Tampa Bay Management Study

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

....................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
............................................................... ...................................................................
....................................................................................................................................
.................................... .......................................................................... ....................
.................................... ...............................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................... ...................
..............................................................
....................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................... .................
.................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
.................................... .............................................................................................
... ..................................................................................................................................
... ......................... ......................................................................................................
... ......................... ... ... ............................................................................................
.... .......................... .. ................................................................................................
..... ........................... ...I...........................................................................................
.... ........................... ...... .......................................................................................
... ............................ ...... ........................................................................................
.... ............................. .... ..... .................................................................................
... .............................. .... ...... .................................................................................
.............................. ... ..... ................................................................................
.............................. .... .... ................................................................. ..............
............................... .... .... ..................................................................................
............................... I.... ... .......................................................... ..... ...............
................................ .... .. ........................................................... ......................
............... ................ ... ........................................................... .. .. ...............
................................. .... ....................................................... ...................
.................................. ... .................................................. ... . ..................
.................................. ..................................................... ....................
.................................. ......*...*..................................... .. ....................
.................................. ...... ...................................... ....................
........................ ......... ... ....
.................
............ ...... .. ...................
.... .................................
... .................................
COA
. :
..... .................. . ..... ... ..... .....................
........... ...... .. .... ... ..... ....................
..................... ....
... ............................ .................... .... .... ....................
... ............................ .
........................... .
.. ............... ............
..........
. ..... . .....................
.............. ..
... ................................ . .....................
... ....... ....... .........
....... ..... ..
RA ............
.. .................................
.. ..............................
.. ................................ .............. ...............
... ........................ ..... ............. .............
.. . .............................. .............
.............
.... ........... ............. ...........
...... .......................... .............. ..........
....... ........................ .............. ...........
. ... ........................ .............. ..........
........................ ..............
........................ ............... ...........
.. . ......................... ............... ...........
... ........................ ............... ...........
... ......................... :
.... ........................ ... ........
.... .......................... ... ...............
...I......................... ... ................
.... ......................... ... ................ ... ....
... ........................ ................ ... .....
. ........................ ... ................. .. ......
........................ .. ... ................ . .......
............................ ... ................. ........
.. ............................. ... ................ ........
... ................................... ... .............. . ......
... ........................................ ............. ......
.. ............................................ ... .... .............. .......
... .......................................... *.......... .............. ......
... ....................................... I............ .............. ......
.................................................... .............. ......
.. .................................................... .. .............
... ................................................... ............... ......
.. .................................................... ................ ......
.. .................................................... ................. .....
.. .................................................... .................... .....
... ..................................... I.................... ..................... .....
.. ............................................................ ....................... .....
*. ............................................................. ........................ ....
... ................................................................. ........................ ...
.. ................................................................. ........................
... ................................................................ .........................
.. ................................................................ ....................... ...
... ................................................................ ......................... ....
.. ............................................................... .. ........................ ....
.. .............................................................. .... ......................... .....
.. .................................................................... .. ..................... .....
. .................................................................... .. ..................... ......
.. .............................................................. *.*,* .. ..................... ......
.. .............................................................. ...... .................... ........
.. .................................................................... .................... ........
.. .................................................................... ................... ........
. ................................................ I................... .................. ........
... ................................................................... .........
... ....................................................................
... ............................................................
.. ............................................................ ..... .........
.... ................. ....................................... ...... .... .........
... ................ .............................................. .... ........
.... ................. .................... ..........................
I. ................ ................................................
... ................. ................................................ ...
..................... ................................................. .. .. ......
... ................. .................................................... ..........
I.................... ................................................. .. ..........
...................... .................................................
I.................... .................................................. .. ...........
...................... .................................................. . ......
..................... ................................................... ...........
..................... ................................................... ............
..................... ..................................................... ............
.................... ..................................................... ............
.................... ...................................................... .. .........
.................... ..................................................... .. ..........
................... ...................I................................. . ..........
................... ..................................................... ..........
.................... .................................................... ..........
. ................. .................................................... ...........
.. ................ ....... ............................................ ...........
................... ........ ....................................... ...........
................... ....... ....................................... ...........
... ............... ....... ....................................... ............
................... ....... ....................................... ............
................... ................ .............................
.. .......I........ ...... ....................................... .
.. ................ ..... ............................................ ..............
... ................ .... ........................................... ...............
... ................ ... ..................................... ...............
.. I .................. I.. ........................................... ................
.. .................. ... ....................................... .................
.. .................. .. ..................................... ................
.. .................. . ..................................... ................
............... .........I............................ . ................
.... .............. ...................................... ............
..... ............. ....................................... .. .................
...... ........... ........................................ .....................
...... .......... ........................................ .....................
. .......... ........................................ .....................
..... .......I. .........I...........I................... ....................
...... ......... ........................................ ...................
...... ......... ..................I.................... ..................
...... ......... ...................................... .........
...... . ..... .............. ................
...... ..... ..............
...... . ..... ..............
........ ... ....................................... .... ..............
... ...................................... ..................
...... ....................................... ..................
...................................... ..................
..... ...................................... ..................
.................................... . .................
.................................... ..................
...... .................................... .................
.................................... ..............
.... .. .................................... ...........
......... ................. ... ................. .................
.......... ................................... ...................
.......... ................................... .....................
.......... ........... ........ ............. .....................
........ .................I......I....I..... ................
....... ............................*..... .....................
................................... ... ..................
....... .............................*..... ......................
....... .................................... .......................
....... ......I............................. ......................
...... .................................... .......................
..... ........ .......................
.... ........
..... ................................... ..................
... ... ........... ................... .........................
.... .. .. ...... ................... ..........................
..... . ...... ................. .........................
..... ....... ................. ..........................
..... ..... ....I............. ..........................
..... .... .................. ...........................
.............. I . ...... ...................
.. ................ .... . ....................
............ .... ....................
...... ... ................. .... ......................
..... ... .....I......I..... .. .....................
........ .................. ......................
....... .....I........... ......................
...... .................. .. ........................
............. ... ........ ..............
................. . ........................
............................
tampa bay
....................
... ... .. ..... ..............................
.................. ..........
..............................
regional
................................
...............................
planning
................................
................................
..........................
.................................
council
...................................
..................................
...................................
..................................
..................................
.................................
... ..................................
... ..................................
... .............. .................
..........................
..................................
..................................
..................................
.................. ..............
.................................
... .................................
... ..................................
... .................................
... ..................................
................................
.............................
..................................
... ....................
.. .............................
. ..............................
.............. ..............
.................................
.... .. .... .................................
.... .. .... ..................................
.... ...... .... .............................
.... .. .... ............................
.. .. ... ...................................
.. ...... .................................
...................................
.. ..... ....................................
.. .... ...................................
.. .... ................................
..................................
... .... .....................................
.....................................
..................................
........... ...........................
...............
........... ...........................
........... ............................
.......... ............................
.......... ..............................
... ...... .............. ..............
.. ...... ..............................
.. ..... .............................
.. ..............................
..............................
TAMPA BAY-""'
....................................
.... ................ ..............
.... ................ ..............
..............................
.... ..............................
. ................
..............
...................
................
................
...............
...............
............... .....
...............
.............. .....
.............. .....
............. .........
.... .........
............ ......
MANAGEMENT ST-. U.--.
...... ............ .........
................... ..........
........ .................... ..........
......... .................. ...........
.......... ..... ............ ...........
........... ................. ............
...................... ...........
.. ....... ................ . ............
... ........... .. ... ...........
.. .... ... ...........
HC
... .. . ......
..... ..........
.......... ... ........ .........
............. ............ .........
abay
q;repgiona,
planning
council

68
............... I.......... ...........................
.......................................................
....... .......................................................
........................................................
.... .................................. .......
X34
....................................
.....................................................
........ . ..... .............................................
....... .. ..... ..............................................
....... .. ..... ......... .. ......... ........
F6
.. ................................
. ... ...............................................
............................................
.... .... .. ......... ..................................
.... ..... .. ............................................
1983
............................................
.... ...... ....... ...................................
... ..... ...........................................
.... ..... ..........................................
... .... ..........................................
... ... .........................................
..................................
.........................................
..................................
..........................................
...........................................
.... ............................................
... ........................................................
.. @.. I...... ........... .................................

TAMPA BAY REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL

1983

Mayor George McGough, Chairman City of Largo
Councilwoman Saundra Rahn, vice-Chairman City of Bradenton
Mr. Joe McFarland, Secretary/Treasurer Hillsborough County
Councilmember Frederick S. Allen City of Gulfport
Mr. Cyril Blythe Andrews, Jr. Hillsborough County
Mr. Conrad Banspach, Jr. Pinellas County
Vice-Mayor James Berfield City of Clearwater
Councilmember William Bond, Jr. City of St. Petersburg
Mr. Alexander S. Byrne Hillsborough County
Commissioner Gabe Cazares Pinellas County
Mr. Joe Chillura, Jr. Hillsborough County
Vice Mayor Helen L. Ercius City of St. Petersburg Beach
Commissioner Westwood H. Fletcher, Jr. Manatee County
Mayor Sandy J. Francisco City of Oldsmar
Commissioner Vivien Grant City of Dunedin
Mayor George Henry City of New Port Richey
Mayor Robert E. Hunt City of Palmetto
Reverend Preston Leonard Pinellas County
Senator Jeanne Malchon Pinellas County
Commissioner Dean G. Mason City of Sarasota
Mr. Philip Mishkin Pasco County
Commissioner Jan Platt Hillsborough County
Commissioner Lawrence Puckett' City of Dade City
Commissioner Charles Roberts City of Tarpon Springs
Commissioner Allan Safranek Pasco County
Mayor Edward B. Simmon City of Temple Terrace
Ms. Judith Sedgeman Manatee County
Councilman Thomas W. Vann City of Tampa
Councilman William D. Vannatta City of Pinellas Park
Mr. Michael.Zagorac, Jr. Pinellas County

q
tompa bay
regional
planning
council
pa tay
;p'*la9n"n'.nlng'
cou cil
Ea

9455 Koqer Boulevard St. Petersburg, FIL 33702

TAMPA BAY MANAGVMRNT STUDY

nPCFMBER 1q83

This stuAv was conducted by the TamDa BaV Rpqional Planninq Council. with
financial assistance nrovided by the Florida nepartment of Pnvironmental
RequIation anA hv the roastal. Zone Manaqement Act of 1c)72, as amen(led,
administered bv the nffice of Coastal Zone Manaqement/National Oceanic and
Atmosoheric Administration.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES ii

LIST OF FIGURES iii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

Planninq Process 2

Manaqement Boundary 2

Goals and Objectives of the Study Committe 3

CHAPTER 2 OVERVIEW OF THE TAMPA BAY AREA 7

Natural Systems 7

Uses of the Bay and Water Related Uses of 19
the Shoreline

Current Management of Tampa Bay 46

References Cited 57

CHAPTER 3 ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN SUBCOMMITTEES 61

CHAPTER 4 REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF BAY MANAGEMENT 115
STRATEGIES USED ELSEWHERE

Federal Role in Bay Managment 115

State Role in Bay Management 116

Regional/Local Role in Bay Management 116

Case Study: Biscayne Bay 117

Case Study: Charlotte Harbor 118

Case Study: San Francisco Bay 120

Case Study: Grays Harbor Estuary 122

Evaluation Relative to Tampa Bay 124

CHAPTER 5 TAMPA RAY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 127

References Cited 129

APPENDIX I A-1

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1 Industries Permitted to Discharge into Tampa Bay, 28
Hillsborough Bay, Old Tampa Bay, Boca Ciega Bay.

Table 2 Industrial Facilities Permitted to nischage into 30
Tributaries of Tampa Bay.

Table 3 Tampa Bay Fishing Piers. 33

Tahle 4 Port Facilities Located Along Tampa Bay, Manatee 37
and Pinellas Counties.

Table 5 Port Facilities Located Along Tampa Bay, 38
Hillsborouqh Countv.

Table 6 Facility Data for Power Plants Located on Tampa 42
Bay, Tampa Electric Company.

Table 7 Facility Data for Power Plants Located on Tampa 44
Bay, Florida Power Corporation.

Table 8 List of Major Bay Concerns and Management Issues 62
Identified by Subcommittees.

Table 9 Tampa Bay Study Committee Priority Ranking of 63
Issues.

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1 Delineation of Management Boundaries 4

Fiqure 2 Zones of Tampa Bay 5

Fiqure 3 Water Ouality Levels for Turbidity, D.O., 10
Chlororphyll and Salinity
13
Fiqure 4 Food Chain

Figure 5 Landings Data 21

Figure 6 Percentage of West Coast Fish Catch 24

Fiqure 7 Projected Nitrogen and Phosphorus Decreases 27

Fiqure 8 Fishing Piers Located Alonq Tampa Bay 32

Figure 9 Marinas Located Alonq Tampa Bay 35

Figure 10 Port Facilities 36

Piqure 11 Power Plant Pacilities 40

Figure 12 Aquatic Preserves Located in Tampa Bay 51

Fiqure 13 Location of Committee Issues 64

TNTRODUCTION

CHAPTFR I

Tamoa Bay is one of the largest estuaries in the world (400 square miles)
with 1.5 million people living in the three counties bordering its shores.
This population represents a 45 oercent increase since 1970. Rapid urban
and industrial levelopment have radically changed the character and ecology
of the Tampa Bay. For instance, studies have indicated that 44 percent of
the original 25,000 acres of mangroves and marshes have been destroyed and
81 percent. of the original 7f;,1;nO acres of seaqrasses have disa *ppeared.
This habitat loss has resulted in declining populations of commercially
valuable fish and shellfish, including a complete collapse of such
fisheries as those for scallops and oysters and malor declines for bait
shrimp and spotted sea trout.

Many economically important activities have developed in coniunction with
the rapid urbanization. Many commercial enterprises are dependent on Tampa
Bay, both directly and indirectly, for their livelihood. These include
tourist and recreational suanort industries, port facilities and related
activities, and many new enterprises locating in the region. The Port of
Tampa is the nation's seventh largest port and Port Manatee is another
large port serving the Tampa Bay Area. With the Tampa Bay Channel
oresently being deepened to 43 feet, this will facilitate more intensive
shipping activity and an overall increase in commerce through the region.

Tamna Say is also a maior boating and recreational. amenity. The area hosts
several annual activities such as sailing regattas, Gasparilla Day and
other activities which draw crowds from other areas of the state and
nation. This emphasis on recreation supports a multitude of commercial
enterprises, including a maior boat building industry, area restaurants and
hotels, marinas, etc.

Tncreasinq commercial traffic, recreational activities and the trend toward
increased ecological degradation of Tampa Bay have caused both conflicts
and concern by many individuals involved in the study, use or management of
Tampa Bay.

At the present time, local governments surrounding Tampa Bay, requlatorv
agencies and many other groups present1v carry out their activities
independently. The effect of bay management by a multitude of overlapping
and often conflicting iurisdictional boundaries and interests of the user
aroups has not been investigated. Thus, a comprehensive program is needed
to i4entifv impacts and develop a manaqement strategy for Tampa Bay.

The Tampa Bay Area Scientific information Symposium (BASIS), held on May 3-
6, 1QR2, summarized all available scipntific information and data relevant
to Tampa Bay. A maior conclusion of the symposium was that scientists and
managers must take a comorehensive view of Tamna Bay when undertaking
studies or making management decisions.

BASIS organizers suggested that the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
form a Bav Manaqement Committee to initiate a comprehensive investigation
of Tampa from a variety of viewpoints. On May 10, 1982, a motion was
passed by the Council to establish the Tampa Bay Study Committee. The
Committee was charqed with the task of identifying critical bay problems
and evaluating potential solutions for those problems. Tn December 1982, a
qrant was received from the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
to help support committee activities for one year and to develop a
manaqement plan for Tampa Bay.

PLANNING PROCESS

The Tampa Bay Study Committee is composed of representatives from local,
regional, state and federal agencies, the academic community and
commerical, industrial, recreational and environmental interests.
Initially, five subcommittees were formed to specifically address
ecological, industrial, institutional, economic and recreational aspects of
Tampa Bay.

The planning process consisted of six steps: identification of the manage-
ment boundary, adoption of goals and obiectives, identification of maior
Bay management concerns, development of bay management guidelines and
identification of existing and potential implementation proqrams and
activities.

MANAGE?VNT 130TJNDARY

A two-fold definition was aeveloped to delineate the manaqement boundary,
nTamoa Bay" and the "Tampa Bav area" (Figure 1). The purpose was to
concentrate the efforts and goals on improving the area. defined as Tampa
Bav. However, it was decided that, in terms of activities and associated
effects, Tampa Bay could not be entirely separated from the Tampa Bay area.
Followinq is the orecise definition of each that was aaopted:

Tampa Bay

Tampa Bay is a connected group of estuaries: its seaward limit is
arbitrarily given as a line connecting the barrier beaches of Boca
Ciea Bay and Anna Maria Sound. Its upriver limit is anproximatelv at
the transition of shoreline veqetation from tidal to freshwater forms.
The upland limit is that line above which terrestrial land forms and
vegetation occurs. Further, the zones of TamDa Rav as defined by Lewis
and Whitman (1982) (1) were also recognizerl as the official
subdivisions of Tamna Bay (Figure 2).

Tampa Bay Area

The committee recognized that the domain of impacts affecting Tampa Bay
occuvies a larqer qeoaraphic area. The "Tampa Bay Area" was defined as
uplands and freshwaters within the combined watersheds of the bay.

GOALS AND OBJPCTIVFS OF THE STUDY COMMITTEE

Followinq are the qoals established bv the subcommittee and approved by
the full committee!

Ecology - To establish and maintain Tampa Bay as an estuarine
ecosvstem in which commonlv recognized ranqes of
scientifically valid parameters in comparable, healthy
estuaries are consistently present.

Pconomics - To identify the economic value of public anti private
entprprises that provide goods and services to the
community and need Tampa Bay as a resource essential
to their existence.

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

Institution - To provide the framework for implementing the Tampa
Bav Study Committee recommendations.

Recreation - To maximize current and future recreational benefits
for the puhlic of Tampa Bav with due concern for the
environment.

Obiectives towards developing a management program for Tampa Bay included:

- Identify uses of Tamna Bav and associated environmental impacts.

- identify methods to resolve existing and potential conflicts between uses
of Tampa Bay.

- Address and resolve iurisdictional issues.

- identify shoreline areas where increased activities will have minimum
(and maximum) impacts on Tampa Bay.

- Identify resource needs for uses of Tampa Bav.

- Develop a strateav for the restoration and protection of Tampa Bav.

Figure 1 -------- ---------
DELI14EATION OF MMAGEMU BOUNDARIES

Withlacoochee
P.
...........
R
ver
i

Pithlachascotee
River

An lote
River

Lake T

.. . .. .....

-XI

Tampa Bay

Tarpa Bay Area

FIGURE 2
82'45' 82'30' $2.15,
28*

0 0 5 .10 MILES

0 10 15 KILOMETERS

SUBDIVISIONS OF TAMPA 13AY
I OLD TAMPA SAY 5 BOCA CIEGA BAY N
2 HILLSBOROUGH BAY 0 TERRA CEIA BAY
3 MIDDLE TAMPA BAY 7 MANATEE RIVER
4 LOWER TAMPA BAY

on-

TAM A

ST.PETERSBURG\

27'
\NXxx\'

82 45, 82 30' 82 18'

SUBDIVISIONS OF TAMPA SAY- LEWIS AND WHITMAN, 1982

C14APTER 2

OVERVIEW OF THE TAMPA BAY ARRA

Tampa Bay is an important amenity to the region. It is a highly productive
natural resource providing seafood for man and natural habitat for
wildlife. It also functions as a major hub for shipping and commerce and
offers a wide variety of recreational opportunities for residents and
visitors. To provide a brief summary of all that Tampa Bay offers the
region, the following is a description of the natural systems, the uses of
the bay and water related uses of the shoreline, and the current management
of Tampa Bay.

NATURAL SYSTE34S

Tampa 33ay is a complex system composed of many components which are
interrelated and activities affecting one component can and do affect
others as well. The make-up and problems of the entire drainage basin
significantly impact the functions and inter relationships of the Bay
proper. The weather, air, land, water, plants and animals all form a
complex web of interdependencies which together make up the Tampa Bay
ecosystem.

Humans are an important and very dependent part of this overall system.
Past activities and current growth-related problems have caused long-term
changes in Tampa Bay. An understanding of the complexity of the Tampa Bay
ecosystem is necessary to solve current environmental problems and to
maintain the Bay in a manner which all citizens can be proud of. Proposed
solutions to specific problems must be evaluated in light of their effect
on all other elements within the system.

To assist in this evaluation, a review of the following natural systems is
presented: climate, geology, water quality, and biological resources.
These areas are summarized in terms of man's influences on the natural
systems and the declines in the beneficial uses of the bay.

CLIMATE

The climate of the Tampa Bay Region is humid subtropical dominated by moist
maritime tropical air masses. The latitude, proximity to the Gulf of
Mexico, and numerous inland water bodies, are the chief factors creating
the climatic conditions. Summers are long, warm and relatively humid with
frequent rainfall" while winters are mild and drier. Summer temperatures
(from June to September) average between 80-82 degrees F with maximum
temperatures averaqing near �0 degrees P along the shore and slightly
higher inland. Winter temperatureg for the months January through March
average around 65 degrees F.

The distribution and volume of the rainfall is a reflection of the climatic
conditions of the region. The relatively high regional rainfall in summer
is of convectional origin while winter low rainfall is due to middle
latitude cyclonic or frontal activities which extend into Florida during
the winter. The Tampa Bay Region is situated in the southern limit of
frontal activity and, therefore, the precipitation in winter is relatively
low.

The total mean rainfall from October through May is 17.8 inches or 27% of
the annual mean precipitation. Low rainfall during the winter season is
compensated by a summer high rainy season which occurs from May or June
through September. The percentage of the annual rainfall during these
months exceeds 60 percent. The summer rainfall is of the convectional
origin caused by tropical maritime air masses coming from northeastern
oceanic high pressure cells. In addition to the convective storms, the
summer rainfall can be increased by tropical storms and hurricanes;
however, its occurrence varies from year to year.

GEOLOGY

Tampa Bay as we know it today is the result of thousands of years of
continous changes. Nature continues to rework the details. Some
modifications enhance the bay while others seem to detract from it; but all
affect the ecosystem and its interdependent parts. Humans are becoming
more involved in the reshaping process, often inadvertently initiating
chains of events which reverberate throuqh the Bay's ecosystem. Because
human activities can have a potentially devastating effect on the entire
system, it is essential that managers develop an adequate understanding of
the Bay's geological underpinnings.

Tampa Bay lies in the midst of the Florida Platform, a sedimentary rock
platform over 5,000 meters deep which forms the basis of the Florida
peninsula. The surface of the area surrounding the Bay is covered by
Pleistocene quartz sands. The lithologies of the formations beneath are
complex and represent closely spaced depositional paleoenvironments from
marine through estuarine, riverine and even lake systems. (1)

Like most estuaries, Tampa Bay is a product of the fluctuations in sea
level caused by past alacial events. During times of lower sea level, the
four rivers (Hillsborough, Alafia, Little Manatee and Manatee) which now
empty into the Bay cut the valley which, when sea level rose again during
glacial retreat, was flooded and became Tampa Bay. The detailed history of
these streams (and probably others) is complex with each glacially
triggered event tending to obscure the next. Geologic data reveal a
complex set of environments associated with the fluctuating sea-level.
These fluctuations will continue to occur with a present trend of rising
sea level.

Since its creation, Tampa Bay's shoreline has undergone constant
modification by erosion, transport and deposition of sediments. In this
process, areas of strong relief, like peninsulas and headlands, are eroded
and smoothed by currents and tides with the materials being deposited in
other areas of the Bay. Several modifying processes continue to build and

erode land. The speed at which these modifying processes progress is
determined by a multitude of factors, including weather, currents,
composition of the affected land, tides, wind and human activities. (2)

The surface sediments in Tampa Bay are mostly quartz sand with varying
amounts of carbonate, mostly in the form of mollusc shells. According to
Doyle (3), these sediments were probabl 'v derived from the Hillsborough,
Alafia, Little Manatee and Manatee Rivers during the last sea level rise.
Currently, no sand-sized material is being added to the system under the
present high stand of sea level. These streams are also carrying only
small loads of fine sediments althouqh considerable amounts can be added
through surface runoff.

While little sediment is currently being transported by area streams,
several other factors are currently reworking the shorelines and geology of
Tampa Bay. Rising sea level is changing the shapes of the shorelines and
reworking some of the sediments through erosion and sediment transport.
Sediments are constantly being reworked by tidal currents and wind-
qenerated waves. Dredging activities are also changing sediment
conditions. Dredging can mobilize mud deposits located beneath the surface
and be a "fining process" for Bay sediments. when spoil is impounded in
the physical process of dredging, coarser material is selectively removed
but the fine fraction tends to leak back into the system. (4)

WATER QUALITY

An estuary is defined as a "semi-enclosed body of water which has free
connection with the open sea and within which sea water is measurably
diluted by freshwater from land drainage". (5) Within an estuary,
freshwater mixes with salt water, each contributing its own variety of
chemical and physical characteristics. This creates unique environments,
each of which supports different communities of organisms particularly
suited to that type of water. The greater the number of environments
available within a body of water, the greater the variety of life that is
likely to be sustained within. (6)

Physical Parameters - The physical characteristics controlling the
distribution and stability of Bay environments are temperature, salinity
and circulation, all of which are interrelated. Temperature affects the
rates of chemical and biochemical reactions within the water. Salinity, or
the concentration of dissolved salts in the water, is highly variable in
estuaries. Salinity is the highest where seawater enters Tampa Bay at its
mouth and gradually diminishes as one moves north into old Tampa Bay,
Hillsborough Bay and up the freshwater tributaries. Salinity levels also
vary at any one place depending on the volume of freshwater flowing into
the Bay (Figure 3). (7)

In addition, since the presence of salts increases the density of water,
the lighter freshwater tends to remain at the surface, while salinity
increases with depth. Perhaps the most important aspect of Tampa Bay's
graduated salinity levels is their effect on the distribution and well-
being of the various biological populations living in the Bay. (8)

FIGURE 3
TRENDS IN WATER QUALITY, 1974-1980
CHLOROPHYLL A

+
+++
(UG/L)
see
30 + + 30
+ ++
++ +++ + + + is$
+ + +
+ + + +
+ + + + +
+ + +
++ +
& + +
++ ++
++ +
+++++++
+++
20 20

SALINITY
(PPT)
10 10 &

0 0 & 4 A
74 75 76 77 78 79 80 74 75 76 77 78 79 8

YEAR YEAR

7 TURBIDITY (NTU) 8
++++++t
+ +
+ $love
+ +
+
6 +++
-+ + ++ &Lae,.
+ +
7 + +** ++++tk
1** +
+
4. p.7
+
+
5
+++
+
A **,*t*
*+
*+
*+
*+
A+ 6

DISSOLVED OXYGEN
(MG/L)

3 5
74 75 76 77 78 79 80 74 75 76 77 78 79 8
YEAR YEAR

LEGEND:

UPPER OLD TAMPA BAY

----- OLD TAMPA BAY

+++++ HILLSBOROUCH BAY

UPPER TAMPA BAY
Hillsborough County
Source: Environmental Protection Commission LOWER TAMPA BAY
.10

Estuarine circulation is also important. Water movement transports
plankton, eggs of fishes, shellfish larvae, sediments, dissolved oxygen,
minerals, nutrients and other chemicals. One of the primary factors
driving circulation of the Bay is the effects on salinity from freshwater
r iver s, streams and runof f. As f reshwater f lows seaward over a layer of
saltier, denser seawater, intensive mixing occurs. In this area, bottom
sediments are suspended and nutrients are mixed. This general pattern of
circulation is also altered by meteorological and tidal forces. Freshwater
inflow is greatest during the rainy season and winds, tides, barometric
pressure and other factors may increase or change the circulation patterns.

Chemical- Parameters - The waters of Tampa Bay are a complex chemical
mixture, containing dissolved organic and inorganic materials, including
nutrients, dissolved gases and a variety of other chemicals. Among the
important chemical constituents found in Tampa Bay are: dissolved oxygen,
carbon dioxide, nitrogen and phosphorus.

Dissolved oxygen is essential for all plants and animals inhabiting the
Bay. It is transferred from the atmosphere into the surface waters by the
aerating action of the wind and it is added as a by-product of plant
photosynthesis. Dissolved oxygen is a sensitive constituent because other
chemicals present in the water, biological processes and temperature exert
a major influence on its availability during the year. For instance, the
maximum amount of oxygen which can be dissolved in a given unit of water
increases as the water becomes colder and decreases as the water becomes
more saline.

Carbon dioxide is important because it acts as a buffer against rapid
shifts acidity and it provides carbon for plant tissue production during
photosynthesis. It is highly soluble in water and its availability is
affected by termperature and salinity.

Nitrogen is one of the major nutrients in the production of plant and
animal tissue. Its primary role is in the synthesis and maintenance of
protein. Nitrogen enters the ecosystem in several chemical forms,
including ammonia, nitrate, nitrite and other dissolved organic and
particulate forms. Through the process of nitrogen fixation, some bacteria
and blue-green algae can extract nitrogen gas from the atmosphere and
transform it into organic nitrogen. (9)

Another key nutrient, phosphorus is essential to cellular growth and
r epr oduc t ion. It is found in the water as dissolved organic and inorganic
phosphorus as well as in the particulate form. The nutrients, nitrogen and
phosphorus, are essential to the well-being of the Bay. However, it is
also necessary to maintain a proper equilibrium of nutrients entering and
being recycled in a natural ecosystem. A reduction of the natural supply
of nutrients to Tampa Bay by alterations in the freshwater inflow can have
qrave consequences while, conversely, increases in nutrients from sewage,
crop fertilizers, can also lead to adverse degradation of the water body.

These chemical and physical processes play a major role in defining the
physiological limits to the relative abundance and distribution of plants
and animals within the Bay. Each parameter contributes to the dynamic
balance among organisms, water and sediments. In many cases, human
activities have altered portions of the balance causing changes in the

overall system. Often these changes are hard to predict and cause and
effect relationships difficult to determine.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Tampa Bay supports a wide variety of marine organisms including over 200
sPecies of macroalgae, over 200 species of fish and over 1200 species of
macroinvertebrates (sponges, crabs, etc.). (10) All depend on the Bay and
their fellow inhabitants for food and shelter. Each, in turn, contributes
to the life of the ecosystem. The health of this system depends on a
proper balance between each biological, chemical and physical component.
The food-chains that support recreational and commercial fisheries in the
bay begin with marine plants in the form of mangroves, tidal marsh grasses,
phytoplankton, seaweeds and submerged grasses. These plants are used as
food by small fish and invertebrates, which in turn become food for larger
fish, birds, marine mammals and reptiles, and eventually man (Figure 4).

In addition, each type of organism has a set of physical and chemical
requirements that must be satisfied in order for it to live. Different
species have different requirements for temperature, water, salinity,
nutrients, substrate, light, oxygen and shelter. (11) These physical and
chemical variables largely determine which species will be found in a
Particular habitat.

within every habitat, communities of organisms are found which exist in a
close relationship with each other. Some provide shelter while others
serve as prey or act as predators. These relationships are numerous and
can fluctuate widely. Bay communities can be as small as an oyster bar or
as large as an entire bay. But whatever the size, these communities
overlap and intertwine with each other.

For ease of discussion and understanding the biological resources of Tampa
Bay, six representative communities are presented: Mangrove, Tidal Marsh,
Seagrass, Plankton, Benthic and Nekton Communities. The first three
communities are defined by representative plants and their associated
fauna, while the last three are defined by the characteristics of the
organisms Present in the communities. Consequently, the relative scale of
the community varies as well as the interdependence between communities.

Mangrove and Tidal Marsh Communities - These communities are composed of
emergent vegetation@ -which occurs along the low energy shorelines of Tampa
Bay. They indicate areas of frequent to infrequent saline inundation.
Mangroves and tidal marshes occupy similar zones and perform similar
functions. While the communities are sometimes mixed, mangroves are more
dominant in Tampa Bay with tidal marshes prevalent upstream of mangroves in
the tidal reaches of rivers flowing to the Bay.

In addition, Tampa Bay occurs near the northern limits for mangrove growth
and, consequently, mangrove growth is most luxuriant in southern bay areas.
In the northern bay areas, freeze damage retards mangrove growth and forest
regeneration. (12) Tidal marshes frequently occur in these areas,
particularly along the shorelines of upper Old Tampa Bay.

jo.,-Ca-nivores
[
7M
TA PA BAY FOOE, CHA_.N
(D Mangrovez and SUN
Marsh Gras
ses (D

00 MAtt

-6 PRIMARY
.W-PRODUCTION- SECONDARY PRODUCTION

"@Phytoplanktori
Plankton Feeders
(micro-al gae)

Zooplankton
Carnivores

Litte,

Sea trout
Southerr flounder
Macro-Algae
Detrital Redfish
Feeders Snook
Detritus
Tarpon

Deposit
eeder
Seagrasses
-carriveres
Mid
and
I
Epiphytes

Killifish
Spot
jA
Sea catfish
40a Tidewater silver
@-A P i nf i sh s !1i jd

Four tree species characterize the mangrove community: the red mangrove
(Rhizophora mangle) , the black mangrove (Avicennia germinans), the white
mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa), and buttonwood (Conocarpus erectus).
Primary tidal marsh species are Spartina alterniflora and Juncus
roemerianus, although the fern Acrostic-hum is also present. (13)

mangroves and tidal marshes serve several functions important to the
ecological well-being of Tampa Bay. These include:

� The extensive root networks recycle nutrients and minerals from the
anaerobic soil substrate. These nutrient contributions are
eventually returned to the estuary as decomposed plant material
(detritus). Detritus provides a malor input to the estuary's food
chain and productivity. (14,15)

� They provide valuable habitat for many marine and estuarine
organisms. (16)

� The plant communities buffer adjacent uplands from storm tides and
winds and serve as a storage area for those waters. (17)

Several natural and man-induced stresses have altered these communities.
For mangroves, natural or biotic stresses include freezes, hurricanes,
rising sea-level, gall-forming fungi, boring insects and burrowing isopods.
Man-induced stresses include direct distruction from dredge and fill and
indirect damages from changes in upland drainage, bulkhead placement and
other changes. Recent analyses indicate that 44 percent of the original
25,000 acres of mangroves and marshes have been destroyed. (18)

Seagrass Communities - Seagrasses are submerged flowering plants, of which
five species occur in Tampa Bay: Thalassia testudinum (turtle grass),
Syringodium filiforme (manatee grass) , Halodule wrightii (shoal grass) ,
Ruppia maritima (widgeon grass) and Halophila engelmannii. The dominant
species are turtle grass and shoal grass.

Extremely productive habitat, seagrasses serve the following important
functions: (19, 20, 21)

o Seagrasses have high growth and production rates.

o The leaves support large numbers of epiphytic organisms with biomass
approaching that of the seagrasses themselves.

0 Although few organisms feed directly on them, seagrasses produce
large quantities of detritus which serves as a major food source for
many species.

o Seagrasses bind sediments and prevent erosion, in turn providing a
quiescent environment in which a great variety of organisms can grow.

o Seagrasses act as nutrient buffers, taking up nitrogen and phosphorus
and releasing them later when the plants decay.

The distribution and abundance of seagrasses is affected by many factors,
including light penetration, substrate, salinity, turbulence, water

chemistry, toxic substances and nutrients. Changes in these factors ancl
direct destruction of seaqrases from dredge and fill, boat propellers, bait
shrimp dredging, etc. ha ve caused serious long-term losses in seagrass
acreage in Tampa Bay. Recovery is often very limited as seagrasses are
sensitive to turbidity, water quality changes and damage by boating
activities. For instance, Thalassia can take from two to five years to
revegetate once disturbed by boat Dropellers or other impacts. (22)

It is estimated that approximately 76,500 acres of seaqrasses historically
occurred in Tampa Bay. Due to various stresses, an estimated 19% of those
acres remain today. This drastic alteration of one of the largest and most
productive communities has had severe repercussions on the overall health
of Tampa gay. For instance, the drastic loss of seaqrass habitat in Boca
Ciega Bay and resultant fisheries loss has been estimated as an annual
monetary loss of $1.4 million. (23)

Plankton Community - These are composed of predominantly microscopic
species, plankton include phvtoplanktonF zooplankton and bacteria. An
important and representative community, these organisms exist at the mercy
of the currents and tides, floatinq and drifting with the water's
movements.

Phvtoplankton are tiny, one-celled plants which often occur in colonies
known as algae. There are numerous varieties and the number and diversity
of species can fluctuate widely. These fluctuations are a result of a
variety of natural and man-induced chanqes in the bay, such as temperature
and weather changes, water quality changes, and nutrient enrichment.

Because phytoplankton reproduce quickly, changes in chemical conditions,
such as addition of nutrients, may cause rapid changes in the number and
diversity of species. Such changes may result in the increased abundance
of a single species, often called an algae bloom. Bloom conditions can
result in lowered levels of dissolved oxygen, light penetration, and other
physical and chemical changes. These changes affect other organisms and.
communities with visible results such as fish kills.

Using chlorophyll a as a measure of planktonic standing stock,
phytoplankton levels are highest in Hillsborouqh Bay and upper Old Tampa
Bay. Freshwater discharges, poor circulation and slow mixing in these
upper reaches of the estuarv act as nutrient or particulate "sinks" which
can lead to algal blooms and low oxygen conditions. Some of the causes of
slow mixing and poor circulation are natural and man-made constrictions,
such as bridges and causeways. Total numbers of plankton per volume of
seawater decrease with distance from freshwater or other discharge
influences while diversity (number of species) increases. (24)

Zooplankton are microscopic animals which feed on phvtoplankton, other
zooplankton, plant matter and bacteria. Zooplankton include the larvae of
benthic animals and fish. Most of the different zooplankton species are
found throwhoift Tamna Bay and have maximum levels of abundance during the
warmer seasons. Little is known about the specific feeding habits of
zooplankton in Tampa Bay and the utilization of these zooplankton as food
by organisms at hiaher trophic levels. (25)

Bacteria are the decomposers and their primary function is to break down
dead matter, particularly plants. They feed on the detritus and are then
eaten by larger organisms and so on up the food chain. This process makes
the nutrients in dead plants and animals available for consumption by
larger organisms.

Bacteria are either normal residents of the Bay or can be introduced
through various pathways including human sewage and surface runoff. The
variety that specializes in feeding on human waste are called coliform
bacteria. Coliforms in themselves are not normally harmful. They are,
however,. an indicator that pathogens (disease-producing bacteria) may be
present. ' More coliforms are likely to be found near large population
centers.(26)

Most of the bacteriological data available on Tampa Bay are assessments of
sanitary significance, primarily coliform counts. Sanitary water quality
trends are mixed. During the 1970's there were significantly positive
improvements in the treatment of some sewage discharged to the bay. As
population and. urbanization continue to increase in the Tampa Bay drainage
basin, maintenance of adequate water quality will depend on uniform
application of high sewage treatment standards and on the control of urban
runoff. (27)

Benthic Communities - The organisms that live on and in the bottom of the
Bay form a complex assemblage of communities. Commonly termed benthos,
they are considered in terms of the animal components. However, the plant
and bacterial components are also important. The roots and lower portions
of submerged aquatic vegetation, such as seaqrasses, supply physical
support for a wide variety of organisms. An oyster bar that supports many
small organisms is an example of a benthic community. Benthic communities
also exist on bare, unvegetated sediments, but numbers may be more limited
because there is less protection against predators. (28)

Factors influencing the occurrence, numbers, and types of species occurring
in a benthic community include salinity, sediment type, oxygen, pollution
and habitat alteration. Commercially valuable benthic organisms include
oysters and blue crabs. Less commercially important benthic species
-include barnacles, sponges, worms, and clams.

The benthic community has an important effect on the physical and chemical
condition of the sediments, especially the upper eight to ten inches.
Filter feeders, such as oysters and clams, pump large volumes of water
through their bodies and extract food from it. Infaunal deposit feeders,
such as worms, plough through the sediments in search of food. Predators
such as the blue crab scurry across the sediment surface. These activities
all help to keep the sediments stirred up, increasing the rate of
diffusion, or exchange, of materials into the water and facilitating the
passage of oxygen into the sediments.

Benthic animals also affect the structure of the sediments. Some build
tubes or burrows through which they pump water. Many benthic animals bind
sediments together in fecal pellets which settle more readily. If toxic
chemicals are Present in the sediments, they can be taken up by benthic
fauna, and in some cases harm them. (29)

A recent analysis of studies on the benthos of Tampa Bay came to the
following conclusions: (30)

(1) Approximately 1,200 infaunal and epifaunal benthic species inhabit
Tampa Bay; (2) Seasonal fluctuations in the abundance and diversity of
benthic macroinvertebrates are pronounced; (3) Long-term cyclic defaunation
(approximately 5 years) appears to occur on a regular basis; (4) Seagrass
beds have declined with a concomitant decrease in faunal diversity; (5)
Opportunistic and "pollution indicator" species are abundant at several
locations of the Bay, particularly in Hillsborough Bay; (6) Sediment type
appears to be the controlling factor in determining faunal distribution in
the Bay; '(7) A general increase in species richness and a decrease in
abundance is evident on a north to south gradient in the Bay. Changes in
salinity and sediment type, the influence of the Gulf of Mexico in the
southern reaches of the Bay and the lower incidence of pollution and
habitat alteration in lower Tampa Bay are inferred as causes for this
gradient.

Nekton - The swimmers of the bay, nekton control and direct their movements
throughout the bay. They include -fish, marine mammals, certain
crustaceans, squid and other invertebrates. Tampa Bay supports at least
203 species of fish, many of important sport and commercial fishing value.
(31)

Since nekton can control and direct their movements, many spend only part
of their life cycle within Tampa Bay. The bay provides nursery areas for
larval and juvenile fishes and many species utilize Tampa Bay during their
early life staqes. One study reports that 80-90% of the commercial and
sport f ish species depend on the bay during all or part of their life
cycle. (32)

Records of seasonal migration and distribution indicate that most spawning
occurs during the spring and early summer in the nearby Gulf and throughout
much of Tampa Bay. A smaller spawning peak occurs in the fall. During and
following these spawning periods, the larval and juvenile fish migrate to
the shallow, protected areas of the bay where they mature.

Factors governing the abundance of nekton include salinity variations,
habitat type, predation, fishing pressure, etc. in the past, the loss of
habitat has caused a serious decline in the fishery resources, particularly
the dredging and filling of Boca Ciega Bay. The loss of estuarine habitat
is a major concern since numerous species depend on the availability of
nurseries for their survival, and, eventually, recruitment into the adult
population. (33)

MAN'S INFLUENCES ON THE NATURAL SYSTEMS

During the history of man's presence along the shores of Tampa Bay, several
modifications to the natural systems have taken place. Early activities
included the building of shell mounds in mangrove forests by Indians and
the dredging of shoals for navigation improvements in the 18801s.

These modifications greatly altered small areas of the bay but qenerally
left the natural systems functioning normally. However, large scale
alterations began in the early 1950's and accelerated during the 1960's.
Massive dredging and filling and increased untreated sewage discharges
altered the balance of plant types and eliminated large areas of important
habitat. For example, 44% of the marshes and mangroves and 80% of the
submerged seagrass meadows that once existed in Tampa Bay have disappeared.

This has resulted in long-term changes to the other biological communities
and negative impacts on the quality of water and other bay resources. For
instance, commercial harvests of fish and shellfish within the bay have
declined, scallop and oyster fisheries have collapsed completely and major
declines for bait shrimp and spotted seatrout have also occurred. (34)

With the realization that severe environmental damaqe had been done to the
bay, laws and regulations were passed during the late 1960's and early
1970's in an effort to stop the deqradation of the bay. These laws
included those to prevent damaging physical alteration of the bay, such as
dredqina and filling of valuable shoreline areas of mangroves and
seagrasses, and those attempting to stop chemical alteration of the bay
through control of discharges of industrial wastes and municipal wastes
such as partially treated sewage.

While these laws currently control or address most of the flagrant
alterations of the bay, some physical alteration is still occurring
(primarily harbor deepening) and chemical alterations are still poorly
understood. Several studies are being conducted to understand and control,
from a regulatory point of view, these alterations. However, more work is
needed to understand and control the activities that may neqatively impact
the bay. In particular the over-enrichment of the bay due to excess
nutrients from sewage, urban runoff and aqricultural fertilizers in rural
runoff are still a ma-lor problem contributina to the continued decline of
submerqed seaqrass meadows and periodic noxious alqal blooms, such as those
that historically have occurred in Hillsborouqh Bay next to downtown Tampa.

Through past and current activities, man continues to influence the natural
systems of Tampa Bay. It is necessary to not only control destructive
activities but to seek ways to constructively correct past mistakes. In
order to understand the effects of individual, apparently insignificant
actions, it is necessary to understand the major components and dynamic
processes governinq the Bay. By understanMinq these interacting principals
and how pollutants are affected by them, resource manaaers and residents of
Tampa Bay can strive to improve and maintain the Bay as an important
regional resource.

USES OF THE BAY AND WATER-RELATED USES OF THE SHORELINE

Tampa Bay is used for many different activities including recreational
pursuits, commercial enterprises, and transportation. Uses of the bay for
water related activities occur in the water itself and along the shoreline.
In addition, many of these activities are either related to other
activities or support larqer industries which may or may not be located
along the shoreline. This section is divided into three areas: major in-
bay uses, water dependent uses, and additional uses or enterprises
dependent on bay use.

MAJOR IN-BAY USES

Many uses of the water column are recreational in nature and include
boating, water-skiing, skin and scuba divinq, spear fishing, sport fighinq,
swimming and viewing. Other uses include commercial fishing, living
facilities (houseboats and liveaboards), transportation, utility corridors
and receiving waters.

Recreational Boating

Little information exists on actual boating use in Tampa Bay. All types of
boating activities take place in Tampa Bay although much of the
recreational boating also occurs in the Gulf of Mexico. There are also
several sponsored boating events which attract people to Tampa Bay from
other areas of the state. For instance, the St. Petersburg Yacht Club
sponsored approximately 150 yachting events in Tampa Bay (and, in some
cases, includinq surrounding areas). These included all types of sailing
races, regattas, wind surfer events and other boating activities.

ouality of available boating activities and accessibility are two main
factors that can limit recreational boatinq. Several factors can limit the
quality of available activities or the desirability to pursue those
activities and include the boater's perception of water quality, water
clarity, scenic amenities, etc. Access to the water and boating facilities
are important factors in the use of Tampa Bay for recreational boating.
Boaters gain access to Tampa Bay in three ways: by using boat ramps,
individual slips (residential or marina) or marina launching facilities.
These are discussed in the section on marinas and launching facilities.

Boating Related Activities

Boating related activities include water-skiing, skin and scuba diving,
spear fishing, sport fishing, swimming, collecting and viewina. The
intensity of these activities varies according to such factors as season of
year, day of the week, weather, accessibility, income of the boat owner,
and desirability of an area for undertaking the activity.

Many areas of the bay are not suitable for some of these activities. on
many days, most of the open bay is too rough for waterskiing while
visibility is poor in most areas of the bav, particularly the upper
portions, so that skin and scuba divinq is rarely undertaken. in addition,

many areas of the bay are not always suitable for body contact with the
water due to health factors. However, it is difficult to assess the health
impacts of many areas due to lack of sampling and information provided by
health agencies.

Swimming

Local health departments sample coliform levels at approved public swimming
areas to determine suitability for swimming in accordance with Chapter 1OD-
5, Florida Administrative Code. In most cases, a sanitary survey and
routine monitoring of the water for bacterioloqical quality are performed.
While many areas of Tampa Bay are safe for swimming, individuals must do so
at their own risk outside of areas approved for public swimming. In
addition, there are areas which are qenerally " not recommended" by the
health departments for swimming or bodv contact due to a high probability
of poor water quality. These areas include the northern portions of Boca
Ciega Bay, an area approximately 1/4 - 1/2 mile east of the DeSoto Bridge
in Bradenton (near a sewaqe treatment and industrial outfall), and any area
in Hillsborough County outside the five approved swimming beaches. (35)

Some public bathing areas are periodically closed due to high coliform
bacteria levels and the indicated potential health hazard. In many areas
around Tampa Bay, this occurs after periods of heavy rainfalls when
pollutants are carried from urban areas into public waters. These areas
are re-opened when coliform levels are reduced to a safe level.

Commercial Fishing

Tampa Bay serves as a nursery and habitat area for many commercially
valuable species of fish and shellfish. Figure 5 shows landings data for
Manatee, Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties for the following important
estuarine dependent species: spotted sea trout, black mullet, red drum,
blue crab, and bait shrimp. Landings data show only data for species which
were landed in these counties and may have been caught outside the county
boundary. In particular, the data include landings in Tarpon Springs which
may have been fished in estuarine and offshore areas to the north. Only
estuarine dependent species were chosen in order to qet a more accurate
estimate of the importance of Tampa Bay to commercial fishing.

The data vary considerably from year to year with spotted sea trout and
bait shrimp showing a marked decline in recent years. Several factors
could account for this including an overall decline in numbers of
organisms, loss of habitat, chanqe in fishing pressure, etc.

Fiqure 6 indicates the percent of Florida's west coast catch for blue crab,
black mullet, red drum and spotted seatrout. As would be expected the
importance of spotted sea trout catch has shown a steady decline but not as
dramatically as the pounds of catch. Black mullet have the largest market
of west coast catch of any of the species with generally between 20 and 30
percent of Florida's west coast catch.

FIGURE 5
LANDINGS DATA

3500

3000

2500
0
0
0

2000

1500

1000

500

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980
YEAR

TAMPA BAY: BLUE CRAB

12000 -

11000

10000

0 9000
0
0

8000

u 7000

U). 6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980

YEAR
TAMPA BAY: BLACK MULLET

,),I

FIGURE 5 CON'T

1500

1400

1300

1200

1100

1000
0
0
0 900

800

700

600
co
500

400

300

200

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980

YEAR

TAMPA BAY: SPOTTED SEATROUT

600

500

o 400

300

cn 200
-i

100

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980

YEAR

TAMPA BAY: RED DRUM

FRURE 5 CON'T

50000--

40000

0
0

30000--

z 20000

w
Li

10000

1950' 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980

YEAR

TAMPA BAY: BAIT SHRIMP

Source: Department of Natural Resources
National Marine Fisheries Service

FIGURE 6
PEWENTAGE OF WEST COAST FISH CATCH

loo

Lo
0 60

w 50

0 30
-j
LL

L.L
0 20
.-o

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980

YEAR

TAMPA BAY: RED DRUM

100--

90--

L) 80--

0
60

U)
ui
3: 50--

U)
40--

0
-1 30
LL

LL-
0
20--

io --

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980

YEAR

TAMPA BAY: SPOTTED SEATROUT

FIGURE 6 CON'T

100--

90--

so --

70--

U)
0 60--

(n
w 50--

< 40--
2
Ir
0
-1 30--
U-

LL.
0
20--
'0 L
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1;80'
YEAR,

TAMPA BAY: BLUE CRAB

100

7
so

L)
70

0 60

Uj 50
3:

(n
< 40

Cr
0 30
-i
U-

LL
0 20

.-0
10

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 i9so

YEAR
TAMPA BAY: BLACK MULLET

Source: Department of Natural Resources
National Marine Fisheries Service

Living Facilities

Tampa Pay is used as a living facility by many boatowners on a permanent or
transient basis. Liveaboard dockage is provided at five marinas in the
area: Bahia Beach, St. Petersburg Municipal Marina, Blind Plass Marina,
South Pasadena Marina and Hubers Yacht Harbor. Zoning and other
restrictions prohibit liveaboards in most other areas of Tampa Bay.

Receiving Waters for Poor Quality Water

Currently Tampa Bay is used as a receiving water for treated waste water
effluent "industrial discharges and as a receiving body for poor quality
stormwater runoff. A survey conducted by the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation (DER) in 1980 concluded that non-point sources
were a maior contributor of nutrients and recommended that point source
reduction of sewage discharge was necessary. (36)

In 1982, surface waters received domestic effluent from 49 permitted
sources which include facilities with design capacities ranging from 10,000
to 60 million gallons per day. Domestic point sources in 1982 discharged
61.75 billion qallons of effluent to Tampa Bay and its associated
tributaries as compared to 59.28 billion in 1980, a 4.16% increase in total
annual flow. Moon (1983) attributes the increase to population growth,
higher than average rainfall and associated infiltration problems with
collection systems. However, in the same time period, from 1980 to 1982,
total nitrogen values decreased 6% and total phosphorus values decreased
11%. Four kinds of changes account for these decreases: (37)

1. Several large facilities have been taken off line and now serve as
pumping stations to a larqer facility;

2. Several plants have provided alternative treatment techniques such as
spray irrigation, deep well inlection and pumvinq to larqer facilities;

3. A trend to hook up small facilities (less than 10,000 gallons per day)
with larger, more efficient plants, and

4. Improved plant efficiency.

Many facilities are being redesiqned to accomodate land disposal, deep well
iniection or be tied to larger, more efficient facilities. As a result of
these projected changes, Moon (1983) estimates a 30% decrease in total flow
to Tampa Bay from domestic sources resulting in a prolected 45% decrease in
total nitrogen and a 35% decrease in total phosphorus (Figure 7).

There are currently 23 industries which are vermitted to discharge directly
into Tampa -Bay waters according to DER's National Pollutant Disharge
Elimination System (NPDES) nermit files (Table 1). In addition there are
116 industries which are permitted to Aischarge into the tributaries of
Tampa Bay. Table 2 lists the type of activities (based on the Standard
Industrial Classification Code) and number of each facility currently
permitted to discharge into the tributaries of Tampa Bav. (38)

FIGURE 7

PROJECTED NITROGEN
AND PHOSPHOROUS DECREASE9

NITROGEN

FLOW
TAer
0 BAY
Ts- Ui
0
> m
M

LO
rl-
GULF
m
0 F Cf)

MEXICO

0'82' 84'

Cl)
C@
C*4
0 CO -A
[7-7,-, . W'
9N t" -
7_V

N
-HH

KILOMETERS PHOSPHOROUS

0 10

Source: moon, 1983

TABLE 1
INDUSTRIES PE144ITTED TO DISCHARGE INTO TAMPA BAY
HILLSBOROUGH BAY, OLD TAMPA BAY, BOCA CIEGA BAY

sic Receiving Water/
County Facility Name Code* Type of Facility City Location

Hillsborough Cities Service 5171 Petroleum Balk Sta- Tampa Bay/Tampa
oil CC) tions & Terminals

Donald Graves 0279 Animal Specialities Tampa Bay/ruskin
Fish Farm

Gardinier East 2819 Industrial Hillsborough Bay/
Inorganic Hillsborough Cty.

Gul f Oil 5172 Petroleum Products 01 d Tampa Ba y/
Tampa

Honeywell Info. 3679 Electronic Com- Old Tampa Bay/
Systems ponents Hillsborough Cty.

Ideal Cement 5039 Construction Hillsborough Bay/
Materials Tampa
International 1475 Phosphate Rocks Hillsborough Bay/
Minerals & Hillsborough Cty.
Chemicals

McDill Defense 5171 Petroleum Balk 01 d Tampa Ba y/
Fuel Supply Stations & Term- Tampa
inals

Murphy Oil Oorp. 5171 Petroletzn bulk Tampa Bay/rIampa
Stations & Term-
inals

Proctor & Sons 0279 Animal Specialties Tampa Bay/Ruskin
Tropical Fish
Fa rm

St. Tringali Co. 2092 Fresh or Frozen Pack- Tampa Bay/Tampa
aged Fish

Shell Oil, Port 5171 Petroleum bulk Tampa Bay/Tampa
Tampa stations & Terminals

Tampa Electric- 4911 Electric Services Rillsborough Bay/
Big Bend Steam Hillsborough Cty.

Tampa Electric- 4911 Electric Services Hillsborough Bay/
Big Bend Unit #4 Ruskin

TABLE 1 (continued)

Tampa ELectric- 4911 Electric Services Hillaborough Bay/
Gannon Steam Hillsborough Cty.

Tampa ELectric- 4911 Electric Services Hillsborough Bay/
Hookers Point Tampa
Steam

Union Carbide 2813 Industrial Gases Tampa Bay/Tampa

U.S.A.F. MacDill 9711 National Security Hillsborough Bay/
AFB Hillsborough Cty.

Pinellas C & G Devco 4952 Sewerage Systems Tampa Bay/Pinellas
County

Doe Pinellas 9631 Regulation, Admin- Boca Ciega Bay/
Plant istration of Pinellas Cty.
Utilities

Florida Powe r 4911 Electric Services Tampa Bay/Pinellas
Corp - -Bartow ODunty
Steam

Florida Power 4911 Electric Services Tampa Bay/Pinellas
Corp. -Higgins County
Steam

USN-Naval Bes. 9711 National Security Tampa Bay/St.Pete
Center

Source: Florida Department of Environmental Fegulation, 1983

*SIC = Standard Industrial Classification

TABLE 2

INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES PERMITTED TO DISCHARGE INTO TRIBUTARIES
OF TAMPA BAY*

SIC CODE TYPE OF ACTIVITIES NUMBEROF FACILITIES

0241 Dairy farms 1
0279 Animal specialities 46
0723 Crop preparation services for market 1
0921 Fish hatcheries and preserves 16
1422 Crushed and broken limestone 1
1475 Phosphate rock 5
2033 Canned fruits and vegetables 1
2034 Dehydrated fruits, vegetables, soups 1
2037 Frozen fruits and vegetables 1
2082 Malt beverages 1
2092 Fresh or frozen packaged fish 1
2873 Nitrogenous fertilizers 2
2874 Phosphatic fertilizers 2
2879 Agriculteral chemicals 1
2911 Petroleum refining 1
3241 Cement, hydraulic 1
3341 Secondary nonferrous metals 2
3411 Metal cans 1
3471 Plating and polishing 2
3811 Engineering & scientific instrunents 1
4011 Railroads, line-haul operating 1
4222 Refrigerated warehousing 1
4226 Special warehousing and storage 1
4911 Electric services 1
4922 Natural gas transmission 1
4941 Water supply 1
4952 Sewerage systems 8
5171 Petroleum bulk stations & teminals 3
6515 Mobile horne site operators 6
7033 Trailering parks for transients 2
7215 Coin-operated laundries and cleaning 2
7394 Equipment rental & leasing 1

115

Source: Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, 1983

*Based on National Pollutent Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Pe xmits

WATER DEPENDENT USES OF THE SHORELINE

There are a number of land uses that depend on Tampa Bay for their
existence and frequently require a landside base directly at the water's
edge. In addition, many commercial, recreational, or navigation and
shipping activities are also either water dependent or substantially water
oriented.

Stationary Fishing

In spite of extensive waterfront development, there are still some areas
along the Bay shoreline that provide good stationary fishing. These
include bridges, canal outlets, public seawalled areas, and several fishing
piers located along Tampa Bay (Figure 8). Table 3 identifies the services
and features provided at area fishing piers. (39)

Marinas and Launching Facilities

There are 47 public and private marinas located within the boundaries of
Tampa Bay (Figure 9). This figure does not include private facilities at
condominiums, residences, private clubs, etc. which are not available to
the public. The publicly-available marinas provide 3562 wet and 1310 dry
slips, respectively. In addition, some of them provide many other services
including boat ramps, pump out facilities, fuel, eating facilities, boat
lifts, rentals and repair, etc. A summary of available facilities for each
marina is provided in Appendix I.

In addition to marinas, there are numerous boating launching facilities
located along the shores of Tampa Bay. A large portion of recreational
boaters, particularly those with smaller boats, use boat ramps. Factors
determining use of boat ramps include proximity to residence, proximity to
destination point, quality of ramp and facilities available at ramp. An
analysis of boat ramps along Tampa Bay indicated that there were an
adequate number of launching facilities. However, many of the boat ramps
needed improvements such as general maintenance, increased parking
facilities, lights, and restroom facilities

Port Facilities

There are several port facilities and shipping terminals located along
Tampa Bay. The nine major facilities include Bayboro Harbor, Port Tampa,
Rattlesnake, Hooker's Point, Rock Port, Port Sutton, Port Redwing, Big
Bend, and Port Manatee (Figure 10). Tables 4 and 5 summarize the land
available, management data and facility data for each of these sites.

Power Plants

There are six power qeneratinq plants existing along the shores of Tampa
Bay (Fiqure 11). The three plants owned by Fl orida Power Corporation are
the A.W. Higgins Plants located near Oldsmar on Old Tampa Bay, the P.L.
Bartow Plant located south of Gandy Bridge in Pinellas County and the
Bayboro Plant located adjacent to Bayboro Harbor in St. Petersburg. The
three plants owned by Tampa Electric Company are the Hooker's Point Station
in Tampa, the Gannon Station, also located adjacent to Hillsborough Bay and
the Big Bend Station located south of the Alaf ia River. In addition, the

FIGURE 8
FISHING PIERS LOCATED -------------
ALONG TAMPA BAY
-------------------------------------

----------- ---------------------------------------------

4 1

. .... ......d
............. .

. .. .. ......

................

MANATEE COUNTY

.1. Anna Maria City Pier
2. Rod and Reel Pier
................
3. Bradenton Beach Pier
........... ..... ......
... .........
5 PINELLAS COUNTY

10 4. Oldsmar Pier
5. The Pier
6. Safety Harbor City Pier
7. Andrew Potter Pier
------------------------------------
8. Family Pier I
J
7 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY

2 9. Williams Park
10. Ballast Point Pier

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Source: Aska, 1983

-----------------

TABLE 3
TAMPA BAY FISHING PIERS

Pier Features

Daily operating Length from Depth Lighted Capacity Best Fishing Restrictions
Pier Name/City Services Provided Hours Shore(Ft) at Face(Ft) Months

l.Oldsmar Pier/ Free Parking 7a.m.-llp.m. 500 3 No Unknown 1-4 (e)
Oldsmar

2.The Pier/St. Food,Bait,Tackle Sale, 24hrs 1800 16 Yes 200 1-6;10-12 (N/R)
Petersburg Public Telephone,Free
Parking,First Aid, Fac-
ilities,Rest Rooms.

3.Safety Harbor Food,Bait,Ice,Tackle 24hrs 650 4 Yes 50 1-3;10-12 (N@R)
City'Pier/ Sale,Tackle Rental,Free
Safety Harbor Parking

W 4.Andrew Potter Food,Bait,Ice,Tackle 6a.m.-8p.m. 1000 10-12 Yes 3-400 1-5;9-12 (b,c,e)
Pier/Tierra Sale,Tackle Rental, 24hrs fishing
Verde Public Telephone,
Free Parking,Rest
Rooms.

5.Family Pier I/ Food,Bait,Ice,Tackle 8a.m.-5p.m. 500 19 Yes 150 1-12 (b,c,e)
Tierra Verde Sale,Tackle Rental,
Public Telephone,Free
Parking,First Aid,Fac-
ilities,Rest Rooms.

6. Williams Park/ Free Parking, Rest 24hrs 100 6 No 40 3-6;10-12 (h)
Gibsonton Rooms.

7. Ballast Point/ Food,Bait,Ice,Tackle 6a.m.-la.m. 1400 8-10 Yes 2-300 6-12 (c,d,e)
Tampa Sale,Tackle Rental,
Tournament Scales,Pub-
lic Telephone,Free
rarking,First Aid Fac-
ilities,Rest Rooms.

TABLE 3 (Continued)
TAMPA BAY FISHING PIERS

Pier Features

Daily Operating Length from Depth Lighted Capacity Best Fishing Restrictions
Pier Name/City Services Provided Hours Shore(Ft) at Face(Ft) Months

8. Anna Maria City Food,Bait,Ice,Tac- 7a.m.-.llp.m. 735 14 Yes 250 5-9 (c,d,e)
Pier/Anna Maria kle Sale,Tackle
Rental,Free Parking
First Aid Facilities,
Rest Rooms.

9. Rod and Reel Food,Bait,Ice,Tac- 7a.m.-6p.m. 300 21 No 100 1-12 (a)
Pier/Anna Maria kle Sale,Tackle 24 hrs fishing
Rental,Public Tele-
phone,Free Parking,
4.
First Aid Facilities,
Rest Room.

Source: 461ka 1983

(a) No short fishing (or during specified times only) (d) No swimming or diving
(b) No spear fishing (e) Miscellaneous restrictions; pier rules generally posted
(c) No cast netting or snag hooks (N/R) None reported; look for local posting

FIGURE 9
MARINAS LOCATED ALONG TAMPA BAY

-------------------------------------

.......... ......

..............

------------------------------------------------

........... ..................

.... .........
J

... ..... ..

..................

.............

. ... .... .

-- - ----- ----------- ---------------

...........

Source: Inventory prepaxed by Tampa Bay
Study Committee Recreation Sub-
Committee, 1982-1983.
6------------------

;------- ---------
FIGURE 10
pORT FACILITIES
---------------- --------------------

......... ....

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hookers Point

Rock Port
Port Sutton
Rattlesnake
Port Tamp

V Port Redwing
. .... ....- Big Bend
Bayboro Harborl

AO
Port Manatee

- - --- ----------- ---------------

Source: TBRPC, 1982
I r% ---------------- i

TABLE 4
PORT FACILITIES LOCATED ALONG TAMPA BAY
MANATEE AND PINELLAS COUNTIES

PORT MANATEE, MANATEE COUNTY

Land Available (approx.)
Total acreage: 675
Available for expansion: 397

Facility Information

Present activities: warehousing, petroleum tank farm,
manufacturing and open storage

Channel depth: 401
k?narf area: 43501 (five 750' and one 600' barge)
Heavy dockside derrick: no
Ship repair and dry dock: yes - Florida Ship Repair
Barge construction: no

BAYBORO HARBOR, ST. PETERSBURG

Land Available (approx.)
Total acreage: 363 acres
Available for expansion: 0 (no large single tract)

Facilit Information (Not under a single land manager)

Present activities: Albert Whitted Municipal Airport
military operations
Bayfront Center
USF Bayboro Campus
Marine Research Laboratory
Port of St. Petersburg
Marine related and miscellaneous
industries

Channel depth: 19,
Wharf area: 1500' (Note: Only 9001 readily
available to the Port. 6001
dedicated to Navy and Coast Guard
operations, available for ship
berthing when not in use by military
craft)
Heavy dockside derrick: no
Ship repair and dry dock: no
Barge construction: no

TABLE 5
PORT FACILITIES LOCATED ALONG TAMPA BAY
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY

1. BIG BEND, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY

Land Available (approx.)
Total acreage: 500 acres (1,187 acres owned by TECO)
Available for expansion: 286

Facility Information

Present activities: electrical generation, petroleum
and phosphate storage

Channel depth: 351
Wharf area: 57501 available
2250' with Agrico will need
deepening
Heavy dockside derrick: no
chip repair and dry dock: no
Barge construction: no

2. HOOKER'S POINT, TAMPA

Land Available (approx.)
To:@al acreage: 1,200
Available for expansion: 300 (not in single tract)

Facility Information
Present activities: heavy manufacturing, offices,
warehousing, open storage,
refrigerated storage, frozen
storage, teiminal storage,
bonded warehouse

Channel depth: 341
Wharf area: 2,4001 general cargo
Heavy dockside derrick: yes
Ship repair and dry dock: yes
Barge construction: no

3. PORr REDWING, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY

Land Available (approx.)
Total acreage: 286 (adjacent to Big Bend)
Available for expansion: 186

Facility Information
Present activities: phosphate and petroleum storage
Channel depth: 351
Wharf area: non-available 5000'
Heavy dockside derrick: no
Ship repair and dry dock: no
Barge construction: no

TABLE 5 (Continued)

4. PORT SUTTON, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY

Land Available (approx.)
Total acreage: 350
Available for expansion: 150

Facility Information
Present activites: deep water terminal site
Channel depth: 341
Wharf area: 30001
Heavy dockside derrick: no
Shipyard and dry dock: no
Barge construction: no

5. PORT TAMPA, TAMPA

Land Available (approx.)
Total acreage: 550
Available for expansion: 300

Facility Information
Present activities: petroleum storage, bulk storage
construction, general cargo
Channel depth: 341
Wharf area: 30001
Heavy dockside derrick: no
Ship repair and dry dock: no
Barge construction: no

6. RATTLESNAKE, TAMPA

Land Available (approx.)
Total acreage: 40 acres (Misener property)
Available for expansion: no available

Facility Information (Not under a single land manager)
Present activities: private marinas, heavy industry, barge
construction, petroleum storage
Channel Depth: 121 natural
Wharf area: approx. 12001 (bfisener)
Heavy dockside derrick: no
Ship repair and dry dock: yes
Barge construction: yes

7. ROCKPORr, HILLSBORUGH COUNTY

Land Available (approx.)
Total acreage: 265
Available for expansion: 0

Facility Information
Present activities: phosphate terminal
Channel depth: 341
Wharf area: 10001 berth - 3000' additional
Heavy dockside derrick: no
Ship repair and dry dock: no
Barge construction: no

FIGURE 11
POWER PLANT FACILITIES

A.W. Higgins Plan

NIL L 580ROUCH
RIVER

T-ampo
Hooker's Point Station IPA L
OLD rAMPA BAY

McKAY d@Lnnon Statio

P. L. Bartow Plant NIL L SOOROUGH A R.
SAY LAFI

[email protected]
Big Bend Station

St.Petersburg Bayboro Plant

GULF OF rA MPA 8A Y
mc)f/co 1; @%p
OOCA
CIEGA
SAr

Ma c I nne s
Station Site
G%
PMULLET
KEY

EGMONT
KEY

rfRRA
CEIA
SAY R1vj-R

0 2 4 6

SCALE - MILES
Source: Florida Power
Florida Power and Light
Tampa Electric Company THE TAMPA BAY SYSTEM

Tampa Electric Company has had plans to develop a plan at the MacInnes
Station site near Port Manatee. Original plans called for the MacInnes
site to begin operations during the early 1990's. While the plans are
still on the books, they are currently on hold due to power conservation by
consumers, economic and other planning factors. It is not known when the
Tampa Electric Company will resume studies and initiate permit applications
for this proposed site.

Power plants are sited alonq the bay partly due to the need for large
quantities of cooling water. Tables 6 and 7 summarize facility information
for each site. While it is not neccessary to site a power plant on the
bay, large quantities of water are necessary and not easily obtained from
other sources.

ADDITIONAL FACILITIES AND COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES

There are many facilities and commercial enterprises which do not need to
locate on the bay but which may be publicly desirable or may depend on bay
use for their livelihood. Publicly desirable facilities include shoreline
parks, scenic vistas and restaurants with a scenic view of Tampa Bay.
Commercial enterprises not necessarily located on the bay but dependent on
the recreational value of the area include sporting goods establishments,
bait and tackle shops, boat rentals, and other marine businesses.

Shoreline Parks and Scenic Vistas

There are 77 parks located along the shores of Tampa Bay. These range from
small neiqhborhood parks and picnic tables located adjacent to a boat ramp
to large acreages of natural and urban parks. An important public amenity,
shoreline parks provide residents with access to the waterfront. Larqe
acreages of natural parks also provide habitat for fish and wildlife and
help preserve the natural integrity of an area.

Scenic vistas are an important public amenity which is often overlooked
when planning the development of an area. Although it often occurs, it is
not necessary for urbanization to eliminate aesthetic public views of Tampa
Bay.

Marine Related Commercial Enterprises

Several enterprises may not necessarily locate along the shores of Tampa
Bay but are dependent on the recreational condition and value of the bay
for their livelihood. These enterprises include sporting goods stores,
bait and tackle shops, boat rentals and other marine businesses. There are
approximately 50 businesses located along the shores of Tampa Bay that
provide bait and tackle. There are approximately sixteen businesses
providing boat rentals on Tampa Bay although there are many additional
businesses in the entire region. Other marine businesses include boat
building, boat sales, yacht charters, sailing schools, boating safety
courses, diving instruction, environmental and outdoor education programs.

TABLE 6
FACILITY DATA FOR POWER PLANTS LOCATED ON TAMPA BAY
TAMPA ELECTRIC COMPANY

1. BIG BEND STATION - Big Bend Road at Tampa Bay, North Riskin, Florida.

North Riskin,
Year in Fuel Cooling Generator
Units(l) Service Fuel Transport Water (CFS) Nameplate MW

1 1970 Coal Water 537 445.5
2 1973 Coal Water 537 445.5
3 1976 Coal Water 537 445.5
4 1985 Coal Water 537 486.0

1822.5

Notes: (1 This station also has 3 gas turbine units (No. 2 oil, 175.5 MW
total).

other information: In 1982, a total of 2,821, 578 tons of coal were
burned for a net of 6,514,684 kilowatt hours. The wastewater system
is composed of settling ponds which are recycled for plant use and
spray irrigation. The slag handling system uses 7 MGD average
seawater with a settling pond which discharges into Tampa Bay.

2. HOOKERS POINT STATION - Port of Tampa, Sparkman Channel at Hemlock St.

Year in Fuel Cooling Generator
Units Service Fuel Transport Water (CFS) Nameplate MW

1 1948 Oil Water 66.8 33.0
2 1950 Oil Water 66.8 34.5
3 1950 Oil Water 66.8 34.5
4 1953 Oil Water 89.1 49.0
5 1955 Oil Water 108.0 81.6

232.6

Note: In 1983, the wastewater will be connected to City of Tampa. Prior to
that, it was barged to the Gannon Station.

Source: Tampa Electric Company, 1983.

TABLE 6 (Continued)

3. FRANCIS J. GANNON STATION - Port Sutton Pd., Tampa, Florida
(Hillsborough Bay).

EXISTING SYSTEM

Year in Coal Re- Fuel Cooling Generator
Units Service Conversion Fuel Transport Water (CSF) Nameplate MW

1 1957 1986 Oil (1) Water 233.9 125.0
2 1958 1985 Oil (1) Water 233.9 125.0
3 1960 1984 Oil (1) Water 283.7 179.5
4 1963 1983 Oil (1) Water 282.9 187.5
5 1965 Coal Rail (2) 392.0 239.4
6 1967 Coal Rail (2) 534.6 414.0

1270.4

Notes: (1) Units 1-4 are planned for coal re-conversion as noted. Fuel
transport will be by rail.

(2) Transport by water is used as an alternate transport system.

Other information: Wastewater system - settling ponds, recycle for
plant use, spary irrigation.

Slag handling system - 2 MGD average seawater, settling pond
discharges to bay. Units 1-4 conversion will increase to 4.2 MGD
average.

TABLE 7
FACILITY DATA FOR POWER PLANTS LOCATED ON TAMPA BAY
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION

1. A.W. HIGGINS PLANT - Booth Point, Oldsmar, Florida. (1)

Year in Fuel Cooling Generator
Units Service Fuel Transport Water(CFS) Name Plate MW

1 1951 Oil (2) Barge 116.9 46.0
2 1953 Oil (2) Barge 122.5 46.0
3 1954. Oil (2) Barge 122.5 46.0

138.0

P1(3) 1969 (see footnote 3) not applicable 33.8
P2 1969 33.8
P3 1970 42.9
P4 1972 42.9

153.4

Notes: (1) This plant is used primarily for load peaking as it is relatively
old and less efficient.

(2) Some natural gas is used also.

(3) Combustion turbines - burn distillate oil and natural gas. Oil is
transported by barge and natural gas arrives by pipeline.

Other information: The plant has a permit allowing chlorination but
condensor tube cleaning is accomplished by mechanical means. Septic
tanks are used for sewage disposal and chemical wastes are treated by
four percolation ponds. There is no discharge to the bay. Excess
liquids are removed by a monitored spray irrigation system.

2. P.L. BARTOW PLANT - Weedon Island, St. Petersburg, Florida.

Fuel Cooling Generator
Units Service Fuel Transport Waters(CFS) Nameplate MW

1 1958 Coal/Oil Tanker 245.0 127.5
2 1961 Oil Tanker 245.0 127.5
3 1963 Oil Tanker 378.6 239.4

494.4

Pi 1972 Oil Tanker Not applicable 55.7
P2 1972 if ff 55.7
P3 1972 It #I of 55.7
P4 1972 55.7

222.8

Notes: (1) Sometimes burns natural gas which is delivered by pipeline.

Other information: The plant has a permit allowing chlorination but
condensor tube cleaning is accomplished by mechanical means. Septic
tanks are used for sewage disposal and chemical wastes are treated by
t--wn np-re-nlAtinn nnnei--. rPh,-r,- ic nr-, HiQr-hArrya t-r% +-ha- h;aty-

3. BAYBORO PLANT - Bayboro Harbor, St. Petersburg, Florida. (1)

Year in Fuel Generator
Units Service Fuel Transport Nameplate MW

Pi 1974 Oil Barge 56.7
P2 1974 Oil Barge 56.7
P3 1974 Oil Barge 56.7
P4 1974 Oil Barge 56.7

226.8

Note: (1) This plant is used for load peaking.

Source: Florida Power Corporation, 1983.

CURRENT MANAGEMENT OF TAMPA BAY

Tampa Bay is bordered by three counties and 20 municipalities. There are
three state managed aquatic preserves within Tampa Bay and four islands
which are national wildlife sanctuaries. Authority to regulate any
function within the bay system is split amonq and within various levels of
government. While regulatory aqencies have substantial authority over
specific functions or Problems in Tampa Bay, each must operate within the
scope of its enabling legislation. In many cases, this can lead to
overlapping jurisdictions, conflicting authority, and lack of consistent
management from one area to the next.

Jurisdictional control over Tampa Bay is divided among many agencies and
aovernments and depends on the specific activity or issue. To assist in
understanding the current management of Tampa Bay, the following discussion
outlines the roles of the various agencies by three major activities which
occur in Tampa Bay. These activities are: resource utilization, resource
manaQement and coastal construction.

RESOURCE UTILIZATION

Agency involvement in the use of the bay's resources is summarized
according to the following: navigation and boating, fishing and related
activities and public access. Many federal, state and local agencies have
hroad regulatory powers over these activities.

Navigation and Boating

The U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are the primary
federal agencies with regulatory and enforcement authority for navigation
and boating. The U.S. Coast Guard has broad regulatory and enforcement
powers over navigation, design, and placement of naviqation aids. It is
also responsible for boating safety and vessel movement and the regulation
of anchorages and moorings, construction of bridges, piers and water
control structures. The U.S. Army Corps is responsible for the removal of
wrecks and obstructions in navigational channels.

Nt the state level, the Florida Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is
the primary agency responsible for navigation and boating. Chapter 371,
Florida Statutes (F.S.) , provides DNR with the power to promulgate
regulations and enforce laws and regulations on boating, operating safety,
licensing and registration, navigation and accident reporting. The DNR
Marine Patrol is the enforcement division of the department.

Regarding navigation and boating, agency action at the local level is
restricted to local ordinaces establishing speed and/or wake restrictions
in certain areas and local governments have participated as local sponsors
in U.S. Army Corps proiects involving boating navigation. There are also
several locally owned and operated public marinas.

Fishing and Related Activities

Two federal agencies regulate or are involved with fishing regulations: the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS). On a national level, the FWS establishes policy for
commercial fisheries development, protects fish which are endangered
species, conducts general investigations and research projects, and
coordinates fisheries management efforts with the state. The NMFS conducts
fisheries research and is involved in four major areas: fisheries
management, fisheries development, habitat protection and law enforcement.
Under the Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, the NMFS is
responsible for the management of marine fisheries from the edge of state
jurisdiction out to 200 miles. It is also responsible for preparing and
enforcing fishery management plans for the stock in need of management.
Since most of these species are estuarine dependent at some point in their
life cycle, this responsibility must be coordinated with other federal,
state and local agencies. Both NMFS and FWS are responsible for enforcing
the provisions of the Marine Mammal Act and the Endangered Species Act;
they work closely with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard,
customs, state enforcement aqencies and state coastal zone management
programs and provide input on any applicable federal Environmental Impact
Statements.

The DNR is the primary state agency responsible for regulating saltwater
f isher ies. Chapter 370, F.S., Provides DNR with the authority to
promulgate rules and regulations, and enforce statutes regarding seafood
dealers, use of nets, protection of crustacea, marine animals and fish.
Chapter 370 also provides specific regulations regarding saltwater finfish,
stone crabs, blue crabs, oysters and shellfish. In addition, DNR conducts
considerable fisheries related research. Current studies for Tampa Bay
include a study of habitat loss and fisheries decline in Tampa Bay,
Sciaenid life history in Tampa Bay, and a Tampa Bay trapping survey for
blue crabs, 1980-1983.

Local regulations regarding fishing and related activities have primarily
been in the form of special acts of the state legislature which have been
enacted for local areas. These laws vary for the counties in Tampa Bay and
are discussed below:

Hillsborough County - Four special acts have been enacted regulating
fishing in Hillsborough County. The first, Chapter 1537q, Special Acts
(S.A.) 1931, as amended, regulates netting and seining north of Gandy
Bridge (also applies to Pinellas County). Chapter 21289, S.A. 1941,
prohibits fishing from bridges within Hillsborough County except where
walkways or passageways for pedestrians are provided. Chapter 30829, S.A.
1955, prohibits spearfishinq in all salt waters located in Hillsborough
County, including all parts of Tampa Bay, McKay Bav, and Old Tampa Bay,
together with their salt water tributaries which may be located in
Hillsborouqh Countv. Chapter 67-2111, S.A. 1967, regulates commercial
fishing in salt water areas within the City of Tampa and empowers the city
to enact ordinances controlling the use of nets or seines.

Manatee County - Nine special acts have been enacted regulating fishing in
Manatee County. Chapter 19961, S.A. 11)39, prohibits and establishes fines
for fishing with seines or nets (except for hand cast net or common hand
dip net) within 1500 feet of the corporate limits of any incorporated
municipality in the County. Chapter 21365, S.A. 1941, regulates the same
for Manatee River and any of its tributaries, and Terra Ceia Bay and any of
its tributaries, bayous and inlets. Chapter 26000, S.A. 1949, prohibits
and establishes fines for the use of haul seines, drag nets or stop nets in
the inside salt waters of the county. Chapter 27697 S.A., 1961, 63-1585
S.A. 1963 (as amended) and 67-1685, S.A. 1967 as amended regulate
commercial fishing in Manatee County. Chapter 67-1883, S.A. 1967,
prohibits the use of nets or seines within certain bodies of water within
the City of Palmetto. Chapter 70-795, S.A. 1970, prohibits seining or
netting for menhaden-like fish within three marine leagues of shore in
Manatee County.

Pinellas County - Five special acts have been enacted requlating fishing in
the waters of Tampa Bay in Pinellas County. Chapter 15464, S.A. 1931,
authorizes the City of Safety Harbor to establish ordinances to prohibit
fishing. Chapter 29432, S.A. 1953, is a comprehensive act regulating the
use of nets and seines in the salt water areas of Pinellas County. Chapter
29433, S.A. 1953, prohibits and establishes a fine for the use of all nets
.or seines, except cast nets within one hundred vards of any bridge, dock,
pier, causeway or jetty while Chapter 76-482, S.A. 1976, prohibits the use
of nets or seines, except hand cast nets, within all salt water areas of
the City of St. Petersburg. In addition Chapter 65-2, General Acts 1965,
amends Section 309.01, F.S., to permit Pinellas County to place certain
material for increasing fish potential in Tampa Bay.

Public Access

Four federal agencies are involved with the development and regulation of
public access: 1) the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coast Zone Management (CZM); 2) the
U.S. Department of the Interior, Heritaqe Conservation and Recreation
Program (HCR), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Under the
provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, CZM sets guidelines
for state coastal zone management plans and assists and reviews those
plans. The multiple objectives of the Coastal Zone Management Act are to
preserve, protect, develop and, where possible, to restore and enhance the
resources of the coastal zone, which includes providing public access. (40)
The HCR has a number of public access Programs and is involved in the
disposal of federal surplus real property for recreation and historical
monuments, the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program, and the
acquisition, development and planninq for outdoor recreation.

Tn addition, in Tampa Bay the FWS manages Public access to three national
wildlife refuges: Egmont Key, Passage Key and Pinellas National Wildlife
Refuges. Passage Key and Egmont Key are heavily used for recreation and
are accessible to the public most of the year. However, because Passaqe
Key is also an important bird rookery, it is closed to the public during
the nesting season, April 1st to September 1st. Eqmont Key is accessible
all year during daylight hours.

Two state agencies have responsibilities involving public access. The
Florida Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has broad powers through the
State Parks and Preserves Act, Chapter 258, F.S. DNR also has authority to
purchase environmentally endangered lands for preservation and recreation
under the 1979 Environmentally Endangered Lands Act. The Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) has provisions for public
access as part of any water restoration project under Chapter 17, Florida
Administrative Code (F.A.C.).

Many of the provisions for public access are under local government
iurisdication. Local governments own and operate a considerable portion of
the public waterfront lands as parks, marinas and other facilities. The
parks surrounding Tampa Bay provide a large portion of the shoreline
accessible to the public. The counties are responsible for activities and
projects within local parks in the unincorporated areas while the
individual city Park and recreation departments are responsible within the
municipal areas. In addition, local qovernments have additional controls
over public access through zoning, land use and facility planninq (i.e.
public easements), ordinances and policy development.

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Resource management is divided into two sections: habitat management and
protection of water quality. Habitat management includes the protection of
wildlife and fisheries, the monitoring of natural resources and the
designation and control of aquatic preserves and varks. In Tampa Bay, a
wide range of agencies are involved in these activities.

Habitat Management

The U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Servie (FWS), and
the National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are the primary
federal agencies with responsibilities for habitat management in Tampa Bay.
Under the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the FWS has general regulatory and
enforcement powers over the protection of certain types of wildlife. In
addition, FWS manages three national wildlife refuges in Tampa Bay: Fgmont
Key, Passaqe Key and Pinellas National Wildlife RefUqeS.

I,ocated at the mouth of Tampa Bay, Egmont Key is managed as a public use
area with management responsibilities being primarily custodial and law
enforcement. Passage Key is managed as a bird nesting area for laughing
gulls, royal terns, black skimmers, oyster catchers, sandwich terns and
brown pelicans. It is closed to the public during the nesting season
(April 1 - Seotember 1) each year but is a popular boating and picnic area
during the rest of the year.

The Pinellas National Wildlife Refuge is composed of six mangrove islands
located in Boca Cieqa Bay. Because these islands are predominantly
mangroves,, they are not readily used bv the public and are managed as bird
habitat. In particular, Tarpon Key is an important pelican rookery and is
closed to the public.

The National Audubon society also manages several habitat preserves in
Tampa Bay including the Alafia Bank composed of Bird Island and Sunken
Island; Whiskey Slim and Green Keys, located adjacent to Port Redwing;
Tampa Port Authority's designated Bullfrog Creek Marine Preserve and Bird
Key in Terra Ceia Bay.

A major department within NOAA with responsibilities affecting Tampa Bay is
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Under the Magnuson Fisheries
Conservation and Management Act, NMFS is responsible for the habitat
protection and fisheries management of several estuarine dependent fish.
As with the Fish and Wildlife Service, NMFS is empowered to enforce the
provisions of the '.Pndanqered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection
Act. The NMFS also comments on any U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
,permit application involving habitat alteration. Throuqh a COE/NMFS
memorandum of understanding, the Corps will not make a positive decision
over substantial negative NMPS comment. (41)

NOAA also administers and directs the National Sea Grant Program by
Providing grants to institutions for marine research, education and
advisory services; develops a data system for obtaining and disseminating
marine environmental data; anti promotes the development of marine
technology. Through the funding of research and other assistance programs,
Sea Grant provides valuable assistance with habitat management in Tampa
Bay.

State responsibility for habitat management is divided primarily between
two agencies: the Florida Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. However, to accomplish
effective management, considerable coordination with programs in other
agencies is undertaken. As authorized in the Florida Endangered and
Threatened Species Act of 1972, Chapter 372, F.S., the Florida Game and
Fresh Water Fish Commission is responsible for research and the
conservation and management of fresh water and upland species, particularly
endangered or threatened species. DNR is responsible for the saltwater
fisheries in Florida, the management of aquatic preserves, marine research
which includes habitat management studies, and the promulgation and
enforcement of regulations for game and wildlife preservation. In
addition, the Governor and Cabinet, as the Board of Trustees of the
Internal Improvement Fund and head of DNR, retain title and administrative
control for all state owned submerged lands.

Current research being conducted by DNR that affects habitat manaqement in
Tampa Bay includes a comprehensive study of habitat loss and fisheries
decline in Tampa Bay, and several specific fisheries studies. The
following enforcement responsibilities may also affect habitat: the
protection of manatees, marine turtles and threatened and endangered
species, enforcing the pollutant spill prevention and control program and
conducting the beach and shore erosion proqram which includes research and
processing applications for all coastal construction below the mean high
water line.

In addition, there are three aquatic preserves in Tampa Bay which DNR is
responsible for managing: the Cockroach Bay Aauatic Preserve, Pinellas
County Aquatic Preserve and Boca Ciega Bay Aquatic Preserve (Figure 12).
DNR is currently developing management olans for aquatic preserves. The

FIGURE 12 -----------------
AQUATIC PRESERVES LOCATED ALONG TAMPA BAY
-------------------------------------

..............

- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . ..... . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .

...............

... .......

----------------------------------- --------

. . ........ ........

-- - --- ------------ ---------------

.......... ...

Source: Recreation inventory prepared by
Tampa Bay Study Recreation Sub-
committee, 1982-1983. -----------------I

first plan to be completed was for Charlotte Harbor and was unanimously
adopted by the Governor and Cabinet on May 18, 1983. Plans have not been
initiated for the aquatic preserves in Tampa Bay.

In many cases, other state programs affect habitats under the management of
DNR and the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. To accomplish effective
habitat management, these two agencies coordinate their management
activities with other state programs, including the following: (42)

- DER's water quality program, including the DER/COE joint permitting
process for dredge and fill;

-The Florida Department of Community Affairs' (DCA) development of
regional impact, areas of critical state concern, and coastal energy
impact programs;

-The Department of State, Division of Archive's programs regarding the
preservation and management of Florida's archaeolog ical and historical
resources; and

-The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' septic tank
regulations and mosquito control programs.

The local governments also have iurisdiction over certain aspects of
habitat management. Several shoreline parks with important natural habitat
are managed by local governments, including Upper Tampa Bay Park, Cockroach
Bav Park and DeSoto Park. Local planning departments are responsible for
land use planning, the coor *dination of many conservation and preservation
efforts, and the preparation of local government comprehensive plans which
must address coastal issues. Through zoning and ordinances, many local
governments also control activities occurring in submerged areas and along
the shorelines, in many cases strictly limiting the activities and
subsequent impacts on those areas.

Protection of Water Quality

Federal responsibility for the protection of water quality is divided among
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) , the U.S. Coast Guard and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). The U.S. Coast Guard has control
over water quality through rule promulgation and enforcement
responsibilities to regulate and prevent oil pollution from onshore and
offshore facilities and vessels. The COE regulates discharge of dredge
and/or f ill materials and has the authority to remove wrecks, derelict
vessels and other obstructions in navigable waters. EPA has maintained
responsibilities for the Protection of water quality, including the
following:

� Establishing and enforcing national water pollution control standards
through the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972;

� operating and enforcing the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) -

0 Assisting in the prevention and control of oil pollution;

o Providing grants for pollution research and control proqrams; and

o Requiring permits for discharging wastes in wetlands (NPDES) and
restricting the discharge of solid waste in wetlands (Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act).

Two state agencies are responsible for the protection of water quality:
the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) and the Florida
Department of Natural Resources (DNR). DNR is authorized to protect water
quality by the Pollutant Spill Prevention Control Act (Chapter 376, F.S.).
Tinder this act, DNR's responsibilities include:

Issuing registration certificates to terminal facilities;

Promulgating and enforcing rules and regulations relating to the
discharge of pollutants into state waters or on to coastlines; and

o Administering the Florida Coastal Protection Trust Fund.

DER has broad regulatory and enforcement powers for the protection of water
quality, including:

o Promulgation and enforcement of regulations for a water pollution and
abatement control program;

o Implementation and enforcement of a resource recovery and management
program;

Licensing of all solid waste disposal facilities: and

Providing consultation and technical services in the prevention of
oil pollution.

For many of the water quality programs, DER has delegated responsibilities
to a local county or municipal program. DER retains exclusive authority to
issue permits; however, they may delegate power to a local program. Local
programs must be approved by DER, their rules must be stricter or equal to
DER's and they must be enforced. In conjunction with the local program,
many local governments also conduct special studies and routine monitoring
of water quality parameters. One special study regarding a portion of
Tampa Bay is the Manatee County Estuary Study being conducted by Manatee
County. This is an intensive one and a half year monitoring study of water
quality and biological Parameters in the estuarine portions of the Manatee
River from Tampa Bay to Lake Manatee.

In addition, most of the local governments have developed ordinances,
policies and other provisions for requiring water quality protection. Many
of these are related to development activities which may impact water
quality. For instance, the City of Clearwater has developed "Stormwater
Design Criterian and an "Frosion and Siltation Control Policy" to assist
developers in meeting the City's water quality protection requirements.
Also, water. quality impacts are addressed in the development of regional
impact review process and usually through site plan reviews and rezoning
requests.

COASTAL CONSTRUCTION

The regulation of coastal construction is important for controlling impacts
on the systems of Tampa Bav. There are a variety of aqencies regulating
coastal construction activities. These activities are discussed below and
include: dredge and f ill- docks, moorings and bulkheads; port and marina
facilities; bridges, causeways and roads- canals, levees, and salinity
structures; and other coastal construction activities.

Dredge and Fill

Jurisdictional authority over dredge and fill operations is vested in many
federal, state and local agencies. Regulations apply to dredging and/or
filling activities which take place below mean high water and in wetlands.
Federal agencies involved with these regulations include the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD).

The COE is the major federal agency involved with dredge and fill
operations and has broad regulatory and permitting responsibilities. The
majority of current COE regulatory functions are based on Section 10 of the
River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977,
and Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of
1972. Section 10 reauires COE authorization for work in or affecting
navigable waters, Section 404 requires COE authorization for activities
involving discharge of dredged or fill material into the waters and
wetlands of the U.S. Section 103 requires a permit for transporting
dredged materials for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters. Several
types of permits are issued by the COE and a ioint permit application
process is currently used by COE and the state DER to streamline the dredge
and fill application process.

Both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service review dredqe and fill applications and advise the Army Corps on
the impacts on fish and wildlife resources. In addition, HUD is involved
with flood plain regulation under the National Environmental Policy Act and
Executive Order #11514.

The state dredge and fill permitting program is administered by DER while
certain activities may also require approval from DNR. As discussed
earlier, a joint application program has been established to coordinate
state and federal permitting procedures.

The regulations pertaining to dredge and fill permits detail activities
requiring permits, activities exempted from the permit requirement, and
activities which may only require submision of a short-form application.
Activities requiring a permit include, but are not limited to, the
following: (43)

1. The construction or emplacement of piers, wharfs, docks, dolphins,
mooring pilings, riprap and revetments, retaining walls, groins,
breakwaters, jetties, beach restoration, levees, wires or cables over

or under the water, pipes and tunnels under the water, artificial
fishing reefs, channels and upland canals, intake and outfall pipes or
structures, navigational aids, platforms, ramps, signs, and fences;

2. Excavation, clearing, and commercial sand and gravel dredging;

3. Filling or disposal of dredged material; and

4. Transportation and deposition of dredged material in open water.
Detailed information concerning exemptions and short-form eligibility
can be obtained from Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code.

Applications for groin or ietty construction, beach restoration, or other
activities regulated by the Beach and Shore Preservation Act must receive
permit approval from DNR. For activities involvinq state-owned land, the
applicant must receive consent of use from DNR. Such consent must be
obtained before the DER will issue a dredge and fill permit.

Fill activities in navigable waters also require local approval pursuant to
Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, for fill placed waterward of the mean high
water mark. Any private person, firm, or corporation conducting fill
activities in the unincoruorated area of any county bordering on or in the
navigable waters of the state must receive a permit from the appropriate
board of county commissioners. Within the territory of any municipality,
such application for a construction or fill permit shall be made to the
governing body of such municipality. Written application shall be
accompanied by a plan or drawing showing the proposed construction. Local
permits are subiect to the approval of the DER.

Most dredge and fill permit applications are reviewed by TBRPC and the
local qovernments. In addition, Manatee County has a local program for
administering and reviewing permit applications. The City of Clearwater
requires an additional marine construction permit and any dredge or fill in
excess of 4,000 cubic vards (except for emergency or maintenance) requires
approval by the electorate via referendum.

Docks, Mooring and Bulkheads

The same agencies that have requlatorv control over dredge and fill also
exercise permitting authority over docks, moorings and bulkhead projects.
Small projects pursuant to Chapters 253 and 403, F.S., and defined in the
Florida Administrative Code under Section 17-4.04, are exempt from the
state permitting process. (44) Also, in most counties or municipalities
permits and/or review are required for marine construction.

Port and Marina Facilities

A variety of jurisdictional controls control the construction of ports,
marinas, and their attendant facilities. In Tamr)a Bay, dredginq operations
are generally needed and the U.S. Coast Guard is responsible for access to
these facilities and the protection and security of waterfront facilities.

At the state level, DNR administers and enforces regulations for submerged
and tidal lands, as authorized in Chapter 253, F.S. Procedures for the
administration of submerged lands, including commercial and industrial
docking facility leases, is Provided in Chapter 160-17, Florida
Administrative Code.

At the local level, the construction of port and marina facilities requires
construction permits, zoning approval, review bv the local government
technical staff (usually in the engineering and environmental management
departments) , and approval of all associated activities (i.e. dredqe and
f ill) .

Bridges, Causeways and Roads

Three federal agencies are involved in the construction of bridges,
causewa*vs and roads along Tampa Bay: the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
DOT is responsible for the construction of all federal bridges, causeways
and roads. The U.S. Coast Guard regulates the construction and operation
of bridqes and regulates causeways and roads that are fixed structures in
navigable waters. The COE establishes and enforces the regulation and
issuance of permits for the construction of structures, including bridges
and causeways, in navigable waters of the United States.

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is the state agency
responsible for the construction of bridges, causeways and roads. In this
regard, FDOT administers and regulates rights-of-way acquisition, directs
short and long range planning functions and project coordination, and
directs the design, construction, maintenance and related activities of the
Florida Highway System, including highway drainage systems. FDOT is also
involved with three urban area transportation studies in the Tampa Bav
region: the Pinellas Urban Area Transportation Study, the Sarasota-Manatee
Urban Area Transportation Study, and the Tampa Urban Area Transportation
Study. These studies are beinq conducted by the local Metropolitan
Planning Orqanizations (MPO's) which, in cooperation with the state, are
responsible for carry out the transportation planning process and
developing the planning work programs, transportation plan, and
transportation improvement proqram.

At the local level, the construction of bridqes, causeways and roads is
also addressed in the transportation elements of the local government
comprehensive plans. In addition, the public works departments are
qenerally responsible for local construction and maintenance proqrams.

REFERENCES CITED

(1) Larry J. Doyle, "Marine Geology of Tampa Bav", Presented at the Tampa
Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium, May 1982 (Proceedings in
press).

(2) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay: Introduction to
an Ecosystem, (Washington, D.C., 1982).

(3) Doyle, Ibid.

(4) Ibid.

(5) D.W. Pritchard, "What is an Estuary? Physical Viewpoint" in G.E-.
Lauff, Ed., Estuaries (Washington, D.C.: American Association for the
Advancement of Science, Publication No. 83, 1967).

(6) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, p.10.

(7) Richard G. Wilkins (ed.), Environmental Quality 1980: Hillsborough
County, Florida (Tampa, Florida: Hillsborough County Environmental
Protection Commission, 1980).

(8) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, p.12.

(9) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, p.16.

(10) Robin Lewis, "Natural Resource Management Problems of Tampa Bay",
Handout presented at the June 22, 1983 meetina of the Tampa Bay Study
Committee.

(11) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, p.18.

(12) Ernest D. Estevez, "Emergent Vegetation of Tampa Bay: A Review",
Abstract from the Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium
(Tampa, Florida: University of South Florida, May 1982), pp. 13, 16.

(13) Estevez, p.16.

(14) Florida Department of Natural Resources, Charlotte Harbor Aquatic
Preserves Management Plan (Adopted May 18, 1983 by the Board of
Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund), 120 pp.

(15) E.J. Heald and W.E. Odum, "The Contributions of Mangrove Swamps to
Florida Fisheries", Proceedinqs of the Gulf Caribbean Fish Institute,
Vol. 22 (1970).

(16) Thomas Savage, Florida Mangroves as Shoreline Stabilizers.
(Tallahassee, Florida: Florida Department of Natural Resources
Professional Paper No. 19, 1972).

(17) Florida Department of Natural Resources, p.24.

(18) Lewis, p.2.

(19) R.R. Lewis III, M.J. Durako, M.D. Moffler, and R.C. Phillips,,
"Seagrass Meadows of Tampa Bay - A Review", Presented at the Tampa Bay
Area Scientific Information Symposium, May 1982 (Proceedings in
press) .

(20) Ibid.

(21) U.S. Environmental Protection Aqency, p.21.

(22) Joseph C. Zieman,, "The Ecological Effects of Physical Damage From
Motorboats on Turtle Grass Beds in Southern Florida". Aquatic Botany,
Vol. 2 (1976).

(23) Lewis, et al.,, Ibid.

(24) K.A. Steidinger and W.E. Gardiner, "Phytoplankton of Tampa Bay: A
Review", Presented at the Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information
Symposium, May 1982 (Proceedings in press).

(25) Jefferson T. Turner and Thomas L. Hopkins, "The Zooplankton of Tampa
Bay: A Review", Presented at the Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information
Symposium, May 1982 (Proceedings in press).

(26) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, p.23.

(27) W.S. Silver and J.V. Betz, "Effects of Microbes on the Water Quality
of Tampa Bay: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow", Presented at the Tampa
Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium, May 1982 (Proceedings in
press).

(28) U.S. Environmental Protection AqencyF P.23.

(29) Ibid, p.24.

(30) Joseph L. Simon and Selvakumaran Mahadevan,, "Benthic
Macroinvertebrates", Presented at the Bay Area Scientific Information
Svmposium,, May 1982 (Proceedings in press).

(31) Gary S. Comp,, "A Survey of the Distribution and Migration of the
Fishes in Tampa Bay", Presented at the Bay Area Scientific Information
Symposium, May 1982 (Proceedings in press).

(32) Lewis et al, Ibid.

(33) Comp, Ibid.

(34) Robin Lewis,, "Natural Resource Management Problems of Tampa Bay",
Handout presented at the June 22F 1983 meeting of the Tampa Bay Study
Committee.

(35) Personal communication with health department aqencies.

(36) Ralph E. Moon,, "Domestic Sewage and Tampa Bay: A Review and
Prospectus", (1983).

(37) Ibid.

(38) Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, NPDES Permit Files,
(1983).

(39) Donald Y. Aska, Saltwater Fishing Piers in Florida (Florida Sea Grant
Publication MAFS-36, 1983).

(40) Dade County, Biscayne Bay Management Plan: Technical Supplement
(Miami, Florida: Metro. Dade County Department of Environmental
Resources Manaqement and Metro. Dade County Planning Department,
1980).

(41) Personal communication, Ron Schmied, National Marine Fisheries Service
(June 1983).

(42) Florida Department of Natural Resources, pp. 7-16.

(43) U.S. Geological Survey, Permit Requirements for Development of Energy
and Other Selected Natural Resources for the State of Florida,
TP-re.i@a--red for the Coastal Plains Regional --- do-mm-ission and the U.S.G.S.,
1981), 120 pp.

(44) Dade County, P.62.

CHAPTER 3
ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN SUBCOMMITTEES

During meetinqs froin Jul.v 1982 to March 1983, the subcommittees identified
local and regional issues, including many site specific concerns. A
summary list of bay concerns and management issues was approved at the
March 22, 1983 Study Committee meeting (Table 8). Many of the concerns are
related to chanqes that have occurred in Tampa Bay, including declines in
visual quality, harvestable resources, valuable habitat and changes to
tidal creeks, bav circulation, salinity patterns etc. which were discussed
in Chapter Two. These changes are a result of the overall development and
growth that has occurred in the area and the resultant impacts from
industrial, municipal, transportation and other development activities.

The major focus of the subcommittee meetings has been to identify specific
problems occurring in the bay, to identify additional information needs and
to develop strategies and recommendations for rectifying the identified
problems. Most of these specific problems are part of the management
issues identifiea. in Table 8. Following is a summary of each problem
identified by the subcommittees. These summaries were reviewed at the
April and May 1983 subcommittee meetings and then the Institution
Subcommittee developed implementation strategies specific to each concern.
Figure 13 locates the soecific areas mentioned in the following problern
summaries while Table 9 lists the priority rankinqs of the Bay manaqemont
problem issues approved by the Tampa Bay Study Committee at its Auaust 30,
1983 meetinq. The full policy board of the Council adopted the ranked
issues at its October 10, 1983 meetina.

TABLE 8

LIST OF MAJOR BAY CONCERNS AND MANAGEMENT ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY SUBCOMMITTEES

BAYWIDE CONCERNS:

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

MANAGEMENT ISSUES:

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

TABLE 9

TAMPA BAY STUDY COMMITTEE NUMERICAL PRIORITY LIST

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

5 0 5 10 MILFS

0 5 10 15 KILOMETERS

FIGURE 13

Location of Committee Issues

\sborou h

.TAMPA:-..

0
15

ST. ly.
PETERSBURG*:
T A M P A
M

BA Y

cp
0
/0 n a,

Q
; 4b
r VOU

stee
2
M

ITEM #1 Fundinq

REFERENCE: Regional Issue; Economics Meeting 1/10/83; Recreation
Meeting 2/1/83

ANALYSIS:

Many of the studies and needs proposed by the Tampa Bay Study committee
will require funding. These activities include: ecological restoration,
recreation programs and facilities, impact studies, and many more.
However, in some cases, many existina sources of funds could be put to
better economic use.

DESIRED AC`rIONS:

A. Assessment of priorities and costs of proposed studies and programs
along with assessment of existing and possible sources of funding.

B. Comoiling a list of all state, federal, and local sources of fundina.

C. Saltwater fishing licenses and/or other broadly based fees should
continue to be pursued by state legislators.

D. Impacts of current funding reductions on recreational pursuits in
Tampa Bay should be investigated.

DESIRED RESULTS:

Increased efficiency and best use of all available funds.
Adequate maintenance and improvements of existing facilities and programs.
Construction of new facilities and programs to meet the recreational needs
of a growing population.

IMPLEMENTATION COMENTS:

Assessing the costs of proposed studies and proqrams and compiling a list
of available funding should be conducted as part of the Tampa Bay Study
Committee. Sources to he examined for funding include the Federal Catalog
of Domestic Assistance and the new shore side facilities financina
administered by National Marine Fisheries Service. Where there is a need
for increased funding, appropriations will be needed at a federal, state,
and/or local level. This would require adequate iustification for the
expenditures and strona public support. in addition, maintenance costs and
requirements should also be considered. In some cases, it may be desirable
to combine land accTuisitions with shore side recreational development
programs.

ITEM #2 Loss of Seagrasses in Tampa Bay

REFERENCE: Reaional Issue; Ecology Meetings 4/13/83 and 1/27/83;
Study Committee Meeting 6/28/83

ANALYSIS:

Seagrass coverage in Tampa Bay has declined for numerous reasons by about
80% over the years. Identification of causes for this loss and restoration
is needed. Following are specific concerns and proposed actions.

1. Seagrass Loss at Weedon Island, Pinellas County - initial operation of a
power-generating station probahly caused loss by thermal impact of
approximately 200 acres of seaqrass. While all standards and require-
ments of permits were met at that time, no mitigation has been attempted
to remedy this loss of habitat.

DESIRED ACTIONS:

A. Comparison of thermal to non-thermal impacts on seagrasses in the
vicinity.

B. Either evaluation of discharge alternatives and modification to confine
thermal effects or planting of seagrasses in suitable areas to offset
other losses in Tampa Bay.

DESIRED RESULT:

Reclamation of 200 acres of seagrass habitat valuable as fishery refuge,
nursery and feedina area or mitiqation by other means.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMENTS:

The power plant at Weedon Island is considered a "model" plant and a
demonstration of habitat improvement may be considered valuable as a
demonstration project. Funding would he the main deterrent. Future
i
p throuqh more creative mitigative
m lementation may be poss].
alternatives.

2. Boating Damage to Seagrass - Controversy exists about whether current
bait shrimping practices and groundings by boaters cause considerable
damage to seagrass meadows in Tampa Bay. While the acreage of total
seagrass areas has been diminishinq over the years, the number of bait
shrimpers has increased. Commercial bait shrimpers can cause damage
with boat props and by draqqinq trawls in shallow water. Other boaters
often stray from deeper navigable waters to seagrass shoals, leaving
behind "propeller trails". However, no scientific documentation exists
concerning damage attributable to shrimping operations and/or
propellers in Tampa Bay.

Current law requires that bait shrimpers possess free state permits,
maintain their catch in live bait tanks, and keep no more than five pounds
of dead shrimp aboard their boats. In 1981-82, 48 live bait shrimp permits
were issued; in 1982-83, 53 1 1Dermits were issued for the Tampa Bay area.
The law in no way regulates the trawls or boats used.

DESIRED ACTION:

An assessment of the effects of activities such as bait shrimping, pleasure
boating, net fishing, etc. on seagrass meadows.

DESIRED RESULTS:

Determination and control of damage attributable to commercial shrimping
and other boating practices.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMENTS:

Initial study would require fundinq. If the results of the assessment
indicate that shrimpers are causinct the damage, legislated action and
enforcement would be required to imDlement. If, however, all boating
activities contribute equally to seaqrass losses, then strategies for
requlatory control would need to be implemented. Possible agencies
involved would include the U.S. Armv Corps of Engineers, the Department of
the Interior, the Florida Departments of Natural Resources, Environmental
Requlation and Game and. Freshwater Fish Commission, and the Tampa Bay
Regional Planning Council.

ITEM #3 Non-point Source Discharges Enterinq TamPa Bay

REFERENCE: Regional Issue; Industry Meeting 5/5/83

ANALYSIS:

Non-point source Aischarqes (stormwater runoff) have been identif ied as
major polltitant contrihutors to Tampa Bay yet little information exists on
quantity, quality and site specific contributions.

DESIRED ACTION:

St*udy of non-point sources draininq into Tampa Bay. This should include
locating major discharqe points, identifying drainaoe basin characteristics
(area, land use, etc.), and, where possible, relatinq stormwater discharges
to problem areas of Tampa Bay. It should also include coordination with
EPA's National Urban Runoff Program studies, local studies and a literature
review and assessment.

DESIRED RESULTS:

Focal point for public awareness.
Remedying problems associated with stormwater discharges.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMENTS:

Several local governments have on-qoinq studies or programs and direct
access to needed information. Local qovernments could assist in
identifying oroblems and overall study coulil be coordinated reqionally by
the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council or the Southwest Florida Water
Manaq@_-ment District (as part of stormwater permittinn proqram). Much of
the work could be accomplished by the Tampa Bav Study Committee; however,
funding is currently a major need.

ITEM #4 Spoil Disposal and Manaqempnt of Spoil Islands

REFERENCE: Reqional Issues; Ecoloqy Meptin(is 3/11/83 and 3/24/83 and
4/13/83; Recreation Meetinq 2/1/83.

ANALYSIS:

Durinq subcommittee meetinqs,, several. specific and general concerns were
ident ified relating to spoil disposal. and management of spoil islands.
These are discussed individually below.

1. Hillsborough Bay Spoil Islands - Existinq Spoil Islands are seriously
eroding on unprotected faces, thereby weakening their desion, causinq
sedimentation of the ship channel, and causing the need for additional
maintenance dredqinq.

DESIRED ACTION:

Stabilize eroding shores of the spoil islands and add new spoil as
minimally necessary to benefit their lonq-term stability. Present and
improved shorelines should be veaetated with species approved in the
oriqinal Environmental Impact Statements.

DESIRED RESULTS:

Long-term stability of islands.
Habitat creation.
Reduced need for maintenance dredqing.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMENTS:

Currently the main obstacle to implementation is fundinq. The U.S. Army
Corps of Enqineers, the Florida Department of Environmental. Requlation, and
.the Tampa Port Authority have Jurisdiction under existinq legislation
(Federal Rivers and Harbors Act; Chapter 404, Florida Statutes).

2. Long Term Plan for Tampa Harbor Spoil Disposal - Tampa Harbor qenerates
very large quantities of spoil from new and maintenance dredqinq
projects. The Harbor is the sinqle most siqnificant physical impact on
the bay, yet no long term plan for maintenance, construction or
disposal of spoil exists. Impacts include a reduction of water surface
area and an increase in total water volume which results in increased
average depth and decreased tidal prism.

DESIRED ACTIONS:

For all Bay Ports, adopt a long range spoil plan which includes:

A. Constructive use of hiqh quality spoil materials,

B. Sequesterinq of toxic and/or poor construction material on existinq
spoil islands.

C. Provides for environmentally acceptable disposal of non toxic material.
of Door construction qualitv,

D. Consider all alternatives, includinq upland disposal, and

E. Adopts the principle that no siqnificant area of bay bottom be lost to
further filling or spoiling.

DESIRED RESULTS:

Uniform and environmentally acceptable lonq ranqe spoil disposal plan and
the protection of bay resources vulnerable to impacts of dredainq,
spoiling, or related activities.

IMPLFMENTATION COMMENTS:

The primary agency involved is the Tampa Port Authority. However,
assistance may be provided from the U.S. Army Corps of Enqlneers and the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and Florida Department of
Natural Resources may also be involved. Possible funding sources include
the Coastal Protection Trust Fund and the Coastal Enerqy Imnact Program
(administered by the Florida Department of Community Affairs).

3. Intracoastal Waterway Spoil Disposal - Disposal of Intracoastal
Waterway maintenance spoil will be difficult since no more bay bottom
should be filled and most uplands are developed. Yet pressure for
recreational traffic is considerable. The U.S. Army Corps of Enqineers
has funded a study of this issue.for Intracoastal Waterway areas north
of the Narrows.

DESIRED ACTIONS:

A. Expand and present U.S. Army Corps study to include Boca Ciega Bay and
Anna Maria sound.

B. Implement plan to identify and use beach compatible spoil on Qulf
beaches. This plan should also identify and sequester toxic spoil and
provide for offshore disposal of materials neither toxic or of beach
quality.

C. Develop long range plans which are consistent with the Tampa Harbor
Spoil Disposal Plan.

DESIRED RESULT:

Diminished burden on all alternatives and constructive use of cood
materials while providinq minimal enirironmental impact.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMENTS:

There is a short-term opportunity to expand U.S. Army Corps study to
include Boca Cieqa Bay. Authorization is Probably existina and would
require only an expansion of plans and, possibly, additional funding.

other agencies may include local governments surroundinq Intracoastal
Waterway and possibly a local sponsor of the project.

4. Management Proqram for Spoil. Islands - Spoil islands offer the
potential for a variety of recreational opportunities, including picnic
areas for boaters, bird sanctuaries, etc. While several studies have
been done on spoil islands, many islands are not manaqed for any
specific use.

DESIRED ACTION:

Review spoil islands in Tampa Bay with consideration given to maintenance
spoil placement, bird sanctuaries and recreational potential. Bay-wide
management plans should be established.

DESIRED RESULTS:

Increased recreational site for boaters, and improved wildlife habitat.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMENTS:

The main agencies involved include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (spoil
disposal), the Port Authority, and local governments. A management program
could also be developed as part overall education program on Tampa Bay.
(See also Item #18: Public Education).

ITEM: #5 Hazardous Wastes Disposal and Management

REFERENCE: Regional Concern; Ecology Meeting 4/13/83

ANALYSIS:

Centralized disposal/processing sites for plating wastes, septaqe, oils and
greases, and other hazardous wastes are lacking in the bay area. This has
resulted in opportunistic disposal on land and in wells and surface waters.
Materials are reaching bays and tributaries, leading to contamination.

DESIRED ACTION:

Establish a network of facilities for centralized storaqe and subsequent
transfer of hazardous wastes. Enforce participation and penalize illegal
dischargers (i.e. those who are required to use the centralized facilities,
but do not).

DESIRED RESULT:

Control of hazardous waste contamination.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMENTS:

Hazardous wastes issues have received a high priority for action at both
the state and federal levels. There are currently numerous studies and
committees initiating action for the entire Tampa Bay region. The Tampa Bay
Regional Planning Council is currently under contract with the Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) to conduct a hazardous waste
facility siting project for the Tampa Bay Region.

ITEM #6 Enforcement

REFERENCE: Regional Issue; All recreation meetings: Recreation survey
administered at boat show.

ANALYSIS:

Limited enforcement of boating activities, environmental laws and other
activities have hampered current efforts to manage Tampa Bay. In addition,
the general public and some agency personnel are unaware of appropriate
enforcement agencies to report violations.

DESIRED ACTIONS:

Increased funding for enforcement personnel, improved public education and
other management improvements are needed to remedy this situation.
Specially, (a) funds from enforcement fees levied in a particular area
should be returned to the enforcement entity in that area and (b) phone
numbers of the Florida Department of Natural Resources Marine Patrol, the
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and U.S. Coast Guard and the enforcement
responsibilities of each agency should be published in newspapers,
brochures, etr. and placed in locations accessible to the recreational
public.

DESIRED RESULTS:

Increased compliance with rules and regulations.
Improved safety, ecology, and recreational benefits of Tampa Bay.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMENTS:

This is primarily a funding issue and requires additional state and federal
appropriations to the Florida Department of Natural Resources, the U.S.
Coast Guard, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to carry out
enforcement responsibilities. In addition, appropriations for enforcement
at the local level should also be considered.

ITEM #7 Control of Septaqe Waste

REFERENCE: Regional Issue; Institution Meetinq 5/4/83

ANALYSIS:

The control and disposal of septage wastes (septic tank septaqP, including
qrease traps, oil, sludqe and non-toxic industrial. wastes) is a chronic
problem in many areas. Illegal disposal into canals, streams and storm
sewers may be placing an unknown discharge burden on Tampa Bay.

DESIRED ACTIONS:

A. To establish treatment facilities for these wastes as a lonq-term
solution.

B. Improved monitoring and enforcement of septaqe disposal.

C. Desiqnating additional disposal sites for septic tank septaqe,
including qrease trap, oil, sludqe and non-toxic industrial wastes.

DESIRED RESULTS:

Proper disposal of wastes, elimination of potential health hazards,
improved regional water quality.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMENTS:

This is a wide-spread problem which most local governments are currently
attempting to solve. Funding for enforcement and develoPment of adequate
disposal sites is a major problem. In addition, stronqer penalty fees and
state codes may also be needed. The disposal. of septaqe waste is currently
requlated by the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services
throuqh its County Health Units and according to Chapter 1OD-6, F.A.C. In
addition, septage waste disposal must also romoly with reaulations issued
by the Florida Department of Environmental Requlation. Regarding impacts
on Tampa Bay, further investigation is needed to determine cumulative
impacts, incidences of direct illegal discharges (i.e. via storm drains,
tidal creeks, etc.) enforcement issues and specific problem areas.

ITEM #8 Aquatic Preserves

REFERENCE: Regional Issues; Ecology Meetings 11/15/82, 12/13/82, 1/27/83,
2/4/83 and 4/13/83

ANALYSIS:

During the Ecology Subcommittee meetings, several concerns were presented
regarding existing and proposed aquatic preserves in Tampa Bay. These are
discussed individually below.

1. Upland Buffers for the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve - The aquatic
preserve boundary is limited on the shore side by mean high water yet
much development around the bay is leading to its degradation. Long-
term protection of the bay is dependent upon some measure of buffering.

DESIRED ACTION:

Identify incentive programs to leave blue belts and green belts around the
preserve.

DESIRED RESULT:

Maintenance of water quality and shoreline habitat in the preserve, and
involvement of adjacent property owners in its management.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMENTS:

Local governments have primary responsibility for regulating upland areas
through zoning and land use measures. It is also possible to have state
incentive programs through special tax incentives, etc. for keeping buffer
areas preserved. This would require an act of the legislature as a new
land use protection measure (i.e. similar to existing preferential tax
assessment given to agricultural areas).

2. Boundaries of Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve - Present boundaries of the
Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve do not extend up the Little Manatee River
or across the river to its north bank. Little Manatee River is
currently designated as an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) from the
headwaters to the U.S. 41 bridge. This gap within an area in preserved
status presents ecological inconsistencies for management.

DESIRED ACTION:

Extend boundaries to north bank of the Little Manatee River and upriver to
Outstanding Florida Water boundary.

DESIRED RESULT:

Inclusion of lower river area presently excluded from the preserve into a
management program intended to protect Cockroach Bay.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMENTS:

Agencies that would be involved in such a designation include Florida
Department of Natural. Resources, Hillsborouqh County and the Tampa Port
Authority. The boundary change would require legislative action.

3. Manatee County Aquatic Preserve Proposal - Water and habitats of Bishop
Harbor, Terra Ceia Bay and adjacent areas are largely pristine and
recognized as valuable coastal resources. Current and proposed upland
development and activities in or near submerged lands endanger the area.

DESIRED ACTION:

Designate waters of Manatee County from the north shore of the Manatee
River north to a point south of Port Manatee, from mean high water to a
suitable offshore line, as a Florida Aquatic Preserve.

DESIRED RESULT:

Reclassification of waters as Outstanding Florida Waters; controls on
discharges; development of management plan and controls on use of submerged
lands.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMENTS:

Implementation will require legislative act, either through loral
legislative delegation or through submittal by Florida Department of
Natural Resources. Procedures are established in the Florida Aquatic
Preserve Act, Chapter 258, F.S.

4. Designation of Aquatic Preserves for Management Plans - Cockroach Bay
(Hillsborough County) and waters 6-fPinellas County are Florida Aquatic
Preserves. Florida Department of Natural Resources rules recruire
management plans for preserves and their designation as "urban" or
"wilderness" in the plans. Plans have not been developed for Cockroach
Bay or Pinellas County Aquatic Preserves.

DESIRED ACTIONS:

A. Designate Cockroach Bay and waters of Pinellas County in Old and Lower
Tampa Bay as wilderness type preserves. Pinellas County waters in
Middle Tampa Bay and Boca Ciega Bay should be designated as urban
preserves.

B. Encourage adjacent landowners to be involved in the development of
management plans.

DESIRED RESULT:

Fine tune development of management plans for urban preserves with emphasis
on restoration for urban preserves and emphasis on maintenance of natural
conditions for wilderness preserves.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMENTS:

Management plans are developed by the Florida Department of Natural
Resources (DNR). Development of plans for Cockroach Bay and Pinellas
County Aquatic Preserves are not anticipated until after September 1984.
However, this could be accomplished sooner should funding or other
assistance become available. In other areas of the state, agencies and
individuals (such as graduate students) have assisted in developing
management plans. It should also be noted that Cockroach Bay Aquatic
Preserve is leased to DNR by the Tampa Port Authority. Tampa Port
Authority should be involved in developing plans and provide long-term
leasing commitments for assuring that the plans are followed.

TTEM #9 Seaqrass and Mangrove Habitat Creation

REFERENCE: Regional Issue: Ecology Meetings 1/27/83 and 2/4/83

ANAL YS IS:

Seagrass and mangrove hahitat loss has been extensive in Tampa Bay.
several sites along the bav offer potential large and small scale
restoration opportunities. once such site is the shallow shoreline area
south of MacDill Air Force Base on Tnterbay Penninsula.

DESIRED ACTIONS:

A. Identify potential sites for restoration opportunities.

B. Evaluate suitabilitv of macDill. site for seagrass and/or mangrove
planting, with emphasis on bathymetrv, circulation, sources of fill (as
needed) and mosquito control.. Develop plan and implement.

DESIRED RESULTS:

Restoration of significant areas of bav vegetation: stimulation of
fisheries and improvement to water quality: valuable ecological improvement
in close proximity to a large deqraded area.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMENTS:

Desired Action A. is a proposed study and could be funded by several
agencies, including Sea Grant, DFR's Coastal Zone Management program, -local
governments, etc. Tmplementation of Desired Action B. would have to he
coordinated between environmental interests, the Department of Defense
(MacDill Air Force Base), the U.S. Army Corps of Eginers, the Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation (dredge and fill Permitting), and
the Tampa Port Authoritv. It is also Suggested that a smaller area be
developed and studied as a test plot to determine feasibility, perhaps as a
student research project.

ITEM #10 Municipal and Industrial Discharqes

REFERENCE: Regional Issue; Industry Meeting 1/4/83

ANALYSIS:

Industrial and municipal discharges enter Tampa Bay and its tributaries in
many locations. The full impacts associated with these discharges are not
known. Current laws regulate discharges although there are exceptions and
many regulations are changing.

DESIRED ACTIONS:

A comprehensive study of the followina: Tracking system for sources of
discharqes, application of current laws, need for new laws, and impacts on
Tampa Bay.

DESIRED RESULTS:

Improved water quality and ecoloqical benefits.
Better understandinq of impacts of discharges.
Improved legislation.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMENTS:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Aaency and Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation (DER) are the main agencies responsible for
permitting point source discharges under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES). DER is currently undertaking the desired
actions; however, discharqes to Tampa Bay remain a concern and warrant
study committee review, Darticularly in terms of the need for new laws and
continued studies on the impacts of Tampa Bay (see also Ttem #4: Wasteload
Allocation for Tampa Bay Basin).

ITEM 411 Stronger State Wetlands Regulations

REFERENCE: Regional Issue; Study Committee Meeting 6/28/83

ANALYSIS:

Tampa Bay is losing wetlands at an alarming rate, especially wetlands above
the mean high water mark and wetlands occurring in the headwaters of the
riverine systems which flow into Tampa Bay. Tampa Bay's water quality is
related to and dependent upon these wetlands. Current state statutes and
regulations do not adequately protect many of these wetland areas. At the
present time, little or no consideration is given to loss of fish and
wildlife habitat above the mean high water mark, soils as indicators of
wetlands, or the biological integrity of wetland and associated
transitional areas.

DESIRED ACTIONS:

A. Stricter state regulations which consider fish and wildlife impacts
above the mean high water mark, protect all wetlands associated with the
tributaries of Tampa Bay, add soils indicators to regulations, and
strengthen current rules concerning biological integrity.

B. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) should exercise discretionary
jurisdiction over all wetlands on the Alafia, the Little Manatee and
Manatee Rivers above.5 cubic feet per second (CFS).

C. Develop and adopt local ordinances prohibiting activities adversely
affecting wetlands associated with riverine systems.

DESIRED RESULTS:

Reduction in loss of wetlands associated with Tampa Bay.

Improve management of the riverine wetlands of the rivers flowing into
Tampa Bay.

IMPLEMENTATION C04MENTS:

Strengthening the state rules and regulations would require a change in the
legislative act. other agencies involved with stronger policies and
regulations include COE, DER, Hillsborough County, Manatee County, Pinellas
County, and TBRPC.

ITEM # 12 Study and Management of Tidal Creeks and Rivers

REFERENCE: Regional Issue; All Ecology Meetings;
Institution meetings 4/29/83 and 5/4/83

ANALYSIS:

General - Tidal creeks and rivers are extremely important as fresh water
tributaries, mixing zones, fishery habitat and water quality buffers, but
many have been filled, hardened, channelized, or otherwise modified.
Several are now water quality liabilities.

Specific Concerns-

- Optimal Freshwater Supplies for Braden River Estuary - The lower Braden
River is a productive estuary dependent on freshwater. The City of
Bradenton plans to expand the existing reservoir on the Braden River to
meet the City's need for increased withdrawal for public water supply.
There are currently no plans or studies to determine whether the
proposed expansion will. provide adequate freshwater flows to maintain
the downstream estuary.

- Management of Salt and Booker Creeks - These creeks have direct impact
on Bayboro Harbor and the Port of St. Pptersbura. Both cr,@!eks have
serious infillinq, sediment contamination, and hydrological problems.

- Hillsborouah River Shoreline Improvement - Studies have shown that much
shoreline of the lower Hillsborouqh River could be restored into
productive habitat and provide indirect water quality benefits (City Of
Tampa 1983).

- Other creeks requiring specific local attention include Double Branch
Creek, Allen's Creek and Lake Tarpon Outfall.

DESIRED ACTIONS:

A. Develop a bay-wide program for the rehabilitation of highly modified
creeks and the protection of still natural ones (including upland
buffer areas). This should include a study of each creek and identifi-
cation of needs specific to each creek. There should be an emphasis
placed on 208 concerns, control of point source discharges, habitat
improvement, shoreline restoration, flood hazard potential, local
maintenance needs, and cost effectiveness.

B. Regulatory, engineering and scientific attention is needed to determine
and provide optimal quantities and timing of freshwater to Lower Braden
River.

C. The City and Port of St. Petersburg should develop and implement
specific management plans for Salt and Booker Creeks. Plans to develop
the Gas Plant area provide an excellent opportunity to "showcasel'
shoreline and habitat restoration of an urban creek. Rehabilitation of
this and other -public areas into an urban amenitv should be tied to the
development of the harbor area.

D. Investigate the use of special zoning or taxing districts along river
shorelines to promote private restoration projects and develop a
uniform plan for increasing and improving public shores. Specific
policies should be incorporated into reciional plans and local
qovernment coomprphensive plans to address shoreline and habitat
improvements (e.g. encouraae the replacement of failinq concrete
seawalls with natural shoreline stabilizers).

DESIRED RESULTS:

- Eventual rehabilitation of tidal creeks throucih implementation of old
208 policies supplemented by coordinated local aovernment restoration
projects and protection of healthy creeks.

- Improved water quality and significant increases in fishery resources
productive habitats and improved aesthetics.

- Develop a constituency for protection and improvement of local rivers.

- Rational plans for long-term maintenance dredging in creeks, control of
point and non-point source contaminants, and establishment of urban
creeks as waterfront redevelopment assets. in addition, improving
shoreline vegetation may reduce the rate of infillina, thereby reducing
the need for maintenance dredging.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMENTS:

A. Implementing a bay-wide program would involve initial studies to assess
needs for each specific tidal creek or river entering into Tampa Bay, a
long-term commitment on the part of several agencies and local
governments, and strong public support. While there are no agencies
specifically addressing this issue, it would be an extension of many
existing authorities. These include local governments (environmental
control, commiinity development, parks and recreation, planning
departments and local government comorehensive plans), Tampa Bay
Regional Planninq Council, various state aqencies (FDER, FDNR, F`DCA) and
federal aaencies. Lack of funding ancl agency commitment would be a
major impediment to implementation.

B. Optimal Freshwater Supplies for the Braden River Estuary - The pronosed
study would need to be undertaken by the City of Bradenton and/or the
Southwest Water Management District (SWFWMD). SWFWMD may require the
City of Bradenton to undertake the study as a result of Bradenton's
request to the District to increase water withdrawals (consumptive use
permit).

C. City of St. Petersburg may elect to showcase shoreline restoration at
the Gas plant site as part of the overall development. If this occurs,
such work should be commended and used as a regional demonstration for
restoration of urban creeks.

D. This could be accomplished in conjunction with A) above or prior to such
an undertaking as part of the Bay Study Committee Plan.

ITEM #13 Wasteload Allocation for Tampa Bay Basin

REFERENCE: Regional Issue; All Ecoloqy mf-(-tinqs

ANALYSIS:

Nutrients reaching Tampa Bay from incomplete or overloaded sewaqe treatment
systems continue to aqqravate eutrophic conditions. Discharge limits for
particular plants are based on site specific determinations while
cumulative impacts are ignored.

DESIRED ACTIONS:

A. Develop wasteload allocations for the Tampa Bay basin, includinq all
tributaries, with priorities qiven to protection of resources. The
allocation should result from a series of investiqations performed
systematically throuqh time over all pertinent factors.

B. Periodic (i.e. at least every five years) re-assessment of wasteload
allocation fiqures to determine accuracy and continual updatinq of
wasteload allocation analysis.

C. Discharqers should he required to include in their revenue. budqets a
set precent of total income (i.p. 2%) for fundina the periodic re-
assessment.

DESIRED RESULT:

Better understandinq of role of nutrients in the bay and resource-justified
limits to all sewage treatment plant discharges to the bay and its
tributaries.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMENTS:

As required by the' U.S. Environmental Protection Aciency, the Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation has initiated and has contracted the
wasteload allocation study. The study will require the input and
cooperation of the local governments surrounding Tampa Bay and the Tampa
Bay Reqional Planning Council plans to establish the public participation
phase of the study (as approved by DER). The first meeting is tentatively
planned for July 1983. Controversy exists concerninq the desiqn of the
study and the long-term implications of living with the results should they
be inaccurate.

In addition to initial studies, fundinq will be needed to assess and update
wasteload allocation analvsis and to fund improved studies.

ITEM: #14 Assessment of Fishery Stocks in Tampa Bay

REFERENCE: Regional Issue; Study Committee Meetings 6/22/83 and 8/9/83

ANALYSIS:

Tampa Bay is an important recreational and commercial fishery. Little is
known about the losses in production which may be attributed to habitat
loss, overfishing, entrainment and other activities.

1. Assessment of Standing Stock - The standing stock and production of
fishes in Ta-m-p@-Ba-yare not known. This lack of information seriously
hinders the development of regulations which govern catches by sport and
commercial fisherman. In addition, it is difficult to quantify losses in
production that may be attributable to habitat loss, overfishing, etc, if
information regarding standing stock is not available.

DESIRED ACTION:

Implement a study that will determine, to the extent possible, the standing
stock, recruitment and production of fishes in Tampa Bay.

DESIRED RESULT:

The information would allow scientists to determine more accurately whether
or not serious depletions in fishery resources are occurring. It wo ul d
also allow a better assessment of the relationship(s) between habitat loss
and decreasing production. Also if fishery production improves as a result
of the implementation of any or all of the committee's recommendations, the
improvement may be quantifiable if accurate baseline data are available.

IMPLEMENTATION CCMMENTS:

Assessing standing stocks in an open estuarine system is extremely
difficult. However, the subcommittee can acknowledge the shortcomings of
such a study and still recommend that it be attempted. Otherwise, it may
appear that a critical 'Ineed7' was overlooked.

2. Power Plant Entrainment - Power plant entrainment causes approximately
100% mortality of larval and juvenile marine life. Fine mesh screens (FMS)
are being constructed for use at two units at Tampa Electric Company's Big
Bend Station and recognized by the LLS. Environmental Protection Agency as
Best Available Technology for the Big Bend Station. Retrofitting existing
units would further protect the resource.

DESIRED ACTIONS:

A. iRecommend that power companies study the feasibility and use of FMS and
other mitigative alternative at existing installations, where not
currently in use.

B. Encourage retrofitting power plants on Tampa Bay with appropriate
mitigative measures to offset other impacts with priority on basis of
cooling volumes.

DESIRED RESULT:

Reduction of ichthy0plankton (and other plankton) mortality by power plant
entrainnent as a cause of wastage in fishery stocks of Tampa Bay.

IMPLEMENTATION CG4MENTS:

The main impediment to implementation will be the cost of funding and
maintenance requirements. There are currently no statutory requirements
for retrofitting existing plants so implementation is also dependent on the
good will of the power companies or the possibility of using retrofitting
as a mitigative measure to offset impacts associated with new proposals.
Agencies that may be involved in either the studies, proposals or
permitting include: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Fisheries Division, Florida Department of Natural
Resources, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Florida
Department of Community Affairs/Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council (power
plant site plan reviews) and local governments. Power companies with
plants along Tampa Bay are Florida Power Corporation and Tampa Electric
Company.

TEM #15 Gypsum Field Decommissioning, Hillsborough County

REFERENCE: Regional Issue; Ecology Meetings 3/11/83 and 3/24/83

ANALYSIS:

The gypsum field west of U.S. 41 and north of the Alafia River poses a real
and continuing hazard to the bay due to leaching of acidic waters, fluoride
and radionuclide enrichment, and erosion. It also poses a Iona term hazard
and flood inundation concern.

DESIRED ACTION:

Develop a plan for the decommissioning of the f ield, which is nearing
design limits, which either provides for its dismantling or perpetual
maintenance.

DESIRED RESULT:

Prevention of maior impacts to bay from Pernetual seepage of wastes or
collapse of the field.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMENTS:

At the time the gypsum stack is closed, the current owner is required to
submit plans for maintenance to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) as part of the
discharqe permits (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System). There
are currently no specific guidelines for these plans. However, once plans
are received by DER, there will be an opportunity for outside agency and
public review prior to approval.

Since this is a unique location for a gypsum stack with its own existing
and anticipated long-term problems, funding may be available to conduct an
in-depth study on long-term maintenance through the phosphate industry
taxes collected by the Florida Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of
Mines.

ITFYi #16 Commercial and Sport Fishina Requlation

REFERENCE: Reaional Tssue; Ecoloiv Meeting 3/24/83; Pconomics
Meptina 2/10/83

ANALYSIS:

The regulation of commercial and sports fisheries is a complex problem.
There are indications that fish stocks are declining in Tampa Bay and
overharvesting can contribute sianificantly to this problem. Neither sTx)rt
nor commercial fishing regulations reflect biological data specific to bay
fisheries and a number of l-)cal controls over the latter are conflicting ,
overlapping or redundant. This lack of uniformity from one area to another
make current laws nearly unenforceable. However, it is also difficult to
regulate the fisheries due to a lack of biological data.

DESIRED ACTIONS:

A. Standardization of rules and regulations concerning sport and commercial
fishinq to reflect bay-specific information and a coordinated process
for applying and enforcinti local controls.

B. Continue to monitor the catches within the Bay and Gulf region; continlie
biological research (i.e. studies of standinq stock, fish production and
recruitment, etc.).

DESIRED RESULT:

Maximizing fishery stocks and yields by fine-tunina requlations to actual
conditions in Tampa Bay and standardizinq these controls throUqhout local
qovernments.

IMPLPNENTATION COVIIENTS:

A major review of Current laws, effectiveness, and needed legislation
should be accomplished first. To set "management levels" or other types of
requlation on any specific stock will be difficult aue to lack of data.
However, conservative limits may be determined based on best available data
and continued monitorinq of catches in the Bay and Gulf. Limits can be
adjusted upward or downward as more information becomes available. A
review of solutions used to regulate other areas would also be helpful.
Agencies involved include National Marine Fisheries, Florida Department of
Natural Resources, and local covernments. New state regulations woi.ild also
be required.

ITEM #17 Documenting the Economic Importance of Tampa Bay

REFERENCE: Regional Issue; Economics meeting 2/10/83; Industry meetina
1/4/83

ANALYSIS:

Tampa Bay is directly and indirectly an economic asset to the region. The
status of the bay (i.e. clean, dirty, etc.) and the value placed on that
status varies from activity to activity. In order to judge the needs for
Tampa Bay, an overall economic assessment is desirable. Tampa Bay also
provides secondary benefits to many commercial activities. It is
identified nationally as a nice area for locatinq new businesses and is
used as an indirect attraction in many ways.

DESIRED ACTIONS:

A. Study of economic importance of Tampa Bay for commercial enterprizes,
recreation and other identifiable uses.

B. Assessment of the value of Tampa Bav in different hypothetical
conditions.

C. Identify types of secondary benefits and commercial Pnterprizes
capitalizing on those benefits.

DESIRED RESULTS:

Documentation on the overall economic benefits of Tampa Bav to the area.
Maximum economic benefits @Ierived from Tampa Bay with m inimum impacts.

IMPLEHENTATION COMMENTS:

This is a proposed study not under any agency's iurisdiction. Area
Chambers of Commerce, the Tampa Bay Regional Planninq Council, Sea Grant or
the academic community may be able to undertake this study. FundincT
sources are the primary consideration at this point.

ITEM #18 Public Education

REFERENCE: Regional Issue; Recreation Meetina 2/1/83; Ecology Meeting
4/13/83

ANALYSIS:

A large urban population surrounds Tampa Bay and uses it for recreation.
The public is largely uninformed on the value of managing shorelines,
waterfronts, lawns, etc. to protect bay; habitats of the bay and their
value; or what to do to protect the bay.

DESIRED ACTIONS:

A. Production and distribution of a guide to Tampa Bay describing its
history, geography, resources, oroblems, and potential. Included in
this guide should be guidelines for restoration, sources of native
plants, and the identity of local agencies and responsibilities. Pro-
visions for including specific information on each area of the bay
should be made.

B. As offshoot of guide to Tampa Bay, develop series of newspaper articles
for widespread circulation of information.

C. Funding should be souqht to poblish and disseminate the recreation
inventory.

D. More educational information on Tampa Bay should be disseminated
throuqh existing programs, such as adult education programs, boating
safety courses, etc.

E. Develop travelling exhibit for libraries, civic groups, school
programs, etc.

DESIR_FD RESULTS:

Imoroved understanding by qeneral public of value of Tampa Bay and steps
that can be taken to restore and improve the bay.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMENTS:

To successfully implement this item, funding and the development of stronq
public support is required. Initially, agencies with existing public
education programs may he sought for support (i.e. Sea Grant, County
Extension Agents, community colleqps). Other agencies that should he
involved include the local governments, Florida Department of Natural
Resources, Florida Department of Environmental Requlation, Tampa Bay
Reqional Plannino Council, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Aqency.
Local conservation and recreation aroups could also plav a large role in
developing this proqram.

ITEM #19 Shoreline Development and Public Access

REFERENCE: Regional Issue; Recreation Meeting 2/l/83, Recreation Survey

ANALYSIS:

Public access and the need for public shoreline facilities varies for
different areas of Tampa Bay. Contributinq factors include: varying
population densities, lack of information on public needs, the use of the
shoreline for some uses will preclude other possible uses, and potential
impacts on the natural systems of Tampa Bay. Respondents to the recreation
questionnaire specifically noted a need for more regional parks with
camoinq facilities and more parks in middle Tampa Bay on the Hillsborouqh
Countv side.

DESIRED ACTIONS:

A. An analysis and needs assessment of public accpss and visual access to
Tampa Bav should be conducted. This assessment should also include an
analysis nf aesthetic quality considerations.

B. A high Priority should be qiven to maintaining and improving existinq
parks and public facilities.

C. Policies should be established at the local, regional and state level
requiring optimum use of the shorelines of Tampa Bay for the public
benefit.

DESIRED RESULTS:

Improved public access, including visual access and improved aesthetic
quality.
Adequate shoreline facilities to meet local and regional recreational
needs.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMENTS.:

Major implementation can be accomplished at the local level through a
review of current and future needs, existinq policies, local qovernment
comprehensive plans, current land use and zoning. Agencies which may
provide assistance include Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, and the Florida Division of Archives (for'
archaeoloaical sites). Anticipated problems include fun6inq, enforcement
and regional overview. Zoninq measures have been developed to zone for
clear space and public access. A model should be provided as part of the
bay management plan.

ITEM #20 Load Relief for Major Sewage Treatment Plants

REFERENCE: Federal, Regional & Local Issue; Ecology Meetings
3/11/83 and 3/24/83

ANALYSIS:

With continued growth, area sewacte treatment plants (STP's); includina
Hooker's Point STP, may. be approaching lesign limits in future years.
Water quality in Tampa Bay remains an important issue of concern and is one
reason why appropriate load relief strategies should be carefully planned.

DESIRED ACTIONS:

A. Review area 201 FaAlities Plans and Environmental Impact Statements so
that appropriate treatment strategies and effluent (4ischarge limits are
maintained.

B. Evaluate al.ternat ive methods of STP ef fluent discharge presently or
potentially hooked to sewage treatment plants and give priority to
land disposal at satellite plants, especiall.v where new service areas
are being developed.

C. Continued monitoring of regional sewaqe treatment plants and improved
monitoring of smaller sewage treatment plants.

D. Evaluate need for growth control measures.

DESIRED RESULTS:

Local responsibility of STP effluent disposal; relief for treatment
facilities; improvement in regional water quality.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMENTS:

Local qovernments operate major areawide sewage treatment plants while the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) has regulatory
responsibility over sewage treatment plants. DER's current policies
encourage land disposal at satellite plants which, in many cases, is a
costly alternative but one which should receive appropriate evaluation.

Local aovernments should consider recycling or reuse options of effluent
whenever available. For instance, the City of Tampa is presently
conducting a Water Reuse Feasibility Study in which several eifferent reuse
alternatives are under evaluation.

An innovative solution in some communities for reducing loads to sewage
treatment plants has been mandatory retro-fittinq of water saving devices
with the burden of cost placed on local governments. Reduced loads have
been as high as 30%.

ITEM #21 Water Quality Improvement for Recreational Uses

REFERENCE: Regional Issue; Recreation survey administered at boat show

ANALYSIS:

Many recreational uses are severely limited in areas of Tampa Bay due to
poor water quality. These uses include: prohibited shellfishinq, poor
f ishinq, limited swimming and almost non-existent scuba divinq
opportunities. Areas specifically noted in the survey included-
Hillsborouqh Bay (all activities), Old Tampa Bay (poor fishing), and a
(.7eneral concern for swimminq in many areas, including publicly approved
beaches.

DESIRED ACTION:

A long-term proqram to restore and enhance Tampa Bay is needed to improve
the region's water-based recreational opportunities. This should include
establishing specific levels of water quality Darameters for each area and
improved monitorinq, particularly in areas not currently monitored.

DESIRED RESULTS:

More areas open to shellfishing.
Improved fishinq.
Increased opportunities for swimming and scuba diving.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMENTS:

This item includes many of the other issues presented by the subcommittees
with an emphasis on recreational benefits. To successfully implement, this
would require considerable public support, increased funding and the
cooperation and lonq-term commitment of most of the agencies involved with
Tampa Bay. One basic approach would be to document the current loss of
recreational opportunities (i.e. closed swimming areas, closed shellfishina
areas) and assess the potential for increasinq these opportunities. (Some
of the preliminary information has been gathered by the Recreation
Subcommittee). Once a complete assessment is made, a proqram can be
developed to involve all anplicable aaenciest the Public, etc.

ITEM: 22 Stormwater Detention Requirements for Redevelopment

REFERENCE: Regional Issue; Indivi.dualy submitted

ANALYSIS:

As land becomes available through redevelopment, existing urbanized areas
should be retrofitted with stormwater detention facilities to help clean up
some existing water quality impacts from urban non-noint source pollution.
Current rules and regulations require detention for new impervious areas
only and, therefore, in highly developed areas maintain status quo only.
There is also a need to develop better regional detention facilities to
control. urban runoff and reduce maintenance burdens on local governments.
(It is easier to nontrol runoff with one large facilitv than several tiny
ones).

DESIRED ACTIONS:

A. Require developers to install stormwater detention as if the "pre-
development" condition was pervious, undeveloped land.

B. Identify areas and mechanisms for local qovernments to develop regional.
detention facilities.

DFSIRED RESULTS:

Improved water qualitv in those areas of the Bay currently impacted by
urban stormwater runoff.

Improved runoff control and reduced maintenance problems.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMENTS:

State regulatory changes are needed to implement desired action A) on a
reqion-wide basis. Current agencies involved with stormwater permitting
are Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and the Southwest
Florida Water Manaapment District. However, local covernments mav implement
requlations stricter than the state statutes through local ordinances.
desired action B) requires a regional- study of redevelopment issues,
reqional detention facilities and control alternatives available at the
local and state level. A model ordinance incorporating both actions mavbe
desirable and could be modelled after existing programs (i.e. City of
Clearwater). Getting the ordinance passed in each of the municipalities
and counties around Tampa Bay would be dependent upon the individual area,
local public pressure, etc.

C)l

ITEM #23 Review of Rules and Regulations

REFERENCE: Regional Issue, Industry meeting 1/4/83

ANALYSIS:

Controversy exists over the adequacy of current rules and regulations which
directly impact the ecological, recreational or economic aspects of Tampa
Bay (too many rules vs. not enough rules). Many jurisdictions overlap
while there are also gaps where current rules and regulations may not
adequately meet the original legislated mandates or the needs of the area
or they may be so narrowly defined that they restrict the use of the best
possible solution to a particular conflict. In addition, permitting and
other review procedures place a costly burden on the applicant and the
public.

DESIRED ACTION:

Analysis of rules and regulations affecting Tampa Bay - to include cost-
effectiveness of current permitting procedures and identification of
overlaps, gaps and needed improvements.

DESIRED RESULTS:

Improved benefits from permitting and other rules and regulations.
Improved efficiency, reduced costs.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMENTS:

This is a proposed, somewhat academic, study not currently under the
jurisdiction of any single agency. However, most agencies involved with
Tampa Bay may be affected. In addition, the major jurisdictional controls
and many specific regulatory issues have been identified by the Tampa Bay
Study Committee and are discussed within this plan.

ITEM #24 McKay Bay Management Plan, Tampa

REFERENCE: Local Issue; Ecology Meetings.3/11/A3 annel. 3/24/83

ANALYSIS:

McKay Bay is a major destination for migratory birds and a critical habitat
and feeding area for sea and shore birds. The Bay also functions as a fish
nursery for some sport and commercial species. Protection of the Bay and
shoreline areas is needed to prevent loss of critical habitat and nursery
areas. An opportunity for a comprehensive plan for managinq McKay Bay
exists and would result in the permanent preservation of productive shores
and bottom.

DESIRED ACTIONS:

A. Request assistance from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to develop a
management plan for acquisition of perimeter shores of McKay Bay.

B. Restoration and control of effluents.

C Study biomaqnification of sedimentarv contaminAnts in avifauna.
(Riomagnification is the increased contaminant accumalation in animal
tissue as the contaminants move through the food chain).

D. Seek local assistance and/or sponsorship.

DESIRED RESULT:

Establishment of i-nnpr-city, inner-harbor wildlife refuae and conservation
area and long-term protection of critical bird habitat and fish nursery.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMENTS:

Anticipated problems include funding and possible resistance from shoreline
owners. Agencies involved may include U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Southwest Florida Water
Manaqement District, Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, Hillsborouqh
County and the Tampa Port Authority. It may also be possible to provide
graduate student assistance (and fundina) under the S.T.A.R. program and
the Florida Department of Natural Resources and the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation for the development of a management plan.

ITEM #25 Shellfish Classification

REFERENCE: Regional Issue; Ecology Meetings 11/15/82 and 12/13/82;
Recreation Meeting 2/1/83

ANALYSIS:

Not all parts of lower Tampa Bay are classified for shellfish sanitation,
so these areas are closed (unapproved) for harvesting, including
recreational harvests. In addition, the public is not always aware of
which areas are open to shellfishing.

DESIRED ACTIONS:

A. Classification of lower Tampa Bay as to shellfish sanitation, including
additional funding for staff review.

B. Expand public information on areas open and closed to shellfishing
through public newspapers, mailings to marinas, etc.

C. Additional patrolling of closed shellfishinq areas.

DESIRED RESULTS:

Valuable scientific, commercial anti popular insiqht into water qualitY of
the lower bay.
Increased recreational opportunities for shellfishinq.
Prevention of health hazards associated with shellfishing in closed areas.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMENTS:

Classification of lower Tampa Bay will. require additional state appropria-
tions for staff or a change in priorities within the Florida Department of
Natural Resources (DINP.). Patrolling may also require additional staff
time. Public information will require cooperation from local newspapers,
marinas, etc. and increased mailings of information from DNR.

ITEM #26 Power Plant Entrainment

REFERENCE: Regional Issue; Ecology Meeting 4/13/83

ANALYSIS:

Power plant entrainment causes approximately 100% mortality of larval and
juvenile marine life. Fine mesh screens (FMS) are heinq constructed for
use at two units at: Tampa Electric Company's Big Bpn(I Station anrl
recognized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Aqencv as Best Available
Technology for the Big Bend Station. Retrofitting existing units would
further Protect the resource.

DESIRED ACTIONS:

A. Recommend that power com 'Panies study the feasibility and use of FMS at
existing installations, where not currently in use.

B. Encourage FMS retrofitting of power plants on Tampa Bay as a mitigative
measure to offset other impacts with Priority on basis of cooling
volumes.

DESIRED RESULT:

Reduction of ichthyoplankton (and other plankton) mortality by power plant
entrainment as a cause of wastaqe in fishery stocks of Tampa Bay.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMENTS:

The main impediment to implementation will be the cost of fundina and
maintenance requirements. There are currently no statutory requirements
for retrofitting existing plants so implementation is also deDendent an the
good will of the power companies or the Possibility of using retrofitting
as a mitigative measure to offset impacts associated with new proposals.
Agencies that may bp involved in either the studies, oroposals or
permitting include: U.S. Environmental Protection Aqency, Florida
Department of Natural Resources, Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation, Florida Department of Community Affairs/Tampa Bay Regional.
Planning Council (power plant site plan reviews) and local governments.
Power companies with Plants along Tampa Bay are Florida Power Corporation
and Tampa Electric Comoany.

ITEM #27 Hendry Fill Restoration Project, Manatee County

REFERENCE: Local Issue; Ecology Meetings 11/15/82 and 12/13/82

ANALYSIS:

A settlement resulted in f ines and title to lands adjoining Bishop Harbor
in Manatee County being given to the State of Florida. Restoration of the
disturbed area known as the Hendry Fill restoration project is required but
has not begun.

DESIRED ACTION:

Applying f ine revenue to restoration of creeks, qradinq of banks, and some
new plantinq to restore the filled area as a wetland.

DESIRED RESULT:

Recovery of an ecologically significant shoreline area and creation of a
buffer between Port Manatee and Bishop Harbor.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMENTS:

Florida Department of Environmental Regulation has approximately $80,000
for restoration work and the lands are currently in state ownership. The
only impediments to completion is time delays and the possible neerl for
additional funds for completion.

ITEM #28 Contingency Planninq for Post-Hurricane Acquisition of
Habitat

REFERENCE: Regional Issue; Ecology Meeting 4/13/83

ANALYSIS:

The opportunities for reclamation of ecological resources is significantly
limited in areas which are extensively altered such as Boca Cieqa Bay. In
addition, the potential for major damage during a hurricane is high. The
opportunity exists for the public to acquire newly formed or extensively
altered barrier beaches, inlets, and other natural features in these areas
following storms. However, acquisition mechanisms must be in place prior
to the storm.

DESIRED ACTION:

urge the adoption of the followinq policy by the State, TBRPC and local
qovernments:
For the barrier islands alonq Tampa Bay, including Boca Cieca Bay, all
possible mechanisms shall be used to prevent inadvisable reconstruction
following natural disasters such as hurricanes. In addition, the public
acquisition of these lands and/or public access shall be encouraqed.

DESIRED RESULT:

Acquisition of new or extensively altered habitats in a much-impacted area
of Tampa Bay plus prevention of recurring losses to life and property due
to barrier island development and redevelopment.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMENTS:

Policy recommendation should be adopted by the Tampa Bay Regional Plannina
Council and all other applicable agencies should be encouraged to adopt
same.

ITEM #29 Mitigation Banking

REFERNCE: Regional Issue; Industry Meeting 1/4/83

ANALYSIS:

Mitigation banking is the general concept of allowing industries or
developers to "bank" excess mitigation measures used at one site against
related or future projects. It can provide greater flexibility for
mitigating impacts associated with a proposed or existing project.

DESIRED ACTIONS:

Study of the potential to apply mitigation banking to programs involving
Tampa Bay. If determined desireable, incorporate mitigation banking
concepts into local and regional policies.

DERSIRED RESULTS:

overall reduction in impacts associated with industry and development along
Tampa Bay. Possible improvements through mitigation measures to existing
sites. Greater flexibility for applicants.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMENTS:

When administering mitigation banking, "deficits" from existing conditions
and projects should be considered and mitigation banking should be
permitted only when a net ecological benefit results. All agencies
involved with permitting activities and development on or along the shores
of Tampa Bay could be potentially involved with mitigation banking,
including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulationj. Florida Department of Natural Resources, TBRPC,
and local governments. Studies could be accomplished at any level.

100

ITEM #30 Management of Bower Tract and A,-.1jacent Wetlands,
Hillsborouqh County

REFERENCE: Regional Issue; Ecology Meetings 1/27/83 and 2/4/83

ANALYSIS:

The wetlands in Hillsborough County north of Courtney Campbell Causeway
have moderate to extensive spoils, channel. alternations, and other
impediments to circulation and mixing. These barriers retard water qpalit.v
improvement and deqrade habitat.

DESIRED ACTIONS:

A. Program of wetland improvements and manaopment includincr Sweetwater and
Rocky Creeks, and the Bower Tract of land.

B. Eliminate spoil areas and recreate original stream beds in marsh areas.

C. Active uniform manaqement from Double Branch Creek Park by Hillsborouch
County.

DESIRED RESULTS:

Improved circulation, water quality and habitat value of disturbed marshes
in Old Tampa Bay with management coordinated at one central location.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMENTS:

The Bower Tract is currently being purchased by the State of Florida
(Department of Environmental Regulation) as part of the Conservation and
Recreational Lands acquisition (C.A.R.L.) program. The state has the
authority via local aoreement to convey manaaement responsibility for Bower
Tract to Hillsborouqh County. Hillsborouqh Countv currently manaaes a
large tract of park land (Double Branch Creek Park) adiacent to the Bower
Tract.

Wetlands improvements and management may involve several agencies and
groups includinq the Plorida Department of Natural Resources, the Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation and Hillsborouqh County and should
include the Mosquito Control Department (and inclusion in the Local
Government Comprehensive Plan). Elimination of spoils and re-creation of
original stream beds would require dredge and fill permits.

101

ITEM #31 Management of Passage Key, Manatee County

REFERENCE: Regional. Issue; Ecology meetings 11/15/82 and 12/13/82

ANALYSIS:

Passage Key National Wildlife Refuge is a valuable regional bird rookery
vulnerable to pedestrian disturbance during nesting season. As a National
Wildlife Refuge, Passaqe Key is currently patrolled by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to reduce unauthorized human entry to breeding bird
colonies. However, because the Key is a popular boating destination even
during restricted periods, enforcement is difficult. Better public
information and local awareness of this important bird colony is needed.

DESIRED ACTIONS:

A. Implement a shoreline information program at Anna Maria and St.
Petersburg focusing on marinas, boat ramps, and the boating trade
during restricted periods.

B. Continued enforcement of limits to access, with possible emphasis on
patrolling during the early evening.

C. Notify sports and recreation editors sot that the restricted areas and
times can be published in local newspapers.

DESIRED RESULT:

Improved management of critical seabird and shorebird nesting area,
resulting in higher nesting and fledge rates for the affected species.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMENTS:

The main agency responsible for the management of Passage Key is the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. However, their ability to continually patrol
the Key during the nesting season and educate local residents is limited.
There is considerable room for assistance with education programs by local
environmenta groups and also the Marine Advisory Sea Grant Program. The
"adopt-a-refuge" program announced two years ago by the National Audubon
Societv provides a precedent for action in Audubon policy.

102

ITEM #32 Manaqement & Restoration of Shorelines in Boca Cieqa Bay,
Pinellas County

REFERE14CE: Regional Issue; Ecoloqy Meeting 4/13/83, Study Committee
Meetinq 6/28/83

ANALYSIS:

Boca Ciega Bay is known internationally for extensive dredge and fill.
Most shorelines are hardened causing habitat loss and contribUtinq to water
quality problems. Habitat destruction has been extensive and occurred
relatively recently. Existinq nolicies are fraomented across several local.
governments and many local provisions are not enforced.

DESIRFD ACTIONS:

A. Consolidation of spveral policies and regulation among local
governments, following Pinellas County model; incorporation into Local
Government Comprehensive Plans uniform lanquaqe for bay.-wide enforcement
and monitoring.

B. Where possible., replant seaqrasses and shoreline veqs.-tation in denuded
areas of Boca Cieqa Bay.

DESIRED RESULTS:

Consistent and effective management of shorelines in Boca Cieqa Ray with
goal of habitat and water cruality restoration.

Restoration of seaqrass habitat.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMENTS:

Implementation would require review of and amendments to all applicable
local government comprehensive plans for consistency of policies. Bay-wide
enforcement and monitorina may require administrative chanqes and inter-
oovernmental agreements. Implementation should be accompanied by analysis
and strict control of point and non-point source discharqes (particularly
storm sewers) that frequently cause water quality pro blems in highly
urbanized areas.

In addition, replantinq efforts could be conducted by local citizens and
through proqrams such as the DWI works projects and school proiects.

10 3

ITEM #33 Urban Waterfront Shorelines

REFERENCE: Regional Issue; Ecology Meeting 3/11/83; Tampa Bay Study
Committee Meeting 6/28/83

ANALYSIS:

Considerable waterfront shorelines along Tampa Bay occur in areas which are
urban or rapidly becoming urbanized. The preservation and restoration of
native vegetation in these areas could provide ecological benefits to
disturbed areas of Tampa Bay and reduce many urban impacts. In addition,
the aesthetic quality of urban waterfront shorelines should also be
addressed.

DESIRED ACTIONS:

A. Encourage developers and regulatory agencies to maximize use of native,
salt-tolerant and intertidal vegetation in landscaping and shoreline
protection.

B. Establish policies at the state, regional and local level to encourage
the restoration of native shoreline vegetation, particularly in areas
considered for re-development. Policies on aesthetic quality should
also be adopted.

C. Identify and encourage "showcase" developments, such as Harbour Island,
Tampa, to apply these practices as ecological improvements in an urban
setting.

DESIRED RESULTS:

Preservation and restoration of shoreline vegetation in urban areas.
Reduction of urban impacts and improvements to disturbed areas.

IMPLEMENTATION CCMMENTS:

This can be accomplished at several levels. Permitting agencies, such as
DER and local governments, should evaluate criteria for increased
restoration opportunities. Regional and local agencies should review
policies and other programs where urban restoration can be accomplished.

In showcase developments, implementation is also dependent upon the
developer and any marketing merit to demonstrating the shoreline as a
modern "natural" environment in a highly urbanized setting.

104

ITEM #34 Channel A Restoration, Old Tampa Bay, Hillsborouqh County

REFERENCE: Local Issue; Ecology Mpetinqs 1/27/83 and 2/4/83

ANALYSIS:

The mouth of Channel A is isolated from marsh systems on either side by
levees. Therefore, channel discharge is shunted directly to bay without
opportunity to be cleansed by marshes. The hydrology of the marshes is
also affected.

DESIRED ACTION:

Install culverts in levees, perhaps with one-way gates, to promote travel
of discharqe into marshes. This should be followed with studies and the
eventual removal of the levees extending beyond the natural shoreline and
the re-creation of natural meanders to the extent feasible.

DESIRED RESULTS:

Improved natural treatment of Channel A aischarqe and restoration. of marsh
hydroloqy.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMFNTS:

Anticipated problems include fundinq, ownership, and the possiblit 'y of
local boating and flooding concerns. Dredge and fill permits would be
required (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation and Tampa Port Author itV/Hillsborouqh County) and a sponsorinq
agency/individual is needed. It is possible that the Southwest Florida
Water Management District may consider such a proposal if submitted by the
Committee and providing recommendations reqardinq the projects feasibility,
althouqh funding is questionable. Some funding may currently be provided
for the maintenance of the levees.

105

ITEM #35 Water Quality Improvements Usinq Tidal Gates and Pumps

REFERENCE: Reaional Issue; Ecology Meetinqs 1/27/83, 2/4/83, 4/13/83

ANALYSIS:

Numerous areas on the periphery of Tampa Bay have pockets of . or quality
Po
water due to finger canals, causeways, or other modifications to
circulation. One such place adjacent to Old Tampa Bay in Hillsborouqh
County has been remedied by the installation of a one-way gate operated by
tides.

DESIRED ACTIONS:

A. Reconnaissance and selection of potential sites;

B. Water quality and feasibility evaluations;

C. Modelling to predict improvement; and

D. Locatinq and applying funds for construction.

DESIRED RESULT:

Where possible, elimination of zones of poor water quality in shallow areas
around the Bay through the use of tidal-powered structural controls.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMENTS:

The main obstacle to implementation wil.1 be funding. It is possible that
the initial reconnaissance studies can be conducted by the U.S. Geolooical
Survey. Placement of the structures may involve U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers/Florida Department of Environmental Recrulation (dredge and fill
permitting), Florida Department of Natural Resources, and the local
governments. Florida Department of Transportation would also be involved
when it is possible to place one-way gates in conjunction with roadway
improvements.

106

ITEM #36 User Conflicts and Limits on Activities

REFERENCE: Regional Issue; Recreation Meetinq 2/1/83

ANALYSIS:

Conflicts exist between individuals involved with various recreational
activities and the use of areas of Tampa Bay. Contributinq factors
include: 1) unregulated placement of crab pots and fish nets can cause
hazards or conflicts with boaters and, 2) the use of an area for one
activity may preclude the use of that area for other activities.

DESIRED ACTIONS:

The designation of some areas for particular activities should be
investigated. In particular, the following should be considered:

A. Certain areas where conflicts frequently occur, such as naviqation
channels and bridqes, should be authorized for specific uses and
patrolled to avoid user conflicts and safety hazards.

B. Safety should be considered when placing limitations on any activity.

C. The opportunity for artificial reef aevelopment should be considered in
areas designated for fishinq.

DESIRED RESULTS:

Improved safety, maximum use of an area without user conflicts.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMENTS:

Two main agencies involved with enforcement are the Florida Der)artment of
Natural Resources Marine Patrol. and the U.S. Coast Guard. At the present
time, this issue requires further study which would require funding.
Changing laws and placing limits on activities would require lp-aislative
action. It may also be desirable to involve the Coast Guard auxillary and
education proarams encouraqing safe boatinq.

107

ITEM #37 Florida's Marina Siting Policy

REFERENCE: Regional Issue; Recreation Meeting 2/1/83

ANALYSIS:

In early 1982, the Governor appointed a Blue Ribbon Marina Committee to
develop recommendations for a more comprehensive solution to marina siting
and levying lease fees. The Blue Ribbon Marina Committee submitted a final
report in January 1983 and among the recommendations, it established
speciic criteria for a marina siting policy. In general, the Recreation
subcommittee supports the proposed marina siting policy; however, the
Subcommittee proposes specific changes to the wording to clarify the
intent.

DESIRED ACTIONS:

Following is the marina siting policy as proposed by the Governor's Blue
Ribbon Marina Committee with the recommendations for changes proposed by
the Recreation Subcommittee. Recommended additions are underlined
(addition), deletions are crossed out He-l-e-tion), and notes are in
parathesis (Note: ). ...

marina Siting Policy

Meaningful recommendations for site-specific locations of marina facilities
are dependent on many factors including demand for such facilities and
private entrepreneurial development. As discussed in another section of
this report, comprehensive data to make these site-specific recommendations
based on supply-demand-needs assessments and economics of the industry does
not exist at this time.

The Committee feels, however, that general recommendations for marina
siting can be made based on certain demographic, socio-economic and
environmental characteristics.

In recognition of the tremendous regional diversity for marina siting
needs, provisions for local goverment and regional agency review should be
established. Decisions should take into full consideration local and
re ional input.

The state should give -pr4-,err+t-y consideration to the expansion of
existing facilities, if environmentally sound, over new facilities. It
should also encourage location of marinas in previously disturbed areas
and in areas that have historically been used for marine related
activities.

r+&r+,n-d-s 9*eti-l-d 19,e -I-&c-&t-ed -a-s e-14e-&e as de-m@.

The state should encourage marina development where adequate uplands are
available to develop related support activities and allow for possible
future expansion.

Hurricane protection needs for marinas should be considered.

108

- Input from local governments should be considered in evaluating lease
requests.

- Location of marinas in highly productive habitat should be discouraged.
(Note: As presently worded, this policy is vague. "Highly productive
habitat" should be defined).

- Location of marinas in or near well flushed, deep water areas should be
encouraged.
(Note: Specific criteria for determining well flushed, deep water
should be established).

- Piling construction and other non-dredge and fill techniques should be
utilized where possible to minimize habitat destruction.

- Pollution prevention including sanitation and spill containment needs
should be assessed and safeguards required as appropriate.

- Impact upon state designated manatee sanctuaries should be considered.
Particular marina locations or design features which threaten manatees
in these sanctuaries should be discouraged.

Additional Recommendation:

on page 17 of the Blue Ribbon Marina Committee's Final Report,
recommendation #19 states, "There should be a discount of 2 cents per
square foot per year for all uses requiring a lease that are open to the
public on a first come, first serve basis." If the state intends to give a
reduction in fees to first come, first serve marinas, the Recreation
Subcommittee recommends that the state require an annual written
certification from owners or operators, under penalty of perjury, that they
operate on a first come, first serve basis and that they maintain a
publicly available waiting list.

DESIRED RESULTS:

improved clarity of policy.
Equal consideration of marina siting proposals.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMENTS:

The Recreation Subcommittee recommendations should be submitted to the
Governor for consideration.

109

ITEM #38 Construction of New Skyway Bridge Pier Protection System

REFERENCE: Regional Issue, Study Committee Meeting 6/28/83

ANALYSIS:

The design of the oroposerl preferred alternative for the new bridge pier
protection system is proiected to cause increased current velocities in the
vicinity of the bridge, with possitle changes in flushinq rates of the bay
as a whole. Such chanqes are difficult to prf-dict orior to construction
and may or may not have aetrimental. effects on Tampa Bay.

DESIRED ACTION:

A thorough study of the impacts of the new bridge pier protection system to
identify effects on Tampa Bay and, if needed, identify possible mitigative
measures such as installing subsidiary channels.

DESIRED RESULT:

Reduce possible detrimental effects of pier protection system on Tampa Bay.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMENTS:

The Florida De 'partment of Transportation (FDOT) is the main a0ency
responsible for the pier protection system. Some studies have been
completed by FDOT, including a finding of no sicinificant impact for the
preferred alternative for the pier protection system. However, this
finding is currently controversial and additional studies are needed to
determine the long term consequences of the proposed system. Additional
agencies involved, either through permittinq or inttzracency coordination,
include U.S. Army Corps of EnqineE-rs, USGS, DER, DNR, the Governor's Offcp,
TTIRPC and local governments.

110

ITEM #39 Extension of 49th Street (St. Petersburg) Across
Tampa BaV

REFERENCE: Local Issue; Ecology Meetings 1/27/83 and 2/4/83

ANALYSIS:

Definite policy reaardina the environmental impacts of a proposed extension
of 49th Street across Tampa Bay is not explicit in the Local Government
Comprehensive Plan elements (Transportation, CZM, etc). The extension of
49th Street could have a tremenclous regional imnact on circulation and
water quality in Old Tampa Bay, particularly if a causeway were built.

DESIRED ACTION:

Explicit recoqnition in the Local Government Comprehensive Plans of the
potential for adverse environmental impacts resulting from an extension of
49th Street across Tampa Bay. Commitment to eliminate plans for extension
or to design and construct the bridge to avoid adverse environmental
impacts.

DESIRED RESULT:

Elimination of ambiguity in plan reaardinq policy of local qovernment on
protection of water quality and habitat in the area.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMENTS:

At the present time, implementation would involve only the clarification of
the above concerns in the local government comprehensive plans. Long term
implementation will require further studies and participation of Florida
Department of Transportation.

ITEM #40 Sailboat Launching

REFERENCE Local Issue; Recreation survey administered at boat show

ANALYSIS:

Several popular areas for the launchinq of small sailboats such as Hobie
Cats have been altered to restrict such launching. In most cases, rock
rip-rap has been placed alonq the shorelines as erosion control measures.
However, in many instances, small beach areas could remain or be developed
to provide launchinq space. Noted in the survey was to Prov'ide space along
the Courtney Campbell Causeway.

DESIRED ACTION:

Shallow launchinq areas for small sailboats, canoes, etc. should be
developed as part of local parks plannina.

DESIRED RESULT:

Increased recreational opportunity for small day sailinq crafts.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMENTS:

Implementation should occur at the local level with park planninq and
development programs. However, policies may be established at the reqional
and state level requirinq consideration of alternative launching areas as
part of plan approvals and funding programs.

112

ITEM #41 Odor along Bayshore Boulevard, Tampa; Courtney Campbell
Causeway

REFERENCE: Local Issue; Recreation survey administered at boat show

ANALYSIS:

Several survey respondents noted odor problems along the Bayshore
Boulevard, Tampa and also along areas of Courtney Campbell. Causeway.
Bayshore Boulevard is one of the few downtown areas in Tampa providing
scenic access to the bay area. In addition, many other areas around the
bay have periodic odor problems due to stagnant water conditions (i.e. dead
end canals), fish kills, etc.

DESIRED ACTION:

An investigation into causes and possible solutions is needed.

DESIRED RESULTS:

Improved aesthetics along a public urban scenic area.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMENTS:

This is a study need requiring fundina rather than any specific acency
action. Local governments have addressed this issue on occasion and the
DER wasteload allocation study will also be addressinq some of the
ecological concerns associated with odor.

113

ITEM #42 Manatee River Derelict Train Trestle, Manatee Countv

REFERENCE: Local Issue; Ecoloqy Meeting 3/24/83

ANALYSIS:

An old train trestle which is no lonaer in use crosses the Manatee River
west of the U.S. 41 bridge. Preliminary studies have shown that this
trestle is a significant impediment to flow in an area which is near two
points of discharge. The trestle is also a popular recreational fishing
spot.

DESIRED ACTION:

Remove trestle or salvage part of it for recreational fishing if additional
analysis indicates that the hydrologic and water quality benefits justify
the costs. Additional analysis is needed to investigate other
alternatives, to determine how much trestle may need to be removed to
improve circulation, and for further determination of the hydrologic and
water quality benefits.

DESIRED RESULT:

Improved circulation and flow of river resulting in bptter water quality.

IMPLEMENTATION COMMENTS:

The main implementation problem will he the cost of removing the trestle.
If the materials are suitable for reef material, funds and action may he
possible through local artificial reef construction groups. Sea Grant
coordinates many such programs while the Florida Department of Natural
Resources, Sea Board Coast Line and Manatee County may also be involved.

114

CHAPTER 4

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF SAY MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

USED ELSEWHERE

Many bay management programs are initiated and conducted at the regional
and local level. However, in many cases, state legislation or action at
the state level was requirpA to provide the funling and/or enforcement
needed to carry out management plans. Federal involvement has been limited
to funding specific proiects and federal authority over activities such as
navigation, water quality management and coastal construction projects.
Following is a general discussion of the possible roles in bay management
available at the ferlpral, state, regional and local level. S.Decific case
studies are discussed to highlight the implementation of other bay
management programs and are followed by an evaluation of the bay management
programs relative to Tampa Bay.

FEDERAL ROLE IN BAY MANAGEMENT

Except in specific cases involving federally owned lands, such as national
parks and marine sanctuaries, federal involvement in bay management
planning has been restricted to:

1. Navigation and boating where the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
U.S. Coast Guard have primary jurisdiction.

2. Water quality management programs involving the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.

3. Coastal construction activities including (a) the dredge and f ill
program and construction of docks, moorings and bulkhead over which the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has iurisdication; (b) the development of
ports and marinas (U.S. Coast Guard), (c) the building of bridges,
causeways and roads (U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Aqencv); and (d)
the construction of canals, levees, and salinity structures (U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers).

4. Permitting and regulation activities of the programs noted above.

5. Cooperative studies and research.

While these federal programs and federally authorized projects have had
undeniable long-term impacts on bay management in many areas, the federal
agencies have not taken a lead role in overall manaqement in any bay areas.
However, funding for study and the establishment of bay management programs
have often been provided by the federal government through such programs as
Coastal Zone Management, the Coastal Energy Impact Program and U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers studies. (1,2,3)

115

STATE ROLE IN BAY MANAGEMENT

Several states have initiated action to form bay-wide management programs
or provided needed legislation for regional authorities to accomplish the
same. in the state of Florida, the Environmental Land and Water Management
Act (Chapter 380, F.S.) has been used to nominate bays and rivers as "Areas
of Critical State Concern." This Act emphasizes the *Primary role of local
Qovernments in land use decisions vet empowers the state to intervene if an
area is lacking adequate land-use controls or having a significant impact
upon environmental or natural resources of regional or statewide
importance.(4) An area may also be designated (1) if it contains or impacts
significant historical or archaeological resources; or (2) if it is an area
having a significant impact upon, or being significantly impacted by, an
existing or proposed major public facility or other area of major public
investment.

one provision of Chapter 380 wh.4.ch has been successful with management
programs is the use of a Resource Planning and management Committee prior
to final designation as an Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC). The
Committee can provide local governments with an alternative by setting
forth goals and objectives and prescribing implementation steps which must
be adopted by local governments in lieu of ACSC designation. This has been
a useful mechanism for resolving land use problems short of a full scale
intervention through ACSC designation. This measure was used sucessfully
both in the Charlotte Harbor area and the uwannee iver area to establish
stronger local controls for the preservation of these areas. (5,6)

REGIONAL/LOCAL ROLE IN SAY MANAGEMENT

Most bay management programs have been initiated at the regional or local
level. In the case of Biscayne Say (discussed below as a case studv), most
of the study area lies within the iurisdiction of Dade County. Dade County
appropriated $5n,00() in 1978 to develop a management plan and funds were
later received from several other sources (the state legislature, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers) to conduct additional studies and assist with
implementing the plan.

In several other areas around the country, studies'and pl-ans have been
developed by regional planninq -!ouncils, some as part of the 208@planninq
Process, and, in a few areas, regional authorities have been established by
the state legislature. In the case of San Francisco Bay (discussed in
detail below), the San Francisco Bay Conservation and- Development
Commission was granted permitting authority over any "substantial" change
or development within a 100-foot wide strip of shoreline. In other areas,
regional port authorities have been granted specific jurisdiction over many
in-bay and shoreline uses (i.e. Saginaw Ray, Michigan).

Several control mechanisms are available at the local level which can be
implemented for protectinq.a natural resource such as an estuarine bay.
These include zoning, buildinq codes, subdivision regulations, sanitary and
well codes, and special Permit requlations.(7) The local comprehensive
planning process provides a long-range planning vehirle for preserving an
area and establishing important mitigative measures through local planning
and decision-makinq. Florida's rocal Government Comr)rehensive Planning Act
(Chapter 163, F.S.) also establishes Procedures for regional review so that

116

there can be some measures of consistency in the management of a regional.
resource. For successful imolementation, it is important that the local
plan's goals, objectives and policies are written with specificity,
precision and clarity. It is also important for successful plan
implementation that progress toward meeting objectives is routinely
measured. (8)

on a regional basis (i.e. a bay area incorporating several municipalities
and counties), the main problems are establishing uniform planning
objectives and policies that are consistent throughout the many
municipalities and counties. Local governments operate independently and
many planning objectives and policies are inconsistent across local
government boundaries. Regional management recTuires considerable
cooperation and coordination of efforts. Tt has been most successful where
a regional or state agency has had the authority to require
interjurisdictional resolution of an issue and compliance with any proposed
measures. Uniform enforcement an(4 implementation of the plans is also
critical.

CASE STUDY: Biscavne Bay

Biscayne Bav is within the boundaries of Dade County and action for
management has been initiated and carried out at the county level.
However, the Bay is also bordered by 13 municipalities and encompasses a
national park and a state aquatic preserve. A complex web of
jurisdictional controls over the Bay has created a need for a unified plan
for the entire bay system.

History: In November 1978 in recognition of the problems and opportunities
related to Biscayne Bay, the County declared the bay as an "Aquatic Park
and Conservation Area" and empowered the County Manaqer to develop a
management plan for that area. The project was undertaken jointly by the
Dade County Planning and Environmental Resources Management Departments. A
five member Policy Advisory Committee was appointed to oversee the general
scope and direction of the Bay projects. Members included two attorneys,
and representatives from The Marine Council, Greater Miami Chamber of
Commerce and Plorida Power and Light Company. Two additional committees
were appointed to provide assistance: A Scientific/Technical Committee,
composed of local university faculty members, and federal and state agency
technical staff, and a Local Government Liaison Committee, composed of
representatives from each of the shoreline communities. (9)

With assistance from the committees, the County staff completed a
management plan in early 1981. in accordance with the plan
recommendations, ths, Biscayne Bay Management Committee was created by Dade
County ordinance as a committee of the county commission, "to review
progress on the Bay Manaqement Plan and to make Dolicy decisions regarding
programs and actions that are specified within this Plan". (10,11) The
committee has policy and review authority but not direct planning or
regulatory authority.

Committee Structure: Of the 13 committee members, nine are appointed by
the county commission. They include three county commissioners, two
members recommended for appointment by the Dade League of Cities, and four
members from the Dade County community appointed by the Dade County

117

manager. The remaining four members are the District Engineer of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, the Stiverintendent of the Biscayne National Park,
the Secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and the
Executive Director of the Florida Department of Natural Resources.
Subcommittees were formed to develop recommendations for the full committee
on assignment of priorities to bay management and enhancement activities
proposed in the Plan. Subcommittee membership can include noncommittee
members, at the discretion of the subcommittee chairperson with review by
the full committee's officers. (121

Evaluation of Success: Although it is premature to predict the committee's
success in q its goals, early assignment of priorities to the
Plan's recommended bay management tasks established committee interest in
result-related tasks. Many of these tasks are currently being implemented
by Dade County and with assistance from the state. However, process-
related activities like developing a strategy for committee and
subcommittee operation have not been as fully discussed. Many of the
process-related issues will be important to the Committee's future success
and include: (13)

� The relationship of subcommittee activity to the full committee
f unctioning;

� The extent to which non-county interests, such as municipalities,
participate on the commii-tee; and

� The mechanism that the committee develops for resolving notential
conflict between the various interests either represented or not
represented on the committee.

CASE STUDY: Charlotte Harbor

The Charlotte Harbor estuary includes coastal regions of Sarasota,
Charlotte and Lee Counties. The total watershed for the Charlotte Harbor
encompasses more than 3 million acres and includes the major river systems
of the Caloosahatchee, the Peace and the Myakka Rivers, six bays, six major
islands and large areas on the mainland within the three counties. Serious
problems threatening the Charlott 'e Harbor system include the supply of
fresh water of high quality to the estuarine areas and threats of intense
development of coastal areas and islands.

History: Prompted by these threats, a confederation of environmental
interests nominated the Charlotte Harbor estuary in 1975 as an Area of
Critical State Concern (ACSQ, under Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. At the
time of the nomination, existing platted subdivisions alone had the
potential of adding more than two million new residents to the area. (14)

An ACSC designation would hav- allowed the state to review and approve
land-use and related decisions made by local governments within the
designated boundaries. Pollowing the ACSC nomination, the state Division
of State Planning undertook a study of the Charlotte Harbor area and held a
series of meetings among state and regional agencies. As a result, in 1977
the state decided to develop solutions for land use and water-related
problems but not to designate the area as an Area of Critical State Concern
at that time. The Charlotte Harbor Resource Planning and Management

118

Committee was formed to address these issues. (15)

Committee Structure: Chapter 38n.05 F.S. rpcruires the establishment of a
resource management committee comprised of state, regional and local.
representatives prior to determination of ACSC designation. Established in
1980, the Governor appointed 39 members to the Charlotte Rarbor Committee.
These members included one elected official and one planning official from
each of the three counties (Sarasota, Charlotte, Lee) and from each of the
eight cities. Agency members included one representative from each of the
two water management districts, the regional planning council, four state
agencies (DER, DNR, DVCA, HRS) and a representative of the Governor. Also
appointed were eight members, four re-resenting environmental interests and
four representing business interests.

Evaluation of Success: on December 11, 1981, the committee held its final
meeting for the purpose of voting on its final recommendations. A key
question for committee vote was whether to recommend designation of the
Charlotte Harbor area or parts of it as an Area of Critical State Concern.
The ACSC designation was perceived by local governments as an unwelcome
state intervention in local land use decisions. However, this threat
prompted active participation in the Committee by local governments and, as
a result of local government action, several of the problems that spurred
the original nomination have improved. Those actions included local
comprehensive land use 'planning and improved sewerage systems which were
supported and partly funded by state agencies represented on the committee.
In addition, DNR assigned two field personnel for managing the Charlotte
Harbor Aquatic Preserve and gave top priority to developing management
plans for this area. (The management plan was unanimously adopted by the
Governor and Cabinet on May 18, 1993).

Rather than recommending ACSC designation, the Committee voted 26 to 7 to
recommend ACSC designation only for those local qovernments that failed to
adopt the committee recommendations bv July lq82. By July 1982, all
counties and municipalities had either adopted the recommendations or were
in the process. In only one case, Lee County, was action brought before
the Cabinet to designate that area as an Area of Critical State Concern.
However, at the time, the Cabinet tabled the issue for one month anti Lee
County adopted the recom menda t ions in the interim.

The committee recommendations included strong proposals for local
government action to protect Charlotte Harbor. Analysis by Abrams (1982)
emphasized that these oroposals are the product of a consensus-building
process that required the committee members to reach agreement on specific
plans of action, not merely broad statements of intent. Recommendations
included local government action on:

0 Planning and requlation aimed at imoroving the quality of the
stormwater and wastewater that enters the estuary:

0 Promoting coordinated development on the mainland; and

0 Discouraging further development on barrier islands and in other high
hazard flood zones.

119

It is premature to evaluate the ultimate success of the Charlotte Harbor
Committee. The Committee established an effective mechanism for state and
local collaboration to manage a coastal resource on a short to mid-term
basis.' However, the commfttee's dissolution at the time of the final
recommendations leaves a vacuum for continuing the state and local
collaboration. The main responsibility for monitoring the implementation
of the recommendations has been carried out by the Southwest Florida
Regional Planning council. in addition, the state may proceed with
critical area designation at any point if a local qovernment does not
follow the Charlotte Harbor Plan. To evaluate local government compliance,
the Department of Community Affairs monitors dredge and fill applications,
changes in adopted ordinances, and relies heavily on the regional planning
council, area environmentalists and concerned citizens for information on
local activities. To date, a high level of local interest has helped
continue, on an informal basis, the communication network initially
established by the committee. (16)

CASE STUDY: San rrancisco Say

Established in 1c)65, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission is the first intergovernmental committee established to manaqe
a coastal resource in the Tinited States.

History: Alarmed at the rate of f illinq occurring in San Prancisco Bay,
area residents had first appealed to the University of California's
Institute of Governmental Studies to conduct a comprehensive review of the
bay and its problems. The result was a landmark report, The Future of San
Francisco Bay, which discussed in detail ownership, resource vi@_Iu_esl
pressures on the bay, and various land use and political choices for the
future. (17)

As outlined in the report, the bay dilemma was clearly regional in nature -
a question of regional planning and control of shoreline development. The
reqional planning agency, the Association of Bay Area Governments,
recognized problems in bay levelopment but had linnited Power and resources
and dealt with the bay as part of an overall reqional plan. Its staff
prepared and recommended a voluntary model fill moratorium for its member
ciovernments. This proved ineffective because no one would sign without
reserving the riqht to fill. (18)

The bay conservationists turned to the state legislature and, after a
difficult two year battl,-, the California Legislature passed the McAteer-
Petris Act in 1965 - the enablinq legislation for the San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCr)C). The Commission originally
was given a four year life span and assiqned the task of preparinq a plan
for the Bay. In 1969, the Commission submitted the completed plan to the
Governor and Legislature who subsequently decided that the Commission
should become a permanent agency to carry out the Plan. The McAteer-Petris
Act was amended in 1969 qivinq the Commission T)ermanent status and the
following three maior areas of responsibility: (19)

In accordance with the law and the Bay Plan, to regulate by permit all
filling, changes in existing uses, and dredqinq in San Francisco Bay;

120

o To have limited iurisdiction within a 100-foot strip inland from the
Bay. Within this shoreline band, the Commission's responsibility is
two-fold: (1) to require public access to the Bay to the maximum
extent feasible, consistent with the nature of new shoreline
developments; and (2) to ensure that the limited amount of existing
shoreline proper@v suitable for high priority purposes is reserved for
these purposes, thus minimizing pressures to fill the Bay. (The six
high priority uses of shoreline land specified in the law and the Bay
Plan are ports, water-related industry, water-related recreation,
airports, wildlife areas, and desalinization and power plants).

o To have limited iurisdiction over any proposed filling of salt ponds
or managed wetlands (areas diked of f from the Bay and used for salt
oroduction, duck-hunting preserves, etc.). These areas, although not
subiect to the tides of the Bay, provide wildlife habitat and water
surface important to the climate of the bay area. if filling of these
areas is proposed, the Commission is to encourage dedication or public
purchase to retain wat-- qurface area. If development is authorized,
the Commission is to ensure that the development provides public
access to the Bay and retains the maximum amount of water surface
consistent with the development.

Tn 1977, the Legislature gave the Commission a fourth major area of
responsibility:

To implement, in cooperation with local government and the Department
of Fish and Game, the Suisun Marsh Preservation Act of 1977. This
legislation requires local governments and special districts within
the Marsh to prepare a local protection program, consistent with the
Act and the Protection Plan, and submit it to BCDC. The legislation
provides specific controls which must be included in the local
protection program.

Committee Structure: The BCDC is comprised of 27 members, two from federal
agencies, four from state aqencies, one from a regional agency, nine from
counties, four from cities and seven at larqe public members. Five of the
Public members are appointed by the Governor (including the chair and vice-
chair of the Commission) and one each by the State Senate and State
Assembly.

Evaluation of Success: From 11'" through 1972, the BCDC was successful in
accomplishing the followinq: (20)

� Reduced the rate of filling from 94 to 29 acres per year;

� Added 30,000 linear feet of public access to bay shoreline through
actions requiring public access improvements as conditions for
approval of public and private shoreline development permits; and

� Dozens of proposed developments were reviewed by speciallv-established
professional boards to improve engineering and architectural design
plans for both public and private (levelopments.

.121

In continuing to achieve its goals, several characteristics underlie the
BCDC's effectiveness. Perhaps, the most imnortant is that the Commission
provides a mechanism for handling conflict between competing interests for
use of bay resources,. The Commission developed the plan that it would
implement through its requlatory activities. During the process of plan
development, consensus was built among Commissioners prior to their actual
application of the plan's policies to regulatory decisions. One mechanism
credited with consensus-building was the commission's practice of working
as a full committee, rather than dividing into subcommittees. (21,22) The
size of the Commission permits working as a group and the range of
membership helps to assure that varying opinions are expressed and
discussed.

Another mechanism for dealing with conflict is the reduced potential for
special interest pressure on commissioners. niverse membership minimized
parochial pressure - while a spirit of cooperation is maintained with local
governments through membership and timing of permit decisions. BCDC's
permit decisions are made independent1v of local governments and are made
after local government decisions. This assures that applicants cannot
attempt to use BCDC permits as leverage in a local government permit
decisions.

According to Swanson (23), the most critical lessons to be learned from the
BCDC are: to involve the Public; define clear, understandable goals;
recruit able, professional. staff; and develop a structure insulated from
interest group politics so that the committee is able to make decisions in
the wider public interest. The BCDC operates on a comprehensive planning
basis yet it has police power for controlling uses of the resource it seeks
to protect. While the Purposes of the BCnC are narrow in scope, its
membership, structure, and methods of operation exemplify how to achieve
significant state and local coordination bv design.

CASE STUDY: Grays Harbor Estuary, Washington.

Located on the southwest coast of Washington, Grays Harbor consists of
62,000 acres of water, intertidal mud flats, salt marshes and partially
developed shoreline. Thirty-four thousand people live near the shores of
the estuary. Fishing and resort towns are located on two fingers of land
which protect the estuary. The waters of the estuary are shallow but a
deep draft navigation channel provides access to heavily industrialized
ports with major wood Products factories. (25)

History: A long, intense conflict between economic expansion and natural
resource Protection has occurred in Grays Harbor. Nearly 4,000 acres of
intertidal habitat has been altered between 1940 and 1975 due to
maintenance dredging for navigation and filling to create level water front
industrial sites. In 1975, two applications for U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) dredge and fill permits brought the conflict into focus.

In the first case, the applicant roroposed to bulkhead and fill 1348 linear
feet of shoreline for a sawmill project which had been aooroved by the City
of Aberdeen in 1973. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) objected due
to (1) impacts on f isheries and bird habitats (particularly, migratory
waterfowl) and (2) the overall concern that piecemeal and indiscriminate
filling of wetlands was chronic in Grays Harbor. The second application

122

was by the Port of Grays Harbor to fill 39 acres of wetlands in order to
create a site for new waterfront industry. Federal and state agencies
obiected to the permit, including FWS, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Local
support was high for both projects due to economic development needs.
objections were withdrawn after an agreement was reached that a
comprehensive plan would be developed for the entire area.

In the meantime, Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission established an
Estuary Planning Task Force and secured a Coastal Zone Management grant to
prepare a management plan. The Task Force produced a draft plan in 1978
that established eiqht land and water use classifications and a set of uses
was permitted for each classification (outright or subject to conditions).
The vast bulk of the estuary was Proposed for 'Protection. The Port of
Grays Harbor agreed to abandon its plan to develop the entire 2200 acres it
owned for assurances that it could develop 500 acres in the Bowerman Basin
over the next 50 years. The remaining 1700 acres would be transferred to a
State agency for resource manaqement.

The 1978 draft plan was not adopted for two primarv reasons:

1. EPA considered the compromises it had to agree to inconsistent with its
own section 404 (b) (1) guidelines. The guidelines require evaluation
of the environmental effects of each development and of alternative
sites for development on a case-bv-case basis.

2. The FWS and environmental orqanizations obiected to the development of
the Bowerman Basin. The basin contained important shore bird and water
fowl habitat and was considered by some to be the most important
ecosystem in the entire Grays Harbor area. of particular importance
was the finding that the birds in the basin were hunted by endangered
predator species, particulary the Peregrine Falcon.

Committee Structure: Established by the regional planning commission, the
Grays Harbor Estuary Planning Task Force consisted of representatives of
the Port, the county, all nearbv municipalities, four state departments
(Natural Resources, Ecology, Fisheries and Game) and four federal agencies
(the Corps, EPA, FWS, NMFS). Environmental organizations, industries and
the Public at large were invited to make suggestions and attend Task Force
planning sessions but were not allowed to participate in the decision
making process. Decisions were made by concensus.

Evaluation of Success: It is premature to determine the effectiveness of
the Task Force. To date, no plan has been adopted; however, several
revisions have been made to the plan which now appear to be acceptable to
all the entities on the Task Force. These amendments include: 1)
specifying the degree to which specific U.S. Army Corps 404 tests could be
met in a long range plan; 2) specifying that each development must quality
for an individual permit; and 3) revisions in the location and area to be
Permitted for industrial development. The plan will be published along
with an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which includes "Letters of
Intent" explaining how the plan will be used bv the state and each federal
agency. The local governments have agreed to incorporate the plan's
provisions into their shoreline master programs.

123

While the planninq process for Gray's Harbor Estuary has taken a long time
to develop, it has also dealt with a number of issues of national
importance. These include: (26)

-Integrating the section 404 process into land and water use planning;
-Integrating the Endangered Species Act into land and water use planning;
-Inte grating large scale mitigation efforts into land and water use
planning; and
-initiating the concept of advanced designation of dredged material
disposal sites.

EVALUTION RELATIVE TO TAMPA RAY

The problems associated with Tamoa Bay are similar in many respects to
other bay areas. These similarities include a maze of jurisdictional
controls over Tampa Bay, impacts from upland activities, and other growth
related issues. However, there are important differences which must be
considered in an overall management strategy. The f irst is that there is
no single issue or problem which needs to be rectified. For instance, in
San Francisco Bay, the overriding concern was to stop f illing. in the Bay
while, in Charlotte Harbor, the concern was to preserve the many existing
natural areas.

In Tampa Bay, many of the historical problems such as dredging and filling,
municipal discharges, etc. are not controlled by regulatory programs.
Instead, there are numerous, chronic problems contributing to the long-term
degradation of the bay. Taken individually, many of the problems are minor
or insignificant- however, the cumulative impacts are presenting long-term
regional problems. Fxamples identified by the Study Committee include non-
point source discharqes entering Tampa Bay, proposed bridge construction,
the long-term disposal of maintenance spoil and alterations to shorelines
and tidal creeks (see Chapter 3, Item Vs 2, 9, 9 and 14 respectively).
The second major difference is that many of the problems in Tampa Bay are
due to past activities. The shorelines of Boca Cieqa Bay have heen almost
completely altered and most of the tributaries, large and small, have been
altered. Problems associated with urbanization (bridge and causeway
impacts, permitted and illegal discharges, stormwater runoff, land use
impacts, etc.) are readily apparent in all but the lower portions of Tampa
Bay.

Biscayne Bay is in a similar situation and is undertaking a large effort to
quantify the many problems and develop lonq-term restoration programs. An
advantage is that Biscayne Bay is within one county and Dade County has
been the lead agency in addressing the issues. If a similar strategy is
adopted for Tampa Bay, the cooperation and support of the three counties
and numerous municipalities will be needed. It would also require a
considerable coordination of efforts.

Currently there is no single agencv with the legislated authority to
implement a lonq-term management program for Tampa Bay. As presently
structured, the Tampa Bay Study Committee serves in an advisory capacity to
the regional planning council and local governments. It is currently up to
the good will of the local oovernments to undertake any proposed
implementation measures. Possible action from state agencies is also
limited. As presently worded, Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, provides

124

little opportunity to designate Tampa Bay as an Area of Critical State
Concern.

Another difference separating Tampa Bay from other bay management programs
is the current lack of public concern. Informal surveys have shown that
the public considers Tampa Bay to be in poor quality and should be
cleaned up. (27) However, this public attitude currently has little
direction. It is apparent that there is a need to demonstrate that Tampa
Bay is a resource vital to this area and that there are courses of action
both in the short term and long term that can be taken to improve this
resource for current and future residents.

In summary, there are actions that can be taken to improve the quality of
Tampa Bay. Several actions are proposed in Chapter Three, including
restoring shorelines in many areas, developing management programs for
areas such as McKay Ray and Passaqe Key, identifying mitigative measures
such as tide gates, contingency planning for post-hurricane acquisition of
habitat and imporvements in regulations, enforcement and public education.
Many of the actions are restorative in nature; others are preventative. A
recent survey of local resource managers has shown that many of these
actions will contribute importantly to the protection of Tampa Bay.
However, there is a need for a unified approach, either through legislative
action or strong local qovernment participation. To accomplish this,
improved public awareneqs and support is also needed.

125

CHAPTER 5
TAMPA BAY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

FUTURE PROJECTION OF TAMPA BAY

The future of Tampa Ba 'v will be influenced by several factors. These
include a continuation of several known trends: the area's population and
growth related impacts will increase, port activities and related
transportation impacts will continue, recreation demands will increase and
the costs of public facility improvements and maintenance (i.e. municipal
waste treatment) will increase.

The future of Tampa Bay, as currently managed, is also dependent on the
results and consequent actions of current studies and programs designed
directly or indirectly to control and manage the known trends. These are
the wasteload allocations studies being prepared by the Florida Department
of Environmental Regulation (DER), aerial interpretation of habitat loss
being conducted by the Florida Department of Natural Resources (DNR), long-
range planning by the area ports and the comprehensive plans of local
government environmental programs.

TAMPA BAY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

Because of the large number and complex nature of the issues affectinq
Tampa Bay, the Tampa Bay Study Committee could not reach a consensus
regarding a recommenaecl strategy to direct a coordinated approach to
manaqement of the bay. As a result, the Committee recommended and the
Coiincil approved the establishment c->f a 1S to 20 member Tampa Bay
Manaqement Steerinq Committee in October, 1983. The comnosition of this
committee provides effective representation for the wide range of Tampa
Bay's business, environmental, and industrial interests as well as for the
requlatory agencies having jurisdiction over the Bay.

The Tampa Bay Manaqpment Steering Committee will be chaired hv Senator
Jeanne Malchon who chaired the original Tampa Bav Management Study
Committee. The new Steeerinq Committee will meet on a regular basis to
devise strategies for addressing the priority bay management issues
developed by the original Bay Study Committee, and to provide necessary
guidance to the Council in its review and decision makinq responsibilities
regarding projects affecting Tampa Bay. Specific objectives of the
committee include the following:

1. Develop a recommended Bay Management Program and make a formal
recommendation to the Council 30 days prior to the 1985 session of the
Florida Legislature;

2. Prepare a oreliminary three-to-five year work oroqram to address
priority bay management issues in conjunction with ongoing efforts by
Congress,, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, state agencies, port
authorities and others, for submittal prior to the 1984 and 1985
legislative sessions.

127

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

4. Monitor proposals falling under the review responsibilities of the
Council for compliance with bay management recommendations.

The Tampa Bay Management Steering Committee will utilize two subcommittees
to better address management and work program issues. The short term work
program_ subcommittee, headed by Dr. Ernest Estevez of Mote Marine
Laboratory, will beqin determinina and implementing feasible solutions to
priority bay manaqment issues. The existinq manaqement authorities
subcommittee, headed by Ms. Laura Dennison of the Leaque of Women Voters,
will identify the existing institutional framework, and ways to better
effect and coordinate a cohesive long-term manaqement plan into this
framework.

128

REFERENCES CITED

1. Metropolitan Dade County, Biscayne Bay Management Plan and Technical
Supplement, (1980).

2. Virgina K. Tippie, "Research for Management: An Overview of the
Chesapeake Bay Programn, Coastal Society 1981, (1981), pp. 207-212.

3. Environmental Law Institute, "CBP Publishes Technical Studies Report,
Reports on Chesapeake Bay Ecology and Management Strategies to
Follow", National Wetlands Newsletter, Vol.4, No. 5, (1982), pp 11-12.

4. Kat@leen Shea Abrams, nState and Local Committees: Avoiding the
firestorm of Costal Management", Florida Environmental and Urban
Issues, Vol IX No. 2, (1980), P.5.

5. Abrams, p.6.

6. John L. Shoemyen, "A Success Story: The Suwannee River Resource
Planning .and Management Committee", Florida Environmental and Urban
Issues, Vol X No. 3 (1983), p.4-24.

7. Elizabeth Wolf, Jon M. Ausman and Robyn Allers, Flood Plain Management
in Florida: An Assessment of State, Regional, and Local Practices,
(Florida Department of Veteran and Community Affairs; 1981), pp.88-
106.

8. Florida Department of Community Affairs, Successful Implementation of
Local Comprehensive Plans, (1982).

9. Metropolitan Dade County, p. III.

10. Joseph M. Heikoff, Book Review, Coastal Zone Management Journal, Vol.
6, No. 1, (1979).

11. Abrams, p.22.

12. Abrams, p.22.

13. Abrams, p.24.

14. Florida Division of State Planning, Bureau of Land and Water
Management, Charlotte Harbor: A Florida Resource (DSP-BLWM 39-78;
1978).

15. Abrams, p.5.

16. Robert Magee, Florida Department of Community Affairs, personal
communication, May, 1983.

17. Rice Odell, The Saving of San Francisco Bay: A Report on Citizen
Action and 1@egional Planning (Washinqton, D.C: The Conservation
'Foundation, 1972), pp. 14-15.

18. Odell, p. 17.

129

19. San Franciso Bay Conservation and Development Commission, 1980 Annual
Report, p. 3.

20. Abrams, pp. 2-3.

21. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, San
Francisco Bay Plan (January 1969, as amended July 1979).

22. Abrams, p.3.

23. Odell, p.55.

24. Ger;ld C. Swanson, "Coastal Zone Management, An Administrative
Perspective: A Case Study of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission", Coastal Zone Management Journal, Vol. 2,
No.2.

25. Environmental Law Institute, "Gravs Harbor Estuary Manaqement Plan
Nears Adoption", National wetlands Newsletter, Vol. 4, No. 5 (1982),
p.7.

26. Environmental Law Institute, p.9.

27. Informal recreation survey conducted by the Recreation Subcommittee of
the Tampa Bay Study Committee.

130

APPENDIX I
SUMMARY OF MARINA FACILITIES

of # of Pub- Fish Fish- Painting/
Wet Dry lic Pump-out Clean- ing Eating Boat Bottom Engine Bait Boat
county MARINA NAME LOCATION Slips Slips Ramp Station ing Pier Facility Gas Diesel Lift Work Repair Tackle Rental

P.O. Box 309
MANATEE Anna Maria Yacht 902 S. Bay Blvd. 94 150 x x x x x x Jx x x x x
Basin marina Anna Maria

Asa Pillsbury 4204 13th St. Ct. 25 x x
Marina West, Palmetto

Boca Del Rio 2504 88th St. 35 x x
Mirina Ct. N.W.
Bradenton

Galati's Boats 900 S. Bay Blvd. 10 150 x x x x x x x x x x x
and Motors,Inc. Anna Maria

Hidden Harbor 4010 Snead Island 40 x x x x
Marina Road - Palmetto

HILLS - Apollo Beach 6511 Surfside Blvd. 26 0 x x
BOROUGH Marina Apollo Beach

Bahia Beach 3301 Sea Grape Dr. 290 0 x (1) x x x x x x x x
Marina Ruskin

Bayshore Blvd. Bayshore Drive at 37 0
Marina Platt St. - Tampa

Cedar Grove Cedar Drive at the 8 0
Marina Little Manatee
River - Ruskin

Davis islands 84 Davis Blvd. 10 0
Towers Marina Tampa

Ej Marine Service 6304 Otis Ave. 30 0
Tampa

Hideaway Camp- 2206 Chaney Dr. 33 x
ground Marina Ruskin

(1) Fee may be charged

APPENDIX I CDNTINUED
of of Pub- Fish Fish- Painting/
Wet Dry lic Pump-out Clean- ing Eating Boat Bottom Engine Bait Boat
County MAiRINA NAME LOCATION Slips Slips Ramp Station ing Pier Facility Gas Diesel Lift Work Repair Tackle Rental

HILLS- Imperial Yacht 5000 Gandy Blvd. 157 76 (2) x x x(3) x x x
BOROUGH Basin, Inc. Tampa
(Gont.)
Imperial Yacht 205 South Hoover 12
Basin, Inc. Tampa

Interbay Marine 5200 Tyson 0 160 x
Ways Tampa

Marjorie Park 155 Columbia Drive 73 x x
Marina Tampa

Pipers Marine 8888 W. Hillsborough 20 50 x x x x
Avenue - Tampa

River Heights 2305 N. Willow Ave. 40 0 x (1) x
Marine Tampa

Tampa Bay moorings 5001 Gandy Blvd. 60 0 x (1)
Tampa

Tampa South 2900 Tamiami Trail 15 0
Trailer Park South - Ruskin

*Fee may be charged

PINELLAS Brenners 106 Ave. N.E., 40 0 x (1)
COUNTY Brenner Road
St. Petersburg

Caulfield Marina 1351 Bay St. S.E. 10 0
St. Petersburg

Gandy Marine 13050 Gandy Blvd. 35 0 x (1)
St. Petersburg

Huber Yacht Harbor 5950-34th St. South 225 200
St. Petersburg x x x x x x
(1) Fee may be charged
(2) Small lift for boats up to 24 feet
(3) 60 ton

APPENDIX I CONT1NUED
of of Pub- Fish Fish- Painting/ Boat
Wet Dry lic Pump-out Clean- ing Eating Boat Bottom Engine Bait
County MARINA NAME LOCATION Slips Slips Ramp Station ing Pier Facility Gas Diesel Lift Work Repair Tackle Rental

PINELLAS O'Neill's Skyway 6701 34th St. S. 200 0 x
COUNTY Boat Basin St. Petersburg
(Cont.)
Safety Harbor South Blvd. at 37 0 x x
Municipal Bayshore Drive S.
Safety Harbor

St. Petersburg 400-2nd Ave. N.E. 619 0 x x x x
municipal St. Petersburg

Seffens Marine 12022 Gandy Blvd. 17 0
St. Petersburg x x x
Sheraton Marina 6800-34th St. S. 25 0 x x (4)
St. Petersburg

Un-named Private 164th Ave. at 9 0
Marine 48th St. N.
(closed-estate Clearwater
ownership)

PINELLAS. Blind Pass Marina 9555 Blind Pass Rd. 70
COUNTY St. Petersburg Bch.
(Boca Ciega.
Bay) Boca Bay, Marine 112-31st Ave. South 16 80
Madiera Beach

Dave Steinke's 5018-31st Ave. 0 100
Mariners Cove South - Gulfport

David Stoller's 1901 Pass-a-Grill 20 120
Pass-a-Grill Way-St. Peters-
High and Dry burg Beach
Marina

Gulfport Municipal 4630-29th Ave. S. 254 0 x (1) x x x
Gulfport
Isla Del Sol 6000 Sun Blvd. 42 0 x x x
Marina St. Petersburg.
(1) tee may be charged
(4) sailboats only

APPENDIX I CONTINUED
ft of # of Pub- Fish Fish- Painting/
Wet Dry lic Pump-out Clean- ing Eating Boat Bottom Engine Bait Boat
County MARINA NAME LOCATION Slips Slips Ramp Station ing Pier Facility Gas Diesel Lift Work Repair Tackle Rental

PINELLAS Harborside Marina .9333 Blind Pass 0 100
COUNTY and Yacht Basin Road - St. Peters-
(Boca Ciega burg Beach
Bay)
Acont.) Indian Springs 15151-113th Ave. N. 55 130 x x x x
Marina Largo

John's Pass 12795 Kingfish Dr. 8 120 x X(5) x x x x x
Marina Treasure Island

Madeira Beach 503-150th Ave. 90 0
Municipal Marina. Madeira Beach

Maximo Moorings, 4801-37th St. S. 350 150 x x x x x x x x x
Inc. St. Petersburg

Pasadena Bayside 1444 Pasadena Ave. 142 0
> Marina Pasadena

Roc's Marina 17815 Gulf Blvd. 3 0
Redington Shores

Scampi's Marina 8550 Bay Pines
Boulevard 24 0

South Pasadena 6810 Gulfport 129 0
Marina Boulevard South
St. Petersburg Beach

Treasure Island 120-108th Avenue 18 0
Municipal Treasure Island

(1) Fee may be charged
(2) Small lift for boats up to 24 feet
(3) 60 ton
(4) Sailboat only
(5) Adjacent to Marina

TAMPA BAY REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL STAFF

William A. Ockunzzi Executive Director
Manuel L. Pumariega Administration & Finance
Michael R. McKinley Planning
Julia Greene Aging Services
Margaret E. Gross Administrative Services
Mary Wiser Community Affairs
Rhonda Evans Associate Planner
Douglas Robison Associate Planner
Bruce Gaul Graphic Artist
Lesley Kelly Secretary

TAMPA BAY STUDY COMMITTEE

Senator Jeanne Malchon, Chairman

Alice Arnwine Wayne Lasseter
A. S. Autry Jim Lee
Mark Bentley Robert Lewinski
Commissioner James Berfield Robin Lewis
Dr. John Betz Janet Ley
Mr. Peter Betzer Don McCullers
Brad William Burger David McDonald
Sally Casper Ronald Mente
Gary Comp Dr. James Miller
Jack Cosgrove Jonathan Miller
Bert Craddock Dr. Ralph Moon
Hal Cusick Al Morrison
Patricia M. Deininger Richard Mussett
David Ellis Sue M. Parrish
Dr. Ernest D. Estevez Richard T. Paul
Dr. William K. Fehring Gloria Rains
Kurt Frahn Thomas W. Reese
Mayor Sandy J. Francisco John E. Reynolds, III
Mayor Corinne Freeman Norman Robb
Dr. Richard Garrity Dr. Bernard Ross
Carl Paul Garver A. J. Salem
Sylvia Gates Doris Schember
Dr. Carl R. Goodwin Ronald Schmied
Robert C. Harnly or. Joseph L. Simon
Elizabeth Hartman John Stevely
George Henderson Jacob Stowers
Bill Howard Sally Thompson
Alan Huff Frederick J. Webb Jr.
Charles A. Hunsicker Richard Wilkens
Louise Ingram Karen A. Wilson
Dr. Marvin L. Ivey Jim Zagaria
Robert Ziobro

NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY

3 6668 14111366 4-