[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-;CCRJ�1 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 -@� .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 &it 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 � 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