas and yacht clubs in the Tampa Bay area and promote the programthrough directmail, telephone follow-up and presentations to marina associations. Seekendorsements and co-promotion through these membership associations and from the Centerfor Marine Conservation and the CleanWaterTrustprogram ofBOATUS. 

### Responsibleparties: FDEPP2 Program, with assistancefrom local Florida Sea GrantExtension Program, Tampa BayWatch STEP 3 Review model programs thatpromote environmentally responsible marina andboat maintenance practices

- including FDEP's emerging Clean Marina Program

- for implementation in the TampaBay region. Provide recommendations to the Management Conference ofthe Tampa Bay NEP by October 1997. Pursue public-private partnerships to maximize promotion and cost-share opportunities. 

### Responsibleparties: Tampa Bay NEp, FDEp, Center forMarine Conservation, Tampa BayWatch, usergroups STEP4 Aggressively promote P2 to the business community and local governments who can also boost local business participation. As part ofthis effort, evaluate P2's existing marketing plan and business utilization for ways to improve its coverage. Provide recommendations to FDEPby October 1997. 

### Responsibleparties: Tampa Bay NEp, in cooperation with FDEPand localgovernments 

### SCHEDULE: The NEP, Tampa PortAuthority and FDEPtargetedTampa port tenants and users in 1996 through a directmail solicitation. Otherports 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 theiruse oftoxic materials and associated disposal costs. Cost-effective educational programs canbe 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 ofbestmanagementpractices atports and marinas will reduce pollution to the bay. 

## ACTIONPLAN
EXPECTED BENEFITS:

MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE: Water & Sediment Quality 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



# TX·3 Sediment quality monitoring by local governments, and waste stream reports that identify reductions, can assess progress inredncing toxic contamination. 

### REGULATORY NEEDS: None anticipated.


### RELATED ACTIONS: TX-l, TX-2, PH-3



## 133

# Promote Integrated PestManagement on Farms to Reduce Pesticides 

# in Runoff 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality



## 134 ACTION: Encourage the use ofIntegrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques on fanns to reduce pesticide residues in the bay from agricultural runoff. 

### BACKGROUND: Agriculture is an importantcomponent ofthe bay region's economy, with an estimated value of$1.3 billion a year. About one-third ofall the landin the bay watershed is used for some fonu ofagriculture. Pasture andrange lands comprise the majority of that acreage, followed by citrus groves androw crops. Because Florida's wet, humid climate promotes the growth ofweeds, molds and insects thatcan damage crops, use ofpesticides, herbicides and fungicides is greater in Florida than in any other state. These chemicals tend to adhere to fine soilparticles thatmay be carried in nmoffto streams, lakes and bays, where they canbe assimilatedby aquatic animals through the food web, impairing reproduction or growth. A recent comprehensive study conducted by the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA) assessed the levels and effects ofpesticides inbay sediments. While concentrations ofmost substances were below levels expectedto cause biological harm, the Tampa Bay NEP has identified several pesticides ofconcernto Tampa Bay: chlordane, dieldrin, DDT, endosulfan, endrin, heptachlor epoxide, lindane and mirex. Ofthese, only endosulfan is still actively usedby fanuers in 

### the Tampa Bay watershed, to control whiteflies and other insects on tomatoes. The remainder are barmed orseverely restricted. IPM, a programutilizing biological and chemical weapons to efficiently control pests, is a proven method ofreducing use oftoxic chemicals and minimizing their release to the enviromnent. IPM techniques include examination ofcrops to identify pest infestations; use ofleast toxic control materials such as soaps oroils; use ofpheromones to disruptinsect reproductive cycles; andrelease ofpestpredators such as ladybugs. Many fanuers employ "scouts," full-time or contract employees trained to identify and assess the severity ofpestproblems 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 mostfanuers use at least some aspects in theirpestmanagement programs. Surveys now being conducted by the University ofFlorida's Institute ofFood andAgricultural Sciences (IFAS) will clarify the extent ofIPM 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 attendto earn Continuing Education Credits, which canbe appliedtoward the renewal oftheirpesticide 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 ofpesticide options for 54 different crops grown in Florida. 

## ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY However, many farmers are not aware or do not take advantage ofthese 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 ofthis has been to shift some ofthe decision-making from the growers to the packing houses. Hence, packing house managers, as well as growers, may need to be targetedby rPM educational programs. Because most farm operators obtainpesticide application licenses from the state Department ofAgriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS), tying rPM education to the licenses would ensure that farmers are exposed to rPM concepts. The licenses mustbe renewed every five years, and afarmer can meet the renewal requirements either by passing an exam ortaking courses equal to eight Continuing Education Units (CEUs). Requiring that one section ofthe exam pertain specifically to rPM practices, orthat at least one CEU credit be devoted to rPM training, would offer farmers an incentive to learn more aboutrPM concepts. The FDACS is coordinating a cooperativetaskforce, composed ofexperts from the agricultural and scientific sectors, to encourage the properor limited application of potential harmful pesticides nearwaterways. Representatives ofvarious chemical companies also serve on this group, which has concentrated its efforts to date in South Florida. This action calls for the Tampa Bay NEPto participate in this effortby sponsoring a meeting ofthe U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) taskforce in the bay region to share information with local farmers and scientists and obtain recommendations onrestricting or reducing the use ofcertainpesticides. 

### STRATEGY:
STEP I Revise the state pesticide applicator licensing renewal criteriato incorporate in the renewal exam a specific section on rPM. For applicants who choose to earn CEU credits instead oftaking the exam, at least one ofthe credits should encompass rPM training. Responsibleparties: FDACS, IFAS, State Pesticide Coordinator STEP 2 Seek increased federal supportfrom the federal governmentto implement existing rPM educational and application programs. Responsibleparties: Tampa Bay NEp, Agency on Bay Management STEP 3 Hold a one-day workshop ofthe pesticide taskforce in the 

### bay region and encourage participationby local growers, scientists and environmental managers. The workshop should explore: the extent and associated environmental effects ofpesticides specific recommendations to reduce or restrict the use ofthose that 

# TX·4

135present a riskto the bay and bay wildlife 

### Responsibleparties: Tampa Bay NEp, FDACS, EPA 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality



## 13B STEP4 hnplement the recommendations ofthe taskforce (Step 3), preferably through voluntary cooperation by manufacturers and area farmers. 

### SCHEDULE: Step 1 could be initiated in 1997 or atthe next review ofthe pesticide license renewal criteria, with the development ofnew guidelines focusing on knowledge ofrPM. Steps 2 and 3 canbe initiated in 1997. Recommendations couldbe implemented in 1998. 

### COST: The costs ofrevising pesticide license renewal criteria need to be determined. Steps 2, 3 and 4 can be accomplished with existing resources. 

### EXPECTED BENEFITS: Reduced use ofpesticides by areafarmers will reduce the risks to birds, fish and other aquatic life in Tampa Bay. 

### MONITORING ENVIRONMENTALRESPONSE: Annual measurements ofpesticide concentrations in sediments will be conducted by local governments as part ofthe benthic monitoring program forTampaBay. 

### REGULATORY NEEDS: Revisions to the pesticide applicatorlicensing renewal criteria developed by the FloridaDepartment ofAgriculture and Consumer Services. 

### RELATED ACTIONS: SW-8, SW-9

## ACTIONPLAN


# PuBLIC HEALTH Water & Sediment Quality 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

# D espite recent strides toward bay recovery, many residents still regard the bay as too pollutedto swim in, and its fish and shellfish too contaminated to eat. This lingering, and largely incorrect, perception stems from the 1970s, when the piping ofraw orpartially 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 ofthe highest level, and the bay is beginning to regain its status as apremier recreational resource. However, substantial emergency discharges ofraw orpartially treated sewage still occur when heavy rains cause stormwaterto seep into some municipal sewer systems, and bacterial contamination still results in the occasional closure ofbay beaches to swimming and shellfish beds to recreational harvest. Correcting these problems would be a significant step toward maximizing recreational enjoyment ofthe bay and allaying public fears about its safety. Both swimming and shellfishharvesting 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 ofcontamination, and not on actual sampling that detects high levels ofcoliform bacteria. Local health agencies around the bay use different criteria to determine when a beach should be closed. No common water quality standards existfor 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 ofcontamination

- not merely the potential ofpollutionbased 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 orintentional discharges ofsewage to the bay during severe storm events. Sewage overflows are ofparticular 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 ofrecent emergency discharges ofsewage into waterways during heavy rains, St. Petersburg is now under a consent order issuedby the Florida Department ofEnvironmental 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 improvedtreatment facilities are not offsetby inadequate collection and distribution networks. 

# PH

137

### SUMMARY OFACTIONS TO ADDRESS PUBLIC HEALTH 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality

FOR TAMPA BAY 

# PH PH-l PH-2 Reduce the occurrence ofmunicipal sewer overflows to the bay. Establish water quality standards for saltwaterbeaches.



## 138 PH-3 Install additional sewage pump-outfacilities for recreational boaters and live-aboard vessels.

# Reduce the Occurrence ofMunicipal Sewer Overflows to theBay ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

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 seweroverllows are a growing problemnationwide, as sewage transport and collection systems age and increasing population growth taxes the capacity of these networks to accommodate increasedflows. In the Tampa Bay region, the problem is compoundedby low land elevations, high groundwatertables and heavy rains, which can result in vast amounts ofstormwater infiltrating sanitary sewer systems, prompting emergency bypasses oftreatmentplants and direct discharge ofraw or partially treated sewage to Tampa Bay. InAugust 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 ofthe problem and appropriate corrective actions, and the Florida Department ofEnvironmental Protection (FDEP) subsequently initiated an enforcement action againstthe city. Similar overllow problems have occurred in Pinellas and Hillsborough counties, and environmental officials expect continued problems as existing collection and transport systems age orbecome inadequate for increased flows due to growth. St. Petersburg's experience has higWighted the extent ofthe problem in the bay area, and helped to identify areas in which improvements are needed to ensure adequate notification, investigation and correction ofthese problems. For instance, current wastewater regulations only address the operation and maintenance ofwastewater treatment plants, with no review ofcollection systems. Although utilities are required to reportunpermitted emergency discharges to the FDEP within 24 hours, there is often no way to know what problems existuntil an overllow has occurred. Then the utility is often placed in an enforcementmode, 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 oftheir own - since the wastewater permit is issued to the utility owning and operating the treatmentplant. RecognizIng the serious threats posed to water quality and human health by unintentional overllows, the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) Region IV office inAtlanta 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 the

# COURSE

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 waterhave been aproblem iu some parts ofthe bay where swimming is permitted, such as Spa Beach in St. Petersburg and Picnic Island Park inTampa. The closures are usually a result of poor water quality, as evidenced by the presence offecal coliform, usually found iu small areas inhigh concentrations afterheavy rainstorms. Sampling ofarea beaches is typically conductedmonthly by local public health units. However, there are no uniform standards for restrictiug swimming and otherwatercontact recreation, such as windsurfing, in saline waters. Consequently, bay area communities have applied different standards to determine whetherbeaches 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 ofpotential public health problems, since it does not detect viruses or otherpathogens that may be present. When more accurate analytical indicators have been fully developed, local governments may want to considerusing those as a substitute orin combination with testiug for fecal coliform. Consistent standards throughout the region would improve public healthprotection and maximizerecreational use ofthe bay while helping to identify sources ofwater quality problems at bay beaches. 

### STRATEGY:



## 142 Step I

Step Z Review existing standards, parameters and sampling techniques used by local governments andpublic health units for testiug ofbeach waters. A summary ofthese standards has been completed as part ofa technical study for the Tampa Bay NEP. 

### Responsible Parties: the state Departmentof Health andRehabilitative Services (HRS) is responsiblefor establishing waterqualityparameters forpublic healthpurposes andshouldleadthis effort, with local coordinationprovidedby the Tampa Bay RegionalPlanning Council. Local health units andenvironmentalagencies also shouldparticipate. Estoblish uniform stondords. smnpling techniques aud mouitoring schedules for waters near public beaches. The standards shouldbeparameters commonly monitoredfor public health concerns and shouldbe formally adopt-edby each government in the form ofa local regulation. 

## ACTION PLAN Water & Sediment Quality 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE
Responsible Parties: HRS, localgovernmenthealth units andenvironmentalmanagementdepartments 

### SCHEDULE: Step I can begin in 1997, with standards available for adoption in 1998. 

### COST: Only stafftime, document preparation and administrative costs are anticipated iffecal coliform is retained as the primary analytical indicator. Ifnew indicators are recommended, additional sampling and testing costs will have to be determined. 

### EXPECTED BENEFITS: Increased public health protection and increased knowledge aboutthe status and problems ofbay waters. 

### MONITORING ENVIRONMENTALRESPONSE: Using a uniform set ofstandards and sampling techniques to test beach waters will increase the effectiveness ofbay monitoring programs. Sampling can be done more frequently and results can be compared to other portions ofthe bay, so trends in water quality canbe 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

# InstallAdditional Sewage Pump-outFacilitiesfor RecreationalBoatersand Live-aboardVessels 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality


# PH-a

144 ACTION: Assist local governments in obtaining assistance through the Florida Clean VesselAct grant program to construct sewage pump-out facilities atpublicly owned marinas bordering Tampa Bay. 

### BACKGROUND: In 

### the past, efforts to reduce sewage discharges in Tampa Bayjustifiably have focused on improvements to land-based wastewatertreatmentplants serving one or more municipalities. Butwith these facilities now operating under strict pollution prevention rules, attention should be shifted to the smaller, yet continual discharges ofthe thousands ofboaters who routinely ply the bay. There are 214 marinas in the three counties surrounding the bay. Ofthe 25 that have pump-outfacilities, 19 are in Pinellas County, and three each are in Hillsborough and Manatee. Ofthe 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 wouldhelp reduce fecal colifonn as well as nitrogen loadings and suspended solids associated with sewage while encouraging boaters to become more responsible stewards ofthe bay they enjoy. Pathogens associated with human wastes can severely impact a body ofwater, leading to restrictions on bathing, swimming and shellfish harvesting. Although the exact effect ofsewage discharges from boats onTampa Bay is not known, studies in other waterways indicate the untreatedhuman wastes ofa single boatercan be equal to the treated wastes ofthousands ofpeople. 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 oflive-aboards reside at bay area marinas. Guidelines proposed by the U.S. CleanVessel 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 orlongerto have a working toilet with waste storage on board when in state waters. To aid compliance, the state is offering grants for the nextfive years to assist marinas in adding or improving pump-outfacilities. The grants, administered by the Florida Office ofWaterway Management, will cover75 percent ofthe project's cost, and can be used for public education and for planning, pennitting, purchasing and installation ofpump-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, ratherthan septic tanks orpackage plants. Anotheroption would be to implement a portable collection system, called a "honey barge," thattravels to boaters on the water and perfonns pump-outs.To further encourage responsible stewardship, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) is developing a CleanMarina Program to encourage marinas to adoptbestmanagement practices (BMPs)

- emphasizing that what is good for the environment also is good for business. 

## ACTIONPLAN Water & 

### Sediment Quality 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

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 ofboaters, particularly within the city ofTampa. The U.S. Coast Guard or community boating groups may be able to assist in identifying the most frequently used marinas. 

### Responsibleparties: City ofTampa andothermunicipalities, Florida Marine Patrol, Agency on Bay Management (ABM) Based on the results ofStep I, encourage the responsible municipality to apply for a state grant to construct sewage pump-out stations at marinas. 

### Responsibleparties: localgovernmental environmentalmanagement departments, ABM, Tampa Bay NationalEstuary 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 ofthe facility or portable system and how to use it. Disseminate educational materials to boating clubs in the region making them aware ofthe facility. 

### Responsibleparties: localgovernments, local boating clubs Encourage participation in FDEP's BMPprogram for marinas. Consider implementing the program at a publicly owned marina to serve as an example for commercial marinas. 

### Responsible Parties: localgovernments, 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 canbe initiated in 1997. 

### COST: Installation and construction costs vary depending on type ofequipment selected. Costs for a stationary orportable pump-out unitrange from approximately $2,000- $6,000. Costs for aportable toilet waste station vary from $1,100-$1,800. With a state grant paying 75 percent ofthe construction costs, the project's costs to a municipality wouldbe substantially reduced. In addition, construction and maintenance costs could be recouped by charging boaters a minimal userfee. 

### EXPECTED BENEFITS: Providing sewage pump-out services for boaters will help reduce pathogens as well as nitrogen and solids in Tampa Bay. 

## 145

# CHARTING the

# COURSE
PH-3'

148 

## ACTIONPLAN Water & Sediment Quality


### MONITORING ENVIRONMENTALRESPONSE: Use ofthe pump-out stations canbe tracked to determine effectiveness. Boaters atthe participating facility also canbe snrveyed to ascertain ifthey are using the pump-out service and how it canbe improved. 

### REGULATORY NEEDS: None anticipated, with the exception ofpermits required for installation. 

### RELATED ACTIONS: PH-I, PH-2, WW-2PHOTO: NICKTOTH 

# BayHabitats 

# Tampa Bay's rich mosaic ofunderwater and coastal habitats supporthundreds of species offish and wildlife, from the familiar brown pelican to the bottom-hugging sea squirt. However, since the 1950s, almost halfofthe bay's original saltwater wetlands have been lost to dredging and filling for shoreline and port development. Bay seagrasses declined by nearly 40 percentin this same period, although they are waging a comebackin some areas thanks to recent improvements in water quality and reduced dredging and filling. Neighboring upland habitats ofpine forest, oakhammock and shrub also have been heavily impactedby development. Almost all coastal pine forests have been eliminated from the shores ofTampa Bay. These bufferzones and associated freshwater wetlands provide critical habitatfor 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 ofthe bay'sjuvenile fisheries, also have sustained damage from development, invasive exotic plants and diversions offresh water for irrigation. The restoration and protection ofthese diverse habitats is crucial to the bay's health. Studies by the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (NEP) suggest that more than 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



# BH

147

### 12,000 acres ofseagrass can eventually be recovered along the bay's shallow shelfby "holding the line" on existing nitrogen loadings and offsetting any new nitrogen increases that are expected to occurwith 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 ofcoastal and associated uplandhabitats and includes a preliminary list ofpriority projects for restoration. The overall target is to restore a minimum of 100 acres oflow-salinity tidal marshhabitat every five years and to protect and enhance the bay's existing salt marsh and mangrove areas. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTIONPLAN Bay Habitats



## 148 Habitat protection, through public land acquisition and conservation easements onprivate property, is the other focal point ofthe habitat masterplan for TampaBay, which identifies 28 specific sites as priorities for protection. The majority ofthese sites were incorporated into the 1996 Save Our Rivers/Preservation 2000 Plan ofthe Southwest FloridaWater Management District (SWFWMD), dramatically increasing the chances thatthese 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 ofbayfront property atTerra Ceia Isles in Manatee County. Acquisition ofthis important tract brings more than 6 percent ofthe bay's total mangrove acreage, and several hundred acres ofvital low-salinity, freshwater and upland habitat, into public ownership and substantially boosts restoration opportunities. Several adjacent parcels ofland totaling about 4,700 acres have beenproposed 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 ofdegraded 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 andpreserve the quantity, quality and diversity ofseagrass communities. The long-term goal is to restore 12,350 acres ofseagrass and protect the bay's existing 25,600 acres.

• Restore an optimum balance ofwetland and associated uplandhabitats for

fish and wildlife, while protecting and enhancing existing habitats. Specific targets include: restoration ofa minimum of 100 acres oflow-salinity tidal marsh every five years, for a total increase over time of 1,800 acres, and the preservation ofthe existing habitat protection and enhancement ofthe bay's mangrove and saltmarsh communities which total nearly 14,000 acres restoration overtime of 150 acres ofsalt barrenhabitat

## ACTIONPLAN Bay Habitats

• Protect hard-bottom, oysterreefand soft-bottom communities. 

### SUMMARY OFACTIONS FORBAY HABITATS BH-l Implement the Tampa Bay masterplan for habitatrestoration and Protection. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



# 8M
BH-2

BH-3

BH-4 BH-5

BH-6

BH-7 BH-8 Establish and implement mitigation criteria forTampa Bay, and direct mitigation to high priority projects. Reduce propeller scarring ofseagrass and pursue seagrass transplanting opportunities at select sites. Restrict impacts to hard-bottom communities. Improve management ofparking and access areas along causeways and coastal areas. Encourage waterfrontresidents to enhance shorelines and limitrunofffrom yards. Improve compliance with and enforcement ofwetlandpermits. Expandhabitatmapping and monitoring programs. NOTE: An additional action in the draftTampa Bay management planrecommended the passage ofa law requiring mandatory education ofboaters. The Florida Legislature approved a phased-inboater education bill in 1996.



## 149

# Implement the Tampa Bay Master Plan for Habitat Restoration and Protection 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTIONPLAN Bay Habitats



## 150 ACTION: Implementthe Tampa Bay Master Plan for HabitatRestoration 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 greaterproportion than others, the NEP MasterPlan for HabitatRestoration and Protection seeks to restore the historic balance ofhabitats inTampa 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 oflow-salinity tidal streams found along the dozens ofmeandering creeks that eventually enterTampa Bay. These quiet areas, critical to the life cycle offish such as snookand mullet and birds like the greatblue heron and snowy egret, comprised abouthalfofall estuarine wetlandhabitats at the tum ofthe century. Today, these low-salinity habitats make up about 22 percent ofthe total. In contrast, mangrove forests also made up about50 percent ofthe shoreline in 1900. Today, they accountfor about 73 percent ofthe remaining shoreline vegetation

- although mangroves - like all ofthe bay's habitats

- have experienced substantial declines in acreage. The plan seeks to restore a minimum of 100 acres oflow-salinity tidal streams every five years, while preserving and enhancing existing mangrove and saltmarsh vegetation. The Plan also identifies 28 sites as priorities for habitat protection, eitherthrough direct purchase oflands or othermeans such as conservation easements onprivate property. Mostofthese sites were recently incorporated into the Southwest Florida WaterManagement District's (SWFWMD) Save ourRivers/Preservation 2000 Plan, which sets priorities for public lands acquisition. While the NEP Plan mostheavily focuses on repairing tidal streams, otherhabitats also will be gradually restored. Attention will be directed to salt barrens (extremely salty high marsh), upland forests and mud flats, all ofwhich 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 inpartthrough local land acquisition efforts. The concept of restoring the balance is relatively new andhas importantimplications for Tampa Bay and other coastal areas. Traditionally, habitatrestoration and land acquisition have been largely opportunistic endeavors: Agencies and communities have sought to purchase and restore habitatbased on whatwas available or, in some cases, most visibly connected to the bay. This approach towardhighly visible projects helped to build community awareness ofthe envirornnental plight and needs ofthebay at a time when this was critically needed. It also demonstrated to skeptics that habitat restoration was possible. 

## ACTIONPLAN Bay Habitats 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

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 ofkey wildlife "guilds," or groups ofanimals that share commonhabitat and feeding preferences. The white ibis provides a textbookexample ofhow this new planning approach might protect an impacted species. Populations ofthe white ibis have declined dramatically in the last half-century, resulting in its listing by the FGFWFC as a species ofspecial concern. Adult ibis nest along the bay, but require inland freshwater sources offood for their young. These shallow freshwater wetlands or "frog" ponds have beenhard hit hard by development

- forcing the ibis to travel farther and farther to find food for theiryoung. The NEP Plan outlines four management strategies for the protection and restoration ofseasonal 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 mitigationbanking 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 combinedTECO and Reeder Farms property south ofCockroach Bay where three ofthe four white ibis foraging zones overlap. The third strategy is to create or restore marshes on publicly owned land. Finally, the Planrecommends that communities and agencies actively seekto acquire new properties for habitatrestoration and protection, and especially for seasonal marsh restoration. Other components ofthe NEP Plan address management ofpublic lands, especially exotic species control and eradication. The Plan also seeks to direct mitigation to priority restoration projects using criteria discussed inAction BH-2. The Habitat Restoration and Protection Master Plan forTampa Bay is available under separate coverfrom the NEP. 

### ONGOING EFFORTS: Already, about 100 acres along Tampa Bay have been restored through projects financed primarily by the SWFWMD's SurfaceWater & Management (SWIM) program and the Florida Department ofEnviromnental Protection's Pollution Recovery Trust Fund. Several projects now underway and in the planning stages will boostthat number by up to 1,000 acres. Pinellas, Hillsborough and Manatee counties all have administrative programs for the public purchase ofenviromnentally sensitive lands. Pinellas and Hillsborough counties' programs are funded by local taxes that complement state-fundedpublic land acquisition programs such as Preservation 2000, Save OurRivers, 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 WaterUtilities 

# BH-1

151Enterprise Fund. Private land acquisition programs such as the Nature Conservancy also contribute to the preservation ofupland and wetland habitats. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTIONPLAN Bay Habitats



## 152 STRATEGY: This action presents steps to implementthe Tampa Bay Master Planfor Habitat Restoration and Protection, including elements to secure and preserve funding sources. STEP I Finalize the list ofpriority restoration projects compiledfrom the individual plans ofvarious agencies and local governments. 

### Responsibleparties: Tampa Bay NEp, in cooperation with the established workgroup of agencies, organizations andlocalgovernments STEP 2 Ensure thatpriorities for habitat restoration and protection are incorporated into the 1997 action plans submitted to NEP by local governments and agencies for implementation ofthe CCMP. Additionally, ensure that these projects are incorporated into local government and agency permitreviews and conditions. 

### Responsibleparties: localgovernments, FDEp, SWFWMD, FGFWFC STEP 

### 3 Directpublic and private mitigation to restoration projects identified as priorities. (SeeAction BH-2 on mitigationbanking) 

### Responsibleparties: FDEp, SWFWMD, FGFWFC, Environmental Protection Commission (EPC) of Hillsborough County STEP4 Reconvene workgroup every two years, beginning in 1998, to assess progress toward goals and to reevaluate priorities. 

### Responsibleparties: Tampa Bay NEP STEP

### 5 To support implementation ofrestoration and protection efforts:

• Pursue a permanent source offunding 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 offunding for Preservation 2000, the state environmentallands acquisition program;

• Amend provisions ofthe Hillsborough County PollutionRecovery Trust

Fund to require that monies collected from fines be spentwithin a reasonable period oftime. 

### SCHEDULE: Step 1 is ongoing with finalization ofpriorities anticipated in early 1997. Several restoration projects are already underway and considerable progress is being made in the area ofpublic 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 habitatrestoration projects may provide some basis for comparison. The current SWIM plan for Tampa Bay includes a total of 16 major and 15-21 smallerprojects with a total budget of$4.5 million or about $1.5 million armually. SWFWMD cost analyses indicate that the costfor the creation/restoration ofintertidal 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. 

## ACTIONPLAN
COST: Bay Habitats 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

# BH-1

EXPECTED BENEFITS: Implementation ofthis plan will improve the quality, diversity and quantity ofcritical coastal habitats that supportbay wildlife.


### MONITORING ENVIRONMENTALRESPONSE: Progress in implementing the habitat restoration and land acquisition master plan and in meeting specific targets for habitat recovery will be monitoredby local governments and agencies and reported in a Biermial Bay Monitoring Report.


### REGULATORY NEEDS: Revisions to trustfund provisions and other regulatory changes may be necessary to ensure consistentfunding 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 the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

# BtI~2 ACTIONPLAN Bay Habitats



## 154 ACTION: Establish criteria for mitigation ofimpacts to tidal habitats in the Tampa Bay watershed, and develop a regional mitigationbanking plan that implements those criteria. 

### BACKGROUND: Mitigation-the process by which applicants whose projects impact wetlands create new ones in theirplace orrestore or enhance existing wetlands-is required ofboth private developers and public agencies in Florida to compensatefor loss ofnatural habitats. Typically, these manmade wetlands are established on the same site as the project, in an area not slated for development. But keeping trackofthese projects-and how closely they mimic natural wetlandshas proven difficult with the government's limitedresources. Studies by the Florida Department ofNatural Resources'Aquatic Preserves Division and Marine Research Institute in 1988 reported a failure rate ofmore than 80 percentfor mitigationprojects in Southwest Florida and Tampa Bay. Afollow-up study conducted by the Florida Department ofEnvironmental Protection (FDEP) revealed that one-third ofapplicants issued permits by the agency had never even attempted the required mitigation. Of those thathad, only 13 of62 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 mitigationrequirements, some bay managers believe the mitigation criteria used by the state is insufficient to protect some particularly valuable bay habitats. Problems with the currentmitigation 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 anotherto achieve a no-net loss ofwetlands. Anew FDEPrule allows mitigationbanking 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 ofa shopping center or along a busy road. Critics say mitigationbanking will make it easierto 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 mitigationbanking stem from provisions (or lack of provisions) in the new state rule.Under the rule, mitigation banks are optional and can be eitherpublicly orprivately owned or operated. The state encourages a free-market approach, so does not specify how much a developer canbe chargedfor mitigation credits. Generally, the price of credits covers the cost ofthe restoration and monitoring for several years, in addition to providing a margin ofprofitfor the private restoration company. Banks arejointly administered by the FDEP and the state's watermanagement districts. 

## ACTIONPLAN Bay Habitats 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

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 mitigationbanks. Additionally, the new rule permits developers to transfer theirmitigation to publicly owned lands ifthe landowner agrees, as is the case with abank on state-owned property at Little Pine Island in Lee County. Whether mitigation banks shouldbe permitted on publicly owned lands is a key area ofdisagreement among bay managers. Some believe mitigation should only be allowed on private lands, with those lands subsequently turned overto a public agency for management. Others say mitigationbanking offers a chance to restore damaged public lands much faster than limited governmentfunds currently permit. The shortcomings ofthe currentmitigation program and the lackofa significanttrack record on wetland mitigationbanking will continue to make the issue ofhow and where banks should be used complex and controversial. The Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (NEP) supports the development ofmitigation criteria for the Tampa Bay region, including the development ofa regional mitigation banking plan that addresses specific habitatneeds and priorities. A workgroup ofthe Natural Resources Committee oftheAgency 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 MasterPlan for Habitat Restoration and Protection (see Action BH-l). Aregional mitigation banking plan would accomplish several goals. First, itwould ensure appropriate siting ofbanks in areas where they are mostlikely to succeed and where other valuable habitats, such as mature pine forests, are not sacrificed for wetlands. Aregional plan also would prevent a profusion ofwidely 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 ofwetland impacts in lieu ofon- or off-site mitigation. Where wetlands impact cannotbe avoided, on-site mitigation should be encouraged ifitis likely to be effective. Ifon-site compensation is not feasible, mitigationbanking 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 ofthose banks. 

## ACTIONPLAN 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

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:

• whethermitigation conductedby 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 orprivate bankoperator should be deeded to a public agency. Recommendations being developed.

• limitations on the total number ofmitigationbanks, and the numberthat

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 adjacentto existing wetlands could make replicating the types of wetlands lost easier, increase its probability ofsuccess, 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 ifchanges are needed.

• provisions to ensure the bankmimics as closely as possible the values,

appearance and function ofthe original habitat. Where this is not practical, mitigation credits shouldbe grauted at a higher ratio, as in low-salinity tidal streams, salt barrens, hard-bottom communities orothercritical 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]• bankmonitoring, enforcement and penalties for noncompliance. Recommendations being developed. 

## ACTIONPLAN Bay Habitats 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

• provisions for preservation ofexisting wetlands within a mitigation bank as

compensation ifthe environmental benefits ofsuch activity will significantly exceed the level ofimpact. Recommendations being developed.

• whether mitigation banks shouldbe considered a replacementfor publicly

financed restoration projects. Mitigationbanking should not replace publicly financed restoration. However, the potential exists for some mitigation banking credits to be generated by local governments for restoration projects thatproduce anet habitat gain and help achieve the goals ofthe bay restoration plan.

• safeguards to protectproductive native uplands from conversion to wetlands. The group is strongly opposed to converting productive native uplands to wetlands. Recommendations being developed.

· mandating the establishment ofa trustfund to ensure long-term management ofthe 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 othernon-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. 

### Responsibleparties: ABM STEP 2 Implementrecommendations from Step I, and direct mitigation ofestuarine impacts to high-priority restoration areas identified in the Tampa Bay NEP Habitat Restoration and Protection Master Plan. (See Action BH-I) 

### Responsibleparties: Tampa Bay NEp, in 

### conjunction with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, FDEp, SouthwestFlorida WaterManagement District, Florida Game & 

### Fresh WaterFish Commission, Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County andlocalgovernments 

### 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 ofthe workgroup. 

### EXPECTED BENEFITS: Effective mitigation banking can consolidate manmade wetlands into central areas, increasing the odds for success and making permits easierto monitor and enforce. It 

# BH·2

157also can result in largerwetland areas that are more useful for birds and otherwildlife. The development ofspecific criteria for mitigationbanking in the Tampa Bay region will help assure that mitigationbanking is conducted in the most environmentally beneficial manner. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats



## 158 MONITORING ENVIRONMENTALRESPONSE: Wetlandhabitats are monitored every five years using photo interpretation. The success ofmitigation banks will be monitored through pennits. 

### REGULATORY NEEDS: Possible amendments to local pennitting rules and/orthe state mitigationbanking rule.


### RELATED ACTIONS: BH-l

# Reduce Propeller Scarring ofSeagrass 

# and Pursue Seagrass Transplanting Opportunities at Select Sites ACTIONPLAN Bay Habitats 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

# BH-3 ACTION: Reduce propeller scarring ofseagrasses 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 ofsmaller commercial fishing vessels. Propeller scars from boats that cutthrough shallow seagrasses beds orrun aground can leave sandy trenches that may stay barren for years. Seagrasses in some sections ofTampa Bay

- including portions ofCockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve, Fort DeSoto Park, Bishops Harbor, Rattlesnake Key and the Double Branch/Rocky Creek portion ofUpperTampa Bay

- are severely scarred, particularly around narrow channels and passes. Additionally, turbidity created whenjet-powered personal watercraft repeatedly stir up the bottom sediments in shallow areas ofthe 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 ofTampa Bay. FMRI also conducted extensive mapping ofseagrass scarring in the bay and evaluated management methods used through the state. Theirrecommendations are to install channel markers in Miguel Bay and Bishops Harbor in Manatee County and atTierra 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 Parkin Pinellas County, and monitoring is underway to evaluate the effectiveness ofvarious managementmethods. These range from motorboat exclusion and restricted access areas to unrestricted areas where sensitive grass beds are posted with interpretative signs. Channel marking and education appearto 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 ofsensitive seagrass meadows and emphasize the importance ofusing 

## 159

### marked channels to avoid damaging grass beds. Expanding this effort to otherareas of intenseuse 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 ofthe Boater's Guide, which is produced by the Tampa Bay NEP and FMRI, will be available in March 1997. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTIONPLAN BayHabitats



# 1GO Seagrass transplanting also should be pursued at select sites to assistnatural seagrass recovery efforts, which can take up to 10 years for some species. Pioneering efforts by scientists at the FMRI to culture plant fragments inthe 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 ofthebay. The NEP will evaluate suitable areas for smaller-scale projects as part ofthe overall seagrass restoration strategy. 

### STRATEGY: STEP 1 Install channel markers and interpretive signs at Bishops Harbor, Tierra Verde and otherpriority sites where boating orpersonal watercraft activity pose a threat to seagrasses. Responsibleparties: localgovernments, withfunding assistancefrom the Tampa Bay NEP STEP 2 Continue to 

### monitor seagrass scarring and protection methods to evaluate impacts, recovery and opportunities to reclassify restricted areas. Responsibleparties: localgovernments andFMRI STEP 3 Pursue seagrass transplanting opportunities at suitable sites to enhance natural seagrass recovery efforts. Responsibleparties: FMRI, NEp, Tampa BayWatch STEP4 Expand distribution ofthe Boater's Guide to Tampa Bay atboat shows and through majormarinas, boating and fishing clubs, retail outlets andboat ramps. Note: More than 100,000 Boater's Guide have been distributed in the three counties bordering the bay. Reprints ofthe Boater's Guide with new and updated information will be available in March 1997. Responsibleparties: FMRIandNEp, with assistancefrom Florida Marine Patrol, (oast GuardAuxiliary, Tampa BayWatch, Florida Sea GrantExtension Program STEP5 Identify high-use boat ramps not already posted and design and install interpretive signage inthese areas to educateboaters andpersonal watercraftusers about bay habitats and theirrole in habitatprotection. Ideally, sign design should be uniformthroughoutthe watershed to maximize costefficiency and impact. Responsibleparties: FMRI, with assistancefrom localgovernments and Tampa BayWatchNote: 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. 

### Responsibleparties: Tampa Bay NEP (for design andinitialproduction), FMRI, Tampa BayWatch, Florida Marine Patrolandlocalgovernment marine units andtax collectors'offices (for distribution) 

## ACTIONPLAN BayHabitats 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

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 oftransplanting seagrasses varies considerably, from about $1.50 to $2 perunit ofseagrass. On average, transplant costs are estimated to be about $200 a day, based on two people working eighthours 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 ofseagrasses. Other sensitivebird and coastal habitats also will benefit as boaters become aware ofhow to protectthem. 

### MONITORING ENVIRONMENTALRESPONSE: Prop scarring is monitoredby local governments in areas where boating restrictions have been established. Aresponsible party for baywide prop scarring monitoring has not yetbeen determined. Seagrass coverage is monitored every two years by SouthwestFloridaWater ManagementDistrict's SurfaceWaterImprovement and Management Program. 

### REGULATORY NEEDS: None anticipated. 

### RELATED ACTIONS: BH-I, FW-I



## 181

# Restrict Impacts to Hard-Bottom Communities in Tampa Bay 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTIONPLAN Bay Habitats

# BH~4

162 ACTION: Evaluate the extent ofhard-bottom communities in Tampa Bay and develop special pennitting and mitigation criteria to reduce impacts to those communities. 

### BACKGROUND: The vastmajority ofthe submerged bay bottom inTampa Bay is characterized by loose sediments such as sand or mud. Subtidalhard-bottom, or live-bottom, communities exist in sparse areas ofthe bay bottom where natural rock outcrops protrude into the overlying water column. The hard surface ofthe rock provides an ideal substrate for colonization by a diverse assemblage ofmarine invertebrates including sponges, gorgonians and corals, and the shelter afforded by the rock outcrops attracts large numbers ofa wide variety offishes. These characteristics make hard-bottom communities among the mostunique and highly productive natural habitats in Tampa Bay. Hard-bottom communities are kuown to exist in OldTampa Bay near Rocky Point and the Gandy Bridge, as well as southwest ofthe Skyway Bridge nearTerra Ceia Bay. However, the baywide distribution ofthese importanthabitats

- particularly in deeper waters

- remains undocumented. Oysterreefs are anothertype ofhard-bottom community found inTampa Bay. They typically occur in shallowerwaters 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 ofTampa Bay oysterreefs despite theirrecognized 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 afterthe impacts have occurred. The amount ofmitigation required is basedupon guidelines for the ratio ofimpact acreage to mitigation acreage, but is usually negotiated on a case-by-case basis. Currentrules, however, do not distinguish estuarine hard-bottom communities from other types ofregulated 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 ofthat area's unique seagrasses, microalgae and corals has been developed. While it is not clearhow many acres ofnatural 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 ofhard-bottom communities in the bay through a comprehensive survey, and subsequentprotection ofidentified areas through the development ofspecial pennitting and mitigation criteria. The additional protections couldbe achieved eitherthrough statewide rulemaking or amendments, or through adoption oflocal rules or policies specifically targeting Tampa Bay.

### STRATEGY: STEP 1 Undertake a comprehensive benthic survey ofTampa Bay with the objective ofmapping the detailed distribution ofnatural hard-bottom communities, including both oysterreefs and rocky outcrop live-bottoms. A smallscale survey ofhard-bottom communities has been completed, but a more detailed investigation is needed. The survey would documentthe species composition and ecology ofnatural hard-bottom communities and compare them to artificial reefcommunities, which often are used to mitigate impacts to live-bottom communities. The Environmental Protection Commission (EPC) ofHillsborough County could assume this task as part ofits annual benthic sampling program inTampa Bay, ifadditional funding is secured. Volunteers also could be utilized to survey shallow-waterhardbottoms such as nearshore oysterreefs. Ensure the distribution ofresulting maps to applicable regulatory agencies and local govermnents so that these areas are recognized in permitting decisions. 

### Responsibleparties: Florida Department of EnvironmentalProtection (FDEP), EPC, Tampa BayWatch, Florida Sea GrantExtension Program 

## ACTIONPLAN BayHabitats 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

# BH·4

STEP 2 Evaluate the effectiveness ofcurrent permitting and mitigationrules in preserving hard-bottom habitats, and recommend ways to provide increased protection. (This process shouldbe integrated with development ofspecial mitigation criteria for TampaBay as directed inAction 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 whetherregulatory agencies already have authority to adequately protect live-bottom habitats, or whether new statewide orlocal rules, or expansion ofexisting rules, is needed. 

### Responsibleparties: Agency on Bay Management (ABM) STEP 3 ImplementtheABM recommendations regarding the protection ofspecific hard-bottomhabitats. 

### Responsibleparties: FDEP (ifstate rale changes are deemednecessary) orlocalgovernments 

### SCHEDULE: Step 1 can be initiated in 1998. Step 2 can be accomplished in 1998, with recommendations forwarded to the Tampa Bay NEP and FDEPby the end ofthat year. 

### COST: The benthic survey couldbe conducted for approximately $50,000-$100,000. Financing options include Florida Sea Grant, local govermnents and research funds available through Florida SaltWater Fishing License revenues. 

### EXPECTED BENEFITS: More effective protection ofnatural hard-bottom communities in Tampa Bay.


## 183The bay monitoring program will include a hard-bottom mapping element, to be updated periodically (every 10 years). 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

# BH~

184 

## ACTIONPLAN
MONITORING ENVIRONMENTALRESPONSE:

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


### RELATED ACTIONS: BH-I, BH-2, BH-8 Bay Habitats

# Improve Management ofParking and Vehicle Access Along Causeways and CoastalAreas ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



### ACTION: Improve management ofparking and vehicle access along environmentally sensitive areas ofbay 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 ofthese 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 ofTransportation (FOOT) periodically dumps and grades new sand on the access area, but much ofitis washed into the waterby the constant traffic. At all the sites, people have carved paths through mangroves in orderto parkright on the edge ofthe bay. Mangroves also are "trimmed" by beachgoers for campfires. Lack ofsewage and trash facilities pose aesthetic and water quality problems for the bay, while the varied and often incompatible activities that occurthere (Le., personal watercraftusers 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 thathundreds use these areas every weekend, especially during the spring and summer. At the request ofthe 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 ofbeachgoers and reduce the environmental damage done to these areas, while still allowing people to enjoy the shoreline. Recommendations include the installation ofbollards

- shortwooden or cementpoles planted vertically in the ground close together

- to keep vehicles out ofenvironmentally 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 nearmangrove areas. The bollards will protect the mangroves that currently exist and allow for growth ofnew 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

185On the northern shoreline, ABM reconnnends placing bollards along the roadway to prevent vehicles from pulling offthe road and into mangrove areas. This action would guard against an increase in off-road traffic in this area once FDOT completes removal ofBrazilian peppertrees there. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTIONPLAN Bay Habitats



# lGG • Fourth Street at 1-275 ABM recommends lining both sides ofthe causeway with bollards above thejurisdictionalline. This will allow vehicle access along the causeway and foot access down to the water, while preventing vehicles from entering the mangrove fringe orhigh marsh areas. Ideally, this project should be timed to coincide with the Gandy bollardproject, to prevent a shift inbeachtraffic from Gandy to Fourth Street.

• Pinellas Bayway/TierraVerde ABM recommends placing bollards above thejurisdictional line on the northern side ofthe Bayway, betweenthe first bridge and the golfcourse. This projectwould prevent vehicle intrusion into wetland areas, while still permitting vehicles to pull offthe 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 equipmentto be carried orpulledto the water's edge. A similarbollard barrier shouldbe placed as needed along the causeway approach to FortDeSoto Park.

• Sunshine Skyway Causeway ABM recommends installing bollards above thejurisdictional line on the south side of the causeway across from the Blackthorne Memorial. Windsurfers and personal watercraftusers will still be able to carry orpull theirequipment to the water's edge. ABM also suggests that consideration be given to installing bollards on either side ofthe two shortbridges along the Skyway approach. Ifadditional managementofthese areas is desired, sanitary and trash facilities, security lights and picnic facilities couldbe installed. Mangroves and marsh grass could be planted to revegetate sections ofthe shoreline, and a small fishing pier orboardwalk could discourage foot traffic through these vegetated areas. Limiting access to these areas will be the responsibility ofwhoevermaintains the road or causeway. In most cases, that will be eitherthe FOOT or a county transportation department. Enforcementwould be providedby local law enforcement agencies. Possible sources offunding for the improvements include federal and state grants (such as FOOT's Intermodal SurfaceTransportationEfficiency 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 ofthe managementreconnnendations developedby the ABM. TheABM reconnnendations are expectedto be considered by PiIiellas County and the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council (TBRPC) in late 1996, and then submitted to the FDOT shortly afterwards. 

### Responsibleparties:ABMin cooperation with the TBRPG, FDOTand applicable localgovernmentsSTEP 2 Implement restrictions on designated causeways and coastal roads. A pilot project at a single site couldbe implementedfirst, to gauge public reaction and effectiveness. Other sites could follow, drawing upon the lessons learned atthe test site. One site that might serve as a test area is the Pinellas BaywayfTierraVerde approach to Fort DeSoto Park, where improvements would facilitate increasedprotection ofthe park's outstanding resources. 

### Responsibleparties: FDOT, localgovernmenttransportation departments 

## ACTIONPLAN Bay Habitats 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

# BH·5

STEP 3 Develop and implement a recreation plan for causeway beaches that enhances the environmental integrity ofthe 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 oflocal governmentfunding, although some components-such as shoreline cleanups and habitat restoration projects-couldbe accomplished with volunteer labor. 

### Responsibleparties: localgovernmentparks andtransportation departments, volunteergroups such as the BayArea EnvironmentalAction Team andthe Bay Conservation Corps ofTampa BayWatch. 

### SCHEDULE: Steps I and 2 can be implemented in 1997, following approval ofrecommendations. 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 ofinstalling bollards in designated parking areas is approximately $32 perbollard. At least 20-30 bollards would be needed at most sites, for a total cost ofabout $1,000 per site. That cost couldbe significantly lower ifutilities provide bollards free ofcharge. 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 staffpeople, one vehicle, regular trash pickup and other services. 

### EXPECTED BENEFITS: Controlling vehicle access will permit emergent vegetation to recolonize now-barren areas ofthe bay shoreline, improving fish and wildlife habitat, reducing erosion and adding to the aesthetic appeal ofthe bay. 

### MONITORING ENVIRONMENTALRESPONSE: Any marsh ormangrove plantings conducted at the sites will be monitored by the appropriate state or local agency.


## 187None anticipated. Enforcement ofthe vehicle access restrictions can be accomplished underexisting local ordinances. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE
BH·I'

168 ACTIONPLAN
REGULATORY NEEDS:

RELATED ACTIONS: BH-I Bay Habitats

# Encourage Waterfront Residents to Enhance Shorelines and Limit Runofffrom Yards ACTIONPLAN BayHabitats 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



### ACTION: Encourage waterfront residents to enhance ornaturalize shorelines and limit runoff from yards. 

### BACKGROUND: About halfofTampa Bay's natural shoreline has been altered by development orhardened through the construction ofseawalls, piers andjetties that limitplant and animal life. These changes have led to significant declines in intertidal marshand mangrove habitat, which supply food and shelterfor 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 orhabitatreefs. When properly designed, these improvements not only benefit the environment, but also can boostproperty values by improving shoreline stability and aesthetic appeal. However, cost, permitting complexity and lackofinformation about suitable options are often key deterrents to homeowners, who also are limitedby sitespecific considerations. Currently, residents who wish to stabilize their shoreline may need to obtain a general permit to install rip-rap orto soften existing structures, butthe criteria for obtaining this permitvary according to the nature ofthe surrounding shoreline and the type and amount ofworkproposed. Exempting certain types ofenhancement activities from the permitrequirement, or mandating only thatthe homeownernotify Florida DepartmentofEnvironmental Protection (FDEP) ofthe work - a noticed exemption

- may encourage more residents to undertake these projects. Local communities seeking to encourage waterfrontresidents to enhance shorelines may gain the mostby targeting larger, finger-fill communities, where group permits are feasible, especially when seawalls are replaced orrepaired. The City of Clearwater's Environmental Advisory Board, for example, has discussed the possibility ofallowing homeowner groups to adopt a management plan for their shorelines to encourage the planting orpreservation ofmangroves. The management plan would specify mangrove trimming guidelines, and homeowners who agree to abide by the guidelines could do the pruning themselves, instead ofhaving to hire a landscape architect as mandatedby the current state mangrove trimming rule. Limiting pollution in runofffrom waterfrontyards also is encouraged. Residents can help to reduce pollution to Tampa Bay by applying the eco-landscaping techniques prescribedby the Florida Yards & Neighborhoods (FY&N) Program, which is administeredby local cooperative extension services. A companionFY&N homeowner's guide, which features low-maintenance landscape design and maintenance tips, is ideally suited to the environmentally conscious waterfrontresident. Adopt-A-Canal pro

# BH-6

lG9

### grams also may be effective in select areas in improving water and habitat quality in canals tluough public stewardship and education. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTIONPLAN 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 runofffrom theiryards. STEP I Develop property tax or otherfinancial incentives to encouragehabitat enhancementalong seawalls, and establish cost-share programs to promote group-permit shoreline enhancementprojects. For instance, propertyowners currently are entitledto lowerproperty valuations if part oftheir property is placed in a conservationeasement; perhaps a similar program could be instituted for homeowners who use alternative shoreline stabilization and enhancementtechniques. Additionally, a shoreline management plan such as thatproposed by the Clearwater's Enviromnental Advisory Board could result in significant cost-savings to participating homeowners by allowing themto trim their own mangroves under approved guidelines. Responsibleparties: localgovernments, SouthwestFlorida Water ManagementDistrict (SWFWMD), in cooperation with FDEP STEP 2 Evaluate Whether a low-cost orno-cost general permit, a noticed exemption or a full exemption is the bestmechanism for encouraging shoreline enhancement, and develop criteria for review ofprojects that will be eligible for the streamlined permitprocess. Rule revisions may be neededto incorporate exemptions into existing rules. Responsibleparties: SWFWMD, FDEp, localgovernments STEP 3 Amend state statutes to require that habitat enhancementfeatures be incorporated when seawalls are constructed orrepaired. Responsibleparties: FDEP STEP4 Develop and distribute aresource card (#lO-envelope size) to waterfront residents tluough annual property tax notices to promoteavailable tax incentives for shoreline enhancement, as well as resources andpublications addressing waterfront landscaping and exotic plantcontrol, and canal maintenance and improvement. Publications noted below shouldbe featured. Responsibleparties: localgovernments andthe Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (NEP) (production), localgovernmenttax assessors offices (distribution), also distribute through Tampa BayWatch, Agency on Bay Management (ABM) 4.1 SWFWMD's 1993 report on BestManagement Practices for Improvement ofResidential Canals includes informative boilerplatetext for apublic brochure on enhancement ofhardened shorelines. Text should be expanded to provide more detail on general shoreline design options, associated costs, and appropriate contacts, and then produced as abrochure for public distribution. 

## 170

### Responsibleparties: SWFWMD (brochure), SWFWMD andlocalgovernments (distribution), Florida Sea GrantExtension Program 

## ACTION PLAN Bay Habitats 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 4.2 The FY&N Handbook, producedby the Florida Cooperative Extension Service (FCES) and the National Estuary Programs ofTampa Bay and SarasotaBay, 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 tankmaintenance. Local governments may arrange for reprints ofthis publication through FCES or refer inquiries to local cooperative extension services. 

### Responsibleparties: localgovernments, FeES 

# BH-&

STEP 5 Explore the costs and benefits ofimplementing Adopt-A-Canal programs in areas with strong neighborhood associations. Include existing materials as core ofa curriculum, but also promote properboat maintenance and oilsorb products for boatbilges. Encourage backyard maintenance-free (or low-maintenance) buffer zones to limitfertilizer and pesticides in direct runoff. 

### Responsibleparties: localgovernments, 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 perbook Local governments can recoup expenses by providing these materials at cost ofproduction 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 ENVIRONMENTALRESPONSE: 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 the

# COURSE
FOR TAMPA BAY 

# B

172 

## ACTIONPLAN
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 ACTIONPLAN Bay Habitats 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



### ACTION: Improve compliance with and enforcement ofpermits governing wetland mitigation by establishing level-of-service targets, providing periodic performance assessments, and continuing efforts to coordinate permitting and enforcement staffto provide greater continuity in oversight. 

### BACKGROUND: State rules regarding mitigation for wetland impacts have been developed to offset wetland losses. However, a study ofmitigation compliance completed by the Florida Department ofEnvironmental Regulation

- now Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)

- in 1992 concluded that the majority ofmitigation projects had either never been constructed orfailed to comply with the terms of their permit and did notfunction properly. The generally low success rate statewide has been largely attributed to staffing shortfalls and organizational structures that have traditionally segmented ratherthan integratedpermitting, compliance monitoring and enforcementfunctions. Without strong compliance monitoring and enforcement, regulated interests often have little incentive to perform compensatory mitigation in a manner consistentwith the rules. Wetland mitigationrules are administered by the FDEP, SouthwestFloridaWater 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 ofboth freshwater and tidal wetlands. However, documenting these trends has been extremely difficult because efforts to trackcompliance between and within various regulatory agencies have beeninconsistent and lacking in sufficient detail. Inconsistentmitigation 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 onrecognizing and permitting effective mitigation designs, as well as increasing inspections during and after construction, and following up to promote betterproject maintenance by regulated interests. Access to mitigation sites also is a factor. In this regard, locally administered programs may have an advantage over state orregional programs, although the costs ofabsorbing these additional responsibilities may be an obstacle. The state's new Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP) program, which consolidates existing wetland resource, management and storage ofsurface waters, and sovereign lands regulatory programs into a single permitting function, is expected to improve compliance monitoring and enforcementby increasing interagency coordination and reducing inconsistencies and duplication. Implementation ofthe ERP will create key opportunities for the consolidation and reorganization ofthese functions within regulatory agencies and participating local governments, and the creation of 

# BH·7

173uniform standards for wetland delineation. Additionally, the Environmental Protection Commission (EPC) ofHillsborough County is currently developing a Memorandum ofUnderstanding with SWFWMD which will allow EPC to conduct all wetland compliance and enforcement tasks within Hillsborough County. This agreementwould result inmore timely and consistent reviews ofmitigationprojects, while eliminating duplication ofservices and the potential for conflicting compliance criteria. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTION PLAN BayHabitats



## 174 STRATEGY: The strategy to improve wetland permit compliance monitoring and enforcement focuses on establishing level-of-service targets, continued implementation and periodic assessment ofintegrated permitting concepts advanced through the ERPprogram, and evaluation ofexisting staffing and funding resources and needs as the basis for recommendations for action. This strategy also calls for standardization ofmonitoring 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 enforcementwithin the Tampa Bay watershed, and assess associated staffand funding needs. In establishing level-of-service targets, participants should explore how principles ofecosystemmanagement

- which emphasize overall environmental benefits to the watershed

- can be integrated into permitting and complianceprograms. Additionally, they should evaluate ways to standardize reporting and monitoring methods between and within agencies. Recommendations ofactions to improve compliance monitoring and enforcement shall be submitted by the group to the Tampa Bay NEPby September 1997. 

### Responsibleparties: FDEPandSWFWMD (to organize workshop):participants to include U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (uSACOE), EPC, U.S. Fish & 

### Wildlife Service (uSFWS), Florida Game andFresh WaterFish Commission (FGFWFC), andlocalgovernments requiring mitigation through localpermitting orseeking delegatedauthorityfor wetlandpermitting STEP 2 Expand agency and local goverrunentpermitting stafftraining and regular retraining to increase the emphasis onrecognizing 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 regularregional training seminars. 

### Responsibleparties: FDEPandSWFWMD, USACOE, EPC, uSFWS, FGFWFC, applicable localgovernments STEP 3 Continue to integrate permitting and compliance monitoring and enforcementfunctions in an effortto maximize efficiency and provide "cradle to grave" permit oversight, in which the same personnel that conductpermit reviews also are responsible for compliance follow-up. Also, encourage interagency compliance monitoring teams where feasible, including federal agencies.

### Responsibleparties: FDEp, SWFWMD, EPC, USFWS, FGFWFC, applicable localgovernments 

## ACTIONPLAN Bay Habitats 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY STEP4 Based on recommendations from Step I, standardize mitigation success criteria as well as monitoring and reporting requirements for created and restored wetlands. 

### Responsibleparties: FDEp, SWFWMD, EPC, USFWS, FGFWFC, applicable localgovernments STEP 5 Assess the effectiveness ofefforts to improve compliance monitoring and enforcement in the Tampa Bay watershed, including progress toward levelof-service targets (particularly compliance rates), results ofintegrating staff to assist in these efforts, and associated costs to agencies and applicants. Results offhe assessment should bereported in fhe Tampa Bay NEP's Biennial Enviromuental Monitoring Report and theAgency on Bay Management's State offhe Bay report. 

### Responsibleparties: FDEp, SWFWMD, EPC, USFWS, FGFWFC, applicable localgovernments 

### SCHEDULE: Apreliminary "scope" for the workshop is requestedby May 1997. Recommendations from fhe workshop are due September 1997. Implementation ofSteps 3 and 4 can begin in 1997. 

### COST: Only stafftime is anticipated in the implementation ofthis strategy, although recommendations from Step I may call for additional resources or changes in existing allocations. For instance, additional training ofwetlands permitting and enforcementpersonnel is estimated at $50,000 a yearfor fhe first five years ofthe program, and $25,000 afterfhat. 

### EXPECTED BENEFITS: Improvedpermit compliance monitoring, enforcementandreporting. 

### MONITORING ENVIRONMENTALRESPONSE: See Step 5. 

### REGULATORY NEEDS: Improved coordination ofpermitting, compliance and enforcement canbe accomplished without rule revisions. 

### RELATED ACTIONS: N/A 

# BH-7

175

# Expand Habitat Mapping and Monitoring Programs 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTIONPLAN Bay Habitats



## 178 ACTION: Ensure implementation ofadequate habitat mappiug and monitoring programs totrack trends in areal extentand quality ofseagrass, mangroves, coastal marshes and oligohaline habitats in Tampa Bay over time.


### BACKGROUND: Acritical element ofthe bay's management plan is the establishment and maintenance ofa monitoring program to measure progress toward meeting the goals ofthe Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (NEP). This is very importantto the local and slate governments implementiug actions, siuce counties, cities and state agencies musthave 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 trackprogress toward reaching long-term restoration and protection goals set by the program, and provide essential information that canbe used to redirect andrefocus the plan. One ofthe first efforts ofthe Tampa Bay NEPwas to initiate a multi-yeareffortto develop a baywide monitoring program capable ofreliably measuring changes inbay quality. This plan incorporates and expands on existing programs where possible, and consists ofseven major elements: water quality, benthic, seagrass, bay scallop, fisheries, coastal marshes and mangroves, and oligohaline habitats. This action ensures implementation ofhabitat monitoring elements defined in the baywide monitoriug plan. 

### STRATEGY: STEP 1 Continue the existing Southwest Florida WaterManagementDistrictSurface Water Improvement and Management (SWFWMD-SWIM) monitoriug program mapping areal extent ofseagrass in Tampa Bay to track trends in areal extent and progress toward restoration goals. The extent ofseagrass coverage in all areas ofTampa Bay is currently being monitored by SWFWMD-SWIM every two years. To date, no permanent funding source forthe mapping program has been identified. Responsibleparties: SWFWMD STEP 2 Implement the Seagrass Conditions Monitoring Program as developed by the Tampa Bay NEP TechnicalAdvisory Committee. Hillsborough County monitors seagrass conditions in CockroachBay, and Pinellas County conducts seagrass monitoring in FortDeSoto Parkto track rates ofseagrassscarring. The City ofTampa conducts seagrass quality monitoring in Hillsborough Bay. 

## ACTIONPLAN Bay Habitats 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY SWFWMD-SWIM is conducting the second year ofthe Seagrass Conditions Monitoring Program throughout the bay as a pilotproject. Potential entities responsible for conducting biannual seagrass conditions monitoring in upcoming years remain to be identified. 

### Responsibleparties: SWFWMD, Florida Departmentof Environmental Protection-Florida Marine Research Institute (FDEP/FMRI) STEP 3 Continue existing annual benthic monitoring through 1996. Evaluate results ofthe four-year baseline in 1997 and redirectthe program as appropriate. In 1996, sediment toxicity was added to the benthic community and sediment chemistry analyses. 

### Responsibleparties: Hillsborough, Pinellas andManatee counties STEP4 Develop and implement a monitoring programto trackhabitat quantity and quality in coastal marshes, oligohalinehabitats and associated uplands, as well as restored habitats. Development ofthese elements ofthe habitatmonitoring programwill be initiated as part ofthe habitatrestoration and protection masterplan. This plan will identify responsible entities for implementation. 

### Responsibleparties: SWFWMD-SWIMis currently monitoring some of these elements. Otherresponsibleparties may include FDEp, the Florida Game andFresh WaterFish Commission, andlocalgovernments. STEP 5 Reportresults and integration ofenvironmental monitoring programs to bay managers on a regularbasis, to allow for redirection andrefocus of managementprograms 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 ofa summary chapter in the BEMR. An integral element ofthe report will be the bay managers' summary, which will contain an integrated analysis ofconditions and trends in Tampa Bay. Areas ofthe bay that show signs ofdegradation or improvementwill be noted in the bay managers' summary, to allow for changes in management actions as warranted. 

### Responsibleparties: initialeffortpartof a 1995 Tampa Bay NEPproject. The long-term coordinatorforproduction of the reporthas notyetbeen determined.


### SCHEDULE: Steps I and 3 are ongoing. Implementation ofStep 4 began in 1996. The first biennial monitoring report was produced in October 1996 as part ofan ongoing Tampa Bay NEP project. 

# BH·8

In• Seagrass mapping: $40,000 every two years for update

• Seagrass quality: $36,000 every two years
• Estimatedmarsh/mangrove/coastal upland mapping: $120,000 for true

color and colorinfrared 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 the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTIONPLAN
COST: Bay Habitats



## 178 EXPECTED BENEFITS: hnplementation will provide adequate information to tracktrends in habitatextent and quality, and will provide managers with an "early warning system" to detect areas that may need additional management action.


### MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE: Results ofall bay monitoring programs will be included in the BEMR. 

### REGULATORY NEEDS: None anticipated


### RELATED ACTIONS: BH-l, BH-2, BH-5

## ACTIONPLAN BayHabitats 

# FRESHWATERINFLOW 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY Maintaining an adequate supply offresh 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 ofthe year. The bay's four major rivers and numerous smallertributaries provide critical lowsalinity habitats to dozens ofspecies offish 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 ofjuvenile fish each year. As these fish mature, they typically move to more saline areas ofthe bay or out into the GulfofMexico, 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 offreshwater 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 peakperiods ofthe dry season; annually, they retain about 35 percent and 29 percent oftheir respective up-river flows for drinking, irtigation and industrial uses. Local water supply development plans may further restrict the flow offresh water into already impacted tributaries and bay segments. For example, the TampaWater Resource Recovery Project would remove up to 50 million gallons per day (mgd) of fresh water currently discharged from the City ofTampa'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 ofexcess 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 ofits 1995 Water Resource Development Plan (1995-2000). Legislation passed in 1996 requires the SouthwestFlorida 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 ofthe Hillsborough River/Tampa Bypass Canal. An evaluation ofthe cumulative environmental impacts associated with the Tampa reuse project will be conducted as part ofthe effort to establish minimum flows for the Hillsborough River.
Recent studies show little overall change in the amount offresh water entering the bay proper since the 1950s, because declines in natural flows have been partially countered by steady increases in storruwater runofffrom the watershed. But some significant changes have occurred upstream in the low-salinity zones favored by the young ofmany ofthe bay's most popular fish. Declines here and associated declines in fisheries make preservation and restoration ofremaining 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 habitatrestoration, 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 

## ACTIONPLAN BayHabitats



## 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 ofDams ACTIONPLAN Bay Habitats 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



### ACTION: While safeguarding water supply and flood control functions, establish and maintain minimum seasonal freshwater inflows downstream ofdams on the Hillsborough, Manatee and Braden rivers, and below Control Structure S-160 on the Palm River, to restore and preserve the biological productivity ofthe estuary's criticaljuvenile fisheries habitats.


### BACKGROUND: Estuaries, where fresh water and salt water mix, are highly productive natural habitats for fish and other marine life. Thejuveniles ofmany aquatic species, including spotted seatrout, snook, red drum and tarpon, depend on the low- and medium-salinity portions ofthese shallow waters, especially in the tidal sections ofrivers and streams. However, the productivity ofthese habitats as nurseries and feeding areas depends largely on maintaining an adequate supply offresh 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 waterin the tri-county area is expectedto increase from 544 million gallons per day (mgd) in 1990 to 765 mgd in 2020, according to Southwest FloridaWater ManagementDistrict (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 wouldbe "significantly harmful to the water resources or ecology ofthe area." Legislationpassed in 1996 requires the Districtto setminimum flows for priority surface waters in the northern Tampa Bay areaby October 1, 1997. Minimum flows based on river ecology have notyetbeen setfor the Hillsborough, Palm and Bradenrivers. Apreliminary minimum flow of0.425 cubic feet per second (cfs)

- orroughly 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 priorto 1972). Nevertheless, a series ofongoing and recently completed studies should provide SWFWMD with sufficient infonnation to set thresholds for each river to protect the productivity ofthe river and the bay downstream ofthe dams. Aminimum flow study is not planned for theAlafia Riverbecause the SWFWMD Needs and Sources Study concluded that water supplies were not needed from the 

# FI-1

181

### Alafia for the 1990-2020planning horizon. However, the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority (WCRWSA) has recently proposed to remove 7 mgd offresh water from theAlafia in the first phase ofits 1995 WaterResource DevelopmentPlan (1995-2000). 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTIONPLAN BayHabitats



## 182 Studies on the Braden, Hillsborough, Manatee and Little Manatee rivers, and the

. TampaBypass Canal, have addressed various aspects of

### riverflow and ecology. Evaluation ofthese 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 impoundedby dams to protectthe ecological integrity ofvital downstream fisheries habitats. STEP 1 Conduct teclmical workshops for each impounded river to evaluateresults offreshwater studies and develop recommendations for minimum freshwater flow requirements. Atthe request ofSWFWMD, 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 onthe Manatee River inAugust 1995, which included local govermnent and agency representatives, scientists, engineers, utilities and community interest groups. In evaluating available studies, participants are considering: whetherflows to the downstream portions ofimpoundedrivers have been quantified ifappropriate flowsto restore and maintain critical low-salinity habitats can be determined from the studies the impacts ofvarious flow-release scenarios on public water supplies and economic development. 

### Responsibleparties: Tampa Bay NEp, SWFWMD andlocalgovernments 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. 

### Responsibleparties: SWFWMD STEP 3 Implementminimum seasonal flows. Implementing parties may evaluate various options for meeting minimum flow requirements, including water conservation to reduce demand on impounded water; augmentation ofwellfields orreservoirs withhighly treated wastewater or stormwater, as longas public health concerns are addressed; and relocating point source discharges to augment freshwater flows downstream ofdarns. 

### Responsibleparties: localgovernments, WCRWSA 

## ACTIONPLAN Bay Habitats 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY
STEP4 Monitorthe environmental response. Develop and implement a program to determine spatial and temporal changes in water qnality and in-stream biology inresponse to these limits, perhaps by expanding local government waterquality and benthic monitoring programs to address these monitoring needs. 

### Responsibleparties: To be determined(possiblypermitapplicant) 

### SCHEDULE: Ecological assessment studies are now being conducted as a permit condition for wateruse 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 stafftime. 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 ofwater, such as construction ofanew reservoir, to replace the amount ofadditional waterreleased downstream. For example, Manatee County residents now pay about $1.62 per 1,000 gallons to have waterdelivered to theirhomes, which includes reservoir and treatmentcosts 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 ofa new reservoir at Gilley Creekto nearly $.80 per 1,000 gallons for development ofan off-stream reservoir. Both options would increase potable yields, in addition to allowing more water over the darn to sustain the biological needs ofdownstream 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 permonth. Forthe off-streamreservoir 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 notyetbeen finalized. However, Manatee County estimates that itcurrently spends about $100,000 per year to monitor water quality downstream ofthe reservoir, about halfofthe county's annual bay monitoring expenditure.



## 183

# CHARTING the

# COURSE ACTIONPLAN

EXPECTED BENEFITS: BayHabitats

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 ofthese tributaries are vital nursery areas for several species offish, including red drum and snook. 

### MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE: Ongoing fisheries, water quality andbenthic monitoring programs (summarized in Monitoring Bay Improvement) provide an overall assessment ofthe environmental quality ofthe bay and its tributaries. Water flows orrelease rates are recordedby Manatee County at the Lake Manatee dam on the Manatee River, andby 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 ofthis action may be required as a conditionfor the renewal ofwateruse permits. 

### REGULATORY NEEDS: None anticipated.


### RELATED ACTIONS: BH-l, WW-lMr,S If.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 ofexisting regulations to limit physical impacts associated with fishing, boating, and foot traffic in bird rookery areas also is a priority, Hundreds ofspecies ofmarine and terrestrial animals rely on Tampa Bay and the rich tapestry ofenvironments itprovides, Mangrove islands in Tampa Bay are among the mostproductive 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 ofbirds nest each year on these islands, which support two ofthe state's five largestbrown pelican colonies. Otherbirds, such as the American white pelican and several species ofsandpiper, 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 atthe warm-water plumes discharged by the power plants bordering the bay. About 50-100 ofthese gentle giants are year-roundresidents. Manatee mortality has tripled in Tampa Bay from an annual average ofabout four (from 1976-1985) to more than 12 (from 1990-1994). Boating collisions and propeller strikes claimed about 20 percent ofthe 61 manatees that died in the bay during this lastfour-year period. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



# FW

185'Three species ofsea turtles

- loggerhead, green and Kemp's ridley

- feed in the bay, and as many as 500bottle-nose dolphins reside here year-round. Like the manatee, these largermarine creatures are threatened by accidental boat strikes and ingestion ofand entanglementby marine debris, particularly monofilament fishing line. The bay's once plentiful supplies offish and shellfishhave declined inrecent decades, a result ofhabitat loss and historic declines in waterquality as well as pressures from overharvesting. Recent bans on purse seines and gill nets are expected to sharply reduce commercial harvesting ofsome species, such as spotted seatrout. While a precise figure ofthe historical decline is difficult to estimate, fisheries landings data show that the amount ofbay 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 the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

# FW ACTIONPLAN Bay Fish & Wildlife



## 188 Records going backeven further, to 1950, show that catches ofspotted sea trout declined by 86 percentby 1990, from 487,000 pounds to 67,000 pounds. Similarly, red drum harvests between 1950 and 1986 plummetedby 81 percent, from 80,000 pounds to 15,000 pounds, although these raw landings data do notreflect changes in fishery management or quotas. Loss ofseagrass habitat and overharvesting are suspected in the decline ofthese popular sportfislt. Recent waterquality 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 ofthe local population, they suspect declining water quality was to blame. Stocking efforts designed tojump-start a self-sustaining scallop population are now underway, primarily in the lower portions ofthe 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 ofhabitats and food sources. 

### MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
Increase the number, diversity and health ofthe bay's fish and shellfishpopulations, 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.

## ACTIONPLAN Bay Fish & WIldlife 

### SUMMARY OFACTIONS FOR FISH & 

### WILDLIFE 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FW-I FW-2 Increase on-water enforcementofenvironmental 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 ofpowerplant entraimnent onbay fisheries. FW-5 Continue and expand the Critical Fisheries Monitoring Program. 

### [Note: Many of the strategies to support fisheries andwildlifefocus on water qualityandbay habitats. Please referto the bayActionPlansaddressing Water Quality andBay Habitatsfor these relatedactions.]



## 187

# Increase On-Water Enforcement of Environmental Regulations on the Bay 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTIONPLAN Bay Fish & Wildlife



# FW-1 ..

188 ACTION: Increase enforcement ofenvirornnental regulations onTampa Bay by obtaining supportfor increased allocation ofSaltWaterFishing License revenues to marine law enforcement. 

### BACKGROUND: Efforts by the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (NEP) to protectTampa Bay's diverse fish and wildlife resources have focused largely on establishing optimum water quality and habitat environments. But increased enforcement ofexisting envirornnental regulations to minimize impacts associated with fishing, boating and foot traffic in bird rookeries is also a key priority ofthe Program's strategic blueprint for the bay. When the SaltWater Fishing License Rule was enactedby the state in 1989, anglers and local communities alike expected it to be a boonfor local marine enforcement. The rule was established to identify and collecta userfee from saltwater anglers for the conservation and management offishery resources. It 

### stipulates thatmarine research and marine enhancement/habitatrestoration shall each receive not less than 30 percent ofthe revenues collected, and thatno more than 30 percent be allocatedfor 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 enforcementhave averaged about 20 percent overthe past five years, which is two-thirds ofthe 30 percent maximum allowed by law and anticipated by many supporters ofthe bill. Despite allocations statewide, five fewer marine patrol officers are assigned to the Tampa Bay districttoday than when the rule was enacted in 1989. In 

### the first few years the license fees were collected, most ofthe 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 thatmore ofthe revenues dedicated to law enforcementmay 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 saltwaterfishing licenses and special stamps statewide inFY 93-94, about 17 percentor $2.3 million was allocated by the Florida Department ofEnvirornnental Protection (FDEP) to the Florida Marine Patrol (FMP) for statewide law enforcement. It 

### is not known how much ofthat 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 increasedby only about 5 to 10 percent annually since the passage ofthe rule, mostly to compensate for increasing fuel prices, and declined inFY 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 saltwaterfishing license revenues have been established - a "lottery syndrome" that results in few orno net increases in available funding to address resource needs. 

## ACTIONPLAN Bay Fish & Wildlife 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY

The FMP, a part ofthe state's Division ofLaw Enforcement, enforces state saltwater fishing regulations, boating safety rules and other wildlife and habitat protection measures. It also is the first line ofdefense in emergencies such as marine accidents and hurricanes, and employs a selectnumber ofspecial environmental enforcement officers to investigate land-based environmental crimes such as illegal dumping. Enforcementneeds are growing on Tampa Bay, which has one ofthe lowest ratios of marine patrol officers perregistered boats

- only one ortwo officers per shiftper county for nearly 100,000 registered recreational boats. Local municipal marine enforcementunits (financed in Hillsborough, Pinellas and several other counties by local boater registration add-on fees) pickup the slack in some areas, but cannotprovide the coverage needed to effectively monitor the 400-square-mile bay and adjoining Gulfcoastline, according to local Marine Patrol officials. Enforcement needs have increased further with the recent passage ofthe marine net ban.

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

Polkand Highland counties.


### STRATEGY:
This strategy calls for a review ofSaltWater Fishing License revenue expenditures for marine law enforcementto secure additional marine patrol officers for Tampa Bay, and possible revisions to the state SaltWater Fishing License Rule to require aminimum allocation for marine law enforcement. STEP 1 Conduct a workshop to review allocations and expenditures ofSaltWater Fishing License revenues, as well as general revenue and otherrelated expenditures by the FDEP marine law enforcement division statewide. The workshop should explore alternatives for increasing enforcement spending

- including a reallocation ofSaltWater Fishing License revenues - and involve representatives ofthe FDEP in Tallahassee, theAgency on Bay Management (ABM) and other interested parties. Responsibleparties: Tampa Bay NEp, FDEp, ABM STEP 2 Depending on the results ofthe workshop, pursue options for increasing environmental enforcement capabilities in Tampa Bay. Ifareallocation of SaltWaterFishing License revenues is deemed the best solution, NEP may consider a formal legislative request to require that a minimum percentage ofSaltWaterFishing License revenues be directed to marine law enforcement. Responsibleparties: 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

189marine enforcement. Responsibleparties: Tampa Bay NEP; FDEP/FMP; boatmanufacturers 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTIONPLAN Bay Fish & Wildlife

# FW·1~

190 STEP4 Continue to monitor SaltWater Fishing License revenues to ensure an equitable distribution ofproceeds as outlined in the original legislation. Monitoring information could be included in the Tampa Bay NEP's Biennial Environmental Monitoring Report and theABM's annual State of the Bay report. Responsibleparties: FDEP; ABM, Tampa Bay NEP 

### SCHEDULE: All steps will be initiatedin 1997. 

### COST: This action stresses a reallocation ofexisting funds, ratherthan new expenditures, to address environmental enforcementneeds. 

### EXPECTED BENEFITS: Increased enforcement ofthe bay's fisheries and environmental regulations will improve protection offish 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 ofthe public's natural resource won't be sacrificed for the illegal actions ofa few. 

### MONITORING ENVIRONMENTALRESPONSE: FMP canprovide 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 theABM. Additionally, information on Salt Water Fishing License revenues, and local allocations, can be included in the Biennial Environmental Monitoring report ofthe Tampa Bay NEP. 

### REGULATORYNEEDS: Possible revisions to the state SaltWater Fishing License Rule. 

### RELATED ACTIONS: FW-2, BH-3

* Revenue and salt water fishing license data provided by FDEP, August 1995

## ACTIONPLAN 

# Establish and Enforce Manatee Protection Zones

ACTION: Bay Fish & Wildlife 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



# FW·2
Enact local ordinances designating manatee protection zones in Tampa Bay. Encourage the use ofboatpropeller guards throughout the bay.


### BACKGROUND: Research continues to bolster evidence thatTampa Bay is an importantyear-round or seasonal home to many imperiled manatees, which are protectedunder the federal Endangered Species Act. In fact, as many as 200 ofthe more than 2,600 manatees remaining in the state seekrefuge in the winter atthe warm-water discharges surrounding the bay's powerplants. Additionally, the bay's seagrass meadows and numerous natural and manmade freshwater sources provide critical feeding and gathering areas for manatees throughoutthe 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 of4.1 manatees a year between 1976 and 1985, to an average of 10.1 manatees ayear 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 ofthe bay where manatees would benefitfrom increasedprotection, based on the best available manatee population and distribution data. The areas are important as eitherwinterrefuges from cold water, seagrass feeding areas, sources of fresh water or migration routes. Among these sites are: warm-water outfalls ofTampa Electric Company's Big Bend powerplants (winter sanctuaries) the warm-water outfall ofFlorida Power Corporation's Bartow power plant (winter sanctuary) and adjacent seagrass beds nearWeedon Island (feeding area) Culbreath Bayou inTampa (seagrass beds and freshwater source) Anna Maria Sound nearPerico Island (seagrasses) lower Manatee River nearPalmetto (fresh water and seagrasses) upperBraden River near Bradenton (freshwater source) 

## 191

### Hillsborough Rivernear Sulphur Springs (fresh water) portions ofTerra Ceia Bay portions ofMcKay Bay (seagrasses) the mouth ofthe Little Manatee River up to E.G. Simmons Park (seagrass beds) the Rocky Point area, southwest side ofthe Courtney Campbell Causeway (seagrass beds) 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

# FW..2 ACTIONPLAN Bay Fish & Wildlife



## 192 Ajoint meeting ofthe Tampa Bay NEP and the Agency on Bay Management (ABM) was held in November 1996 to discuss thejustification andramifications ofestablishing manatee protection zones inTampa Bay. Participants concluded that a formal workgroup composed ofenvironmental officials, manatee researchers and otherinterested parties should be created to develop specific recommendations. Designation ofmanatee protection zones could be done unilaterally by local governments, or in conjunction with rules developed by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). Creation ofzones by local ordinance is generally faster than the state rulemaking process and should bepursued first, followed by state adoption ifnecessary. Once designated, maximum boating speeds and entry restrictions would be put into placeforthe zones. The limits mightrequire boaters to travel at idle speeds year-round within the zones, and forbid boat entry entirely during certain times ofthe year such as winter, when large numbers ofmanatees congregate in just a few small areas. The restrictions would be periodically re-evaluated and adjusted as needed, based onupdated manatee population data. Consequently, continued research into manatee movements, habitatrequirements 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 ofmoney allocated to FMP activities in the Tampa Bay area currently is not sufficient to ensure adequate enforcement, thus this action also proposes investigating sources ofadditional funding for the FMP. Possible sources include a local boater registration add-on fee (already inplace in Pinellas and Hillsborough counties) or a reallocation ofrevenues from the state SaltWater Fishing License. (See FW-l for a more extensive discussion ofthese options.) Enforcement also could be enhanced through public education, as well as citizen monitoring and reporting ofspeed violations. Recognizing thatmanatees travel great distances and will not always remain within the protected zones, this action also encourages boaters to install special cage-like guards ontheirpropellers to avoid causing propellerinjuries to manatees throughout Tampa Bay. These guards, which now are manufactured commercially and cost about $100 each, also canprotect the bay's seagrasses from propeller damage and reduce human injuries from hoatpropellers. Newerprop guard models have made substantial progress in resolving concerns aboutboat performance, and the FDEP's Bureau of Protected Species Managementhas budgetedmoney in FY 97-98 to testthe various models on the market.

## ACTIONPLAN
STRATEGY: Bay Fish & 

### Wildlife 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

STEP I Establish a workgroup to explore recommendations for establishing manatee protection zones inTampa Bay. The workgroup's members should include environmental officials, manateeresearchers and representatives from enviromuental and boating clubs, as well as boat manufacturers. The workgroup should submitrecommendations to the NEP Policy Committee by September 1997. Responsibleparties: Tampa Bay NEp, ABM, FDEP STEP 2 Implement recommendations from Step I, including adoption ofzones through local ordinances and installation ofsigns denoting protection areas. Responsibleparties: FDEp, localgovernments, STEP 3 Increase funding for the FMPinTampa Bay (see Action FW-I) and local law enforcementmarine units to ensure adequate enforcement ofboating speed and entry restrictions within the manatee protection zones. Among the possible revenue sources are a local boater registration add-on fee, or reallocation ofstate Saltwater Fishing License fees. Responsibleparties: Localgovernments, Florida Legislature (for Salt WaterFishing License revenues) STEP4 Organize and train qualified volunteers to monitor andreport speed or entry violations within the protection zones. Volunteers also could assist with monitoring new zones to gauge the effectiveness ofthe restrictions. Responsibleparties: FDEp, working with local environmentalaction groups such as Tampa BayWatch andthe FMP's Coast Watchprogram. STEP5 Continue ongoing manatee population and mortality studies inTampa Bay. Reassessjustification for the protection zones periodically based on monitoring data to determine the needfor changes. Responsibleparties: FDEP/FMRI STEP 6 Promote the use ofpropellerguards to avoid injuring manatees throughout Tampa Bay. Responsibleparties: Tampa BayWatch, Florida ConservationAssociation, local boating andenvironmentalgroups 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 ofthe propeller guards to various boating and fishing groups. Step 5 is an ongoing project that should continue indefinitely. FOR TAMPA BAY 

# FW·2

193Designation ofmanatee protection zones would involve administrative and noticing requirements, as well as posting ofdesignated areas. However, gaining public and boater support for designation ofthe 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, orthrough a greater allocation ofrevenues from the state SaltWater Fishing License. Enforcement revenues also couldbe generated through legislative authorization ofa law requiring local governments to transfer 25 percent offunds received in fines and penalties to the FDEP's FMPfor those violations where arrests were made by FMPofficers. The funds received from those transfers should be used exclusively for increasing enforcement capabilities ofthe FMP in the district generating the funds. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

# FW·2 ACTIONPLAN
COST: Bay Fish & Wildlife



## 194 EXPECTED BENEFITS: Designation ofmanatee protection zones will increase protection ofmanatees and vital seagrass habitats within Tampa Bay. 

### MONITORING ENVIRONMENTALRESPONSE: 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 oflocal ordinances designating manatee zones. Legislative action also may be needed to ensure adequate funding for FMP and local enforcement ofthe restrictions. 

### RELATED ACTIONS: FW-l, BH-3

## ACTION PLAN 

# Support Bay Scallop Restoration Bay Fish & Wildlife 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

### ACTION: Supportbay scallop restoration by assisting stocking, spawning and monitoring efforts. 

### BACKGROUND: Improving water quality in Tampa Bay has created opportunities in the southernportion ofthe bay for recovery ofthe bay scallop, which all but disappeared from the bay in the 1960s. Experts suspectthat water pollution was a key factor in the collapse of this higWy sensitive species. Studies by the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (NEP) indicate thatbay water quality has improved to levels necessary to supportthe reintroduction ofthis mollusk. However, stock sizes are so depleted that seeding is needed tojump-start a sustainable population. To assistrecovery, the Tampa Bay NEP has supported pilot projects by the University ofSouth Florida (USF) to seed the bay with almost a quarter-millionjuvenile scallops raised in laboratories. Large seed stocks are necessary since natural predation and mortality ofyoung scallops is high. The Tampa Bay NEPalso sponsored a study through the Florida Marine Research Institute (FMRI) to evaluate the effectiveness ofexisting stocking strategies. That study, completed in January 1996, indicates that current efforts canbe successful, but must be continuedfor several years to compensate for variations in habitat quality and weather that may dramatically affectyear-to-year scallop reproduction and survival. For example, an extensive red tide thatplagued the SouthwestFlorida coast in 1995 adversely affected the survival ofbay scallops that year. Funding from the Program also supported the secondphase ofthis project, which has allowed USF to seed an additional 100,000juvenile scallops with the help ofcitizen volunteers. More than 50 waterfrontresidents in the southernportion ofthe bay have each adopted as many as 500juvenile scallops, placed in "scallop condominiums" along docks until they spawn. A single adult may release as many as 500,000 eggs, butfewer than 5 percent are expected to survive to adulthood. Most adultbay scallops die shortly after spawning. Other groups also are assisting in efforts to bring aboutreturn ofthe bay scallop. In August 1995, Tampa BayWatch directed a scallop air lift, with assistance from WFLA-TV, the Florida Marine Patrol and the Florida ConservationAssociation, transporting nearly 2,000 adult scallops by helicopterto Tampa Bay from the Steinhatchee River. This effort was repeated in 1996. The caged mollusks were placed atprotected sites in Ft. DeSoto ParkAquatic Preserve where they could safely spawn. AnotherNEP-initiated project, the Great Bay Scallop Search, dispatches teams of snorkelers yearly to designated portions ofthe bay to lookfor live scallops produced 

# FW·3

195as a result ofthe transplanting and seeding efforts. The most recent ScaHop Search, conducted in September 1996 and sponsoredby Tampa BayWatch, found 75 scallops in seagrass meadows within Boca Ciega Bay, Pinellas Point and Ft. DeSoto. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTIONPLAN Bay Fish & 

### Wildlife

,'

...'-.-. 

# FW·3·

198 STRATEGY: STEP 1 Identify funding sources to continue the scaHop stocking program, which is directedby USE The USF scallop laboratory is currently shut down due to lackoffunding. Initial projects, which involved the seeding ofalmost 250,000 stock, and the placement ofan additional 100,000juvenile scallops at waterfront docks in the southernportion ofthe bay, have been completed. Additional workwould supportplacement ofas many as two million labreared scallops annually in the bay over a period ofabout five years. 

### Responsibleparties: Tampa Bay NEp, USF, FMRl STEP 2 Monitorthe 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 ifscallop populations in the bay increase substantially. 

### Responsibleparty: Tampa BayWatch (forthe GreatBay 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 southernportion ofthe bay. Ifa scallop populationhas notbeen re-established, and ifmonitoring and program evaluation fail to indicate a reasonable probability for success, determine whetherthe program should continue, or explore alternative techniques that may be more cost-effective. Providerecommendations to the Tampa Bay Management Board. 

### Responsibleparty: Tampa Bay NEP staff 

### SCHEDULE: The first stocking project was accomplished in 1992-1993, followed by additional seeding ofscallops in 1994-1995. Further stocking efforts are onhold pending funding availability. Monitoring ofscallop populations and distribution began in 1994, and will continue yearly. Acomprehensive evaluation ofthe success ofthe 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 perforruancereview are to be determined.Recovery ofthis popular shellfish species, which depends on healthy seagrasses and favorable water quality conditions, may provide some ofthe most important evidence to date thatTampa Bay is on course to recovery. 

## ACTIONPLAN
EXPECTED BENEFITS:

MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE: Bay Fish & Wildlife 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



# FW·3
The bay will be monitored to trackpopulation 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 ofPower Plant Entrainment on Bay Fisheries 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

# FW·4: ACTIONPLAN Bay Fish & Wildlife



## 198 ACTION: Detennine whether a comprehensive study to assess the cumulative impacts ofmultiple powerplantoperatious onTampa Bay fish populations is needed. Ifa study is warranted and shows cumulative adverse impacts, adjust plantoperations and maintenance schedules as appropriate to reduce powerplant 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, oronce-through, cooling is the most economical method ofcondensing steam from the turbines ofsteam electric plants. However, the volumes ofambientbay waterused for this purpose, and the quantities ofwaste heat added to the bay as a result, can be significant. Although the discharge ofheated bay waterfrom the powerplants into the subtropical Tampa Bay estuary produces temperature changes thathave demonstrable impacts, according to a Florida Department ofEnvirorunental Protection (FDEP) study, another impact results from the capture ofplanktonic eggs and larval fish and shellfish in the cooling-waterintakes ofthe powerplants. This process, called entrairunent, can lead to highrates ofmortality from physical, chemical and thennal stress. Estimates from powerplantmonitoring in the early 1980s project that 274 billion fish eggs and 83 billionfish larvae are entrained annually inTampa 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 otherfactors, it is extremely difficultto assess the impact ofpowerplant entrairunenton overall bay fisheries populations. Under the current regulatory system, eachpowerplantmust obtain operating pennits from the Envirorunental ProtectionAgency (EPA) and the FDEP. But the pennit review process only examines the localized impacts ofeach individual plant, and only two ofthe bay's five power plants have been required to conduct extensive studies of theirfisheries impacts under CleanWaterAct regulations. The cumulative impacts of multiple facilities onthe fish populations ofthe bay have not been evaluated or considered. Conducting a comprehensive study ofcumulative impacts is an expensive and lengthy task, and could be fraught with legal complications. There currently is no requirement in the state rules governing powerplants that cumulative impacts be addressed, and initiating such a study inTampa Bay may necessitate a rule change. Additionally, the unique nature ofeach facility's operating processes, along with a lackofsuitablebackground infonnation on fish populations and the effects ofotherhuman-related impacts such as fishing, may make a study on entraimnent inconclusive. 

## ACTIONPLAN Bay Fish & 

### Wildlife 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY Finally, the cost ofa cumulative impacts study would be substantial, as would the installation ofbest available technologies to reduce the capture ofeggs and larvae. Entrainment and impingement studies financed by power companies in the Hudson River exceeded $2 million a yearfor monitoring and $1 million for analysis. An eightweek entraimnent sampling effort required for aTECO pennitrenewal cost $250,000. And while some techniques to decrease entrainment are relatively low in cost (I.e., TECO's installation offine-mesh screens on intake pipes at its Big Bend plant), other solutions such as the construction ofcooling towers to reduce the need for bay water can costhundreds ofmillions ofdollars. These costs potentially couldbe reduced by the utilization ofalternative sources ofwater, such as wastewater orindustrial effluent, and further investigation ofsuch alternative technologies should be encouraged. Thus, the need to assess the cumulative effects ofentraimnentmust first be demonstrated and the possible benefits ofsuch 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 ofpowerplants, and this effort may leadto new regulations requiring powerplants to minimize those impacts. This action encourages the participation oflocal and state regulators in the workgroup to assist them in reaching a consensus on whether a cumulative impacts study ofpower plants in Tampa Bay is warranted. 

### STRATEGY:
STEP I Participate in the EPA national workgroup on powerplant entraimnent. 

### Responsibleparties: Tampa Bay NEp, FDEp, Florida Marine Research Institute (FMRl), localpowerplantrepresentatives STEP 2 Depending on the results ofthe EPAworkgroup, detennine whether a cumulative impacts study is necessary andjustified. Ifit 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 ofthat investigation, a plan to minimize entraimnent through measures such as adjusting the operating ormaintenance schedules ofpower plants for periods ofpeakplankton andjuvenile abundance should be developed. The plan shouldbe compatible with any new federal regulations adopted by EPA. 

### Responsibleparties: EPA, FDEp, FMRl, localpowerplantrepresentatives STEP 3 Ifwarranted, amend state rules to require a cumulative impactreview for all future power plant siting and operating pennits located on Tampa Bay or its tributaries. 

### Responsibleparties: Tampa Bay NEp, localpowerplants, 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 contingentupon Step 1. Step 2, ifnecessary, can be initiated in 1997. Step 3 canbe initiated following the completion ofthe study, ifthe results ofthe study show a need for further action to reduce entrainment, beyond whatnew federal rules may require. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTIONPLAN 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 costfrom $1 million to $5 million. The costs ofremedial action to reduce entrainmenthave notyetbeen determined, but are expected to be substantial and should be evaluated in detail. 

### EXPECTED BENEFITS: Enhanced fish stocks in Tampa Bay. 

### MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE: FDEPis the state agency responsible for powerplant siting and permitting. EPA also has authority overpowerplant siting and operation permits. Monitoring offish stocks is conductedby the FMRI. Results ofany 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 PowerPlant Siting Act (Sections 403.501 through 403.517, ES.). 

### RELATED ACTIONS: FW-5

# Continue and Expand the Critical Fisheries Monitoring Program ACTIONPLAN Bay Fish & Wildlife 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



### ACTION: Continue the state's Critical Fisheries Monitoring Program and expand itto include oligohaline tributaries ofthe bay. 

### BACKGROUND: Tracking the long-term health ofbay fisheries is an important component ofthe ongoing monitoring program being developed for the TampaBay management plan. Recent water quality improvements in the bay, along with new regulations on commercial and recreational fishermen, make regular assessment offisheries trends even more critical for bay managers. The fisheries surveys will serve as a barometerfor 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 ofEnvironmental Protection's (FDEP's) Critical Fisheries Monitoring Program (CFMP) provides the most comprehensive sampling of fisheries in the bay. This program, conductedby the FDEP's Florida Marine Research Institute (FMRI), employs stratified random and fixed-station monitoring to assess the abundance and distribution offish and macroinvertebrates in Tampa Bay. The stratified random sampling divides the bay into six habitattypes (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 thatparticularbottom type. The fixed-station monitoring samples 24 stationary sites scattered throughout the bay once a month, using a single type offishing gear. Both survey methods record the number, species and length offish and invertebrates captured, as well as the temperature and salinity ofthe water. The program is financed by revenues from the state's SaltWaterFishing License. More than $2 million was allocated statewide to Critical Fisheries Monitoring in fiscal year 1995-1996, with about $500,000 ofthat dedicated to sampling in Tampa Bay. While the monitoring attempts to be as thorough as possible, funding and manpower limitations mean that some areas ofthe bay potentially important to fish recruitment and survival are not surveyed. For example, ofthe bay's myriad tributaries, only the Little Manatee, Manatee andAlafia rivers are sampled. Oligohaline segments ofthe Hillsborough and Palm rivers and numerous tidal creeks in UpperTampa Bay, such as Double Branch Creekand Rocky Creek, are not assessed. The existing program could be expanded to include more oligohaline areas, using cost-effective fixed-station monitoring. Additionally, a quickvisual examination offish and invertebrates for the presence ofvisible lesions could be added to assist bay mangers in tracking the long-term movement oftoxic contaminants through the bay system. 

# FW·5

201

### STRATEGY: STEP 1 Evaluate the need and costs to expand CFMPinto small tributaries and oligohaline areas, and identify candidate tributaries. 

### Responsibleparties: Tampa Bay NationalEstuary Program (NEP) and FDEP/FMRI 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTION PLAN Bay Fish & 

### Wildlife



## 202 STEP 2 Require field scientists conducting the sampling to perform a quickvisual examinatiou for lesions on the fish and invertebrates they collect, and record the species, lesion type and location ofthe lesions, as well as the location where the affected fish were caught. 

### Responsibleparties: FDEP/FMRI STEP 

### 3 Incorporate results ofthe CFMP in Tampa Bay in the Biennial Envirornnental Monitoring Report, and redirect sampling efforts as needed. 

### Responsibleparties: FDEP/FMRI, Tampa Bay NEP 

### SCHEDULE: The Tampa Bay NEP and FDEPjFMRI will evaluate the feasibility ofexpanding fisheries sampling and develop a formal recommendation by Apri11997. The detection of lesions indicative oftoxic contamination couldbegin in 1997. The first expanded sampling also couldbegin in 1997. 

### COST: The estimated annual cost for the currentTampa Bay sampling program is $500,000. The cost ofsampling 6-7 additional sites is estimated at $50,000, based on salary estimates for two additional full-time staffpersonnel. Financing sources for additional sampling (ifneeded) couldbe pursued through a change in FMRI's current allocatiou from the SaltWater Fishing License revenues or identification ofnew revenue sources. 

### EXPECTED BENEFITS: Implementation will provide more comprehensive information aboutthe status and trends ofbay fisheries, and will provide managers with an early-warning system to detect areas that may need additional management action. 

### MONITORING ENVIRONMENTALRESPONSE: FMRI currently monitors the health and abundance offisheries withinTampa 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-4Dredging to create Davis Islands, Tampa (/925).

PHOTO: BURGERT BROTHERS 

# Dredging

# & Dredged MaterialManagement 

# Coordination among local ports and bay interests in long-term planning for dredging and dredged material managementis essential to minimize environmental impacts and costs, address disposal needs, and maximize opportunities to use spoil material for beneficial uses such as habitatrestoration. With an average depth ofonly 12 feet, regular dredging ofthe bay is necessary to maintain safe passage through shipping channels serving the bay's three major seaports, its shore-based powerplants and industries, and recreational boaters. Dredging canbenefit 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 watercolumn and atmosphere as a result ofdredging sediments with high organic content. Disposal ofdredged material presents anotherimportant challenge. Deepening ofthe 40-mile main shipping channel in the 1970s required the removal ofup to 100 million cubic yards ofsediment. 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 the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTIONPLAN Dredging & DredgedMaterial Management



# DR-1>

20B ACTION: Develop a long-termmanagement plan that coordinates the individual dredging and dredged material management plans ofthe bay's three major seaports, as well as utilities and industries and otherusers that rely on the bay's navigational channels. 

### BACKGROUND: Tampa Bay serves three major seaports managedby independent port authorities. Various utilities and industries also share the bay's 40-mile-long deep-watertransportationhighway. This action calls for the development ofa long-range planto coordinate dredging and dredged material managementfor Tampa Bay to maximize shared disposal andbeneficial 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 coordinatorand sponsor ofdredging projects in the bay, has tentatively agreed to direct this comprehensiveplanning effort with funding assistance from the NEP. With an average depth ofonly 12 feet, regular dredging ofship channels and berths is needed to serve area ports and industries. Ship channels, which are dredged to depths ofup to 43 feet, mustbe 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 beneficialuses ofspoil 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 forTampa Bay's port authorities and the Florida Department ofTransportation (FDOT) in 1995 citedthe establishment and maintenance ofshared dredged material disposal sites as one of 13 recommendations adopted by the participants. The Tampa PortAuthority (TPA) estimates that about 840,000 cubic yards ofmaterial will be generated armually to maintain the upperpart ofthe main ship charme1, which extends south to the Gadsen Point widener. Long-term disposal needs will exceed the remaining capacity ofthe PortAuthority'S two spoil islands in Hillsborough Bay (estimated to be about 6 million cubic yards) in about seven years. TPAhas proposed to meetthe 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 ofEnviromnental Protection (FDEP) and the USACOE, which issues and periodically reassesses the port's maintenance dredging permit.Maintenance dredging ofthe main ship channel between Gadsen Point and the mouth ofTampa Bay is expected to generate about another 200,000 cubic yards ofmaterial a year. Dredged material from the lower segment ofthat channel (below CutB) 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 ofthe remainder ofthe material. Port Manatee's development blueprint includes plans to enlarge its turning basin and widener, and dredge its harbor channel to maintain a 40-footmean low water depth. A total ofabout 1.3 million cubic yards ofmaterial will be removed for these projects in order to keep pace with the anticipated shoaling ofsome 220,000 cubic yards ofmaterial each year. The PortAuthority 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. 

## ACTIONPLAN Dredging & DredgedMaterialManagement 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

# DR-1

The Port ofSt. Petersburg, the smallest ofthe 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 oftheir 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 offederal agencies led by the EPA, Corps of Engineers and Department ofTransportation. The draft guidance calls for the creation ofregional planning committees to aid in the development ofdredged material management plans. 

### STRATEGY: This strategy calls for the development and implementation ofa long-range plan to coordinate dredging and dredged material managementforTampaBay, and higWights additional planning needs that mustbe addressed to complete this coordinated strategy. STEP I Establish aTampa Bay Dredging and DredgedMaterial Management Committee, directed by the Corps ofEngineers and co-chairedby 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/privateports, government agencies, local governments, recreational and environmental interests and a representative ofEgmont Key State Park. The Tampa PortAuthority's existing Dredge Advisory and Migratory Bird committees, which include many of these same parties, may provide an initial membership base. The Dredging and DredgedMaterial Management Plan forTampa 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 the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

# DR....

208 ACTIONPLAN Dredging & 

### DredgedMaterialManagement explore long-term options for the disposal ofspoil material, including beneficial uses such as habitat restoration promotebest available technologies to reduce sedimentresuspensian and nutrientreleases during dredging, spoil disposal and contaimnent Responsibleparties: USACOEandFDEp, in cooperation with localport authorities andthe Committee STEP 2 Develop a 25-year plan for the management ofmaintenance material removed from the southern segment ofthe main ship channel from the Gadsen Pointwidener 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 ofthe overall plan: Determine status oflong-term spoil disposal plans for privately maintained shipping channels in the Bay, particularly channels serving Big Bend and otherutilities. Responsibleparties: USACOE, in cooperation with localporis andthe Committee 

### SCHEDULE: With funding assistance from NEP, the project is expected to getunderway in Spring 1997. 

### COST: The Tampa Bay NEPhas 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 onthe 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 ofspoil material, while fostering cooperation that is likely to yield cost-savings for community-supported port authorities. Removal ofmuckfrom channels also can help to improve water quality in localized areas. 

### MONITORING ENVIRONMENTALRESPONSE: The USACOE 

### will be responsible for monitoring progress on long-range planning and implementation.

## ACTIONPLAN Tampa Bay Shipping Channels Dredging & DredgedMaterial Management 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

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 the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 210 

## ACTIONPLAN
REGULATORY NEEDS: 

### None anticipated.
RELATED ACTIONS: 

### BH-l Dredging & DredgedMaterial ManagementAugust1(), 1993**~A** Brown Pelh:ansurveys the scene in the aftermath of afiery, three vessel collision at the mouth ofTampa Bay thatleftmore than 300,000gallons of oil in its wake.

PHOTO: PETER CLARK, TAMPA BAYWATCH 

# SpillPrevention 

# & Response 

# I nstallation ofan integrated,vessel tracking system to guide large ships through Tampa Bay ranks as one ofthe highestpriorities in the prevention ofoil and hazardous materials spills. Securing apermanent source offunding for the maintenance ofthe 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 ofoil and otherhazardous materials pass through Tampa Bay each year onhuge ships the size ofmodem skyscrapers. These ships traverse a long, relatively narrow shipping channel that leaves little room for navigational errors. In addition, billions ofgallons ofhazardous materials and chemicals

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

- are 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



# SP

211

### A three-vessel collision at the entrance to Tampa Bay inAugust 1993 was a vivid reminder ofthe bay's vulnerability. More than 330,000 gallons ofoil escaped, fouling area beaches and mangroves and killing dozens ofseabirds. More extensive damage was averted due to favorable tide and weather conditions and quickdeployment 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 withhighly toxic, water-soluble compounds such as anhydrous ammonia or sulfuric acid. A spill ofthese materials could have a severe, althoughrelatively short-term, impact on the bay's fish and wildlife and threaten public safety. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTION PLAN Spill Prevention & Response



## 212 Federal law requires that commercial shippers and facilities be capable ofhandling the cleanup ofa worst-case scenario oil orfuel spill. However, large spills canrequire that additional equipment and personnel be brought in from other parts ofthe state and Gulfregion. That makes effective advance planniug and coordination essential. While large spills have been rare inTampa Bay, the cumulative impact ofcountless small spills ofless than 25 gallons from fuel and bilge pump discharges and unintentionalleaks represents a chronic problem. 

### MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES Prevent catastrophic spills ofoil and otherhazardous materials. Reduce chronic smallerdischarges from boats, ships, marinas and other sources. Minimize the environmental impact ofspills through planning and response.


### SUMMARY OFACTIONS FOR SPILL PREVENTION & 

### RESPONSE SP-l Establish an integrated vessel tracking system forTampa 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 recommendedthat the Environmental ProtectionAgency's (EPA) Emergency Response and Removal Branch sponsor a local workshop to assist operators ofoil transport and storage facilities in complying with the mandates imposedby the Oil PollutionAct of 1990. The workshop would help dispel the confusion overthe differing requirements ofEPA, the Coast Guard and the Florida Department ofEnvironmental Protection. An estimated 471 million gallons ofoil are stored in tanks at area ports. EPA is considering the request. Improving state authority overharborpilots is anotherissue that merits further atten-tion. Ajourney from the GulfofMexico into the Port ofTampa can take three to seven hours, and mariners at the helm ofthe ships must make split-second decisions. Highly skilled and locally knowledgeable harborpilots are the first line ofdefense against accidents. They are especially important given thatthere presently are no emergency anchorages available for ships to pull into in case ofan emergency, and a huge container vessel may require a mile or more to come to a complete halt. 

## ACTIONPLAN Spill Prevention & Response 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



# SP Currently, the bay's harbor pilots undergo a rigorous training, examination and apprenticeship periodbefore being allowed to guide a ship on their own. The piloting system is governed by the state Department ofProfessional Regulation (DPR) and appointedrepresentatives ofthe piloting and maritime industries, who serve on the state Board ofPilot Commissioners. The 1993 oil spill served as the catalyst for a re-examination ofthe current oversight mechanisms. Following the spill, the Legislature passed a bill expanding the grounds for discipline ofstate 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 ofstate pilots whose federal licenses had been placed on probation or who had voluntarily surrendered theirfederal license in lieu ofprosecution. Despite these improvements, additional changes could further reduce the risk ofa spill or collision in the bay. One proposal is for Florida to follow the federal policy of requiring apilot to prove that he is not negligent ifhe hits afixed object. Under federallaw, a pilotmust show thatthe ship malfunctioned, someone disobeyed orders or some other factor led to the accident. Anotherproposal is for voice recorders to be placed on ships to document an accident. These proposals, and steps to ensure adequate continuing educationfor harbor pilots, deserve careful consideration.



## 213

# Establish an Integrated Vessel Traffic System for Tampa Bay and Permanently Fund the PORTS System 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE ACTIONPLAN Spill Prevention & Response



## 214 ACTION: Establish an integratedvessel traffic system forTampa Bay to reduce the potential for maritime collisions and spills. Additionally, secure a permanentfunding 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 ofpowerplants and businesses that utilize the bay for transportation. More than 4,000 ships enterTampa Bay each year, transporting over4 billion gallons ofoil, 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 ofa 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 broadcastnetworkto exchange vessel information when entering ordeparting port. Large vessels are equipped with ship-boardradar, but the quality and range ofthese systems vary. In fact, limitednavigational systems on some vessels force pilots to rely heavily on personal knowledge and skills to safely complete eachtransit. Tampa Bay was one ofseveral ports scheduled to receive a U.S. Coast Guard Vessel Traffic System (VTS) in 2002, although federal funds have notbeen appropriated and the acquisition appears unlikely. The proposed system's exclusive reliance on radar is another important limitation. While radar canpierce 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 andradar 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 orinstalled on ships. The device enables pilots to view the position and movement ofvessels in real time. Collisionavoidance data and weather information also are provided, and the system can be fully integrated withradar surveillance to provide 100 percent coverage ofvessel traffic on Tampa Bay. When combined with shore-based radar, DGPS provides the safest available means for navigation. This addedprotection is particularly vital in Tampa Bay,which has the longesttransit ofany portin Florida and no intermediate deep-draft anchorages. 

## ACTIONPLAN Spill Prevention & Response 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY The Tampa Bay NEP supports implementation ofthe 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 ofaTampa 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 oflocal shipping and piloting interests. Apreliminary reportreleasedby 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-circuittelevision for surveillance at Pendola Pointnear the Port ofTampa to augment a systemproposedfor installation at the Skyway Bridge. NEP funds also will provide amulti-channel transceiverto back up existing communications and recording equipment in the event ofan equipment or powerfailure. These components are partofan 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 NEPalso supports permanentfunding for the ongoing management of Tampa Bay's PORTS system, which provides vital tide and currentdata to navigators. The system's "real-time" measurements are most critical to pilots oflarge 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 ofthe oil slick. In recentyears, the PORTS systemhas received funding from maritime industries, the Hillsborough County phosphate severance tax, the Coastal ProtectionTrustFund and the Florida Department ofTransportation for maintenance ofthe system. However, no permanent funding has been secured. 

### STRATEGY: STEP I Support efforts to implement aVTIS utilizing the best available technology as soon as possible. 

### Responsibleparties: Tampa Bay NEp, in cooperation with localgovernments andthe Tampa Bay VTIS Consortium STEP 2 Secure apermanent source offunding for PORTS. 

### Responsibleparties: localgovernments andFlorida Legislature 

### SCHEDULE: The final VTIS implementationplan 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

215Sources estimate that a combined DGPS-radar systemwill 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 SeaportTransportation and Economic DevelopmentTrust Fund, State TransportationTrust Fund, General Revenue and the Florida Coastal Protection Trust Fund (FCPTF). 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE ACTIONPLAN
COST: Spill Prevention & Response



## 218 Ongoing maintenance funding for the $1.2-millionfederally financed PORTS system, which was installed in 1991, is estimated at $220,000. Funding options include: county boaterregistration fees, navigation districts, portuserfees, FCPTF, Hillsborough County phosphate severance tax. The lasttwo sources currently provide maintenance funding, but long-term commitments have notbeen secured. 

### EXPECTED BENEFITS: Acombined vessel traffic and information system and real-time weather and current data will ensure the highest level ofspill prevention andresponse for TampaBay. 

### MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE: Collision-avoidance data from the new vessel traffic system couldbe used to measure the success ofthis 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 PriorityAreas in Tampa Bay ACTIONPLAN Spill Prevention & Response 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



### ACTION: Develop detailed spill response plans for environmentally sensitive areas ofTampa Bay to enable quick and effective deployment ofcrews and containment/cleanup equipment in the event ofan oil orhazardous materials spill.


### BACKGROUND: A scientific support subcommittee participating in the development ofTampa Bay's Area Contingency Plan (ACP)

- the U.S. Coast Guard's strategic plan for responding to oil spills in SouthwestFlorida

- met several years ago to prioritize areas ofthe 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

- Blockoffsensitive inner embayments and direct oil eastto a causeway collection area. Bishop Harbor

- Protect innerportions ofthe harbor and direct material south to causeway collection area. Cockroach Bay/Little Manatee River

- Protect inner areas portions ofCockroach Bay and Piney Point and direct material south to Port Manatee or north to Bahia Beach orApollo Beach. Bullfrog Creek

- Protect the creekand direct material to Cargill along the north side ofthe AlafiaRiver for collection, or south to TECO property. BowerTract

- Blockentrances to creek and direct material to Courtney Campbell Causeway for collection. Weedon Island

- Implementthe island's own spill response plan and direct material to nearby causeway for collection. Ft. DeSoto

- Protect inside "arrow" ofFt. DeSoto Park, directing material to Ft. DeSoto Beachfor collection. Foreach area, the group recommended the development ofmore detailed response plans, including maps identifying response staging, equipment storage and materials collection areas; access points; boatramps and channel markers; and water depths. The group also urged the installation ofpermanent boom anchors, where appropriate and technically feasible, to improve spill response and reduce boom deploymenttime. Overall response planning has been aidedby 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 SpillAnalysis System includes a series ofdata layers depicting existing conditions in the bay, sensitive resources andphysical landmarks such as roads and boat ramps. The system canbe used to create maps that show the extent ofa spill and project its course. 

# SP·2

217STEP 1 Reconvene theACP's scientific support subcommittee to evaluate and update response plans for each ofthe seven priority sites identified. Ensure thatthese plans are consistentwith the methodology employed in the development ofthe Tidal Inlet Protection Strategies for Oil Spill Response for the Southwest Coast ofFlorida, a 1995 report based on research by the Marine Spill Response Corporation and the Florida Departmentof Environmental Protection (FDEP). 

### Responsibleparnes: U.S. Coast GuardMarine Safety Office, in cooperation with FMRI, FDEPandNEP 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

# .5 ACTIONPLAN
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. 

### Responsibleparties: NEP 

### SCHEDULE: Al1 steps will be initiated in 1997. 

### COST: To be determined, based on recommendations ofthe subcommittee and the scope of plarming. 

### EXPECTED BENEFITS: Detailedresponse 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 ENVIRONMENTALRESPONSE: The FDEP's Bureau ofEmergency Response monitors the environmental impacts from and response to oil spills. 

### REGULATORYNEEDS: None anticipated 

### RELATED ACTIONS: SP-I

# Improve Fueling and Bilge-Pumping Practices Among Recreational Boaters ACTIONPLAN Spill Prevention & Response 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



### ACTION: Improve fueling and bilge pumping practices among recreational boaters.


### BACKGROUND: As the number ofrecreational boaters utilizing Tampa Bay increases, small fuel spills and releases ofoily bilge water also are expected to escalate. Small, butchronic, spills occur routinely through careless fueling habitats, operation ofoutboard motors, discharges ofoily bilge water and improper disposal ofused oil products. According to the National Research Council, these small spills account for 90 percent ofthe oil that ends up in the nation's waterways. Although many boaters store their boats on land, thousands ofvessels remain in the bay at marinas, yachtclubs and countless docks. Someboat insurance policies require automatic bilge pumps, butboat owners also pump theirbilges manually. The cumulative amount ofoil entering the bay as a result ofrecreational vessel bilge-pumping can be substantial. Typically, recreational vessels stored dockside use automatic bilge pumps to prevent accidental sinkings from equipmentfailures or stOims. These pumps are activated when the interior volume ofwater reaches a certain level. The bilge waterthat is automatically pumped from vessels with internal engines may contain small amounts of fuel, cleaning solutions and otherchemicals thatpollute the bay. In addition, fuel spills frequently occur when boat owners fill theirtanks. Boat owners often can't tell when the tankis full until the overflow valve discharges diesel or gasoline into the bay. Federal and state laws prohibit the discharge ofany fuel or oil within 12 nautical miles ofshore. As little as a single cup offuel can cause a "fuel sheen," which is a misdemeanorthat 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 smallervessels. Additionally, only vessels longerthan 26 feet in length are required to have aplacard reminding the operator that oil discharges are prohibited. Though enforcement ofthese regulations is difficultbecause ofthe number ofboaters and marinas on the bay, current U.S. Coast Guard procedures sinceApril 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 ofoil, fuel and oily bilge waterto the marine environment. According to a 1992 survey by the 

# fSP·3

219Tampa 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 the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTION PLAN SpillPrevention & 

### Response



## 220 There are no recreational bilge pump-outfacilities in Tampa Bay. 

### Ifa marina has drums setup to receive oily water, boat owners oftenhave to manually pump their bilge water into buckets and transfer itto 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 pergallon for a pump-out, which pays for the proper disposal ofdrums. Use ofexisting commercial products can assist these efforts. Bilge pillows, diapers and oil-absorbentpads, available at most marine stores, act like magnets in separating oil from bilge water. Boatowners put them in theirbilges and dispose ofsaturated pads, oil-watermixtures and otherhazardous boat chemicals in a proper waste container orwith a recycler. Various oil-water separators, designed to fit mostvessels, also are available for less than $50 for installation in the vent line. Boater education courses, offered by the Coast GuardAuxiliary now include environmental protection and fueling safety components. Coast Guard Reservists who are SEAPARTNERS present enviromnental programs and attend boat shows to educate the public and boaters. This action seeks to reduce small spills by improving education ofnew boaters and boat owners who store their vessels in the water. 

### STRATEGY: The strategy to improve fueling andbilge-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 registeredboat owners to install fuel overfill protection devices and fuel-water and oil-water separators in automatic bilge pumps. 

### Responsibleparties: Florida Departmentof EnvironmentalProtection (FDEP), U.S. Coast GuardAuxiliary, Marine ManufacturersAssociation, 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" productthat will allow the recreational boaterto see, first hand, the practical application ofsuch aproduct. 

### Responsibleparties: FDEP, U.S. Coast GuardAuxiliary, SEA PARTNERS, Florida Sea Grant Note: Extensive educationalmaterialproducedby manufacturers and otherboater environmental educationprograms (PugetSoundAlliance,

### Chesapeake Bay Foundations, Center for Marine ConservationfCMC} etc.) already exists andcan be tailored for local use. 

## ACTIONPLAN Spill Prevention & Response 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

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 ofthe leading manufacturers. 

### Responsibleparties: FDEp, U.S. Coast GuardAuxiliary, 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 ofsuccess for this action will be a reduction in the number ofminor spills reported. 

### REGULATORY NEEDS: None anticipated.
RELATED ACTIONS: 

### TX-3, PH-3 

# SP·3

221

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 222 ACTIONPLAN Spill Prevention & Response

## ACTIONPLAN Public Education & Involvement

EPA Administrator CarolBrowner lends ahelping

to Lakewood

oJ.students

rs/ilfll:ass**sio_r~,~** 

### 'lIPa (1994)

. .,r-- PHOTO: TAMPA BAY NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



# PE



# PublicEducation

# & Involvement 

# A communityAdvisory 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. Appointedby the NEP's Policy Committee, members include representatives ofagriculture, business, education, fishing and the environment, who also share theirperspectives as citizentaxpayers and residents ofthe 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 ofinformal focus groups to discuss the bay's mostpressing needs and options for addressing them with neighbors, business associates, maritime and fishing groups, and other community interests. Feedbackfrom these participants identified areas ofbroad support and issues of potential controversy. A second and highly successful series offocus groups and larger Town Meetings onTampa Bay were conducted in 1996, following the January 1996 release ofthe draft Comprehensive Conservation & ManagementPlan (CCMP). 

## 223This action plan, developed by the Committee, recommends priorities and plans for public education and involvementin the future as the NEP and its community partners begin implementation ofthe CCMP. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

## ACTIONPLAN Public Education & Involvement



## 224 Future community outreach should seekto: foster continued community support for bay restoration and CCMPimplementation by continuing to educateresidents about bay issues, and publicize the bay's progress and needs improve public faith in the ability ofbay 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.
Atop priority in 1997 will be the development and distribution ofapublic summary ofthe final CCMPfor residents, legislators and community leaders. This will lay the foundation for a series ofannual progress reports to the community documenting progress in the implementation ofthe bay plan. Other 1997 initiatives proposed by the Community Advisory Committee include:

a public opinion poll to identify community concerns and comprehension ofbay issues, as well as gauge supportfor 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 outreachto low-income and minority groups periodic public forums, sponsoredby NEP, on controversial and important bay issues, such as NEP's televised debate on the Ban-The-Nets referendum development ofa graphic-and-text environmental index on the state ofTampa Bay for periodic publicationin local newspapers
The Committee and NEPalso will evaluate the need for a companion to the 1996 Teachers Guide to Tampa Bay, a middle-school curriculum kit developedby the NEP and Tampa Tribune for distribution to more than 350 schools. Additionally, the Committee recommends: continued distribution ofthe Boater's Guide to Tampa Bay, a publication ofthe NEP and Florida Marine Research Institute which already has been distributed to more than 100,000 boaters. continuation ofthe NEPnewsletter, Bay Guardian, to spotlightthe state ofthe 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 ofbay restoration and protection efforts in cooperation with otherpublic 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 FloridaAquarium 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 ofdevelopers mighttargeturban designers and showcase exemplary commercial landscapes that enhance the environment. Public field trips to bay restoration sites and parks also mightbe offered in cooperation with The FloridaAquarium. 

## ACTIONPLAN Public Education & Involvement 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

# PE

Funding to implementthese initiatives will be covered in the NEP's annual workplan or secured through grants and community partnerships.



## 225

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 226 ACTION PLAN

# Implerrlentation

# & Financing 

# This chapterdescribes how the Comprehensive Conservation & Management Plan (CCMP) for Tampa Bay will be implementedby local govermnents, agencies and otherbay stakeholders, and discusses the oversight role ofthe Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (NEP) in ensuring that the goals ofthe 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 ofthe final managementplan. The agreement will include specific goals for the recovery ofnatural 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 eachpartner's responsibility for meeting those goals, and a timetable for achieving them. Buthow those targets are reached will be left up to individual cormnunities, who may select the most suitable options from among arange ofalternatives. Many ofthose options are described in this plan as examples ofhow a community might comply with its commitmentto reduce pollution in the bay. This approach not only emphasizes flexibility, but allows local govermnents to focus their limitedresources 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 managementplans and regulatory programs. Existing bay management expenditures also are presented to provide an understanding ofhow much money is currently allocated and where it is going. Financing options that follow illustrate possible sources ofrevenue and approaches to accomplish goals ofthe plan that mightnot otherwisebe achieved with existing resources. Wherever possible, the Tampa Bay NEP advocates the reallocation ormore efficient use ofexisting revenues to carry outrecommended actions. 

# Implementing the Plan for Tampa Bay Successful implementation ofthe CCMPwill require firm commitments for action, flexibility for local govermnents to pursue the most cost-effective strategies to achieve aparticulargoal, integration ofgoals and strategies into existing regulatory programs and rules, and effective oversightto ensure that actions are carried out in a timely manner. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 227

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 228 Commitments will be secured through an implementing agreement which NEP partners expectto sign in 1997, after the bay management planhas been approved. These partners include Hillsborough, Pinellas and Manatee counties; the cities ofTampa, St. Petersburg and Clearwater; the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD); Environmental Protection Commission ofHillsborough County; the Tampa PortAuthority; Florida Department ofEnviromnental Protection; U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers; U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA). Other agencies, such as the Florida Game & FreshWaterFish Commission, also will be encouraged to sign the formal agreement. The goals ofthe CCMP (Chapter4 ofthis document) are the goals ofthe implementing agreement, which will require agencies and local govermnents to develop individual action plans detailing projects that will satisfy those goals. Akey objective ofthe agreement is to achieve nitrogen management goals approved by the Tampa Bay Management Committee in 1996. Local govermnent action plans will address that portion ofthe nitrogen goal which relates to stormwaterrunoffand municipal point sources. ANitrogenManagement Consortium oflocal electric utilities, industries and agricultural interests, as well as local govermnent andregulatory 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 ofsigning 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 ofproposed projects, how thatproject contributes to achieving goals (quantified, where applicable), with supporting documentation ofbenefits, an implementation schedule, and a cost and financing plan. These action plans are particularly important in relation to nitrogen loading goals, becauserelevant aspects ofthese plans will be incorporated into regulatory permits. These action plans may be based on ongoing watershed initiatives begun priorto the adoption ofthe comprehensive plan for Tampa Bay, such as Pinellas County's Allen's Creekwatershed initiative, as long as these watershedplans 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 waterquality permits addressing direct orpoint discharges and stormwatermanagement. Local govermnents will amend their comprehensive plans to promote, and assure consistency with, the approved action plans.The CCMPhas been developed in cooperation with the bay area's six largest local governments, broad-based community interests, and environmental agencies atthe local, state and federal levels, to reach consensus onbay restoration goals and strategies. The Tampa Bay NEP also has coordinated closely with local environmental alliances devoted to improving and protecting specific regions ofthe bay, including the Hillsborough River Greenways TaskForce and related greenways initiatives and the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve ManagementTeam. Both these public-private alliances ofenvironmental and economic stakeholders are excellent models for community-based planning. Akey partner in the Tampa Bay NEP has been SWFWMD and its SurfaceWater Improvement and Management (SWIM) Program, which is expected to play an important role in implementing the bay plan. Because ofits prominent role, identifying a permanent source offunding 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 ofthe TampaBay 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 ofa Federal Consistency Review, to evaluate and address any inconsistencies among goals ofother govenunentprograms and those established forTampa Bay, are available as an appendix to this document. 

# Roles ofthe Tampa Bay NEPin Overseeing Implementation The success ofthe Tampa Bay NEPultimately will be measured in bay improvement achieved through implementation ofthe CCMP. Consequently, a key ingredient for success is defining who should oversee implementation ofthe plan and what oversight should entail. In 1996, the local governments and agencies comprising the Tampa Bay Management Conference elected to continue theirparticipation in the NEP to oversee implementation ofthe plan. The primary oversightroles ofthe Tampa Bay NEP will be to monitor progress (in implementation and the bay's recovery), assistimplementation, continue public outreach and involvement and improve data management. Specific efforts associated with these functions are outlined below. One ofthe strengths ofthe Tampa Bay NEP is the precedent-setting alliance oflocal 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 ofthe plan for Tampa Bay. This bottoms-up approach to environmental management gives all partners a voice in the future ofTampa Bay. The Policy Committee also is evaluating options for expanding Management 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 229

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

230 Conference membership to broadenrepresentation by smallerlocal governments and private industry, as well as other agencies that may play an importantrole in the bay's future. EPAhas set aside $1.2 million, or $300,000 peryear over four years beginning in 1997 to assistthe Tampa Bay NEP in overseeing implementation ofthe CCMP. The federal contributionrequires a local funding match of25 percent, to be providedby the NEP's local governments and agency participants. Acomprehensive evaluation ofthe goals and strategies established through the NEP for Tampa Bay will be conducted five years after the adoption ofthe plan to ensure thatrestoration efforts and funding are effectively targeted. 

# Oversight Roles Monitor & 

### ReportProgress 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 NEPManagement and Policy Boards, and the community on progress in charting the course forTampa Bay Produce a biennial bay monitoring report for bay managers 

### Assist

### Implementation Seek timely implementation ofpriority actions Pursue grants and other funding to supportbay restoration Direct or coordinate technical investigations and other efforts to assistimplementation (especially studies on atmospheric deposition conducted in partnership with EPA) Provide staffsupport for the Management Conference ofthe Tampa Bay NEP, comprised ofparticipating local governments, agencies, and technical and community interests devoted to bay improvement Assist in conflict resolution ifmediation is needed 

### Public Outreach andInvolvement 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 ofeffortthat an implementing party might anticipate in budgeting these tasks. However, these should not automatically be construed as requirements for new sources ofrevenues, since some ofthese initiatives canbe accomplished with existing resources or by redirecting current funding allocations to better address the bay's needs. Additionally, anumber ofactions seekto 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 efficientuse ofexisting 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 peryear (based on FY94-95 budgets). Ofthat amount, 68 percent, orroughly $170 million, is devoted to wastewater collection, reuse and treattnent

- activities that eitherindirectly or directly benefit the bay, even ifthey aren'tperformed solely for the bay's benefit. These activities are funded largely through wastewaterutility enterprise funds, created by local governments expressly for these purposes. The next largest allocation of 14 percent, ornearly $35 million, is expended primarily by local governments and the Southwest FloridaWater ManagementDistrict for stormwatermanagement, including handling and treatment. Abouthalfofthese programs are financed through stormwaterutility funds. The remainder comes from ad valorem taxes, energy utility taxes, permitfees and licenses, pollution trust funds and state and federal general revenues. Budgets for habitat restoration, preservation and management total approximately $7 million ornearly 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 ofthe 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 costto maintain existing nitrogen loadings to the bay may be relatively minimal overtime. Nitrogen loadings to the bay are expected to increase 7 percentby 2010, or about one-halfofone percentper year. Annual costs to offset those loads are estimated at approximately $100,000 per ton ofnitrogen*, or about $1.7 million peryear. Preliminary costs also have been establishedfor habitatrestoration, another focal point ofthe comprehensive plan for Tampa Bay. Those figures suggest that approximately $350,000 ofexisting annual expenditures (excluding land purchase costs) would be necessary to restore about 20 acres oflow-salinity tidal stream habitatper year. Although costs for meeting other goals have notbeen fully determined, recommended actions will focus on cost-effective use ofexisting resources and a clear return on investment. Any additional funds required to restore Tampa Bay will be documented 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 231

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 234PHOTO: BOB WESTENHOUSERfTAMPA TRIBUNE 

# MonitoringBay Improvement 

# E fforts to monitorTampa Bay's health are central to the success ofbay restoration efforts, for monitoring enables communities to measure return on investment and helps environmental managers validate orrefocus existing strategies for bay improvement. An effective monitoring program provides the data necessary to assess the status and trends in the health and abundance ofthe bay's wildlife and habitats. This information allows local governments and agencies to evaluate progress made in the restoration and protection ofTampa Bay. The data also provides insights into the effectiveness of currentmanagement strategies, indicating when goals have been met, ifactions should continue, or whethermore stringent efforts are warranted. Monitoring the changes caused by management actions in an estuary is not as simple as counting fish ormeasuring waterquality. Estuaries, by their very nature, are dynamic systems. Populations offish, birds and other organisms fluctuate with natural cycles. Water quality also varies, particularly as seasonal and annual weatherpatterns change. The task oftracking environmental changes in an estuary can be difficult

- 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 235

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 236 and distinguishing changes caused by human actions from natural variations can be even more difficult. The coordinatedbay monitoring program devised by the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (NEP) in cooperation with local govermnents and agencies is designed to address many ofthese 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) ofHillsborough County since 1974. These programs have contributed significantly to the wealth ofknowledge 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 ofbenthic communities

- have been added. A series ofworkshops with local govermnent and agency partners helped to define five general monitoring objectives for the water quality, fisheries, benthic and habitat components ofthe program. These objectives are to: estimate the areal extent ofthe bay that does not provide adequate water quality conditions to support seagrasses and other living resources
assess the abundance and health ofbay fish populations overtime estimate the areal extent ofdegraded benthic habitat in the bay and within each bay segment estimate the areal extent and quality ofseagrasses, mangroves and emergent bay wetlands estimate the areal extent ofoligohaline (low-salinity) habitat in the bay and its tributaries. This focus on measuring the areal extent ofbay conditions expands upon traditional methods and can dramatically increase the value ofinfonnation collected. For instance, simply considering the average concentration ofdissolved oxygen throughoutthe bay may appearto indicate that waterquality standards have been met. But, in fact, this may notbe the case, since water quality in some portions ofthe bay may still be inadequate

- or much better than average. The new approach will indicate how much ofthe bay, by percentage or number ofacres, is not meeting water quality conditions to support seagrass recovery targets. It also enables more effective assessment oftrends in cases where some areas decline and others improve butthe 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. Priorto standardization, monitoring programs used various methods to communicate their results. The monitoring framework has been specifically designed to compile and synthesize results from majormonitoring programs in a single comprehensive documentproduced every two years and first published in the Fall of 1996. A separatesummary report will be written for decision-makers responsible for the management ofTampa Bay. Monitoring workshops will be held every two orthree 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 ofthe 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 ofparticipating local governments. Components ofthe 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 establishedbay segment targets? Are nutrient concentrations increasing, decreasing or remaining stable? Is water clarity increasing, decreasing orremaining stable? Is the areal extent oflow dissolved oxygen concentrations 

### « 2mgjL) increasing, decreasing or remaining stable? Benthos Is the composition ofbenthic species changing? Are sediment characteristics changing? Is the composition ofbottom-dwelling finfish changing? Are the frequency and spatial distribution offish 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 ofTampa Bay increasing, decreasing or remaining stable? Bay Habitats Is the areal coverage ofseagrass increasing, decreasing orremaining stable, and how does this compare withbaywiderestoration/protection targets? Is the areal coverage ofsaltwaterwetlands, low-salinity wetlands and associated uplands increasing, decreasing orremaining stable, and how does this compare to baywide restoration/protection targets? Fish and Wildlife Are fish populations increasing, decreasing orremaining stable? Are manatee populations increasing, decreasing or remaining stable? Are bottlenose dolphin populations increasing, decreasing orremaining stable? Are colonial water-birdpopulations increasing, decreasing orremaining stable?


### WATER QUALITY While currentprograms measure trends in waterquality over time very effectively, they were not originally designed to provide estimates ofthe spatial extent ofconditions in the bay. Four local governments measure water quality at 126 stations in Tampa Bay, including 21 sites in OldTampa Bay; 23 in Hillsborough Bay; 22 in Middle Tampa Bay; 17 in LowerTampa 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 theirrespective programs and may not entirely satisfy the needs ofthe baywide environmental monitoring program. To truly determine the extent ofconditions reported, stations mustbe 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 ofthe 126 original stations have been incorporated into a statistically valid baywide monitoring design. The design is basedupon the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency's (EPA) Enviromnental Monitoring andAssessment Program (EMAP) grid, which allows for random station selection. It enables local governments to continue theirlong-term study at many stations while providing a more rigorous method to evaluate the spatial extent ofconditions in specific bay segments. The bay's three surrounding counties and the City ofTampa 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 ofthe biennial monitoring report. These communities also are participating in the West Coast Regional Ambient Monitoring Program (RAMP), an ongoing effort, initiatedby the Tampa Bay and Sarasota Bay NEPs, the Southwest FloridaWaterManagement District (SWFWMD) and local governments to coordinate enviromnental monitoring data from Tampa Bayto Charlotte Harbor. All field and analytical methods employed, and QA/QC protocols, are in accordance with approved methods ofthe EPA and/or the Florida Department ofEnvironmental Protection (FDEP). 

### BENTHIC COMMUNITIES AND SEDIMENTANALYSIS Anew component inTampa Bay's monitoring program was established in 1993 to evaluate the quality ofbay-bottom sediments and their effects onbottom-dwelling sea life. Samples are collected annually during an "index" period (September to October) that is representative ofworst-case conditions for each year. Collection sites match those randomly selected for waterquality sampling. The benthic monitoring program is evaluating the abundance and composition ofbenthic species found throughoutthe bay to identify those areas that differ from expected patterns. Since some species ofbenthos are more sensitive to environmental stress, these areas may indicate impacts from contaminants, habitat alteration orothertrauma. The health and abundance ofbenthic organisms are indicators ofthe bay's overall health. Specific indicators include species richness and diversity, as determinedby detailed taxonomic analyses ofcollected specimens. 

### Ifcontaminants 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 linkin afood web that supports many forms ofmarine 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 ofthe 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 ofsealife may be a result oflow levels ofdissolved oxygen during pre-dawnhours, an issue that will be addressed in Tampa Bay as an element ofthe 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 oftheir assessments. Initial studies indicate that some areas ofthe bay contain contaminated sediments, but the severity and spatial extent ofcontamination in these areas are currently unknown. Beginning in 1996, sediments will be tested for whole-sample toxicity using the Microtox method. In addition, the NEPrecommends thatthe effects ofcontaminants onbenthic life be studied in future years using bioassays that subject test organisms to benthic sediments. Observing the health ofbenthos exposed to sediment samples in a laboratory will help to identify toxic sites or areas ofhealthy benthos. Sediment chemistry and toxicity measurements have been designed to correlate with other monitoring programs and allow comparison oftoxicity data across the country. Currently, the bay's three surrounding counties participate in the benthic monitoring program. Afield 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 standardEMAP methodology tested and reviewed by the EPA. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 239

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 240 ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION Preliminary research indicates thatroughly a third ofthe nitrogen loading in Tampa Bay, as well as a significantpercentage ofcadmium, copper and lead, comes from atmospheric deposition directly to the surface ofthe bay. In cooperation with EPA's GreatWaters initiative, local air and water quality divisions, as well as SWFWMD, the FDEP and the Florida Department ofTransportation (FDOT), are participating in a long-term monitoring program for local atmospheric deposition. The 18-month daily sampling effort, whichbegan inAugust 1996, is designed to assess atmospheric contributions ofnitrogen to Tampa Bay by measuring rainfall and dryfall, according to procedures aud protocols established by the National Atmospheric DepositionProgram (AIRMoN) and peer-reviewedby researchers from National Oceanographic AtmosphericAdministration's (NOAA) Air Resources Laboratory. In addition to the intensive single-site GreatWaters wetfall/dryfall deposition monitoring, the Tampa Bay NEP has recently completed a pilot program to examine the spatial variability ofatmospheric 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 ofcopper, lead, zinc, nitrates and phosphorus. Mercury, which also is associated with atmospheric deposition, is being monitoredunder a separate program through the FDEP. The pilot program will provide new insights into the distribution ofcontaminants transported by rainfall and dustfall.


### BAY HABITATS The amount and quality ofhabitat available for fish and wildlife is critical to maintaining and restoring Tampa Bay. Many species have specific habitatrequirements that mustbe met for their survival. Ongoing monitoring efforts have demonstrated recovery ofseagrasses in some areas ofthe 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 ofthe success ofseagrass recovery. The health of seagrasses inrandomly selected areas also is monitored every two years by measuring density ofplants, the number ofblades perplant and the relative density ofepiphytic algae attached to the grass blades. More frequent monitoring may be required ifsignificant declines in seagrass coverage or health are noted in the future. The City ofTampa 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 forjuvenilefisheries. The boundaries ofthese habitats fluctuate with the flow offresh water in natural cycles. These habitats have been hard-hit by development and diversions offresh waterto serve the region's potable water needs. Until recently, few efforts had been made to quantify the loss oflow-salinity habitats, butnew studies by regional and state agencies have mapped these wetland areas andprovided salinity measurements from area rivers. Separate studies by SWFWMD, conducted as part oftheir minimum flow permitrequirements, will determine the effects ofchanges in freshwater inflows to Tampa Bay, including impacts to fisheries and other aquatic life. Responsibility for long-term monitoring ofoligohaline 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 theirresurgence as new bay management practices are implemented will be necessary to maintain ongoing supportfor bay restoration. The FDEP's Critical Fisheries Monitoring Program, established in 1990, provides the most comprehensive sampling offisheries in the bay. This program, conducted by FDEP's Florida Marine Research Institute (FMRI), employs stratifiedrandom and fixed-station monitoring to assess the abundance and distribution ofthe bay's fish and macroinvertebrates. To monitorpotential environmental effects from toxic orhazardous materials, the Tampa Bay NEP has recommended that the program be expandedto document abnormalities in all fish over75mm long, including tumors, parasites, skeletal malformations and deformities in the gills, mouths and eyes. The largestfive fish in each target species also would be analyzed for chemical contaminants. FDEP also monitors the numbers ofendangered sea turtles, manatees and bottle-nose dolphins in Tampa Bay with aerial surveys conducted annually overnearshore waters. Data collected includes location, species, number ofadults and calves and animal behavior. The bay's colonial breeding bird populations are monitoredby 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 ofvolunteers to various places to note numbers and varieties ofbirds. Aerial surveys ofpelicans and mid-winter surveys ofwaterfowl are conductedby Florida's Game and FreshWaterFish Commission annually throughout the state. In the future, itmay be beneficial to establish specific goals for populations ofcolonial waterbirds and nesting birds, as additional measures ofthe overall health ofthe bay.


### DATAMANAGEMENTAND ANALYSIS To facilitate data sharing, monitoring data will be available through a decentralized system maintained by the Florida Growth ManagementData NetworkCoordinating Council located in the Governor's office in Tallahassee. In this system, participants check, verify and maintain their own databases, often in a variety ofphysical 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 ofthe Council's statewide directory. Agencies collecting data agree to submit entries to the CSD describing theirin-house databases; meet minimum standards for in-house data documentation; and routinely 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



### 241

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 242 provide this documentation when transferring data. Agencies maintaining water quality databases must periodically submittheir monitoring data to Florida's STORET system. Use ofthe STORET system ensures that the water quality data will be stored securely and available to a wide variety ofusers nationwide.


### MONITORING PERFORMANCE Performance criteria are explicit levels ofenvironmental change thatmay be detected through monitoring. These criteria, and periodic evaluations ofhow well the program meets those criteria, will ensure that the sampling intensity is appropriate to the level ofchange anticipated as a result ofmanagement actions. Forexample, infrequent sampling couldresult in a monitoring program incapable ofdetecting anything but catastrophic change. Extensive sampling, on the otherhand, may unnecessarily waste resources to measure changes oflittle importance. Waterquality and habitatmonitoring will allow comparisons ofbay 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 environmentfor healthy populations ofplants 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 thatmonitoring efforts are only as good as their ability to get current and accurate data to appropriate managers in a timely manner. Abay monitoring report, first published in 1996 by the NEP, incorporates data from various governmental agencies and communities into a common format. Informationfor the biennial report will be compiledby SWFWMD, using in-house resources for data analysis and presentation. A key objective ofthe report is to assess progress toward achieving restoration and protection targets setforth in the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) for the scientific community and general public both. The format includes updated environmental data focusing onboth 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 ofTampa Bay. Finally, the reportprovides a periodic assessment ofthe effectiveness ofmonitoring 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 ofspecific actions or outreach efforts. For example, while itmay be impossible to measure impacts to waterquality resulting from reduced use offertilizer in the watershed, public awareness and practices can be measured using public opinionpolls orby evaluating product sales atretail outlets. Amonitoring component is included with each individual action presented in Charting the Course. A comprehensive review ofthe 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: Continueresearch on the impact and sources ofatmospheric deposition. Determine the impacts ofchanges in freshwater inflow on oligohaline habitats. Investigate the effects oftoxic contaminants on fish and wildlife in key areas such as McKay Bay. Continue identification ofsources ofsediment contamination. Evaluate potential for contamination ofwildlife (fish and birds) feecling in stormwaterponds. Identify causes ofsedimentresuspension and non-chlorophyll 

### a turbidity. Determine the need and best locations for regional stormwaterfacilities. Identify light requirements for seagrasses in all bay segments. Determine the extent and natural and anthropogenic sources ofhypoxia. Evaluate the cost-effectiveness ofpollution prevention programs such as the Florida Yards & Neighborhoods Program. Otherresearch needs identifiedby the NEP's Technical Advisory Committee focus on: Determining minimum widths for vegetated buffers. Assessing anthropogenic influences on the duration ofred tide. Continuing research on experimental seagrass transplanting techniques and suitable sites. Assessing the impacts ofthermal discharges. Assessing the distribution and abundance ofoysterreefs and other shellfish resources in Tampa Bay, and evaluating alternative methods ofassessing public health concerns. Assessing the threat ofinvasive exotic species entering the bay in ship ballasts. Assessing the need for zooplankton monitoring. Assessing filling ofdeep dredged holes in the Palm River and other dredged channels. Assessing evaluation techniques used for determining public health issues. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 243

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 244

# PublicInvolvement 

# A Well-Crafted community outreachprogram that enlists and involves diverse interests as partners in bay restoration and protection is a hallmarkofall successful National Estnary Programs. This principle has guided the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (NEP) since it was established in 1991. Apublic opinionpoll conducted for the Program that year found citizens generally were willing to pay more to restore the bay-but wanted assurances that currentprograms "work smart" to effectively apply existing regulations and resources before adding new mandates. Responses also indicatedthat citizens didn'tfully understand the bay's most pressing problems, orhow actions at home impact the health ofthe bay. Survey results confirmed the need for diverse public inputin developing the Comprehensive Conservation and ManagementPlan (CCMP) for Tampa Bay. Findings also pointed to the need for abroader campaignto educate the community aboutthe bay and foster public stewardship ofthis enviromnental and economic resource. These findings became the springboard for a CommunityAdvisory Committee established by the Tampa Bay NEP in 1991. Composed ofcitizens 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 appointedby the NEP's Policy Committee and include residents and representatives ofagriculture, industry, education, fishing, and enviromnental experts and activists, who also share theirperspectives as citizen-taxpayers. Members also provide information to constituents and help design and execute community outreachprograms. This chapterprofiles key elements ofthe NEP's public education and involvement efforts and recommends ways to maximize community participationin the future. It also details public participation in the development ofthe CCMP and concerted efforts to solicit feedback on the draft planreleased in January 1996. 

# Addressing the Bay's Priority Problems Priority issues, such as stormwaterrunoffand seagrass protection, have provided a focal point for educational outreach. Studies by the Tampa Bay NEP estimate that stormwater runoffcontributes abouthalf ofthe bay's total nitrogen input and significant amounts ofheavy metals and pesticides. Yetfewer than halfofthe citizens responding to a public opinion poll on Tampa Bay in 1991 were able to identify stormwaterrunoffas a major source ofbay pollution. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 245

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 246 Even fewer recognized their ownpotential contributionto stormwater pollution. In fact, while most residents believe businesses are the major source ofbay 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 ofthe bay's first lines ofdefense againstpollution in stormwaterrunoff. Nevertheless, many homeowners fail to understand the potential impact ofexcess fertilizer, pesticides and waterused in landscape care on the long-termhealth ofTampaBay. The connection may be immediate in a waterfront neighborhood, or gradual, through theflow ofstormwater drains, ditches, streams or rivers. To publicize these concepts and enlist residents in pollutionprevention, the National Estuary Programs ofTampa Bay and Sarasota Bay and the Florida Cooperative Extension Service establishedthe Florida Yards & Neighborhoods (FY&N) Program in 1991. Experts from county extension services, which administerthe program, teach residents ways to reduce runoffpollution and enhance their environment by improving home and landscape management. The programpromotes the establishment ofFloridaYards, which emphasize native and otherbeneficial plants thatblend beauty and environmental benefits. The program also emphasizes least-toxic techniques for landscape maintenance to reduce pesticides in runoffto the bay. In 1994, the West CoastRegional Water Supply Authorityjoinedthe 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 ofeducational tools, including a FloridaYards & Neighborhoods handbook, a Florida YardStickposter which helps homeowners measure progress in improving the environmental quality oftheir landscape; and various slide shows and newsletters. Actions presented in Charting the Course seekto expand these efforts andreach more people by further enlisting retailers, developers and landscaping professionals, as well as othernon-profit educational groups, to promote FY&N concepts. Local governments also are calledupon to lead by example by landscaping and maintaining public properties in accordance with these environmental principles. These groups canhelp stimulate consumer demand for FloridaYards that are less maintenanceintensive, resulting in reduced pesticides and fertilizers in runoffto the bay. 

# Educating Boaters to Protect Seagrasses Seagrass protection has been another educational priority ofthe Tampa Bay NEP. Studies estimate thatroughly one-third ofthe bay's seagrasses are moderately to heavily scarred as a result ofprop scarring by boats that cutthrough shallow grass flats ordredge their way free afterrunning 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 ofseagrasses and other vital bay habitats, the Tampa Bay NEP and the Florida Department ofEnvironmental Protection (FDEP) published a Boater's Guide to Tampa Bay in 1992. While bay stewardship is the central theme ofthe guide, the guide's strength is that it features helpful boating information in ahandy format thatinvites use. The guide's focal point is a 34"-by-22" color chart ofTampa Bay that identifies ship channels, seagrasses, aquatic preserves, reefs and public boat ramps. The chart's flip side features profiles and illustrations ofnative habitats, manatees and birds ofthe 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 throughoutFlorida, has since produced six additional boaters guides in a statewide series. The Tampa Bay NEP also produced a series ofhigh-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 ofthe Tampa Bay estuary and seagrass areas, and companion signs on various bay wildlife and habitats. 

# Enlisting Volunteers for Bay Improvement The Tampa Bay NEPhas been instrumental in supporting volunteer efforts for bay restoration and protection. In 1993, the Program helped establish a Bay Conservation Corps under the direction ofTampa BayWatch, a non-profitbay stewardship group. Since then, BayWatch has enlisted more than 3,000 citizens for dozens ofbay improvement projects, including saltmarsh 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 sponsoredby various agencies and communities. The Southwest Florida Water Management District's (SWFWMD) SurfaceWater Improvement and Management (SWIM) program, and numerous other community organizations, also utilize volunteers for bay restoration efforts. Since 1993, the Tampa Bay NEP and BayWatchhave hosted an annual Great Bay Scallop Search, in which teams ofvolunteers don snorkels, masks and fins to comb seagrass beds in search ofthe 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 ABay 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 the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 247

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



# 248 NEP has awarded over $50,000 in small grants to more than a dozen organizations, schools and communities for projects to educate and involve citizens inbay improvement. These initiatives have leveraged the talents and resources ofnumerous organizations, maximizing the community's return on investment and benefits to the bay. Profiles ofprojects and partners are provided below. 

### Tampa Bay Docents-An NEP granthelpedThe FloridaAquarium establish a Bay Docents program in 1993 to train interested volunteers to lead weekend BayWalks on Tampa Bay atTampa's McKay Bay Nature ParkandWeedon Island Preserve in Pinellas County. The Program has since trained more than 30 guides and introduced hundreds ofchildren and adults to the bay's coastal ecosystems. Docents mustcomplete a class and field course conducted by The FloridaAquarium, and committo leading a minimum ofsix BayWalks per year. BayWalks are now a permanent component ofthe aquarium's community programming, providing an excellentmodel for othercommunities. 

### Operation BayWorks-This Hillsborough County projectassists businesses in developing and implementing pollutionpreventionplans to reduce stormwaterrunoff. 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 otherwatershed counties. 

### Coastal WetlandNursery Program-With funding from the NEP, Tampa BayWatch enlists high school ecology clubs in cultivating wetlandplants for coastal restorations. The initial NEP grant financed the construction ofa wetland nursery at St. Petersburg's Lakewood High School, where students cultivated and transplanted more than 2,000 saltmarsh plants, and development ofan instructional guide to assist other interested high schools. The idea is taking root at otherbay area schools and BayWatch eventually hopes to produce about 75,000 salt marsh plants each year to aid in local restorations. 

### Eco-Landscapingfor Businesses-Businesses are beginning to appreciate the bottomline benefits and beauty ofnative Florida landscapes, whichrequire less water, fertilizer and pesticides, thanks to an educational campaign led by the TampaAudubon Society in cooperation with the FloridaAssociation ofEnvironmental Professionals, WestshoreAlliance, Lewis Environmental Services and the Tampa Bay NEP. A $4,500 grantto the TampaAudubon Society assisted in the development ofa 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 ofnatural predatory insects as an alternative to pesticides was tested in a six-month trial using various ornamental crops, underthe direction ofthe Manatee County Cooperative Extension Service. Results showed important cost and labor savings, in addition to environmental benefits associated with reduced pesticideuse. Workshops also were conducted to promote leasttoxic pestmanagement techniques to nurserymen and growers.

### Emerson Point**Restoration~** Volunteers ledby 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 CeiaAquatic Preserve. 

### EgmontKey Seagrass Protection-Navigational buoys were installed by the Egmont Key Alliance atthis popularcoastal barrier island to deter boattraffic from heavily scarred seagrass beds. Interpretive signage on the island educates boaters about the importance ofprotecting these vital grassbeds. 

### Model Florida YardLandscaping Demonstration-This project by Hillsborough County's Public Utilities Department involved the design and installation ofa lowmaintenance Florida landscape and interpretive signage at northwestHillsborough's Austin Davis Library, where visitors can learn about and view bay-friendly landscape concepts that canbe applied athome. 

### Shell Key BirdNesting Protection-The St. Petersburg Audubon Society received a $500 grantfrom the Tampa Bay NEP to develop an educational sign for installation at this importantbay 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 ofa Florida Landscapes exhibit atthe entrance to the aquarium. This living exhibit features a mosaic ofnative habitats, from beaches and wetlands to wildflower gardens, along with interpretive signage thatpromotes the environmental benefits ofnative landscaping. Funding from the NEP also supported educational programs to promote FloridaYard 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 FloridaAquarium, the Tampa Bay NEP has sponsored field trips and workshops for several thousand area students and hundreds ofinstructors. 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 andWeedon Island. The NEP targeted younger schoolchildren with performances by the Marine Gang, a group ofcostumed sea creatures whose creative mix ofmusic 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 ofthe estuary and kid-friendly tips for pollutionprevention. The Marine Gang is administered through the Museum of Science & Industry, which continues to offerthe program to schools and community groups thanks to funding from the SWFWMD. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 249

### -------------------~-----'''"-:'~--~-----~ 

## ..**~. -~**  

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY 

# Charting the Course for Tampa Bay

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND REVIEW OFTHE BAY PLAN
The Tampa Bay NEP has brought together diverse sectors ofthe community as partners in the development ofthe plan for Tampa Bay. This effort began in 1991 with the establishment ofthe 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 ofresidents andrepresentatives of local governments, agencies and organizations shared their views with the NEP on the proposed management plan forTampa 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 communitywere 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 ofthe plan, which they say facilitated their review andunderstanding ofthe issues. However, some residents were diSSatisfied that the Tampa Bay NEP did nottake 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 forTampa Bay were finalized and approved in June 1996.


## 250 An early outline ofthe five environmental action plans presented in Charting the Course was developed and presentedfor review in January 1995. Additional research and more than 200 responses from technical and citizen advisors were instrumental in shaping the draftbay managementplan, released in January 1996 and now finalized for adoption. Since the release ofthe draftplan, the Tampa Bay NEP has received hundreds ofwritten comments from residents and agency and government partners. More than 250 citizens attended a series offour Town Meetings on Tampa Bay during February and March 1996 to discnss the bay restoration blueprintwith panels ofexperts from their communities. The forums were co-sponsored by the League ofWomen Voters and rebroadcast extensively on local government and cable channels. The NEP and its Community Advisory Committee also hosted a series ofeight smallerfocus 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 ofkcy 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 masterplan. As attention shifts from planning to implementation, the focus ofpublic involvement and education also will shift to address long-term butvitally important needs. Future outreach to the community should seekto: foster continued community supportfor bay restoration and implementation ofthe CCMP by continuing to educate citizens on bay issues and publicize the bay's progress and needs; improve public faith in the ability ofbay 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 ofan action plan on Public Education and Involvement (see Action Plans) developed in 1996 by the NEP and its CommunityAdvisory Committee. The committee's recommendations will help guide the NEP as it oversees implementation ofthe bay masterplan. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 251

### -~-----~-~-------~--,,----- 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 252

# EarlyAction 

# 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 tojump-startrestoration efforts and build community supportfor 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 currentprotectionprograms; and educate bay area citizens about threats facing the bay

- and how they can help overcome them. Several ofthese key early action initiatives are summarized below: 

# Cockroach Bay Restoration This secludedinlet on Tampa Bay's southeastern shore harbors some ofthe mostproductive mangrove forests and seagrass meadows in the entire bay system. However, the long-term health ofthis area has beenjeopardizedby intensive alteration ofits 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 ofthis area - $300,000 from the Coastal America Program and $400,000 in grants under Section 319(h) ofthe federal CleanWaterAct. The effort is part ofa $2.6 million restoration directed by the Southwest FloridaWaterManagement District's (SWFWMD) Surface Water Improvement & Management (SWIM) Program, in cooperation with Tampa Bay NEP and more than a dozen otherpublic 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 ofthe project's first phase. The 500-acre project is the largest saltwaterrestoration ofits kind conducted in Florida. The project is unique in its multi-facetedfocus on creating a mosaic ofhabitats, 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 ofstormwaterrunofffrom the surrounding farmlands by building atreatmentpond in which runoffwill be filtered before being discharged naturally to a restored stream bed leading to the bay. Removal ofexotic vegetation such as Brazilian pepper already has been partially completed, and the tidal stream restoration accomplished. Construction offurther stormwater improvements began in 1996. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 253

### __________________________-

__- c"".

__ 

# Cffi\RTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



# 254 

# Bay Scallop Recovery The bay scallop was once a common resident ofTampa 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 offerhope for restoring bay populations ofthese sensitive mollusks. The Tampa Bay NEP has contributed more than $130,000 to research aimed at pinpointing the waterquality conditions necessary to supportbay scallops and to aggressively restock suitable bay segments with scallops. Thateffort, directed by the University ofSouth Florida, has so far raised more than a millionjuvenile scallops in laboratories, using strips ofartificial turfthatmimic the seagrasses to which the scallops cling in the wild. Hundreds ofthousands ofthesejuvenile scallops have been released in lowerTampa Bay, and monitoring is underway to determine whetherthese exploratory transplant efforts can help bring backa sustainable scallop population. 

# Gandy Shoreline Alternatives Construction ofvertical seawalls along the bay's borders has destroyed much ofthe bay's sloping fringe ofecologically valuable mangroves and saltmarshes. This project, financed with $65,000 from the Tampa Bay NEP, tested differenttechniques for "softening" seawalls along the industrialized southeast shoreline ofthe approach to the Gandy Bridge. Funds from the Tampa Bay NEP were matched with about $150,000 from partners in the BayAreaEnvironmentalAction Team (BAEAT), including SWIM, which implemented the project. The project evaluated structurally sound and environmentally friendly alternatives to seawalls that enhance habitatvalues while still providing protection ofupland properties. Methods evaluated included: lowering the elevation ofthe original seawall to create a gentler slope and installing riprap to allow tidal flushing and pools forjuvenile fish; planting saltmarsh grass behindthe riprap to stabilize the shoreline; adding riprap to both ends ofa remnant seawall offshore to provide habitatfor oysters and crabs and to create a small lagoonbehind the structure; and installing "MacBlox," cementblocks with scalloped contours and multiple openings thatprovide 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 evaluatedby the project are now being recommended by regulatory officials for commercial andresidential use. 

### In addition to the seawall studies, the project also restored the littoral marsh and mangrove habitatupland ofthe 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 ofthe 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 BayAquatic Preserve ManagementTeam (CAPMAT) and the South Hillsborough PepperPatrol to create an illustratedbrochure explaining the environmental hazards ofthis plant and how to get rid ofit. It also explained the importance ofpreserving native plant communities. This popularbrochure, one ofthe first ofits kind written for the general public, is widely distributed by county and state environmental agencies, county extension agents and public libraries. 

# Assessment ofManagement Efforts to Protect Seagrass Propeller scarring ofseagrass beds in Tampa Bay is widespread and impairs the ability ofthese underwatermeadows 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 ofseagrass scarring in a section ofthe bay through aerial mapping and interpretation and to evaluate various methods ofprotecting those seagrasses from further damage. The site chosen for the project encompassed 420 acres ofseverely scarred seagrass around Fort DeSoto Parkin 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 ofthe baseline survey, two protection zones were established in the seagrass beds. A "caution zone" allows boats to enterunder power as long as they don't damage seagrass beds. This directive is enforcedby Sheriff's marine officers. A second "restricted zone" prohibits use ofinternal 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 inreducing seagrass scarring, and may help bay managers develop uniform, easily recognizable guidelines that canbe 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 databases 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 ofinformation, including landuses, 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) ofHillsborough County to create a comprehensive, readily retrievable data base for the bay based on computer-generated maps utilizing Geographic Information System (GIS) technology. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 255**-------------------_._-~-~-~---.-.~~--<'** 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 258 Cockroach Bay was selected as atesting ground for this innovative approach. Officials with the EPC compiled information about Cockroach Bay from various sources and importedthose 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 expandedbaywide, 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 ofmajor oil spills, those thathave occurred have pointed to the need for a trained corps ofvolunteers to rescue and rehabilitate injured wildlife, especially seabirds. In conjunction with the Pinellas Seabird Rehabilitation Center and theTampaBay Regional Planning Council, the Tampa Bay NEP contributed $7,500 to finance the organization and training ofnearly 100 citizen-volunteers to assist in seabirdrescue efforts, in addition to the production ofa volunteertraining manual. Beginning in October 1991, the volunteers attended several seminars featuring leading wildlife rehabilitators; the group also received rescue kits, nets and communication equipment. InAugust 1993, more than 330,000 gallons ofoil andjet fuel were spilled in the bay when two barges and a tankercollidednearthe Sunshine Skyway Bridge. The seabird rescue teams puttheirtraining 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 otherregions. 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 atthe mouth ofthe Manatee River. The cultural resources ofthe 195-acre site includeAmerican Indian mounds and middens that were studied by researchers with the Smithsonian Institution, and the remains ofa 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 ofthis area, which was purchased by the state in 1991 and is now managed by the County as Emerson Point Park. The projectfocuses on providing public access to the site for education and recreation, while preserving its unique cultural and natural attributes. Workincludes removal ofexotic vegetation, excavation and stabilization ofthe Indian mounds and plantation, and the construction ofboardwalks 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 the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY Haddad, K. 1989. Habitat trends and fisheries in Tampa and Sarasota Bays. Pages 113-128. In: E.D. Estevez (Ed.) Tampa andSarasota Bays: Issues, Resources, Status andManagement. NOAA Estuary-of-the-month Seminar Series No. 11. Zarbock, H., AJ. Janicki, D.L. Wade, D. Heimbuch, and H. Wilson. 1994. Estimates aftotalnitrogen, totalphosphorus, andtotalsuspendedsolids 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 andtrends in toxicants andthepotential/ortheir biological effects in Tampa Bay, Florida. NOAATech. Mem, NOS OMA 58. Silver Spring, MD. Zarbock, H.W., AJ. Janicki, and 8.S. Janicki. 1996. Estimates o/totalnitrogen, totalphosphorus, andtotal suspendedsolids to Tampa Bay, Florida. TechnicalAppendix: 1992-1994 total nitrogen loadings to Tampa Bay, Florida. Tech. Pub. #19-96, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. Prepared by Coastal Environmental, Inc. City ofSt. Petersburg, unpublished data. 1995. Enviromnental Protection Conunission ofHillsborough County. 1995. Surface Water Quality Report, 1992-1994. Tampa, FL. Janicki, A. and D.L. Wade. 1996. Estimating criticalnitrogen loadsfor the Tampa Bay estuary: An empirically basedapproach to setting managementtargets. Tech. Pub. #06-96, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. Prepared by Coastal Environmental, Inc. Dixon, L.K. and J.R. Leverone. 1995. Lightrequirements ofThalassia 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-orientedwaterquality modelfor Tampa Bay. Prepared for Southwest Florida Water Management District SWIM Department by AScI Corporation and the SWIM Department. 12. Department ofthe Air Force, United States ofAmerica. 1996. Proposedmission realignment, MacDillAFB, Florida. Prepared by Air Mobility Command, ScottAir Force Base, Illinois. 13. Janicki, AJ., D.L. Wade, and D.E. Robison. 1994. Habitatprotection 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 of distributions andinputs. 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 assessmentof sedimentcontamination in Tampa Bay, Florida using the sedimentquality triadapproach. Tech. Pub. #04-96, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. Prepared by Coastal Environmental, me. Parsons Engineering Science, Inc. 1996. Toxic contamination sources assessment: Riskassessment for chemicals of potentialconcern andmethodsfor identification of specific sources. Tech. Pub. #09-96, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. 17. Parsons Engineering Science, Inc. 1996. 18. Parsons Engineering Science, Inc. 1996. 19. Heintz, C. 1992. MacDill Air Force Base (AFB) installation restoration program (IRP) sites' report. Environmental Protection Commission ofHillsborough County. In: MacDill reuse**environ~** mentalcommittee reportappendix. 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., andA.S. Donigian, Jr. 1994.Assessmentof nitrogen loads to aquatic systems. Prepared by Aqua Terra Consultants for the Office ofResearch and Development, USEPA. 

## 257

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 258 26. Fisher, D., J. Ceraso, T. Mathew, and M. Openheimer. 1988. Polluted coastal waters: The role.o! acidrain. Environmental Defense Fund, New York, NY. 27. Florida Department ofEnvironmental Protection. 1994. Air Quality Report 1994. FDEP Div. of Air Resources Management. 28. Environmental Protection Commission ofHillsborough COlUlty. 1996. 1994-1995Annualair 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. OwenAyres andAssociates, Inc. 1995. An estimate a/nutrient loadingsfrom wastewater residuals managementandonsite wastewater treatmentsystems in the Tampa Bay Watershed. Prepared for Southwest FloridaWater 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 waterdischarging/rom Lithia andBuchhorn Springs. SWFWMD. 41. Brooks, G., TL. Dix and L. Doyle. 1993. Groundwateriswfacewater interactions in Tampa Bay: Implicationsfor nutrient fluxes. Tech. Pub. #06-93, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. Prepared by Centerfor Nearshore Marine Science, Univ. ofSouth Florida. 42. Jones, G.w., and S.B. Upchurch. 1993. 43. Zarbock. H.W., et.al. 1996. 44. Wade, D.L. andA.J. Janicki. 1993. Physical impacts to habitats in Tampa Bay. Tech. Pub. #03-93, TampaBay 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 ofseagrass meadows inTampa Bay, Florida: Real bay improvement or drought -induced? Pages 189-192. In: S.P. Treat & P.A. Clark (Eels.) Proc. Tampa BayArea 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. andAJ. Janicki. 1993. 50. Goodwin, C.R. 1987. Tidalflow, circulation, andflushing changes causedby 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 ofchange 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 ofthe TwentiethAnnual Conference ofWetlands Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough County Community College, Tampa, FL. 54. Johansson, lO.R. 1995. Reestablishmentof seagrass meadows in Hillsborough Bay. IN: State of Tampa Bay 1995. Prepared by Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council and its Agency on Bay Management. 55. Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (in preparation). Issues & optiOns: Final characterization report of the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. 56. Sargent, P.J., T.J. Leary, D.W. Crewz, and c.R. Kruer. 1995. Scarring of Floridas seagrasses:Assessmentandmanagementoptions. 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. Propellerscars in seagrass beds: an assessmentand experimentalstudy of recolonization in Weedon IslandState Preserve, Florida. Pp. 42-53 in Proceedings ofthe 19thAnnual Conference ofWetlands Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough County Commtmity College, Tampa, FL. 58. Ehringer, J.N. 1994. Results of analysis of prop scardamage at the Fort DesotoAquatic Habitat ManagementArea 1992/1993. Tech. Pub. #05-94, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. 59. Sargent, F.J., T.J. Leary, P. Rubec, M. Colby, D.Kuhl, andA Lamb. 1996. Assessment of seagrass 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., andAJ. Janicki. 1993 62. Lewis, R.R., III and E.D. Estevez. 1988. The ecology ofTampa 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 of the benthic macroinvertebrates anddemersalfishes of the Tampa Bay estuarine system. Tech. Pub. #12-95b, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. Prepared by Environmental Protection Commission ofHillsborough County, Coastal Environmental, Inc., and Manatee County Dept. ofEnvironmental Management. 64. Wade, D.L. andAJ. Janicki. 1993. 65. Grabe et.al. 1996. 66. Savercool, D.M. and RR Lewis, III. 1994. Hard bottom mapping 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" ofunvegetated, 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 of basic life histories ofTampa Bay species. Tech. Pub. #10-92 ofthe Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. 77. CH2Hill. 1995. Tampa Water Resource Recovery Project Summary. Prepared for City ofTampa, Florida Department ofEnvironmental 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 andhistoricalfreshwater 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 andsalinity targetsfor the tidal Peace River. Prepared for the SouthwestFlorida Water Management Dist. Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Dept. 82. Norris, M., personal communication. 1995. Unpublished data oflandings from the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Florida Department ofEnvironmental 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 ofManatee landings does not change the percent declines noted here. 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 259

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

FOR TAMPA BAY



## 282 NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION

- refers to pollutionthat comes from many sources and cannot be traced to one specific point, such as pollutionfrom stormwater runoffand the atmosphere. OLIGOHALINE

- refers to water with a very low salinity (salt content), ranging from 0.5 to 10parts per thousand (ppt). Fresh water is characterizedby salinity ofless than 0.5 ppt; sea watercontains about 35 ppt. PHYTOPLANKTON

- free-floating aquatic plants and plant-like organisms, usually algae; an importantfood source for many animals. POINT-SOURCE POLLUTION

- refers to pollution that comes from a specific source orpoint oforigin, such as a discharge pipe or outfall. RUNOFF

- water from rain or irrigation that flows over land. Runoffoften carries pollutants such as oils, fertilizers and pesticides and is frequently a majorcomponent ofnon-point-source pollution. SALT MARSH

- a marsh growing in the intertidal and upper coastal zone, where salt waterfrom the sea has a strong influence on the types ofplant life. Salt marshes are importantwetland habitats for many kinds offish and wildlife. SEAGRASSES

- true flowering plants (not grasses) that grow underwaterin 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 waterfrom suspended material orparticles. As the cloudiness increases, so does the turbidity; low turbidity indicates clearwater and may be associated with good water quality. WASTEWATER TREATMENT

- processes thathelp remove solids, nutrients and otherpollutants from waterbefore it is discharged orreused. 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 ofwater. The Tampa Bay watershed covers more than 2,200 square miles in six counties. WETLAND

- land where the watertable is**usu~lly** at ornearthe surface. Some wetlands contain wateryear-round; others may remain relatively dry for months, becoming moist only during periods ofheavy rain. Wetlands are vital habitats for many species ofplants 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 largejellyfish. Zooplankton are an important source offood for many types offish and animals.

# ACRONYMS 

# CHARTING the

# COURSE

ACP AWT BEMR BMP CARL CCMP CFMP CIP DDT DGPS DHRS ELM EPA EPC ERP FAC FADS FCES FDEP 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 FLORIDAADMINISTRATIVE CODE FLORIDAATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION SYSTEM FLORIDA CDOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE FLDRIOA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRDNMENTAL PROTECTION FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION 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 FLORIDAWATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT SURFACE WATER IMPROVEMENTAND 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 OFTRANSPORTATION 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 SeventhAvenueSouth S1.

# Petersburg,FL33701