Tampa Bay Refuges Egmont Key, Pinellas,and Passage Key National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Appendices i
Tampa Bay Refuges
Egmont Key, Pinellas,and Passage Key
National Wildlife Refuges
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
May 2010
Tampa Bay Refuges
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
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
May 2010
Tampa Bay Refuges
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 1
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 3
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3
Purpose And Need For The Plan ................................................................................................. 3
Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................. 3
National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 4
Legal and Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 5
National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..................................................... 6
Relationship To State Wildlife Agency .......................................................................................... 8
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 9
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 9
Refuge History and Purpose ...................................................................................................... 15
Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 21
Ecosystem Context ..................................................................................................................... 23
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 31
Ecological Threats and Problems ............................................................................................... 36
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 39
Climate Change and Global Warming ............................................................................... 39
Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 42
Soils ................................................................................................................................. 43
Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 45
Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 47
Water Quality .................................................................................................................... 48
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 52
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 52
Wildlife ............................................................................................................................... 57
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 72
Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 75
Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 77
Land Protection and Conservation .................................................................................... 77
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 77
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance ......................................................................... 79
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................. 81
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 81
Fish and Wildlife Population Management ........................................................................ 81
Habitat Management ......................................................................................................... 84
Resource Protection .......................................................................................................... 85
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 85
Refuge Administration ....................................................................................................... 86
ii Tampa Bay Refuges
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ....................................................................................................... 87
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 87
Vision ........................................................................................................................................ 87
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 87
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
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................. 113
APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS .................................................... 123
APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS ............................. 131
APPENDIX D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ......................................................................................... 145
Summary Of Public Scoping Comments .................................................................................. 145
APPENDIX E. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS .............................................................. 161
APPENDIX F. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ..................................................................... 183
APPENDIX G. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION .................................. 197
APPENDIX H. WILDERNESS REVIEW ........................................................................................... 203
APPENDIX I. REFUGE BIOTA ........................................................................................................ 209
APPENDIX J. BUDGET REQUESTS ............................................................................................... 235
APPENDIX K. LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................. 237
APPENDIX L. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ................................................................ 241
Overview ................................................................................................................................. 241
APPENDIX M. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ............................................................... 245
Table of Contents iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. National Wildlife Refuges of Florida ................................................................................... 10
Figure 2. Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge Complex .......................................................... 11
Figure 3. Tampa Bay Refuges .......................................................................................................... 12
Figure 4. Egmont Key National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................ 13
Figure 5. Land Ownership of Egmont Key National Wildlife Refuge ................................................. 14
Figure 6. Pinellas National Wildlife Refuge ....................................................................................... 16
Figure 7. Passage Key National Wildlife Refuge .............................................................................. 17
Figure 8. Passage Key NWR Wilderness ......................................................................................... 18
Figure 9. Existing facilities of Egmont Key National Wildlife Refuge ................................................ 20
Figure 10. Special designations .......................................................................................................... 22
Figure 11. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecoregions – Southeast Region ........................................ 25
Figure 12. Conservation Areas in the Tampa Bay Region .................................................................. 26
Figure 13. Geology of Tampa Bay ...................................................................................................... 44
Figure 14. Vegetation types of Egmont Key National Wildlife Refuge ............................................... 53
Figure 15. Seagrass beds in Tampa Bay ............................................................................................ 54
Figure 16. Observed manatees and sea turtles in Tampa Bay ........................................................... 55
Figure 17. Cultural resources of Egmont Key National Wildlife Refuge .............................................. 76
Figure 18. Proposed organization structure for the management of the
Tampa Bay Refuges—current and proposed positions .................................................. 108
Figure 19. Tampa Bay Refuges wilderness inventory units .............................................................. 207
iv Tampa Bay Refuges
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Types of natural communities in the Tampa Bay Basin ...................................................... 27
Table 3. Monitoring, restoration, and research programs in Tampa Bay .......................................... 34
Table 4. Temperature and Precipitation ........................................................................................... 41
Table 5. Air Quality Statistics City and County ................................................................................. 49
Table 6. Air Quality Trends ............................................................................................................... 50
Table 7. Protected animal and plant species in the Tampa Bay Basin ............................................. 62
Table 8. Non-listed animal and plant species of special concern in the Tampa Bay Basin .............. 63
Table 9. Birds observed at Egmont Key National Wildlife Refuge .................................................... 64
Table 10. Amphibians, reptiles, fish and mammals observed at Tampa Bay Refuges ....................... 69
Table 11. Rare, endangered and species of special concern at the Tampa Bay Refuges ................. 71
Table 12. Demographics of the Tampa Bay Region ........................................................................... 78
Table 13. Activities in Florida by U.S. residents ................................................................................. 79
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 ..................... 111
Table 17. Wilderness inventory units – Tampa Bay Refuges ........................................................... 204
Table 18. Tampa Bay Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Core Planning Team Members. ...... 237
Table 19. Tampa Bay Refuges comprehensive conservation public use review
team members (March 23-25, 2004) ............................................................................... 237
Table 20. Tampa Bay Refuges comprehensive conservation cultural resources review
team members (August 31 to September 1, 2004) .......................................................... 238
Table 21. Tampa Bay Refuges comprehensive conservation biological review
team members (May 11-13, 2004) ................................................................................... 239
Table 22. Tampa Bay Refuges comprehensive conservation wilderness review
team members (January 11-12, 2005) ............................................................................. 240
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
Executive Summary
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has prepared this Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(CCP) to guide the management of the Tampa Bay National Wildlife Refuges, consisting of Egmont
Key, Pinellas, and Passage Key in Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Manatee Counties, Florida. The CCP
outlines programs and corresponding resource needs for the next 15 years, as mandated by the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act).
Before the Service began planning, it conducted a biological review of the refuges’ wildlife and habitat
management programs and conducted public scoping meetings to solicit public opinion of the issues the
CCP should address. The biological review team was composed of biologists from federal and state
agencies and non-governmental organizations that have an interest in the refuges. The staff held three
public scoping meetings and two public meetings to solicit public reaction to the proposed alternatives.
Also, a 30-day public review and comment period of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and
Environmental Assessment for the Tampa Bay National Wildlife Refuges was provided.
The Service developed and analyzed three alternatives. Alternative A proposed to maintain the status
quo, that is, would represent no change from current management of the refuges. The refuges would
continue with the primary mission of providing habitat for wildlife. Wildlife and habitat would be protected
through a variety of management tools, such as area closures, predator control, law enforcement, exotic
plant control, erosion control, and cleanup of trash. These activities (except for the closures) would be
conducted on an opportunistic basis or under the direction and guidance of others.
The refuges would continue to be managed by one full-time assistant refuge manager, with the support
of nine staff members, stationed at the Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge. The refuges would
continue to be assisted by numerous partners in opportunistically conducting bird and other wildlife
surveys, educating visitors, and encouraging wildlife photography and observation. The Service would
continue its cooperative management agreement with the Florida Park Service to manage Egmont Key
National Wildlife Refuge (Egmont Key NWR), with the state being responsible for most public recreation
and interpretation of natural and cultural resources, and the Service being primarily responsible for the
management of all wildlife and habitat. Meetings between the two agencies would continue to be held
approximately twice a year.
Under this alternative, the existing level of funding and staffing would be maintained. Accordingly,
some positions would not be filled when vacated if funds needed to be reallocated to meet rising
costs or new priorities.
Alternative B, the preferred alternative, is considered to be the most effective management action for
meeting the purposes of the refuges. Under Alternative B, the Service would take more of a
leadership role by coordinating and/or directing activities and decisions made by partners that have
an impact on the refuges, including: coordinating, directing, and conducting bird surveys and Atlantic
loggerhead sea turtle surveys; coordinating additional bird surveys and monitoring and conducting
research on the gopher tortoises of Egmont Key; and, with partners, identifying, mapping, and
protecting state-listed plant species on the refuges. The Service would promote and support
increasing the Friends group to more than 150 members.
Under this alternative, Service staff dedicated to the Tampa Bay Refuges would be increased to four full-time
permanent employees and one part-time permanent employee, which would include the addition of a
law enforcement officer to increase protection of wildlife, habitat, and visitor safety; a biological technician
2 Tampa Bay Refuges
to conduct bird surveys, predator and exotic species control, and beach management activities; a public
use specialist to facilitate and create opportunities for environmental education, interpretation, and wildlife
photography and observation; and a part-time administrative office assistant. Larger office space to
accommodate the increased staff along with the Friends group would be acquired, as well as facilities for
boat storage and use; also, a visitor center would be established.
The cooperative agreement with the Florida Park Service to manage Egmont Key would be enhanced
under this alternative by establishing monthly communications and quarterly meetings. Further, the
Service would facilitate the transfer of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) property on Egmont Key to the
Service, and would establish the Service’s interest in the Pilots Compound property in the event that
occupancy of that property changes. Acquisition of these lands would enable the Service to better
conserve, protect, and manage the habitat on Egmont Key.
Alternative C proposed that the Service would take on an even greater leadership role at the refuges,
enhancing and expanding the activities proposed under Alternative B. The Service staff dedicated to
the Tampa Bay Refuges would be increased to seven full-time permanent employees, including two
law enforcement officers, one biological technician, one public use specialist, one maintenance
person/equipment operator, and an administrative office assistant. The Service would promote and
support increasing the Friends group to 200-300 members. Additional equipment and facilities would
be acquired to support the staff and increased activities on the refuges.
The additional staff members would allow the refuges to increase the frequency of some monitoring
(e.g., piping plover); initiate bird research; routinely monitor and research gopher tortoises; enhance
protection of wildlife, habitats, and visitor safety; control exotic and invasive vegetation on a routine
basis; and provide educational events on a routine basis, including weekly interpretive tours using
concessionaire(s) selected and operating under Service contract.
Under this alternative, the Service would own and manage all of Egmont Key without sharing that
responsibility with the Florida Park Service—dissolving the cooperative agreement to manage
Egmont Key State Park and allowing the Service to manage the island in a comprehensive manner.
The Service selected Alternative B as its preferred alternative and is reflected in this CCP.
Alternative B is selected for implementation because it directs the development of programs to best
achieve the purpose and goals of the refuges; emphasizes enhanced leadership roles on the refuges,
collection of habitat and wildlife data, and protection of wildlife; and ensures long-term achievement of
refuge and Service objectives. At the same time, the management actions provide increased and
balanced levels of compatible public use opportunities consistent with existing laws, Service policies,
and sound biological principles. It provides the best mix of program elements to achieve desired
long-term conditions.
Under this alternative, all lands under the management and direction of the refuges will be protected,
maintained, and enhanced to best achieve national, ecosystem, and refuge-specific goals and
objectives within anticipated funding and staffing levels. In addition, the action positively addresses
priority resource issues and concerns expressed by the public.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
This CCP for Tampa Bay Refuges was prepared to guide management actions and direction for the
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
refuges and that could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. The draft of this CCP
was made available to state and federal government agencies, conservation partners, and the
general public for review and comment. The comments from each entity were considered in the
development of this CCP.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of the CCP is to develop a management action that best achieves the refuges’
purposes; attains the vision and goals developed for the refuges; 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 CCP is needed to:
 Provide a clear statement of management direction;
 Provide neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of Service
management actions on and around each 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.
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.
4 Tampa Bay Refuges
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 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 Refuge System, as defined by the Improvement Act 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 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
 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 (NWR), 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-
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
abundant herds. The drought conditions of the 1930s Dust 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 7 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 the following: 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 should serve 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 should 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).
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 Service. Select
6 Tampa Bay Refuges
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 Tampa Bay Refuges and other partners, such as the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, and private landowners, etc.
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.
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
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
conservation guidance described below, along with issues, problems, and trends, was reviewed and
integrated where appropriate into this CCP.
This CCP 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
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.
8 Tampa Bay Refuges
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 over
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.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
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 Crystal River NWR 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 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 that access the island by private or tour boat
(USFWS Tampa Bay Refuges Visitor Services Review Report, March 2004; and Kleen and Hunter,
USFWS, Tampa Bay Refuges 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 approximately 244 acres of beach and coastal berm
supports more than 110 species of nesting, migrating, and wintering birds. 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 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 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
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) entrust daily management activities of
Egmont Key Refuge 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 Florida State Parks operation due to the concentration of
historic sites (e.g., Fort Dade) on this property. In addition, the Tampa Bay Pilots Association (TBPA)
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).
10 Tampa Bay Refuges
Figure 1. National Wildlife Refuges of Florida
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
Figure 2. Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge Complex
12 Tampa Bay Refuges
Figure 3. Tampa Bay Refuges
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
Figure 4. Egmont Key National Wildlife Refuge
14 Tampa Bay Refuges
Figure 5. Land Ownership of Egmont Key National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
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, with only Indian Key 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. All of the mangrove islands of Pinellas NWR are closed to
public use year-round to protect 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 washed
away in 2007. 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 Key NWR 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,
outreach, and environmental education and interpretation. 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 or
Passage Key NWRs.
16 Tampa Bay Refuges
Figure 6. Pinellas National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
Figure 7. Passage Key National Wildlife Refuge
18 Tampa Bay Refuges
Figure 8. Passage Key NWR Wilderness
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
Egmont Key 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. 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.
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, the
lighthouse was moved inland and rebuilt in 1857-58, and remains in service today. In the
1850s, 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 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 FPS 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 into 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. 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).
20 Tampa Bay Refuges
Figure 9. Existing facilities of Egmont Key National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
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. preserve and protect barrier island habitat (Kleen and Hunter, USFWS, June 2006).
Passage Key NWR was established under executive order (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 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, 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 – Egmont Key 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 is cooperatively managed with FPS. The bird sanctuary area at the southern end of Egmont
Key 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
is an Index Nesting Beach Site for the Atlantic loggerhead sea turtle in the State of Florida. The
refuge is also designated as critical habitat for piping plovers.
Pinellas NWR – 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 and
waterbirds. Boca Ciega Bay Aquatic Preserve, in which Pinellas NWR is located, is designated as an
Outstanding Florida Water (OFW).
The OFW 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
22 Tampa Bay Refuges
Figure 10. Special designations
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
water quality rules by prohibiting degradation of water quality from the conditions existing at the time
of designation. OFWs 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).
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 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.
Therefore, the suitability of other lands within the Tampa Bay Refuges for wilderness designation is
not further analyzed in this CCP.
Passage Key NWR – Congress designated Passage Key NWR a Wilderness Area in 1970 (36
acres). The refuge 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, 13 national wildlife refuges and 1 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
24 Tampa Bay Refuges
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
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
crabs, and red drum. Sizable populations of bottle-nosed 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 are undeveloped and covered with palmetto, shrubs and natural
vegetation. The interior ecological system of Egmont Key is described as a Palustrine system
with forest and scrub/shrub consisting of broad-leaved evergreens. The shoreline is an intertidal
estuarine system with scrub/shrub consisting of needle-leafed evergreens near a sandy shore.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
Figure 11. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecoregions – Southeast Region
26 Tampa Bay Refuges
Figure 12. Conservation Areas in the Tampa Bay Region
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
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.
28 Tampa Bay Refuges
Land-
Cover
Category
Community
Type
Area in
Acres
Percentage
of Total
Area
Characteristics
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.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
Land-
Cover
Category
Community
Type
Area in
Acres
Percentage
of Total
Area
Characteristics
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
and bays.
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.
30 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.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Comprehensive conservation plans and environmental documents are being prepared for the 28 national
wildlife refuges in the State of Florida. The plans will provide refuge managers with a 15-year strategy
and broad direction to: conserve wildlife and their habitats; achieve refuge purposes; and contribute
toward the mission of the Refuge System. In addition, the plans identify wildlife-dependent opportunities
available to the public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife
photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
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).
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 (MPAs) 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 MPA Executive Order, and the
Coral Reef Conservation Act (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/).
USGS National Coastal Program Plan -- "A Plan for a Comprehensive National Coastal Program"
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); and 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).
The Tampa Bay National Estuary Program (TBNEP), 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. Environmental Protection Agency 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). This management
plan 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 (ecosystem management). Many collaborative activities (Table 3) have been
32 Tampa Bay Refuges
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 Geological, Biological Resources, 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 import is the Tampa Bay/Anclote River Comprehensive Watershed Management 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. palliatus 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.
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 SRPP: Affordable Housing; Economic Development;
Emergency Preparedness; Natural Resources; Regional Transportation.
Atlantic loggerhead sea turtle recovery plan – Egmont Key serves as a loggerhead sea turtle nesting
index beach necessary to determine population status and trends along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of
the United States to determine progress towards the recovery (Kleen and Hunter, USFWS, June 2006).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (NAWCP) – The draft Southeastern U.S. Waterbird
Conservation Plan stresses protection of nesting and foraging habitats for both colonial and non-colonial
waterbird. Egmont Key and Passage Key are important for supporting large colonies of
beach-nesting species (brown pelicans; sandwich, royal, and least terns; black skimmers; and
laughing gulls). Pinellas Key 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 Partner 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 include: Upland forest and scrub, primarily important for transient Nearctic-
Neotropical migratory landbirds crossing the Gulf of Mexico, and mangrove woodlands, primarily Pinellas
Refuge: northernmost stable populations for Mangrove Cuckoo, Black-whiskered Vireo, and Florida
Prairie Warbler along Gulf Coast of Florida (Kleen and Hunter, USFWS, June 2006).
Contributions to the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (USSCP) – The 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: Development of 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 for especially beach nesting and inlet foraging species. Beach and
sandflat habitats on Egmont Key and Passage Key provide important nesting habitat for American
oystercatcher and foraging and roosting habitat for many species of shorebirds (including
occasional non-breeding snowy plover and Wilson’s plover, also winter habitat for occasional
piping plover) (Kleen and Hunter, USFWS, June 2006).
Contributions to the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) - 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 from
conservationists recognizing the value of coordinating and integrating planning, implementation, and
evaluation efforts of NAWCP, PIF, and USSCP (Kleen and Hunter, USFWS, June 2006).
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:
o Agency on Bay Management, Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
o Florida Forever Program , Florida Department of Environmental Protection
o Florida Natural Areas Inventory, Florida State University conducts a variety of
conservation planning and analysis projects.
34 Tampa Bay Refuges
o Florida's Springs: Strategies for Protection and Restoration, An educational document
provided by the Florida Springs Task Force
o Gulf of Mexico Integrated Science -Tampa Bay Study Overview , and Five Year Science
Plan for the Tampa Bay Study, USGS
o Inshore Marine Monitoring and Assessment Program, An EPA-funded initiative to assess
the coastal marine water of Florida.
o Ocean & Coastal Resource Management, NOAA
o Restore America's Estuaries, A national non-profit organization dedicated to preserving
the nation's network of estuaries.
o Southwest Florida Conservation Corridor: Tampa Bay Watershed Section, The Agency on
Bay Management, the Natural Resources Committee of the Tampa Bay Regional Planning
Council.
o Tampa Bay Oil Spill Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment, Florida Department
of Environmental Protection.
o Tampa Bay Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Plan, Southwest
Florida Water Management District
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
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
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
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
36 Tampa Bay Refuges
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) are needed. An assessment and decision regarding a buffer
establishment around all three refuges are needed.
(3) 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.
Egmont Key NWR – Erosion is the foremost problem for Egmont Key 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, have resulted in much scouring of Egmont Channel and Key (USFWS, “An
Ecological Characterization of the Tampa Bay Watershed,” 1990).
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 the
island 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 USACE 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 USACE 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).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
If it is decided to regularly renourish beaches on Egmont Key and Passage Key NWRs, the refuge
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
renourishment may lead to depletion of invertebrates in the substrate that may not be able to recover
from the last event and therefore impacting foraging shorebirds.
Eradication measures for two exotic plants (e.g., Brazilian pepper and 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 3 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 southern end of the refuge in the vicinity of the 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 Egmont Key Guard House,
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 plant
regeneration and remove dead biomass.
Pinellas NWR – 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 (raccoons, fish crows, etc.) to move in. Also,
offshore fishing is allowed and as such, birds nesting near shore may be disturbed by boaters.
38 Tampa Bay Refuges
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 habitat has 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 renourishment, (2) removal of exotic vegetation, and (3) reduction of
monofilament lines causing mortaility (Kleen and Hunter, USFWS, June 2006).
Passage Key NWR – Passage Key NWR is closed to the public and represents one of the last
remaining nesting site 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 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.
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 a 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, Passage
Key, and Pinellas NWRs if a spill occurs. Emergency response and agency coordination plans are
needed (Tampa Bay Estuary Program, http://www.tbep.org/baystate/spillprevention.html). Presently, the
Service has coordinated with Hillsborough County and is a part of its oil spill response plan.
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.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
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 degree data for growing days for the survey
area as recorded at St. Petersburg in the period 1971 to 2000.
In winter, the average temperature is 63.4 degrees 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.
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 (US
Environmental Protection Agency, “Climate Change,” http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/).
40 Tampa Bay Refuges
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 U.S. 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 U.S.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
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 U.S. 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).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41
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)
42 Tampa Bay Refuges
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 carbonates 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 landforms are
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43
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 2 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 10 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).
44 Tampa Bay Refuges
Figure 13. Geology of Tampa Bay
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45
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 (and presumably Passage Key) are comprised of post-
Pleistocene undifferentiated sand and shells. The entire Egmont Key (and presumably Passage
Key) 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 ball 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 is primarily used for industrial and domestic purposes (Tampa City
Council – Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission, January 1998).
46 Tampa Bay Refuges
Egmont Key is underlain by the Floridan Aquifer. There are no public wells on Egmont Key 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 suggests Egmont Key is in an
area of zero recharge to the Floridan aquifer system. In the transition zone which separates fresh and
saltwater, south and southwest of Tampa Bay, relatively high concentrations of sulfate and chloride
make the groundwater non-potable. On Egmont Key, 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 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 tides 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 ground-water 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
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47
baseflow to streams varies. This cyclic pattern of changing b