Surface Water Improvement and 

Management (SWIM) Plan

Southwest Florida 

Water Management District

 February 8, 1999

TAMPA BAY

Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Plan

February 8, 1999

Southwest Florida Water Management District

SWIM Section

7601 U.S. Highway 301 North

Tampa, Florida 33637

(813) 985-7481

The Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) does not discriminate upon the basis of any

individual’s disability status. This non-discrimination policy involves every aspect of the District’s functions,

including one’s access to, participation, employment, or treatment in its programs or activities. Anyone

requiring reasonable accommodation as provided for in the Americans With Disabilities Act should contact

Kay Yoerger at 813-985-7481, or 1-800-423-1476 (FLORIDA), extension 2201; TDD ONLY 1-800-231-6103

(FLORIDA); FAX 813-987-6747.
i

Table of Contents

Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-1

INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1

THE SWIM ACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

SWIM FUNDING ................................................. 1

TAMPA BAY MANAGEMENT ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Nitrogen and Water Quality ..................................... 2

Bay Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Pollutant Load Reduction Goal ................................... 2

TAMPA BAY SWIM PLAN GOALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES .......................................... 4

ACTION PLAN RESPONSIBILITIES .................................. 4

LINKAGE TO OTHER WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES .... 5

Internal Linkages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

The SWFWMD Water Management Plan ..................... 5

Comprehensive Watershed Management ..................... 6

Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Wetlands Protection Through Regulatory Programs ......... 6

Minimum Flows and Levels ............................ 6

Mitigation Banking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Land Acquisition ........................................ 7

Basin Board Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

External Linkages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

FDEP - Ecosystem Management Initiative .................... 8

Tampa Bay National Estuary Program ....................... 8

Local Government Coordination and Partnering ................ 9

PRIORITY PROJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Stormwater Rehabilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Sumner Road Stormwater Management Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Balm Road Scrub Marsh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Assessment of Microbial Indicators and Pathogens in the Tampa Bay 

 Watershed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Support Ongoing Bay-wide Water Quality Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Hypoxia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

The Kitchen (Dug Creek, Davis Tract and Port Redwing) Habitat Restoration . . 17

Delaney Creek Habitat Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

North Apollo Beach Habitat Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Cargil Habitat Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

MacDill AFB Habitat Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Table of Contents (Continued
ii

Palm River/Tampa Bypass Canal Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Dick Creek Habitat Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Rocky Creek Habitat Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Clam Bayou Habitat Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Howard Frankland West Habitat Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Terra Ceia Isles Habitat Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Allen’s Creek Habitat Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Tampa Bay Seagrass Mapping and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

LITERATURE LISTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

APPENDIX A - PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND 

TECHNICAL ASSESSMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

A.1 MANAGEMENT BOUNDARIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

A.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

A.A.1 Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

A.A.2 Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

A.A.3 Meteorology of the Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

A.A.4 Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

A.A.5 Hydrographic Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

A.A.6 Circulation and Flushing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

A.3 WATER AND SEDIMENT QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

A.3.1 Water Clarity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

A.3.2 Nitrogen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

A.3.3 Toxic Contaminants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

A.4 POLLUTION PATHWAYS AND SOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

A.4.1 Stormwater Runoff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

A.4.2 Atmospheric Deposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

A.4.3 Wastewater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

A.4.4 Other Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

A.5 BAY HABITATS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

A.5.1 Seagrasses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

A.5.2 Soft-Bottom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

A.5.3 Hard-Bottom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

A.5.4 Estuarine Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

A.5.4.1 Marshes and Mangroves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

A.5.4.2 Mud Flats and Salt Barrens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

A.5.5 Associated Uplands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

A.5.6 Low-Salinity Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Table of Contents (Continued)

A.6 FISHERIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
iii

A.7 BAY WILDLIFE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

APPENDIX B - ACTION PLANS IN THE CCMP FOR WHICH THE DISTRICT WAS 

 IDENTIFIED AS A RESPONSIBLE PARTY

B.1 Water and Sediment Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

B.1.1 Action Plan WQ-1 Implement Nitrogen Management 

Goals for Tampa Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

B.1.2 Action Plan SW-1 Continue Support for the Florida Yards 

and Neighborhoods Program and Similar 

Pollution Prevention Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

B.1.3 Action Plan SW-2 Assist Businesses in Implementing 

Best Management Practices to Reduce Stormwater 

Pollution, and Develop Model Landscaping Guidelines 

for Commercial Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

B.1.4 Action Plan SW-4 Require Pervious Paved Surfaces . . . . . . . . . 74

B.1.5 Action Plan SW-5 Require Older Properties Being 

Redeveloped to Meet Current Stormwater Treatment 

Standards for That Portion of the Site Being Redeveloped, 

or Provide Equivalent Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

B.1.6 Action Plan SW-8 Encourage Best Management 

Practices on Farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

B.1.7 Action Plan SW-9 Improve Compliance with Agricultural 

Ground and Surface Water Management Plans . . . . . . . . . . . 79

B.1.8 Action Plan WW-1 Expand the Use of Reclaimed Water 

Where Reuse Benefits the Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

B.2 BAY HABITATS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

B.2.1 Action Plan BH-1 Implement the Tampa Bay Master 

Plan for Habitat Restoration and Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

B.2.2 Action Plan BH-2 Establish and Implement Mitigation 

Criteria for Tampa Bay and Identify Priority Sites 

for Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

B.2.3 Action Plan BH-6 Encourage Waterfront Residents to 

Enhance Shorelines and Limit Runoff from Yards . . . . . . . . . . 93

B.2.4 Action Plan BH-7 Improve Compliance with and 

Enforcement of Wetland Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

B.2.5 Action Plan BH-8 Expand Habitat Mapping and 

Monitoring Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

B.2.6 Action Plan FI-1 Establish and Maintain Minimum 

Seasonal Freshwater Flows Downstream of Dams . . . . . . . . . 99

Table of Contents (Continued)

B.3 PUBLIC EDUCATION AND INVOLVEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

APPENDIX C - REGULATORY JURISDICTIONS WITHIN THE 
iv

TAMPA BAY BASIN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

APPENDIX D - ADVERTISEMENT IN FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE WEEKLY . . . 111

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Tampa Bay Watershed and Management Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Figure 2.2 Tampa Bay Segmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Figure 2.3 Estimates of Nitrogen Loadings to Tampa Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
ES-1

Executive Summary

In recognition of the need to place additional emphasis on the restoration, protection and

management of the surface water resources of the State, the Florida Legislature, through

the Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Act of 1987, directed the state's

water management districts to "design and implement plans and programs for the

improvement and management of surface water" (Section 373.451, F.S.). The SWIM

legislation requires the water management districts to protect the ecological, aesthetic,

recreational, and economic value of the state's surface water bodies, keeping in mind that

water quality degradation is frequently caused by point and non-point source pollution, and

that degraded water quality can cause both direct and indirect losses of habitats. 

In accordance with the law and strongly supported by the Agency on Bay Management

(ABM), the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) selected Tampa

Bay to be included in its list of priority water bodies for the SWIM Program and was

designated as the top priority. A management plan was originally prepared and approved

in 1988 based on The Future of Tampa Bay, a management plan generated from the 1985

Tampa Bay Management Study Commission. The SWIM Plan was revised in 1992 and

is being revised again following the completion of the Tampa Bay National Estuary

Program’s (now Tampa Bay Estuary Program - TBEP) Comprehensive Conservation and

Management Plan (CCMP).

For the Tampa Bay SWIM Plan, the ABM’s and TBEP’s previous activities and the CCMP

are the basis for the SWIM Plan’s strategies for the protection and restoration of Tampa

Bay. In fact, much of the supporting information was taken verbatim from The Future of

Tampa Bay and the CCMP. In preparing the SWIM Plan, staff reviewed the goals,

initiatives, and strategies for restoring and protecting Tampa Bay from the CCMP and then

focused on activities identified for the District that can be accomplished within the

legislative charge of SWIM - improving or protecting water quality and natural systems.

The Tampa Bay SWIM Plan has incorporated the following goals from the TBEP CCMP:

! Cap nitrogen loadings to Tampa Bay at existing levels (1992-1994 average) to

encourage the regrowth of an additional 12,350 acres of seagrass. 

! Protect relatively clean areas of the bay from increases in toxic contamination, and

minimize risks to marine life and humans associated with toxic contaminants to

impacted areas.

! Increase and preserve the quantity, quality and diversity of seagrass communities.

The long-term goal is to restore 12,350 acres of seagrass and protect the bay’s

existing 25,600 acres.

! Restore and optimum balance of wetland and associated upland habitats for fish and

wildlife, while protecting and enhancing existing habitats. Specific targets include:
ES-2

 restoration of a minimum of 100 acres of low-salinity tidal marsh every five

years, for a total increase over time of 1,800 acres, and the preservation of the

existing habitat

 protection and enhancement of the bay’s mangrove and salt marsh communities

which total nearly 14,000 acres

 restoration over time of 150 acres of salt barren habitat

A Pollutant Load Reduction Goal (PLRG) has been established for the bay. The

consensus of the scientific community in Tampa Bay is that the nitrogen concentrations are

presently acceptable and the management approach is to “hold the line” on nitrogen.

Nitrogen loadings are expected to increase 7 percent by 2010, or about 17 tons per year,

as a result of population growth. Therefore, local governments and industries will need to

offset loadings to the bay by this amount to maintain existing nitrogen loadings. As such,

the PLRG for Tampa Bay is:

! Reduce nitrogen concentration in Tampa Bay by 7 percent by 2010, or about

17 tons per year or as necessary to offset loadings to the bay as a result of

population growth

Strategies to achieve the goals include primarily stormwater retrofit projects and habitat

restoration projects. Stormwater retrofit projects are designed to provide treatment for

stormwater from previously untreated urban and industrial areas. The stormwater

treatment process of detaining runoff into holding ponds, biological assimilation and

physical removal reduces the amount of nutrients (primarily nitrogen and phosphorus) and

toxic materials entering the receiving waters. The habitat restoration goals, and to a lesser

degree the nitrogen removal goals, will be achieved through construction of “habitat

mosaics” designed to include as many different habitat types as the site allows, including

oligohaline (low-salinity) habitats.

This revised Tampa Bay SWIM Plan provides details for twelve (12) habitat restoration

projects; two (2) assessment projects; two (2) monitoring projects; two (2) identified

stormwater retrofit projects and place holders for additional projects opportunities that are

identified each year from local governments or other groups. The projects identified are

consistent with the Tampa Bay Estuary Program’s Comprehensive Conservation and

Management Plan. 

The District has many tools available to implement the legislative intent of the SWIM

program, including but not limited to, integrated planning and coordination, regulatory

authority, land acquisition programs and the SWIM program itself. Each of these areas

provide opportunities to assist in the management of Tampa Bay, one of the prominent

natural systems within the District.

With adequate funding and implementation, the SWIM Plan for Tampa Bay will be one of

the vehicles through which the District and the State of Florida contribute to ongoing efforts

to restore and protect Tampa Bay. 
1

Introduction

THE SWIM ACT

In recognition of the need to place additional emphasis on the restoration, protection and

management of the surface water resources of the State, the Florida Legislature, through

the Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Act of 1987, directed the state's

water management districts to "design and implement plans and programs for the

improvement and management of surface water" (Section 373.451, Florida Statutes). The

SWIM legislation requires the water management districts to protect the ecological,

aesthetic, recreational, and economic value of the state's surface water bodies, keeping

in mind that water quality degradation is frequently caused by point and non-point source

pollution, and that degraded water quality can cause both direct and indirect losses of

habitats.

Under the Act, water management districts prioritize water bodies based on their need for

protection and/or restoration. This prioritization process is carried out in cooperation with

the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), the Florida Game and Fresh

Water Fish Commission (FGFWFC), the Department of Agriculture and Consumer

Services (DACS), the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), and local governments.

Tampa Bay was named as the top ranked priority for the Southwest Florida Water

Management District. 

Following the selection of the priority water bodies and in accordance with the law that

created SWIM, a SWIM Plan must be drafted, reviewed and approved before state SWIM

funds can be spent on restoration, protection or management activities. The purpose of

the Tampa Bay SWIM Plan is to set forth a realistic course of action, with the number of

projects, the size of the projects, and the effort needed to accomplish them consistent with

levels and trends of SWIM funding. The law also stipulates that the plans must be updated

at a minimum once every three years. A Tampa Bay SWIM Plan was originally prepared

and approved in 1988 and updated in 1992. The next update was delayed until the

completion of the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program’s (TBEP) Comprehensive

Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) for the bay.

The State’s and the water management district’s Surface Water Improvement and

Management (SWIM) programs are but one of the tools available to protect and restore

Tampa Bay and its watershed. The Southwest Florida Water Management District has

several water resource management related responsibilities that can affect Tampa Bay

which are detailed later in this chapter. 

SWIM FUNDING

Only water bodies with approved SWIM Plans are eligible for funding from the Ecosystem

Management and Restoration Trust Fund. Funding from the Ecosystem Management and

Restoration Trust Fund requires a 40 percent match by the Southwest Florida Water

Management District. Monies placed in the Ecosystem Management and Restoration Trust

Fund continue to be dependent upon a yearly appropriation by the state legislature. The
2

lack of a dedicated source of funding for SWIM activities weakens long-term planning and

implementation of environmental rehabilitation in priority water bodies. 

TAMPA BAY MANAGEMENT ISSUES

In preparing the SWIM Plan staff reviewed the goals, initiatives, and strategies for restoring

and protecting Tampa Bay proposed as part of the TBEP's CCMP and then focused on

activities identified for the District that can be accomplished within the legislative charge

of SWIM - improving or protecting water quality and natural systems. The following

management issues are the basis for the preparation of the Tampa Bay SWIM Plan:

Nitrogen and Water Quality: Excess nitrogen in rainfall, stormwater runoff and from

domestic and industrial point sources accelerates the growth of algae in the bay, limiting

light penetration to seagrasses, which require light to grow. Past water quality declines

contributed to the loss of nearly half of the bay’s seagrasses (or almost 19,000 acres) from

the 1950s to the 1980s, although seagrasses are gradually returning in areas of the bay

where water quality has improved. Nitrogen loadings are expected to increase 7 percent

by 2010, or about 17 tons per year, as a result of population growth. Therefore, local

governments and industries will need to offset loadings to the bay by this amount to

maintain existing nitrogen loadings.

Bay Habitats: The protection of existing seagrass beds and restoring the vital underwater

seagrass meadows to1950s levels, and the restoration of coastal wetland habitats except

in areas that have been permanently altered is a principal objective. More than 4,000

acres of new or expanded seagrass beds have been documented in the bay since 1982,

thanks to improvements in water quality. Recovery, however, will be a long-term process

due to the time it takes for seagrasses to recolonize an area once conditions have

improved. For coastal habitats, the objective is to restore the historic balance of coastal

habitats in order to better support the bay’s fish and wildlife populations, recognizing that

some of the vital habitats have declined more rapidly than others. Declines have been

particularly severe for tidal streams and tributaries, which are critical nurseries for

numerous species of fish, such as snook and mullet. Restoring low-salinity tidal stream

habitat, while preserving existing salt marshes and mangroves may be accomplished either

through habitat restoration or enhancement of existing areas that have been severely

degraded. 

Pollutant Load Reduction Goal: The FDEP requires that a pollutant load reduction goal

be developed for each SWIM water body. City of Tampa staff have documented the

relationships between modeled nitrogen loads, annual average water column chlorophyll

a levels, and seagrass acreage in Hillsborough Bay, the northeastern part of Tampa Bay.

The TBEP expanded this approach to establish management objectives for nitrogen to

other bay segments. Through a SWIM funded project, the optimum light climate for

seagrasses was established. Since the majority of the light attenuators in the water

column are algal cells, a chlorophyll a and nitrogen relationship was determined and an

optimum nitrogen concentration was identified. This optimum nitrogen concentration

compared to existing nitrogen loadings became a load reduction (PLRG). Reductions of

nitrogen loadings, primarily as a result of improvements to sewage treatment, have allowed
3

for considerable reductions in chlorophyll a concentrations. The consensus of the scientific

community in Tampa Bay is that the nitrogen concentrations are presently acceptable and

the management approach is to “hold the line” on nitrogen. 

TAMPA BAY SWIM PLAN GOALS 

The Tampa Bay SWIM Plan has incorporated the following goals from the TBEP CCMP:

! Cap nitrogen loadings to Tampa Bay at existing levels (1992-1994 average) to

encourage the regrowth of an additional 12,350 acres of seagrass. 

! Protect relatively clean areas of the bay from increases in toxic contamination, and

minimize risks to marine life and humans associated with toxic contaminants to

impacted areas.

! Increase and preserve the quantity, quality and diversity of seagrass communities.

The long-term goal is to restore 12,350 acres of seagrass and protect the bay’s

existing 25,600 acres.

! Restore and optimum balance of wetland and associated upland habitats for fish

and wildlife, while protecting and enhancing existing habitats. Specific targets

include:

 restoration of a minimum of 100 acres of low-salinity tidal marsh every five

years, for a total increase over time of 1,800 acres, and the preservation of the

existing habitat

 protection and enhancement of the bay’s mangrove and salt marsh communities

which total nearly 14,000 acres

 restoration over time of 150 acres of salt barren habitat

The following Pollutant Load Reduction Goal (PLRG) has been established for the bay:

Reduce nitrogen concentration in Tampa Bay by 7 percent by 2010, or about

17 tons per year or as necessary to offset loadings to the bay as a result of

population growth

Management Strategies

The SWIM Plan’s management strategies for protecting and restoring Tampa Bay are the

based on the TBEP’s technical assessments and the Comprehensive Conservation and

Management Plan (CCMP) The District played a significant role in the development of the

CCMP and continues to be an active partner as the TBEP moves to implementation. The

District sits on the Policy and Management Committees of the TBEP and contributes a

considerable amount of local matching funds from the five Basin Boards surrounding

Tampa Bay. District staff participated fully in the Technical and Community Advisory

Committees contributing to the understanding of the technical issues and development of
4

strategies and actions. The District’s extensive commitment of staff time and resources

was made, in part, with the expectation that the CCMP would guide the development of the

next SWIM Plan for Tampa Bay. 

To address these priority problems, key areas were identified in the CCMP and “Action

Plans” were prepared as priority activities for managing and restoring Tampa Bay. The

action plans within each of the key areas identified a range of strategies that allow local

communities to maximize return on their investment in bay recovery and protection. Many

actions also achieve multiple environmental objectives, such as pollution prevention and

water conservation. Responsible parties were identified within each action plan that were,

because of existing authority or responsibility, expected to participate in the implementation

of the action plan.

Action Plan Responsibilities 

The Southwest Florida Water Management District was identified as a responsible party

for several of the action plans included in the CCMP. Of these action plans, the SWIM

Plan is proposing projects to implement the associated action plans. 

Action Plan WQ-1 Implement Nitrogen Management Goals for Tampa Bay

 Stormwater Rehabilitation

 Sumner Road Stormwater Management Improvement

 Balm Road Scrub Marsh

 Assessment of Microbial Indicators and Pathogens in the Tampa Bay

Watershed.

 Support Ongoing Bay-wide Water Quality Modeling

 Hypoxia

Action Plan BH-1 Implement the Tampa Bay Master Plan for Habitat Restoration 

 and Protection

 The Kitchen (Dug Creek, Davis Tract and Port Redwing) Habitat Restoration

 Delaney Creek Habitat Restoration

 North Apollo Beach Habitat Restoration

 Cargil Habitat Restoration

 MacDill AFB Habitat Restoration

 Palm River/Tampa Bypass Canal Restoration

 Dick Creek Habitat Restoration

 Rocky Creek Habitat Restoration

 Clam Bayou Habitat Restoration

 Howard Frankland West Habitat Restoration

 Terra Ceia Isles Habitat Restoration

 Allen’s Creek Habitat Restoration

Action Plan BH-8 Expand Habitat Mapping and Monitoring Programs

 Tampa Bay Seagrass Mapping and Monitoring

Strategies to achieve the goals include primarily stormwater retrofit projects and habitat
5

restoration projects. Stormwater retrofit projects are designed to provide treatment for

stormwater from previously untreated urban and industrial areas. The stormwater

treatment process of detaining runoff into holding ponds, biological assimilation and

physical removal reduces the amount of nutrients (primarily nitrogen and phosphorus) and

toxic materials entering the receiving waters. The habitat restoration goals, and to a lesser

degree the nitrogen removal goals, will be achieved through construction of “habitat

mosaics” designed to include as many different habitat types as the site allows, including

oligohaline (low-salinity) habitats.

Action Plans within the CCMP that required coordination and/or direct action by the District

other than through SWIM can be accomplished through existing duties and responsibilities

of the District, such as land acquisition, regulatory and planning. The detail regarding the

District’s activities under these action plans is provided in Appendix B. 

Linkage to Other Water Resource Management Activities

In addition the projects that are initiated by SWIM, the SWIM Program is able to

accomplish its objectives more effectively and efficiently by coordinating internally with

other District programs and externally through partnerships with local governments and

other state and federal agencies.

Internal Linkages

The District has many tools available to implement the legislative intent of the SWIM

program, including but not limited to, integrated planning and coordination, regulatory

authority, land acquisition programs and the SWIM program itself. Each of these areas

provide opportunities to assist in the management of Tampa Bay, one of the prominent

natural systems within the District. 

The SWFWMD's Water Management Plan - As required in Chapter 373 of Florida

Statutes, the District prepared its Water Management Plan (DWMP). Within this plan, the

District delineated its mission into four areas of responsibility; water supply, flood

protection, water quality management and natural systems management. The DWMP

recognizes that the integration of all these areas is essential to effective planning and

management of the resource. District Water Management Plan has listed policies that

relate to the restoration, protection and management of Tampa Bay

Comprehensive Watershed Management - The District has recognized a need to take a

more aggressive and unified approach to surface water management and has created an

initiative which would prioritize resource management needs by watershed throughout the

District. It is intended to combine water quantity (i.e., flood) management with water quality

and natural systems objectives, as well as water supply when applicable. Ultimately

regulation, land acquisition, facilities and land use controls would be combined into a

comprehensive surface water management strategy including appropriate policies, on a

watershed specific basis. This effort is the District’s embodiment of the EPA’s watershed
6

planning approach and the FDEP’s Ecosystem Management initiative.

Local governments, as the parties responsible for land planning/development and service

provision, will be key players in this integrated management approach. Similarly, the

State’s Ecosystem Management initiative will provide an impetus to collective efforts as it

implements an environmental strategy that encourages innovation, pollution prevention,

incentive-based regulatory alternatives, public education and individual stewardship.

Regulation

Wetlands Protection Through Regulatory Programs - One way that the District

achieves wetlands protection is through regulatory programs. Wetlands protection is

addressed under Chapters 40D-2, 40D-3, 40D-4, 40D-40 and 40D-45, F.A.C. The

District’s surface water permitting rules (40D-4, 40 and 45, F.A.C.) Require that any

impact to wetlands not specifically exempted must either be avoided or compensated.

Compensation for impacts include as a minimum, type-for-type mitigation at a one-toone ratio. Other types of compensation may be required, including preservation of

associated upland areas, alternate types of wetland creation, protection of exempt

wetlands, and restoration for previously impacted wetlands. The intent is to ensure

that the habitat necessary for the survival of fish and wildlife is maintained.

Minimum Flows and Levels - Another management tool available for water and related

natural resource protection is through the District's minimum flow and levels program

(MFL). Maintaining minimum flows and levels is a significant statutory charge for

Florida's water management districts. SWFWMD programs for minimum flows and

levels originate in Chapter 373.042, F.S., as well as from the District's desire to treat

the environment as a rightful "user" of water. If water resources and associated natural

systems are to be protected and maintained, the identification and establishment of

water levels and flows is essential. Such activities will also serve to balance water

withdrawals for human needs with protection of surface water levels for navigation,

recreation and related functions.

Once established, MFLs are implemented through a variety of means. Most prevalent

is the application of these flows and levels to the District's water use permitting

program. As directed by Chapter 373.042, F.S., the District may restrict withdrawals

of water which would cause flows and levels to drop below their established minimums

and which would be significantly harmful to the water resources or ecology of an area.

The District's water use permitting rules, which include criteria to prevent adverse

impacts from occurring as a result of withdrawals, effectively establish MFLs for

specific sources throughout the District.

Regulatory minimum flows are now in effect for three rivers, including the Manatee,

Little Manatee and Peace rivers. The minimum flows (and withdrawal rates) for these

streams have been established through existing water use permits. The minimum flow

for the Little Manatee River may be revised pending the resolution of an electrical

power plant site certification process for a fuel conversion. The minimum flows and

allowable withdrawals rates for the Manatee River are being reexamined, with possible
7

revisions at the time of permit renewal. Minimum flows have not been established for

four watercourses in the District which support major withdrawals (Hillsborough and

Braden rivers, Shell Creek and Big Slough Canal).

Mitigation Banking - Mitigation banking allows developers to compensate for wetland

losses in one place by preserving, restoring or creating wetlands in another to achieve

a no-net loss of wetlands. The rule allows mitigation banking in some instances,

although it remains a controversial issue. 

Land Acquisition - Land acquisition at the District is guided and funded by two major

statewide initiatives: The Water Management Lands Trust Fund (a.k.a. Save our Rivers

Program or SOR), and Preservation 2000 (P-2000). These programs target the protection

of natural resources at the local and regional level. Lands of importance to water resources

and water management are acquired along with lands of unique environmental values

endangered by development activities. The District owns over 200,000 acres, the majority

of which were purchased through the SOR and P2000 programs. Many recent land

purchases have been a joint acquisition between the District and a partner such as local

governments in the case of Cockroach Bay and Wolf Branch, or with other state agencies.

Leveraging District land acquisition funds with those of local governments and other

agencies can and has resulted in significant acquisitions that would otherwise not be made.

These programs have been coordinated with SWIM Plans by focusing on critical habitats,

such as wetlands and their interconnected upland communities that are part of Tampa

Bay’s ecosystem that should be acquired for preservation or for restoration.

Basin Board Activities - The eight Basin boards or the SWFWMD have specific functions

and duties that are consistent with Chapter 373, F.S., and the programs of the Governing

Board. Their purpose is to identify and evaluate key water resource management issues

in order to develop and fund management strategies to address them. The Basin boards

are facilitator in the resolution of non-regulatory water management issues for a number

of other governments. It is at the Basin level that intergovernmental water resource

programs are implemented, monitored and evaluated for improvement. The Basins are

a sounding board for the District, a means of obtaining feedback from local governments

and citizens. Basin boards also serve as funding partners for local governments and

others in addressing mutually beneficial water resource solutions.

The District, through the eight basin boards, has an established Cooperative Funding

Program which provides financial assistance on a cost-share basis primarily to local

governments for regional water resource projects. Projects can also be funded through

“Basin initiatives” where a Basin decides to provide the impetus for a water management

solution, with or without a local partner. Many of the Basins presently have in place a fiveyear plan which outlines the types of activities it expects to undertake in the next five years

and provides an estimate of the funding required to support these projects. The Basin

plans were prepared in close coordination with local governments demonstrating another

opportunity for integration with local governments and ensuring the most efficient and costeffective approach to addressing the mutual water resource management goals and

objectives. 
8

External Linkages

FDEP - Ecosystem Management Initiative - Ecosystem Management is a process for

managing environmental resources that originated at the State level. The Florida

Department of Environmental Protection is required by the Florida Environmental

Protection Act of 1993 to develop and implement measures to “protect the functions of

entire ecological systems through enhanced coordination or public land acquisition,

regulatory and planning programs.”

FDEP has defined ecosystem management as an integrated, flexible approach to

management of Florida’s biological and physical environments - conducted through the use

of tools such as planning, land acquisition, environmental education, regulation and

pollution prevention - designed to maintain, protect and improve the State’s natural,

managed and human communities. The primary goal of this effort is to provide for the

maintenance of a healthy, sustainable environment for the benefit of present and future

generations.

The District has been an active participant in this evolving process, both in terms of

statewide program development, and support for the Hillsborough River Basin Pilot Project.

The Pilot is one of six throughout the State intended to illustrate how this concept can

provide for a comprehensive, holistic linking of environmental protection at many

governmental (and private) levels. A strong correlation is apparent between SWFWMD’s

Comprehensive Water Management Initiative (CWM) and Surface Water Improvement and

Management (SWIM) and FDEP’s Ecosystem Management.

Tampa Bay National Estuary Program - In 1991, Tampa Bay was chosen by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency as an estuary of national significance. Consequently,

the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (TBNEP) convened a management conference

to complete technical and early action demonstration projects and prepare a

Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP). The TBNEP’s previous

activities and the CCMP are the technical basis for the Tampa Bay SWIM Plan’s strategies

for the protection and restoration of Tampa Bay. The District played a significant part in

the TBNEP process. The District held seats on the Policy and Management Committees

of the TBNEP and contributed a considerable amount of local matching funds from the five

Basin Boards surrounding Tampa Bay. District staff participated fully in the Technical and

Community Advisory Committees contributing to the understanding of the technical issues

and development of strategies and actions. The District’s extensive commitment of staff

time and resources were, in part, with the expectation that the CCMP would guide the

development of the next Tampa Bay SWIM Plan. The CCMP, completed in 1996,

describes the state of Tampa Bay along with the management structure charged with the

bay’s protection, identifies specific and attainable targets as a foundation for restoration

and protection and proposes action plans identifying strategies that assist local

communities in selecting cost-effective environmental improvements.

The NEP partners signed an Interlocal Agreement in February 1998 to implement the

CCMP for Tampa Bay pledging to achieve the goals of the bay management plan and

committing to specific actions and timetables. The Interlocal Agreement also defined the
9

governance and organization for the implementation phase of the program. Along with the

organizational definition came a name change. The Tampa Bay National Estuary Program

will become the Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP). 

This SWIM Plan has been prepared by reviewing the available data relevant to Tampa Bay

and using that information to develop a project list for converting CCMP initiatives,

whenever appropriate, into SWIM activities. The plan focuses on activities identified for

the District that can be accomplished within the legislative charge of SWIM - improving or

protecting water quality and natural systems. Additionally, by sharing responsibilities with

other state and local agencies, SWIM projects can be planned to prevent duplication in

effort and orient various entities toward those activities which they are best suited.

Local Government Coordination and Partnering - Building on the relationships and

partnerships that have been developed over the past two decades of bay management

activities in Tampa Bay is central to the future of managing the bay and are core to this

update of the Tampa Bay SWIM Plan. Local governments are key to the implementation

of any management activity that is proposed for the bay. 

The District has recently prepared integrated plans for many the local governments in the

District. The purpose of an integrated plan is to identify and evaluate key water resource

management issues within the local government’s jurisdiction and to develop common

District and local government strategies to address these issues. The integrated plan is

intended to serve as a tool to foster the integration of land use planning and growth

management activities of local governments with the water use planning and management

activities of the District. This effort will strengthen the local government’s comprehensive

plan by linking local water resources planning to the best available data and other

resources of the District. The development of the integrated plans is a cooperative effort

of the District, local governments and citizens. This endeavor is best viewed as a process,

however, since it is intended to promote continuing relations and mutual planning in the

best interest of the resource. It is hoped the action strategies identified will end up back

in the local government plan where local and District energies, and funding, can be

directed toward them. 

Local governments and other state and regional agencies offer not only a funding partner

but a wide range of services -- from land acquisition and technical assistance to providing

equipment and personnel -- all of which when combined with District and State resources

can make for a substantial effort. As an example, Hillsborough County, through its own

Environmental Lands Acquisition and Protection (ELAP) Program, has acquired hundreds

of acres of land that they would not have normally due to its marginal environmental benefit

(in its present condition). The land was acquired only because of the ability and

commitment of the District through SWIM to restore the property. The District could not

afford to purchase the land and restore it and the county had the ability to purchase

property but was without the means to restore it. The synergy between the District and

Hillsborough County is obvious in this case and there are many other examples of

partnerships developed because of the need for restoration and management of activities

in Tampa Bay and the limitations of any one agency or organization to address those

needs.
10

Priority Projects

The projects as described in this plan are consistent with the District's Water Management

Plan, the Basin Board Five Year Plans and the TBEP's CCMP. The projects are focused

on those action plans that can be accomplished within the legislative charge of SWIM,

specifically improving or protecting water quality and natural systems. The following project

summary sheets included the description and projected cost for the projects.
11

Project Title: Stormwater Rehabilitation

Action Plan(s) Addressed:

Action Plan WQ-1 Implement Nitrogen Management Goals for Tampa Bay

Summary:

Runoff from urban, agricultural and industrial land uses have been shown to contain

loadings of nutrients, suspended solids (both organic and inorganic) and heavy metals.

One of the strategies to reduce these pollutants is through the design and implementation

of stormwater collection and treatment systems. New development is required to address

stormwater from not only from a volume perspective, but from a water quality perspective.

To reduce pollutants from areas developed prior to present stormwater rules will require

a retrofit or rehabilitation. The District and local governments will join forces to design and

construct stormwater treatment systems to reduce nutrients and/or suspended solids and

the heavy metals associated with this fine particulate material.

Annual Budget Estimates:

FY 99 FY 00 FY 01

Salaries: $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000

Contracts: $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000

Expenses: $ 1,200 $ 1,200 $ 1,200

Equipment: $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000

Total: $ 517,200 $ 517,200 $ 517,200

Agency or Local Government Coordination and Partnering:

Agencies and local governments are preparing their action plans to meet their

implementation obligations pursuant to the implementation agreement for the Tampa Bay

National Estuary Program. A major portion of those action plans will include projects to

reduce nutrients (specifically nitrogen) and toxins (primarily heavy metals) discharged to

the bay. 

The District, through the cooperative funding programs of the Basin Boards and through

SWIM funding can join with the local governments to cost share many of these projects

and allow for more to be accomplished. The Action Plans for all agencies and local

governments are still being prepared and reviewed by the TBNEP and as such, no specific

cooperative projects for fiscal years beyond FY 99 have been identified at this time,

however it is expected that several will ultimately be proposed and meet the criteria for

funding under this SWIM Plan.
12

Project Title: Sumner Road Stormwater Management Improvement

Action Plan(s) Addressed:

Action Plan WQ-1 Implement Nitrogen Management Goals for Tampa Bay

Summary:

Construction of a sedimentation basin within the Bullfrog Creek watershed to reduce

pollutant loads and floodplain encroachment from a 190 acre drainage area. Major land

use is agriculture and erosion occurs due to man-made alteration of the natural drainage

system. Amount of erosion is impacting the existing conveyance system and wetland

areas. A seven-acre pond is proposed to control sediment deposition, provide water

quality treatment prevent wetland impacts, and restore floodplain. Regionally, this project

will improve the water quality which discharges to Bullfrog Creek, eliminate floodplain

encroachment and provide proper stormwater conveyance. Locally, it will protect adjacent

wetlands and be a potential source for irrigation to neighboring farms. It will also reduce

flooding and impacts to local conveyance facilities.

Annual Budget Estimates:

FY 99 FY 00 FY 01

Salaries: $ 15,000 $ 0 $ 0

Contracts: $ 200,000 $ 0 $ 0

Expenses: $ 1,200 $ 0 $ 0

Equipment: $ 1,000 $ 0 $ 0

Total: $ 217,200 $ 0 $ 0

Agency or Local Government Coordination and Partnering:

This is a cooperative project with Hillsborough County which initially came to the District

through the Cooperative Funding Program of the Alafia River Basin Board. The County

will be responsible for the design, permitting and construction of the project and the District

will share the cost of the project with the County. This partnership fulfils the needs of both

the County and the District and ultimately more projects can be accomplished because

of the cost sharing relationship.
13

Project Title: Balm Road Scrub Marsh

Action Plan(s) Addressed:

Action Plan WQ-1 Implement Nitrogen Management Goals for Tampa Bay

Summary:

Construction of a sedimentation and treatment facility and creation of additional floodplain

within the Bullfrog Creek watershed. Approximately 125 acres will be restored to a natural

state and 100 acres converted to floodplain to attenuate increased flows due to

surrounding agricultural practices. The project will collect excess runoff via bypass swales

from about 1,025 acres of mostly agricultural land use and treat it via biological and

physical processes. Regionally, this project will provide water quality improvements and

reduced pollutant load to Bullfrog Creek and Tampa Bay. It will increase available wildlife

habitat through a freshwater marsh creation. Locally and regionally the project will provide

additional flood attenuation.

Annual Budget Estimates:

FY 99 FY 00 FY 01

Salaries: $ 15,000 $ 0 $ 0

Contracts: $ 200,000 $ 0 $ 0

Expenses: $ 1,200 $ 0 $ 0

Equipment: $ 1,000 $ 0 $ 0

Total: $ 217,200 $ 0 $ 0

Agency or Local Government Coordination and Partnering:

This is a cooperative project with Hillsborough County which initially came to the District

through the Cooperative Funding Program of the Alafia River Basin Board. The County

will be responsible for the design, permitting and construction of the project and the District

will share the cost of the project with the County. This partnership fulfils the needs of both

the County and the District and ultimately more projects can be accomplished because

of the cost sharing relationship.
14

Project Title: Assessment of Microbial Indicators and Pathogens in the Tampa

Bay Watershed.

Action Plan(s) Addressed:

WW-4 Revise HRS Rules to Incorporate Environmental Performance or Design

Standards for Septic Systems

Summary:

Develop and implement a cooperative project (with the Florida Department of Health,

University of South Florida, and possibly other local government agencies) to evaluate

potential sources and loadings of microbial pathogens within the Tampa Bay watershed.

Annual Budget Estimates:

FY 99 FY 00 FY 01

Salaries: $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 0

Contracts: $ 100,000 $ 0 $ 0

Expenses: $ 1,200 $ 1,200 $ 0

Equipment: $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 0

Total: $ 107,200 $ 7,200 $ 0

Agency or Local Government Coordination and Partnering:

SWIM will be partnering with the Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP) and coordinating

with the Pinellas County and Hillsborough County Departments of Health to develop this

project. The TBEP will assist with additional funding up to approximately $40,000 to

develop a diagnostic microbial survey of the Bullfrog Creek watershed. 
15

Project Title: Support Ongoing Bay-wide Water Quality Modeling

Action Plan(s) Addressed:

Action Plan WQ-1 Implement Nitrogen Management Goals for Tampa Bay

Summary:

Statistical and mechanistic models were used to assess current impacts of external nitrogen

loadings on the water quality of Tampa Bay, and to predict the reductions in future loadings that

will be required to reach selected water quality targets. Nitrogen was identified as the pollutant

of primary interest because it is the nutrient that can potentially limit algal growth in the bay, and

has substantial anthropogenic loadings which can be managed through actions taken in the

watershed. An initial water quality target, developed by the TBNEP, is an ambient chlorophyll

concentration that will allow sufficient light penetration through the water column to support the

establishment and survival of seagrasses to the depths observed in the bay in the early 1950's (1-

2m in most bay segments). Based on monthly water quality data and pollutant loading estimates

for the period 1985-1994, the models were used to predict the external nitrogen loadings to the

bay, and ambient nitrogen concentrations within the bay, appropriate to reach this target. Those

estimates were used, in turn, to identify appropriate nitrogen management goals for the Tampa Bay

watershed. Because the statistical and mechanistic models are based on very different technical

approaches, SWIM and TBNEP staff believe that nitrogen management goals developed using the

combined results of both models will be more robust, and more widely accepted by the local

technical community, than goals developed using either model alone. As requested by the TBNEP,

the District will take responsibility for maintaining and updating the modeling effort

Annual Budget Estimates:

FY 99 FY 00 FY 01

Salaries: $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000

Contracts: $ 15,000 $ 50,000 $ 15,000

Expenses: $ 1,200 $ 1,200 $ 1,200

Equipment: $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000

Total: $ 27,200 $ 67,200 $ 27,200

Agency or Local Government Coordination and Partnering:

Several agencies and local governments are working to collect and maintain a long term

data set for environmental parameters for the bay, the most notable being the water quality

monitoring program by the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County.

All if the information from the various sources will be utilize for maintaining and updating

the modeling effort.
16

Project Title: Hypoxia

Action Plan(s) Addressed:

Action Plan WQ-1 Implement Nitrogen Management Goals for Tampa Bay

Summary:

Hypoxia, defined as low levels of dissolved oxygen in the water column can be a serious

problem to the flora and fauna of an estuarine system that can not move about. Low

oxygen levels can generally be attributed to a stratified water column and high oxygen

demands from nutrient rich organic sediments, or from high oxygen demand within the

water column such as the presence of an algae bloom (respiration at night) or the oxygen

demand of decaying algal cells. Low or no oxygen can cause physiological stress and

death of attached or slow moving marine animals. This project will determine the

frequency, duration, and spatial extent of historic, current, and predicted future hypoxic

conditions in Tampa Bay. Although hypoxic events in Charlotte Harbor are thought to be

natural phenomena, such is not the case in areas such as Long Island Sound and

Chesapeake Bay. As expected increases in Bay-wide nitrogen loads might conceivably

be associated with increases in the frequency, duration or spatial extent of hypoxic

conditions, this project is essential for the wise management of Tampa Bay’s water

resources.

Annual Budget Estimates:

FY 99 FY 00 FY 01

Salaries: $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000

Contracts: $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 0

Expenses: $ 1,200 $ 1,200 $ 1,200

Equipment: $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000

Total: $ 157,200 $ 157,200 $ 7,200

Agency or Local Government Coordination and Partnering:

Several agencies and local governments are working to collect and maintain a long term data

set for environmental parameters for the bay, the most notable being the water quality

monitoring program by the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County.

Information from the various sources will be utilized to evaluate the frequency, duration or

spatial extent of hypoxic conditions in Tampa Bay. The results will be made available to

the many entities involved in bay management
17

Project Title: The Kitchen (Dug Creek, Davis Tract and Port Redwing) Habitat

Restoration

Action Plan(s) Addressed:

Action Plan BH-1 Implement the Tampa Bay Master Plan for Habitat Restoration and

Protection

Summary:

Port Redwing is a 270 acre parcel located in the mid-eastern reaches of Tampa Bay, just

north of the Big Bend power plant. During 1995, after initial nomination by the National

Audubon Society, the District and Hillsborough County cooperatively purchased the Port

Redwing parcel. The $3 million acquisition was a tri-party affair through joining of forces

of the District with Hillsborough County and the Tampa Port Authority. The Port would

assume ownership of the southern 170 acres for port development deep water port, and

the County would develop a “green space” bay-front nature park on the northern 100 acres.

Hillsborough County (via ELAPP) also provided 50% of acquisition fees for the northern

tract. The SWIM program began cooperating with Hillsborough County for the

implementation of a large (<40-50 acres) restoration project. This acquisition is but the first

of series of proposed acquisitions throughout “The Kitchen” area that would provide several

opportunities to restore a significant amount of a variety of habitats.

Annual Budget Estimates:

FY 99 FY 00 FY 01

Salaries: $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000

Contracts: $ 400,000 $ 400,000 $ 400,000

Expenses: $ 1,200 $ 1,200 $ 1,200

Equipment: $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000

Total: $ 407,200 $ 407,200 $ 407,200

Agency or Local Government Coordination and Partnering:

The District and Hillsborough County (via ELAPP) cooperatively purchased the Port

Redwing parcel with the expectation that the District will accomplish the environmental

restoration for the site. The significance of this partnership is that this property would not

normally be purchased under a land protection program due to its environmentally

disturbed state. If lack of funding or other reasons kept the property from being restored,

public money would have been spent to purchase property of limited environmental value

rather than more environmentally desirable properties -- a politically unpalatable position.
18

Project Title: Delaney Creek Habitat Restoration

Action Plan(s) Addressed:

Action Plan BH-1 Implement the Tampa Bay Master Plan for Habitat Restoration and

Protection

Summary:

Delaney Creek is a highly altered creek system in Hillsborough County. The intent of the

project is to restore the creek by altering the shoreline to a more natural condition and

replanting with native Florida vegetation. There are opportunities to provide oligohaline

habitats consistent with the TBEP’s “restoring the balance” concept.

Annual Budget Estimates:

FY 99 FY 00 FY 01

Salaries: $ 0 $ 5,000 $ 5,000

Contracts: $ 0 $ 250,000 $ 375,000

Expenses: $ 0 $ 1,200 $ 1,200

Equipment: $ 0 $ 1,000 $ 1,000

Total: $ 0 $ 257,200 $ 377,200

Agency or Local Government Coordination and Partnering:

Only the land that is in public ownership will be considered for restoration. Close

coordination with the County is essential to maximize the benefit of the project and to

ensure that the needs and expectations of the respective cooperators are met.
19

Project Title: North Apollo Beach Habitat Restoration

Action Plan(s) Addressed:

Action Plan BH-1 Implement the Tampa Bay Master Plan for Habitat Restoration and

Protection

Summary:

Apollo Beach Park is a 58 acre parcel of land located in south Hillsborough County. The

Big Bend Power Plant is across the channel to the northeast. The entire peninsula was

created out of sand dredged from Tampa Bay in 1955. Prior to this time, the site was part

of Tampa Bay and vegetated with seagrasses. The project is consistent with the Tampa

Bay Estuary Program’s Master Plan for Habitat Restoration and Protection. 

In cooperation with the County, approximately 15 acres of wetland would be created that

would more closely resemble the natural habitats of Tampa Bay. Due to the adjacent

power plant discharge, the waters surrounding the site are frequented by a large number

of Florida manatees. For this reason, we plan to work in conjunction with FDEP to design

habitats that would be used specifically by manatees. Several large open water features

and channels will be included in the design. Numerous tidal platforms and creeks will also

be constructed.

Annual Budget Estimates:

FY 99 FY 00 FY 01

Salaries: $ 5,000 $ 0 $ 0

Contracts: $ 300,000 $ 0 $ 0

Expenses: $ 1,200 $ 0 $ 0

Equipment: $ 1,000 $ 0 $ 0

Total: $ 307,200 $ 0 $ 0

Agency or Local Government Coordination and Partnering:

This fifteen (15) acre Tampa Bay estuarine wetland restoration project is proposed on land

acquired by Hillsborough County for a park. Part of the funds for acquisition was provided

by the Community Lands Trust Fund from the State. A factor in the decision to award the

funds to the County was the restoration concept for portion of the site. District and County

staff will be coordinating closely to ensure that the restoration and park designs are

compatible and to endure that the construction for both projects be done efficiently and

cost-effective.
20

Project Title: Cargil Habitat Restoration

Action Plan(s) Addressed:

Action Plan BH-1 Implement the Tampa Bay Master Plan for Habitat Restoration and

Protection

Summary:

Cargil Fertilizer, Inc. is a private entity owning 370 acres of coastal property just south of

the Alafia River. An undetermined portion of the site has been set aside by Cargil as a

conservation easement. The property is composed mainly of ditched mangrove swamp,

saltern and coastal hammock. Exotic vegetation is also prevalent, especially along the

berms and approaches to a 50 acre settling pond built by the company. Opportunities for

restoration exist primarily along the numerous mosquito ditches found on site. Exotic

Brazilian pepper trees should be removed and areas graded to better suit native

vegetation. Many of the ditches could also be reworked to increase the complexity of the

site.

Annual Budget Estimates:

FY 99 FY 00 FY 01

Salaries: $ 0 $ 5,000 $ 5,000

Contracts: $ 0 $ 250,000 $ 375,000

Expenses: $ 0 $ 1,200 $ 1,200

Equipment: $ 0 $ 1,000 $ 1,000

Total: $ 0 $ 257,200 $ 377,200

Agency or Local Government Coordination and Partnering:

Cargil Industries, a fertilizer manufacturer on the shores of Tampa Bay will be the primary

cooperator. With public land available for restoration becoming more and more limited,

entering into a partnership with Cargil can provide the land necessary to do restoration.
21

Project Title: MacDill AFB Habitat Restoration

Action Plan(s) Addressed:

Action Plan BH-1 Implement the Tampa Bay Master Plan for Habitat Restoration and

Protection

Summary:

Phase 1, a lagoonal system has been restored and existing habitats enhanced via exotic

plant removal and grading to high and low intertidal elevations. Phase 2 is south of Phase

1, involving disturbed shoreline, transitional, wetland, and upland areas adjacent to the golf

course (southeastern reaches of the interbay peninsula). Completion of design and

construction of Phase 2 is anticipated during 1997 although construction funds may be

insufficient to complete the project (to be addressed in future budgets). Preliminary field

work and design considerations were done for a Phase 3 project. Significant acreages

(20+ acres) hold potential for this last phase associated with the golf course and a major

drainage ditch draining an inland basin.

Annual Budget Estimates:

FY 99 FY 00 FY 01

Salaries: $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 0

Contracts: $ 278,321 $ 0 $ 0

Expenses: $ 1,200 $ 0 $ 0

Equipment: $ 1,000 $ 0 $ 0

Total: $ 285,521 $ 5,000 $ 0

Agency or Local Government Coordination and Partnering:

The cooperative relationship between the District and the U. S. Air Force represents a rare

opportunity to work with a military branch of the federal government for environmental

enhancement/restoration. The Federal government, as MacDill AFB, is the single owner

of the largest continuous shoreline of Tampa Bay. At a time when publicly held land

available for restoration is becoming more and more limited, MacDill AFB can provide the

land necessary to do restoration.
22

Project Title: Palm River/Tampa Bypass Canal Restoration

Action Plan(s) Addressed:

Action Plan BH-1 Implement the Tampa Bay Master Plan for Habitat Restoration and

Protection

Summary:

The proposed project is to alter the channel configuration by raising the bottom of the

existing channel and maintain the necessary volume for flood relief by altering the shoreline

from a steep slope to a more natural shallow wide floodplain. The Tampa Bay community

has invested heavily in the restoration of Tampa Bay at the results are being seen in the

form of improved water quality, restored submerged and intertidal habitats and the return

of fish and wildlife populations previously lost to the Bay community. The reconfiguration

of the channel will provide both water quality and habitat restoration benefits to an area of

Tampa Bay that continues to exhibit the poorest water quality and limited fish and wildlife

habitat value.

Annual Budget Estimates:

FY 99 FY 00 FY 01

Salaries: $ 0 $ 5,000 $ 5,000

Contracts: $ 0 $ 400,000 $ 400,000

Expenses: $ 0 $ 1,200 $ 1,200

Equipment: $ 0 $ 1,000 $ 1,000

Total: $ 0 $ 407,200 $ 407,200

Agency or Local Government Coordination and Partnering:

This project provides an opportunity to partner for the first time with the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers. The Corps can provide funding (with a local match), and technical

assistance such as diagnostic/feasibility and design. The District and Corps are able to

facilitate the restoration in the Palm River as a result of the partnership that they were not

able to do separately because of either financial limitations or lack of institutional inertia.
23

Project Title: Dick Creek Habitat Restoration

Action Plan(s) Addressed:

Action Plan BH-1 Implement the Tampa Bay Master Plan for Habitat Restoration and

Protection

Summary:

Dick Creek drains a highly developed section of west Tampa and has consequently been

heavily channelized for flood control purposes. Some restoration potential exists in the

easement portions of the creek, which are owned primarily by Hillsborough County. The

lower reaches of the creek interconnect with the mouth of Rocky Creek, an area which

formerly contained many braided side channels and oxbows. Excavation of Channel “G”

has disrupted the natural flow and caused a number of these backwater areas to become

choked with vegetation and sediment. Plans for restoration could include regrading or

removing sections of the channel berm to restore circulation to existing backwater areas.

Annual Budget Estimates:

FY 99 FY 00 FY 01

Salaries: $ 0 $ 5,000 $ 5,000

Contracts: $ 0 $ 150,000 $ 450,000

Expenses: $ 0 $ 1,200 $ 1,200

Equipment: $ 0 $ 1,000 $ 1,000

Total: $ 0 $ 157,200 $ 457,200

Agency or Local Government Coordination and Partnering:

The FDEP owns a portion of this property with the remainder falling under private

ownership. While no formal agreement in place yet, FDEP and Hillsborough County are

likely cooperators and at a minimum, there must be close communication with the public

land-owners and the District.
24

Project Title: Rocky Creek Habitat Restoration

Action Plan(s) Addressed:

Action Plan BH-1 Implement the Tampa Bay Master Plan for Habitat Restoration and

Protection

Summary:

Rocky Creek is located in a heavily developed region of west Tampa, just north of the

Tampa approach to the Courtney Campbell Causeway. For nearly its entire length, Rocky

Creek is tightly bordered by residential and commercial development. Two sections of the

creek have been channelized for flood control purposes, but much of the original stream

channel still remains. Channel "A" diverts excess water under conditions of high flow from

Rocky Creek into the heavily channelized Dick Creek to the west. Channel "G" intersects

Rocky Creek along its middle reaches and acts to divert water away from residential areas

and into the creek. 

Annual Budget Estimates:

FY 99 FY 00 FY 01

Salaries: $ 0 $ 5,000 $ 5,000

Contracts: $ 0 $ 100,000 $ 300,000

Expenses: $ 0 $ 1,200 $ 1,200

Equipment: $ 0 $ 1,000 $ 1,000

Total: $ 0 $ 107,200 $ 307,200

Agency or Local Government Coordination and Partnering:

These two areas are owned by Hillsborough County and afford the greatest opportunity for

restoration along the creek. Most of the remaining sections of the creek are privately

owned. As such, District and County staff will work closely to ensure that any designs for

restoration projects are prepared with considerable County review and input.
25

Project Title: Clam Bayou Habitat Restoration

Action Plan(s) Addressed:

Action Plan BH-1 Implement the Tampa Bay Master Plan for Habitat Restoration and

Protection

Summary:

SWIM began preliminary planning of a Phase 2 project for Clam Bayou during 1995.

Phase 2 proposed to develop a “Clam Bayou Nature Park” for all of Clam Bayou.

Preliminary field work was conducted and groundwork laid for the development of the

preserve. Due to the size, complexity, and expense, development of the preserve will have

to be done in phases and must address several key points: habitat enhancement,

restoration and/or creation projects, land acquisition, stormwater treatment, sewage

overflow problems, jurisdiction and management of the preserve. One large potential

project involves the dredging of Clam Bayou to restore the original sand substratum (in

general, currently buried under 1-6 feet of fine grain sediments). Phase 2 offers great

potential for widespread, significant improvements to Clam Bayou; the site truly can

become a green oasis of natural, productive habitats in a sea of urban development. 

Annual Budget Estimates:

FY 99 FY 00 FY 01

Salaries: $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000

Contracts: $ 300,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000

Expenses: $ 1,200 $ 1,200 $ 1,200

Equipment: $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000

Total: $ 307,200 $ 707,200 $ 707,200

Agency or Local Government Coordination and Partnering:

The land for this project has as yet, not been acquired. Getting the land into public

ownership will require close coordination between, FDEP (Pollution Recovery Trust Fund

[PRTF]), Gulfport, St. Petersburg, FDEP Aquatic Preserve Program, SWFWMD Land

Resources, and possibly Pinellas County. Any effort toward the design of this potentially

extensive project cannot occur until the land is purchased.
26

Project Title: Howard Frankland West Habitat Restoration

Action Plan(s) Addressed:

Action Plan BH-1 Implement the Tampa Bay Master Plan for Habitat Restoration and

Protection

Summary:

The FDEP has been working with FDOT to restore low lying coastal areas on the west side

of the Howard Frankland Bridge in conjunction with several ongoing road improvement

projects. The FDEP was going to design this project, however the funding FDEP

anticipated from the Pollution Recovery Trust Funds, are now not available. As a result,

the District is doing the design and permitting activities for the site. The District has been

working with FDOT, Pinellas County and the State Bureau of Submerged Lands (DEP) to

expand the original project scope. 

A cooperative agreement has been approved between the District and Pinellas County to

proceed with the restoration project. A consultant will be hired to assist with the design of

this project. An area contiguous to this restoration project is within DOT’s right of way and

is covered with exotic vegetation, the District has decided to remove all of the exotics from

this area (30-50 acres) which will assist with reducing survey costs and aid in the overall

design of the restoration activities planned for the site.

Annual Budget Estimates:

FY 99 FY 00 FY 01

Salaries: $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 0

Contracts: $ 800,000 $ 800,000 $ 0

Expenses: $ 1,200 $ 1,200 $ 0

Equipment: $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 0

Total: $ 807,200 $ 807,200 $ 0

Agency or Local Government Coordination and Partnering:

The land available for restoration is owned by several public entities, FDOT, FDEP and

Pinellas County. As such, the need for close coordination with all of the entities is obvious.

There is the potential for significant restoration at this site, as well as a site for FDOT

mitigation Projects. The multiple owners and varied restoration needs and expectations

however will require considerable communication and coordination for the project to

achieve the full potential of the site.
27

Project Title: Terra Ceia Isles Habitat Restoration

Action Plan(s) Addressed:

Action Plan BH-1 Implement the Tampa Bay Master Plan for Habitat Restoration and

Protection

Summary:

Terra Ceia Isles is a 1600 acre publicly-owned parcel located on Tampa Bay just north of

the Sunshine Skyway Bridge approach in Manatee County. Over 1000 acres of this site

are defined as jurisdictional wetland areas including intertidal mangrove swamp, Juncus

marsh, and freshwater and ephemeral wetlands. The 580 acre upland portion was largely

cleared for agriculture and has since been abandoned. A few pockets of natural upland

still exist, but most of the site is dominated by exotic Brazilian pepper, Melaleuca (punk

tree), cogon and guinea grass. Removal of exotic vegetation would be a priority with the

cleared uplands being planted as an upland/wetland habitat mosaic complete with

transitions into existing wetland areas. 

Annual Budget Estimates:

FY 99 FY 00 FY 01

Salaries: $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000

Contracts: $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000

Expenses: $ 1,200 $ 1,200 $ 1,200

Equipment: $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000

Total: $ 507,200 $ 507,200 $ 507,200

Agency or Local Government Coordination and Partnering:

The District and the FDEP now share in the ownership of the Terra Ceia Isles. The District’s

purchase was partially for preservation and partially for restoration. The are hundreds of

acres that are opportunities for restoration. Agency partnering has provided the land and

that partnership will continue to accomplish the restoration as envisioned. 
28

Project Title: Allen’s Creek Habitat Restoration

Action Plan(s) Addressed:

Action Plan BH-1 Implement the Tampa Bay Master Plan for Habitat Restoration and

Protection

Summary:

Design and implement an approximately 14 acre oligohaline habitat restoration project

along Allen’s Creek in Pinellas County. The project is part of an overall restoration master

plan for Tampa Bay and meets the goals and objectives of both the Tampa Bay SWIM

Plan and the Tampa Bay Estuary Program CCMP. The project will provide critical nursery

habitat for a number of economically important fish species and will help improve water

quality in a highly urbanized watershed.

Annual Budget Estimates:

FY 99 FY 00 FY 01

Salaries: $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 0

Contracts: $ 60,000 $ 200,000 $ 0

Expenses: $ 1,200 $ 1,200 $ 0

Equipment: $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 0

Total: $ 67,200 $ 207,200 $ 0

Agency or Local Government Coordination and Partnering:

Pinellas County has a long standing interest in improving Allen’s Creek. The County has

purchased several parcels of land along the creek for water quality and natural systems

improvement. The District and the County have worked closely together on previous

projects in Allen’s Creek and this project is a continuation of that successful partnership.
29

Project Title: Tampa Bay Seagrass Mapping and Monitoring

Action Plan(s) Addressed:

Action Plan BH-8 Expand Habitat Mapping and Monitoring Programs

Summary:

A seagrass mapping effort, initiated in 1988 to monitor improvements to the Tampa Bay

system continues. Every other year true color photos are flown in December though

January to capitalize on times of maximum water clarity and best light penetration. These

photos are prepared and photo interpreted for SAV populations. Areas of representative

signatures are chosen and field checked for bottom composition. 

To provide more detailed site-specific information, seventy transect locations were initially

selected to represent the Tampa Bay ecosystem. Transects were 1000 meters long with

information collected at 100 meter intervals. Seagrass species, blade length, water depth,

epiphyte loading, and bottom composition were recorded at each data point. In addition,

dissolved oxygen (DO), water temperature and salinity is measured. All of these sites are

visited at least once a year (October). This monitoring effort will continue to further assess

the health of Tampa Bay.

Annual Budget Estimates:

FY 99 FY 00 FY 01

Salaries: $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000

Contracts: $ 60,000 $ 65,000

Expenses: $ 200 $ 200 $ 200

Equipment: $ 500 $ 500 $ 500

Total: $ 65,700 $ 5,700 $ 70,700

Agency or Local Government Coordination and Partnering:

SWIM will coordinate seagrass mapping and the dissemination of data through the TBEP.

In 1998, the TBEP coordinated the participation of several local agencies (including

Pinellas County, Hillsborough County, Manatee County, and FDEP-FMRI) in the seagrass

monitoring effort. Previously, SWIM conducted a labor-intensive seagrass transect

monitoring effort on an annual basis. This work will now be shared by the participating

agencies based on the geographical location of transects. 
30

Literature Listing

Arnold, W.S., K.G. Hagner and D.C. Marelli. 1996. Monitoring bay scallop recovery and

stocking efforts in Tampa Bay. Tech. Pub. #11096, Tampa Bay National Estuary

Program.

Blake, N.J., Y. Lu, and M. Moyer. 1993. Evaluation of Tampa Bay waters for the survival

and growth of southern bay scallop larvae and juveniles. Tech. Pub. #04-93, Tampa

Bay National Estuary Program. Prepared by Department of Marine Science,

University of South Florida.

Brooks, H. K. 1974. Geological oceanography. Pages E-1-49 in J. I. Jones et al., eds.

Summary of Knowledge, Eastern Gulf of Mexico. Fla. St. Univ. System Inst. of

Oceanography, St. Petersburg.

Brooks, G., T.L. Dix and L. Doyle. 1993. Groundwater/surfacewater interactions in Tampa

Bay: Implications for nutrient fluxes. Tech. Pub. #06-93, Tampa Bay National

Estuary Program. Prepared by Center for Nearshore Marine Science, Univ. of South

Florida.

CH2M Hill. 1995. Tampa Water Resource Recovery Project Summary. Prepared for City

of Tampa, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, and West Coast

Regional Water Supply Authority.

Coastal Environmental, Inc. 1996. Living resource-based freshwater inflow and salinity

targets for the tidal Peace River. Prepared for the Southwest Florida Water

Management District. Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Dept.

Corps of Engineers. 1974. Draft environmental impact statement: Tampa Harbor project;

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District. Jacksonville, FL.

Department of the Air Force, United States of America. 1996. Proposed mission

realignment, MacDill AFB, Florida. Prepared by Air Mobility Command, Scott Air

Force Base, Illinois.

Dinardi, D. A. 1978. Tampa Bay circulatory survey. 1963 NOS Oceanogr. Circulatory Surv.

Rep.2, NOAA. 39 pp.

Dixon, L.K. and J.R. Leverone. 1995. Light requirements of Thalassia testudinum in Tampa

Bay, Florida. Prepared for Southwest Florida Water Management District SWIM

Program, by Mote Marine Laboratory.

Dooris, P. M. and G. M. Dooris. 1985. Surface flows to Tampa Bay: Quantity and quality

aspects. Pages 88-106 in S. F. Treat, J. L. Simon, R. R. Lewis, III, and R. L.
31

Whitman, Jr. eds. Proceedings, Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium

(May 1982). Burgess Publishing Co., Inc., Minneapolis, MN. Available from Tampa

BASIS, P. O. Box 15759, Tampa, FL 33684. 663 pp.

Doyle, L.H. 1985. Marine Geology of Tampa Bay. in S. F. Treat, J. L. Simon, R. R. Lewis,

III, and R. L. Whitman, Jr. eds. Proceedings, Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information

Symposium (May 1982). Burgess Publishing Co., Inc., Minneapolis, MN. Available

from Tampa BASIS, P. O. Box 15759, Tampa, FL 33684. 663 pp.

Durako, M.J., M.O. Hall, F. Sargent, and S. Peck. 1992. Propeller scars in Seagrass beds:

an assessment and experimental study of recolonization in Weedon Island State

Preserve, Florida. Pp. 42-53 in Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of

Wetlands Restoration and Creation. Hillsborough County Community College,

Tampa, FL.

Durako, M.J., J.J. Shup, C.J. Andress, and D.A. Tomasko. 1993. Restoring seagrass beds:

some new approaches with Ruppia marihma L. (widgeon-grass). Pg. 88-101 in

Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of Wetlands Restoration and

Creation. Hillsborough County Community College, Tampa, FL.

Ehringer, J.N. 1994. Results of analysis of prop scar damage at the Fort Desoto Aquatic

Habitat Management Area 1992/1993. Tech. Pub. #05-94, Tampa Bay National

Estuary Program.

Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County. 1995. Surface Water

Quality Report, 1992-1994. Tampa, FL.

Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County. 1996. 1994-1995 Annual

Air Quality Report for Hillsborough County. HCEPC Air Management Div. Page 6.

Estevez, E. D. and L. Mosura. 1985. Emergent vegetation. Pages 248-278 in S. F. Treat,

J. L. Simon, R. R. Lewis, III, and R. L. Whitman, Jr. eds. Proceedings, Tampa Bay

Area Scientific Information Sym posium (May 1982). Burgess Publishing Co., Inc.,

Minneapolis, MN. Available from Tampa BASIS, P. O. Box 15759, Tampa, FL

Fisher, D., J. Cetat,T. Mathew, and M Openhdmor 1988. Polluted coastal waters: The role

of acid rain. Environmental Defense Fund, New York, NY.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1994. Air Quality Report 1994. FDEP Div.

of Air Resources Management.

Frithsen, J.B., S.P. Schreiner, D.E. Strebel, R.M. Laljani, D.T. Logan, and H.W. Zarbock.

1995. Chemical contaminants in the Tampa Bay estuary: A summary of distributions

and inputs. Tech. Pub. #01-95, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. Prepared by

Versar, Inc. and Coastal Environmental, Inc.
32

Goodell, H. G. and D. S. Gorsline. 1961. A sedimentologic study of Tampa Bay, Florida.

Fla. State Univ. Oceanogr. Inst. Contrib. 167. Proc. Int. Geol. Congr. 21 Sess.

Norden, 1960. pt. 23:75-88.

Goodwin, C. R. 1984. Changes in tidal flow, circulation, and flushing caused by dredge and

fill in Tampa Bay, Florida. U.S. Geol. Surv. Open File Rep. 84-447.

Goodwin, C.R. 1987. Tidal flow, circulation, and flushing changes caused by dredge and

fill in Tampa Bay, Florida. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2282.

Grabe, S.A., C.M. Courtney, Z. Lin, D. Alberdi, H.T. Wilson and G. Blanchard. 1996.

Technical report: A synoptic survey of the benthic macroinvertebrates and demersal

fishes of the Tampa Bay estuarine system. Tech. Pub. #12-9Sb, Tampa Bay

National Estuary Program. Prepared by Environmental Protection Commission of

Hillsborough County, Coastal Environmental, Inc., and Manatee County Dept. of

Environmental Management.

Harris, B. A., K. D. Haddad, K. A. Steidinger, and J. A. Huff. 1983. Assessment of fisheries

habitat: Charlotte Harbor and Lake Worth, Florida. Fla. Dept. Nat. Res., St.

Petersburg, FL. 211 pp. + Append.

Heintz, C. 1992. MacDill Air Force Base (AFB) installation restoration program (IRP) sites

report. Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County. In: MacDill

reuse environmental committee report appendix. March 1992.

Hunn, J. D. 1975. Hydrology of Lake Tarpon near Tarpon Springs, Florida. Southeast

Geol. Soc. Field Conf. Guidebook. 17: Hydrogeology of west-central Florida. 43-47.

Hutchinson, C. B. 1983. Assessment of the interconnection between Tampa Bay and the

Floridan Aquifer, Florida. U.S. Geol. Surv. Water Resour. Invest. 82-54.

Janicki, A.J., D.L. Wade, and D.E. Robison. 1994. Habitat protection and restoration

targets for Tampa Bay. Tech. Pub. #07-93, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program.

Prepared by Coastal Environmental, Inc.

Janicki, A. and D.L. Wade. 1996. Estimating critical nitrogen loads for the Tampa Bay

estuary: An empirically based approach to setting management targets. Tech. Pub.

#06-96, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. Prepared by Coastal Environmental,

Inc.

Johansson, J.O.R. 1995. Reestablishment of Seagrass meadows in Hillsborough Bay in:

State of Tampa Bay 1995. Prepared by Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council and

its Agency on Bay Management.

Jones, G.W. and S.B. Upchurch. 1993. Origins of nutrients in ground water discharging

from Lithia and Buchhorn Springs. SWFWMD.
33

Killam, K.A., R.J. Hochberg, and E.C. Rzemien. 1992. Synthesis of basic life histories of

Tampa Bay species. Tech. Pub. #10-92 of the Tampa Bay National Estuary

Program.

Leverone, J. 1993. Environmental requirements assessments of the bay scallop

Argopectin irradians concentricus. Tech. Pub. #01-93, Tampa Bay National Estuary

Program. Prepared by Mote Marine Laboratory.

Lewis, R.R., III and E.D. Estevez. 1988. The ecology of Tampa Bay, Florida: An estuarine

profile. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Bio. Rep. 85(7.18).

Lewis, R. R. and C. S. Lewis. 1978. Colonial Bird use and plant succession on dredged

material islands in Florida. Vol. II. Patterns of vegetation succession. U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 196 pp.

Lewis, R. R., III and R. L. Whitman, Jr. 1985. A new geographic description of the

boundaries and subdivisions of Tampa Bay. Pages 10-18 in S. F. Treat, J. L.

Simon, R. R. Lewis, III, and R. L. Whitman, Jr. eds. Proceedings, Tampa Bay Area

Scientific Information Symposium (May 1982). Burgess Publishing Co., Inc.,

Minneapolis, MN. Available from Tampa BASIS, P. O. Box 15759, Tampa, FL

33684.

Lewis, R.R., III, K.D. Haddad, and J.O.R. Johansson. 1991. Recent areal expansion of

seagrass meadows in Tampa Bay, Florida: Real bay improvement or drought

-induced? Pages 189-192. In: S.F. Treat & PA. Clark (Eds.) Proc. Tampa Bay Area

Sci. Information Symp. 2, The Watershed. TEXT. Tampa, FL. 528 p.

Lindall, W. N., Jr. and L. Trent. 1975. Housing development canals in the coastal zone of

the Gulf of Mexico: ecological consequences, regulations, and recommendations.

Mar. Fish. Rev. 37(10):19-24.

Long, E.R., D. MacDonald, and C. Cairncross. 1991. Status and trends is toxicants and the

potential for their biological effects in Tampa Bay, Florida. NOAA Tech. Mem. NOS

OMA 58. Silver Spring, MD.

Maclntyre, H.L., R.J. Geider and D.C. Miller. 1996. Microphytobenthos: The ecological role

of the "Secret Garden" of unvegetated, shallow-water marine habitats. I.

Distribution, abundance and primary production. Estuaries, 19(20a): 186-201.

Martin, J.L., RF. Wang, T. Wool, and G. Morrison. 1996. A mechanistic

management-oriented water quality model for Tampa Bay. Prepared for Southwest

Florida Water Management District SWIM Department by AScI Corporation and the

SWIM Department.
34

Meylan, A., A. Mosier, K. Moody and A. Foley. 1996. Assessment of sea turtle monitoring

programs in Tampa Bay Tech. Pub. #12-96, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program.

Prepared by Florida Marine Research Institute.

Owen Ayres and Associates, Inc. 1995. An estimate of nutrient loadings from wastewater

residuals management and onsite wastewater treatment systems in the Tampa Bay

Watershed. Prepared for Southwest Florida Water Management District.

Palmer, C. E. 1978. Appendix C - Climate. Pages C-1 to C-44 in 1978 Executive Summary.

Southwest Florida Water Management District, Brooksville, FL.

Parsons Engineering Science, Inc. 1996. Toxic contamination sources assessment: Risk

assessment for chemicals of potential concern and methods for identification of

specific sources. Tech. Pub. #09-96, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program.

Patwardhan, A.S., and A.S. Donigian, Jr. 1994. Assessment of nitrogen loads to aquatic

systems. Prepared by Aqua Terra Consultants for the Office of Research and

Development, USEPA.

Ross, B. E. 1973. Hydrology and flushing of bays, estuaries, and nearshore areas of the

Gulf of Mexico. In J. I. Jones et al (eds.). Summary of knowledge, Eastern Gulf of

Mexico. IID - to IID - 45. Fla. Inst. Oceanogr., St. Petersburg, FL.

Ross, B. E., M. A. Ross,and P. D. Jerkins. 1984. Wasteload allocation study, Tampa Bay,

Florida. Fla. Dept. of Envir. Reg., Tallahassee, FL. Vol. 14.

Savercool, D.M. and R.R. Lewis. 1994. Hard bottom mapping of Tampa Bay. Tech. Pub.

#0794, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. Prepared by Lewis Environmental

Services, Inc.

Sargent, F.J., T.J. Leary, D.W. Crewz, and C.R. Kruer. 1995. Scarring of Florida s

seagrasses: Assessment and management options FMRI Tech Rep. TR-I Florida

Marine Research institute, St. Petersburg, FL. 37p. plus appendices.

Sargent, F.J., T.J. Leary, R. Rubec, M. Colby, D. Kuhl, and A. Lamb. 1996. Assessment

of seagrass scarring in Tampa Bay and recommendations for monitoring Tech. Pub.

#14-96, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program.

Simon, J. L. 1974. Tampa Bay estuarine system - a synopsis. Fla. Sci. 37:217-245.

Simon, J.L. and S’K. Mahadevan. 1985. Benthic macroinvertebrates of Tampa Bay

(abstract). P. 384 in S. F. Treat, J. L. Simon, R. R. Lewis, III, and R. L. Whitman, Jr.

eds. Proceedings, Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium (May 1982).

Burgess Publishing Co., Inc., Minneapolis, MN. Available from Tampa BASIS, P. O.

Box 15759, Tampa, FL 33684.
35

Stahl, L. E. 1970. Marine geology of Tampa Bay. M.S. Thesis, Florida State University,

Tallahassee, FL.

Swanson, R. L. 1974. Variability of tidal datums and accuracy in determining datums from

short series of observations. NOAA Tech. Rep. 64.

Tampa Bay Management Study Commission. 1985. The Future of Tampa Bay. Tampa

Bay Regional Planning Council, St. Petersburg, FL. 281 pp.

Vishner, F.N. and G. H. Hughes. 1969. Difference between rainfall and potential

evaporation in Florida. U.S.Geol. Surv. Map Ser. No.32.

Wade, D.L., S. Cairns and A.J. Janicki. 1992. Distribution of selected fish species in

Tampa Bay. Tech. Pub. #05-92, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. Prepared

by Coastal Environmental, Inc.

Wade, D.L. and A.J. Janicki. 1993. Physical impacts to habitats in Tampa Bay. Tech. Pub.

#03-93, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. Prepared by Coastal Environmental,

Inc. (shoreline modifications). Janicki, A.J., D.L. Wade, and D.E. Robison.

1994.(seagrass losses).

Walters, M. O., M.N. Ritter, R.K. Karkowski, E.D. Estevez and M. Marshall. 1994. Impact

of freshwater flow variations in the Manatee River. Tech. Pub. #09-94, Tampa Bay

National Estuary Program. Prepared by Dames & Moore and Mote Marine

Laboratory.

Weigle, B. (ed). 1996. Assessment of manatee monitoring programs in Tampa Bay; 1996.

Tech. Pub. #13-96, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. Prepared by Florida

Department of Environmental Protection Florida Marine Research Institute.

Wooten, G. R. 1985. Meteorology of Tampa Bay. Pages 19-26 in S. F. Treat, J. L. Simon,

R. R. Lewis, III, and R. L. Whitman, Jr. eds. Proceedings, Tampa Bay Area

Scientific Information Symposium (May 1982). Burgess Publishing Co., Inc.,

Minneapolis, MN. Available from Tampa BASIS, P. O. Box 15759, Tampa, FL

33684.

Wright, I.E., J.E. Reynolds, III, B.B. Ackerman, L.I. Ward, B.L. Weigle, and WA.

Szelistowski. 1996. Aerial surveys of manatees (Trichochus manatus latirostris) in

Tampa Bay, Florida, 1987-94. In preparation.

Zarbock H.W., A.J. Janicki, D.L. Wade, D. Heimbuch, and H. Wilson. 1995. Current and

historical freshwater inflows to Tampa Bay, Florida. Tech. Pub. #01-94, Tampa Bay

National Estuary Program. Prepared by Coastal Environmental, Inc.
36

Zarbock, H.W., A.J. Janicki, and S.S. Janicki. 1996a. Estimates of total nitrogen, total

phosphorus, and total suspended solids to Tampa Bay, Florida. Technical

Appendix: 1992-1994 total nitrogen loadings to Tampa Bay, Florida. Tech. Pub.

#19-96, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. Prepared by Coastal

Environmental, Inc.

Zarbock, H.W., A.J. Janicki, D.T. Logan and D.D. MacDonald. 1996b. An assessment of

sediment contamination in Tampa Bay, Florida using the sediment quality triad

approach. Tech. Pub. #04-96, Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. Prepared by

Coastal Environmental, Inc. 
37

Figure 2.1

APPENDIX A

Physical Characteristics and Technical Assessments

A.1 MANAGEMENT BOUNDARIES

The management boundaries of the Tampa Bay SWIM water body have not changed since

the original 1988 SWIM Plan and

are consistent with those used by

the Tampa Bay National Estuary

Program. The area covered by

the Tampa Bay SWIM Plan

includes the estuarine system,

watersheds and marine areas

(Figure 2.1). The estuarine system

hereafter referred to as "Tampa

Bay" includes a connected group

of estuaries and embayments. Its

seaward limit is arbitrarily given as

a line connecting the barrier

beaches of Boca Ciega Bay and

Anna Maria Sound; its upstream

limit is approximately the transition

of shoreline vegetation from tidal

to freshwater forms; and its upland

limit is that line above which

terrestrial land-forms and

vegetation occur. The estuary has

a total area of about 398 square

miles (1,031 square kilometers)

including all intertidal wetlands.

The contributing watershed

includes the uplands and freshwaters contained within the combined watersheds of all

rivers and tributaries which flow into Tampa Bay. The watershed has a total area of

approximately 2200 square miles (5,698 square kilometers). The zones of the estuary as

defined by Lewis and Whitman (1982) have been accepted as the sub-division of the bay

(Figure 2.2). 

A.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

The description of the physical characteristics of Tampa Bay (geology, soils, meteorology,

hydrology, and circulation and flushing) has not changed substantially since the

preparation of the 1998 SWIM Tampa Bay Management Plan. Much of the following text

has been taken verbatim from that plan and the TBNEP Comprehensive Conservation and
38

5

6

7

Figure 2.2

Management Plan. 

A.2.1 Geology

The following account of the

development of the modern

bay is adapted from Lewis

and Estevez (1988).

The shape of Tampa Bay is

the result of movements in

the course of rivers and a

long period of rising sea level.

Doyle (1985) reported ancient

river channels buried beneath

Tampa Bay; one such

channel underlies the

southern end of the Pinellas

Peninsula (Stahl 1970).

When sea level was lower,

the Hillsborough, Palm, and

Alafia Rivers probably

converged in a basin now

called Hillsborough Bay; the

combined streams probably

flowed southwesterly toward

Egmont Key. The Manatee

River is thought to have been

independent of the ancestral

Tampa Basin Stream, flowing westerly to the gulf near Anna Maria (Stahl 1970).

The recent geology of the upper bays remains a puzzle. Old Tampa Bay may represent an

open passage from the bay to the gulf located north of an island of old terraces in Pinellas

County. The upper bay may have been etched by the Anclote River in earlier days (Stahl

1970), or by discharges of Lake Tarpon (Hutchinson 1983), which until recently was a

brackish tidal body connected underground to the gulf (Hunn 1975). Equally problematic

is the relationship between the Withlacoochee and Hillsborough Rivers (and perhaps the

Palm River). Even today, waters of the Withlacoochee overflow into the Hillsborough River

drainage, and both rivers are regarded as youthful geological features (White 1958, 1970).

Boca Ciega Bay is only about 5,000 years old and resulted primarily from longshore

sediment transport and barrier island formation (Stahl 1970).

Sediments in Tampa Bay are quartzitic with carbonate mixtures. Bay sediments derive

from reworking of terrace deposits, in situ production and weathering of shell, and inshore

movement of gulf sediment. Immense deposits of oyster shell underlie Hillsborough Bay

and have been mined for many years for use as fill.
39

Sea level has risen during the past 10,000 years at a diminishing, slow rate. In the past

4,500 years the sea has risen about 3 m (10 ft) with some fluctuations (Brooks 1974),

about 30 cm (12 in) of the rise occurring from 1550-1850, and 20-25 cm (8-10 in.) of it

since 1870 (Swanson 1974). The rising sea has etched the estuarine shorelines of the bay,

confused zonation patterns in mangrove forests (Estevez and Mosura 1985), structured

the direction and rate of longshore sediment movement on the gulf beaches, and trapped

sediments in the bay. According to Brooks (1974), "backfilling of the estuary from

sediments derived from offshore began about 8,000 years ago. Considering the fact that

the average depth of the bay is now less than ten feet, the thickness and volume of recent

sediments are astounding."

Meade suggested that weak estuaries such as Tampa Bay export little fine sediment, a

point supported by mathematical models (Ross et al. 1984).

A.2.2 Soils

The following summary of soils of the Tampa Bay area was excerpted from Roush (1985):

Soils of the Tampa Bay area are derived from marine deposits known as the Suwannee,

Tampa, Hawthorn and Bone Valley formation laid down during the late Oligocene and

lower and middle Miocene periods. These geologic formations were further modified by

the marine environment and fluctuating sea levels during Pleistocene and recent times

with the formation of three Bay proximal (Pamlico, Talbot and Penholoway) and three Bay

distal (Wicomico, Sunderland and Coharie) marine terraces in the tri-county Tampa Bay

area. Surficially, these are expressed as various soil associations within the terraces as

influenced by climate, drainage, mineral and organic content. Residual mineral and

organic plus recent marine mineral-shell deposits have developed into approximately 96

classifiable and 23 non-classifiable soil series with measurable chemical and physical

properties. Interpretations for potential usage for agricultural, engineering and urban

purposes have been determined. Modem soil surveys are available for each of the three

counties. A current soil survey using the latest of technological and edaphic correlation

procedures has recently been completed for Manatee County and is currently in progress

for Hillsborough County, Florida.

A.2.3 Meteorology of the Region

The following description of meteorological condition in the Tampa Bay was adapted from

Lewis and Estevez (1988):

The amount of freshwater in Tampa Bay and hence, the salinity of the bay, depend at any

given time on positive effects of rainfall, runoff, and groundwater efflux, and negative

effects of evapotranspiration, consumptive uses, and groundwater influx.

The bay is affected by warm, relatively humid summers resulting from the Bermuda high

pressure cell and by mild, relatively dry winters when continental air masses prevail.

Because moderate amounts of rain fall in the spring, it is useful to distinguish three
40

categories of weather from an ecological point of view. The warm, dry period occurs from

late April to mid-June. The warm, wet period coincides with summer and early fall. The

cold period spans November to April and becomes progressively drier, although cold fronts

may cause short periods of heavy rain in January or February.

Wooten (1985) summarized temperature data for the Tampa Bay area. Mean annual

temperature based on four decades of records at Tampa is 22.30°C (72.1°F). Mean

monthly low and high temperatures are 16.0°C (60.8°F) and 27.80 C (82.0°F) in January

and August, respectively. Warming is most rapid in March April and cooling most rapid in

October-November. Extreme low and high temperatures are 7.80 C (18.0°F) and 36.7°C

(98.1°F).

Temperature trends vary around the bay area. Air temperatures in St. Petersburg are

moderated by proximity to the Gulf of Mexico, whereas temperatures become more

extreme inland along the floodplains of major rivers.

Evaporative and transpirative flux data for the actual bay are lacking, but Simon (1974)

reported 162.6 cm (64.0 in) of Class A pan evaporation, and Vishner and Hughes (1969)

gave lake evaporation rates of 127-132 cm/yr (50-52 in/yr)for the area surrounding Tampa

Bay end described a"surplus water"gradient from 0 on the coast to about 15 cm (5.9 in)

in the upper Hillsborough River Basin. Quantitative data on evapotranspiration rates in

major biotic communities in and around the bay are needed.

Rainfall at Tampa averaged 123.7 cm (48.7 in) for the period 1943-82. The wettest end

driest years were 1959 and 1956, with 194.5 cm (76.6 in) and 73.4 cm (28.9 in),

respectively. The lowest monthly mean rainfall (trace amounts) occurred in January

(1950), April (1967 and 1981), and November (1960). The highest monthly mean rainfall

was in July 1960, when 52.3 cm (20.6 in) of rain was recorded at Tampa. Palmer (1978)

determined that mean annual rainfall increases concentrically from Tampa.

About 60% of all rainfall occurs in the wet season of June through September, a period

when some rain fell even in the driest of years. Wooten (1985) noted that rainfall was

above average from the 1930's to the 1950's and has been below average since the

1960's.

A.2.4 Hydrology

The following account of hydrology and water quality is excerpted from The Future of

Tampa Bay (Tampa Bay Management Study Commission. 1985). Revisions have been

made where necessary to update the information and clarify its presentation.

A.2.5 Hydrographic Features

Tampa Bay is Florida's largest open water estuary. Tampa Bay proper covers 373 square

miles (966 square kilometers) and is, in places, wider than ten miles (16 kilometers).

Including all contiguous wetlands, the total area of the bay is about 398 square miles
41

(1031 square kilometers), and the estimated average volume of the bay is 116 billion cubic

feet (3.3 billion cubic meters) (Ross et al., 1984).

Goodwin (1984) computed changes in physical characteristics within subareas of the bay

since 1885. The area of Tampa Bay has been reduced by 3.6% with most (3.0%)

occurring before 1972. Hillsborough Bay surface area was reduced by 13.6% due primarily

to residential and port-related filling. Lower Tampa Bay has lost 1.9% of its total area, but

this figure would be considerably higher if middle and upper Boca Ciega Bay had been

considered (Lindall and Trent 1975). The seemingly low amount of bay area lost to filling

occurred mostly along shorelines and shallow areas of high biological productivity.

Definitive data on shoreline loss by type are not yet available in Tampa Bay but a

preliminary estimate of 44% loss in total mangrove and marsh acreage illustrates the

relative importance of the lost area (Lewis, 1978). In Charlotte Harbor, Harris et al. (1983)

calculated that between 1945 and 1982 mangrove and marsh acreage actually increased

by 2%. By comparison losses in Tampa Bay have been considerable.

Tampa Bay is a naturally shallow body of water, having an average depth of about 12 feet

(4 m) (Goodwin, 1984), and a maximum natural depth of about 90 feet (27 m) in Egmont

Channel at the mouth of the bay. Approximately 90% of the bay is less than 22 feet (7 m)

deep (Olson and Morrill 1955). According to Goodwin (1984), the average depth of Tampa

Bay has increased by more than 5% during the past century, with an increase of almost

30% in Hillsborough Bay. Most of the depth increase is associated with channel dredging

and a general rise in sea level.

As an important port of commerce, Tampa Bay has an extensive navigational system. A

total of 42 nautical miles of channels with designed mean low water depths of between 20

and 43 feet (6 and 13 m) are present (Simon 1974). The main shipping channel was first

dredged in the 1880's and was recently deepened to 43 feet (13 m) with a width of 400

feet (122 m). The channel provides access to Port Manatee, Port Tampa, Port Sutton, the

Alafia River, a number of electrical power plants and Tampa Harbor.

Sediments and bottom features in Tampa Bay are generally uniform in character with the

majority of coverage being unconsolidated sediments or soft bottom. Sediments are

primarily composed of reworked terrace quartz and nearshore sands as well as biogenic

carbonate shell fragments. The mean size of sediment particles increases from the upper

to the lower reaches of the bay. Organic sediments and clays are prominent primarily in

the upper portions of Hillsborough Bay (Goodell and Gorsline 1960) and major segments

of the channels are depositories for fine-grained material. Areas of hard or live bottom,

including outcrops of rocky relief and oyster bars, occur in the bay but generally are poorly

documented.

A.2.6 Circulation and Flushing

The freshwater drainage basin surrounding Tampa Bay covers an area of about 2,200

square miles (5698 square kilometers) (Hutchinson 1983) and contains four major rivers

including the Hillsborough, Alafia, Little Manatee and Manatee. Another, the Palm River,
42

once drained lands between the Hillsborough and Alafia Rivers but has been completely

channelized and controlled since 1970, and is now identified as the Tampa Bypass Canal.

The Lake Tarpon outlet to Old Tampa Bay is a significant man-made tributary completed

in 1971. The Hillsborough and Manatee (and its tributary, the Braden River) are

impounded as municipal reservoirs. The Little Manatee is cropped for power plant cooling

water but is otherwise regarded to be in best ecological condition overall. The Alafia is

significantly impacted by phosphate mining and processing, and some of its tributaries are

impounded at places. Numerous lesser tributaries and three major flood control channels

also drain into Tampa Bay.

Over 450 billion gallons (12.7 billion cubic meters) of freshwater annually flow into Tampa

Bay with peak periods of stream flow corresponding to periods of greatest rainfall (summer

and fall). Approximately 85 % of all flows to the bay are represented by the discharges of

the four major rivers . Mean annual discharges of the Hillsborough (1.53 x 1011 ga/yr [4.33

x 109

 m3/yr]) exceed the others (Alafia: 1.12 x 1011 ga/yr [3.17 x 109 m3/yr]; Manatee: 6.87

x 1010 ga/yr [1.94 x 109 m3/yr]; Little Manatee: 5.94 x 1010 ga/yr [1.68 x 109 m3/yr]), (Dooris

and Dooris 1984).

Groundwater discharges to the bay are seasonal and greatest during and after the wet

season. The roles of groundwater discharge in bay ecology are poorly understood, but can

be postulated as (a) reducing peak runoff rates and constituent loads; (b) prolonging

estuarine conditions along shorelines and in marshes or mangrove forests; and © creating

favorable refugia and nursery areas for marine life in tidal creeks. Drainage of uplands

around the bay has concentrated the different flows of surficial groundwater discharge,

routed it to major stormwater outlets, and altered the hydrology and constituent loads of

manmade tributaries so that many of the benefits of diffuse flows have probably been lost

(Estevez and Lewis 1988).

The tides of Tampa Bay may be classified as mixed - a combination of diurnal and

semi-diurnal components. The average tidal range is 1.2 ft. (0.4 m), with a range of about

3.5 ft (1.1 m) to 0.2 ft (0.1 m). or less (Corps of Engineers 1974). The tidal heights are

greatly influenced by wind direction and velocity, being elevated by strong winds from the

southwest, and reduced by winds from the northeast. The tidal lag from the mouth to the

head of the bay is generally on the order of four hours (Simon 1974). In general,

maximum currents exist at the mouth of the bay where velocities exceed 6.0 ft/sec (1.8

m/sec) on ebb tide and are below 3.5 ft/sec (1.1 m/sec) on flood tide. Current velocities

decrease markedly moving from the mouth to the head of the bay system, such that in

Hillsborough Bay and northern Old Tampa Bay currents of less than 10% of those at the

bay mouth are observed (Simon 1974). The pattern of circulation in the lower portions of

the bay has a net counterclockwise movement, with the flood flow being concentrated

toward the eastern side. The major component of the ebb flow, especially from Old Tampa

Bay, is directed towards the western shore. Little circulation is apparent in Hillsborough

Bay, which serves as a trap for the effluents entering from both municipal and industrial

outfalls, as well as from the Hillsborough River (Simon 1974).

Ross (1975) demonstrated the existence of tidal gyres in Tampa Bay. Gyres are circular
43

features of tide induced circulation which form when wind and density stratification are

absent. The gyres range in diameter from one to over six miles (1.6 to over 9.7 kilometers)

and may significantly retard pollutant dispersion and transport in upper portions of the bay.

It is hypothesized that the existence of numerous causeway structures crossing Tampa

Bay contributes significantly to the creation of tidal gyres.

Both circulation and flushing in the bay are determined largely by the inflow of freshwater

relative to tidal action. Total freshwater inflow to Tampa Bay is about 45 m3

 /sec (1590

ft3/sec), much less than the average tidal flow at half tide of 25,500 m3 /sec (9.0 x 105

ft3/sec). Thus, Tampa Bay may be considered a neutral or mildly positive estuary which,

due to bottom topography and low inflows, is vertically well mixed and unstratified with

regard to salinity (Dinardi 1978).

Goodwin (1984) concluded that historic and recent alterations to the physical dimensions

of Tampa Bay have been responsible for:

! decreased surface area and tidal prism, especially in Hillsborough Bay;

! increased depth and volume, especially in Hillsborough Bay;

! major reductions in flood and ebb tide transport caused by causeways and filling of

upper Hillsborough Bay;

! major changes in net circulation in Old Tampa Bay and Hillsborough Bay; and,

! increased inland (trapping) and seaward (export) exchange potential for tidally

induced flushing.

Overall, the work of Goodwin (1984) underscores the following important conclusions: (1)

that physical changes to the bay have caused significant effects in circulation and flushing;

(2) that Hillsborough Bay was naturally an area of poor flushing (and was thus the worst

place for municipal and industrial waste to have been discharged); and (3) that the

continued flow of freshwater to Tampa Bay and especially Hillsborough Bay is essential

to maintain flushing, even though the volume is low compared to the average tidal prism.

These same conclusions probably apply to Old Tampa Bay as well (Estevez and Lewis

1988).

A.3 WATER AND SEDIMENT QUALITY

Since the 1980s, local communities have made significant strides in improving water

quality in Tampa Bay. The quality of the bay's water and sediments is important to the

animals and plants that reside in them, and also affects human use and enjoyment of the

bay.

Excess amounts of nutrients and chemicals—some naturally occurring, others generated

by humans—can jeopardize the bay's health. The most striking example of this occurred
44

from the 1960s to the late 1970s, when excess nitrogen from discharges of partially

treated sewage led to excess algae growth and low dissolved oxygen and light levels in

the bay—a condition known as eutrophication. Degraded water quality contributed to

seagrass losses by blocking light to the bay's underwater grass beds. Sediment quality

also has been impacted by potentially toxic contaminants carried in stormwater runoff,

wastewater and atmospheric deposition to the bay. Studies conducted by the National

Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Florida Department of

Environmental Protection (FDEP) in the last decade have revealed high levels of

contaminants (including heavy metals, pesticides, PAH’s and PCB’s) in sediments at

several bay sites, including upper Hillsborough Bay, Boca Ciega Bay and Bayboro Harbor

(Long et.al. 1991).

New studies show that atmospheric deposition of pollutants may play a much larger role

in the bay's water quality than previously realized. Nitrogen and potentially toxic pollutants,

primarily from industrial and vehicle emissions, fall to the surface of the bay and its

tributaries or on the land where they are carried to the bay in stormwater runoff. Research

financed by the Tampa Bay NEP indicates that almost one-third of the bay's total nitrogen

load may come from atmospheric deposition directly to the surface of the bay (Zarbock

et.al. 1996).

Recent attention also has focused on the problem of sanitary sewer overflows caused by

heavy rainstorms that force some municipal treatment plants to shunt raw or partially

treated sewage to Tampa Bay. Sewage overflows are of particular concern in St.

Petersburg, where low land elevations and rapid population growth have combined to

strain existing municipal sewer and stormwater systems. In August 1995, St. Petersburg

was forced to shunt more than 15 million gallons of raw sewage into canals leading to the

bay when torrential rains caused sewer backups (City of St. Petersburg, unpublished data.

1995). 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 Environmental Protection Commission (EPC) of Hillsborough County has

conducted a comprehensive water quality monitoring program in the bay's four major

segments. The wealth of data compiled by EPC is the principal source of information for

the following status and trends on bay water quality. A benthic monitoring program recently

established by the counties surrounding the bay will track trends in sediment quality and

the abundance and distribution of bottom-dwelling animals.

A.3.1 Water Clarity

Proper water clarity is essential in maintaining the bay's ecological equilibrium. It

determines where and how well submerged vegetation will grow and also enhances the

aesthetic appeal of the bay. Water clarity is greatest in the lower part of Tampa Bay

because of natural circulation and flushing from the Gulf. Here, visibility (based on Secchi

disk measurements) extends to an average annual depth of 2.5 meters (8.2 feet). It

naturally decreases moving up the bay, dropping to an average of approximately 2 meters
45

(6.6 feet) in Middle Tampa Bay and Old Tampa Bay. In Hillsborough Bay, which has poor

circulation and receives a larger share of nutrients and sediments from major rivers,

average water clarity drops to 1.5 meters (4.8 feet) (Environmental Protection Commission

of Hillsborough County 1995). Water clarity changes noticeably with the seasons,

improving in cooler months and declining in summer, when warm temperatures, extended

daylight and heavy rains stimulate the growth of microscopic algae (or phytoplankton).

Suspended algae in the water column reduces the amount of light that penetrates to

underwater seagrasses. In fact, the ability of seagrasses to recolonize the bay hinges on

the amount of sunlight various grass species receive, as well as shading factors, such as

the amount of drift macro-algae and epiphytic or attached algal growth on grass blades.

For most seagrass species, an estimated 20 to 25 percent of the light striking the bay's

surface must penetrate to the bay bottom to allow seagrass regrowth (Janicki and Wade

1996). The light requirement for turtle grass, the most common seagrass species in

Tampa Bay, is estimated to be 20.5 percent of incoming light at the deep edges of the

grass beds (Dixon and Leverone 1995).

By maintaining or slightly improving water clarity, light conditions should be sufficient to

gain back a majority of the seagrasses present in Tampa Bay in the 1950s, excluding

areas that have been permanently altered (Janicki and Wade 1996). Concentrations of

chlorophyll a are a useful indicator of algal biomass. In 1991, mean annual levels of

chlorophyll a for Tampa Bay were near their lowest point since 1974. Overall, levels from

1989 to 1994 were low enough throughout the bay to allow 20 to 22 percent of the surface

light to penetrate to depths where seagrasses grew in the 1950s (Janicki and Wade 1996).

A.3.2 Nitrogen

Despite progress in bay cleanup, nitrogen continues to be a key focus of concern for

Tampa Bay. Excess amounts of this otherwise beneficial nutrient can pollute the bay by

accelerating algal growth. Excess algae reduces light penetration to seagrasses and,

ultimately, depletes the water of dissolved oxygen. Water quality improvements are

attributed mainly to advances in domestic and industrial wastewater treatment and

associated declines of nitrogen in effluent discharged from these facilities. Until the late

1970s, most sewage treatment plants operating along the bay pumped partially treated

sewage into Tampa Bay. This nutrient-rich effluent was a chief cause for the pollution that

sparked noxious algal blooms and depleted oxygen and sunlight in the bay. Scientists

estimate that the bay's total annual nitrogen loading in 1976 was more than 2.5 times

greater than the load for the years l992-1994 (Zarbock et.al. 1994 and Martin et.al. 1996).
46

Today, all sewage treatment plants discharging to the bay and its tributaries provide

Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT), a process that substantially reduces nitrogen

in effluent. The retrofit of Tampa's Howard F. Curren facility at Hookers Point, the area's

largest plant, was a catalyst in the bay's water quality recovery. St. Petersburg's pioneering

wastewater reuse program, which eliminated almost all its direct wastewater discharges

to Tampa Bay, also contributed to improving water quality. Similar reuse programs now

are underway in many other bay area communities. A number of smaller package plants

also operate along the bay, although none discharge directly to the bay. One of these

facilities is located at Tampa's MacDill Air Force base, which is home to the U.S. Central

Command. The treated effluent is reused for spray irrigation at the 5,600-acre base

(Department of the Air Force 1996). A focus of the NEP has been to establish and allocate

nitrogen loading goals for Tampa Bay to encourage seagrass recovery. By signing an

Interlocal Agreement in 1998, local government and agency partners in the NEP approved

a long-term seagrass restoration goal for Tampa Bay of 12,350 acres, and pledged to

protect the bay's existing 26,650 acres of seagrass. The restoration goal is based on

restoring seagrasses to levels documented in the 1950s, excluding areas that have been

permanently altered (Janicki et.al. 1994). 

By the year 2000, an additional 84 tons of nitrogen is expected to enter Tampa Bay as a

result of population growth and associated development. Therefore, local governments

and other industries will need to reduce or avoid increasing the amount of nitrogen they

generate by this amount to maintain current levels. NEP's local government partners

agreed to accept responsibility for reducing nitrogen loadings associated with stormwater

runoff and wastewater discharges by about 6 tons per year from 1995-2000, or a total of

28 tons per year by 2000. 
47

The NEP created the Nitrogen Management Consortium, an alliance of local governments,

regulatory agencies and key industry representatives, and tasked he group with

developing a specific action plan to address the remaining 11 tons per year, or 56 tons per

year by the year 2000, of nitrogen linked to atmospheric deposition, industrial point

sources, fertilizer shipping and handling practices and intensive agriculture. The

Consortium approved the Nitrogen Management Resolution and Action Plan in February

1998.

Consortium members include representatives from the NEP's Management Board, electric

utilities, fertilizer manufacturers and agriculture. Industries which are not official members

of the Consortium, such as Tampa Electric Company and Florida Power Corporation, also

have participated in the group's discussions and offered valuable recommendations.

Efforts by Tampa Electric to reduce NOx emissions from its power plants on Tampa Bay

are among the key industry projects included in the Action Plan.

The Resolution and Action Plan identify specific actions each Consortium member will take

to meet its nitrogen management commitment. The Resolution must be ratified by the

members' governing bodies, a process expected to occur in the next few months.

Consortium members already have made substantial progress in meeting the nitrogen

loading goals. In fact, estimates show that the baywide nitrogen reduction goal can be

achieved or surpassed by the year 2000 from projects already completed or begun by

Consortium members. Among those ongoing or planned projects are land acquisition

programs that prevent environmentally significant lands from being developed;

construction of regional stormwater treatment facilities; and improvements in

manufacturing processes that reduce pollution.

The NEP will review and revise the nitrogen management goals every five years, or more

often if warranted. Revisions will take into account additional sources of nitrogen to the

bay, as well as unforeseen events such as spills.

A.3.3 Toxic Contaminants

Toxic contaminants represent another primary focus of concern for bay managers.

Overall, Tampa Bay has relatively low to moderate levels of most toxic parameters when

compared to other urban estuaries; however high levels of contaminants occur in areas

adjacent to stormwater discharges. Toxics of concern include various trace metals,

pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)

(Frithsen et.al.1995). These substances, some naturally occurring and others synthetic,

can be damaging or deadly to marine life when present in sufficiently high concentration.

In addition, they have the potential to affect human health.

Recent studies by NOAA, the FDEP and the Tampa Bay NEP provide the most complete

assessment to date of toxic substances of concern and their distribution in Tampa Bay

(Long et.al. 1991 and Zarbock et.al. 1996). Contamination appears to be centered around

large urban centers, ports and marinas, and concentrations generally diminish from the
48

top of the bay toward the Gulf.

Results of a recent risk assessment conducted for the Tampa Bay NEP indicate that some

contaminants are present at concentrations high enough to be harmful to fish and wildlife,

either through direct exposure to bay sediments or indirectly through the food web. The

study, completed in 1996, assessed the risk to human health and marine life from

contaminants in Hillsborough Bay and Boca Ciega Bay, two of Tampa Bay's most

impacted sectors and identified potential sources in these two watersheds (Parsons

Engineering Science, Inc. 1997). The primary contaminants of concern identified in the

study include metals, PAHs, PCBs, and chlorinated pesticides. Most of these pollutants

enter the bay in stormwater runoff or through atmospheric deposition.

Although levels of most contaminants documented locally pose no known risk to humans,

effects of repeated exposure to small amounts of these materials remain largely unknown.

Some contaminated sediments remain inert or inactive for many years, then are disturbed

by dredging, shipping, storms or animal activity. Bottom dwellers that filter contaminated

sediments—and the fish, birds and humans that ultimately consume them—can be placed

at risk, since some toxic substances increase in concentration as they ascend the food

web.

A.4 POLLUTION PATHWAYS AND SOURCES

Nitrogen and toxic contaminants follow several pathways to the bay, entering in

stormwater runoff from urban, residential and agricultural lands; atmospheric deposition

(pollutants transported to the bay in rainfall and dryfall); and municipal and industrial

wastewater. Septic systems and spillage of fertilizer product in handling and transport also

can contribute significantly to nitrogen loadings in localized bay sectors.

Anthropogenic sources of nitrogen include nitrogen oxides from power plant and vehicle

emissions (entering the bay from the atmosphere); treated effluent from municipal and

industrial wastewater plants; fertilizer from yards and farms; leachate from septic tanks

and small package treatment plants; and animal wastes entering the bay in stormwater

runoff.

Potentially toxic contaminants such as metals and chemicals can originate from industrial

and municipal wastewater; pesticides from yards and farms; contaminants from roadways

and paved surfaces washed into the bay in stormwater runoff; and industrial and vehicle

emissions. Nine toxic waste sites on the federal government's Superfund list are located

in the Tampa Bay watershed in basins draining to Old Tampa Bay and Hillsborough Bay.

Additional sites are proposed for designation. Although impacts to the bay from these sites

vary and are difficult to quantify, they will be evaluated by NEP as possible contributors to

hot spots of contamination (Parsons Engineering Science, Inc. 1996). EPA also has

identified 38 smaller hazardous materials sites at MacDill Air Force Base, which are in

various stages of evaluation and remediation (Heintz 1992).

A.4.1 Stormwater Runoff
49

Stormwater runoff from the Tampa Bay watershed contributes about 45 percent of the

bay's total annual nitrogen load; a significant portion of that amount may actually come

from the air when nitrogen compounds fall to the ground and enter the bay in runoff

(Zarbock et.al. 1996). Runoff also conveys more than 60 percent of the annual loadings

for each of the following metals: chromium, zinc, mercury and lead, as well as significant

amounts of other potentially toxic pesticides and substances. Atmospheric deposition

directly to the bay's surface, and municipal and industrial wastewater, carry the bulk of

remaining pollutants (Frithsen et.al. 1995).

Fine-grained particles carried in stormwater runoff also are regarded as pollutants. These

total suspended solids (TSS) may reduce water clarity and sunlight available for seagrass

growth, and convey toxic contaminants to the bay.

Urban stormwater runoff accounts for about 15 percent, or 570 tons, of the bay's total

annual nitrogen loadings. Of that amount, approximately two-thirds comes from residential

areas. By comparison, commercial/industrial sites account for about one-third of the total

nitrogen in urban runoff, although their per-acre contributions are higher than that of

residential land uses (Zarbock et.al. 1996). 

Runoff from intensive agricultural land uses (mostly citrus and vegetable production)

contributes about 6 percent of total bay nitrogen loadings, as well as sediments and

pesticides. Agricultural runoff from pastures and rangelands, which cover roughly 28

percent of the watershed, account for another 13 percent of total bay nitrogen loadings.

Forests and wetlands (at 7 percent) and mining (at 4 percent) comprise the remainder of

nitrogen loadings in stormwater runoff (Zarbock et.al. 1996). 

A.4.2 Atmospheric Deposition

Coastal waters of the United States receive large quantities of nutrients, heavy metals and

chemicals from the air—and Tampa Bay is no exception. Until recently, atmospheric

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

aerosols) had not been identified as a significant problem for Tampa Bay. Studies now

suggest that about 29 percent of the bay's total nitrogen loadings are from atmospheric

pollutants falling directly on the water (Zarbock et.al. 1996). 

Nitrogen loadings from atmospheric deposition are actually much higher when pollutants

falling in the watershed are included, since many of these will eventually enter the bay in

stormwater runoff. About 1,100 tons of nitrogen is estimated to fall on the open bay each

year in rainfall and dryfall. Another 6,600 tons fall in the watershed, although experts can't

say how much of that reaches the bay. EPA estimates that as much as 67 percent of the

bay's total nitrogen load could come from the atmosphere (Patwardhan and Donigian

1994).

Several forms of nitrogen are contained in rainfall and dryfall to Tampa Bay. Nitrogen

oxides (NOx)—mostly linked to power plant and vehicle emissions—are chemically

transformed in the air, eventually returning to earth in aerosol or dissolved forms, such as
50

nitric acid and other soluble nitrates in rainfall. Combined emissions from motor vehicles

and power plants contributed almost 70 percent of the total nitrogen oxides that fell to the

earth in the United States in 1984. Industrial sources provided another 15 percent (Fisher

et.al. 1988).

In the Tampa Bay region, stationary sources (primarily power plants) contribute an

estimated 70 percent of the manmade NOx emissions as compared to 30 percent from

motor vehicles (Florida Department of Environmental Protection 1994). One utility, Tampa

Electric Company—which operates two coalfired power plants on the bay—is the single

largest source of NOx emissions in the region. According to the EPC of Hillsborough

County, these two facilities emitted approximately 90,000 tons of NOx in 1994,

representing nearly two-thirds of the total NOx emissions for Hillsborough and Pinellas

counties (Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County 1996).

However, researchers can't say how much of what is emitted locally stays in the region or

what percentage of emissions from outside the region are deposited here, since airborne

contaminants may travel hundreds (or even thousands) of miles before settling to Earth.

They also can't pinpoint what portion of nitrogen loadings from the atmosphere comes

from natural sources, such as lightning. Additional research on natural and manmade

sources and the relative contributions from local and distant sources is needed to

effectively manage atmospheric deposition in Tampa Bay, which is expected to increase

as population, power consumption and motor vehicle traffic grow (Fisher et.al. 1988).

Between 1995 and the year 2010, nitrogen loadings to the bay from all sources are

expected to increase by about 7 percent, or 17 tons per year (Zarbock et.al. 1996). But

those estimates do not include changes that could occur as a result of new and

unforeseen industrial discharges to the bay, or increased power generation at local

utilities. Florida Power & Light (FP&L) Company's request to burn the controversial new

fuel called Orimulsion, for example, would have resulted in increased activity at its

Manatee County plant. That increase in power generation would have resulted in an

additional 20 tons of nitrogen loadings to the bay each year, according to the company.

FP&L's request to burn the fuel was denied in April 1996 by the Governor and Cabinet in

a 4-3 vote. The decision is now being appealed.

Toxic substances also enter the bay from the atmosphere in large quantities. For example,

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

of its copper and lead loadings, come from the air (Frithsen et.al. 1995). PAHs also enter

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

are associated with fossil fuel combustion, such as power plant and motor vehicle

emissions and waste incineration.

A.4.3 Wastewater

While advances in wastewater treatment and increased regulation have helped reduce

pollution, permitted sewage treatment plants and industries discharging directly to the bay

("point" sources) still contribute substantial pollutants to Tampa Bay.
51

Municipal sewage treatment plants in the watershed contribute about 10 percent (or 360

tons) of the bay's total annual nitrogen loadings (Zarbock et.al. 1996). Although all

sewage treatment plants with surface discharge to the bay or its tributaries now provide

Advanced Wastewater Treatment, roughly 36 billion gallons of effluent are still discharged

to the bay each year, with Hillsborough Bay receiving the largest portion. In 1991, this bay

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

treatment plants discharging to the bay (Zarbock et.al. 1994).

Wastewater discharged from industrial facilities in the Tampa Bay watershed is

responsible for about 4 percent of total nitrogen loadings (Zarbock et.al. 1996). Fertilizer

manufacturing and shipping facilities are the largest industrial point sources.

Industrial and municipal point sources also are a major pathway for toxic substances,

contributing roughly 30 percent of the bay's total loadings of arsenic, cadmium, chromium

and copper, as well as low levels of other contaminants (Frithsen et.al. 1995). Residents

also can contribute to the problem by pouring down drainpipes toxic cleaners or solvents

that local sewage treatment plants cannot completely remove.

A.4.4 Other Sources

Septic tanks, which are estimated to serve about 20 percent of the watershed's populace,

also are a key part of the pollution puzzle in localized sectors of Tampa Bay. Preliminary

studies conducted for the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD)

suggest that nitrogen loadings from septic systems, as well as septic waste and sewage

treatment sludge, contribute as much as 4 percent to the bay's overall nitrogen loadings

(Owen Ayres and Associates, Inc. 1995). Older septic systems located near the bay pose

a particular threat to water quality, since most are not designed for nitrogen removal.

Disposal of sewage sludge poses a special problem, particularly in the Hillsborough and

Manatee river basins, because of the number of permitted disposal sites. Different

agencies regulate disposal sites and it is difficult to determine how much material is being

spread and how it is handled. Additionally, some of the sludge disposed of in the Tampa

Bay watershed actually comes from outside the region (Owen Ayres and Associates, Inc.

1995).

High densities of mostly older septic tanks can contribute to degraded water quality

(nutrients and pathogens) in creeks where circulation is limited and the water table is near

the ground surface. Pinellas County's Allen's Creek and several creeks in Hillsborough

County are among those thought to be at risk (Zarbock, personal communication 1995).

Septic systems along tributaries leading to Tampa's McKay Bay also are believed to be

a problem (Cardinale, personal communication 1995) Springs that feed into the bay's

rivers and smaller tributaries also may be impacted by septic tank leachate, especially in

areas with very porous soils (Jones and Upchurch 1993).

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

contribute about 5 percent of the bay's total nitrogen loadings. (Brooks et.al.1993).
52

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 (Jones and

Upchurch 1993).

Another 7 percent of the bay's total nitrogen loadings is attributed to fertilizer lost during

shiploading and landside on route to port (Zarbock et.al. 1996). However, the amount has

declined substantially since 1991 as a result of efforts to improve portside facilities.

A.5 BAY HABITATS

While many bay animals prefer the open water of the estuary, others require the food and

shelter supplied by various structural habitats, including seagrasses, mangroves, salt

marshes and uplands. Together, these habitats form a natural network that sustains vast

populations of fish, birds and other wildlife.

Since 1950, about half of the bay's natural shoreline and nearly 40 percent of its

seagrasses have been destroyed, along with significant portions of upland habitat (Wade

and Janicki 1993). Most casualties were sustained before the mid-1970s, when the

environmental impacts of unmanaged growth became evident.

Now, water quality improvements are helping in the recovery of the bay's living resources,

and seagrasses have been a key beneficiary. Since the 1980s, grass beds have made an

impressive comeback in many areas of the bay in response to improving water quality.

Trends for the recovery of saltwater wetlands are not as clear. Between 1950 and 1990,

the bay experienced a net loss of approximately 5,128 acres, or 21 percent, of emergent

tidal wetlands. Of that amount, a larger loss of tidal marsh (-38 percent) and salt barren

(-36 percent) habitat has occurred compared to mangrove habitat (-13 percent). Recent

studies show a slight increase in the bay's saltwater wetlands from 1982 to 1990, which

is generally attributed to wetland colonization of new emergent land created from

bottom-fill, as well as wetland creation and restoration (Janicki, et.al. 1994). However, the

quality or productivity of these new wetlands is not fully known.

A.5.1 Seagrasses

Seagrasses provide shelter, nursery and feeding habitat for many popular fish and

shellfish, including snook, red drum, seatrout, shrimp and the bay scallop. These shallow

grass flats also are an important feeding ground for the endangered Florida manatee, of

which about 200 are estimated to visit the bay. Grass beds also help to improve water

clarity by anchoring bottom sediments and reducing nutrients in the water column. Their

importance and environmental requirements make seagrasses an excellent indicator of

the bay's overall health.

Because seagrasses require light to grow, light limits the depths at which they occur. Even

in the clearest waters of lower Tampa Bay, seagrasses typically grow no deeper than 6 to

8 feet.
53

In 1950, about 40,000 acres of seagrass flourished along the shallow shelf of the bay. By

1982, only 21,600 acres remained, and Hillsborough Bay's 2,700 acres of seagrasses had

been virtually eliminated (Lewis et.al. 1991). Three factors are believed to have caused

the baywide decline: dredging and filling for waterfront development; reduced light

penetration as a result of shading by algae and epiphytic growth fueled by excess nutrients

discharged to the bay in wastewater and stormwater runoff; and cloudiness (or turbidity)

caused by sediment resuspension (Lewis et.al. 1991).

An estimated 13,200 acres of bay bottom have been filled since the early l900s, and more

than 90 percent of the filling occurred along the bay's shallow shelf where seagrasses

once thrived (Wade and Janicki 1993). Hillsborough Bay is one of the bay's most impacted

segments. Its surface area has been reduced by 14 percent as a result of residential

development at Davis Islands, creation of spoil islands, and construction of port and power

generating facilities. That compares to a surface area reduction of 3.6 percent for the

entire bay caused by filling for development (Goodwin 1987).

Seagrasses have rebounded in recent years as a result of improving water quality. From

1982 to 1992, bay seagrass coverage increased by about 4,000 acres, or 18.5 percent,

raising the bay's total acreage to more than 25,600 acres (Lewis et.al. 1991). Most of the

incoming grass is shoal grass (Halodule wrightii), a early-colonizer that may eventually be

replaced in many areas by turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum), a later successional

species (T. Ries, personal communication 1996).

Seagrass gains are largely attributed to upgrades in sewage treatment plants that led to

substantial declines in nitrogen loadings to the bay. Declines in nitrogen loadings resulted

in lower phytoplankton density and corresponding improvements in water clarity. Increased

water clarity enabled more light to penetrate to underwater seagrasses.

Drought conditions prevalent in the 1980s also may have assisted seagrass regrowth,

since less rainfall brings fewer nutrients and contaminants into the bay. Seagrass recovery

efforts of the NEP focus mainly on regulating the bay's nitrogen intake, but other factors,

such as turbidity from boat traffic in certain areas (such as ports and marinas) and water

color affected by tannins entering the bay from rivers draining swamp and cypress areas,

also influence seagrasses by determining how much light reaches the grass beds. These

factors may be increasingly significant in areas of the bay where nitrogen management

alone does not achieve seagrass restoration goals. 

Seagrass transplanting also may be viable in some areas of the bay, although its success

rate varies and it is still experimental. Pioneering efforts by scientists at the Florida Marine

Research Institute (FMRI) show promise in laboratory cultivation of plant fragments for

large-scale restorations (Durako et.al. 1993). Some local transplanting projects, such as

the City of Tampa's in Hillsborough Bay, have been successful (Johansson 1995). The

NEP will evaluate suitable areas for transplanting projects as part of its overall seagrass

recovery strategy. Continued monitoring will be necessary to document the trends in

seagrass regrowth.
54

Although more than 40 percent of seagrasses reveal little or no damage from boat propellers, seagrass scarring is an important problem in some parts of the bay. Studies by the

FMRI indicate that about 27 percent of Tampa Bay's seagrasses are moderately to heavily

scarred—second in severity only to the Florida Keys (Sargent et.al. 1995). Signs of

chronic damage are evident around many passes and channels. Studies at Weedon Island

Preserve suggest that propeller scars in turtle grass may take more than five years to heal

(Durako et.al. 1992).

Intense scarring at Cockroach Bay in southern Hillsborough County and at Pinellas

County's Ft. DeSoto Park has prompted boating restrictions and other measures in these

areas to protect seagrasses (Ehringer 1994). Channel marking and education appear to

be the most effective techniques for reducing damage to grass beds (Sargent et.al. 1996).

The quality of the bay's seagrasses, and their utilization by animals, has not yet been fully

evaluated. However, the SWFWMD recently modified its seagrass monitoring program to

include assessments of seagrass quality at 60 locations around the bay. Monitoring

parameters include seagrass species diversity, density and quantity of epiphytic algae

attached to the grass blades, as well as physical parameters such as salinity, pH and

water depth (T. Ries, unpublished data 1995).

A.5.2 Soft-Bottom

More than 80 percent of the bay bottom is sand or mud, although the term "soft bottom"

can be misleading since a large part of the bay floor is actually hard-packed sand and shell

(Wade and Janicki 1993). These bottom sediments support a large variety of organisms,

including parchment worms, clams, tunicates (or sea squirts) and conchs. The surface

sediments of this dynamic habitat are periodically churned up and re-deposited by bottom

dwelling animals, as well as by waves, currents and dredging (Lewis and Estevez 1988).

More than 500 types of macroinvertebrates baywide and an average of 10,000 organisms

per square meter were documented in 1993—the first year of benthic sampling conducted

by the EPC of Hillsborough County and Manatee County for the Tampa Bay NEP (Grabe

et.al. 1996).

Dredging of navigation channels and underwater disposal of dredged material have

impacted an estimated 14,400 acres of bay bottom, mostly in deep-water areas of the bay.

An additional 1,200 acres of deep-water soft bottom has been filled to create spoil islands

and causeways shell (Wade and Janicki 1993). 

The long-term effects of disposal on these soft-bottom habitats has not been well documented. However, the benthic monitoring program established in 1993 by NEP and the

bay's three surrounding counties will eventually enable scientists to assess trends in the

quality of these bottom communities. Samples are taken each year during the critical

monitoring period (September and October) at more than 100 stations, and analyzed for

the number and diversity of organisms, as well as sediment quality and chemistry (Grabe

et.al. 1996). A sediment toxicity analysis was added in 1996.
55

A.5.3 Hard-Bottom

Although relatively rare in Tampa Bay, hard- or "live-" bottom habitat features a

composition of plants and animals that is unlike any other in the bay ecosystem.

Hard-bottom habitat is formed when natural outcroppings of rock or limestone—or

man-made bridge pilings or reefs—along the bay bottom are colonized by corals,

barnacles, sponges and algae that attract small fish and larger predators. Its colorful

inhabitants include sea fans, anemones and tunicates.

A preliminary study conducted for the Tampa Bay NEP revealed more than 850 acres of

hard-bottom habitat in Tampa Bay (Savercool and Lewis 1994). Major communities are

located at Rocky Point (Old Tampa Bay) near Cockroach Bay (Middle Tampa Bay) and

in portions of Lower Tampa Bay. Long-term trends in hard-bottom coverage are not yet

available.

Oyster reef communities are another distinct hard-bottom habitat, although they have not

been well-documented in Tampa Bay. The reef's intricate structure provides habitat for

scores of invertebrates and fish species.

While historical estimates of hard-bottom are sketchy, the bay once supported a thriving

oyster fishery. The most recent estimate of oyster coverage was 8,300 acres in 1972

(Lewis and Estevez 1988). Oysters are no longer commercially harvested, since most

areas of the bay have been closed to shellfishing because of unsafe or suspected high

levels of bacterial contamination.

Additionally, eight artificial reefs have been established in Tampa Bay to expand natural

hard-bottom and enhance fishing. Other man-made habitats include bridge and dock

pilings, seawalls and spoil islands. These artificial habitats provide additional structure for

attaching organisms such as oysters, sponges and tunicates.

A.5.4 Estuarine Wetlands

The natural shoreline of the bay is bordered by a broad intertidal zone of wetlands,

submerged at high tide and exposed at low tide. These dynamic wet zones, which include

mangroves, marshes and mud flats, provide vital food and protection for various marine

creatures. They also buffer uplands from storms and help filter nutrients and particulates

in runoff from the surrounding watershed.

A.5.4.1 Marshes and Mangroves

While mangrove and marsh habitats may occur independently, they often occur together,

with red, white and black mangroves interspersed with salt marsh species, such as smooth

cordgrass and black needlerush. Mangroves outnumber marshes in Tampa Bay by more

than a 3-to-1 ratio (Janicki et.al. 1994). However, salt marshes composed of rushes,

sedges and grasses are the dominant natural habitat along the bay's major tributaries.
56

Decaying mangrove leaves provide a nutrient-rich food called detritus for small fish, shrimp

and crabs. The sturdy roots of the mangrove trees anchor the shoreline, while the

mangrove canopies serve as roosts and nests for a remarkable variety of resident and

wintering birds.

Mangroves and marshes also support juvenile fish, such as snook, tarpon, red drum and

mullet, and protect them from larger predators. Mature mangroves in quiet lagoons and

canals in fairly high-salinity areas provide an important nursery habitat for snook.

Mangroves in Tampa Bay are particularly vulnerable to damage or destruction from

periodic freezes, since the bay is near the northern limit for these species. This

underscores the importance of maintaining a healthy abundance of these wetland habitats.

Dense stands of mangroves not only are better equipped to survive a freeze, they also

provide more food and better habitat for the animals they support.

Pruning of mangroves can affect their productivity. Public outcry against a 1995 law that

made it easier for residents to trim mangroves prompted the Florida Legislature to revisit

the issue in 1996. A new mangrove trimming bill was passed, reinstating some trimming

restrictions and providing additional penalties for violators. State officials do not know how

many acres of mangroves were trimmed during 1995, but say the damage was severe in

many cases.

About 21 percent (5,128 acres) of Tampa Bay's original saltwater wetlands were destroyed

between 1950 and 1990, primarily due to dredging and filling for waterfront development.

These losses were not distributed equally among bay habitats, with the greatest declines

documented for tidal marshes (38 percent), followed by salt barrens (36 percent) and

mangroves (13 percent)ratio (Janicki et.al. 1994). 

The steepest declines occurred during the 1950s and 1960s, when efforts to develop

coveted waterfront property for residential and commercial uses proceeded unchecked.

The passage of wetlands protection laws during the mid-1970s and 1980s has greatly

slowed the rate of loss, and studies indicate a slight increase in tidal wetland coverage

since 1982, due to recent habitat restoration efforts and natural colonization of marshes

and mangroves along causeways and other filled lands ratio (Janicki et.al. 1994). 

Recent estimates of wetland habitat in Tampa Bay indicate that about 18,800 acres of

mangrove forests and salt marshes remain (Janicki et.al. 1994). However, thousands of

acres of these native habitats have been displaced by invasive exotic plants, such as the

Australian pine and Brazilian pepper.

A.5.4.2 Mud Flats and Salt Barrens

Mud and sand flats along the bay's perimeter also are an important part of the estuarine

wetland system. While these largely non-vegetated areas may appear barren and lifeless

to an untrained eye, they are highly productive and valuable.
57

On closer inspection, so-called "non-vegetated" shallow bottom areas more closely

resemble a secret garden teeming with microscopic plant life. Invisible to the untrained

eye, single-celled algae and bacteria proliferate here, giving the bay floor a subtle brown

or greenish cast. What's more, these diminutive residents pack a sizeable punch as fuel

for the bay's primary productivity. Indeed, in shallower ecosystems, the sheer number of

these bottom-dwelling organisms often exceeds the amount of phytoplankton in overlying

waters (Maclntyre et.al. 1996).

Mud flats support a diverse community of bottom-burrowing creatures, including worms,

clams and crabs, which are pursued by wading birds and raccoons foraging for food at low

tide. At high tide, fish enter the flats in search of food.

These areas also are prime feeding areas for a number of migratory birds, including ducks,

gulls, avocets and several species of sandpiper, which seek refuge in Tampa Bay each

winter. 

Fewer than 900 acres of salt barren remain, mostly along the bay's southeastern rim

(Janicki et.al. 1994). Historical estimates of this habitat are unavailable. Salt barrens form

in areas where brackish water moves in during very high tides and evaporates, creating

open stretches of salty, dry soil. This hyper-saline terrain supports low-growing succulent

plants and serves as a seasonal feeding habitat for wading birds.

A.5.5 Associated Uplands

Neighboring upland habitats of pine forests, hammocks and shrubs also have been heavily

impacted by development. Often overlooked or undervalued, these buffer areas and

associated freshwater wetlands provide important habitat for numerous animals, including

the wood stork, white ibis, osprey, bald eagle and Sherman's fox squirrel. Many of the

birds and animals that live in coastal wetlands or along the shore hunt for food in upland

forests and fields. Likewise, many upland species depend on adjacent wetlands for

survival.

Almost all coastal pine forests, which are critical nesting sites for bald eagles, have been

eliminated from the shores of Tampa Bay, and about 40 percent of this habitat has been

lost throughout the watershed (Beever, J., personal communication. 1995). Coastal

hammocks also have declined. Coastal hammocks of live oaks and cabbage palms occur

in patches where wetlands transition to uplands, and are home to raccoons, bobcats,

foxes and other animals that feed in neighboring wetlands.

A.5.6 Low-Salinity Habitats

The bay's four major rivers—the Hillsborough, Alafia, Manatee and Little Manatee—and

more than 100 smaller tributaries provide critical low- and medium-salinity habitat for

numerous species of fish and shellfish at early stages in their development. Variations in

the salt content of the water, from the low-salinity reaches of the bay's tributaries to

full-strength sea water at the mouth of the bay, determine which areas of the estuary are
58

inhabitable for some species and not for others. Oysters, for example, flourish in

low-salinity areas of the bay where they are protected from snail predators. Similarly, fish

with wide salinity tolerances use low-salinity areas in rivers to avoid predators that cannot

tolerate these conditions.

Called oligohaline from the Greek oligos (small) and haline (salty), the low-salinity areas

occur in the upper reaches of the bay's tributaries, where salinities range from zero to 10

parts per thousand (ppt), as compared to about 35 ppt at the mouth of Tampa Bay.

Downstream, mesohaline or medium-salinity zones occur within a salinity range of 11 to

19 ppt.

Low and medium-salinity habitats are a primary nursery for red drum, snook and tarpon,

as well as numerous non-game species such as the striped mullet. Some of the most

highly productive juvenile nursery habitat occurs where these low-salinity waters overlap

with shoreline or submerged vegetation. As the fish mature, they typically move to more

saline zones in the estuary or out into the Gulf of Mexico (Killam et.al. 1992).

Efforts to protect these highly productive nursery habitats depend on maintaining the

proper timing and flows of fresh water and salt water within the bay's tributaries. Four

major tributaries—the Hillsborough River, Palm River (Tampa Bypass Canal), Manatee

River and Braden River—have dams or reservoirs that divert fresh water to serve the

region's drinking water and irrigation needs. During dry season, when water demand is

highest, reservoirs on the Hillsborough, Palm and Manatee rivers release almost no water

downstream.

Local water supply development plans may further reduce the flow of fresh water into

already impacted tributaries and bay segments. For example, the Tampa Water Resource

Recovery Project would remove up to 50 million gallons per day (mgd) of fresh water

currently discharged to Hillsborough Bay from the City of Tampa's sewage treatment plant,

and possibly reduce flows to the Tampa Bypass Canal and McKay Bay. However, the

project also will remove a major source of excess nitrogen to the bay. An environmental

impacts assessment will be conducted as part of this project (CH2M Hill 1995).

Additionally, the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority proposes to remove 7 mgd

from the Alafia River during the first phase of its 1995 Water Resource Development Plan

(1995-2000) (CH2M Hill 1995).

The impact of reservoirs on the low and medium-salinity habitats downstream is the

subject of several ongoing assessments. One study of flow variations on the Manatee

River indicates that, on average, river area and volume within the low-salinity band were

reduced 33 percent and 22 percent, respectively, as a result of reservoir operations for the

period 1982-199A. Consequently, the area of wetlands coinciding with this low-salinity

band was reduced by 150 acres, or 25 percent (Walters et.al. 1994).

Modeling comparisons of historic and modern landscapes indicate that net freshwater

inflows to the main body of Tampa Bay have changed little since the 1950s, assuming the
59

same amount of rainfall each year (Zarbock et.al. 1995). This is mainly a result of

increases in urban and agricultural stormwater runoff, which have countered decreases

in freshwater flows from rivers. However, long-term measurements of river flows by the

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

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

because of declining rainfall (Coastal Environmental, Inc. 1996).

A.6 FISHERIES

Recent trends in the populations of many sport and commercial fish species in Tampa Bay

are difficult to determine. Anecdotal reports from sport fishermen indicate some species

such as snook and red drum are responding positively to fishing regulations designed to

increase their numbers. On the other hand, commercial landings of black (or striped)

mullet and spotted seatrout are significantly below historical catches.

A constitutional ban on gill netting, triggered in part by declining mullet stocks, took effect

in July 1995. Supporters believe the ban will lead to increases in mullet populations, which

are fished almost exclusively by commercial netters. The ban also may benefit other

species like spotted seatrout and sheepshead, targeted by both commercial and

recreational fishermen.

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

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

purse seining in the bay is expected to stabilize bait fish populations, as well as benefit

other fish and birds that feed on the bait fish. Careful monitoring of fish populations will

be necessary to gauge the effectiveness of these regulations and determine the need for

further management actions.

Until recently, resource managers have had to estimate populations of important fishery

species in Tampa Bay from landings data because direct measurements were not

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

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

species of finfish were harvested from the bay in 1990—a decrease of 24 percent since

1966. The decrease is largely due to reduced catches of mullet and sea trout, while

landings for the remaining species stayed the same or increased slightly (Norris, M.,

personal communication 1995).

However, records going further back, to 1950, show that harvests of spotted sea trout

declined 86 percent in the bay by 1990, from 487,000 pounds to 67,000 pounds. Similarly,

red drum harvests plummeted from 80,000 pounds in 1950 to 15,000 pounds in 1986, the

last full year of available data prior to a statewide ban on commercial red drum harvests

These raw data do not reflect changes in fishery management plans or quotas (Norris, M.,

personal communication 1995).

Prior to the net ban, mullet was the most sought-after commercial species in the bay,

comprising almost half of the 1992 landings of finfish and shellfish, or A.3 million pounds.
60

By comparison, bay harvests of spotted seatrout and bait shrimp were only 40,000 pounds

and 26,000 pounds, respectively (Norris, M., unpublished data 1994).

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

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

may affect them. Additionally, commercial landings are often under-reported and tend to

decline as recreational fishing increases. Recognizing this, the FMRI in 1989 initiated a

Critical Fisheries Monitoring Program (CFMP) to provide more reliable estimates of stock

sizes and distribution of important species and key prey species. The research also is

helping clarify the crucial role habitat plays in the life cycles of many species.

A summary of results of the first three years of the CFMP (1989-1991) found that 78

percent of the juvenile spotted seatrout collected were captured over seagrass beds,

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

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

frequent at least two of the rivers, the Alafia and Little Manatee (Wade et.al. 1992).

Mirroring declines in fish stocks, Tampa Bay's once-thriving commercial shellfish industry

also has virtually collapsed, although bait shrimping and some food shrimping continues.

Harvests of clams and oysters throughout the bay are restricted or prohibited because of

documented or potential bacterial contamination from fecal coliform associated with

human and animal wastes entering the bay in stormwater runoff. In the few unrestricted

areas remaining, shellfish populations are not large enough to support commercial

harvest.

However, reassessments of closed or restricted areas are not routinely performed by the

state, and it is possible that actual water quality conditions in specific areas do not warrant

the restrictions. That's because decisions to classify or reclassify areas in most cases are

based on land use considerations and the documentation of or potential for contamination

following a major storm event, rather than actual water quality conditions (Pierce, B.,

personal communication 1995).

The bay's fisheries also are impacted by entrainment, the capture of planktonic eggs and

larvae of fish and shellfish in power plant cooling intakes. The five power plants around

Tampa Bay take in a daily average of about A.3 billion gallons of bay water. An estimated

274 billion fish eggs and 83 billion fish larvae are captured annually in cooling intakes in

Tampa Bay, according to power plant monitoring data from the early 1980s (Tampa Bay

Regional Planning Council 1985).

Assuming 100 percent mortality, the impact of steam electric plants on the fishery stocks

of Tampa Bay may be significant. However, in the absence of sufficient base line data on

stock sizes and normal survival rates, it is difficult to fully assess this impact. Further

evaluation is needed to understand the cumulative impacts of power plant entrainment on

the bay's fisheries.

Habitat declines, water quality and fishing impacts are considered the primary factors
61

responsible for changes in fish populations. The relative impact of each factor is often hard

to discern because of natural fluctuations in stock sizes.

Despite these pressures, improving water quality and restoration of habitats through out

Tampa Bay are creating more favorable conditions for fish and shellfish and for the

seagrass habitats they require. One potential beneficiary is the bay scallop, which all but

disappeared from Tampa Bay in the 1960s. While experts can't say why the scallop

departed decades ago, they suspect these highly sensitive creatures were casualties of

pollution. Water quality in Tampa Bay now has improved to levels that may support scallop

recovery (Leverone 1993), and some restocking efforts have been undertaken (Blake et.al.

1993).

Mortality for scallops transplanted in the bay was unacceptably high in 1995, according to

a 1996 report from the FMRI for the Tampa Bay NEP. Researchers say red tide—a

common Gulf coast nemesis—is likely to blame. FMRI believes that bay scallops can be

successfully cultured and reintroduced to Tampa Bay, but recommends selecting a variety

of transplant sites within the lower bay to minimize exposure and localized impacts (Arnold

et.al. 1996).

A.7 BAY WILDLIFE

Tampa Bay supports a magnificent array of wildlife, from the familiar brown pelican to the

bottom-hugging sea squirt. But many of these animals also are threatened by impacts to

water quality and habitats.

Birds are perhaps the most easily recognized and appreciated creatures in the ecosystem,

and mangrove islands in the bay are among the most important nesting sites in the nation.

These islands support as many as 40,000 pairs of approximately 25 species each season,

including brown pelicans, cormorants, ibis, spoonbills, herons, egrets and skimmers (Paul,

R., unpublished data 1995). The bay also attracts a sizable and diverse number of

wintering waterbirds, including the white pelican, which travels more than 2,000 miles on

its annual pilgrimage from the Western U.S. and Canada. Bird populations have

dramatically declined in the last half-century as the region has been developed. Most

vulnerable are beach-nesting shorebirds such as the black skimmer and wading birds such

as the white ibis, which lives along the bay but depends upon freshwater crayfish and

insects to feed its young. As these small, inland ponds and marshes dry up or are

converted for development, ibis populations have plummeted. Since the 1940s, the

Tampa Bay breeding population of the ibis has declined by as much as two-thirds, from

an estimated 30,000 pairs to 11,000 pairs (Paul, R., unpublished data 1995). In addition

to habitat losses, the bay's bird populations also have been impacted by human intrusion

into rookeries and by entanglement in monofilament fishing line.

Marine mammals and sea turtles also make their home in Tampa Bay. More than 500

bottlenose dolphins are estimated to be year-round residents. The bay also is the winter

home of as many as 200 manatees, according to FMRI researchers (Wright et.al. 1996).

These gentle, plant-eating giants cluster around the warm-water discharges of the bay's
62

power plants and feed in the grass beds at the bay's perimeter.

An unprecedented die-off in early 1996 brought the total number of manatee deaths in

Florida for the first six months of the year to 302—more than twice the previous record set

in 1990. The single event, believed to be caused by red tide, claimed about 11 percent of

the state's estimated 2,600 manatees (FDEP 1996). Even without this unusual event,

manatee deaths statewide—including Tampa Bay—through October 1996 were still higher

than previous years, and collisions with watercraft remain the primary human related

cause of manatee mortalities (Weigle 1996). 

Although often inconspicuous, marine turtles are common inhabitants of the bay. The

loggerhead (a threatened species) and Kemp's ridley (one of the 12 most endangered

animals in the world) are year-round residents. Green turtles and hawksbills also visit the

bay, although the latter, a more tropical species, is quite rare. Nesting season brings the

female turtles on shore at Anna Maria Island, Egmont Key and at beaches along Pinellas

County (Meylan et.al. 1996).

Mostly out of sight to casual observers of the bay is a diverse array of bottom dwelling

creatures known as the benthic community. Included among the more than 1,200 species

of benthic organisms documented in the bay are the commonly known blue crab, pink

shrimp, brittle starfish and sea squirt (Simon and Mahadevan 1985). These epifauna,

which reside on the surface of the sediment, and their neighboring infauna, which live

below the surface, are an important link in the bay's food web. They also play an

indispensable role in the cycling of major nutrients, including carbon, phosphorous and

nitrogen. While their feeding habits vary, these animals mostly scavenge on the bottom,

feeding on decaying plant and animal material or filtering microscopic organisms like

phytoplankton from bay waters. In doing so, filter feeders like oysters, scallops and sea

squirts help maintain water clarity.
63

APPENDIX B

Action Plans in the CCMP for Which the District 

Was Identified as a Responsible Party

There are action plans in the CCMP for which the District was identified as a responsible

party for significant actions for the long term management of the Bay. The following

details the actions proposed for addressing these action plans.

B.1 WATER AND SEDIMENT QUALITY

B.1.1 Action Plan WQ-1 Implement Nitrogen Management Goals for Tampa Bay

Controlling the bay's nitrogen intake as a means of regaining vital underwater seagrass

beds has been one of the most prominent initiatives of the Tampa Bay NEP. Seagrasses

were selected by NEP as a yardstick by which efforts to improve the bay will be measured

because of their overall importance to the bay ecosystem, and because they are an

important barometer of their environment, signaling changes in long-term water quality

trends.

An incredible variety of marine creatures—from the stately seahorse to the blue-eyed

scallop to the portly manatee—find food, shelter or protection from predators in these

dense underwater pastures. In fact, studies show that seagrass beds harbor 50 percent

more fish and invertebrates than sand-bottom areas of the bay. Seagrasses also anchor

shifting sand and filter pollutants from the water, much as grasses help stabilize the soil

on dry land.

Since the turn of the century, pollution and dredging have destroyed more than half of the

bay's seagrass beds. But surveys have recorded more than 4,000 acres of new or

expanded seagrass beds in Tampa Bay since 1982, some in areas like Hillsborough Bay

that had been barren for decades.

This remarkable comeback is largely credited to improvements in sewage treatment that

have reduced the amount of nitrogen flowing into the bay, since excess nitrogen causes

algae blooms that cloud the water and keep sunlight from reaching the grasses. Using

computer models, scientists with the NEP calculate that water quality is now good enough

to allow the natural growth, over time, of more than 12,000 acres of seagrass.

In July 1996, the Tampa Bay NEP adopted a five-year management goal to cap nitrogen

loadings at existing levels (1992-94 average) to assist the seagrass recovery process.

Nitrogen loadings to Tampa Bay are expected to increase 7 percent by the year 2010 as

a result of population growth. This equates to an increase of 17 tons per year, or a total

of 266 tons of nitrogen per year by 2010. Consequently, local governments and industries

will need to offset loadings to the bay by this amount in order to maintain the bay's current

nitrogen levels.
64

Local government and agency partners already have tentatively accepted responsibility

for reducing their future nitrogen contributions by at least 6 tons per year, or 90 tons per

year by 2010. This is the amount associated with stormwater runoff and municipal

point-source discharges. These partners — Hillsborough, Pinellas and Manatee counties,

the cities of Tampa, St. Petersburg and Clearwater and participating agencies — are now

developing plans which identify specific projects to address their share of the cleanup.

Nitrogen reductions will be carried over from year to year and credited against the

remaining shortfall. Additionally, communities may achieve their target loadings more

rapidly by implementing projects with greater nitrogen reductions or preventing anticipated

increases.

A Nitrogen Management Consortium was established in October 1996 to develop a plan

to address the remaining 11 tons per year of nitrogen, which comes from atmospheric

deposition, industrial point sources, fertilizer shipping and handling, and intensive

agriculture. Participants also are exploring ways to equitably assign the responsibility for

managing nitrogen loadings among dischargers, based on their contribution to the

problem.

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

companies and agricultural interests, as well as the NEP's six local government partners

and regulatory agencies. Working together, the group will identify nitrogen management

projects to satisfy the nitrogen management goals established for Tampa Bay. The NEP

will assist the Consortium by developing a list of the most cost-effective projects to pursue.

The approach advocated by NEP stresses cooperative solutions and flexible strategies

over rigid "command and control" regulatory requirements. Under this plan, local

governments and industries may select from among a range of options—as long as the

overall goals for nitrogen management are met. This flexibility allows communities to focus

their limited resources on the most cost-effective and environmentally beneficial actions.

Without this consensus-building approach to bay management, regulators would have to

rely on the traditional permitting and compliance process to achieve the goals of the bay

plan. That method can be more time-consuming and expensive, and lacks the flexibility

the NEP partners have endorsed.

The NEP will review and revise nitrogen management goals every five years, or more

often, if significant new information becomes available. 

District Action:

The District has prepared an estimate of expected nitrogen reduction resulting from the

implementation of specific stormwater retrofit projects. These projects provide the basis

of the District’s portion of the Nitrogen Management Consortium Action Plan. The District

intends to remain an active participant in the Nitrogen Management Consortium and will

continue to support nitrogen management efforts. 

Project Name: Stormwater Retrofit Projects for Old Tampa Bay
65

Project Description: The construction of six stormwater management best

management practice projects in Old Tampa Bay watersheds. Treatment methods

include wet detention with filtration and alum injection.

Project Participants: SWFWMD, City of Safety Harbor, Pinellas County, City of

Tampa, City of Clearwater, and Hillsborough County

Location (drainage basin): Old Tampa Bay

Contribution Toward Goal: Reduction of 2,799 lbs of nitrogen per year

Implementation Schedule:

Alligator Creek @ Channel H - Complete

Brushy Creek Wetland Enhancement - Complete

Al Lopez Park Pond Enhancement - Complete

Clearwater Mall Retrofit - Construction to be completed in 1998

Red Maple Swamp -Construction to be completed in 1998

Safety Harbor - Complete

Likelihood of Completion: High

How financed: SWFWMD, Ecosystem Management and Restoration Trust Fund,

Local Governments

Project Name: Stormwater Retrofit Projects for Hillsborough Bay

Project Description: The construction of five stormwater management best

management practice projects in Hillsborough Bay watersheds. Treatment methods

include wet detention with filtration and alum injection.

Project Participants: SWFWMD, City of Plant City, Hillsborough County, and the City

of Tampa

Location (drainage basin): Hillsborough Bay

Contribution Toward Goal: Reduction of 9,242 lbs of nitrogen per year

Implementation Schedule:

Lowry Park East - Complete

Lowry Park West - Design 1997, Construction 1999

Delaney Creek Wetland Treatment - Complete

East Lake Alum - Design 1997, Construction 1998

Pistol Range Retrofit - Design 1997, Construction 1999

Likelihood of Completion: High

How financed: SWFWMD, Ecosystem Management and Restoration Trust Fund,

Local Governments

Project Name: Alafia River Corridor Land Acquisition 

Project Description: Acquisition of 30,414 acres of land along the Alafia River. 4,053

acres have been acquired with 26,361 acres remaining.

Project Participants: SWFWMD, Hillsborough County

Location (drainage basin): Hillsborough Bay

Contribution Toward Goal: Reduction of 1,816 lbs of nitrogen per year

Implementation Schedule: On-going

Likelihood of Completion: Dependent on willing land sellers.

How financed: Save Our Rivers, Preservation 2000, local and state governments.
66

Project Name: Stormwater Retrofit Projects for Middle Tampa Bay

Project Description: The construction of five stormwater management best

management practice projects in Middle Tampa Bay watersheds. Treatment methods

include wet detention with filtration and alum injection.

Project Participants: SWFWMD, City of St Petersburg, Pinellas Park Water

Management District, Pinellas County, and Hillsborough County

Location (drainage basin): Middle Tampa Bay

Contribution Toward Goal: Reduction of 11,407 lbs of nitrogen per year

Implementation Schedule:

Mirror Lake - Design by January 1998. Construction by July 1998

Pinellas Park Channel 2 - Complete

Haynesworth Tract - Construction to be completed in 1998

Lake Maggiore - To be completed in 1998

Cockroach Bay Stormwater - Completed

Likelihood of Completion: High

How financed: SWFWMD, Ecosystem Management and Restoration Trust Fund,

Local Governments, Federal Grants

Project Name: Little Manatee River Land Acquisition Project

Project Description: Acquisition of 30,698 acres of land along the Little Manatee

River. 1,210 acres have been acquired with 29,488 remaining.

Project Participants: SWFWMD, Hillsborough County

Location (drainage basin): Middle Tampa Bay

Contribution Toward Goal: Reduction of 656 lbs of nitrogen per year

Implementation Schedule: On-going

Likelihood of Completion: Dependent on willing land sellers.

How financed: Save Our Rivers, Preservation 2000, local and state governments.

Project Name: Stormwater Retrofit Projects for Boca Ciega Bay

Project Description: The construction of twelve stormwater management best

management practice projects in Boca Ciega Bay watersheds. Treatment methods

include wet detention with filtration and alum injection.

Project Participants: SWFWMD, City of North Redington Beach, City of St

Petersburg, Pinellas Park Water Management District, Pinellas County, and City of

South Pasadena, City of Seminole

Location (drainage basin): Boca Ciega Bay

Contribution Toward Goal: Reduction of 11,306 lbs of nitrogen per year

Implementation Schedule:

Clam Bayou Borrow Pit - Design by January 1998. Construction by June 1998

Jungle Lake Enhancement - Complete

102nd Ave. Pond Enhancement - Complete

94th Ave. Pond Enhancement - Complete

Bath Club Concourse - Completed

Pinellas County EMS Site - Complete

Largo Regional - Design 1997, Construction 1998

Downtown Largo Regional - Design 1997, Construction 1998
67

Lake Seminole Pond 6 - Design 1998, Construction 1999

Lake Seminole “Dogleg” - Design 1998, Construction 1999

South Pasadena - Complete

St. Pete Junior College Wetland - Design 1998, Construction 1999

Likelihood of Completion: High

How financed: SWFWMD, Ecosystem Management and Restoration Trust Fund,

Local Governments, Federal Grants

Project Name: Wood Ibis Park Stormwater Retrofit Project 

Project Description: Stormwater retrofit for 72 acres of residential area in the City

of Gulfport in accordance with current regulatory design criteria for new development.

Area to be retrofitted was developed prior to 1982 stormwater rule. 

Project Participants: SWFWMD and City of Gulfport 

Location (drainage basin): Lower Tampa Bay 

Contribution Toward Goal: Reduction of 363 lbs of nitrogen per year

Implementation Schedule: design in 1997; construct in 1998 

Likelihood of Completion: High

How financed:

Project Name: Tampa Bay Estuarine System Land Acquisition Project

Description: Acquisition of 13,434 acres along Terra Ceia Bay. 1,833 acres have

been acquired with 11,601 remaining.

Project Participants: SWFWMD and Manatee County

Location (drainage basin): Lower Tampa Bay

Contribution Toward Goal: Reduction of 745 lbs of nitrogen per year

Implementation Schedule: On-going

Likelihood of Completion: Dependent on willing land sellers.

How financed: Save Our Rivers, Preservation 2000, local and state governments.

Project Name: Tampa Bay Pollution Load Reduction Goal

Project Description: The District will incorporate resource-based water clarity,

chlorophyll-a, and nitrogen loading goals into the pollutant load reduction goals

(PLRGs) for Tampa Bay. 

Project Participants: SWFWMD

Location (drainage basin): Bay-wide

Contribution Toward Goal:

Implementation Schedule: First draft of Plan by March 1998

Likelihood of Completion: High

How financed: SWFWMD

Project Name: Incorporate Nitrogen Goals into Basin-specific Watershed

Management Plans 

Project Description: The District will incorporate resource-based nitrogen loading

goals and PLRGs for Tampa Bay in the SWIM and CSWM management plans it is

currently developing for hydrologic basins within the Tampa Bay watershed. 
68

Project Participants: SWFWMD

Location (drainage basin): Bay-wide

Contribution Toward Goal:

Implementation Schedule: SWIM plan (draft) by March 1998, CSWM Plans by AugDec 1998

Likelihood of Completion: High

How financed: SWFWMD, SWIM

Project Name: Support Ongoing Bay-wide Water Quality Modeling

Project Description: The nitrogen management goals set by the TBNEP are a result

of several related modeling tasks. These task involved: 1) the estimation of nitrogen

off of the watershed, 2) the determination of water quality in Tampa Bay, and 3) the

modeling of the bay response to changes in loading and the establishment of nitrogen

management targets. The District will take responsibility for performing these tasks

every 5 years, as requested by TBNEP. Estimated costs to the District of assuming

this workload are expressed as staff time requirements or Full Time Equivalents if the

work is performed by District staff and funding requirements if the work is performed

by a contractor. These include: 

a) Watershed Loading - Updating watershed nitrogen loading estimates.

Anticipated cost = 0.6 FTEs or $30,000

b) Bay Water Quality - Update Tampa Bay water quality analysis using local

governments' monitoring data and the EMAP-based statistical algorithms

developed by TBNEP to perform analyses of spatial water quality trends.

Anticipated cost = 0.3 FTEs or $15,000

c) Water Quality Modeling - Maintaining and executing the two existing (empirical and

mechanistic) water quality models for Tampa Bay.

Anticipated cost = 0.9 FTEs or $45,000

Project Participants: SWFWMD with support from the TBEP Technical Advisory

Committee

Location (drainage basin): Bay-wide

Contribution Toward Goal:

Implementation Schedule: Anticipated revisions starting in FY 1998 and completed

by end of 1999.

Likelihood of Completion: High

How financed: SWFWMD

Project Name: Assessment of Microbial Indicators and Pathogens

Project Description: Although the District has not been identified as a responsible

agency under public health actions, a project to provide base-line information on

potential sources and loadings of microbial pathogens within the Tampa Bay

watershed is proposed. The determination of sources and fate of pathogenic

microorganisms (including bacteria, viruses, and protozoa) in significant tributaries of

Tampa Bay. By January 1999, a review of health standards for measuring bacterial
69

contamination will be complete. Parties will supplement Action Plans as appropriate

to develop specific actions to address bacterial contamination for those swimming

areas and shellfish harvesting areas not meeting health standards by January 2002.

The project will determine the predictors or indicators of human pathogens and the

associated risk of illness with exposure to contaminated waters. Potential remediation

measures will be identified for future actions. 

Project Participants: SWFWMD, Florida Department of Health, University of South

Florida

Location (drainage basin): Bay-wide

Contribution Toward Goal: This project will provide base-line data on potential

sources and loadings of microbial pathogens within the Tampa Bay watershed.

Implementation Schedule: FY 99

Likelihood of Completion: High

How financed: SWFWMD 

B.1.2 Action Plan SW-1 Continue Support for the Florida Yards and

Neighborhoods Program and Similar Pollution

Prevention Initiatives

Yards and neighborhoods are among the bay's first lines of defense against pollution in

stormwater runoff. Yet many homeowners fail to understand the potential impact of excess

fertilizer, pesticides and water used in landscape maintenance on the health of Tampa

Bay.

In fact, scientists estimate that residential land uses in the Tampa Bay watershed contribute about 10 percent of the bay's total nitrogen loadings, as well as other pollutants

such as pesticides and herbicides. The impact on Tampa Bay may be immediate in a

waterfront neighborhood, or gradual, through the flow of stormwater drains, ditches,

streams or rivers.

These findings became the springboard for the development of the Florida Yards &

Neighborhoods (FY&N) Program, established in 1991 to enlist residents in pollution

prevention by improving their landscaping practices. Experts from the Florida Cooperative

Extension Service (FCES), which administers the Program statewide, encourage residents

to conserve water and limit their use of fertilizers and pesticides — techniques that can

save homeowners considerable time and money. The Program also promotes the

establishment of true Florida Yards, featuring plants suited to local conditions, climate and

wildlife.

FY&N was developed by the National Estuary Programs of Tampa Bay and Sarasota Bay

and the FCES. The West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority (WCRWSA) is currently

the major funding source for the Tampa Bay FY&N program, which also draws support

from some local governments.

Since its inception, the FY&N Program has assisted dozens of neighborhoods and
70

thousands of individual homeowners through workshops, neighborhood evaluations and

plantings, educational literature and the development of model Florida Yards at public

venues. The Program also coordinates with local developers and retailers to promote

these concepts. A Florida Yard featured in the 1996 Parade of Homes at Fish Hawk Trails

in Hillsborough County received extensive publicity and attention. Home Depot recently

began publicizing FY&N tips in its in-store literature and advertising inserts.

This action seeks to continue support for FY&N to effectively reach a larger and more

diverse audience in the Tampa Bay region. The NEP also recognizes and supports the

efforts of several local initiatives, such as the Hillsborough County Adopt-A-Pond Program,

which promote water quality stewardship and neighborhood action.

Strategy:

Strategies to continue and expand the FY&N Program, and further enlist developers,

retailers and the horticulture/pest control industries in promoting these concepts, are

proposed below.

A. Promote Florida Yard materials and messages at major retail outlets, home and

garden shows, public events, and public venues such as The Florida Aquarium.

B. Pursue arrangements to distribute and bar-code FY&N materials so they may be

sold at cost through retail establishments, with revenues tagged for additional

reprints.

C. Increase mass-media publicity efforts and promote the use of existing public

service announcements on cable, network and government access stations.

Counties also should consider paid media placement campaigns to broaden public

interest and awareness of FY&N messages. Media efforts should be coordinated

on a regional basis to maximize cost-efficiency and audience reach.

D. Increase the number of individuals pursuing Florida Yard certification.

District Action:

Project Name: Xeriscape and Florida Yards & Neighborhood

Project Description: In FY 97 and 98, the District partnered with the Pinellas and

Hillsborough County Cooperative Extension Services, local governments and

educational facilities to sponsor workshops for the public focusing on Xeriscape and

Florida Yards & Neighborhood concepts. Similar projects are included in planning and

budgeting for FY 99 and 2000.

Project Name: Xeriscape and Florida Yards & Neighborhood

Project Description: In FY 98, the District partnered with the Pinellas and

Hillsborough County Cooperative Extension Services, local governments and the

construction industry and business to provide area builders and developers with
71

education focusing on environmentally-sound practices, including Florida Yards &

Neighborhoods concepts. Similar expanded projects are included in planning and

budgeting for FY 99.

Project Name: Project Greenhouse

Project Description: The Hillsborough River, Alafia River, and Northwest Hillsborough

Basin Boards of the District are considering a funding proposal to develop a

demonstration site (Project Greenhouse) in Tampa to provide all segments of the

population with education about environmentally sound practices, materials and

products, including demonstration and education about Florida Yards &

Neighborhoods.

B.1.3 Action Plan SW-2 Assist Businesses in Implementing Best Management

Practices to Reduce Stormwater Pollution, and Develop

Model Landscaping Guidelines for Commercial Use

Local communities offer various levels of assistance to businesses in assessing site

management practices and developing pollution prevention strategies. These programs

can benefit businesses by identifying opportunities for cost-savings, such as reducing a

company's expenditures for fertilizer and pesticides used in landscape maintenance.

Pollution prevention programs also benefit local government sponsors, who might

otherwise be forced to rely exclusively on costlier stormwater treatment.

One example is Hillsborough County's Operation BayWorks - Businesses for a Cleaner

Future, established in 1993 with a small grant from the Tampa Bay NEP. The program

enlists and aids businesses in the construction, manufacturing, landscaping and

automotive repair industries in the development of pollution prevention plans. Participants

learn industry-specific best management practices to reduce pollution associated with

landscape management, construction equipment and repair, and hazardous materials use

and disposal. Specialty businesses such as auto repair shops are a key target because

their collective contribution to pollution in runoff can be substantial. These smaller

businesses typically lack knowledge about their potential impact on the environment, as

well as the resources to research best management practices on their own.

Local communities are encouraged to evaluate programs such as Operation BayWorks

as a model for regional implementation to reduce stormwater pollution from commercial

sites. Efforts such as these may help local governments meet federal mandates for

pollution prevention as required in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) stormwater permits.

The Tampa Bay NEP also recommends the development of model landscaping guidelines

for incorporation into local government landscape ordinance codes. These guidelines

could then become incorporated into the site review process for new development and

promoted throughout the development community.

Commercial landscapes often feature large areas of high-maintenance turf grass and
72

exotic plants that demand a steady stream of fertilizer, pesticides and water. Stormwater

pollution from commercial sites can be reduced with changes in maintenance practices

and landscape design, such as downsizing turf areas and expanding the use of

water-thrifty and pest-resistant plants.

Strategy:

Develop a model landscaping ordinance for adoption throughout the region. The

guidelines should be succinct, user-friendly and include a comparison of costs to develop

and maintain traditional landscapes vs. a model Florida landscape based on FY&N

principles.

District Action:

Project Name: Xeriscape and Florida Yards & Neighborhood

Project Description: The District, in cooperation with the other Water Management

Districts, has completed a landscape ordinance model. In addition the District worked

with the Pinellas County Technical Education Center, the Pinellas County and City of

St. Petersburg utilities and the Pinellas County Cooperative Extension Service to offer

Xeriscape workshops to county residents. Information about the reduction of water for

irrigation, lawn maintenance, and reducing fertilizers and pesticides use was provided

to participants.

Project Name: Florida Aquarium

Project Description: The District, in cooperation with the Florida Aquarium, developed

and constructed a demonstration, educational and research parking site that is

designed to reduce runoff through the use of natural filtration and porous surfaces.

Research is currently ongoing at the site to determine its effectiveness in reducing and

in treatment of non-point source pollution.

B.1.4 Action Plan SW-4 Require Pervious Paved Surfaces

Like all growing metropolitan areas, the Tampa Bay region contains large amounts of

impervious surfaces that increase stormwater runoff and associated surface water pollution by preventing stormwater from seeping into the ground. The impact may be

immediate in a waterfront area, or gradual, through the flow of stormwater drains, ditches,

ponds and streams.

Existing regulations complicate the problem. Many development standards require that

large amounts of impervious surface be incorporated into projects to support parking.

Commercial developments, for example, are often required to have a certain number of

parking spaces based on a development's total square footage or anticipated absolute

maximum demand. These requirements may over-estimate actual parking needs, which

may be better served through a combination of traditional surfaces for main parking lots

and pervious surfaces for overflow areas.

The use of pervious materials may also be appropriate for parking lots being enlarged or
73

reconstructed in the urban core. Options include turf block (concrete blocks with holes to

allow turf growth and water infiltration), grass and specialized pervious hard surface

materials. The cost-effectiveness of these alternative surfaces will be evaluated as part

of this action. Some materials can cost as much as three times the amount of traditional

pavement.

Strategy: 

This action calls for an evaluation of the costs and suitability of pervious surface materials,

and promotion of their use where appropriate. It also recommends incentives for

developers to incorporate these materials in new developments and redevelopment

projects in urban areas closest to hot spots of contamination in the bay.

Identify target areas in which the use of alternative surface materials should be

encouraged, and suggest draft revisions to agency rules regulating stormwater to allow

credits for pervious pavement. Provide recommendations to the NEP Management

Committee in 1997.

! Establish target boundaries for urban sub-basins near bay hot spots of sediment

contamination, and overlay information on the areas where local governments are

encouraging redevelopment.

! In other areas of the watershed, identify areas where soils may be conducive to

the use of pervious pavement.

! Suggest draft rule revisions, including credits for pervious paving.

Revise local government and agency regulations to encourage the use of pervious

alternatives to traditional paving. Options may include:

! basing parking space requirements on expected demand rather than absolute

maximum demand, particularly for large developments such as malls, and

commercial developments and multi-family dwellings

! providing tax incentives or credits within new taxing sub-districts for the use of

pervious paving.

! increasing the ratio of landscaping to site size to reduce impervious surface.

District Action:

Actively participate (through TBEP) in development of recommendations for pervious

surface use and identify target areas in which alternative surface materials should be

used. Additionally, the District will continue research on paving materials at the Florida

Aquarium site and other sites as appropriate. District Regulatory staff will explore the

appropriate use of flexible or alternative criteria on an action-by-action basis. If, over

time, a common alternative emerges, then District staff will consider making rule
74

changes to incorporate this common alternative.

Contribution toward goal: Implementation of these activities will provide data on the

performance and long-term maintenance characteristics of one or more pervious surfaces.

This information will assist local governments in developing policies regarding possible

regulatory incentives for the use of such surfaces. 

Implementation schedule: ongoing

B.1.5 Action Plan SW-5 Require Older Properties Being Redeveloped to

Meet Current Stormwater Treatment Standards for

That Portion of the Site Being Redeveloped, or

Provide Equivalent Compensation

Redevelopment of existing properties is encouraged and can be highly desirable as a

means of re-energizing a community's urban core. Infrastructure and public services are

already in place, and development remains concentrated where impacts have already

occurred—a strategy many urban planners advocate as a means of discouraging urban

sprawl and associated stormwater pollution. To encourage redevelopment, many

communities offer financial incentives or exemptions to developers. For instance, local

governments may offer a developer an exemption from meeting regulatory criteria for

stormwater treatment even if significant amounts of new impervious surface are added in

redevelopment.

However, properties being redeveloped must be considered in efforts to reduce pollution

from urban stormwater runoff, since many of these properties were developed prior to the

adoption of state stormwater regulations that set criteria for on-site stormwater

management. Most properties developed prior to 1982 were not required to provide

stormwater detention and few of these sites have any means of managing or providing

water quality treatment for stormwater. Redeveloped sites also are typically utilized at a

higher intensity, further contributing to overall stormwater impacts. These areas are often

land-limited, concentrated in downtown business and commercial districts, and in drainage

basins that continue to be significant contributors to stormwater pollution.

Furthermore, while new development standards may control stormwater runoff, they are

only as effective as the BMPs they utilize. Overall increases in pollution from stormwater

runoff will still occur, making it necessary to retrofit some older urban areas. This may be

accomplished through regional stormwater treatment, in areas where this is feasible and

affordable.

Local government requirements for redevelopment vary, but most offer exemptions of one

form or another from stormwater treatment standards, either for projects under a particular

size or in special areas, such as historical districts and downtowns. The Southwest Florida

Water Management District (SWFWMD) currently requires that permittees meet new

development stormwater treatment standards only if there is an increase in pollution or

change in the discharge point. This action seeks to require that properties being
75

redeveloped meet current stormwater standards, but only for that portion of the property

that is impacted. Furthermore, when on-site treatment is not feasible, developers should

be given the flexibility to satisfy their requirements in other ways. These recommendations

are based on an existing redevelopment ordinance for the City of St. Petersburg, which

was adopted in 1994 and widely considered to be fair as well as environmentally

beneficial. Since its adoption, the City has granted only one exemption.

By allowing alternative on-site treatment or off-site mitigation, communities can continue

to encourage redevelopment without sacrificing stormwater treatment and associated

impacts to the bay. As part of this effort, the NEP will evaluate the alternative best

management practices that might be used when on-site treatment is not feasible. Options

include contributions to a regional stormwater facility located in the same drainage area

(possibly through payments to a stormwater "bank"), the collection of stormwater in

cisterns or underground vaults, the use of sediment sumps, or improvements to existing

stormwater systems adjacent to the site, as well as non-structural BMPs such as street

sweeping.

Strategy:

This strategy calls for revisions to existing rules and regulations to require that properties

being redeveloped meet current stormwater treatment standards. This would apply only

to that portion of the site being redeveloped and in cases where more than 3,000 square

feet of impervious surface are added or reconstructed. When on-site treatment is not

feasible, rule revisions should allow developers to provide equivalent value, either through

contributions to a stormwater "bank," off-site mitigation or by implementing approved

BMPs.

Revise local government comprehensive plans and codes and SWFWMD regulations to

require that properties being redeveloped meet existing stormwater treatment standards

according to criteria outlined above. If on-site treatment is not feasible, allow equivalent

off-site mitigation or compensation. This may entail:

! amendments to SWFWMD stormwater rules to allow alternative stormwater treatment

options for properties being redeveloped

! amendments to local development standards, including zoning laws and

comprehensive plans and codes, to require stormwater treatment for properties being

redeveloped, and to allow alternative means to satisfy those requirements when

on-site treatment is not feasible

District Action:

Participate (through TBEP) in the comparison of alternative stormwater treatments.

The District will continue research on paving materials at the Florida Aquarium site

and other sites as appropriate. District Regulatory staff will explore the appropriate

use of flexible or alternative criteria on an action-by-action basis. If, over time, a

common alternative emerges, then District staff will consider making rule changes to
76

incorporate this common alternative.

B.1.6 Action Plan SW-8 Encourage Best Management Practices on Farms

Stormwater runoff from agricultural operations contributes significant amounts of nitrogen,

pesticide residues and suspended solids to waterways. This action is aimed at reducing

nitrogen loadings to the bay from runoff associated with agricultural operations.

While intensive agriculture accounts for only 6 percent of the bay's total nitrogen loading,

studies commissioned by the Tampa Bay NEP indicate it is a major contributor in localized

areas of south Hillsborough and Manatee counties. The studies indicate that 23 percent

of the land in the Little Manatee River basin is intensively farmed, mainly with row crops

and citrus groves. These operations contribute an estimated 23 percent of the total

nitrogen load entering the bay from that watershed. In the Manatee River segment,

intensive farming operations comprise an estimated 9 percent of the nitrogen load.

The use of BMPs developed by agricultural experts can assist farmers in minimizing

impacts to water and sediment quality while ensuring profitable crop production. BMPs

generally include a broad array of structural and non-structural recommendations; many

are targeted specifically at reducing fertilizer or pesticide use and improving water

management.

Most bay area farmers utilize some BMPs in their daily operations. However, more

widespread acceptance and promotion of BMPs—with recommendations tailored

specifically for different crops—are needed. A first step might be to expand and update the

BMP selector guides produced by the University of Florida's Institute of Food and

Agricultural Services (IFAS) to reflect new technologies available since the guide was last

revised in 1983. The BMP guides also could be tailored to specific segments of the

agricultural industry.

Additionally, some types of agricultural operations which generate intensive nutrient

loadings, such as dairy farming, may warrant cost-sharing programs to assist farmers in

making the improvements necessary to retain and/or treat runoff on site. Dairy farmers,

for instance, face costly mandates to retain runoff on their property by constructing

lagoons and upgrading cooling ponds to prevent ground or surface water contamination

by nitrates.

BMPs aimed at conserving water also may be adapted to reduce fertilizer use and,

subsequently, farm runoff. One technique developed in recent years allows fertilizer to be

applied through drip or microjet irrigation systems. This practice, called "fertigation,"

enables farmers to apply liquid fertilizer in smaller, more precise doses, reducing the

chance of over fertilization. Use of fertigation can add flexibility and precision to a fertilizer

management program, thus benefiting the farmer as well as the bay, although it is not

economically feasible for every type of crop. However, to realize these benefits, farmers

must be properly instructed in the operation of fertigation systems, which are

computer-controlled and require some training to master.
77

Farmers are not required to install fertigation systems. Nevertheless, more than 95 percent

of Florida strawberry growers use drip irrigation, and most of those fertigate. A smaller

percentage of vegetable growers have converted to micro-irrigation, but most who have

also fertigate. The situation is reversed among citrus growers: most have converted to

micro-irrigation, but a smaller percentage fertigate. Fertigation and micro-irrigation are

often cost-prohibitive for lower market value crops such as water melons, and currently

considered too labor-intensive for non-mulched crops such as cabbage and potatoes.

However, rules developed by the Southwest Florida Water Management District

(SWFWMD) offer opportunities to encourage and expand use of fertigation where

practicable.

Rules adopted by SWFWMD for the Southern Water Use Caution Area require farmers

to reduce water use by specific amounts over a period of years. The farmers may utilize

a variety of irrigation methods to achieve the efficiencies required. One method of reducing

water consumption is through the use of micro-irrigation systems, which deliver controlled

amounts of water directly to a plant's roots. These systems also can be used to apply

liquid fertilizer in the same controlled manner. If growers chose micro-irrigation systems

to comply with new water use restrictions, they will have the opportunity to fertigate as well.

Growers should be aware of the environmental benefits as well as the costs associated

with fertigation so they can make the best choices for their irrigation systems.

The District's Agricultural Ground and Surface Water Management program (AGSWMP)

provides another opportunity to promote the use of BMPs. This program allows farmers

to implement a surface and ground water management plan in lieu of obtaining an

Environmental Resource Permit. The voluntary plans are developed by the Natural

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)—formerly the Soil Conservation Service—and

administered by SWFWMD. The plans could be strengthened by encouraging the use of

fertigation and other runoff-reducing BMPs as applicable.

Strategy:

The strategy for this action focuses on more aggressive promotion of BMPs, improved

instruction in the use of fertigation systems, and the investigation of funding programs that

could provide financial assistance to farmers who wish to utilize BMPs.

Investigate the potential for strengthening AGSWMPS to strongly encourage

runoff-reducing BMPs, where economically feasible, including fertigation and

micro-irrigation systems. Where effective BMPs are not already in use, encourage their

use.

District Action:

The District will continue to work closely with the agricultural community to ensure

BMP’s are utilized through the Agricultural Ground and Surface Water Management

program (AGSWMP). District Regulatory staff will explore the appropriate use of

flexible or alternative regulatory criteria on an action-by-action basis. If, over time,

a common alternative emerges, then District staff will consider making rule changes
78

to incorporate this common alternative. 

B.1.7 Action Plan SW-9 Improve Compliance with Agricultural Ground and

Surface Water Management Plans

Florida statutes exempt certain agricultural activities from surface water permitting

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

However, confusion about or misinterpretation of the exemptions has led to agricultural

activities which may have adverse environmental impacts.

In an effort to ensure that surface water degradation is minimized or eliminated, the

Southwest Florida Water Management District and the Natural Resource Conservation

Service, formerly the Soil Conservation Service, have developed a voluntary program that

assists farmers in protecting water resources. The Agricultural Ground and Surface Water

Management Program, or AGSWMP, educates farmers about exemptions and helps

farmers develop water management plans that often enable them to qualify for a permit

exemption.

A matrix of best management practices (BMPs) has been developed for the program,

listing each BMP and its potential benefits. Using this matrix, NRCS specialists inspect

an agricultural operation and evaluate which BMPs are suitable. A plan is developed and

the farmer is asked to implement its recommendations, providing a faster, non-regulatory

avenue for compliance with surface water rules.

Since the program's creation in 1991, surface water management plans have been

developed for more than 3,000 acres of farmland in Hillsborough and Manatee counties.

While these efforts are impressive, the percentage of agricultural lands managed under

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

and Manatee counties, for example, had more than 112,000 acres devoted to citrus,

vegetables, or some other form of intensive agriculture in 1990.

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

approved, few if any follow-up inspections are conducted to ensure that farm operators

have implemented the plans. Lack of sufficient staff to handle these responsibilities has

been identified as a major reason for the lack of follow-up.

The AGSWM program provides a streamlined, less cumbersome approach for growers

to comply with the intent of SWFWMD's wetlands and water quality protection rules. But

without a reasonable effort to check on the implementation of the AGSWM plans, the

effectiveness of the program cannot be determined.

Strategy:

The strategy for this action involves one regulatory action to monitor compliance with

AGSWM plans and one voluntary action to encourage greater participation in the program.
79

1) When SWFWMD visits a farm in conjunction with a water use renewal permit, it can

use that occasion to check compliance with the farm's AGSWM plan. The site visit

made at the time of water use permit renewal provides a convenient time to verify

that an existing AGSWM plan is being implemented as agreed to by the grower.

If the inspection shows that a farming operation is not in compliance with the

approved AGSWM plan, SWFWMD could allow a grace period in which to comply.

Failure to comply within the grace period could be grounds to nullify the permit

exemption and require a formal Environmental Resource Permit.

2) Recruit growers in Hillsborough and Manatee counties who have successfully

implemented AGSWM plans to showcase the results of their efforts to other who

qualify for the AGSWM program. Responsible parties: SWFWMD, ARCS, local

extension services

District Action:

The District will continue to work closely with the agricultural community to ensure

compliance with the Agricultural Ground and Surface Water Management program

(AGSWMP) plans. District Regulatory staff will explore the appropriate use of

flexible or alternative regulatory criteria on an action-by-action basis. If, over time,

a common alternative emerges, then District staff will consider making rule changes

to incorporate this common alternative. 

B.1.8 Action Plan WW-1 Expand the Use of Reclaimed Water Where Reuse

Benefits the Bay

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

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

benefits and some important challenges- to a region anxious to conserve its freshwater

supplies, and at the same time, save the bay from an overly rich diet of nutrients

discharged in wastewater.

Today, projects to reclaim wastewater for irrigation and other applications are underway

in all three counties bordering the bay. Local governments now reuse roughly 40 million

gallons of treated wastewater per day, mostly for urban and agricultural irrigation, but also

for industrial purposes. Projects planned or underway in local communities will more than

triple that amount.

The Wilson-Grizzle Bill, which called for advanced technology to limit pollutants discharged

to the bay from domestic wastewater facilities, was a driving force behind these early

efforts and a lifeline for a polluted bay. The legislation prompted the City of Tampa in 1979

to upgrade its wastewater treatment plant at Hookers Point, a change that helped bring

about sweeping improvements in the bay's water quality. At the same time, St. Petersburg

was launching its reclaimed water project, which eliminated most of its direct wastewater

discharges to the bay. The Wilson-Grizzle legislation was eventually repealed but a

subsequent Grizzle-Figg bill reinstated the requirements for advanced wastewater
80

treatment.

The potential benefits of reuse to the bay and to a water-thirsty region are substantial.

Reuse already has helped to reduce annual nitrogen loadings to the bay and will play a

key role in the strategy to reduce future nitrogen loadings—although reuse does not

completely eliminate nitrogen loadings since some portion will eventually enter the bay in

stormwater runoff. It is also widely recognized as a cost-effective, long-term alternative

source of water for irrigation and commercial applications and potentially for potable

needs. Reuse is a key element of the Southwest Florida Water Management District's

(SWFWMD) New Water Source Initiative, a strategic blueprint designed to reduce the

area's dependence on groundwater and protect the Floridan Aquifer from saltwater

intrusion. SWFWMD's regional basin boards also have been instrumental in providing

cooperative funding for innovative reuse programs.

Nevertheless, projects to reclaim wastewater should be evaluated carefully to determine

their net impact to the bay and to address various public health and logistical concerns.

The City of Tampa is now proposing a project to reclaim as much as 50 million gallons of

the treated wastewater it discharges daily to Hillsborough Bay from its Howard F. Curren

facility at Hookers Point. Discharges from this facility now represent about 7 percent of the

total freshwater inflow to Hillsborough Bay during the dry months of the year.

While the bay will benefit from the reduction in nutrients to this heavily impacted sector of

the bay, a part of this load may be rerouted to the Tampa Bypass Canal, mixed with canal

water, and then pumped to the Hillsborough Reservoir. Additionally, Hillsborough Bay will

lose a portion of its freshwater inflow. A planning and environmental impact assessment

for this project began in late 1995.

Strategy:

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

that result in a net benefit to Tampa Bay.

1) Evaluate the environmental impacts of the major reuse projects planned for the

Tampa Bay region, including the net effects of reducing or eliminating the discharge

(changes in salinity and pollutant loadings) and any corresponding impacts to rivers

and reservoirs. Evaluations also should adequately address the project's ability to

satisfy any public health concerns or perceptions stemming from the use of reclaimed

water. Any environmental impacts associated with reuse projects should be balanced

against the public need for cost-effective water supply alternatives. The Tampa Bay

National Estuary Program recommends implementation of those reuse projects that

benefit the bay.

2) If current municipal and industrial reuse expansion plans coupled with other efforts to

reduce pollution are insufficient to meet long-term goals for nitrogen management in

the bay, investigate additional opportunities to expand reuse by interconnecting

distribution systems or constructing larger storage facilities.
81

District Action:

The District has developed an effective program to promote the reuse of water. Two

mechanisms which encourage the development of reuse systems are: 1) regulatory

requirements for water use permittees, and 2) financial assistance through the basin

Cooperative Funding program and the New Water Sources Initiative program.

Regulatory policies require permitted water users to utilize the lowest quality of water

appropriate for the specific use, not to waste water, and to incorporate reuse

measures to the greatest extent possible. Reclaimed water may be considered a

lower quality water than potable groundwater and must be used if the water is

available and is technically and economically feasible.

The District’s regulatory reuse requirements are complemented by two funding

assistance programs: 1) the Cooperative Funding Program, and 2) the NWSI

program. The Cooperative Funding Program will fund up to 50% of the cost of reuse

system design and construction; for pumping, storage, and transmission facilities; and

for master plans. As of 1997, over 100 reuse projects had been awarded cooperative

funding District-wide. When fully developed, these project will provide more than 100

mgd of reclaimed water. 

Within the Tampa Bay watershed, 11 major reuse project will be implemented or will

begin construction between 1995 - 2000. All of the projects will either reduce or

eliminate direct or indirect discharges to Tampa Bay. Many of these projects are

phased and transcend bay segments and cannot be listed as benefiting specific

portions of Tampa Bay. Major projects in which the District is cooperating are:

Northwest Hillsborough Reuse Project

Manasota Regional Reuse System Project

South Tampa Area Reuse Project

Gulfport Reclaimed Water System

City of Oldsmar Reclaimed Water System

City of Dunedin Reclaimed Water Transmission Mains

Pinellas County Reclaimed Water System

Clearwater Reclaimed Water System

Largo Reclaimed Water System

City of Pinellas Park Reclaimed Water System

City of Tampa Water Resource Recovery Project

B.2 BAY HABITATS

B.2.1 Action Plan BH-1 Implement the Tampa Bay Master Plan for Habitat

Restoration and Protection

Recognizing that some coastal habitats have been lost in greater proportion than others,

the NEP Master Plan for Habitat Restoration and Protection seeks to restore the historic

balance of habitats in Tampa Bay. The Plan outlines specific strategies and goals to
82

increase certain habitats while preserving and enhancing those that now exist.

The Plan emphasizes the restoration of low-salinity tidal streams found along the dozens

of meandering creeks that eventually enter Tampa Bay. These quiet areas, critical to the

life cycle of fish such as snook and mullet and birds like the great blue heron and snowy

egret, comprised about half of all estuarine wetland habitats at the turn of the century.

Today, these low-salinity habitats make up about 22 percent of the total. In contrast,

mangrove forests also made up about 50 percent of the shoreline in 1900. Today, they

account for about 73 percent of the remaining shoreline vegetation —although

mangroves—like all of the bay's habitats—have experienced substantial declines in

acreage.

The plan seeks to restore a minimum of 100 acres of low-salinity tidal streams every five

years, while preserving and enhancing existing mangrove and salt marsh vegetation. The

Plan also identifies 28 sites as priorities for habitat protection, either through direct

purchase of lands or other means such as conservation easements on private property.

Most of these sites were recently incorporated into the Southwest Florida Water

Management District's (SWFWMD) Save our Rivers/Preservation 2000 Plan, which sets

priorities for public lands acquisition.

While the NEP Plan most heavily focuses on repairing tidal streams, other habitats also

will be gradually restored. Attention will be directed to salt barrens (extremely salty high

marsh), upland forests and mud flats, all of which play an important role in the Tampa Bay

ecosystem. The NEP's Habitat Restoration Subcommittee has adopted the Florida Game

& Freshwater Fish Commission's (FGFWFC) strategies for upland restoration. Upland

protection needs will be met in part through local land acquisition efforts.

The concept of restoring the balance is relatively new and has important implications for

Tampa Bay and other coastal areas. Traditionally, habitat restoration and land acquisition

have been largely opportunistic endeavors: Agencies and communities have sought to

purchase and restore habitat based on what was available or, in some cases, most visibly

connected to the bay. This approach toward highly visible projects helped to build

community awareness of the environmental plight and needs of the bay at a time when

this was critically needed. It also demonstrated to skeptics that habitat restoration was

possible.

In recent years, restoration efforts have increasingly focused on providing a mosaic of

habitat types within a given project to maximize the benefits to fish and wildlife. The NEP

Plan takes this concept a step further by developing restoration and protection goals

based on the needs of key wildlife "guilds," or groups of animals that share common

habitat and feeding preferences.

The white ibis provides a textbook example of how this new planning approach might

protect an impacted species. Populations of the white ibis have declined dramatically in

the last half-century, resulting in its listing by the FGFWFC as a species of special

concern. Adult ibis nest along the bay, but require inland freshwater sources of food for
83

their young. These shallow freshwater wetlands or "frog" ponds have been hard hit hard

by development—forcing the ibis to travel farther and farther to find food for their young.

The NEP Plan outlines four management strategies for the protection and restoration of

seasonal freshwater ponds. The first is to identify and protect all potential ibis for aging

habitat within a certain distance from the bird colonies in Tampa Bay. The second is to

create a wetland mitigation banking system that creates or restores seasonal marshes

within these foraging areas before these impacts become unavoidable. One potential

location for such a bank is the combined TECO and Reeder Farms property south of

Cockroach Bay where three of the four white ibis foraging zones overlap.

The third strategy is to create or restore marshes on publicly owned land. Finally, the Plan

recommends that communities and agencies actively seek to acquire new properties for

habitat restoration and protection, and especially for seasonal marsh restoration.

Other components of the NEP Plan address management of public lands, especially exotic

species control and eradication. The Plan also seeks to direct mitigation to priority

restoration projects using criteria discussed in Action BH-2. The Habitat Restoration and

Protection Master Plan for Tampa Bay is available under separate cover from the NEP.

Already, about 207 acres along Tampa Bay have been restored through projects financed

primarily by the SWFWMD's Surface Water & Management (SWIM) program and the

Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Pollution Recovery Trust Fund. Several

projects now underway and in the planning stages will boost that number by up to 1,000

acres.

Pinellas, Hillsborough and Manatee counties all have administrative programs for the

public purchase of environmentally sensitive lands. Pinellas and Hillsborough counties

programs are funded by local taxes that complement state-funded public land acquisition

programs such as Preservation 2000, Save Our Rivers, and Conservation and

Recreational Lands (CARL). Manatee County's program is for the purchase of land in the

Lake Manatee Reservoir and is financed by the county's Water Utilities Enterprise Fund.

Private land acquisition programs such as the Nature Conservancy also contribute to the

preservation of upland and wetland habitats.

Strategy:

Through the end of 1997, the District SWIM staff either completed or had under

development 30 restoration projects for Tampa Bay: 25 projects under development and

five projects either fully or partially constructed. Since 1989, SWIM restoration projects

have evolved from small, simple salt marshes (<0.1 acre) to large, complex assemblages

of coastal habitats (>650 acres). Since 1989, 30 restoration projects have been completed

for a total of 207.1 acres. 

These progressive, interdisciplinary projects typically combine coastal habitat

enhancement, restoration and creation (including improved water quality through
84

enhanced tidal flushing and/or water circulation) with stormwater treatment. In addition,

each project typically employs the restoration strategy of enhancing, restoring, and/or

creating habitat mosaics (“ecosystem restoration” approach). A habitat mosaic represents

a collection of habitats normally found in coastal ecosystems, inclusive of uplands,

transitional habitats, freshwater wetlands, and various estuarine habitats (open water, live

bottom, seagrass beds, low and high salt marshes, salterns, mud flats, etc.). To date, all

SWIM projects have been constructed on public land and represent cooperative efforts

(both financially and in-kind services) between the District and a local government or state

agency. Each project has involved a year or more of planning, permitting, and

implementation. This TBNEP action plan presents steps to implement the Tampa Bay

Master Plan for Habitat Restoration and Protection, including elements to secure and

preserve funding sources.

1) Finalize the list of priority restoration projects compiled from the individual plans of

various agencies and local governments. Responsible parties: Tampa Bay NEP; in

cooperation with the established workgroup of agencies, organizations and local

governments

2) Ensure that priorities for habitat restoration and protection are incorporated into the

1997 action plans submitted to NEP by local governments and agencies for

implementation of the CCMP. Additionally, ensure that these projects are

incorporated into local government and agency permit reviews and conditions.

3) Direct public and private mitigation to restoration projects identified as priorities.

4) To support implementation of restoration and protection efforts:

! Pursue a permanent source of funding for the SWIM Program;

! Secure funding for the Florida Marine Research Institute's Marine Habitat and

Restoration Program, which was discontinued recently due to state funding

cutbacks;

! Secure a permanent source of funding for Preservation 2000, the state environmental lands acquisition program;

! Amend provisions of the Hillsborough County Pollution Recovery Trust Fund to

require that monies collected from fines be spent within a reasonable period of

time.

District Action:

The Tampa Bay Master Plan for Habitat Restoration and Protection is a listing of

potential sites. The projects selected for implementation by the District are based

on: the availability of land (to date, all SWIM projects have been constructed on

public land and represent cooperative efforts, both financially and in-kind services,

between the District and a local government or state agency); the potential for
85

creating a meaningful acreage of restored coastal habitats; the ability to maximize

the number of habitat types; and the ability to meet the TBNEP goals for “restoring

the balance”. 

From 1989 through 1994, the District completed twenty-one habitat restoration

projects bay-wide. These projects resulted in over eighty-one acres of enhanced

and/or restored coastal habitats for Tampa Bay. For the period 1995 - 2000, the

District proposes the following habitat restoration projects:

Project Name: Balm-Boyette Habitat Restoration Site

Project Description: The Balm-Boyette project is the creation and restoration of

1,000 acres of freshwater habitat specifically designed as a forage area for wading

birds. The site is within the feeding area for the Alafia River rookery identified in

“Restoring the Balance.” Implementation of this project is highly compatible with

the TBNEP’s “Restoring the Balance” approach to ecosystem restoration.

Project Participants: SWFWMD , Hillsborough County.

Location (drainage basin): Hillsborough Bay

Contribution Toward Goal: 1,000 acres of freshwater habitat

Implementation Schedule: Design FY 99, Construction starting FY 01

Project Name: Coastal Habitat Restoration in the Tampa Bay Watershed

Project Description: The implementation of habitat restoration project combining

coastal habitat enhancement, restoration and creation including where feasible,

improved water quality through enhanced tidal flushing, water circulation, and/or

stormwater treatment. Each project typically employs the restoration strategy of

enhancing, restoring, and/or creating habitat mosaics (“ecosystem restoration”

approach). A habitat mosaic represents a collection of habitats normally found in

coastal ecosystems, inclusive of uplands, transitional habitats, freshwater wetlands,

and various estuarine habitats (open water, live bottom, seagrass beds, low and

high salt marshes, salterns, mud flats, etc.). The District SWIM Program’s use of

the habitat mosaic restoration strategy is highly compatible with the TBNEP’s

“Restoring the Balance” approach to ecosystem restoration.

Project Participants: SWFWMD, City of Oldsmar, City of Gulfport, City of St.

Petersburg, City of Clearwater, Pinellas County, FDOT, FDEP, City of Tampa,

Hillsborough County, Port Manatee, Tampa Electric, Cargill, private land owners.

Old Tampa Bay Watershed

Contribution Toward Goal: 123 acres

Implementation Schedule:

Osgood Point - Complete, 10 acres

Tarpon Outfall Canal II - Complete, 1 acre

Del Oro Tract - Complete, 1 acre

Mobbly Bay I - Complete, 14 acres

Cooper’s Point -Design 1995, Construction 1999, 7 acres

Allens Creek I - Completed, 1 acres
86

Howard Frankland West - Design 1996, Construction 1999, 55 acres

Cypress Point - Design 1996, Construction 2000, 5 acres

Mobbly Bay II - Design 1998, Construction 1999, 10 acres

Allens Creek II - Design 1999, Construction 2000, 14 acres

Rocky Creek - Design 2000, Construction 2002, 10 acres

Dick Creek - Design 2000, Construction 2002, 10 acres

Tarpon Outfall Canal - Design 1999, Construction 2000, 5 acres

Likelihood of Completion: High

How financed: SWFWMD, Ecosystem Management and Restoration

Trust Fund, Local Governments, Federal Grants, Private

Hillsborough Bay Watershed

Contribution Toward Goal: 140 acres

Implementation Schedule:

SE McKay Bay - Design 2000, Construction 2001, 8 acres

Dug Creek - Design 1998, Construction 1999, 10 acres

Davis Tract - Design 1998, Construction 1999, 100 acres

Port Redwing - Design 1999, Construction 2000, 30 acres

Cracker Rd. Fish Farm - Dependant upon acquisition, 40 acres

US 41 Fish Farm -Dependant upon acquisition, 10 acres

Cargill Property - Design 2001, Construction 2002, 50 acres

Delaney Creek Popoff II -Dependant upon acquisition, 50 acres

Likelihood of Completion: High

How financed: SWFWMD, Ecosystem Management and Restoration

Trust Fund, Local Governments, Federal Grants, Private

Middle Tampa Bay Watershed

Contribution Toward Goal: 575 acres

Implementation Schedule:

MacDill AFB I - Complete, 34 acres

Cockroach Bay 1A, 1B - Complete, 103 acres

MacDill AFB II - Design 1998, Construction 2000, 33 acres

Mangrove Bay III - Design 1997, Construction 1998, 21 acres

Bartlett Park - Design 1997, Construction 1998, 4 acres

Wolf Branch Creek - Design 1999, Construction 2000, 200 acres

Cockroach Bay 1C, 1D - Design 1999, Construction 2000, 100 acres

Apollo Beach - Design 1998, Construction 2000, 50 acres

MacDill AFB III - Design 2000, Construction 2001, 30 acres

Likelihood of Completion: High

How financed: SWFWMD, Ecosystem Management and Restoration Trust

Fund, Local Governments, Federal Grants

Lower Tampa Bay Watershed

Contribution Toward Goal: 710 acres

Implementation Schedule:
87

Terra Ceia Buffer Preserve - Design 1999, Construction 2000, 650 acres

Emerson Point - Design 1998, Construction 1999, 50 acres

Braden River II - Design 1995, Construction 1998, 5 acres

South Skyway - Design 1996, Construction 1998, 5 acres

Likelihood of Completion: High

How financed: SWFWMD, Ecosystem Management and Restoration Trust

Fund, Local Governments, Federal Grants

Boca Ciega Bay Watershed

Location (drainage basin): Boca Ciega Bay

Contribution Toward Goal: 40.5 acres

Implementation Schedule:

Joe’s Creek 1A - Complete, 0.5 acres

Long Cross Bayou - Complete, 2 acres

Clam Bayou I - Complete, 10 acres

Boca Ciega II - Design 1996, Construction 1999, 3 acres

Clam Bayou II - Design 1998, Construction 2000, 25 acres

Cross Bayou/Joe’s Creek - Design 1997, Construction 1999, 5 acres

Likelihood of Completion: High

How financed: SWFWMD, Ecosystem Management and Restoration Trust

Fund, Local Governments, Federal Grants

B.2.2 Action Plan BH-2 Establish and Implement Mitigation Criteria for Tampa

Bay and Identify Priority Sites for Mitigation

Mitigation — the process by which applicants whose projects impact wetlands create new

ones in their place or restore or enhance existing wetlands—is required of both private

developers and public agencies in Florida to compensate for loss of natural habitats.

Typically, these manmade wetlands are established on the same site as the project, in an

area not slated for development.

But keeping track of these projects—and how closely they mimic natural wetlands—has

proven difficult with the government's limited resources. Studies by the Florida Department

of Natural Resources' Aquatic Preserves Division and Marine Research Institute in 1988

reported a failure rate of more than 80 percent for mitigation projects in Southwest Florida

and Tampa Bay. A follow-up study conducted by the Florida. Department of

Environmental Protection (FDEP) revealed that one-third of applicants issued permits by

the agency had never even attempted the required mitigation. Of those that had, only 13

of 62 mitigation projects were deemed "ecologically successful," meaning they generally

provided the same functions as natural wetlands destroyed by the project.

In addition to problems with enforcing mitigation requirements, some bay managers

believe the mitigation criteria used by the state is insufficient to protect some particularly

valuable bay habitats.

Problems with the current mitigation program, and pressures from private interests who
88

view it as too cumbersome, have led to a new concept called "mitigation banking." It allows

developers to compensate for wetland losses in one place by preserving, restoring or

creating wetlands in another to achieve a no-net loss of wetlands.

A new FDEP rule allows mitigation banking in some instances, although it remains a

controversial issue. Proponents say mitigation banking can consolidate man-made

marshes into central areas, increasing the odds for success and making the permits easier

to monitor and enforce. Proponents also say it will result in larger wetland areas that are

more useful for birds and other wildlife than, for instance, a tiny wetland in the middle of

a shopping center or along a busy road. Critics say mitigation banking will make it easier

to destroy wetlands. If an applicant can simply pay to restore marshes somewhere else,

they fear there will be little incentive to preserve wetlands on site. Many concerns about

mitigation banking stem from provisions (or lack of provisions) in the new state rule.

Under the rule, mitigation banks are optional and can be either publicly or privately owned

or operated. The state encourages a free-market approach, so does not specify how much

a developer can be charged for mitigation credits. Generally, the price of credits covers

the cost of the restoration and monitoring for several years, in addition to providing a

margin of profit for the private restoration company. Banks are jointly administered by the

FDEP and the state's water management districts.

The state rule also allows private companies to purchase lands for mitigation banks, or

developers themselves to purchase and operate mitigation banks. Additionally, the new

rule permits developers to transfer their mitigation to publicly owned lands if the landowner

agrees, as is the case with a bank on state-owned property at Little Pine Island in Lee

County.

Whether mitigation banks should be permitted on publicly owned lands is a key area of

disagreement among bay managers. Some believe mitigation should only be allowed on

private lands, with those lands subsequently turned over to a public agency for

management. Others say mitigation banking offers a chance to restore damaged public

lands much faster than limited government funds currently permit.

The shortcomings of the current mitigation program and the lack of a significant track

record on wetland mitigation banking will continue to make the issue of how and where

banks should be used complex and controversial.

The Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (NEP) supports the development of mitigation

criteria for the Tampa Bay region, including the development of a regional mitigation

banking plan that addresses specific habitat needs and priorities. A workgroup of the

Natural Resources Committee of the Agency on Bay Management (ABM) was convened

in May 1996 to evaluate existing guidelines and develop recommendations. Participants

have reviewed and compared federal, state and local criteria for mitigation banking, as a

first step in developing recommendations for the Tampa Bay region. The group also is

identifying areas that may be desirable for banking, based on priorities for restoration and

protection established in the NEP's Master Plan for Habitat Restoration and Protection.
89

A regional mitigation banking plan would accomplish several goals. First, it would ensure

appropriate siting of banks in areas where they are most likely to succeed and where other

valuable habitats, such as mature pine forests, are not sacrificed for wetlands. A regional

plan also would prevent a profusion of widely scattered banks that are difficult to monitor,

and would give local governments guidance in drafting future land-use plans.

Permitting agencies should continue to emphasize avoidance of wetland impacts in lieu

of on- or off-site mitigation. Where wetlands impact cannot be avoided, on-site mitigation

should be encouraged if it is likely to be effective. If on-site compensation is not feasible,

mitigation banking should be encouraged.

Strategy:

STEP 1 Identify areas where mitigation banks should be used in the Tampa Bay

watershed, and develop criteria for management and operation of those banks.

A. Generate a map that identifies all existing and proposed preserves and major

conservation easements, using the NEP's 1996 base map from the Habitat

Restoration and Protection Plan for Tampa Bay and the Game & Fresh Water

Fish Commission's Regional Wildlife Habitat Plan (1996). Identify areas best

suited to mitigation banking.

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

region. The ABM workgroup has considered:

! whether mitigation conducted by local governments and private developers

should count toward overall habitat restoration goals for Tampa Bay.

Projects which produce a net increase in valuable estuarine, oligohaline and

native upland watershed habitats should "count" toward the overall restoration goals for Tampa Bay.

! specific criteria to decide when on- or off-site mitigation is most appropriate.

Recommendations being developed.

! ownership, management and associated cost issues, including whether mitigation banks operated on private lands purchased by the developer or private bank operator should be deeded to a public agency.

Recommendations are being developed.

! limitations on the total number of mitigation banks, and the number that one

private operator can manage, and provisions to make banks large enough

to increase ecological values and prevent a glut of banks with no

"customers." Recommendations being developed.

! siting considerations, to ensure that wetland values lost in one area are

replaced in the same general area, thus preventing an overall decline in
90

water quality or habitat within one watershed (for example, positioning banks

adjacent to existing wetlands could make replicating the types of wetlands

lost easier, increase its probability of success, and boost its value to wildlife).

Another issue involves siting banks in areas that fill gaps in existing wildlife

habitat corridors. Workgroup is evaluating FDEP language to decide if

changes are needed.

! provisions to ensure the bank mimics as closely as possible the values,

appearance and function of the original habitat. Where this is not practical,

mitigation credits should be granted at a higher ratio, as in low-salinity tidal

streams, salt barrens, hard-bottom communities or other critical habitats

within Tampa Bay. The following ratios have been presented for

consideration: 2:1 (creation), 4:1 (restoration/enhancement), 10:1

(preservation). [from Scientifically Defensible Compensation Ratios for

Wetland Mitigation] .

! bank monitoring, enforcement and penalties for noncompliance.

Recommendations being developed.

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

compensation if the environmental benefits of such activity will significantly

exceed the level of impact. Recommendations being developed.

! whether mitigation banks should be considered a replacement for publicly

financed restoration projects. Mitigation banking should not replace publicly

financed restoration. However, the potential exists for some mitigation

banking credits to be generated by local governments for restoration projects

that produce a net habitat gain and help achieve the goals of the bay

restoration plan.

! safeguards to protect productive native uplands from conversion to wetlands. The group is strongly opposed to converting productive native

uplands to wetlands. Recommendations being developed.

! mandating the establishment of a trust fund to ensure long-term management of the mitigation bank. The trust fund could be managed by a public

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

Conservancy. The group supports this concept. Most existing mitigation

banking criteria address this issue.

Private industry and other non-governmental and environmental groups have been

urged to participate. Recommendations will be forwarded to the Tampa Bay NEP in

early 1997 following review by the full Agency on Bay Management.

STEP 2 Implement recommendations from Step 1, and direct mitigation of estuarine

impacts to high-priority restoration areas identified in the Tampa Bay NEP
91

Habitat Restoration and Protection Master Plan.

District Action:

Participate (through TBEP and the ABM) in the review of mitigation criteria. District

Regulatory staff will explore the appropriate use of flexible or alternative criteria on

an action-by-action basis. If, over time, a common alternative emerges, then District

staff will consider making rule changes to incorporate this common alternative.

In a related effort, the District has been legislatively required to provide mitigation

for Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) road projects occurring within the

SWFWMD. The impacts are determined by the FDOT and the District prepares a

mitigation plan, submits it to the FDEP and the legislature for approval, and then

constructs the mitigation. Funding is provided based on $75,000 per acre of impact.

It is unlikely that the existing level of funding will be sufficient to provide all mitigation

required. This issue will likely be addressed in future legislative sessions. The

District has recently prepared the second annual FDOT mitigation plan and utilized,

where able, sites listed on the Tampa Bay Master Plan for Habitat Restoration and

Protection. No projects directly related to mitigation banking are proposed at this

time.

B.2.3 Action Plan BH-6 Encourage Waterfront Residents to Enhance

Shorelines and Limit Runoff from Yards

About half of Tampa Bay's natural shoreline has been altered by development or hardened

through the construction of seawalls, piers and jetties that limit plant and animal life. These

changes have led to significant declines in intertidal marsh and mangrove habitat, which

supply food and shelter for marine creatures and filter pollutants contained in runoff.

This action presents steps to encourage waterfront residents to soften or enhance seawalls and degraded natural shorelines with native vegetation, limestone rip-rap, terracing

or habitat reefs. When properly designed, these improvements not only benefit the

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

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

suitable options are often key deterrents to homeowners, who also are limited by site

specific considerations.

Currently, residents who wish to stabilize their shoreline may need to obtain a general

permit to install rip-rap or to soften existing structures, but the criteria for obtaining this

permit vary according to the nature of the surrounding shoreline and the type and amount

of work proposed. Exempting certain types of enhancement activities from the permit

requirement, or mandating only that the homeowner notify Florida Department of

Environmental Protection (FDEP) of the work—a noticed exemption—may encourage

more residents to undertake these projects.

Local communities seeking to encourage waterfront residents to enhance shorelines may

gain the most by targeting larger, finger-fill communities, where group permits are feasible,
92

especially when seawalls are replaced or repaired. The City of Clearwater's Environmental

Advisory Board, for example, has discussed the possibility of allowing homeowner groups

to adopt a management plan for their shorelines to encourage the planting or preservation

of mangroves. The management plan would specify mangrove trimming guidelines, and

homeowners who agree to abide by the guidelines could do the pruning themselves,

instead of having to hire a landscape architect as mandated by the current state mangrove

trimming rule.

Limiting pollution in runoff from waterfront yards also is encouraged. Residents can help

to reduce pollution to Tampa Bay by applying the eco-landscaping techniques prescribed

by the Florida Yards & Neighborhoods (FY&N) Program, which is administered by local

cooperative extension services. A companion FY&N homeowner's guide, which features

low-maintenance landscape design and maintenance tips, is ideally suited to the

environmentally conscious waterfront resident. Adopt-A-Canal programs also may be

effective in select areas in improving water and habitat quality in canals through public

stewardship and education.

Strategy:

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

residential shoreline enhancement, as well as informational resources to assist water-front

residents in evaluating shoreline options and implementing landscaping practices to

reduce runoff from their yards.

1) Develop property tax or other financial incentives to encourage habitat enhancement

along seawalls, and establish cost-share programs to promote group-permit shoreline

enhancement projects. For instance, property owners currently are entitled to lower

property valuations if part of their property is placed in a conservation easement;

perhaps a similar program could be instituted for homeowners who use alternative

shoreline stabilization and enhancement techniques. Additionally, a shoreline

management plan such as that proposed by the Clearwater's Environmental Advisory

Board could result in significant cost-savings to participating homeowners by allowing

them to trim their own mangroves under approved guidelines.

2) Evaluate whether a low-cost or no-cost general permit, a noticed exemption or a full

exemption is the best mechanism for encouraging shoreline enhancement, and

develop criteria for review of projects that will be eligible for the streamlined permit

process. Rule revisions may be needed to incorporate exemptions into existing rules.

3) Develop and distribute a resource card (#10-envelope size) to waterfront residents

through annual property tax notices to promote available tax incentives for shoreline

enhancement, as well as resources and publications addressing waterfront

landscaping and exotic plant control, and canal maintenance and improvement.

SWFWMD's 1993 report on Best Management Practices for Improvement of

Residential Canals includes informative boilerplate text for a public brochure on

enhancement of hardened shorelines. Text should be expanded to provide more
93

detail on general shoreline design options, associated costs, and appropriate

contacts, and then produced as a brochure for public distribution.

District Action:

Project Name: Adopt-a-Pond

Project Description: Hillsborough County and the District cooperatively sponsored a

program that offers county residents training and support necessary to maintain

effective stormwater drainage systems in their communities. The program assists

neighborhoods in properly landscaping the banks and shallow areas of the ponds

which are critical to their continued effectiveness. Additionally, the program provides

workshops to increase community understanding of water quality issues and facilitates

storm drain marking. Budgeted for FY 99 is assistance for Pinellas County to

implement a pilot project modeled after the Adopt-a-Pond program in Hillsborough

County.

B.2.4 Action Plan BH-7 Improve Compliance with and Enforcement of

Wetland Permits

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

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

of Environmental Regulation—now Florida Department of Environmental Protection

(FDEP)—in 1992 concluded that the majority of mitigation projects had either never been

constructed or failed to comply with the terms of their permit and did not function properly.

The generally low success rate statewide has been largely attributed to staffing shortfalls

and organizational structures that have traditionally segmented rather than integrated

permitting, compliance monitoring and enforcement functions. Without strong compliance

monitoring and enforcement, regulated interests often have little incentive to perform

compensatory mitigation in a manner consistent with the rules.

Wetland mitigation rules are administered by the FDEP, Southwest Florida Water

Management District, and by local governments with delegated or legislative authority for

wetland permitting.

Non-compliance with wetland mitigation permits in the Tampa Bay watershed has likely

contributed to a net loss of both freshwater and tidal wetlands. However, documenting

these trends has been extremely difficult because efforts to track compliance between and

within various regulatory agencies have been inconsistent and lacking in sufficient detail.

Inconsistent mitigation ratios, wetland delineation criteria, and design and performance

standards have further complicated efforts to assess results. Improving permit compliance

will require that agencies focus first on recognizing and permitting effective mitigation

designs, as well as increasing inspections during and after construction, and following up

to promote better project maintenance by regulated interests. Access to mitigation sites

also is a factor. In this regard, locally administered programs may have an advantage over

state or regional programs, although the costs of absorbing these additional

responsibilities may be an obstacle.
94

The state's new Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP) program, which consolidates

existing wetland resource, management and storage of surface waters, and sovereign

lands regulatory programs into a single permitting function, is expected to improve

compliance monitoring and enforcement by increasing interagency coordination and

reducing inconsistencies and duplication. Implementation of the ERP will create key

opportunities for the consolidation and reorganization of these functions within regulatory

agencies and participating local governments, and the creation of uniform standards for

wetland delineation. Additionally, the Environmental Protection Commission (EPC) of

Hillsborough County is currently developing a Memorandum of Understanding with

SWFWMD which will allow EPC to conduct all wetland compliance and enforcement tasks

within Hillsborough County. This agreement would result in more timely and consistent

reviews of mitigation projects, while eliminating duplication of services and the potential

for conflicting compliance criteria.

Strategy:

The strategy to improve wetland permit compliance monitoring and enforcement focuses

on establishing level-of-service targets, continued implementation and periodic

assessment of integrated permitting concepts advanced through the ERP program, and

evaluation of existing staffing and funding resources and needs as the basis for

recommendations for action. This strategy also calls for standardization of monitoring and

reporting requirements within and between enforcing agencies and municipalities.

1) Conduct a workshop to establish level-of-service targets for wetland permits

(performance criteria and monitoring requirements) and compliance monitoring and

enforcement within the Tampa Bay watershed, and assess associated staff and

funding needs. In establishing level-of-service targets, participants should explore

how principles of ecosystem management— which emphasize overall environmental

benefits to the watershed—can be integrated into permitting and compliance

programs. Additionally, they should evaluate ways to standardize reporting and

monitoring methods between and within agencies.

2) Expand agency and local government permitting staff training and regular retraining

to increase the emphasis on recognizing quality wetland mitigation designs as a first

step to ensure that quality projects are permitted. The FDEP's statewide mitigation

coordinator may be able to assist in organizing regular regional training seminars.

3) Continue to integrate permitting and compliance monitoring and enforcement

functions in an effort to maximize efficiency and provide "cradle to grave" permit

oversight, in which the same personnel that conduct permit reviews also are

responsible for compliance follow-up. Also, encourage interagency compliance

monitoring teams where feasible, including federal agencies.

4) Based on recommendations from Step 1, standardize mitigation success criteria as

well as monitoring and reporting requirements for created and restored wetlands.
95

5) Assess the effectiveness of efforts to improve compliance monitoring and

enforcement in the Tampa Bay watershed, including progress toward level-of-service

targets (particularly compliance rates), results of integrating staff to assist in these

efforts, and associated costs to agencies and applicants. Results of the assessment

should be reported in the Tampa Bay NEP's Biennial Environmental Monitoring

Report and the Agency on Bay Management's State of the Bay report.

District Action:

Any activity in this area, particularly related to compliance monitoring, would occur

through close coordination with the regulatory side of the District. District staff will

explore the appropriate use of flexible or alternative criteria on an action-by-action

basis. If, over time, a common alternative emerges, then District staff will consider

making rule changes to incorporate this common alternative. No projects have been

proposed at this time. 

B.2.5 Action Plan BH-8 Expand Habitat Mapping and Monitoring Programs

A critical element of the bay's management plan is the establishment and maintenance

of a monitoring program to measure progress toward meeting the goals of the Tampa Bay

National Estuary Program (NEP). This is very important to the local and state governments

implementing actions, since counties, cities and state agencies must have adequate

information to evaluate whether efforts spent on pollution abatement or other changes in

the watershed are reflected in improvements in bay quality. Monitoring of habitats is also

necessary to track progress toward reaching long-term restoration and protection goals

set by the program, and provide essential information that can be used to redirect and

refocus the plan.

One of the first efforts of the Tampa Bay NEP was to initiate a multi-year effort to develop

a baywide monitoring program capable of reliably measuring changes in bay quality. This

plan incorporates and expands on existing programs where possible, and consists of

seven major elements: water quality, berths, seagrass, bay scallop, fisheries, coastal

marshes and mangroves, and oligohaline habitats.

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

monitoring plan.

Strategy:

1) Continue the existing Southwest Florida Water Management District Surface Water

Improvement and Management (SWFWMD-SWIM) monitoring program mapping

areal extent of seagrass in Tampa Bay to track trends in areal extent and progress

toward restoration goals.

The extent of seagrass coverage in all areas of Tampa Bay is currently being

monitored by SWFWMD-SWIM every two years. To date, no permanent funding

source for the mapping program has been identified. 
96

2) Implement the Seagrass Conditions Monitoring Program as developed by the

Tampa Bay NEP Technical Advisory Committee. Hillsborough County monitors

seagrass conditions in Cockroach Bay, and Pinellas County conducts seagrass

monitoring in Fort DeSoto Park to track rates of seagrass scarring. The City of

Tampa conducts seagrass quality monitoring in Hillsborough Bay.

SWFWMD-SWIM is conducting the second year of the Seagrass Conditions

Monitoring Program throughout the bay as a pilot project. Potential entities

responsible for conducting biannual seagrass conditions monitoring in upcoming

years remain to be identified.

3) Develop and implement a monitoring program to track habitat quantity and quality

in coastal marshes, oligohaline habitats and associated uplands, as well as

restored habitats.

Development of these elements of the habitat monitoring program will be initiated

as part of the habitat restoration and protection master plan. This plan will identify

responsible entities for implementation. 

District Action:

Project Name: Environmental Monitoring - Seagrass Mapping

Project Description: The District will map seagrass acreage and location using aerial

photographs taken every two year and verify the data with field checks. This project

will provide an important indication of the success of seagrass recovery rate.

Project Participants: SWFWMD 

Location (drainage basin): Bay-wide

Contribution Toward Goal:

Implementation Schedule: ongoing

Financed: SWFWMD 

Project Name: Land Use Mapping

Project Description: The District will continue to update GIS-based land cover maps

every 5 years. This project will provide an important source of data for watershed

loading calculations.

Project Participants: SWFWMD 

Location (drainage basin): Bay-wide

Contribution Toward Goal:

Implementation Schedule: ongoing

Likelihood of Completion: High

How financed: SWFWMD (existing District activity; no additional cost)

B.2.6 Action Plan FI-1 Establish and Maintain Minimum Seasonal Freshwater

Flows Downstream of Dams

Estuaries, where fresh water and salt water mix, are highly productive natural habitats for

fish and other marine life. The juveniles of many aquatic species, including spotted

seatrout, snook, red drum and tarpon, depend on the low and medium-salinity portions of
97

these shallow waters, especially in the tidal sections of rivers and streams. However, the

productivity of these habitats as nurseries and feeding areas depends largely on

maintaining an adequate supply of fresh water upstream at certain times of the year.

In this region, potable water for drinking, irrigation and industrial uses comes from

reservoirs and from groundwater sources. Demand for fresh water in the tri-county area

is expected to increase from 544 million gallons per day (mgd) in 1990 to 765 mad in

2020, according to the Southwest Florida Water Management District.

Florida Statutes Section 373.042 (1991) directs the state's water management districts to

establish "minimum flows" for watercourses and "minimum levels" for surface waters and

aquifers. The statute defines minimum flows as the limits at which further withdrawals

would be "significantly harmful to the water resources or ecology of the area." Legislation

passed in 1996 requires the District to set minimum flows for priority surface waters in the

northern Tampa Bay area by October 1, 1997.

Minimum flows based on river ecology have not yet been set for the Hillsborough, Palm

and Braden rivers. A preliminary minimum flow of 0.425 cubic feet per second (cfs)—or

roughly 275,000 gallons per day which is the current estimated leakage from the

dam—was set for the Manatee River in 1991. The flow's adequacy is now being examined

by SWFWMD in cooperation with Manatee County.

Minimal flows were not required when control structures were constructed on the

Hillsborough, Palm, Braden and Manatee rivers (all prior to 1972). Nevertheless, a series

of ongoing and recently completed studies should provide SWFWMD with sufficient

information to set thresholds for each river to protect the productivity of the river and the

bay downstream of the dams.

A minimum flow study is not planned for the Alafia River because the SWFWMD Needs

and Sources Study concluded that water supplies were not needed from the Alafia for the

1990-2020 planning horizon. However, the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority

(WCRWSA) has recently proposed to remove 7 mad of fresh water from the Alafia in the

first phase of its 1995 Water Resource Development Plan (1995-2000).

Studies on the Braden, Hillsborough, Manatee and Little Manatee rivers, and the Tampa

Bypass Canal, have addressed various aspects of river flow and ecology. Evaluation of

these studies will provide vital information in establishing minimum flow requirements.

Strategy:

This action is to evaluate and set minimum seasonal freshwater inflows to Tampa Bay

from rivers impounded by dams to protect the ecological integrity of vital downstream

fisheries habitats.

1) Conduct technical workshops for each impounded river to evaluate results of

freshwater studies and develop recommendations for minimum freshwater flow
98

requirements.

At the request of SWFWMD, the Tampa Bay NEP convened an advisory committee

in October 1996 to assist in establishing flow requirements for the Hillsborough/Palm

River system by October 1997.

NEP also sponsored an initial workshop on the Manatee River in August 1995, which

included local government and agency representatives, scientists, engineers, utilities

and community interest groups.

In evaluating available studies, participants are considering:

! whether flows to the downstream portions of impounded rivers have been

quantified.

! if appropriate flows to restore and maintain critical low-salinity habitats can

be determined from the studies

! the impacts of various flow-release scenarios on public water supplies and

economic development.

2) Establish seasonal flow requirements by the state-mandated deadlines for the

Hillsborough, Palm, Manatee and Braden rivers, incorporating recommendations from

advisors and considering other socio-economic and environmental factors.

District Action:

The Southwest Florida Water Management District has established a schedule for

adopting minimum flow regulations for the Manatee, Braden, Little Manatee, Alafia

and Hillsborough Rivers and the Tampa Bypass Canal. Minimum flows will be

established for the Hillsborough River/Tampa Bypass Canal system by October 1,

1997; for the Manatee, Braden, and Little Manatee Rivers by 10/01/1999; and for the

Alafia River by 10/01/2001. Minimum flows are regulatory limits to water withdrawals

that serve to maintain a quantity, or quantities, of stream flow in the tributary to sustain

natural systems. The stream flow quantity reserved for environmental requirements

can vary daily or seasonally depending on the characteristics and regulation of the

respective system. 

The establishment of minimum flows for these six tributaries to the bay will be based

technically on hydrologic, ecological, and water use information collected for these

systems as part of District required studies. Other information and input gained from

workshops sponsored by the Tampa Bay NEP will be thoroughly considered in

establishing minimum flows. The District will coordinate with the TBNEP concerning

the logistics of these workshops. The District will also work with the affected parties

who provide water supplies so that various options can be pursued so that water

demands can be met while meeting minimum flow requirements. The monitoring of

environmental response to minimum flows will be evaluated, and as deemed
99

necessary, provisions to conduct such monitoring through regulatory or other

programs will be pursued. No specific SWIM related projects are proposed at this

time. 

B.3 PUBLIC EDUCATION AND INVOLVEMENT

A Community Advisory Committee established in 1991 has assisted the Tampa Bay

National Estuary Program in developing outreach strategies. and understanding public

concerns and perceptions about the bay. Appointed by the NEP's Policy Committee,

members include representatives of agriculture, business, education, fishing and the

environment, who also share their perspectives as citizen taxpayers and residents of the

communities they represent.

The Committee has played a key role in soliciting public feedback on strategies for bay

improvement. In 1995, citizen advisors hosted a series of informal focus groups to discuss

the bay's most pressing needs and options for addressing them with neighbors, business

associates, maritime and fishing groups, and other community interests. Feedback from

these participants identified areas of broad support and issues of potential controversy.

A second and highly successful series of focus groups and larger Town Meetings on

Tampa Bay were conducted in 1996, following the January 1996 release of the draft

Comprehensive Conservation & Management Plan (CCMP).

This action plan, developed by the Committee, recommends priorities and plans for public

education and involvement in the future as the NEP and its community partners begin

implementation of the CCMP.

Future community outreach should seek to:

! foster continued community support for bay restoration and CCMP implementation

by continuing to educate residents about bay issues, and publicize the bay's progress

and needs

! improve public faith in the ability of bay managers and organizations dedicated to its

restoration to "work smart" to leverage resources, avoid duplication and focus on

priorities

! maximize direct opportunities for public involvement in bay restoration and protection.

A top priority in 1997 will be the development and distribution of a public summary of the

final CCMP for residents, legislators and community leaders. This will lay the foundation

for a series of annual progress reports to the community documenting progress in the

implementation of the bay plan.

Other 1997 initiatives proposed by the Community Advisory Committee include:

! a public opinion poll to identify community concerns and comprehension of bay
100

issues, as well as gauge support for bay restoration initiatives and funding

! a small grants program to support grass-roots bay restoration and improvement

projects by community groups and schools, with special outreach to low-income and

minority groups

! periodic public forums, sponsored by NEP, on controversial and important bay

issues, such as NEP's televised debate on the Ban-The-Nets referendum

! development of a graphic-and-text environmental index on the state of Tampa Bay

for periodic publication in local newspapers

The Committee and NEP also will evaluate the need for a companion to the 1996

Teachers Guide to Tampa Bay, a middle-school curriculum kit developed by the NEP and

Tampa Tribune for distribution to more than 350 schools. Additionally, the Committee

recommends: 

! continued distribution of the Boater's Guide to Tampa Bay, a publication of the NEP

and Florida Marine Research Institute which already has been distributed to more

than 100,000 boaters.

! continuation of the NEP newsletter, Bay Guardian, to spotlight the state of the bay

and progress in the bay's recovery, and aggressive efforts to publicize bay issues in

the media to inform and educate the public;

! continued advocacy of bay restoration and protection efforts to cooperation with other

public policy and interest groups, and efforts to educate the public on issues affecting

the bay; 

! continued support for organizations that enlist and effectively utilize volunteers, such

as Tampa BayWatch, The Florida Aquarium and the National Audubon

! periodic "spotlight on solutions" field trips targeting and co-sponsored by various

audiences with regulatory and natural resource interests. For example, a field trip

hosted by a local alliance of developers might target urban designers and showcase

exemplary commercial landscapes that enhance the environment. Public field trips

to bay restoration sites and parks also might be offered in cooperation with The

Florida Aquarium.

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

secured through grants and community partnerships.

District Action:

The District has been involved in the following education projects that specifically

address Public Education and Involvement. 
101

Project Name: Florida Aquarium Parking Lot

Project Description: The parking lot at the Florida Aquarium was developed in

partnership with the District to provide a site for stormwater research that doubles

as an educational site. Exhibitry along Garrison Channel explains stormwater

pollution and its effect and water quality, details the features in the parking lot

design that reduce stormwater pollution, and offer ideas for individuals to adopt. 

Project Name: Adopt-a-Pond

Project Description: Hillsborough County and the District cooperatively sponsored

a program that offers county residents that training and support necessary to

maintain effective stormwater drainage systems in their communities. The program

assists neighborhoods in cleaning and planting stormwater ponds, provides

workshops to increase community understanding of water quality issues and

facilitates storm drain marking.

Project Name: Community Grants

Project Description: The District’s Basin Boards provide small grants to

individuals, associations and other organizations to help communities learn about

their water resources. Several projects sponsored in the Tampa Bay area address

water quality concerns.

Project Name: Xeriscape University

Project Description: The District worked with the Pinellas County Technical

Education Center, the Pinellas County and City of St. Petersburg utilities and the

Pinellas County Cooperative Extension Service to offer Xeriscape workshops to

county residents. In addition to providing information about the reduction of water

for irrigation, the workshop provided participants with information about lawn

maintenance to assist them in reducing fertilizers and pesticides used in their

landscape Maintenance practices.

Project Name: Stormwater Management Video

Project Description: The District cooperated with Pinellas County to produce two

videos designed to help county employees and the public understand the effect of

non-point-source pollution on water quality. The video details actions individuals

can take to reduce pollution. One of the videos is used in the county’s employee

development program; the other airs regularly on government access television and

was aired on commercial television with assistance from the Tampa Bay Regional

Planning Council.
102

Appendix C

Regulatory Jurisdictions Within the Tampa Bay Basin

FEDERAL

Federal jurisdiction in Tampa Bay involves the regulatory responsibilities of the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Coast Guard, the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Department of Interior (which coordinates its

many agriculture-related activities with those of the Florida Department of Agriculture and

Consumer Services). Their main regulatory functions include overseeing dredge and fill

activities, maintaining navigability of the waters of the United States, overseeing cleanups

following pollution spills, protecting endangered species, protecting overall environmental

quality, and managing offshore activities. These agencies, in conjunction with the U.S.

Geological Survey and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, also

contribute to the collection of technical data concerning Tampa Bay and its watershed.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is concerned with all activities which affect navigable

waters of the United States, particularly those involving construction of structures and

dredging and filling in navigable waters. The Corps is also involved in permitting the

placement of dredge and fill material into navigable waters and adjacent wetlands, and in

funding aquatic plant control in navigable and public waters.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is the primary federal agency responsible for

water quality protection. The agency oversees hazardous waste cleanups, protection of

public drinking water systems, all point source pollutant discharges into waters of the

United States (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits), and the

protection and restoration of surface and groundwater. The agency also reviews Corps

of Engineers permit activities, sets minimum quality standards, and sets guidelines for

state environmental programs. EPA also funds sewerage facilities’ studies through the

SWFRPC and the TBRPC, and system improvements through the Florida Department of

Environmental Protection.

The EPA's greatest presence in Tampa Bay is through its National Estuary Program,

established under Section 320 of the Clean Water Act. 

U.S. Coast Guard

The U.S. Coast Guard is the primary federal agency entrusted with marine law

enforcement. The Guard's mission also includes hazardous materials cleanups, search

and rescue, buoys replacement, vessel safety inspection, and right-of-way clearance on
103

navigable waterways.

U.S. Department of Commerce

Within the department, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which

includes the National Weather Service and the National Hurricane Center, is a scientific

and data collection agency which assimilates oceanographic and meteorological

information in the form of maps, charts, interpretive reports, and other documents. The

National Marine Fisheries Service administers NOAA's program to manage living marine

resources for commercial and recreational use. It supports fisheries management

operations, international fisheries affairs, fishery development, trade, and industry

assistance activities, habitat conservation activities, and scientific and technical aspects

of NOAA's marine fisheries resources programs.

U.S. Department of Interior

The primary water-related functions performed by this agency involve the review of

proposed activities which may impact threatened or endangered species, review of U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers permits for potential effects on fish and wildlife, and

management of all federally-owned public lands. Within the department, the U.S.

Geological Survey conducts investigations concerning hydrology, hydrogeology, water use,

and ground and surface water quality. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages and

restores fish and wildlife populations and conducts research on the effects of pollution on

those resources. The National Park Service maintains federal parks and sanctuaries,

regulating multiple uses on these lands to achieve a balance of benefits for both man and

wildlife. The department also oversees those requests and offshore activities associated

with exploration and development on the outer continental shelf.

STATE AGENCIES (after Barile et al. 1987)

Many state agencies are involved in environmental regulation and resource management

in the Tampa Bay watershed and estuary. The Florida Department of Environmental

Regulation (FDER) and the Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDNR), have

merged into the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) are leading

agencies in the protection and management of Tampa Bay. Other relevant entities include

the Florida Department of Community Affairs, the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish

Commission, the Marine Fisheries Commission, Florida Department of Agriculture and

Consumer Services, Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Florida Sea

Grant Program, and the Florida Department of Transportation.

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS)

The Department, through its Division of Agriculture and Environmental Services (AES)

regulates the registration and use of pesticides, including the purchase of restricted
104

pesticides, maintains registration and quality control of fertilizers, regulates pest control

operations, mosquito control, and evaluates and manages environmental impacts

associated with agrichemicals.

Through the Division of Forestry, the DACS is responsible for developing Best

Management Practices (BMPs) to control forestry-related nonpoint source pollution. The

Division of Forestry is also responsible or statewide implementation of BMPs, and for

monitoring public and private forestry operations to determine BMP compliance and

effectiveness. Florida’s 34 State Forests and several other parcels of public land and

managed by the Division of Forestry.

The Division of Plant Industry is responsible for, among other duties, regulating the

movement of noxious weeds, and, with input from the Endangered Plant Advisory Council,

protecting endangered, threatened or commercially exploited plant species.

The Office of Water Policy Coordination is responsible for participating in water policy

issues to ensure the availability of an adequate supply and quality of water for the

production of food and fiber. The office cooperates with agencies and agricultural

producers to make available streamlined agricultural regulatory processes and voluntary,

incentive-based, acceptable alternatives and agricultural BMPs consistent with the

sustainability of agriculture and resource conservation. The office provides assistance to

Soil and Water Conservation Districts, including the Tampa and the Manatee River

Districts, in carrying out conservation activities at the local and watershed level, and

providing improved local delivery of resource management services to agricultural

producers. The office facilitates the participation of Soil and Water Conservation Districts

in water-related issues at the county or watershed level.

Department of Community Affairs

This department is responsible for reviewing local comprehensive plans and has

jurisdiction over developments of regional impact (DRI's). DRI investigations are

concerned with proposed developments which have the potential to affect the health,

safety, or welfare of citizens of more than one county.

The Comprehensive Plans of both Sarasota and Manatee counties have been reviewed

by the DCA. All have come into compliance with the Local Comprehensive Planning Act,

either through a final review action, a stipulation agreement, or a settlement agreement.

Department of Environmental Protection

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection, itself a result of the merger of the old

Department of Environmental Regulation and the Department of Natural Resources, is the

lead state agency involved in water quality, pollution control, and resource recovery

programs. The department sets state water quality standards and has permit jurisdiction
105

over point and nonpoint source discharges, certain dredge and fills activities, drinking

water systems, power plant siting, and many construction activities conducted within

waters of the state. The department also interacts closely with other federal and state

agencies on water-related matters, and the Department and the District share

responsibilities in non-point source management and wetland permitting.

The department is the primary reviewer of SWIM plans and is responsible for the

disbursement of monies from the SWIM Trust Fund to the water management districts.

The Department is also highly involved in the management of estuarine resources,

primarily through the divisions of Law Enforcement, Marine Resources, Resource

Management, and State Lands.

The Department, through its Division of Law Enforcement's Marine Patrol, serves as an

enforcement agency for the Florida Endangered and Threatened Species Act and the Oil

Spill Prevention and Pollution Control Act. The Florida Marine Patrol also enforces state

motorboat laws and the saltwater fisheries regulations of the Marine Fisheries

Commission.

The Division of Marine Resources includes the Florida Marine Research Institute (FMRI)

and the Bureau of Marine Resource Regulation and Development's Shellfish

Environmental Assessment Section (SEAS). The FMRI conducts studies throughout

Tampa Bay with respect to habitat quality (e.g., marsh and seagrass habitats), habitat

utilization and value with respect to important fisheries, and fish population dynamics and

stock assessment. However, at present, the Juvenile Fish Monitoring Program does not

include sample sites in Tampa Bay. The SEAS classifies and determines the opening and

closure of shellfish harvesting areas.

The Division of State lands oversees the management of state lands, including state

parks.

The Department's Bureau of Geology reviews leasing requests involving nearshore and

state waters. The Bureau of Beaches and Shores oversees beach renourishment

activities.

Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission

It is the mission of the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission to manage fresh

water aquatic life andwild animal life and their habitats to perpetuate a diversity of species

with densities and distributions that provide sustained ecological, recreational, sceintific,

educational, aesthetic and economic benefits. Its efforts within the SWIM plan area

primarily involve freshwater sport and commercial fishing, fisheries and habitat

management, fish stocking, fisheries research, wildlife monitoring, enforcement of

fisheries/wildlife regulations, listed species protection, wildlife research, development

review, and regional planning.
106

The Commission is directed to review SWIM plans to determine if the plan has adverse

effects on wild animal life and fresh water aquatic life and their habitats.

Marine Fisheries Commission

The Marine Fisheries Commission manages marine fish species (excluding endangered

or threatened species) by regulating their harvesting. The Commission's jurisdiction

covers the following areas: a) gear specifications, b) prohibited gear, c) bag limits, d) size

limits, e) species that may not be sold, f) protected species, g) closed areas, h) quality

control codes, I) harvesting seasons, j) special considerations related to egg-bearing

females, and k) oyster and clam relaying. The MFC is required to make annual

recommendations to the Governor and Cabinet regarding marine fisheries research

priorities.

Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services

The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is responsible for the permitting of

septic systems and other on-site disposal systems (OSDS's) through its county health

departments. It also coordinates mosquito control programs.

Department of Transportation

The Department of Transportation's Project Development and Environmental Offices in

Bartow assist in the design, review, and permitting of road and right-of-way projects in the

Tampa Bay region, and would play an important role in the enhancement of circulation in

northeaster Palma Sola Bay during the reconstruction of the Palma Sola Causeway.

Florida Sea Grant Program

The Florida Sea Grant Program is supported by awards from the Office of Sea Grant

(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) under provisions of the National Sea

Grant College and Programs Act of 1966. The Florida Sea Grant Program has three major

components: applied marine research, education, and advisory services (through local

marine extension agents).

Florida Sea Grant provides scientific research and habitat-related information that are

useful in the management of Tampa Bay's natural resources.

SUB-STATE AGENCIES

Two sub-state agencies exist that would be involved in the implementation of the SWIM

plan. These are the Tampa Bay Regional Council and the Southwest Florida Water

Management District.

The Tampa Bay Regional Council is the Regional Planning Agency designated in Section
107

186.505 of the Florida Statutes. It performs the responsibilities described in that section

and the Regional Planning Agency roles assigned in Section 380.05, F.S. (Resource

Planning Committees, DRI reviews and Ch. 163, Local Plan Reviews). The Agency on

Bay Management (ABM), which was formed following the completion of the Tampa Bay

Management Study Commission to serve as an advisor to the Tampa Bay Regional

Council on Tampa Bay management issues and to oversee the implementation of the final

study commission report, The Future of Tampa Bay. The 60+ member coalition – which

includes elected officials, regulators, local governments, and representatives of special

interest groups – has been successful in focusing public attention on bay problems and

in bringing together diverse and often conflicting bay users. In 1987, the Legislature

created the SWIM Program and at the urging of the ABM, Tampa Bay was named as a

priority waterbody. The Southwest Florida Water Management District has utilized the

ABM as an advisory body while preparing the SWIM management plans. The ABM was

also the driving force behind the nomination of Tampa Bay to the EPA to be included in

the National Estuary Program.

The Southwest Florida Water Management District is responsible for performing duties

assigned under Ch. 373, F.S., as well as duties delegated through DEP for Chs. 253 and

403, F.S., and for local plan review (Ch. 163, F.S.). It performs those duties for the Entire

Tampa Bay watershed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

The Policy Committee of the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program was comprised of six

local governments; the City of Tampa, City of St. Petersburg, City of Clearwater, Manatee

County, Hillsborough County; and Pinellas County. There are, however, seventeen local

governments within the Tampa Bay watershed which play a role in management of Tampa

Bay through the daily management of their communities, the planning, zoning and other

land use decisions, and the implementation and enforcement of local codes.
108

Appendix D

Advertisement in the Florida Administrative Weekly