Tampa Bay - Florida Department of Environmental Protection

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

Division of Water Resource Management | Bureau of Watershed Management 

SOUTHWEST DISTRICT • GROUP 1 BASIN • SEPTEMBER 2003 

Water Quality Assessment Report 

Tampa Bay

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

Division of Water Resource Management 

SEPTEMBER 2003 

Water Quality Assessment Report 

Tampa Bay

Water Quality Assessment Report: Tampa Bay 

5 

Acknowledgments 

Tampa Bay Water Quality Assessment Report was prepared by the Tampa 

Bay Basin Team, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, as part 

of a five-year cycle to restore and protect Florida’s water quality. Team 

members include the following: 

Tom Singleton, Team Coordinator 

Kevin Petrus, Water Quality Assessment Coordinator 

Linda Lord, Editing and Writing Consultant 

Holli Brandt, GIS Coordinator 

Candice Burger 

Zack Shelley 

CeCe McKiernan 

Charles Kovach 

Diana Williams 

Joan Aguilo 

Allan Stodghill 

David Worley 

Nijole Pauliukonis 

Production assistance provided by 

Educational Services Program 

Florida State University 

210 Sliger Building 

2035 E. Dirac Dr. 

Tallahassee, FL 32306-2800 

Map production assistance provided by 

Florida Resources and Environmental Analysis Center 

Florida State University 

University Center, C2200 


For additional information on the watershed management 

approach and impaired waters in the Tampa Bay Basin, contact 

Tom Singleton, Environmental Consultant 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Bureau of Watershed Management, Watershed Planning and 

Coordination Section 

2600 Blair Stone Road, Mail Station 3565 


Thomas.Singleton@dep.state.fl.us 

Phone: (850) 245-8561; Suncom: 205-8561 

Fax: (850) 245-8434

6 Water Quality Assessment Report: Tampa Bay 

Access to all data used in the development of this report can be 

obtained by contacting 

Kevin Petrus 


Bureau of Watershed Management, Watershed Assessment Section 



Kevin.Petrus@dep.state.fl.us 

Phone: (850) 245-8459; Suncom: 205-8459 

Fax: (850) 245-8536 

Web Sites 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of 

Watershed Management 

TMDL Program 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/index.htm 

Identification of Impaired Surface Waters Rule 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/docs/AmendedIWR.pdf 

STORET Program 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/storet/index.htm 

2000 305(b) Report 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/305b/index.htm 

Status Reports 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/stat_rep.htm 

Allocation Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC) Report 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/docs/Allocation.pdf 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National STORET Program 

http://www.epa.gov/storet/


7 

Preface 

Content Features 

• Executive Summary: Appears at the beginning of every report 

and provides an overarching view of the watershed management 

approach, its implementation, and how this approach will be used 

to identify impaired waters. A summary of impaired waters in this 

basin is also included. 

• Noteworthy: Appears on pages near text that needs additional 

information but is too lengthy to fit in a sidebar. 

• Definitions: Appear at the side of pages where scientific terms occur 

that may not be familiar to all readers. The word being defi ned is 

bold-faced in the text. 

• References: Appear at the end of Chapter 5 and provide a complete 

listing of all sources used within the text. 

• Appendices: Appear at the end of each report and provide additional 

information on subjects, such as bioassessment methodology, rainfall 

and stream flow, types of natural communities, STORET stations, 

water quality statistics, land use, and permitted facilities. Also 

included is a master list that summarizes the water quality in all the 

basins addressed in this report.


9 

Executive Summary 

Tampa Bay 

The Water Quality Assessment Report for the Tampa Bay Basin is 

part of the implementation of the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection’s (Department) watershed management approach for restoring and 

protecting water resource problems and addressing Total Maximum Daily 

Load (TMDL) Program requirements. A TMDL represents the maximum 

amount of a given pollutant that a waterbody can assimilate and still meet the 

waterbody’s designated use. A waterbody that does not meet its designated 

use is defined as impaired. The watershed approach, which is implemented 

using a cyclical management process, provides a framework for implementing 

the requirements of the federal Clean Water Act and the 1999 Florida 

Watershed Restoration Act (Chapter 99-223, Laws of Florida). 

A Status Report, published during Phase 1 of the watershed management 

cycle, provided a Planning List, or preliminary identification, of potentially 

impaired waterbodies in the Tampa Bay Basin. This Assessment Report 

presents the results of additional data gathered during Phase 2 of the cycle 

and contains a Verifi ed List of impaired waters (Table 4.3 in Chapter 

4) that has been adopted by Secretarial Order and approved by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). TMDLs must be developed and 

implemented for these waters, unless the impairment is documented to be a 

naturally occurring condition that cannot be abated by a TMDL or unless 

a management plan already in place is expected to correct the problem. 

The Verified List also constitutes the Group 1 basin-specific 303(d) list of 

impaired waters, so called because it is required under Section 303(d) of the 

Clean Water Act. The Noteworthy in Chapter 1 describes the contents of 

this report, by chapter. 

In the Tampa Bay Basin, state, federal, regional, and local agencies 

and organizations are making progress towards identifying problems and 

improving water quality. Through its watershed management activities, 

the Department works with these entities to support programs that are 

improving water quality and restoring and protecting ecological resources. 

The Department’s TMDL Program objectives will be carried out in the 

basin through close association with such efforts as the Tampa Bay Estuary 

Program (TBEP), Nitrogen Management Consortium, Regional Ambient 

Monitoring Program (RAMP), and Tampa Bay Surface Water Improvement 

and Management (SWIM) Program. 

Not only do stakeholders in the basin share responsibilities in achieving 

water quality improvement objectives, they also play a crucial role in 

providing the Department with important monitoring data and information 

on management activities. These stakeholders include the cities of Tampa, St. 

Petersburg, and Clearwater; Hillsborough, Manatee, and Pinellas Counties; 

TBEP; Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council; and Southwest Florida Water 

Management District (SWFWMD).


During the next few years, considerable data analysis will be done to 

establish TMDLs for impaired waters in the Tampa Bay Basin, establish 

the initial allocations of pollution loads needed to meet those TMDLs, 

and produce a Basin Management Action Plan, or B-MAP, to reduce the 

amount of pollutants that cause impairments. These activities depend 

heavily on the active participation of the water management district, local 

governments, businesses, and other stakeholders. The Department will 

work with these organizations and individuals to undertake or continue 

reductions in the discharge of pollutants and achieve the established 

TMDLs for impaired waterbodies. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Review 

of Florida’s Amended Section 303(d) List 

On June 11, 2003, the EPA released a Decision Document based on its 

review of the Department’s amendments to Florida’s 1998 Section 303(d) 

list. The EPA found that the Department’s Group 1 update substantially 

met the intent of Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act and partially 

approved the submission. 

Applying its own evaluation methodology, the EPA proposed listing 

80 additional waterbody segments/pollutants for public comment by 

July 18, 2003. Under this methodology, approximately half of the added 

waters failed to meet water quality criteria for dissolved oxygen (DO), 

but no causative pollutant could be identified. Florida law precludes the 

Department from including such waters on its Verified List of impaired 

waters until the causative pollutant is known. The majority of the 

remaining waters were added to the list based on a different interpretation 

of the methodology for assessing potential impairment for bacteria. The 

Department agreed to apply this alternative methodology when assessing 

the next group (Group 2) of waterbodies for bacteria. 

The consequence of having the EPA add waters to Florida’s Section 

303(d) list is that the EPA would be obligated to propose TMDLs for these 

waters. However, the EPA has proposed assigning a “low” priority for 

TMDL development for these waterbodies, thus providing the Department 

an opportunity to investigate them further. Information on the status of 

Florida’s amended Section 303(d) list can be found on the EPA’s Web site 

at http://www.epa.gov/region4/water/tmdl/florida/. 

Summary of Findings 

The Department’s assessment shows that 55 waterbodies or waterbody 

segments in the Tampa Bay Basin require the development of TMDLs. 

The following summarizes, by planning unit, impairments by waterbody 

types and the primary pollutants. Planning units are smaller areas within 

the basin that provide a more detailed geographic basis for identifying and 

assessing water quality improvement activities.


11 

Hillsborough Bay Planning Unit 

Historically and in recent years, Hillsborough Bay has had the poorest 

water quality of the major bay segments. 

Data were available for 635 stations for the 1995 to 2002 Verified 

period; these were sampled mainly by the Hillsborough County 

Environmental Protection Commission and the Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission (FWC). 

Table 3.3 in Chapter 3 summarizes the water quality assessment 

status of all waterbody segments in the planning unit. Waterbodies 

represented by these data include the Hillsborough Bay segments and 

Davis Island Beach. In this planning unit, the bay segments are listed as 

impaired for nutrients due to elevated chlorophyll and mercury due to a fish 

consumption advisory (Category 5). Davis Island Beach meets standards 

for fecal coliforms (Category 2). 

Coastal Hillsborough Bay Planning Unit 

Data from 701 stations were available for 1995 to 2002. The stations 

were sampled mainly by the Hillsborough County Environmental 

Protection Commission and the FWC. 

Table 3.4 summarizes the water quality assessment status of all 

waterbody segments in the planning unit. Of the 35 segments in this 

planning unit, 18 contain no data (Category 3a), 6 have insufficient data 

for an assessment (Category 3b), 2 are potentially impaired for at least 1 

parameter (Category 3c), and 9 exhibit impairment (Category 5). The 

most common impairments are for DO and nutrients. 

Old Tampa Bay Planning Unit 

For 1995 to 2002, data for 1,034 stations were used in the surface 

water assessment. The Hillsborough County Environmental Protection 

Commission and the FWC monitored the majority of the stations. 


waterbody segments in the planning unit. Of the 11 segments in 

this planning unit, 5 segments meet standards for some parameters 

(Category 2), 2 segments are potentially impaired for at least 1 parameter 

(Category 3c), and 4 segments are impaired for at least 1 parameter 

(Category 5). The 4 bay segments in this planning unit are impaired for 

mercury in fish due to a fish consumption advisory and for shellfi sh due to 

a downgrade from the initial harvesting classification. 

Coastal Old Tampa Bay Planning Unit 

For 1995 to 2002, data were available for 660 stations. The FWC, 

Florida LakeWatch, and the SWFWMD sampled most of the stations. 



planning unit, 28 meet standards for some parameters (Category 2), 

47 have no data (Category 3a), 39 have insufficient data to perform an 

assessment (Category 3b), and 12 segments are potentially impaired for 

at least 1 parameter (Category 3c). Thirty waterbody segments in this


planning unit are impaired for at least 1 parameter (Category 5). The most 

common parameters exhibiting impairment are DO and nutrients. 

Middle Tampa Bay Planning Unit 

Data were available for 1,208 stations for 1995 to 2002, mainly 

collected by the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection 

Commission and the FWC. 


waterbody segments in the planning unit. Of the four segments in this 

planning unit, two meet standards for some parameters (Category 2) and 

two are impaired for at least one parameter (Category 5). The two bay 

segments are impaired due to a fish consumption advisory for mercury in 

fish. Additionally, the upper segment of Middle Tampa Bay is impaired 

for nutrients due to elevated chlorophyll, and the lower segment of Middle 

Tampa Bay is impaired for shellfish due to a downgrade from the initial 

harvesting classification. 

Coastal Middle Tampa Bay Planning Unit 

Data were available for 527 stations for 1995 to 2002. Most were 

sampled by Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission 

and the FWC. 


waterbody segments in the planning unit. There are a total of 28 segments 

in this planning unit. Three segments meet standards for some parameters 

(Category 2), 14 have no data (Category 3a), 3 have insufficient data to 

perform an assessment (Category 3b), and 2 segments are potentially 

impaired for at least 1 parameter (Category 3c). Six segments in this 

planning unit are impaired for at least 1 parameter. The most common 

parameters exhibiting impairment are nutrients and coliforms. 

Lower Tampa Bay Planning Unit 

Data were available for 1,025 stations from 1995 to 2002. Most of the 

stations were sampled by Hillsborough County Environmental Protection 



waterbody segments in the planning unit. There are a total of seven 

segments in this planning unit. Two segments meet standards for some 

parameters (Category 2), two have insufficient data for an assessment 

(Category 3b), and three segments in this planning unit are impaired due 

to a fish consumption advisory for mercury in fi sh (Category 5). The 

segment at the mouth of Tampa Bay is also impaired for shellfish due to a 

downgrade in the harvesting classification. 

Coastal Lower Tampa Bay Planning Unit 

For 1995 to 2002, data were available for 404 stations, with most of 

the stations sampled by Hillsborough County Environmental Protection 



waterbody segments in the planning unit. Out of the six segments in this


13 

planning unit, one segment meets standards for some uses (Category 2), 

four segments have no data (Category 3a), and one segment is impaired 

(Category 5). Bishops Harbor is impaired due to a fish consumption 

advisory for mercury in fish and for shellfish due to a downgrade from the 

initial harvesting classification (Category 5).


15 

Table of Contents 

Chapter 1: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 

Purposes and Content of the Assessment Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 

Stakeholder Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 

The Watershed Management Cycle in the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection’s Southwest District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 

Chapter 2: Basin Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 

Basin Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 

Surface Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 

Group 1 Basins. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 

Group 2 Basins. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 

Surface Water Quality Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 

Special Designations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 

Outstanding Florida Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 

Surface Water Improvement and Management Priority Waterbodies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 

Minimum Flows and Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 

Ground Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 

Aquifers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 

Ground Water–Surface Water Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 

Ground Water Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 

Water Resource Caution Areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 

Major Water Quality Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 

Dissolved Oxygen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 

Nutrients and Eutrophication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 

Fecal Coliform Bacteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 

Watershed Management Activities and Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 

Major Programs and Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 

Decision-Making Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 

Agricultural Best Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 

Chapter 3: Surface Water Quality Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 

Scope of the Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 

Update on Strategic Monitoring and Data-Gathering Activities 

During Phase 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 

Sources of Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 

Attainment of Designated Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 

Integrated Report Categories and Assessment Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 

Planning Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 

Assessment by Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 

Hillsborough Bay Planning Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 

General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 

Water Quality Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 

Coastal Hillsborough Bay Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 




Old Tampa Bay Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 




Coastal Old Tampa Bay Planning Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 


Water Quality Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61



Middle Tampa Bay Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 




Coastal Middle Tampa Bay Planning Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 




Lower Tampa Bay Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 




Coastal Lower Tampa Bay Planning Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 




Evaluation of Ecological Resources in the Tampa Bay Basin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 

Ecological Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 

Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 

Natural Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 

Ecological Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 

Seagrass Acreage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 

Chlorophyll a Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 

Nitrogen Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 

Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 

Sediment Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 

Other Baywide Ecological Problems and Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 

Fish Consumption Advisories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 

Invasive Exotic Species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 

Blue-Green Algae Blooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 

Additional Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 

Chapter 4: The Verified List of Impaired Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 

Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 

Identification of Impaired Waters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Review of Florida’s Amended 

Section 303(d) List. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

Documentation of Reasonable Assurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 

The Verified List of Impaired Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 

Pollutants Causing Impairments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 

Adoption Process for the Verified List of Impaired Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 

Chapter 5: TMDL Development, Allocation, Implementation, 

and Monitoring Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 

Prioritization of Listed Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 

Ambient Monitoring Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 

TMDL Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 

TMDL Allocation and Implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 

Initial Allocation of Pollutant Loadings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 

Implementation Programs and Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 

Schedule and/or Milestones for TMDL Implementation or Reasonable 

Assurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 

Development of Basin Management Action Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129


17 

Tables 

Table 1.1: Stakeholder Involvement in the TMDL Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 

Table 2.1: Freshwater Use in the Southwest Florida Water Management District, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . 33 

Table 2.2: Historical Summary of Planning Issues and Management Activities in the Tampa 

Bay Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 

Table 2.3: Public Stakeholders and Major Programs in the Tampa Bay Basin Providing Leadership 

in Waterbody Restoration and Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 

Table 2.4: Current and Proposed Projects for Meeting Tampa Bay Estuary Program Goals . . . . . . . . . 41 

Table 3.1: Designated Use Attainment Categories for Surface Waters in Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 

Table 3.2: Categories for Waterbodies or Waterbody Segments in the 2002 Integrated Report . . . . . 47 

Table 3.3: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Hillsborough Bay Planning Unit . . . 52 

Table 3.4: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Coastal Hillsborough Bay 

Planning Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 

Table 3.5: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Old Tampa Bay Planning Unit . . . . 60 

Table 3.6: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Coastal Old Tampa Bay 

Planning Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 

Table 3.7: 

Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Middle Tampa Bay 

Planning Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 

Table 3.8: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Coastal Middle Tampa Bay 

Planning Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 

Table 3.9: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Lower Tampa Bay 

Planning Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 

Table 3.10: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Coastal Lower Tampa Bay 

Planning Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 

Table 3.11: Summary of Ecological Resource Protection Priorities, Tampa Bay Segments. . . . . . . . . . . 82 

Table 3.12: Annual Population Estimates, Breeding Birds of the Tampa Bay Basin, 1994–1998 

(pairs of birds). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 

Table 3.13: Unique or Rare Natural Communities in the Tampa Bay Basin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 

Table 4.1: Schedule for Development and Adoption of the Group 1 Verifi ed Lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

Table 4.2: Elements of Reasonable Assurance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 

Table 4.3: The Tampa Bay Basin Verifi ed List of Impaired Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 

Table 4.4: Screening Level Values (70th Percentile) Based on STORET Data from 1970 to 1987 . . . 114 

Table 4.5: Tampa Bay Basin Median Values for the Verifi ed Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 

Table 4.6: Tampa Bay Basin Nitrogen to Phosphorus Ratios for the Verifi ed Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 

Table 5.1: Tampa Bay Basin TMDL Priorities for 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 

Figures 

Figure 1.1: Schedule for Implementing the Watershed Management Cycle in the Department’s 

Southwest District, Basin Groups 1 through 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 

Figure 2.1: Geopolitical Map of the Tampa Bay Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 

Figure 2.2: Surface Water Resources of the Tampa Bay Basin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 

Figure 3.1: Sources of Data for the Tampa Bay Basin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 

Figure 3.2: Composite Map of the Hillsborough Bay and Coastal Hillsborough Bay Planning Units, 

Including the 1998 303(d) List and Verifi ed List Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 

Figure 3.3: Composite Map of the Old Tampa Bay and Coastal Old Tampa Bay Planning Units, 

Including the 1998 303(d) List and Verifi ed List Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 

Figure 3.4: Composite Map of the Middle Tampa Bay and Coastal Middle Tampa Bay Planning 

Units, Including the 1998 303(d) List and Verifi ed List Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 

Figure 3.5: Composite Map of the Lower Tampa Bay and Coastal Lower Tampa Bay Planning 

Units, Including the 1998 303(d) List and Verifi ed List Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 

Figure 4.1: Waters on the Verifi ed List, with Projected Year for TMDL Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 

Figure 5.1: Tampa Bay Basin TMDL Priority Watersheds for 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120


19 

Chapter 1: Introduction 

Purposes and Content of the 

Assessment Report 

The Department is implementing a statewide watershed management 

approach for restoring and protecting water quality and addressing 

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program requirements. Under 

Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act and the Florida Watershed 

Restoration Act (FWRA) (Chapter 99-223, Laws of Florida), TMDLs 

must be developed for all waters that do not meet their designated uses 

(such as drinking water, recreation, and shellfish harvesting) and are thus 

defined as impaired. 

TMDLs will be developed, and the corresponding reductions in 

pollutant loads allocated, as part of the watershed management approach, 

which rotates through the state’s 52 river basins over a 5-year cycle. 

Extensive public participation from diverse stakeholders in each of these 

basins is crucial in all phases of the cycle. 

A Status Report published during Phase 1 of the watershed 

management cycle provided a Planning List, or preliminary identification, 

of potentially impaired waterbodies in the Tampa Bay Basin. A copy of the 

report can be found at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/stat_rep.htm. 

This Assessment Report, which updates the information in the Status 

Report, incorporates data collected from the Department’s strategic 

monitoring and gathered from other agencies and groups during Phase 2 of 

the watershed cycle. The report contains a Verifi ed List of impaired waters 

required by the FWRA and Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, 

for which TMDLs must be developed and implemented (see Noteworthy 

for a description of this report’s contents, by chapter). Based on the 

assessment results, in the Tampa Bay Basin 55 waterbodies or waterbody 

segments are verified impaired for one or more parameters. TMDLs must 

be developed for these waters, unless the impairment is documented to be 

a naturally occurring condition that a TMDL cannot abate, or unless a 

management plan exists to correct the problem. 

This Assessment Report is intended for distribution to a broad range of 

potential stakeholders, including decision makers in federal, state, regional, 

tribal, and local governments; public and private interests; and individual 

citizens. 

Total Maximum 

Daily Load 

The maximum amount of a 

given pollutant that a waterbody 

can assimilate without 

exceeding applicable water 

quality standards.


The Verified List is required by Subsection 403.067[4], F.S., and 

Section 303[d] of the federal Clean Water Act. The Department has 

adopted the Verified List of impaired waters in accordance with the FWRA 

and the Identification of Impaired Surface Waters Rule (Rule 62-303, 

F.A.C.). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also approved 

this list as the current 2002 303(d) list of impaired waters for the basin, so 

called because it is required under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. 

The first 303(d) list, which was required by the EPA in 1998, is to 

be amended annually to include basin updates. Florida’s 1998 303(d) list 

included a number of waterbodies in the Tampa Bay Basin. Tables 3.5 

through 3.12 in Chapter 3 list these waters, by planning unit. 

This Assessment Report follows the EPA’s guidance for meshing 

Clean Water Act requirements for Section 305(b) water quality reports 

and Section 303(d) lists of impaired waters. This integrated water quality 

assessment is used to identify the status of data sufficiency, the potential for 

impairment, and the need for TMDL development for each waterbody or 

waterbody segment in the basin. 

A description of the legislative and regulatory background for TMDL 

development and implementation through the watershed management 

approach, and a brief explanation of the TMDL Program, are available 

in Appendix A. Background information on the Department’s TMDL 

Program, the process of TMDL development and implementation, lists 

of impaired and potentially impaired waters, and assessments for other 

parts of the state are available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/ 

index.htm. 

Stakeholder Involvement 

The Florida Watershed Restoration Act requires the Department to 

work closely with stakeholders to develop and implement TMDLs. In 

addition, the Department’s Allocation Technical Advisory Committee 

report submitted to the legislature recommends relying on stakeholder 

involvement. Stakeholder involvement in the TMDL process will vary with 

each phase of implementation to achieve different purposes (Table 1.1). 

The Department will work cooperatively with a number of key 

stakeholders to develop, allocate, and implement TMDLs in the Tampa 

Bay Basin. These include the Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP); 

Nitrogen Management Consortium; Regional Ambient Monitoring 

Program (RAMP); Tampa Bay Surface Water Improvement and 

Management (SWIM) Program; the cities of Tampa, St. Petersburg, and 

Clearwater; Hillsborough, Manatee, and Pinellas Counties; Tampa Bay 

Regional Planning Council; and Southwest Florida Water Management 

District (SWFWMD).


21 

Table 1.1: Stakeholder Involvement in the TMDL Program 

Watershed Management Cycle Nature of Stakeholder Involvement 

Phase 1: 

Preliminary 

Evaluation 

Phase 2: 

Strategic Monitoring 

and Assessment 

Phase 3: 

Development and 

Adoption of TMDLs 

Phase 4: 

Development of Basin 

Management Action Plan 

Phase 5: 

Implementation of Basin 

Management Action Plan 

Close coordination with local stakeholders to conduct a preliminary basin water 

quality assessment; inventory existing and proposed management activities; identify 

management objectives and issues of concern; develop a Strategic Monitoring 

Plan; and produce a preliminary Status Report that includes a Planning List of 

potentially impaired waters 

Cooperative efforts between the Department and local stakeholders to collect additional 

data; get data into STORET (the EPA’s national water quality database); complete 

water quality assessment; produce a final Assessment Report that includes a 

Verified List of impaired waters for Secretarial adoption; and provide an opportunity 

for stakeholders to document reasonable assurance (for Department review) 

that existing management plans and projects are adequate to restore water quality 

without the establishment of a TMDL 

Coordination with stakeholders to discuss TMDL model framework, including model 

requirements, parameters to be modeled, model endpoints, design run scenarios 

and preliminary allocations; communication of science used in the process; public 

workshops for rule adoption of TMDLs 

Broad stakeholder participation in developing a Basin Management Action Plan 

(B-MAP) (including detailed allocations and implementation strategies), incorporating 

it into existing management plans where feasible; public meetings during the 

planning process 

Emphasis on implementing the B-MAP, other voluntary stakeholder actions, and local 

watershed management structures; Department will continue to provide technical 

assistance, fulfill oversight responsibilities, and administer National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) point and nonpoint source permits 

The Watershed Management Cycle in 

the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection’s Southwest District 

Figure 1.1 shows the order in which the Department’s Southwest 

District basins will be evaluated under the watershed management cycle. 

These groups were identified according to a U.S. Geological Survey 

classification system using hydrologic unit codes. 

Tampa Bay, a Group 1 basin, was the first basin in the district to 

undergo a preliminary assessment in 2000 and is the subject of this 

Assessment Report. It includes the bay and the coastal tributaries that 

contribute surface water flows to the bay. A preliminary assessment 

for the Group 2 basin, Tampa Bay Tributaries (which includes the 

major tributaries to Tampa Bay: Hillsborough, Alafia, Little Manatee, 

and Manatee Rivers) was carried out in 2001. The boundaries of the 

Group 1 and 2 basins in the Department’s Southwest District are also 

encompassed by the boundaries of the TBEP. The Group 3 basin, the 

Sarasota–Peace–Myakka Rivers, was assessed on a preliminary basis in 

2002. Similarly, preliminary assessments for the Group 4 and Group 5 

basins, Withlacoochee River and Springs Coast, will be initiated in 2003 

and 2004, respectively. In 2005, the cycle will resume with the Group 1 

basin, Tampa Bay.


Figure 1.1: Schedule for Implementing the Watershed Management Cycle in the 

Department’s Southwest District, Basin Groups 1 through 5

Noteworthy 

Contents of This Report 

Water Quality Assessment Report: 


23 

• Chapter 1: Introduction 

briefly characterizes the 

purpose and content of the 

Assessment Report, discusses 

stakeholder involvement, and 

describes how the watershed 

management cycle will be 

implemented in the Department’s 

Southwest District. 

• Chapter 2: Basin Overview 

characterizes the basin’s general 

setting, water resources, 

major water quality trends, 

and watershed management 

issues and activities. 

• Chapter 3: Surface Water 

Quality Assessment discusses 

basinwide water quality trends 

and provides, by basin planning 

unit, an evaluation of 

water quality, a discussion of 

permitted discharges and land 

uses, a summary of ecological 

priorities and problems, and 

an overview of water quality 

improvement plans and 

projects. 

• Chapter 4: The Verified List 

of Impaired Waters contains 

the Verified List of impaired 

waters, discusses public 

participation, describes 

documentation of reasonable 

assurance, lists the pollutants 

causing impairments, provides 

listings based on other 

information indicating a nutrient 

imbalance, and describes 

the adoption process for the 

Verified List. 

• Chapter 5: TMDL Development, 

Allocation, Implementation, 

and Monitoring 

Priorities discusses the 

prioritization of listed waters, 

ambient monitoring priorities, 

TMDL development, TMDL 

allocation and implementation, 

and development of a 

Basin Management Action 

Plan (B-MAP).


25 

Chapter 2: Basin Overview 

Basin Setting 

Tampa Bay is the largest open-water estuary in Florida, encompassing 

nearly 400 square miles and bordering 3 counties—Hillsborough, 

Manatee, and Pinellas. At 2,200 square miles, its watershed (including 

both the Group 1 and 2 basins) is more than 5 times larger than the bay 

itself. 

More than 100 tributaries, including 4 major rivers—the Hillsborough, 

Alafia, Manatee, and Little Manatee—and more than 40 meandering, 

brackish creeks and coastal streams flow into the bay. Tampa Bay contains 

more than 200 fish species, including popular species such as snook, 

redfish, and spotted sea trout. The bay’s mangrove-blanketed islands 

support the most diverse colonial waterbird nesting colonies in North 

America, annually hosting 40,000 pairs of 25 different species, ranging 

from the familiar white ibis and great blue heron to the reddish egret—the 

rarest heron in the nation. 

Tampa Bay proper, which includes Old, Middle, and Lower Tampa 

Bays and Hillsborough Bay, extends approximately 35 miles inland from 

the Gulf of Mexico and is 5 to 10 miles wide along most of its length. Four 

major causeways cross the bay. The bay averages only about 12 feet in 

depth, with the maximum natural depth of 89 feet found in a small area at 

its mouth in the Egmont Channel. 

Because Tampa Bay is so shallow, channels have been dredged to allow 

large ships safe passage to the Port of Tampa and other bay harbors. The 

main shipping channel, which is 43 feet deep and 40 miles long, has been 

dredged from the mouth of the bay to the upper reaches of the Middle 

Tampa Bay segment, where it splits to the north into the Old Tampa Bay 

segment and to the northeast into the Hillsborough Bay segment. 

The bay has well-developed horizontal density gradients that maintain 

a two-layer circulation pattern with fresher, less dense, water near the 

surface flowing seaward and higher salinity, more dense, water moving into 

the bay along the bottom. Bay bathymetry has been significantly altered 

by the major navigational channels, and studies indicate that these channels 

play a significant role in the distribution of water within the system. The 

areas along the navigational channels and Hillsborough Bay experience the 

largest bottom currents. Wind can also play a role in the circulation by 

enhancing the two-layer pattern whenever the wind is from the northeast 

and weakening the two-layer circulation pattern when the wind is from the 

southwest. Southwesterly winds create strong northeastward currents along 

the east side of Tampa Bay that can move pollutants from the mouth of the 

Bathymetry 

Relating to measurement of 

depth.


bay north well into Hillsborough Bay. Tides convey about 158,600 million 

gallons of water during each low and high tide in the bay. 

The Port of Tampa, Florida’s largest port, consistently ranks among the 

top 10 ports nationwide in tonnage and contributes billions annually to the 

region’s economy. More than 4 billion gallons of oil, fertilizer products, 

and other potentially hazardous materials pass through Tampa Bay each 

year. 

The Tampa Bay Basin encompasses diverse human activities. It 

contains some of the state’s most productive agricultural lands. Other 

significant components of the region’s economy include phosphate and 

other mining, industry and power generation, and tourism and recreation. 

Tampa, the region’s largest city in size and population, lies directly 

north of Tampa Bay in Hillsborough County. Other population centers 

include the cities of Clearwater, Largo, and St. Petersburg west of Tampa 

Bay in Pinellas County, and Bradenton at the south end of Tampa Bay in 

Manatee County. 

In 1995, the Greater Tampa Bay region contained about 3.6 million 

people, concentrated in the Tampa Bay metropolitan area. The population 

is expected to grow to about 4.6 million permanent residents by 2010, with 

the largest increase projected in the developed areas surrounding Tampa 

Bay (Hillsborough, Pasco, Manatee, and Pinellas Counties). 

Figure 2.1 shows the principal geopolitical features in the Tampa Bay 

Basin. Appendix B contains supplementary information on the basin’s 

ecology. Additional ecological information can be found in the Tampa Bay 

Status Report at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/stat_rep.htm. 

Surface Water Resources 

The Tampa Bay Basin contains numerous surface waterbodies, 

including lakes, springs, rivers, and Tampa Bay itself. Figure 2.2 shows 

the locations of the largest waterbodies in the Department’s Southwest 

District. This section delineates the basin’s hydrology, describes the 

movement and management of water in the basin, briefly describes the 

major characteristics of surface waters that influence water quality in the 

basin, and describes surface water classifications and special designations. 

The discussion in this section includes not only the Group 1 basins in the 

region but also the Group 2 basins, which contribute significant freshwater 

flows and pollutant loadings to Tampa Bay. A more detailed discussion in 

Chapter 3 provides information on each planning unit. 

Group 1 Basins 

For this report, the Tampa Bay Basin is divided into eight planning 

units. Four segments comprise the open-water sections of the bay: Lower 

Tampa Bay, Middle Tampa Bay, Old Tampa Bay, and Hillsborough 

Bay. The Lower Tampa Bay segment connects the mouth of the bay to 

the Gulf of Mexico. Moving northeast into the bay, the next segment is 

Middle Tampa Bay, with the Hillsborough Bay segment connecting to the 

northeast and the Old Tampa Bay segment adjoining to the north. The


27 

Figure 2.1: Geopolitical Map of the Tampa Bay Basin


Figure 2.2: Surface Water Resources of the Tampa Bay Basin


29 

southern boundary of the Hillsborough Bay segment crosses from the 

southernmost point of the Interbay Peninsula southeast to Hillsborough 

County. For the Old Tampa Bay segment, the southern boundary links 

the closest points of the Pinellas and Interbay Peninsulas. 

The remaining four segments constitute the drainage basins of coastal 

tributaries that flow directly to the bay. The Coastal Lower Tampa Bay 

planning unit lies along the eastern side of Lower Tampa Bay; the two 

Coastal Middle Tampa Bay planning units are found on the eastern and 

western shores of Middle Tampa Bay; the Coastal Hillsborough planning 

unit borders Hillsborough Bay to the northeast; and the Coastal Old 

Tampa Bay planning unit surrounds the northern and western sides of Old 

Tampa Bay. 

Group 2 Basins 

The four planning units in the Group 2 basin—Hillsborough, Alafi a, 

Manatee, and Little Manatee Rivers—contribute significant flows to 

Tampa Bay. 

The Hillsborough River begins east-northeast of Zephyrhills in 

southeastern Pasco and northwestern Polk Counties. Its headwaters 

originate in the southwestern portion of the Green Swamp, where it also 

receives overflow from the Withlacoochee River. The river flows southwest 

54 miles to upper Hillsborough Bay and drains more than 690 square 

miles. Perennially flowing tributaries to the Hillsborough River are Big 

Ditch, Blackwater Creek, and Flint Creek. Intermittent streams are Indian 

Creek, New River, Two Hole Branch, Basset Branch, Hollomans Branch, 

Clay Gully, Trout Creek, and Cypress Creek. High floodwaters are 

diverted from the Hillsborough River at the confluence of Trout Creek and 

upstream of the Tampa Reservoir Dam through the Tampa Bypass Canal 

to McKay Bay. Channelization has extended Sixmile Creek west and north 

to intersect the Hillsborough River at two points, the confluence of Trout 

Creek and near the midpoint of Tampa Reservoir, which supplies drinking 

water to the city of Tampa. The modified Sixmile Creek was then renamed 

the Tampa Bypass Canal, which comprises two canals. The Harney Canal 

(C-136) runs from the Tampa Reservoir to join the second and longer 

canal, C-135, which connects the Hillsborough River at Trout Creek and 

Palm River. 

The Alafia River flows through Hillsborough and Polk Counties, south 

of the Hillsborough River Basin. The river drains more than 410 square 

miles, originating in west-central Polk County and flowing west to empty 

into southeast Hillsborough Bay. Major tributaries are the North Prong, 

South Prong, Little Alafia River, and Turkey Creek. 

The Little Manatee River drainage area extends from eastern Tampa 

Bay to the southeastern corner of Hillsborough County. The river 

drains about 221 square miles and flows west almost 40 miles. South 

Fork, located almost entirely in northeast Manatee County, is the Little 

Manatee’s largest tributary. 

The headwaters of the Manatee River form in the northeastern corner 

of Manatee County and flow 53 miles west to south Tampa Bay, draining 

360 square miles. Major tributaries are the Bradenton River, Gamble


Creek, and Gilley Creek. Twenty-four miles upstream from the bay, 

the river is impounded, forming Lake Manatee. This 2,000-acre lake, 

completed in 1967, serves as the potable water supply for Manatee County. 

The main stem of the lower Manatee River from the Lake Manatee Dam to 

Tampa Bay is tidal. 

At least three second-magnitude springs (with discharges of 6.46 to 

64.6 million gallons per day) are found in the Group 2 basins: Crystal 

and Sulphur Springs on the Hillsborough River and Lithia Springs on the 

Alafia River. Lower magnitude springs are also present. 

Surface Water Quality Classifications 

Portions of two rivers in the basin are designated as Class I because 

they are major sources of drinking water: the Hillsborough River supplies 

three-fourths of Tampa’s drinking water, and the Manatee River supplies 

drinking water for Manatee County. A number of areas in Old Tampa 

Bay, Middle Tampa Bay, and Lower Tampa Bay are designated as Class II 

waters, and all other waters in the basin are Class III. 

Florida’s water quality standards, the foundation of the state’s program 

of water quality management, designates the “present and future most 

beneficial uses” of the waters of the state (Section 403.061[10], Florida 

Statutes [F.S.]). Water quality criteria for surface water and ground water, 

expressed as numeric or narrative limits for specific parameters, describe the 

water quality necessary to maintain these uses. Florida’s surface water is 

classified using the following five designated use categories: 

Class I 

Class II 

Class III 

Class IV 

Class V 

Potable water supplies 

Shellfi sh propagation or harvesting 

Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a 

healthy, well-balanced population of fi sh and wildlife 

Agricultural water supplies 

Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no 

state waters currently in this class) 

Special Designations 

Outstanding Florida Waters 

The following waterbodies in the basin have been given additional 

protection through designation as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWs): 

• Hillsborough River State Park, Hillsborough Bay; 

• Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve, Coastal Middle Tampa Bay; 

• Little Manatee River, Middle Tampa Bay; 

• Terra Ceia State Aquatic Preserve, Coastal Lower Tampa Bay; 

• Boca Ciega State Aquatic Preserve, Lower Tampa Bay; 

• Pinellas County Aquatic Preserve, Lower Tampa Bay, which encompasses 

all submerged sovereign lands in the county (including the 

western half of Old Tampa Bay and Middle Tampa Bay as well as the 

western side of the county along the Gulf Coast); and 

• Lake Manatee State Recreation Area, Manatee River.


31 

OFWs are designated for “special protection due to their 

natural attributes” (Section 403.061, F.S.). These waters are listed in 

Rule 62-302.700, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The intent of 

an OFW designation is to maintain ambient water quality, even if these 

designations are more protective than those required under the waterbody’s 

surface water classification. Most OFWs are associated with managed 

areas in the state or federal park system, such as aquatic preserves, national 

seashores, or wildlife refuges. Other OFWs may also be designated as 

“Special Waters” based on a finding that the waters are of exceptional 

recreational or ecological significance and are identified as such in 

Rule 62-302, F.A.C. 

Surface Water Improvement and Management Priority Waterbodies 

In 1987, the Florida legislature created the Surface Water Improvement 

and Management (SWIM) Program to restore waterbodies. The initial 

legislation identified seven priority waterbodies—Lake Apopka, Tampa 

Bay, Indian River Lagoon, Biscayne Bay, Lower St. Johns River, Lake 

Okeechobee, and the Everglades. The Tampa Bay SWIM Plan, completed 

in 1988, was the fi rst SWIM Plan approved by the state. 

Today, SWIM plans have been developed for 30 waterbodies 

statewide. The SWIM Program addresses a waterbody’s needs as a system 

of connected resources, rather than isolated wetlands or waterbodies. 

The state’s 5 water management districts and the Department work with 

federal, state, and local governments and the private sector to develop and 

implement SWIM plans to restore damaged ecosystems, prevent pollution 

from runoff and other sources, and educate the public. 

Minimum Flows and Levels 

In 1996, the Southwest Florida Water Management District 

(SWFWMD) was required to establish minimum flows and levels (MFLs) 

for designated priority waterbodies in Hillsborough, Pasco, and Pinellas 

Counties (Chapter 96-339, Laws of Florida; Section 373.042, F.S.). 

In 2000, the district adopted rules establishing MFLs for the following 

waterbodies (the actual values are contained in Rule 40D-8, F.A.C.): 

• In Hillsborough County, Lakes Stemper, Sapphire, Dosson, 

Sunshine, Little Moon, Brant, Deer, Alice, Rainbow, Juanita, Sunset, 

Bird, Crystal, and Merrywater. 

• In Pasco County, Camp Lake. 

• Specific wetlands in Hillsborough, Pasco, and Pinellas Counties. 

• The upper Floridan aquifer at specified sites in Hillsborough, Pasco, 

and Pinellas Counties to prevent saltwater intrusion. 

Under the Florida Water Resources Act (Section 373, F.S.), an MFL is 

the limit at which further water withdrawals will cause significant harm to 

the water resources of the area and the related natural environment. Lakes 

and aquifers have minimum levels. Minimum flows are set for rivers and 

streams.


The waterbodies listed for the Tampa Bay Basin are priorities because 

consumptive use and alterations to their watersheds have reduced or have 

the potential to reduce the amount and timing of surface water being 

delivered. Projected increases in withdrawals also could reduce future 

discharges. 

Ground Water Resources 

Aquifers 

The region contains three principal aquifer systems: the Floridan, 

intermediate, and surficial aquifers. Where overlaid by layers of 

consolidated rock, water in the Floridan aquifer system is said to be 

confined. Where the Floridan system is either at the land surface or 

covered only by a veneer of sand or sandy materials, its ground water 

is unconfined or semiconfined and vulnerable to contamination. The 

Floridan system underlies the Tampa Bay area and is its principal source 

of water, supplying more than 10 times the water pumped from either the 

intermediate or surficial aquifers (Fernald and Purdum, 1998). The top of 

the Floridan ranges from approximately sea level to 400 feet below sea level, 

and its thickness ranges from 1,000 to 1,300 feet (Wolansky and Gabode, 

1981). 

Generally, in the Tampa Bay area the intermediate aquifer system 

is absent or only a few feet thick, but thickens in a southerly direction 

to more than 300 feet in central and south Manatee County. The 

intermediate system acts as a semiconfining to confining unit over the 

Floridan and can provide limited quantities of potable water. 

The surficial aquifer system, a permeable aquifer at the land surface, is 

present in the northern part of Hillsborough County. It is usually no more 

than 25 feet thick and is generally used for irrigation. In the Tampa Bay 

area, the surficial aquifer system contains the water table. Because water in 

this system is unconfined, it is vulnerable to contamination. 

Ground Water–Surface Water Interactions 

Because contaminants can be exchanged between surface water 

and ground water, an understanding of these interactions is critical in 

protecting the region’s watersheds. Karst features allow the sinkholes that 

develop to fill with water, as evidenced by numerous circular lakes and 

ponds in the Tampa Bay Basin. Surface water elevations in these karst 

features often directly reflect ground water levels, indicating that surface 

water and ground water are interrelated (Fernald and Purdum, 1998). 

Generally, more rainfall percolates downward into the aquifer systems 

in the eastern regions of the basin than in the western regions. Once 

underground, the water either flows downward, recharging the aquifer 

systems, or it flows west, where it eventually intersects and discharges to 

the land surface through karst ponds and lakes, springs, and baseflow to 

streams.


33 

Ground Water Usage 

Freshwater use in 1995 in the SWFWMD totaled about 1,421 million 

gallons per day (mgd), with about 1,168 mgd coming from ground 

water supplies and about 253 mgd from surface water (Marella, 1999) 

(Table 2.1). The SWFWMD estimates that by 2020 the total average 

daily demand for all freshwater uses will increase by more than one-third, 

to about 1,840 mgd (SWFWMD, 1992—Draft). Agriculture and public 

supply will remain the predominant users. 

Table 2.1: Freshwater Use in the Southwest Florida Water Management 

District, 1995 

Type of Water Use Ground Water Use (mgd) Surface Water Use (mgd) 

Public supply 336.21 112.51 

Domestic self-supplied 72.24 0.00 

Commercial-industrial-mining 127.52 107.35 

Agricultural irrigation 408.19 15.70 

Recreational irrigation 34.68 14.82 

Power generation 188.79 2.70 

Subtotal 1167.63 253.08 

Total 1420.71 

Source: Marella, 1999. 

Water Resource Caution Areas 

The SWFWMD has designated four areas in the basin as Water 

Resource Caution Areas (WRCAs): Northern Tampa Bay, Eastern Tampa 

Bay, Highlands Ridge, and Southern. Under Section 373.036, F.S., and 

Rule 62-40.520(1), F.A.C., each water management district in the state 

must identify WRCAs in which potential water shortages, considerable 

reductions in water levels, saltwater intrusion, or other degradations may 

occur within 20 years and develop management plans to address their 

water resource problems. In these areas, existing and anticipated sources 

of water and conservation efforts may not be adequate to supply water for 

all existing legal uses, reasonably anticipate future needs, and sustain water 

resources and related natural systems. Five constraints are considered in 

establishing these WRCAs: 

• Impacts to native vegetation, primarily wetlands; 

• Impacts to MFLs, primarily spring flows; 

• Impacts to ground water quality in terms of increased saltwater 

intrusion; 

• Impacts to existing legal users; and 

• Failure to identify a source of supply for future development.


Major Water Quality Trends 

Water quality trends of annual average values for the major Tampa Bay 

segments, which are discussed in this section, are presented in graphs in 

Table E-3 in Appendix E. 

Dissolved Oxygen 

Dissolved oxygen (DO) is necessary for maintaining a healthy 

aquatic ecosystem. Various factors influence DO concentrations in water. 

The atmosphere supplies much of the DO to water, and it mixes with 

water through wind and wave action. Algae and other aquatic plants 

produce oxygen through photosynthesis. Overnight, when plants are not 

photosynthesizing, aquatic plants and animals continue to respire and 

consume oxygen, resulting in lower DO levels. Temperature and salinity 

also affect DO concentrations in water. The solubility of oxygen in water 

increases as temperature and salinity decrease. 

A build-up of organic wastes is a major factor contributing to 

decreased DO levels. Organic material (from living matter such as food, 

plant material, and feces) may enter a water system from several sources, 

including septic systems, sewage, and animal manure. The amount of 

oxygen used by microorganisms in the oxidation of organic matter is a 

measure of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). Nutrients also contribute 

to higher BOD by stimulating algal and plant growth. 

When algae and plants die, aerobic bacteria use oxygen in breaking 

down the decaying organic matter, increasing BOD. In aquatic systems 

with high BOD, bacteria consume the oxygen, decreasing the amount 

available for other aquatic organisms. As organic pollution increases, 

pollution-tolerant species tend to replace more sensitive species and overall 

species diversity is often reduced. 

The annual average DO concentrations in Tampa Bay usually range 

between 5.5 and 7.5 milligrams per liter (mg/L), with average levels in the 

Old Tampa Bay and Hillsborough Bay segments being lower than Middle 

Tampa Bay and Lower Tampa Bay segments. The general pattern shows 

slightly higher annual average DO concentrations in the past than in 

more recent years. According to the Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP) 

(Baywide Environmental Monitoring Report, 1999), this can be explained 

by the past occurrence of larger amounts of phytoplankton biomass, with 

associated daytime photosynthesis causing elevated (supersaturated) levels 

of DO when most measurements were collected. 

The presence of higher algal biomass in earlier years occurred while 

DO levels in the bay were higher. After about 1983, the long-term trend 

in DO concentrations decreased slightly while chlorophyll a concentrations 

declined sharply, particularly in the Old Tampa Bay and Hillsborough 

Bay segments. The annual average concentrations of BOD have generally 

decreased steadily and slowly, indicating a decrease in oxygen demand, 

which in turn suggests a reduction in organic material entering the bay. 

Long-term estimates of BOD loadings to Tampa Bay are not available. 

The TBEP has estimated BOD loadings to the four bay segments for the 

1995 to 1998 period (Pribble et al., 2001). The lowest loadings occurred in


35 

1996 and the highest in 1998. Hillsborough Bay received the largest BOD 

loading, ranging from about 2,000 to 5,400 tons/year. Lower Tampa Bay 

had the smallest loading, varying from 110 to about 340 tons/year. 

Nutrients and Eutrophication 

Nitrogen and phosphorus are two of the primary nutrients essential 

for all plants and animals. The forms of nitrogen generally available for 

biological uptake by phytoplankton and aquatic plants are nitrates and 

ammonia. The inorganic form of phosphorus—orthophosphate—is readily 

used by phytoplankton and aquatic plants for growth. When nitrogen 

and phosphorus are available in sufficient quantities, they can lead to 

eutrophication, the process by which waters become enriched with organic 

material. Symptoms of eutrophication include algal blooms and/or massive 

amounts of weedy aquatic plants. The excessive growth of algae and plants 

interferes with recreational activities, such as swimming and boating, and 

often results in hypoxic (a deficiency of oxygen) or anoxic (a lack of oxygen) 

conditions caused by respiration and the decomposition of decaying plant 

material. 

Major sources of nitrogen and phosphorus include domestic, industrial, 

and animal waste; stormwater; soil erosion; and the excessive use of 

fertilizers for crops, lawns, and home gardens. Historically, the nutrient 

of concern for Tampa Bay has been nitrogen, as more than enough 

phosphorus is available from natural deposits and mining activities in the 

watershed. 

The graphs of chlorophyll a concentrations, a measure of 

phytoplankton biomass, indicate a decline in the bay since the late 1970s 

and early 1980s, particularly in the Old Tampa Bay and Hillsborough 

Bay segments. The Middle and Lower Tampa Bay segments show similar 

trends. Since the early 1990s, chlorophyll a concentrations have been fairly 

constant, with most annual average values for various segments being less 

than 11 µg/L, the threshold for assessing nutrient impairment in estuaries. 

Annual average total phosphorus concentrations have also declined 

steadily since the early 1980s. Total nitrogen average annual concentrations 

declined sharply up to about 1979. Total nitrogen values before 1981 may 

be unreliable (TBEP, Baywide Environmental Monitoring Report, 1999). 

Since 1981, annual average total nitrogen concentrations have varied and 

show no apparent trend. 

Large nitrogen loading reductions occurred in the late 1970s and early 

1980s as a result of pollution abatement activities. In the early 1980s, 

legislation required all domestic facilities with discharges to Tampa Bay to 

treat wastewater to advanced waste treatment standards. The decreased 

nitrogen loading from these facilities was followed by considerable decreases 

in chlorophyll a concentrations in Tampa Bay. 

The TBEP has estimated total nitrogen and total phosphorus loadings 

to the bay for 1985 to 1998. In the program’s pollutant loading report 

(Pribble et al., 2001), the annual nitrogen loading estimates were generally 

higher in 1995, 1997, and 1998 than from 1985 to 1994. The increased 

loadings were attributed to higher than average rainfall from El Niño 

that resulted in greater stormwater runoff and hydrologic influences.


Hillsborough Bay receives the largest nitrogen load compared with other 

bay segments, with annual average loadings varying from a low of about 

1,000 tons/year in 1990 to a high of 6,300 tons/year in 1997. Lower 

Tampa Bay receives the smallest nitrogen load, with annual averages 

varying from a low of 230 tons/year in 1996 to a high of 490 tons/year 

in 1998. The TBEP is continuing to address the relationship between 

nitrogen loadings, algal biomass, and water transparency in the bay. 

The program’s estimates of total phosphorus loadings suggest a 

decreasing trend in the Old Tampa Bay, Middle Tampa Bay, and Lower 

Tampa Bay segments from 1985 to 1998. In these three segments, total 

phosphorus loadings were about 300 tons/year or more in the 1980s and 

decreased to less than 200 tons/year in the late 1990s. Hillsborough Bay 

phosphorus loadings have been fairly uniform over the 14-year period, 

averaging about 1,000 to 2,500 tons/year, except for 1997 when the load 

was almost 30,000 tons/year. 

Fecal Coliform Bacteria 

Fecal coliform bacteria are found in the feces of humans and other 

warm-blooded animals. They enter surface waters directly from mammals 

and birds, from agricultural and urban stormwater runoff, and from sewage 

treatment plants, septic systems, or sewer overflows. 

These bacteria occur naturally in the human digestive tract, where 

they assist in the digestion of food. Although they are not considered 

pathogens, some strains are opportunistic pathogens, which means they 

may cause disease among people whose immune systems are impaired. In 

waters with elevated fecal coliform counts, there is a greater chance that 

pathogenic organisms are present. Since pathogens are difficult to detect 

in water, and a correlation exists between the presence of fecal coliform 

bacteria and the presence of pathogens, fecal coliform levels are monitored. 

Coliform bacteria are virtually everywhere in the environment. Their 

presence does not necessarily indicate contamination by human or animal 

waste or pathogens. 

The four major bay segments have experienced notable decreases in 

both total and fecal coliform counts since the early 1980s. The decline 

coincides with the period when several point sources were required to 

improve waste treatment standards. 

Watershed Management Activities and 

Processes 

Over the years, management plans and activities in the basin have 

been implemented to eliminate wastewater discharges; reduce discharges 

of polluted stormwater from urban and agricultural areas; and protect, 

preserve, and restore special areas. The following section describes 

historical, current, and ongoing activities and processes to address water 

quality problems. Table 2.2 provides a summary over the past 30 years. 

Much of the progress in the Tampa Bay Basin for developing water 

quality restoration plans and implementing watershed and water quality


37 

Table 2.2: Historical Summary of Planning Issues and Management Activities in the Tampa 

Bay Basin 

Year 

1950s–1970s 

Planning Issues and Management Activities 

Extensive habitat destruction and water quality impacts occur, caused by development of 

bay shoreline, primarily dredge-and-fill projects to develop navigational channels, waterfront 

communities, and industrial sites; Save Our Bay citizen’s action group forms. 

1972 Clean Water Act provides federal grants to upgrade sewage treatment facilities. 

1978 City of St. Petersburg pioneers one of country’s first wastewater reuse programs, which 

today serves more than 8,500 homes and businesses. 

1979 City of Tampa modernizes Howard F. Curren Wastewater Treatment Plant at Hooker’s Point 

to meet advanced treatment standards. 

1984 Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) adopts stormwater management 

rules providing for water quality treatment and flood control. 

mid–1980s State legislature adopts Wilson-Grizzle and Grizzle-Figg initiatives, requiring all sewage 

treatment facilities discharging to bay to meet advanced treatment standards; creates 4 

Aquatic Preserves in Tampa Bay encompassing more than 370,000 acres; and establishes 

study commission that leads to formation of Agency on Bay Management, an arm of Tampa 

Bay Regional Planning Council. 

1987 State legislature creates Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Program to 

restore and protect state’s most threatened waters. 

1988 Tampa Bay SWIM Plan is completed. 

1991 Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP) is established. 

1996 Estuary program completes Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan, Charting 

the Course, which identifies goals and actions to address water and sediment quality, bay 

habitats, fish and wildlife, oil spill prevention and response, dredging, and dredged material 

management. 

Nitrogen Management Consortium of local utilities, industries, agricultural interests, local 

governments, and environmental agencies is established. 

1998 Local government and regulatory partners in TBEP sign Interlocal Agreement to submit 

detailed action plans for bay restoration and protection. 

Nitrogen Management Action Plan adopted by TBEP. 

Tampa Bay SWIM Plan is updated. 

SWFWMD initiates development of Comprehensive Watershed Management Plans for the 

four major tributaries to Tampa Bay. 

The Department’s 305(b) Water Quality Assessment Report shows that most assessed 

waters in Tampa Bay are improving or stable: 57 percent are improving, 31 percent are 

stable, and 12 percent are degrading. 

The Department’s Section 303(d) list of impaired waters identifies 47 water segments in 

Tampa Bay Basin that are not fully meeting designated uses; primary parameters of concern 

are dissolved oxygen, nutrients, and coliform bacteria. 

1999 The Department adopts TBEP’s nitrogen management goals as basis for establishing pollution 

limits (Total Maximum Daily Loads) for Tampa Bay. 

TBEP Progress Report for 1995–1999 documents significant progress on achieving program 

goals. 

2000 TBEP publishes Baywide Environmental Monitoring Report for 1993–1998. 

2010 Significant increase in region’s population, which is projected to grow by 17 percent to 2.34 

million, presents major challenge to meeting nitrogen management goals.


improvements is attributable to coordinated local, state, and regional 

efforts. Many plans share common goals, and their implementation 

is based on various groups playing critical roles in planning, funding, 

managing, and executing projects. The Department continues to 

coordinate its efforts with these entities to obtain data, strengthen 

monitoring activities, and exchange information through periodic 

meetings. The local organizations and initiatives described in Table 2.3 

provide leadership in waterbody restoration and preservation efforts. 

Table 2.3: Public Stakeholders and Major Programs in the 

Tampa Bay Basin Providing Leadership in Waterbody Restoration 

and Protection 

Public Stakeholders 

Local 

Manatee County 

Tampa 

Hillsborough County 

St. Petersburg 

Pinellas County 

Clearwater 

Region 

Tampa Bay Regional Planning 

Council (TBRPC) 

SFWMD 

Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection (Department) 

Southwest District Office 

State 

Department 

Programs 

Tampa Bay Estuary Program 

Nitrogen Management Consortium 

Regional Ambient Monitoring 

Program (RAMP) 

TBRPC Agency on Bay Management 

SWFWMD Comprehensive Watershed 

Management (CWM) Program 

Interagency Seagrass Monitoring 

Department Watershed Management 

Cycle and Total Maximum 

Daily Load Programs 

Department Source Water Assessment 

and Protection (SWAP) 

Program 

After years of declining water quality related to urban development, 

efforts to restore Tampa Bay were initiated in the late 1960s. Water 

quality improvements in the bay today have mainly come from advances 

in domestic and industrial wastewater treatment that decreased nitrogen 

loadings in the effluent discharged from these facilities. Until the late 

1970s, most sewage treatment plants operating along the bay pumped 

partially treated sewage directly into the bay. This nutrient-rich effluent 

was a primary cause of noxious algal blooms and water quality degradation. 

In 1979, the city of Tampa, with federal assistance, upgraded the sewage 

treatment plant at Hooker’s Point to advanced treatment. 

Subsequent state legislation, through the Wilson-Grizzle and Grizzle- 

Figg initiatives, required all sewage treatment facilities discharging to the


39 

bay to meet advanced standards. To date, improvements have been made 

to the sewage plants in Pinellas, Hillsborough, and Manatee Counties. 

This same legislation created 4 Aquatic Preserves in the bay, encompassing 

more than 370,000 acres, and established a study commission that led to 

the formation of the Agency on Bay Management, an arm of the Tampa 

Bay Regional Planning Council. 

In 1978, the city of St. Petersburg pioneered one of the fi rst wastewater 

reuse programs in the country, which eliminated almost all of its direct 

wastewater discharges to the bay. Similar reuse programs are now under 

way in many other bay communities. 

In 1987, the state legislature created the SWIM Program to restore 

and protect the state’s most threatened waters. The Tampa Bay SWIM 

Plan, completed in 1988, was the fi rst SWIM Plan approved by the state. 

The 1991 landmark agreement establishing the TBEP brought together 

government agencies and other stakeholders in a partnership to protect 

the bay. The partnership includes three counties; three major cities; nine 

smaller cities; numerous special interest groups; an array of regional, state, 

and federal agencies; and individual citizens. Government stakeholders 

include Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Manatee Counties; the cities of Tampa, 

St. Petersburg, and Clearwater; the SWFWMD; the Department; and the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

In 1996, the TBEP completed a Comprehensive Conservation and 

Management Plan (CCMP), Charting the Course, which outlined goals 

and actions to address water and sediment quality, bay habitats, fish and 

wildlife, oil spill prevention and response, and dredging and dredged 

material management. In 1998, local government and regulatory partners 

signed an Interlocal Agreement to submit detailed action plans for 

restoration and protection of the bay. 

Nitrogen loading continues to be a major concern today. The water 

quality goals of the CCMP focus on maintaining the proper water clarity 

to support seagrass growth by controlling nitrogen. Excess nitrogen 

from rainfall, stormwater runoff, and domestic and industrial point 

sources accelerates algae growth, limiting the amount of light required for 

seagrasses to grow. In July 1996, the TBEP adopted the goal of capping 

nitrogen loading at existing levels (1992–1994 average). This effort is 

expected to provide water quality conditions suitable for the eventual 

regrowth of more than 12,000 acres of seagrass. 

Nitrogen loading is expected to increase 7 percent by 2010, or about 

17 tons per year, as a result of population growth. To compensate for the 

expected growth, local governments and industries will need to reduce 

or limit total additional nitrogen loading to the bay by this amount. To 

address future loading, the TBEP created the Nitrogen Management 

Consortium, an alliance of local governments, regulatory agencies, and 

key industry representatives. In March 1998, the consortium adopted 

an action plan, Partners for Progress, consisting of 105 projects that were 

either to be completed or to be undertaken by 2000. These projects were 

expected to exceed the nitrogen reduction goal. 

Although not by design, public-sector projects account for about 

half of the plan’s pollutant load reduction, with the other half coming


from projects implemented by the consortium’s private-sector members. 

Notably, of the 105 projects, almost 95 percent address nonpoint sources 

of pollution that account for more than 70 percent of the predicted 

total nitrogen load reduction. The projects include the construction of 

regional stormwater treatment facilities, the conversion of septic tanks 

to central sewer systems, improvements to manufacturing processes to 

reduce pollution, the conversion to more efficient agricultural irrigation 

and fertilization practices, and land acquisition programs to prevent 

environmentally significant lands from being developed. 

The technical basis for nitrogen goals, and the management plan 

developed to reach those goals, was adopted by the Department in 1998 as 

the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for nitrogen in Tampa Bay, and 

subsequently approved by the EPA. 

Major Programs and Projects 

A number of major restoration initiatives, if continued, will have major 

positive effects on the basin’s water quality. Table 2.4 lists the projects that 

are currently under way or proposed to meet the TBEP’s goals. 

Decision-Making Processes 

The TBEP is a partnership among many different levels of 

government, regulatory agencies, special interest groups, and citizens. A 

Policy Board of elected officials governs the program, and a Management 

Board comprising top-level bay managers and administrators works in 

concert with technical and citizen advisory committees. Since the program 

began, more than 300 public- and private-sector committee members have 

provided direction and review to the Management Board. 

The TBEP’s success is directly attributed to the active involvement and 

support of the community and local governments. Key elements include 

the following: identifying the crucial participants and stakeholders, 

involving the local community in each phase of the planning and 

management process, creating a Community Advisory Committee for 

citizens to provide formal input and promote community awareness of 

bay problems and solutions, creating a Technical Advisory Committee to 

provide scientific support for decision making, identifying shared goals 

and a common vision, setting quantifiable restoration and protection goals, 

and building consensus for setting priorities and carrying out management 

activities. 

Measuring the success of management activities through 

comprehensive, long-term, reliable monitoring has been essential to 

building and maintaining community support. The baywide Regional 

Ambient Monitoring Program (RAMP), built on existing programs, 

is run not by one agency but by the cooperative efforts of participating 

cities, counties, and regulatory agencies. The Department has recognized 

the successful coordination of these efforts as a model for statewide 

implementation. 

To complement the TBEP’s activities, the SWFWMD developed the 

Comprehensive Watershed Management (CWM) program to conduct 

water resource assessments and watershed planning. The program


41 

Table 2.4: Current and Proposed Projects for Meeting Tampa Bay Estuary Program Goals 

Water and Sediment Quality 


—Is preparing watershed plans for each of 

the county’s 17 drainage basins, and will also 

identify low-salinity streams where habitat 

restoration can be integrated with stormwater 

improvements. 


—Is developing extensive water reuse 

network that will reduce ground water withdrawals 

and wastewater discharges to bay 

by piping treated wastewater to agricultural 

fields. 


—Is preparing comprehensive watershed 

management plans for key drainage basins, 

including Allen’s Creek, Lake Tarpon, and 

Lake Seminole. 

—Is constructing 15 major stormwater 

treatment projects to provide water quality 

treatment, improve drainage, and restore 

wetlands that help to filter pollutants. 

City of Clearwater 

—Is developing citywide reuse plan that will 

ultimately redirect 16 mgd of treated wastewater 

that is currently discharged to bay. 

—Is expanding central sewer to a large 

subdivision in Allen’s Creek watershed previously 

on septic tanks. 

City of St. Petersburg 

—Is implementing extensive restoration and 

stormwater retrofit project at Lake Maggiore 

that will reduce nitrogen loading and toxic 

contamination in bay. 

—Is spending $30 million to upgrade and 

improve its wastewater collection system to 

reduce sewer discharges to bay. 

City of Tampa 

—Is installing or enhancing existing stormwater 

treatment ponds at several key locations, 

including Al Lopez Park, Lowry Park, 

and Palm Ceia, to collect and treat runoff 

from more than 500 acres. 

—Is exploring reuse potential. 


Protection 

—Adopted goals set forth in the Tampa Bay 

Estuary Program’s nitrogen management 

strategy as basis for establishing pollution 

limits for bay. 

—Initiated Whole Farm Planning pilot 

project, in which regulatory agencies agree 

to issue a single, consolidated permit for a 

farm that meets overall pollution prevention 

criteria. 

—Created Clean Marina Program to assist 

marinas in implementing operating and maintenance 

programs that protect environment. 

Southwest Florida Water Management 

District 

—Is providing cooperative funding of up to 

50 percent of project cost to build 11 major 

reuse projects that will reduce or eliminate 

direct and indirect wastewater discharges 

to bay. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

—Is financing extensive research into 

causes and effects of air pollution on water 

quality in Tampa Bay. 

—Conducted an educational seminar for 

local wastewater treatment operators to 

encourage preventive self-audits of collection 

and treatment systems to prevent sewer 

overflows. 

—Organized national workgroup to assess 

environmental impacts associated with 

power plant operations and proposed that a 

case study be conducted in Tampa Bay. 

Bay Habits 


—Added protection, restoration, and 

enhancement of significant habitats, 

especially seagrasses, to Comprehensive 

Land Use Plan. 


—Designated revenues from “Penny for 

Pinellas” sales tax to acquire or restore 

more than 2,200 acres of endangered 

lands by 2010. 


—Is restoring more than 20 acres of lowsalinity 

tidal creeks leading to bay. 



—Played major role in establishing Hillsborough 

River Greenways Task Force, a 

community-based effort to promote wise 

stewardship of Upper Hillsborough River 

watershed. 

Southwest Florida Water Management 

District 

—Is using Tampa Bay Estuary Program’s 

habitat restoration targets to prioritize 

purchase of endangered lands through 

Preservation 2000 and Save Our Rivers 

programs.


allows for the careful evaluation of the regional status of water resources, 

with emphasis on the district’s mission and four areas of responsibility: 

water supply, flood protection, water quality, and natural systems. 

Multidisciplinary and multiagency teams develop and implement watershed 

management activities in each of the district’s 11 major river basins, 

including the 4 major tributaries to Tampa Bay. 

The CWM approach, which includes an assessment of water quality, 

is similar to, but more comprehensive than, the Department’s watershed 

management approach. Ideally, both efforts will complement and support 

each other, particularly in protecting and restoring water quality. 

To achieve the goals of the watershed management cycle, TMDLs, 

and Source Water Assessment and Protection (SWAP) Program, the 

Department’s Watershed Management Bureau in Tallahassee will need 

to coordinate its planning and management activities with the Southwest 

district office and other programs, such as the TBEP and the SWFWMD. 

The Department will also need to coordinate its activities with those of the 

public stakeholders and major programs in the Tampa Bay Basin. 

Agricultural Best Management Practices 

The Florida Watershed Restoration Act (FWRA) authorizes the 

Department and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer 

Services (DACS) to develop interim measures and agricultural best 

management practices (BMPs). The existing authority for BMPs is 

provided in legislation on Nitrates and Groundwater (Section 576, F.S.), 

the Lake Okeechobee Protection Program (Section 373.4595, F.S.), 

Agricultural Water Conservation (Section 570.085, F.S.), and Florida Right 

to Farm Amendments (Section 823.14, F.S.). While BMPs are adopted 

by rule, they are voluntary if not covered by regulatory programs. If they 

are adopted by rule and the Department verifies their effectiveness, then 

implementation provides a presumption of compliance with water quality 

standards. 

Over the last several years, DACS has worked with agriculturists, soil 

and water conservation entities, the University of Florida’s Institute of Food 

and Agricultural Sciences, and other major interests to improve product 

marketability and operational efficiency by implementing agricultural 

BMPs, while at the same time promoting water quality and water 

conservation objectives. In addition, programs have been established and 

are being developed to create a network of state, local, federal, and private 

sources of funds for developing and implementing BMPs. 

To encourage growers to use BMPs, BMP manuals have been published 

for a number of agricultural industries, including container-grown plants, 

blended fertilizer plants, agrichemical handling and farm equipment 

maintenance, cow/calf operations, aquaculture, and landscaping. Many 

of these manuals can be downloaded at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water. 

Manuals for row crops, equine or horse farms, and ornamental nurseries are 

currently being developed. The use of a BMP manual alone, however, does 

not presume compliance with the Department’s water quality standards.


43 

Chapter 3: Surface Water Quality Assessment 

Scope of the Assessment 

This chapter presents the results of an updated assessment of surface 

water quality in the Tampa Bay Basin. The primary purpose of the 

assessment is to determine if waterbodies or waterbody segments are to be 

placed on the Verified List of impaired waterbodies. The listing will be 

in accordance with evaluation thresholds and data sufficiency and data 

quality requirements in the Identification of Impaired Surface Waters Rule 

(IWR—Rule 62-303, Florida Administrative Code [F.A.C.]). The results 

of the assessment will be used to identify waters in the basin for which 

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) will be developed. 

The chapter describes the planning units in the basin used as a 

basis for the assessment. A section on each planning unit contains a 

general description and summary of key water quality indicators (such 

as nutrients, chlorophyll a, dissolved oxygen [DO], and microbiological 

parameters). Permitted discharges, land uses, ecological status, and water 

quality improvement plans and projects are summarized for each planning 

unit. The discussion notes where applicable surface water quality criteria 

have been exceeded and summarizes the report’s findings in maps, noting 

potentially impaired waterbodies in each planning unit. The chapter also 

contains background information on sources of data and on designated 

use attainment, and explains the state’s integrated water quality assessment 

process. 

While potentially impaired waters and their causative pollutants 

are identified, it is not within the scope of this report to identify 

discrete sources of potential impairments. Information on the sources 

of impairment will be developed in subsequent phases of the watershed 

management cycle, including TMDL development and implementation. 

Appendix A contains a discussion of the legislative and regulatory 

background for TMDL development and implementation. Appendix C 

provides additional information on reasonable assurance. Appendix D 

provides the methodology used to develop the Planning and Verified Lists. 

The complete text of the IWR is available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/ 

water/tmdl/docs/AmendedIWR.pdf.


Update on Strategic Monitoring and Data- 

Gathering Activities During Phase 2 

During Phase 2 of the watershed management cycle, strategic 

monitoring and data-gathering activities focused first on waters on the 

1998 303(d) list, followed by waters that were placed on the Planning 

List through the IWR assessment alone. The majority of the strategic 

monitoring work was conducted by the Department’s Southwest District 

staff and included both chemical and biological monitoring and data 

upload to STORET. Data-gathering activities included working with 

environmental monitoring staff in the Tampa Bay Estuary Program 

(TBEP); Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, Southwest Florida Water 

Management District (SWFWMD), and local and county governments to 

obtain applicable monitoring data from their routine monitoring programs 

and special water quality projects in the basin. 

Eighty-one waterbody segments on the Planning List and the 1998 

303(d) list needed further data to verify impairment. Parameters included 

silver, cadmium, iron, lead, and selenium. Also included were biology 

(based on bioassessments), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), dissolved 

oxygen (DO), fecal and total coliforms, unionized ammonia, nutrients and 

their indicators (nitrogen, phosphorus, and chlorophyll a), turbidity, and 

total suspended solids (TSS). 

Fifty-three waterbody segments were verified impaired for at least one 

parameter in the Tampa Bay Basin as the result of strategic monitoring and 

data-gathering activities in Phase 2. Appendix E provides the updated 

impairment status of the basin through June 30, 2002 (Table E.1), the 

water quality monitoring stations used in the assessment (Table E.2), and 

data on water quality trends (Table E.3). Appendix F lists permitted 

wastewater treatment facilities in the basin that discharge to surface water 

and ground water, Appendix G lists Level 1 land use by planning unit, and 

Appendix H provides pollutant loading estimates. Appendix J displays 

maps of the Tampa Bay Basin that show the water segment assessment 

categories for the major parameter groups assessed. The map for bacteria 

shows an overall assessment category determination for segments 

having data for fecal coliforms, total coliforms, and coliforms resulting 

in a shellfish listing. Likewise, the map for metals presents an overall 

assessment category determination if segments have data for more than one 

metal. The parameter group maps are generated from the assessment category 

determinations in the Tampa Bay Basin integrated report (Table E.1). 

Sources of Data 

The assessment of water quality in the Tampa Bay Basin includes an 

analysis of quantitative data from various sources, some of which are readily 

available to the public. These sources include the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA) Legacy and “new” STOrage and RETrieval 

(STORET) databases, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the


45 

Florida Department of Health (DOH). The STORET databases contain 

water quality data from a variety of sources, including the Department, 

water management districts, local governments, and volunteer monitoring 

groups. Appendix D contains a detailed description of STORET and the 

methodology used to develop the Planning and Verified Lists, based on the 

IWR. 

Figure 3.1 contains a bar graph showing the amount of data provided 

by each source by year. The largest data source over the assessment period 

is Hillsborough County, which accounts for almost half of the data used 

in the assessment. The second and third largest data sources are Pinellas 

County and the city of Tampa, which provided 18 percent and 16 percent, 

respectively, of the data analyzed. 

The Department created the IWR 2002 Database to evaluate data 

in accordance with the methodology prescribed in the Identification of 

IWR (Rule 62-303, F.A.C.). For the Verified List assessment, the data 

evaluation period of record is 7.5 years, and for the Planning List, 10 years. 

The assessment in this report is based on data that were available to the 

Department in August 2002. Table D.1 in Appendix D shows the periods 

of record for the Verified and Planning Lists in the fi rst basin rotation cycle. 

Data collected between January 1, 1995, and June 30, 2002, were evaluated 

to establish the Verified List for the Tampa Bay Basin. 

To support listing decisions, the evaluation of water quality in this 

basin also includes qualitative information from and considers data in 

technical reports and documents that are not yet included in the database. 

Some of these sources include historical water quality or ecological 

information that was not uploaded to the database because of its qualitative 

treatment of issues. The Sunset Park Area Homeowners Association 

provided information on fish kills, which was used to place the Interbay 

Peninsula on the Planning List for biology. 

Number of Samples 

90,000 

80,000 

70,000 

60,000 

50,000 

40,000 

30,000 

Tampa Bay Basin Data Providers 

Mote Lab 

FL DOH 

PBSJ 

USGS 

Manatee Co. 

FL Fish & Wildlife 

SWFWMD 

Lakewatch 

FL DEP 


Pinellas Co. 

Hillsborough Co. 

20,000 

10,000 

0 

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

Year 

Figure 3.1: Sources of Data for the Tampa Bay Basin


Attainment of Designated Use 

While the designated uses of a given waterbody are established using 

the surface water quality classification system described in Chapter 2, it 

is important to note that the EPA uses slightly different terminology in 

its description of designated uses. Because the Department is required 

to provide use attainment status for both the state’s 305(b) report and 

the state’s 303(d) list of impaired waters, the Department uses EPA 

terminology when assessing waters for use attainment. The water quality 

evaluations and decision processes that are defined in Florida’s IWR 

for listing impaired waters are based on the following designated use 

attainment categories: 

Aquatic Life Use Support-Based Attainment 

Primary Contact and Recreation Attainment 

Fish and Shellfish Consumption Attainment 

Drinking Water Use Attainment 

Protection of Human Health 

Table 3.1 summarizes the designated uses assigned to Florida’s various 

surface water classes. 

Table 3.1: Designated Use Attainment Categories for Surface Waters in Florida 

Designated Use Attainment Category Used in Impaired 

Surface Waters Rule Evaluation 






Applicable Florida Surface Water Classification 

Class I, II, and III 


Class II 

Class I 


Integrated Report Categories and Assessment 

Overview 

The EPA has requested that the states merge their reporting 

requirements under the Clean Water Act for Section 305(b) surface 

water quality reports and Section 303(d) lists of impaired waters into an 

Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report (Wayland, 

2001). This Assessment Report integrates the 303(d) list and the 305(b) 

report for the Tampa Bay Basin. 

Following the EPA’s guidance, the Department delineated waterbodies 

or waterbody segments in each of the state’s river basins, assessed them 

for impairment based on individual parameters, and then placed them 

into one of five major assessment categories and subcategories. These 

categories provide information on a waterbody’s status based on water


47 

quality, sufficiency of data, and the need for TMDL development 

(Table 3.2). This Assessment Report contains a comprehensive evaluation 

of waterbodies that fall into Integrated Report Categories 1 through 5 in 

the table. 

Table 3.2: Categories for Waterbodies or Waterbody Segments in the 2002 Integrated Report 

Category Description Comments 

1 Attaining all designated uses If use attainment is verified for a waterbody or segment 

that was previously listed as impaired, the Department will 

propose that it be delisted. 

2 Attaining some designated uses and 

insufficient or no information or data 

are present to determine if remaining 

uses are attained 

3a 

3b 

3c 

3d 

4a 

4b 

4c 

No data and information are present 

to determine if any designated use 

is attained 

Some data and information are present 

but not enough to determine if 

any designated use is attained 

Enough data and information are 

present to determine that one or 

more designated uses may not be 

attained according to the Planning 

List methodology 

Enough data and information are 

present to determine that one or 

more designated uses are not 

attained according to the Verified 

List methodology 

Impaired for one or more designated 

uses but does not require TMDL 

development because a TMDL has 

already been completed 

Impaired for one or more criteria 

or designated uses but does not 

require TMDL development because 

impairment is not caused by a 

pollutant 

Impaired for one or more designated 

uses but does not require TMDL 

development because the water will 

attain water quality standards due to 

existing or proposed measures 

5 One or more designated uses are 

not attained and a TMDL is required 

If attainment is verified for some designated uses of a 

waterbody or segment, the Department will propose partial 

delisting for the uses attained. Future monitoring will be recommended 

to determine if remaining uses are attained. 

Future monitoring will be recommended to determine if 

designated uses are attained. 

Future monitoring will be recommended to gather sufficient 

information and data to determine if designated uses are 

attained. 

This indicates a waterbody or segment is potentially impaired 

for one or more designated uses. These waters will be 

prioritized for future monitoring to verify use attainment or 

impaired status. . 

This indicates that a waterbody or segment exceeds Verified 

List screening criteria and may be listed as impaired at the end 

of Phase 2 of the watershed management cycle. However, the 

data have not yet been fully evaluated and the waters have not 

been formally verified as impaired. Further monitoring and 

analysis may be necessary. 

NOTE: This category is applicable only to the Assessment 

Report. Waters that pass the Verified List criteria at this stage 

of the process are placed in Category 5. 

After a TMDL for the impaired waterbody or segment is 

approved by EPA, it will be included in a Basin Management 

Action Plan to reduce pollutant loading toward attainment of 

designated use(s). 

This category includes waterbodies or segments that are 

impaired because of naturally occurring conditions or pollution. 

The impairment is not caused by specific pollutants. 

(See sidebar on next page for a discussion of the difference 

between pollution and pollutants.) 

Pollutant control mechanisms designed to attain applicable 

water quality standards within a reasonable time frame are 

either proposed or in place. 

Waterbodies or segments in this category are impaired for one 

or more designated uses by a pollutant or pollutants. Waters 

in this category are included on the basin-specific Verified List 

adopted by the Department’s Secretary as Florida’s impaired 

waters list and submitted to the EPA as Florida’s 303(d) list of 

impaired waters at the end of Phase 2.


Understanding the 

Terms “Pollutant” 

and “Pollution” 

For purposes of the TMDL 

Program, pollutants are 

chemical and biological 

constituents, introduced by 

humans into a waterbody, 

that may result in pollution 

(water quality impairment). 

There are other causes of 

pollution, such as physical 

alteration of a waterbody 

(for example, canals, dams, 

and ditches). However, 

TMDLs are established only 

for impairments caused by 

pollutants (a TMDL quantifies 

how much of a given pollutant 

a waterbody can receive 

and still meet its designated 

uses). 

Waterbodies that are verified 

impaired due to specified 

pollutants, and therefore 

require a TMDL, are listed 

under Category 5 in the 

Integrated Assessment 

Report; waterbodies with 

water quality impairments 

due to other causes, or 

unknown causes, are listed 

under Category 4b. Although 

TMDLs are not established 

for Category 4b waterbodies, 

these water bodies still 

may be addressed through 

a watershed management 

program (for example, the 

Kissimmee River restoration). 

Because not enough recent data on chemistry, biology, and fish 

consumption advisories have been collected, currently only a few 

waterbodies or waterbody segments statewide fall into Category 1 

(attaining all uses). In particular, fish tissues in many waterbodies 

statewide have not been tested for mercury. There are a total of 249 

waterbodies or waterbody segments in the Tampa Bay Basin, and there are 

no waters in Category 1. 

More waterbodies and segments statewide fall into Category 2 

(attaining some uses but with insufficient data to assess completely) 

than Category 1 (attaining all uses), because monitoring programs can 

sometimes provide sufficient data for partially determining whether 

a designated use in a particular waterbody is attained. A total of 42 

waterbody segments in the basin falls into Category 2. 

However, most waterbodies in the state fall into Category 3 (having 

insufficient data). In the Tampa Bay Basin, the breakdown of waterbodies 

or segments in Category 3 is as follows: 

• Category 3a—83 segments for which no data are available to determine 

their water quality status; 

• Category 3b—50 segments with some data, but not sufficient data 

for making any determinations; 

• Category 3c—18 segments that are potentially impaired based on the 

Planning List criteria; and 

• Category 3d—0 segments that may be impaired based on the Verified 

List criteria but that require further evaluation. As noted earlier, 

this category is not applicable to the Assessment Report. 

Several potentially impaired (Category 3c) waters fail to meet water 

quality standards for DO, or show signs of biological stress or nutrient 

impairment. According to the IWR, specific pollutants causing DO 

exceedances or biological stress, or an underlying nutrient imbalance 

creating an imbalance in flora or fauna, must be documented for a 

waterbody or segment to be listed as impaired. Sometimes these conditions 

cannot be linked to a causative pollutant, and sometimes they may reflect 

natural background conditions. 

Currently, two waterbodies in the basin are designated as being in 

Category 4. This category includes those waterbodies/segments that are 

impaired but do not require a TMDL for one of three reasons: 

• Category 4a—0 segments for which a TMDL has already been 

developed, 

• Category 4b—0 segments for which the impairment is not attributable 

to a pollutant or pollutants but is due to other alterations to the 

waterbody, and


49 

• Category 4c—2 segments for which there is reasonable assurance 

that the designated use of an impaired waterbody will be attained by 

an existing or proposed pollutant control measure. The TBEP has 

provided reasonable assurance that the nitrogen management plan for 

Tampa Bay will address nutrient impairment. 

Finally, 54 waterbodies in the basin are in Category 5. These impaired 

waterbodies are on the Verified List of impaired waters adopted by the 

Department’s Secretary and will require TMDLs. Chapter 5 of this report 

discusses in detail the waters in this category. 

Planning Units 

The Tampa Bay Basin encompasses approximately 2,200 square miles 

and a complex hydrologic system. To provide a more detailed geographic 

basis for identifying water quality improvement activities, the basin was 

subdivided into smaller areas called planning units. A planning unit 

is either an individual large tributary basin, a group of smaller adjacent 

tributary basins with similar characteristics, or major segments of a large 

waterbody like Tampa Bay. Planning units help organize information and 

management strategies around prominent watershed characteristics. 

Water quality assessments were conducted for individual waterbody 

segments within planning units. Each of these smaller, hydrologicallybased 

drainage areas within a planning unit is assigned a unique waterbody 

identification number (WBID). Waterbody segments are assessment units 

(or geographic information system [GIS] polygons) that the Department 

used to define waterbodies when it biennially inventoried and reported on 

water quality to the EPA under Section 305(b) of the federal Clean Water 

Act. These WBIDs are the assessment units identified in the Department’s 

lists of impaired waters submitted to the EPA in reports under Section 

303(d) of the Clean Water Act. 

The Tampa Bay Basin contains eight planning units: Hillsborough 

Bay, Coastal Hillsborough Bay, Old Tampa Bay, Coastal Old Tampa Bay, 

Middle Tampa Bay, Coastal Middle Tampa Bay, Lower Tampa 

Bay, and Coastal Lower Tampa Bay (see planning unit map in 

Appendix E). Figures 3.2 through 3.5 show the planning unit locations 

and boundaries. The remainder of this chapter provides a general 

description of each planning unit, information on land use and potential 

point sources of pollution, water quality assessments for individual 

waterbody segments, and summaries of ecological issues and watershed 

quality improvement plans and projects. 

Appendix E of this report provides a water quality summary by 

planning unit, a list of water quality monitoring stations, the integrated 

assessment summary, and trend data. Appendix F includes summary 

information for permitted wastewater treatment facilities in the basin. 

Appendix G lists Level 1 land uses by planning unit. Appendix J contains 

maps showing integration by parameter group for the Tampa Bay Basin as 

a whole.


Assessment by Planning Unit 

• Hillsborough Bay Planning Unit 

General Description 

Hillsborough Bay is the smallest of the 4 bay segments in terms of both 

volume and surface area (37 square miles). It receives runoff from a large 

portion of the city of Tampa. The Hillsborough and Alafia Rivers drain 

into Hillsborough Bay, as do a number of smaller tributaries, including the 

Palm River, Tampa Bypass Canal, Delaney Creek, and Bullfrog Creek. 

Figure 3.2, a composite map of the planning unit, shows waters on the 

1998 303(d) list and Verified List. 

Water Quality Summary 

Historically and in recent years, Hillsborough Bay has had the poorest 

water quality of the major bay segments. 

Data were available for 41 stations for the 1995 to 2002 Verified 

period. These were sampled mainly by the Hillsborough County 

Environmental Protection Commission and the City of Tampa Bay 

Study Group. 


waterbody segments in the planning unit. Waterbodies represented by 

these data include the Hillsborough Bay segments and Davis Island Beach. 

In this planning unit, the bay segments are listed as impaired for nutrients 

due to elevated chlorophyll a (Category 4c) and mercury due to a fish 

consumption advisory (Category 5). Davis Island Beach meets standards 

for fecal coliforms (Category 2). 

Permitted Discharges and Land Uses 

Point Sources. Hillsborough Bay and its drainage basins have the 

highest number of point source facilities in Tampa Bay. Hillsborough 

Bay has 16 domestic facilities that can discharge greater than 0.1 million 

gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater directly or indirectly, via tributaries, to 

the bay. 

The largest point source facility in Tampa Bay, the city of Tampa’s 

Howard F. Curren Wastewater Plant, discharges 50 to 60 mgd of advanced 

waste treatment (AWT) effluent to the upper part of Hillsborough 

Bay. Other domestic facilities in the Hillsborough Bay watershed with 

surface water discharges of AWT effluent greater than 1 mgd include 

the Plant City, Falkenburg, and Valrico Road facilities. There are 32 

industrial facilities, primarily involved in phosphate mining and fertilizer 

manufacturing, that can discharge greater than 0.1 mgd of wastewater into 

the Hillsborough Bay Basin. Historically, the stations on the Alafia River 

have had high phosphorus concentrations from the phosphate mining 

and processing operations in the upper reaches of the basin (Boler, 1999). 

These concentrations influence phosphorus levels in Hillsborough Bay. 

Appendix F lists the basin’s domestic and industrial surface discharge 

facilities, along with their permitted flows. (See Noteworthy for a 

definition of point sources.)


51 

Figure 3.2: Composite Map of the Hillsborough Bay and Coastal Hillsborough Bay Planning Units, 

Including the 1998 303(d) List and Verified List Waters


Table 3.3: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Hillsborough Bay Planning Unit 

WBID 

1558D 

1558E 

1558EB 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Hillsborough 

Bay Lower 

Hillsborough 

Bay Upper 

Davis Island 

Beach 

Type 1 Class 2 of Concern 

1998 303(d) 

Waterbody List Parameters 

Data Evaluation under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 3 

Potentially 

Impaired 

(Cat. 3c) 

for Listed 

Parameters 4 

Verified 

Impaired (Cat. 

4a, 4b, 4c, or 

5) for Listed 

Parameters 5 

Estuary IIIM Fish, DO Chlorophyll a, 

Mercury-Fish 

Estuary IIIM Nutrients, 

Fish, DO 

Chlorophyll a, 

Mercury-Fish 

Not Impaired 

(Cat. 2) for Listed 

Parameters 

DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, 

Total Coliforms, 

Turbidity 

DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, 


Turbidity 

EPA’s 

305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated 

Report 

Assessment 

Category for 

WBID 6 

5 Verified List 


Coastal IIIM N/A N/A Fecal Coliforms 2 Meets Some 

Uses 

Notes: 

1 

The designation “stream” includes canals, rivers, and sloughs. The designation “lake” includes some marshes. 

2 

The state’s surface water classifications are as follows: 

Class I: Potable water supplies 

Class II: Shellfish propagation or harvesting 

Class III: Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife 

Class IV: Agricultural water supplies 

Class V: Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in this class) 

3 

The EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report categories are as follows: 

1—Attains all designated uses; 

2—Attains some designated uses; 

3a—No data and information are available to determine if any designated use is attained; 

3b—Some data and information are available, but they are insufficient for determining if any designated use is 

attained; 

3c—Meets Planning List criteria and is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses; 

4a—Impaired for one or more designated uses and the TMDL is complete; 

4b—Impaired for one or more designated uses but no TMDL is required because the impairment is not caused by a 

pollutant; 

4c—Impaired for one or more designated uses, but no TMDL is required because a proposed pollution control measure 

provides reasonable assurance that the water will attain standards in the future; and 

5—Water quality standards are not attained and a TMDL is required. 

4 

Parameters in bold meet the Verified List evaluation criteria, Rule 62-303.400, F.A.C. 

5 

Parameters in italics are in Category 4 (a, b, or c) waters that do not require TMDL development 

6 

The assessment categories listed in this column represent the status of each WBID as a whole, based on multiple 

parameters. The hierarchy for assigning these categories is Category 5, then 4, then 3c, then 2, and then 3b, i.e., each 

WBID is assigned a category based on the highest category assigned to an individual parameter. For example, if WBID 

9999 has total coliforms as Category 5, fecal coliforms as Category 3c, and coliforms-shellfish as Category 2, the single 

assessment call for the WBID is Category 5. 

F = Fresh water 

M = Marine 

N/A = Not applicable, no parameters listed.


53 

Nonpoint Sources. Based on Level I and II land use summary 

information, the predominant land use in the planning unit is urban and 

built-up (36 percent) and agriculture (29 percent). Most urban areas are 

close to or bordering the bay. The agricultural areas are generally in the 

mid- to upper reaches of the Hillsborough and Alafia River Basins. All of 

these land uses can be associated with nonpoint discharges of pollutants 

and eroded sediments (see Noteworthy for a definition of nonpoint 

sources). Appendix G provides summary information on general land uses 

in the basin, by planning unit. 

• Coastal Hillsborough Bay Planning Unit 


Coastal Hillsborough Bay, which covers 166 square miles, includes the 

drainage basins south of the Alafia River, the basins in the northeast area 

of the bay between the Alafia and Hillsborough Rivers, and runoff from 

the eastern side of the Interbay Peninsula. Tributaries in this area include 

the Palm River, Tampa Bypass Canal, Delaney Creek, Archie Creek, and 

Bullfrog Creek. 




Data from 224 stations were available for 1995 to 2002. The stations 

were mainly sampled by the Hillsborough County Environmental 

Protection Commission and Post, Buckley, Shue and Jernigan for the 

Tampa Bay Water Water Use Permit. 



planning unit, 18 contain no data (Category 3a), 6 have insufficient data 

for an assessment (Category 3b), 2 are potentially impaired for at least 1 

parameter (Category 3c), and 9 exhibit impairment (Category 5). The 

most common impairments are for DO and nutrients. 


Point Sources. Coastal Hillsborough Bay contains more than 100 

permitted domestic and industrial facilities. This includes a portion of the 

facilities greater than 0.1 mgd that discharge to the smaller tributaries of 

Hillsborough Bay, which were discussed in the section on the Hillsborough 

Bay planning unit. 


facilities, along with their permitted flows. 


information, almost half of the land use in the planning unit (48 percent) 

is urban and built-up, with agriculture covering about 22 percent of the 

area. A large amount of land in the northeast portion of the planning unit 

is urban, while land use in the southern portion, in the Bullfrog Creek 

watershed, is predominately agriculture. These land uses can be associated 

with nonpoint discharges of pollutants and eroded sediments.


Table 3.4: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Coastal Hillsborough Bay Planning Unit 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Type 1 Class 2 Concern 

1998 303(d) List 

Waterbody 

Parameters of 


Potentially 


3c) for Listed 

Parameters 4 

Verified Impaired 

(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 

or 5) for Listed 

Parameters 5 

Not Impaired 


Parameters 

EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) 

Integrated Report 

Assessment 

Category for WBID 6 

1536A Palm River Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

1536B 

1536C 

1536D 

Sixmile 

Creek 


Bypass 

Canal 

Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 

Stream IIIF Nutrients, DO Chlorophyll a, 

DO, Mercury- 

Fish, Total 

Coliforms 

Conductance, 

Fecal Coliforms, 

Turbidity, 

Unionized 

Ammonia 


Eureka Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 

Springs Run 

1536E Palm River Estuary IIIM Coliforms, 

Nutrients, DO 

1536F 

Sixmile 

Creek 

1576 Mango 

Drain 

1579 Bellows 

Lake Outlet 

1579A 

1584A 

Bellows 

Lake 

Ybor City 

Drain 

Stream IIIF Coliforms, 

Nutrients, 

BOD, Turbidity, 

DO 


DO, Historical 

Chlorophyll 


DO 



Turbidity 

Conductance, 



Turbidity, 

Unionized 

Ammonia 



Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

Lake IIIF N/A DO N/A 3c Planning List 

Lake IIIF NA NA N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

Stream IIIF Nutrients, 

BOD, TSS, 

COD 

1584B McKay Bay Estuary IIIM Nutrients, Fish, 

DO 

1599 Uceta Yard 

Drain 

1605 Delaney 

Creek 

1605A 

Lake 

Tenmile 

N/A N/A 3a No Data 



Chlorophyll 



Turbidity 




Nutrients, 

BOD, Turbidity, 

DO, PB 

DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, 

Lead, Total 

Coliforms 

Conductance, 

Turbidity, 

Unionized 

Ammonia 

Verified List 

Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data


55 

Table 3.4 (continued) 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 


1998 303(d) List 

Waterbody 



Potentially 



Parameters 4 


(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 


Parameters 5 

Not Impaired 


Parameters 

EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) 


Assessment 


1605A1 McKay Bay Estuary IIIM N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 

1605B 

1605C 

1605D 

Gornto 

Lake–Open 

Water 

Mead 

Lake–Open 

Water 

Delaney 

Creek Tidal 

1609 Direct 

Runoff To 

Bay 

1615 Unnamed 

Ditch 

1628 Archie 

Creek 

1632 Unnamed 

Canal 

1636 Black Point 

Drain 

1637 Black Point 

Channel 

1640 Rattlesnake 

Ditch 

1648 Direct 



1664 Direct 



1666 Bullfrog 

Creek 

1666A 

Bullfrog 

Creek 

1676 Direct 




Data 


Data 

Estuary IIIM N/A Chlorophyll 

a, DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, 

Lead, Total 

Coliforms 

Stream IIIF N/A Biology (Fish 

Kills) 

Turbidity 

N/A 


3c Planning List 

Spring IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 


Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 

Estuary IIIM N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 

Estuary IIIM Nutrients, DO Chlorophyll a DO N/A 5 Verified List 




Stream IIIF N/A Fecal 

Coliforms, 

Total 

Coliforms 

Estuary IIIM Coliforms, 

Nutrients, DO 

Chlorophyll 

a, DO, Total 

Coliforms 

Conductance, 

DO, Turbidity, 

Unionized 

Ammonia 


Turbidity 



Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data



WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

1682 Kitchen 

Branch 

1686 Unnamed 

Creek 

1688 Little 

Bullfrog 

Creek 

1691 Big Bend 

Bayou 

1713 Unnamed 

Stream 


1998 303(d) List 

Waterbody 



Potentially 



Parameters 4 


(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 


Parameters 5 

Not Impaired 


Parameters 

EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) 


Assessment 







Notes: 

1 


2 







3 





3b—Some data and information are available, but they are insufficient for determining if any designated use is attained; 




pollutant; 




4 


5 


6 

The assessment categories listed in this column represent the status of each WBID as a whole, based on multiple parameters. 

The hierarchy for assigning these categories is Category 5, then 4, then 3c, then 2, and then 3b, i.e., each WBID is assigned a 

category based on the highest category assigned to an individual parameter. For example, if WBID 9999 has total coliforms as 

Category 5, fecal coliforms as Category 3c, and coliforms-shellfish as Category 2, the single assessment call for the WBID is 

Category 5. 


M = Marine 


Noteworthy 



57 

Information on Point Sources in Planning Units 

Point sources contributing pollution 

to surface water or ground 

water originate from discrete, 

well-defined areas such as a facility 

discharge from the end of a 

pipe, a disposal well, or a wastewater 

sprayfield. Point sources 

generally fall into two major 

types: domestic wastewater 

sources (which consist of sewage 

from homes, businesses, and 

institutions) and industrial wastewater 

sources (which include 

wastewater, runoff, and leachate 

from industrial or commercial 

storage, handling, or processing 

facilities). Landfills, hazardous 

waste sites, dry cleaning solvent 

cleanup program (DSCP) sites, 

and petroleum facility discharges 

are also considered point 

sources. These sites have the 

potential to leach contaminants 

into ground water and surface 

water. 

Identifying the source of 

waterbody impairment is an 

important part of assessing 

water quality and developing 

TMDLs. As part of this 

report, information is 

presented on point sources, 

including permitted facilities 

that discharge wastewater 

and landfills. 

Nonpoint Sources and Land Uses 

Rainfall generates stormwater 

runoff. As it flows over the land 

and through the ground, runoff 

may carry nonpoint source pollution 

from many different sources 

to lakes, rivers, and estuaries in a 

watershed, and into ground water 

supplies. Nonpoint sources also 

include atmospheric deposition 

and leaching from agricultural 

lands, urban areas, and unvegetated 

lands. The pollutants in 

runoff often include fertilizers, 

bacteria, metals, sediments, 

petroleum compounds, and 

metals.


Appendix G provides summary information on general land uses in 

the basin, by planning unit. 

• Old Tampa Bay Planning Unit 


Old Tampa Bay covers about 82 square miles and has 3 major 

causeways crossing the bay. The larger tributaries include the Cross Bayou 

Canal, Lake Tarpon Canal, Rocky Creek, and Sweetwater Creek. This bay 

segment receives runoff from portions of Clearwater, St. Petersburg, and 

Tampa. 




For 1995 to 2002, data for 41 stations were used in the surface 

water assessment. The Hillsborough County Environmental Protection 

Commission monitored the majority of the stations. 


waterbody segments in the planning unit. Out of the 11 segments in 

this planning unit, 5 segments meet standards for some parameters 

(Category 2), 2 segments are potentially impaired for at least 1 parameter 

(Category 3c), and 4 segments are impaired for at least 1 parameter 

(Category 5). The 4 bay segments in this planning unit are impaired due 

to a fish consumption advisory for mercury in fi sh and for shellfish due to a 

downgrade from the initial harvesting classification. 


Point Sources. Twelve domestic facilities and three industrial facilities 

in the planning unit can discharge greater than 0.1 mgd of wastewater 

to Old Tampa Bay through surface water discharges or land application 

of effluent. Seven domestic facilities that discharge to surface water have 

permitted capacities greater than 1 mgd. Two of the industrial facilities are 

power plants that discharge once-through cooling water to the bay. 




information, urban and built-up areas are the largest land use in the basin, 

making up 50 percent of the land area. This land use can be associated 

with nonpoint discharges of pollutants and eroded sediments. 



• Coastal Old Tampa Bay Planning Unit 


Coastal Old Tampa Bay covers 248 square miles. In the western 

portion, tributaries include the Cross Bayou Canal, which bisects the 

Pinellas County Peninsula, Allen Creek, Alligator Creek, and Bishop 

Creek. The northern portion includes the Lake Tarpon Basin, Rocky


59 

Figure 3.3: Composite Map of the Old Tampa Bay and Coastal Old Tampa Bay Planning Units, 

Including the 1998 303(d) List and Verified List Waters


Table 3.5: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Old Tampa Bay Planning Unit 

WBID 

1558F 

1558FB 

1558FC 

1558G 

1558GB 

1558H 

1558HB 

1558HC 

1558HD 

1558HE 

1558I 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Old Tampa 

Bay Lower 

Picnic Island 

South 

Picnic Island 

North 



Gandy 

Boulevard 



Ben T. Davis 

North 

Ben T. Davis 

South 

Cypress Point 

Park North 

Cypress Point 

Park South 




1998 303(d) List 

Waterbody 


Data Evaluation per 2001 Impaired Surface Waters Rule Criteria 3 

Potentially 



Parameters 4 


(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 


Parameters 5 

Coastal IIIM Coliforms, Fish Chlorophyll 

a, Coliforms- 

Shellfish, 

Mercury-Fish 

Not Impaired 

(Cat. 2) 

for Listed 

Parameters 

DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, 

Total 

Coliforms, 

Turbidity 

Coastal IIIM N/A N/A Fecal 

Coliforms 


Coliforms 

Estuary II Coliforms, Fish Coliforms- 

Shellfish, 

Mercury-Fish 

Chlorophyll, 

DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, 

Total 

Coliforms, 

Turbidity 


Coliforms 

Estuary II Coliforms, 

Nutrients, Fish 

Chlorophyll 

a, Coliforms- 

Shellfish, 

Mercury-Fish 

DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, 

Total 

Coliforms, 

Turbidity 

Coastal IIIM N/A DO Fecal 

Coliforms, 

Total 

Coliforms, 

Turbidity 

Coastal IIIM N/A N/A DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, 

Total 

Coliforms, 

Turbidity 


Coliforms 


Coliforms 


Nutrients, Fish 

Chlorophyll 

a, Coliforms- 

Shellfish, 

Mercury-Fish 

DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, 

Total 

Coliforms, 

Turbidity 

EPA’s 305(b)/ 

303(d) 

Integrated 

Report 

Assessment 

Category for 

WBID 6 

5 Verified 

List 

2 Meets 

Some Uses 

2 Meets 

Some Uses 

5 Verified 

List 

2 Meets 

Some Uses 

5 Verified 

List 

3c Planning 

List 

2 Meets 

Some Uses 

2 Meets 

Some Uses 

2 Meets 

Some Uses 

5 Verified 

List


61 


Notes: 

1 


2 







3 









pollutant; 




4 


5 


6 





Category 5. 


M = Marine 

N/A = Not applicable, no parameters listed. 

Creek, and Sweetwater Creek. The eastern portion drains the western side 

of the Interbay Peninsula. 




From 1995 to 2002, data were available for 417 stations. Florida 

LakeWatch, Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission, 

and Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management were 

some of the largest data providers in this planning unit. 



planning unit, 28 meet standards for some parameters (Category 2), 

47 have no data (Category 3a), 39 have insufficient data to perform an 

assessment (Category 3b), and 12 are potentially impaired for at least 1 

parameter (Category 3c). Thirty waterbody segments in this planning unit 

are impaired for at least 1 parameter (Category 5). The most common 

parameters exhibiting impairment are DO and nutrients. 

Point Sources. The larger permitted facilities (greater than 0.1 mgd) 

in the planning unit are the same as those in Old Tampa Bay, except for 

two power plants, since there are no major tributary basins in the Old 

Tampa Bay drainage area. The section on permitted discharges and land 

use for Old Tampa Bay contains additional information. 


facilities, along with their permitted flows.


Table 3.6: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Coastal Old Tampa Bay Planning Unit 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

1463 Upper Rocky 

Creek 

1463A 

Turkey Ford 

Lake 

Waterbody 

Type 1 Class 2 1998 

303(d) List 


Concern 


Potentially 



Parameters 4 


(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 


Parameters 5 

Not Impaired 


Parameters 

EPA’s 305(b)/ 

303(d) Integrated 

Report 

Assessment 

Category for 

WBID 6 

Stream IIIF N/A N/A Chlorophyll 2 Meets Some 

Uses 


Data 

1463B Lake Thomas Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 

1463C Lake Brooker Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 

1463D Lake Harvey Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 

1463E Lake Helen– 

Open Water 


Data 

1463F 

1463G 

1463H 

1463I 

1463J 

Lake Ellen– 

Open Water 

Lake Barbara– 

Open Water 

Lake Allen– 

Open Water 

Sapphire Lake– 

Open Water 

Lake Cypress– 

Open Water 


Data 


Data 


Data 


Lake IIIF N/A N/A TSI 2 Meets Some 

Uses 

1463K Lake Virginia Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 

1463L Lake Thomas Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 

1463Z Moss Lake Lake IIIF N/A N/A TSI 2 Meets Some 

Uses 

1473 Upper Brooker Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 

Creek 

1473A Keystone Lake Lake IIIF N/A N/A TSI 2 Meets Some 

Uses 

1473B Lake Eva–Open Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Water 

Data 

1473W Lake Juanita Lake IIIF N/A Historical 

Trophic State 

Index (TSI) 

Conductance, 5 Verified List 

DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, Iron, 


Turbidity, TSI, 

Unionized 

Ammonia 

1473X Mound Lake Lake IIIF N/A Historical TSI TSI 5 Verified List 

1473Y Calm Lake Lake IIIF N/A Historical TSI TSI 5 Verified List


63 


WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 


303(d) List 


Concern 


Potentially 



Parameters 4 


(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 


Parameters 5 

Not Impaired 


Parameters 

EPA’s 305(b)/ 


Report 

Assessment 

Category for 

WBID 6 

1473Z James Lake Lake IIIF N/A N/A TSI 2 Meets Some 

Uses 

1474 Brooker Creek Stream IIIF Coliforms, DO 

Nutrients, DO 

1474A 

Lake Wastena 

Hillsbor 

Chlorophyll 3c Planning List 

a, Conductance, 

Fecal 

Coliforms, 


Turbidity, 

Unionized 

Ammonia 


Uses 

1474B Lake Elizabeth Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 

1474C Holiday Lake Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

1474D Lake Dead Lady Lake IIIF N/A TSI N/A 5 Verified List 

1474U Island Ford Lake Lake IIIF N/A N/A TSI 2 Meets Some 

Uses 

1474V Crescent Lake IIIF N/A TSI N/A 5 Verified List 

1474X Wood Lake Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

1474Y Lake Osceola Lake IIIF N/A N/A TSI 2 Meets Some 

Uses 

1478 Drainage Canal Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 

1478A Saddleback 

Lake 


Uses 

1478B Round Lake Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

1478C Lake Crenshaw Lake IIIF N/A N/A TSI 2 Meets Some 

Uses 

1478D Crystal Lake Lake IIIF N/A N/A TSI 2 Meets Some 

Uses 

1478E North Crystal Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 

Lake 

1478F Lake Hobbs Lake IIIF N/A N/A TSI 2 Meets Some 

Uses 

1478G 

Little Deer 

Lake–Open 

Water 


Data



WBID 

1478H 

1478I 

1478J 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Lake 

Reinheimer– 

Open Water 

Lake 

Merry water– 

Open Water 

Zambito Lake– 

Open Water 

Waterbody 


303(d) List 


Concern 


Potentially 



Parameters 4 


(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 


Parameters 5 

Not Impaired 


Parameters 

EPA’s 305(b)/ 


Report 

Assessment 

Category for 

WBID 6 

Lake IIIF N/A TSI N/A 5 Verified List 


Data 


Data 

1478K Cooper Lake Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 

1478L Round Lake Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 

1478X Snake Lake Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

1478Z Deer Lake Lake IIIF N/A N/A TSI 2 Meets Some 

Uses 

1486 Lake Tarpon Lake IIIF N/A DO Turbidity 3c Planning List 

Outlet 

1486A Lake Tarpon Lake IIIF N/A Mercury-Fish DO, TSI Fecal 

Coliforms, 


Turbidity, 

Unionized 

Ammonia 


1493 Buck Lake Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

1493A Church Lake Lake IIIF N/A N/A TSI 2 Meets Some 

Uses 

1493B Lake Alice Lake IIIF N/A N/A TSI 2 Meets Some 

Uses 

1493C 

1493D 

Thorpe Lake– 

Open Water 

Williams Lake– 

Open Water 


Data 


Data 

1493E Buck Lake Lake IIIF N/A TSI N/A 5 Verified List 

1493F Echo Lake Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

1493V Taylor Lake Lake IIIF N/A N/A TSI 2 Meets Some 

Uses 

1493W Garden Lake Lake IIIF N/A N/A TSI 2 Meets Some 

Uses 

1493X Rainbow Lake Lake IIIF N/A N/A TSI 2 Meets Some 

Uses


65 


WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 


303(d) List 


Concern 


Potentially 



Parameters 4 


(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 


Parameters 5 

Not Impaired 


Parameters 

EPA’s 305(b)/ 


Report 

Assessment 

Category for 

WBID 6 

1493Y Moon Lake Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

1494 Lake Charles 

Drain 


1494A Lake Charles Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

1494B Brant Lake Lake IIIF N/A TSI N/A 5 Verified List 

1494C Lake Charles Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 

1496 Sunset Lake Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 

1496A Sunset Lake Lake IIIF N/A TSI N/A 5 Verified List 

1496Z Lake Jackson Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

1498 Brushy Creek Stream IIIF Coliforms, 

DO 

DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, Total 

Coliforms 

N/A 


1498A Starvation Lake Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

1498B Van Dyke Lake Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

1498C 

1498D 

Sunshine Lake– 

Open Water 

Gant Lake– 

Open Water 


Data 


Data 

1498Z Dosson Lake Lake IIIF N/A TSI N/A 3c Planning List 

1502 Chapman Lake 

Outlet 


Data 

1502A Lake Estes Lake IIIF N/A TSI N/A 5 Verified List 

1502B Lake Ellen Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

1502C Chapman Lake Lake IIIF N/A TSI N/A 5 Verified List 

1507 Rocky Creek Stream IIIF Coliforms, 

Nutrients, 

TSS, DO 

1507A Rocky Creek Estuary IIIM Coliforms, 

Nutrients, DO 

1509 Drainage 

Ditches 

Biology, 

DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, 


Turbidity 



Chlorophyll 

N/A 


Fecal 


Coliforms, 


Turbidity 




WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 


303(d) List 


Concern 

1513 Double Branch Estuary IIIM Coliforms, 

Nutrients, DO 

1513A 

1513B 

1513C 

Marlee Lake– 

Open Water 

Lake Rogers– 

Open Water 

Lake Raleigh– 

Open Water 


Potentially 



Parameters 4 


(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 


Parameters 5 

DO, Total 

Coliforms 

Not Impaired 


Parameters 

Fecal 

Coliforms, 

Turbidity 

EPA’s 305(b)/ 


Report 

Assessment 

Category for 

WBID 6 



Data 


Data 


Data 

1513D Glass Lake Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 

1513Y Lake Maurine Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 

1513Z Lake Grace Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

1514 Lake Le Clare 

Drain 


Uses 

1514A Lake Le Clare Lake IIIF N/A N/A TSI 2 Meets Some 

Uses 

1515 Horse Lake Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

1516 Sweetwater 

Creek 


DO 

Chlorophyll a, Conductance, 

Fecal 


Chlorophyll, Coliforms, 

Total Coliforms Turbidity, 

Unionized 

Ammonia 


1516A Lake Carroll Lake IIIF N/A TSI N/A 5 Verified List 

1516B Lake Madelene Lake IIIF N/A TSI N/A 5 Verified List 

1516C 

1516D 

1516E 

1516F 

Platt Lake– 

Open Water 

Bay Lake–Open 

Water 

Lake Ellen– 

Open Water 

White Trout 

Lake–Open 

Water 


Data 


Data 

Lake IIIF N/A TSI N/A 5 Verified List 


Uses 

1516G Bird Lake Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 

1516H Boot Lake Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 

1516Z Wilson Lake Lake IIIF N/A N/A TSI 2 Meets Some 

Uses


67 


WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

1517 Halfmoon Lake 

Drain 

Waterbody 


303(d) List 


Concern 


Potentially 



Parameters 4 


(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 


Parameters 5 

Not Impaired 


Parameters 

EPA’s 305(b)/ 


Report 

Assessment 

Category for 

WBID 6 

Stream IIIF N/A N/A Conductance 2 Meets Some 

Uses 

1519 Slough Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 

1519A Pretty Lake Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 

1519B Lake Josephine Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 

1519C Lake Armistead Lake IIIF N/A N/A TSI 2 Meets Some 

Uses 

1519D Pretty Lake Lake IIIF N/A N/A TSI 2 Meets Some 

Uses 

1529 Cow Branch Stream IIIF N/A DO Chlorophyll, 

Conductance, 

Fecal 

Coliforms, 


Turbidity, 

Unionized 

Ammonia 


1529A 

Saint George 

Lake–Open 

Water 


Data 

1530 Moccasin Creek Estuary IIIM Coliforms, 

Nutrients, 

DO 

1541A 

1541B 

1541C 

Lake Tarpon 

Canal 

Lake Tarpon 

Canal 

Lake Tarpon 

South Cove 


Nutrients, 

DO 

DO, Fecal 

Coliforms 

Conductance, 

DO, Fecal 


Coliforms 

Chlorophyll a 


Turbidity 

Chlorophyll, 

Turbidity, 

Unionized 

Ammonia 



Stream IIIF DO DO N/A 3c Planning List 

Lake IIIF N/A DO Conductance 3c Planning List 

1546 Mobbly Bayou Estuary IIIM N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 

1546B R. E. Olds Park Coastal IIIM N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

1557 Direct Runoff Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 

To Bay 

1559 Direct Runoff 



1563 Channel G Estuary IIIM Coliforms, 

Nutrients, 

DO 

Chlorophyll a 

Fecal 


Coliforms, 


Turbidity



WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 


303(d) List 


Concern 


Potentially 



Parameters 4 


(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 


Parameters 5 

Not Impaired 


Parameters 

EPA’s 305(b)/ 


Report 

Assessment 

Category for 

WBID 6 

1566 Boat Bayou Estuary IIIM N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 

1569 Bishop Creek Estuary IIIM Coliforms, 

Nutrients, 

DO 


Creek 

1570A 

Sweetwater 

Creek Tidal 

DO, 

Fecal 

Chlorophyll, 

Coliforms, Turbidity 

Total Coliforms 


Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

Estuary IIIM N/A Chlorophyll 

a, DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, 

Historical 

Chlorophyll, 


Turbidity 


1570Y Egypt Lake Lake IIIF N/A TSI N/A 3c Planning List 

1570Z Egypt Lake Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 




1574 Alligator Creek Stream IIIF Coliforms, 

Nutrients, 

DO 

1574A Alligator Lake Estuary IIIM Coliforms, 

Nutrients, 

DO 

1575 Mullet Creek Estuary IIIM Coliforms, 

Nutrients, 

DO 

1577 Pepper Mound 

Creek 





DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, 

Lead, Total 

Coliforms 

DO, 

Chlorophyll a 



Chlorophyll 

Conductance, 

Turbidity 

Fecal 


Coliforms, Turbidity 



Fecal 


Coliforms, 


Turbidity 





1587 Woods Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 

1591 Woods Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 

Tributary 

1593 Direct Runoff Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 


1594 Fish Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 





69 


WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 









1603A 

Lake 

Chautauqua 

Waterbody 


303(d) List 


Concern 


Potentially 



Parameters 4 


(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 


Parameters 5 

Not Impaired 


Parameters 

EPA’s 305(b)/ 


Report 

Assessment 

Category for 

WBID 6 





BOD, TSS, 

COD 

N/A Chlorophyll a, 

DO, Turbidity 

2 Meets Some 

Uses 


1603B Harbor Lake Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 

1603C 

1603D 

Beckett Lake– 

Open Water 

Lake 

Chautauqua 

Lake IIIF N/A DO, TSI N/A 5 Verified List 

Lake IIIF N/A N/A DO, TSI, 

Turbidity 

2 Meets Some 

Uses 

1603E Harbor Lake Lake IIIF N/A N/A TSI 2 Meets Some 

Uses 

1604 Allen Creek Estuary IIIM Coliforms, 

Nutrients, 

DO 

1604A 

Crest (Excelsior) 

Lake 

1606 Lemmon Street 

Ditch 









1625 Cross Canal 

(North) 

DO Chlorophyll a Fecal 

Coliforms, 


Turbidity 



Data 






Nutrients, 

DO, 

Unionized 

Ammonia 


Nutrients, 

DO 

DO, Chlorophyll Turbidity 

a, Fecal 

Coliforms, 



DO, Fecal 

Coliforms 

Total 

Coliforms, 

Turbidity 


5 Verified List



WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 


303(d) List 


Concern 

1627 Long Branch Stream IIIF Coliforms, 

Nutrients, 

DO 


Potentially 



Parameters 4 


(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 


Parameters 5 

DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, 


Not Impaired 


Parameters 


Conductance, 

Turbidity, 

Unionized 

Ammonia 

EPA’s 305(b)/ 


Report 

Assessment 

Category for 

WBID 6 


1627A Swan Lake Lake IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

1627B 

Long Branch 

Tidal 



Estuary IIIM N/A DO, Fecal 


Coliforms 

N/A 



1654 Snug Harbor Estuary IIIM DO DO Chlorophyll a, 

Turbidity 



Notes: 



1 


2 




Class III: Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish 

and wildlife 



3 









pollutant; 




4 


5 


6 

The assessment categories listed in this column represent the status of each WBID as a whole, based on multiple 

parameters. The hierarchy for assigning these categories is Category 5, then 4, then 3c, then 2, and then 3b, i.e., each WBID 

is assigned a category based on the highest category assigned to an individual parameter. For example, if WBID 9999 has 

total coliforms as Category 5, fecal coliforms as Category 3c, and coliforms-shellfish as Category 2, the single assessment 

call for the WBID is Category 5. 


M = Marine 



71 



information, the predominant land use in the planning unit is the same as 

for Old Tampa Bay, that is, urban and built-up. 



• Middle Tampa Bay Planning Unit 


This segment, which covers 98 square miles, receives runoff from 

the Little Manatee River and drainage from smaller tributaries along the 

Hillsborough and Pinellas County bay coastlines. Waterbodies include 

Wolf Branch, Cockroach Creek, and the Cockroach Bay embayment 

in Hillsborough County, and Booker Creek and Salt Creek in Pinellas 

County. 




Data were available for 33 stations for 1995 to 2002, mainly collected 

by the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission. 

Table 3.7 summarizes the water quality assessment status of all waterbody 

segments in the planning unit. Of the 4 segments in this planning unit, 2 

meet standards for some parameters (Category 2) and 2 are impaired for at 

least 1 parameter (Category 5). The 2 bay segments are impaired due to 

a fish consumption advisory for mercury in fi sh. Additionally, the upper 

segment of Middle Tampa Bay is impaired for nutrients due to elevated 

chlorophyll, and the lower segment of Middle Tampa Bay is impaired for 

shellfish due to a downgrade from the initial harvesting classification. 


Point Sources. Four domestic facilities and four industrial facilities 

in the planning unit can discharge more than 0.1 mgd of wastewater to 

the bay through surface water discharges or land application of effluent. 

Two of the facilities, the South County Regional Plant and the Tampa 

Electric Company (TECO) Big Bend Power Plant, discharge directly to 

the bay. The South County Regional Plant is the only domestic facility 

with a permit to discharge to surface waters. The TECO Big Bend Power 

Plant continuously discharges once-through cooling water to the bay. The 

Florida Power and Light Manatee Power Plant uses a large cooling pond 

along the Little Manatee River and can only discharge during emergencies. 

The IMC-Agrico Four Corners Mine in the headwaters of the Little 

Manatee River has a permit to discharge to surface waters. 

The Tampa Bay Water Desalination facility has been built adjacent to 

the TECO Big Bend Power Station and is scheduled to begin operation 

in the spring of 2003. The facility will produce 25 mgd of potable water 

for distribution to water systems served by Tampa Bay Water. The facility 

is permitted to blend the concentrate wastewater discharge, at an average


Figure 3.4: Composite Map of the Middle Tampa Bay and Coastal Middle Tampa Bay Planning 

Units, Including the 1998 303(d) List and Verified List Waters 

daily flow of 19.5 mgd, into the Big Bend Power Station’s cooling water 

discharge conduits. 




information, the predominant land use in the planning unit is agriculture 

(42 percent), which is located mainly in the Little Manatee River 

watershed. Urban land use, which covers about 21 percent of the basin, is 

found mainly on the Pinellas County Peninsula. These land uses can be 

associated with nonpoint discharges of pollutants and eroded sediments. 


the basin, by planning unit.


73 

Table 3.7: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Middle Tampa Bay Planning Unit 


WBID 

1558B 

1558C 

1558CB 

1558CC 

Waterbody 

Segment 


Mid 


Upper 

Simmons 

Park Beach 

Bahia 

Beach 


1998 303(d) List 

Waterbody Parameters of 

Potentially 



Parameters 4 

Verified 


4a, 4b, 4c, or 

5) for Listed 

Parameters 5 

Estuary II N/A Coliforms- 

Shellfish, 

Mercury-Fish 


Fish 


Mercury-Fish 

Not Impaired 


Parameters 

Chlorophyll 

a, DO, Fecal 


Coliforms, 

Turbidity 

DO, Fecal 


Coliforms, 

Turbidity 

EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) 


Assessment Category for 

WBID 6 



Coastal IIIM N/A N/A Fecal Coliforms 2 Meets Some Uses 

Coastal IIIM N/A N/A Fecal Coliforms 2 Meets Some Uses 

Notes: 

1 


2 







3 








4b—Impaired for one or more designated uses but no TMDL is required because the impairment is not caused by a pollutant; 




4 


5 


6 





Category 5. 


M = Marine 



• Coastal Middle Tampa Bay Planning Unit 


Coastal Middle Tampa Bay covers about 80 square miles and 

includes an area adjacent to the west side of the bay that is predominately 

urban in Pinellas County and an area on the east side of the bay that is 

predominately agricultural in Hillsborough County. It includes the smaller 

drainages north and south of the Little Manatee River and the drainages 

on the west side of the bay in the city of St. Petersburg. 




Data were available for 28 stations for 1995 to 2002. Most 

were sampled by the Pinellas County Department of Environmental 

Management. 

Table 3.8 summarizes the water quality assessment status of all waterbody 

segments in the planning unit. There are a total of 28 segments in 

this planning unit. Three segments meet standards for some parameters 

(Category 2), 14 have no data (Category 3a), 3 have insufficient data to 

perform an assessment (Category 3b), and 2 segments are potentially 

impaired for at least 1 parameter (Category 3c). Six segments in this 

planning unit are impaired for at least 1 parameter. The most common 

parameters exhibiting impairment are nutrients and coliforms. 


Point Sources. Six larger domestic and industrial facilities in the 

planning unit are capable of discharging more than 0.1 mgd of wastewater 

to the bay tributaries, either directly through surface water discharges or 

indirectly through land application of effluent. 




information, the predominant land uses in the planning unit are urban and 

built-up (51 percent) and agriculture (19 percent). These land uses can be 



the basin, by planning unit.


75 

Table 3.8: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Coastal Middle Tampa Bay Planning Unit 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

1661 Sawgrass 

Lake 

1661A 

Riviera 


1683 Smacks 


1687 Shore 

Acres 

Drain 

1693 Big Bend 


1696 Booker 

Creek 

1700 Coffeepot 


1700A 

Crescent 

Lake– 

Open 

Water 

1703 Direct 

Runoff 


1708 Newman 

Branch 

1709 Big Bayou 

–Basin 

Water 

1709A 

1709B 

Mirror 

Lake– 

Open 

Water 

Yacht 

Basin– 

Basin A 

1709BB North 

Shore 

Beach 

1709D 

Little 

Bayou– 

Basin Q 


1998 303(d) List 

Waterbody 



Potentially 



Parameters 4 


(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 


Parameters 5 

Not Impaired 


Parameters 

EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) 


Assessment 


Lake IIIF N/A DO N/A 3c Planning List 

Estuary IIIM N/A N/A DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, 


Turbidity 

2 Meets Some 

Uses 


Nutrients, DO 

DO, Chlorophyll a, Total Coliforms, 5 Verified List 

Fecal Coliforms Turbidity 



Stream IIIF N/A N/A Chlorophyll a 2 Meets Some 

Uses 


Nutrients, DO 

DO, Chlorophyll a, Total Coliforms, 5 Verified List 

Fecal Coliforms Turbidity 


Data 




Nutrients, DO 

Chlorophyll a 

DO, Fecal 4c Impaired 

Coliforms, But No TMDL 

Total Coliforms, Required 

Turbidity 


Data 



Uses 

Estuary IIIM N/A Chlorophyll a, 

DO, Fecal 

Coliforms 


Turbidity 

5 Verified List



WBID 

1709F 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Frenchmanns 

Creek– 

Basin U 

1712 Apollo 

Beach 

Canal 


1998 303(d) List 

Waterbody 



Potentially 



Parameters 4 


(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 


Parameters 5 

Not Impaired 


Parameters 

Estuary IIIM N/A Chlorophyll a DO, Fecal 

Coliforms, 

Total 

Coliforms, 

Turbidity 

EPA’s 305(b)/303(d) 


Assessment 


4c Impaired 

But No TMDL 

Required 


1719 Golf 

Course 

Drain 

1725 Wolf 

Branch 

Cutoff 

Canal 

1726 Direct 



1731 Lake 

Maggiore 

1733 Direct 



1736 Wolf 

Branch 

1756 Dir Runoff 


1778 Cockroach 



Creek 

1789 Piney 

Point 

Creek 

Notes: 





Data 





Nutrients, 

Fish, DO 

Chlorophyll 

a, Coliforms- 

Shellfish, DO, 

Mercury-Fish 


Total 

Coliforms, 

Turbidity 




1 


2 







3 


1—Attains all designated uses;


77 








pollutant; 




4 


5 


6 





Category 5. 


M = Marine 


• Lower Tampa Bay Planning Unit 


Lower Tampa Bay has the largest volume of the 4 bay segments and 

covers 108 square miles. The Manatee River, which receives runoff from 

the city of Bradenton, flows into the southern portion of this segment. 




Data were available for 53 stations from 1995 to 2002. Most of the 

stations were sampled by Hillsborough County and the FWC. 


waterbody segments in the planning unit. There are a total of six segments 

in this planning unit. Two segments meet standards for some parameters 

(Category 2), two have insufficient data for an assessment (Category 

3b), and two segments in this planning unit are impaired due to a fish 

consumption advisory for mercury in fi sh (Category 5). The segment at 

the mouth of Tampa Bay is also impaired for shellfi sh due to a downgrade 

in the harvesting classification. 


Point Sources. Seven larger facilities (five domestic and two 

industrial) can discharge more than 0.1 mgd of wastewater through surface 

water discharges or land application of effluent. Two domestic facilities 

and two industrial facilities have permits to discharge more than 0.1 mgd 

of wastewater to surface water tributaries. 




information, the predominant land use in the planning unit is agriculture, 

which covers about 40 percent of the area and is located primarily in the


Figure 3.5: Composite Map of the Lower Tampa Bay and Coastal Lower Tampa Bay Planning Units, 

Including the 1998 303(d) List and Verified List Waters 

mid to upper reaches of the Manatee River Basin. Urban and built-up 

land use, which covers about 17 percent, is mostly found in Bradenton and 

Palmetto, along the lower reaches of the Manatee River (Basin). These 

land uses can be associated with nonpoint discharges of pollutants and 

eroded sediments. 



• Coastal Lower Tampa Bay Planning Unit 


This segment, which covers about 56 square miles, is located mainly 

on the eastern side of lower Tampa Bay in the northern part of Manatee 

County. It includes Terra Ceia Bay and Bishops Harbor and their 

drainage areas.


79 

Table 3.9: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Lower Tampa Bay Planning Unit 

WBID 

1558A 

1558AB 

1558AC 

Waterbody 

Segment 


Lower 

Bayfront Park 

North 

Bayfront Park 

South 

Waterbody 


303(d) List 

Parameters 

of Concern 

Potentially 



Parameters 4 



(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 


Parameters 5 

Estuary II N/A Coliforms- 

Shellfish, 

Mercury-Fish 

Not Impaired 


Parameters 

DO, Chlorophyll 

a, Fecal 

Coliforms, 


Turbidity 

EPA’s 305(b)/ 


Report Assessment 

Category for 

WBID 6 



Uses 


Uses 

8049 Tampa Bay Gulf Coastal IIIM N/A Mercury-Fish DO, Turbidity 5 Verified List 

8049A 

8049B 

Pass-S-Grille 

Beach 

Fort DeSoto 

North Beach 

Coastal IIIM N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

Coastal IIIM N/A N/A N/A 3b Not Enough 

Data 

Notes: 

1 


2 







3 












4 


5 


6 





Category 5. 


M = Marine 






For 1995 to 2002, data were available for 22 stations, with most of the 

stations being sampled by the FWC. 


waterbody segments in the planning unit. Out of the six segments in this 

planning unit, one segment meets standards for some uses (Category 2), 

four segments have no data (Category 3a), and one segment is impaired 

(Category 5). Bishops Harbor is impaired due to a fish consumption 

advisory for mercury in fish and for shellfish due to a downgrade from the 

initial harvesting classification (Category 5). 


Point Sources. Two larger facilities are permitted to discharge more 

than 0.1 mgd of wastewater to surface waters. These facilities are also 

included in the facilities listing for Lower Tampa Bay. The city of Palmetto 

wastewater facility discharges to Terra Ceia Bay, and the closed Piney Point 

Phosphates fertilizer plant had a permit to discharge to a small channel 

that flows to Bishops Harbor. Two years ago, the bankrupt Mulberry 

Corporation abandoned the Piney Point Phosphates fertilizer plant. The 

state is managing the plant and attempting to implement a phased closure 

plan by treating and removing the acidic wastewater on site. The facility 

currently holds approximately two billion gallons of untreated acidic 

wastewater in impoundments and phosphogypsum stacks. In December 

2002, heavy rainfall in the area led to an emergency discharge order to 

release treated process water to Bishops Harbor to prevent the wastewater 

containment areas from failing. 




information, the predominant land use in the planning unit is agriculture, 

which covers about 35 percent of the area. Urban and built-up and 

wetlands each cover about 25 percent of the area. These land uses can be 




Evaluation of Ecological Resources in the 

Tampa Bay Basin 

This section summarizes and discusses ecological protection priorities 

in the Tampa Bay Basin, including Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas 

that are priorities for preservation. It also describes the major ecological 

indicators potentially related to water quality problems in Tampa Bay. 

Table 3.11 summarizes protection priorities by bay segment, based 

on currently available, documented information on biological resources


81 

Table 3.10: Integrated Water Quality Assessment Summary for the Coastal Lower Tampa Bay Planning Unit 

WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

1797A Terra Ceia 


1797B Bishops 

Harbor 

1816 Cabbage 

Slough 

Waterbody 


303(d) List 


Concern 


Potentially Impaired 

(Cat. 3c) for Listed 

Parameters 4 


(Cat. 4a, 4b, 4c, 


Parameters 5 

Not Impaired 


Parameters 

Estuary IIIM N/A Chlorophyll a DO, Fecal Coliforms, 

Turbidity 


Fish 

Coliforms- 

Shellfish, 

Mercury-Fish 

DO, Fecal Coliforms, 

Turbidity 

EPA’s 305(b)/ 


Report Assessment 


2 Meets Some 

Uses 



1823 Buffalo Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 

1825 Frog Creek Stream IIIF N/A N/A N/A 3a No Data 

1841 McMullen 

Creek 


Notes: 

1 


2 







3 












4 


5 


6 





Category 5. 


M = Marine 


TSI = Trophic state index


Table 3.11: Summary of Ecological Resource Protection Priorities, Tampa Bay Segments 

Planning Unit 

Outstanding 

Florida Water 

and State 

Aquatic 

Preserve 

Federal 

or State 

Listed 

Species 

Wading Bird 

Rookeries 

Eagle 

Nests 

Manatee 

Warm- 

Water 

Habitat 

Hillsborough Bay X X X 

Coastal 

X X X 

Hillsborough Bay 

Sea Turtle 

Nesting 

Areas 

Rare and 

Imperiled 

Fish and 

Mollusks 

Old Tampa Bay X X 

Coastal Old 


X X X X 

Middle Tampa Bay X X X 

Coastal Middle 


X X X X X 

Lower Tampa Bay X X X X X 

Coastal Lower 


X 

X 

Benthic 

Occurring at the bottom 

of a body of water) 

communities—that serve 

as indicators of surface 

water quality. 

compiled in a geographic information system (GIS) database from detailed 

surveys by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) and the FWC. It 

also incorporates summary information from other biological assessments 

carried out in the basin by various groups over the years but does not 

include the findings of the Department’s assessments, which are discussed 

earlier in this chapter. 

Since each bay segment is subdivided into many smaller waterbody 

segments, the table provides only a very broad overview of ecological 

priorities. The section that follows Table 3.11 contains more detailed 

information on some of the priority species, as well as on several natural 

communities—seagrasses and benthic. 

The table shows that three bay segments—Coastal Lower Tampa 

Bay, Coastal Middle Tampa Bay, and Lower Tampa Bay—contain 

Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWs) (see Chapter 2 for the list of 

“Outstanding Florida Waters”). All the segments are documented 

to contain listed plant and animal species. Two segments—Lower and 

Middle Tampa Bay—contain rare and imperiled fish or mollusks, and 

three segments—Coastal Hillsborough Bay, Middle Tampa Bay, and 

Coastal Old Tampa Bay—are documented to contain eagle nests. Wading 

bird rookeries are documented in seven segments: Coastal Lower Tampa 

Bay and Lower Tampa Bay, Coastal Middle Tampa Bay and Middle Tampa 

Bay, Coastal Old Tampa Bay and Old Tampa Bay, and Hillsborough Bay. 

Manatee warm water habitat is documented in all bay segments except for 

Coastal Lower Tampa Bay and Lower Tampa Bay. 

Major indicators of ecological problems are discussed baywide, as well 

as for individual bay segments where the information is available. These 

indicators are seagrass acreage, chlorophyll a concentrations, nitrogen 

loading, DO concentrations, and sediment quality. The discussion focuses 

on problems that may result from a decline in surface water quality, where


83 

documented information exists to indicate a potential for adverse ecological 

impacts. 

Conclusions and recommendations from the TBEP’s fifth-year 

assessment of water quality indicators and models provide insights into 

the progress that has been made towards water quality goals. A number 

of other baywide problems and issues of concern are also briefly described, 

including fish consumption advisories, invasive exotic species, and bluegreen 

algae blooms. 

Ecological Priorities 

The living resources in Tampa Bay that serve as indicators of surface 

water quality include important ecological resources such as wading birds, 

manatees, sea turtles, and fi sh (see Noteworthy)—most of which are 

protected by federal and state governments—as well as two important 

natural communities: seagrasses and benthic communities. 

The principal factors affecting species and natural communities 

baywide are water temperature, water clarity and color, nutrients, water 

quality, DO levels, wind, freshwater flows, tidal flows, salinity levels, 

sediment characteristics, and the bay’s physical structure. Except for wind 

and tides, all these factors are significantly influenced by contributions that 

the bay receives from upstream in the form of water quality, organic and 

inorganic matter, freshwater inflows, and stormwater runoff from natural 

and human processes and activities. 

Species 

Colonial waterbirds. Pelicans and other bird species that nest in 

groups (called “colonies”) are among the most visible, beautiful, and 

popular wildlife species in Florida. Because of their large size and 

gregarious habits, their numbers are fairly easily counted, and populations 

of these birds are widely regarded as useful indicators of the health of 

coastal and wetland ecosystems. The National Audubon Society annually 

attempts to find and census all known coastal colonies in Tampa Bay. 

This population is arguably the largest and most diverse in Florida, given 

the decline of wading bird numbers in the Everglades in recent decades. 

Table 3.12 shows the census results from 1994 to 1998. Rookery locations 

include the following: 

• Alafia Banks and Islands 2D and 3D in Hillsborough Bay; 

• Alligator Lake, Howard Frankland Bridge, Courtney Campbell, 

Causeway, and Florida Power Rooftop on Weedon Island in Old 

Tampa Bay; 

• Coffee Pot Bayou, Cockroach Bay Shell Pit, and Piney Point in 

Middle Tampa Bay; 

• Washburn Sanctuary (Terra Ceia Bird Key) in Terra Ceia Bay 

• Passage Key in Lower Tampa Bay; 

• Shell Key and Tarpon Key in Boca Ciega Bay; 

• Egmont Key in the main channel leading into Tampa Bay; and 

• John’s Pass and Dog Leg Key along the Gulf Coast in Pinellas 

County, north of Boca Ciega Bay.


Table 3.12: Annual Population Estimates, Breeding Birds of the Tampa Bay Basin, 1994–1998 

(pairs of birds) 

Scientific Name 

Common Name 

Listed 

Species 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 

Pelecanus occidentalis Brown pelican SSC 1,648 2,065 1,650 1,121 1,664 

Phalacrocorax auritus Double-crested cormorant 648 645 543 457 459 

Anhinga anhinga Anhinga 210 272 333 223 276 

Ardea herodias Great blue heron 278 312 333 284 314 

Casmerodius albus Great egret 532 687 786 506 875 

Egretta thula Snowy egret SSC 807 1,060 883 709 844 

Egretta caerulea Little blue heron SSC 305 302 253 308 273 

Egretta tricolor Tricolored heron SSC 681 596 697 420 744 

Egretta rufescens Reddish egret SSC 71 76 67 62 57 

Bulbulcus ibis Cattle egret 5,800 4,841 4,337 6,647 2,382 

Butorides striatus Green heron + + + + + 

Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned night-heron 79 199 266 113 265 

Nyctanassa violacea Yellow-crowned night-heron 190 174 183 102 91 

Eudocimus albus White ibis SSC 7,300 10,795 9,301 6,241 17,232 

Plegadis falcinellus Glossy ibis 405 507 740 328 546 

Ajaia ajaja Roseate spoonbill SSC 109 148 111 139 186 

Mycteria americana Wood stork E 64* 36 103 74 53 

Charadrius alexandrinus Snowy plover* T 0 1 0 1 1 

Charadrius wilsonia Wilson’s plover* + + 0 4 30 

Haematopus palliatus American oystercatcher* SSC 67 76 77 94 88 

Catoptrophorus 

semipalmatus 

Willet* 11 11 31 3 

Larus atricilla Laughing gull 15,020 19,300 10,500 11,500 13,000 

Sterna nilotica Gull-billed tern 2 2 0 0 1 

Sterna caspia Caspian tern 80 91 93 67 75 

Sterna maxima Royal tern 2,170 2,694 2,255 3,250 2,977 

Sterna sandvicensis Sandwich tern 270 444 445 528 539 

Sterna antillarum Least tern T 170 45 85 107 150 

Rynchops niger Black skimmer SSC 600 580 685 756 767 

Totals 37,517 45,959 34,757 34,044 43,905 

SSC—Species of special concern 

T—Threatened species 

E—Endangered species 

+—Present but not counted 

*—Species not colonial. Pairs nesting elsewhere are not included in estimates. 

Source: National Audubon Society 

16

Noteworthy 

Other Important Species in Tampa Bay 



85 

Manatees 

The endangered Florida 

manatee (Trichechus manatus 

latirostris) is found in Tampa 

Bay year-round. Manatees 

are extremely vulnerable to a 

number of factors, mainly caused 

by human activities. Injuries 

from boat propellers are the 

main cause of death. Additional 

threats include cold stress; 

entrapment or crushing in locks, 

dams, and culverts; surface water 

pollution and the associated loss 

of seagrasses as a food source; 

entanglement in fishing nets and 

lines; and red tide (Humphrey, 

1992). 

Between 1983 and 1994, both 

winter and summer populations 

in Tampa Bay increased significantly. 

Winter populations often 

exceed 200 animals. However, 

manatee deaths also increased 

between 1985 and 1997 because 

large numbers of adult manatees 

were killed by boats in certain 

areas, and record cold temperatures 

killed many subadults. 

Between 1985 and 1997, 157 manatee 

deaths were documented. 

Voluntary speed zones are in 

place along most of the bay’s 

coastline. Increased mortality is 

a concern because the species 

reproduces slowly. Protection of 

adults and subadults is especially 

critical to preventing population 

declines. 

Sea Turtles 

Four species are found in 

Tampa Bay: the loggerhead turtle 

(Caretta caretta), green turtle 

(Chelonia mydas), Kemp’s ridley 

turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), and 

hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys 

imbricata). The loggerhead is 

listed as threatened, and the 

other three species are listed as 

endangered by both federal and 

state governments. Sightings, 

captures, and strandings are 

documented in all bay segments 

except for the Coastal Old Tampa 

Bay Basins. Loggerheads are the 

most common sea turtle in the 

bay, and both the loggerhead and 

Kemp’s ridley appear to be yearround 

residents. 

Historical literature suggests 

that these populations were 

once robust enough to support 

a commercial fishery but 

became depleted at the end of 

the nineteenth century because 

of over harvesting, egg poaching, 

and the loss of nesting beaches. 

Their current population remains 

unknown, but there is no evidence 

that densities are high. 

Although all marine turtles 

are now protected, stranding 

records clearly show that numerous 

threats remain. Many threats 

are human related, such as boat 

collisions, entanglement, and 

incidental catches. For green 

turtles, fibropapilloma tumors are 

a major cause of death. Water 

pollution may play a part in the 

etiology of the disease. This 

hypothesis remains unproven, 

although a herpes virus is 

suspected to be the pathologic 

agent. Between 1980 and 1997, 

216 dead or injured sea turtles 

were reported in Tampa Bay. 

Gulf Sturgeon 

Reintroduction may eventually 

be possible for this 

fish species, which historically 

lived in Tampa Bay and 

its tributaries but declined 

and disappeared because of 

human activities. The Gulf 

sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus 

desotoi) is a subspecies 

found in the Gulf of Mexico, 

its estuaries, and rivers along 

the Gulf Coast. It is federally 

listed as threatened and state 

listed as a species of special 

concern. 

The Gulf sturgeon was 

briefly fished commercially 

in Tampa Bay beginning 

in 1886, when about 

1,500 fish were caught. By 

1889, the catch was only 

7 fish. Catches were sporadically 

reported after 1890 

(Gulf Sturgeon Recovery/ 

Management Plan, 1995). 

The construction of a dam 

on the Hillsborough River 

affected spawning habitat, 

and in 1984 the species was 

placed under state protection. 

In 1995, the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and the 

Gulf State Marine Fisheries 

Commission issued a recovery 

plan. In areas where the 

remaining fish are found, 

primary threats to survival 

include habitat loss, conflicts 

with human activities in near 

shore waters where the fish 

feed intensively, and chronic 

toxicity from organochlorines 

and heavy metals. They 

require adequate water flows 

and good water quality to 

spawn successfully. The 

protection of adult females 

is especially critical to the 

species’ recovery (adapted 

from text provided by Jerrell 

Daigle, Florida Department 

of Environmental Protection, 

2000).


Tampa Bay contains 29 species of colonial water birds and allies, 

totaling about 44,000 breeding pairs and their young, or nearly 200,000 

birds. Up to half of these are found in Hillsborough Bay. The coastal 

portions of the Tampa Bay system contain more than 27 nesting colonies, 

including the only known nesting colony of Caspian terns in Florida. 

Significant numbers of the state’s breeding populations of reddish egrets, 

black skimmers, royal terns, and white ibis are also found in the bay. 

While populations of most of the bay’s coastal bird species have 

increased, the numbers of wading birds that forage in freshwater 

wetlands have declined. Of particular concern is a recent sharp decline 

in white ibis populations. A number of species of special concern, two 

threatened species, and one endangered species are found in the Tampa 

Bay system. Virtually every active colony received some protection as 

of 1998. These efforts are uneven, however, and must be expanded and 

improved. Raccoons, which eat the eggs and hatchlings, are a key factor in 

determining the size and stability of colonies. Even the colonies on islands 

in the bay are vulnerable to their depredations. Certain sites (and species) 

are also vulnerable to disturbance by humans and pets. Discarded fishing 

line continues to entangle and kill colonial water birds; this is the single 

most significant cause of mortality of adult brown pelicans. 

Within the rapidly urbanizing Tampa Bay region, the protection of 

the birds’ food supply and foraging and nesting habitat, including small 

wetlands, also is crucial. Colonial birds feed in marshes, wet prairies, and 

sloughs, and their numbers decline if they cannot fi nd enough small fish 

and other species such as crustaceans. On a larger scale, intact watershed 

resources remain extremely important to the long-term welfare of many 

colonial species. They are highly mobile and may move throughout the 

watershed during the nesting season seeking food. 

Natural Communities 

This section discusses Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas and 

conservation lands in the Tampa Bay Basin that are important to biological 

diversity, as well as unique or rare natural communities. It also describes 

two natural communities that serve as important indicators of surface water 

quality in Tampa Bay: seagrasses and benthic communities. 

Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas 

Although the Tampa Bay region is home to one of Florida’s fastest 

growing human populations, it also contains significant areas of original 

remaining habitat. Some areas are privately owned, while others 

are publicly owned conservation lands. However, the proportion of 

conservation lands in the basin is well below the statewide average 

(5.5 percent versus 19.6 percent), and all 4 counties in the region are well 

below the statewide average for individual counties. Pasco County comes 

closest with slightly more than 10 percent of its total area in some kind of 

conservation status. 

Some of these areas of original habitat have significant ecological value, 

but are not necessarily essential to the preservation of rare species and 

communities. Others are Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas, meaning


87 

that they combine the different components important to biological 

diversity and are critical to preserving populations of rare plant and animal 

species, groups of species, and natural communities. Almost 70,000 acres, 

or more than 4 percent, of the Tampa Bay Basin are Strategic Habitat 

Conservation Areas. 

Table 3.13 shows the unique or rare natural elements of the basin’s 

natural environment, such as natural communities, bird rookeries, springs, 

sinkholes, caves, and other ecological features. It also lists the FNAI global 

and state rankings for these elements. 

Table 3.13: Unique or Rare Natural Communities in the Tampa 

Bay Basin 

Natural Community Type 

FNAI 

Global Rank 

FNAI 

State Rank 

Beach dune G4 S2 

Bird rookery N/A N/A 

Coastal dune lake G2 S1 

Estuarine composite substrate G3 S3 

Estuarine consolidated substrate G3 S3 

Estuarine grass bed G2 S2 

Estuarine tidal marsh G4 S4 

Estuarine tidal swamp G3 S3 

Estuarine unconsolidated substrate G5 S5 

Geological feature N/A N/A 

Manatee aggregation site N/A N/A 

Marine grass bed G2 S2 

Marine mollusk reef G3 S3 

Marine tidal swamp G3 S3 

Maritime hammock G4 S2 

Scrub G2 S2 

Xeric hammock G3 S3 

N/A—Not available. 

Note: The FNAI global rank characterizes an element’s relative rarity or 

endangerment worldwide, with G1 being critically imperiled globally 

because of extreme rarity or because of extreme vulnerability to extinction, 

and G5 being demonstrably secure globally. Likewise, the state rank of S1 

through S5 characterizes an element’s relative rarity or endangerment in 

Florida. The rankings are based on many factors, the most important being 

the estimated number of element occurrences, estimated abundance (or 

area for natural communities), range, estimated adequately protected occurrences, 

relative threat of destruction, and ecological fragility. 

Source: Marois, June 1999. 

Seagrasses 

Seagrasses are an important indicator of the bay’s ecological health. 

Because the grasses require light to grow, the lack of light limits their 

growth beyond certain depths. As a result, any activities or processes 

that limit light penetration into the water cause seagrasses to decline. 

Researchers evaluate the condition of seagrass beds by measuring their 

acreage and density. 

Seagrass health is closely correlated with three other indicators: 

chlorophyll a concentrations, nitrogen loading, and DO concentrations. 

A later section on the bay’s ecological problems discusses the relationships


among these four indicators in greater detail. Briefly described, the 

excessive growth of algae reduces water clarity and light penetration. The 

algal growth is fueled by large quantities of nutrients, particularly nitrogen, 

that enter the bay from a number of different sources. Excessive amounts 

of algae and biomass use up almost all the oxygen in the water, creating 

hypoxic (low oxygen) zones with extremely low DO concentrations. As a 

result, plants and wildlife in these zones—including seagrasses—are killed 

or stressed. 

Seagrasses are found in shallow waters, usually no deeper than six 

to eight feet. They support an interlinked community of diverse marine 

organisms, including grasses, algae, worms, mollusks, benthic organisms 

(organisms living at the bottom), sea turtles, and water birds. Seagrasses 

are an important feeding ground for the endangered manatee. They 

also provide valuable shelter and nursery and juvenile habitat for many 

commercial and recreational fish, such as spotted sea trout, snook, red 

drum, and shrimp, and shellfish such as bay scallop. The grasses help to 

stabilize shifting sands on the bottom, increase water clarity by trapping 

fine bottom sediments, and reduce nutrient levels in the water. Four 

seagrass species are common in Tampa Bay: turtle grass (Thalassia 

testudinum), manatee grass (Syringodium filiforme), shoal grass (Halodule 

wrightii), and widgeongrass (Ruppia maritima). A type of algae resembling 

seagrass (Halophila spp.) is also present. The distributions of these species 

are affected by a number of factors, including temperature, salinity, bottom 

characteristics, nutrients, exposure to air, and available light. 

Benthic Communities 

Sediments of sand or mud up to about 65 feet thick cover about 80 

percent of the bottom of Tampa Bay. The benthic communities in these 

sediments form the base of the food chain in the bay, determining the 

kinds of species that live in surrounding waters and serving as an important 

indicator of changes in the quality of those waters. Microorganisms and 

larger species, such as parchment worms, crustaceans, clams, conchs 

and other mollusks, tunicates (or sea squirts), and larvae live in complex 

predatory and competitive associations in and around the sediments. More 

than 500 types of macroinvertebrates have been found baywide, and each 

square meter of sediment contains an average of 10,000 animals. 

In this dynamic community, surface sediments are periodically 

churned up and redeposited by bottom-dwelling species, waves, currents, 

and dredging. The dredging of navigational channels and the underwater 

disposal of dredged material have affected almost 15,000 acres of bay 

bottom, mostly in deep-water areas. Another 1,200 acres have been fi lled 

to create spoil islands and causeways. 

Factors such as salinity, depth, DO, and percent silt and clay all affect 

benthic community structure and health. In general, benthic communities 

are healthier in areas with higher DO and salinity levels and lower amounts 

of silt and clay. Thus, benthic communities are healthier in the Lower 

Tampa Bay segment, toward the mouth of Tampa Bay and in Terra Ceia 

and Boca Ciega Bays, where salinity is higher. They are less healthy in the 

Hillsborough Bay segment, in part because of lower salinity levels.


89 

A baywide benthic monitoring program has been in place since 1993, 

and a Benthic Index has been developed to measure the diversity and 

abundance of a number of different organisms in the Tampa Bay’s benthic 

sediments. 

Ecological Problems 

Five principal indicators are used to assess problems with surface water 

quality and ecosystem health in Tampa Bay. The action plan developed 

by the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium focuses on the 

following four, which are interrelated: 

• Seagrass acreage, 

• Chlorophyll a concentrations, 

• Nitrogen loading, and 

• DO concentrations. 

Sediment quality is an important fi fth indicator. Although not 

addressed by the nitrogen consortium, contaminated sediments in some 

segments have long-term implications for the bay’s ecological health. 

The text in this section on the 

bay’s ecological problems 

is adapted from Tampa Bay 

Estuary Program Tracking 

Progress Toward its Nitrogen 

Management Goals: Fifth- 

Year Assessment of Bay 

Water Quality Indicators and 

Models, Tampa Bay Estuary 

Program, March 2001. 

Seagrass Acreage 

As discussed earlier, seagrasses are an important indicator of ecological 

problems in Tampa Bay. Because any factors that limit light penetration 

into the water cause seagrasses to decline, mapping trends in their acreage 

is one way to assess their condition. Seagrass beds in the bay—especially 

in the upper portion—decreased as much as 80 percent between the late 

1800s and the late 1900s because of dredging, pollution, and reduced water 

clarity. By 1982, only 21,600 acres remained, and Hillsborough Bay’s 

2,700 acres had almost completely disappeared. 

In the early 1980s, advanced wastewater treatment decreased nitrogen 

loadings to the bay, increasing water clarity and light penetration. By the 

late 1980s and early 1990s, seagrasses were returning at the rate of 500 

acres a year as the bay responded to improving water quality. More than 

half of the increase between 1990 and 1996, about 900 acres, occurred in 

Boca Ciega Bay in the Lower Tampa Bay segment. 

By 1994, the rate of increase slowed to about 350 acres a year, and 

between 1994 and 1996, in a number of areas such as Old Tampa Bay and 

Middle Tampa Bay, seagrasses began to decline. Results from the 1999 

areal survey indicated that almost 2,100 acres (representing a decline of 

almost 8 percent) disappeared between 1996 and 1999, most notably along 

the western shore of Old Tampa Bay. The decreases were largest in Old 

Tampa Bay, which lost almost 1,400 acres. Lower Tampa Bay lost 809 

acres of seagrasses, including 25 acres in Boca Ciega Bay and 44 acres in 

Terra Ceia Bay. The decreases were comparable to those in other regional 

estuaries such as Charlotte Harbor (7 percent) and Sarasota Bay (10 

percent). Some of the decline may have been caused by the El Niño rains 

of 1997 and 1998, which poured huge volumes of freshwater runoff and 

nutrients into Southwest Florida’s estuaries. Nitrogen loadings for the same


period were also elevated because of the increased runoff and accidental 

spills of treated sewage and water from phosphate-processing operations. 

However, many scientists think that even the record-setting rains of 

El Niño do not adequately explain the recent seagrass losses in Old Tampa 

Bay. Although seagrass acreage in that segment dropped about 24 percent 

between 1996 and 1999, it had already declined by 150 acres since 1994. 

The decrease was more than twice that reported for any other bay segment 

and accounted for two-thirds of the baywide declines between 1996 and 

1999. Most of the losses occurred just north and south of the Howard 

Frankland Bridge on the Pinellas County side. Possible factors include 

increased development in adjoining areas or changes in water circulation 

patterns. 

In addition to decreased acreage in some bay segments, seagrasses did 

not expand into a number of areas as expected, possibly because of physical 

impacts such as changes in wave energy, the loss or movement of sandbars, 

or relatively poorer water quality in shallow waters near the shore. 

During a symposium on seagrass ecology in the summer of 2000, 

participants identified the following priority research projects to fi ll gaps in 

their knowledge: 

• Update existing scientific research on the biology and ecology of 

seagrasses, 

• Implement the use of a special wave model that estimates the effects 

of wave energy on seagrass beds and other benthic habitats, 

• Analyze seagrass monitoring data to develop appropriate “sentinel” 

sites for long-term study and more closely examine areas with signifi - 

cant seagrass losses, and 

• Evaluate the various techniques available to scan historical photographs 

and maps of seagrass beds into easily accessible formats. 

Other baywide issues that may affect seagrass growth include propeller 

scarring, changes in water circulation, and disease. More than one-fourth 

of the bay’s seagrasses have been moderately to heavily scarred by boat 

propellers, especially around passes and channels. 

In addition to seagrass acreage, density provides another measure 

of health. Between 1988 and 1990, thickening of beds occurred in all 

segments of the bay, but was most evident in Middle Tampa Bay in the 

near shore areas between Cockroach Bay and Bishops Harbor. In the 

early 1990s, the density of some seagrass beds—especially those at depths 

of three to six meters—began to decline. Between 1992 and 1994, the 

thinning was most evident in an area extending from the west end of the 

Howard Frankland Bridge south to Bayboro Harbor in St. Petersburg and 

also along the southern tip of the Interbay Peninsula in Tampa. The cause 

of the extensive thinning is not currently known. 

Chlorophyll a Concentrations 

Concentrations of chlorophyll a are an important indicator of the bay’s 

health because large quantities of the algae—fueled by excess nutrients in 

the water—decrease water clarity and limit the amount of light that reaches


91 

seagrasses. Restoring lost seagrasses and protecting existing beds thus 

depends at least in part on maintaining enough light to promote growth 

and reproduction. 

In the mid-1990s, chlorophyll a targets were established for four bay 

segments, based on the light requirements of seagrasses. In Hillsborough 

Bay, the target was set at 13.2 micrograms per liter (µg/L); in Old Tampa 

Bay, 8.5 µg/L; in Middle Tampa Bay, 7.4 µg/L; and in Lower Tampa Bay, 

4.7 µg/L. 

A recent study of long-term trends in water quality shows that the 

bay’s trophic state (state of nourishment) has improved, despite continuing 

urbanization and growth in the watershed since the early 1980s. The fact 

that water quality has been relatively good since the mid-1980s supports 

the contention that nitrogen management activities are working and that 

nitrogen loads should not be allowed to increase along with development. 

Throughout the period of record, from the mid-1970s to the present, 

Hillsborough Bay has had the worst water quality and Lower Tampa Bay, 

the best water quality. The other five bay segments show intermediate 

water quality between that of Hillsborough Bay and Lower Tampa Bay. 

Long-term declines in nutrient concentrations have also occurred in 

tributaries to the bay. 

Seagrasses in some areas did not grow as expected after water quality 

improved, particularly along the western shore of Old Tampa Bay. A study 

found that chlorophyll a concentrations were greater and Secchi disc depths 

were shallower along the western shore, compared with the eastern shore. 

The differences in water quality were greatest in the western sites where 

seagrasses did not grow as expected during the 1990s. 

Nitrogen Loading 

Nitrogen loading is a key water quality indicator because excess 

nutrients in wastewater and stormwater runoff fuel the excessive growth 

of algae and epiphytes in the bay. The TBEP has developed a Nitrogen 

Loading Paradigm, comprising a number of different statistical models that 

defines quantitatively the relationships between total nitrogen loads and 

chlorophyll a concentrations, and between chlorophyll a concentrations and 

light attenuation. 

Runoff from the watershed’s 10 major drainage basins provides 

essential fresh water to Tampa Bay. The runoff contains nutrients, created 

by natural processes that are essential to the bay’s productivity. However, it 

also contains excess nutrients and other pollutants from nonpoint sources, 

atmospheric deposition, point sources, ground water, septic tank leachate, 

and wastewater residual solids. Urban and agricultural nonpoint sources 

contribute almost half of the bay’s annual nitrogen load. In addition, 

new studies indicate that almost one-third of the annual load may come 

from atmospheric deposition directly to the surface of the bay and that 

deposition plays a larger role than previously realized. 

Nitrogen pollution was most serious from the late 1960s to the early 

1980s, when partially treated sewage was discharged to the bay, leading to 

excess algae growth and low DO and light levels. Degraded water quality 

contributed to seagrass losses by blocking light. Beginning in the 1980s,


however, most major point sources were eliminated. Domestic wastewater 

plants were upgraded to advanced treatment and pollution from a number 

of fertilizer plants was abated. During the late 1980s, some of the impacts 

of stormwater discharges were also reduced. As a result of these upgrades, 

water quality has improved. The challenge to resource managers will be to 

maintain these improvements as the basin’s population continues to grow 

rapidly. 

The Nitrogen Management Consortium’s current management plan 

for Tampa Bay calls for loadings to be maintained at 1992 to 1994 levels, 

so that seagrasses can continue to recover. The highest loadings are 

currently found in Hillsborough Bay, the Manatee River, Middle Tampa 

Bay, and Old Tampa Bay. The lowest loadings are found in Lower Tampa 

Bay, including Boca Ciega and Terra Ceia Bays. 

Annual loadings in 1995, 1997, and 1998 were generally higher than 

those observed between 1985 and 1994. Specifically, loadings during 

these three years exceeded the “hold the line” levels established by the 

consortium. Much of the increase may have come from higher rainfall 

during several El Niño years, and nitrogen management activities in the 

watershed probably mitigated the effects of this global meteorological 

event. 

Although urban land uses will continue to increase, the loading 

estimates developed for 2010 do not differ significantly from 1998 

estimates, as urban runoff contains fewer nutrients than agricultural 

runoff, and stormwater best management practices will continue to be 

implemented in newly developed urban areas. Estimates for 2010 are about 

700 tons less than 1998 levels, largely because of predicted declines in 

atmospheric deposition and industrial point source loadings. 

Estimates for atmospheric deposition are about half of 1998 levels 

because of planned decreases in nitrogen emissions from Tampa Electric 

Company facilities. For industrial point sources, loadings are about half of 

the 1998 estimates because of the unusually high discharges that occurred 

from heavy rains during El Niño. Estimates for domestic point sources 

are similar to 1998 levels. Estimates from material losses, such as fertilizer 

processing and shipping, are about 13 percent higher, reflecting the 

expected industry growth rate of 1 percent annually. 

Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations 

A corollary to the TBEP’s Nitrogen Loading Paradigm is the 

relationship between nutrient loading and DO concentrations in the 

bay. These concentrations are an important indicator of ecological health 

because excessive growth of algae and biomass, fueled by nutrients, uses 

more oxygen than the bay can generate through natural processes. As a 

result, hypoxic zones form where DO levels are less than 2 mg/L. Because 

it can stress or kill plants and animals living at the bottom, hypoxia 

can significantly influence the distribution and abundance of benthic 

macroinvertebrates and fish and ultimately the bay’s nutrient dynamics. 

A recent study examined the spatial and temporal nature of hypoxia at 

the bottom of Tampa Bay. Hypoxic conditions are typically found in late


93 

summer, mainly in Hillsborough Bay and less often in Old Tampa Bay. In 

1998, for example, a hypoxic zone covered 19 square kilometers, mainly in 

Hillsborough Bay. Hypoxic conditions were observed in each bay segment 

as follows: 

• Hillsborough Bay, 26 percent; 

• Old Tampa Bay, 1 percent; 

• Middle Tampa Bay and Lower Tampa Bay, less than 1 percent; and 

• Boca Ciega and Terra Ceia Bays, within Lower Tampa Bay, none. 

The study found no significant trends over time in the size of the 

hypoxic zones. Their year-to-year variations in size correlated significantly 

with rainfall, river flow, the degree of stratification, and nitrogen loads to 

Hillsborough Bay. Monthly monitoring data showed that the hypoxic 

zones typically persisted two months or less, and diel monitoring (during 

one day and night) showed that hypoxic periods typically lasted six hours 

or less. DO concentrations at the bottom of Hillsborough Bay and Old 

Tampa Bay declined from 1976 to 1998, although the rate of decline 

was small. 

Sediment Quality 

Levels of toxic contaminants in Tampa Bay sediments are low to 

moderate compared with other urban estuaries in the United States. In 

localized areas, however, a number of potentially toxic contaminants 

have been found in relatively high concentrations. Sediment quality is an 

important indicator of the bay’s ecological health because, in high enough 

concentrations, contaminants can be damaging or deadly to marine life 

and can affect human health. Contaminants include trace metals such as 

cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, and zinc; persistent pesticides 

such as DDT, chlordane, mirex, endosulfan, and dieldrin; polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCBs); and high molecular weight polycyclic aromatic 

hydrocarbons (HPAHs). Although contaminated sediments are often 

buried by cleaner material, remaining inert or inactive for years, organisms 

can be exposed to contaminants by dredging, shipping, storms, or animal 

activity. Six percent of bay sediments are moderately contaminated with 

toxic metals or compounds. 

Most toxic contaminants enter Tampa Bay through urban runoff and 

atmospheric deposition. Some are present in concentrations high enough 

to harm fish and wildlife, either through direct exposure to the sediments 

or indirectly through the food web. The contaminants are associated with 

reductions in the numbers of species and animals in the bay, as well as the 

proliferation of “pollution-tolerant” species. 

The contamination appears centered around large urban centers, 

ports, and marinas along the bay’s shoreline, and concentrations generally 

diminish from the top of the bay towards the Gulf of Mexico. 

Sediment toxicity is most severe in regions of northern Hillsborough 

Bay, especially the shipping channels (TBEP, 1999—Chemical Toxicity). 

Regions of western Old Tampa Bay, along the western shore of Middle 

Tampa Bay, and in lower Boca Ciega Bay, within the Lower Tampa Bay


segment, are moderately toxic. Portions of Old, Middle, and Lower Tampa 

Bay are the least toxic or nontoxic of the areas sampled. The most toxic 

samples contain relatively high concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons, 

chlorinated pesticides, other chlorinated hydrocarbons, ammonia, and 

trace metals, all of which can contribute to toxicity. There appear to be 

no baywide trends of increasing or decreasing concentrations; overall, they 

are decreasing in some areas, increasing in others, and remaining relatively 

unchanged in still other areas. 

Oysters collected in northern Hillsborough Bay, and to a lesser 

extent Bayboro Harbor on the western shore of Middle Tampa Bay, 

have the highest chemical concentrations of HPAHs, PCBs, and 

chlordane, a chlorinated pesticide. The lowest concentrations are found 

in Old Tampa Bay and Lower Tampa Bay, including Boca Ciega Bay. 

However, researchers have been unable to discover patterns in how these 

contaminants affect the oysters (TBEP, 1999). 

Chemical concentrations of PCBs in fi sh tissues are highest in northern 

Hillsborough Bay and lowest in tributaries nearer the Gulf of Mexico. The 

highest concentrations of HPAH breakdown products are found in fi sh 

from tributaries to northern Hillsborough Bay, particularly Archie Creek 

and the Hillsborough River. The lowest concentrations are found in fi sh 

from Sarasota Bay, Terra Ceia Bay, the Manatee River, and western Old 

Tampa Bay. The highest levels of contaminants in fish are associated with 

adverse biological effects such as liver lesions (TBEP, 1999). 

Other Baywide Ecological Problems and Issues 

Fish Consumption Advisories 

Methyl mercury levels in fish tissue samples collected by the Florida 

Department of Health resulted in a limited fi sh consumption advisory 

in Tampa Bay for gaff-topsail catfish, crevalle jack, ladyfish, Spanish 

mackerel, and all sharks (Interagency Mercury Science Program for the 

Everglades and South Florida, 2001). 

Invasive Exotic Species 

In late 1999, the Asian green mussel (Perna viridis) was found in 

Tampa Bay, possibly entering through discharges from ship ballast tanks. 

The species, which grows up to four inches long, is native to coastal areas 

of the Indian and Pacific Oceans. It has clogged intake pipes at Tampa 

Electric Company’s power plant in South Hillsborough County, and 

thousands of large mussels have been found on three of the four bridges 

spanning the bay. The mussels can reproduce when only an inch long and 

are spawning in the bay. Although the species is edible, harvesting is not 

possible since most of the bay’s shell fi shing beds have been closed because 

of contamination (Florida Marine Research Institute, 2001; TBEP, 2001).


95 

Blue-Green Algae Blooms 

In summer 2000, blooms of a blue-green algae (Lyngbya majuscula) 

were reported along Florida’s west coast, including Tampa Bay, Terra Ceia 

Bay, Palma Sola, and the mouth of the Manatee River. The dark colored, 

slimy algae can grow in large floating mats and smells like raw sewage. No 

adverse effects were reported in humans or wildlife, and the cause of the 

blooms is not known (Pittman, 2000). 

Additional Concerns 

These concerns include the lack of a freshwater budget for the bay 

quantifying how fresh water enters through different pathways, a continued 

increase in manatee mortality from boat impacts, and projections by the 

Army Corps of Engineers that existing approved areas for disposing of 

dredged material will be at capacity by 2004 (Eckenrod, 2001).

96 



Noteworthy 

Conclusions and Recommendations from the Tampa Bay Estuary 

Program Fifth-Year Assessment 

The Tampa Bay Estuary 

Program’s fifth-year assessment 

of water quality indicators 

and models contains the 

following conclusions and 

recommendations: 

• Nitrogen loading was greater 

between 1995 and 1998 

than between 1992 and 1994 

because of higher than normal 

rainfall. 

• Generally, water quality has 

improved significantly since 

the mid-1980s, especially 

for water quality constituents 

related to the estuary’s 

productivity—chlorophyll a 

concentrations, nutrient concentrations, 

water clarity, and 

DO concentrations. However, 

localized “hot spots” do exist 

with degraded water quality 

(the western shore of Old 

Tampa Bay and McKay Bay), 

and these should be closely 

monitored. 

• A decision matrix used to 

evaluate ambient conditions 

and identify appropriate 

management responses 

showed that undesired water 

quality responses to higher 

than normal rainfall do occur, 

but the bay also displays an 

ability to respond favorably to 

reduced nutrient loading. 

• In some areas seagrass 

growth should be expected 

based on apparent ambient 

water clarity, but it has not 

been observed. In the next 

five-year period, the seagrass 

working group should examine 

factors other than water 

clarity alone that may be more 

important in these areas. 

• The various models comprising 

the Nitrogen Loading 

Paradigm reflected different 

degrees of similarity to the 

original model constructs. 

Results from the nitrogen 

loading chlorophyll a model 

showed close agreement 

between observed and predicted 

chlorophyll a concentrations. 

There was a small 

bias in the light attenuation 

values predicted by the model. 

No readily apparent cause 

could be found, but changes 

in phytoplankton community 

composition may have contributed 

to the bias. Preliminary 

indications point towards 

a shift in community dominance 

in Hillsborough Bay 

from blue-green algae before 

1995 to diatoms after 1995. 

The monitoring and analysis of 

ambient chlorophyll a concentrations 

and water clarity 

should continue to ensure 

that factors other than algal 

biomass are not contributing 

significantly to impaired water 

clarity in the bay. 

• Given the observed responses 

to changes in nutrient loading 

and the current status of 

bay indicators associated with 

its trophic state, there does 

not appear to be compelling 

evidence to deviate from the 

current nitrogen management 

strategy. 

• Appropriate management 

actions should be identified 

and applied to address additional 

factors influencing seagrass 

restoration. Seagrass 

monitoring should continue in 

order to support the efforts of 

the seagrass working group 

in examining these additional 

factors. 

Source: This list is excerpted 

from Tampa Bay Estuary Program 

Tracking Progress Toward 

Its Nitrogen Management Goals: 

Fifth-Year Assessment of Bay 

Water Quality Indicators and 

Models, Tampa Bay Estuary 

Program, March 2001.


97 

Chapter 4: The Verified List of Impaired 

Waters 

Public Participation 

The Department has worked with a variety of stakeholders and held 

public meetings on developing and adopting the Verified Lists of 

impaired waters for the six Group 1 basins across the state. Table 4.1 

lists the statewide schedule for the development and adoption of the 

Group 1 Verified Lists, including the public meetings. The schedule for the 

Tampa Bay Basin is highlighted in bold-faced type. Appendix I contains 

documentation provided during the public comment period. 

Basin-specific draft Verified Lists of waters that met the requirements 

of the Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR) were made available to the 

public on July 12, 2002. The lists were placed on the Department’s Total 

Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) Web site at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/ 

water/tmdl, and were also sent on request to interested parties by mail or 

via e-mail. 

Citizens were given the opportunity to comment on the draft lists 

both in person and/or in writing. A total of 8 public meetings was held 

across the state to encourage public participation on a basin-by-basin basis. 

The Department also accepted written comments for 45 days beginning 

July 12, 2002, and ending August 26, 2002. 

Following the public meetings for the Group 1 basins, which took 

place between July 19 and July 25, 2002, revised draft lists were made 

available to the public on August 7, 2002. The public had the opportunity 

to comment on these revised lists either in writing and/or at a final public 

meeting in Tallahassee. Comments received by August 2, 2002, were 

considered in preparing the revised draft lists. Comments on any of the 

lists were accepted and considered throughout the full comment period. 

The final basin-specific Verified Lists developed through the public 

participation process were adopted by Secretarial Order during the week 

of August 26–30, 2002, and were submitted to the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) on October 1, 2002, as the state’s update to the 

303(d) list of impaired waters. 

Identification of Impaired Waters 

As discussed in Chapter 2, waters on both the Verified and Planning 

Lists must meet specific thresholds and data sufficiency and data quality 

requirements in the IWR (Rule 62-303, Florida Administrative Code 

[F.A.C.]). Appendix A describes the legislative and regulatory background 

for the development of the Planning and Verified Lists. Appendix D


Table 4.1: Schedule for Development and Adoption of the Group 1 Verified Lists 

Date 

July 12, 2002 

July 19, 2002 

July 22, 2002 

July 22, 2002 

July 23, 2002 

July 24, 2002 

July 24, 2002 

July 25, 2002 

August 7, 2002 

August 14, 2002 

August 26, 2002 

August 26–30, 2002 

October 1, 2002 

Scheduled Activity 

Publication of Draft Verified List and Beginning of Public Comment Period 

Public Meeting at Marco Island on the Statewide Verified List for All Group 1 

Basins 

Public Meeting in Tallahassee on the Ochlockonee and St. Marks Basins 

Public Meeting in Live Oak on the Suwannee River Basin (Including the Aucilla, 

Coastal, Suwannee, Waccasassa, and Orange Creek Basins) 

Public Meeting in Leesburg on the Ocklawaha River and Orange Creek Basins 

Public Meeting in St. Petersburg on the Tampa Bay Basin 

Public Meeting in Belle Glade on the Lake Okeechobee Basin 

Public Meeting in Ft. Myers on the Everglades West Coast Basin 

Publication of Revised Draft List 

Public Meeting in Tallahassee on Revised Draft List for All Basins, and Public 

Comments and Input from Prior Public Meetings 

Final Deadline for Receiving Public Comments 

Adoption of Verified List by Secretarial Order 

Submittal to EPA as State’s 303(d) List of Impaired Waters 

contains a detailed methodology that describes the criteria and thresholds 

required for both lists under the IWR. 

Any waters that do not have sufficient data to be analyzed in 

accordance with the requirements of the rule will remain on the 1998 

303(d) list of impaired waters maintained by the EPA. These waters 

are not delisted, and they will be sampled during the next phases of the 

watershed management cycle so that their impairment status can be 

verified. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Review of Florida’s 

Amended Section 303(d) List 

On June 11, 2003, the EPA released a Decision Document based on its 

review of the Department’s amendments to Florida’s 1998 Section 303(d) 

list. The EPA found that the Department’s Group 1 update substantially 

met the intent of Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act and partially 

approved the submission. 

Applying its own evaluation methodology, the EPA proposed listing 

80 additional waterbody segments/pollutants for public comment by 

July 18, 2003. Under this methodology, approximately half of the added 

waters failed to meet water quality criteria for dissolved oxygen (DO), 

but no causative pollutant could be identified. Florida law precludes the 

Department from including such waters on its Verified List of impaired 

waters until the causative pollutant is known. The majority of the 

remaining waters were added to the list based on a different interpretation 

of the methodology for assessing potential impairment for bacteria. The


99 

Department agreed to apply this alternative methodology when assessing 

the next group (Group 2) of waterbodies for bacteria. 

The consequence of having the EPA add waters to Florida’s Section 

303(d) list is that the EPA would be obligated to propose TMDLs for these 

waters. However, the EPA has proposed assigning a “low” priority to these 

waterbodies, thus providing the Department an opportunity to investigate 

them further. The section on “Prioritization of Listed Waters” in 

Chapter 5 provides additional details on the criteria for high-, low-, 

and medium-priority waters. Information on the status of Florida’s 

amended Section 303(d) list can be found on the EPA’s Web site at 

http://www.epa.gov/region4/water/tmdl/florida/. 

Documentation of Reasonable Assurance 

Under the Florida Watershed Restoration Act (FWRA), the 

Department will not place impaired waters on the Verified List if 

reasonable assurance is provided that these waters will attain water 

quality standards in the future and will make reasonable progress towards 

attaining water quality standards by the time the next 303(d) list of 

impaired waters is scheduled to be submitted to the EPA. Reasonable 

assurance can be provided if existing or proposed technology-based 

effluent limitations and other pollution control programs under local, 

state, or federal authority are expected to result in the attainment of water 

quality standards. Examples include Surface Water Improvement and 

Management (SWIM) Program restoration projects that provide ongoing 

monitoring, and permitted facilities that upgrade to advanced treatment or 

remove discharges to surface waters. Table 4.2 lists the major elements of 

reasonable assurance, and Appendix C provides additional information on 

its documentation. 

The Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP) has developed a nitrogen 

management plan, using a science-based approach, in cooperation with 

Tampa Bay stakeholders. The approach included developing science-based 

nitrogen loading and chlorophyll a targets for the four major segments of 

Tampa Bay. The Department concluded that the nitrogen management 

plan developed by the TBEP for Tampa Bay provides reasonable assurance 

that impairment of designated uses related to nutrients in Tampa Bay will 

be adequately addressed. 

The primary basis for the Department’s conclusion was the 

information provided in the Tampa Bay Watershed Management Summary 

document, which is included as Appendix K. The associated attachments 

may be obtained by contacting the TBEP: 

Phone: (727) 893-2765 

E-mail: saveit@tbep.org 

Web site: http://www.tbep.org/publications/order.html

100 


Table 4.2: Elements of Reasonable Assurance 

Descriptive 

• 303(d) listed waterbody 

• Water quality standards being violated or other criteria not met 

• Pollutant(s) of concern 

• Designated use classification 

• Length (mi) or area (acres) of impairment or potential impairment 

• Watershed/8-digit cataloging unit code 

• EPA Reach File Number 

• Description of waterbody and watershed location 

• Suspected or documented source(s) of impairment 

Management Strategy 

• Responsible entity 

• Participating entities (government, agency, private, others) 

• Summary of management strategy 

• Supporting document(s) 

• Pollutant(s) reduction goals/targets 

• Assurance of participation (such as written agreements) 

• Strategy for future growth and new sources 

• Funding sources 

• Implementation schedule 

• Enforcement program if management strategy is not voluntary 

Monitoring and Reporting Results 

• Water quality monitoring program design and brief description 

• Quality assurance/quality control elements 

• Supporting document(s) 

• Monitoring of implementation 

• Reporting of monitoring and implementation results 

• Expected response (time frame and degree of improvement) 

• Responsible entity for reporting 

• Frequency of reporting results 

• Evaluating progress towards goals (water quality and 

implementation) 

Corrective Actions/Strategy 

(if water quality does not improve after implementation) 

• Description of strategy 

• Supporting document(s)


101 

Based on the documentation, the Department concluded that there is 

sufficient reasonable assurance of the following: 

(1) completed and proposed management actions in the nitrogen 

management plan will result in the continued attainment of the 

narrative nutrient criteria within Tampa Bay, and 

(2) reasonable progress towards continued attainment of the narrative 

nutrient criteria and associated designated uses will be made 

through 2007, which is the year that the next 303(d) list of 

impaired waters for Tampa Bay is due to be submitted to the EPA. 

As a result, the Department has delisted Tampa Bay water segments 

listed for nutrients from the state’s 303(d) list based on these conclusions. 

The bay segments that were identified as impaired for nutrients applying 

the chlorophyll a estuarine threshold of the IWR have been placed in 

Category 4c on the Tampa Bay Integrated Report (Appendix E). 

The TBEP chlorophyll a targets for each major bay segment are key 

elements of the reasonable assurance determination, as they provide the 

water quality-based targets needed to interpret the narrative nutrient 

criteria. The chlorophyll a targets and the water quality tracking process 

constitute appropriate site-specific thresholds for nutrient impairment 

under Rule 62-303.450, F.A.C. The chlorophyll a targets more accurately 

reflect conditions beyond which an imbalance in flora or fauna will occur 

than the nutrient impairment threshold for estuaries in Rule 62-303, 

F.A.C. The Department will use the following chlorophyll a thresholds 

(expressed as annual averages) as indicators of impairment for future 

assessments of water segments in Tampa Bay: 

Old Tampa Bay 


Middle Tampa Bay 

Lower Tampa Bay 

9.3 µg/L 

15.0 µg/L 

8.5 µg/L 

5.1 µg/L 

The chlorophyll a thresholds represent the “large magnitude difference 

thresholds” identified in the water quality tracking process (Janicki and 

Pribble, 2001). These values are consistent with the application of the 

thresholds in the “decision matrix” for the nitrogen management plan. 

The Verified List of Impaired Waters 

Table 4.3 contains the Verified List of impaired waters for the Tampa 

Bay Basin, based on the water quality assessment performed for the 

October 2002 update to the 303(d) list. Figure 4.1 shows waters on the 

Verified List for the entire basin as of June 30, 2002, and identifies the year 

TMDL development is scheduled. For presentation purposes, the entire 

watershed for the listed water is highlighted. However, only the main

102 


Table 4.3: The Tampa Bay Basin Verified List of Impaired Waters 

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development** 

Waterbody 

WBID Segment 


1558D Hillsborough 


Lower 

1558E 

Hillsborough 


Upper 

Waterbody 

Type 

Estuary 

Estuary 

1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Mercury- 

Fish 

Mercury- 

Fish 

Parameters 

Identified 

Using the 

2002 Impaired 

Surface 

Waters Rule 

Mercury- 

Fish 

Mercury- 

Fish 

Projected 

Year for TMDL 

Development 

Comments 

Low 2011 Age of data verified to 

be within last 7.5 years. 

Numeric criterion is 

inadequate because 

mercury is accumulating 

in the food chain 

such that fish tissue 

mercury levels exceed 

recommended levels 

for consumption. 

High 2011 Age of data verified to 










Coastal Hillsborough Bay 

1536F Sixmile 

Creek 

Stream DO DO Low 2008 Linked to nutrients 

and BOD. Flow 

disrupted by control 

structures. Algal 

blooms observed. 

23 exceedances/84 

samples. 

1536F 

1536C 

1536C 

1536C 

Sixmile 

Creek 


Bypass 

Canal 


Bypass 

Canal 


Bypass 

Canal 

Stream Nutrients Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll 

a) 

Low 2008 Flow disrupted by control 



Stream DO DO Low 2008 Linked to nutrients 

and BOD. Flow 





samples. 

Stream 

Coliforms 

(Total 

Coliforms) 

Stream Nutrients Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll 

a) 

Medium 2008 13 exceedances/32 

samples. 

Low 2008 Flow disrupted by control 


blooms observed.


103 


WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type 

Coastal Hillsborough Bay, continued 

1536E 

1536E 

1584B 

1584B 

1584B 

Palm 

River 

Palm 

River 

McKay 


McKay 


McKay 


1605 Delaney 

Creek 

1605 Delaney 

Creek 

1605 Delaney 

Creek 

1605 Delaney 

Creek 

1605D Delaney 

Creek 

Tidal 

1605D 

Delaney 

Creek 

Tidal 

1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 

Identified 

Using the 

2002 Impaired 

Surface 

Waters Rule 

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development** 

Projected 

Year for TMDL 

Development 

Comments 

Estuary DO DO Low 2008 Linked to nutrients 

and BOD. Flow 





samples. 

Estuary Nutrients Nutrients 

(Historical 

Chlorophyll 

and Chlorophyll 

a) 

Medium 2008 Nitrogen is limiting 

nutrient. Flow 




Estuary DO DO High 2003 Linked to nutrients. 


samples. 

Estuary 

Mercury- 

Fish 

Mercury- 

Fish 


(Historical 

Chlorophyll 


a) 

Stream Coliforms Coliforms 

(Fecal 

Coliforms) 


(Total 

Coliforms) 

High 2011 Age of data verified to 










High 2003 Nitrogen is limiting 

nutrient. 

High 2003 26 exceedances/104 

samples. 


samples. 

Stream DO DO High 2003 Linked to nutrients. 


samples. 

Stream Lead Lead High 2003 11 exceedances/18 

samples. 

Estuary 

Estuary 

Coliforms 

(Fecal 

Coliforms) 

Coliforms 

(Total 

Coliforms) 


samples. 


samples.

104 



WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type 

Coastal Hillsborough Bay, continued 

1605D 

Delaney 

Creek 

Tidal 

1605D Delaney 

Creek 

Tidal 

1605D Delaney 

Creek 

Tidal 

1637 Black 

Point 

Channel 

1666 Bullfrog 

Creek 

1666 Bullfrog 

Creek 

1666A 

1666A 

1666A 

Bullfrog 

Creek 

Bullfrog 

Creek 

Bullfrog 

Creek 


1558F Old 



Lower 

1558F Old 



Lower 

1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 

Identified 

Using the 

2002 Impaired 

Surface 

Waters Rule 

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development** 

Projected 

Year for TMDL 

Development 

Comments 

Estuary DO Medium 2008 Linked to nutrients. 

26 exceedance/48 

samples. 

Estuary Lead Medium 2008 

Estuary 

Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll 

a) 


nutrient. 

Estuary DO DO Low 2008 This segment was 

listed on the 1998 

303(d) list; however, 

it was not assessed in 

the 1996 305(b) report. 

Linked to nutrients. 


samples. 

Stream 

Stream 

Coliforms 

(Fecal 

Coliforms) 

Coliforms 

(Total 

Coliforms) 

Estuary Coliforms Coliforms 

(Total 

Coliforms) 


samples. 


samples. 

Low 2008 23 exceedances/83 

samples. 

Estuary DO DO Low 2008 Linked to nutrients. 


samples. 


(Chlorophyll 

a) 

Estuary 

Estuary 

Mercury- 

Fish 

Coliforms– 

Shellfish 

Mercury- 

Fish 

Low 2008 Nitrogen is limiting 

nutrient. 

Medium 2008 Listed due to downgrade 

in shellfish harvesting 

classification. 










for consumption.


105 


WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type 

1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 

Identified 

Using the 

2002 Impaired 

Surface 

Waters Rule 

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development** 

Projected 

Year for TMDL 

Development 

Comments 

Old Tampa Bay, continued 

1558G 

Old 



Estuary 

Coliforms– 

Shellfish 




1558G 

Old 



Estuary 

Mercury- 

Fish 

Mercury- 

Fish 











1558H 

Old 



Estuary 

Coliforms– 

Shellfish 




1558H 

Old 



Estuary 

Mercury- 

Fish 

Mercury- 

Fish 











1558I 

Old 



Estuary 

Coliforms– 

Shellfish 




1558I 

Old 



Estuary 

Mercury- 

Fish 

Mercury- 

Fish 











Coastal Old Tampa Bay 

1473W 

Lake 

Juanita 

Lake 

Nutrients 

(Historical 

TSI) 

Medium 2008 Nitrogen and phosphorus 

are limiting 

nutrients. Parameter 

of concern deleted 

from the Verified List 

based on IWR Run 6.2. 

Parameter of concern 

added to Delist List.

106 



WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type 

Coastal Old Tampa Bay, continued 

1473X 

Lake 

Mound 

Lake 

1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 

Identified 

Using the 

2002 Impaired 

Surface 

Waters Rule 

Nutrients 

(Historical 

TSI) 

1473Y Calm Lake Lake Nutrients 

(Historical 

TSI) 

1474V Crescent Lake Nutrients 

(TSI) 

1474D 

1478H 

1486A 

1486A 

Dead 

Lady Lake 

Lake Reinheimer– 

Open 

Water 

Lake 

Tarpon 

Lake 

Tarpon 

Lake 

Lake 

Nutrients 

(TSI) 

Nutrients 

(TSI) 

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development** 

Projected 

Year for TMDL 

Development 

Comments 


are limiting 

nutrients. 


are limiting 

nutrients. 


are limiting 

nutrients. 


are limiting 

nutrients. 


are limiting 

nutrients. 

Lake DO Medium 2008 Linked to nutrients. 

WBID revised–previously 

WBID 1486. 

Lake 

Nutrients 

(TSI) 

1493E Buck Lake Lake Nutrients 

(TSI) 

1494B 

1496A 

1502A 

1502C 

Brant 

Lake 

Sunset 

Lake 

Lake 

Estes 

Chapman 

Lake 

Lake 

Lake 

Lake 

Lake 

Nutrients 

(TSI) 

Nutrients 

(TSI) 

Nutrients 

(TSI) 

Nutrients 

(TSI) 


are limiting 

nutrients. Nutrients 

being addressed by 

SWFWMD through 

PLRGs. WBID revised– 

previously WBID 1486. 


are limiting 

nutrients. Revised 

WBID–previously 

WBID 1493. 


are limiting 

nutrients. 


are limiting 

nutrients. WBID 

revised–previously 

WBID 1496. 


are limiting 

nutrients. 


are limiting 

nutrients.


107 


WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Waterbody 

Type 


1507A 

1507A 

Rocky 

Creek 

Rocky 

Creek 

1513 Double 

Branch 

1513 Double 

Branch 


Creek– 

Upper 


Creek– 

Upper 


Creek– 

Upper 

1516A 

1516B 

Lake 

Carroll 

Lake 

Madelene 

1516E Lake 

Ellen– 

Open 

Water 

1530 Moccasin 

Creek 

1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 

Identified 

Using the 

2002 Impaired 

Surface 

Waters Rule 

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development** 

Projected 

Year for TMDL 

Development 

Comments 

Estuary DO DO High 2003 Linked to nutrients 

and BOD. Flow 





samples. 


(Historical 

Chlorophyll 


a) 


(Total 

Coliforms) 


nutrient. Flow 





samples. 



samples. 


(Total 

Coliforms) 


samples. 

Stream DO DO Low 2008 Linked to nutrients. 


samples. 

Stream 

Lake 

Lake 

Lake 

Nutrients 

(Historical 

Chlorophyll 


a) 

Nutrients 

(TSI) 

Nutrients 

(TSI) 

Nutrients 

(TSI) 


(Chlorophyll 

a) 


nutrient. 


are limiting 

nutrients. 


are limiting 

nutrients. 


are limiting 

nutrients. 


nutrient. 

1563 Channel G Estuary DO DO Low 2008 Linked to nutrients. 


samples.

108 



WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Water-body 

Type 

1998 303(d) 


Concern 


Parameters 

Identified 

Using the 

2002 Impaired 

Surface 

Waters Rule 

1563 Channel G Estuary Nutrients Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll 

a) 

1569 Bishop 

Creek 

1569 Bishop 

Creek 

1570A 

1570A 

1570A 

1570A 

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development** 

Sweetwater 

Creek 

Tidal– 

Lower 

Sweetwater 

Creek 

Tidal– 

Lower 

Sweetwater 

Creek 

Tidal– 

Lower 

Sweetwater 

Creek 

Tidal– 

Lower 

1574 Alligator 

Creek 

1574A 

1574A 

Alligator 

Lake 

Alligator 

Lake 

1575 Mullet 

Creek 


(Fecal 

Coliforms) 


(Total 

Coliforms) 


(Fecal 

Coliforms) 


(Total 

Coliforms) 

Low 2008 

Projected 

Year for TMDL 

Development 

Comments 


samples. 


samples. 

High 2003 For the 1998 303(d) 

analysis the station 

data were incorrectly 

assigned to WBID 

1601. 

High 2003 For the 1998 303(d) 




1601. 

Estuary DO DO High 2003 For the 1998 303(d) 




1601. Linked to nutrients 

and BOD. 


(Historical 

Chlorophyll 


a) 

Stream 

Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll 

a) 

High 2003 Nitrogen is limiting 

nutrient. For the 

1998 303(d) analysis 

the station data were 

incorrectly assigned to 

WBID 1601. 

Low 2008 Nitrogen and phosphorus 

are limiting 

nutrients. 



samples. 


(Historical 

Chlorophyll 


a) 


(Fecal 

Coliforms) 

Low 2008 Nitrogen and phosphorus 

are limiting 

nutrients. 


samples.


109 


WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Water-body 

Type 

1998 303(d) 


Concern 


1575 Mullet 

Creek 

1603C Beckett 

Lake– 

Open 

Water 

1604 Allen 

Creek 

1624 Direct 



1624 Direct 



1624 Direct 



1625 Cross 

Canal 

(North) 

1625 Cross 

Canal 

(North) 

1625 Cross 

Canal 

(North) 

1627 Long 

Branch 

1627 Long 

Branch 

1627 Long 

Branch 

1558B 


Bay Mid 

Parameters 

Identified 

Using the 

2002 Impaired 

Surface 

Waters Rule 


(Total 

Coliforms) 

Lake 

Nutrients 

(TSI) 


(Chlorophyll 

a) 


(Fecal 

Coliforms) 


(Total 

Coliforms) 

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development** 

Projected 

Year for TMDL 

Development 

Comments 


samples. 


are limiting 

nutrients. 


nutrient. 


samples. 


samples. 

Estuary DO DO High 2003 Linked to nutrients. 


samples. 


(Fecal 

Coliforms) 


samples. 


92 exceedance/178 

samples. 


(Chlorophyll 

a) 


(Fecal 

Coliforms) 


(Total 

Coliforms) 


nutrient. 


samples. 


samples. 

Stream DO DO High 2003 Linked to nutrients and 

BOD. 57 exceedances/ 

87 samples. 

Estuary 

Coliforms– 

Shellfish 



classification.

110 



WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Water-body 

Type 


1558B 

Estuary 

1558C 


Bay Mid 



Upper 

Estuary 

Coastal Middle Tampa Bay 

1683 Smacks 


1683 Smacks 






1709D 

Little 


Basin Q 

1709D Little 


Basin Q 

1709D Little 


Basin Q 



1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Mercury- 

Fish 

Parameters 

Identified 

Using the 

2002 Impaired 

Surface 

Waters Rule 

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development** 

Mercury- 

Fish 

Mercury- 

Fish 


(Fecal 

Coliforms) 


(Chlorophyll 

a) 


(Fecal 

Coliforms) 


(Chlorophyll 

a) 

Estuary 

Coliforms 

(Fecal 

Coliforms) 

Projected 

Year for TMDL 

Development 

Comments 






















samples. 


nutrient. 


samples. 


nutrient. 


samples. 

Estuary DO Medium 2008 Linked to nutrients. 


samples. 

Estuary 

Estuary 

Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll 

a) 

Coliforms– 

Shellfish 


nutrient. 



classification.


111 


WBID 

Waterbody 

Segment 

Water-body 

Type 

1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Coastal Middle Tampa Bay, continued 








1558A Tampa 


Lower 

1558A Tampa 


Lower 

8999 Florida 

Gulf 

Coast 

Parameters 

Identified 

Using the 

2002 Impaired 

Surface 

Waters Rule 

Priority 

for TMDL 

Development** 

Projected 

Year for TMDL 

Development 

Comments 

Estuary DO DO Low 2008 Linked to nutrients and 

BOD. 15 exceedances/ 

83 samples. 


(Chlorophyll 

a) 

Estuary 

Estuary 

Estuary 

Coastal 

Coastal Lower Tampa Bay 

1797B Bishops 

Harbor 

Estuary 

Mercury- 

Fish 

Mercury- 

Fish 

Mercury- 

Fish 

Coliforms– 

Shellfish 

Mercury- 

Fish 

Coliforms– 

Shellfish 


nutrient. 

Low 2011 Has contaminated 

sediments–ongoing 

restoration effort. Age 

of data verified to be 

within last 7.5 years. 






















Low 2011 Confirmed recent 

data for coastal fish 

advisory for mackerel. 

Includes nearshore 

areas in 8049. 



classification.

112 


Figure 4.1: Waters on the Verified List, with Projected Year for TMDL Development


113 

waterbody in the assessment unit has been assessed, and other waters in the 

watershed may not be impaired. 

Since the October 2002 update of the 303(d) list, further data 

became available for assessment of the basin, and these data were used to 

update the listing status of waters. Table E.1 in Appendix E contains the 

listing status of all assessed waters in the basin as of January 2003. On 

March 11, 2003, the Department’s Secretary signed an order amending 

the October 2002 Verified List for the basin with the January 2003 listing 

status. The order was officially noticed in the Florida Administrative 

Weekly, which started a 21-day period to file a petition challenging the 

order and a 30-day period to appeal the order. 

Pollutants Causing Impairments 

Of the 249 water segments in the Tampa Bay Basin, 54 waters are 

impaired for at least 1 parameter, and a TMDL is required for these waters. 

There are a total of 102 parameter listings for impairment following the 

methodology in Appendix D. The Coastal Old Tampa Bay planning unit 

has the largest number of impaired parameter listings with 48, followed by 

the Coastal Hillsborough Bay planning unit with 25 listings. The most 

common parameter exhibiting impairment throughout the Tampa Bay 

Basin is nutrients with 35 listings, followed by coliform bacteria (based 

on surface water criteria exceedances) with 24 listings, and DO with 20 

listings. There are 13 segments listed due to fish consumption advisories 

for mercury; this includes all the Tampa Bay segments as well as some 

of the water segments adjacent to the bay. The state has issued limited 

consumption advisories for gaff-topsail catfish, crevalle jack, ladyfish, and 

Spanish mackerel caught from Tampa Bay, which applies to fish species 

having mercury levels of 0.5 to 1.5 parts per million (ppm). 

As required by the IWR, the Department must identify the pollutants 

causing or contributing to DO exceedances in order to place DO on the 

Verified List. In cases where a water segment listed for DO is also verified 

impaired for nutrients, nutrients is identified as a pollutant contributing to 

DO exceedances. The Department also applies the following analysis to 

identify the pollutant(s) contributing to DO exceedances: 

1. The water segment median values for biochemical oxygen demand 

(BOD), total nitrogen, and total phosphorus are determined for the 

Verified period (i.e., January 1995 to June 2002). 

2. The median values are then compared with the screening levels 

for the appropriate waterbody type. The screening levels represent 

the 70th percentile value of data collected from streams, lakes, or 

estuaries (Table 4.4). 

3. If a water segment median value exceeds the screening level, the 

parameter is identified as a pollutant contributing to the exceedances, 

and DO is included on the verified list.

114 


Table 4.4: Screening Level Values (70th Percentile) Based on STORET Data from 1970 

to 1987 

BOD (mg/L) Total Nitrogen (mg/L) Total Phosphorus (mg/L) 

Streams 2.0 1.6 0.22 

Lakes 2.9 1.7 0.11 

Estuaries 2.1 1.0 0.19 

Source: Friedemann, M., and J. Hand. 1989. Typical Water Quality Values for Florida’s Lakes, Streams 

and Estuaries. 

Table 4.5 provides the median values for water segments where there 

is a sufficient number of DO exceedances to place the water on the Verified 

List. If a water has a sufficient number of exceedances for placement on the 

Verified List but the median values are less than the screening levels, the 

DO for that segment is included on the Planning List. 

Additionally, to place a water segment on the Verified List for 

nutrients, the Department must identify the limiting nutrient or nutrients 

on the Verified List, as required by the IWR. The following method is 

used to identify the limiting nutrient(s) in streams and lakes: 

1. The ratios of total nitrogen to total phosphorus are calculated 

for each paired value of total nitrogen and total phosphorus (per 

sampling event) collected during the Verified period. 

2. The individual ratios over the entire Verified period are evaluated 

to determine the limiting nutrient(s). If all the sampling event 

ratios are less than 10, nitrogen is identified as the limiting 

nutrient, and if all the ratios are greater than 30, phosphorus is 

identified as the limiting nutrient. Both nitrogen and phosphorus 

are identified as limiting nutrients if any of the sampling event 

ratios are between 10 and 30. 

Table 4.6 displays the nitrogen and phosphorus ratios for stream and 

lake segments potentially impaired by nutrients. 

For estuarine segments potentially impaired by nutrients, nitrogen is 

identified as the limiting nutrient. There is a general understanding in the 

marine scientific community that nitrogen is the principal cause of nutrient 

overenrichment in coastal systems (National Research Council, 1993), and 

previous analysis of data in the Tampa Bay area supports this conclusion. 

Adoption Process for the Verified List of Impaired Waters 

The Verified List must be submitted in a specific format (Rule 62- 

303.710, F.A.C.) before being approved by order of the Department’s 

Secretary. The list must specify the pollutant and concentration causing 

the impairment. If a waterbody segment is listed based on water quality 

criteria exceedances, then the list must provide the applicable criteria. 

However, if the listing is based on narrative or biological criteria, or 

impairment of other designated uses, and the water quality criteria are met, 

the Verified List is required to specify the concentration of the pollutant


115 

Table 4.5: Tampa Bay Median Values for the Verified Period 

WBID 

Waterbody Segment 

Waterbody 

Type 

BOD 5 Day 

(mg/L) 

Total Nitrogen 

(mg/L) 

Total Phosphorous 

(mg/L) 

1474 Brooker Creek Stream 1.0 1.32 0.05 

1486 Lake Tarpon Outlet Lake 1.18 0.07 

1486A Lake Tarpon Lake 1.0 1.12 0.03 

1507A Rocky Creek Estuary 4.5 a 1.35 a 0.27 a 

1513 Double Branch Estuary 1.3 1.13 a 0.18 

1516 Sweetwater Creek Stream 1.2 0.67 0.05 

–Upper 

1530 Moccasin Creek Estuary 1.0 0.94 0.24 a 

1536C Tampa Bypass Canal Stream 2.6 a 0.89 0.25 a 

1536E Palm River Estuary 2.9 a 1.02 0.32 a 

1536F Sixmile Creek Stream 2.7 a 0.74 0.21 

1541A Lake Tarpon Canal Stream 1.0 1.02 0.11 

1563 Channel G Estuary 1.5 1.13 a 0.14 

1569 Bishop Creek Estuary 1.0 0.89 0.22 a 

1570A Sweetwater Creek Estuary 2.2 a 1.19 a 0.17 

–Lower 

1574 Alligator Creek Stream 1.2 1.03 0.14 

1574A Alligator Lake Estuary 1.0 0.65 0.14 

1575 Mullet Creek Estuary 1.0 0.86 0.18 

1584B McKay Bay Estuary 1.9 0.80 0.33 a 

1603 Direct Runoff To Bay Estuary 1.0 0.97 0.16 

1604 Allen Creek Estuary 1.0 1.05 0.22 

1605 Delaney Creek Stream 1.4 1.18 0.33 a 

1605D Delaney Creek Tidal Estuary 1.6 2.33 a 0.40 a 

1624 Direct Runoff To Bay Estuary 1.0 1.42 a 0.09 

1625 Cross Canal (North) Estuary 1.0 1.06 a 0.15 

1627 Long Branch Stream 2.1 a,c 0.93 0.10 

1637 Black Point Channel Estuary 1.50 a,b 

1654 Snug Harbor Estuary 1.0 0.70 0.18 

1666A Bullfrog Creek Estuary 2.0 1.28 a 0.45 a 

1683 Smacks Bayou Estuary 1.0 0.76 0.19 

1700 Coffeepot Bayou Estuary 1.0 1.00 0.15 

1709D Little Bayou - Basin Q Estuary 1.8 1.11 a 0.34 a 

1709E Pinellas Point– Estuary 0.75 0.22 a 

Basin V 

1778 Cockroach Bay Estuary 2.9 a 1.16 a 0.38 a 

a 

Value is higher than the screening level value. 

b 

Represents ammonia median value. 

c 

Represents median value of Florida DEP intensive survey data.

116 


Table 4.6: Tampa Bay Basin Nitrogen to Phosphorus Ratios for the Verified Period 

WBID 

Waterbody Segment 

Waterbody 

Type 

Total 

Nitrogen 

Median 

(mg/L) 

Total 

Phosphorus 

Median 

(mg/L) 

Nitrogen to 

Phosphorus 

Ratio Median 

Nitrogen to 

Phosphorus 

Ratio Minimum 

Nitrogen to 

Phosphorus 

Ratio Maximum 

1473W Lake Juanita Lake 0.60 0.01 43.0 25.0 130.0 

1473X Mound Lake Lake 0.45 0.01 45.6 24.4 112.9 

1473Y Calm Lake Lake 0.33 0.01 38.3 12.2 106.7 

1474V Crescent Lake 0.65 0.02 37.1 15.7 176.7 

1474D Dead Lady Lake Lake 0.88 0.03 26.9 13.6 50.8 

1478H Lake Reinheimer– Lake 1.03 0.02 46.5 15.1 76.9 

Open Water 

1486A Lake Tarpon Lake 1.12 0.03 41.6 1.5 250.0 

1493E Buck Lake Outlet Lake 1.18 0.14 10.8 4.8 24.9 

1494B Brant Lake Lake 1.03 0.04 27.5 15.5 77.1 

1496A Sunset Lake Lake 0.72 0.02 45.9 22.5 76.0 

1502A Lake Estes Lake 0.82 0.03 29.6 13.2 59.2 

1502C Chapman Lake Lake 1.07 0.04 26.8 15.7 49.7 

1516 Sweetwater Creek– Stream 0.67 0.05 12.3 3.1 146.0 

Upper 

1516A Lake Carroll Lake 0.44 0.01 31.9 10.6 84.0 

1516B Lake Madelene Lake 0.67 0.01 54.8 18.9 112.0 

1516E Lake Ellen–Open Lake 0.72 0.02 31.7 15.8 191.1 

Water 

1536C Tampa Bypass Canal Stream 0.87 0.25 3.6 2.0 45.0 

1536F Sixmile Creek Stream 0.72 0.21 3.5 2.0 68.0 

1574 Alligator Creek Stream 1.03 0.14 6.3 2.1 36.0 

1603C Beckett Lake–Open 

Water 

Lake 0.87 0.06 17.5 3.8 31.3 

relative to the water quality criteria and explain why the numeric criterion is 

not adequate. 

For waters with exceedances of the DO criteria, the Department must 

identify the pollutants causing or contributing to the exceedances and list 

both the pollutant and DO on the Verified List. 

For waters impaired by nutrients, the Department is required to 

identify whether nitrogen or phosphorus, or both, are the limiting 

nutrients, and specify the limiting nutrient(s) in the Verified List. 

The Verified List must also include the priority and schedule for 

TMDL development established for a waterbody segment and must note 

any waters that are being removed from the current Planning List. In 

future watershed management cycles, the list must also note waters that are 

being removed from any previous Verified List for the basin.


117 

Chapter 5: TMDL Development, Allocation, 

Implementation, and Monitoring Priorities 

Prioritization of Listed Waters 

Following the identification of impaired waters on the 303(d) list, 

the Department determines priorities for developing Total Maximum 

Daily Loads (TMDLs) in Phase 3 of the watershed management cycle. 

When TMDLs are established, general allocations of pollutant load 

reductions are identified, at least to the level of point and nonpoint source 

categories. Because TMDLs cannot be developed for all listed waters 

during a single watershed management cycle, waterbodies will be priori - 

tized using the criteria in the Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR) 

(Rule 62-303.500, Florida Administrative Code [F.A.C.]). The rule states 

that when establishing the TMDL development schedule for waters on the 

Verified List, the Department will prioritize impaired waterbody segments 

according to the severity of the impairment and their designated uses, 

taking into account the most serious water quality problems, most valuable 

and threatened resources, and risk to human health and aquatic life. 

Under the IWR, the determination of high-, low-, and mediumpriority 

waters is based on the following: 

High-priority waters are 

• Waterbody segments where the impairment poses a threat to potable 

water supplies or human health. 

• Waterbody segments where the impairment is due to a pollutant 

regulated by the Clean Water Act and the pollutant has contributed 

to the decline or extirpation of a federally listed threatened or endangered 

species, as indicated in the Federal Register listing the species. 

Low-priority waters are 

• Waterbody segments that are listed before 2010 because of fish 

consumption advisories for mercury (due to the current insufficient 

understanding of how mercury cycles in the environment). 

• Human-made canals, urban drainage ditches, and other artificial 

waterbody segments that are listed only due to exceedances of the 

dissolved oxygen (DO) criteria. 

• Waterbody segments that were not on the Planning List but were 

identified as impaired during Phase 2 of the watershed management 

approach and were included on the Verified List, unless the segment 

meets the second high-priority criterion.

118 


• The EPA has also proposed assigning to this category the list of 

additional waterbody segments that the agency developed using its 

own evaluation methodology, until the Department has had the 

opportunity to investigate these waterbodies further. 

All segments not designated high or low priority are medium priority, 

and are prioritized based on the following factors: 

• The presence of Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWs). 

• The presence of waterbody segments that fail to meet more than one 

designated use, i.e., aquatic life, primary contact and recreation, fish 

and shellfish consumption, and drinking water and protection of 

human health. 

• The presence of waterbody segments that exceed an applicable water 

quality criterion or alternative threshold with a frequency of greater 

than 25 percent at a minimum confidence level of 90 percent. 

• The presence of waterbody segments that exceed more than one 

applicable water quality criterion. 

• Administrative needs of the TMDL program, including meeting 

a TMDL development schedule agreed to with the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), basin priorities related to the 

Department’s watershed management approach, and the number of 

administratively continued permits in the basin. 

The Department is adhering to the TMDL schedule established in the 

Consent Decree between the EPA and Earthjustice for waters on the 1998 

303(d) list that are also identified as impaired under the IWR. 

Table 5.1 lists the high-priority waters for TMDL development in 

the Tampa Bay Basin. Figure 5.1 shows the locations of these waters and 

their watersheds. The seven waters were also high priorities on the 1998 

303(d) list. These waters are hydrologically connected to the other waters 

identified in Table 5.1 and are a part of the watersheds shown in Figure 5.1. 

Some of these associated waters have been identified as impaired through 

the assessment and are medium and low priorities for TMDL development. 

The Department will assess and incorporate the associated waters into the 

development of TMDLs for the high-priority waters if necessary. 

The following sections briefly describe the existing conditions in the 

high-priority waters. The appendices include supporting information on 

each of the seven waters and their watersheds. Appendix L provides maps 

of each high-priority watershed showing land use and other information. 

Watershed land uses are tabulated in Appendix M. Appendix N presents 

the water quality data used for identifying impairment in the high-priority 

waters. 

Brooker Creek 

The Brooker Creek watershed located in Northwest Hillsborough 

County and eastern Pinellas County covers 38 square miles. The creek


119 

Table 5.1: Tampa Bay Basin TMDL Priorities for 2003 

Priority Waterbody 

Brooker Creek 

1474 

Delaney Creek 

1605 

Direct Runoff to Bay: 

Roosevelt Basin 

1624 

Long Branch 

1627 

Lower Sweetwater Creek 

1570A 

McKay Bay 

1584B 

Rocky Creek 

1507A 

Parameter Causing 

Impairment 

Waterbodies Associated with 

the Priority Waters 

DO 1 1473, 1493, 1496 

DO 

Fecal Coliforms 


Lead 

DO 



DO 



DO 

Nutrients 



DO 

Nutrients 

DO 

Nutrients 

1605D 2 , 1605A 

1627A, 1627B 

1570, 1570Y 

1584A, 1615, 1536A, 1536B, 

1536C 2 , 1536D, 1536E 2 , 1536F 2 , 1576, 

1579, 1579A, 1599 

1507, 1563 2 , 1516 2 , 1498, 1478, 1514, 

1463, 1463A, 1463B, 1463D, 1478L, 

1516A 2 , 1516B 2 , 1516C, 1516E 2 , 1516F, 

1519, 1519A, 1519D, 1494, 1494A, 1502, 

1509, 1517 

1 

There are a sufficient number of DO violations to place water on the Verified List; however, unable to link low 

DO to a pollutant. Is included on planning list for further study. 

2 

Impaired waters with TMDL development scheduled for 2008. 

originates in an area of cypress swamps and flows to the southwest into 

Lake Tarpon; its watershed makes up a large portion of the lake’s drainage 

basin. The creek flows through two publicly owned preserves. The 

headwater of the creek is located in Hillsborough County’s Brooker Creek 

Headwaters Preserve. In Pinellas County, the creek flows through the 

Brooker Creek Preserve managed by Pinellas County. The predominant 

land coverages in the basin are urban development, making up 

30 percent of the land use, and wetlands, which accounts for 27 percent 

of the coverage. There are two small domestic wastewater facilities in the 

watershed that have design capacities of less than 0.1 million gallons per 

day (mgd). 

Appendix N presents graphs of the DO data collected by Pinellas 

County that is used for placing this segment on the Planning List. 

Delaney Creek 

The Delaney Creek watershed, which covers 18 square miles, is located 

in a heavily developed area of central Hillsborough County. The city of 

Brandon lies in the eastern portion of the watershed. Urban and

120 


Figure 5.1: Tampa Bay Basin TMDL Priority Watersheds for 2003


121 

built-up land use makes up 69 percent of the watershed area, which 

includes a large area of residential and commercial development. In its 

headwaters, east of Interstate 75, the creek is a series of stormwater ponds. 

West of the interstate, the creek flows through a channel for approximately 

6.5 miles before its enters into East Bay, the southern portion of the McKay 

Bay segment. One industrial facility that is a producer of ammonia 

nitrate, Nitram, Inc., has a permitted discharge to Delaney Creek of 0.41 

mgd. There are an additional 6 small individual permitted facilities in the 

watershed. 

Appendix N presents graphs of water quality data collected by 

Hillsborough County that are used to identify impairment. 

Direct Runoff to Bay: Roosevelt Basin 

The Roosevelt drainage basin is located in central Pinellas County 

and contains portions of the cities of Pinellas Park and St. Petersburg. The 

watershed is almost 15 square miles and the largest land use, urban and 

built-up, covers 40 percent of the area. The second largest land cover is 

wetlands, primarily mangroves located adjacent to Old Tampa Bay, which 

makes up about 23 percent of the area. The watershed contains 3 major 

channels that total 9.5 miles in length and discharge into Old Tampa Bay. 

There are 3 individual permitted wastewater facilities in the watershed, 

and 1, Bridgeway Acres Landfi ll, has a permit to discharge wastewater to 

the Mainlands Canal during emergency situations. 

Appendix N presents the data collected by Pinellas County for DO, 

fecal coliforms, and total coliforms that are used to identify impairment. 

Long Branch 

The watershed, which covers about 2.4 square miles, is located in 

a highly urbanized area in central Pinellas County. The predominant 

land uses are high- and medium-density residential development and 

commercial development that account for almost 75 percent of the 

land use. Near the headwaters of the stream is Swan Lake, a small lake 

surrounded by homes. The outlet of this lake is one of the main sources of 

water contributing flow in the stream. The main channel is about 

3.5 miles in length and flows to the northeast into Old Tampa Bay. There 

are no individual permitted wastewater facilities in this watershed. 

Appendix N displays the data collected by Pinellas County for DO, 

fecal coliforms, and total coliforms that are used to identify impairment. 

Lower Sweetwater Creek 

The Lower Sweetwater Creek watershed, located in northwestern 

Hillsborough County, just west of the city of Tampa, is 9 square miles, 

Approximately 70 percent of the land use is urban and built-up, which 

includes high-density residential, commercial, and industrial development. 

The headwaters are located at Egypt Lake, and the main channel is 

approximately 6.5 miles in length and flows southwest into Old Tampa 

Bay. There are 5 small individual permitted wastewater facilities in the 

watershed.

122 


Appendix N provides graphs of DO, fecal coliforms, total coliforms, 

and chlorophyll a collected by Hillsborough County that are used to 

identify impairment. 

McKay Bay System 

The McKay Bay System refers to McKay Bay proper and 12 associated 

water segments, which are hydrologically connected to the bay. McKay 

Bay is located in central Hillsborough County in the city of Tampa. The 

Palm River and Ybor City Drain are the main inflows to the bay from the 

north and water is exchanged with Hillsborough Bay to the south. The 

bay and its drainage area is 50 square miles. The largest land use is urban 

and built-up, which comprises 63 percent of the watershed area. The next 

largest land use, transportation, communication, and utilities, makes up 

11 percent of the area. A major freshwater inflow to the bay is the Tampa 

Bypass Canal, which flows to the Palm River. The canal, controlled by a 

series of gate structures, was dredged in the 1960s to serve as flood control. 

There are approximately 40 individual permitted wastewater facilities 

in the watershed. The larger facilities that are capable of discharging 

greater than 0.1 mgd to surface waters are Trademark Nitrogen and the 

Falkenburg Road domestic waste treatment plant, which has a permitted 

flow of 6 mgd. 

Appendix N presents the DO and chlorophyll a data collected by 

Hillsborough County and the city of Tampa that are used to identify 

impairment. 

Rocky Creek System 

The Rocky Creek System refers to the Rocky Creek channel and 23 

associated water segments, which are hydrologically connected to the 

creek. The Rocky Creek watershed, located in northwestern Hillsborough 

County, covers 71 square miles. The headwaters are a series of 

interconnected lakes, wetlands, and small stream channels in the northern 

section of the watershed. Major tributaries to Rocky Creek are Brushy 

Creek and upper Sweetwater Creek, which drain a series of interconnected 

lakes in the headwaters. There are a number of channelized reaches in 

the watershed, which include the Interceptor Canal that conveys water to 

Brushy Creek; Channel G that drains a large portion of upper Sweetwater 

Creek; and Channel A that flows from Rocky Creek to Old Tampa 

Bay. The predominant land use is urban and built-up, which covers 60 

percent of the watershed and consists mainly of residential and commercial 

development. The second largest land use is wetlands, which covers 15 

percent of the basin. There are approximately 20 individual permitted 

wastewater facilities in the watershed. Three domestic facilities—Dale 

Mabry, River Oaks, and Van Dyke—have permitted flows of greater than 

1 mgd. 

Appendix N provides the DO and chlorophyll a data collected by 

Hillsborough County that are used to identify impairment.


123 

Ambient Monitoring Priorities 

Data collection to assess aquatic biological health and to support 

TMDL development is ongoing in four of the high-priority watersheds 

scheduled for TMDL development in 2003. In the Brooker Creek, 

Delaney Creek, and Long Branch watersheds, bioassessments are being 

conducted in an effort to determine if the macroinvertebrate biota are 

adapted to the low DO conditions. In Delaney Creek, Long Branch, and 

Lower Sweetwater Creek, intensive surveys are being conducted to collect 

data throughout each watershed, identify potential causes of impairment, 

and support TMDL development. The intensive surveys include 

monitoring surface water quality, water flow, and currents over a three- to 

four-day period in each watershed. 

Some of the low-priority waters on the 1998 303(d) list, scheduled for 

TMDL development in 2008, had insufficient data for listed parameters 

to determine if water quality standards are met following the IWR 

methodology. These waters have parameters that are included in the 

Planning List and insufficient data categories in the Tampa Bay Integrated 

Report (Appendix E). If resources allow, the Department will collect 

additional data over the next five years to assess these waters. 

TMDL Development 

During Phase 3 of the watershed management cycle, TMDLs will be 

developed for both point and nonpoint sources of pollution in impaired 

waterbodies and will be adopted by rule at the end of this phase. 

TMDL development involves determining the maximum amount 

of a given pollutant that a waterbody can assimilate and still meet the 

applicable numeric or narrative water quality criterion for the pollutant. In 

most cases, this “assimilative” capacity will be determined using computer 

modeling (both hydrodynamic and water quality models) that predicts 

the fate and transport of pollutants in the receiving waters. Modeling for 

the typical TMDL will include model set-up, calibration, and verification, 

followed by a variety of model runs that determine the assimilative capacity 

of the water under worst-case conditions. 

State law and federal regulations require that TMDLs include a 

margin of safety (MOS) that takes into account “any lack of knowledge 

concerning the relationship between effluent limitations and water quality.” 

The EPA has allowed states to establish either a specific MOS (typically 

some percentage of the assimilative capacity) or an implicit MOS based on 

conservative assumptions in the modeling. To date, the Department has 

elected to establish an implicit MOS based on predictive model runs that 

incorporate a variety of conservative assumptions (they examine worst-case 

ambient flow conditions and worst-case temperature, and assume that all 

permitted point sources discharge at their maximum permitted amount). 

It is important to note that TMDLs will be developed only for the 

actual pollutants causing the impairment in the listed waterbody. These

124 


are called the “pollutants of concern.” In Florida, the most commonly 

listed pollutants of concern are nutrients, sediments, and coliforms. 

TMDLs will not be developed for impairments not due to pollutant 

discharges—for example, natural conditions, physical alterations such 

as dams and channelization, or changes in the flow of the water. In 

other cases, a waterbody may be deemed potentially impaired based on 

bioassessment data or toxicity data. In these cases, the Department must 

determine the actual pollutant causing the impairment before a TMDL can 

be developed. 

TMDL Allocation and Implementation 

Initial Allocation of Pollutant Loadings 

The Florida Watershed Restoration Act (FWRA) requires that a 

TMDL include the “establishment of reasonable and equitable allocations 

. . . among point and nonpoint sources . . . .” The Department refers to 

this as the “initial allocation,” which is adopted by rule. For the purposes 

of allocating the required pollutant loadings, the term “point sources” 

primarily includes traditional sources such as domestic and industrial 

wastewater discharges. 

Recent EPA guidance requires states to include as point sources those 

stormwater systems that are covered by a National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit. However, NPDESpermitted 

stormwater discharges are not subject to the same types of 

effluent limitations, cannot be centrally collected and treated, and typically 

have not invested in treatment controls to the same degree as traditional 

point sources. Nonpoint sources include intermittent, rainfall-driven, 

diffuse sources of pollution associated with everyday human activities, 

including runoff from urban land uses, agriculture, silviculture, and 

mining; discharges from failing septic systems; and atmospheric deposition. 

These point and nonpoint definitions do not directly relate to 

whether a source is regulated. Some nonpoint sources such as stormwater 

systems are permitted under the regulatory programs of the Department 

or water management districts, while others, such as agricultural 

stormwater discharges, are not. This distinction is important because the 

implementation of the allocations to nonpoint sources outside the authority 

of regulatory programs will require cooperation from dischargers to 

implement BMPs voluntarily. 

While a “detailed allocation” will ultimately be necessary to implement 

a TMDL fully, a key goal of the initial allocation is to assign responsibility 

for pollutant load reductions between point and nonpoint sources. For 

point sources, allocations will be implemented through the Department’s 

NPDES wastewater and stormwater permitting programs. The 

implementation of nonpoint source load reductions will be done through a 

combination of regulatory and nonregulatory processes. 

Initial allocations of pollutant loadings will also be made to historical 

sources (e.g., the phosphorus-laden sediments at the bottom of a lake) and 

upstream sources (those entering into an impaired waterbody). Upstream


125 

sources include sources outside Florida, and these sources will receive 

reduced allocations similar to in-state sources. 

The FWRA provided direction for the allocation of TMDLs and 

directed the Department to provide guidance on the allocation process 

by establishing an Allocation Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC), 

consisting of representatives of key stakeholder groups. The committee’s 

report recommended a three-step process for developing initial allocations 

and addressed detailed allocations for nonpoint sources, stakeholder 

involvement, the use of best management practices (BMPs), and other 

TMDL implementation issues (Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection, 2001). A copy of the ATAC report can be found at http:// 

www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/docs/Allocation.pdf. 

Implementation Programs and Approaches 

The FWRA designates the Department as the lead agency in 

coordinating the implementation of TMDLs. Existing programs and 

approaches through which TMDLs may be carried out include the 

following: 

1. Permitting and other existing regulatory programs, such as 

NPDES permits, domestic and industrial wastewater permits, 

and stormwater/environmental resource permits (the municipal 

NPDES stormwater permittees in the Tampa Bay Basin are 

Hillsborough, Manatee, Pinellas, and Sarasota Counties; the cities 

of Oldsmar, Safety Harbor, St. Petersburg, and Tampa; and the 

Florida Department of Transportation); 

2. Local land development codes; 

3. Nonregulatory and incentive-based programs, including BMPs, 

cost sharing, waste minimization, pollution prevention, new 

approaches to land use design and development, and public 

education; 

4. Basin Management Action Plans (B-MAPs) developed under the 

FWRA; 

5. Other water quality management and restoration activities, for 

example, SWIM Plans approved under Section 373.456, F.S.; 

6. Pollutant trading or other equitable economically based 

agreements; 

7. Public works including capital facilities; or 

8. Land acquisition. 

These programs and approaches will be carried out at local, regional, 

state, and possibly federal levels. TMDL implementation will require 

extensive stakeholder involvement throughout the state, and, in some cases, 

between Florida and other states. Appendix A provides additional details 

on the implementation programs and approaches listed here.

126 


Schedule and/or Milestones for TMDL Implementation or 

Reasonable Assurance 

The Tampa Bay Estuary Program developed a “decision matrix” 

process to help determine if water quality targets and seagrass goals are 

being achieved and if management action is necessary to met the goals 

(Janicki et al., 2000). Recommended courses of action are identified if 

there is deviation from the targets. The process is applied on an annual 

basis to determine if water clarity and chlorophyll a concentrations exceed 

the threshold levels. 

Development of Basin Management 

Action Plans 

The FWRA authorizes the Department to develop B-MAPs for 

implementing TMDLs. The ATAC recognized that these plans should be 

developed with extensive stakeholder input. It also recognized that before 

developing a plan, the Department should involve affected stakeholders in 

discussions to build consensus on detailed allocations based on the initial 

allocations. 

The B-MAPs would contain final allocations among the affected 

parties, strategies for meeting the allocations, schedules for implementation, 

funding mechanisms, applicable local ordinances, and other elements. 

In cases where stakeholder consensus could not be reached on detailed 

allocations and/or a B-MAP within a reasonable time, the Department 

would develop the allocations. 

Once a B-MAP is developed, the Department will make it available 

for public review and comment. The template for the B-MAPs is under 

development; the plans are likely to include a description of both regulatory 

and nonregulatory approaches to meeting specific TMDLs.


127 

References 

Boler, R. 1999. Surface Water Quality, 1995-1997, Hillsborough County, 

Florida. Tampa: Environmental Protection Commission of 

Hillsborough County. 

Daigle, J. 2000. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 

Personal communication. 

Eckenrod, R. M. Winter 2001. “Executive Director’s Message: Of 

Rewards, Red Flags and Renewed Commitments.” Bay Guardian. 

Tampa, Florida: Tampa Bay Estuary Program. Available: http: 

//tbep.org/bayguardian/winter2001.html. 

Fernald, E. A., and E. D. Purdum, Eds. 1998. Water Resources Atlas of 

Florida. Tallahassee, Florida: Institute of Science and Public Affairs, 

Florida State University. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. February 1, 2001. A 

Report to the Governor and the Legislature on the Allocation of Total 

Maximum Daily Loads in Florida. Tallahassee, Florida: Bureau of 

Watershed Management, Division of Water Resource Management. 

Florida Marine Research Institute. 2001. Asian Green Mussels and 

Lyngbya Majuscula Algae Blooms in Florida. Available: http:// 

www.floridamarine.org. 

Friedemann, M., and J. Hand. 1989. Typical Water Quality Values for 

Florida’s Lakes, Streams and Estuaries. Tallahassee, Florida: Florida 

Department of Environmental Regulation. 

Interagency Mercury Science Program for the Everglades and South 

Florida. 2001. Available: http://www8.myflorida.com/environment/ 

learn/science/laboratories/mercury/docs/advisory.pdf 

Janicki, A. J., D. Wade, and R. Pribble. 2000. Developing and Establishing 

a Process to Track the Status of Chlorophyll a Concentrations and Light 

Attenuation to Support Seagrass Restoration Goals in Tampa Bay. Prepared 

for Tampa Bay Estuary Program by Janicki Environmental, Inc. 

Tampa Bay Estuary Program Technical Report #04-00. 

Janicki, A. J., and R. Pribble, 2001. Application of the Chlorophyll a and 

Light Attenuation Tracking Process in Tampa Bay through 2000. Prepared 

for Tampa Bay Estuary Program by Janicki Environmental, Inc. 

Tampa Bay Estuary Program Technical Report #11-01. 

Marella, R. L. 1999. Water Withdrawals, Use, Discharge, and Trends in 

Florida, 1995. U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 99-4002. 

Marois, K. C. June 1999. Tracking List of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered 

Plants and Animals and Natural Communities of Florida. 

Tallahassee, Florida: Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 

National Research Council, 1993. Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban 

Areas. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 

Pittman, C. October 24, 2000. “Seagrass Thins Out, Erasing Gains.” 

St. Petersburg Times.

128 


Pribble, R., A. Janicki, S. Janicki, and M. Winowitch. 2001. Estimates 

of Total Nitrogen, Total Phosphorus, Total Suspended Solids, and Biochemical 

Oxygen Demand Loadings to Tampa Bay, Florida: 1995–1998. 

Prepared by Janicki Environmental, Inc. for the Tampa Bay Estuary 

Program. 

Southwest Florida Water Management District. 1992. Draft Water Supply 

Needs and Sources, 1990-2020. Brooksville, Florida. 

Southwest Florida Water Management District. 1992. Needs and Sources 

Plan. Brooksville, Florida. 

Tampa Bay Estuary Program. March 2001. Tampa Bay Estuary Program 

Tracking Progress Toward Its Nitrogen Management Goals: Fifth-Year 

Assessment of Bay Water Quality Indicators and Models. Tampa, Florida. 

Tampa Bay Estuary Program. 1999. 1999 Atlas. Tampa, Florida. 

Tampa Bay Estuary Program. July 1999. Baywide Environmental Monitoring 

Report, 1993–1998. Tampa, Florida. Technical Publication 

#07-99. 

Tampa Bay Estuary Program. December 1996. Charting the Course: The 

Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for Tampa Bay. 

Tampa, Florida. 

Tampa Bay Estuary Program. 1999. Chemical Contamination in Tampa 

Bay: Extent, Toxicity, Potential Sources and Sediment Quality Management 

Plans, Special Report 1999. Tampa, Florida. 

Tampa Bay Estuary Program. March 1998. Partners for Progress, The 

Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium Action Plan, 1995–1999. 

Tampa, Florida. 

Wayland, R. November 19, 2001. 2002 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring 

and Assessment Report Guidance. Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and 

Watersheds. 

Wolansky, R. M., and J. M. Gabode. 1981. Generalized Thickness of the 

Floridan Aquifer, Southwest Florida Water Management District. U.S. 

Geological Survey, Open File Report 80-1288.

Water Quality Assessment Report September 2003 

Tampa Bay Appendices 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Appendix A: Legislative and Regulatory Background on the Watershed 

Management Approach and the Implementation of TMDLs.................................. 132 

Federal and State Legislation on Surface Water Quality and TMDLs.............................................132 

Determining Impairment Based on the State’s Impaired Surface Waters Rule...............................134 

Implementing TMDLs........................................................................................................................135 

Table A.1: Basin Groups for Implementing the Watershed Management Cycle, by 

Department District Office .......................................................................................138 

Table A.2: Basin Rotation Schedule for TMDL Development and Implementation.................138 

Figure A.1: Five-Year Rotating Basin Cycle in the Department’s Six Districts......................139 

Table A.3: Potentially Affected Stakeholders and Actions To Achieve TMDLs .......................140 

Appendix B: Supplementary Ecological Information in the Tampa Bay Basin.... 144 

Table B.1: Natural Community Types in the Tampa Bay Basin ...............................................144 

Table B.2: Protected Animal and Plant Species in the Tampa Bay Basin................................146 

Table B.3: Nonlisted Animal and Plant Species in the Tampa Bay Basin................................148 

Appendix C: Guidance for Development of Documentation To Provide 

Reasonable Assurance that Proposed Pollution Control Mechanisms Will 

Result in the Restoration of Designated Uses in Impaired Waters ......................... 149 

Background.........................................................................................................................................149 

Current Rule Text Relating to Evaluation of Pollution Control Mechanisms..................................150 

Responsible Parties for Reasonable Assurance Demonstration........................................................150 

Time Frame for Development of Documentation .............................................................................150 

What It Means To Be Under Local, State, or Federal Authority......................................................151 

Time Frame for Attaining Water Quality Standards.........................................................................151 

Parameter-Specific Nature of Demonstration....................................................................................151 

Information To Consider and Document when Assessing Reasonable Assurance in the IWR.......152 

Water Quality–Based Targets and Aquatic Ecological Goals ..........................................................153 

Interim Targets ...................................................................................................................................153 

Averaging Periods for Water Quality Targets...................................................................................153 

Estimates of Pollutant Reductions from Restoration Actions...........................................................154 

New Sources/Growth .........................................................................................................................154 

Examples of Reasonable Progress .....................................................................................................154 

Long-Term Requirements ..................................................................................................................155


Appendix D: Methodology for Determining Impairment Based on the Impaired 

Surface Waters Rule ................................................................................................. 156 

The Impaired Surface Waters Rule....................................................................................................156 

Attainment of Designated Use(s).......................................................................................................156 

Table D.1: Designated Use Attainment Categories for Surface Waters in Florida.................157 

Sources of Data...................................................................................................................................157 

Table D.2: Data Used in Developing the Planning and Verified Lists, First Basin 

Rotation Cycle...........................................................................................................158 

Methodology.......................................................................................................................................158 

Appendix E: Water Quality Summary for the Tampa Bay Basin ......................... 164 

Figure E.1: Tampa Bay Planning Units......................................................................................165 

Table E.1: Tampa Bay Group 1 Basin IWR Master List...........................................................166 

Table E.2: Tampa Bay Basin Water Quality Monitoring Stations Used for the 

Verified Period..........................................................................................................240 

Table E.3: Water Quality Trend Data, by Major Bay Segment ................................................275 

Appendix F: Permitted Facilities with Discharges Greater Than 0.1 Mgd 

in the Tampa Bay Basin............................................................................................ 305 

Appendix G: Level 1 Land Use in the Tampa Bay Basin, by Planning Unit ......... 309 

Appendix H: Pollutant Loading Estimates for the Tampa Bay Basin .................. 311 

Loadings to Tampa Bay .....................................................................................................................311 

Table H.1: Summary of Average Annual Pollutant Loads (tons) into Tampa Bay 

from Seven Major Sources........................................................................................311 

River Loadings at USGS Gauge Locations .......................................................................................311 

Table H.2: USGS Gauges at HRRD, LMRB, and ARB (BOD, TSS, TN, and TP 

[pounds/acre/year] as Minimum, Median, and Maximum).....................................312 

Appendix I: Documentation Provided during Public Comment Period................ 313 

EPA’s Comments and Department Responses..................................................................................313 

Formal Public Meeting Comments (Tampa, FL, 7/24/02) and Department Responses..................314 

Written Public Comments and Department Responses.....................................................................317 

Appendix J: Parameter Group Maps for the Tampa Bay Basin ............................ 321 

Figure J.1: Basinwide Parameter Assessment for Bacteria......................................................321 

Figure J.2: Basinwide Parameter Assessment for Biology.......................................................322 

Figure J.3: Basinwide Parameter Assessment for Chlorophyll/TSI.........................................323 

Figure J.4: Basinwide Parameter Assessment for Dissolved Oxygen......................................324 

Figure J.5: Basinwide Parameter Assessment for Metals ........................................................325 

Figure J.6: Basinwide Parameter Assessment for Turbidity ....................................................326 

Figure J.7: Basinwide Parameter Assessment for Unionized Ammonia..................................327 

Appendix K: Tampa Bay Watershed Management Summary (Reasonable 

Assurance Documentation)....................................................................................... 328 

Tampa Bay Watershed Management Summary................................................................................328 

Progress to Date..................................................................................................................................337

Water Quality Assessment Report: Tampa Bay 131 

Appendix L: Land Use Maps of High-Priority Watersheds.................................... 340 

Figure L.1: Brooker Creek Priority Watershed ........................................................................340 

Figure L.2: Delaney Creek Priority Watershed ........................................................................341 

Figure L.3: Direct Runoff to Bay: Pinellas County Roosevelt Priority Watershed .................342 

Figure L.4: Long Branch Priority Watershed ...........................................................................343 

Figure L.5: Lower Sweetwater Creek Priority Watershed........................................................344 

Figure L.6: McKay Bay Priority Watershed .............................................................................345 

Figure L.7: Rocky Creek Priority Watershed............................................................................346 

Figure L.8: McKay Bay and Delaney Creek Priority Watershed.............................................347 

Appendix M: Level 2 Land Use of High-Priority Watersheds............................... 348 

Appendix N: Water Quality Graphs of High-Priority Water Segments............... 355


Appendix A: Legislative and Regulatory Background on the 

Watershed Management Approach and the 

Implementation of TMDLs 

Federal and State Legislation on Surface Water Quality and TMDLs 

Clean Water Act 

Congress enacted the Clean Water Act in 1972 with the goal of restoring and 

maintaining the “chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters” (33 

U.S.C. § 1251[a]). The ultimate goal of the act is to eliminate the “discharge of [all] 

pollutants into navigable waters” (33 U.S.C. § 1251[a][1]). 

Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act requires states to report biennially to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on their water quality. The 305(b) assessment 

report provides information on the physical, chemical, biological, and cultural features of 

each river basin in Florida. This initial assessment provides a common factual basis for 

identifying information sources and major issues, and for determining the future changes, 

strategies, and actions needed to preserve, protect, and/or restore water quality. 

Understanding the physical framework of each basin allows the development of a 

science-based methodology for assessing water quality and an accurate picture of the 

waters that are most impaired or vulnerable to contamination. 

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to submit to the EPA lists of 

surface waters that do not meet applicable water quality standards and establish total 

maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for each of these waters on a schedule. A pollution limit 

is then allocated to each pollutant source in an individual river basin. 

A TMDL represents the maximum amount of a given pollutant that a waterbody can 

assimilate and meet all of its designated uses (see the sidebar on Florida’s surface water 

quality classifications for a listing of these classifications). A waterbody that does not 

meet its designated use is defined as impaired. 

SIDEBAR: FLORIDA’S SURFACE WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATIONS 

Florida’s water quality standards program, the foundation of the state’s program of water quality 

management, designates the “present and future most beneficial uses” of the waters of the state 

(Section 403.061[10], F.S.). Water quality criteria, expressed as numeric or narrative limits for 

specific parameters, describe the water quality necessary to maintain these uses for surface 

water and ground water. Florida’s surface water is protected for five designated use 

classifications, as follows: 

Class I 

Class II 

Class III 

Class IV 

Class V 

Potable water supplies 

Shellfish propagation or harvesting 

Recreation, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced 

population of fish and wildlife 

Agricultural water supplies 

Navigation, utility, and industrial use (there are no state waters currently in 

this class)


Florida Watershed Restoration Act 

In 1998, the EPA settled a lawsuit with the environmental group Earthjustice over 

Florida’s TMDL Program. The Consent Decree resulting from the lawsuit requires all 

TMDLs on the state’s 1998 Section 303(d) list of impaired waters to be developed in 

thirteen years. If the state fails to develop the TMDLs, the EPA is required to do so. 

In response to concerns about the TMDL lawsuit and in recognition of the important 

role that TMDLs play in restoring state waters, the 1999 Florida legislature enacted the 

Florida Watershed Restoration Act (Chapter 99-223, Laws of Florida). The act clarified 

the Department’s statutory authority to establish TMDLs, required the Department to 

develop a methodology for identifying impaired waters, specified that the Department 

could develop TMDLs only for waters on a future state list of impaired waters developed 

using this new methodology, and directed the Department to establish an Allocation 

Technical Advisory Committee to address the allocation process for TMDLs. The act 

also declared Lake Okeechobee impaired and, as required under the TMDL Consent 

Decree, allowed the state to develop a TMDL for the lake (see the sidebar for a 

description of the legislation’s major provisions). 

SIDEBAR: THE FLORIDA WATERSHED RESTORATION ACT 

The Florida Watershed Restoration Act contains the following major provisions: 

Establishes that the 303(d) list submitted to the EPA in 1998 is for planning purposes only. 

Requires the Department to adopt 303(d) listing criteria (that is, the methodology used to define 

impaired waters) by rule. 

Requires the Department to verify impairment and then establish Verified Lists for each basin. 

The Department must also evaluate whether proposed pollution control programs are sufficient to 

meet water quality standards, list the specific pollutant(s) and concentration(s) causing 

impairment, and adopt the basin-specific 303(d) list by Secretarial Order. 

Requires the Department’s Secretary to adopt TMDL allocations by rule. The legislation requires 

the Department to establish “reasonable and equitable” allocations of TMDLs, but does not 

mandate how allocations will be made among individual sources. 

Requires that TMDL allocations consider existing treatment levels and management practices; 

the differing impacts that pollutant sources may have; the availability of treatment technologies, 

best management practices (BMPs), or other pollutant reduction measures; the feasibility, costs, 

and benefits of achieving the allocation; reasonable time frames for implementation; the potential 

applicability of moderating provisions; and the extent that nonattainment is caused by pollution 

from outside Florida, discharges that have ceased, or alteration to a waterbody. 

Required a report to the legislature by February 2001 addressing the allocation process. 

Authorizes the Department to develop basin plans to implement TMDLs, coordinating with the 

water management districts, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the 

Soil and Water Conservation Districts, regulated parties, and environmental groups in assessing 

waterbodies for impairment, collecting data for TMDLs, developing TMDLs, and conducting at


least one public meeting in the watershed. Implementation is voluntary if not covered by 

regulatory programs. 

Authorizes the Department and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to 

develop interim measures and BMPs to address nonpoint sources. While BMPs would be 

adopted by rule, they will be voluntary if not covered by regulatory programs. If they are adopted 

by rule and the Department verifies their effectiveness, then implementation will provide a 

presumption of compliance with water quality standards. 

Directs the Department to document the effectiveness of the combined regulatory/voluntary 

approach and report to the legislature by January 1, 2005. The report will include participation 

rates and recommendations for statutory changes. 

Determining Impairment Based on the State’s Impaired Surface Waters Rule 

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act and the Florida Watershed Restoration Act 

describe impaired waters as those waterbodies or waterbody segments that do not meet 

applicable water quality standards. “Impairment” is a broad term that includes 

designated uses, water quality criteria, the Florida antidegradation policy, and moderating 

provisions (see the sidebar below for explanations of these terms). 

The state’s Identification of Impaired Surface Waters Rule (Rule 62-303, F.A.C.) was 

developed in cooperation with a Technical Advisory Committee and adopted by the 

Florida Environmental Regulatory Commission on April 26, 2001. It provides a sciencebased 

methodology for evaluating water quality data in order to identify impaired waters, 

and it establishes specific criteria for impairment based on chemical parameters, the 

interpretation of narrative nutrient criteria, biological impairment, fish consumption 

advisories, and ecological impairment. The rule is available at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/ 

water/tmdl/docs/AmendedIWR.pdf. 

The Impaired Surface Waters Rule also establishes thresholds for data sufficiency and 

data quality, including the minimum sample size required and the number of exceedances 

of the applicable water quality standard for a given sample size that identify a waterbody 

as impaired. The number of exceedances is based on a statistical approach designed to 

provide greater confidence that the outcome of the water quality assessment is correct. 

Waters that are identified as impaired through the Impaired Surface Waters Rule 

are prioritized for TMDL development and implementation. 

SIDEBAR: EXPLANATION OF TERMS 

Designated uses, discussed in an earlier sidebar, comprise the five classifications applied to 

each of the state’s surface waterbodies. 

Water quality criteria comprise numeric or narrative limits of pollutants. 

The Florida Antidegradation Policy (Rules 62-302.300 and 62-4.242, F.A.C.) recognizes that 

pollution that causes or contributes to new violations of water quality standards or to the


continuation of existing violations is harmful to the waters of the state. Under this policy, the 

permitting of new or previously unpermitted existing discharges is prohibited where the discharge 

is expected to reduce the quality of a receiving water below the classification established for it. 

Any lowering of water quality caused by a new or expanded discharge to surface waters must be 

in the public interest (that is, the benefits of the discharge to public health, safety, and welfare 

must outweigh any adverse impacts on fish and wildlife or recreation). Further, the permittee 

must demonstrate that other disposal alternatives (for example, reuse) or pollution prevention are 

not economically and technologically reasonable alternatives to the surface water discharge. 

Moderating provisions (provided in Rules 62-302.300[10], 62-4 and 62-6, F.A.C., and described 

in Rules 62-302.300, 62-4.244, 62-302.800, 62-4.243, F.A.C., and Sections 403.201 and 

373.414, F.S.) include mixing zones, zones of discharge, site-specific alternative criteria, 

exemptions, and variances. These provisions are intended to moderate the applicability of 

water quality standards where it has been determined that, under certain special circumstances, 

the social, economic, and environmental costs of such applicability outweigh the benefits. 

Determining impairment in individual waterbodies takes place in two phases. First, 

in each river basin the Department evaluates the existing water quality data, using the 

methodology prescribed in the Impaired Surface Waters Rule, to determine whether 

waters are potentially impaired. Waters found to be potentially impaired are included on 

a Planning List for further assessment under Sections 403.067(2) and (3), F.S. As 

required by Subsection 403.067(2), F.S., the Planning List is not used to administer or 

implement any regulatory program. It is submitted to the EPA for informational purposes 

only. 

The second step is to assess waters on the Planning List under Section 403.067(3), 

F.S., as part of the Department’s watershed management approach (described in the 

following section). The Department carries out additional data gathering and strategic 

monitoring, focusing on these potentially impaired waters, and determines—using the 

methodology in Part III, Rule 62-303.400, F.A.C.—if a waterbody is, in fact, impaired 

and if the impairment is caused by pollutant discharges. 

An Assessment Report is produced containing the results of this updated evaluation 

and a Verified List of impaired waters. The criteria for the Verified List are more 

stringent than those for the Planning List. The Department is required to develop 

TMDLs for waters on the Verified List under Subsection 403.067(4), F.S. A watershed 

management plan (called a Basin Management Action Plan) to reduce the amount of 

pollutants that cause impairments must also be produced and implemented. 

The Verified List is adopted by Secretarial Order in accordance with the Florida 

Watershed Restoration Act. Once adopted, the list is submitted to the EPA for approval 

as the state’s Section 303(d) list of impaired waters for the basin. 

Implementing TMDLs 

The Watershed Management Approach 

The Department's statewide approach to water resource management, called the 

watershed management approach, is the framework for implementing TMDLs as required


by the federal and state governments. The approach does not focus on individual sources 

of pollution. Instead, each basin is assessed as an entire functioning system, and aquatic 

resources are evaluated from a basin wide perspective that considers the cumulative 

effects of human activities. Water resources are managed on the basis of natural 

boundaries, such as river basins, rather than political or regulatory boundaries. Federal, 

state, regional, tribal, and local governments identify watersheds not meeting clean water 

or other natural resource goals and work cooperatively to focus resources and implement 

effective strategies to restore water quality. Extensive public participation in the 

decision-making process is crucial. 

The watershed management approach is not new, nor does it compete with or replace 

existing programs. Rather than relying on single solutions to water resource issues, it is 

intended to improve the health of surface water and ground water resources by 

strengthening coordination among such activities as monitoring, stormwater 

management, wastewater treatment, wetland restoration, land acquisition, and public 

involvement. 

By promoting the management of entire natural systems and addressing the 

cumulative effects of human activities on a watershed basis, this approach is intended to 

protect and enhance the ecological structure, function, and integrity of Florida’s 

watersheds. It provides a framework for setting priorities and focusing the Department’s 

resources on protecting and restoring water quality, and aims to increase cooperation 

among state, regional, local, and federal interests. By emphasizing public involvement, 

the approach encourages stewardship by all Floridians to preserve water resources for 

future generations. 

The watershed approach is intended to speed up projects by focusing funding and 

other resources on priority water quality problems, strengthening public support, 

establishing agreements, and funding multiagency projects. It avoids duplication by 

building on existing assessments and restoration activities and promotes cooperative 

monitoring programs. It encourages accountability for achieving water quality 

improvements through improved monitoring and the establishment of TMDLs. 

The Watershed Management Cycle 

As part of the Department’s watershed management approach, TMDLs will be 

developed, and the corresponding load reductions allocated, as part of a watershed 

management cycle, which rotates through the state’s fifty-two river basins over a nineyear 

period. The cycle’s five phases are as follows: 

• Phase 1: Preliminary Watershed Evaluation. For each river basin, a Status Report 

is developed, containing a Planning List of potentially impaired waters that may 

require the establishment of TMDLs. The report characterizes each basin’s 

hydrologic, ecological, and socioeconomic setting as well as historical, current, and 

proposed watershed management issues and activities. It also contains a preliminary 

evaluation of major water quality parameters, water quality issues by planning unit, 

an evaluation of ecological resources, and basin wide pollutant loading trends related 

to land uses. At the end of Phase 1, a Strategic Monitoring Plan is developed.


• Phase 2: Strategic Monitoring and Assessment. Additional data are collected 

through strategic monitoring and uploaded to STORET. The data are used to verify 

whether potentially impaired waters in each basin are impaired and to calibrate and 

verify models for TMDL development. At the end of Phase 2, an Assessment 

Report is produced for each basin that contains a Verified List of impaired waters. 

The report also provides an updated and more thorough evaluation of water quality, 

associated biological resources, and current management plans. The Department will 

adopt the Verified List by the Department through a Secretarial Order and submit it 

to the EPA as the state’s Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. 

• Phase 3: Development and Adoption of TMDLs. TMDLs for priority impaired 

waters in the basin will be developed and adopted by rule. Because TMDLs cannot 

be developed for all listed waters during a single watershed management cycle due to 

fiscal and technical limitations, waterbodies will be prioritized using the criteria in the 

Identification of Impaired Surface Waters Rule, Rule 62-303, F.A.C. 

• Phase 4: Development of Basin Management Action Plan. A Basin Management 

Action Plan will be developed for each basin that specifies how pollutant loadings 

from point and nonpoint sources of pollution will be allocated and reduced, in order 

to meet TMDL requirements. The plans will include regulatory and nonregulatory 

(i.e., voluntary), structural and nonstructural strategies, and existing management 

plans will be used where feasible. The involvement and support of affected 

stakeholders in this phase will be especially critical. 

• Phase 5: Implementation of Basin Management Action Plan. Implementation of 

the activities specified in the Basin Management Action Plan will begin. This 

includes carrying out rule development as needed, securing funding, informing 

stakeholders and the public, and monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the 

plan. 

To implement the watershed cycle, the state’s river basins have been divided into five 

groups within each of the Department’s six districts statewide, and each district will 

assess one basin each year. Table A.1 shows the basin groups for implementing the 

cycle in the Department’s districts, and Figure A.1 shows these groups and the rotating 

cycle in the districts. Table A.2, which lists the basin rotation schedule for TMDL 

development and implementation, shows that it will take nine years to complete one full 

cycle of the state. 

The watershed management cycle is an iterative, or repeated, process. One of its key 

components is that the effectiveness of management activities (TMDL implementation) 

will be monitored in successive cycles. Monitoring conducted in Phase 2 of subsequent 

cycles will be targeted at evaluating whether water quality objectives are being met and 

whether individual waters are no longer impaired. The Department also will track the 

implementation of scheduled restoration activities, whether required or voluntary, to 

ensure continued progress towards meeting the TMDLs.


Table A.1: Basin Groups for Implementing the Watershed Management Cycle, by Department 

District Office 

District Group 1 

Basins 

Northwest Ochlockonee- 

St. Marks Rivers 

Group 2 

Basins 

Apalachicola- 

Chipola Rivers 

Northeast Suwannee River Lower St. Johns 

River 

Central Ocklawaha River Middle St. Johns 

River 

Southwest Tampa Bay Tampa Bay 

Tributaries 

South Everglades West 

Coast 

Charlotte Harbor 

Southeast Lake Okeechobee St.Lucie- 

Loxahatchee 

Rivers 

Group 3 

Basins 

Choctawhatchee 

River and Bay and 

St. Andrews Bay 

Upper St. Johns 

River 

Sarasota Bay and 

Peace-Myakka 

Rivers 

Caloosahatchee 

River 

Lake Worth 

Lagoon/Palm 

Beach Coast 

Group 4 

Basins 

Pensacola Bay 

St. Marys-Nassau 

Rivers 

Kissimmee River 

Withlacoochee 

River 

Fisheating Creek 

Southeast Urban 

Coast 

Group 5 

Basins 

Perdido River and 


Northeast Coast 

Lagoons 

Indian River 

Lagoon 

Springs Coast 

Florida Keys 

Everglades 

Table A.2: Basin Rotation Schedule for TMDL Development and Implementation


Figure A.1: 

Five-Year Rotating Basin Cycle in the Department’s Six Districts


Pollutants can enter a waterbody through point source discharges (generally from a 

specific facility) or nonpoint discharges (e.g., stormwater runoff, septic tanks). 

Government agencies, businesses, organizations, and individuals who contribute to these 

discharges will be asked to share the responsibility of attaining TMDLs through load 

allocations (the amount of a specified pollutant allotted for discharge) that are based on 

an established TMDL. Table A.3 summarizes these potentially affected stakeholders, 

and the actions they may be asked to take to help achieve a TMDL. 

Table A.3: Potentially Affected Stakeholders and Actions To Achieve TMDLs 

Potentially Affected Stakeholders 

Municipal stormwater/wastewater programs 

Commercial developers, homebuilders, individual 

homeowners 

Municipal and industrial wastewater treatment 

facilities, NPDES-permitted facilities 

Farming and silviculture operations 

Federal, regional, state agencies; regional and 

local water quality coalitions 

Actions To Achieve TMDL 

Reduce and treat urban stormwater runoff through 

stormwater retrofits, replacement of septic tanks 

Improve development design and construction, 

enhance best management practices, replace septic 

tanks 

Reduce pollutant loadings from permitted 

discharges 

Reduce and treat runoff through best management 

practices 

Carry out waterbody restoration projects 

Permitting and Other Approaches 

NPDES PERMITS 

All point sources that discharge to surface water bodies require a NPDES permit. 

These permits can be classified into two types: domestic or industrial wastewater 

discharge permits, and stormwater permits. NPDES-permitted point sources may be 

affected by the development and implementation of a TMDL. All NPDES permits 

include “reopener clauses” that allow the Department to incorporate new discharge limits 

when a TMDL is established. These new limitations may be incorporated into a permit 

when a TMDL is implemented or at the next permit renewal, depending on the timing of 

permit renewal and workload. For NPDES municipal stormwater permits, the 

department intends to insert the following statement once a B-MAP is completed: 

“The permittee shall undertake those activities specified in the (Name of Waterbody) 

Basin Management Action Plan in accordance with the approved schedule set forth in the 

B-MAP.”


DOMESTIC AND INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER PERMITS 

In addition to NPDES-permitted facilities, all of which discharge to surface waters, 

Florida also regulates domestic and industrial wastewater discharges to ground water via 

land application. Since ground and surface water are so intimately linked in much of the 

state, reductions in loadings from these facilities may be needed to meet TMDL 

limitations for pollutants in surface waters. If such reductions are identified in the B- 

MAP, they would be implemented through modifications of the existing state permits. 

FLORIDA STORMWATER/ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE PERMITS 

Florida was the first state to require the treatment of stormwater from all new 

development with the implementation of the state’s stormwater treatment rule in 1982. 

Today, except in the area served by the Northwest Florida Water Management District, 

new development projects receive an environmental resource permit that combines 

stormwater flood protection, stormwater treatment, and wetland protection/mitigation 

into a single permit. These permits are designed to obtain 80 percent average annual load 

reduction of total suspended solids. This level of treatment may need to be increased, 

depending on the allocation of load reductions, especially for nutrients. For example, the 

St. Johns River Water Management District recently adopted basin-specific criteria for 

the Lake Apopka Basin that require the phosphorus loading from new development not to 

exceed predevelopment phosphorus loading. 

LOCAL LAND DEVELOPMENT CODES 

Since structural stormwater treatment practices can only achieve certain levels of load 

reductions, and because the hydrologic changes accompanying urban development often 

cause ecological impacts to aquatic systems, local land development codes that promote 

“low-impact development” are an important component of restoring impaired waters. 

Local codes may need to be reviewed to determine how to promote developments that 

minimize impervious surfaces (such as reduced street widths or the use of pervious 

pavements), promote the protection of vegetation, promote the protection and restoration 

of riparian buffers along streams and lakes, and adopt the principles of the Florida Yards 

and Neighborhoods Program in local landscaping codes. 

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 

Typically, best management practices (BMPs) refer to a practice or combination of 

practices that, based on sound science and best professional judgment, are determined to 

be the most effective and practicable means of reducing nonpoint source pollution and 

improving water quality. Both economic and technological considerations are included 

in the evaluation of what is practicable. BMPs may include structural controls (such as 

retention areas or detention ponds) or nonstructural controls (pollution prevention source 

controls such as street sweeping or public education). Many BMPs have been developed 

for urban stormwater to reduce pollutant loadings and peak flows. These BMPs 

accommodate site-specific conditions, including soil type, slope, depth to groundwater, 

and the designation of receiving waters.


Unfortunately, emphasizing BMPs to reduce nonpoint source pollution from 

agricultural operations was not widespread until the passage of the Florida Watershed 

Restoration Act. Recognizing that the development and adoption of BMPs might take 

several years, the legislature authorized the use of Interim Measures (IMs) during the 

BMP development process for agricultural operations. In essence, IMs are a set of 

logical conservation practices designed to reduce agricultural nonpoint pollution using 

current knowledge and best professional judgment. These practices will evolve into more 

formal BMPs as better scientific data on their effectiveness is obtained. 

Once the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services adopts BMPs, 

the Department is charged with verifying their effectiveness in reducing agricultural 

nonpoint source pollution. Once verified, agricultural operations that have implemented 

BMPs will receive a waiver of liability or presumption of compliance similar to that 

granted a developer who obtains an environmental resource permit. 

NONREGULATORY PARTNERSHIPS: MEETING THE CHALLENGE IN TAMPA BAY 

The Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium provides an example of a 

nonregulatory partnership. To address the issue of future nitrogen loading associated 

with population growth, the Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP) created the Tampa Bay 

Nitrogen Management Consortium, a dynamic alliance of local governments, regulatory 

agencies, and key industry representatives committed to “holding the line” on future 

nitrogen loading. The Consortium voluntarily developed an action plan to reduce the 

projected increase in nitrogen loading of 84 tons per year by two-thirds (a 56-ton-peryear 

reduction) by the year 2000. The identified reductions come from sources 

throughout the watershed, including urban stormwater, industrial point sources, fertilizer 

shipping and handling practices, and intensive agriculture. 

As with other efforts initiated by the TBEP, the Consortium is composed of an 

interdisciplinary team of scientists and engineers; managers from the agricultural, 

phosphate, and electric utility industries; and local governments and state and federal 

agencies that serve on the TBEP’s Management Board. In March 1998, the Consortium 

adopted Partners for Progress, a compilation of 105 projects that are either completed or 

to be undertaken by Consortium partners by the year 2000. 

The projects include the construction of regional stormwater treatment facilities; the 

conversion of septic tanks to central sewer systems; improvements to manufacturing 

processes to reduce pollution; the conversion to more efficient agricultural irrigation and 

fertilization practices; and land acquisition programs to prevent environmentally 

significant lands from being developed. Also included are public outreach initiatives 

such as the Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Program that are designed to educate 

homeowners about environmentally-friendly landscaping practices. 

Measuring the success of the management activities initiated by the TBEP has been 

critical to building and maintaining community support for restoration of the bay. The 

baywide monitoring program is not run by one agency, but is a combined effort of the 

cities, counties, and regulatory agencies. The Department has recognized the successful 

coordination of these efforts as a model for statewide implementation.


OTHER STRATEGIES 

The success of implementing nonpoint source TMDL load allocations will require 

variety, creativity, and stakeholder commitment to watershed management and personal 

stewardship. In addition to BMPs, other possible strategies for meeting TMDLs, 

restoring water quality, and preventing the further degradation of Florida’s watersheds 

include cost sharing, waste minimization, pollution prevention, new approaches to land 

use design and development, and pollutant trading. The Department will assemble a 

Technical Advisory Committee to help develop a pollutant-trading rule, which must be 

reviewed by the legislature prior to its adoption. The Department will also continue to 

work with local stakeholders on TMDL allocation issues and implementation plans. 

Sources of Information 

For additional information on the Department’s Watershed Management Program and 

TMDLs, please contact the following basin coordinators: 

• Southwest Florida and Lake Okeechobee, Pat Fricano (850) 245-8559 

• Southeast Florida and Ochlockonee-St. Marks Basins, Rick Hicks (850) 245-8558 

• Northwest and Central Florida, Mary Paulic, (850) 245-8560 

• Northeast Florida and Suwannee Basin, John Abendroth (850) 245-8557 

• West Central Florida and Tampa Bay Region, Tom Singleton (850) 245-8561 

For information on establishing and implementing TMDLs, contact Jan Mandrup- 

Poulsen at (850) 245-8448. Additional information is available on the Department’s Web 

site at www.dep.state.fl.us/water/watersheds/index.htm.


Appendix B: Supplementary Ecological Information in the 

Tampa Bay Basin 

Table B.1: Natural Community Types in the Tampa Bay Basin 

Land- 

Community 

Cover 

Type 

Category 

UPLANDS 

Coastal 

1 

strand 

Area in 

Acres 

Percentage 

of Total 

Area 

12 0.001 

2 Dry prairie 74,353 4.55 

3 Pinelands 67,393 4.12 

4 

Sand pine 

scrub 

4,735 0.29 

5 Sandhill 2,949 0.18 

6 

7 

8 

9 

WETLANDS 

10 

11 

12 

13 

Xeric oak 

scrub 

Mixed 

hardwood 

pine 

Hardwood 

hammock 

Tropical 

hammock 

Coastal salt 

marsh 

Freshwater 

marsh 

Cypress 

swamp 

Hardwood 

swamp 

9,165 0.56 

42,152 2.58 

101,179 6.19 

N/A 

N/A 

7,028 0.43 

46,123 2.82 

37,466 2.29 

59,510 3.64 

14 Bay swamp N/A N/A 

Characteristics 

Occurs on well drained sandy coastlines and includes typically zoned 

vegetation of upper beach, nearby dunes, or coastal rock formations. 

Large treeless grasslands and shrublands on very flat terrain, interspersed 

with scattered cypress domes, cypress strands, isolated freshwater 

marshes, and hammocks. 

Includes north and south Florida pine flatwoods, south Florida pine 

rocklands, scrubby flatwoods, and commercial pine plantations. Cypress 

domes, bayheads, titi swamps, and freshwater marshes are commonly 

interspersed in isolated depressions. 

Xeric plant community dominated by overstory of sand pine. Occurs in 

well drained sands deposited along former shorelines and islands of 

ancient seas. 

Xeric plant community dominated by overstory of scattered longleaf pine, 

along with understory of turkey oak and bluejack oak. Occurs in areas of 

rolling terrain on deep, well-drained sands. 

Hardwood community consisting of clumps of low-growing oaks 

interspersed with white sand. Occurs in areas of deep, well-washed sterile 

sand. 

Southern extension of the Piedmont southern mixed hardwoods, occurring 

mainly on clay soils of the northern Panhandle. Also includes upland 

forests in which a mixture of conifers and hardwoods dominate overstory. 

Includes major upland hardwood associations that occur statewide on 

fairly rich sandy soils. 

Cold-intolerant hardwood community with very high plant diversity that 

occurs on coastal uplands in extreme south Florida. It is characterized by 

tropical trees and shrubs at the northern edge of their range, which 

extends into the Caribbean. 

Herbaceous and shrubby wetland communities that include cordgrass, 

needlerush, and transitional or high salt marshes, occurring statewide in 

brackish waters along protected low-energy estuarine shorelines. 

Wetland communities dominated by wide assortment of herbaceous plant 

species growing on sand, clay, marl, and organic soils in areas where 

water depths and inundation regimes vary. 

Regularly inundated communities that form forested buffer along large 

rivers, creeks, and lakes, or occur in depressions as circular domes or 

linear strands. Strongly dominated by bald cypress or pond cypress. 

Association of wetland-adapted trees, composed either of pure stands of 

hardwoods or a hardwood-cypress mixture that occurs on organic soils 

and forms the forested floodplain of nonalluvial rivers, creeks, and broad 

lake basins. 

Type of hardwood swamp often found in shallow depressions in pinelands 

or at base of sandy ridges where seepage maintains constantly wet soils. 

Broadleaf evergreen trees such as sweetbay, swamp bay, and loblolly bay 

dominate overstory.


Land- 

Cover 

Category 

15 

16 

17 

Community 

Type 

Shrub 

swamp 

Mangrove 

swamp 

Bottomland 

hardwood 

OPEN WATER 

Area in 

Acres 

Percentage 

of Total 

Area 

3,677 0.23 

9,142 0.56 

N/A 

N/A 

Characteristics 

Dominated by low-growing, woody shrubs or small trees, usually found in 

wetlands changed by natural or human processes, such as altered 

hydroperiod, fire, clear-cutting or land clearing, and siltation. 

Dense, brackish water swamps, usually dominated by red, black, and 

white mangroves that occur along low-energy shorelines and in protected, 

tidally influenced bays of southern Florida. Comprises freeze-intolerant 

tree species that are distributed south of a line from Cedar Key on the Gulf 

coast to St. Augustine on the Atlantic coast. 

Wetland-adapted forests composed of pure stands of hardwoods or a 

mixture of hardwoods and cypress. They occur throughout the state on 

organic soils and form the forested floodplains of nonalluvial rivers, creeks, 

and broad lake basins. Tree species include a mixed overstory containing 

black gum, water tupelo, bald cypress, blue beech, and swamp ash. 

18 Water 273,380 16.73 

Open water areas of inland lakes, ponds, rivers, and streams and brackish 

and saline waters of estuaries, bays, and tidal creeks. 

DISTURBED 

19 

Grassland 

Upland communities with very low-growing grasses and forbs. Intensively 

and 

447,511 27.38 managed sites such as improved pastures, lawns, golf courses, road 

agricultural 

shoulders, cemeteries, or weedy fallow agricultural fields. 

lands 

20 

Shrub and 

Includes different situations where natural upland communities have 

133,213 8.15 

brush 

recently been disturbed and are recovering through natural succession. 

21 

Exotic plant 

Upland and wetland areas dominated by invasive non-native species that 

N/A N/A 

communities 

outgrow and out compete native plant communities. 

22 Barren land 315,381 19.30 Developed areas such as roads, parking lots, and buildings. 

N/A—This community type is not present in the basin. 

Source: Natural community definitions are adapted from Kautz, Randy, D. T. Gilbert, and G. M. Mauldin. 

1993. “Vegetative Cover in Florida Based on 1985-1989 Landsat Thematic Mapper Imagery.” Florida 

Scientist 56(3):135-154.


Table B.2: Protected Animal and Plant Species in the Tampa Bay Basin 

Scientific Name* 

Common Name 

Federal 


Status 

State 


Status 

FNAI 

Global 

Rank 

FNAI 

State 

Rank 

AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES 

Alligator mississippiensis American alligator T(S/A) LS G5 S4 

Caretta caretta Loggerhead turtle LT LT G3 S3 

Chelonia mydas Green turtle LE LE G3 S2 

Drymarchon corais 

couperi 

Eastern indigo snake LT LT G4T3 S3 

Eretmochelys imbricata Hawksbill turtle LE LE G3 S1 

Gopherus polyphemus Gopher tortoise N LS G3 S3 

Lepidochelys kempii Kemp’s Ridley turtle LE LE G1 S1 

BIRDS 

Ajaia ajaja Roseate spoonbill N LS G5 S2S3 

Aramus guarauna Limpkin N LS G5 S3 

Charadrius melodus Piping plover LT LT G3 S2 

Egretta caerulea Little blue heron N LS G5 S4 

Egretta rufescens Reddish egret N LS G4 S2 

Egretta thula Snowy egret N LS G5 S4 

Egretta tricolor Tricolored heron N LS G5 S4 

Eudocimus albus White ibis N LS G5 S4 

Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus** 

Bald eagle LT LT G4 S3 

Grus canadensis 

pratensis 

Florida sandhill crane N LT G5T2T3 S2S3 

Haematopus palliatus American oystercatcher N LS G5 S3 

Mycteria americana Wood stork LE LE G4 S2 

Pelecanus occidentalis Brown pelican N LS G4 S3 

Rynchops niger Black skimmer N LS G5 S3 

Sterna antillarum Least tern N LT G4 S3 

MAMMALS 

Podomys floridanus Florida mouse N LS G3 S3 

Sciurus niger shermani Sherman’s fox squirrel N LS G5T2 S2 

Trichechus manatus Manatee LE LE G2 S2 

PLANTS 

Asclepias curtissii Curtiss’ milkweed N LE G3 S3 

Bigelowia nuttallii 

Nuttall’s rayless 

goldenrod 

N LE G3G4 S1 

Chrysopsis floridana Florida golden aster LE LE G1 S1 

Glandularia tampensis Tampa vervain N LE G1 S1 

Gossypium hirsutum Wild cotton N LE G4G5 S3 

Pteroglossaspis ecristata Giant orchid N LT G2 S2 

*—Species listed in boldface type use or live in freshwater, saltwater, and/or wetland communities. 

**—Proposed for federal delisting because of the species’ recovery. 

Note: The Federal Protection Status column indicates the official federal endangerment status or level of 

legal protection, under the U.S. Endangered Species Act Classification, for the plant or animal species, 

subspecies, or variety as proposed or determined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (marine species). The classifications are as follows:


LE = Listed as Endangered. 

LT = Listed as Threatened. 

T(S/A) = Threatened due to similarity of appearance. 

N = Not currently listed, nor currently being considered for listing. 

The State Protection Status column shows the official state endangerment status or level of legal protection, 

as follows: 

Animals listed by Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 



LS = Listed as Species of Special Concern. 


Plants listed by Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) 




The Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) Global Rank characterizes relative rarity or endangerment 

worldwide, with G1 being critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity or because of extreme 

vulnerability to extinction, and G5 being demonstrably secure globally. Similarly, the FNAI State Rank of S1 

through S5 characterizes relative rarity or endangerment in Florida. The rankings are based on many 

factors, the most important being the estimated number of occurrences, estimated abundance (number of 

individuals), range, estimated adequately protected occurrences, relative threat of destruction, and 

ecological fragility. 

Sources: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, August 1, 1997; Marois, June 1999; Ashton, 

1992; and Wunderlin, 1998.


Table B.3: Nonlisted Animal and Plant Species in the Tampa Bay Basin 

Scientific Name* Common Name FNAI 

Global 

Rank 

FNAI 

State 

Rank 

FISH 

Microphis brachyurus Opossum pipefish G4G5 S2 

AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES 

Crotalus adamanteus 

Eastern diamondback G4 S3 

rattlesnake 

BIRDS 

Ardea alba Great egret G5 S4 

Ixobrychus exilis Least bittern G5 S4 

Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned nightheron 

G5 S3 

Nyctanassa violacea Yellow-crowned nightheron 

G5 S3 

Plegadis falcinellus Glossy ibis G5 S2 

Rallus longirostris scottii Florida clapper rail G5T3 S3 

Sterna caspia Caspian tern G5 S2 

Sterna maxima Royal tern G5 S3 

Sterna sandvicensis Sandwich tern G5 S2 

PLANTS 

Helianthus debilis spp. Hairy beach sunflower G5T2 S2 

Vestitus 

Rhynchospora culixa Georgia beakrush G1 SH 

*—Species listed in boldface type use or live in freshwater, saltwater, and/or wetland communities. 

Note: The FNAI global rank characterizes relative rarity or endangerment worldwide, with G1 being critically 

imperiled globally because of extreme rarity or because of extreme vulnerability to extinction, and G5 being 

demonstrably secure globally. Similarly, the FNAI state rank of S1 through S5 characterizes relative rarity or 

endangerment in Florida. The rankings are based on many factors, the most important being the estimated 

number of occurrences, estimated abundance (number of individuals), range, estimated adequately 

protected occurrences, relative threat of destruction, and ecological fragility. 

Sources: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, August 1, 1997; Marois, June 1999; Ashton, 

1992; and Wunderlin, 1998.


Appendix C: Guidance for Development of Documentation To 

Provide Reasonable Assurance that Proposed Pollution Control 

Mechanisms Will Result in the Restoration of Designated Uses in 

Impaired Waters 

The purpose of this guidance is to describe the types of information that should be 

considered, and subsequently documented, when evaluating whether there is sufficient 

reasonable assurance that: 

1. Proposed pollution control mechanisms (typically described in watershed 

management or restoration plans) addressing impaired waters will result in the 

attainment of applicable water quality standards (designated uses) at a clearly 

defined point in the future, and 

2. Reasonable progress towards restoration of designated uses will be made by the 

time the next 303(d) list of impaired waters is due to be submitted to the EPA. 

There are many site-specific issues related to determining whether reasonable 

assurance has been provided. Accordingly, this document describes the elements or 

issues that should be considered when evaluating a submittal or when documenting the 

basis for the Department’s decision, rather than attempting to establish specific criteria on 

what constitutes reasonable assurance. 

It should be noted that the term “reasonable assurance” is used throughout many 

Department programs and rules, and this guidance specifically addresses the issues 

related to the “reasonable assurance” provided by proposed pollution control 

mechanisms. This guidance should not be used to evaluate the meaning of reasonable 

assurance in other contexts, particularly in permitting decisions. 

Background 

The Impaired Surface Waters Rule (Rule 62-303, F.A.C.) establishes a formal 

mechanism for identifying surface waters in Florida that are impaired (do not meet 

applicable water quality standards) by pollutants. Most waters that are verified as being 

impaired by a pollutant will be listed on the state’s 303(d) list pursuant to the Florida 

Watershed Restoration Act and Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. Once listed, 

TMDLs will be developed for the pollutants causing the impairment of the listed waters. 

However, as required by the Florida Watershed Restoration Act, the Department will 

evaluate whether existing or proposed pollution control mechanisms will effectively 

address the impairment before placing a water on the state’s Verified List. If the 

Department can document there is reasonable assurance that the impairment will be 

effectively addressed by the control measure, then the water will not be listed on the final 

Verified List (other impaired waters that will not be listed include waters with TMDLs 

and waters impaired by pollution).


Current Rule Text Relating to Evaluation of Pollution Control Mechanisms 

The rule text addressing the evaluation of proposed pollution control mechanisms is 

as follows: 

Rule 62-303.600, Evaluation of Pollution Control Mechanisms 

2. Upon determining that a waterbody is impaired, the Department shall evaluate 

whether existing or proposed technology-based effluent limitations and other 

pollution control programs under local, state, or federal authority are sufficient 

to result in the attainment of applicable water quality standards. 

If, as a result of the factors set forth in (1), the waterbody segment is expected to attain 

water quality standards in the future and is expected to make reasonable progress towards 

attainment of water quality standards by the time the next 303(d) list is scheduled to be 

submitted to EPA, the segment shall not be listed on the Verified List. The Department 

shall document the basis for its decision, noting any proposed pollution control 

mechanisms and expected improvements in water quality that provide reasonable 

assurance that the waterbody segment will attain applicable water quality standards. 

Responsible Parties for Reasonable Assurance Demonstration 

It is ultimately the Department’s responsibility to assure adequate documentation in 

the administrative record whenever the Department decides to not list an impaired 

waterbody segment for a given pollutant. This documentation will be very important 

because the Verified Lists will be adopted by Order of the Secretary and third parties will 

be provided an opportunity to challenge, via an administrative hearing, all listing 

decisions (both those listing a water and those to not list a water for a given pollutant). 

However, the Department expects that local stakeholders will often offer to prepare the 

necessary documentation to demonstrate reasonable assurance that proposed control 

mechanisms will restore a given waterbody. The Department will provide guidance to 

stakeholders on what information is needed and how it should be submitted. 

Time Frame for Development of Documentation 

The Department plans to prepare basin-specific Verified Lists as part of its watershed 

management cycle, which rotates through all of the state’s basins over a five-year, fivephased 

cycle 1 . During the first phase of the cycle, the Department will assess water 

quality in the basin and prepare a draft Planning List of potentially impaired waters. The 

Department and interested parties will then have approximately one year (Phase 2) to 

monitor waters on the Planning List and prepare documentation, as appropriate, to 

provide reasonable assurance that impaired waters will be restored. The Department will 

1 Federal regulations currently call for state 303(d) lists every two years, but Florida plans to submit annual updates 

based on the basin-specific Verified Lists.


review submittals from interested parties during Phase 2, before adopting the Verified 

List for the basin containing the waterbody segment in question. 

What It Means To Be Under Local, State, or Federal Authority 

Both the FWRA and the IWR require that the pollution control programs under 

consideration be “under local, state, or federal authority.” A pollution control program 

will be considered "under local, state, or federal authority" if the program is subject to or 

required by a local ordinance, state statute or rule, or federal statute or regulation. 

Programs will also be considered under local, state, or federal authority if they are 

subject to a written agreement, signed by both local stakeholders and at least one 

governmental entity, that includes measurable goals, performance criteria, benchmarks, 

and back-up corrective actions to assure the further progress of the program. It is 

important to note that these written agreements do not need to be enforceable for 

nonregulated nonpoint sources. 

Many nonpoint sources are currently outside of the regulatory programs of EPA, the 

Department, and the water management districts, and reductions at these nonpoint 

sources will be voluntary. In fact, pollution control mechanisms for these nonpoint 

sources would be voluntary even if a TMDL were developed. As such, these agreements 

may provide the same level of reasonable assurance that can be provided for a TMDL 

implementation plan as long as they maintain the Department’s enforcement capability 

over all point sources involved. 

Time Frame for Attaining Water Quality Standards 

The FWRA and the IWR do not establish a specific time limit by which waters must 

attain applicable water quality standards or designated uses. However, the pollution 

control mechanisms or watershed restoration plan must provide reasonable assurance that 

designated uses will be met at some time in the future. As such, the documentation 

submitted to the Department must provide a specific date by which time designated uses 

are expected to be restored. In cases where designated uses will not be met for many 

years, the documentation should also provide justification as to why the specified time is 

needed to restore designated uses. 

Parameter-Specific Nature of Demonstration 

For the Department not to place an impaired waterbody segment on the Verified List, 

reasonable assurance must be provided for each pollutant that has been documented to be 

causing impairment of the waterbody segment. However, some entities, including the 

Department, may want to provide reasonable assurance addressing only selected 

pollutants, which could result in the Department not listing the waterbody segment for 

those pollutants, but still listing it for others. In this event, TMDLs will only be 

developed for the remaining listed pollutants.


Information To Consider and Document when Assessing Reasonable 

Assurance in the IWR 

To provide reasonable assurance that existing or proposed pollution control 

mechanisms will restore designated uses, the following information should be evaluated 

and documented for the Administrative Record: 

3. A Description of the Impaired Water—name of the water listed on the Verified 

List, the location of the waterbody and watershed, the watershed/8-digit 

cataloging unit code, the NHD identifier (when they become available), the type 

(lake, stream, or estuary) of water, the water use classification, the designated use 

not being attained, the length (miles) or area (acres) of impaired area, the 

pollutant(s) of concern (those identified as causing or contributing to the 

impairment), and the suspected or documented source(s) of the pollutant(s) of 

concern. 

A Description of the Water Quality or Aquatic Ecological Goals—a description of the 

water quality–based targets or aquatic ecological goals (both interim and final) that have 

been established for the pollutant(s) of concern, the averaging period for any numeric 

water quality goals, a discussion of how these goals will result in the restoration of the 

waterbody’s impaired designated uses, a schedule indicating when interim and final 

targets are expected to be met, and a description of procedures (with thresholds) to 

determine whether additional (backup) corrective actions are needed. 

A Description of the Proposed Management Actions To Be Undertaken—names of 

the responsible participating entities (government, private, others), a summary and list of 

existing or proposed management activities designed to restore water quality, the 

geographic scope of any proposed management activities, documentation of the estimated 

pollutant load reduction and other benefits anticipated from implementation of individual 

management actions, copies of written agreements committing participants to the 

management actions, a discussion on how future growth and new sources will be 

addressed, confirmed sources of funding, an implementation schedule (including interim 

milestones and the date by which designated uses will be restored), and any enforcement 

programs or local ordinances, if the management strategy is not voluntary. 

A Description of Procedures for Monitoring and Reporting Results—a description of 

the water quality monitoring program to be implemented (including station locations, 

parameters sampled, and sampling frequencies) to demonstrate reasonable progress; 

quality assurance/quality control elements that demonstrate the monitoring will comply 

with Rule 62-160, F.A.C.; procedures for entering all appropriate data into STORET; the 

responsible monitoring and reporting entity; the frequency and format for reporting 

results; the frequency and format for reporting on the implementation of all proposed 

management activities; and methods for evaluating progress towards goals.


A Description of Proposed Corrective Actions—a description of proposed corrective 

actions (and any supporting document[s]) that will be undertaken if water quality does 

not improve after implementation of the management actions or if management actions 

are not completed on schedule, and a process for notifying the Department that these 

corrective actions are being implemented. 

Water Quality–Based Targets and Aquatic Ecological Goals 

Some of the most important elements listed above are the requirements to provide 

water quality–based targets or aquatic ecological goals and a discussion on how resultant 

pollutant(s) reduction targets/goals will result in restoration of designated uses. Some 

people have expressed concern about these targets because they equate a water 

quality–based restoration target with a TMDL (thus assuming a “Catch 22” that a TMDL 

is needed to make a demonstration that a TMDL is not needed). However, as is also the 

case for TMDLs, water quality–based targets can take many forms, and need not be a 

result of a complex hydrodynamic/water quality model. 

In some cases, there may be sufficient historical data (paleolimnological data, 

loadings from periods predating the impairment, or baseline data for Outstanding Florida 

Waters 2 , for example) that could be used to determine an appropriate water quality target. 

In other cases, simplified modeling (including regression analysis) may allow for 

conservative estimates of the assimilative capacity that could then be used as the basis for 

restoration goals. And, finally, a water quality target may have been developed that 

would be scientifically equivalent to (or act as the basis for) a TMDL, but the target has 

not been administratively adopted as a TMDL. In each of these cases, a sound water 

quality target could be used to evaluate whether the proposed pollution control 

mechanisms will sufficiently reduce loadings to meet the assimilative capacity of the 

water in question and result in attainment of designated uses. 

Interim Targets 

Because it will usually take many years to restore fully the designated uses of an 

impaired water, interim water quality targets will often be needed to measure whether 

reasonable progress is being made towards the restoration of designated uses. Examples 

of such interim targets are provided in the last section of this document, but site-specific 

measures are also encouraged. 

Averaging Periods for Water Quality Targets 

While the averaging period for water quality–based targets should be consistent with 

how the underlying standard is expressed, they can often be expressed in a variety of 

ways and need not be expressed as “daily loads.” Annual averages or medians are often 

appropriate for some parameters, but shorter-term (seasonal, for example) averages may 

be necessary if the impairment is limited to specific seasons or parts of the year. Multi- 

2 Baseline data would be data for the year prior to designation of the OFW.


year averages may be appropriate in limited circumstances where there is naturally high 

variation of the water quality target. 

Estimates of Pollutant Reductions from Restoration Actions 

It will often be difficult to estimate precisely the pollutant reductions that will result 

from specific restoration activities. This is particularly true for the implementation of 

best management practices (BMPs). However, to provide reasonable assurance that a 

BMP or other restoration action will reduce loadings of the pollutant of concern to a level 

that will restore the water’s designated uses, documentation should address how the 

reductions were calculated, including providing documented values from the scientific 

literature for reductions attributed to similar management actions. If the expected 

reductions are expressed as a range, the midpoint of the range should be used as the basis 

for estimating reductions, unless documentation is provided supporting the use of 

different removal efficiencies in this specific application. 

New Sources/Growth 

Another key element is the discussion on how future growth and new sources will be 

addressed. Restoration goals must address possible increased loadings of the pollutant of 

concern that are anticipated due to population growth or land use changes in contributing 

watersheds, both from point and nonpoint sources. This will be particularly important for 

waters impaired by nutrients, given that so many Florida watersheds are faced with 

continuing urban, residential, and agricultural development that results in increased 

nutrient loading from stormwater, septic tanks, and wastewater discharges. 

Examples of Reasonable Progress 

The determination of whether there will be reasonable progress towards attainment of 

water quality standards will be very site- and pollutant-specific. Documentation should 

be provided supporting specific progress towards restoration of the designated uses of the 

impaired water. Possible examples of reasonable progress include, but are not limited to 

the following: 

• A written commitment to implement controls reducing loadings within a specified 

time frame from watershed stakeholders representing at least 50 percent of the 

anthropogenic load of the pollutant(s) of concern; 

• Evidence of at least a 10 percent reduction (or alternatively, a percent reduction 

consistent with meeting the water quality target by the specified date) in annual 

anthropogenic loading of the pollutant(s) of concern; 

• Evidence of at least a 10 percent decrease (or alternatively, a percent decrease 

consistent with meeting the water quality target by the specified date) in the annual 

average concentration of the pollutant(s) of concern in the water;


• Bioassessment results showing there has been an improvement in the health of the 

biological community of the water, as measured by bioassessment procedures similar 

to those used to determine impairment and conducted in similar conditions; or 

• Adoption of a local ordinance that specifically provides water quality goals, restricts 

growth or loads tied to the pollutant(s) of concern, and provides an enforcement 

option if the proposed management measure(s) are not implemented as required. 

Reasonable progress must be made by the time the next 303(d) list is due to be 

submitted to EPA, which is currently every two years. EPA has contemplated changing 

the listing cycle to every four or five years, and the IWR was specifically worded to 

allow a longer time frame for requiring reasonable progress in the event that the listing 

cycle changes. 

Long-Term Requirements 

If at any time the Department determines that reasonable assurance and reasonable 

progress are not being met, the order adopting the Verified List will be amended to 

include the waterbody on the Verified List for the pollutant(s) in question. Additional 

reasonable progress must be made each time a waterbody is considered for listing under 

Rule 62-303, F.A.C. (every five years). 

If you have any questions about this guidance memo, contact Daryll Joyner of the 

Department’s Bureau of Watershed Management in Tallahassee at 850-245-8431.


Appendix D: Methodology for Determining Impairment Based 

on the Impaired Surface Waters Rule 

The Impaired Surface Waters Rule 

To identify impaired waters in each of the state’s river basins, the Department 

evaluates water quality data using the science-based methodology in the Identification of 

Impaired Surface Waters Rule (Rule 62-303, F.A.C.). The rule establishes specific 

criteria and thresholds for impairment, in addition to data sufficiency and data quality 

requirements. The methodology described in the rule is based on a statistical approach 

designed to provide greater confidence that the outcome of the water quality assessment 

is correct. The complete text of the Impaired Surface Waters Rule is available at 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/docs/AmendedIWR.pdf. 

As part of the watershed management approach, for each river basin in the state the 

Department will follow the methodology in Rule 62-303.300, F.A.C., to develop a 

Planning List of potentially impaired waters to be assessed under Sections 403.067(2) 

and (3), F.S. The methodology for developing the Planning List includes an evaluation 

of aquatic life use support, primary contact and recreational use support, fish shellfish 

consumption use support, drinking water use support, and protection of human health. 

Data older than ten years cannot be used to evaluate water quality criteria exceedances 

for the Planning List. As required by Section 403.067(2), F.S., the Planning List will not 

be used to administer or implement any regulatory program, and is submitted to the EPA 

for informational purposes only. 

After further assessment, using the methodology in Part III, Rule 62-303.400, F.A.C., 

the Department will determine if waters on the Planning List are, in fact, impaired and if 

the impairment is caused by pollutant discharges. These waters are placed on a Verified 

List. The criteria for the Verified List are more stringent than those for the Planning List. 

Data older than five years should not be used to verify impairment. The Verified List 

will be adopted by Secretarial Order and forwarded to the EPA for approval as Florida’s 

Section 303(d) list of impaired waters. The Department will develop TMDLs for these 

waters under Section 403.067(4), F.S. 

Attainment of Designated Use(s) 

While the designated uses of a given waterbody are established using the 

classification system described previously, it is important to note that the EPA uses 

slightly different terminology in its description of designated uses. Because the 

Department is required to provide use attainment status for both the state’s 305(b) report 

and the state’s 303(d) list of impaired waters, the Department uses EPA terminology 

when assessing waters for use attainment. The water quality evaluations and decision 

processes for listing impaired waters that are defined in Florida’s Impaired Surface 

Waters Rule are based on the following designated use attainment categories:







Table D.1 summarizes the designated uses assigned to Florida’s various surface 

water classes. 

Table D.1: Designated Use Attainment Categories for Surface Waters in Florida 

Designated Use Attainment Category Used in 

Impaired Surface Waters Rule Evaluation 

Applicable Florida Surface Water Classification 






Class II 


Class I 



Sources of Data 

The Department’s assessment of water quality for each basin statewide includes an 

analysis of quantitative data from a variety of sources, many of which are readily 

available to the public. These sources include the EPA’s Legacy and modernized 

STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) databases, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the 

Department, the Florida Department of Health (DOH), the water management districts, 

local governments, and volunteer monitoring groups. 

Historically, the Department carried out statewide water quality assessments using 

data available in the EPA’s Legacy STORET Database; STORET makes up 

approximately 60 percent of the statewide data used in the 2002 Impaired Surface Waters 

Rule assessment. The Legacy STORET dataset is a repository of data collected and 

uploaded by numerous organizations through 1999. The Legacy STORET Database can 

be accessed at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/storet/index.htm. 

In 2000, the EPA created a modernized version of STORET that included new 

features designed to address data quality assurance/quality control concerns (see the new 

STORET Web site at www.epa.gov/storet/). However, because of software difficulties 

associated with batch uploading of data to the modernized STORET, the data being 

uploaded to the national repository decreased dramatically, and lingering problems have 

temporarily reduced STORET’s importance as a statewide data source. It houses only 

about 5 percent of the statewide Impaired Surface Waters Rule 2002 Database. 

Approximately 35 percent of the data used in the 2002 Impaired Surface Waters Rule 

assessment was provided by individual organizations that for various reasons, such as 

time constraints or resource limitations, were not able to enter their data into the national 

database. The organizations providing the largest datasets include the South Florida, 

Southwest Florida, and St. Johns River water management districts; the USGS; and the 

University of Florida LakeWatch volunteer monitoring group. Several of these databases


are readily available to the public via the Internet: the South Florida Water Management 

District at http://www.envirobase.usgs.gov/, the USGS at http://water.usgs.gov/, and 

LakeWatch at http://lakewatch.ifas.ufl.edu/. 

The Impaired Surface Waters Rule 2002 Database was created to evaluate data 

simultaneously in accordance with the Impaired Surface Waters Rule methodology for 

every basin in the state, based on the appropriate data “window.” For the Verified List 

assessment, the window is 7.5 years (for the Impaired Surface Waters Rule 2002 

Database), and the Planning List assessment window is 10 years. Table D.2 shows the 

periods of record for the Verified and Planning lists for the five basin groups. 

The evaluation of water quality in the state’s basins also includes some qualitative 

information. These sources are described in the Status Reports and Assessment Reports 

for each basin. 

Table D.2: Data Used in Developing the Planning and Verified Lists, First Basin Rotation Cycle 

Basin Group 

Reporting 

Period of Data Record Used in Impaired 

Surface Waters Rule Evaluation 

Group 1 Planning List January 1, 1989–December 31, 1998 

Verified List January 1, 1995–June 30, 2002 


Verified List January 1, 1996–December 31 2002 


Verified List January 1, 1997–December 31, 2003 


Verified List January 1, 1998–December 31 2004 


Verified List January 1, 1999–December 31, 2005 

Notes: Typically, a 10-year data record is used for the development of the Planning Lists, and a 7-year record is used for 

the Verified Lists. If necessary, however, the data record for the Verified listing can be extended by up to 6 months to 

complete a monitoring period that will provide sufficient information to make a listing determination. This 6-month 

extension applies to the development of the Impaired Surface Waters Rule 2002 Database. 

Methodology 

To determine the status of surface water quality in individual river basins in Florida, 

three categories of data—chemistry data, biological data, and fish consumption 

advisories—were evaluated to determine potential impairments for the four attainment of 

designated use categories discussed earlier: aquatic life, primary contact and recreation, 

fish and shellfish consumption, and drinking water use and protection of human health.. 

Aquatic Life Based Attainment 

The Impaired Surface Waters Rule follows the principle of independent applicability. 

A waterbody is listed for potential impairment of aquatic life use support based on 

exceedances of any one of four types of water quality indicators (numeric water quality 

criteria, nutrient thresholds, biological thresholds, and toxicity data).


EXCEEDANCES OF NUMERIC WATER QUALITY CRITERIA 

The chemistry data from STORET used in evaluating impairment were also used for 

preparing the state’s 2000 305(b) report. Only ambient surface water quality stations 

were included in the assessment of impairment. Water quality information from point 

sources or wells was excluded. Monitoring stations were classified. Stations were 

classified as one of five waterbody types—spring, stream, lake, estuary, or 

blackwater—based on criteria described in the latest 305(b) report. The assessments 

included the following parameters: 

Metals 

Nutrients 

Conventionals 

Arsenic, aluminum, cadmium, chromium VI, chromium III, 

copper, iron, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, 

thallium, and zinc 

Chlorophyll a for streams and estuaries, and Trophic State 

Index (TSI) (chlorophyll a, total nitrogen, and total 

phosphorus) for lakes 

Dissolved oxygen (DO), fecal coliforms, total coliforms, 

pH, unionized ammonia 

The requirements for placing waters on the Planning List included a minimum of 10 

temporally independent samples from the ten-year period of record shown in Table D.2, 

unless there were 3 exceedances of water quality or 1 exceedance of an acute toxicity 

criterion in a three-year period. The screening methodology for the Verified List requires 

at least 20 samples from the last five years preceding the Planning List assessment. An 

exceedance, meaning that water quality criteria or standards are not met, is recorded any 

time the criterion is exceeded by any amount. An exceedance for DO, however, means 

that a waterbody does not meet the dissolved oxygen criterion, rather than an actual 

exceedance of the criterion. 

To determine if a water should be placed on the Planning List for each parameter, the 

chemical data were analyzed using a computer program written to assess the data, based 

on criteria established in the Impaired Surface Waters Rule, with two exceptions. First, 

unionized ammonia data were not analyzed by the program, but rather with an Excel 

spreadsheet. Second, because the full complexity of the pH criterion could not be 

programmed, the incomplete listings for pH are not included. They will be further 

examined while additional data are collected during Phase 2 of the watershed 

management cycle. Data analysis and statistical summaries of WBIDs, waterbody types, 

and parameters obtained from the STORET Database were conducted using Access, SAS 

statistical software, and ArcView GIS applications 

The data for metals and conventional parameters were compared with the state 

surface water quality criteria in Rule 62-302.530, F.A.C. (Identification of Impaired 

Surface Waters Rule). The rule contains a table of sample numbers versus exceedances. 

A waterbody was placed on the Planning List if there was at least 80 percent confidence 

that the actual criteria exceedance rate was greater than or equal to 10 percent. To be 

placed on the Verified List, at least a 90 percent confidence rate was required.


EXCEEDANCES OF NUTRIENT THRESHOLDS 

The state currently has a narrative nutrient criterion instead of a numeric value for 

nutrient thresholds. The narrative criterion states, “In no case shall nutrient 

concentrations of a body of water be altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural 

populations of aquatic flora or fauna.” The Impaired Surface Waters Rule provides an 

interpretation of the narrative nutrient criterion. In general, the Trophic State Index (TSI) 

and the annual mean chlorophyll a values are the primary means for assessing whether a 

waterbody should be assessed further for nutrient impairment. 

The rule also considers other information that might indicate an imbalance in flora or 

fauna due to nutrient enrichment, such as algal blooms, excessive macrophyte growth, a 

decrease in the distribution (either in density or aerial coverage) of seagrasses or other 

submerged aquatic vegetation, changes in algal species richness, and excessive diel 

oxygen swings. 

Potential nutrient impairment was evaluated by calculating annual mean chlorophyll a 

values for estuaries and streams and the TSI for lakes. For lakes, the TSI was calculated 

using chlorophyll a, total phosphorus, and total nitrogen measurements. Direct evidence 

of imbalances of flora and fauna in waterbodies was also considered in the evaluation of 

nutrient impairments. 

In estuarine areas, a water was considered nutrient enriched if the annual mean 

chlorophyll a values were greater than 11 micrograms per liter (µg/L) or if annual mean 

chlorophyll a values increased by more than 50 percent over historical values for at least 

two consecutive years. For streams, a water was considered nutrient enriched if the 

annual mean chlorophyll a values were greater than 20 µg/L or if the annual mean 

increased by more than 50 percent over historical values for at least two consecutive 

years. 

A lake with a mean color greater than 40 platinum cobalt units (PCUs) was 

considered nutrient enriched if the annual mean TSI exceeded 60. A lake with a mean 

color less than or equal to 40 PCUs was considered nutrient enriched if the annual mean 

TSI exceeded 40. In addition, a lake was considered nutrient enriched if there was an 

increase in TSI over the 1989 to 2000 period or if TSI measurements were 10 units higher 

than historical values. 

EXCEEDANCE SOF BIOLOGICAL THRESHOLDS 

Bioassessments were carried out for streams, lakes, canals, and rivers using the 

Impaired Surface Waters Rule as guidance and following the Department’s standard 

operating procedures, which provide definitions and specific methods for the generation 

and analysis of bioassessment data. These are referenced in the individual bioassessment 

data tables contained in the Status Reports. The purpose behind using a bioassessment 

methodology in surface water characterizations is that biological components of the 

environment manifest long-term water quality conditions and thus provide a better 

indication of a waterbody’s true health than discrete chemical or physical measurements 

alone. Similar to water quality criteria, bioassessment methods involve the identification 

of a biological reference condition, based on data from unimpaired or least impacted 

waters in a given region.


For the Planning and Verified list assessments, the reference condition data were used 

to establish expected scores, ranging from best to worst, for various measures of 

community structure and function, such as numbers or percentages of particular species 

or feeding groups. Data on community structure and function from waters of unknown 

quality in the same region as reference waters were compared with the expected scores of 

metrics to evaluate their biological integrity. 

Metrics (e.g., number of taxa, percent Diptera, percent filter feeders) were used 

independently and as an aggregated group called an index. Indices have advantages over 

individual metrics in that they can integrate several related metrics into one score that 

reflects a wider range of biological variables. A number of bioassessment metrics and 

indices exist for assessing populations of plant and animal life, including fish, diatoms 

(e.g., microscopic algae and unicellular plankton), and macroinvertebrates (e.g., insects, 

crayfish, snails, and mussels). 

Only macroinvertebrate data from ambient sites in state surface waters were used in 

the bioassessments analyzed for the Planning and Verified Lists. The data included sites 

designated as test and background sites for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) fifth-year inspections, but excluded data from effluent outfalls from 

discharging facilities or data from monitoring sites not clearly established to collect 

ambient water quality data. Because site-specific habitat and physicochemical 

assessment information (e.g., percent suitable macroinvertebrate habitat, water velocities, 

extent of sand or silt smothering, and riparian (see the sidebar definition) buffer zone 

widths) was not available at the time of reporting, it was not included. However, this 

information is instrumental in pinpointing the causes for failed bioassessment metrics and 

will be included in future reporting. 

SIDEBAR DEFINITION: RIPARIAN 

Of, on, or relating to the banks of a natural course of water. 

The data used to develop the Planning and Verified Lists were obtained from the 

Department’s Biological Database (SBIO) and the EPA’s STORET Water Quality 

Database, where it could be substantiated that the data were generated in compliance with 

the bioassessment standard operating procedures in Rule 62-303.330, F.A.C. 

The data from these databases are used without regard to the randomness of sample 

site selection. The general period of record for data used in the analysis of lotic (moving) 

waters was January 1, 1991, through December 31, 1998. The period of record for data 

used in the analysis of lentic (still) waters was June 21, 1995, through December 31, 

1998. The June 21st date corresponds to the inception of the Department’s current 

standard operating procedures for sampling lakes (FS-7640). For the purposes of the 

Status Reports, the seasons are defined as follows: winter (1/1–3/31), spring (4/1–6/30), 

summer (7/1–9/30), and fall (10/1–12/31). Wet seasons are generally spring and 

summer, and dry seasons are fall and winter, although conditions can vary in the state as 

a whole.


LAKE CONDITION INDEX 

The scoring of the individual metrics of the Lake Condition Index (LCI), except 

percent Diptera, was performed according to the following formula: 

100(B/A) where A = the 95 percentile of the reference population and B = observed 

value 

For percent Diptera, the following formula was used: 

100 (100-B)/(100-A) where A = the 95 percentile of the reference population and B = 

observed value 

An average LCI score was calculated by averaging the scores of the six metrics in the 

method: total number of taxa; total number of taxa belonging to the orders 

Ephemeroptera, Odonata, and Trichoptera (EOT taxa); percent EOT taxa; Shannon- 

Wiener Diversity Index score; Hulbert Index score; and percent Dipteran individuals. 

LCI calculations were only provided for clear lakes (< 20 platinum cobalt units [PCUs]). 

As macroinvertebrate-based indices have not been shown to assess colored lakes in 

Florida accurately (> 20 PCUs), they have been excluded from bioassessments. A poor 

or very poor rating based on the average score constituted a failed bioassessment, based 

on the Impaired Surface Waters Rule. 

STREAM CONDITION INDEX 

A total Stream Condition Index (SCI) score was calculated by adding the scores of 

the seven metrics in the method, i.e., total number of taxa; total number of taxa belonging 

to the orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT taxa); percent 

Chironomid taxa; percent dominant taxa; percent Diptera; percent filter feeders; and 

Florida Index. A poor or very poor rating based on the total score constituted a failed 

bioassessment, based on the Impaired Surface Waters Rule. The Status Reports contain 

definitions and specific methods for the generation and analysis of bioassessment data. 

BIORECON 

To establish an impairment rating based on BioRecon data, three metrics were used: 

the Florida Index score, total number of taxa, and total number of EPT taxa. If all three 

metrics failed to meet thresholds, the water was deemed “impaired” based on the 

Impaired Surface Waters Rule. 

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY STANDARD 

Quantitative data, generated through the use of Hester-Dendy artificial substrate 

samplers, were used to calculate Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index scores for paired 

background and test sites, as specified in the Biological Integrity Standard of Rule 62- 

302.530(11), F.A.C. One failure of the standard meant that a waterbody segment was 

listed as potentially impaired.


EVALUATION OF TOXICITY DATA 

Although the Impaired Surface Waters Rule describes the use of toxicity data for the 

assessment of aquatic life-based attainment, no ambient toxicity data are available for 

assessment and this metric was not used. 


For Class I, II, or III waters, a waterbody was potentially impaired if the following 

criteria were met: 

• The waterbody segment did not meet the applicable water quality criteria for 

bacteriological quality, 

• The waterbody segment included a bathing area that was closed by a local health 

department or county government for more than one week or more than once during a 

calendar year based on bacteriological data, 

• The waterbody segment included a bathing area for which a local health department 

or county government issued closures, advisories, or warnings totaling twenty-one 

days or more during a calendar year based on bacteriological data, 

• The waterbody segment included a bathing area that was closed or had advisories or 

warnings for more than twelve weeks during a calendar year based on previous 

bacteriological data or on derived relationships between bacteria levels and rainfall or 

flow. 

Bathing area closures were also considered in determining attainment of use. 


For Class I, II, or III waters, a waterbody was potentially impaired if it did not meet 

the applicable Class II water quality criteria for bacteriological quality, or if a fish 

consumption advisory had been issued. Fish consumption advisories were based on the 

Florida Department of Health’s “limited consumption” or “no consumption” advisories 

for surface waters because of high levels of mercury in fish tissue. In addition, for Class 

II waters, waterbody segments that had been approved for shellfish harvesting but were 

downgraded to a more restrictive classification were listed as potentially impaired. 

Drinking Water Attainment and Protection of Human Health 

For Class I waters, a waterbody was potentially impaired if it did not meet the 

applicable Class I water quality criteria.


Appendix E: Water Quality Summary for the Tampa Bay Basin 

Data collected since the October 2002 update of the 303(d) list were used to update 

the listing status of waters. Figure E.1 is a map of the planning units that were used to 

organize the water quality assessment for Tampa Bay. Table E.1 contains the listing 

status of all assessed waters in the basin as of January 2003. All of the waters in the table 

are Class III fresh water. It should be noted that subsequent to the October 2002 update 

of the 303(d) list, some waterbody segments were further subdivided to produce separate 

segments for lakes versus their surrounding watersheds. Therefore, Table E.1 shows the 

WBID under which these segments were designated in the 1998 303(d) list, as well as the 

new or currently recognized WBID for them. 

Information in this appendix was obtained from an inventory of the Legacy and 

modernized STORET databases, as well as data contributed directly to the Department by 

individual data providers. Table E.2 includes only stations with data from the planning 

and verified assessment periods.

Figure E.1: Tampa Bay Planning Units 

Water Quality Assessment Report: Tampa Bay 165


Table E.1: Tampa Bay Group 1 Basin IWR Master List 

Group 1 

HUC/Planning Unit 

Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 

Waterbody Type 

1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 

Assessed Using the 


Rule (IWR) 

Proposed Status 

[planning list (PL), 

verified list (VL), 

meets standards 

(MS), no data (ND), 

insufficient data (ID)] 

EPA's Integrated 

Report Category* 

Priority for TMDL 

Development** 

Projected Year For 


COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1463 Upper Rocky Creek Stream Nutrients (Chlorophyll) MS 2 

1463A Turkey Ford Lake Lake Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) ID 3b 

1463A Turkey Ford Lake Lake Coliforms (Total Coliform) ID 3b 

1463A Turkey Ford Lake Lake Conductance ID 3b 

1463A Turkey Ford Lake Lake Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 

1463A Turkey Ford Lake Lake Iron ID 3b 

1463A Turkey Ford Lake Lake Turbidity ID 3b 

1463A Turkey Ford Lake Lake Unionized Ammonia ID 3b 

1463B Lake Thomas Lake ND 3a 

1463C Lake Brooker Lake ND 3a 

1463D Lake Harvey Lake ND 3a 

1463E 

1463E 

1463E 

Lake Helen - Open 

Water 


Water 


Water 

Lake Conductance ID 3b 

Lake Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 

Lake Iron ID 3b


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1463E 

1463E 

1463F 

1463F 

1463F 

1463F 

1463F 

1463F 

1463F 

1463G 

1463G 

1463G 

1463G 

1463G 


Water 


Water 

Lake Ellen - Open 

Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 

Lake Barbara - Open 

Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 

Lake Turbidity ID 3b 

Lake Unionized Ammonia ID 3b 

Lake Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) ID 3b 

Lake Coliforms (Total Coliform) ID 3b 



Lake Iron ID 3b 







Lake Iron ID 3b


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1463G 

1463G 

1463H 

1463H 

1463H 

1463H 

1463I 

1463I 

1463I 

1463I 

1463I 

1463J 

1463J 

1463J 


Water 


Water 

Lake Allen - Open 

Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 

Sapphire Lake - Open 

Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 

Lake Cypress - Open 

Water 


Water 


Water 














Lake Conductance ID 3b


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1463J 

1463J 

1463J 

1463J 

1463J 


Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 



Lake Nutrients (TSI) MS 2 



1463K Lake Virginia Lake ND 3a 

1463L Lake Thomas Lake ND 3a 

1463Z Moss Lake Lake Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) ID 3b 

1463Z Moss Lake Lake Coliforms (Total Coliform) ID 3b 

1463Z Moss Lake Lake Conductance ID 3b 

1463Z Moss Lake Lake Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 

1463Z Moss Lake Lake Iron ID 3b 

1463Z Moss Lake Lake Nutrients (TSI) MS 2 

1463Z Moss Lake Lake Turbidity ID 3b


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1463Z Moss Lake Lake Unionized Ammonia ID 3b 

1473 Upper Brooker Creek Stream ND 3a 

1473A Keystone Lake Lake Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) ID 3b 

1473A Keystone Lake Lake Coliforms (Total Coliform) ID 3b 

1473A Keystone Lake Lake Conductance ID 3b 

1473A Keystone Lake Lake Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 

1473A Keystone Lake Lake Iron ID 3b 

1473A Keystone Lake Lake Nutrients (TSI) MS 2 

1473A Keystone Lake Lake Turbidity ID 3b 

1473A Keystone Lake Lake Unionized Ammonia ID 3b 

1473B 

1473B 

1473B 

1473B 

Lake Eva - Open 

Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 




Lake Turbidity ID 3b


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1473W Lake Juanita Lake Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) ID 3b 

1473W Lake Juanita Lake Coliforms (Total Coliform) ID 3b 

1473W Lake Juanita Lake Conductance ID 3b 

1473W Lake Juanita Lake Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 

1473W Lake Juanita Lake Iron ID 3b 

1473W Lake Juanita Lake Nutrients (Historic TSI) VL 5 Medium 2008 

1473W Lake Juanita Lake Nutrients (TSI) MS 2 

1473W Lake Juanita Lake Turbidity ID 3b 

1473X Mound Lake Lake Nutrients (Historic TSI) VL 5 Medium 2008 

1473X Mound Lake Lake Nutrients (TSI) MS 2 

1473Y Calm Lake Lake Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) ID 3b 

1473Y Calm Lake Lake Coliforms (Total Coliform) ID 3b 

1473Y Calm Lake Lake Conductance ID 3b 

1473Y Calm Lake Lake Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 

Nitrogen and phosphorus are 

limiting nutrients. 


limiting nutrients.


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1473Y Calm Lake Lake Iron ID 3b 

1473Y Calm Lake Lake Nutrients (Historic TSI) VL 5 Medium 2008 

1473Y Calm Lake Lake Nutrients (TSI) MS 2 

1473Y Calm Lake Lake Turbidity ID 3b 

1473Y Calm Lake Lake Unionized Ammonia ID 3b 

1473Z James Lake Lake Nutrients (TSI) MS 2 

1474 Brooker Creek Stream Coliforms Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) MS 2 Delist. 

1474 Brooker Creek Stream Coliforms Coliforms (Total Coliform) MS 2 Delist. 

1474 Brooker Creek Stream Conductance MS 2 

1474 Brooker Creek Stream Dissolved 

Oxygen 

Dissolved Oxygen PL 3c High 2003 



Delist. Meets standards based 

on IWR data base run 6.2. 

There are a sufficient number of 

DO violations to place DO on 

verified list, however unable to 

link low DO to pollutant. Low DO 

partly due to swamp and wetland 

drainage which may be 

exacerbated by development. 

Headwater restoration project 

scheduled for fall 2002. Will 

perform monitoring when project 

completed. Will list in 2003 if 

verified.


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1474 Brooker Creek Stream Nutrients Nutrients (Chlorophyll) MS 2 Delist. 

1474 Brooker Creek Stream Turbidity MS 2 

1474 Brooker Creek Stream Unionized Ammonia MS 2 

1474A Lake Wastena Lake Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) ID 3b 

1474A Lake Wastena Lake Coliforms (Total Coliform) ID 3b 

1474A Lake Wastena Lake Conductance ID 3b 

1474A Lake Wastena Lake Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 

1474A Lake Wastena Lake Iron ID 3b 

1474A Lake Wastena Lake Nutrients (TSI) MS 2 

1474A Lake Wastena Lake Turbidity ID 3b 

1474B Lake Elizabeth Lake ND 3a 

1474C Holiday Lake Lake Conductance ID 3b 

1474D Dead Lady Lake Lake Nutrients (TSI) VL 5 Medium 2008 

1474U Island Ford Lake Lake Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) ID 3b 

WBID revised-previously WBID 

1474Z. 


1474W. Nitrogen and 

phosphorus are limiting nutrients.


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1474U Island Ford Lake Lake Coliforms (Total Coliform) ID 3b 

1474U Island Ford Lake Lake Conductance ID 3b 

1474U Island Ford Lake Lake Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 

1474U Island Ford Lake Lake Iron ID 3b 

1474U Island Ford Lake Lake Nutrients (TSI) MS 2 

1474U Island Ford Lake Lake Turbidity ID 3b 

1474U Island Ford Lake Lake Unionized Ammonia ID 3b 

1474V Crescent Lake Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) ID 3b 

1474V Crescent Lake Coliforms (Total Coliform) ID 3b 

1474V Crescent Lake Conductance ID 3b 

1474V Crescent Lake Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 

1474V Crescent Lake Iron ID 3b 

1474V Crescent Lake Nutrients (TSI) VL 5 Medium 2008 

1474V Crescent Lake Turbidity ID 3b 


limiting nutrients.


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1474W Dead Lady Lake Lake WBID revised to 1474D. 

1474X Wood Lake Lake Conductance ID 3b 

1474X Wood Lake Lake Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 

1474X Wood Lake Lake Iron ID 3b 

1474X Wood Lake Lake Turbidity ID 3b 

1474Y Lake Oseola Lake Conductance ID 3b 

1474Y Lake Oseola Lake Nutrients (TSI) MS 2 

1478 Drainage Canal Stream ND 3a 

1478A Saddleback Lake Lake Nutrients (TSI) MS 2 

1478B Round Lake Lake Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) ID 3b 

1478B Round Lake Lake Coliforms (Total Coliform) ID 3b 

1478B Round Lake Lake Conductance ID 3b 

1478B Round Lake Lake Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 

1478B Round Lake Lake Iron ID 3b


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1478B Round Lake Lake Turbidity ID 3b 

1478B Round Lake Lake Unionized Ammonia ID 3b 

1478C Lake Crenshaw Lake Nutrients (TSI) MS 2 

1478D Crystal Lake Lake Nutrients (TSI) MS 2 

1478E North Crystal Lake Lake ND 3a 

1478F Lake Hobbs Lake Conductance ID 3b 

1478F Lake Hobbs Lake Nutrients (TSI) MS 2 

1478G 

1478G 

1478G 

1478G 

1478G 

1478G 

1478G 

Little Deer Lake - 

Open 


Open 


Open 


Open 


Open 


Open 


Open 







Lake Unionized Ammonia ID 3b


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 

1478H 

Lake Reinheimer - 

Open 



Tributary 

1478H 


Open 



Tributary 

1478H 


Open 



Tributary 

1478H 


Open 



Tributary 

1478H 


Open 



Tributary 

1478H 


Open 

Lake Nutrients (TSI) VL 5 Medium 2008 




Tributary 

1478H 


Open 



Tributary 

1478H 


Open 



Tributary 

1478I 

Lake Merrywater - 

Open 



Tributary 

1478I 


Open 



Tributary 

1478I 


Open 



Tributary 

1478I 


Open 



Tributary 

1478I 


Open 



Tributary 

1478I 


Open 



Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1478I 

1478J 

1478J 

1478J 

1478J 

1478J 

1478J 

1478J 


Open 

Zambito Lake - Open 

Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 









1478K Cooper Lake Lake ND 3a 

1478L Round Lake Lake ND 3a 

1478X Snake Lake Lake Nutrients (TSI) ID 3b 

1478Z Deer Lake Lake Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) ID 3b 

1478Z Deer Lake Lake Coliforms (Total Coliform) ID 3b 

1478Z Deer Lake Lake Conductance ID 3b


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1478Z Deer Lake Lake Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 

1478Z Deer Lake Lake Iron ID 3b 

1478Z Deer Lake Lake Nutrients (TSI) MS 2 

1478Z Deer Lake Lake Turbidity ID 3b 

1478Z Deer Lake Lake Unionized Ammonia ID 3b 

1486 Lake Tarpon Outlet Lake Alkalinity New WBID assignment. 

1486 Lake Tarpon Outlet Lake Dissolved Oxygen PL 3c Medium 2008 

New WBID assignment. There 

are a sufficient number of DO 

violations to place DO on verified 

list, however unable to link low 

DO to pollutant. 

1486 Lake Tarpon Outlet Lake pH New WBID assignment. 

1486 Lake Tarpon Outlet Lake Turbidity MS 2 New WBID assignment. 

1486A Lake Tarpon Lake Arsenic ID 3b 

1486A Lake Tarpon Lake Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) MS 2 

1486A Lake Tarpon Lake Coliforms (Total Coliform) MS 2 

1486A Lake Tarpon Lake Conductance ID 3b 


1486. 


1486. 


1486. 


1486.


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1486A Lake Tarpon Lake Copper ID 3b 

1486A Lake Tarpon Lake Dissolved Oxygen VL 5 Medium 2008 

1486A Lake Tarpon Lake Iron ID 3b 

1486A Lake Tarpon Lake Mercury-Fish PL 3c 

1486A Lake Tarpon Lake Nickel ID 3b 

1486A Lake Tarpon Lake Nutrients (TSI) VL 5 Medium 2008 

1486A Lake Tarpon Lake Turbidity MS 2 

1486A Lake Tarpon Lake Unionized Ammonia MS 2 

1486A Lake Tarpon Lake Zinc ID 3b 


1486. 


1486. Linked to nutrients. 


1486. 


1486. 


1486. 


1486. Nitrogen and phosphorus 

are limiting nutrients. Nutrients 

being addressed by SWFWMD 

through PLRGs. 


1486. 


1486. 


1486. 

1493 Buck Lake Outlet Lake Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) ID 3b New WBID assignment. 

1493 Buck Lake Outlet Lake Coliforms (Total Coliform) ID 3b New WBID assignment. 

1493 Buck Lake Outlet Lake Turbidity ID 3b New WBID assignment. 

1493A Church Lake Lake Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) ID 3b


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1493A Church Lake Lake Coliforms (Total Coliform) ID 3b 

1493A Church Lake Lake Conductance ID 3b 

1493A Church Lake Lake Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 

1493A Church Lake Lake Iron ID 3b 

1493A Church Lake Lake Nutrients (TSI) MS 2 

1493A Church Lake Lake Turbidity ID 3b 

1493A Church Lake Lake Unionized Ammonia ID 3b 

1493B Lake Alice Lake Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) ID 3b 

1493B Lake Alice Lake Coliforms (Total Coliform) ID 3b 

1493B Lake Alice Lake Conductance ID 3b 

1493B Lake Alice Lake Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 

1493B Lake Alice Lake Iron ID 3b 

1493B Lake Alice Lake Nutrients (TSI) MS 2 

1493B Lake Alice Lake Turbidity ID 3b


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1493B Lake Alice Lake Unionized Ammonia ID 3b 

1493C 

1493C 

1493C 

1493C 

1493C 

1493C 

1493C 

1493D 

1493D 

1493D 

1493D 

1493D 

1493D 

Thorpe Lake - Open 

Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 

Williams Lake - Open 

Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 















Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1493D 


Water 


1493E Buck Lake Lake Nutrients (TSI) VL 5 Medium 2008 

1493F Echo Lake Lake Nutrients (TSI) ID 3b 

1493V Taylor Lake Lake Conductance ID 3b 

1493V Taylor Lake Lake Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 

1493V Taylor Lake Lake Iron ID 3b 

1493V Taylor Lake Lake Nutrients (TSI) MS 2 

1493V Taylor Lake Lake Turbidity ID 3b 

1493V Taylor Lake Lake Unionized Ammonia ID 3b 

1493W Garden Lake Lake Nutrients (TSI) MS 2 

1493X Rainbow Lake Lake Conductance ID 3b 

1493X Rainbow Lake Lake Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 

1493X Rainbow Lake Lake Iron ID 3b 

1493X Rainbow Lake Lake Nutrients (TSI) MS 2 



are limiting nutrients. 


1493Z.


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1493X Rainbow Lake Lake Turbidity ID 3b 

1493Y Moon Lake Lake Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) ID 3b 

1493Y Moon Lake Lake Coliforms (Total Coliform) ID 3b 

1493Y Moon Lake Lake Conductance ID 3b 

1493Y Moon Lake Lake Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 

1493Y Moon Lake Lake Iron ID 3b 

1493Y Moon Lake Lake Turbidity ID 3b 

1493Y Moon Lake Lake Unionized Ammonia ID 3b 

1494 Lake Charles Drain 

Lake 

ND 3a New WBID. 

1494A Lake Charles Lake Nutrients (TSI) ID 3b 

1494B Brant Lake Lake Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) ID 3b 

1494B Brant Lake Lake Coliforms (Total Coliform) ID 3b 

1494B Brant Lake Lake Conductance ID 3b 

1494B Brant Lake Lake Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1494B Brant Lake Lake Iron ID 3b 

1494B Brant Lake Lake Nutrients (TSI) VL 5 Medium 2008 

1494B Brant Lake Lake Turbidity ID 3b 

1494B Brant Lake Lake Unionized Ammonia ID 3b 

1494C Lake Charles Lake ND 3a 



1496 Sunset Lake Drain Lake ND 3a New WBID assignment. 

1496A Sunset Lake Lake Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) ID 3b 

1496A Sunset Lake Lake Coliforms (Total Coliform) ID 3b 

1496A Sunset Lake Lake Conductance ID 3b 

1496A Sunset Lake Lake Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 

1496A Sunset Lake Lake Iron ID 3b 

1496A Sunset Lake Lake Nutrients (TSI) VL 5 Medium 2008 

1496A Sunset Lake Lake Turbidity ID 3b 

1496Z Lake Jackson Lake Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) ID 3b 


1496. 


1496. 


1496. 


1496. 


1496. 



are limiting nutrients. 


1496.


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1496Z Lake Jackson Lake Coliforms (Total Coliform) ID 3b 

1496Z Lake Jackson Lake Conductance ID 3b 

1496Z Lake Jackson Lake Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 

1496Z Lake Jackson Lake Iron ID 3b 

1496Z Lake Jackson Lake Turbidity ID 3b 

1498 Brushy Creek Stream Coliforms Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) PL 3c Low 2008 

1498 Brushy Creek Stream Coliforms Coliforms (Total Coliform) PL 3c Low 2008 

1498 Brushy Creek Stream Conductance ID 3b 

1498 Brushy Creek Stream Dissolved 

Oxygen 

Dissolved Oxygen PL 3c Low 2008 

1498A Starvation Lake Lake Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) ID 3b 

1498A Starvation Lake Lake Coliforms (Total Coliform) ID 3b 

1498A Starvation Lake Lake Conductance ID 3b 

1498A Starvation Lake Lake Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 

1498A Starvation Lake Lake Iron ID 3b 

Will collect additional data next 

cycle. 


cycle. 


cycle.


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1498A Starvation Lake Lake Turbidity ID 3b 

1498A Starvation Lake Lake Unionized Ammonia ID 3b 

1498B Van Dyke Lake Lake Conductance ID 3b 

1498C 

1498C 

1498C 

1498C 

1498C 

1498C 

1498C 

1498D 

1498D 

1498D 

1498D 

Sunshine Lake - Open 

Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 

Gant Lake - Open 

Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 













Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1498Z Dosson Lake Lake Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) ID 3b 

1498Z Dosson Lake Lake Coliforms (Total Coliform) ID 3b 

1498Z Dosson Lake Lake Conductance ID 3b 

1498Z Dosson Lake Lake Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 

1498Z Dosson Lake Lake Iron ID 3b 

1498Z Dosson Lake Lake Nutrients (TSI) PL 3c 

1498Z Dosson Lake Lake Turbidity ID 3b 

1498Z Dosson Lake Lake Unionized Ammonia ID 3b 

1502 Chapman Lake Outlet Lake Conductance ID 3b 

1502 Chapman Lake Outlet Lake Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 

1502 Chapman Lake Outlet Lake Iron ID 3b 

1502 Chapman Lake Outlet Lake Turbidity ID 3b 

1502 Chapman Lake Outlet Lake Unionized Ammonia ID 3b 

1502A Lake Estes Lake Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) ID 3b


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1502A Lake Estes Lake Coliforms (Total Coliform) ID 3b 

1502A Lake Estes Lake Conductance ID 3b 

1502A Lake Estes Lake Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 

1502A Lake Estes Lake Iron ID 3b 

1502A Lake Estes Lake Nutrients (TSI) VL 5 Medium 2008 

1502A Lake Estes Lake Turbidity ID 3b 

1502A Lake Estes Lake Unionized Ammonia ID 3b 

1502B Lake Ellen Lake Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) ID 3b 

1502B Lake Ellen Lake Coliforms (Total Coliform) ID 3b 

1502B Lake Ellen Lake Conductance ID 3b 

1502B Lake Ellen Lake Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 

1502B Lake Ellen Lake Iron ID 3b 

1502B Lake Ellen Lake Turbidity ID 3b 

1502C Chapman Lake Lake Coliforms (Total Coliform) ID 3b 


limiting nutrients.


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1502C Chapman Lake Lake Conductance ID 3b 

1502C Chapman Lake Lake Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 

1502C Chapman Lake Lake Iron ID 3b 

1502C Chapman Lake Lake Nutrients (TSI) VL 5 Medium 2008 

1502C Chapman Lake Lake Turbidity ID 3b 

1507 Rocky Creek Stream Biology PL 3c 

1507 Rocky Creek Stream Coliforms Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) PL 3c High 2003 

1507 Rocky Creek Stream Coliforms Coliforms (Total Coliform) PL 3c High 2003 

1507 Rocky Creek Stream Conductance ID 3b 

1507 Rocky Creek Stream Dissolved 

Oxygen 

Total 

1507 Rocky Creek Stream Suspended 

Solids 

Dissolved Oxygen PL 3c High 2003 

Turbidity PL 3c High 2003 

1507 Rocky Creek Stream Nutrients PL 3c High 2003 

1507A Rocky Creek Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) MS 2 Delist. 



Listed due to poor score on a 

SCI. 

Ongoing monitoring. Will list in 

2003 if verified. 





No numeric criteria for TSS. Will 

monitor for turbidity. 


2003 if verified. Flow disrupted 

by control structures. Algal 

blooms observed.


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1507A Rocky Creek Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Total Coliform) MS 2 Delist. 

1507A Rocky Creek 

Estuary Dissolved 

Oxygen 

Dissolved Oxygen VL 5 High 2003 

1507A Rocky Creek Estuary Nutrients Nutrients (Chlorophyll) VL 5 High 2003 

1507A Rocky Creek 

Estuary Nutrients 

Nutrients (Historic 

Chlorophyll) 

1507A Rocky Creek Estuary Turbidity MS 2 

1509 Drainage Ditches Stream ND 3a 

VL 5 High 2003 

1513 Double Branch Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) MS 2 Delist. 

1513 Double Branch Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Total Coliform) VL 5 Low 2008 

1513 Double Branch Estuary Dissolved 

Oxygen 

Linked to nutrients and BOD. 

Flow disrupted by control 

structures. Algal blooms 

observed. 

Nitrogen is limiting nutrient. Flow 

disrupted by control structures. 

Algal blooms observed. 




Dissolved Oxygen VL 5 Low 2008 Linked to nutrients. 

1513 Double Branch Estuary Turbidity MS 2 

1513 Double Branch Estuary Nutrients PL 3c Low 2008 

1513A 

Marlee Lake - Open 

Water 



Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1513A 

1513A 

1513A 

1513B 

1513B 

1513B 

1513B 

1513C 

1513C 

1513C 

1513C 

1513C 


Water 


Water 


Water 

Lake Rogers - Open 

Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 

Lake Raleigh - Open 

Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 













1513D Glass Lake Lake ND 3a 

1513Y Lake Maurine Lake ND 3a


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1513Z Lake Grace Lake Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) ID 3b 

1513Z Lake Grace Lake Coliforms (Total Coliform) ID 3b 

1513Z Lake Grace Lake Conductance ID 3b 

1513Z Lake Grace Lake Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 

1513Z Lake Grace Lake Iron ID 3b 

1513Z Lake Grace Lake Turbidity ID 3b 

1513Z Lake Grace Lake Unionized Ammonia ID 3b 

1514 Lake Le Clare Drain Lake Nutrients (TSI) MS 2 

1514A Lake Le Clare Lake Conductance ID 3b New WBID. 

1514A Lake Le Clare Lake Nutrients (TSI) MS 2 New WBID. 

1515 Horse Lake Lake Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) ID 3b 

1515 Horse Lake Lake Coliforms (Total Coliform) ID 3b 

1515 Horse Lake Lake Conductance ID 3b 

1515 Horse Lake Lake Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1515 Horse Lake Lake Iron ID 3b 

1515 Horse Lake Lake Turbidity ID 3b 

1515 Horse Lake Lake Unionized Ammonia ID 3b 

1516 

1516 

1516 

1516 

1516 

1516 

1516 

1516 

Sweetwater Creek - 

Upper 


Upper 


Upper 


Upper 


Upper 


Upper 


Upper 


Upper 

Stream Coliforms Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) MS 2 Delist. 

Stream Coliforms Coliforms (Total Coliform) VL 5 Low 2008 

Stream Conductance MS 2 

Stream Dissolved 

Oxygen 


Stream Nutrients (Chlorophyll) VL 5 Medium 2008 Nitrogen is limiting nutrient. 

Stream 


Chlorophyll) 

Stream Turbidity MS 2 

Stream Unionized Ammonia MS 2 

1516A Lake Carroll Lake Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) ID 3b 

1516A Lake Carroll Lake Coliforms (Total Coliform) ID 3b 

1516A Lake Carroll Lake Conductance ID 3b 

VL 5 Medium 2008 Nitrogen is limiting nutrient.


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1516A Lake Carroll Lake Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 

1516A Lake Carroll Lake Iron ID 3b 

1516A Lake Carroll Lake Nutrients (TSI) VL 5 Medium 2008 

1516A Lake Carroll Lake Turbidity ID 3b 

1516A Lake Carroll Lake Unionized Ammonia ID 3b 

1516B Lake Madelene Lake Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) ID 3b 

1516B Lake Madelene Lake Coliforms (Total Coliform) ID 3b 

1516B Lake Madelene Lake Conductance ID 3b 

1516B Lake Madelene Lake Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 

1516B Lake Madelene Lake Iron ID 3b 

1516B Lake Madelene Lake Nutrients (TSI) VL 5 Medium 2008 

1516B Lake Madelene Lake Turbidity ID 3b 

1516B Lake Madelene Lake Unionized Ammonia ID 3b 

1516C 

Platt Lake - Open 

Water 





limiting nutrients.


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1516C 

1516C 

1516C 

1516C 

1516D 

1516D 

1516D 

1516D 

1516D 

1516D 

1516D 

1516E 

1516E 

1516E 


Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 

Bay Lake - Open 

Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 
















Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1516E 

1516E 

1516E 

1516E 

1516E 

1516F 

1516F 

1516F 

1516F 

1516F 

1516F 

1516F 

1516F 


Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 

White Trout Lake - 

Open 


Open 


Open 


Open 


Open 


Open 


Open 


Open 











Lake Nutrients (TSI) MS 2 



1516G Bird Lake Lake ND 3a 


limiting nutrients.


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1516H Boot Lake Lake ND 3a 

1516Z Wilson Lake Lake Nutrients (TSI) MS 2 

1517 Halfmoon Lake Drain Stream Conductance MS 2 

1517 Halfmoon Lake Drain Stream Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 

1517 Halfmoon Lake Drain Stream Iron ID 3b 

1517 Halfmoon Lake Drain Stream Turbidity ID 3b 

1517 Halfmoon Lake Drain Stream Unionized Ammonia ID 3b 

1519 Slough Stream ND 3a 

1519A Pretty Lake Lake ND 3a New WBID assignment 

1519B Lake Josephine Lake ND 3a 

1519C Armistead Lake Lake Nutrients (TSI) MS 2 WBID revised - previously 1519Z 

1519D Pretty Lake Lake Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) ID 3b 

1519D Pretty Lake Lake Coliforms (Total Coliform) ID 3b 

1519D Pretty Lake Lake Conductance ID 3b 

WBID revised - previously WBID 

1519A 


1519A 


1519A


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1519D Pretty Lake Lake Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 

1519D Pretty Lake Lake Iron ID 3b 

1519D Pretty Lake Lake Nutrients (TSI) MS 2 

1519D Pretty Lake Lake Turbidity ID 3b 

1519D Pretty Lake Lake Unionized Ammonia ID 3b 

1529 Cow Branch Stream Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) MS 2 

1529 Cow Branch Stream Coliforms (Total Coliform) MS 2 

1529 Cow Branch Stream Conductance MS 2 

1529 Cow Branch Stream Dissolved Oxygen PL 3c 

1529 Cow Branch Stream Nutrients (Chlorophyll) MS 2 

1529 Cow Branch Stream Turbidity MS 2 

1529 Cow Branch Stream Unionized Ammonia MS 2 

1529A 

Saint George Lake - 

Open 



1519A 


1519A 


1519A 


1519A 


1519A 




link low DO to pollutant. 

Delist. Meets standards based 

on IWR data base run 6.2.


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

Coastal Hillsborough 

Bay Tributary 



1529A 

1529A 

1529A 

1529A 

1529A 

1529A 


Open 


Open 


Open 


Open 


Open 


Open 







1530 Moccasin Creek Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) PL 3c Low 2008 

1530 Moccasin Creek Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Total Coliform) MS 2 Delist. 

1530 Moccasin Creek Estuary Dissolved 

Oxygen 






1530 Moccasin Creek Estuary Nutrients Nutrients (Chlorophyll) VL 5 Low 2008 Nitrogen is limiting nutrient. 

1530 Moccasin Creek Estuary Turbidity MS 2 

1536A Palm River Stream Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 

1536B Sixmile Creek Stream Coliforms ND 3a 

Flaw in original analysis. Data 

do not represent WBID. Data 

are from WBID 1536F. Propose 

to delist.


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 























1536B Sixmile Creek 


Oxygen 

1536B Sixmile Creek Stream Nutrients ND 3a 

1536B Sixmile Creek Stream Turbidity ND 3a 

1536B Sixmile Creek 

Stream 

Biochemical 

Oxygen 

Demand 

1536C Tampa Bypass Canal Stream Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) MS 2 

1536C Tampa Bypass Canal Stream Coliforms (Total Coliform) VL 5 Medium 2008 

1536C Tampa Bypass Canal Stream Conductance MS 2 

1536C Tampa Bypass Canal 


Oxygen 

ND 

ND 

Dissolved Oxygen VL 5 Low 2008 

1536C Tampa Bypass Canal Stream Mercury-Fish PL 3c 

1536C Tampa Bypass Canal Stream Nutrients Nutrients (Chlorophyll) VL 5 Low 2008 

1536C Tampa Bypass Canal Stream Turbidity MS 2 

3a 

3a 




to delist. 




to delist. 




to delist. 




to delist. 




observed. 



Algal blooms observed.


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 













1536C Tampa Bypass Canal Stream Unionized Ammonia MS 2 

1536D Eureka Springs Run Spring ND 3a 

1536E Palm River Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) MS 2 Delist. 

1536E Palm River Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Total Coliform) MS 2 Delist. 

1536E Palm River 


Oxygen 


1536E Palm River Estuary Nutrients Nutrients (Chlorophyll) VL 5 Low 2008 




observed. 














1536E Palm River 



Chlorophyll) 

1536E Palm River Estuary Turbidity MS 2 

1536F Sixmile Creek Stream Coliforms Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) MS 2 

1536F Sixmile Creek Stream Coliforms Coliforms (Total Coliform) MS 2 

1536F Sixmile Creek Stream Conductance MS 2 

VL 5 Low 2008 




Delist. For the 1998 303(d) 

analysis the station data were 

incorrectly assigned to WBID 

1536B. 




1536B.


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 












Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1536F Sixmile Creek 


Oxygen 


1536F Sixmile Creek Stream Nutrients Nutrients (Chlorophyll) VL 5 Low 2008 

1536F Sixmile Creek Stream Turbidity Turbidity MS 2 

1536F Sixmile Creek Stream Unionized Ammonia MS 2 

1536F Sixmile Creek 

Stream 

Biochemical 

Oxygen 

Demand 

PL 3c Low 2008 

1541A Lake Tarpon Canal Stream Coliforms Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) PL 3c Low 2008 




observed. For the 1998 303(d) 



1536B. 



Algal blooms observed. For the 

1998 303(d) analysis the station 

data were incorrectly assigned to 

WBID 1536B. 




1536B. 

No numeric criteria, but linked to 

DO. For the 1998 303(d) 



1536B. 

1541A Lake Tarpon Canal Stream Coliforms Coliforms (Total Coliform) PL 3c Low 2008 Added to PL based on IWR. 

1541A Lake Tarpon Canal Stream Conductance PL 3c 

1541A Lake Tarpon Canal 


Oxygen 


Need to determine background 

levels. 

Verification pending identification 

of causitive pollutant.


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1541A Lake Tarpon Canal Stream Turbidity MS 2 

1541A Lake Tarpon Canal Stream Unionized Ammonia MS 2 

1541A Lake Tarpon Canal Stream Nutrients PL 3c Low 2008 

1541B Lake Tarpon Canal Stream Conductance ID 3b 

1541B Lake Tarpon Canal 

1541C 

1541C 

Lake Tarpon South 

Cove 

Lake Tarpon South 

Cove 


Oxygen 


Lake Conductance MS 2 

Lake Dissolved Oxygen PL 3c 

1546 Mobbly Bayou Estuary ND 3a 

1546B R. E. OLDS PARK 

COAST 

AL 

Coliforms (Fecal 

Coliforms) 

1557 Direct Runoff To Bay Estuary ND 3a 

Lower Tampa Bay 1558A Tampa Bay Lower Estuary Mercury-Fish VL 5 Low 2011 

Lower Tampa Bay 1558A Tampa Bay Lower Estuary Coliforms - Shellfish VL 5 Medium 2008 

Lower Tampa Bay 1558A Tampa Bay Lower Estuary Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) MS 2 

ID 

3b 

Will collect added data next 

cycle. 


of causitive pollutant. 

Age of data verified to be within 

last 7.5 years. Numeric criterion 

is inadequate because mercury 

is accumulating in the food chain 

such that fish tissue mercury 

levels exceed recommended 

levels for consumption. 

Listed due to downgrade in 

shellfish harvesting classification.


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 

Lower Tampa Bay 1558A Tampa Bay Lower Estuary Coliforms (Total Coliform) MS 2 

Lower Tampa Bay 1558A Tampa Bay Lower Estuary Dissolved Oxygen MS 2 

Lower Tampa Bay 1558A Tampa Bay Lower Estuary Nutrients (Chlorophyll) MS 2 

Lower Tampa Bay 1558A Tampa Bay Lower Estuary Turbidity MS 2 


1558A BAYFRONT PARK COAST 


B NORTH 

AL 

Coliforms) 

MS 2 




C SOUTH 

AL 

Coliforms) 

MS 2 



C SOUTH 

AL 

Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 



C SOUTH 

AL 

Turbidity ID 3b 

Middle Tampa Bay 1558B Tampa Bay Mid Estuary Coliforms - Shellfish VL 5 Medium 2008 


shellfish harvesting classification. 

Middle Tampa Bay 1558B Tampa Bay Mid Estuary Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) MS 2 

Middle Tampa Bay 1558B Tampa Bay Mid Estuary Coliforms (Total Coliform) MS 2 

Middle Tampa Bay 1558B Tampa Bay Mid Estuary Dissolved Oxygen MS 2 

Middle Tampa Bay 1558B Tampa Bay Mid Estuary Mercury-Fish VL 5 Low 2011 








Middle Tampa Bay 1558B Tampa Bay Mid Estuary Nutrients (Chlorophyll) MS 2 

Middle Tampa Bay 1558B Tampa Bay Mid Estuary Turbidity MS 2 

Middle Tampa Bay 1558C Tampa Bay Upper Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) MS 2 Delist. 

Middle Tampa Bay 1558C Tampa Bay Upper Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Total Coliform) MS 2 Delist. 

Middle Tampa Bay 1558C Tampa Bay Upper Estuary Dissolved Oxygen MS 2


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 

Middle Tampa Bay 1558C Tampa Bay Upper Estuary Mercury- 

Fish 

Mercury-Fish VL 5 Low 2011 

Middle Tampa Bay 1558C Tampa Bay Upper Estuary Nutrients (Chlorophyll) VL 4c 

Middle Tampa Bay 1558C Tampa Bay Upper Estuary Turbidity MS 2 


1558C SIMMONS PARK COAST 


B BEACH 

AL 

Coliforms) 

MS 2 


1558C 

COAST 


BAHIA BEACH 

C 

AL 

Coliforms) 

MS 2 



1558D 

Lower 

Estuary Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) MS 2 



1558D 

Lower 

Estuary Coliforms (Total Coliform) MS 2 




1558D 

1558D 

1558D 


Lower 


Lower 


Lower 


Oxygen 

Estuary Mercury- 

Fish 

Dissolved Oxygen MS 2 Delist. 


Estuary Nutrients (Chlorophyll) VL 4c 








Nitrogen is limiting nutrient. 

Have reasonable assurance 

nutrient impairment will be 

addressed by Tampa Bay 

Estuary Program. 












Estuary Program.


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 










1558D 

Lower 


1558E 

Upper 


1558E 

Upper 


1558E 

Upper 

1558E 

1558E 


Upper 


Upper 


1558E 

Upper 

1558E DAVIS ISLAND 

B BEACH 

Estuary Turbidity MS 2 




Oxygen 


Fish 

Dissolved Oxygen MS 2 Delist. 


Estuary Nutrients Nutrients (Chlorophyll) VL 4c High 2003 


COAST 

AL 


Coliforms) 

MS 2 













Old Tampa Bay 1558F Old Tampa Bay Lower Estuary Coliforms - Shellfish VL 5 Medium 2008 



Old Tampa Bay 1558F Old Tampa Bay Lower Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) MS 2 Delist. 

Old Tampa Bay 1558F Old Tampa Bay Lower Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Total Coliform) MS 2 Delist. 

Old Tampa Bay 1558F Old Tampa Bay Lower Estuary Dissolved Oxygen MS 2


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 

Old Tampa Bay 1558F Old Tampa Bay Lower Estuary Mercury- 

Fish 









Old Tampa Bay 1558F Old Tampa Bay Lower Estuary Nutrients (Chlorophyll) VL 4c 

Old Tampa Bay 1558F Old Tampa Bay Lower Estuary Turbidity MS 2 


1558F PICNIC ISLAND COAST 


B SOUTH 

AL 

Coliforms) 

MS 2 


1558F PICNIC ISLAND COAST 


C NORTH 

AL 

Coliforms) 

MS 2 

Old Tampa Bay 1558G Old Tampa Bay Estuary Coliforms - Shellfish VL 5 Medium 2008 



Old Tampa Bay 1558G Old Tampa Bay Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) MS 2 Delist. 

Old Tampa Bay 1558G Old Tampa Bay Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Total Coliform) MS 2 Delist. 

Old Tampa Bay 1558G Old Tampa Bay Estuary Dissolved Oxygen MS 2 

Old Tampa Bay 1558G Old Tampa Bay Estuary Mercury- 

Fish 









Old Tampa Bay 1558G Old Tampa Bay Estuary Nutrients (Chlorophyll) MS 2 

Old Tampa Bay 1558G Old Tampa Bay Estuary Turbidity MS 2 


1558G 

GANDY BOULEVARD 

COAST 


B 

AL 

Coliforms) 

MS 2 

Old Tampa Bay 1558H Old Tampa Bay Estuary Coliforms - Shellfish VL 5 Medium 2008 



Old Tampa Bay 1558H Old Tampa Bay Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) MS 2 Delist.


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 

Old Tampa Bay 1558H Old Tampa Bay Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Total Coliform) MS 2 Delist. 

Old Tampa Bay 1558H Old Tampa Bay Estuary Dissolved Oxygen MS 2 

Old Tampa Bay 1558H Old Tampa Bay Estuary Mercury- 

Fish 


Old Tampa Bay 1558H Old Tampa Bay Estuary Nutrients Nutrients (Chlorophyll) VL 4c High 2003 

Old Tampa Bay 1558H Old Tampa Bay Estuary Turbidity MS 2 

1558H BEN T. DAVIS COAST 



MS 2 

B NORTH 

AL 

Coliforms) 



Coliforms (Total Coliforms) MS 2 

B NORTH 

AL 


1558H 

B 

BEN T. DAVIS 

NORTH 

COAST 

AL 

Dissolved Oxygen PL 3c Medium 2008 



B NORTH 

AL 

Turbidity MS 2 


1558H 

BEN T. DAVIS SOUTH COAST 


C 

AL 

Coliforms) 

MS 2 


1558H 


C 

AL 

Coliforms (Total Coliforms) MS 2 


1558H 


C 

AL 

Dissolved Oxygen MS 2 


1558H 


C 

AL 

Turbidity MS 2 

Old Tampa Bay 1558H CYPRESS POINT COAST Coliforms (Fecal MS 2 
















link low DO to pollutant.


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


D PARK NORTH AL Coliforms) 

1558H 

E 

CYPRESS POINT 

PARK SOUTH 

COAST 

AL 


Coliforms) 

MS 2 

Old Tampa Bay 1558I Old Tampa Bay Estuary Coliforms - Shellfish VL 5 Medium 2008 



Old Tampa Bay 1558I Old Tampa Bay Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) MS 2 Delist. 

Old Tampa Bay 1558I Old Tampa Bay Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Total Coliform) MS 2 Delist. 

Old Tampa Bay 1558I Old Tampa Bay Estuary Dissolved Oxygen MS 2 

Old Tampa Bay 1558I Old Tampa Bay Estuary Mercury- 

Fish 


Old Tampa Bay 1558I Old Tampa Bay Estuary Nutrients Nutrients (Chlorophyll) VL 4c High 2003 

Old Tampa Bay 1558I Old Tampa Bay Estuary Turbidity MS 2 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1559 Direct Runoff To Bay Estuary Coliforms ND 3a 

1559 Direct Runoff To Bay Estuary Dissolved 

Oxygen 

1559 Direct Runoff To Bay Estuary Nutrients ND 3a 

ND 

3a 














do not represent WBID. Data are 

from WBID 1558I. Propose to 

delist. 




delist. 




delist.


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1563 Channel G Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) MS 2 Delist. 

1563 Channel G Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Total Coliform) MS 2 Delist. 

1563 Channel G Estuary Dissolved 

Oxygen 


1563 Channel G Estuary Nutrients Nutrients (Chlorophyll) VL 5 Low 2008 Nitrogen is limiting nutrient. 

1563 Channel G Estuary Turbidity MS 2 

1566 Boat Bayou Estuary ND 3a 

1569 Bishop Creek Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) VL 5 Low 2008 

1569 Bishop Creek Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Total Coliform) VL 5 Low 2008 

1569 Bishop Creek Estuary Dissolved 

Oxygen 


1569 Bishop Creek Estuary Nutrients Nutrients (Chlorophyll) MS 2 Delist. 

1569 Bishop Creek Estuary Turbidity MS 2 

1570 

1570 


Lower 


Lower 

Stream Conductance ID 3b 

Stream Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 






Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 

1570 


Lower 

Stream Unionized Ammonia ID 3b 


Tributary 

1570A 

Sweetwater Creek 

Tidal - Lower 

Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) VL 5 High 2003 

For the 1998 303(d) analysis the 

station data were incorrectly 

assigned to WBID 1601. 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1570A 

1570A 

1570A 

1570A 

1570A 


Tidal - Lower 


Tidal - Lower 


Tidal - Lower 


Tidal - Lower 


Tidal - Lower 

Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Total Coliform) VL 5 High 2003 


Oxygen 

Dissolved Oxygen VL 5 High 2003 

Estuary Nutrients Nutrients (Chlorophyll) VL 5 High 2003 



Chlorophyll) 


1570Y Egypt Lake Lake Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) ID 3b 

1570Y Egypt Lake Lake Coliforms (Total Coliform) ID 3b 

1570Y Egypt Lake Lake Conductance ID 3b 

1570Y Egypt Lake Lake Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 

VL 5 High 2003 








Nitrogen is limiting nutrient. For 

the 1998 303(d) analysis the 



Nitrogen is limiting nutrient. For 

the 1998 303(d) analysis the 




1570Z 


1570Z 


1570Z 


1570Z


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1570Y Egypt Lake Lake Iron ID 3b 

1570Y Egypt Lake Lake Nutrients (TSI) PL 3c 

1570Y Egypt Lake Lake Turbidity ID 3b 

1570Y Egypt Lake Lake Unionized Ammonia ID 3b 


1570Z 


1570Z 


1570Z 


1570Z 

1570Z Egypt Lake Lake ND 3a New WBID assignment. 

1572 Direct Runoff To Bay Stream ND 3a 

1574 Alligator Creek Stream Arsenic ID 3b 

1574 Alligator Creek Stream Coliforms Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) PL 3c Low 2008 

1574 Alligator Creek Stream Coliforms Coliforms (Total Coliform) PL 3c Low 2008 

1574 Alligator Creek Stream Conductance MS 2 

1574 Alligator Creek Stream Copper ID 3b 

1574 Alligator Creek Stream Dissolved 

Oxygen 


1574 Alligator Creek Stream Lead PL 3c 

Will collect added data next 

cycle. 

Added to PL by using language 

in IWR. 






Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1574 Alligator Creek Stream Nickel ID 3b 

1574 Alligator Creek Stream Nutrients Nutrients (Chlorophyll) VL 5 Low 2008 

1574 Alligator Creek Stream Turbidity MS 2 

1574 Alligator Creek Stream Unionized Ammonia ID 3b 

1574 Alligator Creek Stream Zinc ID 3b 

1574A Alligator Lake Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) MS 2 Delist. 

1574A Alligator Lake Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Total Coliform) MS 2 Delist. 

1574A Alligator Lake 


Oxygen 




1574A Alligator Lake Estuary Iron ID 3b 

1574A Alligator Lake Estuary Nutrients Nutrients (Chlorophyll) VL 5 Low 2008 

1574A Alligator Lake 



Chlorophyll) 

1574A Alligator Lake Estuary Turbidity MS 2 

VL 5 Low 2008 

1575 Mullet Creek Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) VL 5 Low 2008 

1575 Mullet Creek Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Total Coliform) VL 5 Low 2008 




limiting nutrients.


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 










Tributary 











1575 Mullet Creek Estuary Dissolved 

Oxygen 


1575 Mullet Creek Estuary Nutrients Nutrients (Chlorophyll) MS 2 Delist. 

1575 Mullet Creek Estuary Turbidity MS 2 

1576 Mango Drain Stream Conductance ID 3b 

1576 Mango Drain Stream Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 

1576 Mango Drain Stream Iron ID 3b 

1576 Mango Drain Stream Turbidity ID 3b 

1577 Pepper Mound Creek Stream ND 3a 

1579 Bellows Lake Outlet Lake Conductance ID 3b 

1579 Bellows Lake Outlet Lake 

Dissolved 

Oxygen 


1579 Bellows Lake Outlet Lake Iron ID 3b 

1579 Bellows Lake Outlet Lake Turbidity ID 3b 

1579 Bellows Lake Outlet Lake Coliforms PL 3c Low 2008 





Added to PL by using language 

in IWR.


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 












Tributary 









1579 Bellows Lake Outlet Lake Nutrients PL 3c Low 2008 

1579A Bellows Lake Lake Conductance ID 3b 

1579A Bellows Lake Lake Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 

1579A Bellows Lake Lake Iron ID 3b 

1579A Bellows Lake Lake Turbidity ID 3b 


1584A Ybor City Drain Stream Coliforms (Total Coliform) ND 3a 

1584A Ybor City Drain Stream Dissolved Oxygen ND 3a 

1584A Ybor City Drain Stream Turbidity ND 3a 

1584A Ybor City Drain Stream Nutrients ND 3a High 2003 

Flaw in IWR analysis. Recent 

data gathered does not represent 

WBID. Watercourse is 

predominantly an underground 

stormwater drainage system. 



WBID. Elevated BOD based on 

data collected in 1980s. 

Watercourse is predominantly an 

underground stormwater 

drainage system. 



WBID. Watercourse is 



Flaw in original analysis. No 

numeric criteria. Watercourse is 


stormwater drainage system.


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 





















1584A Ybor City Drain 



Stream 

Stream 

Stream 

Biochemical 

Oxygen 

Demand 

Chemical 

Oxygen 

Demand 

Total 

Suspended 

Solids 

1584B Mckay Bay Estuary Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) MS 2 

1584B Mckay Bay Estuary Coliforms (Total Coliform) MS 2 

1584B Mckay Bay 



Oxygen 


Fish 

ND 3a High 2003 















Dissolved Oxygen VL 5 High 2003 Linked to nutrients. 









1584B Mckay Bay Estuary Nutrients Nutrients (Chlorophyll) VL 5 High 2003 Nitrogen is limiting nutrient. 




Chlorophyll) 

1584B Mckay Bay Estuary Turbidity MS 2 

VL 5 High 2003 Nitrogen is limiting nutrient.


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 




Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


1587 Woods Creek Stream ND 3a 

1591 Woods Creek Tributary Stream ND 3a 

1593 Direct Runoff To Bay Stream Dissolved 

Oxygen 

1594 Fish Creek Stream ND 3a 



1599 Uceta Yard Drain Estuary Nutrients ND 3a 




Oxygen 

ND 

ND 

3a 

3a 



are from WBID 1558I. Propose 

to delist. 



are from WBID 1983. 



are from WBID 1570A. Propose 

to delist. 




to delist.


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


1603 Direct Runoff To Bay Estuary Dissolved Oxygen MS 2 

1603 Direct Runoff To Bay Estuary 

Biochemical 

Oxygen 

Demand 

Chemical 

1603 Direct Runoff To Bay Estuary Oxygen 

Demand 

Dissolved Oxygen MS 2 High 2003 

Dissolved Oxygen MS 2 High 2003 

1603 Direct Runoff To Bay Estuary Nutrients Nutrients (Chlorophyll) MS 2 Delist. 

1603 Direct Runoff To Bay Estuary Turbidity MS 2 

1603 Direct Runoff To Bay Estuary 

Total 

Suspended 

Solids 

Turbidity MS 2 High 2003 




to delist. 

No numeric criteria, but MS for 

DO and propose to delist. 


DO and propose to delist. 


turbidity and propose to delist. 

1603A Lake Chautauqua Lake ND 3a New WBID assignment. 

1603B Harbor Lake Lake ND 3a New WBID assignment. 

1603C 

1603C 

1603C 

1603C 

Beckett Lake - Open 

Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 




Lake Dissolved Oxygen PL 3c


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1603C 

1603C 

1603C 

1603C 


Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 





1603D Lake Chautauqua Lake Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) ID 3b 

1603D Lake Chautauqua Lake Coliforms (Total Coliform) ID 3b 

1603D Lake Chautauqua Lake Conductance MS 2 

1603D Lake Chautauqua Lake Dissolved Oxygen MS 2 

1603D Lake Chautauqua Lake Iron ID 3b 

1603D Lake Chautauqua Lake Nutrients (TSI) MS 2 

1603D Lake Chautauqua Lake Turbidity MS 2 

1603D Lake Chautauqua Lake Unionized Ammonia ID 3b 

1603E Harbor Lake Lake Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) ID 3b 

1603E Harbor Lake Lake Coliforms (Total Coliform) ID 3b 




1603A 


1603A 


1603A 


1603A 


1603A 


1603A 


1603A 


1603A 


1603B 


1603B


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1603E Harbor Lake Lake Conductance ID 3b 

1603E Harbor Lake Lake Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 

1603E Harbor Lake Lake Iron ID 3b 

1603E Harbor Lake Lake Nutrients (TSI) MS 2 

1603E Harbor Lake Lake Turbidity ID 3b 

1603E Harbor Lake Lake Unionized Ammonia ID 3b 

1604 Allen Creek Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) MS 2 Delist. 

1604 Allen Creek Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Total Coliform) MS 2 Delist. 

1604 Allen Creek Estuary Dissolved 

Oxygen 



1603B 


1603B 


1603B 


1603B 


1603B 


1603B 





1604 Allen Creek Estuary Nutrients Nutrients (Chlorophyll) VL 5 Low 2008 Nitrogen is limiting nutrient. 

1604 Allen Creek Estuary Turbidity MS 2 

1604A Crest (Excelsior) Lake Lake Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) ID 3b 

1604A Crest (Excelsior) Lake Lake Coliforms (Total Coliform) ID 3b


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 



















1604A Crest (Excelsior) Lake Lake Conductance ID 3b 

1604A Crest (Excelsior) Lake Lake Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 

1604A Crest (Excelsior) Lake Lake Iron ID 3b 

1604A Crest (Excelsior) Lake Lake Turbidity ID 3b 

1604A Crest (Excelsior) Lake Lake Unionized Ammonia ID 3b 

1605 Delaney Creek Stream Coliforms Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) VL 5 High 2003 

1605 Delaney Creek Stream Coliforms Coliforms (Total Coliform) VL 5 High 2003 

1605 Delaney Creek Stream Conductance MS 2 

1605 Delaney Creek Stream Dissolved 

Oxygen 


1605 Delaney Creek Stream Lead Lead VL 5 High 2003 

1605 Delaney Creek Stream Turbidity Turbidity MS 2 Delist. 

1605 Delaney Creek Stream Unionized Ammonia MS 2 

1605 Delaney Creek Stream Nutrients PL 3c High 2003 Added to PL based on IWR. 

1605 Delaney Creek Stream 

Biochemical 

Oxygen 

Demand 

PL 3c High 2003 

No numeric criteria, but linked to 

DO.


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 





























1605A Lake Tenmile Lake Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) ID 3b 

1605A Lake Tenmile Lake Coliforms (Total Coliform) ID 3b 

1605A Lake Tenmile Lake Conductance ID 3b 

1605A Lake Tenmile Lake Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 

1605A Lake Tenmile Lake Iron ID 3b 

1605A Lake Tenmile Lake Turbidity ID 3b 

1605A1 Lake Tenmile Drain Lake ND 3a 

1605B 

1605B 

1605B 

1605B 

1605B 

1605B 

1605C 

Gornto Lake - Open 

Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 

Mead Lake - Open 

Water 







Lake Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) ID 3b


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 
























Tributary 


Tributary 

1605C 

1605C 

1605C 

1605C 

1605C 


Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 






1605D Delaney Creek Tidal Estuary Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) VL 5 Medium 2008 

1605D Delaney Creek Tidal Estuary Coliforms (Total Coliform) VL 5 Medium 2008 

1605D Delaney Creek Tidal Estuary Dissolved Oxygen VL 5 Medium 2008 Linked to nutrients. 

1605D Delaney Creek Tidal Estuary Lead VL 5 High 2003 

1605D Delaney Creek Tidal Estuary Nutrients (Chlorophyll) VL 5 Medium 2008 Nitrogen is limiting nutrient. 

1605D Delaney Creek Tidal Estuary Turbidity MS 2 

1606 Lemmon Street Ditch Estuary ND 3a 

1607 Direct Runoff To Bay Estuary ND 3a


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 












Tributary 




Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1609 Direct Runoff To Bay Estuary Biology (Fish Kills) PL 3c 

1609 Direct Runoff To Bay Estuary Turbidity ID 3b 



Oxygen 



1615 Unnamed Ditch Estuary ND 3a 


1624 Direct Runoff To Bay Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) VL 5 High 2003 

1624 Direct Runoff To Bay Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Total Coliform) VL 5 High 2003 

ND 

3a 

Information on fish kills were 

provided during comment period. 

Added to planning list based on 

other information per Rule 62- 

303.350(1). F.A.C. Linked to 

depressed DO levels. 


used for the 1998 list 303(d) 

listing does not represent WBID. 

Data are from WBID 1443. 

Delist. 





Delist. 





Delist.


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Oxygen 


1624 Direct Runoff To Bay Estuary Nutrients Nutrients (Chlorophyll) VL 4c High 2003 

1624 Direct Runoff To Bay Estuary Turbidity MS 2 

1624 Direct Runoff To Bay Estuary Unionized 

Ammonia 

PL 3c High 2003 

1625 Cross Canal (North) Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) VL 5 Low 2008 

1625 Cross Canal (North) Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Total Coliform) MS 2 Delist. 

1625 Cross Canal (North) Estuary Dissolved 

Oxygen 






Flaw in original analysis. Florida 

does not have an unionized 

ammonia criteria for marine 

waters. 


1625 Cross Canal (North) Estuary Iron ID 3b 

1625 Cross Canal (North) Estuary Nutrients Nutrients (Chlorophyll) VL 5 Low 2008 Nitrogen is limiting nutrient. 

1625 Cross Canal (North) Estuary Turbidity MS 2 

1627 Long Branch Stream Coliforms Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) VL 5 High 2003 

1627 Long Branch Stream Coliforms Coliforms (Total Coliform) VL 5 High 2003


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1627 Long Branch Stream Conductance MS 2 

1627 Long Branch Stream Copper ID 3b 

1627 Long Branch Stream Dissolved 

Oxygen 

Dissolved Oxygen VL 5 High 2003 Linked to BOD. 

1627 Long Branch Stream Fluoride ID 3b 

1627 Long Branch Stream Iron ID 3b 

1627 Long Branch Stream Lead ID 3b 

1627 Long Branch Stream Nickel ID 3b 

1627 Long Branch Stream Nutrients Nutrients (Chlorophyll) MS 2 Delist. 

1627 Long Branch Stream Turbidity MS 2 

1627 Long Branch Stream Unionized Ammonia MS 2 

1627 Long Branch Stream Zinc ID 3b 

1627A Swan Lake Lake Arsenic ID 3b 

1627A Swan Lake Lake Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) ID 3b 

1627A Swan Lake Lake Coliforms (Total Coliform) ID 3b


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1627A Swan Lake Lake Conductance ID 3b 

1627A Swan Lake Lake Copper ID 3b 

1627A Swan Lake Lake Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 

1627A Swan Lake Lake Fluoride ID 3b 

1627A Swan Lake Lake Iron ID 3b 

1627A Swan Lake Lake Lead ID 3b 

1627A Swan Lake Lake Nickel ID 3b 

1627A Swan Lake Lake Turbidity ID 3b 

1627A Swan Lake Lake Zinc ID 3b 

1627B Long Branch Tidal Estuary Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) PL 3c 

1627B Long Branch Tidal Estuary Coliforms (Total Coliform) PL 3c 

1627B Long Branch Tidal Estuary Dissolved Oxygen PL 3c 

1627B Long Branch Tidal Estuary Nutrients (Chlorophyll) ID 3b 

1627B Long Branch Tidal Estuary Turbidity ID 3b


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 




Tributary 














Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 


Tributary 

1628 Archie Creek Stream ND 3a 


1632 Unnamed Canal Stream ND 3a 

1636 Black Point Drain Stream ND 3a 

1637 Black Point Channel Estuary Dissolved 

Oxygen 


1637 Black Point Channel Estuary Nutrients Nutrients (Chlorophyll) PL 3c Low 2008 

1640 Rattlesnake Ditch Stream ND 3a 


1654 Snug Harbor Estuary Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) ID 3b 

1654 Snug Harbor Estuary Coliforms (Total Coliform) ID 3b 

1654 Snug Harbor Estuary Dissolved 

Oxygen 


1654 Snug Harbor Estuary Nutrients (Chlorophyll) MS 2 

Listing of this water segment in 

1998 was based on a NPS 

survey. No data and propose to 

delist. 

Linked to nutrients. This 

segment was listed on the 1998 

303(d) list; however, it was not 

assessed in the 1996 305(b) 

report. 


of causitive pollutant.


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 


Tributary 


Tributary 

Coastal Middle Tampa 
























1654 Snug Harbor Estuary Turbidity MS 2 


1661 Sawgrass Lake Lake Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) ID 3b 

1661 Sawgrass Lake Lake Coliforms (Total Coliform) ID 3b 

1661 Sawgrass Lake Lake Conductance ID 3b 

1661 Sawgrass Lake Lake Dissolved Oxygen PL 3c 

1661 Sawgrass Lake Lake Iron ID 3b 

1661 Sawgrass Lake Lake Turbidity ID 3b 

1661 Sawgrass Lake Lake Unionized Ammonia ID 3b 

1661A Riviera Bay Estuary Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) MS 2 

1661A Riviera Bay Estuary Coliforms (Total Coliform) MS 2 

1661A Riviera Bay Estuary Dissolved Oxygen MS 2 

1661A Riviera Bay Estuary Turbidity MS 2 

1664 Dir Runoff To Bay Estuary ND 3a


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 





























1666 Bullfrog Creek Stream Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) VL 5 Medium 2008 

1666 Bullfrog Creek Stream Coliforms (Total Coliform) VL 5 Medium 2008 

1666 Bullfrog Creek Stream Conductance MS 2 

1666 Bullfrog Creek Stream Dissolved Oxygen MS 2 

1666 Bullfrog Creek Stream Turbidity MS 2 

1666 Bullfrog Creek Stream Unionized Ammonia MS 2 

1666A Bullfrog Creek Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) MS 2 Delist. 

1666A Bullfrog Creek Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Total Coliform) VL 5 Low 2008 

1666A Bullfrog Creek 


Oxygen 


1666A Bullfrog Creek Estuary Nutrients Nutrients (Chlorophyll) VL 5 Low 2008 Nitrogen is limiting nutrient. 

1666A Bullfrog Creek Estuary Turbidity MS 2 

1676 Dir Runoff To Bay Estuary ND 3a 

1682 Kitchen Branch Stream ND 3a 

1683 Smacks Bayou Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) VL 5 Low 2008


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 



























1683 Smacks Bayou Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Total Coliform) MS 2 Delist. 

1683 Smacks Bayou Estuary Dissolved 

Oxygen 






1683 Smacks Bayou Estuary Nutrients Nutrients (Chlorophyll) VL 5 Low 2008 Nitrogen is limiting nutrient. 

1683 Smacks Bayou Estuary Turbidity MS 2 

1686 Unnamed Creek Stream ND 3a 

1687 Shore Acres Drain Stream ND 3a 

1688 Little Bullfrog Creek Stream ND 3a 

1691 Big Bend Bayou Estuary ND 3a 

1693 Big Bend Bayou Estuary ND 3a 

1696 Booker Creek Stream Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 

1696 Booker Creek Stream Nutrients (Chlorophyll) MS 2 

1696 Booker Creek Stream Turbidity ID 3b 

1700 Coffeepot Bayou Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) VL 5 Low 2008


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 



























1700 Coffeepot Bayou Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Total Coliform) MS 2 Delist. 

1700 Coffeepot Bayou Estuary Dissolved 

Oxygen 






1700 Coffeepot Bayou Estuary Nutrients Nutrients (Chlorophyll) VL 5 Low 2008 Nitrogen is limiting nutrient. 

1700A 

1700A 

1700A 

1700A 

1700A 

Crescent Lake - Open 

Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 







1708 Newman Branch Stream ND 3a 

1709 Big Bayou - Basin W Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) MS 2 

1709 Big Bayou - Basin W Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Total Coliform) MS 2 

1709 Big Bayou - Basin W Estuary Dissolved 

Oxygen 

Dissolved Oxygen MS 2 

WBID boundaries redelineated. 

Delist. 


Delist. 


Delist.


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 



























1709 Big Bayou - Basin W Estuary Nutrients Nutrients (Chlorophyll) VL 4c High 2003 







1709 Big Bayou - Basin W Estuary Turbidity MS 2 WBID boundaries redelineated. 

1709A 

1709A 

1709A 

1709A 

1709A 

1709A 

1709A 

Mirror Lake - Open 

Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 


Water 








1709B Yacht Basin - Basin A Estuary ND 3a 

1709B 

B 

NORTH SHORE 

BEACH 

COAST 

AL 

Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) MS 2 

1709D Little Bayou - Basin Q Estuary Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) VL 5 Medium 2008 

1709D Little Bayou - Basin Q Estuary Coliforms (Total Coliform) MS 2


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 

























1709D Little Bayou - Basin Q Estuary Dissolved Oxygen VL 5 Medium 2008 Linked to nutrients. 

1709D Little Bayou - Basin Q Estuary Nutrients (Chlorophyll) VL 5 Medium 2008 Nitrogen is limiting nutrient. 

1709D Little Bayou - Basin Q Estuary Turbidity MS 2 

1709E 

1709E 

1709E 

1709F 

1709F 

1709F 

1709F 

1709F 

Pinellas Point - Basin 

V 


V 


V 

Frenchman's Creek - 

Basin U 


Basin U 


Basin U 


Basin U 


Basin U 

Estuary Dissolved Oxygen PL 3c 

Estuary Nutrients (Chlorophyll) MS 2 

Estuary Turbidity ID 3b 



Estuary Dissolved Oxygen MS 2 

Estuary Nutrients (Chlorophyll) VL 4c Medium 2008 


1712 Apollo Beach Canal Stream ND 3a 









Estuary Program.


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 





























1713 Unnamed Stream Stream ND 3a 

1719 Golf Course Drain Stream ND 3a 

1725 Wolf Br Cutoff Canal Stream ND 3a 


1731 Lake Maggiore Lake Conductance ID 3b 

1731 Lake Maggiore Lake Dissolved Oxygen ID 3b 

1731 Lake Maggiore Lake Iron ID 3b 

1731 Lake Maggiore Lake Turbidity ID 3b 

1731 Lake Maggiore Lake Unionized Ammonia ID 3b 


1736 Wolf Branch Stream ND 3a 


1778 Cockroach Bay Estuary Coliforms - Shellfish VL 5 Medium 2008 

1778 Cockroach Bay Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) MS 2 Delist. 


shellfish harvesting classification.


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 















Coastal Lower Tampa 








1778 Cockroach Bay Estuary Coliforms Coliforms (Total Coliform) MS 2 Delist. 

1778 Cockroach Bay Estuary Dissolved 

Oxygen 

1778 Cockroach Bay Estuary Mercury- 

Fish 

Dissolved Oxygen VL 5 Low 2008 Linked to nutrients and BOD. 


Has contaminated sediments - 

ongoing restoration effort. Age 

of data verified to be within last 

7.5 years. Numeric criterion is 

inadequate because mercury is 

accumulating in the food chain 




1778 Cockroach Bay Estuary Nutrients Nutrients (Chlorophyll) VL 5 Low 2008 Nitrogen is limiting nutrient. 

1778 Cockroach Bay Estuary Turbidity MS 2 

1788 Cockroach Creek Stream ND 3a 

1789 Piney Point Creek Stream ND 3a 

1797A Terra Ceia Bay Estuary Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) MS 2 

1797A Terra Ceia Bay Estuary Coliforms (Total Coliform) ID 3b 

1797A Terra Ceia Bay Estuary Dissolved Oxygen MS 2 

1797A Terra Ceia Bay Estuary Nutrients (Chlorophyll) PL 3c


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 























1797A Terra Ceia Bay Estuary Turbidity MS 2 

1797B Bishops Harbor Estuary Coliforms - Shellfish VL 5 Medium 2008 

1797B Bishops Harbor Estuary Coliforms (Fecal Coliform) MS 2 

1797B Bishops Harbor Estuary Coliforms (Total Coliform) ID 3b 

1797B Bishops Harbor Estuary Dissolved Oxygen MS 2 

1797B Bishops Harbor 


Fish 


1797B Bishops Harbor Estuary Turbidity MS 2 










1797B Bishops Harbor Estuary Nutrients PL 3c Low 2008 Added to PL based on IWR. 

1816 Cabbage Slough Stream ND 3a 

1823 Buffalo Creek Stream ND 3a 

1825 Frog Creek Stream ND 3a 



1841 McMullin Creek Stream ND 3a 

Lower Tampa Bay 8049 TAMPA BAY GULF Coastal Coliforms (Fecal ID 3b


Group 1 


Name 

WBID 

Water Segment 

Name 


1998 303(d) 


Concern 

Parameters 



Rule (IWR) 










Development** 



COMMENTS 

Coliforms) 

Lower Tampa Bay 8049 TAMPA BAY GULF Coastal Coliforms (Total Coliforms) ID 3b 

Lower Tampa Bay 8049 TAMPA BAY GULF Coastal Dissolved Oxygen MS 2 

Lower Tampa Bay 8049 TAMPA BAY GULF Coastal Mercury-Fish VL 5 Low 2011 

Lower Tampa Bay 8049 TAMPA BAY GULF Coastal Turbidity MS 2 

Lower Tampa Bay 8049A PASS-S-GRILLE 


Coastal 

BEACH 

Coliforms) 

ID 

3b 


FORT DESOTO 


8049B Coastal 

NORTH BEACH 

Coliforms) 

ID 

3b 

Lower Tampa Bay 8999 Florida Gulf Coast Coastal Mercury-Fish VL 5 Low 2011 

Confirmed recent data for coastal 

fish advisory for mackerel. 

Confirmed recent data for coastal 

fish advisory for mackerel. 

Includes nearshore areas in 

8049. 

* 1 - Attains all designated uses, 2 - Attains some designated uses, 3a - No data and information available to determine if any designated use is attained, 3b - Some data and information available but they are 

insufficient for determining if any designated use is attained, 

3c - Meets planning list criteria and is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses, 4a - Impaired for one or more designated uses and the TMDL is complete, 4b - Impaired for one or more designated uses but 

no TMDL will be developed because the 

impairment is not caused by a pollutant, 4c - Impaired for one or more designated uses, but no TMDL is required because a proposed pollution control measure provides reasonable assurance that the water will attain 

standards in the future, 5 - Water quality 

standards are not attained and a TMDL is required. 

** Priorities were retained from the 1998 303(d) list (i.e., High or Low), but High, Medium, and Low are used for newly listed waters identified under 

the IWR.


Table E.2: Tampa Bay Basin Water Quality Monitoring Stations Used for the Verified Period 

STATION ID NAME WBID BODY BASIN BD ED No. of 

OBSER 

Coastal Hillsborough Bay 

PBSJ PR307305 Lower Palm River/Tampa Bypass Canal 1536A STREAM PALM RIVER 2001 2001 12 











21FLHILL147 

Tampa Bypass Canal at north side of MLK 1536B STREAM SIXMILE CREEK 1999 2001 459 

Blvd. 

21FLHILL24030512 TAMPA BYPASS CANAL AT ML KING 

1536B STREAM SIXMILE CREEK 1995 1998 1521 

BLVD NORTH SIDE 

21FLHILL146 

Tampa Bypass Canal at south side of 

1536C STREAM TAMPA BYPASS CANAL 1999 2001 425 

Fowler Ave. Br 

112WRD 02301802 TAMPA BYPASS CANAL AT S-160,AT 

1536C STREAM TAMPA BYPASS CANAL 1995 1995 30 

TAMPA,FL. 

112WRD 02301766 TAMPA BYPASS CANAL BELOW S-159 1536C STREAM TAMPA BYPASS CANAL 1995 1995 29 

NEAR TAMPA,FLA 

21FLHILL24030513 TAMPA BYPASS CANAL AT FOWLER AVE 1536C STREAM TAMPA BYPASS CANAL 1995 1998 1415 

SOUTH SIDE 

PBSJ PR103928 Lower Palm River/Tampa Bypass Canal 1536E ESTUARY PALM RIVER 2000 2000 30 








PBSJ PR103443 Lower Palm River/Tampa Bypass Canal 1536E ESTUARY PALM RIVER 2000 2000 30



OBSER 















21FLHILL24030511 SIX MILE CR BR FLA HWY 60 1536E ESTUARY PALM RIVER 1995 1998 1590 

21FLHILL24030508 PALM R BR US HWY 41 1536E ESTUARY PALM RIVER 1995 1998 1609 

21FLHILL109 Palm River at US 41 bridge 1536E ESTUARY PALM RIVER 1999 2001 496 
















OBSER 

































OBSER 

































OBSER 

21FLGW 7619 SWB-SL-1009 1576 STREAM MANGO DRAIN 2000 2000 18 

21FLGW 7654 SWB-SL-1058 1576 STREAM MANGO DRAIN 2000 2000 19 

21FLSWFDSTA0872 LAKE MANGO - OPEN WATER 1576 STREAM MANGO DRAIN 1995 1996 64 

21FLGW 8494 SWB-HS-1082 1576 STREAM MANGO DRAIN 2000 2000 17 

21FLKWAT057MANGO3 1576 STREAM MANGO DRAIN 1999 2001 80 



PBSJ M1318283 McKay Bay 1584A STREAM YBOR CITY DRAIN 2001 2001 8 

PBSJ M0901018 McKay Bay 1584A STREAM YBOR CITY DRAIN 2000 2000 18 

21FLHILL002 

Mouth of Hillsborough River NW of Tampa 1584A STREAM YBOR CITY DRAIN 1999 2001 499 

General Ho 

PBSJ M1010981 McKay Bay 1584B ESTUARY MCKAY BAY 2000 2000 22 














21FLHILL24030704 MCKAY BAY BET PALM R & 22ND ST B 1584B ESTUARY MCKAY BAY 1995 1998 1643 

21FLHILL058 

McKay Bay between Palm River and the 

1584B ESTUARY MCKAY BAY 1999 2001 461 

22nd St. brid 

BSG 31 1584B ESTUARY MCKAY BAY 1995 2002 2261 

21FLHILL24030702 MCKAY B S E 22ND ST CAUSEWAY BR 1584B ESTUARY MCKAY BAY 1995 1998 1578 

BSG 41 1584B ESTUARY MCKAY BAY 1995 2002 18851



OBSER 







BSG 151 1584B ESTUARY MCKAY BAY 1999 2002 516 


21FLHILL054 

McKay Bay SE of 22nd Street Causeway 1584B ESTUARY MCKAY BAY 1999 2001 466 

bridge 





















PBSJ M3031416 McKay Bay 1584B ESTUARY MCKAY BAY 2000 2000 10



OBSER 





























21FLHILL133 Delaney Creek at US 41 1605 STREAM DELANEY CREEK 1999 2001 468 

21FLHILL138 Delaney Creek at 36th Ave. & 54th Street 1605 STREAM DELANEY CREEK 1999 2001 461



OBSER 

21FLHILL24030048 DELANEY CREEK AT 54 ST : 36 AV. 1605 STREAM DELANEY CREEK 1995 1998 1039 

112WRD 02301750 DELANEY CREEK NEAR TAMPA FL 1605 STREAM DELANEY CREEK 1997 1997 15 

21FLKWATTEN MILE1 LAKE TEN MILE1 HILLSBOROUGH CO 

1605A LAKE LAKE TENMILE 1995 2001 12 

SEE NOTE 



SEE NOTE 

21FLSWFDSTA0599 TENMILE LAKE - OPEN WATER 1605A LAKE LAKE TENMILE 1995 1996 64 

21FLSWFDTENMILE 1605A LAKE LAKE TENMILE 2001 2001 20 



SEE NOTE 

21FLSWFDGORNTO 1605B LAKE GORNTO LAKE - OPEN 2001 2001 21 

WAT 

21FLSWFDSTA0402 GORNTO LAKE - OPEN WATER 1605B LAKE GORNTO LAKE - OPEN 1995 1996 64 

WAT 

21FLSWFDMEAD 1605C LAKE MEAD LAKE - OPEN 

2001 2001 21 

WATER 

21FLSWFDSTA0873 MEAD LAKE - OPEN WATER 1605C LAKE MEAD LAKE - OPEN 

1995 1996 64 

WATER 

BSG 22 1637 ESTUARY BLACK POINT CHANNEL 1995 1995 215 

112WRD 02300700 BULLFROG CREEK NR WIMAUMA, FLA. 1666 STREAM BULLFROG CREEK 1995 2000 711 

21FLHILL132 Bullfrog Creek at Symmes Road 1666 STREAM BULLFROG CREEK 1999 2001 412 

21FLHILL24010022 BULLFROG CREEK AT SYMMES ROAD 1666 STREAM BULLFROG CREEK 1995 1998 964 

21FLHILL144 Bullfrog Creek at US 41 1666A ESTUARY BULLFROG CREEK 1999 2001 487 

21FLHILL24010025 BULLFROG CREEK AT US 41 1666A ESTUARY BULLFROG CREEK 1995 1998 1560 

21FLSWFDBELLOWS 1579A LAKE BELLOWS LAKE 2001 2001 19 

21FLSWFDSTA0429 BELLOWS (EAST) LAKE - OPEN WATER 1579A LAKE BELLOWS LAKE 1995 1996 54 

Total Stations - 

224 

Coastal Lower Tampa Bay 

21FLA 48320SEAS Canal at Boot's Point 1797A ESTUARY TERRA CEIA BAY 1995 2000 490 

21FLA 48210SEAS Sisters Key in Miguel Bay 1797A ESTUARY TERRA CEIA BAY 1995 2000 511 

21FLA 48090SEAS Tillette Bayou 1797A ESTUARY TERRA CEIA BAY 1995 2000 453 

21FLA 48280SEAS Canal Southeast corner Miguel Bay 1797A ESTUARY TERRA CEIA BAY 1995 2000 460 

21FLA 48310SEAS Mouth of Tillette Bayou 1797A ESTUARY TERRA CEIA BAY 1995 2000 520



OBSER 

21FLA 48020SEAS Mouth of Terra Ceia Bay 1797A ESTUARY TERRA CEIA BAY 1995 2000 693 

21FLGW 7627 SWB-SL-1022 1797A ESTUARY TERRA CEIA BAY 2000 2000 17 

21FLA 48290SEAS Emerson Bayou at mouth of Terra Ceia Bay 1797A ESTUARY TERRA CEIA BAY 1995 2000 531 

21FLA 48180SEAS Little Redfish Creek 1797B ESTUARY BISHOPS HARBOR 1995 2000 703 

21FLA 48140SEAS Mouth of Clambar Bay 1797B ESTUARY BISHOPS HARBOR 1995 2000 681 

21FLA 48370SEAS East end of Joe Bay at Williams Bayou 1797B ESTUARY BISHOPS HARBOR 1995 2000 693 

21FLA 48160SEAS Southeast head in Bishop's Harbor 1797B ESTUARY BISHOPS HARBOR 1995 2000 480 

21FLA 48250SEAS Inside Clambar Bay 1797B ESTUARY BISHOPS HARBOR 1995 2000 705 

21FLA 48260SEAS Northeast head in Bishop's Harbor 1797B ESTUARY BISHOPS HARBOR 1995 2000 486 

21FLA 48340SEAS Mouth of Frog Creek in Bishop's Harbor 1797B ESTUARY BISHOPS HARBOR 1995 2000 354 

21FLGW 7656 SWB-SL-1063 1797B ESTUARY BISHOPS HARBOR 2000 2000 18 

21FLA 48360SEAS Middle of Bishop's Harbor 1797B ESTUARY BISHOPS HARBOR 1995 2000 532 

21FLA 48150SEAS Mouth of Bishop's Harbor 1797B ESTUARY BISHOPS HARBOR 1995 2000 697 

21FLGW 8025 SWB-LS-1001 1823 STREAM BUFFALO CREEK 2000 2000 18 



21FLGW 8032 SWB-LS-1016 1825 STREAM FROG CREEK 2000 2000 34 


22 

Coastal Middle Tampa Bay 

21FLSWFDFREEDOM 1661 LAKE SAWGRASS LAKE 1999 2000 44 

21FLSWFDSAWGRASS 1661 LAKE SAWGRASS LAKE 1999 2000 44 

21FLSWFDSTA0174 SAWGRASS LAKE - OPEN WATER 1661 LAKE SAWGRASS LAKE 1996 1997 48 

21FLPDEM62-01 RIVIERA BAY MOUTH S END WEEDON 1661A ESTUARY RIVIERA BAY 1995 1998 837 

ISLND PIER 

21FLPDEM62-02 RIVIERA BAY E SIDE SAN MARTIN BLVD 1661A ESTUARY RIVIERA BAY 1995 1998 700 

BRDG 

21FLPDEM42-01 45TH AVE NE CNL E OF 1ST ST N AND 

1683 ESTUARY SMACKS BAYOU 1995 1998 948 

45TH AVE 

21FLPDEM32-01 SMACKS BYU OFF N SIDE OVERLOOK 

1683 ESTUARY SMACKS BAYOU 1995 1998 1359 

DR BRDG 

21FLPDEMAMB 32-1 Smack's Bayou 1683 ESTUARY SMACKS BAYOU 1999 2001 316



OBSER 

21FLHILL24010091 HILLSBOROUGH BAY APOLLO BCH 1693 ESTUARY BIG BEND BAYOU 1995 1998 1617 

21FLPDEMAMB 40-1 Booker Creek 1696 STREAM BOOKER CREEK 1999 2001 275 

21FLPDEM41-01 CNL E OF 1ST ST N AND 30TH AVE N 1700 ESTUARY COFFEEPOT BAYOU 1995 1998 832 

21FLPDEMAMB 43-1 Coffee Pot Bayou 1700 ESTUARY COFFEEPOT BAYOU 1999 2001 201 

21FLPDEM43-01 COFFEE POT BYU AT CWALL E OF 

1700 ESTUARY COFFEEPOT BAYOU 1995 1998 832 

BREVARD RD 

21FLPDEMAMB 41-1 North Coffee Pot Bayou 1700 ESTUARY COFFEEPOT BAYOU 1999 2001 235 

21FLPDEM50-01 BIG BYU S SIDE 39TH AVE BRDG E OF 

1709 ESTUARY BIG BAYOU -BASIN W 1995 1998 1269 

SUNRISE DR S 

21FLPDEMAMB 50-1 Big Bayou 1709 ESTUARY BIG BAYOU -BASIN W 1999 2001 289 

21FLSWFDMIRROR 1709A LAKE MIRROR LAKE - OPEN 1999 2001 86 

WAT 

21FLSWFDSTA0632 MIRROR LAKE - OPEN WATER 1709A LAKE MIRROR LAKE - OPEN 1996 1997 64 

WAT 

21FLPDEMAMB 51-1 Little Bayou Creek 1709D ESTUARY LITTLE BAYOU - BASIN 1999 2001 184 

Q 

21FLPDEM51-01 LTL BYU CR E SIDE 4TH ST S BDG N OF 1709D ESTUARY LITTLE BAYOU - BASIN 1995 1998 893 

55TH AVE S 

Q 

21FLPDEM52-01 UNNAMED CR W SIDE OF 4TH ST S S OF 1709E ESTUARY PINELLAS POINT - 

1995 1998 733 

64TH AVE S 

BASIN V 

21FLPDEMAMB 52-1 Pinellas Point 1709E ESTUARY PINELLAS POINT - 

1999 2001 182 

BASIN V 

21FLA 42002SEAS Mouth of Frenchman Creek 1709F ESTUARY FRENCHMANNS CK - 1995 1997 57 

BASIN U 

21FLPDEMAMB 48-3 Frenchman's Creek 1709F ESTUARY FRENCHMANNS CK - 1999 2001 208 

BASIN U 

21FLPDEM48-03 FRENCHMAN'S CR FROM MAXIMO PARK 1709F ESTUARY FRENCHMANNS CK - 1995 1998 851 

BOAT RAMP 

BASIN U 

21FLGW 8822 SWB-LL-1017 1731 LAKE LAKE MAGGIORE 2000 2000 17 

21FLHILL136 Cockroach Bay at HCC Study Center 1778 ESTUARY COCKROACH BAY 1999 2001 430 

21FLHILL24010015 


28 

Coastal Old 


21FLKWAT057CHARLES 

1 

COCKROACH BAY AT HCC STUDY 

CENTER 

1778 ESTUARY COCKROACH BAY 1995 1998 981 

1494C LAKE LAKE CHARLES 1998 1998 8



OBSER 


1494C LAKE LAKE CHARLES 1998 1998 8 

3 


1494C LAKE LAKE CHARLES 1998 1998 8 

2 

21FLGW 8807 SWB-LL-1072 1463 STREAM UPPER ROCKY CREEK 2000 2000 33 

21FLKWATROCKYCREE 

1463 STREAM UPPER ROCKY CREEK 1999 2001 40 

K-3123 

21FLKWAT057ROCK1 1463 STREAM UPPER ROCKY CREEK 1998 2001 192 





K-3121 

21FLGW 8829 SWB-LL-1027 1463 STREAM UPPER ROCKY CREEK 2000 2000 18 



K-3122 

21FLKWAT057CARLTON 

1463A LAKE TURKEY FORD LAKE 1997 1998 31 

1 

21FLSWFDTURKEY 


FORD 

21FLSWFDSTA0131 TURKEY FORD LAKE - OPEN WATER 1463A LAKE TURKEY FORD LAKE 1995 1995 21 



3 



2 

21FLKWATLITTLEWILS 

1463B LAKE LAKE THOMAS 1998 2001 138 

ON2 



ON3 



ON1 

21FLKWAT057TAYLOR 


22 



21 

21FLKWAT057NORBER 


T3 



T2 


T1 

1463B LAKE LAKE THOMAS 1996 2001 71



OBSER 



23 

21FLKWAT057HOLLY1 1463D LAKE LAKE HARVEY 1997 1997 8 



112WRD 02309765 LAKE LINDA AT DENHAM, FLA. 1463D LAKE LAKE HARVEY 1999 2000 9 

21FLSWFDHELEN 1463E LAKE LAKE HELEN - OPEN 2001 2001 19 

WATE 

21FLSWFDSTA0573 LAKE HELEN - OPEN WATER 1463E LAKE LAKE HELEN - OPEN 1995 1997 117 

WATE 

21FLSWFDELLEN (R) 1463F LAKE LAKE ELLEN - OPEN 1999 2000 44 

WATE 

21FLSWFDSTA0875 LAKE ELLEN - OPEN WATER 1463F LAKE LAKE ELLEN - OPEN 1996 1997 58 

WATE 

21FLSWFDBARBARA 1463G LAKE LAKE BARBARA - OPEN 1999 2000 44 

WA 

21FLSWFDSTA0874 LAKE BARBARA - OPEN WATER 1463G LAKE LAKE BARBARA - OPEN 1996 1997 48 

WA 

21FLSWFDSTA0308 LAKE ALLEN - OPEN WATER 1463H LAKE LAKE ALLEN - OPEN 1995 1995 21 

WATE 

21FLKWAT057ALLEN1 1463H LAKE LAKE ALLEN - OPEN 1996 1996 8 

WATE 


WATE 


WATE 

21FLSWFDCYPRESS 1463J LAKE LAKE CYPRESS - OPEN 2000 2001 63 

WA 

21FLKWAT057CYPRESS 

1463J LAKE LAKE CYPRESS - OPEN 1996 2001 125 

1 

WA 



3 

WA 



2 

WA 

21FLSWFDSTA0557 LAKE CYPRESS - OPEN WATER 1463J LAKE LAKE CYPRESS - OPEN 1995 1997 74 

WA 

21FLSWFDMOSS 1463Z LAKE MOSS LAKE 2000 2001 44 

21FLKWATLITTLE 

MOSS3 

21FLKWATLITTLE 

MOSS2 

LITTLE MOSS LAKE IN PASCO CO.-SEE 

NOTE 

LITTLE MOSS LAKE IN PASCO CO.-SEE 

NOTE 

1463Z LAKE MOSS LAKE 1997 2000 150 

1463Z LAKE MOSS LAKE 1997 2000 150



OBSER 

21FLKWATLITTLE LITTLE MOSS LAKE IN PASCO CO.-SEE 1463Z LAKE MOSS LAKE 1997 2000 150 

MOSS1 

NOTE 

21FLSWFDSTA0510 MOSS LAKE - OPEN WATER 1463Z LAKE MOSS LAKE 1995 1995 31 

21FLKWATKEYSTONE2 LAKE KEYSTONE2 HILLSBOROUGH CO 1473A LAKE KEYSTONE LAKE 1995 2001 225 

SEE NOTE 


SEE NOTE 


SEE NOTE 

21FLSWFDKEYSTONE 1473A LAKE KEYSTONE LAKE 2000 2001 44 

21FLSWFDSTA0224 KEYSTONE LAKE - OPEN WATER 1473A LAKE KEYSTONE LAKE 1995 1995 21 

21FLSWFDEVA 1473B LAKE LAKE EVA - OPEN 

2001 2001 19 

WATER 

21FLSWFDSTA0876 LAKE EVA - OPEN WATER 1473B LAKE LAKE EVA - OPEN 

1995 1996 61 

WATER 

21FLSWFDJUANITA 1473W LAKE LAKE JUANITA 2001 2001 21 

21FLSWFDSTA0073 LAKE JUANITA - OPEN WATER 1473W LAKE LAKE JUANITA 1995 1996 58 

21FLKWATJUANITA2 LAKE JUANITA2 HILLSBOROUGH CO SEE 1473W LAKE LAKE JUANITA 1995 2001 191 

NOTE 


NOTE 


NOTE 

21FLKWATMOUND1 LAKE MOUND1 HILLSBOROUGH CO SEE 1473X LAKE MOUND LAKE 1997 2000 82 

NOTE 


NOTE 


NOTE 

21FLSWFDCALM 1473Y LAKE CALM LAKE 1999 2000 41 

21FLKWATCALM1 LAKE CALM1 HILLSBOROUGH CO SEE 1473Y LAKE CALM LAKE 1995 2001 168 

NOTE 


NOTE 

21FLSWFDSTA0460 CALM LAKE - OPEN WATER 1473Y LAKE CALM LAKE 1996 1997 48 


NOTE 

21FLKWATJAMES3 LAKE JAMES3 HILLSBOROUGH CO SEE 

NOTE 

1473Z LAKE JAMES LAKE 1995 2001 231



OBSER 

21FLKWATJAMES1 LAKE JAMES1 HILLSBOROUGH CO SEE 1473Z LAKE JAMES LAKE 1995 2001 260 

NOTE 

21FLKWATJAMES2 LAKE JAMES2 HILLSBOROUGH CO SEE 1473Z LAKE JAMES LAKE 1995 2001 262 

NOTE 

21FLPDEM04-02 BROOKER CR HILLSBOROUGH CO N 

1474 STREAM BROOKER CREEK 1995 1998 595 

KEYSTONE RD BRDG 

21FLPDEM04-03 BROOKER CR N OF TARPON WOODS 


BLVD BRIDGE 

21FLPDEMAMB 04-2 Brooker Creek 1474 STREAM BROOKER CREEK 1999 2001 39 

21FLPDEMAMB 04-3 Brooker Creek 1474 STREAM BROOKER CREEK 1999 2001 485 

112WRD 02307359 BROOKER CREEK NR TARPON 


SPRINGS, FLA. 

21FLSWFDWASTENA 1474A LAKE LAKE WASTENA1 

2001 2001 21 

HILLSBOR 

21FLKWATWASTENA1 LAKE WASTENA1 HILLSBOROUGH CO 1474A LAKE LAKE WASTENA1 

1997 2001 135 

SEE NOTE 

HILLSBOR 


1997 2001 145 

SEE NOTE 

HILLSBOR 


1997 2001 140 

SEE NOTE 

HILLSBOR 

21FLKWAT057ISLAND 

1474U LAKE ISLAND FORD LAKE 1997 2001 75 

FORD3 

21FLSWFDISLAND 


FORD 

21FLSWFDSTA0282 ISLAND FORD LAKE - OPEN WATER 1474U LAKE ISLAND FORD LAKE 1995 1995 21 



FORD1 



FORD2 

21FLKWATCRESCENT1 LAKE CRESCENT1 HILLSBOROUGH CO 1474V LAKE CRESCENT 1995 2001 207 

SEE NOTE 


SEE NOTE 

21FLSWFDSTA0575 WASTENA LAKE - OPEN WATER 1474V LAKE CRESCENT 1995 1996 63 

21FLSWFDCRESCENT 1474V LAKE CRESCENT 1999 2001 64 

21FLSWFDSTA0229 CRESCENT LAKE - OPEN WATER 1474V LAKE CRESCENT 1995 1996 63 


SEE NOTE 

21FLKWATWOOD1 LAKE WOOD1 HILLSBOROUGH CO SEE 

NOTE 

1474X LAKE WOOD LAKE 1996 1996 12



OBSER 

21FLGW 7625 SWB-SL-1019 1474X LAKE WOOD LAKE 2000 2000 18 

21FLSWFDSTA0574 WOOD LAKE - OPEN WATER 1474X LAKE WOOD LAKE 1995 1996 41 

21FLKWATWOOD2 LAKE WOOD2 HILLSBOROUGH CO SEE 1474X LAKE WOOD LAKE 1996 1996 12 

NOTE 

21FLKWATWOOD3 LAKE WOOD3 HILLSBOROUGH CO SEE 1474X LAKE WOOD LAKE 1996 1996 12 

NOTE 

112WRD 02309867 OSCEOLA LAKE NEAR LAKE FERN FL 1474Y LAKE LAKE OSEOLA 1999 2000 6 

21FLKWATOSCEOLA1 LAKE OSCEOLA1 HILLSBOROUGH CO 1474Y LAKE LAKE OSEOLA 1995 1997 41 

SEE NOTE 


SEE NOTE 


SEE NOTE 

21FLKWATSADDLEBAC LAKE SADDLEBACK N1 HILLSBOROUGH 1478A LAKE SADDLEBACK LAKE 1995 1997 104 

K N1 

CO SEE NOTE 


K N3 

CO SEE NOTE 


K N2 

CO SEE NOTE 

21FLSWFDROUND 1478B LAKE ROUND LAKE 1999 2000 44 

112WRD 

ROUND LAKE NO. 4 NEAR LUTZ FL 1478B LAKE ROUND LAKE 1996 1996 15 

280713082300900 

112WRD 

ROUND LAKE NO. 1 NEAR LUTZ FL 1478B LAKE ROUND LAKE 1996 1998 43 

280716082300100 

21FLSWFDSTA0190 ROUND LAKE - OPEN WATER 1478B LAKE ROUND LAKE 1996 1997 160 

21FLKWATCRENSHAW1 LAKE CRENSHAW1 HILLSBOROUGH CO 1478C LAKE LAKE CRENSHAW 1995 2001 241 

SEE NOTE 


SEE NOTE 


SEE NOTE 

21FLKWAT057CRYSTAL 

1478D LAKE CRYSTAL LAKE 1998 2001 160 

2 



3 



1 

21FLKWATHOBBS3 LAKE HOBBS3 HILLSBOROUGH CO SEE 1478F LAKE LAKE HOBBS 1995 2001 140 

NOTE 

112WRD 02304700 LAKE HOBBS AT LUTZ,FL. 1478F LAKE LAKE HOBBS 1999 2000 9



OBSER 


NOTE 


NOTE 

21FLSWFDSTA0879 LITTLE DEER LAKE - OPEN WATER 1478G LAKE LITTLE DEER LAKE - 1996 1997 43 

OPE 

21FLSWFDLITTLE DEER 1478G LAKE LITTLE DEER LAKE - 1999 2000 42 

OPE 

21FLKWAT057REINHEI 

1478H LAKE LAKE REINHEIMER - 1997 2001 141 

MER3 

OPEN 

21FLSWFDREINHEIMER 1478H LAKE LAKE REINHEIMER - 2000 2001 44 

OPEN 



MER1 

OPEN 



MER2 

OPEN 

21FLSWFDSTA0225 LAKE REINHEIMER - OPEN WATER 1478H LAKE LAKE REINHEIMER - 1995 1995 30 

OPEN 

21FLSWFDSTA0066 LAKE MERRYWATER - OPEN WATER 1478I LAKE LAKE MERRYWATER - 1995 1995 26 

OPEN 

112WRD 

LAKE MERRYWATER NEAR LUTZ FL 1478I LAKE LAKE MERRYWATER - 1999 2000 6 

280719082291400 

OPEN 

21FLSWFDMERRYWAT 

1478I LAKE LAKE MERRYWATER - 2000 2001 44 

ER 

OPEN 

21FLSWFDZAMBITO 1478J LAKE ZAMBITO LAKE - OPEN 2000 2001 44 

WA 

21FLSWFDSTA0884 ZAMBITO LAKE - OPEN WATER 1478J LAKE ZAMBITO LAKE - OPEN 1995 1995 25 

WA 

21FLKWATDEER057-2 LAKE DEER2 HILLSBOROUGH CO SEE 1478Z LAKE DEER LAKE 1995 1999 196 

NOTE 


NOTE 


NOTE 

112WRD 02304690 DEER LAKE NEAR LUTZ FL 1478Z LAKE DEER LAKE 1999 2000 6 

21FLSWFDDEER 1478Z LAKE DEER LAKE 2000 2001 86 

21FLSWFDSTA0249 DEER LAKE - OPEN WATER 1478Z LAKE DEER LAKE 1995 1995 21 

21FLPDEMAMB 03-45 Lake Tarpon 1486 LAKE LAKE TARPON OUTLET 2000 2001 162 

21FLPDEMAMB 03-44 Lake Tarpon 1486 LAKE LAKE TARPON OUTLET 2000 2001 174 

21FLKWATCHURCH1 LAKE CHURCH1 HILLSBOROUGH CO 

SEE NOTE 

1493A LAKE CHURCH LAKE 1995 2001 82



OBSER 

21FLSWFDCHURCH 1493A LAKE CHURCH LAKE 2000 2001 44 

21FLGW 8810 SWB-LL-1086 1493A LAKE CHURCH LAKE 2000 2000 16 


1493A LAKE CHURCH LAKE 1995 2001 73 

SEE NOTE 


1493A LAKE CHURCH LAKE 1995 2001 71 

SEE NOTE 

21FLSWFDSTA0477 CHURCH LAKE - OPEN WATER 1493A LAKE CHURCH LAKE 1995 1995 21 

21FLGW 8823 SWB-LL-1018 1493A LAKE CHURCH LAKE 2000 2000 16 

21FLKWATALICE2 LAKE ALICE2 HILLSBOROUGH CO SEE 1493B LAKE LAKE ALICE 1996 2001 52 

NOTE 

21FLSWFDSTA0033 LAKE ALICE - OPEN WATER 1493B LAKE LAKE ALICE 1995 1996 59 


NOTE 

21FLA 24040019 TAMPA BAY 

1493B LAKE LAKE ALICE 1995 1997 120 

BASIN/ODESSA/FRESHWATER SITE 

21FLSWFDALICE 1493B LAKE LAKE ALICE 2001 2001 21 

112WRD 02307328 LAKE ALICE NR ODESSA, FLA. 1493B LAKE LAKE ALICE 1999 2000 9 


NOTE 

21FLSWFDTHORPE 1493C LAKE THORPE LAKE - OPEN 1999 2000 43 

WAT 

21FLSWFDSTA0578 THORPE LAKE - OPEN WATER 1493C LAKE THORPE LAKE - OPEN 1996 1997 48 

WAT 

21FLSWFDSTA0579 WILLIAMS LAKE - OPEN WATER 1493D LAKE WILLIAMS LAKE - OPEN 1996 1997 58 

W 

21FLSWFDWILLIAMS 1493D LAKE WILLIAMS LAKE - OPEN 1999 2000 44 

W 

21FLSWFDSTA0267 LAKE TAYLOR - OPEN WATER 1493V LAKE TAYLOR LAKE 1996 1997 43 

21FLKWATTAYLOR1 



21FLKWATGARDEN3 



LAKE TAYLOR1 HILLSBOROUGH CO SEE 

NOTE 


NOTE 


NOTE 

LAKE GARDEN3 HILLSBOROUGH CO 

SEE NOTE 


SEE NOTE 


SEE NOTE 

1493V LAKE TAYLOR LAKE 1998 1998 32 



1493W LAKE GARDEN LAKE 1995 2000 134 

1493W LAKE GARDEN LAKE 1995 2000 140 

1493W LAKE GARDEN LAKE 1995 2000 131



OBSER 

21FLKWATRAINBOW3 LAKE RAINBOW3 HILLSBOROUGH CO 1493X LAKE RAINBOW LAKE 1995 2001 107 

SEE NOTE 

21FLSWFDSTA0425 RAINBOW LAKE - OPEN WATER 1493X LAKE RAINBOW LAKE 1995 1996 59 


SEE NOTE 


SEE NOTE 


SEE NOTE 

21FLKWATLITTLE LAKE LITTLE MOON2 HILLSBOROUGH 1493Y LAKE MOON LAKE 1999 2000 8 

MOON2 

CO SEE NOTE 

21FLSWFDSTA0369 LITTLE MOON LAKE - OPEN WATER 1493Y LAKE MOON LAKE 1995 1997 99 

21FLSWFDLITTLE 

1493Y LAKE MOON LAKE 2001 2001 21 

MOON 


MOON1 

CO SEE NOTE 


MOON3 

CO SEE NOTE 

21FLKWATBRANT2 LAKE BRANT2 HILLSBOROUGH CO SEE 1494B LAKE BRANT LAKE 1995 2001 338 

NOTE 

21FLSWFDSTA0292 BRANT LAKE - OPEN WATER 1494B LAKE BRANT LAKE 1995 1997 247 

21FLSWFDBRANT 1494B LAKE BRANT LAKE 2000 2001 44 


NOTE 


NOTE 

21FLSWFDSTA0103 LAKE JACKSON - OPEN WATER 1496Z LAKE LAKE JACKSON 1995 1996 63 

21FLSWFDJACKSON 1496Z LAKE LAKE JACKSON 2000 2001 107 

112WRD 02306904 BRUSHY CREEK NR SULPHUR SPRINGS 1498 STREAM BRUSHY CREEK 1995 1996 174 

112WRD 02306950 BRUSHY CREEK NR CITRUS PARK, FLA. 1498 STREAM BRUSHY CREEK 1995 1997 200 

21FLSWFDSTA0530 STARVATION LAKE - OPEN WATER 1498A LAKE STARVATION LAKE 1995 1995 31 

21FLSWFDSTARVATION 1498A LAKE STARVATION LAKE 2000 2001 44 

112WRD 02306800 STARVATION LAKE NR LUTZ,FLA. 1498A LAKE STARVATION LAKE 1999 2000 6 

21FLSWFDSTA0878 SUNSHINE LAKE - OPEN WATER 1498C LAKE SUNSHINE LAKE - OPEN 1996 1997 63 

W 

21FLSWFDSUNSHINE 1498C LAKE SUNSHINE LAKE - OPEN 

W 

1999 2000 40



OBSER 

21FLSWFDSTA0877 GANT LAKE - OPEN WATER 1498D LAKE GANT LAKE - OPEN 

1995 1996 59 

WATER 

21FLSWFDGANT 1498D LAKE GANT LAKE - OPEN 

2001 2001 19 

WATER 

21FLSWFDSTA0488 DOSSON LAKE - OPEN WATER 1498Z LAKE DOSSON LAKE 1996 1997 160 

112WRD 

DOSSON LAKE NO. 1 NEAR LUTZ FL 1498Z LAKE DOSSON LAKE 1996 1998 53 

280726082313300 

21FLSWFDDOSSON 1498Z LAKE DOSSON LAKE 1999 2000 42 

112WRD 

DOSSON LAKE NO. 2 NEAR LUTZ FL 1498Z LAKE DOSSON LAKE 1996 1996 15 

280720082313200 

21FLKWAT057ESTES1 1502A LAKE LAKE ESTES 1996 2001 190 

21FLSWFDESTES 1502A LAKE LAKE ESTES 1999 2000 41 

21FLSWFDSTA0883 LAKE ESTES - OPEN WATER 1502A LAKE LAKE ESTES 1996 1997 53 



21FLSWFDSTA0882 LAKE ELLEN - OPEN WATER 1502A LAKE LAKE ESTES 1996 1997 58 

21FLKWATCHAPMAN1 LAKE CHAPMAN1 HILLSBOROUGH CO 1502C LAKE CHAPMAN LAKE 1995 2001 330 

SEE NOTE 


SEE NOTE 

21FLSWFDSTA0339 CHAPMAN LAKE - OPEN WATER 1502C LAKE CHAPMAN LAKE 1995 1995 31 


SEE NOTE 

21FLSWFDCHAPMAN 1502C LAKE CHAPMAN LAKE 1999 2001 83 

112WRD 02307000 ROCKY CREEK NR SULPHUR SPRINGS, 1507 STREAM ROCKY CREEK 1995 1997 198 

FLA. 

112WRD 02306774 ROCKY CREEK AT ST HWY 587 AT 

1507 STREAM ROCKY CREEK 1997 1997 7 

CITRUS PARK, FLA. 

21FLGW 7651 SWB-SL-1052 1513 ESTUARY DOUBLE BRANCH 2000 2000 18 

21FLHILL24040175 BR SR 580 DOUBLE BRANCH CR 1513 ESTUARY DOUBLE BRANCH 1995 1998 1410 

21FLHILL101 Double Branch Creek at SR 580 bridge 1513 ESTUARY DOUBLE BRANCH 1999 2001 498 

21FLSWFDSTA0577 MARLEE LAKE - OPEN WATER 1513A LAKE MARLEE LAKE - OPEN 1995 1996 58 

WAT 

21FLSWFDMARLEE 1513A LAKE MARLEE LAKE - OPEN 2001 2001 19 

WAT 

21FLKWAT057ROGERS 

3 

1513B LAKE LAKE ROGERS - OPEN 

WAT 

1998 1998 15



OBSER 

21FLSWFDSTA0410 LAKE ROGERS - OPEN WATER 1513B LAKE LAKE ROGERS - OPEN 1995 1996 58 

WAT 


1513B LAKE LAKE ROGERS - OPEN 1998 1998 15 

1 

WAT 


1513B LAKE LAKE ROGERS - OPEN 1998 1998 15 

2 

WAT 

21FLSWFDROGERS 1513B LAKE LAKE ROGERS - OPEN 2001 2001 19 

WAT 

112WRD 

LAKE RALEIGH NEAR CITRUS PARK FL 1513C LAKE LAKE RALEIGH - OPEN 1999 2000 6 

280623082350100 

WA 

21FLSWFDRALEIGH 1513C LAKE LAKE RALEIGH - OPEN 2000 2001 44 

WA 

21FLSWFDSTA0281 LAKE RALEIGH - OPEN WATER 1513C LAKE LAKE RALEIGH - OPEN 1995 1995 21 

WA 

21FLKWATMAURINE1 LAKE MAURINE1 HILLSBOROUGH CO 

1513Y LAKE LAKE MAURINE 1999 2000 20 

SEE NOTE 



SEE NOTE 



SEE NOTE 

21FLSWFDSTA0558 GRACE LAKE - OPEN WATER 1513Z LAKE LAKE GRACE 1996 1997 53 

21FLSWFDGRACE 1513Z LAKE LAKE GRACE 1999 2000 44 

21FLKWAT057HORSE3 1515 LAKE HORSE LAKE 1999 1999 3 


21FLSWFDSTA0422 HORSE LAKE - OPEN WATER 1515 LAKE HORSE LAKE 1995 1995 21 


21FLSWFDHORSE 1515 LAKE HORSE LAKE 2000 2001 44 

21FLGW 7628 SWB-SL-1023 1516 STREAM SWEETWATER CREEK 2000 2000 33 

112WRD 02306647 SWEETWATER CREEK NR TAMPA, FLA. 1516 STREAM SWEETWATER CREEK 1997 1997 34 



21FLHILL24040102 SWEETWATER CREEK AT ANDERSON 

1516 STREAM SWEETWATER CREEK 1995 1998 1005 

RD UPSTRM SIDE 

21FLHILL142 

Sweetwater Creek at Anderson Road 


upstream side 


21FLKWAT057CARROLL 

COVE3 

1516A LAKE LAKE CARROLL 1996 1999 92



OBSER 

21FLKWATCARROLL2 LAKE CARROLL2 HILLSBOROUGH CO 1516A LAKE LAKE CARROLL 1995 2001 146 

SEE NOTE 


SEE NOTE 

112WRD 02306600 LAKE CARROLL NR SULPHUR SPRINGS, 1516A LAKE LAKE CARROLL 1999 2000 6 

FLA. 


1516A LAKE LAKE CARROLL 1996 1999 91 

COVE1 

21FLSWFDSTA0516 LAKE CARROLL - OPEN WATER 1516A LAKE LAKE CARROLL 1996 1997 48 


1516A LAKE LAKE CARROLL 1996 1999 92 

COVE2 

21FLSWFDCARROLL 1516A LAKE LAKE CARROLL 1999 2000 43 


SEE NOTE 

21FLSWFDMAGDALENE 1516B LAKE LAKE MADELENE 1999 2000 43 

21FLKWATMAGDALENE LAKE MAGDALENE3 HILLSBOROUGH CO 1516B LAKE LAKE MADELENE 1995 2001 310 

3 

SEE NOTE 

21FLGW 8814 SWB-LL-1003 1516B LAKE LAKE MADELENE 2000 2000 16 

21FLSWFDSTA0364 LAKE MAGDALENE - OPEN WATER 1516B LAKE LAKE MADELENE 1996 1997 42 


1 

SEE NOTE 


2 

SEE NOTE 

21FLSWFDSTA0135 PLATT LAKE - OPEN WATER 1516C LAKE PLATT LAKE - OPEN 1995 1995 31 

WATE 

21FLSWFDPLATT 1516C LAKE PLATT LAKE - OPEN 2000 2001 41 

WATE 

21FLKWAT057PLATT1 1516C LAKE PLATT LAKE - OPEN 2001 2001 4 

WATE 


WATE 


WATE 

21FLKWAT057BAY2 1516D LAKE BAY LAKE - OPEN 

1998 2001 44 

WATER 


1998 2001 44 

WATER 

21FLSWFDSTA0041 BAY LAKE - OPEN WATER 1516D LAKE BAY LAKE - OPEN 

1995 1995 31 

WATER 


WATER 

1998 2001 44



OBSER 

21FLSWFDBAY 1516D LAKE BAY LAKE - OPEN 

2000 2001 42 

WATER 

21FLKWAT057ELLEN3 1516E LAKE LAKE ELLEN - OPEN 1996 2000 76 

WATE 


WATE 

21FLSWFDELLEN 1516E LAKE LAKE ELLEN - OPEN 1999 2000 43 

WATE 

21FLSWFDSTA0032 LAKE ELLEN - OPEN WATER 1516E LAKE LAKE ELLEN - OPEN 1996 1997 43 

WATE 


WATE 

21FLSWFDSTA0166 WHITE TROUT LAKE - OPEN WATER 1516F LAKE WHITE TROUT LAKE - 1995 1995 31 

OPE 

21FLKWAT057WHITE 

1516F LAKE WHITE TROUT LAKE - 1997 2001 199 

TROUT2 

OPE 



TROUT3 

OPE 

21FLSWFDWHITE 


TROUT 

OPE 



TROUT1 

OPE 

112WRD 

BIRD LAKE NEAR TAMPA FL 1516G LAKE BIRD LAKE 1999 2000 6 

280610082284100 

21FLKWATWILSON1 LAKE WILSON1 HILLSBOROUGH CO SEE 1516Z LAKE WILSON LAKE 1995 2001 171 

NOTE 


NOTE 


NOTE 

21FLSWFDSTA0560 LITTLE HALFMOON LAKE - OPEN WATER 1517 STREAM HALFMOON LAKE DRAIN 1995 1996 63 

112WRD 

HALF MOON LAKE NO. 4 NEAR CITRUS 1517 STREAM HALFMOON LAKE DRAIN 1996 1996 5 

280545082325700 PARK FL 

21FLKWATLTL 

LAKE LITTLE HALFMOON2 

1517 STREAM HALFMOON LAKE DRAIN 1995 1997 94 

HALFMOON2 

HILLSBOROUGH CO SEE NOTE 

112WRD 


280552082324800 PARK FL 

112WRD 

HALF MOON LAKE NO.1 NEAR CITRUS 1517 STREAM HALFMOON LAKE DRAIN 1996 1998 62 

280555082330000 PARK FL 

112WRD 02306767 HALF MOON LAKE NEAR CITRUS PARK 1517 STREAM HALFMOON LAKE DRAIN 1999 2000 31 

FL 

112WRD 

280555082325400 

HALF MOON LAKE NO. 2 NEAR CITRUS 

PARK FL 

1517 STREAM HALFMOON LAKE DRAIN 1996 1996 20



OBSER 

21FLKWATLTL 



HALFMOON1 


112WRD 


280545082324900 PARK FL 

21FLKWATLTL 



HALFMOON3 


21FLSWFDSTA0211 HALFMOON LAKE - OPEN WATER 1517 STREAM HALFMOON LAKE DRAIN 1995 1997 357 

21FLKWATARMISTEAD2 LAKE ARMISTEAD2 HILLSBOROUGH CO 1519C LAKE LAKE ARMISTEAD 1995 2001 92 

SEE NOTE 


SEE NOTE 


SEE NOTE 

21FLPDEM06-01 LK ST GEORGE DISCRG S SIDE SR584 W 1529 STREAM COW BRANCH 1995 1998 717 

OF E LK RD 

21FLPDEMAMB 06-3 Cow Branch Creek 1529 STREAM COW BRANCH 1999 2001 128 

21FLPDEM06-03 COW BRANCH CR NW TAMPA RD AT 

1529 STREAM COW BRANCH 1995 1998 402 

LAKE ST GEORGE 

21FLSWFDST GEORGE 1529A LAKE SAINT GEORGE LAKE - 1999 2000 44 

OP 

21FLSWFDSTA0892 SAINT GEORGE LAKE - OPEN WATER 1529A LAKE SAINT GEORGE LAKE - 1996 1997 58 

OP 

21FLPDEM05-01 MOCCASIN CR S SIDE 580 BRDG E OF 

1530 ESTUARY MOCCASIN CREEK 1995 1998 1007 

PHOENIX AVE 

21FLPDEMAMB 05-1 Moccasin Creek, West Branch 1530 ESTUARY MOCCASIN CREEK 1999 2001 402 

21FLPDEM05-02 MOCCASIN CR S SIDE OF 580 BRDG W 1530 ESTUARY MOCCASIN CREEK 1995 1998 422 

OF PRK PLACE 

21FLPDEMAMB 05-2 Moccasin Creek, East Branch 1530 ESTUARY MOCCASIN CREEK 1999 2001 203 

21FLPDEM06-04 LAKE TARPON OUTFALL CANAL AT 

1541A STREAM LAKE TARPON CANAL 1997 1998 804 

CONTROL STRUCTURE 

21FLPDEM11-02 BRIAR CR S SIDE BRIAR CR BLVD BRDG 1541A STREAM LAKE TARPON CANAL 1995 1998 397 

112WRD 02307498 LAKE TARPON CANAL AT S-551, NR 

1541B STREAM LAKE TARPON CANAL 1995 2000 178 

OLDSMAR, FLA. 

21FLPDEM03-04 SOUTH COVE IN LAKE TARPON 1541C LAKE LAKE TARPON SOUTH 1995 1996 393 

COVE 

21FLHILL24040151 BR SR 580 ROCKY CR 1563 ESTUARY CHANNEL G 1995 1998 1396 

21FLHILL24040152 ROCKY CREEK AT WATERS AVE 1563 ESTUARY CHANNEL G 1995 1998 1447 

21FLPDEM12-01 BISHOP CR W SIDE E FOOTBRDG 50FT N 1569 ESTUARY BISHOP CREEK 1995 1998 883 

BISHOP CRK DR 

21FLPDEMAMB 12-1 Bishop Creek 1569 ESTUARY BISHOP CREEK 1999 2001 388



OBSER 

21FLHILL24040101 MEMORIAL HWY BR AT SWEETWATER 1570 STREAM SWEETWATER CREEK 1995 1998 1704 

CR 

21FLHILL104 

Sweetwater Creek at Memorial Highway 


bridge 

21FLKWATSWEETWATE 


RC3213 



RC3212 



RC3211 

112WRD 02306654 HENRY STREET CANAL NR TAMPA, FL. 1570 STREAM SWEETWATER CREEK 1997 1997 23 

112WRD 02307668 ALLIGATOR CREEK BELOW BELCHER 

1574 STREAM ALLIGATOR CREEK 1996 1996 99 

RD AT CLEARWATER, 

112WRD 02307673 ALLIGATOR CREEK AT CLEARWATER, FL 1574 STREAM ALLIGATOR CREEK 1996 1996 98 

112WRD 02307671 ALLIGATOR CR BELOW US HWY 19 AT 1574 STREAM ALLIGATOR CREEK 1996 2000 225 

CLEARWATER, FLA 

21FLPDEM14-03 ALLIGATOR CR E SIDE MCMULLEN 

1574 STREAM ALLIGATOR CREEK 1995 1998 389 

BOOTH BRDG 

21FLPDEMAMB 14-7 Alligator Lake 1574A ESTUARY ALLIGATOR LAKE 1999 2001 497 

21FLSWFDALLIGATOR 1574A ESTUARY ALLIGATOR LAKE 1999 2000 43 

21FLPDEM14-07 ALLIGATOR LK ABOVE DAM AT 

1574A ESTUARY ALLIGATOR LAKE 1995 1998 1352 

BAYSHORE BRDG 

21FLSWFDSTA0265 ALLIGATOR LAKE - OPEN WATER 1574A ESTUARY ALLIGATOR LAKE 1996 1997 58 

21FLPDEMAMB 13-1 Mullet Creek 1575 ESTUARY MULLET CREEK 1999 2001 410 

21FLPDEM13-01 MULLET CR W SIDE OF BRIDGE 200YRD 1575 ESTUARY MULLET CREEK 1995 1998 904 

N OF MAIN ST 

21FLPDEMAMB 21-1 Coastal Zone 3 1603 ESTUARY DIRECT RUNOFF TO 1999 2001 329 

BAY 

21FLGW 8028 SWB-LS-1007 1603 ESTUARY DIRECT RUNOFF TO 2000 2000 17 

BAY 

21FLPDEM14-09 BECKETT LAKE N OF SUNSET PT RD W 1603C LAKE BECKETT LAKE - OPEN 1995 1996 255 

OF BELCHER 

WA 

21FLSWFDSTA0835 BECKETT LAKE - OPEN WATER 1603C LAKE BECKETT LAKE - OPEN 1996 1997 63 

WA 

21FLSWFDBECKETT 1603C LAKE BECKETT LAKE - OPEN 1999 2000 44 

WA 

21FLPDEM19-02 ALLEN'S CR E SIDE BELCHER RD BRDG 1604 ESTUARY ALLEN CREEK 1995 1998 641 

21FLPDEM19-03 ALLEN'S CR OFF LONG BOW LANE 

1604 ESTUARY ALLEN CREEK 1997 1998 360 

BRIDGE 

21FLPDEMAMB 19-4 Allen's Creek 1604 ESTUARY ALLEN CREEK 1999 2001 443



OBSER 

21FLPDEM19-06 ALLEN'S CR N OF BELLEAIR RD E OF 


HAVANA DR 

21FLPDEM19-05 ALLEN'S CR NW OF ST PAULS DR AND 1604 ESTUARY ALLEN CREEK 1997 1998 365 

BELLEAIR 

21FLPDEM19-04 ALLEN'S CR OFF WEST SIDE OF ST 


PAULS DR BRIDGE 

21FLPDEMAMB 19-5 Allen's Creek 1604 ESTUARY ALLEN CREEK 1999 2001 375 


21FLPDEM19-01 ALLEN'S CR E SIDE US19 BRDG 1604 ESTUARY ALLEN CREEK 1995 1998 1285 

21FLGW 7713 SWB-HS-1031 1604 ESTUARY ALLEN CREEK 2000 2000 18 

112WRD 02307731 ALLEN CREEK NR LARGO, FLA. 1604 ESTUARY ALLEN CREEK 1999 2000 127 




21FLSWFDCREST 1604A LAKE CREST (EXCELSIOR) 1999 2000 43 

LAKE 

21FLSWFDSTA0637 CREST (EXCELSIOR) LAKE - OPEN 

1604A LAKE CREST (EXCELSIOR) 1996 1997 58 

WATER 

LAKE 

21FLPDEM23-01 N SIDE 118TH AVE BRG W OF 9TH ST N 1624 ESTUARY DIRECT RUNOFF TO 1995 1998 938 

BAY 

21FLGW 7618 SWB-SL-1006 1624 ESTUARY DIRECT RUNOFF TO 2000 2000 18 

BAY 

21FLPDEM24-01 CROSS BYU CNL N SIDE PARK BLVD 

1625 ESTUARY CROSS CANAL (NORTH) 1995 1998 1315 

BRDG 

21FLSWFDSTA0045 TAMPA BAY - CROSS BAYOU CANAL AB 1625 ESTUARY CROSS CANAL (NORTH) 1996 1996 58 

TAMPA BAY 

21FLPDEM24-02 CROSS BYU CNL E SIDE 49TH ST N 

1625 ESTUARY CROSS CANAL (NORTH) 1995 1998 1163 

BRDG 

21FLPDEM24-03 CROSS BYU CNL W SIDE US19 BRDG S 1625 ESTUARY CROSS CANAL (NORTH) 1995 1998 392 

OF 688 

21FLPDEMAMB 24-3 Cross Bayou Canal 1625 ESTUARY CROSS CANAL (NORTH) 1999 2001 182 

21FLPDEMAMB 24-2 Cross Bayou Canal 1625 ESTUARY CROSS CANAL (NORTH) 1999 2001 540 

21FLPDEM22-05 LONGBRANCH CR N OF ROOSEVELT 

1627 STREAM LONG BRANCH 1995 1998 773 

BLVD AND 62ND ST 

21FLA 

LGB12B 1627 STREAM LONG BRANCH 2001 2002 126 

275543208242355 

21FLPDEMAMB 22-5 Longbranch Creek 1627 STREAM LONG BRANCH 1999 2001 327 

21FLPDEM31-02 SNUG HRBR OFF S END OF SNUG HRBR 

RD SEAWALL 

1654 ESTUARY SNUG HARBOR 1995 1998 394



OBSER 

21FLPDEMAMB 31-2 Snug Harbor 1654 ESTUARY SNUG HARBOR 1999 2001 189 

21FLKWATHOLIDAY1 HOLIDAY LAKE IN PASCO CO.-SEE NOTE 1474C LAKE HOLIDAY LAKE 1995 1995 12 




21FLKWATDEAD LADY3 LAKE DEAD LADY3 HILLSBOROUGH CO 1474D LAKE LAKE DEAD LADY 1995 2001 324 

SEE NOTE 


SEE NOTE 


SEE NOTE 

21FLPDEM03-22 MIDDLE OF LK TARPON NE OF DOLLY 1486A LAKE LAKE TARPON 1995 1998 2953 

BAY 

21FLGW 8824 SWB-LL-1020 1486A LAKE LAKE TARPON 2000 2000 18 

112WRD 02307479 LAKE TARPON NR TARPON SPRINGS, 1486A LAKE LAKE TARPON 1995 1998 251 

FLA. 



21FLPDEM03-43 W SIDE LK TARPON MID LITTLE DOLLY 1486A LAKE LAKE TARPON 1995 1996 866 

BAY 

21FLPDEM03-29 N LK TARPON SE OF SALMON'S BAY MID 1486A LAKE LAKE TARPON 1995 1998 2997 

LK 

21FLPDEM03-30 E SIDE LK TARPON W OF BRYAN LN 1486A LAKE LAKE TARPON 1996 1996 19 

21FLPDEM03-31 N LK TARPON MOUTH OF SALMON'S 

1486A LAKE LAKE TARPON 1995 1996 671 

BAY 

21FLPDEM03-32 N LK TARPON 50' W OF THE NE CNL 1486A LAKE LAKE TARPON 1995 1996 384 

21FLPDEM03-35 E SIDE NTHRN LK TARPON OFF 


RICHARDS RD 

21FLPDEM03-16 S LK TARPON E OF MILDRED DR MID LK 1486A LAKE LAKE TARPON 1995 1998 2751 

21FLPDEM03-38 N LK TARPON 300' W OF N GEORGE ST 1486A LAKE LAKE TARPON 1995 1998 2410 

21FLPDEM03-39 NE LK TARPON 150' W OF N GEORGE ST 1486A LAKE LAKE TARPON 1995 1998 798 

21FLPDEM03-09 S LK TARPON 200' NW MOUTH 


BROOKER CRK 

21FLPDEMAMB 03-09 Lake Tarpon 1486A LAKE LAKE TARPON 1999 2001 789 


21FLPDEMAMB 03-22 Lake Tarpon 1486A LAKE LAKE TARPON 1999 2001 981



OBSER 



21FLPDEM03-36 NW LK TARPON 100' E OF LAKEVIEW DR 1486A LAKE LAKE TARPON 1995 1996 813 

21FLKWAT057BUCK1 1493E LAKE BUCK LAKE 1997 1997 28 



21FLKWAT057SUNSET1 1496A LAKE SUNSET LAKE 1997 2001 231 

21FLSWFDSTA0213 SUNSET LAKE - OPEN WATER 1496A LAKE SUNSET LAKE 1995 1996 53 

21FLSWFDSUNSET 1496A LAKE SUNSET LAKE 2001 2001 20 

21FLKWATSUNSET3 LAKE SUNSET3 HILLSBOROUGH CO SEE 1496A LAKE SUNSET LAKE 1997 2001 231 

NOTE 

21FLKWAT057SUNSET2 1496A LAKE SUNSET LAKE 1997 2001 232 

112WRD 

LAKE LECLARE NEAR LUTZ FL 1514A LAKE LAKE LE CLARE 1999 2000 6 

280635082322100 

21FLKWAT057LECLARE 

1514A LAKE LAKE LE CLARE 1997 1998 44 

1 



3 



2 

21FLSWFDPRETTY 1519D LAKE PRETTY LAKE 2000 2001 44 

21FLKWATPRETTY3 LAKE PRETTY3 HILLSBOROUGH CO SEE 1519D LAKE PRETTY LAKE 1997 2001 48 

NOTE 

21FLSWFDSTA0362 PRETTY LAKE - OPEN WATER 1519D LAKE PRETTY LAKE 1995 1995 21 


NOTE 


NOTE 

21FLKWATEGYPT1 LAKE EGYPT1 HILLSBOROUGH CO SEE 1570Y LAKE EGYPT LAKE 1995 2001 93 

NOTE 


NOTE 


NOTE 

112WRD 02306652 EGYPT LAKE NEAR SULPHUR SPRINGS 1570Y LAKE EGYPT LAKE 1999 2000 6 

FL 

21FLSWFDEGYPT 1570Y LAKE EGYPT LAKE 2000 2001 42



OBSER 

21FLSWFDSTA0128 EGYPT LAKE - OPEN WATER 1570Y LAKE EGYPT LAKE 1995 1995 31 

21FLSWFDSTA0834 LAKE BOWDEN (CHAUTAUQUA) - OPEN 1603D LAKE LAKE CHAUTAUQUA 1996 1997 58 

WATER 

21FLPDEM14-02 LK CHAUTAUQUA OFF SCOUT CAMP 

1603D LAKE LAKE CHAUTAUQUA 1995 1998 654 

DOCK 

21FLPDEMAMB 14-2 Lake Chautauqua 1603D LAKE LAKE CHAUTAUQUA 1999 2001 235 

21FLSWFDBOWDEN 

1603D LAKE LAKE CHAUTAUQUA 1999 2000 44 

(CHAUTAU 

21FLKWATHARBOR2 HARBOR LAKE IN PINELLAS CO.-SEE 

1603E LAKE HARBOR LAKE 1995 1995 11 

NOTE 

21FLSWFDHARBOR 1603E LAKE HARBOR LAKE 1999 2000 44 

21FLSWFDSTA0893 HARBOR LAKE - OPEN WATER 1603E LAKE HARBOR LAKE 1996 1997 63 



NOTE 



NOTE 

21FLPDEM14-08 ARBOR LAKE DISCHARGE N OF 

MONTCLAIR 



417 

Hillsborough 


21FLHILL24030207 LOCAL STATION 7 HILLSBOROUGH B 1558D ESTUARY HILLSBOROUGH BAY 

LOWER 

21FLHILL24020905 HLSBRGH BAY 3/4 MI NE A RANGE MK 1558D ESTUARY HILLSBOROUGH BAY 

LOWER 

21FLHILL055 Hillsborough Bay E channel marker 22 1558D ESTUARY HILLSBOROUGH BAY 

LOWER 

21FLHILL073 

Hillsborough Bay 3/4 mile NE of Cut A range 1558D ESTUARY HILLSBOROUGH BAY 

marker 

LOWER 

21FLHILL080 Lower Hillsborough Bay C Channel junction 1558D ESTUARY HILLSBOROUGH BAY 

LOWER 

21FLHILL007 Hillsborough Bay 1558D ESTUARY HILLSBOROUGH BAY 

LOWER 

BSG 103 1558D ESTUARY HILLSBOROUGH BAY 

LOWER 


LOWER 

1995 1998 1616 

1995 1998 1521 

1999 2001 423 

1999 2001 430 

1999 2001 421 

1999 2001 423 

1995 2002 1022 

1996 2002 148



OBSER 


LOWER 


LOWER 


LOWER 

21FLHILL24010050 LOW HILLSBOROUGH BAY JCT C CH 1558D ESTUARY HILLSBOROUGH BAY 

LOWER 


LOWER 


LOWER 

21FLHILL24020901 HILLSBRGH BAY W OF CITIES SERV P 1558D ESTUARY HILLSBOROUGH BAY 

LOWER 

21FLHILL24020902 HILLSBOROUGH B E CHAN MARKER 22 1558D ESTUARY HILLSBOROUGH BAY 

LOWER 

21FLHILL008 Hillsborough Bay East 1558D ESTUARY HILLSBOROUGH BAY 

LOWER 

21FLHILL006 Hillsborough Bay E of Ballast Pt. Pier 1558E ESTUARY HILLSBOROUGH BAY 

UPPER 

BSG 1020 1558E ESTUARY HILLSBOROUGH BAY 

UPPER 

21FLHILL24030305 HLSBGH B 300 YD S SW TIP DAV IS 1558E ESTUARY HILLSBOROUGH BAY 

UPPER 


UPPER 


UPPER 


UPPER 


UPPER 


UPPER 


UPPER 


UPPER 


UPPER 


UPPER 

1995 2002 970 

1996 2002 148 

1995 2002 3366 

1995 1998 1452 

1995 2002 3836 

1995 2002 15362 

1995 1998 1592 

1995 1998 1497 

1999 2001 447 

1999 2001 429 

1996 2002 148 

1995 1998 1649 

1995 2002 3512 

1995 2002 3160 

1996 2002 535 

1995 2002 1941 

1995 2002 3648 

1996 2002 619 

1995 2002 2153 

1996 2002 621 

1995 2002 2355



OBSER 

21FLHILL070 

Hillsborough Bay 300 yards S of SW tip of 

Davis Is 

1558E ESTUARY HILLSBOROUGH BAY 

UPPER 


UPPER 


UPPER 


UPPER 


UPPER 

21FLHILL071 

Hillsborough Bay 3000 yards S of Port 

1558E ESTUARY HILLSBOROUGH BAY 

Sutton silos 

UPPER 

21FLHILL24030703 MCKAY B MOUTH MCKAY B 1558E ESTUARY HILLSBOROUGH BAY 

UPPER 

21FLHILL044 Hillsborough Bay east of Bayshore Blvd. 1558E ESTUARY HILLSBOROUGH BAY 

UPPER 

21FLHILL24030206 HILLSBOROUGH B E PIER BALLAST 1558E ESTUARY HILLSBOROUGH BAY 

UPPER 

21FLHILL24030602 HLSBGH B 3000 YD S SILOS PT SUT 1558E ESTUARY HILLSBOROUGH BAY 

UPPER 

21FLHILL24030203 HILLSBOROUGH B E BAYSHORE BLVD 1558E ESTUARY HILLSBOROUGH BAY 

UPPER 


UPPER 

1999 2001 449 

1995 2002 998 

1995 2002 1006 

1996 2002 148 

1995 2002 1090 

1999 2001 430 

1995 1998 1632 

1999 2001 440 

1995 1998 1564 

1995 1998 1538 

1995 1998 1698 

1996 2002 148 


41 

Lower Tampa 


21FLA 42723SEAS Bayou west of Bonne Fortune Key 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 1997 57 

21FLA 48081SEAS Breakwater at SW end of Skyway Causeway 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 2000 653 

21FLA 42731SEAS North end of Christopher Key 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 2000 625 

21FLA 42732SEAS South end of Christopher Key 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 2000 625 

21FLA 42733SEAS Old WWTP outfall at NE end of Mullet Key 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 2000 517 

21FLA 42743SEAS South end of Mullet Key Bayou at pilings 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 2000 619 

21FLA 42872SEAS SE end of 1st bridge N of Skyway Bridge 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 2000 619 

21FLA 42908SEAS Eastside of Skyway Causeway S of shoal 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 2000 619 

21FLA 42931SEAS SE end of bridge at N end of Skyway 

Causeway 

1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 2000 613



OBSER 

21FLA 48030SEAS Emerson Point at ICWW 7 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 2000 693 

21FLA 48050SEAS ICWW 63 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 2000 681 

21FLA 48060SEAS Southwest side of Sunshine Skyway Bridge 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 2000 688 

21FLA 42721SEAS North tip of Bonne Fortune Key 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 2000 622 

21FLA 48080SEAS Big Miguel Pass 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 2000 710 

21FLA 48100SEAS Rattlesnake Key Shoreline 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 2000 693 

21FLA 48070SEAS Stake NW of Big Miguel Pass 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 2000 679 

21FLA 42652SEAS 200 yds. NE of SSC marker 23 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 2000 632 

BSG 95 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 2002 3713 

21FLA 24040005 TAMPA BAY BASIN/PASS-A- 

1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 1997 173 

GRILLE/MARINE SITE 

21FLA 42003SEAS O'Neil's Marina 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 1997 56 

21FLA 42004SEAS Sailboat anchorage W of Tierra Verde 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 1998 85 

21FLA 42005SEAS N tip of Sawyer Key 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 2000 493 

21FLA 42006SEAS Inside lagoon E of sta. 731 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 1999 116 

21FLA 42013SEAS Shoreline W of Skyway Rest Area 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 1998 188 

21FLA 42626SEAS West tip of Indian Key 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 2000 484 

21FLA 42663SEAS Shoal South of Cow and Calf Keys 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 2000 599 

21FLA 42648SEAS Yacht Basin at NE tip Tierra Verde 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 2000 491 

21FLA 42720SEAS Old WWTP outfall at NE tip Madelaine Key 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 2000 503 

21FLPDEM60-01 SW BOCA CIEGA BAY IN MACPHERSON 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 1998 1332 

BAYOU 

21FLA 42660SEAS Dock on 4th canal S of Sta. 648 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 2000 487 

21FLA 42676SEAS Shoreline East of SSC marker 18 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 2000 638 

21FLA 42685SEAS North tip of Jackass Key 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 2000 638 

21FLA 42686SEAS Southwest tip of Tarpon Key 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 2000 594 

21FLA 42696SEAS NE of Bunces Pass Bridge at stakes 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 2000 628 

21FLA 42701SEAS West of SSC marker 9 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 2000 619 

21FLA 42703SEAS Pass-A-Grille channel marker 8 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 1999 151 

21FLA 42705SEAS Mouth of Bunces Pass 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 2000 625 

21FLA 42627SEAS Isla del Sol at Ft.DeSoto Causeway 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 2000 481



OBSER 

21FLHILL096 

Lower Tampa Bay 1 mile north of Mullet Key 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1999 2001 396 

Ship Ch 

21FLHILL24010296 MULLET KEY CH TAMPA BAY BUOY R14 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 1998 1563 

21FLPDEM60-03 PINE KEY CUTOFF E SIDE OF TIERRA 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 1998 705 

VERDE 

21FLHILL24040371 LOW TAMPA BAY 1 MI N MUL KEY SH 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 1998 1381 

21FLHILL24010295 LOW TAMPA BAY SW SKYWAY BUOY 

1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 1998 1435 

R70 

21FLA 48200SEAS Red marker 2 East of station 50 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 2000 681 

21FLHILL24010294 LOW TAMPA BAY SW CH BELL BUOY 5 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1995 1998 1405 

21FLHILL092 Lower Tampa Bay SW Skyway Bouy R70 1558A ESTUARY TAMPA BAY LOWER 1999 2001 407 

21FLDOH MANATEE2 BAYFRONT PARK SOUTH 1558AC COASTAL BAYFRONT PARK 

2000 2002 41 

SOUTH 

21FLMANA455 RAMP South Segment 1558AC COASTAL BAYFRONT PARK 

1996 2002 439 

SOUTH 

21FLPDEM96-10 S BOCA CIEGA BAY 8049 COASTAL TAMPA BAY GULF 1997 1997 184 

21FLPDEM96-11 S BOCA CIEGA BAY 8049 COASTAL TAMPA BAY GULF 1997 1997 189 

21FLHILL094 Egmont channel Tampa Bay Bouy R10 8049 COASTAL TAMPA BAY GULF 1999 2001 398 

21FLHILL093 Lower Tampa Bay SW Channel bell bouy 5 8049 COASTAL TAMPA BAY GULF 1999 2001 407 

21FLDOH PINELLAS5 FORT DESOTO NORTH BEACH 8049B COASTAL FORT DESOTO NORTH 

BEACH 

2000 2002 13 


53 

Middle Tampa 


21FLHILL24010196 LOWER TAM BAY 3/4 MI NW PINEY PT 1558B ESTUARY TAMPA BAY MID 1995 1998 1370 

21FLA 42875SEAS SE tip of shoal E of Sta. 906 1558B ESTUARY TAMPA BAY MID 1995 2000 590 

21FLHILL24040353 LOWER TAMPA B MARKER 6 1558B ESTUARY TAMPA BAY MID 1995 1998 1397 

21FLHILL24010297 LOW TAMPA BAY 1 1/4 MI S MUL KEY 1558B ESTUARY TAMPA BAY MID 1995 1998 1498 

21FLHILL24010198 LOWER TAM BAY MN CHAN MARK 9B 1558B ESTUARY TAMPA BAY MID 1995 1998 1410 

21FLHILL24010194 LWR TPA BAY MN CH BTWN MRK 1D-2D 1558B ESTUARY TAMPA BAY MID 1995 1998 1422 

21FLHILL24040355 LOW TAMPA B E BR ON SUNSHINE SKY 1558B ESTUARY TAMPA BAY MID 1995 1998 1343 

21FLA 42935SEAS Mouth of canal E of Maximo Point 1558B ESTUARY TAMPA BAY MID 1995 2000 457 

21FLA 48130SEAS Two Brothers Island 1558B ESTUARY TAMPA BAY MID 1995 2000 686



OBSER 

21FLA 48120SEAS Joe Bay 1558B ESTUARY TAMPA BAY MID 1995 2000 681 

21FLHILL24010191 LWR TPA BAY MN CHN BTWN MRK 1E 2 1558B ESTUARY TAMPA BAY MID 1995 1998 1487 

21FLA 48190SEAS Range marker S of Port Manatee Channel 1558B ESTUARY TAMPA BAY MID 1995 2000 666 

21FLA 42833SEAS Channel marker 3A in Tampa Ship Channel 1558B ESTUARY TAMPA BAY MID 1995 1998 92 

21FLPDEMAMB 98-15 Tampa Bay 1558B ESTUARY TAMPA BAY MID 1999 1999 225 

21FLPDEM44-04 TAMPA BAY OFF NW CORNER OF ST 

1558B ESTUARY TAMPA BAY MID 1995 1998 1324 

PETE PIER 

21FLA 42934SEAS ICWW 8 1558B ESTUARY TAMPA BAY MID 1995 2000 589 

21FLHILL24010298 LWR TPA BAY 100 YDS N SUNSHINE S 1558B ESTUARY TAMPA BAY MID 1995 1998 1500 

21FLA 42906SEAS East of Sta. 908 at stake 1558B ESTUARY TAMPA BAY MID 1995 2000 597 

21FLHILL24010293 LOW TAMPA BAY SHIP CH BUOY R4A 1558B ESTUARY TAMPA BAY MID 1995 1998 1468 

21FLPDEMAMB 98-43 Tampa Bay 1558B ESTUARY TAMPA BAY MID 1999 1999 226 

21FLHILL24040043 TPA BAY BTWN MRKRS 5F AND 67 1558C ESTUARY TAMPA BAY UPPER 1995 1998 1409 

21FLHILL24040331 MDLE TPA BAY AT J RNG MRK, S CUT 1558C ESTUARY TAMPA BAY UPPER 1995 1998 1428 

21FLHILL24040042 TAMPA BAY 100 FT S OF CHAN F MRK 1558C ESTUARY TAMPA BAY UPPER 1995 1998 1452 

21FLHILL24040312 LOWER TAMPA BAY MARKER 5G 1558C ESTUARY TAMPA BAY UPPER 1995 1998 1432 

21FLHILL24040311 LOWER TAMPA BAY MARKER 12J 1558C ESTUARY TAMPA BAY UPPER 1995 1998 1416 

21FLHILL032 Tampa Bay Marker 5G 1558C ESTUARY TAMPA BAY UPPER 1999 2001 412 

21FLHILL014 Tampa Bay between markers 5F and 67 1558C ESTUARY TAMPA BAY UPPER 1999 2001 413 

21FLHILL013 

Tampa Bay 100 ft. south of Channel F 

1558C ESTUARY TAMPA BAY UPPER 1999 2001 407 

marker 

BSG 23 1558C ESTUARY TAMPA BAY UPPER 1995 2002 2611 

BSG 13 1558C ESTUARY TAMPA BAY UPPER 1995 2002 4805 

21FLHILL24020904 LOWER TPA BAY AT SHIP CHNL MRKR 1558C ESTUARY TAMPA BAY UPPER 1995 1998 1439 

21FLHILL24010090 MID TAMPA BAY 1 MI N SIMMONS PK 1558C ESTUARY TAMPA BAY UPPER 1995 1998 1437 

21FLHILL24010190 MID TAMPA BAY 1 MI W BAHIA BCH 1558C ESTUARY TAMPA BAY UPPER 1995 1998 1591 


33 


21FLHILL24040291 OLD TAMPA BAY CHAN MK 16 1558F ESTUARY OLD TAMPA BAY 

LOWER 

1995 1998 1432



OBSER 

21FLHILL24040046 O TAMPA BAY 100 YD W PT TAMP DCK 1558F ESTUARY OLD TAMPA BAY 

1995 1998 1540 

LOWER 

21FLHILL068 Old Tampa Bay channel marker 16 1558F ESTUARY OLD TAMPA BAY 

1999 2001 413 

LOWER 

21FLHILL24040271 OLD TPA BAY 100 YD N W END GND B 1558G ESTUARY OLD TAMPA BAY 1995 1998 1469 

21FLHILL24040265 OLD TPA BAY BTW H F BR AND GND B 1558G ESTUARY OLD TAMPA BAY 1995 1998 1710 

21FLHILL24040048 OLD TPA BAY 100 FT SE END GANDY 1558G ESTUARY OLD TAMPA BAY 1995 1998 1453 

21FLHILL051 

Old Tampa Bay 100 ft SE of east end of 

1558G ESTUARY OLD TAMPA BAY 1999 2001 379 

Gandy Bridg 

21FLHILL050 

Old Tampa Bay 2 miles southeast of east 1558G ESTUARY OLD TAMPA BAY 1999 2001 413 

end of Fra 

21FLHILL038 

Old Tampa Bay 100 yards north of west end 1558G ESTUARY OLD TAMPA BAY 1999 2001 387 

of Gandy 

21FLHILL24040092 O TAMPA B 2 MI SE E END FRNKLN 1558G ESTUARY OLD TAMPA BAY 1995 1998 1412 

21FLHILL067 

Old Tampa Bay between Franklin and 

1558G ESTUARY OLD TAMPA BAY 1999 2001 401 

Gandy bridges 

21FLHILL24040062 OLD TAMPA BAY- 100 YD NE OF BRID 1558H ESTUARY OLD TAMPA BAY 1995 1998 1533 

21FLPDEMAMB 63-1 Old Tampa Bay 1558H ESTUARY OLD TAMPA BAY 1999 2001 591 

21FLHILL24040093 O TAMPA B CENTER H FRANKLIN BR 1558H ESTUARY OLD TAMPA BAY 1995 1998 1528 

21FLPDEM63-01 OLD TAMPA BAY .6 MI S ON W BAYSIDE 1558H ESTUARY OLD TAMPA BAY 1995 1998 1291 

BRIDGE 

BSG 43 1558H ESTUARY OLD TAMPA BAY 2000 2002 540 

21FLHILL24040141 O TAMPA B N H FRANKLN BR TAMP EN 1558H ESTUARY OLD TAMPA BAY 1995 1998 1490 

21FLHILL24040191 O TAMPA B N CAMPBELL CWY BR 1558H ESTUARY OLD TAMPA BAY 1995 1998 1536 



21FLHILL047 

Old Tampa Bay north of Courtney Campbell 1558H ESTUARY OLD TAMPA BAY 1999 2001 440 

Causeway 

21FLHILL24040261 OLD TPA BAY 2.7 MI W MN SP H F B 1558H ESTUARY OLD TAMPA BAY 1995 1998 1617 

21FLHILL040 

Old Tampa Bay north of center of Howard 1558H ESTUARY OLD TAMPA BAY 1999 2001 414 

Franklin B 

21FLHILL041 

Old Tampa Bay north of Tampa end of 

1558H ESTUARY OLD TAMPA BAY 1999 2001 413 

Howard Frankli 

21FLHILL061 Old Tampa Bay 100 yd NE of bridge 1558H ESTUARY OLD TAMPA BAY 1999 2001 453 

21FLHILL065 

Old Tampa Bay marker 1 mile S of Campbell 

Causeway 

1558H ESTUARY OLD TAMPA BAY 1999 2001 411



OBSER 

21FLHILL066 

Old Tampa Bay 2.7 miles NW of main span 1558H ESTUARY OLD TAMPA BAY 1999 2001 404 

Franklin b 

21FLHILL24040251 OLD TPA BAY MRKR 1 MI S C. C. CS 1558H ESTUARY OLD TAMPA BAY 1995 1998 1515 

21FLHILL062 

Old Tampa Bay north of municipal beach in 1558HB COASTAL BEN T. DAVIS NORTH 1999 2001 491 

channel 

21FLHILL24040061 OLD TAMPA B N MUN BCH IN CH 1558HB COASTAL BEN T. DAVIS NORTH 1995 1998 1622 

21FLDOH 

BEN T. DAVIS NORTH 1558HB COASTAL BEN T. DAVIS NORTH 2000 2002 40 

HILLSBOROUGH1 

21FLHILL24040051 OLD TAMPA B 1/8 MI SW MUN BCH 1558HC COASTAL BEN T. DAVIS SOUTH 1995 1998 1479 

21FLDOH 

BEN T. DAVIS SOUTH 1558HC COASTAL BEN T. DAVIS SOUTH 2000 2002 41 

HILLSBOROUGH2 

21FLHILL063 

Old Tampa Bay 1/8 mile SW of municipal 1558HC COASTAL BEN T. DAVIS SOUTH 1999 2001 428 

beach 

21FLHILL24040230 OLD TAMPA BAY SE PWR PLNT 1558I ESTUARY OLD TAMPA BAY 1995 1998 1573 

21FLHILL24040231 OLD TAMPA BAY CAMPBELL PKWY 1558I ESTUARY OLD TAMPA BAY 1995 1998 1463 

21FLHILL064 Old Tampa Bay Campbell Pkwy 1558I ESTUARY OLD TAMPA BAY 1999 2001 418 

21FLHILL060 

Old Tampa bay 1 mile SW of Cabbagehead 1558I ESTUARY OLD TAMPA BAY 1999 2001 421 


21FLHILL046 Old Tampa Bay southeast of power plant 1558I ESTUARY OLD TAMPA BAY 1999 2001 428 

21FLHILL24040081 OLD TPA BAY 1 MI SW CABBAGEHEAD 1558I ESTUARY OLD TAMPA BAY 1995 1998 1422 

21FLPDEM11-01 W POSSUM BRANCH N OF 580 DAYS 

END DOCK 

1558I ESTUARY OLD TAMPA BAY 1995 1998 918 


41


Table E.3: Water Quality Trend Data, by Major Bay Segment 

Lower Tampa Bay South (1558A) 

4567891019691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 

Mean and 95% Confidence Level 

00.511.522.533.544.5519691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 

Mean and 95% Con 

02004006008001000120014001600180019691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 

Mean an


0250500750100012501500175020002250250019691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 

M


Lower Tampa Bay South (1558A) 

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9119691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 

Mean and 95% Confidence L 

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9119691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 

Mean and 95% Confiden 

012345678910111219691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 

Mean and 95% Confidence Level


Lower Tampa Bay North (1558B) 

4567891019691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 


00.511.522.533.544.5519691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 


0250500750100012501500175020002250250019691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 

M


050010001500200025003000350019691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 

Mean and 95% C


Lower Tampa Bay North (1558B) 

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9119691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 


00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9119691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 

Mean and 95% Confiden 

012345678910111219691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 



Middle Tampa Bay South (1558B) 

4567891019691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 


00.511.522.533.544.5519691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 


05010015020025030035040019691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 

Mean and 95% Confi


02505007501000125015001750200019691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year Mean and 95


Middle Tampa Bay South (1558B) 

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9119691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 


00.20.40.60.811.21.41.619691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 

Mean and 95% Confidence Lev 

024681012141619691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 



Middle Tampa Bay North (1558C) 

4567891019691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 


00.511.522.533.544.5519691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 


05010015020025030035040045050055060019691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 

Mea


0500100015002000250030003500400019691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year Mean and 9


Middle Tampa Bay North (1558C) 

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.911.119691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 

Mean and 95% Confidenc 

00.20.40.60.811.21.41.61.8219691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 

Mean and 95% Confidenc 

02468101214161820222419691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 



Hillsborough Bay South (1558D) 

4567891019691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 


00.511.522.533.544.5519691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 


010002000300040005000600070008000900010000110001200019691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year


02000400060008000100001200014000160001800019691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year


Hillsborough Bay South (1558D) 

00.20.40.60.811.21.41.619691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 


00.511.522.533.519691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 


0510152025303540455019691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 



Hillsborough Bay North (1558E) 

4567891019691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 


0123456 7 19691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year Mean and 95% Confidence Level 

01000200030004000500060007000800019691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 

Mean an


0200040006000800010000120001400019691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 

Mean and


Hillsborough Bay North (1558E) 

00.20.40.60.811.21.41.619691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 


00.511.522.533.519691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 


0510152025303540455019691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 



Old Tampa Bay Below U. S. 92 (1558F) 

4567891019691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 


00.511.522.533.544.5519691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 


0200400600800100012001400160018002000220019691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year


050010001500200025003000350019691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 

Mean and 95% C


Old Tampa Bay Below U. S. 92 (1558F) 

00.20.40.60.811.21.419691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 


00.20.40.60.811.21.41.619691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 


02468101214161820222419691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 



Old Tampa Bay Above U. S. 92 (1558G) 

4567891019691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 


00.511.522.533.544.5519691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 


05010015020025030035040019691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 

Mean and 95% Confid


0100200300400500600700800900100019691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 

Mean and


Old Tampa Bay Above U. S. 92 (1558G) 

00.20.40.60.811.21.419691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 


00.20.40.60.811.21.41.61969197119731975197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 

Mean and 95% Confidence Level197 

02468101214161820222419691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 



Old Tampa Bay Between S. R. 60 and I-275 (1558H) 

4567891019691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 


00.511.522.533.544.5519691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 

Mean and 95% Co 

0100200300400500600700800900100019691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 

Mean and


02004006008001000120014001600180019691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 

Mean and


Old Tampa Bay Between S. R. 60 and I-275 (1558H) 

00.20.40.60.811.21.419691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 


00.20.40.60.811.21.41.619691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 


02468101214161820222419691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 



Old Tampa Bay Above S. R. 60(1558I) 

4567891019691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 


00.511.522.533.544.5519691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 

Mean and 95% Confid 

025507510012515017520022525027530019691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 

Mean a


0100200300400500600700800900100019691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year Mean and 95%


Old Tampa Bay Above S. R. 60(1558I) 

00.20.40.60.811.21.419691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 


00.20.40.60.811.21.41.619691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 


02468101214161820222419691971197319751977197919811983198519871989199119931995199719992001Year 



Appendix F: Permitted Facilities with Discharges Greater Than 0.1 Mgd in the Tampa Bay Basin 

DOMESTIC 

Permit 

Number 


Segment* 

Disposal 

Method** 

Permitted 

Flow 

(MGD) 

Comments 

City of Mulberry FL0020338 HB sw 0.75 

City of Zephyrhills FLA012744 HB la 2.25 

Country Meadows-Golden Lakes WWTP FLA122246 HB la 0.21 

Cypress Lakes FLA013123 HB la 0.24 

Falkenburg Road AWTP FL0040614 HB sw, la 6 

Howard F. Curren FL0020940 HB sw, la 96 

Meadowlands FL0041416 HB sw 0.2 

Pasco Center Subregional FLA012724 HB la 0.1 Off line 

Pebble Creek Village WWTF FL0039896 HB sw, la 0.4 

Plant City FL0026557 HB sw, la 8 

Rice Creek Utility FL0122076 HB sw, la 0.225 

Southeast Pasco Subregional FLA012737 HB la 0.8 

Southwest Regional FLA012954 HB la 2 

Summerfield Subregional Phase 1 FLA012116 HB la 0.75 

Trout Creek FLA012795 HB la 0.175 Off line 

Valrico FL0040983 HB sw, la 4 

W Carl Dicks WRF FL0039772 HB sw 13.7 

Wesley Center Subregional FLA016094 HB la 3 

Bradenton FL0021369 LTB sw, la 6 

City of Palmetto FL0020401 LTB sw, la 2.4 

Manatee County North County Regional FLA012619 LTB la, uic 18 

Manatee County Southeast Regional FLA012618 LTB la 5.4 

St. Petersburg Southwest FLA128848 LTB la, uic 20


MacDill Air Force Base FLA012124 MTB la 1.2 

South County Regional FL0028061 MTB sw, la 3.95 

St. Petersburg Albert Whitted FLA128830 MTB la, uic 12.4 

St. Petersburg Northeast FLA128856 MTB la, uic 16 

City of Clearwater - East FL0021865 OTB sw 4.3 

City of Clearwater - Northeast FL0128937 OTB sw, la 13.5 

City of Largo FL0026603 OTB sw, la 15 

City of Oldsmar FL0027651 OTB sw, la 2.25 

Dale Mabry FL0036820 OTB sw, la 6 

Eagles FLA012167 OTB la 0.3 

Northwest Pinellas Regional WRF FLA012877 OTB la 9 

NW Regional WRF (Hillsborough Co.) FL0041670 OTB sw, la 5 

On Top of the World FLA012905 OTB la 0.6 

River Oaks FL0027821 OTB sw 10 

St. Petersburg Northwest FLA128821 OTB la, uic 20 

Tarpon Lake Village FLA012880 OTB la 0.88 Off line 

Tarpon Woods FLA012878 OTB la 0.25 Off line 

Van Dyke FLA012234 OTB la 1.5 

INDUSTRIAL 

Permit 

Number 


Segment* 

Disposal 

Method** 

Permitted 

Flow 

(MGD) 

Comments 

Agrifos LLC [Mobil Mining]-Nichols Mine FL0000311 HB sw Report 

Agrifos LLC [Mobil Mining]-Nichols Prep FL0000299 HB sw Report 

Plant 

Cargill Fertilizer-Bartow Chemical Plant FL0001589 HB sw, hp Report 

Cargill Fertilizer-Hookers Prairie Mine FL0033294 HB sw, hp Report 

Cargill Fertilizer-Riverview Chemical Plant FL0000761 HB sw Report


Cargill Fertilizer-Silver City Rock Handling FL0043877 HB sw Currently part of permit 

FL0033294 

CF Industries-Bartow Chemical Plant FL0000523 HB sw Report 

CF Industries-Plant City Chemical Plant FL0000078 HB sw Report 

CF Industries-Tampa Terminal FL0166057 HB sw Report 

City of Tampa Waterworks FL0035971 HB sw Report 

Crystals International, Inc. FL0037389 HB sw Report 

CSX Transportation Winston Yard FL0032581 HB sw Report 

Cytec Industries-Brewster Phosphogypsum FL0132381 HB sw Report 

Stack 

Estech-Agricola Phosphogypsum Stack FL0160083 HB sw Report Closed stack 

Farmland Hydro L.P.-Green Bay Chemical FL0000752 HB sw Report 

Plant 

Farmland Hydro-NH3 Terminal [Port Sutton FL0038652 HB sw Report 

Rd] 

Florida Juice Inc. FL0001457 HB sw Report 

IMC Fertilizer Hayneswworth Mine FL0001449 HB sw Currently part of permit 

FL0000256 

IMC-Phosphates Port Sutton Terminal FL0000264 HB sw 0.864 **** 

IMC-Phosphates Hopewell Mine FL0032590 HB sw Report 

IMC-Phosphates Kingsford, Haynesworth, FL0000256 HB sw, hp Report 

and Big Four Mine Complex 

IMC-Phosphates Lonesome Mine FL0033332 HB sw Report 

IMC-Phosphates Nichols Concentrates Plant FL0030139 HB sw Report 

IMC-Phosphates Noralyn Mine Complex FL0000230 HB sw, hp Report 

IMC-Phosphates South Pierce Concentrates FL0000370 HB sw Report 

Plant 

Mobil Mining Big Four Mine FL0033235 HB sw Currently part of permit 

FL0000256 

Mobil Mining-ElectroPhos Site FL0002666 HB sw Report Closed site 

Mulberry Phosphates-Mulberry Chemical 

Plant 

FL0000671 HB sw Report


Nitram, Inc. FL0001643 HB sw 0.41 

TECO Gannon Power Plant FL0000809 HB sw 

TECO Hookers Point Power Plant FL0000825 HB sw 

Trademark Nitrogen FL0000647 HB sw Report 

Piney Point Phosphates-Chemical Plant FL0000124 LTB sw Closed site with 

emergency discharge 

order. 

Tropicana Products, Inc. FL0000043 LTB sw 0.8**** 

FDEP Stock Enhancement Facility FL0012655 MTB sw 0.3 

Florida Power & Light Manatee Power Plant FL0032174 MTB hp, sw 

IMC-Agrico [IMC Fertilizer] Four Corners FL0036412 MTB sw Report 

Mine 

TECO Big Bend Power Plant FL0000817 MTB sw 

Tampa Bay Water Desalination Facility FL0186813 MTB sw 19.5 Scheduled to begin 

operation in spring 

2003. 

Florida Power Corp. Bartow Power Plant FL0000132 OTB sw 

Florida Power Corp. Higgins Power Plant FL0000167 OTB sw 

Shell Oil Port Tampa FL0000591 OTB sw Report 

* OTB - Old Tampa Bay, HB - Hillsborough Bay, MTB - Middle Tampa Bay, LTB - 


** sw - surface water, la - land application, uic - underground injection, hp - holding 

pond 

*** discharge dependent on background flow 

**** design capacity


Appendix G: Level 1 Land Use in the Tampa Bay Basin, by 

Planning Unit 

Planning Unit 

Land Use Category 

Area (square Percentage of 

miles) Land Area 

Hillsborough Bay Urban and Built-up 449.3399 35.94 

Agriculture 357.5595 28.60 

Rangeland 57.3410 4.59 

Upland Forests 118.4950 9.48 

Water 29.1414 2.33 

Wetlands 211.4263 16.91 

Barren Land 2.6339 0.21 

Transportation, Utilities 24.1900 1.94 

Total 1250.1270 100.00 

Coastal Hillsborough Bay Urban and Built-up 78.3819 48.43 


Rangeland 4.0043 2.47 


Water 5.0401 3.11 

Wetlands 14.4858 8.95 



Total 161.8586 100.00 

Old Tampa Bay Urban and Built-up 131.9680 49.90 




Water 18.4689 6.98 

Wetlands 54.6538 20.66 



Total 264.4819 100.00 

Coastal Old Tampa Bay Urban and Built-up 124.5910 51.04 




Water 18.3900 7.53 

Wetlands 42.4689 17.40 



Total 244.1236 100.00 

Middle Tampa Bay Urban and Built-up 63.7148 20.66 


Rangeland 20.5350 6.66 


Water 9.7927 3.18 

Wetlands 52.2764 16.95 



Total 308.4238 100.00 

Coastal Middle Tampa Bay Urban and Built-up 37.8313 50.99 




Water 2.3136 3.12


Planning Unit 

Land Use Category 

Area (square Percentage of 

miles) Land Area 

Wetlands 13.3111 17.94 



Total 74.1878 100.00 

Lower Tampa Bay Urban and Built-up 66.3337 16.56 


Rangeland 53.2845 13.30 


Water 7.6621 1.91 

Wetlands 61.7348 15.41 



Total 400.5123 100.00 

Coastal Lower Tampa Bay Urban and Built-up 11.0267 25.08 




Water 1.1857 2.70 

Wetlands 10.5767 24.05 



Total 43.9705 100.00


Appendix H: Pollutant Loading Estimates for 

the Tampa Bay Basin 

The pollutant loading estimates in this section are based on documentation from the 

Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP), which has conducted several studies of loadings to 

Tampa Bay over the past decade, and data from long-term monitoring stations for the 

USGS. Appendix I in the Status Report describes the methodology used for developing 

the loading estimates. 

Loadings to Tampa Bay 

The TBEP reports divide the bay into four mainstem segments: Old Tampa Bay, 

Hillsborough Bay, Middle Tampa Bay, and Lower Tampa Bay. Minor segments 

included Boca Ceiga, Terra Ceia Bay, and the Manatee River. A total of 435 subbasins, 

including ten subbasins comprising the open water areas of Tampa Bay, have been 

delineated. The total study area encompasses approximately 2,646 square miles. 

Excluding open waters of the bay, the watershed includes 425 subbasins covering 

approximately 2,276 square miles. 

Table H.1 summarizes the average annual loads of total nitrogen (TN), total 

phosphorus (TP), total suspended solids (TSS), and BOD from seven major sources of 

contamination into Tampa Bay based on data from 1995 to 1998. 

Table H.1: Summary of Average Annual Pollutant Loads (tons) into Tampa Bay from Seven Major 

Sources 

Source of contamination TN TP TSS BOD 

Atmospheric deposition 1,094 259 

Domestic point sources 426 356 255 287 

Industrial point sources 203 177 789 1,085 

Springs 205 3.4 0.8 

Ground water 2.13 12.05 

Material losses 267 379 

Nonpoint sources 4,194 8,317 54,086 8,580 

Total (tons/year) 6,391 9,503 55,131 9,952 

River Loadings at USGS Gauge Locations 

River loadings of BOD, TSS, TN, and TP were calculated using data from three longterm 

USGS monitoring stations: in the Alafia River Basin (ARB), at the Hillsborough 

River Reservoir Dam (HRRD), and in the Little Manatee River Basin (LMRB). Water 

quality data came from the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission 

(HCEPC), which conducts monitoring monthly at or near the three USGS gauges. 

However, water quality data were not available at the Manatee River gauge location.


Table H.2 compares the loadings calculated for BOD, TSS, TN, and TP from 

measured values in the three basins, expressed as pounds/acre/year during the 1979-1998 

period. 

Table H.2: USGS Gauges at HRRD, LMRB, and ARB (BOD, TSS, TN, and TP [pounds/acre/year] as 

Minimum, Median, and Maximum) 

BOD TSS TN TP 

Min Med Max Min Med Max Min Med Max Min Med Max 

HRRD 0.28 1.52 5.10 1.44 2.12 18.60 0.18 1.37 3.47 0.06 .050 1.05 

LMRB 1.98 4.79 10.82 6.05 25.67 68.19 1.57 4.12 8.26 0.76 1.65 2.94 

ARB 0.97 2.82 11.71 0.37 5.82 38.46 1.86 4.96 45.39 2.23 5.94 269.9 

As Table H.2 shows, the LMRB exhibits a median BOD loading rate nearly twice 

that of the ARB, which is nearly twice that of the contributions from the HRRD. The 

LMRB exhibits a median TSS loading rate nearly four times that of the ARB, and the 

ARB has a TSS loading rate more than twice that of the contributions from the HRRD. 

The LMRB and ARB exhibit nearly the same median TN loading rate, while both appear 

to have nearly three times the rate of the HRRD. The ARB exhibits nearly three times 

the TP median loading rate of the LMRB, and the TP median loading rate of the LMBR 

is nearly three times that of the HHRD. 

When evaluating the TN and TP data for the ARB, it is readily apparent that the 

loading statistics are affected by extremely high loading rates from 1997, 45 

pounds/acre/year TN and 270 pounds/acre/year TP. The year 1997 was the wettest year 

in nearly 20 years and in December 1997, the failure of an impoundment at the Mulberry 

phosphate facility resulted in the release of approximately 50 million gallons of acidic, 

phosphoric process water into the North Prong of the Alafia River. 

Another observation is that on a per-acre basis, the Hillsborough River Basin seems 

to contribute significantly less BOD, TSS, TN, and TP to the Tampa Bay system than the 

other two river systems. During the drier times of the year, little or no water is released 

from the reservoir, which may be assimilating, storing, and cycling a portion of the total 

load coming out of the Hillsborough River, making the area weighted loadings 

considerably lower.


Appendix I: Documentation Provided during 

Public Comment Period 

EPA’s Comments and Department Responses 

1. The draft master list identified the 1998 mercury (based on fish consumption 

advisory) listing for Cockroach Bay (WBID 1778) as being in Category 5, but it was not 

included on the draft Verified List. 

RESPONSE: The listing for mercury (based on a fish consumption advisory) listing 

for Cockroach Bay (WBID 1778) has been included on the Verified List adopted by the 

DEP Secretary. 

2. The draft master list identified the 1998 nutrients listing for McKay Bay (WBID 

1584B) as being in Category 5, but it was not included on the draft Verified List. 

RESPONSE: The listing for nutrients in McKay Bay (WBID 1584B) has been 

included on the Verified List adopted by the DEP Secretary. 

3. The draft master list identified the 1998 DO and BOD listings for Delaney Creek 

(WBID 1605) as being in Category 5, but these listings were not included on the draft 

Verified List. 

RESPONSE: The listing for DO in Delaney Creek (WBID 1605) has been included 

on the Verified List adopted by the DEP Secretary. DEP does not have a numeric 

criterion for BOD, but it will be evaluated when developing the TMDL for DO. 

4. The draft master list identified the 1998 nutrients listing for the Uceta Yard Drain 

(WBID 1599) as being in Category 3a, but it was not identified as having been included 

on the Planning List per the Impaired Surface Waters Rule. 

RESPONSE: The listing for nutrients for the Uceta Yard Drain (WBID 1599) on the 

1998 303(d) list was done incorrectly. The data were collected in Lemon Bay (1983), a 

Group 2 waterbody, and were incorrectly assigned to the Uceta Yard Drain due to an 

error in assigning the sampling station’s location. There are no data collected for the 

Uceta Yard Drain WBID. 

5. The draft master list identified the 1998 DO listing for Alligator Lake (WBID 

1574A) as being in Category 5, but it was not included on the draft Verified List. 

RESPONSE: The listing for DO in Alligator Lake (WBID 1574A) has been 

included on the Verified List adopted by the DEP Secretary.


6. The draft master list identified the 1998 DO listings for Lake Tarpon Canal 

(WBID 1541A & B) as being in Category 3b, but these listings were not identified as 

having been included on the Planning List per the Impaired Surface Waters Rule. 

RESPONSE: The listings for Lake Tarpon Canal (WBIDs 1541A and 1541B) have 

been included on the Planning List. Lake Tarpon Canal is scheduled for TMDL 

development in 2008, therefore the Department plans to collect additional data to assess 

this waterbody in the next basin rotation cycle. 

7. Documentation must be provided in the final submission to justify delisting the 

four waterbodies named “Direct Runoff to Bay” (i.e., WBIDs 1559, 1593, 1601, and 

1609) based on flaws in the original analyses. The submittal of data demonstrating that 

these waters are not impaired is recommended. 

RESPONSE: The data originally linked to these WBIDs were incorrectly attributed. 

This association error has been corrected. There were no data available to assess these 

WBIDs. 

Formal Public Meeting Comments (Tampa, FL, 7/24/02) and Department 

Responses 

The following are public comments received at the July 24, 2002 public meeting to 

present the draft Verified List of impaired waters in the Tampa Bay (Group 1) Basin: 

1. DEP needs to consider lumping wbid to meet data sufficiency requirements; could 

use land use as a guide, i.e., lump wbid with common land uses; time for review of draft 

Verified List too short; request for explanation and/or guidance on EPA's integrated 

reporting categories; what type of data quality check is performed on the data used in the 

assessment [Tony Janicki, Janicki and Associates, environmental consultant to the 

TBEP] 

RESPONSE: With respect to data quality checks, the Department, for select 

waterbodies, will visually check the raw data and perform a second evaluation following 

the Impaired Surface Waters Rule methodology to determine if the assessments are 

correct. 

2. Some Hillsborough county lakes are listed that perhaps should not be; no specific 

lakes identified [Carlos Fernandes, Ph.D., Chief Environmental Scientist, Hillsborough 

County, Stormwater Management Section]


RESPONSE: The Department, for select waterbodies, will visually check the raw 

data and perform a second evaluation following the Impaired Surface Waters Rule 

methodology to determine if the assessments are correct. 

The Department will evaluate other specific waters if comments are received. 

3. Questioned listing of Brooker Creek for low DO, which in his opinion is naturally 

occurring [Steve Peacock, Peacock and Associates Environmental] 

RESPONSE: There are anthropogenic pollutant sources in the basin that may 

exacerbate the low DO resulting from swamp and wetland drainage. The Department 

plans to perform monitoring in the basin to determine if the low DO is naturally 

occurring. 

4. Questioned “no data” for DO for Hillsborough Bay; sampled continuously since 

1972 by Hillsborough County, EPC and City of Tampa; requested copy of data used in 

the assessment and the Impaired Surface Waters Rule model algorithm; is there a 

bioassessment method to use in estuarine waters [Holly Greening, Senior Scientist, 

Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP)] 

RESPONSE: The “no data” designation was an error in a map provided at the 

meeting. The Department has used Hillsborough Bay DO data in the Impaired Surface 

Waters Rule assessment. A copy of the data used in the Impaired Surface Waters Rule 

assessment has been provided to the Tampa Bay Estuary Program. The Department does 

not use a bioassessment method in estuarine waters to determine biological impairment. 

5. Questioned how the Department will address problems associated with 

identifying sources of coliform impairment [Sam Johnson, EBA] 

RESPONSE: The Department is considering many options. Assessing past and 

current land uses will be most readily available tool. Sampling for total and fecal 

coliforms under high flow and low flow conditions will help establish linkages between 

point source (continuous) and nonpoint source (intermittent) problems. As techniques 

and information improve, the Department anticipates being able more directly identify 

the sources of coliforms, e.g., by using DNA-typing procedures. 

6. Questioned how the Department address DO impairment caused by low flows 

associated with human influence; concerned that minimum flows and levels will not be 

addressed as part of TMDL determinations [Clay Colson, Sierra Club] 

RESPONSE: In the development of TMDLs, existing flow conditions (critical low 

flows and higher flows) in a waterbody will be evaluated to determine impacts on surface 

water quality. Minimum flows and levels are developed by the Water Management 

Districts. If minimum flows and levels have been established for impaired waterbodies, 

the Department will consider these flows and levels in the development of TMDLs.


7. WBID 1548B is shown on the map as impaired, but is not included on the draft 

Verified List or the draft master list; given the short time for reviewing the draft Verified 

List, questioned how the Department will handle waters that get listed in error as 

impaired; if there is no procedure to address such errors, questioned whether affected 

interests should challenge the listing during the 30-day period following adoption of the 

Verified List. [Craig Kovach, CF Industries and Co-chair, Nitrogen Management 

Consortium] 

RESPONSE: WBID 1584B is included on the Verified List and master list as 

impaired for dissolved oxygen, nutrients, and mercury (based on a fish consumption 

advisory). If waters are found to be listed in error the Department will document the 

problem and provide this information to the U.S. EPA. 

8. What is the Department’s management strategy was for addressing challenges 

[Jim Alves, attorney for Florida Cooperating Group (FCG), Tallahassee] 

RESPONSE: The Department has offered the options of mediation or going to an 

administrative hearing to resolve any differences of opinion regarding the list signed by 

the Secretary on August 28, 2002. These options are consistent with past practice and 

Chapter 120 of Florida Statutes. Of course, to reduce the expense to the public, in lieu of 

a formal challenge, additional meetings can be scheduled to discuss the data and process 

used to make listing decisions. 

9. Has the Department evaluated the appropriateness of the Florida criteria; can 

Management Plans be used to provide reasonable assurance Bishops Harbor should be 

identified as impaired [Rob Brown, Manatee County, DEM] 

RESPONSE: When waters identified as impaired are being studied the Department 

will determine if the existing water quality criteria are appropriate to use. Alternative 

criteria will be developed if the existing water quality is not meeting standards due to 

natural background conditions or man induced conditions which cannot be controlled or 

abated. Management plans can be used to provide reasonable assurance as long as the 

appropriate information is submitted as identified in the Department’s guidance 

memorandum entitled, “Guidance for Development of Documentation to Provide 

Reasonable Assurance that Proposed Pollution Control Mechanisms will Result in the 

Restoration of Designated Uses in Impaired Waters”. Some water quality data for 

Bishops Harbor was provided on August 26, but due to time constraints, was not 

incorporated in the Impaired Surface Waters Rule assessment used to prepare the master 

list and Verified List on August 28. Bishops Harbor is not scheduled for TMDL 

development until 2008, so the Department will be reassessing this water in the next 

basin rotation cycle, prior to 2008. 

10.Can “greenhouse" gases be considered in a listing decision Will dioxin be 

considered Made an observation that a Superfund site in Anclote River Basin could


affect waters in northwest Tampa Bay Basin through groundwater migration [Tom 

Lincoln, Sierra Club] 

RESPONSE: Greenhouse gases are not directly assessed as part of the TMDL 

evaluation. Some indirect measures may in some way assess their impact, but the 

Department is not aware on any direct linkages between CO 2 or ozone gases causing 

impacts in the Tampa Bay area. 

11. Dioxin is very rarely found in ambient waters and is very expensive to test for. If 

dioxin is detected in fish tissue, then the Department of Health can issue an advisory 

limiting fish consumption. Once the advisory is issue and the supporting data have been 

verified by DEP, the water will appear on the next Verified List for that area. 

How will the Department provide documentation on causative pollutant for review 

[Bruce DeGrove, Florida Phosphate Council] 

RESPONSE: In cases where a listing for dissolved oxygen is linked to nutrients 

and/or oxygen-demanding substances, the Department will identify the pollutant(s) 

believed to be causing the depressed DO levels as part of its Verified List. In addition, 

the Department will make available to the public all the data used in the assessment 

process. 

12. For shellfish areas, what is the baseline period used for determining changes in 

designation [Tom Reese, attorney] 

RESPONSE: To the best of its ability and where records were available, the 

Department has gone back to the original 1972 listings for shellfish waters. The 

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services’ Shellfish Evaluation Section was 

consulted to ensure accuracy of the maps used in making the assessments for the Group 1 

waters. 

Written Public Comments and Department Responses 

1. Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission (HCEPC) was 

concerned that WBID 1558H should be split vertically for the development of nutrient 

TMDLs in Old Tampa Bay. They felt this would more closely correlate with the input 

sources causing nutrient impairment. [Richard Boler, Hillsborough County 

Environmental Protection Commission ] 

RESPONSE: The Tampa Bay Estuary Program provided the Department a summary 

of the nitrogen management plan for Tampa Bay that the Department is using as 

reasonable assurance that a program is in place to address nutrient loadings to Tampa Bay 

so that nutrient TMDLs would not have to be developed. The Department participates in 

the Tampa Bay Estuary Program committees that regularly review the existing nitrogen


management plan to determine if any further actions need to be taken to address nutrient 

related water quality problems. The evaluation of water quality impacts in Old Tampa 

Bay due to nutrient inputs would best be addressed through the Tampa Bay Estuary 

Program, since a process is already in place to address nitrogen management. 

2. Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission (HCEPC) was 

concerned with the lack of data for WBIDs 1612, 1607, 1609, and 1640 within the 

interbay peninsula of Tampa. They intend to coordinate data collection with the 

Department for future assessment of the WBIDS. 

RESPONSE: The Department welcomes all efforts to collect data for those 

waterbodies that have no data or not enough data to be assessed for impairment. 

Coordination with the Department is encouraged for all sampling events, which are 

designated for assessment or TMDL development, to ensure the data meets the data 

quality requirements as referenced in Rule 62-303, F.A.C. 

3. Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission (HCEPC) requested 

that the Bullfrog Creek, WBIDs 1666 and 1666A, priority designation be changed from 

“medium” to “high” and the TMDL development be scheduled for 2003 instead of 2008. 

RESPONSE: The Department realizes the importance of such waterbodies as 

Bullfrog Creek and others like it that exhibit chronic levels of impairment. The TMDL 

schedule is based on the Consent Decree, 98CV356-WS, implemented in June 1999, that 

incorporated the 1998 303(d) list. As evidenced by the list and by the monitoring needs 

of waterbodies that require TMDLs by 2003, resources may limit the ability for the 

Department to perform additional TMDLs or expedite TMDL development for 

previously listed waters. 

4. Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission (HCEPC) requested 

Delaney Creek to be listed for nutrient impairment based on measured values for total 

nitrogen and ammonia. 

RESPONSE: After careful analysis, the Delaney Creek watershed was divided into 

two waterbody segments. The original watershed, WBID 1605, was classified as a fresh 

water stream, which included the tidal area of Delaney Creek. The data from the tidal 

segment of Delaney Creek did not meet the classification for fresh water and was 

reclassified as an estuary, WBID 1605D. Stations from the original waterbody were 

reassigned to the appropriate segment. All the data were then reanalyzed according to the 

Impaired Surface Waters Rule. The final assessment concluded that the stream segment 

(WBID 1605) for Delaney Creek remained unchanged and is not impaired for nutrients. 

The Impaired Surface Waters Rule does not contain any nutrient concentration thresholds 

that could be used for placing a water on the Verified List for nutrients. However, the 

lower estuarine segment (WBID 1605D) had annual chlorophyll averages above the 

chlorophyll a threshold of 11 µg/l, and has been listed on the Verified List as impaired 

for nutrients. In addition, both the freshwater and estuarine segments of Delaney Creek


are listed for dissolved oxygen on the Verified List. The listing for dissolved oxygen has 

been linked to nutrients. 

5. The Sunset Park Area Homeowners Association (SPAHA) is concerned over the 

“No Data” status for the Sunset Park Area of the Interbay Peninsula (WBID 1609). 

SPAHA representatives have been commenting and submitting local water and sediment 

quality information to the Department’s NPDES Stormwater Permitting Section (Michael 

Bateman). Several documents (fifteen) were submitted containing various data and 

information supporting the SPAHA’s argument to have the watershed designated as 

impaired. [John Thomas, Attorney representing the Sunset Park Area Homeowners 

Association] 

RESPONSE: The Department appreciates the information received for the 

assessment of waterbodies on the Interbay Peninsula. This information has been used to 

place a large portion of the Interbay Peninsula basin area (WBID 1609) on the 

Department’s Planning List for biology, due in particular to fish kills, as allowed by Rule 

62-303, F.A.C. The Department has used the water quality data provided to link the fish 

kills to depressed DO levels. At this time there is insufficient data available to determine 

if this area should be placed on the Verified List. The Department will work with other 

agencies, such as the Hillsborough County EPC, in obtaining additional water quality 

data to determine if waters in this area are impaired. 

6. Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management (DEM) wanted to 

know if any Pinellas County stations were incorrectly assigned to WBIDs 1559, 1593, 

1601, and 1630, and if any data were assigned to WBID 1630. [Pam Leasure, Pinellas 

County Department of Environmental Management] 

RESPONSE: The following is a listing of the WBIDs in question and the stations 

that were reassigned to other WBIDs based on our review of the data used for the 1998 

303(d) list. This includes one Pinellas County DEM station. 

STORET Station Current WBID Correct WBID 

21FLHILL24030451 1609 1443E (Hillsborough River) 

21FLHILL24040101 1601 1570A (Lower Sweetwater Creek) 

21FLPDEM11-01 1559 1558I (Old Tampa Bay) 

112WRD 02307578 1593 1558I (Old Tampa Bay) 

The other WBID in question, 1630, did not have any station data associated with it. It 

was placed on the 1998 303(d) list based on a nonpoint source survey. 

7. Friends of the River, Inc. wanted to know the status of the Lower Hillsborough 

River, specifically if this waterbody is considered impaired or not. [Philip Compton, 

Friends of the River Inc.] 

RESPONSE: The Hillsborough River Basin is in the Department's Basin Group 2 

which includes the major tributaries to Tampa Bay (i.e. Hillsborough, Alafia, Little


Manatee, and Manatee River Basins). The impaired waters list for Basin Group 2 will be 

generated in 2003. The Department is in the process of gathering and evaluating the 

information in Basin Group 2 waters to produce the list. 

The Department's impaired waters list on our Website only includes waters in Basin 

Group 1. For the southwest region of FL, Basin Group 1 includes Tampa Bay proper, the 

adjacent embayments, and the smaller tributaries to the bay.


Appendix J: Parameter Group Maps for the Tampa Bay Basin 

Figure J.1: 

Basinwide Parameter Assessment for Bacteria


Figure J.2: 

Basinwide Parameter Assessment for Biology


Figure J.3: 

Basinwide Parameter Assessment for Chlorophyll/TSI


Figure J.4: 

Basinwide Parameter Assessment for Dissolved Oxygen


Figure J.5: 

Basinwide Parameter Assessment for Metals


Figure J.6: 

Basinwide Parameter Assessment for Turbidity


Figure J.7: 

Basinwide Parameter Assessment for Unionized Ammonia


Appendix K: Tampa Bay Watershed Management Summary 

(Reasonable Assurance Documentation) 

Tampa Bay Watershed Management Summary 

1. Purpose of Document 

The purpose of this document is to summarize the nitrogen management plan 

developed by the Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP) for Tampa Bay and to outline the 

underlying scientific basis for the plan. The TBEP has developed specific, science-based 

nitrogen loading and chlorophyll a target levels for Tampa Bay that are designed to 

protect and restore seagrasses, a fundamental bio-indicator for balanced flora and fauna 

populations in the waterbody. 

This document is provided for the use of the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection (the Department) and other watershed stakeholders in demonstrating 

reasonable assurance that designated uses of waterbody segments within the Tampa Bay 

Basin which are designated as potentially impaired or verified impaired for nutrients 

pursuant to Rule 62-303, F.A.C., will be maintained or restored. This document also 

provides a basis for designation of alternative site-specific thresholds that more 

accurately reflect conditions beyond which an imbalance of flora and fauna may occur. 

To facilitate the document’s use for either purpose, it has been formatted to provide 

elements outlined in the draft “Guidance for Development of Documentation to Provide 

Reasonable Assurance that Proposed Pollution Control Mechanisms will Result in the 

Restoration of Designated Uses in Impaired Waters,” provided by the Department in 

February 2002. 

1. DESCRIPTION OF THE WATERBODY 

The Tampa Bay estuary is located on the eastern shore of the Gulf of Mexico in 

Florida. At 882 square kilometers, it is Florida’s largest open water estuary. More than 2 

million people live in the 5,700-square-kilometer watershed, with a 20 percent increase in 

population projected by 2010. Land use in the watershed is mixed, with about 40 percent 

of the watershed undeveloped, 35 percent agricultural, 16 percent residential, and the 

remaining commercial and mining. Major habitats in the Tampa Bay estuary include 

mangroves, salt marshes and submerged aquatic vegetation. 

Between 1950 and 1990, an estimated 40 to 50 percent of the seagrass acreage in 

Tampa Bay was lost due to excess nitrogen loading and related increases in algae 

concentration, causing light limitation to seagrass survival and growth. In 1980, all 

municipal wastewater treatment plants were required to provide Advanced Wastewater 

Treatment (AWT) for discharges directly to the bay and its tributaries. In addition to the 

significant reductions in nitrogen loadings from municipal wastewater treatment plants, 

stormwater regulations enacted in the 1980s also resulted in reduced nitrogen loads to the 

bay. Estimates for average annual total nitrogen loadings to Tampa Bay for 1976 are 

more than 2.5 times as high as current estimates.


A key focus of the TBEP has been to establish nitrogen loading targets for Tampa 

Bay to encourage seagrass recovery. In 1996, local government and agency partners in 

the TBEP approved a long-term goal to restore 95 percent of the seagrass coverage 

observed in 1950. In 1998, the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium (NMC) 

was formed. The NMC includes local governments and agencies participating in the 

TBEP, and phosphate companies, electric utilities and agricultural interests in the Tampa 

Bay watershed. These entities have pledged to work cooperatively in a voluntary, 

nonregulatory framework to assist with the maintenance of nitrogen loads to support 

seagrass restoration in Tampa Bay. 

Data and observations from Tampa Bay indicate that initial efforts to reduce nitrogen 

loading and the continuing efforts of the TBEP and NMC partners are resulting in 

adequate water quality for the expansion of seagrasses. Time series plots show that, with 

the exception of the 1998 El Nino year, chlorophyll a targets have been met in all four 

major bay segments since 1994. Seagrass acreage increased an average of 350 to 500 

acres per year between 1988 and 1996. Heavy rains associated with El Nino resulted in 

seagrass loss of approximately 2,000 acres between 1996 and 1999; however, 

observations in 2000 and 2001 indicate seagrass expansion in many areas of the bay 

where seagrass was lost between 1996-1999. 

1.A. NAME: 

This document addresses the four major bay segments of Tampa Bay: Hillsborough 

Bay, Old Tampa Bay, Middle Tampa Bay and Lower Tampa Bay. Each bay segment 

includes between two and four individual waterbody segments as defined in the 

Department’s 305(b) Report. 

1.B. LOCATION OF THE WATERBODY AND WATERSHED: 

Please refer to Attachments A-1 and A-2. 

Attachment A-1: state map with Tampa Bay delineated 

Attachment A-2: Final Tampa Bay (Group 1) Status Report, developed by the Department and 

dated May 9, 2002, including 305(b) bay segment boundaries, watershed boundaries and HUC 

codes. 

1.C. WATERSHED/8-DIGIT CATALOGING UNIT CODE: 

03100206 Tampa Bay and coastal areas 

1.D. TYPE (LAKE, STREAM OR ESTUARY) OF WATER: 

Estuary 

1.F. WATER USE CLASSIFICATION: 

Class II, Class III


Attachment B: Excerpts from F.A.C. 62-302.400 defining Class II waters for Hillsborough, Pinellas 

and Manatee counties. 

Class III: Recreation, Propagation and Maintenance of a Healthy, Well-Balanced 

Population of Fish and Wildlife. Applies to all portions of the waterbody. 

1.G. DESIGNATED USE OF WATERBODY: 

All of Hillsborough Bay, Old Tampa Bay, Middle Tampa Bay, and Lower Tampa 

Bay are designated for the propagation and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced 

population of fish and wildlife (also referred to as “Aquatic Life Use Support” or ALUS). 

Several bay segments are identified in the draft Verified List to Group 1 waterbodies in 

Tampa Bay as not meeting ALUS due to nutrient impairment. Such impairment is based 

on monitoring chlorophyll a relative to generic, statewide criteria developed under the 

Impaired Waters Rule (Rule 63-303, F.A.C. However, all bay segments currently meet 

the site specific chlorophyll a targets established by the TBEP, which are based on many 

years of directed study and research within the major segments of Tampa Bay. Note that 

three of the four of these targets are actually lower (i.e., more stringent) than Impaired 

Surface Waters Rule thresholds (refer to Section 2.a.). 

Note that this document does not address Class II shellfish harvesting impairment due 

to fecal coliforms. 

For additional information, please refer to Attachment C. 

Attachment C: Tracking Chlorophyll a and Light Attenuation in Tampa Bay: Application to 2001 

Data. 2002. Technical Report #03-02 of the Tampa Bay Estuary Program. 

1.H. AREA OF THE WATERBODY: 

The total surface area of the four major bay segments in Tampa Bay is 882 km 2 

(approximately 341 square miles). 

1.I. POLLUTANT(S) OF CONCERN: 

The pollutant of concern has been identified as Total Nitrogen, which has been 

determined to be the limiting nutrient in Tampa Bay. Elevated nitrogen loading has been 

demonstrated to lead to excess algal growth (as indicated by chlorophyll a 

concentrations), which in turn leads to reduced light penetration and loss of seagrass in 

the bay. 

1.J. SUSPECTED OR DOCUMENTED SOURCES OF POLLUTANT OF CONCERN: 

1995-1998 average for all four bay segments combined: 

Stormwater 62% 

Direct Atmospheric Deposition 21% 

Domestic Wastewater 8% 

Groundwater and Springs 4%


Industrial Wastewater 4% 

Fertilizer Terminal Losses 1% 

For additional information, please refer to Attachment D. 

Attachment D: Estimates of Total Nitrogen, Total Phosphorus, Total Suspended Solids, and 

Biochemical Oxygen Demand Loadings to Tampa Bay, Florida. 2001. TBEP Technical Report 

#05-01. This report includes a listing of domestic and industrial point sources with average 

annual daily flow of at least 0.1 mgd. 

2. Description of Water Quality or Aquatic Ecological Goals 

2.A. WATER QUALITY-BASED TARGETS OR AQUATIC ECOLOGICAL GOALS 

The TBEP and its partners (see Section 3.a.) have adopted a goal of restoring seagrass 

in Tampa Bay to 95 percent of the areal extent estimated to have occurred in 1950. The 

adopted minimum seagrass areal extent goal is 38,000 acres of seagrass baywide. This 

goal includes the protection of existing 24,840 acres (1999 estimate) and restoration of an 

additional 13,160 acres. 

The TBEP and its partners have also adopted chlorophyll a targets for Tampa Bay 

based on the light requirements of the seagrass species Thalassia testudinum (turtlegrass). 

The average annual chlorophyll a targets for each major bay segment are as follows: 

Old Tampa Bay 8.5 µg/L 

Hillsborough Bay 13.2 µg/L 

Middle Tampa Bay 7.4 µg/L 

Lower Tampa Bay 4.6 µg/L 

The Impaired Surface Waters Rule threshold for potential nutrient impairment based 

on chlorophyll a levels is 11 µg/L. 

Based on modeling results, it appears that light and chlorophyll levels can be 

maintained at necessary levels by “holding the line” at average annual nitrogen loadings 

estimated for 1992-1994. However, increases in the watershed’s human population and 

associated 7 percent increase in nitrogen loading are projected to occur over the next 10 

years. These expected increases are addressed by the adoption by the TBEP and 

Nitrogen Management Consortium (NMC) partners of a 17 ton per year reduction 

target for total nitrogen, necessary to offset expected increases in TN loading and 

maintain TN loading rates at average annual rates for 1992-1994. 

See Attachment E for a summary of the technical aspects of the goal-setting process, 

and Attachment F for supporting documentation. 

Attachment E: Greening, H. 2001. Nutrient Management and Seagrass Restoration in Tampa 

Bay, Florida, USA. InterCoast; Fall 2001. 

Attachment F-1: Final Action taken by TBNEP Management and Policy Committees, June 14, 

1996, adopting goals for seagrass acreage, targets for segment-specific chlorophyll a 

concentrations, and a five-year nitrogen management strategy to “hold the line” at 1992-1994 

nitrogen loadings for each bay segment.


Attachment F-2: Final Action taken by TBEP Management and Policy Boards, May 11, 2001, 

extending through 2005 the previously adopted chlorophyll a concentrations for each bay 

segment, and the nitrogen management strategy to “hold the line”. 

Attachment F-3: Estimating Critical Nitrogen Loads for the Tampa Bay Estuary: An Empirically 

Based Approach to Setting Management Targets. 1996. TBEP Technical Publication #06-96. 

Attachment F-4: Tampa Bay Estuary Program Model Evaluation and Update: Chlorophyll a-Light 

Attenuation Relationship. 2001. TBEP Technical Report #06-01. 

Attachment F-5: Tampa Bay Estuary Program Model Evaluation and Update: Nitrogen Load- 

Chlorophyll a Relationship. 2001. TBEP Technical Report #07-01. 

Attachment F-6: Tampa Bay Estuary Program Tracking Progress Toward Its Nitrogen 

Management Goals: Fifth Year Assessment of Bay Water Quality Indicators and Models. 2001. 

TBEP Technical Report #10-01. 

2.B. AVERAGING PERIOD: 

The TBEP uses annual average bay segment chlorophyll a levels for tracking water 

quality targets. See Attachment F: TBEP Technical Reports #06-96, 06-01 and 07-01. 

2.C. HOW WILL GOALS RESULT IN RESTORATION OF IMPAIRED DESIGNATED USES: 

Maintaining chlorophyll a concentrations at target levels is expected to result in the 

maintenance of water clarity levels adequate to support eventual seagrass expansion to 

depths observed in1950, thereby ensuring that nutrient levels do not result in an 

imbalance in the flora or fauna of Tampa Bay. See documentation in Attachment F, 

particularly TBEP Technical Reports # 06-96 and 10-01. 

2.D. PROCEDURES TO DETERMINE WHETHER ADDITIONAL CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ARE NEEDED. 

In 2000, a “decision matrix” process was developed by the TBEP Technical Advisory 

Committee and approved by the TBEP Management and Policy Boards to help determine 

if seagrass goals and water quality targets are remaining “within bounds,” or if 

management action is required to get back on track. Recommended types of management 

actions if the process indicates deviation from targets are also identified. This process is 

applied on an annual basis to determine if water clarity and chlorophyll a concentrations 

are remaining at or near target levels. 

Attachment G-1: Developing and Establishing a Process to Track the Status of Chlorophyll-a 

Concentrations and Light Attenuation to Support Seagrass Restoration Goals in Tampa Bay. 

2000. TBEP Technical Report #04-00. 

Attachment G-2: Assessing the 2000 Chlorophyll a and Light Attenuation Conditions in Tampa 

Bay: Tracking Progress Toward TBEP Goals. 2001. TBEP Technical Report #11-01. 

Attachment C: Tracking Chlorophyll-a and Light Attenuation in Tampa Bay: Application to 2001 

Data. 2002. TBEP Technical Report #03-02.


3. A Description of the Proposed Management Actions To Be Undertaken 

3.A. PARTICIPATING ENTITIES 

Members of the Tampa Bay Estuary Program Policy Board include the following: 


City of Clearwater 






Southwest Florida Water Management District 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

The Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium includes the following public and 

private entities: 

Public Partners: 

In addition to the nine TBEP Policy Board entities, public participants in the NMC 

include: 

Manatee County Agricultural Extension Service 

Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County 

Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission/Florida Marine Research Institute 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Tampa Port Authority 

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 

Private Partners: 

Florida Phosphate Council 

Florida Power & Light Company 

Tampa Electric Company 

Florida Strawberry Growers Association 

IMC-Phosphate Company 

Cargill Fertilizer, Inc. 

CF Industries, Inc. 

Pakhoed Dry Bulk Terminals (now Kinder-Morgan) 

Eastern Associated Terminals Company 

CSX Transportation 

3.B. EXISTING AND PROPOSED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 

Over 100 existing and proposed activities are included in the Tampa Bay Nitrogen 

Management Consortium Action Plan (see Attachment H-1). They include the following 

types of projects: 

Stormwater facilities and upgrades 

Land acquisition and protection


Wastewater effluent reuse 

Air emissions reduction 

Habitat restoration 

Agricultural BMPs 

Education/public involvement 

Industrial treatment upgrades 

NMC partners are currently updating projects in the Consortium Action Plan, which 

is being developed as an electronic database for 2001-2005 projects. 

For additional information, please refer to Attachments H-1 and H-2. 

Attachment H-1: Partnership for Progress: Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium Action 

Plan 1995-1999. 

Attachment H-2: Electronic template for the Tampa Bay NMC Action Plan database. 

3. C. GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE OF ANY PROPOSED MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY: 

The NMC Action Plan projects are located throughout the Tampa Bay watershed. The 

updated Consortium Action Plan Database includes project location (latitutde, longitude), 

drainage basin and bay segment. Number of acres (if appropriate) of each project is also 

included. See Attachments H-1 and H-2. 

3.D. ESTIMATED POLLUTANT LOAD REDUCTION ANTICIPATED FROM EACH ACTIVITY: 

To ensure consistency, the Consortium Action Plan Database program includes a 

standardized method for electronically calculating both existing conditions (no treatment) 

TN, TP and TSS loading for each project, and estimated loadings after treatment is 

applied. Each treatment type (for example, wet retention pond) has been assigned a 

treatment efficiency based on best available data/information, and is applied within the 

database program to estimate the nitrogen load attenuation. Parameters included in these 

calculations are land use, soils, rainfall and hydrologic connectivity. The difference 

between the “treatment” and “no treatment” estimates is the load reduction anticipated for 

each activity. NMC partners may also propose site-specific load reduction estimates for 

specific projects, providing adequate documentation is provided. 

3.E. WRITTEN AGREEMENTS COMMITTING PARTNERS TO ACTIONS: 

The Tampa Bay Estuary Program government partners executed an Interlocal 

Agreement in 1998, pledging to assist in meeting the goals of the TBEP Comprehensive 

Conservation and Management Plan (Attachment I). Also in 1998, public and private 

members of the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium pledged to exercise their 

best efforts to implement, either individually or in cooperation with other Consortium 

members, the projects they have offered to undertake as part of the Consortium Action 

Plan (Attachment H-1). Many of these projects have already been completed. 

Attachment I: Tampa Bay National Estuary Program Interlocal Agreement, February 1998.


3.F. HOW WILL FUTURE GROWTH AND NEW SOURCES BE ADDRESSED: 

The TN load reduction target of 17 tons per year needed to maintain TN loading at 

1992-1994 levels assumes growth in population and the associated changes in 

stormwater, atmospheric deposition and point sources. In this manner, TN loading from 

future growth is anticipated and addressed. See Attachment G-3: TBEP Technical Report 

#08-01. 

The TBEP Interlocal Agreement requires that the technical basis for estimating loads 

and establishing targets be reexamined every 5 years. The first five-year re-examination 

was complete in 2001. Results from the re-examination indicate that the models and 

assumptions used for the initial calculations continue to provide appropriate estimates of 

loading and resulting chlorophyll a concentrations. See Attachments F and G. 

The Nitrogen Management Consortium is currently examining how to address 

unexpected new point sources in the Consortium framework. This work is expected to be 

complete by 2003, and will be included in future updates to this documentation. 

However, it is important to note that nonpoint source discharges and atmospheric 

deposition are the dominant sources of nitrogen to Tampa Bay, comprising 83 percent or 

the total nitrogen load annually. 

3.G. CONFIRMED SOURCES OF FUNDING 

Information on funding sources and amounts for projects included in the Action Plan 

are being provided voluntarily by public entities for projects in the Consortium Action 

Plan Database. Funding sources include local governments, SWFWMD and private 

corporations. More detailed funding source information is being requested for the 

ongoing Action Plan Update, due for finalization in early 2003. 

The Tampa Bay Estuary Program is funded by the signatories of the Interlocal 

Agreement, for funding amounts as defined in the IA (see attachment I). 

3.H. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE: 

Chlorophyll a concentrations are currently meeting adopted site-specific targets. In 

addition, each project has an implementation schedule included in the Consortium Action 

Plan Database. 

3.I. ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS, IF THE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY IS NOT VOLUNTARY. 

Participation in the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium is voluntary. The 

NMC partners will continue to encourage point and nonpoint sources who are not 

currently participating in the NMC to join this effort. 

The Department emphasizes that it and other regulatory agencies will continue to 

ensure that permitted facilities meet all permit requirements through existing regulatory 

and permit enforcement programs.


4. Procedures for Monitoring and Reporting Results: 

4.A. A DESCRIPTION OF THE WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM TO BE IMPLEMENTED 

Existing water quality monitoring programs include ambient programs conducted by 

the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County, Manatee County, 

Pinellas County and the city of Tampa. Water quality samples from over 100 stations 

baywide are collected and analyzed on a monthly basis through the collective efforts of 

these monitoring programs. 

4.B. QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL ELEMENTS OF MONITORING 

All these programs and their laboratories have State-approved Quality Assurance 

Plans on file, and comply with the Department’s QA rule, Chapter 62-160, including 

Department-approved Standard Operating Procedures. The participating laboratories have 

or are working to receive NELAC certification. 

4.C. PROCEDURES FOR ENTERING ALL APPROPRIATE DATA INTO STORET: 

The participating laboratories will continue to deliver all appropriate data to the 

Department’s Southwest District office in Tampa for uploading into STORET, pending 

development of each entity’s capability for routine uploads to STORET. Upon 

finalization of this capability, each entity will submit data directly to STORET. 

4.D. RESPONSIBLE MONITORING AND REPORTING ENTITY: 

The four entities identified in 4.a. are responsible for collecting water quality data. 

TBEP will be responsible for compiling bay-wide water quality monitoring data on an 

annual basis, and reporting the results of the “decision matrix” to the TBEP partners 

(including the Department). See TBEP Technical Report #11-01 (Attachment C) for the 

Year 2001 annual report. 

4. E. FREQUENCY AND REPORTING FORMAT FOR REPORTING MONITORING RESULTS: 

Reporting is done annually, as noted in 4.d. In addition, TBEP conducts a full 

revision and update of nitrogen loading estimates (current and estimated future loads) and 

model evaluations every 5 years. The next update is due in 2005. 

4.F. FREQUENCY AND FORMAT FOR REPORTING ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ALL PROPOSED MANAGEMENT 

ACTIVITIES: 

The Consortium Action Plan Database will allow entry of new projects and summary 

queries at any time. The TBEP staff will solicit information on new projects (or revisions 

to existing projects) every 2 _ years, and will enter this information into the Database. In 

addition, a NMC partner can request to revise an existing project or submit a new one at 

any time. A formal reporting of management activities by TBEP will take place every 5 

years, to correspond with the model assumption re-evaluation and CCMP update. TBEP 

staff is responsible for Action Plan Database maintenance.


4. G. METHODS FOR EVALUATING PROGRESS TOWARDS GOALS: 

Progress towards water quality targets is evaluated annually by the application of the 

“decision matrix” (TBEP Technical Report #03-02, Attachment C). Progress towards 

seagrass acreage goals is evaluated every 2-3 years using the Southwest Florida Water 

Management District’s seagrass aerial photography and digital mapping. 

5. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED CORRECTIVE ACTIONS: 

The “decision matrix”(TBEP Technical Report #04-00, Attachment G-1) outlines a 

process by which potential management actions may be determined. In this process, the 

magnitude and duration of deviations from chlorophyll a and light targets are used to help 

determine the degree of the management response. Responses range from “green” (if all 

targets are met); to “yellow”, in which the TAC and Management Board review 

monitoring data and loading estimates and attempt to identify causes of target 

exceedences; to “red” for cases where magnitude and duration are large and a response 

appears necessary. Responses to “yellow” and “red” conditions will vary according to 

the specific conditions of the exceedences. The Management and Policy Boards will take 

actions they deem to be appropriate. 

Because the Department is a member of the TBEP and the Tampa Bay Nitrogen 

Management Consortium, the Department will be aware of all actions of the Management 

and Policy Boards and the Consortium, including any corrective actions that are proposed 

and implemented. 

Progress to Date 

Progress to date for the TBNMC Action Plan, tracking of chlorophyl a concentration 

targets in the four bay segments, and baywide seagrass extent trends are summarized 

here. 

TBNMC Action Plan: 1995-2000 

The types of nutrient reduction projects included in the Consortium’s Nitrogen 

Management Action Plan range from traditional nutrient reduction projects such as 

stormwater treatment upgrades, industrial retrofits and implementation of agricultural 

best management practices to actions not primarily associated with nutrient reduction, 

such as land acquisition and habitat restoration projects. A total of 105 projects 

submitted by local governments, agencies and industries are included in the 1995-2000 

Plan; 95 percent of these projects address nonpoint sources and account for 71 percent of 

the expected total nitrogen reduction. Half (50 percent) of the total load reduction will be 

achieved through public sector projects, and 50 percent by industry. 

A total of 134 tons per year reduction in nitrogen loading to Tampa Bay is expected 

from the completed projects, which exceeds the 5-year reduction goal of 85 tons per year 

by 60 percent. Chlorophyll a concentrations were met in all four bay segments in 2000 

and 2001, indicating that nitrogen loading is not exceeding target levels. 

Examples of specific projects and expected nitrogen loading reductions in the 1995- 

1999 Consortium Action Plan (Attachment H-1) include the following:


Stormwater facilities and upgrades: Stormwater improvements or new facilities include both 

public and private examples. Stormwater retrofits using alum injection to urban lakes reduced 

total nitrogen (TN) loading by an estimated 6.4 tons per year. Stormwater improvements 

eliminated an estimated 2 tons of TN loading per year. Industrial stormwater improvements at 

phosphate fertilizer factories and transport terminals are expected to have reduced annual TN 

loads by almost 20 tons per year by the year 2000. 

Land acquisition and protection: Land acquisition and maintenance of natural or low intensity 

land uses precludes higher-density development and higher TN loadings. Land acquisition 

precluded more than 15 tons TN loading per year by the end of 1999. Approved zoning overlay 

districts requiring additional nutrient control in management areas precluded an estimated 10 tons 

per year. 

Wastewater effluent reuse: Wastewater reuse programs resulted in a 6.4 ton per year reduction 

in annual TN loading. Conversion of septic systems to sewer reduced TN loading by an estimated 

1.7 tons per year. 

Atmospheric emissions reduction: Reductions of atmospheric emissions from coal-fired 

electric generating plants between 1995-1997 resulted in estimated reductions of NO x emissions 

of 11,700 to 20,000 tons. To estimate the reduction of nitrogen deposition which reaches the bay 

(either by direct deposition to the bay’s surface, or by deposition and transport through the 

watershed), a 400:1 ratio (NO x emissions units to nitrogen units entering the bay) is assumed. 

Expected reductions from atmospheric deposition thus ranged from 29 to50 tons per year by 

1999. To date, emissions reductions have not been included in the estimated total TN reduction 

to the bay, pending agreement on estimation methods. 

Habitat restoration: Although typically conducted for reasons other than nutrient reduction, 

habitat restoration to natural land uses reduces the amount of TN loading per acre via stormwater 

runoff. Habitat restoration projects have been completed or are underway in all segments of 

Tampa Bay’s watershed. Estimated TN load reduction from completed habitat restoration 

projects totaled an estimated 7 tons per year. 

Agricultural BMPs: Water use restrictions have promoted the use of microjet or drip irrigation on 

row crops (including winter vegetables and strawberries) and in citrus groves. Micro-irrigation 

has resulted in potential water savings of approximately 40 percent or more over conventional 

systems and an estimated 25 percent decrease in fertilizer applied. Nitrogen reduction estimates 

from these actions total 6.4 TN tons per year. 

Education/public involvement: For those projects for which nitrogen load reductions have not 

been calculated or measured, but some reductions are expected, the Consortium Action Plan 

assumes a 10 percent reduction estimate until more definitive information is available. These 

programs have reduced TN loading by an estimated 2 tons per year. 

Industrial upgrades: A phosphate fertilizer mining and manufacturing plant has terminated the 

use of ammonia in flot-plants (a mineral separation process), resulting in a reduction of 21 tons 

per year of nitrogen loading. Other fertilizer manufacturing companies have upgraded their 

material handling systems, resulting in a TN reduction of more than an estimated 10 tons per year 

due to control of fertilizer product loss. The termination of discharge by an orange juice 

manufacturing plant into a tributary of Tampa Bay has resulted in a reduction of more than 11 

tons per year TN loading.


Ongoing efforts (see Attachment H-2) to create an electronic database of existing 

projects (such as those summarized above for the 1995-2000 period) will include 

proposed projects and estimated load reductions through the year 2004. 

Chlorophyll a Targets: 

Results of applying the Decision Matrix to 2001 water quality data (see Attachment C: Tracking 

Chlorophyll a and Light Attenuation in Tampa Bay: Application to 2001 Data. 2002) show that 

average annual chlorophyll a concentration targets are being met in all bay segments. Time 

series plots in that same document for chlorophyll a show that, with the exception of the 1998 El 

Nino year, chlorophyll a targets have been met in all four bay segments since 1994. 

Seagrass Restoration Goal: 

See next page for a plot of seagrass areal extent trends. As was observed from the water quality 

data, heavy rains associated with the 1998 El Nino event appeared to have had serious impacts 

on seagrass areal extent in 1999. Subsequent observations from seagrass researchers indicate 

that some areas may have experienced significant seagrass recovery, but quantified results are 

not yet available. Photointerpretation results from the December 2001 SWFWMD aerial photos 

are due in October 2002.


Appendix L: Land Use Maps of High-Priority Watersheds 

Figure L.1: 

Brooker Creek Priority Watershed


Figure L.2: 

Delaney Creek Priority Watershed


Figure L.3: 

Direct Runoff to Bay: Pinellas County Roosevelt Priority Watershed


Figure L.4: 

Long Branch Priority Watershed


Figure L.5: 

Lower Sweetwater Creek Priority Watershed


Figure L.6: 

McKay Bay Priority Watershed


Figure L.7: 

Rocky Creek Priority Watershed


Figure L.8: 

McKay Bay and Delaney Creek Priority Watershed


Appendix M: Level 2 Land Use of High-Priority Watersheds 

Brooker Creek Level 2 Land Use 

LEVEL2 ATTRIBUTE ACRES SQUARE MILES PERCENTAGE 

2100 Cropland And Pastureland 3136.3 4.90 13.00 

1200 Residential Med Density 2->5 Dwelling Unit 3084.7 4.82 12.78 

6210 Cypress 2110.0 3.30 8.74 

4110 Pine Flatwoods 2065.4 3.23 8.56 

1100 Residential Low Density < 2 Dwelling Units 1996.9 3.12 8.27 

6150 Stream And Lake Swamps (bottomland) 1917.7 3.00 7.95 

2200 Tree Crops 1440.7 2.25 5.97 

6300 Wetland Forested Mixed 1083.8 1.69 4.49 

1800 Recreational 919.7 1.44 3.81 

5300 Reservoirs 710.6 1.11 2.94 

4340 Hardwood Conifer Mixed 669.2 1.05 2.77 

1300 Residential High Density 612.7 0.96 2.54 

3200 Shrub And Brushland 578.4 0.90 2.40 

6410 Freshwater Marshes 559.8 0.87 2.32 

2600 Other Open Lands 540.2 0.84 2.24 

6200 Wetland Coniferous Forests 434.9 0.68 1.80 

1900 Open Land 429.2 0.67 1.78 

6110 Bay Swamps 288.3 0.45 1.19 

4100 Upland Coniferous Forest 270.3 0.42 1.12 

5200 Lakes 227.5 0.36 0.94 

4120 Longleaf Pine - Xeric Oak 168.1 0.26 0.70 

2400 Nurseries And Vineyards 139.8 0.22 0.58 

8300 Utilities 112.7 0.18 0.47 

6430 Wet Prairies 111.5 0.17 0.46 

2500 Specialty Farms 83.6 0.13 0.35 

8100 Transportation 81.6 0.13 0.34 

1600 Extractive 76.3 0.12 0.32 

1700 Institutional 69.6 0.11 0.29 

7400 Disturbed Land 63.7 0.10 0.26 

3300 Mixed Rangeland 47.8 0.07 0.20 

4400 Tree Plantations 28.8 0.04 0.12 

1400 Commercial And Services 26.9 0.04 0.11 

6440 Emergent Aquatic Vegetation 24.3 0.04 0.10 

6100 Wetland Hardwood Forests 14.3 0.02 0.06 

4200 Upland Hardwood Forests - Part 1 4.8 0.01 0.02 

2550 Tropical Fish Farms 3.6 0.01 0.01 

TOTAL 24133.4 37.71 100.00


DELANEY CREEK LEVEL 2 LAND USE 





1900 Open Land 930.8 1.45 7.90 







2200 Tree Crops 212.1 0.33 1.80 


5300 Reservoirs 204.8 0.32 1.74 


8300 Utilities 147.0 0.23 1.25 

5200 Lakes 106.2 0.17 0.90 

2500 Specialty Farms 97.8 0.15 0.83 

1500 Industrial 78.0 0.12 0.66 

1800 Recreational 72.3 0.11 0.61 




6430 Wet Prairies 60.2 0.09 0.51 


6420 Saltwater Marshes 54.5 0.09 0.46 



5400 Bays And Estuaries 21.1 0.03 0.18 



3100 Herbaceous 7.2 0.01 0.06 

5100 Streams And Waterways 7.1 0.01 0.06 

6210 Cypress 6.7 0.01 0.06 

6530 Intermittent Ponds 6.6 0.01 0.06 


8200 Communications 4.3 0.01 0.04 

6120 Mangrove Swamps 4.0 0.01 0.03 


6510 Tidal Flats/submerged Shallow Platform 3.1 0.00 0.03 

1600 Extractive 1.4 0.00 0.01 


TOTAL 11786.0 18.42 100.00


Direct Runoff to Bay (Pinellas County Roosevelt Basin) Level 2 Land Use 




8300 Utilities 1063.0 1.66 11.37 



1500 Industrial 706.3 1.10 7.55 

5300 Reservoirs 628.0 0.98 6.72 

1800 Recreational 498.6 0.78 5.33 

1900 Open Land 311.5 0.49 3.33 









1600 Extractive 63.4 0.10 0.68 








6430 Wet Prairies 6.8 0.01 0.07 




6210 Cypress 1.2 0.00 0.01 


TOTAL 9351.8 14.61 100.00 

LONG BRANCH LEVEL 2 LAND USE 








8300 Utilities 38.4 0.06 2.54


1900 Open Land 35.0 0.05 2.32 

5300 Reservoirs 32.2 0.05 2.13 

1500 Industrial 29.7 0.05 1.97 





1800 Recreational 3.4 0.01 0.22 





5200 Lakes 0.1 0.00 0.01 

TOTAL 1511.4 2.36 99.99 

LOWER SWEETWATER CREEK LEVEL 2 LAND USE 





1500 Industrial 740.2 1.16 12.39 


1900 Open Land 260.2 0.41 4.36 

1800 Recreational 187.8 0.29 3.15 




5300 Reservoirs 51.1 0.08 0.86 


1200 Residential Med Density 2->5 Dwelling 

29.4 0.05 0.49 

Unit 


6430 Wet Prairies 23.5 0.04 0.39 




8300 Utilities 10.6 0.02 0.18 



5200 Lakes 5.7 0.01 0.10 






6210 Cypress 1.8 0.00 0.03


2200 Tree Crops 0.4 0.00 0.01 



6210 Cypress 1.8 0.00 0.02 



TOTAL 5977.8 9.34 100.07 

MCKAY BAY LEVEL 2 LAND USE 






1900 Open Land 2611.2 4.08 8.09 

1500 Industrial 2483.3 3.88 7.70 

1200 Residential Med Density 2->5 Dwelling 2135.7 3.34 6.62 

Unit 




5300 Reservoirs 710.8 1.11 2.20 



8300 Utilities 517.1 0.81 1.60 

1800 Recreational 502.3 0.78 1.56 



2200 Tree Crops 239.3 0.37 0.74 




1600 Extractive 196.0 0.31 0.61 

5200 Lakes 190.7 0.30 0.59 

2300 Feeding Operations 130.0 0.20 0.40 






6430 Wet Prairies 75.0 0.12 0.23 




7400 Disturbed Land 59.7 0.09 0.19




6210 Cypress 21.0 0.03 0.07 







7100 Beaches Other Than Swimming Beaches 0.7 0.00 0.00 

TOTAL 32261.3 50.41 100.00 

ROCKY CREEK LEVEL 2 LAND USE 



1200 Residential Med Density 2->5 

6749.6 10.55 14.84 

Dwelling Unit 

6210 Cypress 3075.8 4.81 6.76 

1100 Residential Low Density < 2 

2827.3 4.42 6.22 

Dwelling Units 


1900 Open Land 1946.9 3.04 4.28 


5300 Reservoirs 1927.8 3.01 4.24 

5200 Lakes 1581.9 2.47 3.48 



1800 Recreational 1167.9 1.82 2.57 


1500 Industrial 858.5 1.34 1.89 


2200 Tree Crops 734.9 1.15 1.62 

6150 Stream And Lake Swamps 

689.2 1.08 1.52 

(bottomland) 



8300 Utilities 359.0 0.56 0.79 









2500 Specialty Farms 137.3 0.21 0.30




1600 Extractive 113.5 0.18 0.25 

6430 Wet Prairies 107.9 0.17 0.24 

6510 Tidal Flats/submerged Shallow 

98.1 0.15 0.22 

Platform 

4120 Longleaf Pine - Xeric Oak 93.4 0.15 0.21 


6110 Bay Swamps 67.9 0.11 0.15 



2140 Row Crops 12.8 0.02 0.03 



3100 Herbaceous 1.7 0.00 0.00 

TOTAL 45489.4 71.08 100.00

1/1/95 

4/1/95 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 

7/1/95 

10/1/95 

1/1/96 

4/1/96 

7/1/96 

10/1/96 

1/1/97 

4/1/97 

7/1/97 

10/1/97 

1/1/98 

4/1/98 

7/1/98 

10/1/98 

1/1/99 

4/1/99 

7/1/99 

10/1/99 

1/1/00 

4/1/00 

7/1/00 

10/1/00 

1/1/01 

4/1/01 

7/1/01 

10/1/01 

1/1/02 

4/1/02 


Appendix N: Water Quality Graphs of High-Priority Water Segments 

Brooker Creek (WBID 1474): Station 21FLPDEM04-02, Dissolved Oxygen 

Date 

21FLPDEM04-03 Surface Dissolved Oxygen 21FLPDEM04-03 Bottom Dissolved Oxygen Freshwater Dissolved Oxygen Criteria

1/1/95 

4/1/95 

7/1/95 

10/1/95 

1/1/96 

4/1/96 

7/1/96 

10/1/96 

1/1/97 

4/1/97 

7/1/97 

10/1/97 

1/1/98 

4/1/98 

7/1/98 

10/1/98 

1/1/99 

4/1/99 

7/1/99 

10/1/99 

1/1/00 

4/1/00 

7/1/00 

10/1/00 

1/1/01 

4/1/01 

7/1/01 

10/1/01 

1/1/02 

4/1/02 


Brooker Creek (WBID 1474): Station 21FLPDEM04-03, Dissolved Oxygen 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

Date 

21FLPDEM04-03 Surface Dissolved Oxygen 21FLPDEM04-03 Midwater Dissolved Oxygen 21FLPDEM04-03 Bottom Dissolved Oxygen 

Freshwater Dissolved Oxygen Criteria USGS 02307359 


600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

Daily Flow (cfs)

1/1/95 

4/1/95 

10 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 


7/1/95 

10/1/95 

1/1/96 

4/1/96 

7/1/96 

10/1/96 

1/1/97 

4/1/97 

7/1/97 

10/1/97 

1/1/98 

4/1/98 

7/1/98 

10/1/98 

1/1/99 

4/1/99 

7/1/99 

10/1/99 

1/1/00 

4/1/00 

7/1/00 

10/1/00 

1/1/01 

4/1/01 

7/1/01 

10/1/01 

1/1/02 

4/1/02 


Delaney Creek (WBID 1605): Station 21FLHILL138 (21FLHILL24030048), Dissolved Oxygen 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

Date 

21FLHILL138 Dissolved Oxygen Freshwater Dissolved Oxygen Criteria USGS 02301750 

Daily Flow (cfs)

Fecal Coliforms (#/100 ml) 

1/1/95 

4/1/95 

7/1/95 

10/1/95 

1/1/96 

4/1/96 

7/1/96 

10/1/96 

1/1/97 

4/1/97 

7/1/97 

10/1/97 

1/1/98 

4/1/98 

7/1/98 

10/1/98 

1/1/99 

4/1/99 

7/1/99 

10/1/99 

1/1/00 

4/1/00 

7/1/00 

10/1/00 

1/1/01 

4/1/01 

7/1/01 

10/1/01 

1/1/02 


Delaney Creek (WBID 1605): Station 21FLHILL138 (21FLHILL24030048), Fecal Coliform 

25000 

20000 

15000 

10000 

5000 

0 

Date 

21FLHILL138 Fecal Coliform Fecal Coliform Criteria USGS 02301750 

4/1/02 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

Daily Flow (cfs)

Fecal Coliform (#/100 ml) 

1/1/95 

4/1/95 

7/1/95 

10/1/95 

1/1/96 

4/1/96 

7/1/96 

10/1/96 

1/1/97 

4/1/97 

7/1/97 

10/1/97 

1/1/98 

4/1/98 

7/1/98 

10/1/98 

1/1/99 

4/1/99 

7/1/99 

10/1/99 

1/1/00 

4/1/00 

7/1/00 

10/1/00 

1/1/01 

4/1/01 

7/1/01 

10/1/01 

1/1/02 

4/1/02 


Delaney Creek (WBID 1605): Station 21FLHILL138 (21FLHILL24030048), Fecal Coliform 

10000 

700 

600 

9000 

8000 

7000 

500 

6000 

5000 

4000 

400 

300 

3000 

200 

2000 

1000 

100 

0 

0 

Date 


Daily Flow (cfs)

1/1/95 

4/1/95 

7/1/95 

10/1/95 

1/1/96 

4/1/96 

7/1/96 

10/1/96 

1/1/97 

4/1/97 

7/1/97 

10/1/97 

1/1/98 

4/1/98 

7/1/98 

10/1/98 

1/1/99 

4/1/99 

7/1/99 

10/1/99 

1/1/00 

4/1/00 

7/1/00 

10/1/00 

1/1/01 

4/1/01 

7/1/01 

10/1/01 

1/1/02 


Delaney Creek (WBID 1605): Station 21FLHILL138 (21FLHILL24030048), Total Coliform 

30000 

25000 

20000 

15000 

10000 

5000 

0 

Date 

21FLHILL138 Total Coliform Total Coliform Criteria USGS 02301750 

Total Coliform (#/100 ml) 

4/1/02 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

Daily Flow (cfs)

1/1/95 

4/1/95 

10 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 


7/1/95 

10/1/95 

1/1/96 

4/1/96 

7/1/96 

10/1/96 

1/1/97 

4/1/97 

7/1/97 

10/1/97 

1/1/98 

4/1/98 

7/1/98 

10/1/98 

1/1/99 

4/1/99 

7/1/99 

10/1/99 

1/1/00 

4/1/00 

7/1/00 

10/1/00 

1/1/01 

4/1/01 

7/1/01 

10/1/01 

1/1/02 

4/1/02 


Delaney Creek Tidal (WBID 1605D): Station 21FLHILL133 (21FLHILL24030900), Dissolved Oxygen 

Date 

21FLHILL133 Dissolved Oxygen Marine Dissolved Oxygen Criteria USGS 02301750 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

Daily Flow (cfs)

1/1/95 

4/1/95 

7/1/95 

10/1/95 

1/1/96 

4/1/96 

7/1/96 

10/1/96 

1/1/97 

4/1/97 

7/1/97 

10/1/97 

1/1/98 

4/1/98 

7/1/98 

10/1/98 

1/1/99 

4/1/99 

7/1/99 

10/1/99 

1/1/00 

4/1/00 

7/1/00 

10/1/00 

1/1/01 

4/1/01 

7/1/01 

10/1/01 

1/1/02 

4/1/02 


Delaney Creek Tidal (WBID 1605D): Station 21FLHILL133 (21FLHILL24030900), Fecal Coliform 

12000 

10000 

8000 

6000 

4000 

2000 

0 

Date 



700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

Daily Flow (cfs)


1/1/95 

4/1/95 

7/1/95 

10/1/95 

1/1/96 

4/1/96 

7/1/96 

10/1/96 

1/1/97 

4/1/97 

7/1/97 

10/1/97 

1/1/98 

4/1/98 

7/1/98 

10/1/98 

1/1/99 

4/1/99 

7/1/99 

10/1/99 

1/1/00 

4/1/00 

7/1/00 

10/1/00 

1/1/01 

4/1/01 

7/1/01 

10/1/01 

1/1/02 

4/1/02 


Delaney Creek Tidal (WBID 1605D): Station 21FLHILL133 (21FLHILL24030900), Fecal Coliform 

8000 

7000 

6000 

5000 

4000 

3000 

2000 

1000 

0 

Date 


700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

Daily Flow (cfs)

1/1/95 

4/1/95 

7/1/95 

10/1/95 

1/1/96 

4/1/96 

7/1/96 

10/1/96 

1/1/97 

4/1/97 

7/1/97 

10/1/97 

1/1/98 

4/1/98 

7/1/98 

10/1/98 

1/1/99 

4/1/99 

7/1/99 

10/1/99 

1/1/00 

4/1/00 

7/1/00 

10/1/00 

1/1/01 

4/1/01 

7/1/01 

10/1/01 

1/1/02 

4/1/02 


Delaney Creek Tidal (WBID 1605D): Station 21FLHILL133 (21FLHILL24030900), Total Coliform 

60000 

50000 

40000 

30000 

20000 

10000 

0 

Date 



700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

Daily Flow (cfs)

1/1/95 

4/1/95 

7/1/95 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Lead (ug/l) 

10/1/95 

1/1/96 

4/1/96 

7/1/96 

10/1/96 

1/1/97 

4/1/97 

7/1/97 

10/1/97 

1/1/98 

4/1/98 

7/1/98 

10/1/98 

1/1/99 

4/1/99 

7/1/99 

10/1/99 

1/1/00 

4/1/00 

7/1/00 

10/1/00 

1/1/01 

4/1/01 

7/1/01 

10/1/01 

1/1/02 

4/1/02 


Delaney Creek Tidal (WBID 1605D): Station 21FLHILL133 (21FLHILL24030900), Lead 

Date 

21FLHILL133 Lead Marine Lead Criteria USGS 02301750 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

Daily Flow (cfs)


Delaney Creek Tidal (WBID 1605D): Station 21FLHILL133 (21FLHILL24030900), Chlorophyll a 

45 

18 

40 

16 

35 

14 

30 

12 

Chlorophyll a, (ug/l) 

25 

20 

10 

8 

Daily Flow (cfs) 

15 

6 

10 

4 

5 

2 

0 

0 

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 

Year 

21FLHILL133 Chlorophyll Annual Average Estuary Chlorophyll Threshold USGS 02301750, Annual Average

1/1/1995 

4/1/1995 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 


7/1/1995 

10/1/1995 

1/1/1996 

4/1/1996 

7/1/1996 

10/1/1996 

1/1/1997 

4/1/1997 

7/1/1997 

10/1/1997 

1/1/1998 

4/1/1998 

7/1/1998 

10/1/1998 

1/1/1999 

4/1/1999 

7/1/1999 

10/1/1999 

1/1/2000 

4/1/2000 

7/1/2000 

10/1/2000 

1/1/2001 

4/1/2001 

7/1/2001 

10/1/2001 

1/1/2002 

4/1/2002 


Direct Runoff to Bay, Pinellas County Roosevelt Basin (WBID 1624): Station 21FLPDEM23-01, Dissolved Oxygen 

Date 

21FLPDEM23-01 Surface Dissolved Oxygen 21FLPDEM23-01 Midwater Dissolved Oxygen 

21FLPDEM23-01 Bottom Dissolved Oxygen Marine Dissolved Oxygen Criteria

1/1/95 

4/1/95 

7/1/95 

10/1/95 

1/1/96 

4/1/96 

7/1/96 

10/1/96 

1/1/97 

4/1/97 

7/1/97 

10/1/97 

1/1/98 

4/1/98 

7/1/98 

10/1/98 

1/1/99 

4/1/99 

7/1/99 

10/1/99 

1/1/00 

4/1/00 

7/1/00 

10/1/00 

1/1/01 

4/1/01 

7/1/01 

10/1/01 


Direct Runoff to Bay, Pinellas County Roosevelt Basin (WBID 1624): Station 21FLPDEM23-01, Fecal Coliform 

4000 

3500 

3000 

2500 

2000 

1500 

1000 

500 

0 

Date 

FLPDEM23-01 Fecal Coliform Fecal Coliform Criteria 


1/1/02 

4/1/02

1/1/95 

6000 

5000 

4000 

3000 

2000 

1000 

0 


4/1/95 

7/1/95 

10/1/95 

1/1/96 

4/1/96 

7/1/96 

10/1/96 

1/1/97 

4/1/97 

7/1/97 

10/1/97 

1/1/98 

4/1/98 

7/1/98 

10/1/98 

1/1/99 

4/1/99 

7/1/99 

10/1/99 

1/1/00 

4/1/00 

7/1/00 

10/1/00 

1/1/01 

4/1/01 

7/1/01 

10/1/01 

1/1/02 

4/1/02 


Direct Runoff to Bay, Pinellas County Roosevelt Basin (WBID 1624): Station 21FLPDEM23-01, Total Coliform 

Date 

FLPDEM23-01 Total Coliform Total Coliform Criteria

1/1/95 

4/1/95 

7/1/95 

10/1/95 

1/1/96 

4/1/96 

7/1/96 

10/1/96 

1/1/97 

4/1/97 

7/1/97 

10/1/97 

1/1/98 

4/1/98 

7/1/98 

10/1/98 

1/1/99 

4/1/99 

7/1/99 

10/1/99 

1/1/00 

4/1/00 

7/1/00 

10/1/00 

1/1/01 


Long Branch (WBID 1627): 21Station FLPDEM22-05, Dissolved Oxygen 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

Date 

21FLPDEM22-05 Dissolved Oxygen Freshwater Dissolved Oxygen Criteria 


4/1/01 

7/1/01 

10/1/01 

1/1/02 

4/1/02

1/1/95 

4/1/95 

7/1/95 

10/1/95 

7000 

6000 

5000 

4000 

3000 

2000 

1000 

0 


1/1/96 

4/1/96 

7/1/96 

10/1/96 

1/1/97 

4/1/97 

7/1/97 

10/1/97 

1/1/98 

4/1/98 

7/1/98 

10/1/98 

1/1/99 

4/1/99 

7/1/99 

10/1/99 

1/1/00 

4/1/00 

7/1/00 

10/1/00 

1/1/01 

4/1/01 

7/1/01 

10/1/01 

1/1/02 

4/1/02 


Long Branch (WBID 1627): 21Station FLPDEM22-05, Fecal Coliform 

Date 

21FLPDEM22-05 Fecal Coliform Fecal Coliform Criteria

1/1/95 

4/1/95 

7/1/95 

10/1/95 

1/1/96 

4/1/96 

7/1/96 

10/1/96 

1/1/97 

4/1/97 

7/1/97 

10/1/97 

1/1/98 

4/1/98 

7/1/98 

10/1/98 

1/1/99 

4/1/99 

7/1/99 

10/1/99 

1/1/00 

4/1/00 

7/1/00 

10/1/00 


Long Branch (WBID 1627): 21Station FLPDEM22-05, Total Coliform 

5000 

4500 

4000 

3500 

3000 

2500 

2000 

1500 

1000 

500 

0 

Date 

21FLPDEM22-05 Total Coliform Total Coliform Criteria 


1/1/01 

4/1/01 

7/1/01 

10/1/01 

1/1/02 

4/1/02

1/1/95 

4/1/95 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 


7/1/95 

10/1/95 

1/1/96 

4/1/96 

7/1/96 

10/1/96 

1/1/97 

4/1/97 

7/1/97 

10/1/97 

1/1/98 

4/1/98 

7/1/98 

10/1/98 

1/1/99 

4/1/99 

7/1/99 

10/1/99 

1/1/00 

4/1/00 

7/1/00 

10/1/00 

1/1/01 

4/1/01 

7/1/01 

10/1/01 

1/1/02 

4/1/02 


Sweetwater Creek Tidal (WBID 1570A): Station 21FLHILL104 (21FLHILL24040101), Dissolved Oxygen 

Date 

21FLHILL104 Surface Dissolved Oxygen 21FLHILL104 Midwater Dissolved Oxygen 21FLHILL104 Bottom Dissolved Oxygen 

Marine Dissolved Oxygen Criteria USGS 02306654 

500 

450 

400 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

Daily Flow (cfs)

1/1/95 

4/1/95 

7/1/95 

10/1/95 

1/1/96 

4/1/96 

7/1/96 

10/1/96 

1/1/97 

4/1/97 

7/1/97 

10/1/97 

1/1/98 

4/1/98 

7/1/98 

10/1/98 

1/1/99 

4/1/99 

7/1/99 

10/1/99 

1/1/00 

4/1/00 

7/1/00 

10/1/00 

1/1/01 

4/1/01 

7/1/01 

10/1/01 

1/1/02 


Sweetwater Creek Tidal(WBID 1570A): Station 21FLHILL104 (21FLHILL24040101), Fecal Coliform 

4500 

4000 

3500 

3000 

2500 

2000 

1500 

1000 

500 

0 

Date 


Fecal Coliform (#/100ml) 

4/1/02 

500 

450 

400 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

Daily Flow (cfs)


1/1/95 

4/1/95 

7/1/95 

10/1/95 

1/1/96 

4/1/96 

7/1/96 

10/1/96 

1/1/97 

4/1/97 

7/1/97 

10/1/97 

1/1/98 

4/1/98 

7/1/98 

10/1/98 

1/1/99 

4/1/99 

7/1/99 

10/1/99 

1/1/00 

4/1/00 

7/1/00 

10/1/00 

1/1/01 

4/1/01 

7/1/01 

10/1/01 

1/1/02 

4/1/02 


Sweetwater Creek Tidal (WBID 1570A): Station 21FLHILL104 (21FLHILL24040101), Total Coliform 

30000 

25000 

20000 

15000 

10000 

5000 

0 

Date 


500 

450 

400 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

Daily Flow (cfs)


Sweetwater Creek Tidal (WBID1570A): Station 21FLHILL104 (Station 21FLHILL24040101), Chlorophyll a 

30 

18 

16 

25 

14 

20 

12 

Chlorophyll a (ug/l) 

15 

10 

8 


10 

6 

4 

5 

2 

0 

0 

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 

Year 


1/1/95 

4/1/95 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 


7/1/95 

10/1/95 

1/1/96 

4/1/96 

7/1/96 

10/1/96 

1/1/97 

4/1/97 

7/1/97 

10/1/97 

1/1/98 

4/1/98 

7/1/98 

10/1/98 

1/1/99 

4/1/99 

7/1/99 

10/1/99 

1/1/00 

4/1/00 

7/1/00 

10/1/00 

1/1/01 

4/1/01 

7/1/01 

10/1/01 

1/1/02 


Tampa Bypass Canal (WBID 1536C): Station 21FLHILL146 (21FLHILL24030513), Dissolved Oxygen 

Date 

21FLHILL146 Surface Dissolved Oxygen 21FLHILL146 Midwater Dissolved Oxygen 

21FLHILL146 Bottom Dissolved Oxygen Freshwater Dissolved Oxygen Criteria 

4/1/02

1/1/95 

4/1/95 

7/1/95 

10/1/95 

1/1/96 

4/1/96 

7/1/96 

10/1/96 

1/1/97 

4/1/97 

7/1/97 

10/1/97 

1/1/98 

4/1/98 

7/1/98 

10/1/98 

1/1/99 

4/1/99 

7/1/99 

10/1/99 

1/1/00 

4/1/00 

7/1/00 

10/1/00 

1/1/01 

4/1/01 

7/1/01 


Tampa Bypass Canal (WBID 1536C): Station 21FLHILL146 (21FLHILL24030513), Total Coliform 

14000 

12000 

10000 

8000 

6000 

4000 

2000 

0 

Date 

21FLHILL146 Total Coliform Total Coliform Criteria 

Total Coliform (#/100mll) 

10/1/01 

1/1/02 

4/1/02


Tampa Bypass Canal (WBID 1536C): Station 21FLHILL146 (21FLHILL24030513), Chlorophyll a 

40 

35 

30 


25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 

Date 

21FLHILL146 Chlorophyll Annual Average 

Stream Chlorophyll Threshold

1/1/1995 

4/1/1995 

7/1/1995 

10/1/1995 

1/1/1996 

4/1/1996 

7/1/1996 

10/1/1996 

1/1/1997 

4/1/1997 

7/1/1997 

10/1/1997 

1/1/1998 

4/1/1998 

7/1/1998 

10/1/1998 

1/1/1999 

4/1/1999 

7/1/1999 

10/1/1999 

1/1/2000 

4/1/2000 

7/1/2000 

10/1/2000 

1/1/2001 

4/1/2001 

7/1/2001 

10/1/2001 

1/1/2002 

4/1/2002 


Palm River (WBID 1536E): Station 21FLHILL109 (21FLHILL24030508), Dissolved Oxygen 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

Date 




3500 

3000 

2500 

2000 

1500 

1000 

500 

0 

Daily Flow (cfs)


Palm River (WBID 1536E): Station 21FLHILL24030508 (21FLHILL109), Chlorophyll a 

25 

500 

450 

20 

400 

350 

Chlorophyll a 

15 

10 

300 

250 

200 


150 

5 

100 

50 

0 

0 

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 

Date 


1/1/1995 

4/1/1995 

7/1/1995 

10/1/1995 

1/1/1996 

4/1/1996 

7/1/1996 

10/1/1996 

1/1/1997 

4/1/1997 

7/1/1997 

10/1/1997 

1/1/1998 

4/1/1998 

7/1/1998 

10/1/1998 

1/1/1999 

4/1/1999 

7/1/1999 

10/1/1999 

1/1/2000 

4/1/2000 

7/1/2000 

10/1/2000 

1/1/2001 

4/1/2001 

7/1/2001 

10/1/2001 

1/1/2002 

4/1/2002 


Palm River (WBID 1536E): Station 21FLHILL110 (21FLHILL24030511), Dissolved Oxygen 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

Date 




3500 

3000 

2500 

2000 

1500 

1000 

500 

0 

Daily Flow (cfs)


Palm River (WBID 1536E): Station 21FLHILL110 (21FLHILL24030511), Chlorophyll a 

50 

500 

45 

450 

40 

400 

35 

350 


30 

25 

20 

300 

250 

200 


15 

150 

10 

100 

5 

50 

0 

0 

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 

Date 


1/1/95 

4/1/95 

7/1/95 

10/1/95 

1/1/96 

4/1/96 

7/1/96 

10/1/96 

1/1/97 

4/1/97 

7/1/97 

10/1/97 

1/1/98 

4/1/98 

7/1/98 

10/1/98 

1/1/99 

4/1/99 

7/1/99 

10/1/99 

1/1/00 

4/1/00 

7/1/00 

10/1/00 

1/1/01 

4/1/01 

7/1/01 

10/1/01 


Sixmile Creek (WBID 1536F): Station 21FLHILL147 (21FLHILL24030512), Dissolved Oxygen 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

Date 

21FLHILL147 Surface Dissolved Oxygen 21FLHILL147 Midwater Dissolved Oxygen 

21FLHILL147 Bottom Dissolved Oxygen Freshwater Dissolved Oxygen Criteria 


1/1/02 

4/1/02


Sixmile Creek (WBID 1536F): Station 21FLHILL147 (21FLHILL24030512), Chlorophyll a 

70 

60 

50 


40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 

Date 

21FLHILL147 Chlorophyll Annual Average 

Stream Chlorophyll Threshold

1/1/95 

4/1/95 

7/1/95 

10/1/95 

1/1/96 

4/1/96 

7/1/96 

10/1/96 

1/1/97 

4/1/97 

7/1/97 

10/1/97 

1/1/98 

4/1/98 

7/1/98 

10/1/98 

1/1/99 

4/1/99 

7/1/99 

10/1/99 

1/1/00 

4/1/00 

7/1/00 

10/1/00 

1/1/01 

4/1/01 

7/1/01 

10/1/01 

1/1/02 

4/1/02 


McKay Bay (WBID 1584B): Station 21FLHILL054 (21FLHILL24030702), Dissolved Oxygen 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

Date 




3500 

3000 

2500 

2000 

1500 

1000 

500 

0 

Daily Flow (cfs)


McKay Bay (WBID 1584B): Station 21FLHILL054 (21FLHILL24030702), Chlorophyll a 

20 

500 

18 

450 

16 

400 

14 

350 


12 

10 

8 

300 

250 

200 

6 

150 

4 

100 

2 

50 

0 

0 

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 

Date 


1/1/95 

4/1/95 

7/1/95 

10/1/95 

1/1/96 

4/1/96 

7/1/96 

10/1/96 

1/1/97 

4/1/97 

7/1/97 

10/1/97 

1/1/98 

4/1/98 

7/1/98 

10/1/98 

1/1/99 

4/1/99 

7/1/99 

10/1/99 

1/1/00 

4/1/00 

7/1/00 

10/1/00 

1/1/01 

4/1/01 

7/1/01 

10/1/01 

1/1/02 

4/1/02 


McKay Bay (WBID 1584B): Station 21FLHILL058 (21FLHILL24030704), Dissolved Oxygen 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

Date 




3500 

3000 

2500 

2000 

1500 

1000 

500 

0 

Daily Flow (cfs)


McKay Bay (WBID 1584B): Station 21FLHILL058 (21FLHILL24030704), Chlorophyll a 

25 

500 

450 

20 

400 

350 


15 

10 

300 

250 

200 


150 

5 

100 

50 

0 

0 

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 

Date 


1/1/95 

4/1/95 

7/1/95 

10/1/95 

1/1/96 

4/1/96 

7/1/96 

10/1/96 

1/1/97 

4/1/97 

7/1/97 

10/1/97 

1/1/98 

4/1/98 

7/1/98 

10/1/98 

1/1/99 

4/1/99 

7/1/99 

10/1/99 

1/1/00 

4/1/00 

7/1/00 

10/1/00 

1/1/01 

4/1/01 


McKay Bay (WBID 1584B): Station BSG31, Dissolved Oxygen 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

Date 

BSG31 Surface Dissolved Oxygen Marine Dissolved Oxygen Criteria USGS 02301800 


7/1/01 

10/1/01 

1/1/02 

4/1/02 

3500 

3000 

2500 

2000 

1500 

1000 

500 

0


McKay Bay (WBID 1584B): Station BSG 41, Chlorophyll a 

35 

500 

30 

450 

400 

25 

350 


20 

15 

300 

250 

200 


10 

150 

5 

100 

50 

0 

0 

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 

Date 

BSG 41 Surface Chlorophyll a, Annual Average BSG 41 Bottom Chlorophyll a, Annual Average Estuary Chlorophyll Threshold USGS 02301800, Annual Average

1/1/95 

4/1/95 

7/1/95 

10/1/95 

1/1/96 

4/1/96 

7/1/96 

10/1/96 

1/1/97 

4/1/97 

7/1/97 

10/1/97 

1/1/98 

4/1/98 

7/1/98 

10/1/98 

1/1/99 

4/1/99 

7/1/99 

10/1/99 

1/1/00 

4/1/00 

7/1/00 

10/1/00 

1/1/01 

4/1/01 

7/1/01 

10/1/01 

1/1/02 

4/1/02 


Rocky Creek (WBID 1507A): Station 21FLHILL102 (21FLHILL24040171), Dissolved Oxygen 

10 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

Date 




1200 

1000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

Daily Flow (cfs)


Rocky Creek (WBID 1507A): Station 21FHILL102 (21FLHILL24040171), Chlorophyll a 

60 

90 

80 

50 

70 

40 

60 

Chlorophyll a, (ug/l) 

30 

50 

40 


20 

30 

20 

10 

10 

0 

0 

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 

Date 


1/1/95 

4/1/95 

7/1/95 

10/1/95 

1/1/96 

4/1/96 

7/1/96 

10/1/96 

1/1/97 

4/1/97 

7/1/97 

10/1/97 

1/1/98 

4/1/98 

7/1/98 

10/1/98 

1/1/99 

4/1/99 

7/1/99 

10/1/99 

1/1/00 

4/1/00 

7/1/00 

10/1/00 

1/1/01 

4/1/01 

7/1/01 

10/1/01 

1/1/02 

4/1/02 


Sweetwater Creek (WBID 1516): Station 21FLHILL142 (21FLHILL2404102), Dissolved Oxygen 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

Date 

21FLHILL142 Dissolved Oxygen Freshwater Dissolved Oxygen Criteria USGS 02306500 


160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Daily Flow (cfs)

Total Coliform (#/100ml) 

1/1/95 

4/1/95 

7/1/95 

10/1/95 

1/1/96 

4/1/96 

7/1/96 

10/1/96 

1/1/97 

4/1/97 

7/1/97 

10/1/97 

1/1/98 

4/1/98 

7/1/98 

10/1/98 

1/1/99 

4/1/99 

7/1/99 

10/1/99 

1/1/00 

4/1/00 

7/1/00 

10/1/00 

1/1/01 

4/1/01 

7/1/01 

10/1/01 

1/1/02 

4/1/02 


Sweetwater Creek (WBID 1516): Station 21FLHILL142 (21FLHILL2404102), Total Coliform 

20000 

160 

140 

18000 

16000 

14000 

120 

12000 

10000 

8000 

100 

80 

60 

6000 

4000 

40 

2000 

20 

0 

0 

Date 


Daily Flow (cfs)


Sweetwater Creek (WBID 1516): Station 21FLHILL142 (21FHILL24040102), Chlorophyll a 

25 

25 

20 

20 


15 

10 

15 

10 


5 

5 

0 

0 

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 

Date 

21FLHILL142 Chlorophyll Annual Average Stream Chlorophyll Threshold USGS 02306500, Annual Average

1/1/95 

4/1/95 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 


7/1/95 

10/1/95 

1/1/96 

4/1/96 

7/1/96 

10/1/96 

1/1/97 

4/1/97 

7/1/97 

10/1/97 

1/1/98 

4/1/98 

7/1/98 

10/1/98 

1/1/99 

4/1/99 

7/1/99 

10/1/99 

1/1/00 

4/1/00 

7/1/00 

10/1/00 

1/1/01 

4/1/01 

7/1/01 

10/1/01 

1/1/02 

4/1/02 


Channel G (WBID 1563): Station 21FLHILL103 (21FLHILL24040151), Dissolved Oxygen 

900 

800 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

Date 



Daily Flow (cfs)


Channel G (WBID 1563): Station 21FLHILL103 (21FLHILL24040151), Chlorophyll a 

30 

50 

45 

25 

40 


20 

15 

10 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 


5 

10 

5 

0 

0 

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 

Date 


1/1/95 

4/1/95 

10 

9 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 


7/1/95 

10/1/95 

1/1/96 

4/1/96 

7/1/96 

10/1/96 

1/1/97 

4/1/97 

7/1/97 

10/1/97 

1/1/98 

4/1/98 

7/1/98 

10/1/98 

1/1/99 

4/1/99 

7/1/99 

10/1/99 

1/1/00 

4/1/00 

7/1/00 

10/1/00 

1/1/01 

4/1/01 

7/1/01 

10/1/01 

1/1/02 

4/1/02 


Channel G (WBID 1563): Station 21FLHILL141 (21FLHILL24040152), Dissolved Oxygen 

900 

800 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

Date 



Daily Flow (cfs)


Channel G (WBID 1563): Station 21FLHILL141 (21FHILL2404152), Chlorophyll a 

12 

50 

45 

10 

40 


8 

6 

4 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 


2 

10 

5 

0 

0 

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 

Date 



Division of Water Resource Management 

Bureau of Water Management 


Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 

(850) 245-8561 

www.dep.state.fl.us/water

Tampa Bay - Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Transform your PDFs into Flipbooks and boost your revenue!

Delete template?

Save as template ?