United States Region 4 EPA 904/9-01 -001
Environmental Protection 61 Forsyth Street June 2001
Agency Atlanta, Georgia
Environmental Draft
Impact Statement
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Hillsborough County, Florida
-------
Draft
Environmental Impact Statement
for the
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Prepared by
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4
Tampa Bay Water proposes to build and operate an 1100-acre reservoir facility in
Hillsborough County southeast of Tampa, Florida. Untreated raw surface water would be
diverted from the Hillsborough River, the Tampa Bypass Canal, and the Alafia River and stored
in the regional reservoir. This water would be used during dry periods when no surface water
could be diverted. The purpose of the project is to increase the reliability of Tampa Bay Water's
regional water supply system.
This draft environmental impact statement was prepared in June, 2001, in cooperation
with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Technical assistance was provided by Burns &
McDonnell who served as the third party contractor to EPA with financial resources being
provided by the applicant Tampa Bay Water.
Comments or inquiries should be directed to
John Hamilton
Office of Environmental Assessment
EPA Region 4
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta Georgia 30303
(404) 562-9617
Fax (404) 562-9598
E-Mail: hamilton.john@EPA.gov
Approved By:
L Stanley Meiburg'
Acting Regional Administrator
Date
-------
TAMPA BAY REGIONAL RESERVOIR PROJECT
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Lead Agency:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
Cooperating Agency:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, Tampa Regulatory Office
Applicant:
Tampa Bay Water
( X ) Draft ( ) Final
Type of Action: Administrative( X ) Legislative ( )
ABSTRACT The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) discloses the environmental
impacts from Tampa Bay Water's plan to construct and operate the Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir. The proposed reservoir and associated pipeline would be located in Hillsborough
County, southeast of Tampa, Florida. Three alternatives were selected for in-depth evaluation in
the DEIS: an 1,100-acre reservoir, an 1,100-acre reservoir with Aquifer Storage and Recovery
(ASR) system, and the No Federal Action alternative. The two action alternatives would store
untreated raw surface water diverted during high flow conditions from the Hillsborough River,
the Tampa Bypass Canal, and the Alafia River in the regional reservoir. With the second action
alternative, surface water would be treated to current drinking water standards and injected into
an underground receiving aquifer. This water would be stored for use during dry periods when
little or no surface water could be diverted. Construction of either alternative would impact
wetlands, upland vegetation, and fish and wildlife habitat. Approximately 182 acres of wetlands
within the reservoir footprint and 6 acres along the pipeline route would be impacted. The
magnitude of the effects on the Alafia and Hillsborough rivers, Tampa Bypass Canal, and Tampa
Bay from operating either of the action alternatives appears to be within the normal range of
variation currently found in the natural systems.
If the No Federal Action alternative were selected, federal funding in the amount of $12,615,000
would not be provided for the 1,100-acre reservoir. Were Tampa Bay Water unable to obtain
non-federal funds and not to build the reservoir, no additional surface water withdrawals as a
result of the reservoir from the Alafia River, the Hillsborough River, or the Tampa Bypass Canal
would be made. If no additional withdrawals occur, no additional impacts from this project to
these rivers or the Tampa Bay estuary would result. Without the proposed storage reservoir, with
or without the ASR system, Tampa Bay Water would not be able to offset reduced groundwater
withdrawals as stipulated in their Consolidated Water Use Permit with the Southwest Florida
Water Management District (SWFWMD). If groundwater pumping exceeded the permitted
quantities specified in the Consolidated Water Use Permit, Tampa Bay Water could potentially
lose up to $183 million of funding committed by SWFWMD through the Northern Tampa Bay
Groundwater Withdrawal Reduction Agreement (Partnership Agreement).
Comments are solicited on all aspects of the DEIS and will be considered in preparation of the
Final EIS and Record of Decision. Comments should be sent to Mr. John Hamilton at U.S.
Environmental Protection, Office of Environmental Assessment, 61 Forsyth St., Atlanta, GA
30303 by August 13, 2001.
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
Tampa Bay Water, formerly the West
Coast Regional Water Supply Authority,
proposes construction of a reservoir and
associated pipeline in Hillsborough
County, Florida to store and transport
untreated raw surface water diverted
during high flow conditions from the
Hillsborough River, the Tampa Bypass
Canal, and the Alafia River. This stored
water is for use during dry periods when
little or no surface water can be diverted.
The Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir was
authorized for grant funding in the
amount of $12,615,000 by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
under the State Tribal Assistance Grant
Program. This funding action would
partially provide the means to design and
construct the Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir and reservoir transmission
main. EPA, as the lead federal agency,
must consider all environmental effects
of the construction and operation of the
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir, and
must conduct a National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) analysis of project
impacts on the existing environment.
Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 1501.4 (c) and in
accordance with Section 102(2)(C) of
NEPA, EPA has identified the need to
prepare an environmental impact
statement (EIS) for the Tampa Bay
Regional Reservoir Project. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (COE),
Jacksonville District is a Cooperating
Agency (40 C.F.R. 1501.5) as
jurisdictional wetlands are present on the
proposed sites that would require
permitting under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act.
This Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) was prepared in
accordance with Council of
Environmental Quality (CEQ)
regulations 40 CFR Parts 1500 through
1508 implementing NEPA and provides
a complete and objective analysis of
environmental effects of the proposed
project and its reasonable alternatives.
PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED
The purpose of the Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir Project is to improve the
reliability and dependability of Tampa
Bay Water's regional surface water
supply system. The reservoir would
store untreated raw surface water
diverted during high flow conditions
from the Hillsborough River, the Tampa
Bypass Canal, and the Alafia River.
This stored water would be used during
dry periods when little or no surface
water could be diverted. The first 66
million gallons per day (mgd) of raw
water withdrawn from one or more of
the three surface water sources would be
treated at the new Tampa Bay Regional
Water Treatment Plant and then
distributed through Tampa Bay Water's
regional water supply system.
Diverted amounts of raw water
exceeding 66 mgd would be pumped
into the reservoir and stored for later use.
During the dry season when little or no
water could be diverted from the surface
water sources, up to 66 mgd would be
withdrawn from the reservoir, treated at
the Tampa Bay Regional Water
Treatment Plant and distributed to
wholesale customers, that would then
distribute it to retail customers.
The Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
Project would effectively increase the
yield of the regional surface water
system. Rapid population growth and
S-l
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
economic development has resulted in
an increase in projected future water
demand. In addition, Tampa Bay Water
has also entered into various agreements,
which require reductions in groundwater
use and maintaining water demand at or
below 94 percent of the total permitted
water supply capacity. Based on
increased water demand and reduction of
the existing groundwater supply, Tampa
Bay Water proposes to develop new
water supply sources to meet the
additional required water supply.
ALTERNATIVES
A total of twelve alternatives were
initially evaluated in the DEIS - No
Federal Action and eleven action
alternatives - to determine if they were
capable of improving the reliability and
dependability of Tampa Bay Water's
integrated water supply system. Each
alternative was presented with regard to
physical features, water supply, cost, and
source of water. Alternatives were
evaluated using a tiered screening
process that was based upon engineering
feasibility, environmental fatal flaws,
and the ability to meet the regional
demand for drinking water. All eleven
action alternatives were initially
screened to identify any extraordinary or
unproven technical engineering actions
that would be required to implement the
alternatives. The identification of such
constraints eliminated an alternative
from further consideration. Of the
eleven alternatives originally considered,
three were eliminated due to engineering
constraints. These three alternatives
were (1) capturing freshwater springs,
(2) using lakes found in abandoned
phosphate pits, and (3) using
aboveground storage tanks. The
remaining eight alternatives under
consideration were evaluated on their
ability to meet the water demand and
requirements set forth for the region.
The eight alternatives under
consideration must be capable of
providing at least 58 mgd of water by the
year 2007. Of the eight alternatives
remaining, six were eliminated. The six
alternatives eliminated were: (1) potable
water reuse; (2) reclaimed water; (3)
seawater desalination; (4) brackish
groundwater; (5) water conservation;
and (6) an Aquifer Storage and Recovery
(ASR) system. Only two alternatives
were capable of providing the necessary
water supply to meet the regional
demands by 2007. These two
alternatives were an 1,100 acre reservoir
and (2) an 1,100-acre reservoir with an
ASR system.
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
Project. Tampa Bay Water's Board of
Directors considered multiple options for
the potential regional reservoir location.
Preliminary screening was conducted to
minimize impacts to residential areas
and natural features such as wetlands,
bottom hardwood and riparian
communities. A total of fifteen potential
sites were reviewed and evaluated
considering such criteria as natural
features, land use, land values,
relocations, construction costs, and
potential contamination by hazardous
materials. Seven of the fifteen
alternative sites were retained in the
screening process and were subjected to
more extensive geotechnical and
environmental analysis. These seven
alternatives were presented to the public
through a public involvement program.
The screening process and cost analysis
led to the selection of the preferred site
for the Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir.
The proposed reservoir and associated
facilities would occupy approximately
S-2
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
1,100 acres. The actual water surface
area of the reservoir would be about 900
acres when full and would have a
storage volume of approximately 48,000
acre-feet (15 billion gallons). It would
be located in southeastern Hillsborough
County, south of County Road 640,
north of County Road 672, and west of
County Road 39. Portions of the site
have been mined for phosphate, but are
currently being used as improved
pasture.
Reservoir embankments would be 30 to
65 feet high and constructed from onsite
soils materials. To control erosion, the
interior face of the embankments would
be covered with soil cement.
Approximately 7.5 miles of 84-inch
water transmission pipeline would
connect the proposed reservoir to Tampa
Bay Water's regional water system via
the South Central Hillsborough Intertie.
The new pipeline route would generally
follow existing roadways and linear
utility corridors. The route would begin
approximately 400 feet north of the
intersection of Fishhawk Drive, Bell
Shoals Road and Boyette Road. It
would then travel south and east, parallel
to Boyette Road where it would cross
niral land to the Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir site. The real property rights
required for construction and operation
of the pipeline would include a
temporary easement of 50 feet for
construction and a 50-foot permanent
easement for construction, operation and
maintenance activities. In areas near
homes and other potentially sensitive
locations, the easement would be
reduced where possible to avoid or
minimize impacts.
Detailed design, site permitting and
construction of the reservoir are
estimated to cost approximately $111.9
million while annual operation and
maintenance costs are estimated at
$964,000. Treated water from Tampa
Bay Water's Enhanced Surface Water
System is estimated to cost $1.27 per
1,000 gallons.
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir and
ASR System. An ASR system has been
considered a possible enhancement to
the Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir to
improve the reliability of the overall
surface water system. Two alternatives
were evaluated that included the Tampa
Bay Regional Reservoir and an ASR
system. The first alternative evaluated
included the proposed reservoir of 1,100
acres and an 18-mgd ASR system. The
second alternative included a smaller
reservoir of 800 acres and a 30-mgd
ASR system.
The concept of the ASR system can be
thought of as an underground reservoir.
The ASR system would work together
with the surface reservoir to increase the
total storage capacity of the system. An
advantage of subsurface storage is that it
is not subject to evaporative losses and it
does not require the acquisition of large
parcels of land. Favorable hydrology
and the ability to blend the recovered
ASR water with water stored in the
surface reservoir means that a large
percent of the water put into storage
could be recovered for use.
Up to this time, ASR has most
commonly been used in Florida for the
storage of fully treated potable water.
However, new applications of this
technology using water that has limited
pretreatment are being developed. ASR
is most easily permitted if the injected
water meets all primary and secondary
S-3
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
drinking water standards. There is a
regulatory exemption process currently
in place that addresses the injection of
water that exceeds one or more
secondary drinking water parameters.
Currently, exemptions of primary
drinking water standards are very
difficult to obtain. At this time there are
new rules and procedures being
considered that may allow an exemption
for specific primary drinking water
standards. Assuming sufficient water is
available for storage, an ASR system
capacity would likely be limited by
regulatory criteria and maximum
drawdown allowed during the recovery
period within a prescribed distance from
the wells. Prior to final design of an
ASR system, a pilot study would need to
be conducted to clearly define the ASR
storage interval, the type of
pretreatment, and specific details
regarding the wellfield design and
operation. The pilot study, permitting,
and construction of the ASR wellfield
under current regulatory criteria is
estimated to take about ten years.
Engineering studies conducted by
Tampa Bay Water of the proposed
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
indicated that an ASR system having a
capacity to store and recover water at a
rate of approximately 18 mgd could
greatly improve the reliability of the
overall water storage and supply system.
The ASR system could be located at the
regional reservoir site, along the regional
reservoir pipeline route, or at a more
distant location. An ASR system built
adjacent to the regional reservoir site
could potentially be the most cost
efficient; no additional acquisition of
property would be required. It is also
thought that pretreatment could be more
easily accomplished using stored
reservoir water since the large volume of
surface water stored could serve to
buffer and dilute any unforeseen water
quality parameters.
An ASR wellfield located more distant
from the regional reservoir could offer
certain advantages if regulatory issues
and/or public opinion do not favor siting
ASR wells adjacent to the reservoir.
The estimated costs of building an ASR
system were based on constructing the
ASR system near the regional reservoir
site. Individual well capacities used in
this analysis were estimated to be
approximately 2 mgd. A system of 9
wells was used yielding a total ASR
system capacity of 18 mgd with one 2-
mgd backup well. The estimated cost of
the entire wellfield was approximately
$10.7 million. The total estimated cost
of the regional reservoir and the ASR
system was about $121 million.
The preliminary investigation for the
second alternative conducted by Tampa
Bay Water, on a smaller 800-acre
reservoir, showed that an ASR system
having a capacity to store and recover
water at a rate of approximately 30-mgd
would be required. The design and
location of the ASR system would be
similar to that in the first alternative.
For the second alternative a system of 15
wells was used, yielding 30 mgd with
two 2-mgd backup wells. The estimated
cost of the ASR system was
approximately $18 million. The total
estimated cost of the regional reservoir
and the ASR system was about $128
million.
No Federal Action. The No Federal
Action alternative is also included in the
S-4
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
DEIS. As stated in Chapter 2, the
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
is Tampa Bay Waters' preferred
alternative. To compare viable
alternatives in this DEIS, it was
necessary to consider that No Federal
Action equated to no reservoir.
However, absent $12,615,000 in federal
funds, nothing in this DEIS would
prevent Tampa Bay Water from building
the 1,100-acre reservoir and connecting
transmission pipeline.
If the Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
were not built, Tampa Bay Water has
demonstrated that it would not meet the
tri-county area potable water demands
under the commitments and obligations
of the Interlocal and Partnership
agreements nor would it meet the
cumulative water supply needs predicted
to occur by the year 2007. A 25-mgd
deficit in water need would result.
Tampa Bay Water and SWFWMD have
agreed to a Consolidated Water Use
Permit that reduces Tampa Bay Water's
current groundwater withdrawals of 158
mgd to 120 mgd by December 2002, and
to 90 mgd by December 2007.
Exceeding permitted withdrawal
quantities in the Consolidated Water Use
Permit could result in loss of funding
committed by SWFWMD to Tampa Bay
Water through the Partnership
Agreement. In addition, groundwater
pumpage above permitted levels would
continue, resulting in an increase in
environmental impacts to wetlands and
lakes.
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSEQUENCES
Construction and operation of the action
alternatives presented above would, to
varying degrees, impact similar natural
resources.
The proposed action alternatives would
not affect the permitted freshwater
withdrawal schedules from the Alafia
and Hillsborough rivers and the Tampa
Bypass Canal. The alternatives would
increase the dependable yield of Tampa
Bay Water's total surface water system
by providing for the additional storage of
surface water diverted during periods of
higher flow for use during drier periods.
Implementation of either of the two
action alternatives could decrease
freshwater inflow into Tampa Bay by up
to 115 mgd during high flow conditions
(on a maximum daily basis). These
proposed freshwater withdrawals have
raised concerns about potential effects
on Tampa Bay and its tributaries. The
potential impacts of freshwater
withdrawals on salinity and circulation
on Tampa Bay ecosystem have been
evaluated.
Modeling results have indicated
freshwater withdrawals from the Alafia
and Hillsborough rivers and the Tampa
Bypass Canal would influence salinity
and flushing time in Tampa Bay. The
largest expected changes are predicted to
occur in northwestern Hillsborough Bay,
south of the interbay peninsula, and in
portions of the main ship channel.
However, because these changes are so
small, there is no reason to believe that
salinity and flushing time of the bay
would be significantly adversely affected
by the proposed freshwater withdrawals.
Implementation of the proposed projects
to meet established 2007 water demands
would divert up to 129 mgd (on a
maximum daily basis) of freshwater
S-5
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
flows from the Hillsborough River and
Tampa Bypass Canal. Withdrawals for
the Hillsborough River would begin,
based on a permit issued by SWFWMD,
when flows in the river below the City of
Tampa's Hillsborough River reservoir
reach 65 mgd. Withdrawals from the
Tampa Bay Bypass Canal would begin,
based on the SWFWMD permit, when
flows in the canal exceed 7 mgd.
Studies evaluating the potential impacts
of freshwater withdrawals from the
Hillsborough River and Tampa Bypass
Canal indicate that some alterations to
the flow and salinity regime could be
expected. The saltwater wedge in the
Hillsborough River would likely also
fluctuate, moving up and down stream
within its normal range. The magnitudes
of these effects appear to be within the
normal range of variation currently
found in the natural system.
Withdrawals from the Alafia River
would begin only when flow in the river
reaches or exceeds 80 mgd, a threshold
determined by SWFWMD and included
in Tampa Bay Water's permit. Once this
threshold is reached, withdrawals are
permitted up to 10 percent of the flow,
with a maximum withdrawal of 51.7
mgd. Hydrologic modeling studies
prepared for the permitted freshwater
withdrawals, described in Chapter 4,
include analyses of the predicted impacts
on both the Alafia River and Tampa Bay
at the mouth of the Alafia River.
Projected impacts resulting from
freshwater withdrawals, including
fluctuations of the saltwater wedge in the
Alafia River, were estimated to be
within the range of existing variation.
Under the Partnership Agreement
between Tampa Bay Water, SWFWMD,
and member governments, the proposed
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
and the associated freshwater
withdrawals from the Alafia and
Hillsborough rivers and Tampa Bypass
Canal would allow Tampa Bay Water's
member governments to reduce
withdrawals from existing groundwater
wellfields. The Partnership Agreement
describes the required reduction in
groundwater withdrawals from the 11
regional wellfields by the year 2002 and
2007.
By reducing reliance on groundwater,
the action alternatives described in this
DEIS would assist in maintaining
groundwater levels and would enhance
the biological health of related wetlands,
lakes, and streams. Improved biological
health of these resources would in turn
benefit the fish and wildlife that inhabit
these resources.
Construction activities associated with
the proposed alternatives would not be
expected to have any long-term impacts
on local or regional ambient air quality.
Any long-term increases in fugitive dust
or engine emissions for operation of
equipment would be temporary and
minimal. Construction activities in the
immediate reservoir pipeline areas
would also have a temporary effect on
local ambient air quality. The proposed
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
would not significantly impact the
existing air quality in the project area.
Construction and operation of the
proposed Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir Project would not impact
vegetation and wetlands associated with
the Alafia and Hillsborough rivers or the
Tampa Bypass Canal.
S-6
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
The Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
Environmental Resource Permit and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dredge
and Fill Permit Applications addressed
direct and indirect impacts of wetlands
in the proposed project area. Direct
impacts are those such as dredge and fill
activities resulting from reservoir and
pipeline construction. Indirect impacts
are those that could result in potential
changes in local water table elevations
resulting from reservoir seepage.
The reservoir site selection process for
the proposed Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir Project avoided and
minimized direct and indirect impacts to
wetlands to the maximum extent
practical. The total amount of wetlands
impacted by the project would be 188.3
acres. This includes 182.3 acres of
wetlands within the reservoir footprint
and 6 acres along the pipeline route.
Impacts to wetlands along the pipeline
would be temporary and would not
require mitigation. Impacts to wetlands
within the reservoir footprint would be
permanent and would require mitigation.
Federal threatened and endangered and
state sensitive species have been
. identified within the proposed project
area. The species potentially occurring
include the American alligator, eastern
indigo snake, wood stork, Florida
sandhill crane, southeastern American
kestrel, Florida scrub jay, and bald eagle.
With exception of the Florida sandhill
crane, the project would not be expected
to adversely affect any of the above
mentioned species.
A cultural resource survey of the Tampa
Bay Regional Reservoir Project area was
made. Six previously unrecorded
historic structures and four previously
unrecorded prehistoric or archaeological
sites were located. The six previously
unrecorded historic structures are not
eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
One of the prehistoric sites required a
Phase II cultural resources survey, but
nothing of significance was found. All
four prehistoric sites were not
considered to be eligible for NRHP
listing.
The reservoir area is primarily
undeveloped woodlands, wetlands, and
grasslands used primarily for cattle
grazing. Some agricultural crops are
grown on the northwest portion of the
site. The southern one-third of the site
was previously mined for phosphate ore
and has since been reclaimed.
Construction of the water transmission
pipeline could result in minor temporary
impacts such as disruption of traffic flow
and congestion, and increased noise and
dust levels. Construction impacts from
the transmission pipeline would be
temporary and would occur for no more
than a few days in any one location.
Unavoidable adverse impacts. The
construction and operation of an action
alternative would have unavoidable
adverse impacts that could not be
completely mitigated. Construction and
operation of the two action alternatives
would result in the following
unavoidable adverse impacts.
Construction would result in a
temporary decrease in air quality in
the immediate project area.
Noise in the immediate project area
would be temporarily increased
during construction.
S-7
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Terrestrial insects, reptiles, and
mammals would be displaced to
other areas, or lost, as the dam is
constructed and the reservoir is
filled.
Land used for the reservoir would be
lost to cattle grazing and other
agricultural production.
Unvegetated land exposed during the
late summer through early spring
would be vulnerable to erosion.
Loss of wetlands.
Irreversible and Irretrievable
Commitments of Resources.
Construction of the project facilities
would be the major aspect of the
proposed action that would involve an
irreversible commitment of resources.
Construction of the regional reservoir
would use construction materials such as
soil for the embankment, concrete, and
financial resources. The project would
also commit freshwater flows from the
Alafia and Hillsborough rivers and the
Tampa Bypass Canal to fill and maintain
the reservoir pool. If withdrawal of the
existing freshwater inflow was found to
have unacceptable adverse impacts on
Tampa Bay, the flows would be restored.
However, reduction or elimination of
this regional water supply storage would
cause considerable hardship to the
regional water supply system; resources
would have been committed to the
development and treatment of the water
from the reservoir to supplement the
regional water supply system.
Relationship between short-term uses
of the environment and the
maintenance and enhancement of
long-term productivity. The short-term
and long-term tradeoff inherent in the
project is a positive one (i.e. it favors the
long-term). In the short-term, use of
resources to construct the project
facilities would be required. These
facilities would then yield long-term
benefits of supplementing and increasing
drought-resistant water supply allowing
for the natural recharge of groundwater
in the wellfield area and satisfying some
of the increased water demands
associated with population growth in the
three-county area.
Conflicts with Land Use Plans,
Policies, or Controls. The proposed
project would not conflict with any
existing land use plans, policies, or
controls. The construction of the
reservoir and pipeline would be
consistent with zoning currently
designated for the site.
Summary of Cumulative Impacts.
Tampa Bay Water has developed a
Master Water Plan for meeting the
potable water needs of the Tampa Bay
region for the 15-year period 1995
through 2010. The Master Water Plan
incorporates plans for obtaining
freshwater from numerous sources or
storing freshwater, which include the:
Alafia and Hillsborough rivers
Tampa Bypass Canal
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
Brandon Urban Dispersed Wells and
Cone Ranch projects
Studies have been conducted to predict
potential impacts from individual
projects of the Master Water Plan, and
the cumulative impact that would result
from implementing a number of the
projects simultaneously. The
assessments of potential impacts to
Tampa Bay tributaries focused on
changes to freshwater inflow rates and
water quality that would result from the
S-8
-------
Tiimpa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
proposed surface water withdrawals.
Potential impacts to the Hillsborough
River and Tampa Bypass Canal system
and the Alafia River were evaluated.
Stream flow characteristics and water
quality of the rivers were examined.
Resources of interest include fish,
benthos, and submerged and emergent
aquatic vegetation that could potentially
be impacted by changes in flow patterns
or salinity regimes resulting from
withdrawals. The extent and magnitude
of impacts were then assessed to identify
any potential threats to living resources.
Different methods were used to estimate
potential cumulative impacts so that the
result of the diverse analysis could be
compared. Obtaining similar results
using different methods of analysis
provides an increased level of
confidence in the findings.
The conclusions of the modeling efforts
conducted by both Hillsborough County
and Tampa Bay Water were similar and
considered the other projects in the
Master Water Plan. The conclusions
concerning the possible individual and
cumulative impacts are summarized
below.
Alafia River
Low and high flows are preserved
under the withdrawal schedule.
There is little change to salinity
regimes under low and high flow
conditions.
The saltwater interface may vary by
a maximum of approximately 0.25-
mile under moderate flow
conditions. This could result in the
conversion of a small area of
freshwater marsh to saltwater marsh.
The location of the saltwater
interface is predicted to change much
less under high flow and low flow
conditions.
Maximum salinity increase is
predicted to be less than 2 ppt, which
is within the observed long-term
variability of the system.
Hillsborough River/Tampa Bypass
Canal
Withdrawals from the Hillsborough
River begin when flows below the
City of Tampa's reservoir reach 5.6
times the minimum flow of 10 cfs.
Significant impacts are unlikely to
living resources of concern within
the Hillsborough River and Tampa
Bypass Canal system. The greatest
withdrawals would be during the wet
summer months when maintaining
habitat for the biological resources
would not be as critical. The
predicted impacts to freshwater
inflow and salinity patterns during
summer months are not expected to
be significant.
Tampa Bay
SWFWMD modeling efforts suggest
salinity increases of no more that 1.5
ppt in Hillsborough Bay due to
freshwater withdrawals.
Investigations show no evidence of
significant impacts to the tributaries
and living resources resulting from
individual projects. In addition, the
cumulative impact analysis did not
identify any fatal flaws.
SWFWMD's Tampa Bay model
suggested salinity increases due to
enhanced surface water system
(ESWS) withdrawals (and Brandon
Urban Dispersed Wells and Cone
Ranch) would be within the range of
long-term variability.
Results of the coastal mass balance
model suggested a maximum
S-9
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
monthly impact to salinity from
ESWS withdrawals (and a
desalination facility, Brandon Urban
Dispersed Wells, and Cone Ranch)
within the range of long-term
variability (Coastal
Environmental/PBS&J 1998).
The mass balance model suggested
that the annual cycle of salinity
within bay segments re-establishes
and stabilizes at slightly higher
levels than current levels after 3 to 4
years of operation of the Master
Water Plan projects.
Potential impacts to the Alafia and
Hillsborough rivers, the Tampa Bypass
Canal, and Tampa Bay from withdrawal
of freshwater for storage in the proposed
reservoir are considered to be modest
and within the range of normal
variability. This salinity fluctuation is
expected to be well within the normal
range of variability and is also within the
relatively wide range of salinity
tolerances of identified living resources
of interest found in oligohaline zones.
Impacts from Past and Present
Actions. Past and present human
activity have substantially affected the
land cover at and in the vicinity of the
proposed action alternatives. The
southern portion of the proposed
reservoir area contains reclaimed
phosphate mines and is currently being
used for agricultural purposes. The
northern portion of the site is unmined
agricultural land. Overgrazing has
changed the plant species composition of
existing rangelands and the physical
structure of these habitats by the
selective removal of the more palatable
species or life stages of plants. The lack
of restrictions on cattle movement has
also resulted in the degradation of
riparian and wetland communities. The
effect of these actions have reduced the
quality of habitat for native fauna and
increased erosion. Initially, the
construction of one of the proposed
actions or alternative would continue the
trend in the destruction or degradation of
native terrestrial habitats.
Through the environmental assessment
process, gopher tortoise burrows were
located in the upland area in the
northwest corner of the reservoir site.
To minimize impacts to the tortoises, the
reservoir configuration was further
revised to avoid the upland area in the
northwest portion of the site. Mitigation
measures would offset the losses through
the enhancement of existing habitat or
the creation of replacement habitat.
The original reservoir layout was
rectangular in shape and was moved to
avoid potential environmental impacts
associated with Doe Branch Creek and
property owned by Hillsborough
County. The current shape of the
reservoir reflects these changes.
SWFWMD Governing Board in August
2000 voted to acquire the property
necessary for the proposed reservoir
using a State fund called the Florida
Forever Fund. There are three property
owners for the reservoir site, with
parcels totaling 5,200 acres. SWFWMD
has acquired one of the three parcels of
land and is in the process of acquiring
the remaining two parcels. The area of
5,200 acres will include the 1,100 acres
required for the proposed reservoir, and
the property necessary for all of three
mitigation sites. The entire 5,200 acres
would remain in public ownership and
property not directly related to the
proposed reservoir footprint and
S-10
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
mitigation areas will be permanently
preserved. The 5,200-acre acquisition is
also important because it links the
habitat corridors of the mainstream of
the Alafia River to Fish Hawk creek, and
to the South Prong of the Alafia. This
purchase will keep the land adjacent to
the proposed reservoir from being
encroached upon by suburban
development.
Significance of Cumulative Impacts.
The mitigation proposed for the loss of
vegetation communities caused by
construction of the proposed action or
the alternative would complement the
naitural habitat of the area. The proposed
mitigation plan provides information to
compensate for unavoidable wetland
impacts associated with the proposed
reservoir project. The amount of
mitigation is based on wetland impacts ,
as determined by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, and
Hillsborough County Environmental
Protection Commission. Mitigation
would be conducted at three sites
adjacent to the reservoir. These
mitigation projects are expected to
provide an ecological benefit to the
region.
MITIGATION
The development and implementation of
a comprehensive HBMP is a condition
of the SWFWMD water use permit for
the freshwater diversions from the Alafia
arid Hillsborough rivers and Tampa
Bypass Canal. The goal of the HBMP is
to measure the change in water quality,
vegetation, and animal populations that
would occur in the project area, where
surface water withdrawals would occur,
as a result of the project and to
determine an appropriate course of
action in response to such changes. This
program would ensure that the salinity
distribution in the tidal portions and
estuaries of the Alafia and Hillsborough
rivers would not be significantly altered
as a result of the freshwater withdrawals,
and that recreation or commercial use or
aesthetic qualities of these resources
would not be adversely impacted.
The project would comply with local,
state, and federal emission limits and
operating parameter requirements for air
emission sources during construction.
Dust and noise control measures would
be implemented during construction of
the proposed projects. Minimizing the
area excavated, wetting of excavated
areas and timely seeding of or sodding
of exposed areas would minimize dust
levels and erosion potentials. Noise
abatement procedures would include
selective timing of construction activities
that could impact nearby sensitive
receptors.
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands on
project sites would be mitigated in
accordance with Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act and all other State of
Florida and local wetland regulations.
Wetland mitigation was discussed in
Section 4 and the Mitigation Plan in
Appendix B.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the analysis of the two action
alternatives and the No Federal Action
alternative presented in the preceding
sections and discussions in Chapter 4,
the alternative preferred by EPA is the
1,100-acre Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir Project. To briefly
summarize, the 1,100-acre Tampa Bay
Regional Reservoir Project would not
affect the permitted freshwater
withdrawal schedules from the Alafia
S-ll
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
and Hillsborough rivers and the Tampa
Bypass Canal. The water supply project
would increase the dependable yield of
the total surface water system by
providing for the additional storage of
surface water diverted during periods of
higher flow for use during drier periods.
The first 66-mgd of surface water
withdrawn from the three combined
water supply sources would be treated at
the new regional water treatment plant
before being distributed to customers via
Tampa Bay Water's regional water
system. Any surface water withdrawals
in excess of 66 mgd would be pumped
into the 1,100-acre regional reservoir for
storage. When surface water flows
decrease and are below permitted
withdrawal levels, stored water would be
withdrawn from the reservoir and treated
at the regional water treatment facility
for distribution.
The 1,100-acre Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir alternative is also the project
preferred for implementation by Tampa
Bay Water. The regional reservoir
would provide a quality source of water
that could effectively provide Tampa
Bay Water and their member
governments a viable water source to
supplement the integrated surface water
supply system. Development of an ASR
system could improve the overall
reliability of Tampa Bay Waters'
preferred 1,100-acre water supply
reservoir. A stand alone ASR alternative
was originally included in the initial
array of alternatives; this alternative was
eliminated because it did not provide the
required supply in the time frame
desired. In addition, the policy and
technical issues pursuant to ASR have
not been technically addressed in this
DEIS to the extent required by the
National Environmental Policy Act.
EPA makes no recommendation as to the
desirability or feasibility of the inclusion
of ASR in the Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir Project.
Summary of Conclusions.
The Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
Project would improve the reliability
and dependability of Tampa Bay
Water's regional surface water
supply system.
Construction of Tampa Bay Water's
preferred alternative, Tampa Bay
regional reservoir, would impact
188.3,acres of wetlands. This
includes 182.3 acres of wetlands
within the reservoir footprint and 6
acres along the pipeline route.
By reducing reliance on
groundwater, the preferred
alternative would assist in
maintaining water levels and
enhance the biological health of
related wetlands, lakes, and streams.
Improved biological health of these
resources would in turn benefit the
fish and wildlife that inhabit these
resources.
The magnitude of the salinity
changes in the Alafia and
Hillsborough rivers, Tampa Bypass
Canal, and Tampa Bay from
operating the reservoir are expected
within the normal range of variation
currently found in the natural system.
Most adverse impacts would be
avoided or minimized and mitigated
where avoidance would not be
practical.
SWFWMD has agreed to acquire the
property for the regional reservoir
and additional land located
immediately adjacent to the reservoir
footprint totaling approximately
5,200 acres.
S-12
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
The most prominent controversy
concerning the Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir Project identified in the public
scoping process concerned the operation
of the reservoir and associated impacts
on the Alafia and Hillsborough rivers,
Tampa Bypass Canal and Tampa Bay.
Citizens and representatives of
Hillsborough County expressed
additional concerns pertaining to the
construction and operation of the
reservoir. These included the safety of
the reservoir and impacts associated with
embankment failure.
ISSUES BEING RESOLVED
Issues being resolved include
preparation of inundation maps for the
regional reservoir and monitoring water
seeping from the regional reservoir.
These issues are described below.
Tampa Bay Water has prepared
inundation maps and an Emergency
Action Plan has also been drafted.
By June 2001, Tampa Bay Water
will have a formal plan to monitor
and assess potential impacts to the
areas surrounding the reservoir.
Tampa Bay Water coordinated with
regulatory agencies during the
planning and development of the
monitoring plan.
Areas of concern regarding seepage
from the reservoir include such
resources as gopher tortoise habitat
located outside of the northeast
corner of the reservoir embankment.
Tampa Bay Water has initiated the
collection of baseline date, which
will be used for including these areas
in the monitoring plan.
S-13
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY S-l
TABLE OF CONTENTS TC-1
LIST OF TABLES TC-9
LIST OF FIGURES TC-10
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1,2 PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT 1-2
1.3 PROJECT PURPOSE 1-2
1.4 PROJECT NEED 1-4
1.5 CURRENT WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM 1-4
1.5.1 Water Supply Sources 1-4
1.5.2 Treatment Facilities 1-4
1.5.3 Transmission Facilities 1-5
1.5.4 Operation of the System 1-5
1.6 DEMAND AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS 1-5
1.6.1 Demand Forecast Method 1-5
1.6.2 Population Projections 1-7
1.7 WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES 1-7
1.7.1 Hillsborough County Water Conservation Plan 1-9
1.7.2 Pasco County Water Conservation Plan 1-9
1.7.3 Pinellas County Water Conservation Plan 1-10
1.7.4 City of St. Petersburg Water Conservation Plan 1-11
1.7.5 City of Tampa Water Conservation Plan 1-11
1.7.6 City of New Port Richey Water Conservation Plan 1-12
1.8 WATER USE PERMITS AND PRINCIPLE AGREEMENTS 1-13
1.8.1 Water Permits 1-13
1.8.2 Principle Agreements 1-13
1.9 NEW PROJECTS 1-14
TC-1
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement
1.10 TAMPA BAY REGIONAL RESERVOIR PROJECT 1-16
1.11 SUMMARY OF PROJECT NEED 1-16
1.12 ADMINISTRATIVE AND ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS 1-16
1.12.1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 1-17
1.12.2 Tampa Bay Water 1-17
1.12.3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1-17
1.12.4 Florida Department of Environmental Protection 1-17
1.12.5 Southwest Florida Water Management District 1-20
1.12.6 Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County 1-20
1.13 EIS PREPARATION 1-20
1.14 ORGANIZATION OF THE DOCUMENT 1-21
CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
2.1 INTRODUCTION 2-1
2.2 ACTION ALTERNATIVES , 2-3
2.2.1 Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project 2-3
2.2.2 Other Action Alternatives 2-12
2.3 NO FEDERAL ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2-22
2.4 EVALUATION OF ACTION ALTERNATIVES 2-22
2.5 ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD 2-25
CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.1 INTRODUCTION 3-1
3.2 GENERAL SETTING 3-1
3.3 SOILS AND GEOLOGY 3-4
3.3.1 Soils 3-4
3.3.2 Geology 3-5
3.4 AIR QUALITY 3-9
3.5 NOISE 3-9
TC-2
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement
3.6 WATER RESOURCES 3-10
3.6.1 Groundwater 3-10
3.6.2 Surface Water Quantity 3-11
3.6.2.1 Mafia River .' 3-11
3.6.2.2 Hillsborough River 3-12
3.6.2.3 Tampa Bypass Canal 3-16
3.6.2.4 Tampa Bay 3-16
3.6.3 Surface Water Quality 3-18
3.6.3.1 Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project 3-19
3.6.3.2 Alafia River 3-19
3.6.3.3 Hillsborough River 3-20
3.6.3.4 Tampa Bypass Canal 3-21
3.6.3.5 Tampa Bay 3-22
3.7 MINIMUM FLOWS AND LEVELS 3-23
3.7.1 Alafia River 3-25
3.7.2 Hillsborough River 3-25
3.7.3 Tampa Bypass Canal 3-26
3.8 UPLAND VEGETATION 3-26
3.8.1 Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project 3-27
3.8.2 Alafia River, Hillsborough River, Tampa Bypass Canal and Tampa Bay 3-27
3.9 WETLANDS 3-28
3.9.1 Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project 3-29
3.9.2 Alafia River 3-30
3.9.3 Hillsborough River and Tampa Bypass Canal 3-31
3.9.4 Tampa Bay., 3-31
3.10 WILDLIFE 3-31
3.10.1 Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project 3-31
3.10.2 Alafia River 3-34
3.10.3 Hillsborough River and Tampa Bypass Canal 3-34
3.10.4 Tampa Bay 3-35
3.11 FISH 3-37
3.11.1 Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project 3-37
3.11.2 Alafia River 3-37
3.11.3 Hillsborough River 3-38
3.11.4 Tampa Bay 3-39
3.12 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 3-39
3.12.1 Federally Threatened and Endangered Species 3-39
3.12.2 State Listed Species of Special Concern 3-48
TC-3
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement
3.13 SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS 3-55
3.13.1 Socioeconomic Portfolio for the Region of Influence 3-55
3.13.2 Seasonal Residents 3-58
3.13.3 Public Services '. 3-58
3.13.4 Environmental Justice 3-59
3.14 VISUAL AND AESTHETIC CHARACTERISTICS 3-61
3.15 CULTURAL RESOURCES 3-61
3.16 RECREATION 3-66
3.17 RISK ANALYSIS AND IMPACT TO THE HUMAN COMMUNITY 3-67
CHAPTER FOUR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4.1 INTRODUCTION 4-1
4.2 GENERAL SETTING 4-2
4.2.1 Action Alternatives 4-2
4.2.2 No Federal Action 4-2
4.2.3 Mitigation 4-2
4.3 HYDROLOGY 4-3
4.3.1 Surficial and Subsurface Soil Conditions 4-3
4.3.2 Surface Drainage 4-3
4.3.3 Mining and Reclamation History 4-3
4.3.4 Action Alternatives 4-4
4.3.5 No Federal Action 4-4
4.3.6 Mitigation 4-4
4.4 GEOLOGICAL, HYDROGEOLOGICAL, AND GEOPHYSICAL
INVESTIGATION 4-4
4.4.1 Action Alternatives 4-6
4.4.2 No Federal Action 4-7
4.4.3 Mitigation 4-7
4.5 GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION 4-8
4.5.1 Action Alternatives 4-9
4.5.2 No Federal Action Alternative 4-10
4.5.3 Mitigation 4-10
TC-4
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement
4.6 AIR QUALITY 4-10
4.6.1 Action Alternatives 4-11
4.6.2 No Federal Action 4-11
4.6.3 Mitigation 4-11
4.7 NOISE QUALITY 4-12
4.7.1 Action Alternatives 4-12
4.7.2 No Federal Action 4-12
4.7.3 Mitigation 4-12
4.8 WATER RESOURCES : 4-12
4.8.1 Groundwater Quantity 4-12
4.8.1.1 Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project 4-13
4.8.1.2 Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir and ASR System 4-14
4.8.1.3 No Federal Action . 4-15
4.8.1.4 Mitigation 4-15
4.8.2 Groundwater Quality 4-16
4.8.2.1 Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project 4-16
4.8.2.2 Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir and ASR System. 4-16
4.8.2.3 No Federal Action 4-17
4.8.2.4 Mitigation : 4-17
4.8.3 Surface Water Quantity 4-18
4.8.3.1 Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project : 4-19
4.8.3.2 Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir and ASR System 4-21
4.8.3.3 No Federal Action 4-21
4.8.3.4 Mitigation 4-21
4.8.4 Surface Water Quality 4-22
4.8.4.1 Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project 4-22
4.8.4.2 Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir and ASR System 4-29
4.8.4.3 No Federal Action 4-29
4.8.4.4 Mitigation 4-29
4.9 MINIMUM FLOWS AND LEVELS 4-29
4.9.1 Action Alternatives 4-30
4.9.2 No Federal Action 4-32
4.9.3 Mitigation 4-32
4.10 UPLAND VEGETATION 4-32
4.10.1 Action Alternatives 4-32
4.10.2 No Federal Action 4-33
4.10.3 Mitigation 4-33
4.11 WETLANDS 4-33
4.11.1 Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project 4-34
4.11.2 Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir and ASR System 4-36
TC-5 ~~~
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement
4.11.3 No Federal Action 4-36
4.11.4 Mitigation 4-36
4.12 WILDLIFE 4-36
4.12.1 Action Alternatives 4-37
4.12.2 No Federal Action 4-40
4.12.3 Mitigation 4-40
4.13 FISHERIES 4-40
4.13.1 Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project 4-41
4.13.2 Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir and ASR System 4-42
4.13.3 No Federal Action 4-42
4.13.4 Mitigation 4-42
4.14 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 4-42
4.14.1 Federally Threatened and Endangered Species 4-43
4.14.1.1 Action Alternatives 4-43
4.14.1.2 No Federal Action 4-45
4.14.1.3 Mitigation 4-45
4.14.2 State Listed Species of Special Concern 4-45
4.14.2.1 Action Alternatives : 4-45
4.14.2.2 No Federal Action 4-48
4.14.2.3 Mitigation 4-48
4.15 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 4-49
4.15.1 Population 4-49
4.15.1.1 Action Alternatives 4-49
4.15.1.2 No Federal Action 4-49
4.15.2 Housing 4-51
4.15.2.1 Action Alternatives 4-51
4.15.2.2 No Federal Action 4-51
4.15.3 Land Use 4-51
4.15.3.1 Action Alternatives 4-51
4.15.3.2 No Federal Action 4-51
4.15.4 Employment and Income 4-51
4.15.4.1 Action Alternatives 4-51
4.15.4.2 No Federal Action 4-51
4.15.5 Community Services and Facilities 4-53
4.15.5.1 Action Alternatives 4-53
4.15.5.2 No Federal Action 4-53
4.15.6 Public Finance 4-53
4.15.6.1 Action Alternatives 4-53
4.15.6.2 No Federal Action 4-53
4.15.7 Environmental Justice 4-53
4.15.8 Mitigation 4-53
TC-6
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement
4,16 VISUAL AND AESTHETIC CHARACTERISTICS 4-54
4.16.1 Action Alternatives 4-54
4.16.2 No Federal Action 4-54
4.16.3 Mitigation 4-54
4.17 CULTURAL RESOURCES 4-55
4.17.1 Action Alternatives 4-55
4.17.2 No Federal Action 4-56
4.17.3 Mitigation 4-56
4.18 RECREATION 4-56
4.18.1 Action Alternatives 4-56
4.18.2 No Federal Action 4-57
4.18.3 Mitigation 4-57
4.19 RISK ANALYSIS AND IMPACT TO THE HUMAN COMMUNITY 4-57
4.19.1 Action Alternatives 4-58
4.19.2 No Federal Action 4-58
4.19.3 Mitigation 4-58
4.20 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 4-59
4.21 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF
RESOURCES 4-59
4.22 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT
AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG TERM
PRODUCTIVITY 4-59
4.23 CONFLICTS WITH LAND USE PLANS, POLICIES, OR CONTROLS 4-60
4.24 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 4-60
4.24.1 Summary oflncremental Impacts 4-60
4.24.2 Impacts from Past and Present Actions 4-61
4.24.3 Significance of Cumulative Impacts 4-63
4.25 CONCLUSION 4-63
CHAPTER 5 COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
5.1 INTRODUCTION 5-1
TC-7
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement
5.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 5-1
5.2.1 Public Meetings 5-1
5.2.2 Public Scoping Meeting 5-1
5.2.3 Draft EIS '. 5-2
5.2.4 Final EIS 5-2
5.3 AGENCY COORDINATION 5-2
5.3.1 Public Notice and Other Communications 5-2
5.3.2 Other Agency Consultations 5-3
5.4 DEIS PREPARATION TEAM 5-3
5.4.1 Federal Lead Agency 5-3
5.4.2 Applicant 5-3
5.4.3 Third-Party Contractor 5-3
5.4.4 Other Contributors 5-4
CHAPTER 6 LITERATURE CITED 6-1
APPENDIX A BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT A-l
APPENDIX B MITIGATION SUMMARY B-l
APPENDIX C ALAFIA RIVER AND HILLSBOROUGH RIVER/TAMPA BYPASS
CANAL WITHDRAWAL PERMITS C-l
APPENDIX D CORRESPONDENCE D-l
APPENDIX E WILDLIFE SPECIES LIST E-l
TC-8
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement
LIST OF TABLES
1-1 Tampa Bay Regional Demographic Projections 1-7
1 -2 Alafia River Permit Total Withdrawal Quantities Authorized Under This
Permit 1-15
1 -3 Tampa Bypass Canal Permit Total Withdrawal Quantities Authorized Under This
Permit 1-15
1 -4 Hillsborough River Permit Total Withdrawal Quantities Authorized Under This
Permit 1-15
1-5 Maximum Withdrawal Hillsborough River and Tampa Bay Bypass Canal 1-15
1-6 Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir EIS and Pipeline Permits 1-19
2-1 Alternatives Evaluated 2-2
2-2 Summary Matrix of the Reservoir Siting Results 2-4
2-3 Reclaimed Water Alternatives 2-15
2-4 Aquifer Storage and Recovery Wellfield Alternatives 2-19
2-5 Estimated Capital Cost Range for the Proposed ASR System 2-21
3-1 Hillsborough County Maximum Permissible Sound Levels 3-10
3-2 Federally, Threatened, or Endangered Species : 3-41
3-3 Florida Threatened, Endangered, and Special Concern Species 3-49
3-4 Population Information for the Authority's Member Counties 3-56
4-1 Summary of Wetland Impacts for the Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir 4-34
4-2 Summary of Wetland Impacts for the Associated Facilities 4-37
5-1 EIS Preparers at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV 5-5
5-2 EIS Preparers at Tampa Bay Water 5-5
5-3 EIS Preparers at Burns & McDonnell 5-6
5-4 EIS Preparers at Florida Environmental, Inc 5-7
5-5 EIS Preparers at Environmental Permitting and Design, Inc 5-7
TC-9
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement
LIST OF FIGURES
1-1 Tampa Bay Water Service Boundary 1-3
1-2 EPACT Adjusted Annual Average Demand Projections (mgd) by Water Year....1-6
1-3 Enhanced Surface Water System with and without the proposed Regional
Reservoir 1-18
2-1 Project Location Map 2-9
2-2 Reservoir Cross Section 2-11
2-3 Pipeline Route 2-13
3-1 General Setting '. 3-2
3-2 Hydrologic Soil Groups 3-6
3-3 Geologic Cross Section 3-8
3-4 Alafia River Drainage Area 3-13
3-5 Hillsborough and Tampa Bypass Canal Map 3-14
3-6 Tampa Bay 3-17
3-7 WQI Annual Average 3-24
3-8 Wildlife Habitat 3-32
3-9 Economic Breakdown of ROI., 3-57
3-10 Environmental Justice 3-61
4-1 Reservoir Wetland Impacts 4-35
4-2 Pipeline Wetland Impacts 4-38
4-3 Proposed Mitigation Sites 4-50
4-4, Adjacent Lands 4-52
TC-10
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND
BACKGROUND
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Tampa Bay Water, formerly The West
Coast Regional
Water Supply
Authority, was
established on
October 25,
1974. In
August 1998, the Authority became
Tampa Bay Water, which is responsible
for supplying wholesale water to its six
member governments of Hillsborough,
Pasco, and Pinellas counties and the
Cities of New Port Richey, St.
Petersburg, and Tampa (Figure 1-1).
Tampa Bay Water is the largest
wholesale water supplier in the State of
Florida. Its member governments serve
the needs of approximately 2 million
people. Tampa Bay Water provides an
average of 176 million gallons of
drinking water each day (mgd).
Currently, this water comes in the form
of groundwater from the Floridan
aquifer. Since the Floridan aquifer is
hydraulically connected to surface
waters in some areas, environmental
resources have been impacted in these
specific areas. In fact, the potential
impacts of groundwater pumping have
been a matter of substantial concern
among the member governments, the
Southwest Florida Water Management
District (SWFWMD), the Florida
Legislature and the public over the
course of several years.
In answer to these concerns, Tampa Bay
Water and SWFWMD have negotiated a
Consolidated Water Use Permit, which
regulates withdrawals from the 11
wellfields currently operated by Tampa
Bay Water.
The Consolidated Water Use Permit
currently limits withdrawals from 11 of
the 12 wellfields, currently operated by
Tampa Bay Water, to 158 mgd (based on
a 36-month running average). The total
permitted capacity of the 11 wellfields
will be reduced to 121 mgd in December
2002 and to 90 mgd in December 2007.
To meet the terms of the Consolidated
Water Use Permit and the demands of
the growing population, Tampa Bay
Water has identified the need to develop
53 mgd of new water supply sources by
2002 and an additional 58 mgd by 2007.
To meet these demands, Tampa Bay
Water initiated a study that resulted in
the Master Water Plan Alternative
System Configurations (Report) (Black
& Veatch 1998). The Report evaluated
potential water supply alternatives and
facilities using water demand
projections, existing water supply
sources and facility capacities. The
outcome was the identification of
potential water supply sources and
facilities to meet the needs of the Tampa
Bay area through the year 2010.
A number of combinations of projects
presented in the Report could potentially
meet the future demands of the Tampa
Bay Area. However, based on a viable
implementation schedule, only four of
the new systems could potentially meet
the December 2002 and 2007
groundwater reduction requirements.
Each of the four systems identified in the
Report would provide both integration of
1-1
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
the water supply system and rotational
service. A water conservation program
is also included in all of the systems,
which proposes a reduction of average
annual demand by 10 mgd in 2000 and
17mgdin2005.
Each of the four systems described
contained one set of core projects that
would meet the 2002 need and a second
set of core project(s) to meet the need in
2007. The projects that were capable of
providing the need for 2002 are as
follows:
Tampa Bypass Canal Water Supply
project
Alafia River project
Brandon Urban Dispersed Wells
project
Seawater Desalination project
Cypress Bridge II project
Regardless of which new sources were
constructed initially to meet the
established 2002 need, Tampa Bay
Water determined that one of the
following projects would also need to be
included in the system to meet the
projected needs of the Tampa Bay area
by December 31,2007.
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
project
Seawater Desalination Expansion
Hillsborough Bay Resource
Exchange
To make the system functional, the new
Tampa Bay Regional Water Treatment
Plant (WTP) and the South Central
Hillsborough Intertie would also need to
be constructed. Each one of these
projects represents a piece of the puzzle
that together will form an integrated
water supply for the Tampa Bay region.
The piece of the puzzle that is the
subject of this Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) is the Tampa Bay
Regional Reservoir Project.
1.2 PURPOSE OF THIS
DOCUMENT
The Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir was
authorized for grant funding by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
under the State Tribal Assistance Grant
Program. This action, if funded, would
partially provide the means to acquire
the real property and to design and
construct the Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir and reservoir transmission
main. EPA, as the lead federal agency,
must consider all environmental effects
of the construction and operation of the
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir, and
must conduct a National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) analysis of project
impacts on the existing environment.
Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 1501.4 (c) and in
accordance with Section 102(2)(C) of
NEPA, EPA has identified the need to
prepare an EIS for the Tampa Bay
Regional Reservoir Project.
1.3 PROJECT PURPOSE
Tampa Bay Water wishes to build the
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir to
improve the reliability and
dependability of the regional surface
water supply system. The reservoir
would store untreated raw surface water
diverted during high flow conditions
from the Hillsborough River, the Tampa
Bypass Canal, and the Alafia River.
This stored water would be used during
dry periods when little or no surface
water can be diverted. The first 66 mgd
of raw water withdrawn from one or
more of the three surface water sources
would be treated at the new Tampa Bay
Regional WTP and then pumped into
1-2
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 1-1. Tampa Bay Water Service Boundary
TAMPA BAY WATER
BOUNDARY
No Scale
STATE INDEX
MAP
Source: Tampa Bay Water, 1998
1-3
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Tampa Bay Water's regional water
distribution system.
As envisioned, diverted amounts of raw
water exceeding 66 mgd would be
pumped into the reservoir and stored for
later use. During the dry season when
lilttle or no water could be diverted from
the surface water sources, up to 66 mgd
would be withdrawn from the reservoir,
treated at the Tampa Bay Regional WTP
and distributed to retail customers.
1.4 PROJECT NEED
Tampa Bay Water believes that the
proposed Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir is needed to increase the
yield of the regional surface water
system. Rapid population growth and
economic development has resulted in
an increase in projected future water
demand (See Section 1.6). In addition,
Tampa Bay Water has also entered into
various agreements, which require
reductions in groundwater use and
maintaining water demand at or below
.94 percent of the permitted capacity.
Based on increased water demand and
reduction of the existing supply, Tampa
Bay Water wishes to develop new water
supply sources to meet the additional
required water supply capacity presented
in the following schedule (Black &
Veatch 1998).
Year
December
a
2002
2007
Total
Additional
Capacity
Required (mgd)
53
58
111
1.5 CURRENT WATER SUPPLY
SYSTEM
Tampa Bay Water's existing water
supply system (the System) includes 12
wellfields, two water treatment plants,
several booster pumping stations,
transmission mains, and interconnections
with member government systems
(Tampa Bay Water 1999b).
1.5.1 Water Supply Sources. Tampa
Bay Water currently obtains water from
12 wellfields located in Pasco, Pinellas,
and Hillsborough counties and from a
pipeline interconnect within the City of
Tampa's water distribution system. The
12 wellfields are:
1. Cosme-Odessa Wellfield
2. Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield
3. Cypress Bridge Wellfield
4. Cypress Creek Wellfield
5. Eldridge-Wilde Wellfield
6. Morris Bridge Wellfield
7. Northwest Hillsborough Wellfield
8. North Pasco Wellfield
9. Section 21 Wellfield
10. South Pasco Wellfield
11. Starkey Wellfield South-Central
12. South Central Hillsbrough Regional
Wellfield
Additional sources of water include
surface water from the Tampa Bay
Bypass Canal. One portion of a Master
Water Plan project, well #7 of the
Brandon Urban Dispersed wells project,
has been in operation since January 2001
to meet demand requirements.
1.5.2 Treatment Facilities. Water in
the System is treated at two water
treatment facilities, the Cypress Creek
WTP located in Pasco County and the
Lake Bridge WTP in Hillsborough
County. All other water is treated by
facilities owned and operated by the
individual member governments.
1-4
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
1..5.3 Transmission Facilities. The
existing water transmission system
includes eleven major transmission
mains and five booster-pumping
stations. Tampa Bay Water's major
transmission mains are (Tampa Bay
Water 2000b):
Cypress Creek Transmission Main
Cypress Bridge Transmission Main
Cross Bar Ranch Transmission Main
Morris Bridge Transmission Main
North Pasco Wellfield Phase-I
Transmission Main
NW Hillsborough Transmission
Main
South Central Hillsborough Regional
Wellfield Transmission Main
Sheldon Road Transmission Main
Starkey Wellfield Transmission
Main
Tampa Bypass Canal Transmission
Main
South Pasco Transmission Main
Tampa Bay Water owns and operates
four booster pumping stations and one
surface water pumping station. These
include:
U.S. 41 Booster Pump Station
West Pasco Booster Pump Station
Morris Bridge Booster Pump Station
Tampa/Hillsborough Interconnect
Booster Pump Station
Tampa Bypass Canal Intake and
Pump Station
1.5.4 Operation of the System. Tampa
Bay Water, through its member
governments, supplies potable water to
approximately 85 percent of persons
residing in Hillsborough, Pinellas, and
Pasco counties.
Member governments service areas
include incorporated and unincorporated
portions of the three county areas.
This interconnected system allows
Tampa Bay Water great flexibility in
pumping between most of its wellfields.
The South Central Hillsborough
Regional Wellfield, the Starkey
Wellfield, and the North Pasco
wellfields are isolated from the
remainder of the system and are operated
to match the demands of their
corresponding water service area.
1.6 DEMAND AND POPULATION
PROJECTIONS
Tampa Bay Water has completed several
studies and developed comprehensive
planning documents that include water
demand projections and demand
management options, and examine
existing water supply sources and
facility capacities to address the future
needs of its six member governments.
This section presents the demand and
population projections used by Tampa
Bay Water to determine future systems
requirements and implementation plans
(Tampa Bay Water 1999b).
1.6.1 Demand Forecast Method. The
demand forecast for the region was
estimated using the AQUATrak Demand
Forecast Factor (DBF) program (Ayres
Associates in 1998). The objectives of
the program were to forecast each
member government's average annual
water usage by major urban sectors and
to estimate seasonal components of
water use. The average annual water
demand for each member government,
for a given base year, was separated into
the following major urban water use
sectors:
1-5
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Single Family
Multi-Family
Commercial
Industrial
Public/Institutional
Wholesale
Other
Total demand was determined using data
obtained from member governments
utility billing records and from water
production records supplied by Tampa
Bay Water. Member governments total
water demand, less what is self supplied
by the City of Tampa from the
Hillsborough River, represented total
withdrawals from all of their permitted
sources as well as imported water.
supplies (Figure 1-2).
The year 1995 was selected as the base
year for the AQUATrak program
because it represented the most recent
year of normal rainfall and temperature.
Socioeconomic data provided by each of
the member governments, as well as a
combination of utility billing data and
census data, were used to estimate the
various socioeconomic variables needed
to project demand coefficients. Other
data utilized included member
governments comprehensive plans,
SWFWMD data, U.S. Census Bureau
data, and Traffic Analysis data used for
regional transportation plans.
The Water Conservation Programs
implemented by each member
government, as well as the U.S. Energy
Policy Act (EPACT) legislation (Tampa
Bay Water 1999b), were considered
when estimating each of the demand
coefficients. The adjusted coefficients
termed the EPACT-adjusted demand
projections.
EPACT-adjusted demand projections
presented in Table 1-1 for each member
government were derived in 1999 from
the AQUATrak program (utilizing the
1995 water year as the base year) except
Figure 1-2. EPACT Adjusted Annual Average Demand Projections (mgd) by
Water Year
225
200
175
^ 150
5"
M
£ 125
o
* 100
* 75
50
25
0
^ H H <+
+ * H
v ^ v v v v x x >£ y
X X X X- A A A A. /«, 7^; T\
A y^ ^ ^ S "
^ & ts
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
i + Hillsboroug County
New Port Richey i
1 A Pasco County ;
. X Pinellas County
i M St. Petersburg |
Tampa ;
t Total j
Year
1-6
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for Pasco County and the City of Tampa.
Pasco County demands are from the
Pasco County 1999 Annual Report. The
City of Tampa's demand projections are
estimated from the water supply contract
that states the City will buy five mgd of
treated water annually. The total
demand given represents the projected
water demand that Tampa Bay Water
will need to supply during the next 10-
year period (See Figure 1-2).
1..6.2 Population Projections.
Regional demographic data provided to
Tampa Bay Water by each member
government was input directly in the
AQUATrak program. The AQUATrak
program was used to compile this
information to produce regional
demographic projections as shown in
Table 1-1 (Ayres Associates 1998).
Tampa Bay Water is required to meet
forecasted water demands, while
reducing withdrawals from existing
wellfields. The increase in water
demand together with the groundwater
withdrawal reduction requirements
makes the development of new water
supplies by Tampa Bay Water and
implementation of conservation
measures important.
1.7 WATER CONSERVATION
MEASURES
One factor that can affect water demand
is water conservation. Even with the
existing water conservation programs in
place, new water supplies must be
developed to meet the region's growing
water needs. To address the future needs
of its member governments, Tampa Bay
Water developed a Resource
Table 1-1. Tampa Bay Regional Demographic Projections (l)
Category
Single population
Multi-family population
Comm/Indus. Employees
No. single-family homes
No. multi-family units
No. multi-family accounts (2)
Total no. dwelling units
No. comm./indus. accounts
Year
2000
989,617
412,447
888,130
450,509
286,938
15,670
737,448
44,144
2005
1,017,515
420,148
958,669
476,449
298,517
16,279
774,966
47,880
2010
1,043,256
427,377
1,029,209
502,808
310,233
116,897
813,041
51,616
(l) Source: EPACT Regional Demographic Projections developed from AQUATrak demand forecast
factor program, Tampa Bay Water, 3/1/99.
(2) Based on 55 MF units/account for Hillsborough County, 1 1 MF units/account for the City of New
Port Richey, 2.5 MF units/account for Pasco County, 16 MF units/account for Pinellas County, 13
multi-family units/account for the City of St. Petersburg, and 53 MF units/account for the City of
Tampa.
1-7
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Development Plan (RDP) in 1994 (Law
Environmental Inc 1994). This RDP is
based on water demand projections and
includes an examination of existing
water supply and facility capacities.
Based on the RDP, Tampa Bay Water
developed a Master Water Plan in 1995,
which included demand management
and water conservation.
Water demand reductions through water
conservation of 10 mgd by 2000, 17 mgd
by 2005 and 42 mgd by 2030 were
established as goals for the Master Water
Plan based on projections in the Water
Demand Summary. The Regional Water
Supply Demand Management Plan
(DMP) was developed in 1997 to
provide Tampa Bay Water and its
member governments a means to
coordinate the on-going water
conservation efforts with SWFWMD
from a regional perspective. That same
year, the Demand Management
Implementation Plan (DMIP) was
developed and identified the Best
Management Practices (BMPs) that
could be used by the member
governments to reduce water demand
consistent with or exceeding the Master
Water Plan Goals. During this process,
AQUATrak application software was
also developed to facilitate strategic
planning of BMPs.
In 1998, the Northern Tampa Bay New
Water Supply and Groundwater
Reduction Agreement (the Partnership
Agreement) was finalized. Tampa Bay
Water, the member governments and the
SWFWMD agreed to cooperate in the
development of new water supplies and
in reducing pumpage from specific
existing wellfields, using financial
assistance from the SWFWMD. The
Partnership Agreement requires that
Tampa Bay Water provide an annual
report on the status of conservation and
demand management projects. The
SWFWMD, intends to collectively
continue to fund $9 million per year for
water conservation and reclaimed water
projects that effectively reduce potable
water usage. Due to the current 1999-
2000 drought, water conservation has
become more urgent. In response, the
Basin Boards of the SWFWMD have
committed another $90 million through
2007 to promote water conservation and
water reuse.
In 1998, the Partnership Conservation
Guidelines (PCG) was developed to
determine how SWFWMD cooperative
funding could be used to implement
conservation programs in a timely and
cost-effective manner. This was in
accordance with the water conservation
and reuse goals of the Partnership
Agreement. The Tampa Bay Board of
Directors also approved of the
development of a Regional Five-year
Conservation Plan. Since this time, the
six member governments have
developed and adopted individual water
conservation plans.
To date, member governments have
reported annual water savings as
follows: 2.07 mgd for fiscal year 1996,
3.80 mgd for 1997, 5.15 mgd for 1998
and 6.83 mgd for 1999.
The compilation of member
governments 5-year conservation plans
indicate anticipated savings of 9.5 mgd
for 2000, 13.1 mgd for 2001, 17.6 mgd
for 2002, 22.0 mgd for 2003 and 26.3
mgd by 2004. This is achievable if
programs proposed are implemented and
they save water as identified by
members (Tampa Bay Water 1999a).
1-8
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
These conservation plans include
regulatory, economic, educational and
operational measures. An overview of
each member governments water
conservation plan is presented here.
1.7.1 Hillsborough County Water
Conservation Plan. Hillsborough
County, Florida was established in 1834,
encompassing about 1,051 square miles.
It is the sixth largest county in the State
of Florida and has the twelfth largest
school district in the United States. In
1990, the County's population was
834,054 and is expected to increase to
1,085,500 by the year 2010.
Hillsborough County provides water
service to the unincorporated areas of
Hillsborough County that are outside the
service areas of the Cities of Tampa,
Temple Terrace, and Plant City. These
unincorporated areas also include 11
franchise utility companies, which serve
approximately 8,000 franchise
customers.
To date, Hillsborough County has had
annual water savings for the following
fiscal years: 0.874 mgd for 1996, 0.813
mgd for 1997, 0.399 mgd for 1998 and
0.695 mgd for 1999. The County had
cumulative savings of 2.806 mgd during
these years.
The continued water conservation efforts
in Hillsborough County have been
effective in reducing water use from 146
gallons per capita per day (gpcd) in 1989
to 110.7 gpcd in 1995. Some of
Hillsborough County's conservation
efforts are list below.
The plan for the next five years calls for
a water savings of: 0.614 mgd for the
fiscal year 2000, 0.785 mgd for 2001,
0.711 mgd for 2002, 0.661 mgd for 2003
and 0.527 mgd for 2004. (Tampa Bay
Water 1999a).
Hillsborough County
Continuing Conservation
Efforts
Retrofit Kits
Irrigation Evaluations
Meter Replacements
Billing Frequency
Demonstration Projects
Billing Inserts
4-H Summer Water
Camp
Leak Detection
Community Events
Conservation Committee
Speakers Bureau
Other Awareness Efforts
1.7.2 Pasco County Water
Conservation Plan. Pasco County,
Florida was established in 1887. With
an estimated 1997 population of
315,785, Pasco County is projected to
have 381,000 residents by the year 2010.
The County is primarily a retirement and
tourist area, but construction, retail trade,
service industries, agriculture and
manufacturing are all important to the
community's financial strength.
The Pasco County Water System
services residents throughout the
unincorporated areas of the County. The
County has owned and operated its own
combined water and sewer system since
1979. It serves at peak times of the year
(December-March) in excess of 51,000
water customers and 45,000 wastewater
customers. The ultimate authority for
the water system is the Pasco County
Board of County Commissioners.
1-9
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
The Pasco County Conservation Plan
includes a community newsletter, public
education pamphlets, and public
speaking, a Conservation Education
Center at Starkey Wilderness Park, and a
Nature Coast Envirothon.
To date, Pasco County has had annual
water savings for the following fiscal
years: 0.328 mgd for 1996, 0.269 mgd
for 1997, 0.194 mgd for 1998 and 0.335
mgd for 1999. The cumulative water
savings for Pasco County is 1.072 mgd
from 1996-1999 (Tampa Bay Water
1999b).
The plan during the next five years calls
for water savings of 0.402 mgd each
fiscal year from 2000-2004. (Tampa Bay
Water 1999c).
1.7.3 Pinellas County Water
Conservation Plan. Pinellas County
was established in 1911 as a Charter
County under the Constitution and Laws
of the State of Florida. It is located at
the midpoint on the West Coast of
Florida. The county contains a total area
of 439 square miles, of which
approximately 280 square miles are land
and the balance is water. Pinellas
County is the most densely populated in
Florida, with 3,211 persons per square
mile. The 1998 population was
estimated to be 899,066.
Pinellas County's water system was
created by a special act of Florida
Legislature in 1935 to provide water
service to the beach communities.
Construction of the Pinellas County's
system started in 1936 under a loan and
grant provided by the Works Progress
Administration. The system was in
operation in 1937, serving less than 200
customers and has expanded due to
population growth. The system
currently serves 105,960 retail
customers, 93.5 percent of which are
residential (Tampa Bay Water
1999a).Pinellas County's water
conservation program has steadily
decreased per capita water consumption.
In fact, the decrease in per capita use
places Pinellas County among the lowest
in per capita water use in the Tampa
Area. In 1988-89, the average daily
usage for Pinellas County was 77 mgd.
In 1992-93, average daily usage had
decreased to 70 mgd. Some of Pinellas
County's water conservation efforts are
listed below.
Pinellas County Water
Conservation Efforts.
Land Acquisition
Water Quality - Pinellas
County has one of the most
advanced water quality
laboratories in Florida.
Water Restriction Enforcement
Lawn Watering Program
Inter-governmental
Conservation Coordinating
Committee
Florida Yards and
Neighborhoods
Speaker's Bureau
To date, Pinellas County has established
annual fiscal year water savings as
follows: 0.429 mgd for 1996, 0.128 mgd
for 1997, 0.137 mgd for 1998 and 0.134
mgd for 1999. The cumulative water
savings for Pinellas County is 0.87 mgd
for these years.
The plan during the next five years calls
for fiscal year water savings of: 0.260
mgd for the year 2000, 1.218 mgd for
1-10
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
2001, 1.732 mgd for 2002, .607 mgd for
2003 and 0.463 mgd for 2004.
1.7.4 City of St. Petersburg
Water Conservation Plan.
St. Petersburg was incorporated in 1893
as a town and as a city in 1903. The City
encompasses 60 square miles, containing
about 37,730 acres of land. The total
population remained stable from 1980-
1990 with less than a one percent
increase. The total population is
projected to be 248,721 in 2000, 259,355
in 2010, and 272,629 in 2020.
St. Petersburg purchases raw water from
Tampa Bay Water (Tampa Bay Water
1999a) and utilizes a public utility
system which includes the treatment,
transmission, and distribution of potable
water; collection, transmission,
treatment, and disposal of wastewater;
storage, pumping, transmission, and
distribution of reclaimed water; and the
collection, transmission and treatment of
storm water within the City and adjacent
areas.
St. Petersburg is recognized worldwide
for its Reclaimed Water System. The
use of reclaimed water has stabilized
potable water use. In 1986, per capita
use was about 141 gallons per day. In
1994, usage dropped 13 percent to 120
gallons per capita per day. With an
extensive conservation plan in place, the
City of St. Petersburg would like to
reduce potable water consumption to
100 gallons per capita per day by the
year 2001.
St. Petersburg's water conservation
education and public awareness program
contains elementary school outreach
programs, an annual water conservation
coloring contest, a green thumb festival
and other expos, fairs and festivals,
education materials, outreach programs
and a conservation character named
"Driplet" who spreads the message
about conserving limited water
resources.
These efforts have resulted in fiscal year
water savings as follows: 0.215 mgd for
1996, 0.401 mgd for 1997, 0.152 mgd
for 1998 and 0.133 mgd for 1999. The
cumulative saving for these years
amounts to 0.90 mgd.
In the next five fiscal years, St.
Petersburg is predicted to save: 0.213
mgd for 2000, 0.290 mgd for 2001,
0.410 mgd for 2002, 0.410 mgd for 2003
0.412 mgd for 2004 (Tampa Bay Water
1999a).
1.7.5 City of Tampa Water
Conservation Plan. The City of
Tampa, located in Hillsborough County,
is the third most populous municipality
in Florida. The population growth is
shown in the table below.
Year
1980
1990
1995
2000
Population
271,577
280,108
285,153
289,800
Tampa's water system is run by the
Tampa Water Department and provides
service both within and outside the city
limits. About 88 percent of Tampa's
customers are residential, with the
remainder being commercial and
industrial. The Water Department
receives raw water from the
Hillsborough River Reservoir and the
Morris Bridge wellfield. During the
1998 fiscal year, the Water Department
l-ll
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
pumped an average of 69.8 mgd of
treated water into the transmission and
distribution system. The maximum
month pumpage was 84.5 mgd during
June 1998. The maximum day pumpage
was 98.7 mgd. The maximum day-to-
average-day ratio was 1.41 (Tampa Bay
Water 1999b).
The City of Tampa's water conservation
plan is designed to reduce demands on
water resources and increase the
efficiency of water use. These efforts
have resulted in fiscal year water savings
as follows: 0.221 mgd for 1996, 0.111
mgd for 1997, 0.189 mgd for 1998 and
0.328 mgd for 1999. The cumulative
saving for these years is 0.85 mgd. The
projected water savings for the
upcoming fiscal years are 0.561 mgd for
2000, 0.551 mgd for 2001, 1.167 mgd
for 2002,2.167 mgd for 2003 and 2.567
mgd for 2004 (Tampa Bay Water
1999a). A sample of implemented
programs to date include:
City of Tampa Bay's Water
Conservation Efforts
Rate Structure
Tampa City Code
Provisions
Plumbing Retrofit
Program
Toilet Rebate Program
Sensible Sprinkling
Program
Waterless Urinal
Unaccounted for Water
Educational Initiatives
1.7.6 City of New Port Richey
Water Conservation Plan. The City of
New Port Richey was incorporated as a
municipality in 1924. Located in Pasco
County, the city covers 4.5 square miles
with a 1998 population of 14,693 people.
The water system is operated together
with the wastewater system as the
"Utility System" and is administered by
the City's Department of Public Works,
with assistance from the City Manager
and the City's Finance Department.
This system has been in operation since
the 1920's when it was originally
constructed. The City receives about 90
percent of its raw water from Tampa
Bay Water. The remainder of the City's
water requirements is met through
withdrawals from six different City
owned wells located within the City's
corporate limits. The City provides
water service to about 15,434 customers
located within and outside its corporate
limits. Some of New Port Richey's
water conservation practices are listed
below.
City of New Port Richey's Water
Conservation Efforts
Reuse water
Water reuse study
Installation of water aquamiser
on a local sprinkler system
Water conservation kits
Informative pamphlets
Water Restriction Ordinance
Public Presentations
Wash water reuse system
Toll-free water conservation
hot- line
Other programs
These efforts have resulted in fiscal year
water use savings as follows: 0.000 mgd
for 1996, 0.010 mgd for 1997, 0.310
mgd for 1998 and 0.010 mgd for 1999.
The cumulative saving is 0.330 mgd for
these years. The water savings
projections for the upcoming fiscal years
1-12
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
are 0.540 mgd for 2000, 0.750 mgd for
2001, 0.760 mgd for 2002, 0.770 mgd
for 2003 and 0.780 mgd for 2004
(Tampa Bay Water 1999a).
1.8 WATER USE PERMITS AND
PRINCIPLE AGREEMENTS
Water use permits and principle
agreements regulate the current and
future water supply of Tampa Bay
Water. These water use permits and
principle agreements along with an
increasing water demand, are driving the
development of new water supply
sources in the region.
1.8.1 Water Permits. Tampa Bay
Water and SWFWMD have negotiated a
Consolidated Water Use Permit, which
regulates withdrawals from 11 of the 12
wellfields currently supplying water to
Tampa Bay Water. The Consolidated
Permit currently limits withdrawals from
the 11 wellfields to 158 mgd (based on a
36-month running average). The total
permitted capacity of the 11 wellfields
will be reduced to 121 mgd in December
2002 and to 90 mgd in December 2007
(based on a 12-month average). The
annual average withdrawals of the 11
wellfields are shown in the table that
follows.
The South Central Hillsborough
Regional Wellfield continues to be
regulated under a separate water use
permit of 24.1-mgd annual average.
Water use permits have also been issued
by SWFWMD for surface water
withdrawals from the Alafia River,
Hillsborough River, and the Tampa
Bypass Canal. The purpose of these
permits is to provide additional new
water for Tampa Bay Water's Regional
Water Supply System (HDR 1998a).
Wellfields
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Cosme-Odessa
Cross Bar
Ranch
Cypress Bridge
Cypress Creek
Eldridge Wilde
Morris Bridge
Northwest
Hillsborough
North Pasco
Section 21
South Pasco
Starkey
Total
Annual Average
Withdrawal
(mgd)
10
21
8
26
28
12
9
5
10
14
15
158
Peak monthly withdrawals for the Alafia
River are presented in Table 1-2. The
peak monthly withdrawals for the
Hillsborough River and Tampa Bypass
Canal are presented in Tables 1 -3 and
1-4 respectively. Since water from these
two sources is drawn from the same
intake, the withdrawal for these two
sources are presented in Table 1-5
(Tampa Bay Water 2000c).
1.8.2 Principle Agreements. The
Interlocal Agreement requires Tampa
Bay Water, as of December 31, 2002, to
maintain production at or below 94
percent of permitted capacity. The
failure for Tampa Bay Water to maintain
this reserve capacity is defined under the
Amended and Restated Interlocal
Agreement as "Production Failure."
Should Tampa Bay Water fail to
maintain the buffer, the member
governments are entitled under the
Amended and Restated Interlocal
Agreement to pursue their own supplies,
thereby eliminating Tampa Bay Water
(State of Florida 1998b).
1-13
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
The Partnership Agreement was entered
into between Tampa Bay Water and its
six member governments and
SWFWMD in April 1998. This
agreement, which is officially, referred
to as the "Northern Tampa Bay New
Water Supply and Ground Water
Withdrawal Reduction Agreement"
states:
Tampa Bay Water shall have one or
more projects, in operation and
providing an annual average
quantity of at least 38-mgd of new
water supplies by December 31,
2002.
By December 31, 2007, Tampa Bay
Water shall have at least an
additional 47-mgd of water
permitted, in operation and
supplying the member governments.
A reduction in groundwater
pumping from the 11 existing
wellfields to an annual average of
121 mgd must be achieved by
December 31,2002. As of
December 31, 2007, groundwater
withdrawals must be further reduced
to an annual average not to exceed
90 mgd.
The agreement ends the existing
litigation between Tampa Bay Water
and the SWFWMD.
Commitment of funding ($ 183
million) by SWFWMD will be made
to assist Tampa Bay Water in
developing new water supply
projects.
Under these water use permits and
agreements, Tampa Bay Water has the
obligation to supply member
governments with potable water. Tampa
Bay Water must satisfy the water supply
requirements of its member governments
and the requirements of the water use
permits and agreements by developing
new water supply sources.
1.9 NEW PROJECTS
Tampa Bay Water and SWFWMD
negotiated a new Consolidated Water
Use Permit for the existing wellfields.
As previously stated, the new water use
permit reduces the combined permitted
capacity of these wellfields to 90 mgd by
December 21,2007.
To comply with these new regulatory
restrictions while satisfying the water
supply demands of its member
governments, Tampa Bay Water has
initiated analyses and permitting
efforts for a number of new projects
to meet the 2002 and 2007 demands.
Various potential water supply
configurations were reviewed by Tampa
Bay Water (Section 1-1) and several of
the projects included in the water supply
system for design and implementation
were considered. These projects are
capable of providing between 97 and
107 mgd of new supply for the region
and are in one of the following three
developmental stages:
Stage A: This stage includes feasibility
studies, preliminary design and water
use permitting. In Stage A, water supply
projects in this phase of development
include:
Cypress Bridge II
Brackish Water Desalination
Cone Ranch & Dispersed Wells
Seawater Desalination II
Stage B: The projects included in this
phase are in final design, engineering,
property acquisition and bidding stages.
1-14
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Table 1-2. Alafia River Permit
Total Withdrawal Quantities Authorized Under This Permit
Alafia River Flow at Intake
< 80 MGD
80 MOD to 520 MOD
> 520 MGD
Withdrawal Rate
OMGD
8 MGD to 52 MGD (10% of flow)
52 MGD Maximum
Table 1-3. Tampa Bypass Canal Permit
Total Withdrawal Quantities Authorized Under This Permit
Tampa Bypass Canal Flow at Structure 160
<7MGD
7 to 81 MGD
>81 MGD
Withdrawal Rate
OMGD
80% of total flow above 7 MGD
65 MGD Maximum
Table 1-4. Hillsborough River Permit
Total Withdrawal Quantities Authorized Under This Permit
Hillsborough River Discharge at Tampa Dam
< 65 MGD
65 to 97 MGD
97 to 139 MGD
139 to 647 MGD
> 647 MGD
Withdrawal Rate
OMGD
10% of total flow
10% of total flow increasing
proportionally to 30%
30% of total flow
194 MGD (maximum)
Table 1-5. Maximum Withdrawal
Hillsborough River and Tampa Bay Bypass Canal
Hillsborough River
Tampa Bypass Canal
Total
194 MGD
65 MGD
259 MGD
1-15
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Projects in this Stage B phase of
development include:
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
Project
Seawater Desalination Project
Loop 72 Phase A (Property
Acquisition only)
Brandon/South Central Connection
Stage C: These projects have all the
necessary permits for construction and
operation and are in various stages of
construction.
Alafia River Project
Tampa Bypass Canal Water Supply
Project (including Hillsborough
River High Water)
Tampa Bay Regional Water
Treatment Plant
South Central Hillsborough Intertie
North Central Hillsborough Intertie
Brandon Urban Dispersed Wells
Project
1.10 TAMPA BAY REGIONAL
RESERVOIR PROJECT
The proposed Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir is an off-stream reservoir.
This means that the reservoir does not
impound any existing stream, and that
water stored in the reservoir would have
to be delivered to and from the reservoir
via a pipeline. About 1,900 acres would
be needed to contain the 1,100-acre
reservoir, associated roads, storm water
collection system, water treatment areas
and buffer. The reservoir's anticipated
storage capacity would be approximately
15 billion gallons (48,000 acre-feet).
The Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
Project also would include about 8 miles
of 84-inch transmission main to tie the
reservoir into the South Central
Hillsborough Intertie near the Alafia
River diversion facility (HDR
Engineering Inc. 1998b).
to illustrate the role of the reservoir, the
following graph depicts the variation in
available water resources with and
without the reservoir (HDR Engineering
Inc. 1999). The graph is based on a 20-
year study of historical flow records
(Figure 1-3) and demonstrates
inconsistencies and fluctuations in
available water.
1.11 SUMMARY OF PROJECT
NEED
Tampa Bay Water currently supplies its
member governments with water from
12 well fields. Water use permits and
agreements between Tampa Bay Water,
SWFWMD, and its member
governments limit the withdrawal of
water from the 11 Northern Tampa Bay
wellfields to 158 mgd, with reductions in
withdrawals to 121 and 90 mgd required
in 2002 and 2007, respectively. Tampa
Bay Water believes that it must develop
new water supply capacity to meet the
projected requirements of the region.
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir is
designed to improve the reliability and
capacity of the water supply system.
The reservoir, if constructed, would be
completed by 2004 and will likely take
one year to fill and would be fully
operational by 2005. It is estimated that
the reservoir increases the sustainable
yield from surface water diversions from
approximately 25-mgd to 50-60 mgd
annually.
1.12 ADMINISTRATIVE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
REQUIREMENTS
The Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
Project is subject to a number of
regulatory requirements, which involves
1-16
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
several regulatory agencies. Each of the
involved agencies and their interest in
the Regional Reservoir project is
presented in Table 1-6.
1.12.1 U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 4. EPA is the lead
federal agency responsible for the scope
and content of the DEIS. They are
responsible for assuring the DEIS
complies with the requirements of
NEPA and EPA regulations. EPA will
make sure those reasonable alternatives
arid pertinent environmental issues and
impacts are addressed in the DEIS.
1.12.2 Tampa Bay Water. Tampa Bay
Water, formerly the West Coast
Regional Water Supply Authority, was
established on October 25, 1974. In
August 1998, the Authority became
Tampa Bay Water, which is responsible
for supplying wholesale water to its six
member governments of Hillsborough,
Pasco, and Pinellas counties and the
Cities of New Port Richey, St.
Petersburg, and Tampa. As such, Tampa
Bay Water is the largest wholesale water
supplier in the state of Florida. Its
member governments supply the needs
of approximately 2 million people and
Tampa Bay Water provides an average
of 176 mgd of drinking water to them.
Tampa Bay Water is regulated by the
Safe Drinking Water Act and receives its
water use permits through the
SWFWMD.
Tampa Bay Water, by Florida mandate,
is responsible for developing,
recovering, storing, and supplying water
for its member governments in such a
fashion to reduce environmental impacts
(State of Florida 1998a). To accomplish
this directive, Tampa Bay Water is
permitted to transport and use ground or
surface water, across county boundaries,
or outside the watershed from which it is
taken if it is publicly and
environmentally acceptable (State of
Florida 1999).
Tampa Bay Water is proposing the
construction of the Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir and pipeline.
1.12.3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) has primary authority for the
Clean Water Act, Section 404 program.
The Clean Water Act, Section 404
program, regulates the discharge of
dredge and fill material into "Waters of
the United States" and establishes a
permit program to ensure compliance
with the Act. Rivers, streams, estuaries,
territorial seas, and most ponds, lakes,
and wetlands are considered "Waters of
the United States" and are protected by
the Clean Water Act. Construction of
the Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir and
pipeline through waters of the United
States are potential activities that would
require a Corps permit.
In addition, the Corps must ensure that
the permit complies with the Endangered
Species Act, the Marine Mammal
Protection Act, and other federal
environmental laws.
1.12.4 Florida Department of
Environmental Protection. The
Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP) is in charge of
protecting, conserving, and managing
Florida's environmental and natural
resources. The FDEP has offices
throughout the state from which
environmental permits are generally
issued. The FDEP has the authority to
issue the Environmental Resource
1-17
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 1-3. Enhanced Surface Water System with and without the proposed Regional Reservoir.
WIP\feldW Reservoir
WTPW/OReservoir
CO
CO
=3
OO
Co
3
O
CO
3
Co
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
Co
1-18
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Table 1-6. Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir EIS and Pipeline Permits
Requirement in Conventional
Permitting
Dredge and Fill Permit
(individual)
Dredge and Fill Permit
(nationwide)
Environmental Resource
Permit (individual)
Public Drinking Water
Construction Permit - Raw
Water Supply
Public Drinking Water
Conservation Permit - Intake
and Transmission Main
Notice of Intent to Use Storm
Water General Permit
HCPGMD Site Development
Review
Natural Resource Permit
Right of Way Permit
EPC Wetlands Permit
Disbursement of Grant Funds
-N EPA Review
U.S. Army
Corps of
Engineers
I
1
S
U.S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
R
R
I
I
Florida
Department of
Environmental
Protection
I
S
Florida
Departme
ntof
Health
I
I
S
Southwest
Florida
Water
Managemen
t District
R
S
Hillsborough
County
R
R
I
I
I
R
S
Hillsborough
County
Environmental
Protection
Commission
R
R
I
S
I=Issues Permit/Disburses Grant Funds R=Reviews S=Provides Supporting Expertise
HCPGMD=Hillsborough Co. Planning & Growth Mngt. Dept.
1-19
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Permit (ERP) that would be required
prior to the construction of the reservoir.
1.12.5 Southwest Florida Water
Management District. The SWFWMD
is a water management district
responsible for a broad range of water
management activities. These activities
include:
management of water related
environmental resources
. promotion of conservation,
development, and proper utilization
of surface and groundwater
provide water storage for beneficial
purposes
prevent damage from floods, soil
erosion, and excessive drainage
manage stormwater and protect
water quality
protect wetlands, fish and wildlife
and other natural resources
promote recreational development
SWFWMD administers a variety of
water-related permits and regulatory
programs. In addition to its regulatory
functions, the SWFWMD operates more
than 75 man-made water management
structures, including the Tampa Bypass
Canal.
SWFWMD is responsible for regulating
withdrawals of water through the
issuance of water use permits that
specify average, peak, or maximum
allowed withdrawals from the given
supply source.
The Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir will
not require a water use permit from
SWFWMD. SWFWMD will review the
ERP application.
1.12.6 Environmental Protection
Commission of Hillsborough County.
The Environmental Protection
Commission of Hillsborough County
(EPC) is responsible for issuing county
construction permits for impacts to
wetlands, for the construction of air
emissions sources, and for providing
review support in other areas.
1.13 EIS PREPARATION
EPA is the lead agency in the
preparation of this DEIS and has primary
responsibility for preparing the DEIS.
Public and agency input into this DEIS
was received through a public scoping
meeting and from agency reviews of
drafts of the preliminary DEIS.
EPA held a public scoping meeting for
the reservoir project at the Riverside
High School on June 8, 2000. Scoping
is a process to obtain views from the
public and other agencies regarding the
issues to be addressed in the EIS. The
issues and concerns raised at the public
scoping meeting included the following:
Concerns with effects of interbasin
transfer of waters.
Desire to address short and long-
term impacts on the aquatic
ecosystem from any incremental
withdrawals of water attributable to
the reservoir.
Desire to have a peer review of the
SWFWMD Permits issued to Tampa
Bay Water for withdrawals from the
Alafia and Hillsborough Rivers and
the Tampa Bay Bypass Canal.
Encourage a risk and impact analysis
of the human community to include
an emergency action plan, impacts of
recreation, and ground and surface
water contamination.
1-20
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Concerns for impacts to threatened
and endangered species.
Concerns for the effect of salinity
changes on aquatic organisms, sport,
and commercial fisheries.
Effects on wetlands from
construction of the reservoir and
pipeline and indirect impacts to
surrounding wetlands from altered
drainage flow.
Effects on ecosystems associated
with the rivers and bays in the area.
Concerns for water quality in the
reservoir, particularly production of
blue-green algae and contamination
via treatment methods.
Desire for the scope of work to
include all possible projects in the
region.
Concerns with evaporation in the
reservoir.
Effects of the State of Florida
designation of the reservoir as a high
hazard structure.
Concerns with seepage of water from
the reservoir and flow changes in the
watershed.
Effects on recreational use of the
Regional Reservoir and the Alafia
and Hillsborough rivers.
1.14 ORGANIZATION OF THE
DOCUMENT
This DEIS contains six chapters and two
supporting appendices. Chapter 1 is a
statement of the purpose of and need for
action; identifies the location of the
proposed action; and describes the
organization of the DEIS. Chapter 2
provides alternatives selection criteria
and alternatives considered; describes
the proposed action; describes the no-
action alternative; details other action
alternatives; summarizes the
environmental impacts; identifies the
preferred alternative; and lists
mitigation. Chapter 3 is a general
description of the biophysical resources
that the proposed action and alternatives
could potentially affect. Chapter 4 is an
analysis of the environmental
consequences of the proposed action and
alternatives. Chapter 5 discusses the
public involvement, agency
coordination, issues identified during the
scoping process, lists the preparers and
other contributors to the document.
Chapter 6 is a list of source documents
relevant to the preparation of this DEIS.
Appendix A is the biological assessment
and Appendix B is the mitigation plan
for the proposed project. The Alafia
River and Hillsborough River/Tampa
Bypass Canal withdrawal permits are
included as appendix C. Appendix D
contains correspondence for the DEIS
while Appendix E is a wildlife and
vegetation species list.
1-21
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
CHAPTER 2
ALTERNATIVES,
INCLUDING THE
PROPOSED ACTION
2.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter identifies eleven action
alternatives that are capable of
improving the reliability and
dependability of Tampa Bay Water's
integrated water supply system, as
described in Chapter 1, Purpose and
Need. Each alternative is discussed with
regard to physical features, water supply,
cost, and source of water. This chapter
also includes a discussion of the No
Federal Action alternative. Alternatives
were evaluated using a tiered screening
criteria based upon engineering
feasibility, environmental fatal flaws,
and their ability to meet the regional
demands for drinking water. Feasible
alternatives are identified and carried
forward in Chapters 3 and 4 for detailed
description and analysis.
As described in Chapter 1, groundwater
withdrawals from the wellfields utilized
by Tampa Bay Water's member
governments have indirectly impacted
water levels in lakes and wetlands in the
area. In order to reduce impacts
resulting from groundwater withdrawals
and to meet growing demands of its
member governments, Tampa Bay
Water has determined it must develop at
least 111 mgd of new water supply by
December 31, 2007. Alternative water
sources such as seawater desalination
arid surface water storage are being
considered, as well as new small-scale
fresh and brackish groundwater
withdrawal projects.
To meet Tampa Bay Water's projected
water supply demands described in
Chapter 1, Tampa Bay Water initiated a
water supply planning process in 1993.
In 1994, Tampa Bay Water (then the
West Coast Regional Water Supply
Authority), its Members, the
SWFWMD, and other local
governmental agency representatives
developed the Resource Development
Plan (RDP). The RDP established a
schedule, based on existing and
projected conditions, to ensure the
development of future water sources
through 2030 and provided specific
recommendations for developing new
water supplies. Tampa Bay Water's
Board of Directors approved one of the
RDP's recommended plans in December
1995 as the Master Water Plan.
Under the Master Water Planning
Process, water supply options were
studied, analyzed and compared. Tampa
Bay Water's Board of Directors then
selected projects for implementation that
were technically feasible and
environmentally and economically
sound. In November 1998, the Board
selected a combination of Master Water
Plan projects for development to meet
regional demand through 2010 (Black
andVeatch 1998).
A number of project configurations
presented in the Master Water Plan -
Alternative Configurations were
identified that could have potentially met
the future demands of the region.
However, based on a viable
implementation schedule, Tampa Bay
Water believes that only four of the new
systems could potentially meet the
2-1
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
December 2002 and 2007 groundwater
withdrawal limitations imposed by the
partnership agreement with SWFWMD.
Each of the four systems unified the
water supply system and allowed for
rotational service. A water conservation
program was also included in all of the
systems, which proposed a reduction of
average annual demand by 10 mgd in
2000 and 17 mgd in 2005.
Each of the four new systems presented
in the Master Water Plan - Alternative
Configurations report contained a set of
core projects that Tampa Bay Water
believed would meet the requirements of
year 2007 wellfield withdrawal
cutbacks. These core projects as well as
reasonable alternatives that were
suggested during the regional reservoir
public scoping meetings are evaluated in
this chapter.
The action alternatives considered
include water storage, water supply, and
demand management alternatives. The
first category, water storage, includes
alternatives that have a water storage
component capable of providing water to
the regional water system during periods
when surface water flows are inadequate
to meet the water demands of the region.
The second category, water supply,
involves alternatives that could provide
surface water to the region without the
use of a water storage component.
Demand management, the third
category, focuses on reducing water
demand through conservation measures
in order to serve additional customers
with existing supplies. Also included in
the list of alternatives is "No Federal
Action".
Because Tampa Bay Water has proposed
to apply federal grant funds toward the
reservoir project, the NEPA process -
including this DEIS - requires evaluation
of environmental impacts, proposed
mitigation of unavoidable impacts, and
feasible alternatives to the reservoir
itself. At the conclusion of the NEPA
process, EPA may release grant funds
without conditions, release funds with
conditions, or withhold funds exercising
the No Federal Action alternative (40
CFR Part 6.203 (1)(2)). Were EPA to
select No Federal Action, Tampa Bay
Water may elect to not build the
reservoir, or to build the reservoir using
non-federal funds.
For purposes of comparing alternatives
in this DEIS, it was necessary to
consider that No Federal Action equated
to no reservoir; however, absent federal
funds, nothing in this DEIS would
prevent Tampa Bay Water from building
the reservoir and pipeline. The action
and no-action alternatives are presented
in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1. Alternatives Evaluated
Action Alternatives
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
Freshwater from Springs in the Gulf
Lakes in Abandoned Phosphate Pits
Above-Ground Water Storage Tanks
Reclaimed Water for Potable Reuse
Reclaimed Water
Seawater Desalination
Brackish Water Desalination
Water Conservation
Aquifer Storage and Recovery
System (ASR)
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir and
ASR
No-Action Alternative
No Federal Action
2-2
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
2.2 ACTION ALTERNATIVES
Action alternatives include any actions
that could be undertaken by Tampa Bay
Water to supplement or create additional
regional water resources. These include
the proposed Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir Project and other
storage/supply alternatives.
2.2.1 Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
Project. Multiple options for the
potential reservoir site were considered
by Tampa Bay Water. Preliminary
screening eliminated reservoir locations
that were near residential areas and
naitural features such as wetlands, bottom
hardwood and riparian communities.
Fifteen potential sites were reviewed and
evaluated considering criteria such as
natural features, land use, land values,
relocations, construction costs, and
potential contamination by hazardous
materials. Table 2-2 provides a matrix
of the reservoir siting screening results
(HDR 1998). Seven alternative sites
underwent more extensive geotechnical
and environmental analysis and were
included in a public involvement
program. The screening process and
related cost analysis led to the selection
of the preferred site for the Tampa Bay
Regional Reservoir. To effectively
operate the proposed reservoir, the
following facilities would be required:
Connection with the South Central
Hillsborough Intertie
Intake and pump stations situated on
the Alafia River and Tampa Bypass
Canal
The Tampa Bay Regional Surface
Water Treatment Plant
The North Central Hillsborough
Intertie
The proposed Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir would be an off-stream
aboveground reservoir that would store
water withdrawn from the Tampa
Bypass Canal, the Hillsborough River,
and the Alafia River during periods of
high flow. The purpose of the reservoir
would be to increase the sustainable
yield of the system by storing untreated
surface water for use during low flow
periods when little or no water could be
withdrawn directly from the above
mentioned sources. The proposed
reservoir would not affect the permitted
withdrawal schedules from the surface
water sources, but would increase the
dependable yield of the system from
approximately 25 mgd to 50-60 mgd
annually (HDR 1999a).
During periods when the allowable
withdrawals from the surface water
sources exceed the capacity of the water
treatment facilities, excess water would
be directed to and stored in the proposed
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir. Any
surface water withdrawal amounts that
exceed 66 mgd would be delivered to the
reservoir for storage. When stream
flows decrease and surface water
withdrawals are limited, water would be
delivered from the reservoir to the water
treatment facility, treated and distributed
to meet water demands (HDR 2000).
The proposed reservoir and associated
facilities would cover approximately
1,100 acres (900 acres of surface area
when full), with a storage volume of
approximately 48,000 acre-feet (15
billion gallons). The proposed location
is in southeastern Hillsborough County,
south of County Road 640, north of
County Road 672, and west of State
Road 39 (Figure 2-1). Portions of the
site have been mined for phosphate, but
2-3
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Table 2-2. Summary matrix of the reservoir siting results.
Source: HDR Engineering, Inc., June 1998. Alafia River Project, Reservoir site screening report selection of sites for comprehensive evaluation.
SITE
1
2
SIZE
(acres)
600
900
1200
600
900
WETLAND
MITIGATION
(acres)
0
60
75
0
0
NUMBER
OF
PARCELS
5
14
19
13
16
NUMBER
OF
STRUCTURES
2 total
(1 house, 1 mobile
home)
2 total
(1 house, 1 mobile
home)
3 total
(1 house, 2 mobile
homes)
5 total
(2 houses, 1 mobile
home, 1
warehouse, 1
comm.)
12 total
(5 houses, 3 mobile
homes, 1
warehouse, 1
comm., 3 access.
struc.)
DISTANCE TO
ALAFIA
WITHDRAWAL
LOCATION
(miles)
9.1
9.1
9.1
13.5
13.5
RESERVOIR
& PIPELINE
COSTS
$85,821,000
$100,824,000
$113,900,000
$107,124,000
$122,704,000
COMMENTS
No wetland mitigation anticipated
because site was previously mined.
(Based on conversation with Florida
Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP))."
Portions of Turkey Creek will need to be
rerouted. No wetland mitigation
anticipated because site was previously
mined (Based on conversation with
FDEP).8
Portions of Turkey Creek will need to be
rerouted. No wetland mitigation
anticipated because site was previously
mined (Based on conversation with
FDEP).8
No wetland mitigation anticipated
because site was previously mined.
(Based on conversation with FDEP).
Based on the aerial photograph it
appears an industrial facility may need
to be relocated. No wetland mitigation
anticipated because site was previously
mined. (Based on conversation with
FDEP).
2-4
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Table 2-2 cont. Summary matrix of the reservoir siting results.
SITE
2
(cont.)
3
4
5
6
SIZE
(acres)
1200
3600
600
600
900
600
900
WETLAND
MITIGATION
(acres)
0
47
89
77
105
83
88
NUMBER
OF
PARCELS
20
45
41
9
13
5
8
NUMBER
OF
STRUCTURES
17 total
(5 houses, 4
mobile homes, 1
warehouse, 2
comm., 5 access
struc.)
35 total
(13 houses, 8
mobile homes, 2
warehouses, 12
access, struc.)
39 total
(16 houses, 14
mobile homes, 9
access, struc.)
8 total
(3 mobile homes,
5 access, struc.)
8 total
(3 mobile homes,
5 access, struc.)
2 total
(1 mobile home,
1 access, struc.)
2 total
(1 mobile home,
1 access, struc.)
DISTANCE TO
ALAFIA
WITHDRAWAL
LOCATION
(miles)
13.5
7.0
8.3
7.3
7.3
6.6
6.6
RESERVOIR
& PIPELINE
COSTS
$139,129,200
$91,574,000
$113,449,000
$100,006,000
126,006,000
$91,209,000
$108,413,000
COMMENTS
Based on the aerial photograph it
appears an industrial facility may need
to be relocated. No wetland mitigation
anticipated because site was previously
mined. (Based on conversation with
FDEP).
Wetland mitigation required at
$50,000/ac.
Wetland mitigation required at
$50,000/ac.
Wetland mitigation required at
$50,000/ac.
Wetland mitigation required at
$50,000/ac.
Wetland mitigation required at
$50,000/ac.
Wetland mitigation required at
$50,000/ac.
2-5
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Table 2-2 cont. Summary matrix of the reservoir siting results.
SITE
6 cont.
7
8
8A
9
SIZE
(acres)
1200
600
900
600
900
600
900
600
WETLAND
MITIGATION
(acres)
99 .
117
150
0
0
0
0
0
NUMBER
OF
PARCELS
9
7
9
9
10
6
9
5
NUMBER
OF
STRUCTURES
5 total
(1 mobile home,
3 access, struc., 1
bldg.)
4 total
(3 houses, 1
mobile home)
4 total
(3 houses, 1
mobile home)
0
0
3 total
(Igov'tbldg, 1
mobile home, 1
storage)
3 total
(Igov'tbldg, 1
mobile home, 1
storage)
0
DISTANCE TO
ALAFIA
WITHDRAWAL
LOCATION
(miles)
6.6
10.8
10.8
12.8
12.8
13.0
13.0
16.0
RESERVOIR
& PIPELINE
COSTS
$125,418,000
$104,180,000
$121,660,000
$100,087,000
$129,119,000
$102,061,000
$114,271,000
$113,441,000
COMMENTS
Wetland mitigation required at $50,000/ac.
Wetland mitigation required at $50,000/ac.
Wetland mitigation required at $50,000/ac.
No wetland mitigation anticipated because
site was previously mined. (Based on
conversation with FDEP).b
No wetland mitigation anticipated because
site was previously mined. (Based on
conversation with FDEP).
No wetland mitigation anticipated because
site was previously mined. (Based on
conversation with FDEP).
No wetland mitigation anticipated because
site was previously mined. (Based on
conversation with FDEP).
Former K10 site offered by IMC. All
wetlands removed during mining process.0
2-6
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Table 2-2 cont. Summary matrix of the reservoir siting results.
Site
9 cont.
10
11
12
13A
SIZE
(acres)
900
1200
600
900
1200
600
900
600
900
600
WETLAND
MITIGATION
(acres)
0
0
78
87
118
59
187
4
4
0
NUMBER
OF
PARCELS
8
8
4
4
6
14
30
2
5
2
NUMBER
OF
STRUCTURES
0
0
0
0
0
19 total
(5 houses, 9
mobile homes, 4
access, struc., 1
warehouse)
35 total
(8 houses, 18
mobile homes, 8
access, struc., 1
warehouse)
0
8 total
(4 houses, 4
access struc.)
0
DISTANCE TO
ALAFIA
WITHDRAWAL
LOCATION
(miles)
16.00
16.0
12.5
12.5
12.5
11.0
11.0
18.4
18.4
22.7
RESERVOIR
& PIPELINE
COSTS
$122,244,000
$131,211,000
$107,307,000
$123,214,000
$140,956,000
$104,580,000
$128,999,000
$122,942,000
$133,827,000
$137,367,000
COMMENTS
Former K 1 0 site offered by IMC. All
wetlands removed during mining process.0
Former K10 site offered by IMC. All
wetlands removed during mining process.0
Wetland mitigation required at $50,000/ac.
Wetland mitigation required at $50,000/ac.
Wetland mitigation required at $50,000/ac.
Wetland mitigation required at $50,000/ac.
Wetland mitigation required at $50,000/ac.
Wetland mitigation required at $50,000/ac.
Wetland mitigation required at $50,000/ac.
Wetlands removed during mitigation
process. Land values based on quote to
Authority from IMC. Reservoir will
require closing of Taylor Road.
2-7
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Table 2-2 cont. Summary matrix of the reservoir siting results.
Site
13A
cont.
13B
14
15
SIZE
(acres)
900
1200
1800
600
900
1200
600
WETLAND
MITIGATION
(acres)
0
0
0
55
70
200
263
NUMBER
OF
PARCELS
7
9
10
2
4
4
20
NUMBER
OF
STRUCTURES
0
0
0
0
0
0
16 total
(5 houses, 4
mobile homes, 6
access, struc., 1
office)
DISTANCE TO
ALAFIA
WITHDRAWAL
LOCATION
(miles)
22.7
22.7
22.0
21.6
21.6
21.6
10.3
RESERVOIR
& PIPELINE
COSTS
$151,225,000
$168,859,600
$182,483,000
$140,118,000
$151,103,000
$175,071,000
$130,416,000
COMMENTS
Wetlands removed during mitigation
process. Land values based on quote to
Authority from IMC. Reservoir will
require closing of Taylor Road.
Wetlands removed during mitigation
process. Land values based on quote to
Authority from IMC. Reservoir will
require closing of Taylor Road.
Wetlands removed during mitigation
process. Land values based on quote to
Authority from IMC. Reservoir will
require closing of Taylor Road.
Wetland mitigation required at $50,000/ac.
Wetland mitigation required at $50,000/ac.
Wetland mitigation required at $50,000/ac.
Wetland mitigation required at $50,000/ac.
'The Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission later indicted that the majority of the surface area at the site would be claimed by that agency
as wetlands and would require mitigation. This area represented over 800 acres of mitigation, causing the selection of this site to be cost prohibitive.
b. Through continued evaluation of the site, and communication with regulatory agencies, jurisdictional wetland impacts are expected to occur with construction
of the facility, which will require mitigation.
c. In 1997, IMC removed its offer for the use of this site, indicating that it would be a necessary component of ongoing phosphate mining activities. Even so,
this was evaluated in the reservoir site selection process because of Tampa Bay Water's eminent domain authority.
2-8
-------
Grajr
HalCoWinfl
"A" Reservoir
Figure Source: HDR Engineering, Inc., EAR Application, September 7, 2000
Figure 2-1
TAMPA BAY REGIONAL
RESERVOIR PROJECT DEIS
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
are currently being used as improved
pasture.
The reservoir embankments would be 30
to 65 feet high and constructed primarily
from onsite soils. The reservoir
embankment is the most perceptible
structural feature of the reservoir. The
design features described below are the
essential features that would control
seepage, minimize erosion, provide for
operation and maintenance, and ensure
long-term stability of the structure.
The embankment cross-section and
resulting earthwork quantity and cost
depend on the strength and
compressibility of the foundation soils,
the strength of the compacted
embankment soils, and the embankment
height Figure 2-2. The embankment
would be constructed using on-site soils
that meet the proposed design goals, and
result in 3:1 side slopes on the interior
and exterior sides of the embankment.
Given the varying topography of the site,
the embankment height would vary to
-maintain a constant crest elevation.
An investigation of wave runup potential
and maximum precipitation indicated
that 8.5 feet of freeboard from the
operating water surface elevation would
be necessary to prevent overtopping. A
20-foot wide access road would provide
access along the crest of the
embankment to allow for inspection and
maintenance along the entire reservoir
perimeter.
A blanket drain is also included in the
reservoir design. The blanket drain is a
horizontal drainage zone that would be
located at the downstream toe of the
embankment. This drainage zone would
control groundwater seepage through the
embankment and collect embankment
and shallow foundation seepage.
The potential range of reservoir
drawdown suggests that the entire
interior face of the embankment may be
exposed to wave action and subsequent
erosion. A soil-cement barrier along the
interior face of the embankment would
serve as the primary erosion control
mechanism.
Reservoir seepage depends on the water
head, thickness and permeability of the
subsurface strata, and hydrogeologic
factors. The typical mining and
reclamation techniques suggest that
reservoir areas used at the candidate sites
are geologically variable and potentially
susceptible to significant loss of the
reservoir water. To minimize the loss of
the water and prevent adverse seepage
impacts, a slurry wall is recommended.
It is anticipated that the slurry wall
would penetrate the upper portion of the
confining layer by at least five feet. The
thickness of the slurry wall would be
approximately three feet thick.
Approximately 7.5 miles of 84-inch
pipeline would connect the proposed
reservoir to Tampa Bay Water's regional
water system at the South Central
Hillsborough Intertie. The new pipeline
route would generally follow existing
roadways and linear utility corridors.
The route would begin approximately
400 feet north of the intersection of
Fishhawk Drive, Bell Shoals Road and
Boyette Road. It would then run south
and east, parallel to Boyette Road where
it would cross rural land to the Tampa
Bay Regional Reservoir site (HDR
1999a). The real property rights
required for construction and operation
of the pipeline would include a
2-10
-------
EMBANKMENT CROSS-SECTION
Conventional Soil Cement
Crest Road
Figure Source: HDR Engineering, Inc., EAP Application, September 7,2000
Maintenance
Terrace
Toe Road
Figure 2-2
TAMPA BAY REGIONAL
RESERVOIR PROJECT DEIS
EMBANKMENT CROSS-SECTION
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
temporary easement of 50 feet during
construction and a 50-foot permanent
easement for construction, operation and
maintenance. In areas near homes and
other potentially sensitive locations, the
easement would be reduced where
possible to avoid or minimize impacts
(HDR 2000). The approximate
alignment of the proposed pipeline route
is shown in Figure 2-3.
The proposed regional reservoir project
site consists of the footprint of the
embankment and reservoir, the
associated facilities and pipeline, and all
of the mitigation sites that would be used
to offset wetland impacts associated with
the project. Associated facilities would
include an intake tower and the pipeline
to connect the reservoir to Tampa Bay
Water's regional water system. The
proposed reservoir surface area is
approximately 930 acres. When
combined with the associated facilities,
approximately 1,100 acres would be
affected by the construction of the
proposed reservoir. Impacts from the
proposed associated pipeline would be
minimal and short-term, as the majority
of the pipeline would occur within
easement parallel to existing roadways.
Tampa Bay Water has determined that
design, site permitting and construction
of the reservoir are expected to cost
approximately $111.9 million while
annual operation and maintenance cost
are estimated at $964,000. The cost per
1,000 gallons of treated watervfronrthe""
entire Enhance-Surface Water System is
estimated to be $1.27.
2.2.2 Other Action Alternatives
Capturing freshwater from springs in
the Gulf of Mexico. Under this
alternative, freshwater would be piped
from springs located in the Gulf of
Mexico to onshore water treatment
facilities and distributed for use as
potable water. The alternative would
require an extensive transmission system
to transport freshwater from the springs
to the existing treatment and distribution
system, making this alternative
infeasible.
Using Lakes in Abandoned Phosphate
Pits. This alternative involves the
treatment and use of water from lakes
formed in inactive phosphate mines in
the region. The extensive pumping and
transmission system that would be
required to transport water from each
mine to existing treatment facilities for
distribution and delivery is not
reasonable and practical due to
engineering feasibility and construction
cost. In order to pump a reasonable
amount of water such a distance would
require the construction of additional
water treatment facilities and distribution
systems.
Using Aboveground Storage Tanks.
In order to provide a continuous supply
of water during low flow conditions,
multiple storage tanks would have to be
developed. The use of aboveground
storage tanks would not have the means
to continually provide the necessary
supply of water to support the region.
Potable Water Reuse. The use of
highly treated wastewater treatment
plant effluent as 2 potable water supply
is increasing throughout the United
States, especially as water resources
become more restricted and water ~
supplies more extended. Facilities exist
throughout the United States that utilize
reclaimed water as a potable drinking
2-12
-------
AJafia River
Withdrawal Location
FishhawkDr
K Reservoir
Figure Source: HDR Engineering, Inc., EAP Application, September 7,2000
Figure 2-3
TAMPA BAY REGIONAL
RESERVOIR PROJECT DEIS
Pipeline
Reservoir
PIPELINE ROUT!
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
water supply. The City of Tampa (City),
in its Tampa Water Resource Recovery
Project (TWRRP) Feasibility Study,
concluded that treated water effluent was
indeed a feasible water supply and there
were no adverse health risks associated
with this type of water reuse (Law
Environmental, Inc., 1994). In this
alternative, the City proposed to treat
effluent waters from the Howard F.
Curran Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Plant, to supplement the City's existing
potable water supply.
One proposed option was for the City to
divert water from the existing water
treatment facilities for treatment and
distribution from a new treatment
facility. Treated water would be
pumped to the Tampa Bypass Canal,
where it would mix with the existing
water supply, and stay in the canal for a
specified residence time prior to being
withdrawn, treated again, and distributed
for use as a potable supply by the City.
The costs associated with this alternative
include treatment of the effluent to
interim standards, transmission to a new
treatment facility and interconnect
system, and a new water treatment
facility. A significant amount of
investigation was conducted on this
project. A final EIS was prepared.
Public opinion regarding this alternative
was not favorable. Concern was
expressed over health risks that could be
associated with the reuse of treated water
as a potable water supply. In March
1999, the Tampa Bay Water Board of
Directors removed the project from
further consideration.
Resue of Reclaimed Water. Reclaimed
water is defined by the FDEP as water
that is beneficially reused after being
treated to at least the secondary
wastewater treatment standards by a
domestic wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP). The use of reclaimed water to
irrigate crops, golf courses, and parks,
decreases the reliance of theses facilities
on potable water supplies and reduces
the quantity of effluent discharged from
WWTP.
The SWFWMD has solicited input from
utilities, local governments, and public
interest groups to develop possible
reclaimed water options. As a result,
SWFWMD developed a list of 180
potential reclaimed water options, which
were then narrowed to 25. Of these, 25
potential options, nine vere located in
Tampa Bay Water's three county region
of Hillsborough, Pasco, and Pinellas
counties. The nine reclaimed water
options are described in Table 2-3.
Reclaimed water implementation is not
considered to be a viable alternative to
the reservoir project.
Seawater Desalination. Seawater
desalination involves the use of
membrane filtration technology to
produce freshwater from seawater.
The regions first seawater desalination
plant will be built at the Big Bend Power
Station in southern Hillsborough County
and will produce 25 mgd of drinking
water. The facility is scheduled to come
on line by the end of 2002.
Tampa Bay Water is investigating the
possibility of a second desalination
facility to help meet the area's water
needs for 2008. This project is known as
Seawater Desalination II.
2-14
-------
Tarnpa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Table 2-3. Reclaimed Water Alternatives
Options
Largo/Clearwater Pasco
Interconnnect/Dehydration
ASR
Pinellas County-St.
Peterburg
Storage/Interconnect
Horizontal Well
Reclaimed System
Augmentation
Tampa/C. Hillsborough
Interconnect
Dovmstream
Augmentation of
Hillsborough River
Downstream
Augmentation of Alafia
River
S. Hillsborough ASR
Wells/Recharge/Saltwater
Intrusion Barrier
US 41 Industrial Corridor
Transmission
Pinellas County Efficiency
Study
County
Pasco
Pinellas
Hillsborough
Hillsborough
Hillsborough
Hillsborough
Hillsborough
Hillsborough
Pinellas
Water
Offset
(MGD)
3
10
1.2
18
10
7
20
10
17
Capital
Cost
(millions)
$4.31
$11.05
$16.67
$13.09
$20.27
$11.69
$14.01
$7.79
$0.1
Cost/1000
gallons
$0.54
$0.28
$3.31
$0.24
$0.51
$0.40
$0.17
$0.18
N/A
Cost/mgd
(millions)
$2.3
$1.1
$13.8
$0.7
$2.0
$1.6
$0.7
$0.78
N/A
Another option beyond the Seawater
Desalination II alternative would be to
expand Tampa Bay Water's currently
planned desalination plant at Tampa
Electric Company's Big Bend Power
Station located on Tampa Bay in
southern Hillsborough County.
Currently, the private developer of the
sea water desalination project is in the
process of obtaining permits to facilitate
constructing a 25-mgd desalination plant
at this site.
As designed, the desalination plant is
expandable to 35 mgd. The headworks
and transmission mains are designed for
the 35-mgd capacity. The plant's
process equipment would have to be
modified in order to treat the additional
quantity.
Expansion of the Big Bend Site would
require a modification of the FDEP
Wastewater Facility Permit in order to
accommodate the additional concentrate
discharge. If the discharge for the 25-
mgd facility does not violate discharge
permit conditions and environmental
monitoring programs show no
indications of adverse impacts, a
modification for an increased discharge
quantity may be obtained after some
2-15
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
additional analysis. This option could
produce up to 10 mgd of potable water
for the region. The capital cost of this
expansion is estimated to be $27.9
million. The cost per mgd is $2,793.00
while the cost per 1,000 gallons is $2.69.
Serious consideration of this project for
implementation would be contingent
upon successful permitting, construction,
and operation of the first seawater
desalination facility.
Brackish Water Desalination. A study
was conducted in 1999 to determine the
feasibility of developing a brackish
groundwater supply within the Tampa
Bay Water service area (Missimer
International 2000). Pinellas County
was identified as the only feasible area
for brackish groundwater withdrawals
given a review of currently planned or
proposed brackish groundwater
desalination options and an assessment
of brackish groundwater resources in the
region.
Two potential brackish wellfields and
associated reverse osmosis (RO) plant
sites were considered for development in
Pinellas County. Each site consisted of a
brackish groundwater wellfield, an RO
treatment plant, associated water piping .
for transmission of water from the
wellfield to the treatment plant, and the
discharge of the waste concentrate.
The first site is located in Pinellas
County within the City of Clearwater,
and has now evolved into what is called
the Clearwater wells project. This
project will use the City's existing
municipal supply wellfield, which
currently produces approximately 3.0
mgd. The City makes up the rest of its
15-mgd demand by purchasing water
from Pinellas County, a member
government of Tampa Bay Water. The
project proposes to increase production
from the wellfield from 3.0 mgd to 5.0-
mgd (Phase I) by December 2001. This
will represent a direct decrease in
demand from Tampa Bay Water's
Regional System. The second phase of
this project involves the installation of
an RO membrane treatment plant that
would treat a portion of the water within
an area of the City that receives no water
from Pinellas County. The RO plant,
scheduled to be on-line by December
2002, would allow the City to manage
deteriorating water quality in an area of
the City, which doesn't have the benefit
of dilution with outside sources. The
capital cost of the project is estimated at
$8.2 million, and the cost per 1,000
gallons is estimated at $1.68. Tampa
Bay Water's involvement in the project
occurred during the project definition
and feasibility stage. The City of
Clearwater will complete final design
and construction activities, and will
continue to own and operate its
municipal wellfield. This way the City
and Tampa Bay Water both benefit,
while the original goals of the project are
met.
The second brackish water site is also
located in Pinellas County, specifically
in Pinellas Park. The project would
include a 3-4 acre Reverse Osmosis
plant site and installation of 13 to 15
dispersed brackish water production
wells. The dispersed wells collectively
would produce on average 6.5 mgd of
brackish groundwater from the Upper
Floridian Aquifer. This 6.5-mgd of
brackish water withdrawn would result
in 5 mgd of potable treated water and 1.5
mgd of byproduct. The total capital and
unit costs for this project are
approximately $24 million for capital
2-16
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
costs and $1.90/1000 gallons. Tampa
Bay Water is currently pursuing
implementation of this project in the
2008 time frame.
Water Conservation. The Tampa Bay
region member governments are
responsible for implementing programs
that quantifiably reduce water demand.
Tampa Bay Water supports local
government conservation programs by
funding programs quantifying water
conservation potential and cost,
providing region-wide educational and
marketing programming, and various
research and development based
programs.
Demand Management is considered an
important component in the Master
Water Plan. The Plan included an
aggressive demand management-
conservation component with goals to
reduce overall demand
by 10mgdin2000and
an additional 7-mgd by
2005.
A Regional Water
Supply Demand
Management Plan
(DMP) was developed
in June 1997, which
explored the
opportunities for
reducing the future
demand by improving
the efficiencies in
existing and future
water use in the region.
The DMP provided Tampa Bay and its
member governments a means to
coordinate the on-going conservation
efforts with SWFWMD from a regional
perspective.
Future Conservation
Measures
Education and public
awareness programs
Programs to reduce
outside and inside water
use
Implementation of a
water rate structure
Improved utility
operations
Subsequently, additional efforts were
initiated to formulate a Demand
Management Implementation Board
Plan (DMIP) to identify specific Best
Management Practices (BMP's) that
could be used by member governments
to reduce water demand consistent with
or exceeding the Master Water Plan
goals. Examples of conservation BMP's
include: low flow toilet rebates,
plumbing retrofit kit giveaway
programs, irrigation system and
landscape rebates, and 13 other potential
BMP's. During this process, application
software (AQUATrak) was also
developed to facilitate strategic planning
for implementation of selected BMP's.
The Partnership Agreement requires
Tampa Bay Water and its member
governments to continue to plan,
coordinate, develop, construct, and
implement conservation and reclaimed
water projects in
accordance with the
responsibilities assigned
to them in the Interlocal
Agreement. Additionally,
the Partnership
Agreement required
Tampa Bay Water to
provide an annual report
on the status of
conservation and demand
management projects.
According to this
agreement, the District, in
conjunction with the
appropriate Basin Boards,
intends to collectively continue to fund,
to the extent authorized by law,
approximately $9 million dollars per
year for conservation and reclaimed
water projects that effectively reduce
potable water use. This collective
funding is expected to be continued for
2-17
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
ten years (through 2008) and is expected
to provide funds for such purposes to
Tampa Bay Water, its member
governments, and other local
governments in Hillsborough, Pasco, and
Pinellas counties on a 50/50 cost sharing
basis.
To determine how Member
Governments plan on meeting the
conservation and reuse goals of the
Partnership Agreement, a compilation of
their plans is annually completed.
Members used the AQUATrak program,
application software developed to assist
in determining cost-effectiveness of
conservation programming, to generate
water savings estimates or their own
savings per program, wherever possible.
According to member governments'
actual and projected 5-year water
conservation plans, the region will save
approximately 11.3 mgd by the end of
fiscal year 2000 and 26.0 mgd by the
end of fiscal year 2005. The projections
assume that default savings contained in
the AQUATrak demand management
program, or the members identified
savings rates are achieved for all best
management practices. The default
savings values that were developed in
the AQUATrak program are based on
national, regional, and local conservation
program data (where available). Potable
water savings resulting from reclaimed
water use, account for 16.6 mgd to the
26.0 mgd that would be saved by the end
of fiscal year 2005. Savings originally
identified in the Master Water Plan and
the 5-year water conservation plan does
not include implementation of the
National Energy Policy Act. Between
implementation of the Act in 1994 and
2000, approximately 5.25-mgd savings
occurred due to its implementation (in
addition to active conservation
implementation in the region).
Education programs have been
developed successfully by many
members. Education programs are
generally targeted toward specific age
groups and/or sectors of the population.
Many education programs are offered on
an annual basis and are designed to
educate the public on the need to
conserve water and a means to modify
future water use habits. In-school
education programs have developed
curriculum materials and are approved
for use by the public school system.
Generally, these programs offer specific
curricula, a mechanism to measure
knowledge increase, and change in water
use habits.
Public awareness programs also provide
education to the public but are generally
not quantifiable in nature. They reach a
broad population base and are developed
to keep issues in front of the public. No
predefined curriculum materials are
generally developed and mechanisms to
measure their effectiveness are much
more broad and non-quantifiable than
education programs. The member
governments believe that these programs
are very successful at promoting
conservation and specific best
management practices that may be
implemented by the public.
Aquifer Storage and Recovery.
Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) is
the process where potable water is
injected into an aquifer, stored, and
withdrawn. An ASR system is
comprised of wells, pipelines, and
pumps that allow the water to be injected
and withdrawn as needed. A
hypothetical system would store treated
2-18
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
water withdrawn from the Tampa
Bypass Canal, the Hillsborough River,
and the Alafia River during periods of
higher flow. The purpose of an ASR
system would be to increase the
sustainable yield of the water supply
system by storing water for use during
low flow periods when surface water
withdrawals are restricted.
Federal and state regulations in Florida
currently require that water injected into
a storage aquifer meet potable water
quality standards to prevent
contamination of the aquifer,
groundwater, and potable or domestic
wells.
If an ASR project were being considered
as a replacement for the reservoir
project, Regional Surface Water
Treatment Plant (RSWTP) would have
to be tripled in size to handle the peak
flow. Partial treatment of water would
require construction of a centrally
located water treatment plant.
To replace the storage capacity of the
reservoir, the required injection or
storage capacity was determined as
follows:
Maximum total surface water
withdrawal capacity - 181 mgd
Less surface water treatment plant
capacity - 66 mgd
Required wellfield capacity for
injection - 115 mgd
Two alternatives have been developed to
meet the reservoir replacement criteria
(Table 2-4). One of the ASR wellfield
options proposes a wellfield system with
a withdrawal capacity of 30-mgd and 68
mgd of injection capacity. This
alternative would have two additional
wellfields with 15 mgd of additional
withdrawal capacity and 30 mgd of
injection capacity. The second
alternative includes the development of
six wellfields. Each sized for
approximately 10 mgd of withdrawal
capacity and 20 mgd of injection
capacity. For either of the full or partial
treatment alternatives, additional
transmission pipelines would be required
to transport water to and from the ASR
wellfields. An 84-inch diameter pipeline
would be sufficient to transport 121
mgd.
Placement of the ASR wellfields is
dependent upon both hydrogeologic
factors and impacts to the environment
and other existing users. The
permeability and thickness of the
confining layers above the proposed
water storage zones are critical factors
for preventing water level drawdown
from well pumping and natural depletion
in the shallow aquifer system during the
dry season. Preliminary studies have
shown that areas south of the Alafia
River have geologic characteristics that
limit this type of drawdown. The degree
of mineralization in the groundwater that
is native to the storage zone is also
Table 2-4. ASR Wellfield Alternatives
Components
Number of Wellfields
Withdrawal Capacity
Injection Capacity
Alternative 1
1
30 mgd/wellfield
60 mgd/wellfield
2
15 mgd/wellfield
30 mgd/ wellfield
Alternative 2
6
10 mgd/wellfield
20 mgd/wellfield
2-19
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
important since the mixing of injected
water with existing groundwater could
effect water quality. Preliminary studies
showed that the most favorable areas for
the ASR wellfields were at least two
miles east of 1-75. Additional
investigations using more specific ASR
wellfield siting criteria are needed to
more specifically identify wellfield
locations.
Capital cost estimates were prepared for
both alternatives. The cost estimates
include wellfield development,
treatment, transmission, and other
associated facility costs (Table 2-5).
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir and
.ASR System. ASR has been considered
a possible enhancement to the Tampa
Bay Regional Reservoir to improve the
reliability of the overall surface water
system. Two alternatives were intially
evaluated that included a regional
reservoir and an ASR system. The first
reservoir and ASR alternative evaluated
included a proposed 1,100-acre regional
reservoir and an 18-mgd ASR system.
The second reservoir and ASR
alternative was a smaller 800 acre
regional reservoir and a 30-mgd ASR
system.
The concept of the ASR system can be
thought of as an underground reservoir.
The ASR system would work together
with the surface reservoir to increase the
total storage capacity of the system. An
advantage of subsurface storage is that it
is not subject to evaporative losses and it
does not require the acquisition of large
parcels of land. Favorable hydrology
and the ability to blend the recovered
ASR water with water stored in the
surface reservoir means that a large
percent of the water put into storage
could be recovered for use. The Tampa
Bay Regional Reservoir is an important
component of the aquifer storage system
because it can be used to store high
flows so that injection capacity can be
minimized.
Up to this time, ASR has most
commonly been used in Florida for the
storage of fully treated potable water.
However, new applications of this
technology using water that has limited
pretreatment are being developed. ASR
is most easily permitted if the injected
water meets all primary and secondary
drinking water standards. There is a
regulatory exemption process currently
in place that addresses the injection of
water that exceeds one or more
secondary drinking water parameters.
Currently, exemptions of primary
drinking water standards are very
difficult to obtain. At this time there are
new rules and procedures being
considered by the State of Florida that
might allow an exemption for specific
primary drinking water standards.
Assuming sufficient water is available
for storage, an ASR system capacity
would likely be limited by regulatory
criteria and maximum drawdown
allowed during the recovery period
within a prescribed distance from the
wells. Prior to final design of an ASR
system, a pilot study would need to be
conducted to clearly define the ASR
storage interval, the type of
pretreatment, and specific details
regarding the wellfield design and
operation. The pilot study, permitting,
and construction of the ASR wellfield
under current regulatory criteria is
estimated to take about ten years.
A preliminary investigation conducted
by Tampa Bay Water of the proposed
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
2-20
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Table 2-5. Estimated capital cost range for the proposed ASR system.
Description
P;ull Treatment Option:
Wellfield
Treatment
Transport
Other associated costs
Total
Partial Treatment Option:
Wellfield
Treatment
Transport
Other associated costs
Total
Estimated Cost
$43,500,000
$111,894,000
$61,594,500
$86,795,400
$303,783,900
$23,550,000
$94,215,000
$58,845,000
$70,644,000
$247,254,000
indicated that an ASR system having a
capacity to store and recover water at a
rate of approximately 18 mgd could
greatly improve the reliability of the
overall water storage and supply system.
The ASR system could be located at the
regional reservoir site, along the regional
reservoir pipeline route, or at a more
distant location. An ASR system built
adjacent to the regional reservoir site
could potentially be the most cost
efficient; no additional acquisition of
property would be required. It is also
thought that pretreatment could be more
easily accomplished using stored
reservoir water since the large volume of
surface water stored could serve to
buffer and dilute any unforeseen water
quality parameters.
An ASR wellfield located more distant
from the regional reservoir could offer
certain advantages if regulatory issues
arid/or public opinion do not favor siting
ASR wells adjacent to the reservoir.
The estimated costs of building an ASR
system were based on constructing the
ASR system near the regional reservoir
site. Individual well capacities used in
this analysis were estimated to be
approximately 2 mgd. A system of nine
wells was used yielding a total ASR
system capacity of 18 mgd with one 2-
mgd backup well. The estimated cost of
the entire wellfield was approximately
$10.7 million. The total estimated cost
of the regional reservoir and the ASR
system was about $121 million.
The preliminary investigation for the
second alternative conducted by Tampa
Bay Water, of a smaller 800-acre Tampa
Bay Regional Reservoir, showed that an
ASR system having a capacity to store
and recover water at a rate of
approximately 30-mgd would be
required. The design and location of the
ASR system would be similar to that in
the first alternative.
For the second alternative, a system of
15 wells was used, yielding 30 mgd with
two 2-mgd backup wells. The estimated
cost of the ASR system was
approximately $18 million. The total
2-21
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
estimated cost of the regional reservoir
and the ASR system was about $128
million.
2.3 NO FEDERAL ACTION
ALTERNATIVE
For the purposes of comparing
alternatives in this EIS, it was necessary
to consider that the No Federal Action
equated to no reservoir; however, absent
federal funds, nothing in this DEIS
would prevent Tampa Bay Water from
building the reservoir and pipeline. If
the Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir were
not built, Tampa Bay Water believes it
would not meet the needs of the tri-
county area under the commitments and
obligations of the Interlocal and
Partnership Agreements. The No
Federal Action alternative would not
provide the 111 -mgd cumulative water
supply needs by 2007; a short-fall of
approximately 25-mgd would occur. If
pumping levels exceeded the permitted
quantities specified in the Consolidated
Water Use Permit, Tampa Bay Water
could potentially lose up to $183 million
of handing committed by SWFWMD
through the Partnership Agreement. The
No Federal Action alternative is the least
cost effective of all the alternatives
presented.
Groundwater withdrawal above
permitted levels would continue to
adversely impact wetlands and lakes. If
conditions of the consolidated permit are
followed, the No Federal Action
alternative would ultimately result in a
water deficit for the tri-county area.
2.4 EVALUATION OF ACTION
ALTERNATIVES
An evaluation of 11 action alternatives
was conducted to determine which were
considered to be reasonable and
practicable. Each alternative was
assessed, using three criteria -
engineering feasibility, environmental
impacts, and the ability to meet
established regional water demands. A
detailed comparison of the alternatives
that successfully met all three criteria
was then made in the DEIS.
All 11 alternatives were initially
evaluated to identify any extraordinary
or unproven technical engineering
actions that would be required to
implement the alternatives.
Identification of such activities or
constraints was sufficient to eliminate an
alternative from further consideration.
Of the 11 alternatives originally
considered, three were eliminated due to
engineering constraints. These
alternatives were capturing freshwater
springs, using lakes found in abandoned
phosphate pits, and using aboveground
storage tanks.
The proposed alternative to capture
underground freshwater from
springs percolating into the Gulf of
Mexico has been suggested as a
possible source for potable water.
Recovery of usable amounts of water
from these sources is problematic.
Undersea springs would have to be
located and somehow capped. The
amount and quality of water
resources from underground springs
is unknown, and it is also unknown if
the springs flow year-round. Water
would have to be piped along the
seabed to a central treatment and
distribution center. A network of
pipes situated in or on the seabed
would be subject to damage by
storms, dredging activities, anchors
from commercial vessels and
pleasure craft, and commercial
2-22
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
fishing. Technology to capture
undersea springs for a public water
supply is currently not available.
This alternative is not feasible from
an engineering standpoint and was
removed from consideration.
The second alternative to be
eliminated was one that proposed to
use lakes found in abandoned
phosphate pits. Abandoned
phosphate mines are unacceptable as
water storage facilities. The
abandoned mines are unlined, and
the mine sidewalls are sufficiently
porous making them essentially
reservoirs for standing groundwater.
Building perimeter berms on the
mine shoulders would be structurally
unsound. Phosphate mines generally
cannot be lined or retrofitted for
water storage facilities because the
geotechnical requirements of soil and
substrate are critical and are unlikely
to exist in abandoned mines.
Attempts to store water above
existing groundwater levels would
result in hydrostatic pressure driving
water into the ground. Conversely,
drawing down water from the
abandoned mines would be
essentially the same as pumping
from the aquifer. SWFWMD has
limited the capacity of groundwater
withdrawals from the existing 11
wellfields to 121 -mgd by December
2002 and to 90-mgd by December of
2007. By drawing down water from
an abandoned mine, in reality one
would be pumping groundwater, and
SWFWMD's mandate to reducing
the regions dependence on
groundwater would not be met.
Most of the abandoned mines are
located in Polk, Hardee, and
Manatee counties, all considerable
distance from the major population
areas within Tampa Bay Water's
service area. In order to pump
sufficient amounts of water these
distances, additional water treatment
facilities requiring extensive
pumping and transmission systems
would need to be built. This
alternative was problematic and was
removed from consideration.
The third alternative to be removed
from further consideration due to
engineering feasibility was using
aboveground storage tanks. A
public water supply for a large
metropolitan area such as Tampa/St.
Petersburg must have water supply
system large enough to provide a
continuous supply of water, and a
network of storage tanks would not
be a reliable source. In order to
provide a continuous supply of water
during low flow conditions, multiple
storage tanks would have to be
developed. The use of aboveground
storage tanks would not have the
means to continually provide the
necessary supply of water to support
the region. Because siting,
construction, and maintenance of
hundreds of aboveground tanks
would not be feasible, this alternative
was removed from consideration.
The remaining eight alternatives were
investigated to determine their impacts
on the environment. Significant impacts
could include increasing the likelihood
of saltwater intrusion, negatively
impacting habitat for threatened or
endangered species, or negatively
impacting special or protected habitat
types. The probability of expensive
mitigation related to each alternative was
also considered, as such requirements
could increase the cost of water. The
eight alternatives did not demonstrate
2-23
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
any major fatal environmental flaws and
therefore none were eliminated.
The eight alternatives were then
evaluated on their ability to meet the
water demand and requirements set forth
for the region. As stated above, the
alternatives considered must be capable
of providing at least 58 mgd of water by
the year 2007. Of the eight remaining
alternatives, seven were eliminated. The
seven alternatives eliminated were:
potable water reuse, reclaimed water,
seawater desalination, brackish
groundwater, water conservation, an
ASR system, and a 800 surface acre
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir and 30
mgd ASR wellfield.
The first alternative to be removed
from further consideration was
using reclaimed water for potable
use. Reclaimed water for potable
use was examined by EPA and
Tampa Bay Water with the proposed
Tampa Bay Water Resource
Recovery Project. Lack of public
support, health concerns, and
concerns about costs caused the
project to be discontinued in 1999
and it was dropped from further
consideration in this study.
The second alternative to be.
eliminated was one that proposed to
use reclaimed water to meet the
regional demand. Most of the options
included in this alternative are being
implemented, and offsets that could
be expected have already been
considered in demand projections.
The use of reclaimed water would
not supply the capacity needed for
the region and therefore was
eliminated from further
consideration.
The third alternative to be removed
from consideration was the use of
seawater desalination. Seawater
desalination alternatives would not
meet the demands of the region
given the time constraints on Tampa
Bay Water, and public concern was
also expressed about the potential
impacts of brine disposal from the
plant. For schedule reasons this
alternative was eliminated from
further consideration.
The major constraints of the fourth
alternative, using brackish
groundwater, are the disposal of the
reverse osmosis byproduct
(concentrate) and the impacts on
existing groundwater supplies.
Inadequate supply capacity, potential
environmental concerns, and costs
associated with brackish
groundwater caused it to be
eliminated from further
consideration.
The fifth alternative to be eliminated
was one that proposed to solely
reduce demand by using water
conservation practices. Water
conservation will reduce the amount
of water used, although the
cumulative reduction is not large
enough to meet projected water
demands. Decreases due to
conservation are considered already
in the region's demand projections.
For this reason, water conservation is
not carried forward as a stand-alone
alternative. However, water
conservation programs are a critical
component and they are a part of
each alternative carried forward in
this DEIS.
Developing an ASR system as a
stand alone alternative was the sixth
alternative eliminated. The ASR
system would not meet the region's
2-24
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
water needs in time because of the
estimated 10-years required to test
and build an ASR system. The
projected costs of this alternative
further preclude it as a stand-alone
alternative. However, ASR could be
used to supplement the supply by
increasing the yield of the surface
water system, and will be considered
in a combination alternative.
The seventh alternative to be
eliminated was using a combination
of an 800 surface acre Tampa Bay
Regional Reservoir and 30 mgd
ASR wellfield to meet the regional
need. This alternative would not
meet the required schedule to meet
project needs nor would it supply
enough water for the region. For
these reasons this alternative is not
carried forward as a standalone
alternative.
None of the alternatives eliminated from
further consideration would allow
Tampa Bay Water's member
governments to meet the established
water needs of the region as defined in
the Interlocal and Partnership
Agreements. Tampa Bay Water's
member governments would be required
to continue to pump the existing
groundwater facilities above permitted
limits.
2.5 ALTERNATIVES CARRIED
FORWARD
Eleven action alternatives were
originally identified for inclusion in the
alternative screening process. The
ability of these eleven alternatives to
satisfy the established project purpose
and need was evaluated. Only two of
the eleven original action alternatives are
capable of providing the needed water
supply to meet the identified regional
demands by 2007. The two action
alternatives selected for further
consideration in the DEIS are:
1,100 Acre Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir Project. The proposed
reservoir and associated facilities
would cover approximately 1,100
acres (900 acres of surface area when
full), with a storage volume of
approximately 48,000 acre-feet (15
billion gallons). This alternative is
Tampa Bay Water's preferred project
and is located in southeastern
Hillsborough County, south of
County Road 640, north of County
Road 672, and west of State Road 39
(See Figure 2-1).
Approximately 7.5 miles of 84-inch
pipeline would connect the proposed
reservoir to Tampa Bay Water's
regional water system at the South
Central Hillsborough Intertie. The
new pipeline route would generally
follow existing roadways and linear
utility corridors. See Section 2.2.1
for a detailed description of this
alternative.
1,100 Acre Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir and 18-mgd ASR
System. The second action
alternative would include the same
1,100-acre reservoir found in the first
alternative above but would also
include an 18-mgd ASR system.
The proposed reservoir would cover
approximately 900 acres of surface
area when full and would have a
storage volume of approximately
48,000 acre-feet (15 billion gallons).
As before, the proposed location is in
southeastern Hillsborough County,
south of County Road 640, north of
2-25
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
County Road 672, and west of State
Road 39 (See Figure 2-1).
In addition, approximately 7.5 miles
of 84-inch pipeline would connect
the proposed reservoir to Tampa Bay
Water's regional water system at the
South Central Hillsborough Intertie.
The new pipeline route would
generally follow existing roadways
and linear utility corridors.
The proposed 18-mgd ASR system
would be constructed near the 1,100-
acre regional reservoir site.
Individual well capacities used in
this analysis were estimated to be
approximately 2 mgd. A system of
nine ASR wells was used, yielding a
total ASR system capacity of 18 mgd
with one 2-mgd backup well.
The estimated cost of the entire ASR
wellfield was approximately $10.7
million. The total estimated cost of
the 1,100-acre regional reservoir and
the 18-mgd ASR system was about
$121 million. See Section 2.4 for a
detailed description of this
alternative.
No Federal Action. The No Federal
Action alternative, as defined in
Section 2.1, is also carried forward in
the DEIS to serve as a baseline for
comparing the two action
alternatives.
2-26
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
CHAPTER 3
AFFECTED
ENVIRONMENT
3.1 INTRODUCTION
A wide array of action and no-action
alternatives were evaluated both to meet
the need being satisfied by Tampa Bay
Water's Regional Reservoir Project and
improving the reliability and
dependability of Tampa Bay Water's
integrated water supply system. A
multi-step screening process identified
two feasible alternatives capable of
obtaining these goals and one "no
action" alternative. Chapter 3, Affected
Environment, describes the natural
resources, such as
vegetation and
wildlife, and the
human resources, such
as socioeconomic and
cultural resources,
which could be
impacted by the three
alternatives remaining
under consideration.
3.2 GENERAL SETTING
The project area for the proposed
alternatives, as described in Chapter 2, is
in the west-central portion of Florida, in
Hillsborough, Pasco, and Pinellas
counties. Because each of the feasible
alternatives are in the same general area,
Chapter 3 will focus on the potential
reservoir area, the immediate area
surrounding it, and the proposed
alignment for the associated pipeline.
This area, plus land areas from which
water could be withdrawn or could be
impacted, the Alafia and Hillsborough
rivers, the Tampa Bypass Canal, and
Tampa Bay, will be included in the
project area (Figure 3-1).
In general, the Florida landscape is
dominated by flatwoods, which are
associated with low, flat topography and
poorly drained, sandy soils. Individual
stands of flatwoods may occupy
thousands of acres, forming a matrix of
communities that include isolated
hammocks, marshes, wet prairies, and
scrub. Major streams in the project area
are often lined with forested vegetation.
Land use in the project area consists
primarily of undeveloped woodlands,
wetlands, and grasslands that are utilized
for cattle grazing and agriculture. Major
cities in the three-county area include
Tampa in Hillsborough County, St.
Petersburg in Pinellas County and New
Port Richey in Pasco
County. Smaller
cities and towns, and
rural areas are
interspersed
throughout the
project area.
Tampa Bay, located
on the state's west-
central coast, is
Florida's largest open water estuary. It
is a Y-shaped bay with an area of
approximately 398 square miles (mi2)
that receives runoff from a watershed
encompassing an area of 2,275 mi2. The
watershed is composed of five major
river systems and smaller sub-basins of
coastal streams that form a drainage area
that contains all or portions of Pasco,
Pinellas, Hillsborough, Polk, Manatee,
and Sarasota counties. The rivers that
flow into Tampa Bay are the
Hillsborough, Alafia, Little Manatee and
Manatee, and the Tampa Bypass Canal.
3-1
-------
" Hfflaborough ft
70
70 Miles
Figure 3-1
TAMPA BAY REGIONAL RESERVOIR
PROJECT DEIS
GENERAL SETTING
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
The three water supply sources for the
proposed Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir Project are the Alafia River,
the Hillsborough River, and the Tampa
Bypass Canal. These
three sources originate to the east of
Tampa Bay, flow southwest or west as
their floodplains become progressively
broader and are tidally affected near
Tampa Bay.
The Alafia River watershed is located in
Hillsborough and Polk counties,
originating in west-central Polk County.
The river flows approximately 24 miles
westward where it enters southeast
Hillsborough Bay and Tampa Bay.
Unlike most Florida streams, the
tributaries to the Alafia River are
somewhat narrow, swift-flowing streams
with deep-cut banks and relatively few
large swamps (U.S Department of the
Interior 1990). The Alafia River
watershed contains about 420 mi2.
Headwaters of the Hillsborough River
watershed are located in the
southwestern portion of the Green
Swamp in Pasco County. From this
point, the river flows southwest
approximately 54 miles to upper
Hillsborough Bay, through Pasco, Polk,
and Hillsborough counties. The
Hillsborough River is impounded by a
dam in Tampa that forms the
Hillsborough River Reservoir, the
primary drinking water supply for the
city of Tampa. The Hillsborough River
watershed covers an area of about 650
mi2.
The Tampa Bypass Canal is the
channeled extension of Six-Mile Creek
that intersects the Hillsborough River at
Trout Creek and at the City of Tampa's
water supply reservoir. Vertical lift
gates and slide gates at five water
control structures located at narrow
points along the waterway regulate flow
in the canal.
Each of the two viable alternatives
considered in this Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) are physically
located in the same geographic area.
Because both alternatives involve
construction of a reservoir, pipeline,
and/or aquifer storage and recovery
(ASR) system, the general location in
which construction would occur will be
collectively called the project
construction area. This construction area
is located in southeast Hillsborough
County, approximately 16 miles east of
Tampa Bay and 8 miles south of the
Alafia River. Land use in the area is
primarily agricultural but also includes
mined lands, pastureland, and residential
properties.
Climate. The climate of the project area
is characterized as subtropical. This is a
mild climate, resulting from low
topography, proximity to the Gulf of
Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean, and
relatively low latitude (Florida
Department of Envionmental Regulation
(FDER)1995). The mean annual
temperature is 72.2 degrees Fahrenheit
(°F), which is modified by winds from
the Gulf of Mexico as they sweep across
the Florida peninsula. Summers are
warm and humid, often with daily
afternoon thundershowers. Summer
temperatures peak during June, July, and
August, when they average 90 °F.
Winters are short and mild with bright
sunny days and little rainfall. Windy
cold spells seldom occur and are short-
lived. The coldest month is January,
which has an average temperature of
60.8 °F. Although freezes can occur
3-3
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
once or twice a month during the winter
season, they are usually not damaging.
Snowfall is negligible (Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) 1989).
Annual average precipitation is about 50
inches. Approximately 60 percent of the
rainfall occurs from June through
September and falls from heavy
thunderstorms. The wettest year on
record occurred in 1959 when 76.57
inches of rainfall was recorded. The
driest year (28.89 inches) occurred in
1956. In August through November,
disturbances varying in force from
hurricanes to thunderstorms move
northward from the tropics bringing
damaging winds and heavy rains.
Thunderstorms accompanied by
moderately high winds can occur
throughout the year (NRCS 1989).
3.3 SOILS AND GEOLOGY
The soils and geology define the
hydrology, topography, and ecology of a
region. Soil composition and the
underlying parent materials combine to
provide conditions that support the
different natural habitat types of the
surrounding landscape.
3.3.1 Soils. Soils are described and
classified based on a number of
measurable differences, characterized by
the nature of the parent rock, weathering
processes, the transport mechanisms
involved, biology, and stage of
decomposition. In central and south
Florida, the soils are geologically young
and reflect changes in sediment types.
Sands and organics dominate the soils in
west-central Florida. These soils are a
product of the damp, semitropical
climate, flat topography, and the
relatively short geological time the
parent materials have been exposed to
soil developmental conditions (FDER
1995).
The project area is located within a
broad, flat regional feature known as the
Polk Upland, that occupies a large
portion of west-central Florida. A thin
sequence of Pleistocene sands and a
thick sequence of siliciclastic (sand, silt,
and clay) and carbonate sediments
underlay the upland.
Dominant soils in the watershed of the
Hillsborough River, Alafia River, and
Tampa Bypass Canal contain an
accumulation of organic matter and
precipitated aluminum and iron oxides.
Well-leached sands overlie the organic
layer .and are moderately to strongly
acidic resulting in low vegetation
productivity. However, the acidic nature
of the soils makes them well-suited for
pine flatwoods. Seasonal ponding is
often associated with these soils because
they are typically found in areas with
little or no slope and are often underlain
with a well-developed hardpan that
blocks downward movement of water.
The soils in the project construction area
consist mostly of nearly level, poorly to
very poorly drained soils that have sandy
or loamy subsoil or are sandy
throughout. Dominant soil types include
the Myakka, Basinger, and Holopaw
series. These soil types are typically
associated with swamps and depressions.
Typically these soils are not suited to
most cultivated or citrus crops or pasture
but support natural vegetation of cypress
with an understory of bluestem,
maidencane, Jamaica sawgrass, and
cutgrass (NRCS 1989). The reservoir
site is currently in pasture, and row crops
are located adjacent to the site.
3-4
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Phosphorous strip mining has impacted
portions of the proposed construction
area, but these areas have since been
reclaimed. It is assumed that soil
characteristics of these areas are now
similar to the surrounding landscape
with the exception of thin layers of very
soft elastic silt or highly plastic clay that
underlie the surface. These silt and clay
layers appear to be clay tailings from the
earlier phosphate mining process (HDR
1998).
Hydrologic Soil Groups. Hydrologic
soil groups are those soils grouped
according to their runoff producing
characteristics (HDR 2000) (Figure 3-2).
Group A soils generally consist of deep,
well-drained sands or gravels with a high
raite of water transmission, usually
greater than 0.30 inches per hour. At the
other end of the range, Group D soils
have a high runoff potential and very
low infiltration rates. Group D soils
consist chiefly of clay soils with high
swelling potential, soils with a
permanent high water table, soils with a
claypan (hardpan) or clay layer at or
near the surface and shallow soils over
nearly impervious materials. These soils
have a low rate of transmission (0.0 to
0.05 inches per hour). Groups B and C
range between Groups A and D (HDR
2000).
Hydrologic soil group classifications are
an indication of the infiltration capacity
of the soils and ground water table
elevations. Soil types of the reservoir
site were delineated using the NRCS soil
survey. The soil groups were found to
be fairly homogenous and consist
primarily of the B and D hydrologic
soils groups. Typically these types of
soils contain a semi-impermeable layer
or hardpan several feet below the
surface.
Some soils are listed in more than one
hydrologic soil group. Soils such as
those with B and D groups are also in
the hydrologic soil group D in their
natural (pre-developed) condition
because of the high water table
conditions that create drainage
impedance. If these soils can be
effectively drained and properly
maintained, they may be reclassified in a
different hydrologic soil group (HDR
2000).
3.3.2 Geology. The Peninsular Arch
and Ocala Uplift formations characterize
the majority of the geology in the project
area. The productive storage zones in
the project area are the lower Suwarmee,
and Avon Park formations. These
storage zones are located in the upper
Floridan aquifer system. The upper
Floridan aquifer is a highly variable
hydrologic system consisting of
carbonate rocks separated by less
permeable sediments that act as semi-
confining layers. The top of the Floridan
aquifer deepens moving south across the
project area. As a consequence, areas
with a higher degree of confinement are
found in the southern portion of the site.
Figure 3-3 provides a simplified
representation of a north-south cross
section showing aquifer formation
contacts and potential water storage
intervals.
The Suwannee storage zone is the
uppermost productive layer present in
the Floridian aquifer on a regional basis.
Granular limestone is the predominant
component and is primarily found in the
upper part of the Suwannee production
3-5
-------
Neal
Doe Branch
Figure source: HDR Engineering, Inc., EAP Application, September 7, 2000
Reservoir
| | Basins
Hydro-logic Soil Groups
B/D Soils Group
C Soils Group
D Soils Group
Water
2000
2000 Feet
Figure 3-2
TAMPA BAY REGIONAL RESERVOIR
DEIS PROJECT
HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUPS
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
zone. This zone typically ranges from
100 to 150 feet thick and is
approximately 150 feet below sea level
(bsl) in the northern portion of the
aquifer and about 400 feet bsl in the
southern portion. The confining layer of
this zone is clayey limestone in the
lower part of the Suwannee Limestone
formation or chalky limestone in the
underlying Ocala Limestone formation.
The underlying Avon Park storage zone
is a highly permeable, fractured rock
system that is the source for water
supply wells in Hillsborough County.
The storage zone occurs in the upper
part of the Avon Park formation in
fractured dolostone or in the basal layers
of the Ocala Limestone. This zone
typically ranges from approximately 600
feet bsl in the northern portion of the
study area to 750 feet bsl in the
south and is between 100 and 150 feet
thick, with some areas ranging up to 300
feet (HDR 2000).
A. layer of sedimentary rocks underlies
the Alafia River, Hillsborough River and
Tampa Bypass Canal, and Tampa Bay.
The Alafia River flows through the
Southwestern Flatwoods physiographic
district, primarily in the Bone Valley
Uplands. These uplands are a poorly
drained plateau underlain by deeply
weathered sand and clayey sand. The
Hillsborough River flows through the
Ocala Uplift physiographic district,
principally in the Hillsborough Valley.
Sluggish surface drainage and many
karst features characterize the valley.
The Tampa Bypass Canal is also located
in the Ocala Uplift District in the
Hillsborough Valley (FDER 1995).
Sinkhole Potential. The reservoir
would be located in an area where
historic sinkhole activity is rare. The
level of geotechnical and geological
investigations at the reservoir took into
account the existence of paleosinkholes,
a few of which have been documented at
the site, and reported modern sinkholes,
which have not been reported at, or near,
the site. Reports of modern sinkholes
placed the nearest sinkhole at least a
mile or two from the proposed reservoir
site. These sinkholes are located in the
Brandon karst terrain to the north and
west of the site.
Strip mining has impacted the southern
portion of the proposed reservoir site;
the northern portion is undisturbed land.
The topography of the land to the north
of the mined areas is gently sloping with
elevation contours that are somewhat
elongated and parallel, with abundant
surface drainage features. The general
topographic features of the proposed site
and surrounding area indicate low
sinkhole potential characteristics (HDR
1999).
Photolineament and Geophysical
Investigations. This photolineament or
karst analysis consisted of a study of
aerial photography to reveal indicators
of fracturing in the underlying limestone
and dolostone at the site. These
indicators can include features such as
alignments of three or more circular
depressions, elongation of depressions in
the land surface, alignments and/or
elongation of wetlands and lakes, linear
stream segments, linear soil tones, or
linear vegetation patterns.
In addition to the preliminary literature
review and preliminary test wells, a
photolineament analysis and geophysical
investigation were also conducted to
assist in locating test-drilling locations
3-7
-------
ARCADIA FORMATION,
UNDIF.
'^^y^^
3UWANNEE LIMESTONE
i-X *-»; v~ V ''r^8a'-»>,^
';:2fTsr7-i'-';''v";V'^cjVjri}n^;?>!»
OCALA LIMESTONE
'V.;>:-; ii":: -u V>H-^;<^-^?><>~~-.
^h'^^rv^^^r^il^f^-i^!^
AVON PARK FORMATION
MIDDLE
CONFINING
UNIT
BASE OF UPPER FLORIDAN AQUIFER
Rgure 3-3
TAMPA BAY REGIONAL
RESERVOIR PROJECT DEIS
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION
FIGURE SOURCE: WATER RESOURCE SOLUTIONS
DATE: 7/8/00
0 2.5
HORIZONTAL SCALE (MILES)
- MAJOR PRODUCTION ZONE
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
of potential sinkhole sites at the reservoir
(HDR 2000).
Aerial photographs from 1939, 1948,
1957, and 1988 were also evaluated.
Once it was determined that photolinear
features were present on the site, a
geophysical analysis was conducted
using ground penetrating radar, seismic
refraction, and seismic reflection to
evaluate subsurface stratigraphy and
structure at the reservoir site. The
results of the geophysical analysis were
used to identify borehole locations that
were used to further refine the site.
3.4 AIR QUALITY
The State of Florida has adopted the
U.S. National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) except for sulfur
dioxide (SO2). Florida's SO2 standard is
slightly more stringent than the national
standard. In 1997, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
changed the ozone standard from a one-
hour standard to an eight-hour standard.
EPA is currently redesignating the status
of ozone areas.
All three counties (Hillsborough, Pasco
and Pinellas) in the general study area
are in attainment or are unclassified for
all criteria pollutants, and meet the new
eight-hour standard (FDEQ 2000).
Currently Hillsborough and Pinellas
counties are air quality maintenance
areas for ozone. Designated areas of
Hillsborough County are air quality
maintenance areas for particulate matter
(total suspended particulate) and lead.
Air quality maintenance areas, due to
past nonattainment status, are required to
implement strategies to maintain
attainment with the standards for the
specified air pollutant established
ambient air quality standards. A
discussion with the Florida Department
of Environmental Quality (FDEQ)
indicated that Hillsborough and Pinellas
counties might be redesignated to
nonattainment areas for ozone under the
new eight hour standard (FDEP 2000).
The State of Florida currently has air
quality monitors for particulate matter,
sulfur dioxide, ozone and lead in the
study area. The air quality in the three-
county area currently meets all ambient
air quality standards. Local
municipalities, agricultural and mining
industries are not expected to emit high
levels of any pollutant that would exceed
established air quality standards.
3.5 NOISE
The potential construction area is located
in a sparsely populated rural area.
Existing sources of noise include
vehicles on roads and highways, farm
equipment and a nearby pistol shooting
range located to the south of the
proposed reservoir. A residential area is
located less than Haifa mile to the east
from the potential regional reservoir
area. Existing ambient noise data are not
available for the potential construction
area. The FDEP does not regulate noise
levels from industrial or public works
facilities. Hillsborough County
regulates noise generated by non-
exempted sources. Sound level limits
have been established in Chapter 1-10.03
of the Rules of the Environmental
Protection Commission of Hillsborough
County (HCEPC 2000). Table 3-1
shows the regulated sound level limits
grouped by receiving land use.
3-9
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Table 3-1. Hillsborough County Maximum Permissible Sound Levels
RECEIVING LAND USE
CATEGORY
Residential, Public Space
Commercial
Industrial
TIME
7:00 a.m.- 10:00 p.m.
10:00 p.m.- 7:00 a.m.
7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.
10:00 p.m.- 7:00 a.m.
All Times
SOUND LEVEL LIMIT
(dBA)
60
55
65
60
75
3.6 WATER RESOURCES
The major water resources of the project
area include both surface and
groundwater sources. The major
components of these resources are
discussed in the following sections.
3.6.1 Groundwatef. The hydfogeology
of south-central Hillsborough County,
including the proposed regional reservoir
area, consists of a surficial aquifer, a
intermediate aquifer, and the underlying
. FJoridan aquifer. The geologic units that
make up the aquifers consist of
permeable strata (strata with pores or
openings that permits water to pass
through) separated by layers of dense,
low permeability rock. These dense
layers, which act to hold water in the
aquifers, are called confining layers and
generally consist of relatively
impermeable clay and clay marl.
The hydrology of the proposed reservoir
area was defined during geotechnical
and aquifer performance testing (HDR
2000). The surfical aquifer in the project
area is about 25 to 50 feet thick and
generally consists of unconsolidated to
poorly consolidated fine sand to silty and
clayey sand. The intermediate aquifer is
composed of the Miocene-aged
Hawthorne Group, which includes the
Peace River and the Arcadia (Tampa
member) formations. In terms of water
availability, the Tampa member
formation is generally the most
productive portion of the intermediate
aquifer. The Floridan aquifer includes
the Suwannee Limestone, the Ocala
Limestone, and the Avon Park
formation.
In a literature review to determine the
general groundwater conditions at the
proposed reservoir site, the NRCS soil
survey for Hillsborough County
described the fluctuation of the seasonal
high water table as ranging from the
surface to approximately 10 inches
below the surface (HDR 1999). Soil
borings for geotechnical exploration
indicated groundwater levels
approximately five feet below the
surface during the dry season (HDR
2000). Based on the soil survey results,
geotechnical exploration and evaluation
of drainage features, the wet season
water table was estimated to be
approximately one foot below ground
surface over the majority of the reservoir
site. Drainage features within and along
the periphery of the site, which serve to
lower the groundwater table, were also
3-10
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
considered in estimating the wet season
water table. These features include the
upland cut ditches along the northern
portion of the site as well as numerous
connections draining the existing
wetlands and the phosphate mined area.
Groundwater levels for the surficial
aquifer in the general area were found to
be about 70 to 80 feet above mean sea
level (msl) and the groundwater
elevation in the intermediate aquifer
about 40 to 50 feet msl.
The groundwater
elevation data indicates
a downward vertical
gradient between the
surficial and the
intermediate aquifer,
increasing the potential
for recharge to the
intermediate aquifer.
The groundwater
elevation in the upper
Floridan aquifer in the
vicinity of the reservoir
is about 30 feet msl.
In addition to the
literature review, ten preliminary soil
borings were obtained (HDR 2000).
These soil borings ranged in depth from
45 to 50 feet below sea-level, and
indicated a somewhat uniform lithology
consisting of loose to medium dense
sands underlain by very dense,
calcareous sandy silt. The dense silt
would impede the vertical flow of water
from the shallow sands to the deeper
limestone, resulting in a lower potential
for limestone dissolution and sinkhole
development.
Groundwater quality data for aquifers
beneath the reservoir site, specifically
for total dissolved solids (TDS),
chloride, and hardness were also
reviewed. Data from the SWFWMD
and Florida Geologic Society indicated
that, in the intermediate aquifer, TDS
ranged from about 250 parts per million
(ppm) to 500 ppm, and chloride was less
than 25 ppm. There was no data
available for hardness. In the Floridan
aquifer, TDS also ranged from 250 ppm
to 500 ppm but chloride was
approximately 20 ppm. In this case,
hardness ranged from about 120 to 180
ppm.
3.6.2 Surface Water
Quantity. The proposed
regional reservoir and
pipeline are located in the
Alafia River basin. The
major surface water
components in the overall
study area include the Alafia
and Hillsborough rivers,
Tampa Bypass Canal, and
Tampa Bay. These surface
water components are
described in the following
sections.
3.6.2.1 Alafia River. The Alafia River
drains approximately 420 square miles
(mi2) of Hillsborough and western Polk
counties (Figure 3-4). The North and the
South Prong tributaries form the
headwaters of the river and converge in
eastern Hillsborough County to form the
Alafia River. The river meanders
generally westward and empties into the
southeastern portion of Hillsborough
Bay.
As described in Section 3.2, the tributary
streams contributing to the Alafia River
are rather narrow, swift-flowing streams
with deep-cut banks and comparatively
few large swamps. Only Alafia Creek,
3-11
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
tributary to the South Prong, is an
exception, draining a large wetland
slough named Hooker's Prairie. The
lower Alafia River drops sharply in
elevation near Bell Shoals Road, and
then meanders in a narrow, deeply
incised channel downstream to U.S. 301.
From U.S. 301 to U.S. 41, the river
widens with little change in depth
(Giovanelli 1981).
The mouth of the Alafia River has been
extensively modified by dredge and fill
activities. A deep-water channel was
dredged from the main ship channel in
Tampa Bay, through uplands north of
the river mouth to the river upstream of
the mouth. This channel provided
shipping access to a fertilizer-processing
plant. The original river mouth was
partially filled with the excavated
material effectively changing its
location. Over the years, sediment from
an upstream spoil area has accumulated
in the historic river mouth, reducing it to
a small tidal creek with little or no
connection to the current river (Stoker et
al. 1996).
The lower watershed, from Turkey
Creek to Hillsborough Bay, is dominated
by agricultural and urban land uses.
South of the river, the four tributaries
(Bell, Fishhawk, Little Fishhawk, and
Rice creeks) drain a predominately
agricultural area. The area to the north
of the river, drained by Buckhorn Creek,
is much more urban, especially around
the cities of Brandon, Valrico, and
Dover (USDI 1990).
Lithia Springs is a second magnitude
spring, with an average flow between 10
and 100 cubic feet per second (cfs). The
spring flows into the Alafia River about
13.8 river miles upstream of U.S.
Highway 41 or about 2 miles upstream
of Bell Shoals road. Buckhorn Spring, a
smaller spring, flows into the river about
6.6 miles upstream of U.S. Highway 41
or about three miles downstream of Bell
Shoals road. Several other small springs
and seeps contribute flow to the Alafia
River. Discharges from the springs
average 49 cfs, ranging from 7 to 84 cfs.
(USGS 1983 in USDI 1990). During the
wet season, the spring contributes less
than 10 percent of the total flow in the
lower Alafia River, but as much as 27
percent in the dry season (USDI 1990).
3.6.2.2 Hillsborough River. The
Hillsborough River flows southwest 54
miles from its source in southeastern
Pasco County to Hillsborough Bay
(Figure 3-5). The headwaters of the
river are near the western edge of the
Green Swamp in Pasco and Polk
counties. From this point the river flows
southwesterly through Hillsborough
County through the cities of Temple
Terrace and Tampa to Hillsborough Bay.
Principal surface drainage tributaries to
the river include the New River, and
Blackwater, Flint, Stout, and Cypress
creeks. The Hillsborough River also
receives an average of 57 cfs of
groundwater discharge from Crystal
Spring, located near the Hillsborough-
Pasco County line (SWFWMD 1992).
The dam for the City of Tampa's
drinking water source reservoir is
located 10 miles upstream from the
mouth of the Hillsborough river.
Discharge at the dam depends on
reservoir inflows, water supply
withdrawals, and losses due to
evaporation and seepage. Freshwater
discharge from the reservoir displaces
3-12
-------
K: \ECO\ACAD\ES*MPVlt_i-4.<)»9 02-12-2001 11:01 CJt
oopynoHT ©2001 BY BUMS AND UCOOMCU. ENOMENNG COMPANY. MC
Alafia River
Drainage Basin Boundary
Little Fishhawk Creek
*
Fishh&vk Creek
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 3-4
TAMPA BAY REGIONAL
RESERVOIR PROJECT DBS
ALAFIA RIVER
DRAINAGE BASIN MAP
-------
Hillsborough River
Reservoir
©
8
*
S
f
Hillsborough
Bay
LEGEND
Sampling Stations
Site
Location
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 3-5
TAMPA BAY REGIONAL
RESERVOIR PROJECT DEIS
HILLSBOROUGH RIVER
AND TAMPA BYPASS CANAL
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
saline water downstream of the dam.
The annual mean discharge at the dam,
as recorded by U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) from 1939 to 1996 is 463 cfs.
The median discharge for this time
period was 152 cfs; annual mean
discharges ranged from less than 100 cfs
to nearly 1,700 cfs. The maximum daily
discharge of 13,500 cfs was recorded in
March 1960 (SWFWMD 1999a). The
USGS data represent the best available
information on the reservoir although the
hydrologic records are described as poor,
with potential error greater than 15
percent (Stoker et al. 1996).
Surface salinity downstream of the dam
is inversely proportional to the amount
of discharge (Water and Air Research,
Inc and SDI Environmental Services
(WAR and SDI) 1995). Discharges of
100 cfs to 250 cfs displace the saline
water wedge downstream of Station 2 or
3 (Figure 3-5). Discharges of 250 cfs to
1.000 cfs displace the saline water
wedge further downstream from Stations
5 to 8, and discharges greater than 1,000
cfs displace the wedge even further,
downstream of Station 9. The extent to
which saltwater is displaced is
determined partially by the tide stage at
the time of measurement. As would be
expected freshwater occurs at one or two
stations further downstream at low tide
than at high tide.
The Hillsborough River downstream of
the dam is a highly modified system that
has been subjected to considerable
shoreline hardening, the filling of
wetlands, sediment deposition, and water
quality determined due to stormwater
runoff. These alterations to the lower
Hillsborough River have been so
extensive that hydrologic functions
associated with floodplain and estuarine
wetlands have been essentially lost
(SWFWMD 1999a).
The lower Hillsborough River extends
approximately 10 miles downstream of
the City of Tampa's dam. The
watershed of this portion of the river is
11,400 acres and is highly urbanized.
Residential and commercial land uses
comprise 93 percent of the river's
watershed below the dam. Storm sewers
drain nearly all of this land, for 114
major stormwater outfalls enter the river
below the dam. For over a century, there
has been extensive filling of fresh and
saltwater wetlands associated with the
lower river so that very few of these
wetlands remain. The shoreline of the
lower river has been highly modified and
approximately 76 percent of the
shoreline is either bulkhead, riprap, or
fill. Natural shorelines comprise only 24
percent of the lower river shoreline and
most are found near the dam. There are
no natural shorelines downstream of the
1-275 bridge. This portion of the river is
tidal and brackish except during
freshwater releases from the reservoir
(SWFWMD 1999a).
The lower river also receives inflow
from Sulphur Springs (located
approximately one mile downstream of
the dam), other natural springs along its
course, urban stormwater, and tidal flow
from Hillsborough Bay. Spring flow at
Sulphur Springs is regulated by a control
structure at the spring boil and by a
structure near the river. The long-term
average discharge for Sulphur Springs is
40 cfs; however a declining trend was
reported in 1996 (Stoker et al \ 996).
Average spring flows in recent years
(through 1995) have been about 31 cfs.
Flow in the lower river ranges from 71
cfs to 2,295 cfs, averaging 614 cfs
3-15
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
mainly due to reservoir releases (WAR
and SDI1995).
The Tampa Bypass Canal also affects
drainage in the lower Hillsborough River
basin (Stoker etal 1996). Prior to
construction of the bypass canal, the
basin drained about 690 mi2. Because of
pumpage from the bypass canal to the
Hillsborough River, the effective
drainage basin area sometimes increases.
Operation of the control structures that
divert water from the Hillsborough River
to the bypass canal during floods also
temporarily alters the effective drainage
area.
3.6.2.3 Tampa Bypass Canal. The
Tampa Bypass Canal was constructed
between 1966 and 1982 for flood control
in the Hillsborough River basin. The
canal system, which was largely
excavated in the channel of the former
Six Mile Creek and Palm River, is
connected to the Hillsborough River
basin by a series of water control
structures used to divert flood waters
away from the Hillsborough River
(Figure 3-5). The purpose of the Tampa
Bypass Canal was to divert Hillsborough
River floodwater to McKay Bay,
bypassing the cities of Temple Terrace
and Tampa. Since 1985, the Tampa
Bypass Canal has also been used to
augment water supplies in the
Hillsborough River reservoir during the
dry season.
The Tampa Bypass Canal extends about
14 miles from Cow House Creek in the
Lower Hillsborough Flood Detention
Area to McKay Bay at the mouth of the
Palm River. Hydrologic conditions in
the canal are affected by surface and
groundwater inflows, direct
precipitation, evapotranspiration, and
direct surface water withdrawals
(SWFWMD 1999b).
The canal is subdivided into three
principal reaches or pools - the upper,
middle and lower pool. The pools are
separated by flood control structures that
consist of multiple vertical lift gates
seated on the crest of an ogee weir. An
array of overflow weirs is located at the
top of each lift gate to control the
upstream pool stage during low and
moderate flows. The Tampa Bypass
Canal bottom width and elevations range
from 400 feet at elevation -21.0 feet msl
near McKay Bay to 200 feet at elevation
16.0 feet msl at Cow House Creek
(SWFWMD 1999b).
Large base flows in the canal have
become a source of water supply for the
City of Tampa. Sometimes, during the
dry season, water can be pumped from
the Tampa Bypass Canal to the
Hillsborough River to augment flow in
the river. Besides carrying flow from
the Lower Hillsborough Flood Detention
Area (LHFDA) and the City of Tampa
reservoir, the Tampa Bypass Canal is the
drainage for approximately 33 mi2.
Land use in the area is generally semi-
rural and residential (SWFWMD
1999b).
3.6.2.4 Tampa Bay. Florida's largest
open water estuary, Tampa Bay is
located on the state's west-central coast.
It has a total area of approximately 398
mi2 and is generally Y-shaped (Figure 3-
6). The bay extends approximately 35
miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico
and is five to 10 miles wide along most
of its length. It is crossed by four major
causeways and has 42 nautical miles of
dredged channels with designed mean
low water depths of 20 to 43 feet.
3-16
-------
\
I
©
Gulf of Mexico
3
ss
i
I
I
Subdivisions of Tampa bay
1-OW Tampa Bay
2 - Hillsborougri Bay
3-MiddleTampa Bay
4-Lower Tampa Bay
5 - Boca Ciaga Bay
8-TefraCelaBay
7-Manatee River
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 3-6
TAMPA BAY REGIONAL
IR PROJECT BS
JVISONS OF
TAMPA BAY
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
The major shipping channel extends
from the mouth of the bay to the upper
reaches of the Middle Tampa Bay
segment where it splits north into the
Old Tampa Bay segment and to the
northeast into the Hillsborough Bay
segment. The average depth of the bay
is approximately 13 feet with a
maximum natural depth of 89 feet in a
small area at the mouth of the bay in
Egmont Channel (Pribble 1999).
Tampa Bay receives runoff from a
tributary watershed of approximately
2,275 mi2, encompassing all or portions
of Pasco, Pinellas, Hillsborough, Polk,
Manatee, and Sarasota counties. The
watershed is composed of major river
systems and smaller sub-basins of
coastal streams. In addition, about five
percent of the watershed is internally
drained and discharges surface flow to
the bay only under extreme high flow or
flood conditions (Zarbock et al. 1995).
Tampa Bay is divided into seven
segments that include Old Tampa Bay,
Hillsborough Bay, Middle Tampa Bay,
Lower Tampa Bay, Manatee River, Boca
Ciega Bay and Terra Ceia Bay (Figure
3-6). Tidal action causes seawater and
freshwater to be exchanged between the
segments and with the Gulf of Mexico.
Lower Tampa Bay tidally exchanges
about 6.5 percent of its total volume
each day, while Middle Tampa Bay and
Old1 Tampa Bay both exchange about 4.6
percent of their total volume.
Hillsborough Bay has the least tidal
exchange of any of the major segments,
with approximately 1.4 percent of its
total volume exchanged daily (Pribble
1999; Goodwin 1987 in Zarbock et. al.
1995).
Freshwater inflow to Tampa Bay total
about 525 billion gallons on an annual
basis with the four major rivers
contributing about 70 to 85 percent. The
Hillsborough and Alafia rivers, two of
the four major rivers, contribute
approximately 44 percent of the total
inflow to Tampa Bay through the
Hillsborough Bay segment (Pribble
1999).
Tampa Bay is generally vertically well
mixed. Freshwater inflows result in
horizontal salinity gradients important in
the circulation and flushing of the bay,
especially along the eastern shore.
Northern portions of the bay are
generally more influenced by the
surrounding watershed and its freshwater
inflow. Salinity is higher in areas that
interact strongly with the Gulf of Mexico
and lower in regions affected by
freshwater inflow and regions farthest
from the Gulf. Surface salinity's are
generally 1 to 2 parts per thousand (ppt)
less than those near the bottom.
Variability occurs between years of 6 to
10 ppt at the surface and 5 to 6 ppt near
the bottom (Zarbock 1995; Pribble
1999).
3.6.3 Surface Water Quality. Surface
waters within the Tampa Bay watershed
continue to be threatened by excessive
nutrient loading. Population pressures
present the biggest challenge to nutrient
management. The vast amount of
developed land in the Tampa Bay
region, with associated increases in
impervious surfaces and reduction of
terrestrial vegetation has fundamentally
redirected nutrient assimilation to
aquatic systems (Hillsborough County
1997).
3-18
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
3.6.3.1 Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir Project. A preliminary
characterization of the expected
reservoir water quality based on an
assessment of inflows, reservoir storage,
and outflows was prepared. The quality
of the water diverted from the Alafia and
Hillsborough rivers and the Tampa
Bypass Canal depends on season, flow
regime, and other climatic factors.
Withdrawals from any or all of these
sources may be diverted to the reservoir
during moderate and high flow periods.
Chlorophyll-a and blue-green algae
levels are predicted to be higher than
found in many natural lakes and rivers
(Coastal Environmental and PBS&J
1998).
To predict reservoir water quality and
trophic status, nutrient loading,
transparency, hydrology, and
eutrophication was modeled. Normal
pool, high pool, and low pool scenarios
were investigated. The reservoir was
assumed to be well-mixed and global
variables of annual precipitation,
evaporation, and atmospheric loading of
total nitrogen and total phosphorus were
used. The modeling results indicated
that nitrogen is the limiting nutrient and
that the water quality in the reservoir is
expected to have high concentrations of
phosphorus and chlorophyll a.
Predictive response modeling generally
showed that the reservoir should have
water with a quality comparative to other
reservoirs and lakes in the area (HDR
1999). As a result, the in-lake water
quality treatment should be similar to
other facilities in the area. Treatment
with chemicals, such as copper sulfate,
or other means to control primary
productivity in the reservoir will likely
be required. Although contaminant
levels are not expected to be excessive in
reservoir water, periodic testing to
monitor the potential buildup of metals,
pesticides or other contaminants in
reservoir sediments should be
maintained (Coastal Environmental and
PBS&J 1998).
3.6.3.2 Alafia River. Water quality
conditions in the Alafia River were at
their worst during the 1950's and
1960's; however, improved water
quality has resulted due to the
implementation of pollution abatement
practices applied in the 1970's and
1980's. Even so, concentrations of
several constituents such as phosphorus
and nitrogen, fluoride, dissolved solids,
sulfate and coliform bacteria remain
high (FDER 1988 from SWFWMD
1992; Jones & Upchurch 1993).
Water quality has consistently been
adversely affected in the North Prong
due to the high density of phosphate
mines and chemical processing plants.
Water quality has typically been best in
the South Prong tributary, and is of
intermediate quality in the main stem
downstream of the confluence of the two
tributaries (SWFWMD 1992). The only
domestic point sources of pollution are
the city of Mulberry on the North Prong
and Cargill, Inc. near the mouth of the
river (USDI 1990).
Buckhorn and Lithia Springs historically
discharge nitrate-rich water into the
Alafia River. The total amount of nitrate
contributed annually is approximately 22
percent of the total nitrogen the Alafia
River contributes to Tampa Bay (Jones
& Upchurch, 1993).
In the Alafia River main stem, water
quality is better than in the North Prong,
but is still degraded and shows the
3-19
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
influence of phosphate mining and
agricultural land use in the upper
watershed (HCEPC 1984 in USDI
1990). Phosphorus, total nitrogen,
nitrate and coliform levels are high in
the middle and upper reaches and
decrease downstream toward Tampa
Bay. Ammonia and organic nitrogen
show the opposite pattern moving
toward the bay. This increase in
ammonia and organic nitrogen is most
likely a result of the Cargill point-source
discharge near U.S. 41 (USDI 1990).
While certain chemical and biological
parameters have improved near
Hillsborough Bay, water quality is still
degraded as evident in the area's algal
blooms and fish kills (FDEP 1982 in
USDI 1990). These problems are
influenced by tidal changes, the
saltwater-to-fresh water interface, the
industrial point source near U.S. 41. and
the inflow of relatively poor quality
water from the basin (Giovanelli 1981;
FDEP 1982, HCEPC 1982, 1984 in
USDI 1990).
The Alafia River is tidal upstream to
about Bell Shoals Road. An oscillating
saline wedge (saltwater interface) results
in degraded conditions similar to those
described for the Hillsborough River
below the City of Tampa's dam. Under
conditions of high flow and high tide,
salinities may range from less than 1 ppt
on the surface to more than 20 ppt near
the bottom. Dissolved oxygen levels
near the mouth are vertically stratified
(top to bottom) because of the saltwater
interface and the high algal productivity
at the surface (USDI 1990).
The importance of maintaining
streamflows in the Alafia River and
Hillsborough Bay was crucial for proper
environmental balance even though the
need for drinking water was increasing
at a rapid rate (Giovanelli 1981).
Salinity is critical to the distribution and
maintenance of many estuarine
organisms and modifications to riverine
systems may cause changes in salinity
distributions. Saltwater intrusion and
changes in salinity distribution of the
Alafia River, Bullfrog Creek, and
Hillsborough Bay was recognized as a
possible result of reduced freshwater
inflow.
The Alafia River has the greatest
concentration of total phosphorus and
delivers more phosphorus to Tampa Bay
than any of the other rivers (Lewis and
Estevez 1988). Data on discharges from
permitted point sources showed that
waste discharges to the Alafia River
render it the greatest source of
phosphorus and fluoride to Tampa Bay.
3.6.3.3 Hiilsborough River. Water
quality in the Hillsborough River basin
is affected by residential, agricultural,
and industrial land uses. Phosphate
mining has not been a major land use.
The quality of the water entering the
tidal portion of the Hillsborough River at
the City of Tampa's dam is most likely
affected by storage in the upstream
reservoir (Stoker et al. 1996). The
effects of storage on water quality
typically include a reduction in
suspended sediments and a decrease in
the constituents associated with the
suspended sediments.
Water flowing from Sulphur Springs
contains sodium-chloride. The primary
source of water to the spring is probably
the deep zones of the Upper Floridan
aquifer. An interconnection of the
spring with nearby sinkholes that are
3-20
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
used as stormwater detention areas
sometimes results in stormwater runoff
mixing with spring flows (Stewart and
Mills 1984 in Stoker et al 1996).
It was found that the water quality
characteristics of the Hillsborough River
differed from Sulphur Springs.
Concentrations of total and dissolved
phosphorus, orthophosphorus, ammonia
nitrogen, and organic carbon are less in
Sulphur Springs than in the Hillsborough
River. Concentrations of nitrate, nitrite,
and silica were greater in the spring than
in the river.
Water quality characteristics at the
mouth of the Hillsborough River are
affected by water quality characteristics
of Hillsborough Bay (Stoker el al 1996).
Suspended solids, specific conductance,
ammonia nitrogen, phosphorus, and
chloride were greater at the mouth of the
bay than further upstream in the nontidal
portion of the Hillsborough River or at
Sulphur Springs. Concentrations of total
nitrate plus nitrite, total organic carbon,
and dissolved silica at the mouth of the
river are inversely related to specific
conductance which indicates that
concentrations of these constituents are
higher in the Hillsborough River than in
Hillsborough Bay. Phosphorus is not
related to specific conductance at the
mouth of the Hillsborough River.
Although it is highly modified, the lower
Hillsborough River contains valuable
freshwater and estuarine communities.
Salinity and dissolved oxygen (DO) are
critical water quality variables affecting
the abundance and distributions of
organisms in the lower Hillsborough
River. Studies by SWFWMD (1999a)
indicate that the salinity regime of the
lower Hillsborough River is very
responsive to freshwater inflow.
Results from the current hydrobiological
monitoring program show that mean
surface salinities in the lower
Hillsborough River ranged from 3.9 ppt
one-half mile below the dam to 15.7 ppt
at the mouth. Salinity in the lower river
was highly variable. Releases from the
City of Tampa's reservoir resulted in a
freshwater zone below the dam. Surface
DO values generally increased
progressively downstream. Low surface
DO concentrations were found at
Stations 3 and 5 during periods of no
discharge from the dam (Figure 3-5).
Surface DO concentrations at Stations 2,
3, 5 and 6 were positively correlated
with discharge from the dam. Depletion
of DO with depth was common in the
lower river and there were frequent
occurrences of low oxygen in bottom
waters. At stations nearest the dam, DO
bottom concentrations were closely
related to the rate of freshwater inflows
(WARandSDI 1995).
3.6.3.4 Tampa Bypass Canal. Water
quality monitoring results show that
mean values for DO, conductivity, and
pH were generally high in the Tampa
Bypass Canal (WAR and SDI 1995). As
with many physical parameters, surface
means for biological oxygen demand
(BOD), ammonia, total Kjeldahl
nitrogen (TKN), turbidity, and
chlorophyll-a were high in the Tampa
Bypass Canal. Conditions with no
oxygen frequently exist in bottom waters
downstream of the Tampa Bypass Canal
control Structure 160 during the summer
and fall during warm water conditions
(Figure 3-5).
3-21
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
The Tampa Bypass Canal below
Structure 160 has high salinity values.
Bottom salinities just below Structure-
160 averaged 24.6 ppt with a minimum
value of 20.0 ppt. Surface salinity's at
this station averaged 19.6 ppt with a
minimum of 12.5 ppt.
3.6.3.5 Tampa Bay. Tampa Bay water
quality is important to both the ecology
and economy of the study area. Water
quality influences the types of plants and
animals that can live and reproduce in
the bay, their abundance, and where and
when they can be found. Many
commercial and recreational fishes are
dependent on the quality of the bay's
water for survival, which can impact the
local economy.
Long term and recent water quality data
were examined to assess conditions in
Tampa Bay. Physical parameters and
water clarity parameters, DO
concentration and nutrient
concentrations (total phosphorus and
total nitrogen), and phytoplankton
^jromass as estimated by chlorophyll-a
were reviewed as water quality
indicators of Tampa Bay (Squires and
Cardinale 1999). Since 1974, water
quality in Tampa Bay has increased near
the Gulf of Mexico verse inner areas of
the Bay. Hillsborough Bay typically has
the poorest water quality since it
receives the highest nutrient loads and
has the greatest amount of upstream
industrial activity relative to the other
Tampa Bay segments.
The low water quality conditions
occurred in the bay between 1974 and
1997, during the late 1970's and early
1980's. Improvements in water quality
are mostly attributed to decreased point
source loadings from wastewater
treatment plants, and in particular, the
conversion of the City of Tampa's
Hookers Point wastewater treatment
plant from primary to advanced
treatment. A sharp decrease in total
phosphorus concentrations from 1978 to
1982 represents the general slow-down
in upstream mining and fertilizer
production activity. Recent trends in
nutrient concentrations and water clarity
indicate that the large improvements in
the water quality of Tampa Bay realized
in the early 1980's have been maintained
through the 1990's.
The Hillsborough County Environmental
Protection Commission (HCEPC) has
conducted estuarine sampling in Tampa
Bay since 1972. A countywide surface
water quality surveillance network has
been designed and implemented to
determine whether the level of water
pollution is increasing or decreasing
throughout the county and Tampa Bay.
The most recent summary of the water
quality monitoring program covers the
years from 1995 to 1997, and includes
data from 52 bay stations and 40
tributary stations (Hillsborough County,
1997).
The HCEPC developed a water quality
index (WQI) that can be used to
compare water quality in Tampa Bay
from year to year. The index is an
aggregate value of several parameters
including DO, chlorophyll a, total
coliform, BOD, total phosphorus, TKN,
and effective light penetration. For each
parameter, a "bad-to-good" scale has
been devised. The final WQI is in the
range of 1 -100 points with 100 points
representing the highest water quality
possible.
3-22
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Bay segments exhibit similar water
quality patterns indicating that year to
year WQI values are sensitive to
regional environmental factors such as
rainfall (Figure 3-7). The greatest range
and variability occur in Hillsborough
Bay while lower Tampa Bay has been
the most consistent. Although
Hillsborough Bay has the poorest water
quality of other major bay segments, it
consistently improved through 1993,
declined in 1994 and 1995, and returned
to former levels consistent with the
values derived in the early 1990's. WQI
values for old Tampa Bay and middle
Tampa Bay segments are similar, with
middle Tampa Bay's WQIs about five
points higher than old Tampa Bay. Old
Tampa Bay and lower Tampa Bay have
each registered an approximate ten-point
increase and middle Tampa Bay has
registered a fifteen-point increase during
the period of record. Lower Tampa Bay
has been in the good to excellent
category throughout the period of record
(Hillsborough County 1997).
Nutrient loading has been a water quality
issue in Tampa Bay. High nutrient loads
have resulted in algae growth and
degradation of water quality. Industrial
runoff, urban stormwater and high
nutrient inflows from the Alafia River
have contributed to nutrient loading in
the Bay.
The relationship between freshwater
inflow and salinity is a characteristic of
the Tampa Bay ecosystem (Lewis and
Estevez 1988). Sixty years of marine
research (up to 1988) have shown that
low-salinity estuarine water, combined
with the physical protection and energy
sources supplied by marine plants,
constitutes the nursery habitat for most
of the commercially and recreationally
important fish and shellfish species in
the Gulf of Mexico. It was noted that
flows for all the tributaries to Tampa
Bay need to be established based on
biological studies as well as the water
quality of these systems, with particular
emphasis placed on salinity patterns in
tidal areas.
The mixing of the Gulf of Mexico water
with freshwater inflows, whether
directly as precipitation or as runoff via
the rivers and streams, produces a
salinity gradient in Tampa Bay. The
gradient is both vertically and
horizontally distributed and changes
seasonally with variation in rainfall. The
salinity gradient is used by a variety of
aquatic life from microscopic plankton
to large adult fish. Variation in salinity
can trigger breeding behavior or
migration of some fishes. Juveniles of a
species will often occupy a habitat that is
very different from the habitat and
salinity utilized by the adults of the
species. Man-made structures and
activities, such as dams and freshwater
withdrawal, can mask or alter the natural
salinity cycles (Hillsborough County
1997).
3.7 MINIMUM FLOWS AND
LEVELS
In 1996, amendments by the Florida
Legislature to Section 373.042 Florida
Statutes required SWFWMD to adopt
minimum flows and levels in
Hillsborough, Pasco, and Pinellas
counties for priority waters that are
experiencing or may be expected to
experience adverse impacts. (SWFWMD
1999a).
Section 373.043 Florida Statues defines
the minimum flow for a surface
watercourse as ""the limit at which
further -withdrawals would be
3-23
-------
K:\JCCO\*CAD\£SMCPVlB-i-7.d»9 02-12-2001 11:09 CJW
COPWKHT ©2001 BY BURNS AND UcOONNEU. ENGKERMG COVANY. NC.
100
90
I 80
£70
60
50
Excellent
1981
1985
Hills -- Low
1989
Mid
1993
Old
1997
Figure 3-7
TAMPA BAY REGIONAL
RESERVOIR PROJECT DS
WATER QUALITY INDEX (WQi)
ANNUAL AVERAGES
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
significantly harmful to water resources
or ecology of the arear. In addition, the
definition of the minimum level of an
aquifer or surface water body is "the
level ofgroundwater in an aquifer and
the level of surface water at which
further withdrawals would be
significantly harmful to the water
resources of the area" (SWFWMD
1999a).
The following paragraphs describe the
existing status of efforts to establish
minimum flows and levels for the Alafia
and Hillsborough rivers and Tampa
Bypass Canal.
3.7.1 Alafia River. The process of
developing minimum flows and levels
for the Alafia River is being conducted.
A minimum flow will be adopted for the
River with the objective of maintaining
the quality of the river. Minimum flows
and levels will likely be established by
the end of 2001.
3.7.2 Hillsborough River. The process
to develop minimum flows and levels for
the Hillsborough River by SWFWMD
was conducted as an open public
process. Interested parties were invited
to participate in developing scientific
methods for determining the limit at
which significant harm would occur to
the resource. The Tampa Bay National
Estuary Program facilitated a technical
advisory group representing various
interests. The advisory group was
commissioned to make
recommendations to SWFWMD staff for
identifying and evaluating water
resources and ecological criteria
necessary to establish minimum flows
and levels. At the completion of this
process, SWFWMD finalized the
methodologies and minimum levels and
flows for the Hillsborough River and
obtained approval for implementation by
the SWFWMD Governing Board on
February 23, 1999.
A minimum flow of 10 cfs has been
adopted for the lower Hillsborough
River with the objective of maintaining
an oligohaline and/or freshwater zone
from the City of Tampa's dam
downstream to the point where Sulfur
Springs discharges to the river. After
approval of its proposed rule to establish
a minimum flow for the lower
Hillsborough River, SWFWMD received
petitions requesting an independent
scientific peer review from the HCEPC,
Tampa Bay Water and the City of
Tampa. As a result, a scientific review-
panel made of members with experience
in marine science, oceanography, civil
engineering, and fisheries ecology was
established. The review panel issued a
final report for the lower Hillsborough
River on October 28, 1999. The peer
review panel recommended the use of
the 10-cfs minimum flow but only as an
experiment under an adaptive
management approach. The panel also
recommended that detailed monitoring
and assessment of biological systems be
conducted concurrently.
Because the existing database for the
river during low flows is limited,
SWFWMD and the City of Tampa
agreed to conduct a study to re-evaluate
the minimum flow for the lower
Hillsborough River once the ruling was
implemented. The study is to be
completed by December 31, 2005 unless
the city and SWFWMD agree to an
extension. If the study demonstrates the
need for revisions to the minimum flow,
SWFWMD shall revise the minimum
flow ruling (SWFWMD 1999a).
3-25
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
3.7.3 Tampa Bypass Canal. In 1998,
SWFWMD proposed a minimum flow
of zero discharge for the Tampa Bypass
Canal. An independent peer review
panel of recognized experts was
established to review scientific and
technical data and methodologies used in
the development of the proposed
minimum flow. The proposed flow of
zero discharge was found deficient by
the Northern Tampa Bay Minimum
Flows and Levels Scientific Peer Review
Panel in 1999, resulting in a renewed
look at minimum flows for the Tampa
Bypass Canal. The panel recommended
that additional data be collected to
improve resolution, especially in the
critical zero flow range, and a
mechanistic model be developed to
evaluate and predict the effects of
various minimum flow strategies on the
Palm River/McKay Bay system. A final
ruling on the minimum flows and levels
for the Tampa Bypass Canal is expected
by July of 2001.
3.8 UPLAND VEGETATION
In the Alafia River basin, and more
specifically the Fishhawk Creek sub-
basin, the primary ecosystem type is
mesic flatwoods or pine flatwoods,
interspersed with isolated hammocks,
marshes, wet prairies and scrub. These
flatwoods are typified by low, relatively
flat, moderately to poorly drained,
acidic, sandy soils with overlying
organic hardpan with open canopy pine
forests, which support frequent fires.
This combination of sandy soils and
frequent fires has led to a vegetation
community that is adapted to xeric (i.e.,
dry) and frequently burned conditions
(Myers and Dwell 1991).
Prior to settlement, the flatwoods'
vegetation was dominated by an
overstory of longleaf pine, slash pine,
and pond pine. The understory shrub
layer included saw palmetto, gallberry,
fetterbush, staggerbush, dwarf
huckleberry, wax myrtle, dwarf live oak,
and tarflower. Typically, the herbaceous
layer only existed where there was a
relatively open canopy. Grasses were
the primary herbaceous ground cover
with wiregrass as the dominant cover
(Myers and Dwell 1991).
Despite being the most widespread
biological community in Florida, very
few undisturbed flatwoods still exist
because of the influx of humans and
their activities. Flatwoods have
historically been used for lumber,
livestock grazing and other forms of
agriculture. Houses, fences and other
structures associated with settlement
have drastically reduced the number of
naturally occurring fires, which help
maintain these communities.
Currently, the vast majority of upland
habitats in the project area are mixed
coniferous/hardwood forests. The
coniferous components of this
community are dominated by slash pine.
longleaf pine and, to a lesser degree,
sand pine. Representative hardwood
components include a variety of oak
species including live oak, sand live oak,
water oak. laurel oak, and turkey oak.
Other hardwood species include
sweetgum, and various hickories. Some
areas in the western extent of the project
area are classified as upland hardwood
forests, with representative species
similar to those hardwoods listed above
without the coniferous component.
Shrub and brushland, rangeland, and
pine flatwoods comprise the second
most dominant cover types found in the
project vicinity. Pine flatwoods are low-
3-26
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
lying communities, which support pine
as the dominant overstory species.
Common pines include slash pine and
longleaf pine. Common ground cover
and understory species include saw
palmetto, wax myrtle, gallberry,
wiregrass, and a large variety of herbs
and brush. Brushland and rangeland
support similar understory and
groundcover species to the pine
flatwoods, but lack any pine overstory.
Rangeland includes a mixture of these
native plants with grasslands and is
frequently used to graze cattle.
Cropland and pasture are located
throughout the study area. Common
crops include tomatoes, strawberries,
and a variety of melons. Pasture is often
"improved" through the planting of
bahia grass.
3.8.1 Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
Project. Upland habitats within the
proposed reservoir footprint are
dominated by improved pasture and are
actively used for cattle grazing and sod
production. The southern third of the
site consists of phosphate mined land,
which was subsequently reclaimed. The
native soils have been removed in this
area and natural upland communities do
not exist.
Located just outside of the northwest
corner of the reservoir footprint is an
area of scrubby flatwoods. This
community is dotted with xeric oaks,
scattered long leaf pine and turkey oak,
suggesting a sandhill community. Due
to an abundance of wiregrass and
palmetto and lesser amounts of the pine
and turkey oak, however, this
community is characterized as a scrubby
flatwood. Hillsborough County has
designated this area as significant upland
habitat.
Pipeline and Access Roads. The
proposed pipeline corridor from the
Alafia River generally follows Boyette
Road. The dominant upland
communities along the corridor include
mixed coniferous hardwood forest and
improved pasture with minor areas of
pine forest and pine flatwoods. The
mixed coniferous and hardwood forests
are dominated by xeric and mesic
hammock composed largely of laurel
oak, live oak, and sand live oak, with
scattered slash and long-leaf pine.
3.8.2 Alafia River, Hillsborough
River, Tampa Bypass Canal and
Tampa Bay. Land use in the Alafia
River and Hillsborough watersheds,
which includes the Tampa Bypass Canal,
is primarily agriculture (improved
pasture, citrus, fishponds), rangeland
(unimproved pasture), wetlands and
barren land. Barren land, a byproduct of
phosphate mining and processing,
dominates the landscape drained by the
North and South Prongs, major
.tributaries in the Alafia River watershed
(USDI 1990).
Upland forest communities included
coniferous forest, pine flatwoods,
hardwoods, and mixed
conifer/hardwoods. Mixed
conifer/hardwood areas represent most
of the upland forest communities. These
upland forests are distributed throughout
the study area, and are often associated
with drainage features or make up large
blocks of land surrounded by residential
land uses.
At the mouth of the Alafia River, there is
a berm derived from dredging. This
3-27
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
basin resulting from the berm has
become vegetated by upland woody
species such as live oak, laurel oak,
water oak, red maple, sweet gum, pignut
hickory, cabbage palm, and occasional
southern magnolia. Where conifers are
mixed, slash pine and southern red cedar
are the dominant trees (HDR 1998).
3.9 WETLANDS
Wetlands are important natural
communities protected by the Clean
Water Act and provide the following
important functions:
contain vegetation that filters
sediment and impurities from surface
runoff to improve water quality
increase flood water retention and
erosion control
provide recreational opportunities
like bird watching, canoeing, and
fishing
provide important habitat for many
rare and endangered plants and
animals
are important fish spawning and
nursery areas, as well as nesting,
resting, and feeding areas for
waterfowl and mammals
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
regulates discharges of fill or dredged
material, unless exempted, into "waters
of the United States," which include
jurisdictional wetlands and other aquatic
habitats. Jurisdictional wetlands are
defined for regulatory purposes in the
Clean Water Act, and the EPA uses this
definition and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) to administer the
Section 404 permit program:
Wetlands are those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or
groundwater at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence
of vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions (Environmental
Laboratory, 1987). Wetlands generally
include swamps, bogs, and similar areas
(40 CFR 230.3 and 33 CFR 328.3).
This definition recognizes and
emphasizes the fact that wetlands
possess three essential characteristics:
hydric soils, prevalence of hydrophytic
vegetation, and wetland hydrology.
These three characteristics are the
mandatory technical criteria required for
wetland determination. Areas must meet
all three of these criteria before being
designated as jurisdictional wetlands.
Wetlands are frequently located between
open water and upland systems. They
are inundated or saturated for prolonged
periods during the growing season. The
majority of the project area consists of
upland, or non-wetland, communities.
Because of the existing topography,
soils, and climate, only a few wetlands
are present in the project area.
Wetlands may be classified within three
broad categories based upon dominant
vegetation species. Forested wetlands
are characterized by woody vegetation
that is 6.0 meters tall or taller (Cowardin
etal. 1979). Forested wetlands within
the project support a wide variety of
species.
Scrub/shrub wetlands are dominated by
woody vegetation less than 6.0 meters
tall. Dominant species include true
shrubs, young trees, and trees or shrubs
that are small or stunted because of
environmental conditions. Scrub/shrub
wetlands may represent a successional
stage leading to forested wetland, or they
3-28
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
may be stable communities. Typical
species in the project area include
willows and wax myrtle.
Emergent wetlands are characterized by
erect, rooted, herbaceous plants adapted
to wet soil conditions. These wetlands
appear as fringe wetlands or develop
along and/or within drainage ditches.
These areas are typically dominated by
soft rush within the project area.
Based on mapping compiled by
SWFWMD, the vast majority of wetland
resources in the study area include
river/lake swamp and freshwater marsh.
River/lake swamp is largely associated
with the riverine systems of Long Flat
Creek, Doe Branch, Chito Branch, and
Fishhawk Creek. These hardwood
forests support a wide variety of species
including oaks, black gum, cypress,
American elm, hickory, red bay and
sweet bay. Canopies are typically dense
while shrub layers vary from dense
thickets to relatively open conditions.
Isolated basins formed over paleo-karst
features typically represent freshwater
marsh wetlands. Many of these systems
are surrounded by improved pasture and
have undergone some degree of drainage
resulting from the construction of
shallow agricultural swales. Common
species include maidencane,
pickerelweed. smartweed, and soft rush.
Cypress domes and isolated cypress
swamps are concentrated west of the
proposed reservoir site and are
uncommon in the immediate study area.
3.9.1 Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
Project. Wetland communities found
within the footprint of the proposed
reservoir can be segregated into five
major types: (1) basin marsh, (2) cypress
swamp, (3) open water, (4) scrub
shrub/mixed forest swamp, and (5)
drainage ways. The drainage ways are
dominated by soft rush and are classified
as herbaceous wetlands.
Most basin marshes have undergone
some degree of hydrologic alteration as a
result of the excavation of shallow
ditches and cattle ponds through or
within the wetland. These features
reduce surface water elevations and
hydroperiods. Vegetation in deeper
zones of these marshes typically consists
of maidencane, pickerelweed, soft rush,
and a variety of less dominant herbs.
Landward zones of these systems are
flooded less frequently and support red
carpetgrass, large-flowered false
pimpernel, and coinwort.
Cypress swamp is represented by only
one system, located in the northeastern
section of the proposed reservoir site.
This small, two lobed strand is
dominated by bald cypress, with a
subcanopy supporting dahoon holly.
laurel oak and cabbage palm. The
northern lobe supports an interior marsh
with seasonal to semi-permanent water.
This is a high quality system, although
the surrounding land use of improved
pasture has removed or significantly
altered any historic wet prairie fringe.
Open water in the reservoir footprint is
found in two situations; the first as lakes
within the reclaimed mine land to the
south and, second, as excavated cattle
ponds within isolated basin marshes.
Drainage in the form of shallow swales
is found in the reclaimed mine land as
well as in pasturelands. In reclaimed
areas, these drainage ditches are most
always vegetated by soft rush and
smartweed. Ditches within pasture are
vegetated by a mixture of soft rush, and
big carpetgrass.
3-29
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Scrub shrub/mixed forest swamp areas
are dominated by primrose willow,
Carolina willow, red maple, and wax
myrtle. These systems, left after mine
reclamation activities were completed,
are generally linear and parallel with
steep transition zones to the adjacent
upland.
Pipeline and Access Roads. Wetlands
along the proposed pipeline route are
limited to bottomland hardwood forest
associated with Long Flat Creek, and
small areas of wet pasture. Within Long
Flat Creek, dominant species include
cypress, sweet gum, red maple, laurel
oak, Carolina ash, black gum, and
cabbage palm. However, the remaining
pipeline length will follow the rights-of-
way of the existing Boyette road.
3.9.2 Alafia River. The Alafia River
has both a palustrine and an estuarine
component, and both of these
components support different wetland
habitat types.
The predominant palustrine wetland
community is classified as river/lake
swamp. Forested wetlands are nearly all
associated with drainage features,
especially the Alafia River, Bell Creek,
and Buckhorn Creek. Representative
tree species include red maple, popash.
American elm, hackberry, cypress, water
locust, black gum, sweetgum, Carolina
willow, laurel oak, and slash pine (HDR
1998).
Hydroperiods for these wetlands are
variable and dictated by overland
flooding of river and creek systems,
rainfall, springs, and groundwater
seepage. Rainfall, springs, and seepage
are the primary sources of surface water
for the majority of wetlands in the study
area. Due to the deep entrenchment of
much of the Alafia River channel in non-
tidal and tidal/freshwater areas, overland
flooding of contiguous and nearby
wetlands occurs infrequently.
Estuarine areas contain seawater that has
been significantly diluted with
freshwater inflow from land. Because
these areas are a freshwater-saltwater
interface, water concentrations can vary
depending on tides, amount of rainfall
and other conditions that affect the
quantity of freshwater runoff into
riverine systems. Typically, the
estuarine system is considered to extend
upstream to where salinity of the water
measures less than 0.5 parts per
thousand (ppt).
The most abundant estuarine wetland
communities are saltwater marsh and
mangrove swamps. Black needle rush
and saltmarsh cordgrass dominate the
saltwater marsh communities. The
saltwater marsh communities are
common in protected backwater areas
and along the Alafia River. These
communities function as nursery
grounds for a variety of finfish and are
some of the most important and
productive zones of the Alafia River
estuary. There are also areas of
mangrove swamp in the study area.
Black mangrove and red mangrove are
the dominant tree species (HDR 1998).
As salinity in the river decreases moving
upstream, saltmarsh communities are
replaced by species that favor freshwater
such as cattail and leather fern. Since
seawalls and residential development
throughout the lower reaches of the
Alafia River system have replaced much
of the natural shorelines, these species
3-30
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
are uncommon and occur sporadically
on narrow shorelines and mud flats.
3.9.3 Hillsborough River and Tampa
Bypass Canal. Both the lower
Hillsborough River and the Tampa
Bypass Canal (below Structure S-160)
are highly modified systems. Most of
the wetlands associated with the
shoreline of the lower Hillsborough
River have been filled and sections of
the shoreline have been hardened by
seawalls, rip-rap or other material.
Bulkheads, or walls, are the most
prevalent shoreline types along the
Hillsborough River (WAR and SDI,
1995) with little shoreline with natural
cover. The morphology of the original
stream that was excavated to create the
Tampa Bypass Canal has been
drastically changed. Because of this,
very little natural shoreline exists.
3.9.4 Tampa Bay. Tampa Bay,
classified as a subtropical estuary, has a
rich mosaic offish and wildlife habitats.
The bay consists of open water and
vegetated intertidal zones.
Approximately ninety-three percent of
Tampa Bay is open water and seven
percent is vegetated intertidal area with
mixtures of mangrove and tidal marsh
vegetation (Lewis and Estevez 1988).
The three broad classes of emergent
saltwater wetlands that are generally
recognized are:
mangrove forests
tidal marshes
salt barren/high marshes
Mangrove Forests and Tidal Marshes.
The saltwater wetlands include the
mangrove forests and tidal marshes.
They occur primarily along a natural
intertidal shelf, which rims the bay and,
to a lesser extent, along filled intertidal
areas created by urban development.
The saltwater wetlands are typically a
mosaic of mangrove forests composed of
red mangrove, black mangrove, and
white mangrove interspersed with
species of the tidal marshes such as
smooth cordgrass and black needle rush.
Other plant species commonly found in
these wetland areas include leather fern
and the brackish water cattail. Exotic
plants such as Brazilian pepper have
invaded many of the native communities
throughout the bay (Janicki 1995).
Salt Barren/High Marsh. The salt
barren/high marsh habitat, or saltern, is
created when saltwater from the bay
enters sand flats, termed salt barrens, on
extremely high tides. The water collects
and pools in these areas and is
subsequently evaporated by the sun and
wind. The residual salt content within
the sediments of these salt flats often
exceeds 100 ppt. These areas provide
habitat for a unique community of salt
tolerant plants that typically include sea
purslane, glasswort, saltwort, sea oxeye
daisy, and sea lavender (Janicki 1995).
3.10 WILDLIFE
The general project area contains a
variety of wildlife habitat types used by
a diverse group of species (Figure 3-8).
A discussion of the various habitats
present and the common species found
in the vicinity of the proposed Tampa
Bay Regional Reservoir, Alafia River,
Hillsborough River, Tampa Bypass
Canal, and Tampa Bay are presented.
3.10.1 Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
Project. Extensive field reviews of
existing habitats within the reservoir site
and related infrastructure alignments
3-31
-------
Agricultural Lands
Rangeland
Upland Coniferous Forests
CD Mixed Upland Forests
I iPlneFlatwoods
i Mixed Coniferous/Hardwood
d] Wetlands
I I Proposed Reservoir
^/Proposed Pipeline
Water Bodies
Source: Southwest Florida Water Management District Land Us* Land Cow 1990
Figure Sourc*: HDR Engln»ef1n
, Inc., EAP Application, September 7,2000
4000
4000 Feet
Figure 3-8
TAMPA BAY REGIONAL RESERVOIR
PROJECT DEIS
WILDLIFE HABITAT
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
have been completed (HDR 2000).
Suitability of habitats for the support of
wildlife, including listed species, as well
as documentation of wildlife utilization,
has been ongoing since 1998. The
following is a summary of expected and
observed onsite conditions.
Wildlife species expected to occur in the
vicinity of the Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir and pipeline are numerous and
varied due to the mosaic of upland and
wetland communities found in the
region. Small mammals that can be
expected include raccoon, armadillo,
opossum, eastern cottontail, gray
squirrel, pocket gopher, cotton mouse,
cotton rat, round-tailed muskrat, gray
fox, skunk, and bobcat. Large mammals
include wild pig and white-tailed deer.
Reptiles utilizing the upland habitats at
the reservoir site include the skinks,
green anole, Cuban brown anole, six-
lined racerunner, and Southern fence
lizard. Upland snakes that can be
expected at the reservoir site include the
black racer, the Eastern diamondback,
dusky pygmy rattlesnake. Eastern
indigo, garter snake. Southern ringneck
snake, yellow rat snake, Florida
kingsnake. and peninsula ribbon snake.
A wide variety of birds can be expected
to use the upland habitats of the
reservoir site including year-round
upland and wetland residents as well as
winter migrants. Some of the more
upland residents include the killdeer,
red-shouldered hawk, red-bellied wood
pecker, downy woodpecker, blue jay,
American crow, mourning dove, ground
dove, burrowing owl, turkey vulture,
black vulture, cattle egret, grey catbird,
mockingbird, cardinal, eastern
meadowlark, boat-tailed grackle,
common grackle. brown-headed cowbird
and common bobwhite.
Winter migrants might include the red-
winged blackbird, robin, American
kestrel, common nighthawk, belted
kingfisher, northern flicker, Eastern
phoebe, great-crested flycatcher, Eastern
kingbird, tree swallow, barn swallow,
purple martin, Carolina wren, brown
thrasher, and palm warbler.
Many species of wading or water birds
use the shallow wetlands for feeding and
some for nesting. In the proposed
reservoir area, these include the heron
and egret guild and contain such birds as
the great egret, great blue heron, snowy
egret, little blue heron, tri-colored heron,
green-backed heron, white ibis, glossy
ibis, wood stork. Other wetland bird
species expected in the herbaceous
wetlands include the least bittern,
limpkin, black rail, Florida mottled duck,
black-crowned night-heron and yellow-
crowned night-heron, and sandhill crane.
Representative upland-bird species
common in and around freshwater
herbaceous wetlands found in the
proposed reservoir area include such
species as the red-shouldered hawk.
Coopers' hawk, red-winged blackbird,
sora rail, tree swallow, barn swallow.
common yellowthroat, boat-tailed
grackle, and cardinal.
Some of the amphibians common to the
freshwater herbaceous wetlands in the
area are the greater siren, dwarf siren,
two-toed amphiuma, southern cricket
frog, little grass frog, Florida chorus
frog, pig frog, southern leopard frog,
bullfrog and green tree frog.
Many of the reptiles common in
freshwater herbaceous wetlands of the
area include the water snakes such as the
cottonmouth moccasin, Florida
watersnake and Eastern mud snake.
3-33
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Upland snakes that utilize wetlands for
food include the eastern diamondback,
dusky pygmy rattlesnake, eastern indigo,
garter snake, Southern ringneck snake,
yellow rat snake, Florida kingsnake, and
peninsula ribbon snake. Alligators are
commonly found within wetlands,
especially those, with a deeper core area,
and play a key role in maintaining some
wetlands throughout the dry season.
Turtles that tend to be found in wetlands,
referred to here as the aquatic-turtle
guild, include such species as the Florida
softshell turtle, Florida chicken turtle,
Florida red-bellied turtle and the
stinkpot.
The Florida box turtle is an upland
species more adapted for terrestrial life
that can often be found in or around
shallower wetlands. The gopher
tortoise, also an upland species, has been
observed in and around the proposed
regional reservoir.
3.10.2 Alafia River. The diverse
habitat around the Alafia River provides
cover and forage for a variety of wildlife
species. Small mammals occurring
along the river include the hispid cotton
rat. rice rats, feral house rats, least
shrew, cotton mice, and black rats.
Other species encountered along the
river include deer, gray squirrel, fox
squirrel, cottontail rabbit, marsh rabbit,
wild hog. raccoon, gray fox, red fox, and
bobcat (Dames & Moore 1975).
Marine mammals occurring in the
vicinity of the lower Alafia River system
include the bottlenose dolphin and the
West Indian manatee. Dolphins can be
found throughout Tampa Bay with the
northern mouth of the bay being most
heavily used (HDR 1998). Based on
data collected by the Florida Marine
Research Institute (FMRJ) from 1987
through 1989, the Alafia River system
provides habitat for bottlenose dolphins
in Tampa Bay but does not appear to be
a critical resource (Weigle et al. 1991).
The West Indian (Florida) manatee can
be found throughout Tampa Bay, with
the highest numbers occurring in the
winter season from December through
February and the lowest numbers in the
summer, between June and October.
A wide variety of bird species frequent
the diverse habitats present around the
Alafia River. Birds reported in the
Alafia River basin include little blue
heron, cattle egret, great egret, bobwhite,
killdeer, and willet. Other common bird
species include common flicker, blue
jay, Carolina wren, tufted titmouse,
brown thrasher, starling, cardinal, and
red-winged blackbird.
Benthic macrdinvetebrates in the Alafia
River include those invertebrate animals
that spend a portion or all of their life
cycle within or on the bottom sediments.
These groups are comprised of both the
primary consumers (herbivores) and
secondary consumers (carnivores) and
play an important role in the ecology of
aquatic systems. Benthic
macroinvetebrates provide a source of
food for a variety of higher animals
including other invertebrates, fish, birds,
and mammals (Coastal Environmental
and PBS&J 1998a; HDR 1998). During
the fall, mollusks were most common
while in the winter and spring
amphipods were dominant. Large
invertebrates collected included blue
crabs, horseshoe crabs, spider crabs,
fiddler crabs, stone crabs and barnacles.
3.10.3 Hillsborough River and Tampa
Bypass Canal. Similar to the Alafia
3-34
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
River, the diverse habitat around the
Hillsborough River and Tampa Bypass
Canal provides cover and forage for a
variety of wildlife species. However,
due to the developed nature of the area
and its heavy recreational use, those
species occurring are more tolerant of
human disturbance and development.
Housing and commercial developments
and human disturbance throughout the
area impact the overall amount of habitat
present, generally limiting the
population size of any particular species.
Additionally, competition within and
between species for the limited resources
of cover and forage likely contributes to
the limited species diversity and
populations occurring in the area.
Small mammals occurring along the
river and canal include the hispid cotton
rat, rice rats, feral house rats, least
shrew, cotton mice, and black rats.
Other species encountered along the
river include deer, gray squirrel, fox
squirrel, cottontail rabbit, marsh rabbit,
wild hog, raccoon, gray fox, red fox, and
bobcat.
A wide variety of bird species frequent
the diverse habitats present around the
Hillsborough River and Tampa Bypass
Canal. Birds reported include little blue
heron, cattle egret, great egret, bobwhite,
killdeer, and willet. Other common bird
species include common flicker, blue
jay, Carolina wren, tufted titmouse,
brown thrasher, starling, cardinal, and
red-winged blackbird.
The estuarine areas are host to over 70
species of overwintering waterbirds.
Birds known to frequent these shallow
ponds and mud flats include wood stork,
bald eagle, least tern, sharp-shinned
hawk, snowy plover, roseate spoonbill,
white ibis, glossy ibis, little blue heron,
tricolored heron, snowy egrets, great
egret, and great blue heron. Migrants
include an array of waterfowl and
shorebirds that forage in the mud and
ponds. Black-necked stilts, mottled
ducks, Wilson's plovers, and green-
backed herons nest within these spoil
areas (HDR 1994).
Benthic macroinvertebrates occurring in
the Hillsborough River and the Tampa
Bypass Canal were reviewed. The most
abundant organisms were polychaetes
and amphipods. Pelecypods
occasionally were dominant in the lower
Hillsborough River and in McKay Bay
(WAR and SDI 1995).
3.10.4 Tampa Bay. Tampa Bay,
classified as a subtropical estuary, has a
rich mosaic of fish and wildlife habitats.
Each of the seven named subunits of the
bay consists of open water and vegetated
intertidal zones. Approximately ninety-
three percent of Tampa Bay is open
water and seven percent is vegetated
intertidal area with mixtures of
mangrove and tidal marsh vegetation
(Lewis and Estevez 1988).
A list of mangrove animals in South
Florida has been compiled (Odum et al
1982). Included in this list were 220
species of fish, 24 species of reptiles and
amphibians, 18 species of mammals and
181 species of birds (divided into
wading birds, probing shore birds,
floating and diving water birds, aerially
searching birds, birds of prey and
arboreal birds). A variety of these
wildlife species uses the habitats found
in Tampa Bay.
A variety of mammals use the habitat
around Tampa Bay including the cotton
3-35
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
mouse, the hispid cotton rat, the round-
tailed muskrat, the house mouse, the
least shrew, and the short-tailed shrew.
The small mammal fauna of the bay are
predominately aboreal and terrestrial
species adapted to periodic flooding.
Opossum, marsh rabbits, cotton rats and
rice rats are common in mangrove
habitat. White-tailed deer also utilize
mangrove habitat as well as many other
upland habitats. A number of medium-
sized and large carnivores, including,
gray fox, bobcat, striped skunk, raccoon,
mink, and river otter, utilize south
Florida mangroves. The striped skunk,
raccoon and bobcat are common in
mangroves, but several of the rarer
species seem to be highly dependent on
mangrove habitat.
The Florida manatee and bottlenose
dolphin can be found in Tampa Bay
during every month of the year. Other
species of dolphins and an occasional
whale are sometimes observed in nearby
Gulf of Mexico waters. They
occasionally strand on Gulf beaches but
are not commonly found within the bay.
Both the American alligator and the
American crocodile are occasionally
found in mangrove swamps of the bay.
The alligator is widespread throughout
the southeastern United States and is
only incidentally found in low salinity
sections of mangrove habitat. The
American crocodile is rare, usually
found in the mangrove-dominated areas
of the upper and lower Florida Keys,
although recorded as far north as Tampa
Bay. Species of toads associated with
mangrove habitat includes the squirrel
treefrog, urban treefrog, the giant marine
toad and possibly in the more freshwater
communities, the narrow-mouthed toad,
the eastern spadefoot toad, the frog, the
green tree frog, and the southern leopard
frog.
There are four species of sea turtles that
inhabit the Tampa Bay estuary,
including the loggerhead sea turtle,
green sea turtle, Kemp's ridley sea turtle,
and occasionally the hawksbill sea turtle
(Ueylanetal. 1999). Under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA)
as amended, the loggerhead sea turtle is
listed as Threatened, and the other
species above are listed as endangered.
Historically, sea turtles were abundant'in
Tampa Bay (Wik 1960), but recent
studies suggest that sea turtles are now
less numerous (Lewis and Estevez
1988). This population decline follows a
worldwide trend as sea turtles have
suffered habitat loss, overharvesting, and
other human-related stresses (pollution,
monofilament entanglement, propeller
wounds, fishhooks, etc.) during the past
century.
The nesting season for sea turtles in the
Tampa Bay area is from May to October.
Tampa Bay beaches have been
monitored for nesting activities since
1982, and nearly all nests laid have been
loggerhead sea turtle nests. There have
been occasional nests by other species,
including a green sea turtle nest
identified at Ft. Desoto in 1994 and a
Kemp's ridley nest on Madeira Beach in
1989(Meylane/fl/. 1994). Nesting
activities occur almost exclusively on
the Gulf facing beaches in the Tampa
Bay area. Nesting inside the Bay
appears to be rare. The most productive
nesting beach in the Tampa Bay area is
Egmont Key, with an average of 35 nests
per year.
The Tampa Bay benthic community is
made up of the organisms living on and
3-36
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
within the bottom sediments and is an
important indicator of changes in the
quality of the surrounding waters and
sediments. An on-going, bay-wide
benthic monitoring program was
initiated in 1993 for Tampa Bay.
Several abiotic (station depth,
temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen,
and percent silt clay) and biotic (richness
or number of species, abundance,
diversity, evenness, and dominance)
parameters are examined to help
describe conditions of the benthic
community. In addition, a Benthic Index
has been developed to assess the health
of Tampa Bay. The benthic community
is primarily composed of bivalves,
polychaetes and amphipods.
The Tampa Bay system is home to about
28 species of colonial water birds and
allies' totaling about 44,000 breeding
pairs plus their young for a total of
nearly 200,000 birds (Paul 1999). While
the breeding population is about 45,000
pairs annually at 20 or more sites, up to
half the total occurs in Hillsborough Bay
(including the mouth of the Alafia river)
alone. Two species, white ibis and
laughing gull account for half to two-
thirds of all individuals. Most rare or
coastal species have stable or increasing
populations, while many of those that
forage commonly or primarily in
freshwater wetlands are decreasing (Paul
1999).
3.11 FISH
The general project area contains a
variety of fish habitat types that are
available and used by a diverse group of
species. A discussion of the various
habitats present and the common species
found in the vicinity of the proposed
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir, Alafia
River, Hillsborough River, Tampa
Bypass Canal, and Tampa Bay are
presented.
3.11.1 Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
Project. Most of the fishes that could
potentially be found in the freshwater
marsh wetlands of the proposed
reservoir area are small, minnow-sized
species such as the live bearing
mosquitofish, least killifish, sailfin
molly, sheepshead minnow, flagfish,
golden topminnow, Seminole killifish
and bluefin killifish. Small sunfishes
such as the pigmy sunfish and smaller
individuals of larger species such as the
warmouth and redear sunfish can also be
found in these marshes.
The size and abundance of individual
fish species varies seasonally. Small
fishes especially mosquito fish and
killifish (along with the invertebrates)
increase rapidly following re-flooding of
a previously dry marsh. As water levels
rise and stabilize, larger fish survive and
become dominant. These include such
species, which inhabit the deeper
marshes and ponds such as the Florida
gar, bullhead catfish and bowfin.
The wildlife and fish species lists
included in Appendix F are by no means
all-inclusive, but they are representative
of the major groups of fauna that are
found at the proposed reservoir area.
These lists exemplify the great diversity
and abundance of wildlife and fish in the
general area of the proposed regional
reservoir and pipeline.
3.11.2 Alafia River. Fish data from
several sources including Florida Marine
Research Institute (FMRI), Tampa Bay
National Estuary Program (TBNEP),
SWFWMD, and the Fisheries-
Independent Monitoring Program
(FIMP) was reviewed to determine the
3-37
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
composition of the estuarine fish
populations of the Alafia River (HDR
1998). Fish populations in the Alafia
River were sampled in 1973 and 1974
(Dames and Moore 1975 and HDR
1998).
A study conducted by the Florida Game
and Freshwater Fish Commission
reported fish data for the river from four
years of collection. Two sampling
stations were located close to the
proposed diversion location on the
Alafia River at Bell Shoals Road, one at
Lithia Pinecrest Road and the other at
SR 39. At the Lithia Pinecrest Road
station, the predominant species found
were coastal shiners, mosquitofish, and
spotted sunfish. The shiner was found to
frequent deeper zones of the river and
the mosquitofish were most abundant in
slow moving, shallow, backwater areas.
During sampling, fishermen were
observed with catches of largemouth
bass, bullheads, and striped mullet.
At the SR 39 station, mosquitofish and
spotted sunfish were again the
predominant species found. Other
species included coastal shiner, redfin
pickerel, and pirate perch.
Downstream near the mouth of the
Alafia River, species present included
sand seatrout, hardhead catfish, spotted
sea trout, bull shark, silverside, juvenile
black drum, striped mullet, and
sheepshead minnow. Within the upper
reaches of the estuary, striped mojarra.
spotfin mojarra, and bay anchovy were
found.
3.11.3 Hillsborough River. As
observed in the Alafia River, the
Hillsborough River provides habitat for
a wide variety of freshwater, estuarine,
and marine fish species. The shallow
fish species found in the river were
composed of both resident and migratory
species. Resident species often
reproduce in the rivers, so juveniles as
well as adults were found to be present.
Migratory species enter the lower
reaches of the river mainly as juveniles
or as young-of-the-year, and inhabit
these nursery areas prior to moving to
the bay.
Residents were numerically dominant,
comprising about 92 percent of the total
population. Three of the four most
abundant residents were schooling
species; the bay anchovy and two
species of silversides. The fourth most
abundant species was the yellowfin
menhaden. Other prominent residents
were species of killifish along with the
tidewater mojarra, the hogchoker. and
the clown goby. Air were spawned in
Tampa Bay or in the Gulf of Mexico
(Peebles and Flannery 1992 in WAR and
SDM995).
The freshwater resident fish community
is an important component of the
Hillsborough River. Important
freshwater gamefish such as largemouth
bass, redear sunfish and bluegill sunfish
are commonly found in the area. The
transient fish community is especially
important because most of the species
represent the juveniles of important sport
or commercial fish species.
The dominant transient was the
schooling yellowfin menhaden. While
other prominent immigrants were the
black drum, spot, red drum, sand sea
trout, southern kingfish, striped mullet,
pinfish, and the striped mojarra. Other
marine sport and commercial fishes
using the Hillsborough River, Palm
River and McKay Bay as nursery areas
3-38
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
included common snook, spotted
seatrout, bonefish, ladyfish, and
sheepshead.
Sixteen commercially important species
of major importance to Gulf of Mexico
fisheries have been identified in McKay
Bay. These species are silver mullet,
stripped mullet, spot, spotted seatrout,
red drum, sheepshead, Gulf killifish,
longnose killifish, rainwater killifish,
sailfin molly, bay anchovy, tarpon,
snook, Gulf toadfish, tidewater
silverside, and mojarra (HDR 1994).
3.11.4 Tampa Bay. Tampa Bay
provides important habitat for both adult
and juvenile resident and migratory fish
species. The seagrass beds and
backwater areas in the bay provide
important nurseries for the larva and
juvenile stages of these species (Lewis
and Estevez 1988). Most species spawn
during the spring and early summer in
either the nearby Gulf or in higher
salinity areas of Tampa Bay. During and
following these spawning periods, the
larval and juvenile fish typically migrate
into either seagrass beds or shallow.
protected, low-salinity nursery areas of
the bay to feed and mature (Comp 1985;
Lewis eral. 1985b).
Fish sampling programs have used
various approaches to study the fishes in
Tampa Bay. Early studies focused on
species numbers and species dominance
(Springer and McErlean 1961; Moe and
Martin 1965; Comp 1985). Comp
(1985) listed 125 common fish species in
Tampa Bay; only ten represented the
majority of species sampled. This ten
species included the tidewater silverside,
bay anchovy, scaled sardine, striped
mullet, pinfish, longnose killifish, spot,
silver perch, silver jenny, and code goby.
The scientists conducting these studies
emphasized that the sampling gear used
was biased towards smaller, less mobile
species. Other species such as sharks
and rays may have been abundant, but
were rarely sampled (Lewis and Estevez
1988).
The dominant fish families of the
benthic habitat include drums, porgys,
grunts mojarras, snappers, and mullet.
Other families with sizeable
contributions to the benthic fauna
include pipefishes, flounder, sole,
searobins, and toadfishes. Numerically
abundant fishes of the mid and upper
waters include anchovies, herrings, and
needlefishes.
More estuarine species, such as mullet
and spot, were also common along with
anchovy, needlefish and gobies. This is
in agreement with a variety of authors
cited by Montague and Wiegert (1991).
These smaller species provide forage for
the less common but more recreationally
valuable predatory fish and wading birds
that can utilize these areas. Tarpon,
snook, drum, croakers, sea trout,
kingfish, sharks and rays can be found in
salt-marsh creeks and ditches, along with
a variety of herons and egrets near the
edges of the tidal creeks.
3.12 THREATENED AND
ENDANGERED SPECIES
The Endangered Species Act of 1973
(ESA) affords federal protection to those
species and their habitats determined to
meet the criteria for listing as either
federally threatened or endangered. The
ESA defines a federally threatened
species as "any species which is likely to
become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range." A
3-39
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
federally endangered species is defined
by the ESA as "any species, which is in
danger of extinction throughout all, or a
significant portion of its range."
Candidate species are those for which a
sufficient amount of information has
been gathered to support a listing as
threatened or endangered, but listing at
the present time is precluded at this time
(50CFR17).
3.12.1 Federally Threatened and
Endangered Species. The FWS has
identified five endangered and six
threatened species as potentially
occurring in the
project area (Table
3-2). Brief
descriptions of
each species are
presented below.
More detailed
descriptions are
included in
(Appendix A) the
Biological
Assessment.
Extensive field
reviews of existing
habitats within the
proposed reservoir
site and related
infrastructure
alignments have
been completed by HDR biologists.
Documentation of suitable wildlife
habitat, including habitat required for
listed species, and wildlife utilization has
been ongoing at the reservoir site since
1998. Biologist's conducting wetland
and wildlife assessments spent a total of
44 full or partial days on the reservoir
site. The pipeline route was driven each
of these days to and from the site.
Florida Scrub Jay
Wood stork. Wood storks feed in a
variety of aquatic habitats ranging from
freshwater marshes and streams to
intertidal zones of estuaries, consuming
fish, amphibians, and reptiles. Wood
storks normally nest in large rookeries
and feed in flocks. This species prefers
to nest in large cypress trees or in
mangrove swamps and may travel up to
80 miles to marshland and shallow open
water areas to forage, especially during
the breeding season. Wood stork nesting
is highly dependent on water levels and
food availability. Almost any shallow
wetland depression where fish tend to
i become concentrated,
either through local
reproduction by fishes or
as a consequence of area
drying, may be good
feeding habitat. These
sites include drying
marshes, shallow
roadside or agricultural
ditches, narrow tidal
creeks and pools, and
depressions in cypress
heads or swamp sloughs
(Ogden 1996).
For nesting to be
successful in South
Florida, colonies must
begin forming between
November and January.
Storks begin moving into the vicinity of
the rookery several weeks before nesting
begins. Nesting colonies may be
abandoned due to human disturbance
and lack of available food.
Wood storks have been observed
foraging in marsh wetlands located
within the proposed reservoir site (HDR
2000). No rookeries or nests have been
observed on site and no sign of
3-40
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Table 3-2. Federally Threatened or Endangered Species
Common Name
Birds
Wood stork*
Florida scrub jay
Bald eagle*
Red-cockaded woodpecker
Reptiles
Hawksbill sea turtle
Green sea turtle
Kemp's Ridley sea turtle
Leatherback sea turtle
Loggerhead sea turtle
American alligator*
Eastern indigo snake*
Fish
Gulf sturgeon
Mammals
Florida manatee
Plants
Beautiful PawPaw
Florida Bonamia
SrhalTs Jointweed
Pygmy Fringe Tree
Florida Golden Aster
Scientific Name
Mycteria americana
Amphelocoma coerulescens
coerulescens
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Picoides borealis
Eretmochelys imbricata
Chelonia mydas
Lepidochelys kempii
Dermochelys coriacea
Caretta caretta
Alligator mississippiensis
Drymarchon corals couperi
Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi
Trichechus manatus
Deeringothamnus pulchellus
Bonamia grandiflora
Polygonella myriophylla
Chionanthus pygmaeus
Chrysopsis floridana
Status
Endangered
Threatened
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
* Observed at the proposed reservoir site
rookeries, such as old nests or
accumulation of guano, have been
observed in forested and shrub wetlands
on the reservoir site. No nesting was
observed during the first four months
(January through April) of the 1999.
2000, and 2001 breeding seasons.
Florida Scrub Jay. The Florida scrub
jay is strongly associated with several
Florida scrub communities and adjacent
non-scrub habitats of certain types.
Florida scrub jays are most abundant in
open, oak dominated scrub communities
of the interior and Atlantic coastal sand
ridges (Fitzpatrick et al. 1991).
An area of potential scrub jay habitat
was identified at the reservoir site. This
area of scrubby flatwoods, used for
cattle grazing, is bounded by row crops
to the south, active pasture to the east,
and hardwood-dominated wetlands
associated with Doe Branch and Long
Flat Creek to the north and west
respectively. The eastern two-thirds of
3-41
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
the area has a rather dense saw palmetto
and wiregrass cover, while the remainder
is a more hardwood-dominated turkey
oak community. Surveys were
conducted following the Florida Wildlife
Conservation Commission's Nongame
Wildlife Program Technical Report No.
8 to determine and document the
presence or absence of scrub jays within
the survey area (HDR 2000). No scrub
jays were found during the survey
period.
Bald Eagle. Bald eagles have been
protected in the United States for many
years. Florida has the largest population
of nesting bald eagles in the
Southeastern United States. Although
populations are recovering due to the
decline of the insecticide DDT, habitat
alteration continues to be a problem.
The bald-eagle breeding season in
Florida officially begins in mid-October
with nest repair activities. Most of the
young are fledged by mid-May, the
official end of the nesting season in
South Florida. While some eagles are
year-round residents in Florida, many
migrate to northern territories for the
summer, often returning to the same
Florida nest site for the winter breeding
season.
Bald eagles may be seen feeding in
coastal and inland areas (Paul 1999).
Because eagles rely on a diet
predominately offish, nesting in South
Florida usually occurs in slash-pine
trees, near permanent water bodies.
Eagles occasionally use less desirable
nesting trees when suitable slash pines
are not available.
Bald eagles are known to occur in the
vicinity of the project. No nests have
been observed or recorded within the
reservoir site or within the pipeline
corridor, although one individual was
pbserved in flight over the reservoir site
(HDR 2000).
Red-cockaded Woodpecker. The red-
cockaded woodpecker has been listed as
a federal endangered species since 1970.
Documented population declines are
presumed to be due to reductions in
available nesting habitat.
Primary nesting and roosting habitat for
red-cockaded woodpeckers consists of
pine stands, or pine-dominated
pine/hardwood stands, with a low or
sparse understory and ample old-growth
pines. Nest and roost cavities are almost
always located in old age living pines
that are at least 60 years old. In
southwest Florida, the hydric slash pine
flatwoods provide the preferred critical
nesting and foraging habitat for red-
cockaded woodpeckers.
Red-cockaded woodpeckers are non-
migratory, territorial, and live in
cooperative breeding social groups.
They forage primarily on arthropods and
sometimes consume vegetative matter.
Red-cockaded woodpeckers are not
listed by the FNAI as occurring in
Hillsborough, Pasco, or Pinnellas
counties.
Hawksbill Sea Turtle. Under the ESA,
the hawksbill sea turtle is listed as an
endangered species. Known for their
beautiful shells, which are used to make
tortoise shell jewelry, hawksbill sea
turtles have suffered population declines
during the past century due to
overharvesting.
Hawksbill sea turtles have life histories
that are similar to other sea turtle species
3-42
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(Musick and Limpus 1996). Hatchling
hawksbills live in the open ocean, in the
shelter of weedline habitats of oceanic
currents (Carr et al. 1966). Little is
known about the hawksbill diet during
the hatchling life history phase.
Hawksbills in the Atlantic are thought to
become juveniles at an age of 1 to 3
years (Musick and Limpus 1996).
Juvenile hawksbills are typically found
in shallower more developed habitats
where their diets consist primarily of
sponges (Meylan 1984). Common
foraging habitats of the adult hawksbills
include coral reefs and rock
outcroppings, and less commonly
seagrass pastures in mangrove-fringed
bays (Bjomdal and Bolten 1988).
Tampa Bay beaches have been
monitored for nesting sea turtles since
1982, and nearly all nests laid have been
loggerhead sea turtle nests. The Florida
Marine Research Institute (FMRI) arid
the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage
Network (STSSN) document injured or
dead turtles that strand on Florida
beaches. Data indicate that the
hawksbill sea turtle is the least common
sea turtle species in Tampa Bay (Meylan
et al. 1999). All hawksbills have been
found in the outer Bay area. Size-classes
of hawksbill sea turtles found stranded in
Tampa Bay indicate that the population
consists primarily of juveniles.
Green Sea Turtle. Green sea turtles
have highly migratory life histories that
are similar to other sea turtle species
(Musick and Limpus 1996). It is
believed that hatchling green turtles live
in weedline habtiats of oceanic currents,
where they primarily feed on plant and
animal material (Bjorndal 1985). Green
turtles leave open water habitats and
enter benthic foraging areas at a size of
20 to 25 cm carapace length in the
western Atlantic (Bjomdal and Bolten
1988). As adults, green sea turtles shift
to a diet primarily consisting of
seagrasses and algae (Mortimer, 1982).
Green sea turtle are most commonly
observed foraging over seagrass beds
(Bjorndal and Bolten, 1988).
Stranding data collected by FMRI and
STSSN indicate that the green sea turtle
is the third most commonly found sea
turtle species in Tampa Bay. Size-
classes of green sea turtles found
stranded in Tampa Bay indicate that the
population consists primarily of
juveniles and sub-adults (Meylan et al.
1999).
Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle. Kemp's
ridley sea turtles also begin their lives as
migratory animals, living in the open
water of the sea as hatchlings and not
reappearing in the shoreline zone until
they are about 2 years old or about 20
cm carapace length (Zug et al. 1997;
Ogren 1989). Once Kemp's ridley sea
turtles become juveniles they move into
the shallow benthic feeding habitats
along the continental shelf and feed
primarily on crabs (Burke et al. 1993).
These juveniles can be found in shallow
waters along the east coast of North
America and in the Gulf of Mexico. As
adults they return to the western Gulf of
Mexico where they nest almost
exclusively on one beach area (Rancho
Nuevo) in Tampaulipas, Mexico.
Stranding data collected by FMRI and
the STSSN indicate that the Kemp's
ridley sea turtle is the second most
common sea turtle species in Tampa Bay
(Meylan et al. 1999). Size-classes of
Kemp's ridley sea turtles found stranded
3-43
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
in Tampa Bay show that juveniles and
sub-adults comprise the population.
Loggerhead Sea Turtle. Loggerhead
sea turtles have highly migratory life
histories that are similar to other sea
turtle species (Musick and Limpusl996).
During their first few years of life,
loggerheads live in the open ocean, often
in association with sargassum (Carr
1987). Loggerhead turtles leave the
open water habitats and enter shallow .
water foraging areas at a size of 40 to 50
cm carapace length in the western
Atlantic (Carr 1986). Loggerheads are
more
opportunistic
feeders than
other sea turtle
species,
foraging on a
wide variety of
invertebrates
(Bjorndal,
1996), ;;
Stranding data ,
collected by
FMRI and
STSSN suggest
that the loggerhead sea turtle is the most
common sea turtle with the widest
distribution in Tampa Bay (Meylan el al.
1999). Size-classes of loggerhead sea
turtles found stranded in Tampa Bay
indicate that adults make up the majority
of the population.
Leatherback Sea Turtle. The
endangered Leatherback sea turtle is the
largest of all marine turtles, with adults
weighing between 650 pounds and 1,300
pounds. Leatherbacks nest regularly, but
not abundantly, in Florida (Moler, 1992).
Most Nesting records are for the Atlantic
Coast in the mid-peninsular area of
American Alligator
Florida. Harris et al. (1984) reported a
minimum of 18 and maximum of 45
Florida nests between 1979 and 1983.
On the Gulf Coast, there is only a single
record of hatchlings.
This species is endangered because of
morality resulting from shrimp trawls,
entanglement in lobster lines, and
ingestion of plastic refuse in the ocean.
The future of the leatherback rests
primarily in the hands of other nations.
Human predation on turtles and their
eggs on many of the tropical nesting
grounds is excessive.
American Alligator.
The American
alligator is commonly
found in the great river
swamps, lakes.
bayous, marshes, and
other bodies of water
in Florida. American
alligators were once
considered an
endangered species by
the FWC, but due to a
remarkable comeback
in many areas, they
have been downgraded to a species of
special concern. This species is
protected by the USFWS due to its
similarity of appearance to the
endangered American crocodile. The
American alligator generally grows from
six to 16 feet in length, and can grow to
19 feet. The growth rate of the alligator
is dependent on climate and food
availability. Their diets include nearly
any animal including fish, crabs, turtles,
mammals, birds, other alligators, and
even dead animals. Both male and
female alligators dig open depressions in
marshes and wetlands called 'gator
holes', which vary in width from several
3-44
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
yards to the size of a small lake. These
gator holes are significant to the
freshwater ecology of Florida because
they provide a dry season refuge for
aquatic life as well as the many birds,
mammals, and reptiles that concentrate
in these holes in search of food and
water (Conant and Collins 1991).
American alligators occur in creeks,
streams, and other wetlands throughout
Hillsborough County. They have been
observed on the reservoir site in two
open water bodies on the western portion
of the reservoir site.
Eastern Indigo Snake. In southern
Florida, the eastern indigo snake may be
found in a variety of habitats including
freshwater marshes,
coastal prairies,
mangrove forests and
other upland habitats.
Indigo snakes
potentially utilize
several habitat types
found within the
project area including
flatwoods, hardwood
forest, marsh edges, Manatee
and freshwater
swamp. Eastern indigos frequent gopher
tortoise burrows, which are used as dens
and for egg laying. A scrubby flatwoods
community located outside of the
northwest corner of the reservoir
supports a large gopher tortoise
population, and it is likely that the
eastern indigo is also present in this area.
This snake is listed as threatened by both
federal and state wildlife agencies.
Losses of habitat and over-collection for
the pet trade have contributed to the
species decline.
(HDR 2000). One sighting was within
the northern hardwood forest associated
with Doe Branch. The second sighting
was within an oak shrouded fence line in
the west-central portion of the proposed
reservoir site.
Gulf Sturgeon. The gulf sturgeon is a
threatened sub-species of the Atlantic
sturgeon, and once inhabited the
Hillsborough River and Tampa Bay
(FMRI 2000; FWS 2000). Subadult and
adult Gulf sturgeon migrate upstream to
spawn in rivers draining to the Gulf of
Mexico from early spring through the
end of May. In late September to early
October, adults migrate downstream to
estuarine habitats until they are at least
two years old. Gulf
sturgeons are long-
lived and grow large.
living up to 28 years
and growing up to 8
feet and 200 pounds.
The first sturgeon
fishery in Florida was
established in 1886 in
Tampa Bay, but only
lasted a few years.
Construction of the Hillsborough Dam in
1888 is thought to have contributed to
the sturgeon's decline, since dams
prevent sturgeon from migrating
upstream to spawn (Wooley and Crateau
1985; FMRI 2000). Currently, the
Florida Marine Research Institute is
leading a cooperative effort to release a
limited number of Gulf sturgeons into
parts of the Hillsborough River.
Individual Indigo snakes were observed
on the reservoir site on two occasions
Florida Manatee. The Florida manatee
is protected by both federal and state
wildlife agencies and listed as
endangered (FGFFC 1997). They
inhabit freshwater, brackish, and marine
3-45
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
habitats and move freely between
salinity extremes. Water depths of at
least one to two meters are preferred and
flats and shallows are avoided unless
adjacent to deeper water. Along the
coast, manatees tend to travel in water
three to five meters deep. If the water is
deep enough and the currents are not too
strong, manatees will travel great
distances up coastal rivers (Florida
Power and Light 1982).
Florida manatee can be found in Tampa
Bay during every month of the year.
From 1991 to 1998, manatees were
counted statewide by numerous
biologists from ten state, federal, county,
and private agencies. The highest
number of manatees counted in Tampa
Bay was 164 during January 1997. This
number represented 7.4 percent of the
state total at that time (Ackerman et al.
1999).
In a preliminary review of current
manatee sighting data, Florida Marine
Research Institute staff verify that
Florida manatee also frequent both the
Lower Hillsborough River and the Palm
River (FMRI 2000). Since 1978, idle-
speed zones have been established in the
Alafia River to avoid boat and propeller-
related injuries and deaths to manatees
(HDR 1998).
Because of their lack of tolerance to
water less than 68°F, manatees
aggregate at the warm water discharges
of power plants and springs during cold
fronts (Ackerman et al. 1999). Cargill
Fertilizer company was once considered
the major wintering area for manatees in
Tampa Bay, but since the 1986 reduction
of warm-water effluent it is considered a
minor wintering site.
Beautiful PawPaw. Destruction of
habitat for residential, commercial,
recreational, and agricultural purposes is
the leading cause of declining
populations. The beautiful pawpaw, a
low shrub with a stout taproot and
yellow-green berries, is listed as
endangered by FWS. Typically, this
plant grows in poorly drained, slash
pine-saw palmetto flatwoods with sandy
soils.
Beautiful pawpaw is a disturbance-
dependant plant that resprouts readily
from the roots following the removal of
the top by fire or mowing. Flowers
occur on new growth and are white with
a pleasant scent. A lack of disturbance
leads to the eventual death of the plant.
Florida Bonamia. The Florida bonamia
was formerly widespread in central
Florida. Conversion of Florida's scrub
habitat to residential housing or
agricultural areas has dramatically
reduced the amount of habitat available
for this plant.
Florida bonamia is the only morning
glory vine with large, blue flowers that is
found in Florida scrub vegetation. It is a
perennial plant with sturdy stems and
leathery oval leaves found only in scrub
areas of central and South Florida.
Primarily, this morning glory is found in
sand pine scrub vegetation with
evergreen scrub oaks and sand pine
(commonly referred to as Florida scrub),
but can occasionally be found in clear-
cut areas in the Ocala National Forest.
Florida bonamia grows for three or more
years and flowers from spring to
summer. It has a mixed mating system,
can self-pollinate, and it can produce
seeds without fertilization. However,
3-46
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
pollinators are essential to ensure
substantial seed production.
Small's Jointweed. Small'sjointweed
is also known as sandlace. Loss of
habitat to residential and agricultural
development is the most serious threat to
the upland scrub community in which
Small's jointweed is found. At least two
thirds of the pine scrub vegetation in
south central Florida has been cleared.
Small's jointweed is a sprawling shrub
with many branches that zigzag along
the ground forming dense mats. Lower
parts of creeping branches have reddish-
brown bark that cracks and separates in
interlacing strips. The leaves are 0.1 to
0.3 inches in length and are needle-like
and fleshy. Small white, pink, or yellow
petal-like sepals are present when the
plant flowers.
This plant is restricted to the pure white
andy ridges in the scrub of the southern
Florida Lakes Region, where 40 to 50
percent of the scrub community is open,
bare sand.
Pygmy Fringe Tree. The pygmy fringe
tree is listed as endangered by the FWS,
primarily because of habitat loss due to
residential development and to citrus
groves. Although locally abundant,
development of a few more large citrus
groves within its range could severely
impact the pygmy fringe tree.
The pygmy fringe tree grows as a shrub
that may be less than 1 meter tall, but
may grow as tall as 2 to 4 meters. This
small scrub tree blooms in March, with
four white fused petals in shown
panicles. The pygmy fringe tree bears
fruits that are purple drupes 2 to 2.5 cm
long.
The pygmy fringe tree is endemic to
Florida, occurring in Lake, Osceola, and
Hillsborough Counties and at sites along
the Lake Wales Ridge in Highlands and
Polk Counties. This species is found
primarily in scrub habitats along the
coasts and sand ridges of central Florida.
Florida Golden Aster.
Residential and commercial
development poses the greatest threat to
the Florida golden aster. Added threats
include mowing, dumping, excessive
grazing, and off-road vehicle damage.
Additionally, this species' restricted
distribution has contributed to its decline
and endangered status.
A member of the Asteraceae family, the
Florida golden aster is a perennial herb
showing yellow flowers in mature
specimens. Young plants of this species
forms rosettes with leaves covered in
dense, white, short-wooly hairs. As the
plant matures, upright stems grow from
the rosettes to a height of 0.3 to 0.4
meters, with obovate-elliptic, hairy
leaves. Flower heads are clustered and
flat-topped, with yellow rays and central
discs. The species is short-lived and
reproduces by seeds, which are dispersed
by wind.
The Florida golden aster primarily
occurs in scrub habitats where there is
well-drained fine sand. It grows best in
open, sunny areas.
The distribution of the Florida golden
aster includes Hillsborough and Hardee
Counties, and in recent years has been
collected in Manatee County.
Historically, populations occurred on St.
Petersburg Beach and Bradenton Beach,
but have since been destroyed.
3-47
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
3.12.2 State Listed Species of Special
Concern. In addition to the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service listing of protected
species, the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission (FWC,
formerly the FGFWFC) is responsible
for listing protected species in the state
of Florida. The FWC maintains state
lists of endangered, threatened, and
species of special concern. The listing
status is related to
population abundance
in Florida. Federally
listed endangered and
threatened species are
most often listed by the
state as well, but the
species of special
concern category is
strictly a state listing.
Data bases maintained
by the Florida Natural
Areas Inventory (FNAI)
and the FWC were
consulted for the
identification and
locations of threatened,
endangered, and species of special
concern known to occur in the project
area (HDR 2000). Pedestrian and
vehicle surveys were completed on
numerous occasions during 1998 and
1999 to document species use of the
proposed reservoir site. Table 3-3 lists
the state species of special concern most
likely to occur within the project area
and their listing status.
Florida Sandhill Crane. The sandhill
crane prefers open pine flatwoods or
prairies located near wet prairies and
seasonal ponds. Sandhill cranes are
often seen in improved pastures and
open woodlands feeding on a variety of
plants and invertebrates.
Four nesting pairs of Florida sandhill
Sandhill Cranes
cranes were documented on the
proposed reservoir site during the 1999-
nesting season (April 13, 1999) (HDR
2000). Only one pair of offspring was
observed during the nesting season
(April 14, 1999). Their absence may be
due to extreme dry conditions in the
region and a general absence of standing
water within marsh wetlands, which are
preferred by the crane.
During non-nesting
months, no more than
two pair of adult cranes
were observed foraging
on the proposed
reservoir site at any one
time. During the 2000
nesting season, no nests
or nesting adults were
observed at the 1999
nest sites. One adult
crane was observed
sitting on a nest on
January 8. 2000.
Least Tern. This
smallest North American tern is a
familiar resident in Florida from March
through September. Their breeding
range extends throughout Florida, both
inland and on the coast. Historically,
least terns nested on coastal beaches,
dunes, and islands. Today, most nesting
occurs from April through August on
man-made habitats including dredged-
material islands, construction sites,
phosphate mines, and gravel rooftops
(Kale and Maehr 1990). Nesting
behavior can be either colonial or
solitary.
Typically, 100 to 150 pairs of least tern
are censused annually in the Tampa Bay
area, but colonies move frequently. Most
least terns in the Tampa Bay area now
3-48
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
s
*
Table 3-3. Florida Threatened, Endangered, and Special Concern Species
Common Name
Birds
Florida sandhill cranes
Least tern
Bald eagle
Southeastern snowy plover
Peregrine falcon
Wood stork
Southeastern American
kestrel
Snowy egret*
White ibis*
Roseate spoonbill
Burrowing owl*
Tri-colored heron
Little blue heron*
Brown pelican
American oystercatcher
Black skimmer
Reddish Egret
Reptiles
Gopher tortoise*
Mammals
Florida mouse
Shermans fox squirrel*
Florida gopher frog
Fish
Common snook
Scientific Name
Grus canadensis pratensis
Sterna antillarum
Haliaeetus leucocephalis
Charadirus alexandrinus
Falco peregrinus
Myceteria americana
Falco sparverius parulus
Egretta thula
Eudocimus albus
Ajaia ajaia
Speotyto cunicularia
Egretta tricolor
Egretta caerulea
Pelicanus occidentlis
Haematopus palliatus
Rynchops nigra
Haematopus palliatus
Gopherus polythemus
Podomys floridanus
Sciurus niger shermani
Rana capita aeospus
Centropomis undecimalis
Status
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
SSC
SSC
SSC
SSC
SSC
SSC
SSC
SSC
SSC
SSC
SSC
SSC
SSC
SSC
SSC
SC: Species of Special Concern
Observed at the proposed reservoir site
nest on gravel rooftops where they can
be difficult to locate. Nesting colonies
have been lost to development, chronic
human disturbance, and occasionally to
raccoon predation (Paul 1999).
Southeastern Snowy Plover. The
southeastern snowy plover inhabits
barrier beaches, particularly near passes
and intertidal sand flats. They feed on
marine worms and small crustaceans, by
quickly running back and forth in the
wash zone and probing their bills in the
sand. This species nests in shallow
depressions on salt flats or the open
beach. Populations of the plover are
declining due to nesting habitat loss and
nest destruction on beaches. Several
individuals exist in the Tampa Bay
3-49
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
region and are thought to be on the brink
of local extinction (Paul 1999).
Peregrine Falcon. Peregrine falcons are
large and powerfully built birds of prey
with long, pointed wings typical of
falcons. They are currently listed as
endangered by the state of Florida
(Meyer and Smallwood 1996). The
peregrine falcon was delisted from the
federal list on August 25, 1999 and is
now in a five year monitoring program.
Peregrines are the largest falcon found in
Florida, which is an important wintering
area, especially for the Arctic
subspecies. Migrant falcons can be seen
in Florida after the first cold front and
some remain all winter. Peregrines take
a wide variety of bird prey, specializing
on wetland species. Peregrine falcons are
often observed along
Florida's coasts . ;i>
including the Tampa
Bay area, feeding on
migrant shorebirds,
but inland lakes and - i
marshes also attract -_-'
falcons (Kale and
Maehr 1990). ^
Peregrines have been White Ibis
observed throughout
Florida during the winter, but are
encountered most often near the coasts.
The destruction of habitat poses the
greatest threat to the Peregrine falcon in
Florida. Coastal wetlands, particularly
important to the species, suffer the
highest rates of development and
urbanization (Rodgers, et al. 1996).
Southeastern American Kestrel. The
American kestrel is America's most
numerous and smallest falcon. The
southeastern American kestrel, a
subspecies of the American kestrel, is a
permanent, non-migrating resident in
Florida. The population decline of the
southeastern American kestrel appears to
be due to loss of suitable nest sites and
foraging habitat.
American kestrels are secondary cavity
nesters often utilizing abandoned
woodpecker nest cavities. They can also
be found nesting in abandoned or
occupied buildings that provide cover
from predators and readily nest in man-
made boxes within a variety of habitat
types (Stys 1993).
In Florida, the southeastern American
kestrel prefers open habitats including
pastures, open longleaf pine-turkey oak
sandhill communities, grasslands, and
open sites within suburban and
residential areas. The
habitat must have open
-"._." "^ '_..;.; areas of short vegetation
with scattered perch sites,
an adequate prey base, and
have suitable nest sites in
close proximity to foraging
areas.
The majority of prey items
of the southeastern
American kestrel are
insects, small rodents, reptiles, and
occasionally birds. Various prey capture
techniques are employed by the kestrels,
including perch hunting, flight hunting
and hover hunting.
Pasture is the primary kestrel habitat on
the proposed reservoir site. American
kestrels were frequently observed within
the proposed reservoir site and pipeline
routes during the fall and winter months
(HDR 2000). The first arrivals during
the 1999 fall season were documented
on October 22nd. No kestrels were
3-50
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
observed during the five-month period
of April through August indicating that
kestrels observed on the reservoir site
during fall and winter months were
migratory individuals and not the listed
Florida subspecies.
Snowy Egret. Snowy egrets are
common in Florida and are found mostly
in fresh and saltwater marshes. Snowy
egrets are very active foragers
employing techniques such as walking,
running, and hopping and use their feet
to stir and probe the sediment in shallow
water while searching for food. They eat
shrimp, fish, crabs, amphibians, small
snakes, worms, crayfish and insects
(Kale and Maehr 1990). The snowy
egret nests either singly, or in large or
small colonies with other heron species
located in shrub-covered wetlands or
islands in lakes and coastal lagoons.
Snowy egrets have been documented
foraging in wetlands at the proposed site
reservoir (HDR 2000) and about 800 to
1,000 pairs are censused annually in the
Tampa Bay area. The population appears
stable but has declined significantly
since the early 1980s in the Tampa Bay
area, and probably statewide (Paul,
1999).
White Ibis. White ibis occur along
coastal and coastal-plain habitats from
North Carolina through Texas, the West
Indies, Central America and northern
South America. In peninsular Florida,
they normally occur in wetlands such as
marshes, marsh prairies and mangrove
swamps. White ibis feed in shallow fresh
or salt water either alone or in flocks,
probing the substrate with their bill.
Forage includes crayfish, mudcrabs,
frogs, and aquatic insects.
There are about 6,000 to 11,000 pairs of
white ibis nesting in the Tampa Bay
area. Annual numbers strongly reflect
local wetland conditions. Although
white ibis are Florida's most numerous
wading birds, this species is believed to
have declined by about two-thirds since
the 1940s due to loss of wetlands and
wet pastures. Despite these losses, the
population at the mouth of the Alafia
River remains one of the largest in the
state (Paul 1999). White ibis have been
observed foraging or resting on the
proposed reservoir site (HDR 2000).
Roseate Spoonbill. Although the
roseate spoonbill range has expanded,
impacts to wetlands continue to threaten
their feeding habitats. They are most
often found in the mangrove and tidal
marsh habitat. Forage includes small
fish, crustaceans, mollusks, and aquatic
insects. They feed by wading through
shallow water, moving their partially
open bills back in forth until finding
prey (Paul 1999).
The roseate spoonbill was probably
extirpated from the Tampa Bay area by
1900. The species was subjected to
severe hunting pressures as their wings
were used as ladies' fans. They were .
rediscovered nesting in the bay in 1975
and have shown a strong recovery during
the 1990s. There are approximately 110
to 150 pairs in the Tampa Bay area,
which represents about 15 percent of the
state population.
Burrowing Owl. Burrowing owls live
in open, treeless areas and roost and nest
underground, typically in sandy soil.
Burrows extend 4 to 8 feet underground
with nests located at the end of the
burrow. The burrowing owl spends
most of its time on the ground near the
3-51
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
mouth of the burrow or perched on a
nearby post. It is a small, mostly diurnal
owl that averages nine inches in height
and forages primarily on insects, lizards,
frogs, snakes and rodents. Populations
have decreased because of the loss of
habitat.
One pair of burrowing owls has been
observed on the
proposed reservoir site
but no quantitative
surveys have been
completed (HDR
2000). Extensive time
on site provided some
assurance that this is
the only pair.
Tricolored Heron.
Tricolored heron
habitat includes fresh
and saltwater marshes, shores, mudflats,
and tidal creeks. They normally feed by
wading in water and stalking prey that
includes fish, amphibians, and insects.
This species nests in large colonies,
often with other heron species.
This medium-sized heron is still
abundant through much of peninsular
Florida (Kale and Maehr 1990). No
tricolored herons were observed at the
proposed reservoir site (HDR 2000),
however, there are an estimated 500 to
700 breeding pairs censused annually in
the Tampa Bay area. This population
appears stable, but like other herons in
Florida, tricolored heron numbers have
declined significantly due to wetland
habitat loss. (Paul 1999).
Little-Blue Heron. This medium-sized
heron is widely distributed in Florida
and utilizes a variety of nesting and
feeding habitats. Although many nesting
Brown Pelican
colonies occur on saltwater sites, little
blue herons seem to prefer freshwater
habitats for feeding. They can also be
found foraging in mudflats, tidal
shallows, salt marshes and southern
wooded swamps. They feed while
wading slowly through shallow water,
searching for small fish, frogs, and
invertebrates. The general downward
population trend of this
species is due to wetland
habitat losses and
possible competition with
cattle egrets for nest sites
(Kale and Maehrl 990).
Nesting populations of
the little blue heron in the
Tampa Bay area appear
to be stable at around 300
pairs. They nest and
forage primarily in
freshwater habitats and are vulnerable to
continuing alteration of wetlands (Paul
1999). Little blue heron have been
observed utilizing wetlands at the
proposed reservoir site for resting and
foraging (HDR 2000).
Brown Pelican. Brown pelicans prefer
coastal habitats and nest colonial with up
to several hundred birds in a rookery and
usually on coastal mangrove islands.
Loss of nesting habitat on coastal
beaches threatens existing populations.
This species breeds, roosts and feeds in
flocks, often flying in line formations
both high in the air and just above the
water surface.
The brown pelican is perhaps Florida's
most distinctive and widely recognized
bird. They dive for fish from 20- to 30-
feet heights, and can be seen flying to
and from feeding grounds in loose V-
formations. There have been 1,600 to
3-52
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
2,000 breeding pairs of brown pelicans
censused in Florida since 1994. About
20 percent of the state breeding
population occurs in the Tampa Bay area
(Paul, 1999).
American Oystercatcher. The
American oystercatcher is one of
Florida's most unmistakable shorebirds.
Strictly a coastal species, American
oystercatcher populations have been
declining for many years.
American oystercatchers nest on open
beaches above the high-tide mark.
Population numbers appear to have
stabilized on some undisturbed Gulf
coast beaches and islands, and on
dredged material islands and shell bars
along the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
(Kale and Maehr 1990). American
. oystercatcher habitat includes
mangroves, beaches, and tidal marshes
(Paul, 1999). This species feeds
primarily on oysters, but also a variety of
other mollusks, crustaceans, and other
invertebrates. The American
oystercatcher population is stable and
increasing. A minimum of 125 pairs or
approximately 40 percent of the state
population occurs in the Tampa Bay
area.
Black Skimmer. Black skimmers are
found along the entire Florida coast,
nesting in large colonies, often with
other tern species (Kale and Maehr
1990). Black skimmer habitat includes
beaches and estuaries. Unique among
birds, this species feeds by flying
quickly over the water, skimming the
water surface for fish with its elongated
lower mandible, and snatching their fish
or shrimp prey with a quick downward
snap. Several birds can be seen feeding
together in this manner.
There are about 600 to 700 pairs of black
skimmers in the Tampa Bay area.
Including another 300 pairs at colonies
near Clearwater, 50 to 70 percent of the
state population nests in the region
(Paul, 1999).
Reddish Egret. The reddish egret is
Florida's least common heron. Primarily
a Gulf coast species, reddish egrets nest
from Florida Bay north to Tampa Bay.
The rate of recovery following
protection from past plume hunting has
been much slower than for other species
(Kale and Maehr 1990). Reddish egrets
are strictly a coastal species, often
associated with mangroves. They are
colonial nesters preferring coastal red
mangrove islands. Their habitats include
shorelines, tidal flats, and shallow pools.
The reddish egret is a very active heron,
using a variety of feeding techniques.
Forage includes fish, frogs, and
crustaceans.
Hunted for their nuptial plumes, the
reddish egret was extirpated from Tampa
Bay by 1900. They were found nesting
again in 1974 and since that time, their
numbers have increased to 60 to 75
pairs. This represents 15 percent to 20
percent of the state population (Paul
1999).
Gopher Tortoise. The gopher tortoise
requires habitat that has well-drained
sandy soils, abundant herbaceous ground
cover for food, and a generally open
canopy and sparse shrub cover, allowing
sunlight to reach the ground floor.
Gopher tortoises dig burrows that
average approximately 15 feet in length
and 6 to 7 feet in depth. Burrows
provide protection from temperature
extremes, desiccation, and predators and
are essential to the survival of tortoises
3-53
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
throughout much of Florida (Cox et al.
1987).
Gopher tortoises burrows also serve as
refuges for a variety of other animals
including 39 invertebrate and 42
vertebrate species. Protected species
that are linked with gopher tortoise
burrows are the Eastern indigo snake,
Florida mouse, gopher frog, and Florida
pine snake.
One area of
suitable gopher
tortoise habitat,
located outside
of the north-
west corner of
the proposed
reservoir site,
was surveyed to
quantify
population
densities. A
total of 54
Gopher Tortoise
active and 16 inactive burrows were
identified, giving an approximate density
of 1.6 tortoises per acre (HDR 2000).
Florida Mouse. Similar to the gopher
tortoise, the Florida mouse is dependent
on xeric upland communities such as
sand pine scrub, coastal scrub, scrubby
flatwoods and longleaf pine-turkey oak
sandhill. The mouse prefers deep, well-
drained sandy soils, open tree cover, and
sparse, patchy ground cover. This
species is closely associated with gopher
tortoise burrows, in high pine habitats
with an open overstory of longleaf pine.
In more scrubby habitats, the mouse is
not as dependent on the use of burrows.
Suitable habitat exists adjacent to the
northwest corner of the proposed
reservoir footprint (HDR 2000) and it is
likely that the Florida mouse utilizes the
gopher tortoise burrows on site.
Sherman Fox Squirrel. Fox squirrels
feed mostly on pine seeds in the summer
and on acorns during other times of the
year. Breeding occurs in late winter and
mid summer. Fox squirrels have two to
four offspring per litter, and usually have
one litter per year; however, under
proper conditions they may have two
litters. Sherman fox squirrel habitat on
the proposed reservoir
site includes oak-
dominated fence lines,
sparse oak woodland
near Long Flat Creek,
oak hammock, and
cypress swamp The
squirrels have been
observed on the
proposed reservoir site
at several locations
over the past two
years. Although fox
squirrels are widespread in Florida, they
are listed as threatened (state list) and
their distribution is patchy due to habitat
loss.
Gopher Frog. The gopher frog is
closely linked to the gopher tortoise,
often using the tortoise burrow as a
refuge. The gopher frog is generally
nocturnal but occasionally emerges to sit
near the mouth of its burrow on dark,
damp days. Its diet consists mainly of
invertebrates, frogs, and toads.
Most documented occurrences for the
gopher frog have been within native,
xeric uplands, particularly longleaf pine
and turkey oak community associations.
Unlike the gopher tortoise, the gopher
frog appears to be absent from most
coastal islands and dunes.
3-54
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Surveys for the frog have not been
conducted on the reservoir site, although
suitable habitats exist (HDR 2000). The
gopher frogs' preferred breeding habitat
includes seasonally flooded, grassy
ponds and cypress domes that lack fish
populations.
Common Snook. Common snook have
a wide tolerance to different salinity
levels and are found in warm estuaries
and adjacent rivers, and in nearshore
waters of the tropical and sub-tropical
western Atlantic. On Florida's West
Coast, snook travel into estuarine and
nearshore waters from April through
September to spawn (FMRI 2000). Eggs
and larval snook are found in estuarine
passes and river mouths. Juveniles settle
in warm, brackish, shallow riparian
habitats including unvegetated bottoms
and submerged mangrove prop-roots
(Muller 2000). As they grow, snook
move into seagrass meadows, mangrove
fringes, and deeper estuarine waters.
Because of their complex life histories,
long life span, and sensitivity to low
water temperatures, snook can easily
become overfished (Taylor 2000). This
susceptibility to exploitation led the
State of Florida to designate the common
snook as a "species of special concern".
Snook have been regulated in Florida
since 1947, when snook haul seines were
made illegal in Lee County. The latest
regulations, established in 1999, limit
anglers to no more than two snook per
day. between 24 and 36 inches
(maximum total length). Snook
possession is illegal from December 15
to January 31 and in June and July.
Snook are well documented inhabitants
of Tampa Bay. usually located among
the mangroves, tidal marshes and non-
vegetated subtidal areas of lower
salinities (Comp 1985; Janicki et al.
1995) Snook are reported as utilizing
Tampa Bay as a nursery habitat (Lewis
and Estevez 1988) and are capable of
moving far inland in the canals and
rivers (HDR 1994; USDI 1990).
3.13 SOCIOECONOMIC
CONDITIONS
The social and economic conditions of
the region served by Tampa Bay Water
as well as the need to reduce
groundwater pumping are the factors
ultimately responsible for the increase in
demand for additional water supplies.
The region of influence (ROI) that will
be the focus of the socioeconomic study
includes Tampa Bay Water's three-
county service area made up of
Hillsborough, Pasco, and Pinellas
counties.
In the State of Florida, consideration
must be made for the seasonal residents
that may or may not be included in
census figures. These seasonal residents
are often referred to as "snowbirds" and
are not reflected in the census figures for
the state. A more detailed description of
these seasonal residents and their effect
on the population and regional economy
will be presented at the end of this
section.
Many factors combine to make up the
socioeconomic character of a region.
These factors vary from population
growth rate to unemployment rate. The
following sections present the existing
socioeconomic makeup of the ROI
followed by forecasts for the region.
3.13.1 Socioeconomic Portfolio for the
Region of Influence. The
socioeconomic portfolio of the ROI is
distinctly different depending on which
3-55
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
of the three counties is being analyzed.
The diversity of this ROI is similar to the
composition of the State of Florida,
which is composed of retirement, tourist,
and farm counties.
Population. The counties of
Hillsborough, Pasco, and Pinellas have
experienced steady growth over the past
10 years. The population change from
1990-1999 in these counties averaged
11.2 percent which is 5.6 percent lower
that the state average of 16.8 percent and
1.6 percent higher than the United States
average of 9.6 percent. Pasco County
experienced the most growth with a 17.6
percent increase in population and
Pinellas County experienced the least
amount of growth, averaging only 3.2
percent during the 10-year period. The
estimated 1999 population for the ROI is
2,149,687. Table 3-4 summarizes the
population of the region (US Census
Bureau 1995).
In future years, population growth in the
ROI is projected to be the lowest
experienced since 1930. Even with the
first of the baby boomers retirement in
2010, regional growth is not expected to
reach previous highs due to the
combination of out-migration of the
same age group and the low birthrate
(West 1999). The anticipated annual
population growth from 1995-2010 for
the ROI is protected as follows:
Hillsborough County, 1.4 percent; Pasco
County, 1.7 percent; and Pinellas
County, 1.1 percent.
Housing. In 1990, the number of single-
family homes in the ROI was 547,794
with a home ownership rate averaging
71.06 percent compared to the state
ownership rate of 67.2 percent and the
United States rate of 64.2 percent. The
number of persons per household
averaged 2.31 in the three-county area
compared to the state average of 2.46
and the United States average of 2.63.
The higher percentage of home
ownership and lower percentage of
persons per household can possibly be
attributed to the fact that 28.1 percent of
the population in the three-county area is
65 years old and older compared to the
state level of 18.3 percent and the United
States level of 12.7 percent (US Census
Bureau 1995).
The number of building permits issued
in 1999 for the ROI was 21,726. The
highest number of permits issued was
14.665 in Hillsborough County and the
lowest number was 3,237 in Pinellas
County. In Florida, work began on more
than 148,000 housing units in 1999.
This was the biggest surge in home
development in the past decade. This
surge was centered in the construction of
Table 3-4. Population information for the Authority's member counties (US Census
Bureau).
1 999 estimated
population
Percent change in
population 1990-
1999
Hillsborough
County
940,484
12.8 percent
Pasco County
330,704
1 7.6 percent
Pinellas County
878,499
3.2 percent
3-56
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Figure 3-9. Economic Breakdown of ROI
Health care and
social assistance
13%
Arts, entertainment
and recreation
2%
Educational
services
1%
Professional,
scientific and
technical services
11%
Manufacturing
13%
Admn, waste mgt
and remediation
24%
Accommodation
and foodservices
3%
Wholesale Trade
9%
Retail Trade
21%
Real estate, rental,
and leasing
3%
A slower population growth is
forecasted to lead to a smaller number of
housing starts. The Bureau of Economic
Business Research (BEBR) has
forecasted 1.9 million housing starts
from 1996-2010, down from the 1981-
1995 number of 2.1 million. The
forecast of long-term housing starts is
derived from the existing housing start,
vacancy rates, changes in the stock of
mobile homes and the replacement of
aged housing. Mobile homes are taken
into consideration due to their
prevalence throughout the state. Prior to
Hurricane Andrew in 1992, the number
of new housing starts has mirrored the
number of mobile homes sold. Since
1992, the number of new mobile homes
sold has been smaller than in previous
years, but it is anticipated that the
number of mobile homes will again
increase within the next decade. The
number of forecasted housing starts
between 2001 and 2010 in the ROI is as
follows: Hillsborough County - 81,200;
categories. In Pasco County, retail trade
is the largest employer followed by
health care and social assistance,
accommodation, and food services (US
Census Bureau 1995). Figure 3-9
illustrates the employment breakdown of
the ROI as a whole.
Job growth rates for the State of Florida
are expected to decline through the next
decade. The BEBR has evaluated this
forecasted decline and believes that it is
due to the state having reached a full
employment status. Forecasted growth
will be due to the accumulation of
employees and productivity increases.
For each of the counties in the ROI, job
growth rates have declined from the
1980-1995 forecast (West 1999). The
job growth rate in a county typically
mirrors its population growth rate.
People are transient and move where the
work is often commuting between
counties and economic shocks. The
forecast population growth rate for the
3-57
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
ROI from 1995-2010 has Pasco County
with the highest forecasted annual job
growth rate of 1.7 percent, followed by
Hillsborough County at 1.4 percent, and
Pinellas County at 0.5 percent.
It is anticipated that the declining job
growth rate will also balance the
personal income growth rate, which has
been higher than the national average for
the past few decades. Pasco and
Hillsborough counties will experience
income growth rates lower than what
was experienced from 1980-1995, while
Pinellas County is expected to
experience a higher income growth rate.
Pasco County again leads the ROI with
an anticipated income growth rate of 4.0
percent followed by Hillsborough
County at 3.3 percent and Pinellas
County at 2.8 percent. The average
income in 2010 in the counties is
projected to be as follows: Hillsborough
- $67,341, Pasco - $54,884, and Pinellas
- $74,683. Pinellas County is the only
county above the state's forecasted
average of $69,766.
3.13.2 Seasonal Residents. In Section
3.7, mention was made of the seasonal
residents. These temporary residents re-
locate to the area during the winter
months. Because official ties are often
to other locations in other states, their
population numbers do not show up in
the State of Florida demographics. Not
only are the populations not included on
the Florida Census, they also do not
show up as tourists at the state and
national level due to the long length of
their stay in the state. Approximately
857,500 seasonal residents reside in the
state during the months from October to
April. Of the individuals, 41.2 percent
reside within the ROI and have an
average stay of 5.9 months (Galvez
1997).
Telephone surveys of the seasonal
residents have revealed the following
statistics:
92.8 percent are white
66.7 percent are married
63.7 percent are college educated
61.0 percent do not participate in the
labor force
66.4 percent are age 55 or older
32.3 percent are over the age of 70
71.0 percent are retired
average income of snowbirds is 19
percent higher than the residents of
Florida
For those snowbirds that are employed
in the three-county area, most fill low
paying laborer and clerical positions as
well as positions that result from the
presence of their fellow seasonal
residents. The spending habits of these
individuals differ from the full-time
Florida residents. For example, seasonal
residents often purchase very expensive
homes that are expensively furnished.
While the region benefits greatly from
the seasonal residents, their lack of
inclusion in the state demographics can
present problems when planning for
services such as ambulances, fire
stations, and hospitals. At this point in
time, the best method to estimate
seasonal residents is through telephone
interviews.
3.13.3 Public Services. Public services
in the three-county area are categorized
into transportation, law enforcement,
healthcare, and education. The
following sections provide brief
descriptions of these services for the
ROI.
3-58
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Transportation. The ROI is served
primarily by Interstates 75, 275 and 4
and U.S. Highway 301. The Tampa
International Airport is the major airport
serving the region. Smaller airports are
also found in each of the counties and
larger municipalities. The Seminole
Gulf Railroad is the major rail carrier in
the region for freight and Amtrak is the
major passenger carrier. The Greyhound
Bus Line is the major bus carrier.
Law Enforcement. Each county houses
its own sheriff and associated staff. The
crime rate in each of the counties is
lower than the state average. The larger
municipalities in the region maintain
police departments which serve the area
within the designated city limits.
Healthcare. Hillsborough County is
home to three major hospitals, Pasco
County has four large hospitals, and
Pinellas County has five major hospitals.
Education. The three-county area is
served by 228 elementary schools, 71
middle schools, and 44 high schools.
3.13.4 Environmental Justice. The
purpose of an environmental justice
analysis is to guarantee the fair
environmental protection and treatment
of all races, incomes, and cultures with
respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations and
policies. This analysis ensures that no
person or groups of people experience a
disproportionate share of the negative
environmental impacts of a project.
Executive Order 12898, "Federal
Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations" requires each
Federal agency to identify and address
such potential impacts of its programs,
policies, and activities.
In accordance with EPA's guidelines,
the following four questions must be
addressed during an environmental
justice analysis:
What are the demographic
characteristics of the population
adjacent to the project?
Is the facility on or near or owned by
an Indian reservation?
Have any local citizens or groups
expressed an interest in the project?
What steps are being taken to
address potential environmental
justice concerns?
The following paragraphs provide
discussions on each of these topics.
Demographics. To classify as an
environmental justice area of concern,
the percentage of low-income or
minority populations in a project area
must be lower or higher than the state's
low-income or minority threshold. The
State of Florida's minority threshold is
31.99 percent and the low-income
threshold is 30.01 percent. As illustrated
in Figure 3-10, there are no minority or
low-income populations greater than the
state's threshold limit within one mile of
the project study area.
Native American Issues. The project
area is not located on or near an Indian
reservation. The proposed reservoir will
not be owned or operated by an Indian
Tribe nor will it be located in tribal
ceded territory.
Project Interest. Both individuals and
groups living in or adjacent to the
project area have showed a great deal of
3-59
-------
*> .--V--v' ' ,
w
I I Proposed Reservoir
j | 1,3, 5 Mile Buffer Zones
Potential EJ Areas
Low Income
Minority
Minority/Low Income
Non-EJ Areas
Source: 1990 U.S. Census Population and Housing Sumary Tape File 3 (STF3) data
Aggregated to Block group Level -600-2000 People.
Figure Source: EPA Region 4. Environmental Accountability Division
2 Miles
Figure 3-10
TAMPA BAY REGIONAL RESERVOIR
PROJECT DEIS
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AREAS
Relative State Minority Threshold: 31.99%
Palatfcn 3tafe I nui InnnmA ThmehnM MKKY Vt MV.
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
interest in the Regional Reservoir
Project. Most of the concerns raised
during the preparation of the DEIS and
the NEPA process relate to the
construction and operation of the
reservoir. These concerns have all been
taken into account and are addressed in
the appropriate sections of the DEIS.
3.14 VISUAL AND AESTHETIC
CHARACTERISTICS
The primary determinants of visual
character are topography, vegetation,
and land use. Unique combinations of
vegetation, topography, and manmade
features create the aesthetic quality of
the area.
Located in west-central Florida along the
Gulf coast, the landscape of
Hillsborough County is primarily
composed of large, nearly level plains
called flatwoods. The flatwoods rise
gradually from the coast to more than
100 feet msl in the eastern part of the
county. Along the coast, elevations
range from sea level to approximately
144 feet.
The land use in the proposed reservoir
area is primarily agricultural land, being
used for row and citrus crops, livestock
grazing, and improved pasture. Portions
of the site were once part of a
phosphorous mine that have since been
reclaimed. Small ponds, one small
manmade lake, and several small to
medium sized streams are also present.
Overall the land in the project area is
flat, however the few high areas that are
present do provide a long range
panorama of the landscape. Physical
features of the area, such as wetlands,
ponds and wooded areas, are generally
considered to be visually pleasing.
The proposed pipeline route is primarily
located in disturbed right-of-ways along
existing roadways such as Boyette Road.
The land use along the alignment
includes improved pasture, upland
forest, and agricultural cropland. Very
few wetlands are present along the
proposed route and those that are in the
area have been considered. Several rural
residences are traversed and the entrance
to one Girl Scout camp property is
crossed. No major streams or rivers are
crossed. Electrical transmission and
distribution lines and communication
towers are also present along the route.
3.15 CULTURAL RESOURCES
The cultural resources of a given area
are often described from a prehistoric
and historic context. The discussions
that follow present the cultural
perspectives of the Regional Reservoir
Project using these separations.
Prehistoric Background. The project
area is located in the Central Peninsular
Gulf Coast archaeological region, which
extends from just north of Tampa Bay
southward to the northern portion of
Charlotte Harbor (Milanich and
Fairbanks 1980; Milanich 1994). Within
this zone, archaeologists have defined
the Paleo-Indian, Archaic, Transitional,
Woodlands, and Mississippian stages on
the basis of unique sets of material
culture traits such as characteristic stone
tool forms and ceramics as well as
subsistence, settlement, and burial
patterns.
The Paleo-Indian stage identifies the
earliest evidence of human culture in
Florida, dating from about 12,000 BC to
7500 BC. During this time period,
Florida was in a cooler and drier climate.
Sea level was approximately 130-165
3-61
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
feet below today's modern levels. A
xerophytic environment was typical with
scrub oaks, pine, open grassy prairies,
and savannas the most common
vegetation types. Inland water sources
were in shorter supply, and this lack of
water led to the so-called Oasis
hypothesis, a supposition that localized
watering holes determined the patterning
of Paleoindian presence in prehistoric
Florida.
In Hillsborough County, the evidence for
Paleo-Indian occupation is abundant.
Lanceolate-shaped projectile points are
often found in dredged spoils from
beneath Tampa Bay, indicating that
Paleoindian sites might now lie
submerged by higher sea levels .that have
been present since the late Pleistocene
(Austin 2000). The Harney Flats site,
excavated in 1980, is a regional example
of a large terrestrial Paleoindian
habitation site. Tools such as scrapers,
adzes, and spokeshaves have been found
at this site along the Hillsborough River
drainage. Sites such as these have
yielded information about both the
manufacturing processes of this period
as well as the stylistic transitional from
Paleo-lndian to Archaic points.
The Late Paleo-Indian periods indicated
a trend toward a wetter climate. With the
probable expansion of water sources, the
Paleoindian hunters expanded their
strategies to include greater portions of
the state. This transition resulted in the
loss of large lanceolate points such as
the Suwannee and Simpson points, and
the incorporation of smaller points
including the Tallahassee, Santa Fe, and
Beaver Lake types. Important sites for
Late Paleo-Indian presence are found in
lithic scatters from Boca Ciega Bay near
St. Petersburg, and Deerstand site in the
Hillsborough River drainage. Following
the end of the Ice Ages, the Pliestocene
megafauna gradually died out, forcing
the use of smaller game and other food
sources by the aboriginal peoples of
Florida. This climatic change is reflected
in the cultural aspects of the Archaic
period (Almy et al 1998).
Milanich (Milanich and Fairbanks 1980;
Milanich 1994) has divided the Archaic
time period into three periods: Early,
Middle, and Late Archaic. Early Archaic
cultures appear to overlap with the
Paleoindian period cultures, but are
documented as attaining unique identity
in Florida approximately 6500 to 5000
BC. The archaeological record is
usually interpreted as indicating an
expansion of the tools from Paleoindian
sources. Specialized stone tools
developed as well as tools to perform
multiple tasks. Many well preserved
bohe artifacts and wooden tools have
been recovered from the sites of Little
Salt Springs in Sarasota County and
Windover Pond in Brevard County. The
Early Archaic populations are known to
have established camps near water
sources, especially small seasonal
campsites.
These Early Archaic cultures are
assumed to have adapted from the
nomadic lifestyle of the Paleo-Indian
period to a more settled coastal and
riverine-associated with the Middle
Archaic period. This period lasted from -
approximately 5000 to 1000 BC. A shift
from a dispersed settlement pattern to a
system of base camps has been
hypothesized (Bullen et al 1959).
Artifacts associated with this period
include broad-bladed, stemmed
projectile points such as the Newnan,
Marion, and Putnam types.
3-62
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
The major sites contributing to
knowledge about the Middle Archaic
period are the Deerstand and
Wetherington Island Sites in
Hillsborough County, four lithic scatter
sites on the CF Industries property in
Hardee County, and the Republic Groves
Site southeast of Zolfo Springs in
Hardee County, along with the
previously mentioned Little Salt Springs
site in Sarasota County. Quarry sites,
such as the Wetherington Island Site in
northeast Hillsborough County represent
quarry sites where chert was mined and
roughly shaped before being taken to
other locations for tool making (Chance
1981). The Republic Grove Site
(Wharton et al. 1981), and the Little Salt
Springs Site (Clausen et al. 1979)
include human interments, artifacts and
tools. These sites contain representations
of wetland burials, which have preserved
human tissues in peat remarkably well.
These sites have the potential to provide
extraordinary information about native
peoples in Florida.
During the Late Archaic, approximately
3000 to 1200 BC, prehistoric human
settlements adapted to specific
environmental zones. This period
marked the arrival of essentially modern
climatic conditions. An increased use of
coastal resources is found in
archaeological records for shell midden
sites, such as the one adjacent to
Sarasota Bay (Bullen and Bullen 1976).
The increasing reliance on coastal
resources has resulted in the presence of
many Late Archaic middens across the
Florida coast. Many of these sites may
have been already destroyed due to the
practice of utilizing shell middens to
provide road materials for towns like
Bradenton and Tampa. The remaining
identified sites are located in Tampa Bay
and Hillsborough County such as the
Culbreath, Apollo Beach sites, and the
Canton Street site in St. Petersburg.
Other regional examples include the
Palmer Site in Sarasota County, and
Useppa Island Archaic site in the mouth
of Charlotte Harbor (Almy and
Hutchinson 1998).
The Late Archaic Period also marks the
appearance of ceramic shards of pottery.
For this reason, the period is sometimes
called the Ceramic Period, or the Orange
Period in Peninsular Florida. The early
pottery was fiber-tempered ware, dating
back to approximately 2000-1650 BC.
More recent pottery was decorated with
geometric designs and punctuation.
These features now serve as the method
used to distinguish earlier and later sites
within the 2000-1000 BC period.
The later cultures of Florida all
incorporated ceramics in their lifestyle,
which has become an important tool
today as chronological markers of
specific periods. The Transitional stage
bridged the time between the Archaic
and the Woodland stages, and was
associated with limited horticulture.
Although still referred to in the
literature, the Transitional period is no
longer considered a distinct viable
period as new and better data from all
parts of the state are collected and
recorded. Evidence points to regional
interaction with other cultures such as
the Poverty Point complex of the lower
Mississippi valley. The Canton Street
site in St. Petersburg, for example,
shows evidence of the gradual
introduction of pottery manufacturing
methods typical of the Transitional
period.
3-63
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
The Woodlands stage is known
throughout the central peninsular Gulf
Coast regions as the Manasota culture
period (ca. 500 BC to AD 300). These
sites were characterized as economy
sites based on fishing, hunting, and
shellfish gathering (Almy et al 1979).
Ceramics were limited to sand-tempered
undecorated pottery and little use of
stone tools have been found. Shell tools
and bone tools were increasingly
preferred. Most of these sites are
identified by the presence of coastal
shell middens, usually linear deposits
parallel to the shoreline, sometimes
forming undulating swales or possessing
shell ramps (Milanich 1994). Burial
mound customs, artifacts of trade and
economy, and settlement patterns
suggest a complex social and religious
organization from this period. Some use
of horticulture in the larger settlements
may be indicative of larger populations
and a more sedentary lifestyle.
Tampa Bay may have provided an ideal
setting for the Manasota cultures due to
its vast resources describing the setting:
A large inlet that offers
numerous estuaries and in the past
extensive marsh and mangrove
stands...a giant food basket offish and
shellfish that could support relatively
large pre-Columbian
populations...[where they] could take
advantage not only of marine resources
but of the resources of the wooded locals
and the inland rivers and wetlands.
Regional sites have been identified from
the Late Manasota/Early Wheeden
Island cultural stages at Stanley Mound
in Manatee County and Sarasota County
Mound (Bullen 1971). These sites have
been valuable in providing information
about tools, burial customs, and other
subsistence patterns for the region.
The final prehistoric Mississippian
cultural stage is known as the Safety
Harbor period, named after the type-site
in Tampa Bay, Pinellas County. Spanish
contact is known from several sites of
this stage. Recovered artifacts provide
evidence this culture continued to
occupy its traditional region into
colonial times. Large towns with temple
mounds, plazas, middens and burial
mounds characterized this period. Most
major sites were located along the shore,
often over the top of Manasota sites.
Evidence also exists for the use of maize
(Almy etal 1981).
The Timucuan Indians are recognized as
the primary constituents of the Safety
Harbor period. Large populations were
located at Safety Harbor, Miximo Point,
Narvaes Midden, and Tierra Verde, all in
Pinellas County. Inland sites include
Parrish Mounds in Manatee County, the
Davis Mound in Hardee County, and the
Arcadia Site and Keen Mound in Desoto
County. A burial site located on the
Myakka River, outside of the project
area for the alternatives remaining under
consideration, may have a Safety Harbor
Component.
Historic Background. With the
Spanish Crown's explorations into
Florida came disease and repeated
conflict. Panfilo de Narvaez landed
south of Tampa Bay in 1528, traveling
inland and then north to the Apalachee
Bay region (Milanich and Hudson 1993).
Hernando de Soto also landed on the
west coast of Florida, in Tampa Bay near
the mouth of the Little Manatee River.
DeSoto and some of his men left the
Tampa Bay camp and headed northeast,
3-64
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
crossing what is now known as the
Alafia River (River of Mocoso).
Archaeological sites associated with the
DeSoto expedition have been located in
Hillsborough County, however these
sites are outside of the project
alternatives remaining under
consideration. After the first half of the
18th century, native Indian populations
had been largely wiped out. Florida's
historic period began with the
occupation of Spain from 1565 to 1763.
No permanent settlements were
established in the project region.
The State of Florida was ceded to
England in 1763, until the Treaty of
Paris returned Florida to Spain. Loose
associations between portions of the
Creek Nation and other Indian groups
from Alabama, Georgia and South
Carolina were pushed into Florida by
American colonization prior to the
settlement of Florida. The emigrated
groups became known as the Seminole
Indians, and at times formed
confederations against the American
advance. Seminole Indians began
moving into the Tampa Bay area in the
early 18th century.
Bloody conflict marked the contact
between the fledgling Americans and the
Seminoles. By 1818, these skirmishes
had developed into the First Seminole
War. The Seminoles relinquished their
claims to the peninsula of Florida with
the Treaty of Moultrie Creek in 1823
and were relocated to areas near Ocala
and north of Charlotte Harbor. After this
war, Florida officially became a United
States Territory in 1821. A second
Seminole Indian revolt occurred in 1835
and became known as with the Second
Seminole War. This conflict lasted until
1842 when the federal government
withdrew its troops from Florida. With
military installations Fort Chokonikla,
Fort Hartsuff, and Fort Green in
Manatee County to protect residents
from continued minor skirmishes, the
Seminoles were pushed further to the
south into the Everglades and Big
Cypress Swamp. Fighting erupted once
again with the Third Seminole War, also
known as the Billy Bowlegs War.
Ending in 1856, the Seminole warriors
were persuaded to move west.
In 1845, Florida was admitted to the
Union with Tallahassee as the state
capital. Manatee County was created in
1855 from portions of Hillsborough and
Dade counties. Cattle ranching was one
of the first economic activities
undertaken in Manatee County. By the
late 1850's, cattle were a significant
portion of southwest Florida's economy.
Tampa and Punta Rassa, south of Fort
Meyers became major shipping ports for
cattle. During this period in Florida's
history, cattle barons and "crackers'"
became participants in society. Don
Vicente Martinez Ybor moved his cigar
factory from Key West to the outskirts
of Tampa in 1886. The historic district
today is still a commerce district,
catering to nighttime revelry and
entertainment.
Florida seceded from the Union in 1861
as a prelude to the Civil War. Florida
became a major supplier of beef to the
Confederate Army during this time.
Development of the State was slow until
the end of the Civil War allowed the
railroad to arrive in the 1880's.
Phosphate was discovered in the late
1880's while surveying the Peace River.
Florida's phosphate industry went
through three periods of development,
bringing corresponding increases in
population. Agriculture became an
3-65
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
important part of Florida's economy and
is today second only to tourism as an
economic anchor.
The stories of several historic
communities including Boyette to the
west, Lithia to the north, and Picnic to
the south of the proposed regional
reservoir have been summarized. Along
the western end of the pipeline corridor
are Riverview and the historic
community of Bell Shoals. Boyette was
originally known as Fish Hawk, later
renamed for Thomas Boyette in 1902.
Lithia's first white settlers came to the .
area before the Civil War. Occupied
also around this time was the settlement
of Hurrah, later renamed to Picnic.
Dating back to the 1840's Peru was one
of Hillsborough County's earliest
settlements; the town was situated on the
south side of the Alafia River near the
intersection of U.S. 301 and Balm-
Riverview Road. However, Riverview -
eclipsed, and eventually consumed Peru
during the 20th century. With the
discovery of phosphate in the region.
people flooded into Riverview. Later,
Riverview developed into a haven from
urban Tampa where people,grew citrus
and raised cattle.
3.16 RECREATION
Hillsborough, Pasco, and Pinellas
counties contain many significant natural
resources that are developed and used to
satisfy the public's recreation demands.
In the project area, the Alafia River,
Hillsborough River, Tampa Bypass
Canal, and Tampa Bay provide a variety
of recreational opportunities. These
activities include fishing, canoeing and
boating, youth sports, walking and
jogging trails, bicycling, and others.
Recreational opportunities of almost
every type are available on lands
administered by various federal and state
agencies in the project area.
m considering the opportunities for
recreational and educational use of the
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir and
surrounding area, Tampa Bay Water
consulted with residents, recreation
users, recreation experts, and
environmental experts to determine the
best recreation opportunities while
preserving the existing conditions of the
area. A conceptual recreation plan for
the regional reservoir and surrounding
lands were developed (Wade-Trim
2000). Three different recreation plans
were developed that reflect a variety of
recreational opportunities for the area.
These plans are described as follows:
Level 1 - focuses on water-related
recreational uses such as canoeing
and fishing as well as trail systems.
The Level One plan has primarily
passive recreation uses.
Level 2 - has extensive boating and
fishing opportunities plus primitive
camping, horseback riding and an
equestrian center. A golf course is
also featured.
Level 3 - has the most complete
offering of recreational
opportunities, featuring all of the
uses proposed in the previous two
plans, plus an expanded equestrian
center, a sporting clays and paintball
complex, an expanded environmental
education center, a sports complex
and recreational vehicle camping.
In August 2000, Tampa Bay Water
presented the conceptual recreation plan
through a mailer to 1,400 people living
in the area and asked for their input. The
mailing list included property owners
near the regional reservoir, people who
3-66
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
have expressed an interest in the project,
as well as a number of recreational and
environmental groups. A short survey
was included in the mailing that
addressed which recreation uses were
favored, what level of development they
felt was appropriate, what concerns they
had about the conceptual recreation plan,
and what might be done to mitigate
those concerns.
A total of 115 questionnaires (8 percent
response rate) were returned from the
1,400 persons contacted. Results of the
survey indicated most respondents were
interested in canoeing, hiking and biking
trails, interpretive nature trails, fishing,
an environmental education center and
primitive camping. Overall, the
respondents seemed to prefer a less
intensive type of recreational
development and more passive activities.
The plan preferred by the respondents
(about 42 percent) was the Level 1 plan,
although 38 percent indicated preference
for the Level 2 plan.
At this point, there is no definite
commitment to incorporate recreational
uses at the Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir. Further development of a
recreational plan would include
identification of potential funding
sources and facilities management
alternatives for the uses favored by the
public in the survey. Any recreational
activities would be compatible with the
reservoir's primary purpose and
consistent with the needs to protect
water quality, manage water levels, and
maintain security. However, the
reservoir would be suitable for
recreation in the context of a large man-
made lake, and at least some of the
surrounding property that would be in
public ownership could be used for land-
based activities.
3.17 RISK ANALYSIS AND
IMPACT TO THE HUMAN
COMMUNITY
Throughout the siting and design of the
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir, safety
has been and will continue to be a
primary consideration. The
consideration of safety and risk began
with the initial site selection process and
continued through the geotechnical site
characterization. Several layers of
analysis were included in the
geotechnical investigation, each of
which built on the previous layer and
further refined the study. These layers
included a historical site analysis, a
geophysical investigation using ground
penetrating radar, seismic reflection and
refraction, and a geotechnical analysis.
A detailed stability analysis was
conducted on an embankment with the
proposed dimensions of the Tampa Bay
Regional Reservoir. While the
embankment was found to be stable on
its own and met all applicable standards,
other design features were incorporated
to further increase the factor of safety of
the embankment. These features include
a geomembrane liner on the interior face
of the embankment to reduce seepage,
soil cement on the interior embankment
facing to reduce potential erosion of the
embankment, and a drain system on the
exterior of the embankment to collect
seepage. The resulting factors of safety
under all conditions referenced in the
design standards are greater than
required (HDR 2000).
During design, the potential impact of
large storm events and the wind and rain
associated with those storms were also
3-67
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
evaluated. The design of the reservoir
includes 8.5 feet of freeboard, which is
the difference between the maximum
operating water surface elevation and the
embankment crest elevation. This
freeboard will allow for maximum
rainfall of 40 inches (3.3 feet) and 5.2
feet of wave run-up and storm surge.
The 5.2 feet of freeboard for wave run-
up and storm surge accounts for
sustained winds of 110 miles per hour.
Even though safety has been considered
in all aspects of reservoir design from
project planning to operation, an
emergency action plan (EAP) has been
prepared. The EAP was prepared using
the guidelines established by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) (HDR 2000).
The EAP is a formal document that
identifies potential emergency
conditions at the Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir and specifies preplanned
actions to be followed to avoid or
minimize impacts. The EAP specifies
actions that will be taken to moderate or
alleviate the problems and contains
procedures and information to assist
personnel in issuing early warning and
notification messages to responsible
emergency management authorities of
any emergency situations.
Emergency Detection and Evaluation.
The EAP provides a discussion of the
procedures for the timely and reliable
detection, evaluation, and classification
of an existing or potential emergency
condition. It also establishes procedures
for determining the classification of an
emergency condition, based on the
severity or urgency of the situation.
Based on FEMA guidelines, four
emergency conditions have been
identified,
Embankment Advisory Condition.
A situation where an unusual
problem or situation has occurred,
but failure of the embankment is not
imminent.
Embankment Warning Condition. A
situation where any developing or
occurring event or circumstance
could potentially adversely affect the
integrity of the embankment, but is
considered controllable.
Embankment Emergency Condition.
A situation where rapid deterioration
is occurring or available freeboard
has been reduced to the point where
sufficient freeboard does not exist to
contain the anticipated rainfall and
wave run-up from an approaching
hurricane.
Embankment Breach Condition.
Defined as the dislocation or failure
of any structure that allows for an
expanding, uncontrollable discharge
of water through the embankment
indicating a breach is occurring.
Emergency Notification. In the event
of an emergency at the regional
reservoir, Tampa Bay Water would be
responsible for notifying both the
Hillsborough County Emergency
Management Department (HCEMD) and
the State Dam Safety Officer at the
Bureau of Mine Reclamation for the
FDEP. Once an emergency condition is
identified, the HCEMD is contacted.
This allows the HCEMD to coordinate
with both their Emergency Dispatch
Operations and Emergency Management
Office.
General Responsibilities under the
Emergency Action Plan. The EAP also
3-68
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
establishes the responsibilities of Tampa
Bay Water, as the facility owner, and the
local and state emergency management
agencies, as the entities with the
statutory obligation for warning and
evacuating the public within the
potentially affected areas (HDR 2000).
These specific responsibilities by agency
are;
Tampa Bay Water
Identification of the Emergency
Condition
Notification of the Hillsborough
County Emergency Management
Department and the FDEP State
Dam Safety Officer
Implementation and direction of
emergency repairs
Update the emergency status to the
appropriate Hillsborough County
Agency and the State Dam Safety
Officer
Provisions for security measures at
the facility
Evacuation of the Tampa Bay
Regional Reservoir site itself in the
event of an emergency condition
Provision of technical assistance to
local and state emergency
management agencies, when
necessary
Reporting termination of emergency
situation on-site at the facility
Hillsborough County Emergency
Management Department
Coordinate with both the Emergency
Dispatch Operations and the
Emergency Management Office.
Coordinating the County's response
at the County's Emergency
Operations Center.
Responsible for orchestrating
response and recovery actions in the
aftermath of a disaster.
Dispatch center for 911 calls
requesting police, fire, or medical
assistance and dispatching the
appropriate rescue units.
Florida Department of Community
Affairs, Division of Emergency
Management
Control and coordination of with
Public Law in accordance with all
emergency action.
Provide assistance to Hillsborough
County when it is requested and is
beyond Hillsborough County
capabilities.
If necessary, notification of other
appropriate state agencies.
Review and testing of the emergency
notification process.
Request of Federal Aid if applicable.
Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Mine
Reclamation, State Dam Safety
Officer
Provide technical assistance to
Tampa Bay Water.
Assist in the evaluation and
assessment of potential emergency
conditions.
Implement their authority to direct
Tampa Bay Water to take any
necessary, reasonable safety
measures.
Termination and Recovery of an
Emergency. For an emergency situation
to be terminated there has to be an
agreement between Tampa Bay Water
and Hillsborough County as to when it is
appropriate to terminate the emergency
condition. Upon inspection of the
facility, it is Tampa Bay Water's
responsibility to make the decision when
the facility is safe and the emergency
condition can be terminated. It is then
3-69
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Hillsborough County's responsibility to
terminate off-site evacuation and
emergency response activities. Upon
termination of the emergency, a news
release would be issued by Tampa Bay
Water to the local media for broadcast to
the general public. At this time, the
County would begin evaluating the
overall emergency response and prepare
a report documenting the emergency
procedures. The purpose of the report is
to help identify any deficiencies in the
Emergency Action Plan that could
include procedure, manpower, materials,
or equipment used during the
emergency.
Once the emergency is terminated,
recovery actions are taken to demobilize
and return to the pre-emergency
conditions of the facility. Tampa Bay
Water is responsible for securing the
site, taking necessary actions of restoring
the basic facility service, and assessing
the damage. As with the termination
phase, off-site recovery actions are the
responsibility of Hillsborough County.
Preparedness. The EAP describes
preparedness actions to be taken by
Tampa Bay Water prior to and following
the onset of an emergency. This
includes the installation of equipment or
the establishment of procedures to:
Prevent emergency conditions from
developing and warning of the
onset of an emergency condition.
Facilitate the operation of the facility
in an emergency condition.
Minimize the extent of damage
resulting from any emergency
situation.
The preparedness section of the EAP
describes the procedures such as
surveillance, instrumentation, and
inspection schedules. An extensive
surveillance program has been designed
for the Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir,
which include instrumentation and
alarms for detecting water levels and
instrumentation for evaluating
embankment performance. An
inspection program has been developed
for the Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
and includes various types of
inspections. These include an annual
third-party and weekly inspections, and
informal observations by project
personnel as they operate the reservoir.
Inundation maps will also be used to
assist in notification and evacuation of
the public in the event of an emergency
at the Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir.
3-70
-------
Tanya Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
CHAPTER 4
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSEQUENCES
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Chapter 4, Environmental
Consequences, discusses the adverse and
positive impacts associated with
development of the two action
alternatives carried forward in the
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
DEIS and how the significant adverse
impacts resulting from implementation
of either of the two action alternatives
would be mitigated. The two action
alternatives considered are:
1,1.00-Acre Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir Project
1,100-Acre Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir Project and an 18-mgd
ASR System
These two water storage/supply
alternatives along with the No Federal
Action alternative (see Chapter 2) are
compared in the following sections. The
impacts addressed include those to both
the existing natural resources and the
existing human environment. The
descriptions of mitigation measures
contained in these discussions are
, intended as brief summaries. A
summary of the proposed mitigation
plan has been developed and is included
as Appendix B.
According to Tampa Bay Water, the
addition of an 18-mgd ASR system as a
component with the 1,100-acre regional
reservoir would enhance the overall
surface water supply system by
increasing its reliability. However, the
time interval required to develop an
operational ASR system is about 10
years. Therefore, the inclusion of an
ASR component with the 1,100-acre
reservoir does not satisfy the need to
develop an operational water supply by
the year 2007. All of the technical
aspects of the development and
operation of an ASR system have not
been addressed in this DEIS. As a
result, Tampa Bay Water may want to
further evaluate the effects of adding an
ASR system to the existing 1,100-acre
reservoir at some point in the future.
As stated in Chapter 2, the Tampa Bay
Regional Reservoir Project is Tampa
Bay Waters' preferred alternative. To
compare viable alternatives in this DEIS,
it was necessary to consider that No
Federal Action equated to no reservoir.
However, absent $12,615,000 in federal
funds, nothing in this DEIS would
prevent Tampa Bay Water from building
the 1,100-acre reservoir and connecting
transmission pipeline.
If the Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
were not built, Tampa Bay Water has
demonstrated that it would not meet the
tri-county area potable water demands
under the commitments and obligations
of the Interlocal and Partnership
agreements nor would it meet the
cumulative water supply needs predicted
to occur by the year 2007. A 25-mgd
deficit in water need would result.
Tampa Bay Water and SWFWMD have
agreed to a Consolidated Water Use
Permit that reduces Tampa Bay Water's
current groundwater withdrawals of 158
mgd to 120 mgd by December 2002, and
to 90 mgd by December 2007.
Exceeding permitted withdrawal
quantities in the Consolidated Water Use
4-1
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Permit could result in loss of funding
committed by SWFWMD to Tampa Bay
Water through the Partnership
Agreement. In addition, groundwater
pumpage above permitted levels would
continue, resulting in an increase in
environmental impacts to wetlands and
lakes.
The natural resources evaluated in this
chapter include land, water, air,
vegetation communities, wildlife, and
threatened and endangered species. The
human resources examined are
population, land use and ownership,
employment, economics, recreation*
cultural resources, and aesthetics. The
methodology for determining impacts to
these resources and the criteria for
evaluating the significance of these
impacts are described. The impacts are ,
further categorized and, for potentially
significant impacts, mitigation measures
are proposed.
4.2 GENERAL SETTING
The general setting of an area is a
function of its geographic location,
topography, climate, and land cover.
Locations can not be changed by human
activity, although the selection of
alternatives in different locations could
result in different types and levels of
impact to the general setting. Climate
can only be changed by human activity
on a massive scale. Topography could
be altered or modified by human
activities conducted on a local scale.
However, extensive measures would
normally be required to significantly
change the overall topography of an
area.
Methodologies and Significance
Criteria. Site visits and best
professional judgement was used to
gauge the effects the alternatives would
have on location, topography, climate,
and land cover. Impacts to the general
setting of the project area would be
significant if they resulted in a dramatic
change in the overall character of the
area.
4.2.1 Action Alternatives. Both of the
action alternatives would alter a specific
portion of the existing project area
through the construction and operation
and maintenance of the embankment,
transmission main, and reservoir.
Changes to the general setting of the
local area would be limited to the lands
temporarily disturbed or permanently
modified by construction or operation
and maintenance. No changes in
climatic conditions would result.
!
Changes in the local topography would
result from the construction of the
reservoir embankments, which are
proposed to be 65 feet at the highest
point. All borrow material required to
construct the embankments would come
from the reservoir interior. No
significant changes in area topography,
other than the embankments, would
result.
4.2.2 No Federal Action. The No
Federal Action alternative would not
change the climate, topography, or land
cover of the local area since no
construction or operation and
maintenance activities would occur.
Land use changes currently on-going
with local area development would
continue unabated. With the exception
of land development, the No Federal
Action would not significantly impact
the general setting of the area.
4.2.3 Mitigation. Planned mitigation
areas located outside of the embankment
4-2
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
and reservoir area would be shaped and
vegetated after construction to mitigate
for wetland impacts that are expected
due to the construction of the project.
4.3 HYDROLOGY
Methodology and Significance
Criteria. The following local and
regional hydrogeology information of
the site and surrounding area was
reviewed.
Hydrology of the Floridan Aquifer
System in West-Central Florida,
1985;
Ground-Water Resource Availability
Inventory: Hillsborough County,
Florida, 1988;
The Geology of Florida, 1997;
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5
minute series topographic map,
Lithia, Florida Quadrangle, 1955,
and 1972;
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5
minute series topographic map,
Lithia, Florida Quadrangle, 1955,
and 1987;
USDA Soil Surveys of Hillsborough
County, Florida, 1958 and 1989.
4.3.1 Surficial and Subsurface Soil
Conditions. The 1989 U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) soil survey
for Hillsborough County, Florida defines
nine dominant soil types characteristic of
the proposed reservoir property and the
immediate vicinity. Sandy soil types
dominate the northern portion of the site
and the southern half is dominated by
soils typical of those found in reclaimed
strip mine areas. Prior to mining,
several discontinuous, low, wet areas
were located within the southern portion
of the site. Some of these depressional
areas were mapped by the 1958 USDA
soil survey as containing organic bearing
soils.
4.3.2 Surface Drainage. Based on
nearby drainage basin features and
ground surface elevations, the apparent
surficial groundwater flow direction and
unchanneled surface-water runoff
direction is to the northwest on an
regional basis. The regional reservoir
site is bounded by Doe Branch to the
northeast and Long Flat Creek to the
west. These creeks drain to the
northwest into Chapman Hammock and
Cabbage Hammock, respectively. These
areas eventually drain into Fishhawk
Creek and the Alafia River.
4.3.3 Mining and Reclamation
History. The approximate southern one-
third of the proposed site was previously
disturbed and mined for phosphate ore.
The mining was done using surface
excavating equipment that first removed
the overburden materials, then the
phosphate bearing ore or "matrix".
Agrico Chemical Company (Agrico) did
the mining from the 1940s through the
1960s. The area was known as the
Boyette Mine. After mining, the
disturbed land areas were incorporated
into a series of waste clay disposal ponds
that were active in the 1950s and 1960s.
Reclamation activities began in the mid-
1970s and were generally finished by the
late 1980s.
The year that clearing and mining by
Agrico commenced is not exactly
known; however, historical aerial
photographs and records indicate that it
was about 1945. Mining activities at the
Boyette Mine continued until about
1966. Agrico sold some of the mined
land in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
The mined area that is included in the
4-3
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
reservoir footprint was sold to Amos
Adams in 1969 and later to Dr. J. C.
Pruitt. After areas were mined, they
were re-shaped to act as disposal or
settling areas for waste phosphatic clays.
Reclamation of these areas was done as
part of the State's Nonmandatory or
"Old Lands" Reclamation Rules,
administered by the State of Florida
Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP), Bureau of Mine Reclamation,
(FACRule62C-17). This reclamation
work was done for Dr. J. C. Pruitt in the
early to mid-1980s.
The sand tailings from the mining
operation appear to have been deposited
in areas south of the proposed reservoir
area. The sand tailing area, south of the
reservoir project area is one-quarter
circular in shape and extended to an
elevation of about +150 feet NGVD,
which is its current maximum elevation.
4.3.4 Action Alternatives.
Construction and operation of either
alternative would not significantly
impact the hydrology of the proposed
site. The site would still be drained by
Doe Branch to the northeast and Long
Flat Creek to the west. These creeks
drain to the northwest into Chapman
Hammock and Cabbage Hammock,
respectively.
4.3.5 No Federal Action. The No
Federal Action alternative does not
include development of either alternative
and therefore would not alter the existing
hydrology.
4.3.6 Mitigation. No mitigation is
proposed for this portion of the project.
Potential impacts to the hydrology of the
proposed reservoir would be modest.
4.4 GEOLOGICAL,
HYDROGEOLOGICAL, AND
GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATION
This section describes the geology and
hydrogeology of the site, including an
analysis of the potential for sinkhole
development. Construction of the
proposed reservoir requires
characterization of the materials upon
which it would be built. It is important
to understand the potential for leakage
from the reservoir and for development
of sinkholes, which are common features
in parts of west central Florida. It is also
important to delineate the availability
and distribution of geologic materials
that may be useful in construction of the
reservoir or that may interfere with its
construction or function.
Methodology and Significance
Criteria. Geological investigations
were undertaken to develop information
on the surface and subsurface geologic
materials for the proposed reservoir site
characterization. Geologic
investigations necessary to support
detailed geologic design of the
alternatives included a photolineament
analysis, ground penetrating radar,
seismic reflection and refraction,
drillings, test pits, pedestrian surveys,
and the review of existing data. Impacts
on geology would be significant if
natural geologic processes such as uplift,
faulting, landslides, or weathering were
changed. Conversely, local geology
would significantly impact the project if
expensive and time consuming
engineering solutions were required for
embankment or wellfield construction.
Such investigations required:
Review of past studies by others in
the same location or in geologically
similar locales. Observation of
4-4
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
landforms and materials exposed at
the ground surface or in shallow
trenches.
Review of aerial photographs of the
site.
Measurement of the geophysical
properties of the sediments and rocks
in the subsurface.
Drilling of boreholes to recover
sediment and rock samples for
analysis.
Construction of cross-sections and
maps of the subsurface as enabled by
the program of drilling and sampling.
A geophysical investigation was
used to "screen" large areas of the
reservoir site for discrete structures
and to assist in identification of
locations for test drilling.
Geophysicist accomplished this by
observing the physical responses of
the subsurface to such diverse
probing tools as seismic and radar
waves.
The geophysical program was developed
to work with the geological investigation
to develop a model of the subsurface
geology of the site to:
Locate areas within the site that are
potential hazards to the success of
the planned impoundment.
Provide information about the
characteristics of subsurface
materials that would affect the
engineering design of the project.
Guide the drilling program to
locations appropriate for verification
and delineation of subsurface
features.
In order to conduct a photolinear
analysis at the reservoir site, aerial
photographs taken in 1939, 1948, 1957,
and 1998 were reviewed. The 1939 and
1948 images allowed identification of
photolinear features in the land that was
subsequently mined.
Once it was determined that photolinear
features are present on the site, they
were identified in the field and staked as
potential borehole locations.
Geophysical exploration in the vicinity
of these sites was used to refine the
borehole locations for drilling.
Geophysical investigation concentrated
on areas where photolinear features
intersected each other, especially where
these features had been assigned high
levels of confidence, and where
photolinears intersected the proposed
embankment centerline. Additional
geophysical exploration sites were
selected near circular depressions and
wetlands that might represent past
sinkhole activity.
A complementary suite of geophysical
methods was utilized to evaluate
subsurface stratigraphy and structure at
the Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir site.
This combination included ground
penetrating radar, seismic refraction, and
seismic reflection (Table 4-1).
Upon completion of the geophysical
investigations, the photolinear features
were reviewed. Some of the
photolinears exhibited no geophysical
anomalies while others indicated the
presence of geophysical anomalies.
Where necessary, preliminary borehole
locations were moved to the center of
the geophysical anomaly. Typically, the
locations of the final boreholes were less
than 100 feet from the original locations.
A geologist developed the SPT and
lithologic information collected from the
boreholes with oversight by principal
geologists and engineers. Lithologic
4-5
-------
Tanya Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
designations were reviewed and a
geologic interpretation of the
stratigraphy and karst at the site was
prepared. Geologic formations were
identified based on rock characteristics.
However, the upper 100 to 150 feet of
sediment at the site includes well-
defined sequences of siliciclastic (sand,
silt, and clay) and carbonate (limestone
and dolostone) sediments within a single
formation. These sequences were given
informal designations in order to
correlate between boreholes and identify
anomalous sections where karst
activities maybe present.
4.4.1 Action Alternatives. The
findings of the geological, geophysical,
and hydrological investigations are
summarized below.
The Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
site is located on a physiographic
province characterized by well
developed stream systems and
minimal karst or sinkhole activity.
The geology of the site includes a
sand mantle that averages 18 feet in
thickness.
Underlying the sand mantle is a thick
section of siliciclastic and carbonate
strata of the Hawthorn Group.
The uppermost unit of the Hawthorn
Group is the siliciclastic and
phosphatic Bone Valley Member of
the Peace River Formation. The
Bone Valley averages 12 feet in
thickness at the site. No other Peace
River Formation sediments have
been documented at the site.
The Bone Valley was mined for
phosphate in the southwestern third
of the site.
Beneath the Bone Valley Member
lies the Arcadia Formation, which
consists of siliciclastic and
phosphatic sediments, limestone, and
dolostone.
The shallow strata were subdivided
into five informal stratigraphic units
as follows: Unit A, the surficial
marine terrace sands; B, Bone Valley
Member siliciclastic sediments; C, a
weathered limestone at the top of the
Arcadia Formation; D, a siliciclastic
unit that lies below Unit C; and E, a
dolostone unit that lies
approximately below Unit D.
The top of the Bone Valley Member
(Unit B) and portions of the Unit C
limestone were affected by
weathering and soil formation prior
to deposition of Unit A. This
weathering zone, the leached zone,
includes some loose material.
At the reservoir site, the surficial
aquifer generally consists of
unconsolidated to poorly
consolidated fine sand to silty and
clayey sand of informal stratigraphic
Unit A. However, due to the
complex interbedding of strata,
variable lithology, and infilling of
erosional features, the surficial
aquifer is likely to be in hydraulic
connection with stratigraphic Units
B, C, and D in some areas of the site.
The intermediate aquifer system
penetrated at the reservoir site
consists of Hawthorn Group
sediments of informal stratigraphic
Units B, C, D, and E. The full
thickness of the intermediate aquifer
and confining beds was not
penetrated at the reservoir site.
The most consistent permeable zone
encountered at the site is a
weathered, nodular cherty dolostone
where drilling mud losses have
occurred. This unit is typically
encountered within informal
stratigraphic Unit E, and is defined,
4-6
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for the purposes of this study, as the
"permeable zone of Unit E".
The definition of an upper confining
unit of similar lithology at the
reservoir is difficult due to the
complex nature of the Hawthorn
Group. Ground-water elevation data
from on-site piezometer nests
indicate a substantial head difference
("head loss interval") between the
75-foot depth interval and the
permeable zone of Unit E at the
reservoir site. This head difference
indicates that confinement likely
exists between the two intervals.
Geophysical surveying identified
anomalous areas across the site that
maybe related to subsurface karst
activity. The observed anomalies
included columns of disturbed soil
and broad depressions within the
shallow soil horizons and locations
along seismic lines where the
cemented layer is depressed.
« Locations having the coincidental
occurrence of GPR, refraction, and
reflection anomalies were prioritized
for investigation by drilling for
verification and positive subsurface
analysis.
« Karst-related features were detected
at the site. These include a small
number of collapse-type
paleosinkholes (no modem sinkholes
were detected) and solution-type
sinkholes.
The ancient collapse-type features
found in Areas C (ERM-16A) and D
(ERM-42A) were of concern because
of their proximity to the
embankment. The embankment
centerline was subsequently adjusted
to the east to avoid the feature at
ERM-42A. The features in areas C
and D appear to be ancient, inactive
features due to the undisturbed
character of the uppermost sand unit.
The solution sinkhole-type features
are restricted to broad depressions in
Areas A, B, and, to some degree E
(Figure 3.5-7). Areas A and B have
sag features (wetlands, sag ponds)
and the land surface in Area E is
characterized by a small embayment
in the floodplain to the north.
The only concern relative to the
solution sinkholes is potential
enhanced leakage from the reservoir.
Structural failure of these features is
improbable.
Columns of disturbed soil are present
in many parts of the site. These
reflect downward movement of soil,
but do not appear to be associated
with voids or well-developed
ground-water circulation systems.
Sinkhole risk at the reservoir is
considered to be low relative to other
areas in Hillsborough County.
The geology of the project area was
found to be suitable for the construction
of the alternatives. Some additional
areas would be disturbed for
construction of roads, pipelines, and
other associated facilities. These
impacts would be relatively superficial
and would not affect natural geologic
processes or local area geology. Overall,
no significant impacts to the areas'
geology would result.
4.4.2 No Federal Action. The No
Federal Action alternative would not
disturb the area geology and therefore no
significant impacts would occur.
4.4.3 Mitigation. Detailed geologic
investigations required to prepare the
final design plans were performed.
These investigations establish design
4-7
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
criteria that insure sound and safe
construction and operation of the water
storage reservoir and associated
alternatives. No mitigation is proposed
for the geological impacts from
construction phase impacts of either of
the two action alternatives or the No
Federal Action alternative.
4.5 GEOTECHNICAL
EXPLORATION
The objective of the geotechnical
exploration program was to evaluate the
following general conditions at the
proposed regional reservoir site:
Characterization of the soil and rock
material beneath the proposed
reservoir embankments.
Evaluation of geologic features
identified by the project geologists
and geophysicists.
Characterizations of potential borrow
material in the interior of the
reservoir for embankment
construction.
Delineation of phosphatic waste clay
deposits in the mined area of the site.
Piezometric elevations at various
depths, locations, and time around
the site were evaluated to provide a
better understanding of the local
hydrogeology.
Measurement of the in-situ borehole
hydraulic conductivity and aquifer
well pumping characteristics; this
information will be used to model
the reservoir leakage characteristics,
as discussed in Section 3; the test
results and evaluation of the data will
be presented in a supplemental
report.
Methodology and Significance
Criteria. To accomplish these
objectives, the following types of
explorations were utilized:
Rotary-wash borings (land and over
water)
Cone penetrometer test soundings
with pore pressure measurements
Flat-plate dilatometer test soundings
Rotary-auger borings
Test trenches
Soil probing and shallow hand auger
borings
Borehole hydraulic conductivity
testing
Piezometers and pumping wells.
The entire field exploration program was
performed between January 28, and
December 14, 1999. A substantial
quantity of drilling, soil sampling, soil
and rock coring, in-situ testing, and
trenching was performed at the reservoir
site. This includes approximately 5,300
feet of coring, over 13,300 feet of rotary-
wash borings, and approximately 3,200
feet of CPTU soundings.
Quantitative laboratory testing was
performed on representative samples of
the soils encountered in the field
exploration. The laboratory-testing
program for this investigation included
tests for moisture content, percent fines,
grain size, organic loss on ignition,
Atterberg limits, specific gravity,
standard Proctor, maximum/minimum
density, hydraulic conductivity, and unit
weight. Additionally, strength and
compressibility tests were performed.
Tests were performed on soil and rock
samples collected between January 28,
and November 10, 1999. All tests were
performed in accordance with the
applicable American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM) test methods.
4-8
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
4.5.1 Action Alternatives. The original
reservoir layout for the site encompassed
Hillsborough County's land north of the
landfill and one private landowner to the
north. This layout was rectangular in
shape and would have required the
rerouting of a large portion of Doe
Branch Creek. Based on information
from the SWFWMD, the proposed
reservoir was reconfigured to minimize
the impact to Doe Branch. The current
reservoir configuration would not impact
the existing creek system.
The initial reservoir configuration also
maximized the use of the southern
portion of the site, which is owned by
the Hillsborough County (County) Solid
Waste Management Department and
Parks and Recreation Department.
Based on initial discussions, both of
these departments and the County's Real
Estate Departments issued letters
outlining their concerns or issues with
the initial reservoir configuration.
The Solid Waste Management
Department stated that they had plans for
the area as a source of cover material,
buffer and potential leachate disposal.
In addition, the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection has a
requirement that any Class I water body
be at least 3,000 feet from a landfill cell.
The Parks and Recreation Department's
concerns centered upon the man-made
lake in the southern portion of the site.
This lake is currently the only lake with
potential vehicle access on their
property. Prior to the initiation of the
detailed geotechnical investigation, the
reservoir was moved approximately
3,000 feet to the north in response to
input from the County's Solid Waste
Management Department.
During the geotechnical investigation
conducted on the County's property, it
was determined that construction of the
embankment on this property would
require removal of more waste clays
from the mining process than would be
required if the embankment was moved
north, approximately 800 feet, off of the
County's property. As a result,
constructing the embankment on the
County's property would increase
construction costs. Based on this issue
and the previous alignment, the southern
alignment of the embankment was
moved north off the County's property.
Approximately 260 acres of the reservoir
footprint (or slightly less than 25
percent) has been affected by the mining
process. The land reclamation process
has disturbed most of the prior
observable evidence of the previous
mining activity. The remainder of the
site is considered to be "unmined" based
on available historic information. This
conclusion is also supported by the data
obtained from the subsurface
investigation program. The unmined
area typically consists of 30 to 40 feet of
predominantly sandy soil overlying
limestone and dolostone rock layers
("rock"), interlayered with sandy layers
to the depth explored.
The overburden soils above the top of
rock are predominantly cohesionless
soils. The percentage of different soil
types was found to be a function of
depth for the embankment borings. The
variation in soil types with depth shows
a similar pattern for the majority of the
segments with fines content typically
increasing with depth. The fines content
ranged from 4 to 97 percent with a
median value of 24 percent for all soils
tested to a depth of 30 feet. However,
for soils to a depth of 15 feet (potential
4-9
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
borrow material), the fines content
ranged from 4 to 72 percent with a
median value of 15 percent.
Of importance to embankment design is
the strength, compressibility, and
hydraulic conductivity characteristics of
the overburden soils because this may
influence the design of the embankment.
The overburden soils generally appear to
be acceptable for use as structural fill
within the embankment and foundations
of the reservoir ancillary structures.
Overburden soils containing substantial
amounts of vegetation or other
deleterious materials would not be
acceptable as structural fill.
4.5.2 No Federal Action Alternative.
The No Federal Action alternative would
have no impact on the geotechnical
aspects in the project area.
4.5.3 Mitigation. Soil loss caused by
construction or operation and
maintenance would be minimized by
implementation of erosion and
sedimentation control plans. Silt fences,
silt traps, sedimentation basins,
reshaping, reseeding, and soil cement on
the reservoir embankments would be
used to control erosion caused by
construction and operation and
maintenance. Restricting human activity
to specific access points and vehicular
traffic to prepared roadways and parking
areas would reduce or eliminate impacts
from construction activities.
Implementing these mitigation measures
would avoid significant soil disturbance
and loss.
4.6 AIR QUALITY
All three counties (Hillsborough, Pasco
and Pinellas) in the general study area
are in attainment or are unclassified for
all criteria pollutants and meet
established ambient air quality
standards. It is possible that
Hillsborough and Pinellas counties will
be redesignated from attainment or
unclassified to nonattainment areas for
ozone under the new eight-hour
standard. This would occur if these
counties exceed the national standard for
ozone.
Methodology and Significance
Criteria. The State of Florida has
adopted the U.S. National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) except for
sulfur dioxide (SO2). Florida's SO2
standard is slightly more stringent than
the national standard. In 1997, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
changed the ozone standard from a one-
hour standard to an eight-hour standard.
The EPA is currently redesignating the
status of ozone areas.
Currently, Hillsborough and Pinellas
counties are air quality maintenance
areas for ozone. Some areas in
Hillsborough County are designated as
air quality maintenance areas for
particulate matter (total suspended
particulate) and lead. Air quality
maintenance areas are defined as areas
that, due to past nonattainment status,
are required to implement strategies to
maintain attainment with the standards
for the specified air pollutant.
The State of Florida currently has air
quality monitors for particulate matter,
sulfur dioxide, ozone and lead in the
study area. The air quality in the three-
county area currently meets all ambient
air quality standards. Local
municipalities and agricultural and
mining industries are not expected to
emit high levels of any pollutant that
4-10
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
would exceed established air quality
standards.
4.6.1 Action Alternatives. The
proposed site for the two action
alternatives is not in an air quality
maintenance area for particulate matter
or lead, but is included in the
maintenance area for ozone.
Particulate matter, in the form of total
suspended particulate (TSP) and
particulate matter less than 10 microns in
size (PM10) would be generated in the
construction process. Ozone may be
generated from the photochemical
reaction of exhaust gases carbon
monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx),
and volatile organic compounds (VOC)
in the atmosphere from mobile sources
used during construction.
Fugitive particulate matter emissions
would be generated by various
construction activities such as
earthmoving, excavation, and grading
operations. CO, NOx, and VOC
emissions would also be generated from
the exhaust of the construction vehicles.
There may be some temporary adverse
affects on the air quality from
construction activities, but these
activities would not be expected to have
any long-term impacts on the local
ambient air quality in the three-county
area.
Construction emissions can be
distinguished as either onsite or offsite.
Onsite emissions generated during
construction principally would consist of
exhaust emissions (e.g., NOx, SOx, CO,
VOC, and PM10) from mobile diesel
and gasoline-powered construction
equipment and portable auxiliary
equipment, and fugitive dust (e.g.,
PM10) from disturbed soil. Offsite
emissions during the construction phase
would consist of exhaust emissions from
worker commute trips and material
transport trips to and from the
construction site. Onsite construction
activities are typically divided into three
distinct phases: (1) demolition and land
clearing, (2) site preparation, and (3)
general construction. This project could,
with no control measures, be expected to
have a significant short-term impact on
the regional air quality due to
construction activities. Long-term, non-
construction related air quality impacts
from this project would be insignificant
because normal maintenance activity at
the reservoir, once it is constructed,
would have minimal impact on air
quality.
4.6.2 No Federal Action. No
construction or operational activities
would be associated with this alternative.
Therefore, the No Federal Action
alternative would not have any impact
on ambient air quality in the project area.
4.6.3 Mitigation. The emissions from
construction activities are primarily from
demolition, excavation, off-road mobile
source equipment, and on-road motor
vehicles (construction worker trips).
The mitigation measures listed below are
intended to minimize the emissions
associated with construction activities.
Construction related mitigation measures
include:
Water active portions of construction
site daily.
Apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to
graded areas that will be inactive for
10 days or more.
4-11
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Improved fueling management
techniques to reduce evaporation
emissions.
Fuel -tank storage berms to
contain/absorb accidental spills and
protecting wet areas.
Impervious matting around fueling
zones.
Off-site oil change/maintenance of
construction equipment.
No other feasible measures have been
identified to reduce emissions from
construction or operation and
maintenance activities.
4.7 NOISE QUALITY
Construction and operation activities
associated with the alternatives could
raise noise levels in the surrounding
area. Noise sources during construction
would include heavy construction
equipment and increased vehicular
traffic to and from the construction site.
Following project construction, any
potential noise would be from operation
and maintenance activities with the
embankments, intake facilities, pump
stations or pipeline. Sensitive noise
receptors could include residences,
livestock and wildlife.
Methodologies and Significance
Criteria. Most individuals would notice
noise levels that increase by an
increment of 10 dBA or more. For the
purposes of this analysis, the impact
would be considered significant if
permanent residences were to experience
an increase of 10 dBA or more above
ambient noise levels. Noise impacts
would be considered significant if
increases in ambient noise levels would
result in significant redistribution or
disturbance to wildlife.
4.7.1 Action Alternatives. There are no
permanent residences within
approximately 650 feet of the proposed
project site. After construction, higher
noise levels in the vicinity of the dam
would be caused by traffic from periodic
dam and reservoir operation and
maintenance and possible recreational
use. Activities associated with the day
to day operations of the reservoir would
be virtually noiseless.
The reservoir may be used for
recreational activities such as fishing,
boating and hiking in the future. These
activities generate minimal noise and
would have no significant impacts on
local residences or wildlife.
4.7.2 No Federal Action. No
construction or operational activities
would be associated with the No Federal
Action alternative. No noise impacts to
either human or wildlife populations in
the project area would occur.
4.7.3 Mitigation. Construction
activities near residences would be
restricted to daytime hours. No
mitigation is proposed for the No
Federal Action alternative.
4.8 WATER RESOURCES
The project area includes both
groundwater and surface water
resources. The impacts to these
resources from the alternatives carried
forward are discussed in the following
sections.
4.8.1 Groundwater Quantity. The
hydrogeologic units underlying the
reservoir site consist of the surficial,
intermediate, and upper Floridan aquifer
systems (LAW 1999). The character of
the geologic units at the surface and in
4-12
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
the subsurface of the study area
influence potential impacts to the water
table and groundwater in that area.
Methodologies and Significance
Criteria. A detailed hydrogeologic
evaluation was performed to evaluate the
character of the potential reservoir site,
the pipeline, and the ASR system
facilities. Objectives of the
hydrogeologic evaluation were:
To identify permeable units and
determine the level of confinement
between these units in the site
subsurface
To estimate existing vertical seepage
through the shallow confining units
in the site subsurface
To determine the effects of the
reservoir on the surrounding near-
surface environment
Using data generated during the
geotechnical site characterization and
data collected during site-specific
aquifer performance tests (APTs), a
seepage evaluation was performed for
the proposed reservoir to determine
horizontal and vertical hydraulic
properties of the aquifer systems and the
confining strata in the site subsurface.
Potential water losses and the effects of
these losses from a completed and filled
reservoir were predicted by these tests.
Flow modeling was performed using the
site-specific data to predict the potential
range of losses from the reservoir.
Flow modeling of the reservoir was
performed to predict water losses from
the reservoir at maximum pool level, and
to estimate the distribution of the
surficial seepage, particularly to the
shallow water table and surrounding
streams. Flow modeling of the reservoir
was performed using the finite computer
program SEEP/W (Geo-Slope version
4.2.2) for the simulation. To simulate
observed conditions, the SEEP/W model
was calibrated to site-specific
groundwater elevation data from
monthly piezometer monitoring at the
reservoir site. The model does not
account for precipitation or
evapotranspiration effects, which
normally add or remove water from a
system. Only horizontal and vertical
water seepage losses were modeled for
the proposed reservoir (HDR 2000).
A preliminary ASR feasibility study
identified permitting, hydrogeologic,
groundwater quality, and siting
concerns. Criteria for the development
of a successful ASR system include
water availability, cost effectiveness,
suitable storage capacity in a receiving
aquifer, limited nearby competing
groundwater users, and minimization of
impacts during pumping.
Regional hydrogeologic trends were
evaluated through cross sections
developed from lithologic descriptions
from core and drill cuttings, available
aquifer test results, and well-control
points (HDR 2000a).
4.8.1.1 Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir Project. Significant water
exchange from vertical migration of
water from the reservoir into underlying
aquifers is not expected. Although the
potential exists for downward vertical
movement of groundwater to lower
aquifers, the presence of low
permeability confining intervals would
retard the vertical movement of water
between the aquifer units. The
difference in water pressure gradients
between the reservoir and the underlying
4-13
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
aquifer indicates that a significant low
permeability layer (uppermost
intermediate confining unit) is present.
A lowermost intermediate confining
unit, which is deeper than the depths
investigated at the reservoir site, has
been identified below the permeable
zone(s) of the intermediate aquifer
system (Ryder 1985; SWFWMD 1993).
These low permeability-confining
intervals retard the vertical movement of
water between the aquifer units.
Presently, land surface covered by the
proposed reservoir and associated
facilities - approximately 1,100 acres -
contributes an estimated 10 inches of
rainfall per year or 0.75 to 1 mgd to the
underlying aquifer as a result of direct
infiltration. A similar amount of runoff
occurs from the site to the Alafia River.
Flow modeling studies indicated that
seepage loss into the shallow water table
and adjacent streams would occur.
Seepage from the reservoir would be
dependent on the water level within the
reservoir. With a full reservoir, the
estimated maximum water loss through
seepage would be 3.7 mgd for typical
site conditions. The resulting long-term
average seepage, based on historical
data, is estimated at 2.5 mgd. This
assumes an operational phase with
varying water levels based on historical
stream flow records. Based on this
historical analysis, the reservoir is
expected to be full approximately 15
percent of the time.
Pre-reservoir runoff and infiltration rates
at the site average 1.5 to 2 mgd.
Therefore, seepage from the reservoir at
maximum pool level could potentially
add 0.5 to 1 mgd more water to the
groundwater and surface water system at
the site.
Impacts from horizontal seepage would
include a rise in the water table within
400 feet of the embankment toe. The
flow model shows that some of the
horizontal flow from the reservoir would
discharge to the water table outside of
the embankment boundary. This
calculated discharge, which would
represent upward flow to the surficial
aquifer, is highest (45 percent of the total
upward movement) within
approximately 100 feet from the
embankment toe under typical site
conditions. Within 100 to 200 feet from
the embankment toe, the discharge to the
water table dissipates to approximately
20 percent of the upward flux. At
distances of 200 to 400 feet from the
embankment toe, the upward movement
decreases rapidly, and would not be
distinguishable from normal surficial
aquifer water levels at distances greater
than 400 feet (HDR 2000).
4.8.1.2 Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir and ASR System. The
impacts associated with construction and
operation of the reservoir component of
this alternative are the same as in
Section 4.8.1.1 above. In addition to the
reservoir, this alternative would provide
additional underground storage capacity
and would enhance the reliability of the
proposed surface reservoir as a regional
water storage facility. The majority of
existing permitted groundwater users
within the study area currently tap the
upper and intermittent parts of the
Floridan aquifer. The proposed storage
zones for the ASR systems have
sufficient confinement to potentially
preclude any impacts to the surficial or
intermediate aquifer systems. Injection
4-14
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
and pumpage within the proposed
storage zones may affect existing users
(mostly agricultural users) that tap the
upper Floridan aquifer for a water supply
by producing variations in the level and
pressure within the aquifer system.
Two potential ASR storage zones have
been identified in the upper Floridan
aquifer in the study area. The uppermost
potential storage interval occurs in the
lower part of the Suwannee Limestone
and is composed of granular limestone
with matrix-type porosity. The
lowermost potential storage interval
occurs in the upper part of the Avon
Park Formation, a laterally persistent
highly permeable zone in fractured
dolostone. Confining units above the
upper Floridan aquifer retard the vertical
movement of any injected water in the
storage intervals between the
intermediate and surficial aquifers. The
top of the upper Floridan aquifer
deepens to the south across the study
area, producing a higher degree of
confinement (see Figure 3-3).
An ASR system by itself does not
produce a net loss of water from the
aquifer system; an ASR accounting
system would be developed that would
report how much water is recharged to
the aquifer system and how much water
is removed. Composed of intensely
fractured rock, the Avon Park highly
permeable zone has transmissivities
from two to ten times greater than the
Suwannee production zone. Injection
and recovery rates per well are estimated
to be 2.5 mgd or more in this zone.
4.8.1.3 No Federal Action. The No
Federal Action alternative would result
in the reservoir and/or ASR system not
being constructed; therefore, it is
assumed that no impact to the proposed
reservoir site or the surrounding area
would occur.
4.8.1.4 Mitigation. The embankment
design contains several measures to
minimize seepage from the reservoir
(HDR 1999). First, the installation of a
flexible geomembrane liner on the inner
embankment slope would reduce water
seapage and lower the surface of the
saturated zone within the embankment.
The geomembrane liner would connect
to a second minimizing measure, a very
low permeability soil-bentonite cut-off
wall that would be designed to extend
into the underlying confining layer at
least 5 feet. The cut-off wall also
reduces water losses from the reservoir
and lowers the surface of the saturated
zone in the embankment. A third
measure would be a horizontal blanket
and toe drain that would be designed to
control the water table outside of the
reservoir embankment by collecting and
routing seepage to discrete discharge
points.
The majority of potential upward
movement resulting from seepage is
predicted to occur within the first 200
feet outside of the reservoir
embankment. Within the first 100 feet
of this interval, the embankment design
includes drainage facilities (stormwater
ponds, a perimeter roadway, and
drainage swales) to intercept water that
reaches the surface. Streams that occur
around the majority of the perimeter of
the embankment in the second 100-foot
interval will intercept and convey any
upward water that reaches the stream
bottoms.
To prevent environmental and ecological
impacts due to the predicted rise in the
4-15
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
water table from seepage, a monitoring
and management program would be
implemented. This program, consisting
of a network of piezometers along the
perimeter of the reservoir and near
adjacent streams, biological transects,
stream flows, and annual infrared aerial
photography would allow assessing
biological health and hydroperiod
conditions prior to, during, and after
filling the reservoir so that adverse
ecological impacts can be avoided. A
management program would be
implemented in any areas where seepage
adversely impacted the surrounding
landscape. A means of management of
seepage impacts is the use of extraction
well that would control surficial aquifer
groundwater levels, a proven method
that can be applied to specific areas.
4.8.2 Groundwater Quality. Water
seeping from the proposed reservoir or
injected through the ASR system could
affect the water quality of the adjacent
aquifers. Water to be stored for the
regional reservoir would be diverted
from the Alafia River, Hillsborough
River, and Tampa Bypass Canal. The
quality of water diverted from these
three sources is dependent on the season
of the year, flow regime, and other
existing climatic factors.
Methodologies and Significance
Criteria. Groundwater quality data
were reviewed for the aquifers located
beneath the reservoir site, specifically
for total dissolved solids (TDS),
chlorides, and hardness (HDR 2000).
Data from SWFWMD and Florida
Geologic Society indicated that, in the
intermediate aquifer, TDS ranges from
about 250 parts per million (ppm) to 500
ppm, and chloride is less than 25 ppm.
There are no data available for hardness.
In the underlying Floridan aquifer, TDS
also ranged from 250 ppm to 500 ppm
but chloride is approximately 20 ppm.
In this case, hardness ranges from about
120 to 180 ppm. The Florida
Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP) permits injection of treated
water using ASR facilities into aquifer
zones containing native water with less
than 10,000 ppm TDS.
4.8.2.1 Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir Project. Quality of water
seeping from the reservoir into the
surrounding water table would be
dependent on the quality of the water
stored in the reservoir. High organic,
nutrient, or bacteriological
concentrations in water in the reservoir
could impact ambient water quality of
nearby streams and local groundwater in
the surficial aquifer. A reservoir
seepage evaluation concluded that
significant water exchange from vertical
migration of water into underlying
aquifers would not occur. This is due to
the intermediate confining aquifer layer
that is located between the bottom of the
reservoir and the underlying aquifer.
4.8.2.2 Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir and ASR System. This
alternative would provide additional
underground storage and would enhance
the reliability of the proposed surface
reservoir as a regional water storage
facility. Chloride ion and TDS
concentrations of the inflow water
typically meet State drinking water
standards. The proposed ASR storage
zones in the upper Floridan aquifer have
sufficient confinement to preclude any
water quality impacts to the surficial or
intermediate aquifer systems.
4-16
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Groundwater quality in the targeted
Suwannee and Avon Park aquifer
storage zones is generally high in the
study area. State regulations do not
permit the injection of lower quality
water into a zone containing higher
quality water. Three groundwater
constituents - alkalinity, hardness, and
hydrogen sulfide - that are not regulated
under State drinking water standards
have been identified to have somewhat
elevated levels in the upper Floridan
aquifer in the study area (HDR 2000a).
Significant mixing of native
groundwater with treated injected water
could result in the required retreatment
of recovered water to reduce
concentrations of these constituents to
acceptable levels prior to distribution.
4.8.2.3 No Federal Action. The No
Federal Action alternative would result
in continued adverse environmental
impacts to wetlands and lakes from
groundwater pumpage from existing
wellfields. Groundwater withdrawals
above permitted levels to meet tri-county
water supply needs could result in
degradation of the water quality in the
producing aquifers.
4.8.2.4 Mitigation. Embankment
design includes several measures to
minimize impacts due to seepage from
the reservoir. A flexible geomembrane
liner on the inner slope and a soil-
bentonite cut-off wall will be included in
embankment construction.
Quality of the water stored in the
reservoir could directly affect the quality
of any seepage to the surficial aquifer
and surrounding drainage features. Best
management practices (BMPs) proposed
for use to control water quality in the
reservoir include (HDR 1999):
In-lake treatment for algae control,
such as copper sulfate, potassium
permanganate, powdered activated
charcoal, destratification or aeration,
and biomanipulation
Source treatment for nutrient control,
such as pretreatment of source water;
and
Watershed BMPs to improve source
water quality.
Although contaminant levels are not
expected to be excessive, periodic
testing to monitor potential buildup of
metals, pesticides, or other contaminants
in the reservoir sediments would also be
conducted. In the event of build-up of
herbicides from reservoir operations,
alternative methods of algae control
would be evaluated and Tampa Bay
Water would monitor the condition of
the sediments.
Two alternatives for surface water
pretreatment prior to ASR injection have
been proposed to meet permitting
requirements. Full treatment prior to
injection would include disinfection and
addition of chloramines. Quality of the
injected water would be equivalent to
potable water sent to a distribution
system. Water recovered from ASR
systems typically requires disinfection
prior to distribution. The second
treatment alternative, partial treatment
prior to injection, would reduce the
coliform bacteria to acceptable levels
through disinfection by ultraviolet light.
This pretreatment method would only
satisfy the microbiological standards
required for injection. With this
treatment alternative, water withdrawn
from the ASR systems would require full
treatment at the water treatment plant
prior to distribution.
4-17
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
New legislation allowing a limited
aquifer exemption from primary
drinking water standards for coliform
bacteria was considered by the Florida
Legislature this year. This exemption
would have modified pretreatment
requirements for ASR injection water to
remove the requirements to reduce
coliform levels; however, the proposed
legislation did not pass in this years
legislation session.
Selection of an appropriate ASR storage
zone could reduce the need for
retreatment of recovered water. The
highly permeable zone of the Avon Park
aquifer is highly fractured and can
sustain high injection and recovery rates
with little change in aquifer pressure.
However, this fractured characteristic
also promotes rapid flushing of the
aquifer and significant mixing of the
native groundwater and the injected
ASR water could be expected. The
Avon Park zone would be the best
choice when using partially-treated
injection water, since mixing with the
native water would not be a concern and
the water would be treated after
recovery. The Suwannee aquifer
production zone is typically
characterized by matrix-type porosity
and is not fractured. The Suwannee
zone would be more effective for a
potable water ASR system, where no
retreatment of recovered ASR water
would be required.
4.8.3 Surface Water Quantity.
Because of the ecological importance of
maintaining sufficient freshwater inflow
into Tampa Bay, it is important to
document the stream flow from Tampa
Bay's tributaries that would be affected
by the proposed surface water
withdrawals. Surface water runoff,
spring inflow, and tidal currents
influence flows in the tributaries.
Discharges in tidal rivers are highly
variable and are characterized by
frequent reversals in flow and changes in
flow magnitude due to upstream and
downstream movements of water with
tidal currents (PBS&J, 1998).
Methodologies and Significance
Criteria. Numerous studies have
illustrated the importance of freshwater
inflows to the biological structure and
productivity of an ecosystem (Lewis and
Estevez 1988; Sklar and Browder 1998;
Estevez 2000; Estevez 2000a; USEPA
1999). Estuaries function as transition
zones between the freshwater of a river
and the saline environment of the sea
and, by definition, receive freshwater
inflows. Freshwater inflow in estuaries:
Provide a food supply by stimulating
both photosynthesis and microbial
decomposition.
Deposit sediments that stabilize
coastal wetlands against erosion,
subsidence, and sea level rise.
Drive estuarine circulation and
establish salinity gradients.
Create a range of salinities under
which plants and animals thrive.
The ability of an estuary to function
properly and to sustain populations of
animals and plants depends on the
quantity, quality, timing, and location of
freshwater inflows.
Peak monthly withdrawal quantities for
the Alafia River, Hillsborough River,
and the Tampa Bypass Canal would be
based on the practical conveyances of
combined flow through an 84-inch
diameter pipeline to the proposed
reservoir. The maximum withdrawals
would be determined by the existing
4-18
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
SWFWMD water permits and by the
physical constraints tied to the size of
the pumping systems and conveyance
infrastructure. Water velocity and
impingement impacts at the intake
structures have also been taken into
consideration and evaluated. Surface
water intakes are under construction.
Their size and design have already been
determined. In the case of the Tampa
Bypass Canal intake, it is designed with
a smaller maximum capacity than
permitted by the SWFWMD.
4.8.3.1 Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir Project Alafia River. To
assist in the determination of freshwater
withdrawal impacts, the location of the
saltwater interface for pre-withdrawal
and post-withdrawal scenarios under
average tide conditions was analyzed for
inclusion in the Alafia River Water Use
Permit application. The minimum flow
in the Alafia River prior to withdrawal
was established from a percentile
analysis of daily historical flows
measured from January 1, 1977 to
December 31, 1996. The minimum flow
selected corresponded to the 80th
percentile flow or 124-cubic feet per
second (cfs) (80-mgd). This means that
a flow of 124 cfs or greater occurred for
80 percent of an average year, based on
historical data. Therefore, the lowest 20
percent of flows would not be affected
by the freshwater withdrawals. This
analysis was conducted because low
flow periods are often the most crucial
for oligohaline habitat maintenance, and
that this lower limit for withdrawals
appears sufficiently prudent to avoid
impacts.
When flow is 80 mgd (124 cfs) or
greater in the Alafia River, 10 percent of
the total river flow would be withdrawn.
The maximum rate of withdrawal is 51.7
mgd (80 cfs), regardless of river flow,
which corresponds to the 7th percentile.
Therefore, the withdrawal would occur
at the maximum proposed rate for 7
percent of an average year. No
additional withdrawals in excess of 51.7
mgd (80 cfs) would occur when flows
exceeded 517 mgd (800 cfs) thereby
maintaining the beneficial flushing
impacts found with high river flows.
Frequency analysis of historic stream
flows was compared to the proposed
withdrawal schedule. The comparison
showed that the proposed withdrawals
would not lower the low flows, and
would lower the mid-frequency flows by
7 to 10 percent and high flows by 5
percent or less. Regression analyses of
stream flow and salinity showed that
salinity near the mouth of the Alafia
River would increase by less than 2 ppt
during moderate flows; virtually no
change in salinity regime would occur at
lowest and highest frequency flows.
High flows can greatly benefit
oligohaline and estuarine waterbodies by
flushing the system. The freshwater
withdrawal schedule permitted by
SWFWMD for the Alafia River would
substantially preserve high flows in the
Alafia River, and continue the benefits
afforded by a wide range of flows.
Hillsborough River. The Hillsborough
River is the largest river discharging into
Tampa Bay. The mean annual flow of
the river at the City of Tampa
Hillsborough River reservoir (USGS
gage 02304500 near Tampa) is 463 cfs
for the period 1939-1996. Flows in the
lower Hillsborough River are regulated
by the operation of the dam. The
permitted withdrawal schedule for the
4-19
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Hillsborough River is based on the
quantity of water flowing over the dam
at the City of Tampa reservoir. The
water use permit contains a requirement
for a low flow over the dam of 65-mgd
(100-cfs), below which no water can be
withdrawn. The withdrawal would
actually occur at a pump station located
on the Tampa Bypass Canal. This is
possible because the river and the canal
are connected by another canal called the
HarneyCut. During flows of 65 to 97
mgd (150 cfs), 10 percent of the total
flow could be withdrawn, and during
flows from 97 to 139 mgd (215 cfs), 10
percent of the total flow can be
withdrawn, increasing proportionally
from 10 percent up to 30 percent. From
flows of 139 to 647 mgd (1000 cfs), 30
percent of the total flow could be
withdrawn with a cap on the maximum
withdrawal at 194 mgd (300 cfs) no
matter how high flows become.
In the past, no flow was allowed to pass
downstream through the dam during
many months to preserve the City of
Tampa's drinking water supply.
However, to protect and enhance the
living resources in the lower river, a
minimum flow rate of 10-cfs (6.5-mgd)
has been provisionally adopted.
Tampa Bypass Canal. Water from the
Hillsborough River can be diverted to
the Tampa Bypass Canal through a
flood-control structure just north of the
City of Tampa, and through the Hamey
Canal at the City of Tampa's reservoir.
Flow in the canal is controlled by a
series of structures that retain water in
the canal during low flow periods and
are opened during high flows.
For the Tampa Bypass Canal, the
permitted withdrawal schedule limits the
low flow withdrawal to 7 mgd (11 cfs),
below which no water can be withdrawn.
During flows from 7 to 81 mgd (125
cfs), 80 percent of the total flow above 7
mgd could be withdrawn. A maximum
of 65 mgd (100 cfs) could be withdrawn
when flows are greater than 81 mgd.
Statistical models were used to predict
salinity in the Tampa Bypass Canal as a
function of flow releases from Structure
160, the most downstream control
structure. A minimum flow past
Structure 160 of zero mgd has been
provisionally adopted by SWFWMD.
Historical median flow at S-160 is
approximately 40 mgd.
Tampa Bay. Potential impacts to
Tampa Bay salinity regimes resulting
from Tampa Bay Water's Master Water
Plan projects were assessed using a mass
balance approach and a constructed box
model. The bay was divided into 13
segments and water and salinity inputs
and outputs to the segments were
evaluated using the mass balance model.
Some of the scenarios included the
Tampa Bypass Canal water supply
project alone, the Alafia River project
alone, and the combined enhanced
surface water project (ESWS), with and
without each of the proposed
desalination options.
Results of the mass balance model
suggest that the annual cycle of salinity
within bay segments would re-establish
and stabilize at slightly higher than
current levels after 3 to 4 years of
operation of the Master Water Plan
projects. Even with desalination, the
model indicated that after a minor initial
increase in salinity over the first 2 to 3
years, equilibrium would be reached. In
effect, fluctuations of salinity conditions
in the bay would be overcome by the
4-20
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
flushing action of the wet season flows
(Coastal Environmental/PBS&J 1998).
4.8.3.2 Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir and ASR System. The
addition of an ASR system to the storage
capacity of the proposed reservoir would
increase impacts due to increased
freshwater withdrawals to the Alafia or
Hillsborough rivers, Tampa Bypass
Canal, or to the Tampa Bay estuary
beyond those withdrawals incurred by
the reservoir alone. Limits on
freshwater withdrawals from each of the
rivers and the canal are regulated and
permitted by SWFWMD. The same
minimum and maximum flows, which
limit low flow and maximum high flow
withdrawals, would remain in effect
whether or not the ASR system is
constructed.
Any future changes to the withdrawal
permits would require additional
evaluations of minimum flows and
levels program administered by
SWFWMD.
4.8.3.3 No Federal Action. If the No
Federal Action alternative were selected,
it is assumed that no additional surface
water withdrawals from the Alafia River,
the Hillsborough River, or the Tampa
Bypass Canal would be made. If no
additional withdrawals occurred, no
impacts from this project to these rivers
or the Tampa Bay estuary would result.
Tampa Bay Water and SWFWMD have
agreed to a Consolidated Water Use
Permit that reduces Tampa Bay Water's
current groundwater withdrawals of 158
mgd to 120 mgd by December 2002, and
to 90 mgd by December 2007. Without
the proposed storage reservoir with or
without the ASR system, Tampa Bay
Water would not be able to:
Rely on increased surface water
withdrawals to offset reduced
groundwater withdrawals as
stipulated in their Consolidated
Water Use Permit with SWFWMD.
Store surface water withdrawn in
excess of 66 mgd during the wet
season for use during the dry season
when no withdrawals can be made.
Tampa Bay Water would be in violation
of their Consolidated Water Use permit
unless alternative surface water storage
was found.
4.8.3.4 Mitigation. A condition of the
Alafia River, Hillsborough River, and
Tampa Bypass Canal water use permits
is the establishment of an extensive
HBMP. The HBMP is an adaptive-
management monitoring program that
includes elements of water quality,
benthic invertebrates, fish, plankton, bird
census, vegetation analyses, flow, and
rainfall (Dr. Ralph Montgomery,
personal communication).
Developed using a consensus-based
approach, the HBMP incorporates
programmatic criteria designed to ensure
that the permitted withdrawals meet the
conditions of the SWFWMD water use
permits. The goal of the HBMP is to
determine if conditions in the Alafia and
Hillsborough rivers, and the Tampa
Bypass Canal deviate from their normal
rate and range of fluctuation. The focus
of the HBMP is to monitor the extent
that water quality, vegetation, and
animal populations are adversely
impacted or salinity distributions in tidal
streams and estuaries are significantly
altered. The HBMP also will monitor
4-21
-------
Tanya Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
changes in recreational use or aesthetic
qualities. Monitoring began, as part of
the HBMP, in April 2000.
4.8.4 Surface Water Quality. While it
is important to meet the increasing need
for potable water, it is equally as
important that the water quality in the
Alafia River, Hillsborough River, and
the Tampa Bypass Canal and the proper
balance of freshwater to the Tampa Bay
estuary be maintained.
Methodologies and Significance
Criteria. As noted by Zarbock et al.
(1995), "Water is one of Florida's most
plentiful, and most utilized, natural
resources ... As the volume of water
diverted for consumptive use increases,
the potential for altering natural systems
that depend on it also increases." hi an
estuary, the most important
hydrobiological parameter is salinity
(Copeland 1966) and one of the most
conspicuous water quality characteristics
of an estuary is fluctuation in salinity.
This fluctuation, in turn, is influenced by
fluctuations in freshwater inflow as well
as the quality if those inflows.
Numerous studies have demonstrated the
importance of freshwater inflows to the
biological structure and productivity of
estuarine ecosystems. Sklar and
Browder (1998) concluded that
freshwater inflow is one of the most
influential landscape processes affecting
biotic community structure and function
in estuaries. Watersheds determine
surface and groundwater flows to
estuaries and their flows have a source,
timing, and velocity that can be
significantly affected by human
alterations in the landscape. As a result,
landscape alterations influence
productivity, structure, and behavior of
coastal plant and animal populations.
The general consensus from these
studies is that the changes in flows
resulting from the proposed freshwater
withdrawals will affect salinity
downstream of the intake structures.
Some shifts in flow and salinity regimes
can be expected to occur due to the
withdrawals. Salinity increases due to
withdrawals for Tampa Bay Water's
Regional Reservoir Project, a component
of the Enhanced Surface Water System,
are modest and are expected to be within
the range of normal variability.
4.8.4.1 Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir Project. Potential impacts to
the downstream reaches of the Alafia
and Hillsborough rivers, the Tampa
Bypass Canal, and consequently in
Tampa Bay resulting from freshwater
withdrawals for reservoir storage are
discussed below.
Alafia River. The Alafia River is a
coastal stream discharging through
Hillsborough Bay, into Tampa Bay.
Reduction of streamflow would result in
the upstream movement of saltwater and
increased salinity in Hillsborough Bay
(Giovanelli 1980). The proposed
withdrawals were predicted to shift the
location of the saltwater interface
location in the Alafia River from a few
hundredths of a mile during high and
low flows to almost one-quarter mile
during moderate frequency flows
(Coastal Environmental/PBS&J 1998).
These studies showed that salinity levels
are sensitive to fluctuations in freshwater
inflow. Model results indicated that the
freshwater inflow from the Alafia River
had the greatest effect on areas closest to
4-22
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
the mouth of the river during periods of
above average flow. Large volumes of
freshwater inflow reduce the
conductivity in areas adjacent to the
river, whereas areas located towards the
center of Hillsborough Bay and Tampa
Bay experience little change. For below
average streamflow conditions, the
effect of variations in freshwater inflow
on salinity is small (Giovanelli 1980).
Additional analyses were conducted to
examine the magnitude of change in
salinity at the mouth of the Alafia River
caused by changes to stream flow.
Salinity in Hillsborough Bay near the
mouth of the Alafia River is highly
influenced by river flow. Less than 2
ppt change in salinity is expected during
moderate flows from the proposed
withdrawals at the mouth of the river
and that this increase is well within the
natural variation of the system. Neither
low flows nor high flows would be
substantially affected because of the
withdrawal limits imposed by the
SWFWMD water use permits. There is
virtually no change expected in salinity
regime at the lowest and highest
frequency concentrations.
In the Alafia River Water Use Permit
application, salinity changes from
freshwater withdrawals of the Alafia
River were predicted. Analysis of
salinity data from each of 18 segments
of the river was conducted from the
mouth to the Bell Shoals Road intake
structure to develop the relationship
between the salinity concentration and
flow. The model assumed that, as
freshwater was withdrawn at Bell
Shoals, a volume of downstream water
would move farther upstream to take its
place. The quantity of water that moved
in each segment was dependent on the
percent of the total volume of water in
the segment that was removed by the
withdrawal. The model was limited to
predicting salinity concentrations for
flows between 124 cfs and 400 cfs and
for moderate to high tide conditions.
Results from the model showed that the
changes in salinity due to the proposed
withdrawals were less than 1.0 ppt in all
segments of the river.
It was concluded that, predicted salinity
changes in river segment A (river
mouth) are zero ppt. This is due
primarily to the over-riding influence of
tidal waters from Tampa Bay on the
mouth of the river. It is anticipated that
the proposed withdrawal schedule, both
withdrawal flow and period, should have
minimal impact on the
saltwater/freshwater interface,
downstream water levels, and both
freshwater and estuarine ecosystems"
(HDR 1998).
In summary, analysis of salinity
intrusion indicated the following:
Because low and high flows are
preserved under the withdrawal
schedule and there is little change to
salinity regimes under low and high
flow conditions.
The location of the saltwater
interface may vary by a maximum of
0.24 mile during moderate flows.
The saltwater interface was predicted
to not change, or change only by a
few hundredths of a mile for both
low and high frequency flows.
Maximum salinity increase in the
zone is predicted to be 3 ppt, which
is within the observed long-term
variability of the system.
4-23
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Hillsborough River. The Hillsborough
River is the largest freshwater tributary
to the Tampa Bay estuary and has been
impounded and flows have been
regulated since the late 1800s. In the
lower portion of the river, salinity
regimes and dissolved oxygen
characteristics are affected by the
amount of freshwater that is released
from the City of Tampa's reservoir and
freshwater inflows from Sulphur
Springs.
During a three-year study from 1991 to
1993, discharge rates from the reservoir
and downstream displacement of salinity
were investigated (WAR/SDI1995).
This study indicated that surface salinity
downstream of the dam are inversely
proportional to the amount of discharge
from the reservoir. That is, salinity
decreases when discharge increases.
Discharges of 100 cfs to 250 cfs displace
the saline water wedge downstream of
Station 2 or 3 (see Figure 3-5).
Discharges of 250 cfs to 1,000 cfs
displace the saline water wedge farther
downstream from Station 5 to Station 8,
and discharges greater than 1,000 cfs
displace the wedge even farther,
downstream of Station 9. The
downstream extent to which saltwater is
displaced is determined partially by the
tide stage at the time of measurement.
Freshwater is present at one or two
stations farther downstream at low tide
than at high tide.
Coastal Environmental (1993) compared
the frequency of flows at the
Hillsborough River dam using historical
conditions with and without the
proposed withdrawals. This study
showed that low flows and high flows,
while both important to maintaining
oligohaline habitats, would be protected
through a proposed withdrawal schedule
of 56 cfs minimum flow (proposed at
that time) for the Hillsborough River.
A two-dimensional hydrodynamic model
of the lower Hillsborough River was also
developed to examine the response of
salinity in the lower reaches of the River
to inflows of freshwater (SWFWMD
1999a). The model simulated the effects
of different minimum flow scenarios on
salinity distributions in the river. Forty-
five scenarios were run, including
different combinations of discharges
from the reservoir and flows from
Sulphur Springs that could be diverted to
the base of the dam. The model was also
used to examine the effects of a
minimum flow of 10 cfs on salinity
distribution during naturally occurring
patterns of rainfall, reservoir discharges,
and stormwater runoff.
The model results illustrated that a
release of 10 cfs from the reservoir
would reduce salinity to between 1 and 2
ppt on the river bottom at the base of the
dam. The volumes of low salinity
waters rapidly increased with larger
discharges from the reservoir. The
results are similar to the other studies
and indicate that the salinity regime of
the lower Hillsborough River is very
sensitive to freshwater inflows. Model
results also showed that dramatic
changes in the salinity regime of the
lower river could occur at relatively low
minimum flows (10 to 30 cfs).
In conclusion, the results of the analysis
indicated, under the proposed
withdrawal schedule, the 5 to 11 ppt
salinity (oligohaline) portion of the
Hillsborough River is predicted to vary
in area by 33 percent and in volume by
15 percent over existing conditions. The
salinity fluctuation is also within the
4-24
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
normal range of variability and is also
within the relatively wide range of
salinity tolerances of the identified fauna
and biota. The HBMP would be used to
monitor the impacts of withdrawals on
the biological resources of the
Hillsborough River.
Tampa Bypass Canal. The Tampa
Bypass Canal was constructed to divert
floodwaters from the urbanized portions
of the Hillsborough River to the nearby
Palm River. The Palm River then
discharges to McKay Bay, which, like
the Hillsborough River, is a tributary to
Hillsborough Bay. Structure 160 is the
downstream most structure on the
Tampa Bypass Canal that regulates the
quantity of freshwater that enters the
downstream estuarine portion of the
canal. When warranted, water is also
pumped from the Tampa Bypass Canal
to augment the City of Tampa's water
supply reservoir located just upstream of
Station 2.
An analysis was conducted to investigate
the relationships between freshwater
discharge and water quality conditions
downstream of Structure 160 (Coastal
Environmental 1997). This analysis
showed that between 1985 and 1993,
there was no flow over Structure S-160
on the Tampa Bypass Canal for
approximately 5 percent of the time, and
flows over the structure were 200 cfs or
less over 90 percent of the time. The
analysis also showed that flows are
important to maintaining the estuary
habitats and would not be impacted by
the permitted withdrawals from the
proposed reservoir project.
Another assessment of potential impacts
from the implementation of proposed
withdrawals from the Tampa Bypass
Canal on McKay Bay, which also
receives freshwater from the Tampa
Bypass Canal system, was conducted
(PBS&J 1998). Although the study
showed that flushing rates in McKay
Bay are determined in part by freshwater
flows, tidal exchange makes up a much
larger component of the bay's total
flushing capacity. The residence time in
the McKay Bay would increase slightly
due to the proposed freshwater
withdrawals, from 1.08 days to 1.10
days. Under the proposed withdrawals
for the Tampa Bypass Canal, predicted
changes in salinities throughout most of
the year are approximately 1.0 to 1.5 ppt.
The greatest changes in salinities, of 3 to
4 ppt in the Palm River below Structure
160, would occur only one or two
months during the wet season. The
resultant salinities in McKay Bay would
be 22 to 24 ppt, or 1 to 2 ppt greater than
currently existing salinities.
Statistical analyse predicting salinity as a
function of flow indicated that surface
salinity values would remain over 20 ppt
over the length of the Palm River, even
if the flows at Structure 160 were
maintained at their post-construction
median value of 73 cfs. Increasing flows
from zero to 20 cfs would reduce salinity
by about 2 ppt to produce values of 23 to
28 ppt between the surface and two
meters depth at the station nearest
Structure 160. It is unlikely that salinity
changes of this magnitude for short
periods of time would change the basic
ecological characteristics of the Palm
River or McKay Bay. Overall, the
salinity distributions and ecological
characteristics under no-flow conditions
would be similar (SWFWMD 1999b).
Other important water quality
characteristics in the Palm River showed
either no relationship or a weak response
to freshwater inflows. There is very
4-25
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
little relationship between dissolved
oxygen concentrations and freshwater
inflows in the Palm River/McKay Bay
system. Bottom water throughout the
length of the Palm River exhibited
problems with low oxygen regardless of
the rate of freshwater inflow.
It is not expected that zero flows at
Structure S-160 will continue for long
periods of time even though a zero
minimum flow requirement was
proposed by SWFWMD for the
minimum flow for the Tampa Bypass
Canal. Construction of the Tampa
Bypass Canal breached the top of the
upper Floridan aquifer, which increased
the baseflow and total discharge at
Structure 160 by approximately 1.5 to 2
times.
In summary, the study conducted on the
Tampa Bypass Canal found that
significant impacts to living resources of
concern within the Hillsborough River
and Tampa Bypass Canal system are
unlikely. The heaviest withdrawals
would be during the wet summer months
when maintaining oligohaline habitat for
the biological resources is not as critical.
The predicted impacts to freshwater
inflow and salinity patterns during
summer months are not expected to be
significant.
Tampa Bay. Sources of freshwater
inflow to Tampa Bay include streamflow
and overland flow, point source
discharges, direct rainfall, and
groundwater. To evaluate potential
water quality effects due to the project,
studies were conducted that compared
existing condition inflows to historical
inflows and correlated salinity
concentrations at selected sampling sites
within Tampa Bay.
One investigation studied the potential
effect to the salinity characteristics in
Tampa Bay that could result from
alterations to freshwater inflows
(Zarbock et al. 1995). The study
evaluated flow relationships in the open
water segments of Tampa Bay, including
Hillsborough Bay, for the years 1985
through 1991. A hydrologic model was
also developed to predict surface flows
over the entire Tampa Bay watershed.
Methods focused on the use of available
flow data from the watershed. The
relationships derived in this investigation
provide evidence that the month-to-
month variation in freshwater inflow
measurably affects mean monthly
salinity concentrations in Tampa Bay.
The degree of significance of these
relationships appears to be a function of
volume of the receiving water by
segment, internal circulation within the
bay segment, and the degree of
interaction with other bay segments and
the Gulf of Mexico.
Based on these analyses, these areas
have always been subject to wide
variation in salinity due to the proximity
of major sources of freshwater, and
organisms that live or breed in this type
of environment are physiologically
adapted to fluctuating salinity regimes.
hi addition, a 'fatal flaw' analysis of
potential impacts from Tampa Bay
Water's individual Master Water Plan
projects, as well as potential cumulative
impacts from implementing a number of
the projects simultaneously, was
conducted (Coastal
Environmental/PBS&J 1998). Fatal
flaws are impacts of enough magnitude
or severity that might jeopardize a
project's ability to obtain permits.
4-26
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
The assessment of potential impacts to
Tampa Bay focused on potential changes
to freshwater inflow rates resulting from
the proposed surface water withdrawals.
A variety of statistical methods was used
to evaluate cumulative impacts and to
provide an increased level of confidence
in the findings. Methods used include
regression analyses or the functional
relationship between two variables, a
previously developed mechanistic model
(SWFWMD's Tampa Bay Model), and a
box model for a water and salinity mass
balance.
SWFWMD's Tampa Bay Model was
used to predict changes to the salinity
distributions in the Tampa Bay estuary
in response to a variety of freshwater
withdrawal scenarios. The model used
monthly salinity data from Hillsborough
County's Environmental Protection
Commissions sampling sites in Tampa
Bay and monthly freshwater inflows for
the water years 1985 through 1994.
Sources of freshwater inputs to the bay
included stormwater runoff, point source
discharges, direct rainfall, and
groundwater infiltration. The ESWS
components included withdrawals from
the Alafia River and the Hillsborough
River and Tampa Bypass Canal system
according to the proposed withdrawal
schedules. The model simulated the
progressive implementation of several of
Tampa Bay Water's proposed Master
Water Plan projects.
The model suggested that implementing
the ESWS projects alone might increase
salinity in the lower Hillsborough Bay
by approximately 0.4 ppt in May and by
0.5 ppt in September. In the upper
Hillsborough Bay, salinity predictions
from the model showed increases in
salinity due to implementation of the
ESWS projects of 0.3 ppt in May and 0.7
ppt in September.
The cumulative modeled impacts of
desalination and freshwater withdrawals
associated with the proposed reservoir
project were assessed to determine if
impacts to Tampa Bay and its estuary
would occur. Potential cumulative
impacts to Tampa Bay salinity regimes
were assessed using a mass balance
approach and a constructed box model.
The mass balance accounted for water
and salt movement between segments of
the bay to predict changes in salinity.
Tampa Bay was divided into 13
segments and loading and predicted
water quality data were prepared at the
segment scale. The model was
structured so that the desalination
process could be simulated and was run
for a 10-year period. The predicted
changes reflect an average condition
over an entire segment, and may not
accurately represent small-scale changes
within a segment.
The mass balance study suggested that
by implementing the ESWS, the Alafia
River and the Hillsborough River and
Tampa Bypass Canal withdrawals alone
would increase salinity in lower
Hillsborough Bay in May by 0.5 ppt (1.6
percent) and by approximately 0.6 ppt
(2.8 percent) in September. The range
of salinity in lower Hillsborough Bay
typically varied from 3 ppt to 6 ppt in
any given month. Long-term variability
is greater than the predicted segment-
averaged change in salinity of about 1.5
ppt resulting from the withdrawals.
The mass balance approach for upper
Hillsborough Bay suggested that
implementation of the ESWS projects
would increase salinity in the bay by 0.5
4-27
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
ppt (1.8 percent) in May and 0.8 ppt (3.8
percent) in September. Like lower
Hillsborough Bay, the range of salinity
in upper Hillsborough Bay also typically
varied from over 3 ppt to 6 ppt in any
month. Long-term variability is greater
than the predicted segment-averaged
change in salinity of about 1.5 ppt
resulting from the withdrawals.
Mass balance modeling also indicated
that, after an initial increase in salinity
over the first 2 to 3 years, an equilibrium
condition would be reached. An annual
cycle developed, but no trend over time
was evident. The evaluation of potential
cumulative impacts to Tampa Bay was
completed at a relatively broad spatial
scale; small-scale impacts were not
defined (Coastal Environmental/ PBS&J
1998). A three-dimensional, time-
dependent hydrodynamic model of
Tampa Bay was developed and used to
evaluate smaller scale impacts that could
result from surface water withdrawals
from the Alafia River, and the
Hillsborough River and Tampa Bypass
Canal system.
At a bay-segment scale, results of the
three-dimensional model for salinity
were very similar to those of the Tampa
Bay box model (Janicki et al. 1995);
both models predicted salinity changes
in the range of 1.0 ppt or less on an
annual basis.
In Hillsborough Bay, the cumulative
impacts of the three surface water
withdrawals on surface water salinity
were typically 1.0 ppt or less. Worst-
case changes in surface water salinity are
predicted to occur in July and August.
In the lower Hillsborough River, the
predicted salinity changes for these
months are between 2 and 2.5 ppt. In
McKay Bay, the predicted salinity
changes range between 2 and 3 ppt; and
in the Tampa Bypass Canal below
Structure S-160, the predicted salinity
change is 3 to 4 ppt (PBS&J 1998a).
The predicted annual change in surface
salinity in the majority of Hillsborough
Bay is 1.0 ppt or less. Some apparent
influence of freshwater withdrawals
from the Alafia River is predicted to
occur on surface salinities at the mouth
of the river. However, the affected area
is small and the predicted surface
salinity change due to freshwater
withdrawals is typically less than 0.75
ppt throughout the year.
In summary the water quality studies
conducted on Tampa Bay indicated:
The investigation of impacts to
tributaries that may result from
individual projects has not yielded
evidence of significant impacts to
living resources. In addition, the
cumulative impact analysis did not
identify any fatal flaws.
Regression analysis indicated
salinity increase of no more than 1.5
ppt in Hillsborough Bay due to
ESWS freshwater withdrawals.
SWFWMD mechanistic Tampa Bay
model suggests salinity increase due
to ESWS withdrawals (and Brandon
Urban Dispersed Wells and Cone
Ranch) are within the range of long-
term variability for that portion of
the bay.
The mass balance model indicated a
maximum monthly impact to salinity
from ESWS withdrawals (and a
desalination facility, Brandon Urban
Dispersed Wells, and Cone Ranch)
within the range of long-term
variability of that portion for the bay.
4-28
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
The mass balance model predicted
that the annual cycle of salinity
within bay segments re-establishes
and stabilizes at slightly higher
levels than current levels after 3 to 4
years of operation of the Master
Water Plan projects.
4.8.4.2 Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir and ASR System. The
addition of an ASR system to the storage
capacity at the proposed reservoir is not
expected to increase impacts to the
Alafia River, the Hillsborough River and
Tampa Bypass Canal system, or in the
Tampa Bay estuary, beyond those
caused by the reservoir alone. The limits
on withdrawal from each of the rivers
are regulated by SWFWMD. The same
minimum and maximum flows, which
limit low flow withdrawal and maximum
high flow withdrawal, would remain in
effect for the withdrawal permits
whether the ASR system is included or
not.
Any changes to the withdrawal permits
would come from additional analysis
either through the minimum flows and
levels programs administered by
SWFWMD or from additional data and
analysis obtained from the HBMP that is
a condition of the SWFWMD permit.
4.8.4.3 No Federal Action
If the No Federal Action alternative were
chosen it would be assumed that there
would be no storage for additional
surface water withdrawals from the
Alafia River or the Hillsborough River
and the Tampa Bypass Canal system. If
there were no additional withdrawals,
there would be no impacts from this
project to these rivers or the Tampa Bay
estuary.
4.8.4.4 Mitigation. No mitigation is
proposed for this portion of the project.
Potential impacts to the Alafia River, the
Hillsborough River and the Tampa
Bypass Canal, and in Tampa Bay from
withdrawal of surface waters for storage
in the proposed reservoir would be
modest and within the range of normal
variability. The salinity fluctuation is
also within the normal range of
variability and is also within the
relatively wide range of salinity
tolerances of the identified fauna and
biota.
A condition of the Alafia River,
Hillsborough River and Tampa Bypass
Canal water use permits issued by
SWFWMD is the establishment of an
extensive HBMP to be conducted by
Tampa Bay Water. This adaptive
management monitoring program,
started in 2000, includes elements of
water quality, benthic invertebrates, fish,
plankton, bird census, vegetation
analyses, flows and rainfall (Ralph
Montgomery 2001).
4.9 MINIMUM FLOWS AND
LEVELS
In 1996, the Florida Legislature directed
the SWFWMD to establish minimum
flows for surface-water courses and
minimum levels for aquifers and surface
waters, pursuant to Section 373.042 of
the Florida Statutes.
Methodology and Significance
Criteria. The purpose for establishing
minimum flows and levels is to identify
a limit at which further groundwater
withdrawals would be "significantly
harmful" to the water resources or
ecology of the area. The SWFWMD
Governing Board interprets the phrase
"further withdrawals" to mean continued
4-29
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
withdrawals that would cause water
levels or flows to drop below the
established minimum flows or levels
(SWFWMD 1999).
Currently, minimum flows and levels
have not been set for the Alafia River.
Modeling over a 10-year period using
the proposed withdrawals, flow
diversions, and desalination options
showed initial increases in monthly
salinities of around 1 ppt over the first
three years of the simulations, with
annual wet season flushing resetting the
system each year so that no continued
buildup of salinity occurs.
The minimum flow designation for the
Alafia River is scheduled to be set by the
end of 2001 by SWFWMD. The
withdrawals from the Alafia River by
Tampa Bay Water are not scheduled to
begin until the end of 2002. There is a
specific condition in the Alafia River
permit, which requires the withdrawal
table to be modified if the table is
inconsistent with the minimum flow.
Minimum flows and levels for the lower
Hillsborough River have been set by
SWFWMD at 10 cfs. The determination
of the minimum flow was based on the
loss of historical hydrologic functions,
the existing changes and alterations
along the river and its watershed, and the
dependence of viable ecological
communities downstream of the dam on
flows from the Hillsborough River and
Sulphur Springs (SWFWMD 1999a).
To help determine minimum flows,
statistical models and a two-dimensional
hydrodynamic model of the lower
Hillsborough River were used to
evaluate salinity distributions. Statistical
analyses were used to predict dissolved
oxygen concentrations and the
probability of low oxygen conditions in
the lower river under various minimum
flow releases.
The Tampa Bypass Canal has been the
subject of numerous monitoring studies
and additional studies focusing in re-
analysis of existing data. Data have
been collected and analyzed within the
past five years either for or by the City
of Tampa, Tampa Bay Water,
Hillsborough County Environmental
Protection Commission, the USGS,
SWFWMD, the Department of
Community Affairs and the Tampa Bay
National Estuary Program. These data
and studies were analyzed by the
SWFWMD to develop a minimum flow
rule in 1998. The proposed zero
minimum flow discharge was found
deficient by the Northern Tampa Bay
Scientific Peer Review Panel in 1999,
resulting in this renewed look at
minimum flows for the Tampa Bypass
Canal.
4.9.1 Action Alternatives.
Alafia River. Although minimum flows
and levels have not been set for the
Alafia River, the potential impacts of the
various projects to tributaries of the
Tampa Bay estuary result in salinity
changes that remain within the range of
natural system variation. The largest
predicted effects on freshwater flow
occur in the middle range of flow
frequencies, leaving the low and high
flow rates relatively or entirely
unimpacted. Low and high flows are
preserved under the withdrawal schedule
and little change to salinity regimes
under low and high flow conditions
occurs.
4-30
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Hillsborough River. During the Lower
Hillsborough River minimum flows
study and associated workshops, a
minimum flow of 10 cfs as a lower limit
for river discharges at the dam was
provisionally adopted by SWFWMD,
with exceptions for extreme drought
conditions. Two key points in
determining the minimum flow, agreed
to by the technical advisory group
convened to assist SWFWMD in
establishing minimum flows, were that
salinity and dissolved oxygen are critical
water quality variables affecting the
abundance and distribution of organisms
in the lower Hillsborough River.
The determination of minimum flows
evaluated how freshwater flows affect
the distribution of salinity and dissolved
oxygen concentrations in the lower river.
Results indicate that salinity is very
responsive to freshwater inflows and that
relatively small minimum flows could
dramatically reduce salinity values.
Flows as small as 10 to 20 cfs below the
dam could markedly reduce the
maximum salinity values at downstream
water quality stations. Other data
indicated that the continued releases of
water below the dam would improve
dissolved oxygen concentrations in the
lower river, depending on the magnitude
of the freshwater release.
Tampa Bypass Canal. To determine
minimum flows for the Tampa Bypass
Canal, SWFWMD examined flow
releases that must be maintained during
dry periods to sustain the downstream
estuary. A principal factor contributing
to the evaluation was the highly altered
status of the canal and Palm River.
Excavation of the Palm River to form
the Tampa Bypass Canal dramatically
altered the salinity regime of this system
and its relationship to freshwater
inflows. Bottom waters in the Palm
River have poor flushing characteristics
and are relatively isolated from the
effects of freshwater inflows.
Predictions of salinity as a function of
flow indicate that surface salinity values
will remain over 20 ppt over the length
of the Palm River, even if the flows at
Structure 160 are maintained at their
post-construction median value of 73
cfs. Increasing flows from zero to 20 cfs
reduces salinity by about 2 ppt to
produce values of 23 to 28 ppt between
the surface and two meters depth at the
water quality station nearest Structure
160. Overall, the salinity distributions
and ecological characteristics under no-
flow conditions are relatively similar. It
is unlikely that salinity changes of this
magnitude for short periods of time will
change the basic ecological
characteristics of the Palm River or
McKay Bay.
From a hydrologic perspective, it is not
expected that zero flows at Structure 160
will remain for long periods of time even
if a zero minimum flow has been
established; construction of the canal
breached the top of the Upper Floridan
aquifer and groundwater inflow
increases baseflow and total discharge at
Structure 160 (SWFWMD 1999b).
Tampa Bay. Most studies on minimum
flows and levels of tributaries entering
Tampa Bay have focused on the
maintenance of flow regimes to sustain
the estuary. In response to a variety of
freshwater withdrawal scenarios, several
models and analyses have been
conducted to predict changes to the
salinity distributions in the Tampa Bay
estuary. These models include
4-31
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
SWFWMD's Tampa Bay Model and
Mass Balance Model (Zarbock et al.
1995) and a fatal flaw analysis (Coastal
Environmental/PBS&J 1998). Since the
tributary minimum flows are based on
the minimum requirements of living
resources for that water body, the
potential impacts of the proposed
withdrawals, diversions, and
desalination options are not expected to
adversely affect these living resources.
The salinity fluctuations found in the
above studies are well within the normal
range of variability of any month's
salinity in Tampa Bay. They are also
within the relatively wide range of
salinity tolerances of identified living
resources of interest. The mass balance
model suggested that the annual cycle of
salinity within bay segments re-
establishes and stabilizes at slightly
higher levels than current levels after 3-4
years of operation of the proposed
withdrawals.
4.9.2 No Federal Action. The
construction and operation of the
alternatives would not significantly
affect the minimum flows and levels of
the above mentioned sources.
4.9.3 Mitigation. A condition of the
Alafia River, Hillsborough River and
Tampa Bypass Canal water use permits
issued by SWFWMD is the
establishment of an extensive HBMP to
be conducted by Tampa Bay Water.
This adaptive management monitoring
program, started in 2000, includes
elements of water quality, benthic
invertebrates, fish, plankton, bird census,
vegetation analyses, flows and rainfall
(Ralph Montgomery 2001).
Since minimum flows are legislatively
defined, the potential impacts of the
proposed withdrawals, diversions, and
desalination options within the estuary
should remain similar to those of an
unimpacted system.
4.10 UPLAND VEGETATION
All upland habitats within the footprint
of the proposed reservoir site will be
converted to open water, embankments,
and operations facilities. Upland
habitats within the proposed reservoir
footprint are dominated by improved
pasture and are actively used for cattle
grazing and sod production.
Methodology and Significance
Criteria. A site visit verified the
different upland types found within the
project area. Existing vegetation would
be permanently lost or altered because of
construction of the action alternatives
and associated components. The
significance of the impacts of the
proposed water storage alternatives on
vegetation communities was determined
by evaluating the overall quality of the
habitat, regional abundance, importance
to wildlife, and permanence of the
impact. Significant impacts would occur
if the vegetation loss was permanent, of
high value to wildlife, and relatively
scarce in the surrounding area.
4.10.1 Action Alternatives. The
proposed reservoir site is comprised of
improved pasture, some scrub-
shrub/mixed forest and a variety of
wetland and open water types. The
primary upland habitats that are found
within the proposed reservoir footprint
are improved pasture that is actively
used for cattle grazing and sod
production. The total number of acres
that will be impacted by the footprint of
the reservoir is approximately 1,100
4-32
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
acres. Of these 1,100 acres, a little more
than 1,000 acres are uplands. All
impacts within the reservoir footprint are
permanent.
The associated facilities that are required
for the operation of the reservoir include
a pipeline from Tampa Bay Water's
regional system and a service road. The
proposed pipeline corridor, from 400
feet north of the intersection of
Fishhawk Drive, Bell Shoals Road, and
Boyerte Road, generally follows existing
road rights-of-way, and most impacts to
these uplands will be temporary. The
construction and continued maintenance
of an access road to the reservoir would
permanently impact approximately 15
acres of upland vegetation. Water
withdrawn from the Alafia River,
Hillsborough River and Tampa Bypass
Canal and the continued maintenance of
the reservoir would not be expected to
impact any upland communities along
these three drainage's or adjacent to
McKay Bay (Tampa Bay).
Permanent and temporary impacts to
vegetation would result from
implementation of an ASR system.
Existing vegetation would be
permanently lost or altered at the sites of
new wells, basins, and access roads.
Construction of pipelines would
temporarily and permanently disturb
additional areas of existing vegetation.
The vegetation at the ASR sites would
be converted to buildings and settling
ponds. The upland vegetation
community is one of the dominant land
covers in the Hillsborough county and
permanent loss of vegetation from an
ASR system would not significantly
impact area upland vegetation.
Most of the areas that would be
disturbed by the action alternatives
contain vegetation communities, which
have already been greatly altered by
human activity for agriculture or urban
and suburban development.
4.10.2 No Federal Action. No impacts
to upland vegetation would occur with
the No Federal Action alternative since
no construction or operation and
maintenance activities would be
assumed.
4.10.3 Mitigation. The alignment of
the reservoir footprint was adjusted
during the final design stage to minimize
the impacts to upland areas in the
northwest comer of the proposed
reservoir site. This is an area known to
be habitat for gopher tortoises.
4.11 WETLANDS
Wetlands that would be impacted in the
study area include forested, herbaceous,
scrub-shrub and open water wetlands.
These impacts have been broken down
into those occurring because of the
reservoir and those occurring because of
the associated infrastructure (e.g., access
roads, pipelines, etc.).
Wetland communities on site include
five major types: 1) basin marsh, 2)
cypress swamp, 3) open water, 4) scrub
shrub/mixed forest swamp, and 5)
drainage ways classified as herbaceous
wetlands. Most basin marshes have
undergone some degree of hydrologic
alteration, such as excavation of shallow
ditches and cattle ponds through or
within the wetlands. There is one
cypress swamp located in the
northeastern portion of the proposed
reservoir site. Lakes within reclaimed
mine land and excavated cattle ponds
4-33
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
within isolated basin marshes represent
open water. Drainage ways are found
throughout, and the scrub shrub/mixed
forest areas are associated only with
reclaimed mine lands in the southern
third of the proposed site.
Wetlands along the pipeline route are
limited to bottomland hardwood forest
and small areas of wet pasture. The
disturbances to wildlife caused by
construction of the transmission and
effluent pipelines would be primarily
temporary. Some woodland habitat
would be lost for the maintenance of the
pipeline.
Methodologies and Significance
Criteria. Wetland limits were
delineated in the field with the aid of
infrared photography and recorded on
1"-200' rectified aerials with one foot
contour intervals and assigned a letter
and number designation. The wetlands
were classified using both the Florida
Land Use, Cover and Forms
classification system (FLUCFCS) and
the National Wetland Inventory (NWI)
wetland classification system.
4.11.1 Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
Project. Herbaceous wetlands account
for 60 percent (109.58 ac) of the total
impacted wetlands on the reservoir.
Reclaimed lands, which are located in
the southwest portion of the project,
contain 19 percent (34.68 ac) of the total
impacted wetlands. Reclaimed lands are
those lands that have been restored
following phosphate mining. The
communities that are found in this region
are forested, scrub-shrub, and
herbaceous wetlands and open water
features. Impacts to forested
communities comprise 9 percent (16.63
ac) of the total impacts and open water
features account for 12 percent (21.39
ac). Impacts within the reservoir
footprint are permanent and would
require mitigation. The amount of
wetland impacts as determined by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Florida
Department of Environmental
Protection, and Hillsborough County
Environmental Protection Commission
within the reservoir footprint are
presented in Table 4-1. Figure 4-1
shows where individual wetland impacts
would occur within the reservoir
footprint.
Table 4-1. Summary of Wetland Impacts for the Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
FDEP/EPC
Acreage
Impacts
ACOE
Acreage
Impacts
Forested
14.32
16.63
Herbaceous
94.88
109.58
Reclaimed--
Lands
(Forested and
Herbaceous)
34.56
34.68
Open Water
21.39
21.39
*Total
Acreage
Impacts
165.15
182.28
*all impacts within the reservoir are permanent
4-34
-------
Reservoir
Pipeline
Wetlands
Road RIght-of-Way
Figure source: HDR Engineering, Inc., EAP Application, September 7,2000
2000
2000 Feet
Figure 4-1
TAMPA BAY REGIONAL RESERVOIR
PROJECT DEIS
RESERVOIR WETLAND IMPACTS
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
For pipeline and access roads associated
with the reservoir, a total of 10,131
cubic yards of fill will be placed in
wetlands and 861 cubic yards will be
dredged.
The pipeline route includes numerous
creek crossings. Most of these are minor
and would involve open-cut construction
across creeks that may or may not have
water in them at the time of construction.
These creeks include jurisdictional
wetlands and waters of the United
States. Actual crossing construction
(open cut or trenchless) would depend
on environmental resource permit
negotiations. Turbidity control and
erosion control would be in place during
construction. Grades should be returned
to pre-construction conditions.
Herbaceous impacts account for 8
percent (0.46 ac) of the total impacted
wetlands along the pipeline route.
Impacts to forested communities
comprise 72 percent (4.33 ac) of the total
impacts and open water features account
for 20 percent (1.23 ac). Impacts along
the pipeline are temporary and are not
anticipated to require off-site mitigation.
Impacts to individual wetlands are
included in Table 4-2; a graphic
illustration of impacted wetlands is
presented in Figure 4-2.
Both palustrine and estuarine wetlands
occur along the Alafia River. The
principal palustrine wetland community
along the river is river/lake swamp with
a few forested wetlands while, the
estuarine wetland communities are
primarily saltwater marsh and mangrove
swamps.
The Hillsborough River and Tampa
Bypass Canal are both highly modified
systems. As a result, very little natural
shoreline and few wetlands exist. In
Tampa Bay, emergent saltwater
wetlands occur and include mangrove
forest, tidal marshes and salt barren/high
marshes. However, because of
commercial and residential development,
the extent of these natural communities
is limited. Potential impacts to these
communities found in and around
Tampa Bay and its tributaries would
result if salinity levels change
dramatically. Therefore, the operational
impacts of this project would not be
expected to affect these natural systems.
4.11.2 Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
and ASR System. The wetland impacts
associated with construction and
operation of proposed reservoir for this
alternative are the same as those
described above, with some additional
potential impacts associated with the
ASR system.
The construction of transmission
pipelines and access roads may cross
wetlands located in the area of the ASR
system. These wetlands, however,
would be impacted only temporarily.
For transmission pipelines, wetlands
were considered lost within the
permanent easement and temporarily
disturbed within an additional
construction easement. Pipelines within
the well fields were considered to
temporarily disturb wetlands within a
50-foot wide construction zone.
Crossing wetlands by access roads
would be avoided. In the event that
access roads could not avoid wetlands,
the impact would be permanent. The
access road width would be
approximately 20 ft. Based on spot
observations, wetlands were assumed to
exist along the banks of all streams that
would be crossed by pipelines.
4-36
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Table 4-2 Summary of Wetland Impacts for the Associated Facilities
FDEP/EPC
Acreage Impacts
ACOE
Acreage Impacts
Forested
4.33
4.33
Herbaceous
0.46
0.46
Open Water
1.23
1.23
"Total Acreage
Impacts
6.02
6.02
""Includes both temporary and permanent impacts.
Wetlands and aquatic beds are afforded
an extra measure of protection under the
Clean Water Act. Any unavoidable loss
to these special aquatic sites would be a
significant impact.
4.11.3 No Federal Action. The No
Federal Action alternative would not
have any impacts on the wetlands in the
project area because it would be
assumed that neither of the proposed
alternatives would be built. However,
impacts to wetlands resulting from the
withdrawals from existing wellfields
would continue to significantly impact
wetlands in Tampa Bay Water's service
area.
4.11.4 Mitigation. The mitigation plan
provides base information to compensate
for unavoidable wetland impacts
associated with the proposed reservoir
project. The amount of mitigation is
based on wetland impacts as determined
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps), Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP), and
Hillsborough County Environmental
Protection Commission. The mitigation
projects are expected to provide an
ecological benefit to the region. The
mitigation summary is included as
Appendix B.
4.12 WILDLIFE
In this discussion, wildlife is considered
to be the more common species of
mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians,
and fish that occur in the project area.
Information was obtained from on-site
observations during the permitting
process as well as scientific literature
research. Construction of any of the
water supply alternatives would impact
wildlife directly through mortality of
individuals during reservoir construction
and indirectly through habitat loss.
Methodologies and Significance
Criteria. Extensive field reviews and
surveys of the proposed reservoir site
have been conducted since 1998 for
suitable wetland and wildlife habitats,
including those for federal and state
listed threatened and endangered
species. Potential impacts on terrestrial
wildlife were evaluated based on the
quantity, quality, and scarcity of the
habitats disturbed by or lost to
construction. Impacts would be
significant if high quality, relatively rare
wildlife habitat is lost or significantly
impacted.
4.12.1 Action Alternatives. Wildlife
species expected to occur in the vicinity
of the proposed project area are
numerous and varied due to the mosaic
4-37
-------
Figure source: HDR Engineering, Inc., EAR Application, September 7, 2000
2000
2000 Feet
LEGEND
Reservoir
Pipeline
Wetlands
Road Right-of-Way
Figure 4-2
TAMPA BAY REGIONAL RESERVOIR
PROJECT DEIS
PIPELINE WETLAND IMPACTS
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
of upland and wetland communities
found in the region.
Wildlife observed on the reservoir site,
or highly likely to utilize the site, include
small and large mammals, reptiles,
amphibians, and a wide variety of birds.
Small mammals that may occur on the
project site such as raccoon, armadillo,
opossum, and eastern cottontail, will be
displaced to surrounding habitats by
construction of the reservoir. Large
mammals such as wild pig, and white-
tailed deer, and reptiles such as the
anole, six-lined racerunner, and various
snakes, are mobile species and will
likewise be displaced to surrounding
habitats. Impacts to these species are
expected to be minor but habitat loss
would be permanent in nature.
A wide variety of upland and wetland
dependent bird species, both permanent
residents and winter migrants,
potentially utilize the proposed reservoir
site. Habitat for these species will be
lost within the footprint of the reservoir.
These species will be displaced by the
construction of the reservoir but many,
especially upland species, will likely
utilize the uplands immediately
surrounding the reservoir. Wetland-
dependent species will be displaced to
wetlands in the surrounding areas.
Impacts to these species are also
expected to be minor but habitat would
be lost due to construction.
Alafia River, Hillsborough River, and
Tampa Bypass Canal. The diverse
habitat around the Alafia River provides
cover and forage for a variety of wildlife
species. Species occurring in and along
the river include small and large
mammals, marine mammals, birds
(including wading birds), and benthic
macroinvertebrates.
It is unlikely that significant impacts to
the Alafia River would result from the
proposed surface-water withdrawals.
Many resource managers agree that in
most systems the largest potential for
impacts occurs when low flows are
disrupted. For the proposed project, the
largest predicted effects on freshwater
flows would occur in the middle range
of flow frequencies, leaving the low and
high flow rates relatively or entirely
unimpacted. Therefore it is highly
unlikely that operation of either of the
proposed alternatives would impact
wildlife associated with Alafia River.
Similar to the Alafia River, the diverse
habitats around the Hillsborough River
and Tampa Bypass Canal provide cover
and forage for a variety of wildlife
species. However, these habitats have
been greatly impacted by human
development, resulting in limited species
diversity and population sizes.
Developments and human disturbance
limit the overall amount of habitat
present, and competition is high for
limited resources. It is unlikely that
significant impacts to the wildlife
associated with the Hillsborough
River/Tampa Bypass Canal system
would result from the operation of any
of the water supply alternatives.
Tampa Bay. Tampa Bay is a
subtropical estuary with a rich mosaic of
fish and wildlife habitats. These habitats
include seagrass beds, salterns, and
vegetated intertidal areas with mixtures
of mangrove and tidal marsh vegetation.
A variety of wildlife species use the
habitats found in Tampa Bay, including
small and large mammals, marine
mammals, birds (including wading
4-39
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
birds), reptiles, amphibians, and benthic
macroinvertebrates.
Potential impacts of the proposed
withdrawals should not adversely affect
the estuary as a nursery and habitat for
living resources. The required minimum
and maximum flow levels as specified
by the existing water use permits would
be addressed through operating
schedules, design considerations, and
other resource management activities.
The potential impacts of the various
projects to tributaries of the Tampa Bay
estuary result in salinity changes that
remain within the range of natural
system variation. It is unlikely that
significant impacts to wildlife habitat in
and around Tampa Bay would result
from operation of the action alternatives.
The largest predicted effects on>
freshwater flows would occur in the
middle range of flow frequencies,
leaving the low and high flow rates
relatively or entirely unimpacted.
ASR wells are by definition constructed
below ground level, usually with
minimal surface impacts. Additional
impacts to wildlife from the addition of
the ASR wells to the reservoir site would
be essentially temporary in nature and
related to construction. Human presence
and noise associated with drilling
activities would be expected to cause
wildlife to avoid the area. After
construction, human presence will be
limited and would not be expected to
cause increased impacts over current
conditions.
4.12.2 No Federal Action. The No
Federal Action alternative would not
require any construction activities and
would not change existing wildlife
habitats in the project area. Overall, the
No Federal Action alternative would
have no impacts, positive or negative, on
local wildlife.
4.12.3 Mitigation. Three mitigation
sites are proposed in the vicinity of the
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
to compensate for unavoidable wetland
impacts associated with the project. The
three sites are:
East Pruitt/Carlton-Smith Site
West Pruitt Site
North Carlton-Smith Site
Based on anticipated mitigation
requirements, all three sites would need
to be developed to meet the mitigation
needs for the proposed reservoir project.
The mitigation sites would be developed
near the Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
Project, hi addition 5,200 acres
immediately adjacent to the proposed
reservoir is being purchased by the
SWFWMD and will be preserved as a
natural area.
4.13 FISHERIES
The general project area contains a
variety of available fish habitat types,
used by a diverse group of species. A
discussion of the various habitats present
and the common species found in the
vicinity of the proposed Tampa Bay
Regional Reservoir, Alafia River,
Hillsborough River, Tampa Bypass
Canal, and Tampa Bay are presented in
Chapter 3. In this section, possible
impacts to fish species found in these
areas as a result of freshwater
withdrawals are discussed.
Methodologies and Significance
Criteria. Potential impacts to the Alafia
River, the Hillsborough River, Tampa
Bypass Canal, and the Tampa Bay
estuary would include changes to
4-40
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
downstream habitats and the associated
fish species due to surface water
withdrawals for storage in the proposed
reservoir and ASR wells. Salinity plays
the most important role as a limiting
factor for most species in estuaries,
where organism distribution can be
established in relation to the isohalines
(Cognetti and Maltagliati 2000).
Therefore, salinity is used here as the
primary indicator for potential impacts
to wildlife. Impacts to terrestrial and
aquatic wildlife and fishes were based on
changes in the salinity gradients of the
rivers and estuaries, as well as the
habitats affected by these changes.
Fish data from several studies and
sources were reviewed to determine
species present that would potentially be
affected by the proposed withdrawals
(Dames and Moore 1975, HDR 1998).
As expected, in the upstream reaches of
the Alafia River, species preferring
lower salinity to freshwater habitats
were found, and downstream near the
mouth, species preferring higher salinity
habitats were found.
4.13.1 Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
Project. Fish species expected to occur
in the vicinity of the proposed project
area are limited to the open water habitat
found on site. Most of the fish would
occur in the freshwater marsh wetlands
of the proposed reservoir area. Fish that
inhabit these areas are typically small,
minnow-sized species and smaller
individuals of larger species. The size
and abundance of individual fish species
varies seasonally. Numbers of small
fishes increase rapidly following re-
flooding of previously dry marshes. As
wr.ter levels rise and stabilize, larger fish
survive and become dominant, including
species that inhabit the deeper marshes
and ponds. Impacts to species found on
the site are expected to be minor but
open water habitat associated with
wetlands on the interior would be lost
due to construction of the reservoir.
Species assemblages typical for this
habitat are presented in Chapter 3.
Construction of the proposed reservoir
would increase open water habitat and
provide a significant freshwater fishery.
This would provide a positive benefit for
the fisheries on site.
Alafia River, Hillsborougb River, and
Tampa Bypass Canal. Like the tidal
portion of the Little Manatee River, the
Alafia River and Hillsborough River are
used heavily year-round as nursery
habitat by an economically important
assemblage of estuarine-dependent
fishes, with larval species richness
highest during spring and summer.
Based on the salinity tolerances of
species present, it is predicted that the
maximum increase of 2 ppt within the
oligohaline reaches of the Alafia and
Hillsborough rivers is not expected to
cause undue stress to these fisheries.
Fish species with identified salinity
preferences are reported to tolerate
salinity concentration ranges greater than
the maximum predicted increase within
oligohaline reaches of the river. In
addition, fish are mobile and can move
to coincide with the most favorable
water-quality conditions during short-
term perturbations.
Tampa Bay. Tampa Bay provides
important habitat for both adult and
juvenile resident and migratory fish
species. The seagrass beds and
backwater areas in the bay provide
important nurseries for the larvae and
4-41
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
juvenile stages of these species (Lewis
and Estevez 1988). Most species spawn
during the spring and early summer in
either the nearby Gulf or in higher
salinity areas of Tampa Bay. During and
following these spawning periods, the
larval and juvenile fish typically migrate
into either seagrass beds or shallow,
protected, low-salinity nursery areas of
the bay to feed and mature (Comp 1985;
Lewis etal. 1985).
Like juvenile snook and spotted seatrout,
juvenile striped mullet and red drum are
euryhaline. Juvenile striped mullet
prefer low-salinity riverine tidal creeks
and creek mouths with unvegetated
muddy or mud and sand bottoms, and
may avoid linear mangrove habitats and
marsh shorelines. Epiphytic and benthic
microalgae and macrophyte detritus of
these habitats provide the food source.
Juvenile red drum occur in waters of 0-
50 ppt salinity, but migrate to 0.5-8 ppt
salinities and prefer tidal tributaries and
backwater areas with muddy bottoms,
low-energy shorelines or coves; and
some shoreline emergent vegetation
(Killameffl/. 1992).
Both salinity and habitat characteristics
affect distribution of the species
described above, so that changes in the
salinity regime with respect to fixed
habitat features may change the
availability of suitable habitat. This is
also true with respect to seagrasses,
marshes, and riparian vegetation that are
both living resources and relatively fixed
biotic components of fish habitat.
Inspection of these predicted salinities
and preferences for the vegetation,
benthos, and fishes examined indicates
that the predicted salinities resulting
from application of the proposed
withdrawal schedule are well within the
range of salinities tolerated by the
organisms.
4.13.2 Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
and ASR System. Additional impacts
to fisheries from the addition of the ASR
system to the reservoir site will be
essentially temporary in nature and
related to construction. After
construction, human presence will be
limited and is not expected to cause
increased impacts over current
conditions.
4.13.3 No Federal Action. If the No
Federal Action alternative were chosen,
the proposed reservoir and associated
facilities associated pipeline, and the
ASR system would not be built. There
would be no impacts to fisheries from
this alternative.
4.13.4 Mitigation. Tampa Bay Water
has corresponded with FDEP and EPC
and it appears that the agencies would
require open water mitigation for the
proposed reservoir. Therefore an
additional 14 acres of open water would
have to be created within the three
mitigation areas. These open water
areas would provide mitigation for
impacted fisheries in the proposed
project area.
Intake velocities at maximum
withdrawal rates for the Tampa Bypass
Canal and the Alafia River Pump
Station. Intakes are less than 0.5 ft/sec
to minimize entrainment and
impingement.
4.14 THREATENED AND
ENDANGERED SPECIES
Eleven endangered and seven threatened
species have been identified as
potentially occurring in the project area
4-42
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(Table 3-5). Brief descriptions of each
species are presented in Chapter 3.
More detailed descriptions are included
in the Biological Assessment (Appendix
A).
Methodologies and Significance
Criteria. Field reviews and surveys of
the proposed reservoir site have been
conducted since 1998 for suitable
wetland and wildlife habitats, including
those for listed species (HDR 2000).
Impacts of the proposed project on
wildlife would include temporary
disturbance during construction and loss
of habitat. Impacts on terrestrial wildlife
were evaluated based on the quantity,
quality, and scarcity of the habitats
disturbed by or lost to construction.
Impacts would be significant if high
quality, relatively rare wildlife habitat is
lost or significantly impacted. Impacts
from construction of the proposed
pipeline to habitat potentially supporting
protected species will be temporary in
nature.
4.14.1 Federally Threatened and
Endangered Species.
4.14.1.1 Action Alternatives. Prior to
construction, supplemental surveys are
anticipated to confirm the presence or
absence of listed species within zones of
direct impact, and appropriate permits or
authorizations will be requested.
Typically these authorizations include
avoidance of construction during the
breeding seasons of certain species, e.g.
burrowing owl, fox squirrel, and sandhill
crane.
Wood Stork. Surveys conducted in
1999 and 2000 indicated that impacts to
the foraging habitat of the wood stork
would occur as a result of the project
construction and operation, however,
impacts to nesting areas or rookeries
would not occur. It is concluded that the
proposed project is not likely to
adversely affect the wood stork.
Scrub Jays. Surveys were conducted
following the guidelines in the FWC
Nongame Wildlife Program Technical
Report No. 8 prepared to determine the
presence of scrub jays within the survey
area and, if present, to document the
population (Fitzpatrick et al. 1991).
Although an area of potential scrub jay
habitat was identified at the reservoir
site, no scrub jays were observed. The
footprint of the proposed reservoir was
redesigned to avoid this habitat;
therefore, the proposed project is not
likely to adversely affect the Florida
scrub jay.
Bald Eagles. Bald eagles are known to
occur in the vicinity of the project site;
however, only one individual was
observed in flight over the reservoir site.
Because no nests have been observed or
recorded on the reservoir site or within
the pipeline corridor, the project is not
anticipated to adversely affect the bald
eagle.
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker.
Impacts as a result of the proposed
project are not expected to adversely
affect the red-cockaded wookpecker.
The Florida Natural Areas Inventory
(FNAI) does not list the red-cockaded
woodpecker as occurring in
Hillsborough, Pasco, or Pinnellas
counties. This species was not found
during surveys of the regional reservoir
site and pipeline corridor and therefore
construction and operation of the project
would not likely impact the species.
4-43
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
American Alligators. American
alligators occur in creeks, streams, and
other wetlands throughout Hillsborough
County. They have been observed on
the western portion of the reservoir site
in two open-water bodies. Although
some loss of suitable habitat would
occur as a result of the project, the
proposed project is not likely to
adversely affect the American alligator
population.
Indigo Snakes. Individual indigo
snakes were observed on the reservoir
site on two occasions. One sighting was
within the northern hardwood forest
associated with Doe Branch. The
second sighting was within an oak-
shrouded fence line in the west-central '
portion of the proposed reservoir site.
Potential impacts to the indigo snake are
associated with habitat loss, specifically
wetland hardwood forest. However, due
to the expanse of similar habitats in the
project vicinity, the proposed project is
not likely to adversely affect the eastern
indigo snake.
Sea Turtles. Decreases in freshwater
inflow into Tampa Bay are not expected
to adversely affect sea turtle populations.
Sea turtles are highly migratory and will
travel great distances to forage (Musick
and Limpus 1996) and are also capable
of moving into preferred salinity
habitats. In addition, all sea turtle species
have salt glands that mechanically
reduce water and salt flux, and
physiological mechanisms that work to
actively extrude gained salt, obtain free
water, and regulate the internal ionic
balance (Lutz 1996). Because nesting
activities occur almost exclusively on
the Gulf-facing beaches in the Tampa
Bay area, potential salinity changes
within the bay should have no effect on
sea turtle nesting.
Gulf Sturgeon. The Gulf sturgeon is
threatened sub-species of the Atlantic
sturgeon, and once inhabited the
Hillsborough River and Tampa Bay.
Sub-adult and adult Gulf sturgeon
migrate upstream to spawn in rivers
draining to the Gulf of Mexico from
early spring through the end of May
(USFWS 2000). In late September to
early October, adults migrate
downstream to estuarine habitats until
they are at least two years old.
Currently, the Florida Marine Research
Institute is leading a cooperative effort to
release a limited number of Gulf
sturgeon into parts of the Hillsborough
River (FMRI2000). Due to the
sturgeon's mobility, the proposed project
is not likely to adversely impact the Gulf
sturgeon.
Florida Manatee. The Florida manatee
is protected by both federal and state
wildlife agencies and listed as
endangered (FGFFC 1997). They
inhabit freshwater, brackish, and marine
habitats and move freely between
salinity extremes. If the water is deep
enough and the currents are not too
strong, manatees will travel great
distances up coastal rivers (Florida
Power and Light 1982). Because
manatees move freely between salinity
extremes, and the adjacent tributaries
provide a source of freshwater, proposed
freshwater withdrawals would have no
adverse impacts on this species (Coastal
Environmental/PBS&J 1998).
Threatened and Endangered Plants.
Impacts as a result of the proposed
project are not expected to adversely
affect endangered and threatened plant
.4-44
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
species. Florida bonamia, pygmy fringe
tree and Florida golden aster are
documented to occur in Hillsborough
County, but have not been found on the
proposed project site. Beautiful pawpaw
and Small's jointweed are not
documented by the FNAI or FWS to
occur in Hillsborough County, and are
therefore not likely to be impacted by
the proposed project.
4.14.1.2 No Federal Action. The No
Federal Action alternative would not
impact federal threatened and
endangered species.
4.14.1.3 Mitigation. The Proposed
Mitigation Plan provides base
information to compensate for
unavoidable wetland impacts associated
with the proposed reservoir project. The
amount of mitigation is based on
wetland impacts as determined by the
United States Army Corps of Engineers,
FDEP, and Hillsborough County
Environmental Protection Commission.
In addition to the proposed mitigation
sites, SWFWMD is purchasing 5,200
acres adjacent to the proposed reservoir
that would remain set aside as a natural
area.
The basin-marsh mitigation could
provide habitat suitable for sandhill
cranes, a protected species observed in
the area, and other wetland dependent
species of the proposed reservoir site.
Most likely, some type of mitigation for
loss of habitat will be required by
permitting agencies for sandhill cranes
and other wetland-dependent species.
The mitigation project would most likely
provide benefits to future corridors. As
a result of this site's proximity to the
Pruitt Site, where several protected
species of wildlife have been observed,
it is reasonable to assume that herons,
egrets, and Florida sandhill cranes use
this site. Recent field observations on
the proposed mitigation parcel indicate
that eastern indigo snakes, alligators, and
a bald eagle use this site. The mitigation
scenario proposed for the site is expected
to benefit these species.
4.14.2 State Listed Species of Special
Concern. The Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission (FWC,
formerly the FGFWFC) is responsible
for listing protected species in the State
of Florida. Impacts to State Listed
Species of Special Concern are regulated
by the FWC, and impacts may require
permits and/or mitigation.
4.14.2.1 Action Alternatives.
Sandhill Cranes. During the 1999
nesting season, four nesting pairs of
Florida sandhill cranes and one pair of
offspring were documented on the
proposed reservoir site. During non-
nesting months, no more than two pair of
adult cranes were observed foraging on
the proposed reservoir site at any one
time. During the 2000 nesting season,
no nests or nesting adults were observed
at the 1999 nest sites, although one adult
was observed sitting on a nest at a
previously undocumented site on
January 8, 2000. Mitigation for impacts
to wetlands, including suitable nesting
habitat, will replace crane nesting
habitat. Construction related impacts to
active nest sites would not be permitted.
The proposed mitigation plan for
wetland impacts associated with the
reservoir construction include basin-
marsh restoration/creation, which could
provide suitable habitat for sandhill
cranes.
4-45
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Southeastern American Kestrel. In
Florida, the southeastern American
kestrel prefers open habitats including
pastures, open longleaf pine-turkey oak-
sandhill communities, grasslands, and
open sites within suburban and
residential areas. Pasture is the primary
kestrel habitat on the proposed reservoir
site. American kestrels were frequently
observed within the proposed reservoir
site and pipeline routes during the fall
and winter months. The first arrivals
during the 1999 fall season were
documented on October 22nd. No
kestrels were observed during the five-
month period of April through August
indicating that kestrels observed on the
reservoir site during fall and winter
months were migratory individuals and
not the listed Florida subspecies.
Because of their diverse habitat
preferences, it is concluded that the
proposed reservoir site does not
currently support resident Southeastern
American kestrels, and therefore the
project would not likely adversely affect
this species.
Wading Birds. Wading birds found in
the vicinity of Tampa Bay include the
snowy egret, white ibis, tricolored heron,
little blue heron, reddish egret, and
roseate spoonbill. Some loss of wading
bird foraging habitat would occur as a
result of the project; however, since no
colonies or sign of colonial activities
were observed during the 1998, 1999, or
2000 nesting season, impacts to nesting
areas or rookeries would not occur.
Therefore the proposed project would
not likely adversely affect these wading
bird species. Over 14 acres of open
water systems would be developed to
mitigate for impacts that could occur in
the reservoir footprint and would
provide habitat for wading birds.
Burrowing Owls. One pair of
burrowing owls has been observed on
the proposed reservoir site but no
quantitative surveys have been
completed. If construction of the
reservoir impacts any nesting burrowing
owls, the necessary permits would be
applied for and mitigation will be
proposed.
Gopher Tortoise. Gopher tortoise
habitat is located outside of the
northwest comer of the proposed
reservoir site and was surveyed to
quantify population densities. A total of
54 active and 16 inactive burrows were
identified, giving an approximate density
of 1.6 tortoises per acre. This area
would be avoided and direct impacts are
not expected.
Surveys have been completed within
suitable habitat along the pipeline route;
two active burrows were identified.
Impacts to suitable habitat along the
pipeline route would be temporary.
Additional surveys prior to construction
would be completed to confirm the
presence or absence of tortoises.
Potential secondary impacts related to
seepage could occur to the population
located in the northwest corner of the
reservoir site. Seepage could potentially
result in an increase in water-table
elevations and therefore flooding of
gopher tortoise burrows.
As part of the ecological and HBMP,
surficial aquifer wells would be installed
in this area to track changes in the
surficial aquifer (i.e. water table) under
baseline conditions (pre-construction),
4-46
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
during construction, and during
operation. The extent of seepage and
related changes in the water table, if any,
would appear gradually during the initial
filling of the reservoir. Should surficial
aquifer levels deviate from an expected
annual flux compared to baseline
conditions, management strategies
would be implemented. These strategies
would primarily include the
establishment of well points and
pumpage of this seepage water out and
back into the reservoir or other suitable
off-site location.
Florida Mouse. Suitable habitat also
exists for the Florida Mouse adjacent to
the northwest corner of the proposed
reservoir footprint and it is likely that the
Florida mouse uses the gopher tortoise
burrows on-site. This area would be
avoided during construction and
operation of the alternatives and
associated facilities. The project is not
likely to adversely affect the Florida
mouse.
Sherman Fox Squirrel. Sherman fox
squirrel habitat on the proposed reservoir
site includes oak-dominated fence lines,
sparse oak woodland near Long Flat
Creek, oak hammock, and cypress
swamp. The squirrels have been
observed on the proposed project site at
several locations over the past two years.
Although fox squirrels are widespread in
Florida, they are listed as threatened
(State list) and their distribution is
patchy due to habitat loss.
If nests were identified within the site
footprint, an equivalent acreage of
habitat would be placed into
preservation. The acreage to be
preserved would be calculated by
measuring the impacted habitat plus a
100-foot buffer. Preservation of
hardwood riverine corridors (e.g. Doe
Branch and Long Flat Creek) would
adequately mitigate for impacts to
habitat used by this species.
Gopher Frog. The gopher frog is
closely linked to the gopher tortoise,
often using the tortoise burrow as a
refuge. Surveys for the frog have not
been conducted on the project site,
although suitable habitat exists. A
cypress swamp with interior marsh is
located approximately one-quarter mile
southeast from the xeric community
noted for the gopher tortoise. This
cypress swamp is within the proposed
reservoir footprint and would be lost. If
the gopher frog occupies the xeric oak
community, the project could adversely
affect breeding opportunities for those
individuals.
Estuarine Birds. Estuarine birds listed
as species of special concern in the
Tampa Bay area include the least tern,
southeastern snowy plover, brown
pelican, American oystercatcher, and
black skimmer. These birds live and
forage in a variety of saline habitats,
including coastal beaches, dunes,
intertidal sand flats, and estuaries. The
potential salinity changes from the
proposed withdrawals would not be
expected to adversely impact food
sources of marine birds.
These birds have physiological
adaptations that enable them to tolerate
high salinities. Many estuarine birds
have paired nasal salt glands, located
above the orbit of each eye, that secrete
a salty fluid through a duct connected
with the nasal cavity (Schmidt-Nielson
1991). These salt glands are usually
inactive until the bird is under osmotic
stress (eating salty food or drinking
4-47
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
seawater), and can effectively eliminate
the internal salt load in a matter of hours
(Schmidt-Nielson 1991). With these
physiological adaptations, it is unlikely
that the proposed withdrawals would
adversely affect coastal bird populations.
Peregrines. Peregrines have been
observed throughout Florida during the
winter, but are encountered most often
near the coasts. The destruction of
habitat poses the greatest threat to the
Peregrine falcon in Florida. Coastal
wetlands, particularly important to the
species, suffer from the highest rates of
development and urbanization (Rodgers
et al. 1996). It is unlikely that the
proposed withdrawals would adversely
impact these birds.
Brown Pelican. The brown pelican is
perhaps Florida's most distinctive and
widely recognized bird. They dive for
fish from 20- to 30-foot heights, and can
be seen flying to and from feeding
grounds in loose V-formations. There
have been 1,600 to 2,000 breeding pairs
of brown pelicans counted in Florida
since 1994. About 20 percent of the
state breeding population occurs in the
Tampa Bay area (Paul, 1999). It is
unlikely that that proposed withdrawals
would adversely affect brown pelican
populations.
Snook. Common snook are well-
documented inhabitants of Tampa Bay,
usually located among the mangroves,
tidal marshes, and non-vegetated
subtidal areas of lower salinities (Comp
1985; Janicki et al. 1995). Adult snook
generally inhabit brackish water areas
where salinities range from 0 to 36 ppt.
Studies suggest that salinity may not be
a major factor influencing larval and
juvenile snook distribution in the
estuary; however, water temperature,
water depth, currents and structural
habitat components appear to be critical
factors in the selection of snook
spawning and nursery habitat.
Extremely low water temperatures can
be lethal to snook. Snook abundance is
probably limited by the availability of
critical habitat in the Tampa Bay
estuary. Typical habitats of larval,
juvenile and adult snook include
mangroves, backwaters, tidal tributaries,
and areas that provide access to deep
water channels (Versar 1992).
Given the large range in salinities in
which snook are found in Tampa Bay,
this difference in metabolic cost may not
be critical to survival of this species.
Therefore the possible maximum salinity
changes from the proposed freshwater
withdrawals would not be expected to
adversely impact juvenile or adult snook
in Tampa Bay and its associated
tributaries.
4.14.2.2 No Federal Action. If the No
Federal Action alternative were chosen,
it would be assumed that there would be
no construction of the proposed
reservoir, pipeline, or ASR well field
and no additional surface-water
withdrawals from the Alafia River, the
Hillsborough River, or the Tampa
Bypass Canal. If there are no additional
withdrawals, there would be no impacts
from this project to the proposed
reservoir site, the tributary rivers, or the
Tampa Bay estuary.
4.14.2.3 Mitigation. Three mitigation
sites are proposed in the vicinity of the
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
to compensate for unavoidable wetland
4-48
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
impacts associated with the project
(Figure 4-3). The three sites are:
East Pruitt/Carlton-Smith Site
(approximately 367 acres)
West Pruitt Site (approximately 850
acres)
North Carlton-Smith Site (design
phase)
Based on anticipated mitigation
requirements, all three sites would need
to be developed to meet the mitigation
needs for the proposed reservoir project.
The mitigation sites would be developed
near the Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
Project (Figure 4-4).
4.15 SOCIOECONOMIC
CONDITIONS
The construction and operation of the
project alternatives would have both
positive and negative impacts from a
social and economic perspective. The
; construction phase would take
approximately two years to complete
and would create some short-term
employment in the area. New long-term
employment would consist primarily of
personnel for operations and
maintenance of the water supply and
treatment components. The construction
of the reservoir would remove grazing
and agricultural land out of production.
The 5,200 acres purchased by
SWFWMD would be taken off of the tax
role as SWFWMD and Tampa Bay
Water are both state agencies and are tax
exempt.
Existing social and economic conditions
and trends within the project region were
documented and impacts caused by the
project were evaluated. Based on
existing conditions and trends, project
impacts would be significant only if
changes in the social and economic
environment of the area would exceed
the ability of the area to absorb the
change and result in hardships for a
segment of the population, the economy,
or public services.
4.15.1 Population.
4.15.1.1 Action Alternatives. During
the construction phase, the primary
effect on population would be a
temporary increase from the influx of the
construction work force. Construction is
anticipated to take two years for either of
the action alternatives. The peak
maintenance and operation work force
expected at any single site would be
approximately two people. It is
anticipated that the project work force
would likely.be composed of both local
and non-local personnel. Non-local
workers would be distributed throughout
the area, with some residing locally in
the Riverview area and others
commuting from the City of Tampa and
surrounding communities. Even if all of
the workers came from outside of the
study area, the short-term increase in
population would not cause impacts
large enough to be analyzed due to the
existing large population base.
The primary long-term effect of the two
action alternatives would be the
facilitation of the current forecasted
trend in area population growth, which
would not be a significant impact.
4.15.1.2 No Federal Action. The No
Federal Action alternative would not
require any construction or result in any
change in the availability for water for
public consumption. Consequently, this
alternative would not impact the regional
population.
4-49
-------
Dorman Road
Bo^ette
Boyette Road'
West Pruitt
Mitigation Site
Stallion
Hammock
Browning Road
!f ab^e
.Hammock
'yrff
4
North
Carlton-Smith
Mitigation Site
Doe
Branch
Reservoir
Site
(By Others)
Chito
Branch
East Pruitt/
Carlton-Smith
Mitigation Site
Wendel Ave.
Reservoir Project Boundary
N
Rgure4-3
TAMPA BAY REGIONAL RESERVOIR
PROJECT DEIS
PROPOSED MITIGATION SITES
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
4.15.2 Housing.
4.15.2.1 Action Alternatives. No
increases in housing demands are
expected from the temporary and
permanent work forces needed for the
project because most of the labor would
come from local sources. No residences
are found within the proposed reservoir
site; therefore, no significant impacts on
existing housing are anticipated.
4.15.2.2 No Federal Action. Under the
No Federal Action alternative, no
significant impacts on existing housing
would occur.
4.15.3 Land Use.
4.15.3.1 Action Alternatives. The
development of a reservoir would alter
the current land use of the project area
and other lands immediately adjacent to
the reservoir. The total land
requirements of the reservoir are
approximately 1,100 acres. This land is
currently used as rangeland with some
pasture. The loss of this land as
rangeland is imminent with or without
the reservoir since it is located in an area
experiencing developmental pressure. If
the proposed reservoir were developed
approximately 5,200 acres including the
reservoir footprint would be purchased
by SWFWMD. This property would be
set aside as a natural area to not be
developed in the future. No significant
impacts to land use would result from
the action alternatives.
4.15.3.2 No Federal Action. The No
Federal Action alternative would not
lead to any changes in existing land use,
nor would it provide any benefits to the
public.
4.15.4 Employment and Income.
4.15.4.1 Action Alternatives. The
construction and operation of a new
water supply would provide both
temporary and long-term employment
within the study area. Most of the new
employment would be in the
construction sector of the economy.
Demands for construction materials
could also stimulate job growth in the
manufacturing sector; however, this
growth would not necessarily be local
because some construction materials
would likely be imported from outside
the project area (e.g., structural steel,
water treatment plant equipment, pipe).
The purchase of materials, fuel, food,
and services by construction workers
would contribute to local employment
and income, particularly in the rural
community of Riverview. Overall, the
project construction would tend to
reduce local unemployment.
Limited gains in permanent employment
would occur directly as a result of
constructing a new water treatment
facility. The work force needed to
operate the new water supply would be
small relative to the size of the
construction work force and the
available work force in the Tampa area.
Indirectly, the additional water provided
by the plant would facilitate the
continued expansion of the area
economy. This expansion would result
in increasing employment and income in
most sectors of the local economy.
4.15.4.2 No Federal Action. No
employment benefits would result from
the implementation of the No Federal
Action alternative. Current practices and
trends would be expected to continue.
No significant impacts to employment
would result.
4-51
-------
Figure Source: HDR Engineering, Inc.,
EAP Application, May 15, 2001
HILLSBOROUGH
COUNTY
' * Reservoir
LEGEND
Proposed Greenway
J Original "4,800 Acre" Primary Study Area
* Current SWFWMD "5,200 Acre"
/\/ Pipeline
/\/ Wetlands
/ Railroads
Reservoir Site
Acquired ELAPP Site Area
Approved ELAPP Site Area
Other Preservation Lands
| | ume aservanon i_anas
;] Other Recreational Public Owned Lands
Y/A Other Hillsborough County Lands
71 Wetlands
Figure 4-4
TAMPA BAY REGIONAL RESERVOIR
PROJECT DEIS
ADJACENT LANDS
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
4.15.5 Community Services and
Facilities.
4.15.5.1 Action Alternatives. The
addition of 80 to 120 temporary workers
to the project area would impose
minimal, if any, increases in demand on
local services facilities. Construction
and recreation activities could lead to
accidents that would require emergency
medical services. Adequate hospital
facilities are present within the region to
accommodate any additional injuries
caused by construction or the slight,
temporary increase in population.
Some additional police patrol of the
water supply alternative facilities could
be required. The existing police force
for Hillsborough County should be able
to accommodate the additional patrols
and police services associated with
project construction and operation. Few
workers would be likely to enroll
children in the local schools because of
the seasonal timing of the construction.
Excess classroom facilities are present,
therefore, small increases in enrollment
would not cause overcrowding in
schools. Should workers and their
families relocate to the area during
construction, area schools and churches
should be adequate to accommodate
them.
The construction and operation of a
reservoir would result in an increase in
traffic on the roads that lead to the
individual alternative sites. Because
both workers and recreation users would
come from different communities in the
area, the traffic would be spread over the
local and state roads in Hillsborough
County. The project would require
Tampa Bay Water to receive a traffic
permit from the Hillsborough County's
Planning and Growth Management
Department.
As discussed earlier, population
increases would be nominal and
distributed throughout the region.
Therefore, a negligible increase would
occur in the demand for drinking water
and wastewater treatment facilities.
4.15.5.2 No Federal Action. The No
Federal Action alternative would not
result in any increased demands on
public services or facilities, nor would it
provide any additional water for public
consumption. No significant impacts to
public services and facilities would
occur.
4.15.6 Public Finance.
4.15.6.1 Action Alternatives. The
land, which has been set aside for both
of the reservoir alternatives, would be
owned by the SWFWMD. This land
would be taxed in the same manner
regardless of whether or not either of the
alternatives is constructed; therefore, no
public finance impacts are anticipated.
4.15.6.2 No Federal Action. The No
Federal Action alternative would not
result in an increase or decrease to
public finances; therefore, no impact is
anticipated.
4.15.7 Environmental Justice. After
completing the environmental justice
review in Chapter 3, it has been
determined that there are no potential
environmental justice areas that would
warrant further investigation.
4.15.8 Mitigation. No adverse or
significant impacts to any of the above
socioeconomic parameters would result
from construction of a water supply
4-53
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
alternative. Therefore, no mitigation is
proposed.
4.16 VISUAL AND AESTHETIC
CHARACTERISTICS
The main elements of visual character
are landscape character, visual variety,
and deviation from landscape character.
Impact to visual character is a function
of how the project changes these aspects
ofthe landscape.
Methodologies and Significance
Criteria. Landscape character is the
overall visual impression resulting from
the visual features created by the area
topography, vegetation, and land use.
Visual variety concerns the different
features within the landscape. Visual
variety is considered appealing, whereas
visual continuity is considered
monotonous. Impacts on the landscape
generally result when human alterations
to the topography, vegetation, or land
use contrast with the natural character of
an area. In general, strong contrast with
these components results in visual
disharmony, while changes that conform
to the existing visual components are
less noticeable.
Significant visual impacts would result if
the action projects would create visual
disharmony. Visual impacts would be
significant if large numbers of people
would view the visual disharmony
created, alter current points of
recognized scenic value, or alter state or
federally designated scenic areas.
4.16.1 Action Alternatives. The
construction of a new embankment and
reservoir and an ASR system would
impact all components of landscape
character by adding an earthen
embankment and well heads to the
landscape and removing some
vegetation. The embankment for each of
the alternatives would create visual
contrast in the existing landscape. The
embankment would be covered with
natural vegetation creating less of a
contrast to the natural character of the
area. The land use of the reservoir and
the immediate vicinity of each ASR well
would change.
No areas designated as scenic by state or
federal agencies are located in the
immediate project area, therefore, none
would be impacted by this project.
Impacts to the visual character of the
area would result from this project.
Overall, the only significant impact to
the visual character of the area would be
the addition of a water body to an
agricultural landscape. However, these
impacts would generally be considered
positive because of the introduction of
variety into the landscape. Overall, no
significant adverse impacts to the visual
character or the area would result from
the project.
4.16.2 No Federal Action. This
alternative would not change landscape
and visual character or create large
deviations from surrounding landscape
character. Therefore, the no-action
alternative would have no effect on the
aesthetics of the area.
4.16.3 Mitigation. Visual impacts
caused by the action alternatives would
be mitigated by adding berms and
vegetation to screen the structures from
view, breaking up the strong rectangular
and geometric visual elements, and
return a natural aspect to the landscape.
Trees would be planted along the
southeast portion of the reservoir
4-54
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
embankment to create a natural barrier
and visual relief from Wendell Avenue.
Painting the associated structures
earthtone colors would mitigate the
visual impact of the well structures.
Lighting would be kept to the minimum
necessary to provide adequate safety and
security.
4.17 CULTURAL RESOURCES
The proposed action alternatives possess
the potential to impact cultural resources
in several ways. Archaeological
evidence remains one of the primary
links to Florida's prehistory in the
absence of oral traditions and written
records. Possible damage associated
with construction of transmission mains,
excavation of the reservoir, placement of
intake, storage facilities, ASR wells and
pipelines, reservoir filling, or erosion
could alter or destroy sites and prevent
the recovery of culturally significant or
historically valuable information. The
presence of water storage structures and
associated facilities has the potential to
alter the character of historic sites.
Methodologies and Significance
Criteria. Existing cultural resource
information was reviewed for the broad
study area and for the specific locations
of the project sites involved in the
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir EIS
analysis. This effort determined the
number, type, location, and significance
of previously recorded historical and
archaeological sites in relation to
National Register of Historic Places
[NRHP] significance. Sites were
evaluated for their potential for listing on
the NRHP. The criteria used to
determine the inclusion of a site on the
NRHP is in accordance with the
Department of the Interiors regulations
36 CFR 60.4.
The quality of significance in American
history, architecture, archaeology,
engineering, and culture is present in
district, sites, buildings, structures, and
objects that possess integrity of location,
design, setting, and materials.
Workmanship feeling, and association,
and that (a) are associated with events
that have made a significant contribution
to the broad patterns of our history; or
(b) that are associated with the lives of
persons significant in our past; or (c) that
embody the distinctive characteristics of
a type, period, or method of
construction, or that represent the work
of a master, or that possess high artistic
values, or that represent a significant
distinguishable entity whose components
may lack individual distinction; or (d)
that have yielded or may be likely to
yield information important in history or
prehistory.
This review examined existing data and
literature such as cultural assessment
reports, site descriptions and resource
evaluations contained in the Florida Site
File (FSF) system and the NRHP.
Additionally, personnel at Florida State
Historic Preservation offices (SHPO)
were consulted. Identified sites
considered potentially eligible for listing
on the NRHP were investigated to
determine proximity to construction
activities. Impacts to cultural resources
would be considered adverse if the
project would damage or destroy any site
identified as eligible for the NRHP.
4.17.1 Action Alternatives. Resource
review identified archaeological sites
that have been documented within a one-
mile radius of the potential project sites.
Impacts to cultural resources would
include damage from exposure, erosion
or construction to artifacts of cultural
4-55
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
significance. Most of the prehistoric
archaeological sites can be characterized
as low to moderate density lithic or
artifact scatters. The historic structures
documented have a lack of significant
historical association or architectural
distinction. In addition, these structures
exhibit non-historic modifications that
would most likely limit the importance
of the buildings in regards to their
potential for listing on the NRHP.
The construction and operation of either
of the action alternatives would
potentially alter several sites not
considered eligible for listing on the
NRHP. These sites have been
determined to be ineligible based on
their limited potential for research and
lack of significant historical association
(Austin 2000). The Alafia River site
(8HI6762) was discovered at the site of
the proposed intake pump station at Bell
Shoals Road. This site is a moderate-
density lithic scatter that is not
considered eligible for listing on the
NRHP. The Long Flat Creek site
(8HI6817) is located within the footprint
of the proposed reservoir. The research
potential of the Long Flat Creek site
appears to be limited. According to
Austin (2000) the assemblage is sparse
and unexceptional, and no temporally
diagnostic materials were encountered.
The Pruett site (8HI6818) also located in
the reservoir footprint is an additional
small lithic scatter site of limited
research potential. Historical resources
along the proposed pipeline route could
potentially suffer adverse impacts during
construction. These structures are not
considered eligible for listing on the
NRHP.
A Phase II archaeological test was
conducted on the Hutto Lake (8HI6820)
site located within the pipeline corridor.
The site has produced information that
contributes to a better understanding of
regional prehistory, however it does not
appear to meet the eligibility criteria for
listing on the National Register of
Historic Places. Therefore, no further
archaeological work is recommended for
the site.
4.17.2 No Federal Action. The No
Federal Action alternative would not
impact cultural resources in the area.
4.17.3 Mitigation. Avoidance of the
site has been recommended. If
avoidance is not feasible, then Phase II
test excavations have been
recommended to gather data sufficient to
either 1) make a final determination of
NRHP eligibility, or 2) mitigate project
impact. This study also determined that
no secondary visual impact as a result of
construction of an earthen dam would
occur to any historic structures due to
their distance from the reservoir and
either intervening natural foliage or a
proposed tree planting that would
provide a visual buffer.
4.18 RECREATION
Although recreation is not a primary
purpose of these water supply
alternatives, the creation of a reservoir
could provide additional recreation
opportunities to the area. Currently,
recreation plans have been proposed but
not finalized for the reservoir and
surrounding project area.
4.18.1 Action Alternatives. A new
reservoir would provide additional flat-
water recreational opportunities for local
area residents in the Tampa area. The
local economy would benefit because
4-56
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
less money would leave the area for the
other regional recreation areas.
The new water supply would both
eliminate and provide opportunities for
land-oriented recreation. Private land,
currently not accessible to the public,
would be purchased as part of the project
as a buffer around the reservoir and for
mitigation areas. This land would likely
be open to public access. The land
acquired around the project area would
be purchased by SWFWMD and made
available to the public. If the project
area is made available for recreation, the
project would have a positive impact on
recreation of the local area.
4.18.2 No Federal Action. No
recreation facilities would be created as
a result of the No Federal Action
alternative.
4.18.3 Mitigation. No mitigation is
proposed for recreation.
4.19 RISK ANALYSIS AND
IMPACT TO THE HUMAN
COMMUNITY
Safety has been a primary factor
throughout the design and, as a result,
failure of the reservoir embankment is
not anticipated. Nevertheless, this does
not preclude the necessity of a thorough
Emergency Action Plan (EAP) and
preparation of inundation maps for the
water supply alternatives.
Methodology and Significance
Criteria. The EAP has been developed
for the Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
following the guidelines provided by the
Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA). The EAP is a formal
document that identifies potential
emergency conditions at the Tampa Bay
Regional Reservoir and specifies
preplanned actions that would be carried
out by Tampa Bay Water, Hillsborough
County's Emergency Management
Agency, and local emergency
management organizations such as the
county sheriff.
Inundation maps would be used to assist
in notification and evacuation of the
public in the event of an emergency at
the Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir.
Inundation maps would be prepared
using the United States National
Weather Services FLDWAV model.
It is important that the inundation maps
represent the best available information
and not lead to confusion by re-issuance
of several versions. Therefore, it was
determined in the pre-application
meetings with the FDEP that a
workgroup session(s) needs to be held to
discuss the model parameters that would
be required for the FLDWAV modeling
efforts prior to the preparation of the
maps. After these sessions, Tampa Bay
Water would submit the parameters to
the FDEP's State Dam Safety Officer for
review. Upon agency approval of
reservoir footprint and maximum water
surface elevation, the inundation maps
would be prepared.
It is important to note that there are
currently no state regulations or rules
that require the preparation of an EAP or
inundation maps, nor state guidelines
describing how to prepare them. FDEP
representatives have explained that they
would require the inundation maps
during the permit review process, but
that they would request them as part of
the "request for additional information"
stage of the process. In this way,
direction can be given by FDEP on the
4-57
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
methodology, data and assumptions to
be used to create the inundation maps.
4.19.1 Action Alternatives. Both of
the water supply alternatives would
include an off-stream reservoir that is
enclosed by earthen embankments. The
reservoir does not have a drainage area
contributing runoff to the water
impoundment. It is filled by pumping
inflows from the Alafia and
Hillsborough rivers and Tampa Bypass
Canal or by direct rainfall. A reservoir
of this type is difficult to analyze for
failure because there is no clear location
where a breach may occur. If a breach
were to occur, the breach would
gradually become larger and larger with
flow rates through the breach varying
according to the size of the opening.
Ultimately, discharge from a breach
would reach the tidal system of Old
Hillsborough Bay via the Alafia River.
Historically, dam failures occurring on a
typical "fair weather" day have caused
the most damage. This is simply
because a dam failure is not expected
and the population is less prepared for
evacuation. This scenario would be
simulated with a mean annual flow in
the Alafia River.
The boundary conditions would be
developed in coordination with the State
of Florida Dam Safety Officer.
Breach of the dam embankment of either
water supply alternative could imperil
communities in the inundation area
identified from the modeling efforts
described above. Warning systems and
development of the EAP have been
established to mitigate the effects of an
embankment breach.
4.19.2 No Federal Action. Under the
No Federal Action alternative, an
embankment and subsequent reservoir
would not be developed. No impact to
the human community due to dam
failure would occur.
4.19.3 Mitigation. The EAP is a formal
document that identifies potential
emergency conditions at the Tampa Bay
Regional Reservoir and specifies
preplanned actions to be followed to
avoid or minimize impacts. The EAP
specifies actions that would be taken to
assist personnel in issuing early warning
and notification messages to responsible
emergency management authorities of
any emergency situation.
Continuing education and training of
Tampa Bay Water staff involved with
the Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
would be an important element of both
the normal operation and maintenance of
the reservoir and the EAP. Tampa Bay
Water as owner of the Tampa Bay
Regional Reservoir, would be
responsible for training of all personnel
involved in the EAP. Training of
personnel involved in the
implementation of the EAP would be
conducted to make sure that personnel
would be familiar with all elements of
the plan and their responsibilities and
duties under the EAP.
Tampa Bay Water would review and
update the EAP annually. If, during the
annual review, no updates to the EAP
are identified, a statement indicating that
a review was completed and no changes
were identified would be provided to
each recipient of the EAP. A complete
reprint of the EAP would be completed
every three years. In addition, the EAP
would be updated after each change
4-58
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
involving individuals identified by name
in the plan or changes to their telephone
numbers.
4.20 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE
IMPACTS
The construction and operation of an
action alternative would have
unavoidable adverse impacts (through
not necessarily significant) that could
not be completely mitigated.
Construction and operation of any of the
alternatives would result in the following
unavoidable adverse impacts.
Construction would result in
temporary decrease in air quality in
the immediate project area.
Noise in the immediate project area
would be temporarily increased
during construction.
Terrestrial insects, reptiles, and
mammals would be displaced to
other areas, or lost, as the
embankment is constructed.
Pastureland would be lost for cattle
grazing and other agricultural
production.
Unvegetated land exposed during the
late summer through early spring
would be vulnerable'to erosion.
Loss of approximately 188.3 acres of
COE jurisdictional wetlands.
4.21 IRREVERSIBLE AND
IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT
OF RESOURCES
Any of the proposed alternatives would
permanently change the natural land
contours of the affected area. Clearing,
cuts, fills, and borrow extraction would
result in modifications to the landscape.
Some soils would be lost during
construction because of erosion.
Revenues generated from grazing leases
and grazing rights, sod farming, and
other agricultural practices on lands and
easements purchased for the project
would be lost.
Construction and operation would result
in the permanent commitment to the
project of local soils for borrow material
and concrete.
Energy expended on the project would
not be available for other uses.
Petroleum-based products, including
gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricants, and
antifreeze, would be consumed during
construction. Operation and
maintenance of the project facilities
would also require the commitment of
lesser amounts of energy. The project
would result in a commitment of
manpower. Considerable efforts and
funds have already been expended on
planning and design of the project.
Existing terrestrial habitat would be
converted to an aquatic ecosystem. The
clearing of vegetation and imposition of
project features would cause a
readjustment of the wildlife in the
immediate project area.
4.22 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
SHORT-TERM USES OF THE
ENVIRONMENT AND THE
MAINTENANCE AND
ENHANCEMENT OF LONG TERM
PRODUCTIVITY
The short-term/long-term tradeoff
inherent in the project is a positive one
(i.e. it favors the long-term). In the
short-term, use of resources to construct
the project facilities would be required.
These facilities would then yield long-
term benefits of supplementing and
increasing drought-proof water supply
allowing for the natural recharge of
groundwater in the wellfield area and
satisfying some of the increased water
4-59
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
demands associated with population
growth in the three-county area.
4.23 CONFLICTS WITH LAND USE
PLANS, POLICIES, OR CONTROLS
The proposed project would not conflict
with any land use plans, policies, or
controls. The construction of the 1,100-
acre reservoir and transmission pipeline
is consistent with zoning designated for
the site.
4.24 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulative impacts result when the
effects of an action are added to or
interact with other effects in a particular
place within a particular time.
Cumulative impacts are those effects on
resources from the proposed action or
alternative added to the effects on those
same resources from the past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable action of
others. Thus the cumulative impacts of
an action can be viewed as the total
effects on a resource, ecosystem, or
human community of that action in
combination with all other activities
affecting that resource.
4.24.1 Summary of Incremental
Impacts. Tampa Bay Water has
developed a Master Water Plan for
meeting the potable water needs of the
Tampa Bay region for the 15 year period
1995 through 2010. The Master Water
Plan incorporates plans for obtaining
freshwater from numerous sources or
storing freshwater, which include the:
Alafia and Hillsborough rivers
Tampa Bypass Canal
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
Brandon Urban Dispersed Wells and
Cone Ranch projects
Studies have been conducted to predict
potential impacts from individual
projects of the Master Water Plan, and
the cumulative impact that would result
from implementing a number of the
projects simultaneously. The
assessments of potential impacts to
Tampa Bay tributaries focused on
changes to freshwater inflow rates and
water quality that would result from the
proposed surface water withdrawals.
Potential impacts to the Hillsborough
River and Tampa Bypass Canal system
and the Alafia River were evaluated.
Stream flow characteristics and water
quality of the rivers were examined.
Resources of interest include fish,
benthos, and submerged and emergent
aquatic vegetation that could potentially
be impacted by changes in flow patterns
or salinity regimes resulting from
withdrawals. The extent and magnitude
of impacts were then assessed to identify
any potential threats to living resources.
Different methods were used to estimate
potential cumulative impacts so that the
result of the diverse analysis could be
compared. Obtaining similar results
using different methods of analysis
provides an increased level of
confidence in the findings.
The conclusions of the modeling efforts
conducted by both Hillsborough County
and Tampa Bay Water were similar and
considered the other elements of the
Master Water Plan. The conclusions
concerning the possible individual and
cumulative impacts are summarized
below.
Alafia River
Low and high flows are preserved
under the withdrawal schedule.
There is little change to salinity
4-60
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
regimes under low and high flow
conditions.
The saltwater interface may vary by
a maximum of approximately 0.25-
mile under moderate flow
conditions. This could result in the
conversion of a small area of
freshwater marsh to saltwater marsh.
The location of the saltwater
interface is predicted to change much
less under high flow and low flow
conditions.
Maximum salinity increase is
predicted to be less than 2 ppt, which
is within the observed long-term
variability of the system.
Hillsborough River/Tampa Bypass
Canal
Withdrawals from the Hillsborough
River begin when flows below the
City of Tampa's reservoir reach 5.6
times the minimum flow of 10 cfs.
Significant impacts are unlikely to
living resources of concern within
the Hillsborough River and Tampa
Bypass Canal system. The greatest
withdrawals would be during the wet
summer months when maintaining
habitat for the biological resources
would not be as critical. The
predicted impacts to freshwater
inflow and salinity patterns during
summer months are not expected to
be significant.
Tampa Bay
SWFWMD modeling efforts suggest
salinity increases of no more that 1.5
ppt in Hillsborough Bay due to
freshwater withdrawals.
Investigations show no evidence of
significant impacts to the tributaries
and living resources resulting from
individual projects, hi addition, the
cumulative impact analysis did not
identify any fatal flaws!
SWFWMD's Tampa Bay model
suggested salinity increases due to
ESWS withdrawals (and Brandon
Urban Dispersed Wells and Cone
Ranch) would be within the range of
long-term variability.
Results of the coastal mass balance
model suggested a maximum
monthly impact to salinity from
ESWS withdrawals (a desalination
facility, Brandon Urban Dispersed
Wells, and Cone Ranch) within the
range of long-term variability
(Coastal Environmental/PBS&J
1998).
The mass balance model suggested
that the annual cycle of salinity
within bay segments re-establishes
and stabilizes at slightly higher
levels than current levels after 3 to 4
years of operation of the Master
Water Plan projects.
Potential impacts to the Alafia and
Hillsborough rivers, the Tampa Bypass
Canal, and Tampa Bay from withdrawal
of freshwater for storage in the proposed
reservoir are considered to be modest
and within the range of normal
variability. This salinity fluctuation is
expected to be well within the normal
range of variability and is also within the
relatively wide range of salinity
tolerances of identified living resources
of interest found in oligohaline zones.
4.24.2 Impacts from Past and Present
Actions. Past and present human
activity have substantially affected the
land cover at and in the vicinity of the
proposed action alternatives. The
southern portion of the proposed
reservoir area contains reclaimed
phosphate mines and is currently being
4-61
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
used for agricultural purposes. The
northern portion of the site is unmined
agricultural land. Overgrazing has
changed the plant species composition of
existing rangelands and the physical
structure of these habitats by the
selective removal of the more palatable
species or life stages of plants. The lack
of restrictions on cattle movement has
also resulted in the degradation of
riparian and wetland communities. The
effect of these actions have reduced the
quality of habitat for native fauna and
increased erosion. Initially, the
construction of one of the proposed
actions or alternative would continue the
trend in the destruction or degradation of
native terrestrial habitats.
Through the environmental assessment
process, gopher tortoise burrows were
located in the upland area in the
northwest comer of the reservoir site.
To minimize impacts to the tortoises, the
reservoir configuration was further
revised to avoid the upland area in the
northwest portion of the site. Mitigation
measures would offset the losses through
the enhancement of existing habitat or
the creation of replacement habitat.
The original reservoir layout for the site
encompassed Hillsborough County's
land north of the landfill and one private
landowner to the north. This layout was
rectangular in shape and would have
required the rerouting of a large portion
of Doe Branch Creek. Based on
information from the SWFWMD, the
proposed reservoir was reconfigured to
minimize the impact to Doe Branch.
The current reservoir configuration
would not impact the existing creek
system.
The initial reservoir configuration also
maximized the use of the southern
portion of the site, which is owned by
the Hillsborough County (County) Solid
Waste Management Department and
Parks and Recreation Department.
Based on initial discussions, both of
these departments and the County's Real
Estate Departments issued letters
outlining their concerns or issues with
the initial reservoir configuration. The
Solid Waste Management Department
stated that they had plans for the area as
a source of cover material, buffer and
potential leachate disposal. In addition,
the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection has a
requirement that any Class I water body
be at least 3,000 feet from a landfill cell.
The Parks and Recreation Department's
concerns centered upon the man-made
lake in the southern portion of the site.
This lake is currently the only lake with
potential vehicle access on their
property. Prior to the initiation of the
detailed geotechnical investigation, the
reservoir was moved approximately
3,000 feet to the north in response to
input from the County's Solid Waste
Management Department.
During the geotechnical investigation
conducted on the County's property, it
was determined that construction of the
embankment on this property would
require removal of more waste clays
from the mining process than would be
required if the embankment was moved
north, approximately 800 feet, off of the
County's property. As a result,
constructing the embankment on the
County's property would increase
construction costs. Based on this issue
and the previous alignment, the southern
alignment of the embankment was
moved north off the County's property.
4-62
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
SWFWMD Governing Board in August
2000 voted to acquire the property
necessary for the proposed reservoir
using a State fund called the Florida
Forever Fund. There are three property
owners for the reservoir site, with
parcels totaling 5,200 acres. SWFWMD
has acquired one of the three parcels of
land and is in the process of acquiring
the remaining two parcels. The area of
5,200 acres will include the 1,100 acres
required for the proposed reservoir, and
the property necessary for all of three
mitigation sites. The entire 5,200 acres
would remain in public ownership and
property not directly related to the
proposed reservoir footprint and
mitigation areas will be permanently
preserved. The 5,200-acre acquisition is
also important because it links the
habitat corridors of the mainstream of
the Alafia River to Fish Hawk creek, and
to the South Prong of the Alafia. This
purchase will keep the land adjacent to
the proposed reservoir from being
encroached upon by suburban
development.
4.24.3 Significance of Cumulative
Impacts. The mitigation proposed for
the loss of vegetation communities
caused by construction of the proposed
action or the alternative would
complement the natural habitat of the
area. The proposed mitigation plan
provides information to compensate for
unavoidable wetland impacts associated
with the proposed reservoir project. The
amount of mitigation is based on
wetland impacts as determined by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Florida
Department of Environmental
Protection, and Hillsborough County
Environmental Protection Commission.
Mitigation would be conducted at three
sites adjacent to the reservoir. These
mitigation projects are expected to
provide an ecological benefit to the
region.
A condition of the Alafia River and
Tampa Bypass Canal Water Supply
Water Use Permits is the establishment
of an extensive HBMP to be conducted
by Tampa Bay Water. Because of the
similar schedule for development and
the close proximity and the integrated
nature of these two water supply
projects, SWFWMD agreed that a single
unified HBMP could be jointly
developed to address permit
requirements for both projects
simultaneously.
The goal of the HBMP is to generate
information at an appropriate scale and
solution to determine if the permitted
water supply projects are in compliance
with SWFWMD's rules and permit
conditions. In addition, the goal of the
HBMP is to ensure that, following the
implementation of the permitted surface
withdrawals, flows in the potentially
affected water bodies do not deviate
from the normal rate and range of
fluctuation to the extent that: water
quality, vegetation, and animal
populations are adversely impacted in
streams and estuaries; or salinity
distributions in tidal streams and
estuaries are significantly altered as a
result of withdrawals; or recreational use
or aesthetic qualities of the resource are
adversely impacted. This adaptive
management-monitoring program was
started in 2000 and includes elements of
water quality, benthic invertebrates, fish,
plankton, bird census, vegetation
analyses, flows, and rainfall.
4.25 CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis of the two action
alternatives and the No Federal Action
4-63
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
alternative presented in the preceding
sections and discussions in Chapter 4,
the alternative preferred by EPA is the
1,100-acre Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir Project. To briefly
summarize, the 1,100-acre Tampa Bay
Regional Reservoir Project would not
affect the permitted freshwater
withdrawal schedules from the Alafia
and Hillsborough rivers and the Tampa
Bypass Canal. The water supply project.
would increase the dependable yield of
the total surface water system by
providing for the additional storage of
surface water diverted during periods of
higher flow for use during drier periods.
The first 66-mgd of surface water
withdrawn from the three combined
water supply sources would be treated at
the new regional water treatment plant
before being distributed to customers via
Tampa Bay Water's regional water
system. Any surface water withdrawals
in excess of 66 mgd would be pumped
into the 1,100-acre regional reservoir for
storage. When surface water flows
decrease and are below permitted
withdrawal levels, stored water would be
withdrawn from the reservoir and treated
at the regional water treatment facility
for distribution.
The 1,100-acre Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir alternative is also the project
preferred for implementation by Tampa
Bay Water. The regional reservoir
would provide a quality source of water
that could effectively provide Tampa
Bay Water and their member
governments a viable water source to
supplement the integrated surface water
supply system. Development of an ASR
system could improve the overall
reliability of Tampa Bay Waters'
preferred 1,100-acre water supply
reservoir. A stand-alone ASR
alternative was originally included in the
initial array of alternatives; this
alternative was eliminated because it did
not provide the required supply in the
time frame desired. In addition, the
policy and technical issues pursuant to
ASR have not been technically
addressed in this DEIS to the extent
required by the National Environmental
Policy Act. EPA makes no
recommendation as to the desirability or
feasibility of the inclusion of ASR in the
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project.
4-64
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
CHAPTER 5
COORDINATION AND
PUBLIC
INVOLVEMENT
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) requires federal agencies to
follow a process of environmental
analysis, consultation, disclosure, and
public involvement when taking actions
such as construction, funding, or
permitting of projects. The process is
intended to identify the significant
impacts to the human environment and
provide an opportunity for interested
individuals, organizations, and
government agencies to participate in the
analysis. The process
is also to inform the
public of the proposed
action and its effects.
For actions with a
high potential for
significant adverse
environmental impact,
the centerpiece of
NEPA analysis is the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is the federal agency
responsible for issuing the funding and
serves as the agency responsible for
conducting the NEPA process of the
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project.
On April 10, 2000, EPA published a
Notice of Intent in the Federal Register
to prepare an EIS for the Tampa Bay
Regional Reservoir.
5.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The initial mechanism for public
participation in NEPA is the scoping
process. The purpose of scoping is to
identify significant environmental issues
that require study, sort out insignificant
issues, and thereby focus the scope of
the EIS. High priority was given to
public involvement from the early stages
of this project. A thorough program was
prepared to provide information and to
receive input from the public in the
vicinity where the proposed action
would be carried out. The public
involvement plan included public
meetings, informational handouts,
publication of public meeting notices,
and media releases and briefings. In
addition, public comment was solicited
on the Draft EIS (DEIS).
5.2.1 Public Meetings Tampa Bay
Water conducted many public meetings
and briefings in order to gain public
input on the reservoir siting process. In
addition, Hillsborough
County conducted a public
meeting prior to the Tampa
Bay Water's Board
selection of the proposed
reservoir site. These
meetings and briefings
were held prior to the
initiation of the DEIS and
are listed below.
Public Meetings and Briefings:
July 20, 1998
July 23, 1998
September 1, 1998
September 29, 1998
October?, 1998
October 14, 1998
5.2.2 Public Scoping Meeting. A
DEIS public scoping meeting was held
in the auditorium of the Riverview High
School in Riverview, Florida, on June 8,
2000. A radio announcement was
5-1
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
broadcast on June 7, 200,1 on stations
WRBQ and WQYX announcing the
DEIS public scoping meeting. The
formal meeting was attended by
approximately 125 people and opened
with a presentation given by the EPA
and the third party contractor, Bums &
McDonnell. Upon conclusion of the
presentation, the meeting was opened for
public comment. The meeting
proceeded with presentations and
comments from the public. The major
comments received for consideration and
inclusion in the DEIS were impacts of
withdrawals from the Hillsborough and
Alafia rivers and Tampa Bypass Canal,
impacts to Tampa Bay, and impacts
from construction of the reservoir. At
the end of the meeting, EPA outlined
the schedule for the EIS and invited the
public to submit comments postmarked
by June 22, 2000.
5.2.3 Draft EIS. Comments received
from the public and government
agencies as a result of the scoping
meeting were used to tailor the content
or the DEIS so that issues specific to this
project were addressed. Examples of
issues raised by the public and
government agencies were viable
alternatives to the proposed action,
withdrawals attributable to the reservoir
operation, and risk analysis and impact
to the human community.
5.2.4 Final EIS Comments on the
DEIS received from the public and the
cooperating agencies will be addressed
in the Final EIS (FEIS). Once the FEIS
has been prepared, a Notice of
Availability will be published and the
FEIS will be distributed. After 30 days,
a Record of Decision reporting the final
decision of the EPA will be prepared and
issued.
5.3 AGENCY COORDINATION
5.3.1 Public Notice and Other
Communications. EPA and
Hillsborough County Environmental
Protection Commission staff participated
in two meetings held on February 17th
and 22nd, 2000. The purpose of the open
televised meetings was to discuss the
EIS process and other related
environmental issues.
On March 17, 2000, EPA published the
legal notice announcing their intention to
prepare an EIS for the regional reservoir
project. The announcement was
published in the Sun Herald from March
17th to March 25th, 2000.
On May 8, 2000, EPA published a
public notice announcing their intention
to prepare an EIS on the regional
reservoir project. The notice was
published in The Tampa Tribune on May
8th and 9th, 2000 and in The Free Press
on the following dates:
May 6, 2000
May 13, 2000
May 20, 2000
May 27, 2000
The public notice was also published in
the U. S. Federal Register on May 8,
2000.
On January 11, 2001, Hillsborough
County held an additional meeting in
their offices in Tampa, Florida. Parties
in attendance included EPA and
members representing Hillsborough
County. The purpose of the meeting was
to discuss the status of the DEIS. This
included a discussion about the
alternatives considered, cumulative
impact analysis, impacts to public health
5-2
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
and safety and property, reservoir water
quality, wetlands, and mitigation plans.
5.3.2 Other Agency Consultations.
On October 2, 2000, an agency letter
requesting input on the project was
mailed to the State of Florida
Clearinghouse and various federal
agencies including:
Hillsborough County
Hillsborough County Environmental
Protection Commission
Pasco County
Pinellas County
City of Tampa
City of St. Petersburg
City of New Port Richey
National Resource Conservation
Service
U. S. Geological Survey
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
National Marine Fisheries Service
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The purpose of this letter was to request
input pertaining to the project. A copy
of the letter is included as Appendix E.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
the National Marine Fisheries Service
were consulted, as required by Section 7
of the Endangered Species Act. The
agencies were asked for a list of
potential species occurring in the project
area and for their concurrence on the
impacts to federally listed threatened or
endangered species and their
recommendations for mitigation. A
copy of this letter is also included as
Appendix E.
5.4 DEIS PREPARATION TEAM
An interdisciplinary team of qualified
federal and state government personnel
and consultants were responsible for the
preparation of the Tampa Regional
Reservoir Project DEIS.
5.4.1 Federal Lead Agency. The EPA,
Region IV was the lead federal agency
for this project and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers is a Cooperating Agency.
As the lead federal agency, EPA must
consider all environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the Tampa
Bay Regional Reservoir Project, and
must conduct a NEPA analysis of project
impacts on the existing environment.
The Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
Project was authorized for grant funding
by the EPA under the State Tribal
Assistance Grant Program. This funding
action will partially provide the means to
acquire the real property and to design
and construct the Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir Project including the
connecting reservoir transmission main.
EPA staff who contributed to the DEIS
are identified in Table 5-1.
5.4.2 Applicant. Tampa Bay Water is
the sponsor of the Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir Project. Projects receiving
federal funds for actions that may impact
the environment will trigger the
preparation of the EIS. The staff at
Tampa Bay Water who contributed to
the DEIS are listed in Table 5-2.
5.4.3 Third-Party Contractor. Burns
& McDonnnell Engineering Company,
Inc., Kansas City, Missouri, was the
third-party consultant, which had
primary responsibility for preparation of
the DEIS. The contributors, their roles
and expertise are listed in Table 5-3.
Additional expertise was provided in the
areas of archaeology, hydrology,
biology, and wetlands to Burns &
McDonnell by specific subconsultants.
5-3
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
These subconsultants and their
credentials are listed in Table 5-4 and
Table 5-5.
5.4.4 Other Contributors.
Many other individuals or sources
contributed information to the DEIS as
personal communication through
telephone or written contact:
Sid Flannery - SWFWMD, water
quality
Stephen Grabe - Hillsborough
County Environmental Protection
Commission (HCEPC), Benthics &
water quality
Marty Kelly - SWFWMD,
Minimum Flows and Levels
Anthony D' Aquila - HCEPC, water
resources
Richard Boler - HCEPC, Director of
water quality monitoring
Sam Stone - Peace River/Manasota
Regional Water Supply Authority,
ASR system operations
Tom Logan - Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission
(FWC), State wildlife listing
procedures
Andy Squires - Pinellas County,
water quality.
Mark Thompson - National Marine
Fisheries Service, managed fish
species
Beth Wright - Florida Marine
Research Institute, manatees
Jim Beever - FWC, protected
species, red-cockaded woodpeckers
Ric Jensen - Texas Water Resources
Institute, estuaries
David Tomasko - SWFWMD,
seagrasses
Dawn Creamer - Florida Master Site
File, Division of Historical
Resources
Robin Jackson - State Historic
Preservation Offices, Division Of
Historical Resources
Dr. Ralph Montgomery - Post
Buckley Jernigan & Shuh
FMRI-
http://www.fmri.usf.edu/fish/
NMFS - http://www.galveston.gov
USFWS -
http://www.endangered.fws.gov
5-4
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Table 5-1. DEIS Preparers at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
Education and Years Experience
Name Discipline and Expertise EIS Role
Heinz Mueller
John Hamilton
Serdar Ertep
BS, Engineering
MS, Urban Planning
BS, Zoology
MS, Parasitology
BS, Engineering
MS, Geography
25, EIS Preparation
36, EIS Preparation
Public Health
7, Geographic
Information
Systems (GIS)
NEPA Policy
Project Officer
GIS Specialist
Table 5-2. EIS Preparers at Tampa Bay Water
Education and Years Experience
Name Discipline and Expertise EIS Role
Amanda Rice
Ken Herd, P.E.
David Bracciano
BS, Civil Engineering
MS, Civil Engineering
BS, Civil Engineering
MS, Civil Engineering
BS, Water Resource
Development
MPA, Public
Administration
8, Water Resource &
Supply Development
17, Water Supply
Development
18, Alternative
Supplies, Demand
Management
Project Manager
Program
Manager
Conservation &
Water Demand
Specialist
5-5
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Table 5-3. EIS Preparers at Burns & McDonnell
Education and Years Experience and
Name Discipline Expertise EIS Role
Fred Pinkney
Justin Meyer
Angela Bulger
Andrew Grammer
Mark Wolff
Richonia Freeman
Nancy Trobisch
Dennis Lessig
Rod Fraser
PhD Plant Ecology
and Statistics, MS
Range Ecology, BS
Range Science
MA Ecology and
Evolutionary
Biology, BS Biology
MA Environmental
Biology, BS Biology
and Systematics and
Ecology
MA Botany, BS
Biology (Ecology)
BS, Biological
Systems Engineering
BS Chemical
Engineering
M.A. Education, B.S.
Business
Communications
MS Zoology, BS
Education
MA Geography, BS
Criminal Justice
30, environmental
impact analysis and
water resources studies,
NEPA compliance
3, environmental
impact analysis and
water resources studies,
NEPA compliance
1.5, years in
environmental impact
analysis and NEPA
compliance
3, wetland ecology,
habitat assessments and
threatened and
endangered species
surveys
3, noise modeling,
water resource studies
6, air quality reporting,
Clean Air Act
compliance and
permitting
15, writing, editing,
publishing, teaching
30, water pollution
control, environmental
regulatory analysis
6, mapping and
analysis of linear
features and Corps
projects
Project Manager
Assistant
Project Manager
Biologist
Wetland
Specialist
Noise Specialist
Air Specialist
Technical
Editor
Quality
Assurance
GIS Specialist
5-6
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Table 5.4. EIS Preparers at Florida Environmental,Inc
Education and Years Experience
Name Discpline and Expertise EIS Role
Sunny Diver
Charles Kocur
Erin Redfeam
Karen Burnett
MS
Ecology/Zoology
MS Oceanography
MS Biology
MS Geology
22, water and
wildlife
22,estuarine
biology
4, wildlife
resources
26, geology and
environmental
sciences
Project Manager
Quality Control and
Technical Review
Literature research
and technical writing
Technical writing
Table 5.5. EIS Preparers at Environmental Permitting and Design, Inc.
Name
Education and
Discipline
Years Experience
and Expertise
EIS Role
Donna Clarke
Master of Science,
I.M., Georgia
Institute of
Technology
B.E., Mathematics,
University of Miami
10, years in
Environmental
Projects
Management
Project Manager
Jesse Hardin
New College of
University of South
Florida
2, years in
Environmental
Science
Cultural Resources
5-7
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement
CHAPTER 6
LITERATURE CITED
Ackerman, B.B., T.D. Pitchford, B.L. Weigle, J.E. Reynolds, III, R.S. Wells, and M.A.
Baran. 1999. Marine Mammals, in: Baywide Environmental Monitoring Report,
1993-1998, Tampa Bay, Florida. J.R. Pribble, A.J. Janicki, and H. Greening
(eds.). Technical Publication 07-99. St. Petersburg, FL.
Almy, Marion and L Hutchinson-Neff. 1998. Cultural Resource Assessment Survey
Peace River/Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority Regional Transmission
System Expansion Sarasto and DeSoto Counties, Florida. Archeological
Consultants, Inc. for PBS&J.
Austin, Robert J and G Mohlman. 2000. A Cultural Resource Assessment Survey of the
Proposed Tampa Bay Water Regional Reservoir and Pipeline, Hillsborough
County, Florida. Southeastern Archeological Research, Inc. for Tampa Bay
Water.
Ayres Associates. 1998. AQUATrak Demand Management Program, Users Guide,
prepared for Tampa Bay Water. Clearwater, Florida.
Black and Veatch. 1998. Master Water Plan, Alternative System Configurations, Final
Report. Clearwater, Florida.
Bjorndal, K.A. 1985. Nutritional ecology of sea turtles. Copeia. 736, 1985.
Bjorndal, K. A. 1996. Foraging ecology and nutrition of sea turtles, in: Biology of Sea
Turtles. Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick, eds. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Bjorndal, K. A. and A.B. Bolten. 1988. Growth rates of immature green turtles, Chelonia
mydas. on feeding grounds in the southern Bahamas. Copeia. 555, 1988.
Bullen, Ripley and EM Dolan. 1959. The Johnson Lake Site, Marion County, Florida.
Florida Anthropologist, 12:77-94.
Bullen, Ripley. 1971. The Sarasota County Mound, Englewood, Florida. Florida
Anthropologist, 24:1-30.
Burke, V.J., Morreale, S.J., and A.G.J. Rhodin. 1993. Lepidochelys kempi (Kemp's ridley
sea turtle) and Caretta caretta (loggerhead sea turtle) diet. Herpetol. Rev. 24, 31.
Carr, A. 1986. Rips, FADS, and little loggerheads. Bioscience, 36, 92-100.
6-1
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Carr, A. 1987. New perspectives on the pelagic stage of sea turtle development. Conserv.
Biol. 1, 103.
Carr, A., Heath, H., and Ogren, L. 1966. The ecology and migrations of sea turtles: the
hawksbill turtle in the Caribbean Sea. Am. Mus. Novit. 2248, 1.
Chance, Marsha A. 1981. Investigations at Wetherington Island: An Archaic Lithic
Procurement Site in Hillsborough County. Florida Anthropologist 34:109-119.
Clausen, Carl J., A.D. Cohen, C. Emiliani, J.A. Holman, and J.J. Stipp. 1979. Little Salt
Springs, Florida: A Unique Underwater Site. Science 203:609-614.
Coastal Environmental. 1997. An Analysis of the Effects of Freshwater Inflows on
Salinity Distributions, Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations, and Habitat
Characteristics of the Hillsborough River and Palm River/Tampa Bypass Canal.
Tampa Bay National Estuary Program Technical Publication #08-97.
Coastal Environmental and PBS&J, Inc. 1998. Cumulative Impact Analysis for Master
Water Plan Projects. Prepared for West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority.
Coastal Environmental/PBS&J, Inc., St. Petersburg, FL.
Cognetti. G. and F. Malagliatti. 2000. Biodiversity and adaptive mechanisms in brackish
water fauna. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 40, 1,7-14.
Comp, G.S. 1985. A Survey of the Distribution and Migration of the Fishes in Tampa
Bay. Pages 393-425 in S.F. Treat, J.L. Simon, R.R. Lewis III, and R.L.
Whitman, Jr. eds. Proceedings, Tampa Bay Area scientific information
symposium (May 1982). Burgess Publishing Co., Inc., Minneapolis, MM.
Conant, R. and J.T. Collins. 1991. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians
Eastern/Central North America. Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company,
Boston, New York.
Copeland, B.J. 1966. Effects of Decreased River Flow on Estuarine Ecology. Journal
WPCF, Vol 38, No. 11, p. 1831-1839.
Cowardin, L.M, V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Publication FWS/OBS-79/31. Washington, DC.
Cox, J., D. Inkley and R. Kautz. 1987. Ecology and habitat protection needs of gopher
tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) populations found on lands slated for large-scale
development in Florida. Nongame Wildlife Technical Report No. 4. Office of
Environmental Services. Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission. 620
Meridian Street, Tallahassee, FL.
6-2
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Dames and Moore. 1975. Hydrobiological Assessment of the Alafia and Little Manatee
Rivers. From HDR, 1998. Prepared for the Southwest Florida Water Management
District. 631 pp.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1. US Army Corps Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Estevez, E.D. 2000. A Review and Application of Literature Concerning Freshwater
Flow Management in Riverine Estuaries. Center for Coastal and Tropical
Ecology. Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, FL. Submitted to the South Florida
Water Management District. West Palm Beach, FL.
Estevez, E.D. 2000a Matching Salinity Metrics to Estuarine Seagrasses for Freshwater
Inflow Management. Seagrasses - Monitoring, Ecology, Physiology, and
Management. Ch. 22, CRC Marine Science Series, (ed.) M.J. Kennish, Ph.D.,
CRC Press LLC.
FDEQ 2000. Personal Communication, Tami Egen, Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, Air Resource Management.
FDER 1995. State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, An Ecological
Characterization of the Tampa Bay Watershed. Tallahassee, Florida.
Fitzpatrick, J.W., G.E. Woolfenden, and M.T. Kopeny. 1991. Ecology and development-
related habitat requirements of the Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens
coerulescens). Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report No. 8. Office of
Environmental Services. Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission. 620
Meridian Street, Tallahassee, FL.
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. 1997. Florida's Endangered Species
and Species of Special Concern, Official Lists. Tallahassee, FL.
Florida Power and Light Company. 1982. The West Indian Manatee in Florida. FPL
Corporate Communications, Miami, FL.
FMRI. 2000. http://www.fmri.usf.edu/fish/
FNAI 1997. County Distribution and Habitats of Rare and Endangered Species in
Florida. Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Suite 200-C, 1018 Thomasville Road,
Tallahassee, FL.
FWS 2001. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Endangered Species: Species
Accounts.
Galvez, Janet. The Florida Elusive Snowbird. October 1997
6-3
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Giovannelli, R.F. 1981. Relation between Freshwater Flow and Salinity Distributions in
the Alafia River, Bullfrog Creek, and Hillsborough Bay, Florida. U.S.G.S
Investigations Report 80-102. U.S.G.S. Water Resources Division, Tallahassee,
FL.
Goodwin, C.R. 1987. Tidal flow, Circulation, and Flushing Changes Caused by Dredge
and Fill in Tampa Bay, Florida. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper
2282. Tampa, Florida. 88 pp.
HCEPC. 1997. Trace Metal Status of Tampa Bay Sediments. Environmental Protection
Commission of Hillsborough County. 1900, 9th Avenue, Tampa FL.
HCEPC 1982 from USDI 1990. An Ecological Characterization of the Tampa Bay
Watershed. Biological Report 90(20). Fish and Wildlife Service and Minerals
Management Service.
HCEPC 1984 from USDI 1990. An Ecological Characterization of the Tampa Bay
Watershed. Biological Report 90(20). Fish and Wildlife Service and Minerals
Management Service.
HCEPC 2000. Rules of the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough
County. Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission. Tampa,
FL.
HDR 1994. Environmental Assessment of the Palm River, Tampa Hillsborough County,
Florida. HDR Engineering, Inc. Tampa, Florida. Prepared for the Palm River
Management Committee.
HDR 1998a. Water Use Permit Application. Attachment la. Prepared by HDR
Engineering, Inc., for the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority.
HDR 1998b. Water Use Permit Application. Tampa Florida.
HDR 1999a. Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project. Clearwater, Florida.
HDR 1999b. Tamp Bay Regional Reservoir Project. Draft Basis of Design Report.
Prepared for Tampa Bay Water, Clearwater, FL in association with Greeley and
Hansen, Law Engineering, Inc. Consensus Builders, Inc.
HDR 2000a. Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Joint Application for Environmental
Resource Permit. Submitted to the Southwest Florida Water Management
District, 2379 Broad Street, Brooksville, Florida 34609.
HDR 2000b. Regional Reservoir Transmission Main, Basis of Design Report. Tampa,
Florida.
6-4
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement
HDR 2000c. Potable Water ASR Report (draff). Tampa, Florida Environmental Inc.
Prepared for Tampa Bay Water, Clearwater, FL.
Hillsborough County. 1997. Surface Water Quality 1995-1997. Environmental Protection
Commission of Hillsborough County, Tampa, FL.
Janicki, A.J., D.L. Wade, D.E. Robison. 1995. Habitat Protection and Restoration
Targets for Tampa Bay. Tampa Bay National Estuary Program Technical
Publication #07-93.
Jones, G.W. and S.B. Upchurch. 1993. Origin of Nutrients in Ground Water
Discharging from Lithia and Buckhorn Springs. Ambient Ground-Water Quality
Monitoring Program, Southwest Florida Water Management District.
Kale, H.W., II and D.S. Maehr. 1990. Florida's Birds - A Handbook and Reference.
Pineapple Press. Sarasota, FL.
Killam, K.A. R.J. Hochberg and E.C, Rzemien. 1992. Synthesis of Basic Life Histories
of Tampa Bay Species. Versar, Inc. Columbia, Md. Prepared for Tampa Bay
National Estuary Program. St. Petersburg, FL.
Law Environmental, Inc. 1999. Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Geotechnical Site
Characterization Report, Volumes I and II. Tampa, Florida.
Law Environmental, Inc. 1994. Water Resource Development Plan. Clearwater,
Florida.
Lewis III, R.R. and E.D. Estevez. 1988. The Ecology of Tampa Bay, Florida: An
Estuarine Profile. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Wetlands Research Center, Washington, D.C. 20204. Biological Report
85(7.18).
Lewis, R.R., III, R.G. Gilmore, Jr., D.W. Crewz, and W.E. Odum. 1985. Mangrove
habitat and fishery resources of Florida. In: Florida aquatic habitat and fishery
resources. Florida Chapter of the American Fisheries Society.
Luer, George and MA Almy. 1981. Temple Mound of the Tampa Bay Area. Florida
Anthropologist, 34:127-155.
Lutz, P.L. 1996. Salt, water, and pH balance in the sea turtle, in: Biology of Sea Turtles.
Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick, eds. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Meyer, J.D. and J.A. Smallwood. 1996. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus, in: Rare
and Endangered Biota of Florida Volume V, J.A. Rodgers, Jr. H.W. Kale and
H.T. Smith eds. 1996. University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Tallahassee, FL.
6-5
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Meylan, A.B. 1984. Feeding ecology of the Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata):
Spongivory as a Feeding Niche in the Coral Reef Community, Dissertation.
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Meylan, A.B., P. Castanada, C. Coogan, T. Lozon, and J. Fletemeyer. 1994. Lepidochelys
kempii (Kemp's ridley sea turtle) reproduction. Herpetological Review 21(1): 19-
20.
Meylan, A., A. Redlow, A. Mosier, K. Moody, and A. Foley. 1999. Occurrence and
Distribution of Sea Turtles in Tampa Bay, Florida. In: Baywide Environmental
Monitoring Report, 1993-1998, Tampa Bay, Florida. J.R. Pribble, A.J. Janicki,
and H. Greening (eds.). Technical Publication 07-99. St. Petersburg, FL.
Milanich, Jerald and C Fairbanks. 1980. Florida Archaeology. Academic Press, New
York.
Milanich, Jerald. 1994. Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida. University Press of
Florida, Gainesville.
Moe, M.A., Jr. and G.T. Martin. 1965. Fishes Taken in Monthly Trawl Samples Offshore
ofPinellas County, Florida, with New Additions to the Fish Fauna of the Tampa
Bay Area. Tulane Stud. Zool. 12(4): 129-151.
Mortimer, J.A. 1982. Feeding ecology of sea turtles, in: Biology and Conservation of Sea
Turtles. Bjorndal, K.A., ed. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Montague, C.L., and R.G. Wiegert. 1991. Salt Marshes. In: Ecosystems of Florida, R.L.
Myers and J.J. Ewel, eds. 1991. Univ. Cent. Fla. Press, Orlando, Fl.
Muller, R. G. and M. D. Murphy. 2000. The 2000 stock assessment update of common
snook, Centropomus Undecimalis. Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,
Forida Marine Research Institute. 48pp.
Musick, J.A. and C.J. Limpus. 1996. Habitat utilization and migration in juvenile sea
turtles, in: Biology of Sea Turtles. Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick, eds. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL.
Myers, R.L., and J.J. Ewel, eds. 1991. Ecosystems of Florida. Eds. Univ. Cent. Fla.
Press, Orlando, Fl.
NMFS. 2001. Endangered Species: Leatherback Sea Turtles.
6-6
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Odum, W.E., C.C. Mclvor, and T.J. Smith, III. 1982. The Ecology of the Mangroves of
South Florida: A Community Profile. Bur. Land Mgmt. U.S. Dept. Int.
FWS/OBS-81/24.
Ogden, J.C. 1996. Wood Stork Mycteria americana, in: Rare and Endangered Biota of
Florida Volume V, J.A. Rodgers, Jr. H.W. Kale and H.T. Smith eds. 1996.
University Press of Florida, Gainesville, Tallahassee, FL.
Ogren, L.H. 1989. Distribution of juvenile and subadult Kemp's ridley turtles:
Preliminary results from the 1984-1987 surveys, in: Proc. 1st Int. Symp. Kemp's
Ridley Sea Turtle Biology, Conservation and Management, Caillouet, C.W., Jr.
and Landry, A.M., Jr., eds. Sea Grant College Program, Galveston, TX, 116.
NRCS (Natural Resource Conservation Service) 1989. Soil Survey of Hillsborough
County, Florida. National Cooperative Soil Survey. USDA, Soil Conservation
Service.
Paul, R. 1999. Bird Populations, in: Bay wide Environmental Monitoring Report, 1993-
1998, Tampa Bay, Florida. J.R. Pribble, A.J. Janicki, and H. Greening (eds.).
Technical Publication 07-99. St. Petersburg, FL.
PBS&J, 1998a. Assessment of the Effects of Reductions in Freshwater Inflow on the
Biological Communities of the Lower Alafia River. Prepared for Tampa Bay
Water. PBS&J, Inc., 2535 Landmark Drive, Suite 221, Clearwater, FL.
PBS&J. 1998. Assessment of the Potential Impacts of the Tampa Bay Water Surface
Water Projects on Tampa Bay. Prepared for Tampa Bay Water. PBS&J, Inc.,
2535 Landmark Drive, Suite 221, Clearwater, FL.
Peebles, E.B. and M.S. Flannery. 1992. Fish Nursery Use of the Little Manatee River
Estuary (Florida): Relationships with Freshwater Discharge. Final report
submitted to the Southwest Florida Water Management District, Brooksville,
Florida. 91pp.
Pribble, J.R. 1999. Bay Characteristics. In: Baywide Environmental Monitoring Report,
1993-1998, Tampa Bay, Florida. J.R. Pribble, A.J. Janicki, and H. Greening
(eds.). Technical Publication 07-99. St. Petersburg, FL.
Ryder, Paul D. 1985. Hydrogeology of the Floridan Aquifer System in West-Central
Florida. U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1403-F.
Schmidt-Nielson. 1991. Animal Physiology: Adaptation and Environment. Fourth
Edition. Cambridge University Press.
6-7
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Sklar F.H. and J.A. Browder. 1998. Coastal Environmental Impacts brought About by
Alterations to Freshwater Flow in the Gulf of Mexico. Environ. Mgt. Vol 22, No.
4, pp. 547-562.
Springer, V.G. and A.J. McErlean. 1961. Notes on and Additions to the Fish Fauna of the
Tampa Bay area. Copeia 4:480-482.
Squires, A.P. and T. Cardinale. 1999. Water Quality. In: Bay wide Environmental
Monitoring Report, 1993-1998, Tampa Bay, Florida. J.R. Pribble, A.J. Janicki,
and H. Greening (eds.). Technical Publication 07-99. St. Petersburg, FL.
State of Florida. 1998a. Florida Statue 373.223. Tallahassee, Florida.
State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection. 1998b. Amended and Restated
Interlocal Agreement. Tallahassee, Florida.
State of Florida. 1999. Florida Statue 373.1962. Tallahassee, Florida.
Stewart, J.W. and L.R. Mills. 1984. Hydrogeology of the Sulphur Springs area, Tampa
Florida. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations report 83-4085.
Stoker, Y.E., V.A. Levesque and W.M. Woodham. 1996. The Effect of Discharge and
Water Quality of the Alafia River, Hillsborough River, and the Tampa Bypass
Canal on Nutrient Loading to Hillsborough Bay, Florida. USGS Water-
Resources Investigations Report 95-4107, Tallahassee, FL.
Stys, B. 1993. Ecology and Habitat Protection needs of the Southeastern American
kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus) on large-scale development sites in Florida.
Nongame Wildlife Technical Report No. 13. Office of Environmental Services.
Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission. 620 Meridian Street,
Tallahassee, FL.
SWFWMD 1992. Water Supply Needs and Sources 1990-2020. Southwest Florida Water
Management District, January 1992. 2379 Broad Street, Brooksville, FL 34609-
6899.
SWFWMD 1993. Computer Model of Groundwater Flow in the Eastern Tampa Bay
Water Use Caution Area. Brooksville, FL.
SWFWMD. 1999a. An Analysis ofHydrologic and Ecological Factors Related to the
Establishment of Minimum Flows for the Hillsborough River. Southwest Florida
Water Management District, Peer Review Final Draft. June 15, 1999.
6-8
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement
SWFWMD. 1999b. An Analysis of Hydrologic and Ecological Factors Related to
the Establishment of Minimum Flows for the Tampa Bypass Canal at Structure
160. Southwest Florida Water Management District, 2379 Broad Street,
Brooksville, Florida 34609.
Tampa Bay Water. 1999a. Compilation of member governments' Five-Year
Conservation Plan, Annual Report. Clearwater, Florida.
Tampa Bay Water. 1999b. A Regional Water Supply Authority Utility Revenue
Bonds Series 1999. Clearwater, Florida.
Tampa Bay Water. 1999c. Partnership Conservation Guidelines, First Annual
Update. Clearwater, Florida.
Tampa Bay Water. 2000a New Water Plan Quarterly Report. Clearwater,
Florida.
Tampa Bay Water. 2000b. Tampa Bay Water, Special District Public Facilities Report.
Clearwater, Florida.
Tampa Bay Water. 2000c. New Water Plan, Second Annual Report, prepared for
the Southwest Florida Water Management District. Clearwater, Florida.
Taylor, R. G. 2000. Management of Common Snook in Florida. Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission, Florida Marine Research Institute, 100 Eighth Avenue
Southeast, St. Petersburg, Florida. 10pp.
Tihansky, A.B. 1999. Sinkholes, West-Central Florida. In: Land Subsidence in the
United States. Galloway, Devin, Jones, Ingebritsen (eds). USGS Circular 1182, pp
121-140.
U.S. Census Bureau 1995. State and County Facts. United States Census Bureau.
USEPA 1999. The Ecological Condition of Estuaries in the Gulf of Mexico. EPA 620-
R-98-004.
URS Greiner Woodward Clyde. 2000. Master Water Plan Wetlands Mitigation Project.
Final Addendum to the Master Water Plan Off-Site Wetlands Mitigation Site
Selection Feasibility Study. Prepared for Tampa Bay Water, Clearwater, FL
USDI (United States Department of the Interior). 1990. An Ecological Characterization
of the Tampa Bay Watershed. Biological Report 90(20). Fish and Wildlife Service
and Minerals Management Service.
USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2000. http://www.endangered.fws.gov
6-9
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement
WAR/SDL 1995. Second Interpretive Report, Tampa Bypass Canal and Hillsborough
River Hydro-biological Monitoring Report. Volume I of HI. Water and Air
Research, Inc. 6821 Archer Road, Gainesville, FL, 32608 and SDI Environmental
Services, Inc. 13911 N. Dale Mabry, Suite 201, Tampa FL 33618. Prepared for
West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority, Clearwater, Florida and City of
Tampa, Tampa, FL.
Weigle, B.L., I.E. Reynolds, III, B.B. Ackerman, I.E. Beeler, and P.L. Boland. 1991.
Distribution and Abundance ofBottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in
Tampa Bay. In: Proceedings, Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information
Symposium 2, February 27-March 1, 1991. Treat, S.F. and P.A. Clark (Eds.). Pp.
277-288. Tampa, FL. ;
West, Carol T., Lenze, D. G. Florida Long Term Economic Forecast 2000 - Volume 2 -
State and Counties September 2000.
West, Carol T., Lenze, D. G. The Florida Short Term Outlook October 1999.
Wharton, Barry, G Ballo, and M Hope. 1981. The Republic Groves Site, Ear dee County,
Florida. Florida Anthropologist 34:59-80.
Wik, R.M. 1960. Captain Nathaniel Wyche Hunter and the Florida Indian Campaigns,
1837-1841. Florida Historical Quarterly 39 (1): 62-75.
Wooley, C. M. and E. J. Crateau. 1985. Movement, microhabitat, exploitation and
management of the Gulf of Mexico Sturgeon, Appalachicola River, Florida. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 16:590-605.
Zarbock, H. A.Janicki, D. Wate, D Heimbuch and H. Wilson. 1995. Current and
Historical Freshwater Inflows to Tampa Bay, Florida. Prepared for Tampa Bay
National Estuary Program, St. Petersburg, Florida. Coastal Environmental, Inc. St.
Petersburg, Florida.
Zug, G.R., Kalb, H., and Luzan, S.L. 1997. Age and growth in wild Kemp's ridley sea
turtles (Lepidochelys kempi) from skeletochronological data. Biological
Conservation. 80, 3, 261-268.
6-10
-------
APPENDICES
-------
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX B - MITIGATION SUMMARY
APPENDIX C - ALAFIA RIVER AND HILLSBOROUGH RIVER/T AMP A
BYPASS CANAL WITHDRAWAL PERMITS
APPENDIX D - CORRESPONDENCE
APPENDIX E - WILDLIFE AND VEGETATION SPECIES LIST
-------
APPENDIX A - BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
-------
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
for
TAMPA BAY WATER' S
TAMPA BAY REGIONAL RESERVOIR PROJECT
Submitted to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Environmental Assessment
by
BURNS & MCDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
June 2001
25489
Burns ^
McDonnell
SINCE 1898
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project Preliminary Draft Biological Assessment
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PARTI INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 OVERVIEW 1
1.2 PURPOSE OF THE BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 1
1.3 PROJECT PURPOSE 1
1.4 PROJECT NEED 2
1.5 PROPOSED FACILITY 2
1.6 PROJECT HISTORY 3
PART 2 THE PROPOSED PROJECT 7
2.1 ALTERNATIVES 7
2.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 8
2.3 RELEVANT ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS 9
2.3.1 Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project Area 9
2.3.2 Alafia River 10
2.3.3 Hillsborough River and Tampa Bypass Canal 10
2.3.4 Tampa Bay 10
2.3.5 Groundwater 11
PART 3 POTENTIALLY IMPACTED SPECIES 13
3.1 WOOD STORK 13
3.1.1 General Life History 13
3.1.2 Project Area 16
3.2 FLORIDA SCRUB JAY 16
3.2.1 General Life History 16
3.2.2 Project Area 18
3.3 BALD EAGLE 19
3.3.1 General Life History 19
3.3.2 Project Area 21
3.4 RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER 21
3.4.1 General Life History 21
3.4.2 Project Area 22
3.5 PEREGRINE FALCON 22
3.5.1 General Life History 22
3.5.2 Project Area 23
3.6 HAWKSBILL SEA TURTLE : 23
3.6.1 General Life History : 23
3.6.2 Project Area 24
3.7 GREEN SEA TURTLE 24
3.7.1 General Life History 24
3.7.2 Project Area 25
3.8 KEMP'S RIDLEY SEA TURTLE 25
3.8.1 General Life History 25
3.8.2 Project Area 26
3.9 LOGGERHEAD SEA TURTLE 26
3.9.1 General Life History 26
3.9.2 Project Area 27
TOC-1
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project Preliminary Draft Biological Assessment
3.10 LEATHERBACK SEA TURTLE 27
3.10.1 General Life History 27
3.10.2 Project Area 28
3.11 AMERICAN ALLIGATOR 28
3.11.1 General Life History 28
3.11.2 Project Area 29
3.12 EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE 29
3.12.1 General Life History 29
3.12.2 Project Area 30
3.13 GULF STURGEON 30
3.13.1 General Life History 30
3.13.2 Project Area 31
3.14 FLORIDA MANATEE : 31
3.14.1 General Life History : 31
3.14.2 Project Area 32
3.15 BEAUTIFUL PAWPAW 32
3.15.1 General Life History 32
3.15.2 Project Area 32
3.16 FLORIDA BONAMIA 33
3.16.1 General Life History -. 33
3.16.2 Project Area 33
3.17 SMALL'S JOINTWEED . 33
3.17.1 General Life History 33
3.17.2 Project Area 33
3.18 PYGMY FRINGE TREE : 33
3.18.1 General Life History 34
3.18.2 Project Area ;. 34
-3ri9 FLORIDA GOLDEN ASTER 34
3.19.1 General Life History 34
3.19.2 Project Area 34
PART 4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 35
4.1 WOOD STORK 35
4.2 FLORIDA SCRUB JAY : 35
4.3 BALD EAGLE 35
4.4 RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER 35
4.5 PEREGRINE FALCON 36
4.6 ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SEA TURTLES 36
4.7 AMERICAN ALLIGATOR 36
4.8 EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE 36
4.9 GULF STURGEON 36
4.10 FLORIDA MANATEE 36
4.11 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED PLANTS 37
PART 5 CONCLUSIONS 38
5.1 MITIGATION MEASURES 39
LITERATURE CITED LC-1
TOC-2
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Biological Assessment
PARTI
INTRODUCTION
1.1 OVERVIEW
This biological assessment was prepared
as part of the environmental studies for
the Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
Project. The assessment, under Section
7 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, (Public Law 930205), and
subsequent amendments, addresses the
potential impacts of the project on
species that are federally listed as
threatened and endangered. The species
discussed in this assessment were
identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) because of their
documented or potential occurrence in
the vicinity of the proposed reservoir, or
because they were observed on the
project site by wildlife biologists. The
discussion for each species includes its
status, life history, and the potential
impact of the Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir Project on each.
1.2 PURPOSE OF THE
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
The Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
Project was authorized for grant funding
by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) under the State Tribal
Assistance Grant Program. This funding
action will partially provide the means to
acquire the real property and to design
and construct the Tampa Bay regional
reservoir and transmission main. EPA,
as the lead federal agency, must consider
all environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the Tampa
Bay Regional Reservoir Project, and
must conduct a National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) analysis of project
impacts on the existing environment.
Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 1501.4(c) and in
accordance with Section 102(2)(c) of
NEPA, EPA has identified the need to
prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for the Tampa Bay
Regional Reservoir Project. This
biological assessment is submitted to the
FWS as part of the determination of
potential impacts of the Tampa Bay
Regional Reservoir Project on threatened
and endangered species. In response, the
FWS will prepare a biological opinion
stating whether the proposed action
would adversely affect or jeopardize the
continued existence or have no impact
on the threatened and endangered
species identified for the Tampa Bay
Regional Reservoir Project area.
1.3 PROJECT PURPOSE
The purpose of the Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir Project would be to improve
the reliability and dependability of
Tampa Bay Water's regional surface
water supply system. The reservoir
would store untreated raw surface water
diverted during high flow conditions
from the Hillsborough River, the Tampa
Bypass Canal, and the Alafia River.
This stored water would be used during
dry periods when little or no surface
water could be diverted. The first 66
million gallons per day (mgd) of raw
water withdrawn from one or more of
the three surface water sources would be
treated at the new Tampa Bay Regional
Water Treatment Plant (WTP) and then
distributed through Tampa Bay Water's
regional water distribution system.
Diverted amounts of raw water
exceeding 66 mgd would be pumped
into the reservoir and stored for later use.
During the dry season when little or no
water could be diverted from the surface
water sources, up to 66 mgd would be
withdrawn from the reservoir, treated at
the Tampa Bay Regional WTP and
distributed to retail customers.
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Biological Assessment
1.4 PROJECT NEED
The Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
project is needed to increase the yield
and improve the reliability of the
regional surface water system. Rapid
population growth and economic
development has resulted in an increase
in projected future water demand.
Tampa Bay Water currently supplies its
member governments with water from
12 groundwater wellfields. Water use
permits and agreements between Tampa
Bay Water, Southwest Florida Water
Management District (SWFWMD), and
its member governments limit the
withdrawal of water from the 11
Northern Tampa Bay wellfields to 158
mgd, with reductions in withdrawals to
121 and 90 mgd required in 2002 and
2007 respectively. Based on increased
water demand and reduction of the
existing supply, Tampa Bay Water needs
to develop new water supply sources to
meet the additional required water
supply capacity presented in the
following schedule (Black and Veatch
199*)r
Year
December 2002
December 2007
Total
Additional Water
Supply Required
(mgd)
53
58
111
The reservoir would be constructed by
2004 and would likely take one year to
fill. It is anticipated to be fully
operational by 2005. It is estimated that
the additional storage capacity in the
reservoir would increase the sustainable
annual yield from surface water
diversions from approximately 25-mgd
to 50-60 mgd.
1.5 PROPOSED FACILITY
The proposed Tampa Bay regional
reservoir is an off-stream, above-ground
reservoir that would store water
withdrawn from the Hillsborough River,
the Tampa Bypass Canal, and the Alafia
River during periods of high flow. The
reservoir would increase the sustainable
yield of Tampa Bay Water's system by
storing untreated surface water for use
during low flow periods when little or no
direct flow water could be withdrawn
from these sources. Water would be
transmitted to the WTP during dry
periods for treatment and distribution via
Tampa Bay Water's regional water
supply system.
The regional reservoir project site
consists of the footprint of the
embankment and reservoir, the
associated facilities and transmission
pipeline, and all of the mitigation sites
that would be used to offset impacts
associated with the project. Associated
facilities include an intake tower and
potential water quality pump station.
The transmission pipeline would connect
the reservoir to Tampa Bay Water's new
WTP and regional water system.
The proposed reservoir and associated
facilities would cover approximately
1,100 acres (900 acres of surface area
when full), with a storage volume of
approximately 48,000 acre-feet (15
billion gallons) (HDR 2000b). It would
be located in southeastern Hillsborough
County, south of County Road 640,
north of County Road 672, and west of
State Road 39 (Figure 1-1). Portions of
the site have been mined for phosphate,
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Biological Assessment
but are currently being used as improved
pasture.
Reservoir embankments would be 30 to
65 feet high and constructed primarily
from onsite soils. To control erosion,
the interior face of the embankments
would be covered with a soil and cement
mixture.
Approximately 7.5 miles of 84-inch
pipeline would connect the proposed
reservoir to Tampa Bay Water's regional
water system at the South Central
Hillsborough Intertie. The new pipeline
route would generally follow existing
roadways and linear utility corridors.
The route would begin approximately
400 feet north of the intersection of
Fishhawk Drive, Bell Shoals Road and
Boyerte Road. It .would then run south
and east, parallel to Boyerte Road where
it crosses rural land to the Tampa Bay
regional reservoir site (HDRa 1999).
The real property rights required for
construction and operation of the
pipeline include a temporary easement
of 50 feet during construction and a 50-
foot permanent easement for
construction, operation and maintenance
activities. In areas near homes and other
potentially sensitive locations, the
easement would be reduced where
possible to avoid or minimize impacts
(HDR 2000). The approximate
alignment of the proposed pipeline route
is shown in Figure 1-2.
1.6 PROJECT HISTORY
Tampa Bay Water, formerly the West
Coast Regional Water Supply Authority,
was established on October 25, 1974. In
August 1998, the Authority became
Tampa Bay Water, which is responsible
for supplying wholesale water to its six
member governments of Hillsborough,
Pasco, and Pinellas Counties and the
Cities of New Port Richey, St.
Petersburg, and Tampa.
Tampa Bay Water is the largest
wholesale water supplier in the state of
Florida. Its member governments serve
the needs of approximately 2 million
people. By Florida mandate, Tampa Bay
Water is responsible for developing,
recovering, storing, and supplying water
for its member governments in such a
way as to reduce environmental impacts.
Tampa Bay Water is permitted to
transport and use ground or surface
water, across county boundaries within
the 3 county area, if publicly and
environmentally acceptable.
Tampa Bay Water provides an average
of 176 million gallons of drinking water
each day. Currently, this water is
groundwater from the Floridan aquifer.
Environmental resources have been
impacted in some areas where the
Floridan aquifer is indirectly connected
to surface waters. The potential impacts
of groundwater pumping have been a
matter of substantial concern among the
member governments, SWFWMD, the
Florida Legislature and the public for
several years. To answer these concerns,
Tampa Bay Water and SWFWMD have
negotiated a Consolidated Water Use
Permit, which regulates withdrawals
from the 11 wellfields currently operated
by Tampa Bay Water.
The Consolidated Water Use Permit
currently limits withdrawals from the 11
of the 12 wellfields to 158 mgd (based
on a 36-month running average). The
total permitted capacity of the 11
wellfields will be reduced to 121 mgd in
December 2002 and to 90 mgd in
December 2007. To meet the terms of
-------
\ V
Rgure Source: HDR Engineering, Inc.. EAP Application, September 7, 2000
w Reservoir
Figure 1-1
TAMPA BAY REGIONAL
RESERVOIR PROJECT DEIS
I | Reservoir
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
-------
Alafia River
Withdrawal Location
FishhawkDr
Figure Source: HDR Engineering, Inc., EAP Application, September 7,2000
Figure 1-2
TAMPA BAY REGIONAL
RESERVOIR PROJECT DEIS
PIPELINE ROUTE
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Biological Assessment
the Consolidated Water Use Permit and
demands of the growing population,
Tampa Bay Water has identified the
need to develop 53 mgd of new water
supply sources by 2002 and an
additional 58 mgd by 2007.
To meet these demands, Tampa Bay
Water initiated a study that resulted in
the Master Water Plan Alternative
System Configurations (Report) (Black
& Veatch, 1998). The Report evaluated
potential water supply alternatives and
facilities using water demand
projections, existing water supply
sources, and facility capacities. The
outcome was the identification of
potential water supply sources and
facilities to meet the needs of the Tampa
Bay area through the year 2010.
A number of combinations of projects
presented in the Report could potentially
meet the future demands of the Tampa
Bay Area. However, based on a viable
implementation schedule, only four of
the new systems could potentially meet
the December 2002 and 2007
groundwater reductions (Black & Veatch
1998). Each of the four systems would
provide both integration of the water
supply system and rotational service. A
water conservation program is also
included in all the systems, which
proposes reduction of average annual
demand by 10 mgd in 2000 and 17 mgd
in 2005 (Black & Veatch 1998).
Each of these systems contained a set of
core projects what would meet the 2002
need and a second set of core projects to
meet the need in 2007. The projects
capable of providing the need for 2002
include:
Tampa Bypass Canal Water Supply
Project
Alafia River Project
Brandon Urban Dispersed Wells
Project
Seawater Desalination Project
Cypress Bridge II Project
Regardless of which new sources were
initially constructed to meet the
established 2002 need, one of the
following projects would also need to be
included in the system to meet the
projected needs of the Tampa Bay area
by December 31, 2007. These include:
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
Project;
Seawater Desalination Expansion
(from initial of 20 or 35 mgd to 50
mgd);
Hillsborough Bay Resource
Exchange Project.
To make the system functional, the new
Tampa Bay Regional WTP and the
South Central Hillsborough Intertie
would also need to be constructed. Each
of these projects represents a piece of the
puzzle that together will form an
integrated water supply for the Tampa
Bay region. The piece of the puzzle that
is the subject of this EIS is the Tampa
Bay Regional Reservoir Project.
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Biological Assessment
PART 2 THE
PROPOSED PROJECT
2.1 ALTERNATIVES
Twelve alternatives capable of
improving the reliability and
dependability of Tampa Bay Water's
integrated water supply system have
been identified. Alternatives evaluated
in the EIS were grouped into two
categories: action and no action
alternatives. Alternatives were subjected
to a tiered screening criteria based on
engineering feasibility, environmental
fatal flaws, and their ability to meet
regional demands. Feasible alternatives
were identified and carried forward for
detailed description and analysis.
The action alternatives considered
include water storage, water supply, and
demand management alternatives.
Water storage includes alternatives
that have a water storage component
capable of providing water to the
regional water system during periods^
when surface water flows are
inadequate to meet the water
demands of the region.
Water supply involves alternatives
that could provide drinking water to
the region without the use of a water
storage component.
Demand management, focuses on
reducing water demand through
conservation measures to serve
additional customers with existing
supplies.
Action alternatives include any actions
that could be undertaken by Tampa Bay
Water to supplement or create additional
water resources. These include the
Table 2.1. List of Alternatives Evaluated
Action Alternatives
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
Freshwater from Springs in the Gulf
Lakes in Abandoned Phosphate Pits
Above-Ground Water Storage Tanks
Reclaimed Water for Potable Reuse
Reclaimed Water
Seawater Desalination
Brackish Water Desalination
Water Conservation
Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR)
System
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir and ASR
System
No Action Alternative
No Federal Action
proposed Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir Project and other
storage/supply alternatives.
Also included in the list of alternatives is
the No Federal Action. The action and
no-action alternatives are presented in
the Table 2.1.
Based on the alternative analysis, the
recommended alternative is the
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
Project. The EPA believes the proposed
reservoir can provide a quality source of
water that can effectively provide Tampa
Bay Water's member governments'
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Biological Assessment
water to supplement the integrated
surface water system.
The proposed reservoir will not affect
the permitted withdrawal schedules from
the surface water sources. It will simply
increase the dependable yield of the
surface water system by providing
storage of water during periods of
sufficient flow in the surface water
system for use during dry periods.
2.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The addition of an off-stream reservoir
would improve the reliability and
dependability of the regional water
system. Tampa Bay Water's Board of
Directors has considered several options
for the potential reservoir site. A
preliminary screening process was used
to eliminate reservoir alternatives
because of land use issues, natural
features such as wetlands, bottomland
hardwood and riparian communities, and
proximity to residential areas.
Preliminary screening resulted in the
identification of 15 potential reservoir
sites to be reviewed in detail. The
review process included a range of
criteria, including natural features, land
use, land values, relocations,
construction costs, and potential
contamination by hazardous materials.
Seven alternatives underwent more
extensive geotechnical and
environmental analyses and were
included in a public involvement
program. The screening process and
related cost analysis led to the selection
of the preferred off-stream reservoir site,
the proposed Tampa Bay regional
reservoir. Implementation of the
proposed site would involve the
following facilities:
The South Central Hillsborough
Intertie.
The Alafia River and Tampa Bypass
Canal Intakes and Pump Stations.
The Tampa Bay Regional Water
Treatment Plant.
The proposed Tampa Bay regional
reservoir is an off-stream above ground
reservoir that would store water
withdrawn from the Tampa Bypass
Canal, the Hillsborough River, and the
Alafia River during periods of high flow.
The purpose of the reservoir would be to
increase the sustainable yield of the
system by storing untreated surface
water for use during low flow periods
when direct flow water cannot be
withdrawn from the above mentioned
sources. The reservoir would not affect
the permitted withdrawal schedules from
the surface water sources, but would
increase the dependable yield of the
system from approximately 25 mgd to
50-60 mgd(HDR 1999).
During periods when the allowable
withdrawals from the surface water
sources exceed the capacity of the water
treatment facilities, water would be
stored in the proposed Tampa Bay
regional reservoir. Any surface water
withdrawal amounts that exceed 66 mgd
would be pumped to the reservoir for
storage, prior to treatment. When stream
flows decrease and direct flow surface
water withdrawals are limited, water
would be pumped from the reservoir to
the treatment facility and distributed to
meet water demands (HDR 2000b).
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Biological Assessment
2.3 RELEVANT ECOLOGICAL
IMPACTS
2.3.1 Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
Project Area
The Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
Environmental Resource Permit and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dredge
and Fill Permit Application prepared in
August of 2000 assessed direct and
indirect impacts to wetlands in the
proposed project areas (HDR 2000b).
Direct impacts are defined as dredge and
fill activities resulting from reservoir and
pipeline construction. Indirect impacts
are related to potential changes in local
water table elevations resulting from
reservoir seepage.
The reservoir site selection process for
the proposed Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir Project used criteria to avoid
and minimize direct and indirect impacts
to wetlands. It was estimated that the
total amount of wetlands impacted by
the project is 189.9 acres. This includes
182.3 acres of wetlands within the
reservoir footprint and 7.6 acres along
the pipeline route. Impacts along the
pipeline are temporary and are not
anticipated to require off-site mitigation.
Impacts within the reservoir footprint are
permanent and will require mitigation.
Based on mitigation credits anticipated
from the project site, the Recommended
Mitigation Plan, proposed by Tampa
Bay Water, is anticipated to provide
approximately 521 acres of wetland
mitigation using a combination of
enhancement, restoration, and creation.
All of the proposed mitigation sites and
scenarios are subject to additional
coordination and approvals by
permitting agencies, development of
final impact acres and mitigation
requirements, and additional engineering
studies. The recommended Mitigation
Plan is proposed to meet the anticipated
mitigation requirements of the reservoir
project.
Extensive field reviews and surveys of
the proposed reservoir site have been
conducted since 1998 for suitable
wetland and wildlife habitats, including
those for federal and state listed
threatened and endangered species.
Potential impacts on terrestrial wildlife
were evaluated based on the quantity,
quality, and scarcity of the habitats
disturbed by or lost to construction.
Impacts would be significant if high
quality, relatively rare wildlife habitat is
lost or significantly impacted.
Wildlife species expected to occur in the
vicinity of the proposed project area are
numerous and varied due to the mosaic
of upland and wetland communities
found in the region. Wildlife observed
on the reservoir site, or highly likely to
utilize the site, include small and large
mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and a
wide variety of birds. Small mammals
that may occur on the project site such as
raccoon, armadillo, opossum, and
eastern cottontail, would be displaced to
surrounding habitats by construction of
the reservoir. Large mammals such as
wild pig, and white-tailed deer, and
reptiles such as the anole, six-lined
racerunner, and various snakes, are
mobile species and would likewise be
displaced to surrounding habitats.
Impacts to these species are expected to
be minor but habitat loss would be
permanent in nature.
A wide variety of upland and wetland
dependent bird species, both permanent
residents and winter migrants,
potentially utilize the proposed reservoir
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Biological Assessment
site. Habitat for these species would be
lost within the footprint of the reservoir.
These species would be displaced by the
construction of the reservoir but many,
especially upland species, would likely
utilize the uplands immediately
surrounding the reservoir. Wetland-
dependent species would be displaced to
wetlands in the surrounding areas.
Impacts to these species are also
expected to be minor but habitat would
be lost due to construction.
2.3.2 Alafia River
The diverse habitat around the Alafia
River provides cover and forage for a
variety of wildlife species. Species
occurring in and along the river include
small and large mammals, marine
mammals, birds (including wading
birds), and benthic macroinvertebrates.
It is unlikely that significant impacts to
the Alafia River would result from the
proposed surface-water withdrawals.
Many resource managers agree that in
most systems the largest potential for
impacts occurs when low flows are
disrupted. For the proposed project, the
largest predicted effects on freshwater
flows would occur in the middle range
of flow frequencies, leaving the low and
high flow rates relatively or entirely
unimpacted. Therefore it is highly
unlikely that operation of the proposed
alternative would impact wildlife
associated with Alafia River.
2.3.3 Hillsborough River and Tampa
Bypass Canal
Implementation of the proposed projects
would divert up to 129 mgd (on a
maximum daily basis) of freshwater
flows from the Hillsborough River and
Tampa Bypass Canal. Withdrawals for
the Hillsborough River would begin
when flows in the river below the City of
Tampa's Hillsborough River Reservoir
reach 65 mgd, which has been permitted
by the SWFWMD. Withdrawals from
the Tampa Bay Bypass Canal would
begin when flows in the river reach 7
mgd, which has been permitted by the
SWFWMD.
Similar to the Alafia River, the diverse
habitats around the Hillsborough River
and Tampa Bypass Canal provide cover
and forage for a variety of wildlife
species. However, these habitats have
been greatly impacted by human
development, resulting in limited species
diversity and population sizes.
Developments and human disturbance
limit the overall amount of habitat
present, and competition is high for
limited resources. It is unlikely that
significant impacts to the wildlife
associated with the Hillsborough River
and Tampa Bypass Canal systems would
result from the operation of any of the
water supply alternatives.
Studies evaluating the potential impacts
of the Hillsborough River and Tampa
Bypass Canal indicate that although
some alterations to the flow and salinity
regime could be expected due to
withdrawals, the magnitude of the
effects appear to be within the normal
range of variation for the natural system.
2.3.4 Tampa Bay
Tampa Bay is a subtropical estuary with
a rich mosaic offish and wildlife
habitats. These habitats include seagrass
beds, salterns, and vegetated intertidal
areas with mixtures of mangrove and
tidal marsh vegetation. A variety of
wildlife species use the habitats found in
Tampa Bay, including small and large
mammals, marine mammals, birds
(including wading birds), reptiles,
10
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Biological Assessment
amphibians, and benthic
macroinvertebrates.
Implementation of the proposed projects
would eliminate up to 181 mgd (on a
maximum daily basis) of freshwater
inflow into Tampa Bay. The proposed
withdrawals raise concerns about the
potential effects on Tampa Bay and its
tributaries. The potential impacts of
freshwater withdrawals on salinity and
circulation and the potential impacts of
any changes in salinity and/or circulation
on the Tampa Bay ecosystem have been
evaluated.
Potential impacts of the proposed
withdrawals would not adversely affect
the estuary as a nursery and habitat for
living resources (Coastal
Environmental/PBS&J 1998). The
required minimum and maximum flow
levels must be addressed through
operating schedules, design
considerations, and other resource
management activities.
The prediction of possible local-scale
changes in salinity and circulation
resulting from the withdrawals was
made utilizing a three-dimensional
hydrodynamic model (PBS&J 1998).
The objectives of this model were to
estimate the modifications to spatial arid
temporal patterns of salinity and residual
tidal circulation within Tampa Bay that
could result from surface water
withdrawals from the Alafia River and
Hillsborough Rivers and the Tampa
Bypass Canal. The model used spatial
scales sufficient to determine changes to
portions of the estuary.
The modeling indicates freshwater
withdrawals from the Alafia and
Hillsborough Rivers and the Tampa
Bypass Canal appear to influence
salinity and flushing time in Tampa Bay.
The potential impacts of the various
projects to tributaries of the Tampa Bay
estuary result in salinity changes that
remain within the range of natural
system variation. It is unlikely that
significant impacts to wildlife habitat in
and around Tampa Bay would result
from operation of the action Tampa Bay
Regional Reservoir Project. The largest
predicted effects on freshwater flows
would occur in the middle range of
permitted flow frequencies, leaving the
low and high flow rates relatively or
entirely unimpacted (Coastal
Environmental/PBS&J 1998).
2.3.5 Groundwater
By legal actions under the Partnership
Agreement between Tampa Bay Water,
SWFWMD, and member governments,
the proposed projects would allow
Tampa Bay Water's member
governments to reduce withdrawals from
regional wellfields. The Partnership
Agreement outlines the required
reduction in groundwater withdrawals
from the 11 of the 12 regional wellfields
by the year 2002 and 2007.
By contributing to a reduced reliance on
groundwater, the proposed projects
would enhance the water levels and
biological health of related wetlands,
lakes, and streams. The improved
biological health of these resources
would in turn benefit the fish and
wildlife that depend on them for habitat.
At the reservoir site, significant water
exchange from vertical migration of
water into underlying aquifers is not
expected. Although the hydraulic
potential exists for downward vertical
movement of groundwater to lower
aquifers, the presence of low
11
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Biological Assessment
permeability confining intervals would
retard the vertical movement of water
between the aquifer units (HDR 2000b).
Flow modeling results indicate water
loss from seepage would occur into the
shallow water table and surrounding
streams. Seepage from the reservoir at
maximum pool level could potentially
add 0.5 to 1 mgd of water to the
groundwater/surface water system of the
site. Horizontal flow discharge to the
water table outside of the embankment
boundary is predicted to be as high as 45
percent of the total upward flux within
100 feet of the embankment toe.
Impacts from horizontal seepage would
include a rise in the water table within
400 feet of the embankment toe (HDR
2000b).
Adding ASR to the reservoir site would
provide additional underground storage
and would enhance the reliability of the
proposed surface reservoir as a regional
water supply. The majority of existing
permitted groundwater users within the
study area tap the intermediate aquifer
and the uppermost part of the Floridan
aquifer. The proposed storage zones for
ASR have sufficient confinement from
the intermediate aquifer to preclude any
impacts to the surficial or intermediate
aquifer systems. Injection and pumpage
within the proposed storage zones may
affect existing users (mostly agricultural
users) that tap the Upper Floridan
aquifer for a water supply by producing
variations in the level and pressure
within the aquifer system (HDR 2000a).
12
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Biological Assessment
PART 3
POTENTIALLY
IMPACTED SPECIES
The Endangered Species Act of 1973
(ESA) affords protection to those species
and their habitats that are listed as
federally threatened or endangered. A
federally endangered species is "any
species which is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of
its range". A federally threatened
species is "any species which is likely to
become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range".
For the Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
Project, the FWS identified five
endangered and six threatened species
that could be impacted by the project
(Table 3-1).
3.1 WOOD STORK
The endangered wood stork (Mycteha
americand) is one of two species of
storks that breed in North America.
These inhabitants of marshes, cypress
swamps, and mangrove swamps reach
the northern limit of its breeding range
in the southeastern United States where
it shares breeding colonies with great
egrets, snowy egrets, white ibis, and
other species. The unique feeding
method of the wood stork requires
specialized habitat requirements. These
habitats on which wood storks depend
have been disrupted by changes in the
distribution, timing, and quantity of
water flows in south Florida. The
population declines that accompanied
this disruption led to its listing as an
endangered species and continue to
threaten their recovery in the United
States (FWS 1999).
In south Florida, breeding colonies of
wood stork occur in Broward, Charlotte,
Collier, Miami-Dade, Hardee, Indian
River, Lee, Monroe, Osceola, Palm
Beach, Polk, St. Lucie, and Sarasota
counties. At one time or another, wood
storks have nested in every county in
south Florida (FWS 1999).
The current population of adult birds is
difficult to estimate, because not all
adult birds nest every year. Presently,
the wood stork population is believed to
number 11,000 adults. Recent United
States breeding is restricted to Florida,
Georgia, and South Carolina (FWS
1999).
3.1.1 General Life History
The wood stork is one of 17 species of
true storks (Ciconiidae) in the world.
The wood stork is one of three stork
species found in the Western
Hemisphere and is the only one that
breeds north of Mexico. The wood stork
has no described subspecies, races, or
distinctive subpopulations (FWS 1999).
The wood stork is a large, long-legged
wading bird, with a body length from
head to tail of 35 to 45 inches and a
wingspread of 60 to 65 inches. The
plumage is white, except for iridescent
black primary and secondary wing
feathers and a short black tail. Storks
soar with necks and legs extended. On
adults, the rough scaly skin of the head
and neck is unfeathered and dark gray in
color, the legs are dark, and the feet are
flesh-colored. The bill is black colored
(Ogden 1996).
During the courtship and early nesting
season, adults have pale salmon coloring
under the wings, fluffy, white undertail
covets that are longer than the tail, and
toes that brighten to a vivid pink.
13
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Biological Assessment
-.:,--.>.;- >,:.,'....:'.. Table3-l ,,.. .;' ;..,;-. .,..,;,-.. :
,'",.;<".
ENDANGERED, THREATENED, CANDIDATE OR PROPOSED SPECIES
Common Name
Scientific Name
Federal Status
Wood Stork
Florida Scrub Jay
Bald Eagle
Red-cockaded Woodpecker
Peregrine Falcon
Hawksbill Sea Turtle
Green Sea Turtle
Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle
Loggerhead Sea Turtle
Leatherback Sea Turtle
American Alligator
Eastern Indigo Snake
Gulf Sturgeon
Florida Manatee
Beautiful PawPaw
Florida Bonamia
Small's Jointweed
Pygmy Fringe Tree.
Florida Golden Aster
Myceteria americana
Amphelocoma coerulescens
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Picoides borealis
Falco peregrinus
Eretmochelys imbricata
Chelonia mydas
Lepidochelys kempii
Caretta caretta
Dermochelys coriacea
Alligator mississippiensis
Drymarchon corals couperi
Acipenser oxyrhynchus .desotoi
Trichechus manatus
Deeringothamnus pulchellus
Bonamia grandiflora
Polygonella myriophylla
Chionanthus pygmae us
Chrysopsis floridana
Endangered
Threatened
Threatened
Endangered
Delisted
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Endangered
Threatened
Threatened
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Immature storks, up to about three years
old, differ from adults in having a yellow
or straw-colored bill and varying
amounts of dusky feathering on the head
and neck. In the field, wood storks are
distinctive among North American
wading birds through their long, heavy
bills, black primary and secondary
feathers, and black tails (Ogden 1996).
Nesting, roosting, and foraging activities
are primarily associated with freshwater
and estuarine habitats. Wood storks
typically construct their nests in medium
to tall trees that occur in stands located
either in swamps or on islands
surrounded by relatively broad expanses
of open water (Ogden 1996).
Historically, wood storks in south
Florida established breeding colonies
primarily in large stands of bald cypress
(Taxodium distichum) and red mangrove
(Rhizophora. mangle) although other
species of trees have been used (FWS
1999).
During the non-breeding season or while
foraging, wood storks occur in a wide
variety of wetland habitats. Typical
foraging sites include freshwater
marshes and stock ponds, shallow,
seasonally flooded roadside or
agricultural ditches, narrow tidal creeks
or shallow tidal pools, managed
impoundments, and depressions in
cypress heads and swamp sloughs. Loss
or degradation of wetlands in central and
south Florida is one of the principal
threats to the wood stork.
Wood storks use a specialized type of
feeding called tactolocation. A foraging
14
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Biological Assessment
wood stork wades through the water
with its beak immersed and partially
open. When it touches a prey item, the
wood stork will snap its mandibles shut,
raise its head, and swallow what has
been caught. The wood storks will
regularly stir the water with their feet, a
behavior that appears to startle hiding
prey. This feeding method allows storks
to feed at night and use water that is
turbid or densely vegetated. However,
the prey must be concentrated in
relatively high densities for wood storks
to forage
effectively
(FWS 1999).
The natural
hydrologic
regime in
south Florida
involves
seasonal
flooding of
extensive
areas
followed by
drying events
that confine
water to
ponds and
sloughs. Fish WoQd stork
populations
reach high numbers during the wet
season, but become concentrated into
smaller areas as drying occurs. Wood
storks are able to exploit high
concentrations of fish in drying pools
and sloughs. Storks forage in a wide
variety of shallow wetlands, where prey
reach high enough densities and water is
shallow and open enough for the birds to
be successful. Good feeding conditions
usually occur in relatively calm water,
where depths are between 5 and 10
inches, and where the water column is
uncluttered by dense patches of aquatic
vegetation (FWS 1999).
The wood stork is a highly colonial
species, usually nesting in large
rookeries and feeding in flocks. They
tend to use the same colony sites over
many years, as long as the sites remain
undisturbed and sufficient feeding
habitat remains in the surrounding
wetlands. Traditional wetland nesting
sites may be abandoned by storks once
local or regional drainage schemes
remove surface water
from beneath the
colony trees.
Maintaining adequate
water levels to protect
nests from predation
is a critical factor
affecting production
of a colony. As a
result of drainage
changes, or predation,
many storks have
shifted colony sites
from natural to
managed or
impounded wetlands
(FWS 1999).
Wood storks are
seasonally monogamous, probably
forming a new pair bond every season.
Their nests are flat platforms,
constructed out of sticks with a lining of
finer material, up to 3 feet in diameter.
Adult storks maintain them throughout
the breeding season maintain them.
Nesting periods vary geographically. In
Florida, wood storks lay eggs as early as
October and as late as June. In general,
earlier nesting occurs in the southern
portion of the state. Colonies that start
after January in south Florida risk having
15
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Biological Assessment
young in the nests when the May-June
summer rains flood marshes and
disperse fish.
Wood storks usually lay a single clutch
of two to five eggs per breeding season
depending on environmental conditions.
Incubation takes approximately 28 days
and begins after the first one or two eggs
are laid. Fledging takes about nine
weeks and the young stay at the nest for
an additional three to four weeks to be
fed by the parents.
3.1.2 Project Area
Wood storks can be observed throughout
south Florida foraging or loafing in and
around shallow wetlands and ditches.
Wood storks, have been observed
foraging in marsh wetlands located
within the proposed reservoir site (HDR
2000b). No rookeries or nesting habitat
exist on site except for one small cypress
wetland, which is suitable, but does not
support nesting woodstork.
3.2 FLORIDA SCRUB JAY
The Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma
coerulescens) is a relict species of fire-
dominated oak scrub habitat that occurs
on well-drained sandy soils in peninsular
Florida. Scrub jays are extremely
habitat specific, sedentary, and
territorial. Florida scrub jays form
family groups and fledglings remain
with their parents in their natal territory
as helpers (FWS 1999).
The Florida scrub jay is listed as a
threatened species in Florida because of
loss, fragmentation, and degradation of
scrub habitats throughout the state. This
is primarily due to urbanization,
agriculture, and fire suppression.
According to FWS, the population has
declined by an estimated 25 to 50
percent in the last 10 to 12 years. At one
time, the Gulf coast of Florida supported
a contiguous major core population of
scrub jays. Today this population is
divided into two subregions because of
the extensive amount of habitat
fragmentation and loss that has occurred
in Pinellas, Hillsborough, Pasco, and
Hernando counties (FWS 1999).
The Florida scrub jay has disappeared
from several counties and is reduced to
scattered, small and rapidly declining
populations in many more. The
decreasing trend of the Florida scrub jay
population is correlated with loss of
scrub habitat. Today, only relict patches
of xeric oak scrub remain (Fitzpatrick et
al. 1994).
3.2.1 General Life History
The Florida scrub jay is a disjoint
member of a species complex otherwise
restricted to western North America.
Following its isolation, probably in late
Pliocene or early Pleistocene times, the
Florida population diverged extensively
from its western counterparts. Now,
important differences exist in plumage,
morphology, vocalizations, display, and
social behavior. The Florida scrub jay is
genetically distinct and represents the
only bird species restricted to Florida
(Woolfenden 1996).
The Florida scrub jay is about 10 inches
long, and similar to its close relative, the
blue jay. The. predominant colors of
both species are blue and white, but the
two differ in color pattern. Scrub jays
have no crest and lack the white tips,
black barring, and bridle of the blue jay.
Scrub jays have a pale blue head, nape,
wings, and tail and, are a pale gray on he
back and belly. A white eyebrow blends
with a frosted white forehead. Throat
and upper breast are faintly striped and
bordered by pale blue, forming a distinct
bib. Both sexes of Florida scrub jays are
16
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Biological Assessment
nearly identical in plumage with males
slightly larger than females. Juvenile
plumage is smoky gray on the head and
back, entirely lacking the blue crown
and nape of adults. An incomplete molt
during summer makes juveniles nearly
indistinguishable from adults
(Woolfenden 1996).
Florida scrub jay
habitat
requirements are
very specie
specific. Optimal
scrub jay habitat
consists of scrub or
scrubby flatwoods
with a 50 to 75
percent cover of
scrub oak, 1 to 3
meters in height;
scattered patches of
bare sand covering
10 to 30 percent of
the area; and no
more than a 20
percent canopy
cover by trees
Scrub Jay
(Fitzpatrick et al. 1991). Scrub oak
habitat on the west coast of Florida is
often different in appearance from oak
scrub habitat on the east coast.
Normally, it is sub-optimal habitat and
instead of the open expanses of scrub
oaks and rosemary interspersed with
large patches of sandy open areas, it is
usually more overgrown and vegetated,
with little open sand due to leaf litter and
palmetto growth. This is largely due to
fire suppression in the suburban
developed areas.
Long-term breeding populations of scrub
jays exist only where there are scrub
oaks in sufficient quantity to provide an
ample acorn supply, cover from
predators, and sufficient nest sites.
Protected scrub habitats will most
effectively sustain overall scrub jay
populations if located within a matrix of
surrounding habitats that can be utilized
and traversed by scrub jays.
Elimination of scrub habitat through
human activities has occurred
throughout Florida scrub
-^ k. ~M$ AS ^ nat*ve ran§e-
~v '%C«^ Conversion of scrub
habitat to citrus groves
and dwellings proceeded
throughout the 20th
century with rapid
acceleration in the 1950s
and 1960s. Continued
loss of habitat to rural
residential development,
mobile-home parks,
industrial construction,
shopping malls, golf
courses, and other
recreational uses closely
tracked the rapid growth
of the human population
in Florida through the
1970s and 1980s.
Conversion of scrub to citrus groves
eliminated scrub and jays from hundreds
of xeric-soil patches as early as the
1920s. Major killing freezes caused
rapid southward expansion of the citrus
industry in the 1970s and 1980s,
especially in the interior peninsula.
Scrub habitat vacated by citrus growers
is not restored to its natural condition
and rarely reverts to habitat suitable for
Florida scrub jays (Woolfenden 1996).
Fire suppression by humans has caused
many of the remaining patches of scrub
to become tall and dense with a canopy
of oaks and pines and a thick leaf litter.
Under these conditions, death rates for
breeding adults exceed recruitment and
17
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Biological Assessment
the scrub jays die out. Entire local
populations of Florida scrub jays have
disappeared as a result, despite the
persistence of native xeric vegetation
(Woolfenden 1996).
Florida scrub jays forage on or near the
ground in open areas and along edges of
natural or man-made openings. Insects
make up a large portion of their animal
diet throughout most of the year
although a variety of vertebrate prey
items are consumed. Acorns are the
most important plant food. The acorns
are cached beneath the surface of bare
sand during the fall and retrieved and
consumed in winter and early spring.
The Florida scrub jay is a non-migratory,
family-oriented species with a well-
defined territory: Believed to be
monogamous, the breeding pair stays
within the territory year after year.
Juveniles remain in their natal territory
for up to five years before dispersal to
(generally) within two territories of their
natal territory and less than five miles.
Prior to dispersal, prebreeders, primarily
yearlings, living in their natal territory
assist the breeders, usually their parents,
with daily activities.
The nests are usually built in scrub oaks
at a height of 1 to 2 meters although
other trees are used, especially in
suburban areas or areas of sub-optimal
habitat. Nesting normally occurs from
the beginning of March through the end
of June although some areas differ
slightly. Clutch size ranges from one to
five eggs, typically three to four, and
only the female incubates and broods
eggs and nestlings. Average production
of young is two fledglings per year, per
pair. In optimal habitat, survival of scrub
jay fledglings to yearling class is about
35 percent.
Florida scrub jays live most of their lives
as members of a group and conduct most
daily activity in close proximity to their
group members. Almost no Florida
scrub jays breed before the age of two
years. Older prebreeders that fail to
acquire breeding space almost always
return to their natal area, where they help
the resident breeders defend the territory
and rear offspring. A well-developed
sentinel system exists, in which one
member of the group sits on an exposed
perch above the shrubbery watering for
predators or territory intruders.
3.2.2 Project Area
One area of suitable habitat was
identified on the project site that would
potentially support scrub jays. An area
of scrubby flatwoods is located just
outside of the northwest corner of the
proposed reservoir site. The eastern
two-thirds of the site has dense saw
palmetto (Serenoa repens) and wiregrass
(Aristida spp.) cover, while the
remainder is a more hardwoods-
dominated turkey-oak community.
Florida scrub jay surveys were
conducted in the scrubby flatwoods
habitat to determine their presence
within the project area and to document
the population if jays were found.
Survey methods employed followed
Florida Game and Freshwater Fish
Commission Nongame Wildlife Program
Technical Report No. 8 (Fitzpatrick et
al. 1991). Playback stations were
located approximately 300 to 500 feet
apart and placed such that all Type II
and Type III scrub habitat was sampled.
Morning surveys were conducted on
April 10, 11,13, 14, and 15, 1999
beginning one hour after sunrise and
18
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Biological Assessment
concluding between 10:30 and 11:00 am.
A pre-recorded tape of scrub jay distress
calls, obtained from the Archbold
Biological Station, was played at full
volume for one minute each in four
directions. Weather conditions were
relatively cool (between 75° and 80° F),
calm, and free of precipitation.
3.3 BALD EAGLE
The bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus) was formerly distributed
in suitable habitat across the North
American continent from western Alaska
to the Maritime Provinces of Canada
south to the Florida Keys, the Gulf
Coast, and Baja California. Presently,
over 90 percent of the nesting eagles are
found in disjunct populations in Florida,
the Chesapeake Bay area, the Great
Lakes, Maine, and the Pacific Northwest
(Curnu'tt 1996).
The bald eagle was originally found
throughout Florida in great numbers,
probably in excess of 1,000 nesting
pairs. By the early 1970s, habitat loss
and a declining population led to the
extirpation of bald eagles from most of
Florida. At the top of the food chain,
this raptor was adversely affected by the
bioaccumulation of pesticides,
particularly
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT).
These pesticides interfered with calcium
metabolism, which resulted in eggshell
thinning. The banning of DDT in 1972
halted a 30-year decline of bald eagle
reproduction in Florida. Bald eagles are
now considered common in Florida and
are known to breed throughout the state.
Population estimates, based on the 1993
Florida statewide survey, were 1,775 to
2,450 individuals and 667 breeding pairs
(Curnutt 1996).
Interactions between eagles and humans
are the single most important factors
affecting eagles. Anthropogenic effects
have been responsible for degradation of
nesting, foraging, and wintering habitat
throughout the species' range. Current
threats to the bald eagle include habitat
fragmentation and loss, collisions with
cars and powerlines, and shooting. (FWS
1999).
3.3.1 General Life History
The bald eagle is in the Order
Falconiformes, Family Accipitridae.
The bald eagle is the sole representative
of the genus Haliaeetus ("sea eagle")
regularly found in the western
hemisphere. The division of H.
leucocephalus into two species, the
southern and northern bald eagle, is
based primarily on size. Bald eagles
from opposite ends of their 2,750-mile
range (north to south) are distinctly
different with the northern bald eagle
slightly larger than the southern. There
is a gradient of larger to smaller birds
from north to south and the overlap of
breeding and migration ranges make it
difficult to define geographic limits of
subspecies (Curnutt 1996).
The bald eagle is the largest raptor that
breeds in Florida. The female is 35 to 37
inches in length, slightly larger than the
male. Wingspan varies from 79 to 90
inches. The male bald eagle has a body
length from 30 to 34 inches and a
wingspan that ranges from 72 to 85
inches.
The white head and tail, chocolate-
brown wings and body, and yellow eyes,
bill, and feet readily identify adults.
First-year juveniles are nearly uniform
dark brown with variable white
speckling under the wings and on the
underside of the tail. Each year
19
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Biological Assessment
thereafter, molting brings about a highly
variable array of dark and white patterns.
The head and tail become increasingly
white with age until full adult plumage is
reached in the 4th or 5th year. During this
same period, the legs, bill, and eyes
change gradually from black to yellow
(FWS 1999).
Bald eagles are considered a water-
dependent species typically found near
estuaries, large lakes, reservoirs, major
rivers, and some seacoast habitats.
Distribution is influenced by the
availability of suitable nest and perch
sites near large open water bodies,
typically with a high proportion of
water-to-land edge (FWS 1999).
Throughout their range, bald eagles
demonstrate a remarkable ability to
tolerate disturbances to their habitat.
Their adaptability to a variety of habitat
conditions makes generalizations about
habitat requirements and nesting
behavior difficult. Though variable,
eagles have basic habitat requirements
that must be met to successfully
reproduce and survive during the winter
or non-nesting season (FWS 1999).
Nesting habitat includes the nest tree,
perch and roost sites, and adjacent high
use areas; it usually does not include
foraging areas. The nest, perches, roost
sites and use areas around the nest
comprise the nesting territory. The size
and shape of a defended nesting territory
varies greatly depending on the terrain,
vegetation, food availability, and eagle
density in the area. Generally, bald
eagle nesting habitat is adjacent to or
near large bodies of water that are used
for foraging. Nest sites must also
provide good visibility and a clear flight
path to the nest (FWS 1999).
Most eagles select nest trees that are
larger and taller than surrounding trees.
Nests are usually positioned below the
treetop of live conifers, although other
tree species have been used. A typical
nest is about 5 feet in diameter and is
often used year after year. Over the
years, some nests become as large as
nine feet in diameter, and weigh up to
several tons. When a nest tree falls or
strong winds blow a nest down, the
established pair of eagles usually rebuild
at or near the site within a few weeks,
particularly if it happens near the
breeding season (Curnutt 1996).
In south Florida, bald eagles breed and
nest during the winter months. Contrary
to changes in habitat use exhibited by
northern bald eagles, eagles in the south
do not substantially alter habitat
throughout the year. Some adults may
remain in and defend their nesting
territory outside of the nesting season,
use or defend portions of their territory,
or disperse and congregate at food
sources such as landfills. Of those adults
that do not maintain territories
throughout the year, most are not
thought to leave the state (FWS 1999).
Bald eagles are monogamous. Annual
courtship behavior serves to re-establish
pair bonds. Early in the nesting season,
mated pairs of bald eagles will perform
spectacular aerial displays that include
pursuit flights and high soaring, talon-
locking, and cartweeling. In establishing
territories, eagles may also fly around
the perimeter of their nesting areas to
advertise their presence (Curnutt 1996).
In the southeast United States, nesting
activities generally begin in early
September, with egg laying occurring as
early as late October and peaking in the
20
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Biological Assessment
latter part of December. Depending on
latitude, incubation may be initiated as
early as October to as late as March.
Clutches usually consist of one or two
eggs, but occasionally three or four are
laid. Incubation takes approximately 35
days and fledging occurs within 10 to 12
weeks of hatching. Parental care may
extend four to six weeks after fledging
even though young eagles are fully
developed and may not remain at the
nest after fledging (FWS 1999).
Juveniles fledged in Florida are highly
migratory, with more than one-third of
the recoveries made 1000 miles or more
north of Florida during the non-nesting
season (FWS 1999). Juvenile Florida
eagles tend to move rapidly to northern
summering grounds from South Carolina
to Prince Edward Island, Canada. Most
radio-collared juveniles return each year
but a small proportion remains away for
two to three years. It is not known
whether all birds fledged in Florida
ultimately breed in Florida.
The bald eagle is an opportunistic
feeder. Its diet varies tremendously
depending on the time of year and
habitat, and foraging behavior is highly
diverse. In the southeastern United
States, the bulk of the diet is fish;
however turtles, birds, and waterfowl are
also taken. Bald eagles typically hunt
from perch sites or by soaring over
foraging areas. Most foraging occurs
early in the morning with another, less
intense feeding period usually in the late
afternoon.
3.3.2 Project Area
Bald eagles are known to occur in the
vicinity of the project site; however,
only one individual was observed in
flight over the proposed reservoir site.
Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI)
records indicates bald eagle nests are
located greater than 1 mile south of the
proposed reservoir and to the north near
Alderman Ford Park at the Alafia River.
No nests have been observed or recorded
on the reservoir site or within the
pipeline corridor (HDR 2000a).
3.4 RED-COCKADED
WOODPECKER
The historic range of the red-cockaded
woodpecker encompassed the
southeastern United States from eastern
Texas and Oklahoma to New Jersey and,
at one time, it probably occurred in all
67 Florida counties, with the exception
of the Florida Keys in Monroe County
(FWS 1999).
3.4.1 General Life History
The red-cockaded woodpecker belongs
to the Picidae family and was first
described by Vieillot in 1807. Adults
are approximately 18 to 20 cm in length
and have a wingspan of 35 to 38 cm.
Males are slightly larger than females.
The red-cockaded woodpecker has large,
conspicuous cheek patches, a black cap
and neck, and black and white barred
back and wings. Males have a few red
feathers slightly above and behind each
eye, however the red spot is rarely
visible in the field (FWS 1999).
Primary nesting and roosting habitat for
red-cockaded woodpeckers consists of
pine stands, or pine-dominated
pine/hardwood stands, with a low or
sparse understory and ample old-growth
pines. The low or sparse understory
allows unimpeded access to cavities.
Nest and roost cavities are almost always
located in old age living pines that are at
least 60 years old. In southwest Florida,
the hydric slash pine flatwoods provide
the preferred critical nesting and
foraging habitat for red-cockaded
21
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Biological Assessment
woodpeckers. This community does not
have the dense midstory of xeric and
mesic flatwoods in southwest Florida
(FWS 1999).
Red-cockaded woodpeckers are non-
migratory, territorial, and live in
cooperative breeding social groups.
Such groups are typically comprised of a
breeding pair and up to three "helpers,"
which are usually males. Nesting occurs
from late April through early June and
the nest cavity is usually the roost cavity
of the male. Nest cavities are usually
excavated on the west to southwest side
of a mature pine tree and generally
located 10 to 13 m above the ground.
Clutch size is normally two to four eggs
and incubation lasts 10 to 11 days. Both
parents incubate eggs and young fledge
at 26 to 29 days of age. Red-cockaded
woodpeckers are long-lived birds,
reaching as many as 15 years old 9FWS
1999).
Red-cockaded woodpeckers forage
primarily on arthropods,1 taken by
chipping away the outer layer of tree
bark and gleaning what they find
underneath. Vegetative matter, such as
pine mast and fruits, is sometimes
consumed.
3.4.2 Project Area
The Florida Natural Areas Inventory
(FNAI) does not list the red-cockaded
woodpecker as occurring in
Hillsborough, Pasco, or Pinnellas
counties. This species nor suitable
habitat was not found during surveys of
the regional reservoir site and pipeline
corridor.
3.5 PEREGRINE FALCON
Historically, the peregrine falcon had a
range as extensive as any other bird and
bred in nearly every state. However, in
the early 1950's it became apparent that
peregrine falcon numbers were declining
(FWS 2000). Pesticides, in particular
DDT and its metabolites, were causing
eggshell thinning which resulted in
widespread nesting failure. The species
was listed as endangered in 1970 (35 FR
16047) and in 1972 DDT was banned in
the Untied States (FWS 2000). Through
research, conservation, management, and
protection, the specie population within
the lower 48 states is increasing. The
peregrine falcon was delisted from the
federal list on August 25, 1999 and is
now in a five year monitoring program.
3.5.1 General Life History
The peregrine falcon is between 15 and
21 inches in length with a wingspan of
38 to 45 inches, or approximately the
size of a crow. This species is identified
by a strong facial pattern characterized
as wide, black sideburns. Adult birds
are blue-gray and barred above and
pinkish and spotted below. Juveniles are
brown and heavily streaked (FWS 2000).
Peregrine falcons can live up to 17 years
in the wild. Females and males are
dimorphic in size. Females weigh 21 to
53 ounces, while males weigh 16 to 30
ounces. It has been suggested that
peregrines do not reach sexual maturity
until 2 years of age (FWS 2000).
The peregrine falcon is the fastest bird
on record, with cruising speeds of 40 to
55 miles per hour and diving speeds of
99 to 273 miles per hour (FWS 2000).
These flying abilities allow the bird to
hunt over a relatively large area. It is not
uncommon for a peregrine to travel as
much as 17 miles from its' nest to
hunting areas. Peregrines feed almost
exclusively on birds, which they capture
while in flight. Peregrines strike their
prey while diving, often killing it upon
contact. Geographic areas with an
22
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Biological Assessment
abundance of birds are common hunting
grounds. During winter, areas, which
concentrate waterfowl, provide
important foraging areas.
Even with the falcon's remarkable flying
ability, nests are usually situated near
waterways where abundant prey occurs.
Some peregrine falcons, however, have
adapted to urban landscapes. They have
substituted high-rise buildings for cliffs
and ledges and feed on pigeons.
Nesting occurs in spring; generally a pair
of falcons is present on the nest by
March. Three to four eggs are laid in
April. The incubation period lasts about
33 days. Both the female and male
incubate the eggs, although the female
spends the majority of time on the nest.
Young fledge in mid-summer (FWS
2000).
Little is known about post-breeding
movements. Some peregrine falcons
have been known to over-winter in the
vicinity of their nests, particularly during
mild winters. Others leave the area and
do not return to the nesting area. It is
not known if this is because of mortality
or other factors (FWS 2000).
3.5.2 Project Area
The FNAI lists the peregrine falcon as
having potential to occur in
Hillsborough, Pasco, and Pinnellas
counties. This species has not been
observed on reservoir project site and
pipeline corridor.
3.6 HAWKSBILL SEA TURTLE
Hawksbill sea turtles (Eretmochelys
imbricatd) are highly desired for their
beautiful shells that are used to make
tortoise shell jewelry. The demand for
hawksbill shells has led to population
declines during the past century due to
overharvesting. This exploitation is the
primary contributor to the species listing
status of endangered.
3.6.1 General Life History
Hawksbill sea turtles belong to the
family Chelonidae, one of the two
marine turtle families. These sea turtles
possess a dorsal bony shell called a
carapace, which is covered by large hard
epidermal plates or scutes. The turtles
also have a ventral shell (plastron),
although it is reduced compared to other
turtle families. Shell shape is
compressed and tapering at each end, an
adaptation for their highly aquatic life.
Body shape and forelimbs are also
streamlined and compacted, providing
hydrodynamic flippers for swimming.
Their heads and necks are largely
nonretractable, adding to their basic
hydrodynamic body shape (Zug 1993).
The hawksbill is a small- to medium-
sized sea turtle, and adult females in the
Caribbean range from 24.6 to 37.0
inches straight carapace length and
weighs approximately 100 pounds. The
carapace is patterned with radiating
streaks of yellow, reddish brown, brown,
and black. The large scutes on the
hawksbill's carapace overlap (except in
the very young and old), lending to the
species name (imbricata). The head is
relatively small with a narrow snout and
smooth cutting edges on the jaws,
suggesting a hawk's bill. The hawksbill
has two pairs of scales between the eyes
and nostrils; this is a difference from the
green turtle, which only has one pair of
scales.
Hawksbill sea turtles have life histories
that are similar to other sea turtle species
(Musick and Limpus 1996). Hatchling
hawksbills live in the open ocean, in the
shelter of weedline habitats of ocean
23
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Biological Assessment
currents (Carr et al. 1966). Little is
known about the hawksbill diet during
the hatchling life history phase.
Hawksbills in the Atlantic ocean are
thought to become juveniles at an age of
one to three years (Musick and Limpus
1996). Juvenile hawksbills are typically
found in shallower habitats where their
diet includes primarily sponges (Meylan
1984). Adult hawksbills inhabit tropical
seas preferring coral reefs and rocky
ledges where they forage primarily on
sponges. Common foraging habitats of
the adult hawksbills include coral reefs
and rock outcroppings, and less
commonly seagrass pastures in
mangrove-fringed bays (Bjorndal and
Bolten 1988).
Like other sea turtle species, hawksbill
turtles reproduce in shallow waters
adjacent to nesting beaches (Ehrhart
1982). After mating, females move to
nesting beaches, come ashore, and lay
their clutches of eggs in the sand in two-
week intervals over the summer nesting
season. Nest incubation lasts
approximately 60 days. Although sea
turtles may not necessarily return to their
beach of birth, genetic studies have
demonstrated that breeding sea turtles
return to the region of their birth. When
the nesting season is over, adult females
return to their foraging areas where they
begin to prepare for the next
reproductive period, a few to several
years in the future. As adults, hawksbill
turtles are less migratory than other sea
turtle species, nesting primarily on
tropical islands surrounded by the
preferred coral reef foraging areas.
Tampa Bay beaches have been
monitored for nesting sea turtles since
1982, and nearly all nests laid have been
loggerhead sea turtle nests. The Florida
Marine Research Institute (FMRI) and
the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage
Network (STSSN) document injured or
dead turtles stranded on Florida beaches.
3.6.2 Project Area
Data indicate that the hawksbill sea
turtle is the least common sea turtle
species in Tampa Bay (Meylan et al.
1999). All hawksbills observed have
been found in the outer bay area. Size-
classes of hawksbill sea turtles found
stranded in Tampa Bay indicate that the
population consists primarily of
juveniles.
3.7 GREEN SEA TURTLE
The green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas} is
distributed worldwide, with its important
nesting and feeding grounds located in
the tropics. In many countries this
species has long been harvested for its
meat and eggs. The green sea turtle is
currently listed as endangered under the
authority of the Endangered Species Act.
3.7.1 General Life History
Like the Hawksbill sea turtle, green sea
turtles belong to the family Chelonidae,
one of the two marine turtle families.
These sea turtles are the hard-shelled
marine turtles (Zug 1993). Hatchling
green turtles are solid black to dark gray
dorsally with a white margin around the
posterior margin of the carapace and
along the edge of their flippers. The
ventral shell or plastron is creamy white.
The juvenile carapace is brownish green,
with light and dark streaks radiating
within each plate or scute. Although a
faint juvenile pattern may be seen in
some adults, the carapace is primarily
olive with numerous black spots. A
single pair of elongate scales between
the eyes, a strongly serrate jaw, and a
single claw on each front flipper
distinguishes this large sea turtle from
24
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Biological Assessment
the other species. Mature females
measure 35 to 46 inches in straight
carapace length and weigh 220-390
pounds.
Green sea turtles have highly migratory
life histories that are similar to other sea
turtle species (Musick and Limpus
1996). It is believed that hatchling green
turtles live in weedline habitats of ocean
currents, where they feed primarily on
plant and animal material (Bjorndal
1985). Green turtles leave open water
habitats and enter benthic foraging areas
at a size of 8 to 10 inches carapace
length in the western Atlantic Ocean
(Bjorndal and Bolten 1988). As adults,
green sea turtles shift to a diet primarily
consisting of seagrasses and algae
(Mortimer 1982). Green sea turtles are
most commonly observed foraging over
seagrass beds (Bjorndal and Bolten
1988).
Like other sea turtle species, green
turtles reproduce in shallow waters
adjacent to nesting beaches (Ehrhart
1982). After mating, females move to
nesting beaches, come ashore, and lay
their clutches of eggs in the sand in two-
week intervals over the summer nesting
season. Nest incubation lasts
approximately 60 days. Although sea
turtles may not necessarily return to their
beach of birth, genetic studies have
demonstrated that breeding sea turtles
return to the region of their birth. Green
turtles show a strong tendency toward
nest site fidelity, and have been
documented returning to the same tenth-
mile area of beach many times within
one nesting season. When the nesting
season is over, adult female green turtles
return to their foraging areas and begin
to prepare for the next reproductive
period, a few to several years in the
future.
3.7.2 Project Area
Available data indicate that the green sea
turtle is the third most commonly found
sea turtle species in Tampa Bay. Size
classes of green sea turtles found
stranded in Tampa Bay indicate that the
population consists primarily of
juveniles and sub-adults (Meylan et al.
1999).
3.8 KEMP'S RIDLEY SEA TURTLE
The Kemp's ridley sea turtle is less
widely distributed than other sea turtle
species, occurring primarily in the
continental shelf waters of the Gulf of
Mexico. Before the implementation of
turtle excluder devices (TEDs) on
shrimp nets, this species suffered great
loss from incidental catch, and led to
their designated endangered status under
the Endangered Species Act.
3.8.1 General Life History
Kemp's ridley sea turtles (Lepidochelys
kempii) also belong to the family
Chelonidae. As one of the two marine
turtle families, these sea turtles are hard-
shelled marine turtles (Zug 1993). The
Kemp's ridley sea turtle is a small
species with an extremely broad shell or
carapace that may resemble a heart
shape. The small orbit located high on
the head above the deep upper jaw
creates a parrot-like appearance. Mature
females average about 25 inches in
carapace length and range in weight
from 70 to 110 pounds. Dorsal
coloration of the adult is grey to olive
green with a yellowish ventral shell.
Hatchlings are completely dark, with the
ventral shell becoming lighter and
changing whitish after several months.
There is a transition from the juvenile
25
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Biological Assessment
coloration to the adult when carapace
length reaches 11 inches.
Kemp's ridley sea turtles also begin their
lives as migratory animals, living in the
open water of the sea as hatchlings and
not reappearing in the shoreline zone
until they are about two years old or
have a 8-inches carapace length (Zug et
al. 1997; Ogren 1989). Once Kemp's
ridley sea turtles become juveniles, they
move into the shallow benthic feeding
habitats along the continental shelf and
feed primarily on crabs (Burke et al
1993). These juveniles can be found in
shallow waters along the east coast of
North America and in the Gulf of
Mexico.
Like other sea turtle species, Kemp's
ridley turtles reproduce in shallow
waters adjacent to nesting beaches
(Ehrhart 1982). After mating, females
come ashore, and lay their clutches of
eggs in the sand in two-week intervals
over the summer nesting season. Nest
incubation lasts approximately 60 days.
Although sea turtles may not necessarily
return to their beach of birth, genetic
studies have demonstrated that breeding
sea turtles return to the region of their
birth. As adults, Kemp's ridleys return
to the western Gulf of Mexico where
they nest almost exclusively on one
beach area (Rancho Nuevo) in
Tampaulipas, Mexico. When the nesting
season is over, adult females return to
their foraging areas and begin to prepare
for the next reproductive period, a few to
several years in the future.
While most marine turtle species are
widely distributed, the Kemp's ridley sea
turtle nesting is restricted to a narrow
band of beaches in the western Gulf of
Mexico. This site was and is the only
known nesting area for this species,
although there have been few isolated
cases of nesting in Florida.
3.8.2 Project Area
Available data indicates that the Kemp's
ridley sea turtle is the second most
common sea turtle species in Tampa Bay.
(Meylan et al. 1999). Size-classes of
Kemp's ridley sea turtles found stranded
in Tampa Bay show that juveniles and
sub-adults comprise the population.
3.9 LOGGERHEAD SEA TURTLE
The loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta
carettd) is rarely hunted for its meat.
Although the eggs are harvested in some
parts of the world, direct take for human
consumption has not been a major factor
in its decline. The wide range of this
species brings it into contact with many
human activities including incidental
capture in shrimp trawls and injury by
contact with boat propellers, dredges,
and fishermen; all have contributed to
this species decline and its listing as a
threatened species.
3.9.1 General Life History
Loggerhead sea turtles belong to one of
the two marine turtle families, which
includes all hard-shelled marine turtles
(Zug 1993). The loggerhead sea turtle is
a medium to large sea turtle. Their
limbs are modified as flippers, the shell
is streamlined and elongated, and their
heads are large with powerful jaws
adapted for crushing mollusks. In
Florida, adult loggerheads have shell
lengths that range from 2.3 to 4.1 feet;
individuals weigh from 155 to 400
pounds. Adult loggerheads typically
have reddish brown shells that are often
covered with barnacles, and cream-
colored ventral shells or plastrons.
Hatchlings are brown to reddish-brown
dorsally and from buff to gray-black
26
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Biological Assessment
ventrally. The loggerhead can be
distinguished from other sea turtles
because of their large heads, reddish
brown color, and presence of barnacles
on their shells.
Loggerhead sea turtles have highly
migratory life histories that are similar to
other sea turtle species (Musick and
Limpus 1996). During their first few
years of life, loggerheads live in the
open ocean, often in association with
sargassum vegetative communities (Carr
1987). Loggerhead turtles leave the
open water habitats and enter shallow
water foraging areas in the western
Atlantic when shell lenghts reach 15 to
20 inches (Carr 1986). Loggerheads are
more opportunistic feeders than other
sea turtle species, foraging on a wide
variety of invertebrates (Bjorndal 1996).
Like other sea turtle species, loggerhead
turtles reproduce in shallow waters
adjacent to nesting beaches (Ehrhart
1982). After mating, females move to
nesting beaches, come ashore, and lay
their clutches of eggs in the sand in two-
week intervals over the summer nesting
season. Nest incubation lasts
approximately 60 days. Although sea
turtles may not necessarily return to their
beach of birth, genetic studies have
demonstrated that breeding sea turtles
return to the region of their birth.
Loggerheads show a strong tendency
toward nest site fidelity. When the
nesting season is over, adult females
return to their foraging areas and begin
to prepare for the next reproductive
period, a few to several years in the
future. Loggerheads are the most
temperate chelonids, and mostly nest on
subtropical and temperate beaches.
3.9.2 Project Area
Available data suggest that the
loggerhead sea turtle is the most
common sea turtle with the widest
distribution in Tampa Bay (Meylan et al.
1999). Size classes of loggerhead sea
turtles found stranded in Tampa Bay
indicate that adults make up the majority
of the population.
3.10 LEATHERBACK SEA TURTLE
The leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys
coriaced) has suffered from habitat
destruction, incidental bycatch in
commercial fisheries, and egg and meat
harvesting, thus leading to the present
endangered status.
3.10.1 General Life History
The leatherback sea turtle represents a
separate family, Dermochelyidae, and is
morphologically distinct from the
Cheloniid sea turtle species. Instead of a
shell made of horny scutes, the
leatherback turtle has extremely reduced
carapace bones covered with a thick,
leathery skin, hence earning the common
name "leatherback". Leatherback sea
turtles are the largest sea turtles in the
world, averaging 118 to 178 cm in
length and 650 to 1500 pounds in
weight. Hatchling leatherbacks are
dorsally black and ventrally white, and
are covered with tiny scales. Adult
leatherbacks have similar coloration,
although their ventral surface is darker
and they lack scales. Splotches of white
may also appear on the head, neck and
flippers, especially in juveniles and
hatchlings. In both adults and hatchlings
the upper jaw has two tooth-like
projections at the premaxillary-maxillary
sutures (NMFS 2001).
27
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Biological Assessment
Of all sea turtle species, the least is
known about the life history of the
leatherback turtle. Leatherbacks are
believed to be the most pelagic of all sea
turtles, which makes the species the
most difficult to study. Like other
species, hatchling leatherbacks move
immediately to the water and swim
actively offshore. Hatchling
leatherbacks virtually disappear after
moving offshore, and are not seen again
until the juvenile stage (110 to 120 cm
curved carapace length), when they
recruit to temperate continental shelf
waters to feed on concentrations of
jellyfish
(Musick and
Limpus 1996).
As adults,
leatherbacks
are pelagic and
often follow
aggregations
of jellyfish up
and down the
U.S. East
Coast.
Leatherbacks
feed throughout the water column, and
are adept deep divers (Bjorndal 1996).
Although primarily tropical, the
leatherback travels farther north than
other sea.turtles, reaching Nova Scotia
and Newfoundland. Adult leatherbacks
are uniquely endothermic, capable of
maintaining a deep body temperature far
above that of the surrounding water,
apparently through muscular activity and
fatty insulation.
Age at sexual maturity of the leatherback
is unknown. Like other sea turtle
species, female leatherbacks come
ashore and lay their eggs on tropical
beaches. Eggs of the leatherback are
larger (approximately baseball sized)
than those of Cheloniid species. In the
Atlantic and Caribbean, nesting occurs
from February to July, with the largest
nesting populations found in the U.S.
Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and the east
coast of Florida (NMFS 2001). Nesting
along the West Coast of Florida is
extremely rare.
3.10.2 Project Area
Distribution of the leatherback turtle
extends from Cape Sable, Nova Scotia,
south to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands (NMFS 2001). Sightings of
leatherbacks in the Gulf of Mexico and
Tampa Bay are rare.
3.11 AMERICAN
ALLIGATOR
The American alligator
(Alligator
mississippiensis) is
commonly found in the
great river swamps,
lakes, bayous, marshes,
and other bodies of
water in Florida.
American alligators
were once considered an endangered
species by the FWS, but due to a
remarkable comeback in many areas, :
they have been downgraded to a species
of special concern. This species
continues to be protected by FWS due to
its similarity of appearance to the
endangered American crocodile.
3.11.1 General Life History
American alligators are largely tropical
American crocodilians, in the family
Alligatoridae. American alligators are
easily distinguished from all other
crocodilians in that they have
mandibular teeth that fit inside the upper
jaw; that means that no teeth are visible
when their mouths are closed.
Crocodilians are the only cold-blooded
28
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Biological Assessment
reptiles with a fully developed secondary
palate and a four-chambered heart.
Thick skin and scales armor the back
and bottom of their bodies. Although
they are aquatic, their limbs are well
developed, making them capable of
running at high speeds on land (Zug
1993).
The American alligator generally grows
to a length of 6 to 16 feet, and can grow
up to 19 feet. This large reptile has a
broad snout, a short neck, a heavy body,
and a laterally compressed tail. Adults
are blackish or dark gray, and faint
yellowish crossbands are sometimes
evident. The young are black with
conspicuous yellow crossbands.
Crocodilians produce eggs that hatch
outside the body. Mating usually occurs
shortly prior to egg-laying and, unlike
turtles, they do not appear to have long-
term sperm storage. Alligators build
nests that form large mounds made of
vegetation and soil. The rotting plant
material of the nest mound help to
incubate the eggs. Females guard nests
and assist their young in hatching and
nest emergence (Zug 1993).
The growth rate of the alligator is
dependent on climate and food
availability. Their diets include nearly
any animal including fish, crabs, turtles,
mammals, birds, other alligators, and
even dead animals. Both male and
female alligators dig open depressions in
marshes and wetlands called 'gator
holes', which vary in width from several
yards to the size of a small lake. These
gator holes are significant to the
freshwater ecology of Florida because
they provide a dry season refuge for
aquatic life as well as the many birds,
mammals, and reptiles that concentrate
in these holes in search of food and
water (Conant and Collins 1991).
3.11.2 Project Area
American alligators occur in creeks,
streams, and other wetlands throughout
Hillsborough County. This species has
been observed on the western portion of
the reservoir site in two open-water
bodies.
3.12 EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE
The Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon
corais couperi) was formerly collected
'heavily for the pet trade. Although some
illegal collecting continues, the listing of
the eastern indigo snake as federally
threatened has largely curtailed the
commercial collecting of this species.
The most serious and far-reaching threat
to the survival of this species is habitat
loss or degradation. Historically, indigo
snakes took refuge from temperature
extremes in gopher tortoise burrows;
however, gopher tortoises and their
burrows are also becoming more rare
due to habitat encroachment.
3.12.1 General Life History
The eastern indigo snake has a
maximum-recorded length of 8.6 feet.
They are iridescent black in color, but
the throat is typically red, coral, or
white. Both the color of the throat and
the extent of this coloration are
extremely variable. In some individuals,
especially in south Florida, bright red
covers the face and throat and may
extend several inches onto the belly. In
much of north Florida, indigo snakes
show only a light pinkish-bluish color on
the throat. The scales of the indigo
snake are smooth, although adult males
typically show a partial ridge on the
front of the middorsal scales (Moler
1992).
29
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Biological Assessment
The only snake commonly confused
with the Eastern indigo snake is the
black racer (Coluber constrictor). The
black racer is a smaller snake in Florida,
usually less than 4 feet long; it is dull
black in coloration, with white (brown in
some areas) on the throat and lower
scales around the mouth.
In southern Florida, the Eastern indigo
snake may be found in a variety of
habitats including freshwater marshes,
coastal prairies, mangrove forests, and
other upland habitats. Eastern indigos
frequent gopher tortoise burrows, which
are used as dens and for egg laying.
This species feeds on virtually any
vertebrate small enough for it to
overpower. Prey includes fish, frogs,
toads, lizards, snakes, small turtles,
birds, and small mammals. Indigo
snakes are not constrictors and its prey is
usually swallowed alive (Moler 1992).
.Indigo.Snakes are completely diurnal.
They actively search prey, especially
favoring the edges of wetlands, where
frogs and snakes abound. During the
warmer months, they range widely,
individuals utilizing activity areas of
125-250 acres or more. Males are
territorial, at least during the breeding
season, and confrontations sometimes
lead to combat or cannibalism (Moler
1992).
3.12.2 Project Area
Indigo snakes potentially use several
habitat types found within the project
area including flatwoods, hardwood
forest, marsh edges, and freshwater
swamp. Individual indigo snakes were
observed on the reservoir site on two
occasions (HDR 2000b). One sighting
was within the northern hardwood forest
associated with Doe Branch. The
second sighting was within an oak-
shrouded fence line in the west-central
portion of the proposed reservoir site
(HDR 2000b).
A scrubby flatwoods community located
outside of the northwest corner of the
reservoir supports a large gopher tortoise
population; it is likely that the eastern
indigo is also present in this area. This
snake is also listed as threatened the
State of Florida.
3.13 GULF STURGEON
The Gulf sturgeon is a threatened sub-
species of the Atlantic sturgeon, and was
once common in the Hillsborough River
and Tampa Bay (FMRI 2000; FWS
2000). The first sturgeon fishery in
Florida was established in 1886 in
Tampa Bay, but only lasted a few years.
Construction of the Hillsborough Dam in
18 8 8 is thought to have, contributed to
the sturgeon's decline, preventing the
sturgeon from migrating upstream to
spawn (FMRI 2000).
3.13.1 General Life History
Gulf sturgeons are in the family
Acipenseridae. The Gulf Sturgeon is a
large fish with a long extended snout.
Gulf Sturgeon can live up to 70 years. It
takes 8 to 12 years for females and 7 to
10 years for males to reach sexual
maturity. Their habitat is the Gulf of
Mexico and the fresh water rivers
draining into the Gulf. The Sturgeon
spends most of their lives in fresh water.
They only reproduce in fresh water, but
their feeding habits only allow them to
eat in saltwater. They are a threatened
species due mainly to loss of habitat and
poor water quality. In areas where fresh
water rivers have been dammed the
sturgeon have been prevented from
traveling upstream to spawn. Over
fishing of the species has also caused a
decline in number of fish.
30
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Biological Assessment
Sub-adult and adult sturgeon along the
west coast of Florida migrate upstream
to spawn in rivers draining to the Gulf of
Mexico from early spring through the
end of May (FWS 2000). In late
September to early October, adults
migrate downstream to estuarine habitats
until they are at least two years old.
Gulf sturgeon are long-lived and grow
large, living at least 28 years, growing
up to 8 feet in length and weighing up to
200 pounds (FWS 2000).
The life history traits of sturgeons make
them unique and susceptible to
overexploitation
by humans. They
are exceptionally
long-lived. As is
often the case
with long-lived
vertebrates,
sexual maturity is
attained slowly.
In Atlantic
sturgeon, both
sexes mature after
5 to 30 years, the
older ages
characterizing individuals at higher
latitudes. After maturation, females may
only spawn every three to five years, and
even longer intervals may characterize
other sturgeon species.
Fertility is relatively high in the gulf
sturgeon; ovaries may account for 25
percent of the body mass of a female.
Sturgeon eggs are the most valuable kind
of caviar, making an individual female
worth several thousand dollars.
Sturgeons are also commercially
important as a smoked product. Natural
predators beyond the juvenile stage are
rare; parasitic lampreys are one of the
Manatee
few organisms capable of attacking an
adult sturgeon (Helfman et al. 1997).
3.13.2 Project Area
Although Gulf sturgeons have been
extirpated from Tampa Bay since 1889,
the Hillsborough River still retains some
sturgeon habitat (FMRI 2000). The
FMRI is currently leading a cooperative
effort to release a limited number of
Gulf sturgeons into parts of the
Hillsborough River (FMRI 2000).
3.14 FLORIDA MANATEE
Exploitation of the Florida manatee
(Trichechus manatus)
during the 17th, 18th,
and 19th centuries is
thought to have
reduced their number
from several thousand
to their current
population level. The
principal threats to
manatees in Florida
result from boat
propellers, vandalism,
poaching, and habitat
destruction. The
Florida manatee is protected by both
federal and state wildlife agencies and
listed as endangered (FGFWFC 1997).
3.14.1 General Life History
The Florida manatee belongs to the
animal order Sirenia. Manatees are
commonly referred to as "seacows"
because of their characteristic behavior
of grazing on aquatic vegetation.
Manatees inhabit freshwater, brackish,
and marine habitats and move freely
between salinity extremes. Water depths
of at least 3 to 6 feet are preferred and
flats and shallows are avoided unless
adjacent to deeper water. Along the
coast, manatees tend to travel in water
31
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Biological Assessment
10 to 15 feet deep. If the water is deep
enough and the currents are not too
strong, manatees will travel great
distances up coastal rivers (Florida
Power and Light 1982). The manatee
diet is strictly herbivorous, consisting of
algae and seagrasses.
Because of their lack of tolerance to
water less than 68°F, manatees
aggregate at the warm water discharges
of power plants and springs during cold
fronts (Ackerman et al. 1999). Cargill
Fertilizer Company was once considered
the major wintering area for manatees in
Tampa Bay, but since the 1986 reduction
of warm-water effluent, it is considered
a minor wintering site.
Manatees are essentially solitary animals
with a weak social structure. Cohesive
associations are formed only when males
pursue an estrous female. Gestation is
believed to last 385 to 400 days and
twins are rare. Calves are born and
nursed in the water. The family unit
consists of mother and offspring. The
reproductive rate is probably one calf per
adult female every 2 to 2 !/2 years. There
is no well-defined breeding season.
Estimated age at reproductive maturity is
four to six years. Longevity is unknown,
although captives have lived over 25
years.
3.14.2 Project Area
Florida manatees can be found in Tampa
Bay during every month of the year.
From 1991 to 1998, manatees were
counted statewide by numerous
biologists from ten state, federal, county,
and private agencies. The highest
number of manatees counted in Tampa
Bay was 164 during January 1997. This
number represented 7.4 percent of the
state total at that time (Ackerman et al.
1999).
In a preliminary review of current
manatee sighting data, FMRI staff
verified that Florida manatee also
frequent both the lower Hillsborough
River and the Palm River (FMRI 2000).
Since 1978, idle-speed zones have been
established in the Alafia River to avoid
boat and propeller-related injuries and
deaths to manatees (HDR 1998).
3.15 BEAUTIFUL PAWPAW
Habitat destruction for residential,
commercial, recreational, and
agricultural purposes is the leading cause
of Beautiful pawpaw (Deeringothamnus
pulchellus) declining populations (FWS
2001).
3.15.1 General Life History
The beautiful pawpaw, a low shrub with
a stout taproot and yellow-green berries,
is listed as endangered by FWS.
Typically, this plant grows in poorly
drained, slash pine-saw palmetto
fiatwoods with sandy soils. In Pine
Island, beautiful pawpaw can be found
on road edges that are regularly mowed
with little soil disturbance.
Beautiful pawpaw is a disturbance-
dependant plant that resprouts readily
from the roots following the removal of
the top by fire or mowing. Flowers
occur on new growth and are white with
a pleasant scent. A lack of disturbance
leads to the eventual death of the plant.
Currently, the taking, transport, and sale
of beautiful pawpaw is regulated by
Florida law (FWS 2000).
3.15.2 Project Area
Beautiful pawpaw is found in northern
Lee, southern Charlotte and Orange
Counties. The FNAI and FWS do not
document beautiful pawpaw to occur in
Hillsborough County (FNAI 2001; FWS
2001).
32
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Biological Assessment
3.16 FLORIDA BONAMIA
The Florida bonamia (Bonamia
grandiflord) was formerly widespread in
central Florida. Conversion of Florida's
scrub habitat to residential housing and
agricultural areas has dramatically
reduced the amount of habitat available
for this plant, leading to its present
threatened status.
3.16.1 General Life History
Florida bonamia is the only morning
glory vine with large, blue flowers that is
found in Florida scrub vegetation. It is a
perennial plant with sturdy stems and
leathery oval leaves found only in scrub
areas of central and South Florida.
Primarily, this morning glory is found in
sand pine scrub vegetation with
evergreen scrub oaks and sand pine
(commonly referred to as Florida scrub),
but can occasionally be found in clear-
cut areas in the Ocala National Forest.
Florida bonamia grows for three or more
years and flowers from spring to
summer. It has a mixed mating system,
can self-pollinate, and it can produce
seeds without fertilization. However,
pollinators are essential to ensure
substantial seed production.
3,16.2 Project Area
Most of the known Florida bonamia
populations occur in Marion County
within the Ocala National Forest. The
FNAI documents the presence of
Florida bonamia in Hillsborough
County, although biologists have not
found this species on the project site.
3.17 SMALL'S JOINTWEED
Small's jointweed (Polygonella
myriophylld), also known as sandlace, is
listed as endangered by the FWS. Loss
of habitat to residential and agricultural
development is the most serious threat to
the upland scrub community in which
Small's jointweed is found. At least two
thirds of the original pine scrub
vegetation in south central Florida has
been cleared.
3.17.1 General Life History
Small's jointweed is a sprawling shrub
with many branches that zigzag along
the ground forming dense mats. Lower
parts of creeping branches have reddish-
brown bark that cracks and separates in
interlacing strips. The leaves are 0.1 to
0.3 inches in length and are needle-like
and fleshy. Small white, pink, or yellow
petal-like sepals are present when the
plant flowers.
This plant is restricted to the pure white
sandy ridges in the scrub of the southern
Florida Lakes Region, where 40 to 50
percent of the scrub community is open,
bare sand. The shrub's range is in
Highlands, Polk, Osceola, and Orange
counties, Florida.
3.17.2 Project Area
Small's jointweed is found in central
Florida, and the FNAI and FWS do not
document small's jointweed occuring in
Hillsborough County (FNAI 2001; FWS
2001). Surveys conducted on the
reservoir site and along the pipeline
corridor did not indicate the presence of
this species.
3.18 PYGMY FRINGE TREE
The pygmy fringe tree (Chionanthus
pygmaeus) is listed as endangered by the
FWS, primarily because of habitat loss
due to residential development and to
citrus groves. Although locally
abundant, development of a few more
large citrus groves within its range could
severely impact the pygmy fringe tree.
33
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Biological Assessment
3.18.1 General Life History
The pygmy fringe tree grows as a shrub
that may be less than 1 meter tall, but
may grow as tall as 2 to 4 meters. This
small scrub tree blooms in March, with
four white fused petals in shown
panicles. The pygmy fringe tree bears
fruits that are purple drupes 2 to 2.5 cm
long.
The pygmy fringe tree is endemic to
Florida, occurring in Lake, Osceola, and
Hillsborough Counties and at sites along
the Lake Wales Ridge in Highlands and
Polk Counties. This species is found
primarily in scrub habitats along the
coasts and sand ridges of central Florida.
3.18.2 Project Area
The FNAI documents the presence of
the pygmy fringe tree in Hillsborough
County, although the species has not
been documented on the project site.
3.19 FLORIDA GOLDEN ASTER
Residential and commercial
development poses the greatest threat to
the Florida golden aster (Chrysopsis
floridand). Added threats include
mowing, dumping, excessive grazing,
and off-road vehicle damage.
Additionally, this species' restricted
distribution has contributed to its decline
and endangered status.
3.19.1 General Life History
A member of the Asteraceae family, the
Florida golden aster is a perennial herb
showing yellow flowers in mature
specimens. Young plants of this species
forms rosettes with leaves covered in
dense, white, short-wooly hairs. As the
plant matures, upright stems grow from
the rosettes to a height of 0.3 to 0.4
meters, with obovate-elliptic, hairy
leaves. Flower heads are clustered and
flat-topped, with yellow rays and central
discs. The species is short-lived and
reproduces by seeds, which are dispersed
by wind.
The Florida golden aster primarily
occurs in scrub habitats where there is
well-drained fine sand. It grows best in
open, sunny areas.
The distribution of the Florida golden
aster includes Hillsborough and Hardee
Counties, and in recent years has been
collected in Manatee County.
Historically, populations occurred on St.
Petersburg Beach and Bradenton Beach,
but have since been destroyed.
3.19.2 Project Area
The FNAI and FWS document Florida
golden aster populations occurring in
Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties,
although biologists have not found this
species on the proposed reservoir site.
34
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Biological Assessment
PART 4 POTENTIAL
IMPACTS OF THE
PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE
Development of the Tampa Bay
Regional Reservoir Project could impact
the existing environment in the project
area in several ways. Construction of
the reservoir would impact numerous
wetland and upland habitats, and the
associated wildlife species.
Construction of the water transmission
pipeline, access roads, and ancillary
facilities would result in temporary
disturbances to wildlife and habitats.
Freshwater withdrawals would only
minimally affect salinities within Tampa
Bay and its tributaries, with a predicted
shift in the Alafia River isohaline
migrating only 0.24 mile upstream. This
part of the report addresses the extent to
which the federally threatened or
endangered species would be impacted
by these changes.
4.1 WOOD STORK
Wood storks have been observed
foraging in marsh wetlands located
within the proposed reservoir site. No
rookeries or nests have been observed on
site and no sign of rookeries were
observed during the first four months of
1999 and 2000. Surveys in 1999 and
2000 indicate that impacts to the
foraging habitat of the wood stork would
occur as a result of the project -
construction and operation; however,
impacts to nesting areas or rookeries
would not occur. It is therefore
concluded that the proposed project is
not likely to adversely affect the wood
stork.
4.2 FLORIDA SCRUB JAY
Surveys were conducted following FWC
Nongame Wildlife Program Technical
Report No. 8 guidelines (Fitzpatrick et
al. 1991). The purpose of the surveys
was to determine the presence of scrub
jays within the Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir Project area and, if present, to
document the population. Although an
area of potential scrub jay habitat was
identified at the reservoir site, no scrub
jays were observed. The survey did not
identify any scrub jay habitat within the
transmission pipeline corridor. The
footprint of the proposed reservoir was
redesigned to avoid this habitat;
therefore, the proposed project is not
likely to adversely affect the Florida
scrub jay.
4.3 BALD EAGLE
Bald eagles are known to occur in the
vicinity of the project site; however,
only one individual was observed in
flight over the reservoir site. Because no
nests have been observed or recorded on
the reservoir site or within the pipeline
corridor, the project is not anticipated to
adversely affect the bald eagle. Creation
of the proposed reservoir would likely
provide additional foraging habitat for
Bald eagles.
4.4 RED-COCKADED
WOODPECKER
Impacts as a result of the proposed
project are not expected to adversely
affect the red-cockaded wookpecker.
The Florida Natural Areas Inventory
(FNAI) does not list the red-cockaded
woodpecker as occurring in
Hillsborough, Pasco, or Pinnellas
counties. This species was not found
during surveys of the regional reservoir
site and pipeline corridor and therefore
construction and operation of the project
would not likely impact the species.
35
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Biological Assessment
4.5 PEREGRINE FALCON
Impacts as a result of the proposed
project are not expected to adversely
affect the peregrine falcon. The FNAI
lists the peregrine falcon as having
potential to occur in Hillsborough,
Pasco, and Pinnellas counties. This
species has not been observed on
reservoir project site or pipeline corridor
and the project would not likely impact
the species.
4.6 ENDANGERED AND
THREATENED SEA TURTLES
Decreases in freshwater inflow into
Tampa Bay are not expected to
adversely affect sea turtle populations.
Sea turtles are highly migratory, travel
great distances to forage and are capable
of moving into preferred salinity
habitats. In addition, all sea turtle
species have salt glands that
mechanically reduce water and salt flux,
and physiological mechanisms that work
to actively extrude gained salt, obtain
free water, and regulate the internal ionic
balance. Because nesting activities
t>ccur almost exclusively on the beaches
facing the Gulf of Mexico outside of
Tampa Bay proper, potential small
salinity changes within the bay should
have no effect on sea turtle nesting.
4.7 AMERICAN ALLIGATOR
American alligators occur in creeks,
streams, and other wetlands throughout
Hillsborough County. They have been
observed on the western portion of the
reservoir site in two open-water bodies /
but they have not been observed within
the transmission pipeline corridor.
Although some loss of suitable habitat
would occur as a result of the project,
the proposed project is not likely to
adversely affect the American alligator
due to a recent increase in population
and the abundance of habitat in the
project area.
4.8 EASTERN INDIGO SNAKE
Individual indigo snakes were observed
on the reservoir site on two occasions.
One sighting was within the northern
hardwood forest associated with Doe
Branch. The second sighting was within
an oak-shrouded fence line in the west-
central portion of the proposed reservoir
site.
Potential impacts to the indigo snake are
associated with habitat loss, specifically
wetland hardwood forest. However, due
to the large expanse of similar habitats in
the project vicinity, the proposed project
is not likely to adversely affect the
eastern indigo snake.
4.9 GULF STURGEON
The Gulf sturgeon is threatened sub-
species of the Atlantic sturgeon, and
once inhabited the Hillsborough River
and Tampa Bay. Sub-adult and adult
Gulf sturgeon migrate upstream to
spawn in rivers draining to the Gulf of
Mexico from early spring through the
end of May. In late September to early
October, adults migrate downstream to
estuarine habitats until they are at least
two years old. Currently, the FMRI is
leading a cooperative effort to release a
limited number of Gulf sturgeons into
parts of the Hillsborough River. Due to
the sturgeon's mobility, the proposed
project is not likely to adversely impact
the Gulf sturgeon.
4.10 FLORIDA MANATEE
The Florida manatee is protected by both
federal and state wildlife agencies and is
listed as endangered. They inhabit
freshwater, brackish, and marine habitats
and move freely between salinity
extremes. If the water is deep enough
36
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Biological Assessment
and the currents are not too strong,
manatees will travel great distances up
coastal rivers. Because manatees move
freely between salinity extremes,
proposed freshwater withdrawals would
have no adverse impacts on this species.
4.11 THREATENED AND
ENDANGERED PLANTS
Impacts as a result of the proposed
project are not expected to adversely
affect endangered and threatened plant
species. Florida bonamia, pygmy fringe
tree and Florida golden aster are
documented to occur in Hillsborough
County, but have not been found on the
proposed project site. Beautiful pawpaw
and Small's jointweed are not
documented by the FNAI or FWS to
occur in Hillsborough County, and are
therefore not likely to be impacted by
the proposed project.
37
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Biological Assessment
PARTS
CONCLUSIONS
The preferred alternative for the
proposed Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir Project is designed to provide
a consistent, drought-resistant source of
water that will meet the region's water
needs through 2010. The project
involves construction of a 1,100-acre
reservoir, transmission pipeline, and
associated infrastructure.
The four endangered and one threatened
sea turtle species found in Tampa Bay
will not be affected by the proposed
project. Sea turtles are highly mobile
and would travel great distances to
preferred reproductive and foraging
habitats. All four species have
adaptations to handle a wide range of
salinities. In addition, sea turtle nesting
typically occurs on the beaches facing
the Gulf of Mexico, outside of Tampa
Bay proper, which is an area not affected
by the proposed project.
The wood stork, American alligator, and
eastern indigo snake have all been
documented on the reservoir site and
will experience some habitat loss;
however, the proposed project is not
likely to adversely affect these species.
No wood stork rookeries or nests have
been observed in the project area.
Although the American alligator and
eastern indigo snake will lose suitable
habitat due to reservoir construction,
other suitable habitat occurs in the areas
around the reservoir site. It is therefore
concluded that the proposed project is
not likely to adversely affect these
species.
Construction of the Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir Project will impact habitats
and wildlife on the reservoir site, and
freshwater withdrawals for the reservoir
may minimally increase salinities in the
Alafia River, Hillsborough River, Tampa
Bypass Canal, and Tampa Bay.
Freshwater withdrawals are predicted to
shift the Alafia River isohaline only 0.24
mile upstream. Five endangered and six
threatened species have been identified
in the project area. A list of potential
impacts to these species is listed in Table
5-1.
Neither the Florida scrub jay, red-
cockaded woodpecker, bald eagle, or
peregrine falcon would be affected by
the proposed project. Both the Florida
scrub jay or red-cockaded woodpecker
habitat is not found on the project area or
in potentially impacted areas, and no
bald eagle or peregrine falcon nests were
found on the reservoir site or along the
pipeline corridor. Since these species
are not found utilizing potentially
impacted areas, the proposed project is
not likely to adversely affect these
species.
The proposed project will not affect the
gulf sturgeon and Florida manatee, both
highly mobile species. Both species are
documented in Tampa Bay and
associated tributaries, and move freely
between salinity extremes; therefore the
minimal changes in salinity are not
expected to adversely affect these
species.
The four endangered and one threatened
plant species present would not be
affected by the proposed project.
Impacts as a result of the proposed
project are not expected to adversely
38
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Biological Assessment
Table 5-1
SUMMARY OF ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES
Common Name
Potential Impacts Potential Impact Effects
Wood Stork
Florida Scrub Jay
Bald Eagle
Red-cockaded
Woodpecker
Peregrine Falcon
Hawksbill Sea Turtle
Green Sea Turtle
Kemp's ridley Sea Turtle
Loggerhead Sea Turtle
Leatherback Sea Turtle
American Alligator
Eastern Indigo Snake
Gulf Sturgeon
Florida Manatee
Beautiful PawPaw
Florida Bonamia
Small's Jointweed
Pygmy Fringe Tree
Florida Golden Aster
Loss of habitat May affect, not likely to adversely affect
None, habitat not lost No effect
No nests present Not likely to adversely effect
None, habitat not lost No effect
None, habitat not lost
None, highly mobile
None, highly mobile
None, highly mobile
None, highly mobile
None, highly mobile
Loss of habitat
Loss of habitat
None, highly mobile
None, highly mobile
None, habitat not lost
None, habitat not lost
None, habitat not lost
None, habitat not lost
None, habitat not lost
No effect
No effect
No effect
No effect
No effect
No effect
May affect, not likely to adversely affect
May affect, not likely to adversely affect
No effect
No effect
No effect
No effect
No effect
No effect
No effect
affect the endangered and threatened
plant species.
5.1 MITIGATION MEASURES
Three mitigation sites are proposed in
the vicinity of the Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir Project to compensate for
unavoidable wetland impacts associated
with the project (Figure 5-1). The three
sites are:
East Pruitt/Carlton-Smith Site
West Pruitt Site
North Carlton-Smith Site
Based on anticipated mitigation
requirements, all three sites would need
to be developed to meet the mitigation
needs for the proposed reservoir project.
The mitigation sites would be developed
near the Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
Project. In addition, the acquisition and
preservation of other sites are still being
considered as potential mitigation
opportunities in the event that the
proposed overall plan does not meet
permitting requirements.
39
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Biological Assessment
East Pruitt/Carlton-Smith Mitigation
Site. The East Pruitt/Carlton-Smith Site
lies approximately 5.5 miles southeast of
the Alafia River in Hillsborough County
and is adjacent to the proposed reservoir
site. The mitigation site encompasses
approximately 367 acres and is located
between the proposed Tampa Bay
Regional Reservoir and County Road
(C.R.) 39 in southeastern Hillsborough
County. The site is currently used for
cattle and horse grazing with some sod
farming areas.
A large association of herbaceous and
forested wetland creation and
enhancement is proposed over the
central portion of the mitigation site. A
smaller second area of wetland creation
lies adjacent to the south. In addition
grading is proposed within the southern
extent of Doe Branch Creek to
reestablish natural creek grades lost
through historic channeling. The onsite
and surrounding drainage basins for each
mitigation area have been surveyed,
quantified, and modeled in order to
delineate existing drainage basins and
surface water flow direction.
Hillsborough County has mapped a
small area of the East Pruitt/Carlton-
Smith Site, at the northern extent of Doe
Branch creek, with the Significant
Wildlife Habitat designation. The
mapped Significant Wildlife Habitat
areas on the site would be enhanced by
the proposed wetland mitigation and
enhancement plans. In part, this would
occur by the proposed planting of a
natural upland tree buffer around
wetland mitigation sites up to 300 feet
wide. This mitigation concept would
provide ecological benefits to the
property by increasing natural habitat
cover and diversity, particularly along
wetland ecotones. In addition, the
mitigation areas could provide a linkage
to nearby preservation and recreation
lands owned by Hillsborough County
and SWFWMD.
The final conceptual mitigation plans
propose a total of approximately 216
acres of habitat improvements. This
includes approximately 102 acres of
wetland mitigation and enhancement and
114 acres of surrounding upland buffer
restoration. Correspondence with
Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP) and Hillsborough
County Environmental Protection
Commission (EPC), it appears highly
unlikely that either agency would award
open water mitigation credit for the
proposed reservoir. Therefore an
additional 14 acres of open water would
have to be created within the three
mitigation areas.
The East Pruitt/Carlton-Smith Site
would be expected to provide the
anticipated required mitigation for the
following agencies: FDEP,
approximately 31 percent; EPC,
approximately 35 percent; and U.S
Army Corps of Engineers (COE),
approximately 57 percent.
West Pruitt Mitigation Site. The West
Pruitt Site lies approximately five miles
southeast of the Alafia River in
Hillsborough County and is adjacent to
the west side of the proposed reservoir
site. The site encompasses
approximately 850 acres and is located
south of Boyette Road and east of
Hobson-Simmons Road in southeastern
Hillsborough County. The site is
currently used for cattle grazing and
other agricultural activities such as row
crops. Stallion and Cabbage Hammock
40
-------
Gorman Road
Browning Road
North
Carlton-Smith
Mitigation Site
Boyette Road
Doe
Branch
West Pruitt
Mitigation Site
Stallion
Hammock
:abigge
Reservoir
Site
(By Others)
Chito
Branch
East Pruitt^
Carlton-Smith
Mitigation Site
Wendel Ave.
Reservoir Project Boundary
Figure 5-1
TAMPA BAY REGIONAL RESERVOIR
PROJECT DEIS
PROPOSED MITIGATION SITES
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Draft Biological Assessment
(with the Long Flat Creek tributary)
traverses the central portion of the West
Pruitt property where they converge and
drain northward to Coleman Hammock
and then to Fishawk Creek, which is a
tributary to the Alafia River.
Four mitigation areas are situated within
the western half of the West Pruitt
property. Constructing additional areas
of inundation and planting with
herbaceous species would expand two
separate existing marsh systems. Two
other areas of mixed hardwood and
cypress wetlands would be constructed,
one as a flow-through system and the
other located adjacent to a forested
floodplain. These areas would also be
planted with tree species. In addition,
eight cypress wetlands would be
enhanced by hydrological
improvements.
Like the East Pruitt/Carlton-Smith
Mitigation Site, the West Pruitt
Mitigation Site was previously mapped
by Hillsborough County and designated
as Significant Wildlife Habitat. This
designation covers the majority of the
southern, eastern, and northern site and
completely overlaps the Stream Swamps
that drain northward through the
property. This mitigation site would
also be enhanced with proposed
plantings of natural upland trees
providing ecological benefits to the
property.
The conceptual mitigation plan for this
site totals approximately 295 acres of
habitat improvements. This includes
approximately 59 acres of wetland
mitigation and 83 acres of wetland
enhancement and 153 acres of
surrounding upland buffer restoration.
The West Pruitt site is expected to
provide approximately 29 percent of the
FDEP, 35 percent of the EPC, and 62
percent of the COE requirements for the
overall Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
Project's wetland impacts.
North Carlton-Smith Site
The North Carlton-Smith Site is located
northeast of the boundary of the
reservoir project, approximately 3 miles
south of the Alafia River. The site
encompasses approximately 1,000 acres
and is located east of Browning Road,
west of County Road 39, and one mile
south of Lithia Pinecrest Road (County
Road 640). The southern limit of the
site is traversed by Chito Branch, which
drains to the east. Northern drainages on
the property lead to Doe Branch, in the
southwest. Currently, the land is used
for cattle grazing and is owned by
Carlton-Smith.
Approximately 199 acres of habitat
improvements are proposed for this
mitigation site. This includes
approximately 119 acres of wetland
mitigation and 80 acres of wetland
enhancement. Eight systems are
included in the mitigation plan for this
site. The plans include creation of
herbaceous wetland, wet prairies, and
mixed hardwood wetlands, enhancement
of mixed hardwoods, herbaceous, and
open water wetlands, and creation of a
natural upland buffer around wetland
areas.
42
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project Draft Biological Assessment
LITERATURE CITED
Ackerman, B.B., T.D. Pitchford, B.L. Weigle, J.E. Reynolds, III, R.S. Wells, and M.A.
Baran. 1999. Marine mammals, in: Baywide Environmental Monitoring Report,
1993-1998, Tampa Bay, Florida. J.R. Pribble, A.J. Janicki, and H. Greening, eds.
Technical Publication 07-99. St. Petersburg, FL.
Bjorndal, K.A. 1985. Nutritional ecology of sea turtles. Copeia. 736, 1985.
Bjomdal, K. A. 1996. Foraging ecology and nutrition of sea turtles, in: Biology of Sea
Turtles. Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick, eds. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Bjorndal, K. A. and A.B. Bolten. 1988. Growth rates of immature green turtles, Chelonia
mydas, on feeding grounds in the southern Bahamas. Copeia. 555, 1988.
Black and Veatch. November 1998. Master Water Plan, Alternative System
Configurations, Final Report. Clearwater, Florida.
Burke, V.J., Morreale, S.J., and A.G.J. Rhodin. 1993. Lepidochelys kempi (Kemp's ridley
sea turtle) and Caretta caretta (loggerhead sea turtle) diet. Herpetol. Rev. 24, 31.
Carr, A. 1986. Rips, FADS, and little loggerheads. Bioscience, 36, 92-100.
Carr, A. 1987. New perspectives on the pelagic stage of sea turtle development. Conserv.
Biol. 1, 103.
Carr, A., Heath, H., and Ogren, L. 1966. The ecology and migrations of sea turtles: the
hawksbill turtle in the Caribbean Sea. Am. Mus. Novit. 2248, 1.
Coastal Environmental and PBS&J, Inc. 1998. Cumulative Impact Analysis for Master
Water Plan Projects. Prepared for West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority.
Coastal Environmental/PBS&J, Inc., St. Petersburg, FL.
Conant, R. and J.T. Collins. 1991. Reptiles and Amphibians, Eastern and Central North
America. Third edition. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston New York.
Curnutt, J.L. 1996. Threatened Southern Bald Eagle, in: Rare and Endangered Biota of
Florida. J.A. Rodgers, Jr., H.W. Kale II, and H.T. Smith, eds. University Press of
Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Ehrhart, L.M. 1982. A review of sea turtle reproduction, in: Biology and Conservation of
Sea Turtles. Bjorndal, K.A., ed. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
LC-l
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project Draft Biological Assessment
Fitzpatrick, J.W., G. E. Woolfenden, M.T. Kopeny. 1991. Ecology and Development-
Related Requirements of the Florida Scrub Jay (Aphelocoma Coerulescens
coerulescens). Office of Environmental Services. Florida Game and Fresh Water
Fish Commission, Tallahassee, FL.
Fitzpatrick, J.W., B. Pranty, and B. Stith. 1994. Florida scrub jay Statewide Map 1992-
1993. Archbold Biological Station, Lake Placid, Florida.
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (FGFWFC). 1997. Florida's
Endangered Species and Species of Special Concern, Official Lists. Tallahassee,
FL.
Florida Power and Light Company. 1982. The West Indian Manatee in Florida. FPL
Corporate Communications, Miami, FL.
FMRI. 2000. http://www.fmri.usf.edu/fish/
FWS 1999. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. South Florida Multi-Species Recovery
Plan. Atlanta, Georgia. 2172 pp.
FWS 2000. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, http://www.endanuered.fws.uov
FWS 2001. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Endangered Species: Species
Accounts.
HDR Engineering, Inc. 1998. Water Use Permit Application. Attachment la. Prepared
by HDR Engineering, Inc., for the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority.
HDR Engineering, Inc. 1999. Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project. Clearwater,
Florida.
HDR Engineering, Inc. 2000a. Regional Reservoir Transmission Main, Basis of Design
Report. Tampa, Florida.
HDR Engineering Inc., 2000b. Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Joint Application for
Environmental Resource Permit. Submitted to the Southwest Florida Water
Management District, 2379 Broad Street, Brooksville, Florida 34609.
Helfman, G.S., Collette, B.B. and Facey, D.E. 1997. The Diversity of Fishes. Blackwell
Science, Inc. Maiden, Massachusetts.
LC-2
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project Draft Biological Assessment
Meylan, A.B. 1984. Feeding ecology of the hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricatd):
Spongivory as a feeding niche in the coral reef community, dissertation,
University of Florida, Gainesville.
Meylan, A., A. Redlow, A. Mosier, K. Moody, and A. Foley. 1999. Occurrence and
distribution of sea turtles in Tampa Bay, Florida, in: Baywide Environmental
Monitoring Report, 1993-1998, Tampa Bay, Florida. J.R. Fribble, A.J. Janicki,
and H. Greening, eds. Technical Publication 07-99. St. Petersburg, FL.
Miller, T. 1987. Knotting: A previously undescribed feeding behavior in muraenid eels.
Cope/al987:1055-1057.
Moler, P. E. 1992. Eastern indigo snake, in: Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida:
Volume III. Amphibians and Reptiles. Paul E. Moler, ed. University Press of
Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Mortimer, J.A. 1982. Feeding ecology of sea turtles, in: Biology and Conservation of Sea
Turtles, Bjorndal, K.A., ed. Smithsonian Press, Washington, D.C. p. 103.
Musick, J.A. and C.J. Limpus. 1996. Habitat utilization and migration in juvenile sea
turtles, in: Biology of Sea Turtles. Lutz, P.L. and J.A. Musick, eds. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL.
NMFS. 2001. Endangered Species: Leatherback Sea Turtles.
WAVw.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/turtles/leatherback.html
Ogden, J.C. 1996. Endangered Wood Stork, In: Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida.
J.A. Rodgers, Jr., H.W. Kale II, and H.T. Smith, eds. University Press of Florida,
Gainesville, FL.
Ogren, L.H. 1989. Distribution of juvenile and subadult Kemp's ridley turtles:
Preliminary results from the 1984-1987 surveys, in: Proc. Ist Int. Symp. Kemp's
Ridley Sea Turtle Biology, Conservation and Management, Caillouet, C.W., Jr.
and Landry, A.M., Jr., eds. Sea Grant College Program, Galveston, TX, 116.
PBS&J. 1998. Assessment of the Potential Impacts of the Tampa Bay Water
Surface Water Projects on Tampa Bay. Prepared for Tampa Bay Water. PBS&J,
Inc., 2535 Landmark Drive, Suite 221, Clearwater, FL.
PBS&J. 1998. Assessment of the Potential Impacts of the Tampa Bay Water Surface
Water Projects on Tampa Bay. Prepared for Tampa Bay Water. PBS&J, Inc.,
2535 Landmark Drive, Suite 221, Clearwater, FL.
Woolfenden, G.E. 1996. Threatened Florida Scrub Jay, In: Rare and Endangered Biota
of Florida. J.A. Rodgers, Jr., H.W. Kale II, and H.T. Smith, eds. University Press
of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
LC-3
-------
AFFEJND1X B - MITIGATION SUMMARY
-------
TAMPA BAY REGIONAL RESERVOIR, CONCEPTUAL
MITIGATION PLAN SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
Tampa Bay Water's Regional Reservoir Project (Reservoir Project) proposes to construct
a 1,100-acre reservoir to meet future water supply needs. Construction of the reservoir
would have permanent impacts to wetlands that currently exist within the proposed
reservoir footprint, pipeline, and access roads. The following summarizes the proposed
mitigation plan for those impacts, as presented by Tampa Bay Water in the Master Water
Plan Mitigation Project Basis of Design Report (BODR) (URS Corporation Southern,
2001a,b,c).
Three mitigation sites were presented to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), the Hillsborough County
Environmental Protection Commission (EPC), and other agencies as potential mitigation
areas. The sites were:
East Pruitt/Carlton-Smith Site
West Pruitt Site
North Carlton-Smith Site
The three sites were chosen for their proximity to the proposed reservoir location, the
availability of appropriate habitat, and the presence of Significant Wildlife Habitat as
designated by Hillsborough County Planning and Growth Management Department.
Coordination with lead permitting agencies includes the COE for federal permits, the
FDEP for the Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) application, and the Environmental
Protection Commission of Hillsborough County (EPC) for county approval.
PURPOSE AND NEED
The proposed wetland mitigation areas serve as compensation for unavoidable permanent
herbaceous and forested wetland impacts associated with the proposed Reservoir Project.
According to the ERP application (HDR, 2000), approximately 169 acres have been
designated as impacted wetlands based on FDEP and EPC wetland jurisdiction, and 185
acres based on COE wetland jurisdiction. These wetlands are predominantly herbaceous
with a small forested wetland component. Using the Wetland Rapid Assessment
Procedure (WRAP), Tampa Bay Water estimated the COE jurisdictional wetlands
impacted by the Reservoir Project to have a functional unit value (FUV) of 111.12.
These wetlands will be mitigated for on the three proposed sites, East Pruitt/Carlton-
Smith Site, West Pruitt Site, and North Carlton-Smith Site by creating new wetlands,
restoring impacted wetlands, and enhancing existing wetlands on the properties.
-------
SITE SELECTION PROCESS
Candidate mitigation sites in the Alafia River basin underwent an extensive review and
were narrowed down to the sites presented for agency comment. The three proposed
mitigation properties are within the reservoir project boundary (Figure 1) and are within
the Alafia River basin. The sites were chosen because they can provide wetland
mitigation adjacent to the reservoir project, thereby compensating for impacts to wetland-
dependent fish and wildlife resources in proximity to the wetland impact area. In
addition, the sites contain large areas designated by Hillsborough County as Significant
Wildlife Habitat that can benefit from the proposed wetland mitigation (URS Corporation
Southern, 200la).
The Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) will acquire the
properties associated with the three mitigation areas as part of an acquisition totaling
approximately 5,200 acres. The SWFWMD has eminent domain authority for this
acquisition.
SITE LOCATIONS
All three proposed mitigation sites are within or adjacent to the reservoir project
boundary (Figure 1) and within the Alafia River basin in Hillsborough County. The
Alafia River is between 5 and 6 miles northwest of the mitigation sites.
East Pruitt/Carlton-Smith Site
The East Pruitt/Carlton-Smith site encompasses approximately 367 acres, between the
proposed Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir and County Road 39. The western boundary of
the site is comprised of the proposed reservoir and Doe Branch creek, which is the major
site-drainage. Chito Branch forms the eastern boundary of the mitigation site (Figure 1).
Currently, the land is used for cattle and horse grazing with some sod farming areas. The
site is located on lands currently owned by Pruitt and Carlton-Smith.
West Pruitt Site
The West Pruitt Site encompasses approximately 850 acres and is located to the west side
of the proposed reservoir site, South of Boyette Road and east of Hobson-Simmons Road.
Stallion Hammock and Cabbage Hammock traverse the central portion of the property
(Figure 1). Row crops, cattle grazing, and other agricultural activities are the current land
use at the site.
North Carlton-Smith Site
The North Carlton-Smith Site is located northeast of the boundary of the Reservoir
Project, approximately 3 miles south of the Alafia River. The site encompasses
approximately 1,000 acres and is located east of Browning Road, west of County Road
39, and one mile south of Lithia Pinecrest Road (County Road 640). The southern limit
of the site is traversed by the Chito Branch, which drains to the east. Northern drainages
on the property lead to Doe Branch, in the southwest. Currently, the land is used for
cattle grazing.
-------
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The following describes the current environmental conditions on the three properties
proposed as mitigation sites. More detailed descriptions s can be found in the Master
Water Plan Mitigation Project BODRs (URS Corporation Southern, 2001a,b,c).
Landscape Setting
The mitigation project sites are located in a remote rural area of Hillsborough County
where there is little to no residential and commercial development. The majority of
vegetation on the properties has historically been cleared for agricultural activities.
Uplands across the sites are fairly flat with a primary cover of bahia grass (Paspalum
notatum), scattered longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), and saw palmetto (Serenoa repens).
Wetlands located on the properties contain water high in tannin concentration with low to
moderate turbidity. The presence of cattle and agricultural activities could lead to high
aquatic nutrient and bacteria concentrations on the site.
East Pruitt/Carlton-Smith Site
The primary land use on this mitigation project site is as cattle and horse grazing on
cropland, pastureland, and improved pasture. In the east portion of the site live oak
(Quercus virginiand) communities are associated with Chito Branch. Approximately 50
residences are located on Wendel Avenue to the Southeast of the site. Wetland
vegetative communities are interspersed across the site and include stream swamp,
freshwater marshes, emergent aquatic vegetation, dog fennel, low marsh grasses, and wet
prairies. These communities are generally in poor ecological condition with ditches for
flood control that have altered historic drainage patterns and caused soil erosion.
West Pruitt Site
This mitigation project site contains agricultural land as well as some natural
communities in the northwestern and northeastern portions. Management of the property
currently serves as cattle grazing on cropland and pastureland and as row crops. Wetland
vegetative communities are interspersed across the site. These communities include
stream swamps, cypress, mixed forested wetland, and freshwater marsh. The wetland
systems are in average ecological condition with drainage patterns altered from historic
condition using ditches for flood control. Erosion is present near these ditches and along
the lower elevations of fields adjacent to wetland systems.
North Carlton-Smith Site
Land on this site is primarily used for cattle grazing or as pastureland. The majority of
upland and wetland vegetative communities have been cleared and excavated for
agricultural activities, except in some stream and lake swamps and where live oak occurs
along Chito Branch and smaller tributaries. Wetland vegetation is scattered across the
site and includes communities such as stream swamps, freshwater marsh, wet prairies,
and emergent aquatic vegetation. These wetland systems are in moderate, to often poor,
ecological condition. Numerous small ditches, cattle watering holes, and spoil piles have
altered historic drainage patterns.
-------
Soils
According to the Soil Survey of Hillsborough County (1989), the dominant soil
classifications in the mitigation sites are Myakka fine sand, Basinger-Holopaw-Samsula
soils, depressional, Malabar fine sand, Smyrna fine sand, and St. Johns fine sand. In
uplands, the high water table depth varies between 0 and -1.0 foot between June and
November. During prolonged dry periods, water can recede to a depth of 40 inches and
even during normal hydric conditions permeability is rapid in the surface and subsurface
layers. Hydric soils underlay the wetlands on the sites and are classified as Basinger-
Holopaw-Samsula soils, depressional, Malabar fine sand, and St. Johns fine sand. Hand
auger borings in wetland areas indicate fairly acidic soils with an organic content ranging
from 3.6 to 8.5 percent.
Hydrology
Extensive hydrologic and hydraulic modeling was performed for the project area to
analyze and evaluate the existing drainage conditions. This included identifying seasonal
high water elevations (SHW) and drainage areas, where possible.
East Pruitt/Carlton-Smith Site
A lack of trees or shrubs within the basin-marshes at this site prevented definitive
establishment of SHW. Consequently, SHW was set at the wetlands overflow contour
elevation (URS Corporation Southern, 200la). The majority of the drainage area at the
site drains to Doe Branch. Basin-Marshes rely on rainfall and groundwater for base-flow
conditions because there are no contributing creeks, rivers, or inflows to them. Man-
made ditches provide outflow from one wetland to another and to Doe Branch, which
also receives inflow from the south. Currently, approximately 1,176 acres drain from
Wendel Avenue, Carlton-Smith and Cytec Brewster areas to Doe Branch.
Approximately 272 acres of this drainage area enter wetland systems on the property
(URS Corporation Southern, 200la).
West Pruitt Site
Hydrologic and hydraulic modeling was performed on a drainage area of approximately
521 acres. Approximately 104 acres drain to the west and discharge off-site. The
remaining 417 acres drain to the east and discharge into Stallion Hammock. Cypress
swamps on the site are dependent on rainfall and groundwater for base-flow conditions
because no contributing inflows into these swamps are present. Existing outflows are
man-made ditches between wetlands and to Stallion Hammock.
Existing SHW for the cypress swamps and open water cattle ponds were determined in
August 2000. Most wetlands on the site receive overflow from adjacent wetlands.
Approximately 77 acres currently drain directly to three wetlands on the property that are
sites for proposed mitigation (URS Corporation Southern, 200 Ib).
-------
North Carlton-Smith Site
Extensive modeling was performed on the 976-acre drainage area on the mitigation site.
The models included all wetland systems, northern inflows and southern discharges.
Approximately 730 acres drain to the southwest and discharge into Fishawk Creek. The
remaining 247 acres drain to the southeast and discharge to Chito Branch. Small swamps
on the site are dependent on rainfall and groundwater for base-flow conditions because of
the lack of contributing creeks, rivers, or other inflows. Natural tributaries and man-
made ditches provide outflows to Fishawk Creek and Chito Branch.
Existing SHW for the swamps, marshes, and open water ponds on the site were
determined during the winter drought period from January to April, 2001. The wetland
sites have been distributed into six groups based on proximity to drainages.
Interconnecting ditches, pipes, and drainage systems provide overflow to the wetlands.
Vegetation
The mitigation sites are primarily used for agricultural purposes such as livestock grazing
and crop production. As a result, bahia grass, crab grass (Digitaria sp.), slash pine (Pinus
elliottif), and longleaf pine are vegetative covers common to all three sites.
East Pruitt/Carlton-Smith Site
Upland vegetation on this mitigation site is dominated by improved pastures containing
species such as bahia grass and crab grass as well as longleaf pine and slash pine that do
not form a solid canopy. Small sod farms are present in other field areas but are not
widespread. Throughout the site, upland habitat diversity is low because of historical
land-clearing and current land management practices.
West Pruitt Site
Cropland and pastureland dominates the vegetation at the West Pruitt mitigation site.
Species such as bahia grass and crabgrass comprise the majority of the ground cover and
longleaf pine and slash pine are scattered across the site. Row crops and remnant furrows
that have been invaded by weedy pioneering species are present in other areas of the site.
Cogongrass (Imperata cylindricd), a detrimental invasive species, is present in a few
areas. Remnant pine flatwoods and pine-mesic oak are present on the northern portion of
the property. These areas will complement the proposed mitigation plan (URS
Corporation Southern, 200 Ib).
North Carlton-Smith Site
Upland vegetative communities on the North Carlton-Smith Site are dominated by
ground cover species such as bahia grass, crabgrass, dog fennel, and other species
common to pastureland habitat. Open field areas contain pioneering species that are
subjected to intense grazing and active management practices that limit their growth.
Pine flatwoods extend from the north portion of the property. Although this forested area
-------
is not widespread, it will complement the proposed mitigation plan by serving as a
wildlife corridor. The entire property supports few natural upland habitats.
Wetlands
Existing wetland vegetation on the three sites proposed for mitigation are typical of
systems in west-central Florida. Jurisdictional wetlands were delineated according to
Florida Administrative Code 62-340 for the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection and Chapter 1-11 for the Environmental Protection Commission of
Hillsborough County. To establish federal wetlands Jurisdictional limits, the COE's
Wetland Delineation Manual, 1987, was used. Jurisdictional wetlands were identified,
marked, land-surveyed, plotted, and reviewed by qualified biologists (URS Corporation
Southern, 2001a,b,c). Formal approval from all permitting agencies is being pursued.
East Pruitt/Carlton-Smith Site
Naturally occurring wetlands on this site include stream swamps, freshwater marshes,
and wet prairies. Doe Branch contains stream swamp on the site but it has been
channellized and partially cleared. Live oaks on spoil mounds, scattered cabbage palm
(Sabalpalmetto), and other mesic oak species are present along the creek. Small fill
roads crossing Doe Branch1 and Chito Branch cross the site and provide a moderately
continuous corridor through the property that will complement the overall mitigation and
enhancement design (URS Corporation Southern, 200la).
Excavated ponds on the property support pickerelweed and floatingheart (Nymphoides
sp.) as well as nuisance species such as primrose willow (Ludwigia peruviana), cattails
(Typha sp.), water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), dog fennel (Eupatorium
capillifolium), and duckweed (Lemna sp.). No phosphate mining has occurred at this site
but cattle watering ponds represent small-scale disturbances to wetlands and associated
soils. These areas would be re-contoured to simulate more natural conditions (URS
Corporation Southern, 200la).
West Pruitt Site
Existing wetland types on this mitigation site are swamps, cypress, mixed forested
wetland habitat, and freshwater marsh. The floodplain areas of Stallion Hammock, Long
Flat Creek, Cabbage Hammock, Chapman Hammock, and Coleman Hammock provide a
mosaic of stream swamps and mixed wetland hardwoods on the site. These swamps
provide a refuge of habitats and a continuous corridor through the property that would
complement the proposed mitigation and enhancement plan.
Cypress domes present on the site vary in condition from good with evidence of seedling
recruitment, presence of hardwood transition species, established shrub and groundcover
species, and adequate levels of inundation, to systems with ditch disruption that have
altered flood storage elevations and inundation periods. Cattle grazing and numerous
field ditches have resulted in flow, soil, and vegetation disruption in approximately half
of these systems. Upland species have recruited into some of the wetlands and lower
than average rainfall in the past few years has aggravated wetland conditions.
-------
Freshwater marshes contain species typical of this wetland type but fringes adjacent to
agricultural fields contain nuisance species such as primrose willow. Open water and
wetland species, including excavated ponds, also support nuisance species, including
pickerelweed, cattails, torpedo grass (Panicum repens), and duckweed. No phosphate
mining has occurred on this mitigation site. Cattle watering ponds in some marshes
would be reconfigured and re-contoured to more natural conditions.
North Carlton-Smith Site
Existing wetland vegetation on this site are typical of those that occur in stream and lake
swamps, freshwater marshes, wet prairies, and emergent aquatic vegetation systems in
west-central Florida. Floodplain areas and tributaries to Chito Branch and Doe Branch
are crossed by fill roads, with and without culverts. Wetlands created by these access
roads are not extensive and do not contain natural ecotones because of frequent cattle
disturbance and proximity to adjacent pasturelands.
Several freshwater marshes on the site have been previously recontoured to create open
water areas with narrow littoral zones and adjacent wet prairies. These areas contain
species typical of that habitat type in the region. Wetland forest fringes and marshes
adjacent to agricultural fields contain nuisance species, primarily primrose willow and
torpedo grass. No phosphate mining has occurred on this mitigation site. Several cattle
watering ponds occur across the property and have been excavated in many of the
marshes, creating a moderate- to small-scale disturbance to wetlands and associated soils
on the property.
Significant Wildlife Habitat
Hillsborough County has designated land in the proposed mitigation properties as
Significant Wildlife Habitat. The proposed wetland mitigation and enhancement plans
would improve the wildlife habitat through planting natural upland tree buffers around
wetland mitigation sites. The buffers would increase natural habitat cover and diversity
in the area and link sites to nearby preservation and recreation lands.
East Pruitt/Carlton-Smith Site
A small area, at the northern extent of Doe Branch, was mapped by Hillsborough County
as Significant Wildlife Habitat. Approximately two miles west of the mitigation site,
larger areas along Stallion Hammock and Cabbage Hammock (on the West Pruitt Site)
are also designated as Significant Wildlife Habitat.
West Pruitt Site
Land designated as Significant Wildlife Habitat covers the majority of the southern,
eastern, and northern portions of the site and overlaps the Stream Swamps in the north
end of the property. The southern and central property areas, however, are now cleared
agricultural lands and do not support natural upland vegetative communities. Few
isolated natural pine forests still occur in the northern and northeastern portions of the
site.
-------
North Carlton-Smith Site
Designated Significant Wildlife Habitat occurs along Chito Branch at the southern
boundary of the site and overlaps the Stream Swamps that drain to the east. Another area
overlaps the band of Pine Flatwoods on the site's northern portion. Very few natural
upland habitats occur on the site.
Protected Species
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service were contacted to determine lists of potentially occurring species, and the Florida
Natural Areas Inventory databases of known protected species sightings were reviewed.
Surveys were conducted for protected species and their habitat on the proposed
mitigation properties. Seven species were identified onsite, including American alligator
(Alligator mississippiensis), wood stork (Mycteria americana), great blue heron (Ardea
herodias), sandhill crane (Grus canadensis), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus),
eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corias couperi), and Sherman's fox squirrel (Sciurus
niger shermani). Sandhill crane nesting was observed and documented in basin-marshes
on the East Pruitt/Carlton-Smith Site during Spring 2000 and 2001. Coordination with
state, federal, and local agencies will ensure no adverse impacts will occur to protected
species as a result of the mitigation process. Should it be necessary to prepare a protected
species mitigation plan, the ERP application will be amended following coordination
with permitting agencies.
PROPOSED MITIGATION
Several mitigation design parameters were evaluated during the development of the
Conceptual Mitigation Design. The design was developed to improve site conditions and
to fit into natural site features while benefiting the regional ecosystem. The parameters
include:
enhancement of the general landscape setting,
use of onsite wetlands and topography,
incorporation of existing soil and use of impacted-wetland topsoil for
inoculation of mitigation sites,
control of nuisance and exotic vegetative species,
maintenance or establishment of appropriate hydrology,
diversification or maintenance of wetland plant species,
establishment of a marsh system for wildlife forage opportunities,
transplantation of cypress trees from impacted wetlands,
simplification of construction techniques to minimize earthwork, and
implementation of erosion control for wetland and water quality protection.
Wetland enhancement at the sites will be accomplished by improving the hydroperiod,
controlling exotic and nuisance species using herbicide application and/or manual
removal, and excavation and re-grading of wetland areas. Restoration areas will be
-------
replanted with desirable wetland species. The enhancement and creation of basin
marshes will include: removal of exotic and nuisance species, grade modifications to
increase wetland size, ditch modification to increase hydroperiods and inundation levels,
removal of spoil mounds in wetlands to create waterfowl roosting habitat, increasing
open-water areas, planting native herbaceous wetland species, and planting upland
buffers.
The FDEP will determine the total wetland mitigation credit for each of the wetland
mitigation sites, based on ERP guidelines. Hillsborough County EPC will determine
mitigation credit based on a 1:1 creation to impact ratio for all wetland habitat types.
WRAP scores will be calculated for impacted and mitigated wetland acreage, and
Functional Unit Values will be developed according to COE guidelines. An additional 15
acres of open water will also be developed within the sites to mitigate for open water
impacts.
East Pruitt/Carlton-Smith Site
Approximately 216 acres of habitat improvements are proposed on this mitigation site.
This includes approximately 102 acres of wetland mitigation and enhancement and 114
acres of surrounding upland buffer restoration. Specifically, the mitigation plan for this
site proposes mitigation in four systems; enhancement of two large marsh systems,
improvement to a small cattle pond, and creation of forested floodplain along Doe
Branch. The enhancement of Doe Branch will include: removal of collapsed culverts,
grading and planting of the east side of the channel to provide riparian wetland habitat.
All of the proposed mitigation wetlands include planting approximately 300-foot wide
upland buffers to increase habitat diversity.
West Pruitt Site
The Conceptual Mitigation Plan for this site proposes a total of approximately 295 acres
of habitat improvements. Approximately 59 acres of wetland mitigation, 83 acres of
wetland enhancement, and 153 acres of surrounding upland buffer restoration are
included in the plan. Mitigation is proposed in four systems at this site. Two are large
marsh systems, one is a mixed hardwood and cypress slough, and one is a mixed
hardwood floodplain along Stallion Hammock. Currently, 15 acres of open water
creation are planned for development from existing agricultural uplands on the
northeastern portion of this site, adjacent to the reservoir.
North Carlton-Smith Site
Approximately 199 acres of habitat improvements are proposed for this mitigation site.
This includes approximately 119 acres of wetland creation and 80 acres of wetland
enhancement. Eight systems are included in the mitigation plan for this site. The plans
include creation of herbaceous wetland, wet prairies, and mixed hardwood wetlands,
enhancement of mixed hardwoods, herbaceous, and open water wetlands, and creation of
a natural upland buffer around wetland areas.
-------
Landscape Setting
The proposed mitigation plans will benefit the area surrounding the proposed reservoir by
increasing habitat diversity and creating and enhancing critical habitat such as wetlands.
These improvements will provide additional habitat for local fauna and create corridors
linking adjacent natural areas.
East Pruitt/Carlton-Smith Site
The proposed mitigation plan will improve habitat at the East Pruitt/Carlton-Smith Site in
a number of ways. Forested wetlands, upland buffers, and riparian habitat will be created
or enhanced, improving the low habitat diversity on the site and in surrounding areas.
Forest, shrub, and marsh areas will provide foraging habitat and cover for local avian,
mammalian, and herpetofaunal species. Deeper portions of the expanded marsh systems
will provide increased habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms and littoral areas will
provide foraging and nesting habitat for wading birds. The buffer systems around
wetland systems and along Doe Branch will improve the biological function of these
wetlands and provide additional habitat diversity.
West Pruitt Site
Proposed mitigation on the West Pruitt Site will add large herbaceous wetlands over
areas previously managed as row-crop fields. Forested wetland creation along streams
will diversify habitat at the site. This combination of wetland and upland mitigation will
provide foraging and cover habitat for local fauna and will increase habitat diversity.
Enhancement of marsh systems will provide habitat for aquatic organisms and increase
feeding and nesting habitat for wading birds. Upland tree buffers will improve the
biological function of the wetland systems they surround.
North Carlton-Smith Site
This site contains disturbed wetland systems and altered natural upland systems that will
be restored and enhanced by the proposed mitigation plan. Habitat will be diversified
and foraging and nesting habitat will be made available for avian, mammalian,
herpetofaunal, and aquatic species. Buffer zones around wetland systems will improve
the ecotone and biological function of the wetlands. Recovery of the natural landscape
will eventually benefit the site and the regional environment.
Soils
Soils on the proposed mitigation sites are dominated by those common to Hillsborough
County. Myakka fine sand dominates the upland soil type and wetland soils are
predominantly Basinger-Holopaw-Samsula soils, depressional, and Malabar fine sand.
Appropriate topsoil and subsoil from the proposed reservoir site will be used for
construction and grading on the mitigation properties. The use of imported topsoil and
wetland muck from impacted wetlands on the reservoir site for construction of mitigation
wetlands will ensure survival of planted and recruited vegetation and provide benefits
such as wetland stabilization.
10
-------
Hydrology
Extensive hydrologic and hydraulic modeling was performed to the project area to
determine peak stages in the proposed wetland systems for storm events and to predict
impacts from the proposed reservoir. The modeling was performed according to Natural
Resouce Conservation Service methods.
East Pruitt/Carlton-Smith Site
Effects of the proposed reservoir are important to this mitigation site because horizontal
seepage to the proposed wetland sites could affect their success. Modeling indicates that
seepage from the proposed reservoir is estimated to be very small and would primarily
occur within 100 feet of the intercept to Doe Branch. Horizontal seepage from the
proposed reservoir, therefore, is not expected to impact the proposed wetland mitigation
sites. Within the proposed reservoir, drainage to Doe Branch will be reduced, which will
reduce flows to wetland systems within the mitigation site. To offset the reduction,
grading of certain areas will increase the drainage area to other wetland systems. Overall,
the analysis determined that the altered hydrologic system will provide adequate water
quantities for proposed wetland expansions (URS Corporation Southern, 2001 e).
West Pruitt Site
The proposed mitigation at this site would increase the drainage areas to three wetlands
and reduce the drainage areas to four adjacent wetlands. Results of the hydrologic and
hydraulic modeling for the proposed conditions indicate that the increase storage
provided by expanded wetlands would lower peak stages in these wetlands. Overall, the
altered hydrologic conditions can support the three proposed expanded wetland systems
(URS Corporation Southern, 200Id).
North Carlton-Smith Site
Following proposed mitigation, drainage areas would be increased in all but four wetland
sites. Reduced drainage at these wetlands would not have negative impacts because
models indicate that proposed wetland mitigation can be supported. Removal of existing
pipes, and the blocking of ditches would help compensate this loss by allowing wetlands
to hold more water for longer time-periods. Existing conditions and modeling suggest
that hydrologic conditions are adequate to support planned wetland mitigation planting
and inundation areas.
Vegetation
Species composition for the proposed wetland mitigation sites was selected based on
desirable vegetation currently present at the sites and from species documented from the
Reservoir Project area. Other species were chosen based on their establishment success
in past projects. The use of these plants should increase the mitigation success while
complementing existing habitat types. Additionally, attempts may be made to transplant
mature pond cypress trees from the forested wetlands impacted by the proposed reservoir.
Transplantation would occur during optimal conditions to achieve the highest degree of
11
-------
success. The feasibility of this type of transplantation will be assessed and evaluated
further during the final permitting and design phase.
Upland areas that will be re-contoured or left undisturbed to provide a 3 00-foot-wide
buffer around mitigation wetlands will be planted with trees, shrubs, and native ground
cover. These plantings should stabilize soils, improve wetland functions, and increase
habitat diversity. Because of the large size of this project, plant materials would be
utilized from a variety of sources, including those that are nursery grown or field
collected. Contract growing may also be used.
Management Plan
Wetland mitigation areas in all three mitigation sites are expected to have a three- to five-
year permit-required wetland mitigation monitoring and maintenance plan. Monitoring
plans will be designed to provide assessments of wetland condition and recommendations
for maintenance, replanting, and corrective actions as necessary to meet permit
conditions. The SWFWMD is anticipating obtaining ownership of the land proposed for
mitigation by July 2001. Typically, their management practices include prescribed
burning, control of exotic species, habitat restoration, timber management, wildlife
management, and resource monitoring. These will be integrated with permit conditions
to assure that best management practices will be employed for the success of the
mitigation sites.
Construction Techniques
Similar construction techniques will be used on all three-mitigation properties.
Earthmoving activities to stockpile topsoil excavate and transport soil, and dump, spread,
and grade topsoil will require specialized equipment. Issues of concern will include
transport of exotic or nuisance species, reestablishment of subsoil confining layers, and
segregation of undesirable soils. Final design and permitting will take these issues into
consideration. Planting of vegetation will occur only after grading has been approved by
the project engineer and environmental scientist and accepted by the planting contractor.
Construction Schedule
A generalized construction schedule has been proposed and will be further developed as
the project advances. The schedule includes the following:
Coordination with Reservoir Contractor throughout the Bid and Construction
phases
Demolition of existing structures
Earthwork and site preparation
Exotic and nuisance species control
Planting
12
-------
Construction of all mitigation sites has been scheduled to run concurrently with the
sequence of reservoir construction, from December 2001 through January 2004.
Earthwork associated with the mitigation construction should be performed during the
dry season and completed prior to the onset of the following wet season. Aquatic plant
introduction should occur during the wet season to ensure establishment, and tree
transplantation should be implemented during the winter and early spring dormancy
period. The construction schedule should also take into account breeding and migration
seasons for threatened or endangered species that may utilize the existing habitat. These
activities should be coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
Construction Erosion Control
Erosion control during the construction process will be in accordance with the Florida
Department of Transportation standard specifications and detail drawings. Other
appropriate measures will be taken, including preparation of an National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, filing a
Notice of Intent with the EPA's General Clearinghouse, and inclusion of primary
pollution control measures. These pollution control measures will include staked hay
bales and silt fences and a monitoring and inspection program.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed mitigation plan for the Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project is part of a
comprehensive assessment of biological and physical parameters, anticipated regulatory
agency requirements, and use of current hydrologic and hydraulic modeling techniques.
The plan incorporates existing biological conditions, takes into account the type of
habitat lost, and attempts to provide a variety of onsite and regional ecological
improvements to the existing natural habitats. Based on anticipated mitigation
requirements, the three sites together are expected to meet mitigation needs as well as
enhance and diversify existing habitat in the surrounding area.
13
-------
LITERATURE CITED
HDR Engineering, Inc. 2000a. Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Joint Application for
Environmental Resource Permit. Submitted to the Southwest Florida Water
Management District, 2379 Broad Street, Brooksville, Florida 34609.
URS Corporation Southern. 200la. Master Water Plan Mitigation Project, Basis of
Design Report for Conceptual Mitigation Design, Proposed Wetland Mitigation
Project, West Pruitt Site. Draft prepared for Tampa Bay Water, March 30, 2001.
URS Corporation Southern. 200Ib. Master Water Plan Mitigation Project, Basis of
Design Report for Conceptual Mitigation Design, Proposed Wetland Mitigation
Project, East Pruitt/Carlton-Smith Site. Draft prepared for Tampa Bay Water,
April 30,2001.
URS Corporation Southern. 200Ic. Master Water Plan Mitigation Project, Basis of
Design Report for Conceptual Mitigation Design, Proposed Wetland Mitigation
Project, North Carlton-Smith Site. Draft prepared for Tampa Bay Water, June,
2001.
URS Corporation Southern. 300Id. Master Water Plan Mitigation Project, Hydrologic
and Hydraulic Evaluation for Conceptual Mitigation Design, Final Report,
Proposed Wetland Mitigation Project, West Pruitt Site. Draft prepared for Tampa
Bay Water, March 30, 2001.
URS Corporation Southern. 200le. Master Water Plan Mitigation Project, Hydrologic
- - and Hydraulic Evaluation for Conceptual Mitigation Design, Final Report,
Proposed Wetland Mitigation Project, East Pruitt/Carlton-Smith Site. Draft
prepared for Tampa Bay Water, April 20, 2001.
14
-------
APPENDIX C - ALAFIA RIVER AND
HILLSBOROUGH RIVER/TAMPA BYPASS
CANAL WITHDRAWAL PERMITS
-------
Ronald C. Johnson \
Chair. Lake Wales :
Brand* Monendez I
Vice Chair. Tamca i
i
Sally Thompson
Secretary, Tamca j
Ronnie) E. Duncan i
Treasurer. Safety Harocr
Monro* -AT Cooler \
Lecanto |
Jo* L Davis, Jr.
Wauchuia
Rebecca M. Eger i
Sarascta i
John P. HarilM, IV i
Bradentcn I
Watson L. Haynom. II i
St. Petersburg |
Mm K. Renke, III j
New Port Ricf.ey i
Pame4a Stlnnotta-Taytor i
Tamca i
E. 0. 'Sonny' Vorgara
Executive Director
0«no A. Heatft
Assistant Executive Direc'.sr
Edward B. Helventton
General Counsel
Southwest Florida
Water Management District
WUPINAPR.FAA
R.3-23-92
Protecting Your
Wc:er Resources
2379 Broad Street. Brocksv'ile. Florida 34609-6899
(352) 796-7211 or 1-800-423-1476 (FL only)
SUNCOM 528-4150 TDD cny 1-800-231-6103 (FL only)
World Wide Web: http://vw*.swfwmd.state.fl.us
Tampa Service Office
7501 Hignwa> 301 Now
Tamoa. Floriaa 33637-6759
:813) 985-7481 er
1-300-336-0797 ..-:. :r.iv
SUNCOM 578-2070
July 27, 1999
Barlow Service Office
170 Century Soulevara
Bartow. Fonca 33830-7700
(941) 534-1-43 cr
l-8CC-492-"362 -P.
SUNCOM 572-6200
Venice Service Office
115 Coroc.'3'jon Way
Venice. Flcrca 34292-3524
:94i; 486-1212 or
1-3CO-32C-35C3 IR :r.iyi
SUNCOM 525-6900
Lecanto Service Office
3600 West Sovereign Pain
Suite 226
.ecar.to. Ponca 34461-8070
25:- :27-3131
SUNCOM 667-3271
Tampa Bay Water
2535 Landmark Drive, Suite 211
Clearwater, FL 33761
Subject: Final Agency Action TransmittaJ Letter
Individual Water Use Permit No(s). 2011794.00
Dear Sir or Madam:
R E C S i V 0
AUG 3 0 1S99
TA.VIFA 8AV WATER
Your Water Use Permit(s) was/were approved by the District Governing Board subject to all terms and
conditions set forth in the approved Permit(s).
You or any person whose substantial interests are affected by the District's action regarding your
application may request an administrative hearing in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S.,
and Chapter 28-106, F.A.C., of the Uniform Rules of Procedure. A request for hearing must (1) explain
how each petitioner's substantial interests will be affected by the District's action, or proposed action: (2)
state all material facts disputed bv the petitioner or state that there are no disputed facts: and (3) otherwise
comply with Chapter 28-106.301. F.A.C.. A request for hearing must be filed with and received by the
Agency Clerk of the District at the District's Brooksville address within 21 days of receipt of this notice.
Receipt is deemed to be the fifth day after the date on which this notice is deposited in the United States
mail. Failure to file a request for hearing within this time period shall constitute a waiver of any right such
person may have to request a hearing under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S.
Mediation pursuant to Section 120.573, F.S. to settle an administrative dispute regarding the District's
action in this matter is not available prior to the filing of a request for hearing.
Please be advised that the Governing Board has formulated a water shortage plan as referenced in
Condition 4 of the Standard Water Use Permit Conditions (Exhibit A), and will implement such a plan
during periods of water shortage. You will be notified during a declared water shortage of any change in
the conditions of your Permit(s) or any suspension of your Permit(s), or of any restriction on your use of
water for the duration of any declared water shortage.
The ID tag(s) for your withdrawal(s) shall be installed by a District representative. This representative will
attempt to contact you within 30 days to discuss placement of your tags. If you have any questions or
concerns regarding your tags, please contact Debbie Summerall at extension 2023 in the Tampa
Regulation Department If you have any questions or concerns regarding your permit or any other
information, please contact this office at extension 4343.
Sincerely,
Adeline Wood, Supervisor
Records and Data Department
Coc No
r [-- j
Pile Sec. r\ * /i^/i Lji
AW:kat
Enclosures:
1. Approved Permit
2. Rule 40D- 1.521, F.A.C.
cc: C. Edwin Copeland, Jr.
-------
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
INDIVIDUAL
WATER USE PERMIT NO. 2011794.00
EXPIRATION DATE: December 31, 2010 | PERMIT ISSUE DATE: July 27, 1999
1
THE PERMITTEE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR APPLYING FOR A RENEWAL OF THIS PERMIT PRIOR
TO THE EXPIRATION DATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH DISTRICT RULES, WHETHER OR NOT THE
PERMITTEE RECEIVES PRIOR NOTIFICATION BY MAIL. CONTINUED USE OF WATER AFTER
THE EXPIRATION DATE IS A VIOLATION OF DISTRICT RULES, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE
PROVIDED BY APPLICABLE LAW. VIOLATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF THIS PERMIT
CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAW.
This permit, issued under the provision of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code 40D-2,
authorizes the Permittee to withdraw the quantities outlined herein, and requires various activities to be performed by
the Permittee as outlined by the Special Conditions. This permit, subject to all terms and conditions, meets all District
permitting criteria.
PROJECT NAME: Alafia River Project
GRANTED TO: Tampa Bay Water, A Regional Water Supply Authority
2535 Landmark Drive, Suite 211
Clearwater, FL 33761
The above named party is considered the Permittee in this document and is solely responsible for
performance of the terms and conditions of this permit.
ABSTRACT: It is the Governing Board's intent that the Permittee reduce withdrawals from its existing
Central System, comprised of 11 wellfields located in Pasco, Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties; and that
reasonable present and future demand be satisfied solely from environmentally sustainable sources of supply.
To this end, the District, Tampa Bay Water and its Member Governments, consisting of Pasco, Hillsborough,
and Pinellas Counties, City of St. Petersburg, City of Tampa, and City of New Port Richey, entered into the
Northern Tampa Bay New Water Supply and Ground Water Withdrawal Reduction Agreement (Agreement)
approved May 14,1998. In general, the agreement consolidates the individual wellfield permits into one
permit for the Central System, and outlines a specific time frame, plan of actions and requirements to achieve
the withdrawal reductions from the system. Most critical to achieving the Central System reductions is
obtaining new environmentally sustainable sources of water supplies to allow for replacement of restricted
quantities. Tampa Bay Water prepared a New Water Plan which outlines environmentally sustainable
sources of water supplies for replacement of restricted quantities. The District's Governing Board approved
the New Water Plan on August 25,1998. The New Water Plan specifies a number of proposed projects to
meet the following objectives; having one or more projects permitted, constructed, in operation and
providing at least 38 mgd of new supply to the Central System by December 31, 2002; by December 31,
2007 having the remaining projects permitted, constructed, in operation and providing an additional 47 mgd,
for a total of at least 85 mgd of new water supply for regional distribution to the Tampa Bay Water Member
Governments. The District will be providing co-funding for eligible projects in accordance with the New
Water Sources Funding Agreement between the District and Tampa Bay Water. This Application represents
one of the new water supply source projects of the New Water Plan which is eligible for co-funding.
-------
Permit No.:
Permittee:
Page
2011794.00
Tampa Bay Water
2
The water use authorized by this permit is for the purpose of providing additional new water supply
quantities for Tampa Bay Water's Interconnected Regional Water Supply System. The allocation of the
water use quantities for replacement and rotation purposes is pursuant to the Agreement.
This is a new application for a surface water withdrawal from the Alafia River to be used for public supply
in Tampa Bay Water's service area located within the Northern Tampa Bay, the Eastern Tampa Bay and the
Southern Water Use Caution Areas (WUCAs). This application includes one surface water withdrawal
intake structure located on the south side of the Alafia River, at the intersection of Bell Shoals Road and the
river. Tampa Bay Water's interconnected regional water supply system service area includes the
communities of Pasco, Hillsborough, and Pinellas Counties, City of St. Petersburg, City of Tampa, and City
of New Port Richey. An Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) is required for the implementation of this
Water Use Permit. The Permittee has submitted a complete ERP application (# 4918392.00) to the District
for this project.
Special Conditions are included to address pertinent concerns. Special Conditions include a withdrawal
schedule linked to river flow, comprehensive review/consistency with adopted minimum flows, metering
and reporting of pumpage, hydrologic monitoring (water levels, water quality, rainfall, evaporation,
streamflow ), ecological monitoring and mitigation through an approved Hydro-Biological Monitoring
Program (HBMP), complaint investigation and mitigation, WUCA conditions, and submittal of a Surface
Water Diversion Annual Report. With the proposed permit conditions applied, the application meets all
Chapter 40D-2.301 rule criteria.
WITHDRAWAL QUANTITIES TABLE
TOTAL QUANTITIES AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS PERMIT (in MGD)
Withdrawal Rate
OMGD
8
MGD to 51.7 MGD (10% of flow)
5 1 .7 MGD Maximum
Alafia River Flow at Bell Shoals Road
< 80 MGD
80 MGD to 5 17 MGD
> 517 MGD
Actual quantities are based on percentage withdrawals identified in the PUMPING SCHEDULE AND
AVAILABLE QUANTITIES Special Condition of this permit. The Maximum Daily withdrawal is limited
by system pumping capacity. Refer to Exhibit "A" for historical analysis of flows in the Alafia River as an
example of the application of the withdrawal quantities table set forth above.
PROPERTY LOCATION:
South Central Hillsborough County, two and half miles south of
Bloomingdale Avenue at the intersection of Bell Shoals Road and the
Alafia River.
-------
Permit No.: 2011794.00
Permittee: Tampa Bay Water
Page 3
TYPE OF APPLICATION: New
WATER USE CAUTION AREA:
Eastern Tampa Bay / Southern
APPLICATION FILED: June 18, 1998 ACRES: 0.00 Owned (To be acquired)
629,536.00 Serviced
(Owned)+629,536.00 Owned and Serviced
APPLICATION AMENDED: N/A
WATER USE:
Regional Public Supply System
SERVICE AREA NAME:
Tampa Bay Water's Interconnected Regional Water Supply System
USE TYPE:
TOTAL PUBLIC SUPPLY:
Residential Single Family
Residential Multi-Family
Commercial/Industrial Non Process
Unaccounted Use
Lawn and Landscape
Fire Fighting/Testing
1,770,101
Gross = 137 gpd/person
DISTRICT/
PERMITTEE
LD. NO.
1/ALF-l
SEC./TWN./RNG.
24/30/20
LOCATION
LAT/LONG
275125.35/821608.13
EQUIVALENT
DIAMETER
(INCHES)
120
PERMIT SPECIAL CONDITIONS
All conditions referring to approval by the Regulation Department Director, Resource Regulation,
shall refer to the Director, Tampa Regulation Department, Resource Regulation.
1. APPROVALS
All conditions referring to approval by the Regulation Department Director, shall refer to the Director,
Tampa Regulation Department.
-------
Permit No.:
Permittee:
Page
2011794.00
Tampa Bay Water
4
2. WITHDRAWAL LIMITATIONS
Withdrawals from the Alafia River will be limited to the periods of time when flows in the river, as
estimated at Bell Shoals Road using the calculation identified in the ALAFIA RIVER REGIONAL
PUMPING FACILITIES OPERATIONS AND REGULATORY LEVELS Special Condition of this
permit, are greater than 124 cubic feet per second (cfs). Surface water withdrawals may occur at a rate
of 10 percent of the total river flow at Bell Shoals Road between 124 to 800 cfs, up to a maximum
withdrawal rate of 80 cfs. Based on historical Alafia River flow data from 1977 through 1996 presented
in Exhibit "A", surface water quantities available under the withdrawal schedule would yield 7.21 MOD
to 28.95 MGD on an Annual Average basis. Since daily withdrawals will be regulated by the withdrawal
schedule, as described above, no Annual Average withdrawal quantity is assigned to this permit in order
to allow maximum flexibility to meet demands.
3.
PUMPING SCHEDULE AND AVAILABLE QUANTITIES
The amount of water diverted from the Alafia River for water supply purposes shall not exceed the
quantities listed in Table I below.
TABLE 1 WITHDRAWALS FROM THE ALAFIA RIVER
Maximum Withdrawal Rate -
MGD / CFS
0 (no Withdrawal)
10% of total flow
51.7 /SO cfs
Alafia River Flow at Bell Shoals Road in
Millions of Gallons Per Day (MGD) /
Cubic Feet Per Second (CFS)
0 to 80/0 to 124
80 to 517/124 to 800
Above 5 17/800
4. SUBMISSION OF DATA AND REPORTS
A. DATA REPORTS
The Permittee shall provide the District with 1 copy of the data reports required by these Special
Conditions. All reports of data shall be submitted to the District on or before the 15th day of the
month following data collection and shall be addressed to:
Permit Data Section, Records & Data Department
Southwest Florida Water Management District
2379 Broad Street
Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
B. OTHER REPORTS
For other reports or plans, unless otherwise indicated, the Permittee shall provide to the District 1
original, 1 unbound copy, and 1 copy in acceptable digital format (see paragraph 4.C., below).
Unless otherwise specified, all reports required to be submitted by the Permittee to the District
pursuant to one or more conditions of this permit shall be submitted as part of the Annual Report
required by this permit.
-------
Permit No.: 2011794.00
Permittee: Tampa Bay Water
Page 5
C. FORMAT
All data and reports shall be submitted in writing, and, when feasible and, if prepared, in digital
format and medium compatible with the format and medium then utilized by or agreed to by the
District.
5. LEGAL CONTROL OF PROPERTY
This permit is issued contingent upon the Permittee's power to acquire the property rights for properties
on which pumps or other withdrawal facilities will be located, as described in the application, through
eminent domain; specifically, the properties associated with District ID No. 1, Permittee ID No. ALF-1,
(Alafia River withdrawal intake) and the proposed regional pumping facility near the Alafia River. If
the property needed for this project is not so conveyed, or if the ownership or other legal control is
divided, this permit shall immediately terminate unless the terms of the permit are modified or the permit
is transferred pursuant to District rules. In no case shall issuance of this permit convey any property
rights to the Permittee.
6. OPERATIONS PLAN
The Optimized Regional Operations Plan (Operations Plan) shall be modified when new water supply
capacity is added to Tampa Bay Water's Interconnected Regional Water Supply System. The Permittee
shall submit a modification to the Operations Plan which incorporates the Alafia River Project and
describes how Tampa Bay Water shall operate its water supply system in a manner to
minimize environmental stresses to the 11 Central System Wellfield area. The Permittee shall comply
with the Operations Plan and all modifications thereof, as approved by the District.
7. USE OF WITHDRAWAL QUANTITIES
Surface water withdrawal quantities from the Alafia River Project shall be used for the purpose of
providing replacement capacity and rotational capacity to the following Tampa Bay Water Central
System wellfields as required by the Agreement:
1. Cosme-Odessa Wellfield
2. Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield
3. Cypress Bridge Wellfield
4. Cypress Creek Wellfield
5. Eldridge-Wilde Wellfield
6. Morris Bridge Wellfield
7. Northwest Hillsborough Regional Wellfield
8. North Pasco Wellfield
9. Section 21 Wellfield
10. South Pasco Wellfield
11. Starkey Wellfield
Wellfield replacement and rotational capacity is authorized for the Alafia River facility to reduce flow
from the Tampa Bay Water Central System, to optimize withdrawals at wellfields and to relieve
environmental stresses. Withdrawal quantities delivered by the Alafia River regional pumping facilities
shall be used for existing system demand and documented growth. The identification of wellfields
receiving rotation capacity will be determined by Tampa Bay Water's Optimized Regional Operations
Plan.
-------
Permit No.: 2011794.00
Permittee: Tampa Bay Water
Page 6
8. MONITORING OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
A. HYDROBIOLOGICAL MONITORING
The Permittee shall develop and implement a Hydrobiological Monitoring Program (HBMP) for the
Alafia River. The scope and design of the HBMP shall be based on discussions with District staff
and Permittee which shall occur within 60 days of permit issuance and submittal of a draft HBMP
within 120 days of permit issuance. The District may solicit outside technical review for design of
the HBMP. The final HBMP plan must be approved by the District prior to implementation. The
initial date of implementation will be specified in the final approved HBMP plan.
The HBMP shall address the following objectives:
1. Establish baseline conditions prior to permitted use for streamflow rates, salinity distributions,
and selected water quality and biological variables within the Alafia River and its estuary.
2. Monitor withdrawals from the Alafia River at the withdrawal point and evaluate streamflow data
for the river at all applicable locations.
3. Evaluate the ecological relationships of the Alafia River and its estuary to freshwater flows.
4. Monitor selected water quality and biological variables in order to determine if the ecological
characteristics of the river and its estuary related to freshwater flow change over time.
5. Determine the relative effect of permitted withdrawals from the Alafia River on any ecologic
changes that may occur in the river and its estuary.
6. Determine if these withdrawals cause or significantly contribute to any unacceptable
environmental impacts that the river and its estuary exhibit as a result of changes in freshwater
flows.
~L Coordinate with appropriate agencies which have or are currently collecting data which can be
incorporated into the HBMP to avoid duplication of effort and to facilitate the most efficient use
of resources.
HBMP reports will be submitted to the District according to the time frame established in the final
approved HBMP plan. The periodic cycle for these reports will include yearly Data reports and
periodic Interpretive reports that will be submitted according to a specific schedule which will be
established in the final approved HBMP plan.
On an annual basis, the Permittee shall submit a Data report of all raw data collected during the past
year. The Data reports will be submitted in tabular form with text limited to an explanation of
variable names and a description of any problems encountered or important observations made
during the monitoring year. This information shall be included in the Annual Report for this permit.
At the end of selected years specified in the final approved HBMP plan, the Permittee will submit
Interpretive reports that will include comprehensive analyses of all data collected to date that
specifically address the objectives of the HBMP. Qualitative and quantitative analyses shall be
presented in the Interpretive reports to evaluate the interactions of hydrologic conditions and
withdrawals on streamflow. inundation of the river channel and its floodplain, nutrient loading,
salinity distributions in the estuary, and the response of related water quality and biological
variables. The Interpretive reports will also include an appendix that provides all raw data collected
during the previous year, thus fulfilling the requirement for the Annual Report for that year. Upon
-------
Permit No.: 2011794.00
Permittee: Tampa Bay Water
Page 7
completion of each cycle of the HBMP, a draft HBMP Interpretive report shall be submitted to the
District as part of the overall Annual report. The District shall review and provide written comments
within 45 days of the submittal of each draft HBMP Interpretive report. Final Interpretive reports
shall be submitted by the Permittee within 90 days of receipt of District comments.
The District will review the results of these reports to determine if the withdrawals have or are
expected to result in unacceptable environmental impacts to the natural resources of the Alafia River
and its estuary as addressed in Part 4 of the District's Basis of Review for Water Use Permit
Applications. If unacceptable environmental impacts have or are expected to occur due to the
withdrawals, then the District shall require a revision to the withdrawal schedule.
B. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY
The Permittee shall conduct aerial photographic reconnaissance of all water supply facilities
encompassed within this permit, all environmental monitoring station locations, and surrounding
areas as approved by the District. The reconnaissance areas must be submitted in writing within 120
days of permit issuance for approval by the District. The approved photographic reconnaissance
shall occur on a semi-annual basis (April-May and October-November) unless another schedule is
identified as part of the final approved HBMP plan. Photography shall be color infrared at
1"=2000'± scale with 60% forward overlap and 30% side overlap. Original or first generation
positive transparencies of the flight photography and an analysis of the flight's photography shall
be included in the Annual Report submitted to the District by July 1 of each year. This photography
shall be used to detect landscape changes over an extended period of time and when the HBMP
monitoring detects potential changes at monitoring sites.
9. WUCA CONSERVATION REPORTING
As pan of the Annual Report required by this permit, the Permittee shall submit the following
information relative to each Demand Planning Area or Member Government serviced by this permit:
A. PER-CAPITA USE
1. The population served;
3. Significant deducted uses, the associated quantity, and conservation measures applied to these
uses;
3. Total withdrawals;
4. Treatment losses;
5. Environmental mitigation quantities;
6. Sources and quantities of incoming and outgoing transfers of water and wholesale purchases and
sales of water, with quantities determined at the supplier's departure point;
7. Documentation of reuse and desalination credits, if taken.
8. The gross per-capita use rate, and, at the Permittee's option, an adjusted (compliance) per-capita
use rate, as specified in the Basis of Review for Water Use Permit Applications, that reflects
adjustments for significant users, treatment losses, environmental mitigation, and incentives for
reuse and the use of desalination sources.
-------
Permit No.: 2011794.00
Permittee: Tampa Bay Water
Page 8
B. WATER CONSERVING RATE STRUCTURE
A copy of the official rate-structure document for each Member Government serviced by this Permit
in effect at the time the Annual Report is compiled.
C. WATER AUDIT PROGRAM
Documentation of the results of the ongoing water audits for each Member as well as Tampa Bay
Water's distribution system serviced by this permit.
D. RESIDENTIAL WATER USE
The total number of connections and total water use for:
1. Residential customers for each of the following categories:
a) single family dwelling units served;
b) multi-family dwelling units served and the number of equivalent residential units
represented; and
c) mobile homes served.
(Where separate indoor and outdoor meters exist, residential water use quantities shall include
both the indoor and outdoor water uses associated with the dwelling units, including irrigation
water.)
2. Commercial customers
3. Industrial customers
4. Public/Institutional customers
5. Wholesale customers, including the name and quantity sold to each individual customer
(L Other customers
E. RECLAIMED WATER USE
1. The quantity of total reclaimed water provided by the Member Governments serviced by this
permit for reuse on both a total annual average daily and monthly basis;
2. For all individual customer reuse connections with line sizes of 4-inches or greater, a listing of:
a) account name and address;
b) location of connection(s) by latitude - longitude;
c) line size;
d) meter (yes or no); and
e) metered quantities, if metered.
3. The annual average daily quantities, monthly quantities, locations, and methods of disposal for
effluent that is not reused.
4. A map or plan depicting the area of reuse service; including areas projected to be added within
the next year, if possible.
-------
Permit No.: 2011794.00
Permittee: Tampa Bay Water
Page 9
10. WATER QUANTITY AND HYDROLOGIC MONITORING CONDITIONS
A. FLOW METERING
1. INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF FLOW METERS
Upon construction of the Project pumping facilities, flow measuring devices shall be installed
at the following locations:
District ID Nos J
Permittee IP Nos. Location
1 / ALF-1 Alafia River Regional Pumping Station intake structure pipeline from the
River near Bell Shoals Road
2 / ALF-2 Influent Meter into the Regional Water Treatment Plant
Flow measuring devices shall be non-resettable, totalizing flow meters or other flow measuring
devices as approved in writing by the Regulation Department Director. Such devices shall have
and maintain an accuracy within five percent of the actual flow as installed. Total flow and
meter readings from the listed intake and effluent lines shall be recorded on a daily basis and
reported to the Permit Data Section, Records and Data Department (using District forms) on or
before the fifteenth (15*) day of the following month. Monthly flow data shall be submitted on
the District-supplied scanning card provided to the Permittee for that purpose, or other District-
approved electronic form of data submittal, to the Permit Data Section, Records and Data
Department, on or before the 15th day of the following month. If a metered withdrawal is not
utilized during a given month, a report shall be submitted to the Permit Data Section, Records
and Data Department, indicating zero gallons.
a) SCADA-EQUIPPED FACILITIES
For flow monitoring points equipped with SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data
Acquisition), the Permittee shall maintain the following for each flow monitoring point: one
venturi-type flow meter or other approved flow meter, one non-resettable totalizing
recording device at each monitoring point, one remote transmitter unit that transfers the
recorded flow data by telemetry to the remote SCADA master station. The SCADA master
station flow data shall be recorded on a daily basis for each flow monitoring point and for
the combined facility pumpage. For all SCADA-equipped monitoring points, the non-
resettable totalizing recording device at each monitoring point shall be recorded on an
annual basis, and reported in the Annual Report with a comparison to the SCADA-retrieved
cumulative flow for each monitoring point. If and when any the facility becomes equipped
with SCADA, the provisions of this paragraph shall apply.
b) TOTAL FACILITY PUMPAGE
Flow data recorded at the Alafia River intake structure pipeline shall represent the total
surface water source pumpage for the Alafia River Project.
-------
Permit No.: 2011794.00
Permittee: Tampa Bay Water
Page 10
2. METER CALIBRATION, TESTING AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
The Permittee shall undertake regular and routine testing, calibration and preventive/corrective
maintenance for all flow meters to ensure that they have and maintain an accuracy within 5
percent of actual flow as installed. The Permittee shall describe the standard operating
procedures for the Meter Calibration, Testing and Maintenance Program in a report submitted
for District approval by January 1, 2000. The report shall include a description of methods to
be used for estimation of flow from a withdrawal point during a meter malfunction. Changes
to the program shall be subject to District approval.
3. NOTIFICATION AND CORRECTION OF METERING DISCREPANCIES
Within 3 working days of identification of a meter that is not providing an accuracy within 5
percent of actual flow as installed, the Permittee shall inform the District in writing of the facts
regarding the problem. Until the problem is corrected, flows through the metered point shall
be estimated, using methods identified in the Meter Calibration, Testing and Maintenance
program. The Permittee shall correct the problem within 15 days following identification of the
problem, or discontinue use of the withdrawal point until the problem is corrected, unless an
extension is confirmed in writing from the Regulation Department Director.
'
4. ANNUAL REPORT REGARDING FLOW METERS
The Annual Report shall summarize activities conducted under the Meter Calibration, Testing
and Maintenance Program to maintain accuracy of withdrawal metering. For SC ADA equipped
monitoring points, the non-resettable totalizing recording device at each monitoring point shall
be recorded on an annual basis, and reported in the Annual Report with a comparison to the
SCADA-retrieved cumulative flow for each monitoring point.
5. DESTINATION OF WATER
The Permittee shall provide a monthly summary report of the total quantity of water delivered
to each Member Government. This amount will be estimated based upon the percentage of total
water delivered to each Member from the Tampa Bay Water Interconnected Regional Water
Supply System. The Permittee shall also provide a summary in the Annual Report showing the
volume of water withdrawn during the annual reporting period from the Alafia River intake, the
water delivered from the Alafia River to a reservoir (if constructed), and the water delivered
from the Alafia River to the Regional Water Treatment plant for distribution to the
Interconnected Regional Water Supply System.
B. RAINFALL AND EVAPORATION MONITORING
The Permittee shall monitor the rain gauges and evaporation pan at the sites and at the frequencies
listed below. The sites listed are currently monitored in accordance with the South Central
Hillsborough Regional Wellfield (SCHRWF) Water Use Permit (WUP No. 204352). The Permittee
may utilize data obtained for the SCHRWF to satisfy the permit monitoring requirements for this
condition. However, should monitoring at the sites listed cease to be required under the SCHRWF
WUP, the Permittee shall be required to monitor the listed sites for this permit, or establish new,
District approved sites to replace the lost sites.
-------
Permit No.: 2011794.00
Permittee: Tampa Bay Water
Page 11
The sites listed shall continue to be monitored and reported in accordance with the SCHRWT permit.
Data from these sites shall not be reported for this permit as long as the data is submitted in support
of the SCHRWF permit. For the purpose of this permit, data obtained from the listed sites during
the annual reporting period shall be summarized in the Annual Report required by this permit. Any
proposed changes to the recording frequency and locations shall be approved by the Regulation
Department Director, and shall be summarized in the annual report as described in the Annual
Reporting Special Condition.
District Permittee Latitude/
ID No. ID No. Longitude Frequency
NA1 SC1RG 275151/821212 Continuous
NA SC4RG 275151/820842 Continuous
NA SC1EVAP2 271551/821213 Continuous
NA SCHM2RG 275614/820954 Continuous
NA SC17RG 275204/820458 Continuous
1 District ID Nos. are not applicable; sites are currently permitted under SCHRWF.
2 Permittee ID No. SC1EVAP is an evaporation station; all others in this table are rainfall.
C. STAGE, STREAMFLOW AND SPRING DISCHARGE MONITORING
1. EXISTING MONITORING
The Permittee shall monitor the average daily stage and estimated average daily flow for the
Alafia River, and the average daily stage and spring discharge for Lithia Springs at the sites and
frequencies listed below. The sites listed are currently monitored in accordance with the South
Central Hillsborough Regional Wellfield (SCHRWF) Water Use Permit (WUP No. 204352).
The Permittee may utilize data obtained for the SCHRWF to satisfy the permit monitoring
requirements for this condition. However, should monitoring at the sites listed cease to be
required under the SCHRWF WUP, the Permittee shall be required to monitor the listed sites
for this permit, or establish new, District approved sites to replace the lost sites.
The sites listed shall continue to be monitored and reported in accordance with the SCHRWF
permit. Data from these sites shall not be reported for this permit as long as the data is
submitted in support of the SCHRWF permit. For the purpose of this permit, data obtained from
the listed sites during the annual reporting period shall be summarized in the Annual Report
required by this permit. Any proposed changes to the recording frequency and locations shall
be approved by the Regulation Department Director, and shall be summarized in the annual
report as described in the Annual Reporting Special Condition.
District Permittee Water Latitude/
ID No. ID No. Body Longitude Frequency
NA1 AR-L2 Alafia 275209/821225 Continuous
NA NPRONG3 Alafia 275307/820614 Continuous
NA SPRONG4 Alafia 274733/820652 Continuous
NA LS Lithia Sp. 275150/821349 Weekly
-------
Permit No.: 2011794.00
Permittee: Tampa Bay Water
Page 12
1 District ID Nos. are not applicable; sites are currently permitted under SCHRWF.
2 AR-L =Alafia River at Lithia Pinecrest
3 NPRONG = North Prong of the Alafia River at County Road 676
4 SPRONG = South Prong of the Alafia River at Jamerson Road
2. ADDITIONAL MONITORING
By December 31,1999, the Permittee shall install a stage recorder as identified below. Stream
stage shall be recorded at the frequency identified below, and reported to the Permit Data
Section, Records & Data Department (using District forms) on or before the fifteenth day of the
following month. Stream stage shall be reported as average daily values. The frequency of
stage recording may be modified by the Regulation Department Director, as necessary to ensure
the protection of the resource. The stage recorder shall be surveyed and referenced to the
NAVD, and a copy of the survey including location and latitude and longitude shall be
submitted with the first stage data report to the District.
Permittee Water Latitude/
ID No. Body ( Longitude Frequency
AR-BS1 Alafia 275128.75/821613.84 Continuous
1 AR-BS = Alafia River near Bell Shoals Road
11. ALAFIA RIVER REGIONAL PUMPING FACILITIES OPERATIONS AND REGULATORY
LEVELS
The regional pumping facility for the Alafia River as part of this permit includes a single surface water
withdrawal intake structure on the Alafia River near Bell Shoals Road bridge. Withdrawals at the Alafia
River regional pumping facility shall be subject to the following constrains:
A. The flow at Bell Shoals Road will be determined by the following formula:
Alafia River Flow at the Lithia Gauge (cfs) x ((335 sq. mi. + 39.2 sq. mi.) / 335 mi.) +
Flow from Lithia Springs (cfs) = Alafia River Flow at Bell Shoals Road
B. No withdrawals will be made from the regional withdrawal intake on the Alafia River when
estimated flow at Bell Shoals Road is less than 124 cfs.
C. The volume of withdrawal shall not exceed 10 percent of the previous day's estimated average daily
flow rate of the Alafia River at Bell Shoals Road.
D. The amount of the peak withdrawal will not exceed 80 cfs.
12. INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINTS
The Permittee shall investigate complaints related to withdrawals. This condition shall be an ongoing
effort for the duration of this permit. All complainants will make an application to the Permittee and
must receive an investigation report, including any action to be taken within a reasonable time by the
Permittee. The Permittee shall file a report of the complaint, the findings of facts, and any mitigation
-------
Permit No.: 2011794.00
Permittee: Tampa Bay Water
Page 13
action taken or to be taken by the Permittee, to the Regulation Department Director for review and
approval within 90 days of the receipt of any complaint. The report shall include:
A. The name and address of each complainant;
B. The date and nature of the complaint;
C. A summary of the Permittee's investigation;
D. A summary of the Permittee's determination, including details of any mitigation activities; and
E. Cost of mitigation activity for each complaint.
Full mitigation shall not exceed 180 days from complaint receipt, unless additional time is granted by
the District. A summary of the investigations of complaint and mitigation activities, related to the Alafia
River Project operations for the annual reporting periods shall be provided, and reported in the Annual
Report.
13. BASIN PLAN
The Permittee will develop and implement a Watershed Protection Program and Action Plan for the
Alafia River watershed. The overall goal of this program will be to protect and improve the water quality
in the river, especially the water quality upstream of the proposed withdrawal point. The Permittee will
use its best efforts to foster the development of a citizen and userbased Stewardship Group for the river,
and will assist such a group in its efforts to protect the quantity and quality of water in the .Mafia River.
The Permittee will review the published literature on watershed protection efforts and will develop an
initial comprehensive listing of possible actions to be considered for the Alafia. The Permittee will then
determine the feasibility of each of these possible actions with respect to the Alafia River in cooperation
with the District, Hillsborough County, and citizens / organizations / businesses along or within the
watershed. Actions to be considered include but are not limited to: (a) fee simple acquisition of lands
adjacent to the river and its tributaries; (b) purchasing development rights of lands adjacent to the
river/tributaries; (c) education/partnership programs with agricultural businesses and homeowner-
associations on the use of Best Management Practices for fertilizers and pesticides; (d) identification of
major non-point source and point source discharges and estimation of pollutant loadings from each; (e)
citizen-based monitoring and stewardship actions to protect and improve water quantity and quality. The
Permittee will provide a yearly status report to the District on the progress toward the development and
implementation of the Watershed Protection Program and Action Plan. Yearly status reports should
include descriptions of the extent to which the goals identified have been achieved. The Permittee will
implement water quality sampling necessary to adequately document the improvements to water quality
resulting from the implementation of the Action Plan.
14. ANNUAL REPORT
A. GENERAL INFORMATION AND DATA
The Permittee shall provide a comprehensive and concise annual report ("Annual Report") to the
District which describes the operation of the Alafia River Regional Pumping Facility covered under
this permit. Information collected through the following conditions of this permit shall be included
in this Annual Report:
-------
Permit No.: 2011794.00
Permittee: Tampa Bay Water
Page 14
The Operations Plan
WUCA Conservation Reporting
Water Distribution Data
Meter Calibration, Testing and Maintenance Program
Data sources shall be referenced in the Annual Report, but no raw data shall be included in the
report. Only essential text, graphs, and tables should be included in the report. Six copies of the
Annual Report shall be submitted to the Permits Data Section by July 1 of each year. The Annual
Report shall cover the preceding water year period from October 1 to September 30.
Operations Plan implementation, water quantity and water distribution information collected for this
permit shall be summarized for the annual reporting period. A population estimate for the annual
reporting period, which includes only those served by the municipal system within the defined
service areas, shall be provided and referenced. The quantities of water delivered to and used within
the service area of each member government of Tampa Bay Water over the annual reporting period
shall be used with the population estimate to determine a per capita use rate for the period. Any
changes to the service area boundaries shall be described in the text and plotted on a map.
B. ALAFIA RIVER SURFACE WATER WITHDRAWAL ANNUAL REPORT
The Permittee shall provide a concise individual annual report ("Surface Water Withdrawal Annual
Report") to the District which provides a compilation of data collected during the course of the year
as part of the final approved HBMP plan. The Surface Water Withdrawal Annual Report shall
concisely summarize the elements listed below, and any other elements within this permit which
require annual environmental reporting, with emphasis on the interactions between these elements,
where appropriate. Six copies of each Surface Water Withdrawal Annual Report shall be submitted
to the Permits Data Section by July 1 of each year. The Annual Reports shall cover the preceding
water year from October 1 to September 30.
1. HYDROLOGIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Data collected as a part of the MONITORING OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION -
HYDROBIOLOGICAL MONITORING Special Conditions shall be summarized and
analyzed by the Permittee to document any effects of surface water withdrawals on the Alafia
River and its estuary. Each annual report will contain a HBMP data report of all raw data
collected during the past year. A brief summary of any recommended changes to the monitoring
requirements shall also be included. More comprehensive analyses for the HBMP shall be
included in the HBMP Interpretive reports which shall be submitted for each periodic cycle as
defined in the final approved HBMP plan.
The Permittee shall provide a comprehensive and concise individual annual report ("Surface
Water Withdrawal Annual Report") to the District which provides an assessment of the water
resources and environmental systems associated with the Alafia River covered under this permit.
An assessment of the water resources and environmental systems in the area of the Alafia River
is required for all sections listed below as defined in the approved HBMP. The Surface Water
Withdrawal Annual Report shall concisely summarize the elements listed beiow, and any other
elements within this permit which require annual environmental reporting, with emphasis on the
-------
Permit No.: 2011794.00
Permittee: Tampa Bay Water
Page x 15
interactions between these elements, where appropriate. Six copies of each Surface Water
Withdrawal Annual Report shall be submitted to the Permits Data Section by July 1 of each
year. The Annual Reports shall cover the preceding water year from October 1 to September
30.
2. INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINTS
A summary of the investigations of all complaints concerning adverse impacts to existing legal
users, land uses and environmental features, as well as all of the Permittee's efforts to mitigate
such adverse impacts, shall be provided for each reporting period. This summary shall include:
a) Number and type of complaint(s);
b) Number and type of mitigation activities); and
c) Number and type of complaint(s) which did not require mitigation activity.
3. OTHER
All reports specified to be included in the Surface Water Withdrawal Annual Reports by
conditions of this permit shall be so included.
15. TIME EXTENSIONS
Unless specified otherwise, time extensions to condition deadlines may be granted upon written request
to the District, provided that the request is made prior to the deadline, the Permittee has demonstrated
a good faith effort in meeting the deadline set forth in the condition, and a reasonable modified deadline
is proposed by the Permittee.
16. MODIFICATION OR REVOCATION OF PERMIT BY DISTRICT
Nothing in this permit is intended, nor shall anything herein be construed, to replace, limit or impair the
District's right to modify or revoke this permit in accordance with applicable law.
17. OTHER LIMITATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS
The remedies for violation of this permit are cumulative. Thus, the pursuit of one remedy shall not
preclude the pursuit of other remedies provided by this permit or by applicable law. The pursuit of any
remedy provided in this permit or by applicable law shall not constitute a forfeiture or waiver of any
other remedy. The waiver of one violation shall not be deemed a waiver of any other violation.
Forbearance to enforce one or more of the remedies provided by this permit or by applicable law on an
event of violation shall not be deemed or construed to constitute a waiver of the right to any remedy for
that violation.
18. MINIMUM FLOWS FOR ALAFIA RIVER
The District anticipates establishment of minimum flows for the Alafia River during the term of this
permit. If during the course of consideration of minimum flows for the Alafia River, it is determined that
additional hydrologic, biologic, or chemical data is needed in order to assess minimum flows, the District
and the Permittee shall work collaboratively to achieve a mutually acceptable data collection program.
Should a mutually acceptable program not be accomplished, the District may require modification of
this permit.
-------
Permit No.: 2011794.00
Permittee: Tampa Bay Water
Page 16
Once minimum flows are adopted, this water use permit may be subject to additional comprehensive
review by the District during the term of this permit. The decision as to the need for further modification
or review of the permit shall be made by the District after adoption of minimum flows for the Alafia
River system. All withdrawals from the Alafia River shall be consistent with the adopted minimum
flow. Any requests to increase the yield of this project through modification of the withdrawal schedule
shall be through formal application to the District.
STANDARD CONDITIONS;
1. The Permittee shall comply with the Standard Conditions attached hereto, incorporated herein by
reference as Exhibit "B" and made a part hereof.
Authorized
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
-------
Permit No.:
Permittee:
Page
2011794.00
Tampa Bay Water
17
EXHIBIT A
Alafia River Withdrawal Schedule Applied to 1977 through 1996 Flows
''-''' "'
" DATE M
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
AVERAGE
,:^:TEARLY SUMMARY , .. . .. -
='. T /ANNUAL - -
-": ; AVERAGE ~ " J
i*«FLOW ,- - - -.
-. '."- - OJSJ'-i--"1:,-. - x . i JT^: J^_ _. ,
" -mvf(MGD)^: '-:-.- %
116
201
417
212
134
241
342
198
117
158
264
285
139
99
201
134
206
293
304
226
214
ANNUAL
AVERAGE
, ^r WITHDRAWAL ,
"5". (MGD) .'""..'. -r
9.99
17.71
28.95
20.87
10.26
21.16
28.34
17.99
8.24
13.66
23.05
20.08
12.25
7.21
14.16
9.84
18.11
23.05
25.54
19.69
17.51
-------
Permit No.: 2011794.00
Permittee: Tampa Bay Water
Page 18
40D-2
Exhibit "B"
WATER USE PERMIT CONDITIONS
STANDARD CONDITIONS
1. If any of the statements in the application and in the supporting data are found to be untrue and
inaccurate, or if the Permittee fails to comply with all of the provisions of Chapter 373, F.S., Chapter
40D, or the conditions set forth herein, the Governing Board shall revoke this permit in accordance with
Rule 40D-2.341, following notice and hearing.
2. This permit is issued based on information provided by the Permittee demonstrating that the use of water
is reasonable and beneficial, consistent with the public interest, and will not interfere with any existing
legal use of water. If, during the term of the permit, it is determined by the District that the use is not
reasonable and beneficial, in the public interest, or does impact an existing legal use of water, the
Governing Board shall modify this permit or shall revoke this permit following notice and hearing.
3. The Permittee shall not deviate from any of the terms or conditions of this permit without written
approval by the District.
4. In the event the District declares that a Water Shortage exists pursuant to Chapter 40D-21, the District
shall alter, modify, or declare inactive all or parts of this permit as necessary to address the water
shortage.
5. The District shall collect water samples from any withdrawal point listed in the permit or shall require
the Permittee to submit water samples when the District determines there is a potential for adverse
impacts to water quality.
6. The Permittee shall provide access to an authorized District representative to enter the property at any
reasonable time to inspect the facility and make environmental or hydrologic assessments. The
Permittee shall either accompany District staff onto the property or make provision for access onto the
property.
7. Issuance of this permit does not exempt the Permittee from any other District permitting requirements.
8. The Permittee shall cease or reduce surface water withdrawal as directed by the District if water levels
in lakes fall below applicable minimum water level established in Chapter 40D-8 or rates of flow in
streams fall below the minimum levels established in Chapter 40D-8.
9. The Permittee shall cease or reduce withdrawal as directed by the District if water levels in aquifers fall
below the minimum levels established by the Governing Board.
-------
Permit No.: 2011794.00
Permittee: Tampa Bay Water
Page 19
10. The Permittee shall practice water conservation to increase the efficiency of transport, application, and
use, as well as to decrease waste and to minimize runoff from the property. At such time as the
Governing Board adopts specific conservation requirements for the Permittee's water use classification,
this permit shall be subject to those requirements upon notice and after a reasonable period for
compliance.
11. The District may establish special regulations for Water Use Caution Areas. At such time as the
Governing Board adopts such provisions, this permit shall be subject to them upon notice and after a
reasonable period for compliance.
12. The Permittee shall mitigate, to the satisfaction of the District, any adverse impact to existing legal uses
caused by withdrawals. When adverse impacts occur or are imminent, the District shall require the
Permittee to mitigate the impacts. Adverse impacts include:
a. A reduction in water levels which impairs the ability of a well to produce water;
b. Significant reduction in levels or flows in water bodies such as lakes, impoundments, wetlands,
springs, streams or other watercourses; or
c. Significant inducement of natural or manmade contaminants into a water supply or into a usable
portion of any aquifer or water body.
13. The Permittee shall mitigate to the satisfaction of the District any adverse impact to environmental
features or offsite land uses as a result of withdrawals. When adverse impacts occur or are imminent,
the District shall require the Permittee to mitigate the impacts. Adverse impacts include the following:
a. Significant reduction in levels or flows in water bodies such as lakes, impoundments, wetlands,
springs, streams, or other watercourses;
b. Sinkholes or subsidence caused by reduction in water levels;
c. Damage to crops and other vegetation causing financial harm to the owner; and
d. Damage to the habitat of endangered or threatened species.
14. When necessary to analyze impacts to the water resource or existing users, the District shall require the
Permittee to install flow metering or other measuring devices to record withdrawal quantities and submit
the data to the District.
15. A District identification tag shall be prominently displayed at each withdrawal point by permanently
affixing the tag to the withdrawal facility.
16. The Permittee shall notify the District within 30 days of the sale or conveyance of permitted water
withdrawal facilities or the land on which the facilities are located.
17. All permits issued pursuant to these Rules are contingent upon continued ownership or legal control of
all property on which pumps, wells, Withdrawals or other water withdrawal facilities are located.
-------
SO UTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
INDIVIDUAL WATER USE PERMIT NO. 2011796.00
FOR
TAMPA BAY WATER, A REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY
-^FAMPA BYPASS CANAL WATER SUPPLY PROJECT
File:
(INCLUDLNG HILLSBOROUGH RIVER WATER SOURCE)
EXPIRATION DATE; December 31,2010 | PERMIT ISSUE DATE: March 30, 1999
THE PERMITTEE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR APPLYING FOR A RENEWAL OF THIS PERMIT PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION
DATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH DISTRICT RULES, WHETHER OR NOT THE PERMITTEE RECEIVES PRIOR
NOTIFICATION BY MAIL. CONTINUED USE OF WATER AFTER THE EXPIRATION DATE IS A VIOLATION OF
DISTRICT RULES, EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY APPLICABLE LAW. VIOLATION OF THE CONDITIONS
OF THIS PERMIT CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAW.
This permit, issued under the provision of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code 40D-2, authorizes the
Permittee to withdraw the quantities outlined herein, and requires various activities to be performed by the Permittee as outlined by
the Special Conditions. This permit, subject to all terms and conditions, meets all District permitting criteria.
GRANTED TO: Tampa Bay Water, A Regional Water Supply Authority
2535 Landmark Drive, Suite 211
Clearwater, FL 34621 '
The above named party is considered the Permittee in this document and is solely responsible for
performance of the terms and conditions of this permit.
ABSTRACT: This Permit was initially scheduled for consideration by the District's Governing Board on
December 15, 1998. However, a petition was received on December 4,1998, from Mr. John R-Mohme-in
objection to the District's Proposed Agency Action dated November 13, 1998. On February 17, 1999, the
Petitioner signed a Joint Stipulation to Dismissal of the petition, which releases the proposed permit for
Governing Board action.
It is the Governing Board's intent that the Permittee reduce withdrawals from its existing Central System,
comprised of 11 wellfields located in Pasco, Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties; and that reasonable present
and future demand be satisfied solely from environmentally sustainable sources of supply. To this end, the
District, Tampa Bay Water and its Member Governments, consisting of Pasco, Hillsborough, and Pinellas
counties, City of St. Petersburg, City of Tampa, and City of New Port Richey, entered into the Northern
Tampa Bay New Water Supply and Ground Water Withdrawal Reduction Agreement (Partnership
Agreement) approved May 14,1998. In general, the agreement consolidates the individual wellfield permits
into one permit for the Central System, and outlines a specific timerrame, plan of actions and requirements
to achieve the withdrawal reductions from the system. Most critical to achieving the Central System
reductions is obtaining new environmentally sustainable sources of water supplies to allow for replacement
of restricted quantities. Tampa Bay Water prepared a New Water Plan which outlines environmentally
sustainable sources of water supplies for replacement of restricted quantities. The District's Governing
Board approved the New Water Plan on August 25, 1998. The New Water Plan specifies a number of
proposed projects to meet the following objectives; having one or more projects permitted, constructed, in
operation and providing at least 38 mgd of new supply to the Central System by December 31, 2002; By
.December 31, 2007 having the remaining projects permitted, constructed, in operation and providing an
-------
Permit No.: 2011796.00
Permittee: Tampa Bay Water, A Regional Water Supply Authority
Page: 2
additional 47 mgd, for a total of at least 85 mgd of new water supply for regional distribution to the Tampa
Bay Water Member Governments. The District will be providing co-funding for eligible projects in
accordance with the New Water Sources Funding Agreement between the District and Tampa Bay Water.
This Application represents one of the new water supply source projects of the New Water Plan which is
eligible for co-funding. The water use authorized by this permit is for the purpose of providing additional
new water supply quantities for Tampa Bay Water's Central System. The allocation of the water use
quantities for replacement and rotation purposes is pursuant to the Partnership Agreement.
This is a new application for surface water withdrawals from the TBC to be used for public supply in Tampa
Bay Water's Interconnected Regional Water Supply System service area located within the Northern Tampa
Bay, the Eastern Tampa Bay and the Southern Water Use Caution Areas (WUCAs). This application
includes two surface water withdrawal intake structures on the TBC, one located on the north side of the
TBC Structure S-162, withdrawing water from the TBC's Middle Pool, and one on the south side of S-162,
withdrawing water from the TBC's Lower Pool. In addition, surface water will be diverted from the
Hillsborough River through the Harney Canal Structure 161 to be combined with water in the TBC for
withdrawal at the two surface water withdrawal intake structures near S-162. Both surface water
withdrawals and diversions are located within the Northern Tampa Bay WUCA. Tampa Bay Water's
Interconnected Regional Water Supply System service area includes the communities of Pasco,
Hillsborough, and Pinellas Counties, City of St. Petersburg, City of Tampa, and City of New Port Richey.
An Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) is required for the implementation of this Water Use Permit. The
Permittee has submitted a complete ERP application (29-0144697-3-001) to the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection for this project.
Special Conditions are included to address pertinent concerns. Special Conditions include operational
management levels, metering and reporting of pumpage, hydrologic monitoring (water levels, water quality,
rainfall, evaporation, streamflow), ecologic monitoring and mitigation through an approved Hydrobiological
Monitoring Program (HBMP), complaint investigation and mitigation, WUCA conditions, and submittal of
a Surface Water Diversion Annual Report. With the proposed permit conditions applied, the application
meets all Chapter 40D-2.301 rule criteria.
WITHDRAWAL QUANTITIES TABLES
TOTAL QUANTITIES AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS PERMIT (in MGD)
Diversion Rate
OMGD
6.5 MGD to 9.7 MGD (10% of flow)
9.7 MGD to 42 MGD
(10% to 30% of flow - see Exhibit "A")
42 MGD to 194 MGD (30% of flow)
194 MGD Maximum
Hillsborough River Discharge Rate at Tampa
Dam
< 65 MGD
65 MGD to 97 MGD
97 MGD to 139 MGD
139 MGD to 647 MGD
> 647 MGD
-------
Permit No.: 2011796.00
Permittee: Tampa Bay Water, A Regional Water Supply Authority
Page: 3
TOTAL QUANTITIES AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS PERMIT (in MGD)
Withdrawal Rate
OMGD
0 MGD to 65 MGD (80% of total flow , Flow
at S-160 cannot be less than 7 MGD)
65 MGD Maximum
Tampa Bypass Canal Discharge Rate at S-160
<7MGD
7 MGD to 81 MGD
> 81 MGD
Actual quantities are based on percentage withdrawals identified in the PUMPING SCHEDULE AND
AVAILABLE QUANTITIES Special Condition of this permit. The Maximum Daily withdrawal is limited
by system pumping capacity. Refer to Exhibit "B" for historical analysis of flows in the Tampa Bypass
Canal and the Hillsborough River as an example of the application of the withdrawal quantities table set forth
above.
PROPERTY LOCATION:
Central Hillsborough County. Paired withdrawal sites located on
a small tract of land on the east side of the Tampa Bypass-Canal,
adjacent to Structure S-162, 1 mile south of 1-4 / TBC overpass.
TYPE OF APPLICATION:
New
WATER USE CAUTION AREA: Northern Tampa Bay
APPLICATION FILED:
June 18, 1998
ACRES:
0.00 Owned (To be acquired within 2 years)
629,536.00 Serviced
(Owned) + 629,536.00 Owned and Serviced
APPLICATION AMENDED:
N/A
WATER USE:
Regional Public Supply
SERVICE AREA NAME:
Tampa Bay Water's Interconnected Regional Water Supply
System
-------
Permit No.: 2011796.00
Permittee: Tampa Bay Water, A Regional Water Supply Authority
Page: 4
USE TYPE: Residential Single Family
Residential Multi-Family
Commercial/Industrial Non Process
Unaccounted Use
Lawn and Landscape
Fire Fighting/Testing
Gross Per Capita Use.
137gpcd
DISTRICT/
PERMITTEE
I.D. NO.
1/TBC-l
2 / TBC-2
SEC./ TWN./ RNG.
06/29/20
01/29/19
LOCATION
LAT/LONG
275858.S3/
822105.26
275854.6S/
822111.51
EQUIVALENT
DIAMETER
(INCHES)
96
96
PERMIT SPECIAL CONDITIONS
All conditions referring to approval by the Regulation Department Director, Resource Regulation,
shall refer to the Director, Tampa Regulation Department, Resource Regulation.
1. APPROVALS
All conditions referring to approval by the Regulation Department Director, shall refer to. the Director,
Tampa Regulation Department.
2. INDIVIDUAL WITHDRAWAL QUANTITIES
The water use quantities listed above for the TBC Regional Pumping Station intake pipelines from the
TBC Middle Pool and Lower Pool near S-162 provide for flexibility in pumping schedules and are not
intended to dictate the distribution of pumpage from each of the permitted sources. The-Permittee may
make adjustments in pumpage distribution as necessary so long as adverse impacts to water resources,
environmental systems, and existing legal users do not result and other conditions of this permit are
satisfied. In all cases, the total withdrawal quantities are limited to the withdrawal schedule set forth
above.
-------
Permit No.: 2011796.00
Permittee: Tampa Bay Water, A Regional Water Supply Authority
Page: 5
3. WITHDRAWAL LIMITATIONS
Withdrawals from the Tampa Bypass Canal will be limited to the periods of time when flows through
the TBC and the Hillsborough River, as measured at S-160 and the Tampa Dam, in accordance with the
TAMPA BYPASS CANAL REGIONAL PUMPING FACILITIES OPERATIONS AND
REGULATORY LEVELS Special Condition of this permit, are greater than 7 MGD and 65 MOD,
respectfully. Operation of the pumping facilities associated with this project shall not interfere with the
Hillsborough River reservoir augmentation requirements as specified in the Amended and Restated
Interlocal Agreement (June 10,1998), Section 3.08 (D)( 1), which states that Tampa Bay Water's Hamey
Pumping Station on the TBC shall augment the Hillsborough River Reservoir within the permitted
quantity range as specified in Water Use Permit No. 206675.03 when the draft from Tampa's
Hillsborough River Water Treatment Plant exceeds the flow in the Hillsborough River as measured at
the Morris Bridge Hillsborough River Flow gauge and the Hillsborough River Reservoir stage is below
22.5 feet MSL as measured at the Hillsborough River Reservoir dam.
4. PUMPING SCHEDULE AND AVAILABLE QUANTITIES
The pumping facilities associated with this permit will be located at the TBC, near Structure 162. Water
available from the Hillsborough River Water Source will be diverted through Structure 161 (S-161) into
the TBC and combined with quantities available from the TBC Source for withdrawal at Tampa Bay
Water's Regional Pumping Facilities. The amount of water diverted from the Hillsborough River
through S-161 into the TBC specifically for water supply purposes shall not exceed the quantities listed
in Table A-l. Quantities, available for regional withdrawal from the Tampa Bypass Canal Source,
independent of water diverted into the Canal from the Hillsborough River Water Source shall not exceed
the quantities listed in Table B-l.
A. HILLSBOROUGH RIVER WATER SOURCE: The average daily discharge at the Hillsborough
River Dam, as measured on the previous day, will be the standard utilized to calculate the: quantity
of water available for diversion from the Hillsborough River to the TBC for regional use. The
diversion of water from the Hillsborough River through S-161 into the TBC for water supply
purposes, and the withdrawal of those diverted quantities for regional use will be based on the
schedule in Table A-1 below.
B. TAMPA BYPASS CANAL WATER SOURCE: The average daily discharge at Control Structure
160 (S-160) on the TBC Lower Pool, as measured on the previous day, will be the standard utilized
to calculate the quantity of water available for withdrawal from the TBC Source for distribution to
the regional system. The withdrawal rate will be based on the schedule in Table B-1 below.
C. MAXIMUM COMBINED WITHDRAWALS: The maximum combined withdrawal rate from the
Tampa Bay Water Regional Pumping Facilities on the TBC shall not exceed 258 MGD or 400 CFS.
-------
Permit No.:
Permittee:
Page:
2011796.00
Tampa Bay Water. A Regional Water Supply Authority
6
TABLE A-1 DIVERSIONS FROM HILLSBOROUGH RIVER
Maximum Diversion Rate -
MGD / CFS
0 (no Di%'ersion)
10% of total flow
10% to 30% - sliding scale
30% of total flow
194/300
Hillsborough River Discharge Measured at
Tampa Dam in Millions of Gallons Per Day
(MGD) / Cubic feet per Second (CFS)
0 to 65/0 to 100
65 to 97/100 to 150
97 to 141/150 to 215
141 to 647/215 to 1001
Above 647 /1 001
TABLE B-1 WITHDRAWALS FROM THE TBC
Maximum Withdrawal Rate -
MGD / CFS
0 (no Withdrawal)
80% of total flow and flow at
S-160 cannot be less than 7 MGD
65/100cfs
TBC Discharge Measured at Structure 160 in
Millions of Gallons Per Day (MGD) / Cubic
feet per Second (CFS) )
0 to 7 / 0 to 1 1
7 to 81/11 to 125
Above 81/125
5. TAMPA BYPASS CANAL REGIONAL PUMPING FACILITIES OPERATIONS AND
REGULATORY LEVELS
Regional pumping facilities proposed as part of this permit include water intake structures on both the
Middle Pool and Lower Pool of the TBC in the immediate vicinity of Structure 162. These intake
structures will enable water to be withdrawn from the Middle and Lower Pool of the TBC by a common
pumping station located adjacent to S-162. Unless superseded by the provisions in the Coordination
Plan Special Condition of this permit, withdrawals at the Tampa Bay Water Regional Pumping Facilities
on the TBC shall be subject to the following constraints in addition to the limitations imposed in the
Pumping Schedule and Available Quantities Special Condition.
A. 1. Withdrawals from the regional intake on the TBC Middle Pool will be limited to the following:
a) Quantities being diverted in accordance with Table A-1 from the Hillsborough River or,
b) Quantities available from the Tampa Water Resource Recovery Project or,
-------
Permit No.: 2011796.00
Permittee: Tampa Bay Water, A Regional Water Supply Authority
Page: 7
c) The TBC Middle Pool is at or above 14 feet NGVD and discharge at S-160 is greater than
or equal to 100 cfs or the District is maintaining the elevation in the Middle Pool lower than
14 feet NGVD.
2. Withdrawals from the regional intake on the TBC Lower Pool will be limited to the following:
a) Quantities being diverted in accordance with Tables A-l and B-l from the Hillsborough
River and/or TBC Lower Pool or,
b) The TBC discharge at S-160 is greater than or equal to 11 cfs.
B) The following structural-constraints shall apply to regional withdrawals from the Middle Pool as
limited by 5A1 .a), 5 A1 .b), and 5A. 1 .c) above:
1. No withdrawals will be made when the surface water elevation in the TBC Middle Pool and
Hamey Canal, as read on the gauges at S-161 and S-162, is at or below twelve and a half (12.5)
feet NGVD, or
2. The difference in the surface water elevations between the Hamey Canal, as read on the east
gauge at S-161, and the Hillsborough River, as read on the west gauge at S-161, is 9.5 feet or
greater.
C) The following structural constraints shall apply to regional withdrawals from the Lower Pool as
limited by 5A2.a), and 5A2.b) above:
1. No withdrawals shall be made when the difference in the surface water elevations between the
TBC Middle Pool, as read on the gauge at S-162 upstream, and the TBC lower pool, as read on
the gage at S-162 downstream, is 6.5 feet or greater.
6. SUBMISSION OF DATA AND REPORTS
A. DATA REPORTS
The Permittee shall provide the District with 1 copy of the data reports required by these Special
Conditions. All reports of data shall be submitted to the District on or before the 15th day of the
month following data collection and shall be addressed to:
Permit Data Section, Records & Data Department
Southwest Florida Water Management District
2379 Broad Street
Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
B. OTHER REPORTS
For other reports or plans, unless otherwise indicated, the Permittee shall provide to the District 1
original, 1 unbound copy, and 1 copy in acceptable digital format (see paragraph 3.C., below).
Unless otherwise specified, all reports required to be submitted by the Permittee to the District
-------
Permit No.: 2011796.00
Permittee: Tampa Bay Water, A Regional Water Supply Authority
Page: 8
pursuant to one or more conditions of this permit shall be submitted as part of the Annual Report
required by this permit.
C. FORMAT
All data and reports shall be submitted in writing, and, when feasible and, if prepared, in digital
format and medium compatible with the format and medium then utilized by or agreed to by the
District.
7. LEGAL CONTROL OF PROPERTY
This permit is issued contingent upon the Permittee's power to acquire the property rights for properties
on which pumps or other withdrawal facilities will be located, as described in the application, through
eminent domain. Specifically, the properties associated with District ID No. 1 and No. 2, and Permittee
ID No. TBC-1 and No. TBC-2, (Tampa Bypass Canal withdrawal intakes) and the proposed regional
pumping facility near the Tampa Bypass Canal. If only a part of such lands is so conveyed, or if the
ownership or other legal control is divided, this permit shall immediately terminate unless the terms of
the permit are modified or the permit is transferred pursuant to District rules. In no case shall issuance
of this permit convey any property rights to the Permittee.
8. OPERATIONS PLAN
The Optimized Regional Operations Plan (Operations Plan) shall be modified when new water supply
capacity is added to Tampa Bay Water's Regional Interconnected Water Supply System. The Permittee-
shall submit a modification to the Operations Plan which incorporates the TBC Water Supply Project -
and describes how Tampa Bay Water shall operate its water supply system in a manner to avoid~and
minimize environmental stresses to the 11 Central System Wellfield area. The Permittee shall comply
with the Operations Plan and all modifications thereof, as approved by the District.
9. USE OF WITHDRAWAL QUANTITIES
Surface water withdrawal quantities from the TBC Water Supply Project shall be used for the purpose
of providing replacement capacity and rotational capacity to the following Tampa Bay .Water Central
System wellfields as required by the Agreement:
1. Cosme-Odessa Wellfield
2. Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield
3. Cypress Bridge Wellfield
4. Cypress Creek Wellfield
5. Eldridge-Wilde Wellfield
6. Morris Bridge Wellfield
7. Northwest Hillsborough Regional Wellfield
8. North Pasco Wellfield
9. Section 21 Wellfield
10. South Pasco Wellfield
11. Starkey Wellfield
-------
Permit No.: 2011796.00
Permittee: Tampa Bay Water, A Regional Water Supply Authority
Page: 9
Wellfield replacement and rotational capacity is authorized for the Tampa Bay Water Central System
to optimize withdrawals at wellfields and to relieve environmental stresses. Withdrawal quantities
delivered by the TBC Regional Pump Facilities shall be used for existing system demand and
documented growth. The identification of wellfields receiving rotation capacity will be determined by
the approved Tampa Bay Water Optimized Regional Operations Plan.
10. MONITORING OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
A. HYDROBIOLOGICAL MONITORING
The Permittee shall develop and implement a Hydrobiological Monitoring Program (HBMP) for the
Hillsborough River/Tampa Bypass Canal. The scope and design of the HBMP shall be based on
discussions with District staff and the Permittee which shall occur within 60 days of permit issuance
and submittal of a draft HBMP within 120 days of permit issuance. The District may solicit outside
technical review for design of the HBMP. The final HBMP plan must be approved by the District
prior to implementation. The initial date of implementation will be specified in the approved
HBMP plan. .
The HBMP shall address the following objectives:
1. Establish baseline conditions prior to permitted use for streamflow rates, salinity distributions,
and selected water quality and biologic variables within the lower Hillsborough Riverbelow
Tampa Dam, TBC, Palm River, and McKay Bay.
2. Monitor diversions from the Hillsborough River and withdrawals from the TBC at~the,
withdrawal points and evaluate streamflow data for the lower Hillsborough River at Sulphur
Springs, and the TBC at structures 160 and 162.
3. Evaluate the ecological relationships of the lower Hillsborough River below Tampa Dam, TBC,
Palm River, and McKay Bay to freshwater flows.
4. Monitor selected water quality and biologic variables in order to determine if the ecological
characteristics of the lower Hillsborough River below Tampa Dam, TBC, Paim-River, and
McKay Bay related to freshwater flow change over time.
5. Determine the relative effect of permitted diversions and withdrawals on any ecologic changes
that may occur in the lower Hillsborough River below Tampa Dam, TBC, Palm River, and
McKay Bay.
6. Determine if these withdrawals cause or significantly contribute to any unacceptable
environmental impacts that the lower Hillsborough River below Tampa Dam, TBC, Palm River,
and McKay Bay exhibit as a result of changes in freshwater flows. The HBMP shall identify
criteria that will be used to determine unacceptable environmental impacts to the resources.
7. Coordinate with appropriate agencies which have or are currently collecting data which can be
incorporated into the HBMP to avoid duplication of effort and to facilitate the most efficient use
of resources.
-------
Permit No.: 2011796.00
Permittee: Tampa Bay Water. A Regional Water Supply Authority
Page: 10
HBMP reports will be submitted to the District according to the time frame established in the final
approved HBMP plan. The periodic cycle for these reports will include yearly Data reports and
periodic Interpretive reports that will be submitted according to a specific schedule which will be
established in the final approved HBMP plan.
On an annual basis, the Permittee shall submit a Data report of all raw data collected during the past
year. The Data reports will be submitted in tabular form with text limited to an explanation of
variable names and a description of any problems encountered or important observations made
during the monitoring year. This information shall be included in the Annual Report for this permit.
At the end of selected years specified in the final approved HBMP plan, the Permittee will submit
Interpretive reports that will include comprehensive analyses of all data collected to date that
specifically address the objectives of the HBMP. Qualitative and quantitative analyses shall be
presented in the interpretive reports to evaluate the interactions of hydrologic conditions and
withdrawals on streamflow, nutrient loading, salinity distributions, and the response of related water
quality and biological variables in the lower Hillsborough River below Tampa Dam, TBC, Palm
River, and McKay Bay. The Interpretive reports will also include an appendix that provides all raw
data collected during the previous year, thus fulfilling the requirement of the Annual for that year.
Upon completion of each cycle of the HBMP, a draft HBMP Interpretive report shall be submitted
to the District as part of the overall Annual report. The District shall review and provide written
comments within 45 days of the submittal of each draft HBMP Interpretive report. Final interpretive
reports shall be submitted by the Permittee within 90 days of receipt of District comments.
The District will review these results of these reports to determine if the diversions or withdrawals
have or are expected to result in unacceptable environmental impacts to the natural resources of the
lower Hillsborough River below Tampa Dam, TBC, Palm River, and McKay Bay as addressed in
Part 4 of the District's Basis of Review for Water Use Permit Applications. If unacceptable
environmental impacts have or are expected to occur due to the withdrawals, then the District shall
require a revision to the diversion and/or withdrawal schedule.
B. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY
The Permittee shall conduct aerial photographic reconnaissance of all water supply facilities
encompassed within this permit, all environmental monitoring station locations, and surrounding
areas as approved by the District. The reconnaissance areas must be submitted in writing within 120
days of permit issuance for approval by the District. The approved photographic reconnaissance
shall occur on a semi-annual basis (April-May and October-November). Photography shall be color
infrared at 1"=2000'+ scale with 60% forward overlap and 30% side overlap and flown in a north-
south flight path whenever possible. Original or first generation positive transparencies of the flight
photography and an analysis of the flight's photography shall be included in the Annual Report
submitted to the District by July 1 of each year. This photography shall be used to detect landscape
changes over an extended period of time and in instances where the HBMP monitoring detects
potential changes to monitoring sites.
-------
Permit No.: 2011796.00
Permittee: Tampa Bay Water, A Regional Water Supply Authority
Page: 11
11. WUCA CONSERVATION REPORTING
As part of the Annual Report required by this permit, the Permittee shall submit the following
information relative to each Demand Planning Area or Member Government serviced by this permit:
A. PER-CAPITA USE
1. The population served;
2. Significant deducted uses, the associated quantity, and conservation measures applied to these
uses;
3. Total withdrawals;
4. Treatment losses;
5. Environmental mitigation quantities;
6. Sources and quantities of incoming and outgoing transfers of water and wholesale purchases and
sales of water, with quantities determined at the supplier's departure point;
7. Documentation of reuse and desalination credits, if taken.
8. The gross per-capita use rate, and, at the Permittee's option, an adjusted (compliance) per-capita
use rate, as specified in the Basis of Review for Water Use Permit Applications, that reflects
adjustments for significant users, treatment losses, environmental mitigation, and incentives for
reuse and the use of desalination sources.
B. WATER CONSERVING RATE STRUCTURE
A copy of the official rate-structure document for each Member Government serviced by this Permit
in effect at the time the Annual Report is compiled.
C. WATER AUDIT PROGRAM
Documentation of the results of the ongoing water audits for each Member as well as the Authority's
water distribution system serviced by this permit.
D. RESIDENTIAL WATER USE
The total number of connections and total water use for:
1. Residential customers for each of the following categories:
a) single family dwelling units served;
b) multi-family dwelling units served and the number of equivalent residential units
represented; and
c) mobile homes served.
(Where separate indoor and outdoor meters exist, residential water use quantities shall include
both the indoor and outdoor water uses associated with the dwelling units, including irrigation
water.)
2. Commercial customers
3. Industrial customers
4. Public/Institutional customers
5. Wholesale customers, including the name and quantity sold to each individual customer
6. Other customers
-------
Permit No.: 2011796.00
Permittee: Tampa Bay Water, A Regional Water Supply Authority
Page: 12
E. RECLAIMED WATER USE
1. The quantity of total reclaimed water provided by the Member Governments serviced by this
permit for reuse on both a total annual average daily and monthly basis;
2. For all individual customer reuse connections with line sizes of 4-inches or greater, a listing of:
a) account name and address;
b) location of connection(s) by latitude - longitude;
c) line size;
d) meter (yes or no); and
e) metered quantities, if metered.
3. The annual average daily quantities, monthly quantities, locations, and methods of disposal for
effluent that is not reused.
4. A map or plan depicting the area of reuse service including and areas projected to be added
within the next year, if possible.
12. WATER QUANTITY AND HYDROLOGIC MONITORING CONDITIONS
The tables contained in the following Special Conditions of this permit contain specific details of the
monitoring requirements. Changes and adjustments to the monitoring requirements may be made as
necessary to provide for continued or more effective monitoring of hydrologic conditions associated with
the withdrawals. Monitoring requirement changes shall be made after consultation with the Permittee,
and shall be confirmed by written approval from the Regulation Department Director. Nothing in this
permit shall be construed to limit the authority of obligation of the District to require changes or
additions to monitoring requirements as necessary to ensure the protection of the resource.
A. FLOW METERING
1. INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF FLOW METERS
Upon construction of the Project pumping facilities, flow measuring devices shall be installed at the
following locations:
District ID No. 1, Permittee ID No. TBC-1-TBC Regional Pumping Station intake pipeline from
the TBC Middle Pool near"S-162
District ID No. 3, Permittee ID No. TBC-3-TBC Pumping Station Effluent Line
NOTE: District ID No. 2, Permittee ID No. TBC-2, is defined as the TBC Regional Pumping
Station intake pipeline from the TBC Lower Pool near S-162. This intake pipeline wilLnoLbe
metered directly. However, surface water withdrawal quantities diverted through this intake pipeline
will be calculated by taking the difference between quantities recorded at District ID No. 3 and
District ID No. 1 on a daily basis.
Flow measuring devices shall be non-resettable, totalizing flow meters or other flow measuring
devices as approved in writing by the Director of the Tampa Regulation Department. Such devices
shall have and maintain an accuracy within five percent of the actual flow as installed. Total flow
and meter readings from the listed intake and effluent lines shall be recorded on a daily basis and
reported to the Permit Data Section, Records and Data Department (using District forms) on or
-------
Permit No.: 2011796.00
Permittee: Tampa Bay Water, A Regional Water Supply Authority
Page: 13
before the fifteenth (15th) day of the following month. Monthly flow data shall be submitted on the
District-supplied scanning card provided to the Permittee for that purpose, or other District-approved
electronic form of data submittal, to the Permit Data Section, Records and Data Department, on or
before the 15th day of the following month. If a metered withdrawal is not utilized during a given
month, a report shall be submitted to the Permit Data Section, Records and Data Department,
indicating zero gallons.
a) SCADA-EQUIPPED FACILITIES
For flow monitoring points equipped with SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition)
the Permittee shall maintain the following for each flow monitoring point: one venturi-type flow
meter or other flow metering device, one non-resettable totalizing recording device at each
monitoring point, one remote transmitter unit that transfers the recorded flow data by telemetry
to the remote SCADA master station. The SCADA master station flow data shall be recorded
on a daily basis for each flow monitoring point and for the combined facility pumpage. For all
SCADA-equipped monitoring points, the non-resettable totalizing recording device at each
monitoring point shall be recorded on an annual basis, and reported in the Annual Report with
a comparison to the SCADA-retrieved cumulative flow for each monitoring point. If and when
any the facility becomes equipped with SCADA, the provisions of this paragraph shall apply.
\
b) TOTAL FACILITY PUMPAGE
Flow data recorded at the TBC Pumping Station Effluent Line shall represent the total surface
. water source pumpage for the TBC Water Supply Project.
2. METER CALIBRATION, TESTING AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
The Permittee shall undertake regular and routine testing, calibration and preventive/corrective
maintenance for all flow meters to ensure that they have and maintain an accuracy within 5 percent
of actual flow as installed. The Permittee shall describe the standard operating procedures for the"
Meter Calibration, Testing and Maintenance Program in a report submitted for District apprav-aLby
January 1,2000. The report shall include a description of methods to be used for estimation of flow
from a withdrawal point during a meter malfunction. Changes to the program shall be subject to
District approval.
3. NOTIFICATION AND CORRECTION OF METERING DISCREPANCIES
Within 3 working days of identification of a meter that is not providing an accuracy within 5 percent
of actual flow as installed, the Permittee shall inform the District in writing of the facts regarding
the problem. Until the problem is corrected, flows through the metered point shall be estimated,
using methods identified in the Meter Calibration, Testing and Maintenance program. TKePermittee
shall correct the problem within 15 days following identification of the problem, or discontinue use
of the withdrawal point until the problem is corrected, unless an extension is confirmed in writing
from the Director of the Tampa Regulation Department.
4. ANNUAL REPORT REGARDING FLOW METERS
The Annual Report shall summarize activities conducted under the Meter Calibration, Testing and
Maintenance Program to maintain accuracy of withdrawal metering. For SCADA equipped
monitoring points, the non-resettable totalizing recording device at each monitoring point shall be
recorded on an annual basis, and reported in the Annual Report with a comparison to the SCADA-
-------
Permit No.: 2011796.00
Permittee: Tampa Bay Water, A Regional Water Supply Authority
Page: 14
retrieved cumulative flow for each monitoring point. The Permittee shall present the results of a
daily comparison of withdrawals from the intake structures on both sides of Structure S-162 to the
cumulative flow recorded at the TBC Pumping Station Effluent Line for the annual reporting period.
The Annual Report shall also present the total amounts of water delivered to member governments
and other points of use.
5. DESTINATION OF WATER
The Permittee shall provide a monthly summary report of the total quantity of water delivered to
each Member Government. This amount will be estimated based upon the percentage of total water
delivered to each Member from the Tampa Bay Water Interconnected Regional Water Supply
System. The Permittee shall also provide a summary in the Annual Report showing the volume of
water withdrawn during the annual reporting period from the TBC intake structures, the water
delivered from the TBC to a reservoir (if constructed), and the water delivered from the TBC to the
Regional Water Treatment plant for distribution to the Interconnected Regional Water Supply
System.
B. RAINFALL AND EVAPORATION MONITORING
1. RAINFALL GAUGES
The District currently maintains rainfall gauges at TBC Structures S-160, S-161 and S-162 as listed
below. Data obtained from these monitoring points shall be made available to Tampa Bay Water.
For purposes of this permit, data obtained from the listed site during the annual reporting period
shall be summarized in the Annual Report required by this permit. Should the District discoritiuug
monitoring ai the listed sites, Tampa Bay Water will be required to establish replacement-sites-for..
those where District monitoring will be terminated. Any proposed changes to the iecoidiiig~
frequency and locations shall be approved by the Regulation Department Director, and shall "be
summarized in the annual report as described in Annual Reporting Special Condition,
District
I.D. No.
206
54
55
Site Name
Structure 160
Structure 162
Structure 161
Latitude/
Longitude
275722.07/822214.31
275901.06/822106.31
280106.06/822214.31
Frequency
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
2. EVAPORATION PAN
Within 60 days of permit issuance, the Permittee shall establish and maintain a continuousrecording
evaporation pan(s) as identified below. Total daily evaporation shall be recorded and submitted to
the District, in a form acceptable to the District, by the 15* day of the following month. The period
of record for these data shall begin and end on the last day of each month.
District
I.D. No.
208
Permittee
I.D. No.
S-162EV
Latitude/
Longitude
To Be Determined
Frequency
Continuous
-------
Permit No.: 2011796.00
Permittee: Tampa Bay Water, A Regional Water Supply Authority
Page: 15
C. STAGE ELEVATION MEASUREMENTS
The District's Resource Data Department will collect continuous stage elevations from the TBC at
the locations designated below, and provide the data to the Permittee for use in meeting regulatory
compliance levels in the TBC. Stage elevation data shall be provided on a continuous basis using
the District's SCADA system.
Continuous Stage Measurements
Location ID SWFWMD SCADA ID
S-159 (upstream) 47
S-160 (upstream) 48
S-161 (east) 49
S-161 (west) 49
S-162 (upstream) 50
S-162 (downstream) 50
NOTE: Stage elevation data for the Tampa Dam is recorded by the City of Tampa.
D. DISCHARGE MEASUREMENTS
The Permittee will calculate average daily discharge measurements for flow at the structures and
frequencies designated below, and submit the data to the Permit Data Section, Records-andJData-
Department, in a form acceptable to the District, on or before the 15* day of the following-month.
Flow measurements may not be required to be calculated during flood control discharge_events_
declared by the District's Operations Department.
Average Daily Flow Measurements
District Permittee Latitude/
ID No. ID No. Longitude Frequency
400 S-159F to be determined Avg. Daily
401 S-160F to be determined Avg. Daily
402 S-161F to be determined Avg. Daily
403 S-162F to be determined Avg! Daily
13. COORDINATION PLAN
By December 31,1999, the Permittee, in coordination with the District's Operations Department, Land
Management Department, Resource Regulation Department, and the City of Tampa shall provide a
coordination plan which identifies the multiple functions (flood control, Hillsborough Reservoir
augmentation, regional water supply) and activities (regional pumping station construction, telemetry
improvements, etc.) authorized for the TBC. The first and foremost priority of the TBC shall continue
to be for the purposes of flood management. The Coordination Plan shall include but will not
necessarily be limited to the following issues:
-------
Permit No.: 2011796.00
Permittee: Tampa Bay Water. A Regional Water Supply Authority
Page: 16
A. Works of the District Permitting;
B. District Land Use and Protection License Agreement;
C. USCOE Permitting;
D. A plan and time line for construction of regional pumping facilities on the TBC;
E. A detailed communications plan including telemetry to enable operation of the TBC for water supply
purposes without interfering in flood control operations of the Canal and the Hillsborough Reservoir
dam or interfering with City of Tampa water supply operations;
F. A list and conceptual design for control structure automation/improvements necessary to facilitate
conveyance of water through the TBC to the Tampa Bay Water Regional Pumping Facilities;
G. Water supply operations schedule and protocol to enable diversion of appropriate flows and
withdrawal of available quantities;
H. SWFWMD application of herbicides in the TBC
I. Consistency with established Minimum Flows on the Hillsborough River and TBC
Prior to activation of the TBC pumping facilities, and following District approval of the Coordination
Plan, the Permittee, in coordination with the District's Operations Department, shall develop a
Coordination Plan Agreement which provides for the operation and maintenance of the permanent
pumping facilities, discharge structure improvements, and telemetry on the TBC. The TBC
Coordination Plan Agreement shall be included as an integral part of a Comprehensive Management
Plan for the Hillsborough River, the TBC, Sulfur Springs and the Morris Bridge Wellfield in accordance
with the Amended and Restated Interlocal Agreement (July 10, 1998), Section 3.08 (G).
14. INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINTS
The Permittee shall in%'estigate complaints related to withdrawals. This condition shall be an ongoing
effort for the duration of this permit. All complainants will make an application to the Permittee and1
must receive an investigation report, including any action to be taken within a reasonable time'by^the
Permittee. The Permittee, shall file a report of the complaint, the findings of facts, and any mitigation
action taken or to be taken by the Permittee, to the Director of the Tampa Regulation Department for
review and approval within 90 days of the receipt of any complaint. The report shall include:
A. The name and address of each complainant;
B. The date and nature of the complaint;
C. A summary of the Permittee's investigation;
D. A summary of the Permittee's determination, including details of any mitigation activities; and
E. Cost of mitigation activity for each complaint.
Full mitigation shall not exceed 180 days from complaint receipt, unless additional time is granted by
the District. A summary of the investigations of complaint and mitigation activities, related to the TBC
Water Supply Project operations for the annual reporting periods shall be provided, and reported in the
Annual Report.
15. CAPPING WELLS NOT IN USE
Within 60 days of permit issuance, any wells constructed during the Tampa Bypass Canal Linear
Wellfield hydrogeologic testing program (1997), that are not proposed for continued monitoring shall
-------
Permit No.: 2011796.00
Permittee: Tampa Bay Water, A Regional Water Supply Authority
Page: 17
be capped in a watertight manner. These wells shall, within two (2) years after permit issuance be
plugged and abandoned in accordance with Chapter 62-532.500(4) F.S. and Chapter 40D-3.531(2).
16. ANNUAL REPORT
A. GENERAL INFORMATION AND DATA
The Permittee shall provide a comprehensive and concise annual report ("Annual Report") to the
District which describes the operation of the TBC Regional Pumping Facility covered under this
permit. Information collected through the following conditions of this permit shall be included in
this Annual Report:
The Operations Plan
Conservation Reporting
Water Distribution Data
Meter Calibration, Testing and Maintenance Program
Investigation of Complaints
Data sources shall be referenced in the Annual Report, but no raw data shall be included in the
report. Only essential text, graphs, and tables should be included in the report. Six copies of the
Annual Report shall be submitted to the Permits Data Section by July 1 of each year. The Annual
Report shall cover the preceding water year period from October 1 to September 30.
Operations Plan implementation, water quantity and water distribution information collectertfbrthis
permit shall be summarized for the annual reporting period. A population estimate for the annual
reporting period, which includes only those served by the municipal system within the defined
service areas, shall be provided and referenced. The quantities of water delivered to and used-wrmin
the service area of each member government of Tampa Bay Water over the annual reporting period
shall be used with the population estimate to determine a per capita use rate for the period. Any
changes to the service area boundaries shall be described in the text and plotted on-a-map.
B. TBC WATER SUPPLY PROJECT ANNUAL REPORTS
The Permittee shall provide a concise individual annual report ("Surface Water Diversion and
Withdrawal Annual Report") to the District which provides a compilation of data collected during
the course of the year as part of the final approved HBMP plan. The Surface Water.Di version and
Withdrawal Annual Report shall concisely summarize the elements listed below, and any other
elements within this permit which require annual environmental reporting, with emphasis on the
interactions between these elements, where appropriate. Six copies of each Surface Water Diversion
and Withdrawal Annual Report shall be submitted to the Permits Data Section by July 1 of each
year. The Wellfield Annual Reports shall cover the preceding water year from October 1 to
September 30.
1. HYDROLOGIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
a) Data collected as a part of MONITORING OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION -
HYDROLOGICAL MONITORING Special Conditions shall be summarized and analyzed
by the Permittee to document any effects of surface water diversions and withdrawals on the
-------
Permit No.: 2011796.00
Permittee: Tampa Bay Water, A Regional Water Supply Authority
Page: 18
lower Hillsborough River below Tampa Dam, TBC, Palm River, and McKay Bay and the
cumulative effects to the Tampa Bay estuary. Each annual report will contain a HBMP data
report of all raw data collected during the past year. A brief summary of any recommended
changes to the monitoring requirements shall be included. More comprehensive analyses for
the HBMP shall be included in the HBMP Interpretive reports which shall be submitted for each
periodic cycle as defined in the final approved HBMP plan.
b) The Annual Report shall include an update of the status of plans to use additional surface
water or ground-water storage facilities to increase water supplies available from the enhanced
surface water system, which includes the Hillsborough River, Tampa Bypass Canal, and Alafia
River surface water sources. This update shall describe the size, location infrastructure and
permitting status of any water storage facilities that are being considered for use. The effects
of these storage facilities for improving water supply yields from the enhanced surface water
system shall be discussed. Should additional water storage facilities become available that could
alleviate or prevent unacceptable environmental impacts, then alternative withdrawal schedules
will be evaluated.
2. INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINTS
A summary of the investigations of all complaints concerning adverse impacts to existing legal
users, land uses and environmental features, as well as all of the Permittee's efforts to mitigate
such adverse impacts, shall be provided for each reporting period. This summary shall include:
a) Number and type of complaint(s);
b) Number and type of mitigation activiry(ies): and
c) Number and type of complaint(s) which did not require mitigation activity.
3. OTHER
All reports specified to be included in the Wellfield Annual Reports by conditions of this permit
shall be so included.
17. TIME EXTENSIONS
Unless specified otherwise, time extensions to condition deadlines may be granted upon written request
to the District, provided that the request is made prior to the deadline, the Permittee has demonstrated
a good faith effort in meeting the deadline set forth in the condition, and a reasonable modified deadline
is proposed by the Permittee. However, the extensions provided for in this shall not 'apply to the
Pumpage Schedule and Available Quantities Specific Condition of this permit.
18. MODIFICATION OR REVOCATION OF PERMIT BY DISTRICT
Nothing in this permit is intended, nor shall anything herein be construed, to replace, limit or impair the
District's right to modify or revoke this permit in accordance with applicable law.
-------
Permit No.: 2011796.00
Permittee: Tampa Bay Water, A Regional Water Supply Authority
Page: 19
19. OTHER LIMITATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS
A. Should the Permittee's ownership of the lands and facilities encompassed within this permit change
such that the Permittee takes ownership of the surface water intake points, pumping facilities, and
transmission lines only, with the remainder of the associated lands reverting to ownership by
Member Governments, impacts to such lands shall not be considered "offsite land-use impacts"
within the meaning of Rule 40D-2.301(l)(h) and Section 4.7 of the Basis of Review for Water Use
Permitting.
B. The remedies for violation of this permit are cumulative. Thus, the pursuit of one remedy shall not
preclude the pursuit of other remedies provided by this permit or by applicable law. The pursuit of
any remedy provided in this permit or by applicable law shall not constitute a forfeiture or waiver
of any other remedy. The waiver of one violation shall not be deemed a waiver of any other
violation. Forbearance to enforce one or more of the remedies provided by this permit or by
applicable law on an event of violation shall not be deemed or construed to constitute a waiver of
the right to any remedy for that violation.
20. MINIMUM FLOWS FOR HTLLSBOROUGH RIVER AND TAMPA BYPASS CANAL
The District anticipates establishment of minimum flows for the Hillsborough River and TBC during
the term of this permit. If during the course of consideration of minimum flows for the Hillsborough
River and TBC it is determined that additional hydrologic, biologic, or chemical data is needed in order
to assess minimum flows, the District and the Permittee shall work collaboratively to achieve a mutually
acceptable data collection program. Should a mutually acceptable program not be accomplished, the
District may require modification of this permit.
Once minimum flows are established, this water use permit may be subject to additional comprehensive
review by the District during the term of this permit. The decision as to the need for further modification
or review of the permit shall be made by the District after adoption of minimum flows for ihe
Hillsborough River and Tampa Bypass Canal systems.
STANDARD CONDITIONS; '
1. The Permittee shall comply with the Standard Conditions attached hereto, incorporated herein by
reference as Exhibit "C" and made a part hereof.
Authorized Signature
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
-------
EXHIBIT A
HILLSBOROUGH RIVER FLOW DIVERSIONS
FOR 10%-30% OF FLOW
Flo* Off Dim Before
Divenioni
(MCD'CFS)
97/150
98/151
9S/I52
99/1 SJ
100/154
100/155
101/156
101/157
102/151
103/159
103/160
104/161
105/162
105/163
106/164
107/165
107/166
I0&'167
108/168
109/169
110/170
110/171
111/172
112/173
112/174
113/175
1U/I76
114/177
115/171
11&/179
II6/IU
1 17/111
118/182
118/183
Divenioni
(MGD/CFS)
9.7/15.0
9.8/15.1
9.4/1 5 J
9.9/ISJ
10.0/15.4
IO.O/15J
10.1/15.6
10. I/I 5.7
10.2/15.8
IOJ/IS.9
10.3/16.0
10.4/16.1
10.5/16.2
10.S/I6J
10.6/16.4
10.7/16.5
10.7/16/6
1 1.0/17.0
11.6/IS.O
12J/19.0
12.9/20.0
I3JV21.0
14.2/22.0
14.9/U.O
15i74.0
I6J/25.0
I6J/26.0
17.4/27.0
I8.I/M.O
11.7/29.0
19.4/30.0
20.00 1.0
20.7/32.0
21.3/33.0
P»rc«m
Divenioni
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.18
10.71
11.24
11.76
12JI
12.79
13.29
13.79
14.29
14.77
15.25
15.73
16 JO
16.67
17.13
17.58
18.03
Flow Over Dim Before
Divenioni
(MCD/CFS)
119/184
120/115
120/IM
121/187
121/188
121/189
123/190
123/191
124/192
125/193
IIS.' IX
126/195
127/196
127/197
12X/I9S
128/199
129/200
130701
130/202
131/203
132/204
132/205
133/206
134/207
134/208
135/209
136/710
136/211
137/212
138/213
138/214
139/215
Divenioni
(MCD/CFS)
22.0/34.0
22.6/35.0
23J/36.0
23.9/37.0
24.6/38.0
25.2/39.0
25J/40.0
26.5/41.0
27.1/42.0
274/43.0
28.4/44.0
29.1/45.0
29.7/46.0
30.4/47.0
31.0/48.0
31.7/49.0
32J/SO.O
33.0/51.0
33.6/52.0
34.2/53.0
34.9/54.0
35.5/55.0
36.2/56.0
36.8/57.0
37.5/68.0
38.I/59J
Mi/60.0
39.4/61.0
40.1/62.0
40.7/63.0
41.4/64.0
41. 7/64 J
Percent
Divenioni
18.48
18.92
I9JS
19.79
20.21
20.63
21.05
21.47
21JS
22.28
22.68
23.08
23.47
23 M
1AM
24.42
2i.oe
2SJ7
2SJ4-
26JI
26.47
26J3
27.18
27 J4
27.88
28:23
28J7
28.91
29 OS
29 J8
29.91
30.00
-------
EXHIBIT B
HILLSBOROUGH RIVER FLOWS/DIVERSIONS
DATE
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
AVERAGE
ANNUAL .
AVERAGE
FLOW
OVER DAM
(MOD)
176
108
28
167
370
55
74
259
368
150
139
148
191
212
31
11
118
63
51
173
210
148
ANNUAL
AVERAGE
DIVERSION
(MGD)
41.5
25:9
5.7
39.3
55.4
11.9
20.8
57.6
74.1
40.8
27.0
38.3
32.6
37.5
7.0
0.8
27.5
17.0
12.8
35.3
45.2
31.0
-------
EXHIBIT B Cont.
TAMPA BYPASS CANAL FLOWS/WITHDRAWALS
DATE
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
AVERAGE
ANNUAL
AVERAGE
FLOW
OVERS- 160
(MGD)
29
21
24
26
256
42
28
115
205
56
123
44
103
163
23
33
51
87
63
75
91
79
ANNUAL
AVERAGE
WITHDRAWAL
(MGD)
21.07
14.40
16.5
18.32
35.88
30.52
19.61
40.74
43.22
30.78
20.15
31.96
29.66
13.38
15.40
24.22
33.15
39.37
43.68
40.52
56.68
29.49
-------
40D-2
Exhibit "C"
WATER USE PERMIT CONDITIONS
STANDARD CONDITIONS
1. If any of the statements in the application and in the supporting data are found to be untrue and
inaccurate, or if the Permittee fails to comply with all of the provisions of Chapter 373, F.S., Chapter
40D, or the conditions set forth herein, the Governing Board shall revoke this permit in accordance with
Rule 40D-2.341, following notice and hearing.
2. This permit is issued based on information provided by the Permittee demonstrating that the use of water
is reasonable and beneficial, consistent with the public interest, and will not interfere with any existing
legal use of water. If, during the term of the permit, it is determined by the District that the use is not
reasonable and beneficial, in the public interest, or does impact an existing legal use of water, the
Governing Board shall modify this permit or shall revoke this permit following notice and hearing.
3. The Permittee shall not deviate from any of the terms or conditions of this permit without written
approval by the District.
4. In the event the District declares that a Water Shortage exists pursuant to Chapter 40D-21, the District
shall alter, modify, or declare inactive all or parts of this permit as necessary to address the water
shortage.
5. The District shall collect water samples from any withdrawal point listed in the permit or shall require
the Permittee to submit water samples when the District determines there is a potential for adverse
impacts to water quality.
6. The Permittee shall provide access to an authorized District representative to enter the property at any
reasonable time to inspect the facility and make environmental or hydrologic assessments. The
Permittee shall either accompany District staff onto the property or make provision for access onto the
property.
7. Issuance of this permit does not exempt the Permittee from any other District permitting requirements.
8. The Permittee shall cease or reduce surface water withdrawal as directed by the District if water levels
in lakes fall below applicable minimum water level established in Chapter 40D-8 or rates of flow in
streams fall below the minimum levels established in Chapter 40D-8.
9. The Permittee shall cease or reduce withdrawal as directed by the District if water levels in aquifers fall
below the minimum levels established by the Governing Board.
10. The Permittee shall practice water conservation to increase the efficiency of transport, application, and
use, as well as to decrease waste and to minimize runoff from the property. At such time as the
Governing Board adopts specific conservation requirements for the Permittee's water use classification,
this permit shall be subject to those requirements upon notice and after a reasonable period for
compliance.
-------
11. The District may establish special regulations for Water Use Caution Areas. At such time as the
Governing Board adopts such provisions, this permit shall be subject to them upon notice and after a
reasonable period for compliance.
12. The Permittee shall mitigate, to the satisfaction of the District, any adverse impact to existing legal uses
caused by withdrawals. When adverse impacts occur or are imminent, the District shall require the
Permittee to mitigate the impacts. Adverse impacts include:
a. A reduction in water levels which impairs the ability of a well to produce water;
b. Significant reduction in levels or flows in water bodies such as lakes, impoundments, wetlands,
springs, streams or other watercourses; or
c. Significant inducement of natural or manmade contaminants into a water supply or into a usable
portion of any aquifer or water body.
13. The Permittee shall mitigate to the satisfaction of the District any adverse impact to environmental
features or offsite land uses as a result of withdrawals. When adverse impacts occur or are imminent,
the District shall require the Permittee to mitigate the impacts. Adverse impacts include the following:
a. Significant reduction in levels or flows in water bodies such as lakes, impoundments, wetlands,
springs, streams, or other watercourses;
b. Sinkholes or subsidence caused by reduction in water levels;
c. Damage to crops and other vegetation causing financial harm to the owner; and
d. Damage to the habitat of endangered or threatened species.
14. When necessary to analyze impacts to the water resource or existing users, the District shall require the
Permittee to install flow metering or other measuring devices to record withdrawal quantities and submit
the data to the District.
15. A District identification tag shall be prominently displayed at each withdrawal point by permanently
affixing the tag to the withdrawal facility.
16. The Permittee shall notify the District within 30 days of the sale or conveyance of permitted_water-
withdrawal facilities or the land on which the facilities are located.
17. Ail permits issued pursuant to these Rules are contingent upon continued ownership or legal control of
all property on which pumps, wells, diversions or other water withdrawal facilities are located.
-------
APPENDIX D - CORRESPONDENCE
-------
Water Resource
ASSOCIATES
May 21, 2001
Mr. John Hamilton
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
61 Forsyth St., SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Re: Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir (TBRR) EIS
Dear John:
This is a follow-up to our conversation whether the inclusion of
information generated by Hillsborough County, in support of the
evaluation of the TBRR, would be included in the Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed reservoir. Based on our
discussion, it was decided rather than including documents or parts of
documents, that you would prefer to reference and briefly describe this
data in the EIS.
To accomplish this, I have included references and a description of
three items that we are requesting be included in the EIS. This
information is provided to you both in hard copy and electronically for
your use.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED
TAMPA BAY, FLORIDA WATER WITHDRAWAL PROJECTS
A study was conducted by Hillsborough County to determine if
environmental effects from withdrawals of freshwater water from the
Hillsborough River, the Alafia River and the Tampa Bypass
Canal/Palm River would occur with respect to marine life in Tampa
Bay. These impacts could be caused by changes in the temperature
and salinity distributions that may result from these withdrawals. The
entire Bay was considered with a special focus on the above named
rivers and on McKay and Hillsborough Bays because of their proximity
to the proposed withdrawal sites.
I4S02 NORTH DALE HABRY HWY. SUITE 226 TAMPA, FLORIDA 33618
PHONE: 8I3-265-3I30 FAX: 8I3-26S-66IO
www.wraconsultants.com
-------
Mr. John Hamilton, US Environmental Protection Agency
May 21, 2001
A well-tested and extensively used three-dimensional hydrodynamic circulation model
was developed to encompass all of Tampa Bay including the rivers and tributaries
delivering freshwater into the bay. The study period of calendar years' 1998 and 1999
was chosen from a 40-year record of freshwater inflows into the bay because they
represented extreme conditions, relatively wet and dry years. Water withdrawal
scenarios from the Hillsborough River, the Alafia River and the Tampa Bypass
Canal/Palm River were constructed based on specifications in the Enhanced Surface
Water System permitted withdrawal schedule.
An analysis of the changes in the bay, as a result of the withdrawals, indicates that
only the region where any detectible change can be found is in the area of the
withdrawals themselves.
i
No changes were apparent anywhere in the vicinity of the proposed desalination
facility and no changes in temperature were found anywhere in the entire river/bay
system.
Changes in salinity due to the withdrawals will be confined to the Hillsborough River,
the Alafia River, and the Tampa Bypass Canal/Palm River and the McKay Bay portion
of the bay. The model results show salinity increases when compared to background
of 1.5-psu, 20% of the time in the Hillsborough River. There is a 1 to 2-psu increase
of salinity in the surface waters of the Tampa Bypass Canal. The Alafia River shows
minor increases in salinity in the range of 0.5 to 1-psu with infrequent bursts of 2 to 3-
psu upstream. The organisms now present in the river will tolerate the salinity
changes that will result from river withdrawal and no significant changes will occur to
the ecology of the river as a result of withdrawal.
The Palm River is largely a degraded habitat and proposed river withdrawals are not
expected to lead to further significant degradation of the biota. Although the flow
patterns of the Alafia River have been altered less than the other two river-estuarine
systems, the habitat, especially the benthic habitat, cannot be defined as "healthy".
The slight increases that will occur in salinity when withdrawal is permitted will easily
be tolerated by the oligohaline and low mesohaline species occurring presently.
"Seawater Desalination Brine Disposal Investigation"; Alan F. Blumberg, Ph. Dand Norman Blake,
Ph. D; Hillsborough County, Florida; Draft May 2001
-------
Mr. John Hamilton, US Environmental Protection Agency
May 21,2001
HILLSBOROUGH INDEPENDENT MONITORING PROGRAM (HIMP)
In mid-1999, the Board of County Commissioners authorized EPC to develop an
independent monitoring program with the objective of establishing sufficient pre-
operational and post-operational observations to determine any environmental change
in the rivers and near shore ecological communities of the Tampa Bay estuary,
particular to the areas of study, which are contiguous to Hillsborough County.
The Hillsborough Independent Monitoring Program (HIMP) has three components:
water quality monitoring, benthic invertebrate and sediments monitoring, and vegetative
analysis. Areas of monitoring include the lower Hillsborough River, the Alafia River, the
Palm River and McKay Bay, the Hillsborough Bay, and the area adjacent to the location
of the proposed desalination facility at Big Bend, referred to generally as the Apollo
Beach embayment. The Little Manatee River is monitored as a control site.
Water quality monitoring is conducted for the typical criteria
(conductivity, dissolved oxygen, temperature, chlorophyll, etc.) Sampling is conducted
throughout the rivers and bays named. Generally, three types of sampling are done.
Synoptic surveys involve traversing the sampled water body by boat and deploying
electronic monitors (Hydrolab Surveyor) to take water column measurements at multiple
locations. Continuous moveable monitoring involves deploying multi-probe electronic
monitors (Hydrolab Datasondes) throughout the sampled water body. These
instruments are programmed to collect data at fifteen-minute intervals over a 72-hour
continuous period before they are retrieved. Finally, limited numbers of continuous
fixed electronic monitors (Campbell Model AMJ 99) are set on pilings to continuously
record salinity and dissolved oxygen at top and bottom of the water column every fifteen
minutes. This data is stored and periodically recovered by boat.
The benthic invertebrate and sediment monitoring is designed to provide a statistically
defensible method for characterizing the status of the benthic community and compiling
data on sediments analyzed for trace metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,
organochlorine pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyls: The study design is the
stratified-random probability based approach developed for EMAP. The desired
criterion was that the study design could detect at least a 20% change in mean species
richness 80% of the time at a p = 0.05 (confidence level = 95%).
The vegetative component of the HIMP is focused principally on the Alafia River, and is
meant to provide ground-truthed inventories and evaluations of vegetative transects
along the shoreline of the river. The objective is to characterize key locations of
transitions between salt tolerant and freshwater dependent vegetation, so as to note
significant change in composition and location over time.
-------
Mr. John Hamilton, US Environmental Protection Agency
May 21. 2001
The water quality and benthic monitoring components of the HIMP have completed
early two years of monitoring to date, and numerous data reports have been
published (and are available) at the agency. This year will mark the first vegetative
analysis conducted by the HIMP.
TAMPA BAY REGIONAL RESERVOIR FLOOD INUNDATION MAPPING
In October 2000, the Hillsborough County Commission retained the firm of Applied
Technology and Management (ATM), to produce inundation mapping for the Tampa
Bay Regional Reservoir (TBRR). Although this mapping was to be produced by Tampa
Bay Water (TBW), there was a disagreement between the County and TBW on when
the appropriate time was to develop this mapping. Hillsborough County believed that it
was appropriate to have this information as part of the upfront permitting process to
determine public health and safety issues. TBW disagreed and said they would provide
the mapping before the reservoir was charged or filled from captured surface water.
Meetings with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Dam Safety
Officer and the Hillsborough County Emergency Operations Director were held to
determine the appropriate dam break scenarios and other parameters to consider for
the inundation maps. Based on these meetings the following scenarios were
developed:
1. A northwest breech in the Fishhawk Creek watershed and a breech in the
southeast berm adjacent to Wendel Avenue.
2. The breech considered a failure at the toe of the berm and not an overtopping
scenario;
3. Downstream conditions considered three separate antecedent conditions:
the probable maximum precipitation, the 100-year flood event and the fair
weather condition; and
4. The dam break considered that the dam was full at the time of failure.
Model runs were calibrated and depicted graphically using 1-foot contour mapping. The
final product depicts the different breech scenarios and timing of the flood wave as it is
generated and moves down gradient. The modeling is currently being used to draft the
amendment to the County's Emergency Operations Action Plan and is also being used
by County planners in reviewing zoning and development of regional impact requests.
-------
Mr. John Hamilton, US Environmental Protection Agency
May 21, 2001
This information generated and the programs developed are extremely important to
Hillsborough County as the host government for this major water supply project. We
request that the consultants developing the EIS will review this information and that it
will be referenced in the document.
If you need any clarification of the information sent or need any additional information,
don't hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely, /I
Peter G. Hubbell
Principal
Cc: GaryKuhl, HCWRT
Mario Cabana, HCWRT
Ed Helvenston, HCWRT
RickGarrity, HCEPC
Darrell Howton, HCEPC
Rick Tchsantz, HCEPC
Tony D'Aquila, HCEPC
-------
<« % UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
Dr. Joseph Powers, Acting Regional Administrator
National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Region
9721 Executive Center Drive, North
St Petersburg, Florida 33702
Subj: Early Coordination with the National Marine Fisheries Service on Threatened and
Endangered Species on the Proposed Tampa Bay Water Reservoir and Pipeline
Request for Listed Species of Concern in Project Area
Dear Dr. Powers:
In accordance with Section 7 (a) (2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will be requesting consultation with the National
Marine Fisheries Service regarding potential impacts on threatened and endangered (T&E)
species at a site in Hillsborough County, Florida. The purpose of this letter is to advise you of
the proposed project and to allow for early coordination between National Marine Fisheries
Service and EPA.
EPA is providing partial funding in the amount of $12.6 million to assist Tampa Bay
Water to construct a 1200-acre reservoir and pipeline situated in Hillsborough County south of
the Alafia River. A summary of preliminary information concerning the project is attached and
provides a general project overview. The Alafia River intake structure component of the project
is not included in the EIS.
EPA will determine if these actions are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitats. A biological
assessment is being prepared and should be available, along with a draft EIS, by approximately
mid-2001.
EPA wishes to determine early in the preparation of the EIS if National Marine Fisheries
Service has any special concerns for any T&E species found in the project area. Eleven T&E
species potentially found in the project area have been identified thus far by the Authority, and
we will consult internet sites and other sources for information. EPA requests that National
Marine Fisheries Service alert us if there are new or proposed listings of species that should be
included in our biological opinion.
Internet Address (URL) http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)
-------
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please feel free to call me at 404.562.9617
if more information is needed.
Sincerely,
John B. Hamilton
Project Officer
Enclosure
cc:
Fred C. Pinkney, Ph.D.
Bums & McDonnell
9400 Ward Parkway
Kansas City, MO 64114
Amanda Rice, HIT
Environmental Engineer
Tampa Bay Water
2535 Landmark Drive, Suite 211
Clearwater, FL 33761-3930
-------
ATTACHMENT
BACKGROUND - Tampa Bay Water is proposing to construct and operate an above-ground
water storage facility to be known as the Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir. The reservoir will
store untreated raw surface water diverted during high flow conditions from the Hillsborough
River, the Tampa Bypass Canal, and the Alafia River. This stored water is for use during dry
periods when no surface water can be diverted. The first 60 mgd of raw water withdrawn from
one or more of the three surface sources will be treated at the new Tampa Bay Water Regional
wastewater treatment plant and then pumped into Tampa Bay Water's regional distribution
system. About 1,900 acres are need to contain the 1,200-acre reservoir, associated roads,
stormwater collection system, and buffer zones. The reservoir will have capacity of
approximately 15 billion gallons, will be constructed by year 2004, and will likely take one year
to fill. It is estimated that the reservoir will increase sustainable yield from surface water
diversions approximately 25-mgd to 50-60 mgd annually.
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT - EPA and its contractor Bums and McDonnell will prepare a
biological assessment to satisfy the requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
The biological assessment will utilize information developed by the local water authorities on
streamflow depletions to assess the effects of federally listed species, specifically the magnitude,
timing, frequency and duration of estimated water depletions on a monthly basis throughout the
river reach area under various operating scenarios. The biological assessment shall address the
following:
description of the status, known occurrences, and habitat and life requirements of the
species
potential impacts of the federally threatened or endangered species which are expected to
occur in the project area
potential for the project to impact critical habitat for the continued existence of each
species
provide an analysis indicating reasons for impacts
The threatened and endangered species that could be included in the biological assessment are:
eastern indigo snake
sand skink
Florida grasshopper sparrow
Florida scrub jay
crested caracara
bald eagle
wood stork
Highlands scrub hypercium
Small's jointweed
hairy jointweed
paper-like nailwort
-------
The biological assessment will provide one of the following conclusions:
the proposed project is unlikely to adversely affect any federally-listed species or
candidate species
the proposed project may adversely affect one or more federally-listed species or
candidate species
-------
Master Water Plan
The Plan Include* a progressive conservation program with
the goal of reducing per capita use by 1O mgd hi 20OO and
17 mgd In 3OOO.
Board-Approved Projects
Projected Capacities - MOD
Stage B Projects (Final Design. Prop Acquisition)
Brandon Urban Dispersed Walla 6
North Central Intertle
Seawater Desalination 25
Enhanced Surface Water System (IncludingTampa eo
Bypass Canal/HlUsboroagh Rrver High Water,
Alafla Rr*er,8oath Central Intertle,Tampa Bay
Regional Reservoir. Regional Water Treatment Plant)
Brandon/ South-Central Connection
Loop 72 Phaae A
Stage A Projects (Feasibility. Prelim Design)
Cone Ranch ft Dispersed Wells 12*
BracUah Water Desalination 4-1O*
Cjrpresa Bridge II 4(mu)
Developmental Alternatives (Concept, PtocusatonJ
Seawater DesaHnatton II
Estimate of capacity. Permit applications will be baaed on
optimized capacity within the limits of sound environmental
practice.
LEGEND
Existing Facilities
| New Water Supplies
/ New Pipelines / Interties
JL. New Water Treatment Plant
. I
+ Potential Brackish Water Desalination Site
TAMPA
BAY
WATER
Supplying Water To The Region
PASCO
COUNTY
Cypress Creek
Wellfleld
Cypress Bridge Wellfleld
Cypress Bridge II
t
i
Coarne
Od&ssa
Wellfleld
\
Loop 72
Phase A
Cone
Ranch
Dispersed
Wells
Nort
Cent
HUls
Tunpa
Bypass
Canal
Supply
N.W. Hills
Reg. Wellfleld
Brandon
Urban
Dispersed
Wens
Brackish
Water
Desalination
*
Brandon / South-
Central Connection
PINELLAS
COUNTY
Soufh^TIentral
Hlllsbotough
Wellfle
Ala/la
River
Project
Seawater
Desalination
lampa Bay
Regional
Reservoir
HILLSBOROUGH
COUNTY
DF9S-11 > M.CDa/DMB
11/30/1 MS
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Southeast Regional Office
9721 Executive Center Drive North
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
(727) 570-5312, FAX 570-5517
http://calderasero.nmfs.gov
FEB 2 2001
F/SER3:EGH:mdh
Mr. John B. Hamilton
Project Officer
United States Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960
We received and reviewed your letter dated January 19, 2001, concerning the proposed Tampa Bay
Water Reservoir and Pipeline, and request for a list of species of concern in the project area. You have
requested early coordination pursuant to section 7 consultation requirements of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973. We have assigned log number I/SER/2001/00068 to this consultation. Please
refer to this number in future correspondence on this project.
Enclosed is a list of Federally listed species under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries
Service for the state of Florida (West Coast).
If you have any questions, please contact Jennifer Lee, fishery biologist, at the number listed above,
or by email atjennifer.lee@jioaa.gov.
Sincerely,
Katherine R Wang
Acting Assistant Regional Administrator
for Protected Resources
Enclosure
cc: F/PR3
o:\section7\informal\Hamilton.wpd
File: 1514-22.k.l
-------
-Endangered and Threatened Species and Critical Habitats
under the Jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service
Florida - Gulf Coast
Listed Species
Marine Mammals
blue whale
Finback whale
humpback whale
sei whale
sperm whale
Turtles
green sea turtle
hawksbill sea turtle
Kemp's ridley sea turtle
leatherback sea turtle
loggerhead sea turtle
Fish
gulf sturgeon
Scientific Name
Balaenoptera musculus
Balaenoptera physalus
Megaptera novaeangliae
Balaenoptera borealis
Physeter macrocephalus
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Lepidochelys kempl
Dermochelys coriacea
Caretta caretta
Acipenser oxyrhynichus desotoi
Status
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered1
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Threatened
Threatened
Date Listed
12/02/70
12/02/70
12/02/70
12/02/70
12/02/70
07/28/78
06/02/70
12/02/70
06/02/70
07/28/78
07/28/78
Species Proposed for Listing
None
Designated Critical Habitat
None
Proposed Critical Habitat
None
Candidate Species2
Fish
dusky shark
sand tiger shark
night shark
saltmarsh topminnow
Alabama shad
mangrove rivulus
Key silverside
speckled hind
jewfish
Warsaw grouper
Nassau grouper
Scientific Name
Carcharhinus obscurus
Odontaspis taurus
Carcharinus signatus
Fundulus jenkensi
Alosa alabamae
Rivulus marmoratus
Menidia conchorum
Epinephelus drummondhayi
Epinephelus itajara
Epinephelus nigntus
Epinephelus striatus
2. Candidate species are not protected under the Endangered Species Act. but concerns about their status indicate that they may
warrant listing In the future. Federal agencies and the public are encouraged to consider these species during project planning so
that future listings may be avoided.
1 Green turtles are listed as threatened, except for breeding populations of green turtles In Florida and on the Pacific
Coast of Mexico, which are listed as endangered.
o:\forms\flgc_can.sl (revised 6/7/99)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I" 4 REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
100 ALABAMA STREET. S.W.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-3104
- i : i Jj I'i
1 - ^.» ' '
v,'..» -i. d
Jay Slack, Field Supervisor
US Fish & Wildlife Service
Box 2676
Vero Beach, Florida 32961-2676
Subj: Early Coordination with the US Fish & Wildlife Service on Threatened and
Endangered Species on the Proposed Tampa Bay Water Reservoir and Pipeline
Request for Listed Species of Concern in Project Area
Dear Mr. Slack:
In accordance with Section 7 (a) (2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will be requesting consultation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) regarding potential impacts on threatened and endangered (T&E) species
at a site in Hillsborough County, Florida. The purpose of this letter is to advise you of the
proposed project and to allow for early coordination between FWS and EPA.
EPA is providing partial funding in the amount of $12.6 million to assist Tampa Bay
Water to construct a 1200-acre reservoir and pipeline situated in Hillsborough County south of
the Alafia River. A summary of preliminary information concerning the project is attached and
provides a general project overview. The Alafia River intake structure component of the project
is not included in the EIS.
EPA will determine if these actions are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitats. A biological
assessment is being prepared and should be available, along with a draft EIS, by approximately
mid-2001.
EPA wishes to determine early in the preparation of the EIS if FWS has any special
concerns for any T&E species found in the project area. Eleven T&E species potentially found
in the project area have been identified thus far by the Authority, and we will consult internet
sites and other sources for information. EPA requests that FWS alert us if there are new or
proposed listings of species that should be included in our biological opinion.
-------
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please feel free to call me at 404.562.9617
if more information is needed.
Sincerely,
John B. Hamilton
Project Officer
Enclosure
cc: USFWS
Cynthia Dohner, Chief
Division of Endangered Species
1875 Century Blvd, Suite 200
Atlanta, GA 30345
Fred C. Pinkney, Ph.D.
Bums & McDonnell
9400 Ward Parkway
Kansas City, MO 64114
Amanda Rice, EIT
Environmental Engineer
Tampa Bay Water
2535 Landmark Drive, Suite 211
Clear-water, FL 33761-3930
-------
ATTACHMENT
BACKGROUND - Tampa Bay Water is proposing to construct and operate an above-ground
water storage facility to be known as the Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir. The reservoir will
store untreated raw surface water diverted during high flow conditions from the Hillsborough
River, the Tampa Bypass Canal, and the Alafia River. This stored water is for use during dry
periods when no surface water can be diverted. The first 60 mgd of raw water withdrawn from
one or more of the three surface sources will be treated at the new Tampa Bay Water Regional
wastewater treatment plant and then pumped into Tampa Bay Water's regional distribution
system. About 1,900 acres are need to contain the 1,200-acre reservoir, associated roads,
stormwater collection system, and buffer zones. The reservoir will have capacity of
approximately 15 billion gallons, will be constructed by year 2004, and will likely take one year
to fill. It is estimated that the reservoir will increase sustainable yield from surface water
diversions approximately 25-mgd to 50-60 mgd annually.
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT - EPA and its contractor Burns and McDonnell will prepare a
biological assessment to satisfy the requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
The biological assessment will utilize information developed by the local water authorities on
streamflow depletions to assess the effects of federally listed species, specifically the magnitude,
timing, frequency and duration of estimated water depletions on a monthly basis throughout the
river reach area under various operating scenarios. The biological assessment shall address the
following:
description of the status, known occurrences, and habitat and life requirements of the
species
potential impacts of the federally threatened or endangered species which are expected to
occur in the project area
potential for the project to impact critical habitat for the continued existence of each
species
provide an analysis indicating reasons for impacts
The threatened and endangered species that could be included in the biological assessment are:
eastern indigo snake
sand skink
Florida grasshopper sparrow
Florida scrub jay
crested caracara
bald eagle
wood stork
Highlands scrub hypercium
Small's jointweed
hairy jointweed
paper-like nailwort
-------
The biological assessment will provide one of the following conclusions:
the proposed project is unlikely to adversely affect any federally-listed species or
candidate species
the proposed project may adversely affect one or more federally-listed species or
candidate species
-------
Master Water Plan
The Plan Includes a progressive conservation program with
the goal of reducing per capita use by 10 mgd la 2000 and
17 mgd In 2O06.
Board-Approved Projects
Projected Capacities - MGD
Stage B Projects (Final Design. Prop Acquisition)
Brandon Urban Dispersed Well* 6
North Central Intertle
Seawater Desalination 29
Enhanced Surface Water System (including Tampa 60
Bypass Canal/HUlsborough River High Water,
Alafla River, South Central Intertie,Tampa Bay
Regional Reservoir, Regional Water Treatment Plant)
Brandon/ South-Central Connection
Loop 72 Phase A
Stage A Prefects (Feasibility, Prelim Design)
Cone Ranch ft Dispersed Wells 12*
BracUsh Water Desalination 4-10*
Cypress Bridge II 4(mu)
Developmental Alternatives (Concept, Discussion)
Seawater Desalination II
Estimate of capacity. Permit applications will be based on
optimized capacity within the limits of sound environmental
practice.
LEGEND
[j~l Existing Facilities
^ New Water Supplies
/ New Pipelines / Intcrtics
JaV New Water Treatment Plant
Potential Brackish Water Desalination Site
TAMPA
D AVrffc^
PSt«m W ipi:.*-*-.,,..
m^ % i -8o««-
WATER
Supplying Water ToTTie Region
PASCO
COUNTY
Cypress Creek
Wellfleld
\,° Cypress Bridge Wellfleld
Cypress Bridge II
WeUfleld «-
Mqrrfs Bridge
Wtllfleld
Loop 72
Phase A
North
Cone
Ranch
Dispersed
Wefts
N.W. Hills
Reg. Welineld
Brandon
Urban
Dispersed
Wells
Brackish
Water
Desalination
*
Brandon / South-
.Central Connection
South
Central
Hills.
Intertie
PINELLAS
COUNTY
South 'Central
Hlllsborough
Wellfleld
Alafla
River
Project
Seawater
Desalination
Tampa Bay
Regional
Reservoir
HILLSBOROUGH
COUNTY
.
i i/as/1 sas
-------
September 29, 2000
Name
Address
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project Environmental Impact Statement
Request for Resource Information and Issue Identification
TAMPAEIS 00-180-4
Dear:
Burns & McDonnell has been retained by Tampa Bay Water as a third-party consultant to
assist the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project.
The purpose of this letter is to request your agency to provide input on the project. We
also request that you identify any natural resource data that would be available for the
proposed project area that could be used in the preparation of the EIS.
The purpose of this EIS is to evaluate the proposed Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir
Project, which is designed to improve the reliability and dependability of the regional
surface water system and help meet the 2005 water needs of Tampa Bay Water and its
member governments. Tampa Bay Water is charged with providing potable water to its
six member governments - Hillsborough, Pasco, and Pinellas counties, and the cities of
St. Petersburg, New Port Richey, and Tampa. To meet the terms of ground water
reduction agreements, Tampa Bay Water needs to develop 53-mgd of new water supply
by 2002 and an additional 58-mgd of supply by 2007.
The Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project is an off-stream reservoir designed to
improve the reliability and capacity of the surface water supply system. The reservoir
would store untreated surface water diverted during high flow conditions from the
Hillsborough River, the Tampa Bypass Canal, and the Alafia River (see Figure 1). This
water is stored in the reservoir for use during dry periods when surface water is not
available. The reservoir will be constructed by January 2004, will likely take one year to
fill, and is anticipated to be operational by January 2005. The reservoir is designed to
increase the yield of the surface water supply system by approximately 25-mgd during
average-year conditions. At this time, other alternatives to the regional reservoir being
considered include aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) systems.
Please provide any information you deem pertinent on the Tampa Bay Regional
Reservoir Project. Examples of the information provided could include water rights and
-------
September 29, 2000
Page 2
water quality issues, protected species information, institutional concerns, locations of
sensitive environmental resources, or any other issues that you feel should be addressed
in the EIS.
We have enclosed the distribution list of the recipients of this letter for your review.
Please inform us of other agencies of offices/departments that you feel should be
contacted.
Thank you for your assistance with providing this information. Please submit any
information by October 30, 2000. If you have any questions or require additional
information, please contact Fred Pinkney at (816) 822-3304 or myself at (816) 822-3481.
Sincerely,
Justin Meyer
Assistant Project Manager
Enclosure
CC. John Hamilton, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Amanda Rice, Tampa Bay Water
Files
-------
APPENDIX E - WILDLIFE AND VEGETATION
SPECIES LIST
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project EIS
Fish and Wildlife Species
Common Name
Mammals
Raccoon
Armadillo
Opossum
Eastern cottontail
Gray squirrel
Pocket gopher
Cotton rat
Round-tailed muskrat
Cotton mouse
Gray fox
Skunk
Bobcat
Wild pig
White-tailed deer
Bottlenose dolphin
West Indian manatee
Reptile
Skinks
Green anole
Cuban brown anole
Six-lined racerunner
Southern fence lizard
Black racer
Eastern diamondback
Dusky pygmy rattlesnake
Eastern indigo
Garter snake
Southern ringneck snake
Yellow rat snake
Florida kingsnake
Cottonmouth moccasin
Florida watersnake
Eastern mud snake
Alligators
Florida softshell turtle
Florida chicken turtle
Florida red-bellied turtle
Stinkpot
Scientific Name
Procyon lotor
Dasypus novemcinctus
Didelphis marsupialis
Sylvilagus floridanus
Sciurus carolinensis
Geomys pinetis
Sigmodon hispidus
Neofiber alleni
Peromyscus gossypinus
Urocyon cinereoargentem
Spilogale putorius
Lynx rufus
Sus scrofa
Odocoileus virginianus
Tursiops truncatus
Trichechus manatus
Eumeces
Anolis carolinensis
Anolis sagrei
Cnemidophorus sexlineatus sexlineatus
Sceloporus undulatus undulatus
Coluber constrictor riapus
Cro talus adamant eus
Sistrurus miliarius barbouri
Drymarchon corals couperi
Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis
Diadophis punctatus punctatus
Elaphe obsoleta quadrivitta
Lampropeltis getula floridana
Agkistrodon piscivorus
Neroida fasciata pictiventris
Farancia abacura
Alligator mississippiensis
Apaloneferox
Deirochelys reticularia chysea
Pseudemys nelsoni
Sternotherus odoratus
-------
Florida box turtle
Loggerhead sea turtle
Green sea turtle
Hawksbill sea turtle
Kemp's ridley sea turtle
Peninsula ribbon snake
Birds
Red-winged blackbird
Robin
American kestrel
Common nighthawk
Belted kingfisher
Northern flicker
Eastern phoebe
Great-crested flycatcher
Eastern kingbird
Barn swallow
Tree swallow
Purple martin
Carolina wren
Great egret
Great blue heron
Snowy egret
Brown thrasher
Palm warbler
Little blue heron
Tri-colored heron
Green-backed heron
White ibis
Glossy ibis
Wood stork
Yellow-crowned night-heron
Least bittern
Impkin
Black rail
Florida mottled duck
Sandhill crane .
Coopers' hawk
Sora rail
Common yellowthroat
Amphibians
Greater siren
Dwarf siren
Two-toed amphiuma
Southern cricket frog
Terrapene Carolina bauri
Caretta caretta
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Lepidochelys kempi
Thamnophis sauritus sakenii
Agelaius phoeniceus
Turdus migrator ius
Falco sparverius
Chordeiles minor
Ceryle alcyon,
Colaptes auratus
Sayornis phoebe
Myiarchus crinitus
Tyrannus tyrannus
Hirundo rustica
Tachycineta bicolor
Progne subis
Thryothorus ludovicianus
Casmeroides albus
Ardea herodias
Egretta thula
Toxostoma rufum
Dendroica palmarum
Egretta caerulea
Egretta tricolor
Butorides striatus
Eudocimus albus
Plegadis falcinellus
Mycteria americana
Nyctanassa violacea
Ixobrychus exilis
Aramus guarauna
Laterallus jamaicensis
Anas fulvigula
Grus canadensis.
Accipiter cooper ii
Porzana Carolina
Geothlypis trichas
Siren lacertina
Pseudobranchus striatus
Amphiuma means
Acris gryllus dor sal is
-------
Florida chorus frog
Pig frog
Southern leopard frog
Bullfrog
Green tree frog
Squirrel tree frog
Giant toad
Narrow-mouthed toad
Eastern spadefoot toad
Urban tree frog
Fish
Mosquitofish
Least killifish
Sheepshead minnow
Sailfin molly
Flagfish
Golden topminnow
Sminole killifish
Bluefm killifish
Pigmy sunfish
Warmouth
Redear sunfish
Florida gar
Bullhead catfish
Bowfin
Coastal shiners
Spotted sunfish
Largemouth bass
Bullheads
Redfin pickerels
Pirate perch
Sand seatrout
Hardhead catfish
Spotted sea trout
Bull sharks
Black drum
Striped mullet
Bay anchovy
Yellowfin menhaden
Tidewater mojarra
Hogchoker
Largemouth bass
Redear sunfish
Bluegill sunfish
Black drum
Pseudacris nigrita verrucosa
Rana grylio
Rana utricularia
Rana catesbeiana
Hyla cineria
Hyla squirella
Bufo marinus
Gastrophryne carolinensis
Scaphiopus holbrooki
Hyla septentrionalis
Gambusia affinis
Heterandria formosa
Cyprinodon variegatus
Poecilia latipinna
Jordanella floridae
Fundulus chrysotus
F.seminolis
Lucania goodei
Elassoma spp.
Lepomis gulosus
L. microlophus
Lepisosteus platyrhincus
Ictalurus natalis
Amia calva
Notropis pertersoni
Lepomis punctatus
Micropterus salmoides floridanum
Ictalurus spp
Esox americanus americanus
Aphredoderus sayanus
Cynoscion arenarius
Ariusfelis
Cynoscion nebulosus
Carcharhinus leucas
Pogonias cromis
Mugil cephalis
Anchoa mitchilli
Brevoortia smithi
Eucinostormus harengulus
Trinectes maculatus
Micropterus salmoides
Lepomis microlophus
L. macrochirus
Pogonias cromis
-------
Spot
Silversides
Red drum
Sand sea trout
Southern kingfish
Clown goby
Pinfish
Striped mojarra
Common snook
Spotted seatrout
Bonefish
Ladyfish
Gulfkillifish
Longnose killifish
Rainwater killifish
Scaled sardine
Pinfish
Longnose killifish
Silver perch
Silver jenny
Code goby
Porgys
Grunts
Moj arras
Snapper
Pipefishes
Flounder
Sole
Needlefishes
Leiostomus xanthurus
Menidia beryllina
Sciaenops ocellatus
Cyoscion aranarius
Menticirrhus americanus
Microgobius gulosus
Lagodon rhomboides
Diapterus plumieri
Centropomus undecimalis
Cynoscion nebulosus
Albula vulpes
Elops saurus,
Fundulus grandis
F. similis
Lucaniaparva
Harengula jaguana
Lagodon rhomboides
Fundulus similis
Bairdiella chrysoura
Eucinostomus gula
Gobiosoma robustum
Sparidae
Pomadasyidae
Gerreidae
Lutjanidae
Sygnathidae
Bothidae
Soleidae
Belonidae
-------
Tampa Bay Regional Reservoir Project
Plant Species
Common Name
Slash Pine
Sand pine
Live oak
Sand live oak
Water oak
Laurel oak
Turkey oak
Sweetgum
Hickories
Cabbage palm
Southern magnolia
Southern red cedar
Saw palmetto
Red maple
Wax myrtle
Gallberry
Bahia grass
Wiregrass
Cypress
American elm
Red bay
Sweet bay
Maidencane
Pickerelweed
Smart weed
Soft rush
Red carpetgrass
Large-flowered false pimpernel
Coinwort
Dahoon holly
Big carpetgrass
Willow
Carolina willow
Red maple
Carolina ash
American elm
Hackberry
Cypress
Water locust
Scientific Name
Pinus elliottii
Finns clausa
Quercus virginiana
Quercus geminata
Quercus nigra
Quercus laurifolia
Quercus laevis
Liquidambar styraciflua
Gary a spp.
Sabal palmetto
Magnolia grandiflora
Juniperus silicicola
Serenoa repens
Acer rubrum
Myrica cerifera
Ilex glabra
Paspalum notatum
Aristida strict a
Taxodium distichum
Ulmus americana
Persea borbonia
Magnolia virginiana
Panicum hemitomon
Pontederia cordata
Polygonum hydropiperoides
Juncus effusus
Axonopus spp.
Lindernia grandiflora
Centella asiatica
Ilex cassine
Axonopus furcatus
Ludwigia peruviana
Salix caroliniana
Acer rubrum
Fraxinus caroliniana
Ulmus americana
Celtis laviengata
Taxodium distichum
Gleditsia aquatica
-------
Black gum
Sweetgum
Black needle rush
Saltmarsh cordgrass
Black mangrove
Red mangrove
Leather fern
Cattail
Carolina willow
Nyssa sylvatica
Liquidambar styraciflua
Juncus reomerianus
Spartina alterniflora
Avicennia germinans
Rhizophora mangle
Acrostichum danaeifolium
Typha latifolia
Salix carolinicma
------- |