Future of Tampa Bay a report to the Florida Legislature and the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

COASTAL ZONE
IN MRMATION CENTER

The Future of

Tampa Bay

Atea R
'....

A Report to the Florida Legislature and the
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council by the
.~ . BAY

0540 A."
A Report to the Florida Legislature and the
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council by the
Tampa Bay Management Study Commission
QH
540 tampa bag
F88 / gional
1985 /~ coplanning
1985 council

TAMPA BAY REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL 1985

Chairman Mr. Joe McFarland
Vice Chairman Commissioner Dean Mason
Secretary/Treasurer Commissioner Westwood H. Fletcher, Jr.

CITY OF BRADENTON CITY OF PALMETTO
Councilwoman Saundra Rahn Councilman Robert E. Hunt

CITY OF CLEARWATER PASCO COUNTY
Vice-Mayor James L. Berfield Mr. Philip Mishkin
Commissioner Sylvia Young
CITY OF DADE CITY
Commissioner Lawrence Puckett PINELLAS COUNTY
Mr. Conrad Banspach, Jr.
CITY OF DUNEDIN Commissioner George Greer
Commissioner Donald Shaffer Ms. Beth Frierson
Reverend Preston Leonard
CITY OF GULFPORT Mr. Michael Zagorac
Councilmember George Prigun
CITY OF PINELLAS PARK
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY Councilman William Vannatta
Mr. Alexander S. Byrne
Mr. Joe Chillura, Jr. CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG
Mr. Joe McFarland Councilman Dean Staples
Commissioner Jan K. Platt
Mr. Robert W. Saunders, Sr. CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG BEACH
Vice-Mayor Helen Ercius
CITY OF LARGO
Mayor George C. McGough CITY OF SARASOTA
Commissioner Dean Mason
MANATEE COUNTY
Commissioner Westwood H. Fletcher, Jr. CITY OF TAMPA
Ms. Patricia M.Glass Councilman Thomas Vann

CITY OF NEW PORT RICHEY CITY OF TARPON SPRINGS
Councilman Robert G. Prior Commissioner Charles Roberts

CITY OF OLDSMAR CITY OF TEMPLE TERRACE
Mayor Sandy J. Francisco Councilman John M. King

Property of CSC Library

THE FUTURE OF TAMPA BAY

A Report to the Florida Legislature
and the Tampa Bay Regional Planning
Council by the Tampa Bay Management
Study Commission.

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
223, SOUTH HOESON AVENUE
CHARLESION, SC 29405-2413

Financial assistance for this study was provided by a Coastal Management
Grant from the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation.

tampa bay
regional
~/ / planning
council

14a-

9455 Koger Boulevard, St. Petersburg, FL 33702
U112

"Tampa Bay teemed with fish and turtle. Reefs in the mouths of fresh water
rivers were said to provide the finest oysters on the continent and sweet
little "raccoon" oysters grew thickly on the roots of the mangroves along
many shores. Cuban fishing camps dotted the shores with drying racks for
fish to be sold in Havana. In 1828 a soldier stationed at the fort
reported "the fishing is marvelous." Upon the return of the bi-weekly
fishing fleet the catch was laid on the wharf. At the sound of the fish
call the mess sergeants and their assistants appeared with handbarrows and
carried off as much fish as they needed for their companies; Indians were
allowed to help themselves. The remainder was buried to make compost for
the officers' garden. "During the winter months schooners from Cuba and
New England swarmed the bay for spanish mackerel, groupers and snappers.
More than 500,000 fish per day were shipped on these vessles. In Tampa,
stone crabs were sold for ten cents a dozen; salted mullet for one cent a
piece. A visitor reported that "in the waters of Tampa Bay enormous
quantities of fish and turtles may be found... the fish are so numerous
that they impede the passage of boats." On Tampa Bay, a fisherman's
paradise, no one ever starved."

Excerpted from Tampa Town: 1824-1886: The Cracker Town with a Latin Accent
by Anthony P. Pizzo. Hurrican House Publisher Inc. Miamia, Florida. 1968.
Page 14-15

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Tampa Bay is the largest open water estuary in the State of Florida, with
over 1.6 million people living in the three counties bordering its shores.
This population represents a 45 percent increase since 1970. Once the
state's most diverse and productive estuarine system, rapid urban and
industrial development have significantly changed the character and ecology
of Tampa Bay. For example, recent studies have indicated that 44 percent
of the original 25,000 acres and mangrove forests and salt marshes have
been destroyed, and 81 percent of the original 76,500 acres of seagrasses
have disappeared. This habitat loss has resulted in declining populations
of economically important fish and shellfish including a complete collapse
of such fisheries as those for scallops and oysters, and major declines for
bait shrimp, spotted seatrout and red-drum. Tampa Bay constitutes the
central geographic feature most responsible for, both historically and
presently, the shipping, industrial development, and aesthetic and
recreational values that encompass the overall attractiveness of the region
to population influx. However, without proper management, and the
maintenance of balance between all public uses, Tampa Bay is threatening to
become a major liability rather than the area's main asset.

The Tampa Bay Management Study Commission was created by a special
legislative act in 1984 to examine the opportunities for and the
constraints against developing a unified, comprehensive management strategy
for Tampa Bay. Composed of 20 members representing a wide range of Tampa
Bay's business, recreational, environmental, industrial and academic
interests, the Commission was granted a one-year mandate to complete the
following tasks:

1. Develop a recommended Bay Management Plan and make a formal
recommendation to the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council 30 days prior
to the 1985 session of the Florida Legislature.

2. Prepare a preliminary three-to-five year legislative work program to
address priority bay management issues in conjunction with ongoing
efforts by Congress, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, state
agencies, port authorities and other regulatory entities, for submittal
prior to the 1985 legislative session.

3. Seek new sources of funding, as well as assist in coordinating existing
funded efforts, to implement studies or actions addressing priority bay
management issues. Such funding should not be limited to only funding
efforts of the Council, but also essential work by other public and
private groups.

4. Monitor proposals falling under the review responsibilities of the
Council for compliance with the recommended Bay Management Plan.

5. Make specific recommendations to the Council concerning bay management
issues that may be identified during the lifetime of the Commission.

The Commission reviewed 42 previously identified priority bay management
issues and developed program objectives and recommended solutions for each.
Recommendations included local government actions; state agency directives;
research studies and monitoring programs; and legislative initiatives,
amendments and funding allocations. Overall, a total of $5,792,000 worth of
needed studies, programs and various allocations are proposed, including:

* A $1,067,000 comprehensive fisheries research, monitoring and
regulation program;

� A $1,000,000 allocation for the completion and refinement of the Tampa
Bay wasteload allocation study;

* A $825,000 comprehensive seagrass monitoring, research and restoration
program;

* A $600,000 allocation for the establishment of a shellfish sanitary
survey team in the Tampa Bay area;

� A $550,000 allocation for permanent management staffing of the three
Tampa Bay area Aquatic Preserves;

� A $500,000 study of toxic contamination in the Tampa Bay estuary;

* A $400,000 allocation for a regional public education campaign
regarding non-point sources and water pollution in Tampa Bay; and

* A $270,000 allocation for increased compliance monitoring of point
source discharges into Tampa Bay.

In addition to major expenditures the Commission recommended a number of
other specific actions and general policies regarding Tampa Bay. These
recommendations included the following:

* Passage of legislation requiring a saltwater recreational fishing
license;

* Passage of legislation consolidating and standardizing all local
fishing laws and regulations;

* Passage of legislation requiring existing development to retrofit
stormwater discharge facilities when redevelopment occurs;

* A general policy of preventing the dredging or spoiling of any
significant areas of previously undisturbed bay bottom;

* Passage of legislation requiring developers to purchase sewage
treatment capacityv rights; and prohibiting the issuance of an
interceptor permit unless the municipality can demonstrate adequate
sewage treatment capacity;

* Passac~e of legislation requiring advanced wastewater treatment of all
municipal discharges to Tampa Bay, prior to the completion of the
wasteload allocation study;

0 Passage of legislation creating an Aquatic Preserve Management Trust
Fund derived from submerged land lease fees; and

* Passage of enabling legislation for the creation of a Tampa Bay habitat
mitigation bank.

The Commission also recommended the estabishment of a coordinating,
overview agency within the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council that would
essentially have planning and advisory capacities for other agencies
involved in management of the Bay. in the absence of significant
strengthening of state and regional planning legislation in the future, it
was recommended that a Bay Management Authority, with regulatory powers, be
created to more comprehensively manage Tampa Bay.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Executive Summary

Table of Contents
List of Figures iii
List of Tables v

Chapter 1

A. Introduction 1-1
B. History of the Tampa Bay Management Study Commission 1-4
C. Management Boundaries 1-7
D. Goals and Objectives 1-10
E. Overview of Tampa Bay - A Profile of Change 1-12
F. References 1-27

Chapter 2

A. Planning Process 2-1
B. Bay Management Issue Briefs 2-5
1. Funding 2-5
2. Loss of Seagrass in Tampa Bay 2-15
3. Non-Point Source Discharges Entering Tampa Bay 2-22
4. Spoil Disposal and Management of Spoil Islands 2-27
5. Hazardous Waste Disposal and Management 2-40
6. Enforcement 2-45
7. Control of Septage Waste 2-49
8. Aquatic Preserves 2-51
9. Seagrass, Marsh and Mangrove Habitat Creation 2-56
10. Municipal and Industrial Discharges 2-59
11. Stronger State Wetlands Regulation 2-63
12. Study and Management of Tidal Creeks and Rivers 2-67
13. Wasteload Allocation Study for Tampa Bay 2-78
14. Assessment of Fishery Stocks in Tampa Bay 2-84
15. Gypsum Field Decommissioning 2-90
16. Commercial and Sport Fishing Regulation 2-94
17. Documenting the Economic Importance of Tampa Bay 2-99
18. Public Education 2-102
19. Urban Waterfront Development and Public Access 2-105
20. Load Relief for Major Sewage Treatment Plants 2-109
21. Water Quality Improvement for Recreational Uses 2-112
22. Stormwater Detention Requirements for Redevelopment 2-114
23. Review of Rules and Regulations 2-116
24. McKay Bay Management Plan 2-118
25. Shellfish Classification 2-124
26. Power Plant Entrainment 2-130
27. Hendry Fill Restoration Project 2-134
28. Contingency Planning for Post-Hurricane Aquisition of Habitat 2-139
29. Mitigation Banking 2-141

30. Management of Bower Tract and Adjacent Wetlands 2-144
31. Management of Passage Key 2-148
32. Management and Restoration of Shorelines in Boca Ciega Bay,
Pinellas County 2-152
33. Improvements to Bridge Facilities Crossing Tampa Bay 2-157
34. Channel "A" Restoration 2-161
35. Water Quality Improvements Using Tidal Gates 2-164
36. User Conflicts and Limits on Activities 2-167
37. Marina Siting Policy 2-169
38. Construction of New Skyway Bridge Pier Protection System 2-177
39. Extension of 49th Street (St.Petersburg) across Old Tampa Bay 2-182
40. Sailboat Launching 2-185
41. Odor Along Bayshore Boulevard 2-187
42. Manatee River Derelict Train Trestle 2-190

C. References 2-193

Chapter 3

A. Synthesis of Issues 3-1
B. Legislative Work Plan 3-3
C. Long-Term Management Recommendations 3-12

Appendices

A. Bay Management Legislation A-1
B. Existing Authorities Matrix A-11
C. Commission Membership and Subcommittee Assignments A-20
D. Commission Position Statements A-27

LIST OF FIGURES

PAGE

Figure 1.1. Political boundaries within the Tampa Bay Region 1-2

Figure 1.2. Proposed management boundaries of the Tampa Bay 1-8
study area

Figure 1.3. Official subdivision of Tampa Bay proper 1-9

Figure 1.4. Major navigation channels in Tampa Bay 1-13

Figure 1.5. Mean annual and seasonal bottom dissolved oxygen
trends in Tampa Bay 1-17

Figure 1.6. Mean annual effective light penetration trends in
Tampa Bay 1-19

Figure 1.7. Mean annual phosphate trends in Tampa Bay 1-20

Figure 1.8. Designated use divisions in Tampa Bay 1-25

Figure 2.1. Distribution of Tampa Bay area seagrass meadows 2-16

Figure 2.2. Tampa Bay area Aquatic Preserves 2-52

Figure 2.3. Relative location of major tributaries in the Tampa
Bay watershed 2-68

Figure 2.4. Relative location of the Gardenier, Inc. gypsum stack 2-91

Figure 2.5. Trends in Tampa Bay fishery landings for spotted
seatrout, red drum and bait shrimp 2-95

Figure 2.6. Relative location of McKay Bay 2-119

Figure 2.7. City of Tampa Bay land use plan: McKay Bay and 2-121
vicinity

Figure 2.8. Land ownership surrounding McKay Bay 2-122

Figure 2.9. Approved or conditionally approved shellfish
harvesting areas in Tampa Bay 2-125

Figure 2.10. Current classification of shellfish harvesting areas
in Old Tampa Bay 2-126

Figure 2.11. Proposed classification of shellfish harvesting areas
in Old Tampa Bay 2-127

Figure 2.12. Relative location of electrical power plants around
Tampa Bay 2-131

Figure 2.13. Relative location of the Hendry landfill 2-135

iii

LIST OF FIGURES

PAGE

Figure 2.14. Detail of the area affected by the deposition of spoil
material 2-136

Figure 2.15. Relative location of the Bower tract 2-145

Figure 2.16. Relative location of Passge Key 2-149

Figure 2.17. Relative location of Boca Ciega Bay 2-153

Figure 2.18. Relative location of the four major bridge facilities
crossing Tampa Bay 2-158

Figure 2.19. Net current velocities after one complete tidal cycle
in Tampa Bay 2-159

Figure 2.20. Relative location of Channel "A" 2-162

Figure 2.21. Relative location and alignment of the proposed 49th
Street Bridge 2-183

Figure 2.22. Relative location of the Manatee River derelict trestle
structure 2-191

LIST OF TABLES

PAGE

Table 2.1. List of major concerns and management issues identified
by the Subcommittees 2-4

is Table 2.2. Tampa Bay Study Committee numerical priority list 2-4

Table 2.3. Draft cost estimates for a comprehensive seagrass
research, monitoring, restoration and protection
program for Tampa Bay 2-21

Table 2.4. Relative probability of implementing bay management
recommendations under the various long-term management
alternatives 2-77

Table 2.5. Draft estimate of costs for a baywide stock assessment
work plan 2-89

CHAPTER 1

A. Introduction

Now the second largest population center in the State of Florida, this
rapid urbanization has, however, transformed the Tampa Bay area into a
major economic asset both to the state, and to the nation as a whole. The
Port of Tampa has become the nation's seventh largest port in terms of
tonnage transported, and is the third largest U.S. port in terms of
foreign exports. in addition, over six million tourists are drawn to the
bay area's beaches and waters annually. Tampa Bay itself still contributes
as a major aesthetic and recreational amenity, supporting a multitude of
commercial enterprises including a burgeoning boat building industry,
waterfront homes, restaurants, hotels and office buildings; an expanding
complex of public and private marinas; and numerous recreational
activities.

Nevertheless, over the past few years it has become painfully clear to bay
area municipal and county governments that the additions of homes and
businesses, and accompanying people, dramatically increase the needs of
local governments to provide water, new sewage treatment plants, electrical
power plants and highways. Because growth and development rarely pay for
themselves in the short-term, local governments will increasingly struggle
to Einance the needs of a surging population. The subsequent accompanying
strain on the environment has been, and will continue to be, well
documented in the adverse impacts on the ecology of Tampa Bay.

Tampa Bay constitutes the central geographic feature most responsible for,
both historically and presently, the shipping, industrial development, and
aesthetic and recreational values that encompass the overall attractiveness
of the region to population influx. Without proper management, and the
maintenance of balance between all public and private uses, Tampa Bay is
threatening to become a major liability rather than the area' s main asset.

Currently, the management of Tampa Bay is fragmented amongst a multitude of
federal, state and regional regulatory agencies, as well as seventeen local
governments bordering the bay (see figure 1.1). Management is accomplished
through the uncoordinated implementation of various monitoring, permitting
and regulatory programs. However, under the existing management framework,
jurisdictions are often overlapping, interests are often conflicting, and
no one agency has overview authority for the bay, or manages it as a
holistic natural resource. As a result, management of Tampa Bay to date has

1-1

SAN ~~~ ST. DADE!CITY
SANLE iz
ANTONIO.......

PORT RICHEY -~.0

N ~~NEW
PORT RICHEY

ZE PH YR HILLSI

PASCO COUNTY
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY

Oldsmar K ................. Ternp a
I . ~~~~~~~~~Terrace
Lij
Safety
Harbor.

CLEA.RA T TMA*.. PLANT CITY

Largo C

0 ..'Seminole........
V Pine Ilast
Park

B~~~~~~ ~~~~~~O'C~~~~~~~~~~~ B~~~~~..C . .....
ST. .....
PETERSBURG I

I ~~~~~~~~MANATEE COUNTY

Figure 1.1 poliadetia boudre I.~
within~~~~~ea thet TaNOa Ba rgin

Longbo a ~ ~ 1-
Ka~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

been both wasteful and ineffectual. For these reasons the Tampa Bay
Management Study Commission was created to examine the opportunities for,
and the constraints against, developing a unified, comprehensive management
strategy for Tampa Bay.

This document represents the culmination of approximately three years of
work by the Commission and its' predecessor committees. It is organized in
* ~~a manner consistent with the chronological sequence of planning steps taken
during this period. For this reason it should be noted that the
Commission's major findings and recommendations are found in Chapter 3,
whereas relevant background material is found in Chapters I and 2.

1-3

B. History of the Tampa Bay Management Study Commission

In 1968 a conference sponsored by the University of South Florida
recommended no reduction of present bay bottom area or mean bay dimensions
below mean high water, and no modification of present bay bottom except for
the maintenance dredging of existing navigation channels. The group also
recommended limits to municipal wastewater discharges, as well as the
establishment of a baywide management committee (University of South0
Florida, 1970). No action were taken regarding the first conclusion, but a
local act of the Florida Legislature, which was later repealed in 1981, did
implement stringent limits on sewage treatment plant effluents.

In response to growing public concern about the environmental degradation
of Tampa Bay the Legislature passed a local act in 1970 creating the Tampa
Bay Conservation and Development Commission (see appendix A). This
Commission was to consist of ten members composed entirely of local
legislators and other elected officials. The Commission was empowered to
undertake studies to ascertain the public interest in Tampa Bay, and to
determine the effects of further dredging and filling on navigation, and
fish and wildlife resources in the bay. Unfortunately, the Tampa Bay
Conservation and Development Commission never met once.

In 1982 the first symposium on Tampa Bay was held at the University of
South Florida. The Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium (BASIS)
lasted four days and involved topical presentations by 50 invited
speakers. Major conclusions of the Symposium were that (a) Tampa Bay can
and should be comprehended, and managed, as a single ecological system; (b)
the bay is remarkably resistant to the environmental challenges; (c) a
clear pattern of decline is evident in some measures of ecological
condition; and (d the management needs of Tampa Bay are relatively clear
and, if implemented in a comprehensive and baywide basis, would result in
tangible improvements to the bay and its usefulness to people.

It was further concluded that, at the present time, state and federal
regulatory agencies, local governments surrounding the bay, and an array of
industries and user groups often carry out their respective acitivities
independently. The effect of bay management by a multitude of overlaping
and often conflicting interests and jurisdictions had thus contributed to a
number environmental and growth management problems in the bay area.

In partial recognition of these problems BASIS organizers suggested that
the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council initiate a comprehensive
investigation of Tampa Bay from a variety of viewpoints. On May 10, 1982,
a motion was passed by the Council to establish the Tampa Bay Management
Study Committee. The Committee was charged with the task of identifying
critical bay management problems and evaluating potential solutions for
those problems. in December 1982, a grant was received from the Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation, through the federal Coastal Zone
Management program, to help support committee activities for one year and
to develop a management plan for Tampa Bay.

The Tampa Bay Management Study Committee was composed of representatives
from local, regional, state and federal agencies, the academic community
and commercial, industrial, recreational and environmental interests.
Initially, five subcommittees were formed to specifically address

1-4

ecological, industrial, institutional, economic and recreational aspects of
Tampa Bay. The planning process consisted of five steps: 1)
identification of the management boundary, 2) adoption of goals and
objectives, 3) identification of major bay management concerns, 4)
development of bay management guidelines and 5) identification of existing
and potential implementation programs and strategies. In December of 1983
grant funds for this effort expired and the final Tampa Bay Management
Study document was published.

Because of the large number and complex nature of the issues affecting
Tampa Bay, the Tampa Bay Study Committee could not reach a consensus
regarding a recommended strategy to direct a coordinated approach to the
management of the bay. As a result, the Committee recommended, and the
Council approved, the interim establishment of a 15 to 20 member Tampa Bay
Management Steering Committee in October, 1983. The composition of this
Committee provided for effective representation from a wide range of Tampa
Bay's business, environmental, and industrial interests as well as from the
local regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over the bay.

During its' six-month tenure the Steering Committee concentrated primarily
on a comprehensive survey and review of all entities having management
responsibility for Tampa Bay with the objective of documenting all major
jurisdictional gaps and overlaps. As a result of this effort, an existing
authorities matrix was developed (see appendix B).

Through the efforts of local legislators and key members of the Tampa Bay
Management Steering Committee, a special legislative act was introduced and
passed during the 1984 session of the Florida Legislature creating the
Tampa Bay Management Study Commission (see appendix A), in recognition of
the need for a more credible and structured forum within which to proceed.
The Commission was to be composed of essentially the same membership as the
Steering Committee, and was to retain many of the members of the
predecessor Study Committee as an adjunct Technical Aevisory Committee.
Apeendix C lists all members of the Tampa Bay Management Study Commission
and it's Technical Advisory Committee.

The Commission was granted a one-year mandate to complete the following
tasks:

1. Develop a recommended Bay Management Plan and make a formal
recommendation to the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council 30 days prior
to the 1985 session of the Florida Legislature.

3. Seek new sources of funding, as well as assist in coordinating
existing funded efforts, to implement studies or actions addressing
priority bay management issues. Such funding was not to be limited to
only funding efforts of the Council, but also essential work by other
public and private groups.

1-5

4. Monitor proposals falling under the review responsiblities of the
Council for compliance with the recommended Bay Mangement Plan.

5. Make specific recommendations to the Council concerning bay management
issues that may be identified during the lifetime of the Commission.

In conjunction with these efforts, the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
procurred a second Coastal management grant in October of 1984 to support
the activities of the Commission. During its one-year tenure the
Commission provided technical commentary and made specific recommendations
to the Council regarding two major bay mangement issues - the Tampa Bay
wasteload allocation study, and the proposed deepening of the Alafia River
and Big Bend navigation channels (see appendix D).

With the submittal of this document the Tampa Bay Management Study
Commission proclaims to have satisfactorily fulfilled all of it's mandated
tasks. The Commission, however, will remain in formal existence until the
end of the 1985 session of the Florida Legislature

1-6

C. Management Boundary

During the planning process a two-fold definition was developed to
delineate a proposed management boundary for the Tampa Bay estuarine
system. This is because it was unanimously acknowledged that the Tampa Bay
estuary could never be comprehensively managed without determining and
* ~ ~~ontrolling the impacts of-those activities occurring upstream from, or
adjacent to, the estuary. Therefore, boundaries for the Tampa Bay estuary,
and for a broader Tampa Bay watershed were defined as follows:

Tampa Bay Estuary

The Tampa Bay estuary includes a connected group of estuaries and emnbay-
ments; 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 at 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 including all intertidal wetlands. Figure 1.2 depicts the
defined management boundaries of Tampa Bay proper. Further, the zones of
Tampa Bay proper as defined by Lewis and Whitman (1982) are also recognized
as the official subdivisions of the bay (see figure 1.3).

Tampa Bay'Watershed

The Tampa Bay watershed includes the uplands and freshwaters contained
within the combined watersheds of all rivers and tributaries which flow to
Tampa Bay. The watershed has a total area of about 2200 square miles.
Figure 1.2 also depicts the defined management boundaries of the Tampa Bay
area.*

It should be further noted that these definitions encompass an area that
exceeds the area defined in SB-755, the legislation creating the Tampa Bay
Management Study Commission (see appendix A). The area defined in SB-755
was provided for prescribing the immediate planning authority of the
Commission during its' lifetime.

1-7

!----------'-------
IiI
II
------- -------"'------'----------

8~~Tampa Bay Estuary

l/X Tampa Bay Watershed Figure 1.2. Proposed management
Pithlachascote? R./

M~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~il

boundariesnc of the Tampa Bay study

1-8 area.
., . '-.}~:::?i!'=~~i: . ,,-/.,~~.,.,.'',,/

iii/l~~~~~~~~~~i//////////~~~~~~~~~~~~~i

''' /J/l//////// .,:k;/
~//,,/////J////Z//
//~~/// / ,,//// /

////// ~ ~ ~ ////I//

J///r/
,,,/,, Tampa Bay Estuary '" ....

~ Tampa Bay Watershed Figure 1.2, Proposed management
boundaries of the Tampa Bay study
1-8 ~area.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~28 -

15 6 ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~ 0 a 10 MILES1 *

5 0 10 15 KILOMETIRS

SUBDIVISIONS OF TAMPA SAY

0 1~~~~~~~~~~~~ OLD TAMPA BAY 5 BOCA CIEGA SAY N
2 HILLSBOROUGH SAY a TERRA CEIA BAY
3 MIDDLE TAMPA SAY 7 MANATEE RIVER
4 LOWER TAMPA SAY

28' 2 PC -

TAM A

S~T.PETEASBURG

27 - 27'

27'
30 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0'

Fi gure 1. 3. official subdivision of 8 2 30' 82'1 8'
Tampa Bay proper (Lewis and Whitman,.
1982).

1-9

D. Goals and Objectives

In order to initiate the process of formulating goals and objectives, staff
summarized goal statements contained in proceedings from conferences and
symposia held in Tampa Bay over recent years, and in other publications
related to bay management elsewhere in the nation. In December 1984, the
Policies/Objectives Subcommittee of the Tampa Bay Management Study
Commission approved the revised goal statements developed by the various
Subcommittees of the previous Tampa Bay Management Study Committee. In
addition, a primary goal statement for the overall program, and a series of
objective statements derived from the above referenced sources were also
approved. The following represent the adopted goals and objectives of
the Tampa Bay Management Study Commission:

Primary Goal - To develop and implement a unified regional management plan
for the entire Tampa Bay estuarine system including its tributaries,
adjacent wetlands, embayments and contiguous developed shorelands in a
manner that will maintain, or enhance where feasible, those physical,
chemical, biological, economic and aesthetic qualities that encompass the
basic character and potential value of Tampa Bay.

Ecology Goal - To restore and/or maintain Tampa Bay as an estuarine eco-
system in which commonly recognized ranges of scientifically valid
parameters in comparable, healthy estuaries are consistently present.

a To avoid irreversible or irretrievable commitments of the Bay's natural
resources;

0 To provide protection for endangered, threatened or rare species of
plants and animals that exist within the waters of Tampa Bay or the
adjacent coastal wetlands;

* To optimize the quality and quantity of marine life;

Economy Goal - To quantify the conomic value and promote the contribution
of those public and private enterprises that provide goods and services to
the community, and are dependent upon Tampa Bay as a resource essential for
their existence.

* To provide a wide array of water oriented opportunities at the water's
edge, consistent with the primary goal;

� To protect the Bay as a great natural and economic resource for the
benefit of present and future generations.

Industry Goal - To achieve a balance between the commercial uses of Tampa
Bay and the Bay's natural environment for their mutual benefit.

* To promote water transportation and enhance the Bay's contribution to
the economic health of the community through marina development and
other appropriate measures consistent with the primary goal, and

* To develop the Bay and its shoreline to their highest potential with a
minimum of Bay dredging and/or filling.

1-10

Recreation Goal - To maximize current and future recreational benefits for
the public of Tampa Bay with due concern for the environment.

a To maintain, or enhance where necessary, water quality that permits
safe water contact, recreation and propagation of fish and wildlife;

0 To enhance physical and visual access thereby increasing the potential
for environmentally sound utilization and attractiveness of Tampa Bay
for the public at large;

Institutions Goal - To provide a suitable regulatory framework for the
implementaiton of the Tampa Bay Management Study Commission recommend-
at ions.

� To address and resolve the jurisdictional issues relating to Tampa Bay
in order to provide long-term management capability;

� To seek funding for activities which are necessary to achieve the
primary goal;

* To provide continuing monitoring of the Bay in order to assemble an
adequate data bases for Bay Management.

E. Overview of Tampa Bay - A Profile of Change

Hydrographic Features

Tampa Bay is Florida's largest open water estuary. Tampa Bay proper covers
373 square miles and is wider than 10 miles in places. including all
contiguous wetlands, the total area of the bay is about 398 square
miles, and the estimated average volume of the bay is 116 billion cubic0
feet (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%) occuring 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 percent loss in
total mangrove and marsh acreage illustrates the relative importance of the
lost area (Lewis, 1978). In Charlotte Harbor, Harriss et al. (1983) calcu-
lated that during 1945-1982 mangrove and marsh acreage actually increased
by 2%, so losses in Tampa Bay have been considerable.

Tampa Bay is a naturally shallow body of water, having an average depth of
about 12 feet (Goodwin, 1984), and a maximum natural depth of about 90 feel,
in Egmont Channel at the mouth of the bay. Approximatley 90% of the bay
bottom is less than 22 feet 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 increased relief took place prior to 1972 and is
associated with channel dredging and a general rise in sea level.

As an important port of commerce, Tampa Bay is riddled with permanent
navigation channels. A total of 42 nautical miles of channels with
designed mean low water depths of between 20 and 43 feet are present
(Simon, 1974). The main shipping channel was first dredged in the 1880's
and is now being deepened and maintained by the Corps of Engineers at a
depth of 43 feet, and a width of 400 feet. The channel provides access to
Port Manatee, Port Tampa, Port Sutton, the Alafia River, a number of
electrical power plants and Tampa Harbor. Figure 1.4 shows the alignment
of the major navigation channels in Tampa Bay.

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). Areas
of hard or live bottom, including outcrops of rocky relief and oyster bars,
occur in the bay but are generally poorly documented.

1-12

to 5 0o 5 10 MILLS

')27. . 5 5 10 15 KILOMETERS5

%\\sborouh

'---) .'!*

/' A

(O A
o 1-13

-~ . ~ -.. ST. -?.
PETERSBURG'"
m~ " T A

-Ni-
Figure 1.4.Majornaviga..t ..

channels : :a a. .

Circulation and Flushing

The freshwater drainage basin surrounding Tampa Bay covers an area of about
2,200 square miles (Hutchinson, 1983) and containes four authentic rivers
including the Hillsborough, Alafia, Little Manatee and Manatee (see figure
1.2). Another, the Palm River, once drained lands between the Hillsborough
and Alafia Rivers but was completely channelized and controlled since 1970,
and now is called 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 is impounded at places. Numerous lesser
tributaries and three major flood control channels also drain into Tampa
Bay.

Over 450 billion gallons of freshwater annually flow into Tampa Bay with
peak periods of stream flow corresponding to periods of greatest rainfall
(summer and fall). Approximately 85 percent 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 1i1l gal./yr.) exceed the others
(Alafia: 1.12 x 10 11gal./yr.; Manatee: 6.87 x 1010 gal./yr.; Little
Manatee: 5.94 x 1010gal/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) attenuating surface
flows and constituent loads; (b) prolonging estuarine conditions along
shorelines and in marshes or mangrove forests; and (c) 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 man-made tributaries so that many of
the benefits of diffuse flows have probably been lost (Estevez and Lewis,
in press).

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.,
with a range of about 3.5 ft. to 0.2 ft. or less (Corps of Engineers,
1974). The tidal heights are greatly influenced by wind direction and
velocity, being elevated by strong winds form the southwest, and reduced
by winds form 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 (in excess of 6.0
ft./sec. on ebb tide; under 3.5 ft./sec. on flood tide) and 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 circulation, with the floodflow being concentrated toward
the eastern side. The major component of the ebb flow, especially from Old

1-14

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 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 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.

Circulation refers to the paths taken by water currents and its
constituents due to tidal forces, runoff, wind and other effects. Flushing
is the net retention or export of water or waterbourne material after
circulation has occured over a period of time. Both circulation and
flushing in estuaries are determined largely by the inflow of freshwater
relative to tidal action. Total freshwater inflow to Tampa Bay is about 45
m3 /sec. much less than the average tidal flow at half tide of 25,500 m3
/sec. Thus Tampa Bay may be considered a neutral or mildly positive
estuary which, due to bathymetry 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, espcially in Hillsborough Bay;

increased depth and volume, especially in Hillsborough Bay;

* major (more than 100%) reductions in flood and ebb tide transport
caused by causeways and filling of upper Hillsborough Bay;

* major (more than 100%) 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 three important
conclusions, e.g., that physical changes to the bay have caused significant
effects in circulation and flushing; 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 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, in press).

Water Quality

Available data on dissolved oxygen levels within the water column range
generally between 9.9 and 11.6 mg/i, although greater extremes have been
reported. The yearly water column average for Tampa Bay as a whole has
been estimated at 5.9 mg/i (Simon, 1974), however, vertical stratification
of dissolved oxygen in portions of the bay may be very pronounced, with
lowest concentrations occurring near the bottom. Stratification is
induced by high oxygen demands of organic sediments, and by accumulations
of photosynthetic plankton near the surface which shade deeper waters.

Generally, dissolved oxygen becomes limiting to aquatic vertebrates and
macroinvertebrates at levels of about 2.8 mg/I. Although many organisms
can withstand temporary exposure to lower dissolved oxygen levels,
prolonged exposure can lead to fish kills and mass mortalities of bottom
dwelling organisms. Extended periods of low dissolved oxygen and
accompanying fish kills have been recorded both within Hillsborough Bay and
in blind end canals in Old Tampa Bay and Boca Ciega Bay (Simon, 1974). In
documented cases, the low dissolved oxygen levels were associated with
pollution point sources releasing oxygen demanding organic materials, or
with the resuspension of anaerobic bottom sediments as as result of
dredging operations.

Dissolved oxygen concentrations naturally vary diurnally and seasonally,
with bottom levels' being highest in January and lowest in June-August.
Bottom dissolved oxygen levels in Hillsboruogh Bay violate existing state
standards (4.0 mg/1) 60-90 days each year, and extreme ranges are greater
than in other bay sectors. Dissolved oxygen in Old Tampa Bay covaries in
range and pattern with other portions of Tampa Bay, but Hillsborough Bay is
almost always lower. During the past decade, however, bottom levels have
declined significantly while surface levels have increased slightly in bay
areas other than Hillsborough Bay. Figure 1.5 depicts average annual and
seasonal bottom dissolved oxygen levels in Tampa Bay.

Turbidity is an expression of the optical quality of a water sample to
scatter and absorb light rather than transmit light in straight lines. The
penetration of light in a water body can be reduced by a number of factors
including both organic (e.g. phytoplankton blooms, suspended organic
matter) an inorganic (tannic acid, suspended sediments) constituents.
Light penetration in estuaries regulates the productivity of phytoplankton
and seagrasses.

Several years of monitoring data revealed that the least transparent
waters of Tampa Bay regularly occur in Hillsborough Bay and much of Old
Tampa Bay, where mean annual light penetration is less than 4.3 feet.
Light penetration generally improves in mid and lower Tampa Bay, except
along the eastern shore during the spring and summer, and is best near the
mouth of the bay where values exceed 9.2 feet (HCEPC, 1984).

In Tampa Bay as a whole, turbidity varies seasonally reaching a peak in the
spring and its lowest point during the winter (Palik, 1984). However, the
relative importance of factors reducing light penetration differ between
the various sectors of the bay. Transparency in lower portions of Tampa
Bay is controlled primarily by nonbiogenic or inorganic sources
(resuspension of sediments from dredging) while light penetration in

1-16

Mean annual dissolved oxygen near the bottom in Tampa Bay.

DISSOLVED OXYGEN BOTTOM (MIN)

5.i -
.. .4 .. ..

Mean monthly dissolved oxygen nears the botto ino-O' o, oSay,

r�
L- N

1.5-
75 74 75 7' 7? P& 7t1 00 4 .-
IR
LC(CI A.O3I ... -1B ..... -00 -- nl -.- GTB

Mean monthly dissolved oxygen near the bottom in Tampa Bay.

DISSOLVED OXYGEN BOTTOM (1982)
0.5-

I- \

1.0- ' ,\/

1 5 '. ������%,

Figure 1.5. Mean annual and seasonal

Tampa Bay (HCEPC, 19841

1- 17

Hillsborough Bay and Old Tampa bay is most significantly reduced by chronic
phytoplankton blooms (as chlorophyll a) (Estevez and Lewis, in press).
Nevertheless, long-term monitoring data (HCEPC, 1984) appear to indicate an
improving baywide trend in effective light penetration following minimum
values recorded in 1979 (see figure 1.6).

Nutrients in the water column are required to maintain the growth of
aquatic plants. Phosphorous and nitrogen are the nutrients most
responsible for causing or limiting excessive plant growth in estuaries.
Excessive algal blooms often result in increased turbidity, reduced
dissolved oxygen, fish kills and odors. Taken together, these conditions
are referred to as eutrophication. Because of the remarkably high
concentrations of phosphorous in Tampa Bay, nitrogen is the nutrient
considered to most limiting to phytoplankton blooms in the majority of the
bay (Fanning and Bell, in press).

Tampa Bay, as a whole, has the highest concentrations of phosphorous of any
major estuarine or coastal area studied with Hillsborough Bay having the
highest levels followed by upper Tampa Bay, Old Tampa Bay, lower Tampa Bay
and Boca Ciega Bay (Fanning and Bell, in press). The primary sources of
phosphorous to Hillsborough Bay appear to have been discharges by the
phosphate industry. However, recycling of process and non-process waste-
water by the industry has resulted in a decline in total phosphorous
loadings to the Alafia River over the past decade (Estevez and Lewis, in
press). Following progressive enrichment up until the early 1970s (Simon,
1974), phosphorous concentrations have also been declining baywide since
about 1973 (Fanning and Bell, in press). Figure 1 .7 shows baywide
phosphate trends between 1972 and 1981.

Nitrogen occurs in seawater simply as a dissolved gas or as a complex
organic molecule, and is thus difficult to measure. Organic nitrogen is
the principle nitrogen source for both plants and animals and can occur in
high amounts in municipal effluent. Both Simon (1974) and McClelland
(1984) identified municipal sewage treatment plants as the primary sources
of organic nitrogen in Tampa Bay, however, non-point sources and tributary
loads are also significant. The Manatee and Alafia Rivers contribute
nearly the same organic nitrogen, 5.5 x 105 lbs/yr., followed by the
Hillsborough River at 4.4 x 105 lbs/yr. (Dooris and Dooris, in press).
High levels of organic nitrogen in the Manatee River have been caused by
the Bradenton sewage treatment plant and pulp effluent from a citrus
processing plant (DeGrove, 1984).

Past nitrogen levels in Hillsborough Bay were greater than seen in other
estuaries (FWPCA, 1969) but inorganic nitrogen for the bay as a whole is
only slightly higher than reported elsewhere (Fanning and Bell, in press).
However, ammonia is more abundant relative to other inorganic forms, than
for many other estuaries. In addition, McClelland (1984) has indicated
that the sediments of Tampa Bay represent a major nitrogen reservoir,
probably as a result of years of discharging primary treated effluent into
the bay. Measurements of nutrient flux rates and sediment oxygen demand
in Tampa Bay sediments are amongst the highest ever recorded. Although
trends in nitrogen levels are difficult to determine, recent modeling
efforts have indicated that the nitrogen reservoir in the sediments will
continue to exacerbate water quality problems in Tampa Bay for years to
come (McClelland, 1984).

EFFECTIVE LIGHT PENETRATION

.t - .CM I

130

�0o -"

.,'.
;o -

. . ...................-. � _..

.%--.

LIN..... Li- s --

Figure 1.6. Mean annual effective
light penetration trends in Taipa
Bay (HCEPC, 1984).

1-19

PHOSPHATE TIME COURSE

A OVERALL AVERAGE
-6 *ILLSSOROUGH BAY
o SOUTH TAMPA. SAY
o, NROTn TAMPA DAY
A OLD TAMPA BAY
* USGS DATA. HILLSSOROUGH BAY
B BOCA CIFGA SAY
CHI CHAALOT7TE PIARBOR
RB ROOKERY SAY
M MANATEE RIVER

701 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~mg/I

2O Id

Figure 107 Men1.ua5popht

~~~~~~~120.

In summary, general water quality is good to excellent in much of lower and
middle Tampa Bay, declining in Old Tampa Bay and undesireable in
Hillsborough Bay (Estevez and Lewis, in press). In addition, the following
qualifying points apply:

� that Tampa Bay is not grossly "polluted", certainly not beyond the
point of rehabilitation;

a that parts of the bay are "cleaner" than others for natural as well as
cultural reasons;

� that levels of some pollutants in the bay have been declining over the
past decade, while others have increased; and

a that the overall "quality" of bay zones- is the same whether judged by
ecological or human use criteria.

Fisheries

According to Taylor (1973), the recorded diversity and abundance of
macroinvertebrate marine life in the Tampa Bay estuary is not exceeded by
any other estuary between Chesapeake Bay and the Laguna Madre of Texas.
The richness of Tampa Bay marine life has been attributed to the geographic
position of the estuary between temperate and subtropical waters (Simon,
1974). As a result of the Bay's location, winter water temperatures rarely
fall to levels which could kill tropical organisms and summer water
temperatures are moderate enough to be tolerated by many of the temperate
species. Another contributing factor to the diversity and abundance of
Tampa Bay marine life is that salinity is typically in the range 25-35 ppt
over most of the estuary, without the wide fluctuations and significant
vertical stratification that characterize many other estuaries. As a
result of the stability of the salinity regime, many ocean species can
coexist with typical estuarine species.

The productivity of Tampa Bay, in terms of commercially valuable
macroinvertebrates, has declined dramatically in recent decades due to
man's influence on the Bay. Oysters once flourished in the shallow
sections of the Tampa Bay system, particularly Hillsborough Bay
(Giovanelli, 1981). In the late 1800s, annual oyster meat yields were on
the order to 500,000 lbs. Between 1902 and 1962 there was a gradual
decline in oyster yields which was attributed to factors such as water
pollution and dredging. There was apparently some increase in yields in
Old Tampa Bay by 1964, but the baywide yields never reached the levels
achieved early in this century.

As an indication of the economic impacts of the shellfishing decline over
the years, the Tampa NURP (1984) program has reported that the now non-
existent shellfishing industry of Hillsborough Bay was valued at $1.5
million as of 1969. A 1974 survey of benthic invertebrates in Tampa Bay
indicated that upper Hillsborough Bay exhibited the lowest densitites and
diversity of benthic invertebrate communities (Texas Instruments, Inc.,
1978), giving further evidence of man-induced alterations that caused the
decline of shellfishing operations within Hillsborough Bay.

1-21

Commercially or recreationally valuable macroinvertebrates within the
Tampa Bay estuary include the following: pink shrimp, stone crab, blue
crab, oyster, bay scallop, southern quahog, sunray venus clam, and squid
(Texas Instruments, Inc., 1978). Currently, the most valuable fishery is
the pink shrimp.

The Tampa Bay estuary and contiguous coastal waters serve as home, feeding
ground, and/or nursery for more than 270 species of resident and migrant
fish. Approximately 80 fish species are found in at least one life stage
within the Tampa Bay estuary, with about 25 of these species considered to
be commercially important. Of special concern are spotted seatrout and red
drum which constitute the bulk of the recreational finfish landings in
Tampa Bay. Available statistics indicate that these species, both of which
spend most of their lives in estuaries, are declining in numbers both
locally and statewide.

Recreational and commercial fishing are extremely important components to
Florida's economy, with total statewide revenues on the order of $2.64
billion (U.S.D.O.I., 1982). More than half of Florida's saltwater sport-
fishing occurs along the Gulf Coast, meaning that a significant percentage
is undoubtedly concentrated near the tourist and population centers of the
Tampa Bay Region (Texas Instruments, Inc., 1978). While not as
economically important as sportfishing, commercial fisheries in Tampa Bay
also represent a significant water use (Giovanelli, 1981).

In a 1968 report, it was estimated that the annual value of the Tampa Bay
estuary for fisheries production alone (e.g., nursery, habitat) was
$300/acre or approximately $82 million per year for the estimated 426
square mile surface area (Giovanelli, 1981). Using an interest rate of
7.63 percent, this annual value may be converted to a capitalized value
(i.e., present worth of a perpetual period of service) of about $1.1
billion for the Tampa Bay fisheries resource alone (presumably in 1967
dollars). Thus, order of magnitude estimates of the value of the fishery
resources clearly demonstrate that the biota of the Tampa Bay system is a
tremendous economic asset which deserves carefully management and
protection.

Aquatic Vegetation Habitats

Emergent aquatic vegetation bordering the Tampa Bay system includes man-
groves and salt marshes. Submergent vegetation includes five species of
seagrasses and more than 200 species of algae (Giovanelli, 1981).
Urbanization in the Tampa Bay region has significantly reduced the amount
of aquatic vegetation available for fisheries and wildlife habitats. Over
the last 100 years, the acreage of emergent vegetation in Tampa Bay
declined by approximately 44 percent (Lewis et.al., 1982). Although newly
instituted wetland protection programs will help prevent additional losses
of major acreages of habitat, the destruction of intertidal wetlands in
Tampa Bay will probably continue on a piecemeal basis. During the same
period, 81 percent of the Tampa Bay seagrass cover disappeared resulting in
a baywide total of approximately 14,200 acres (Lewis, 1983) and less than
400 acres in Hillsborough Bay (Giovanelli, 1981).

1-22

Whereas the decline of emergent vegetation can be attributed to nonwater
quality factors such as seawall construction and other dredge/fill
activities (Giovanelli, 1981), there is evidence from other estuaries such
as Chesapeake Bay (EPA, 1982) that the decline of seagrasses can be
attributed to water quality conditions as well as dredge/fill operations.

The location and composition of seagrasses is governed by the following
major factors (Texas Instruments, Inc., 1978): water transparency,
salinity, temperature, and depth relative to tide. Of these factors, water
transparency is the one most likely to be affected by water quality. Due
to the importance of water transparency, seagrasses are typically limited
to areas with relatively shallow depths to ensure sufficient light
penetration. In the Tampa Bay estuary, due to generally declining water
clarity, seagrass beds have been restricted to very small patches in
Hillsborough Bay, small patches in Old Tampa Bay and upper Tampa Bay, and
larger patches near the mouth of Tampa Bay.

Seagrasses play at least four roles in the ecology of an estuary: (a)
habitat; (b) food source; (c) nutrient buffer; and (d) sediment trap.
Seagrasses serve as a fisheries habitat, including: nurseries for juvenile
stages of some fish species; refuge for molting blue crabs, other
invertebrates, and finfish; a substrate for epiphytic plants and animals;
and a habitat 'for all fauna subsisting directly on seagrasses and its
epiphytes, or detritus derived them. As a food source, submerged aquatic
vegetation is eaten by some fish, but most importantly it contributes to
the detritus-based food web (EPA, 1982). Seagrass beds accumulate detrital
food for invertebrates such as shrimp that in turn serve as food for
finfish.

In some estuaries, there are indications that submerged aquatic vegetation
also serve as nutrient buffers by absorbing nutrients during high
streamflow periods and releasing them during later months as detritus, thus
helping to moderate phytoplankton blooms. Other functions of submerged
aquatic vegetation are the baffling of water movement, thereby causing
enhanced settling of sediment and reduced turbidity, and the binding of
sediment, thereby resulting in stabilized bottom sediments and lower rates
of shoreline erosion. In summary, seagrass meadows make very important
contributions to Tampa Bay's fisheries resources as well as to the overall
ecology of the bay.

Designated Uses

The water quality goals established for an estuary segment depend upon the
designated water uses. According to proposed U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) guidelines (EPA, 1982), the suitability of the waterbody to
attain a particualr use depends upon the "physical, chemical, and
biological characteristics of the waterbody, its geographic setting and
scenic qualities and the socio-economic and cultural characteristics of the
surrounding area."

Tampa Bay is a multiple use water body as defined by Chapter 17-3 of the
Florida Administrative Code. The majority of the bay is designated Class
III: recreation-propogation and maintenance of a healthy well-balanced
population of fish and wildlife. The remainder of Tampa Bay is designated

1-23

as Class II: shellfish propagation and harvesting. Finally, parts of
Tampa Bay have been designated as Outstanding Florida Waters and are
afforded the highest level of protection. Figure 1.8 shows the designated
use areas of Tampa Bay. The most critical water quality indicators for
designated use attainment are dissolved oxygen, nutrients and chlorophyll-
a, coliforms, and toxicants.

Swimming, boating and sportfishing represent the major recreational uses of
Tampa Bay. As a very rough indication of the order of magnitude of
recreation benefits, a 1968 report estimated an annual value of $100/acre
(i.e., capitalized value of approximately $360 million at 7.63 percent) for
non-fishery uses of the Tampa Bay estuary (Giovanelli, 1981). The most
critical water quality indicator for body contact recreation is bacterial
contamination based upon total coliform and fecal coliform concentrations.
In 1980, the public beaches on the southeast shore of the Courtney Campbell
Causeway and at Picnic Island Park were safe for swimming all year, and the
only sections of Tampa Bay exceeding the fecal coliform standard of 200
MPN/100 ml for two months or more were McKay Bay, the uppermost sections of
Hillsborough Bay, and portions of Old Tampa Bay north of the Courtney
Campbell Causeway (Wilkins, 1981).

However, the most critical water quality indicators for fisheries use
attainment are toxicants, nutrient, chlorophyll-a and dissolved oxygen.
While the levels, sources and impacts of toxicant pollution in Tampa Bay
remain poorly understood, the intimate relationships between nutrients,
chlorophyll-a and dissolved oxygen are well documented in the baywide
symptoms of eutrophication. Current, as well as projected, conditions in
Tampa Bay indicate that many portions of the bay are not now attaining, or
will not attain in the future, designated use standards (McClelland, 1984).
Without stringent regulation and management, designated uses in portions of
the bay will realistically need to be downgraded, an action which can only
be viewed as regressive. In all cases, the achievement of water quality
goals for fisheries (including shellfish) will also produce desireable
water quality conditions for other designated uses in Tampa Bay, and should
be the primary goal of any recommended bay management strategy.

1-24

'I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~tAS III

i ~~~~~ ~~~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ - ~~~UTSES~ TANINGA P ATER

divisions~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- in Tampa Bay. q

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.... . . .

~~ - ~~1-25

F. References

Corps of Engineers. 1974. Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Tampa
Harbor Project; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District.
Jacksonville.

Degrove, B. 1984. Manatee River Intensive Survey Documentation. FDER 205(j)
Water Quality Impact Report, Tallahassee.

Dinardi, D.A. 1978. Tampa Bay Circulatory Survey. 1963. NOS Oceanographic
Circulatory Survey Rep. 2, NOAA Washington D.C.

Dooris, P.M. and G.M. Dooris. In Press. Surface flows to Tampa Bay:
quantity and quality aspects. BASIS proceedings, 1982, Tampa.

Estevez, E.D. and R.R. Lewis. In Press. Tampa Bay: an estuarine profile.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Slidell, LA.

Fanning, K.A. and L.M. Bell. In Press.Nutrients in Tampa Bay. BASIS
proceedings, 1982, Tampa.

Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. 1969. Problems and manage-
ment of water quality in Hillsborough Bay, Florida. Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Administration, Washington, D.C.

Giovanelli, R.F. 1981. Relation between freshwater flow and salinity dis-
tributions in the Alafia River, Bullfrog Creek and Hillsborough Bay,
Florida. USGS Water Resources Investigations 80-102.

Giovanelli, R.F. 1981. Tampa Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP): Phase
I report. Department of Public Works, City of Tampa.

Goodell, H.G. and D.S. Gorsline. 1961. A sedimentologic study of Tampa
Bay, Florida. Fla. St. Univ. Oceanogr. Inst. Contrib. 167. Proc. Int'l.
Geol. Congr. XXI Session, Norden, 1960.

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 Report 84-447.

Harris, B.A., K.D. Haddad, K.A. Steidinger and J.A. Huff. 1983. Assessment
of fisheries habitat: Charlotte Harbor and Lake Worth, Florida. Florida
Department of Natural Resources, Marine Research Laboratories, St.
Petersburg.

Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission, 1984.
Environmental Quality 1982-1983, Hillsborough County, Florida. Tampa.

Hutchinson, C.B. 1983. Assessment of the interconnection between Tampa Bay
and the Floridan Aquifer, Florida. U.S. Geological Survey WRI 82-54.

Lewis, R.R. 1977. Impacts of dredging in the Tampa Bay estuary, 1876-1976.
Pages 31-55 in E.L. Pruitt (ed.), Proc. Second Ann. Conf. Coastal
Society. The Coastal Society, Arlington, VA.

Lewis, R.R. 1983. Protection and management of seagrass meadows - is it
working? Proc. Ann. Meeting Fla. Acad. Sci., April, 1983. Fla. Inst.
Tech., Melbourne.

1- 27

Lewis, R.R., M.J. Dunako, M.D. Moffler and R.C. Phillips. Seagrass meadows
of Tampa Bay - a review. BASIS proceedings. 1982, Tampa.

Lewis, R.R. and R.E. Whitman. In Press. A new geographic description of
boundaries and subdivisions of Tampa Bay. BASIS proceedings, 1982,
Tampa.

Lindall, W.N., Jr. and L. Trent. 1975. Housing development canals in the
coastal zone of the Gulf of Mexico: ecological consequences, regulations,
and recommendation. Mar. Fish. Rev. 37(10): 19-24.

McClelland S. 1984. Draft Tampa Bay 205(j) Water Quality Impact Study.
FDER Water Quality Technical Services Vol 2, Tallahassee.

Olson, F.C. and J.B. Morrill. 1955. Literature survey of the Tampa Bay
area. Part I. Oceanography Inst. Florida State University, Tallahassee.

Palik, T.F. 1984. Compilation of five year seasonal water quality data
for Tampa Bay. Martel Laboratories, St. Petersburg.

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. II D - to II D - 45. Florida
Institute of Oceanography, St. Petersburg, Florida.

Ross, B.E., M.A. Ross and P.D. Jerkins. 1984. Wasteload allocation study,
Tampa Bay, Florida. Final Rept. to Fla. Dept. Env. Reg. Contr. DER WM#54
12-2104-059. College of Eng., Univ. So. Fla., Tampa.

Simon, J.L. 1974. Tampa Bay estuarine system - a synopsis. Fla. Sci.
37(4):217-245.

Taylor, J.L. 1973. Biological studies and inventory: Tampa Harbor Project;
Jacksonville District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Jacksonville.

Texas Instruments, Inc. 1978. Central Florida phosphate industry areawide
impact assessment program. Vol. V - Water. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

University of South Florida. 1970. Long range effects of bay dredge and
fill in Florida. Proceedings of conferences held December, 1968 and
March, 1969, Tampa.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1982. 1980 National Survey of fishing,
hunting, and wildlife - associated recreation: Florida. U.S. Government
Printing Office 380-997/2368. Washington D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Chesapeake Bay program: a
profile of change. Annapolis, MD.

Wilkins, R.G. (ed.) 1981. Environmental Quality 1980: Air and Water
Quality in Hillsborough County, Florida. 1980 Annual Report Hillsborough
County Environmental Protection Commission.

1-28

CHAPTER 2

A. Planning Process

During meetings from July, 1982 to March, 1983 the various Subcommittees of
the Tampa Bay Management Study Committee identified local and regional
issues, including many site specific concerns, related to the comprehensive
management of Tampa Bay. A summary list of general environmental concerns
and management issues was approved at the March 22, 1983 Committee meeting
and is shown in table 2.1.

The major effort of the Committee following the preparation of this list
was to further identify and focus upon specific bay management problems.
Through the Subcommittee meetings a total of 42 specific issues were
identified. At the August 30, 1983 Committee meeting the final issue list
was approved in priority ranking, and is shown in table 2.2.

The task of the Tampa Bay Management Study Commission was to build upon the
accomplishments of the previous committee. The 42 specific bay management
issues were reviewed by two Subcommittees to determine additional
information or research needs and to develop specific recommendations and
strategies for.-rectifying the identified problems. The Science/Engineering
Subcommittee reviewed those issues which were more technical in nature and
would require particu'lar technical expertise to recommend solutions. The
Planning/Management Subcommittee reviewed those issues requiring
essentially administrative or political solutions.

In the process of their reviews the two Subcommittees developed a series of
issue briefs, one for each identified bay management problem, following a
specific format. In the following issue briefs, the format headings can be
described as follows:

� Issue Analysis - This heading includes a brief discussion of the
specific problem as it relates to Tampa Bay including pertinent facts,
data and references.

* Relevant Laws and Statutes - This heading includes a citation of the
major federal lasand Florida Statutes considered to be directly
related to the specific problem. Local laws and regulations are
excluded due to the complexities involved.

* Bay Management Objectives - This heading includes problem-specific goals
and objectives statements, consistent with the overall program goals,
objectives and policies.

� Bay Management Recommendations - This heading includes both general and
specific recommendations aimed at rectifying the identified problem.

* Work Elements - This heading, which always occurs as a sub-heading under
a recommendation, encompasses a more specific recommended action or
implementation strategy. Also, cited are the specific entitites to be
involved, as well as estimated needed manpower and funding allocations
for proposed studies or programs, where applicable.

2-1

* Long-term Management Alternatives - This heading includes three sub-
headings referring to three alternative management scenarios under which
the specific problem could be addressed. The three scenarios include
the existing or status quo management framework, a permanent bay
advisory committee under the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, and a
legislatively mandated bay management authority with regulatory powers.
The probability and effect of implementing the recommended solutions is
briefly discussed under each of the three scenarios.

2- 2

Table 2.1. List of major concerns and management issues identified by the
Subcommittees.

Environmental Concerns:

Development and Growth
Industrial, Municipal and Transportation Impacts on Tampa Bay
Impacts from Changes to Tidal Creeks
Declining Visual Quality
Decline in Harvestable Resources
Habitat Loss and Restoration
Changes in Bay Circulation
Loss of Resources Based Recreational Opportunities
Changes to Species Composition and Community Structure
(Excessive Blooms, Mass Mortalities, Reduced Diversity, etc.)
Loss of Assimilative Capacity
Long Term Changes in Salinity Patterns
Changes in Hydrography
Contamination of Life Forms

Management Issues:

Intergovernmental Coordination and Jurisdictional Control over
Tampa Bay
Public Participation and Education
User Conficts and Limits on Activities
ownership of Submerged Lands
Bay Management Alternatives and Implementation Measures
Public/Visual Access and Shoreline Recreation Facilities
Funding
Value of Tampa Bay for Commerce
Controls on Industry
Water Quality Management and Violations of Standards
Wildlife Management
Management and Acquisition of Public Lands

2- 3

Table 2.2. Tampa Bay Study Committee Numerical Priority List

1. Funding
2. Loss of Seagrass in Tampa Bay
3. Non-Point Source Discharges Entering Tampa Bay
4. Spoil Disposal and Management of Spoil Islands
5. Hazardous Waste Disposal and Management
6. Enforcement
7. Control of Septage Waste
8. Aquatic Preserves
9. Seagrass, Marsh and Mangrove Habitat Creation
10. Municipal and Industrial Discharges
11. Stronger State Wetlands Regulation
12. Study and Management of Tidal Creeks and Rivers
13. Wasteload Allocation for Tampa Bay
14. Assessment of Fishery Stocks in Tampa Bay
15. Gypsum Decommissioning, Hillsborough County
16. Commercial & Sport Fishing Regulation
17. Documenting the Economic Importance of Tampa Bay
18. Public Education
19. Urban Waterfront Development and Public Access
20. Load Relief for Major Sewage Treatment Plants
21. Water Quality Improvement for Recreational Uses
22. Stormwater Detention Requirements for Redevelopment
23. Review of Rules and Regulations
24. McKay Bay Management Plan
25. Shellfish Classification
26. Power Plant Entrainment
27. Hendry Fill Restoration Project
28. Contingency Planning for Post-Hurricane Acquisition of Habitat
29. Mitigation Banking
30. Management of Bower Tract and Adjacent Wetlands
31. Management of Passage Key
32. Management and Restoration of Shorelines in Boca Ciega Bay
33. Improvements to Bridge Facilities Crossing Tampa Bay
34. Channel A Restoration
35. Water Quality Improvements Using Tidal Gates and Pumps
36. User Conflicts and Limits on Activities
37. Marina Siting Policy
38. Construction of New Skyway Bridge Pier Protection System
39. Extension'of 49th Street (St. Petersburg) Across Tampa Bay
40. Sailboat Launching
41. Odor
42. Manatee River Derelict Train Trestle, Manatee County

2-4

B. Bay Management issue Briefs

Issue #1 Funding

Issue Analysis: In many of the issue papers to follow, specific studies,
restoration projects and administrative actions are proposed as steps to
i~mprove the management of the Tampa Bay estuarine system. Taken either,
individually or as a comprehensive program these steps will require
sufficient sources of both short-term (non-recurring) and long-term
(recurring) funding in order to be effectively implemented. A list of
possible funding sources for proposed bay management studies, projects and
actions is provided below followed by a brief discussion of the function
and possible uses of each. Although this list represents a compilation of
the most appropriate funding sources presently known to be available, it
probably does not include many other lesser known granting programs and
fund raising alternatives.

Funding Sources:

1. Non-recurring (short term)

A. Federal

� Coastal Management grants
* Public Works program
* Section 201 grants
* Section 205(j) grants
� Florida "Sea Grant" program
* Water Research Institute program
* Special federal agency studies

B. State

* Florida Coastal Protection Trust Fund (Chapter 376.11, Florida
Statutes)
* Wa ter Quality Assurance Trust Fund (Chapter 376.307, Florida
Statutes)
* Pollution Recovery Fund (Chapter 403.165, Florida Statutes)
� Water Resources Restoration and Preservation trust Fund (Chapter
403.0615, Florida Statutes)
* Aquatic Preserve Program (Chapter 258, Florida Statutes)
* CARL program (Chapter 259, Florida Statutes)
* "Save Our Coast" program
* "Save Our Rivers" program
* Growth Management Trust Fund
* Special legislative funding requests

2. Recurring (long-term)

A. Federal

a Wallop-Breaux Fund

2-5

B. State

� Marine recreational fishing license fees
� Saltwater products license fees
� Submerged land lease fees
* Phosphate severence tax

C. Local

* Ad-valorum taxing authority
� Special commercial net license fees (Pinellas County - Chapter
83-504, Laws of Florida; Manatee County - Chapter 84-471, Laws
of Florida)

Discussion:

Coastal Management Grants

These funds are made available under the terms of Section 306 of the
federal Coastal, Zone Management Act. The Department of Environmental
Regulation administers'the funds at the state level and accepts proposals
from state agencies, water management districts, regional planning
councils, port authorities and eligible local governments. Priority is
given to projects dealing with the protection and management of natural
coastal resources (especially estuaries), management of coastal
development, improved public access to coastal areas and improved
predictability and efficiency of government decision making. In 1984
$1,023,969 was awarded to state agency projects while $611,201 went to
local proposals. A matching contribution of 25% of federal funds is
required. The activities of the Tampa Bay Management Study Commission and
previous committees were entirely funded through this program.

Public Works Program

The Department of Environmental Regulation, under the authority of Chapter
373.026(9), Florida Statutes, each year prepares a program for recommended
federal appropriations for Army Corps of Engineers' water resource studies
and projects in Florida. Any agency, commission, district, municipality or
political subdivision for the state may sponsor a study or project falling
into one or more of four general categories including flood damage
protection, navigation, beach erosion control and environmental restoration
and enhancement. Local sponsors are required to provide a variable
proportion of the costs involved as well as lands, easements, disposal
areas, materials, etc. which are determined on a project-specific basis.
This is not a true granting program as transfer of funds between local
sponsors and the Corps rarely take place. Rather, the program allows for i
local initiation of the federal authorization process for locally
implemented corps projects and studies. The Tampa Harbor Deepening Project
and related studies were initiated and implemented through this program.

2-6

Section 201 Grants

Section 201 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act provides federal
grants to local governments for the planning and construction of sewage
treatment and disposal facilities. At the state level the Department of
Environmental Regulation administers the funds through its Bureau of Waste-
water Management Grants.

Section 205(j) Grants

Section 205(j) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act provides federal
grants to states to carry out water quality management planning and
technical studies. In Florida, the Department of Environmental Regulation
administers the funds and is required to pass through only 1% of the
state's award to regional and local entities. Federal 205(j). monies
presently provide support for a significant proportion of the state's water
quality programs, and were exclusively used to fund the recently completed
wasteload allocation study for Tampa Bay (see issue #13).

Florida "Sea Grant" Ptogram.

The National Sea Grant College and Program Act of 1966 established state
"Sea Grant" college programs in coastal states providing matching support.
Under the guidelines of the general Sea Grant mandate, Florida's three-
pronged program of research, education, and technology transfer is pursued
by a statewide system of public and private universities and laboratories,
in collaboration with industry, government at all levels, and the public.
This network concentrates its efforts in the broad program areas of living
marine resources, coastal processes and development, marine industries,
education, and extension. Grants are awarded bi-annually to univeristy
faculty or other qualified researchers for applied work in each of these
program areas., Sea Grant funds were used to partially fund the Bay Area
Scientific Information Symposium (BASIS) in 1982.

Water Resources Institute Program

The Water Research Act of 1984 authorized the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
to establish a granting program within qualified colleges and universities
for the purpose of conducting applied research related to the economic,
legal, engineering, social, recreational, biological, geographical,
ecological or other aspects of water problems. Funds can also be used for
the dissemination of water resource information.

Special Federal Agency Studies

Large sums of money are spent annually by numerous federal agencies (EPA,
COE, NMFS, USFWS, USES) on various special studies and projects involving
Tampa Bay. A major commitment by a federal agency, such as the Environ-
mental Protection Agency's multi-million Chesapeake Bay Program, represents
a potentially significant source of long-term funds and expertise for

2-7

improving the management of Tampa Bay. However, until very recently two
major problems lead to the virtual waste of these funds. The first is that
research program guidance is not coordinated by any one agency in the Tampa
Bay area, thus overlap with previous or ongoing studies is common, while
other important research areas go unfunded and unstudied. Secondly, the
decisions on research study format and methodology are typically made by
individuals with little local scientific knowledge or specific interest in
the topics under study. The recent efforts of the Tampa Bay Regional
Planning Council to coordinate a number of federal, state, regional and
local habitat restoration studies in the bay area represents an important
and needed function.

Florida Coastal Protection Trust Fund

Chapter 376.11, F.S., establishes a fund to, be used by the Department of
Natural Resources as a non-lapsing revolving fund credited by excise taxes,
registration fees, penalties, judgements and other charges related to the
discharge of pollutants. The purpose of the fund is to provide a mechanism
to have financial resources immediately available for cleanup and
rehabilitation following an oil spill. in addition, up to 50% of the
interest earned from investments of the fund may be used for the acquisi-
tion and improvement of spoil disposal sites.

Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund

Chapter 376.307, F.S., establishes a non-lapsing revolving fund credited by
an annual transfer of interest funds from the Florida Coastal Protection
Trust Fund, and by excise taxes, penalties, judgements and other charges.
The fund is administered by the Department of Environmental Regulation and
is to be used for the cleanup and restoration of any site which may be
contaminated by a hazardous waste. This fund could be utilized to assist
in the decommissioning and cleanup of the Gardenier gypsum stack.

Pollution Recovery Fund

Chapter 403.165, F.S. establishes a fund which is credited by any monies
recovered by the state in any action against any party which has polluted
the air, soil or water. The fund is administered by the Department of
Environmental Regulation and is to be used to restore the respective
polluted areas which were the subjects of state action to their former
condition. Any monies remaining in the fund are then to be used by the
DER, as it sees fit, to pay for any work needed to restore areas which
required more money than the state was able to obtain by court action, or
to restore areas in which the state brought suit but was unable to recover
any monies from the alleged violators. Between July 1, 1980 and June 30,
1983, a total of $7,143,174 was available and $3,479,215 was spent on a
variety of projects leaving a balance of $3,663,959. Although significant
funds have been collected from Tampa Bay area violations none have ever
been used to restore those particular disturbed areas around the Bay. This0
fund needs to be properly administered so that funds are returned to, and
benefit, the area from which they were generated. This is an obvious
source of funds for specific projects such as the Hendry Fill/Little
Redfish Creek restoration. However, as noted in other discussions (see
issue #27) even the $80,000 allocated specifically for the Hendry Fill
restoration has remained unspent for over three years.

2-8

Water Resources Restoration and Preservation Trust Fund

Chapter 403.0615, F.S. establishes a fund which is credited by transfers of
funds from the general revenue, the Pollution Recovery Fund and from
available federal monies. The fund is to be used to restore degraded, or
preserve pristine, waters of the state. The fund is to be administered by
the Department of Environmental Regulation. Although specific rules for
the allocation and use of this fund have not yet been finalized, it
represents a potential source of monies for restoration and management of
tidal creeks and rivers (see issue #12) in the Tampa Bay watershed.

Aquatic Preserve Program

The Aquatic Preserve designation (Chapter 258, Florida Statutes) is the
primary mechanism by which the State preserves and protects large tracts of
sovereign submerged and intertidal lands. However, the state outlay of
funds for aquatic preserve management, other than that directly spent in
Charlotte Harbor, was absent prior to July, 1984. This is in contrast to
an increasing demand for a management role throughout the state system of
aquatic preserves, both from within state government and from the general
public. The 1984 Legislature for the first time funded aquatic preserve
management statewide with $92,174. But this funding is derived from
federal Coastal Management grants, is subject to annual renewal, and is
totally inadequate to meet the program needs. A long-term source of funds
is needed for this program to succeed (see issue #)

CARL Program

Chapter 259, F.S., establishes the procedures for the issuance of state
bonds not to exceed $240 million, for the public purchase of
environmentally sensitive lands. The program assisted in the public
purchase of the Gateway tract in Pinellas County and could be used for
similar purchase and preservation of the Bower tract and Coopers Point in
Tampa Bay.

"Save Our Coast" Program

This program is funded by a $200 million bond program initiated by the
Florida Cabinet. The 26 properties now on the "Save Our Coast" priority
list would cost approximately $190 million dollars to acquire. None of the
26, however, are in the three counties bordering Tampa Bay. These funds
could potentially be used to purchase extensively altered coastal lands
following a major storm disaster (see issue #28).

"Save Our Rivers" Program

This program, administered by the state Water Management Districts, is
funded by a five cents per $100 documentary tax stamp and is expected to
generate $320 million over 10 years. .The Southwest Florida Water
Management District had acquired four parcels totaling 1802 acres through
April 1984. These funds could be used to preserve portions of major
pristine tributaries entering Tampa Bay (e.g. Braden River).

2-9

Growth Management Trust Fund

The Florida State and Regional Planning Act of 1984 established the
creation of a non-lapsing fund for the purpose of providing grants to state
agencies, regional planning councils and local governments for the
performance of studies, reports or other activities, leading to the
effective implementation of regional and local comprehensive plans.
However, specific rules for the administration of this fund have not yetS
been developed.

Special Legislative Funding Requests

Special legislative funding requests could be used to finance specific
showcase projects in Tampa Bay. For example, the Dade County legislative
delegation had appropriated from state general revenues $125,000 in
planning funds, and over $2 million in appropriations to the Department of
Environmental Regulation for restoration activities in Biscayne Bay.

Wallop-Breaux Fund

Recent amendments to the Federal Aid In Sport Fish Restoration Act of 1950
have resulted in the creation of the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund, also
known as the Wallop-Breaux Fund after its legislative sponsors. The fund
will receive monies from manufacturers excise tax on fishing tackle and
accessories ($51 million), import duties imposed on fishing tackle and
vessels ($20 million) and a nine cent per gallon water boat fuel tax ($90
million). The funds will be passed through to the states for use in
fishery research and restoration programs. For the first time a require-
ment is established for coastal states to equitably allocate monies between
freshwater and marine fish projects in the same proportion as the estimated
number of freshwater to marine anglers. Coastal states which do not
license their marine anglers, such as Florida, and wish to receive Wallop-
Breaux monies will need a stable source of matching monies to provide the
25% required match.

Marine Recreational License Fees

Currently only eight of the 23 coastal states require that saltwater
anglers be licensed (Alaska, California, Oregon, Washington, Alabama,
Louisiana, Texas, and Maryland). It is estimated that if a $5.00 license
fee were required for Florida residents and a $10.00 license for visitors,
over $40 million a year would be generated. Interviews indicated that
nearly 57% of resident saltwater fishermen would be willing to pay at least
$6.75 for such a license where the proceeds would be used for fishery
management. Similarly 52% of all tourist fishermen would be willing to pay
at least $10.50. Monies generated from a marine recreational license fee
could be used to fund a number of habitat research and restoration programs
(see issues #2 and #9) as well as fishery assessment and management
programs (see issue #14). in addition, monies generated from a marine
recreational license fee could be used to provide the required 25% state
match for receiving federal Wallop-Breaux funds.

2-10

Saltwater Products License

Florida law requires all persons who sell any saltwater products in the
state to have a saltwater products license. All transactions in which
saltwater products change hands in exchange for cash merchandise or other
value are included under the law. The revenues generated by the sale of
these licenses are used to support marine research, promote saltwater
products and fund the Marine Fisheries Commission. The Department of
Natural Resources administers the program.

Submerged Land Lease Fees

The Department of Natural Resources collects lease fees for private use of
state owned submerged lands pursuant to Chapter 253, Florida Statutes.
Funds derived from submerged land lease fees presently contribute to the
general revenue. Alternatively, these monies could be used to at least
partially fund the state Aquatic Preserve Program (see issue #8).

Phosphate Severance Tax

A State tax on the severance of phosphate was established in 1977 under
Chapter 211, Florida Statutes. One of the purposes of the tax was to
generate revenue to mitigate the impact of phosphate mining an affected
regions. The mining and/or processing of phosphate in the Alafia River
Basin and along the eAstern shore of Tampa Bay and the shipping of
phosphate products through the Port of Tampa and Port Manatee have
unquestionably impacted the environmental quality of Tampa Bay.
Additionally, the Tampa Harbor Deepening Project with its many related
spoil disposal problems would in all likelihood not have been undertaken if
not for the urgent need cited by the phosphate industry for a deepwater
channel.

Section 211.3103, Florida Statutes provides for the following distribution
of the severance tax revenue: 50% to the Conservation and Recreation Lands
Trust Fund; 30% to the General Revenue Fund; 10% to the Non-mandatory
Land Reclamation Trust Fund; 5% to the Phosphate Research Trust Fund; and
5% to affected counties to be used for phosphate related expenses. The
Florida Department of Revenue projects that $95.0 million in phosphate
severance tax will be collected in FY 84-85 and $103.5 million in FY 85-86.
At that rate, one percent of the severance tax revenue collected over the
next five years would be sufficient to fund many of the major studies and
programs recommended herein.

Ad-Valorum Taxing Authority

It is not unusual for a multi-county authority to have receive support
through a limited millage rate. Both the Southwest Florida Water Manage-
ment District and the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority depend
upon ad valorum taxes for their operations. There are, however, strong
philosophical criticisms of ad valorum taxes in general and the future of
this funding source is in doubt. Whether a "Bay Management Authority"
could exist by directly collecting a portion of the existing taxes or
through each county or municipality, transferring a portion of these funds
needs further examination. The Tampa Port Authority has the authority to
request 1/2 mill of ad-valorem taxing authority subject to approval by the

2-11

Hillsborough County Commission. Such a tax would generate $6 million/year.
A recent proposal has suggested use of these funds to acquire the Port
Redwing site for U.S. Navy use. Counter proposals from environmental
interests include the use of a portion of this money for completing the
erosion control and dike stabilization projects on the two diked disposal
islands (2D and 3D) in Hillsborough Bay.

Special Commercial Net License Fees is

Chapters 83-504 and 84-471, Laws of Florida, establish a fund generated
from commercial gill-net license fees collected in Pinellas and Manatee
Counties respectively. Pasco County has recently passed a similar special
act. It is estimated approximately $90,000 per year will be generated by
these acts. Approximately $130,000 has been collected to date and
expenditures will be administered by the Florida Department of Natural
Resources. The acts specifically require that the monies are to be spent
by the Department of Natural Resources "for marine habitat research and
restoration" in the respective counties from which the funds were
collected.

General Considerations

Two major problems exist with regard to the funding of environmental and
natural resource programs as related to Tampa Bay. They include:

� Funding levels for needed or proposed research, as well as for
statutorily mandated management and regulatory programs, have either
been totally absent, inadequate or unstable, and dependent upon non-
recurring sources; and

* Studies and programs that are implemented locally are usually done so
with little or no coordination with other similar or related efforts.
As a result, research and planning efforts are often duplicative while
permitting and regulatory functions are overlapping and inefficient.

In order to provide a unified comprehensive management framework for Tampa
Bay, a long-term stable source of funds, administered in a coordinated and
efficient manner, will be essential.

Relevant Laws and Statutes:

Not applicable.

Bay Management Objectives:

1. Provide a stable, long-term source of funds for the effective
implementation of studies and regulatory programs essential to the
comprehensive management of Tampa Bay.

2. Provide for a coordinated, efficient and productive use of all funds
available for the implementation of studies and regulatory programs
relevant to the comprehensive management of Tampa Bay.

2-12

Bay Management Recommendations:

1. Trust funds that are credited by monies recovered by the state in legal
actions, judgements, penalties or other charges for polluting the air,
water or soil should be administered in such a manner so to return
funds to the area of the infraction in proportion to the amount
generated from that area. This recommendation specifially includes the
Pollution Recovery Fund, Water Resources Restoration and Preservation
Trust Fund, Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund and the Florida Coastal
Protection Trust Fund.

2. A marine recreational fishing license fee should be required of all
saltwater sport fishermen statewide. If renewed on an annual basis,
thee license fees would generate a large source ($40-$60 million) of
recurring funds that could be used to fund-many major marine fisheries
management and pollution abatements programs on a statewide basis, and
could be used to provide the required 25% state match for federal
Wallop-Breaux funds. In addition, by licensing marine anglers, the
state would have a reliable statistical base for both recreation and
catch-per-unit effort (CPE) analysis.

Work Element 1-1: The Legislature should adopt legislation requiring
all slwtr sport anglers to annually purchase a state marine
recreational fishinV license. Recommended elements of this legislation
include the following:

� Cost of the license should be $5 for residents and $10 for non-
residents.

* The distribution points for the sale of licenses should be
widespread and easily accessible (perhaps sold through
fishing tackle stores).

� All funds generated from the license fees should be specifically
earmarked for exclusive use in state coastal zone management, marine
fisheries research and management, and coastal and estuarine habitat
restoration/creation programs. Funds generated from this license
fee should not be added to the general revenue.

* Monies in the fund should be returned to specific regions for local
research, management and restoration efforts in equal proportion to
the amount of funds generated from that particular region.

*The Department of Natural Resources should administer the fund.

3. Section 211.3103, Florida Statutes should be amended to distribute one
(1) percent of the annual revenue from the phosphate severance tax for
each of the next five (5) years to an Agency on Bay Management
organized under the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council (see Long-Term
Management Recommendation). It is proposed that the distribution to
the General Revenue Fund be reduced from 30 percent to 29 percent over

2-13

that same five year time period. This would generate approximately $1
million per year to fund the specific programs and studies recommended
herein.

Work Element 1-2: The Legislature should effect this amendment through
appropriate legislation.

4. The general level of funding and staffing for statewide environmental0
and natural resource programs should be reviewed and increased wherever
necessary and feasible.

Work Element 1-3: The Legislature should designate a special committee
to investigate the existing funding and staffing levels in the
Department of Environmental Regulation and Department of Natural
Resources. Funding allocations from all available sources should be
considered wherever statutory requirements or program objectives are
not being adequately met. Funding and staffing increases should be
given highest priority in districts or regions with the highest growth
rates.

5. The state should establish a policy by which no local government can be
mandated to perform actions or administer programs without being
provided with adequate financial assistance or guidance.

6. A local oversight entity should be established to coordinate all
proposed or ongoing research efforts and agency programs to av'oid
duplicative and inefficient use of funds for the management of Tampa
Bay.

Work Element 1-4: The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council should
establish a permanent review and advisory committee to seek new sources
of funds which could be disbursed to various state regional and local
agencies for the implementation of studies and programs essential to
comprehensvie management of Tampa Bay. In addition, this committee
could monitor all proposed or ongoing research efforts and agency
programs and coordinate the various activities leading to a more
efficient use of available funds.

Long-term Management Alternatives:

Status Quo: Under the existing management framework research efforts in
TFampa Bay are often unguided and duplicative, and agency programs are
severely underfunded- and understaffed. An adequate source of long-term
funds for environmental and natural resource programs is needed both on a
local and statewide basis.

Bay Advisory Committee: A funded and staffed bay advisory committee within
the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council could perform all of the functions
described in recommendation 5above.

Bay Management Authority: Besides providing the same functions as a bay
advisory committee a mandated bay management authority could potentially
raise funds through an ad-valorum taxing authority. Such an authority
could also act as a funding and research clearninghouse for all proposed
studies and projects on Tampa Bay.

2-14

Issue #2 Loss of Seagrass in Tampa Bay

Issue Analysis: Seagrass meadows are a vitally important component of the
bay's ecosystem which provide food and shelter for a number of fish and
shellfish species important in local commercial and recreational fisheries.
Historical cover (circa 1876) of seagrasses in the bay has been estimated
at 76,495 acres or about 30% of the bay bottom (Lewis et. al. 1984).
Extensive physical alteration of the shallow estuarine shelf (less than
6'deep) of the bay for port and residential areas by dredging and filling
has eliminated large areas of seagrasses through burial, or excavation of
shallow areas to depths too great to support seagrasses (greater than 6')
(Taylor and Saloman 1968; Lewis 1977).

General agreement :exists that historical dredge and fill activity, and
thermal discharges from power plants, contributed heavily to the early
losses of seagrasses. However, the role of chemical alteration of bay
waters in these losses is currently a point of strong disagreement.
Present seagrass cover is approximately 14,202 acres (figure 2.1) or only
about 19% of the 1876 cover and 25% of the 1940 cover.

The recently released Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
wasteload allocation study includes seagrass maps of the bay for the period
1940-1983 (McClelland, 1984). The study has concluded that while large
scale losses of seagrasses have occurred in the upper half of the bay,
during the period 1973-1983, a 14% increase (1,048 acres) in seagrass cover
occurred in the lower half of the bay. This is in direct contradiction to
reports of other scientists who have reported a continued general decline
in seagrass baywide (Lewis et al. 1984). In addition, the study concluded
that "... none of the grassbeds considered in Tampa Bay appear to be
limited in growth by light when one uses the euphotic depth as the
reference." Euphotic depths were calculated assuming that seagrasses can
survive to a depth where 1% of the surface irradiance (SI) is present.
These calculated depths correspond to 12.4 to 20.8 feet deep. These are
depths where seagrasses do not presently exist and probably have never
existed in the bay.

The problem appears to be that existing scientific literature indicates
that seagrasses really need 10-50% SI to survive (Williams and McRoy, 1982;
Rice et al, 1983) and these intensities of light only occur in shallow
(less than 6') water in the bay. Not surprisingly, historical aerial
photographs show that seagrass meadows in undredged portions of the bay did
extend into depths greater than six feet but have retreated into shallower
depths. This is felt by many local scientists to support the hypothesis
that seagrass beds are limited in growth by light and that some substances
in the water column have increased in recent years and are responsible for
reducing the amount of light that historically supported seagrasses in
deeper water.

A number of substances including suspended sediment, detritus, tannins, and
chlorophyll pigments in phytoplankton can reduce downwelling light.
Downwelling light is sunlight that passes through the water column and is
absorbed by plants or reflected by unvegetated bay bottoms. In spite of
several decades of water quality data collection for the bay, complete
analyses have not been done to attempt to document long-term trends in all
these factors as they relate to downwelling light.

2-15

Z.BO-. F. .r

TA MA

t4'' B TI O| TAM Y

:t .

fi U L F 8 + 'z? )1 ! BAY \ | X 94BA

AREA' SEAGRASS MEADOWS
~//'t~~~~~~ 1!-~ . sr PE MANGROVE 8YTEM8 INC.

I> I re~l '' , j_.

Bay area seagrass meadows (Lewis ,
1983)

2- 16
Bay~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~AE areaA segrssmedos Leis
1983)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~INRYBI~BC

2-16BE

Such analyses plus at least two years of field measurements of downwelling
light, water quality, and seagrass productivity are needed to begin to
answer the question of the role of light attenuation in loss of the bay's
seagrasses.

In addition to potential problems of downwelling light attenuation, it has
been demonstrated that excessive growth of microalgae in the water column
due to excess nutrients can significantly reduce light reaching seagrass
leaves. Whether this is a problem in Tampa Bay is unknown. It has also
been hypothesized that the blooms of macroalgae, which are common in the
bay, can compete with seagrasses for available light by rapidly growing and
covering existing seagrasses (Guist and Humm 1976). Again, the possible
significance of this is unstudied.

Finally, with seagrass cover much reduced, pressure from both recreational
and commercial fishing vessels seeking fish, shrimp, and crabs in the
grassbeds has produced extensive areas of propeller damage. In healthy
grassbeds that cover large areas, such damage can be healed rather quickly
and probably is of minor concern. But in an area like Tampa Bay where 81%
of the seagrass cover is gone and many of the existing beds are apparently
stressed, such damage may be devastating.

Relevant Laws and Statutes:

National Environmental Policy Act
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, PL92-500 as amended
Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (Environmental Control)
Chapter 258, Florida Statutes (Aquatic Preserves)

Bay Management Objectives:

1. Prevent further losses of seagrass meadows in Tampa Bay and restore
areas of seagrass wherever feasible:

2. Increase fishery habitat and thus harvestable resources for both
recreational and commercial fishermen;

2. Increase feeding habitat for wildlife dependent upon seagrass meadows
(e.g. sea turtles, manatees, wading and sea birds).

Bay Management Recommendations:

1. A comprehensive program of monitoring, research and regulation should
be implemented to better understand current stresses on the existing
seagrass meadow resource, and to ensure the continued protection of
this resource and its restoration back to some feasible, larger acreage
than presently exists.

is A. Monitoring Requirements

Work Element 2-1: Historical Trends

As indicated previously, considerable controversy exists as to
whether certain areas of the bay have shown historical declines

2--17

followed by recent increases in seagrass cover, or just general
declines. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in conjunction with
the Florida Department of Natural Resources is completing a 1950-
1983 trend analysis with mapping at the beginning and end of that
period. An appropriate 1:24,000 (1"=2,000') scale is being used
instead of the 1:80,000 scale used by FDER in the Waste Load Allo-
cation Study. Maps at the former scale need to be prepared for the
1960 and 1970 periods. Appropriate analyses would then identify
areas of persistent (presumably healthy) and declining or non-
existent (presumably unhealthy) seagrass meadows.

Work Element 2-2: Current Trends

As a follow-up to Work Element 2-1, a program of photographing and
mapping seagrass cover at two-year intervals beginning in 1985
(following two years after the USFWS ca. 1983 maps) should be
instituted.

It is essential to monitor the health of seagrasses as indicated by
an increase or decrease in areal cover. Natural increases in cover
may indicate improved water quality conditions, appropriate for
active restoration efforts. Natural decreases in cover could
indicate areas not appropriate for restoration efforts.

Research Requirements

Work Element 2-3: Light Requirements and Water Quality

It is important to establish 1) the existing light climate in Tampa
bay; 2) the amounts of light necessary to support healthy seagrass
meadows; and 3) the substances in the water column that reduce
downwelling irradiance and their individual contribution to light
attenuation.

A recent unfunded proposal to Florida Sea Grant from Mangrove
Systems, Inc., Mote Marine Laboratory, The Florida Department of
Natural Resources, and the Hillsborough Environmental Protection
Commission proposed a two-year sampling program at six stations to
attempt to answer these questions. A program similar to that
proposed will need to be instituted in conjunction with Work
Elements 2-1 and 2-2 to help clarify the current status and
expected trends'in seagrass meadow coverage in the bay.

Work Element 2-4: Geology and Hydrology of Offshore Bars
Associated with Seagrass Meadows

A characteristic feature of healthy, persistent seagrass meadows in
Tampa Bay (as well as Charlotte Harbor) is the presence of a
shallow, often unvegetated, offshore sand bar parallel or nearly so
to the shoreline (Lewis et al. 1984). The role of such bars in
protecting seagrass meadows from wave action and the possible need
to restore them in conjunction with seagrass planting needs careful
research.

Work Element 2-5: Habitat Importance of Seagrass Meadows

Much of the values attributed to seagrass meadows in Tampa Bay are
based upon sampling in areas far removed from the bay (e.g.
Biscayne Bay, Indian River) and are in fact quite different in
aspects such as tidal regimes, salinity, and general faunal
communities. A comprehensive biological sampling program in
conjunction with the proposed synoptic fish stock survey in issue
#14 is needed to qualify and quantify the importance of seagrass
meadows to fish and invertebrate populations in Tampa Bay.

Work Element 2-6: Restoration Techniques

In spite of several decades of small-scale test plantings to
restore seagrasses in the bay, no comprehensive testing utilizing
the best availabe technology over a large area has been done. The
Florida Department of Natural Resources is proposing such a test at
Lassing Park in St. Petersburg utilizing monies collected under
Chap. 83-504 (Pinellas Net License Fee). Support is needed for
this effort.

Work Element 2-7: Propeller and Trawl Damage Survey and Recovery
Rate Monitoring

Aerial surveys of the bay have revealed some concentrated areas of
propeller damage around Mullet Key and Cockroach Bay (Lewis,
personal observations, 1983-1984). Trawl damage from shallow
trawling for bait shrimp has been hypothesized but is essentially
undocumented. If significant damage to seagrass meadows is
occurring and recovery rates can be established, then periodic
closure of certain areas to boat traffic may be necessary in
conjunction with items mentioned under Work Element 2-8 in order to
protect existing seagrasses. A research program carried out in
conjunction with the Florida Department of Natural Resources Marine
Research Laboratory is needed.

C. Regulation

Work Element 2-8: Increased Shallow Boat Channel Marking, Boat
Ramp Signage and Boat Use Closure Areas

Based upon-the results of all or part of Work Elements 2-1 through
2-7, it is expected that increased regulation of boating activities
(both commercial and recreational) might be necessary. As a
minimum, it is expected that increased use of small boat channel
markers to guide inexperienced boaters away from vegetated shoals
and boat ramp signs to increase boater awareness of the potential
damange they may cause would be recommended. Such boat ramp signs
are. already in use in Sarasota County.

2-19

work Element 2-9: Water Quality Criteria and Regulation to Protect
Seagrass Meadows

In conjunction with work elements under issues #13 (Wasteload
Allocation) and #20 (Load Relief for Major Sewage Treatment
Plants), special target criteria to protect and restore seagrass
meadows may be required. The draft wasteload allocation study0
unfortunately did not address such target criteria for reasons
mentioned before.

Long-Term Management Strategies:

Status Quo: Because of the complexity and cost of tasks related to this
issue, it is unlikely that any significant progress in resolving these
issues would be made under the existing management framework. For example,
in spite of significant "advisory" help to the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation, the wasteload allocation study did not adequately
accomplish work Element 2-1 of this proposal, as they indicated they would.
The work will thus have to be repeated and consequently paid for twice with
tax monies. Much of the proposed work could be performed by the Department
of Natural Resources and/or the Department of Environmental Regulation but
adequate funding and a coordinated, comprehensive approach to this issue
would be major obstacle~s to implementation.

Bay Advisory Committee: A standing bay advisory committee within the Tampa
Bay Regional Planning Council could provide valuable technical support as
well as coordinate interagency activities leading to the completion of the
proposed work plan.

Bay Management Authority: A mandated bay management authority could
perform all or part of the proposed work program through the use of
allocated state funds, or through the acquisition of federal grants. A
mandated authority could assume both management and coordinating roles in
the implementation of this and other similar comprehensive research
programs in Tampa Bay, working closely with other appropriate state
agencies.

2-20

Table 2.3 Draft cost estimates for a comprehensive seagrass research
monitoring, restoration and protection program for Tampa Bay.

Total cost to implement all of thee tasks over a five year period is
estimated at $825,000. Funds for these studies are proposed from the same
sources listed under Issues #1 (Funding) and #14 (Fisheries). Acquisition
of federal Coastal Zone Management and Sea Grant funds could reduce the
state/local cost of individual work elements by up to 50%.

WORK ELEMENT TIME PERIOD ESTIMATED COST

2-1 Historical Trends 6 months $ 5,000.00

2-2 Current Trends 12 months each 30,000.00
(1985, 1987, 1989)

2-3 Light Requirements 24 months 200,000.00

2-4 Offshore Bars 12 months 15,000.00

2-5 Habitat Importance 18 months 75,000.00
(in conjunction with
synoptic survey of
fishery stocks)

2-6 Restoration Techniques 30 months 150,000.00

2-7 Propeller & Trawl Damage 18 months 200,000.00

2-8 Boat Regulation 12 months 25,000.00

2-9 Water Quality Regulation 12 months 75,000.00

Total $825,000.00

2-21

Issue #3 Non-Point Source Discharges Entering Tampa Bay

Issue Analysis: Urban and agricultural stormwater runoff have been
identified as the major sources of water pollution in Tampa Bay, with the
former apparently predominating (Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council,
1978). Urban rainfall picks up pollutants from the air, dusty roofs,
littered and dirty streets, vehicle related substances, corrosion products,
hazardous chemical spills, fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides, and
distributes them to receiving waters with little or no treatment.
Pollutants carried by stormwater runoff to the bay may be characterized as
nutrients, organic compounds (including petroleum hydrocarbons and
pesticides), suspended solids, bacterial pathogens and heavy metals.

Nutrients present in urban stormwater runoff, particularly nitrogen and
phosphorus, cause significant water quality deterioration in receiving
water bodies. Estuaries with long detention times (slow flushing rates)
like Tampa Bay tend to concentrate nutrients and other pollutants in both
the water column and in the bottom sediments. These pollutants can be
resuspended and become available to plant growth when anoxic conditions and
favorable chemical environments exist. Parts of upper Tampa Bay have been
shown to have extremely high concentrations of nutrients bound within the
bottom sediments which represent a long term reservoir of available
pollutants (McClelland, 1984). Nutrient loads from urban stormwater runoff
are generally less than those found in secondarily treated effluents,
however, runoff from agricultural areas (especially livestock operations)
can contain extremely high concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorous
(Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, 1978).

Organic compounds in urban stormwater include oxygen consuming material
which can be represented by biological oxygen demand (BOD) loads, and non-
biodegradable organics such as petroleum hydrocarbons, herbicides and
pesticides. BOD loads lower dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in receiving
water bodies which may be lethal to sensitive species of fish and bottom
dwelling organisms. Large portions of Tampa Bay have been shown to undergo
severe seasonal anoxia as a result of excessive BOD loads during the summer
rainy season (Santos and Simon, 1980). Although significantly higher
concentrations have been reported (Huber et al, 1977), BOD concentrations
in urban stormwater are generally similar to those found in secondarily
treated effluent (U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, 1983). However, it
has been estimated that 40 to 80 percent of the total organic loading
entering receiving waters from adjacent urban areas is caused by stormwater
runoff (Field and TIurkeltaub, 1980). Greases and oils from vehicular
deposits on roadways constitute the greatest source of organic materials in
urban stormwater (Wanielista, 1979).

Other constituents in stormwater runoff generally lead to more localized
water quality problems. For example, suspended solids such as sediments
from land surface erosion can lead to localized reductions in water
clarity. However, if suspended solid loadings are persistent over the same
area, bay bottom communities such as seagrass beds may be severely impacted
by siltation and reduced ambient light levels. Bacterial pathogens,
resulting from septage runoff and pet droppings, may lead to localized
human health hazards, both in waters utilized for body contact, and in
contamination of shellfish harvesting areas. The fate and effects of
pesticides and heavy metals on aquatic organisms, however, remain to be

2-22

demonstrated. Recent studies have indicated mixed results with regard to
the toxicity of these constituents as they occur in local urban stormwater
(Rice, 1984).

Due to the highly urbanized character of the study area, and the slow
natural flushing rates in portions of the estuary, non-point source
is ~pollution presents a particularly intractable problem for Tampa Bay. This
problem stems from the fact that, until recently, urban runoff was not
regarded as a significant contributor to the impairment or degradation of
the quality of receiving waters. Additionally, floodplain management and
the control of urban drainage have traditionally been local matters
focusing almost exclusively on the prevention of local flooding problems.
Although recent implementation of the state stormwater rule, Chapter 17-25
of the Florida Administrative Code, has generally curbed additional non-
point source pollutant loadings to waters of the state, further efforts
should be made, both at the state and local levels, to better resolve this
chronic problem, both retroactively and in the future.

Relevant Laws and Statutes:

National Environmental Policy Act
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, PL92-500 as amended
Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (Environmental Control)
Chapter 17-25, Florida Administrative Code

Bay Management Objectives:

1. Minimize the quantities of non-point source (stormwater runoff)
pollutants entering Tampa Bay.

2. For all new upland development or redevelopment within the Tampa Bay
watershed, runoff quantity should not exceed that of pre-development
conditions, and runoff quality should equal or exceed that of pre-
development runoff from the same site.

3. Non-point source loadings of nutrients and organics should be reduced
to attain year round dissolved oxygen concentrations in Tampa Bay
suitable for supporting a balanced and diverse ecosystem.

Bay Management Recommendations:

1. Chapter 17-25, Florida Administrative Code, should be amended to
require the construction of stormwater discharge facilities on all
parcels that are subject to redevelopment. As presently enforced, the
state stormwater rule only requires the construction of stormwater
management systems exhibiting' specified design and performance
standards on those parcels that were not developed prior to February 1,
1982, or on those parcels that will be redeveloped in such a manner so
is ~~as to change points of discharge or increase quantities of runoff and
pollution loadings. The effect of this recommendation would be to
retrofit stormwater management systems in previously developed urban
areas over time.

Work Element 3-1: The Legislature should effect the above stated
amendment through appropriate legislation.

2-23

2. In the absence of implementation of recommendation 1 above, local
governments should be encouraged to adopt ordinances accomplishing the
same objective.

Work Element 3-2: The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council should
develop a model ordinance to this effect and encourage local government
adoption through its Chapter 163, F.S., responsibilities.

3. Since no significant boundary conditions separate designated use areas
in Tampa Bay, Chapter 17-25, F.A.C., should be amended to require of
those stormwater management facilities which discharge to the waters of
Tampa Bay, including Class all III waters, a provision for an
additional level of treatment equal to fifty percent of the normal
treatment criteria. This is currently required only of those
facilities discharging to Outstanding Florida Waters, and Class I and
II waters.

Work Element 3-3: The Department of Environmental Regulation should
implement the above stated recommendation through proper hearing
procedures with the Environmental Regulatory Commission.

4. The use of'natural wetland systems for the treatment and storage of
stormwater, pursuant to Chapter 17-25.042, F.A.C., should be
encouraged. Natural treatment of stormwater is not only more cost
effective but it also minimizes maintenance requirements and may
provide such benefits as groundwater recharge and replenishment of
dewatered wetland habitat.

5. Appropriate state and county agencies, and municipalities located
adjacent to Tampa Bay, should implement fully and enforce existing
urban stormwater runoff control programs.

Work Element 3-4: The Legislature should allocate additional funds to
Southwest Florida Water Management District to allow for stricter
enforcement of Chapter 17-25, F.A.C., in bay area municipalities where
compliance is poor.

6. Local governments should comply with the EPA mandated state NPDES
permitting program for stormwater discharge facilities pursuant to 40
CFR Part 122. Local compliance would provide for a detailed
characterization of non-point source pollution problems, as well as
verification of treatment compliance in the Tampa Bay watershed.

Work Element 3-5: The Department of Environmental Regulation should
provide local financial assistance for this program utilizing federal
205(j) funds.

7. Local governments should be encouraged to adopt and implement a
stormwater management ordinance including the provisions of Appendix
11B - Areawide Water Quality Management Plan (208 Plan).. In addition,
local governments should be encouraged to adopt a policy of
acquisition, through purchase, rental or commercial service, subject to
budget constraints, of regenerative air (vacuum type) street sweepers
prior to investigating or using other less advanced technologies (e.g.
brush type) if a street sweeping program is introduced.

2-24

demonstrated. Recent studies have indicated mixed results with regard to
the toxicity of these constituents as they occur in local urban stormwater
(Rice, 1984).

Due to the highly urbanized character of the study area, and the slow
natural flushing rates in portions of the estuary, non-point source
pollution presents a particularly intractable problem for Tampa Bay. This
problem stems from the fact that, until recently, urban runoff was not
regarded as a significant contributor to the impairment or degradation of
the quality of receiving waters. Additionally, floodplain management and
the control of urban drainage have traditionally been local matters
focusing almost exclusively on the prevention of local flooding problems.
Although recent implementation of the state stormwater rule, Chapter 17-25
of the Florida Administrative Code, has generally curbed additional non-
point source pollutant loadings to waters of the state, further efforts
should be made, both at the state and local levels, to better resolve this
chronic problem, both retroactively and in the future.

Relevant Laws and Statutes:

National Environmental Policy Act
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, PL92-500 as amended
Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (Environmental Control)
Chapter 17-25, Florida'Administrative Code

Bay Management Objectives:

1. Minimize the quantities of non-point source (stormwater runoff)
pollutants entering Tampa Bay.

3. Non-point source loadings of nutrients and organics should be reduced
to attain year round dissolved oxygen concentrations in Tampa Bay
suitable for supporting a balanced and diverse ecosystem.

Bay Management Recommendations:

1. Chapter 17-25, Florida Administrative Code, should be amended to
require the construction of stormwater discharge facilities on all
parcels that are subject to redevelopment. As presently enforced, the
state stormwater rule only requires the construction of stormwater
management systems exhibiting specified design and performance
standards on those parcels that were not developed prior to February 1,
1982, or on those parcels that will be redeveloped in such a manner so
as to change points of discharge or increase quantities of runoff and
pollution loadings. The effect of this recommendation would be to
retrofit stormwater management systems in previously developed urban
areas over time.

Work Element 3-1: The Legislature should effect the above stated
amendment through appropriate legislation.

2-23

2. In the absence of implementation of recommendation 1 above, local
governments should be encouraged to adopt ordinances accomplishing the
same objective.

Work Element 3-2: The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council should
develop a model ordinance to this effect and encourage local government
adoption through its Chapter 163, F.S., responsibilities.

Work Element 3-3: The Department of Environmental Regulation should
implement the above stated recommendation through proper hearing
procedures with the Environmental Regulatory Commission.

4. The use of natural wetland systems for the treatment and storage of
stormwater, pursuant to Chapter 17-25.042, F.A.C., should be
encouraged. Natural treatment of stormwater is not only more cost
effective but it also minimizes maintenance requirements and may
provide such benefits as groundwater recharge and replenishment of
dewatered wetland habitat.

5. Appropriate state and county agencies, and municipalities located
adjacent to Tampa Bay, should implement fully and enforce existing
urban stormwater runoff control programs.

6. Local governments should comply with the EPA mandated state NPDES
permitting program for stormwater discharge facilities pursuant to 40
CFR Part 122. Local compliance would provide for a detailed
characterization, of non-point source pollution problems, as well as
verification of treatment compliance in the Tampa Bay watershed.

Work Element 3-5: The Department of Environmental Regulation should
provide local financial assistance for this program utilizing federal
205(j) funds.

7. Local governments should be encouraged to adopt and implement a
stormwater management ordinance including the provisions of Appendix
11B - Areawide Water Quality Management Plan (208 Plan). In addition,
local governments should be encouraged to adopt a policy of
acquisition, through purchase, rental or commercial service, subject to
budget constraints, of regenerative air (vacuum type) street sweepers
prior to investigating or using other less advanced technologies (e.g.
brush type) if a street sweeping program is introduced.

2-24

8. Local governments adjacent to Tampa Bay should consider the concept of
point/non-point source trading. The program would work by granting
wastewater utilities effluent discharge credits for clearning up runoff
pollution.

9. The Department of Environmental Regulation should perform a study to
identify the quality, quantity and non-point sources of toxic
contaminants entering the bay, and to evaluate their acute and chronic
effects on the living resources of the bay (see issue #5 for further
breakdown).

10. The design and construction of regional stormwater management systems
pursuant to Chapter 17-25.040(6), F.A.C. should be encouraged whenever
feasible. Regional stormwater management systems are those discharge
facilities which are designed and constructed to accept stormwater from
multiple parcels within the same drainage area. These facilities would
consolidate and improve the level of stormwater treatment for many
singular outfalls prior to discharge to Tampa Bay. The creation of
tidal marshes at the mouths of drainage channels, canals and
tributaries should also be encouraged as a form of regional stormwater
treatment.

Work Element 3-6:' The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council in
cooperation with the Southwest Florida Water Management District,
should sponsor a series of regional workshops to introduce and explore
the feasibility of regional stomrwater management systems.
Environmental, engineering and planning representatives from all local
governments within the Tampa Bay watershed should be included to
discuss the feasibility of interlocal agreements and taxing strategies.

11. The Department of Environmental Regulation should sponsor a statewide
multi-year public awareness campaign regarding the causes of water
pollution, with special emphasis on non-point source contributions and
citizen action. The campaign should include public workshops,
brochures, television and radio announcements, and newspaper spreads.

Work Element 3-7: The Department of Environmental Regulation should
utilize federal 205(j) funds for this purpose. The Legislature should
allocate additional funds to the DER as needed. The campaign should be
locally coordinated with the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council and
the Marine Information Network.

2-25

Estimated Manpower and Cost

Year 1 2

Manpower (man years)

- Staff (DER) 4 4
- Consultant -

Total 4 4

Source of Funds

- Federal "205 J" ioo,00o 100,000
- State (allocated) 100,000 100,000
- Local - -

Total 200,000 200,000

Long-Term Management Alternatives:

Status Quo: The problem of non-point source pollution in the Tampa Bay
area can only be resolved through complimentary and coordinated state,
regional and local programs and efforts. Under the existing regulatory and
management framework it is unlikely that adequate funding and attention
will be focused on this issue.

Bay Advisory Committee: A standing bay advisory committee within the Tampa
Bay Regional Planning Council could provide a valuable coordinative role,
especially with regard to the development and implementation of local
stormwater management ordinances, as well as the design and construction of
regional stormwater discharge facilities.

Bay Management Authority: Besides providing the same functions as a bay
advisory committee; a mandated bay management authority could potentially
assume monitoring and permitting responsibilities for stormwater discharge
facilities in the Tampa Bay watershed.

2-26

Issue #4 Spoil Disposal and Management of Spoil Islands

Issue Analysis: Dredging is a critical component of the port operations
which provide a necessary transportation link on which depend major
portions of the region's economy. The shallow natural depth of Tampa Bay
has required the dredging of well in excess of one hundred million cubic
yards of material to create and maintain the large port infrastructure in
place today. Historical disposal practices have resulted in large-scale
changes in shoreline and benthic topography, and are commonly viewed as
major contributors to the loss of natural habitats and changes in water
quality which the bay has, experienced.

The U.S. Geological Survey has determined that the surface area of the
entire Tampa Bay system has been reduced by dredging and filling by 13
square miles since 1880 (Goodwin, 1984). Stated another way, if all port-
related dredging and filling since 1880 were concentrated in one place all
of MacDill Air Force Base, the Interbay Peninsula south of Gandy Boulevard,
and surrounding waters shallower than six feet in depth would entirely
disappear.I

About 40% of the chang~es are attributable to causeways and residential or
commercial construction. The balance (60%) is due to maritime improvements
such as channels, spoils, and port shoreline changes. Except for accesses
to Port Manatee and a power plant in Pinellas County, all major maritime
alterations to Tampa Bay have occurred within Hillsborough County.

It is, however, wrong to conclude that these immense changes are things of
the past which could not be repeated under modern environmental protection.
Fully one third of all maritime alterations, more than six square miles of
the bay, have been dredged or filled since 1972 because of the Tampa
Harbor Deepening Project conducted by the Corps of Engineers under sponsor-
ship of the Tampa Port Authority.

Anticipated future port improvement projects, as well as necessary
maintenance of existing channels, will require disposal of additional tens
of millions of cubic yards of material. Further, ever-increasing problems
with shoaling of residential canals and recreational waterways is creating
additional dredged material disposal needs. Locating, designing, and
financing disposal sitps for this material represents a major challenge for
future bay management.

Historically, port maintenance dredging and disposal problems in Tampa Bay
have been addressed on a piecemeal basis. However, changing socio-economic
conditions, environmental constraints, and port operational considerations
now dictate that maintenance dredging and disposal activities be treated
not only with a greater degree of importance, but also with a broader,
long-term perspective. The future viability of ports in Tampa Bay will
depend, in part, upon their ability to develop long-term solutions to
problems associated with maintenance dredging and disposal operations.

2-27

Dredged Material Disposal Requirements

The volume of future construction dredging will depend on many variables
which cannot be accurately predicted at the present time. These include
federal cost-sharing policies, local economic conditions, cargo movement
trends, disposal options available, and the conversion of traditional port
lands to other uses. For these same reasons the timing of future
construction dredging operations is equally unpredictable. However, there
are several potential projects which might reasonably be expected to occur.
These include the deepening of the Port Sutton Channel (630,000 cubic
yards), deepening of at least portions of both Cut D/Sparkman Channel and
East Bay (volume unknown), and deepening of existing and new berths to the
depths of the 43-foot channel (volume unknown but >1,000,000 cubic yards).
other large projects such as enlarging turning basins, widening channels,
creating safety anchorages, etc. may become necessary and would produce
significant additional volumes. Additional but unknown volumes of
construction material will be produced by projects at Port Manatee.

Future maintenance dredging volumes are somewhat more predictable, but
involve similar volumes. The Corps of Engineers has projected that
approximately 1,000,000 cubic yards of material per year will have to be
removed from' the federal project from the Gulf to Ybor Channel and the
channel to Port Tampa. Approximately 2,000,000 cubic yards of annual
maintenance is projected for the deepened Alafia, Big Bend, and Port
Sutton Channels. Maintenance of berths throughout the port is expected to
produce about 100,000 yards of material annually. Additional volumes can
be expected from the maintenance of East Bay (volume not determined), Port
Manatee, Bayboro Harbor, and other sources. The dredging of any single
portion of the main channels is expected to occur about every five years.
Dredging of berths goes on almost continuously.

Nature of the Dredged Material

Construction dredging in Tampa Bay generally can be expected to produce a
mixture of sand and shell (with a small amount of overlying silt) from
strata near the surface and a mixture of limestone, very cohesive clays,
and inorganic silts from deeper strata. Due to the very uneven nature of
the surface of the underlying strata the nature of the material produced
changes dramatically as one moves along any single channel. Due to their
geological origins construction materials do not contain anthropogenic
compounds and meet all federal disposal criteria.

Maintenance dredging generally produces a mixture of silty sands, shell,
clay nodules, and a dark silt derived largely from decomposed organic
detritus. While this material is often relatively fine and often contains
significant levels of organic matter, it is relatively cohesive and
extensive testing by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation has
shown that it does not contain, nor produce in elutriate tests, significant
amounts of heavy metals or toxic organic compounds. In its normal reduced
condition this material tightly binds most heavy metals and organic
compounds. The single constituent which is released in significant amounts
in elutriate tests is ammonia, which is common for fine estuarine
sediments.

2-28

Methods of Dredging

Three methods of dredging have historically been used in the bay: hopper
dredges, hydraulic pipeline dredges, and mechanical dredges such as clam-
buckets, draglines, and dipper dredges. Each has its own advantages,
problems, and limitations with regard to material disposal.

Hopper dredges have historically been used for a major portion of channel
maintenance. They have the advantage of being able to transport material
the furthest distance, but have generally been limited to projects
utilizing ocean disposal and bottom dumping. While some hopper dredges
have been modified to permit pumping of material from their holds, the use
of hopper dredges in the bay has been recently precluded by the insistance
of the Department of Environmental Regulation that overflowing to reach an
economical load be avoided.

Hydraulic pipeline dredges have been used for most construction dredging
and maintenance of channels in the upper bay. Due to the requirements for
booster pumps and the size of the pipes involved, disposal must be within
about five miles of the dredge. This method has the disadvantage of mixing
large amounts of water with the dredged material, resulting in a "bulking"
of the material to 1.5 to 2 times its original volume. if used in con-
junction with confined disposal a large amount of additional volume is
needed for water detention.

Mechanical excavation is used for almost all berth maintenance, shoreside
construction dredging, and in limited cases for channel deepening or main-
tenance. It has the advantage of minimizing the final volume of the
dredged material. Material is often placed initially onto barges, so
transportation over greater distances than pipeline dredges is possible.
Because mixing with water is minimized, the initial release of chemical
constituents is also minimized. When used in conjunction with ocean
disposal unloading of material is accomplished by bottom dump. The
disadvantages of this method include the limited locations where material
can be of floaded, the problem of transfering the material into confined
disposal areas, and the high cost of the repeated rehandling often needed
to move the material to its final resting place.

Disposal Options

Historical dredge material disposal strategies fall into five general
areas: ocean dumping, estuarine open-water disposal, estuarine habitat-
creation disposal, estuarine confined disposal, and upland confined
disposal.

Ocean dumping has been used for many years, particularly in conjunction
with hopper dredges, with dump sites just beyond the end of the ship
channel in the Gulf. As a result of the requirements of the Marine
0 ~Protection, Research, and Sancturies Act, and past litigation, the only
current dump site is located 18 miles offshore of Egmont Key in the Gulf.
Designation of this site is only valid for two more years and is restricted
to construction material from the completion of the Harbor Deepening
project. While there is no ocean disposal area presently available for

2-29

maintenance material, it is clear that any truly long-term plan for the
maintenance of navigation channels in Tampa Bay must rely on ocean disposal
as the primary disposal option.

Open-water disposal within the bay has been the most common historical
method of disposal. Almost all past channel deepening projects used this
option and it was used for major portions of the current deepening in the
lower reaches of the channel. This method has not been used for disposal
of maintenance material in many years due to concerns regarding water
quality, although it has been used historically.

open-water disposal in the bay for habitat creation has been utilized
during the present harbor deepening, particularly in Hillsborough Bay.
Material has been used to create and expand islands designated as bird
breeding areas. Open-water disposal for marsh creation has been proposed
as part of the Alaf ia/Big Bend project and has received general acceptance.
An additional restoration-related disposal option involving the partial
refilling of deauthorized Garrison Channel and reauthorized Seddon Channel
which are no longer deep-draft commercial channels has also been suggested.

Confined disposal within the bay has been made possible by the creation of
two large islands in Hillsborough Bay. Constructed through open-water
disposal of deepening material, the two islands total about 1100 acres.
The islands contain. return weirs and have been utilized once for
maintenance disposal. They have a combined potential capacity of
13,000,000 yards, a figure which can be approximately doubled by raising
the dikes to what are the presently-assumed construction limits. Further
use of these areas may be possible if additional capacity could be created
by excavIating dewatered material from within the islands for disposal in
the Gulf.

only a limited number of confined upland disposal sites for hydraulic
dredging currently exist around the bay. These include a 40-acre site at
Port Manatee, an additional 200-acre site at Port Manatee which may be used
once more, a 50-acre site north of Apollo Beach belonging to Tampa Electric
Company, and .a 50-acre site north of the Alafia River Channel. Tampa Port
Authority property on Hookers Point has long been used as an upland
disposal site for both hydraulically- and the mechanically-dredged
material, but that area is now filled and is being reclaimed for Port
development. Productive use of dewatered material from within these areas
has not been found possible due to its fine organic nature.

Capacity Shortfalls

The Corps of Engineers has estimated that the existing diked islands 2D and
3D will provide sufficient capacity for the maintenance of the main ship
channel northeast of the Gadsden Point widener and the inner harbor branch
channels for 25-35 years. This estimate assumes that the material from the
maintenance of the lower reaches of the main channel and the Port Tampa
channel will be placed in an ocean dump site. Disposal of maintenance
material from other channels or berths, or from deepening projects, into
the islands will reduce the useful lifetime of the islands unless the dikes
are raised, an improvement which will eventually be needed in any case to
meet the 50-year planning requirement which the Corps places upon federally
authorized projects.

2-30

Habitat

Historic disposal of dredged material has directly resulted in the loss of
hundreds of acres of intertidal and shallow bay-bottom habitat around Tampa
Bay. A large portion of this has resulted from the dredging of near-shore
channels, berths, and turning basins and the use of dredged material to
create shoreside filled land for residential developments, power generating
facilities, and lands for industrial and port development. The majority of
these losses occurred prior to 1970 and the passage of current
Is ~environmental legislation.

Significant additional areas of deeper water (>6 feet) habitat have been
lost through the creation of channels and spoil islands. However, in the
creation of spoil islands additional areas of shallows have been created.

Some island shorelines have been utilized to create, or have naturally
generated, new intertidal marshes. Further use of appropriate dredged
material to create additional marshes has been recommended and sites
offshore of major stormwater discharges have been proposed.

An additional very important habitat aspect of dredged material disposal
has been the creation of breeding habitat for colonial waterfowl. Islands
created in the bay through dredging have become important rookeries.
Disposal island 2D presently supports one of the largest gull colonies in
the state and the islands south of the Alafia River Channel constitute the
largest mixed-species rookery in the state.

Two significant problems are associated with this avian use of spoil areas.
Many of the most stressed species which use these areas must have
relatively barren areas to breed successfully. Over time the islands are
overrun by a variety of shrubs, a process which severely limits their
value. Prevention of this process would require intensive human manage-
ment. The second problem is the potential interuption of breeding activity
by dredging operations. While the timing of construction dredging to avoid
breeding periods may be possible, the need to maintain channels, and more
particularly berths, may require dredging at any time of the year. This
problem might be reduced if funding and regulatory restrictions were
changed to permit advanced maintenance (i.e. overdeepening).

Social Impacts

Considerable conflict has recently arisen regarding the social impacts of
ocean disposal of dredged material, particularly with regard to the
possible displacement of fishing and SCUBA diving activities from the
vicinity of ocean disposal sites. This conflict resulted in the relocation
of the disposal site for the completion of the current harbor deepening and
will be the major consideration in the designation of an ocean disposal
site for future maintenance dredging.

open-water disposal in the bay has been perceived to have had negative
social impacts in terms of the appearance of bay waters. Some concern
regarding the visual and navigational impacts of the new spoil islands and
submerged disposal areas have also been expressed. However, due to their
physical separation from residential areas few long-term social problems
with in-bay disposal areas have been experienced.

2-32

The existing upland disposal sites listed above have all been used before
and have very limited additional capacity in terms of the expected dredging
volumes described above. It is clear that large additional areas of either
confined in-bay or upland sites will be needed to meet the long-range needs
of the region if the present bias toward confined disposal is continued.

The problem of disposal of berth maintenance material is even more severe
in the short range. With the completion of the Hookers Point fill there is
currently no economically reasonable site for disposal of this material.
The Tampa Port Authority is attempting to develop a facility for
transferring this material into one of the disposal islands utilizing
partial funding from the state, but this facility is not yet assured and
may not be available for some time.

Site Protection

This issue is primarily related to the two existing disposal islands in
Hillsborough Bay and the spoil island adjacent to Port Manatee. Both of
the large islands have experienced erosion since their construction, but
there is disagreement between the Corps, the Tampa Port Authority, and
local environmentalists over the severity of the problem. While there is
agreement that there is no immediate danger of dike failure, questions have
been raised regarding the impact of shoreline erosion on water quality
(see discussion below), the long-term integrity of the dikes, and the loss
of potential habitat. Placement of rip-rap revetments on high-energy
shorelines, construction of marshes along protected shorelines, and
regrading and planting of unvegetated dikes slopes have been recommended by
environmental interests. The island near Port Manatee is known to be
migrating shoreward with eroded material covering seagrasses in the
vicinity. Some form of protection for this island has also been
recommended by local environmental interests.

Water Quality

The primary historical water quality concerns associated with dredging have
been the immediate effects of turbidity and the release of ammonia, other
nutrients and heavy metals when "polluted" sediments are disturbed.
Research over the past five years by the Corps of Engineers and the
Department of Environmental Regulation have shown that the effects of
short-term increases in turbidity are very limited and that sediments in
Tampa Bay are generally not "polluted" and do not release significant
levels of heavy metal when dredged.

At the present time the primary water quality concerns are the effects of
chronic low-level increases in turbidity resulting from the disturbance of
stable geological sediments and erosion of spoil islands, the release of
ammonia during disposal operations, anoxic conditions at the bottom of deep
channels, and the effects of accidental spills from confined disposal
areas. These impacts have probably contributed significantly to the
general decline of seagrasses in the bay and to the initiation of algal
blooms, both of which are symptomatic of baywide eutrophication.

2-31

An additional problem with the use of any island for recreation involves
the maintenance of facilities. Without land access to the areas for such
services as garbage pickup, security patrols, etc. city and county
recreation agencies have expressed little interest in developing these
areas. The installation of docks might solve some of the access problems,
but would be subject to the same maintenance problems as other facilities.

* ~~Regulatory Processes

Until recently all dredging, including repeated maintenance of the same
areas, has required individual permits from state and federal agencies.
These procedures have resulted in significant delays in maintenance
operations, repeated requests for similar data, and the generation of
permit stipulations which were impractical and often not complied with.
This process encourages the use of state permit exemption procedures to the
extent that only a limited percentage of berth maintenance is in fact ever
permitted.

A process to correct this situation was recently made available by the
passage of port-sponsored legislation and subsequent DER rules to allow for
the development of 25-year permits for maintenance dredging of entire ports
or reaches of navigation systems. This process requires extensive initial
investigations into,the nature of the materials to be dredged, existing and
expected water quality problems, and existing disposal sites. in addition,
prior to entering the long-term portion of the permit a long-term dredged
material disposal plan and monitoring plan must be developed.

Cost Apportionment

For non-federal channels and all berths the costs of dredging and disposal
fall entirely on the owners or operators of those waterways. Under
historical federal navigation project policies the entire cost of
maintenance dredging, as well as the, great majority of the cost of
deepening projects was borne by the federal government. The "local
sponsor" (Tampa Port Authority, Manatee County Port Authority, City of St.
Petersburg) was responsible for providing all necessary improvements such
as creating, maintaining, and improving dikes (including such things as
placing revetments on diked islands). In addition, local interests were
required to deepen berths and/or construct terminals adjacent to new or
improved channels so that the transportation benefits of the improvements
could be realized.

Due to the limited financial resources of the local sponsors efforts to
limit these costs have been involved in most projects. These have included
using construction dredging material to create disposal areas, placing
dredged material on sovereign-owned bay bottoms, and utilizing ocean
disposal.

Current proposals for future federal funding for navigation projects
continue the above traditional local costs but add to that 50% of the cost
of the dredging itself. Tied to these proposals is the possibility that
ports would be able to collect "user fees" to help them pay these
additional costs. This is discussed further in the next section. In
addition, recent discussions regarding reducing the federal deficit include
proposals to reduce the Corps' funding for operation and maintenance of

2-34

Historically, used upland disposal sites have generally been located close
to the bay in wetland or industrial areas. This occured in order to keep
the disposal area near the dredging *sites, to allow for the return of
decanted water to the bay, and to minimize the cost of the land involved.
With the passage of environmental legislation the use of shoreside wetland
areas strictly as disposal sites is not possible. Other near-shore uplands
near the shipping channels are generally either residential areas,
industrial sites, or deepwater port lands. The use of undeveloped port0
lands for disposal purposes is seen as unadvisable since such use would
most likely necessitate the future creation of additional fill areas.

Future upland disposal sites have been proposed in areas about five miles
inland from the bay. While these areas are presently used for agriculture,
they parallel the new interstate highway corridor in areas which are
designated under existing land use plans for medium-density residential,
commercial, and office uses. Recommendations for using hundreds and
perhaps thousands of acres of land in this area for disposal sites have
already generated strong opposition from some residents and public
officials. The perceived social impacts of such areas include odors from
the handling of anaerobic sediments, the creation of mosquito breeding
areas in proximity to human use areas, the traffic and noise impacts of
long overland pipelines, the aesthetic impact of high containment
embankments, the reduction of nearby land values, and the reduction of
economic opportunities for land development in the interstate corridor.

Recreational Use of Spoil Islands

It has been suggested that the existing spoil islands in the bay might be
used to provide recreational opportunities. Small islands in lower
Hillsborough Bay and in Old Tampa Bay are presently used intensively by
boaters as anchorages and for picnicing.

Large disposal area 2D has a very rocky shoreline on two sides and shallow
marshes on the remaining sides, making landfall on the island difficult.
Disposal area 3D has a sandy beach at present, but installation of the rip-
rap revetments and marshes, environmental improvements which have been
recommended for that site, will make it equally unaccessable. Both of
these large islands have steep diked sides and enclose large areas of
unstable soils which can be dangerous to those who might venture out onto
them.

In addition, the enclosed disposal areas will be repeatedly reused and
often contain high levers of mosquitoes. Modifications of these areas to
provide recreational facilities is possible but would entail considerable
earthwork, would require considerable funding, would very likely reduce the
utility and capacity of the areas for disposal, and would still be subject
to problems with access, mosquitos and dangers to users.

Recreational use of other small spoil islands is possible but must be
balanced against the present and potential value of these areas for bird
habitat. The small islands in Hillsborough Bay and the spoil island
adjacent to Port Manatee all support large breeding colonies of waterfowl
such as gulls, terns, egrets, and pelicans. The conversion of these areas
to recreational use is probably not advisable for this reason.

2-33

projects, an action which may force further local expenditures to keep
channels open.

Funding

Federal funding for dredging and disposal comes from general tax revenues
and is appropriated on an annual basis by Congress. The Corps of Engineers
processes these funds and has very limited freedom to modify patterns of
authorized expenditures.

The City of St. Petersburg receives revenues from the operation of
facilities at Bayboro Harbor, in addition to general tax revenues. The
Manatee County Port Authority operates on income from leases, wharfage, and
dockage and, until recently, tax revenues from parimutual betting. Since
the Manatee County Commission acts as the port commission it has the
ability to utilize general tax revenues or tax-backed bonds.

The Tampa Port Authority operates entirely on revenues generated by land
leases, dockage, and wharfage. It should be noted that only 10% of the
total cargo moving through the port moves across Authority docks and
contribute to its revenues. While it is entitled to receive up to .5 mil
in ad-valorem taxes such revenues must be authorized by the Hillsborough
County Commission and are utilized very rarely due to political opposition.
All bonds issued by the Authority must be backed by the revenues of the
project involved or the general revenues of the Authority. At the present
time the Authority's ability to issue new general revenue bonds is limited
by its current revenue stream.

Currently, neither the Manatee nor the Tampa Port Authorities can assess
user fees against cargo moving thorugh their channels due to the provisions
of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This can only be done if
specifically authorized by Congress as part of a project. The Tampa Port
Authority has recently been able to have state legislation passed which
increased the historically minimal Harbor Master Fee assessed against each
ship. one half of these new funds (<$250,000/yr) must be used for fire
protection, but the remainder can be utilized for more general harbor
improvements.

Relevant Laws and Statutes:

Federal Navigation Project Policies
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
Fish and wildlife Coordination Act
Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (Environmental Control)
Chapters 17-3, 17-4 and 17-45 Florida Administrative Code
Chapter 84-447, Laws of Florida (Tampa Port Authority)

2-35

Bay Management Objectives:

1. Prevent dredging or spoiling of any significant areas of previously
undisturbed bay bottom, and prevent the creation of emergent spoils
from existing submerged spoils. Habitat restoration/creation should be
excepted if shown to be intrinsically worthwhile and not primarily
justified as a means of spoil disposal. Maintenance dredging of
existing channels should not be restricted.

2. Establish a procedure for coordinating the long-term plans of ports,
governmental agencies, and private interests for disposal of dredged
material so as to minimize adverse environmental and social impacts
while maintaining a viable maritime industry in the region. This plan
should encompass a period of not less than 25 years, giving equal
consideration to all disposal alternatives.

3. maximize the useful life of existing dredged material disposal areas
though improvements to and protection of containment structures, and
through the development of a state-of-the-art dewatering program.

4. maximize the beneficial use of appropriate dredged material for beach
nourishment and identified habitat needs in a manner which balances the
impacts to affected natural and human communities with compensatory
mitigation.

5. Protect unique and irreplaceable natural resources from the adverse
effects of spoil disposal.

6. Encourage the development and use of innovative and more efficient
spoil disposal methods which reduce environmental impacts and
financial costs of spoil disposal.

7. Develop an environmentally acceptable system for deepwater offshore
disposal of nontoxic spoil material, even where costs of doing so
exceed direct costs of in-bay disposal, so as to relieve pressures for
inshore filling for reasons other than habitat creation, and to
minimize the economic burden of purchasing upland disposal sites.

B. maximize the multiple use of dredged material disposal areas for
recreation and wildlife habitat while maintaining their utility as
disposal areas.

9. Reduce the need for, maintenance dredging through proper placement and
maintenance of disposal areas.

10. Minimize the economic burden on the region's maritime industry while
pursuing the environmental and social objectives.

Bay Management Recommendations:

1. Port authorities, governmental agencies and private commercial
interests responsible for maintaining navigation channels should seek
long-term maintenance dredging permits of a duration commensurate with
their ability to realistically and eocnomically plan spoil disposal
needs.

2-36

Work Element 4-1: The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council should
assist the Department of Environmental Regulation by encouraging and
coordinating the development of a Long-Term Port-Wide Maintenance
Dredged Material Management Plan, pursuant to Chapter 17-45.19, F.A.C.,
for all ports in Tampa Bay.

2. Engineering and environmental studies should be undertaken jointly by
the Corps of Engineers, the Department of Environmental Regulation, and
the ports to determine the following:

� The total volume of dredged material which might reasonably be
expected to be produced by all maintenance dredging and necessary
future port improvements;

* The current and potential capacities of all existing confined
disposal areas, including lateral expansion of existing diked
disposal islands and maximum elevation of dikes;

* The physical and chemical nature of the material which would be
dredged from various parts of the navigation system and the
feasibjility of segregating the material for disposal. This would
be an extension of the current DER ports study;

* Lower cost ;methods of protecting the high-energy shorelines of
dredged material islands using demolition rubble or other methods
where such measures will have a positive net effect;

� The potential for removing dewatered dredged material from the
diked islands in Hillsborough Bay and transporting it for final
disposal in the Gulf of Mexico or for productive use on uplands if
feasible; and

* The feasibility of back-filling those portions of Garrison and
Seddon Channels which are no longer utilized for deep-draft
navigation to a lesser depth compatible with their future use as
recreational channels.

3. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers should
officially designate a long-term ocean disposal site for maintenance
material which is environmentally and socially acceptable but which is
also economically viable under various scenarios of future federal
funding.

4. Local sponsors should identify and acquire as early as possible
additional upland disposal sites necessary for the disposal of future
dredged material which must be so contained.

Work Element 4-2: The Hillsborough County Commission should grant the
Tampa Port Authority ad-valorum taxing powers for up to 1/2 mill for
purchase additional upland spoil disposal sites, and for construction
is related to the protection of existing spoil disposal areas.

2-37

5. The Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Department of Environmental Regulation, the Department of Natural
Resources and the ports should develop a long-term program for the use
of appropriate dredged material for marsh and other habitat creation to
the extent that such habitats can be shown to be ecologically
beneficial.

6. The Tampa Port Authority, Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and0
Wildlife Servie and the Department of Natural Resources in coordination
with local Audubon Society Chapters should develop a program for
improving the wildlife habitat value of existing disposal sites while
at the same time minimizing the impact of such a program on necessary
maintenance dredging operations.

Work Element 4-3: The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council or the
Tampa Port Authority should propose and sponsor a study, with the
objectives of developing programs as described in recommendations 5 and
6 above, in the state's Public works Program (see issue #1).

7. The membership of the Tampa Port Authority should be enlarged to
include a broader range of interests around the bay.

Work Element 4-4: The Legislature should amend Chapter 84-447, Laws
of Florida, a special act passed consolidating all previous acts
related to the Tampa Port Authority, to include the following elements:

* Provide for fair representation by scientific, environmental, and
fishery interests; and

* Specifies the goals and parameters of stewardship for Tampa Port
Authority owned submerged lands consistent with the findings and
recommendations of the Tampa Bay Management Study Commission.

8. Changes to state and federal laws to allow for mutually-binding long
term agreements between local navigation interests, state agencies, and
federal agencies regarding dredging, dredged material disposal, habitat
protection and restoration, and spoil area management should be
implemented wherever feasible.

9. New local, state, and federal funding mechanisms to permit the develop-
ment of long-term disposal and mitigation projects not associated with
immediately concur~rent development projects. This would require a
basic change in the patterns of federal funding.

10. More efficient mechanisms for mitigating the environmental impacts of
port dredging projects should be investigated and established wherever
feasible. This should include the creation of an experimental Tampa
Bay mitigation bank through an interagency agreement between the
*Department. of Environmental Regulation and the Tampa Port Authority
(see issue #29). i

2-38

Long-term Management Alternatives:

Status, Quo: Under the present management framework three basic problems
exist with regard to port activities in Tampa Bay including:

� Port authorities are essentially structured and managed as single
purpose organizations comprised primarily of shipping industrial and
related special interests which do not always consider all public
uses of the bay.

* Since ports in each county compete with one another, they are not
motivated to implement a baywide program which allocates all costs
and benefits equally.

* Existing ports' authority is limtited to county boundaries, so no
one port agency is capable of implementing a baywide program.

Because there are already agencies which can, could or should be able to
provide responses to the above recommendations, but to date have not, the
establishment of an alternative agency may be adviseable to coordinate
spoil disposal planning among the various separate local navigation and
port organizations.

Bay Advisory Committee: A permanent bay advisory committee within the
T~ampa Bay Regional Planning Council could effectively fill an oversight and
coordinative role for regional spoil disposal planning in the Tampa Bay
area.

Bay Management Authority: Besides performing a needed coordinating role
for spoil disposal planning in Tampa Bay, a mandated bay management
authority could potentially assume and consolidate ownership of all bay
bottoms under single regulatory agency.

2-39

Issue #5 Hazardous Waste Disposal and Management

Issue Analysis: Prior to the enactment of the Natural Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in 1976, there was no comprehensive
federal program to recognize and manage hazardous wastes to protect the
public health, safety and welfare. Between 1976 and 1980 the Environmental
Protection Agency developed and adopted the majority of regulations and
guidelines to implement the federal and state hazardous waste management
systems now in existence.

The Florida Legislature enacted the state's first hazardous waste legisla-
tion in 1980 by adopting the federal guidelines and directed the Department
of Environmental Regulation to develop and implement a statewide hazardous
waste management program. Recognizing the need for developing a comprehen-
sive data base on the management of hazardous wastes as soon as possible,
the State passed the Water Quality Assurance Act in July 1983. In part,
this Act provides for coordinated efforts among local governments, regional
planning councils and the state agencies responsible for the implementation
of a hazardous waste management program.

The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council has completed its draft local
hazardous waste needs assessments for Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco and
Pinellas Counties pursuant to the Water Quality Assurance Act. The
reports, now, under review, identify for each county how much hazardous
waste is being generated, who the generators are, how the materials are
being disposed of,~. the location of abandoned dump sites and potential
environmental problems, current hazardous waste operating procedures at
sanitary landfills, effective management procedures which should be imple-
mented, and the selection and designation of appropriate areas for a
temporary storage and transfer facility for collecting hazardous wastes.

Cumulatively, the local assessments address the following preliminary con-
clusions and recommendations:

� Based on an estimate of approximately 108 million pounds of hazardous
wastes being produced annually in the four county region, of which
approximately 70% or 75 million pounds are being re-used, recycled or
treated a~cceptably, an estimated range of 12.7 - 25 million pounds
annually is potentially being disposed of in an unacceptable manner and
could be handled by a temporary storage/transfer facility.

* There are acceptable areas in each county where a temporary
storage/facility could be located at the initiation of an appropriate
hazardous waste tnanagement interest.

* Approximately 130 abandoned dump sites have been identified within the
region of which 34 (not including the seven identified Superfund
priority sites in the region) should be further investigated for the
potential for environmental problems to occur.

* Based upon site visits to the active landfills in the region, further
training of landfill employees concerning hazardous waste identification
and handling procedures is appropriate. Of the 47 facilities identi-
fied, eleven are noted for potential environmental problems and should
be evaluated and ranked similar to the abandoned dump sites.

2-40

The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council is preparing a regional hazardous
waste management assessment which will consolidate the data from the county
assessments, evaluate the short-term and long-term needs for hazardous
waste management facilities and develop a plan to eliminate any excess
demand for off-site hazardous waste management facilities or services. The
Florida Legislature perceives transfer facilities as the best means of
serving the short-term hazardous waste management needs of the state,
particularly in an area as environmentally sensitive as is the Tampa Bay
region. The resulting analysis from the hazardous waste assessment will
assuredly spur private interest in locating a transfer facility to tap such
a ready market.

As referenced in the preliminary assessment findings, the possibility of
toxic contamination of water resources from abandoned dumping grounds and
landfills having domestic, municipal, or industrial refuse is of special
concern because of the potential for serious hazards to public health.
This possibility exists because evaluations of geologic and hydrologic
conditions were rarely included in the determination of site selection for
private or public landfills. Existing and abandoned landfills and dumps
invariably were placed on land that had little or no value for other uses.

The TBRPC's Groundwater Protection Plan for the Tampa Bay Region references
that dump sites in the region have included low, wetland areas, limestone
sinkholes and other areas prone to the development of ground water
contamination problems. Recent findings of water contamination throughout
Florida resulting from the improper disposal of toxic chemicals further
reinforce the importance of mitigative actions once such problems are
identified. The acquisition of leachate and water quality data for
abandoned dump sites exhibiting the potential for ground water contamina-
tion is extremely important due to the potential harmful or even lethal
impacts to humans, animals, plants and aquatic life forms.

Based upon minimal study efforts, the tidal waters and sediments of Tampa
Bay appear to be relatively free of toxic contamination from metals and
hydrocarbons compared to northern estuaries which have been more
extensively studied. It is hypothesized that the lack of contamination
from these sources is due to the predominance of large grained sediments
and high mean annual water temperatures (leading to greater chemical
breakdown). However, Tampa Bay probably has the highest recorded ambient
levels of radium 226 of any estuary studies, the impacts and sources of
which have never been adequately documented. in addition the effects of
anti-fouling chemicals discharged from power plants have never been
adequately documented for Tampa Bay.

The major concern regarding hazardous waste problems is the lack of
resources to support state and local enforcement. The Resource Conserva-
tion and Recovery Act and the Water Quality Assurance Act of 1983 require
the Department of Environmental Regulation to monitor and enforce the
siting, design, permitting and operation of landfill operations and
disposal of wastes. County and municipal governments also share in the
responsibility for hazardous waste management monitoring and enforcement.
Counties, in particular, must annually survey all small quantity hazardous
waste generators and verify twenty percent of the responses each year.
However, funding for carrying out these costly requirements has
historically been scarce.

2-41

Relevant Laws and Statutes:

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Comprehensive Emergency Response and Cooperation Liability Act (CERCLA) (40
CFR Parts 260.10 and 261-265)
Florida Resource Recovery and Management Act
Water Quality Assurance Act (Part VI) (Sections 403.701 - 403.73, F.S.)
(Chapter 17-30, F.A.C.)

Bay Management Objectives:

1. Implement the requirements of the Water Quality Assurance Act for a
comprehensive statewide hazardous waste management program including
the location of temporary storage/transfer facilities for hazardous
wastes.

2. Provide needed surface water, groundwater and leachate characterization
in and adjacent to potentially dangerous dump sites for application in
state and local regulatory responsibilities.

3. Initiate eventual rehabilitation of dump sites through mitigative
actions.

Bay Management Recommendations:

1. Additional funding should be made available, both for state and local
enforcement responsibilities, and for needed environmental studies.

Work Element 5-1: The Legislature should increase the three percent
tax levied on annual gross receipts of commercial hazardous waste
facilities.

Work Element 5-2: The Legislature should assign a portion of the Water
Quality Assurance Trust Fund to carry out host local government
monitoring responsibilities and annual County surveys and verifica-
tions.

2. Balancing all considerations, hazardous waste transfer facilities
should be located outside the 100-year floodplain wherever feasible.

3. A study should be performed to assess the quality, quantity, distribu-
tion, fate and biological impacts of toxic contaminents in the Tampa
Bay watershed and estuary.

Work Element 5-3: The Department of Environmental Regulation should
design and conduct the study utilizing the funding sources described
above, and federal EPA 205(j) funds. The estimated time frame of such
a study is two years. Emphasis should be placed on documenting the
toxic contaminent loads to the bay from its many tributaries, and on
locating bay front contaminent sources. Monitoring of uranium series
radionuclides should be performed around the bay to determine their
deleterious effects. Much of the study could be conducted through
analysis of existing data.

2-42

Estimated Manpower and Cost

Year 1 2

Manpower (man years)

- Staff (DER) 3 3
0 ~ ~~ Consultant - -

Total 3 3

Source of Funds

- Federal 150,000 150,000
- State 100,000 100,000
- Local .

Total 250,000 250,000

4. Counties should be given the option to utilize regional planning
councils individually or collectively for follow-up annual surveys and
required 20 percent verifications. once an allocation is made
available to the -counties for conducting the annual survey and 20
percent verification, the counties should be given 30 days to decide
whether or not they want to perform their own surveys and/or verifica-
tions. if a county declines to perform the survey or verification, or
fails to respond to DER within the 30-day period, the regional planning
council should receive the allocation and perform the survey and veri-
fication.

Work Element 5-4: The Legislature should amend Section 403.7234,
Florida Statutes, as such.

5. Using the above referenced funding sources, the Department of Environ-
mental Regulation and the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council should
promote local and regional public information programs for citizens and
generators of hazardous waste utilizing, at minimum, the following:

* Workshops and conferences with legislative, regulatory and business
participation such as the Sarasota conference in November, 1983;

� Coordinate and seek support of Trade Associations, Industry
Councils, and Chambers of Commerce;

* Encourage generators to testify on behalf of the needs assessment
and location decisions; and

0 *~~~ Advertise in trade journals, newspapers and other media resources
the benefits of a long-term hazardous waste management program;

* Develop public information presentations (movies, slides, etc.) for
continuing education.

2-43

Long-Term Management Alternatives:

1. Status Quo: Existing federal, state, regional (Tampa Bay Regional
Planning Council) and local coordination is probably sufficient to
develop and implement an effective hazardous waste management plan in
the Tampa Bay area. Presently the major drawback is the lack of
adequate funding.

2. Bay Advisory Committee:, A standing bay advisory committee within the
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council could provide a valuable advisory
role with regard to marine and estuarine contamination in the Tampa Bay
region.

3. Bay Management Authority: Besides providing the same function as a bay
advisory committee a mandated bay management authority could
potentially administer the proposed bay contamination study.

2-44

Issue #6 Enforcement

Issue Analysis: The enforcement of marine resource management and
pollution abatement laws in Tampa Bay falls primarily under the responsi-
bilities of the Marine Patrol (a division of the Department of Natural
Resources). and the Department of Environmental Regulation, respectively.
However, in the case of major oil spills as well as disabled vessel search
and rescue operations the U.S. Coast Guard and the Marine Patrol have
overlapping jurisdiction. In general, effective enforcement of laws
* ~~relevant to the management of the bay is limited by two major factors
including:

*Numerous local laws and special acts are often conflicting or redundant,
and are inconsistent from one jurisdiction to the next; and

.. Existing levels of funding and staffing are inadequate.

The Marine Patrol has the responsibility of enforcing commercial and
recreational fishing laws as well as boating safety regulations in Tampa
Bay. Over the years a myriad of special acts and local laws have been
passed by the counties and municipalities bordering the bay related to
limits on fishing and boating activities. By statute, the Marine Patrol is
required to enforce all adopted special acts and local laws. However, many
of these acts are obsol~ete and are no longer relevant or meaningful to
current management needs. The majority of these regulations are nothing
more than nuisance laws or are related to past political boundary disputes.
For example, a 40 year old Manatee County law prohibits gill-netting east
of the Alternate Route 41 bridge crossing the Manatee River for no apparent
reason relevant to the management of fish stocks in that portion of the
estuary (see issue #16).

Furthermore, because local laws often differ markedly from one jurisdiction
to the next, enforcement officers are forced to learn an overly complex
baywide web of rules and regulations. For example, in Pinellas County
waters gill-netting is prohibited within 50 yards of a dock or pier; in
Hilisborough County waters the required distance is 100 yards; whereas in
the city limits of Tampa gill-netting is prohibited entirely. Although the
Marine Patrol is required to enforce a local law only if the local entity
has also made a reasonable effort to enforce that law, it often does so
strictly in response to public pressure.

Inadequately funding and staffing levels for enforcement and monitoring
activites are problems shared by both the Marine Patrol and the Department
of Environmental Regulation. The Marine Patrol is responsible for
administering a number of licensing and permitting programs in the Tampa
Bay area and yet no percentage of the funds received from such programs is
specifically earmarked for administrative or enforcement cost.
Furthermore, the Marine Patrol receives no percentage of the fines or
penalties levied against offenders as all such funds are collected by the
local jurisdiction where the offense took place. Similarly, the Department
of Environmental Regulation Southwest District Office does not receive a
proportionate percentage of the funds recovered from pollution violations
as most of these monies are deposited in various trust funds and rarely
returned to the originating district for restoration (see issues #1 and
#27) and/or increased monitoring capability.

2-45

Presently the Tampa District of the Marine Patrol operates in a five county
area (Pinellas, Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco and Hernando) with a total of
21 enforcement officers. Because the Tampa District is one of the few
ditricts that operates on a 24 hour shift, this means that at any given
time there are between only 5 and 7 officers on the water over a five
county area. In light of the population density of the Tampa Bay region
this staffing level is wholly inadequate. Similarly the Department of
Environmental Regulation Southwest District Office presently has the
funding and the manpower to monitor about 5 percent of the near 4000
permitted point source discharges in the District.

Relevant Laws and Statutes:

Chapter 327, Florida Statutes (Vessel Registration and Safety)
Chapter 370, Florida Statutes (Saltwater Fisheries)
Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (Environmental Control)

Bay Management Objectives:

1. Wherever feasible unify and consolidate, on a statewide basis, all
special acts 'and local laws related to marine resource management.

2. Provide adequate funding and staffing levels for increased monitoring
and enforcement capabilities in Tampa Bay.

Bay Management Recommendations:

1. All special acts and local laws related to marine resource management,
and boating and navigation should be consolidated and unified to be
consistent on a baywide basis, wherever feasible.

Work Element 6-1: The Legislature should pass a baywide law repealing
all special acts and local laws related to marine resource management
and boating and navigation. Appropriate and effective standards and
limitations for such activities should be adopted on a statewide scale.
Local governments should, however, have the right to petition the
Department of Natural Resources for an exemption to the adopted state
standards if it can be shown that public safety or natural resource
protection is threatened.

2. Funding and staffing levels for the Tampa District of the Marine Patrol
should be increased to effectively meet the real enforcement demands of
the region.

Work Element 6-2: The Legislature should authorize a special
allocato of funds to the Tampa District of the Marine Patrol for the
addition of eight enforcement officers as well as for the construction
of a needed maintenance shop in the District. I

2-46

Estimated Manpower and Cost

Year 1 2

manpower (man years)

- Staff (Marine Patrol) 4 4
- Consultant -

Total 4 4

Source of Funds

- Federal -
- State (allocated) $350,000 $350,000
- Local -

Total $350,000 $350,000

3. Local governments should be discouraged from passing special acts
without including provisions for funding the enforcement of those laws.

Work Element 6-3: The Legislature should introduce legislation
requiring local governments to transfer 25 percent of funds received in
fines and penalties to the Department of Natural Resources for those
violations in which the arresting officers were of the Marine Patrol.
The funds received from these transfers should be used exclusively for
increasing enforcement capabilities in the District in which the funds
were generated.

4. An appropriate percentage of funds received by the Department of
Natural Resources from the collection of various license fees should be
specifically earmarked for return to the Marine Patrol for increasing
enforcement capabilities.

5. Wherever feasible, local law enforcement officers should assist the
Marine Patrol in enforcing marine resource management and pollution
abatement laws.

6. Pursuant to Chapter 403.182, Florida Statutes,- local governments should
be encouraged to develop state approved pollution control programs, and
adopt local pollution control regulations compatible with or stricter
than those imposed by the state. The development of such programs
provides for greater checks and balances of local pollution control
compliance. Presently, only Hillsborough and Manatee Counties have
approved programs in the Tampa Bay area.

2-47

7. The Legislature should allocate additional funds to the Southwest
District office of the Department of Environmental Regulation as needed
to improve their compliance monitoring network and capabilities.
Present funding levels only allow adequate compliance monitoring of
about 5% of all permitted point source discharges. See Work Element
10-1 for further detail.

Long-term Management Alternatives:

Status Quo: The effective enforcement of marine resource protection and
pollution abatement laws appear to be limited by a myriad local nuisance
laws and by inadequate funding and staffing levels for both the Marine
Patrol and the Department of Environmental Regulation. Legislative
amendments and increased funding allocations would sufficiently solve the
major problems.

Bay Advisory Committee: A standing bay advisory committee within the Tampa
Bay Regional Planning Council could provide a useful technical advisory
function for developing more meaningful standards and limits related to
marine resource use and management in Tampa Bay.

Bay Management Authority: Besides performing the s ame function as a bay
advisory committee, a mandated bay management authority could potentially
assume compliance monitoring and enforcement responsibilities in Tampa Bay.

2-48

Issue #7 Control of Septage Waste

Issue Analysis: The control and disposal of septage waste is a chronic
problem in many areas. Illegal disposal into canals, streams and storm
sewers may be placing a significant yet unknown discharge burden on Tampa
Bay.

Commercial septage haulers are only authorized to transfer and deposit
septic tank waste. However, these services frequently transfer other
materials such as oils and greases, sludge, industrial wastes and other
potentially hazardous material. As a result, landfill areas which are
authorized to receive only septage waste are also illegally receiving other
unauthorized substances creating a myriad of potential surface and
groundwater problems.

In addition, certain communities on the bay still do not have sewage
treatment facilities and rely solely on septic tanks for wastewater
treatment and disposal. Notable among such areas are the City of Ruskin in
southwestern Hillsborough County. The seepage of septage waste into waters
of the state creates human health hazards by raising concentrations of
pathogenic bacteria in waters designated for human contact or shellfish
harvesting. For example, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that seepage
from a large mobile home park is responsible for the frequent closure of
Cockroach Bay, a state aquatic preserve, for shellfish harvesting, due to
high bacterial counts.

These are wide-spread problems which most local governments are currently
attempting to solve. Funding for enforcement and development of adequate
disposal sites and sewage treatment facilities is a major problem (see
issue #20). Stronger penalty fees and state codes may also be needed. The
disposal of septage waste is currently regulated by the Florida Department
of Health and Rehabilitative Services through its County Health Units and
according to Chapter 1OD-6, F.A.C. In addition, septage waste disposal
must also comply with regulations issued by the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation. Regarding impacts on Tampa Bay, further
investigation is needed to determine cumulative impacts, incidences of
direct illegal discharges (i.e. via storm drains, tidal creeks, etc.)
enforcement issues and specific problem areas.

Relevant Laws and Statutes:

Federal Water PollutiQn Control Act, PL 92-500 as amended
Florida Resource Recovery and Management Act
Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (Environmental Control)

Bay Management Objectives:

1. Determine the degree to which the waters of Tampa Bay are being
burdened by the illegal disposal of septage waste.

2. Eliminate existing health hazards due to seepage of septage waste into
waters of the state.

3. Ensure the proper regulation and disposal of septage waste and other
associated hazardous materials.

2-49

Bay Management Recommendations:

1. The regulation and monitoring of septic tanks and commercial septage
waste services should be delegated from HRS to the Department of
Environmental Regulation, and other approved local pollution control
agencies. This reorganization would consolidate all state programs
related to surface and groundwater pollution and hazardous waste
disposal under one agency.

Work Element 7-1: The Legislature should effect this reorganization
through appropriate legislation. Adequate funding and staffing
increases for the Department of Environmental Regulation should be
included in this legislation.

2. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) or the
Department of Environmental Regulation should conduct a thorough
investigation of commercial septage waste disposal services to deter-
mine the extent of illegal mixing and disposal of associated hazardous
materials in landfill areas authorized to receive only septage waste,
and in other unauthorized areas around the bay. A monitoring program
should be 'established in which haulers are required to document and
account for the type and volume of material picked up and disposed.

3. Local governments should give high priority to the construction of
sewage collection facilities in areas adjacent to Tampa Bay which rely
primarily on septic tanks for wastewater treatment and disposal.

4. The DER Bureau of Wastewater Management and Grants should give highest
priority to those communities applying for assistance under the small
community sewer grant program in which demonstrable water pollution
problems consistently result from inadequate sewage treatment
facilities.

Long-Term Management Alternatives:

Status Quo: Presently, the regulation and monitoring of septage waste
treatment and disposal does not appear to be adequate in the Tampa Bay
area, and possibly statewide. Consolidation of these responsibilities with
other water and hazardous waste programs under the Department of
Environmental Regulation would probably improve the situation. However,
adequate funding for monitoring and enforcement would be critical.

Bay Advisory Committee: A standing bay advisory committee within the Tampa
Bay Regional Planning Council could be helpful in assisting local
governments in procuring needed sewer construction grants.

Bay Management Authority: A mandated bay management authority could
potentially assume regulation and monitoring of septage waste treatment and
disposal in communities adjacent to Tampa Bay.

2-50

Issue #8 Aquatic Preserves

issue Analysis: The Aquatic Preserve designation (Chapter 258, Florida
Sit-atutes) is the primary mechanism by which the State preserves and
protects large tracts of sovereign submerged and intertidal lands. The
stated purpose of the designation is to preserve these areas in essentially
their natural or existing condition so that their "aesthetic, biological
and scientific values may endure for the enjoyment of future generations"
(16Q-20, F.A.C.). Within the defined Tampa Bay management boundary there
are three areas which have received this designation including all
submerged lands in Pinellas County, the Cockroach Bay area in Hillsborough
County, and the Terra Ceia area in Manatee County (see figure 2.2). The
Terra Ceia Aquatic Preserve was designated in 1984 and is one recommenda-
tion of the Council's 1983 Tampa Bay Management Study which has notably
been fulfilled.

Many inconsistencies presently exist in the Tampa Bay Aquatic Preserves,
both with regards to boundaries (Cockroach Bay), and to the type of area
receiving this designation (Portions of Pinellas County). For example,
present boundaries of the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve do not extend up
to the Little Manatee River or across the river to its north bank.
However, the Little Manatee River is also currently designated as an
Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) from its headwaters all the way to Tampa
Bay. This gap between two areas of preserved status presents ecological
and political inconsistencies for management.

In the Pinellas County Aquatic Preserve many areas (primarily Boca Ciega
Bay) currently do not resemble their "natural condition". Although many
areas of Pinellas County shoreline were urbanized prior to the Aquatic
Preserve designation, a great deal of development and shoreline alteration
has occurred since, thus calling into question the effectiveness of the
designation. Eventually, management strategies for these areas will have
to require an emphasis upon restoration, rather than preservation, in order
to be consistent with the intent of the Aquatic Preserve designation.

Another major problem with managing Aquatic Preserves so that they retain
their natural characteristics is that adjacent upland land-uses often
degrade the quality of such areas. The Aquatic Preserve boundary is
limited on the shore side to the mean high water line. In most cases,
control of adjacent upland uses is outside the legal jurisdiction of
existing statutes.

The state outlay of funds for aquatic preserve management, other than that
directly spent in Charlotte Harbor, was absent prior to July, 1984. This
is in contrast to an increasing demand for a management role throughout the
state system of aquatic preserves, both from within state govern ment and
from the general public. The 1984 Legislature has for the first time
funded aquatic preserve management statewide with $92,174. These funds
have -allowed *the Bureau of Environmental Land Management (BELM) to add
temporary support staff in Charlotte Harbor and Apalachicola, and to
establish a staff presence in the St. Petersburg/Tampa Bay, Wekiva River
and Indian River area aquatic preserves. This funding is, however, subject
to renewal and is entirely inadequate to meet the long-term program needs,
both at the state and local levels.

2-51

~~~~----------

*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ... .......... .. ..I

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...~.....

line1las Con
quatic Pre'ser . Cokac vI

Aqatc Prees~rye

Preserves.

2-52

Relevant Laws and Statutes:

Chapter 258, Florida Statutes (Aquatic Preserves)
Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (Environmental Control)

is ~Bay Management Objectives:

1. Eliminate geographic gaps in Tampa Bay Aquatic Preserve boundaries
which result in ecological and political inconsistencies for
management.

2. Provide for the staffing of full-time management personnel, and for the
development of long-term management plans for the three Tampa Bay
Aquatic Preserves.

3. Develop regulations and establish buffer zones necessary to prevent the
degradation of water quality and shoreline habitat in Tampa Bay Aquatic
Preserves from inconsistent uses of adjacent uplands.

Bay Management Recommendations:

1. The newly created Terra Ceia Aquatic Preserve should be officially
designated by the Department of Environmental Regulation as an
outstanding Florida Wqater (OFW).

2. Pursuant to Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative code, the Department
of Environmental Regulation should develop ambient water quality
standards for all areas in the Tampa Bay Management boundary currently
designated as outstanding Florida Waters. This could be accomplished
in conjunction with the preparation of management plans.

Work Element 8-1: The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council should, by
resolution, make a formal request to the Department of Environmental
Regulation to implement the above state recommendations.

3. The boundaries of the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve should be extended
to the north bank of the Little Manatee River.

Work Element 8-2: Tampa Port Authority should officially request this
extension, and the Legislature should amend Section 258.391, Florida
Statutes, accordingly.

4. The boundaries of the Terra Ceia Aquatic Preserve should be extended to
include Passage Key, and all submerged lands extending a distance of
100 yards seaward of M.H.W. from this island (see issue #31 for further
discussion).

Work Element 8-3: The Legislature should amend Section 258.393,
Florida Statutes, accordingly.

2-53

5. The Legislature should allocate funds to the Department of Natural
Resources for the staffing of management personnel, and for the
development of long-term management plans for the three Tampa Bay
Aquatic Preserves, in accordance with Chapter 258, Florida Statutes.

Work Element 8-4: The Legislature could establish the necessary source
of funds through the revenues generated from submerged land lease fees,
or through the revenues generated from a saltwater fishing license fee.
Allocation and level of funding should be perpetual and independent of
federal sources (see issues #1 and #37 for further discussion).

Estimated Manpower and Cost

Year 1 2 3 4 5

Manpower (man years)

- Staff (DNR) 5 3 3 3 3
- Consultant - - - - -

Total 5 3 3 3 3

Source of Funds

- Federal .. . . .
- State $150,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
- Local .. . . .

Total $150,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000

6. In the process of developing Aquatic Preserve management plans, the
Department of Natural Resources, pursuant to Chapter 258, Florida
Statutes, should officially designate the Pinellas County Aquatic
Preserve system as an "Urban" preserve, and the Terra Ceia and
Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserves as "Wilderness" preserves. In urban
preserves, policy emphasis should be on developing specific restoration
plans and strategies. In wilderness preserves, emphasis should be on
maintenance of natural conditions.

7. Appropriate counties and municipalities with uplands located adjacent
to Aquatic Preserves should review land use plans and, where possible,
establish large buffer zones around the preserves. Special tax incen-
tives should be also established for keeping buffer areas preserved.

Work Element 8-5: The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council should
implement this recommendation through its Chapter 163, Florida
Statutes, review responsibilities.

8. Appropriate state and local agencies should give special attention to
implementing and fully enforcing existing ordinances and laws con-
trolling encroaching development, point and non-point source pollution,
and any alterations to natural habitats surrounding the preserves.

2-54

9. Appropriate local governments should give high priority to providing
improved wastewater treatement services for those areas adjacent to
aquatic preserves.

Long-Term Management Alternative:

1. Status Quo: Adequate funding for the State's Aquatic Preserve program
m~ust eventually come through legislative action. Statutorily,
responsibility for full implementation of Chapter 258 lies with the
Department of Natural Resources. However, in the case of Tampa Bay
Aquatic Preserves, the Department of Environmental Regulation, through
its OFW designation, and the Tampa Port Authority, through their owner-
ship of submerged lands in Hillsborough County, are also involved.
Because the 'State's Aquatic Preserve program has been selected as part
of the Legislature's Oversight Program for 1984 there is a good
probability that funds will eventually be allocated for the preparation
and implementation of management plans. However, under the status quo
alternative it is unlikely that the majority of the above stated
recommendations would ever be implemented. This would probably require
the directed efforts of a local coordinating body.

2. Bay Advisory Committee: A bay advisory committee within the Tampa Bay
Re-gional Planning-Council could be effective in coordinating the many
local jurisdictions involved in management activities, and in
supporting legislative actions affecting boundary re-alignments.

3. Bay Management Authority: Much of the local management plan
preparation and long-term management responsibilities could potentially
be effectively delegated by the Department of Natural Resources to a
mandated bay management authority. A permanent authority would be
especially instrumental in coordinating with the Department of
Environmental Regulation in the development of special permitting
criteria for dredging and filling activities in the Bay area's Aquatic
Preserves.

2-55

Issue #9 Seagrass, Marsh and Mangrove Habitat Creation

Issue Analysis: Marine plant communities in coastal Florida consist of
mangrove forests, tidal marshes, seagrass meadows, attached or drifting
macroalgae, and microalgae (phytoplankton). All are important to marine
life, but recent studies have shown that losses of mangroves, marshes, and
seagrasses generally result in the most direct impact on man by decreasing
the habitat available to support species of fish and shellfish important to
commercial and recreational fisheries. The loss of seagrass, tidal marsh
and mangrove habitat in the Tampa Bay estuarine system has been extensive.
It has been documented that 44 percent of Tampa Bays' original 25,000 acres
of mangrove forests and marshes have been destroyed, and that 81 percent of
the original 76,500 acres of seagrasses have disappeared (Lewis et. al.,
1982). This habitat loss has resulted in declining populations of
economically important fish and shellfish, including a complete collapse of
such fisheries as those for scallops and oysters and major declines for
bait shrimp, spotted seatrout and redfish (Lewis, 1977). Recent work
(Lewis, 1982) has also shown that restoration or creation of marine
wetlands is possible and could be used as a tool to reverse the loss of
important marine habitats.

The loss of marine and estuarine habitat in Tampa Bay has resulted from two
major causes. Intertidal habitat, including saltmarshes and mangrove
forests, has primarily been destroyed through the direct physical
disturbance of dredging and filling practices. Seagrasses, on the other
hand, have been adversely impacted by both dredging and filling practices;
and by degrading water quality. Because seagrasses are almost always
submerged (subtidal) the clarity of the water column above greatly affects
the ability of the plants to survive, grow and reproduce, by determining
the amount of light that is available to them (see issue #2). Although the
rampant dredging and filling activities of past decades have been slowed
significantly in Tampa Bay, the degradation of water quality continues to
be a pressing issue.

Many sites along Tampa Bay presently offer the potential for successful
restoration/creation of intertidal habitat (see issues #27 and 34) and such
efforts are often undertaken to mitigate past and proposed habitat
destruction elsewhere around the bay. For example, when asked to prepare a
mitigation plan for the proposed widening of the Alafia River turning basin
the Tampa Bay Management Study Commission recommended the creation of 22.5
acres of new saltmarsh along spoil island 2D to mitigate the expected
destruction of 15.0 acres of mangroves (see appendix D). The technology
for the creation of tidal marshes and mangrove forests has progressed to
the point where positive results can almost always be attained (Hoffman,
1985). However, the successful replanting of new seagrass beds has proven
to be a complex and unpredictable undertaking as many factors related to
the health and survival of seagrasses remain poorly understood. Expensive,
large-scale seagrass replanting efforts have been attempted elsewhere in
Florida, most notably in Biscayne Bay, but these efforts have largely met

with discouraging results.

Several studies have been initiated in the past year aimed at identifying
other potential sites and preferred methods for marine and estuarine
habitat restoration in the Tampa Bay Region. The Tampa Bay Regional
Planning Council, the Tampa Port Authority, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

2-56

Service and the Department of Natural Resources are all presently engaged
in such studies. Once these studies are complete, the major obstacles to
habitat restoration and protection efforts will be funding and public
awareness. Chapter 83-504, Laws of Florida, establishes a fund generated
from gill net fishing license fees which is to be used specifically for
marine habitat research and restoration in Pinellas County. Similar
legislation has been passed in both Pasco and Manatee Counties, but these
bills sunset after four years. These funds will generate approximately
$60,000 per year during their lifetime and will be very helpful for
planning and initiating restoration efforts at the state and regional
level. However, more substantial sources of long-term funding will be
needed to successfully create and restore significant acreages of marine
and estuarine habitat in Tampa Bay (see issue #1 for a discussion of
possible funding sources). In addition, to ensure a successful baywide
effort, local governments will have to develop and implement similar
programs, as has the City of Clearwater with its seagrass restoration
project.

Relevant Laws and Statutes:

Coastal Zone Management Act
Clean Water Act,, Section 404
Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (Environmental Control)
Chapter 253, Florida Statutes (State Lands)
Chapter 83-504, Laws of Florida

Bay Management Objectives:

1. Wherever feasible, increase the coverage and enhance the productivity
of intertidal (saltmarshes and mangroves) and subtidal (seagrasses)
habitat associated with the Tampa Bay estuarine system.

Bay Management Recommendations:

1. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the Tampa Port Authority
(TPA) shoul d be required to undertake habitat restoration efforts in
association with their maintenance responsibilities for past authorized
projects in Tampa Bay.

Work Element 9-1: The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council should work
with the Department of Environmental Regulation to develop and place
specific mitigating conditions upon the issuance of a 25-year
maintenance dredging permit for all future TPA sponsored, COE
authorized, Tampa Harbor Deepening Projects. There are mitigative and
habitat restoration measures that were required under past authorized
projects involving spoil disposal islands 2D and 3D that have never
been implemented.

2. Local governments in Pinellas and Manatee Counties should be encouraged
to provide the required local matching funds to utilize funds generated
from the referenced gill net license fee legislation for the develop-
ment and implementation of habitat restoration programs along their
respective waterfronts. As an example, the City of Clearwater is
instituting a two-year demonstration project to develop a model dredged
material island and a seagrass management program.

2-57

3. Hilisborough County should adopt legislation, similar to Chapter 83-
504, L.F., which generates a fund for marine habitat and restoration
from gill net license fees.

4. The Department of Natural Resources should implement a large scale
seagrass research and restoration program, as described in issue #2,

with special emphasis on Tampa Bay.
5. The Department of Environmental Regulation should consider the
creation of new intertidal habitat as partial mitigation for water
quality impacts. The creation of marsh habitat at the mouths of point
sources and tributaria should be considered.

6. 'Up front" mitigation should be requested by the Department of
Environmental Regulation on dredge and fill permit applications
wherever feasible (see issue #29).

7. The Legislature should adopt legislation allowing for the creation of
an experimental mitigation bank through an interagency agreement
between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the DER Southwest District
Office and the Tampa Port Authority (see issue #29).

B. State, regional and local mitigation policies should be developed to
result in a "net Plain" of wetland habitat in the Tampa Bay estuarine
system.

Long-term Management Alternatives:

Status Quo: Under the existing management framework the Department of
Natural Resources will manage the respective gill-net license fee funds for
habitat research and restoration in Pinellas, Pasco and Manatee Counties.
To date the implementation of these programs has been delayed and poorly
coordinated with other ongoing planning efforts. The lack of adequate
long-term funding also presents a problem for the implementation of large
scale programs.

Bay Advisory Committee: A standing bay advisory committee within the Tampa
Bay Regional Planning Council could provide a useful coordinating and
technical advisory role for local governments interested in implementing
habitat restoration programs. In addition, such a committee could serve as
the regional coordinating body for all federal, state and local habitat
restoration/creation dfforts occurring around Tampa Bay, to insure the most
effective use of available funds.

Bay Management Authority: Besides performing the same functions as a bay
advisory committee, a mandated bay management authority could potentially
assume management responsibility for all habitat restoration/creation
studies and projects around Tampa Bay.0

2-58

Issue #10 Municipal and Industrial Discharges

Issue Analysis: Municipal and industrial wastewaters enter Tampa Bay
directly or via its tributaries at over 188 points around the Bay (Tampa
Bay Regional Planning Council, 1983). Hillsborough Bay receives the
heaviest loadings of both municipal and industrial wastes while Old Tampa
Bay receives substantial loadings of predominatly municipal wastes.
Relatively smaller amounts of municipal and industrial wastes are
discharged into the middle and lower segments of Tampa Bay proper, however,
Boca Ciega Bay has been severely impacted by municipal discharges.

In 1982, the surface waters of Tampa Bay received domestic effluent from 49
permitted sources which include facilities with design treatment capacities
ranging from 10,000 to 60 million gallons per day (Tampa Bay Regional
Planning Council,% 1983). Domestic point sources in 1984 discharged 71.01
billion gallons of effluent to Tampa Bay and its associated tributaries as
compared to 61.75 billion gallons in 1982, a 15% increase in total annual
flow (moon, personal communication). This increase can generally be
attributed to 'rapid population growth, higher than average rainfall and
associated infiltration problems with collection systems.

During the perilod between 1982 and 1984 baywide nitrogen loadings have
increased by 7% while total phosphorous loadings have increased by 10%.
Over the same time period nutrient loadings to Boca Ciega Bay have
increased even more dramatically with both nitrogen and phosphorous up by
15% and 80%, respectively (Moon, personal communication). Although the
marked increase in nutrient loadings in Boca Ciega Bay can be primarily
attributed to problems associated with the South Cross Bayou Wastewater
Treatment Plant, it is apparent that the nutrient impacts of municipal
point source discharges on Tampa Bay as a whole are on the rise. However,
because trend data for nutrients in Tampa Bay are scarce, and somewhat
questionable it is difficult to accurately assess this problem.

It is even more difficult to predict future trends as many unknown factors
will come into play. As local governments move towards the implementation
of approved 201 plans fewer plants will discharge directly to surface
waters of the bay. Alternative effluent disposal practices such as deep
well injection, spray irrigation and percolation ponds will become more
commonplace. in addition, the level of treatment in regional plants will
continue to improve. However, counteracting these positive actions is an
increasing trend towards the construction of numerous small ((0.1 MGD
capacity) 'package plants' in developments not served by existing sewer
systems. This trend will result in an overall increase in the number of
point source discharges to be monitored, and an overall decrease in level
of treatment.

It is nevertheless evident that substantial loadings of nutrients into
Tampa Bay including nitrogen, phosphorus, and oxygen demanding materials
over the years have created a serious eutrophication problem, particularly
in the upper reaches of the bay where discharge points tend to be
concentrated and flushing rates are minimal. However, the impacts of
domestic wastewater discharges relative to other sources of nutrients
contributing to the eutrophication problem have yet to be determined. The
mathematical models developed for the Tampa Bay wasteload allocation study
(see issue #13), if properly calibrated, may provide the tool necessary to

2-59

evaluate the relative significance of the various pollutant sources.
Attempts to develop programs to manage domestic wastewater point sources
without consideration of other potentially significant sources (e.g. non-
point sources and residual oxygen demand in the bay) are not likely to
result in efficient and cost-effective solutions to the eutrophication
problem.

There are currently 23 industries which are permitted to discharge directly
into Tampa Bay waters according to Department of Environmental Regulation
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit files. In
addition there are 116 industries which are permitted to discharge into the
tributaries of Tampa Bay. The makeup and quantities of industrial wastes
discharged into Tampa Bay are, however, generally not as well documented as
municipal discharges. Accordingly, the impacts resulting from industrial
point source discharges are even more poorly'understood than the impacts of
domestic wastewater discharges. Some toxic pollutants such as heavy metals
may come from domestic wastewater and non-point sources as well as from
industrial sources. Significant contributions from all sources must be
considered for an impact assessment to be most meaningful. once again, the
computer models employed in the wasteload allocation study provide a basic
tool with which to evaluate impacts of industrial discharges providing the
necessary ambi~bnt water quality and effluent characteristics are available.

of particular concern. is the accumulation and high concentrations of heavy
metals and uranium series radionuclides in the sediments and water column
of Hillsborough Bay. Although it is known that plating wastes and
phosphate mine discharges play a significant role in these problems, long-
term studies need to be undertaken to identify the sources, distribution
and fate of these pollutants as well as their impacts on the living systems
of the bay. The degree and effects of percolation pond leaching into the
waters of the bay also need investigation. Finally, a major industrial
discharge problem facing Tampa Bay is the eventual shutdown of several area
phosphate beneficiation plants. Following shutdown, plants must discharge
very large quantities of acids, ammonia and radium from their closed
processing systems. Advance planning for the assimilation of these
potentially disastrous discharges needs to be initiated before the problem
has occurred.

Relevant Laws and Statutes:

Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Section 402
Chapter 403, Florida. Statutes (Environmental Control)

Bay Management Objectives:

1. Achieve a thorough understanding of the quantity and composition of
municipal and industrial effluents being discharged into Tampa Bay.

2. Develop, a reliable methodology for predicting what impacts municipal0
and industrial discharges will have on water quality and biological
communities of Tampa Bay.

3. Wherever feasible reduce the number of point sources and/or the
quantity of municipal and industrial effluents discharging into Tampa
Bay.

2-60

Bay Management Recommendations:

1. Local governments in the Tampa Bay areas should puruse and implement
wherever feasible water reuse (spray irrigation, wetland filtration)
and other effluent disposal alternatives (deep well injection, Gulf of
0 ~~~Mexico outfall) to surface water discharge into the bay. By rule,
projects involving water reuse, conservation and other innovative
technologies presently receive higher priority for funding under
federal/state wastewater management grant programs. See work element
20-1 for further discussion.

2. The Department of Environmental Regulation should perform a multi-year
study to assess the source, quality, quantity, distribution, fate and
biological impact of all measurable toxic- contaminants occurring within
the Tampa Bay estuarine system. See Work Element 5-3 for further
details. Relevant to point-source discharges the proposed study should
perform the following elements:

* An intensive review of existing data on municipal and industrial
discharges into Tampa Bay should be conducted for the purpose of
determiiiing what pollutants, and in what quantities, have been and
are being discharged into Tampa Bay so as to determine baywide
trends.

* in cases where existing discharges are not adequately characterized
to make such a determination, periodic comprehensive analysis of
significant discharges into Tampa Bay should be required.

� A system for tracking changes to existing discharge sources, as well
as additions of new sources, should be developed so that the
inventory of pollutants and quantities can be kept current.

3. Compliance monitoring activities of permitted point source discharges
into Tampa Bay should be signficiantly improved. in addition,
compliance, schedules for discharges in violation of state and local
pollution control statutes or permit conditions should be mandated.

Work Element 10-1: The Legislature should allocate additional funds to
the Southwest District Office of the Department of Environmental
Regulation as needed to improve their compliance monitoring network and
capabilities. Present funding levels only allow adequate compliance
monitoring of about 5% of all permitted point source discharges in the
District.

2-61

Estimated Manpower and Cost

Year 1 2 3

Manpower (man years)

- Staff (DER) 2 3 4 is
- Consultant - - -

Total 2 3 4

Source of Funds

- Federal - -
- State (allocated) 60,000 90,000 120,000
- Local - - -

Total 60,000 90,000 120,000

4. Pursuant to Chapter 403.182, Florida Statutes, local governments should
be encouraged to develop state approved pollution control programs, and
adopt local pollution control regulations compatible with or stricter
than those imposed by the state. The development of such programs
provides for greater checks and balances of local pollution control
compliance. Presently, only Hillsborough and Manatee Counties have
approved programs in the Tampa Bay area.

5. The Department of Environmental Regulation should continue to refine
and expand the Tampa Bay wasteload allocation study as the ultimate
management tool for determining the impacts from, and regulating point
source discharges into Tampa Bay. See issue #13 for further
discussion.

Long-term Management Alternatives:

Status Quo: Under the existing management framework the Department of
Environmental Regulation has the responsibility for regulating point
source discharges, pursuant to the federal NPDES program. insufficient
staffing and funding for compliance monitoring appears to be the major
problem preventing improved regulation and control of point source
pollution in Tampa Bay.

Bay Advisory Committee: A standing bay advisory committee within the Tampa
Bay Regional Planning Council could provide a useful grant assistance
function for communities in the bay area desiring financial assistance for
improvements to sewage collection, treatment and disposal systems.

Bay Management Authority: A mandated bay management authority could
potentially assume permitting and compliance monitoring responsibiltiies
for all point sources discharging into Tampa Bay.

2-62

Issue #11 Stronger State Wetlands Regulation

Issue Analysis: Since the turn of the century wetlands in Florida have
b~een destroyed at the rate of approximately 200,000 acres per year. TO
date, it is estimated that over half of the states original wetlands have
been lost or altered due to dredging and filling practices. During this
time period, both the freshwater and tidal wetlands contained within the
Tampa Bay watershed have suffered especially signficant destruction due to
the rapid growth and urban development of the bay area.

The passage of the Environmental Reorganization Act in 1975 placed existing
Chapter 253 (Jurisdiction in Waters of the State) and Chapter 403 (Water-
Quality Control), Florida Statutes, under the Department of Environmental
Regulation for permitting purposes. The. consolidation of these
responsibilities u nder one agency along with a growing public awareness of
the ecological value of wetlands has significantly limited the destruction
and/or alteration of wetlands in the State during the past decade.
Development pressures in Florida are, however, greater than ever, and
stronger protective measures for wetlands, especially in coastal areas, may
be necessary.

Although the Envi'ronmental Reorganization Act consolidated Chapters 253 and
403, F.S., no attempt was made to merge the two. That oversight created a
number of procedural pex~itting problems as well as gaps in substantial law
necessary for the protection of wetlands. These deficiencies included:

� Lack of authority to consider fish and wildlife habitat impacts above,
as well as below, mean or ordinary high water;

� Lack of rule revisions to the vegetative index, and soils indicators for
jurisdictional determinations;

* Lack of additional or special criteria for issuing dredge and fill
permits;

� Lack of a State policy addressing wetlands;

* Lack of legal authority to assume the Corps of Engineers permitting
programs.

With the passage of the Warren S. Henderson Wetlands Protection Act in 1984
many of the previous permitting deficiencies were eliminated.
Specifically, the bill addressed the following concerns:

* wetlands policy. A good wetlands policy statement is contained in the
bill. While the policy would be better placed in the body of the bill,
placement in the "Whereas" clauses does have legal weight, and can be
* ~~~the basis of a policy adopted by rule by state agencies.

* Fish and Wildlife Habitat Protection. The bill contains language to
assure consideration of impact upon fish and wildlife habitat in all DER
dredge and fill permitting. The wording in effect tracks the provisions
of Chapter 253, which have successfully protected fish and wildlife
habitat in the navigable waters of Florida since the mid 1960's.

2-63

* Approval of the DER Vegetation List. The bill ratifies the greatly
expanded Vege-tatio-n 'Index approved by the Environmental Regulation
Commission on January 25, 1984 with what are considered to be minor
changes in the list. The Department of Environmental Regulation does not
believe that the changes in the list significantly reduce its expanded
jurisdiction.

� Special Areas of the State. The bill for the first time gives DER the
ability to adopt stricter permitting and enforcement provisions in
Outstanding Florida Waters Aquatic Preserves, Areas of Critical State
Concern, and resource management plan areas. Previously, DER could not
adopt its own rules for Aquatic Preserves, and had limited rulemaking
ability in Outstanding Florida Waters. The DER also lacked authority to
adopt tougher standards in Areas of Critical State Concern, or in
response to recommendations of Resource Planning and Management
Committees under Chapter 380.

* Ordinary Mean High Water Mark. Without the wetlands bill, DER faced a
legal dilemma when the water table would recede during drought. A
series of adverse court decisions has held that unless vegetative indi-
cator species'are present, DER can lose jurisdiction over lake bottoms
when lakes dry up during drought. The bill will correct this problem by
letting DER assert jurisdiction in such situations up to the Mean or
Ordinary high watermhark.

* Cumulative Impact. This provision allows, among other things, for the
Department of Environmental Regulation to consider "...the impact of..
other projects which may reasonably be expected to be located within the
jurisdictional extent of waters, based upon land use restrictions and
regulations.' This means that the department can consider cumulative
impact in its permitting decisions.

* Enforcing Powers. Prior to the passage of the wetlands bill the only
recourse available to the state has been criminal prosecution, and civil
suits for damages. The bill gives DNR the ability to impose, through
the Governor 'and Cabinet, fines of up to $10,000 per day for activities
which damage state lands. Efforts to pass legislation to give the
Department this authority have failed in several past legislative
sessions.

Of particular concern to the Tampa Bay Management Study Committee was the
loss of floodplain wetlands associated with rivers flowing into Tampa Bay,
as well as tidal marshes at the mouths of bay tributaries. Water-quality
in Tampa Bay is largely dependent upon the assimilative capacities of these
wetlands. With the passage of Wetlands Protection Act, however,
regulations limiting the development of wetland systems relevant to the
health of Tampa Bay have been significantly strengthened.

Existing Laws and Statutes: Is

Clean Water Act - Section 404
Chapter 253, Florida Statutes (State Lands)
Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (Environmental Control)

2-64

Bay Management Objectives:

1. Wherever feasible, increase the coverage and enhance the productivity
and diversity of all riverine, and intertidal and subtidal habitat
associated with the Tampa Bay estuarine system.

2. Provide for improved protection and management of riverine floodplain,
and tidal marsh wetlands associated with all tributaries entering Tampa
Bay.

3. Improve the dredge and fill review and permitting process to be as
comprehensive, efficient, and locally consistent as possible.

Bay Management Recommendations:

1. The Department of Environmental Regulation should adopt stricter rules
and criteria for all jurisdictional wetlands contained within the
defined Tampa Bay Management boundary.

Work Element 11-1: The Legislature should amend Section 403.904,
Florida Statutes, to authorize DER to promulgate special rules for
"other resource management areas" such as the Tampa Bay management
boundary as defined in Chapter 84-440, Laws of Florida, the Act
creating the Tampa Bay Management Study Commission. Such special rules
should emphasize the protective needs of submerged and intertidal
wetland habitat in those areas of Tampa Bay not designated as Aquatic
Preserves.

2. Wherever feasible the Legislature should strenghthen appropriate
statutes and implement provisions authorizing the assumption of the
Corps of Engineers permitting programs by the Department of
Environmental Regulation. Such assumptions of jurisdiction would lead
to greater streamlining and consistency in the dredge and fill
permitting process.

3. Local governments bordering Tampa Bay should develop and adopt wetlands
protection ordinances and rules which are consistent with the above
stated bay management objectives and recommendations.

Work Element 11-2: The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council should
develop a model wetlands protection ordinance, specific to the wetlands
contained within the defined Tampa Bay management boundary, for
eventual adoption by local governments.

Work Element 11-3: The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council should
develop a regional mitigation policy for coastal and estuarine wetland
habitat, for eventual inclusion into the model ordinance, and to be
reflected in the Council's review responsibilities.

4. The Legislature should initiate legislation enabling the creation of a
mitigation bank for wetland destruction. At the regional level a
mitigation bank could be established on an experimental basis through
the joint cooperation of the Department of Environmental Regulation and
the Tampa Port Authority (see issue #29).

2-65

Long-Term Management Alternatives:

1. Status Quo: With the passage of the Henderson Wetlands Protection Act
of 1984, the destruction rate of wetlands in the Tampa Bay watershed
should be reduced under the existing regulatory framework. It has been
recommended that the local effectiveness of the Wetlands Protection Act
of 1984 be judged, after a trial period of three years, before special
permitting criteria should be considered for Tampa Bay (recommendation
1).

2. Bay Advisory Committee: A standing bay advisory committee within the
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council could be very effective at
assisting local governments with the development, adoption and
implementation,' of local wetland and -submerged land protection
ordinances (recommendation 3).

3. Bay Management Authority: A mandated bay management authority could
potentially assume and centralize dredge/fill permitting
responsibilities for the tidal wetlands of Tampa Bay. Such an
authority could also assume responsibility for implementing large scale
wetland hab'itat restoration efforts around the bay as well as
administering the proposed mitigation bank (recommendation 4).

2-66

Issue #12 Study and Management of Tidal Creeks and Rivers

issue Analysis: The importance of rivers and creeks to estuaries has been
documented by studies throughout the world. Rivers and lesser streams
import freshwater and foodstuffs to estuaries and provide critical habitat,
refuge, feeding and breeding grounds for the early life history stages of
marine and estuarine life forms.

Rivers and tidal creeks are vulnerable to numerous impacts which also
become evident downstream in terms of decreased estuarine productivity.
Examples include hydroperiod alterations through excess drainage or
impoundments; loss of corridor by damming; changes to stream loads by
increasing runoff or discharging pollutants, and diverting or preventing
flows; increased relief and habitat losses through dredging and filling;
and contamination 'through disposal of toxic.materials. As rivers and
creeks deteriorate, their ability to buffer cultural shocks to the estuary
are lost.

Rivers and creeks flowing to Tampa Bay vary greatly in condition.
Historical and anecdotal evidence exists to show that these streams were
immensely productive estuarine zones and modern data on relatively pristine
rivers and creeks support this view. Much basic information on tidal
rivers and creeks is lacking but enough exists to allow important ones to
be classified by their overall condition from a management point of view.
Seven types of streams'-are itemized below. 'Creeks'~ are defined as the
small streams of the Pamlico Terrace in which tidal prisms are equal to or
larger than average discharges. All classifications were based on
conditions in the tidal segment of each stream. Figure 2.3 shows the
location of the various tributaries.

Condition 1: Natural Tidal Creeks

Double Branch, Piney Point, Little Redfish, Frog Creeks.

Condition 2: Restorable Tidal Creeks

Bullfrog, Gamble'and Fish Creeks.

Bullfrog Creek has moderate habitat loss through piecemeal development,
receives sanitary wastes and is used for stormwater drainage. Gamble Creek
is structurally intact but severely affected by agricultural runoff. Fish
Creek is an extensive drainage system around Tampa International Airport
which could be improved` into creek status.

Condition 3: Highly Stressed Creeks

Wares, Redfish, Sweetwater, Rocky, Allen, Salt, and Booker Creeks and Cross
Bayou.

Wares, Allen, Salt and Booker Creeks and Cross Bayou are highly urbanized
and affected by stormwater. Sweetwater and Rocky Creeks are controlled and
located in rapidly urbanizing basins. Redfish Creek was virtually
destroyed by illegal filling operations (see issue 927).

2-67

* ~ ~~5 0 5 10 MILES

) 5 0 5 10 ~~~~~~~~~15 KLMTR

0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0t

PETERS URG

T Ae Mae P

Figure 2. 3. Relative location of
major tributaries in the Tampa Bay ....... .*

2-68

Condition 4: Natural Rivers

Little Manatee River.

Condition 5: Restorable Rivers

Alafia, Manatee and Braden Rivers.

The tidal Alafia River has moderate but restorable habitat loss and a long
history of poor water quality due to upstream phosphate industry
discharges. The tidal Manatee River is in better structural condition, but
its flows are checked by a dam. Habitat in the tidal Braden River is in
very good condition, but the river is dammed and pollution from stormwater
runoff is an increasing problem.

Condition 6: Highly Stressed Rivers

Hillsborough River.

The Hillsborough River is highly urbanized, dammed, and receives large
volumes of stormwater runoff. Sediments are contaminated and much of the
lower river is affected by poor water quality in Hillsborough Bay.

Condition 7: Man-Made Rivers

Lake Tarpon Outfall, Channel A, Tampa Bypass Canal.

All are major drainageways with hardened or steep banks, control
structures, and connections to water table or Floridan aquifers. Habitat
value is poor, and all have pulsed discharges leading directly to bay
waters.

Relevant Laws & Statutes:

No laws or rules specifically address management of tidal rivers around
Tampa Bay as ecosystems. Water quality concerns are partially addressed by
17-3 F.A.C. Wetlands are governed by the Henderson Act of 1984.
Stormwater discharges, surface water management systems, and consumptive
uses of freshwater are controlled by the Southwest Florida Water Management
District. County and city ordinances also apply.

Bay Management Objectives:

1. Preserve natural rivers and creeks and restore others not highly
stressed.

2. Incorporate habitat features in man-made streams.

3. Minimize impacts to bay from highly stressed rivers and creeks.

4. Provide long term management of rivers and creeks as ecosystems.

2-69

Bay Management Recommendations:

Developing general recommendations for this issue is difficult because of
the great diversity of the individual tributary systems involved; their
particular condition and management needs; and regulatory, economic and
other facets of each problem. Emphasis is placed on restorable rivers and
creeks since restoration will prevent them from becoming highly stressed.
Attention is then given to preservation of natural streams, followed by the
worst-case conditions. Comments specific to each system are made below,
followed by generally applicable recommendations.

1. Restorable Creeks and Rivers.

A. Bullfrog Creek:

Work Element 12-1: Hillsborough County should amend its comprehen-
sive plan to tighten controls of shoreline uses and establish
incentives for private landowners to restore shorelines. The
County should also develop a sub-regional stormwater management
system within the watershed of Bullfrog Creek, and provide
centralized sewage treatment as described in Item 4.C.

B. Gamble Creek:

Work Element 12-2: The Florida Department of Environmental Regula-
tion (DER), the Southwest Florida Water Management District
(SWFWMD), Soil Conservation Service, and Manatee County should
establish a task force to scrutinize agricultural runoff problems
in Gamble Creek and formulate plans to address these problems by
1990.

Work Element 12-3: Manatee County should revise its comprehensive
plan to recognize the unique natural resources of Gamble Creek and
determine whether uplands around the creek qualify for either CARL
or "Save Our Rivers" purchase.

C. Alafia River:

Work Element 12-4: Hillsborough County should place that segment of
the river west of S.R. 53 into a special management category by
amending the comprehensive plan, for the purpose of preserving
creeks to the river and existing natural shorelines. An incentive
program for private landowners to restore shorelines should be
adopted.

Work Element 12-5: The Florida DER and SWFWMD should amend rules or
regulations as needed to achieve the recommendations of Polychaete
Research Inc. (1978) relative to optimal flows in the Alafia River.

Work Element 12-6: Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council should adopt
the policy that no new or maintenance dredging projects in the
lower Alafia River will be supported unless definite plans for
water quality mitigation (as well as habitat mitigation) are incor-
porated.

2-70

D. Manatee River: State agencies (primarily DER, Department of
Transportation and Department of Natural Resources) should
cooperate in an assessment of the hydrological, chemical and
biological effects of numerous derelict, existing and proposed
bridge crossings in the middle river segment (see issue #42).
Special attention is needed for STP and industrial effluents, boat
basins, and stormwater runoff (emphasizing Wares Creek). This
project could be assisted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE), which is interested in dredging Wares Creek; DOT, which is
presently relocating the navigation channel; and EPA, and/or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. Refer also to recommendations lB
(Gamble Creek); IE (Braden River) and 4B (minimum flows).

E. Braden River: Presently, TBRPC is designing water quality studies
of the Anclote and Braden Rivers for the. FDER.

Work Element 12-7: The water quality program should be implemented
at the earliest possible opportunity owing to the very rapid
development of the watershed for residential and industrial uses.

Work Element 12-8: Manatee County should amend its comprehensive
plan to (a) adopt recommendations of the Southeast Sector Task
Force as policy for the watershed south of S.R. 70; (b) establish a
new planning sector within the "developing southeast sector",
defined as a c6rridor encompassing both the tidal and non-tidal
portions of the river. The latter action would place the river in
a planning sector rather than between sectors, and perpetuate its
existing and emerging character.

Work Element 12-9: SWFWMD and DER should collaborate with TBRPC and
Manatee County to assess the present and future impacts of
stormwater in the lower river, especially because of recent
reservoir improvements which will reduce base flow.

Work Element 12-10: No increases in consumptive uses of water from
the newly expanded reservoir should be permitted by SWFWMD until
shorelines' of the reservoir are graded so as to provide at least
33% of its total surface area as littoral zones. See also
Recommendation 4B (Minimum Flows).

2. Natural Creeks and Rivers

A. Double Branch Creek:

Work Element 12-11: At TBRPC initiative, Pinellas, Pasco and
Hillsborough Counties should cooperate to establish a regional
stormwater management program for the watershed. Also, recommenda-
tions provided in issue #30 (Bower Tract Management) and issue #34
(Channel "A" Restoration) are relevant and should be implemented.

2-71

B. Piney Point Creek:

Work Element 12-12: FDER renewal of AMAX NPDES discharge permits
to Piney Point Creek (and Bishop Harbor, both Florida Aquatic
Preserves) should be based on a demonstration that fluoride,
radium, and other toxic materials have not accumulated in waters,
sediments, plants, or animals (of either system). As an alterna-
tive, NPDES permit reviewers should consider AMAX discharges to the
port-wide stormwater retention system proposed for Port Manatee.
In the event that TECO constructs a power plant at Beacon Key, DER
and Hillsborough County should disallow development in salt
barrens, or hydrologic alterations which would effect water quality
and habitat integrity in the creek.

C. Little Redfish Creek: See 3B: Redfish Creek.

D. Frog Creek: Frog Creek is threatened by stormwater and
agricultural runoff, and hydroperiod changes from a proposed diver-
sion of peak flows to AMAX.

Work Element 12-13: SWFWMD and DER should cooperate with Manatee
County .to establish a regional stormwater management system in the
basin. Manatee County Pollution Control and SCS should work to
curtail agricultural runoff. Structural controls on Frog Creek to
store water for AMAX should be discouraged since the County will
soon have a regional sewage treatment plant in the area and can
provide effluent from that plant to AMAX instead.

3. Highly Stressed and Man-Made Rivers and Creeks.

A. Lake Tarpon Outfall:

Work Element 12-14: SWFWMD should evaluate the feasibility of
grading one or both banks down to water level, from the present
bank to limits of the right-of-way, for littoral zones. Minimum
discharges should be established following the procedure used by
the District in the Alafia River, to complement the existing draw-
down schedules in the Lake. (See Item 4.B).

B. Channel "A": See issue #34: Channel "A" Restoration.

C. Tampa Bypass Canal: See comments at 3A (Lake Tarpon Outfall). In
addition, SWFWMD owned tidal segments of the river and McKay Bay
should be surveyed for the purpose of determining whether these
areas are suitable for habitat restoration projects. If so, such
plans should become works of the District by 1990 and incorporated
in a McKay Bay management plan (see issue #24).

D. Hillsborough River:

Work Element 12-15: Recommendations for shoreline projects made by
the City of Tampa NURP Receiving Water Study should be implemented.
In addition, SWFWMD should provide a base flow to the Hillsborough
River in such quantities and periods determined useful by NURP
data.

2-72

Work Element 12-16: Deep holes at the river mouth, in Garrison and
Seddon Channels, should be filled with dredged spoil to mitigate
anoxic conditions in the lower river (see issue W4. Radical
measures such as salinity barriers, aerators, or infilling should
be considered to alleviate site specific problems.

E. Urban Creeks: The urban creeks include all streams in Pinellas
County flowing to Tampa Bay, Rocky and Sweetwater Creeks in
Hillsborough County, and Wares Creek in Manatee County.

Work Element 12-17: These creeks should be inventoried by TBRPC for
flow characteristics, basin size, shoreline types, discharges,
existing regulations, and restoration potential. Efforts by each
municipality should begin, to implement urban redevelopment
standards for stormwater control, including "in lieu of" payment
programs such as that used by the City of Clearwater to underwrite
regional stormwater management systems. (see issue #22,
Stormwater Retention for Redevelopment). Radical measures such as
salinity barriers, aerators, infilling, artesian base flows, or
rerouting of streams through new areas should be considered to
alleviate site specific problems (see also issue #35, Tidal Gates
and Pumps.)

F. Redfish Creek: The following comments supplement issue #27 (Hendry
Fill Restoration). Restoration of Hendry Fill (Redfish Creek) was
proposed in a Water Quality and Natural Resource Management Plan
developed by Mote Marine Laboratory for Port Manatee, as an of f-
site mitigation project. Coordination of issue #27 with the
Manatee County Port Authority and Pollution Control Department
should therefore be emphasized. One element of the port plan calls
for the possibility of linking a port-wide stormwater detention
system with the restored Little Redfish Creek via "Peanut Lake".
Another possibility deserving regulatory scrutiny is restoration of
Little Redfish Creek in such a manner as to receive AMAX discharges
of non-process wastewater. Such a project would divert existing,
permitted discharges from AMAX to Piney Point Creek and Bishop
Harbor, two pristine natural areas, to a remade creek where ease of
cleanup could be made a design consideration. In any case, creek
rehabilitation should include removal of fine sediments on the
estuarine flats from the creek mouth north to Port Manatee and
south to Bishop Harbor.

4. Baywide Recommendations.

A. Minimum Flows: The provision of adequate quantities of freshwater
to Tampa Bay is critical to its maintenance as a productive
estuary. The water must be provided at ecologically relevant
times, and be relatively free of contaminants. At present, every
is ~~~river, flowing to Tampa Bay is either dammed, tapped for cooling
water, or has regulated tributaries. Development pressures and
demands for potable water are immense and increasing, meaning that
the basic estuarine character of Tampa Bay is endangered.

2-73

Responsibility for the protection of freshwater supplies to Tampa
Bay rests squarely with SWFWMD. The District is to be commended
for its sponsorship of minimum flow conferences, workshops on the
Alafia River, and CUP studies required of Manatee County in
connection with reservoir expansion. The District must be
supported by every means possible to establish ecologically
meaningful flow regimens for all tributaries to the bay.

Work Element 12-18: A program is urgently needed to (a) evaluate
th-e s'alinity struct~ure of Tampa Bay and zones of the bay relative
to river discharges; (b) link ecological events in the bay to low,
average and peak flows so as to identify critical flows for each
stream; and (c) still provide for reasonable demands for potable
water in the region.

Elements of the program should address flow required for the
Braden, Manatee, Little Manatee, Alafia, Palm (Bypass Canal), and
Hillsborough Rivers; for Rocky, Sweetwater and Double Branch
Creeks; and for Channel 'Al and Lake Tarpon Outlet.

Work Element 12-19: A principle should be adopted by the District
in-de~termi~nin~gminiTmum flows which differs from present policy as
used in the case of Lake Manatee where only the impact of new and
additional withdrawals were considered. Specifically, all minimum
f lows should be established on the basis of a new study and
reconstruction of historical conditions, e.g., those existing prior
to development. New legislation may be required to implement this
approach.

Work Element 12-20: Existing legislation should be amended so as to
instruct SWFWMD to set all existing flows of rivers in the District
as their respective minimum flows. Further amendments should
require the District to adopt specific minimum flows, based on
scientific data, for each river flowing to Tampa Bay by 1990, in a
manner consistent with Work Element 12-19. As interim criteria,
two performance standards should be adopted for impounded rivers.
Spillways should be modified to allow discharge whenever confined
water levels are higher than mean sea level (downstream of the
spillway). The releases should be made in amounts sufficient to
maintain a 10 0/00 gradient in salinity between the spillway and
the river mouth (Example: Braden River in Manatee County). Dams
should be operated so as to release an amount equal to, or varying
in lesser proportion with inflows to the upstream area. (Example:
Hillsborough River, Tampa Bypass Canal in Hillsborough County;
Manatee River in Manatee County). These provisions should be
relaxed during District declared regional water shortages.

B. Wasteload Allocation: These comments supplement issue #13
(Wasteload Allocation Study) and, issue #10 (Industrial and0
Municipal Discharges).

There is more than enough evidence in the condition of urbanized
creeks around Tampa Bay to argue against any new or continued
discharge of municipal or industrial wastes to restorable and

2-74

natural creeks. Local comprehensive plans, SWFWMD and DER permit
guidelines, and TBRPC review policies should be amended so as to
prohibit all such discharges by 1990.

Allocations developed by DER for rivers should not be limited to
their tidal segments. Allocations are needed for each river as a
whole, based on site-specific data and the use of models with
capabilities which are presently unavailable. All such allocations
(when they are eventually made) should have a verified relationship
to Tampa Bay, and should meet other performance standards set forth
in issue #13 (Wasteload Allocation).

Work Element 12-21: Until all aspects of the wasteload allocation
process can be specifically justified from a resource based
perspective, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental
Regulation duly return to enforcing technology based effluent
limits (TBEL), and regulating all domestic wastewater discharges to
Tampa Bay pursuant to Section 403,086(1)(b), Florida Statutes. At
a minimum, to protect the biological resources of rivers flowing to
Tampa Bay, all discharges should be encouraged, and provided
assistance wherever possible, to upgrade treatment facilities so as
to provide advanced wastwater treatment as defined by Chapter 17-6,
Florida Administrative Code. in addition, alternatives to surface
water discharges- should be sought wherever possible.

Work Element 12-22: The Department of Environmental Regulation
s~hould continue to expend funds for the expansion and refinement of
the Draft Tampa Bay 205(j) Water Quality Impact Study. Before this
document can serve as a wasteload allocation study, the findings of
which to be reflected in permiting decisions, much work is yet
needed. If federal 205(j) grant funds cannot be allocated for this
purpose, it is suggested that the Department seek a special legis-
lative appropriation to complete the task. An alternative source
of funding worthy of consideration would be a special surtax levied
on those domestic and industrial dischargers utilizing the
receiving waters of Tampa Bay or its tributaries. Based on 1982
effluent flows a surtax of $3.00 per MGD would generate
approximately $200,000 per year which could be used for further
research leading to the development of scientifically defensible
allocations.

Long-Term Management Altlernatives:

The following conclusions are relevant to the consideration of long-term
management alternative.

* Until now there has been no summary statement of the condition of
rivers and creeks flowing to Tampa Bay, or of their management
problems.

* The various tributaries are naturally different, and each has
unique problems as well as problems common to other streams;

0 Management of a river or creek as an ecological unit will have to
involve several levels of government and authority;

2-75

� Although several streams among those considered are highly
stressed, more are natural or are still restorable.

* Population growth threatens all bay tributaries and unless actions
are taken before 1990 more streams will be irrevocably stressed by
the year 2000.

Status Quo: Table 2.4 summarizes the probability of implementing
recommendations made herein, as a function of three management
alternatives. Under the present management framework no recommendation
has a high probability of occurring, and natural systems will get less
attention than disturbed areas (i.e., existing regulatory framework is
reactionary, not proactive). Implementation is enhanced under the bay
advisory committee . alternative and is much better if a bay commission is
constituted. Under this management strategy, considerable emphasis is
placed on use of local comprehensive plans; but except for the advisory
review of plans by TBRPC no mechanism will exist to encourage needed
amendments to, or compliance with the plans. Accordingly, all local
governments should be briefed on findings and recommendations of the 1984
Tampa Bay Management Study Commission before or concurrent with the
legislative report. Since local governments will not be interested in
problems which transcend their political boundaries, little progress on
many recommendations is expected under status quo management scenario.

Bay Advisory Committee: Chances of implementation are improved by this
approach if and only if the committee is staffed and funded; but
difficulties are expected where special interest are involved (IC: Alafia
River; 2B: Piney Point Creek); interactions with SWFWMD are necessary (3A:
Lake Tarpon, 3C: Tampa Bypass Canal); or urban creek rehabilitation is a
comparatively large project for municipalities (3E: Urban Creeks). While
a staffed bay advisory committee within the Tampa Bay Regional Planning
Council could fund some of the recommended projects through state and
federal grants, several other important ones would not be practical
undertakings.

Bay Management Authority: A funded, mandated authority which fully
involves existing governments and regulators could accomplish or cause
others to implement most of the recommended actions. Even a bay management
authority would find obstacles in certain areas due to diffuse
responsibility (iC: Alafia River; 2A: Double Branch Creek) or historical
inertia of mission-oriented agencies (3A and C: Lake Tarpon Outlet and
Channel "A").

2-76

Table 2.4. Relative probability of implementing bay management
recommendations under the various long-term management
altneratives.

Probability of Implementation

Status Advisory Bay
Element Quo Committee Authority

1.A. Bullfrog Creek low average high
1.B. Gamble Creek none average high
1.C. Alafia River none low average
1.D. Manatee River none average high
1.E. Braden River average high high

2.A. Double Branch Creek none to low average average
2.B. Piney Point Creek low average high
2.C. Little Redfish Creek average high high
2.D. Frog Creek ' average high high

3.A. Lake Tarpon Outfall low low average
3.B. Channel A average high high
3.C. Tampa Bypass Canal low low average
3.D. Hillsborough River --------------In preparation-------------
3.E. Urban Creeks none low average
3.F. Redfish Creek average high high

4.A. Management Study average average high
4.B. Minimum Flows average high high
4.C. Wasteload Allocation average high high

2-77

Issue #13 Wasteload Allocation Study for Tampa Bay

Issue Analysis: Tampa Bay is presently experiencing a number of water
quality problems. In particular, there is a periodic depletion of the
dissolved oxygen (DO) resources and associated fish kills. There has been
a disappearance of grassbeds in the area. Seasonal algal blooms are also
encountered. Taken together, these problems appear to be associated with
nutrient enrichment of the bay system. An associated concern is the health
of grassbeds in the area. Since the primary fisheries habitat, especially
for juveniles, is grassbeds and since the bay, for the most part, is
classified as Class III (Recreation-Propagation and Maintenance of a
Healthy, Well-Balanced Population of Fish and Wildlife), the health of the
grassbeds is related to the maintenance of the designated use. Therefore,
the primary concern of water quality studies in Tampa Bay should be
nutrient loads from point and nonpoint sources.

In 1972 the Florida State Legislature passed what was known as the Wilson-
Grizzle Bill (Section 403.086(1)(b), Florida Statutes). This bill
stipulated that no domestic wastewater disposal facility constructed after
1972 could discharge any waste into Old Tampa Bay, Tampa Bay, Hillsborough
Bay, Boca Ciega Bay, St. Joseph Sound, Clearwater Bay, Sarasota Bay, Little
Sarasota Bay, Roberts Bay, Lemon Bay, or Punta Gorda Bay in addition to any
bay, bayou or sound "tributary thereto' without providing at least advanced
wastewater treatment (AWT). In essence, the area covered by the bill
included all saline coastal bodies of water from the Anclote Keys south to
Charlotte Harbor.

Advanced wastewater treatment, as defined in the Florida Administrative
Code, Chapter 17-6, limited the annual average effluent concentration to 5
milligrams per liter (mg/1) of 5 day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) and
total suspended solids; 3 mg/l total nitrogen; and 1 mg/l total phosphorus.
This requirement was not based on site-specific water quality determi-
nations, but was made in an attempt to reverse what was perceived by many
to be deteriorating water quality in the area. No relief mechanism was
provided other than a statutory variance.

In 1980 the Legislature modified the Wilson-Grizzle Bill such that the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) could grant relief for
facilities if the applicants initiated a request for such relief and then
demonstrated that AWT was not required to protect water quality. The
modified Wilson-Grizzle Bill aslo expanded the "affected area" to include
all freshwater tributaries which flow into the original Wilson-Grizzle
area. This area was defined hydrologically as the Peace River and Tampa
Bay Basins.

Then, in July of 1981, the Legislature repealed the statute requiring AWT
for domestic wastewater treatment facilities constructed after 1972. The
statute was replaced with a mandate requiring the DER to specify wasteload
allocations on a case-by-case basis for domestic point sources. Also
required was a survey on the overall impact of existing nonpoint sources
discharging into the waters of the original Wilson-Grizzle area.

2-78

In 1983 the Department of Environmental Regulation initiated research
efforts leading to the development of wasteload allocations for Tampa Bay.
In September of 1984 a draft document entitled Tampa Bay 205(j) Water
Quality Impact Study was released for public review.

The purpose of the Tampa Bay 205(j) Water Quality Impact Study was to
evaluate the present condition with respect to major nutrients and to
predict mathematically what effect future discharges to Tampa Bay will have
on water quality parameters including chlorophyll-a and dissolved oxygen
concentrations. The ultimate uses of this document include long-term
wastewater planning (e.g. 201 Facility Planning, Florida Construction
Grants Program, N. Pinellas EIS) and permitting. Although no specific
wasteload allocations were delineated in the draft the following
conclusions were made:

Old Tampa Bay

1) The modeling effort was sufficient to make regulatory decisions
regarding future point and nonpoint source discharge impacts on
dissolved oxygen and nutrient resources in Old Tampa Bay.

2) In the absence of point sources it is predicted that in the year 2000
with urban and agricultural Best Management Practicies (BMP's) applied
Old Tampa Bay will, during high flow conditions, experience DO values
less than the m~nimum criteria of 4 mg/l and chlorophyll a values
greater than 30 ug/1. This is not true for low flow conditions.

3) Clearwater East & Northeast could discharge highly treated water from a
new outfall in Old Tampa Bay considering DO and nutrients; however,
Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) and Class II water restrictions apply.

4) Oldsmar and N. Pinellas 201 could discharge up to 15 mgd from a new
outfall with a high degree of treatment; however, OFW and Class II
water restrictions apply.

5) Hillsborough County/River Oaks should not discharge into Old Tampa Bay
at the mouth of Channel "A" due to water quality reasons.

Tampa Bay Proper

1) The modeling effort was sufficient to make regulatory decisions
regarding future point and nonpoint source impacts on dissolved oxygen
and nutrient resources in Tampa Bay proper.

2) Albert Whitted STP could discharge with minimum treatment to Tampa Bay
proper based upon DO and nutrients; however, OFW and Class II water
constraints apply.

Hillsborough Bay

1) The modeling effort to date was insufficient to make regulatory
decisions regarding point source impacts in Hillsborough Bay. Both the
existing and future discharge alternatives need further model runs.
Relative to the major dischargers considered in the study, certain
conclusions can be drawn.

2-79

2) In the absence of point source discharges, it is predicted that in year
2000 with urban and agricultural BMP's applied to nonpoint sources,
Hillsborough Bay will, during high flow conditions, experience DO
values less than 4 mg/i and chlorophyll a values greater than 30 ug/l.
During low flow conditions, DO values will be greater than 4 mg/l and
chlorophyll a values less than 30 ug/1.

3) City of Tampa/Hookers Point facility with high treatment levels at
98.38 mgd and at its current point of discharge will cause a
significant negative impact on water quality in Hillsborough Bay.
However, other sources were being considered in these model runs and
alternate discharge sites were not considered. Additional runs are
needed to isolate the impacts of all existing and proposed dischargers.

4) Hillsborough County/Alafia STP impacts were unresolved due to
incomplete knowledge of the relative contribution of other point
sources in the area.

Shortly following the release of the document the Tampa Bay Management
Study Commission provided a detailed review of the Draft Tampa Bay 205(j)
Water Quality Impact Study to the Department of Environmental Regulation
(see appendix D). In that review, several technical flaws in both study
design and execution were cited. In general, these flaws included the
following:

* dissolved oxygen measurements were averaged over the entire water
column for modeling purposes;

the rationale for water quality targets was not clearly documented and
the linkage between water quality goals and resource use attainability
was not adequately established;

the computer model was not adequately calibrated or verified;

* analysis of the contribution of benthic pollution sources was based on
insufficient data;

* the modeling approach excluded convective acceleration terms from the
equations of motion;

* historic water quality and meteorological trends were not adequately
considered;

* data on nutrients and eutrophication from other estuaries were not
utilized for comparative purposes;

� seagrass meadows were mapped at an inappropriate scale resulting in a
critical loss of resolution;

* the compensation point of seagrasses used in the development of
resource based water quality targets was not justifiable based upon the
available literature;

2-80

a the effects of epiphytic algae, as an indicator of eutrophication, on
the elimination of seagrasses were not considered;

* the specific purpose and ultimate use of the document was not clearly
stated; and

0 no regulatory alternatives were discussed regarding the impacts on non-
point source nutrient loadings.

It was, however, concluded that the study did result in a useful tool (i.e.
the Tampa Bay model) which will facilitate the understanding of Do and
nutrient resources in Tampa Bay. There is much to be gained from
developing such a model for Tampa Bay, as it could eventually be used to
predict both short and long term effects of many types of management and
regulatory decisions.

Relevant Laws and Statutes:

Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Section 402
Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (Environmental Control)

Bay Management Objectives:

1. Develop a scientific ally justifiable research tool for assessing and
predicting the impacts of nutrient loadings from point and non-point
source discharges on the living resources of Tampa Bay.

2. Establish legally enforceable, resource based, effluent allocations for
all municipal and industrial point sources discharging to Tampa Bay.

Bay Management Recommendations:

1. The findings of the Draft Tampa Bay 205(j) Water Quality Impact Study
should not be reflected in the regulatory process until such time as
all of the problems cited in the Tampa Bay Management Study Commissions
review of the document are resolved (see appendix D).

2. Until all aspects of the Draft Tampa Bay 205(j) Water Quality Impact
Study are amended to be scientifically justifiable from a resource
based perspective the Department of Environmental Regulation should
duly return to enforcing technology based effluent limits (TBEL), and
regulating all domestic wastewater discharges to Tampa Bay pursuant to
Section 403.086(li(b), Florida Statutes. At a minimum, to protect the
biological resources of Tampa Bay, all dischargers should be
encouraged, and provided assistance wherever possible, to upgrade
treatment facilities so as to provide advanced wastewater treatment as
defined by Chapter 17-6, Florida Administrative Code. in addition,
alternatives to surface water discharges should be required wherever
* ~~~feasible or necessary.

Work Element 13-1: The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council should,
through their Chapter 163, F.S., review responsibilities, encourage and
assist local governments to purchase needed land and implement effluent

2-81

spray irrigation and wetland filtration programs. A special sub-
committee of the Council should be established to develop regional
capital improvement strategies and grant assistance for future areawide
wastewater treatment and disposal needs.

3. During this interim period, the Department of Environmental Regulation
should continue to support and expend funds for the expansion and
refinement of Draft Tampa Bay 205(j) Water Quality Impact Study.

Work Element 13-2: If federal 205(j) grant funds cannot be allocated
for this purpose it is recommended that the Department seek a special
legislative appropriation to complete the task. To replenish state
spending for this purpose an alternative source of funding worthy of
consideration would be a special surtax levied on those domestic and
industrial dischargers utilizing the receiving waters of Tampa Bay.
Based on 1982 effluent flows a surtax of $3.09 per MGD would generate
approximately $200,000 per year which could be used for further
research leading to the development of scientifically defensible WQBEL
for Tampa Bay. Periodic re-assessment of wasteload allocation figures
to determine accuracy and to continually update the wasteload
allocation analysis should also be performed at least bi-annually.

Estimated Manpower and Cost

Year 1 2 3 4 5

Manpower (man years)

- Staff (DER) 2 2 2 2 2
- Consultant - - - -

Total 2 2 2 2 2

Source of Funds

- Federal (205j) 100,000 100,000 - - -
- State (Allocated) 100,000 100,000 - - -
- Local (Surtax) - - 200,000 200,000 200,000

Total 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000

2-82

Long-term Management Alternatives:

Status Quo: Under the present regulatory framework the Department of
Environmental Regulation will complete and enforce the findings of Tampa
Bay wasteload allocation study. However, critical review of the draft
study by local scientists and engineers proved to be extremely useful in
uncovering problems in the research effort completed to date. A study of
this importance will require maximum peer review before it is reflected in
critically important regulatory decisions.

Bay Advisory Committee: A standing bay advisory committee within the Tampa
Bay Regional Planning Council could continue to provide a valuable
technical advisory role leading to the refinement and continued updating of
the wasteload allocation analysis. In addition, such a committee could
also provide a ~useful grant assistance function for local governments
seeking effluent disposal alternatives.

Bay Management Authority: Besides providing the same functions as a bay
ad-visory committee a mandated bay management authority could potentially
assume management responsibilities for ongoing wasteload allocation
analyses as well as permitting authority for all point-sources discharging
into Tampa Bay.,

2-83

Issue #14 Assessment of Fishery Stocks in Tampa Bay.

Issue Analysis: The yield of sport and commercial fishes from Tampa Bay is
one of the most tangible expressions of its productivity. Because of
studies in other estuaries we know that particular activities will be
detrimental to fisheries production whereas other actions will be;
beneficial; but these insights do not allow us to state the relative
significance of singular or combined management actions on particular
species in the bay.

Annual catches of sport and commercial fishes and invertebrates are poorly
documented for the waters of Tampa Bay, but available information shows
that numerous stocks are declining or are maintaining at low levels
compared to historical records. Reasons for stock declines may be several
but until such time as the biology of these species is known no certain
evaluations of pollution, habitat loss or gain, or other management factors
can be made.

Existing regulations concerning fisheries management in Tampa Bay are
primarily limitations to commercial activities near residential
waterfronts, although state season and size or catch limits apply to clams
and oysters, stone crabs, pompano, flounder, mackerel, spotted sea trout,
redfish and snook. Protection of existing habitat and water quality will
be necessary but not sufficient for long-term rehabilitation of these and
other fishery stock~_. A lack of information on the present status of
fisheries is the single greatest impediment to their effective management.

Relevant Laws and Statutes:

National Environmental Policy Act
Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Fisheries Conservation and Manageme nt Act
Numerous state laws, special acts and administrative rules

Bay management objectives:

1. Provide for maximum sustained yields of important fishery resources,
with recognization that optimal yields may be smaller due to competing
social needs.

2. Provide for maintenance without compromise of genetic diversity within
stocks, and species diversity of the estuary as a whole.

3. Enhance habitat and water quality for regional as well as local fishery
resources.

Bay Management Recommendations:

1. A complementary program of fisheries research, monitoring and
regulation of all valued stocks in Tampa Bay should be implemented with
a secure base of user-oriented funding. The proposed program involves
seven complementary elements as follows:

2-84

A. First Generation Model: A systems model for the production of
sport and commercial fishery products in Tampa Bay is recommended
as the first activity in the bay research program. This nine-month
effort is budgeted at $33,000, and would frame the conceptual basis
against which all synoptic data needs can be defined or subsequent
site investigations interpreted. The model has the long-term goal
is of predicting stocks of specific species under a variety of natural
or cultural pressures. The first generation model would be based
on existing bay data and literature plus those facts transferable
from other subtropical estuaries similar to Tampa Bay. The model
would be exposed to the scrutiny of at least one technical and one
public workshop for enhancement or revision, as needed.

B. Synoptic Survey of Stocks: The synoptic survey of fishery stocks
in Tampa Bay is designed around a *12-month program which would
begin after completion of the first generation model. The full
year of sampling begins in January and is comprised of six
elements. In the winter and late fall 30 stations in the bay would
be sampled a total of three times for ichthyoplankton, juveniles
and adults. Sampling would be performed at night and during the
day in the water-column and epibenthic environments. The stations
would 'be distributed as equitably as possible among salt marsh,
mangrove, oyster bar, live bottom and open waters of the bay.
Sampling in.Xivers, the open bay environment, inlets and beaches
also would be performed four times between March and August, and
would be a larger geographic effort encompassing a total of 50
stations. During each of the 30-station or 50-station sampling
events, standard measurements of species richness, density, size,
fecundity and condition would be made for representative subsamples
of all catches. In addition, gut contents would be determined for
nested subsamples among species of interest. Water chemistry will
be measured on a monthly basis with emphasis on in situ metered
parameters such as currents, temperature, salini~ty, pH, dissolved
oxygen, color, etc. Primary production, phytoplankton, biomass and
zooplankton biomass will be measured at selected stations. This
program will be coordinated as carefully as possible with existing
monitoring programs of local governments to avoid duplication of
efforts and unnecessary costs. Prior to each 30-station and 50-
station sampling effort fishery pressure will be determined through
intensive monitoring of sport and commercial activities (see next
item). On a less frequent basis (three times during the year),
estimates of entrainment losses will be made at power plants
surrounding the bay.

C. Fishery Pressure: A key element in understanding the production of
sport and commercial fisheries in Tampa Bay is an accurate
measurement of the harvest efforts made by the sport and commercial
sectors upon these resources. Six intensive surveys of sport and
commercial fisheries will be performed as part of the synoptic
fishery surveys. Measurements of recreational and commercial
fishing pressures will be accomplished through aerial and ground
surveys using the appropriate statistical approach so as to
accurately describe fishing pressures for the week preceding each

2-85

collection. By the third such survey, preliminary catch-per-unit-
effort (CPUE) estimates will be made for all key species. By the
fifth such survey, second estimates of CPUE will be made for use in
year and phase two modeling.

D. Phase 2 Modeling: The second generation model will be based on
synoptic and CPUE surveys for both commercial and sport species
generated during the year long survey. The modeling can begin in
October of the synoptic survey year and continue through April of
the following year. The purpose of the second modeling effort is
to identify and evaluate relevant model elements and interactions
affecting fishery stocks. A second purpose of the modeling effort
is to identify the site specific investigations which should be
performed in the months of May and July of the third year (as means
of verifying predictions of the -model). Once these site
investigations have been made the model can be used to evaluate
production rates under a variety of management scenarios.

E. Site Investigations: The site investigations are of narrow
geographic scope and are meant to provide the data necessary to
calibrate the ecological model developed during the prior six
months., Elements of the site investigations will include physical
and chemical characterizations, samplings by day and night or tide
for all targ~et species and assessment of fishery pressure (and
entrainment, if necessary) in March-April and again in May-June. A
second goal of the site investigations is to identify those sites
and techniques useful in a long-term program of fisheries
monitoring at a modest scale, as a means of predicting sustainable
yields likely to result from natural or cultural stresses. A third
purpose of the site investigations is to allow for the calibration
of a state fisheries program adapted for Tampa Bay (next item).

F. Bay Fisheries Statistics Program: The fisheries stock assessment
program described thus far is a three-year program which would not
begin until approximately $425,000 has been escrowed and
projections of revenue clearly showed that funds would be available
for the completion of the program. By this time the State DNR
Statewide Fisheries Statistics Program will be fully operable and
should be adaptable with finer resolution to Tampa Bay. Elements
of this program would include a) delineation of sectors within the
Bay for which sport and commercial fisheries stocks and pressures
can be assessed; b) determination of minimally adequate sampling
for stocks and fishing pressure; c) alignment of the fine grain
data base with the general state-wide program, and d) a one-year
program in which the bay-sector data base is compared to the state-
wide program. The synoptic survey, modelling and fine grain
statistical program would all be complete by the 36th month of the
stock assessment project and lead to a regulatory phase.

G. New and Revised Regulations: one recommendation of the Commission
could be ongoing during the stock assessment study phase, e.g. the
encouragement and assistance of the Marine Fisheries Commission in
standardizing local acts. However, the synoptic sampling, modeling
and statistical program is expected to lead to a more effective,
scientifically grounded regulatory program. Performance standards

2-86

are set for target species with regard to seasons, sizes, other
limitations such as catch-by-sex, gear restrictions, or the closing
of certain waters. The effectiveness of the regulatory program so
defined could then be assessed through the continuation of the bay
specific fisheries statistics program.

2. Most of these elements have been drawn together as a single work plan
for stock assessment of bay-wide fisheries. A 36-month program will be
required to accomplish the majority of the recommendations summarized
above. The three-year cost of this program is anticipated to be
$641,900 or an average monthly expenditure of approximately $17,830
(see table 2.3). Because of the necessity to link fishery research and
regulation to a secure base of steady funding, it is proposed that the
work outlined below not begin until such time as funds have been
accumulated to equal or-exceed 66% of the necessary total. I1n other
words, the three years of field work analysis and regulatory
adjustments proposed below should not begin until such time as a
majority of the requisite funds have been established.

Work Element 14-1: The following steps are proposed for the purpose of
securing funds for the stock assessment. First, a recreational
fisheries license should be adopted for the marine waters of the State
with a portion earmarked for return to the fisheries program in
proportion to the~amount of funds generated from the Tampa Bay area.
In making this recommendation the Commission recognizes the need for a)
the ready accessibility of a saltwater fishing license and b)
provisions for a fair and equitable program of licensing for charter
boats and head boats. in addition to this state-wide source of funds,
and as an alternative source in the event the license program is never
adopted, the Legislature should authorize the return to the Tampa bay
Fisheries Program of trawl net fees, saltwater products license fees,
fines related to marine fisheries violations, and such other
miscellaneous funds as deemed appropriate for this purpose. Once an
assessment is made of the revenue likely to be generated from these two
sources, serious consideration should be given to a third source of
local, independent funds to supplement remaining fiscal needs for an
ongoing fisheries program. A levy on sewage treatment plant discharges
to Tampa Bay, for effluents treated to less than advanced levels, is
one possibility. Contributions from local sources should also be
solicited, in particular from seafood restaurants and other fishery
dependent commerce. Finally, an alternate source of local support
could be derived Zrom funds contributed by industries in lieu of direct
mitigation of their impacts to Tampa Bay. For further discussion of
other funding alternatives see issue #1.

Long-Term Management Alternatives:

1. Status Quo: The proposed studies could be adequately administered by
the Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Marine Research, or by
the Stat , University System with guidance from the Marine Fisheries
commission.

2-87

2. Bay Advisory Committee: A standing advisory committee within the Tampa
Bay Regional Planning Council could be effective in assisting the above
cited agencies in conducting and administering the proposed studies.

This alternative, however, would require very explicit description of
funding, fund management and project continuity in the absence of an

administrative agency.

3. Bay Management Authority: A mandated bay management authority could
administer the proposed study program with assistance from, and
coordination with, the above cited agencies and consulted services.
The authority could generate, manage and disburse funds as outlined in
the above stated recommendations.

2-88

Table 2.5 Draft Estimate of Costs for a Baywide Stock Assessment Work Plan.

LEADS LEADS TOTAL
ELEMENT STARTS ENDS DURATION FREQUENCY FROM TO COST1

Fund with at 66% ? Commission
Accumulation legislation total $ continuous Recommendation Study $425,000

First Fundinu Synoptic
Model Month 1 Month 9 9 months continuous Threshhold Survey $ 33,000

30-Station Month 8 Month 18 months First Second
Surveys* (February) (December) 12 months 8,16,18 Model Model $ 50,900

50-Station Month 10 Month 13 alternate
Surveys (April) (August) 6 months months same same $125,700

Trophic Month 8 Month 18 with 30 &
Studies* (February) (December) 11 months 50 station same same $ 25,600
surveys

Physical Month 7 Month 18
Data* (January) (December) 12 months monthly same same $ 47,600

Effort Month 1 Month 18 week prior to
Surveys * (January) IDecember) 12 months 30 & 50 station same same $ 67,100
surveys

Month 8 Month 18 months
Entrainment* (February) (December) 12 months 8,12,16 same same $ 53,500

Second Month 16 Month 28 Synoptic Pynoptic
Model (October) (November) 12 months continuous Survey Investigations $ 45,000

Site Month 23 Month 25 determined Second Bay Statistics
Investigations* (May) (July) 3 molths by model Model Program $ 95,000

Bay Month 26 Month 32 all Regulatory
Statistics (August) (March) 6 months3 continuous above Programs $-65,000

Month 32 all Commission
Regulations (March) --- ongoing continuous above Goal $ 33,500

NOTES: 1Estimates are 1984 2Includes Items 3An ongoing program
Direct Costs marked by * budgeted for only 6 months

0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Issue #15 Gypsum Field Decommissioning

Issue Analysis: The Gardinier,Inc., Gypsum field located west of U.S.
Highway 41 and north of the Alafia River represents a continuing source of
contamination to Tampa Bay through leaching of acidic waters, flouride and
radionuclide enrichment, and sedimentation (see figure 2.4). Past leaching
has resulted in the formation of an extensive calcium flourite delta along
the adjacent bay bottom. Benthic epifaunal- and infaunal productivity and
diversity in the vicinity of this delta has thus been significantly
reduced.

In 1983 Gardinier, Inc., applied for a development approval, through the
Development of Regional Impact (DRI) process (Chapter 380, Florida
Statutes), for a new gypsum field to be located east of U.S. Highway 41.
Many conditions of approval related to the decommissioning of the old
gypsum field were incorporated into the Development Order, including the
following:

No. 3 - TBRPC

"To assure that the existing stack is properly and adequately
decommissioned add closed, Gardinier shall prepare and present for review
and approval to Hillsborough County and TBRPC a plan prepared pursuant to
the U.S. Environmental- Protection Agency regulations. This plan shall
identify the manner proposed to close the top of the stack and the existing
collection system for leachate and shall address Gardinier's commitment to
maintain and/or improve this system over future years. This plan shall
also require a commitment to maintain vegetation on the existing stack over
future years." (TBRPC Recommended order, 3)

No. 38 - HCEPC

" Gardinier shall submit to the EPC a close-out plan for the existing
gypsum stack at least six months before decommissioning begins." (HCEPC
Report, p. 6)

No. 39 - HCEPC

" Decommissioning of the existing gypsum stack shall begin within six
months of switch-over and de-bugging of the new gypsum stack." (HCEPC
Report, p. 6)

No. 40 - HCEPC

" Decommissioning of the existing gypsum stack shall include sealing the
top of the stack with an impermeable material to prevent continued leaching
of contaminated water." (HCEPC Report, p. 6)

No. 41 - HCEPC

"Decommissioning of the existing gypsum stack shall include vegetation of
the side slopes to reduce fugitive particulate emissions." (HCEPC Report,
p. 6)

2-90

------- -------~~~~

0 ~~~~~~c *~~~-- --~----- - - - - - - - - - -

..... . . . . I
...~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .....

Figure 2.4. Relative location of ~
Gardenier, Inc. gypsum stack.

2-91

No. 42 - HCEPC

"Decommissioning of the existing gypsum stack shall include restoration
and revegetation of the shoreline of the bay." (HCEPC Report, p. 7)

Gardinier, Inc., is committed to the conditions described above in
accordance with Chapter 380, F.S.. The DRI monitoring process implemented
by the Department of Community Affairs and the Tampa Bay Regional Planning
Council will allow for long-term observation of progress with regards to
the decommissioning of the old gypsum field.

Relevant Laws and Statutes:

National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA)
Chapter 380, Florida Statutes (Land and Water Management)
Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (Environmental Control)
Chapter 376, Florida Statutes (Pollutant Discharge, Prevention and Removal)

Bay Management Objectives:

1. The Gardinier, Inc., gypsum field should be decommissioned in such a
manner so as to preclude all future adverse environmental impacts on
Tampa Bay.

2. Previously incurred environmental impacts on Tampa Bay resulting from
the presence of the gypsum field should be reversed wherever feasible.

Bay Management Recommendations:

1. The Department of Community Affairs, the Tampa Bay Regional Planning
Council and the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission
should continue to monitor compliance with the Development Order as
related to the decommissioning of the old gypsum field. A substantial
deviation from this Development Order in the future may allow for
additional mitigation.

2. Since this is a unique location for a gypsum stack with its own
existing and anticipated long-term problems, funding should be made
available, through phosphate industry severence taxes, to conduct a
detailed study of long-term maintenance problems and environmental
impacts wherever they may occur. Funds from the Water Quality
Assurance Trust Fund (Chapter 376.307, F.S.) should also be used for
this purpose. The Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Mines,
should coordinate this effort.

3. A clean-up fund should be established by Gardinier, Inc., to mitigate
impacts from natural disasters and to provide for long-term maintenance
in the event of company bankruptcy or other failure. I

4. The Florida Institute for Phosphate Research should step up efforts to
find safe uses and disposal alternatives for gypsum and other phosphate
industry waste products.

2-92

Long-Term Management Alternatives:

1. Status Quo: Monitoring of the committed decommissioning of the old
0 ~~gypsum field could be adequately implemented through the mandated
Chapter 380, F.S., responsibilities of the Tampa Bay Regional Planning
Council, and the Department of Community Affairs.

2. Bay Advisory Committee: initiatives for the mitigation of past
environmental impacts (i.e. removal of the calcium flourite delta) on
Tampa Bay could be more effectively implemented through the efforts of
a standing bay advisory committee within the Tampa Bay Regional
Planning Council.

3. Bay Management Authority: A mandated bay management authority could
potentially assume responsibility for large scale habitat restoration
projects in Tampa Bay through proper access to a variety of funding
sources.

2- 93

Issue #16 Commercial and Sport Fishing Regulation

Issue Analysis: Florida's commercial and sport fishing industries
represent an extremely important component of the states' economic base.
According to a national survey (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1982)
Florida ranked third in the number of resident anglers with 2,127,000; this
figure represented over 25% of the state's population in 1980. Residents
and tourists generated direct sport fishing oriented expenses of nearly
$1.4 billion. During the same year Florida's commercial fisherman
harvested fish and shellfish with an estimated retail value of $1.24
billion. Thus, taken together the state's recreational and commercial
fishing industries generated approximately $2.64 billion in revenues in
1980 exceeding, at least at the wholesale level, the combined revenues of
both the citrus and cattle ranching industries.

However, despite the obvious value of the fishing industry to the states'
economy, relatively few dollars are spent on fisheries research and
management programs. In fiscal year 1983-84 marine Fisheries programs (4.7
million/year) received $3.6 million from general revenue and $1.1 million
from trust fund revenues. Overall, the state returns from general funds to
fisheries programs less than 5 1/2 cents of each dollar of the
approximately $70 million of sales tax revenue generated.

Historically, Tampa Bay has been one of the states' most productive fishery
habitats. Prior to the turn of the century sturgeon were still fished
commercially; and the bay supported thriving scallop and oyster fisheries
up until about the early 1950s. While those fisheries have since collapsed
completely due to overfishing and water quality degradation, Tampa Bay
still supports reasonably productive fisheries for shrimp, bait shrimp and
a variety of finfish including spotted seatrout, red drum, mullet, flounder
and black drum. However, although fishery statistics for Tampa Bay are
scarce, available data appear to indicate that even these fisheries may be
threatened; most notably those for trout, redfish and bait shrimp.
Commercial trout landings in the bay have decreased from 650,000 pounds in
1951 to 138,000 pounds in 1983, and, coincident witht he loss of seagrasses
in the bay, bait shrimp landings have declined markedly during the same
time period. Red drum landings have fluctuated in recent years but the
long-term trend appears to be downward for this species as well (see figure
2.5).

Spotted seatrout and red drum are two of Florida's most important
recreational and commercial fish. Once staples of recreational fishing
businesses, restaurants and seafood markets, red drum and spotted seatrout
have disappeared at an alarming rate from Texas to North Carolina. Because
these species spend almost their entire life histories within estuaries
like Tampa Bay the problems of habitat destruction, pollution and over-
fishing by an increasing number of fishermen are critically linked to
their declines. The only existing Florida laws regarding trout and red
drum establish 12-inch size limits. However, new studies indicate that
both fish species reach sexual maturity at sizes larger than 12 inches.
Florida regulations, in essence, have encouraged the harvest of fish before
they are big enough to reproduce even once.

2-94

,500 Figure 2.5. Trends in Tampa Bay

1400, fishery landings for spotted seatrout,

,0 . . red drum and bait shrimp.

1200

1100 -

1000 -
00
o
o 900 --

800 - -

700--

600--

500--

400- \

300 -

200 - -

1950 955 160 1965 1970 S75 1980
YEAR
TAMPA BAY: SPOTTED SEATROUT

600

500

300

1950 1955 1960 5965-- 1970 1975 1980
YEAR
TAMPA SAY: RED DRUM

50000 --

400 �
o
2000

50000--
6 40000 --

0 DOO

1950 1955 1960 1965 '1970 1975 1980
YEAR
TAMPA BAY: BAIT SHRIMP

Source: Department of Natural Resources
National Marine Fisheries Service

2-95
2--95

Other states have taken recent steps to conserve what trout and red drum
remain. Georgia has prohibited gill netting, the most efficient commercial
gear. Alabama has banned the sale of native-caught fish, established bag
limits of no more than 15 trout and 15 red drum per angler and prohibited
the taking of red drum smaller than 14 inches and trout smaller than 12.
Mississippi has banned nets made from near-invisible monofilament that
catch more fish than other kinds of nets. However, Texas has been the
leader in aggressive management. Native red drum and trout cannot be sold
in Texas. No more than five reds and 10 trout can be taken by fishermen.
Legal trout must be 14 inches or longer; red drum need be 18 inches. only
one 30-inch red drum, the prime spawning size can be kept. Texas Parks and
Wildlife, which regulates fisheries, also maintains a hatchery program that
stocked 7-million reds into its waters last year, and is augmented by a
complementary artificial reef program which has created fish attracting
habitat in numerous bays and estuaries. In light of these efforts, and
declining Tampa Bay stocks, new management strategies for these species
need to be considered on a regional, if not a statewide, scale.

Effective management of commercial and recreational fish stocks in Tampa
Bay is also severely hampered by the large number of special acts and local
laws, many of which are conflicting or redundant. Furthermore, many local
fishing regulations were passed more as nuisance laws and are often not
relevant to current management needs and objectives. This lack of
uniformity from one area to another make current laws nearly unenforceable
(see issue 06). The Marine Fisheries Commission has recently undertaken a
statewide review of all local laws and special acts related to fisheries
management with the objective of consolidating and standardizing these
regulations on a statewide basis. This effort should be continued, and
further studies should be initiated to ensure that all new regulations are
biologically defensible and enforceable.

Relevant Laws and Statutes:

Chapter 327, Florida Statutes (Vessel Registration and Safety)
Chapter 370, Florida Statutes (Saltwater Fisheries)
Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (Environmental Control)

Bay Management Objectives:

1. Implement protective regulations and management strategies for those
fisheries on the decline in Tampa Bay.

2. improve the enforcement of fishing regulations by consolidating and
standardizing all special acts and local laws related to fishing
activities.

3. Develop and implement biologically defensible fishing regulations
through expanded fisheries assessment and research programs.

4. Enhance fishery productivity wherever feasible through pilot stocking
and habitat creation/restoration programs.

2-96

Bay Management Recommendations:

1. New statewide size and bag limits, and possible gear regulation,
should be placed upon the commercial and recreational harvest of
spotted seatrout and red drum.

Work Element 16-1: The Marine Fisheries Commission should introduce
legislation establishing appropriate size and bag limits, and gear
regulation, for both seatrout and red drum to allow for a more
successful reproduction by these species. Appropriate elements of this
legislation should include:

* Size limits for red drum and seatrout of 18 and 14 inches
respectively;

a Recreational bag limit of four red drum per person per day; and

* Seasonal closures and gear regulation for commercial harvest of red
drum.

2. All local laws and special acts related to the regulation of fishing
activities should be consolidated and standarized on a statewide basis
wherever feasible.

Work Element 16-2: The Marine Fisheries Commission should complete
its, ongoing review of local fishing regulations and make
recommendations for statewide standardization. Legislation should be
introduced repealing all local fishing regulations deemed to be
outdated, redundant or biologically irrelevant. The proposed
legislation should replace all such regulations with a set of
biologically defensible, and enforceable, statewide fishery management
regulations.

3. The Department of Natural Resources Marine Research Laboratory should
undertake a large scale fishery stock assessment/monitoring program as
described in issue #14.

4. The Department of Natural Resources Marine Research Laboratory should
undertake a study with the objective of determining the extent of
seagrass damage attributable to trawl netting in the bay, as proposed
in Work Element 2-7. Gear restrictions should be considered if it can
be shown that trawling adversely effects seagrass beds.

B. The Department of Natural Resources Marine Research Laboratory should
investigate the feasibility of implementing successful stocking
programs for seatrout, red drum and snook in Tampa Bay.

* ~~Long-term Management Alternatives:

Status Quo: With sufficient funding the Marine Fisheries Commission and
the Marine Patrol could adequately develop and enforce biologically
defensible, standardized fishing regulations in Tampa Bay without further
assistance. The Department of Natural Resources however, would need
additional funding to implement the recommended studies.

2-97

Bay Advisory Committee: A permanent bay advisory committee within the
Tam~pa- Bay Regional Planning Council could provide a valuable local
technical advisory function through interactions with the Marine Fisheries
Commission during the development of statewide regulations.

Bay Management Authority: Besides providing the same function as a bay
ad-visory committee, a mandated bay management authority could manage the
proposed studies through coordination with the Department of Natural
Resources.

2-98

Issue #17 Documenting the Economic Importance of Tampa Bay

Issue Analysis: The Tampa Bay estuarine system is, both directly and
indirectly, a vitally important economic asset to the numerous
municipalities surrounding the bay. Examples of economic entities which
are dependent upon the direct utilization of Tampa Bay would include the
port facilities of Tampa, St. Petersburg and Manatee County; the ship
building and repair firms as well as other marina facilities located around
the bay; and the commercial and recreational fishing industries.
Indirectly, the mere presence of the bay attracts industries and businesses
such as water-oriented residential developments, restaurants, and a myriad
of related support industries and commercial and recreational activities.

The value of the estuary as a regional economic resource is, however,
viewed by various industries and individuals from many different, and often
conflicting, perspectives. For example, industries relying upon the
availability of a source of water-bound transport may perceive the bay's
value in the same sense that land-based industries would value railroad
frontage in determining location decisions. For other firms, industries
and even local governments, the bay is considered to be a convenient
receptacle for the inexpensive disposal of industrial and urban wastes, or
available space for further development. But for those industries
dependent upon the harvest of living resources, or the availability of bay-
oriented recreational opportunities, the value of the bay is perceived to
be intimately tied to its ecological health.

The rapid growth rate of the Tampa Bay region's population and business
sector over the past 30 years confirms that the mere presence of Tampa Bay
has contributed significantly to the economic growth and diversity of the
region, especially from a historic perspective. And yet, the value of the
Tampa Bay estuary as a natural and cultural amenity to the overall economic
base of the region has never been documented or quantified.

The environmental quality of the bay is, intuitively, an important
component in the decision making processes of the majority of individuals
and industries considering locating and/or operating in the Tampa Bay area.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) amendments of
1972 mandated that, wherever possible, water quality is to be suitable for
the protection and propagation of fish and wildlife, and to provide for
recreation in and on all waters by July 1983. Further, the Act required
that all point source pollutant discharges are to be controlled or
eliminated by 1985. Local implementation of this Act over the past decade
has generally resulted in an overall improvement in the water quality of
Tampa Bay, but no analyses have ever been attempted to document the impacts
of this improvement, from a benefit-cost perspective on the overall
economic framework of the area, or to describe available alternatives in
achieving an economic/environmental balance in light of the continuing
requirements of the Clean Water Act, as well as other relevant federal and
state environmental legislation.

2-99

in 1984 the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council obtained federal Coastal
Zone Management funds to initiate a study with the objective of documenting
the importance of Tampa Bay estuarine system to the economic base of the
region, in its static condition. Under this objective the following tasks
are to be completed:

1. Using an export driven economic base model based upon employment
figures, economic impact analysis will be performed for a designated
target area around Tampa Bay. From this analysis the value of all
direct (resource based) goods and services generated by the presence or
use of the bay will be quantified.

2. Using benefit-cost analyses and attidudinal surveys the economic
benefits derived from various attributes and uses of the bay will be
quantified. These attributes and uses would include the following:

* water based recreation - swimming, fishing, boating, etc;
* shipping and water based commerce and transportation;
* commercial fishing;
* aesthetic contributions - tourism and real estate valuation;
* ecological services - natural erosion protection and water pollution
assimilation by wetland systems.

A subsequent phase of this project was proposed but the level of funding
provided was prohibitive. In this phase net benefit-cost analyses would be
performed in relation to a series of hypothetical scenarios in which the
environmental quality of Tampa Bay is allowed to vary. The economic
impacts of allowing industries to pollute bay waters and develop wetland
habitat with varying degrees of regulation and constraint would be analyzed
and quantified using sophisticated computer models.

It was hoped that the findings of this second phase of the proposed study
would be incorporated into, and could be used to justify, the growth
management recommendations and long-term management guidelines developed
for Tampa Bay in local, regional, and state comprehensive, and resource
management, plans and policies. However, without adequate funding it is
unlikely that the study will be satisfactorily completed.

Relevant Laws and Statutes:

Not applicable

Bay Management Objectives:

1. Acquire adequate funding to effectively complete the proposed Tampa Bay
economic study.

2. Utilize the findings of the proposed Tampa Bay economic study to model
the economic impacts of, and support, growth management policies and
long-term management recommendations developed for the Tampa Bay
region.

2-100

Bay Management Recommendations:

1. The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council should seek alternative sources
of funding the federal Coastal Zone Management funds, which are
presently unpredictable, to complete the proposed Tampa Bay economic
study.

Work Element 17-1: The Legislature should allocate adequate funds to
the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council for this purpose. The proposed
Tampa Bay economic study represents an unprecedented approach towards
regional economic/environmental planning and could be used by the state
as. a model for similar efforts elsewhere. The degree of accuracy and
resolution yielded from the study will depend largely on the level of
funding provided.

Estimated Manpower and Cost

Year I

Manpower (man years)

- Staff (TBRPC) 2
- Consultant (USF) I

Total 3

Costs

- Federal (CZM) $50,000
- State $100,000
- Local

Total $1 50,000

Long-Term Management Alternatives:

1. Status Quo: With adequate funding the Tampa Bay Regional Planning
Council could satisfactorily complete both phases of the proposed
study.

2. Bay Advisory Committee: A standing bay advisory committee within the
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council could be instrumental in
interpreting the findings of the proposed study, and in converting
these findings into local and regional plans and policies.

3. Bay Management Authority: A mandated bay management authority could
further expand and refine the proposed study in an effort to
economically justify the implementation of a comprehensive management
plan for Tampa Bay.

2-101

issue #18 Public Education

Issue Analysis: Because Tampa Bay is a large, diverse and vital natural
resource bordering on a major metropolitan area, it is important that the
surrounding population is aware of the bay's problems, trends and
potentials. Recent surveys taken in Florida, however, have indicated that
the public, in general, has a very poor understanding of marine plant and
animal life, the ecological value of estuaries, the sources of water pollu-0
tion and the relationships between the destruction of habitat and fisheries
yields (Department of Natural Resources, 1985). Problems resulting from
the public ignorance include the destruction of seagrass beds by
recreational boaters, unlawful dredging and filling practices, unauthorized
discharges of wastes and littering. In addition, public ignorance of water
pollution sources contributed to non-point source runoff significantly.

The majority of Tampa Bay area high schools, community colleges and
universities have developed marine related curricula, but a large
proportion of the bay's user-groups has not been exposed to, and/or does
not have easy access to this information. A more comprehensive and
extensive public awareness and environmental education program for Tampa
Bay is needed to better inform the public at large.

Relevant Laws and Statutes:

Not applicable

Bay Management Objectives:

1. Increase the public knowledge of the functioning and interdependence of
habitats and organisms within the Tampa Bay estuarine system.

2. Increase the public knowledge of the sources of water pollution.

3. Improve the public awareness of the historical and archeological values
of the bay.

4. Improve the public awareness of the economic, commercial and
recreational opportunities that the bay provides.

5. Keep the public informed about bay related activities, user-groups
conflicts and their impacts on the bay.

6. Inform the public of the principle bay-related jurisdictions, their
powers and responsibilities, and their permitting procedures.

Bay Management Recommendations:

1. The Department of Environmental Regulation should implement a large
scale statewide public education program dealing with the problem of
non-point source pollution, and emphasizing best management practices i
for the public at large (see issue #3 for further discussion).

2-102

2. The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council should establish a volunteer
speaker's bureau, including a list of potential speakers with various
related expertise, to address public groups and organizations on
present and future bay management issues. To assist the speaker's
bureau an automated slide presentation should also be developed.
Special emphasis should be given to direct and frequent contact with
* ~~~local editorial boards.

3. The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council in a joint effort with the
Department of Natural Resources should develop and distribute a series
of public brochures addressing the above stated bay management
objectives.

Work Element 18-1: The development and distribution of a public
b-rochuir-ewilfl require outside funds. Funding should be sought from
granting programs (i.e. Sea Grant, CZM) or from the Legislature.

Estimated Manpower and Cost

Year 1

Manpower (man years)

- Staff I
- Consultant

Total I

Source of Funds

- Federal $10,000
- State $1 0,000
- Local

Total $20,000

Work Element 18-2: The dissemination of the brochures should be
'coordinated with and implemented by the Department of Natural
Resources, the newly created Florida Marine Information Network (MARINE
- National Marine Fisheries Service), local government planning, park
and recreation departments, local conservation and recreation groups,
and the media. Dissemination strategies might include having the
Department of Natural Resources include the brochure in its annual
mailing of boat registrations to all boat owners in the bay area.

4. The Florida Marine Information network should be encouraged to develop
and dessiminate public service announcements relevant to bay management
* ~~~issues.

Long-Term Management Alternatives:

1. Status Quo: The above cited recommendations could be satisfactorily
accomplished through the efforts of the Tampa Bay Regional Planning
Council if funding and staff levels remain sufficient.

2-103

2. Bay Advisory Committee: A standing bay advisory committee within the
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council could ensure the proper updating of
pertinent information as well as the continuity and perseverance that
are often needed to effectively implement public education programs.

3. Bay Management Authority: A mandated bay management authority could
permanently assume the responsibility for all aspects of the proposed
public education program.

2-104

Issue #19 Urban Waterfront Development and Public Access

Issue Analysis: Urban waterfronts along Tampa Bay, as elsewhere in the
nation, have become a focus of community redevelopment and revitalization
efforts. Because the shoreline of Tampa Bay is largely urbanized,
community redevelopment activities may account for many of the future
0 ~~improvements in development and public access. The attention devoted to
such improvements will partly depend on how well opportunities are
identified and provided for through local planning. Local planning for
public access, shoreline aestheticss and facility improvements varies in
accomplishment around the Bay, through waterfront/parkland improvement
projects, waterfront zoning regulations, condition and user inventories, as
well as in the updating of elements of the comprehensive plans. The City
of St. Petersburg is especially recognized for maintaining an expansive and
aesthetic public waterfront.

While local efforts contribute to specialized improvements and information
on the use and restoration of urban waterfronts there is a need to support
more regionally significant improvements. This is evident in a recently
completed recreational survey (T.B.R.P.C., 1982) where respondents noted a
need for more regional parks with camping facilities, and in addressing
interjurisdictional problems such as stormwater management.

The enforcement and presence of programs to preserve and restore
significant shoreline resources, including native vegetation and historic
and archaeological sites, also varies between and within communities.
Communities may enforce regulations stricter than State requirements, yet
in areas such as mangrove protection, the State may be relied upon to exert
their jurisdiction (see issue *11). Programs are needed to protect the
natural integrity of shoreline areas. Where public access is permitted,
vegetative cover can be worn away by vehicle and foot traffic. Shoreline
erosion along Tampa Bay is a particular problem, in areas unplanned for but
used as a public pathways, where the land has been left uncovered and
susceptible to wind and wave action. Public improvements in these areas
might include replanting the native vegetation and protecting it by
designating parking areas and constructing walkovers.

Beyond the realm of government, there is a need to provide guidance and
promote improvements along the vast portions of privately-owned shoreline.
Seawalls in need of repair are prevalent where property owners are
responsible for their m~aintenance. Many of these areas present excellent
opportunities for replanting and restoring natural shorelines.

Where natural shorelines do exist, but are disturbed by bordering develop-
ment, replacement of the native vegetation by exotic plants (particularly
Brazilian peppers) has become a problem. Despite other noxious
characteristics of exotic plants (i.e.,skin and respiratory irritants),
uninformed property owners may continue to use them in landscaping. Native
plants are adapted to climate and soil conditions of a given area and
usually more resistant to pests and disease. Therefore, their use in
landscaping can decrease maintenance. There are a wealth of native plants
for use in the urban home landscape, yet there is a need to; (1) encourage

2-105

their use in native habitats and (2) increase the availability of more
diverse types of plant material. To promote more desirable shoreline
conditions, restoration programs should be specifically directed to water-
front property owners.

Relevant Laws and Statutes:

Coastal Zone Management Act0
Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (Environmental Control)
Chapter 253, Florida Statutes (Public Lands and Property)
Chapter 161, Florida Statutes (Beach and Shore Preservation)
Chapter 375, Florida Statutes (Water Management Lands Trust Fund)
Chapter 380, Florida Statutes (Land and Water Management)
Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act)
Chapter 267, Florida Statutes (Historic Preservation)

Bay Management Objectives:

1. identify opportunities for shoreline restoration, preservation of sig-
nificant resources and public and visual access improvements.

2. Develop local waterfront planning and designs that encourage: (a)
varied public uses, (b) linkages between key activity areas, (c)
preservation of the integrity of natural and unique resources and Cd)
aesthetically pleasing waterfront vistas.

3. Provide information on successful local approaches toward waterfront
management to initiate improvements in the use and restoration of urban
waterfront shorelines.

4. Promote exotic plant control and the use and availability of native
plant material for landscaping and restoration work.

Bay Management Recommendations:

1. A regional base of knowledge on the Tampa Bay shoreline should be
established through review of comprehensive plans, condition/user in-
ventories, historic surveys, and other sources. Additional site
surveys should be accomplished, as is necessary, to produce
regional/county maps showing existing and planned facilities and areas
of high potential for shoreline restoration and/or improvements.

Work Element 19-1: The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, with local
assis~tance, should establish this base of knowledge through the
creation of a regional natural resources library. Funding for this
effort could be obtained through the newly established Growth
Management Trust Fund or through federal coastal zone management funds.

2. Local governments should expand public access and use of existing
facilities, where appropriate through: functional improvements to
open space, picnic and play areas, and recreational structures;
improvements in traffic circulation (i.e., roads/bike paths) and
linkages to parking and activity centers; and enhancement of conditions
(i.e., water quality, shoreline stabilization) and access at the
water's edge.

2-106

Work Element 19-2: The Legislature should amend the LGCPA (Chapter
163, F.S.) to require that local coastal zone elements specify water-
front zoning requirements and design standards, such as height restric-
tions, setbacks and building perpendicular to waterfronts, being used
to maximize water views and compatibly integrate the waterfront with
* ~~~~upland uses.

3. The purchase and classification of environmentally sensitive shorelines
and buffer zones should be given high priority through state/local land
acquisition and land exchange programs.

4. Local governments situated on the bay should be encouraged to adopt
ordinances that provide specific protection to mangroves and other
shoreline vegetation. In addition, the development of a Marine Park or
a similar zoning ordinance such as that adopted by the City of Dunedin,
should also be encouraged.

Work Element 19-3: The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council should
a~ttemp~t-to ~implement the above recommendations through their Chapter
163, F.S., review responsibilities.

5. The Department of Community Affairs has provided local governments with
an excellent analysis of various local approaches toward urban
waterfront management through its publication of a quarterly Resource
Report, financed through the Coastal Zone Management Program. Should
funding for the publication be cutback, DCA should continue to submit
articles to various planning/landscaping newsletters showcasing
project designs that provide ecological improvements in urbanized
settings.

6. Local governments should utilize architectural review boards wherever
feasible to ensure visually aesthetic and consistent waterfront
development.

7. The County Extension Service working in cooperation with the Department
of Natural Resources and other local organizations, such as the Native
Plant Society, should develop a Waterfront Property Owners Handbook
with guidelines applicable to natural and structural features of the
Tampa Bay shoreline.

8. Local governments should utilize taxing incentives wherever feasible to
promote private waterfront development that is consistent with the Bay
Management Objectives.

Long Term Management Alternatives:

1. Status Quo: A majority of the above-stated recommendations could be
satisfactorily accomplished through local zoning, government
comprehensive plans, capital improvement programs and the coordinated
efforts of communities surrounding the Bay. A major problem inhibiting
local efforts has been a lack of adequate funds to prepare and
implement detailed research projects and programs which are required
but not typically provided for by the Legislature. An attempt to adopt
strict regulations without a sufficient factual base could result in

2-107

the regulations being challenged and many local governments do not have
sufficient resources to compile the necessary factual data. Therefore,
mandates placed on local government should be accompanied by sufficient
funding and technical assistance. If well managed, the newly created
Growth Management Trust Fund may provide some assistance in this area.

2. Bay Advisory Committee: A standing bay advisory committee within the
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council could effectively assist in
managing the Trust Fund and coordinating local and regional programs.
With adequate funds and State/Regional guidelines the majority of the
above recommendations could be carried out through the existing LGCPA
program. In addition, a funded and staffed committee could effectively
develop and manage the proposed regional natural resources library.

3. Bay Management Authority: Besides providing the same functions as an
advisory committee a mandated bay management authority could
potentially assume regional management of the Growth Management Trust
Fund as well as overview authority for all waterfront development.

2-108

Issue #20 Load Relief for Major Sewage Treatment Plants

Issue Analysis: It is projected that by the year 2000 the population of
th-eTa'mpa Bay region will increase by about 30%. With this growth many
existing sewage treatment plants (STP's) in the area may approach their
design capacity limits in the near future; and following the completion of
the wasteload allocation study for Tampa Bay (see issue #13) the surface
discharge of effluent may no longer be a viable disposal alternative for
many communities adjoining the bay. Furthermore, in certain areas of the
region, most notably northwestern Hillsborough and northeastern Pinellas
counties, development is far outpacing the abilities of local governments
to provide adequate sewage treatment facilities. Rapid growth coupled with
a sharp decline in the availability of federal sewer construction grants
has thus promoted the need for a regional reassessment of wastewater
treatment and disposal alternatives.

Pertinent to this issue are the long-term water quality trends in Tampa
Bay. In light of the findings of the draft Tampa Bay wasteload allocation
study, as well as OFW and Class II water restrictions in Pinellas County,
it is expected the high cost of sewage treatment for surface water disposal
will prompt many local governments to question the practice of throwing
away a valuable resource which could be used to augment the available
freshwater supply to satisfy various needs. In many areas around Tampa Bay
water reuse presents a cost-effective and ecologically sound alternative to
surface water discharge. In addition, for those communities in the North
Pinellas 201 planning district, a Gulf of Mexico outfall still remains a
viable solution to effluent disposal restrictions in Tampa Bay. However,
if these alternatives are ever to be effectively implemented it is
imperative that advance planning and purchase of needed land begin now.

The need for load relief for existing. bay area STP's is being, or will be,
exacerbated by three factors. First, funds for federal sewer construction
grants have been sharply cut in recent years slowing the implementation of
approved 201 plans. In addition, cost sharing for the construction of
regional facilities has been adjusted to a local:federal ratio of 55:45
percent. Secondly, many local governments drastically overcommit available
sewage treatment capacity to developers and builders during the early
planning stages in an effort to stimulate growth. This practice is often
justified by the fact that many proposed projects are never completed.
However? the long-term effect of this practice is to encourage growth and
thus sewage treatment demand in excess of planned design capacity.
Finally, water conservation methods in Florida have largely been
unsuccessful.

in rapidly growing areas around the state, such as the Tampa Bay region,
policies need to be established whereby developers and proponents of rapid
growth provide a greater share of the cost for wastewater treatment and
disposal at the time of commitment, during the early planning stages. Also
needed are policies that encourage developers to enter into multi-party
agreements with local governments to fund the construction of new regional
plants, which are consistent with approved 201 plans. Many local
governments (including Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties) have passed
ordinances allowing private interests to construct small "package plants"
(usually less than .1 MGD capacity) to treat wastewater in developments
where no wastewater services are available ; contingent upon dedication of

2-109

that plant to the local government for maintenance and control. While this
practice does provide load relief for major regional plants, it creates
many new problems. By greatly increasing the overall number of point
source discharges which need to be monitored, the construction of numerous
satellite plants leads to a greater potential for illegal effluent and
sludge disposal, and has resulted in a myriad of water pollution problems.
In addition, package plants generally provide a much lesser level of waste-
water treatment than do regional plants, they are notoriously poor at
accomodating seasonal surges in demand, and operators are infrequently
present to notice and correct problems. For those reasons and because
various effluent disposal alternatives are only feasible in larger,
regional plants, the construction of smaller satellite plants should be
discouraged.

Relevant Laws and Statutes:

Federal Water Pollution Control Act, PL92-500 as amended
Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (Environmental Control).

Bay Management Objectives:

1. Encourage water reuse and other effluent disposal alternatives to
surface water discharge into Tampa Bay.

2. Prohibit overcommitment of wastewater treatment and disposal capacities
on the part of bay area local governments.

3. Require greater private interest cost-sharing in the construction of
new regional wastewater treatment facilities.

4. Discourage the construction of numerous project-specific "package
plants".

Bay Management Recommendations:

1. Local governments in the Tampa Bay area should pursue and implement
wherever feasible water reuse (spray irrigation, wetland filtration)
and other effluent disposal alternatives (deep well injection, Gulf of
Mexico outfall) to surface water discharge into the bay. By rule,
projects involving water reuse, conservation and other innovative
technologies presently receive higher priority for funding under
federal/state wastewater management grant programs.

Work Element 20-1: The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council should,
through their Chapter 163, F.S., review responsibilities, encourage and
assist local governments to purchase needed land and implement effluent
spray irrigation and wetland filtration programs. A special sub-
committee of the Council should be established to develop regional
capital improvement strategies for future areawide wastewater treatment

and disposal needs. I
2. Regional or statewide legislation applicable to the Tampa Bay study
area should be introduced which encompasses the following elements:

2-110

� Prohibits the Department of Environmental Regulation from issuing a
general permit for the construction of sewage collection systems
(interceptors) unless the county or municipality involved can
demonstrate adequate sewage treatment capacity as well as a
permitted effluent/sludge disposal strategy.

* Requires developers to purchase sewage treatment capacity rights
after a plants' capacity has been fully committed or attained,
unless the county or municipality involved can demonstrate an
approved 201 work schedule with adequate funding.

* Assesses developers an impact fee for the construction of new
interceptors not approved in previously adopted 201 plans.

* Requires developers to make permitted effluent disposal provisions,
including the construction of new pumping facilities, in those
cases where plant capacity is adequate but permitted effluent
discharge limits have been attained.

* Provides significant incentives for those developers which enter
into multi-party agreements resulting in the construction of
larger, regional sewage treatment plants, (greater than 1,0 MGD
capacity) followed by the dedication of said facilities to the
county or municipality involved.

* Provides significant disincentives for those developers seeking the
construction of smaller "package plants" (less than .1 MGD
capacity), which are to serve only single developments.

Work Element 20-2: The Legislature should draft and implement the
above recommended legislation.

3. An innovative solution in some communities for reducing loads to sewage
treatment plants has been mandatory retro-fitting of water saving
devices with the burden of cost placed on local governments. Reduced
loads have been as high as 30%. Bay area local governments should
pursue and implement this wherever feasible.

Long-term Management Alternatives:

Status Quo: Under the present regulatory framework many regional STP's are
rapidly reaching or have already reached, treatment and effluent disposal
limits. Without regional or statewide legislation addressing this issue,
this aspect of unbridled growth will continue to worsen.

Bay Advisory Committee: A standing bay advisory committee within the Tampa
Bay Regional Planning Council could provide the technical assistance and
coordinated long-term planning needed for developing and implementing
regional wastewater treatment and disposal strategies.

Bay Management Authority: A mandated bay management authority would
a~chie-ve little more than a bay advisory committee. Regional statewide
legislation is probably required to fully solve this problem.

2-111

Issue #21 Water Quality Improvement for Recreational Uses

Issue Analysis: Many potential recreational uses of Tampa Bay have been
severely limited due to generally poor water quality. These limitations
include prohibited shellfishing, poor fishing, limited swimming and almost
non-existent scuba diving opportunities. A recreational survey performed
by the previous Tampa Bay Management Study Committee indicated specific
problem areas including Hillsborough Bay (all recreational activities), old
Tampa Bay (poor fishing), and a general concern about swimming in all areas
of the bay, including publicly approved beaches. Although it has never
been quantified, the economic loss to the region resulting from these
recreational limitations is probably substantial (see issue #17).

The various recreational limitations cited above result from different
water quality problems discussed in other issues of this report.
Potentially viable shellfishing areas are primarily closed because of fecal
and streptococcal coliform contamination (see issues #3 and #7), but may
also be closed due to suspected heavy metal or toxic substance
contamination (see issues #5 and #10). Similarly, swimming activities are
often limited by localized high concentrations of pathogenic bacteria.
Alternatively, poor fishing is most attributable to the loss of habitat
which is critical to the support of the early life history stages of most
marine organisms. The general problem of marine eutrophication, however,
is not only directly responsible for the loss of scuba diving
opportunities, due to a resulting reduction in water clarity, but also
exacerbates other recreational limitations by reducing dissolved oxygen
levels in the bay and by producing obnoxious odors in localized areas (see
issues #10, #13 and #41).

A long-term comprehensive program to restore and enhance Tampa Bay is
needed to improve the region's water based recreational opportunities.
This should include establishing attainable water quality goals for high
use recreational areas around the bay as well as improving the monitoring
of water quality problems in areas currently not adequately monitored.

Relevant Laws and Statutes:

Federal Water Pollution Control Act, PL 92-500 as amended
Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (Environmental Control)

Bay Management Objectives:

1. Wherever feasible, maximize all water-based recreational opportunities
in and around Tampa Bay.

2. Maintain all designated use classifications for the waters of Tampa
Bay.

3. Establish attainable water quality goals for high use recreational
areas around Tampa Bay.

4. Improve baywide water quality monitoring.

2-112

Bay Management Recommendations:

1. Utilizing existing federal Coastal Zone Management funds the Tampa Bay
Regional Planning Council should attempt to document the economic
losses associated with reduced recreational opportunities in Tampa Bay
resulting from water quality degradation. This effort should be an
element of the ongoing economic assessment study of the Tampa Bay
is ~~~estuary (see issue #17).

2. Pursuant to Chapter 403.182, Florida Statutes, local governments should
be encouraged to develop state approved pollution control programs, and
adopt local pollution control regulations compatible with or stricter
than those imposed by the state. The development of such programs
provides for greater checks and balances of local pollution control
compliance and would improve the water quality monitoring network
around the bay.

Long-term Management Alternatives:

Status Quo: Recreational opportunities in Tampa Bay will improve as the
individual components of water quality degradation in the bay are
addressed. However, regulatory responsibilities for the various contribu-
tions to water pollution in the bay are fragmented among numerous agencies
and programs, none of which address water quality problems exclusively as
they relate to recreational uses.

Bay Advisory Committee: A standing bay advisory committee within the Tampa
Bay Regional Planning Council could coordinate the efforts of local
governments and relevant agencies in implementing water quality goals for
water based recreation around the bay.

Bay Management Authority: Besides providing the same function as a bay
a~dvisory committee, a mandated bay management authority could potentially
assume many of the water quality monitoring responsibilities from other
agencies.

2-113

Issue #22 Stormwater Detention Requirements for Redevelopment

Issue Analysis: As presently enforced the state stormwater rule (Chapter
17-25, Florida Administrative Code) only requires the construction of
stormwater management systems exhibiting the specified design and
performance standards on those parcels which were not developed prior to
February 1, 1982, or on those parcels that will be redeveloped in such a
manner so as to change points of discharge or increase quantities of runoff
and pollution loadings. As land becomes available for redevelopment,
previously urbanized areas should also be retrofitted with stormwater
treatment facilities to address historic water quality problems resulting
from urban runoff from these areas. Under the present rules and
regulations only the status quo quality of runoff from urbanized areas can
be maintained; no net improvement can be attained.

In the Tampa Bay watershed, an area which has been highly urbanized for
many decades, it is appropriate that stormwater runoff be managed in such a
way so as to result in a net improvement in water quality as the region
continues to grow and evolve. The construction of regional stormwater
management facilities may present an alternative solution to acheiving this
goal which would also reduce maintenance burdens on the local governments
involved. See issue #3 for a more detailed discussion of non-point source
pollution in Tampa Bay.

Relevant Laws and Statutes:

Federal Water Pollution Control Act, PL92-500 as amended
Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (Environmental Control)
Chapter 17-25, Florida Administrative Code

Bay Management Objectives:

1. Minimize the quantities of non-point source pollutants entering Tampa
Bay.

Bay Management Recommendations:

1. The Legislature should introduce legislation amending Chapter 17-25,
F.A.C., to require the construction of stormwater discharge facilities
on all parcels that are subject to redevelopment. The effect of this
recommendation would be to retrofit or establish stormwater management
systems in previously developed urban areas resulting in a net improve-
ment in runoff water quality over time (see issue #3). Alternatively,
more stringent regulations to this effect should be developed by the
Southwest Florida Water Management District for the Tampa Bay
watershed.

2-114

2. The design and construction of regional stormwater management systems
pursuant to Chapter 17-25.040(6), F.A.C. should be encouraged whenever
feasible. Regional stormwater management systems are those discharge
facilities which are designed and constructed to accept stormwater from
multiple parcels within the same drainage area. These facilities would
consolidate and improve the level of stormwater treatment for many
singular outfalls prior to discharge to Tampa Bay. The creation of
tidal marshes at the mouths of drainage channels, canals and
tributaries should also be encouraged as a form of regional stormwater
treatment.

Work Element 22-1: The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council in
cooperation with the Southwest Florida Water Management District,
should sponsor a series of regional workshops to introduce and explore
the feasibility of regional stormwater management systems.
Environmental, engineering and planning representatives from all local
governments with the Tampa Bay watershed should be included to discuss
the feasibility of interlocal agreements and taxing strategies (see
issue #3).

3. Wherever feasible, counties and municipalities should attempt to
locally implement recommendations 1 and 2 above.

Work Element 22-2: The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council should
develop a model ordinance incorporating the provisions of both
recommendations 1 and 2 above. The ordinance should be modeled after
example efforts such as that by the City of Clearwater. Implementation
of the model ordinance should be encouraged through the Chapter 163,
F.S., responsibilities of the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council (see
issue #3).

Long-Term Management Alternatives:

Status Quo: Statewide regulatory changes will probably be required as
local governments are generally reluctant to develop ordinances which are
perceived as discouraging to urban redevelopment.

Bay Advisory Committee: A standing bay advisory committee within the Tampa
Bay Regional Planning Council could assist in the development of the
recommended model ordinance, and could be effective in encouraging its
regionwide implementation.

Bay Management Authority: A mandated bay management authority could
develop the recommended model ordinance and could design an areawide plan
for the construction of regional stormwater management systems. Such an
authority could also potentially assume permitting responsibilities for
stormwater discharge facilities in the Tampa Bay area.

2-115

Issue #23 Review of Rules and Regulations

Issue Analysis: Controversy exists over the adequacy of current rules and
regulations which directly impact the ecological, recreational or economic
aspects of Tampa Bay (too many rules vs. not enough rules). Many
jurisdictions overlap while there are also gaps where current rules and0
regulations may not adequately meet the original legislated mandates or the
needs of the area or they may be so narrowly defined that they restrict the
use of the best possible solution to a particular conflict. In addition,
permitting and other review procedures place a costly burden on the
applicant and the public.

The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council has assembled an existing
authorities matrix (see appendix C) which depicts the overlapping
jurisdictions of the numerous federal, state, regional and local agencies
and departments involved in the management of Tampa Bay. To fully
comprehend the complexity of the existing regulatory framework, so as to
recommend strategies to improve and streamline management of the bay,
further detailed study of all relevant rules and regulations is needed.

Relevant Laws and Statutes:

Not applicable.

Bay Management Objectives:

1. Document all existing rules and regulations relevant to the management
of Tampa Bay.

2. identify and analyze the gaps, overlaps, cost-effectiveness and needed
improvements of the existing regulatory and management framework
regarding Tampa Bay.

3. Identify potential roles and responsiblities for a bay management
advisory committee or authority.

Bay Management Recommendations:

1. The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council should initiate a legal study
addressing the bayj management objectives stated above. Possible
sources of funding for this effort would include federal Coastal Zone
Management or Sea Grant funds, or a Legislative allocation.

2-116

Estimated Manpower and Cost

Year I

Manpower (man years)

- Staff (TBRPC) I
- Consultant

Total I

Source of Funds

- Federal (CZM) $30,000
- State (allocated) $10,000
- Local

Total $40,000

Long-term Management Alternatives:

Status Quo: This is a proposed, somewhat academic, study not currently
under the jurisdiction of any single agency. However, most agencies
involved with Tampa Bay may be involved. The Tampa Bay Regional Planning
Council could satisfactorily accomplish the stated objectives contingent
upon the availability of adequate grant funds.

Bay Advisory Committee: A funded and staffed bay advisory committee within
the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council could accomplish the stated
objectives more effectively due to the technical input and guidance from
committee members.

Bay Management Authority: The structure and function of a mandated bay
management authority should be based upon the findings and recommendations
of the proposed study. The creation of an authority should not be
considered until a well defined role, which is effective and non-duplica-
tive, can be established through such a study.

2-117

Issue #24 McKay Bay Management Plan

Issue Analysis: McKay Bay is a small sheltered body of water at the head
of Hilisborough Bay (see figure 2.6). Water circulation is limited by the
22nd Street Causeway and the narrow channel at the southern end of East
Bay. There is one major source of freshwater, the Palm River/Tampa BypassS
Canal. Two important urban drainage basins also empty into McKay Bay, the
29th and 43rd Street outfalls. Shorelines along the west side are
bulkheaded. Past dredging projects have resulted not only in the
construction of the 22nd St. Causeway, but also a rectangle of land now
used by the Tampa City Resource Recovery Project, a cement plant and the
Police Department. Mangroves have successfully recolonized altered shore-
lines, however, and the bay has a generally natural aspect despite previous
alterations. Nearshore waters are very shallow and broad mudflats are
exposed at low tide. McKay Bay waters are classified Class III. Sport
and commercial (i.e., primarily mullet netters and crabbers) fishermen
still use the bay, although yields have decreased significantly over the
past few decades.

Drainage of heavily industrial portions of Tampa into McKay Bay, and water
exchange with East Bay, make it likely that heavily metals and possibly
other environmental contaminants are accumulating in bay sediments and
organisms. The degree to which this is occurring, and the magnitude of any
health hazard that may exist to human or wildlife consumers, is unknown
although some preliminary research has been performed (Gude 1977).

Birds are the most conspicuous wildlife users of McKay Bay habitats. The
mangroves, mudflats and protected waters are particularly important to
migrant and wintering shorebirds and waterfowl, as well as pelicans,
herons, ibis, gulls and terns and a variety of other species (see Lewis and
Courser 1972, Courser and Lewis 1975). G. E. Woolfenden has conducted
winter censuses in McKay Bay, and found an average count of 25,000 birds
per day, half of which were shorebirds. This places McKay Bay among the
most important wintering areas for shorebirds in the United States (Paul
and Woolfenden in press). More qualitative observations suggest that McKay
Bay may be the-key lIocality for populations of wintering shorebirds that
range along the entire eastern shore of Hillsborough Bay according to tidal
conditions. The site is widely known among birdwatchers, many of whom
visit the area from out-of-state, and tours there are regularly scheduled
by local Audubon Society chapters.

in recognition of the value of McKay Bay to bird life and as a nursery area
for marine life, sanctuary status has long been proposed as the best means
to protect the site. In 1976 an agreement was reached among Save Our Bay
Inc., Tampa Audubon Society, Hillsborough Community College and the City of
Tampa to provide some protection for a small lake known as the Incinerator
Pond. That agreement has been superceded by state water quality
regulations and in any event never was extensive enough to confer sanctuary
status on the waters and shorelines of the bay itself. With current
attention focussed on the Tampa Bay system by the Tampa Bay Management
Study Commission, an opportunity exists to consider the best means of
establishing a mechanism to manage and protect the environmental values of
McKay Bay. Such action would not affect existing commercial or sport

2-113

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. ........

Figures 2.7
and 2.8

~~. .....

'I. ............

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

Figure 2.6. Relative location of .
McKay Bay.

2- 119

fishing, nor existing industrial activities (since there are none on bay
borders). Nor would waterfowl hunters be affected, because McKay Bay lies
within Tampa city limits and no hunting is permitted (although some illegal
shooting does occur).

The basic approaches to establishing a sanctuary are summarized as follows:
1) acquisition and management by a federal agency; 2) acquisition and/or
management by a state agency; 3) management by local agencies and property
owners through cooperative agreement and possibly designation of a single
lead agency. The latter course seems the most feasible for three reasons.
The City of Tampa Land Use Plan has designated nearly the entire shoreline
of McKay Bay as "Preservation" (see figure 2.7). In addition, just seven
landowners have been identified, including three public agencies (see
figure 2.8). The City of Tampa and the Southwest Florida Water Management
District have already indicated interest in the possibility of a sanctuary.
Finally, little additional property would need to be acquired, and
administration and management of the area could be accomplished through
existing agency offices such as the City of Tampa Parks Department.

The combination of no commercial development of McKay Bay shorelines, few
landowners and interest already expressed by two public agencies suggests
that the establishment and management of a McKay Bay Bird Sanctuary would
be inexpensive and quite feasible. In addition, by virtue of these factors
as well as the urban setting of McKay Bay, an excellent opportunity exists
here to develop a showcase urban wildlife preserve of national prominence
and importance.

Relevant Laws and Statutes:

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Clean Water Act of 1977, Section 404
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Section 10
Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (Environmental Control)
Chapter 259, Florida Statutes (Land Acquisitions for Conservation and
Recreation)

Bay Management Objectives:

1. Protect the waters, shorelines and wildlife of McKay Bay through
establishment of a McKay Bay Bird Sanctuary.

2. Promote the recreational potential and aesthetic values of a showcase
urban wildlife preserve established within the city limits of Tampa.

Bay Management Recommendations:

1. The waters and shoreline of McKay Bay should be nominated as a possible
state land acquisition target under the Conservation and Recreation
Lands (CARL) program.

Work Element 24-1: The City of Tampa, or the Tampa Bay Regional
Planning Council should officially sponsor this nomination.

2-120

2 9 2~

It 1~~~2 If_

A,~~~~~~~

000000~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

0~~~1

0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ds-
0 o est eietal
0~~~~~1
0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2Lwmdu est

0~~~~
0~~~~

Fiue270 i y o araln s
pln0ca a n iiiy

a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~-2

z 0

Landowners

/"t~.f~.~jc i I~~1 Tampa Port Authority
2 City of Tampa
3 Roman E. Colado et al.
�j . I 4 Lykes Bros., Inc.
5 Southwest Florida Water
Management Oistrict
6 Pupello-Bessone-Blank
& Hiro Partnership
7 Seaboard Coast Line

Hook\rs

_/~ Yk

- Figure 2.8. Land ownership
surrounding McKay Bay.

2- 122

2. The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council should sponsor negotiations
between the City of Tampa, the Southwest Florida Water Management
District, the Tampa Port Authority and all other owners of contiguous
land around McKay Bay to explore the feasibility and mechanics of
establishing a locally administered sanctuary through interlocal
* ~~~agreements.

3. The Tampa Port Authority should, pursuant to Chapter 84-447, L.F.,
designate McKay Bay as a "Marine Preserve"

4. A comprehensive management plan should be prepared, characterizing the
ecology of the bay, identifying further research needs and evaluating
opportunities for resource management and public uses.

5. A formal request should be made to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service
to conduct a full ecological assessment of McKay Bay.

6. A study should be designed and initiated to a) determine existing
contaminment levels in the sediments and benthic organisms of McKay Bay
and to b) monitor contaminment levels in the incoming waters of the Palm
River and the two major urban drainage systems. Much of this data
could be obtained from a review of existing data. This information
should be carefully evaluated and incorporated into an eventual
wildlife management plan.

7. The Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce should investigate the economic
value (tourism, aesthetics, etc.) of establishing a showcase urban
wildlife preserve around McKay Bay.

Long-Term Management Strategies:

McKay Bay has retained outstanding wildlife values despite loss of area,
occasional severe perturbations of local habitats and probably some
chronic sources of pollution. The sanctuary proposal outlined briefly here
requires a permanent commitment to the protection and management of these
values.

1. Status Quo: it is unlikely that the waters and shoreline of McKay Bay
will be seriously considered for formal long-term preservation without
further coordination. The Southwest Florida Water Management District
has expressed an interest in converting its land holdings to
preservation but no official effort to initiate a comprehensive effort
f or the entire bay has yet taken place.

2. Bay Advisory Committee: A standing bay advisory committee within the
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council could effectively organize and
assist negotiations leading to the kind of interlocal agreements needed
* ~~~to establish a locally administered sanctuary.

3. Bay Management Authority: A mandated bay management authority could
effectively sponsor CARL nominations and interagency negotiations as
well as develop and administer the comprehensive management plan for
McKay Bay.

2-123

Issue #25 Shellfish Classification

Issue Analysis: Not all parts of Tampa Bay are classified for shellfish
sanitation, so these areas are closed (prohibited) for harvesting,
including recreational harvesting (see figure 2.9). Classification for
shellfish sanitation is the responsibility of Florida Department of Natural
Resources and lack of funding is the major impediment to reviewing all of
Tampa Bay for shellfish classification. in addition to the costs of
initially reviewing an area, regular monitoring is required of all
classified shellfish harvesting areas.

Once the entire Tampa Bay estuary is classified, routine monitoring would
provide valuable long-term water quality information and could be used as a
management tool for evaluating Aquatic Preserves and upgrading shellfish
harvesting areas. Areas undergoing frequent opening and closing for
harvesting should be evaluated with the objective of upgrading to open
classification. In addition, the public is not always aware of which areas
are open to shellfishing and the health hazards associated with
shellfishing in closed areas. Additional patrolling of closed shellfishing
areas and expanded public information is needed.

In September 1984, the Department of Natural Resources closed a number of
areas in Old Tampa Bay previously "approved" for shellfishing (see
figures 2.10 and 2.11). This action was based on historical and potential
fecal coliform pollution rather than actual measured ambient coliform
levels. The decision to close these areas may also be related to
anticipated permitting determinations regarding wasteload allocations in
Tampa Bay. In addition, the Department of Natural Resources is considering
closing the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve to shellfishing due to periodic
coliform contamination from an adjacent mobile home park. However, to re-
open these areas will require a full sanitary survey and reappraisal to
evaluate those factors influencing the sanitary quality of the growing
areas. Under present staffing and funding levels it is highly unlikely
that the Department of Natural Resources will ever accomplish this survey
and these areas will remain permanently closed. As a consequence, many
potentially harvestable shellfishing areas in Tampa Bay cannot be utilized,
either commercially or by the public, even when sanitary conditions are
acceptable.

Relevant Laws and Statutes:

Chapter 370, Florida Statutes (Saltwater Fisheries)
Chapter 381, Florida Statutes (Public Health: General Provisions)
Chapter 16B-28, Florida Administrative Code

Bay Management Objectives:

1. increase public recreational opportunities for shellfish harvesting.

2. Increase public awareness of "approved" and "prohibited" shellfish
harvesting areas.

2-124

1XII~ ~ ~ 1

3~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..:. ....I

4.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..........

r.. . . 3. . . ........ ..........

* . ....... ..... .....

P. . S. . ..

SI.
........

- -~ -I --

.........

Figure 2.9. Approved or conditional~~I

approved shellfish harvesting areas~~I

~~~~~~~~~- ---------- - - .I

~~~~~~~........

PINTELLAS ~ -. _
COUNTY _

- --. - .~~~~~~~~~. - .~~~~~-.. ..~wuT CAI WL-

1C.L1~ ~ ~ ~ .

Figure 2. 10. current classification of
shellfish harvesting areas in Old
Tampa Bay.

2- 126

*1 04.0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L TAW4A SAY .
HILLSSOROUC-41/PINELLAS tLtUNTY
SHELLFISH ?MAMVESTItG AREA W~*

FLOR~IDA DEPARTHEur ~Y NATuRAL RE5OURCES
3900 COM3NM.EALTH 8OULEVARD
TALLAHASSEE. FLORIOA 32303

ALL AREAS ARE SUBJECI to CHAlIGE SASED ON
W~ATER QuALITY EVALUArIONS. MkTArct THE
FLORIDA MARIf4E PARML4 FOR IE.NFRATION.

THIS MA~P IS .10T TO !E j5E0 FOR N4AVI~I
THIS WA ;_AS ftjvt5ZD -Yn 198~A.

-' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0

C'lTCALTAPPROVED .................

jC011IED --__PPR OVED
Figure 2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.1.............fictio
of shellfish harvesting areas in Old~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~........
Tampa~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.. Ba....

PROHIBITED ..........~~2-12

3. Provide a valuable source of long-term water quality information to be
used as a management tool for evaluating Aquatic Preserves and
upgrading other shellfish harvesting areas.

4. Prevent health hazards associated with shellfish harvesting in
"prohibited" areas.

5. Wherever feasible, restore and maintain existing designated use
classifications of Tampa Bay.

Bay Management Recommendations:

1. The Department of Natural Resources should establish a permanent
sanitary survey team in the Tampa Bay area. Presently, two
environmental specialists in the Punta Gorda office are responsible for
surveying and monitoring the majority of the Gulf coast, excepting the
panhandle. Additional staffing for the Tampa Bay area is justifiable.

Work Element 25-1: The Legislature should allocate adequate funds for
this purpose. The allocated revenues should be perpetual and could be
generated from a recreational saltwater fishing license (see issue #1
for further discussion).

Estimated Manpower and Cost

Year 1 2 3 4 5

Manpower (man years)

- Staff (DNR) 2 2 2 2 2
- Consultant - - - - -

Total 2 2 2 2 2

Source of Funds

- Federal ----
- State 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000
- Local ---

Total 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000

2. Areas currently "prohibited" for shellfish harvesting in Tampa Bay
should be reappraised, and those areas which are considered
"unclassified" should be evaluated for potential upgrading to approved
harvesting. Program emphasis should be placed on opening as much of
Tampa Bay to shellfish harvesting as is possible without sacrificing
public safety.

3. The existing or the proposed survey team should expand public informa-
tion on areas open and closed to shellfishing through posted signs,
public newspapers, mailings to marinas, etc. through coordination with
the Marine Patrol.

2-128

4. The Marine Patrol should increase the patrolling of closed shellfishing
areas.

5. Water quality information generated from monthly sanitary monitoring
should be placed into the state's STORET data base for shared access by
* ~~~other appropriate agencies.

Long-Term Management Alternatives:

1. Status Quo: With adequate funding the Department of Natural Resources
could effectively administer the recommended shellfish sanitary program
in Tampa Bay.

2. Bay Advisory Committee: A standing bay advisory committee within the
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council could effectively assist in the
public education aspects of this issue.

3. Bay Management Authority: A mandated bay management authority could
potentially assume and administer the entire recommended shellfish
sanitary program in Tampa Bay.

2-129

Issue #26 Power Plant Entrainment

Issue Analysis: Steam electric power plants typically consist of a heat
source, boiler, turbine, generator and a condenser system. Steam from the
boiler drives the turbine which spins the generator to produce electricity.
After passing through the turbine, the steam must be condensed and returned
to the boiler. The most economical way of achieving this is a once-
through, or open-cycle, cooling system which passes water from the environ-
ment through the condenser system and discharges it back into the environ-
ment at an elevated temperature.

There are currently five steam electric plants situated on Tampa Bay which
utilize open-cycle cooling systems. These include the Tampa Electric
Company's (TECO) Big Bend, Gannon and Hookers Point facilities, as well as
the Florida Power Corporation's (FPC) Higgins and Bartow plants (see
figure 2.12). Although once-through cooling is the most economical way of
condensing the exhaust steam from the turbines of steam electric plants,
the volumes of water used for this purpose, and the quantities of "waste"
heat added to the aquatic environment, are extremely large,thus prompting
demands for alternatives.

Although the discharge of 'waste' heat into the subtropical Tampa Bay
estuary results in demonstrable impacts, perhaps a greater problem results
from the capture and inclusion of planktonic eggs and larvae of fish and
shellfish in the cooling water of power plants. This process, termed
"entrainment", usually leads to high rates of mortality for those organisms
involved. Mortality results from thermal stresses, chemical stresses
associated with biocides used to prevent fouling of the cooling system, and
physical stresses associated with pressure changes, shear forces, impact
and abrasion during passage through the cooling water.

The combined annual cooling water flow for the five Tampa Bay steam
electric plants is approximately four times greater than the combined
annual freshwater flow of all tributaries entering Tampa Bay. Based upon
NPDES permit studies performed at the FPC Higgins plant, and the TECO Big
Bend plant, it is estimated that 2.74 x 10 fish eggs and 8.30 x 10 fish
larvae are entrained annually by the five steam electric plants situated on
Tampa Bay. Assuming a 100% mortality rate for all entrained organisms, and
adjusting for estimated natural mortality rates of estuarine
ichthyoplankton (fish eggs and larvae), it can be estimated that power
plant entrainment is responsible for annually removing 2.84 x 10 (approxi-
mately 3 billion) harvestable adults from the commercial and recreational
fisheries of Tampa Bay.

Intuitively, the impact of steam electric plants on the fishery stocks of
Tampa Bay would appear to be significant. However, in the absence of
sufficient baseline information with regard to stock size, spawning bio-
mass, fecundity and natural survival rates, it is virtually impossible to
assess this impact. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recognized
fine mesh intake screens (FMS) as the Best Available Technology to minimize
the entrainment impacts at the TECO Big Bend steam electric plant; a plant
with an open-cycle cooling system. In the Tampa Bay area, fine mesh
screens have only been constructed for use on two units at the TECO Big

2-130

PHiggins

lant T OHookers

Poit f

TECO Gannon
Plant
FPC B rtQw

*. . . ... ....
..........CV'aybrcTECO Big Bend
PCI BayboroPlant

electrical ~ ~ ~ ~rpower plntCaoun ap
B~~~~~~~~~~aciy.
L~ ~ ~~~~-3

Bend plant. To date, the effectiveness of FMS has been difficult to demon-
strate, and the real costs involved in retrofitting additional existing
units may be prohibitive without substantiating evidence.

Relevant Laws and Statutes:

National Environmental Policy ActS
Federal Water Pollution Control Act - Sections 316 (a,b), 402.
Florida State Comprehensive Planning Act (Section 23.0191, F.S.)
Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act (Sections 403.501 - 403.517, F.S.)

Bay Management Objectives:

1. Assess and quantify the present and future impacts of power plant
entrainment on the overall depletion of fishery resources in Tampa Bay.

2. Wherever feasible, minimize the present and future meroplankton (fish
and shellfish larvae) mortality rates attributable to power plant
entrainment in Tampa Bay.

Bay Management Recommendations:

1. A complimentary program of research, monitoring and regulation of
valued fishery stocks in Tampa Bay should be implemented with the
partial goal of assessing the impact of power plant entrainment on
those stocks.

Work Element 26-1: The Legislature should authorize the adoption of a
recreational fishing license for the marine waters of the state. Funds
generated from statewide license fees, in proportion to those funds
generated from the Tampa Bay area, should be specifically allocated to
the Department of Natural Resources for the implementation of the Tampa
Bay Fisheries Program. See Issue #14 for a detailed breakdown of the
program elements and costs.

2. Special attention should be directed to the proper site selection for
future power plants in Tampa Bay to ensure acceptable combinations of
power plant design and biological value of the local environment (i.e.
future plants should be located in areas of low biological
productivity).

3. Wherever feasible in the conversion of existing plants, or in the
construction of new plants, closed-cycle cooling systems should be
encouraged over once-through cooling systems.

4. New plants utilizing once-through cooling should be designed for
maximum operational flexibility in order to minimize entrainment
impacts. Design criteria should consider the following:

*At any given plant the optimal combination of delta -t (change in
cooling water temperature from inflow to outflow) and flow rate
changes seasonally. Circulating water pumps should be designed to
allow for a wide range of flow rates to minimize thermal stresses;

2-132

* Whenever feasible, plant activities should be coordinated with
organism density. For example, plant shutdowns for refueling and
maintenance should be scheduled to coincide with periods when the
most important and/or vulnerable organisms are most abundant in the
plankton. In Tampa Bay planktonic densities generally peak during
the spring (April-May) and fall (October-November).

0 ~~* Intakes should be designed to pump from various depths, and there-
fore draw water from zones where organism density is relatively low
due to behavioral (vertical migrations) or physical factors (density
stratification);

* Pumping rates should also be adjusted to account for the natural
variability in the density of organisms, as diurnal and tidal varia-
tions are often predictable; and

* Auxiliary pumps to increase the dilution and therefore the cooling
of the discharge water should never be used because of the extreme
physical stresses involved.

Work Element 26-2: Recommendations 2, 3 and 4 stated above should be
implemented by the Department of Community Affairs and the Department
of Environmental Regulation pursuant to Chapters 23 and 403, Florida
Statutes, respectively.

Long-Term Management Alternatives:

1. Status Quo: The proposed Tampa Bay Fisheries Program (see issue #14)
could b~e effectively administered by the Department of Natural
Resources, or the State University System with guidance from the Marine
Fisheries Commission. it is, however, unlikely that the above
recommended power plant site planning, design and operational criteria
would be implemented and enforced under the existing regulatory
framework.

2. Bay Advisory Committee: A standing bay advisory committee within the
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council could be effective in implementing
the above recommended power plant site planning, design and operational
criteria through its site certification and ten year site plan review
responsibilities.

3. Bay Management Authority: A mandated bay management authority could
administer the proposed Tampa Bay Fisheries Program and could provide
detailed review of power plant site certification and ten year site
plans for compliance with the above recommended criteria.

2-133

Issue #27 Hendry Fill Restoration Project

Issue Analysis: In 1969 the Hendry Corporation illegally filled 71 acres
of pristine submerged and intertidal lands adjoining Bishops Harbor on the
north, in Manatee County (see figures 2.13 and 2.14). The fill material
was generated from the initial excavation of the main channel entering Port
Manatee. After years of litigation a settlement was finally reached
between the State of Florida and the Hendry Corporation in 1980. In the
settlement the state received title to the disturbed lands, an additional
452 acres of adjacent undisturbed lands, and $80,000 in fines.

Restoration of the disturbed site utilizing the $80,000 settlement is
required under the law. However, despite many local attempts to develop a
recovery plan, and to mobilize the funds from the state, the Department of
Environmental Regulation has not yet initiated a restoration effort.

Relevant Laws and Statutes:

Section 403.165, Florida Statutes (Pollution Recovery Fund)
Section 403.0615, Florida Statutes (Water Resources and Preservation Trust
Fund)

Bay Management Objectives:

1. To the greatest degree feasible, restore the Hendry fill site to its
natural condition.

2. Preserve all undisturbed lands obtained by the state in the Hendry
settlement in. their natural condition.

Bay Management Recommendations:

1. A restoration plan for the Hendry fill site should be developed.

Work Element 27-1: The Department of Natural Resources, using recently
allocated funds for the preparation of Tampa Bay Aquatic Preserve
management plans, should perform a complete survey of the Hendry fill
site and the additional lands obtained in the settlement (see issue #8
for further discussion).

Work Element 27-2: The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council should
coordinate the efforts of the Department of Natural Resources and the
Department of Environmental Regulation, and local planners, scientists
engineers and environmentalists in the preparation of the restoration
plan. This plan could be developed in conjunction with the preparation
of a management plan for the Terra Ceia Aquatic Preserve, within which
the Hendry fill site lies.

2. The Department of Environmental Regulation and the Department of
Natural Resources should initiate restoration of the Hendry fill site.

2-134

IL~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.... . ..... .

......... . . .

~~~~~~~~POTMN EE

1%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Fg 2

Figure~~~~ 21 3 Reai voainfth
Hendry landfill.~I

I I~213

0- .~~t0

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
z~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-,~~ U,

(ITJ

X~~~~~~~

Figure 2.14. Detail of the area
affected by the deposition of spoil
material. 2-136

Work Element 27-3: The Department of Environmental Regulation should
mobilize the $80,000 in settlement fines, as well as additional funds
from Sections 403.0615 and 403.165, Florida Statutes, and release them
to the Southwest District Office of the Department of Environmental
Regulation.

Work Element 27-4: The Legislature should also release up to 50% of
the funds generated from Section 84.471, Florida Statutes, to the
Department of Natural Resources. This statute requires a special $300
annual license fee to use commercial fishing nets in Manatee County
waters. These funds are to be utilized solely for aquatic habitat
research and restoration in Manatee County. It is expected that
approximately $40,000 will be generated per year, for four years, after
which the statute sunsets.

Work Element 27-5: The Department of Environmental Regulation and the
Department of Natural Resources should coordinate in an interagency
agreement to pool the above referenced funds and to proceed with
restoration. The Department of Natural Resources Marine Research
Laboratory in St. Petersburg should assume the management role for all
contracted services. The restoration effort should be spread over four
years.

Estimated Manpower and Cost

Year 1 2 3 4

Manpower (man years)

- Staff (DNR) 2 2 2 2
-Consultant 5 - - -

Total 7 2 2 2

Source of Funds

- Federal ... .
- State (Pollution Recovery Funds) 80,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
- Local *(Gill-net License Fees) 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000

Total 100,000 40,000 40,000 40,000

3. Upon restoration of the Hendry Fill site, and completion of a
management plan, the Department of Natural Resources should maintain
the additional lands obtained in the settlement as buffer areas around
the Terra Ceia Aquatic Preserve. The potential of these lands for the
construction of a state park should also be considered.

2-137

Long-Term Management Alternatives:

1. Status Quo: This particular issue probably best exemplifies the need
for a local coordinating body to oversee and/or implement a bay
management program. Although the existing laws and stautes
sufficiently address the problem, interagency coordination is lacking 0
to the point where four years after the settlement, no action has yet
been taken to remedy the situation.

2. Bay Advisory Committee: A standing bay advisory committee within the
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council could be effective in organizing
the political pressure, and in coordinating the interagency
cooperation, often needed in initiating large scale restoration
projects of this nature.

3. Bay Management Authority: A mandated bay management authority could
potentially assume statutory responsibility for all such restoration
projects around Tampa Bay.

2-138

Issue #28 Contingency Planning for Post-Hurricane Aquisition of Habitat

Issue Analysis: Mitigative options as well as opportunities for habitat
restoration and enhancement are severely limited in coastal areas such as
Boca Ciega Bay which have already been extensively developed. In addition,
the potential exists for disastrous losses of life and property in the
event of a hurricane force storm striking such areas.

Despite the disastrous economic consequences of hurricane damage in
urbanized coastal areas, opportunities exist for the public to acquire
newly formed or extensively altered barrier islands, spits and other
natural features resulting from such storms. once acquired, these areas
could be restored to their previous or potential habitat value, or
preserved in their natural state. in addition, in highly developed areas
which undergo severe infrastructure damage during large storm events,
opportunities exist for true enforcement of constraints placed upon
inadvisable reconstruction practies.

In order to be implementable, land acquisition mechanisms must be in place
prior to large storm events. At the present time, however, no State lands
program exists which specifically addresses post-hurricane acquisition.
Constraints upon post-hurricane reconstruction could presently be exercised
through implementation of the Governor' s Executive Order 81-105.

For bay management purposes, contingency planning for post-hurricane
acquisition of lands should focus on all coastal and estuarine habitat
lying seaward of the inland limit of the velocity zone, as defined by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRMs), or the Department of Natural Resources Coastal Construction
Control Line, whichever is further inland at any point.

Relevant Laws and Statutes:

Coastal Zone Management Act
Coastal Barrier Resources Act
Chapter 380, Florida Statutes (Land and Water Management)
Chapter 259, Florida Statutes (Land Acquisitions for Conservation or
Recreation)
Chapter 253, Florida Statutes (State Lands)
Chapter 161, Florida Statutes (Beach and Shore Preservation)
Executive Order 8 1-105

Bay Management Objectives:

1. Restore or enhance the natural resources and habitat value of severely
damaged, newly formed or extensively altered coastal areas following
disastrous storm events.

2. Establish a land acquisition mechanism which will specifically enable
is ~~public acquisition of newly formed or extensively altered coastal
lands.

3. Prevent inadvisable reconstruction in severely damaged developed
coastal barrier areas (as defined by the Department of Community
Affairs).

2-139

Bay Management Recommendations:

1. The Environmentally Endangered Lands (EEL) and the Conservation and
Recreation Lands (CARL) programs should be amended to give highest
priority to the acquisition of newly formed or extensively altered
coastal lands, as well as existing undeveloped barrier areas.

Work Element 28-1: The Legislature should amend Chapter 259, Florida
Statute, accordingly.

2. The Department of Community Affairs should include in the rulemaking
for Executive Order 81-105 a provision stating that all state subsidies
for post-hurricane redevelopment in defined barrier areas shall be
contingent upon compliance with all applicable environmental regula-
tions, and consistency with the Florida Coastal Management Program
(FCMP).

Work Element 28-2: The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, through
the IC&R review process, should implement this inclusion.

3. The Department of Community Affairs should amend the draft rule for
E.O. 81-105 so as to limit state subsidies for the rebuilding of the
major public facilities infrastructure (water, wastewater treatment,
transportation etc.) in severely damaged developed coastal barrier
areas only to essential levels of service for the intact development
remaining in those areas.

Work Element 28-3: The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, through
the IC&R review process, should implement this amendment.

4. Local governments should be encouraged to acquire and convert
extensively altered developed barrier lands into preservation,
conservation or recreation areas.

Work Element 28-4: The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, through
its Local Government Comprehensive Plan Act (Chapter 163, Florida
Statutes) review responsibilities, should encourage the development of
local ordinances to this effect.

Long-Term Management Alternatives:

1. Status Quo: Final implementation of the above stated recommendations
could probably be satisfactorily accomplished through the existing
review responsibilities of the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council.

2. Bay Advisory Committee: A standing bay advisory committee within the
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council could more effectively lobby for
legislative action as well as coordinate interagency cooperation.

3. Bay Management Authority: A mandated bay management authority could
potentially assume ownership and management responsibility for
submerged lands in the bay allowing for more direct control over
resource management decisions affecting Tampa Bay.

2- 140

Issue #29 Mitigation Banking

issue Analysis: To mitigate is defined as, "to moderate in force or
in'tensity; alleviate.' Wetlands mitigation, as defined by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Mitigation Policy (Federal Register 46(15): 7644-7663,
1981), includes the following specific elements represented in the
desirable sequence of steps in the mitigation planning process:

1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts
of an action.

2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree of magnitude of an action and
its implementation.

3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the
affected environment.

4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations during the life of the action.

5. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute
resources or environments.

In the State of Florida the creation or restoration of substitute habitats
(e.g. marsh creation) has become a common condition placed upon the
issuance of dredge and fill permits for projects in jurisdictional
wetlands. Most of this mitigation is done by individual property owners
and is customarily required to be performed on property owned by the
applicants. As a result of this policy, the great majority of mitigation
projects undertaken involve relatively small acreages (less than 1 acre),
thus driving the restoration/creation per acre costs quite high ($10,000 -
$15,000 per acre including excavation of uplands as needed). in addition,
this policy often excludes off-site mitigation, even in cases where
restoration or creation of larger and/or more ecologically valuable systems
could be accomplished. The concept of mitigation banking involves several
items including the restoration or creation of larger, combined and more
ecologically valuable sites, as well as the mitigation of isolated-wetland
destruction in waters of the state, funded by fees for mitigation assessed
during permitting.

Mitigation banking is a concept that would allow individual wetland
restoration or creation projects to be credited to the "account" of
agencies, corporations or individuals that routinely needed to mitigate for
wetland impacts. Examples might include state and federal Departments of
Transportation or Ports Authorities. The credits could be accumulated and
drawn upon as needed to satisfy the reviewing agencies' requested
mitigation for a given project. Conceptually, mitigation banking is
attractive in that it allows potential permittees to plan in advance for
the cost effective efforts, and can evolve into an "up-front mitigation"
effort, which is highly desirable to many reviewing agencies.

"Up-front mitigation" implies that the mitigation activity (usually wetland
creation or restoration) is accomplished and approved as successful prior
to the permitted destruction of another wetland. The concept is attractive

2-141

since it insures that the reviewing agencies have an opportunity to see and
approve of a successful mitigation activity prior to the loss of another
wetland, instead of losing the wetland in question and then waiting for the
mitigation activity to be completed and hoping it works.

The only functional mitigation banking program presently being implemented
is in the State of Oregon, pursuant to Chapter 541.626, Oregon Statutes
This program is part of a complex mitigation policy involving a relative
habitat value scale, ranging from 1.0 to 6.0 (1.0 = least valuable, e.g.
unvegetated rock - 6.0 = most valuable, e.g. marine seagrasses), mitigation
credits, a mitigation bank, and a mitigation trust fund. Although the
system is relatively new, it is being actively, and effectively,
implemented (Hamilton, 1984).

One of the major arguments in support of mitigation banking is that given a
certain level of funding for wetland restoration or creation, greater
acreages (often contiguous) of better quality habitat will result through
an organized banking effort. Major arguments against mitigation banking,
as well as against the concept of mitigation in general, include the idea
that it could lead to the "selling" of permits for normally unacceptable
habitat destruction, especially in the case on non-water dependent
projects. In addition, there are no "environmental performance criteria"
to determine if a wetland mitigation program is successful, and there is,
as yet, no truly objective method of rating the relative "value" of one
habitat type over another. There may, in fact, be situations that could
never be mitigated for, such as the loss of productive oyster bars.

A number of studies have recently been initiated to identify appropriate
habitat restoration sites in Tampa Bay, including those of the Tampa Bay
Regional Planning Council, the Department of Natural Resources, and the
Tampa Port Authority in conjunction with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. once these studies are complete they should serve as the basis
for a comprehensive plan for future habitat restoration/creation in Tampa
Bay. However, there presently appears to be no mechanism to ensure that
mitigation efforts in Tampa Bay be performed in concert with that plan. A
mitigation bank, if properly structured and managed, could provide that
mechanism.

Relevant Laws and Statutes:

Clean Water Act, Section 404
Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (Environmental Control)
Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code

Bay Management Objectives:

1. Improve the success rate and ecological quality of habitat restoration
projects in and around Tampa Bay.

2. Encourage large scale habitat restoration projects through combined
efforts at selected sites.

3. Maximize effective utilization of the limited funds available for
habitat restoration/creation in the Tampa Bay area.

2-142

Bay Management Recommendations:

1. The Legislature should adopt enabling legislation allowing for the
creation of local mitigation banks, through interagency agreements, in
areas where such an arrangement is deemed feasible and where
significant habitat improvements could be made over existing mitigation
* ~~~~procedures.

Work Element 29-1: The Legislature should amend Chapter 403, F.S.,
accordingly. Chapter 541.626, Oregon Statutes, should be used as a
legislative precedent.

2. The Department of Environmental Regulation should initiate rulemaking
establishing the mechanism for an experimental Tampa Bay mitigation
bank created through a joint agreement between the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the DER Southwest District Office and the Tampa Port
Authority, and other appropriate state and local agencies.

3. The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council should sponsor habitat
restoration workshops for all agencies, local governments, and
companies involve in habitat mitigation in and around Tampa Bay. The
emphasis of the proposed workshops should be to coordinate a unified
and planned approach to habitat mitigation in the bay.

Long-term Management Alternatives:

Statue Quo: There presently is no enabling legislation in the State of
Florida allowing for the creation of a structured mitigation bank. if
enabling legislation were passed, the Department of Environmental
Regulation would most likely be the agency charged with the responsibility
of rulemaking and implementation. Because of the local interest and
knowledge in habitat restoration needs, Tampa Bay would present an
excellent situation for the trial of a local mitigation bank.

Bay Advisory Committee: A standing bay advisory committee within the Tampa
Bay Regional Planning Council could effectively sponsor the recommended
habitat restoration workshops as well as coordinate closely with the
experimental mitigation bank to ensure that major mitigation efforts are
consistent with the comprehensive habitat restoration plans.

Bay Management Authority: A mandated bay management authority could
potentially assume 'full administrative responsibility for a locally
established mitigation bank.

2-143

issue #30 Management of Bower Tract and Adjacent Wetlands

Issue Analysis: The Bower Tract consists of a 1549 acre tract on the north
shores of Tampa Bay (see figure 2.15). It is one of the last undeveloped
sections of the Bay. About 1377 acres of the tract are wetlands and
consist of a diverse estuarine system of mangrove islands, salt marshes,
mud flats, oyster bars, creeks, small bays and bayous. The upland portion
is about 170 acres and is separated from the wetlands by salt barrens. The0
uplands are mostly pine flatwoods with hammocks, perched ponds and small
creeks. Presently, the uplands are zoned for development.

A wide variety of wildlife inhabits the Bower Tract, some of which rely on
the uplands for feeding and nesting habitat. The tract's estuarine areas
have been documented as being highly productive, both as a source of food
for area wildlife and as a nursery for many species of marine organisms of
both sport and commercial importance. Several endangered or threatened
wildlife species are common to the site including the American Bald eagle,
manatee, wood stork and brown pelican. In addition, the assimilative
capability of the tract's wetlands are extremely important in maintaining
water quality in Old Tampa Bay, which has recently been shown to be an
extremely stressed system (FDER, 1984).

Future management of the Bower Tract should include the preservation of the
tract to insure its continued ecological productivity. Although some areas
of the uplands are well suited to development for a public park, care
should be taken to insure that runoff waters from the uplands remain of
good quality. Soil conditions of the upland portion of the Bower Tract are
such that much of the water tends to run off rather than percolate. This
phenomenon is critical due to the fact that seagrass beds found in the
site's estuaries are highly susceptable to increases in silt and water
turbidity. Seagrasses are a vital component of the Tampa Bay ecosystem.
Since seagrasses have been reduced to 20% of the original extent in the
Bay, every effort should be made to avoid further reduction of the
community (see issue #2).

It is for the above reasons, i.e. wildlife habitat, recreation, and
critical protection of sensitive estuarine habitat; that the uplands of the
Bower tract should become public and that they be preserved and/or
developed with great care. Because the Bower Tract lies directly
contiguous to the existing Upper Tampa Bay Park the Hillsborough County
Department of Parks and Recreation has proposed that these vital natural
resources and public access would be more effectively managed through this
expansion and that' increased recreational and natural history
interpretation opportunities would be a positive benefit of this access.
in anticipation of eventual public aquisition Hillsborough County has
already prepared a detailed management plan and budget. However, more
important is the long range objective of preserving the integrity of the
Bower Tract for its inherent value and what it will mean to future
generations.

In 1980 the Bower Tract was proposed as a CARL (State Conservation and
Recreational Lands Program) acquisition by Hillsborough County and was
subsequently ranked number 12 on the 1980 CARL acquisition priority list.
The acquisition priority list, prepared yearly, guides the acquisition
efforts of the CARL Program, which are actually carried out by the

2-144

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

N -~~~~~~~~~~~~~F I.l

~~~ I~~K

0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - -__ ---
......

..........~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~L

........

*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.....

Figure 2.15. Relative location of~~~~~~~~...........
the Bower tract~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..................
.......2 ..5.

Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The following year, the Bower Tract
moved up to number 9 on the priority list. With the relatively high
ranking accorded this project, the DNR began negotiations with the owner to
acquire it; however, the owner declined to sell the tract to the state at
its appraised value, which is by law the most the state can offer.
Hillsborough county attempted to assist in the negotiations, but to no
avail. Thereupon, the CARL Selection Committee recommended to the Governor
and Cabinet that the Bower Tract be dropped to the bottom of the priority
list. Thus, Bower Tract fell to number 27 on the September 1983 interim
priority list.

in an effort to assist negotiations on this project, the Legislature, in
1984, gave the DNR the power of eminent domain to acquire this tract. The
recently adopted acquisition priority list for 1984-85 ranks Bower Tract
26th out of 48 projects. Inasmuch as the DNR has already begun
negotiations on projects as far down the list as number 23, it would seem
that negotiations on the Bower Tract acquisition might be reopened in the
near future. However, further efforts will be needed to ensure final
public acquisition of these valuable wetlands.

Relevant Laws and Statutes:

Chapter 259, Florida Statutes (Land Acquisition for Conservation or Recrea-
tion)

Bay Management Objectives:

1. Convert the Bower Tract from private to public ownership through state
purchase under the Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) acquisition
program followed by transfer of ownership to Hilisborough County.

2. Effectively manage the vital natural resources and public access on the
Bower Tract by expanding Hillsborough County's jurisdictional
boundaries and management responsibilities for Upper Tampa Bay Park to
include the contiguous Bower Tract acreage.

Bay Management Recommendations:

1. Hillsborough County should officially request the CARL committee to
pursue additional independent property appraisals of the Bower Tract.
Since the Gateway property in Pinellas County was purchased a new
comparable has been established.

2. The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council should pass a resolution
officially requesting the Governor and Cabinet to advance the Bower
Tract higher on the CARL acquisition list so that the Department of
Natural Resources can begin negotiations under the eminent domain
process.

3. The Department of Natural Resources'should further pursue purchase of
the Bower Tract under the threat of "friendly condemnation"

2-146

Long-Term Management Alternatives:

1. Status Quo: Hilisborough County originally sponsored the CARL
nomination of the Bower Tract and has done a commendable job in
pursuing public ownership. However, it is apparent that greater public
and political support will be needed to accomplish the task.

2. Bay Advisory Committee: A standing bay advisory committee within the
Tam~pa Bay Regional Planning Council could be effective in expanding the
public awareness of the importance of this tract, and in organizing the
needed public and political support for public purchase.

3. Bay Management Authority: A mandated bay management authority could
potentially assume ownership and management responsibility for
submerged land in Tampa Bay. However, public ownership of the Bower
Tract would still have to occur through existing state land acquisition
programs. it is unlikely that such an authority would be any more
effective at accomplishing this than a bay advisory committee.

2-147

issue #31 Management of Passage Key

issue Analysis: Passage Key National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) is a small
migrating barrier island located at the mouth of Tampa Bay in Manatee
County (see figure 2.16). Set aside 80 years ago as one of the first
National Wildlife Refuges, the island currently provides nesting habitat
for the following bird species: Laughing Gull (5000-20000 breeding pairs0
in recent years), Royal Tern (1000 pairs), Black Skimmer (250 pairs), Least
Tern (up to 4- pairs), American Oystercatcher (6-8 pairs), Sandwich Terns
and possibly Snowy Plovers (a few pairs each, at most). The island is also
an important roost site for eastern Brown Pelicans and Double-crested
Cormorants, and is used by thousands of terns and shorebirds during migra-
tion.

Of the seven nesting species noted, all but Laughing Gulls are considered
at risk in Florida (Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission or Florida
Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals). The primary reason
for this is the loss of secure breeding habitat where these birds can nest
undisturbed by humans. All eight species nest on the ground, with Laughing
Gulls favoring areas vegetated by grasses or low forbs and the other
species requiring bare sand or shell substrates. Mid-day surface tempera-
tures during the spring-summer nesting season may exceed 45 degrees C (113
degrees F), sufficient to quickly kill embryos or small chicks if the
adults are disturbed from their nests.

Created in 1905 by Executive Order, Passage Key was the third National
Wildlife Refuge established in the United States. Pursuant to Title 50,
Code of Federal Regulations, and the Refuge Administration Act, all
National Wildlife Refuges are initially closed to public use until they are
officially declared open for such use. Passage Key NWR has never been
officially opened for public visitation. The island and surrounding
shallows are, however, very popular with recreational boaters, especially
on weekends and holidays. The clear waters and white sands invite
swimming, sunbathing, fishing, shelling and other beach activities (even
jogging!). As a result, nesting activity is significantly disrupted.

For management purposes Passage Key NWR is presently posted by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and closed to public entry during the
period April I through September 1. However, a significant number of
visitors simply ignore the signs. The Refuge Manager does patrol Passage
Key during times of peak human activity in the area in an effort to prevent
entry into the breeding colonies and disruption of nesting efforts, but
there are two primary limitations to his ability to adequately protect the
breeding birds including the following:

* The manager cannot always be present at Passage Key when necessary, and
even when present and intercepting one party he may not be able to reach
other visitors landing elsewhere on the island shore; and

* The USFWS legal enforcement authority begins at the mean high water
line (MHW). The manager cannot legally intercept trespassers seaward of
MHW, which means in many cases disturbance of nesting birds cannot be
prevented , but only stopped after it has occurred. Considerable egg or
nestling mortality has occurred as a result.

2-148

ri~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~:'.........
* �:.:

;...........,
"1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..... .......... ........
:.......... ..:*.. .. .

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~........
I SL
k: I
I"~~~~~~~~~~~. ! I

;......njl. .,:'

*1 I
.Figr ive locatio o f

......._i.......b... .. I.

I r .. I,

PA*41*

SATlI*INL ~IIwuy*:

g �.a9,.

Passage Key.

2-149I
I-------------

In addition to these limitations, the Passage Key Refuge was designated as
a National Wilderness Area in 1970. The practical effect of this designa-
tion was to prevent any physical habitat manipulation or enhancement. Thus
the Refuge Manager must manage the island in its natural state and cannot
implement any habitat management measures that would minimize disruption of
nesting activity.

Relevant Laws and Statutes:

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act
Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations

Bay Management Objectives:

1. Extend the Refuge Manager's legal jurisdiction to allow more efficient
protection of breeding birds.

2. Improve public awareness of the problem through a variety of
educational activities. Emphasis should be on enlisting support of
a variety of local organizations and arranging a program with long-term
continuity.

Bay Management Recommendations:

1 * In order to consistantly manage the biological resources on the island,
Passage Key should be posted and closed to public use on a year-round
basis.

2. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should enter into a perpetual lease
agreement with Manatee County to allow for legal management and
enforcement authority on all submerged lands extending seaward a
distance of 100 yards from the mean high water line around the
perimeter of Passage Key. Provisions should be made to designate this
as a buffer area, which will be posted, and from which the Refuge
Manager may legally intercept boat or foot traffic.

Work Element 31-1: The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council should
assist in the local coordination of this effort.

3. To ensure long-term management continuity with other marine
preservation areas in Tampa Bay, the boundaries of the Terra Ceia
Aquatic Preserve should be extended to include Passage Key and all
submerged lands extending seaward a distance of 100 yards from MHW.

Work Element 31-2: The Legislature should enact a bill amending the
boundaries of the Terra Ceia Aquatic Preserve as described above (see
issue #8).

4. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should assign additional public use
specialists to the Chassahowitzka System of National Wildlife Refuges
to increase enforcement capabilities for Passage Key. A full-time
refuge manager should be assigned specifically to Passage Key.

2-150

Work Element 31-3: The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council should
ad-opt a resolution requesting additional USFWS staffing for the Passage
Key, Egmont Key and Pinellas National Wildlife Refuges.

5. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of Natural Resources
and Manatee County should coordinate in the development of a shoreline
* ~~~information program aimed specifically at alleviating the trespassing
problems at Passage Key.

work Element 31-4: The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council should
assistT in the local coordination of this effort. The program should
include the following:

* Distribution of posters, brochures etc. at marinas, fishing piers
and boat ramps;

* Contact with local fishing editors and other newspaper reports,
magazines;

* Contact with other marine education outlets including the Florida
Sea Grant Program, Marine Extension Service and the Florida Marine
Information Network; and

* Solicitation of volunteer management efforts by local conservation
and marine groups such as the Manatee Audubon Society, the Sierra
Club, Manasota 88, the Coast Guard Auxiliary and the Power Squadron.

Long-Term Management Alternatives:

1. Status Quo: it is unlikely that final implementation of the above
stated recommendations would take place under this alternative as
future funding and staffing levels at the Tampa Bay Regional Planning
Council may be prohibitive. Although much of the framework for
developing a volunteer program is already in place - for example, the
Manatee County Audubon Society-has already endorsed the concept of
National Audubon's Adopt-A-Refuge program - the maintenance of
continuity and consistency in such volunteer programs will be difficult
without proper interagency coordination. in addition, when the present
Refuge manager is transferred, current funding and manpower
restrictions in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service suggest that the
position may not be immediately filled. in this event, the
administration of an effective management program would be extremely
difficult without the assistance of a regional or local coordinating
body.

2. Bay Advisory Committee: A standing bay advisory committee within the
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council could effectively assist in the
coordination of interagency agreements, and in the administration of
the recommended shoreline information program.

3. Bay Management Authority: A mandated bay management authority could be
very effective at arranging interagency agreements, could assist in the
enforcement of no trespassing regulations, and could fully administer
the shoreline information program.

2-151

Issue #32 Management and Restoration of Shorelines in Boca Ciega Bay,
Pinellas County

Issue Analysis: Located landward of the south Pinellas County barrier
islands (see fi~gure 2.17), Boca Ciega Bay is currently a stressed and
degraded aquatic ecosystem. What was once a pristine and productive
estuary, now supports limited fisheries and exhibits extremely poor water

quality.
The major causes of this degradation have included the following:

Extensive Dredging and Filling - Since 1900, 2,506 acres of Boca Ciega Bay
have been filled to create real estate and causeways. This acreage
encompasses approximately 22% of the total acreage of the bay. Thousands
of additional acres of bay bottom have been dredged to deep depths to
provide both navigation channels and fill for the "upland" development.
The primary effects of the dredging and filling activities have been the
direct destruction of shallow seagrass beds and mangrove forests.

The secondary efforts of the past dredging have been the creation of an
"environment" of a maze of islands and dead-end finger canals lined with
hard vertical seawalls. The combined effects have been the total elimina-
tion of the most productive littoral zones (mangroves, seagrass, marsh) in
Boca Ciega Bay. This maze of finger canals has significantly impeded and
reduced tidal flushing by blocking tidal ebb and flood in many areas of the
flow. other areas have been excavated beyond flushing depths, causing the
areas harbors, bays, and canals to accumulate stagnant, polluted muck and
water at lower depths. This situation has contributed to the frequent
water quality violations occurring there.

Stormwater/Wastewater - Boca Ciega Bay receives an enormous amount of
polluted stormwater and wastewater. Boca Ciega Bay receives a major por-
tion of the runoff from the southwest side of the Pinellas peninsula,
extending from North Largo to Mullet Key. The pollutants discharged to
this area are extremely slow to flush out of Boca Ciega Bay due to poor
tidal flushing and circulation restriction aforementioned.

The area from Largo to 74th Avenue North in Seminole drains into Boca Ciega
Bay through man-made Lake Seminole. About 85% of the lake's drainage basin
is developed with residential and commercial areas. The Cross Bayou Canal
and Joe's Creek drain the area to the east and south of Lake Seminole.
Both the canal and the creek receive runoff from residential areas. Joe's
Creek also receives r'unoff from commercial areas and one of the County's
major wastewater treatment plants. Drainage in the southernmost mainland
portion of Pinellas County enters Boca Ceiga Bay through an urban drainage
network.

The potential for urban runoff related problems is very high in the Lake
Seminole and Boca Ciega Bay areas, due to the large coverage of relatively
impermeable urban land in the drainage basin. In many areas of the subject
drainage basin, shorelines as well as drainage ways, have been cleared of
vegetation, and natural slopes have been steepened. The removal of shore-

2-152

~~~~------------

....... j ..
I *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.......

...~ ~ ~~~~~.......

......~~~~~ .... .......
/......

Figure 2.17. Relative location Of Boca
Ciega Bay.
2- 153

line, bottom and drainage way vegetation, which serve as constant nutrient
assimilators, and the increased nutrient impacts resulting from urban
runoff, has contributed most significantly to lowering of water quality in
the bay.

Numerous point sources of pollution have been identified within the
drainage basin. Although most of them are sewage treatment plants, other
noteworthy sources include cooling water discharges and electroplater
discharges. In localized portions of this basin water quality problems
appear to be primarily caused by improper or poorly treated sewage. Such
pollutant sources have included the St. Petersburg Beach Plant and at least
six others within the drainage segment. These discharges have led to
extremely high levels of total and ortho-phosphorous, TKN, NH , chlorophyll
and coliform/fecal bacteria.

Other Physical Alterations - Existing submerged wetland areas have been
further degraded by local power boat operators. It has been well docu-
mented that power boat propellers can leave denuded scars through marine
grass beds, which often persist for years.

In addition, many riparian land owners have removed significant amounts of
mangrove tree vegetation in order to obtain full unobstructed vistas of the
water. On a cummulative scale, such trimming has significantly reduced the
food chain, habitat and water filtration contributions of mangroves in Boca
Ciega Bay.

Relevant Laws and Statutes:

Federal Water Pollution Control Act, PL 92-500 as amended
Coastal Zone Management Act
Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (Environmental Control)
Chapter 258, Florida Statutes (Aquatic Preserves)
Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (Intergovernmental Programs)

Bay Management Objectives:

1. Reduce point and non-point source pollutant loads entering Boca Ciega
Bay.

2. Improve tidal flushing in the Boca Ciega Bay system.

3. Preserve existing and, wherever feasible, create new submerged and
intertidal wetland habitat.

Bay Management Recommendations:

1. Local governments in the Central and South Pinellas 201 planning
districts should continue to seek alternatives to surface water
discharges of wastewater into Boca Ciega Bay. Top priority should be
given to deep well injection. Another viable alternative would be a
combined Gulf of Mexico outfall.

2. A wasteload allocation study should be completed for Boca Ciega Bay to
provide water-quality based effluent limits for wastewater treatment
facilities discharging to surface waters.

2-154

Work Element 32-1: Through funds procured from the EPA 205(j) grant
program, the Department of Environmental Regulation should design and
implement a Boca Ciega wasteload allocation study.

3. Non-point source pollutant loads entering Boca Ciega Bay should be
minimized by strict local enforcement of the state Stormwater Rule
(Chapter 17-25, F.A.C.), and by the adoption of a state law requiring
stormwater detention for redevelopment in urban areas (see issues #3
and #22 for further discussion).

Work Element 32-2: The Southwest Florida Water Management District
should make appropriate increases in staffing in order to more
effectively enforce the Stormwater Rule in the Tampa Bay area.

4. Pinellas County and the municipalities bordering on Boca Ciega Bay
should coordinate in developing and implementing a sub-regional
drainage plan specific to the protective needs of the Bay. The plan
should emphasize the aquisition and construction of multi-
jurisdictional retention/detention areas (see issue #3 for further
discussion).

5. Special criteria for dredging and filling practices should be developed
for the Boca Ciega Bay Aquatic Preserve with special emphasis on the
protective needs of existing subtidal and intertidal wetlands in the
bay.

Work Element: 32-3: As mandated in Chapter 403.904, Florida Statutes,
the Department of Environmental Regulation should develop special, more
stringent, rules and criteria for dredge and fill practices in Boca
Ciega Bay.

6. Hydrologic studies should be undertaken to determine the effectiveness
and feasibility of using mechanical tidal gates and pumps for
alleviating the frequent water quality violations occurring in associa-
tion with the numerous dead end finger fill canals in Boca Ciega Bay
(see issue #35 for further discussion).

7. A land aquisition program should be established to allow for the
transfer of newly created or extensively altered coastal lands to
public ownership following disastrous storm events. The purpose of
such a program would be to prevent inadviseable redevelopment of such
areas, and to restore additional coastal and estuarine habitat (see
issue #28 for further discussion).

8. Pinellas County and municipalities bordering Boca Ciega Bay should step
up efforts to implement their respective Coastal Zone and Conservation
Elements of their adopted Comprehensive Plans.

Work Element 32-4: The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council through its
Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, review responsibilities, should
coordinate and assist where possible in the implementation of
appropriate Comprehensive Plan Elements, with special emphasis on the
immediate needs of Boca Ciega Bay.

2-155

9. A public education program aimed specifically at power boat impacts on
seagrass beds, and on the value of intertidal wetland habitat, should
be implemented in the Tampa Bay area (see issue #18 for further
discussion).

10. A management plan for the Pinellas County Aquatic Preserve system
should be developed and implemented w ith sufficient staffing and
funding levels (see issue #8 for further discussion). In the prepara-
tion of this plan, the Boca Ciega Bay Preserve should be officially
designated as an "Urban Preserve", and eventually managed as such.

Long-Term Management Alternatives:

1. Status Quo: The problems associated with Boca Ciega Bay are numerous,
complex, perserverent and multi-jurisdictional in nature. Under the
existing regulatory framework it is unlikely that the above stated
objectives will ever be effectively accomplished.

2. Bay Advisory Committee: A standing bay advisory committee within the
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council could be effective in coordinating
interagency cooperation, as well as assisting in the implementation of
local government comprehensive plans.

3. Bay Management Authority: A mandated bay management authority could
potentially assume ownership of submerged land in the bay as well as
the management responsibility for the Boca Ciega Aquatic Preserve.
Under this alternative many of the relevant overview and permitting
responsibilities would be centralized under one regulatory body
allowing for a much more efficient and comprehensive management
capability.

2-156

Issue #33 Improvements to Bridge Facilities Crossing Tampa Bay

Issue Analysis: Currently, four major bridge facilities cross Tampa Bay
including the Sunshine Skyway, the Gandy Bridge, the Howard-Franklin Bridge
and the Courtney-Campbell Causeway. While the former facility crosses the
mouth of Tampa Bay the latter three facilities bisect Old Tampa Bay (see
figure 2.18).

Because all four bridges have incorporated the filling of large areas of
bay bottom for the construction of causeway approaches, major alterations
to the natural tidal current patterns and flushing rates have resulted
(Ross and Jenkins, 1978). Computer simulations of net surface current
velocities over a single tidal cycle have indicated that the causeway
structures cause the occurrance of large tidal gyres, and significantly
reduce tidal flushing rates in areas adjacent to the structures (see figure
2.19). This effect has been most negative in Old Tampa Bay where
restrictions to tidal flow have significantly increased the residence time
of nutrients and organic matter discharged from sewage treatment plants.

Because of increasing traffic rates the Florida Department of
Transportation is preparing plans to improve roadway conditions along the
Hillsborough County portion of the Courtney Campbell Causeway.

The major improvements include:

* Addition of median and paved shoulders from the bridge to a point east
of the municipal beach.

* Upgrading of the four-lane section to six-lanes from east of the
municipal beach to a point west of SR 589.

* Construction of new bulkheads with subsequent filling between the
bulkhead and existing shoreline. Revetment construction on waterward
side of bulkhead.

* Revetment construction with associated filling between the revetment and
existing shoreline, where no bulkheading is required.

As a result of these roadway improvements, secondary seagrass beds and
intertidal habitat adjacent to the affected portions of the causeway may be
destroyed. To date, no mitigation has been proposed.

In addition, the U.S., Department of Transportation has begun planning the
widening of the Howard-Franklin Bridge as part of the 1-275 Interstate
Route. An environmental impact statement will have to be prepared for this
work under federal requirements.

During the review and commentary period for the required dredge and fill
permits, and the environmental impact statement, opportunities may exist
for offsite mitigation of water quality impacts and the loss of bay
habitat. Provisions for the improvement of tidal circulation around cause-
way structures, including the installation of tidal gates or additional
culverts should be actively pursued as viable mitigative options.

2-157

* 5 0 ~ ~ ~~~~~~5 10 MILLS

5 0 5 10 15~~~~i KILOMETERS

4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. r

Courtney-Campbell
Causewy

. .** oward-Fankan

Bridge.,

PETERSBURG'

~~~~~~~~~~~8A'

-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ n-a

Figure 2.18. Relative location of the
four major bridge facilities crossing
Tatnpa Bay.
2-158

-A TMPA BAY

M. .F. Oz. f.r f r..

~~~~F~~~~~~PA~~~~

5.PETEPBRG8II
ST. I Ia V 4 FUTSF

OPIDE form %AL (MLES
''A~r'

Figure 2. 19. Net current veloci ties
after one complete tidal cycle in
Tampa Bay. Circular features
represent tidal gyres.
2- 159

Relevant Laws and Statutes:

National Environmental Policy Act
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Section 404
Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (Environmental Control)

Bay Management Objectives:

1. Improve tidal circulation and flushing around causeway structures
through the installation of tidal gates or additional culverts.

2. Provide a mechanism for offsite mitigation of water quality and habitat
impacts associated with the improvement and widening of the Courtney
Campbell Causeway and the Howard-Franklin Bridge.

Bay Management Recommendations:

1. Discussions should be initiated with the Department of Environmental
Regulation, Environmental Protection Agency, Corps of Engineers,
Florida Department of Transportation to explore the feasibility of
of fsite mitigation involving improvement to tidal circulation.

Work Element 33-1: The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council should
sponsor a series of scoping meetings including the above agencies. The
objective of the meetings would be to develop an 'up front" mitigation
plan for many water quality and habitat impacts expected from the
proposed modifications to the Courtney Campbell Causeway and the Howard
Franklin Bridge.

Long-term Management Alternatives:

Status Quo: Under the current regulatory framework the Corps of Engineers
and the Department of Environmental Regulation accept and consider comments
from public reviewing agencies during the dredge and fill permitting
process. Similarly the Environmental Protection Agency reviews public
commenting during the EIS process. However, under present regulations it
is very difficult to arrange for the mitigation of past actions, or offsite
mitigation. Coordinated planning and special arrangements will be
necessary to accomplish the above stated objectives.

Bay Advisory Committee: A permanent bay advisory committee within the
Tia-mpa Bay Regional Planning Council could effectively coordinate and
sponsor the recommended scoping meetings.

Bay Management Authority: A mandated bay management authority would carry
much greater legal weight than a bay advisory committee in negotiating a
plan involving large scale efforts mitigation of past damaging actions in
Tampa Bay.

2-160

Issue #34 Channel "A" Restoration

Issue Analysis: Channel "All is a large drainage canal located in
northwestern Hillsborough County (see figure 2.20). It was constructed
during the late 1960s to serve as a flood diversion for Rocky Creek, a
meandering urbanized tidal creek which outfalls to Old Tampa Bay. During
the construction of Channel "All a 7' deep channel was excavated through an
extensive tidal marsh and mangrove area, and large levees of spoil material
were deposited on both sides of the excavated channel. Further inland,
portions of Rocky Creek were channelized and hardened and just north of
Hillsborough Avenue, and a 3.5' salinity barrier was installed.

The adverse impacts resulting from the construction of Channel 'A' include
the following:

* discharge of poor quality water directly to Old Tampa Bay without
assimilation by surrounding tidal wetlands;

* disruption of tidal flow patterns in the affected wetland areas;

* alteration of salinity patterns; and

� significant destruction of marsh and mangrove wetland habitat, both
through dredging and filling, and through permanent alterations in
current and salinity patterns.

in addition to the above impacts, encroaching development threatens to
worsen water quality problems associated with Channel "A". Although
Channel "A" is not a maintained navigational channel, several finger canals
intercepting the channel have been built for a residential development and
a large marina project directly on Channel "A" has been proposed.
Furthermore, the River Oaks sewage treatment plant presently discharges
effluent at the mouth of Channel "A".

Recently, the Anclote Basin Board of the Southwest Florida Water Management
District voted to appropriate funds for wetland restoration efforts along
Channels "A " and 'G" in Hillsborough County. This action coupled with the
relative value and sensitivity of the wetlands surrounding Channel "A"
provide a unique opportunity for habitat restoration in Tampa Bay.

Relevant Laws and.Statutes:

Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (Environmental Control)
Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (Intergovernmental Programs)

Bay Management Objectives:

1. Restore the natural hydrology of the tidal wetlands surrounding Channel
"A".

2. Restore tidal wetland vegetation where damaged by the construction of
Channel 'All.

3. Prevent inappropriate land use on and around Channel "A".

2-161

----------- ~ ~ ~ ~ I----

M."m

....... ...

a~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~... . .....

Figure 2.20. Relative location of
Channel "A".j

2-162

Issue #35 Water Quality Improvements Using Tidal Gates

Issue Analysis: Much of the poorest water quality in Tampa Bay occurs in
areas most accessable and most frequented by the public. Many natural and
man-made water bodies along the periphery of Tampa Bay act as settling
basins for organic material that, in turn, degrade the quality of the
overlying water and often lead to fish kills and reduced biological
diversity. one of the primary causes of this accumulation is less than
adequate water circulation. Areas often having low circulation include
marinas, finger canals, small embayments, and regions isolated from Tampa
Bay by causeway placement.

It is possible to induce greater circulation through many of these water
bodies by harnessing available tidal energy with strategically placed tide
gates that act as tidally driven pumps. These pumps can replace poor-
quality water with better-quality water from Tampa Bay. The poor-quality
water represents a minute fraction of the total volume of Tampa Bay and
will be rapidly assimilated. The pumps essentially extend naturally
available tidal circulation to more parts of the bay. One such tidal pump
is operating in Old Tampa Bay on a culvert underneath the most easterly
segment of the Courtney Campbell causeway. The purpose of the tide gate is
to induce greater water circulation through a region of poor-quality water
to the north of the causeway.

The hydraulic operation and water-quality impacts of the Courtney Campbell
tide gate is the subject of a report by Morgan et al (1984). The report
concludes that about 16.5 million cubic feet of water are pumped through
the area of concern during each tidal cycle. This figure is in substantial
agreement with predictions by Goodwin (personal communication 1975) made
prior to construction of the pump. Morgan et al (1984) also demonstrate
that waterborne material, fecal coliform bacteria and phytoplankton, are
moved from the degraded area to Old Tampa Bay. They conclude that substan-
tial improvements in water quality will probably occur, but the reservoir
of organic material on the bottom is so large that it may take a long time.

Tidal pumps have demonstrated a capability to increase water circulation
and constituent flushing in water bodies that are semi-isolated from Tampa
Bay. The time needed for increased circulation to result in a general
improvement of water quality is likely to be variable depending on the size
of the water body, the amount of induced circulation, the quality of Tampa
Bay water, and the thickness and character of benthic deposits. Tidal
pumps have the potential, over time, to permanently improve the water
quality of degraded areas along the periphery of Tampa Bay that are most
used and most assessable to the general public, and their use should be
further pursued.

Relevant Laws and Statutes:

Federal Water Pollution Control Act, PL92-500 as amended
Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (Environmental Control)

Bay Management Objectives:

Wherever feasible in Tampa Bay, improve degraded water quality conditions

in areas with inadequate tidal circulation through the use of tidal gates.

2-164

Bay Management Recommendations:

1. A Channel "A" restoration plan should be prepared and implemented
including studies of the following possible actions:

* complete removal of levees for use as fill material dependent upon
grain size analysis of spoil;

* installation of culverts or one-way tide gates in the channel levees
to promote perpendicular tidal flow and channel discharge into
surrounding marshes;

* marsh grass and mangrove revegetation wherever feasible; and

* installation of aerators or tide gates in the channel and finger
canals to facilitate more efficient mixing and tidal flushing.

Work Element 34-1: The Southwest Florida Water Management District
should prepare and implement the Channel "All restoration plan using
funds appropriated for this purpose. Target date for initiation should
be FY 1986. The restoration plan should be prepared and implemented in
coordination with the Department of Environmental Regulation, the Tampa
Port Authority and the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council.

2. The construction of marinas and other additional boating facilities on
and along Channel "Al should be discouraged.

Work Element 34-2: The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council should
attempt to implement the above recommendation through its Chapter 163
and 380, F.S., review responsibilities.

Long-term Management Alternatives:

Status Quo: The Southwest Florida Water Management District presently has
adequate funding and staffing to design and implement the recommended
restoration plan without assistance, however, interagency coordination
would be helpful.

Bay Advisory Committee: A standing bay advisory committee within the Tampa
Bay Regional Planning Council could provide additional technical input and
could facilitate interagency coordination.

Bay Management Authority: A mandated bay management authority could
potentially assume responsibility for this and other habitat restoration
projects around the bay. However, adequate solutions to this issue
presently exist.

2-163

Bay Management Recommendations:

1. The Department of Environmental Regulation in conjunction with the U.S.
Geologic Survey (USGS) should conduct a detailed survey of water-
quality and tidal conditions in all semi-isolated water bodies on the
periphery of Tampa Bay to assess the need and potential for circulation
enhancement using tide gates. A priority list of locations with sub-
stantiating data will be the product of the survey. For the top two or
three areas identified on the priority list, suitable analysis
techniques and projected impacts of tide-gate installation at each area
should be developed.

2. At a minimum, one tide gate system should be constructed as a demon-
stration project at a priority site identified in the survey. The DER
and the USGS should monitor tide gate operations and water quality
impacts for comparison with projected results. Overall results should
be thoroughly evaluated to decide whether or not the use of tide gates
should be pursued at other priority sites.

Work Element 35-1: The Legislature should allocate a portion of the
state's federal 205(j) budget for implementing the above stated con-
struction and study. Year I efforts should include the initial survey
and construction, while year 2 efforts should focus on monitoring, data
analysis and overall evaluation.

Estimated Manpower and Cost

Year 1 2

Manpower (man years)

- Staff (DER) 2 2
- Consultant (USGS) I I

Total 3 3

Source of Funds

- Federal 205(j) 100,000 50,000
- State -
- Local -

Total 100,000 50,000

2-165

3. If results of the above stated study indicate significant benefits the
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council should coordinate the collection of
local funding contributions for similar tide gate construction at other
priority sites around the bay.

Long-Term Management Alternatives:0

1. Status Quo: Federal and/or state funding will be required to complete
the initi~al studies. The U.S. Geological Survey has obtained federal
funds for such a study but needs local matching funds in order to
proceed. Without coordination and assistance it is unlikely that local
matching funds will be obtained.

2. Bay Advisory Committee: A standing bay advisory committee within the
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council could be instrumental in
coordinating local government interest and cooperation in the use of
tide gate technology in solving localized water quality problems.

3. Bay Management Authority: A mandated bay management authority could
be very effective in generating local matching funds, administering
studies and implementing tide gate technology around Tampa Bay.

2-166

Issue #36 User Conflicts and Limits on Activities

Issue Analysis: The public uses of Tampa Bay involve numerous recreational
and commercial activities. Conflicts occur when certain uses of the bay
overlap with, and preclude, other uses. Examples of user conflicts might
include the unregulated placement of crab-pots and fish nets causing navi-
gational hazards for recreational boaters. Certain areas where boating
* ~~conflicts frequently occur such as navigational channels and bridges,
should be authorized for specific uses and patrolled to avoid user
conflicts and safety hazards.

In a much larger scale, however, are those conflicts which occur between
designated water uses (e.g. Class II-Propogation and Harvest of Shellfish)
and attainable water quality goals (see issue #35). This issue relates to
the concept of segmentation as the ultimate comprehensive management tool
for a multiple use estuarine system like Tampa Bay. Segmentation is the
compartmentalizing of an estuary into subunits with homogeneous physical,
chemical, and biological characteristics. The segmentation process is a
management tool which recognizes that Tampa Bay is an interrelated
ecosystem composed of chemically, physically, and biologically diverse
areas.

It assumes that an ecosystem as diverse as Tampa Bay cannot be effectively
managed as only one unit, since different resource uses and water quality
objectives will be appropriate and feasible for different regions of the
bay. The segmentation approach to water quality management has been
successfully applied to several large receiving water systems, most notably
Chesapeake Bay, the Great Lakes, San Francisco Bay, and the Thames River.

In the absence of water pollution, physical characteristics of different
regions of the bay influence the suitability for major water uses.
Therefore, one major objective of segmentation is to subdivide the Bay into
segments with relatively homogeneous physical characteristics so that
differences in the biological communities among similar segments may be
related to man-made alterations. Once the segment network is established,
each segment can be subjected to an analysis of the relationship between
use attainability and water quality. In addition, the segment network
offers a useful management structure for focusing local citizen involvement
and for monitoring conformance with water quality goals in future years.

Relevant Laws and Statutes:

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
Coastal Zone Management Act
Chapter 327, Florida Statutes (Vessel Registration and Safety)
Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (Environmental Control)
Chapters 17-3 and 17-4, Florida Administrative Code

* ~~Bay Management Objectives:

1. Maximize boating safety on all water dependent uses of Tampa Bay.

2. Provide for a multiple use management system for Tampa Bay which

minimizes user conflicts.

2-167

Bay Management Recommendations:

1. The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council should sponsor joint workshops
involving the Marine Patrol and the U.S. Coast Guard with the objective
of defining ares in Tampa Bay where boating safety and resource
management are threatened by user conflicts. Findings and
recommendations generated from these workshops should be developed into0
appropriate rule changes and legislation wherever needed.

2. The concept of resource segmentation as a comprehensive management tool
for Tampa Say should be further explored.

3. A mediating board for resolving short-term user conflicts involving
Tampa Bay should be established.

Work Element 36-1: A official mediating board should be established
w7it-hin the-Tampa ~Bay Regional Plannning Council and should include
members of all agencies, local government representative and interests
relevant to bay management.

Long-term Management Alternatives:

Status Quo: Under the existing management framework no agency or entity is
capable of mediating user conflicts and establishing a long-term
comprehensive management plan for Tampa Bay with the objective of
maximizing all potential uses of the bay.

Bay Advisory Committee: A permanent funded and staffed bay advisory
committee within the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council could effectively
sponsor workshops and serve as a mediating board for bay related user
conflicts.

Bay Management Authority: Beside providing the functions of a bay advisory
commiEttee, a mandated bay management authority would have the primary
charge of developing, refining and implementing a comprehensive management
plan for Tampa Bay using the concept of resource segmentation.

2-168

Issue #37 Marina Siting Policy

Issue Analysis: Florida's coastline, as well as the shorelines of the
s~tates's navigable lakes, rivers and streams represent extremely valuable
resources. These resources provide recreational opportunities for the
public, and are renewable in many ways. The increasing population of
recreational boaters utilizing Florida's coastal and inland waterways is a
major component of the state's growth. The coastal environment, however,
is limited in its capacity to support competing human activities without
some damage to the environment. Determining where marinas should be
located requires consideration of numerous, complex resource-related
issues, ranging from the destruction of sensitive coastal habitats to the
displacement of marinas by non-water dependent uses such as restaurants,
hotels, etc.

The Tampa Bay Region is presently one of the most rapidly growing areas
throughout the entire State of Florida. With its numerous rivers, bays and
barrier islands, the region contains over 750 miles of linear coastline,
and 31 of the 43 local governments incorporated within the region are
located along the coast. Consequently, the Tampa Bay Region, with its many
competing uses of, and demands upon, its diversified shorelines is facing
increasing marina siting pressures. This fact is well documented in the
City of Clearwater's Marina Facilities Element by statistics which show
that, of the 429 private and public slips in the city limits, 100 percent
are occupied year round, and waiting lists containing 213 names are
maintained.

The provision of new marina facilities, however, especially in Tampa Bay
proper, must be carefully balanced with environmentally-sound siting
policies. Rapid urban development has radically changed the character and
ecology of the Tampa bay estuary over the past three decades. For example,
studies have indicated that 44 percent of the original mangroves and
marshes have been destroyed, and 81 percent of the original seagrass beds
have disappeared (see issue #2). In addition, many of the tidal
tributaries entering Tampa Bay have been filled, hardened or channelized.
This habitat loss has resulted in declining populations of commercially-
valuable fish and shellfish, including a complete collapse of such
fisheries as those for scallops and oysters, and major declines for bait
shrimp and spotted sea trout (see issue #14). The principle impacts of
marina development upon the natural environment of Tampa Bay result from
the following:

� Physical destruction of natural marine and estuarine habitats including,
grass beds, tidal marshes and tidal mangrove swamps;

� Degraded water quality from heavy metals, nutrients, and oils and
greases in association with stormwater runoff from adjacent parking
facilities;

* ~* Short-term increases in water turbidity and associated loss of bottom
dwelling life when dredging occurs;

* Reduced tidal flushing of waters due to the construction of enclosed
basins and underwater obstructions such as pilings, boat hulls, etc.;

2-169

* Leaching of toxic contaminents from anti-fouling coatings on boats in
the marina;

* Acc~umulation of surface flotsam and oil slicks from engines in marina
basins; and

� hading of potentially productive bay bottom by docks, pilings and boat

A survey performed by the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council in 1984
indicated that relatively few of the 43 local governments contained within
the region have adopted specific ordinances or policies related to marina
development. In general, local regulations related to marina facilities
are limited almost entirely to zoning ordinances and building codes which
address upland development only. A more comprehensive and consistent
marina siting policy at the state level, or at least the regional level,
would help protect the vital aquatic resources of the bay and would lead to
a more predictable regulatory framework for prospective developers.

Relevant Laws and Statutes:

Chapter 161, Florida Statutes (Beach and Shore Preservation)
Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (Intergovernmental Programs)
Chapter 258, Florida Statutes (Aquatic Preserves)
Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (Environmental Control)
Chapter 373, Florida Statutes (Water Management Districts)

Bay Management Objectives:

1. Balance the provision of adequate marina facilities around Tampa bay
with the protection of water quality and valuable marine and estuarine
habitat.

Bay Management Recommendations:

1. The Department of Natural Resources should develop a comprehensive
statewide marina siting policy to be enforced through proper coordina-
tion with the Department of Environmental Regulation and, at the local
level, the Tampa Port Authority. The comprehensive marina siting
should include but not be limited to the following elements:

A. Land Use (Existing/Permitted)

1. Existing Zoning: Marinas should not be sited in areas where
local zoning specifically prohibits such uses. This policy
should not apply in those instances in which marinas are
unintentionally omitted from the list of permitted uses as
documented by the applicant.

2-170

2. Comprehensive Plans: Marinas facilities should not be located
in areas which are designated in a comprehensive plan approved
in accordance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, for land uses
which explicitly exclude marinas. This policy should not apply
in those instances in which a comprehensive land use plan has
not been approved in accordance with Chapter 163, F.S. Neither
should it apply to approved land use plans which do not include
marinas in any land use category, or which omit such facilities
unintentionally as documented by the applicant.

3. Existing Use: Preference should be given to sites which have
been previously disturbed, as opposed to sensitive natural
areas. Expansion of existing marina facilities should be
encouraged over the development of new facilities.

4. Surrounding Uses/Zoning: Special consideration should be given
to sites which would not conflict with the permitted land uses
or zoning of properties within a one thousand foot radius of
the site.

5. Non Water Dependent Uses: Facilities such as restaurants and
bait -and tackle shops should be situated on uplands, except
where the location of such facilities over public lands is
found to be clearly in the public interest, or where sensitive
upland natural systems are present.

B.Support Services (Utilities/Public facilities)

1. Adequate Uplands/access: Marinas proposed for state-owned sub-
merged lands should demonstrate that they have sufficient
upland area to accomodate all needed utilities and marina
support facilities. if insufficient uplands exist, or if
significant sensitive natural systems would be damaged by
siting of support facilities, adequate access to all needed
utilities should be demonstrated. Preference should be given
to facilities which provide parking areas which do not generate
excessive stormwater pollution.

2. Adequate Traffic Capacity: Applicants should demonstrate that
the adjacent area and on-site roadways have the capacity to
accommodate the projected number of customers.

3. Sewage Capacity: All new marinas should provide adequate
capacity to handle sewage in accordance with state standards,
either by means of on-site pump-out and treatment facilities or
connection to a treatment plant. Applicants should document
the availability and capacity of the above sewage facilities to
handle the anticipated volume of wastes. All marinas with
Is ~~~fueling facilities should provide pump-out facilities at each
fuel dock. Marinas which serve live-aboards or overnight
transient traffic should provide shower, restroom and sewage
treatment facilities at the dock. Facilities of 50 slips or
more should provide permanent pump-out facilities.

2-171

4. Spill Containment: All applicants should provide documentation
of their capability to respond as rapidly and effectively as
possible to contain any spills of petroleum or other hazardous
materials within the boundaries of leased area.

C. Resource Constraints (Environmental Considerations)

1. in the following sensitive areas, the applicant should be0
required to demonstrate that a marina is clearly in the public
interest before approval to build is granted:

* Aquatic preserves,

* Outstanding Florida Waters,

* Class I waters,

* Class II waters,

* Marine Sanctuaries,

* Estuarine Sanctuaries,

* Manatee Sanctuaries or Critical Manatee Habitats,

� Areas approved or conditionally approved by DNR for shellfish
harvesting,

* other highly productive and/or unique habitats as determined
by DNR, based on vegetation and/or wildlife species, and

� Areas designated on the Department of Community Affairs' Oil
Spill Sensitivity Atlases as sensitive to oil spills.

2. Hurricane Evacuation and Protection: Applicants should
document sufficient capacity to provide maximum practicable
protection of the contents of the proposed premises from
damages caused by wind and wave forces resulting from
hurricanes. Structures should comply with all applicable
coastal construction codes. Applicants should also demonstrate
the ability to evacuate persons and vessels by area roadways
(by documenting traffic capacities) and by area waterways.

3. Water Quality: A specific lease condition for any new,
renewed, or expanded docking facility for 50 or more boats
should be that the lessee shall maintain water quality
standards as provided by Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. To
assure compliance, the lessee should maintain a water quality
monitoring program approved by the Department of Environmental i
Regulation. Water quality data should be periodically reviewed
by DER. If it can be determined that the docking facility
and/or the riparian uplands are causing water quality

2-172

violations, then the lessee should be given written notice to
correct the problem within 120 days, then, on failure to do so,
the lease should be subject to cancellation by the Board with
the resultant removal of the docking facilities.

4. Water Depth: Preference should be given to docking facilities
in locations having adequate water depths to accommodate the
proposed boat use. A minimum water depth of 4-feet mean low
water should be required. Greater depths should be required
for those facilities designed for or capable of accommodating
boats having greater than a 3-foot draft. These depth
requirements shall also apply to the area between the proposed
facility and any natural or other navigation channel, inlet or
deep water. Where necessary, marking of navigational channels
may be required.

5. Access/dredging: Preference should be given to docking
facilities which require minimal or no dredging or filling to
provide access by canal, channel or road. This restriction
should also apply to widening or deepening any existing canal
or channel; but not to regular maintenance dredging and filling
to meet depth standards of existing canals or channels.
Preference should be given to marina sites adjacent to
naturally maintained channels.

6. Environmental Restoration: In reviewing applications for new
docking facilities, or for renewal of existing leased facili-
ties, an effort should be made to identify ways to improve,
mitigate or restore adverse environmental impacts caused by
previous activities. This may include shallowing dredged
areas, restoring wetlands, or submerged vegetation or making
navigable channels. Such mitigation or restoration could be
required as a condition of approval for new, renewed or
expanded facilities.

7. Cultural Resource Protection: Preference should be given to
facilities which demonstrate no adverse impact on archeological
or historic properties as defined by the Florida Department of
State.

8. Access Markers: Immediate access (ingress and egress) points
s~hould be delineated by channel markers, indicating speed
limits and~ any other applicable regulations.

9. Erosion Prevention: on sites with historically erosion-prone
shorelines, applicants should ensure that appropriate shoreline
protection measures (as determined by DNR and DER) will be
taken.

* ~D. Economic Considerations

1. Proximity to Population/Navigable Water Bodies: Preference
should be given to facilities which are within reasonable
travelling distance of a significant population of marina

2-173

users, as determined by DNR's Marina Needs Analysis, by roadway
and by waterway. Preference should also be given to facilities
which have access to a large navigable water body.

2. Economic Need: Priority should be given to facilities which
document significant economic need for the proposed facilities
at that site, based on methodology used in "Projections of
Marina Need by County", by Dr. Frederick Bell, submitted to the
Department of Natural Resources, Tallahassee on April 30, 1984.

3. Public Access: Preference should be given to facilities which
will be open to the public on a "first come, first served'
basis.

2. The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council should adopt the above cited
marina policy and implement it through its Chapter 163 and 380
statutory responsibilities.

3. The Department of Natural Resources should develop a variable lease fee
schedule for marina and other shoreline development on state owned
submerged lands. The intent and net result of a variable lease fee
would be to strongly discourage marina development in ecologically
sensitive or highly productive areas. in order to achieve this result,
the lease fee differential should not be tied exclusively to the
Aquatic Preserve designation, as was proposed by the Governor's Blue
Ribbon Marina Committee. The vast majority of environmentally-
sensitive submerged lands in the state are not defined or protected by
the aquatic preserve designation. In order to protect such lands from
destructive potential or marina development and related activities, it
is recommended that the lease fee schedule be applied differentially,
based upon an objective assessment of the ecological value and
sensitivity of the aquatic environment in question. The variable lease
fee might have a ceiling rate of ten times the then-existing base rate,
for extremely sensitive areas. If, however, local policies or
permitting criteria are more restrictive than the resulting state
guidelines, or prohibit marina development outright in certain areas,
the local process should take precedence over a state lease fee
schedule.

4. Monies derived from submerged land lease fees should be use to help
establish an Aquatic Preserve Management Fund within the Department of
Natural Resources. Although the DNR has a mandated responsibility to
develop and implement management plans for Aquatic Preserves around the
state, funding has historically been a problem in implementing this
program (see issue #8). The specific appropriation of at least a por-
tion of the funds derived from lease-fees should be seriously
considered as a viable alternative to correct this deficiency.

5. The Department of Natural Resources should draft a model marina siting
ordinance. As was determined in the TBRPC survey of existing local
regulations, many local governmental entities have no zoning ordinances
or building codes which specifically relate to marina development. As
a result of this lack of a regulatory framework, marina siting
decisions at the local level are usually made without adequate
consideration of the regional impacts involved in marina development.

2-174

To offset the regulatory discrepancies between local governments, it is
recommended that a model marina siting ordinance which incorporates
many or all of the protective provisions outlined in the above proposed
guidelines be prepared. The model ordinance should, however, be
flexible enough to allow many of the features of a site specific
approach. The drafting of a model ordinance for voluntary inclusion
into the regulatory framework of local governments would minimize both
the burden on local governments, and the delays in implementation. The
development of site specific building codes and special land use plans
for each separate coastal area requires expenditures of time and money
that many communities are either unable, or unwilling, to bear. Local
preparation and passage of such regulations, moreover, would entail
lengthy delays, leaving local governments with alternatives of either
imposing a moratorium on further marina development, or allowing
coastal property to remain unregulated during the interim.

6. In order to effectively establish a variable lease fee and a statewide
model marina siting ordinance it may be necessary to create a temporary
Marina Siting Commission. The responsibilities of such an entity could
be to establish a consistent, statewide basis for the assessment of
variable lease fees in environmentally sensitive areas of the state,
and to assess the appropriateness of marina development in those areas
based upon a rating system developed from the proposed state cons idera-
tions. The Commission' s objective in establishing a variable lease fee
schedule would be to develop and incorporate a set of scientifically
sound criteria for rating environmentally-sensitive areas in terms of
their ecological value. The degree of environmental-sensitivity, and
the subsequent appropriate intensity of marina development would thus
be reflected in the lease-fee schedule to be implemented locally. A
statewide atlas should be prepared which identifies the rated environ-
mentally-sensitive areas, and the resulting variable lease-fee zones.
It is suggested that the commission utilize, and model this proposed
atlas after, the Department of Community Affairs' Oil-Spill Sensitivity
Atlases. If, in localized cases, it was felt that the assessed lease
fee had been unreasonably derived, the commission would also serve as
an adjudicatory board to handle direct appeals.

in addition, the Marina Siting commission could be assigned the tasks
of developing a statewide model marina siting ordinance, and
coordinating its site-specific inclusion into the local regulatory
framework where it is presently inadequate. It is suggested that, in
the preparation of this ordinance, current permitting processes at the
state and local level be thoroughly reviewed to ensure consistency with
overall marina siting objectives, and to avoid excessive regulatory
duplication.

Work Element 37-1: The Legislature should designate a temporary Marina
Siting Commission. The above stated responsibilities could possibly be
assumed by the existing Marine Fisheries Commission, or delegated to a
division of the Department of Natural Resources. The proposed siting
commission should include membership from local regulatory agencies
having jurisdiction over significant acreage of submerged lands
throughout the state. In the Tampa Bay Region, the Tampa Port
Authority and the Pinellas County Water and Navigational Control

2-175

Long-Term Management Alternatives:

1. Status Quo: The above cited recommendations could be adequately
implemented under the present regulatory framework through proper
coordination between Department of Natural Resources, the Department of
Environmental Regulation, the Legislature and local regulatory
agencies.

2. Bay Advisory Committee: A standing bay advisory committee within the
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council could provide effective interagency
coordination, as well as detailed review and monitoring of all major
marina development proposals around Tampa Bay.

3. Bay Management Authority: A mandated bay management authority could
potentially assume part or all regulatory responsibilities for
implementing and enforcing the above stated marina siting program in
the Tampa Bay region.

2-176

Issue #38 Construction of New Skyway Bridge Pier Protection System

Issue Analysis: During the scoping process for the Skyway Bridge project a
joint Florida Department of Transportation/Department of Environmental
Regulation Committee of Hydrologists for the Study of the Sunshine Skyway
Bridge Pier Protection System was established. As a result of testimony
and deliberation during a meeting held on August 19, 1983, the Committee
identified ten hydraulic/hydrologic issues of concern relative to the
placement of the pier protection system, the accepted Alternative A, in
Tampa Bay. The Committee again deliberated the issues and additional
testimony was received during meetings on August 31 and September 28, 1983.
A fourth meeting was held on July 27, 1984 to evaluate results of numerical
and physical models that were designed to provide additional information
relative to many of the identified concerns. Committee recommendations
were finalized at the July 27 meeting. Following are brief descriptions of
each identified concern, relevant findings, and recommended actions.

CONCERN 1

STATEMENT: The animal and plant communities associated with areas of high
tidal marsh and salt barrens are dependent on the existing frequency of
inundation by high spring-tide water levels. Construction of the pier
protection islands may cause enough additional hydraulic resistance to
water flowing into Tampa Bay to significantly reduce high, spring-tide
water levels and negatively impact the high marsh communities.

FINDINGS: Numerical modeling results indicate that the pier protection
islands may cause a reduction in spring-tide water levels of 0.01 foot
or less in tidal marsh areas. Analysis of long-term tidal records in
Tampa Bay and the eastern Gulf of Mexico show an increasing trend in sea
level of about 0.006 foot per year that should completely offset the
computed minimal effect due to the island in one or two years.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action needs to be taken regarding this concern.

CONCERN 2

STATEMENT: The pier protection islands will cause velocity increases in
the ship channel between the two central islands of Alternative A.
Velocity increases will also occur between the island pairs on each side
of the ship channel. These velocity increases could cause navigational
problems for commercial and recreational vessels.

FINDINGS: Numerical modeling has indicated that maximum ebb spring-tide
velocities are likely to increase from 4.5 to 7.0 feet per second (2.7
to 4.1 knots) in the ship channel due to the pier protection islands.
Physical modeling has indicated an increase from 3.8 to 5.2 feet per
second (2.2 to 3.1 knots). Both models also show similar increases in
the openings between each island pair. The Committee believes the
numerical model results are more realistic. Testimony by members of the
Tampa Bay Pilots Association, tugboat captains, and U.S. Coast Guard
representatives indicated that maximum velocities computed with the
island in place, 7.0 feet per second, should pose no navigational
problem for large ocean-going ships. Large ocean-going tub/barge
combinations will be more affected than ships but should still be navi-

2-177

gationally safe. Smaller, less-powerful tug/barge combinations, parti-
cularly in a towing rather than pushing configuration, were said to be
more navigationally sensitive to high velocities and therefore could
experience problems. The Committee has been unable, as yet, to schedule
a tug/barge trip under the Sunshine Skyway during high velocity condi-
tions to gain firsthand experience with which to make a more informed
decision regarding navigationally safe velocities.

Testimony was also given indicating that recreational boats would have
no difficulty handling the increased velocities. Navigational problems
for recreational boaters could occur, however, due to lack of awareness
of localized regions of high velocity.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Two actions are suggested. Agencies responsible for
navigational safety should be requested to analyze the potential for
navigational problems with low-powered tug/barge combinations during
maximum ebb, spring-tide velocities. An educational program should be
undertaken to inform the recreational-boating public about localized,
high-velocity areas near the pier protection islands.

CONCERN 3

STATEMENT: An abrupt change in direction of water flow relative to the
ship channel is navigationally undesirable. Placement of pier protec-
tion islands may sufficiently deflect the direction of water flow or
cause large eddies that could adversely affect navigation.

FINDINGS: Physical modeling results have shown that the direction of water
flow in the ship channel between the islands is largely controlled by
the presence of the ship channel itself. Alignment of the pier protec-
tion islands either with the ship channel or with the predominant flow
direction has little effect on current speed on direction within the
channel. With either island alignment, however, flow directions are
significantly altered and current speeds are increased in localized
areas near the islands. Physical modeling results have shown that the
rounded corners of the islands limit the size of eddies so the ship
channel is not affected. Eddies are shown to occur in localized areas
near the islands and could create problems for uninformed recreational
boaters.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action needs to be taken regarding alignment of the
pier protection islands. The educational program for recreational
boaters, recommended under Concern 2, should include reference to rapid
changes in flow direction and occurrence of eddies near the islands.

CONCERN 4

STATEMENT: The existence of pier protection islands will cause flow
changes in the vicinity of the islands. Flow changes may hinder island
repair or vessel retrieval after collision with an island.

FINDINGS: No testimony was presented that suggested possible excessive
hindrance to tugs or construction equipment that might be used to
extricate a gounded vessel or repair a damaged island.

2-178

RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action needs to be taken regarding this concern.

CONCERN 5

STATEMENT: The potential for environmetal damage due to oil spills near
the mouth of Tampa Bay is recognized. Probably oil dispersion patterns
have been computed and results reported for conditions without pier
protection islands. Computed oil dispersion patterns may be
significantly different with the islands in place.

FINDINGS: The pier protection islands were found to have very limited
influence on tidal flow conditions a few thousand feet away from the
islands. The dispersion of oil is primarily controlled by wind forces
and secondarily by tidal forces. There is no evidence or testimony to
suggest that oil dispersion patterns with the pier protection islands
will be substantially different than the computed patterns without the
islands.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action needs to be taken regarding this concern.

CONCERN 6

STATEMENT: Construction of pier protection islands will reduce the flow
cross-section at the bridge location by about 10 percent. This reduced
cross-section could cause adverse changes in tidal characteristics in
Tampa Bay. These changes may be counteracted by removing some of the
existing causeway.

FINDINGS: The findings given under Concern 1 are applicable here and
indicate very minor tidal effects caused by reduced flow cross-section.
Additional numerical modeling results also show that removal of two,
one-half mile segments of existing causeway will have negligible effects
on the tide and would not serve to offset the minor changes caused by
the islands.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action needs to be taken regarding this concern.

CONCERN 7

STATEMENT: Construction of pier protection islands will cause changes in
erosion and deposition of bottom sediment near the islands. Erosion may
cause destabilization at the base of the islands. Eroded sediment may
deposit in the ship channel and cause a need for additional maintenance
dredging.

FINDINGS: Methods for determination of changes in sediment erosion and
deposition in tidally-affected waters are not well developed. Physical
and numerical modeling as well as analytical approaches all have limita-
tions and drawbacks. Changes in island design have been made to provide
protection from erosion at their base. Results of physical modeling
indicate that pier protection islands should not cause increased sedi-
ment deposition in the ship channel. The Committee has strong reserva-
tions, however, concerning adequacy of the techniques used to physically

2-179

simulate sediment motion. Numerical modeling results indicate little
difference between sediment deposition patterns with and without the
pier protection islands.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action needs to be taken regarding this concern.
The Committee suggests, however that state-sponsored research be under-
taken to develop a greater understanding of sediment transport dynamics
in tidal waters, particularly as it is impacted by man-made structures.

CONCERN 8

STATEMENT: Pier protection islands may create unanticipated or unreported
navigational hazards.

FINDINGS: Numerical and physical model results given under Concerns 2 and
3 are applicable here.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: The actions given under Concerns 2 and 3 are
applicable here.

CONCERN 9

STATEMENT: The construction of pier protection islands near the mouth of
Tampa Bay may change the characteristics of a hurricane-created storm
surge.

FINDINGS: Results of numerical modeling indicate that storm surge heights
computed with the islands generally varied between + 0.05 foot of the
heights computed without the islands. These differences are considered
insignificant. Small velocity increases of between 0.10 and 0.50 foot
per second in the vicinity of the islands were computed. These velocity
increases were also considered insignificant.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action needs to be taken regarding this concern.

CONCERN 10

STATEMENT: Tide-induced circulation and constituent flushing of Tampa Bay
could be changed by construction of pier protection islands. These
changs could cause long-term increases or decreases in the concentration
of most waterborne constituents.

FINDINGS: Circulation, patterns computed by two different numerical
modeling systems were compared and found to agree very well. This
comparison tends to confirm that computed circulation is real. Results
of numerical modeling of circulation patterns both with and without pier
protection islands indicate only local diferences in the vicinity of the
islands. The differences are not considered sufficient to cause long-
term changes in Tampa Bay constituent concentrations.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action needs to be taken regarding this concern.

2-180

Relevant Laws and Statutes:

The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (Section 10)
Coastal Zone Management Act
Chapter 161, Florida Statutes (Beach and Shore Preservation)

Bay Management Objectives:

1. Minimize all potential navigational hazards as well as
hydrological/biological impacts on Tampa Bay resulting from the
construction of the Skyway Bridge pier protection system.

Bay Management Recommendations: The Tampa Bay Management Study Commission
supports the recommended actions of the Committee of Hydrologists.

1. The U.S. Coast Guard auxiliary should analyze the potential for
navigational problems with low-powered tug/barge combinations during
maximum ebb, spring tide velocities.

2. The U.S. Coast Guard and local Power Squadron groups should coordinate
to implement an educational program to inform the recreational-boating
public about localized, high velocity areas near the pier protection
islands.

3. The Florida Department of Transportation should install signs on the
bridge piers and along the pier protection system warning boaters of
high current velocities and shears.

4. The Florida Department of Transportation should undertake further
studies of sediment transport dynamics in tidal waters, particularly as
it is impacted by man-made structures.

Long-Term Management Alternatives:

1. Status Quo: The above cited recommendations could be adequately
implemented under the existing regulatory framework by the U.S. Coast
Guard Auxiliary, the Florida Department of Transportation and the
Department of Environmental Regulation.

2. Bay Advisory Committee: A standing bay advisory committee could
provide additional federal/state/local coordination towards the
implementation of the above stated recommendations.

3. Bay Management Authority: Besides providing an inter-agency coordi-
native function, the establishment of a bay management authority would
not serve any further purpose with regard to this issue.

2-181

issue #39 Extension of 49th Street (St. Petersburg) across Old Tampa Bay

issue Analysis: Upon construction of a bridge linking McMullen Booth Road
to-49th Street North, these two facilities would provide a continuous
arterial connection between St. Petersburg and rapidly developing northeast
Pinellas County (see figure 2.21). If completed, this minor arterial would
serve as a high level alternative to travel on U.S. Highway 19, and would
help to relieve much of the congestion on that facility. in addition, by
reducing traffic congestion this arterial would contribute to a reduction
in localized air pollution problems (Pinellas County is presently
designated as a non-attainment area for ozone and total suspended
particulates) as well as to local energy conservation iniatives (petroleum
products). Thus, public pressure to construct a 49th Street bridge will
expectedly increase in the future.

Public opposition expressed thus far to the construction of this facility
is based on both environmental and aesthetic concerns. These concerns
include:

* The construction of either a causeway or pier structure would destroy
potentially productive bay bottom, and would reduce tidal circulation in
the vicinity of the bridge. The degree of these impacts would, however,
be significantly greater for a causeway structure.

* The construction of bridge approaches would result in the destruction of
valuable wetland habitat;

� Wildlife utilizing the surrounding habitat would be seriously disturbed;

* Stormwater runoff from the bridge would increase pollutant loads to Old
Tampa Bay; and

* The bridge's appearance, as well as the generated traffic noise, would
be aesthetically disturbing to local residents.

� There is no conclusive evidence that a significant volume of north-south
traffic would be diverted to the McMullen-Booth - 49th Street alignment
as a result of the presence of this bridge structure; and

* There is no conclusive evidence that this bridge could be financially
self-supporting based upon diverted traffic volumes to the facility.

The construction of 'this facility is projected in the Unincorporated
Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan (Sector 6), as well as in the Long Range
Plan of the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). In
addition, it is the only project in the MPO plan with a stated prerequisite
for full scale environmental and financial feasibility studies.

in accordance with the MPO plan provision, Pinellas County has performed
initial environmental and financial feasibility studies. These studiesS
concluded that a pier structure was the preferred design for environmental
reasons. However, it was also concluded that the facility was not
financially feasible as a bonded project.

2-182

*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. . . ....

IT~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~.......

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

-]~~~~~-8

0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~------------

Relevant Laws and Statutes:

Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1962.
Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (Intergovernmental Programs)
Chapter 335, Florida Statutes (Transportation Planning).

Bay Management Objectives:

1. Minimize the adverse environmental and aesthetic impacts associated
with extension of 49th Street North in the Largo Inlet area of Old
Tampa Bay.

Bay Management Recommendations:

I.. Pinellas County should continue to seek upland alternatives to the
construction of a 49th Street Bridge in order to ease north-south
traffic congestion (i.e. overpasses for major intersections on Highway
19).

2. In the event that upland alternatives to the construction of a 49th
Street Bridge are not feasible, a commitment should be obtained from
Pinellas County and the Florida Department of Transportation that the
final design consist of a pier supported structure rather than a cause-
way system.

3. The MPO and Pinellas County should retain the provision in the year
2000 Long Range Plan that affirmative financial feasibility and
environmental impact studies be completed and approved before the
project can be considered for implementation.

Work Element 39-1: The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, through
it's Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act (Chapter 163, Florida
Statutes) and IC&R review responsibilities, should encourage the imple-
mentation of above stated recommendations.

Long-Term Management Alternatives:

1. Status Quo: Final design criteria for the 49th Street Bridge would
have to comply with all relevant federal, state and local environmental
regulations. The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council through its
existing review responsibilities, could further coordinate with
Pinellas County and the MPO towards the resolution of bay management
concerns if the project does adequately meet the provision of the MPO
plan and is considered for implementation.

2. Bay Advisory Committee: Bay management concerns, would be more
effectively expressed and incorporated into these criteria if a
standing bay advisory committee within the Tampa Bay Regional Planning
Council was in existence to more effectively coordinate with the
various agencies involved during the planning and permitting process.

3. Bay Management Authority: A mandated bay management authority could
potentially assume the review responsibility and permitting authority
for all dredging and filling activities proposed for the tidal waters
of Tampa Bay.

2-184

Issue #40 Sailboat Launching

Issue Analysis: A baywide recreational survey completed by the Tampa Bay
Management Study Committee in 1982 indicated that there was an unsatisfied
public demand for non-powered vessel launching areas around Tampa Bay.
Several popular areas for the launching of small sailboats such as Hobie
Cats have been altered to restrict such activities. In most cases, rock
rip-rap has been placed along the shorelines as erosion control measures.
However, in many instances, small beach areas along the bay could remain or
be developed to provide launching space. Noted in the survey was the need
to provide such additional space along the Courtney Campbell and Gandy
Bridge Causeways.

Often as a result of this lack of public access recreational boaters have
attempted to launch vessels in areas unsafe for such use. Vessel damage
and personal injury have resulted from masts striking power lines and from
collisions with submerged hazards. This issue, however, is actually a
component of the more general problem of adequate public access around
Tampa Bay (see issue #19).

Relevant Laws and Statutes:

Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (Intergovernmental Programs).

Bay Management Objectives:

1. Maximize recreational usage of Tampa Bay through the provision of
adequate public access for the safe launching of non-powered vessels.

Bay Management Recommendations:

1. The Department of Natural Resources, Division of Recreation and Parks,
should establish policies requiring consideration of alternative
launching areas as a part of funding programs and plan approvals for
new parks, coastal construction and marina siting.

2. The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council should adopt recreational
policies requiring the provision of adequate safe public access to
Tampa Bay for the launching of non-powered vessels. These policies
should be incorporated into the regional policy plan and implemented
through the Council's Chapter 163 and 380 statutory responsibilities.

3. In light of the fact that wet slip supply will probably never meet
demand in the Tampa Bay area local governments should be encouraged to
provide new safe boat launching facilities in lieu of additional wet
slips wherever feasible. The conversion of abandoned marina frontage
should also be considered for this purpose.

Long-Term Management Alternatives:

1. Status Quo: The above stated objective could be satisfactorily
accomplished under the existing regulatory framework, through amended
state recreational policies, and through the implementation of local
comprehensive plans and capital improvement programs.

2-185

2. Bay Advisory Committee: A standing bay advisory committee within the
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council could effectively assist in the
coordination of local and regional programs leading to the
implementation of the above cited recommendations.

3. Bay Management Authority: A mandated bay management authority could
potentially assume all overview and permitting responsibilities for
waterfront and marina development. such an authority could be very
effective in coordinating with other state and federal agencies with
the purpose of providing adequate recreational facilities in
association with large waterfront projects such as the proposed
widening of the Courtney Campbell Causeway.

2-186

Issue #41 Odor Along Bayshore Boulevard

Issue Analysis: It has been reported as far back as 1928 that noxious
odors have been occasionally present along the west shore of Hillsborough
Bay. Thus, at the request of local authorities and the Florida State Board
of Health, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (FWPCA)
initiated extensive field and laboratory investigations in Hillsborough Bay
in June of 1967. The objectives of these studies were: to identify and
quantify key sources of waste in Hillsborough Bay and to determine their
effect on water use; to determine the cause or causes of noxious odors in
Hillsborough Bay; and to recommend means of modifying conditions in
Hillsborough Bay to eliminate the causes of obnoxious odors and make
possible other desirable uses.

As a result of these studies the following conclusions were made.
Obnoxious odors along the western shore of Hillsborough Bay are the result
of the death and decay of the marine algae, Gracilaria. There are two
odors: a nauseating vegetative odor occurring predominantly at McDill Air
Force Base from Gracilaria deposited on beaches and shorelines and; an
intense hydrogen sulfide odor occurring predominantly along the upper
western shore north of MacDill as a result of anaerobic decay of Gracilaria
in shallow waters. The immediate causative agent in the death and decay of
the benthic algae is freshwater from the Hillsborough River part of which
is diverted along the western shore during high flow periods primarily
occurring during August and September. When freshwater flow in the
Hillsborough River exceeds 2,400 cfs, chloride concentrations along the
western shore are reduced below 6 g/l which is the salinity stress point
for Gracilaria. Poor flushing along the western shore tends to keep the
chloride concentration reduced thereby accelerating the death process.
Dissolved oxygen is used up during decay of the Gracilaria and hydrogen
sulfide is produced.

Waste discharges from point sources do not produce the odor problem
directly. In fact, Gracilaria is tolerant to degraded water quality.
However, waste effluents and excessive nutrient concentrations create the
water quality conditions whereby Gracilaria can flourish at the expense of
a number of other plant species that would produce a healthy diversified
ecosystem if water quality were improved. Therefore, the contribution of
nutrients and organic wastes to Hillsborough Bay is the ultimate cause of
the obnoxious odors along the western shore of Hillsborough Bay.

The excessive growths.of phytoplankton in the Bay are primarily the result
of the extremely high concentrations of phosphate and higher than desirable
concentrations of total nitrogen in the Bay. The cause of these concentra-
tions is the effluents generated from the phosphate processing plants on
the Alafia River, the Tampa sewage treatment plant (Hookers Point), U.S.
Phosphoric Products Company, the Nitram Chemical Company and water hyacinth
control practices. Because of the massively excessive phosphate concentra-
tions in Hillsborough Bay, it is concluded that the biological plant system
is limited by available nitrogen. A high percentage reduction of available
nitrogen as well as phosphorous would help to limit the growth of aquatic
vegetation.

2-187

Low dissolved oxygen in Hillsborough Bay is the result of the discharge of
inadequately treated effluent from the City of Tampa sewage treatment
plant. There is also a substantial demand on the oxygen resources of the
Bay from organic benthic material which accounts for the excessively low
dissolved oxygen values at the deeper levels. The principal sources of
these benthic deposits are the solids inflow from the Hillsborough and
Alafia Rivers, the discharge of the Tampa sewage treatment plant and the
settling of phytoplankton and other organisms.

Although the patterns of pollution and water quality degradation, as well
as the complexities of the ecological system in Hillsborough Bay, were
defined in these earlier studies little has been done since to truly
rectify the problems. Even though the Hookers Point sewage treatment plant
was upgraded during the 1970's these problems have persisted. Further,
while water contact recreational activities are still feasible in many
other parts of Tampa Bay, presently degraded water quality, caused by the
untreated and inadequately treated waste sources listed above, continue to
preclude these desirable uses in Hillsborough Bay.

Relevant Laws and Statutes:

National Environmental Policy Act
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (Environmental Control)

Bay Management Objectives:

1. Reduce the input of inorganic nutrients and inadequately treated
organic wastes into Hillsborough Bay.

2. Increase hydrologic flushing along the western shore of Hillsborough
Bay.

Bay Management Recommendations:

1. No specific recommendations are made with regard to odor along Bayshore
Boulevard as this issue is considered to be only a symptom of the more
generalized problem of eutrophication in Tampa Bay.

Long-Term Management Alternatives: The generalized problem of eutrophi-
cation in Tampa Bay is intimately related to many other previously
identified bay management issues including: #3 Non-Point Source Discharges
Entering Tampa Bay, #4 Spoil Disposal and Management of Spoil Islands, #7
Control of Septage Waste, #10 Municipal and Industrial Discharges, #13
Wasteload Allocation for Tampa Bay, and #20 Load Relief for Major Sewage
Treatment Plants. Because of the numerous contributing causes, as well as
the magnitude and complexity of potential solutions, eutrophication
probably presents the greatest threat to the overall ecological integrity
of Tampa Bay.

1. Status Quo: Presently, no single federal, state or local agency is
organized, equipped or committed to dealing effectively with the multi-
faceted problem of eutrophication in Tampa Bay. To do so will require
a regional, multi-jurisdictional effort involving a great deal of
intergovernmental coordination and cooperation

2-188

2. Bay Advisory Committee: A standing bay advisory committee within the
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council could effectively provide the
needed interagency coordination to undertake a large scale multi-
jurisdictional nutrient control program for the Tampa Bay watershed.

3. Bay Management Authority: A mandated bay management authority could
assume all development, management and regulatory responsibilities for
a bay-wide nutrient control program.

2-189

Issue #42 Manatee River Derelict Train Trestle

Issue Analysis: Located just east of the U.S. Highway 41 bridge crossing
the Manatee River lies an old, partially submerged train trestle bridge,
which is no longer in use (see figure 2.22). Two major pollution sources,
including effluents from the Tropicana processing plant and the City of
Bradenton's wastewater treatement plant, discharge into the Manatee River
just upstream of this structure. Initial concerns were raised regarding0
the effects of this structure on tidal flushing and the resulting impacts
on water quality. Preliminary hydrological modeling studies have indicated
that the trestle does not affect the tidal amplitude (flushing volume), but
does appear to impede the tidal period (flushing time) in this portion of
the river. In addition, benthic studies have indicated that the structure
may be acting as a sediment trap. In general, the sediments upstream of
the trestle contain significantly more sediment oxygen demand, and signi-
ficantly fewer organisms, than those downstream of it (Mote Marine
Laboratory, 1983).

The actual hydrological impacts of the derelict trestle are difficult to
ascertain as there are presently three other functioning bridge structures
downstream of it. These include the U.S. Highway 41 bridge, the Seaboard
Coastline Railroad bridge and the Green Bridge. A fourth bridge east of
the existing Green Bridge is also presently under construction. in addition
to the problems created by these structures several large borrow pit holes
still exist along the north bank of estuary, and the Corps of Engineers is
scheduled to begin dredging for the purpose of deepening and realigning the
main channel. Decisive action regarding the derelict trestle is further
clouded by strong public pressure by recreational fishing groups to retain
the structure as an artificial reef. in conclusion, this issue is more
complex than the problems associated exclusively with the derelict trestle.
Future bay management efforts should more appropriately be focused on the
cumulative hydrological and biological impacts of all existing and proposed
structures and dredge/fill alterations in this segment of the Manatee River
estuary.

Relevant Laws and Statutes:

Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (Environmental Control)
Chapter 161, Florida Statutes (Beach and Shore Preservation)

Bay Management Objectives:

1. Balance transportation and recreational demands with water quality
considerations in the Manatee River estuary.

2. Maximize circulation and tidal flushing in the Manatee River estuary.

3. Wherever feasible, achieve and maintain Class II water quality

standards.

2-190

N :.... . ..

~~~~~~~~~~~..~........
N -~~~~~~ ~ ~~~...-.. . ...

........~~~., ..

~~~~I.. .... . .....

....~~~~~~~. . ...

. .......

~~~~~~~~IL

4~~ -m

2-1 1 1
----------

Bay Management Recommendations:

1. Existing hydrological and biological data should be used to model the
cumulative impacts of all existing and proposed structures and altera-0
tions on the Manatee River estuary.

Work Element 42-1: The Department of Environmental Regulation should
use teiformation generated from the Manatee River wasteload
allocation study for this purpose. The resulting data base should be
used to assess cumulative impacts, and to develop appropriate and
effective mitigation strategies for future dredge and fill projects in
this segment of the Manatee River estuary.

2. if hydrological and biological studies warrant such action, the
Department of Natural Resources, pursuant to Section 161.053(c)(5),
Florida Statutes, should remove the derelict trestle. This action
should be coordinated with the Manatee County Sea Grant program with
regard to the potential use of rubble for the construction of
artificial reefs elsewhere.

Long-Term Management Alternatives:

1, Status Quo: The monitoring and eventual resolution of this particular
issue will require efficient interagency coordination. The Department
of Environmental Regulation is currently developing water quality based
effluent limits for discharges under present conditions. in addition,
the Department of Environmental Regulation will be reviewing permit
applications for the dredging and filling involved in the above
referenced projects. The Department of Natural Resources does have
statutory authority to remove the derelict trestle, but only if it is
shown to be a "public nuisance'. However, under this alternative it is
unlikely that a coordinated overview of the situation would occur.

2. Bay Advisory Committee: A standing bay advisory committee within the
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council could effectively coordinate
interagency activities leading towards the mitigation of the
cummulative hydrological/biological problems occurring in the Manatee
River estuary.

3. Bay Management Authority: Besides providing the same coordinative role
stated above, a mandated bay management authority could develop and
administer the proposed cummulative impact sutdy as well as potentially
assume the permitting authority for all dredge/fill activities proposed
for the tidal waters of the Tampa Bay estuarine system.

2-192

C. References

Courser, W.D., and R.R. Lewis III. 1975. Avian populations of McKay Bay.
Tampa Audubon Society and Save Our Bay, Inc., unpublished report. 16pp.

Field, R.A. A. Tafuri and H. Masters. 1977. Urban runoff pollution
control technology overview. U.S. EPA-600/2-77-047. Cincinnati, OH.

Is* Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. 1984. Wasteload
allocation study, Tampa Bay, Florida; Volume IV-nutrient box model.
Prepared by Center for Mathematical Studies, Civil Engineering and
Mechanics, University of South Florida.

Florida Department of Natural Resources. 1984. A survey of public
estuarine knowledge in Charlotte and Lee Counties. MGT - Market Research
Inc., Tallahassee, FL. 39 pp.

Goodwin, C.R. Personal Communication. U.S. Geological Survey, Tampa, FL,
September 5, 1984.

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 Report 84-447.

Gude, R.H. 1977. Preliminary study of the chromium, copper and lead
concentrations in selected residents of Upper McKay Bay. Tampa Port
Authority unpublished report. 111 pp.

Guist, G.G. and H.J. Humm. 1976. Effects of sewage effluent on growth of
Ulva lactuca. Fla Scientist 39(4):267-271.

Hamilton, S.F. 1984. Estuarine mitigation, the Oregon process. Division
of State Lands, State of Oregon. Salem. 60 pp.

Hoffman, W.E., M.J. Durako and R.R. Lewis. 1985. Habitat restoration in
Tampa Bay, Floria. Proc. 1982 Tampa BASIS Symposium, May 1982, in press.

Huber, W.C., P. Heaney, K.J. Smolenyak and D.A. Aggidis. 1979. Urban
rainfall - runoff quality data bank: update with statistical analysis.
U.S. EPA-600/8-79-004. Washington, D.C.

Lewis, R.R. 1977. Impacts of dredging in the Tampa Bay estuary, 1876-
1976. Pp. 31-55 in E.L. Pruitt (ed.), Proc. Second Ann. Conf. Coastal
Society. The Coastal Society, Arlington, VA.

Lewis, R.R. III, and W.D. Courser. 1972. McKay Bay: past, present and
future. Save Our Bay, Inc., and Tampa Audubon Society, unpublished
report. 57 pp.

Lewis, R.R., M.J. Durako, M.D. Moffler and R.C. Phillips. 1985.
Seagrass meadows of Tampa Bay - a review. Proc. Tampa Bay Area Scienti-
fic Information Symposium, May 1982, in press.

Lewis, R.R. and E.D. Estevez. In press. The ecology of Tampa Bay: an
estuarine profile. USFWS #84110-0378-83.

2-193

McClelland, S. 1984. Draft Tampa Bay 205(j) Water Quality Impact Study.
Bureau of Water Analysis, Fla. Dept. of Environmental Regulation,
Tallahassee.

Moon, R.E. Personal Communication. Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation, Southwest District Office, Tampa, FL. September 5, 1984.

Morgan, D.R., Ross, B.E., and Ross, M.A., 1984. A tidal and water quality
study for the Courtney Campbell Causeway one-way tidal gates,
Hillsborough County, Florida: University of South Florida, 101p.

Mote Marine Laboratory. 1983. Manatee River water quality survey. Final
report submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
for the Manatee River intensive survey documentation, Water Quality Tech.
Ser. 84, Vol. I, 1984. Tallahassee.

Paul, R.T. and G.E. Woolfenden. 1985. Current status and recent trends in
bird populations of Tampa Bay. Proc. Tampa BASIS Symposium, May 1982, in
press.

Rice, S.A. 1984. Biological and chemical studies on the impact of
stormwater runoff upon the biological community of the Hillsborough
River, Tampa, Florida. Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, FL. Final
report submitted to Stormwater Management Division, Department of Public
Works, City of Tampa.

Rice, J.D., R.P. Trocine and G.N. Wells. 1983. Factors influencing
seagrass ecology in the Indian River lagoon. Fla. Scientist 46(3/4):
276-286.

Ross, B.E. and P.D. Jerkins. 1978. Computer simulation of nutrients in
Tampa Bay, Florida. Structures, Materials, and Fluids Department,
College of Engineering, University of South Florida. Tampa.

Santos, S.L. and J.C. Simon. 1980. Response of soft bottom benthos to a
catastrophic disturbance in a South Florida estuary. Mar. Ecol. Prog.
Ser. 3: 347-355.

Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. 1978. Areawide water quality
management plan for the Tampa Bay region. TBRPC, St. Petersburg, FL.

Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. 1982. Tampa Bay recreational survey.
In: Tampa Bay management study, 1983. TBRPC, St. Petersburg, FL.

Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. 1983. Tampa Bay management study.
TBRPC, St. Petersburg, FL.

Taylor, J.L. and C.H. Saloman. 1968. Some effects of hydraulic dredging
and coastal development in Boca Ciega Bay, Florida. U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service, Fish. Bull. 67(2): 213-241.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1982. 1980 National Survey of fishing,
hunting, and wildlife - associated recreation: Florida. U.S. Government
Printing Office 380-997/2368. Washington D.C.

2-194

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Results of the nationwide
urban runoff program; Volume I - Final Report. Water Planning Div.,
Wash. D.C. NTIS #PB84-185552.

Wanielista, M.P., et al. 1981. Stormwater Management Manual. Department
of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science, University Central
Florida, Orlando. Prepared for Florida Department of Environmental Regu-
lation. 141 pp.

Williams, S.L. and C.P. McRoy. 1982. Seagrass productivity: the effect of
light on carbon uptake. Aq. Bot. 12:321-344.

1-195

CHAPTER 3

A. Synthesis of Issues

During the process of review of the 42 previously identified bay management
issues it became clear to members of both the Science/Engineering and
Planning/Management Subcommittees that each priority issue did not
represent a singular, discrete problem. Rather, many of the issues were
found to be either symptoms of, or components of, larger, more generalized
problems. In recognition of this fact, and in an effort to simplify the
interpretation of the problems facing Tampa Bay, the Commission attempted
to categorize each issues under a minimal number of major problem headings.
In December of 1984 the Commission approved-the final reorganization of
all priority bay management issues under five major problem categories as
shown below.

1. Water Quality Improvement

a. Eutrophication

#2 Loss of Seagrass in Tampa Bay
#3 Non-Point Source Discharges Entering Tampa Bay
#4 Spoil Disposal and Management of Spoil Islands
#7 Control of Septage Waste
#10 Municipal and Industrial Discharges
#12 Study and Management of Tidal Creeks and Rivers
#13 Wasteload Allocation for Tampa Bay
#20 Load Relief for Major Sewage Treatment Plants
#21 Water Quality Improvement for Recreational Uses
#22 Stormwater Detention Requirements for Redevelopment
#41 Odor

b. Hazardous/Toxic Waste Management

#3 Non-Point Source Discharges Entering Tampa Bay
#5 Hazardous Waste Disposal and Management
#7 Control of Septage Waste
#10 Municipal and Industrial Discharges
#13 Wasteload Allocation for Tampa Bay
#15 Gypsum Field Decommissioning

c. Improvements to Circulation

#4 Spoil Disposal and Management of Spoil Islands
#12 Study and Management of Tidal Creeks and Rivers
#33 Improvements to Bridge Facilities Crossing Tampa Bay
#35 Water Quality Improvements Using Tidal Gates
#38 Construction of New Skyway Bridge Pier Protection System
#42 Manatee River Derelict Train Trestle

3-1

2. Habitat Protection and Restoration

#2 Loss of Seagrass in Tampa Bay
#4 Spoil Disposal and Management of Spoil Islands
#8 Aquatic Preserves
#9 Seagrass Marsh and Mangrove Habitat Creation
#11 Stronger State Wetlands Regulation
#24 McKay Bay Management Plan
#27 Hendry Fill Restoration Project
#28 Contingency Planning for Post-Hurricane Acquisition of Habitat
#29 Mitigation Banking
#30 Management of Bower Tract and Adjacent Wetlands
#31 Management of Passage Key
#32 Management and Restoration of Shorelines in Boca Ciega Bay
#34 Channel A Restoration

3. Fisheries and Shellfish Management

#6 Enforcement
#14 Assessment of Fishery Stocks in Tampa Bay
#16 Commercial and Sport Fishing Regulation
#25 Shellfish Classification
#26 Power Plant Entrainment
#36 User Conflicts and Limits on Activities

4. Development and Use of the Bay

#18 Public Education
#19 Urban Waterfront Development and Public Access
#21 Water Quality Improvement for Recreational Uses
#36 User Conflicts and Limits on Activities
#37 Marina Siting Policy
#38 Construction of New Skyway Bridge Pier Protection System
#39 Extension of 49th Street (St. Petersburg) Across Tampa Bay
#40 Sailboat Launching

5. Legal Framework for Comprehensive Management

#1 Funding
#6 Enforcement
#8 Aquatic Preserves
#11 Stronger State Wetlands Regulation
#16 Commercial and Sport Fishing Regulation
#17 Documenting the Economic Importance of Tampa Bay
#18 Public Education
#23 Review of Rules and Regulations
#29 Mitigation Banking

3-2

B. Legislative Work Plan

During their review of the 42 priority bay management issues, the
Commission developed numerous general and specific recommendations for
addressing each problem. Recommendations included local actions; state
agency directives; and, in many instances, legislative amendments,
initiatives and funding allocations. The following work plan outlines the
0 ~~major legislative actions recommended by the Commission for consideration
by the Florida Legislature during the 1985 session. Recommended actions
are appropriately organized under the five major problem categories for
Tampa Bay listed above and include citations for the implementing
agency(s), estimated funding needs, and target completion dates, wherever
applicable. In addition, the page on which the specific recommendation is
discussed in the issue brief text is cited for cross reference. During the
development of this work plan it was understood by the Commission that all
economic costs to public and private entities could not be considered.

1. Water Quality Improvement

a. Eutrophication: The over-enrichment of a body of water with
nutrients like phosphorous a nitrogen results in a number
predictable a characteristic water quality conditions. Acute algal
a phytoplankton blooms take place which increase turbidity and
shade the seagrasses below. As the massive quantitities of algae
begin to break down dissolved oxygen is severely depleted,
especially near the bottom. Low dissolved oxygen can lead to
localized fish kills, or can completely defaunate an entire area of
bay bottom. The shading effect over time will also destroy the
seagrasses below, by reducing critical light levels.
Eutrophication is well documented in Tampa Bay, especially in the
upper reaches of Hillsborough Bay and Old Tampa Bay. The causes of
this problem are equally well documented and understood. They
include excessive discharges of inadequately treated sewage, and
stormwater runoff from surrounding urban and residential areas. A
broad scale, multi-faceted nutrient control program for the entire
Tampa Bay watershed is needed to circumvent this problem.

Recommended Implementing Target Funding Reference
Action Agency(s) Date Needs Page

Amend Chapter 17-25, F.A.C., DER 1985 N/A 2-23
to require the construction SWFWMD
of stormwater discharge
facilities on all parcels
subject to redevelopment.

Allocate additional funds for SWFWMD 1985 -2-24
improved compliance moni- DER
toring and enforcement of
stormwater pollution controls
in the Tampa Bay region.

3-3

Recommended Implementing Target Funding Reference
Action Agency(s) Date Needs Page

Amend Chapter 17-25, F.A.C., SWFWMD 1985 N/A 2-24
to require an additional DER
fifty percent level of
treatment for stormwater
management facilities
discharging into Class III
waters of Tampa Bay.

Allocate funds for a state- DER 1987 $400K 2-25
wide two-year public aware-
ness campaign regarding the
causes of water pollution
with special emphasis on non-
point source contributions.

Allocate additional funds for DER 1988 $270K 2-61
compliance monitoring and
enforcement of point source
discharges into Tampa Bay.

Allocate funds for the DER 1990 $1,000K 2-82
refinement and completion of
the Wasteload Allocation
Study for Tampa Bay.

Mandate the enforcement of DER 1985 N/A 2-81
advanced wastewater treatment
for municipal discharges into
Tampa Bay until the Wasteload
Allocation Study is complete.

Initiate regional or statewide DER 1985 N/A 2-110
legislation, to be implemented
locally, requiring developers
to purchase sewage treatment
capacity rights, and pro-
hibiting the issuance of an
interceptor permit unless the
municipality can demonstrate
adequate treatment capacity.

3-4

b. Hazardous/Toxic Waste Management: The degree of hazardous/toxic
waste pollution in Tampa Bay is not well documented. Furthermore,
the impacts of such pollutants on the living resources of the bay
are even less understood. It is known that high levels of heavy
metals, especially lead, do occur in the water column and sediments
of certain portions of the bay, but the sources of these
contaminents are often difficult to identify. The phosphate
industry discharged large quantities of acids and radionuclides
into the bay, the effects of which need to be assessed.

Recommended Implementing Target Funding Reference
Action Agency(s) Date Needs Page

Initiate legislation in- DER 1985 -2-42
creasing the three percent
tax levied on annual gross
receipts of commercial
hazardous waste facilities.

Allocate funds for increased DER 1985 -2-42
monitoring and verification Local
of hazardous waste gener- Governments
ators.

Allocate funds for a two-year DER 1987 $500K 2-42
study to determine the
sources, quantities, distri-
butions, impacts and fates of
major toxic contaminants in
Tampa Bay.

Amend Chapter 403.7234, F.S., Regional 1985 -2-43
to allow counties to utilize Planning
regional planning councils Councils
for performing annual
hazardous waste generator
surveys.

Initiate legislation trans- DER 1985 N/A 2-50
f erring the responsibility HRS
for the regulation and
monitoring of septic tanks
and commercial septage waste
services from HRS to DER.

Allocate funds for a DER 1986 -2-50
investigation of commercial
septage waste disposal
practices in the Tampa Bay
area.

3-5

c. Improvements to Circulation: The construction of numerous causeway
structures, the dredging of deep-draft navigational channels, the
deposition of spoil material islands, and the impoundment of
freshwater flows have significantly altered the natural tidal prism
and circulation patterns of Tampa Bay. The major effect has been
to reduce tidal flushing, thus increasing the retention time of
pollutants and exacerbating other water quality problems.

Recommended Implementing Target Funding Reference
Action Agency(s) Date Needs Page

Allocate funds for the DER 1987 $150K 2-165
construction of a tide gate USGS
system along the Courtney-
Campbell Causeway.

2. Habitat Protection and Restoration: Much of the natural fish and
wildlife habitat of the Tampa Bay estuarine system has been lost over
the past century. Shoreline development, and dredging and filling have
been responsible for the destruction of 44% of the original marsh and
mangrove acreage in the bay while water quality degradation has led to
the loss of 80% of the original seagrass beds. These habitat losses
have contributed significantly to declining fishery yields in the bay.
Recent efforts have demonstrated that intertidal habitat can be
effectively restored or created, whereas much study is needed to deter-
mine the critical requirements of seagrasses.

Recommended Implementing Target Funding Reference
Action Agency(s) Date Needs Page

Allocate funds for a compre- DER 1990 $825K 2-17
hensive monitoring, research DNR
and restoration effort for
seagrasses in Tampa Bay.

Allocate funds for the perma- DNR 1990 $550K 2-54
nent staffing of management
personnel for the Pinellas,
Cockroach Bay, and Terra Ceia
Aquatic Preserves.

Initiate legislation desig- DER 1985 N/A 2-53
nating the Terra Ceia Aquatic
Preserves an Outstanding
Florida Water.

3-6

Recommended Implementing Target Funding Reference
Action Agency(s) Date Needs Page

Initiate legislation DNR 1985 N/A 2-53
extending the boundaries of
the Terra Ceia Aquatic
Preserve to include Passage
Key National Wildlife Refuge.

Mandate the establishment of DER 1986 2-53
ambient water quality stan-
dards for all OFW areas in
Tampa Bay.

Amend Chapter 403.904, F.S., DER 1985 2-65
to authorize promulgation of
special, more stringent,
dredge and fill rules for all
tidal waters of Tampa Bay, to
be defined as an "other
resource management area".

Allocate funds for the DER 1989 $220K 2-134
restoration of the Hendry DNR
fill site.

Amend Chapter 259, F.S., to DNR 1985 N/A 2-140
give highest priority to the
state acquisition of newly
formed, extensively altered
or undeveloped coastal
habitat.

Initiate enabling legislation DER 1985 N/A 2-143
allowing for the creation of TPA
local habitat mitigation banks COE
wherever feasible.

3-7

3. Fisheries and Shellfish Management: Major declines have been observed
for spotted seatrout, red drum and bait shrimp in Tampa Bay over the
past three decades, while prior to that, once thriving scallop and
oyster fisheries in the bay completely collapsed. Much of the blame
for declining fishery yields in Tampa Bay has been attributed to the
loss of suitable habitat, and the concurrent degradation of water
quality. However, in the cases of spotted seatrout and red-drum,
overfishing may have contributed significantly. Nevertheless,
fisheries data for Tampa Bay is badly lacking, and will be needed to
more efficiently manage economically important fishery stocks.

Recommended Implementing Target Funding Reference
Action Agency(s) Date Needs Page

Initiate legislation re- DNR 1985 N/A 2-12
quiring all saltwater sport
fisherman to annually
purchase a marine recre-
ational fishing license.

Allocate funds for compre- DNR 1988 $1,067K 2-84
hensive program of fisheries
research, monitoring and
regulation for all valued
stocks in Tampa Bay.

Initiate legislation consoli- DNR 1986 N/A 2-97
dating and standardizing all MFC
local fishing laws and
regulations.

Initiate legislation placing DNR 1985 N/A 2-97
statewide size and bag limits MFC
on commercially and recre-
ationally harvested spotted
seatrout and red drum.

Allocate funds for the DNR 1990 $600K 2-128
establishment of a shellfish
sanitary survey team in the
Tampa Bay area.

3-8

4. Development and Use of the Bay: Tampa Bay is a highly urbanized
estuary which supports a number of waterfront and water dependent uses.
Shoreline development and recreational use of the bay have placed
demands upon the natural systems and aesthetic values of the bay.
Careful comprehensive planning will be needed to preserve these values
as the Tampa Bay area continues to grow.

Recommended Implementing Target Funding Reference
Action Agency(s) Date Needs Page

Allocate funds for a local TBRPC 1986 $20K 2-103
public awareness/education DNR
campaign regarding the
environmental values of Tampa
Bay.

Amend Chapter 163, F.S., to TBRPC 1985 N/A 2-107
require Coastal Zone elements DCA
of local government compre-
hensive plans to specify
waterfront zoning require-
ments and design standards.

Initiate legislation creating DNR 1985 N/A 2-174
a State Marina Siting Com-
mission to develop a state-
wide marina siting ordinance
and a variable lease fee
schedule for marina develop-
ment on environmentally
sensitive submerged lands.

Initiate legislation es- DNR 1986 N/A 2-174
tablishing an Aquatic
Preserve Management Trust
Fund using funds derived from
submerged land lease fees.

3-9

5. Legal Framework for Comprehensive Management: Under the present
regulatory framework, comprehensive management of Tampa Bay is not
accomplished. Greater interagency coordination, consolidation of
regulatory programs, representation by a broader range of interests and
a long-term source of adequate funding are needed.

Recommended Implementing Target Funding Reference
Action Agency(s) Date Needs Page

Amend Chapter 211.3103, F.S., TBRPC 1985 N/A 2-13
to distribute 1% of the 3-14
annual revenue of the
Phosphate Severance Tax for
each of the next 5 years to
the Tampa Bay Regional
Planning Council to fund the
Agency on Bay Management.

Appoint a special legislative DER 1985 N/A 2-12
committee to investigate the DNR 2-13
adequacy of existing funding
and staffing levels for all
agencies involved in major
environmental programs
involving Tampa Bay. This
committee should also
reorganize the distribution
of monies of various
appropriate trust funds to
the area from which they were
collected.

Amend Chapter 84-447, L.F., TPA 1985 N/A 2-38
to allow for fair representa-
tion from scientific,
environmental and fishing
interests on the board of the
Tampa Port Authority.

Allocate funds for a study TBRPC 1986 $150K 2-101
documenting the economic
importance of the Tampa Bay
estuary to the region and
state.

Allocate funds for a study to TBRPC 1987 $40K 2-116
identify and analyze gaps and
overlaps in all existing
federal, state, regional and
local laws and regulations
affecting the management of
Tampa Bay.

3-10

Recommended Implementing Target Funding Reference
Action Agency(s) Date Needs Page

Contingent upon the -1986 N/A 3-12
strengthening of state and
regional planning legis-
0 ~~lation, initiate legislation
enabling the creation of a
Tampa Bay Management
Authority with taxing and
regulatory powers.

3-11

C. Long-Term Management Recommendations

Tampa Bay, as defined above, is bordered by three counties and 17
municipalities. Management responsibility for the bay's shoreline,
submerged land, open water and associated living resources is currently
divided among these local governments as well as numerous federal, state
and regional agencies and authorities. There is no single agency with the
legislated authority to implement a long-term unified management program
for Tampa Bay. As a result, regulatory decisions are often made on a
problem-specific and/or site-specific basis, and management of Tampa Bay as
a holistic natural resource has heretofore not taken place.

Recognizing this regulatory fragmentation the Tampa Bay Management Study
Commission evaluated the potential effectiveness of various long-term
management alternatives in relation to each of the specific bay management
issues under review. The objective of this effort was to reach a consensus
regarding which of the various management/regulatory scenarios would result
in the most effective implementation of the recommended bay management
plan. The long-term management alternatives under consideration included
the following:

* Implementation under the status quo or existing regulatory framework;

� Appointment of a resource planning and management committee pursuant to
Chapter 380.045, Florida Statutes;

* Creation of a mandated bay management authority; and

* Continuation of a bay advisory committee within the Tampa Bay Regional
Planning Council.

Status Quo

Under the status-quo alternative, implementation of the recommended bay
management plan would most likely result from state agency action in
response to legislative directives and appropriations. Although individual
elements of the work plan could potentially be accomplished under such a
scenario, it is highly unlikely that any one agency would take a lead role
in directing and coordinating the overall bay management program.
Regulatory responsibility and jurisdictional accountability would remain
fragmented and the inertia of the consensus building process leading to a
unified management approach to the bay would probably come to a halt.

it is for these reasons that the Tampa Bay Management Study Commission
concluded that some sort of working group should continue to convene on a
regular basis. At a minimum such a group could perform advisory and
coordinative roles which would aid existing agencies in the partial
implementation of the recommended bay management plan. At a maximum such a
body could assume certain regulatory functions from existing agencies in an
effort to consolidate permitting procedures under a more unified bay0
management approach. Regardless of how much authority a working group
could assume, the most important function such a body could provide would
be a mechanism for mediating past, present and future conflicts between
competing interests for the use of the bay's resources.

3-12

Bay Management Authority

The creation of a mandated bay management authority, empowered with
regulatory capabilities, has no legal precedent in the State of Florida.
However, enabling legislation for similar regional authorities involved in
natural resource management throughout the state does exist. For example,
Florida Statutes Chapter 373.1962, passed in 1974, encouraged municipali-
ties and counties to enter into cooperative agreements leading to the
Is ~creation of regional water supply authorities for the purpose of managing
water for county and municipal purposes in such a manner as to reduce the
adverse environmental effects of excessive or improper withdrawals of water
from concentrated areas. This legislation also gave authorities the power
to levy ad valorem taxes, acquire water and water rights, exercise eminent
domain, and issue revenue bonds. In the Tampa Bay area, the West Coast
Regional Water Supply Authority is the functioning product of this
legislation.

Similarly, Florida Statutes Chapter 315 provides the basis for the
operation of port authorities in the state. Besides general powers
relating to port operations, the Tampa Port Authority, by virtue of a
special legislative act passed in 1944 (consolidated under Chapter 84-77,
Laws of Florida), holds title to all submerged lands in Hillsborough
County, and regulates dredge and fill activities in said waters.

Nationally, the concept of an empowered bay management authority is
not without legal precedent. Established in 1965, the San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) was the first
intergovernmental committee created to manage a coastal resource in the
United States. The BCDC was originally given a four-year life span and was
assigned the task of preparing a bay management plan for San Fransisco Bay.
In 1969 the Commission was granted permanent status and three major areas
of responsibility leading to the implementation of the bay management plan
including: 1) permitting authority for all filling, dredging and changes
in existing uses on the bay; 2) veto power over any significant development
activity within 100 landward feet from the shoreline; and 3) jurisdiction
over any proposed filling of salt ponds and other wetlands adjacent to the
bay.

Many benefits can be cited for development of a similar regional bay
management authority for Tampa Bay. Probably foremost among these benefits
would be the consolidation and subsegment streamlining of certain environ-
mental permitting programs for proposed activities in and around the bay.
Examples of the types of resource management responsibilities that such an
authority could assume include: sewage disposal and other point source
discharges to the bay; stormwater management systems involving tidal
waters; dredge and fill activities in the bay; shoreline development;
aquatic preserve management; mosquito control projects; classification of
sanitary shellfishing areas; and habitat restoration projects. Presently,
these programs are managed by an array of state, regional and local
agencies. Local assumption and consolidation of these programs under one
umbrella authority would streamline the permitting process for all
potential users of the bay and, more importantly, would result in a more
unified management overview of the Tampa Bay estuarine system as a holistic
natural resource.

3-13

In addition, consolidated ownership of all bay bottoms by a single
regulatory authority would greatly simplify the regulatory framework and
would significantly augment management capabilities for Tampa-Bay. This
concept is consistent with the primary approach to resource management
programs employed at the state level where outright ownership is usually
the case. The "Save Our Rivers,' and CARL programs are relevant programs.
An authority which owns title to the submerged lands under Tampa Bay would
be able to affect every resource management decision occurring within the
bay either through overview with veto power or through direct regulatory
authority. The most significant of these would be dredge and fill
activities, in particular, the creation, improvement and maintenance of
navigational channels. Finally, under such a scenario the accountability
for the success or failure of the bay management program would reside
essentially in one agency.

Political arguments against the establishment of a Tampa Bay management
authority with regulatory powers, however, remain quite strong. The
proposal is still primarily viewed by many powerful interests around the
bay, as adding "another layer of bureaucracy" to an already complex and
sluggish environmental permitting system. It is for this reason that the
Tampa Bay Management Study Commission decided against the recommendation of
immediately establishing an empowered bay management authority, even though
the majority of members felt that, in the long-term, this alternative would
be needed to effectively accomplish all stated bay management goals and
objectives.

It was further noted that the recommendation of such an authority carries
with it significant political risk. The movement towards a unified regional
management program for Tampa Bay has gained considerable inertia over the
past few years, and many of the more discrete bay management objectives can
probably be achieved in the absence of such an authority. Recommending the
establishment of an empowered bay management authority will likely mobilize
considerable political opposition which may threaten those accomplishments
made to date, and those that can be made in the future. Furthermore, it
was felt that such an authority would probably have to evolve slowly, first
by establishing credibility through accomplishments gained via all
available mechanisms, and second by gradually asssuming responsibilities
delegated from other agencies.

Resource Planning and Management Committee

The 1979 amendment to the critical areas component of Chapter 380 requires
that a resource planning and management committee (RPMC) be appointed and
operate in the study area for a minimum period of six months prior to any
formal designation of an area of critical state concern (ACSC). Within one
year after the time of its appointment, the RPMC must report the results of
its study on growth management issues in the resource management study
area. Past committees have usually developed resource management plans or
programs for the area under study. These plans identify resource
management issues, develop implementation strategies for resolving problems
and identify the state agencies or local entities which should have respon-
sibility for implementing the recommended strategies.

3-14

In reviewing the structure and function of a RPMC, the Tampa Bay Management
Study Commission concluded that it had essentially served the same role,
and had developed an equivalent final product, as would a RPMC. To
recommend that a RPMC be appointed for the Tampa Bay area was viewed as a
duplicative effort that would probably result in the loss of time during
which implementation of the already recommended work plan could be
initiated. In addition, it was noted that, like the Commission, a RPMC is
Is an advisory group in nature and has no real authority under the law to
enforce its recommendations or to require active participation by local
governments. Although the threat of formal ACSC designation is the
leverage upon which the RPMC must rely, experience with implementation of
the critical areas program has shown this lever to be one of little
influence.

Since the real strength of the RPMC approach lies in the consensus-
building nature of a working group, it was concluded that similar results
could be obtained more expeditiously through the efforts of an expanded
version of the existing Tampa Bay Management Study Commission. Although a
RPMC is essentially an advisory group, it does have legal standing and a
formal role through state planning legislation. To be effective the
proposed working group would need to have a similar role, a formal
structure, and comparable legal credibility as would a RPMC.

Bay Advisory Committee

To best meet the above stated requirements of an effective working group,
as well as the immediate need for continuing a comprehensive bay management
program, the Tampa Bay Management Study Commission concluded that a
formally structured advisory group within the Tampa Bay Regional Planning
Council would represent the most feasible long-term management alternative
at this time. The proposed committee would be served by a permanent staff
and would have policy, review and planning authority. The committee,
however, would not have any direct regulatory authority. The establishment
of such a committee in the State of Florida has precedence in the case of
the Biscayne Bay Management Committee, which was created by a Dade County
ordinance as a committee of the County Commission.

The following elements represent the general recommended structure of the
proposed advisory group:

1. The advisory group should be entitled the Agency on Bay Management,
hereby referred to as the Agency.

2. The Agency should be formalized via the adoption of rules and
procedures pursuant to Chapter 120.53, Florida Statutes. Said rules
and procedures should be included into the formal organizational
structure of the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council pursuant to
Chapter 29H-1.05, Florida Administrative Code.

3. The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council should make available a renew-
able sourde of funds, at an initial level of $25,000.00 per annum, to
provide support for staff functions and other activities leading to the
refinement and/or implementation of the bay management plan.

3-15

4. The Agency should continue to seek state and federal funds, and other
outside grants, to supplement staff functions and to undertake other
studies, projects and efforts leading to the refinement and/or
implementation of the bay management plan.

5. The Agency should consist of no more than 40 members to be appointed by
the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council to include but not be limited
to the following groups:

a. The Florida Senate representing the Tampa Bay Region.

b. The Florida House of Representatives representing the Tampa Bay
Region.

c. Environmental interests in the Tampa Bay Region.

d. Commercial interests in the Tampa Bay Region.

e. industrial interests in the Tampa Bay Region.

f. Science and academic interests in the Tampa Bay Region.

g. Recreational interests in the Tampa Bay Region.

h. Hillsborough, Manatee, and Pinellas Counties, respectively.

i. The Tampa, Manatee and St. Petersburg Port Authorities.

j. The Cities of St. Petersburg and Tampa.

k. Two other municipalities bordering Tampa Bay.

1. The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council.

m. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

n. The National Marine Fisheries Service.

o. The Florida Department of Natural Resources.

p. The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation.

q. The Florida Department of Community Affairs.

r. The Florida Department of Transportation.

s. The Southwest Florida Water Management District.

t. The Tampa Bay Region at large.

6. The members of the Legislature appointed to the Agency should
participate in the activities of the Agency to the extent that such
participation is not incompatible with their respective positions as
members of the Legislature.

3-16

7. The members of the Agency should serve without compensation.

S. The chairman of the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council should
designate the chairman and vice-chairman of the Agency.

9. Every attempt should be made to ensure a geographic balance of regional
representation in the Agency.

10. The Agency should strive to improve the comprehensive management of
Tampa Bay among business, environmental, and public interest organiza-
tions and individuals. To this end the powers and duties of the Agency
should be as follows:

a. The Agency should meet at times and places as it may deem proper.
Every effort should be made to meet bi-monthly at a minimum.

b. The Agency as a body, or as a subcommittee composed of one or more
members, should hold hearings at such times and places as it may
deem proper.

c. The Agency should cooperate with, and secure the cooperation of,
all affected municipal, county and other local agencies in
implementing the recommended bay management plan.

d. The Agency should cooperate with, and secure the cooperation of
every relevant department, agency, or instrumentality in the state
government including but not limited to the Department of Natural
Resources, the Department of Environmental Regulation, the Depart-
ment of Community Affairs and the Southwest Florida Water Manage-
ment District in implementing the recommended bay management plan.

e. The Agency should cooperate with, and secure the cooperation of
every relevant department, agency, or instrumentality in the
federal government including but not limited to the National Marine
Fisheries Service, the United States Army Corps of Engineers and
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in implementing the
recommended bay management plan.

f. The Agency should serve to monitor and coordinate the existing
regulatory programs and studies of all federal, state, regional and
local agencies involved in management of Tampa Bay.

g. The Agency should serve a secondary function to the Tampa Bay
Regional Planning Council as its Natural Resources Technical
Advisory Committee.

h. The Agency should serve as a liaison between the Tampa Bay Regional
Planning Council and other environmental agencies, organizations
and interest groups.

0 ~~~i. The Agency should recommend an annual environmental management work
program to the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council.

3-17

j. The Agency should develop a regional environmental resources
library and information system within the Tampa Bay Regional
Planning Council.

k. The Agency should publish an annual state-of-the-bay document
highlighting new issues, problems and progress in the comprehensive
management of Tampa Bay.

1. The Agency should sponsor a regional environmental conference
annually, emphasizing growth management and natural resource issues
in the Tampa Bay area.

m. The Agency should operate a public speakers bureau addressing bay
management issues.

It is recognized that the ultimate success of the recommended Agency on Bay
Management within the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council will be dependent
upon the overall strengthening of state growth management legislation. As
such, this recommendation is contingent upon the following proposed
fortification of state, regional and local growth management laws and
statutes:

1. The state should adopt an authoritative system of incentives and
disincentives as a means of assuring consistency between, and enforcing
compliance with, state, regional and local comprehensive plans so as to
be consistent with the bay management program proposed herein. This
system should include but not be limited to:

a. Special consideration in state financial assistance for natural
resource management and protection (e.g., land acquisition funds,
sewage treatment construction grants, etc.);

b. Special consideration in state environmental permitting and
regulatory programs (e.g., more stringent dredge and fill permit
criteria in special resource management areas); and

c. State assumption of local government controls, pursuant to Chapter
380, F.S., wherever existing local controls have proved to be
inadequate.

2. The role of regional planning councils in growth management functions
should be strengthened, especially with regard to bay management.

3. Strong minimum criteria for the content of regional comprehensive plans
should be established.

4. The recommended bay management program contained herein should be
incorporated into the Tampa Bay regional, and state, comprehensive
plans wherever applicable. i

3-18

5. The state comprehensive plan should be required to include the
findings, provisions and recommendations of all Resource Planning and
Management Committees, and other established special resource
management committees including the Tampa Bay Management Study
Commission.

6. in the absence of significant strengthening of state growth management
legislation in the near future, the Tampa Bay Management Study
Commission recommends that the Legislature initiate the development of
enabling legislation for the establishment of a Tampa Bay Management
Authority as referenced on page 3-12.

3-19

APPENDIX-A

LAWS OF FLORIDA . CHAPTER 70-524

Became a law without the Governor's approval.
Filed in Office Secretary of State July 2, 1970.

CHAPTER 70-524
House Bill No. 4727

AN ACT creating the Tampa Bay conservation and development
study commission; prescribing the membership, appointment,
powers, duties, and expiration of the commission; providing
an effective date.
Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
Section 1. Declaration of policy.-The legislature hereby finds
and declares that it is imperative to define the public interest in
Tampa Bay and that the effects of further filling of Tampa Bay
on navigation, fish and wildlife, and air and water pollution of
the bay region be determined. The legislature, therefore, declares
that it is in the best interests of the people of the state, and
particularly the people of the Tampa Bay area, that a Tampa
Bay conservation study commission be created to study these
matters and report thereon to the legislature. The legislature
further declares that the functions of the Tampa Bay conserva-
tion study commission are of an advisory nature and shall not
be construed to abrogate or supersede the functions of the
legislature or of the duly constituted planning agencies of local
government.
Section 2. Definition of Tarnmpa Bay.-
(1) For the purpose of this act, Tampa Bay includes the
water areas from the north end of the bay to the Gulf of
Mexico line and, specifically, the marshlands (land lying between
mean high tide and the top of the barnacle line); tidelands (land
lying between mean high tide and mean' low tide); and submerg-
ed lands (those lands which are not subject to tidal action); and
tributaries.
(2) The definition of Tampa Bay provided in this section is
merely for the purpose of prescribing the authority of the
commrission created by this act. The definition shall not be

1459

A-1

CHAPTER 70-524 LAWS OF FLORIDA

construed to affect title to any land or to prescribe the bound-
aries of Tampa Bay for any purpose except the authority of the
commission created by this act.
Section 3. Tampa Bay conservation and development study
commission.-
(1) The Tampa Bay Conservation and Development Comrnmis-
sion is hereby created. The commission shall consist of ten (10)
members to be selected as follows:
(a) One (1) senator representing Hillsborough county to be
selected by the senators representing Hillsborough county.
(b) One (1) senator representing Pinellas county to be select-
ed by the senators representing Pinellas county.
(c) One (1) senator representing Manatee county.
(d) One (1) member of the house of representatives represent.
ing Hillsborough county to be selected by the members of the
house of representatives representing Hillsborough county.
(e) One (1) member of the house of representatives represent.
ing Pinellas county to be selected by the members of the house
of representatives representing Pinellas county.
(f) One (1) member of the house of representatives represent-
ing Manriatee county to be selected by the members of the house
of representatives representing Manriatee county.
(g) One (1) member of the board of county commissioners
from each of the respective boards of county commissioners for
Hilisborough, Pinellas and Manatee counties to be appointed by
the chairmen of the respective boards of county commissioners.
(h) The chairman of the Tampa Bay regional planning coun-
cil.
(2) The members of the legislature appointed to the commis-
sion shall participate in the activntiei of the commission to the
extent that, such participation is not incompatible with their
respective positions as members of the legislature
(3) The members of the commission shall serve without cornm-
pensataon but each of the members shall be reimbursed for
expenses incurred in the performance of official duties in accor-
dance with section 112.061, Florida Statutes.

1460

A-2

LAWS OF FLORIDA CHAPTER 70-524

(4) The commission shall select by majority vote from its
membership a chairmnnan and a vice-chairman.
(5) The time and place of the first meeting of the commis-
sion shall be prescribed by the chairman of the Tampa Bay
regional planning council, but in no event shall it be scheduled
for a date later than ten (10) days after the effective date of
this act.

Section 4. Powers and duties of the commission.-

(1) The commission shall undertake a study designed to ascer-
tain the public interest in Tampa Bay, and shall report thereon
to the legislature not later than the fifth legislative day of the
1971 regular session, together with recommended legislation de-
fining the public interest in Tampa Bay and recommended legis-
lation for protecting such public interest.

(2) The commission shall also undertake a study of the ef-
fects of further filling of Tampa Bay on navigation, fish and
v-ildlife, and air and water pollution, and of the regional needs
of the future for the bay region, and shall report thereon to the
]eislature not later than the fifth legislative day of the 1971
regular session of the legislature.
(3) It is the express intention of the legislature that this
commission and every aspect of it shall expire as of the date on
whlch the last report is submitted to the legislature.

(4) In carrying out its duties and responsibilities, the commis-
sion shall have all of the following powers:
(a) To meet at such times and places as it may deem proper.
(b) As a body or, on the authorization of the commission, as
a subcommittee composed of one (1) or more members, to hold
hearings at such times and places as it may deem proper.
(c) To administer oaths.
(d) To employ, pursuant to laws and regulations governing
state civil service, a secretary and such clerical, legal, and techni-
cal assistants as may appear necessary.
(e) To employ an executive secretary.

1461

A-3

CHAPTER 70.524 LAWS OF FLORIDA

(f) To contract with such other agencies, public or pnvate, as
it deems necessary, for the rendering and affording of such
services, facilities, studies and reports to the commission as will
best assist it to carry out its duties and responsibilities.
(g) To cooperate with and to secure the cooperation of coun.
ty, city, city and county, and other local agencies in investigat-
ing any matter within the scope of its duties and responsibiities.
(h) To cooperate with every department, agency, or instru.
mentality in the state government, including but not limited to
the department of natural resources, the department of air and
water pollution control, the department of transportation, and
the game and fresh water fish commission; and to secure directly
from every department, agency, or governmental unit full co.
operation, access to its records, and access to any information,
suggestions, estimates, data, and statistics it may have available.
(i) To cooperate with any other state or local agency which is
engaged in making developmental studies in the bay and sur-
rounding regions.
(j) To cooperate with the United States Army Corps of Engi-
neers and the Department of the Interior.

(k) To authorize its agents and employees to absent them.
selves from the state when necessary for the performance of
their duties.

(1) The Commission may select necessary consultants to serve
at its pleasure. Said consultants may accept grants from the
federal government or from other public or private agencies and
use such funds for the purposes set forth in this act.
(m) To do any and all other things necessary or convenient
to enable it fully and adequately to perform its duties and w
exercise the powers expressly granted it.

(5) The legislature recognizes the current efforts of the Tam-
pa Bay regional planning council in the field of regional planning
in the Tampa Bay area, and the commission is requested to
cooperate with the Tampa Bay regional planning council in
making its studies under this act so as to avoid duplication of
efforts.

1462

A-4

LAWS OF FLORIDA CHAPTER 70-526

Section 5. This act shall take effect July 1, 1970.
Became a law without the Governor's approval.
Filed in Office Secretary of State July 2, 1970.

CHAPTER 70-525
House Bill No. 4803
AN ACT relating to circuit courts; providing for appointment by
governor of a census comnmittee pursuant to section 26.011,
Florida Stt.utes, to determine population of the seventeenth
judicial circuit; providing for the expenditure of county funds
for the conduct of such census; providing an effective date.
Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
Section 1. There shall be appointed by the governor a census
commission as provided by section 26.011, Florida Statutes, to
determine the population of the seventeenth judicial circuit in
its relation to the number of circuit judges permitted by law.
Section 2. The board of county commissioners of Broward
County is authorized and directed to pay all reasonable expenses
and costs incident to the taking of said census and the execution
of this act from any county funds not otherwise appropriated.
Section 3. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law.
Became a law without the Governor's approval.
Filed in Office Secretary of State July 2, 1970.

CHAPTER 70-526
House Bill No. 5178
AN ACT relating to protection of marine turtle eggs; repealing
chapter 61.-744, Laws of Florida, which provides for taking
such eggs for personal use at certain times in counties having
a population of not less than four thousand five hundred
fifty-five (4,555) and not more than four thousand six hun-
dred (4,600), according to the latest official decennial census;
providing an effective date.

1463

A-5

Agenda item #6
6/11/84
ENROLLED

SB 755 First Engrossed

I A bill to be entitled

2 An act relating to Hillsborough, Manatee, and

3 Pinellas counties; creating the Tampa Bay

4 Management Study Commission; prescribing the

5 membership, appointment, powers, duties, and

6 expiration of the commission; providing an

7 effective date.

9 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:

11 Section 1. Declaration of policy. --The Legislature

12 hereby finds and declares that it is imperative to define the

13 public interest in Tampa Bay and that the environmental and

14 economic assets and opportunities made possible by Tampa Bay

15 be enhanced and protected. The Legislature, therefore,

16 declares that it is in the best interests of the people of the

17 state, and particularly the people of the Tampa Say area, that

IS a Tampa Bay Management Study Commission be created to study

19 these matters and report thereon to the Tampa Bay Regional

20 Planning Council. The Legislature declares that the functions

21 of the Tampa Bay Management Study Commission are of an

22 advisory nature and shall not be construed to abrogate or

23 supersede the functions of the Legislature, Tampa Bay Regional

24 Planning Council, or of the duly constituted planning agencies

25 of local government.

26 Section 2. Definition of Tampa Bay.--

27 (1) For the purpose of this act, Tampa Bay includes

28 the water areas from the north end of the bay at the

29 transition of shoreline vegetation from tidal to freshwater

30 'forms south to the water areas of the bay that touch the

31 northwesternmost point of Snead Island and west to the

1 755

CODING: Wordsi n so kthag type are deletions from existing low; words underlined are additions.

A-6

SB 755 First Engrossed

1 northernmost point of Anna Marie Island. Tampa Bay

2 specifically includes the marshlands, defined as land lying

3 between mean high tide and the top of the barnacle line;

4 tidelines, defined as land lying between mean high tide and

5 mean low tide; and submerged lands defined as those lands

6 which are not subject to tidal action; and tributaries. The

7 upland limit is that line above which terrestrial land forms

8 and vegetation occurs.

9 (2) The definition of Tampa Bay provided in this

10 section is merely for the purpose of prescribing the authority

12 of the commission created by this act. The definition shall

12 not be construed to affect title to any land or to prescribe

13 the boundaries of Tampa Bay for any purpose except the

14 authority of the commission created by this act.

15 Section 3. Tampa Bay Management Study Commission.--

16 (1) The Tampa Bay Management Study Commission is

17 hereby created. The commission shall consist of between 15

18 and 20 members to be appointed by the Tampa Bay Regional

19 Planning Council as follows:

20 (a) One member of the Florida Senate representing the

21 Tampa Bay Region.

22 (b) One member of the Florida House of Representatives

23 representing the Tampa Bay Region.

24 (c) Three representatives of environmental interests

25 in the Tampa Bay Region.

26 (d) Tworepresentatives of commercial interests in the

27 Tampa Bay Region.

28 (e) One representative of Hillsborough, Manatee, and

29 Pinellas counties, respectively.

30 (f) One representative of a municipality bordering

31 Tampa Bay.

2 755

CODING: Words in tsows Owctype are deletions from existing law; words underlined are additions.

A-7

SB 755 First Engrossed

1 (g) Two representatives of industrial interests in the

2 Tampa Bay Region.

3 (h) Three representatives of science and academics in

4 the Tampa Bay Region.

5 (i) One representative of recreational interests in

6 the Tampa Bay Region.

7 (j) Not more than 5 representatives of the Tampa Bay

8 Region at large.

9 (2) The members of the Legislature appointed to the

10 commission shall participate in the activities of the

11 commission to the extent that such participation is not

12 imcompatible with their respective positions as members of the

13 Legislature.

14 (3) The members of the commission shall serve without

15 compensation.

16 (4) The chairman of the Tampa Bay Regional Planning

17 Council shall designate the chairman and vice-chairman of the

18 commission.

19 Section 4. Powers and duties of the commission.

20 (1) The commission shall strive to establish

21 recognition of the importance of improving comprehensive

22 management of Tampa Bay among business, environmental, and

23 public interest organizations and individuals. To this end,

24 the commission shall recommend a Bay Management Program with

25 proposed solutions to problems of managing the bay for

26 approval by the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council 60 days

27 prior to the 1985 legislative session with subsequent

28 submission to the legislative delegations of Hillsborough,

29 Manatee, and Pinellas counties 30 days prior to the 1985

30 legislative session.

3 7?55
CODING: Words in .ra..eJek esuogh type are deletions from existing low; words underlined are additions.

A-8

SB 755 First Engrossed

1 (2) The commission shall also devise specific

2 strategies for addressing priority bay management issues

3 approved by the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council in 1983

4 and may provide recommendations to the Tampa Bay Regional

5 Planning Council concerning bay management issues that may be

6 identified during the life of the commission. It is

7 recognized by the Legislature that these efforts will require

8 coordination with federal, state, and local agencies,

9 authorities, and districts.

10 (3) It is the express intention of the Legislature

11 that this commission and every aspect of it shall expire

12 concurrent with the end of the 1985 legislative session.

13 (4) In carrying out its duties and responsibilities,

14 the commission shall have all of the following powers:

15 (a) To meet at such times and places as it may deem

16 proper.

17 (b) As a body or, on the authorization of the

18 commission, as a subcommittee composed of 1 or more members,

19 to hold hearings at such times and places as it may deem

20 proper.

21 (c) To cooperate with and to secure the cooperation of

22 county, municipal, municipal and county, and other local

23 agencies in investigating any matter within the scope of its

24 duties and responsibilities..

25 (d) To cooperate with every department, agency, or

26 instrumentality in the state government, including but not

27 limited to the Department of Natural Resources, the Department

28 of Environmental Regulation, the Department of Transportation,

29 and the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission; and to secure

30 directly from every department, agency, or governmental unit

31 full cooperation, access to its records, and access to any

4 755
CODING: Words in .= t-P--- k * type are deletions from existing law; words underlined are additions.

A-9

SB 755 First Engrossed

I information, suggestions, estimates, data, and statistics it

2 may have available.

3 (e) To cooperate with any other state or local agency

4 which is engaged in making developmental studies in the bay

5 and surrounding regions.

6 (f) To cooperate with the United States Army Corps of

7 Engineers and the Department of the Interior.

8 (g) To do any and all other things necessary or

9 convenient to enable it fully and adequately to perform its

10 duties and to exercise the powers expressly granted it.

11 Section 5. This act shall take effect upon becoming a

12 law.

31
5
755
CODJNG: Words in iA tai-g type are deletions from existing law; words underlined are additions.

A-10

APPENDIX-B Aed tm#
7/9/8 4

TAMPA BAY MANAGEMENT STUDY COMMISSION
EXISTING AUTHORITIES M4ATRIX

Over the past six months the Long-Term/Existing Authorities Subcommittee of
the Tampa Bay Management Steering Committee has been developing an
inventory of all federal, state, regsional and local governmental agencies
having jurisdiction over activities associated with Tampa Bay. This inven-
tory has been prepared in matrix form and is intended to be used to pin-
point agency and authority jurisdiction and responsibilities with regard to
the priority bay management issues. During the upcoming months the Tampa
Bay Management Study Commission will be using the matrix to develop solu-
tions and specific implementation strategies for each identified issue.
From this process it is anticipated that a more refined understanding of
each agency's function, as well as jurisdictional gaps and overlaps, will
be derived. At this point in time, four categories of agency involvement
have been identified. These categories are defined as follows:

� Regulation/Enforcement Category

By statute or ordinance an agency has the authority to issue a permit
and/or veto a project or activity. This category of Involvement is
denoted in the matrix by a * symbol.

* Review/Advisory Category

By statute, ordinance or local policy, an agency is required to become
aware of a project or activity and make recommendations or comments.
This category of involvement is denoted in the matrix by a o symbol.

� Planning/Policy Development

Through statute, ordinance or local policy, this agency will establish
goals and set guidelines, and develop implementation strategies for
activities or projects. This category of involvement is denoted in the
matrix by a + symbol.

* Research/Education

Agencies which contribute research and/or education information to other
agencies and to the general public. This category of involvement is
denoted in the matrix by a - symbol.

A- 11

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

ACTIVITY ' \ O 6|

RESOURCE UTILIZATION

- Boating and Navigation * o + o
+ + -
o *
- Commercial and Recreational Fishing + o + o 0 4o

- Public Access to Shoreline * o * * o
++ + - t! 20
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 0 c . v

- Habitat Management o o + o o * g
+ .0

- Fish and Wildlife Management o o ++ o+ o &4 .
- ~4 In MAi,,

- Shoreline Parks and Marine Preserves + oo a's 0 's4
-j +
. ', 4 =
- Protection of Water Quality + a + o -0o 0 Z D

, _ * _ _ _
_I _

- Soil Conservation and Erosion Control +o o + 0 0 o

- Pest and Aquatic Weed Control + +

- Hazardous Waste Disposal +

- Protection of Air Quality +

RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

- Dredge and Fill Activities + o o o o o

- Docks, Moorings, Bulkheads, Breakwaters + o o o o o
- + +

- Bridges, Causeways, Roads, etc. oo o o o +
+ +-

- Canals, Levees, Salinity Structures, etc. +o o o 0
+ v

- Marina Siting o o 0o o o o
+ -4

- Port Development and Operations * o o o *
+ + + >' 4Jr

- Power Plant Siting o * o o 0
+ O'la
rd n. 1.4
- Industrial Discharges and Operations * * 0

- Mining Discharges and Reclamation * o +
+

- Urban Development and Public Works o o 0 o *
+ + A-12

STATE GOVERNMENTN~L

ACTIVITY UPmrt

RESOURCE UTILIZATION

- Boating and Navigation I o

** 0
- Commercial and Recreational Fishing ++ + o -

* ft
- Public Access to Shoreline 0 + 0 o o -

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT +

- Habitat Management .4+ +00-

+ 0 w 0
*1 C
- Fish and Wildlife Management +40 + o- f r
- 8
55

- Shoreline Parke and Marine Preserves o 0 o m0 C 0
'4 0 C II*14 0 U: 0 -4
+ + t o 0 W 0Wa ,-

- Protection of Water Quality + * o o oo - .0W-
+ + 1

- Protection of Water Quantity 0 00 00- 0 m U k
ft+ ft+ ~ ~ ~ O~
1 00 oo omoo~~~00 90
43 4J4.)
Soil Conservation and Erosion Control 04 + 00- 9
4-' I- + 0->

- Pest and Aquatic Weed Control of jo o- 0 00 a. 2 >
+ + It~'d E
ern 0
- Hazardous Waste Disposal + 0 00 4D d

- Protection of Air Quality + a o -

RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

- Dredge and Fill Activities a 0 o 00 -

- Docks, Moorings, Bulkheads, Breakwaters +0 0 o-

- Bridges, Causeways, Roads, etc. o 00+ 0-

- Canals, Levees, Salinity Structures, etc. 00 0 -

- marina siting 0+00 0-
+ J

- Port Development and Operations 0o 00 0 a -

- Power Plant Siting +000 0-
0law
* 0N
- Industrial Discharges and Operations + 0-
.4 90

- mining Discharges and ReL-lamation ++I o
0+1

- Urban Development and Public Works 4 4 0-

A-13

ACTIV ITY \

RESOURCE UTILIZATION

- Boating and Navigation o +
+ 0

- Commercial and Recreational Fishing o o
+

- Public Access to Shoreline o o

RESOURCB MANAGEMENT

- Habitat Management + + +

- Fish and Wildlife Management o o
++
4-,4
- Shoreline Parks and Marine Preserves o o

- Protection of Water Quality . . .

0
- Protection of Water Quantity + o + 4 o

- Soil Conservation and Erosion Control o o 1o o 0 o?

- Pest and Aquatic Weed Control * o
o "Q. 004

- Hazardous Waste Disposal o + o
..+ + I II -'

- Protection of Air Quality oo

RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

- Dredge and Fill Activities * o *
++ +

- Docks, Moorings, Bulkheads, Breakwaters o *
+ +

- Bridges, Causeways, Roads, etc. o o * +
+ +

- Canals, Levees, Salinity Structures, etc. + o *
++
o
- Marina Siting + o

- Port Development and Operations o + a H
+_W 0

- Power Plant Siting o0 o

- Industrial Discharges and Operations * o o - c 0)
+ + f0 a': )s

- Mining Discharges and Reclamation o o o o +
+ +

- Urban Development and Public Works * * o
+ +
A-14

RESOURCE UTILIZATION

- Boating and Navigation * o * -
+ +

- Commercial and Recreational Fishing * o o * * -
+ +

- public Access to Shoreline * o o * * -
++ ++
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

- Habitat Management * * a *
++ ++ o

- Fish and Wildlife Management * o * -o
+ + ++t l

- Shoreline Parks and Marine Preserves * Ua o - �4U .4 D
++~~~ +4

Protection of Water Quality * * a o+
+1, + 8+'

- Protection of Water Quantity *I o + *- a 3.
C+1 + - l aV U DX

- Soil Conservation and Erosion Control * * o + - c

- Pest and Aquatic Weed Control * o * - g, � M aO
+ + % -

- Hazardous Waste Disposal 0* * 1 0j .

- Protection of Air Quality *

RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

- Dredge and Fill Activities * o o

- Docks, Moorings, Bulkheads, Breakwaters * * o o
+

- Bridges, Causeways, Roads, etc. * * o o
+ + +

- Canals, Levees, Salinity Structures, etc. * * o -

- Marina Siting * o o o -
+ ++ o

- Port Development and Operations * 0o o o - 0 .4
+ 4+ + Oc-4 Ol

- Power Plant Siting *0o o o - Tf
+ ++

- Industrial Discharges and Operations * * o o
++ o0+

- Mining Discharges and Reclamation * * * o

- Urban Development and Public Works * * o a o
+++4 + + A-
A- 15

in in
ACTIVITY
in 0 a . 0t

RESOURCE UTILIZATION

- Boating and Navigation * o o * *
+ + +
o
- Commercial and Recreational Fishing * + o
+ -

- Public Access to Shoreline * o o o *
++ + + +
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

- Habitat Management * * o o o *
++-+ +'

- Fish and Wildlife Management * * o *0
+ +-+ +

- Shoreline Parks and Marine Preserves * o o o o *
+ -4 +

- Protection of Water Quality * * * o o .o 8 Z
+ +_+ -+0 " C1 C

- Protection of Water Quantity * o * o o C* * La t
+ ++ + 4+ u+coC
* d VP �
- Soil Conservation and Erosion Control � * * + o o +
+ +-+ ac- 2 c
V a o o

- Pest and Aquatic Weed Control * o o o
+ + +4v

- Hazardous Waste Disposal * * o o I m 8
+ + + J 11 9d n a

- Protection of Air Quality * o o
+ 4 +
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

- Dredge and Fill Activities * * o o o o
4+ + +

- Docks, Moorings, Bulkheads, Breakwaters * * o o o o
+ + +

- Bridges, Causeways, Roads, etc. * * o o o o
+ + +

- Canals, Levees, Salinity Structures, etc. * * o o o

- Marina Siting * o o o o o
____ ___+ + +

- Port Development and Operations o0 o * o
++ . 0. ..- 0

- Power Plant Siting * * o o .0
o.1
.+ + 4-' N
- Industria Discharges and peration * * o o
- Industrial Discharges and Operations 0 * 0 0

** O +
- Mining Discharges and Reclamation *+ + o

- Urban Development and Public Works * * A- 16
4+ + +

PINELLAS COUNTY

ACTIVITY I ffi

RESOURCE UTILIZATION

- Boating and Navigation * * o -
+ +

- Commercial and Recreational Fishing * * * -
+ +

- Public Access to Shoreline * o * o o * * -
+ + + + +
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

- Habitat Management * * o * *
++ + ++ +v .4 v

- Fish and Wildlife Management * * o * -
++ + + e

- Shoreline Parks and Marine Preserves * o o * - s
+ + + ot 4C'

- Protection of Water Quality ** ** o

- Protection of Water Quantity * * o -'

- Soil Conservation and Erosion Control * * o - -
++ + o 0

+ + 0+n 4

- Hazardous Waste Disposal * * o

++4 +L

- Protection of Air Quality * *

RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

- Dredge and Fill Activities * * *o -

- Docks, Moorings, Bulkheads, Breakwaters * * 0o
+ +

- Bridges, Causeways, Roads, etc. **o *
+ +

- Canals, Levees, Salinity Structures, etc. * * o o
+ +4

- Marina Siting * o o
+ _ o+ + I4

- Port Development and Operations * o o -

- Power Plant Siting * o o o . . -
++ +

- Industrial Discharges and Operations * o - to

+ ~

- Mining Discharges and Reclamation * o o

- Urban Development and Public Works * * o o o -
++ + + + A-17

CITY OF TAMPA

ACTIVITY \ V

RESOURCE UTILIZATION

- Boating and Navigation * -

- Commercial and Recreational Fishing * -

- Public Access to Shoreline o * -
+ +
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

- Habitat Management + -

- Fish and Wildlife Management + -

- Shoreline Parks and Marine Preserves o + -
+ -

- Protection of Water Quality o + -

- Protection of Water Quantity o + -
+ _

- Soil Conservation and Erosion Control o -
+

- Pest and Aquatic Weed Control o o -
, ~~~~~+

- Hazardous Waste Disposal o -
+

- Protection of Air Quality o -
+ !
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
, I
- Dredge and Fill Activities o -

- Docks, Moorings, Bulkheads, Breakwaters o -
+

- Bridges, Causeways, Roads, etc. o -

41
=
- Canals, Levees, Salinity Structures, etc. o
+

- Marina Siting o -
+

- Port Development and Operations o - X o1 .
+ A-~~~> fa ,

- Power Plant Siting o - > * $ 4 0
+ .-4 0 -4 0l

- Industrial Discharges -and Operations o + - ' >
+ - O + I

- Mining Discharges and Reclamation o -

- Urban Development and Public Work -
- Urban Development and Public Works o ft - A1

ITY OF S. PETERSSB URG

ACTIVITY \ S a

RESOURCE UTILIZATION

- Boating and Navigation o * -
+

- Commercial and Recreational Fishing * * -

- Public Access to Shoreline o * * -
+ +
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

- Habitat Management o o +

*
- Fish and Wildlife Management a + -
+ -
*
- Shoreline Parks aid Marine Preserves 0 + -
+ 3

- Protection of Water Quality + o + -

*
- Protection of Water Quantity 0 + -
+ - 1

- Soil Conservation and Erosion Control. o o -

++ ma

- Pest and Aquatic Weed Control o oa
++

- Hazardous Waste Disposal * o
+

- Protection of Air Quality + o

RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

- Dredge and Fill Activities o o -
+ +4.

- Docks, Moorings, Bulkheads, Breakwaters o o -
+

- Bridges, Causeways, Roads, etc. o o

+
+J
o
- Marina Siting o -

- Port Development and Operations o o -
+ + 0

- Power Plant Siting o -

- Industrial Discharges and Operations 0 + -

- 0 is o

- Urban Development and Public Works o o * o - A-19
++ +

APPENDIX-C

TAMPA BAY MANAGEMENT STUDY COMMISSION

The Honorable Jeanne Malchon, Chair
Florida State Senate
424 Central Avenue
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
(813) 823-2264

The Honorable Mary Figg, Vice-Chair
Florida House of Representatives
10935 North 56th Street
Suite B
Temple Terrace, FL 33617
(813) 272-5150

Mr. A. S. Autry
Tampa Electric Company
P.O. Box 111
Tampa, FL 33601
(813) 228-4111

Mr. Bruce Belrose
Pinellas Suncoast Chamber of Commerce
Hampstead Center
3696 Ulmerton Road
Clearwater, FL 33520
(813) 576-2770

Mr. Richard Eckenrod
Director
Department of Land & Natural Resources
P. O. Box 1000
Bradenton, FL 33506
(813) 7.48-4504

Dr. Ernest D. Estevez
Mote Marine Laboratory
1600 City Island Park
Sarasota, FL 3357'7
(813) 388-4441

Dr. Kent Fanning
Department of Marine Science-USF
830 First Street South
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
(813) 893-9131

Dr. William K. Fehlring
Tampa Port Authority
P.O. Box 2192
Tampa, FL 33601
(813) 248-1924

A-20

Ms. Beth Frierson
League of Women Voters
2675 East Bay Isle Dr. S.E.
St. Petersburg, FL 33705
(813) 894-4789

Mr. Robert C. Harnly
St. Petersburg Power Squadron
5940 16th Lane N.E.
St. Petersburg, FL 33703
(813) 527-4598

Mayor Robert E. Hunt
City of Palmetto
516 Eighth Avenue
Palmetto, FL 33561
(813) 722-0424

Mr. Robin Lewis
Mangrove System, Inc.
P. 0. Box 15759
Tampa, FL 33684
(813) 875-3614

Mr. David Maitby
Florida Land Design &
Engineering, Inc.
308 South Boulevard
Tampa, FL 33606
(813) 253-2183

Mr. Richard Mussett
Director of Planning
City of St. Petersburg
P. 0. Box 2842
St. Petersburg, FL 33701
(813) 893-7153

Mr. Richard T. Paul
Manager, Tampa Bay Sanctuaries
National Audubon Society
1020 S. 82nd Street
Tampa, FL 33619
(813) 626-2051

Ms. Gloria Rains
Manasota 88
5314 Bay State Road
Palmetto, FL 33561
(813) 722-7413

A-21

Mr. Robert S. Richards
7101 - 49th Avenue South
Tampa, FL 33619
(813) 248-9533

Mr. Jacob Stowers
Pinellas County
Environmental Management
315 Court Street
Clearwater, FL 33516
(813) 462-4761

Ms. Sally Thompson
Chairperson Hillsborough Environmental Coalition
P. 0. Box 2800
Tampa, FL 33601
(813) 223-8450

Mr. Rick Wilkins
Environmental Protection Commission
Hillsborough County
P. 0. Box 1110
Tampa, FL 33601
(813) 272-5965

A-22

TAMPA BAY MANAGEMENT STUDY COMMISSION
SUBCOMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS

Objectives/Policies Subcommittee

1. Senator Jeanne Malchon
2. Representative Mary Figg - Chairman
3. Bruce Belrose
4. Jake Stowers
5. Dr. William Fehring
6. Dr. Ernest Estevez
7. Beth Frierson
8. Richard Wilkins

Planning/Management Subcommittee

1. Bruce Belrose - Chairman
2. Beth Frierson
3. Richard Wilkins
4. Gloria Rains
5. Richard Mussett
6. Robert Rarnly
7. David Maltby
8. Mayor Robert Hunt
9. Sally Thompson

Science/Engineering Subcommittee

1. Jake Stowers - Chairman
2. Dr. Ernie Estevez
3. Dr. Kent Fanning
4. Spence Autry
5. Robin Lewis
6. Richard Eckenrod
7. Dr. William Fehring
8. Richard Paul
9. Robert S. Richards

A-23

TAMPA BAY MANAGEMENT STUDY COMMISSION
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Mr. Joe Bachelor
Tampa Area Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 19247
Tampa, FL 33686

Dr. John C. Briggs
Marine Fisheries Commission
University of South Florida
830 First St. South
St. Petersburg, FL 33701

Mr. Gary Comp
Sarasota County
Dept. Natural Resource Mgmt.
P.O. Box 8
Sarasota, FL 33578

Ms. Tricia Dooris
Southwest Florida Water Management District
2379 Broad Street
Brooksville, FL 33512

Dr. Donald Ekberg
National Marine Fisheries Services
9450 Koger Boulevard
Duval Building
St. Petersburg, FL 33702

Ms. Rhonda Evans
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Land Management
521 33rd Avenue North
St. Petersburg, FL 33704

Mr. Norman Fedder
Department of Transportation
Burns Building
Tallahassee, FL 32301

Dr. Carl R. Goodwin
U.S. Geological Survey
4710 Eisenhower Boulevard
Suite B-5
Tampa, FL 33512

Dr. Richard Garrity
Department of Environmental Regulation
Southwest District Office
7601 Highway 301 North
Tampa, FL 33610

A-24

Mr. Alan Huff
Department of Natural Resources
Marine Research Laboratory
100 8th Avenue S.E.
St. Petersburg, FL 33701

Mr. Robert Hessler
Department of Community Affairs
Howard Building
2571 Executive Center
Tallahassee, FL 32301

Mr. William E. Hoffman
Tampa Marine Institute
1310 Shoreline Drive
Tampa, FL 33605

Mr. Wayne Lasseter
District 1
Florida Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 1249
Bartow, FL 33830

Ms. Janet Ley
Dames and Moore
1805 North Westshore Blvd.
#209
Tampa, FL 33607

Mr. Dean Milliken
Florida Institute for Oceanography
830 1st Street South
St. Petersburg, FL 33701

Mr. Joe Murdoch
Urban Environmental Coordination
City of Tampa
City Hall Plaza, 4N
Tampa, FL 33602

Mr. Terry Jernigan
Department of Community Affairs
Division of Local Resource Management
Bureau of Land and Water Management
2571 Executive Center Circle, E.
Tallahassee, FL 32301

Mr. Tom Reese
Booker Creek Preservation, Inc.
123-8th Street North
St. Petersburg, FL 33701

A-25

Captain G. F. Woolever
U.S. Coast Guard
600 8th Avenue S.E.
St. Petersburg, FL 33701

Mr. Sam Steffey
Planning Department
Pasco County Government Center
7530 Little Road
New Port Richey, FL 33553

Mr. John Stevely
Sea Grant
Florida Cooperative Extension Service
1303 17th Street West
Palmetto, FL 33561-2998

Ms. Karen Wilson
Water Resources Specialist
City of Clearwater
P.O. Box 4748
Clearwater, FL 33518

Mr. Robert Ziobro
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
9721 Executive Center Drive
St. Petersburg, FL 33702

A-26

APPENDIX-D Agenda Item #8B
12/10/84

Position Statement

Draft Tampa Bay 205(j) Water Quality Impact Study

In 1972 the Florida State Legislature passed what was known as the Wilson-
Grizzle Bill (Section 403.086(1) (b), Florida Statutes). This bill
stipulated that no domestic wastewater disposal facility constructed after
1972 could discharge any waste into Old Tampa Bay, Tampa Bay, Hillsborough
Bay, Boca Ciega Bay, St. Joseph Sound, Clearwater Bay, Sarasota Bay,
Little Sarasota Bay, Roberts Bay, Lemon Bay, or Punta Gorda Bay in addition
to any bay, bayou or sound "tributary thereto" without providing at least
advanced wastewater treatment (AWT). In essence, the area covered by the
bill included all saline coastal bodies of water from the Anclote Keys
south to Charlotte Harbor.

Advanced wastewater treatment, as defined in the Florida Administrative
Code, Chapter 17-6, limited the annual average effluent concentration to 5
milligrams per liter (mg/1) of 5 day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) and
total suspended solids; 3 mg/1 total nitrogen; and 1 mg/l total phosphorus.
This requirement was not based on site-specific water quality
determinations, but was made in an attempt to reverse what was perceived by
many to be deteriorating water quality in the area. No relief mechanism
was provided other than a statutory variance.

In 1980 the Legislature modified the Wilson-Grizzle Bill such that the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) could grant relief for
facilities if the applicant initiated a request for such relief and then
demonstrated that AWT was not required to protect water quality. The
modified Wilson-Grizzle Bill also expanded the "affected area" to include
all freshwater tributaries which flow into the original Wilson-Grizzle
area. This area was defined hydrologically as the Peace River and Tampa
Bay Basins.

The purpose of the Tampa Bay 205(j) Water Quality Impact Study was to
consider dissolved oxygen and nutrient impacts in the development of
wasteload allocations for the various surface water dischargers in the
Tampa Bay area. The ultimate uses of this document include long-term
wastewater planning (e.g. 201 Facility Planning, Florida Construction
Grants Program, N. Pinellas EIS) and permitting.

The Department of Environmental Regulation is to be commended for their
effort in developing the Tampa Bay 205(j) Water Quality Impact Study as
much has been learned regarding the sources, trends and severity of water

A-27

pollution problems in Tampa Bay. At the same time, however, it is
recognized that the wasteload allocation process is a very difficult one,
especially with regard to nonconservative pollutants such as nutrients.

Since the September 26, 1984, public meeting on the Draft Tampa Bay 205(j)
Water Quality Impact Study held at the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council,
members of the Tampa Bay Management Study Commission and Council staff have
carefully reviewed this document. Pursuant to Section 4(2) of a special
legislative act creating the Tampa Bay Management Study Commission,
which states that the Commission "may provide recommendations to the Tampa
Bay Regional Planning Council concerning bay management issues which arise
during the life of the Commission", the following represents the official
position of both the Commission and the Council regarding this important
document.

o Conceptually, we support the development of water quality based effluent
limits (WQBEL), via the wasteload allocation process, for both the
domestic and industrial discharges entering Tampa Bay. Since the repeal
of the Wilson-Grizzle Bill in 1981, state law requires that WQBEL be
established at levels that maintain the biological integrity of the
Bay's acquatic ecosystems. Currently, the recognized best method for
developing WQBEL is through the wasteload allocation process, which
requires complex hydrological, biological and chemical modeling of the
receiving waters under study. There is much to be gained from developing
such a model for Tampa Bay, as it could eventually be used to predict
both the short and long term effects of many types of management and
regulatory decisions. In fact, without the development of such a
model it is unlikely that we will ever truly comprehend the intricate
workings of a complex estuarine ecosystem like Tampa Bay.

o In light of the extreme growth pressures facing the Tampa Bay region a
scientifically defensible and legally enforceable wasteload allocation
document will be necessary to protect the vital resources of the bay.
Because the total wasteload on both regional and sub-regional sewage
treatment facilities in the Tampa Bay area is expected to increase
significantly over the next few decades, the careful development of
WQBEL for Tampa Bay is of the utmost importance. However, time is of the
essence since upper portions of the Tampa Bay estuary already exhibit
symptoms of stress indicative of marine eutrophication.

o In its present form, we do not acknowledge the completeness of the Draft
Tampa Bay 205(j) Water Quality Impact Study, or it's validity as the
sole basis for determining effluent discharge limits in Tampa Bay.
Careful review of this document has raised many concerns regarding the
assumptions, design, methodology and conclusions of the study. To base
the determination of critical effluent limits on a model that is not yet
satisfactorily calibrated and verified could potentially place the
already stressed acquatic ecosystems of Tampa Bay in further jeopardy,
and could lead to a perception of regulatory unfairness.

o Until all aspects of the Draft Tampa Bay 205(j) Water Quality Impact
Study are amended to be scientifically justifiable from a resource based
perspective it is recommended that the Department of Environmental
Regulation, duly return to enforcing technology based effluent limits
(TBEL), and regulating all domestic wastewater discharges to Tampa Bay

A-28

pursuant to Section 403.086(1)(b), Florida Statutes. At a minimum, to
protect the biological resources of Tampa Bay, all dischargers should be
encouraged, and provided assistance wherever possible, to upgrade
treatment facilities so as to provide advanced wastewater treatment as
defined by Chapter 17-6, Florida Administrative Code. In addition,
alternatives to surface water discharges should be required wherever
feasible or necessary.

o During this interim period, the Department of Environmental Regulation
should continue to support and expend funds for the expansion and
refinement of Draft Tampa Bay 205(j) Water Quality Impact Study. If
federal 205(j) grant funds cannot be allocated for this purpose it is
suggested that the Department seek a special legislative appropriation
to complete the task. To replenish state spending for this purpose an
alternative source of funding worthy of consideration would be a special
surtax levied on those domestic and industrial dischargers utilizing the
receiving waters of Tampa Bay. Based on 1982 effluent flows a surtax of
$3.00 per MGD would generate approximately $200,000 per year which could
be used for further research leading to the development of
scientifically defensible WQBEL for Tampa Bay.

o Finally, it is recommended that the findings of this study not be
reflected in the regulatory process until such time that the following
problems are resolved:

Problem No. 1: VERTICAL DISSOLVED OXYGEN AVERAGING

Under 17-3.111 (10) and 17.3.121 (13), FoA.C., a water quality violation
is presumed to occur when dissolved oxygen (D.O.) levels fall below 4
mg/I. There is no mention of vertical averaging. Enforcement of this
criteria by DER is stringent and numerous examples of decisions on
permit issuances can be cited where only bottom D.O.'s of less than 4
mg/l were used to require permit modifications, or deny a permit. It is
inconsistent for one section of DER to apply vertical averaging, and
another not to apply it.

The establishment of water quality criteria are largely to protect
biological resources. The biological resources of Tampa Bay have been
documented (e.g. Santos and Simon, 1980) to be severely impacted by
seasonal anoxia, not unlike that reported for Chesapeake Bay (Officer et
al 1984). Documentation of this problem goes back to the report of the
Federal Water. Pollution Control Administration (FWPCA) (1969). If the
use of vertically averaged D.O.'s to manage water quality and benthic
defaunation problems in Tampa Bay is a valid approach, it should be
discussed in reference to appropriate scientific studies as noted above.
If the use of vertical averaging is simply for convenience of modeling,
and does not correctly predict events resulting in benthic defaunation,
it should be clearly noted.

Problem No. 2: WATER QUALITY TARGETS

The rationale for the water quality targets used in the wasteload
allocation study is not clearly documented in the DER draft report.
Several different chlorophyll-a targets are suggested in the report,
while many model runs seem to contradict the assumed relationships

A-29

between chlorophyll-a and dissolved oxygen depletion. There is not
adequate documentation in the report of the linkage between water
quality goals and resource use attainability (e.g., fisheries
propagation).

In addition, the recommended chlorophyll-a criterion calculated in
Section 8.1.3 is not based upon the same methods presented in Section
5.3, since the former relies upon a minimum D.O. concentration while the
latter relies upon a diurnal range of D.O. Further, the use of either
D.O. or chlorophyll-a changes to indicate a "significant" water quality
impact seems inappropriate, since it is D.O, which is covered by
existing water quality standards and is most closely related to resource
use needs. Since the chlorophyll-a threshold (7 ug/1) was calculated
from a D.O. criterion (0.5 mg/1), it seems incorrect to classify
situations which contravene only the chlorophyll-a threshold as
"significant" water quality impacts. In.short, there are several
questions which can be raised about the technical defensibility of the
water quality targets adopted for the DER study. Further analyses of
water quality targets in terms of the temporal and spatial requirements
for resource use attainability are warranted.

Problem No. 3: MODEL CALIBRATION/VERIFICATION

One important area that should be addressed by independent local reviews
of the DER study is the acceptability of the model
calibration/verification results for the intended wasteload allocation
analyses. Unfortunately, evaluations of goodness-of-fit for the water
quality model are based entirely upon plots of simulated and recorded
data at only four stations (two in Hillsborough Bay, one in Old Tampa
Bay, and one at Sunshine Skyway) on three different days in July-August
1983. No model results are presented for the other five Bay stations
monitored during the 1983 intensive survey. No tabular statistics
(e.g., daily means, maximum, minimum) on simulated and recorded
concentrations are presented to assist with evaluations of the plots in
Figures 6.21 through 6.32. The discussion of the
calibration/verification plots in the text provides very little insight
into why certain water quality parameters and stations were apparently
not simulated very well. For example, the calibration/verification
plots indicate that the minimum dissolved oxygen at the Old Tampa Bay
monitoring station (Courtney Campbell Causeway) was apparently
undersimulated by 2 or 3 mg/l on each of the three survey dates. This
is an important consideration because the apparent error is much greater
than recommended water quality targets that are used to evaluate future
discharges to Old Tampa Bay. Likewise, there are no comparisons of
simulated and recorded chlorophyll-a presented for the single Old Tampa
Bay station, meaning that there is no evaluation of how well the model
simulates this important water quality parameter in Old Tampa Bay.
Expanded model testing and the documentation of calibration/verification
results would enhance the technical credibility of the wasteload
allocation study.

Problem No. 4: ANALYSES OF BENTHIC POLLUTION SOURCES

It is apparent from the water quality model projections in the draft DER
report that the benthic contribution (i.e., bottom sediment releases) of

A-30

oxygen demand, nitrogen, and phosphorus is one of the most important
sources of pollution loadings on the Tampa Bay system, if not the
dominant source. Although water quality model projections for
conditions of no benthic fluxes are unfortunately not presented in the
draft report for direct comparison with point and other nonpoint
sources, Figures 8.7 and 8.8 provide considerable insight into benthic
contributions. These figures summarize the impacts of reducing the
assumed wet season benthic flux to the assumed dry season levels. These
reductions in the benthic flux increase the minimum dissolved oxygen
concentrations throughout Old Tampa Bay and Hillsborough Bay by 1.0 mg/1
or more and reduce average chlorophyll-a by 10 ug/l throughout Old Tampa
Bay proper. As an indication of the significance of benthic sources,
these changes in water quality impacts resulting from a reduction in
benthic flux alone are much greater than those projected for the
secondary treatment scenario #1 under wet season conditions (i.e.,
Figures 8.9 and 8.10). The DER wasteload allocation study would be
greatly improved by inclusion of the following analyses regarding
benthic sources of pollution:

A. Additional model sensitivity studies should be performed to quantify
the significance of benthic sources during the dry and wet seasons.
These model runs would involve "shutting off" the benthic fluxes
and/or setting them at much lower levels that are typical of other
estuaries in the eastern U.S. If it is determined from these model
runs that benthic sources are responsible for the majority of the
water quality impacts (e.g., more than 50% of the minimum dissolved
oxygen and average chlorophyll-a), this suggests the need for
further field studies to better define confidence intervals for
assumed benthic flux rates. According to Figure 4.8 and Tables 4.13
and 4.14, the assumed benthic flux rates are typically based upon a
single observation at seven sites and two observations at two sites,
with six of the sites in Hillsborough Bay and only one site in Old
Tampa Bay. In light of the attributed significance of pollutant
contributions from benthic sources, the available database is rather
sparse in comparison with the database used to characterize other
pollution sources. In order to better define the existing contri-
butions from benthic sources, it seems advisable to expand the
monitoring database before making regulatory decisions about further
conformance with water quality goals and required wasteload
allocations.

B. There is no attempt to quantify sediment denitrification notes in
the bay. Sediment denitrification has been shown to be an important
process affecting the nitrogen cycle in marine sediments. Field
measurements should be made to determine representative
denitrification rates, and additional model runs should be adjusted
accordingly.

C. There is no attempt to relate benthic contributions of nutrients and
oxygen demand to the depth of the sediments studied. Without a
knowledge of reactive sediment depth, and thus overall reactive
sediment volume, benthic nutrient contributions cannot be adequately
assessed. As a result of this lack of information there is no way to
estimate how long a time period that excessively reactive sediments
have been accumulating in Tampa Bay, or to assess the short and long

A-31

term trends in sedimentation and benthic flux rates.

D. if benthic sources are the most significant factor in determining
the water quality impacts of future point source discharges, an
evaluation of measures to manage this diffuse source is warranted.

E. It appears that sediment nutrient releases were generalized for the
entire bay without taking into account the variable sediment types.
Generalized sediment maps do exist and should be used.

Problem No. 5: INCOMPLETE.MODEL EQUATIONS

The modeling approach excluded convective acceleration terms from the
equations of motion. These terms have little effect on the computation
of flood and ebb currents, but they have a large effect on computation
of residual currents. Residual currents cause long-term water
circulation patterns that control the net transport of dissolved and
suspended waterborne constituents. it is possible that inclusion of
convective acceleration terms could alter computed nutrient and
dissolved oxygen budgets. A few key reruns of the model (with these
terms included) should be considered to evaluate their impact.

Problem No. 6: HISTORICAL.WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS

A good understanding of the normal year-to-year variation in certain
parameters and the influence and meteorological events on water quality
are necessary if we are to understand the euthrophication process in
Tampa Bay, and man's influence on it. Examination of relevant water
quality and meteorological data collected over the last several decades
is more likely to lead to that understanding than examination of only
1980-81 data as done in the subject study. in addition, it is important
to know, for example, if historical trends in chlorophyll-a values are
increasing or decreasing, and what these values are. The analysis of
Palick (1984) is the kind of synthesis needed to place projected water
quality parameter values in perspective with historical values.

Problem No. 7: COMPARISON WITH OTHER ESTAURINE SYSTEMS

Considerable data on nutrients and eutrophication is available (see
summary by Boynton et al, 1982) from other estaurine systems. The
conclusions and in particular the recommended chlorophyll-a target value
should be placed in perspective with the health or lack thereof of these
other systems. in addition, the nitrogen cycling concept and the
importance of nitrification in macrophyte communities in estauries is
discussed by Kemp et al (1982) in the same volume, and is relevant to
the problems of Tampa Bay.

Problem No. 8: SEAGRASS MEADOW MAPPING

Other investigators have mapped the same grassbeds over several time
periods and have observed no significant increase in total cover for any
grass bed in Tampa Bay during the last 20 years, in contrast to the
reported 14% increase in grass bed cover for middle and lower Tampa Bay.
These other observations indicate a gradual loss of cover during the

A- 32

last 20 years for the bay as a whole, including portions of the bay
where DER reports an increase.

The cause for these discrepancies arises from both inaccurate mapping
and from the use of too small a scale to accurately detect seagrass
losses. A review of the literature (including Thompson 1978, Harris et
al 1983, and Orth 1983) indicates that seagrass and other submerged
vascular plants are typically mapped at a scale of 1:24,000 (1"-2000')
or larger. The use of 1:80,000 as the mapping scale, such as in this
study, produces inherent problems of accuracy. A simple comparison of
the seagrass cover shown for the Piney Point to Beacon Key area on all
five trend maps (4.3-4.7) indicates essentially no change between 1940-
1983. In fact the seagrass cover has declined by about 70%. The DER
was provided a map at the public meeting which was produced from a
series made for the Florida Department of Transportation by Mangrove
Systems, Inc. It appears that these maps and a 1:10,000 series of
Hillsborough County produced by the Tampa Port Authority (both publicly
available for review) were not examined by DER consultants or were
ignored. In addition to scale and accuracy problems, entire areas of
seagrass coverage disappear and reappear when in fact there were present
all the time, or showed a gradual decrease in size.

The importance of accurate seagrass mapping lies in the fact that
accurate historical maps show that seagrasses existed in deeper water,
and that in many of those areas where seagrasses persist, the meadows
have narrowed from the bay side (deeper water). This shallowing of the
euphotic zone for submerged vascular plans is a classic response well
documented in fresh water systems in which decreased light penetration
occurs due to increases in turbidity, water color, and phytoplankton
(chlorophyll-a)(Sheldon and Boylen 1977, Phillips et al 1978), and
points to direct water quality linkage to seagrass losses in the bay, in
contrast to the conclusions of the report.

Problem No. 9: COMPENSATION POINT FOR SEAGRASSES

The seagrass compensation point for the purposes of this study was
assumed to be 1% of the surface irradiance (SI). This value is commonly
used for phytoplankton but there is no scientific evidence to support
this value for seagrasses.

As far back as Ostenfield (1905) it has been noted that the lower limit
of seagrasses and other submerged freshwater and marine angiosperms
often corresponds to the secchi depth or 5-18% SI depending on the
location (Bachman and Barilotti, 1976; Drew and Jupp, 1976; Hulings,
1979; Spence, 1975; Bulthuis, 1983). Rice et al (1983) in studying the
seagrasses in the Indian River noted light intensities of mean blade
depth for healthy seagrasses ranged from 12-47% SI, never falling below
10% SI. More importantly, physiological studies, such as Williams and
McRoy (1982) have shown that light dependent productivity peaks at
approximately 65-70% SI, and that the half-saturation constant (1/2
maximum photosynthesis) ranges around 50% SI. Managing light levels to
support healthy seagrass meadows should target this half-saturation
value, not a compensation value. Managing seagrasses at the
compensation point is like supplying humans with just enough oxygen to
sleep and eat but not to work or produce offspring. How long would our

A-33

society survive at that level of oxygen? The same can be said for
seagrasses receiving only the absolute minimum of light. Seagrasses
will only persist at a site over time if they can offset normal
vegetative losses through sexual and asexual reproduction, and store
excess carbohydrates in times of abundant light (summer) to survive time
of less abundant light (winter).

Targeting even a 10% SI level is probably not sufficient to protect
seagrasses, and the use of 1% SI is totally unsupported by the
scientific literature. An annual mean between 10-50% SI appears to be
the most valid value to use for Tampa Bay, until more data is available.

Problem No. 10: EPIPHYTIC AND MACROALGAL STIMULATION BY NUTRIENTS AND
COMPETITION WITH SEAGRASSES

Progressive eutrophication can eliminate seagrasses not only because of
decreased light penetration due to phytoplankton, but also due to compe-
tition from increased epiphytic algae (Sand-Jensen 1977). These possible
impacts were totally ignored.

Problem No. 11: PURPOSE OF STUDY

It is not clearly stated whether the study will merely be used as a
planning document or whether it is intended as a regulatory or
permitting tool. As it stands, since the study does not deal with water
quality parameters other than D.O. and nutrients, the study could only
legally be used to prohibit a discharge for D.O. and nutrient reasons,
but could not be used to decide the issuance of a permit since many
other water quality parameters must be examined.

Problem No. 12: OTHER REGULATORY RAMIFICATIONS

The study indicates nonpoint source pollution will result in major
violations of water quality, even with the use of current best
management practice stormwater controls, however, no solutions are
proposed for the control of this excessive nonpoint source pollution.
In light of these findings, it is appropriate to consider retrofitting
of existing stormwater discharge facilities, which are currently exempt
from any regulation, with retention/detention structures pursuant to
Chapter 17-25, F.A.C.

Senator Jeanne Malchon Councilwoman Saundra L. Rahn
Chair Chairman
Tampa Bay Management Study Commission Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council

A-34

CITATIONS

Backman, T.W. & D.C. Barilotti, 1976. Irradiance reduction effects
on standing crops of the eelgrass Zostera marina in a coastal
lagoon. Mar. Biol., Vol. 34, pp. 33-40.

Boynton, W.R., W.M. Kemp and C.W. Keefe. 1982. A comparative
analysis of nutrients and other factors influencing estaurine
phytoplankton production. Pages 69-90 in Estuarine Comparisons,
V.S. Kennedy, ed., Academic Press, New York.

Bulthuis, D.A. 1983. Effects of in situ light reduction on density
and growth of the seagrass Heterozostera tasmanica in Western Port,
Victoria, Australia. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 67:91-103.

Drew, E.A. & B.P. Jupp, 1976. Some aspects of the growth of
Posidonia oceanica in Malta. In, Underwater research, edited by
E.A. Drew, J.N. Lythgoe & J.O. Woods, Academic Press, London,
pp. 357-367.

Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. 1969. Problems
and management of water quality in Hillsborough Bay, Florida.
86 pp.

Guist, G.G. and H.J. Humm. 1976. Effects of sewage effluent on
growth of Ulva lactuca. Fla. Sci. 39 (4): 267-271.

Harlin, M.M., and B. Thorne-Miller. 1981. Nutrient enrichment of
seagrass beds in a Rhode Island coastal lagoon. Mar. Biol.
65:221-229.

Harris, B.A., K.D. Haddad, K.A. Steidinger, and J.A. Huff. 1983.
Assessment of fisheries habitat: Charlotte Harbor and Kae
Worth, Flroida. Florida Dept. Nat. Res., St. Pete. 211 pp. +
Append.

Hulings, N.C., 1979. The ecology, biometry and biomass of the
seagrass Halophila stipulaceae along the Jordanian coast of the
Gulf of Aqaba. Bot. Mar., Vol. 22, pp. 425-430.

Kemp, W.M., R.C. Wetzel, W.R. Boynton, C.F. D'Elia, and J.C.
Stevenson. 1982. Nitrogen cycling and estaurine interfaces:
some current concepts and research directions. Pages 209-230 in
Estaurine Comparisons, V.S. Kennedy, ed., Academic Press, New York.

Officer, C.B., R.B. Biggs, J.C. Taft, L.E. Cronin, M.A. Tyler, and
W.A. Boynton. 1984. Chesapeake Bay Anoxia: Origin, development,
and significance. Science 223: 22-27.

Orth, R.J. and K.A. Moore. 1983. Submersed vascular plants: Techniques
for analying their distribution and abundance. Mar. Tech. Soc. J.
17(2):38-52.
Ostenfield, C.H., 1905. Preliminary remarks on the distribution and

A-35

biology of the Zostera of the Danish Seas. Bot. Tidsskr., Vol. 27,
pp. 123-125.

Palick, T. 1984. Tampa Bay ecological characterization: An
environmental atlas. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Phillips, G.L., D. Emison, and B. Moss. 1978. A mechanism to
account for macrophyte decline in progressively eutrophicated
freshwaters. Aq. Bot. 4:103-126.

Rice, J.D., R.P. Trocine, and G.N. Wells. 1983. Factors influencing
seagrass ecology in the Indian River lagoon. Fla. Scio
46 (3/4):276-286.

Sand-Jensen, K. 1977. Effect of epiphytes on eelgrass photosynthesis.
Aq. Bot. 3:55-63.

Santos, S.L. and J.C. Simon. 1980. Response of soft-bottom benthos
to a castrophic disturbance in a south Florida estuary.
Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 3:347-355.

Sheldon, R.B. and C.W. Boylen. 1977. Maximum depth inhabited by
acquatic vascular plants. Am. Midl. Nat. 97(1):248-254.

Spence, D.H.N., 1975. Light and plant response in fresh water.
In, Light as an ecological factor, edited by G.C. Evans, R.
Bainbridge & P. Rackham, Blackwell Scientific Publications,
Oxford, pp. 83-133.

Thompson, M.J. 1978. Species composition and distrubtion of
seagrass beds in the Indian River lagoon, Florida. Fla. Sci.
41(2):90-96.

Williams, S.L. and C.P. McRoy. 1982. Seagrass productivity: The
effect of light on carbon uptake. Aquat. bot. 12:321-344.

A-36

-Proposed Mitigation Plan-
and
Position Statement

Tampa Harbor Alafia River and Big Bend Channel Deepening Project

In the Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement the Army
Corps of Engineers supported and economically justified the deepening of
the Tampa Harbor Alaf ia and Big Bend Channels to a depth of 43 feet (plans
3 and 8). Although the state's response letter of July 9, 1984, expressed
general support for the project, it also noted severe objections from
various commenting agencies regarding the inadequacy of the proposed miti-
gation for the project's environmental impacts. At a state interagency
workshop held on September 6, 1984, numerous alternative mitigation pro-
posals for this project were discussed. At this meeting it was requested
that the Tampa Bay Management Study Commission further review the various
proposals and suggest other mitigative options where deemed appropriate.
In response to this request the Commission convened in a special sub-
committee meeting on November 5, 1984 to develop a recommended mitigation
plan for the proposed Alaf ia-Big Bend Channel Deepening Project.

it should be noted that by recommending a mitigation plan for this project
the Tampa Bay Management Study Commission does not sanction the authoriza-
tion of chosen alternative plans 3 and 8. The Commission remains
unofficially opposed to plan 8, the Alafia River Channel deepening and
turning basin widening, on both environmental and economic grounds.
However, it is the position of the Commission that if the project must
proceed the mitigative options presented herein represent the most feasible
and justifiable alternatives available. it should further be noted that
this proposed plan represents mitigation for habitat loss only. There are
severe water quality impacts associated with the project which have not,
and are not likely to be, addressed under the present regulatory system.
For this reason, the submittal of this plan does not in any way establish
or imply mitigation policy of the Commission.

The following mitigative options are graphically depicted on attached
Exhibit 1.

A. To mitigate for the modification or destruction of 180 acres of
productive bay bottom that will result from the deepening and enlarging
of both channels, including 26 acres with depths of 6 feet or less, it
is recommended that 40 acres of shallow bay bottom, with depths no
deeper than -2.0 NGVD, be created by filling in two historic borrow
holes adjacent to Port Redwing. The borrow holes are the source of
localized water quality problems, and the filling of them represents a
creative alternative to upland spoil disposal. It is suggested that at
the detailed planning stage reasonable efforts be made to ensure the
grain size compatibility of fill sediments with surrounding sediments.

A- 37

B. To insure the successful creation of salt marsh habitat with at least
equivalent productivity to the acreage of modified bay bottom, and the
15 acres of established mangrove wetlands that will be lost in the
enlarging of the Alafia River turning basin, it is recommended that
22.5 acres of smooth cordgrass (Spartina sp.) marsh be created adjacent
to spoil disposal island 2D2, o n the east. it is suggested that this
area be filled, using generated spoil material, and graded to a final
level of +1.0 NGVD. Smooth cordgrass sprigs should be planted on 3
foot centers at a minimum.

C. To further insure the creation of productive intertidal habitat to
mitigate the losses described above it is recommended, that an addi-
tional 7.5 acres of smooth cordgrass marsh be similarly created on the
eastern fringe of spoil disposal island 3D.

D. To provide an economically feasible disposal alternative, and to
stabilize serious erosion problems on existing spoil disposal islands
2D1, 2D2, 3D and the western tip of Bird Island, it is recommended that
the rock material generated in the deepening of the Alafia River
Channel be deposited to provide rip-rap erosion protection for these
areas. A rock jetty should be created to extend eastward from the
southeastern tip of island 2D2 to provide wave energy protection for
the created 22.5 acre salt marsh. Rip-rap protection should extend
along the southern, western and northern sides of both islands 2D and
3D, and along western face of Bird Island. The design of this latter
breakwater should be coordinated with the National Audubon Society
during the detailed planning stages.

E. To further insure the safety of the endangered Florida manatee, all
practicable efforts should be made to limit the blasting that is to
occur during the excavation of the Alafia River Channel between the
months of April and October.

F. Finally, it is recommended that further research on the impacts of
upland spoil disposal, and the breaching of the confining layer during
the deepening of the Alafia River Channel, on the local aquifers be
performed in conjunction with the U.S. Geologic Survey and the
Southwest Florida Water Management District. Studies should focus on
the impacts of these actions under future projected consumptive use
demands in the project area.

Attachment (Exhibit 1)

A- 38

A~~~~~~~~~~~~-A

O~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~gF 7 ~

*1 L---..~ ~~

now.~~

EXH IBIT I
A- 39

Tampa Bay Management Study Commission
Senator Jeanne Malchon, Chair
Representative Mary Figg, Vice-Chair

Mr. A. S. Autry Mr. Roy R. Lewis
Mr. Bruce Belrose Mr. David Maltby
Mr. Richard Eckenrod Mr. Richard Mussett
Dr. Ernest Estevez Mr. Richard T. Paul
Dr. Kent Fanning Ms. Gloria Rains
Dr. William Fehring Mr. Robert S. Richards
Ms. Beth Frierson Mr. Jacob Stowers
Mr. Robert Harnly Ms. Sally Thompson
Mayor Robert E. Hunt Mr. Richard Wilkins

Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council Staff

William A. Ockunzzi Executive Director
Manuel L. Pumariega Administration & Finance
Michael R. McKinley Planning Director
Julia E. Greene Aging Services
Margaret E. Gross Administrative Services
Mary G. Wiser Community Affairs

Douglas E. Robison * Principal Environmental Planner
Lesley Kelly Secretary
Deborah Jenkins Secretary
Joann Finley Assistant Planner
Tracey Huntington Assistant Planner
Richard MacAulay Assistant Planner
Bruce Gaul Graphic Artist
Mark Swearingen Pressman

�Responsible for Report Preparation