Tampa Bay Refuges Egmont Key National Wildlife Refuge Pinellas National Wildlife Refuge Passage Key National Wildlife Refuge Hillsborough, Pinellas, And Manatee Counties, Florida Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Hillsborough, Pinellas, And Manatee Counties, Florida
Tampa Bay Refuges
Egmont Key National Wildlife Refuge
Pinellas National Wildlife Refuge
Passage Key National Wildlife Refuge
Hillsborough, Pinellas, And Manatee Counties, Florida
Draft
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Assessment
USFWS Photos
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for
management decisions; set forth goals, objectives, and strategies
needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and identify the Fish and
Wildlife Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail
program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above
current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service
strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans
do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational
and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.
DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Tampa Bay Refuges
Egmont Key National Wildlife Refuge
Pinellas National Wildlife Refuge
Passage Key National Wildlife Refuge
Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Manatee Counties, Florida
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
April 2009
Tampa Bay Refuges
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
Purpose And Need For The Plan ................................................................................................. 1
Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................. 1
National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 2
Legal and Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 4
National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..................................................... 5
Relationship To State Wildlife Agency .......................................................................................... 6
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 7
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 7
Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 19
Ecosystem Context ..................................................................................................................... 21
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 24
Ecological Threats and Problems ............................................................................................... 31
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 36
Climate change and Global Warming ............................................................................... 37
Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 39
Soils ................................................................................................................................. 40
Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 44
Water Quality .................................................................................................................... 46
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 47
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 47
Wildlife ............................................................................................................................... 52
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 69
Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 73
Land Protection and Conservation .................................................................................... 76
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 77
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance ......................................................................... 77
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 79
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 79
Fish and Wildlife Population Management ........................................................................ 79
Habitat Management ......................................................................................................... 82
Resource Protection .......................................................................................................... 83
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 84
Refuge Administration ....................................................................................................... 84
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ........................................................................................................ 87
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 87
Vision ......................................................................................................................................... 87
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 87
ii Tampa Bay Refuges
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................. 99
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 99
Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................................... 99
Fish And Wildlife Population Management ....................................................................... 99
Habitat Management....................................................................................................... 100
Resource Protection ....................................................................................................... 101
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 102
Refuge Administration .................................................................................................... 103
Funding and Personnel ............................................................................................................ 105
Partnership/Volunteers Opportunities ...................................................................................... 105
Monitoring and Adaptive Management ..................................................................................... 111
Plan Review and Revision........................................................................................................ 111
SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
I. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................. 113
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 113
Purpose and Need for Action ................................................................................................... 113
Decision Framework................................................................................................................. 114
Planning Study Area ................................................................................................................ 114
Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility ....................................................................... 114
Compatibility ................................................................................................................... 114
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ......................................................................... 115
II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................................ 117
III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................... 119
Formulation of Alternatives....................................................................................................... 119
Description of Alternatives........................................................................................................ 119
Alternative A - (Current Management - No Action) ......................................................... 119
Alternative B - (PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE) ................................................................ 120
Alternative C ................................................................................................................... 121
Features Common to all Alternatives ....................................................................................... 122
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...................................................................................... 137
Overview ................................................................................................................................. 137
Effects Common to All Alternatives .......................................................................................... 137
Environmental Justice ..................................................................................................... 137
Climate Change .............................................................................................................. 137
Other Management ......................................................................................................... 138
Land Acquisition ............................................................................................................. 138
Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 138
Refuge Revenue-Sharing ............................................................................................... 139
Other Effects ................................................................................................................... 139
Summary of Effects by Alternative ........................................................................................... 139
Unavoidable Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................ 153
Water Quality from Soil Disturbance and Use of Herbicides .......................................... 153
Wildlife Disturbance ........................................................................................................ 153
Table of Contents iii
Vegetation Disturbance ................................................................................................... 153
User Group Conflicts ....................................................................................................... 153
Effects on NEARBY Landowners .................................................................................... 154
Land Ownership and Site Development .......................................................................... 154
Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................. 154
Direct and Indirect Effects or Impacts ....................................................................................... 155
Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ....................................................................... 155
V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ..................................................................................... 157
Overview .................................................................................................................................. 157
SECTION C. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................... 159
APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS ...................................................... 169
APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS ............................... 177
APPENDIX D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................... 191
Summary Of Public Scoping Comments .................................................................................. 191
APPENDIX E. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS ............................................................... 195
APPENDIX F. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ...................................................................... 215
APPENDIX G. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION .................................... 229
APPENDIX H. WILDERNESS REVIEW ........................................................................................... 235
APPENDIX I. REFUGE BIOTA ......................................................................................................... 241
APPENDIX J. BUDGET REQUESTS ............................................................................................... 265
Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) ............................................................................... 265
APPENDIX K. LIST OF PREPARERS .............................................................................................. 267
APPENDIX L. SEA LEVEL AFFECTING MARSHES MODEL ANALYSIS ....................................... 271
iv Tampa Bay Refuges
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. National Wildlife Refuges of Florida ...................................................................................... 8
Figure 2. Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge Complex .............................................................. 9
Figure 3. Tampa Bay Refuges ............................................................................................................ 10
Figure 4. Egmont Key National Wildlife Refuge .................................................................................. 11
Figure 5. Land Ownership of Egmont Key National Wildlife Refuge .................................................. 12
Figure 6. Pinellas National Wildlife Refuge ......................................................................................... 14
Figure 7. Passage Key National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................ 15
Figure 8. Passage Key Wilderness ..................................................................................................... 16
Figure 9. Existing Facilities of Egmont Key National Wildlife Refuge ................................................. 18
Figure 10. Special Designations ......................................................................................................... 20
Figure 11. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecoregions – Southeast Region ........................................ 22
Figure 12. Conservation Areas in the Tampa Bay Region ................................................................. 23
Figure 13. Geology of Tampa Bay ...................................................................................................... 41
Figure 14. Vegetation types of Egmont Key NWR ............................................................................. 49
Figure 15. Seagrass beds in Tampa Bay ........................................................................................... 50
Figure 16. Observed manatees and sea turtles in Tampa Bay .......................................................... 51
Figure 17. Cultural Resources of Egmont Key NWR .......................................................................... 70
Figure 18. Proposed organization structure for the management of the Tampa Bay
Refuges--current and proposed positions ...................................................................... 108
Figure 19. Tampa Bay NWR Wilderness Inventory Units ................................................................. 237
Table of Contents v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Types of natural communities in the Tampa Bay Basin ........................................................ 25
Table 2. Unique or rare natural communities in the Tampa Bay Basin ............................................... 28
Table 3. Monitoring, restoration, and research programs in Tampa Bay ............................................ 32
Table 4. Temperature and precipitation .............................................................................................. 38
Table 7. Protected animal and plant species in the Tampa Bay Basin ............................................... 58
Table 8. Nonlisted animal and plant species of special concern in the Tampa Bay Basin ................. 60
Table 9. Birds observed at Egmont Key NWR .................................................................................... 61
Table 10. Amphibians, reptiles, fish and mammals observed at Tampa Bay Refuges ....................... 66
Table 11. Rare, endangered, and species of special concern at the Tampa Bay Refuges ................ 68
Table 12. Demographics of the Tampa Bay Region ........................................................................... 75
Table 13. Activities in Florida by U.S. Residents ................................................................................ 76
Table 14. Summary of proposed projects and costs (in 2008 dollars) .............................................. 106
Table 15. Approximate annual costs of proposed staff positions in 2008 dollars ............................. 107
Table 16. Step-down management plans related to the goals and objectives of CCP ..................... 110
Table 17. Summary of environmental effects by alternative, Tampa Bay Refuges .......................... 147
Table 18. Wilderness Inventory Units – Tampa Bay Refuges ........................................................... 236
Table 19. Tampa Bay Refuges comprehensive conservation core planning team members ........... 267
Table 20. Tampa Bay Refuges comprehensive conservation public use review
team members (March 23-25, 2004) ................................................................................ 268
Table 21. Tampa Bay Refuges comprehensive conservation cultural resources
review team members (August 31 to September 1, 2004) ............................................... 268
Table 22. Tampa Bay Refuges comprehensive conservation biological review
team members (May 11-13, 2004) ................................................................................... 269
Table 23. Tampa Bay Refuges comprehensive conservation wilderness review
team members (January 11-12, 2005) ............................................................................. 270
vi Tampa Bay Refuges
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for
Egmont Key, Passage Key, and Pinellas National Wildlife Refuges, also known as the Tampa Bay
Refuges, was prepared to guide management actions and direction for these refuges. Fish and
wildlife conservation will receive first priority in refuge management; wildlife-dependent recreation will
be allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible with, and does not detract from, the mission of
the refuges or the purposes for which they were established.
A planning team developed a range of alternatives that best met the goals and objectives of the
refuge and that could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. This Draft CCP/EA
describes the Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) proposed plan, as well as other alternatives
considered and their effects on the environment. The Draft CCP/EA will be made available to state
and federal government agencies, conservation partners, and the general public for review and
comment. Comments from each entity will be considered in the development of the final CCP.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of the Draft CCP/EA is to develop a proposed action that best achieves the purposes of
each refuge; attains the vision and goals developed for each refuge; contributes to National Wildlife
Refuge System (Refuge System) mission; addresses key problems, issues and relevant mandates;
and is consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management.
Specifically, the plan is needed to:
􀁹􇤠 Provide a clear statement of refuge management direction;
􀁹􇤠 Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of Service
management actions on and around the refuge;
􀁹􇤠 Ensure that Service management actions, including land protection and recreation/education
programs, are consistent with the mandates of the Refuge System; and
􀁹􇤠 Provide a basis for the development of budget requests for operations, maintenance, and
capital improvement needs.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The Service traces its roots to 1871 and the establishment of the Commission of Fisheries involved
with research and fish culture. The once independent commission was renamed the Bureau of
Fisheries and placed under the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903.
The Service also traces its roots to 1886 and the establishment of a Division of Economic Ornithology
and Mammalogy in the Department of Agriculture. Research on the relationship of birds and animals
to agriculture shifted to delineation of the range of plants and animals so the name was changed to
the Division of the Biological Survey in 1896.
2 Tampa Bay Refuges
The Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries, was combined with the Department of
Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey, on June 30, 1940, and transferred to the Department of the
Interior as the Fish and Wildlife Service. The name was changed to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife in 1956 and finally to the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1974.
The Service, working with others, is responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and
wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people through Federal programs
relating to migratory birds, endangered species, interjurisdictional fish and marine mammals, and
inland sport fisheries (142 DM 1.1).
As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 540 national wildlife refuges covering over 95
million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest
collection of lands set aside specifically for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 77 million
acres, is in Alaska. The remaining acres are spread across the other 49 states and several United
States territories. In addition to refuges, the Service manages thousands of small wetlands, national
fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 78 ecological services field stations. The Service
enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird
populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat, and helps
foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that
distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state
fish and wildlife agencies.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997 is:
“...to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources
and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.”
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) established, for the
first time, a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the Refuge System. Actions were
initiated in 1997 to comply with the direction of this new legislation, including an effort to complete
comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. These plans, which are completed with full public
involvement, help guide the future management of refuges by establishing natural resources and
recreation/education programs. Consistent with the Improvement Act, approved plans will serve as
the guidelines for refuge management for the next 15 years. The Improvement Act states that each
refuge shall be managed to:
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill the mission of the Refuge System;
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge;
􀁹􇤠 Consider the needs of wildlife first;
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit of
the Refuge System;
􀁹􇤠 Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System;
and
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
􀁹􇤠 Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation are
legitimate and priority public uses; and allow refuge managers authority to determine
compatible public uses.
The following are just a few examples of your national network of conservation lands. Pelican Island
National Wildlife Refuge, the first refuge, was established in 1903 for the protection of colonial nesting
birds in Florida, such as the snowy egret and the brown pelican. Western refuges were established
for American bison (1906), elk (1912), prong-horned antelope (1931), and desert bighorn sheep
(1936) after over-hunting, competition with cattle, and natural disasters decimated once-abundant
herds. The drought conditions of the 1930s ADust Bowl@ severely depleted breeding populations of
ducks and geese. Refuges established during the Great Depression focused on “waterfowl
production areas” (i.e., protection of prairie wetlands in America’s heartland). The emphasis on
waterfowl continues today but also includes protection of wintering habitat in response to a dramatic
loss of bottomland hardwoods. By 1973, the Service had begun to focus on establishing refuges for
endangered species.
Approximately 38 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 2002, most to observe wildlife in
their natural habitats. As the number of visitors grows, there are significant economic benefits to local
communities. In 2001, 82 million people, 16 years and older, fished, hunted, or observed wildlife,
generating $108 billion. In a study completed in 2002 on 15 refuges, visitation had grown 36 percent
in seven years. At the same time, the number of jobs generated in surrounding communities grew to
120 per refuge, up from 87 jobs in 1995, pouring more than $2.2 million into local economies. The 15
refuges in the study were Chincoteague (Virginia); National Elk (Wyoming); Crab Orchard (Illinois);
Eufaula (Alabama); Charles M. Russell (Montana); Umatilla (Oregon); Quivira (Kansas);
Mattamuskeet (North Carolina); Upper Souris (North Dakota); San Francisco Bay (California); Laguna
Atacosa (Texas); Horicon (Wisconsin); Las Vegas (Nevada); Tule Lake (California); and Tensas River
(Louisiana)—the same refuges identified for the 1995 study. Other findings also validate the belief
that communities near refuges benefit economically. Expenditures on food, lodging, and
transportation grew to $6.8 million per refuge, up 31 percent from $5.2 million in 1995. For each
dollar spent on the Refuge System, surrounding communities benefited with $4.43 in recreation
expenditures and $1.42 in job-related income (Caudill and Laughland, unpubl. data).
Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In 2002, volunteers
contributed more than 1.5 million hours on refuges nationwide, a service valued at more than $22 million.
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that ecosystems,
biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must be healthy and
growth must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a model for habitat management with
broad participation from others.
The Improvement Act stipulates that comprehensive conservation plans be prepared in consultation
with adjoining federal, state, and private landowners and that the Service develop and implement a
process to ensure an opportunity for active public involvement in the preparation and revision (every
15 years) of the plans.
All lands of the Refuge System will be managed in accordance with an approved comprehensive
conservation plan that will guide management decisions and set forth strategies for achieving refuge
unit purposes. The plan will be consistent with sound resource management principles, practices,
and legal mandates, including Service compatibility standards and other Service policies, guidelines,
and planning documents (602 FW 1.1).
4 Tampa Bay Refuges
LEGAL AND POLICY CONTEXT
Legal Mandates, Administrative and Policy Guidelines, and Other Special Considerations
Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the Refuge System,
congressional legislation, presidential executive orders, and international treaties. Policies for
management options of refuges are further refined by administrative guidelines established by the
Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife
Service. Select legal summaries of treaties and laws relevant to administration of the Refuge System
and management of the Tampa Bay Refuges are provided in Appendix C.
Treaties, laws, administrative guidelines, and policy guidelines assist the refuge manager in making
decisions pertaining to soil, water, air, flora, fauna, and other natural resources; historical and cultural
resources; research and recreation on refuge lands; and provide a framework for cooperation
between the Tampa Bay Refuges and other partners, such as the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) and private landowners.
Lands within the Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically and legally opened. No
refuge use may be allowed unless it is determined to be compatible. A compatible use is a use that,
in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere with or detract
from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge. All programs
and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the Improvement Act. Those mandates
are to:
􀁹􇤠 Contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals;
􀁹􇤠 Conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats;
􀁹􇤠 Monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants;
􀁹􇤠 Manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses as those uses benefit the conservation of fish
and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public; and
􀁹􇤠 Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes.
The Improvement Act further identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses. These uses
are: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and
interpretation. As priority public uses of the Refuge System, they receive priority consideration over
other public uses in planning and management.
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy
The Improvement Act directs the Service to ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans. The policy is an additional directive for refuge managers to follow while
achieving refuge purpose(s) and the Refuge System mission. It provides for the consideration and
protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found on refuges and
associated ecosystems. When evaluating the appropriate management direction for refuges, refuge
managers will use sound professional judgment to determine their refuges’ contribution to biological
integrity, diversity, and environmental health at multiple landscape scales. Sound professional
judgment incorporates field experience, knowledge of refuge resources, refuge role within an
ecosystem, applicable laws, and best available science, including consultation with others both inside
and outside the Service.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private entities to address the
environmental problems affecting regions. There is a large amount of conservation and protection
information that defines the role of the refuge at the local, national, international, and ecosystem
levels. Conservation initiatives include broad-scale planning and cooperation between affected
parties to address declining trends of natural, physical, social, and economic environments. The
conservation guidance described below, along with issues, problems, and trends, was reviewed and
integrated, where appropriate, into this Draft CCP/EA.
This Draft CCP/EA supports, among others, the Partners-in-Flight Plan, the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan, the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, and the National
Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan.
North American Bird Conservation Initiative. Started in 1999, the North American Bird
Conservation Initiative is a coalition of government agencies, private organizations, academic
institutions, and private industry leaders in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, working to ensure
the long-term health of North America's native bird populations by fostering an integrated approach to
bird conservation to benefit all birds in all habitats. The four international and national bird initiatives
include the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners-in-Flight, Waterbird Conservation
for the Americas, and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan
is an international action plan to conserve migratory birds throughout the continent. The plan's goal is
to return waterfowl populations to their 1970s levels by conserving wetland and upland habitat.
Canada and the United States signed the plan in 1986 in reaction to critically low numbers of
waterfowl. Mexico joined in 1994, making it a truly continental effort. The plan is a partnership of
federal, provincial/state and municipal governments, non-governmental organizations, private
companies, and many individuals, all working towards achieving better wetland habitat for the benefit
of migratory birds, other wetland-associated species and people. Plan projects are international in
scope, but implemented at regional levels. These projects contribute to the protection of habitat and
wildlife species across the North American landscape.
Partners-in-Flight Bird Conservation Plan. Managed as part of the Partners-in-Flight Plan, the
peninsular Florida physiographic area represents a scientifically based land bird conservation
planning effort that ensures long-term maintenance of healthy populations of native land birds,
primarily non-game land birds. Non-game land birds have been vastly under-represented in
conservation efforts, and many are exhibiting significant declines. This plan is voluntary and non-regulatory,
and focuses on relatively common species in areas where conservation actions can be
most effective, rather than the frequent local emphasis on rare and peripheral populations.
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership effort
throughout the United States to ensure that stable and self-sustaining populations of shorebird
species are restored and protected. The plan was developed by a wide range of agencies,
organizations, and shorebird experts for separate regions of the country, and identifies conservation
goals, critical habitat conservation needs, key research needs, and proposed education and outreach
programs to increase awareness of shorebirds and the threats they face.
North American Waterbird Conservation Plan. This plan provides a framework for the
conservation and management of 210 species of waterbirds in 29 nations. Threats to waterbird
populations include destruction of inland and coastal wetlands, introduced predators and invasive
6 Tampa Bay Refuges
species, pollutants, mortality from fisheries and industries, disturbance, and conflicts arising from
abundant species. Particularly important habitats of the southeast region include pelagic areas,
marshes, forested wetlands, and barrier and sea island complexes. Fifteen species of waterbirds are
federally listed, including breeding populations of wood storks, Mississippi sandhill cranes, whooping
cranes, interior least terns, and Gulf coast populations of brown pelicans. A key objective of this plan
is the standardization of data collection efforts to better recommend effective conservation measures.
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY
A provision of the Improvement Act, and subsequent agency policy, is that the Service shall ensure
timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other state fish and game agencies and tribal
governments during the course of acquiring and managing refuges. State wildlife management areas
and national wildlife refuges provide the foundation for the protection of species, and contribute to the
overall health and sustainment of fish and wildlife species in the State of Florida.
The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s (FWC) mission is “managing fish and
wildlife resources for their long-term well-being and the benefit of people.” The FWC manages the
state’s fish and wildlife resources to conserve some of the most complex and delicate ecosystems in
the world, as well as a wide diversity of species. The FWC scientists work to provide the latest
scientific information used to make good management decisions involving fish and wildlife
populations, habitat issues, and the human dimension aspects of conservation. FWC law
enforcement officers enforce rules to protect fish and wildlife, keep waterways safe for millions of
boaters, and cooperate with other law enforcement agencies providing homeland security. In
addition, the FWC staff communicates with a variety of audiences to encourage participation,
responsible citizenship and stewardship of the state’s natural resources, including hunter safety
training, boating safety classes, and birding and outdoor recreation classes. The FWC territory
includes 53,927 square miles of land and 5,983 square miles of water. The territory includes 5.6
million acres of wildlife management areas; 2,276 miles of tidal shoreline; about 10,550 miles of
rivers, streams, and creeks; and about 7,700 lakes greater than 10 acres. In the state, there are
more than 200,000 hunters, more than 3 million freshwater and saltwater anglers (residents and
nonresidents), and more than 3 million wildlife watchers.
The state’s participation and contribution throughout this planning process will provide for ongoing
opportunities and open dialogue to improve the ecological sustainment of fish and wildlife in the State
of Florida. An essential part of comprehensive conservation planning is integrating common mission
objectives where appropriate.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
There are 28 national wildlife refuges in the State of Florida (Figure1). The Tampa Bay Refuges are
managed as part of the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Figure 2). The Tampa Bay
Refuges currently have one dedicated full-time assistant refuge manager, and are otherwise supported by
nine staff members located 100 miles away at the Crystal River Refuge in Crystal River, Florida. The
Tampa Bay Refuges include Egmont Key, Pinellas, and Passage Key Refuges (Figure 3).
Egmont Key NWR (Figure 4) is located at the mouth of Tampa Bay, along the Gulf coast of Florida in
Hillsborough County. In 1974, the 392-acre refuge was established to protect the Key’s significant
natural, historical, and cultural resources from the impending threats of development. Egmont Key
NWR is the only refuge island open to the public in Tampa Bay, and has been traditionally visited for
many years as a primary recreation destination. The refuge is open only during daylight hours. The
island receives about 130,000-170,000 visitors annually who access the island by private or tour boat
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Tampa Bay Refuges “Visitor Services Review Report,” March 2004;
and Kleen and Hunter, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Review Report, June 2006).
Specifically, Egmont Key NWR seeks to provide nesting habitat for brown pelicans and other
waterbirds, as well as to conserve and protect barrier island habitat and preserve historical structures
of national significance. Presently, the island’s approximate 244 acres of beach and coastal berm
supports more than 110 species of nesting, migratory, and wintering birds (see Chapter II, Biological
Resources). Thousands of laughing gulls and royal terns, hundreds of brown pelicans and sandwich
terns, dozens of black skimmers and least terns, and a handful of American oystercatchers nest
annually. Egmont Key NWR provides valuable wildlife habitat in the very populated Tampa Bay area.
The island is listed as critical habitat for endangered piping plovers and provides habitat and
protection for endangered manatees and sea turtles. Approximately 20-70 endangered Atlantic
loggerhead turtles nest annually. Egmont Key NWR has an unusually high population of gopher
tortoises and box turtles. Two wildlife sanctuaries, one on the east side of the island and one at the
south end of the island, comprise about 97 acres and are closed to all public use, year-round (Kleen
and Hunter, June 2006).
Cooperative management agreements between the Service, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), and the
FDEP entrust daily management activities of Egmont Key NWR to the Florida Park Service (FPS).
The FPS plays a critical role in managing recreation on the island. Egmont Key State Park is
managed to protect and restore the historic structures (i.e., historic lighthouse, guard house, gun
batteries and brick roads) and for swimming, sunbathing, shelling, and picnicking. Park staff also
assist the refuge in habitat and wildlife management on a regular basis. Park staff monitor sea turtle
nesting, control exotic species, and care for injured birds. The USCG owns 55 acres, including the
lighthouse, at the north end of the island. This property is the focus of the FSP’s operation due to the
concentration of historic sites (e.g., Fort Dade) on this property. In addition, the Tampa Bay Pilots
Association leases 5 acres of land from Hillsborough County and two tracts, totaling 5 acres, from the
Service along the east side of the island to conduct their business of piloting large ships into and out
of Tampa Bay (Figure 5).
8 Tampa Bay Refuges
Figure 1. National wildlife refuges of Florida
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
Figure 2. Chassahowitzka NWR Complex
10 Tampa Bay Refuges
Figure 3. Tampa Bay Refuges
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
Figure 4. Egmont Key NWR
12 Tampa Bay Refuges
Figure 5. Land ownership of Egmont Key NWR
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
Pinellas NWR (Figure 6) is located at the mouth of Tampa Bay, along the Gulf coast of Florida, in
Pinellas County. The refuge was established in 1951 as a breeding ground for colonial bird species. It
contains seven mangrove islands encompassing about 394 acres, all within the city limits of St.
Petersburg. The refuge is comprised of Little Bird, Mule, Jackass, Listen, and Whale Island Keys and
leases Tarpon and Indian Keys from Pinellas County. A Pinellas County seagrass sanctuary is located
around Tarpon and Indian Keys and the use of internal combustion engines within this zone is
prohibited to protect seagrass beds. Hundreds of brown pelicans and double-crested cormorants and
dozens of herons, egrets, and roseate spoonbills nest within Tarpon and Little Bird Keys. Pinellas Key
provides important mangrove habitat for most long-legged wading species, especially for reddish
egrets. The mangrove islands of Pinellas NWR are closed to all public use year-round to protect the
migratory birds (Kleen and Hunter, USFWS, June 2006).
Passage Key NWR (Figure 7) is located at the entrance to Tampa Bay in Manatee County, along the
Gulf coast of Florida, just north of Bradenton, Florida. When Passage Key was originally designated as
a federal bird reservation by President Roosevelt in 1905, it was a 60- acre island with a freshwater lake
and lush vegetation. Unfortunately, erosion and hurricanes have virtually destroyed the key. It is now a
meandering sand bar, varying is size from 0.5 to 10 acres, depending on weather (USFWS, Visitor
Services Review Report, March 2004). In 1970, Passage Key NWR was designated a Wilderness Area
and because of its fragility and small size it is now closed to all public use (Figure 8). The refuges’
objectives are to provide habitat for colonial waterbirds. Hundreds of brown pelicans, laughing gulls,
black skimmers, and royal terns nested annually until the island was destroyed by a hurricane in 2005.
Small numbers of herons and egrets also nested on the island. The key once hosted the largest royal
tern and sandwich tern nesting colonies in the State of Florida. Passage is closed to public use year-round
to protect the migratory birds that use the island.
Refuge History and Purpose
The Tampa Bay Refuges are crucial to the survival of many threatened and endangered species. For
the most part, none of the priority public uses are actively promoted by the Service on the Tampa Bay
Refuges. However, there are excellent opportunities for wildlife observation, wildlife photography,
environmental education and interpretation, and outreach. Fishing is a primary public use off-shore,
with the state and local governments providing primary enforcement oversight over the waterways
(USFWS Visitor Services Review Report, March 2004).
During the Pleistocene era, the Tampa Bay Refuges were part of the mainland of Florida. At the end
of the last glacial period, ~20,000 years ago, ice began to melt rapidly and the sea level rose swiftly,
separating them from Florida. Egmont Key NWR is the only refuge in this group open for public
visitation and is the refuge for which the most historical and cultural information exists. Little historical
information exists for Pinellas NWR and Passage Key NWR.
Egmont Key NWR has a rich history. The entire key is listed on the National Register of Historic
Places. Artifacts of aboriginal/Indian pottery, dating back 2,000 years, have been found on the island.
But since there is no freshwater source, and because travel to the key entails crossing open water, it
is likely that the Key was used only periodically by Native Americans for hunting, crabbing, and shell
fishing. Spanish expeditions first sighted the key in the early 1500s. The first recorded contact with
the key was in 1757 by Don Francisco Maria Celi, a Spanish explorer. Egmont Key was named in
1763, after the second Earl of Egmont, John Perceval, the first Lord of the British Admiralty, and a
member of the Irish House of Commons.
14 Tampa Bay Refuges
Figure 6. Pinellas NWR
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
Figure 7. Passage Key NWR
16 Tampa Bay Refuges
Figure 8. Passage Key NWR wilderness
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
When mapped by the Geodetic Survey in 1875, Egmont Key was approximately 50 percent larger
than it is today. The first lighthouse was built in 1848 and was the only lighthouse on the western
Gulf coast of Florida. After hurricanes damaged the lighthouse in 1848 and 1852, it was moved
inland and rebuilt in 1857-58, and remains in service today. In the 1850’s, Egmont Key was used as
a holding area for Seminole Indians as they were being transported to Arkansas and Oklahoma.
Early in the Civil War, the Key saw occupation by Confederate blockade-runners; while later in the
1860s, Union forces used Egmont Key to operate their Gulf coast blockade of the Confederacy. The
Key was also used as a refuge for Union sympathizers and a military prison during the war.
Construction of Fort Dade began in 1898, with temporary gun batteries to protect Tampa at the
outbreak of the Spanish/American War. The Spanish fleet never came, but by 1910 a small town of
about 300 residents, brick streets, a narrow gauge railroad, an electric generating plant, and 70
buildings existed. At this time, during World War I, Fort Dade was used as a training center for National
Guard Coast Artillery Units. The fort was deactivated in the early 1920s, but later reactivated and used
during World War II as a harbor patrol station and an ammunition storage facility.
Egmont Key became a national wildlife refuge in 1974 and was named to the National Register of
Historic Places. In 1989, the State of Florida established Egmont Key State Park through a
cooperative agreement with the Service. At the present time, the USCG maintains the lighthouse and
owns 55 acres at the north end of the island. The lighthouse is believed to be the oldest structure still
used for its original purpose in the Tampa Bay area. The historic ruins of Fort Dade and Egmont Key
State Park are managed by the Florida State Parks (FSP) in cooperation with the Service. Also, the
Tampa Bay Pilots Association leases a 10-acre tract of land, 5 acres from Hillsborough County, and 5
acres in two additional tracts from the Service along the east side of the island, to conduct its
business of piloting large ships in and out of Tampa Bay (Figure 9).
Egmont Key NWR, established in 1974, is administered in accordance with the National Wildlife
Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, which was amended by the Improvement Act. The refuge
has four basic purposes:
1. provide nesting, feeding, and resting habitat for brown pelicans, terns, and other colonial
nesting waterbirds;
2. conserve and protect barrier island habitat and preserve historical structures of national
significance;
3. provide habitat and protection for endangered species such as manatees and sea turtles; and
4. provide wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental education for the public (USFWS Visitor
Services Review Report, March 2004).
Pinellas NWR was established in 1951 for use as an inviolate sanctuary and for migratory birds. It is
closed to the public. Pinellas NWR includes Tarpon, Whale, Indian, Little Bird, Mule, Jackass, and
Listen Keys. The larger islands in this group are surrounded by extensive seagrass flats and as a
result no internal combustion engines are allowed within a signed boundary to protect these areas.
The refuge has two basic purposes:
1. provide nesting, feeding, and resting habitat for brown pelicans and other waterbirds; and
2. conserve and protect barrier island habitat (Kleen and Hunter, USFWS, June 2006).
18 Tampa Bay Refuges
Figure 9. Existing facilities of Egmont Key NWR
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
Passage Key NWR was established under executive order (President Theodore Roosevelt) in 1905
as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds. Congress designated Passage Key NWR as a
Wilderness Area in 1970 (36 acres). Passage Key NWR is closed to the public. A hurricane swept
through this area in 1921, transforming this mangrove island containing a freshwater lake, into a
meandering sandbar. Passage Key NWR stands at the mouth of Tampa Bay, where it faces the full
force of storms off the Gulf of Mexico, and now ranges in size from 0.5-10 acres. The refuge is an
intermittent island that is very important to birds. When the land is exposed, the birds populate the
area. The refuge has two basic purposes:
1. provide nesting, feeding, and resting habitat for colonial waterbirds, including laughing gulls,
royal terns, black skimmers, sandwich terns, brown pelicans and oystercatchers; and
2. provide critical habitat and protection for thousands of shorebirds and waterbirds (Kleen and
Hunter, USFWS, June 2006).
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
Special designations in the Tampa Bay region are depicted in Figure 10.
Egmont Key NWR has two principal features. The first is an extensive series of military structures
and ruins, and a still-operating lighthouse. The second is the island itself, relatively remote, yet
accessible, with its beaches and island vegetation. Because of its colorful military past, Egmont Key
NWR was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1979. The Egmont Key lighthouse has
also been designated a Hillsborough County Landmark. Egmont Key NWR and State Park are
cooperatively managed with FSP. The bird sanctuary area at the southern end of Egmont Key NWR
is closed to all public use, year-round, and a vessel exclusion zone has been established around the
seagrass beds on the east side of the island to protect them from propeller damage. Egmont Key
NWR is an Index Nesting Beach Site for the Atlantic loggerhead sea turtle in the State of Florida.
Egmont Key NWR is also designated as critical habitat for piping plovers.
All of the islands of Pinellas NWR are closed to the public to protect the habitat and wildlife. Pinellas
County has established seagrass sanctuaries around Tarpon and Indian Keys. These areas are posted
to prevent boats with internal combustion engines from entering the seagrass beds. Because of Tarpon
Key’s unique shape, topography, and vegetative status as a mangrove island, it is a significant nesting,
resting, and feeding area for a variety of marsh birds and waterbirds. Boca Ciega Bay Aquatic Preserve,
in which Pinellas NWR is located, is designated as an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW).
The OFW’s designation is given to waters that are “worthy of special protection due to their natural
attributes” (Section 403.061, Florida Statutes); these waters are listed in Section 62-302.700, Florida
Administrative Code. All permanent water bodies within state parks have been designated as OFW.
The OFW designation affords the highest protection possible under state water quality rules by
prohibiting degradation of water quality from the conditions existing at the time of designation.
Outstanding Florida Waters in the Tampa Bay area are:
• Hillsborough River State Park, Hillsborough Bay segment;
• Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve, Coastal Middle Tampa Bay Basins segment;
• Little Manatee River, Middle Tampa Bay segment;
• Terra Ceia State Aquatic Preserve, Coastal Lower Tampa Bay Basins segment;
• Boca Ciega State Aquatic Preserve, Lower Tampa Bay segment;
• Pinellas County Aquatic Preserve, Lower Tampa Bay segment; and,
• Lake Manatee State Recreation Area, Manatee River segment (Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, “Basin Status Report,” November 2001).
20 Tampa Bay Refuges
Figure 10. Special designations
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
Other significant land and water resources in the vicinity of the Tampa Bay Refuge's include:
• DeSoto National Memorial and Mullet Key (named the number one beach in the continental
U.S.) (The Tampa Bay Estuary Program, “Charting the Course for Tampa Bay,” May 2006);
• Little Manatee River State Recreation Area;
• National Society's Washburn Sanctuary (Bird Key) in Terra Ciega Bay;
• Ybor City State Memorial; and
• Weedon Island County Preserve.
With the exception of the Passage Key NWR Wilderness area, other lands within the Tampa Bay
Refuges were reviewed for their suitability in meeting the criteria for wilderness areas, as defined by
the Wilderness Act of 1964. No other areas in the refuges were found to meet these criteria. (See
Appendix H.) Therefore, the suitability of other lands within the Tampa Bay Refuges for wilderness
designation is not further analyzed in this Draft CCP/EA.
Congress designated Passage Key NWR a Wilderness Area in 1970 (36 acres). Passage Key NWR
is closed to visitation to protect wildlife and other natural, cultural, and/or other resources consistent
with the conservation purpose(s) of the refuge. In 1992, a year-round, 100-yard buffer zone was
established around the perimeter of Passage Key NWR to protect nesting terns and gulls.
Wilderness designation provides an additional level of protection for this refuge, but does not open
the area to public access or use.
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
An ecosystem is a geographical area that includes and interconnects all the living (biotic) organisms,
their physical (abiotic) surroundings, and the natural cycles that sustain them. The Outer Coastal Plain
Ecological Province (Bailey 1978) encompasses a large portion of the southeastern, coastal United
States. The Outer Coastal Plain Ecological Province is an area of gentle slopes with abundant water
resources. Estuaries, swamps, marshes, rivers, and lakes are abundant and provide habitat for a wide
variety of plant and animal life. The Tampa Bay Refuges are located in the southern part of the Outer
Coastal Plain Ecological Province, in an area designated as the North Florida-Peninsular Florida
ecosystem unit (Figure 11). The North Florida Ecosystem includes several important areas with
protective designations, including Ocala National Forest and Okefenokee and Merritt Island NWRs. In
total, thirteen national wildlife refuges and one national fish hatchery exist in the North Florida
Ecosystem. Various other local, state, and federal conservation areas are also located within the North
Florida Ecosystem. Conservation areas in the Tampa Bay region are identified in Figure 12. The North
Florida Ecosystem spans temperate and subtropical climates, numerous physiographic districts, and a
wide variety of habitats. Barrier islands, xeric scrub, pine flatwoods, freshwater marshes, lakes,
streams, springs, mixed hardwood/pine forests, cypress swamps and domes, dry prairies, maritime
forests, hardwood hammocks, estuarine marshes, pine rocklands, sandhill woodlands, coastal strands,
sawgrass prairies, sloughs, and tree islands of the North Florida Ecosystem serve a variety of native
wildlife, including over 100 federally listed species, as well as interjurisdictional fishes, neotropical
migratory birds, non-game waterbirds, and waterfowl.
Specifically, the Tampa Bay Refuges are located along the Gulf coast in the Southwestern Florida
Flatwoods Sub-ecoregion of the Southern Coastal Plain Ecoregion. Ecoregions denote areas of
general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity of environmental resources
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/level_iii.htm).
The Southern Coastal Plain consists of mostly flat plains, but it is a heterogeneous region containing
barrier islands, coastal lagoons, marshes, and swampy lowlands along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts.
Tampa Bay is the most prominent geographic feature in the region. In central Florida, an area of
22 Tampa Bay Refuges
Figure 11. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecoregions – Southeast Region
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
Figure 12. Conservation areas in the Tampa Bay Region
24 Tampa Bay Refuges
discontinuous highlands contains numerous lakes. The ecoregion is low in elevation (less than 100’
MSL) with little relief. Its textured soils are wet, coarse, and sandy. The climate is subtropical with a
long growing season. Average annual temperatures are about 74o F and average annual rainfall is
about 50 inches; supporting a diverse range of flora and fauna. The ecoregion was once covered by
a variety of forest communities that included trees of longleaf pine, slash pine, pond pine, beech,
sweetgum, southern magnolia, white oak, and laurel oak. Population growth has been rapid in the
last 35 years, and much of the region has been urbanized. Land cover is now mostly slash and
loblolly pine with oak-gum-cypress forest in some low-lying areas, citrus groves, pasture for beef
cattle, and urban areas (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Level III Ecoregions of Florida—
revised April 2000;” Native Seed Network, http://www.nativeseednetwork.org/ecodetail?region=75).
Present land use in the Tampa Bay basin is characterized as: 28 percent agricultural and
rangelands; 19 percent developed and urban; 18 percent upland forests; 10 percent wetlands; 8
percent shrub and brush; and 17 percent open water. Table 1 lists types of natural communities in
the Tampa Bay Basin, and Table 2 lists unique or rare natural communities in the Tampa Bay Basin
(Florida Department of Environmental Protection, “Basin Status Report,” November 2001).
Tampa Bay’s wetlands, mangroves and shoreline areas are important ecological resources and support
the state’s largest and most diverse colonies of wading and shorebirds and one of the most productive
bird nesting habitats in the United States. Three classes of emergent tidal wetlands are generally
recognized in the Tampa Bay area: mangrove forests, salt marshes, and salt barrens. The emergent tidal
wetlands collectively provide critical habitat for much of the bay’s wildlife. Marsh grasses and mangrove
trees provide critical feeding, nesting, and sheltering habitat for a variety of birds, such as pelicans,
cormorants, herons, ibises, spoonbills, and egrets. The areas provide important attachment sites for
algae and invertebrate communities and provide submerged habitat for hundreds of recreationally and
commercially important species of fish, crabs, shrimp, and other shellfish, such as the pink shrimp, tarpon,
snook, menhaden, mullet, blue crab, and red drum. Sizable populations of bottlenosed dolphins also
inhabit the bay, while the shallow seagrass flats provide an important fish nursery and feeding ground for
the endangered Florida manatee (Imperial, August 2000).
Interior parts of Egmont Key NWR are undeveloped and covered with palmetto, shrub, and natural
vegetation. The interior ecological system of Egmont Key NWR is described as a Palustrine system
with forest and shrub/scrub consisting of broad-leaved evergreens. The shoreline is an intertidal
estuarine system with shrub/scrub consisting of needle-leafed evergreens near a sandy shore.
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
The National Estuary Program, established as part of the 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act
(CWA), seeks to protect and restore 28 designated estuaries of national significance that are deemed
to be threatened by pollution, development, or overuse. The Tampa Bay Estuary Program is one of
the seven estuary programs in the Gulf of Mexico. Several federal agencies participate in the
planning and assessment efforts: EPA, NOAA, USGS, DOI, and USDA (U.S. EPA,
http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nepccr/, June 2007; U.S. EPA,
http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/2005/, December 2004).
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
Table 1. Types of natural communities in the Tampa Bay Basin
Land-
Cover
Category
Community
Type
Area in
Acres
Percentage
of Total
Area
Characteristics
Uplands
1 Coastal
strand
12 0.001 Occurs on well-drained sandy coastlines and
includes typically zoned vegetation of upper beach,
nearby dunes, or coastal rock formations.
2 Dry prairie 74,353 4.55 Large treeless grasslands and shrublands on very
flat terrain, interspersed with scattered cypress
domes, cypress strands, isolated freshwater
marshes, and hammocks.
3 Pinelands 67,393 4.12 Includes north and south Florida pine flatwoods,
south Florida pine rocklands, scrubby flatwoods, and
commercial pine plantations. Cypress domes,
bayheads, titi swamps, and freshwater marshes are
commonly interspersed in isolated depressions.
4 Sand pine
scrub
4,735 0.29 Xeric plant community dominated by overstory of
sand pine. Occurs in well-drained sands deposited
along former shorelines and islands of ancient seas.
5 Sandhill 2,949 0.18 Xeric plant community dominated by overstory of
scattered longleaf pine, along with understory of
turkey oak and bluejack oak. Occurs in areas of
rolling terrain on deep, well-drained sands.
6 Xeric oak
scrub
9,165 0.56 Hardwood community consisting of clumps of low-growing
oaks interspersed with white sand. Occurs
in areas of deep, well-washed sterile sand.
7 Mixed
hardwood
pine
42,152 2.58 Southern extension of the Piedmont southern mixed
hardwoods, occurring mainly on clay soils of the
northern Panhandle. Also includes upland forests in
which a mixture of conifers and hardwoods dominate
overstory.
8 Hardwood
hammock
101,179 6.19 Includes major upland hardwood associations that
occur statewide on fairly rich sandy soils.
9 Tropical
hammock
N/A N/A Cold-intolerant hardwood community with very high
plant diversity that occurs on coastal uplands in
extreme south Florida. It is characterized by tropical
trees and shrubs at the northern edge of their range,
which extends into the Caribbean.
26 Tampa Bay Refuges
Wetlands
10 Coastal salt
marsh
7,028 0.43 Herbaceous and shrubby wetland communities that
include cordgrass, needlerush, and transitional or
high salt marshes, occurring statewide in brackish
waters along protected low energy estuarine
shorelines.
11 Freshwater
marsh
46,123 2.82 Wetland communities dominated by wide assortment
of herbaceous plant species growing on sand, clay,
marl, and organic soils in areas where water depths
and inundation regimes vary.
12 Cypress
swamp
37,466 2.29 Regularly inundated communities that form forested
buffer along large rivers, creeks, and lakes, or occur
in depressions as circular domes or linear strands.
Strongly dominated by bald cypress or pond cypress.
13 Hardwood
swamp
59,510 3.64 Association of wetland-adapted trees, composed
either of pure stands of hardwoods or a hardwood-cypress
mixture that occurs on organic soils and
forms the forested floodplain of nonalluvial rivers,
creeks, and broad lake basins.
14 Bay swamp N/A N/A Type of hardwood swamp often found in shallow
depressions in pinelands or at base of sandy ridges
where seepage maintains constantly wet soils.
Broadleaf evergreen trees, such as sweetbay,
swamp bay, and loblolly bay, dominate overstory.
15 Shrub swamp 3,677 0.23 Dominated by low-growing, woody shrubs or small
trees, usually found in wetlands changed by natural
or human processes, such as altered hydroperiod,
fire, clear-cutting or land clearing, and siltation.
16 Mangrove
swamp
9,142 0.56 Dense, brackish water swamps, usually dominated
by red, black, and white mangroves that occur along
low-energy shorelines and in protected, tidally
influenced bays of southern Florida. Comprises
freeze-intolerant tree species that are distributed
south of a line from Cedar Key on the Gulf coast to
St. Augustine on the Atlantic coast.
17 Bottomland
hardwood
N/A N/A Wetland-adapted forests composed of pure stands of
hardwoods or a mixture of hardwoods and cypress.
They occur throughout the state on organic soils and
form the forested floodplains of nonalluvial rivers,
creeks, and broad lake basins. Tree species include
a mixed overstory containing black gum, water
tupelo, bald cypress, blue beech, and swamp ash.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
Open Water
18 Water 273,380 16.73 Open water areas of inland lakes, ponds, rivers, and
streams and brackish and saline waters of estuaries,
bays, and tidal
Disturbed
19 Grassland and
agricultural lands
447,511 27.38 Upland communities with very low-growing
grasses and forbs. Intensively managed
sites such as improved pastures, lawns, golf
courses, road shoulders, cemeteries, or
weedy fallow agricultural fields.
20 Shrub and brush 133,213 8.15 Includes different situations where natural
upland communities have recently been
disturbed and are recovering through natural
succession.
21 Exotic plant
communities
N/A N/A Upland and wetland areas dominated by
invasive non-native species that outgrow and
outcompete native plant communities.
22 Barren land 315,381 19.30 Developed areas such as roads, parking lots,
and buildings.
N/A—This community type is not present in the basin.
Source: Natural community definitions are adapted from Kautz, Randy, D. T. Gilbert, and G. M. Mauldin. 1993. “Vegetative
Cover in Florida Based on 1985-1989 Landsat Thematic Mapper Imagery.” Florida Scientist 56(3):135-154.
The Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), provides national leadership, strategic direction, and guidance
to state and territory coastal programs and estuarine research reserves. It oversees six major
programs. Each program has a national reach, but is designed to account for local resources and
needs. The office works with state and territory coastal resource managers to develop a scientifically
based, comprehensive national system of marine protected areas and supports effective
management and sound science to protect, sustain, and restore coral reef ecosystems. These
activities are mandated by the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Marine Protected Areas Executive
Order, and the Coral Reef Conservation Act (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/)..
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Coastal Program Plan describes a comprehensive
national coastal program that responds to critical regional needs while addressing national issues
associated with coastal change, including nutrient enrichment, oxygen depletion, harmful algal
blooms, chemical contamination, diseases in marine organisms, and fish kills; shoreline erosion; the
increasing susceptibility of coastal communities to natural hazards and sea level rise; increasing
demands on non-living resources (including groundwater, sand and gravel, and energy resources);
declines in living marine resources; habitat loss; loss of biodiversity; and invasions of non-indigenous
species (U.S. Geological Survey, http://marine.usgs.gov/coastal-plan/index.html).
28 Tampa Bay Refuges
Table 2. Unique or rare natural communities in the Tampa Bay Basin
Natural Community Type FNAI Global
Rank
FNAI
State
Rank
Beach dune G4 S2
Bird rookery N/A N/A
Coastal dune lake G2 S1
Estuarine composite substrate G3 S3
Estuarine consolidated substrate G3 S3
Estuarine grass bed G2 S2
Estuarine tidal marsh G4 S4
Estuarine tidal swamp G3 S3
Estuarine unconsolidated substrate G5 S5
Geological feature N/A N/A
Manatee aggregation site N/A N/A
Marine grass bed G2 S2
Marine mollusk reef G3 S3
Marine tidal swamp G3 S3
Maritime hammock G4 S2
Scrub G2 S2
Xeric hammock G3 S3
N/A = Not available.
Note: The Florida Natural Areas Inventory Global Rank characterizes an element’s relative rarity or endangerment
worldwide, with G1 being critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity or because of extreme vulnerability to
extinction, and G5 being demonstrably secure globally. Likewise, the State Rank of S1 through S5 characterizes an
element’s relative rarity or endangerment in Florida. The rankings are based on many factors, the most important being the
estimated number of element occurrences, estimated abundance (or area for natural communities), range, estimated
adequately protected occurrences, relative threat of destruction, and ecological fragility.
Source: Marois, Katherine C. June 1999. Tracking List of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Animalsand
Natural Communities of Florida. Tallahassee, Florida: Florida Natural Areas Inventory.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
The Tampa Bay National Estuary Program, now simply called the Tampa Bay Estuary Program
(TBEP), was established in 1991 as a partnership of Hillsborough, Manatee, and Pinellas Counties;
the cities of Tampa, St. Petersburg, and Clearwater; the Southwest Florida Water Management
District; the FDEP; the U.S. EPA, and the USGS. Charting the Course, A Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) for Tampa Bay, seeks to restore and protect water
quality and bay habitats as the foundation for healthy and diverse populations of fish and wildlife.
The CCMP details progress made in restoring and protecting Tampa Bay and advances strategies for
continuing improvements in the future. Charting the Course was first released in 1996, and updated
in 2006 (Tampa Bay Estuary Program, May 2006). The CCMP defined a new direction for Tampa
Bay resource management, recognizing that environmental management must be an
evolving/adaptive process that shifts away from emphasis on piecemeal oversight and toward a
holistic view that assesses cumulative impacts of human action on entire natural systems (i.e.,
ecosystem management). Many collaborative activities (Table 3) have been initiated as a result of
this multi-agency task force. Many research and study reports for the TBEP are available at
http://gulfsci.usgs.gov/tampabay/reports/index.html .
One important component and outgrowth of the TBEP is the USGS’s Gulf of Mexico Integrated
Science - Tampa Bay Study. This study responds to the need to use an integrated science approach
for studying the interrelations between geological, biological, chemical, and hydrological components
of estuarine systems, and the impact of natural and anthropogenic change to all components of
estuarine systems. The USGS’s geological, biological, and water resources, and national mapping
disciplines are working together with other federal, state, and local partners to develop and implement
an integrated, multidisciplinary science strategy for estuarine research. Results from this research will
enable scientists and resource managers to better assess the fate of our estuaries in the future. The
integrated science strategy developed through this project will be used as a model for USGS-integrated
science in other Gulf of Mexico estuaries.
The Southwest Florida Water Management District has developed the Comprehensive Watershed
Management (CWM) program to conduct water resource assessment and planning on a watershed
basis. The CWM was designed to allow for careful evaluation of the regional status of water
resources, with emphasis on the Districts’ Areas of Responsibility: Water Supply, Flood Protection,
Water Quality, and Natural Systems. Multi-disciplinary and multi-agency teams were convened to
develop and implement watershed management activities within each of the District’s watersheds. Of
particular importance is the Tampa Bay/Anclote River CWM Plan.
The “American Oystercatcher Conservation Plan for the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United
States” (Shulte and Brown, April 2006) focuses on (H. p. palliates) in the United States, referred to as
“American Oystercatcher” or simply as “oystercatchers.” The present plan addresses only the
populations on the East and Gulf coasts and summarizes current knowledge of their life history,
distribution, and population trends, describes current threats, lists research and management needs,
and outlines recommended conservation actions. Conservation activities recommended to address
these threats include: identification and protection of existing habitat; creation of new habitat through
carefully designed use of dredge-spoil materials; management of existing protected areas to reduce
predation and disturbance; and control of predator populations, especially in the nesting season.
“Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Species Management and Conservation Plan” (Florida Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 2004), as required under Section 5 of the Florida Endangered
and Threatened Species Act of 1977 [s.372.072, Florida Statutes] is a plan for management and
conservation of endangered and threatened species.
30 Tampa Bay Refuges
Future of the Region: A Strategic Regional Policy Plan for the Tampa Bay Region (FRSRPP) (Tampa Bay
Regional Planning Council, September 2005) was prepared pursuant to Chapter 186, Florida Statutes, and
Chapter 27E-5, Florida Administrative Code. The FRSRPP is a long-range guide for physical, economic,
and social development of the region, which identifies regional goals and policies. The purpose of the plan
is the identification of objectives and/or issues of most importance to the Tampa Bay Region and which
have the greatest impact on the formulation of a regional vision. The following goals serve as the foundation
for the Strategic Regional Policy Plan: Affordable Housing, Economic Development, Emergency
Preparedness, Natural Resources, and Regional Transportation.
Atlantic loggerhead sea turtle recovery plan – Egmont Key NWR serves as a loggerhead sea turtle nesting
index beach necessary to determine population status and trends along the Atlantic (and Gulf) coast of the
United States to determine progress towards the recovery (Kleen and Hunter, USFWS, June 2006).
North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (NAWCP) – The draft Southeastern United States Waterbird
Conservation Plan stresses protection of nesting and foraging habitats for both colonial and non-colonial
waterbirds. Egmont Key and Passage Key NWRs are important for supporting large colonies of beach-nesting
species (brown pelican; sandwich, royal, and least terns; black skimmers; and laughing gulls).
Pinellas Key NWR provides important mangrove habitat for most long-legged wading species, especially for
reddish egrets. Tampa Bay represents the northern most “large” nesting population of reddish egrets on the
Gulf Coast of Florida (Kleen and Hunter, USFWS, June 2006).
Contributions to Partners in Flight (PIF) - PIF formed Bird Conservation Plans by Bird Conservation
Regions that set conservation priorities and habitat and population objectives. Habitats found on
primarily Egmont Key and Pinellas NWRs include:
upland forest and scrub, primarily important for transient Nearctic-neotropical migratory landbirds
crossing the Gulf of Mexico; mangrove woodlands, primarily Pinellas NWR: northernmost stable
populations of mangrove cuckoo, black-whiskered vireo, and Florida prairie warbler along Gulf Coast
of Florida (Kleen and Hunter, USFWS, June 2006).
The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (USSCP) is a partnership effort being undertaken throughout
the country to ensure that shorebird populations are restored and protected. Primary objectives of
this plan are: develop scientifically sound monitoring system to provide practical information to
researches and land managers; identify principles upon which management plans can integrate
shorebird habitat conservation with multiple species strategies; and design a strategy for increasing
public awareness and information concerning wetlands and shorebirds. Tampa Bay Refuge’s are
included in the Southeastern Coastal Plain-Caribbean Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan.
Priorities in this regional plan focus on providing adequate nesting, foraging, and roosting habitat,
especially for beach nesting and inlet foraging species. Beach and sandflat habitats on Egmont Key
and Passage Key NWRs provide important nesting habitat for the American oystercatcher and
foraging and roosting habitat for many species of shorebirds (including occasional non-breeding
snowy plover and Wilson’s plover, and winter habitat for the occasional piping plover) (Kleen and
Hunter, USFWS, June 2006).
The North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) is a broad coalition of governmental, non-governmental,
and academic organizations interested in coordinating efforts to conserve bird populations
and the landscapes upon which they depend. NABCI evolved in 1998 out of a recognition among
conservationists of the value of coordinating and integrating planning, implementation, and evaluation
efforts of NAWCP, PIF, and USSCP (Kleen and Hunter, USFWS, June 2006).
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
The Tampa Bay Estuary Atlas, maintained by the University of South Florida, is designed to provide
citizens, scientists, professionals, and planners with comprehensive and current water quality,
hydrologic, and ecological data, as well as information about recreational opportunities and a library
of scientific and educational materials on water resource issues. The Atlas is a "one-stop information
shop" for concerned citizens and scientists alike. The Atlas functions as a warehouse for a variety of
water resources information, including documents and educational links. The Atlas is a tool to help in
maintaining and improving Tampa Bay’s vital water resources. There exists enormous interest and
wide-public support for conservation and protection of Tampa Bay’s natural resources as evidenced
by the many local initiatives and programs. Just a few of the many projects and restoration efforts in
the Tampa Bay region are:
􀁹􇤠 Agency on Bay Management - Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
􀁹􇤠 Florida Forever Program - Florida Department of Environmental Protection
􀁹􇤠 Florida Natural Areas Inventory - Florida State University conducts a variety of conservation
planning and analysis projects.
􀁹􇤠 Florida's Springs: Strategies for Protection and Restoration - An educational document
provided by the Florida Springs Task Force
􀁹􇤠 Gulf of Mexico Integrated Science - Tampa Bay Study Overview , and Five-Year Science Plan
for the Tampa Bay Study , USGS
􀁹􇤠 Inshore Marine Monitoring and Assessment Program - An EPA-funded initiative to assess the
coastal marine water of Florida.
􀁹􇤠 Ocean and Coastal Resource Management - NOAA
����􇤠 Restore America's Estuaries - A national non-profit organization dedicated to preserving the
nation's network of estuaries.
􀁹􇤠 Southwest Florida Conservation Corridor: Tampa Bay Watershed Section - The Agency on
Bay Management, the Natural Resources Committee of the Tampa Bay Regional Planning
Council.
􀁹􇤠 Tampa Bay Oil Spill Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment - Florida Department of
Environmental Protection.
􀁹􇤠 Tampa Bay Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Plan - Southwest Florida
Water Management District
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
The following are considered to be critical needs and priority action recommendations for the three
Tampa Bay Refuges (Kleen and Hunter, USFWS, June 2006):
1. Control of predators, including raccoons, rats, and fish crows, is necessary to protect nesting
birds. Colonies have been devastated by raccoon predation and predation by fish crows has
increased in the recent past. Nesting colonies of birds on Pinellas NWR, particularly Tarpon,
Indian, and Little Bird Keys, have been devastated by raccoons. More recently, depredation
from fish crows is considered an increasingly serious problem. Rats have become a
significant issue on Egmont Key NWR. Predator control on these islands is imperative.
2. Beach (Egmont Key NWR) and mangrove (Pinellas NWR) habitat must be protected and
restored, where appropriate, to provide habitat for threatened loggerhead turtles, beach-nesting
birds, and mangrove-nesting birds. Loss of habitat caused by severe erosion along
the west beach of Egmont Key NWR is affecting the loggerhead sea turtle populations. An
assessment and decision regarding beach renourishment for Egmont Key NWR (and possibly
Passage Key NWR) is needed. An assessment and decision regarding a buffer establishment
around all three refuges is needed.
32 Tampa Bay Refuges
Table 3. Monitoring, restoration, and research programs in Tampa Bay
Water and Air Quality
Program Agency Budget
Surface Water Monitoring EPCHC $150,000.00
Surface Water Monitoring Pinellas County $695,000.00
Beach Water Quality Pinellas County $10,000.00
Bioassay Studies Pinellas County $18,000.00
Surface Water, Benthic, and Air Quality Monitoring Manatee County $289,500.00
Surface Water Monitoring City of Tampa $400,000.00
Water Quality Monitoring City of Clearwater $208,800.00
Surface Water Monitoring Tampa Bay Water unavailable
Water Quality, Benthic Studies, Air Quality EPCHC $979,000.00
Monitoring
Atmospheric Deposition University of South Florida/EPA funded unavailable
Benthic Nutrient Flux FMRI unavailable
Microbial Monitoring – Health Beaches USF unavailable
Non-point pollution control USCG $264,000.00
Habitats
Program Agency Budget
Satellite monitoring shoreline vegetative habitat FMRI, NOAA unavailable
Watershed Characterization Studies EPCHC, Pinellas County unavailable
Sediment chemistry, grain size, benthos Manatee and Pinellas Counties unavailable
Seagrass aerial photography mapping SWFWMD, TBRPC $150,000.00
Seagrass transect monitoring City of Tampa Bay Study Group, $350,000.00
SWFWMD-SWIM Program
Seagrass Restoration Techniques FMRI $500,000.00
Seagrass Restoration Techniques USF $40,000.00+
Labyrinthula Monitoring FMRI unavailable
Artificial Reef Program EPCHC $90,000.00+
Benthic Quality (depth, temperature, salinity, HCEPC, SWFWMD see above
dissolved oxygen, %silt/clay, contaminants)
Dredged Material Management – Habitat USACE unavailable
Restoration
Living Resources
Program Agency Budget
Marine mammals, fisheries, sea turtle nesting FMRI unavailable
Mussel Watch and Oyster projects NOAA unavailable
Bird populations coastal colonies census National Audubon Society unavailable
Bird Sanctuary Program National Audubon Society unavailable
Oyster reef creation and monitoring Tampa Bay Watch unavailable
Scallop abundance FMRI, Mote Marine, UNC Wilmington unavailable
Reef fish, sessile invertebrates (Artifical Reef EPCHC see above
Program)
Benthic taxa (abundance, diversity, evenness, EPCHC, SWFWMD see above
dominant taxa)
Florida Marine Fisheries Monitoring (fisheries FMRI $600,000.00+
Dependent and independent)
Manatee carcass recovery, necroscopy 1974-1985 USGS/USFWS Sirenia Project unavailable
Manatee monitoring FMRI
Marine Mammal Pathology Laboratory Eckerd College/USFWS unavailable
Dolphin Biology Research Institute (photo i.d., Chicago Zoological Society/NMFS unavailable
community structure) 1988-1993
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
Dolphin research and monitoring Mote Marine Laboratory unavailable
Biology and habitat use of bottlenose dolphins Eckerd College Dolphin Project unavailable
Dolphin rescue, rehabilitation, mortality studies Clearwater Marine Aquarium, Marine unavailable
Mammal Pathology Lab, Mote
Marine Lab, Tampa Bay
Marine Animal Stranding Team
Hydrobiological Monitoring (hydrology, water Tampa Bay Water, EPCHC, SWFWMD, $950,000.00
quality, benthic invertebrates, zooplankton/ FMRI
fish larvae, adult and juvenile fish, water
dependent birds, habitat/vegetation indices)
Habitat Restoration Projects Since 1995 – Non-inclusive
Program Agency Budget
Lake Maggiore Restoration SWFWMD $5,000,000.00*
Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve Restoration FDEP, EPCHC, HCC $90,000.00+
Cypress Point Restoration FDEP, ELAPP, SWFWMD-SWIM, $45,000.00
City of Tampa et al.
South Parcel Restoration SWIM, FDEP, EPCHC, Cargill $800,000.00*
General Habitat Restoration (numerous locations) SWFWMD-SWIM $1,473,600.00*
Wetland Preservation and Restoration EPCHC $840,000.00
Terra Ceia Aquatic Preserve and Buffer FDEP, SWFWMD $5,000,000.00*
*denotes total budget rather than annual budget.
Sources:
Pribble et al. 1999, Hazen and Sawyer 1996, H. Greening pers. comm. Appendix 1 -- Non-inclusive list of monitoring,
restoration, and research programs in Tampa Bay and estimated budgets.
http://gulfsci.er.usgs.gov/tampabay/reports/5yr_plan/index.html
Pribble R.J., Janicki A.J., Greening H. (eds.). 1999. Baywide Environmental Monitoring Report 1993-1998. Tampa Bay
Estuary Program Technical Publication #07-99
Hazen and Sawyer (eds.). 1996. Funding Source Inventory for Comprehensive Conservation and Management Action
Plans, Tampa Bay Estuary Program Technical Publication #14-95
Habitat restoration, including controlling exotic plants and planting native plants, is needed to
maintain wildlife diversity. Control of exotics including Brazilian pepper and Australian pine needs to
be continued.
Erosion is the foremost problem for Egmont and Passage Key NWRs. Alterations of the smooth,
natural bottom topography near the mouth of Tampa Bay in the last century, including enlargement of
natural channels and creation of new channels, spoil areas, turning basins, and causeways, has
resulted in much scouring of Egmont Channel and Key (USFWS, “An Ecological Characterization of
the Tampa Bay Watershed,” 1990).
34 Tampa Bay Refuges
There is an immediate need to manage the dynamics of offshore sand transport to achieve sand
accretion results and to begin to expand the key back to its original size. Egmont Key NWR has lost
nearly half its acreage since 1877, and has lost nearly a third since 1969. In 1877, Egmont Key was 539
acres. In 1974, when the island was designated a national wildlife refuge, it was 392 acres. Presently, it
is approximately 275 acres. Several historic structures are now covered by the encroaching sea, with
others soon to follow (Florida Department of Environmental Protection, November 1996). The periodic
dredging of nearby Egmont Channel is thought to have changed the transport of sand from the north
thereby depriving the island of sediments that once maintained its larger size. Restoring Egmont Key
NWR may require that the dredging practices in Egmont Channel be modified.
Two beach renourishment projects were operated by the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) on the
island. Presently, most of the southwest beach is gone and some upland area and historic structures
are beginning to erode. Tampa Bay harbor navigation and maintenance includes removal of 250,000
cubic yards of material every 5 years just north of Egmont Key NWR in the Egmont Channel. The
Corps has the option of using this dredged material either to renourish the west beach or dispose of it
out at sea. The dredging of the channel may be accelerating erosion problems on the west shore
more rapidly than anticipated, and as a result, the upland areas of the island are eroding as well.
This will likely have a major impact to visitation of Egmont Key NWR if beach goers no longer have a
beach at which to recreate (USFWS, “Visitor Services Report,” March 2004).
If it is decided to regularly renourish beaches on Egmont and Passage Keys NWRs, the staff would
need to pay particular attention to type and quality of beach sand being used. Guidelines have been
established with respect to sea turtle nesting beaches. In addition, very frequent re-nourishment may
lead to depletion of invertebrates in the substrate that may not be able to recover from the last event,
therefore impacting foraging shorebirds.
Eradication measures for two exotic plants, the Brazilian pepper and the Australian pine, are now
successfully in progress on Egmont Key NWR. Both plants have become pervasive and have
altered and replaced the natural hammock community habitats. The coastal berm supports the
island’s native box turtle populations. Eradication of predators, namely rats, should be addressed
in a more comprehensive manner.
The bird sanctuary area at the southern end of Egmont Key NWR is closed to all public use, year-round,
and a vessel exclusion zone has been established around the seagrass beds on the east side of the
island to protect them from propeller damage. Egmont Key NWR is designated as a critical habitat for
piping plovers; however, public beach use may be interfering with foraging and roosting of these birds.
Egmont Key NWR is located within the undisputed lightning capital of the North America. The coastal
scrub that was the original habitat land cover on the island is very pyrogenic and undoubtedly burned
frequently. Fires, both natural and human caused, were rampant on the island during settlement
years. A large fire was recorded in September 1891, when a coal shed spontaneously combusted
near the lighthouse. The keeper and his family had to flee to the mainland until fire suppression
support arrived three days later.
Since the abandonment of Fort Dade in 1923, wildfires from arson and lightning have swept the
island on a few occasions. A large fire occurred on April 25, 1925, when federal agents started grass
fires to smoke out smugglers and illegal immigrants. This fire destroyed eight homes, a coal storage
facility, and the large ice house/power plant. In 1975, a lightning-caused fire swept across most of
the island and consumed the remaining combustible materials left from Fort Dade. The fire destroyed
much of the lower shrub understory and killed several palm trees. In recent years, there have been
several small wildfires. Three of them were on the southern end of the refuge in the vicinity of the
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
pilot compound and may have posed a serious threat to the facilities there. An arson fire in 1995
destroyed the tile roof and consumed all flammable materials from the Fort Dade Guardhouse, which
was the last intact structure from that period.
Fire has played a key role in the island’s history, and controlled fire can be used to manage the
island’s habitats to benefit wildlife and to protect island facilities. A system of regularly scheduled
prescribed burns every 5 to 10 years will control natural succession to maintain sea oats. Also,
upland habitats infested with exotic plant species will be prescribed burned as needed to control
plants regeneration and remove dead biomass.
The seven mangrove islands comprising the Pinellas NWR total about 394 acres. The Pinellas NWR
islands are closed to the public due to their small size and critical importance to coastal bird species;
however, illegal access by the public still occurs and causes birds to abandon their nests or flush from
their nests, allowing predators (e.g., raccoons and fish crows) to move in. Also, offshore fishing is
allowed and as such, birds nesting near shore may be disturbed by boaters.
Raccoons may be the sole factor for breeding bird failures on Tarpon Key and other keys, although
fish crows and rats have contributed by depredating tree-nesting birds on Tarpon and Indian Keys.
Some mangrove habitats have been lost due to erosion from boat wakes, storm tides, tropical storms,
and hurricanes. Renourishment with oyster shells and planting of Spartina are recommended on
Tarpon and Little Bird Keys to prevent further erosion and allow mangrove seedlings to take hold.
Fishing line and other trash entangle birds, manatees, fish, turtles, and other wildlife and is a serious
problem at Pinellas NWR – killing hundreds of animals each year.
The two main short-term management issues identified effecting mangrove-nesting species are (1)
depredation, which, within recent years (when predator control has slacked off), has led to near
complete abandonment of Tarpon and Whale Keys (among other islands on the refuge); and (2)
through law enforcement presence, the need to ensure that human disturbance is not a factor where
and when waterbirds are nesting on the refuge.
In addition to the above two major issues, three other long-term issues need to be considered: (1)
island stabilization through re-nourishment; (2) removal of exotic vegetation; and (3) reduction of
monofilament lines causing mortaility (Kleen and Hunter, USFWS, June 2006).
Passage Key NWR is closed to the public and represents one of the last remaining nesting sites for
laughing gulls, black skimmers, and royal terns in Tampa Bay. Easily accessible by boat from the
Tampa/St. Petersburg Metropolitan area, Passage Key NWR has been inundated with humans to the
point where the island has had to be closed to all visitors. Currently, you must observe the key from a
distance of at least 300 feet.
Restoring Passage Key NWR would require analysis under the Wilderness Act to determine the
“minimum tool necessary” to accomplish the task. Renourishment at Passage Key NWR should be
considered. A decision needs to be made whether to take an active role in curbing erosion on
Passage Key NWR or allow erosion to continue (not likely a natural process given potential
connection to Tampa Bay dredging). If Passage Key NWR remains submerged for extended periods
of time, it may no longer serve the purpose of a nesting island for migratory birds.
36 Tampa Bay Refuges
Common Concerns
Each year, an average 4 billion gallons of oil and other hazardous substances pass through Tampa
Bay and Egmont Channel. These vessels, bound predominantly for one of the bay’s three deepwater
ports or its many industrial facilities, are joined by a variety of other cargo carriers, as well as a rapidly
expanding cruise ship fleet. The potential for a catastrophic spill of petroleum or other toxic
substances necessitates improving the region’s overall emergency response readiness to avoid
another major spill similar in nature to the 300,000 gallons of oil that were released following a
dramatic three-way ship collision at the mouth of the bay in August 1993. The heavy recreational and
commercial traffic in Tampa Bay and Egmont Channel has the potential to adversely impact the
natural resources of Egmont Key NWR, Pinellas NWR, and Passage Key NWR if a spill occurs.
Emergency response and agency coordination plans are needed (Tampa Bay Estuary Program,
http://www.tbep.org/baystate/spillprevention.html).
Illegal public access to all three refuges causes birds to abandon their nests or flush from their nests,
allowing predators to move in. A law enforcement presence is needed to discourage unauthorized
human disturbances to nesting areas.
Small numbers of West Indian manatees are observed in the seagrass beds along the east side of
Egmont Key NWR and occasionally around Passage Key and Pinellas NWRs, during the spring and
summer. All habitats are outside refuge jurisdiction, but some foraging habitats (seagrass beds) are
directly adjacent to the refuges. These foraging areas need to be protected from recreational/boating
disturbances. A 30- to 300-foot submerged land buffer zone to protect bird nesting and seagrass
foraging areas is needed, particularly around Egmont and Whale Keys.
Physical Resources
CLIMATE
(Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Weather and Climate Center, Climate
Reports, ftp://ftp.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/support/climate/soil-nar/fl/pinellas.doc)
The Tampa Bay Refuges experience a subtropical climate, characterized by generally mild winters
and hot, humid summers.
The average relative humidity in mid-afternoon is about 50 percent in April and May, and about 60-65
percent from July to September. Humidity is higher at night, and the average at dawn is about 90
percent in all months. The sun shines 60 percent of the time in summer and 63 percent in winter.
The sunniest months are April and May, with 75 percent of possible sunshine. The prevailing wind is
from the east in most months. Average wind speed is highest, between 9 and 10 miles-per-hour,
from February to April.
Table 4 gives data on temperature and precipitation and growing degree days data for the survey
area as recorded at St. Petersburg in the period 1971 to 2000.
In winter, the average temperature is 63.4 degrees F and the average daily minimum temperature is
55.6 degrees. The lowest temperature on record, which occurred at St. Petersburg on December 13,
1962, was 22 degrees. In summer, the average temperature is 83.1 degrees, and the average daily
maximum temperature is 90.1 degrees. The highest temperature, which occurred at St. Petersburg
on July 5, 1995, was 100 degrees. Actual temperatures on the refuges are moderated due to the
coastal influence, which results in lower daytime highs and higher nighttime lows.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
The average annual total precipitation is about 49.58 inches. The heaviest 1-day rainfall during the
period of record was 12.20 inches at St. Petersburg on October 27, 1986. Thunderstorms occur on
about 86 days each year, and most occur from June through September. Florida can receive a major
portion of its yearly rainfall from hurricanes and tropical storms, usually in the summer and early fall.
Florida had its worst drought in history between 1998 and 2000.
Measurable snowfall has never been recorded since records have been kept at St. Petersburg,
beginning in 1948.
CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING
According to NOAA and NASA data, the Earth's average surface temperature has increased by about
1.2ºF to 1.4ºF since 1900. The ten warmest years in the 20th century have all occurred within the
past 15 years, with the warmest two years being 1998 and 2005. Some climate models, based on
emissions of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, predict that
average surface temperatures could increase from 2.5 oF to 10.4oF by the end of this century (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, “Climate Change,” http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/).
Effects of climate change and global warming will be changes in weather/rainfall patterns, decreases
in snow and ice cover, rising sea levels, and stressed ecosystems. For the southeastern United
States and Gulf coast, this can mean increased loss of barrier islands and wetlands; increased risk of
shoreline flooding due to sea level rise, storm surge, and extreme precipitation events; greater
likelihood of warmer/dryer summers and wetter/reduced winter cold; and, alterations of ecosystems
and habitats due to these changes in weather patterns – to name but a few possibilities.
Global warming, resulting in melting of glaciers and ice sheets, will cause sea levels to rise. NASA
estimates that yearly, 50 billion tons of ice is melting from the Greenland ice sheet. NASA aerial
surveys show that more than 11 cubic miles of ice is disappearing from the ice sheet annually (Krabill,
July 2000). Considering that land less than 10 meters above sea level contains 2 percent of the
world's land surface but 10 percent of its population, in the United States major impacts will be felt by
large numbers of people living on the low-lying coastlands, particularly the Gulf and East coast states.
Globally, sea level has risen 4–10 inches during the past century. The effects of rising sea levels are
even more dramatic in Florida. Because of Florida’s natural subsidence, south Florida’s sea level has
risen about 12 inches since 1846. It is still rising today, at a rate that is equivalent to 8-16 inches per
century. That rate is 6-10 times faster than the average rate of sea level rise along the south Florida
coast during the past 3,000 years. If the current trend continues without any additional global
warming, the sea along the south Florida coast would climb another 3 inches by 2025 and 10 inches
by 2100. Global warming is expected to accelerate this sea level rise. During the next 25 years, the
sea is likely to rise 5 inches rather than 3. By 2100, the best available science indicates that south
Florida seas will be approximately 20 inches higher than they were in 1990 (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, “Climate Change,” http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/).
In addition to the rising seas, changes in temperature and precipitation will affect plants and wildlife.
A warmer climate could allow heat-loving pest species, such as the invasive Australian pine tree, to
expand their range. However, warmer winters lead to fewer frosts, consequently, tropical plants and
trees that are vulnerable to cold temperatures may benefit. Rapid sea level rise could harm low-lying
mangrove communities. Florida’s mangrove forests also provide food, nesting, and nursery areas for
many animals—including more than 220 fish species, 24 reptile and amphibian species, 18 mammal
species, and 181 bird species. In general, the response of mangroves to sea level rise depends on
the type of mangroves, their environmental setting, the amount of freshwater available to maintain
38 Tampa Bay Refuges
root growth, and the sediment supply. Mangrove communities in south Florida already are affected
by a number of stresses, including invasive Brazilian pepper plants, hurricanes, agricultural runoff,
and human development. Climate change and a rise in sea level pose new stresses to an ecosystem
already in danger (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Climate Change,”
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/).
A recent study of the effects of climate change on eastern United States’ bird species concluded that as
many as 78 bird species could decrease by at least 25 percent; while as many as 33 species could
increase in abundance by at least 25 percent due to climate and habitat changes (Mathews, et al., 2004).
Table 4. Temperature and precipitation
(Recorded in the period 1971-2000 at ST PETERSBURG, FL7886)
| |
| Temperature | Precipitation
| | _
| | | | | | |
Month | | | | Average | | Average |Average
|Average|Average|Average|number of|Average|number of|snowfall
| daily | daily | | growing | |days with|
|maximum|minimum| | degree | |0.10 inch|
| | | | days* | | or more |
| | | | | | |
| 0 F | 0 F | 0 F | Units | In | | In
| | | | | | |
January-----| 70.1 | 54.5 | 62.3 | 389 | 2.76 | 4 | 0.0
| | | | | | |
February----| 71.6 | 55.8 | 63.7 | 390 | 2.87 | 4 | 0.0
| | | | | | |
March-------| 76.1 | 60.5 | 68.3 | 568 | 3.29 | 4 | 0.0
| | | | | | |
April-------| 80.7 | 65.1 | 72.9 | 686 | 1.92 | 2 | 0.0
| | | | | | |
May---------| 86.2 | 71.1 | 78.6 | 888 | 2.80 | 3 | 0.0
| | | | | | |
June--------| 89.5 | 75.3 | 82.4 | 972 | 6.09 | 7 | 0.0
| | | | | | |
July--------| 90.6 | 76.6 | 83.6 | 1040 | 6.72 | 10 | 0.0
| | | | | | |
August------| 90.2 | 76.6 | 83.4 | 1035 | 8.26 | 11 | 0.0
| | | | | | |
September---| 88.6 | 75.5 | 82.1 | 962 | 7.59 | 9 | 0.0
| | | | | | |
October-----| 83.5 | 69.9 | 76.7 | 828 | 2.64 | 3 | 0.0
| | | | | | |
November----| 77.2 | 63.0 | 70.1 | 604 | 2.04 | 3 | 0.0
| | | | | | |
December----| 71.8 | 56.6 | 64.2 | 447 | 2.60 | 3 | 0.0
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Yearly: | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Average---| 81.3 | 66.7 | 74.0 | --- | --- | --- | ---
| | | | | | |
Extreme---| 100 | 24 | --- | --- | --- | --- | ---
| | | | | | |
Total-----| --- | --- | --- | 8810 | 49.58 | 63 | 0.0
| | | | | | |
* A growing degree day is a unit of heat available for plant growth. It can be
calculated by adding the maximum and minimum daily temperatures, dividing the sum by 2, and
subtracting the temperature below which growth is minimal for the principal crops in the
area (50 degrees. F)
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY
The Tampa Bay area is a product of the fluctuations in sea level caused by Pleistocene and earlier
glaciation. During times of lowered sea level, the river valley of Tampa Bay was cut into underlying
limestones by the paleo-Hillsborough, Manatee, and Alafia Rivers. As sea level rose during glacial
retreat (beginning 6,000 to 8,000 years ago and ending between 3,000 and 5,000 years ago), the
area was flooded and became Tampa Bay (Doyle 1985). Prior to this flooding the sea level was 100
meters lower than present and land extended 160 kilometers farther west.
Rock formations in the region are Tertiary marine carbonates that are thousands of feet thick,
deposited over millions of years of geologic time. Geologic formations comprising the upper 1,000-
1,500 feet of this carbonate platform are most important in terms of groundwater development and
ecological watershed management. Underlying Tampa Bay are limestones and dolomites of
Oligocene age and older. The Miocene St. Marks/Tampa formation, which consists of dolomitic
limestones interbedded with terrigenous clastics, directly underlies the unconsolidated surface
sediments in the northern portion of the Bay. The Hawthorn formation is absent in the northern
portions of Tampa Bay but is present at the surface throughout the lower two-thirds of the bay. The
Hawthorn Formation also outcrops along portions of eastern Tampa Bay (Doyle 1985; Southwest
Florida Water Management District 2002). In the vicinity of Egmont Key NWR, the Hawthorne Group
sediments are approximately 325-feet thick and are found about 50-60 feet below MSL. St.
Mark’s/Tampa Formation (a remnant layer of the Hawthorn Formation contiguous throughout central
Florida) is composed of sandy, chalky limestone. In some locations, the upper portion of the deposit
is composed of calcareous sands and clays, graduating downward into unconsolidated or loosely
cemented lime mud. The base of this formation is typically marked by beds of clayey sand (Tampa
City Council – Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission, January 1998).
The stratigraphy of this section, in descending order, includes: the Miocene age Arcadia Formation
(Tampa Member) of the Hawthorn Group; the Oligocene Suwannee Limestone; the upper Eocene
Ocala Limestone; and, limestones and dolostones of the middle Eocene Avon Park Formation.
Composition of these formations range from a sandy, phosphatic, dolomitic limestone of the Tampa
Member, to relatively pure calcium carbonate limestones of the Suwannee and Ocala Limestones.
The Avon Park Formation is composed of both limestone and thick units of recrystallized dolomite,
forming highly permeable beds of dolostone (Southwest Florida Water Management District 2002).
In the deeper water portions of Tampa Bay, the Pleistocene river valley has down cut as much as 90
feet (30 meters) into the underlying limestones. This archaic bed has filled in with unconsolidated
estuarine and fluvial sediments. Recently deposited sediments are quartzitic with carbonate
mixtures. Bay sediments are derived from reworked terrace deposits, transport of suspended loads
from rivers, in situ production and weathering of shell, and inshore movement and deposition of
sediment from the Gulf of Mexico. Immense deposits of marine mollusk shells are found in many
areas of Tampa Bay and are mined for use as fill. Very recent fine-grained silts and mud deposits
may also be present in part of the bay, especially near river mouths and tidal creeks. There are up to
20 meters of unconsolidated sediments in parts of Tampa Bay (Southwest Florida Water
Management District 2002).
The alternating high and low sea levels during the Pleistocene and Holocene shaped the land surface
of the Tampa Bay region. The region is low in elevation, with elevations ranging from a depth of 94
feet below sea level at the mouth of the Bay up to a height of 105 feet above sea level in Clearwater.
The Tampa Bay watershed area consists of mostly flat plains with little relief. It is a heterogeneous
region containing barrier islands, coastal lagoons, marshes, and swampy lowlands along the Gulf and
Atlantic coasts. Tampa Bay is the most prominent geographic feature in the region. The dominant
40 Tampa Bay Refuges
landforms are marine terrace deposits, representing former sea level positions over recent geologic
time. These marine terraces have been modified over time by wind, erosion, and sinkholes, resulting
in the present day topography and land cover.
The Gulf Coastal Lowlands, the dominant landform in the western area of the basin, adjoin Tampa Bay.
These relict marine terraces (ancient shorelines) have low relief over broad plains bordered by slopes.
Major municipalities, such as the cities of Tampa and St. Petersburg, are located in the lowlands.
To the east, Florida’s Central Highlands is an area of discontinuous highlands, containing numerous
lakes, characterized by many ridges and depressions without any well-defined system of surface
streams or outlets, and with elevations up to 300’ MSL (Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, “Basin Status Report,” November 2001).
Karst features exist throughout the Tampa Bay area, the sinkholes that develop in this porous limestone
terrain typically result in shallow, bowl-shaped depressions and a generally rolling topography (Florida
Department of Environmental Protection, “Basin Status Report,” November 2001).
Egmont Key NWR is nearly two miles long, of relatively uniform width, and is approximately 2,250
feet across at its widest point. It is not considered a barrier island. The Key has little topographic
relief, and its average elevation is about 5 feet above MSL. Complete inundation of the island has
occurred in the past during hurricanes and tropical storms. Topographic features are continuously
changing, influenced by wind, surf, tides, coastal currents, and storms. These forces constantly alter
the distribution and elevation of marine-derived sediments which comprise the island. In 1875,
Egmont Key was approximately 50 percent larger than it is today (Florida Division of Recreation and
Parks, February 1998).
A general depiction of the geology in the Tampa Bay area is presented in Figure 13.
SOILS
In central and south Florida, the soils or uppermost sediments are geologically young and are
surficial; that is, the soil profiles reflect changes in sediment types rather than development of
chemically or mechanically produced horizons. For example, one is likely to observe sands layered
over marsh-produced calcareous marl, particularly in coastal areas. Each soil is an indicator of
preexisting conditions (i.e., parent materials). Soils are organized into a taxonomic classification
system by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, in which
each soil is categorized by order, suborder, great group, subgroup, family, and soil series.
Nationwide, there are ten orders of soil, four of which (Entisols, Spodosols, Ultisols, and Histosols)
dominate Florida’s landscape. Spodosols are the dominant soil order in the Tampa Bay area; of
which of Aquods (a suborder of Spodosols) has the largest total acreage. Aquods are acidic, wet,
poorly drained, sandy soils overlying an organic stained subsoil layer, of which the Myakka series is
the most common and well known. Myakka fine sand is the official state soil of Florida, is the most
extensive soil in the state, and does not occur in any other state. Pine flatwoods are well-suited for
this type of soil, and it is also found in flats, depressional, tidal, and floodplain landforms (USFWS “An
Ecological Characterization of the Tampa Bay Watershed,” 1990; USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service), http://soils.usda.gov/survey/online_surveys/florida/;
http://www.mo15.nrcs.usda.gov/news/state_soils/fl_ss.html).
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41
Figure 13. Geology of Tampa Bay
42 Tampa Bay Refuges
Soils of the Tampa Bay area are derived from marine deposits known as the Suwannee, Tampa,
Hawthorn and Bone Valley formation laid down during the late Oligocene and lower and middle
Miocene periods. These geologic formations were further modified by the marine environment and
fluctuating sea levels during Pleistocene and recent times (Southwest Florida Water Management
District SWIM Section, February 1999).
Soils associated with the barrier islands of the Tampa Bay watershed are dominated by the sandy
Entisols soil order, of which Quartzpsamments (a great group of Entisols) is the most abundant.
Quartzpsamments are extremely sandy soils with little or no soil profile, of which the Canaveral Fine
series is the most common. Canaveral Fine is characterized as a moist mineral soil, with sand and
shell fragments and a thin accumulation of organic material at or near the surface. These tan-colored,
well-oxidized soils are composed of mixed carbonate shell material and fine- to medium-grained
quartz sand (USFWS, “An Ecological Characterization of the Tampa Bay Watershed,” 1990).
Surficial sediments of Egmont Key NWR (and presumably Passage Key NWR) are comprised of
post-Pleistocene undifferentiated sand and shells. The entire Egmont Key NWR (and presumably
Passage Key NWR) is classified under a single soil type, St. Augustine fine sand. St. Augustine fine
sand is nearly level and somewhat poorly drained and is found on flats and ridges bordering Tampa
Bay (USDA Soil Conservation Service et.al., 1989, “Soil Survey of Hillborough County, Florida).
Typically, this soil has a surface of dark gray sand, underlain to a depth of about 12 inches with light
brownish gray fine sand. The middle part, to a depth of about 30 inches, is light gray, mottled fine
sand containing balls of sandy clay. The lower part, to a depth of about 80 inches, is gray fine sand.
Beach and dune sand and shell normally prevail on the western side of the Keys, where greater tidal,
wind, and current forces are exerted.
Hydrology
Groundwater. Groundwater is the largest and most readily available source of potable water in
Florida. Three different aquifer systems can be found in the parts of Florida where springs are
common. They are the shallow Surficial Aquifer, the Intermediate Aquifer, and the Limestone
Floridan Aquifer. In some areas, all three aquifers may exist in sequence, separated by impermeable
layers. In other areas, only the Floridan Aquifer may be present, and it may be exposed to the
surface waters by sinkholes and other karst features. Karst topography in the Tampa Bay region
interconnects groundwater and surface water. Spring flow and seepage constitute the base flow of
many streams; freshwater wetlands retard and store floodwaters and enhance infiltration to
groundwater; and stream discharges to estuaries are critical for maintenance of salinity regimes.
These interrelationships are the basis of the state’s and this region’s ecological systems (Southwest
Florida Water Management District, July 2005). This characteristic also leaves the underlying
Floridan Aquifer vulnerable to pollution infiltration.
In general, the Floridian Aquifer acts as a single, interconnected hydrologic unit, with large quantities
of water found within openings along faults, joints, bedding planes, and other fractures. The Floridan
Aquifer system is the principal source of groundwater production in the Tampa Bay region, and is
capable of yielding greater than 5,000 gallons per minute (GPM) from fully penetrating wells. Water
produced from the Floridan Auifer is primarily used for industrial and domestic purposes (Tampa City
Council – Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission, January 1998).
Egmont Key NWR is underlain by the Floridan Aquifer. There are no public wells on Egmont Key
NWR and available water capacity is low. The Key may lie in a zone where no potable water is
available from the Floridan Aquifer. U.S. Geological Survey potentiometric surface data suggest
Egmont Key NWR is in an area of zero recharge to the Floridan Aquifer system. In the transition
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43
zone, which separates freshwater and saltwater, south and southwest of Tampa Bay, relatively high
concentrations of sulfate and chloride make the groundwater non-potable. On Egmont Key NWR, a
reverse osmosis treatment system is located and operated by the Tampa Bay pilots. This system
converts readily available saltwater into non-potable water used primarily for cleaning and bathing.
All drinking water must be brought in from the mainland. Treated water from the pilot’s water system
must be trailered up to the park manager’s residence on a weekly basis. In most years, the water
table at Egmont Key NWR ranges from 3 to 4 feet below land surface (Fernandez 1996). Seasonally,
the high water table is at a depth of 20-30 inches for 2 to 6 months and recedes to a depth of about
50 inches during prolonged dry periods. Prior to the Colonial era, freshwater on Egmont Key
probably consisted only of rainwater pools and puddles. The presence of at least two species of
frogs suggests temporary pond formation occurred often enough for reproductive success. There are
now several cisterns and old foundations which also trap and hold rain water (Florida Division of
Recreation and Parks, February 1998).
Surface Water. The west-central coast of Florida, bordering the Gulf of Mexico, is a low-energy,
microtidal (less than 0.5 m tidal amplitude) region that is constantly changing as a result of active
coastal processes that are directly linked to meteorological events. Wind-driven waves and tidal
currents are the most important geological agents controlling sediment transport and evolution of the
Gulf and bay shores. Astronomical tides in the Gulf of Mexico are mixed and typically have a range
of less than 1 m. Water levels vary only about 0.5 m between high- and low-tide during a normal tidal
cycle. Non-storm waves in the eastern Gulf of Mexico are normally less than 0.3 m high, and wave
energy decreases to the north where the Gulf shore consists of marsh (USGS Coastal and Marine
Geology Program, “Coastal Classification Atlas, West-Central Florida Coastal Classification Maps –
Anclote Key to Venice Inlet,” http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/of03-227/process.html).
More specifically, tides in Tampa Bay are a mixture of lunar (semidiurnal) and solar (diurnal)
gravitational effects. Two unequal high and low tides occur daily, with an average range of about 2.3
feet. Tides produce currents of about 6 feet per second during ebb tide and about 4 feet per second
during flood tide in Egmont Channel at the mouth of the bay. During hurricanes and tropical storms,
the associated storm surge from high winds and low barometric pressure also affects water
movement in the bay. The highest recorded storm tide was 15 feet in 1848 (Tampa Bay Estuary
Program, “Baywide Environmental Monitoring Report, 2002-2005,” December 2006).
Groundwater discharges to the bay are seasonal and greatest during and after the wet season. The
roles of groundwater discharge in bay ecology are poorly understood, but can be postulated as (a)
reducing peak runoff rates and constituent loads; (b) prolonging estuarine conditions along shorelines
and in marshes or mangrove forests; and (c) creating favorable refugia and nursery areas for marine
life in tidal creeks. Drainage of uplands around the bay has concentrated the different flows of
surficial groundwater discharge, routed it to major stormwater outlets, and altered the hydrology and
constituent loads of manmade tributaries so that many of the benefits of diffuse flows have probably
been lost (Southwest Florida Water Management District, February 1999).
Surface water flows are not only a product of runoff, but also include a groundwater baseflow
component. In fact, many surface water systems in west-central Florida are closely interconnected
with the underlying groundwater system through springs and sinkholes. In accordance with
hydrologic conditions, these natural interconnections may augment flow, reduce flow, or perform both
functions intermittently. Because this region manifests annual wet and dry seasons with significant
variations in precipitation frequency and intensity, the contribution of surface runoff and groundwater
baseflow to streams varies. This cyclic pattern of changing baseflow conditions results in variable
surface water quantity and quality. Rain and thus stream flows are generally lowest during April and
May. Unfortunately, high municipal water demands historically occur during this same seasonal time
44 Tampa Bay Refuges
period, primarily due to corresponding increased outdoor irrigation. The low monthly minimum flows
during peak consumptive periods have required the development of a large storage reservoir on the
Hillsborough River in order to ensure an adequate supply (Tampa City Council – Hillsborough County
City-County Planning Commission, January 1998).
Tampa’s surface water system includes three major drainage basins, all of which ultimately discharge into
either Old Tampa Bay or Hillsborough Bay, sub-sections of Tampa Bay. These basins are the Hillsborough
River basin, the Palm River/Tampa Bypass Canal basin, and the upper Tampa Bay/Northwest Hillsborough
basin. These drainage systems transport an average of more than 400 million gallons per day of freshwater
from uplands in Hillsborough County and adjacent areas to the Tampa Bay estuary (Tampa City Council –
Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission, January 1998).
AIR QUALITY
The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 (as amended in 1990 and 1997), required the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to implement air quality standards to protect public health and welfare.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) were set for six pollutants commonly found
throughout the United States: lead, ozone, nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur
dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter less than 10 and 2.5 microns in diameter (PM10 and PM2.5).
The Florida Division of Air Resource Management operates National Ambient Monitoring Stations
(NAMS) and State and Local Ambient Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) to measure ambient
concentrations of these pollutants. Ambient air data are collected by over 200 monitors in 34
counties throughout the state (Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air
Resource Management, “Florida Air Monitoring Report, 2004.”
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/Air/publications/techrpt/amr.htm). Areas that meet the NAAQS standards
are designated “attainment areas,” while areas not meeting the standards are termed “non-attainment”
areas. While no pollutant monitoring data are available for the Tampa