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




Regional Coordinating Connei
                                     for
   Coastal Zone Information





                                                               Final Repopt













                                                                               Ta=
                                                                                 PlanrvkV
                                                                                  council








                                                                   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..


                           The Tampa Bay Regional Coordinating Council (TBRCC),'which is administered
                           
                           locally by the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council (TBRPC) has been established
                                                                                                                                     e
                           to promise the sharing of growth management spatial data'throughout the four-
                           county region of Tampa Bay. Widely concerned about spatial data procurem                             
                           expense, counties and communities with ever-decreasing budgets"are able to share                                 
                                                                                                                                     du dant'
                            and reduce the costs previously associated with expensive and redundant
                             of data      purchases through this newly established  data-management
                           The-Coordinating Council, Which is curtently chaired by -the TBRPC
                           Director       "was created by a Memorandum of Understanding signed in early
                                          
                           by the Administators of Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco and Pinellas Counties,
                                                                     
                            Executive Director, of the Hillsborough County City-County Planning
                                     
                          
                             Commission, the regional directors of State...agencies such as 'the   Department of
                                     Transportation, Department of Environmental Re lation, Depart ent of -Health
                                                                                                     
                                                                                      
                              and abilitative 'Services, Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough
                             Southwest Florida Water Manage ment'District, the TBRPC, and the Pinellas
                              County Property Appraiser. As the senior management level, the -Coordinating
                                 Council     gives guidance to the chief working body, the Regional Advisory Committee
                              (RAC) composed of repres ntatives from the Council membershipas will as from
                           
                         the University of South Florida, the Department of Natural Resources, and local
                             goverments on an ad hoc _basis. A staff member from the Regional Planning
                          Council serves as Central Information Unit or Facilitator for the Coordinating
                           Council. and as Chairman, Regional Advisory Committee.
                                                                       

                           Meeting extensively in early 1992, the-. Regional Advisory Committee. through a
                                     I
                           process known as Futures Technique, compiled a list of the 10 most pressing problems
                                         
                           facing the Tampa Bay region in. terms of data needed to address issues. Not
                           surprising, roads 'and transportation., networks, Water quality issues, and disaster
                           preparation (hurricanes) were deemed of. importance in cataloging data for the


                              The specific work is accomplished by Technical Advisory Committees (TACs) which
                           are convenced by the RAC and which are, even furt`her specialized as either Consensus
                           Groups -dealing' with the technical as  aspects of, data transfer, or Subcommittees
                           addressing broader, 'policy issues. Headed by an expert in the subject matter, each
                           Consensus Group attempts to document all pertinent information resources; identify
                           data sharing activities among the agencies; and explore joint activities for data
                           sharing.  The results ofthis effort result in, the, compilation of a card catalog    of the
                           data though the use of Data Descriptive Sunuinaries. Data is then entered into a
                           newly created Florida State network called the Florida Spatial Data Directory'(FSDD),
                           managed through the Governor's Office in Tallahassee by the Growth Management
                           Data Network Coordinating Council (GMDNCC). he FSDD does not attempt to


centralize the repository of data only a directly of the data, information describing
the data and where it can be obtained through the establishment of an electronics
network using a modern to the FSDD and computer storage of the data where it is
held and maintained locally. This process ensures that data is kept under the control
of the originator, in most cases, and is available to all with a modem and computer
to access the data. The FSDD is the most technical phase, of the process and is still
in the formative stages of development. It becomes fully operational in mid-1993.

The parent GMDNCC was an outgrowth of the Florida 1985 Growth Management
Act in an attempt to explore ways and devise means for a sharing of growth
management information statewide. Under a contract awardes by the Interagency
Management Committee, and Executive Office of the Governor under the Staff
Director of the GMDNCC, prepared a report entitled, "A Model Geographic
Information System for Coastal Zone Management," for the Coastal Zone
Management Program. THe goals of the program were to promote the sharing of
geographic information ina coastal zone environment; develop procedures to avoid
the duplication of effort associated with the collection of data; promote methods for
developing consistency of data elements; and develop procedures for adopting
common data formats for multi-agency;/governmental sharing of data.

The Tampa Bay region was chosen as the prototype area to begin the collection of
data information on a regional scale with the ultimate goal of expanding region-by-
region until a statewide network is complete. The Tampa Bay region consists of
approximately 11 governmental organizations and numerous municipalities. The 
Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council was selected to administer the project
becaruse it is the only broad-based regional organization that provides a common
system for area wide coordination of Federal State and local governments, focusing
on planning and problems resolution. In regard to Geographic Information Systems
(GIS) which employ spatial data, there is no coordinating body that previously
provided a directory identification of existing geographic information.  GIS
developers, or sources of information prior to the creation of the TBRCC.

Three highly successful Coordinating Council efforts are ongoing with more planned
in the future. Consensus Groups have been established to collect data on Cockroach
Bay for the purpose of assisting the Hillsborough County City-County Planning
Commission to revise their Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the management
of Cockroach Bay.  A Demographics Information Consensus Group has been
formulated to determine regional needs for demograhic data and to establish
guidelines for the development and maintence of discrete demographic summaries
and projections.  As an example of the flexibility that exists within the TBRCC
management structure, the Demographics Information Consensus Group has reached
beyond the normal complement of representatives from member governments/State
agencies into the private sector, utilizing the skills of business and industry who
employ demographic specialists to forecast future needs for the Tampa Bay region.

					ii 






The third group is the Stromwater Management Consensus Group which is seeking
to identify, coordinate and facilitate stormwater data exchange among governmental
agencies assessing stormwater management issues in the Tampa Bay region.  This
group works very closely with the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (TBNEP)
to assist TBNEP in compiling data needed for reports to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.  A fourth group is being formed in the aftermath
of Hurricane Andrew to address the protection and recovery of valuable data assets
following a major disaster.  The work of each consensus group is monitored and
coordinated by TBRCC Facilitator who works in liaison with the State GMDNCC.
The Facilitator also provides all administrative support to the Coordinating Council,
the RAC and the Consensus Groups.

Success is measured by more than the considerable progress to date.  Being a close-
knit organization of many organizations, results are achieved by consensus of the
participants who all work on a volunteer basis for the broader, regional common
good.  While some grant funds are available for processing the more technical data
exchange requirements, the efforts of the entire process hinge upon the good will and
cooperation which has been so forthcoming throughout the Coordinating Council's
short history.  In an era of very scarce fiscal resources, the TBRCC has shown how
local governments and State agencies can agree to pool talent and personnel
resources to achieve the common goal of data sharing on the most cost effective
basis.  As everyone willingly participates, taxpayers collectively benefit.

In choosing the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council to implement the
management plan devised by the CZM Final Report, the Office of the Governor has
specifically chosen a regional entity as the focal point for data-sharing.  We believe
this selection has merit for other areas of the state as well.  As the state's Regional
Planning Councils look towards legislation which will reconstitute the organizations,
define new roles and missions, it may be prudent to give the RPCs this additional
data-sharing task with appropriate funding that would guarantee a level of
performance statewide that is not governed by individual grants efforts.  The goal is
complete statewide networking through the Florida Spatial Data Directory with
eventual multi-state interaction with such groups as the Gulf of Mexico Program
which is already pursuing data sharing; and with other National Estuary Programs
(such as the Galveston NEP) that have likewise been establishing management
structures for data access and data sharing.

Recommendations

It is imperative that the work initiated by the CZM Final Report and undertaken by
the contract between the Office of the Governor and the Tampa Bay Regional
Planning Council continue to provide a management structure for regional data-
sharing.


							iii



 






                           The Tampa Bay Regional Coordinating Council should continue its work with
                           the Growth Management Data Network Coordinating Council to further
                           identify specific areas for data-sharing, development and refinement of
                           documentation standards, and identification of permanent funding.

                           The Regional Advisory Committee should continue to serve as the working
                           body of the TBRCC to identify for consensus group formation, those issues
                           identified in the Strategic Plan having corporate value to the regionwide data-
                           sharing effort.

                           Consensus Groups should continue. to seek ways for streamlining the process
                           of data cataloging and documentation.

                           The Growth Manage@ment Data, Network Coordinating Council is encouraged
                           to continue its efforts to effect regional data coordination through the
                           establishment of similar regional coordinating councils for data management,
                           through Regional Planning Councils as patterned after the CZM Final Report
                           recommendations and@ established by the Tampa Bay RPC.

                           Permanent funding .:to- Regional Planning Councils for regional data
                           coordination should be provided through legislative action.





                                                                                                                         L


























                                                               iv










                                                             TABLE OF CONTENTS


                      Executive Summary

                      Table of Contents                                                                                        V


                      Glossary                                                                                                 YU

                      Introduction                                                                                             ix

                      Chapter I                 The Management Structure                                                       1

                                                          Chapter Objectives                                                   I
                                                          Problem                                                              I

                      Chapter II                The Strategic Plan and Consensus Gro'Upv                                       5

                                                          Chapter Objectives                                                   5
                                                          Problem                                                              5
                                                          Strategic Plan                                                       6
                                                          Standards Development                                                7
                                                          Goals of the Strategic Plan                                          7
                                                          Objectives of the Strategic Plan                                     8
                                                          Methodology                                                          8
                                                          Results of the Brain-Storming Session                                '10
                                                          Results of the Delphi Evaluation                                     14
                                                          Results of the Cross-Impact Analysis Session                         16
                                                          Results of the System Impact Analysis Session                        17
                                                          Recommendations                                                      22
                                                          Consensus Groups                                                     22
                                                                  Storr.nwater Management                                      25
                                                                  Demographic Information                                      28
                                                                  Cockroach Bay Data Consolidation                             31

                      Chapter III                The Electronic Card Catalog and Protocols                                     35

                                                          Chapter Objectives                                                   35
                                                          Problem                                                              35
                                                          The Protocols and Documentation                                      37
                                                          Recommendations                                                      39

                      Chapter IV                 The Benefits and the Future                                                   41

                                                          Chapter Objectives                                                   41
                                                          Problem                                                              41
                                                          Recommendations                                                      44










                                                                            V









                    APPENDICES

                            1       A Multi-Agency Management Structure to Facilitate the Sharing of Geographic Data

                            2       Tampa Bay Regional Coordinating Council Memorandum of Understanding

                            3       A Strategic Plan for the Tampa Bay Regional Coordinating Council (TBRCC)

                            4       Data Desaiptive Summary Instructions

                            5*      Stormwater Management Consensus Group

                            6       Demographic Information Consensus Group

                            7       Cockroach Bay Data Consolidation

                            8       Florida Spatial Data Directory Users Manual (Draft)

                            9       Data Descriptive Summaries

                            10      Listing of Participants

                            11      Interagency Data Sharing Through GIS for Cockroach Bay





























                                                                  Vi









                                  GLOSSARY



           BOCC          Board of County Commissioners
           CAPMAT        Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Advisory Team
           COBRA         Cockroach Bay Restorative Alliance
           CzM           Coastal Zone Management
           DCA           Department of Community Affairs
           DIF           Directory Interchange Format
           EPC           Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County
           FDER          Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
           FDNR          Florida Department of Natural Resources
           FDOT          Florida Department of Transportation
           FGDC          Federal Geographic Data Committee
           FMRI          Florida Marine Research Institute
           FSDD          Florida Spatial Data Directory
           GIS           Geographic Information System
           GMDNCC        Growth Management Data Network Coordinating Council
           HRS           Health and Rehabilitative Service
           LOS           Level of Service
           NPDES,        National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
           STORET        Data Program used by FDER for storing water quality data
           SWFWMD,       Southwest Florida Water Management District
           swim          Surface Water Improvement Program
           TBNEP         Tampa Bay National Estuary Program
           TBRCC         Tampa Bay Regional Coordinating Council
           TBRPC         Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
           WAIS          Wide Area Information Server (Software)
           WCRWSA        West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority
















                                      vii









                  TBRCC Report - December 1"2                                                   Introduction
                                                                                                   Page ix


                                                     INTRODUCrION


                  To make informed decisions on the coastal zone issues, a coastal zone resource
                  manager must have the ability to integrate and analyze the vast amounts of
                  information that are available. A Major problem exists for resource management in
                  that data collection is typically restricted by site specific projects and political
                  boundaries, but coastal zone issues require an ecosystem perspective that is much
                  broader. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) is a powerful tool that can
                  overcome this problem by merging data from multiple sources allowing region-wide
                  analysis. However, integration of those various data sets can only be accomplished
                  if they are standardized and procedures exist to facilitate the sharing of this data.

                  One of the major objectives of the Growth Management Data Network Coordinating
                  Council (GMDNCC), Office of the Governor, is to facilitate the sharing of
                  information. Ile GMDNCC, in cooperation with regional and local governments in
                  the Tampa Bay region, completed a study' through a CZM grant that defines a
                  management structure to facilitate the standardization and sharing of information for
                  that region. (See Appendix 1 for a discussion of the GMDNCC as described in A
                  Multi-Agency Management Structure to Facilitate the Sharing of Geographic Data,
                  David Stage, Tallahassee, Florida.)

                  During the 1991-92 Coastal Zone Management Program grant period, the Governor's
                  Office, in conjunction with the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, obtained
                  funding to implement the proposed management structure           '. This included the
                  installation of the management structure recommended in the Final Report of the
                  Coastal Zone Management project, the development of a dynamic survey of existing
                  data sets with "corporate value" in the Tampa Bay region, the cataloging of those
                  data sets on an automated data directory, initiation of Consensus Groups for
                  standardizing designated data sets, and an assessment of the effectiveness of the
                  multi-agency management structure with recommendations for improvements and
                  implementation on a Statewide level.

                  Background

                  Geographic Information System (GIS) technology is the tool that can manage the
                  large amounts of geographic or spatial data. It is required for effective governmental
                  planning. Ironically, it is this new technology that is moving government into a "quiet
                  crisis" in regards to the collection and analysis of the data. Factors that effect coastal



               1. The CoasW Zone Management Program, "A Model Geographic Information System for Coastal Zone
              Managemen4" Final Ragort. Prepared by the State of Florida Executive Office of the Governor Office of
              Planning and Budgeting, December 1990.









                     TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                    Introduction
                                                                                                         Page x


                     zone issues are not restricted to political boundaries, but planning and data collection
                     usually are. GIS has the ability to merge information from multiple sources to form
                     a multi-jurisdictional picture, but only if the data is consistent. For example, if two
                     adjoining counties are collecting property descriptions and one county is including
                     duplexes. with apartment complexes and the other is not, it will be impossible to
                     perform a regional analysis of the location of this information. What this illustrates
                     is that it is essential to focus on the data. In fact, estimates show that 80 percent of
                     the cost of the GIS is due to data collection and data maintenance. Furthermore,
                     it is anticipated that the cost of the data collection, which requires extensive human
                     resources, will continue to increase in contrast to the costs of the systems on which
                     the data is processed.

                     Because the ability to purchase GIS has only recently come within reach of most
                     organizations, there is a unique opportunity to direct the development of data
                     collection in such a way that a common language between all levels of goverru-nent
                     can be built. This will allow information to be easily transferred and utilized
                     between different agencies, and for information that is collected at a local level to
                     be utilized at a regional or State level. If action is not taken in -the immediate
                     future, much of the information that is being collected for planning, scientific studies,
                     regulation and monitoring will be lost, resulting in a set of disparate information
                     systems that will be unable to share their information resources. What is most                  Ae
                     important to coastal zone management is that without such coordination, information
                     that is collected for different systems cannot be merged to develop a complete
                     picture of an ecosystem, subsequently severely impairing ecosystem analysis.

                     There are at least twenty State, Federal, regional and local governments that are
                     using and collecting environmental information on the Tampa Bay ecosystem, not
                     including the Universities, the private sector and municipalities.              Of these
                     organizations, there are seven in the Tampa Bay region that have a GIS and three
                     that are in the planning stages. Prior to the collaborative effort between the Office
                     of the Governor's GMDNCC and the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, there
                     was no formal network, for standardizing and sharing this information. Consequently,
                     data collection activities were subject to duplication and the data that is usable was
                     limited to those who knew where the data resided.

                     The long-term goal of this collaboration is to provide coastal zone managers with the
                     information that they need to make informed decisions in the Tampa Bay area, and
                     to maximize the use of available resources by sharing information on a region-wide
                     basis and reducing duplicative activities. This was accomplished by the development
                     of a federation of independently held databases for the many agencies that are
                     collecting data on the Tampa Bay region. These databases are being linked together
                     by standards and a management structure. This federation provides an umbrella








                   TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                   Introduction
                                                                                                      Page A


                   under which information that is collected for any project, inclusive of all the issues of
                   special focus, can be standardized, archived, advertised and accessed as a resource
                   for anyone.

                   The Procgss is the Product

                   There are two very important points to be made about the nature of this specific
                   project which distinguishes it from most contracted projects. First, as will become
                   evident, the efforts of those associated with the project do not terminate with the
                   completion of the contract. The structures established for achieving the overall goal
                   of data-sharing at the least cost are ongoing and the goal remains a standard by
                   which all participants can set individual organizational objectives. Secondly, the end-
                   product of this project is not the Final Report or the various documents produced, but
                   the process itself which was established to meet the specific needs of coastal
                   communities. The process is dynamic and will continue to evolve over the next
                   several years to take advantage of the many changes occurring in the evolution of
                   GIS, their hardware and software, and the types of data that can service the
                   community. As the cost of equipment decreases by quantum leaps annually, -no
                   longer is a GIS capability beyond the average community, organization or agency, but
                   can be acquired by anyone with a personal computer and data storage capability.

                   Goal

                   The goal of the project was to maximize the utility of the information that is
                   collected in the Tampa Bay area by making it usable and available for coastal zone
                   resource managers and all interested parties. This goal was achieved by meeting a
                   series of objectives.

                   Objective5

                           1.     Implement the management structure proposed in the Coastal Zone
                                  Management project, '@4 Model Geographic Information System for
                                  Coastal Zone Management, " Final Report.

                           2.     Increase the 'corporate value" (information that has multi-
                                  agency/governmental value) of data that is collected in the Tampa Bay
                                  area by providing interested parties with procedures for becoming
                                  aware of the data before it is collected and allowing input into what
                                  data is being collected (Consensus Groups). This will allow the fine
                                  tuning of data to maximize its usefulness beyond the scope of the
                                  original project, which is important considering the limited resources
                                  and. the cost of data collection. These activities will greatly reduce the








                     TBRCC Report - Deceraber 1"2                                                   Introduction
                                                                                                       Page Al


                                    possibility of duplicative activities and enhance the probability of
                                    developing cooperative programs.

                             3.     Develop an automated dynamic survey (accessible by phone modem
                                    and updated on a scheduled basis) of the data, archive that
                                    information and provide easy access to that information. This is
                                    imperative if information is to be preserved and not lost due to such
                                    things as changes of agency focus, personnel turnover, accessibility, etc.

                             4.     Increase the utilization of data by developing a transfer mechanism
                                    using well defined protocols, standard documentation rormats and
                                    archive procedures.

                             5.     Document the impacts and the benefits of the activities of a regional
                                    coordinating council and make recommendations for improvements
                                    and the implementation of similar councils for all coastal areas
                                    Statewide.

                     In seeking to  fulfill the objectives for meeting the overall goal of this project, nine
                     specific tasks were enumerated.


                     Tasks-

                             1.     Provide staff and training for the Tampa Bay Regional Planning
                                    Council (TBRPC) to support the Tampa Bay Regional Coordinating
                                    Council (TBRCC) as proposed in the Coastal Zone Management
                                    project, "A Model Geographic Information System for Coastal Zone
                                    Management, " Final Report.

                             2.     Implement the management structure recommended in the Coastal
                                    Zone Management project, "A Model Geographic Information System
                                    for Coastal Zone Management, " Final Report. This management
                                    structure will allow the development of multi-agency standards for
                                    geographic or spatial information, the institutionalization of those
                                    standards and procedures, and a method of archiving the information
                                    that is being collected so that it is available for future use.

                             3.     Develop and institutionalize a multi-agency management structure to
                                    create a dynamic survey of geographic or spatial information. Survey
                                    the region and include the data on the Florida Spatial Data Directory
                                    (FSDD).









                   TBRCC Report - December 1992                                               Introduction
                                                                                                Page xiii


                          4.     Develop, test and distribute software to utilize a distributed data
                                 directory to each organization (provided by the staff of the
                                 GMDNCC).

                          5.     Coordinate data collection activities and develop data standards by
                                 Consensus Groups.

                          6.     Conduct a workshop for the development of transfer protocols for the
                                 TBRCC.


                          7.     Promote the knowledge of cooperative activities by initiating
                                 educational workshops for the Consensus Group Methodology, use of
                                 the Florida Spatial Data Directory, and the promotion of management
                                 tools that were developed in the previous grant (the Quality and
                                 Accuracy Report Templates and the Data Dictionary Templates).

                          8.     Document the impacts and benefits of the activities of the TBRCC on
                                 participating organizations. Areas of concern will include the cost of
                                 data collection, exporting and importing data, cooperative efforts,
                                 success at increasing the "corporate value" of data and the time
                                 required for participating in TBRCC's activities.

                          9.     Prepare a final report which will include the impacts and benefits of
                                 the activities of the TBRCC, Consensus Group Reports, effectiveness
                                 of the data directory and recommendations for the implementation of
                                 coordinating councils on a Statewide basis. Identify a continuing
                                 source of funds and develop a strategic plan to acquire funds to
                                 continue the activities of the TBRCC.



                   How the re2grt is organized

                   This document is the synthesis of the activities of the collaborative project between
                   the Governor's Office GMDNCC and the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
                   entitled, "A Regional Coordinating Council for Coastal Zone Information." It
                   addresses the objectives and tasks supporting each objective.

                   The document is divided into four sections as follows:


                          1.     Implementation of the management structure proposed in the Coastal
                                 Zone Management project, "A Model Geographic Information System
                                 for Coastal Zone Management, " Final Report.









                   TBRCC Report - December M                                                 Introduction
                                                                                               Page Av


                          II.    Development of a Strategic Plan to define the most compelling data
                                 issues of the Tampa Bay region and the formation of Consensus
                                 Groups to increase the "corporate value" of data that is collected in the
                                 Tampa Bay area.

                         III.    An automated dynamic survey (accessible by phone modem and
                                 updated on a scheduled basis) of the data was developed to archive
                                 information and provide easy access to the information and
                                 development of a transfer mechanism using well-defined protocols,
                                 standard documentation formats and archive procedures to increase
                                 the utilization of data.

                         IV.     Documentation of the impacts and the benefits of the activities for a
                                 regional coordinating council and recommendations for improvements
                                 and the implementation of similar councils for all coastal areas
                                 Statewide.







                @@'..CIIAPTER I
                        T









                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                  Chapter I
                                                                                                   Page I


                                                        Chapter I

                                          THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE

                  Chapter Objectives

                          1.     Implementation of the management structure proposed in the Coastal
                                 Zone Management project, "A Model Geographic @nformation System
                                 for Coastal Zone Management, " Final Report.

                  Problem


                  As identified in the CZM Final Report, the Tampa Bay region consists of
                  approximately 12 governmental organizations and numerous municipalities. The
                  Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council is the only broad-based regional organization
                  that provides a common system for area wide coordination of federal, state and local
                  governments, focusing on planning and problem resolution. In regard to Geographic
                  Information Systems (GIS), there was previously no coordinating body that provided
                  a directory identification of existing geographic information, GIS developers, or
                  sources of information.

                  The tasks of this objective were to:

                                 Provide staff and training for the Tampa Bay Regional Planning
                                 Council (TBRPC) to support the Tampa Bay Regional Coordinating
                                 Council (TBRCC)."

                                 Implement the management structure recommended in the objective

                                 Develop and institutionalize a multi-agency management structure to
                                 create a dynamic survey of geographic or spatial information. Survey
                                 the region and include the data on the Florida Spatial Data Directory.

                  Ile initial task for the TBRPC was to create an organization of area agencies who
                  were 1) users of GIS products; 2) had in interest in coordinating with other agencies
                  and organizations to share GIS data; and 3) were interested in formalizing the
                  structure to include staffing at appropriate levels to accomplish tasks as determined
                  by the group.      Identified as willing participants were the Administrators of
                  Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco and Pinellas Counties, the Executive Director of the
                  Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission, the regional directors of the
                  Department of Transportation, Department of Environmental Regulation,
                  Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Environmental Protection








                    TBRCC Report - December 1"2                                                  Chapter I
                                                                                                    Page 2


                    Commission of Hillsborough County, Southwest Florida Water Management District,
                    the TBRPC, the Pinellas County Property Appraiser.              Using the structure
                    recommended in the CZM Final Report, the TBRPC produced a Memorandum of
                    Understanding (See Appendix 2) which provided for an elaborate management
                    structure known as the Tampa Bay Regional Coordinating Council consisting of four
                    bodies:

                           The Tampa Bay Regional Coordinating Council (TBRCC) consists of the
                           chief executives of the member agencies; originally all signers of the
                           Memorandum of Understanding.

                           The Regional Advisory Committee (RAC) is the primary working body of the
                           process and consists of staff members from the TBRCC agencies.
                           Additionally, other GIS users who were not Council participants such as the
                           University of South Florida, the Florida Marine Research Institute of the
                           Department of Natural Resources, and the West Coast Regional Water
                           Supply Authority; were appointed to RAC membership. It was the function
                           of the RAC to first devise a Strategic Plan that would guide Coordinating
                           Council efforts (see Chapter 11), and appoint consensus groups which would
                           implement the recommendations of the Strategic Plan 4n seeking data with
                           11corporate value" to process into the state's central electronic catalog, the
                           Florida Spatial Data Directory (FSDD).

                           The Central Information Unit which is an autonomous body (currently one
                           salaried staff position from the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council with
                           staff support) that acts as a Facilitator for the activities of the TBRCC to
                           include chairing the RAC and providing administrative support for the
                           Consensus Group chairs.

                           The Consensus Groups, the primary working bodies, are composed of experts
                           who create standards on designated data. There are multiple Consensus
                           Groups with membership being dependent upon the topic under
                           consideration. Their activities are determined by Issue Statements developed
                           by Consensus Group chairmen in coordination with the TBRCC Facilitator
                           and approved by the RAC.

                    The goals of the TBRCC are described as follows:

                           To act as a coordinating body within the Tampa Bay region and between
                           local, regional and state governmental agencies;

                           To develop a Strategic Plan for the collection and sharing of data;








                  TBRCC Report - December 1"2                                                 Chapter I
                                                                                                Page 3


                         To identify data needs at the regional level by developing an inventory of
                         current data and a needs assessment with a priority list for development;

                         To adopt as much as feasible, data standards through the process of
                         Consensus Group Methodology (See Appendix 1);

                         To review for adoption, standards related to data-sharing that are developed
                         by the federal goverrunent or the State of Florida.

                  The process of creating the Coordinating Council was a slow, laborious process and
                  while the agreement was effective as of January 15, 1992, the final signatures were
                  not obtained until late May. In August, in accordance with the terms of the MOU,
                  the Executive Director of the Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission
                  became the 12th person to become a member. The first official meeting of the
                  T13RCC after all members had signed the MOU occurred on July 24, 1992. In the
                  meantime, the Regional Advisory Committee (RAC), originally called the Interim
                  Regional Advisory Committee (IRAC) until the MOU was signed, became the
                  subordinate workhorse of the TBRCC and began meeting almost immediately in late
                  December 1991, early January 1992. In a somewhat unorthodox manner, the
                  IRAC/RAC was formed not by appointees from Council members, but by a call to
                  meet of those interested in beginning the process of data sharing. The Regional
                  Advisory Committee became the main engine driving the process and creating the
                  actual data working bodies, called Consensus Groups which will be described in full
                  in Chapter H. As the structure evolved in accordance with the MOU, the RAC
                  created the Consensus Groups, reviewed their progress, and reported back to parent
                  organizations progress being made.

                  The next chapter will deal with the mechanisms of identifying the areas in the Tampa
                  Bay region most vital for data-sharing.











                             CHAPTERII








                    TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                   Chapter 11
                                                                                                       Page 5


                                                          Chapter 11

                                  THE STRATEGIC PLAN AND CONSENSUS GROUPS.

                    Chapter Objectives

                           2.      Development of a Strategic Plan to define the most compelling data
                                   issues of the Tampa Bay region and the formation of Consensus
                                   Groups to increase the "corporate value" of data that'is collected in the
                                   Tampa Bay area.

                    Problem

                    Most policies and issues addressed by local governments in the Tampa Bay region
                    require some kind of geographic information analysis in order to make decisions,
                    hence the need for Geographic Information Systems (GIS) as both a resource
                    management tool and a planning tool. GIS, as opposed to conventional filing and
                    tracking information systems, demands considerable effort in data collection and
                    compatibility. It is essential that this data match an established standard format,
                    otherwise information sharing becomes a difficult process. Consequently the data
                    sharing process among local government agencies acquires, under these conditions,
                    an important dimension: data in order to be shared must have standard formats and
                    should be collected by standard procedures.

                    The ever-increasing complexity and interdependence of information, related to the
                    issues on which local governments must make decisions, dictates the urgent need to
                    identify issues of collective need among local agencies in a consensus manner. This
                    chapter identifies elements that were essential for a Strategic Plan for the Tampa
                    Bay Regional Coordinating Council (TBRCC). Issues and data were identified,
                    prioritized and ranked in a consensus fashion as part of the plan's development. The
                    TBRCC, as a multiagency coordinating body created to promote the sharing of
                    information among local and state organizations, required a plan of action
                    highlighting the main issues and data requirements that could be shared among
                    agencies within the Tampa Bay region. The successful focus of a Strategic Plan
                    element described in this chapter is by no means closed. On the contrary, it is an
                    open plan to which can be added more issues. Its purpose is to provide guidance,
                    justification, and the establishment of directions for the TBRCC.

                    The tasks of this objective were to:

                                   Coordinate data collection activities and develop data standards by
                                   Consensus Groups.








                     TFIRCC Report - December 1"2                                                        Chapter 11
                                                                                                             Page 6


                                     Promote the knowledge of cooperative activities by initiating
                                     educational workshops for the Consensus Group Methodology, use of
                                     the Florida Spatial Data Directory, and the promotion of management
                                     tools that were developed in the previous grant (the Quality and
                                     Accuracy Report Templates and the Data Dictionary Templates).

                     Ile Need for a Strategic Plan

                     A multiagency management structure was imperative in order to facilitate the sharing
                     of geographic data, hence the creation of the TBRCC. Ile main function of this
                     management structure is to allow experts from various organizations to facilitate the
                     development of standards. However, specific data requirements are often linked to
                     those issues that management could address at any particular time. Consequently,
                     a Strategic Plan containing the most relevant issues to be addressed in the Tampa
                     Bay region within 1992-1993 was outlined (See Appendix 3 for the complete report).
                     The important features will be presented in this chapter. This document enabled
                     specific data requirements and standards to be prioritized and facilitated.

                     However, each organization has its own priorities and concerns in relation to the
                     functions it is expected to perform within the region. Therefore, identifying issues
                     of collective need is difficult at best. In order to produce a Strategic Plan that
                     represented the collective thoughts of the Council, a consensus building device, called
                     Futures Technique, developed for large, segmented organizations like the TBRCC
                     was used. This technique has been designed to identify components of a Strategic
                     Plan such as the future directions, communal needs, feasibility of tasks and the
                     highest level of impact on any organization. The Strategic Plan uses a description
                     of issues to conceptually identify areas of collective concern that could then be
                     prioritized in a consensus manner. Once these issues (areas of collective concern)
                     were identified, the information requirements (data sets and standard procedures)
                     necessary to address each issue were generated. Standards and procedures are to be
                     developed through Consensus Groups which focus their activities on transfer
                     protocols, documentation, or specific data sets.

                     The following outline describes the steps. to the technique used to devise the
                     Strategic Plan:

                     STRATEGIC PLAN:

                                     Identify issues of concern in the Tampa Bay region and the
                                     corresponding information (data areas) needed to address or resolve
                                     these issues (Brain-Storming Session).









                   TBRCC Report - December IM                                                     Chapter 11
                                                                                                      Page 7


                                  Rank these issues (and consequently information requirements) by
                                  importance to the organization. (Delphi-Evaluation Session).

                                  Identify how each issue impacts other issues (cross-interaction between
                                  issues), with the purpose of defining the ten most "dominant" and the
                                  ten most "critical" issues in the Tampa Bay region in terms of data
                                  sharing requirements (Cross-Impact Analysis Session).

                                  Identify the data areas that are most important to a particular issue
                                  (the ten most critical issues), thus identifying the critical information
                                  requirements for the Tampa Bay region.               (This allowed the
                                  development of the overall impact that each issue would have on the
                                  Tampa Bay region (Future Scenario) in terms of data sharing
                                  requirements (System Impact Analysis Session)).

                   Standards Development:

                                  Specific data sets from previously identified data areas are addressed
                                  by the Consensus Groups or Subcommittees.

                                  Straw man issue statements (for previously identified issues) are
                                  developed by the co-chairs of each Consensus Group, in conjunction
                                  with the Central Information Unit (facilitator).

                                  Data sets (related to previously identified issues) are documented
                                  through a data dictionary and quality and accuracy reports prepared by
                                  the Consensus Groups in conjunction with the Central Information
                                  Unit.


                   Goals of the Strategic Plan

                   The long term goals are to:

                           Provide managers with the information they need to make sound and
                           informed decisions throughout the Tampa Bay region.

                           Maximize the use of available resources by sharing this information on a
                           statewide and regionwide basis.

                           Minimize redundant local government agencies efforts by reducing duplicative
                           data coflection activities among them.







                   TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                Chapter 11
                                                                                                   Page 8


                   Objectives of the Strategic Plan

                   'Me main objectives are to:

                                 Outline the most dominant and critical issues (in terms of data
                                 requirements) that should be addressed by senior management in the
                                 Tampa Bay region within the years 1992-1993.

                                 Identify the data areas associated to those most important and critical
                                 issues in the Tampa Bay region.

                                 Identify the impact that will be generated by addressing these most
                                 important issues in the Tampa Bay region within the years 1992-1993.

                                 Describe the future scenario that would emerge (in terms of data
                                 requirements) in the Tampa Bay region as a result of having addressed
                                 those critical and important issues.

                                 Develop strawman issue statements for those most important issues in
                                 the region.

                                 Document these data sets and develop standards via data dictionaries
                                 and quality and accuracy reports.

                   Methodology Used to Generate the Strategic Plan

                   A two-day Strategic Plan workshop was organized with the members of the working
                   group. The purpose of the workshop was to use the experience and informed
                   judgement of the working group as the main input to the Strategic Plan. Through
                   the use of what is known as the Futures Technique, (a revised version of the
                   Simulation Conference Methodology first developed by R. Armstrong, M. Hobson and
                   E. Breto at the Institute of Local Government Studies, University of Birmingham,
                   England, see Appendix I of the Plan at Appendix 3) a combined and progressive
                   application of Brain-Storming, Delphi-Evaluation, Cross-Impact Analysis and
                   Scenario Construction techniques were made. A working -group established by the
                   Interim Regional Advisory Council (IRAQ was asked to engage in the following
                   procedures and activities:

                          A Brain-Storming session was held on February 11, 1992 at the Tampa Bay
                          Regional Planning Council's conference room. Attending members of the
                          IRAC assembled into six groups of three members each. Each group was
                          asked to list the five most relevant issues that should be addressed in the









                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                 Chapter 11
                                                                                                   Page 9


                          Tampa Bay region during the years 1992-1993. The appropriate Brain-
                          Storming forms were completed after each group discussion took place.
                          Forms contained a list of the most relevant issues as seen by the various
                          groups, as well as the five elements or factors that would be affected in the
                          event a particular issue was to be addressed or resolved.

                          A summary list of those issues identified during the Brain-Storming session
                          was prepared and provided to the working group. With the help of the
                          Delphi method, each individual completed a Delphi form which outlined each
                          member's own evaluation of the issues under consideration in terms of:


                                 The probability of each issue being addressed during the years 1992-
                                 1993 in the Tampa Bay region.

                                 The significance of the issue for the Tampa Bay region as a whole.

                                 The desirability of addressing the issue in the Tampa Bay region
                                 during the years 1992-1993.

                                 A self evaluation of each member's own expertise and knowledge in
                                 relation to the issues listed.

                                 The corresponding probability histograms for each issue were drawn
                                 and the level of consensus (standard deviation) among members was
                                 determined. An "impact score" number, which reflects such consensus
                                 level and the importance of each issue as compared to another one,
                                 was calculated. The main objective at this point was to draw a list of
                                 the ten "most important" issues @those with the highest impact score)
                                 and also the ten "least important" issues (those with the lowest impact
                                 score). Impact scores for each issue were calculated.

                          As a third step, working group members met February 19, 1992 at the
                          Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission's conference
                          room to attend the second day of the Strategic Plan workshop, where they
                          completed a "Cross-Impact Analysis" evaluation. The Delphi evaluation
                          generated a matrix which displayed the ten "most important" issues, and also
                          the ten "least important" issues.

                                 The main objective was to establish how each issue (once it is
                                 addressed) may affect or impact other issues by increasing the chances
                                 of having to address both issues simultaneously; namely the "cross-









                   TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                  Chapter If
                                                                                                    Page 10


                   interaction effects" of one issue over another one. The final result was the
                   identification of the ten "most dominant" and the ten "most critical" issues in the
                   Tampa Bay region. These cross-interaction effects. were then converted into
                   "probabilities" of one issue affecting another one..

                                  During the final phase of the workshop each working group member
                                  was asked to undertake a "System Impact Analysis" of those dominant
                                  and critical issues identified in the previous step. For this purpose, a
                                  NEXUS card was prepared displaying along its perimeter those factors
                                  suggested by the working group members during the Brain-Storming
                                  phase. Such factors are now considered to provide a description of the
                                  system, in this case the Tampa Bay region.

                                  The task consisted of establishing the impact of dominant or critical
                                  issues upon each factor describing the system (Tampa Bay); thus
                                  identifying the critical information requirements for the Tampa Bay
                                  region (NEXUS card). By superimposing each of the NEXUS cards
                                  completed - by every working group member, a cumulative and
                                  simultaneous future scenario (Strategic Plan) was thereby generated.
                                  (See Chapter III of the Plan at Appendix 3).

                   Results of the Brain-Storming Session

                   Members of the working group gathered into six groups of three members each.
                   Based on their own judgement and experience and through individual group
                   discussions, they were asked to make a list of five of the issues in the Tampa Bay
                   region they believe need to be addressed in the years 1992-1993. They were also
                   asked to identify the factors that would be affected, if it was to be assumed that the
                   issues they have listed were addressed in Tampa Bay during the target years.

                   There were thirty issues identified by the working group.            Duplicate and/or
                   overlapping definitions of issues were deleted. What follows is a list of those clearly
                   identifiable issues after this search took place.








                        TBRCC Report - December 1"2                                                                   Chapter 11
                                                                                                                          Page I I




                                                                       TABLE #1


                                                          TAMPA BAY REGIONAL ISSUES




                                               ISSUES                              FACTORS THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED


                        1.  Ground water quality data                                     0 Number of Septic tanks
                            standardized to be shared
                            by multijurisdictional bodies.                                0    Water demand

                                                                                          0    Hazardous waste site location


                        2. Effects of polluting industrial                                41   Air quality measurements
                            facilities on human health and
                            solid waste                                                   *    Water quality measurements

                                                                                          0    Economic industrial indicators


                                                                                          0    Number of regulatory agencies

                                                                                          0    Data dissemination bodies


                        3. Effects of land use, zoning and                                0    Storm water impact/flooding
                            redevelopment on the habitat and
                            ecosystem                                                     0    Socioeconomic indicators

                                                                                          0    Traffic access and utilities


                        4. Water quality eutrophication and                               0    Run off water quality and
                            its impact on living organisms
                                                                                          0    Atmospheric input measurements

                                                                                          0    Land use total acreage

                        5. Traffic congestion reduction                                   0    Network
                            and road infrastructure
                                                                                          0    Airports


                                                                                          0    Mass transit


                                                                                          0    Land use








                       TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                               Chapter If
                                                                                                                     Page 12


                                                                TABLE #1 (Contd)




                                             ISSUES                            FACTORS THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED

                       6. Standard population projections                              * Water supply
                           and statistics
                                                                                       0   Federal funding

                                                                                       *   Road's LOS and basic services
                                                                                           supply

                       7. Overlap and duplicative services                             0   Type of permits required
                           between state and county regulations
                                                                                       0   Type of licenses required

                       8. Local governments real estate statistics                     0   Type & number of housing units

                                                                                       0   Number of units for sale


                                                                                       0   Unit cost per type

                                                                                       0   Number of leasing units

                       9. Standard street mapping methodology-
                           compatible names and addresses in all counties

                       10. Creation of GIS data buffer encompassing                    0   GIS data formats
                           common boundaries between agencies
                                                                                       *   Type of GIS systems

                       11. To establish a data exchange standard                       0   Zoning categories
                           format: data dictionary quality and
                           accuracy report                                             0   Land use types

                                                                                       0   Type of GIS systems

                       12. Base parcel maps for land use and                           0   Economic resourceb commitment
                           transportation studies at local
                           government level: modelling urban                           0   Traffic congestion
                           areas; E.g., land use location, trip
                           generation etc.                                             0   Road infrastructure

                       13. Identify environmental resources by
                           sensitivity level









                       TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                  Chapter 11
                                                                                                                         Page 13


                                                                  TABLE #1 (Contd)




                                              ISSUES                              FACTORS THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED


                       14. Vacant land inventory for parks and                            0 Demographic indicators
                            and recreation provision to meet present
                            and future population needs                                   0   Total vacant land acreage

                                                                                          0   Total acreage of vacant land
                                                                                              by ownership type

                       15. Law enforcement and jails                                      0   Population growth

                                                                                          0   High crime area statistics

                                                                                          0   Road maps

                                                                                          0   Socioeconomic indicators


                       16. Socioeconomic indicators forecasting and
                            regional development

                       17.  Water supply and infrastructure to meet                       *   Demographic indicators
                            population growth:'surface and ground
                            water characteristics                                         0   Wells availability and location


                                                                                          0   Storm water sources


                       18. Air quality: population and traffic                            0   Pollution sources: types/level
                            projections regarding pollution data
                                                                                          0   Mortality and rate of birth

                       19. Procedures in hurricane preparedness,                          0   Topographic information
                            evacuation and recovery planning
                                                                                          0   Transportation network

                                                                                          0   Demographic indicators

                       20. Flood control: effects on land use                             0   Road and housing infrastructure
                            area, drainage and erosion
                                                                                          0   Land use distribution and location


                                                                                          0   Topographic information








                  TBRCC Report - December IM                                            Chapter 11
                                                                                           Page 14


                  Results of the Delphi Evaluation

                  During the Delphi Evaluation Phase, members carried out an evaluation of those
                  issues listed previously. Each member was provided a Delphi evaluation form which
                  contained the list of issues. Four basic topics were evaluated.

                  0     Probability of the issue being addressed in the years 1992-1993;

                  0     Significance of the issue for the Tampa Bay Region;

                  0     Desirability of the issue being addressed during the years 1992-1993;

                  0     A self-evaluation of their knowledge and experience in relation to the issue
                        under consideration.

                  Applying the equation described in Appendix 3, Page 5, an "impact score" number
                  was calculated for each issue. This impact score number reflects the importance of
                  one issue over another, reflecting a ranking of issues by their importance. Issues with
                  the highest impact scores are considered (in this first ranking) the most important
                  issues to be addressed in Tampa Bay in terms of data sharing requirements, as
                  perceived by the working group. Issues which showed the lowest impact scores are
                  considered to be the least important issues in the Delphi ranking evaluation. The
                  following tables contain the lists of the most and least important issues according to
                  the Delphi evaluation.

                                                     TABLE # 2


                                              MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES
                                                  (Delphi Ranking)

                        1.     Water supply infrastructure to meet population growth: surface and ground water
                               characteristics.



                        2.     Flood control: effects on land use area, drainage and erosion.


                        3.     Water quality- eutrophication and its impact on living organisms.


                        4.     Standard street mapping methodology- compatible names and addresses in counties.


                        5.     Standardization of water quality data to be shared by multijurisdictional bodies.









                     TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                 Chapter It
                                                                                                                     Page 15


                                                               TABLE # 2 (Contd)

                              6.       To establish a data exchange standard format: data dictionary, data directory and
                                       quality accuracy report.

                              7.       Procedures in: hurricane preparedness, evacuation and recovery planning.

                              8.       Effects of land use, zoning and redevelopment on the habitat and ecosystem.

                              9.       Effects of polluting industrial facilities on human health and solid waste.

                              10.      overlapping and duplicate services between state and county regulations; e.g. permits,
                                       licenses etc.




                                                                    TABLE # 3


                                                          LEAST IMPORTANT ISSUES
                                                                 (Delphi Ranking)

                                1.     Base parcel maps for land use and transportation studies at local government level:
                                       modeling urban areas for land use location and trip generation.

                                2.     Create a GIS data buffer encompassing common boundaries between agencies.

                                3.     Identify environmental resources by sensitivity level: oil spill, habitat, etc.

                                4.     Air quality: population and traffic projections regarding pollution data.

                                5.     Traffic congestion reduction and road infrastructure.

                                6.     Standardization of population projections and statistics.

                                7.     Vacant land inventory for parks, beaches and recreation facilities to meet present
                                       population needs.

                                8.     Law enforcement needs and jails.

                                9.     Local government real estate statistics.

                                10.    Socioeconomic indicators forecasting for regional development.








                       TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                           Chapter 11
                                                                                                                 Page 16


                       Results of the Cross-Impact Analysis Session

                       A Cross-Impact Analysis of the ranked list of issues obtained during the Delphi
                       evaluation was undertaken by the working group. A matrix displaying the ten most
                       important issues, according to the highest impact scores from the Delphi evaluation,
                       was provided to the working group. The ten least important issues were forming the
                       column titles (see Appendix # 4 of the Strategic Plan at Appendix 3). Tlie task was
                       to establish how the most important issues (assuming they have been addressed)
                       would impact or affect the least important issues. This impact would mean
                       interdependence (cross-interaction) between two issues, suggesting that such issues
                       may have to be addressed simultaneously.

                       The main objective of this phase was twofold: to identify and rank the most
                       dominant and the most critical issues (thus identifying the critical information related
                       to those issues), and to observe if any issue has been reshuffled in its ranking
                       importance. A review of the Cross-Impact Analysis results showed the following
                       (revised) list of issues and the new "average" impact score which has been assigned
                       to them.


                                                                  TABLE # 4


                                                          MOST DOMINANT ISSUES
                                                            (Cross-Impact Ranking)

                               1.       Water supply infrastructure to meet population growth: surface and ground water
                                        characteristics.


                               2.       Water quality: eutrophication and its impact on living organisms.

                               3.       Flood control: effects on land use area, drainage and erosion.

                               4.       Standard street mapping methodology: compatible names and addresses in counties.

                               5.       To establish a data exchange standard format: data dictionary, data directory and
                                        quality & accuracy report.

                               6.       Standardization of water quality data to be shared by -inulti-jurisdictional bodies.

                               7.       Procedures in: hurricane preparedness, evacuation and recovery planning.

                               8.       Effects of land use, zoning and redevelopment on the habitat and ecosystem.

                               9.       Effects of industrial pollution on human health and solid waste.

                               10.      Overlapping and duplicate services between state and county regulations; e.g., permits,
                                        licenses, etc.








                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                 Chapter 11
                                                                                                  Page 17


                  It should be noted that four issues were reshuffled after the Cross-Impact analysis
                  took place:

                                 The number one and most dominant issue that should be addressed in
                                 Tampa Bay in relation to data sharing continues to be: Water supply
                                 infrastructure to meet population growth/ground and surface water
                                 characteristics.

                                 The water quality eutrophication and its effect on living organisms has
                                 now been ranked as the second most "dominant" issue in Tampa Bay
                                 in terms of data sharing among local agencies.

                                 Flood control and its effects on land use area, drainage and erosion
                                 has now been considered the third most dominant issue as a result of
                                 the Cross-Impact analysis undertaken by the working group.

                                 The establishment of a standard street-mapping methodology with
                                 compatible names and addresses in counties continues to -be
                                 considered the forth most dominant issue that should be addressed by
                                 Tampa Bay local agencies.

                                 The establishment of a data exchange standard format though a data
                                 dictionary quality and accuracy report is the fifth most dominant issue
                                 that should be addressed in the near future according to the working
                                 group.

                  Results of the System Impact Analysis Session: Future Scenarios

                  During the final phase of the workshop the working group carried out a "System
                  Impact Analysis" of those dominant issues identified previously in the Cross-Impact
                  Analysis phase. A "NEXUS" card was prepared (see Appendix 5 of the Strategic
                  Plan at Appendix 3) which displayed along its perimeter those factors suggested by
                  the working group during the Brain-Storming session. These factors now provide a
                  consensus of collective data concerns shared by Tampa Bay area local government
                  and affected agencies.

                  The major task was to identify the impact a dominant issue would have over each
                  factor, or data area, describing the system (Tampa Bay), thus identifying the critical
                  information sharing requirements for the Tampa Bay region during 1992-1993.








                    TBRCC Report -, Dmember 1"2                                                  Chapter 11
                                                                                                   Page Is


                    The objective of this phase was twofold: to obtain the final ranking importance of
                    dominant issues in terms of its probability of being addressed, and to identify the
                    corporate value of those data areas associated with them.

                    A NEXUS board has also been prepared which allows the measurement of the future
                    cumulative short-term impact of each issue over the above mentioned factors, and
                    consequently defines its "corporate" value. By superimposing each of the NEXUS
                    cards completed by the working group on this NEXUS board, the two following
                    cumulative future scenarios were generated:

                           Scenario I


                           Need to be
                           Addressed
                           (Percentage
                           Probability):         Impacted Issues


                           1)     800%           Establish data exchange standards
                           Implies               a)            The development of a quality and
                                                               accuracy report and data dictionary on
                                                               data of corporate value

                                                 b)            Protocols for data exchange.

                           2) 75%                Water quality data

                           Critical/Sensitive Issues

                                                 a) 70%        Population and traffic projection

                                                 b) 53%        Parallel traffic- congestion/road infra-
                                                               structure regarding air quality

                                                 c) 34%        Base parcel maps for land use/
                                                               transportation studies

                           3) 72%                Procedures concerning hurricane preparedness, evacua-
                                                 tion and recovery plan.









                    TBRCC Report - December IM                                                             Chapter 11
                                                                                                              Page 19


                             Critical/Sensitive Issues

                                                     a) 64%          Population / traffic projections

                                                     b) 49%          Traffic congestion / road infrastructure

                                                     c) 32%          GIS buffer with common boundaries to
                                                                     share
                                                                     data between local government agencies

                             4) 66%                  The effects of polluting industrial facilities on human
                                                     health and solid waste.


                             Critical/Sensitive Issues

                                                     a) 56%          Parallel population and traffic projections

                                                     b) 43%          Traffic congestion and road infrastructure

                                                     c) 28%          Environmental resources by sensitivity
                                                                     levels (oil spills, hazardous waste, etc.);

                                                     d) 28%          Creating a GIS buffer with common boun-
                                                                     daries to share data between local
                                                                     government agencies.

                             5) 65%                  The effect of land use, zoning and redevelopment on the
                                                     habitat and ecosystem

                             Critical/Sensitive Issues

                                                     a) 61%          Population and traffic projections

                                                     b) 46%          Road infrastructure and traffic
                                                                     congestion

                                                     c) 30%          Parcel     maps      for    land     use     and
                                                                     transportation      studies    at   the     local
                                                                     government level









                   TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                Chapter 11
                                                                                                 Page 20


                          6) 65%                Flood control and its effect on land use designation,
                                                drainage and erosion.

                          Critical/Sensitive Issues

                                                a) 60%        Population and traffic projection;

                                                b) 45%        Traffic congestion and road
                                                              infrastructure;

                                                c) 15%        Local government real estate statistics on
                                                              housing costs, housing for sale/rent;

                                                d) 30%        Identifying environmental resources by
                                                              sensitivity levels;

                                                e) 11%        Standard population projections.

                          7) 65%                Water quality eutrophication and its impact on living
                                                resources


                          Critical/Sensitive Issues

                                                a) 59%        Population and traffic projections

                                                b) 30%        Identification of environmental resources
                                                              by sensitivity levels

                                                c) 30%        Maintaining a GIS buffer with common
                                                              boundaries designed to share data
                                                              between local government agencies

                          8) 64%                Overlapping   and duplicate services lent by state and
                                                county agencies

                          Critical/Sensitive Issues

                                                a) 55%        Population and traffic projections

                                                b) 27%        Maintaining a GIS buffer with common
                                                              boundaries designed      to share      data
                                                              between local government agencies









                 TBRCC Report - December 1M                                                  Chapter 11
                                                                                                Page 21


                                              c) 27%        Identification of environmental resources
                                                            by sensitivity levels

                                              d) 27%        Base parcel maps for land u  se and trans-
                                                            portation studies

                         9)     62%           Water supply infrastructure to meet population growth,
                                              including both ground and surface water characteristics

                         Critical/Sensitive Issues

                                              a) 61%        Population and traffic projections

                                              b) 46%        Traffic congestion and road infrastructure

                                              c) 30%        Maintaining a GIS buffer with common
                                                            boundaries to share data between local
                                                            government agencies

                         10)    61%           Development of a standard street mapping methodology
                                              with compatible names and addresses in every county



                         Scenario 2

                         Scenario 2 describes the situation that would emerge if the ten most
                         important and dominant issues described in Scenario 1 were addressed in the
                         Tampa Bay region. It identifies the impact generated by each dominant issue
                         (in terms of probabilities) over the data areas included on the NEXUS card;
                         thus identifying the corporate value of each data area. T'he underlying
                         assumption is that the higher the probability that an issue (of collective
                         concem) may impact a data area, the greater the "corporate" value of the data
                         area will be. By the same token the greater the corporate value of data, the
                         more need there will be to share such data among local agencies in the
                         Tampa Bay area.

                         Therefore if the ten most dominant issues in the Tampa Bay area listed in
                         Scenario 1 were addressed, the following information related to these issues
                         wiH have to be shared among local government agencies:








                    TBRCC Report - December 1"2                                                 Chapter 11
                                                                                                  Page 22


                            1)    100% Common geographic information systems data formats

                            2)    64%    Information on surface and ground water characteristics

                            3)    63%    Data on storm water sources having corporate value
                            I

                            4)    58%    Information on standard data collection formats related to the
                                         ten most important issues listed

                            5)    47%    Information on data collection methods will have corporate
                                         value among local agencies in the region

                            6)    45%    Data on environmental effects on the habitat

                            7)    44%    Information regarding general data on wells would have
                                         corporate value

                            8)    43%    Data on the receiving-water effects on Tampa Bay

                            9)    42%    Water supply data

                            10)   40%    Information regarding storm water flooding measurements will
                                         have corporate value

                    Recommendations

                    Four of the six objectives slated for the Strategic Plan have now been achieved.
                    First, the most important and critical issues (in terms of data requirements) which
                    should be addressed by senior management in Tampa Bay have been identified.
                    Secondly, the data areas associated to those most important and critical issues have
                    been clearly identified. Also, the impact that would be generated by addressing these
                    issues, as well as the future scenarios that would emerge as a result have been
                    described. The following is a list of recommendations that are being pursued to
                    ftiffill the two remaining Strategic Plan objectives:

                    1.      At least five Consensus Groups are necessary to address the following issues:

                                  Development of data exchange standard formats for information
                                  transfer and information sharing among local government agencies.

                                  Development of standards for water quality data to be shared by
                                  multijurisdictional bodies.









                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                Chapter If
                                                                                                Page 23


                                Procedures in hurricane preparedness, evacuation and recovery
                                planning.

                                Demographic and traffic projections

                                Traffic congestion and road infrastructure.

                          Chairmen for these consensus groups should develop a strawman issue
                          statement for each issue.


                  2.      Seven Technical Advisory Committees should be formed to define and
                          document (via data dictionary and quality and accuracy reports) the following
                          specific data sets:

                          0     GIS data formats

                          0     Surface and ground water characteristics

                          0     Storm water sources


                          0     General data on wells

                          0     Storm water flooding m eiasurements

                          0     Water supply

                          0     Receiving-waters effects on Tampa Bay

                  The work of the Strategic Plan served   to document the problems known to exist in
                  the Tampa Bay region with a view towards providing commonality of approach to
                  data gathering for cataloging in the Florida Spatial Data Directory (FSDD).

                  CONSENSUS GROUPS

                  The mechanism employed for approaching the tasks listed above was the
                  appointment by the Regional Advisory Committee of Consensus Groups designed to
                  work individual issues. As identified in the CZM Report, the following is a summary
                  of the process:

                          Participants are identified by the Regional Advisory Committee and a
                          chairman is selected.










                     TBRCC Report - December 1"2                                                  Chapter If
                                                                                                     Page 24


                            An issue statement is developed by the chairman and submitted to the
                            Regional Advisory Committee. The issue statement is the heart of the
                            process, providing a roadmap for each consensus' group in reaching its
                            objectives. This document:

                                    Provides a charter and justification for participation;

                                    Establishes an action plan with goals, objectives, tasks, and timelines;

                                    Provides documentation of actions (a corporate memory of activities)
                                    allowing issues to be placed on hold and when resurrected the work
                                    can continue where it was left off, even if the membership has
                                    completely changed; and

                                    Acts as a project manager for the facilitator and co-chairs.

                            A Data Descriptive Summary is completed for each set of data (See Appendix
                            4).

                            A meeting is held to decide which sets of data have "corporate value."

                            Each identified set of data having "corporate value" is documented by the
                            completion of a Quality and Accuracy Report and a Data Dictionary (See
                            Appendix 1).

                            Enhancements to the data must be made following a written procedure, the
                            onus being on the part of the enhancement requestor.

                            All documents produced as part of the process are to be available to all
                            participants prior to a substantive meeting.

                            Standards are agreed upon utilizing the Quality and Accuracy Report and the
                            products of the Data Dictionary.

                            A Consensus group is finalized by the chairman and submitted to the
                            Regional Advisory Committee.

                     Recognizing that the Strategic Plan was to serve strictly as a guide and not as a
                     mandated approach, three groups emerged following the development of the
                     Strategic Plan.









                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                   Cbapter 11
                                                                                                   Page 25


                                STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CONSENSUS GROUP

                  The purpose of this group is to identify, coordinate and facilitate stormwater data
                  exchange among federal, state, regional and local agencies assessing stormwater
                  management The control of the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff is of
                  primary importance throughout the state of Florida. Stormwater runoff management
                  is essential for flood control and for the control of contaminants contained in runoff,
                  which can result in surface water degradation in rivers, lakes, and estuaries. The
                  Florida Department of Environmental Regulation's Stormwater Division states that
                  stormwater runoff is now considered the state's biggest water pollution threat to the
                  quality of Florida's surface waters. Recent research (reviewed by Henigar & Ray,
                  Inc., for the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) Surface
                  Water Improvement and Management Program (SWIM), 1991) showed that
                  stormwater-associated pollution was responsible for

                          80-85 percent of the heavy metal loading to Florida's surface waters;

                          Virtually all of the sediment deposited in state waters; and

                          Nutrient loads comparable to those in secondarily treated sewage effluent
                          discharges.

                  Recent revisions in stormwater management regulations as all levels of government
                  reflect the growing concerns with water quality issues associated with stormwater
                  runoff and its management. (See Stormwater Management Consensus Group Issue
                  Statement, Appendix 5).

                          Problem Statement:

                                 The scope and effectiveness of current policies and regulations relating
                                 to stormwater management throughout the region are not fully
                                 documented and not fully known.

                                 Water quality data collection programs or. permit applicants for
                                 regulatory requirements are not always compl   ete enough to allow valid
                                 comparisons of data or extrapolation of results to other areas of
                                 interest.


                                 High concentrations of metals and DDT are present.

                                 Indications of sediment contamination from agricultural runoff have
                                 been found in several areas of Tampa Bay.








                     TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                  Chapter 11
                                                                                                     Page 26


                                   There is no regionwide mechanism for the coordination of stormwater
                                   management data collection efforts, leading to the potential for
                                   duplicated effort and inefficient use of the tax dollar.

                                   Localized solutions are often implemented due to jurisdictional limits
                                   where technical recommendations suggest the need for wider ranging
                                   solutions on a regional basis.

                             jggl: To improve information and data sharing among managers of
                                   stormwater runoff and related environmental effects.

                            ObJectives:

                            1.     Identify existing and needed data for use by managers of stormwater
                                   runoff in order to fulfill all permitting requirements for National
                                   Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and other local
                                   requirements (See Appendix I to Appendix 5).

                            2.     Develop quality and accuracy reports for each targeted data set
                                   consistent with STORET requirements.

                            3.     Integrate as far as possible, data management protocols developed by
                                   the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (TBNEP).

                            4.     Identify potential improvement areas, especially areas of duplication
                                   in governmental management of stormwater issues and assess the
                                   ability of existing programs to meet management goals.

                            5.     Facilitate the coordination and exchange and distribution of
                                   information collected as a part of regulated stormwater management
                                   programs.

                            Status of Group:

                            The group, composed of natural resources planners and technical experts met
                            on a monthly basis to refine the tasks listed in the Issue Statement. Currently,
                            the group is compiling data for submittal to the Data Directory using a matrix
                            provided by the chair. One important component of this effort is the
                            standardization and coordination of data collection and reporting procedures
                            between and among regulatory entities. This standardization is crucial to
                            allow comparison and evaluation between regulated sites. Currently, all
                            agencies working with st   ormwater water quality samples are requested to








                 TBRCC Report - December IM                                                 Chapter 11
                                                                                              Page 27


                         submit their data to the State DER in its program called "STORET," which
                         potentially eases the task for this Consensus Group. To ease this process, a
                         STORET Workshop was conducted the DER STORET Coordinator, Dr.
                         Dave Gowan, on September 17, 1992, at the Tampa Bay Regional Planning
                         Council. This workshop was attended by water quality specialists from
                         6roughout mid-Florida. Upon completion of submission of data entries, the
                         Quality and Accuracy Report and Data Dictionary processes will be
                         completed.








                    TBRCC Report - December 1M                                                     Chapter H
                                                                                                      Page 28


                                DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION CONSENSUS GROUP

                    The purpose of this group is to determine regional needs for demographic data and
                    establish guidelines for the development and maintenance of discrete demographic
                    summaries and projections. (See Issue Statement, Appendix 6). Interestingly
                    enough, demographic data was originally rated far down on the list of subjects
                    identified in the Strategic Plan. However, it became evident that demographic
                    considerations cut across the interests of all subject areas and are vital in work
                    planning.    Demographic information represents the single most important
                    independent variable in evaluation and analyses associated with local government
                    comprehensive plan monitoring and compliance evaluation. Though standard sources
                    of population information exist and will continue to do so, these sources must be
                    reviewed and manipulated prior to use in the evaluation of comprehensive plan
                    elements. The principle shortcomings of current sources are the limited geographical
                    delineation of estimates and the lack of quality population projection techniques that
                    can be used by communities in future facilities planning. The availability of modern
                    geographical data bases related to the 1990 Census and other land data sources that
                    are under development in communities can assist greatly in development of
                    population distribution and projection methodologies. It is imperative, however, to
                    coordinate the data collection techniques and evaluation methods related to
                    population to avoid substantial problems in using this information in multi-
                    Jurisdictional evaluations similar to those required by the Tampa Bay Regional
                    Planning Council and the Southwest Florida Water Management District.

                    Demographic information represents the most common independent variable used
                    to establish Levels of Service (LOS) related to growth management plan elements
                    in Florida local governments. Population summaries also represent data that are
                    used strategically by most state and regional agencies for a variety of critical planning
                    and service delivery functions.       Therefore, population estimates for various
                    jurisdictions and zones used in plan element compliance evaluation should be as
                    accurate as possible. To this point, official population estimates have consisted of
                    decennial census information estimates for small geographical areas and annual
                    population updates from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR)
                    that are produced for each city/place and county. T'he advent of modem automated
                    land information systems has pened the door to a large number of potential methods
                    for more accurately distributing official population updates, generating accurate
                    population updates locally, generating discrete population projection estimates, and
                    portraying these numbers dynamically and effectively using mapping options available
                    in geographic information systems. A cursory review of current development
                    strategies for population data administration indicates that most agencies are
                    considering a wide variety of approaches to the problem.









                   TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                Chapter 11
                                                                                                  Page 29


                          Problem Statement

                          To prevent possible inconsistencies among communities in population
                          estimates, it is necessary to coordinate development of population and related
                          data bases and address the following factors which hinder consistent
                          demographic information management:

                                  The varied application of demographic data in plan elements, both in
                                  the geographic jurisdictions within which plan compliance must be
                                  monitored, and use of population as an independent variable in Level
                                  of Service (LOS) compliance evaluation;

                                  Population estimates for cities and counties are only available
                                  annually;

                                  Lack of standard methods for quality controlling, distributing, or
                                  projecting existing population estimates;

                                  Lack of focused application of modem census demographic data
                                  products to assist in resolving problems listed above;

                                  Lack of information on other land information data sources that could
                                  assist in demographic data administration such as construction permit
                                  and property appraisal information;

                                  Lack of focused application of geographic information system
                                  technology for demographic data      administration other than that
                                  supplied by individual GIS vendors;

                                  Lack of common understanding of the impact perennial and seasonal
                                  population and/or dwelling unit information has on LOS assessments
                                  and standards; and

                                  Problems managing demographic information.4n services areas that fail
                                  to nest consistently.

                          Goal:   Develop a consistency in demographic measurement with standardized
                          terminology and protocols that will permit access, transfer, and use of data
                          across all levels of government.








                   TBRCC Report - December 1"2                                                   Chapter If
                                                                                                    Page 30


                          Obiectives:

                          1.     Identify methods for generating small area population estimates and
                                 projections.

                          2.     Prepare a catalog documenting data sources identified as useful in
                                 population estimation and projection.

                          3.     Develop protocols for transfer of population related data among
                                 participants.

                          4.     Develop plan to support consistent population estimation and
                                 projection methods at agencies within the region.

                          5.     Provide for the future by keeping data bases updated within each
                                 organization.

                          6.     Increase user awareness of the demographic data bases, the complexity
                                 of their structure and how they may be used.

                          Status of Group:

                          T'his group, originally composed of county population/GIS specialists and later
                          broadened to include demographic forecasting and planning personnel from
                          business and industry, has met regularly to discuss and document techniques
                          for developing population distribution and aggregation estimates and propose
                          a standard strategy for generating estimates that are useful for regional
                          activities. Ile chair has circulated a strawman review method for this
                          evaluation that has served as a basis for discussion. Discussion has centered
                          around an initial proposed structure of four critical population evaluation data
                          bases. Elements discussed were 1) parcel attribute data base; 2) construction
                          permits; 3) future land use; and 4) principal evaluation geozone data bases.
                          Additionally, population projection methods involving general requirements,
                          technique options, and potential data sources for small area projections as
                          well as three to five principal data sources needed for alternative population
                          evaluations were also addressed. This multi-discipline group will continue to
                          examine ways of standardizing forecasting and projection techniques.









                   TBRCC Report - December IM                                                        Chapter 11
                                                                                                       Page 31


                                       COCKROACH BAY DATA CONSOLIDATION

                   This group, the last to become appointed, was the first completed because it was in
                   response to a specific tasking. Tasked with amending the Comprehensive Plan for
                   the prese,rvation and cleanup of Cockroach Bay, the Hillsborough County City-
                   County Planning Commission asked the Environmental Protection Commission of
                   HiUsborough County to identify a variety of available natural resource layers and
                   data for the development of a plan for the management of Cockroach Bay and to
                   transfer the data in useable format to the Hillsborough County Geographic
                   Information System Department. Beginning in January, 1992, Hillsborough County
                   Commissioner Ed Turanchik formed a task force to discuss a number of issues
                   relative to the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve. The Preserve bounds an area which
                   includes the headwaters and oligohaline habitat for the eastern portion of the Middle
                   segment of Tampa Bay (See Figure 1 of the Issue Statement at Appendix 7).
                   Cockroach Bay has some of Tampa Bay's most pristine habitat and generally good
                   water quality. The Federal Coastal America's program has recently funded $300,000
                   toward an estuarine restoration project on Cockroach Bay's northern shore and the
                   State of Florida's SWIM program has dedicated at least twice as much money toward
                   the same restoration project. Additionally, there has been an award of a $400,000
                   EPA Clean Water Act Section 319 (h) Non-point Source Pollution Set-Aside grant
                   to fund construction of a stormwater system designed to treat agricultural runoff into
                   Cockroach Bay. This grant was designed specifically to address pollution abatement
                   strategies for sediment contamination problems from agricultural runoff. Once in
                   place, such massive public expenditures along with the rare and pristine nature of the
                   Bay carry a public mandate to protect the investment and manage for the protection
                   of the resource.

                   The Task Force formed a subcommittee under EPC coordination to analyze what
                   data might be pertinent to the further implementation of the strategy and where the
                   data might reside. The subcommittee developed a matrix of data types and a list of
                   the potential producers of that data.           The plan amendment called for the
                   HUlsborough Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to establish the Cockroach
                   Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Advisory Team (CAPMAT) who will be the
                   primary user but data will be fed to them after consolidation of data in the County's
                   GIS under the guidance of the Hillsborough County GIS Coordinator.

                   However, although much data are available to help implement a management
                   strategy, it has been. difficult for the Planning Commission to easily avail itself of that
                   data. There is also a developing sense of urgency that plan development proceed
                   quickly, not only because of the expensive restoration project on the Bay's north
                   shore, but also because there is initial evidence already accumulating that suggest
                   that there are chronic and newly recognized problems in the Bay related to water









                    TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                  Chapter 11
                                                                                                     Page 32


                    quality and seagrasses. For the long run, both the seagrass and water quality issues
                    are addressed in the management strategy. There will be, undoubtedly, many other
                    issues that could be addressed by the strategy as it is developed by CAPMAT, but
                    the Task Force concluded that no strategy implementation should take place until
                    certain base natural resource data were compiled by the County GIS Department
                    and made available to the CAPMAT. For now, the planning area is bounded on the
                    west by Tampa Bay, on the north by the north shore of the Little Manatee River, on
                    the south by the Manatee County line, and on the east by Highway 301. Because
                    drainage basins will undoubtedly be needed to implement the management strategy,
                    this area may be expected to enlarge after some discussion.

                           Problem Statement:

                                  Seagrasses are suffering long-term, cumulative damage from boat
                                  propeller scarring.

                                  Chlordane and Mirex (tw6 agricultural pesticides toxic to freshwater
                                  and marine organisms) levels are high.

                                  Stormwater is a pollutant despite new regulations.

                                  Shellfish harvesting is prohibited due to pollution.

                                  High concentrations of metals and DDT are present.

                                  Exotic plant encroachment threatens biodiversity in the coastal zone.

                                  Agricultural runoff is a major source of pollution.

                                  Habitat modification and destruction are prevalent.

                    Ile wetlands and uplands surrounding Cockroach Bay are currently highly disturbed,
                    with almost three-fourths of the total area in farm fields, mined areas, and residential
                    (trailer park) areas. More than 4,300 acres of low-salinity marshes and associated
                    coastal upland habitats (important wildlife and fish habitat) have been lost to
                    development in the Tampa Bay watershed. Ongoing Cockroach Bay Restorative
                    Alliance (COBRA) restoration efforts will rehabilitate some of these critical habitats
                    in the Cockroach Bay Basin.

                           Goal:    Compile and deliver to the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve
                           Management Advisory Team (CAPMAT), base natural resource information
                           necessary to implement the management strategy for Cockroach Bay.









                   TBRCC Report - December IM                                                     Chapter If
                                                                                                     Page 33


                          Objectives:

                          1.     Identify data needed by CAPMAT for the implementation of a
                                 Cockroach Bay management strategy.

                          2.     Develop quality and accuracy reports for each targeted data set.

                          3.     Integrate as far as possible, data management protocols developed by
                                 the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (TBNEP).

                          4.     Provide an orderly and efficient transfer of data to external users.

                          Status of Group:

                          After completing survey questionnaires, the group completed the data
                          gathering process. The Group Chairman had several meetings with the
                          County CIS coordinator to discuss prioritizing the list of available data layers.
                          The producers of multiple data layers (e.g. SWFWMD, EPC, FDNR/MRI,
                          Hillsborough County) were selected as the first priority for data transfer.
                          Because of the work involved, a decision was made to try to import data in
                          its existing format and to delay manipulation of the data (e.g. matching, scale
                          correction to base map, etc.) until the actual need for more specificity arose
                          .from within CAPMAT. Data Descriptive Summaries were forwarded to the
                          GMDNCC for inclusion in the FSDD. An outgrowth of this Group was
                          interest by the National Estuary Program in documenting the results of data
                          sharing which was accomplished by the EPC of Hillsborough County under
                          an NEP contract. The results were highly favorable and will be discussed in
                          more detail in Chapter V.

                   Status of Consensus Groups

                   The consensus groups continue to meet and refine work being performed. During
                   the past two Regional Advisory Committee meetings, proposals were made for the
                   chartering of two additional groups. The first, as an outgrowth from Hurricane
                   Andrew, was to form a new group. to address planning for safeguarding all data assets
                   during disaster. The work of this group will dovetail with work ongoing in
                   Tallahassee convened by the Governor. Members of the Emergency Management
                   community were invited to attend this Regional Advisory Committee meeting and
                   provided valuable input. The RAC gave enthusiastic approval for the formation of
                   this new group to be called the Disaster Planning and Data Asset Recovery
                   Consensus Group.









                    TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                 Chapter 11
                                                                                                   Page 34


                    The second proposal is for a transportation issues consensus group and is in keeping
                    with priorities set in the Strategic Plan. This group is only in tentative stages until
                    an issue statement is developed.

                    The next chapter will briefly discuss the electronic means developed for the
                    acceptance, storage, and update of data placed within the Florida Spatial Data
                    Directoty.











                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                 Chapter III
                                                                                                   Page 35


                                                       Chapter III

                           THE ELECTRONIC CARD CATALOG and THE PROTOCOLS

                  Chapter Objectives

                          3.    An automated dynamic survey (accessible by phone modem and
                                updated on a scheduled basis) of the data was developed to archive
                                information and provide easy access to the information.

                          4.    Development of a transfer mechanism using well-defined protocols,
                                standard documentation formats and archive procedures to increase
                                the utilization of data.


                  Problem

                  Approximately 80 percent of policy and regulatory issues in government require
                  geographic information to make decisions. Coupled with the high growth in Florida,
                  the increased interest and development of GIS is understandable. GIS systems,
                  unlike non-geographic "tracking type systems," require a total integration of all
                  elements to produce an accurate and usable product. Data collection efforts are very
                  expensive which has resulted in an interest by many organizations to acquire data
                  that has already been bought and compiled elsewhere.

                  The GIS community in the Tampa Bay region does not enjoy the luxury of common
                  systems or programs which make the sharing of data difficult, depending on the type
                  of data to be transferred. The various requirements which generated the initial
                  software requirements for databases and graphics make standard transfer protocols
                  very difficult to define. As identified in the CZM Report, the two major issues
                  involved in the transfer of data are the transfer protocols or mechanisms for actually
                  performing the transfer; and the documentation. Various groups studying these
                  problems to include the Protocols Transfer Workshop held on December 9, 1992,
                  identified documentation. as being the most critical and necessary. There was great
                  concern over the amount of information available upon.transfer. However, the
                  enormous time-consuming tasks necessary to completely document the information
                  made this task of more concern to the importer than to the exporter. Ideally, as
                  future data sets are defined and created, documentation will be accomplished with
                  the creation of the data and the labor-intensive task of data-documentation after the
                  fact will pose fewer problems.

                  "Metadata" are data about data. They provide such information as the characteristics
                  of a data set, the history of a data set, and organizations to contact to obtain a data








                    TBRCC Report - December IM                                                   Chapter III
                                                                                                    Page 36


                    set. Standardized metadata elements would provide a means to document data sets
                    within an organization, to contribute to catalogs of data to help persons find and use
                    existing data, and to aid users to understand the contents of data sets that they
                    receive from others. The problems are not confined to the Tampa gay region, but
                    are in fact, worldwide as technology expands the possibilities of GIS. In June 1992,
                    the Fe&ral Geographic Data Comn-dttee (FGDC) sponsored an Information
                    Exchange Forum on Spatial Metadata. One issue discussed by the participants was
                    the need for a common set of metadata elements for use in GIS, in catalogs of data,
                    and for data transfer. The FGDC is sponsoring a six-month public test and comment
                    period so that the spatial data user and vendor communities can review and refine
                    the standard. The FGDC intends that the resulting content standard for spatial
                    metadata will be used within the Federal community, at a minimum. Much of the
                    standard concentrates on metadata required for digital spatial data. Much, if not
                    most, spatial data are in analog form -- maps, aerial photographs, gazetteers, and
                    other documents -- and many believe a standard should also address spatial data
                    encoded using these media. This approach would provide users with a common set
                    of information on a wider array of data. Until work is completed, an alternative
                    approach would be software that stores and indexes unstructured text files, and
                    supports field searching as one would do through a conventional data base. An
                    example of such software is the public-domain Wide Area Information Server
                    (WAIS) software. This software would operate on ASCII files that could be output
                    by a metadata generator or GIS package. By defining specific metadata fields and
                    allowing them to be written into an ASCII text file, the software would be able to
                    perform random text-searching and more sophisticated, structured queries. For
                    example, the WAIS-like indexes could allow access to phrases like "Florida" anywhere
                    in the file as well as a specific query of blocks of text related to "Florid." The
                    Directory Interchange Format (DIF) developed by NASA for global data bases is a
                    good example of such a flexible structure.

                    Once data are documented, a central catalog is necessary for users to be able to
                    access to determine 1) what is available, 2) who owns and maintains the data, 3)
                    what format are the data in (documentation) and 4) how good is the data. Many
                    organizations throughout the country are seeking to meet similar needs through the
                    familiar bulletin board/modem access.

                    The tasks of this objective were to:

                                   Develop, test and distribute software to utilize a distributed data
                                   directory to each organization (provided by the staff of the
                                   GMDNCQ.









                TBRCC Report - December J"z                                                 Chapter III
                                                                                               Page 37


                              Conduct a workshop for the development of transfer protocols for the
                              TBRCC.


                T'he Florida Spatial Data'Directory (FSDD) was created in Tallahassee as a bulletin
                board accessible by modem to be used as a card catalog for filing data descriptive
                surnmariei of data sets defined for cataloging by the consensus groups. The FSDD
                has undergone a series of revisions since creation is still evolving. However, a
                program has been completed and the draft users manual appear at Appendix 8.
                Additionally, data descriptive summaries entered as part of the consensus group
                process also appear at Appendix 9.

                THE PROTOCOLS AND DOCUMENTATION


                A protocols transfer and documentation workshop was held on December 9, 1992,
                with GIS experts from the member community (see Appendix 10 for list of
                attendees). The group tackled the problems of both transfer mechanisms and
                documentation. The results of the workshop appear as follows:

                1.     Physical Transfer of Data

                       The group collectively agreed that this is not an issue but needs to be stated
                       as such. The lineage issue today is the real key to data transfer and users
                       must concentrate on data structure, rather than technology, which changes too
                       fast to track. Most standard software today contains the necessary transfer
                       tools necessary to import from one format to another. It was agreed that
                       each organization would identify the formats by which they transfer data to
                       be included in a final report.

                2.     Documentation


                       The major issue at stake was the cost of documenting versus the cost of not
                       documenting (hard dollars versus soft dollars). Implementation was an issue
                       in so much as there is a need to define the workload. There was an emphasis
                       on developing strong recommendations but still allowing discretion by the
                       developer.

                       a.     Applications - what can the vendors supply in regard to automatically
                              documenting the data. It was the desire that this could be achieved
                              but it was recognized that for meaningful documentation it would
                              require human input.









                     TBRCC Report - December 1992                                               Chapter III
                                                                                                    Page 38


                            b.     Base data sets


                                   Base data sets are those from which derivations are made. All base
                                   data sets that have corporate value should be documented. There was
                                   some question as to how those data sets would be identified so the
                                   agency would know the workload. It was stated that this work group
                                   was focusing on the issues and the prioritization would be a product of
                                   the consensus groups.

                                   1.     Historical

                                          Some of these are lost causes due to the inability to properly
                                          document aged data as well as the time required to perform the
                                          task. There will be a need to prioritize those data sets that
                                          need to be documented.


                                   2.     Future


                                          These data sets   can be documented as part of contractual
                                          arrangements.

                            C.     Transformations


                                   This issue needs  to be addressed as the user community continues to
                                   work the issues.  One specific issue to discuss is how does one decide
                                   what transformations to document.


                            d.     Structured Documentation Tool

                                   The project officer of the Growth Management Data Network
                                   Coordinating Council will provide a beta test version for the
                                   participants so that the difficulty may be tested.

                            e.     Management

                                   Various forms of  organizational structure were discussed as they seek
                                   to identify what data sets to document. This is basically the work of
                                   the consensus groups which will recommend accordingly and will
                                   recommend to the Regional Advisory Committee, those decisions for
                                   resolution which must be brought before the Tampa Bay Regional
                                   Coordinating Council for implementation.









                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                             Chapter III
                                                                                               Page 39


                         L      Card Catalog

                                We already have in place mechanisms for differing levels of
                                documentation to include the Card Catalog, Quality and Accuracy
                                Report, Data Dictionary. The "entry" level of information is provided
                                by the Data Descriptive Summary. This summary is produced for each
                                set of data to provide a preliminary card of information about data
                                contained in the Catalog (See Appendix 4).

                                The Quality and Accuracy Report is a standardized template for
                                reporting on the quality and accuracy of the data. Once data is
                                identified as having "corporate value" a Quality and Accuracy Report
                                is prepared in accordance with the format in the Appendix I
                                attachment to Appendix 1.

                                The Data Dictionary is a standardized template for reporting on the
                                definitions and structure of individual data elements. Once data is
                                identified as having "corporate value" a Data Dictionary Report is
                                produced in accordance with the format found in the Appendix 2
                                attachment to Appendix 1.

                  Recommendations


                         Finally, the workshop agreed that strawman recommendations must be
                         developed for Council approval. These recommendations must be useful but
                         not overly burdensome to data producers. As part of the dynamic, ongoing
                         process, these recommendations will be defined and presented.



























































































                                                                                                   i









                   TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                   Chapter IV
                                                                                                     Page 41


                                                         Chapter IV

                                            THE BENEFITS and the FUTURE


                   Chapter Objectives

                          5.      Documentation of the impacts and the benefits of the activities for a
                                  regional coordinating council and recommendations for improvements
                                  and the implementation of similar councils for 'all coastal areas
                                  Statewide.


                   Problem

                   To make informed decisions on coastal zone issues, planners and resource managers
                   must have the ability to integrate and analyze the vast amounts of information that
                   are available. The counties, state agencies and increasingly, communities of the
                   Tampa Bay region have relied upon Geographic Information Systems to provide the
                   capability needed to approach the most difficult growth management issues. At stake
                   during the voluntary period of collaboration created by the formation of the Tampa
                   Bay Regional Coordinating Council for data management was identification of
                   common, across-the-board issues that would make data-sharing desirable; and the
                   willingness of Council participants to engage in the time-consuming, but necessary
                   structure devised for collaboration and cooperation.          An original purpose in
                   developing the TBRCC was to avoid cost by maximizing the value of the data to all
                   parties through the sharing/receiving of data, eliminating major costs; through the
                   elimination of duplicative activities, sharing of ideas, and to preserve the data's value
                   through standard documentation. This chapter will identify successes and progress
                   to date.


                   Ile tasks of this objective were to:

                                  Document the impacts and benefits of the activities of the TBRCC on
                                  participating organizations. Areas of concern will include the cost of
                                  data collection, exporting and importing data, cooperative efforts,
                                  success at increasing the "corporate value" of data and the time
                                  required for participating in TBRCC's activities.

                                  Prepare a final report which will include the impacts and benefits of
                                  the activities of the TBRCC, Consensus Group Reports, effectiveness
                                  of the data directory and recommendations for the implementation of
                                  coordinating councils on a Statewide basis. Identify a continuing









                     TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                Chapter IV
                                                                                                    Page 42


                                  source of funds and develop a strategic plan -to acquire funds to
                                  continue the activities of the TBRCC.


                     One serendipitous contribution to this effort evolved from the work of the Cockroach
                     Bay Data Consolidation Consensus Group. Early in its formation, the Environmental
                     Protection Conunission of Hillsborough County obtained a small grant from the
                     Tampa Bay National Estuary Program to, inter alia, document the usefulness of
                     consensus group methodology as developed by the TBRCC. The demonstration
                     project concentrated on the process of data-sharing and its objectives included:

                     a     Demonstrate a locally coordinated initiative in data sharing to protect an
                           important Bay resource.

                     0     Identify problems or impediments to using the Consensus Group methodology
                           developed by the Regional advisory Committee for this type of project.
                     0     Recommend solutions to these types of impediments for future
                           implementation.

                     0     While keeping the data sets closely linked with the respective producer
                           agencies, demonstrate the consolidation of data for the specific use of the
                           Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Advisory Team (CAPMAT)
                           and other agencies and researchers.

                           Test and demonstrate the feasibility of using the Florida Spatial Data Directory
                           as a Central Subject Directory for the TBNEP, (Interagency Data Sharing
                           Through GIS for Cockroach Bay, Charles M. Courtney, Environmental
                           Protection Commission of Hillsborough County, September 1992, p. 5;
                           hereafter cited as the EPC Report.) (See Appendix 11).

                     The results of the demonstration project often paralleled those experienced on other
                     consensus groups as well. Each consensus group requested the completion of Data
                     Descriptive Summaries prior to initial meetings of the groups. In few cases was this
                     accomplished and additional time was required to complete the task through the use
                     of a matrix of agencies matched with data held. This process will be strengthened
                     for future consensus groups.

                     Another phenomenon which existed involved the formal versus informal structure of
                     the organization. While the TBRCC Memorandum of Understanding called for the
                     formation of the Council who would appoint from its membership, persons to sit on
                     the Regional Advisory Committee, the process became reversed. An Interim
                     Regional Advisory Committee (IRAQ was convened in the early stages of the
                     process to begin work on the Strategic Plan. This was coincident with the signing of








                    TBRCC Report - December 1"2                                                     Chapter IV
                                                                                                       Page 43


                    the MOU which for various reasons, took several months to complete. By the time
                    the Council held its first meeting in July, 1992, the IRAC had already completed the
                    Plan and formed three consensus groups. Ile IRAC was composed not of persons
                    appointed by the Council, but persons who had answered the initial call for those
                    would be interested in participating in an region-wide data sharing project. Often
                    the IRAC and subsequently, the RAC, was composed of interested individuals, but
                    not necessarily possessing the requisite backgrounds for informed GIS decisions. The
                    consensus group process additionally brought in people from organizations not
                    represented on the Council or the RAC, but who enthusiastically supported the
                    project and lent their efforts and talents toward consensus group goals. As part of
                    the dynamics of the data-sharing process and ongoing Council activities, the various
                    consensus groups as well as the RAC will continue to undergo revision to identify for
                    participation, those who can best represent their member constituents.

                    The project has proved success in many aspects with recognition that the product is
                    the process. It has demonstrated that consensus group and data descriptive summary
                    protocols of the RAC as well as the services of the Central Information Unit
                    (Council Facilitator and Chairman, Regional Advisory Committee) in collaboration
                    with the Growth Management Data Network Coordinating Council work extremely
                    well for projects of this type. While envisioned as a year-long effort, the dynamics
                    of the process have taken the various groups beyond the scope of the original
                    contract to perpetuate a process that is working well and continues to enjoy
                    enthusiastic support of all participants. The EPC Report likewise came to some of
                    the same conclusions as indicated:

                                   'qbe use of Data Descriptive Summaries has proven to
                                   be particularly effective in targeting data for acquisition.
                                   No major problems have been encountered to date, and
                                   over a million dollars worth of data, already produced by
                                   public expenditure for other purposes, has already been
                                   transferred. The development of data is usually the
                                   most expensive phase and the sharing of data represents
                                   a compounding of the value of the public dollar spent
                                   while reducing the likelihood of needless duplication of
                                   data development," (EPC Report, p. iii).

                    One of the biggest obstacles remaining in the process is to identify follow-on sources
                    of funding to continue the project. At a time of severe resource constraints upon
                    member agencies, alternative sources of funding must be pursued from all aspects.
                    Federal grants will continue to be a source of specific funds for specific projects.
                    Additionally, it may be possible to obtain matching funds from the state providing
                    the local Council is able to identify a source of funds for match.








                     TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                 Chapter [V
                                                                                                     Page 44


                     In choosing the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council to implement the
                     management plan devised by the CZM Final Report, the Office of the Governor has
                     specifically chosen a regional entity as the focal point for data-sharing. We believe
                     this selection has merit for other areas of the state as well. As the state's Regional
                     Planning Councils look towards legislation which will reconstitute the organizations,
                     define new roles and missions, it may be prudent to give the RPCs this additional
                     data-sharing task with appropriate funding that would guarantee a level of
                     performance statewide that is not governed by individual grants efforts. The goal is
                     complete statewide networking through the Florida Spatial Data Directory with
                     eventual multi-state interaction with such groups as the Gulf of Mexico Program
                     which is already pursuing data-sharing; and with other National Estuary Programs
                     (such as the Galveston NEP) that have likewise been establishing management
                     structures for data access and data sharing.

                     Recommendations


                     It is imperative that the work initiated by the CZM Final Report and undertaken by
                     the contract between the Office of the Governor and the Tampa Bay-Regional
                     Planning Council continue to provide a management structure for regional data-
                     sharing.

                             The Tampa Bay Regional Coordinating Council should continue its work with
                             the Growth Management Data Network Coordinating Council to further
                             identify specific areas for data-sharing, development and refinement of
                             documentation standards, and identification of permanent funding.

                             The Regional Advisory Committee should continue to serve as the working
                             body of the TBRCC to identify for consensus group formation, those issues
                             identified in the Strategic Plan having corporate value to the regionwide data-
                             sharing effort.

                             Consensus Groups should continue to seek ways for streamlining the process
                             of data cataloging and documentation.

                             The Growth Management Data Network Coordinating Council is encouraged
                             to continue its efforts to effect regional data coordination through the
                             establishment of similar regional coordinating councils for data management,
                             through Regional Planning Councils as patterned after the CZM Final Report
                             recommendations and established by the Tampa Bay RPC.

                             Permanent funding to       Regional Planning Councils for regional data
                             coordination should be provided through legislative action.






              A Multi-Agency Management Structure                                          Appendix I
              TBRCC-Report - December 1992                                                      Page I



              David Stage
              State of Florida
              Executive Office of the Governor
              The Capitol
              Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
              Phone (904)922-7193
              Fax    (904)487-0526






                                A Multi-Agency Managenwnt Structure to Facilitate
                                           the Sharing of Geographic Data

                     Abstract: The Growth Management Data Network Coordinating Council
                     (Council) was created to facilitate the sharing of growth management _
                     information, most of which is spatial in nature. To this end, the Council is
                     building a multi-agency management structure which allows the experts from
                     different agencies to collectively develop and make recommendations to
                     executive management in regard to data standards and policies for sharing
                     infortnation. Such a system requires the development of multi-agency
                     management tools: a muld-agency project manager (the issue statement) was
                     developed to facilitate inter-agency coordination, and a consensus group
                     methodology was created to assist in the development of data standards.
                     Three documentation tools were constructed: an automated card catalog (data
                     directory) of spatial data; a quality and accuracy report; and a data
                     dictionary. A full-time facilitator has been recognized as an essential
                     element to the maintenance and administration of this muld-agency
                     organization.


              Introduction

              The State of Florida is concerned about the effects of high growth on the State's
              infrastructure and environment, and has been developing ways to address the problems of
              managing growth. Key to these issues is the ability of management to make informed
              decisions which requires ready access to information, inclusive of both planning and
              environmental data. To specificafly address these issues, the State created the Growth
              Management Data Network Coordinating Council (Council) in 1985, whose membership
              consists of the eleven State agencies that are primarily concerned with the issues of growth
              management.






                  A Multi-Agency Management Structure                                               Appendix 1
                  T7BRCC Report - December 1992                                                          Page 2
                  Impediments

                  The acquisition and analysis of geographic information presents some new and unique
                  problems to the information resource community:

                                 the expense of collecting spatial data is substantial, forcing agencies to seek
                                 existing data sources;

                                 the origins of phenomena about which data is being collected are often
                                 outside the jurisdictional boundaries of the information collector (physical as
                                 weU as the agency mandate) requiring the acquisition 'data to come from
                                 outside sources;

                                 the measurement of spatial data requires very sophisticated technology and
                                 procedures that are only understood by a smaU body of experts;

                                 the lack of a common language for geographic information (standard
                                 definitions, standard reporting formats, quality and accuracy reporting
                                 formats, etc.) impedes the development of standards and the coordination of
                                 resources;

                                 upper mana gement- does not understand the issues related to geographic
                                 information and in many cases they do not even know the issues exist;

                                 because of the complexity of the issues and the number of organizations that
                                 need to be involved, long-term projects are difficult to sustain; and
                                 without a multi-agency bureaucracy that insures participation in' extra-agency
                                 activities, compliance with multi-agency procedures and standards becomes
                                 subject to the behavioral "whimsy" of an individual or an organization.

                 Management      Structure

                 Organizations   are generally structured in a vertical fashion with the executive management
                 defining the direction of the institution by creating policies and procedures to accomplish
                 their goals and objectives. These guides are passed down the hierarchy to middle
                 management and technicians who develop operational procedures and action plans to
                 achieve specified objectives. It is at this level. that measurement of past performance and
                 the identification of new areas of concern are determined by'the collection, synthesis, and
                 analysis of information. This information is organized into an appropriate representation
                 (executive summary, tables, maps, etc.) and periodically presented to executive management
                 in order that the institution can make any necessary adjustments. Historically, government
                 agencies have used data that was tabular in nature with the specific data parameters being
                 defined by executive management (the number of cases handled, claims, errors, etc.) to
                 measure institutional performance. As issues that governments address become more
                 complex, the information required by management to guide their decisions has
                 correspondingly become more complicated. Management, due to their lack of technical






                A Multi-Agency Management Structure                                             Appendix I
                TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                         Page 3
                experiise, has had to move from describing the specific data parameters that they need for
                decisions to a rather general framing of questions that they need answered - for example, is
                there more or less mercury in the water and is it dangerous? Deciding what information
                needs to be collected and how that information is acquired, measured, synthesized, and the
                results presented is delegated to the experts in that field.

                The information being used to answer these more complex questions am typically spatial in
                nature and the information collected is best manipulated by geographic information systems
                (GIS). The collection of this raw data presents some interesting problems to the
                infonnation resource manager. Only the experts, naturally, truly understand this
                information, and subsequently they are also the only ones able to develop appropriate
                policies and procedures to maintain the integrity of this data, but they are not empowered
                to do so. Even though these managers may develop shop standards, these standards are
                only ad-hoc in nature. If paths to executive management are open to formalize these
                ad-hoc standards, there is no structure to promote these standards outside of their
                organization.

                If the need is great enough, individuals will take the initiative to solicit cooperation fmm
                another agency, but due to several factors, this can have a Rmited impact. Once an
                individual leaves one bureaucracy and begins interacting with individuals in another
                organization, the parties are no longer operating within any defined institution - they- are
                functioning in a "bureaucratic void", with the total lack of structural support that this term
                implies. To accomplish their goals they are restricted to their personal resources with
                success being dependent upon an individual's will, until a formal agreement is acquired
                through such devices as a memorandum of understanding or a contract. Even when a
                formal agreement is acquired, they are typically limited to short-term activities.
                Furthermore, due to the previously mentioned reasons, agreements between more than two
                parties are even more difficult to acquim. Although individuals may be able 'to achieve
                some significant gains, there is nothing to perpetuate these gains when those individuals
                leave, the "corporate memory" of an organization, and more often than not,the initiative
                leaves with them. Subsequently, many inter-governmental cooperative activities in areas of
                high complexity are limited to small scale or short-term projects.

                Another problem faced by geographic information users and managers is the inability to act
                on windows of opportunity. For example, in a structu.red meeting that we had on the soils
                database, the engineers from the Department of Transportation (DOI) were reviewing the
                USDA Soil Series Data Base with a Soil Conservation Service soil scientist. It was
                discovered that the information that was being collected to measure the corrosive properties
                of soils was restricted to coffosion on iron. The transportation engineers needed data on
                galvanized steel, stainless steel, and concrete. The DOT office had the laboratory facilities
                for measuring these properties and the parties present were able to conceptually structure a
                way in which the USDA soils data could be sent to the Florida DOT laboratory for
                analysis of these other data elements. The problem arose in finding a way to convey this
                concept to upper management in both institutions, and thus initiating an inter-governmental
                cooperative activity.






                 A Multi-Agency Management Structure                                            Appendix I
                 TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                        Page 4

                 Generally, we have found that the primary impediments to sharing information is the lack
                 of formal management structure in a multi-agency environment. To address this problem
                 we have developed tools for communication, a consensus group methodology for
                 developing data standards, and we are currently in the process of developing a multi-
                 agency bureaucracy to initiate standards development and implement the standards that are
                 derived from this process. The key to success is access by the middle managers and
                 technicians to executive management. This has been achieved by creating an Executive
                 Council in Florida's statutes and the signing of an inter-agency agreement regarding
                 standards.

                 State of Florida Geographic Information Network

                 The State of Florida Geographic Information Network is a federation of independently held
                 databases that are linked together by standards and a management structure. Its primary
                 function is to allow the experts from the various organizations to meet in technical
                 advisory committees (TACs), develop standards, and provide a conduit through which those
                 recommendations can be sent to upper management.

                 The multi-agency management structure illiustrated in Figure 1, has three levels of
                 bureaucracy: at level one, executive management makes decisions regarding policy and
                 provides executive support to the staff advisory committee and TACs (consensus groups);
                 at level two, a staff advisory committee identifies topics of concern, creates TACs and
                 identifies the experts from each of the agencies that should participate on those TACs; at
                 level three, the TACs. consisting of experts in a specific field, come together to develop
                 policy, procedures, and standards which are thenpresented to the staff advisory committee
                 for review. These recommendations are then presented to the Council and, if adopted, they
                 can be promulgated to other state agencies.

                 There are six fundamental tools that are used in this structure:

                              a newsletter to provide information about on-going activities;

                              an issue statement that documents the various activities and pmvides a
                              structured methodology and project manager for TACs which can develop
                              recommendations for standards, procedures, and policies;

                       0      a catalog of geographic data (data directory);

                       0      documentation of the *goodness" of the data (quality and accuracy report);

                       0      a detailed description of the data (data dictionary); and

                       0      formal transfer protocols using the United States Geological Survey's (USGS)
                              Spatial Data Transfer Standards.

                 These methodolog ies and tools will be described in their appropriate sections.






                                                       State of Florida
                             Geographic Information Network


                                                                   Standards
                         *GMDNCC
                                                                                                                Agencies

                                                                                                                                                         Cr
                                                                                                                                                         (b
                                                                            Annual         Consensus
                    Auth          Policy                                    Report         Group                                                            E/)
                        offty                                                                                                                            ID -
                                  Recommendations                                          Notifications


                                           Consensus Group Reports                                                   Florida Spatial Data Directory
                             Staff                                      Facilitator                                   - Bulletins
                           Advisory            Consensus0roup                             Data InventoryJI'leporls    - Announcernents
                         Committee          Rewavriondatlowng/Ravlow                                                  - Reports
                        AN, - A h.                                                                                    - Conferences
                           Data      Primilles          Data                                                          - Data Inventory
                            Inv.                      Surve          Ir"s        SUmdaids         Data
                                                                                 Reports          Iniventory
                                   Data                                                                        Data
                                                                                                             Search
                                Inventory                                                     Consensus
                                                                                                   Group
                                                                        Consensus                Request
                                                                          Groups

                                                                                      DataRepresentallve
                                                                                                         @9)














                                      Advisory Representallve                                                   Agencies                                    >
                                                                                                                                     Interagency
                                                                                                                                     Agreernents

                          Growth Management Data Network Coordinating Council






                A Multi-Agency Management Structure                                            Appendix I
                TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                       Page 6

                Management Support and Structured Methodologies

                The institutionalization of a management structure requires management support services
                and structured methodologies to insure consistency and coordination. The Council has
                established the following: a facilitator to provide administrative and management support
                services; a multi-agency project manager (issue statement) that coordinates and tracks
                activities; and TACs (subcommittees and consensus groups) which provide an inter-agency
                micro- bureaucracy.

                Facilitator:

                A Facilitator is essential to the Council, staff advisory committee and the TACs, providing
                training, support services, and management guidance. This is particularly important to the
                TACs where a significant amount of work is required of a membership that is essentially
                composed of volunteers. The facilitator

                             promotes horizontal activity by providing a single point of contact, and
                             becomes a broker of resources by developing a "corporate memory" for the
                             multi-agency body;

                             acts as a inter-'agency manager by coordinating activities, insuring the use of
                             structured methodologies, and aiding in the development of strategic plans for
                             the Council (enforcing its rules);

                             provides an inter-agency staffing by aiding the various TACs with their
                             administrative duties, documentation of meetings, presentations, and the
                             development of issue statements. Each TAC, which. is actually Aeveloping its
                             own micro-bureaucracy, utilizes the facilitator to help establish the sa-Ucture,
                             identify the goals, objectives, and tasks in order that they may spend their
                             time working on the objectives as opposed to the administrative duties of the
                             TAC; and

                             provides a management function to the Council by tracking the progress of
                             each TAC.


                Issue Statements:

                The issue statement was developed as a project manager for the multi-agency tasks force.
                These amorphous bodies, which have an inherently weak leadership and no authoritative
                power, face a number of problems that inhibit their ability to become an effective
                operational organization. Turnover in state government is approximately two years, causing
                a constant attrition to these groups; "meetings" tend to produce a lot of good discussion,
                but little-planned action; members of multi-agency tasks force am essendauy volunteers
                only able to provide the minimum amount of time outside of the meetings of the tasks
                force; and the collective memory of such organizations is poor, at best, making long-term
                projects difficult. To overcome these problems, we have developed a multi-agency project
                manager in the form of an issue statement (See appendix 2 - the issue statement is






                A Multi-Agency Management Structure                                            Appendix I
                T7BRCC Report - December 1992                                                       Page 7
               modified from the EPA's Gulf of Nlexico   Program Action Plan concept) that is designed to
               alleviate these problems. This docurnent:
                             provides a charter and justification for participation;
                             establishes an action plan with goals, objectives, tasks, and timelines;
                             provides documentation of actions (a corporate memory of activities)
                             allowing issues to be placed on hold and when resurrected the work can
                             continue where it was left off, even if the membership has completely
                             changed; and

                             acts as a project manager for the facilitator and co-chairs.


               Technical Advisory Committees:

               Technical Advisory Committees are inclusive of both Subcommittees and Consensus Groups
               and although both groups use issue statements for their organizational structure, they are
               conceptually two different types of acdvities: Subcommittees develop policies and
               procedures to standardize operations, and Consensus Groups develop standard data
               definitions.


                      Subcommittees

                      Subconunittees are formed to address issues that will result in the dev4opment of
                      generic smndards (see Standards section) that are related to the development of
                      broad based policies and procedures. For example, the Florida's Public Records
                      Law requires that state agencies make information that is collected with public funds
                      available to the public for inspection. But the law was created before the existence
                      of computers, and the last update to Florida's Public Records Law occurred before
                      the development of geographic information systems. 17here is a great deal of
                      confusion in the GIS community over how the information resource community will
                      be impacted by the Public Records Law, and as a result they are somewhat reluctant
                      to advertise the existence of their data. A Public Records Law Subcommittee was
                      formed to address this issue and will eventually make recommendations to the
                      Council on how to resolve these problems on a Smte-wide basis. Prior to the
                      establishment of this subcommittee, the only recourse for information resource
                      managers was to consult with their legal staff to resolve a specific issue. There
                      was no formal avenue to address this issue on a statewide basis.


                      Consensus Groups

                      A Consensus Group is a structured methodology by which standards on data can be
                      developed (data specific standards). Conceptually, the following will take place: a
                      dataset will be identified as having "corporate value"; that is, value outside of its






                 A Multi-Agency Management Structure                                                  Appendix I
                 TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                              Page 8

                         use to the data developer(s). A consensus group will be formed that includes the
                         data developer(s), potential data users, and a technical person. Using the quality
                         and accuracy report and the data dictionary, the damset will be reviewed.
                         Suggestions will be solicited and if possible (either by good will of the data
                         developer or incentives by the user) enhancements can be made to the data, thus
                         increasing the utility or "corporate value" of the data. Consensus groups accomplish
                         two,things: they act as a peer review process for the documentadon of the data,
                         and they provide an opportunity for improving the way information is being
                         collected for the larger community. This process allows the data to be scrutinized,
                         providing the user with   the opportunity to request changes to the data base. For
                         example, let us suppose   that two adjoining counties are collecting information on
                         multi-family dwellings. If County A is including duplexes in their definition of
                         apartments, and County    B is identifying duplexes as a separate entity, then it will
                         be impossible to validly  conduct bi-county studies on multi-family dwellings. By
                         holding a Consensus Group before the information is collected such problems can
                         be avoided.


                 Standards

                 The solution most frequently presented to facilitate the coordination of dam collection
                 activities and the sharing of geographic information is the development of standards. When
                 analyzed, one is confronted with a myriad of problems such as: identifying which
                 elements to standardize; putting together a structure to devVIop standards; defining what a
                 standard is; and standardizing the standards procedure.

                 Standards Development:

                 To facilitate the development of standards, we are incorporating a Futures Plahning
                 Technique that prioritizes policies based on the projected impact of those policies on the
                 State. We are then linking these policies to issues and data sets to be addressed. For the
                 standards development activities, we have recognized three areas that need to be dealt with:
                 standard formats, generic standards, and dam-specific standards.

                         Futures Techniques

                         A strategic planning methodology, Futures Technique, is being used to prioritize and
                         focus the available resources on the most important issues. To facilitate the sharing
                         of information, one must address issues as fundamentat as which datum to use, as
                         specific as the definition of data sets, as broad as the development of statewide
                         policies. It is too easy to get lost in the details and fail to create a focus,
                         subsequently losing the confidence of an organization. Through the use of this
                         strategic planning technique, we are attempting to identify and prioritize issues that
                         are the most important to all of the organizations. This will link together the
                         policies of the different agencies with the activities of the Council.






               A Multi-Agency Management Structure                                            Appendix 1
               TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                        Page 9

                       Standard Formats

                       Standard formats are the way in which standards are reported. Currently there are
                       several organizations, in addition to individual agencies, working on "standards" that
                       will affect Florida: the State of Florida has the Growth Management Data Network
                       Coordinating Council; the Tampa Bay Regional Coordinating Council; and the State
                       of Florida Base Mapping Advisory Comn-dttee. Organizations developing standards
                       outside of Florida and affecting the State are: the Environmental Protection
                       Agency's Gulf of Mexico Program; the Federal Geographic Data Committee; and
                       three neighboring states. If geographic standards are to be universal, it is
                       imperative that these organizations communicate and coordinate their operations. To
                       accomplish this there must be a set of common communication formats, just as
                       there exists within any agency. This will create a functional basis for a multi-
                       agency/governmental bureaucracy by linking the organizations together by the
                       creation of a common language and procedures, or standard formats. This can
                       succeed only if these formats are useful at all levels of government, have internal
                       value to an agency and external value to the multi-agency body, and are formally
                       adopted by all parties. The management and documentation tools that we have
                       developed all have the features of a standard format designed into them.

                       Generic Standards

                       Generic standards apply across all agencies and may be implemented through
                       policies, the rule-making process, and legislation. For example, standard procedures
                       for digitization. defines a methodology that is focused on providing a consistency in
                       line structure across agencies.

                       Data Specific Standards

                       Data specific standards focus on one specific data seL The purpose is to define the
                       way that data is collected in such a way that it maximizes its utility to all members
                       of the corporation, not just the data developer. Data specific standards require the
                       participation of the data developer and the user community to define the data in
                       such a way that aH parties know and understand what the data is. In order to
                       maximize its use, the users need to have an opportunity to define how it is
                       collected.

               Transfer Protocols:

               The Federal Spatial Data Transfer Standard (SDTS) (1). which is being developed by the
               USGS, is a technological tool that will allow the transfer of spatial data between different
               platforms. We adopted this format, subject to approval by the National Institute of
               Standards and Technology, in 1989. At the time, we felt that it was necessary to move
               forward despite the fact that the approval process was expected to take one or two more
               years. Two elements of the SDTS were identified that we could adopt immediately -- the
               data dictionary and the quality and accuracy report. These two tools, in conjunction with
               the card catalog, have become the fundamental elements of our information network.






                  A Multi-Agency Management Structure                                            Appendix I
                 TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                       Page 10

                 Documentation Tools:

                 One of the primary goals of the Council is the sharing and preservation of data. The user
                 must know what the data is that they are receiving. This is achieved by insuring that the
                 data is well-documented. To accomplish these ends, a set of documentation tools have
                 been developed: a card catalog of geographic information; a quality and accuracy report;
                 and a data dictionary. Ilese tools provide three levels of information: the card catalog
                 locates the information; the quality and accuracy report describes the "goodness" of the
                 data; and the data dictionary describes the individual data elements. These formats
                 describe the data at the most basic level and form the basis on which standards are
                 developed.

                       The Importance of Structured Documentation Tools

                       As previously mentioned, the need for standard formats for communicating ideas is
                       essential for coordination between organizations and govemments. 77hese standard
                       formats include transfer protocols, operational procedures, and documentation. One
                       of the difficulties that we have found in implementing our system is adherence to
                       established guidelines. The documents that need to be completed are by their very
                       nature complex, and although they have significant value to the participants within
                       their own organizations, there is a tendency to modify the formats. This defeats
                       one of the major objectives of documents: the creation of a standard format in
                       which information can be compared and standards developed. The use of structured
                       documentation tools will solve this problem by providing the user with a software
                       package that makes the process easier, and at the same time dictates the structure.
                       We are in the process of developing such a tool for the card catalog, quality and
                       accuracy report, and the data dictionary.

                       Data Directory (Card Catalog of Spatial Data)

                       The cr@ation of a card catalog of spatial data is essential to the development of a
                       multi-agency bureaucracy. We have developed a system accessible by phone
                       modem that, if implemented within a multi-agency management structure, will
                       provide a dynamic directory of geographic data in the State. We recognize that
                       there are already several similar systems in existence, but we feel that they do not
                       have all of the necessary information. Furthermore, without a multi-governmental
                       management structure to keep such a directory updated, it will become useless in a
                       very short period of time.

                       The institutionalization of such a system distinguishes it from the periodic spatial
                       data surveys being conducted. Such a system should   be able  to provide the user
                       with the necessary information to identify data sets of interest, locate the
                       information, and provide access to a quality and accuracy report which will describe
                       the utility of the data. 77his system will not be useful unless the information that is
                       included in the directory is updated on a regular schedule. Tle development of a
                       management structure to insure the validity of this information is essential. Within






                 A Multi-Agency Management Structure                                                Appendix I
                 TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                          Page I

                        each organization, a single point of contact will be assigned to keep the directory
                        updated. Although this task may seem onerous, we have found that the need for
                        organizations to track this information within their own institutions is just as great
                        as the need to locate the information in different agencies. We are developing a
                        software package that provides each agency with a tool to track their own data
                        resources, and because all agencies will be using the same software, this informadon
                        can be pyramided to a central repository. The grand scheme is to promote this on
                        a national level and build a national directory of spatial data.

                        Ouality and Accuracy Report

                        The Quality and Accuracy report was originally conceived as a part of the Standards
                        Development Subcommittee of the SDTS (2). They recognized that requiring an
                        organization to meet an external standard was impossible, so they designed a self-
                        reporting format in which the provider describes a set of information about the
                        data -- "truth in labelling," as proposed by Nick Chrisman. We have added
                        additional structure to these reports to overcome problems we have found in self-
                        reporting, such as the natural tendency to only describe the more positive aspects of
                        the data rather than the negative. To resolve this, we took the elements that the
                        Standards Development Committee identified and structured the report in an outline
                        or template format.' This produces a document that gives a complete picture of the
                        quality and accuracy of the data by requiring the declaration of not only what
                        information is known, but also what is unknown and what is not applicable. This
                        standard reporting format allows the recipient to focus on those aspects of the report
                        that are most important to them, and to easily evaluate the data's suitability and use
                        for the recipients use (See Appendix 1).

                        Data Dictionary

                        The data dictionary provides two important elements: documentation of the data,
                        and a* basis for developing quality and control standards. The data dictionary
                        defines each of the data elements (attributes) by describing how it is measured, its
                        structure (if automated), and the codes used. When a database is documented, the
                        dictionary is used as an agenda to review the data. Modifications, clarification of
                        the document, additions, and standard levels of acceptance can be agreed to through
                        the review of this document. The data dictionary we have developed and tested is
                        included in Appendix 2.


                 Summary

                 After trying to facilitate the sharing of geographic information for three years, we have
                 concluded that it is a "bureaucratic vacuum" which is allowing personal and organization
                 behavioral problems to arise and impede the sharing of geographic information. To resolve
                 this problem, we are developing a multi-agqncy bureaucracy with standard forms,
                 procedures, lines of communication, and access to executive management to overcome these
                 impediments and promote the sharing of geographic information.






                 A Multi-Agency Management Structure                                         Appendix i
                 TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                   Page 12


                 References

                 (1) "The Proposed Standard for Digital Cartographic Data", The American Cartographer,
                 American Congress on Surveying and Mapping, Vol. 15, No. 1, January 1988.

                 (2) Chrism:in, N. "Testing the Interim Proposed Standard for Digital Cartographic Data
                 Quality", Report of the testing phase, Cycle 4, National Committee for Digital Cartographic
                 Data Standards, Working Group H on Data Set Quality.






              A Multi-Agency Management Structure                                     Appendix I
              TBRCC Report - December 1992                                               Page 13


                                                  Appendix 1

                                          Quality and Accuracy Report


              The purposz, of the template for the Quality and Accuracy Report is to provide as through
              a documentadon of the data as possible, allowing a potential user to read the report and
              determine the util.ity of the data for their needs. The intent is to follow the "truth-in-
              labelling" practices proposed by the workgroup that developed the Spatial Data Transfer
              Standards proposed by the U.S. Geological Survey. The following quotes come for An
              Interim Proposed Standard for Digital Cartographic Data Quality; Supporting Documentation
              by N. Chrisman.

                    We find "quality" to be a wide-ranging concern which can cover any issue affecting
                    the use of cartographic data. The potential uses of digital cartographic data are so
                    diverse that a fixed set of numerical thresholds could not adjust to the potential
                    uses. In more circumscribed application areas (for example, a multipurpose
                    cadastre or a forest inventory), a ser of thresholds might be fruitful. Because these
                    standards must serve the whole profession, we foresee a truth-in- labelling standard
                    instead. The idea is to communicate actual numerical properties of the data in a
                    way that potential users can make their own informed decisions of fitness.

                    The truth-in-labelling concept may seem less rigorous in that it blesses the status
                    quo. Any imprecise, inaccurate data base could meet the standard in the formal
                    sense by proclaiming those imprecisions and inaccuracies. These standards place a
                    substantial responsibility on the user to evaluate the quallry report to ensure fitness
                    for the particular application.

              It is with this thought in mind that the templates have been created. This report format is
              better suited for user evaluation of the data, because it formalizes the structure but still
              allows the basis to be textual in conten

              A quality and accuracy report has also been developed for Raster Data. Ile development
              of a supplementary document, users manual, and a structured documentation tool
              (automation of the templates) is currently under development.





                     A Multi-Agency Management Structure                                                            Appendix I
                     TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                       Page 14

                                                 QUALITY AND ACCURACY REPORT:

                                                           Template - Vector Data



                    Data Coverage Name: Enter a name for this particular coverage, i.e., LULC for Land Use Land Cover.

                    Data Coverage Description: Description of this coverage, its particulars, parameters, etc.

                    Organization: Name of organization that prepared/conducted this report.

                    Prepared By: Name of person who prepared reporL

                    Section: Section of organization that prepared this report.

                    Department: Dcpartment that prepared this report.

                    Updated: Enter the update period for this report.

                    A. Lineage

                       1. Description of source material(s)

                         a. Lineage Name: Brief, descriptive name of lineage, i.e., USGS 7.5 minute quads.

                         b. Scale: Specify ratio. i.e., 1:24,000.

                         c. Datum: Identify datum.

                         d. Map Projection: i.e., polyconic, UTM, etc..

                         e. Media of Source: i.e.. color mylar, paper, etc.

                         f. Condition of Media: i.e., Excellent. Fair or Poor.

                         g. Creator organization/individual: Narne. address and phone number.

                         h. Date of Source Material:

                            1. Time Interval covered: i.e., Dates of data sampling. i.e., 1954 - 1989.

                            2. Update Schedule: Updated schedule, if known.

                      2. Derivation methods for data


                         a. Methods of derivation

                            1. Preautomation Compilation: Compilation information, i.e. PhotointeTpTeLed from 1:24000 scale maps

                            2. Digitizing_Scannirtg_Transformations:

                            3. Equipment

                              a. Model: Model information, i.e., ANA Tech Eagle 4080 large format scanner.

                              b. Resolution: i.e.. 400 dpi Altek Table. accuracy of .001 inches.

                              c. Tolerance of Digitizer: i.e.. Tolerance of Altek tables is .003 inches.






                  A Multi-Agency Management Structure                                                                  Appen&x I
                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                              Page 15


                        b. Date of Automation


                           1. Initial Date: i.e., Between 9/80 and ll,,90.

                           2. Update Schedule: i.e., Every five years.

                        c. Control Points: Known informadon on control points used.

                        d. Explanation of procedures used to digitize/scan/transform the data

                           1. Name of transformation methodology: Any appropriate methodology would be entered here.

                           2. Description of Algorithm: Descrip6on of any algorithm used would be entered here.

                           3. Mathematics used in the transformation: Relevant mathematics would be entered here.


                           4. Set of Sample Computations: If there are any computadons, enter a sample here.

                        e. Software system and version used: i.e., DOS 5.1, OS/Z etc.


                  B. Positional Accuracy

                     1. Linework Completeness Check

                        a. Date:


                        b. Value: Ideriffy value.

                        c. Method Used to Derive Value: Methodology.

                    2.  Linework Positional Accuracy Check

                        a. Date:


                        b. Value:


                        c. Method Used to Derive Value: Explanation of how above value was derived.

                    3. Absolute Measure of error reference


                        a. Value: Value of error reference.

                        b. Method Used to Derive Value: Select one or more of the following options.

                           1. Deductive estimate


                             a. Date of tests,


                             b. Results: Results of above test.

                           2. Internal Evidence (geodesy)

                             a. Date of tests:


                             b. Results: Enter results of above test.

                           3. Comparison to Source

                           4. Independent source of higher accuracy

                             a. Date of tests:






                        A Multi-Agency Management Structure                                                                       Appendx I
                       TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                                    Page 16

                                   b. Resufts: Results of above test.


                       C. Attribute Accuracy

                          1. Linework Completeness Check

                              a. Date:


                              b. Value:


                              c. Method Used to Derive Value: Method used to derive above value.

                           2. Line-Aork Attribute Accuracy Check

                              a. Date:
                              b. Value:
                              c. Method Used to Derive Value: MeLhod used to derive above value.


                          3. Absolute Measure of error reference


                              a. Value: Value of error reference.


                              b. Method Used to Derive Value: Method used to derive value of error reference.


                                1. Deductive estimate


                                   a. Date of tests: Date(s).

                                   b. Results: Results of above Lest.

                                2. Internal Evidence (geodesy)

                                   a. Date or Tests: DaLe(s).

                                   b. Results: Results of above teSL

                                3. Comparison to Source

                                4. Independent source of higher accuracy

                                   a. Date of tests: Date.


                                   b. Results: Results of above test.

                      D. Logical Consistency

                         1. Cartographic Tests

                              a. Test Performed: Cartographic tests performed.

                              b. Date: Date cartographic test was performed.

                              c. Result: Results of cartographic test here.

                              d. Do lines Intersect only where Intended? Answer with Yes or No.

                              e. Were duplicate lines eliminated? Answer with Yes or No.

                              f. Are all polygons closed? Answer with Yes or No,

                              g. Have dangles been eliminated? Answer with Yes or No.

                              h. Have slivers been ellminated? Answer with Yes or No.







                     A Multi-Agency Management Structure                                                                       Appendix I
                     TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                                   Page 17



                            1. Do features have unique Identifiers? Answer with Yes or No.

                         2. Topological Tests

                            a. Test Performed: Topological Lest performed.

                            b. Date: ,

                            c. Software Used: Name and version of software used in topological test.

                            d. Results

                               1. Test for polygon coverage

                                  a. How many polygons are represented on the digital map product? Number.

                                  b. Has a polygon closure been verified? Yes Or No.

                                  c. Are polygon-IDs assigned to each polygon on the digital map? Yes or No.

                                     1. Do polygons have more than one polygon-Id? Yes or No.

                                     2. Are the Polygon-Ids unique? Yes or No.

                               2. Test for line coverage.

                                  a. How many lines are represented on the digital map product? Number.

                                  b. Do the line segments have unique line segment values? Yes or No.

                                  c. Is the digital map topologically clean? Yes or No.

                                3. Test for point coverage

                                  a. How many points are represented on the digital map product? Number.

                                  b. Are the Point-Ids unique? Yes or No.

                      E. Completeness or Source Materials

                         1. Selection Criteria: Identify how the objects were identified.

                         2. Definitions Used: Derinitions used for selection criteria.


                         3. Other relevant mapping rules: i.e., minimum mapping units, etc.

                         4. Deviation from standard definitions and Interpretations:

                         S. Description of relationship between the objects

                         6. Tests for taxonomic completeness

                            a. Procedures: Proccd.ures of the test used here.

                            b. Results: Test results.





                  A Multi-Agency Management Structure                                           Appendix I
                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                      Page 18

                                                         Appendix 2

                                                       Data Dictionary

                  The proposed Data Dictionary is a data documentation tool, but it also fulfills the
                  requiremer.,,s of the Spatial Data Transfer Standards and it is essential for the development
                  of data standards. It is not designed to be a systems data dictionary (aliases are not
                  included) but the information should be fundamental to all data dictionaries.






                 A Multi-Agency Management Structure                                              Appendix I
                 TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                         Page 19


                                    Data Dictionary Template Outline


                A. Entity Template

                       1.  Label
                       2.  Entity Authority
                       3.  Definition
                       4.  Point/Line/Polygon
                       5.  Quantity of Data

                B. Attribute Template

                       1. Label
                       2. Attribute Authority
                       3. Definition
                              a. description
                              b. measuremen t/determi nation
                       4. Domain Value
                              a. Value Format
                                 1. Domain
                                     a. Character Type
                                     b. Allowable Values
                                              1. Length
                                              2. Number of Significant Digits
                                              3. Units of Measure
                              b. Categorical
                                 1. Value
                                 2. Meaning         These are mutually exclusive.
                              c. Continuous
                                 1. Range of Values
                                     a. Minimum
                                              1. Value
                                              2. Inclusive/Exclusive
                                     b. Maximum
                                              1. Value
                                              2. Inclusive/Exclusive
                                 2. Typical Value
                       5. Other Editing Information






                 A Multi-Agency Management Structure                                               Appendix I
                 TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                         Page 20


                 A. Entity Template

                        An entity is an object in space, for example a bridge, that is represented as a point,
                        line, or polygon on a map. The object is described by a set of attributes such as
                        composition, length, number of lanes, etc.

                    1. Label


                        The reference name for the entity.

                   2. Entity Authority

                        The source of the definition. For example, the entity authority could be by the
                        author, a professional organization, a dictionary, etc.

                   3. Derinition

                        A definition of an object potentially consists of two components, a description of
                        the object like one would find in a dictionary and the procedures that were used to
                        measure it.


                        a. Description

                               A general description of the object, ie. a bridge is a foot path or road way
                               that spans a water course or crevice.

                        b. Measurement/Determination

                               This describes how the object was measured. This may not be pertinent to
                               all entities and is left to the discretion of the documenter. An example of an
                               entity description that would require completion of this section would be the
                               sources of an abstraction, ie. if group of polygons describing components of
                               an estuary were collapsed into a larger polygon at a higher level of
                               classification, it would be important to know what the subclasses consisted
                               of.

                   4. Point, Line, Polygon

                        This is for information purposes to describe how the object is represented in space.

                        Point: A zero-dimensional object that specifies geometric location. One coordinated
                        pair or triplet specifies the location.

                        Line: A direct line between two points. It should be inclusive of the term string
                        which is: an ordered sequence of points representing a connected nonbranching






               A Multi-Agency Management Structure                                             Appen&x I
               TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                        Page 21

                      sequence of line segments.

                      Polygon: A set of non- intersecting lines, with closure, that represents a two
                      dimensional object in space.

                  5. Quantity of Data

                      A description of how much data, in terms of computer storage, this object occupies.
                      The units of measure must be provided.

               B. Attribute Template

                      An attribute is a defined characteristic of an entity, for example, composition is a
                      possible attribute for a briidge.

                  1. Label


                      The reference name of the attribute.


                  2. Attribute Authority

                      The source of the definition. For example, the entity authority could be by the
                      author, a professional organization, a dictionary, etc. A complete reference should
                      be provided where possible

                  3. Definition

                      A definition of an attribute potentially consists of two components, a description of
                      the object like one would find in a dictionary and the procedures that were used to
                      measure it.


                      a. Description

                             A general description of the attribute, ie. one of the attributes of a bridge
                             would be its composition, that is what it is made of.


                      b. Measurement/Determination

                             This describes how the attribute was measured, but it may not be pertinent to
                             all entities and is left to the discretion of the documenter. An example of an
                             attribute description that would be the laboratory procedures for measuring
                             mercury. This could be quiet extensive and provisions have been made to
                             allow an unlimited amount of space for documentation, this information may
                             be imported from existing electronic documents. If there are aliases and the
                             documenter feels that they are important, they should be included in this
                             section.





                  A Multi-Agency Management Structure                                              Appendix 1
                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                         Page 22


                     4. Domain value


                         Describes the format that the attribute value can take. The set in which a variable
                         is expressed, i.e., alpha, alphanumeric, gaphic character, integer, e-tc.

                         a. Character type

                                  There are six major specifications of type:

                                  A data 'type indicates the manner in which the field or subfield will be
                                  encoded. This is relevant to the data transfer and not to a data dictionary.

                                  A   Graphics characters, alphanumeric characters, or alphabetic characters
                                  I   Implicit-point (integer)
                                  R   Explicit-point unscaled (real)
                                  S   Explicit-point scaled (real with exponent)
                                  B   Bitfield data (unsigned binary, per agreement)
                                  C   Character mode bitfield (binary in zero and one characters)

                         b. Allowable  values (domain enumeration)

                                  1. Length

                                               This identifies the number of characters in the variable field.

                                  2. Number of significant digits

                                               The number of decimal places that are meaningful. For
                                               example, in dealing with dollars and cents there are two
                                               significant digits. If you have a value such as $1.53 multiplied
                                               by .18, you wflI have an answer of .1754, but the answer will
                                               only be valid (and sensible) to the second decimal. Thus the
                                               correct answer, rounding to the nearest 100th, is .18.

                                  3. Units of measure


                                               Identifies what measurement was used for a value, i.e. dollars,
                                               francs, feet, inches, meters, pounds, kilograms, etc.

                       c. Categorical

                                  Data elements which only take up certain values, i.e., a department number
                                  which can take on the values 06, 20 and 33, but no other values.






               A Multi-Agency Management Structure                                        Appendix I
               TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                  Page 23)


                        1. Value


                                   The actual categories, such as F1, Ga, Al.

                        2. Meaning

                                   Definition of the values i.e., F1 = Florida, Ga Georgia, Al
                                   Alabama.


                     d. Continuous



                             Data elements, which for all practical purposes, can take any value within a
                             range, i.e., a dollar amount from zero to $999,999,999.99 to the nearest cent.

                        1. Range of values

                                   The range of values is the minimum and maximum value.

                          a. Minimum


                             1. value


                                          Minimum numerical value.


                             2. inclusive/exclusive


                                          This defines whether or not the minimum numerical value
                                          included in the range or is it excluded in the range. An
                                          example of an excluded minimum would be a range of
                                          numbers from 5.000 to 10.000 where the least value would be
                                          5.001 but never 5.000. If the number was inclusive the
                                          minimum value would be 5.000.


                          b. Maximum


                             1. value


                                          Maximum numerical value.


                             2. inclusive/exclusive


                                          Conceptually the same as minimum inclusive/exclusive, but the
                                          maximum value.






                  A Multi-Agency Management Structure                                           Appendix I
                  T13RCC Report - December 1992                                                    Page 24


                        2. Typical value

                              Give some indication as to what a typical value would be. This may be
                              described as a mean, median or mode, if appropriate. It is not necessary to
                              calculate these values. The purpose is to provide a "general understanding of
                              what is to be expected." Textual description is also appropriate with support
                              for the derived number.

                  5. Other editing information

                              This would include programmatic edits from the source of data entry.
                              Examples of edits would be upper or lower case, values = A through G,
                              values less than 0, etc.

                              IIf editing features such as date fields, dollar marks, etc. are included with the
                              data, this information should be included here.






                     A Multi-Agency Management Structure                                                                         Appen&x 1
                     TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                                     Page 2-5


                                                     Sample Data Dictionary Template


                                        Example of an Entity With Categories:


                     A. Entity and Its associated attributes

                         1. Label                          Standard Soils Data Set

                         2. Entity Authority               Soil Conservation Service

                         3. Definition of the  Entity      All attributes associated with each soil.

                        4. Point\Llne\Polygon              Polygon

                        5. Quantity of Data                Unknown

                     B. Attribute Template

                         1. Label                          ANFLOOD

                         2. Attribute authority            Soil Conservation Service

                         3. Definition

                              a. Description               Annual Flooding Frequency. Descriptive term used to describe the probability that
                                                           flooding will occur during any year.

                              b. Measurement               Estimate based on the synthesis of evidence including, but not limited to: seasonal
                                                           climatic data, river and coastal hydrological data, and field observations.

                         4. Domain Value


                                       2. Value Format


                                                 1. Domain

                                                           a. Character type           A (character)

                                                           b. Allowable values (domain enumeration)

                                                           1. Length                   5

                                                           2. Number of significant digits      N/A

                                                           3. Units of Measure         N/A

                                        15.1 Categorical

                                                 1. Value                              None

                                                 2. Meaning                            No reasonable possibiHty of flooding (near 0 percent
                                                                                       chance of flooding in any year).






                        A Multi-Agency Management Structure                                                                          Appen&x 1
                        TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                                      Pa-e '@6



                                           b.2 Categorical

                                                     1. Value                              Rare

                                                     2. Meaning                            Flooding unlikely but possible under unusual weather
                                                                                           conditions (from near 0 to 5 percent chance of flooding
                                                                                           in any year, or near 0 to 5 times in 100 years).
                                           b.3 Categorical

                                                     1. Value                              Occas

                                                     2. Meaning                            Occasional. Flooding is expected infrequently under
                                                                                           usual weather conditions. (5 to 50 Percent ChanCe of
                                                                                           flooding in any year, or 5 to 50 times in 100 years.).

                                           b.4 Categorical

                                                     1. Value                              Freq

                                                     2. Meaning                            Frequent. Flooding is likely to occur often under usual
                                                                                           weather conditions (more than a 50 percent chance of
                                                                                           flooding in any year. or more t.1,;Ln 50 times in 100
                                                                                           years).

                                          b3 Categorical.

                                                     1. Value                              Comm

                                                     2. Meaning                            Common. Occasional and frequent classes can be
                                                                                           grouped for certain purposes and called COMMON
                                                                                           flooding.

                                          c. Continuous

                                                     1. Range of values

                                                              a. Minimum


                                                                       1. value            N/A

                                                                       2. Inclusive/exclusive       N/A

                                                              b. Maximum


                                                              1. value                     N/A

                                                                       2. Inclusive/exclusive       N/A

                                      2. Typical value                           N/A

                          5. Other editing information                           The category COMMON does not occur as often. It is found
                                                                                 primarily in the older soil surveys.






                A Multi-Agency Management Structure                                               AppendLx I
                TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                         Page 27

                                              Data Dictionary Glossary


                                               Derinitions.and Use of Terms



                aliases:

                        Other words for the same variable. These normally are not relevant to the transfer of data but if so,
                        they should be included in the definition.

                attribute:

                        a defined characteristic of an entity, for example, composition is a possible attribute for a bridge.

                attribute authority:

                        The organization and/or document through which a meaning is assigned to the attribute label.

                attribute value:

                        A specific quality or quantity assigned to an attribute (where entity is "bridge" and attribute is
                        "composition," an attribute value might be "steel").

                authority:

                        The organization and/or document through which a meaning is assigned to the entity label.

                bitfield (unsigned binary, per agreement):

                        A sequence of on or off states to be represented by bitfield dala--unsigned.

                character mode bitfield:

                        A sequence of on or off states to be represented by bitfield data using the binary characters "0" and


                categorical values:

                        Data elements which only take up certain values, i.e., a department number which can take on the
                        values 06, 20 and 33, but no other values.

                continuous:

                        Data elements, which for all practical purposes, can take any value within a range, i.e., a dollar
                        amount from zero to $999,999,999.99 to the nearest cent.

                domain:

                        The set in which a variable is expressed, i.e., alpha, alphanumeric, graphic character, integer, etc.

                entity:

                        A real world phenomenon that is not subdivided into phenomena of the same kind (i.e., a bridge).






                   A Multi-Agency Management Structure                                                        AppendLx I
                   TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                   Page 28


                   entity authority:

                           The iden6fication of the organization and/or document through which meaning is assigned to an
                           entity label.

                   excluske:

                           The value is not included (if a lower limit of a range is 2,0, and it is exclusive, 2.0 is not a member
                           of the range).

                   inclusive:

                           The value is included (if a lower limit of a range is 2.0, and it is inclusive, 2.0 is a member of the
                           range and the smallest value of that range).

                   integer:

                           A positive, negative, or unsigned whole number.

                   label:


                           A descriptive or identifying word.

                   length:

                           The maximum number of digits a number can have. This is field-specific information.

                   number of decimal places:

                           Number of places allowed to the right of the decimal -- statement about the accuracy (significant
                           digits) of the number of decimal places should be included.

                   number of signiricant digits:

                           The number of decimal places that are meaningful. For example, in dealing with dollars and cents
                           there are two significant digits. If you have a value such as SI.53 multiplied by .18, you will have
                           an answer of .1754, but the answer will only be valid (and sensible) to the second decimal. Thus
                           the correct answer, rounding to the nearest 100th, is .18.

                   real:

                           A positive ornegative number with a fraction. A rational or irrational number.

                   template:

                           An oudine to be followed when recording information.






                     A Multi-Agency Management Structure                                                                    Appen&x I
                     TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                               Page 29


                     type:

                              A data type indicates the manner in which the field or subfield will be encoded. This is relevant to
                              the data transfer and not to a data dictionary,

                                 A   Graphics characters, alphanumeric characters, or alphabetic characters
                                 I   Implicit-point (integer)
                                 R   Explicit-point unscaled (real)
                                 S   Explicit-point scaled (real with exponent)
                                 B   BiLfield data (unsigned binary, per agreement)
                                 C   Character mode biLficld (binary in zero and one characters)

                     units of measure:

                              Identifies \A,,hat measurement was used for a value, i.e. dollars, francs, feet, inches, meters, pounds,
                              kilograms, etc.

                     value:


                              The number or code stored.









                                  APPENDIX 2







             Memorandum of Understanding                                                       Appendix 2
             TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                           Page 1


                                      Tampa Bay Regional Coordinating Council



                                      MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING



                                                 Statement of Puj:pose


                 This Agreement sets forth the terms under which the Tampa Bay Regional
                 Coordinating Council for Growth Management Data shall be formed and bow its
                 members will implement the purpose of its creation. The terms in this Agreement
                 serve to facilitate coordination for the development of more effective and efficient
                 means to make information available for decisions. The parties to this Agreement
                 have determined that geographic or spatial data is essential for effective interagency
                 and intergovernmental management. In consideration of the mutual undertakings of
                 the parties hereto, the parties to this Agreement shall:

                     0      Promote the sharing of data related to growth management;

                     0      Promote consistency of data elements;

                     0      Adopt common data elements and formats for interagency transmission of
                            data where feasible; and

                     0      Avoid the duplication of effort associated with the collection of data.


                                                       Definitions

                 As used in this Agreement, the term:

                            Central Information Unit refers to a dedicated staff position that will act
                            as a facilitator for the activities of the Regional Coordinating Council.

                            Consensus Group refers to a group of experts who create standards on
                            designated data.     Membership is dependent upon the topic under
                            consideration.

                            Consensus Group Methodology refers to a methodology developed to
                            increase the sharing of information that has "corporate value," that is,
                            utility by more than the original developer.








               Memorandum of Understanding                                                      Appendix 2
               T13RCC Report - December 1992                                                         Page 2


                              Data Element means a basic unit of information having a unique meaning
                              and which has subcategories (data items) of distinct units of value.

                              Data Format means a description of how a data element is represented in
                              terms of computer storage.

                              Florida Digital Spatial Database System refers to a system of
                              independently operated and maintained digital spatial databases that are
                              of multiagency value and linked or connected by interagency cooperation
                              and common data needs, standards, and the use of a standard data
                              transfer methodology.

                              Florida Spatial Data Directory refers to an automated directory,
                              accessible by phone line, of information about geographic or spatial data
                              for the State of Florida.

                              Geographic/Spatial Data means entities that can be located by
                              coordinates representing a specific location on the earth.

                              Growth Management Data means the land use, natural resources and
                              demographic information necessary to make appropriate and informed
                              decisions for guiding our future growth.

                              Growth Management Data Network Coordinating Council refers to the
                              council created by section 282.403, Florida Statutes (1985), to coordinate
                              the sharing of data required to respond to growth management issues in
                              Florida.


                              Regional Advisory Committee refers to the staff members from the
                              member agencies and other representatives as recommended.

                              Regional Coordinating Council for Growth Management Data refers to
                              the entire regional organization which consists of the Regional Council,
                              the Regional Advisory Committee, the Central Information Unit and the
                              Consensus Groups.

                              Regional Council refers to the body of chief executives (or their designee)
                              of the member agencies.

                              Shall means a requirement@ attribute, or condition which cannot be waived
                              and from which a material deviation may not be made.








             Memorandum of Understanding                                                     Appendix 2
             TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                         Page 3


                           Should means a desirable requirement, attribute or condition, but one
                           which is permissive in nature and may be waived.

                                               Terms of the AUeement

                 Parties to this Agreement should take action within the purview of their statutory
                 authority and resources to comply with the standards and conditions specified in the
                 following terms:


                 Formation of a Regional Coordinating Council for Growth Management Data

                 Agencies shall work together to create a system of independently operated and
                 maintained spatial databases that are linked together by a management structure and
                 data standards. The management structure is defined by this document and the
                 standards are products of the Consensus Group Methodology.


                 1. Creation of a Regional Coordinating Council for Growth Management Data

                    Membership of the Regional Council shall consist of the following or their
                    designee: the County Administrators of Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco and
                    Pinellas Counties; the Executive Director of the Environmental Protection
                    Commission of Hillsborough County, the Pinellas County Property Appraiser; the
                    Executive Director of the Southwest Florida Water Management District; the
                    Director of District Management of the Department of Environmental
                    Regulation; the Regional Director of the Department of Transportation; the
                    District Administrator of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services;
                    and the Executive Director of the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council. T'he
                    Executive Director of the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council shall serve as
                    initial chairman to the Council. No later than the third Council meeting,
                    elections will be held for the chairman of the Council.



                 2. The Regional Council shall:

                    (a)    Ensure a staff representative for each Council member is appointed to the
                           Regional Advisory Cornmittee that will represent the Council for the
                           interaction with the Central Information Unit. The Regional Advisory
                           Committee shall make recommendations to the Council on a simple
                           majority vote. Those decisions passed on to the Council should be
                           concerned with interagency policy decisions;







               Memorandum of Understanding                                                    Appendix 2
               TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                        Page 4


                      (b)    Define the staffing of the Central Information Unit that will coordinate
                             activities within the region;

                      (c)    Make such policy decisions as necessary to further information sharing in
                             the region; and

                      (d) Shall review and approve Consensus Group reports.


                  3. The Regional Advisory Committee shall:

                      (a)    Have additional representation from the Florida Marine Research
                             Institute, the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority and the
                             University of South Florida;

                      (b)    Make recommendations to the Regional Council on additional
                             appointments to the Regional Advisory Committee;

                      (c)    Have the authority to initiate Consensus Groups and request participation
                             from all concerned parties; and

                      (d)-   Review and approve Consensus Group recommendations.


                  4. The Central Information Unit shall:

                      (a)    Act as a facilitator to coordinate activities between each of the agencies;

                      (b)    Recommend the establishment of Consensus Groups to the Regional
                             Advisory Committee;

                      (c)    Act as liaison between the Regional Coordinating Council for Growth
                             Management Data and the Growth Management Data Network
                             Coordinating Council;

                      (d)    Be responsible for updating and maintaining the regional entries on the
                             Florida Spatial Data Directory; and

                      (e)    Provide an annual report to the Regional Coordinating Council for
                             Growth Management Data and the Growth Management Data Network
                             Coordinating Council.








            Memorandum of Understanding                                                     Appendix 2
            TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                         Page 5


                5. The Consensus Groups shall:

                    (a)    Promote consistency of data elements by establishing standard data
                           definitions and formats;

                    (b)    Recommend criteria, policies and procedures for the sharing of
                           information;

                    (c)    Assure utilization and coordination of data from existing sources by
                           referencing the Florida Spatial Data Directory;

                    (d)    Make announcements of data acquisition projects and products on the
                           Florida Spatial Data Directory;

                    (e)    Submit Consensus Group Reports through the Central Information Unit
                           to the Regional Advisory Committee for approval. Consensus Group
                           reports will be submitted to the Regional Council for their review and
                           approval. Approved copies will then be forwarded to the Growth
                           Management Data Network Coordinating Council for review and upon
                           acceptance will be included as part of the Florida Digital Spatial Database
                           System. The information submitted will be included on the Florida Spatial
                           Data Directory; and

                    (f)    Follow the Consensus Group Methodology guidelines.








              Memorandum of Understanding                                            Appendix 2
              TBRCC Report - December 1992                                               Page 6


                 This Agreement shall become effective on January 15, 1992, and may be amended
                 to include additional parties and terms. The terms of the Agreement may be
                 changed at any time by written modification agreed upon by all parties.

                 Should disagreement over the terms of the Agreement arise, all parties shall attempt
                 to resolve the dispute. Any party many terminate from the Agreement upon written
                 notice.

                 In witness hereto, the parties have executed this Agreement by their duly authorized
                 officials.



                    County Administrator,					County Administrator,
			  Hillsborough County					Manatee County


			County Administrator,					County Administrator,
			Pasco County						Pinellas County			



			Executive Director,					Executive Director,
			Environmental Protection				Southwest Florida Water
			Commission of Hillsborough Co.			Management District


			Director of District Mangement,			District Secretary,
			Department of Environmental				Department of Transportation
			Regulation

			
			District Administrator,					Executive Director,
			Department of Health and				Tampa Bay Regional
			Rehabilitative Services					Planning Council


			Property Appraiser,
			Pinellas County



                    
                
 






            Memorandum of Understanding                                              Appendix 2
            TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                 Page 7



                                          JOINDER AGREEMENT


            The Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission agrees to abide by the terms
            of the Tampa Bay Regional Coordinating Council MEMORANDUM OF
            UNDERSTANDING, effective January 15, 1992, and in accordance with page six of the
            MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, joins the Tampa Bay Regional Coordinating
            Council and its subordinate bodies.







            EZe'cufive Director                            Date
            Hillsborough County City-County
             Planning Commission






                                                                    kv,         .3 , -
                                                                        i @@.
                                                                       ..     I.-
                                                                       c @FO. @. ..-'j-.








             A Strategic Plan for the TBRCC                                               Appendix 3
             TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                     Page i



                                    TAMPA BAY REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL


























                                               A STRATEGIC PLAN


                                                    FOR THE


                                             TAMPA BAY REGIONAL


                                            COORDINATING COUNCIL


                                                     (TBRCC)












                                                       by



                                                Estelio Breto, TBRCC






                                                    April 1992








                    A Strategic Plan for the TBRCC                                                                          Appendix 3
                    TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                                 Page 6











                                                                EXECUTIVE SUMMARY




                             Most policies and issues addressed by local governments in the Tampa Bay region require some kind
                             of geographic information in order to make decisions, hence the need for Geographic Information
                             Systems (GIS) as both a resource management tool and a planning tool. GIS, as opposed to
                             conventional filing and tracking information systems, demands considerable effort in data collection and
                             compatibility. It is essential that this data matches an established standard format, otherwise
                             information sharing becomes an impossible process. Consequently the data sharing process among local
                             government agencies acquires, under these conditions, an important dimension: data in order to be
                             shared must have standard formats and should be collected by standard procedures.

                             The ever-increasing complexity and interdependence of information, related to the issues on which local
                             governments must make decisions, dictates the urgent need to identify issues of collective need among
                             local agencies in a consensus manner. This report identifies elements that are essential for a Strategic
                             Plan for the Tampa Bay Regional Coordinating Council (TBRCC). Issues and data are identified,
                             prioritized and ranked in a consensus fashion. The TBRCC, as indicated in the Objectives of the
                             Memorandum of Understanding, is a multiagency coordinating body created to promote the sharing of
                             information among local and state organizations. As such, it requires a    'plan of action highlighting the
                             main issues and data requirements that may be shared among agencies within the Tampa Bay region.
                             The successful focus of a Strategic Plan element described in this report is by no means closed. On the
                             contrary, it is an open plan to which can be added more issues. It will only become the final plan once
                             it has been reviewed and approved by the Regional Advisory Committee and the TBRCC. Its purpose
                             is to provide guidance, justification, and the establishment of directions for the TBRCC.








                        A Strategic Plan for the TBRCC                                                                                                               Appendix 3
                         TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                                                                      Page iii


                                                                                           TABLE OF CONTENTS



                                                                                                                                                                               Paa



                                                  Introduction       .............................................................................................................  I


                                                  Chapter 1:                          Goals@ Objectives and Methodology of
                                                                                      the Strategic Plan         .......................................................            3

                                                  Chapter 11:                         Analysis and Results of the Brain-Storming
                                                                                      and Delphi Evaluation            ..............................................               7

                                                  Chapter III:                        Analysis and Results of the Cross-Impact
                                                                                      and System Impact Analysis Evaluation:
                                                                                      Future Scenarios        .........................................................            13


                                                  Recommendations             ...................................................................................................  23








              A Strategic Plan for the TBRCC                                                  Appendix 3
              TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                        Page iv


                                                        APPENDICES




                     Appendix 1    A Brief Historical Note on the Futures Technique


                     Appendix 2    Brain-Storming Instructions and Results


                     Appendix  3   Delphi Evaluation Instructions and Results


                     Appendix  4   Cross-Impact Analysis Instructions and Results


                     Appendix  5   Systems Impact Analysis Instructions and Results








                   A Strategic Plan for the TBRCC                                                                                   Appendix 3
                   TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                                           Page 1



                                                                        INTRODUCTION





                   A multiagency management structure is imperative in order to facilitate the sharing of geographic data. Hence
                   the creation of the TBRCC, which has been formed to establish a structure that allows agencies to share
                   geographic data in a four-county area. The main function of this management structure is to allow experts from
                   various organizations to gather into Technical Advisory Committees (TACs) called Consensus Groups and
                   Subcommittees, to facilitate the development of standards. However, specific data requirements are often linked
                   to those issues that management may wish to address at any particular point in time. Consequently, a Strategic
                   Plan containing the most relevant issues that should be addressed in the Tampa Bay region within 1992-1993
                   needs to be outlined. This document enables specific data requirements and standards to be prioritized and
                   facilitated.


                   However, each organization has its own priorities and concerns in relation to the functions it is expected to
                   perform within the region. Therefore, identifying issues of collective need is difficult at best. In order to
                   produce a Strategic Plan that represents the collective thoughts of the Council, a consensus building device, called
                   Futures Technique, developed for large, segmented organizations like the TBRCC was used. This technique has
                   been designed to identify components of a Strategic Plan such as the future directions, communal needs,
                   feasibility of tasks and the highest level of impact on any organization. The Strategic Plan uses a description
                   of issues to conceptually identify areas of collective concern that could then be prioritized in a consensus manner.
                   Once these issues (areas of collective concern) are identified, the information requirements (data sets and
                   standard procedures) necessary to address each issue will be generated. Standards and procedures are expected
                   to be developed through Consensus Groups which will focus their activities on either transfer protocols or
                   specific data sets.

                   The following outline describes the steps to the technique used to devise the Striategic Plan:

                   Strategic Plan:

                             0         Identify issues of concern in the Tampa Bay region and the corresponding information (data
                                       areas) needed to address or resolve these issues (Brain-Storming Session).

                             0         Rank these issues (and consequently information requirements) by importance to the
                                       organization. (Delphi-Evaluation Session).


                             0         Identify how each issue impacts other issues (cross-interaction between issues), with the purpose
                                       of defining the ten most "dominant" and the ten most "critical" issues in the Tampa Bay region
                                       in terms of data sharing requirements (Cross-Impact Analysis Session).

                             0         Identify the data areas that are most important to a particular issue (the ten most critical
                                       issues), thus identifying the critical information requirements for the Tampa Bay region. This
                                       will allow the development of the overall impact that each issue will have on the Tampa Bay
                                       region (Future Scenario) in terms of data sharing requirements (System Impact Analysis
                                       Session).








                  A Strategic Plan for the TBRCC                                                                        Appendix 3
                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                               Page 2


                  Standards Development:

                           0        Specific data sets from previously identified data areas will be addressed by the Consensus
                                    Groups or Subcommittees.

                           0        Straw man issue statements (for previously identified issues) will be developed by the co-chairs
                                    of each Consensus Group, in conjunction with the Central Information Unit (facilitator).

                           0        Data sets (related to previously identified issues) will be documented through a data dictionary
                                    and quality and accuracy reports prepared by the Consensus Groups'in conjunction with the
                                    Central Information Unit.








                A Strategic Plan for the TBRCC                                                                       Appendix 3
                TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                              Page 3


                                                                   Chapter I


                                GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN



                1.       Goals of the StratgWc Plan

                         The long term goals of the Tampa Bay Regional Coordinating Council           Strategic Plan are to:

                                  1.1     Provide managers with the information they need to make sound and informed
                                          decisions throughout the Tampa Bay region.

                                  1.2     Maximize the use of available resources by sharing this information on a statewide and
                                          regionwide basis.

                                  1.3     Minimize redundant local government agencies efforts by reducing duplicative data
                                          collection activities among them.


                2.       Obeectives of the Stratw,& Plan

                         The main objectives of the Strategic Plan for the Tampa Bay Regional Coordinating Council are to:

                                  2.1     Outline the most dominant and critical issues (in terms of data requirements) that
                                          should be addressed by senior management in the Tampa Bay region within the years
                                          1992-1993.


                                  2.2     Identify the data areas associated to those most important and critical issues in the
                                          Tampa Bay region.

                                  23      Identify the impact that will be generated by addressing these most important issues
                                          in the Tampa Bay region within the years 1992-1993.

                                  2.4     Describe the future scenario that would emerge (in terms of data requirements) in the
                                          Tampa Bay region as a result of having addressed those critical and important issues.

                                  2.5     Develop straw man issue statements for those most important issues in the region.

                                  2.6     Document these data sets and develop standards via data dictionaries and quality and
                                          accuracy reports.



                3.       Some Notes on the Methodo1W Used to Generate the Stralgeic Plan

                         A two-day Strategic Plan workshop was organized with the members of the working group. The purpose
                         of the workshop was to use the experience and informed judgement of the working group as the main
                         input to the Strategic Plan. Through the use of what is known as the Futures Technique, (a revised
                         version of the Simulation Conference Methodology first developed by R. Armstrong, M. Hobson and E.








                  A Strategic Plan for the TBRCC                                                                         Appendix 3
                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                               Page 4


                           Breto at the Institute of Local Government Studies, University of Birmingham, England, see Appendix
                           1) a combined and progressive application of Brain-Storming, Delphi-Evaluation, Cross-Impact Analysis
                           and Scenario Construction techniques were made. A working group established by the Interim Regional
                           Advisory Council (IRAQ (an organization provided for in the Memorandum of Understanding which
                           refers to the staff members from the member agencies, the staff director, and other representatives as
                           recommended) was asked to engage in the following procedures and activities:


                                   3.1      A Brain-Storming session was held on February 11, 1992 at the Tampa Bay Regional
                                            Planning Council's conference room. Attending members of the IRAC assembled into
                                            six groups of three members each. Each group was asked to fist the five most relevant
                                            issues that should be addressed in the Tampa Bay region during the years 1992-1993.
                                            The appropriate Brain-Storming forms (see appendix #2) were completed after each
                                            group discussion took place. Forms contained a list of the most relevant issues as seen
                                            by the various groups, as well as the five elements or factors that would be affected in
                                            the event a particular issue was to be addressed or resolved.


                                   3.2      A summary list of those issues identified during the Brain-Storming session was
                                            prepared and provided to the working group. With the help of the Delphi method,
                                            each individual completed a Delphi form (see appendix #3) which outlined each
                                            member's own evaluation of the issues under consideration in terms of-



                                                     The probability of each issue.being addressed during the years 1992-1993 in
                                                     the Tampa Bay re i
                                                                        gion.

                                            0        The significance of the issue for the Tampa Bay region as a whole.

                                            0        The desirability of addressing the issue in the Tampa Bay region during the
                                                     years 1992-1993.

                                            0        A self evaluation of each member's own expertise and knowledge in relation
                                                     to the issues listed.


                                            The corresponding probability histograms for each issue were drawn and the level of
                                            consensu (standard deviation) among members was determined. An "impact score"
                                            number, which reflects such consensus level and the importance of each issue as
                                            compared to another one, was calculated. The main objective at this point was to draw
                                            a fist of the ten "most important" issues (those with the highest impact score) and also
                                            the ten "least important" issues (those with the lowest impact score). Impact scores for
                                            each issue were calculated according to the following equation:








                A Strategic Plan for the TBRCC                                                                           Appendix 3
                TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                                  Page 5


                                                                       El = P * D * (E/8)

                                             Where:


                                             El =    Impact Score

                                             P =     Mean probability of suggested issue being addressed in Tampa Bay by 1992-
                                                     1993


                                             D =     Desirability mode of each suggested issue

                                             E =     Mode of the working group's expertise and knowledge in relation to the issue
                                                     being considered.


                                   3.3       As a third step, working group members met February 19, 1992 at the Hillsborough
                                             County Environmental Protection Commission's conference room to attend the second
                                             day of the Strategic Plan workshop, where they completed a "Cross-Impact Analysis"
                                             evaluation. The Delphi evaluation generated a matrix (see appendix 4) which displayed
                                             the ten "most important" issues, and also the ten "least important" issues.

                                   The main objective was to establish how each issue (once it is addressed) may "affect" or
                                   "impact" other issues by increasing the chances of having to address both issues simultaneously-,
                                   namely the "cross-interaction effects" of one issue over another one. The final result was the
                                   identification of the ten "most dominant" and the ten "most critical" issues in the Tampa Bay
                                   region. These cross-interaction effects were then converted into "probabilities" of one issue
                                   affecting another one by using the following equation:

                                                              PW = pb * (la/ia)

                                        Where:


                                             PW      Probability (expressed in %) that an issue may be affected by other issues
                                                     included in the matrix, either increasing or decreasing its probability of being
                                                     addressed.


                                             pb      Mean probability of those ten ranked most important issues during the Delphi
                                                     evaluation.


                                             ia =    Mean impact score assigned to those affecting issues during the cross-impact
                                                     analysis phase.

                                             la =    Impact score of those affected issues determined during the Delphi phase.

                                   3.4       During the final phase of the workshop each working group member was asked to
                                             undertake a "System Impact Analysis" of those dominant and critical issues identified
                                             in the previous step. For this purpose, a NEXUS card was prepared (see Appendix
                                             #5) displaying along its perimeter those factors suggested by the working group








                  A Strategic Plan for the TBRCC                                                                      Appendix 3
                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                             Page 6


                                            members during the Brain-Storming phase (see Appendix #1). Such factors are now
                                            considered to provide a description of the system, in this case the Tampa Bay region.

                                    The task consisted in establishing the impact of dominant or critical issues upon each factor
                                    describing the system (Tampa Bay); thus identifying the critical information requirements for
                                    the Tampa Bay region (NEXUS card). By superimposing each of the NEXUS cards completed
                                    by every working group member, a cumulative and simultaneous future scenario (Strategic Plan)
                                    was thereby generated. The main features of this scenario are discussed in Chapter 111.








                  A Strategic Plan for the TBRCC                                                                              Appendix 3
                  TBRCC Report - December 1991                                                                                     Page 7


                                                                        Chapter II


                             ANALYSIS AND RESULTS OF THE BRAIN-STORMING AND DELPHI EVAUATION



                  1.1       Results of the Brain-Storming Session

                            Members of the working group gathered into six groups of three members e           'ach. Based on their own
                            judgement and experience and through individual group discussions, they were asked to make a list of
                            five of the issues in the Tampa Bay region they believe need to be addressed in the years 1992-1993 (see
                            Appendix 2). They were also asked to identify the factors that would be affected, if it was to be
                            assumed that the issues they have listed were addressed in Tampa Bay during the target years.

                            There were thirty issues identified by the working group. Duplicate and/or overlapping definitions of
                            issues were deleted. What follows is a list of those clearly identifiable issues after this search took place.


                                                                        TABLE #1


                                                           TAMPA BAY REGIONAL ISSUES





                                               ISSUES                                FACTORS THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED


                       1. Ground water quafity data                                         0 Number of Septic tanks
                            standardized to be shared
                            by multijurisdictional bodies.                                  0    Water demand

                                                                                            0    Hazardous waste site location

                       2. Effects of pol.luting industrial                                  0    Air quality measurements
                            facilities on human health and
                            solid waste                                                     0    Water quality measurements

                                                                                            0    Economic industrial indicators

                                                                                            0    Number of regulatory agencies

                                                                                            0    Data dissemination bodies

                       3. Effects of land use, zoning and                                   0    Storm water impact/flooding
                            redevelopment on the habitat and
                            ecosystem                                                       0    Socioeconomic indicators

                                                                                            0    Traffic access and utilities







                  A Strategic Plan for the TBRCC                                                                    Appendix 3
                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                          Page 8


                                                               TABLE #1 (Contd)




                                            ISSUES                            FACTORS THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED



                      4. Water quality eutrophication and                            0 Run off water quality and
                          its impact on living organisms
                                                                                     0   Atmospheric input measurements

                                                                                     *   Land use total acreage

                      5. Traffic congestion reduction                                0   Network
                          and road infrastructure
                                                                                     0   Airports

                                                                                     0   Mass transit


                                                                                     0   Land use


                      6. Standard population projections                             *   Water supply
                          and statistics
                                                                                     0   Federal funding

                                                                                     0   Road's LOS and basic services
                                                                                         supply

                      7. Overlap and duplicative services                            0   Type of permits required
                          between state and county regulations
                                                                                     0   Type of licenses required

                      8. Local governments real estate statistics                    0   Type & number of housing units

                                                                                     0   Number of units for sale


                                                                                     0   Unit cost per type

                                                                                     0   Number of leasing units

                      9. Standard street mapping methodology-
                          compatible names and addresses in all counties

                      10. Creation of GIS data buffer encompassing                   0 GIS data formats
                          common boundaries between agencies
                                                                                     0 Type of GIS systems








                A Strategic Plan for the TBRCC                                                                        Appendix 3
                TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                               Page 9


                                                               TABLE #1 (Contd)




                                           ISSUES                              FACTORS THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED



                     11. To establish a data exchange standard                        0 Zoning categories
                         format: data dictionary quality and
                         accuracy report                                              0    Land use types

                                                                                      0    Type of GIS systems

                     12. Base parcel maps for land use and                            0    Economic resources commitment
                         transportation studies at local
                         government level: modelling urban                            *    Traffic congestion
                         areas; E.g., land use location, trip
                         generation etc.                                              0    Road infrastructure

                     13. Identify environmental resources by
                         sensitivity level

                     14. Vacant land inventory for parks and                          0 Demographic indicators
                         and recreation provision to meet present
                         and future population needs                                  *    Total vacant land acreage

                                                                                      0    Total acreage of vacant land
                                                                                           by ownership type

                     15. Law enforcement and jails                                    0    Population growth

                                                                                      0    High crime area statistics

                                                                                      0    Road maps

                                                                                      0    Socioeconomic indicators

                     16. Socioeconomic indicators forecasting and
                         regional development

                     17. Water supply and infrastructure to meet                      0    Demographic indicators
                         population growth: surface and ground
                         water characteristics                                        0    Wells availability and location

                                                                                      0    Storm water sources








                   A Strategic Plan for the TBRCC                                                                          Appendix 3
                   TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                               Page 10


                                                                   TABLE #1 (Contd)



                                                                                  I
                                               ISSUES                              FACTORS TRAT WOULD BE AFFECTED



                        18. Air quality- population and traffic                           0 Pollution sources: types/level
                            projections regarding pollution data
                                                                                          0    Mortality and rate of birth

                        19. Procedures in hurricane preparedness,                         0    Topographic information
                            evacuation and recovery planning
                                                                                          0    Transportation network

                                                                                          0    Demographic indicators

                       20. Flood control: effects on land use                             0    Road and housing infrastructure
                            area, drainage and erosion
                                                                                          0    Land use distribution-and location

                                                                                          0    Topographic information


                   2.       Results of the Delphi Evaluation

                            During the Delphi Evaluation Phase, members carried out an evaluation.of those issues listed previously.
                            Each member was provided a Delphi evaluation form (see Appendix 3) which contained the list of
                            issues. Four basic topics were evaluated.

                            0        Probability of the issue being addressed in the years 1992-1993;

                                     Significance of the issue for the Tampa Bay Region;

                                     Desirability of the issue being addressed during the years 1992 - 1993; and

                            0        A self-evaluation of their knowledge and experience in relation to the issue under consideration.

                            Applying the equation described in Chapter 1, item 3.2, an "impact score" number was calculated for
                            each issue. This impact score number reflects the importance of one issue over another, reflecting a
                            ranking of issues by their importance. Issues with the highest impact scores are considered (in this first
                            ranking) the most important issues to be addressed in Tampa Bay in terms of data sharing requirements,
                            as perceived by the working group. Issues which showed the lowest impact scores are considered to be
                            the least important issues in the Delphi ranking evaluation. The following tables contain the lists of the
                            most and least important issues according to the Delphi evaluation.








                   A Strategic Plan for the TBRCC                                                                                Appendix 3
                   TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                                      Page 11



                                                                          TABLE # 2


                                                                   Most Important Issues
                                                                       (Delphi Ranking)



                               No. ISSUE DESCRIPTION                                                                     IMPACT SCORE



                               1.     Water supply infrastructure to meet population growth: surface
                                      and ground water characteristic                                                                     284


                               2.     Flood control: effects on land use area, drainage and erosion                                       278


                               3.     Water quality: eutrophication and its impact on living organisms                                    276


                               4.     Standard street mapping methodology: compatible names and addresses
                                      in counties                                                                                         245



                               5.     Standardization of water quality data to be shared by multi-
                                      jurisdictional bodies                                                                               162


                               6.     To establish a data exchange standard format: data dictionary,'
                                      data directory, and quality accuracy report                                                         159


                               7.     Procedures in: hurricane preparedness, evacuation and recovery
                                      planning                                                                                            150


                               8.     Effects of land use, zoning and redevelopment on the habitat and
                                      ecosystem                                                                                           141


                               9.     Effects of polluting industrial facilities on human health and
                                      solid waste                                                                                         131


                               10.    Overlapping and duplicate services between state and county regulations;
                                      e.g. permits, licenses etc.                                                                         128








                   A Strategic Plan for the TBRCC                                                                          Appendix 3
                   TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                                Page 12



                                                                       TABLE # 3


                                                                 Least lmpQrlant Issues
                                                                    (Delphi Ranking)


                              No.     ISSUE DESCRIPTION                                                             IMPACT SCORE



                              1.     Base parcel maps for land use and transportation studies at local
                                     government level: modeling urban areas for land use location and
                                     trip generation.                                                                                116


                              2.     Create a GIS data buffer encompassing common boundaries between
                                     agencies                                                                                        109


                              3.     Identify environmental resources by sensitivity level:
                                     oil spill, habitat, etc.                                                                        107


                              4.     Air quality: population and traffic projections regarding pollution
                                     data                                                                                            73



                              5.     Traffic congestion reduction and road infrastructure                                            55


                              6.     Standardization of population projections and statistics                                        33


                              7.     Vacant land inventory for parks, beaches and recreation facilities
                                     to meet present population needs                                                                14

                              8.     Law enforcement needs and jails                                                                 12

                              9.     Local. government real estate statistics                                                        10

                              10.    Socioeconomic indicators forecasting for regional development                                     6








                  A Strategic Plan for the TBRCC                                                                         Appendix 3
                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                               Page 13


                                                                     Chapter III



                  ANALYSIS AND RESULTS OF THE CROSS-IMPACT AND SYSTEM IMPACT ANALYSIS EVALUATION



                  1.       Results of the Cross-Impact Analysis Session

                           A Cross-Impact Analysis of the ranked list of issues obtained during the Delphi evaluation was
                           undertaken by the working group. A matrix displaying the ten most important issues, according to the
                           highest impact scores from the Delphi evaluation, was provided to the working group. The ten least
                           important issues were forming the column titles (see Appendix # 4). The task was to establish how the
                           most important issues (assuming they have been addressed) would impact or affect the least important
                           issues. This impact would mean interdependence (cross-interaction) between two issues, suggesting that
                           such issues may have to be addressed simultaneously.

                           The main objective of this phase is twofold: to identify and rank the most dominant and the most
                           critical issues (thus identifying the critical information related to those issues), and to observe if any
                           issue has been reshuffled in its ranking importance. A review of the Cross-Impact Analysis results
                           showed the following (revised) list of issues and the new -average- impact score which has been assigned
                           to them.








                   A Strategic Plan for the TBRCC                                                                              Appendix 3
                   TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                                   Page 14



                                                                         TABLE # 4


                                                                   Most Dominant Issues
                                                                  (Cross-Impact Ranking)



                              No.     ISSUE DESCRIPTION                                        CROSS-IMPACT SCORE ASSIGNED




                              1.      Water supply infrastructure to meet population growth:
                                      surface and ground water characteristics                                                         234


                              2.      Water quality: eutrophication and its impact on living organisms                                 204


                              3.      Flood control: effects on land use area, drainage and erosion                                    200


                              4.      Standard street mapping methodology: compatible names and
                                      addresses in counties                                                                            177



                              5.      To establish a data exchange standard format-, data dictionary,
                                      data directory and quality & accuracy report                                                     128


                              6.      Standardization of water quality data to be shared by
                                      multijurisdictional bodies                                                                       114


                              7.      Procedures in: hurricane preparedness, evacuation and
                                      recovery planning


                              8.      Effects of land use, zoning and redevelopment on the
                                      habitat and ecosystem                                                                            107


                              9.      Effects of industrial pollution on human health and
                                      solid waste                                                                                      104



                              10.     Overlapping and duplicate services between state and
                                      county regulations; e.g., permits, licenses, etc.                                                  70








                A Strategic Plan for the TBRCC                                                                          Appendix 3
                TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                                Page 15


                 It should be noted that four issues have been reshuffled after the Cross-impact analysis took place:

                                            The number one and most dominant issue that should be addressed in Tampa Bay in
                                            relation to data sharing continues to be: Water supply infrastructure to meet popula-
                                            tion growth/ground and surface water characteristics.

                                   0        The water quality eutrophication and its effect on living organisms has now been
                                            ranked as the second most "dominant" issue in Tampa Bay in terms of data sharing
                                            among local agencies.

                                   0        Flood control and its effects on land use area, drainage and erosion has now been
                                            considered the third most dominant issue as a result of the Cross-Impact analysis
                                            undertaken by the working group.

                                   0        The establishment of a standard street-mapping methodology with compatible names
                                            and addresses in counties continues to be considered the forth most dominant issue
                                            that should be addressed by Tampa Bay local agencies.

                                   0        The establishment of a data exchange standard format though a data dictionary
                                            quality and accuracy report is the fifth most dominant issue that should be addressed
                                            in the near future according to the working group.

                          Impact scores assigned to each issue by the working group when completing the Cross-Impact Analysis
                          Matrix (see Appendix 4) have now been converted into probabilities by applying the appropriate
                          equation included in Chapter 1, Item 3.3. The following Cross-Impact Matrix displays those probabilities
                          expressed in percentage:


                          The previous matrix should be interpreted as follows:

                                   0        There is a 60.9 % probability that "dominant issue #1" and the "sensitive issue #4"
                                            would have to be addressed parallel. or simultaneously. This is due to the cross-
                                            interaction between both issues.


                                   0        There is a 34 % probability that "dominant issue #5" and "sensitive issue #1" would
                                            have to be addressed in parallel to share the necessary data related to these issues.
                                            The analysis could continue through each issue included in the Cross-Impact matrix.

                          As a result, the list of most sensitive issues has been reshuffled. Table # 4 shows the final ranking for
                          the most *sensitive" issues.








                    A Strategic Plan for the TBRCC                                                                                    Appendix 3
                    TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                                          Page 16



                                                                             TABLE # 5
                                                                       Most Sensitive Issues
                                                                      (Cross-Impact Ranking)

                                                                                                   AVERAGE PROBABILITY OF BEING
                                No. ISSUE DESCRIPTION                                                    IMPACTED BY ALL DOMINANT
                                                                                                                                   ISSUES (%)

                                1.      Air quality: population and traffic projections regarding
                                        pollution data                                                                                         60.6


                                2.      Traffic congestion reduction and road infrastructure                                                   46.1


                                3.      Law enforcement needs and jails                                                                        32.5


                                4.      Identify environmental resources by sensitivity level: oil
                                        spill, habitat etc                                                                                     30.1


                                5.      Create a GIS data buffer encompassing common boundaries between agencies                               29.7


                                6.      Base parcel maps for land use and transportation studies at local government
                                        level: modeling urban areas for land use location and trip generation                                  29.6


                                7.      Standardization of population projections and statistics                                               21.6


                                8.      Local government real estate statistics                                                                16.5


                                9.      Vacant land inventory for parks, beaches and recreation facilities to meet
                                        present population needs                                                                               11.0


                                10.     Socioeconomic indicators forecasting for regional development                                            3.3








                 A Strategic Plan for the TBRCC                                                                            Appendix 3
                 TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                                 Page 17


                 2.        Results of the Sntem ImR@ct Analysis Session: Future Scenarios

                           During the final phase of the workshop the working group carried out a "System Impact Analysis* of
                           those dominant issues identified previously in the Cross-Impact Analysis phase. A-"NEXUS" card was
                           prepared (see Appendix 5) which displayed along its perimeter those factors suggested by the working
                           group during the Brain-Storming session (see Appendix 2). These factors now provide a consensus of
                           collective data concerns shared by Tampa Bay area local government and affected agencies.

                           The major task was to identify the impact a dominant issue would have over each factor, or data area,
                           describing the system (Tampa Bay), thus identifying the critical information' sharing requirements for
                           the Tampa Bay region during 1992-1993.

                           The objective of this phase was twofold: to obtain the final ranking importance of dominant issues in
                           terms of its probability of being addressed, and to identify the corporate value of those data areas
                           associated with them.


                           A NEXUS board has also been prepared which allows the measurement of the future cumulative short-
                           term impact of each issue over the above mentioned factors, and consequently defines its "corporate"
                           value. By superimposing each of the NEXUS cards completed by the working group on this NEXUS
                           board, the two following cumulative future scenarios were generated.

                           2.1      Scenario 1


                           Need to be
                           Addressed
                           (Percentage
                           Probability):              Impacted Issues



                           1)       80CIO             Establish data exchange standards

                           Implies
                                                      a)       The development of a quality and accuracy report and data dictionary
                                                               on data of corporate value

                                                      b)       Protocols for data exchange.

                           2)       7S%               Water quality data

                           Critical/Sensitive Issues

                                                      a)       70%      Population and traffic projection

                                                      b)       53%      Parallel traffic congestion/road infra-structure regarding air
                                                                        quality

                                                      C)       34%      Base parcel maps for land use/transportation studies








                  A Strategic Plan for the TBRCC                                                                          Appendix 3
                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                                Page 18


                           3)       72%               Procedures concerning hurricane preparedness, evacuation and recovery
                                                      plan.

                           Critical/Sensitivc Issues

                                                      a)       64%      Population/traffic projections

                                                      b)       4W6      Traffic congestion/road infrastructure

                                                      C)       32%      GIS buffer with common boundaries to share data between
                                                                        local government agencies

                           4)       66%               The effects or polluting industrial facilities on human health and solid waste.

                           Critical/Sensitive Issues

                                                      a)       56%      Parallel population and traffic projections

                                                      b)       43%      Traffic congestion and road infrastructure

                                                      C)       28%      Environmental resources by sensitivity levels (oil spills,
                                                                        hazardous waste, etc.);

                                                      d)       28%      Creating a GIS buffer with common boundaries to share
                                                                        data between local government agencies.

                           5)       65%               The effect of land use, zoning and redevelopment on the habitat and
                                                      ecosystem

                           Critical/Sensitive Issues

                                                      a)       61%      Population and traffic projections

                                                      b)       46%      Road infrastructure and traffic congestion

                                                      C)       30%      Parcel maps for land use and transportation studies at the
                                                                        local government level

                           6)       6S%               Flood control and Its effect on land use designation, drainage and erosion.

                           Critical/Sensitive Issues

                                                      a)       60%      Population and traffic projection;

                                                      b)       45%      Traffic congestion and road infrastructure;

                                                      C)       15%      Local government real estate statistics on housing costs,
                                                                        housing for sale/rent;








                  A Strategic Plan for the TBRCC                                                                            Appendix 3
                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                                  Page 19


                                                       d)       30%      Identifying environmental resources by sensitivity levels;

                                                       e)       11%      Standard population projections.

                           7)       65%                Water quality eutrophication and Its impact on living resources

                           Critical/Sensitive Issues

                                                       a)       59%      Population and traffic projections

                                                       b)       30%      Identification of environmental resources by sensitivity levels

                                                       C)       30%      Maintaining a GIS buffer with common boundaries designed
                                                                         to share data between local government agencies

                           8)       64%                Overlapping and duplicate services lent by state and county agencies

                           Critical/Sensitive Issues

                                                       a)       55%      Population and traffic projections

                                                       b)       27%      Maintaining a GIS buffer with common boundaries designed
                                                                         to share data between local government agencies


                                                       C)       27%      Identification of environmental resources by sensitivity levels

                                                       d)       27%      Base parcel maps for land use and transportation studies

                           9)       62%                Water  supply infrastructure to meet population growth, including both
                                                       ground and surface water characteristics

                           Critical/Sensitive Issues

                                                       a)       61%      Population and traffic projections

                                                       b)       46%      Traffic congestion and road infrastructure

                                                       C)       30%      Maintaining a GIS buffer with common boundaries to share
                                                                         data between local government agencies

                           10)      61%                Development of a standard street mapping methodology with compatible
                                                       names and addresses in every county

                           The probabilities that the various issues included in this scenario would be addressed in the Tampa Bay
                           region, were calculated through the following equation:








                  A Strategic Plan for the TBRCC                                                                          Appendix 3
                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                                Page 20


                                             Pwl = Pb * (ial/lal)

                                             where:


                                             Pwi      Final probability of a dominant issue being addressed in the Tampa Bay
                                                      region by the years 1992-1993

                                             Pb =     Mean probability of dominant issue established during the Delphi phase.

                                             ial =    Impact score assigned to each issue by working group on the NEXUS card.

                                             lal      Impact score to be distributed for each issue by the working group on the
                                                      NEXUS card.


                           2.2      Scenario 2


                           Scenario 2 describes the situation that would emerge if the ten most important and dominant issues
                           described in Scenario 1 were addressed in the Tampa Bay region. It identifies the impact generated by
                           each dominant issue (in terms of probabilities) over the data areas included on the NEXUS card; thus
                           identifying the "corporate" value of each data area. The underlying assumption is that the higher the
                           probability that an issue (of collective concern) may impact a data area, the greater the "corporate" value
                           of the data area will be. By the same token the greater the corporate value of data, the more need
                           there will be to share such data among local agencies in the Tampa Bay area.

                           Therefore if the ten most dominant issues in the Tampa Bay area listed in Scenario I were addressed,
                           the following information related to these issues -will have to be shared among government agencies:

                           1)       100%              Common geographic information systems dati formats

                           2)       64%               Information on surface and ground water characteristics

                           3)       63%               Data on storm water sources having corporate value

                           4)       58%               Information on standard data collection formats related to the ten most
                                                      Important issues listed

                           5)       47%               Information on data collection methods will have corporate value among
                                                      local agencies in the region

                           6)       45%               Data on environmental effects on the habitat

                           7)       44%               Information regarding general data on wells would have corporate value

                           8)       43%               Data on the receiving-water effects on Tampa Bay

                           9)       42%               Water supply data

                           10)      4091v             Information regarding storm water flooding measurements will have
                                                      corporate value








                 A Strategic Plan for the TBRCC                                                                        Appendix 3
                 TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                              Page 21


                          The probabilities that the various data areas included in this scenario would have corporate value among
                          local government agencies in the Tampa Bay region, were calculated through the following equation:


                                            PDCV =            FAPIA - (CISADA/ACISAI)

                                            where:


                                            PDCV =            Probability of identified data area having corporate value.

                                            FAPIA             Final average probability of all issues being addressed as a result of
                                                              the system impact analysis phase.

                                            ACISAI            Mean cumulative impact score assigned to issues on NEXUS cards.

                                            CISADA            Cumulative impact score assigned to each data area on NEXUS
                                                              board.



                                                              RECOMMENDATIONS



                 Four of the six objectives slated for the Strategic Plan (see Chapter 1, Item 2) have now been achieved. First,
                 the most important and critical issues (in terms of data requirements) which should be addressed by senior
                 management in Tampa Bay have been identified. Secondly, the data areas associated to those most important
                 and critical issues have been clearly identified. Also, the impact that would be generated by addressing these
                 issues, as well as the future scenarios that would emerge as a result have been described. The following is a list
                 of recommendations that should be Pursued to fulfill the two remaining Strategic Plan objectives:

                          1.       At least five Consensus Groups are necessary to address the following issues:

                                            Development of data exchange standard formats for information transfer and
                                            information sharing among local government agencies.

                                   0        Development of standards for water quality data to be shared by multijurisdictional
                                            bodies.

                                   0        Procedures in hurricane preparedness, evacuation and recovery planning.

                                   0        Demographic and traffic projections

                                   0        Traffic congestion and road infrastructure.

                          Chairmen for these consensus groups should be appointed to develop a straw man issue statement for
                          each issue.








                A Strategic Plan for the TBRCC                                                               Appendix 3
                TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                     Page 22


                        2.      Seven Technical Advisory Committees should be formed to define and document (via data
                                dictionary and quality and accuracy reports) the following specific data sets:

                                         GIS data formats


                                         Surface and ground water characteristics

                                         Storm water sources


                                         General data on wells


                                         Storm water flooding measurements

                                         Water supply

                                         Receiving-waters effects on Tampa Bay








             A Strategic Plan for the TBRCC                                                      Appendix 3
  0          TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                           Page 23










  I*                                                 APPENDICES










  0








                 A Strategic Plan for the TBRCC                                                                            Appendix 3
                 Appendix 1 - A Brief Historical Note...                                                                        APP 1
                 TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                                   Page I



                                                                     APPENDIX I



                                                  A Brief Historical Note on the Funtrej


                 The Futures Techniques has come to be known as the combined and progressive application of four
                 sociotechnological forecasting methods: a) Brain-storming, b) the Delphi method, c) Cross-impact Analysis and
                 d) Scenario Construction. They have been widely applied both as a tool for "generating" or amending complex
                 mathematical simulation models (see Reference 1) and as a sociotechnological forecasting tool (see Reference
                 2)_


                 IMe Delphi Method

                 The first experiments with the Delphi method were undertaken in 1956 by the mathematician Olaf Helmer (see
                 Reference 3) at the Rand Corporation in Santa Monica, California. The work carried out by Helmer had as its
                 main objective the rationalization of expert "opinions" about a specific issue. In this particular case, the issues
                 concerned American space program's ability to put a man on the moon by the 1960's. Helmer's work based its
                 results on three fundamental conditions:

                           a)       Anonyinity. the sample of experts do not know about those policies and issues which have been
                                    identified by other experts included in the sample, thereby avoiding contamination of results.

                           b)       Statistical Evaluation: the probability of a policy/issue being addressed is generated in relation
                                    to a specific date or year. The "mean," "mode," and "interquartile range" are calculated for each
                                    policy/issue under different probabilities of occurrence.

                           C)       Feed-back of the Reasoning Used by Erperts: statistical results are returned to the experts so that
                                    they may reevaluate those policies/issues which fall outside the interquartile ranges, thereby
                                    generating new probabilities of occurrence.

                 The Delphi method allows topic formalization and legitimization that would otherwise be ignored when
                 identif)ing policies/issues and its related data sharing requirements as part of a Strategic Plan. It ultimately
                 helps to reach a level of consensus among experts in relation to specific issues.


                 Ile Cross-Impact Analnis Method

                 In many cases, addressing or implementing certain policies/issues and identifying related data sharing
                 requirements within a given system, (e.g. the Tampa Bay region) may trigger up a multiplying effect which will
                 modify the probability and time of other issues being addressed.

                 The Cross-Impact Analysis method helps to identify the impact generated by addressing a particular issue and
                 related data sharing requirements, over the probability that other issues and respective data requirements be
                 addressed in a specific period of time. Using the Cross-Impact evaluation matrix will help to analyze and
                 explore, in a systematic way, the crossed interaction that exist between the various issues and its data sharing
                 requirements to be considered.








                  A Strategic Plan for the TBRCC                                                                         Appendix 3
                  Appendix 1 - A Brief Historical Note...                                                                     APP 1
                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                                Page 2


                  The main purpose of the Cross-Impact evaluation is to improve the internal consistency of those issues identified
                  during the Delphi stage, and also to clarify experts' assumptions by confronting them with their own inconsisten-
                  cies.



                  Scenario Construction


                  The concept and method of "Scenario Construction" in the realm of institutional planning was first developed
                  by Herman Kahn (see Reference 4) in 1967 at the Hudson Institute in New York.           In many cases policies or
                  issues addressed by an organization in a region (e.g. the Tampa Bay region) are fundamentally based on certain
                  assumptions and hypothesis made about the future. Consequently the results usually show us the inefficiencies
                  of the policies we implement and the issues we addressed. This is mainly due to the incomplete consideration
                  given to the future that emerges which is usually both simultaneous and dynamic. Namely, the time factor is a
                  basic prerequisite when making assumptions about the future. Top management and high level decision-makers
                  in any organization are then confronted with a series of possible alternatives or what is known in policy analysis
                  jargon as "Alternative Future Scenarios% The problem is therefore reduced to the following question: For which
                  of those possible alternative futures shall we formulate our Strategic Plan?



                  References


                  (1)      77ie ESAL Model. A Mathematical Simulation Model for Latin America by E. Breto, Simon Bolivar
                           University, Caracas Venezuela 1979

                  (2)      Simulation Conference Methodology by R.H.R. Armstrong, M. Hobson and E. Breto, Institute of Local
                           Government Studies, University of Birmingham, Birmingham - England 1973

                  (3)      Analysis of the Future - 7he Delphi Method by Olaf Helmer, The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica -
                           California 1960


                  (4)      77te Year Z 000. A Framework for Speculation on the Ne;a 7hirly- 77iree Years by H. Kahn and A. Wiener,
                           MacMillan Company, N.Y. 1967

                  (5)      7he S.A. U.C.O. Urban Community Game. A Gaining Technique to Study the Planning Process in Latin
                           American Communities by E. Breto, The Student Publication of the School of Design, Volume 23,
                           North Carolina State,     University, Raleigh, N.C. 1974.

                  (6)      A Methodologyfor the Forum Huntanum: A Club of Rome Project by E. Breto, World Futures, Volume
                           18, August 18, 1981.

                  (7)      77ie Delphi Method - Techniques and Applications by Linstone H. and Turof M., Addisson-Wesley
                           Publishing Co. Inc. 1975

                  (8)      Technological Forecasting by R.U. Ayres, McGraw-Hill, Inc. Book Company, 1969

                  (9)      Delphi and Cross-Impact Techniques: Effective.Combination for Systematic Future Analysis by S. Enzer,
                           Institute for the Future, 1975








                  A Strategic Plan for the TBRCC                                                                           Appendix 3
                  Appendix 2 - Futures TechniquelBrain Storming...                                                               APP 2
                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                                   Page I


                                                                     APPENDIX 2



                  FUTURES TECffMQUE

                  BRAIN - STORMING PHASE


                  BASIC INSTRUCTIONS



                  1.       OBJECT

                           The main objective of this phase is to identify which issues (according to your own view and experience)
                           should be addressed or implemented in the Tampa Bay Region in 1992-1993. At the same time we
                           expect you to identify those "factors" which would be affected in case a particular issue. Let us illustrate
                           this with an example:

                           Issue No. I

                           "To outline a low-income group housing construction plan that would allow local governments in the
                           region to reach a target of 50,000 housing units built by the end of 1993"

                           Possible affected factors if above issue is addressed:


                           a. Unemployment rate

                           b. Total number of homeless people in the region

                           c. Drainage and sewage service

                           d. Other factors


                  2.       FORMAT


                           This phase of the Futures Technique should be carried out in small groups of three to four experts.
                           Each group will complete the appropriate brain-storming form provided. After a brief discussion the
                           group will propose five policies/issues, and will also identify those elements or factors that would be
                           affected by them.


                  3.       PROCEDURE FOR COMPLETING THE BRMN-STORMING FORM

                           In the cluster which.has been labeled as "POLICY/ISSUE No. 1 through 5," write down those issues
                           that should be addressed or policies that should be implemented in the Tampa Bay region during 1992-
                           1993.


                           Once you have described your issue or poficy, please proceed to list those factors which would be
                           affected in the event your suggested policy/issue was to be addressed or implemented.








                 A Strategic Plan for the TBRCC                                                                 Appendix 3
                 Appendix 2 - Futures TechniquelBrain Storming...                                                    APP 2
                 TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                        Page 2





                   BRAIN-STORMING PHASE
                   POLICY IDENTIFICATION FORM                                       Institution          -Group #-I

                    POLICY/ISSUE                          No. 1            FACTORS WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED                   i


                                                                           a.


                                                                           b.


                                                                           c.


                                                                           d.


                    POLICY/ISSUE                          No. 2            FACTORS WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED


                                                                           a .


                                                                       1   b.


                                                                           C.


                                                                           d.


                    POLICY/ISSUE                          No. 3            FACTORS WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED


                                                                           a .


                                                                           b.


                                                                           c.


                                                                           d .

                  1 POLICY/ISSUE                          No. 4        1   FACTORS WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED


                                                                           a .


                                                                       1   b.


                                                                           c.


                                                                           d .










       STORNINO PKASN
  O*Ci  IDENTIFICATION FORK         Institution               Group#
  POLICY/ISSUE               No. 1    FACTORS WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED

                  Al                  a
       P 4A le S                      b YAP- 6e*   'rl"O 4 j1,4



  POLICY/ISSUE               No. 2    FACTORS WHICH HAY BE AFFECTED

                                      a - Ve-"4 a CA*"l --,r
                     @, wv



                                      do

  POLICY/ISSUE               No. 3    FACTORS WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED



       WA4vA-v*V,641F, AvPAo@



  POLICY/ISSUE               No. 4    FACTORS WHICH KAY BE AFFECTED
                                                 'o,,v Agou-7z,41
                         /4/          a-to


                                      do

  POLICY/ISSUE                No. 5   FACTORS WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED

                                      a.



                                                      lAol
                                      d      4- //0







                                                                         .........




    18ZAIX-8-TORK1110 PXAS8
     POLICT IDENTIFICATION FORM          Institution               Group#

      POLICT/ISSUE                No. I    FACTORS WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED
                                           a.       14Z7(q IpIle  v 7w 7)


                                                          da74  Fz) oe r-@7



      POLICY/ISSUE                No. 2    FACTORS WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED
      rA,,@sv,c                                                           7,
             cj
      ie 7w-e-e A <@@, 0'. 6 -ol;@eq                 o@
      AyL,iCtzo 7ro RedZA Ct eelli eee,(10 A
                                  /1
                             K V           c
                                           d

      POLI /ISSUE                 No.   3  FACTORS WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED
        A14,1 EeTalre,   6- 9              a.



         F TF
                                           d.

      POLICY/ISSUE                No.   4  FACTORS WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED

                                           a.
                         J-4
                                           c


                                           d.

      POLICY/ISSUE                 No. 5   FACTORS WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED

                                           a.

                                           b.


                                           co

                                           d.











         ORMINO PRASt
  )LICT IDENTIFICATION FORK            Institution-               -Group#
  POLIC@T/ISSUE                 No. I    FACTORS WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED




                                         d. AZ Q-5 -18.,@ Fi
  POLICY/ISSUE                  No. 2    FACTORS WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED
                                                        6L






  I@OLICY/Issuz                 No. 3    FACTORS WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED

                                                      L


                                         b.




                                         d.

  POLICY/ISSUE                  No. 4    FACTORS WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED

                                         a,

                                         b.




                                         d.

  POLICY/ISSUE                   No. 5   FACTORS WHICH RAY BE AFFECTED



                                         b.



                                                  gpc)v., Moore$ PC-PC-Al
                                                  4&@40q      m - _t"B Qe,@>
       BI&AIX-STORMING PHASE
       POLICY IDZNTIFICATION FORH             Institution                     P#
                                                                          QroUp#

        POLICY/ISSUE                  No. 1     FACTORS WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED
                u)wLr (:@allln                  a @a-Z a rAe%tS Uj QegL -@i It katti%mp, S 0_jj@45
                                                       4ex@ eT(prec-ta


                                                d.                U%Ct% l4c@

        POLICY/-ISSUE                 No. 2     FACTORS WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED
                                                a I card koy@ to


                                                c - ccewr-.%&c
                                                d. (yo_m
                                                                   -
        POLICY/ISSUZ                  No. 3     FACTORS WHICH'MAY_ BE AFFECTED
                                                a. 4@vMOCt,")
                                                b.-WtW Ctccec.,S


                                                      ,co,*@ c-

        POLICY/ISSUE                  No. 4     FACTORS WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED
                                CA,             a. 19,"(Tf       jww-x4.c3
                                                b. kA4ckV/
                                                C. V,4f-* L-4

                                                d

        POLICY/ISSUE                   No. 5    FACTORS WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED
                                                a. 61hl-K.-awN VijAk-44-0@
                                                b. I AcroeJ-i&, 14 10, mowrlx 4md
                                                c. vA'Zgc,,dq
                                                d.
                                                                             :U :p#:










       STORMING PNA82
         IDENTIFICATION FORK           Institution                 Group#_
  POLICT/ISSUE                  No. 1    FACTORS 'WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED



                                            LO-5




                                         d.

  POLICY/ISSUE                  No. 2    FACTORS WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED
             JJ, V44,                    a. ACJ4-@ tig,
                                         b.





  POLICY/ISSUE                  No. 3    FACTORS WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED








  POLICY/ISSUE                  No.   4  FACTORS WHICH HAY BE AFFECTED








   POLICY/ISSUE                  No. 5   FACTORS WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED

                                         Ak






                                         d.










       POLICY IDENTIFICATION FORM            Institution,-             -Group#

        POLICY/ISSUE                 No. 1     FACTORS WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED

                                               a.    0c







        POLICY/ISSUE                 No. 2     FACTORS WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED

                                               a.
                         Lk4x                  b.

                                               C - IS



        POLICY/ISSUE                 No.   3   FACTORS WHICH KAY BE AFFECTED

                                               a.





                                               C.

                                               d.

        POLICY/ISSUE                 No. 4     FACTORS WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED

                                               a. A\g tUjVje,

                                               b
                                                 0_LA_
                                                   ' f Cal
                                                .





        POLICY/ISSUE                  No. 5    FACTORS WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED

                                               a.

                                               b.       UA


                                               c 0

                                               d.








                  A Strategic Plan for the TBRCC                                                                       Appendix 3
                  Appendix 3 - Futures TechniquelDelphi Phase...                                                            APP 3
                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                              Page 1



                                                                   APPENDIX 3


                  FUTURES TECffNIQUE


                  DELPHI PHASE


                  BASIC INSTRUCTIONS

                  Each page of the Delphi phase which has been given to you contains a brief description of those issues that were
                  identified during the Brain-storming phase. Please read them carefully and proceed with your Delphi evaluation
                  according to the instructions outlined below.

                  1.      PROBABILITY OF ISSUE BEING ADDRESSED

                  Indicate the probability that an issue will be addressed (during the years 1992 and 1993) for each issue included
                  in your list. Assign a probability between 10 and 100 for each issue, and then write it down under the cell which
                  has been labeled with the letter "I'", example:


                                                      P



                                                      60




                  2.      DESIRABILITY OF THE ISSUE BEING CONSIDERED


                  Indicate with a positive sign (+) or a negative sign (-) how desirable or not is the issue under consideration: +
                  = desirable, - = not desirable. At the same time, please indicate the strength of your evaluation by using the
                  numeric scale which has been outlined bellow.


                                        1              2                 4                 8


                                   Very little       Some             Considerable     Very much
                                   interest          interest         interest         interest




                  Place your evaluation under the cell which has been labeled with the letter "D."

                          Example:

                                                      D



                                                      -4








                  A Strategic Plan for the TBRCC                                                                    Appendix 3
                  Appendix 3 - Futures TechniquelDelphi Phase...                                                         APP 3
                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                           Page 2


                  3.       SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION


                  Using the numeric scale outlined below, indicate your opinion in relation
                  to the importance each or issue will bear for the Tampa Bay region:

                                    1                 2                  4             8


                                    No              Some             Considerable     Very
                              importance        importance            importance    important


                  Write down your evaluation under the cell which has been labeled with the letter "S." Example:


                                                      S



                                                      2



                  4.      EXPERTISE OR KNOWLEDGE IN RELATION TO THE POLICYJISSUE BEING CONSIDERED

                  Undertake a self-evaluation of your knowledge and expertise in relation to the policy/issue being considered.
                  Please use the following numeric scale for your self-evaluation:

                                      1                2                     4                    8


                                    Have no         Have some        Have professional        Have expert
                                    knowledge       knowledge           knowledge              knowledge


                  Place your self-evaluation under the cell which has been labeled with the letter "E." Example:


                                                      E



                                                      8





             O'n
                          09:39   FMRI,ST.PETERS8URG,FL.             0114'('5544450 P.On
  POLICY EVALUATION FORK            page, I      Institution- 3aoazl:            -(;roup#-l

   POLICY/IBSUZ                         No.     I   POLICY/ISSUE                        No.

            water   quality               P     D   Census      act d                   P    D
               Axs@                                 collection,                              ---i
               s4ff

                                                                                             E




    POLICY/ISSUE                        No.     2   POLICY/ISSUX                        No.  7

    Effocts of a     polluting            P     D   Overlap of services                 P    D
    industrial facility                           %)Reduce duplication
         okf %WWVA                                    between EPC and other
            , - -1
          "X %OL*4.                                   organizations
                                                                                        S    E
                                                                                         4



    PO LICY/ISBUE                       No.     3   POLICY/ISSUE                        No.  8

                                             I                                        I    I
       anduse, zoning and                 F     D   Real Estate / Oovt Agenciesl        P  I D I
       edvelopment                                  Hou i    A hority Data
                                                      *f ii U
                                                       -v
                                                        I                             110    1
                                                    Co lecition   and accesibil-      I
                                                    ity of data                         B    E



    POLICY/ISSUE                        No.     4   POLICY/ISSUZ                        No.  9
                                  r          I  -                                     I    I
     water quality/outrophi-              P  1  01  Street Mapping Methodology        I P    D
      eation and of fSaIn AVL!                         need for standard
       Iving -r-*eRHrg2U-                                      (Ammikr3  fAums

                        g6m               S     Z
         nP*A* M                                                                        8    E
                                          tip

    POLICY/ISSUE                                    POLICY/ISSUZ                      No. 10
                                        T-       f                                         I
      valuate effect o.f      i4t@r-    I P     D   Population Statiatics and           P    D
      orition an cocainO     b*14es                  projection sbduld'be'
                                                                 @t @dl



                                                                                      W15-1i



     r

                                        18   41,








                                                     standardized
                                                                W%6 dO,
                                                                                           IV@b 11
                                                                                      A    t




             02,/12/1992 09:40  FMRI,3T.PETERSSLJRG,FL.          011475544450 P.03
  rV&aAV1 &VALUAWAUM FVMJ%       rage x       Institution-    'r i i i 6a   -Group#

                                                 POLICY/ISSUE                      No. 6
   Create a 018 buffer en-                                                       I   T
                                      P    D     Identify environmental            P    D
   compassing common bound&,-                    resources by sensitivity
   rion between agencies                         level
                                     301 P
                                                   -6A silka
                                                   Ci+,W fvb< ImixaItch          'S   E I


   POLICY/ISSUE                       No.  2     POLICY/ISSUR                      No.  7

   Establish a data exchan9p          P    D,                     kt&       ti-I   P    D
                                                 Watvr quality do
   format                                        jurisdictional   bodi.;s@

                                      8    E                                       5    E




   POLICY/ISSUE                       No.  3     POLICY/ISSUR                      No.  8

   Pol@qlation   proJe tion   ",0     P    D     Recreation, Parks                 P    0
             9 for      nty agd!                 Beaches
                                                  -demographics
                                                   vacant land availability
    (S"                                    X       Inventory                       8    E



   POLICY/ISSUE                       No.  4     POLICY/ISSUE                      No.  9

                                                                                     L
   Cuftoqt landuse files                         Law Enforcement      Jails
   valous@'@x     with 04i4patt.                   demographics
   codes (envl        eh al  afek's)l    I   I     road maps
                                                   pop growth
                                      a    E       40K C n M Of
                                                                                   8    E




   POLICY/ISSUE                       No.  5     POLICY/ISSUE                    No. 10

   Base parcel    maps for lghf-      P    D     Community Development             P    D
   use and transportation..-                     affordable housing                      if
   studies                                       economic development
                                                                                 1A I   I
                                                 business development
                                                                                   8    E




          02/12/1992 09:41 FMR1,ST.PETEPSBURG,FL.       01147-55-1444550 P.04
poLlcy RVALUATION FORK       Page 3    Inst i tut i On_aMk1C_.GroupJ_

  POLICY/ISSUE                  No.   I   POLICY/I8sUZ                  No. 6
                               1 - -                                  I    1 -1
 f0er supply                       P                                    P   D
                                      D
     OP growth
    groundwater character
    Surface water
    infrastructure                    E                                 8   E




  POLICY/18BUZ                  No.   2   POLICY/ISSUE                  No. 7

  Air Quality                      P  D                                 P   0
    pop growth
    trafffic projection
    monitoring into t,
   -pollution info                    E
                                                                        8   E




  POLICY/ISSUR                  No. 3     POLICY/ISSUE                  No.

  Hurricane Preparedness           P  D                                 P   D
 0 evacuation planning
      recovery planning

                                   S                                    8   E 11
                                   J
  POL ICY/ ISSUE                No. 4     POLICY/18SUR                  No. 9

  Natek...,Quality                 P  D                                 P   D
      fresh
      Balt
      groundwater
                                   6  E                                 a   E




  POLICY/ISSUE                     No.5   POLICY/ISSUE                 No. 10

    Traffic Congestion Re'"
                                   P  D                                 P   D
      duction     infrastructurel   1-                                      -4
                                   S










































                                                                        S   E



   iDELPHI - PHASE                                                                                                I
   .IPOLICT EVALUATION FORM                Page 1          Institution         524fk)"D' -(;roup#_l

      POLICY/ISSUE                               No.   1     POLICY/ISSUE                                 No.  6

   10round water quality DA-m-                    P    D           us tract     data                           D
         ra f                                                collec        ft                                  ---I
         ;;-A 1.                                      1+8  1
                 r>

                                                                                                          8    E



      POLICY/ISSUE                               No.   2   1 POLICY/ISSUE                                 No.  7

      Effects of a       polluting                P    D     Qverlap of services                          P    D
      industrial facility                                       Reduce duplication
                                              I  qol+4     I    between EPC and other                 IS-0  1+;p I
                                                           I    organizations                               i
                                                       E   I                                              S I  E

                                                  q

      POLICY/ISSUE                               No.   3   1 POLICY/ISSUE                                 No.  8

       Landu3e, zoning and                        P    D     Real Estate / Govt Agenciesl                 P I  D  I
       retelopment                                           Housing Authority Data
                                                 lqo
                                                             Collecition and accesibil-
                                                  8    E     ity of data                                  S    E




      POLICY/ISSUE                               No.   4     POLICY/ISSUE                                 No.  9

       Water quality/eutrophi-                    P    D,    Street Mapping Methodology                   P    D
      'cation and effects on                                     need for standard
       living resources                        1100 1+2    1

                                                  8    E                                                  S    E


      POLICY/ISSUE-                              No!   5     POLICY/ISSUE                              No.  10   4

      Evaluate.. ef feet of inter-.               P    D     Population Statiatics, and                   P    D
      veriti on on                 babies                      projection sliduld 'be
                                                               standardized


                                                                                                          S    E



I Wr,&Jr ri L    -- a                                                                                SWFWMI@)                                  I
1P4)LICY EVALUATION FORH                           Page 2               ln3titUtion_                                        Group#

      POLICY/ISSUE                                         No.         1    POLICY/ISSUE                                           No. 6
   *veate a 018               buffer on-                        P      D    Identify environmental                                 P        D
          passing common bounda-                                            resources by sensitivity
      r es between agencies                               1q0      14<.4 1  level/                                                 too  +q

                                                                8      E


                                                                44 c4

      POLICY/ISSUE                                         No.         2    POLICY/ISSUE                                           No.      7
      Establish a data exchange                                 P      D    Rai-t-e-r-4Luality data - multi-                                D
      format                                                                Jurisdic               &I bodies                           f --i


                                                                S      E                                                           S        E




      POLICY/ISSUE                                         No.         3    POLICY/ISSUE                                           No.      8

                                                                                                                                       I
      Popu           on projection an                           P      D    Recreation, Parks &                                    P        D
         timates             r Count        . . . . . .                     Beaches/,-, A                                                   ---i
  lf:areas                                                                        demographics                                  1,70   1 +.,) I
                                                                                  vacant land availability!                            i
                                                                8      E          inventory                                        8        E




      POLICY/ISSUE                                         Noe 4            POLICY/ISSUE                                           No.      9

      Ciurent. landuse files for                                              Law Enforcement &                 Jails
                  -u a with compat. .1                             1
                                                & A %@ 11 -ley     "
      vaious                                                       a              demographics
      codes (env                    enta"reas)l                    I     I        road maps
                                                                   1     1        pop growth
                                                                8      E                                                           S        E




      POLICY/ISSUE.                                             No.    5    POLICY/ISSUE                                         No.     10

      Base parcel maps for land-                                P      D    Community Development                                  P        D
      use and transportat                    on                               affordable housing
          udies                                                               economic development                             I t7o   k I I
                                                                                                                                   P<1
                                                                                           t












































                                                                &0
                                                                   1     1    business development
                                                                8      E                                                           S        E


                                                                       C4



   DELPHI - PHASE
   POLICY EVALUATION FORM        Page 3      Institution 50t-'1JMN         Group#

    POLICY/ISSUE                     No.   I   POLICY/ISSUE                    No. 6

    Water supply                      P
      pop growth                        1 D    Flood Control/0  4*W*&          P     D
      groundwater character         i-  I
                                    1_100
      surface water
                                                                                     4
      infrastructure                       E                                         E

                                           a

    POLICY/ISSUE                    No.    2   POLICY/ISSUz                    No.   7

    Air Quality                      P     D                                   P     D
      pop growth
      trafffic projection            70
      monitoring info
      pollution info                 8     E                                   S     E



    POLICY/ISSUE                    No.    3  POLICY/ISsUz                     No.   8

    Hurricane Preparedness           P     D
       evacuation planning
       recovery planning
                                   1)00  1+41

                                     6     E
                                                                                     E
                                                                                     -4


    POLICY/ISSUE                    No.    41 POLICY/ISSUE                     No.   9

       e Quality
       f r-_"u                      -P-1- 'D L                                 P     D
         rash
       salt
       groundwat
                                     S     E                                         E




    POLICY/ISSUE                     no.   5  POLICY/ISSUE                   No. 10


     Traffic Congestion Re-          P     D                                   P     D
       duction - infrastructurel        1                                            -4


                                                                               S     E



 IDELPHI - PHASE                                                                         I
 'POLICY RVALURTION FORK          Page I      Institution
                                                                    ----Group#-l

    POLICY/ISSUE                     No.   I    POLICY/ISSUE                       No. 6
 1*%d water quality                   P    D    census tract data                  P   D
                                                collection
           &godJD

                                      S    E
                                                                                   S   E




    POLICY/ISSUE                     No.   2    POLICY/ISSUE                       No. 7

    Effects of a    polluting         P    D    QY,erl._ak_of services             P   D
    industrial facility                          Aeduce du
                                                            'pl i c-a-t-i on- 4@)
                                                  between EPC and other
                                                  organizations
                                      S    E
                                                                                   S   E




    POLICY/ISSUE                     Hoe   3    POLICY/ISSUE
                                                                                   No. 8

      anduse, zoning and              P    D                            enciesl    PI  D I
      edvelopment                                ousing Authority Data

                                                Collecition and accesibil-
                                      8    E    ity of data
                                                                                   S   E




    POLICY/ISSUE                     No*   4    POLICY/ISSUE                       No. 9

     Water quality/eutroot-           P    D    street Mapping Methodology         P   D
     cation and effect on                          need for standard
     living resour                                                               Ito

                                      S    E                                       S   E




    POLICY/ISSUE                      No.  5    POLICY/ISSUE                     No.  10

    Evaluate.. effect of inter-       P    D    Population Statiaticx and          P   D
     erition. on 'cocain6 babies                 projection 9'hduld -be            1.
                                                 standardized
                                                 C6v 5,15 D44-
                                      S    E                                       S   E



  IWg. W a as .
  1POLICY EVALUATION FORM      Page 2       Institution                  Group#_i
  f                                         I                                       I
    POLICY/ISSUE                    No.  I   POLICY/ISSUE                    No.   6

    Create a 018   buffer en-        P   D   Identify environmental          P     D
    compassing common bounda-                resources by sensitivity
    ries between agencies                    level
                                              va, SPIL&



    POLICY/ISSUE                    No.  2   POLICY/ISSUE                    No.   7

    Establish a data exchange        P   D   Water quality data     mu i-I   P     D
    format                                   Jurisdictional bodi
                                    1101 1  1

                                     S   E                                   S     E


                                     ILI

    POLICY/ISSUE                    No.  3   POLICY/ISSUE                    No.   8

    Population ProJe      n and      P   D   Recreation, Parks &             P     D
    estimates fo      u ty and               Beaches
    subareas                                    demographics-                      6f
                                                vacant land availability@          I- -1
                                     8   E      inventory                    S     E



    POLICY/ISSUE                    No.  4   POLICY/ISSUE                    No.   9

    Current landuse files fo         P   D    Law Enforcement     Jails
    vaious uses with co       ible!             demographics
    codes (environm     al areas)l     I    I   road maps.
                                       i    I   pop growth-,-
                                     8   E                                   S     E




    POLICY/ISSUE                     No. 5   POLICY/ISSUE                   No.    10

    Base parcel maps for land-       P   D   Community Development           P     D
    use and transportation                P   affordable housing                   ---I
    studies                        1?0 1@     economic development          (0 1   IN
                                              business development
                                     8   E                                   S     E

                                          01



 IDELPHI - PmAbc
 IFOLICY EVALUATION FORH          Page 3      Institution                      Group#

   POLICY/ISSUE                       No.    1  POLICY/ISSUE
                    &)(-    I----                                                  No.  6
      ter suppl                          P   D                                        I -i
 116pop growthy                                 Flood Control                      P    D
      groundw er character                        vam-At@                                 i
      surf e water                     7ol    I            P6,,f,4
      i   rastructure                    S   E                                     8    E




   POLICY/ISSUE                       No.    2  POLICY/ISSUE                       No.  7

   Air Quality                           P   D                                     P    D
      pop growth
      traf f f ic projection
      monitoring info
      pollution info                     S   E                                     S    E



    POLICY/ISSUE                      No.    3  POLICY/ISSuE                       No.  8

    Hurricane Preparedness               F   D                                     P    D
        evacuation planning
        recovery planning
                                                                                        -4
                                         S                                                I
                                             E                                     S    E 11
                                                                                      it -4


    POLICY/ISSUE                       No.   4  POLICY/ISSUE                       No.  9

    Nater Quality                        PI  D L                                   P    D
        fresh
        salt
        groun      er                                                                   __4
                                         S   E                                          E



    POLICY/ISSUE                         No. 5  POLICY/ISSUE                     No.  10

      Traffic Congestion Re-             P   D                                     P    D
        duction - infrastructure              2                                         -4
                                     1 11001  1
                                         8   E                                     S    E



  IDELPHI - PHASE
 IPOLICY EVALUATION FORM                  nstitution                   roup#
                                       C14

    POLICY/ISSUE                  no. 1    POLICY/ISSUE                    No. 6

           &ter quality                    Census ract data
                                   P   D                                   P   D
                                           collecti



                                                                           8   E




    POLICY/ISSUE                  No. 2    POLICY/ISSUE                    No. 7

    Effects of a  polluting        P   D   Qverlap of services             P   D
    industrial facility                      Reduce duplication
                                  11,^ 4@    between 4k4-v%*svttmr       Ic
                                             organizations
                                   S   E.                                  S   E


                                       1@2
    POLICY/ISSUE                  No.  3   POLICY/ISSUE                    No. 8
     Landuse, zoning and           P   D   Rer1%AiV/' Govt Agenciesi       P I DI
     redvelopment                          Housing Authority Data
                                 Ell   & 11 collecition and accesibil-
                                   S   9   ity of data                     S   E
                                                                             U
    POLICY/ISSUE                  No.  4   POLICY/ISSUE                    No. 9

     Water qualitX    4r4rM,-      P   D   Street Happing Methodolo 7      P   D
     cation-'and effects on                   need for 3tandardt
     living resources


                                   S   E                                   S   E
                                 1 A 1
    POLICY/ISSUE                   No. 5   POLICY/ISSUE                   No. 10

    Evaluate.. ef f ect o.f inter- P   D   Population StatiS&iC3 and       P   D
    verition on 'cocaine babies             projection Aduld-be''
                                                                   'o y

















                                            standardized


                                                                           S   E



urLarni, -
POLICY EVALUATION FORM       Page 2       Institution                  Groupt

  POLICY/ISSUE                    No. I     POLICY/ISSUE,                   No. 6

     at* a Ole   buffer en-
     passing common bounda-        P   D    jd4H%    e;nilir@'n'ment a I    P   D
                                            resources by sensitivity
  ries between   agencies                   level


                                                                                E
                                                                             f
                                                                         11411
  POLICY/ISSUE                                                              I
                                  No.  2    POLICY/ISSUE                    No. 7

  Establish a data exchange
                                   P   D    Wa    quality data        ti-   P   D
  format                                    Juris    ional     ies



                                   S   E                                    S   E




  POLICY/ISSUE                    No.  3    POLICY/ISSUE                    No. 8

  P    lation projectio     n      P   D    Recreation, Parks &             P   D
  S
    tim    a  for C     y                   Beaches
     areas                                     demographics
                                               vacant land availability
                                   8   E       inventory                    S   E




  POLICY/ISSUE                    No.  4    POLICY/ISSUE                    No. 9

  Current land e files--tor        P   D    Law Enforcement     Jails
  vaious uses         -co'm'patiblel           demographics
  codes (environumn         reas)l   I   I     road maps
                                                                            %14
                                               pop growth
                                                                            S   E




  POLICY/ISSUE
                                   No. 5    POLICY/ISSUE                 No. 10

  Base parcel maps for land-       P   D    Community Development           P   D
  use and transportation                    affordable housing
                  e
                          an










loudies                                     economic development
                                            business developmen
                                                                            S   E
                                                                            7!



  IDELPHI - PHASE
   POL I CY EVALUAT I ON FORH    Page 3      Institution                   Group#

    POLICY/ISSUE                     No.   1   POLICY/ISSUE                      No. 6
                                         I                     -                  I   I
    Water supply                      P    D   Flood Control        ka           P   D
      pop growth
      groundwater character
      surface water
      infrastructure                  8    E                                     S   E




    POLICY/ISSUE                     No.   2   POLICY/ISSUE                      No. 7

    Air Quality                       P    D                                     P   D
      pop growth
      traf f f ic proJection
      monitoring info
                                    U_V_ I-- -1
      pollution info                  S    E                                     S   E


                                                                                       if
    POLICY/ISSUE                     No.   3   POLICY/ISSUE                      No. 8
    Hurricane Preparedness            P J  D i                                   P   D
        evacuation planning
        recovery planning            r7  15

                                      8    E                                     S   E




    POLICY/ISSUE                     No.   4   POUCY/ISSUE                       No. 9

    Wa.     Quality                   P  I D L                                   P   D
        fro
        salt
        groundwa
                                      8    E                                     S   E




    POLICY/ISSUE                      No.  5.1 POLICY/ISSUE                   No. 10

     Traf f ic Congestion Re-         P    D                                     P   D
        duction - infrastructure
      7
            Qual ity
        fro
        za It

               w
        grou>nda


                                      8    E



 DELPHI - PHASE                               I                                          I
 POLICY EVALUATION FORK          Page 1       Institution                     Group#_

                                              I                                          i
  POLICY/ISSUE                       No.    I   POLICY/ISSUE                     No.  6

       d water   quality              F     D   Census tract ata                 P    D
                                                collectio
                                     60

                                                                                 S    E



   POLICY/ISSUE                      No.    2   POLICY/ISSUE                     No.  7

   Effects of a    polluting          P     D   0-verlap of services             P    D
   industrial facility               -           Reduce duplication
                                     19011-1     between EPC and other         120 1 ZI
                                        i     i  organizations
                                      8 1 E                                           E
                                                                                 ;7_

   POLICY/ISSUE                      No. 3      POLICY/ISSUE                     No.  8
 1,,@nduse, zoning and                P     D   Real Estate / Govt Agenciesl     P  I D  I
      dve I opm                                 Housing Authority Data
                                                                                      7-
                                                Collecition, and acciesibil-
                                            E   ity of data                           E



   POLICY/ISSUE                      No.    4   POLICY/ISSUE                     No.  9

    Water quality/eutrophi-           P     D   Street Mapping Methodology       -P   D
    cation and effects on                          need for standard
    living resources                 11001  3 1                                     1

                                     IS I   E I                                I S    E
                                     1


   POLICY/ISSUE                       No.   5   POLICY/ISSUE                    No. 10

   Evaluate.. ef f ect of inter-      P     D   Population Statiatics and        P    D
   V
     erition. on 'cocaine babies                 projection sliduld'be@
                                     1101        standardized

                                                                                 S    E



  lur@urnL - rnno&                                                                    I
  IFOLICY EVALUATION FORK       Page 2       Institution                    roup#

    POLICY/ISSUE                        No. 1  POLICY/iSsUE                     No. 6

    Create a 018 buffer en-             P  D   Identifj enviro     ntal         P   D
    compas3ing common bounda-                  resources by     nsitivity
    ries between agencies                      level
                                                                             igol
                                        8  2                                        1
                                                                                8   E



    POLICY/ISSUE                        No.2   POLICY/ISSUE                     No. 7
    Establish a   data exchange         PI D_1 Water quality data - multi-I     P   IDI
    format                                     Jurisdictional bodies
                                        too

                                        SI E I                                  S   IE



    POLICY/ISSUE                        No.3   POLICY/ISSUE                     No. 8

    Population projection and           P  D   Recreation, Parks                P   D
    estimates for County and                   Beaches
    subareas                                      demographics
                                                  vacant land availabilit           12-1
                                                                            yl      ii
                                        8  E      inventory                     S   E

                                                                            12-11    1

    POLICY/ISSUE                        No.4   POLICY/ISSUE                     No. 9
    Current landu3yfiles for            P  D   Law Enforcement     jails
    vaicus uses       h compatiblel     1         demographics
    codes        ronmental areas)l      I    I    road maps                 U0
                                                  pop growth                        -4
                                        S  2                                    S   E
                                                                            12,1
    POLICY/ISSUE.                       No.5   POLICY/ISSUE                  No.    10

    Base parcel maps for land-          P  D   Community Development            P   D
    use and transportation                     affordable housing                   --i
    studies                                    economic development
                                                       y

























                                    1561     1                              !3 cl
                                        1    1 ___-033 development
                                        S  2                                    S   E



 JL@QUrUA - rn'%Q&                                                                 I
 17OLICY EVALUATION FORH       Page 3      Institution                   Groupf_i
 i                                         I                                       i
    POLICY/ISSUE                  No.    1 1 POLICY/ISSUE                    No. 6 1
     ater supply                    P    D  Flood Control,        17         P   D
      Plop growth                  i           @@ I                              ---I
      groundwater character       /00                                      1/001 8 1
      surface water                                                              1
      infrastructure                8    E                                   S I E



    POLICY/ISSUE                  No.    2  POLICY/ISSUE                     No. 7

    Air Quality                     P    D                                   P   D
      pop growth
      trafffic projection         1/0019   1
      monitoring info                      1                                     1-4
      pollution info                S    E                                   S   E I
                                                                         FT I
                                                                                 ---i
    POLICY/ISSUE                  No.    3  POLICY/ISsUE                     No. 8

    Hurricane Preparedness          P    D                                   -P  D
       evacuation planning
       recovery planning          /00
                                                                                 -4
                                    S    E                                         11
                                                                             S   E I
                                                                                 4


    POLICY/ISSUE                  No.    4 1POLICY/ISSUE                     No. 9 1
    Water Quality                   P I  D L                                 P   D
       fresh
       salt
       groundwater
                                    8    E                                   S   E




    POLICY/ISSUE                    No.  5  POLICY/ISSUE                   No.   10

     Traf f ic Congestion Re-       P    D                                   P   D
       duction     infrastructure'                                               -4
                                                            A"




























                                         E                                   S   E



   DFLPRI - PHASE
   POLICY EVALUATION FORK                 Page 1          Institution-                6s@Q__-Group#_j.

     POLICY/ISSUE                                  No.1     POLICY/ISSUE                             No. 6

                                                   P  D      on a         c     a                    P      D

                                                            c      c on



                                                                                                               if
                                                      E                                            I'S I    E  I



     POLICY/ISSUE                                  No.2     POLICY/ISSUE                             No.    7

     affects of a       polluting                  P  D     Overlap of services                      P      D
     industrial facility                                       Reduce duplication                           _--i
                                                   6or4        between EPC and other                loo
                                                   I           organizations
                                                   S  E                                              S      E




     POLICY/ISSUE                                  No.3     POLICY/ISSUE                             No.    8

       Landu3e, zoning and                         P  D     Real Estate / Govt Agenciesl             P   I  D  I
       redvelopment                                         Housing Authority Data
                                                   -4o      Colle!jtion and accesibil-                      4i
                                                                          a oA- )n"uj
                                                      E     ity of dat                      sA,      S      E



     POLICY/ISSUE                                  No.4     POLICY/ISSUE                             No.    9

       Water quality/tutrophi-                     P  D     Street Mapping Methodology               P      D
       cation and effects on                                    need for standard                           _--i
       living resources                            50142 1          .,-Wyl.@_ I                      @) I -x'I
              Pk"%D                                 I    I
                                                   S  E



     POLICY/ISSUE                                  No.5     POLICY/ISSUE                            No.  10

     Evaluate.. of f ect of inter-                 P  D     Population Atatialics and                P      D
     verition on 'cocaine babies                             projectioOsbduld'b6
                                                              standardized                               4-1
                                                            @Cen      t     t d
                                                               @s         c@a@,
                                                                    c @on            1_10






















                                                   8  E                                              S      E



 DELPHI - FKA5L
 POLICY EVALUATION FORM        Page 2        Institution__,Groupt-I
   POLICY/ISSUE                     No. I      POLICY/ISSUE                     No. 6
   *
      ate a 018 buffer en-           P     D   Identify environmental           P    D
      passing, common bounda-      I           resources by
   ries between                     120    _-ZI leve
                      .0                                                        -301
                    dA@
     N @ r)@_  C6.-4@@


   POLICY/ISSUE                      No.   2 1 POLICY/ISSUE                     No.  7
   Establish a data exchange         P     D   Nat   q lit       ta    U!@t@    P    D
   format                                        ris c     na      i
                gA'ng"

                                     S     E                                    S    E



   POLICY/ISSUE                      No.   3 1 POLICY/ISSUE                     No.  8
  Iiipl. : ion   ro    tiyo a nd     P     D   Recreation,  Parks               P    D
       gal,     p J@
           e 't "
           Id ge Co                            Beaches
      ar                                          demographics
                      V                           vacant land availabilityF          I -A
                                     8     E      inventory                     S    E



   POLICY  /ISSUE                    No.   4 1 POLICY/ISSUE                     No.  9

                        1:           P     D   Law Enforcement      Jails
   V                                              demographics
                                                  road maps                  Ito 1   -2-
                                                  pop-growth                 I
                                     S     9                                 1 S     IE


   POLICY/ISSUE                      No.   5   POLICY/ISSUE                    No.   10

   Baso parcel maps for land-        P     D   Community Development            P    D
   use and t         Wa i on                   affordable housing
     udi es OW=                                economic development
P                                              business development           Pol
                                                                                S    E



   ID&-:,LPHI - PHASE                                                                     I
   IPOLICY EVALUATION FORM         Page 3      Institution                     Group#_i
     POLICY/ISSUE                     No.    I   POLICY/ISSUE                      No. 6

     Water supply                      P     D   Flood Control                     P    D
       pop growth                                                                       ____i
       groundwater character
       surface water                                                               1,0 1-Z!
       infrastructure                                                              8    E



     POLICY/ISSUE                     No.    2  POLICY/ISSUE                       No.  7

     Air Quality                       P     D
       POP growth
       traf f #C projection
       monitoring info               ISO
                                     1
       pollution info                  S     E                                     S    E



     POLICY/ISSUE                     No.    3  POLICY/ISSUE                       No.  8

     Hurricane Preparedness            P     D                                     P    D
        evacuation planning
        recovery p  lanning           wo
                                                                                    f
                                       8     E                                     8    E




     POLICY/ISSUE                     No.    4  POLICY/ISSUE                       No.  9

     W to Q ality                    I P I   DL                                    P    D



                                       S     E                                     S    E




     POLICY/ISSUE                      No.   5  POLICY/ISSUE                    No. 10


      Traf f ic Congestion Re-         P     D                                     P    D
        duction - infrastructurel        1                                              -4
                                     120 1-t4-1
        0





















                                       8     E



 I
 IDELPHI - PHASE
 1POLICY EVALUATION FORM        Page I     I natitUti on_ .5(-A-FW^1@-Group#-

    POLICY/ISSUE                   No.   1   POLICY/ISSUE                    No.  6

          water quality               P  D   Census tract  data              P    D
                                             c 0 --A,
                                               liec



                                      8  E                                   S    E




    POLICY/ISSUE                   No.   2   POLICY/ISSUE                    No.  7

    Effects of a   polluting          P  D,  Qverlap of services             P    D
    industrial facility                        Reduce duplication
                                         U     between Epc and other         @0
                                   Go +
                                       I       organizations
                                      S  E                                   S    E




    POLICY/ISSUE                   No.   3   POLICY/ISSUE                    No.  8
     Landuse, zoning and              P  D   Real Estate / Govt Agenciesil P   I  DI
      edvelopment                            Housing Authority Data
                                   -70 pq
                                       I     Collecition and accesibil-
                                      8  E   ity of data                     8    E

                                         IV

    POLICY/ISSUE                   No.   4   POLICY/ISSUE                    No. 9

     Water quality/eutrophi-          P  D   Street Mapping Methodology      P    D
     cation and effects on                      need for standard                 -1
     living resources                          ghlm.6 oxc-95I&J&           17o It-?,I
                                      S  2                                   S    E




    POLICY/ISSUE                      No. 5  POLICY/ISSUE                  No. 10

    Evaluate.. effect o.f inter-      P  D   Population Statij&ics and       P    D
     erition. an 'cocain6 babies              projection 91duld-be-
                                              standardized

                                                                                  -4
                                      S  a                                   S    E



  ,POLICY EVALUATION FORK       Page 2       Institution                  -Group#_l

    POLICY/ISSUE                    No. 1      POLICY/ISSUE                    No.   6

    Create a MS    buffer en-         P   D    Identify environmental          P     0
    compassing common bounda-                  resources by 3ens tiv!1t
    ries between agencies            50        Leyel
                                                            sec-c(C-5
                                      8   E                                    8     E




    POLICY/ISSUE                    No. 2      POLICY/ISSUE                    No.   7

    Establish a data exchange         P   D    Wat   quality data     m Iti-I  P  I  DI
    format 1Tt4,_5,FQL              F          Juri3    tional bod


                                      S   E                                    S     E




    ?OLICY/ISSUE                    No.   3    POLICY/ISSUE                    No.   8
                                                                                  I
    Pop    tion projection nd         P   D    Recreation, Parks &             P     D
    estima      for Coun     and               Beaches
    subareas                                      demographics                150 1+ @_l
                                                  vacant land availabilityi
                                      S   E       inventory                    S     E



    POLICY/ISSUE                    No.   4  1 POLICY/ISSUE                    No.   9

    Current landuse files for         P   D     Law Enforcement & Jails              D
    vaious      a with compatiblel       1        demographics
    codes (env           a areas)l       I   I    road maps
                                    1    1   1.   pop growth
                                      B   E                                    S     E




    POLICY/ISSUE                      No. 5    POLICY/ISSUE                    No. 10

    Base parcel maps for land-        P   D    community Development           P     D
    use and tfansportation                      affordable housing
                                                economic development
           @@es w,,rn compa
                v










    studies      5CAL1/vG,
                                                business development
                                      S   E                                  I S     E
                                                                             1       7-1



  IDELPUI - PHASE
  11POLICY EVALUATION FORH        Page 3      Institution           ____GroupJ
  a                                           I                                          I
    POLICY/ISSUE                      No.    I  POLICY/ISSUE                      No. 6

       ter supply                        P   D  Flood Control P@r_A,-Ac,,e@       P    D
  19pop growth
       groundwater character         1(co 1-@Is I
       surface water
       infrastructure                    8   E                                         E



    POLICY/ISSUE                      No. 2   1 POLICY/ISSUE                      No.  7

    Air Quality                          P   D                                    P    D
       pop growth
       trafffic projection
       monitoring info
       pollution info                    S   E                                    S



    POLICY/ISSUE                      No.    3  POLICY/ISSUE                      No. 8

     urricane Preparedness                   D                                    P    D
        evacuation planning              I
        recovery p  lanning              t @r
                                     NO  I    I
                                                                                       -4
                                     1   8   E                                         E



    POLICY/ISSUE                      No.    41POLICY/ISSUE                       No.  9

    Wa      Quality                      PI  DL                                   P    D
        fres
        salt
        groun ater
                                         8   E                                    S    E



    POLICY/ISSUE                         No. 51POLICY/ISSUE                    No. 10

     Traffic Congestion Re-              P   D                                    F    D
        duction - infrastructure
                                                                                       -4
            Q
              alK
             U ity
        fres
       @xa
            t
        groun ater












                                         S   E                                    S    E



   JVEbPK1 - PHASE                                                                     I
   1POLICY EVALUATION FORM        Page I      Institution- U @Ii)          -Group#-l

     POLICY/ISSUE                    No.    I   POLICY/ISSUE                     No.  6

  laround water    quality            P     D   Census tract data                P    D
                                            -71 collec


                                            E                                    8    E
                                     Ll     I
     POLICY/ISSUE                    No.    2   POLICY/ISSUE                     No.  7

     Effects of a   polluting         P     D   Overlap of services              P    D
     industrial facility                          Reduce duplication
                                                  between EPC and other
                           rl)f 10C (-I                                       I ?.@   &/
                                                  organizations
                                            E                                    S    E



     POLICY/ISSUE                    No.    3   POLICY/ISSUE                     No.  8

      Landuse, zoning and             P     D,  Real Estate / Govt Agenciesl     P    IDI
      redvelopment                              Housing Authority Data

                                                Collecition  and accesibil-
                                      S     E   ity of data                      8    E
                                    1    12- 1
     POLICY/ISSUE                    No.    4   POLICY/ISSUE                     No.  9

      Water quality/eutrophi-         P     D   Street Mapping Methodology       P    D
      cation and effects on                       need for standard
      living resources


                                      8     E                                    S    E
                                    1,21A   11

     POLICY/ISSUE                     No.   5   POLICY/ISSUE                  No. 10

     Evaluate.. ef f ect of inter-    P     D   Populati.on, Statiatics and      P    D
     vetition on 'cocaine babies                projection sh,6uld -b6
                                                standardized


                                                                                 S    E



 1POLICY EVALUATION FORK       Page 2      Institution                    Groupt-1

    POLICY/ISSUE                    No.  1   POLICY/ISSUE                    No.   6
    Create a 018  buffer en-          P  D   ideiffify--e-n-vi-ronmental     P     D
      mpassing common bounda-       F        r-mmurd4-a-br sensitivity
      es between agencies           150  2,  level
                                                                            LID

                                                                             8     E



    POLICY/ISSUE                    No.  2   POLICY/ISSUE                    No.   7

    Establish a data exchange                Water q ality data,.- multi-I   P  I  D I
    format                                   Jurisdic    nal       es                I
                                    11DO H                                  I   I    I
                                      SI E                                  IS  I  E I



    POLICY/ISSUE                    No.  3   POLICY/ISSUE                    No.   8

    Popu          roJe ion an         P  D   Recreation, Parks               P     D
         I:te     0   unty                   Beaches
     stim
     ubareas                                     demographics               1301     1
                                                 vacant land availability!
                                         E       Inventory                         E



    POLICY/ISSUE                    No.  4   POLICY/ISSUE                    No.   9
    Current landuse f41s for          P  D    Law  Enforcement    Jails      P
    vaiaus uses with ompatiblei                  demographics                   1 -4
    codes (en iro     nta areas)l      I   I     road maps
                                                                            190 ! 6 i
                                                 pop growth
                                      8  E
                                                                             S     E



    POLICY/ISSUE                      No.5   POLICY/ISSUE                   No. 10

    Base parcel maps for land-        P  D   Community Development           P     D
    use and transportation          I _       affordable housing
     tudies                                   economic development
                       t
                       ti on  an
                          y
 I  --


















                                                     u

                  ro J7un <1d
                 o /:unt       d












                                              business development
                                                                                   E



  IFOLICY EVALUATION FORM      Page 3     Institution                 Group#_i

    POLICY/ISSUE                  No.    1  POLICY/ISSUE                    No. 6

    Water supply                   P     D  Flood control                   P    D
      pop growth                                                                 ---i
      groundwater character
      surface water
                                                                                 -4
      infrastructure               S     E                                  S    E




    POLICY/ISSUE                  No.    2  POLICY/ISSUE                    No. 7
                                                                             1   4
    Air Quality                    P     D                                  P    D
      pop growth
      trafffic projection
      monitoring into
      pollution info               S     E                                  S    E



    POLICY/ISSUE                  No.    3  POLICY/ISSUE                    No.  8
                                                                                 4
    Hurricane Preparedness         P     D                                  P    D
       evacuation planning
       recovery planning                 011
                                                                                 4
                                   8     E
                                                                            8    E




    POLICY/ISSUE                  No.    4  POLICY/ISSUE                    No.  9
    Water ',qual i ty            I P  I  DL
                                                                            P    D
       fr a
       salt
       groun    at
                                   S     E                                  S    E




    POLICY/ISSUE                   No.   5  POLICY/ISSUE                 No. 10

     Traffic Congestion Re-        P     D                                  P    D
       duction - inf rastructure
            @ality
                at















                                   S     E                                  S    E




                'V9@ lut 14:44 ID:LHI-
JORLPHI - PHASE
JpOLICY RVALUATION FORM      Page 3     Institution                Group#_,,

  IPOLICY/IBSUE                 No.   I  POLICY/ISSUE                   No. 6

                                                            bi&
    ter supply                   P    D  Flood Control/,@@-r'               D
    pop growth                                                           I  ---I
    groundwater character                                                   et
    surface water                   f   I
    infrastructure               a    E                                     E
                              1-414 1
  POLICY/16SUE                  No.   2  POLICY/ISSUE                   No. 7
 F-                            I    I                                1   1  -4
  Air Quality                    P    D                                 P   D
    pop growth
    trafffic PcoJection
    monitoring into                   E2
    pollution Info                                                          E



  POLICY/ISSUE                  No.   3  POLICY/ISSUE
                                       .2
  *
      ricane Preparedness        P    D                                 P   D
      evacuation planning
      recovery planning

                                      E                                     E
                                                                         1- .4



  POLICY/ISSUE                  No.   4  POLICT/ISSUZ                   No. 9
       r uality                J P  I D L
                                    r                                    I
  Kate                                                                  P   D
      free
      salt
      gro   w
                                      E                                 S   E



  POLICY/ISSUE                   No.  5  POLICY/ISSUE                 No. 10

   Traffic Congestion Re-        P    D                                 P   D
      duction - infrastructure
                                      E


















      or  uality

         It
       ro   W@
               t'
               'or













                                      E                                 S



                       WE 1-4:4.4 ID:EF'C            TEL NO:                   003-4 PO-
              PHASE
 iroLICY NVALUXTION FORK         page 2      Ins t i tut i on @T(A& t Cewst I

   POLICY/ISSUE                      No. 1      POL I CY/ I ssuE                 No. 6

   Create a GIs buffer on-              P   D   Identify environmental           P     D
   compassing common bounda-                    resources by sensitivity
   rios between agencies                        level
                                    a   101 A




   POLICY/ISSUE                       No.   2   POLICY/ISSUE                    No.    I
                                        '-I     -     n                        I   r
   Ratablish a data exchange            P   D   Water q% lity      a      Iti-   P     D
                                                Jurisdic        bod 9
   format
                                        CIO

                                        S

                                    141      1
   P0161CY/"S UE                      N     3   POLICY/18SUE                    No.    8
   Population projection aid            P   D   Recreation, Parks &             P      D
   estimates    for -,County and                Beaches
   subareas                                       demographics
                                                  vacant land availability!_
                                                  Inventory                            E

           ell


                                                                                       4
   POLICY/ISSUE                      No.    4   POLICY/ISSUE                    No.    9

   Curreht landuse file$ f r                    Law Enforcement      jails
            --;6's with com     ib                demographics
   Vaious u               _;'Xi  le,
   Goden (envixonmental areas)                    road'maps
                                                  pop growth
                                                                                S      R




   POLICY/ISSUE                         No. 5   POLICYIISSUE                   wo.  10

   19ase parcel maps for land-          P   D   Community Development           P      D
   us* and transportation                       affordable housing
   studies r,.) o7lie v5(5.                     economic development
                                                                   a



































                                                business development
                                                                                       E



           @-LB-18`92 TUE 14:43 ID:EPC            TEL NO:
    hP81 - PHASIC
    0161CY VALUATION   FORK     Page I     Institution -gk" C4114fle"-:1 -Group#_l
                                           I'                                       I
       ICY ISSUE                   go.    1   POLICY/ISSUE                    No. 6
                                   11  1      -                             T_     I
          water quality              P    D   Census tract  data              P I  D
                                              collection
                               7                                                   if


                                                                              8    E



    POLICY/ISSUE                   No.    2   POLICY/ISSUE                    No.  7
                                  -1   1  ____                             I  -_   I
    Xffects of a polluting           P    D   overlap of services             P    D
    industrial facility                        Reduce duplication
                                   1A          between,-EPC,'and other
                                               organizations





      tAICY/18SUR                  NO$    3   POLICY/ISSUE                    No. 0

      anduse, zoning and             P    D   Real 2state / Govt Agencieel P       IDI
     r*dvalopment                             Housing Authority Data
      n V1 171 V
                                              Collecition and accesibil-           4
                                          9   ity of data                          C



                                                                                   --4
    V0101CY/18SUE                  No.    4   POLICY/10SUE                    No.  9
                                       I                                   I       If
     Water quality/outrophi-         P    D   Street Mapping Methodology      P    D
     cation and offects on                      need for standard
     living resources


                                     8    it                                  S    B



    FOLICY/IBSUE                     No.  5   POLICY/18BUS                  No.    10

                                   A   I                                           I
     valuate.. effect o.f inter-     P    D   Population Statiatics and       p    D
     elftion on 'cocain6 babies               projection 91nduld *bei
 POLICY,
 r
   lb
  It,








    PO





























                                              standardized


                                     8



           rMQ_1c-_ V4- WCL'               INFO z)'(S TEL NO:Zsj@@-,46n-
  0                                                           C_ @.,_ .   4231 P06
  IDELPRI  - P5kSZ
  IPOLICT  19VALVAT ION FORM    Page 3      institution-
                                           -IF
    POLICY/18BUIF                   No. I     POLICY/18SUS                   No. 6

    Water supply                     P   D    Flood control                  P     0
      pop growth
      groundwater charactsr
      surtaos water
      infrastructure                 8   3




    VOLICY/1980s:                   No.  2    POLICY/10SUZ                   No.   7

    Jkjr Quality                     P   D                                   P     D
      pop growth                    F- 1    1
      traftfic projoetion
                                    (00
      monitoring into                                                          A
      pollution Into
            Ia V6N)


    POLICY/18SUB                    No.  3    POLICY/ISSUE                         9
                                           .4
    Hurricane Preparedness           P   D                                         D
        ovacUation planning.
        recovery Planning
                                   Had 4




    POLICY/16SUR                    No.  4    POLICY/18SUR                   No. 9
    Water Quality                    7-1 D                                   P i D
                                       L
        free
        malt
        groundw or                                                                 -4




    POLICY/ISSUZ                     No. 5    POLICY/ISSUK                  No.  10

     Traffic Congestion Re-          P   D                                   P     D
        duction    infrastructure
                                    F,,








               w







                                   14 31



            FEE-12-'92 WED 15:52 ID:COMMUNICA & INFO SYS TEL N0:813-462-3297   4231  P04
 DELPHI'- PHNSK
 POLICY EVALUATION 1PORM       IPAV* 2      Institution                   -Group#-

      ICy/ISSVz                     No. 1      POLICY/ISSUE                     No. 6

   Create a 018   buffer *n-         P    D    Identify environmental           P    D
   compassing common bounda-                   resouroes by sensitivity)
   ries between agencies                       level
                                               Vefrem- To'
                                               46,.AMVGY



   POLICY/Issuz                     No.   2    POLICY/ISSUE                     No. 7

   Zstablish a data exchange         p    D    Water quality data       ulti-   P    D
   format                                      juriid tional bod
                                          -3





   POLICY/188UZ                     No.   3    POLICY/ISSUR                     No.  a
 10pulation projectio and            P    D    Recreation, Parks
   *stim4tss f6r CoUft      and
                                               Beaches
   subarea                                        demographics
                                                  vacant land availability
                                                  Inventory


                                    NO,   4 J POLICY/16502                      No. 0

   Curren land     a fi a for         P   D     Law Enforcement      Jails
   Vaigus         wi b ompatible                  demographics
   codes (envi         ntal areas)                road maps
                                                  pop growth                  1,301  7-1



                                      No. 5    POLICY/JsxUa                    No. 10

     ase parcel maps for land-        P   D    Comunity Development             P    D
      e and transportation                      affordable housing
              Kndueeft s'
                  witb 0

                       r



   _P0 Tj I-C
 .6  a
   Studies                                      economic development
                                     too        business development

                                    14 1,91



                                                Jr4f-u "rb TEL
   r)A**PR1 - PHASE
    *0T1ICT EVALUATION    FORK     Page 1      Tnstitution?,QC-U_V.    e6ukiTY*roup#_@61

     POLICY/ISSUE                     K 0.    1  POLICY/IsSUE

          --mater q  uali ty            P     D  Census tr ct   data
                                                 collection                              A

     9erve_ 'To V(Wj




     POLICT/1880's                    No.     2  POLICY/10SUS
                                                                                   No. 7

     affe,ots of a   polluting                0  CLverlap of services              P   D
     industrial facility                           Roduc* duplication
                                      Sol     2. 1 between CPO and other
                                                   organizations
                                                                                       Z



     POLICY/Issus                     No. 3      POLICY/15SUB                      No, $

      Landuse, zoning and               P     D  Real Estate / Gavt Agencies       P   D
      radvolopment                               Housing Authority Data

                                                 Collocition and accesibil-
                                              I  ity of data

                                                                                       Z

     POLICTASSUZ                      No.     4  POLICY/16002                      me. 9
      Water quality/sutrophi-           P     D  street kapping Methodology        P   D
      cation and effects on                         need for standard
      living resources                                                           170!  4
     VtF-51L 7,0 5763 moa-fis                                                       A
     6umvey
                                      1-7-14                                           -Z.
     POLICY/111802                      Not   5  POLICY/ISSUE                    No. 10
                                      I    I                                 -   r--,o j ----i
   .1.3valuate.. of toot *.f inter-.  I P     D  Population Statiatics and         P   D
                                                                                 HIS,













     vefition an `cobiin4 babies                  proJectl'on  sliduld-bd"            1   170-
                                        0     1   standardized                         4
                                      M17                                        14131
                                                                                      f   A



                                                      2 f           g065 P03
           '--'--fM N 08:22- ID:ENGINEERING SERVICES 7EL NO:813--@-
       F         0
"FAICT XVAIOUATION rORK     Page 2      Institution--                roupf

                                          POLICY/lesus                  No.

    *at* a GIs buff sr on.           D    Identify environmental
      assing aommon bounda-            -A                         8       1 D
  ties between agencies                 I resources by sensitivity        I
                                                CI-14"t-01                14.4 1

                                    -41
    LICY/16BUR                  No. 2     POLICY/ISSUE

  9stablish a data exchange      P,  D    Water quality data   M   I-  P
  tormt                                -  Jurisdictional bodies
                                 0 +4





                                No.  3    POLICY/16BUZ
  Population projection andT P       D    Recreation# Parks &          p   D
     Isates tot county and                Beachss                     -    -
                                            demographics              56  4-Z
                                            vacant land availability
                                            Inventory



  rolacy/18SUZ                  No.  4    POLICY/18SUS                 No. 9
  Current landuse files fo,@1 P      ID   Law ftforcement & Jails
  valous use* with compatible -             demographics
  codes (onviro"     al areas)              road maps                110
                                            pop growth
                                                                       4.1    1
  MOM/ I ME                       No*S    POLICY/ISSUE                No. 10
                  ps for land    P   D    community Development
  sase parcel   ma                  2
                                       -A affordable housing
        12'd tcoftepartation .          1                               0
                      w*A.                 economic development       r    +41
  P0,
  to



                                    J+4,







                                                                        0
                                 100       business development



           rlr=-@r- -V,:@ PIUN Ub:22 ID:ENGINEEPING SERUICES TEL NO:813-2722-5912 =065 P04

    VO&I Cy igvALVATION FORH   Page 3    Institutio                    roup#

                                    No.  I POLICY/18SUS                   No. 6

    water supply                    P    V Flood Control
      pop growth
      vroundwat*r character         ICO  4-8
      surface water
      infrastructure                8    z




    POLICY/lesuic                   No.  2 POLICY/18SUI                   No. 7
                                                                            t  4
    JUT Qual ity                    PJ D                                  P   D
      pop growth
      trafffic projection             +
      monitoring into
      pollution Info                                                      8   a



                                    No.  3.1 POLICY/18BUR                 No. a
    murricano preparedness          -P   D                             J  P I IDD
       evacuation planning
       recovery planning          PO
                                    I                                       f R
                                    A-1 4                                   1
    POLICT/18SUR                    No.  4 POLICY/ISSUB                   No. 9
    Water Quality                   -P   D                                P   D
       fresh
       salt
       groundwater




    POLICY/16SUR                    No.  5 POLICY/18SUR                 No. 10

     traffic Congestion Re-         P    D
       Auction    infrastructure
   @
    POL
    m -Ir
      p
      t
   rVapt
                                    LL







      p 11
  @rot'-OXCT                                                                  @ID


                                                                          a   L








                  A Strategic Plan for the TBRCC                                                                       Appendix 3
                  Appendix 4 - Futures Technique/Cross-Impact Analysis...                                                   APP 4
                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                              Page 1



                                                                   APPENDIX 4




                  FU7VRE TECH7VIQUES


                  CROSS - IMPACT ANALYSIS PRASE


                  BASIC INSTRUCTIONS


                  1. OBJECT

                  The main objective of this phase is to determine the impact which a policy/ issue (once it is addressed or
                  implemented) may have over the probability that other issues would be addressed.



                  2. FORMAT


                  The Cross-Impact Analysis requires a matrix format which displays the ten issues that reached the highest impact
                  score and the ten that received the lowest impact score during the Delphi phase evaluation. The matrix has been
                  drawn to display-

                          0        The ten policies/issues which have the highest impact score form the rows titles.

                          0        The ten policies/issues which have the lowest impact score form the columns titles.

                  The Cross-Impact Analysis will be conducted in small groups; each group will complete the matrix using those
                  instructions which have beenoutlined in Item 3. All groups will then return every matrix to the operator. The
                  results of this analysis will represent the consensus views and opinions of each group after discussion has taken
                  place.



                  3.      PROCEDURE FOR COMPLETING THE CROSS-IMPACT ANALYSIS MATRIX


                  Each matrix will be interpreted under the following terms:

                          a.       Each of the ten (10) policies/issues lined up as row titles are assumed to have been addressed
                                   and/or implemented.

                          b.       Each of the (10) policies/issues listed as column titles may be affected as a result of having
                                   implemented/ addressed those policies and issues listed as row titles.

                  Going through the matrix, and assuming that each of the policies/issues listed on the rows have been addressed,
                  please indicate:

                          C.       With a check mark in the appropriate cell, which of the policies/ issues listed on the columns
                                   may be. affected; namely if the probability of addressing such policy/issue will or will not
                                   change.








                  A Strategic Plan for the TBRCC                                                                        Appendix 3
                  Appendix 4 - Futures TechniquelCross-Impact Analysis...                                                    APP 4
                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                               Page 2


                           d.       Consider those cells you have checked and now decide if the effect would be an increase or
                                    decrease in the probability of the issue being addressed.

                                    Replace the check mark by a positive (+) or a negative (-) sign:

                                        +    = increases the probability of issue being addressed

                                        -    = decreases the probability of issue being addressed


                           e.       A careful review of the matrix will show on its right hand side under the label "TOTAL A" the
                                    impact scores assigned to each policy/issue during the Delphi phase.. You are now expected
                                    to distribute and assign these impact scores for each policy/issue on the cells you have marked
                                    with either a (+) or a (-) sign. This impact score distribution will reflect your own view as to
                                    how each policy/issue would be impacted on its probability of being addressed.

                                    For example: if a policy/issue listed as a row title has an impact score of 80 points and you
                                    decide to assign 20 points of this impact score to another issue listed as column title, it only
                                    indicates that in your own view 1/4 (25%) of the total impact would be over sud policy/issue.

                          f.        Please be sure to total all impact scores for rows and columns:

                                    0 Under the heading "TOTAL A", please add up all impact scores without taking into
                                        account the sign.

                                    0 Under the heading "TOTAL B", please add up all impact scores taking into account the
                                        sign.








                                                                                                                       U              U Ll       -
                                                   ISSUE                   -DC 13 > X 0 9        30             a    0 3              .4 0-4                            L
                                                                                                            6-6)     3 L              1                          4)4)   a
                                                                                                         C C a       -v .0                   of               0 6 C     4-4          __4
                                                                                    I U a %D             0 O-D       I I        C     - ML#               I j o         a   0
                                         AFFECTED                          L C 4J   , 0 C       41 -1 0  'q 'q       L 1        0 -J     L MC      0   I'D 0 U I        U   C
                                                                           a 0 E    L-0 9       C .4).r  4J4) C        0        - 0      0         4j  E      j L           0
                                                                               L    9 a          .4 . OU o           C L        -0-0     -0 C4)    I   -      I d'-         -
                                                                               9 16-- 1    0    E9--e-               a (A.      0 6      C 0 C         E C       C I    C   0
                                                                               >    (4- 1       CC-      3-14        Z C                 8 -4 1    1   L         -4@4   1   5
                                                                           0.41 0 3-4 C         oo.      M03         4)         3 M      >-O 9     0   1-4)   010           L        ZO
                                                                           0L  0 J3        I    L8 CL    0 L-                   CL    C  C 0 IS    94)    C   8 36      U
                                                                           E          ee        .1       1OL a,.       T        0     0  - I L     L I        L 0
                                                                           M,                   >               0
                                                                               0                                     00         Q.          L a    O'D    E X L               4)
                                                                                      C 4)      C J3.    3)u a                                                  ...0        a
                                                                               Q LD   39                             C 0                 T 0              9                   C
                                                                           IC                                        a L        L     C C 94)      1 0    U             C   C I
                                                                           Ua  0      O.D                0-14- 0     a          0     0  0 L I     E .0   L >0          0   -4 E
                                                                           LL-      O-D         MID - -4- C            T        T     -  - I       -      a 0-1               a
                                                                           04) 4J          0     U       00 a -4     .UC        L 4)       Cd E    L I ta..   04J 1           0
                                  ISSUE                                    M a      0 41         5 j     3 L-0         1)             U  4)        U 0 j         of           C)
                                                                           cd       41     0    -4)      OW L                         0 coo            .4    -4 .4 :)   0   U-4
                                                                               a 0 ED C          of                                   -) O_r4J _C -0          04)0      _'  I I
                    ADDRESSED                                              1   8 9 E            9 g )    L-D 0         C        CC    0  U L       cl a   ) U O.C       U   L >
                                                                           @        L a 0       -U oil   -C 1          0 L      .0    L  0 0 C     - -    0   O-j       0     8
                                                                           M        u U L       .L-4     < OL L        -4 3     (n    cL > ao      z -j      _j o(o     M     -6
                                                                                                                       -0-0.
           VaLer supply-inFroeLrucLure
           to msasaL population growLk:
           surf ace/ground water ckeroc.
                                                                                                         I                      i .(,-, 4
           Flood conLrol:effecLo on
           land use area. drainage                                                                         0                                                                cr
           and erosion.                                                    1; 9.9   '50                                                                                           2 N78
           Voter qual1LY::uLrOpkjcs-                                                            4_
           Lion                 Aw i pact an h-
                      and                                                                                  CP          C:2            C51
           ving resource                                                   1@0                                                                                                    2 7\6
           IStandard aLreet, mapping                                                                                                                                                      Cl
             :ok dology: compatible no-                                                                                               C@>  Cp
                   Waddresses in counties                                  I 1@0
                                                                                                                                                                                  24
           Voter qual ity general date
           standardized to 6@ ahared                                       L
           6M multi-juriedicLione.                                         -75'     ZO          10                                                                                162
           To asta6lish a doLo exchan'                                                t-                                                                                                  0
           be standard FormoL:doLe
           dictionarg/g.8 a. reports.                                                                                                                                             15@
           Procedures in:kur'ricane
           pro oredness. evocuaLlon                                                                                                                4-                   +
           on7recoverg planning.                                           --30     7-0                              40 qO                                                        1510
           Effect of land use, zoning
           gnegdevelopmeA on Lhe
             a          t, and eco-system.                                 -70                                         10                                                         14 IN,
           Effects oF polluting in-
           dust 10                a       ji5les on hu-
           man EeoU.cool                          wasLe Ac                                                               0
                                                                                                                                                                                  113 X
           Over I ap/dup I i cats eery i coa
           6eLw en EPC.SLate & CounLy
           reguelotions e.g. permiLe.                                                                                                                                             N12i
                  T 0        T A L              - B                        @?@2jb 1(6                                                                10
     4
             e  L@IC
             '38 1
           Vote
             Lon I
             U
           or     M@j
           6








    0        1n9LLLuLion:                                                                                                                CROSS-IAPACT
             DoLs:                                                                                                                                        ANALYSIS
             Group No.                                                                                                                                           AATRIX







                                                                                                              -4)            U            U Le
                                                       ISSUE                    1 3                 C D 9     :10    0                                                        L
                                                                                O.j 9 -OX 6                   4)-j  6.41
                                                                                                              C C a          L                    Ya                          a
                                                                                                                             -0.0                 Do                   as
                                                                                                    1 U a >-D 00-8                                                        C
                                             AFFECTED                           L C 4j              0 Cj - 0  9 "            1 0    C             3)L 0                6 -A) 0801)
                                                                                                    E                        Li
                                                                                                                             1)     2-4)          L CLC  0 " a U L            -U4 CC    C)
                                                                                00                  L-J 9     4)-r -4)-'J C               0       0      4) C I -j
                                                                                L&                  L@ ag-e . OUo            CL     -J -0         -0 C4) 9 - I I a;,,- 'a
                                                                                                    64- 10 E 1-4 ' I -       0 6    0 6           CDC                  E CC 9 C0
                                                                                0                   > L& IC C'.4 3 -14       .6 C   V-4           41-4 8 1 L           - -4.-4 '49
                                                                                "                   a 3-C 00. CL 0 :)        a "    3 M           >-O 9  0 1-0 use             L
                                                                                0                   C1 A L IL I a0 L-               M C           C 0 9  1 -j          C 9 39 U
                                                                                                    oe        a a,.          9                                                .4 C15
                                                                                E                   V-4       . a            1-0    0     0       - I L  L I           IL 0
                                                                                M                   >         31             0      OL            L a    ro            EI L
                                                                                r-4 I a - C4)                 3iu a          c, 0         a       M 0                  9      aa C
                                                                                IC                  () L3 3 9-               C                                                CC I
                                                                                                    0O-D9            C,      0 L          C       C "    1 0           0      0-4 E
                                                                                U0                  D.D       a 0    C       U            0       0 L I  E .0          L> U
                                                                                LL                  3)0 -                                         - I    -             00-09  U-J 0
                                                                                0.04)               0to.. U a 00.4                                40 E   L I ti.       O-4J 1     0
                                      ISSUE                                                         e94) .4 1 3 L-0          UC     a     U       .01    U V C         so         0
                                                                                                    4)0Os     CAO L          -40    T)    9       C I a                .4 :)  aU@4
                                                                                                    0MC 0            0       to.-                                             .4 1 1
                        ADDRESSED                                                                             L-0 13 6       CO C         -)      O'X43 -C -0          O'j 0  UL >
                                                                                                              ., C I a       0 L    0     0       U L    C1 I          )0 O-C aas
                                                                                0a.;                L9        0              L'13   -*3   L       DOC --               0O-j
                                                                                                    UL        L< 6 L                (1)   OL      > CLOIX 41r" _j Ice         (4..-u
               Ve'r-ersupply-infraeLrucLure
               to mauL population gpowLh:
               surface/6round water char0c, 7                                                       1-1-24 )-4;2                                                                     28@4
               Flood conLrol:effecLo on                                         10                  @e
               land use area. drainage
               and erosion.                                                                         84 1-M                                                                           HEN
                                                                                                    V- @      @O                    0
               Voter quality:euLrophlce                                         10                  ;?@S      0
               Lion and its impact on ]I-
               YIna resources.                                                  ;2 7.               0 140                                                                            2 X76
               Standard Areat amp Ing                                           3.                                                                                     0 S'
               meL dologg:*com CUM no-
               Meshkaddresses in counties 75                                                                                 ?5 Ms                                     -Z-1, 512,3 24@
               Voter qual I ty general doLa                                                         10        0                     0             0      10            0      0
               eLandar-dizad to be shared
               6y multi -juriedicLions.                                         W
               To establish a doLo exchan-
               go Aendard FormaL: c6Lo                                                                                                                   /0            1_1
                                                         sports.                                    15        115,07.
               dict,tonary/g.8 a. r                                                                                                                      1:5'.9        15.    /57.5 15
               Procedures mhurricane                                                                0         0                                          0
               preparedness. evocuaLion
               and recoverg planning.                                           15                                           75     7 5                                7.15   7,,@S  15
               Efrect, of land use. zoning                                      4'--                                         10     10                   0             -V               1@
               gl[edevelopment on Lhe                                           ) C2                10 rl 0                                       15                          5
               a         at and sco-systen.                                     -21.2               1-1-1 170,5                                   -7                   1             141
               Effects r pollutkng In-                                          &",                 1-1       L/             19                   V      0             V
               duaLw1a acili5les on hu- 5@                                                          /0 /10
               Inan en L@. so I W013LO OLC                                      @,55                1-3.1 1-3,1                                                                      131
               Over] ap/dup) I cats services V                                                                                                    D      0             0      6)
               betwyen EPC.SLate & Count                              y
               re u OtLons-e.g. permits.                                        /;F.e               1,61 37.% -,@7,3.

                    T 0 T A L

               InaLLLuL Ion:                                                                                                                      CROSS-IAPACT
                                                                                                    E
                                                                                                    E
                                                                                                    0





















































                    u
           17T

               DoLe:                  2-/ 1                  Z,                                                                                                        AN&YSIS
               Group No.                                                                                                                             1-2 1             AATR I X






                                                                                           .0       0        U         U LO
                                                                         @.Coe          30                                                               L
                                                ISSUE                    1 '3 @: '                                     -4   0-4
                                                                         9-1                    CC 0 3       L
                                                                                                                              of              of
                                                                                                             '011
                                                                                 U              00-0                   C    ME 9           1 j a C
                                      AFFECTEO                           L C 'j 0 C     !-Do                           0 J  L CLC   a #*D a U L          U C
                                                                         a 0EL-0 9      4)-C    4)4) C       0         - 0  0       41 C 8 -j
                                                                         L              C       0 U 0        CL        -J   4) C4)  I -    1 10
                                                                         41 all.-No     E 9- , I ,           a E,      0 9  COC         E  C     C 6     C0
                                                                         2 0>I& 0       C C.-4  3-10         q C            1 -4 1  1 L      - -,.4      19
                                                                         0 3-4C         a G .4  M03          j         '3 'a >.0 @  0 @_0 a a a           L
                                                                                                0 L-                   11 C C 1     94         938       U
                                                                         0C' J3 6       LI IL   CL GA_                                                   .0 ctj
                                                                         E     oil      .  I        a        1         00   -4 1 L  L I    I  L 0
                                                                         M", (J)'D )    > 31                 Cl 0      &      L a   O'D    E XL              41
                                                                         r-4 10 1-4 C4j C       3)u a        C 0       6    '00            1 ...0        0CC
                                                                         IC W 3 0       9  -0   a -4         0L        LC C 84      6 0    U J 8(4,.     CC 6
                                                                         U00   0.0      80      -4- 0        U         00   0 L 0   E 4)   L >U          0-4 E
                                                                         L-11 0.0               0 416- C     -0        'a -4 @4 9          0 0 -49       U-j Ck
                                                                         L              3) a    00.4         UC
                                                                         04)4)   a      0                              L 4)   40 E  L 1 E4. 0-J 1            0
                                ISSUE                                      0     .4     S g     3 L'U        1)        U    .0      U u c         to     10 0
                                                                         a.,.o 4) 0  4)         74J L          1       9    C 10       - 8--3            aU.-4
                                                                         16 GET Coe                 0        ce C      -3   014) x 41         0-j 6      -go
                                                                         of 41 1 E      @)      LO a ti.                                             :   0L >
                    ADDRESSED                                                           e Is    -4 C 6 0     0 L       00   UL 131         ) 0 OJ
                                                                         of -L 0 9   -00        <            L-q 3     -dL  uccv-          0 G.J         0of
                                                                         m3m- U 0 L     L,4                  -041      u) a. > al      j - _j 9 cd Ul C4..
           Voter supply- infreeLrucLure 0
           to mout, population growth:                                   --
           surface/ground waLer cherac.
                                                                                                                                                                     110
           Flood conLrol:erfacLe on
           land use area. drainage
           and erosion.
                                                                                                10
           VaLer qualiLlWouLrophIce-                                     10   1)        10
           Lion and its' impact an 11-                                   -    -         +
           v Ing resources.
           Standard Areat map
           n:Lh dologwcompatiMe no-
           M a Taddraoses In count Is                                                                                                                           24
                                                                a
           Water quality general @Aa                                     0                      C)           0         0                                             13
           AanJordlzed to be 96ared                                      -              4-                   -
           by multi-jurisdicLions.                                             @p                                                                               162
           To establish a data exchan                                    >o`  :47@                                                     0
           100 eLandard FormaUdAe                                             4-                -t-                                    -       4
                                                     parts.                                                                                    1
           dictionary/g.8 a.                                                                                                  I                                 15@11
           Procedures whurricane                                         40                                                                                          1.2
                                                                                                                       4-
           pro            dness. evacuaLion
           ,@yare
                   recoverN planning.                                    tj 0                                                                                   150
           Effect of land use. zoning                                    9 0'0 v01 P                                                                                 8-1
           gnd redevelopment on Lhe                                                     +1                             4-
             abiLat and eco-system.                                                                                                                             141
           Effects of pol)UtLno In,                                      ;'0.,
           dusL 10                                    n hu-
                                              V a     a sLe
           man EeaU0.c901111@IeGv?                                                                                                                              13 \1
           Overlap/duplicate servicea
           betwien EPC.SLate 8 County                                         4-
           regu otLons- e.g. permits.
                                                                            f@bf@               On (2
                 7 0 7 R L                                                                      27                          IqZi
    0
             InsULuLion:                                                                                                    CRCSS-IAPACT
                                ISSU        E
                              I\ESSE

                                                                                                                                                                27
                                                                                                                                                                H162
                                                                                                                                                                1 @41



            DoLe:                                                                                                                        AN& vIta"I S
            Group No.                                                                                                                            AATRIX







                                                             T                                      U         U   LO -
                                            ISSUE            C'3 >.Coo           310        0                 -0                          L
                                                                  6 4).C 0       4).j     R.J       U3            0-4
                                                                  P! .4 1 .0  P.4 .4 q  C C 0       3L               )M                   0
                                                                                                                     00           1       C
                                                                                                          C   44
                                    AFFECTEO                            D U   a >.a     o 0-6       a     0 -j    ML 4    1    @.Joe UC
                                                             L  C       0 C   4-0       - -         I             L MC    0 " 0 U L
                                                                  E     L4) 9    4).r   44) C       0             a       -JC  I -j e,    "  a
                                                             0  0             C                                                           'a w4
                                                                  L                     OUC               -j -j                                      C3
                                                                                          9         CL        0   4) C4)  8 -  1  1                  -4
                                                                41 914-- go   E                     06.   0 6     C 0 C     E  C  V C I   C  0
                                                                  > 1&. 9     C         3 -W        -4 C  V-4     8-41    8 L     - -.-t  'q I
                                                                  0 3-4C      a 0.4     MO 3              3M      >.a g   0 g     a g @      L
                                                             0    C' -D 9     L  8 on   0 L-              0. C    C 0 0   8 -j C 63o
                                                             E  0       oe    .         CL CIr,     aM    0 0     - I L   L I  I  L 0
                                                                (L-4 wo )     > 31      . o         60               L CL O'D  E -C L          41
                                                                  4) - C-O    C         3)u a       0             "a 0                    0a OC
                                                                                                    C0
                                                             I  C 0(338                             0L        cc  C 14)   1 a  U             C 9
                                                             U 0  0     ox                  C       0         0   0 L I   E .0 L  > 0     0 -* E
                                                             L  L -4 O-D      31                    -0    'a 4    -*1     -    a  0 .4 e  U-j a
                                                             04)4)        0   14'. 00   06.4                  4)   Cd E   L 14-   04JI    9    0
                             ISSUE                                        o .       g   3 L-D       UC                                    1    0
                                                             ILCO a     9                           40        U   4)      U 0 R-4 9 1
                                                                        .00   .0        W-0 L         1       6   C 8 0     .4       .43  a  U,4
                                                                        0     C             0 t",   Ce C      7   0-r-O C .0      040     -1 1 1
                                                             I  I g I E       fj        L"D a a     0 L   0   0   U L     C1 o    0 o.C   U  L >
                  AOORESSEO                                  go.,       L 0 8 -0    1   "C 6 L      -q 3  .0  L   0 0 C - - 0     Q-J     a as
                                                             M  YD U    U L             < a L             (n  CL 1> IX 0  3: -J- J BCD      C4. -0
          Voter supp)y-jnrrasLrucLurv                           -05     + A                            4 4-                       + AJ    A- - -1-
          to meet population growLk:                            Ll I J'@                0 Q,                                                < (,
          eurface/6round water ckerac.                                                                                                            2@84
          Flood conLrol:effacte on                                                                                                        -j-,
          lend use area. drainage
          ond erosion.
          Voter quality:eUrophice-
          Lion and its impact -an li-
          vIng resources.                                                                                            -4@                  0.27
          Standard street                        Ing         J-         +                           is
          meLh dolpg9:comp:zpEle no-                                                           4-                         +
          Mae Toddressee in count,.. K)
          Voter qua I ity genera I date
          aLander-dized to 6a Ohared
                          -jurledicLI          one.                     )0
          6y multi                                                                                                                                16@2
                                                                        4r
          To establish a date exchan-                        4-                                                                                   \@63
          oo stand ard foraaL:daLo
          dictionary/g.8 _a. re orts.                                                                                                             14\
          Procedures in:hurricans
          pro aredn
          o=ocoyar.                                                                     0
                           ago. evacuation
                               4 planning.                   15,                                                                          Ir.5    15NO
          Ef Fact of I and use. zon t ng                                4
           a [edevslopment o@,,Lho
                   at and eco-age m.
                                                                                        ,--0        0                     (3      0       1' 0    14NI
          Efrecto or polluttno in-                                      +                                                                         \12@
          dust, 16                             on hu-
                                                                                                                                                  13\
          man @ecl&c.colllWew%Le etc                                                                              0
          Overlap/duplicBte isery1cee                                                   +                         +
                                                CounL9                  4-
          betwien EPC.SLate &                                           -,
          rag otione e.g. Earmits.                                                                                )5
               T 0 T 9 L                                                @2-      IL     iz@             All               154     30      73662,
           1nsLLLULion: -1Swe-Lr^D                                                                                CfXW - I APACT
                                                                                 L























           DA.                                                                                                               AN&YSIS
           Group No.                                                                                                               AATR I X







                                                                     9                 4)              U         U L1
                                             ISSUE            h >.C 0 9              30                                                          L
                                                                                                    U  3
                                                                                           C C 0    3  L
                                                                                           0 0-6                         01            1  0 C             -1
                                                                                                                 C     3L 8         8 J a        a 0
                                     AFFECTED                  L C      X 0 CU         -Do " "                                              I    U C
                                                                                                    L            0 -J L CLC   a  @D 0 U L                 0
                                                               00    E  L-0 0      C 4.E   -J-J C      0         - 0 a        a  C  I J ",       " 0
                                                                     L  a    a     l1we . OUG       c  L         -J -J 4) C4) I -   I 1   0
                                                                 4)                E                a IA.              C 0 C     1i C     C I    C a
                                                               1 0   > (&          C CF-4  3-34     . C          P-0   I - I  I  L     - -,.4    4 8
                                                               "     0 3 -4 C      Do.     CLO 3    a-           3 M   >.O 9  0  1     010         L
                                                               8   L C' J3   9     L 9 CL  0 L-4                 M C   C 0 8  1-0   C 6 34       U
                                                               E           Do      , I     C.ar"       'D        09     8 L   L I   I  L 0       '4 Cd
                                                                    V-4 WD   )     > 31         a      10        M         CL 010         -C L       -j
                                                              r-4          C-0     C.0-4   mu a     a 0          6      0           1              a
                                                                           30      6 .4    J .4     C                                  j @ 0       C C
                                                               9 C   U                          C)  0  L         LC COW       1  0  U       (,_      9
                                                               U 0   0     O.D       so         C   U            0     0 L 9  E 4)  L >U         0 -4 E
                                                               L L"4    0.0        3) 1    00.4                  -6    -4 9   .4    0  0 .0 a    U-J a
                                                               0.04          0         C1           U  C         L 4)  Cd E   L 14-    04J a     1 80
                                ISSUE                                e  964)           9   3 L      .4 0         U     4)     U  0 j      of       so
                                                               ILCO    4) 0      4)        (r4J L                I     C 10                 3
                                                                        0 E"D C     0 a         0      C8 C      ")    Ox4J
                                                                        IE         all)    LT a to.                           X 4)     0.410
                    ADDRESSED                                                                       a  0 L       0 0   UL 04        )  0 O.C     U L >
                                                                   @    L 0 9    -001      - C 9    L  " 3       *JL   a 0 C  - -   a  O.J       0 Ov
                                                                       U U L       . L,, < 0 L         _041      (1) CL > CLO I           Oce    C4- -0
             Aer sL43p I y- inFresLrucLure                              V          V                             ,,/   v                        v
           to             population growLk:                                       ",C)
           eurnec!4round waLar cherec.
                                                                                                                                                        284
           Flood conLrol:erfecLs on
           lend use area. drainage
           and aroolon.                                                                                                                                 2 7@
           Voter qualAy:euLrophica-
           Lion and iLu impact an It-
           v I ng resources.                                                                                                                            27
           Standard street map ng
   Am naLh dology:compatiNla no-
           Mae Toddresses n counties                                                                                                                    2\4 5\
           Voter quality general dcLe
           wLanJar-dized to 69 96cred                                                      r\
           6y multi juriedicLions.                                                                                                                      N162
           To esto6lish a date exchan-
           ge standard FormoL:doLo
           dictionary/g.9 a. reports.
           Procedures mhurricans
                   aredness. evecuaLlon
           Purecover planning.                                                                                                                   r1l
           Effect of land use. zoning
           gn                                        the
             ag,[adevelopment an
                     at and eco-egatem.                                                                                                                   4 q111
           Efrects or pol)uUng in-
           durA 10                   ji5iesjn hu-
                         Uc.c.oj             we
           man ea                                   a etc                                                                                               131\1
           Overlap/dupl i cats services
           betwien EPC.SLate 8 CounLy r\.4                               (-v
           regu ot-Lons e.g. p rm1te.                                                                                                                   112
                 T 0 T A L             U E      6
                                 S S

                                -
                                           0
                                 S
                                S \E
         rat,,

                                                                                                                                                        2@76






                                                                           LP                                                      01
             InALLuLion:                                                                                               CRO%-IAPACT
             DaLe:            011 // @                                                                                             AN&%Ijrz'34 I S
             Group No.                                                                                                                    AATRIX







                                                                                                                                               U              U LI -                                            I
                                                               ISSUE                       "C' '3 > J: a    8           30           0         3                       0-4                                      L
                                                                                           0_0 0     4)_C   9           4.1-4        -j        IJL                     (A. Ya                   4)              a
                                                                                                                                C C 0          3                                                    .4
                                                                                                                                               -v                        of                         C
                                                                                                                                                          C            ML 9      1           -1 a
                                                                                                        0   C           J-4 0                             0 -J         L CLC     0           OUL                24 Co  C3
                                                   AFFECTE                   0             L C 4)    Jt U               @ >_0   00                                                                  1
                                                                                           0 0  E           9           C 4).r  -04) C         L10            0        0         4) C I J
                                                                                           La.. -4L         a           f,.4 . 0 U o           CL         J -J         4) C4)    I - I I
                                                                                           1j   a           a           C. 9,4 -49 -           at,        1) 6         C 0 C        E C         C 9             Ca
                                                                                           0 0  >                       CC@4    3-.%4          -4 C       -4           1 - I     I  L        - -,.4             "40
                                                                                                a           C           a 9 -1  CLO 3          j          3 10         >-0 1     0  1-0 Ole                     L      M
                                                                                                C'          9           L 6 tl  OL-                       M C          C 0 9     84)    E 9 3s                  U
                                                                                           E            0   9                   a. a,.         T          0   0        -4 1 L    L 1                            -.4 Ctj
                                                                                                                                . C,                                                    1    L 0
                                                                                           (114                         >31                                             L 11     OT             C L
                                                                                           a 0          Ca              C _O@,  3) 0 CL        00             4        T 0                                      0a C
                                                                                           IC U                                 j ,            C                                        I @ i 0                 CC
                                                                                                                                     0         0L         L   C C"               10     U           (4..        0
                                                                                           Ua   0       Ox                                                0   0        0 L 9     E .0   L >U                    -4 E
                                                                                           LL -4 Ox                     3) 1) - -ts.. C        U -0       'D  -        - 6       -      0    0.4 8              U-J ti -
                                                                                           0-04)            0           E6.. 00 CO-                       L 4)         Cd E      L 14.       0-d 1              0
                                           ISSUE                                           M    a    9 4J ,             S I     :),LD          uE         a   U        4)        U U            I a             So
                                                                                           Cd        4J     a           4)      Cr4J L         -'a        '0  1 C fo                -4       1-4 -4 3           U-4
                                                                                                I    a  EM              Cof          a         E4.
                                                                                                1    9 E                is 11   L'U a t4.      El C           -)       014) -C 4)            04J 0
                          ADDRESSED                                                                                             ,CI 0          OL         0   0        UL' go                0 O.C              V L >
                                                                                           I         L  Of              0                      L-3        J   L        OCC          -   a    0.0                0Of
                                                                                           M370      U  U L             L-      < 0 L          .0-d       M   a        > Mo-        .0- J Ice                   U, (4- -0
              Voter supply- inFroeLrucLure                                                                              +
              to meat, population grovLH:                                                  ro           ;@C             r_ 0
              surrace/or6und water ckerec.                                                                                                                                                                         2 8\4
              Flood conLrol:effecLe on
              land use area. drainacte
              and erosion.                                                                                              de                                                                                         2@7
              Voter qualjty:suLroph1cc-                                                                                 4-
              Lion ancl its impact am 11,                                                  t4o                          Ir      e@6
              YIng resources.                                                                                                                                                                                      2 XM
              Stondarct street mappino                                                     -L        4                                                                                                          4
              meLh dology:                     compoLlb)e na-                                                                                                                                                            7
              mes ?addresses in counLies 75                                                          6@4 0                                                                                                         2 4@\
              Voter qual ity general daLa                                                  +                                    +                                      +                                        4-
              sLandor-dized to 69 96cred                                                                                                                                                                        ?@
                                                                                           10                           '7S        0                                   in                       all             1.0
              by multi -jurled-Icilons.                                                                                                                                                                            16\2
              To establish a date exchan-4.                                                          4-                                                                                                         4.
              Go standard FormaL:daLa                                                                   "70             10      1-.f           /V         '30          10                       1               10
              dictionctry/g.8 a. reports.
              Procedures in:hurricans                                                      +         _L_                        +              +                       +
              pro aredness. evocuaLlon                                                                                                                                                                          ell
              andiprecoverg planning.                                                      ;)o          1                          3
              Efruct of land use. zoning .L                                                                             +
              gne,[edevslopment an Lks                                                                  to              CA C>
                a           at and eco-oystem.                                             to                                                          +                                                           1\4 @J
              EfFras oF polluUng.jm-                                                                                                                                                                            4
              dur.           IaUecilWea n hu-                                                                                                                                                                   ;to
              man Eect                       go i wooLe eLc                                /D                           4-10    3,                                                                                 11 \31'
              Overlap/dupl i cats servicea                                                                              +       4                                      4-
              between EPC.SLate & CounLy                                                                Pt              C4 C,   1A 0
              reat lotions e.g. pe mite.
                      T 0 T 9 L                                                                             A                                  11v    2@j -2-
                I nsL LLuLion: TvFwl,,tT:@                                                                                                                             CROSS-IAPACT
                Do Leg                                                                                                                                                                ANALYSIS
                                                 f f
                Group No.                                                                                                                                                                       AATRIX








                                                                                                           U          U Lf
                                              ISSUE             C 3      X a   9      3k 0              a             .4
                                                                         -J-C  0      J.0       N..J    U                                             L
                                                                                            c c 0       3  L                                          a
                                                                                                                                Do         Ile        4j
                                                                         1 U a >-I)         0 0-6       -0-0                                      C   a      1)
                                    AFFECTEO                                                            0 a        C     ML 8              _j a
                                                                L     C -a  0 C       .j - 9- -                    0 J L CLC      0    1 -V 0 U I     U      C
                                                                0     0E L.41 9       4)_r  j4) C       L  to      - 0 0          j    C 9 .4j    L          0    C)
                                                                      L  9     CI     C9 -4 .0 U a      C  L       -J -J 4) C4)   I    - I It a@'            '    -4
                                                                      9 4- 1   0      1E 9' - I -       0 t&       0 9   C 0 C         E C    C 6     C      0
                                                                6 0   > 1, 9          CC_   3-)4        . C              I - I    I    L   - -,4      '4     1
                                                                0-4)  0 :) _# C       C) 1) .. CLO 3    41               >.0 g    U    #4) 1) g              L    :0
                                                                0     LCj A    I      L9 11 OL-
                                                                                            0.          1          CL C  C 0 1    0 J   E  6          U
                                                                E     0     Of        ,     I.          8-0        0  0  - I L    L I   I  L 0        -40         r-
                                                                      1-4 WD )        >31               0Cy a      OL           I aOT   E XL                 4J
                                                                      0. a - C4)      CJ13--4 mu a                                                           a
                                                                      I                                 C 0           6  '00                                 C C
                                                                      U 0 3 0         9     .4j .4                                                    C      9
                                                                9     C0    O.D       8;    -t#..       0a L       L  C C 14)     1 0   U             0      .4E
                                                                0     a                                 U          0  0  0 L I    E .0  L  > 0
                                                                                                        C             4  -4 o           6  o-o        U-J a
                                                                L     L '-* 0 -0      3)U               -0         T
                                                                0.04)          0      (6..  C, co-      U  I       L -0         CO EL I ti. 040       10     0
                              ISSUE                             CL    e  9     4) ,         93 L-D         0       0 U   4)       U 0          so     16     1)0
                                                                  Cid    4)    a      4)5   Cr4J L      -4         *T) I C 10          .4  -4 .4
                                                                         0 E"O C      0                 0to.                                 .410
                                                                e     4                     1              1 C        -1 014)   -C 4)      0                 9
                  ADDRESSED                                     I     II I E          Is)   L-U 0          C L     0  0  U L    - CO 1     0 O.C      U      L>
                                                                0     8  L  0 0       0 1   -, C        1  0                                                 6
                                                                                            < 0         L L3       -#JL  ac     C                            -0
                                                                                                        #-@_q 4)      CL @_"4 0
          VoLer supp I y- inFreeLrucLur
          to Mout, population growL
          eurface/6round waLer chara
                                                                                                                                                             2B4

                                                                                                                                  .2r
          Flood conLrol:eFfecLs oonn
          land use area. drainage
          and erosion.                                                                                                                                       N718
          VeLor qUCljC9:9uLrophIcft_k-@
          Lion     and its impact an li-
          vIng resources.                                                                               _41K                                                 2 @6
                                                             11-416
          Standard AreeL                           Ing
   "eLhodolog9:cOmP:zP,r1. no-
   @os 8 addresses In counL I                                                         I -Zv- Ar%        117t)                                                24
     -Vater quality general do
          AenJar-djzed to 6w 96cred
                                                     9.                                                                                                      162
          bM mMIJI.-@L= edict ions.
                                                                                                        --!W-^ Jim    14@;,                4t
          go eLandord Format: daLo                                                                      ks
          dictionary/gA a. rep As
          Procedures mHurricane
          pro redness. eyocuaLlon                                                                                                 -4-
          on7crecoverm planning. CI-4-                                                      I r_1*N1    , -,@ " 4 r -,C\- / @@ / _+1\                        . 1 \50/
          EfFecL of land use. zon(P-H-)                                               S, I TZ)          T6-", iE81
          gng,[edevelopment on.Lho
          a        at and sco-99st m. '14                                                               .0"                     A                            141
          Efrects or polluting in-
          dur.L 101jeciNies on hu,
          von Eeo              so I WCGLO e
                                                                                            Pt                                                               131
               r1ap/duplicate servic                                                                                            7jD
          betwun EPC.SLate & County                             --t-                                                                       13                     ?'
                     CLons e.g. permits.                                                                       +         +                                   1 2@
               T 0 T A L                       B                         136
                                                                                NOVO
                                                                                                                                                             @1)0

                                                                                                                                                             \2@
                                                                                                                                                             1621
                                                                                                                                                                  to

                                                                                                                                                             15






                                                                                                                                                             141
                                                                                                                                                             131
       rT
          InALLAi                     n        ^AA,,A7YZ-;CCRJï¿½1                                                         CIROtS-                             T
          OaLa.-                                                                                                                       ANALYSIS
          Group No.                                                                                                                          AATR I X








                                                                                        0
                                          ISSUE            "C' '3                   :10                   0 L8
                                                                                       9.0 11 3           -4 () . I                         L
                                                           0 -4 6                   4).j CC a 3 L              4_ Ya                        a
                                                                     6-4 .0 8       .4..         -0            of                           J
                                                                                    0 6-6                                          C
                                                                     I    Ua >-D                 1 8   C       ML 9           j a
                                   AFFECTE         0       L C -0    0 C            -4 0-4 '"                                      I
                                                                     EL40 I         4).r 4)4) C  Lto   0 -J L CLC
                                                           a 0                                         4 0     0    a     9-0 0 0 L         UC0
                                                                     LV 0  C                                        4J    E I J
                                                                           9.4 ..Duo                                                        -0
                                                                     114- 9 0E      111-4        CL            4J C-0I        I ai@
                                                                                                 0 t&          C 0 C      E C   C 9         Ca-4
                                                                     >     r        C,-4 3 -w    .0 C  1-4     1 - II     L   -_4 #,,       -I
                                                                     0 3-4Ca        a... MO 3    41    3 M     >_0 8a     1.0 a I@          L :D
                                                           0         L0 M L9L       9 IL OL 4          CL C    C 0 99.4   r 9 30            U
                                                           E         01)  9.        ICL Qj-4                   I L  L I   I   L 0           Cd r-
                                                                     M-4 V) -V)>    it , a       ig            L    0'11        C L         4)
                                                           -4        1 e - co cn.-4 mua          a o           a          I ...a            OC
                                                           0         C U 0 3 0g     -o -J '4     CO L  L  C C 94)   V 0   U 4) v4.          EC I
                                                           U         a0Ox           8 0 -to- o
                                                                     4 0_0                       U        0    0 L 0E 4)  L >0              E
                                                           L         L     31 V - -44-- C        10    'D 1         6-    a   0-09          U-J (I
                                                           04J                      U a00.4      C     L 4)    W E  L I to.   0-0 V         110
                             ISSUE                                                  3 L-D        U                                          IGo
                                                                                                 Ia    a  U    4)   U U 5       so          U.
                                                                                        0                      C 10
                                                            ad       4) 0           OW L
                                                                     10 E'U C       of                                                      9
                  ADDRESSED                                          III E          I>L'U C, I.& Ell C    11   a14) C 41      0410
                                                                     L a 0 9        of " Ca a    0 L   0  0    U L  C1 I  )   0 O.C         UL>
                                                                          M                      L3 -@J   L    0 0 C      -40 0.4           a
                                                           M         3-; UV L       < 0 L              U) M    > CaL 0    41  j s ce        -0
          WaLer supp 19- inFroaLrucLure /0 /10                                      1&             to
          to nawL PORuIeLion growLk-                       + 2-T f 2- 7 j- 5-       4'                         JQ)  6@)
          surface/ground waLer charo@.                                                                                          1@z         4-17,
          Flood conLrol:effecLs an                         4f 0      -1- 0 I-V                                                              IQ ,
          lond use area. drainage                                    -F             q                                     0                 4-a
                                                           -F-2g ft.      4-c-                                 4              0
          and erosion.                                                                                         T41                          2?\0
          WoLer quellty:euLrophica-                                                                            /5-
          Ljo        nd & to j mpoct an I I -              - 49      f- 7,r                                    tj@2       0
          vina resources.                                                                                                                   r2 7\6
               M a                                                                                                            0
          SLondard street mop Ing                          10                                                                 /40
                                                                                                                              L 1711        to
          meLhodologg:comiaLiCle no-                                 -f- 17, 0       0           f-/g  0       0          0   1-[
          moo 8 addresses n counL 1 as                               T-0-                                                                   24-
          Vater qual ity general daLa
          standardized to 6v shared                                  f) 4-/6 43Z     0           0 4-2,        0          0   0
          by multi -jurl edIcL Ions.                                                                                                        J62
          To establish a doLa exchan-                                5-0
          00 standard formoL:doLo                           0        10, 70' C)                  0     Lr)     0                            0
          dictionary/g.9 a. reports.
          pro oredness. eyacuaLion                         f-T       4-                            4-30
          C@yrecoverg planning.                                                                                                             I
          Procedures whurricans                            157                                                      C         10            10
                                                                                     0
          Effect of land use. zoning                       90             go                     2- /0         /0
          gne,[edevolopment on Lhe                                   0    -Ivz
           a       at and eco-eyeLem.                                                            4-3  1+@/@               0   '0            141
          EfrZA:,or.polluting in-                          +LO            5-                                                                \1
          duo 1               ciNies on hu                 ie        0    1-7                    0     v 4-3                                -4-(3
          man Eeo LE. so I wooLe etc                                                                                                        131N
          Nerlop/duplicate servicea                        Vo        5'0
          between EPC.SLate & CounLy 4-a ".f 0
          rep lotions e.g. pe mite.
               T 0 T A L                    8                        -03 Ift W                   '"3
                                                                                                                                            @J 6 @2




           InsiLLLuLion: P11-V ef?rZ 4/6 A@L_f                                                                 CROSS-IAPACT
           DOLS:          1, _/ ?@- I n---                                                                                ANALYSIS
           Group No.                                                                                                          AATRIX






                                                                                                  U         U Ll     -                          I
                                                           C 3     X a 9        30        0                                                     L
                                         ISSUE             -0 '                                   U3           0-9
                                                                                     C C 0        .3L          4. ) M             44)
                                                                                                  0 j              of             I a
                                                                   I U               0 0-U        I a  C       3M 8               9 J 0         C00
                                AFFECTED                   LC.J      0 C     a.'a    -@ï¿½ .0       L So 04)     L CLC    0 1-0 0 U '             U C
                                                               E                     44) E                                                      L0
                                                           0 0     L4) I     C 4).r                    - a     0        4) C I -J
                                                               L   a   a     9" . ouo             CL   -J 4)   4) E4)   6 - 1 1
                                                               9 to. 6 0     E 9-4 , 1 *4         0 t& o a     C 0 C       E C    C I           C0
                                                           8 a > (4. 1       c: C-4  3 _'4)       .- E V"      I - I    I  L      - -.-.        -I
                                                           "   0 3.4 C       0  1) .4 Mo 3        41 " 3 M     >.a I    a  1-0 age              L
                                                           0 L C1.0 L 9      L  6 a  0 L-         9    M C     C 0 9    0.0       C 9 3#        U
                                                                     0 1             0. or-4      g -0 0    0  - I L    L I       IL 0
                                                           E0                >       .    a
                                                            a.                  31   mv a         go   M           L a  0-1       E X L         4J
                                                                   - C4j                          C0        6  TO                               C
                                                               U 0 3 9               j            oL   L    C E 04)     1 0       U             CI
                                                           IC                                                                                   C
                                                           Ua  0      0-0       0    -4. a        U    0    0  0 L I    E .0      L >U          0-E
                                                           LL __4 0-0        3) V    `4-- E       '0   'D   -4 -4 9     .0        00 -4 9       U-J [I
                                                           04)4)       0   (4-  U    00 .4        UE   L 4)      Cd E   L 1 (4.   O-J 1         0
                          1 S S U E                        M 0     6 4)         1    3 LT         0    0    Q  4)       U U E     I 1           0C)
                                                           CIO     .4) 0             014-0 L       -   'D   9  C 10        .4 9-4-4.1           aU-4
                                                               6   0 ET      C  Of        0       C I C     -) 01.0 r .0          0-00          "I I
                                                               1 9 E            0)   LU 0 a       0 L  0    0  U L      C1 g      ) U Or        UL >
               ADDRESSED                                           L 0 9        Of   4 C 9             4    L  a 0 C -4 -4        00.4          13 Of
                                                                                     < 0 L        L3                              mcd           Ln Es- -8
         LIMUL                                             (0 3 -;1 U U L       L,-               -0-4 (1)  CL _> 110 1 .0- _j
         Ve4mw supply-InFreaLrucLure                               67      W                                                                        44
         to meaL population growLk:                                          ty      ID           el   1                0 0
         Burf ace/ground water charac.                                                                                                            134
         Flood conLrot:effecLe on                              #40
         )and use area. drainage                           47i                                         35        rj     0         A0            to
         and erosion.                                                                                                                           Nn
         VoLor Welity:ouLrophica-                                                                                                               49  @IL'
         Lion and its impact an li- /40                            10 5(e.           L9           0    10      0
         ving resources.                                                                                                                        276
         Standard street mopping                           11;3                                                                                     4 15
         meLh dology:compaLA]e                  L no - I L&.%      *         tq      ip           0    to      40                               10
         as Waddresses In cou.n I s817W                                                                                                         2
            !
             or quality general data
             nclar-clized to be 96ared                     40                                     0 At         1 0 1    o         10            oN,62
             multi-juriedirAjone.
             establish a doLa exchan'
         a eLandard FormoL:c6LO                            16po
         dictionary/9.9 a. reports.                                                               0 0          0        0         10            0
         Procedures in:hurricans                                                                  %_                                            6*
         pr aredness. evacuation                           0       0         0       0 /00                                        ;50           ⁢ 5\0
         on7recovery planning;                 '                                           I                                                    J@
         Effect of land use, zoning                        so                                                                                   "\ "'
         gnegdevelopment, on.Lho                                                                                                  25 40
         a        t and sco-aget m.                                                                                                             - 14@1
         Effects oF pollutima In-                                                                  130           0.                             1   131
         duaL I a         a ji@iec on hu-
         man EeoU.cooj I waeLs eLc                         109)                                                                                 131
         Overlap/duplicate servicea
         between EPC.SLate & County                                                                                     0                       112
         regulot, one e.g. permIte.

             T 0 T A L                    B                        3
                                                                                                                 6)     @ 1       107
         1n9LLLULlon:__                                                                                        CROSS-IAPACT
  Obae:                                                                                                                    ANALYSIS
         L
    Tce"


                                                                                                                                                1 31



                                                                                                                                                    a
                                                                                                                                                124




         Group No.                                                                                                                AATRIX






                                                                                                                        0 L9
                                                 ISSUE               T 03 > c 'as        340        0     0  3               0.4 a                      L
                                                                     0                              G.J   3  L                  ) 13                    0
                                                                                                C C 0     .0.0                  of            of        W
                                                                             a U         >JD    00'a      1 4           C    ML@           $.Jac        a 0       -4
                                       AFFECTED                                                 04 of                                               I
                                                                     LC        0 C       3_0              L  1          0 -'J L CLC 0 #-D 0 U L         (1C       0
                                                                     00 E         0      O.C    44 C         0          64 a 0      -j C   I -j         4"0
                                                                        L                       OUO       r  1          .0.0 4) C   I -    I    0@1     I .
                                                                                                4 4 -     , 1:          0 6  c 0 c         6f   c a     c a
                                                                                         E- @`
                                                                                         CC'.4  3 -W      0 C                9-41          L    -oP4
                                                                        0 3-4 c          09.4   (103      j             3 m  >4 a   0 1       090         L
                                                                     0L a A L 0          L 8 11, 0 L-                   CL C c o I  I -j   C 930        U
                                                                     E                          CLO,-4    9                                             -4
                                                                                                    0     IT            00   -4 1 L L I    I  L 0
                                                                                         >ot                                    L a O'D    E C
                                                                        0 - C-0          C-0-4  310 a     00            0,                                0
                                                                        UO 3 0           9 .4 J           C 0           6    100           1        0     c C
                                                                     I c                        _tl.      0 L           c C"        go     U    It$.          I
                                                                     1)a0      0.0       so         C     0             0    0 L I  E .0   L >U         0 -E
                                                                     LL '-*  0-0         3)     *         '01           -4   P.,4 9 .0     a  0.49      U .4
                                 ISSUE                               04)4)        0 (i.  U a    0   0,-   U  c          4)   CO E   L M       04 1      1
                                                                     CLCO ID I 4j ,        9    3 L-0        0          U    .0     10 0 1      so      1 00
                                                                             4) 0   4)     A    W4 L                    9 c 00                          0 U."
                                                                             0 ED r                 a
                                                                                           I                 ce c       ")   0                            of
                                                                                                    a                        14J X 41         0.41 a
                                                                             9 E                VO           0 L        00 UT       G 1       0 o.C     U L >
                    ADDRESSED                                        g g     L 0 9  -0     1    q C 8     0                                   O.J       0 Of
                                                                              U L               < 0       L             'aL  0 0 C         0
                                                                     m3m                            L                   (1)M > 0.0 1.0- _j sco          U, ($-'a
           4VAer supply-infrooLrucLure
           to mwwL population grcwLh:                                                           -ZP       rAO           601D AP
           surface/ground waLar charec.                                                                                             tp
           Flood conLrolierfecto on                                                                                                                               -2 2 -
           land use area. drainage
                                                                     1. %:
           and erosion.
                                                                     I @,                                                             @4                      2\78'
           VaLse quality:suLrophica-                                         t                                                                                    770
           Uom and An impacton 1;- 0'                                                                                   0
           %,Ina resourc                                                                                                                                      27
           Standard Are
                                    ,:t mappina                      +
           maLbedology: mpatible no                                     r
           Mae addresses in counties                                                                                    0                                     2 N4
           Voter quality general date                                               t                                        +                          t
           eLandar;dixed to 6e shared                                                           0
                               jurisdictions.                                              k
           bm multi                                                                                                                                           162
           To establish a date exchan-
           06 standard formoUdeLo
                                                                     16,     1 ("        I C.   1c.41 1, L/             I L- I 1C.    Icl 11@__
           dictionary/g.8 a. reports.                                                                                                                         \159N
           Procedures mhurricane                                     `7      +
           pro oredness. evacuation
           an recover planning.                                                                                                                               1\5 0@
           Effecf- of land use. zoning
           gnd , ['ejave I opment o the
                      a     and sco-egWeS.                                                      -7
                                                                     14                                                                                       141
           Efrecte or pollutina In-                                  -.I-                       +
           durftia,       ,   Eocj                                   - 1
                                    .Niecan
           man ea                1.9 1 Va a               @Luc
                                                                     11-1                       :-! -1                                                        13 \1
           Overlap/dup)jceto services                                                           +                -t
           betwien EPC.SLate & Count
                                                                     y
           regu otLone e.a. permits.

                                                                                                                        r
                                                                             r)
                 T 0 T A L

                                                                     C.-
             lnsLLLUL ton:                                                                                                   CROSS-IAPACT
                                                                          IUL            L


                                                                                                                                                              2M76





                                                                                                                                                                   4
                                                                                                                                                              11 26\\J




                                                                                                                                           ANALYSIS
            Group No.                                                                                                                         AATRIX






                                                                                                                         0 Ll
                                               ISSUE                   3 >.Coo           :30           0                      0-46                      L
                                                                                                   9.41        u3
                                                                       O-ja              J.0    C C 0          3L
                                                                                     P.4 .4 .0                                                          4)
                                                                                                               13 '0 C           of                   E
                                                                            I U 0 >.a           00-0           0 1   0        ML 9           1 J 0 v 0     a
                                       AFFECTED                        L C     0 C       j - 0  - "            L I            L 1XC  a #-D 0 U L        U C
                                                                       00E         0     C 4).L 4)-0 C         0              0      J C 1 4j              a
                                                                 L& -4  L          a     .4 . OUO              CL    -J -0    -0 C-0 1- 8 9                04
                                                                               6 0       E s.-4 , 9 "4         0 (&  0 a      C 0 C     E C       C 4   C  a
                                                                                         C.-4                  C     V-4      9-1    1 L        P-4 -4,4
                                                                       M-0  3 - C        00.    M03            4j    3 M      >.a 0  0 9-0      use        L
                                                                                                0 L-                 0. C     C 0 9  9.0     C  0 :)a   U
                                                                       0 L J3 9          L 9 Q  CL Oj_
                                                                       E       09            1                 @D    0   0    - I L  L I     I  L 0     10            r*
                                                                       M   WO 31                               go    M           L a O'D     E X L            41
                                                                 r4 1      0" C-0        Cn..4  mu a           C 0       a    MO                           a
                                                                        U                       J .4                                                    C  C
                                                                       I C (330          a                                                      ; ; 0   a C
                                                                       U a0    OX        I                     L     L   C    C 14   1 0     U    U4-   0  .4 C.
                                                                                             0         C       U     0   0    0 L I  E .0    L >
                                                                       LL                    1                 M     M   -4   -4 1   .1      a  0.49    Q-J 12
                                                                       04)4)             U a    00.4           UC    L .0     0 E    L I ti.    0-41       10
                                  ISSUE                                 ID                   ,  3 LT           D     a   U    .0     U U          of       Go
                                                                       a-                              a       (4... T   8    C 10                    3               2M
                                                                       Cd  .0 0                 OW L '4        1
                                                                       9in 0 ET r 0 9                                                           04)o       of
                                                                       I I  I E          0 )    L-0 0 E&       C I   C   -2   0-r4j -C(j4gj  )  0 O.C   0  L >
                      ADORESSED                                                                 ,4 C 1 0       0 L   0   0    U L
                                                                       aI   L 0 9        ID #                  q     -J  L    COC - -        0  04      0  Of
                                                                 M 3 -0 U 0 L                   < 1) L         L3
                                                                                                               .4.4  in  a I>t KO I                       twu
      -Z    VoLer eupp I g- irf reeLrucLure                                                            \j      15
            to meaL population growth:                                 C>      0         -71    +0               + /y         -@ '71 + V2_
            eurf ace/ground water c6aroc                                                 401
            Flood conLrol:effects an                                                         1  -
            land use area. drainage                                                                                           6,
            and erosion.
            VaLe'r quality:eArophice-
            Lion nd &La impocton li-
                                                                                                                     C/
            v I no resources.                                                                                                                   Tr               2 7\6
            Standard Arest mopping                                                                                                                                    I"'
            math dologg: compatible no-                                f a               lp
                   ?addresses in counties gZ.                                                                                                                    2 \4
            Vater qua I ity genera I date                                                                                                                             A-
   lemeg                                                                                                                                                              '20
            standardized to 6e A red                                                     +
            6y multi -jurisdiction:.                                                     10                    V                                                 16\2
            To esto6l i sh a date exchan
            go standard FormaUdAa                                            4- ZO       +IL-)    fjD                +-JP     0          ID
            dictionary/g.8 a. reports.                                                                                                          +Ikol A-ZZ       151 @,
            Procedures mhurricans
            pro arednees. evocuaLion                                                                                 4- Z-V            0 1+1,5        . t -U)
            cryracovery planning.                                                                                                                                N,5'e'
            Effect of land use. zoning
            gnd redevelopment on the
              abiLat and sco-systeffi.                                                                                                   0                       N41
            Effects of pollutLng In-
            dust in                     jj@iesoon hu-
            man Eea I LIG. Ce 01 1 wo to Ac                                   9
                                                                                                               C)    +13      0        0 14-).@ 4 2t 13\1
            Oyorlap/dupl i cats services
            6etwqen EPC.SLOte a County                                 (2                                      C7     C)
       A regulations e.g. per its.                                             /L        2-                                   0
                                                     m

                  T 0 T A             L            B                                                                                            M,
                                                                                                                     J17
                                           .E \
                                                                                                                                                0
                                           .0                                                                                                LO















               1nsLLLULion:                                                                                                   CRM - I APACT
             Dae:                                                                                                                         ANALYSIS
             Group No.                                                                                                                            AATR I X






                                                                       T                                            U Ll -
                                               ISSUE                   c 3 >.c 0 6      30          0    0 3             0-9                        L
                                                                       0-i 1                     9.6)    3 L             4. )M                4)    0
                                                                                              C C 0                                             4)
                                                                                                         -0.0                of            9 a E JP-4            -4
                                                                                                                 C       31. 9          @.Jag 0        0
                                                                           31 U         >70   00-0
                                      AFFECTED                         L C.J      fj C   .0   .1.4
                                                                       E   L-0 6      4                  L I             L MC     0 I-D 0 0 L       U  C         C
                                                                       0 0L           C _C    4)4) C       0        a    0        -j C V -j            0
                                                                                      9.0 IOUD
                                                                                              4 9 .4     C L     -J -J   4) C-0   1- 9 8            'a
                                                                       916.4 0        E 9@.   3 -W       0 C&    0 1     C 0 C      E C       C a   C  0
                                                                       so > 4. 1      C C,4              , C     0-4
                                                                       "() 3-C        06.     CLO 3                      6 -4 9   1 L
                                                                       013 J3 L 9     L 9     0 L-4      j       3 'D    >-0 a    a 1-0 Use            L         ZM
                                                                       E0                          -4                                               .4 Cd
                                                                                  06          CL Of              CL C    C ce     9.0   C  a  30    U
                                                                                                         VD      () 0    - I L    L I      L 0
                                                                                                         cl 0    0.         L     O'D   E -C L
                                                                                  c4j C:-D..4 3) U CL    C 0        1    -00            1 -0        0  Cal
                                                                       IC U 0 3 0     11 a .4 J .6       o L        C C 84J       1 0   U .0 of     C  C   I
                                                                       000        0_0      0  -4. a                                             4.  a  .4  E
                                                                       LL -4 0.0              P 4(j. C   U       0  0    0 L I    E .0  L >U
                                                                                      3)   ,             'D      "D 14   P-4 8    -6    0  0-49     U4) a
                                  ISSUE                                0-04)      0   t#. U C1 0 0 "'    U C     L -0      90 E   L I to.  G-J 1           0
                                                                       o. aI -a       . S g   3L                                                       a()
                                                                           4)     0           CN) L                 0    4)       U 0 C       16    a  Ur-4
                                                                                      4)                            8    C 10        .4 6     .43
                                                                                      C                    C 8                             ",4
                                                                           0      ED    of                       C  ")   a14) _C 4)        040      .4 f 11
                      A00RESSE0                                        I III E        I I )   L-D 0 4-     0 L   0  0    UL 06          @ 0 O.C     U L >
                                                                           L 0 6      M                                     OC - -4     0  0
                                                                       0 N U           ID I   "C 8 0       -,3   J  L    a                    .6)   0  13 0
                                                                       (03        U L   L,-   < 0 L              U) (L F> CLO I .0-oP vc
           VeLter supp I y- inrreeLrucLure                             +                 0
           to must, population grovEk:
           surface/ground water charac,                                Ze                                        13-:;
           Flood conLrol:effecLe an                                    J                                                                                    2 8\4
           and erosion.
           land use area. drainage                                                                                                                          2\7
           VaLer quality:eUrophics-
           Lion and its impact an li-
           ving resources.                                                                                                                                  2\7 6N,
           Standard street map Ing
           MeLh                    :compaticle no-
                   rdology
           rose addresses n counties                                   ZID                                                                                  241
       J   Voter quality coneral date                                                                                                                            310
           Aandor@djzsd to 6e ahareJ                                                                                                                             '3
           6y_multi -juriedicLions.                                                                                                                         16\2
           To establish a doLa exchan-                                 j f j      j
           go standard FormaUdete
           dicttonarg/g.8 a. reports. 3D                                     I'
                                                                                                                                                            1541
           Procedures I n: hurr I cone                                     I/ G
           preparedness. evocuaLion                                          C
           ond recoverg planning.                                                                                                                           5\0
           Effect of land use. zoning/                                            +
           gne,[edevelopment on Lhe
             a        at and eco-egstem.                               M-  01                                                                               14 @l
           Efrects.oF pollutang in-                                    /6  /4-        J
           durA to                                 tn hu-
                      eakEft.ce011115186                                   !@ 1       -21-                                                                       'C'
           mon-E                              was a Ac (@                  -                                                                                1 3\1
           Overlap/duplicate servicea                                                 \/4-
           between EPC.SLate & County
           repulatione e.g. pe mite.

                                                                       2&
                 T 0 7 A L

              lnsLiLuLlon:                                                                                               CROSS-IAPACT
            DoLe:                                                                                                                     AN&YS I S
                                                                       [CC


























            Group No.                                                                                                                         AATRIX








                  A Strategic Plan for the TBRCC                                                                         Appendix 3
                  Appendix 5 - Futures TechniquelSystem Impact Analysis...                                                    APP 5
                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                               Page 1



                                                                    APPENDIX 5



                  FUTURES TECH7VIQUE

                  SYSTEM IMPACT ANALYSIS PHASE


                  BASIC INSTRUCTIONS



                  1. OBJECTIVE

                  The main objective of the system impact analysis phase is to determine the impact a specific policy/issue (once
                  it is implemented or addressed) may have over the system itself, (in our case the Tampa Bay region).



                  2. FORMAT

                  The system impact analysis requires a NEXUS card format. This format displays along its perimeter those
                  factors describing the system (Tampa Bay region) suggested by the sample of experts during the Brain-Storming
                  Phase. The System Impact Analysis will be conducted in small groups; each group will evaluate one of the ten
                  (10) most dominant issues established during the Cross Impact Analysis Phase.

                  Following the procedures indicated in item # 3 below, each group will complete a NEXUS card for a specific
                  issue. The NEXUS cards will be returned and will represent each gEoup's view point after discussion. These
                  viewpoints represent the impact that a specific issue, once addressed, may have over the system (Tampa Bay
                  region).

                  3. PROCEDURES FOR COMPLETING THE NEXUS CARD

                  Working only with the factors or variables fisted along the perimeter of your NEXUS card and without making
                  any notes on the cells provided, try the following:

                           a.       Indicate those factors that may be affected by the implementation of the policy/issue in
                                    question, placing with pencil a check mark on the adjacent cell.

                           b.       Review those factors you have checked and decide if the effect would be in terms of an increase
                                    or a decrease. Replace your check mark by a positive sign (+) in case it is an increase, and
                                    with a negative sign (-) in case it is a decrease.

                           C.       Distribute and assign the impact score to those factors marked with a positive (+) or a
                                    negative(-) sign. The resulting impact score distribution will reflect the group's viewpoint on
                                    the proportional distribution of the impact score over the affected factors. It is not necessary
                                    to assign the total impact score number. It may seem that a portion of the impact falls over
                                    factors that have not been included in the system (NEXUS card).

                           d.       Total the impact score assigned to all factors without taking into account the sign and then
                                    write it down on the appropriate cell.










                                                                   50       55         54    53      52      51               45       40     4T       40                      43
                                                                                                                      a                                       45.      44                      41
                                                                                                C       6                                                 0
                                                                                                        L                     a                           .0
                                                                                                        0                        3
                                                                                                        41            3       .4 L4i
                     NEXUS
                                                                                             16.Z. 0 .0                       so- 0.0
                                                                                                0                                                      5
                                                                                                                                                419
                     Surface It pround                  V/                                j3l                I
                 I   water chwocLerie-                                     3041                       41
                     Live                                                              L   1001              W                   L  to. 3     904
                                                                          - 1                      "0 9.3                                              L
                                                                           U6  3       J   Its-.0            L
                                                                                       0
                     Air quolitV monita-                                      I
                                                                                          24.1              -Z                                 a a we
                                                                                                                                     Le   5            SCL
                 2   ring information                                                        0                                41            U          01
                                                                     V      V
                 3   Traffic p-ajections
                 4   Air quality pollu-                                                                                                                       Socia- economic
                     Lion vources                                        TAAPA 13AY RMIM& MCIVINUING5 MOCM                                                    indiceLore on Fsmsl@
                 5   Population                                                                                                                                 Topographic
                     projections                                       P(L I CY/ [ SSUE No . @1 I: I
                                                                                                                                    t                        I  Lnformation
                 6   Road Ova                                          Water quality general data                                                               Trortapartation
                                                                                                                                                                net - *W+
                 y   Population or th                                   standardized to be shared                                                               Demograph i ce
                                                                        by mulLi-jurisdictional                                                                 indicator*
                     vacant I Wid                                                                                                                      '/'      Storm vat,.
                     ovoilabiliL9                                       bodies.                                                                           0     sources
                                                                                                                                                                Gone. I date
                 9   Rsectirce come i La*nL                                                                                                                     an wells
                                                                       Impact Sears                            Impact Sears                            v/       Store water IMPOCL
                 Is  Land-uee trrveo torV                              To Dj*Lr16uLe                          Ass i wed                                         I water - W
                                                                                                                                                                               a I I EW
                                                       +                                                                                                                       nts
                     PhMd a Uts title$                                                                                                                          Storm water impact
                                                                                                                                                                          Lng)
                                                                                                                                                                (('load
                     infro-strUIC              lp                                                                                                               measurements
                                                                    0                                                  kp      \pJ                              Voter A air quell-
                                                                                                                                                                ty regulatory
                                                                                                                                                                agencies
                                                                                                                        3                                       EfTicient,
                                                                          P"           I
                                                                           a           so
                                                                           .0                              .0                 .0                                doe I a I on - mak i no
                                           CL                                          0Le                                                  L                   SLandarized date
                          0        C                                                                                                          41
                                                                                       :0                                                                       collection
                                                          C5  1
                         U.                                          1.0               4)   :  -               M
                          0                                C U.                        1            4006       40    I.C                                        formaLe
                                                    L                                                                                       a,* C
                                                                              0        0                                      0 40
                                                                                               0    0                                          V                Hazardous waste
                                                                                                                    11          C
                            .0                                                                                                            41  C 9               site location
                                                   IL                      1
                                                           3109
                                                                                                                                                                                 wants
                                                                                                                                                                effects
                 12                14      is       16     1?       to      19         21  21        22      23      24       25      26     zi
                 fit












                                                            55             53 52
                                                      50          54                  51    9     01 40      1 4F _F415     145 1 44 43
                                                                            C     9                                      0
                                                                                  L
                 NEXUS
                                                                           1.31a  1  3       1    i
                                                                           L-d
                 Surface       W-owW                                                              oil                 C
                                                          .0       19      1  age                       8       4#
               1 vaLow chorocLaris-                                           0 010                     . "
                                                                                                     L
               - Lies                                              4     ilk                 k                      OL C
                                                                   J     14.4         L      .0   313           .4
                 Air qualitij mcniLo-                                                                           do
               2 ring information                                                                            U011

               3 Tmff ic prwactians
               4 Air quo] itW pol lu-                                                                                       Soc i aeconom i a
                 Lion *our-coo                            TAAPA EKY AMIUM                 MUM MLICEL                        indicator* on Famill
                 Population
               5                                                                                                            Topagraoic
                 projections                            FOL I CY/ I SSUE No. 1. 2                                           information
               G Road maps                              Effects oF polluting Indus-                                         Tram" tation
                                                                                                                            not - w4%
               T PbpulaLion growth                      trial facilities on human                                           DONOWePhice
                                                                                                                            indicators
                                                        Health. solid waste.
                 VOCM* I am                                                                                                 Siore, water

                                                                                                                            sources

                 Resource cam i Loont,                                                                                      exeneral date
                 ow. lot?, Mo.'r"                                                                                           an wells
                                                        Impact, Score                  Impact Score                         Stors, voLor iwfeck
               Ig Lm-A-uss inviontorv                   To DisLirt6utel    40 M Ass i aned                                  (water.'Walitu)

                 Road a utilities                                                                                           5Lor-a water ispect
                      re-st                                                                                                 I Flooding)
                                      zp   I                                                                                "bouroments
                                                                                                                            Voter A air quo I
                                                                                                                            EW rowletory

                                                                                             3
                                                                                                  1          0 a            EfFicient
                                                                                                                            decision- mo6ins
                            0     CL
                    0       C                                    a  Le                                .0  1                 Standarized data
                                                                                    I& M                                    collection
                                         L                                 b                                 11'a C         formats
                                                                 0 0                VO
                                                      8.0                  'a                     0 -1
                                                      0.0                  3                         C       I              Hazardous waste
                            0                                                             41 1                              site location
                                         us      0                                         8                    C9
                                              3's               J,      -  .6       41    >                     00          Hozard@ws waste
               12    13     14    15     15   1?     Ja 1  19  1 21    121    22   1        24 1 25 126     in 11           1aFracts








                                                 50   55    54    53   52     51    W    49 1--48    4f   45          44    43    42
               NEXUS
                                                                          .0
                                                                      U% 8J.  31
                                                                  L-4 .4      .0   -4   i V;
                                                                                                           C
               Surface A ground                  0    a               Ole
               water choracterts-                                         3
                                                    6        L
               Lice
                                                                                                         OL  C
                                                                      U
               Air quality moniLo                                                                          0
               ring information                                                                         let 9 11    1     1
                                        3           R%A      1  1%1
                                                 (@ Ar                                   t I
               Treff i c p-ai wL i one  0                                                                  k-
               Air quality pollu-                                                                                       conomic
               Lion sources                         TAAPA IDAY FEDIONAL          INAMU CULPC(L                 Sjoncd:%Lors an FamilL
               Population                                                                                        TOPOGrOPhic
               projections            4-1         POL I CY/ I SSUE No. 1. 2                                      information
               Pood mop a              0          EfFecLs oF polluLing indus-                                    Tronaportation
                                                                                                                 net-v"
               Population W-Cwth                  Lrial FaciliLies on human                                      00000 DOI ce
                                                                                                                 indicator*
               Vacant, I"                         healLh. solid wasLe.                                           Storm water
               avoilobiliLly            0                                                                        sources
               %*ourcs coemiLmonE. 4-4                                                                           General date
                                                                                                                 an wells
                                                  Impact. Scor                Impact, Score                      Store woLsf- IMPOCL
                            nventor-y                                         Ass i gned                         lveter-quolitWl
                                         2,       To 0                AM
            I Land-tne 1              4-               j*Lr16uL&

               Rood A util ties                                                                                  Storm water impact
                                                                                                                 i flooding)
             it fro-struo urezp                                                                                  measurements
                   Z     Q %.                                C)  -     a                                         Voter A air quali-
                                                 'r jz@
                               Jr Jr                                                                             ty regulatory
                                    I                                                                            e6enciao
                                    do              P"                                             06            ErFicieviL
                        .0     31                   8                                                     b
                               .4                   40                                             1 *
                               CL        U)      C1                       0   6       q            L
                                                 I            L               )
               a  0     C                           1  5      0                                                  SLondorized date
                                                                                                                 collection
                                                 0.0                                             41 -9 -q #I-
                                          C 1*   J 1          0               40   1A  14.           10  43      formats
                                    L                                                            a 4-9 C
                                                 041   U-4 0  a    0                    0 40       0
                                    .0                                                     C                     Hazardous waste
                                                                                                       41
                                                      us, Is     J go     14   car 0-0
                                                                                      &          3   C  641      site location
                                                                                      I      I   I               Hazardous waste
                  13 1   14 1  15   15    1?     10  19 1 29 121     1 22  1 23    24  1 25 1 26 27              effects
                                                                                                     C I
                                                                                                     a
                                                                                                     .7@






                                                              58     55      54     53     W       51     0       43                                            J_
                                                                                                                         40  1 4f              4@     44     4i       4@_
                                                                                        C      9                   111
                                                                                               L
                    NEXUS                                                                                 31
                                                                                                          Al
                                                                                          U%?                               .4
                                                                                                                   Gq    0  '0    C
                                                                   01        a    T-a     I    I                a    I   a        a     C
                                                                                                                a
                    Surface a ground                                 a       4    lot     off                            0  .4    41
                    water thorecLorle-                        U                     4)    04041                                 1
                                                              4    -4        L    JU                                 L          11991, GIL C
                    Lice                                           1         9       sJ   U       Cr                     16
                                                                                                                                  4-C
                                                                        31        It.-O           L       .0             IV    A-0      CL
                    Air qualitV imcniLo-
                    ring information                                                                                                 JJK JJ 11
                    Traffic p-ciections                                                                                              1--l-A               I T-1

                    Air quality pollu-                                                                                                                  economic
                    Lion sources                                  TAAPA DAY FEDIM& CMIMTING COLKIL                                           @='%Lorv on ram, j,
                    Population                                                                                                                   Topovaphic
                    projections                                  POL I CY/ I SSUE No. 1, 2                                                       information
                    Road maps                                    EfFeAs oF polluLing indus-                                                      IreneporLation
                                                                                                                                                 net-w"
                                                                 Lrial fac'jliLies on human                                                      Denoweph i ce
                    PoputaLion growth                                                                                                            indicators
                    Vacant Iond-                                 heolLh. solid wasLe.                                                            Storm Water
                    ovallobillL9                                                                                                                 sources
                    Resource Commitment                                                                                                          Cam: ral d
                                                                                                                                                 on mile
                                                                 Impact Score                       Impact Score                                 Storm Water Impact
                    Lm-td-uee inventorW                          To DjsLri6uLa Cf                   Ass, i wwd                                   IV or-qu
                                                                                                                                                 AenluremennIvILWI
                    ROM a utilities                                                                                                              Storm woLer impact
                                                                                                                                                 I noodino)
                    inrre-eLrucLurezp                                                                                                            measurements
                                                                                                                                                 VaL;r 11:tr quail-
                                                                                                                                        3        tv "Ou         cry
                                                                                                                                                 ownciee
                                                                                                                                                 ErFicienL
                                                                                                                                                 decision- mAirV
                                        CL
                                                     01) 1
                        0       C                                                                         .4                                     SLanderized data
                                                                                                                                                 collection
                                                                                           -.0   1*  M
                                                                                   3   0                    S                     V C
                                                      C 4.                                                                                       formaLe
                                                                 a             OU
                                                                                                                0
                                                                                                                     C                           Hazardous waste

                                                                                                                                  C 9
                                                                                                                                         5       site location
                                                               ...6 It-ege                                O.'a       I
                        IS                                                                                                             -            zordous waste
                                                                                                                                                 He
                  2     13       14 1  15   1   15    ly       18    19      21 21         22      23     24       25








                                                                50      55     54          53 52 1 51          M 149           40     4f        45    45      44      43      42
                   N
                                     US                               f I                  C      9
                                                                        a                  0      L                     Is                         11
                          EX                                          416                         .00
                                                                        I      V           43,                           cat      .9 40
                                                                                C            U4.       3       -1         .0      4   1         Mb
                                                                                           L-
                                                                                0          1.."                                U -a
                                                                                           0
                   Surfece 8 ground                     d                                                                      U .4             C
                                                        .0     U                             as*                                  -4
                   water charecLeris-                                                        0.04)
                                                        A                       L          C U L-0 U3 91
                   Lice                                                                                                   L
                                                                                                                          J    .  3          OL C
                   Air qualikii moniLa-                                                               L        .0        1                    as
                                                                                                                                  5     U
                   ring information                                                                                   04;                 lei .8 0. -4;    1

                                     ect I o new
                   Trv(T i c proi

                   Air quality pollu-
                                                                                                                                                     Soct economic
                   Lion sources                                       TAAPA BAY RZIUMAL                     INATING CULMIL                            InZe'Lore an r..,j
                   Population        9                  'It                                                                                             7opographic
                   projection                                      POL I CY/ I SSUE No. 1. 3                                                            informat i an
                   Road maps                                       EffeAs of land use. zonIng                                                           7conapartation,
                                                                                                                                                        nvL-work
                   Population growth                    ko         and redevelopmenL on Lhe                                                             Democrophice
                                                        rxO        habiLaL and eco-sysLem.                                                              Indicators
                   Yocont I and                                                                                                                         Storm water
                                                                                                                                                        sources


                                                        off
                   Resource cossiLment, n                                                                                                               General date
                                                        f- )       Impact Scare                         Impact Scare.                                   on wells
                   L and -use inventory                 ;IQ                                                                                    11',io   Storm water- impact
                                                                   To Dj*Lr16uLe                        Aso i wvod                                      (W er-qu:]:ty I
                                                                                                                                                        A9:81ureme L
                                                                                                                                        A
                   Rood A utilities                                                                                                            541,o    Storm water       tospecL
                                                                                                                                             %K         Moodina)
                   it fro-structurexp I                                                                                                                 measurements
                                                                                                                                                        Voter 11 air      Wei i
                                                                                                                                                        ty regulatory
                                                                                                                                                   1    agencies,
                                                                      P"                                                                                ErficienL
                                                                      a                                                                         -       doe 19 1 an - mak i no
                                                                      41                      -0     .0       40     4;
                                                                      I    C
                                 C                                                                    1          2   1         1  a
                                                        U)                 0  0  L         0                                   41 0   41                SLandorized data
                                                                  140      a                                                                            collection
                        a                                       J a
                                                        C 4b  I                                                                                         rormeLs
                                                                  0.400                                                             1    c
                                                                           C                                                                            Hazardous waste
                        0  0                            140                                                      0
                                                 I         I,  114..D I          ?         .0
                                                ti.     3.0      14.                          21                                  a      0               Its location
                                                                                                                 I                       " 74-          s
                                                                  IS                                                                   C
                        3.00                                          1    .               JSO                                         a a    -         14     dous waste
                  2     13        14-    S        16    1?       10     19
                                                                               20          21 22       23 -A   24       2S     26    27                 of facts







                                                         _JW.J 51                         4
                                           50 1 55    54   53                       40   T 1 46 1   45 1 44   43  42
                                                            C    4                 -                              -
                                                                 L
              NEXUS                        %4
                                                           13                        6
                                                                                             Its
                      a VIMWW
                                               3N
            I water chorecLerte
                                                      L    a         Cr
                                               9 1    3    9 0
              Lice                                                                       I I OL C
                                               U4.J                  L   .1
              Air qual itli maniLo-
            2 ring inFormation        C                                                      as 00
            2 Treff i c prej set i one   4y                             +
            4 Air quality pollu-      .4                                                            Socia- economic
            - Lion sources            l       TAAFA 13AY RZIONAL        WING CMMEL                  indicator* an Famil,
              Population              0                                                      +      Topographic
            6 projections                    POL[CY/ISSLJE No. 1.3                                  information
            6 Road saps               +      EffecLs of land u,se. zonIng                           Trww*artstian
                                      71                                                            nat -work
            r PbputeLlon growth              and redevelopmenL on Lhe                               Demographics
                                                                                              ID    indicators
                                      t      habiLat and eco-system.
              Vacant I and                                                                          Stairs water
                                                                                                    sources
                                      t                                                       o     Gene, a
            9 POSOWCe COMILMnL        .2,
                                                                                                    an wells
                                            Ispect Sears             Impact Soars
                                      4-                                                     _r     Star-P water impact
              Lzind-use invent"             To Distribute            A99 i wied
                                                                                                    Avasurements
              Road a Util ties                                                                      5LOM Water impact
                                                                                                    I rloodLng)
              infro-structuret                                                                      measurements
                       ructure_pJ
                              ;V
                                                                             4-V)       o    +      Voter A air quals-
                                                                                                    tv reculeLorW
                                                                                             T\     EfTicienL
                                                                                                    d9C191On'mok1nfj
                 6         CL                                                                       SLenderized doLo
                                                                                                    collection
                                                               i.0 i& M         .0 ) .0 .4; J
                D                     C 46   0                                         0 C
                                                0                                                   Hazardous waste
                                                          13
                                                            0                                       site loc
                                           six Ito J I   J U
                                                                                                    Mazardou
                                      7   is   19                   23                                      a waste
            -12  13   14   is t 11                                                 26    27         effects









                            WOM date                                                   >

                          Level of aw-vice
                          date                              n   Ir
                                                 I C
                            Ames Lr-w"=IL        I 1@
                                                                                 130 A

                                                                4C
                                            4                                                   C-3
                            Water supply                                0

                                                                                                  0



                            Common GIS
                            date ror-mate
                            E & r-ommownto                                                  +    Sol
                            ;ffaatm am                                                       44
                             061t*46                                    0
                                                                                             4    fits
                                                                    0   :1
                                                                    Cr  Q-
                            effoc@m on
                            Ow"41LIVID land                                 CD       >
                                                                        -1  0                +    ve
                            indicators                   0          a   m
                                                                                                  Kj
                            Land une                                    <
                            categor a an                            :3  m   *I   U)
                                                                    CL  P@                        coo
                            Educational                                 0        C@               Or
                                                                                 ("  Y       +
                            lr%aiamter-a     6                      CD  m        r                PC
                                                                    0   a   3
                            Run wrP star-   +                           m   CL                    Ai
                                                                        3        z           0
                                                                        m   C
                                                                    (C      M
                                                                                                  VO
                          Stondmapker- a CL:MpIJL                   m   o   m
                          1"' -- - - , I " - .1 (b                  Cq- :)
                            FPAJM Off water                         m                        +    00
                                                                    a   C-  N                q    t a
                            quantity                                    3-  0                     we
                            Humben v s ta I                             m                         Tr

                                                                                                  con
                             Chical                                                               C
                            an Pe'damtr-0-10                                                      an
                            petiante
                                         4-                                        +         4    Reg
                                                                                                  :
                                                                                                   a
                                                                                                  10


                                 "In (n CL MC- OC                                 -4
                                                 1                               2   CL
                                                     0.                    '7    R-'
                                                                      n
                                                                                      0,n
                                 le- rn-         a   0
                                                 3
                                                      30 a
                                      o                      OM       0 R   co@        13,
                              4     Q.


                                      'a
                                                   0







                                                      50    55 1 54 1 53 1    N      51     0    49     40     4F    10 1   45 1 44
                                                                           C
                                                          L                      L
                  NEXUS
                                                           I      V X                      41    -L4,     a .0
                                                                         L.. fac- I                                    I

                  Surface
                            A ground
               I  water charocLeris-
                                                                                                                       dig
                                                                                                    L  161.    all OL C
                  ts                                      a I     Is.  look          W     1           14.
                                                          U6           51.4                                    .4.0
                  Air qualttV manits-                                                                          1,009
               2  ring information                                                                        5 U a It   i C4     1

               g  Trdric projections
               4  Air quality pollu-                                                                                        Soc i asconce i c
               -  Lion sources                           TAAPA IDAY FEBIM& CMFIDINNTIMU CUCIL                               indicators on Foot].
                  Population                                                                                                Topographic
               S. projections                           POLICY/ISSLE No. 1.4                                                information
                    oad me ps                           Vater qua I I Ly: suLroph I ca                                      TrantVactation
                                                                                                                            nst-w"
                  Population o-vvU                      Lion and.jLs impact on                                              Demographics
                                                        living resources                                             (to    indicators
                  Vacent I and                                                                                              Store WGLW-
                  evallabiliLv                                                                                     4@-      SOLKIC"         ,21@
               9  Reecurce cow i Leent                                                                                      General deAp
                                                                                                                            an wells
                  LAnd-uss invent" A.                   Impact Score      Uq          IwVoct Score                          Sterol wet sr I      k
                                                        To DjeLrihuLa                       WMd                             1weLer-qualit
                                           I        I                                                                       Avesuremiente
                  RMd a utilities            0                                                                              Store water impact
                  infre-atructureV                                                                                          inooainu)
                            ructurev                                                                                        measurements
                      Q@                                                                                                    \Motor A air Wei I
                                         Ar          :L 4r                                       ;L                4-       ty regulatory
                                                                                                                            agencies
                                                         P"                                                                 Efficient
                                                          a                                      1                  0       decialan*locksmg
                     0      a     IL                            Is Le                                        lot
                                                                                                               401 @&O      SLanderized data
                                                                                                               I            collection
                                              C C&   -a a                                 IS                   "aC          forseLe
                                                       9.0      a  0      00                                   t 0
                                                    If.* do               it              k                     .6          Hazardous wasta
                                              13                                            1    0    a  6      4)
                                                                                                               C            site location
                                                        X              J  U
                                                                                                               0 a
                                                                                                                            hazardous waste
               12    13     14    Is     is   I?      to  19     21    2 I-r22      23    24     2S    26   127             effects,







                                                                        54  1 53             51            49      48     4F     40 -45        44 143       42
                                                                                  C
                                                                                  !   5'  L
                                                             509 55                       6                       6
                                                              4) 4                                        is" 3           8
                  NEXUS                                       14        -0   x 1.0                          LI, 0 0.0
                                                                  C     1           20
                                                              a   a                 C 'D
                  Surface & ground                           4)C                    6 a
                                              +                                                                           1419
                                                                                                                            V       CO
                  water choracLarls-                         0> .0                                                          1
                  Lice                          0            4.4        L           .0       W                L           9
                                                             .0                   U   V                                         OL  C
                                                                                  0                                            ; CL
                                                              016.  31  J'    51@4)   U.-    L     -a                       0     it
                  Air qualitV montLo-                                                               1.                5   U to
                  ritv inrorpoLion
                                                                                                                                 a CL


                  Traffic projections

                  Air quality pollu-                                                                                                   socia-economic
                  Lion sources
                                                              TAAPA EKY FEBIONAL CUUMINNTINO CUUNCIL                                    indicators on romjN
                  Population                                                                                                              Topographic
                  projections                                POL I CY/ I SSUE No. I - 4                                                   information
                  Road maps                                  VaLer quahLy: euLropkica-                                                    Tronaportation
                  Population growth                          Lion and jb; impacL an                                                       Demogroph i ce
                                                                                                                                          indicators
                                                             living reeources
                  Vacant land                                                                                                             Star* water
                  availability                                                                                                            sources
                  Resource commitment.                                                                                                    General date
                                                                                                                                          on wells
                                                             I"cL Scorm                       Impact scors                       4-,      Storm water impact
                  LAnd-uss inventory                         To DiaLri6uLo                    Avq i wad                                   Ivater quality)
                                                                                                                                          AeevuremonLo
                  PAMd I utilities                                                                                                        Storm water impact
                  Lnfro-structurezp                                                                                                       i nooding)
                                                                                                                                          measurements
                                                                                                                                          Voter A air quali-
                                                                                                   +                                      LW regulatory
                                                                                                                                          agencies
                                                                                                                          L               Efficient.
                                                                    L
                                                                                                   31                     0 Q
                                                                                                   40     41              V @                                      I
                                                                                                      .1  1                               decl a$ on- mok i rig
                                                                        20 Le                                                  J          StenJorized date
                  -.0                                                                 0                                                   collection
                  a   04.                   a                                     L   -.0                             j   -.03     -a
                  IV  0                           C 46.      .00 5                "0                                      1"0 C           rormaLs
                                            L                0.0        0 0               01                              a t !
                                                                                                                                          hazardous waste
                                                                                                          0
                                                  941        X      C                                         0
                      >                                                                                          3    4)  1 CI            site location
                      3.00  C                       -00                        j  U,           W
                                           ILI          64.                                    1
                                  I                                                                ;P I                                   Hazardous waste
               2      13     14                   1?         le 1 19    21   121      22     23 124     1 25 1            27
                                    is  1   161                                                                                 Re        effects
                                                                                                                      (L







                                            .50  55     54  53 1 W 1    51 1 9 148   1    48 14? 1 45 145  44 143
                                                L IL               L
                                                of                 0
              NEXUS                                                40
                                                            11     a
                                                            L@4  24.3,
                                                                   01   4)         go"
                                                                        -d           I
              Surface & ground                                          .4                -6 .0 .4 C
                               t.                                       I         I a     1-0
            1 water character a              0  >                001-0          19        441
                                                                                          3i...1 OL C
                                                                                     L
              Lice                               0      L  CO   0
                                                .6's.   3        is. =, L, I     M
              Air qualitu eonlLo-                                                           a I S
            2                                  1%8        A 1     Ma    <" I   A; of      iU9, ego,
              ring information

            3 TrafTic Projections
            4 Air quality pollu-                                                                      Socia- economic
              Lion sources
              Population                       TAAPA 19AY RMIUM&          (N%TIWJ CUJCIL              indicators an F=Ll@
            5 projectione                     POL I CY/ I SSUE No.                                    Topographic
                                                                                                      Lnfor"t i an
            6 Rood "a                         Overlap duplicaLe services                              Traromportat i an
                                                                                                      net - ""
                                              beLween E.P.C..Rate and                                 Damograoice
            r PopulaLion growth                                                                       indicators
                                              Countq regulaLions e.g.
              Vacant Iond                                                                             Storm water
                                              RaLe and CounLy permUs.                            0-7
              Poscurce cam i too.nL                                                                   General date
                                                                                                      an wells
                                              Impact, Scare   -To       Impact Scor  'a               Storm Water IMP04CL
            is Land-uso SnWwA4PrW   -'t,      To Diotri6uLs,            Avoloned          ITD         I water -quo I i Lig I
                                                                                                      AeasuremenLe
              Poad a utilities                                                                        Stars water ispocL
              infre-structummp                                                                        (flooding)
                                                                                                      measurements
                                                                                                      Voter A air quoh-
                                                                                                      "*y regulatory
                                                                           T                   A 'AGOM IGO
                                                                                                      EFFjcj&nL
                                                                                                      docislon*00king
                            CL
              4 a     C                               .1L                                             SLanderized data
            041                                       1 0   9                                         collection
            C4                                                     -a P& M         40 3"  -4
                                                                                          0
                0                L                               .03 % t           -4     1.1 C       formats
                                                 0    6 0                                 at!
                                                                                   -C,1   .0            zordous waste
                                                                                                      He
                Is's  1     0
                                             U1            IJ                             I@ 1 0      site location
                                              x  to                I                          A
                  -001         1                                                          _W_         Hazardous waste
                                                                          24    25 26
            12  13 1 14    IS J  16   1?     Is is      21  -21 22      23                            > effects
                                                 tool







                                                              58      55      54      53 1 52        51      9      48      40-      _4F   40 145.         44      43            4
                                                                    f I                   I     f                    a                        I
                  NEXUS
                                                                                      L 24  04-Ad    3       .4.6    14,    8 G.
                                                                                               o    .0       V"             6.0
                  Surface & ground                                                                                                   41
                  water characLaris-                                                                                                 ISO$ g
                  Lim                                                                lok    U.,                                        r    L C
                                                                                    s6e-o g--                                    U
                  Air qualitV nonita-
                 2                                                 vita            Al ka
                  ring information

                 3Traffic projecUors
                 4Air quality pollu-                                                                                                                t" I a  econom I c
                  Lion ocxm ce                                                                                                                      IndleaLore on Fssil@
                  Population                                                                                                                        T         aphic
                 Sprojections                                    POLICY/ISSLE No.                                                          131      information
                 6plood mope                                                                                                                        Tr          tation
                                                                 Standard street mapping                                                            not - work
                                                                 methodology: compatible                                                            Domaw i ce
                 rPoputaLionGrowth                               names and addresses bet-                                                           indicators
                  VOCW* I end                                     Ween counties.                                                                    Store water
                  mmi labi I iLy                                                                                                                    Sources
    log           Pasource cam i tsent                                                                                                              Goner I date
                                                   0                                            kv4 ImpacL Soore                                    an wells
                                                                                                                                                    Storm water Impact
                 Is Lwwkwe inventory                                                            FAIA99 i wwd                                        looter-quality)
                                                                                                                                                    AvaeurseenLe
                  Rmd I utilities                                                                                                                   Star= water jnpacL
                 It                                                                                                                                 (flooding)
                  infre-structurov                  N-1                                                                                             measurements
                 4    3      6                                                1     1                                                               Water A air qu*li-
                                                                                            0                                        0              ty          atory
                                                                                                                                 10                 ErFicionL
                                                                                                                                 04       .3        deCJ*10n'mc141nV
                                                                                                                                     L
                                                                                                                                     L
                                                                             9  L                                  Ox         0      48             SLandarized data
                                                                             1  a                                                                   c Ilection
                                                                                                                                 $,11 C             r:=ts
                                                                       U     a  0           a So      4-41                    6                                            -
                                                                                                                              ao v                  Mazordous waste
                                                                                                                                                    wto location
                                                     6                                                                           1 A
                                                               U


                                                                                                       ir  >
                                                                                                                                                    Hazardous waste
                                                                      too]
                                                                  L19 1       21  121 1     22   1 23    124 1 25        126     127 1,             erfecte
                 12    13       14 rIS         IGTI?          16










                                L-A4M%,&Ibw &=sow
                                u,we Watm

                                                                                            0
                                Level of *or-vios                                           a -
                                doto                      IN   C                            n a
                                                          C                        C!-
                                Aeso tr-anelt             L-         0     =-1     3
                                                               3           rw
                                                          =               cc
                            5j  Vetw- supplu
                                                                                   0


                                                                                                    C



                                Comwen GIS
                                Clatim f IN-make



                                Onvar-onmen'Lal                            M   0   M  C-
                                Offect.0 on
                            -gWeitiva land
                                SOMAO-MMOnOMILM      I                         m   a  a-
                                indicetors                                 n       CL a
                                                                           0   0   0  1
                                                                           C   3   -  CL
                                Land ume
                                                                           :)  a.  0
                                Coteacelew                                         CO Ca
                                                                                   tc                          cc
                                Educational                                ca  CL                              of
                                                                                                               PC
                                                                               CL     C13
                                                                               "I     CD
                                R..,., wFf-                                    CO  0  M                        A
                                qwe I a ttj                                    M   a        z
                                                                               0)  M  a     0
                                                                                                               ve

                                FkM off wotep-                                 Cr  Cr                          Od
                                quentitU                                       C1                              4L
                                Human %0 1 tal                                                                 an
                                MLOLSOLSOO                                                                MT
                                Andaanji  0-000r4d                                                        -71-
                                am pedzWto-r-10                                                                ac
                                petAents                                                                       M4
                                                                                                               Re
                                                                           C.)                                 010

                                      -in Cn 2. rn twqc                      (A         -4  w-4
                                            n      C a

                                      r-n


                                 ch                                   Ch-                        a













                                         IM  13          53W     51   a    a    45 4r      110  1"   44 43      IQ
                                                         C     0
                                                               L      31
           NEXUS
                                                            0   4         1 a-      "I
                                            01    a                             us
                                            C                                              C
           Surface A ground     'I o                        one           44
           water charecLeris,            0                                                1  .
                                                                                         OL  C
                                         -4       L    Sol                  5 L
           Live                                          I_U 92       1
                                            U14                                            11C
                                             - 1  .00  616.0     L   40   3 3  t. ,    "4  9 1
                                                                              I        IS  0 a
           Air quality maniLo-                                                I L   U      a-
           ring information

           Traffic p-ciactions

           Air quality pollu-                                                                         &conomic
           Lion sources                     TAFIPA SAY FEBIONAL COUFUINATING CULKIL            It.":o-Lors on r.jj,
           Population                                                                            Topcgraphic
           projections                    POL I CY/ I SSLJE No - 2.1                             inrormation
           Ptood maps                     WaLer quallLy general daLa                             TranaporLation
                                                                                                 nsL-work
           PoputaLion growth              sLandardized Lo be skared                              Demooraph i ce
                                                                                                 indicator*
           Vacant lend                    by mufti-jur)BdIcLional                                Storm water
           availobilit,V                  bodies.                                                Ources
           Resource commiLment,                                                                  General date
                                                                                                 on wells
                                          Impact Scare            Impact Sca                     Storm water jmpacL
           Land-use invent,wV             To Dj*Lr16uLe           A,,,,.d ru jov            to   I water -qua I I ty
                                                                                                 AeasuremenLe
           Pbed a utilities                                                                      SLm-no water impact
                 -struc urezP                                                                    i noociing)
           inrre                                                                                 .66surements
                                                                                                       A air quals-
                                                                                           41D
                        -C-                                                                      a
                                                                                                 a0enc I so
                                                                                                 ErFjcj*nL
                                            P"
                                            9                                                    decision- 1"Oking
                                            40                                             bi                       I
                         CL
                    C         OW                  a Le                                           SLondorized date
                                                    0    9                    31                 collection
                                         9.0        a    9L        M          .0 1) 41 -4.0
                                    0    -a 9     1 0    30                   "   a ST C
               0              L    C 4.  9.0      a 0    .0               0   40    9
                                                                                                 Hazardous waste
               2, .01                                    1 0                        9 C I        vita location
                0                                        1U
                M                                                   1>  I                        Hazardous waste
          2    13   14   IS   18   17    10  19 1 28     211 22  23 124     25  26    2?         aFfects
                                         C
                                         ta.8 lirl-9.












                                                                                                                             40      45    44     43            4
                                                       .50       55      54  53 52         51     tO    49      40     4f
                                                                                C      0                                                                      7
                                                                                       L
                  NEXUS
                                                                               1-1     1         41
                                                                                     0     43    P"            U .0
                                                                                                                              C
                  Surface & ground
                  water characLarts-                     U                           0                                      Ix C
                                                                 41                  '04,                                   C 9
                                                                         L           ve                    L
                  Live                                   41      1       9  1                                               OL C
                                                         CL  U to.3      j  14-.0          L            .5                  AL I
                  Air qualitV montLo-                                                                                  i0f
                                                                                                        6:             UUa
                  ring inrormaLlon                          R%,A          11W a                                             ire 0
                  Trefric projections                                                                  L
                  Air quality pollu-                                                                                                Socia- economic
                  Lion sources                               TAAPA UAY REDIONAL.               INNTINO CULML                        Indicators on re.11,
                  Population                                                                                                          Topovo;,h I C
                  projections                              POL I CY/ [ SSUE No - 2. 2                                                 information
                  Pond maps                                 To eeLaWiek a date exchan-                                                Tronapoi-Lation
                                                                                                                                      nek,-w"
                  PbpulaLion growth                        ge sLandard Format: data                                                   Demov oph Ice
                                                                                                                                      indicators
                  Vacant I and                             dictionary and 0.9 A. re-                                                  Storm water
                  availability                              porL.                                                                     scmxcso           ANIL
                  Resource cosmiLownt,                                                                                                General date
                                                                                                                                      on Valle
                                                           Impact Scare                     Impact, Score          h^                 Storm water impact
                  Lsnd-uve invent,orV                     To Dj*Lr16uLv'12S                 Aso i wwd                                 IveLer-quallLY)
                                                                                                                                      Asesurements
                  Road I utilities                                                                                                    Store voLar impact
                                                                                                                                      (Flooding)
                  infro-aLructursitp                                                                                                  measurements
                                                                                                                                      Voter I air quah-
                                              13                                                                                      tw regulatory
                                                                                                                                      agencies
                                                                     0                                                 L              ErFicient.
                                                                                           L                           00
                                                                                           a                                          dec I a i an - onak i nq
                                                              41                           .0           41
                                                                 C                         I                           LL
                                                                     a   L                 I                                          Standarized date
                                                                                                                       41
                                                                                                                       I              collection
                 -V                              CU      J a                                                     41    "              roraeLs
                                                                                                                       I'D C
                                    L      L                                                            0
                                                       IN-0      U   0   00          1
                                                                                     '0
                                                                                     U          L          C                             ordous waste
                                                                                                                 A                    Haz
                     9 0                               ;q.91                   .00   310   C
                                                                                0          34   41               J                    site location
                                                                                       -4
                            -C,    >                  6%..@    Re           J   0          Cr
                                                                                                >                                     Hazardous waste
                                                                                                                       -1             arrects
                     1:3     14    15      15    1?  1   16 1    19 1 21  121    1   22    23    24     2S     26      27
                                                                                                                       L


                                                        C
                                                                 C                                                  ILI
                                                                 4



                                                                 U
                                                                 0
                                                                 4






                                                               50        55    54  1 53- 52           51 1 W         10       40 4? 1 45             q5-     44 143- 42
                                                                                           C       9                                             4
                                                                                                  L
                   NEXUS                                             to        "Q     61-03 U4.1      3                                        >6
                                                                                              .0       p                                         6
                                                                                                                       1"4    0   .0
                                                                                                                         1    4   .4   1
                                                                                                                                       40      C
                                                                                           0                                  a -4           -0  0
                   Surface A ground                                                        CL as@                                       'D
                   water characLarts-                          0         41                   04J4J                                          It  C
                                                                                                                                  4)        C a
                                                                               L      1 0 k                                       3    9
                   Lice                                              -01                      -U 9.3                                   @*   OL C
                                                                     016. .1          640940                                  to V     .4;
                   Air Wal%Lu moniLo-                                                                                                  i0e
                                                                                                             >0                        UQ a to ou -C L
                   ring information


                   Traffic Projections

                   Air qualiLM pollu-                                                                                                                Soc   a   sconom I C
                   Lion sources                                      TAAPA BAY REMWL CMUMTING COLMIL                                                 i n4icaLore On FDIM I I L
                   Population                                                                                                                          Topogrof-@ I c
                   projections                                     POLICY/ISSLJE No. 2.2                                                               information
                   Road maps                                       To esLo6l IBH 0 data exchan-                                                        TrarAwortation
                                                                                                                                                       n@L-work
                                                                   ge sLandord FormciL: daLa                                                           Demogi aphice
                   Population growth                                                                                                                   indicators
                   Vacant Iond                                     dicLionary and 0.9 A. re-                                                           Storm water
                                                                                                                                                       sources
                   evallobittLy                                    porL.
                   Reeciiii-cs commiLvent,                                                                                                             General date
                                                                                                                                                       an veils
                                                                   1"cL Scare                           Impact Score                                   Storm water JMPOCL
                   Lond-usi inventory                              To Distribute (2SMAegigned                                                          I* or-qu         it  Y
                                                  I                                                                                                    As:410uremenalls ' '
                                     Sties,                                                                                                            Store water impact
                                                                                                                                                       mooding)
                   infre-structuroxf                                                                                                                   measurements
                   pload a Ut      I

                                                         Q)                                                                                            Voter a air C;U81 I
                                                                                                                                                       LW reouleLory
                                                                                                                                       0                      Joe
                                                                               0                                                       L               ErriciemL
                                                                                                                                                       dect si on- mak ir,9
                                                                     40                                      40
                                                                         C                                                             L L
                                                                                                                             40   f
                                                                         0     0 L                                                     41              SLarx6rized JaLo
                                                                                                                                       83              collection
                                                                               U 0    9       0
                                                                                 0            *f     Vol                                               rorsoLe
                                                L      C t.                                h                                           tc
                                                                 141     U     a U
                                                                                           0  1
                                                                                           9  U                                                        Hat dous, waste
                                                                                                                                       V                   a,-
                       36,40                                                                                                           11 q            Oita location
                                                                 I"'     U                                                   x    a
                       3; 1                                    it I                   J    SO                9
                                                                                                            >                                          Hazardous waste
                 2     13       14     15       10     1?       10       19    3      21      22      23     24       25      25       2?
                                                                         C
                                                                         a


                                                                         t
                                                                         U
                                                                         alc







                                                       50       55     54    53      52  of    M          1 40- 1-4r   1 4_1   45-1 44 1 .43        42
                                                             01                 C    0
                                                             L                       L
                                                                                               41           lie
                  NEXUS                                                V        -3
                                                                             Lo4     U4.
                                                                          -.I&.q     .0
                                                                                                                           of
                  Surface A 9round           4-        J     C                                                             C
                                                            " I        1     .8      one
                  water charocLsris-          ID       U        41                   "0                      40      0  OL C
                  Lice                                  4              L  J 0 L      "040 2             1.        too
                                                                to. 31 J  6 .0          L     .0                     :04
                  Air qualitV monit,a-                                       U.                             L
                                                      I     lu % A        let        .:4@     :90   a; is  4      J v I to co-
                  ring inrcrooLion            _. I I I                          I                                          -A       I      I     I
                                                                                              A-T-_
                  Traffic p-ciections                                           I    0_1
                  Air quality pollu-                                                                                                    econamic
                  tion sources
                                                           TAAPA EKY RMIDNAL                 INNTIM CMXIL                             store cwt Fams I,
                  Population                                                                                                     70pographic
                  projections                             POLICY/ISSUE                   No. 2.7                                 information
                  Rood maps                               Water quality                general date                              7rarteportation
                                                                                                                                 n*L-work
                  Population w-ovEh                       standardized to 6e skared                                              Demoo oph Ice
                                                          by mulLi-jurisdicLional                                                indicators
                  Vacant I"                                                                                                      Storm water
                  avc3lo6ility                            bodies.                                                                sources

                  Psecurce conmitsent.
                              t "                                                                                          I &   an wells
                                                         Impact Score        4            [impact Scorn
                                                                                                                                      m
               i Larwl-uss inventory                     To DiArtlauLe                   Aso I wod                               Star      quality)
                                                                                                                                 Aecourome   nts
                  Road A utilities                                                                                               Storm water     impcoci,
                                                                                                                           14
                  inrro-oEructurexp                                                                                              fteasurements
                                                                G                       1-6                              +       Voter A air quail-
                                  +     4-
                                                                                                    +-1              17*11       tw regulatory
                                                                                                                                 acem I so
                                                                                                J
                                                                                                 3                               Efficient,
                                                                                                                  6.4            decision-moking
                      9       C                                     0  Le                                                        SLondarized date
                                                                                                                                 collection
                                                                    fg, J0                                                       formaL*
                @'a  0                    L     C 4"                                                              41,11 C
                                                                       0     0
                                                                       a     0       061                             t
                        0     9    4      4     1 9                                  a           t  ;   C            @   1-      Hazardous voste
                                                        9i                           3           a                   41
                                   9              1       8                                                       vC I     q     site location
                             s:
                                                                of        13 '309,   -4   ir  8.0
                                                        IS                                                                 q     Hazardous waste
               2    _13  J    I-4  IS     16    IT.    10       19     28 21    1    22 23 J_ 24_     25   26     27             effects
                                                                tell








                                                50 1 55     54  53    52       519    49     4 6 4 f    4465 45    44     43

                                                                        L              a
               NEXUS
                                                                        10                              r
               Surfe,cm A W.C"                                        5 a      :      all    4.-4
                                                                      34                                   CU
           I   water charecLarts-               0  )0.0
               Lice                             04 .40      L         !'01     W         L    3  Isf   I L "C
                                                                      09,4            1 if  6 -
                                                                      6        L     .0 4A
               Air qualitU maniLa-                          4)  10-40
           2                                       Pit
                                                                                                        ma-
               rine inforeaLlon                                                                         a a

           3   Traffic projWtions            I
           4   Air qualiLy pollu-                                                                            Soc I asconca I C
               Lion sources
           -   Population                          TAAPA 19AY FUROM MCFUIMTING CULKIL                        IrodiceLore on Femil
           S                                                                                                  Topovophic
               projections                        POL I CY/ I SSUE No               3. 1                      information
           6   Pbod soops                                                                               4 V   T(Onapa tat Ion
                                         V,       Voter suppIg-InfrostrucLure                                 rML-work
           r   Population grovth                                                                        I- y  Demographics
                                      /9          to meet population growth:                              q@  indicators
               Vacant, 1              4- V        surFace and groud water                                     Store water
               oval labi I I LN                   characteristics.                                            sources
                                      4-                                                                      Goi w a I date
           9   Raeourve come i tsent,                                                                         an wells
                                      .  V :      IMPOct Score                 Impact Score                   StCW-m water Impact
           I@  Lwd-use irrvntary                  To Distribute                Asw i wwd                      I water -qua I ity I
                                     I-t-  I                                                                  Aeoviremente
               %Cj a utilities                                                                                SLars, "Ler impact
               infre-stru                                                                                     I flooding)
                                                                                                              measurements
                                                                                                              Water A air qualt-
                                                                                                              til regulat"
                                                                                                              o0encies
                                                                                                              EfFicient,


                              CL        U)
                                                            aLe                                               ftwx6rizad data
                                                                                                              collection
                                                                      --0  OW  M              41
                  a                      C th   J I         I1 3                                              for"Le
                                                                                  A                 C
                                    L                 0     a0        *11 % t      I
                                   4                                  8        1                 3!     ,   V Hazardous vasta,
                                                OX    8        _j a                                           site location
                                        3.19    6                     S i  I    j 3           go
                 341          -  I     I                                                   I  a     q       I Hazardous waste
             12   13    14    is    16   IF     18   111    21 21     22       23 24   25 26 2?               arrects
                                                      tool








                                                           50       55    54      53     5W2    51      9      G       140 4? 1 10                  44      43
                                                                                    r
                                                                  .001
                  NEXUS
                                                                                                                 4-0 1"
                                                                                                                 4-0
                                                                                         ZO
                                                                  a         a       0 -0                           1   1              C
                                                                  C                                           as
                  Surface A W-ound                                                                           ; I a     a           -1 f
                                                           U      .4                     age
                  water charect,sris-                             >                      0.0                             .0
                                                                  40        L       L    .00                                        0 L C
                  Lies                                              0       0     go     U g-
                                                                  U14. 31  J             U.-d          .0              4 V
                  Air qualitV maniLo-                                                                          1A               of
                                                          if                   2% 11@1_4 a                   0 0             U01    90
                  ring InforsoLion                                                                                                    4 a        I      I

                  Truffic projwLions

                  Air quality pollu-                                                                                                        Sac   a   sconam I c
                  Lion sources                                                                                                              IndiceLors on romij,
                  Population                                      TWA BAY RMIOML CMUINNTING allCIL                                  y         Topographic
                  projections                                 POL I CY/ I SSLE No                           3. 1                      )CI     information
                  Road maps                                                                                                                   TroneportaLion
                                               7              VaLer eupply-infroeLrucLure                                                     neL-work
                  PoputoLion w-awth             @O                                                                                            Demographics
                                                              Lo meeL populaLlon growLh:                                                      Indicators
                  vacant I"                    I/             eurFace and groud waLer                                                         Storm Water
                                                10            chcrccLerisLice.                                                                sources
                                                                                                                                              Gerwrol Join
                  Raeowce commiLsent,                                                                                                70       an wells
                                                              Impact Score                        ["at Score                                  Store water impact
                  Lm-vd-uss inventorW                        To Dj*LribuLe                       Awviwwd                                      (weLor-qual     it YI
              ]R.d a utilities                                                                                                                SLorm water inpocL
                  infre-strAic Ur9zP                                                                                                          inoajino)
                                                                                                                                              measurements
                       C                                                                                                                      Water & air quoit-
                       ',,4                                                                                                                   EW regulatorW

                                                                                                                             L                EFTictenL
                                                                                                                             ou
                       >                                                                                                     a"               decision,making
                                                       At
                                     -CL               9
                       0      C                                             Le                                         41       40    V,      R"orized JaLa
                                                       I                                                               "        I I      I    collection
                      46.                                                   3     : r    !                   IA.             .4.4 43   IL
                                                    C I&                    a     3 0    40            IS    4.   t          I'D C            rormaLe
                       0                                                                                  t   0   .0         V 1 .9
                                      L      L                              U
                                                                                                                                              Hazardous vast,
                                                                                                          .0
                                                            t& I         a                                                J                   site location
                                                                                                                          I  @ C a
                                                             IX     a   in                        g-     41 1                   a Q
                                                                                                                                              Hazardous
              2        13     14     IS      16     IT      18_1 19        21     21     22      23            2S      26    2?               efrects
                                                                                                                                                              -44
                                                                                                                                                              to




















                                                                    U
                                                                                                                                                              a*ts
                                                                                                                                                              .1ton








                                          50   55    54   63  52    51   0    48   40   4f    40 145    44   43

                                                                 L

                                                                               LPO      .0
                                                                               . . I !
             NEXUS                            it                         3

             Surface At Vound
                                           0    6    4  13,   Is's  -'s, I
          I  water charecterls-                                414
             tics                                    L    so        W                   Ole  OL C
                                                     a              !    41
                                              016.3  .4                                          C
             Air qualitV sonito-              ha
                                                                                          of
          2                                              6(481   a              Do      u0saga
             rino inforpotion                          I                                                    I         I
                                                     Q1 (0 . (0          01(1               W               I        I
          3  Traffic projections

             Air qLmljtw Pollu-                                                                   Soclo- sc
          4  Lion sour-c"                                                                                   oncoic
                                            EtLy.@*1,,,%;@Yll;-Icitl@l-'4[91 I-LIJUAdf: rZkO-LIC   IndJosLore on Feall@
             Population                                                                      41 @   TWOV601C
          6  projections                    POL I CY/ I SSUE No - 3. 3                              Lnfor*aticn
          6  plood maps                I    Procedures in: hurricalike                              TranaporteL i an
                                                                                              N_    neL-wwk
          ?  Population Vowth               preparedness, evacuation                                      aph I ce
                                                                                                    indicators
             Ywent, I and                   and recovery planning.                                  store water
                                                                                                    GIOU ce


                                                                                                    General date
          9  Necurce commitment                                                                     an wells
                                            Imp,act Score            impact Sco                     Store water impact
          III Land-u*4 inventorv            To OseLrd3uLe       MAssioned re       11)j             I water -quo I i tw I
                                                         j                                          lWasummenLe
             pload 4 utilities                                                                      Store rotor impact
          It Lul re-strUc urezp                                                                     I n oojinu )
                                                                                                    Vater. A air quo I I
                                                                  q                                 ty r-soulatory
                                                                                                    agencies
                                                                                                    EfficieA
                                                                                                    decision-poking
                           CL                                                      g  g L L
                                                     0OL                           .0 a             SLandarized data
                                                                                                    collection
          C a                                                      6 M
                                                                             4.
          .d                    L     I&                      *I I to. do 1.9   .0      a  C        formats
                                                0    a0                      0 40
                                                                                                    Mazardous waste
                                           %.A                                        do V *P
                                            a                                           te 9        site location
                               IL   a                                                     00
                                            X
                3-V                                                                                 Hazardous  waste
          12    13    14  15   _15 I I?    Is   Is   21 Ut    22    23   24   25   25   2F          effects
             E-H







                                                 55              OR   51    0 149 1 40    1 4f 1 15   45 1 44 1 43
                                                              C
                                                                   L
             NEXUS
                                                                            41   041
                                                                U4.
                                                                 0
                                               C                                                  C
             Surface G ground                   . I                                             R to
                                           U    3041             0
             water chorecieria-
                                                                      W                     too
                                           -a           L        V                        A     OL
             Was                                          IUI               1                  5
                                               U to.   .0; M;         L     41    1
                                                  A            1                   .1         09
             Air qualitU oonit,o-                                                                 0
             ring information                  Pit        2% 1     a  <"                I
             Traffic w-ciectione                           -                                     41

             Air que)ILU pollu-                                                                       Socia- economic
             Lion sources                      TAAPA EKY FEGMWAL, CMDATING C"C(L                       indiceLor-w on r.., 1,
             Population                                                                                 Topographic
             projections                     POL I CY/ I SSLJE No - 3. 3                                information

                                                                                                        TranoporLaLian
             Road "a                         Procedures in:             hurricaine
                                                                                                        net, - wwk
             PopulaLion growth               preparedness. evacuaLion                                   Demicaraph i co
                                             and recovery planning.                                     indicators
             Vacant lend                                                                                Stara water
                                                                                                      I sources       AMMI6
             Resource CoomiLment,                                                                       Cam al date
                                                       ore -            I"ct Scare   -                  an wells
                                             [impact Sc                                                 Storm water iwipacL
           I Lacul-use inventorW             To Distribute Of           Ass i wwd                       (water-quality)
                                                                                                        Asopuraments
             Road I utilities-                                                                              i water impact
                                                                                                        Storm
             Infro-structurexp                                                                          measurements
                                                                                                        Voter- A air queli-
                                                                                         IVi            ty regulatory
                                                                                          e             ocencles
                                                                                          L             EfTiciaA
                                                                                          00
                     .0                1                                                                decision' "Iqtng
                      I    CL        U)                               1      3   9   @    LL
                                 to.                                                                    SLendarized date
                      C    CL                                                    x          41
                                                                                    3       1 1         collection
                                                                  -J  14.M       I& J       .4 J
                0                9                                           -C  Ii.  ;;  III C         Formats
                                 L    C $d' L 0.0    a 0                            r     Q 1 9     _P
                                                                                                        Hazardous vests
                                                                                                  @4-
                                                                                                        site location
                                                          J  U                                 a
                                                                                                        Hazardous     to
                         .J IS   16 1 1?    161  IS 1 3  121  1  22   23 1
           2    13    14                                                    24   25  _N    27           arrecLe     was











                                       M   55         53   S2  51   9    a     40                           Ate
                                                                                    4f  1"    16  44
                                             x         C
                                                       0    L

                                                            4A
           NEXUS                                      1.03  0
                                                            0                  0.0
                                                       0    1  -.   I   : I    I .  'I .- C
                                                                          C    g .4    Al f
           Surface It W-ound           a                 one                     o4 -00
           water charocterte-                            0.04)                 a 40 1010
                                                      11 " V J             L        010 OLC
           Lice                                          U                          t-I
                                          U I$.       I
                                       CL    1       64
                                                                                    0
           Air qualitV manito                                              10,      uI
           ring informaLion


           Trafric waim:tione

           Air quality pollu-                                                                Stc- I asconam I C
           Lion sources                 M VI., 21:1173-11 to-; 711 RVII-8-1-11 Mu u-CF-81, TR Indicator* on ro.,
           Population                                                                         Topogrop6ic
           projections                   POL I CY/ I SSLJE No - 3. 6                          inrormation
           Plood mope                                                                         Tronoportation
                                         Flood conLrol: effecLs               on              not.-Work
           Population w-ovLh             land use. draincoe and                               Demographics
                                                                                              indicators
           Vacant I"                     erosion.                                             Storm water
           evoilobilILM                                                                       sources
           Revowce consitxenL                                                                 General doLa
                                                                                              an wells,
                                         I"cL Scare                                           Storm water- impacE
         I Land-use invenfory            To 67M,".IMIM                                        (weter-quality)
                                                                                              NewuremerLe   wl@
           Rood a utilities                                                                   Storm water impact
           i rre-struo urozp                                                                  (flooding)    I J*
                                                                                              measurements   :P 29
                                                                                              Voter It air qualt-
                                                                                              ty reguleLory
                                                                        3,eS        -t        e0encles
                                                                                    L         ErFiciaA
                                                                                    Ov
                                                                                    go        doc 19 1 on * skok i nq
                                                                                    0 L
                             44.                                                    L L
                                                               0                 0            SLanderized date
                                              3,  0                              a            collection
                                                  400  L   _-o  i*m     116. .0  .0
                                                                    I            a  I C       formaLs
                                                1      00
                                                          U o              C                  "aitordous, waste
               0   9    40              q;.0                   C 'I 11                41
                             a   3  9   %                           4 3               9       wts location
                             (L                        U                         A
                                                                                    Ila
                                                                    >                         Hazardous waste
          2   13   14   Is   Is   17    16  ill  ;S   21   22   23  24         26   2?
                                                            IM


           Sol
                                            U







         Data Descriptive Summary Instructions                     Appendix 4
         TBRCC Report - December 1992                                  Page 1



                         Data Descriptive Survey Instructions

         The following topic3 relate to   the Data Descriptive Summary found
         on page 3-4 and provide information for completing the blanks in
         the Summary.   Regarding "truth in packaging," it is important
         that thc information be given as completely and accurately as
         possible for identification purposes.    Also, please identify Who
         should-be gontacted in caae of auestiona on the survey
         instrument.

         Data Descriptive Svrvey Summary

         Subject:   A descriptive name of the data.   This may be multiple
                    files that can be grouped under one heading.

         Nondigital   - raw data - not automated
         Raster data - raster format
         Vector data - vector format

         Resolution - (pixel resolution) for imaged information (raster)
                    provide numbet3 that define the level of accuracy.

         Scale -    use the format 1:z (for example the USGS quads are
                    1:24000)

         Datum -    what datum was the map using, 1927, 1983.

         Date range Of source material - Dates that the information was
                    collected. if collection is ongoing U30 to Present,
                    The Comment is for further description of the date
                    range. You may note that information was Only
                    collected in the spring, etc.

         Source/creator    identifies who collected the data

         Update schedule    how often is this information updated.

         Positional Accuracy - for example the USGS quads are accurate to
                    +/- 40 ft.

         File 3iZe - for automated data - how big is the file in bytes
                    (megabytes, gigabytes, etc.)

         Output format - This relates to the export file structure and/or
                    software - DLG, ArcInfor Vx, etc.

         Output medium - CCT 9 track tapes 6250bpi, 1600 bpi, 8mm exobyte,
                    1.4 mb floppy disk, etc.







          Data Descriptive Summary Instructions                     Appendix 4
          TBRCC Report - December 1992                                  Page 2



          Geographic coverage - name Of specific geographic location
                     watershed, or however the information was collected.
                     There is a section that describes the geographic
                     coverage by political boundary.

          Descriptive summary: Additional information that would be    of
                     interest to the recipient.

          Geographic coverage by Political Boundary

          Information is typically collected by a governmental (State or
          Federal) entity within a political boundary. This is an
          exclusive hierarchy.   The deeper the level, the less area is
          covered. For example, if you have statewide coverage, only enter
          the name of the state, ie. FL. If information has only been
          collected by one county then enter FL, Hill3borough. You do not
          have to fill out all of levels; i.e., it information has been
          collected within a water management district, it is only
          necessary to indicate which water management district. Put in
          the abbreviation of the water management district; ie. SWFWMD.

          This is far from a perfect system. We are developing a grid
          system using the tic marks on the USGS 1:2400 quads that will
          allow a more accurate delineation of the data collection area.
          That will be available by August 1992.


          Storage medium

          Nondigital

          If you have nondigital data that is to be included, describe how
          that information is stored (notes, cards, journal article, etc.)

          Digital

          Describe the platform on which the information is stored. This
          i3 self explanatory.

          Data Information Contact.

          Data information contact - who to contact if there are questions
          about the data.

          Data transfer contact - who to contact to acquire the data.







         Data Descriptive Summary Instructions                      Appendix 4
         TBRCC Report - December 1992                                  Page 3


                               DATA DESCRIPTIVE SURVEY


         Name:


         Agency:

         Phone:

         Data Descriptive Summary:

         Subject:

         Nondigital -     Raster Data       Vector Data
         Resolution                  Scale                     Datum
         Date Range  of Source Material                  to
             Comment:

         .Source/Creator of Data:
         Update Schedule:
         Positional Accuracy:
         File Size:
         Output Format:
         Output Medium:
         Geographic Coverage:
         Descriptive Summary:






         Geographic 'Coverage by Political Boundary of the Data:

                                    State

         State      County                 City/Town
         Agency                 Region/District
         Water Managemeni District
         Regional Planning Councils
         West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority

                                    Federal

         Dept              Bureau                 Region/Dist
         other Boundaries

                                  Description






           Data Descriptive Summary Instructions                        Appendix 4
           TBRCC Report - December 1992                                     Page 4


                                      STORAGE MEDIUM

           NonDigital:

           Description:












           Digital:

                                         Hardware:






                                         Software:

           Operating System:

           Database:




           GIS/CADD/Mapping:



           Other:






           Does the system have dial up capability (Y/N)

                         . Phone

           Explanatory Notes:







           Data Descriptive Summary Instructions                     Appendix 4
           TBRCC Report - December 1992                                  Page 5



                               Data Information Contact

           Information Contact Person

           Agency/organization

           Unit


           Title


           Address



           city                               State

           Zip

           Phone: Suncom






                                 Data Transfer Contact


           Transfer Contact Person

           Agency/Organization

           Unit


           'Title


           Address



           City                               State

           Zip

           Phone: Suncom






                                                                                             APPENDIX 5









                  Stormwater Management Issue Statement                                                                     Appendix 5
                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                                    Page 1



                                                        DRAFI` Issue Statement Ord Revision)


                  Date:             September 30, 1992

                  Title.-           Stormwater Management Consensus Group

                  Activity.         To identify, coordinate and facilitate stormwater data exchange among federal, state, regional
                                    and local agencies assessing stormwater management issues in the Tampa Bay region.

                  Chairman:


                              Name                                 Aggen                              Telephone

                           Holly Greening              Tampa Bay National Estuary                   (813) 893-2756
                                                        Program


                  Co-Chairman:


                              Name                                 Agen                               Telephone

                           Early Sorenson              Florida Department of                        (813) 620-6100 x343
                                                        Environmental Regulation

                  Participants:
                    Name                                        Aan                                   Telephone

                  Peter Clark                          Tampa Bay Reg Flng Council                   (813) 577-5151
                  Larry Colbert                        LIS Coordinator, Manatee Co                  (813) 748-4501x3075
                  Chuck Courtney                       EPC of Hboro Co                              (813) 272-7104
                  Tom Cuba                             Dir, Pinellas Co Environmental Mgmt          (813)462-4761
                  Dave Gowan                           STORET Coord/FDER                            (904) 487-0505
                  Mike Holtkamp                        SWIM/SWFWMD                                  (813) 985-7481.x2212
                  Clark Hull                           SWFWMD                                       (904) 796-7211
                  Bob Keim                             Hillsborough Co GIS Manager                  (813) 272-591W202
                  Debora Kohne                         Hboro Co Eng Svcs/Stormwatr Design           (813) 272-5912x3614
                  Bill Lofgren                         TBRCC                                        (813) 577-5151
                  Don Lord                             Pinellas Co Dept of Comms                    (813) 462-3101
                  Early Sorenson                       FDER                                         (813) 620-6100 x343
                  Elmer Spence                         Pinellas Co Public Works                     (813) 462-3251
                  David Stage                          Staff Dir, GMDNCC                            (904) 922-7193

                  Problem Description:

                  Introduction

                  The control of the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff is of primary importance throughout the state of
                  Florida. St6rmwater runoff management is essential for flood control and for the control of contaminants
                  contained in runoff, which can result in surface water degradation in rivers, takes, and estuaries. The Florida
                  Department of Environmental Regulation's Stormwater Division states that stormwater runoff is now considered








                 Stormwater Management Issue Statement                                                                   Appendix 5
                 TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                                 Page 2


                 the state's biggest water pollution threat to the quality of Florida's surface waters. Recent research (reviewed
                 by Henigar & Ray, Inc., for the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) Surface Water
                 Improvement and Management Program (SWIM), 1991) showed that stormwater-associated pollution was
                 responsible for

                 0        80-85% of the heavy metal loading to Florida' surface waters;

                 0        Virtually all of the sediment deposited in state waters; and

                 0        Nutrient loads comparable to those in secondarily treated sewage effluent discharges.

                 Recent revisions in stormwater management regulations as all levels of government reflect the growing concerns
                 with water quality issues associated with stormwater runoff and its management.

                 Within the Tampa Bay region, stormwater issues are addressed by existing federal, state, regional, and local
                 regulations. The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently enacted a rule which requires
                 many industrial facilities, cities, and counties to obtain National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems
                 ,(NPDES) permits for discharging stormwater and submit management plans to reduce pollutants in runoff (See
                 Attachment A). At the state level, a complex system of regulations and regulatory entities has been developed
                 to address stormwater management issues, including Florida Department of Environmental Regulation's
                 .stormwater rule." Within the Tampa Bay region, SWFWMD issues surface water and stormwater permits and
                 the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) requires the development and implementation of -a Level
                 of Service (LOS) standard for drainage infrastructure in all comprehensive plans. In addition to these agencies'
                 local governments of cities and counties in the Tampa Bay region also have ordinances addressing stormwater
                 management issum

                 A need exists for a regionwide stormwater action plan to coordinate activities of the many agencies with
                 stormwater management authority. One important initial component to an assessment such as this is the
                 standardization and coordination of data collection and reporting procedures between and among regulatory
                 entities. This standardization is crucial to allow comparison and evaluation between regulated sites. Currently,
                 all agencies working with stormwater water quality samples are requisted to submit their data to STORET which
                 potentially eases the task for this Consensus Group. It would appear that the standards chosen are those
                 required for STORET submittal.

                 Problem Statement:

                 0        The scope and effectiveness of current policies and regulations relating to stormwater management
                          throughout the region are not fully documented and unknown.

                 0        Water quality data collection programs or permit applicants for regulatory requirements are not always
                          complete enough to allow valid comparisons of data or extrapolation of results to other areas of interest.

                 0        High concentrations of metals and DDT are present.

                          00       In 1992, SWIM testing of sediments in some existing borrow pits of the Coastal America's
                                   restoration site showed high levels of some metals (e.g. silver) and the presence of DDT. Silver
                                   is a biologically nonessential, nonbeneficial conservative element that has been found to be toxic
                                   to freshwater and marine organisms and often carried by stormwater runoff.









                  Stormwater Management Issue Statement                                                                Appendix 5
                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                              Page 3


                  0        Indications of sediment contamination from agricultural runoff have bcen found in several areas of
                           Tampa Bay. A recent NOAA Status and Trends report (1991) found that contaminants including
                           organic pesticides, Mirex, and other pesticide groups are associated with agricultural areas of the Bay.

                  0        There is no regionwide mechanism for the coordination of stormwater management data collection
                           efforts, leading to the potential for duplicated effort and inefficient use of the tax dollar.

                  0        Localized solutions are often implemented due to jurisdictional limits where technical recommendations
                           suggest the need for wider ranging solutions on a regional basis.

                  Potential Benefits:

                  0        An assessment such as this would significantly benefit regional or local growth management planning,
                           in addition to other resource management programs such as the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program.

                  0        Other agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Commission of ffillsborough County-, Regional
                           counties Planning and Zoning and Stormwater Utility departments, the Endangered Lands Acquisition
                           Program; and Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) will be able to access and
                           use a consolidated data base for the development of rules and ordinances and which further facilitate
                           development of DER and DCA!s LOS goals.

                  0        Tampa Bay's aquatic resources could gain additional levels of protection as a result of this project.

                           Savings accrued in NPDES pursuitant to retrofit projects can be obtained by data gathered.

                  Ongoing Activities:

                  Within the GIS/planning community there are a number of similar activities that can benefit from this endeavor
                  and vice versa. Close coordination is necessary to share results and avoid duplication of effort.

                  0        Hillsborough County's Stormwater Utility is responsible for NPDES permitting for the County. The
                           centralization of spatial and database water resource information for this project could assist them in
                           gaining some information they have yet to collect and the development of a management plan can
                           provide an avenue for addressing stormwater pollution problems in this project area.

                  0        An effort involving the coordination of Pinellas County municipal governments and several departments
                           under the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners, undertook the task of applying for the
                           NPDES permit through use of GIS technology. In order to provide continuity, it was necessary to
                           convert USGS Quadrangle Maps (QUADS) into the county's system based on Florida State Plane
                           Coordinates (FLSP) and this was done converting USGS coordinate values and constructing a coordinate
                           grid in GeoVision. The grid, containing 13 Quadrangles, became the basis of data organization and
                           reporting for the project and resulted in a five map series and supporting attributes as follows:

                           Series A:        Base Map, City Limits, U.S. Waters, Drainage Outfalls, Basins/Subbasins, Control
                                            Structures, Screening Points, Municipal Boundaries, Stream Tributaries.

                           Series B:        Base Map, Public Lands, Municipal Boundaries, Drainage Basins.
  0                        Series C:        Base Map, Basins/Subbasins, Land Fill, Permitted Sources, Municipal Boundaries.









                 Stormwater Management Issue Statement                                                                 Appendix 5
                 TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                               Page 4


                          Series D:         Base Map, Land Use.

                          Series E.         U.S.G.S., Topography.

                          The data will form an integral part of the County's GIS system and will serve it in good stead for the
                          next several years as it is updated, added to, and changed to fit the requirements of the stormwater
                          permitting effort.

                 0        The Tampa Bay National Estuary Program is developing a bay-wide stormwater "action plan" which will
                          integrate local, state and Federal mandates. Data sharing among agencies is an important element to
                          the success of this effort.

                 0        Southwest Florida Water Management District SWIM Department has a large ongoing stormwater
                          retrofit program which will benefit from and contribute to the data sharing effort.

                 0        STORET system is designed to hold NPDES data and DER, the statutory coordinating agency for water
                          policy in Florda, has determined that all such data shall be placed in the STORET system as the official
                          repository. STORET is the only existing database which is capable of holding data from all agencies,
                          and provides a readyt means for exchanging, easily, the data between agencies. STORET management
                          in Tallahassee encourages collaborative data gathering, monitoring and sharing of data.

                 0        DER Pollution Recovery Trust Fund ... (to be provided by Sorenson)

                 Goal:    To improve information and data sharing among managers of stormwater runoff and related
                          environmental effects.



                 Objectives:

                 1.       Identify existing and needed data for use by managers of stormwater runoff in order to fulfill all
                          permitting requirements for NPDES and other local requirements.

                 2.       Develop quality and accuracy reports for each targeted data set consistent with STORET requirements.

                 3.       Integrate as far as possible, data management protocols developed by the Tampa Bay National Estuary
                          Program (TBNEP).

                 4.       Identify potential improvement areas, especially areas of duplication in governmental management of
                          stormwater issues and assess the ability of existing programs to meet management goals.

                 5.       Facilitate the coordination and exchange and distribution of information collected as a part of regulated
                          stormwater management programs.


                 Actions:


                 1.1      Convene an initial Consensu Group of natural resources planners and technical experts for the purpose
                          of.-


                          0        Refining Issue Statement









                Stormwater Management Issue Statement                                                             Appendix 5
                TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                           Page 5


                                Planning a brainstorming session to define targeted data types

                                Identify leadership/composition of follow-on Action Group

                        Type of Action: Critical to Actions: All

                        Action Leader: Bill Lofgren/TBRCC/(813) 577-5151

                        Action Group Members:             N/A .

                        Start/Completion Date:            6/24/92

                        Costs of Action:                  To be determined

                        Progress Report: A one-time record of problems encountered and recommended solutions to be
                        provided to Consensus Group Chairman for inclusion in report to TBNEP.

                1.2     Identify STORET metadata reporting requirements.

                        Type of Action: Critical to Actions 2.1, 3.1, 4.1 & 5.1

                        Action Leader: Early Sorenson/FDER/(813) 620-6100 x343

                        Action Group Members:

                        Start/Completion Date:

                        Costs of Action:         None

                        Progress Report: A short, written report of the minutes and results of the Preliminary Meeting,
                        provided to Consensus Group Chairman. Report should list any problems encountered in the meeting
                        and recommended solutions.

                1.3     Finalize and publish a matrix of target data after reviewing agency comments and determining location
                        of important, relevant data for transfer.

                        Type of Action: Critical to Actions 2.1, 3.1, 4.1 & 5.1

                        Action Leader: Holly Greening/TBNEP/(813) 893-2765

                        Action Group Members:

                        Start/Completion Date:

                        Costs of Action:         None

                        Progress Report: A short, written report of the minutes and results of the Preliminary Meeting,
                        provided to Consensus Group Chairman. Report should list any problems encountered in the meeting
                        and recommended solutions.









                  Stormwater Management Issue Statement                                                               Appendix 5
                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                             Page 6


                  2.1     Distribute to each agency, the Data Description Summary and Contact formats, and NEP protocols, if
                          available; for compilation by agency GIS/Data designee, and brought to Preliminary Meeting.

                          Type of Action: Dependent on 1.1, 2.1

                          Action Leader: Bill Lofgren/TBRCC/(813) 577-5151

                          Action Group Members: N/A

                          Start/Completion Date: June 17, 1992/July 24, 1992

                          Costs of Action:          None

                          Progress Report: A one-time, short written report on the problems encountered in agency follow
                          through (internal communications, glitches, etc.) provided to Consensus Group Chairman.

                  2.2     Agencies insure that the Data Description Summary and Contact formats are completed ASAP.

                          Type of Action: Dependent upon Action 2.1, 2.2

                          Action Leader: Bill, Lofgren/TBRCC/(813) 577-5151

                          Action Group Members: N/A - Each agency represented

                          Start Date: June 2:4, 1992

                          Completion Date: July 24, 1992 (Date of Council Meeting)

                          Costs of Action: To be determined

                          Progress Report: A one-time, short written report on the aspects of how successful action items 2.1 and
                          2.2 were completed.

                  23      Review Data Description Summaries and Contact Summaries, and assign to each agency, preparation
                          of Quality and Accuracy Reports and Data Dictionary for relevant data held by that agency, convene
                          Consensus Groups to refine data. Review Q&A reports and protocols and query agencies described
                          data to insure an understanding of transformation software needed for transfer and to conceptualize how
                          divergently formatted data can be transferred to STORET and develop some basic descriptive statistics
                          for STORET.

                          Type of Action: Dependent upon Actions 2.1, 2.1; Critical to 2.4, 2.5, 2.6

                          Action Leader: Early Sorenson/FDER/(813) 620-6100 x343
                                            Dave Gowan/STORET Coord/(90-4) 487-0505

                          Action Group Members: Each agency in matrix

                          Start Date:









                 Stormwater Management Issue Statement                                                                Appendix 5
                 TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                              Page 7


                          Completion Date:

                          Costs of Action: To be determined

                          Progress Report: A short written report of monies needed for each expenditure for extraordinary
                          personnel. Software or other costs necessary to complete each data transfer should be approved by the
                          Chairman before the work is undertaken. By x/x/92, a schedule of anticipated costs necessary to
                          complete all data transfers should be provided to Consensus Group Chairman. Finally, a written report
                          listing the t3Ws of purchases, expenses, as well as a discussion of the technical problems encountered
                          should be provided to the Chairman by the completion date.

                 2.4      Develop a series of shells to upload and download data in a more user-friendly venue.

                          Type of Action: Dependent upon Actions 2.1, 2.2, 2.3; Critical to 2.4

                          Action Leader:

                          Action Group Members:

                          Start Date:


                          Completion Date:

                          Costs of Action: To be determined

                          Progress Report A short written report of monies needed for each expenditure for extraordinary
                          personnel. Software or other costs necessary to complete each data transfer should be approved by the
                          Chairman before the work is undertaken. By x/x/92, a schedule of anticipated costs necessary to
                          complete all data transfers should be provided to Consensus Group Chairman. Finally, a written report
                          listing the types of purchases, expenses, as well as a discussion of the technical problems encountered
                          should be provided to the Chairman by the completion date.

                 2.5      Develop a link between STORET and GIS.

                          Type of Action: Dependent upon Actions 2.1, 2.1, 2.3, 2.4; Critical to 2.6

                          Action Leader:


                          Action Group Members:

                          Start Date:


                          Completion Date:

                          Costs of Action: To be determined

                          Progress Report: A short written report of monies needed for each expenditure for extraordinary
                          personnel. Software or other costs necessary to complete each data transfer should be approved by the
                          Chairman before the work is undertaken. By x/x/92, a schedule of anticipated costs necessary to








                  Stormwater Management Issue Statement                                                               Appendix 5
                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                             Page 8


                          complete all data transfers should be provided to Consensus Group Chairman. Finally, a written report
                          listing the types of purchases, expenses, as well as a discussion of the technical problems encountered
                          should be provided to the Chairman by the completion date.

                  2.6     Develop uploading programs from other PC-based data management programs, such as dBASE and
                          Lotus.


                          Type of Action: Dependent upon Actions 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2-5

                          Action Leader:


                          Action Group Members:

                          Start Date:


                          Completion Date:

                          Costs of Action: To be determined

                          Progress Report: A short written report of monies needed for each expenditure for extraordinary
                          personnel. Software or other costs necessary to complete each data transfer should be approved by the
                          Chairman before the work is undertaken. By xx/xx/92, a schedule of anticipated costs necessary to
                          complete all data transfers should be provided to Consensus Group Chairman. Finally, a written report
                          listing the types of purchases, expenses, as well as a discussion of the technical problems encountered
                          should be provided to the Chairman by the completion date.


                  3.1     Prepare two status reports to the RAC; the first summarizing preliminaries and progress on the first
                          two objectives; the second at the completion of the goal.

                          Type of Action: Independent

                          Action Leader: Holly Greening/TBNEP/(813) 893-2765

                          Action Group Members:

                          Start Date:


                          Completion Date:

                          Costs of Action: To be determined


                          Progress Report: To include a written summary of each action item, including an estimate of percent
                          of completion; funds spent and remaining funds for each task; an analysis of measures of success with
                          specific observations on the problems encountered and recommended solutions for future efforts.

                  4.1     inventory federal, state and local governments. which address stormwater management issues in the
                          Tampa Bay watershed and conduct a workshop of all relevant government agencies in the region to
                          assess the degree of integration and cooperation among them.








                Stormwater Management Issue Statement                                                                 Appendix 5
                TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                               Page 9


                          Type of Action: Independent

                          Action Leader:

                          Action Group Members:

                          Start Date:


                          Completion Date:

                          Costs of Action: To be determined

                          Progress Report: A short written report to Chairman.

                5.1       Using the GIS work undertaken by Pinellas County as a model for the stormwater permitting process,
                          develop mechan-sms that can be appropriated by other participating governments to facilitate the
                          process and reduce duplicative efforts.

                          Type of Action: Dependent upon Actions 2.1, 2.2, 23, 2.4, 2.5

                          Action Leader:


                          Action Group Members:

                          Start Date:


                          Completion Date:

                          Costs of Action: To be determined

                          Progress Report: A short written report of monies needed for each expenditure for extraordinary
                          personnel. Software or other costs necessary to complete each data transfer should be approved by the
                          Chairman before the work is undertaken. A schedule of anticipated costs necessary to complete all data
                          transfers should be provided to Consensus Group Chairman. Fmally, a written report listing the types
                          of purchases, expenses, as well as a discussion of the technical problems encountered should be provided
                          to the Chairman by the completion date.








                                                                                                               STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DATA SOURCES



                                                              AGENCY


                                                                                                                             k                                                                                                                                                                                                                           OR



                                                                                                                                    UO
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         CA

                                                                                                 0         a                        U
                                                                                                 z         z
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         CO




                                      DATA TYPE


                                      Natural Resources


                                        Meteorologic date


                                        Land cover


                                        Topography

                                        Hydrologic basins including subbasim i


                                        Soils


                                        Hydrology

                                        Atmospheric deposition

                                        Aerial pologisphy

                                        Aquifer structure

                                        Weiland delineation


                                        Hydroperiods
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         'CO,
                                        Scagrass coverage







                                                                     STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DATA SOURCES
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     0



                                       AGENCY




                                                                                                                                                                                                                     E3



                                                                                                                                                               8                                                     CD
                                                                                                                                              a
                                                                  up    Ub                                                                                                                  up



                        DATA TYPE


                        Naturml Resources cora.


                         marewmagrove































                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Lit








                                                                           STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DATA SOURCES                                                                                                                                Cn



                                         AGENCY

                                                                                                                     A









                                                                                                                                                                                      U




                         DATA TYPE


                         Man-made influences


                          Transportation


                          Address ranges


                          LAnd use


                          Future land use


                          Zoning

                          Population density

                          Surface water intake struct.


                          Domestic waste facilities


                          Industrial waste facilities


                          Water treatment plants


                          Surface water discharges
                          Impervious surfaces                                                                                                                                                                                                >

                          Stormwater management areas



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         1-j Uft







                                                                                                                                  STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DATA SOURCES



                                                                         AGENCY

                                                                                                                                                                                                          A


                                                                                                                                                   X






                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   co
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   CA
                                                                                                                                                          U*

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   (70



                                             DATA TYPE


                                             Man-nudc influences cont.


                                                Sept@Xo disposal

                                                permitted stormwatet treat. sysu. are


                                                Service areas for sewer


                                                Consumptive use permiits


                                                Infrastructure for stormwater



















                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           rl.)    LA







                                                                          STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DATA SOURCES
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     90
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     ;0


                                         AGENCY



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     CD
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         CO

                                                                43
                                                                             me
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        up
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         C-0
                                                                                        UO

                                                                                                                                                                      A
                                                                                                                                      z                                                                                                  CD
                                                                 Oz


                         DATA TYPE


                         Political juriedictiom


                          Political boundaries


                          Wounding Florida waters

                          FDER jurisdictional boundaries

                          Parccl/property lines

                          Pieservation amas


                          NPDES Pernik bourAstica A schedull

                          Master monnevatcr plan areas

                          Public lands/ownenhip


                          Vacent land


                          Special taxing districts


                          Classified waters

                          Census designated places                                                                                                                                                                                       >




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     -P, LA







                                                                           STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DATA SOURCES



                                          AGENCY


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        OQ



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ts








                                                                  0
                                                                  z


                          DATA TYPE


                         Monitoring and Studies

                           Surface water quality stations

                           Flow monitoring/gauging stations

                           Stormwater permit compliance data

                           Efficacy of stormwater treatment sys 1.


                           Groundwater rnotutorms


                           Groundwater recharge areas

                           Non-point loading estimates

                           impacts to living resources















                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     tA  Vt







                                                                  STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DATA SOURCES
                                                                                                                                                                                                              90
                                                                                                                                                                                                              W


                                   .AGENCY                                                                                                                                                                    CD







                                                                vp    UZI
                                                          0                                                                                                                                                      ch
                                                                               =u

                      DATA TYPE


                      Other

























                                                                                                                                                                                                              -V'O,

                                                                                                                                                                                                              co








          Stormwater Management Issue Statement                             Appendix 5
          TBRCC Report - December 1992                                        Page 17


                             REGIONAL ADVISORY COMXITTEZ
                              STORKWATER. CONSENSUS GROUP



                Agency

                Data Type

                Contact Person

                Telephone

                Comments











                Agency

                Data Type

                Contact Person

                Telephone

                Comments










                Agency

                Data Type

                Contact Person

                Telephone

                Comments







              Stormwater Management Issue Statement                                              Appendix 5
              NPDES Rules                                                                     Attachment A
              TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                           Page 1




                                                                Thursday
                                                                April 2, 1992



















                                                                Part V1


                                                                Environmental
                                                                Protection Agency

                                                                40 CFR Part 122
                                                                National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
                                                                System Application Deadlines, General
                                                                Permit Requirements and Reporting
                                                                Requirements for Storm Water
                                                                Discharges Associated With Industrial
                                                                Activity, Final Rule





                   11394           Federal Regi      ster / Vol. 57, No. 64 / nursday, April 2, 1992                     / Rules and Regulations

                   ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION                            1068 of the Transportation Act                    represented pressing environmental
                   AGENCY                                              addressed permit application deadlines            problems. In addition, sewage outfalls
                                                                       for storm water discharges associated             and industrial process discharges were
                   40 CFR Part 122                                     with industrial activity from facilities          easily identified as responsible for poor
                   [FRL-4100-4)                                        that were owned or operated by                    often drastically degraded water qualit
                                                                       municipalities.                                   conditions. However, as pollution
                   National Pollutant Discharge                        EFFECTIVE DATE: The final rule becomes            control measures were developed
                   Elimination System Application                      effective May 4,1992.                             initially for these discharges, it became
                   Deadlines, General Permit                           ADDRESSES: The public record is located           evident that more diffuse sources
                   Requirements and Reporting                          at EPA Headquarters, EPA Public                   (occurring over a wide area) of water
                   Requirements for Storm Water                        Information Reference Unit, room 24OZ             pollution, such as agricultural and urban
                   Discharges Associated With Industrial               401 M Street. SW, Washington, DC.                 runoff. were also major causes of water
                   Activity                                            20460. A reasonable fee may be charged            quality problems. Some diffuse sources
                   AGENCY: Environmental Protection                    for copying.                                      of water pollution, such as agricultural
                   Agency (EPA).                                       FOR FURTNER INFORMATION CONTACT.*                 storm water discharges and irrigation
                   ACTION: Final rule.                                 For further information on the rule               return flows. are exempted statutorily
                                                                       contact the NPDES Storm Water Hotline             from the NPDES program. Controls for
                   SUMMARY, The Water Quality Act                      at (703) 821-4823 or. Kevin Weiss, Office         other diffuse sources have been slow to
                   (WQA) or 1987 added section 402(p) to               of Wastewater Enforcement and                     develop under the NPDES program.
                   the Clean Water Act (CWA). Section                  Compliance (EN-336), United States                A. Environmental Impacts
                   402(p) of the CWA requires the                      Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M               Several national assessments have
                   Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)               Street SW., Washingtom DC 20460, (202)            been conducted to evaluate impacts on
                   to establish phased and tiered                      280-9518.                                         receiving water quality. For the purpose
                   requirements for storm water discharges             SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:                        of these assessments. urban runoff was
                   under the National Pollutant Discharge              1. Background                                     considered to be a diffuse source or
                   Elimination System (NPDES) program.                   A. Environmental Impacts                        nonpoint source pollution, although in
                   On August 16. 1991 (56 FR 4b948), EPA                 B. Water Quality Act of 1987                    legal terms, most urban runoff is
                   requested public comments on several                  C. November 16, 19W, Permit Application         discharged through conveyances such as
                   regulatory and policy issues regarding                  Regulations .                                 separate storm sewers or other
                   NPDES permits for storm water                         D. August 16, 1991 Notice
                   discharges associated with industrial                 E. November 5,1991 Proposal                     conveyances which are point sources
                   activity. On November 5,1991 (56 FR                   F. Intermodal Surface Transportation            under the CWA and subject to the
                   56549), the Agency also proposed                        Efficiency Act of 1991                        NPDES program.
                   extending the deadline for submitting               U. Today's Rule                                      The "National Water Quality
                                                                         A. Long-Term Permit Issuance Strategy           Inventory, 1990 Report to Congress
                   part 2 of group applications for storm                B. Minimum Monitoring and Reporting
                   water discharges associated with                        Requirements for Storm Water                  provides a general assessment of water
                   industrial activity.                                    Discharges                                    quality based on biennial reports
                     In response to cornment received on                 C Application Requirements for General          submitted by the States under section
                   August 16, 1991, proposal, today's action               Permits                                       305(b) of the CWA. In preparing section
                   describes a National Strategy for issuing             D. Deadline for part 2 of Group                 305(b) Reports, the States were asked to
                   NPDES permits for storm water                           Applicatioms                                  indicate the fraction of the States'
                   discharges associated with Industri'll                E. Clarification for Part 2 of Group            waters that were assessed. as well as
                   activity. Today's action also contains a                App"tions                                     the fraction of the States' waters that
                   final rule that revises minimum NPDES                 F. Transportation Act Deadlines                 were fully supporting, partly supporting,
                   monitoring requirements for storm water             Ill. Economic bnpact                              or not supporting designated uses. The
                   discharges associated with industrial               FV. Executive Order 12291                         Report indicates that of the rivers. lakes.
                   activity. In addition. today's rule                 V. Paperwork Reduction Act                        and estuaries that were assessed by
                                                                       VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act
                   establishes minimum requirements for                VIL APA Requirements                              States (approximately one-third of
                   filing notices of intent to be authorized           1. Background                                     stream miles, one-half of lake acres and
                   to discharge under NPDES general                                                                      three-quarters of estuarine waters).
                   permits.                                              The 1972 amendments to the Federal              roughly 60 percent to 70 percent are
                    , Today's rule also establishes a                  Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA.               supporting the uses for which they are
                   deadline of October 1. 1992 for part 2 of           also referred to as the Clean Water Act           designated. For waters with use
                   group applications for storm water                  or CWA), prohibited the discharge of              impairments, States were asked to
                   discharges associated with industrial               any pollutant to navigable waters from a          determine impacts due to diffuse
                   activity. As noted above. this revised              point source unless the discharge is              sources (agricultural and urban runoff
                   deadline was proposed on November 5.                authorized by a NPDES permit. Efforts             and other categories of diffuse sources).
                   1991. In connection with group                      to improve water quality under the                municipal sewage, industrial (process)
                   applications, today's rule contains an              NPDES program have focused                        wastewaters, combined sewer
                   amendment to clarify the minimum                    traditionally on reducing pollutants in           overflows, and natural sources, and then
                   number of facilities that must submit               discharges of industrial process             -    to combine impacts to arrive at
                   sampling information in part 2 of a group           wastewater and from municipal sewage              estimates of the relative percentage of
                   application.                                        treatment plants. This program                    State waters affected by each source. In
                     Finally, today's action codifies several          emphasis has developed for a number of            this manner, the relative importance of
                   provisions of Section 1068 of the                   reasons. At the onset of the program in           the various sources of pollution causing
                   Intermodal Surface Transportation                   1972, many sources of industrial process          use impairments was assessed and
                   Efficiency Act of 1991 or Transportation            wastewater and municipal sewage were              weighted national averages were
                   Act into the NPDES regulations. Section             not controlled adequately, and                    calculated.





                                      Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 64 1 Thursday, April z 1992                                      / Rules and Regulations                                 W95

                       Based on 51 States and Territories                     limited area); 2,000,000 acres of shellfish                separate storm sewer systems (systems
                     that provided information on sources of                  growing waters in the Gulf of Mexico                       serving a population of 100,000 or more
                     pollution, the Assessment also                           (59% of the harvest-limited area): and                     but less than 250,000). This section of the
                     concluded that pollution from diffuse                    130.000 acres of shellfish growing waters                  Act specifies deadlines for EPA to
                     sources such as runoff from agricultural.                on the West Coast (52% of harvest-                         promulgate permit application
                     urban areas, construction sites, land                    limited areas).                                            requirements, applicants to submit
                     disposal activities, and resource                        B. Water Quality Act of 1,987                              permit applications, EPA and authorized
                     extraction activities is cited by the                                                                               NPDES States to issue NPDES permits.
                     States as the leading cause of water                        The Water Quality Act (WQA) of 1987                     and for permit compliance for the
                     quality impairment.' Diffuse sources                     added section 402(p) to the CWA to                         identified storm water discharges.
                     appear to be increasingly important                      establish a comprehensive two phased                         NPDES permits for all other storm
                     contributors of use impairment as                        approach for EPA to address storm                          water discharges fail under phase 11 of
                     discharges of industrial process                         water discharges. Section 402(p)(1)                        the program, and cannot be required
                     wastewaters and municipal sewage                         provides that EPA or NPDES States                          until October 1. 199Z unless a permit for
                     plants come under control and                            cannot require a permit for certain storm                  the discharge was issued prior to the
                     intensified data collection efforts                      water discharges until October 1. 199Z                     date of enactment of the WQA (i.e.,
                     provide additional information. Some                     except for storm water discharges listed                   February 4,1987), or the discharge is
                     examples where use impairments are                       under section 402(p)(2). Section 402(p)(2)                 determined to be a significant
                     cited as being caused by diffuse sources                 lists five types of storm water                            contributor of pollutants to waters of the
                     Include: Rivers and streams, where 11                    discharges which are covered under                         United States or is contributing to a
                     percent are caused by separate storm                     Phase I of the program and are required                    violation of water quality standards,
                     sewers, 6 percent are caused by                          to obtain a permit before October 1.                         EPA, in consultation with the States,
                     construction and 14 percent are caused                   1992:                                                      is required to conduct two studies on
                     by resource extraction; lakes, where 28                     (A) A discharge with respect to which                   phase 11 storm water discharges that are
                     percent are caused by separate storm                     a permit has been issued prior to                          in the class of discharges for which EPA
                     sewers and 24 percent are caused by                      February 4, 1987;                                          and NPDES States cannot require
                     land disposal; the Great Lakes shoreline,                   (B) A discharge associated with                         permits prior to October 1, 1992. The
                     where 6 percent are caused by separate                   industrial acti    'vit3r,          I I                    first study will identify those storm
                     storm sewers, and 41 percent are caused                     (C) A discharge from a municipal                        water discharges or classes of storm
                     by land disposal; for estuaries where, 30                separate storm sewer system serving a                      water discharges addressed by phase H
                     percent are caused by separate storm                     population of 250,000 or more;                             and determine, to the maximum extent
                     sewers: and for coastal areas, where 36                     (D) A discharge from a municipal                        practicable, the nature and extent of
                     percent are caused by separate storm                     separate storm sewer system serving a                      pollutants in such discharges. The
                     sewers and 37 percent are caused by                      population of 100,000 or more, but less                    second study is for the purpose of
                     land disposal.                                           than 250,=% or                                             establishing procedures and methods to
                       The States conducted a more                               (E) A discharge for which the                           control phase H storm water discharges
                     comprehensive study of diffuse pollution                 Administrator or the State, as the case                    to the extent necessary to mitigate
                     sources under-the sponsorship of the                     may be, determines that the storm water                    impacts on water quality. Based on the
                     Association of State and Interstate                      discharge contributes to a violation of a                  two studies, EPA in consultation with
                     Water Pollution Control Administrators                   water quality standard or Is a significant                 State and local officials, is required to
                     (ASIWPCA) and EPA. The study                             contributor of pollutants to the waters of                 issue regulations by no later than
                     resulted in the report "America's Clean                  the United States.                                         October 1. 199Z which designate classes
                     Water-The States' Nonpoint Source                           The WQA clarified and amended the                       of phase 11 storm water discharges to be
                     AssessmenL 1985" which indicated th
                                                                       at     requirements for permits for storm water                   regulated to protect water quality and
                     38 States reported urban runoff as a                     discharges in the new CWA section                          establish a comprehensive program to
                     major cause of beneficial use                            402(p)(3). The Act clarified that permits                  regulate such designated sources. This
                     Impairment In addition. 21 States                        for discharges associated with industrial                  program must establish. at a minimum.
                     reported construction site runoff as a                   activity must meet all of the applicable                   (A) priorities, (B) requirements for State
                     major cause of use impairment.                           provisions of section 402 and section 301                  storm water management programs, and
                       Studies conducted by the National                      including BAT/BCT technology-based                         (C) expeditious deadlines. The program
                     Oceanic and Atmospheric                                  requirements and that permits for                          may include performance standards,
                     Administration (NOAA) 31 indicate that                   discharges from municipal separate                         guidelines. guidance, and management
                     urban runoff Is a major pollutant source                 storm sewer must meet a new statutory                      practices and treatment requirements,
                     which adversely affects shellfish                        standard requiring controls to reduce the                  as appropriate.
                     growing waters. The NOAA studies                         discharge of pollutants to the maximum
                     identified urban runoff as affecting over                extent practicable (I@W). As with all                      C. November 16.1990, Permit
                     57&ODO acres of shellfish growing waters                 point source discharges under the CWA.                     Application Regulations
                     on the East Coast (39 percent of harvest-                storm water discharges are subject to                        EPA promulgated permit application
                                                                              applicable water quality-based                             regulations for the storm water
                       I Major classes of diffuse sources that include, in    standards.                                                 discharges identified under section
                     paK storm water point source discharges are-                Section 402(p)(4) establishes                           402(p)(2) (B). (C). and (D) of the CWA,
                     Urban runoff conveyances. construction sites,
                     agriculture (feedlots), resource extraction sites, and   deadlines to Implement the permit                          including storm water discharges
                     land disposal facilities.                                program for. Storm water discharges                        associated with industrial activity, on
                       I See -rhe Quality of Shellfish Growing Waters         associated with Industrial activity;                       November 16, 19M (55 FR 47M). The
                     on the East Coast of the United States". NOAA.           discharges from large municipal                            November 16, 1990 regulations address
                     loft -Me Quality of Shellfish Growing Waters in
                     the Gulf of Mexico", NOAA. 198&- and -Tbe Quality          eparate storm sewer systems (systems                     requirements, including deadlines, for
                     of Shellfish Growing Waters on the West Coast of         :erving a population of 250,000 or more);                  two sets of application procedures for
                     the United States". NOAA l9ft                            and discharges from medium municipal                       storm water discharges associated with





                11396          Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 64             Thursday. April 4 1992            / Rules and Regulations

                Industrial activity: Individual permit         EPA has a 60 day period after receipt to         (systems serving a population of 250.000
                applications and group applications. In        review the part 1 applications and notify        or more) were due November 18,1991.
                addition, the notice recognizes a third        the groups as to whether they have been          Part 2 applications for discharges from
                set of application procedures for storm        approved or denied as a properly                 large systems are due on November 16
                water discharges associated with               constituted "group" for purposes of this         19M Part I applications for discharge;
                industrial activity: Those associated          alternative application process. Part 2 of       from medium municipal separate storm
                with general permits. With these               the group application contains detailed          sewer systems (systems serving a
                requirements, EPA is attempting to             information, including sampling data. on         population of 100,000 or more, but less
                implement a flexible, cost-effective           roughly ten percent of the facilities in         than 250,000) are due May 1& 1992. Part
                approach for storm water permit                the group (today's notice contains a             2 applications for discharges from
                applications-                                  more detailed description clarifying the         medium systems are due on May 18,
                  The requirements for individual              requirements of 40 CFR 122.26(c)(2)(ii)).        1993. Today's rulemaking does not
                applications for storm water discharges        Under the November 16, 1990                      address, modify or change application
                associated with industrial activity are        regulations, part 2 applications were to         requirements or deadlines established
                set forth at 40 CFR 122.26(c)(1).              be submitted no later than 12 months             by the November 16.1990 regulations for
                Generally, the applicant must provide          after the date of approval of the part 1         discharges from municipal separate
                                                            e  application. (Revisions to this deadline         storm sewer systems serving a
                comprehensive facility specific narrativ    )  are discussed below). Also under the             population of 100,000 or more.
                information including: (1) A site map; (2      November 16, 1990 regulation, facilities
                an estimate of impervious areas, (3) the       that are rejected as members of a group          D. August 16,1991 Notice
                identification of significant materials        were to have 12 months from the date             .On August 16, 1M. EPA published a
                treated or stored on site together with        they receive notification of their               notice (56 FR 40948) requesting public
                associated materials management and            rejection to file an individual permit           comment on four major areas:
                disposal practices; (4) the location and       application (or obtain coverage under an          (1) EPA's long-term permit issuance
                description of existing structural and         appropriate general permit).6                    strategy for storm water discharges
                non-structural controls to reduce                The group application process has              associated with industrial activity;
                pollutants in storm water runoff; (5) a        been designed by EPA as a one-time                (2) Proposed modifications to 40 CFR
                certification that all storth water outfalls,  administrative procedure to ease the             122.44(i)(2) addressing minimum
                have been evaluated for any                    burden on the regulated community and            monitoring and reporting requirements
                unpermitted non-storm water                    permitting -authorities in the initial stage     for NPDES permits for storm water
                discharges; and (6) any existing               of the storm water program.                      discharges associated with industrial
                information regarding significant leaks          The third application procedure                activity-,
                or spills of toxic or hazardous pollutants     entails seeking coverage under a general          (3) Proposed modifications to 40 CFR
                within three years prior to application        permit for storm water discharges                IZ2.28(b)(2) addressing minimum notice
                submittal. In addition, an individual          associated with industrial activity.             of intent requirements for general
                application must include quantitative          Dischargers covered by a general permit          permits;
                analytical data based on samples               are excluded under 40 CFR 122.21 (a)              (4) Draft baseline general permits         for
                collected on site during storm events.         from requirements to submit individual           torm water discharges associated with
                Under I 122.26(e)(1) of the November 16,       or group permit applications. Conditions         8
                1990 rule, individual applications were        for filing an application to be covered by       industrial activity in 12 States (MA, MZ
                                                               a general permit (typically called a             NIT, F1, LA, TX OK. NM, SD, AZ, AK
                to have been submitted by November 18,                                                          ID) and 6 Territories (District of
                1991.3                                         Notice of Intent (NOP) are established           Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
                 The group application process allows          on a case-by-case basis. As discussed in         Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the
                for facilities with similar storm water        more detail below, today's notice
                                                               establishes final minimum requirements           Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
                discharges to file a single two part           for general permit NOI submissions.              Islands, and the Trust Territory of the
                permit application. Part 1 of a group            The November 16, 1990 regulations              Pacific Islands) without authorized
                application includes a list of the             also establish a two part application            NPDES State programs; on Indian lands
                facilities applying, a narrative               process for discharges from municipal            in AL CA, GA, KY, &H. MN, MS, MT,
                description summarizing the industrial         separate storm sewer systems serving a           NC, ND, NY, NV, SC, TN, UT, WI, and
                activities of participants of the group, a     population of 100,000 or more. The               WY; located within Federal facilities
                list of significant materials exposed to       regulations lists 220 cities and counties        and Indian lands in CO and WA; and
                precipitation that are stored by               that are defined as having municipal             located within Federal facilities in
                participants and material management           separate storm sewer systems serving a           Delaware.
                practices employed to diminish contact         population of 100,000 or more and                 One of the central purposes of today's
                of these materials by precipitation (see       allows for case-by-case designations of          notice is to address and/or take final
                40 CFR 122.26(c)(2)(i)). Under the             other municipal separate storm sewers            action on the first three items listed
                November 16.1990 regulations, Part I of        to be part of these systems (55 FR 48073,        above. Each of these three items is
                the group application was to be                48074). The regulations provide that part        discussed In more detail below. The
                submitted to EPA no later than March           I applications for discharges from large         fourth component of the August 16, 1991
                ,a. 1991.4 The regulation provides that        municipal separate storm sewer systems           PrOPOsal involving draft baseline
                                                                                                                general permits for storm water will be
                  The deadline for submitting an individual permit Ile deadline for a facility that is rejected as aaddressed in a separate rulemaking
                application for storm water discharges associated member of a group application to submit an    presently scheduled for promulgation in
                with industrial activity was extended from     individual permit application has been revised to late spring of this year.
                November 1& 1M to October 1. I= (56 FIR 5&%&   provide that an individual application must be
                (November 5. 1101)@                            submitted no later than 12 months after the date of E. November 5; 1991 P@-qposal
                 4 The deadline for submitting part I of the group receipt of the notice of rejection or October 1. INZ
                application was extended from March is, ign to whichever comes first. (56 FR 56W (November 5.    On November 5,1991, f56 FR 56555),
                September 3M 1991 (58 FR 12098 (March 21,1991)), 19gi]l,                                        as a result of issues and concerns raised




	Federal Registar / Vol. 57, No. 64 / Thursday, April 2, 1992 / Rules and Regulations    	11397


In comments on the March 21, 1991
proposed deadline extensions, EPA
requested comments on extending the 
deadline for submitting part 2 of the
group application from May 18, 1992 to
October 1, 1992.  In the November 5, 1991
notice, the Agency indicated that this
extension would provide an appropriate
opportunity to conduct sampling to
support the part 2 application and would
allow for permit issuing agencies to 
issue general permits.

F. Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991

  On December 18, 1991, the President
signed the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (or
Transportation Act) of 1991, into law.
Section 1068 of the Transportation Act
addresses NPDES permit application
deadlines for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity from
facilities that are owned or operated by
muncipalities.
  Section 1068(b)(1) of the
Transportation Act provides that EPA
shall require individual permit
applications for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity that
are owned or operated by municipalities
on or before October 1, 1982; except that
any municipality that has participated in
a timely part 1 group appliction and
that is denied participation in the group
application shall not be required to
submit and individual application until
the 180th day following the date on
which the denial is made.
  Section 1068(b)(2) of the
Transportation Act provides that part 1
of group applications for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity that are owned or operated by a
municipality with a population of 
250,000 or more shall be required on or
before September 30, 1991, and part 2
applications on or before October 1,
1992. Part 1 of group applications for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity that are owned or
operated by a municipality with a
population of less than 250,000 shall be
required on or before May 18, 1992, and
part 2 applications on or before May 17,
1993.
  Section 1068(c) of the Transportation
Act provides that EPA shall not require
any municipality with a population of
less than 100,000 to apply for or obtain a
permit for any storm water discharge
associated with an industrial activity
other than an airport, powerplant, or
unctrolled saitary landfill owned or
operated by such municipality before
October 1, 1992, unless a permit is
required by either section 402(p)(2)(A)
or (E) of the CWA. Section 1068(d) of the
Transportation Act defines uncontrolled

sanitary landfill to mean a landfill or
open dump, whether open or closed, that
does not meet the requirements for
runon and runoff controls established
pursuant to subtitle D of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act.
  Section 1068(e) of the Transportation
Act clarifies that the statutory deadlines
for group and individual applications
outlined above do not affect any storm
water discharge that is subject to the
provisions of either section 402(p)(2)(A)
or 402(p)(2)(E) of the CWA.  Section
402(p)(2)(A) fo the CWA addresses
storm water discharges that had an
NPDES permit prior to February 4, 1987.
EPA or the State, as the case may be,
determines that the storm water
discharge contributes to a violations of a
water quality standard or is a significant
contributor of pollutants to the waters of
the United States.  As discussed in more
detail below, today's rule codifies the
application provisions of Section 1068 of
the Transportation Act.

II. Today's Rule

  Today's rule addresses the following:
(1) EPA's long-term permit issuance
strategy for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity;
 (2)Modifications to 40 CFR 122.44(i)(2)
addressing minimum monitoring and
reporting requirements for NPDES
permits for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity;
 (3)Modifications to 40 CFR
122.28(b)(2) addressing minimum notice
of intent requirements for general
permits;
 (4)Modifications to 40 CFR 122.28(e)
to establish a deadline of October 1,
1992 for part 2 of group applications for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity;
 (5)An amendment to 40 CFR
122.28(c)(2) to clarify the minimum
number of facilities in a group that must
submit sampling information in part 2 of
a group applications; and
 (6)Modifications to 40 CFR 122.28(e)
to codify portions of Section 1068 of the
Transportation Act of 1991.

A. Long Term Permit Issuance Strategy

  Many of the initial concerns regarding
the NPDES storm water program
focussed on adapting the existing
NPDES pemit program to effectively
address the large number of storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity.  Potential issues with
implementing the NPDES program for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity are raised not only by
the number of industrial facilities
subject tot he program, but also by the

challenges presented in identifying and
assessing appropriate technologies for
preventing adn reducing pollutants in
different classes of storm water and the 
differences in the nature and extent of
storm water discharges.
  Based on a consideration of comments
from authorized NPDES States,
municipalities, industrial facilities and
environmental groups on the permitting
framework and permit application
requirements for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity, EPA
has developed a strategy for permitting
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity taht will serve as a 
foundation for future program
development and technology transfer.
The Agency intends to use the flexibility
provided by the CWA in designing a 
workable and reasonable permitting
system.
  In an action related to this
rulemaking, EPA, in conjunction with
the Rennselaerville Institute, has
initiated a project to develop
recommendations for streamlining and
improving the existing permit issurance
and compliance processes for storm
water discharges.  In addition, the
project will examine whether and how
the currently unregulated phase II storm
water discharges should be addressed.
EPA will be issuing a Federal Register
notice to announce a series of meetings
that will address these phase II storm
water discharges.
  The strategy in today's action consists
of two major components, a tiered
framework for developing permitting
priorities and a framwork for the
development of State Storm Water
Permitting Plans.

1. Permitting Priorities

  The Agency believes that most storm
water permitting activities can be 
described in terms of the following four
classes of activites:

  * Tier 1-Baseline Permitting: One or
more general permits will be developed
initially to cover the majority of storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity;

________________
 * The Court in NRDC v. Train, 396 F. Supp. 1388
(D.D.C. 1975) off'd. NRDC v. Castle, 568 F.2d 1388
(D.C.Ctr. 1977), has recognized the administrative
burden placed on the Agency by requiring
individual permits for a large number of storm
water discharges.  These courts have affirmed EPA's
discretion to use cetain administrative devices,
such as area permits or general permits to help
manage its worload. In addition, the courts have
recognized flexibility in the type of permit
conditions that are established, including
requirements for best mangement practices.  See
August 16, 1991 (56 FR 40948) for futher discussion
of the use of general permits for storm water
discharges.















 




               11398          Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 64 / Thursday, April 2, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
               t
                 e Tier 17- Watershed Permitting:              municipal separate storm sewer                    Information gathered under initial
               Facilities %ithin watersheds shown to           systems.                                        permits for storm water discharges as
               be adversely impacted by storm water              9 The baseline permits will provide a         well as information from other sources
               discharges associated with industrial           basis for bringing selected enforcement         can be used to reassess water quality-
               activity will be targeted for individual or     actions; and                                    based controls. As discussed in mi
               watershed-specific general permits;               e The baseline permit, along with the         detail below, State storm water
                 0 Tier 111-Industry-Specific                  State storm water permitting plans              permitting strategies are expected to
               Permitting: Specific industry categories        (discussed below), will provide a focus         have a major role in this process.
               will be targeted for individual or              for public comment on draft permits and           c. Tier 111-Industry-specific
               industry-specific general permits; and          subsequent phases of the permitting             permitting. Specific industry categories
                 0 Tier IV-Facility-Specific                   strategy for storm water discharges.            will be targeted for individual or
               Permitting. A variety of factors will be          Initially, the coverage of the baseline       industry-specific general permits. These
               used to target specific facilities.for          permits will be broad. However, it is           permits will allow permiting authorities
               individual permits.                             anticipated that coverage will become           to focus attention and resources on
                 These four classes of activities will be      more specific and targeted as other             industry categories of particular concern
               implemented over time and will reflect          permits are issued for storm water              and/or industry categories where
               priorities within given States. In most         discharges associated with industrial           tailored requirements are appropriate.
               States, tier I activities. issuance of          activity pursuant to tier 11 through tier       The Agency will work with the States to
               baseline permits, will be the initial           IV activities. The Agency believes that         develop model permits for selected
               starting point. As priorities and risks         tier I permits can establish the                classes of industrial storm water
               within the State are evaluated. classes         appropriate balance between monitoring          discharges. In addition, the group
               of storm water discharges or individual         requirements and implementable                  application process adopted in the
               storm water discharges will be                  controls that will initiate facility-specific   November 18, 1990 regulation. (55 FR
               identified for tier Il. III or IV permitting    controls and provide sufficient data for        47990) will provide an additional
               activities. Usually a storm water               compliance monitoring gnd future                mechanism for developing industry-
               discharge or a class of discharges will         program development. Baseline general           specific general permits. Group
               not go through a sequence that involves         permits are flexible enough to allow the        applications that are received can be
               all four of the tiers associated with the       inclusion of tier U. III or IV types of         used to develop model permits for the
               strategy, but may for example, go from          permit conditions, such as industry
               initial coverage under a Tier I baseline        specific monitoring or control conditions       appropriate industries.
               permit to coverage under a tier III             into the baseline general permit.                 d Tier IV-Facility-specific
               industry-specific general permit.                 b. Tier H- Watershed permitting.              permitting. Individual permits will be
                 a. Tier I-Baseline permitting. Tier I         Issuing permits on a watershed basis is         appropriate for some storm water
               general permits can initially cover the         potentially a desirable way to cost             discharges in addition to those
               majority of storm water discharges              effectively use Agency resources to             identified under tier U and tier III
               associated with industrial activity in a        satisfactorily address risk. Facilities         activities. Individual permits should be
               State. Consolidating many sources               within watersheds shown to be                   issued where warranted by the
               under a general permit greatly reduces          adversely impacted by storm water               environmental risks of the discharge, the
               the administrative burden of issuing            discharges associated with industrial           need for additional and more complex
               permits for storm water discharges              activity will be targeted for individual        individual control mechanisms, a
               associated with industrial activity.            and more specific general permitting            facility's compliance history or the
               Under this approach:                            activities. This process can be initiated       Potential to consolidate permit
                 9 Pollution prevention and/or best            by identifying receiving waters (or             requirements for a particular facility. For
               management practices will be                    segments of receiving waters) where             example, individual NPDES permits for
               established for discharges covered by           storm water discharges associated -with         facilities with process discharges should
               the permit;                                     industrial activity have been identified        be expanded during the normal process
                 9 Facilities whose discharges are             as a source of use impairment or are            of permit reissuance to cover storm
               covered by the permit will be certain of        suspected to be contributing to use             water discharges from the facility. This
               their legal responsibilities and have an        impairment. Information developed               provides an opportunity to develop more
               opportunity to comply with the CWA;             under sections 304(l), 305(b), and 319(a)       facility specific individual controls
                 e EPA and authorized NPDES States             of the CWA, along with Information              without greatly increasing incremental
               will begin to collect and review data on        from other sources (including                   administrative burdens.
               storm water discharges from priority            information developed under the                 2. State Storm Water Permitting Plans
               industries, thereby supporting                  baseline general permits for storm water
               subsequent permitting activities;               discharges), can be used- in evaluating          EPA believes that State Storm Water
                 * The public, including municipal             impacts on receiving waters. This               Permitting Plans provide an effective
               operators of municipal separate storm           information may identify classes of             basis for ensuring adequate public input.
               sewers which may receive storm water            storm water discharges that are of              evaluating program activities and
               discharges associated with industrial           particular' concern and portions of             prior'ities, and providing program
               activity, will have the opportunity to          watersheds where the sources of                 oversight during the earlier stages of
               review data and reports developed by            concern are located. Appropriate                program development. These plans will
               industrial permittees under section             classes of storm water discharges in            provide an effective coordination and
               308(b) of the CWA;                              these locations can be targeted for             tracking mechanism for evaluating the
                 *The baseline permits will provide a          additional permit conditions which may          initial permitting activities for storm
               basis for coordinating requirements for         provide for additional information to           water discharges required under section
               storm water discharges associated with          characterize the discharge (e.g.,               402(p) of the CWA. In,addition. State
               industrial activity with requirements of        additional monitoring and reporting             Storm Water Permitting Plans will
               municipal storm water management                requirements) or, where appropriate, for        provide a framework within which to
               programs in permits for discharges from         more stringent controls.                        coordinate and asses the relationship


	Federal Registar / Vol. 57, No. 64 / Thursday, April 2, 1992 / Rules and Regulations	11399


and appropriate priorities between
controlling storm water discharges
under the NPDES program with other 
efforts to address diffuse sources of
water pollution, such as State Nonpoint
Source Contol Programs developed
under section 319 of the CWA.
  EPA has outlined below a number of
the components and elements of State
Storm Water Permitting Plans which it
believes are essential to assure
successful implementation of the storm
water initiative called for in section
402(p) of the CWA.  At a minimum, State
Storm Water Permitting Plans should
include a description of an oversight
strategy regarding the implementation of
NPDES permits for discharges from large
and medium manicipal separate storm
sewer systems; storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity; and
case-by-case designations of storm
water discharge needing a permit.
Plans should be developed for each
State by the NPDES authority (e.g. either
an authorized NPDES State, or, where a 
State does not have base program
authorization, by EPA).
  EPA is requesting that draft State
Storm Water Permitting Plans be
provided to the Office of Wastewater
Enforcement and Complieance by April 3, 
1995.  EPA anticipates that States will
update these plans on a regular basis.
These plans will assist EPA in
technology transfer activities with other
States, evaluating the progress  of States
in implementing storm water permitting
activities, and in identifying both
successes and difficulties with ongoing
program implementations. The initial
State Storm Water Permitting Plan will
also entail preliminary planning,
assessment, and tracking that will be
Storm Water Management Programs
called for under section 402(p)(6) of the
CWA.
  The basic framework for the Plan
should include the following elements
on a State-wide-basis:

Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
Systems

  * A list of municipal separate storm
sewer systems serving a population of
100,000 or more within the State;
  * For systems identified, a summary
of the estimated pollutant loadings as
initially provided in the permit
application for such discharges, and as
otherwise updated;
  * The status of the issurance of 
permits for discharges from municipal
separate storm sewer systems serving a
population of 100,000 or more, including
any NPDES permit number for such
discharges; and

  * An  outline of the major components
of municipal storm water management
programs required under permits for
discharges from municipal separate
storm sewer systems, including a
detailed description of the
implementation of any innovative or
model municipal program components.

Storm Water Discharges Associated
With Industrial Activity

  * A description of the status of
activites to issue and implement
baseline general permits, including a
copy of any final general permit for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity;
  * A list of categories of industrial
facilities that have storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity  that are being considered for 
industry-specific storm water general
permits;
  * A description of procedures,
including activities conducted under any
general permit (such as inspections,
review of notices of intent or review of
monitoring reports) to indentify specific
storm water dicharges associated with
industrial activity that are appropriate
for individual permits;
  * A description of how permits for
discharges from municipal separate
storm sewer systems require the
developement of municipal storm water
management programs addressign the
control of pollutants in storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity.

Impacted Waters

  * A descriptions of procedures to 
identify receiving waters where
discharges from municipal separate
storm sewers, storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity, or
any other class of storm water
discharges are, or have the potential to,
cause or contribute to a violation of a
water quality standard, including a list
of water identified by these procedures.
  *A plan to evaluate improvements to 
water quality resulting from controlling
storm water discharges.

Case-by-Case Desginations.

  * A description of procedures to
identify storm water discharges (other
than those currently subject to
requirements for obtaining a permit) that
contribute to a violation of a water
quality standard or significantly
contribute pollutants to the waters of
the United States.
  * A list of storm water discharges
(and associated receiving waters) that
have been designated or are being
considered for designation under section

402(p)(2)(E) of the CWA as needing a
permit.
  EPA strongly encourages public
participation and comment, including
efforts to coordinate with appropriate
Federal and State land managers, at the
State level during the development of
these plans.
  These initial State storm water plan
components will assist the
implementation of permitting efforts for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity and other priority
storm water discharges by creating a
framework for planning and prioritizing
State storm water permitting activites,
tracking State permit issuance efforts,
and providing EPA information for
technology transfer puposes among
NPDES permitting authorities and other
State agencies.  The State Storm Water
Permitting Plans will provide a
framework for implementing the tiered
long-term strategy for permitting storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity and other priority
storm water discharges by crating a
framework for planning and prioritizing
State storm water permitting activities,
tracking State permit issuance efforts,
and providing EPA information for 
technology transfer purposes among
NPDES permitting authorities and other
State agencies.  The State Storm Water
Permitting Plans will provide a
framework for implementing the tiered
long-term strategy for permitting storm
water discharges associated with
industrial activity, and so noted above,
it will assure preliminary State-wide
planning and assessment that will be
essential to developing phase II State
Storm Water Management Programs
required under section 402(p)(6) of the
CWA.  In reviewing State Storm Water
Permitting Plans, EPA will coordinate
with Federal Agencies that may be
affected by components of the plans.

3. States without NPDES General Permit
Authority

  As noted, the issurance of general
permits is an importanta component in
the recommended permit issuing
strategy.  Presently 39 States (and 1
territory) have been authorized to
implement the NPDES permit program.
However, only 29 of these States have
been authorized to issue general
permits.  If NPDES authority is not
obtained for nay of the remaining 10
States, individual NPDES permits based
on the submission of individual or group
applications will have to be issued for
storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity.  It is important to
emphasize that under the CWA, EPA
cannot issue general permits in States
that have been authorized to administes
the base NPDES program.
  EPA strongly recommends authorized
NPDES States without general permit
authority to obtain general permit
authority as soon as possible.  EPA is
currently working with these States to
provide technical assistance and
support and to expedite the
authorization process.














 




                 11400 - Federal Register / Vol. .57, No. 64] Thursday. April 2, 1992                           / Rules and.Regulations

                 4. Resvonse to Comments                        issuing permits for discharges from large       provide States with notice of necessary
                   a. Tieredpriorities. Many commenters         and medium municipal separate storm             Plan elements, provide a nationally
                 agreed that EPA and authorized NPDES           sewer systems. They indicated that              consistent approach far evaluating
                 States should prioritize permit issuance       these activities could be disrupted if          program progress, facilitate technology
                 efforts for storm water discharges ,           States placed top priority on developing        transfer activities, encourage public         0
                 associated with industrial activiti, and       and submitting plans within a year of           participation. and ensure that risks are
                 indicated that the tiered priorities           today's action. EPA agrees with these           evaluated ion the context of the entire
                 identified by EPA generally establish an       concerns, and believes that while               NPDES storm water program.
                 appropriate conceptual framework for           development of these plans should begin            In the August 16, 1991 notice, the
                 such efforts. These commenters                 early in the storm water permit issuance        Agency requested comments on whether
                 generally indicated that the four tier         process to help guide implementation.           the guidelines for Plans should be made
                 strategy provides appropriate                  draft plans do not need to be prepared          requirements that are incorporated into
                 opportunities to identify high-risk            for submission until April 3, 1995.             EPA regulations, or remain non-binding
                 discharges. In response, the Agency              One State stressed that permitting            recommendations for States. Most of the
                 agrees and is retaining the four tiered        plans were necessary to assure national         commenters that responded to this Issue
                 set of priorities as discussed in the          equitability and prevent economic               urged EPA to make the guidelines for
                 August 16, 1991 proposal.                      disincentives in States with progressive        Plans non-binding recommendations for
                   Some commenters indicated that they          storm water management programs.                the States. While EPA notes that it may
                 thought EPA and authorized NPDES               EPA believes that one of its goals in           require preparation of such Plans
                 States should be bound to implementing         overseeing the development of the               pursuant to Section 402(p)(6) of the
                 the tiered priorities consecutively in the     NPDES program is to ensure that NPDES           CWA, the Agency agrees with the
                 order reflected by the four tiers. These       permits for storm water discharges              commenters that establishing guidelines
                 commenters indicated that the draft            reflect the requirements of the CWA in          for Phase I storm water permitting plans
                 general permits noticed on August 16.          an equitable manner that reflects the           as non-binding recommendations
                 im by EPA violated the tiered priority         technology-based and water quality-             provides an amount of flexibility that is
                 approach because the permits contained         based requirements of the CWA. At the           appropriate at this point In the
                 some permit conditio   'ns which were          same time, the Agency recognizes the            program's development. Therefore, the
                 above a tier I baseline set of pollution       need to provide sufficient regulatory           Agency is clarifying that the guidelines
                 prevention measures. EPA disagrees             flexibility to allow States to make             for Phase I Plans and the request to
                 with these comments. The Agency                rational and reasonable permitting              prepare and submit Plans to EPA are
                 wants to clarify that it only intends the      decisions. For example, today's rule            non-binding recommendations at this
                 four tiered set of priorities to be used as    provides permit writers with additional         point in time.
                 a general conceptual framework which           flexibility to target high risk discharges      B. Minimum Monitoring and Reporting
                 can be used to describe efforts to issue       and estabUsh group or facility specific         Requirements for Storm Water
                 permits. The strategy for setting storm        monitoring and reporting requirements           Discharges
                 water permit issuance priorities is not        in NPDES.permits for storm water                                                              0
                 intended to be a set of regulatory             discharges associated with industrial              Current NPDES regulations at 40 CFR
                 requirements binding on EPA, States, or        activity. In addition. permit conditions        122.44(i)(2) provide that all NPDES
                 industrial dischargers. Articulating           for most classes of storm water                 permits are to establish requirements to
                 tiered priorities does not legally restrict    discharges will b%established on a              report monitoring results with a
                 conditions in permits issued by EPA or         case-by-case basis. Nonetheless, the            frequency dependent onthe nature and
                 authorized NPDES States. Rather all            Agency agrees-with the commenter that.          effect of the discharge, but in no'case
                 NPDES permits, Including permits for           State Storm Water Permitting Plans can          less than once a year. In the August Is,
                 storm water discharges associated with         provide an Important tool to ensure that        1991 proposal. EPA requested comment
                 industrial activity, must be in                NPDES storm water programs in                   on six major options for modifying 40
                 compliance with sections 301 and 402 of        different States reflect pollution control      CFR 122.44(i)(2)'to provide minimum
                 the CWA. A major purpose of                    requirements consistent with the CWA            monitoring and reporting requirements
                 articulating tiered priorities is to assist    while maintaining the adequate                  specifically addressing storm water
                 in identifying and developing                  flexibility necessary to successfully           discharges associated with industrial
                 appropriate permit conditions for high-        implement the NPDES storm water                 activity.
                 risk facilities. Tier I baseline general       program.                                           In the August 16,1991 proposal. the
                 permits which have some of the                   Several authorized NPDES States did           Agency identified a number of factors
                 characteristics of tier H or III permits are   not support the idea of State Storm             that it would consider when evaluating
                 consistent with these objectives.              Water Permitting Plans, but rather              this issue:
                  b. State Plans. Some States supported         indicated that annual EPA/State                    Difficulties in Sample Collection-
                 the concept of Plans. but were                 agreements could be used as a tool for          Collection of storm water samples may
                 concerned that scheduling plan                 oversight of the NPDES storm water              pose a number of potential difficulties.
                 development one year after the date of         program. In response. the Agency                These difficulties include determining
                 today's rule would hinder the initial          believes that the approach in the Plans         when a discharge will occur, safety
                 development of storm water programs in         is consistent with and can be                   considerations, the potential for a
                 a number of States. These commenters           Implemented as a component of annual            multiple discharge points at a single
                 indicated that the NPDES storm water           EPA/State agreements if there is -an            facility. the intermittent nature of the
                 program would be in its initial stage of       adequate level of detail and specificity        event. the limited number of events that -
                 implementation and authorized NPDES            and the State and EPA Region agree on           occur in some parts of the country. and
                 States would be busy conducting a              including the elements noted above as           variability in flow rates:
                 number of critical activities such as          part of the annual oversight process. The          Variabilit@af Ddta--@The types and
                 obtaining general permit authority.            Agency believes thal'by publishing a            concentrations of pollutants in stor
                 issuing baseline general permits, and          framework for these Plans. it will              water discharges associated with





                                Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 64 / Thursday, April 2, 1992                       / Rules and Regulations                  11401

                 industrial activity depend on a number           Focused Permitting Efforts                       or by the Director. but would be
                 of factors, including the nature of                 The long-term permitting strategy             required to retain information. For
                 industrial activities occurring at the site,     discussed earlier in today's notice              contaminated storm water discharges
                 the nature of the precipitation event            provides for a flexible, risk-based              from oil and gas exploration or
                 generating the discharge, and the time           system fur issuing permits and targeting         production operations or from inactive
                 period from the last storm. Variations in        priority discharges. Flexibility has been        mining operations where a past or
                 these parameters at a site may result in         incorporated into the strategy to                present mine operator cannot be
                 variation from event to event in the             facilitate efforts by EPA and authorized         identified, either case-by-case
                 concentrations and types of pollutants           NPDES States to identify priority                monitoring conditions in permits for
                 in a given discharge.                            discharges and conduct permit issuance           storm water discharges with a minimum
                    1"ypes of Permit Conditions-Permits           activities which reflect Regional and            requirement of annual sampling (without
                 for industrial process discharges and            State priorities. Discharge sampling data        reporting) or. instead of sampling. a
                 discharges from POTWs traditionally              from targeted facilities can support the         Professional Engineer's (PE) certification
                 have incorporated numeric and/or                 development of priorities and can be,            attesting that good engineering practices
                 toxicity effluent limitations'as                 used to assist in assessing the                  were being employed to meet
                 conditions. Monitoring reports for these         achievement of water management                  appropriate permit conditions.
                 discharges provide a direct indication           goals. As priorities and risks within a ,           Option 4. Case-by-case monitoring
                 whether the discharge complies with              State are identified and evaluated,              conditions in permits for storm water
                 permit conditions. However. it is                classes of facilities will be targeted for       discharges with a mi-nimum requirement
                 anticipated that permits for storm water         more specific permit issuance activities         that monitoring reports be submitted at
                 dischargers will contain a variety of            (tiers 11, 111 and IV of the strategy).          least annually for targeted classes of
                 types of controls. While numeric or              1. Overview of Proposed Options and              storm water discharges associated with
                 toxicity limitations are expected to be          Comments                                         industrial activity located in the
                                                                                                                   watershed of receiving waters that are
                 appropriate for some storm water                    In the August M 1991 proposal, EPA            sensitive to or impacted by storm water
                 discharges, permits for other storm              identified six major options (plus a no          discharges.
                 water discharges are expected to                 change option) for establishing minimum             Option 5- Case-by-case monitoring
                 contain requirements to implement best           monitoring requirements in NPDES                 conditions In permits for storm water
                 management or pollution prevention               permits for storm water discharges               discharges with no minimum
                 practices. In these cases, discharge             associated with industrial activity.             requirement toreport monitoring results.
                 sampling information may not provide             These options only addressed minimum                Option 6: Case-by-case monitoring
                 as direct a link to compliance with              requirements for discharge monitoring in         conditions in permits for storm water.
                 permit conditions. However, effluent             NPDES permits. All options retained
                                                                                                                   discharges, with a minimum requirement
                 monitoring data can still play an                authority for NPDES permit authorities           for the first permit for the discharge that
                 important role in identifying priority           to require more stringent monitoring             monitoring results be reported at least
                 facilities, providing information on             requirements where appropriate. The six          once a year. After a facility has
                 sources and types of pollutants which            options (plus the no change option) were         submitted five years of data, monitoring
                 can be evaluated when designing or               as follows:                                      conditions for storm water would be -
                 modifying beat management or pollution              No Change Option: Case-by-case                'established on a case-by-case basis with
                 prevention practices, and evaluating the         monitoring conditions in permits for                   inimum requirement to conduct
                                                                  storm water discharges, with a minimum           no in
                 effectiveness of best management                                                                  annual sampling.
                 practices and pollution prevention               requirement to report monitoring results
                 measures.                                        at least annually.                                 In addition, the Agency indicated that
                                                                     Option 1: Case-by-case monitoring             it would consider developing a final
                    Administrative Burdens on Permitting          conditions in permits for storm water            regulation which combined aspects of
                 Agencies-Requiring each facility that            discharges with a minimum requirement            several of the articulated options (see
                 discharges storm water associated with           to report monitoring results at least            August 16,1991 (56 FR 40957)). The
                 industrial activity to submit monitoring         twice per permit term.                           various benefits and concems with each
                 data at least annually would result in a            Option 2. Case-by-case monitoring             option were discussed in the August 16,
                 significant increase in the number of            conditions in permits for storm water            1991 notice.
                 discharge monitoring reports received            discharges with a minimum requirement               The comments received on the options
                 by EPA Regions and authorized NPDES              that facilities conduct annual sampling.         reflected differing opinions regarding the
                 States.7 Receiving annual monitoring             Facilities would not be required to              need and use of monitoring in the
                 reports containing complex technical             report monitoring information unless the         NPDES storm water program. Some of
                 information from each facility with a            information was requested in a permit            the comments expressed views on the
                 storm water discharge associated with            or by the Director. but would be                 benefits and drawbacks of different
                 industrial activity would require a              required to retain information.                  monitoring strategies in different
                 significant amount of permitting                   . Option 3. Case-by-case monitoring            situations. An underlying theme that
                 resources dedicated to reviewing and             conditions in permits for storm water            emerged from the comments was that a
                 filing these reports.                            discharges with a minimum requirement            number of factors,' such as the risk to
                                                                  that facilities (other than those from oil       water quality that different types and
                     EPA estimates that if oil facilities with storm and gas exploration or production             classes of storm water discharges
                 water discharges associated with industrial activity operations and inactive mining               associated with industrial activity
                 other then oil and gas facilities and inactive miWng operations where a past or present mine      present. the nature of permit conditions
                 operations were required to submit a discharge   operator cannot be identified) conduct           (e.g. such as numeric limitations and
                 monitoring report annually. almost is% of oil
                 discharge monitoring m7orts collected annually   annual sampling. Facilities would not be         best management practices). and the
                 under the NPUES program would be for storm water required to report information unless the        nature of the operation of the facility
                 discharges associated with industrial activity.  information was requested in a permit            should be considered when establishing





                .11402         Federal Register J Vol. 57, No. 64 / Thursday, April 2. 1992                   / Rules and Regulations

                monitoring conditions in NPDES permits         maintain for a period of three years a         operations. Mining activities have a
                for storm water discharges.                    record summarizing the results of the          somewhat unique history of. -
                  Other commenters suggested that EPA          inspection and a certification that the        development and inactive mining sites
                should allow alternatives to monitoring.       facility is in compliance with the plan        can be dispersed diffusely in remote.
                Some commenters urged the Agency to            and the permit. or identifying any             hard to reach locations where
                expand option 3 to allow other classes         incidents of non-compliance. Such              employees may.typically not be o           ......
                of facilities in addition to oil and gas       report and certification must be signed        to conduct site evaluations. In addition.
                operations to obtain a PE certification.       by a corporate official in accordance          the Inactive nature of these sites may
                to allow facility operators to conduct         with 4o CFR 122.22.                            limit changes to potential for storm
                inspections, or certify compliance with a        Today's rule establishes a minimum           water discharges from the site to
                checklist of pollution prevention              requirement for annual inspections for         contain pollutants. thereby warranting
                measures or best management practices          most storm water discharges associated         less frequent inspections. The Agency
                (BMPs) in lieu of sampling. Other              with industrial activity. The Agency           anticipates- that certification by
                commenters suggested that other-               believes that a minimum frequency of at        Professional Engineers may often be
                individuals were as qualified or more          least annual inspections Is appropriate        appropriate for these sites given the
                qualified than PEs to perform site             to ensure evaluation of changing               nature of typical controls for these sites,
                inspections and that additional                conditions and practices at a site_            and the limited amount of activity
                flexibility should be provided with            (especially those caused by wet weather        occurring at thenL Alternative
                regard to the Inspection requirement.          and winter conditions occurring                requirements may be appropriate for
                For example. some commenters                   throughout a year) and to ensure               storm water discharges from Inactive
                indicated that certified construction          adequate implementation of pollution           mining operations In some
                inspectors were more appropriate for            revention measures on a regular basis.        circumstances. For example, -storm
                                                               p
                conducting inspections at construction         While option 3 of the August 16, IM -          water discharges from inactive mining
                sites than PEs, who might not be               proposal had requested comment on a            operations on Federal lands where an
                familiar with soil and erosion practices       minimum frequency of every three years         operatomannot be identified present
                or storm water management                      for a PE certification for oil and gas.        unique circumstances because of the
                technologies. Other commenters                 operati.ons and certain inactive sites, the    remote nabare and high number of sites
                suggested that site personnel would            Agency believes th   .at providing             on large Federally owned areas.
                typically be in the best position to           additional flexibility in who conduct&           The Agency believes that this rule will
                evaluate the implementation of pollution       site inspections will sufficiently lower       provide sufficient flexibility for permit
                prevention measures and BMPs.                  compliance costs in some cases to allow        writers to establish monitoring
                  Other comments urged EPA to                  a higher frequency of inspections to be        requirements that reflect the potential
                consider the costs and technical
                                                               feasible. As discussed below, the              risk of the discharge and that are
                difficulties of sample collection and          Agency is providing additional                 appropriately related to the nature of the
                analysis when establishing minimum             flexibility in establishing monitoring or      permit conclitions for a discharge
                monitoring requirements. and
                encouraged the Agency to consider              inspection requirements for storm, water       Today@s regulatory modification does
                alternatives to discharge sampling. such       discharges from1nactive mining                 not preclude discharge sampling and
                as allowing site inspections in lieu of        operations. No commenters on the draft         reporting requirements in NPDES
                monitoring. In the August 16. 19M              general permits in the August 16, IM           permits for storm water discharges
                notice. EPA had requested comments on          Federal Register notice specifically           associated with industrial activity.
                monitoring requirements for inactive           indica Led that it would be Infeasible to      While today's rule change provides
                mining operations, and some comments           comply with requirements in the draft          additional flexibility to establish
                specifically addressed this issue.             general permits to conduct annual               onitoring requirements, it does not
                                                               inspections. The Agency 4elieves that a        in
                                                                                                              limit the authority of EPA or authorized
                2. Today's Rule                                minimum annual frequency of                    NPDES States to establish sampling
                 In response to comments. today's              inspections compensates for less forni-I       requIrements where appropriate based
                rulemaking adopts an approach that is a        requirements with respect to specifying        on a consideration of risk or other
                combination or hybrid of a number of           who must conduct the inspection. A             factors.
                                                               minimum annual frequency to also
                options identified in the August 16, IM                                                         The Agency recognizes that different
                proposal, particularly options 3 and           consistent with the minimum
                The final rule provides for establishing       requirements for discharges other than         types of permit conditions are
                                                               storm water to report monitoring               appropriate for different types of storm
                monitoring conditions in NPDES permits                                                        water discharges. Numeric effluent
                for storm water discharges associated          information at least annually.                 limitations are appropriate for some
                                                                A minimum of an annual inspection or
                with industrial activity on a case-by-                                                                                                   End-
                                                                                                              classes of storm water discharges
                case basis. At a minimunu a permit for.        report of monitoring results is not
                such a discharge must require the              required for storm water                     . of-pipe numeric effluent limitations are
                                                                                                              typically used for some ty@pes or classes
                discharger to conduct an annual                associated with industrial activity,           of storm water discharges associated
                inspection of the facility site to idenUfj     inactive mining operations where
                                                                                                              with indt4trfal activity.10 Typically,
                areas contributing to a storm water            annual inspections are impracticable. .
                                                                                                              NPDES permits for these classes of
                discharge associated with industrial           Rather, permits for storm water
                activity* and evaluate whether measures        discharg" from inactive      .ning             discharges -will contain huT neric effluent
                to reduce pollutant loadings. identified in    operations may require certi5cation.           limitations, and sampling requirement&
                                                                                                              will be appropriate for these permits.
                a storm. water pollution prevention plan       once every three years by a Registered
                are adequate and properly implemented          Professional Engineer that the facility is
                in accordance with the ttrins of the           in compliance with the. permit. or               For example. dw Apacy. hin 6sued ausnefic
                                                                                                              effluent H"tation wAdWines for I= de"es Of
                permit and the plan or whether                 provide for alternative requirements.          dischaWs dws an emposed eallmiY Of atom
                additional.control measures are needed.        This provision will provide additkxW           wow or,of mom waw woubined wtth wown
                The discharW must be required to               flexibility to addre" inactive mine            WOW.





                                  Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 64 / Thursday, April 2, 1992                      / Rules and Regulations                      11403

                   However, for many other types of storm           number of other functions in the permit         of facilities, but that across-the-board
                   water discharges associated with                 program.                                        monitoring requirements for all facilities
                   industrial activity, NPDES permits for            Discharge monitoring data can be               with storm water discharges associated
                   the discharge will require the                   used to assist in the evaluation of the         with industrial activity may not be an
                   implementation of pollution prevention           risk of discharges by indicating the            appropriate or cost-effective use of
                   measures and/or BMPs. Where permits              types and the concentrations of                 resources. A number of justifications
                   require the implementation of pollution          pollutant parameters in the discharge.          were provided for favoring a flexible
                   prevention measures and/or BMPs. and             Discharge monitoring data can also be           approach including: (1) Regulatory
                   do not establish numeric effluent                used to support the development of              flexibility could allow establishing
                   limitations. conducting inspections to           future permit conditions and controls.          monitoring and reporting requirements
                   identify sources of pollution and to             assist in identifying sources of                in a risk-based manner (2) some types
                   evaluate whether the pollution                   pollutants at a facility. assist in the         of facilities may not be significant
                   prevention measures and/or BMPs                  evaluation of the effectiveness of              contributors of pollutants when they
                   required by the permit are being                 pollution prevention measures and               were in compliance with pollution
                   effectively implemented and are in               BMPs, and assist in identifying potential       prevention measures or plans; (3) in
                   compliance with the terms of the permit          water quality-based impacts. Storm,             some situations site inspections would
                   may provide a better indication than             water discharge monitoring data will            be more appropriate than monitoring for
                   discharge sampling of whether a facility         have an important role, along with other        determining permit compliance-, (4) EPA
                   is complying with the permit*. As a              information, in identifying facilities or       and authorized NPDES States have
                   result. the Agency believes that today's         classes of facilities where tier 11. 111 and    limited ability to effectively review data;
                   rule will also reduce discharge sampling         IV permit issuance activities are               (5) the potential burdens on small
                   burdens on some industrial facilities            appropriate.                                    businesses and facilities in and climates
                   with storm water discharge permits that           Several commenters offered a number            could be significant; (6) there would be
                   require the implementation of pollution          of suggestions for monitoring programs          difficulties in characterizing storm water
                   prevention measures and BMPs rather              for storm water discharges. in response,        discharges with sampling data: and (7)
                   than numeric effluent limitations, while         EPA generally recognizes that there are         EPA needs to focus on storm water
                   providing more effective and efficient           a number of innovative and risk-based           discharges with the highest risk. Some
                   environmental benefits.                          approaches to developing monitoring             commenters summarized these concerns
                     Today's rule does not affect the               strategies for storm water discharges           by indicating that they believed that for
                   manner in which the NPDES regulations            associated with industrial activity. For        some storm water discharges associated
                   address discharges other than storm              example. monitoring requirements for            with industrial activity, overly broad
                   water associated with industrial                 storm water discharges associated with          discharge monitoring requirements
                   activity. The provisions of 40 CFR               industrial activity can be focused on           could be counterproductive toward the
                   122.44(i)(2) will continue to require that       those discharges located in watersheds          goals of the program. as significant
                   NPDES permits for discharges other               that are impacted by or sensitive to            resources would have to be expended
                   than storm water associated with                 storm water discharges as proposed in           collecting and analyzing discharge
                   industrial activity establish '                  option 4. In order to encourage States to       samples, thereby limiting available
                   requirements to report monitoring                explore efficient innovative and cost-          resources at some facilities. such as
                   results with a frequency dependent on            effective monitoring programs, today's          certain small businesses, to implement
                   the nature and effect of the discharge.          rule provides flexibility to establish          measures that would result in the
                   but in no case less than once a year. In         different monitoring strategies and does        removal of pollutants in their storm
                   addition. today's rule does not change           not adopt option 4. although the                water discharges. Other commenters
                   the manner In which the NPDES                    minimum requirements adopted today              raised concerns regarding sampling
                   regulations address storm water                  do not preclude the use of an option 4          storm water discharges from specific
                   discharges which are subject to an               type approach where appropriate. (The           classes of industries. For example,
                   effluent limitation guideline (e.g. a            same is true for options 1. 2. or 6. EPA or     representatives of the construction
                   minimum of annual monitoring is still            authorized NPDES States retain the              industry contended that monitoring
                   required for these facilities).                  flexibility to use these types of               storm water from construction sites has
                   3. Response to Comment                           approaches on a permit-specific basis).         limited usefulness due to the changing
                                                                    The Agency believes that this approach          nature of the activity.
                      Some conunenters questioned the               offers the greatest potential for using           As discussed above, EPA has
                   value of sampling data for storm water           permits to generate information on              designed today's rule to address all of
                   discharges in certain situations. In             priority storm water discharges that can        these concerns. Since today's rule
                   response. the Agency believes that, in           be used to assist in the development of         provides additional flexibility in the
                   certain instances, storm water discharge         controls.                                       NPDES regulatory framework to
                   monitoring data will play a number of              Many conunenters urged EPA to                 establish monitoring requirements for
                   critical roles in the NPDES program. As          provide sufficient regulatory flexibility       storm water discharges associated with
                   discussed above, some permits for storm          to permit writers to establish discharge        industrial activity. the Agency believes
                   water discharges associated with                 sampling and reporting requirements for         that the concerns raised by the
                   industrial activity will establish               storm water discharges associated with          commenters, where appropriate, can be-
                   technology or water quality-based                industrial activity on a case-by-case           addressed during the permit issuance
                   numeric limitations. Discharge                   basis. Many conunenters favored                 process under the flexible regulatory
                   monitoring reports will be an important          establishing discharge sampling                 framework established by today's rule.
                   means of assessing compliance with               requirements in a risk-based manner. A          In particular. the Agency believes that
                   these requirements. Discharge                    number of these conunenters suggested           today's rule, which relies on site
                   monitoring. including monitoring                 that it was important to sample storm           inspections as minimum requirements.
                   requirements in permits that do not              water discharges associated with                provides a more efficient and cost-
                   establish numeric limitations, plays a           industrial activity from priority classes       effeittive approach for evaluating the





                                 Federal Register / VOL 57, No. 64 1 Thursday, April 2, 1992                                       / Rules and Regulatiom
              11404


              effectiveness of permit program                            for classes of storm water discharges                     or annual inspections may be
              implementation. The Agency notes that                      associated with industrial activity other                 particularly burdensome at inactive
              site inspections are typically an integral                 than those from oil and gas operations.                   mining opecation& because mining
              part of pollution prevention measures                      These commenters, indicated that such a                   operations often are found in remote
              and best management practices for                          certificatioa could, in many cases, be                    areas that are not necessarily supported
              storm water discharges associated with                     less burdensome than discharge                            by infrastructure that allows easy
              industrial activity.9                                      monitoring, and that such certifications                  access. In addition. at some inactive
                 Option 3 of the August 16, 1991                         could provide a closer link to                            mining operations, inspections may not
              proposal would have provided flexibility                   compliance with pollution prevention                      be as integrally related to pollution
              when establishing monitoring                               measures and best management                              prevention measures for storm water
              requirements for storm water discharges                    practices. As discussed above, today's                    discharges associated with indtistrial
              from oil and gas exploration or                            rule provides that requirements to                        activity, as pollution prevention
              production operations or from inactive                     conduct annual site inspections can be                    measures will not focus on day to day
              mining operations where a past or                          dstablished as minimum monitoring                         management activities. EPA has
              present mine operator cannot be                            requirements in permits for storm water                   modified today's rule accordi4y.
              identified by allowing either a minimum                    discharges, The Agency agrees with                           A number of commenWrs addressed
              requirement of annual sampling (without                    these comments to the extent that it is                   the specific monitoring requirements to
              reporting) or, instead of sampling, a                      convinced that site inspecoons ran                        the draft general permits for storm water'
              Professional Engineees (PE) certification                  provide an appropriate means for                          discharges associated with industrial
              attesting that good engineering practices                  evaluating compliance with pollution                      activity in the August 10. IM notice.
              were being employed to meet                                prevention measures and beat                              The Agency wants to clarify that the
              appropriate permit conditions. The                         management practices for storm water                      amendments to 40 CFR 122.44(iX2) in
              Agency requested comment on whether                        discharges from different types of                        today's ride establish minimuni
              the PE certification was appropriate and                   facilities. In addition. site inspections                 monitoring and reporting requirements
              whether it should be extended to other                     can be less burdensome than sampling                      for NPDES permits for storm water
              classes of facilities.                                     storm water discharges for some                           discharges associated with industrial
                 Some commenters suggested that                          facilities. Requiring annual inspections                  activity. The Agency will respond to
              other individuals were as qualified or                     and reviewing documentation' as part of                   comments on the specific monitoring
              more qualified then PEs to perform site                    routine compliance inspections or at the                  requirements in the draft general
              inspections and that additional                            time of permit reissuance also makes                      permits in the August 16. IM notice as
              flexibility should be provided with                        effective use of the limited resources of                 part of the fact sheets and/or
              regard to the inspection requirement.                      permit issuance authorities. by allowing                  administrative records for those permits.
              For example. some commenters                               permit issuing agencies more time to
              indicated that certified construction                      focus on issues other than receiving,                     C Application Requirements for
              inspectors were more appropriate for                       reviewing and filing monitoring data.                     General Permits
              conducting inspecitions at construction                      Somie commenters indkated that EPA                        The provisions of 40 CFR IM.21(a)
              sites than PEs, who might not be familiar                  and authorized NPDES States should                        exclude persons covered by general
              with soil and erosion practices or storm                   only require facilities to monitor storm                  permits from requirements to submit
              water management technologies. Other                       water discharges associated with                          individual permit appiications.
              commenters suggested that site                             Industrial acAivity where the permit                      Currently. the general permit regulations
              personnel would typically be in the best                   issuing agencies can evahiate the data.                   at 40 CFR 122.2A however. do not
              position to evaluate the implementation                    The Agency recognizes that EPA and                        address the isatie of how a potential
              of pollution prevention measures and                       some authorized NPDES States canwi                        permittee is to apply to be covered
              BMPs- In response, today's rule provides
                                                              to be      provide adequate resources to ensure                      under a general permit. Rather.
              flexibility to allow site inspections
              conducted by persons other than PEs.                       that all discharge monitoring data can                    conditions for filing an application to be
              While the Agency believes it is                            be inspected. However, the Agency                         covered by a general permit (typically
              appropriate to require PE certifications                   believes that even where discharge                        called a Notice of Intent (NOI)) have
              in certain circumstances, the approach                     monitoring data is not reviewed on an                     been established on a case-by-case
              taken with today's rule will provide                       ongoing basis by a permit issuing                         basis. NOI requirements established in
              additional flexibility in developing these                 authority, the data can still be very                     general permits operate instead of
              requirements.                                              useful. Facilities which discharge should                 individual permit application
                 A number of commenters suggested                        review their discharge sampling data to                   requirements for the discharges covered
              that PE certifications were appropriate                    identify sources slid types of pollutants                 by the general permit.
                                                                         in discharge& and to evaluate the                         1. August 16. 1991 Proposal
              fo: For example. EPA noticed draft general partaltv        effectiveness of pollution prevention
                 atom   water discharges associated with                 measures and BWs- Where an NPDES                            The August 16. 1991 notice proposed
              induarial activity on August 16. 19M 156 FR 40M)           permit does not require a discharger to                   several modifications to the NPDES
              that wotdd require permitiees other than                   report sampling data. EPA or an                           regulatory framework for pneral
              consWuc! activities to conduct visual Inspection           authorized NPDES State will typically                     permits. (7be proposed changes
              of designated equipment and plast areas for *
              evidence of. or the potential for. pollutant...teing       be able to request the data an aca".-by-                  addressed NPOES general permits for an
              the drainage system and to conduct annual site             case basis. or request that the data be                   classed of discharges and sludge
              inspections to verlf@ the description of potential         submitted for consideration prior to                      disposal, and was not limited to storm
              pollutant sowcas and controls that are being
              impleinented an storm water poffirtion preventift          permit reissuance.                                        water discbarges@ The proposal
              plans (see parts IILCA149) and ILLCA-r- (58 PR               Some commenters expressed concerns                      addressed procedures for becoming
              409MJJ. Under the draft general permits. pemittees;        about minimum monitoring requirements                     authorized to discharge under a general
              that operate construction activities are mlatred to        for storm water discharges from inactive                  permit, minimum requirements foe NOls
              inspect all     Ir controls an the site at le" once        mining operations. EPA agrees that in                     to be covered by a general permit. and
              every seven calendar days (am pa" lfl-C&b.(S), 56
              FR 409991.                                                 some circumstances. discharge sampling                    deadlines for Submitting NOls.




                              Federal Register             Vol. 57, No. 04 1 Thursday, April 2. 1M          / Rules and Regulations                     11405

               2. Today's Rule                                adequate program trapleffientation,           but leaves the permitting authority this
                 Today's rule finalizes modifications to      including at a minimum, the legal name        decision of which approach is most
               the NTDES regulatory framework for             and address of the owner or operator,         appvropriate@ The approach in the final
               general permits addressing procedures          the facility name and address, type of        rule wM avoid the confusion that arose
               for becoming authorized to discharge           facility or dischargm and the receiving       with the proposed regulatory language
               under an NPDES general permit.                 stream(s). This provision specifies           used in the August 10, IM notice.
               minimum requirements for notices of            minimum NOI requirements. General             Today's rule also requires that NPDES
               intent (NOI) to be covered by a general        permits may require that additional           general permits shall specify whether a
               permit. and deadlines for submitting           information be reported in NOls where         discharger that has submitted a
               NOI&.                                          appropriate.                                  complete and timely notice of intent to
                 The regulatory framework provided              The NO1 provisions of this rule allow       be covered in accordance with the
               by today's rule requires that. except for      the Director to estabush alternative          general permit and that is eligible for
               in two situations an NOI must be               notice of intent requirements for general     coverage wider the permit, Is authorized
               submitted by a discharger (or treatment        permits for storm water discharges            to discharge either in accordance with
               works treating domestic sewage) in             associated with industrial actMty from        the perm4t upon receipt of the notice of
               order to be authorized to &scliarge (or,       inactive mhiin& Inactive oil and gas          intent by the Director, after a waiting
               in the case of a sludge disposal permit.       operations; or inactive landfills             period specified in the general permit
               to engage in a sludge use or disposal          occurring an Federal lands where an           on a date specified In the general permit,
               practice) under an NPDES general               operator cannot be klentified. The            or upon receipt of notification of
               permit. 71he first situation where an N01      Agency is currently developing general        inclusion by the Director. EPA has
               will not have to be submitted to               permits for storm water discharges from       rewrMen the proposed language in 40
               authorize discharges under a general           inactive mines inactive oil and gas           CFR 122.28(b)(2)(iv) to make this
               permit is where the Director notifies the      operations and inactive landfills             provision clearer. but has not changed
               discharger that its discharge is covered       occurring an Federal lands. During the        its intent. 7U Agency believes that the
               by the permit. ne second situation             process of developing and Issuing these       approach taken In the final rule retains
               where NOIs are not required under a            permits, EPA will work with authorized        the flexibift of the proposal while
               general permit Is where the Director           NPDES States to deterniine appropriate        accomplishing the same purpose.
               provides In the general permit that a          NOI requirements foe these permits              The Agency Is finalizing this
               submission of an NOI is not requirecL          given the unique natum distribution,          regulatory framework for NOls with
               where the Director finds that an NOI           and occurrence of these discharges.           NPDES general permits to encourage the
               requirement Is Inappropriate for that            Today's rule also provides that             use of general permits, to provide for
               general permiL                                 general permits requiring the submittal       more consistent NOI requirements, and
                 In making a decision that an NOI Is          of NOIs shall specify deadlines for           to ensure that dischargers covered by
               inappropriate for a general permit the         submitting notices of intent and the          general permits provide appropriate
               Director will consider the type of             date(s) when a discharger is authorized       information. Pwilier, the Agency
               discharge, the expected nature of the          to discharge under the permit.                beheves that today's regulatory,
               discharge, the potential for toxic and           The Agency believes that deadlines          framework provides a regulatory
               conventional pogutants in the '                for subnijtW of an NOI are an important       framework that is consistent with
               discharges, the expected volume of the         part of NOI requirements, and that            existing practices of EPA and authorized
               discharges, other means of klentifying         general permits should state when N019        NPDIES States.
               discharges covered by the permit and           must be suba*W. In addition, the              3. Response to Comments
               the estimated number of discharges to          permit should clarify when a discharge
               be covered by the permit. Also. in             is authorized under the permit. In many         Most commenters addressing the
               making this decision, the Director Is          cases, the Agency anticipates that            proposed ftemework for NOIs supported
                                  'be the reasons for not     general permits will provide that a           the concept as a useful tool for the
               required to descri
               requiring an NOI in the fact sheet of the      discharger obtains coverage under the         NPDES program. Some of these
               general permit. Lhider today's rule, such      general permit after a specified time         commenters urged EPA to use N019 as a
               a finding could only be made for               period passes after dw date of submittal      tool to minimize btirdens an the
               discharges other than discharges from          of an NOL This approach will provide          authority issuing permits and reduce
               POTW& combined sewer overflows                 the NPDES authority with an                   costs relative to submitting individual
               (CS09), primary industrial facilities. and     opportunity to review the NOI prior to        permit applications. Commenters
               storm water discharges associated with         the authorization of the discharge. In        indicated that an additional reason for
               industrW activity. 7%e Agency believes         other situations, It may be appropriate       using N019 was to assist in clarifying
               that. given the potential environmental        for general permits to provide that a         whether a facility was covered by a
               significance and NPDES program                 discharge is authorized as soon as a          given general permit.
               priorities associated with discharges          complete and timely NOI is received.            The Agency agrees with these
               from POTIWs, CSO*. prftnary industrial           The AuguA 1& 1991 notice proposed           comments. N019 serve a number of
               facilities, and storm water discharges         in 40 CFR 122.28(bH21(111] that unless a      functions. NOI requirements in general
               associated with Industrial activity. it is     general permit provided alternative time      permits can estabfish a clear accounting
               appropriate to require NO1s; in all            periods. an NOI was to be submitted 80        of the nomber of permittees covered by
               general permits for these discharges.          days before the date of intended permit       the general permit. the nature of
                 Today's rule establishes minimum             coverage. The final rule amends this          operations at the facility generating the
               requirements for NOls In NPDES general         paragraph such that no default deadlitie      discharge, and their identity, location
               permits at 40 CFR IZ2.28(bj(2gii@ This         for subutission is specified. Rather, the     and receiving waters. NOIs ran be used
               provision requires that the contents of        deadiine for NOI submission win be            to deve4op a data base of facility-
               the notice of intent be specified in the       established on a permit-specific basis.       specific Information.* NOIs can be used
    ,19        general perTnft and m1aR require the           Today's rule simply requires that this        as a screening tool to identify discharges
               submission of information necessary for        Issue be addressed in the general permit.     where individual permits are





                    11406              Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 64 / Thursday, April 2. 1992                                       / Rules and Regulations

                    appropriate. For example, the                              general permits will require the                           NOIs in NPDES permits for storm water
                    identification of discharges to receiving                  'submittal of NOL However, there may                       discharges from oil and gas operations
                    waters with, impaired water quality can                    be some situations where it may be                         would minimize this confusion.
                    be used to target facilities for priority                  more appropriate to have the Director                        After evaluation of the comments,
                    permitting efforts. Also, the NOI can be                   notify dischargers that they are covered                   EPA believes, that except for th,
                    used to identify classes of discharges                     by a general permit or that NOI                            situation of inactive oil and gas
                    appropriate for more specific general                      requirements are otherwise not                             operations on Federal lands discussed
                    permits covering a more limited set of                     appropriate.                                               below. it is not appropriate to exclude
                    discharges. The NOI can provide                            For example, issuing a general permit                      contaminated storm water discharges
                    information needed by the Director to                      without NOI requirements may be an                         associated with industrial activity from
                    notify dischargers that a more specific                    appropriate way for EPA and authorized                     oil and gas exploration and production
                    general permit was issued. The NOI also                    NPDES States to minimize                                   operations from the minimum NOI
                    can identify the permittee to provide a                    administrative burdens and compliance                      requirements, and therefore today's rule
                    basis to develop and implement                             costs in permits for small discharges                      does not treat storm water discharges
                    enforcement and compliance monitoring                      which have been determined to have                         associated with Industrial activity from
                    strategies and priorities. In addition, the                minimal or no impacts on receiving                         oil and gas operations differently than
                    administrative burdens on the                              waters. Today's regulation provide some                    other storm water discharges associated
                    permitting issuing agency and the costs                    flexibility to address these situations.                   with industrial activity in this regard. As
                    to dischargers can be reduced by                              In the August 18, 1991 notice, EPA                      a result today's rule does not contain a
                    replacing more complicated permit                          requested comment on whether it is                         specific reference to storm water
                    application requirements with simplified                   appropriate to require NOIs for the large
                                                                                                                                          discharges from oil and gas operations.
                    requirements.                                              number of contaminated storm water                         111he Agency believes that NOI
                      One State commented that EPA                             discharges associated with industrial                      requirements In general permits for
                    should not mandate by regulation the                       activity from oil and gas exploration and                  storm water discharges from oil and gas
                    information required in an NOL which it                    production operations. Most                                operation will provide for a clear
                    believed should be left to the State or                    commenters on this issue indicated that                    tracking mechanism that Is currently
                    EPA Region issuing a general permit. In                    they thought N019 should be required in                    unavailable under the SPCC program
                    response, the Agency believes that                         general permits for storm water                            In addition. as was pointed out by
                    today's regulatory framework provides                      discharges from oil and gas operations.                    conunenters, the N01 process can be
                    sufficient flexibility for developing NO[                  One State commented that it believed                       used to identify facilities with
                    requirements, and that the minimum                         that it would be inappropriate to                          contaminated runoff, and therefore
                    Information requirements of today's rule                   exclude a class of discharges from the                     minimize confusion with respect to the
                    represent essential information                            requirements to submit an NOI unless
                    necessary for meeting the program                          there is an alternative method that can                    provisions of section 402(l)(2) of the
                    objectives outlined above. Under                           and will be used to track these                            CWA.
                    today's rule, the minimum requirements                     discharges. A different commenter                            One-comirnenter requested
                    for NOls include the legal name of the                     indicated that oil and gas operations                      clarification on the procedures that
                    owner or operator and the facility name                    were adequately monitored through the                      would be followed to ensure that
                    and address. EPA believes that this                        Spill Prevention Control and                               permits requiring Director notification
                    information is essential to identify the                   Countermeasure (SPCC) program and                          instead of facility submission of an NOI
                    location of the facility for compliance                    that NOIs for NPDES general permits                        are in compliance with the procedural
                    purposes and to provide mailing                            would not be necessary. A namber of                        requirements of the CWA and the
                    addresses necessary to conduct any                         the commenters expressed confusion                         NPDES regulations. The Agency does
                    correspondence. The minimum NOI                            over the relationship between this                         not believe that today's rule conflicts
                    requirements also include a description                    provision and section 402(1)(2) of the                     with the NPDES regulations or the
                    of the type of facility or dischargers.                    C`WAI0, and suggested that requiring                       CWA_ The Agency believes that the
                    This description is necessary to provide                                                                              existing NPDES regulations provide for
                    information to screen whether the                            10 Section 40Z(i)(2) of the CWA provides that            adequate public notice and public
                    discharge is eligible for coverage under                   NPDES permits $hall not be required for storm              comment opportunities when general
                    the general permit and to allow the                        water runoff from mining operations or oil and gas         permits are issued. (See 40 CFR 124.10,
                                                              P      .     ..  exploration. production. processing or treatment
                    permit writer to begin to identify priority                operations or transmission facilities, composed
                    discharges. Finally, the minimum NOI                       entirely of flows which are from conveyances or            quality standard. (me 40 CFR 1=26(c)(ihiii)).
                    requirements include the receiving                         systems of conveyances (including but not limited          Permit applications are not required for a discharge
                    stream(s). This information is necessary                   to pipes. conduits. ditches. and channels) used for        composed entirely of storm water from a mining
                                                                               collecting and conveying precipitation runoff and          operation unleas the discharge comes into contact
                    to adequately identify the discharges to                   which are not contaminated by contact with or that         with any overburden. raw material. Intermediate
                    impaired receiving waters where water                      has not come into contact with. any overburdem             products. finished product byproduct. or waste
                    quality-based permits are necessary.                       raw material. intermediate products. ftnished              products located on the site of such operations.
                      Some commenters indicated that they                      product. by-product or waste products located on the        I I EPA requested comment on using information
                                                                               site of such operation. EPA published permit               collected under the SPCC program to track storm
                    believed that all discharges should be                     application regulations consistent with section            water discharges. However, this approach has a
                    required to submit an NOL Various                          402(IX2) on November M 1990 (55 FR 48(1=@                  number of limitations. including that the SKX
                    reasons were provided to support this                      These regulations require permit applications for          program currently does not require facilities subject
                    approach, including that the NPDES                         discharges composed entirely of storm water                Jo SPCC requirements to submit notifications. in
                                                                                    inted with industrial activity from oil or gas        addition. many facilities subject to the SPCC
                    authority needed to know of all facilities                 aexs'p'01ocration. production. processing. or treatment    program are not subject to the NMES storm water
                    that discharged storm water to a given                     operations. or transmission facilities only when a         program either because they do not have a storm
                    water body, and that dischargers should                    discharge of storm waters results in a discharge of a      water discharge to waters of the United States or
                    not be required to comply with a permi                 t   reportable quantity for which notification is or was       because they are not activities that are addressed
                                                                               required pursuant to 40 CFR 11721. 4o CFR 302.s. or        by the regulatory definition of storm water
                    unless they submit a notification. In.                     40 CFR 110.6 at anytime since November Is. 1997, or        discharge associated with Industrial activity at 40
                    response, the Agency believes that most                    the discharge contributes to a violation of a water        CFR 12Z25(b)(14) (e.g.. certain pipelines).


                      ------        ----





	Federal Registar / Vol. 57, No. 64 / Thursday, April 2, 1992 / Rules and Regulations  	11407


124.11 and 124.57.) The Agency wants to
point out that the NPDES regulations
require certain opportunities for the
public to comment during the permit
issuance process, and provide for permit
appeal after the permit is issued.  In
addition, 40 CFR 122.28(b)(2)(iii)
provides that for EPA issued permits,
any ownere or operator authorized by a
general permit may request to be
excluded from the coverage of the
general permit by applying for an
individual permit.
  One commenter requested
clarification on the type of notification
that must be provided by the Director to
a discharger where the discharger is not
required to submit an NOI. In response,
the Agency believes that in most cases,
the Director will notify dischargers of
coverage in writing.
  One commenter requested
clarification on whether a discharger
that is not required to submit an NOI,
but rather is notified by a Director, will
be subject to permit fees.  The Agency
wants to clarify that this rulemaking
does not address permit fees.
  One commenter, while supporting the
requirements that an NOI be submitted,
indicated that EPA could reduce its
paperwork load by issuing general
permits for storm water discharges from
construction sites that required 
discharges to notify municipalities
instead of the NPDES permit authority.
EPA disagrees with this approach.
Submitting NOIs to municipalities but
not requiring that an NOI be submitted
to the Director may not assure that EPA
or authorized NPDES States receive
adequate information to effectively
implement the NPDES program for these
discharges.
  In the August 16, 1991 notice, EPA
proposed that general permits for storm
water discharges associated with 
industrial activity from inactive mining.
inactivie oil and gas operations occurring
on Federal lands where an operator
cannot be identified may contain
alternative notice of intent
requirements.  A federal land
management agency commented that 
inactive landfills on Federal lands are in
some ways analogous to inactive mines
and inactive oil and gas operations and
should be treated similarly.  EPA agrees
with this comment and accordingly
today's rule allows alternative notice of
intent requirements in general permits
for storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from inactive
landfills on Federal lands.
  One State urged EPA not to refer to
NOIs as permit applications.  They were
concerned that calling NOIs permit
applications would trigger certain public
notice requirements under State law.

They further argued that the purpose of 
NOIs are significantly different than
permit applications, and that the cited
State law provision should not apply. In
response, EPA recognizes the
differences between the purpose of a 
notice of intent and an individual permit
application.  Individual permit
applications contain a significant
amount of site-specific information that
is typically used for the development of
individual permit conditions. NOIs
typically contain only general
information and are used for screening
and compliance purposes rather than for
the development of permit conditions.
However, the distinction between
individual applications and NOIs as
they relate to public notice requirements
in various State laws is a question of
interpretation of those State laws which
EPA does not attempt to answer in this
notice.  EPA notes however, that it
considers submission of an NOI to
constitute a permit application for
purposes of federal regulatory
provisions which provide that a timely
reapplication of a federal permit or
license continues the effectiveness of
the existing permit pending action by
the Director. (See 40 CFR 122.6).
  In the preemble to the August 16, 1991
notice, EPA discussed public
accessibility to lists of NOIs, but did not
publish proposed regulatory language
addressing this issue.  EPA does not
intend to address this issue in this 
rulemaking, but will be addressing the
issue in future rulemakings.

D. Deadline for Part 2 of Group
Applications.

1. November 5, 1991 Proposal

  On November 5, 1991, (56 FR 58555).
EPA requested comments on extending
the deadline for submitting part 2 of the
group application from May 16, 1992 to
October 1, 1992.  In the November 5, 1991
notice, the Agency indicated that this
extension would provide an appropriate
opportunity to conduct sampling to
support the Part 2 application and would
allow for permit issuing agencies to
issue general permits.

2. Today's Rule

  EPA received over 60 comments on
the November 5, 1991 proposal.  After
careful consideration of these
comments, the Agency is extending the
deadline for submitting part 2 of the
group applications for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
acivity from May 16, 1992 to October 1,
1992 as proposed.
  EPA is granting this extension to
provide an appropriate opportunity to
conduct sampling to support the part 2

application.  This regulatory modification
will provide a more equitable
framework for submitting permit
applications for storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity. It
will also allow for permit issuing
agencies to issue general permits prior
to the completion of the group
application process.

3. Response to Comments

  All of the comments received on the
November 5, 1991 proposal to extend the
regulatory deadline for submitting part 2
of the group application supported an
extension.  A number of reasons were
provided to justify the extension,
including the difficulty associated with
sampling storm water discharges from
facilities located in arid and northern
regions during winter months, the need
for time to allow for the preparation of
guidance documents, training personnel
in sampling techniques, and conducting
analytical work.  A number of
commenters supported October 1, 1992
as the deadline for part 2 of the group
application.  In general, these\
commenters expressed their belief that 
the deadlines for submitting part 2 of the
group application and individual permit
applications for storm water dicharges
associated with industrial activity
should be the same. A number of
reasons were given for supporting this
approach, including, that this would be 
the most equitable approach, the
regulated community would have a
clearer choice of application options,
and one deadline would limit confusion.
EPA agrees with these concerns, and as
is discussed above, is extending the
deadline for submitting part 2 of the 
group application from May 18, 1992 to
October 1, 1992.
  Some commenters favored extending
the deadline for submitting part 2 of the
group application beyond October 1, 
1992.  Some of these commenters
suggested that part 2 of the group
application should not be required until
general permits for storm water
discharges associated with industrial
activity were issued.  These commenters
indicated that this approach would
ensure that discharges would have
three options for applying for a permit
(e.g. participating in a group applications,
submitting an individual application, or 
submitting an NOI to be covered under a
general permit). This would allow
dichargers to select the most cost-
effective approach allowable under the
NPDES regulatory framework.  Other
commenters suggested that participants
in a group should be given one complete
year from the date after the group



             
 




                    11408             Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 64 / Thursday, April 2, 1992                                       Rules and Regulations

                    receives notice of approval of the part I                   general permits are inappropriate for a               submitted data (November 16,1990 (55
                    application.                                                given class of storm water discharges.                FR 48067)). ,                  L . .
                      EPA notes that the extension to                           Additional confusion would arise in                      During the group application process
                    October 1, 1992 provides authorized                         these situations if application deadlines             the regulated community exhibited so;*
                    NPDES States with additional time to                        were tied to the dates of general permit              confusion regarding the minimum
                    issue general permits for storm water                       issuance. The Agency is also concerned                number of facilities that must submit
                    discharges associated with industrial                       that unacceptable delays may result                   sampling data for 'groups with 11 to 99
                    activity. On August 16,1991. (56 FIR                        under this approach in States where the               members. For groups with 11 to 99
                    40948), EPA published a proposal                            issuance of a general permit is delayed.              members, some group's have Interpreted
                    requesting public comment on draft                          EPA also disagrees with the                           the language in the November 16,1990
                    general permits for storm water                             suggestion that the deadlines for                     regulations to require 10 @ercent of the
                    discharges associated with industrial                       submitting part 2 of the application                  facilities to submit sampling data, while
                    activity in States and territories without                  should be based on the date on which a                other groups, have Interpreted the
                    authorized NPDES programs. is Ile                           part I application is accepted. El                    language to require a minimum of 10
                    Agency intends to make every effort to                                                                        )A
                                                                                believes that establishing a fixed                    facilities to submit sampling data.
                    issue these general permits in the spring                                                                               today's action, EPA wants to clarify
                    of 1992.                                                    deadline of October 1, 1992 for part 2 of                In
                     However, EPA has decided against                           the group application is warranted for                that for groups with 20 or fewer
                    basing the deadline for submitting part 2                   the same reasons that the Agency                      members, at least 50 percent of the
                    of the group applications on the date                       articulated'above and in the proposal.                dischargers participating in the group
                    that general permits are issued by                          This approach provides an equitable                   must submit quantitative -data. For
                    individual States because of the                            deadline for these facilities, reduces                example, at least nine facilities must
                    potential confusion and uncertainty that                    confusion and uncertainty in the                      submit quantita      tive data if a group is.
                    would arise. Although the Agency                            regulated community, and provides-                    composed of 17 members. For groups
                    proposed draft general permits for storm                    sufficient time to complete the sampling              with 21 to 99 members, at least 10
                    water discharges in States without                          necessary to obtain quantitative data.                dischargers participating in the group
                    authorized State NPDES programs in                                                                                must submit quantitative data. For
                    one notice, it may not finalize all of                      E. Clarification for Part 2 of Group                  example. at least ten facilities must
                    these permits on the same date. 'Me                         Applications                                          submit quantitative data if a group Is
                    Agency expects that various region-                         The November'16,1990 regulations                      composed of 25 members. For groups
                    specific. State-specific, or industrial                     established procedures for group                      with 100 to 1,000 members, at least 10
                                                                                                                                      percent of the dischargers participating
                    category-spef fic issues may take                           applications for storm water discharges               in the group must submit quantitative
                    different amounts of time to address. It                    associated with industrial activity. The              data. For groups with more than 1,000
                    should also be noted that the August 16.                    group application process allows for                  members, no more than 100 dischargers
                    1991 proposal does not address general                      facilities with similar storm water                   participating in the group must submit
                    permits in authorized NPDES States.                         discharges to file a single two part                  quantitative data.
                    Each authorized NPDES State that will                       permit application. Part I of a group.
                    issue general permits for storm water                       application includes a list of the                      For groups with more than 10
                    discharges associated with Industrial                       facilities applying, a narrative                      members, either a minimum of two
                    activity will have to go through the                        description summarizing the industrial                dischargers from each precipitation zone
                    procedures for issuing general permits Of                   activities of participants of the group, a            indicated in appendix E of 40 CFR part
                    that Stat#. Different permit issuance                       list of significant materials exposed to              lZ2 in which ten or more members of the
                    pro'cedures. along with other factors.                      precipitation that are stored by                      group are located. or one discharger
                    will result In these permits being issued                   participants and material management                  from each precipitation zone indicated
                    at different times. Ali of these factors                                                                          in appendix E of 40 CFR part 122 in
                                                                                practices employed to diminish contact                which nine or fewer members of the
                    indicate that a tremendous amount of                        f these materials by precipitation (see
                    uncertainty and confusion would result                      ID                                                    group are located, must be identified to
                    if EPA attempted to tie regulatory                          40 CFR 122.26(c)(2)(i)). In addition. the             submit quantitative data. For groups of 4
                    deadlines for submitting perinit                            part I application must identify the                  to 10 members, at least one facility in
                    applications to the dates when general                      group participants that will submit                   each precipitation zone in which
                    permits are issued for particular States.                   quantitative data (sampling data) in part             members of the group are located must
                    This is particularly important to the                       2 of the group application. These                     submit data. EPA has made a correction
                    group application process where                             participants must be representative of                to the group application requirements to
                    facilities from many different States                       the group.                                            reflect the above, which represents
                    may be in the same group.                                   In part 2 of the group application, the               EPA's original intent in the November
                    In addition. the Agency anticipates                         subset of facilities identified in the Part           16, 1M rule.
                    that there will be situations where the                     I application must submit quantitative                F Transportation Act Deadline#
                    permitting authority determines that,                       data. The provisions of 40 CFR
                                                                                122.26(c)(2)(ii) establish a minimum                    Section 1068 of the Transportation Act
                    12 Ile notice addresses draft general permits in            criteria for identifying facilities from              addresses permit application deadlines
                    12 States (MA. ME. NK FL LA. TX OK NK SD.                   which sampling data must be submitted.                for storm water discharges associated
                    AZ AX ID), and six Territories (District of                 EPA had proposed that. in general,                    with Industrial activity that are owned
                    Columbia. the Commonwealth of Puerto Rim                    oups submit data from at least 10                     or operated by municipalities. Today's
                    Guam. American Samoa. the Commonwealth of the               gr
                    Northern Mariana Islands. and the Trust Territory           percent of the facilities in the group.               rule codifies three changes to existing
                    of the Pacific Islands) without authorized NPOES            with a minimum of 10 facilities                       regulatory deadlines to reflect the new
                    State progmma: on Indian lands in AL CA. CA. KY.            submitting data (December 7, INS (53                  provisions of section 1068. The first two
                    MI. MN. MS. MT. NC. ND. NY, NV. SC. TN. UT. WL              FIR 49435)). in the final rule, EPA                   modifications address individual
                    and WY: located within federal facilities and Indian
                                        - and located within                    allowedgroups of 4 to'10 members, to                  application deadlines. and the third
                    lands In CO and WA.                       federal
                    facilit'es in Delaware.                                     apply if 50 percent of the facilities                 addresses group application deadlines.





                                       Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 64 / Thursday, April Z IM                                       / Rules and Regulations                         11409

                        The deadlines for submitting                             municipality or the) are owned or                        than airports, powerplants or
                       individual permit applications for storm                  operated by a municipality with a                        uncontrolled sanitary landfills that are
                       water discharges associated with                          Population of 250,000 or more. The                       owned or operated by municipalities
                       industrial activity that are owned or                     legislative history for the Transportation               with a population of less than 100,000.
                       operated by municipalities are                            Act clarified that "nothing in the                       Section 1068(c) provides that EPA shall
                       consistent with the October 1, 1992                       conference report affects most of the                    not require this second group of
                       regulatory deadline that EPA                              dates for submitting stormwater permit                   industrial facilities to apply for or obtain
                       established on November 5,1991 (58 FR                     applications established in EPA's recent                 a permit before October 1. 199Z unless a
                       56W) with two exceptions:                                 rulemaking published In the Federal                      permit is required under either section
                        (1) Municipal facilities that have been                  Register on November 5. 1991. * * * The                  402(p)(2) (A) or (E) of the CWA.
                       identified in a part I group application                  conference report while silent on the                     With respect to this second group of
                       that has been submitted in a timely                       deadlines for these privately owned                      facilities, today's rule reserves the
                       manner where either the group                             industries, is not intended to override                  regulatory deadlines for storm water
                       application is denied or the particular                   the dates established in EPA's                           applications. The Agency Intends to
                       facility is rejected from the group. are                  rulemaking action." (Vol. 137 Cong. Rec.                 address these facilities in a manner that
                       not required to submit an individual                      H115M (daily ed. November 2A 1991).                      is similar to other storm water
                       application until the 180th day following                 Rep. Hammerschmidt). Thus, the permit                    discharges addressed by section
                       the date on which the denial or rejection                 application deadlines for storm water                    402(p)(1) or the CWA. 13 Currently. the
                       is made; and                                              discharges associated with industrial                    Agency intends to evaluate storm water
                        (2) Facilities owned or operated by a                    activity from- privately owned and                       discharges associated with industrial
                       municipality with a population of less                    operated facilities. including those that                activity that are owned or operated by a
                       than 100,000 other than an airport.                       discharge through a municipal separate                   municipality with a population of less
                       powerplant. or uncontrolled sanitary                      storm sewer to waters of the United                      than 100,000 (except for those from
                       landfill are not required to submit a                     States. are not changed by today's rule                  powerplants, uncontrolled sanitary
                       permit application at this time unless a                  with the exception of the part 2                         landfills and airports) along with other
                       permit is required under either section                   application deadlines discussed                          torm water discharges addressed by
                       402(p)(2) (A) or (E) of the CWA.                          elsewhere in today's notice. Also, where                 :ection 402(p)(1) in two studies required
                        With regard to facilities that are either                a facility is privately owned and                        under section 402(p)(5) of the CWA-
                       part of a group that has been denied or                   operated, but has a service contract                     These studies will be used to support
                       which are individually rejected from a                    with a municipality, the facility is not                 the development of regulations under.
                       group, today's rule codifies alternative                  considered to be "municipally                            section 402(p)(6).14 It is clear from the
                       deadlines for storm water discharges                      operated". For example. a privately                      legislative history of the Transportation
                       associated wi    'th industrial activity from             owned and operated landfill that                         Act that Congress intended to address
                       facilities that are owned or operated by                  receives municipal waste pursuant to a                   these discharges in this manner, i.e., as
                       a municipality and that are rejected as                   contract with a municipality or some                     discharges subject to the permit
                       members of a part I group application.                    other form of reimbursement from a                       moratoriwn of section 402tp)JI) of the
                       Such dischargers shall submit an                          municipality can not avail itself of the                 CWA, "EPA defined industrial activity
                       individual application no later than 180                  application deadline extensions in the                   in such a way as to require many cities
                       days after the date of receipt of the                     Transportation Act which apply only to                   with a population under 100,000 to make
                       notice of rejection or October 1. 1992.                   facilities owned or operated by                          application for stormwater prinits,
                       whichever is later.                                       municipal governments.                                   notwithstanding the moratorium on
                         With respect to facilities owned or                       As outlined above, section 10W of the                  permit requirements that the Congress
                       operated by municipalities with a                         Transportation Act contains special                      thought it was puting In place * * * This
                       population of 100,000 or less, EPA                        provisions for municipalities with a                     legislation will clarify that small cities
                       believes that Congress intended this                      population of less than 100,000. Section                 need not apply for permits associated
                       language to place all of their storm                      1068(c) of the Transportation Act                        with some of the industrial facilities
                       water discharges (except for those from                   defines two classes of industrial                        they own or operate until October 1.
                       airports, powerplants and uncontrolled                    facilities that are owned or operated by                 1992, [the] date for the general
                       sanitary landfills) into Phase 11 of the                  municipalities with a population of less                 moratorium on their permit
                       storm water rogram.                                       than 100,000. The first group of facilities
                         Today's     rufe also codifies the                      is comprised of airports, powe lants,                    requirements." (Vol. 137 Cong. Rec.
                                                                                                                         rp               S18596 (daily ed. November 27,1991).
                       Transportation Act's alternative                          and uncontrolled sanitary landfills that
                       deadlines for group applications for                      are owned or operated by a municipality                  Sen. Chatee)."[Mlunicipalities with
                       storm water discharges associated with                    with a population of less than 1W.000. It                Populations of less than loo,000 would
                       industrial activities that are owned or                   is clear that Congress did not intend in
                       operated by municipalities with a                         section 106%c) to change the existing                      Is Section 4MpHI) of the CWA create$ a
                       population of less than 250,000.                          individual application deadlines for                     moratorium on issuing NPDES permits until October
                                                                                                                                          1. 1992 for storm water discharges that are not
                       Reflecting the new provisions of Section                  these discharges. Group application                      identified in section 4Mp)(2) of the CW&
                       1068 of the Transportation Act. the                       requirements for storm water discharges                     4 Section 402(p)(0) of the CWA requires EPA. in
                       group application deadlines for these                     associated with industrial activity from                 consultation with State and local officials. is
                       facilities are now May 18,1992 for part I                 these facilities are addressed by section                required to Issue regulations by no later than
                       applications and May 17, 1993 for part 2                  1068(b) of the Transportation Bill. As                   October 1. IM which designate additional storm
                                                                                                                                          water discharges to be regulated to protect wster
                       applications.                                             discussed above, the group app ication                   quality and establish a comprehensive program to
                         EPA also wants to clarify that the                      deadlines for these facilities a May 18.                 regulate such designated sources. This program
                       Transportation Act did not affect any of                  1992 for Part I applicaitons and May 17.                 must sotablisk at a minimum JA) priorities. (B)
                       the regulatory application deadlines for                  1993 for part 2 applications.                            requirements for State Storm water Management
                                                                                                                                          Program& and (C) expeditious deadlines. ne
                       storm water discharges associated with                       The second group is comprised of                      program may inchbdoperformance standards.
                       Industrial activity from facilities that are              facilities with storm water discharges                   guidelines, guidance. and management practices
                       either not owned or operated by a                         associated with industrial' activity other               and trestment requirements as appropriate.






                       11410          Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 64 / Thursday, April 2,1992 / Rules and Regulations

                       not be required to apply for permits for               primary concern of Congress was the                       2. Uncontrolled Sanitary Landfills
                       stormwater discharges associated with                  economic burdens placed an
                       industrial activities except for power                 municipalities with a smaller population                    Section 1068(c) of the Transportation
                       plants, uncontrolled sanitary landfills.               base over which to spread costs. In                       Act provides that facilities owned or
                       and airports." (Vol. 137 Cong. Rec.                    general. when determining the                             operated by a municipality with.a 
                       H11509 (daily ed. November 28, 1991),                                                                            population of less than 100,000 other
                                                                              population of a municipal entity.EPA                      than an airport. powerplant. or
                       Rep. Hammerschmidt).                                   will Look at the general population or
                       1. Determining the Population of                       service population of the municipal                       uacontrolled sanitary landfill are not
                       Municipalities                                         entity.                                                   required to apply for permit applications
                                                                                                                                        at this time unless a permit. is required
                       The Transportation Act establishes                       For the purpose of today's rule, the                    under either section 402(p)(2)(A) or (E)
                       phased requirements for NPDES permits                  1990 Census will be used to determine                     of the CWA.
                       for storm water discharges associated                  the population of counties. Service                       Section 1068(d) of the Transportation
                       with industrial activity fives facilities              populations will be used to determine                     Act defines the term "uncontrolled
                       that are owned or operated by                          the population of sewage treatment                        sanitary landfill" to mean a landfill at
                       municipalities with specified                          districts which operate publicly owned                    open dump. whether in operation or
                       populations. However. the                              treatment works (POTWs). Wbere one                        close& that does not meet the
                       Transportation Act uses a different                    sewer district operates a number of                       requirements for runon sad runoff
                       classification scheme than is used in                  plants, the entire service population of                  controls established pursuant to subtitle
                       section 402(p) of the CWA to define                    the district will be used to determine the                D of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
                       classes of municipal separate storm                    applicable population classification of                   Today's action codifies this definition at
                       sewer systems. Under section 402(p) of                 all of the treatment works operated by                    40 CFR 122.20(b)(15).
                       the CWA. municipal separate storm                      the district.   Populations within service
                       sewer systems are classified an the                    districts will be used to determine the                     On October 9, 1991.(56 FR 50978),
                       basis of population served by the                      populations of flood control districts and                EPA published criteria for solid waste
                       system. Under the Transportation Act.                  other municipal entities with service                     disposal facilities, including municipal
                       the population used for classifying                    populations. The State population will                    solid waste landfills (MSWLFs),
                       industrial operations owned or operated                be used to deterine the population of                     pursuant to subtitle D of the Solid Waste
                       by municipalities is the population of the             State DOT& Is Where an industrial                         Disposal Act. Several provisions of
                       municipality. This distinction is                      facility is owned or operated by more                     these regulations specifically address
                       important because a number of                          than one municipality, then EPA intends                   runon and runoff from the active
                       municipal entities with a population of                to use the combined populations of the                    portions of regulated units. Owners or
                       100,000 or more are not addressed by the               appropriate municipalities in                             operators of all MSWLF units are
                       regulatory definitions of large and                    determining population thresholds.                        required under 40 CFR 258-25 to design.
                       medium municipal separate storm sewer                                                                            construct and maintain a runon control
                       systems.                                                EPA believes that the distinction                        system to prevent flow auto the active
                       40 CFR 122.26(b)(4) and (7) specifically                between the population of a                              portion of the MSWLF unit during the
                       identify 173 cities and 47 counties as                  municipality and the population served                    peak discharge from a 25-year storm. In
                       having large or medium municipal                        by a municipal separate storm sewer                       addition. all MSWLF units are required
                       separate storm sewer systems (e.g.                      system to appropriate and was intended                    to design, construct. and Maitain a run-
                       systems serving a population of 100,000                 by Congress. In the November 16, 1990                     off control system from the active
                       or more). Is While these definitions                    rulemaking, EPA noted inter jurisdiction                  portion of the landfill to collect and
                       identify all Incorporated cities with a                 complexities associated with municipal                    control at least die water volume
                       population of 100,000 or more. they only                governments developing controls for                       resulting from a 24-hour. 25-year storm.
                       specifically Identify 47 of the 447                     storm water into such large and medlum                    Runoff from the active portion of the
                       counties with a population of 100,000 or                systems played a role in defining the                     unit must be handled in accordance with
                       more based on the 1990 Census 16 In                     regulatory terms large and medium                         the surface water requirements of 40
                       addition. other types of municipal                      municipal separate storm sewer .                          CFR 258.27(a), which provides that all
                       entities which may own or operate                       systems. However, such concerns do not                    MSWLF units must be operated in
                       storm water discharges associated with                  appear to be as evident with industrial                   compliance with NPDES requirements. 19
                       industrial activity are not specifically                facilities that aTe owned or operated by                  Any discharges of is nonpoint source of
                       addressed by the regulatory definition of               municipal entities.                                       polution from an MSWLF unit Into
                       large and medium municipal separate                                                                               waters of the United States must also be
                       storm sewer systems. Examples include:                  17 For example. if a district with a                      in conformance with any established
                       sanitary sewer districts, flood control                service population of 359,000 operates two sewage          water quality management plan
                       districts, and unincorporated towns and                treatment plants. one of which serves 3000,000, and        developed under the CWA.The
                       townships.                                             the other which serves 59,000, both plants will be
                         In providing phased requirements for                 considered to be a facility that is owned of Operated	          The October 9,1991 rule clarified that the	
                                                                              by a municipality with a population of 290,000 or 		subtitle D requirements call for the collection and
                       different storm water discharges                       more.										control of runoff from the active portion of MSWLP	
                       associated with industrial activity that                    Under this approach EPA would base the			units, but do not require that the collected runoff be
                       municipalities. EPA believes that a                    population of facilities operated by a State DOT on		sampled or treated. This was because when the
                                                                              the entire State population rather than the			notice was issued. EPA was in the process of
                                                                              population of the local government       with land		implementing NPDES requirements for storm water
                         See appendices F. G, H and I to    CFR part          use authority(e.g. city,town,township,county)in			discharges associated with industrial activity from
                       122.                                                   which the facility is physically located. EPA			landfills. In the October 9,1991 notice EPA
                         The regulatory definitions of large and medium       believes that this approah is appropriate because		explained that NPDES permit under the CWA
                       municipal separate storm sewer systems only            the State DOT facility will typically be operated		would be the appropriate mechanism for ensuring
                       specifically Identify counties with a population of    fairly independently of the local government 			that point source discharges of runoff from MSWLFs
                       100,000 in unincorporated urbanized areas of the       with land use authority and the majeor revenue			are protective of human health and the environment
                       county.                                                sources of the State DOT are State-wide (such as		(see October 9,1991,(58 FR S105-4)).
 													gasoline taxes).




                                        Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 64                        Thursday, April Z 1992                 / Rules and Regulatlons@                               11411

                      effective date for these requirements are                  permits. and for States to submit State                 industrial process, and stormwater
                      October 9.1993.                                            Storm Water Permitting Plans.                           dischargers. For storm water
                         Operators of landfills that are owned                     EPA estimates that the total annual                   dischargers, the average burden per
                      or operated by a municipality with a                       cost of complying with the revised                      response will decrease by 3.8 hours per
                      population,of less than 100,000 with a                     monitoring reporting requirements for                   repondent.
                      storm water discharge associated with                      storm water discharges is $lZ756,146.                      Send comments regarding the burden
                      industrial activity 20 that are                            The Agency estimates that today's rule                  estimate or any other aspect of this
                      'uncontrolled' must submit an NPDES                        results in a annual reduction in costs to               collection of information. including
                      permit application for their discharge, or                 the regulated community of $8,973.526                   suggestions for reducing this burden. to
                      obtain coverage under an appropriate                       over the prior regulatory requirement.                  Chief. Information Policy Branch, PM-
                      general permit.                                            EPA estimates that the annual costs of                  223Y, U.S. Environmental Protection
                         EPA remains concerned about the                         complying with NOI submissions                          Agency. 401 M Street SW.. Washington,
                      risks to surface water quality posed by                    required by NPDES permits to be                         DC 20460; and to the Office of
                      landfillS.21 Tlie Agency wants to clarify                  $28Z34& However, EPA believes that                      Information and Regulatory Affairs,
                      that storm water discharges from                           today's rule will not increase the                      Office of Management and Budget.
                      landfills that are owned or operated by                    existing burdens of complying with NOI                  Washington, DC 20503, marked
                      a municipality with a population of less                   requirements.                                           "Attention: Desk Officer for EPA."
                      than 100,000 can still be required to                        EPA estimates that the annual costs to                VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act
                      obtain an NPDES permit even where                          State governments and EPA of
                      they are in compliance with subtitle D                     reviewing monitoring reports for storm                     Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
                      requirements where they are designated                     water discharges is $136,156. The                       U.S.C. W1 el seq., EPA is required to
                      under section 402(p)(2)(E) of the CWA                      Agency estimates that the annual costs                  prepare a Regulatory Flexibility
                      as needing an NPDES perinit because                        to States and EPA of reviewing NOls is                  Analysis- to assess the impact of rules on
                      they are significant contributors of                       $210,919. However. EPA believes that                    small entities. No Regulatory Flexibility
                      pollutants to waters of the United States                  today's rule will not increase the                      Analysis is required, however, where
                      or they contribute to a violation of a                     existing burdens of reviewing NOTs.                     the head of the agency certifies that the
                      water quality standard.                                    EPA estimates the total annual costs of                 rule will not have a significant economic
                      111. Economic Impact                                       preparing and reviewing State Storm                     impact on a substan@ial number of small
                                                                                 Water Permitting Plans to $351,846.                     entities.
                         EPA has prepared an Information                                        e     d 12M                                 Today's amendments to the
                      Collection Request (ICR) for the purpose                   IV-Ex9cutiv Or ef                                       regulations would generally make the
                      of estimating the information collection                     Executive Order 12291 requires EPA                    NPDES regulations more flexible and
                      burden Imposed on Federal, State and                       and other agencies to perform regulatory                less burdensome for permittees.
                      local governments and industry by                          analyses of major regulations. Major                    Accordingly, I hereby certify, pursuant
                      today's revisions to requirements to                       regulations are those which impose a                    to 5 U.S.C. 605ft that these
                      submit annual monitoring reports,                          cost on the economy of $100 million or                  amendments will not have a significant
                      minimum notice of intent (NOI)                             more annually or have certain other                     impact on a substantial number of small
                      requirements for NPDES general                             economic impacts. Today's regulatory                    entities.
                                                                                 amendments generally make the NPDES                     -VII. APA Requirements
                         39 The existing landfill criteria in part ZS7 address   permit applications more flexible and
                      all landfills except those covered by the revised          less burdensome for the regulated                          The amendments to permit
                      criteria in part 258; which address municipal              -onununity. Ilese regulations do not                    application deadlines for storm water
                      landfills which receive household hazardous wastes         C
                      or hazardous wastes from small quantity                    satisfy any of the criteria specified in                discharges associated with industrial
                      generators. By contrast the NPOES regulatory               section 1(b) of the Executive Order and.                activity from facilities owned or
                      definition of "storm water discharge associated            as such, do not constitute a major rule.                operated by municipalities are being
                      with industrial activity" sadresses landfill* that
                      receive or have received any industrial wastes             This regxilation was submitted to the                   adopted without notice and comment.
                      (wastes received from any of the other classes of          Office of Management and Budget                         As they merely codify the provisions of
                      facilities addressed by the regulatory definition of       (OMB) for review.                                       section 1068 of the Intermodal Surface
                      storm water diwbarges associated with industrial                                                                   Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
                      activity) (see 40 CFR 1=26(b)(141)).                       V. Paperwork Reduction Act                              they constitute interpretive rules for
                           Surface water impacts assodated with solid
                      waste landfills are well characterized. In the August        The information requirements in this                  which notice and comment is not
                      30. 19W (53 FFt 33317) NPRM addressing solid waste         rule have been approved by the Office                   required. EPA requested comment on
                      disposal facility criteria under RCRA subtitle D.          of Management and Budget (OMB)                          the Issue of the minimum number of
                      EPA noted that state inspection data. case study           under provisions of the Paperwork                       facilities that must submit sampling data
                      evidence. risk characterization studies. and the
                      current limited use of design controls Indicate that       Reduction Act 44 U.S.C. 3501 ef seq. and                in a group application in a December 7,
                      some solid waste landfills have degraded surface           have been assigned OMB Control                          1988 notice (53 FR 49416). Additional
                      water quality and that this degradation could              number 2040-0004.                                       notice and comment Is not required for
                      continue. Older landfils ore of moot concern
                      because they may have received large volumes of              Public reporting burden for this                      the clarification to the group application
                      hazardous waste anti in general. their use of design       collection of Information is estimated to               regulations made in today's rule because
                      controls was very timiied. States reported that of         average 17.46 hours per response. an                    the Agency has already taken conunents
                      the 1.100 municipal solid waste landfills which            increase of 1.50 hours. This includes                   on this issue and today's action only
                      monitored discharges to surface water. 600 were
                      cited for surface water impacts. EPA believes that         time for reviewing Instructions,                        clarifies the approach that was intended
                      newer and future solid waste landfills may prevent         searching existing data sources,                        by the November I& 19M rule.
                      lower risks because subtitle C regulations keep            gathering the data needed. and                          Ust of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 1=
                      most hazardous waste out of solid waste landfills.         completing and reviewing the collection
                      in addition. design controls for solid waste landfills
                      have improvedL and are expected to continue to             of information. The 17.46 figure Is an                     Administrative practice and
                      improve with the implementation of subtitle D              average for all dischargers under the                   procedure, Environmental protection.
                      requirements (am October 9. i9ei (so FR som)).             NPDES program. including POTW9.                         Reporting and record keeping






              11412          Federal Register / VoL 57. No. 84 / Thursday. April 2, 1992 / Rules and Regulations

              requirements. Water polltion controL            located. or one discharger from each                Part 2  (A) Except as provi ded in
              General permits. Storm water.                   precipitation zone indicated in appendix         paragraph (e)(2)(iii)(B) of this section.
                Authority. Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. 1251      E of this part in which nine or fewer            pail I of the application shall be
              et Dog.                                          members of the group are located. must           submitted to the Director. Office of
                Dated: March 23,1992-                          be identified to submit quantitative             Wastewater Enforcement     and
              William K. Reilly,                                  data. For groups of 4 to 10 members, at          Compliance by October 1992:                  
              Administrator.                                    least one facility in each precipitation           (B) Any municipality with a
                                                               zone indicated in appendix E of this part        population of less than 250,000 shall not
                For the reasons stated in the                  in which members of the group are                be required to submit a part I
              preamble. title 40 of the Code of                loca bed must be identifed to submit             application before May 17, 1993.
              Regulations is amended as follows:               quantitative data.-A description of why             (C) For any storm water discharge
              PART 122-EPA ADMINISTERED                        the facilities selected to perform               associated with industrial activity from
              PERMIT PROGRAM, THE NATIONAL                    sampling and analysis are                        a facility that is owned or operated by a
              POLLUTANT DISCHARGE                              representative of the group as a whole in        municipality with a population of less
                                                               terms of the information provided in             than 100,000 other than an airport..
              ELIMINATION SYSTEM                               paragraphs (c)(1)(i(B) and (c)(I)l[C) of       powerplant. or uncontrolled sanitary
                1. The authority citation for part 122         this section. shall accompany this               landfill, permit applications
              continues to read as follows:                    section. Different factors impacting the         requirements are reserved.
                Authority- Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. I251     nature of the storm water discharges.                (iv) Rejected facilities (A) Except as
              seq".                                           such as the processes used and material          provided in paragraph (e)(2)(iv)(B) of
                                                               management. shall be represented. to             this section, facilities that are rejected
              Subpart B-Permit Application and                    the extent feasible, in a manner roughly          as members of the group shall submit an
              Special NPDES Program Requirenments                  equivalent to their proportion in the             individual application for obtain
                                                               group.                                           coverage under an appiliable general
              ï¿½ 12226 Amended by                                                                                 permit) no later than 12 months after the
                2. Section I22-28 is amended by                  (e)                                            date of receipt of the notice of rejection
              adding paragraph (b)(15) and revising              (1) Individual applications (i) Except         or October 1, 1994 whichever comes
              Paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(D((e)(1)(e)(2)(i)            as provided in paragraph (e)(i)ff Of this        first.
              (e)(2)(iii) and (e)(2)(iv) to read as            section, for any storm water discharge             (B) Facilities that are owned or
              follows:                                         associated with industrial activity                operated by a municipality and that are
              1122.26 Storm water discharges                     identified in paragraphs (b)(14) (i)             rejected as members of part I group
              (applicable to State NPDES programs, see           through (xi) of this section. that is not        application shall submit an individual
                123.25                                         part of a group application as described         application no later" than 180 days after
                                                               in paragraph (c)(2) of this section or           the dateo free of the notice of
                (b) . . .                                                                                       rejection or October 1, 1992. whichever
                (15) YUncontrolled sanitary landfill              which is not authorized by a storm                 is later.
                                                               water general permit. a permit                                                               
              means a landfill. or open dump, whether         application made pursuant to  paragraph
              in operation or closed. that does not            (C) of this section shall be submitted to          2a. Section 122.28 Is amended by
              meet the requirements for runon or               the Director by October 1, 1992;                 redesignating current paragraph (b)(2)
              runoff controls established pursuant to            (ii)For any storm water discharge               as (b)(3) and by adding a new paragraph
              subtitle D of the Solid Waste Disposal           associated with idustrial activity from         (b)(2) to read as follows:
              Act.                                             a facility that is owned or operated by a        1122.28 General permits (applicable to    
                (c)                                            municipality with a population of less           state NPDES programs see 123.25         
                (2)                                            than 100,000 other than an airport,
                (i)                                              powerplant. or uncontrolled sanitary
                (D) For groups of more than LOOO               landfill. permit applications                      (b)
              members. Identify at least 100                   requirements are reserved.                         (2) Authorization to discharge. or
              dischargers participating in the group             (2)                                            authorization to engage in sludge use
              application from which quantitative                                                                and disposal practices. (i) Except as
              data wig be submitted. For groups of 100          (i) Part I- (A) Except as provided In          provided in paragraphs (b)(2)(v) and
              or more members. identify a minimum of           paragraph (e)12)(i)(B) of this section. part     (b)(2)(vi of this section. dischargers for
              ten percent of the dischargers                   I of the application shall be submitted to       treatment works treating domestic
              partictpting in the group application          the Director, Office of Wastewater               sewage) seeking coverage tinder a
              from which quantitative data will be            Enforcement and Compliance by                    general permtt shall submit to the
              submitted. For groups of between 21 and          September 30.1991;                               Director a written notioe of intent to be
              99 members identify a minimum of ten               (B) Any municipality with a                    covered by the general permit A
              dischargers participating in the group           population of less than 250,000 shall not           discharger for permit works treating
              application from which quantitative               be required to submit a part I                   domestic sewage) who fails to submit a
              data will be submitted. For groups of 4           application before May 18,1992                   notice of intent in accordance        with the
              to 20 members. identify a minimum of .50           (C) For any storm water discharge               terms of this permit is not authorized to
              percent of the dischargers participating         associated with industrial activity from          discharge for in the case of sludge
              in the group application from which              a facility that is owned or operated by a          disposal permit. to engage in a sludge
              quantitatived data will be submitted. For          municipality with a population of less           use or disposal practice under the
              groups with more than 10 members.                than 100,000 other than an airport.             terms of the general permit unless the
              either a minimum of two dischargers              powerplant,or uncontrolled sanitary                general permi in accordance with
              from each precipitation zone Indicated           landfill permit applications                      paragraph (b)(2)(v) of this section.
              in appendix E of this part in which ten          requiremnts are reserved.                         contains a provision that a notice of
              or more members of the group are                                                                 intent is not. required or die Director        
 




                                   Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 64 / Thursday, April Z 1992 / Rules and Regulations                                                 11413

                    notifies a discharger (or treatment works          requirement would be inappropriate. In             be as specified in 40 CFR part 503
                    treating domestic sewage) that it is               making such a finding, the Director shall          (where applicable), but in no case less
                    covered by a general permit in                     consider- the type of discharge; the               than once a year.
                    accordance with paragraph (b)(2)(vi) of            expected nature of the discharge-, the               (3) Requirements to report monitoring
                    this section. A complete and timely,               potential for toxic and conventional               results for storm water discharges
                    notice of intent (NOI). to be covered In           pollutants in the discharges; the                  associated with industrial activity which
                    accordance with general permit                     expected volume of the discharges;                 are subject to an effluent limitation
                    requirements. fulfills the requirements            other means of identifying discharges              guideline shall be established on a case-
                    for permit applications for purposes of            covered by the permit; and the                     by-case basis with a frequency
                    It 122.6, 122.21 and 122.26.                       estimated number of discharges to be               dependent on the nature and effect of
                       (ii) The contents of the notice of intent       covered by the permit. The Director                the discharge, but in no case less than
                    shall be specified in the general permit           shall provide in the public notice of the          once a year.
                    and shall require the submission of                general permit the reasons for not                   (4) Requirements to report monitoring
                    information necessary for adequate                 requiring a notice bf intent.                      results for storm water discharges
                    program implementation, including at a               (vi) The Director may notify a                   associated with Industrial activity (other
                    minimum, the legal name and address of             discharger (or treatment works treating            than those addressed in paragraph (i)(3)
                    the owner or operator, the facility name           domestic sewage) that it is covered by        a
                    and address, type of facility or                   general permit. even if the discharger (of         of this section) shall be established on a
                    discharges, and the receiving stream(s).           treatment works treating domestic                  case-by-case basis with a frequency
                    General permits for storm water                    sewage) has not submitted a notice of              dependent on the nature and effect of
                    discharges associated with industrial              intent to be covered. A discharger (or             the discharge. At a minimum, a permit
                    activity from inactive mining, inactive            treatment works treating domestic                  for such a discharge must require:
                    oil and gas operations, or inactive                sewage) so notified may request an                   (I) The discharger to conduct an
                    landfills occurring on Federal lands               individual permit under paragraph                  annual inspection of the facility site to
                    where an operator cannot be identified             (b)(3)(iii) of this section.                       identify areas contributing to a storm
                    may contain alternative notice of intent                                                              water discharge associated with
                    requirements. All notices of intent shall                                                             Industrial activity and evaluate whether
                    be signed in accordance with 1122.22.              1122.28 [Amended]                                  measures to reduce pollutant loadings
                       (III) General permits shall specify the           3. In redesignated paragraph                     identified In a storm water pollution
                    deadlines for submitting notices of                122.28(b)(3)(ii), the reference; '*(b)(2)(i)"      Prevention plan are adequate and
                    intent to be covered and the date(s)               is revised to read "(b)(3)(i)".                    properly implemented in accordance
                    when a discharger is authorized to                   C In paragraph 122.28(c)(3). the                 with the terms of the permit or whether
                    discharge under the permit;                        reference, "122.28(b)(2)(i) (A) through            additional control measures are needed;
                       (iv) General permits shall specify              (F)" is revised to read -IZZ.28(b)(3)(i) (A)         (U) The discharger to maintain for a
                    whether a discharger (or treatment                 through (G)"                                       period of three years a record
                    works treating domestic sewage) that                                                                  summarizing the results of the
                    has submitted a complete and timely                Subpart C--Permit Conditions                       inspection and a certification that the
                    notice of intent to be covered in                    5. Section 122.44 Is amended by                  facility is in compliance with the plan
                    accordance with the general permit and                                                                and the permit. and identifying any
                    that is eligible for coverage under the            revising paragraph (i)(2) and adding               incidents of non-compliance-,
                    permit, is authorized to discharge, (or in         Paragraphs (i)(3) through (1)(5) to read as          (III) Such report and certification be
                    (he case of a sludge disposal permit, to           follows:                                           signed in accordance with 1122.22; and
                    engage in a sludge use or disposal                 1122.44 Establishing 11mitations,                   .(iv) Permits for storm water
                    practice), in accordance with the permit           standards, and o#w permit conditions               discharges associated with Industrial
                    either upon receipt of the notice of intent        (appliqable to State NPDES programs. a"            activity from inactive mining operations
                    by the Director, after a waiting period            f 123.25@
                                                                                                                          may, where annual inspections are
                    specified in the general permit. on a date                                                            impracticable, require certification once
                    specified in the general permit. or upon             (I) . . .                                        every three years by a Registered
                    receipt of notification of inclusion by the          (2) Except as provided in paragraphs             Professional Engineer that the facility is
                    Director. Coverage may be terminated               (i)[4) and (i)(5) of this section,
                                                                                                                          in compliance with the permit, or
                    or revoked in accordance with                      requirements to report monitoring                  alternative requirements.
                    paragraph (b)(3) of this section.                  results shall be established on a case-
                       (v) Discharges other than discharges            by-case basis with a frequency                     s (5) Permits which do not require the
                    from publicly owned treatment works.               dependent on the nature and effect of               ubmittal of monitoring result reports at
                    combined sewer overflows, primary                  the discharge, but in no case less than            least annually shall require that the
                    industrial facilities, and storm water             once a year. For sewage sludge use or              permittee report all instances of
                    discharges associated with industrial              disposal practices, requirements to                noncompliance not reported under
                    activity, may, at the discretion of the            monitor and report results shall be                1 122.41(l) (1). (4). (5). and (6) at least
                    Director. be authorized to discharge               established on a case-by-case basis with           annually.
                    under a general permit without                     a frequency dependent on the nature
                    submitting a notice of intent where the            and effect of the sewage sludge use or             JFR Doc. 92-7279 Filed 4-1-OZ 8:45 aml
                    Director finds that a notice of intent             disposal practice-, minimally this shall           BRIM CODE SSW-M-*








                 Demographic Information Issue Statement                                                           Appendix 6
                 TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                           Page I



                                                    DRAFI7 Issue Statement (5th Revision)


                 Date:             December 16, 1992 (Revised to update list of participants)

                 Intle:            Demographic Information Consensus Group

                 Activity.         Determining regional needs for demographic data and establish guidelines for the development
                                   and maintenance of discrete demographic summaries and projections.

                 Chairman:


                            Name                      Ap-en                                   Telephone            FAX

                          Dale Friedley            Manatee County                            (813) 748-8208           749-7187
                                                   Property Appraiser
                 Co-Chairman: -


                          Charlie Dye              Pinellas County                           (813) 462-3840           462-3448
                                                   Property Appraiser
                 Participants:

                   Name                              Agen                             Telephone                        FAX

                 Bob Aangeenbrug                   Dept of Geography, USF                (813) 974-2386               974-2668
                 Sheron Beauchamp                  H'boro Co Public Schools              (813) 272-4093               272-4073
                 Nancy Blackwelder                 Pinellas Co Public Schools            (813) 588-6203               588-6441
                 Dan Blood                         H'boro Co PIng & Devment              (813) 272-5710x164           272-6068
                 Kathryn Burbridge                 Pasco Co Growth Mgmt                  (813) 847-8193               847-8094
                 David Crabtree                    Eco PIng/Forecast; TECO               (813) 228-4464               228-1670
                 Wendy Diamond                     Research, Tampa Tribune               (813) 259-7950               259-7935
                 Mike Flanery                      HRS/Pinellas Co Health                (813) 538-7277x105           538-7293
                 Pat Gehant                        Juvenile Welfare Board                (813) 521-1853               528-0803
                 Bill Lofgren                      TBRCC                                 (813) 577-5151               570-5118
                 Ed Lynch                          Florida Power                         (813) 886-5669               866-4994
                 Lee Marsh                         Pinellas Co Planning                  (813) 462-4751               462-4155
                 Lpee Martin                       Hillsborough Co Schools               (813) 272-4079               272-4073
                 Ted Micceri                       USF Research                          (813) 974-5513               974-5515
                 Robert Morris                     Hillsborough Co GIS                   (813) 272-5912x3232          272-6458
                 Marlene Mueller                   Pinellas Co Public Schools            (813) 588-6210               588-6202
                 Lois Sorensen                     SWFWMD                                (904) 796-721lx4283          754-6885
                 Steve Totten                      Pasco County GIS Dept                 (813) 947-8140               847-8084
                 Kristine Williams                 CUTR/USF                              (813) 974-3120               974-5168
                 Rick Windham                      Manatee County LIS                    (813) 749-3075               749-3086








                   Demographic Information Issue Statement                                                                   Appendix 6
                   TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                                   Page 2


                   Problem Description:

                   Introduction

                   Demographic information represents the single most important independent variable in evaluation and analyses
                   associated with local government comprehensive plan monitoring and compliance evaluation. Though standard
                   sources of population information exist and will continue to do so, these sources must be reviewed and
                   manipulated prior to use in the evaluation of comprehensive plan elements. The principle shortcomings of
                   current sources are the limited geographical delineation of estimates and the lack of quality population projection
                   techniques that can be used by communities in future facilities planning. The availability of modern geographical
                   data bases related to the 1990 Census and other land data sources that are under development in communities
                   can assist greatly in development of population distribution and projection methodologies. It is imperative,
                   however, to coordinate the data collection techniques and evaluation methods related to population to avoid
                   substantial problems in using this information in multi-jurisdictional evaluations similar to those required by the
                   Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council and the Southwest Florida Water Management District.

                   Demographic information represents the most common independent variable used to establish Levels of Service
                   (LOS) related to growth management plan elements in Florida local governments. Population summaries also
                   represent data that are used strategically by most state and regional agencies for a variety of critical planning
                   and service delivery functions. Therefore, population estimates for various jurisdictions and zones used in plan
                   element compliance evaluation should be as accurate as possible. To this point, official population estimates
                   have consisted of decennial census information estimates for small geographical areas and annual population
                   updates from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) that are produced for each city/ ace
                   and county. The advent of modern automated land information systems have opened the door to a large number
                   of potential methods for more accurately distributing official population updates, generating accurate population
                   updates locally, generating discrete population projection estimates, and portraying these numbers dynamically
                   and effectively using mapping options available in geographic information systern$. A cursory review of current
                   development strategies for population data administration indicates that most agencies are considering a wide
                   variety of approaches to the problem.

                   Problem Statement

                   To prevent possible inconsistencies among communities in population estimates, it is necessary to coordinate
                   development of population and related data bases and address the following factors which hinder consistent
                   demographic information management:

                   0        The varied application of demographic data in plan elements, both in the geographic jurisdictions within
                            which plan compliance must be monitored, and use of population as an independent variable in Level
                            of Service (LOS) compliance evaluation;

                   0        Population estimates for cities and counties are only available annually;

                   0        Lack of standard methods for quality controlling, distributing, or projecting existing population estimates;

                   0        Lack of focused application of modern census demographic data products to assist in resolving problems
                            2 and 3 above;

                   0        Lack of information on other land information data sources that could assist in demographic data
                            administration such as construction permit and property appraisal information;








                  Demographic Information Issue Statement                                                               Appendix 6
                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                               Page 3


                  0       Lack of focused application of geographic information system technology for demographic data
                          administration other than that supplied by individual GIS vendors;

                  0       Lack of common understanding of the impact perennial and seasonal population and/or dwelling unit
                          information has on LOS assessments and standards; and

                  0       Problems managing demographic information in services areas that fail to nest consistently.

                  Potential Beneflts:

                  Numerous benefits accrue through the standardization of data formats used in cataloging and retrieving
                  demographic information.

                  0       Standard measurements procedures allows for sharing of data among organizations;

                  0       Shared expertise and experience among organizations interested in demographic data sources;

                  0       Reduced time developing demographic information administration activities within participant
                          organizations.

                  Ongoing Activities:

                          Identification of the Water Management District activities and needs for demographic data;

                  0       Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee of the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) will be qucried
                          for needs;

                          Coordinate findings and conclusions of activity with results of interagency water use and population data
                          meeting held among Water Management Districts, DER, and USGS (See Background Package).

                  Goal:


                          Develop a consistency in demographic measurement with standardized terminology and protocols that
                          will permit access, transfer, and use of data across all levels of government.

                  Objectives:

                  1.      Identify methods for generating small area population estimates and projections.

                  2.      Prepare a catalog documenting data sources identified as useful in population estimation and projection.

                  3.      Develop protocols for transfer of population related data among participants.

                  4.      Develop plan to support consistent population estimation and projection methods at agencies within the
                          region.

                  5.      Provide for the future by keeping data bases updated within each organization.








                   Demographic Information Issue Statement                                                             Appendix 6
                   TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                             Page 4


                   6.       Increase user awareness of the demographic data bases, the complexity of their structure and how they
                            may be used.

                   Actions:


                   1.1      Discuss and document techniques for developing population distribution and aggregation estimates and
                            propose a standard strategy for generating estimates that are useful for regional activities. Employ a
                            strawman review method for this evaluation (See Atch A).

                            Type of Action: Critical/Dependent/Independent to (list all other objectives that this action is either
                            critical to or dependent/independent upon).

                            Action Leader: Dale Friedley/Manatee Co LIS/(813) 748-8208

                            Action Group Members:

                                    Name                      Agency                        Telephone

                            Start Date:


                            Completion Date:

                            Cost of Action:

                            Progress Report: State whether a one-time or recurring report and to whom it should be addressed.

                   1.2      Determine additional data requirements and methods needed to model alternative populations and
                            population change estimates. Four specific alternative population issues will include but need not be
                            limited to seasonal population estimates, changes in persons per household estimates, population
                            reduction modeling, and alternative approaches to assessing impact on population by permits and other
                            development activities.

                            Type of Action: Critical/Dependent/Independent to (list all other objectives that this action is either
                            critical to or dependent/independent upon).

                            Action Leader: Mike Flanery/H&RS/(813) 538-7277

                            Action Group Members:

                                    Name                      Agency                        Telephone

                            Start Date:


                            Completion Date:

                            Cost of Action:


                            Progress Report: State whether a one-time or recurring report and to whom it should be addressed.








                  Demographic Information Issue Statement                                                               Appendix 6
                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                               Page 5


                  13       Recommend statistical techniques and additional data requirements needed to develop small area
                           population forecasts.

                           Type of Action: Critical/Dependent/Independent to (list all other objectives that this action is either
                           critical to or dependent/independent upon).

                           Action Leader: Lois Sorensen/SV;FWMD/(904) 796-7211

                           Action Group Members:

                                    Name                      Agency                         Telephone

                           Start Date:


                           Completion Date:

                           Cost of Action:


                           Progress Report: State whether a one-time or recurring report and to whom it should be addressed.


                  2-1      Document critical data sources needed to support the methods and strategies for population distribution
                           and forecasting recommended in Action 1.1 through 1.3, using Data Descriptive Survey. (See Initial Data
                           Base List, Atch B)

                           Type of Action: Critical/Dependent/Independent to (fist all other objectives that this action is either
                           critical to or dependent/independent upon).

                           Action Leader: Robert Morris/H'Boro Co GIS/(813) 272-5912 x3232
                           Co-Leader:        Charlie Dye/Pinellas Co/(813) 462-3840 SC 570-3840

                           Action Group Members:

                                    Name                      Agency                         Telephone

                           Start Date:


                           Completion Date:

                           Cost of Action:


                           Progress Report: State whether a one-time or recurring report and to whom it should be addressed.


                  2.2      Develop and distribute a questionnaire to developers and users of land information critical to population
                           estimations to determine current collection, update, and application of the data sources documented in

                           Type of Action: Critical/Dependent/Independent to (list all other objectives that this action is either
                           critical to or dependent/independent upon).








                  Demographic Information Issue Statement                                                               Appendix 6
                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                               Page 6


                           Action Leader: Charlie Dye/Pinellas Co/(813) 462-3840 SC 570-3840


                           Action Group Members:

                                    Name                      Agency                         Telephone

                           Start Date:


                           Completion Date:

                           Cost of Action:


                           Progress Report: State whether a one-time or recurring report and to whom it should be addressed.


                  23       Produce a briefing to the Regional Advisory Committee that outlines the critical data sources and
                           current collection and maintenance strategies among local governments in the region.

                           Type of Action: Critical/Dependent/Independent to (list all other objectives that this action is either
                           critical to or dependent/independent upon).

                           Action Leader: Dale Friedley/Manatee Co LIS/(813) 748-8208

                           Action Group Members:

                                    Name                      Agency                         Telephone

                           Start Date:


                           Completion Date:

                           Cost of Action:

                           Progress Report: State whether a one-time or recurring report and to whom it should be addressed.


                  3.1      Describe scenarios to illustrate the transfer of demographic and related data sources between participant
                           organizations.

                           Type of Action: Critical/Dependent/independent to (list all other objectives that this action is either
                           critical to or dependent/independent upon).

                           Action Leader: Name/Position, Agency/Telephone

                           Action Group Members:

                                    Name                      Agency                         Telephone








                 Demographic Information Issue Statement                                                                Appendix 6
                 TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                                Page 7



                          Start Date:


                          Completion Date:

                          Cost of Action:


                          Progress Report: State whether a one-time or recurring report and to whom it should be addressed.


                 3.2      Develop standard neutral form for each critical land information resource documented in activity 2.1
                          that may be used to transfer population and related data sources among agencies within the region.

                          Type of Action: Critical/Dependent/Independent to (list all other objectives that this action is either
                          critical to or dependent/independent upon).

                          Action Leader: Dale Friedley/Manatee Co LIS/(813) 748-8208

                          Action Group Members:

                                   Name                      Agency                         Telephone

                          Start Date:


                          Completion Date:

                          Cost of Action:


                          Progress Report: State whether a one-time or recurring report and to whom it should be addressed.


                 3.3      Elicit formal responses from all participants to determine their current or potential future abilities to
                          generate data in forms recommended in activity 3.2.

                          Type of Action: Critical/Dependent/Independent to (list all other objectives that this action is either
                          critical to or dependent/independent upon).

                          Action Leader: Name/Position, Agency/Telephone

                          Action Group Members:

                                   Name                      Agency                         Telephone

                          Start Date:


                          Co mpletion Date:

                          Cost of Action:


                          Progress Report: State whether a one-time or recurring report and to whom it should be addressed.








                  Demographic Information Issue Statement                                                             Appendix 6
                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                             Page 8


                  4.1      FormaUy describe techniques for spatial aggregation, spatial disaggregation, and temporal projection of
                           demographic information recommended for regional demographic data administration.

                           Type of Action: Critical/Dependent/Independent to (list all other objectives that this action is either
                           critical to or dependent/independent upon).

                           Action Leader: Name/Position, Agency/Telephone

                           Action Group Members:

                                   Name                      Agency                        Telephone

                           Start Date:


                           Completion Date:

                           Cost of Action:


                           Progress Report: State whether a one-time or recurring report and to whom it should be addressed.


                  42       Develop briefing recommending distribution and projection methods and present to the Regional
                           Advisory Committee and participant organizations.
                           Type of Action: Critical/Dependent/Independent to (list all other objectives that this action is either
                           critical to or dependent/independent upon).

                           Action Leader: Name/Position, Agency/Telephone

                           Action Group Members:

                                   Name                      Agency                        Telephone

                           Start Date:


                           Completion Date:

                           Cost of Action:


                           Progress Report: State whether a one-time or recurring report and to whom it should be addressed.


                  5.1      Develop briefings from each participating organization describing proposed strategies for keeping data
                           bases current.


                           Type of Action: Critical/Dependent/Independent to (list all other objectives that this action is either
                           critical to or dependent/independent upon).

                           Action Leader: Robert Morris/H'Boro Co GiS/(813) 272-5912 x3232
                           Charlie Dye/Pineflas Co/(813) 462-3840 SC 570-3840                                                            40








                 Demographic Information Issue Statement                                                             Appendix 6
                 TBRCC Report , December 1991                                                                             Page 9


                          Action Group Members:

                                  Name                      Agency                         Telephone
                          Dale Friedley                     Manatee Co LIS                 (813) 748-8208
                          Steve Totten                      Pasco Co                       (813) 847-8140
                          Charlie Dye                       Pinellas Co                    (813) 462-3840

                          Start Date:

                          Completion Date:

                          Cost of Action:

                          Progress Report: State whether a one-time or recurring report and to whom it should be addressed.


                 6.1      Develop and distribute regional plan for the sharing information sources critical to demographic
                          information administration including strategies for sharing parcel-based data sets.

                          Type of Action: Critical/Dependent/Independent to (list all other objectives that this action is either
                          critical to or dependent/independent upon).

                          Action Leader: Name/Position, Agency/Telephone

                          Action Group Members:

                                  Name                      Agency                         Telephone

                          Start Date:


                          Completion Date:

                          Cost of Action:


                          Progress Report: State whether a one-time or recurring report and to whom it should be addressed.

                 Attachments

                   A. Strawman Population Distribution/Projection Methodology
                    B. Initial Data Base List






 0
























                                         ATTACHMENT A


                    STRAWMAN POPULATION DISTRIBUTION/PROJECTION METHODOLOGY




 0










 0








                 Demographic Information Issue Statement                                                                 Appendix 6
                 Strawman Population Distribution....                                                                  Attachment A
                 TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                                  Page 1


                                STRAWMAN POPULATION DISTRIBUTION/PROJECTION METHODOLOGY


                 1.        Inventory and compile special data sources at agency to aid in population evaluation and monitoring.

                 a.        Converted and adjusted TIGER data base
                           1.       Corrected address ranges
                           2.       Improved geometric location
                           3.       Corrected census attributes
                 b.        1990 Census Pl, 94/171 relational data base
                 C.        1990 Census STF1 in relational data base
                 d.        Converted permit administration data
                 e.        Permit geocode enhancement data
                 f.        Permit impact summary tables
                 9-        Parcel centroid data base
                 h.        Annual BEBR county/city/population summaries
                 i.        Automated map files for all critical geozones needed in comprehensive plan evaluation. Those common
                           to all agencies are highlighted:
                           1.       Traffic Analysis Zones*
                           2.       Capital Improvement Plan Construction Districts
                           3.       Planning and Analysis Areas (Planning District)*
                           4.       Sanitary Sewer Collection Areas
                           5.       Water Distribution Area Extent
                           6.       Solid Waste Collection Area
                           7.       Census Tracts*
                           8.       Fire Districts
                           9.       Sections*
                           10.      Future Land Use Areas
                           11.      Zip Codes
                           12.      Precincts
                 j.        Composite geozone polygon file and relational attribute table
                 L         Data base of unit counts by section from Appraisal/Assessment System
                 L         Future land use population density impact tables

                 111.      Recommend geoprocessing techniques for development population distribution variables

                 a.        Develop composite overlay attribute table relating area of polygons to all associated geozones required
                           for analysis
                 b.        Move composite overlay attribute data base to relational data base environment
                 C.        Est ablish 1990 Census estimates for each geozone class by establishing weighted distribution of
                           populations to polygons using:
                           1.       Total Area of polygon
                           2.       Weighted area based on future land use of polygon
                           3.       Weighted area based on current unit count by section
                 d.        Retrieve CO permit data for time period of specific BEBR change estimations
                 el.       Correct section and parcel number geozone where possible
                 E         Estimate impacts of each permit in the following categories
                           1.       Population








                    Demographic Information Issue Statement                                                                Appendix 6
                    Strawman Population Distribution....                                                                Attachment A
                    TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                                Page 2


                            2.       Employment
                            3.       Industrial Employment
                            4.       Gallons of Potable Water
                            5.       Residential Trips
                            6.       Pounds of Solid Waste
                    9-      Determine impact summaries by section for each impact category
                    h.      Connect impact summaries by section as map attributes to section map for thematic map production
                    i.      Develop aggregate area summary data base for specific geozone class relating zone, section, future land
                            use intensity, and polygon area
                            Distribute impacts by section into all polygons associated with section using area of polygon and intensity
                            of future land use as distribufion criteria
                    k.      Summarize impact values by the specific geozone class and write final reports

                    M.      Population projection strategy

                    a.      Establish baseline 1990 population summaries for a specific zone class from ll.c. above
                    b.      Define population impact summaries for each target BEBR estimation period from ll.k. above
                    C.      Determine percentage of population impact for each zone and each estimation period
                    d.      Determine unincorporated population change data from official BEBR figures for each estimation
                            period.
                    e.      Convert population impact summaries to population change based on ratio of total population impact
                            and BEBR population change estimates
                    E       Determine percentage change for each zone in each estimation period
                    9-      Obtain BEBR five year population change rates
                    h.      Use appropriate methodology to 'distribute' population change rates to individual geozones based on
                            actual change rates following population distribution strategy
                    L       Determine five- and 20-year population change equations for each geozone
                            Apply five- and 20- year population change equations to estimate populations for each critical
                            subsequent year
                    k.      Validate BEBR population estimates and projections and identify inconsistencies in this data when
                            possible

                    IV.     Proposed Improvements to method

                    a.      Additional data bases
                            1.       Automated parcel map base
                            2.       Integrated zone boundary data base
                            3.       Proper geographical references on all permits
                                     a.      Parcel numbers
                                     b.      Situs addresses
                                     C.      Subdivision, block, lot references
                    b.      Assign individual geozone references to each permit
                    C.      Summarize impacts by zone directly from geocoded permit records
                    d.      Improvements in population impact methods for each permit
                    e.      Standard procedure for annually determining five- and 20-year population impact rates for each geozone






  0






















                                             ATTACHMENT B


                                          INITIAL DATA BASE LIST





  0










  0








                 Demographic Information Issue Statement                                                              Appendix 6
                 Initial Data Base List                                                                            Attachment B
                 TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                              Page 1



                                                           POTIAL DATA BASE LIST


                                                 (Support Action 1.2; Initial Ust for Action 2.1)

                 1.       Converted and Reconstructed TIGER File Data Base -- A version of the TIGER data base provided
                          by the US Census Bureau maintained in the native structures required by the GIS environment managed
                          by Regional Advisory Committee Members. The structure(s) maintained should provide access to:

                          a.       Road Network Features - improved geometrically as required.

                          b.       Topologically clean census geozone assignments for at least tract, block, and place. These data
                                   bases should be in forms available to spatial overlay procedures available in the GIS software
                                   environments.


                          C.       Access to address ranges assigned to road network features, corrected or enhanced as required.

                 2.       Other Geozone Boundary Files -- Additional geozone boundary data bases in forms compatible with
                          Census TIGER tract, block, and place and maintained in structures useful to spatial overlay procedures
                          available in GIS software environments. Recommended additional geozones include:

                          a.       Traffic Analysis Zones
                          b.       Public Land Survey System Sections and other Original Survey Grants, if any
                          C.       Zip Codes
                          d.       Precincts
                          e.       Future Land Use Areas
                          L        Political Boundaries Including US House, State Senate, State House, and County/City
                                   Commission Districts
                          9-       Planning Areas Use for Level of Service Performance Evaluations in the following
                                   Comprehensive Plan Elements (Manatee County's Zones provided for examples):
                                   1.       Traffic Circulation (Traffic Analysis Zones)
                                   2.       Mass Transit (Census Tract, County Boundary)
                                   3.       Potable Water (Water Service Area Extent)
                                   4.       Wastewater (Sanitary Sewer Collection Areas)
                                   5.       Solid Waste (Solid Waste Service Area Extent)
                                   6.       Stormwater (Stormwater Management Plan Basin and Subbasin)
                                   7.       Capital Improvements Plan (CIP Construction District)
                                   8.       Fire Service/EMS Districts
                                   9.       Evacuation Plan Flooding Zones

                 3.       1990 Census PL 94/171 Data Table -- Complete contents of PL 94/171 data base maintained in a table
                          within the preferred relational data base management environment within each RAC membership
                          organization. Data base should -include minimally, records for all geographical zones managed in data
                          base Lb. above.


                 4.       1990 STFla/b and STF3a/b Data Tables -- Complete contents of the STF1 and STF 3 data bases as
                          they become available. Data should be maintained in a table available to the preferred relational data
                          base management environment within each RAC membership organization. Data base should include
                          minimally, records for all geographical zones managed in data base Lb. above.








                  Demographic Information Issue Statement                                                            Appendix 6
                  Initial Data Base List                                                                           Attachment B
                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                            Page 2


                  5.      Permit Administration Data Table      Data base of all issued construction permits. The coverage of the
                          data base should be all permits issued by communities within the county of issuance. Each permit
                          should have at least one of the Mowing geographical identifiers:


                          a.       Parcel Information Number
                          b.       Situs Address
                          c-       Subdivision Lot@ Block

                          Each permit should be geocoded with the original survey section or grant that the permit faHs within
                          a code indicating the community issuing the permit. Resource information on the permit can be as
                          desired by the community, however, a permit type code, a number of units count, a number of bedrooms
                          count, and the size of the floor area for the construction permit should be included.

                  6.      Permit geocode enhancement data table -- Data base of use in assigning critical geownes to each permit
                          record maintained in the permit administration data table. Data base should include one record for
                          each known parcel and/or occupancy within the coverage area of the RAC membership organization.
                          Each record for a parcel/occupancy should have a minimum of the f6flowing data items:

                          a.       Parcel Information Number
                          b.       Situs Address coded to standards adopted by each county
                          C.       Consistently coded Situs Address suffix identifying the occupancy unit
                          d.       Subdivision/condominium name, Sub/condo number, block name, lot number, if applicable
                          e.       PLSS Township
                          E        PLSS Range
                          9-       PLSS Section
                          h.       Other Original Survey Identifier, if applicable
                          i.       Place code


                          Data table should represent the fuH coverage area of the RAC participant community and should be
                          available to the preferred relational data base management system maintained by the participant
                          community.

                  7.      Permit impact summary table - Data base that assigns a series of impacts to each permit classification
                          used in the permit administration data table described above. This table should have the permit type
                          and short and long descriptions of the permit class. The remainder of the table should be a number
                          of permit impact data groups, each group having four elements. They are:

                          a.       Permit Impact Name
                          b.       Permit Impact Long Description
                          C.       Permit Resource Variable Name Used in Impact Computation
                          d.       Per Unit Impact Computation Factor

                          Permit  impact data groups will be determined following further discussions; however, two standard
                          groups wiH be potential population impact and potential employment impact. Population impact per
                          unit factors wi1l likely be based on number of units. Employment impact per unit factors wW likely be
                          by square foot of base construction.









                  Demographic Information Issue Statement                                                                Appendix 6
                  Initial Data Base List                                                                              Attachment B
                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                                Page 3


                  8.       BEBR official population count tables -- Population count records for each BEBR estimate issued for
                           the coverage of the RAC participant community. Each population count record will retain minimally
                           the year of the count, the place associated with the count, and the total population estimated.

                  9.       BEBR official population projection tables -- Population change rate data records for each BEBR
                           estimate issued for coverage area of the RAC participant community. Each population projection
                           record will retain minimally, the year projection was issued, the 'to-year' that the rate is applicable to
                           (e.g., rate until 2010), the annualized population change rate expressed in persons per year.

                  10.      Unit count summaries by section -- An estimated unit county summary data base containing the number
                           of equivalent residential units and the amount of commercial/industrial base floor space for each Public
                           Land Survey System Section within the coverage area of the RAC participant agency. Estimates will
                           be based on the definition of a residential unit and the base floor area of a commercial industrial
                           structure as determined by the consensus group. The data table will contain a minimum of the following
                           fields:-


                           a.      Township of section
                           b.      Range of section
                           C.      Section number
                           d.      Year of estimate
                           e.      Month of estimate
                           L       Number of equivalent residential units
                           9.      Amount of commercial/industrial base floor area

                  11.      Parcel Centroid Data Table -- A data table containing a single coordinate location for each ownership
                           parcel represented in the permit geocode enhancement data table. The table will simply relate the
                           parcel information number to the estimated size of the parcel and the center point coordinate of the
                           parcel retained in the coordinate system recommended by the consensus group.

                  12.      Future Land Use Population Density Impact Tables -- Data table containing the maximum build-out
                           rates for each Future Land Use class identified by the RAC participant agency. This data table will
                           minimally, contain the maximum number of development units per acre and the maximum expected
                           commercial/industrial floor space per acre for each unique future land use zone.

                  13.      Composite geozone polygon file -- A composite data base developed using the spatial overlay procedure
                           available to each RAC participant agency that represents the composite overlay of all geographical zones
                           available from data basis 1.b. and 2 above.

                  14.      Composite geozone attribute table -- A data base table available in the preferred relational data base
                           management environment at each RAC participant agency relating the area of each unique composite
                           geozone polygon and the geozone code associated with the polygon for each geographical zone available
                           in data bases a.b. and 2 above.








                                 APPENDIX 7








                 Cockroach Bay Data Issue Statement                                                                          Appendix 7
                 TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                                      Page 1


                                                   FTRAL DRAFT Issue Statement (2nd Revision)


                 Date:              July 29, 1M

                 Title:             Cockroach Bay Data Consolidation

                 Activity.          To identify a variety of available natural resource layers and data for the development of a plan
                 for the management of Cockroach Bay and to transfer the data in useable format to the Hillsborough County
                 Geographic Information System (GIS) Department.

                 Chairman:


                              Name                                 Apen                      Telephone                   Suncom

                          Charles M. Courtney                   EPC, Hillsborough Co (813) 272-7104                    543-7104

                 Co-Chairman:


                          Al Eisenmenger                       Hillsborough Co CCPC (813) 272-5940                     543-5940

                 Participants:

                    Name                              Ann                                     Telephone                  Suncom

                 Elie Araj                   Hlboro Co Eng Svcs/Stormwatr Design           (813) 272-5912x3614         543-5912
                 Gene Boles,                 Dir, H`boro Co Ping & Dev Mgmt Dep            (813) 272-5710xl7l          543-5710
                 Peter Clark                 Tampa Bay Reg Ping Council                    (813) 577-5151              586-3217
                 Steve Dicks                 Mapping & GIS Mgr, SWFWMD                     (904) 796-721lx4210         628-4150
                 Dale Friedley               Manatee Co Prop Appr Off                      (813) 748-8202
                 Dave Gowan                  STORET Coord/DER, Tallahassee                 (904) 487-0505              277-0505
                 Holly Greening              Tampa Bay National Estuary Program            (813) 893-2765              594-2765
                 Kurt Gremley                H'boro Co Endangered Lands Acq Prog           (813) 272-5810              543-5810
                 Carl Harker                 Nad Weather Svc (SW Agri Ctr)                 (205) 844-4514
                 Rob Heath                   Hboro Co Parks Dept                           (813) 854-1322
                 Steve Hodges                Homer Hoyt Ctr, FSU                           (904) 644-2870
                 Mike Holtkamp               SWIM/SWFWMD                                   (813) 985-748Lx2212
                 Walid Houtom                Hboro Co Eng Svcs/Stormwatr Design            (813) 272-5912x3614         543-5912
                 Bob Keirn                   Hboro Co GIS Manager                          (813) 272-5912x3202         543-5912
                 David Kriz                  Soil Conservation Service                     (904) 377-1092
                 Jordan Lewis                Environ Health; Florida H&RS                  (813) 272-6320              543-6320
                 Robin Lewis                 Lewis Environmental Services, Inc.            (813) 489-9684
                 Thomas Lo                   SWFWMD                                        (904) 796-72lix4200         628-4097
                 Bill Lofgren                Facilitator, TBRCC                            (813) 577-5151              586-3217
                 Gail MacAulay               Florida MRI/DNR                               (813) 896-8626              523-1011
                 Susan Mariner               Hboro Co Ping & Dev Mgmt Dept                 (813) 272-5710xl7l          543-5710
                 Robert Pace                 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service                  (305) 562-3909
                 Yvonne Stoker               USGS                                          (813) 228-2124
                 Nick Toth                   Cockroach Bay Aquatic Pres Mgr                (813) 620-6161              542-6161
                 Bill Veon                   Hboro Planning & Development Mgmt             (819) 272-5710








                 Cockroach Bay Data Issue Statement                                                                    Appendix 7
                 TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                               Page 2


                 Problem Description:

                 Introduction

                 During January, 1992 Hillsborough County Commissioner Ed Turanchik formed a task force to discuss a number
                 of issues relative to the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve. The Preserve bounds an area which includes the
                 headwaters and oligohaline habitat for the eastern portion of the Middle segment of Tampa Bay (Figure 1).
                 Cockroach Bay has some of Tampa Bay's most pristine habitat and generally good water quality. The Federal
                 Coastal America's program has recently funded $300,000 toward an estuarine restoration project on Cockroach
                 Bay's northern shore and the State of Florida's SWIM program has dedicated at least twice as much money
                 toward the same restoration project. AdditionaRy, there has been an award of a M,000 EPA Clean Water Act
                 Section 319 (h) Nonpoint Source Pollution Set-Aside grant to fund construction of a stormwater system designed
                 to treat agricultural runoff into Cockroach Bay. This grant was designed specifically to address pollution
                 abatement strategies for sediment contamination problems from agricultural runoff. Once in place, such massive
                 public expenditures along with the rare and pristine nature of the Bay carry a public mandate to protect the
                 investment and manage for the protection of the resource.

                 Concurrently, and as a result of previous direction by the County Commission, the Hillsborough County City-
                 County Planning Commission had been asked to develop a management strategy for Cockroach Bay. A copy
                 of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment drafted as a primary component of the strategy is included in
                 Attachment A.

                 The Task Force formed a subcommittee under EPC coordination to analyze what data might be pertinent to the
                 further implementation of the strategy and where the data might reside. The subcommittee developed a matrix
                 (Attachment B) of data types and a list of the potential producers of that data. The plan amendment called for
                 the Hillsborough Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to establish the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve
                 Management Advisory Team (CAPMAT) who will be the primary user but data will be fed to them after
                 consolidation of data in the County's GIS under the guidance of the Hillsborough County GIS Coordinator.

                 However, although much data are available to help implement a management strategy, it has been difficult for
                 the Planning Commission to easily avail itself of that data. There is also a developing sense of urgency that plan
                 development proceed quickly, not only because of the expensive restoration project on the Bay's north shore,
                 but also because there is initial evidence already accumulating that suggest that there are chronic and newly
                 recognized problems in the Bay related to water quality and seagrasses. For the long run, both the seagrass and
                 water quality issues are addressed in the management strategy. There will be, undoubtedly, many otherissues
                 that could be addressed by the strategy as it is developed by CAPMAT, but the Task Force concluded that no
                 strategy implementation should take place until certain base natural resource data were compiled by the County
                 GIS Department and made available to the CAPMAT. For now, the planning area is bounded on the west by
                 Tampa Bay, on the north by the north shore of the Little Manatee River, on the south by the Manatee County
                 line, and on the east by Highway 301. Because drainage basins will undoubtedly be needed to implement the
                 management strategy, this area may be expected to enlarge after some discussion.

                 Problem Statement:

                          Seagrasses are suffering long-term, cumulative damage from boat propeller scarring.

                          00       Robin Lewis (1991-Personal Communication) estimates suggest that unless some management
                                   action is quickly taken, severe and permanent damage could occur in this Preserve at a time
                                   when seagrasses are making a recovery from other historical damaging effects. Seagrasses









                Cockroach Bay Data Issue Statement                                                                        Appendix 7
                TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                                   Page 3


                                   represent a vital link in the estuarine food chain and are a nursery ground for many of Tampa
                                   Bay's species including shrimp and trout.

                          Chlordane and Mirex (two agricultural pesticides toxic to freshwater and marine organisms) levels are
                          high-

                          00       Documented by NOAA's most recent Status and Trends Report (Long e. al., 1991), the
                                   presence of these persistent, banned pesticides in the Estuary could reflect pathways of
                                   stormwater runoff that need attention to prevent possible illegal continued use.

                0         Stormwater is a pollutant despite new regulations.

                          00       Stormwater's biggest components are nitrogen and phosphorous, nutrients that cause the growth
                                   of algae that robs the water of oxygen. New regulations keep the most polluted runoff from
                                   reaching the bay untreated, but older homes, parking lots and shopping centers continue to
                                   funnel the dirty residue straight to Tampa Bay, likewise effecting Cockroach Bay. (I:ampa
                                   Tribune 4/25/92)

                0         Shellfish harvesting is prohibited due to pollution.

                          00       Recently, (1991, c.f. Hesselman and Seagle, 1990) Florida DNR has discontinued shellfish
                                   bacteriological monitoring in Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve after prohibiting the area to
                                   shellfishing. FDNR's Comprehensive Shellfish Harvesting Survey looked at the concentrations
                                   of Fecal Coliform at a number of stations as an indicator of shellfish bom human pathogenic
                                   bacteria and- viruses. The majority of sampling stations were classified as Conditionally
                                   Restricted, an indication that the area is not so contaminated with poisonous and deleterious
                                   substances that consumption of shellfish after suitable purification would be haza dous, showing
                                   pollution sources ranging from non-pgint runoff, to wildlife, to agricultural runoff, to industrial
                                   discharges. However, three stations within Cockroach Bay showed wastewater treatment
                                   plant/septic plant sources and two of them were classified as Prohibited, an indication that fecal
                                   material, pathogenic microorganisms, of poisonous or deleterious substances are dangerously
                                   or unpredictably present in dangerous concentrations.

                0         High concentrations of metals and DDT are present.

                          00       In 1992, SWIM testing of sediments in some existing borrow pits of the Coastal America's
                                   restoration site showed high levels of some metals (e.g. silver) and the presence of DDT. Silver
                                   is a biologically nonessential, noribeneficial conservative element that has been found to be toxic
                                   to freshwater and marine organisms.

                4         Exotic plant encroachment threatens biodiversity in the coastal zone.

                0         Agricultural runoff is a major source of pollution.

                0         Habitat modification and destruction are prevalent.

                          The wetlands and uplands surrounding Cockroach Bay are currently highly disturbed, with almost three-
                          fourths of the total area in farm fields, mined areas, and residential (trailer park) areas. More than
                          4,3W acres of low-salinity marshes and associated coastal upland habitats (important wildlife and fish








                  Cockroach Bay Data Issue Statement                                                                       Appendix 7
                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                                  Page 4


                           habitat) have been lost to development in the Tampa Bay watershed. Ongoing Cockroach Bay
                           Restorative Alliance (COBRA) restoration efforts will rehabilitate some of these critical habitats in the
                           Cockroach Bay Basin.

                  Potential Benefits:

                  0        The Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission win have a multilayered spatial and
                           database natural resources background from which to develop a Comprehensive Plan overlay study that
                           identifies solutions to the listed problems.

                  0        Other agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County;
                           Hillsborough County Planning and Zoning, Stormwater Utility, Hillsborough County Environmental
                           Lands Acquisition and Protection Program (ELAPP); and Southwest Florida Water Management
                           District (SWFWMD) will be able to access and use a consolidated data base for the development of
                           rules, ordinances and purchases which further the management goals.

                  0        Florida Department of Natural Resources is responsible for managing the Aquatic Preserve, but to date
                           has not received adequate funding to follow through with a management plan. The agency will be
                           supported in its efforts by local government. -

                  0        Manatee County will potentially benefit from the work consolidation of this project since portions of the
                           county He in the Aquatic Preserve's drainage basin.

                  0        Tampa Bay's aquatic resources could gain additional levels of protection as a result of this project.

                  0        Large Federal 'Special Projects" such as the Federal Coastal American Program and W,000 EPA
                           Clean Water Act Section 319 (h) Nonpoint Source Pollution Set-Aside grant will benefit from this data
                           compilation effort as protection of the public investment.

                  Ongoing Activities:

                  Within the GIS/planning community there are a number of similar activities that can benefit from this endeavor
                  and vice versa. Close coordination is necessary to share results and avoid duplication of effort.

                  0        The Surface Water Improvement and Management Program (SWIM), as a partner in COBRA, has
                           designated stormwater treatment as one of the key aspects of its design for the restoration of the north
                           shore of Cockroach Bay. As such it is likely that data useful to that effort relating to storrawater basins,
                           and surface and ground water quality and quality information that will be consolidated in this project
                           will be useful to COBRA. Similarly, COBRA's overall goals of improving surface water quality can gain
                           added support via a management plan at the local governmental level. I SWIM is also mapping
                           seagrasses and sampling water quality, two examples of data redundancy that they will wish to see
                           consolidated for the widest possible benefit. SWIM annually contributes about $500,000 to the overall
                           Tampa Bay effort, with Cockroach Bay as one beneficiary.

                  0        SWFWMD has designated the entire area of Cockroach Bay as part of a Water Use Cautionary Zone.
                           it may develop that the overlay study developed by the Hillsborough County City-County P1                i g
                           Commission under this project provides SWFWMD with an additional avenue of managing a water
                           shortage problem..









                 Cockroach Bay Data Issue Statement                                                                     Appendix 7
                 TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                                Page 5


                 0        Hillsborough County's Stormwater Utility is responsible for National Pollution Discharge Elimination
                          System (NPDES) permitting for the County. The centralization of spatial and database water resource
                          information for this project could assist them in gaining some information they have yet to collect and
                          the development of a management plan can'provide an avenue for addressing stormwater pollution
                          problems in this project area.

                 0        The National Estuary Program has established a number of objectives for data collection in Tampa Bay
                          and the consolidation of this data will provide a wealth of background for a holistic look at one of their
                          Bay segments, spending as much as $5 million in the Tampa Bay area over five years. Seagrass and
                          shoreline mapping are two examples of two potential data redundancies that can be consolidate for the
                          widest possible benefit.

                          The Environmental Acquisition and Protection Program (ELAPP) provided funds for the acquisition
                          of 651 acres of land around Tampa Bay which will benefit from habitat modification and restoration
                          activities around Cockroach Bay..


                 0        Florida State Universitys Homer Hoyt Center in cooperation with the Florida Atlantic
                          University/Florida International University Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems is
                          conducting a study which proposes to evaluate the degree of consistency between the goals, objectives,
                          policies, and implementation strategies contained in the SWIM, Aquatic Preserve and Local
                          Comprehensive Plans and has chosen Cockroach Bay as one of two Tampa Bay sites where they Will
                          focus on aquatic preserve management and local government plans. A copy of the project description
                          appears in Attachment C.

                 0        As mentioned in the introduction and benefits sections, there exists the Federal Coastal America
                          Program and $400,000 EPA Clean Water Act Section 319 (h) Nonpoint Source Pollution Set-Aside
                          grant.

                 0        The Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County is recipient of a grant from the
                          Tampa Bay National Estuary Program to establish a demonstration project which will implement
                          recommendations for data sharing as presented by the "Data Management Strategy for the Tampa Bay
                          National Estuary Program." Employing the steps set forth in this Issue Statement, the project will
                          develop information on the pitfalls to effective data sharing while demonstrating that widely divergent
                          sources of data, important to local govern ent, can be effectively imported for local use.

                 Goal: Compile and deliver to the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Advisory Team (CAPMAT),
                          base natural resource information necessary to implement the management strategy for Cockroach Bay.


                 Objectives:

                 1.       Identify data needed by CAPMAT for the implementation of a Cockroach Bay management strategy.

                 2.       Develop quality and accuracy reports for each targeted data set.

                 3.       integrate as far as possible, data management protocols developed by the Tampa Bay National Estuary
                          Program (TBNEP).









                  Cockroach Bay Data Issue Statement                                                                 Appendix 7
                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                            Page 6


                  4.      Provide an orderly and efficient transfer of data to external users.



                  Actions:


                  1.1     Convene an initial Consensus Group of natural resources planners and technical experts for the purpose
                          of.

                                   Refining Issue Statement

                                   Planning a brainstorming session to refine the matrix of targeted data types

                          0        Identify leadership/composition of follow-on Action Group

                          Type of Action: Critical to Actions 2.1, 3.1, and 4.1

                          Action Leader: Bill Lofgren/TBRCC/(813) 577-5151

                          Action Group Members: N/A

                          Start/Completion Date: 6/15/92 - 7/9/62

                          Costs of Action: To be determined

                          Progress Report: A one-time record of problems encountered and recommended solutions to be
                          provided to Consensus Group Chairman for inclusion in report to TBNEP.


                  1.2     lFinalize and publish a matrix of target data after reviewing agency comments and determining location
                          of important, relevant data for transfer.

                          Type of Action: Critical to Actions 2.1, 3.1, 4.1

                          Action Leader: Al Eisenmenger/HCCCPC/(813) 272-5940

                          Action Group Members:

                                   Al Eisenmenger           HCCCPC                     (813) 272-5940
                                   Chuck Courtney           H'boro Co EPC              (813) 272-7104
                                   Bob Keirn                H'Boro Co GIS              (813) 272-5912 x3202

                          Start/Completion Date: 6/25/92

                          Costs of Action: None

                          Progress Report: A short, written report of the minutes and results of the Preliminary Meeting,
                          provided to Consensus Group Chairman for inclusion in report to TBNEP. Report should list any
                          problems encountered in the meeting and recommended solutions.









                 Cockroach Bay Data Issue Statement                                                                     Appendix 7
                 TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                                Page 7


                 2.1      Distribute to each agency, the Data Description Summary and Contact formats, and NEP protocols, if
                          available; for compilation by agency GIS/Data designee, and brought to Preliminary Meeting.

                          Type of Action: Independent

                          Action Leader: Bill Lofgren/TBRCC/(813) 577-5151

                          Action Group Members:

                                   Chuck Courtney            Hboro Co EPC               (813) 272-7104
                                   Bob Keim                  H'Boro Co GIS             (813) 272-5912 x3202
                                   GIS Coordinator           HCCCPC


                          Start/Completion Date: 6/25/92

                          Costs of Action:          None

                          Progress Report: A one-time, short written report on the problems encountered in agency follow
                          through (internal communications, glitches, etc.) provided to Consensus Group Chairman for inclusion
                          in report to TBNEP.


                 2.2      Agencies insure that the Data Description Summary and Contact formats are completed prior to
                          Preliminary Meeting

                          Type of Action: Dependent upon Action 2.1

                          Action Leader: Bill Lofgren/TBRCC/(813) 577-5151

                          Action Group Members: N/A - Each agency in matrix

                          Start Date: 6/15/92

                          Completion Date: 6/25/92

                          Costs of Action: To be determined

                          Progress Report: A one-time, short written report on the aspects of how successful action items 2.1 and
                          2.2 were completed.


                 23       Review Data Description Summaries and Contact Summaries, and assign to each agency, preparation
                          of Quality and Accuracy Reports and Data Dictionary for relevant data held by that agency; convene
                          Consensus Groups to refine data. Review Q&A reports and protocols and query agencies described
                          data to insure an understanding of transformation software needed for transfer and to conceptualize how
                          divergently formatted data can be transferred to Hillsborough City-County Planning Commission in a
                          way that will assist in their ultimate goal. (This may require some manipulation of symbols, scales, etc,
                          as well as digitization and input of EPC data may be necessary at this step). The completion of this step
  0                       includes the procurement of necessary software by completion date.









                  Cockroach Bay Data Issue Statement                                                                    Appendix 7
                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                               Page 8


                           Type of Action: Dependent upon Actions 2.1, 2.1; Critical to 2.4

                           Action Leader: Bob Keim/H'Boro Co GIS/(813) 272-5912 x3202

                           Action Group Members: Each agency in matrir, Keim's and HCCCPC GIS staffs.

                           Start Date: 7/1/92

                           Completion Date: 8/31/92

                           Costs of Action: To be determined

                           Progress Report: A short written report of monies needed for each expenditure for extraordinary
                           personnel. Software or other costs necessary to complete each data transfer should be approved by the
                           Chairman before the work is undertaken. By 8/1/92, a schedule of anticipated costs necessary to
                           complete all data transfers should be provided to Consensus Group Chairman. Finally, a written report
                           listing the types of purchases, expenses, as well as a discussion of the technical problems encountered
                           should be provided to the Chairman by the completion date.


                  2.4      Negotiate, import and prepare all targeted data for transmittal to the Hillsborough City-County PI      g
                           Commission.

                           Type of Action: Dependent upon Actions 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 23

                           Action Leader: Bob Keim/H'Boro Co GIS/(813) 272-5912 x3202

                           Action Group Members: Each agency in matrix; Keim's and HCCCPC GIS staffs.

                           Start Date: 6/25/92

                           Completion Date: 12/24/92

                           Costs of Action: To be determined

                           Progress Report: Brief monthly written reports to Chairman detailing status toward objective
                           completion, problems encountered, recommended solutions and expenses incurred.


                  3.1      Prepare two status reports to the TBNEP; the first summarizing preliminaries and progress on the first
                           two objectives; the second at the completion of the goal.

                           Type of Action: Independent

                           Action Leader: Chuck Courtney/H'Boro EPC/(813) 272-7104

                           Action Group Members:                                         -

                                    Bob Keini                 H'Boro Co GIS             (813) 272-5912 x3202









               Cockroach Bay Data Issue Statement                                                                 Appendix 7
               TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                            Page 9


                                Bifl Lofgren              TBRCC                    (813) 577-5151

                        Start Date:      First report - 08/31/92           Second report 01/15/93

                        Completion Date: First report - 09/15/92           Second report 01/31/93

                        Costs of Action: To be determined

                        Progress Report: To include a written summary of each action item, including an estimate of percent
                        of completion; funds spent and remaining funds for each task; an analysis of measures of success with
                        specific observations on the problems encountered and recommended solutions for future efforts.


               4.1      Copy for county base map and then transfer aU data/layers to the H&borough City-County Planning
                        Commission.

                        Type of Action: Dependent upon Actions 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4.

                        Action Lzader: Bob Keim/H'Boro Co GIS/(813) 272-5912 x3202

                        Action Group: County and HiUsborough City-County Planning Commission GIS Staffs

                        Start Date:      12/24/92

                        Completion Date: 01/15/93

                        Costs of Action: To be determined

                        Progress Report: Provide Chairman with a brief summary of any final problems and recommended
                        solutions.



               ATTACHMENTS

                 A.     Cockroach Bay Plan Amendment
                 B.     Data Type Matrix (Revised 7/9/92)
                 C.     Coordination of SWIM, Aquatic Preserve, and Local Government Comprehensive Plans
                 D.     Data Descriptive Survey Instructions (Withdrawn - See Appendix 4)








             Cockroach Bay Data Issue Statement                                                Appendix 7
  16         Cockroach Bay Plan Amendment 92-03 (3/26/92 Draft)                             Attachment A
             TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                          Page 1





























                                                   ATTACHMENT A


                                         CPA 92-03 (COCKROACH BAY STUDY)








               Cockroach Bay Data Issue Statement                                                       Appendix 7
               Cockroach Bay Plan Amendment 92-03 (3/26/92 Draft)                                     Attachment A
               TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                 Page 2

                                             CPA 92-03 (Cockroach Bay StuiW

               A primary focus of the plan amendment process includes Striking-through
               (deleting) all existing policies dealing with Cockroach Bay in the Coastal
               Management Element (CME) and Conservation and Aquifer Recharge Element
               (CARE) and transferring them, as revised below, with a cross-reference (in part in
               order to comply with Rule 9J-5, FAC) to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) under
               an existing area of the Element, Section C - Spedal Areas of Concern. The new
               section will be entitled 'Me Cbckroach Bay Aquatic.Preserve Planning Area."
               Locating all policies dealing specifically with the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve in
               this section will better recognize the unique characteristics of the Planning Area, as
               well as focusing all of the pertinent policies in one place for ease of reference. In
               addition, the FLUE is the primary element of the Plan, the focus of the most public
               attention, and the most widely,distributed.

               In addition to relocated existing/ revised policies, the new section will include a new
               goal and objective, and several new policies. Pertinent existing and revised CME
               and CARE policies to be included in the new section are shown below; italics
               represent additions; deletions are represented by strike ihr-eughs.


               Section C - Special Areas of Concern CMis is an eAsting section of the Future Land Use
               Elen,went)

               The Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve Planning Area

               The Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve Planning Area is a unique area of special
               concern in Hillsborough County. The aquatic preserve designation is a recognition
               by the State of Florida of the area's outstanding biological resources and overall
               environmental qualities.       As stated in the State's Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve
               Management Plan,'The major objective of the aquatic preserve management
               program is to ensure the maintenance of essentially natural condifions."l
               However, despite this stated intent, the lack of funding at the State lever ha not
               allowed the Florida Department of Natural Resources, which has primary
               management responsibility for the Aquatic Preserve program, to implement and
               enforce the provisions of the Management Plan as aggressively as may be necessary
               to protect the Preserve's natural resources. It is the intent of Hillsborough County to
               assist the State in protecting and managing this important natural resource, to
               improve its natural viability, and to increase its benefits to the citizens of
               Hillsborough County by adopting the following Goal, Objective and Policies:


                  Florida Deparbmnt of Natural Resources, ne Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve Management P@lan,
               1987.







            Cockroach Bay Data Issue Statement                                            Appendix 7
            Cockroach Bay Plan Amendment 92-03 (3/26/92.Draft)                          Attachment A
            TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                      Page 3


            ra. QA L: To protect the natural resources of the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve from
            environmental degradation and manage the Preserve's resources for the benefit and
            enjoyment of the citizens of Hillsborough County.

            Qb 'jective C-37: By the end of 1993, the County will identify the geographic area
            wherein discharges are very likely to affect Cockroach Bay. Once this area has been
            identified, new permitted discharges in this area will be required to meet or exceed
            applicable federal, state, regional and local water quality standards through
            cooperation with the Envieonmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough
            County (EPC), the Southwest 'Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), the
            Hillsborough County Public Health Unit (HCPHU) and the Florida Department of
            Environmental Regulation (FDER). As a means of ensuring this, the County will
            request these agencies to develop a system whereby 2-5% of permitted point and
            non-point discharge structures' are monitored in the field (as-builts) to document
            that they are operating as permitted. By the end of 1993, the County will initiate a
            plan to address the restoration of water quality and aquatic habitat values
            throughout the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve.

            (The following policy should be relocated from both the Coastal Management
            Elements (CME) and Conservation and Aquifer Recharge (CARE) (a cross-reference
            wfil be inserted to explain the changes and direct readers to the appropriate places) -
            proposed revisions are shown in italics or strike thfeug+)

               Policy 4.5 (CME) 8.8          C-37,1:
                   The County shall participate with the Florida Department of Natural
                   Resources to fully implement the "Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve
                   Management Plan" as specified in the Mmanagement Pplan guidelines.

            (The  following policies are recommended to be transferred from the Coastal
            Management Element (CME) (a cross-reference will be inserted in their place)
            proposed revisions are shown in italics or strike threcw6-1-11

                Policy ". C-37.2:
                   The County    shall work with oppose by reselutien any pr-epesal by the
                   Department of Natural Resources, the Environmental Protection
                   Commission of Hillsborough County (EP0 and the Hillsborough County
                   Public Health Unit (HCPHU) to identify the sources of pollution responsible
                   for the closure of A pennanently clese the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve to
                   public shellfishing, and, upon identification, will develop a program to
                   identify means of eliminating such sources in a timely but cost-effective
                   manner. shall improve water- quality to maintain the Yiability of shellfish
                   resour-ees by implementing Objective 1 and Felated policies theFeunder-



Cockroach Bay Data Issue Statement					Appendix 7
Cockroach Bay Plan Amendment 92-03(3/26/92 Draft)	    Attachment A
TBRCC Report - December 1992						    Page 4

Policy 3.2:
The County shall initiate an interlocal agreement with the appropriate
regulatory agencies to ensure that land developments within the coastal area
which discharge into receiving waters flowing into a "Conditionally
Approved" or "Approved" - Department of Natural Resources Shellfish
Harvesting Area demonstrate non-degradation of water quality for all
applicable discharges.(The Planning Commission recommends deleting this policy as no
longer relevant as stated because FDNR has closed Cockroach Bay to shellfish harvesting and 
no other approved shellfish harvesting areas will be affected by this deletion).

Policy 2.9 C-37.3:
The County shall review, and mitigate or restrict as appropriate, all proposed
development likely to impact adjacent to the boundaries of the Cockroach Bay
Aquatic Preserve to ensure that water quality, shoreline or estuarine habitat
degradation, either attributable to the development alone or in combination
with other developments, does not occur.

(The following policies should be deleted or relocated from the Coastal Management
Element (CME) and the Conservation and Aquifer Recharge Element (CARE)(a
cross-reference will be inserted in their place)-proposed revisions are shown in 
italics or strike through)

Policy 4.4 (CME)18.2(CARE)
By 1990, the County shall iniate an interlocal agreement with the Florida 
Department of Natural Resources to ensure that the Cockroach Bay Aquatic
Preserve is maintained in its essentially natural condition and protected from
development that would adversely impact the environmental integrity of the 
Preserve. (The Planning Commission recommends deleting this policy because the drafting of
such an agreement has been difficult for a number of reasons, this policy basically reiterates
Policy C-37.1, and because this plan amendment will accomplish the same objective).

Policy 4.2(CME)18.4(CARE):
The County shall seek to expand the boundaries of the Cockroach Bay Aquatic
Preserve, where ecologically appropriate and beneficial, to promote more
effective management of the natural system and its biological resources. (This
policy has been incorporated as a task of the Management Team identified in Policy C-37.5)

Policy 4.3(CME)18.3(CARE)C-37.4:
The County shall seek to establish a scientifically defensible protective buffer
zone between the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve and adjacent upland land
uses to prevent degradation of water quality and aquatic vegetative habitats
in accordance with Policy 19.1 of the Conservation and Aquifer Recharge
Element as part of the Cockroach Bay Overlay District Study called for in 
Policy C-37.13. 	







           Cockroach Bay Data Issue Statement                                           Appendix 7
           Cockroach Bay Plan Amendment 92-03 (3/26/92 Draft)                         Attachment A
           TBRCC Report - December IM                                                       Page 5

         (The following policies are new)

             PoLky C-37-5
                 By the end of 1992, the Board of County Commissioners shall establish a
                 "Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Advisory Team" (CAPMAT),
                 with members representing the County, the Planning Commission, the
                 Environmental Protection Commission, Hillsborough Community College,
                 state and regional agency staff, concerned citizens and area landowners. The
                 Team shall serve as aft ongoing means of better managing the resources of
                 the Cockroach Bay Aq@atic Preserve.       The Team will meet regularly and
                 report periodically to the Board of County Commissioners and request Board
                 action as necessary. The Board will designate appropriate staff for the Team.
                 From time to time, Team meetings should be held in south County to
                 encourage public input. I The Management Advisory Team shall :

                    1.    Assist the County with implementation of the Coal, Objectives and
                          Policies that affect the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve area;
                    2.    Identify the specific area of likely impact on the Aquatic Preserve, to
                          be known as the "Area of Concern,w based on review of the
                          boundaries of the Aquatic Preserve, the Little Manatee River
                          Watershed, and drainage basins which discharge to Cockroach Bay
                          and the Aquatic Preserve,
                    3.    Identify concerns and problems that may affect the Preserve area;
                    4.    Identify research needs and collect data that may assist in resolving
                          identified problems and concerns;
                    5.    Document the extent and relative health of seagrasses and identify
                          sources of seagrass damage before recommending actions to ban
                          boating or identify exclusionary areas in the Preserve;
                    6.    Identify an implementation procedure, thresholds and a timeline for
                          review of applications for development approval within the defined
                          Area of Concern to ensure compatibility with the intent of the
                          Preserve;
                    7.    Review proposed compreheniive' plan and land development c6de
                          revisions that may impact the Area of Concern and recommending
                          appropriate changes and other measures to further these Goals,
                          Objectives and Policies;
                    8.    Investigate funding sources;
                    9.    Identify and propose technically and fiscally sound approaches and
                          solutions to identified problems and concerns;
                    10.   Request the County to initiate.a request to the Florida Department Of
                          Natural Re-sources and the Governor and Cabinet and the Legislature
                          to-'expand the boundaries of the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve, if
  0                       deemed ecologically appropriate and beneficial, to promote more
                          effective management of the natural system and its biological
                          resources;








            Cockroach Bay Data Issue Statement                                            Appendix 7
            Cockroach Bay Plan Amendment 92-03 (3/26/92 Draft)                          Attachment A
            TBRCC Report - December 1M                                                        Page 6

                       11.  Assist in the development of public education maps and work with
                            the appropriate authorities in the placement of markers clearly
                            indicating boating channels and potential hazards in appropriate
                            locations throughout the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve. In
                            addition, work to post manatee educational information and warning
                            signs as needed throughout the Preserve,
                       12.  In conjunction with the Southwest Florida Water Management
                            District (SWFWMD), the Florida Department of Natural Resources
                            (FDNR), the Tafnpa Electric Company (TECO) and other property
                            owners, initiate a program to reverse the spread of noxious exotic
                            plant species in the Area of Concern, with the goal of replacing exotics
                            with viable desirable native plant communities. Such a program
                            should include assessment of the extent of the problem, identification
                            of the geographie focus of action, identification of costs and likely
                            funding sources, assess the potential for a volunteer component of
                            the program, and enlist the cooperation of affected private property
                            owners, if any; and
                       13.  Develop a means through which to base decisions and
                            recommendations on sound, scientifically-defensible research in
                            order to avoid arbitrary recommendations.

            Po     C-37.6
                   By the   end of 1992, the County, in conjunction with. the EPC, SWFWMD,
                   FDNR,    TECO and other property owners, will develop a program to identify
                   drainage system alterations that facilitate water qualify and habitat value
                   improvements in the Preserve. The Area of Concern shall receive priority as
                   the County implements its stormwater management basin studies.                The
                   County will utilize a variety of mechanisms, such as the use of natural plant
                   communities for the treatment of stormwater, detention of stormwater, and
                   purchase of lands by the Environmental Lands Acquisition and Protection
                   Program (ELAPP) for multiple use as wildlife habitat and stormwafer
                   management.

               Polia C-37.7.,
                   By the end of   1992, the County will request Hillsborough Community College
                   to expand the   focus at  'the Cockroach Bay Environmental Studies Center to
                   include the study of land management practices such as exotic plant control
                   and fire management. The Environmental Lands Acquisition and Protection
                   Program can utilize the results of such studies to more effectively manage
                   lands purchased throughout the Area of Concern.

               Poliel C-37,8:
                   The County will request the ELAP Program to purchase suitable parcels'in the
                   Area of Concern and incorporate site restoration projects that achieve water
                   quality andlor habitat benefits to the Preserve.







            Cockroach Bay Data Issue Statement                                           Appendix 7
            Cockroach Bay Plan Amendment 92-03 (3/26/92 Draft)                         Attachment A
            TBRCC Report - December 1M                                                       Page 7



            Poli" C:3z.2
                By the end of 1992, the County will work with the appropriate authorities,
                including the Environmental Protection Commission and the Florida
                Department of Natural Resources, to implement means of protecting
                seagrasses from propeller dredging throughout the Cockroach Bay Aquatic
                Preserve.


            Polky C-37.10
                By the end of 1992, thie County will encourage all appropriate agricultural or
                construction operations 'within the Cockroach Bay drainage basin to develop
                and apply a Soil Conservation Services Soil Conservation Plan and
                implement Best Management Practices (BMPs).          Upon completion of the
                County's Stormwater Management Master Plan for this area, the County will
                require the use of BMPs

            Policif C-37.11
                By the end of 1993, the County, in cooperation with EPC, the Hillsborough
                County Public Health Unit and other appropriate entities, will undertake a
                study to evaluate the impact of existing septic systems on water quality in the
                Area of Concern. If warranted, the County will initiate a program, by the end
                of 1995, to address and fund timely remediation of any identified water
                quality problems to the extent reasonably feasible.

            Polksm C-37,1
                By the end of 1992, the County will implement means of improving
                enforcement of marine conservation laws in the Cockroach Bay area, such as
                the dedication of an environmental deputy to the area. The primary purpose
                of such a deputy would be to educate boaters and fishermen about boating and
                safety laws, and secondarily to issue warnings and citations.

            Polky C-37.13
                By the end of 1994, the Planning Commission will develop a Cockroach        Bay
                Aquatic Preserve Overlay District that* addresses such issues as 'land      use,
                densities, setbacks, etc.








             Cockroach Bay Data Issue Statement                                                Appendix 7
             Data Type Matrix (Revised 7/9/92)                                               Attachment B
            TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                           Page 1




























                                                   ATTACHMENT B

                                         DATA TYPE MATRIX (REVISED 7/9/92)








                  Cockroach Bay Data Issue Statement                                                                        Appendix 7
                  Data Type Matrix (Revised 7/9/92)                                                                       Attachment B
                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                                    Page 2



                   ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMISSION                                                                                   4,
                                 GIS APPLICATIONS
                              PRODUCER I X ) GROUPS                 4py                                  di
                                                                 gIt'4b          /_q@p  @40%                      Ot
                                DATA TYPE                                               40t                W.*-            oy

                        MCA A)VASOCMRAL SOUNWAU
                        QA*W0 WATM CLA38MA"M 60M!I-
                        WOWACt WATER CLA"W"rdW l"UNU

                        MAS s i Amu WN

                                      UK$                      X

                        CONSERVAMN CASEM9W AP"
                        W14 "UNDAW18                           X
                        KGMK TOWKSHIP. RM" U1898               X

                        PM&INVATM AREAS
                        W9U."LAD F"01MCTION swift              X
                    PROJECTS AND PLANS
                        MASISR STOWMATIR VLM Ars"                X
                        APAM YHOM CONSEMIM FLAW

                        UVMA PLAMUG Am"

                        LWAK FAGXCT AM"

                        4"$Ut GAARKA RIES
                    MONITORING AND STUDIES
                        AWAM WAT9A QUALM flArAft               X    X
                        OSWIL LAXL 4SWARY WAKS

                        OCR 9TUM AFAAS
                        AhWWXf AN U004TOOM STAMM                 X

                        TPAPM OWJKT WFATWW

                        Cl. N C40APLAAWTO
                        -ANt-60MUNG ISIUM                                                     Y.
                        FLW WOMM"MPGAGM STATAWS                                                       LK I

                        PYGLICATON 00VtAMW AF&M

                                 VVLLS "Aaw"Wo"Imit

                        NXIM6 LA60KAMUN

                        fee AM Kpoalffm Hownuft MTAN

                        49QUX*6 WnL UNS Sov" 40V

                        "IlAaH 094RADAIM

                        KO"Iff SAAWUW SlaWd
                    MISCELANEOUS,

                        cowftmoff VMS

                        polve SMS

                        C"ATWN SfMS

                        "MMOWAUlt OVAUW WASM M""
                                                                                                          X

                        Pkftx Ow"CD LAN06
                        11".
                        AftWCOLDGLAL PRO

                        WAM VSC CAV"OHART SIM

                        AftfinaAL PAWS






                    Cockroach Bay Data Issue Statement                                                                                 Appendix 7
                    Data Type Matrix (Revised 7/9/92)                                                                               Attachment B
                    TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                                             Page 3



                                                                                          A
                    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMISSION                                     +--    the
                                                                                  coo N5 40
                                   CIS APPLICATIONS
                              PRODUCER ( X       GROUPS                                                                         A0         Vf
                                                                                            I<k



                                 DATA TYPE


                         ASAMOONgwymmWTIC WJW MIS                  X
                         STAT109"Y TANKSAMOCAGROUND STOAA46

                         P9TR0LEWl"TW"$lALS,MWAT.VWl$4LS
                         MAL IMAU OUAMM WASIT CWXEMTOM            X
                         KA"OUS WASTR *w"cnwa%mwtPt Pass

                         "Al"aGUS WAST9 =US

                         vkceftaomc OWC71" wn"
                         SUWMX WARM 0180"MAS                            Ix I                               X I   I
                         UU6 M"TWINT um                          Ix   X
                         INCOUT CONTAMNATWO                                                                                 I --T-T
                         OWD" AX0, F%.L WMSf*Tr-"0                                                            I X
                         SOCKS                                                                  Ix
                         NAX@T RAN,

                         RAWLATUMAL AM
                         AM" Of WONIPGOT "WWC P"LVnM                    X-
                         %'W ITOPAMAT&M V9
                                                                                                          Ix
                         MINOS APPUCATIONS A01SAS

                         AWAM PLANT 0ONTROL APWAII

                         "PTIC
                         Awl VOLVIMN Sou"M                        X
                         VIOLAMON &F " FOUAMM

                         ASSCSTOS C1010PLACTO"

                         AASSSTOS 100ACTS
                         A&MM OPUMANIS                                X
                                     "TIM "OUND WAM               X
                         6600AND&AM                              X


                         SCHOOLS AM ftAVS%WJN                         X

                         PAST. CWJWM PROPOSED ROKOLaM VMS

                         PECYCL004 Cc

                         KAL WASTt PCCVCLRZATbKNT FACLfMS

                         lbw4mmul Am"
                         Me" DISPOSAL um                         Ix
                    POLITICAL JURISDICTIONS
                         POUT=" 110MCAPNIG                            X
                                   FlUOPA" WAWA$
                         "'T"ANDIft
                                    UMA"WENT -                         I I I     I







              Cockroach Bay Data Lssue Statement                                                     Appendix 7
              Data Type Matrix (Revised 7/9/92)                                                    Attachment B
              TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                Pap 4



              ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMISSION
                        GIS APPLICATIONS                    61    4        1+.

                        PRODUCER   X  GROUPS
                                                                                                      A@evf  P
                                                                                                           40
                                                                                    qv
                       DATA TYPE                                                                   0
                NATURAL RESOURCES
                   WfTt*A*W= *AZl%              A X                  I f          NIX
                   LA" Conn rAXERft VE"'TAM                          I     _X   XlXl
                   WETLAmo covERAGEMMEATM          X                              I
                   WMAT" AREA                                                     I
                   rT9R0GPAFKT                                                    I X
                   TOPOGR40"Y                         X                    Ix
                   OCEAN 60TTOU MORPHOLOGY                                 Ix
                   FLOW FROM APAM MO ROM FLAM$        X                    I      X
                   K"AcLoac SAM$                     _lX        X          I      X
                   wwo S=Ns D&MEAT"s                                       I      XK
                 -IOLS A"-80" PRWUS                                        Ix     X
                   WADR4 awwSHO"E"W OMNI"                                         I               X  X
                   NVORCLOar                          X                           1XI
                   SWJUFKMT RAWAVOCAWARED $MW$        X                                          lXX
                   D*UPW WJMgnNG AWAMAY SCAll

                   ftsKums no ncK MAVElmd ARM
                   $9044,28 01sawncod                                      X
                   Urn& KARAM Fuv MDT                                      X1
                   F LAND$ 9WOMW                                          X
                   VISTM MO 1*0MIED CAM MMOWU                              X

                   MAM um NEIQMC9

                   WYAM "WESEMS

                   $A" CM WMAll"W OUR LAM AMM
               MAN-MADE INFLUENCE$
                                                      X
                   We Use uxw;vmo                     X

                   Pirift Wo V" CHOJOLSMSTwic"M PL
                   20104                              X

                   POF%"Twk Demm AM PROACTOW
                          ftis                        X
                   emoama WAnR WEUS MO WEU nOM      Al    i I                     X
                   IVOWMA VWU WfAn STROcnffas

                   STRUA "ArWHOMOM

                   WA32R TPEAMEW FLURS

                   Wrom wes. SCIM" "A" "Howoft
                   WMESM W"n FAOUMS               X
                   UMSTM& WASM FACOMS             @X








                 Cockroach Bay Data Issue Statement                                                                     Appendix 7
                 Coordination of SAFIM, Aquatic Preserve...                                                          Attachment C
                 TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                                Page 1


                             Q20RDINATION OF SWIM, AQUATIC PRESERVE, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

                                                            COMPREHENSIVE PLANS


                 SUMMARY

                          The Florida State University's Homer Hoyt Center for Land Economics and Real Estate, in
                 cooperation with the FAU/FIU Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems, proposes to evaluate
                 the degree of consistency between the goals, objectives, policies, and implementation strategies contained in
                 the SWIM, Aquatic Preserve, and Local Comprehensive Plans for portions of two areas, Tampa Bay and the
                 Indian River Lagoon. Based on this analysis, conflicts among these plans Will be identified and
                 recommendations suggested for coff ective actions, including those needed on a statewide basis. The Homer
                 Hoyt Center requests funding for the 1991-92 Coastal Management Program grant period in order to
                 conduct this study and prepare a report with recommendations
                          A primary goal of Florida's Coastal Management Program is to foster the resolution of conflicting
                 state policies concerning coastal land and water uses having a direct and significant impact on the coastal
                 area. An example of this conflict is inadequate policy and technical coordination among SWIM plans,
                 Aquatic Preserve Management Plans, the State Comprehensive Plan, and Local Comprehensive Plans. This
                 can result in inconsistent plans, thus limiting the full potential of these important state programs to
                 individually and collectively protect Florida's coastal resources, particularly when regulating land use within
                 upland watersheds of vital coastal waters. Although intergovernmental coordination is a key element of
                 success for these plans, it is often underemphasized in the planning process, or is inadequate by design. In
                 the past, state agency plan review activities too often were uncoordinated or narrowly focused. Reasons
                 include agency mission autonomy, inadequate staffing and funding, lack of communication, and inadequate or
                 unfocused legislative direction.
                          Therefore, towards resolving conflicting state policy in the areas above, the Homer Hoyt Center, in
                 cooperation with the FAU/FIU Joint Center, will collect and review all appropriate plans and supporting
                 documents for the above areas, and will document the degree of consistency or inconsistency between the
                 plans, particularly the degree to which Local Comprehensive Plans are able to address land use and its
                 impact on coastal resources. The Homer Hoyt Center will then recommend actions for resolving any
                 inconsistencies between plans, and offer suggestions for resolving any statutory, rule, or policy conflicts that
                 have created or contributed to these inconsistencies. Finally, the Homer Hoyt Center will produce a report
                 describing the degree of consistency between the goals, objectives, policies, and implementation strategies
                 contained in the SWIM, Aquatic Preserve, and Local Comprehensive Plans for the above areas. The report
                 will also identify conflicts between these plans, and recommended statewide or other corrective actions for
                 resolving the inconsistencies and improving the overall process to avoid future problems.
                          Additionally, the Homer Hoyt Center, in cooperation with FSU's Florida Resources and
                 Environmental Analysis Center (FREAC), proposes to examine plan consistency in regard to technical data
                 and information transfer, the theory being that the availability of common data sets to different agencies win
                 result in more consistent and rigorous plans. FSU will, as an in-kind contribution, analyze data requirements
                 for the above three plans, create a common database and computerized data analysis techniques readily
                 accessible to the different agencies responsible for the plans, and develop common data and other outputs
                 for final production and presentation purposes. A pilot project area will be chosen following initial plan
                 analysis and in consultation with the Department of Environmental Regulation.
                          The above consistency review and the technical data study are closely related to projects currently
                 being conducted by the Homer Hoyt Center and FREAC, one to review and recommend corrective actions
                 for further integrating SWIM and local comprehensive plans, the other to document a regional GIS and its








                  Cockroach Bay Data Issue Statement                                                                  Appendix 7
                  Coordination of SWIM, Aquatic Preserve...                                                        Attachment C
                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                             Page 2


                  linkages to local and other government planning agencies. Research and analysis methodologies used in the
                  Center's current projects are potentially applicable to the Coordination project described above.

                  DESCRIPTION


                  Background Information

                           This proposed study will focus initially on waterbodies of statewide significance targeted for
                  protection and restoration under the state's Surface Water Improvement and Management Act (SWIM).
                  Tampa Bay and the Indian River lagoon are two of six such areas in Florida that were top legislative
                  priorities during the passage of the SWIM program in 1987. Additionally, both areas contain aquatic
                  preserves for which the Governor and Cabinet have adopted management plans, which is not the case for all
                  SWIM waterbodies. Likewise, not all of Florida's 42 aquatic preserves have adopted management plans,
                  which is a prerequisite for this study.
                           Specifically, this comprehensive study will have a two-pronged integrated and coordinated
                  multidisciplinary approach that will involve the following areas:

                           1)      Portions of the watershed area for the Indian River Lagoon SWIM plan. This portion of
                                   the study will focus on the aquatic preserve management plan recently adopted within this
                                   area, Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet, and on local government plans within, adjacent to, or
                                   surrounding this general study area. DNR's aquatic preserve management plan for this
                                   area, adopted November 15, 1990, represents their statewide prototype for new and revised
                                   Aquatic Preserve Plans

                           2)      Portions of the watershed area for the Tampa Bay SWIM plan. This portion of the study
                                   will focus on two aquatic preserve management plans that have been adopted within this
                                   area, Cockroach Bay and Terra Ceia, and on local government comprehensive plans within,
                                   adjacent to, or surrounding this general study area.

                  All aquatic preserve, SWIM, and local government comprehensive plans within these study areas all should
                  be adopted by the time the study be
                           The Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve, one of the three on the Indian River Lagoon,
                  was destined as a wilderness preserve in 1973. This designation was intended to maintain the area in its
                  primarily natural condition. The first phase of this plan was adopted in November 1990. Manatee Pocket,
                  an area with its own SWIM plan, is located within the preserve. Both plans point to the need for
                  intergovernmental coordination for implementation and note that point and nonpoint pollution and habitat
                  loss are principal problems within the lagoon. The immediate study area also includes three counties (Palm
                  Beach, Martin, and Lt. Lucie) and ten municipalities, all within the Treasure Coast Region. The
                  comprehensive plans for the St. Lucie and Martin counties, and the cities of Jupiter Island and Port St. Lucie
                  are not now in compliance, but settlement agreements are anticipated within the next few months, according
                  to Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council staff.
                           Both the Terra Ceia and Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserves fall within the Tampa Bay SWIM Plan
                  watershed and planning area. These Preserves were selected because their Management Plans were the only
                  ones within the Tampa Bay that have been adopted. Additionally, both fall within areas that are currently
                  still undergoing development within their watersheds.
                           The first part of the overall study will assess the way in which these plans and their implementing
                  mechanisms support or conflict with each other in addressing key problems identified in aquatic preserve and
                  SWIM plans. Two different study areas -- a "wilderness preserve" in the Indian River Lagoon, the other an









               Cockroach Bay Data Issue Statement                                                                Appendix 7
               Coordination of SWIM, Aquatic Preserve...                                                      Attachment C
               TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                          Page 3


               urbanized area within Tampa Bay -- will be assessed. This will allow a full range of coastal issues to be
               explored by the inclusion of these two very different areas. Additionally, these areas have been brought into
               the federal National Estuarine Program, which recognizes particular estuaries for their biological
               productivity, recreational, and other values, and helps fund planning and other protection and preservation
               strategies and activities.
                        In regard to this assessment, SWIM plans for both Tampa Bay and Indian River Lagoon discuss the
               development of model local ordinances, particularly with regard to stormwater and other issues. I(Land
               development regulations and other activities, such as acquisition programs, for the implementation of local
               plans must be in place within a year after submission to DCA.) For instance, habitat protection and the
               prevention of point and nonpoint pollution are issues that can -- and should -- be addressed through local
               comprehensive plans and land development regulations, as well as through regional and state regulatory and
               land acquisition programs. In addition, according to the Indian River Lagoon plan addressed in this study,
               the aquatic preserve program has attempted to guide; local governments in developing planning criteria and
               standards consistent with the aquatic preserve program. Among other things, this study will determine how
               fully local governments have embraced these standards, criteria and ordinances within the study areas.

               TASKS


               1.       Map the study areas for comparison and analysis at common scales. In both areas (Tampa Bay and
                        Indian River Lagoon), there is one SWIM plan each and several aquatic preserves. Aquatic
                        preserves will provide a focal point for the study areas, which will be enlarged according to the
                        identified drainage basins (or subbasins) from SWIM plans. Local governments falling within these
                        basins will also be included within the study areas.

               2.       Conduct a review of law and rule to determine whether conflict exists among the enabling legislation
                        and for each of the three planning efforts.

               3.       As part of FSU's in-kind contribution to examine plan consistency in regard to technical data and
                        information transfer, the computer resources of FREAC's Local Government Assistance program
                        will be available to both research teams to support the following sub-tasks:

                        1)      analyze common data requirements for the 3 different types of plans in digital format to
                                satisfy these requirements and identify available datasets.
                        2)      create a common database that agencies working in all three of these planning areas can
                                have access to as well as share their data and work products.
                        3)      develop computerized analysis techniques that support plan development and
                                implementation.
                        4)      develop common data and information outputs for final production and presentation
                                purposed (e.g. formats for digital data, customized maps, color slides, desktop computer
                                presentations, etc.).

                        The latter task will be supported by the drafting and computer graphics services available from the
                        FREAC Cartography Center. The pilot area for this project will be chosen as a result of the initial
                        plan analysis task and in consultation with the Department of Environmental Regulation.

               4.       Review all relevant and other plans for the study- area (SWIM plans, aquatic preserve management
                        plans, local comprehensive plans) to determine key issues and critical resource areas, noting
                        supporting and conflicting goals, objectives, policies, programs and approaches. All other relevant








                  Cockroach Bay Data Issue Statement                                                                 Appendix 7
                  Coordination of SWIM, Aquatic Preserve...                                                       Attachment C
                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                            Page 4


                          plans within the study area (e.g. Save Our Rivers, regional planning council policy plans) will be
                          reviewed for the above issues and areas. To assure that this review is complete, any local plan
                          amendments and all agency and local government comments must also be reviewed and assessed.
                          Additionally, implementation efforts, including adopted local land development regulation practices,
                          will be reviewed to determine how they address key issues and critical areas.

                  5.      AH major actors will be interviewed for their assessment of the extent and causes of plan
                          inconsistencies or the lack of supporting policies among the three planning efforts. At minimum,
                          interviews will be conducted with key program staff at DER, DCA, DNR, the water management
                          districts, RPCs, and local governments within the study areas.

                  6.      A draft report will be prepared for review by the sponsoring agency and study participants. The
                          report wiU discuss key issue and critical areas and how each plan addresses them, if at all.
                          Inconsistencies will be assessed in depth, with the review including an evaluation, drawn from the
                          legal review and interview results, of any recommended statewide or other procedural,
                          programmatic, rule or statutory changes needed to address these points of conflict among plans.

                  7.      A final report will be prepared, using the review and comments drawn from step 5.






                               .qmmx&:-@







           Florida Spatial Data Directory (FSDD)                            Appendix 8
           Draft Users Manual
           TBRCC Report - December 1992                                        Page 1


                    Growth Management Data Network Coordinating Council









                                         D R A F T


                                FLORIDA SPATIAL DATA DIRECTORY


                                          USERS MANUAL

























            Bulletin Board Phone:     (904)922-5928
            GMDNCC Phone: (904)922-7193



                                                                    August 30, 1991







          Florida Spatial Data Directory (FSDD)                   Appendix 8
          Draft Users Manual
          TBRCC Report - December 1992                               Page 2



                                  Glossary of Terms



          Florida Spatial Data Directory (FSDD)

               The FSDD consists of 4 elements: Bulletin Board, Central
               Directory, Distributed Directory and Automated Survey


               Bulletin Board

               Computerized communications board that serves as a front end-
               for the Central Directory


               Central Directory

               Central database accessed through the "Doors" option on the
               Bulletin Board




          FSDD Distributed Program (Distributed Program)

               Software package developed for a PC containing the
               Distributed Directory and the Automated Survey. Standards
               documentation developed by the Growth Management- Data
               Network Coordinating Council along with a file compression
               program is also included.


               Distributed Directory

               Representation of the Central Directory for a PC

               Automate d Survey

               Survey used to update the Central Directory with new or
               revised information on an agency's or organization's data
               set(s)






           Florida Spatial Data Directory (FSDD)                     Appendix 8
           Draft Users Manual
           TBRCC Report - December 1992                                 Page 3



                           FL40RIDA SPATIAL DATA DIRECTORY
                                 DISTRIBUTED PROGRAM







           Data Directory



           Maps



           Survey Instrument/Update             Edit Surveys


                                                Add Survey





                                                Export to File






           Standards Document                   Quality & Accuracy Report
                                          -4    Data Dictionary
                                                ;di
                                          F







            Florida Spatial Data Directory (FSDD)                             Appendix 8
            Draft Users Manual
            TBRCC Report - December 1992                                          Page 4




            This manual will be divided as follows:



                              Chapter    I - Bulletin Board

                              Chapter II - Central Directory

                              Chapter III - Distributed Directory

                              Chapter IV - Automated Survey







         Florida Spatial Data Directory (FSDD)                     Appendix 8
         Draft Users Manual
         TBRCC Report - December 1992                                 Page 5


                                     Chapter I

                                  Bulletin Board



         Introduction

         The computerized Bulletin Board is a communications tools that
         allows one to:

           0 send and receive messages instantly,

           0 share computer files,

           0 advertise activities, and

           0 distribute public-domain and user-supported software.

         It also provides a front end for the Central Directory of the-
         Florida Spatial Data Directory (FSDD).

         instructions

         Log on

         1.   Dial up the Bulletin Board. Phone: (904)922-5928

         2.   A welcome message will appear. The first two major prompts
              after connection are:


                   What is your FIRST Name?
                   What is your LAST Name?


         3.   For first-time callers, a message describing the purpose of
              the board appears and then prompts to create a record for
              the user:


                   What is your ORGANIZATION CITY and STATE?
                   <C>hange name/addressl <D>isconnecto <R>egister?
                   Enter PASSWORD you'll use to log on again?
                   Re-enter PASSWORD for verification (Dots echo)?


         4.   If there are any messages addressed to the user, the numbers
              of the messages will appear.

         5.   Each user is allowed 60 minutes per session and 120 minutes
              per day. The Bulletin Board will display the remaining time
              before log off.







               Florida Spatial Data Directory (FSDD)                                                  Appendix 8
                Draft Users Manual
               TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                               Page 6

                       Main Menu



                                          RBBS-PC        M A I N        M E N U
                 ---- MAIL      ----------      SYSTEM     ----------      UTILITIES      --------     ELSEWHERE
                 [E]nter a Message [A]nswer Questions [H]elp (or 7)                                  *[D]oors
                 [K]ill a Message           [B]ulletins                 [J]oin Conferences            (F]iles
                 [P]ersonal Mail            [C]omment                   [X]pert on/off                [G]oodbye
                 [R]ead Messages            [I]nitial Welcome                                         [Q]Uit
                 JS]can Messages                                                                      [Ultilities
                 [T]opic of Msgs                                                                      [@]Library

                     Florida Spatial Data Directory (Enter IDI)


                       Entering Messages

                       1.     To enter a message, enter "Ell at the main prompt, and the
                              system displays:


                                      To [A]11, S)ysop, or name?
                              If you want to address the note to all users, press the                                10
                              enter key. If you have a specific user in mind, you must
                              enter his/her name as it is listed in the system's user
                              records.

                       2.     The next prompt%


                                      Make message p[U]blic, p(R)ivate, (P)assword
                                      protected, (H)elp?


                              allows public and private messages to be written. There is
                              a help option to provide further assistance. Remember,
                              thought that the board's sysop can see all messages posted,
                              even those that are private.

                       3.     The Bulletin Board uses a line-based editor. Begin writing
                              the message at the "1:" prompt. When the end of a line is
                              reached, the system "wraps" to a new line. Messages are
                              limited to 19 lines.

                       4.     The editor subcommands, can be called at any time during
                              writing by pressing the enter key twice.
                       5.     To save the message, select the S ("save") option from theo
                              subfunction prompt. The message is assigned a number and
                              placed on the board.







          Florida Spatial Data Directory (FSDD)                     Appendix 8
          Draft Users Manual
          TBRCC Report - December 1992                                 Page 7

          Killing Messages

          1.   To kill a message, enter 11V at the main prompt,, and the
               system displays:


                    Msg #(s) to Kill ([Enter) quits)?


          2.   Enter message number(s) to delete. If multiple, space in
               between message numbers.

          Personal Mail

               The system lists the numbers of any messages addressed to
               the current user. This is the same function that is
               automatically executed after log on when the system reports
               that it Is "checking" for mail.

          Reading Messages

          1.   To read a message, enter 11R11 at the main prompt,, and the
               system displays something like:


                    Msg # 1-9 (H)elp [Q]tit)?


          2.   In this example# the system is saying the messages currently
               on the board range from numbers 1 to 9, and is asking for
               the number of the message to read.

          Scanning Messages

               Scanning messages is similar to reading them. If the "S"
               command is entered at the main prompt, the system displays a
               prompt identical to the read command with the same options.
               The only difference is the result--only the header material
               of each message is displayed instead of the entire text.

          Topic of Messages

               Topic of messages works the same as scanning, except that
               only the topic of each message is listed.

          Bulletins

          1.   To read bulletins, enter 111311 at the main prompt.
          2.   The system displays a menu of bulletin topics and prompts
               for the numbers of those to read.







          Florida Spatial Data Directory (FSDD)                       Appendix 8
          Draft Users Manual
          TBRCC Report - December 1992                                  Page 8

          Comments

          1.   To leave a private message to the sysop# enter IICII at the
               main prompt.

          2.   The Bulletin Board uses a line-based editor. Begin writing
               the message at the "1:" prompt. When the end of a line is
               reached, the system "wraps" to a new line. Messages are
               limited to 19 lines.

          3.   The editor subcommands can be called at any time during
               writing by pressing the enter key twice.

          4.   To save the message, select the S ("save") option from the
               subfunction prompt.

          Initia 1 Welcome

               Allows you to view the "welcome" message from the sysop
               displayed when you first connect.

          Join Conferences

               The Bulletin Board provides "conferences",, a group of
               messages devoted to a single topic, as another form of
               communication.
          1.   To join a conference, enter ;IJ" at the main prompt.

          2.   The system displays a menu of available conferences and
               prompts for the number of theconference to join.

          Doors

               The "Doors" option allows other programs to be linked to the
               Bulletin Board. The Central Directory can be entered here.

          1.   To search the Central Directory, enter I'D" at the main
               prompt.

          2.   The system displays a menu of available "doors" to the
               Central Directory. These "doors" correspond to the baud
               rate that the caller is operating at.


                    Enter "FSDD24" for 2400 baud
                    Enter "FSDD12" for 1200 baud
                    Enter"'FSDD3" for 300 baud


          3.   If the wrong baud rate is selected, "garbage" will appear on
               the screen. Disconnect and call again.







         Florida Spatial Data Directory (FSDD)                      Appendix 8
         Draft Users Manual
         TBRCC Report - December 1992                                  Page 9



         Files

         I .   To reach the Files System,,' enter 'IF" at the main prompt.

         2.    The system displays the Files System Menu:


                  RBBS-PC   F I L E   S Y S T E M
        TRANSFER   ------ INFORMATION --- UTILITIES --- ELSEWHERE
     (Djownload file    [Llist files   [Hjelp (or ?)   [G]oodbye
     [Plersonal dwnld [N]ew files      [Xjpert on/off  [Q]uit
     JUIpload file      [Slearch files


         Looking for Files

         1.    To find out how the sysop has organized the board's
               directories, enter "L" at the Files prompt. The system will
               display something like this:


       F   I    L   E      D   I   R   E   C   T   0   R   I   E   S

     ------------ -------------------------------------------------------
      Directory         Contents
     ------------------------------------------------------------------
          1             GMDNCC General Information
          2             GMDNCC/SAC Meeting Summaries
          3             Quality and Accuracy Report
          4             Data Dictionary
          5             Software
          6             Issue Statements
          7             Maps
          8             soils



         2.    To see the names of files in a particular directory, enter
               the number of the directory at the Files prompt.

         3.    For examplet if "21' was entered, the system would display a
               list of files in the GMDNCC/SAC Meeting Summaries directory,
        r- e-













               with a description of each, size in bytes, and the date the
               file was posted in the system, like this:



   0






               Florida Spatial Data Directory (FSDD)                                                    Appendix 8
               Draft Users Manual
               TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                Page 10



        2. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DATA NETWORK COORDINATING COUNCIL/
               STAFF ADVISORY COMMITTEE
               MEETING SUMMARIES

        ------------------------------------------------------------------
        NAME.EXT                       SIZE         DATE            DESCRIPTION

        ------------------------------------------------------------------
        COUN0709.COM                  16745      07-24-91           07/09/91 GMDNCC Meeting Summary
        SAC0529.COM                    8685      06-07-91           05/29/91 SAC Meeting Summary
        SAC0424.COM-                 22679       05-29-91           04/24/91 SAC Meeting Summary


               4.     After all the names in the directory have been displayed,
                      the prompt:


                              End list.        R)elist, [Q]uit, or download what?


                      appears. - The "QII returns to Files menu and the "R'@
                      redisplays the directory. Downloading is also accepted- from
                      this prompt by simply entering in the name of the file
                      listed to retrieve.

               5.     Enter 'IS" at the Files prompt to search for files by
                      keyword.

               6.     Enter 'IN" at the Files prompt to see the names and
                      descriptions of files since a specific date.                           'IN" prompts
                      for a    *date, (i.e. for May 9, 1988, enter 050988).                         Just
                      press return at prompt if you want the system to
                      automatically display the files added since the date of the
                      caller's last log on.

               Downloading Files (Retrieve Files)

               1.     Enter I'D" at the Files prompt.

               2.     Enter the exact name of the file as displayed.

               3.     If a preferred transfer protocol has not been specified
                      (through Utilities), the system will list all available
                      protocols and prompt for one to use.

                      YModem is recommended because it is a faster and more
                      efficient transfer protocol. If you are having difficulties
                      transferring data, utilize the XModem protocol which
                      performs an error checking routine more frequently.                              (See
                      the help for the utility command F)ile transfer for a
                      discussion of different protocols.)







         Florida Spatial Data Directory (FSDD)                      Appendix 8
         Drall Users Manual
         TBRCC Report - December 1992                                  Page 11

               The following steps have been written utilizing ProComm
               telecommunication software.

               4.   When the host indicates that it is ready, press PgDn.

               5.   Select a transfer protocol for your PC. Select the
                    SAME protocol as above.

               6.   The system will prompt for a file name to be stored on
                    your PC under the directory that you are operating in
                    unless a path is given.  Please note that most files
                    available for downloading will be self-extracting. If
                    the file is renamed, keep the extension. If the
                    extension is different, the file will not extract.

               7.   A window will open and report on the progress of the
                    transfer and signal whether or not the data was
                    successfully transferred.

               8.   Unpack the compressed file by typing in the name of the
                    file without the extension. The compressed file will
                    continue to exist after it has been unpacked and may be
                    deleted.

         Uploading-a File (Transmit Files)

         1.    Entier "U" at the Files prompt.
         2.    The system will prompt for a name to be given to the file on
               the'host system.

         3.    If a preferred transfer protocol has not been specified
               (through Utilities), the system will list all available
               protocols and prompt for one to use.

               YModem is recommended because it is a faster and more
               efficient transfer protocol. If you are having difficulties
               transferring data, utilize the Modem protocol which
               performs an error checking routine more frequently. (See
               the help for the utility command F)ile transfer for a
               discussion of different protocols.)

               The following steps have been written utilizing ProComm
               telecommunication software.

               4.   When the host indicates that it is ready, press PgUp.

               5.   Select a transfer protocol for your PC. Select the
 0                  SAME protocol as above.*

               6.   The system will prompt for the name of the file on your
                    PC to transmit. Include a path if needed.







          Florida Spatial Data Directory (FSDD)                           Appendix 8
          Draft Users Manual
          TBRCC Report - December 1992                                      Page 12






          7.    A window will open and report on the progress of the
                transfer and signal whether or not the data was
                successfully transferred.
          8.    The system will prompt for a description of the file
                that was uploaded. It is this description that the
                sysop will use in adding the file to the appropriate
                directory in the system.







           Florida Spatial Data Directory (FSDD)                         Appendix 8
           Draft Users Manual
           TBRCC Report - December 1992                                    Page 13


                                        Chapter II

                                    Central Directory


           Introduction

           The Central Directory is a hierarchal structure of menus that
           allow different types of searches into the database.

           Instructions

           1.   17-o search the Central Directory, connect to the Bulletin
                Board and enter "D" at the main prompt.
                Phone: (904)922-5928

           2.   The system displays a menu of available "doors" to the
                Central Directory. These "doors" correspond to the baud
                rate that the caller is operating at.

                     Enter "FSDD24" for 2400 baud
                     Enter "FSDD12" for 1200 baud
                     Enter "FSDD3" for 300 baud

           3.   If the wrong baud rate is selected,, "garbage" will appear on
                the screen. Disconnect and call again.

           4.   The diagram below shows the menu structure of the Central
                Directory.


                                        Main Menu



           %.=1-=gory/   Political            Data       Key       Maps    Id No
           Subcat/      Boundary              Source     Words
           Subject



           Federal            State             Federal       State        other

           -Dept\            -State\            -Dept\        -State\
            Bureau\            County\           Bureau\       County\
            Region             Town              Region        Town
 49        L-Other           -Agency\Dist       L-Other       -Agency\Dist
            Federal                              Federal
                              -WMD                            -WMD

                              -RPC                             RP C






                Florida Spatial Data Directory (FSDD)                                                   Appendix 8
                Draft Users Manual
                TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                Page 14


                5.      On-line assistance can be obtained by entering "H" or "?" to
                        select the [H]elp Section.

                6.      All selections are made on the basis of greater than or
                        equal to the value entered at the prompt.

                7.      The report produced in a search provides the user with the
                        subjects, subcategories, categories, and ID numbers of the
                        various data sets that fall within that search.

                B.      A descriptive summary about a particular set of data can be
                        obtained through (I]d Number. The (I)d Number option is
                        available in almost every Central Directory menu.

                9.      Enter the      'ID Number of the data set to view.                   From here, all
                        of the following screens are available to view:

                                               I      Index Screenl


                                               S      Index Screen2

                                               D      Data Descriptive Summary

                                               H      Hardware and Software

                                               C      Data Information Contact

                                               T      Data Transfer Contact

                                               M      Reference Maps

                                               R      New Data Development Projects

                                               0      Data Documentation

                        Enter the letter of           the screen to view and press enter.







         Florida Spatial Data Directory (FSDD)                     Appendix 8
         Draft Users Manual
         TBRCC Report - December 1992                                Page 15



                                    Chapter III

                               Distributed Directory


         Introduction

         The Distributed Directory is a main function of the FSDD
         Distributed Program (Distributed Program). The purpose of the
         Distributed Directory is to provide a representation of the
         Central Directory that can be stored on a PC.

         Instructions

         1.   Go to the directory where the Distributed Program is
              located.


         2.   Enter 11FSDD" to execute.

         3.   Select "Data Directory" and press enter.

         4.   A screen will appear with data set entries listed by ID
              NUMBER and CATEGORY. Use arrow keys to go "left and right"
              as well as "up and down" through the entries.

         5.   The data set entries are sorted by ID NUMBER. Sort options
              are provided to more effectively search for a particular
              data set. Entries can be sorted by ID NUMBER, CATEGORY,
              SUBCATEGORY or SUBJECT. Press "F111 to select sort options.

         6.   Place cursor on entry to view and press "F2". All FSDD
              screens for the data set can be viewed by pressing the
              "PgDown" and 11PqUp11 keys. Press "Esc" to exit.

         7.   Press "Esc" to exit "Data Directory".







          Florida Spatial Data Directory (FSDD)                        Appendix 8
          Draft Users Manual
          TBRCC Report - December 1992                                   Page 16


                                       Chapter IV

                                    Automated Survey


          Introduction

          The Automated Survey is a main function of the FSDD Distributed
          Program (Distributed Program). The survey is used- to update the
          Central Directory with new or revised information on an agency's
          or organization's data set(s). An entry is always considered new
          if it has not been previously assigned an ID Number by the
          Central Directo


          Instructions

          1.    Go to the directory where the Distributed Program is
                located.


          2.    Enter ITSDD" to- execute.

          3.    Select "Survey Instrument/Update" and press enter.

          4.    The Survey Menu will appear with the following options:

                     Edit Surveys
                     Add Survey
                     Import a File
                     Export to File
                     Print Summary

          5.    An explanation of each option is provided below.


          Edit  Surveys

          1.    Select "Edit Surveys" and press enter.

          2.    A screen will appear with data set entries listed by ID
                NUMBER and CATEGORY. Use arrow keys to go "left and right"
                as well as "up and down" through the entries.

          3.    The data sets are sorted by ID NUMBER. Sort options are
                provided to more effectively search for a particular data
                set. Entries can be sorted by ID NUMBER, CATEGORYj
                SUBCATEGORY or SUBJECT. Press '75" to select sort options.

          4.    Press "Fl" for the help screen for browsing the surveys.
                Instructions on how to make modifications to a field while
                browsing are provided in this help screen. Press "Esc" to
                exit.








         Florida Spatial Data Directory (FSDD)                     Appendix 8
         Draft Users Manual
         TBRCC Report - December 1992                                 Page 17

         5.   Press '72" to add an entry to the survey. Instructions for
              adding an entry are provided in the next section, Add
              Survey.

         6.   Place cursor on entry to edit and press "F3". A window will
              appear to question if the entry is new or an update. The
              explanation for this prompt is provided in the next section,
              Add Survey. All FSDD screens for the data set can be edited
              by pressing the "PgDown" and "PgUp" keys to switch screens.
              Press "Esc" to save edits and return.

         7.   Place cursor on entry to delete and press 17411.
              Confirmation of deletion is required.

         a.   Press "Esc" to exit.



         Add Survey

         1.   Select "Add Survey" and press enter.

         2.   A window will appear to question if the entry is new or an
              update. If the entry is new, the ID NUMBER is automatically
              set to 0. The entry will be assigned an ID NUMBER by the
              Central Directory when it is initially stored. If the entry
              is'an update, the ID NUMBER that the Central Directory has
              previously assigned should be used.

         3.   Fill in the survey screens, using the "PgDown" and "PgUp"
              keys to switch screens.

         4.   Press "Esc" to save entry and exit.

         NOTE: Example surveys are provided in Appendix 1.


         Import a File

         This option allows an agency to distribute copies of the
         Distributed Program to different divisions. Each division can
         fill out a survey and then provide the appropriate file to a
         central contact. The central contact can then combine (import)
         the different division files into one agency-wide survey to
         submit to the Central Directory.

         The procedures are as such:

         1.   The central contact of an agency provides copies of the
              Distributed Program to each division.

         2.   Each division adds data entries to the survey.







          Florida Spatial Data Directory (FSDD)                       Appendix 8
          Draft Users Manual
          TBRCC Report - December 1992                                  Page 18


          3.   The file "fsdd.dbf" will contain the data entries that have
               been'added. Each division will need to rename this file,
               AFTER ALL ENTRIES HAVE BEEN MADE, and provide a copy of this
               file to the central.contact.


               The DOS command to rename a file:

                         RENAME <original filename> <new filename>



                    CENTRAL CONTACT DOES NOT RENAME THE FSDD.DBF FILE


          4.   The central contact can combine (import) the different
               division files with the "Import a File" option. Select
               "Import a File" and press enter.

          5.   A screen will appear that allows five file entries at a
               time. If there are more than five files to import, simply
               repeat the process..

          6.   Enter in each file name provided by the divisions. THERE
               CANNOT BE ANY DUPLICATE FILE NAMES. Press enter. If there
               are less than five files, press enter until bottom of screen
               Is reached.

          7.   This procedure adds all of the data set entries in each of
               these division files to the original 'Ifsdd.dbf" file on the
               central contact's copy of the Distributed Program.


          Export to File

          When the survey of the central contact is ready to be submitted
          to the Central Directory, select this option.

          1.   Select."Export to File" and press enter.

          2.   Fill in agency/contact information.

          3.   Press return at the file name field to read all file name
               options. These are the only file names that will be
               accepted. If they do not apply, choose "OTHER.TXT".

          3.   Press enter.

          4.   This extracted file now resides on the same directory as the
               Distributed Program. If "OTHER.TXT" was chosen,, rename the
               file before submitting to the Central Directory.







           Florida Spatial Data Directory (FSDD)                              Appendix 8
           Draft Users Manual
           TBRCC Report - December 1992                                         Page 19








                 The DOS command to rename a file:

                             RENAME <original filename)- <new filename),


           Print qynMarY
           This option is provided to print a summary of all data set
           entries currently on the survey.








              Florida Spatial Data Directory (FSDD)                                              Appendix 8
              Draft Users Manual
              TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                           Page 20     0











                                                      APPENDIX 1                               -


                                                                                                                 0










                                                                                                                0








           Florida Spatial Data Directory (FSDD)                         Appendix 8
           Draft Users Manual
           TBRCC Report - December 1992                                    Page 21





           EXAMPLE I



                                                                Screen 1 of 9

                              Florida Spatial Data Directory
                                       Index Screenl


           Date of Input 10/17/90                                    ID NO < 0>
          ACat< TRANSPORTATION                    Subcat TRAFFIC                >
           Subject<.ANALYSIS        >1 See Maps (YIN)N Work in Progress (Y/N)N


           Area of Coverage by Political Boundary

                                          Federal

           [Dept <        Bureau       Region/Dist       >1
           other Boundaries <              -State              >

           (State <FL County PASCO                City/Town NEW PORT RICHEY>]
           (Agency < _ > Region/District <      >] Water Management District
           <SW> Regional Planning Council <->







           Florida Spatial Data Directory (FSDD)                          Appendix 8
           Draft Users Manual
           TBRCC Report - December 1992                                      Page 22




           EXAMPLE 1


                              Florida Spatial Data Directory Screen 2 of 9
                                       Index Screen2

           Update 10/17/90 Subject ANALYSIS                       ID NO        0



           Source of Data:

                                          Federal

           (Dept <        Bureau       Region/Dist        >]
           Other Federal Classifications <                                   >



                                           State

           (State <FL County PASCO           City/Town                      ?)
           (Agency < _ > Region/District <      >1 Water Management District
           <SW>
           Regional Planning Council <->

           Other: <                                          >


           Key Words:<ZONES                >







              Florida Spatial Data Directory (FSDD)                                                  Appendix 8
              Draft Users Manual
              TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                               Page 23



              EXAMPLE 1


                                           Data Descriptive Summary                      Screen 3 of 9

              Update 10/17/90 Subject ANALYSIS                                             ID NO           0


              Raster Data (YIN) N                    Vector Data (YIN) Y
              Resolution                              Scale 1:24,000                Datum 1927
              Date Range of Source Material 10/17/90 to 10/17/90
                    Comment: Based on existing parcel lines -


              Creator of derived data: Pasco Co. Survey Division, GIS Section
              Update schedule: As required
              Positional Accuracy: +/- 401
              File Size:
              Output Format: Very flexible
              Output Medium: Very flexible
              Geographic Coverage:
              Associated Data Directory maps (YIN) N
              Descriptive Text: Zones are mapped based on census tracts. This
              layer will be snapped to the parcel layer when it is completed.







           Florida Spatial Data Directory (FSDD)                          Appendix 8
           Draft Users Manual
           TBRCC Report - December 1992                                      Page 24



           EXAMPLE 1



                                     Hardware/Software           Screen 4-of 9

           Update 10/17/90 Subject ANALYSIS                          ID NO      0



                                          Hardware:
                     PRIME 2755



                                          Software:
           operating System: PRIMOS - UNIX PLANNED FOR JANUARY '91
           Database:

           GIS/CADD/Mapping: ARC/INFO Version 5.01

           Other:      ADR


           Does the system -have dial up capability (YIN) N
                      Phone (_) _-
           Explanatory Notes:







          Florida Spatial Data Directory (FSDD)                       Appendix 8
          Draft Users Manual
          TBRCC Report - December 1992                                   Page 25



          EXAMPLE 1



                                   Contact Person            Screen 5 of 9

          Update 10/17/90 Subject ANALYSIS                     ID NO        0



                               Data Information Contact

          Agency/organization Pasco County
          Unit    Geodetic Mapping
          Contact Nellie Robinson/Steve Totten
          Title   GIS Administrator/Computer Drafting Tech.
          Address Pasco County/Development Services Branch
                  7432 Little Road
          City    New Port Richey            State FL
          Zip     34654-0000

          Phone:  Suncom        596-1290
                          (813) 847-8140








          Florida Spatial Data Directory (FSDD)                      Appendix 8
          Draft Users Manual
          TBRCC Report - December 1992                                  Page 26




          EXAMPLE 1



                                 Contact Person              Screen 6 of 9

          Update 10/17/90 Subject ANALYSIS                     ID NO       0



                                 Data Transfer Contact

          Agency/Organization Pasco County
          Unit    Geodetic Mapping
          Contact Nellie Robinson/Steve Totten
          Title   GIS Administrator/Computer Drafting Tech.
          Address Pasco County/Development Services Branch
                  7432 Little Road
          City    New Port Richey            State FL
          Zip     34654-0000

          Phone:  Suncom        596-1290
                          (813) $47-8140








           Florida Spatial Data Directory (FSDD)                               Appendix 8
           Draft Users Manual
           TBRCC Report - December 1992                                          Page 27




           EXAMPLE 1



                                                                     Screen 7 of 9

                                         Reference Maps

           Update 10/17/90 Subject ANALYSIS                             ID No        0



           Map Title

           Name of file on bulletin board for downloading

           Description of Map(s):






             Florida Spatial Data Directory (FSDD)                                     Appendix 8
             Draft Users Manual
             TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                Page 28


             EXAMPLE 1



                                                                            Screen 8 of 9

                                    New Data Development Projects

             Update 10/17/90 Subject ANALYSIS                                   ID No         0



             Description:






           Florida Spatial Data Directory (FSDD)                            Appendix 8
           Draft Users Manual
           TBRCC Report - December 1992                                       Page 29



           EXAMPLE 1



                                                                   Screen 9 of 9

                                     Data Documentation

           Update 10/17/90 Subject ANALYSIS                           ID No       0




           Data Dictionary (Y/N) N
           Name of file on bulletin board for downloading



           Quality & Accuracy Report (Y/N) N
           Name of file on bulletin board for downloading







               Florida Spatial Data Directory (FSDD)                                                    Appendix 8
               Draft Users Manual
               TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                Page 30




               EXAMPLE 2



                                                                                          Screen 1 of 9

                                         Florida Spatial Data Directory
                                                       Index Screenl


               Date of Input 10/11/90                                                              ID NO < 0>
               [Cat< DEMOGRAPHICS IECONOMICS                            Subcat DEMOGRAPHICS                       >
               SubJect< POPULATION                 >) See Maps (YIN)N Work in-Progress (YIN)N

               Area of Coverage by Political Boundary

                                                           Federal

               (Dept <               Bureau            Region/Dist              >)
               other Boundaries-c                                                       >


                                                             State

               [State <FL County                                      City/Town                           >)
               (Agency <_> Region/District <_>] Water Management District
               < > Regional Planning Council <->







              Florida Spatial Data Directory (FSDD)                                                  Appendix 8
              Draft Users Manual
              TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                              Page 31



              EXAMPLE 2


                                        Florida      Spatial Data Directory Screen 2 of 9
                                                     Index Screen2

              Update 10/11/90 Subject POPULATION                                           ID NO            0



              Source of Data:

                                                          Federal

              [Dept <USDOC Bureau BEA Region/Dist
             ,Other Federal Classifications <                                                             >



                                                           State

              (State <          County                        City/Town                                  >)
              [Agency Z- > Region/District <                     >) Water Management District
              < >
              Regional Planning Council <->

              Other: <                                                             >



                                     T V                   >








           Florida Spatial Data Directory (F`SDD)                       Appendix 8
           Draft Users Manual
           TBRCC Report - December 1992                                    Page 32




           EXAMPLE 2


                               Data Descriptive Summary         Screen 3 of 9

           Update 10/11/90 Subject POPULATION                    ID NO      0


           Raster Data (Y/N) N        Vector Data (Y/N) N
           Resolution                 Scale                 Datum
           Date Range of Source Material 01/01/59 to 12/31/89
               Comment:

           Creator of derived data: US Department of Commerce
           Update schedule: Yearly
           Positional Accuracy: County level
           File Size: Approximately 110K Bytes
           Output Format: ASCII
           output Medium: 5 1/4 or 3 1/2 Floppy
           Geographic Coverage:  County
           Associated Data Directory Maps (Y/N) N
           Descriptive Text: Population of Florida Counties. Table CA5.







           Florida Spatial Data Directory (FSDD)                          Appendix 8
           Draft Users Manual
           TBRCC Report - December 1992                                      Page 33



           EXAMPLE 2



                                     Hardware/Software           Screen 4 of 9

           Update 10/11/90 Subject POPULATION                        ID NO      0



                                          Hardware:
                     BANYAN CNS Local Area Network



                                          Software:
           operating System: VINES
           Database: DataFlex

           GIS/CADD/Mapping:

           Other:


           Does the system have dial up capability (Y/N) Y
                      Phone (904) 488-4255
           Explanatory Notes: Please contact FDC Computer Services for
           dial-up details







          Florida Spatial Data Directory (FSDD)                         Appendix 8
          Draft Users Manual
          TBRCC Report - December 1992                                    Page 34



          EXAMPLE 2



                                    Contact Person             Screen 5 of 9

          Update 10/11/90 Subject POPULATION                     ID NO        0



                                Data Information Contact

          Agency/organization Florida Dept. of Commerce
          Unit     Computer Services Office
          Contact  Gail Cruce
          Title    Systems Project Administrator
          Address  107 West Gaines Street
                   Collins Building, Room 424
          city     Tallahassee                 State FL
          Zip      32399-

          Phone:   Suncom        478-4255
                           (904) 488-4255








          Florida Spatial Data Directory (FSDD)                        Appendix 8
          Draft Users Manual
          TBRCC Report - December 1992                                   Page 35



          EXAMPLE 2



                                 Contact Person               Screen 6 of 9

          Update 10/11/90 Subject POPULATION                     ID NO       0



                                 Data Transfer Contact

          Agency/Organization Florida Dept. of Commerce
          Unit     Computer Services Office
          Contact  Gail Cruce
          Title    Systems Project Administrator
          Address  107 West Gaines Street
                   Collins Building, Room 424
          City     Tallahassee                State FL
                   32399-


          Phone:   Suncom       478-4255
                          (904) 488-4255







               Florida Spatial Data Directory (FSDD)                                                   Appendix 8
               Draft Users Manual
               TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                               Page 36




               EXAMPLE 2



                                                                                          Screen 7 of 9

                                                      Reference Maps

               Update 10/11/90 Subject POPULATION                                             ID No           0



               Map Title

               Name of file on.bulletin board for downloading

               Description of Map(s):





                Florida Spatial Data Directory (FSDD)                                                  Appendix 8
                Draft Users Manual
                TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                              Page 37


                EXAMPLE 2



                                                                                           Screen 8 of 9

                                           New Data Development Projects

                Update 10/11/90 Subject POPULATION                                              ID No           0



                Description:






            Florida Spatial Data Directory (FSDD)                           Appendix 8
            Draft Users Manual
            TBRCC Report - December 1992                                       Page 38



            EXAMPLE 2



                                                                    Screen 9 of 9

                                      Data Documentation

            Update 10/11/90 Subject POPULATION                         ID No       0




            Data Dictionary (YIN) N
            Name of file on bulletin board for downloading



            Quality & Accuracy Report (YIN) N
            Name of file on bulletin board for downloading











                Data Descriptive Summaries                                                                            Appendix 9
                TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                                Page 1

                                                 INDEX - DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARIES

                Subject:          Aids to Navigation
                Agency:           FDNR/FMRI

                         Descriptive Summary- Data has not been proofread. Extraneous data needs editing. We will be
                         targeting Tampa Bay and Biscayne Bay. Aids to navigation include channel markers, buoys, fixed
                         landmarks, fixed structures in water, etc.


                Subject:          Air Monitoring Ambient Data
                Agency*           Air Program, EPC of Hillsborough County

                         Descriptive Summary- This data has the locations of air monitor stations in Hillsborough County
                         and the ambient levels of the criteria pollutants. It also identifies the equipment and type of analysis
                         used. 33 stations are in the county (some 24 hour, some manual every 6 days). Continuous
                         sampling. Manuals include total suspended particulate matter.


                Subject:          Artificial Reefs
                Agenc)r           FDNR/Florida Marine Research institute

                         Descriptive Summary- This database is a digital file of the "Atlas of Artificial Reefs in Florida,"
                         produced by Florida SEAGRANT. Some of the attributes are: depth of water, LORAN coordinates,
                         composition of reef.


                Subject:          Bathymetry
                Agency.           FNDR/Florida Marine Research Institute

                         Descriptive Summary- Bathymetry data includes delineation of the shoreline, 3 ft. 6 ft. 18 ft. 30 ft. &
                         60 ft. bathymetric contour lines. In addition, spoil areas and channels are included.


                Subject:          Benthic Sampling Location Database
                Agency.           Tampa Bay National Estuary Program

                         Descriptive Summary: Computerized summary of sampling locations for 22 benthic studies.
                         Contains location Oat/long), range of dates and sampling interval, and information on what
                         parameters were recorded at each site. Described in Technical Publication #06-92 of the TBNEP.


                Subject:          Boat Ramps
                Agency-           FDNR/Florida Marine Research Institute

                         Descriptive Summary: Positional accuracy on some ramps is + or - 1000 meters. In some cases,
                         positional accuracy is "right on." Field verification is needed.








                 Data Descriptive Summaries                                                                           Appendix 9
                 TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                             Page 2

                 Subject:         Comprehensive Plan Map for Hillsborough County
                 Agency.          Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission
                          Descriptive Summarr. Infrastructure Planning Section digitized the original map from 11 area Plan
                          maps generated by the Planning Commission
                          * -- Genamap command description accompanying this summary is currently filed in office of David
                          Stage, EOG, Tallahassee, FL 904/488-7793.


                 Subject:         Comprehensive Plan Map for Plant City
                 Agency:          Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission

                          Descriptive Summary-. The Planning Commission digitized the original map from the official Plan
                          Map generated by the Graphics Section of the Planning Commission with the addition of plan
                          amendments color coded.
                          * -- These descriptions are currently on file with David Stage, EOG, in Tallahassee. 904/488-7793.


                 Subject:         Comprehensive Plan Map for Tampa
                 Agenc3r          Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission

                          Descriptive Summary- The Planning Commission digitized the original map from the official Plan
                          map generated by the Graphics Section of the Planning Commission (excluded N. annexed area)
                          * -- Command descriptions could not be entered here; they are on file with David Stage, EOG,
                          Tallahassee, FL. 904/488-7793.


                 Subject:         Comprehensive Plan Map for Temple Terrace
                 Agency-          Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission

                          Descriptive Summary- The Planning Commission digitized the original map from the official Plan
                          map generated by the Graphics Section of the Planning Commission. The attached command
                          descriptions could not be entered here; they are on file with David Stage, EOG, Tallahassee, FL.
                          904/488-7793.


                 Subject:         Detailed Soil
                 Agenc3r          FNDR/Florida Marine Research Institute

                          Descriptive Summary- Detailed sod data -- certified by SCS. Hillsborough and Manatee Counties
                          combine for ^100 classifications, fully attributed in ARC/INFO.


                 Subject:         Domestic Wastewater Residual/Sludge App. Sites
                 Agenc3r          Environmental Protection Commission, Hillsborough Co.

                          Descriptive Summary- Besides position of all sludge application sites, EPC's map location number
                          allows cross-reference to a database which includes: folio #, owner address, approval date,
                          expiration date, STR, acres, vegetative cover, generators and operating status.








                 Data Descriptive Summaries                                                                            Appendix 9
                 TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                               Page 3

                 Subject:          Drainage Basin Boundaries of SWFWMD
                 Agency:           SWFWMD

                          Descriptive Summary-


                 Subject:          Emergency Preparedness/Planning
                 Agenc)r           Air Program, Hillsborough County EPC

                          Descriptive Summary. Data to be sued to Emergency Preparedness Planning and for land use
                          planning/rezoning activities. There is the ALOHA section of CAMEO which is a dispersion model
                          for risk assessment and vulnerability analysis of populations. Census data is essential to this program.



                 Subject:          Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance
                 Agency.           SWFWMD

                          Descriptive Summary-


                 Subject:          Five Foot contour data from USGS quads
                 Agency.           SWFV;MD

                          Descriptive Summary: Contours scanned from USGS stable base separates and converted to
                          ARC/INFO, format


                 Subject:          Florida Shoreline
                 Agency-           FDNR/Florida Marine Research Institute

                          Descriptive Summary-


                 Subject:          FNAI Biological Conservation Data Base
                 Agency.           Florida Natural Areas Inventory

                          Descriptive Summary: Data includes fields for county, latutude, longitude, township and range,
                          section, watershed, and a textural directions field. There are three levels to the positional accuracy.


                 Subject:          Habitat Cover and Wildlife Occurence Records
                 Agency:           Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission

                          Descriptive Summary: Habitat Cover Maps and wildlife occurence for the State of Florida


                 Subject:          Habitat Mapping Including Uplands and Wetlands
                 Agency.-          Lewis Environmental Services, Inc.








                 Data Descriptive Summaries                                                                                Appendix 9
                 TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                                   Page 4

                          Descriptive Summary- To County Line Road. Various map, ind. seagrass aerial cover trend maps
                          for 1938, 1957 and 1991. 1990 FLUCS coded maps of the same general area.                 scale is 1:24000 to
                          1:100,000


                 Subject:           Hillsborough County Commission District Map
                 Agency:            Hillsborough County Engineering Services

                          Descriptive Summary- Map displays existing District boundaries for four single-member commission
                          seats. Boundaries defined in 1991 redistricting based on 1990 Census data.


                 Subject:           Hillsborough County Comprehensive Phosphate Mine Map
                 Agenc)r            Hillsborough County Engineering Service

                          Descriptive Summary- Comprehensive Phosphate Mine Map displays areas affected by mining
                          activity. At present, these include three basic sites: IMCC Big Four, Kingsford Mines and Mobil
                          Chemical's Nichols Mine. Map shows areas based on various reclamation and mining permit
                          categories.


                 Subject:           Hillsborough County Contour Map
                 Agency-            Hillsborough County Engineering Services

                          Descriptive Summary- Contour map locates 5-foot contour lines, as originally mapped by
                          SWFWMD. Map was imported for NPDES purposed. Will be eventually replaced by 1-foot or 2-foot
                          contour.



                 Subject:           Hillsborough County Existing Land Use Map
                 Agency:            Hillsborough County Engineering Services
                          Descriptive Summary- Existing Land Use Map displays existing land use category for each land
                          parcel in the unincorporated area. Map is generated based on data provided by linkage to the
                          County Property Appraiser's database (linking field = folio number). Some aggregation of categories
                          occurs.



                 Subject:           Hillsborough County Impervious Areas Map
                 Agency             Hillsborough County Engineering Services

                          Descriptive Summary- Impervious Map provides detailed footprint information for non-residential
                          sites contributing to runoff. Map is used to support Stormwater Utility Fee calculations.


                 Subject:           Hillsborough County NPDES Map
                 Agency.            Hillsborough County Engineering Services

                          Descriptive Summary- NPDES map provides data relative to factors used in determining NPDES
                          compliance and permitting. Map includes stormwater structure, outfall basin boundaries, NPDES
                          industry sites, landfills, stormwater flows, riverine basin boundaries and population distributions.








                 Data Descriptive Summaries                                                                           Appendix 9
                 TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                              Page 5

                 Subject:         Hillsborough County Primary Care Facilities Map
                 Agency:          Hillsborough County Engineering Services

                          Descriptive Summary- (1) Primary Care facilities map identifies service areas for human services
                          sites; (2) Extended hours layer identifies sites in (1) that offer extended hours of service; (3)
                          Hospital service areas identifies four primary service hospitals and the areas that they cover.


                 Subject:         Hillsborough County Significant Wifflife Habitat Map
                 Agency-          Hillsborough County Engineering Services

                          Descriptive Summary: Significant Wildlife Habitat Map displays areas identified for habitat
                          protection by the BOCC. These areas are plotted onto base and parcel layers. Map will be used by
                          county staff in the land development regulation process.


                 Subject:         Hillsborough County Water Ouality Map
                 Agency:          Hillsborough County Engineering Services

                          Descriptive Summar3r Water Quality Map displays water quality levels for Hillsborough County
                          water bodies -- streams, rivers, lakes and Tampa Bay. Categories range from poor to-good. Data
                          source: Hillsborough County Stormwater Design Services. Data gathered from SWFWMD and
                          WCRWSA monitoring stations.


                 Subject:         Hillsborough County Zoning Map
                 Agency-          Hillsborough County Engineering Services
                          Descriptive Summary- Zoning map provides coverage for all categories of zoning assigned in the
                          unincorporated area. This project was done to support Comprehensive Plan zoning conformance;
                          when fmalized, maps are certified as official by BOCC.


                 Subject:         Hillsborough Countynty Census Tract Map
                 Agency-          Hillsborough County Engineering Services

                          Descriptive Summary: Map displays census area boundaries


                 Subject:         Hillsborough County Base Map
                 Agency:          Hillsborough County Engineering Services

                          Descriptive Summary. Base map represents foundation for all County GIS activities. Tied to
                          Florida State Plane Coordinate System, it integrates parcel-based activities with all other geographic
                          analyses projects.


                 Subject:         Hillsborough County Parcel Map
                 Agency:          Hillsborough County Engineering Services








                  Data Descriptive Summaries                                                                              Appendix 9
                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                                 Page 6

                           Descriptive Summary- Parcel map represents all individual land ownership parcels in the
                           unincorporated area, Plant City and Temple Terrace. It provides the basis for relating other
                           geographic data to ownership issues and for monitoring development related activities.


                  Subject:          Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility (IWTF)
                  Agency.           EPC of Hillsborough County

                           Descriptive Summary- Besides position of all IWTFs, EPC database includes facility name,
                           industrial type, permit #, expiration date, lat/long street location, method of effluent disposal and
                           plant permitted capacity


                  Subject:          Land Cover 1950 and Land Cover 1982
                  Agency-           FDNR/Florida Marine Research Institute

                           Descriptive Summary: These coverages were digitized from 1:24,000 scale aerial photography. There
                           are over 20 classes that can be simplified to 9 categories. Includes all of Pinellas county, with
                           partials of Pasco, Hillsborough and Manatee counties.


                  Subject:          Land Use and Biological Coverage
                  Agency.           U.S. Fish and Arildlife Service

                           Descriptive Summary- Raster 1991 update, Eagle nest locations, woodstock and wading colonies,
                           breeding bird survey, nesting and feeding areas, 50 priority species included


                  Subject:          Land Use/Cover Based on Dot Scheme Level H
                  Agenc)r           SW`FWMD

                           Descriptive Summary- Photo interpretation of 1:24,000 scale color IR photo. Mapping resoluion is
                           one acre for wetlands and five acres for all other classes.


                  Subject:          Major Air Pollutions Sources
                  Agency*           Air Monitoring, Air Program

                           Descriptive Summar)r Has the HTMs for the permitted air pollution sources in Hillsbotough
                           County. Tlie data is in a state system that is GIS-compatible. Their systems is called Air Pollution
                           Information System (APIS).


                  Subject:          Meteorological Data
                  Agency,           National Weather Service

                           Descriptive Summar3r Data consists of daily max and min air temperature and their corresponding
                           departure from normal. Daily rainfall also available. Selected stations also have daily evaporation 4"
                           soil temps, solar radiation and hours of leaf wetness. Summaries of these parameters are available in
                           various formats.








                Data Descriptive Summaries                                                                           Appendix 9
                TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                              Page 7

                Subject:          Plant Communities
                Agenc3r           FDNR/FMRI

                         Descriptive Summary. Contains 22 classifications as interpreted from Landsat TM data. Classes may
                         be combined into four basic categories for simplicity.


                Subject:          Radon
                Agency-           Air Program, EPC, Hillsborough County

                         Descriptive Summary- This information will provide locations of radon levels in Hillsborough
                         County


                Subject:          Roads
                Agenc3r           FDNR/Florida Marine Research Institute

                         Descriptive Summary- Needs updating

                Subject:          Sanitary Landfills (Old and Active)
                Agency,           EPC of Hillsborough County, Waste Mgt. Division

                         Descriptive Summar3r Five old sites are known in the planning area


                Subject:          SEAGRASS Mapping of Tampa Bay
                Agency:           SWFWMD, SEAGRASS 88

                         Descriptive Summary- Photo interpretation of 1:24,000 scale color photo. Mapping resolution is one
                         acre.


                Subject:          SEAGRASS Mapping of Tampa Bay
                Agenc)r           SWFWMD

                         Descriptive Summar3r Photo interpretation of 1:24,000 scale color photo. Mapping resolution is one
                         acre.



                Subject:          Seagrass 1990 and Seagrass 1988
                Agenc)r           FDNR/FMRI

                         Descriptive Summar)r      1990 seagrass data and 1988 seagrass, data. Please refer to Southwest
                         Florida Water Management District as data creators.


                Subject:          Section, Township, Ranges from 1:24000 USGS map
                Agency.           SWFWMD

                         Descriptive Summary-








                  Data Descriptive Summaries                                                                           Appendix 9
                  TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                              Page 8

                  Subject:         Small Quantity Generators (CESQGS)
                  Agency,          EPC Hills. Co., Waste Mgt. Division

                           Descriptive Summary: This is a combination of verified and unverified list of around 3000 sites


                  Subject:         Stationary Storage Tank Facilities
                  Agenc3r          EPC, Hills. Co. Waste Mgt. Div., Storage Tank Program

                           Descriptive Summary- Approximately 51 sites in study area


                  Subject:         Storm Water Management Permit Boundaries
                  Agency:          SWFWMD, SWMPOLY

                           Descriptive Summary: ARC/INFO files contains points ID to relate to external database


                  Subject:         Storm Water Management Permit Points
                  Agenc)r          SWFWMD, SWMPNT

                           Descriptive Summary- ARC/INFO files contains point ID to relate to external database


                  Subject:         SWFWMD - SWIM Bibiographic Database (BDB)
                  Agenc)r          Tampa Bay National Estuary Program

                           Descriptive Summary- Goal was to identify, locate, briefly describe and evaluate the quality of data
                           pertinent to Tampa Bay. Contains 1,356 entries for books, reports and journal articles. In addition,
                           each entry includes a list of parameters collected, sampling methods used, etc.


                  Subject:         Two foot contours and spot elevation
                  Agenc)r          SWFWMD

                           Descriptive Slimmar3r Only small portions of the district has two foot contour digital files


                  Subject:         USDA/SCS Detailed soils maps/county soil adas
                  Agenc)r          SV4-WMD

                           Descriptive Summary- Current coverages include: Hemando, Pasco, Sarasota, Hardee, Desoto,
                           Citrus, Pok Hillsborough


                  Subject:         Valid EPA Wetland Delineations, Total       Surveys
                  Agenc3r          EPC Hillsborough County

                           Descriptive Summary: These surveys represent a separate legal layer where each has signed off
                           wetlands delineation under Ch. 1-11 of FPC. There are other sources for *estimates" of where








              Data Descriptive Summaries                                                              Appendix 9
              TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                Page 9

                      wetlands exist in study. A separate listing of each survey is attached, giving project name, scale,
                      datum, specific date range and land surveyor name.


              Subject:       Water Quality Data
              Agenc)r        EPC of Hillsborough County, Environmental Monitoring Section

                      Descriptive Summar3r Data collected at 3 sites (stations 112, 113 M). Each site has as many as 53
                      different parameters: station #, date, depth, air & water temp., color, secchi, turbidity, residue,
                      conductivity, salinity, dissolved oxygen, pH, biochemical oxygen demand, chlorophyll, much more.
                      For more info, contact Tom Cardinale.


              Subject:       Water Quality Monitoring Database
              Agency*        Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council

                      Descriptive Summary: Sampling Methodology and Location


              Subject:       Water Resources Database
              Agenc)r        U.S.G.S.

                      Descriptive Summary- Laboratory and field water quality data, intermittant water level,
                      intermittant discharge data are stored in one database. Daily (continuous) measurements of water
                      level, discharge, velocity and selected water quality data are stored in another database.
                      Meteorological data may exist in both databasm








               Data Descriptive Summaries                                                              Appendix 9
               TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                               Page 10

                                               DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

               Subject:       Aids to Navigation

               NondigitaL_ Raster Data. Vector Data. Point Data -X
               Resolution:                                   Scale: varied Datum: 27
               Date Range of Source Materiah 1980s    to

               Comment:       NOAA charts (originally ASCII text file)

               Source/Creator of data: NOAA
               Update schedule: unknown
               Positional Accuracy. + /- varies
               File Size: 1 MB
               Output Format: ARC/INFO export file
               Output Medium: digital
               Geographic Coverage: Florida

               Descriptive Summary- Data has not been proofread. Extraneous data needs editing. We will be targeting
               Tampa Bay and Biscayne Bay. Aids to navigation include channel markers, buoys, fixed landmarks, fixed
               structures in water, etc.


               Contact: Gail MacAulay
               Agenc)r FDNR/FMRI
               Phone: 813-8%-8626








              Data Descriptive Summaries                                                                Appendix 9
              TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                  Page 11

                          DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY


              Subject: Air Monitoring Ambient Data

              Nondigital_ Raster Data X       Vector Data. Point Data.
              Resolution: USGS quads                         Scale: 1:24,000 Datum:
              Date Range of Source Material: 1974 to present

              Comment: verifying data formats over the early years, L074-81

              Source/Creator of data: Environmental Protection Commission

              Update schedule: quarterly
              Positional Accuracy- + /-
              File Size: Annual data set 6 MB
              Output Format: PRN fdes
              Output Medium: 1.44 MB diskette/Mainstream tape
              Geographic Coverage: Hillsborough County

              Descriptive Summary: This data has the locations of air monitor stations
              in Hillsborough County and the ambient levels of the criteria pollutants.
              It also identifies the equipment and type of analysis used. 33 stations
              are in the county (some 24 hour, some manual every 6 days). Continuous
              sampling. Manuals include total suspended particulate matter.

              Contact: Tom Tam * *
              Agency: Air Program, Hillsborough County EPC
              Phone: 813-272-5530








              Data Descriptive Summaries                                                                Appendix 9
              TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                 Page 12

                           DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY


              Subject:        Artificial Reefs

              NondigitaL_ Raster Data         Vector Data     Point Data X
              Resolution:                                    Scale: variable Datum: 27
              Date Range of Source Material:        to

              Comment: from *Adas of Artificial Reefs in Florida

              Source/Creator of data: Florida sea gran (Don Pytas)
              Update schedule: unknown
              Positional Accurac)r
              File Size: 1 MB
              Output Format: ARC/INFO export file
              Output Medium: digital
              Geographic Coverage: Florida

              Descriptive Summary. Tlds database is a digital file of the "Atlas of
              Artificial Reefs in Florida," produced by Florida SEAGRANT. Some of the
              attributes are: depth of water, LORAN coordinates, composition of reef.



              Contact: Gail MacAulay
              Agenc)r FDNR/Florida Marine Research Institute
              Phone: 813-896-8626








               Data Descriptive Summaries                                                                 Appendix 9
               TBRCC Report , December 1992                                                                  Page 13

                            DATA DESCRIFTIVE SUMMARY

               Su6ject:        Bathymetry

               NondigitaL_ Raster Data         Vector Data X    Point Data
               Resolution:                                    Scale:                  Datum: 27
               Date Range of Source Material:  1980 to IWI

               Comment: * - scale is 1:40,000 or smaller
                     Digitized from NOAA nautical charts at largest avail. scale

               Source/Creator of data: NOAA charts as digitzed by GEONEX for FDNR/FMRI
               Update schedule:
               Positional Accuracy- + /- Varies, depending upon scale of source material
               File Size: export coverage 28 MB
               Output Format: ARC/INFO export coverage
               Output Medium: digital
               Geographic Coverage: Florida (currently divided into eleven segments)

               Descriptive Summar)r Bathymetry data includes delineation of the
               shoreline, 3 ft. 6 ft. 18 ft. 30 ft. & 60 ft. bathymetric contour lines.
               In addition, spoil areas and channels are included.



               Contact: Gail MacAulay
               Agenqr FNDR/Florida Marine Research Institute
               Phone: 80-896-8626








               Data Descriptive Summaries                                                                 Appendix 9
               TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                   Page 14

                            DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY


               Subject:        Benthic Sampling Location Database

               Nondigital      Raster Data     Vector Data      Point Data
               Resolution:                                    Scale:          Datum:
               Date Range of Source Material: 1981 to 1984

               Comment: Not comprehensive; includes 22 benthic studies

               Source/Creator of data: Varies; compiled by Coastal Environmental Sources
               Update schedule:
               Positional Accuracy- +/- one minute lat/long (sometimes + or - 1 second)
               File Size: 100 kilobytes
               Output Format: dBASE 1H Plus
               Output Medium: 740 K floppy disk
               Geographic Coverage: Tampa Bay and tributaries

               Descriptive Summary: Computerized summary of sampling locations for 22
               benthic studies. Contains location (lat/long), range of dates and
               sampling interval, and information on what parameters were recorded at
               eac site. Described in Technical Publication #06-92 of the TBNEP.



               Contact: Holly Greening
               Agency: Tampa Bay National Estuary Program
               Phone: 813-893-2765








              Data Descriptive Summaries                                                                Appendix 9
              TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                 Page 15

                          DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

              Subject:       Boat Ramps

              Nondigital     Raster Data_ Vector Data         Point Data X
              Resolution:                                   Scale:          Datum: 27
              Date Range of Source Material:      to 1987

              Comment: Data has not been ground touthed or verified

              Source/Creator of data:
              Update schedule:
              Positional Accuracy- +/- 1,000 meters
              File Size:
              Output Format: ARC/INFO export coverage
              Output Medium: digital
              Geographic Coverage: Counties: Hillsborough, Manatee, Pinellas

              Descriptive Summary- Positional accuracy on some ramps is + or - 1000
              meters. In some cases, positional accuracy is wright on." Field
              verification is needed.




              Contact: Gail MacAulay
              Agenc5r FDNR/Florida Marine Research Institute
              Phone: 813- 896-8626








               Data Descriptive Summaries                                                                 Appendix 9
               TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                  Page 16

                            DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

               Subject:       Comprehensive Plan Map for Hillsborough County

               Nondigital     Raster Data- Vector Data-X        Point Data
               Resolution: n/a                        Scale: 1:24000 Datum: 1927
               Date Range of Source Material: 1990 to present

               Comment: Header creation date 3/30/92 Co. FUE Generalized to 25'
                     Not aligned to parcel boundaries

               Source/Creator of data: HC Infrastructure Planning/Planning Commission
               Update schedule: Semi-annual - after each Plan Amendment Cycle
               Positional Accuracy- + /- 200 feet
               File Size: big 933.9K Plot using file coflueclr .32K
               Output Format: See Genamap output command description attached*
               Output Medium- HP 9-track reel 6250/1600 bpi@ HP Optical Disk 322 MB
               Geographic Coverage: Unincorporated area of Hillsborough County

               Descriptive Summary- Infrastructure Planning Section digitized the
               original map from 11 area Plan maps generated by the Planning
               Commission
               * -- Genamap command description accompanying this summary is currently
               filed in office of David Stage, EOG, Tallahassee, FL 904/488-7793.



               Contact: David Tabor
               Agency: Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission
               Phone: 813/272-5940








              Data Descriptive Summaries                                                                  Appendix 9
              TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                   Page 17

                           DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY


              Subject:        Comprehensive Plan Map for Plant City

              NondigitaL__ Raster Data        Vector Data X     Point Data
              Resolution: n/a                        Scale: 1:9600   Datum: 1927
              Date Range of Source Material: May 1987 to present

              Comment: The original digitized lines were aligned to parcel
                     boundaries during 1991

              Source/Creator of data: The Planning Commission
              Update schedule: Semi-annual -- after each Plan Amendment cycle.
              Positional Accuraqr +/- 3-5 feet (after alignment to parcel boundaries)
              File Size: PCFLUE 452.6K - Plot using file pcfluecir L5K
              Output Format: See Genamap output command descriptions attached*
              Output Medium: HP 9-track reel 6250/1600 bpi@ HP Optical disc 322MB/side
              Geographic Coverage: City of Plant City

              Descriptive Summary- The Planning Commission digitized the original map
              from the official Plan Map generated by the Graphics Section of the
              Planning Commission with the addition of plan amendments color coded.
              * -- These descriptions are currently on file with David Stage, EOG, in
              Tallahassee. 904/488-7793.




              Contact: David Tabor
              Agency- Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission
              Phone: 813/272-5940








                Data Descriptive Summaries                                                                Appendix 9
                TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                 Page 18

                             DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

                Subject:        Comprehensive Plan Map for Tampa

                Nondigital_ Raster Data_ Vector Data X           Point Data
                Resolution: n/a                        Scale: 1:28800 Datum: 1927
                Date Range of Source Material: April '87 to present

                Comment: Header creation date 11/21/91. Future Plan 11/15/88/

                Source/Creator of data: The Planning Commission
                Update schedule: Semi-annual, after each Plan Amendment cycle
                Positional Accuracy- + /- 200 feet
                Fide Size: tpaflue, 607.2K - Plot using file tpaflueclr.PU, .18K
                Output Format: See Genamap output command descriptions attached*
                Output Medium: HP 9-track reel 6250/1600 bpi@ HP Optical disc 322MB
                Geographic Coverage: City of Tampa

                Descriptive Summary: The Planning Commission digitized the original map
                from the official Plan map generated by the Graphics Section of the
                Planning Commission (excluded N.'annexed area)
                * -- Command descriptions could not be entered here; they are on file
                with David Stage, EOG, Tallahassee, FL. 904/488-7793.




                Contact: David Tabor
                Agency- HiUsborough County City-County Planning Commission
                Phone: 813/272-5940








               Data Descriptive Summaries                                                                 Appendix 9
               TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                  Page 19

                            DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY


               Subject:        Comprehensive Plan Map for Temple Terrace

               Nondigital      Raster Data     Vector Data X    Point Data
               Resolution: n/a                        Scale: 1:9600   Datum: 1927
               Date Range of Source Material: Nov. 1987 to Present

               Comment: Header creation date 12/5/91 - 2010 Future Land Use

               Source/Creator of data: The Planning Commission
               Update schedule: Semi-annual, after each Plan Amendment cycle
               Positional Accuracy- +/- 200 feet
               File Size: TTFLUE 275-5K - Plot using file ttflueclr.PU .11K
               Output Format: See Genarnap output command descriptions attached
               Output Medium: HP 9-track reel 6250/1600 bpi. HP Optical disc 322MB/side
               Geographic Coverage: City of Temple Terrace

               Descriptive Summary: The Planning Commission digitized the original map
               from the official Plan map generated by the Graphics Section of the
               Planning Commission.
               * -- The attached command descriptions could not be entered here; they
               are on file with David Stage, EOG, Tallahassee, FL. 904/488-7793.




               Contact: David Tabor
               Agency- Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission
               Phone: 813/272/5940







                Data Descriptive Summaries                                                                Appendix 9
                TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                 Page 20

                             DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

                Subject:        Detailed Soil

                Nondigital_ Raster Data         Vector Data X    Point Data
                Resolution:                            Scale: 1:24,000 Datum: 27
                Date Range of Source Material: 1984 to 1990

                Comment: Hillsborough County 1:20,000 scale soil survey recompiled by
                       SCS scientist onto 1:24,000 scale quads, then digitized.

                Source/Creator of data: FDNR/FMRI, Manatee County in cooperation with SCS
                Update schedule: As provided by SCS
                Positional Accuracy- +
                File Size: 10 MB
                Output Format: ARC/INFO export file
                Output Medium:
                Geographic Coverage: Little Manatee River Watershed & surrounding area

                Descriptive Summary: Detailed soil data -- certified by'SCS. Hillsborough
                and Manatee Counties combine for ^100 classifications, fully attributed
                in ARC/INFO.



                Contact: Gail MacAulay
                Agency- FNDR/Florida Marine Research Institute
                Phone: 813-896-8626








               Data Descriptive Summaries                                                                   Appendix 9
               TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                    Page 21

                             DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

               Subject:        Domestic Wastewater Residual/Sludge App. Sites

               Nondigital      Raster Data     Vector Data      Point Data
               Resolution:                             Scale: STR              Datum:
               Date Range of Source Material: 1987 to present

               Comment: If permit is renewed at 5 years, then data collected can
                      exceed 5 years

               Source/Creator of data: EPC, based on data supplied by permit applicant
               Update schedule: Maximum 5 years, based on permit renewal
               Positional Accuracy- + /- Sites are on Hillsborough County Plan/Zone map;unverified
               File Size:
               Output Format:
               Output Medium: Lotus spreadsheet
               Geographic Coverage: Cockroach Bay Planning Boundary

               Descriptive Summary: Besides position of all sludge application sites,
               EPC's map location number allows cross-reference to a database which
               includes: folio #, owner address, approval date, expiration date, STR,
               acres, vegetative cover, generators and operating status.



               Contact: Chris Dunn
               Agency: EPC, Hillsborough County
               Phone: 813-272-5960








              Data Descriptive Summaries                                                           Appendix 9
              TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                            Page 22

                           DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY


              Subject:       Drainage Basin Boundaries of SWFW`MD,

              NondigitaL__ Raster Data      Vector Data X   Point Data_
              Resolution:                          Scale:        Datum: NA
              Date Range of Source Material: 1988 to 1989

              Comment:


              Source/Creator of data: USGS quad/USGS Water Resources Division
              Update schedule:
              Positional Accuracy: +  100-200'
              File Size: 4M bytes (SWFWMD)
              Output Format: ARC/INFO export format
              Output Medium: 9 track tape 1600/6250 BPI
              Geographic Coverage: SWFWMD

              Descriptive Summary:




              Contact: Steve Dicks
              Agency- SV;FWMD
              Phone: (904) 796-7211








                   Data Descriptive Summaries                                                                              Appendix 9
                   TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                                Page 23

                                  DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

                   Subject:         Emergency Preparedness/Planning

                   Nondigital       Raster Data  -X     Vector Data  -     Point Data
                   Resolution: street address                   Scale:           Datum:
                   Date Range of Source Material:              to

                   Comment: Data is based on/in CAMEO, a modelling-planning data system

                   Source/Creator of data: Hillsborough Co. EP(J'
                   Update schedule: quarterly
                   Positional Accuracy- +
                   File Size: 8 MB
                   Output Format: 1.44 MB diskette
                   Output Medium:
                   Geographic Coverage: Hillsborough County

                   Descriptive Summary- Data to be sued to Emergency Preparedness Planning
                   and for land use planning/rezoning activities. There is the ALOHA section
                   of CAMEO which is a dispersion model for risk assessment and
                   vulnerability analysis of populations. Census data is essential to this
                   program.


                   Contact: Tom Tamanini
                   Agency: Air Program, Hillsborough County EPC
                   Phone: (813) 272-5530







               Data Descriptive Summaries                                                           Appendix 9
               TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                            Page 24

                           DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

               Subject:       Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance

               Nondigital_ Raster Data_ Vector Data X        Point Data
               Resolution:                         Scale:         Datum: NA
               Date Range of Source Material: 1970 to 1980's

               Comment:


               Source/Creator of data: FEMA Panel/SMARTSCAN
               Update schedule: No plan
               Positional Accuracy- +/- as good as the source materials
               File Size: 1M Bytes per 30'X60' USGS quad
               Output Format: ARC/INFO export format
               Output Medium: 9 track tape 1600/6250 BPI
               Geographic Coverage: SWFWMD

               Descriptive Summary.






               Contact: Steve Dicks
               Agency- SWFWMD,
               Phone: (904) 796-7211








              Data Descriptive Summaries                                                            Appendix 9
              TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                              Page 25

                           DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY


              Subject:       Five Foot contour data from USGS quads

              Nondigital__ Raster Data      Vector Data X    Point Data
              Resolution:                          Scale:         Datum: NA
              Date Range of Source Material: below   to

              Comment: Mapping dates of USGS Quads

              Source/Creator of data: USGS
              Update schedule: Unknown
              Positional Accuracy- + /- 40 ft.
              File Size: IM Bytes per 7.5'USGS Quad
              Output Format: ARC/INFO export format
              Output Medium: 9 track tape 1600/6250 BPI
              Geographic Coverage: SWFWMD

              Descriptive Summaiy.
              Contours scanned from USGS stable base separates and converted to
              ARC/INFO format




              Contact: Steve Dicks
              Agency. SV;FWMD
              Phone: (904) 796-7211








               Data Descriptive Summaries                                                              Appendix 9
               TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                               Page 26

                           DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY


               Subject:       Florida Shoreline

               NondigitaL_ Raster Data        Vector Data X   Point Data
               Resolution:                           Scale:         Datum:
               Date Range of Source Material:       to

               Comment: * - scale is 1:40,000 or smaller
                     Digitized from NOAA nautical charts

               Source/Creator of data:
               Update schedule:
               Positional Accuracy- +
               File Size:
               Output Format: ARC/INFO export file
               Output Medium: digital
               Geographic Coverage: Florida

               Descriptive Summary-





               Contact: Gail MacAulay
               Agency- FDNR/Florida Marine Research Institute
               Phone: 813-896-8626








               Data Descriptive Summaries                                                                  Appendix 9
               TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                   Page 27

                             DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY


               Subject:        FNAI Biological Conservation Data Base

               Nondigital      Raster Data     Vector Data      Point Data
               Resolution:                             Scale: 1:24000         Datum:
               Date Range of Source Material:         to present

               Comment: Rare/endangered species, exemplary natural communities,
                      rookeries, managed areas.

               Source/Creator of data: Numerous sources,data doc. & processed by FNAI
               Update schedule: ongoing/variable
               Positional Accuracy- +/- 3 sec radius,1 min radius,generaI 5 mi or to quad
               He Size: 39 megabytes
               Output Format:
               Output Medium:
               Geographic Coverage: Florida

               Descriptive Summary- Data includes fields for county, latutude,
               longitude, township and range, section, watershed, and a textural
               directions field.
               There are three levels to the postitional Accuracy


               Contact: Katy Nesmith
               Agency: Florida Natural Areas Inventory
               Phone: (904) 224-8207








                Data Descriptive Summaries                                                               Appendix 9
                TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                 Page 28

                             DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

                Subject:       Habitat Cover and Wildlife Occurence Records

                NondigitaL_ Raster Data X       Vector Data_ Point Data
                Resolution: varies at 30 met.         Scale: varies*  Datum:
                Date Range of Source Material: 1988 to current

                Comment: * scale varies to 5-10 acres

                Source/Creator of data: FGFWFC, Randy Kautz, Jim Cox
                Update schedule: Current as new info becomes available; 3-5 years average
                Positional Accuracy- + /- 40
                File Size: for Tampa Bay, 3 megabytes; 14-30 with older software
                Output Format: maps, diskettes
                Output Medium: maps, diskettes
                Geographic Coverage: Florida

                Descriptive Summary- Habitat Cover Maps and wildlife occurence for the
                State of Florida






                Contact: Jim Beever
                                                       ish Commission
                Agency- Florida Game and Fresh Water F'
                Phone: 813/639-3515








               Data Descriptive Summaries                                                                Appendix 9
               TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                 Page 29

                           DATA DESCRUMVE SUMMARY

               Subject:       Habitat Mapping Including Uplands and Wetlands

               Nondigital_K_ Raster Data       Vector Data     Point Data.
               Resolution: +/- 100 ft.               Scale:                 Datum:
               Date Range of Source Material: L938 to 1992

               Comment: various aerial photgraphic sources including the National
                     Archives -- hardcopies on file in Tampa office

               Source/Creator of data: various
               Update schedule: none
               Positional Accuraqr + /- 100 feet
               File Size:
               Output Format:
               Output Medium:
               Geographic Coverage: South of Uttle Manatee River, West of U.S. 41 South

               Descriptive Summary- to County Line Road
                 Various map, ind. seagrass aerial cover trend maps for 1938, 1957 and
               1991. 1990 FLUCS coded maps of the same general area.

               * = scale is 1:24000 to 1:100,000

               Contact: Roy R. 'Robin" Lewis
               Agency: Lewis Environmental Services, Inc.
               Phone: 813/889-9684







                Data Descriptive Summaries                                                                Appendix 9
                TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                 Page 30

                             DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

                Subject:        Hillsborough C6unty Commission District Map

                NondigitaL_ Raster Data_ Vector Data X           Point Data
                Resolution:                           Scale: 1:       Datum: 19
                Date Range of Source Material: 1991 to 1991

                Comment: Map of Hillsborough County County Commission District boundaries

                Source/Creator of data: Hillsborough County Engineering Services
                Update schedule: n/a
                Positional Accuracy: +/- 4/10 feet
                File Size: .05 gigabytes
                Output Format: GENAMAP binary, DXF, DLG 111, other
                Output Medium: 9-track tape, floppy diskette, hardcopy
                Geographic Coverage: Hillsborough County

                Descriptive Summar)r Map displays existing District boundaries for four
                single-member commission seats. Boundaries defined in 1991 redistricting
                based on 1990 Census data.




                Contact: Robert B. Keim,
                Agency. Hillsborough County Engineering Services
                Phone: 813/272-5912, x.3202








              Data Descriptive Summaries                                                                 Appendix 9
              TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                   Page 31

                           DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY


              Subject:        Hillsborough County Comprehensive Phosphate Mine Map

              Nondigital._ Raster Data        Vector Data-X    Point Data
              Resolution: n/a                        Scale: 1:2400   Datum: 19
              Date Range of Source Material: 1991 to 1991

              Comment: Map displays areas identified as either phosphate mine
                     activity or land reclamation

              Source/Creator of data: Hillsborough County Engineering Services
              Update schedule: Annual
              Positional Accuracy- + /- 25 feet
              File Size: .15 gigabytes
              Output Format: GENAMAP binary, DXF, DLG 111, other
              Output Medium: 9-wtrack tape, floppy diskette, hard copy
              Geographic Coverage: Specific areas covered

              Descriptive Summary- Comprehensive Phosphate Mine Map displays areas
              affected by mining activity. At present, these include three basic sites:
              IMCC Big Four, Kingsford Mines and Mobil Chemical's Nichols Mine. Map
              shows areas based on various reclamation and mining permit categories.


              Contact: Robert Keim
              Agency- Hillsborough County Engineering Service
              Phone: 813/272-5912, x3202








              Data Descriptive Summaries                                                              Appendix 9
              TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                Page 32

                           DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARy

              Subject:       Hillsborough County Contour Map

              Nondigital- Raster Data_ Vector Data X          Point Data.-
              Resolution:                           Scale: 1:2400  Datum: 19
              Date Range of Source Material: n/a    to

              Comment: Map provides 5-foot contour lines

              Source/Creator of data: SWFWMD
              Update schedule: none
              Positional Accuracy. + /- 25 feet
              File Size: .10 gigabytes
              Output Format: GENAMAP binary, DXF, DLG III, other
              Output Medium: 9-track tape, floppy diskette, hardcopy
              Geographic Coverage. Hillsborough County (minus Tampa)

              Descriptive Summary: Contour map locates 5-foot contour fines, as
              originally mapped by SWFWMD. Map was imported for NPDES purposed. Will be
              eventually replaced by 1-foot or 2-foot contour map.




              Contact: Robert B. Keim
              Agency. Hillsborough County Engineering Services
              Phone: 813/2-72-5912, x.3202








               Data Descriptive Summaries                                                                  Appendix 9
               TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                   Page 33

                            DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

               Subject:        Hillsborough County Existing Land Use Map

               Nondigital      Raster Data     Vector Data X , Point Data
               Resolution:                            Scale: 1:2400   Datum: 19
               Date Range of Source Material: n/a to n/a

               Comment: Map shows existing land use by individual land parcels.

               Source/Creator of data: Hillsborough County Property Appraiser
               Update schedule: Map is dynamic
               Positional Accuracy- + /- 4/10 feet
               File Size: not calculated
               Output Format: GENAMAF binary, DXF, DLG 111, other
               Output Medium: 9-track tape, floppy diskette, hardcopy
               Geographic Coverage: Hillsborough County unincorporated area

               Descriptive Summary: Existing Land Use Map displays existing land use
               category for each land parcel in the unincorporated area. Map is
               generated based on data provided by finkage to the County Property
               Appraiser's database (linking field- = folio number). Some aggregation of
               categories occurs.

               Contact: Robert B. Keim
               Agency: Hillsborough County Engineering Services
               Phone: 813/272-5912, x.3202








                Data Descriptive Summaries                                                                 Appendix 9
                TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                  Page 34

                             DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

                Subject:       Hillsborough County Impervious Areas Map

                Nondigital     Raster Data      Vector Data X    Point Data
                Resolution:                            Scale: 1:2400   Datum: 19
                Date Range of Source Material: 1990 to 1992

                Comment: Map contains information relative to non-residential
                      impervious areas.

                Source/Creator of data: Hillsborough County Engineering Services
                Update schedule: Annual, on a three-year cycle
                Positional Accurac3r + /- 4/10 feet
                File Size: .425 gigabytes
                Output Format: GENAMAP binary, DXF, DLG III, other
                Output Medium: 9-track tape, floppy diskette, hardeopy
                Geographic Coverage: Hillsborough County

                Descriptive Summary- Impervious Map provides detailed footprint
                information for non-residential sites contributing to runoff. Map is
                usedt o support Stormwater Utility Fee calculations.




                Contact: Robert B. Keim
                Agency: HiUsborough County Engineering Services
                Phone: 833/272-5912, x.3202








              Data Descriptive Summaries                                                                 Appendix 9
              TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                  Page 35

                           DATA DESCRIMVE SUN04ARY


              Subject: Hiffiborough County NPDES Map

              Nondigital__ Raster Data,_ Vector Data_2L_ Point Data
              Resolution:                            Scale: 1:2400   Datum: 1927
              Date Range of Source Material: 1990 to 1992

              Comment: Map contians information relative to stormwater structures
                     NPDES industries, landriM, etc.

              Source/Creator of data: Hillsborough County Engineering Services

              Update schedule: semi-annual
              Positional Accuracy- +/- 4/10 feet
              File Size: .25 gigabytes
              Output Format: GENAMAP binary. DXF, DLG HI, other
              Output Medium: 9-track tape, floppy diskette, hardcopy
              Geographic Coverage: Hillsborough County (minus Tampa)

              Descriptive Summary: NPDES map provides data relative to factors used in
              determining NPDES compliance and permitting. Map includes stormwater
              structure, outfall basin boundaries, NPDES industry sites, landf&',
              stormwater flows, riverine basin boundaries and population distributions.


              Contact: Robert B. Keim
              Agency- HiUsborough County Engineering Services
              Phone: 813/272-5912, x.3202








                Data Descriptive Summaries                                                                  Appendix 9
                TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                    Page 36

                             DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY


                Subject:        Hillsborough County Primary Care Facilities Map

                NondigitaL__ Raster Data        Vector Data _X Point Data_
                Resolution:                             Scale: 1:2400   Datum: 19
                Date Range of Source Material: 1992 to 1992

                Comment: Map consists of three layers: Primary Care units, Extended
                       Hours sites and Hospital Services areas.

                Source/Creator of data: Hillsborough County Engineering Services
                Update schedule: none
                Positional Accuracy- + /- 4/10 feet
                Fide Size: .05 gigabytes
                Output Format: GENAMAP binary, DXF, DLG III, other
                Output Medium: 9-track tape, floppy diskette, hardcopy
                Geographic Coverage: Hillsborough County

                Descriptive Summary: (1) Primary Care facilities map identifies service
                areas for human services sites; (2) Extended hours layer identifies sites
                in (1) that offer extended hours of service; (3) Hospital service areas
                identifies four primary service hospitals and the areas that they cover.


                Contact: Robert B. Keim
                Agency: Hillsborough County Engineering Services
                Phone: 813/272-5912, x.3202








                 Data Descriptive Summaries                                                                           Appendix 9
                 TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                             Page 37

                                DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

                 Subject:         Hillsborough County Significant Wilflife Habitat Map

                 Nondigital       Raster Data. Vector Data_&_ Point Data-
                 Resolution:                                Scale: 1:2400     Datum: 19
                 Date Range of Source Material: 1990 to 1991

                 Comment: Map displays areas identified as "signigicant wilife habitat"

                 Source/Creator of data: Hillsborough County Engineering Services


                 Update schedule: annual
                 Positional Accuracy: + /- 25 feet
                 File Size: 35 gigabytes
                 Output Format: GENAMAP binary, DXF, DLG III, other
                 Output Medium: 9-track tape, floppy diskette, hardcopy
                 Geographic Coverage: Hillsborough County (minus Tampa)
                 Descriptive Summar)r Significant Wildlife Habitat Map displays areas
                 identified for habitat protection by the BOCC. These areas are plotted
                 onto base and parcel layers. Map wiR be used by county staff in the
                 land development regulation process.


                 Contact: Robert B. Win
                 Agency- Hillsborough County Engineering Services
                 Phone: 813/272-5912, x.3202








                Data Descriptive Summaries                                                               Appendix 9
                TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                Page 38

                             DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

                Subject: Hillsborough County Water Quality Map

                NondigitaL_ Raster Data- Vector Data X          Point Data
                Resolution:                           Scale: 1:2400  Datum: 1927
                Date Range of Source Material: 1992 to 1992

                Comment: Map displays water quality ratings for streams, rivers, lakes
                      and Tampa Bay

                Source/Creator of data: Hillsborough County Engineering Services
                Update schedule: n/a
                Positional Accuracy- +/- 4/10 feet
                File Size: .10 gigabytes
                Output Format: GENAMAP binary. DXF, DLG III, other
                Output Medium: 9-track tape, floppy diskette, hardcopy
                Geographic Coverage: Hillsborough County and Tampa Bay

                Descriptive Summary. Water Quality Map displays water quality levels for
                Hillsborough County water bodies -- streams, rivers, lakes and Tampa Bay.
                Categories range from poor to good. Data source: Hillsborough County
                Stormwater Design Services. Data gathered from SWFWMD and WCRWSA
                monitoring stations.

                Contact: Robert B. Keim
                Agency- Hillsborough County Engineering Services
                Phone: 813/272-5912, x.3202








             Data Descriptive Summaries                                                    Appendix 9
             TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                     Page 39

                        DATA DESCRIMVE SUMMARY


             Subject:     Hillsborough County Zoning Map

             NondigitaL_ Raster Data    Vector Data X Point Data
             Resolution:                Scale: 1:2400 Datum: 1927
             Date Range of Source Material: 1987 to 1992

             Comment: Map is a catalog of all zoning boundaries created in the
                  unincorporated area.

             Source/Creator of data: Hillsborough County Planning and Development
             Management
             Update schedule: Constant
             Positional Accuracy- + /- 4-10 feet
             File Size: 35 gigabytes
             Output Format: GENAMAP binary, DXF@ DLG III, other
             Output Medium: 9-track tape, floppy diskette, hardcopy
             Geographic Coverage: Hillsborough County (minus Tampa)

             Descriptive Summary- Zoning map provides coverage for all categories of
             zoning assigned in the unincorporated area. This project was done to
             support Comprehensive Plan zoning conformance; when finalized, maps are
             certified as official by BOCC.


             Contact: Robert B. Keini
             Agency- Hillsborough County Engineering Services
             Phone: 813/272-5912, x.3202








               Data Descriptive Summaries                                                               Appendix 9
               TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                Page 40

                            DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY


               Subject:        Hillsborough County Census Tract Map

               Nondigital__ Raster Data_ Vector Data_2L_ Point Data_
               Resolution:                    Scale: varies  Datum: 1927
               Date Range of Source Material: 1980 to 1990

               Comment: Map of Census blocks, block groups and tracts

               Source/Creator of data: US Census Bureau
               Update schedule: n/a
               Positional Accuracy- + /- 25- 100 feet
               File Size: 35 gigabytes
               Output Format: GENAMAP binary, DXF, DLG M, other
               Output Medium: 9-track tape, floppy diskette, hardcopy
               Geographic Coverage: Hillsborough County

               Descriptive Summary- Map displays census area boundaries






               Contact: Robert B. Keirn
               Agency: Hillsborough County Engineering Services
               Phone: 813/272-5912, x.3202








             Data Descriptive Summaries                                                    Appendix 9
             TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                    Page 41

                        DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY


             Subject:      Hillsborough County Base Map

             Nondigital_ Raster Data- Vector Data _X Point Data.
             Resolution:                Scale: 1:2400 Datum: 1927
             Date Range of Source Material: 1985 to 1991

             Comment: Base Map contains physical and major road/railroad
                   infrastructure elements.


             Source/Creator of data: Hillsborough County Engineering Services
             Update schedule: constant
             Positional Accuracy: + /- 4-10 feet
             File Size: 3.02 gigabytes
             Output Format: GENAMAP binary, DXF, DLG Ild, other
             Output Medium: 9-track tape, floppy diskette, hardcopy
             Geographic Coverage: Hillsborough County (minus Tampa)

             Descriptive Summary- Base map represents foundation for all County GIS
             activities. Tied to Florida State Plane Coordinate System, it integrates
             parcel-based activities with all other geographic analyses projects.




             Contact: Robert B. Kcim.
             Agency. Hillsborough County Engineering Services
             Phone: 813/272-5912, x.3202








                Data Descriptive Summaries                                                                 Appendix 9
                TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                  Page 42

                             DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

                Subject:        Hillsborough County Parcel Map

                Nondigital_ Raster Data- Vector Data.X Point Data
                Resolution:                     Scale: 1:2400  Datum: 1927
                Date Range of Source Material: 1985 to 1991

                Comment: Parcel Map contains parcel boundaries and related text for
                      all individual land ownership parcels.

                Source/Creator of data: Hillsborough County Property Appraiser
                Update schedule: constant
                Positional Accuracy: + /- 4- 10 feet
                File Size: 1.00 gigabytes
                Output Format: GENAMAP binary, DXF, DLG M, other
                Output Medium: 9-track tape, floppy diskette, hardcopy
                Geographic Coverage: Hillsborough County (minus Tampa)

                Descriptive Summary- Parcel map represents all individual land ownership
                parcels in the unincorporated area, Plant City and Temple Terrace. It
                provides the basis for relating other geographic data to ownership issues
                and for monitoring development related activities.


                Contact: Robert B. Keim.
                Agency: Hillsborough County Engineering Services
                Phone: 812/272-5912, x.3202








               Data Descriptive Summaries                                                                Appendix 9
               TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                 Page 43

                            DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY


               Subject:       Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facil. (IWTF)

               Nondigital. Raster Data_ Vector DatA_*Point Data
               Resolution:                    Scale: 1:24,000 Datum:
               Date Range of Source Material: 1987 to present

               Comment: * - Datum: USGS quad sheets
                     Data range based on 5 year renewal of permits

               Source/Creator of data: EPC, based on data supplied on permit applications
               Update schedule: Maximum 5 years, based on permit renewal
               Positional Accuracy: + /-
               File Size: Advanced Revelation and ASCII
               Output Format:
               Output Medium:
               Geographic Coverage: Cockroach Bay Planning Boundary

               Descriptive Summary- Besides position of all IW`TFs, EPC database includes
               facility name, industrial type, permit #, expiration date, lat/long
               street location, method of effluent disposal and plant permitted capacity




               Contact: Chris Dunn
               Agency- EPC, Hillsborough County
               Phone: 272-5960








                Data Descriptive Summaries                                                               Appendix 9
                TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                 Page 44

                             DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY


                Subject:       Land Cover 1950 and Land Cover 1982

                NondigitaL_ Raster Data X        Vector Data     Point Data_
                Resolution: 30 meters          Scale:          Datum: 27
                Date Range of Source Material:    to

                Comment: Aerial photogra@hy 1948 - 52 = 1950 coverage scale 1:24,000
                         A      is  1982       1982 coverage
                Source/Creator of data:
                Update schedule: none planned
                Positional Accuracy- +/-
                File Size: 6 MB each coverage
                Output Format: ERDAS GIS file
                Output Medium: digital
                Geographic Coverage: Tampa Bay

                Descriptive Summary- These coverages were digitized from 1:24,000 scale
                aerial photography. There are over 20 classes that can be simplified to
                9 categories. Includes all of Pinellas county, with partials of Pasco,
                Hillsborough and Manatee counties.


                Contact: Gail MacAulay
                Agency- FDNR/Florida Marine Research Institute
                Phone: 80-896-8626








              Data Descriptive Summaries                                                                Appendix 9
              TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                 Page 45

                           DATA DESCRIP`171VE SUMMARY

              Subject:        Land Use and Biological Coverage

              Nondigital_ Raster Data -X Vector Data. Point Data-
              Resolution: 30 meters          Scale: 1:24000         Datum: 1927
              Date Range of Source Material: 1985 to 1991

              Comment:


              Source/Creator of data: SFWMD, GFFC
              Update schedule: Variable
              Positional Accuracy- + /- Varies; wuad (+ /- 40 to ^1/4 section)
              File Size: 100K - 5MB
              Output Format: PC (DOS), ARC, ASCH, etc.
              Output Medium: Floppy, 9-track tape, 20MB Bernoulli
              Geographic Coverage: South Florida

              Descriptive Summar)r Raster 1991 update, Eagle nest locations, woodstock
              and wading colonies, breeding bird survey, nesting and feeding areas,
              50 priority species included



              Contact: Arnold Banner/Robert Pace
              Agency: US. Fish and Wildlife Service
              Phone: 407-562-3909







                 Data Descriptive Summaries                                                              Appendix 9
                 TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                               Page 46

                             DATA DESCRIF'rIVE SUMMARY

                 Subject: Land Use/Cover Based on Dot Scheme Level II

                 Nondigital_ Raster Datk_ Vector Data@ X Point Data
                 Resolution:                   Scale:         Datum: NAD27
                 Date Range of Source Material: Dec. 1989 to Jan. 1991

                 Comment:


                 Source/Creator of data: Color IR aerial photo/GEONEX
                 Update schedule: 5 years
                 Positional Accuracy: +/- estimated from 50 ft. to 100 ft.
                 File Size: Av. 750,000 bytes per 7.5' USGS quad
                 Output Format: ARC/INFO tape 1600/6250 BPI
                 Output Medium: 9 track tape 1600/6250 BPI
                 Geographic Coverage:

                 Descriptive Summary.
                 Photo interpretation of 1:24,000 scale color IR photo. Mapping resoluion
                 is one acre for wetlands and five acres for all other classes.




                 Contact: Steve Dicks
                 Agency: SWFWMD
                 Phone: (904)796-7211








              Data Descriptive Summaries                                                                Appendix 9
              TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                  Page 47

                           DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

              Subject: Major Air Pollutions Sources

              Nondigital      Raster Data-X    Vector Data      Point Data
              Resolution: USGS quads          Scale: 1:24,000 Datum:
              Date Range of Source Material: 1974 to present

              Comment: both hard copy and computer database

              Source/Creator of data: EPC
              Update schedule: quarterly
              Positional Accuracy- + /-
              File Size: data set 2 MB
              Output Format: PRN rdes
              Output Medium: 1.44 MB diskette/mainstream tape
              Geographic Coverage: Hillsborough County

              Descriptive Summary: Has the HTMs for the permitted air pollution sources
              in Hillsborough County. The data is in a state system that is
              GIS-compatible. Their systems is called Air Pollution Information System
              (APIS).


              Contact: Tom Tamanini
              Agency: Air Monitoring, Air Program, EPC Hillsborough County
              Phone: (813) 543-5530








                 Data Descriptive Summaries                                                                 Appendix 9
                 TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                  Page 48

                              DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

                 Subject:       Meteorological Data

                 NondigitaL X    Raster Data- Vector Datk_ Point Data.
                 Resolution: variable           Scale:          Datum:
                 Date Range of Source Materiah 1/01/83 to present

                 Comment: monthly rain totals available from 1970 to present

                 Source/Creator of data: NWS
                 Update schedule: daily
                 Positional Accuracy: + /- as reported but with quality control checks
                 File Size: variable depending on requested information
                 Output Format: ASCII
                 Output Medium: 1.44 MB diskette/networking such as Internet
                 Geographic Coverage: Available NWS observation sites in Southeastern USA

                 Descriptive Summary- Data consists of daily max and min air temperature
                 and their corresponding departure from normal. Daily rainfall also
                 available. Selected stations also have daily evaporation 4' sod temps,
                 solar radiation and hours of leaf wetness. Summaries of these parameters
                 are available in various formats.


                 Contact: Karl Harker
                 Agency: National Weather Service
                 Phone: 205/844-4514








              Data Descriptive Summaries                                                             Appendix 9
              TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                               Page 49

                          DATA DESCRIMVE SUMMARY


              Subject:       Plant Communities

              Nondigital    Raster Data-X     Vector Data     Point Data_
              Resolution: 30m               Scale:          Datum: 27
              Date Range of Source Material:   to

              Comment:


              Source/Creator of data: Fl. Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission/FDOT
              Update schedule: unknown
              Positional Accuracy- + /- 100 ft
              File Size:
              Output Format: ERDAS GIS file
              Output Medium:
              Geographic Coverage: TBRPC: Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco, Pinellas co.

              Descriptive Summary- Contains 22 classifications as interpreted from
              Landsat TM data. Classes may be combined into four basic categories for
              simplicity.



              Contact: Gail MacAulay
              Agency- FDNR/FMRI
              Phone: 80-896-8626








               Data Descriptive Summaries                                                             Appendix 9
               TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                               Page 50

                            DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY


               Subject: Radon

               Nondigital _X Raster Data_ Vector Data._ Point Data
               Resolution:                    Scale:         Datum:
               Date Range of Source Material:    to

               Comment: This information is being compiled and is currently under
                     development

               Source/Creator of data: EPC and Soil Conservation Service
               Update schedule:
               Positional Accuracy- +
               File Size:
               Output Format:
               Output Medium:
               Geographic Coverage:

               Descriptive Summary- This information will provide locations of radon
               levels in Hillsborough County





               Contact: Tom Tamanini
               Agency: Air Program, EPC, Hillsborough County
               Phone: (813)272-5530








               Data Descriptive Summaries                                                              Appendix 9
               TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                               Page 51

                            DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

               Subject:       Roads

               Nondigital     Raster Data_ Vector Data X Point Data
               Resolution:                   Scale:         Datum:
               Date Range of Source Material:    to

               Comment:     Scale is 1:100,000

               Source/Creator of data: DLG
               Update schedule:
               Positional Accuracy: +
               File Size:
               Output Format: ARC/INFO export coverage
               Output Medium: digital
               Geographic Coverage: Counties: Hillsborough, Manatee, Pinellas Pasco, Polk

               Descriptive Summary: Needs updating





               Contact: Gail MacAulay
               Agency- FDNR/Florida Marine Research Institute
               Phone: 8L3-896-8626








               Data Descriptive Summaries                                                               Appendix 9
               TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                Page 52

                            DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

               Subject:       Sanitary Landfills (Old and Active)

               Nondigital__ Raster Data- Vector Datk_ Point Data
               Resolution:                    Scale: 1:48,000 Datum: STR
               Date Range of Source Material: 1947 to L992

               Comment: These sites remain old until cleanup

               Source/Creator of data: EPC
               Update schedule: As new sites are permitted or discovered -- realtime
               Positional Accuracy- +/- 200 feet
               File Size: Five entires
               Output Format:
               Output Medium:
               Geographic Coverage:

               Descriptive Summary- Five old sites are known in the planning area





               Contact: Hooshang Boostani
               Agency. EPC Hillsborough County, Waste Mgt. Division
               Phone: (81@) 272-5788








              Data Descriptive Summaries                                                            Appendix 9
              TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                             Page 53

                          DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY


              Subject:       SEAGRASS Mapping of Tampa Bay

              NondigitaL- Raster Data_ Vector Data _X Point Data-
              Resolution:                  Scale:         Datum: NAD27
              Date Range of Source Material: Dec. 1988 to

              Comment:


              Source/Creator of data: Color aerial photo/GEONEX
              Update schedule: Two years
              Positional Accuracy- + /- .50 feet - 100 feet
              File Size: Av. 500,000 bytes per 7.5' USGS quad
              Output Format: ARC/INFO export format
              Output Medium: 9 track tape 1600/6250 BPI
              Geographic Coverage: Tampa Bay

              Descriptive Summary.
              Photo interpretation of 1:24,000 scale color photo. Mapping
              resolution is one acre.




              Contact: Steve Dicks
              Agency- SWFWMD, SEAGRASS 88
              Phone: (904)796-7211









               Data Descriptive Summaries                                                            Appendix 9
               TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                              Page 54

                            DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY


               Subject:       SEAGRASS Mapping of Tampa Bay

               NondigitaL_ Raster Data- Vector Data X         Point Data_
               Resolution:                   Scale:        Datum: NAD27
               Date Range of Source Material: Dec. 1990 to

               Comment:


               Source/Creator of data: Color aerial photo/GEONEX
               Update schedule: 2 - 3 years
               Positional Accuracy- +/- 50 feet - 100 feet
               File Size: Av. 500,000 bytes [er 7.5' USGS Quad
               Output Format: ARC/INFO Export Format
               Output Medium: 9 Track Tape 1600/6250 BPI
               Geographic Coverage: Tampa Bay

               Descriptive Summary.
               Photo interpretation of 1:24,000 scale color photo. Mapping resolution
               is one acre.




               Contact: Steve Dicks
               Agency- SVIFWMD
               Phone: (904)796-7211











                                        I
               Data Descriptive Summaries                                                             Appendix 9
               TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                              Page 55

                           DATA DESCRIPTIVIE SUMMARY


               Subject:       Seagrass 1990 and Seagrass 1988

               Nondigital_ Raster Data. Vector Data X Point Data_
               Resolution:                   Scale:         Datum:
               Date Range of Source Material:   to

               Comment: Please refer to SWFWMD for a full history of this data.

               Source/Creator of data: SWFWMD
               Update schedule: unknown
               Positional Accuracy- + /-
               File Size: % MB each coverage
               Output Format: ARC/INF0 export file
               Output Medium:
               Geographic Coverage: Tampa Bay

               Descriptive Summary: 1990 seagrass data and 1988 seagrass data. Please
               refer to Southwest Florida Water Management District as data creators.




               Contact: Gail MacAulay
               Agency: FDNR/FMRI
               Phone: 813-896-8626








                Data Descriptive Summaries                                                         Appendix 9
                TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                           Page 56

                            DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

                Subject:      Section, Township, Ranges from 1:24000 USGSmap

                NondigitaL__ Raster Data_ Vector Data X Point Data_
                Resolution:                 Scale:         Datum: NAD27
                Date Range of Source Material: 1955 to 1987

                Comment:


                Source/Creator of data: In-house
                Update schedule: N/A
                Positional Accurac3r + /- 40 feet
                File Size: 4MB covering SWFWMD
                Output Format: ARC/INFO export format
                Output Medium: 9-track tape 1600/6250 BPI
                Geographic Coverage: SWTWMD

                Descriptive Summar)r






                Contact: Steve Dicks
                Agency: SWFWMD
                Phone: 904/796-7211 x4200









             Data Descriptive Summaries                                                       Appendix 9
             TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                        Page 57

                         DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUN04ARY


             Subject:      Small Quantity Generators (CESQGS)

             NondigitaL_ Raster Data     Vector Data    Point Data
             Resolution:                 Scale: address      Datum:
             Date Range of Source Materiah 1984 to present

             Comment:

             Source/Creator of data: EPC w/aid of Hillsborough County Tax Collector
             Update schedule: Continuous (1500 - 3000 identified annually)
             Positional Accuracy- + /- STR and physical addresses
             File Size: 3000 sites
             Output Format: FoxPro, database and hardcopy
             Output Medium: 1.44 diskette; 60 MB magnetic tape
             Geographic Coverage: Cockroach Bay Planning Area

             Descriptive Summary- This is a combination of verified and unverified
             list of around 3000 sites





             Contact: Hooshang Boostani
             Agency: EPC Hillsborough County, Waste Mgt. Division
             Phone: 80-272-5788








                Data Descriptive Summaries                                                             Appendix 9
                TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                              Page 58

                            DATA DESCRIMVE SUMMARY


                Subject:       Stationary Storage Tank Facilities

                Nondigital. Raster Data X Vector Data_ Point Data
                Resolution:                   Scale: Lat/Long        Datum:
                Date Range of Source Material: 1985 to present

                Comment: EPC/FDER - EPC input information to DER system

                Source/Creator of data: EPC
                Update schedule: portions of database updated annually
                Positional Accuracy-
                File Size: unknown
                Output Format: unknown
                Output Medium: 9-track tape
                Geographic Coverage: Cockroach Bay Study Area

                Descriptive Summary- Approximately 51 sites in study area





                Contact: Hooshang Boostani
                Agency- EPC, Hillsborough County Waste Mgt. Div., Storage Tank Progr
                Phone: 813-272-5788








              Data Descriptive Summaries                                                            Appendix 9
              TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                             Page 59

                           DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY


              Subject:       Storm Water Management Permit Boundaries

              Nondigital.    Raster Data_ Vector Data X Point Data
              Resolution:                   Scale:        Datum: NAD 27
              Date Range of Source Material: 1975 to Present

              Comment:


              Source/Creator of data: SWFWMD/SMARTSCAN
              Update schedule: Every year
              Positional Accuracy: + /- - 200-3W
              File Size: Less than 500K Bytes per 30' X 60' USGS Map
              Output Format: ARC/INF0 Export
              Output Medium: 9 Track Tape 1600/6250 BPI
              Geographic Coverage:

              Descriptive Summar3r
              ARC/INFO files contains points ID to relate to external database





              Contact: Steve Dicks
              Agency. SWFWMD, SWMPOLY
              Phone: (904)796-7211









              Data Descriptive Summaries                                                          Appendix 9
              TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                           Page 60

                          DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

              Subject:      Storm Water Management Permit Points

              Nondigital_ Raster Data_ Vector Data X Point Data
              Resolution:                  Scale:        Datum: NAD27
              Date Range of Source Material: 1975 to Present

              Comment:


              Source/Creator of data: SWFWMD/SMARTSCAN
              Update schedule: every year
              Positional Accurac3r +/- -200-3W
              File Size: Iess than 100K Bytes Per 30'X 60' USGS Map
              Output Format: ARC/INFO Export
              Output Medium: 9 Track Tape 1600/6250 BPI
              Geographic Coverage:

              Descriptive Summary- ARC/INFO files contains point ID to relate to
              external database






              Contact Steve Dicks
              Agency: SWFWMD, SWMPNT
              Phone: (904)796-7211









               Data Descriptive Summaries                                                               Appendix 9
               TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                Page 61

                           DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

               Subject:       SWFWMD - SWIM Bibiographic Database (BDB)

               NondigitaLX     Raster Data_ Vector Data_ Point Data.
               Resolution:                   Scale:          Datum:
               Date Range of Source Material: 1853 to 1989

               Comment:


               Source/Creator of data: varies; compiled by SWFWMD and SWIM
               Update schedule: none
               Positional Accuracy. +
               File Size: 5.2 ME
               Output Format: dBASE HI+ (compressed with PKZIP compression utility)
               Output Medium: 1.44 MB floppy disk
               Geographic Coverage: Tampa Bay area

               Descriptive Summar)r Goal was to identify, locate, briefly describe and
               evaluate the, quality of data pertinent to Tampa Bay. Contains 1,356
               entries for books, reports and journal articles. In addition, each entry
               includes a list of parameters col.lected, sampling methods used, etc.


               Contact: Holly Greening
               Agenc)r Tampa Bay National Estuary Program
               Phone: 813493-2765








                Data Descriptive Summaries                                                              Appendix 9
                TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                               Page 62

                             DATA DESCRIPTIVE SLTN04ARY

                Subject:       Two foot contours and spot elevation

                Nondigital_ Raster Data_ Vector Data _X Point Data_
                Resolution:                   Scale:      . Datum: NAD2783
                Date Range of Source Material: 1970 to Present

                Comment:


                Source/Creator of data: original photograrnmetric survey
                Update schedule: as needed
                Positional Accuracy- + /- 10 ft.
                File Size: 1 m bytes per aerial map (section)
                Output Format: ARC/INFO export format
                Output Medium: 9 track tape 1600/6250 BPI
                Geographic Coverage: SWFWMD

                Descriptive Summary.
                only small portions of the district has two foot contour digital files





                Contact: Steve Dicks
                Agency: SWFWMD,
                Phone: (904)796-7211








               Data Descriptive Summaries                                                             Appendix 9
               TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                              page 63

                            DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

               Subject:       USDA/SCS Detailed soils maps/county soil atlas

               Nondigital__ Raster Data- Vector Data@ _X Point Data_
               Resolution:                   Scale:        Datum: NAD27
               Date Range of Source Materiah Baseed on to

               Comment: SCS Soil Maps

               Source/Creator of data: SCS
               Update schedule: N/A
               Positional Accuracy- +/- as good as the source data
               File Size: 750,000 bytes per 7.5' USGS Quad
               Output Format: ARC/INFO export format
               Output Medium: 9 track tape 1600/6250 BPI
               Geographic Coverage: SWFWMD

               Descriptive Summary.
               Current coverages include:
               Hernando, Pasco, Sarasota, Hardee, Desoto, Citrus, Polk Hillsborough



               Contact: Steve Dicks
               Agency: SWFWMD
               Phone: (904)796-7211









                Data Descriptive Summaries                                                                  Appendix 9
                TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                   Page 64

                              DATA DESCREPTIVE SUN04ARY

                Subject:        Valid EPA Wedand DelineationsTotal # Surveys

                NondigitaLX      Raster Data. Vector Data- Point Data_
                Resolution:                     Scale: Varies   Datum:
                Date Range of Source Material:     to

                Comment: Surveys are minimally good for 5 years. Life can be extended
                       if survey is incorporated into governmental approval

                Source/Creator of data: Variety of Florida professional land surveyors
                Update schedule: Varies (see comments above); usually every 5 years
                Positional Accuracy- +
                File Size: surveys
                Output Format: hard copy
                Output Medium:
                Geographic Coverage: Varies according to each parcel boundary & location

                Descriptive Summary: These surveys represent a separate legal layer where
                each has signed off wetlands delineation under Ch. 1-11 of FPC rules.
                There are other sources for "estimates" of where wetlands exist in study.
                A separate listing of each survey is attached, giving project name,
                scale, datum, specific date range and land surveyor name.

                Contact: Charles Courtney
                Agency- Environmental Protection Commission, Hillsborough County
                Phone: 813-272-7104








               Data Descriptive Summaries                                                                      Appendix 9
               TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                       Page 65

                            DATA DESCRERTIVE SUMMARY

               Subject:        Water Quality Data

               Nondigital      Raster Data      Vector Data_ Point Data.
               Resolution:                      Scale: Lat/long         Datum: NOAA
               Date Range of Source Materiah    1/l/ to present

               Comment: Ile datum is 1927 N. American NOAA chart #11412
                     A new suite of samples is collected every month

               Source/Creator of data: EPC Water Quality Lab, Tom Cardinale
               Update schedule: Database is updated in month following sample collection
               Positional Accuracy- +/- 100, based on field sight reference points
               File Size: = or - 30,000 bytes/year; to date, 552,000 bytes in this area
               Output Format: ASCH or Revelation database
               Output Medium: Diskettes, Maynstream Tape or Bernoulli cartridge
               Geographic Coverage: Cockroach Bay Planning Area

               Descriptive Summary- Data collected at 3 sites (station s 112, 113 M).
               Each site has as many as 53 different parameters: station #, date, depth,
               air & water temp., color, seccb@ turbidity, residue, conductivity,
               salinity, dissolved oxygen, pH, biochemical oxygen demand, chlorophyll,
               much more. For more info, contact Tom Cardinale...

               Contact: Tom Cardinale
               Agency- EPC of Hillsborough County, Environmental Monitoring Section
               Phone: (813)Z72-5960








                Data Descriptive Summaries                                                              Appendix 9
                TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                               Page 66

                             DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

                Subject:       Water Quality Monitoring Database

                NondigitaL_ Raster Data        Vector Data_ Point Data _X
                Resolution:                    Scale: 1:100000       Datum: 1927
                Date Range of Source Material: 1966 to 1971

                Comment: Scattered time samples

                Source/Creator of data: Cooperative agency input
                Update schedule: 3-5 years
                Positional Accuracy: + /- 33 meters
                File Size: 1 megabyte
                Output Format: ARC/INFO interchange
                Output Medium: 3S floppy, 9-track 1600 BPI
                Geographic Coverage: TBRPC (Pasco, Hillsborough, Manatee, Pinellas)

                Descriptive Summary: Sampling Methodology and Location





                Contact: Marshall Flynn
                Agency- Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
                Phone: 813-577-5151








              Data Descriptive Summaries                                                               Appendix 9
              TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                Page 67

                           DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

              Subject:       Water Quality Monitoring Database

              Nondigital     Raster Data_ Vector Data_ Point Data X
              Resolution:                    Scale: 1:100000       Datum: 1927
              Date Range of Source Material: 1966 to 1991

              Comment: Scattered time samples

              Source/Creator of data: Cooperative agency input
              Update schedule: 3 - 5 years
              Positional Accuracy- +/- 33 meters
              File Size: 1 megabyte
              Output Format: ARC/INTFO interchange
              Output Medium: 3.5" floppy diskette, 9-track 1600 BPI
              Geographic Coverage: TBRPC (Pasco, Hillsborough, Manatee, Pinellas co.)

              Descriptive Summary: Sampling methodology and location





              Contact: Marshall Flynn / Peter Clark
              Agency- Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
              Phone: 813-577-5151









                Data Descriptive Summaries                                                                Appendix 9
                TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                 Page 68

                        1    DATA DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY


                Subject:        Water Resources Database

                Nondigital_2L_ Raster Data_ Vector Data_ Point Data.
                Resolution:                    Scale:         Datum:
                Date Range of Source Material;- 1991 to pres,

                Comment: HiRsborough County date range

                Source/Creator of data: USGS
                Update schedule: daily
                Positional Accuracy- +
                File Size:
                Output Format:
                Output Medium:
                Geographic Coverage: nationwide

                Descriptive Summary- Laboratory and field water quality data,
                intermittant water level, intermittant discharge data are stored in in
                one database. Daily-(continuous) measurements of water level, discharge,
                velocity and selected water quality data are stored in another database.
                Meteorological data may exist in both databases.

                Contact: Yvonne Stoker
                Agency: U.S.G.S.
                Phone: 813/228-212A









                     Listing of Partaicipants                                                                   Appendix 10
                     Tampa Bay Regional Coordinating Council
                     TBRCC Report - December 1"2                                                                      Page I



                                             TAMPA BAY REGIONAL COORDINATING COUNCIL



                     Ms Julia E. Greene, Chair                               Mr. Fred E. Marquis
                     Executive Director                                      Pinellas County Administrator
                     Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council                     315 Court Street
                     9455 Koger Blvd                                         Clearwater, FL 34616
                     St. Petersburg, FL 33702

                                                                             Mr. William McDaniel
                     Mr. Michael C. Becker                                   District Seven Secretary
                     District V Administrator                                Florida Department of Transportation
                     Department of Health and                                11201 McKinley Drive
                      Rehabilitative Services                                Tampa, FL 33612
                     11351 Ulmerton Road
                     Largo, Fl, 34648
                                                                             Mr. Bill Munz
                                                                             Assistant Pasco County Administrator
                     Mr. James M. Bourey                                     Government Center
                     Senior Assistant Administrator,                         7530 Little Road
                      Hillsborough County                                    New Port Richey, FL 34653
                     P* 0. Box 1110
                     Tampa, FL 33601
                                                                             Ms Karen Jackson Sims
                                                                             Assistant Administrator
                     Dr. Richard D. Garrity                                  Manatee County
                     Director of District Management                         1112 Manatee Avenue West
                     Southwest District                                      Bradenton, FL 34602
                     Florida Department of
                      Environmental Regulation
                     4520 Oak Fair Boulevard                                 Mr. Jim Smith
                     Tampa, Fl, 33610-7347                                   Pinellas County Property Appraiser
                                                                             315 Court Street
                                                                             Clearwater, FL 34616
                     Mr. Peter Hubbel
                     Executive Director
                     Southwest Florida Water                                 Mr. Roger Stewart
                      Management District                                    Executive Director
                     2379 Broad Street                                       Environmental Protection Commission
                     Brooksville, FL 34609                                    of Hillsborough County
                                                                             P. 0. Box 1110
                                                                             Tampa, FL 33601
                     Mr. Robert B. Hunter, AICP
                     Executive Director
                     Hillsborough County City-County
                      Planning Commission
                     201 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 600
                     Tampa, FL 33602-5117









                   Listing of Partalcipants                                                       Appendix 10
                   Tampa Bay Regional Coordinating Council
                   TBRCC Report - December 1"2                                                         Page 2


                   TBRCC STAFF



                   Mr. William W. Lofgren
                   Principal Planner and
                    Facilitator, TBRCC
                   Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
                   9455 Koger Blvd
                   St. Petersburg, Fl, 33703


                   Mr. David Stage, Staff Director
                   Growth Management Data Network
                    Coordinating Council (GMDNCC)
                   Office of the Governor
                   The Capitol
                   Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001









                     Listing of Participants                                                                     Appendix 10
                     Regional Advisory Committee
                     TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                      Page 3



                                                     REGIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE



                     Mr. William W. Lofgren, Chair                            Ms Suzanne Cooper
                     Principal Planner, Facilitator                           Principal Planner/DRI Coordinator
                       TBRCC                                                  Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
                     Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council                      9455 Koger Blvd, Suite 219
                     9455 Koger Blvd NE                                       St. Petersburg, Fl- 33702
                     St. Petersburg, FL 33702

                                                                              Mr. Chuck Courtney
                     Dr. Robert T. Aangeenbrug                                Director Ecosystems Management
                     Chair and Professor                                      Environmental Protection Commission
                     Department of Geography                                    of Hillsborough County
                     University of South Florida, SOC 107                     1900 Ninth Avenue
                     4202 Fowler Ave E                                        Tampa, FL 33605
                     Tampa, FL 33620-8100

                                                                              Mr. Norton (Mac) Craig
                     Mr. Gordon Beardslee                                     Southwest District
                     General Planning Administrator                           Department of Environmental Regulation
                     Pinellas County Planning Department                      4520 Oak Fair Boulevard
                     315 Court Street                                         Tampa, Fl, 33610-7347
                     Clearwater, FL 34616

                                                                              Dr. Thomas Cuba, Director
                     Mr. Stephen Carroll                                      Pinellas County Environmental Management
                     Pinellas County Department                               315 Court Street
                       of Communications                                      Clearwater, Fl- 34616
                     315 Court Street
                     Clearwater, Fl, 34616
                                                                              Mr. Steve Dicks
                                                                              GIS Administrator/SWFWMD
                     Mr. Larry Colbert                                        2379 Broad Street
                     LIS Coordinator                                          Brooksville, Fl, 34609-6899
                     Manatee County Data
                       Information Services
                     1112 Manatee Ave W, Suite 702                            Mr. Charles Dye
                     Bradenton, Fl, 34602                                     Pinellas County Property Appraiser's Office
                                                                              315 Court Street
                                                                              Clearwater, Fl, 34616
                     Mr. Dale Coe
                     Data Management Division
                     Environmental Protection Commission                      Mr. Kent Fast
                       of Hillsborough County                                 Public Transportation Specialist
                     1900 Ninth Avenue                                        Department of Transportation
                     Tampa, FL 33605                                          11201 McKinley Drive
                                                                              Tampa, Fl, 33612








                      Listing of Participants                                                                   Appendix 10
                      Regional Advisory Committee
                      TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                    Page 4


                      Mr. D. Michael Flanery                                  Mr. Don Moores
                      Engineering Division                                    Water Quality Manager
                      HRS - Pinellas County                                   Pinellas County Environmental
                        Public Health Unit                                     Management
                      4175 East Bay Drive, Suite 300                          2208 Riverside Drive North
                      Clearwater, FL 34624                                    Clearwater, FL 34624


                      Mr. Dale Friedley                                       Mr. Jerson M. Rivera
                      Manatee County Property                                 Resource Development
                        Appraiser's Office                                    West Coast Regional Water
                      P.O. Box 1338                                            Supply Authority
                      Bradenton, Fl, 34206                                    2535 Landmark Drive, Suite 211
                                                                              Clearwater, FL,34621

                      Ms Holly Greening
                      Environmental Scientist                                 Mr. Early Sorenson
                      Tampa Bay National Estuary Program                      Southwest District
                      III Seventh Avenue South                                Department of Environmental
                      St. Petersburg, FL 33701                                 Regulation
                                                                              4520 Oak Fair Boulevard
                                                                              Tampa, FL 33610-7347
                      Mr. Ken Haddad
                      Environmental Administrator
                      Department of Natural Resources                         Mr. Elmer Spence
                      100 Eighth Ave SE                                       Division Engineer
                      St. Petersburg, FL 33701-5095                           Pinellas County
                                                                               Public Works Department
                                                                              440 Court Street
                      Mr. Bob Keim                                            Clearwater, FL 34616
                      Manager, Dept of Engineering Services
                      Hillsborough County Planning
                        and Zoning Department                                 Mr. David Tabor, Systems Manager
                      1000 Ashley                                             Management Services Department
                      Tampa, Fl, 33602                                        Hillsborough County City-County
                                                                               Planning Commission
                                                                              201 East Kennedy Blvd, Suite 600
                      Ms Gail MacAulay                                        Tampa, FL 33602
                      Florida Marine Research Institute
                      Department of Natural Resources
                      100 Eighth Avenue SE                                    Mr. Steve Totten
                      St. Petersburg, Fl, 33701-5095                          Pasco County GIS Department
                                                                              7530 Little Road
                                                                              New Port Richey, FL 34653
                      Mr. Gordon McClung
                      Hillsborough County Planning and
                        Development
                      P. 0. Box 1110
                      Tampa, FL 33601









                      Listing of Participants                                                                  Appendix 10
                      Cockroach Bay Data Consolidation Consensus Group
                      TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                   Page 5


                                    COCKROACH BAY DATA CONSOLIDATION CONSENSUS GROUP



                      Mr. Chuck Courtney, Chair                              Mr. Al Eisenmenger
                      Director Ecosystems Management                         Hillsborough County City-County
                      Environmental Protection Commission                     Planning Commission
                       of Hillsborough County                                201 E. Kennedy Blvd, Suite 600
                      1900 Ninth Avenue                                      Tampa, FL 33602
                      Tampa, FL 33605

                                                                             Mr. Dale Friedley
                      Mr. Efie Araj                                          Manatee County Property
                      Hillsborough County Engineering                         Appraiser's Office
                       Services                                              P.O. Box 1338
                      Stormwater Design Section                              Bradenton, FL 34206
                      P. 0. Box 1110
                      Tampa, FL 33601
                                                                             Ms Holly Greening
                                                                             Environmental Scientist
                      Mr. Jim Beaver                                         Tampa Bay National Estuary Program
                      Florida Game and Freshwater                            111 Seventh Avenue South
                       Fish Commission                                       St. Petersburg, FL 33701
                      29200 Tucker Grade Rd
                      Punta Gorda, FL 32955
                                                                             Mr. Kurt Gremley
                                                                             ELAPP Acquisition Manager
                      Mr. Gene Boles, Director                               Hillsborough County Real Estate
                      Hillsborough County Planning and                       P. 0. Box 1110
                       Development Management Department                     Tampa, FL 33624
                      P. 0. Box 1110
                      Tampa, FL 33601
                                                                             Mr. Carl Harker
                                                                             National Weather Service
                      Mr. Peter Clark                                        Fisheries Annex Bldg
                      Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council                    P. 0. Box 3267
                      9455 Koger Blvd, Suite 219                             Auburn, AL 36831-3267
                      St. Petersburg, FL 33702

                                                                             Mr. Rob Heath
                      Mr. Dale Coe                                           Hillsborough County
                      Data Management Division                                Parks Department
                      Environmental Protection Commission                    1110 River Cove Drive
                       of Hillsborough County                                Tampa, FL 33604
                      1900 Ninth Avenue
                      Tampa, FL 33605








                     Listing of Participants                                                                   Appendix 10
                     Cockroach Bay Data Consolidation Consensus Group
                     TBRCC Report - December 1"2                                                                     Page 6


                     Mr. Steven Hodges                                       Ms GO MacAulay
                     Homer Hoyt Center for Land                              Remote Sensing Analyst
                       Economics and Real Estate                             Florida Marine Research Institute
                     361 Bellamy Bldg                                        Department of Natural Resources
                     Florida State University                                100 Eighth Avenue SE
                     Tallahassee, FL 32306-4016                              St. Pet@rsburg, FL 33701-5095


                     Mr. Walid Houtom                                        Ms Susan Mariner
                     Hillsborough County Engineering Services                Hillsborough County Planning and
                     Stormwater Design Section                                Development Management Department
                     P. 0. Box 1110                                          P. 0. Box 1110
                     Tampa, FL 33601                                         Tampa, FL 33601


                     Mr. Bob Keim, Manager                                   Mr. Jim Muller
                     Department of Engineering Services                      1018 Thomasville Rd
                     Hillsborough County Planning                            Suite 200-C
                       and Zoning Department                                 Tallahassee, FL 32303
                     1000 Ashley
                     Tampa, FL 33602
                                                                             Mr. Robert Pace
                                                                             U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                     Mr. David Kriz                                          P. 0. Box 2676
                     Soil Conservation Service                               Very Beach, FL 32960
                     401 Southeast 1st Ave, Room 248
                     Gainesville, FL 32601
                                                                             Mr. Scott Stevens
                                                                             SWIM/SWF`WMD
                     Mr. Jordan Lewis                                        7601 U. S. Highway 301
                     Environmental Health Section                            Tampa, FL 33634
                     Florida Department of Health
                       and Rehabilitative Services
                     P. 0. Box 5135                                          Ms Yvonne Stoker
                     Tampa, FL 33675-5135                                    U.S. Geological Survey
                                                                             4710 Eisenhower Boulevard, B-5
                                                                             Tampa, FL 33634
                     Mr. Robin Lewis
                     Lewis Environmental Services, Inc.
                     5454 Jet View Circle                                    Mr. Nicholas J. Toth
                     Tampa, FL 33634                                         Manager
                                                                             Cockroach Bay Acquatic Preserve
                                                                             8402 Laurel Fair Circle, Suite 212
                     Dr. Thomas Lo                                           Tampa, FL 33610-7347
                     GIS Administrator
                     Southwest Florida Water
                       Management District
                     2379 Broad Street
                     Brooksville, FL 34609-6899









                     Listing of Participants                                                                Appendix 10
                     Demographic Information Consensus Group
                     TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                 Page 7



                                         DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION CONSENSUS GROUP



                     Mr. Dale Friedley, Chair                              Ms Wendy Diamond
                     Manatee County Property                               Research Department
                      Appraiser's Office                                   Tampa Tribune
                     P.O. Box 1338                                         P. 0. Box 191
                     Bradenton, FL 34206                                   Tampa, FL 33601


                     Dr. Robert T. Aangeenbrug                             Mr. Charles Dye
                     Chair and Professor                                   Pinellas County Property
                     Department of Geography                                Appraiser's Office
                     University of South Florida, SOC 107                  315 Court Street
                     4202 Fowler Ave E                                     Clearwater, FL 34616
                     Tampa, Fl, 33620-8100

                                                                           Mr. D. Michael Flanery
                     Ms Sheron Beauchamp                                   Engineering Division
                     Hillsborough County Schools                           HRS - Pinellas County
                       Pupil Administrative Services                        Public Health Unit
                     P. 0. Box 3408                                        4175 East Bay Drive, Suite 300
                     Tampa, FL 33601                                       Clearwater, FL 34624


                     Ms Nancy Blackwelder                                  Ms. Patricia K. Gehant
                     Pinellas County Schools                               Program Consultant
                     P. 0. Box 2942                                        Juvenile Welfare Board
                     Largo, FL 34649-2942                                  Juvenile Welfare Budding
                                                                           4140 49th Street N
                                                                           St. Petersburg, FL 33702
                     Mr. Dan Blood
                     Hillborough County Planning
                       & Development Management Dept                       Mr. Ed Lynch, B3N
                     P. 0. Box 1110                                        Florida Power Corp
                     Tampa, FL 33601                                       P.O. Box 14042
                                                                           St. Petersburg, FL 33733

                     Ms Kathryn Burbridge
                     Pasco County Growth Management                        Mr. Lee Marsh
                     7432 Little Road                                      Pinellas County Planning Dept
                     New Port Richey, Fl, 34654                            315 Court Street
                                                                           Clearwater, Fl, 34616


                     Mr. David Crabtree
                     Economic Planning and Forecasting
                     Tampa Electric Company
                     P. 0. Box 111
                     Tampa, FL 33601








                      Listing of Participants                                                                  Appendix 10
                      Demographic Information Consensus Group
                      TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                   Page 8



                      Mr. Lee Martin                                         Mr. Rick Windham
                      Hillsborough County Schools                            LIS Department
                       Pupa Administrative Services                          Manatee County Data
                      P. 0. Box 3408                                          Information Services
                      Tampa, FL 33601                                        1112 Manatee Ave W, Suite 702
                                                                             Bradenton, FL 34602


                      Mr. Ted Micceri
                      RAP, SVC 5022
                      University of South Florida
                      4202 Fowler Ave E
                      Tampa, Fl, 33620-8100



                      Mr. Robert Morris
                      GIS Department
                      Hillsborough County Planning
                       and Zoning Department
                      1000 Ashley
                      Tampa, FL 33602



                      Ms Marlene Mueller
                      Pinellas County Schools
                      P. 0. Box 2942
                      Largo, FL 34649-2942


                      Ms Lois Sorensen (PRJ)
                      Southwest Florida Water
                       Management District
                      2379 Broad Street
                      Brooksville, FL 34609-6899



                      Mr. Steve Totten
                      Pasco County GIS Department
                      7530 Little Road
                      New Port Richey, Fl, 34653



                      Ms Kristine Williams
                      College of Engineering
                      Center for Urban Transportation
                       Research (CUTR)
                      University of South Florida
                      4202 Fowler Ave E .
                      Tampa, Fl, 33620-8100









                     Listing of Participants                                                                  Appendix 10
                     Stormwater Management Consensus Group
                     TBRCC Report - December 1"2                                                                    Page 9



                                                   STORMWATER CONSENSUS GROUP



                     Ms Holly Greening, Chair                               Mr. Bob Keim, Manager
                     Environmental Scientist                                Department of Engineering Services
                     Tampa Bay National Estuary Program                     Hillsborough County Planning
                     111 Seventh Avenue South                                 and Zoning Department
                     St. Petersburg, Fl, 33701                              1000 Ashley, 10th Floor
                                                                            Tampa, FL 33602

                     Mr. Peter Clark
                     Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council                    Ms Debora Kohne
                     9455 Koger Blvd, Suite 219                             Hillsborough County Engineering Services
                     St. Petersburg, Fl, 33702                              Stormwater Design Section
                                                                            1000 Ashley, Suite 902
                                                                            Tampa, FL 33601
                     Mr. Larry Colbert
                     LIS Coordinator
                     Manatee County Data                                    Mr. Don Lord
                       Information Services                                 Pinellas County Department
                     1112 Manatee Ave W, Suite 702                            of Communications
                     Bradenton, FL 34602                                    315 Court Street
                                                                            Clearwater, Fl, 34616

                     Dr. Thomas Cuba, Director
                     Pinellas County Environmental                          Mr. Don Moores
                       Management                                           Water Quality Manager
                     315 Court Street                                       Pinellas County Environmental
                     Clearwater, FL 34616                                     Management
                                                                            2208 Riverside Drive North
                                                                            Clearwater, FL 34624
                     Mr. Chuck Courtney
                     Director Ecosystems Management
                     Environmental Protection                               Mr. Early Sorenson
                       Commission of Hillsborough County                    Southwest District
                     1900 Ninth Avenue                                      Florida Department of
                     Tampa, Fl, 33605                                         Environmental Regulation
                                                                            4520 Oak Fair Boulevard
                                                                            Tampa, FL 33610-7347
                     Mr. Clark Hull
                     Southwest Florida Water
                       Management District                                  Mr. Elmer Spence
                     2379 Broad Street                                      Division Engineer
                     Brooksville, FL 34609-6899                             Pinellas County Public
                                                                              Works Department
                                                                            440 Court Street
                                                                            Clearwater, FL 34616







                    Listing of Participants                                                      Appendix 10
                    Stormwater Management Consensus Group
                    TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                     Page 10


                    Mr. Scott Stevens
                    SWIM/SWFWMD
                    7601 U. S. Highway 301
                    Tampa, Fl, 33634









                     Listing of Participants                                                                  Appendix 10
                     Protocols/Documentation Workshop
                     TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                 Page 11


                                               PROTOCOLS/DOCUMENTATION WORKSHOP

                                                               December 9, 1992



                     Mr. Dale Coe                                           Ms Gail MacAulay
                     Data Management Division                               Remote Sensing Analyst
                     Environmental Protection Commission                    Florida Marine Research Institute
                       of HiUsborough County                                Department of Natural Resources
                     1900 Ninth Avenue                                      100 Eighth Avenue SE
                     Tampa, Fl, 33605                                       St. Petersburg, FL 33701-5095


                     Mr. Charles Dye                                        Mr. David Stage, Staff Director
                     Pinellas County Property                               Growth Management Data Network
                       Appraiser's Office                                    Coordinating Council (GMDNCC)
                     315 Court Street                                       Office of the Governor
                     Clearwater, FL 34616                                   The Capitol
                                                                            Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001

                     Mr. Bob Keim, Manager
                     Department of Engineering Services                     Mr. David Tabor, Systems Manager
                     Hillsborough County Planning                           Management Services Department
                       and Zoning Department                                Hillsborough County City-County
                     1000 Ashley                                              Planning Commission
                     Tampa, FL 33602                                        201 East Kennedy Blvd, Suite 600
                                                                            Tampa, Fl, 33602


                     Dr. Thomas Lo
                     GIS Administrator                                      Mr. Steve Totten
                     Southwest Florida Water                                Pasco County GIS Department
                       Management District                                  7530 Little Road
                     2379 Broad Street                                      New Port Richey, FL 34653
                     Brooksville, FL 34609-6899


                     Mr. William W. Lofgren
                     Principal Planner and
                       Facilitator, TBRCC
                     Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
                     9455 Koger Blvd
                     St. Petersburg, FL 33703



                     Mr. Don Lord
                     Pinellas County Department
                       of Communications
                     315 Court Street
                     Clearwater, FL 34616















                               INTERAGENCY DATA SHARING THROUGH GIS


                                          FOR COCKROACH BAY










                                                Prepared for:


                                     Tampa Bay National Estuary Program
                                             111 7th Ave. South
                                          St. Petersburg, FL 33701





                                                Prepared by:


                                             Charles M. Courtney
                          Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County
                                              1900 9th Avenue
                                              Tampa, FL 33605



                                                 First Report

                                              September 1992








               Interagency Data Sharing Through GIS...                                               Appendix 11
               EPC Hillsborough County Report for TBNEP
               TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                Page i






                                                             FOREWORD


               This is the first in a series of two reports to the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program on an
               Action Demonstration Project entitled: m Interagency Data Sharing through GIS for Cock-
               roach Bay'.

               The %vorko under this project involves contributed effort by many agencies, but these reports
               result from the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County's analysis of
               its successes and failures in carrying out each of the five tasks in the Project outline.

               Funding for this project was delayed beyond the project start date. Nevertheless - the project
               has proceeded on schedule as originally proposed. This first report was '@ue at the
               completion of Task 2, Convening of Consensus Groups, and this task was. completed in July,
               1992. Reporting was delayed to allow the funding to catch up with the project.








               Interagency Data Sharing Through GIS...                                        Appendix 11
               EPC Hiffisborough County Report for TBNEP
               TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                       Page a






                                                  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

               This project has relied on the voluntary cooperation of a number of individuals/agencies.
               Certainly the coordinative assistance of Holly Greening and Dick Eckenrod of the Tampa Bay
               National Estuary Program helped us get underway, but it was with the consistent support
               of Bob Keim and his staff of the Hillsborough County GIS section, as well as the following
               individuals that we have progressed so far toward our goal to date: Dale Coe, Iwan
               Cheronenko, Hoostang Boostani, and Chris Dunn of the EPC of Hillsborough County; Drs.
               Steve Dicks and Tom Lo of the Southwest Florida Water Management District; Dr. Dave
               Gowan and Early Sorenson of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Carl
               Harker of the National Weather Service; Robin Lewis of Lewis Environmental Services, Inc.;
               Bill Lofgren of the Tampa Bay Regional Coordinating Council; David Stage of the Governor's
               Office; Gail MacAulay of the Department of Natural Resources; Robert Pace of the U.S. Fish
               and Wildlife Service; Yvonne Stocker of the U.S. Geological Survey and Jim Beaver of the
               Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission.








             Interagency Data Sharing Through GIS...                                          Appendix 11
             EPC HiUsborough County Report for TBNEP
             TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                          Page iii







                                                        ABSTRACT


             This first report summarizes the rationale for consolidating data for the Cockroach Bay
             Aquatic Preserve study area and describes the procedural useage of the Consensus Group
             methodology developed by the State of Florida's Growth Management Data Network
             Coordinating Council. Examples of draft and final Issue Statements are provided as well as
             examples of how this voluntary process has worked for this project. The use of Data
             Descriptive Summaries has proven to be particularly effective in targeting data for acquisi-
             tion. No major problems have been encountered to date and over a million dollars worth of
             data, already produced by public expenditure for other purposes, has already been
             transferred. The development of data is usually the most expensive phase and the sharing
             of data represents a compounding of the value of a public dollar spent while reducing the
             liklihood of needless duplication of data development.








                 Interagency Data Sharing Through GIS...                                                             Appendix 11
                 EPC Hillsborough County Report for TBNEP
                 TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                                             Page iv





                                                   TABLE OF CONTENTS



                                                                                                                            Page

                FOREWORD          ........................................................................................................................i


                ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS                 ................................................................................................... ii


                ABSTRACT        ....................................................................................................................... iii


                TABLEOFCONTENTS               ...............................  ..................................................................... iv


                LIST OF FIGURES          .............................................................................................................v


                LIST OF ATTACHMENTS              .................................................................................................A


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

                METHODS       ......................................................................................., .....................................6

                RESULTS        .........................................................................................................................9

                         TASK1             Development of a matrix and initial
                                           communication with agehcies           ...........................................................9

                         TASK2             Convening of Consensus Groups              .................................................... 10

                         TASK3             Data transformation       ......................................................................... 12

                         TASK4             Importation and Consolidation of Data            ............................................ 13

                         TASK5             Transfer to End User       ....................................................................... 13


                DISCUSSION         .................................................................................................................. 14







              Interagency Data Sharing Through GIS...                                               Appendix 11
              EPC Hillsborough County Report for TBNEP
              TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                               Page v





                                                     LIST OF FIGURES

               FIGURE                                                                             Page



                1.     A map of the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve planning area.                   2

                2.     A schematic description of the Growth Management Data Net-
                       work Coordinating Council's relationship to and interaction with
                       a Regional Coordinating Council for interagency data sharing.                4







                 Interagency Data Sharing Through GIS...                                               Appendix 11
                 EPC Hillsborough County Report for TBNEP
                 TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                               Page vi




                                                             LIST OF ATTACHMENTS




               ATTACHMENT

                       A              Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve Comprehensive
                                      Plan Amendment.

                       B              Samples of the Consensus Group Methodology,
                                      Quality and Accuracy Report Template, and
                                      Data Descriptive Summary Template developed
                                      in the Pilot Study.

                       C              Memorandum of Understanding among regional
                                      Agencies.

                       D              Initial Draft Issue Statement and blank
                                      copy of Data Descriptive Summary with
                                      instructions for completing it.

                       E              Agenda for First Consensus Meeting.

                       F              Survey Questionnaire and Results.

                       G              Second Consensus Agenda and Attendees

                       H              Second Issue Statement


                       I              Cost Estimates for Digital Data








              Interagency Data Sharing Through GIS...                                          Appendix 11
              EPC Hillsborough County Report for TBNEP
              TBRCC Report - December IM                                                            Page 1


                                                   INTRODUCTION


              The Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve bounds an area which includes the headwaters and
              oligohaline habitat for the eastern portion of the Middle Segment of Tampa Bay (Figure 1).
              Cockroach Say has some of Tampa Bay's most pristine habitat and generally good water
              quality. The Federal Coastal America's Program has recently funded $300,000 toward an
              estuarine restoration project on Cockroach Bay's northern shoreline and Florida's SWIM
              Program is funding at least an equal amount on that restoration effort Additionally, there has
              been an award of a $400,000 EPA Clean Water Act Section 319 (h) Nonpoint Source Set
              aside grant to fund construction of a stormwater system designed to treat some of the
              agricultural runoff to Cockroach Bay. Once in place, such massive public expenditures
              require some future assurance of the long term viability of the investment. Such assurance'
              comes largely through the effort of local and regional regulatory agencies. -The Florida
              Department of Natural Resources has had an approved Aquatic Preserve Managment Plan
              on the shelf since 1987, but little has been done to carry out its recommendations. Clearly,
              protection of the valuable natural resources in the Preserve has lacked implementation of a
              coordinated local management plan and there is already some evidence accumulating that
              there may be chronic problems in the Preserve related to boat propeller scarring of seagrass
              beds, water quality degradation, exotic plant encroachment, habitat modification and
              destruction.

              Through independent research, Robin Lewis (Personal Communication, 1991) has docu-
              mented serious, cumulative impacts from propeller scarring to the seagrass beds of Hole-
              in-the-Wall Pass in Cockroach Bay. The most recent NOAA Status and Trends Report (Long
              et al., 1991) has documented some of the higher levels of Chlordane and Mirex for Tampa
              Bay within the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve and recently (1991) the Florida Department
              .of Natural Resources has temporarily discontinued shellfish bacteriological monitoring in
              Cockroach Bay after closing the area to shelifishing. SWIM testing of sediments in some
              existing borrow pits of the Coastal America's site has shown some unexpectedly high levels
              of some metals (e.g. silver) and the presence of DDT.These potential water quality problems
              could be due to untreated agricultural stormwater runoff and large numbers of septic tanks
              in the Bay's watershed.

              Realizing local responsibility to protect local resources, the Hillsborough County Board of
              County Commissioners (BOCC) began efforts to offer the Preserve a higher level of
              protection. In 1991 the Board requested that the Hillsborough County City-County Planning
              Commission (HCCCPC) develop a management strategy for Cockroach Bay. A copy of the
              Comprehensive Plan Amendment drafted as a primary component of the strategy is
              included in Attachment A.

              The Plan amendment called for the BOCC to establish the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve
              Management Advisory Team (CAPMAT). In 1992 the Board sitting as the Environmental
              Protection Commission (EPC) amended Ch 1 -11 of its Rules (covering wetlands) to protect








              interagency Data Sharing Through GIS...                                              Appendix 11
              EPC HiMborough County Report for TBNEP
              TBRCC Report - December 1M                                                                Page 2

              seagrasses from intentional destruction and created the concept of "Recovery Areas* for the
              purpose of allowing areas where destruction of these marine wetlands have been.destroyed
              to recover. Four seagrass RecoveryAreas have already been established in Cockroach Bay.

              The existing data base of pertinent natural resources information that would be useful for
              CAPMAT to further develop a management strategy, monitor, and implement regulatory and
              control strategies for the Preserve is spread among a multitude of agencies and it has been
              determined that although the data are maintained and updated by each of the respective
              agencies, there should be a survey of this available data and an attempt to gather it so that
              more immediate response, based on a thorough knowledge of the resources is possible.

              In 1991 the Office of the Governor conducted a Pilot study in the Tampa Bay Region to
              develop ways that agencies could share data The idealized format for interaction between
              state agency heads sitting as the Growth Management Data Network Coordinating Council
              and local governments wishing to share or better define meta-data can be seen in Figure 2.
              The results of that study provided tools (e.g. Consensus Group Methodology, Quality and
              Accuracy Report Templates, Data Descriptive Summaries, and a Centralized Florida Spatial
              Data Directory or Card Catalogue) for implementing one of the prime recommendations of
              the NEP Implementation Plan, Data Management. Samples of these documents/method-
              ologies can be found in Attachment B. A Regional Advisory Committee (RAC) was formed
              as an outgrowth of the Governor's Pilot Study. The RAC consists of the executives of
              agencies surrounding Tampa Bay (e.g. Administrators of Counties, EPC, FDOT, FDER,
              SWFWMD) who have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (Attachment C) to cooper-
              ate in interagency data sharing together with, a Facilitator sitting at the Tampa Bay Regional
              Planning Council, who acts as liaison with the Growth Management Data Network Coordi-
              nating Council (GMDNCC) in Tallahassee. The RAC uses the consensus group methodol-
              ogy developed by the Governor's Pilot study as well as its Data Descriptive Summary, and
              Quality and Accuracy Templates to facilitate data exchange. The results of attempts to
              catalogue and transfer data by such consensus groups as well as their recommendations
              are to be transferred to the GMDNCC for review and eventual input to the modem accessible
              Florida Spatial Data Directory (Recently renamed 'Card Cataloguel. The Card Catalogue
              represents a aCorporate Memory' of the data, its quality and accuracy, as well as the issues
              addressed in the consensus Groups.

              The Tampa Bay NEP has seen the value of trying to utilize this existing system. In its draft
              Data Management Plan it reccommends keeping data in the control of individual agencies
              as an advantage that doesn't require the development and maintenance of a central
              repository, but which keeps the data sets closely linked to people who are experts on their
              contents and structure. The draft Data Management Plan also calls for the development of
              a central subject directory, designed for the specific purpose of directing users to data stored
              in the individual agencies. In a survey of agencies by NEP's consultant, 39% indicated that
              they required access to maps/maps-data, 78 % indicated that they had worked on a project
              using GIS in the last year, and 77% indicated that they, expected access to GIS to be
              *extremely important" to their work in thAnext five Vears.







             Interagency Data Sharing Through GIS...                                            Appendix 11
             EPC Hillsborough County Report for TBNEP
             TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                            Page 3




             Recognizing that: (1) there has heretofore been a  n Impediment to active sharing of massive
             amounts of already available data among agencies; (2) there is now an untested procedure
             to facilitate such data sharing; (3) the local government has a real time need to access
             specific types of data for the management and protection of a pristine embayment of a small,
             predominantly rural watershed and one of Tampa Bay's most valuable resources; and (4)
             that the NEP Data Management Strategy recommends that data be shared for specific
             purposes such as this; this projectwill demonstrate how voluntary interagency coordination
             and data sharing among involved parties can work.

             This demonstration project concentrates on the Oprocess" of data sharing in the format
             developed by the Governor's pilot study. Herein we test how well that system i6an work for
             NEP's long range goals also. This project will develop information on the pitfalls to effective
             data sharing while attempilng to demonstrate that w1dely divergent sources of data,
             important to local government, can be effectively imported for local use. Specific objectives
             of the project include:

                            Demonstrate a locally coordinated initiative in data
                            sharing to protect an important Bay resource.

                            Identify problems or impediments to using the Consensus
                            Group methodology developed by RAC for this type of
                            project. Recommend solutions to these types of Impediments for future
                           'implementation.

                            While keeping the data sets closely linked with the
                            respective producer agencies, demonstrate the
                            consolidation of data for the specific use of CAPMAT and
                            other agencies and researchers.

                            Test and demonstrate the feasibility of using the
                            state's, Florida Spatial Directory as a Central Subject
                            Directory. for NEP.







               Interagency Data Sharing Through GIS...                                           Appendix 11
               EPC HiUsborough County Report for TBNEP
               TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                           Page 4




                                                           METHODS



              In the April to June 1992 period EPC and City-County Planning (HCCCPC) staff met to
              coordinate development of a general matrix of the types of natural resources data that could
              be useful to CAPMAT. The first test of the state's Growth Management Data Network
              Coordinating Council format for data sharing was Initiated by a written notification 5/14/92
              by EPC to the RAC that EPC wished to convene a Consensus group meeting on the
              Cockroach Bay Project unless there were objections. No objections were received, so EPC
              prepared a draft issue statement over the period 5/14/92 to 6/2/92 and this draft was
              discussed extensively with HCCCPC staff, County GIS staff and with the RACs Facilitator
              (Central Information Unit), Bill Lolgren. The Facilitator, In turn, elicited comment from David.
              Stage of the Growth Management Data Network Coordinating Council In the Governor's
              Office.

              After minor revision, the Facilitator mailed the initial draft issue statement and a blank Data
              Descriptive Summary (and Instructions for completing it, See Attachment D) to the RAC
              members and other intended participants on June 8, 1992 inviting all to attend the first
              Consensus Group meeting on June 25,1992.

              Overthe period 6/8-6/22/92 the Consensus Group Chairman made telephone contactwith
              all but 2 of the targeted agencies to see if they had any questions and encourage their
              attendance at the June 25 meeting. At the time of the first Consensus meeting on Cockroach
              Bay the NEP had in hand a proposal for the implementation of a data 'management strategy
              for NEP. The proposal was under review by an NEP TAC subcommittee due for comment
              in a review meeting scheduled for 8 July. Some of the data management components
              developed by the RAC were prominently mentioned in NEPs data strategy and addressed
              in the implementation proposal (e.g. protocols = 0 & A templates, Card Catalogue = Card
              Catalogue etc).


              Over the period 6/8- 6/25 certain agencies read the draft issue statement and followed the
              directions in the invitation to the 25 June Consensus Group to prepare Data Descriptive
              Summaries. This was the first test of voluntary cooperation and included both signators to
              the Regional Advisory Committee's MOU (i.e. those committed in writing to follow these
              procedures) and other agencies who were not signators.








              interagency Data Sharing Through GIS...                                              Appendix 11
              EPC HiUsborough County Report for TBNEP
              TBRCC Report - December 1M                                                                Page 5

              Consensus Meetings- 6/25/92 and 7/9/92

              After introductions and distribution of the meeting agenda (Attachment E), a survey
              questionnaire (Attachment F), designed to ascertain the level of agency preparedness for
              the first meeting, was distributed and filled out by each participant at the beginning of the first
              consensus meeting.

              After filling out the survey questionnaire, the group began a review and revision of the draft
              Issue Statement. This effort was not concluded by the end of the meeting, the group revised
              as far as the first Action Statement. A second meeting was,therefore, scheduled for 9 July
              at 13:00 at the EPC. Prior to the 2nd meeting the Chairman again, called all invittees and
              worked with the Facilitator to revise the issue statement. The revised issue statement was
              mailed to all members of the Consensus group on July 1,1992.

              The draft issue statement revision was completed during the second meeting and finalized
              for presentation to the RAC on 8/20/92. The RAC approved the Issue Statement and a copy
              was retained by the Facilitator for future reference. Following the meeting and over the period
              7/9/92 to 7/21/92 the Chairman and facilitator broke the matrix out by agency and the
              facilitator forwarded a reminder letter to each agency requesting that Data Descriptive
              summaries be filled out for each of the data types listed for that agency.


              Over the period 8/20/92 to 10/21/92 the Consensus Group Chairman had several meetings
              with the County G IS coordinator to discuss prioritizing the list of available data layers. At the
              same time the Chairman continued to seek via telephone voluntary submittal of Data
              Descriptive Summaries from a number of Producers who had not completed and returned
              them.

              The producers of multiple data layers (e.g. SWFWMD, EPC, FONR-MRI, Hillsborough
              County) were selected as the first priority for data transfer. Because of the work involved the
              as yet unspecified needs of the as yet unappointed CAPMAT group, a decision was made
              to tryto import data in its existing format and to delay manipulation of the data (e.g. matching,
              scale correction to base map, etc) until the actual need for more specificity arose from within
              CAP MAT. Although the appointment of CAPMAT members need not occur until the end of
              1992, the Chairman has made several attempts to remind EPC Commissioners of the need
              to get appointees in place as soon as possible in order to take full advantage of the fruits of
              this project. The EPC Commissioners were not ready to involve themselves in September
              1992 and stated that the action and discussion of appointees would take place at an as yet
              undesignated future BOCC meeting.

              Once Data Descriptive Summaries were received by the Chairman, copies were forwarded
              to David Stage for inclusion inthe GMDNCC's modem-accessible, card catalogue and to the
              County GIS Coordinator.







              Interagency Data Sharing Through GIS...                                             Appendix 11
              EPC Hillsborough County Report for TBNEP
              TBRCC Report - December LM                                                               Page 6


              Over the period 8/20/92 to 9/22/92 the Chairman arranged visits to the GIS sections of
              these producers (or visits to County GIS by producers who had hard copy that needed to
              be entered into the County system) forthe CountyGIS coordinatorto meetthe principals and
              provide for discussion of the mechanisms of transfer. County GIS then began officially
              requesting the transmittal of the data. Although the County Genemap system is different from
              the GIS software of the majority of the producers (ArcInfo) Genemap does have an Arcinfo
              Import feature that was tested and found to work satisfactorily on Arclnfo export files.








             Interagency Data Sharing Through GIS...                                         Appendix 11
             EPC HiUsborough County Report for TBNEP
             TBRCC Report - December 1M                                                           Page 7



                                                 RESULTS


             The results are incomplete at this writing, however, the status for each of the action items
             listed in the proposal to NEP are listed below along with observations of problems and
             successes that were encountered at each step. Conclusions and recommendations for
             correcting problems will be reserved for the final report.

             Taskl.        Development of a matrix and Initial communication with agencies.

             The EPC and HCCCPC developed an initial natural resources matrix for the Cockroach Bay
             Planning area over the period April 1992 to June 1992. The two agencies jointly*'sp*ent over
             forty hours in this endeavor. The format for the matrix built on an effort that the FDER
             Tallahassee GIS section had developed for an internal survey of FDER and included the
             Majorcategories of: Natural Resources, Manmade Influences, Political Jurisdictions, Projects
             and Plans, and Miscellaneous. Within the major categories from 3 to 47 separate layers of
             potential interest were identified. In May the RAC authorized the formation of the Consensus
             Group. On 6/3 the Chairman was notified by the HCCCPC that the draft Comp Plan
             Amendment had been adopted locally and had been forwarded to DCA for review and
             approval. This necessitated some fine tuning of the Issue statement in the first Consensus
             Meeting.

             On 6/8 FSU Homer Hoyt Center (Steven Hodges) scheduled appointment with EPC to
             interview them on this project on 7/7. The Chairman met with staff of the Center on 7/7 and
             found out that they were working on a project funded by FDER to evaluate the consistency
             of the goals, objectives, policies, and implementation strategies contained in the SWIM,
             Aquatic Preserve and Local Comprehensive Plans for two areas in the state, one of which
             was the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve.

             Over the period 6/8 to 6/22 the Chairman had called all addressees (except SCS and the
             National Weather Service, two agencies not needed for the first meeting) to see if they had
             any questions and encourage their attendance at the first Consensus meeting and the filling
             out of the Data Descriptive summaries prior to that meeting. All but Manatee County were
             contacted. Most had not yet read the letter. All but Homer Hoyt-Center planned to attend.
             US Fish and Wildlife's addressee, Arnold Banner, was on leave and no one at US F&W know
             about the letter they had received. The Chairman was also advised that Mr. Banner might
             beleaving the agencysoon. He istheironlyGIS person and concernwas expressed that they
             might not be in a position to participate if he does leave.







              Interagency Data Sharing Through GIS...                                                  Appendix 11
              EPC Hillsborough County Report for TBNEP
              TBRCC Report - December 1M                                                                    Page 8


              Task 2.          Convening of Consensus Groups.

              Consensus group meetings provide an opportunity for experts to brainstorm issues and to
              develop solutions to common problems. This format was used for this project to refine the
              issues concerning the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve and in particular to refine the matrix
              of data types and data sources.

              The survey that was conducted at the beginning of the first Consensus meeting presented
              some interesting results: 1.) Of the 13 invitees only 4 failed to attend or send a representative;
              (2) 5 additional ainterested parties' attended; (3) All attendees had received and read      ithe draft
              "Issue statement"; (4) All but 3 attendees and all but 1 Invitee knew about the RACs Central
              Information Unit/ Facilitator's position and role atTBRPC; (5) All attendees had heard about
              Consensus groups for interagency data sharing and their purpose and all but 4 knew how
              they operate under RAC guidelines; (6) Attendees spent an average of 2.2 hrs hours
              preparing for the meeting; (7) Only 3 attendees had prepared Data Descriptive Summaries
              for this meeting; (4) All attendees were faryfiliar with the N EP and all but 4 were familiar with
              its data management strategy.

              It can be concluded from the above that the RAC procedures for"getting the word out"
              workwell, but that perhaps some additional ef fort Is needed f or those who aren't RAC
              members. It was also discovered that some who show up at these consensus group
              meetings may need a short refresher at the beginning of the meeting on how the
              consensus group operates. The biggest problem discovered was that although the
              Invitation asked attendeesto fill out data descriptive summar.les, mostfalled to do so.
              It Is suggested that this request be strengthened In future consensus group
              Invitations.

              Each attending agency devoted 3 man hours to the first meeting (1 travel + 2 in meeting) for
              a total of 53 man hours. Substantial changes were made to the first draft statement
              Predominantly in the focusing of the group on the parts of the statement that preceeded the
              matrix. The City County Planning Commission prompted several wording changes to bring
              the draft into conformance with their Comp Plan Process. Since the matrix was not
              addressed, a second Consensus meeting was scheduled to wrap'up the draft revisions.

              The second-consensus meetingwas held on 7/9/92 at 1:30 atthe EPC. Acopyof the agenda
              and attendees list is enclosed in Attachment G. The whole meeting centered around
              completing the revision of the issues statement focusing on the matrix. A copy of the final
              revised issue statement is attached Attachment H. As can be seen, the end user is now
              designated to be CAPMAT and success will be evaluated based on delivery to the County
              GIS system which will be the central repository for CAPMAT. The issue statement includes
              a plan of action and assigns responsibilities for carrying out the data sharing process. It also
              identifies for Consensus members in a section identified as "Ongoing Activitiesm a variety of
              projects that concern the Aquatic Preserve area. These include: SWIM/Cockroach Bay
              Restoration Alliance planning for the Restoration of the County's Endangered Lands







              Interagency Data Sharing Through GIS...                                           Appendix 11
              EPC Hillsborough County Report for TBNEP
              TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                           Page 9





              Acquisition parcel on the north shore of Cockroach Bay; SWFWMD's designation of the
              entire Study area as a Water Use Cautionary Zone; The county's N PDES activities in the area;
              and, the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program; FSU's Homer Hoyle Center Study. Another
              series of parallel activities in Cockroach Bay have evolved since the finalized issue statement
              and should be of interest to NEP. The EPC was petitioned by Robin Lewis to look into the
              destruction of seagrasses in the Bay by Propeller scarring. As a consequence, 6/16/92 the
              EPC amended Ch 1-11 of its Rules to add the species of seagrasses to its wetland species
              list and incorporated the concept of establishing Recovery Areas and Management Plans
              to accommodate recovery of beds that have received Impact from man. On 9/      *23/92the EPC
              established four Recovery Areas in Cockroach Say (effective when warning signs are
              installed) and funded out the EPC Pollution Recovery Trust Fund a Management Plan that
              includes patrolling by a Marine Sheriff's Deputy, enhanced education and protection by an
              Aquatic Preserve Manager, and a monitoring of the mechanisms and trends of recovery from
              propeller scarring by the USF/HCC.







              Interagency Data Sharing Through GIS...                                          Appendix 11
              EPC HilWrough County Report for TBNEP
              TBRCC Report -. December -1992-..                                                    Page 10


              Task 3. Data Transformation from participating agencies.

              Implicit in this project's goals are the capitalizing on data already developed by agencies for
              a4her purposes lor the use by CAPMAT. This capiiaiizalion compounds the usefulness of
              public dollars spent and reduces the likelihood of needless duplication of the costly data
              production process. At this writing the project has already begun analyzing the data from
              these other sources by using the Data Descriptive Summaries that have already been
              provided. Data Des%criptive Summaries have been received from:
                      A. The EPC (for non- GIS data Inclusive of Water Quality Monitoring, Old and Active
              Sanitary Landfills, Small Quantity Cenerators, Welland Delineations, Stationary Storage
              Tank Facilities, Wastewater/Sludge Application Sites, Wastewater Treatment Plants, Indus-
              trial Treatment Facifities. Air Monitoring Ambient Data, and Major Air Pollution Sources);
                      B. The Florida Department of Natural Resources Marine Research Institute (for the.
              results of the Uttla Manatee River Study inclusive of Florida Shoreline, Roads, Boat Ramps,
              Detailed Soil Maps, Artificial Reef Sites, Digitized NOAA Nautical Chart Bathymetry, Plant
              Communities, Seagrass Mappings 1990 and 1988, Land Cover 1950 and 1982, and Aides
              to Navigation);
                      C. The NEP (for Benthic sampling locations 1961 to 1989,SWFWMD/SWIM Biblio-
              graphic Data Base);
                      D. The U.S.F. & W.S. (for Land use and biological coverage of Eagle's-nests,
              Woodstork and wading bird colonies, Breeding Bird survey, Bird Nesting and Feeding areas,
              and information on 50 priority species);
                      E. The TBRPC (for a Water Quality Database);
                      F. Hillsborough County (for Phosphate Mining Map, NPDES Map, County parcel
              map, Water Ouality Map, Slosh Grid Map, Census Tract Map, Significant Wildlife Habitat
              Map, Zoning Map, Existing Land Use Map, Base Map containing physical and major road/
              railroad Infrastucture elements, SWFWtvlD 5 fooi contour map, Commission District Map,
              Primary Care Facilities Map, and Impervious Areas Map);
                      G. The U.S.G.S. (for Water Resources Databases);
                      H. The F.G. & F.W.F.C. (for Habitat cover and Wildlife Occurrence Records);
                      1. The National Weather Service @for Mieteorological Data);
                      J. Lewis Environmental Services, inc. (for Seagrass aerial cover trend Maps for 1938,
              19570 1991 and FLUCS coded Maps);
                      K The S.W.F.W.M.D. (for Section, Township and Ranges, Stormwater Management
              Permit Points, Stormwater Management Permit Boundaries, Seagrass Mappings of Tampa
              Bayfor 1988, and 1990, USDA/SCS Detailed Soils Maps fromCounty SailAtlas, FEMA Flood
              Insurance Rates 1970-1980's. Drainage Basin Boundaries of SWFWMD, Land Use/Cover
              based on FDOT Scheme Level 11, Five loot Contours. Two foot Contours and Spot
              elevations); and,
                      L The Florida Natural Areas Inventory ( for its Database on Rare/ Endangered
              Species).

              By this writing all but two invitees to the Consensus meetings (The Florida Department of
              Environmental Regulation and the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services)







            Interagency Data Sharing Through GIS...
            EPC HiUsborough County Report for TBNEP
            TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                         @R -,Pagp -11


            had provided the requested summir'les. All of the provided Data Descriptive Summ             .aries
            were transmitted to the Florida Spatial Data Directory (Card Catalogue) anct         'on 9/10/92
            David Stage (GMDNCC) provided-a workshop In Tampa wherein he demonstrated using a
            lap-top computer and modem that the Summaries were in fact in the Card Catalogue. The
            reader can dial up these summaries by calling (904)922-5928 or Suncom 252-5928.

            Since the essential role of CAPMAT will be Initia  'Ily one of conceptual. review. not much.effort
            will be initially made to try to match/ cleanup data that are transferred.-. This will be delayed
            until specific needs develop. EPC does not have GIS capability and the data that it wishes
            to transfer is being digitized.for Input to the County system over. time. with hard ..copy
            information on welland delineations and water quality stations having been already entered
            into this transformation phase. County GIS Is employing the services of a GIS technician
            through this project to accomplish the trans   'formation of EPC data. EPC and County G IS are
            also looking into the acquisition through this projectof a PC based stand alone GIS cappble
            computer so that the Chairman can monitor the progress of data accumulation by the
            County.

            Task 4. ImportatJon and Consolidation of the Data.

            The first efforts to transmit some of these data to the County GIS system were undertaken
            in September, 1992 by contact with the FDNR-MRI and SWFWMD. A test of whether data
            transformation would be necessary on Arclnro produced data was made on a sample
            provided by SWFWMD In August. The test revealed that Genemap's ArcInfo Import
            capability would work on Arcinfo Export Files. Accordingly, on 10/14/92 SWFWM D began
            transferring data layers to the County GIS Coordinator (See Attachment 1). FDNR-MRI data
            -are scheduled for transfer. in late October, 1992.

            Task 5. Transfer to End-Usei.'

            This task will be incorporated Into Task 4 reporting in the final report since the.County is the
            end user according to the changes          that Were made in the. Issue Statement after the
            Comprehensive Plan was amended.







                Interagency I. Data Sharing Through GIS...                                          Appendix 11
                EPC:Hillsborough County Report for TBNE P
                TBRCC-Report- December -1992                                                            Page 12

                                                                DISCUSSION

                                      This project has already demostrated that the Consensus Group and Data Descriptive
                Summary protocoles of the Regonal Advisory Comittes as well as the services of the 
Facilitator and Growth Management Data Network Coordinating Council work well for
protects such as this Much remains to be accomplishjed and a dogged derermination to 
complete the project must accompany any effort such as this We observed a general desire
by most participants to see the project come to fruitin, but to arrange for delivery from so
many desparate sources takes special efforts by not only the Chairman but also clear
communication about the project goals in thebebinning when agencies are firs to introdu
uced to the subject.
Each agency performs its services in connection with a project such as this over and above"
the normal duties that it must carryout on a day to day basis. This includes the County GIS
staff which has had tomake much more time avalilable relative to any of the other agencies.
it does not necssarily appear to be prerequisite that all prospective participants have
signed a Memorandum of Understandint to commit to cooperate. Under the existant MOU
only 7 signators (Hillsbourough County Environmental Protection Commission, Manatee
                County, FDER, Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitive Services and the Southwest
                Florida Water Management District) were initially deemed to be of potential value as
                producers of the sought data, and only these 7 were invited to the Consensus Group
                meetings. Of the 7 only Manatee County tailed to attend. The Florida Department of
                Environmental Regulation, even though an MOU signator, seems to have had internal
                communications problems not only not attending the meetings, but still having not provided
                a Data Descriptive Summary. The chairman specially contacted this organization several
                times, and was assured that Information would be forthcoming, but none has been
                forthcoming at this writing. Part of the problem was that the initial mailings went to the FDER
                Sloret Coordinator In Taliahassee Later, when the district ofrice was contacted, it appears
                that no one had initially been designated to handle the requests. On the other hand other
                parties who weren't MOU signators, e.g. USGS, FDNR-MRI, U.F.& W.S., F.G. & F.W.F.C.,
                Lewis Environmental Services, not only attended but have contributed any information that
                has been requested from them.

                Although Manatee County includes a potential part of the drainage basin for the study area,
                continued failed attempts to get participation have led to deleting them from the target list for
                the remaining period of this project. FDHRS, attended the meetings, but did not have data
                readily available on septic tanks, one of the data types of interest. Nevertheless, FDHRS has
                continued to meet with the Chairman and Hillsborough County's Planning and Development
                Management Department to develop a subproject for acquiring this: important data. An
                attempt is currently under way to cross-reference, parcels with areas receiving sewer service
                to develop a list (by default) of parcels on septic tank. F52DHRS staff will then ground truth the
                default list to gather the needed information.
 







              interagency Data Sharing Through GIS...                                               
                                                                                                      Appendix 11
              EPC HiUsborough County Report for TBNEP                                                    
              TBRCC Report - December 1992                                                        
                                                                                   
                                                                                                          Page 13


              Work will continue in the upcoming months as the project continues to import data from other
              sources. Some agencies such as SWFWMD and FDHRS will data layers that cannot
              be released until quality control checks confirm that the data are suitable for distribution.
              
		  Because of an expressed interest by the NEP in having a repository for data such as the
              SWIM Bibliographic Data Base, David Stage has initiated some modification of Florida
		  Spatial Data Directory to allow it to accept other than just spatial types of data.

		  During the upcoming months we will continue to import the data with project completion still
		  scheduled for January 1993. At the time I will determine success for the purposes of this
		  project. CAPMAT should be operational at that point and will take over the objective fo 
		  additional data acquisition and begin to utilize the consolidated data base. In 1993, we will 
		  also begin making the spatial and data base information available to the FDNR Aquatic
		  Preserve manager.

		  At the time of this report the author is requesting guidance from the Facilitator as to the timing
		  of requesting that the Data Producers complete Data Dictionary and Quality and Accuracy
		  templates for their various data layers.







                                                                                                                               Appendix 11
                                 Data Sharing Through GIS...
                    EPC HiUsborough County Report for TBNEP
                     TBRC     Report - December 1992                                                                                Page 14



                                                                                 ip=Z

                           IVA


                          'IL                                                                                                      took
                                                                                                                           its

                                                                                                                                           to
                                                                                                                    660
                                                                                       NE


                                                                                                             i;. 0% 4



                                  :E-,
                                                                        O"I't W? *401                 1j





                                                                          1
                                                                          to WAG
                                                                          110 'A

                           1124                    N

                                                                                  ..r                              its
                                                                                                                                              64

                                                                        Ti`
                                     ti


                                                               46" ilk,



                                                                 q









                                                       &@fw    bals     .6F
                                                       Veal.                             4--
                                                                                                                                  Oe


                                                                                         ?o,
                                                                                         . Z
                                                                                         i ,@)


                         a@




                                         e







                                                                                          77                 IN4A
                                                                                                      7-           fL., - 74-
                                               IL



               0                                                           0                                                            0                  11
                                              State of Florida
                      Geo raphic Information Network
                                  9




                                                         SUindards
                  *GMDNCC


                                                                                                                                              PO 0
                                                                 A"


                                        nsus Group                                                             S    t1d'Data Diradorry
                      Staff        co            Rs;@A;.                                                         PW
                                                                  11tator     Da [a hwent
                    ANN
                                                                                                            fiouO"nts
                  tom                              T W Wtm 3V@6__ !@t;,                                   Reports
                                                                                                          conferences
                                                                                                          Data Inventory




                           EYata
                         lfwantory--                                                                                                             8
                                                                  @z                                                                          (P  4
                                                                                                                       FAt
                                                             Con"n$&                PAQ"              r                                       P n
                                                               GrouA

                                                                                                 A Agend

                  Growth                  a Nctw  dabo@rdinating Council





I








                                                                                                          TAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY


                                                                                              @3 6668 14111866 3