This section provides a summary of the revised lake and watershed management goals adopted by the Lake Tarpon Management Committee in October of 1994. In addition, the recommended targets associated with each of the adopted goals, and a brief discussion of the rationale for each, is presented for each of the priority lake and watershed management issues.

4.1.1 Water Quality

The LTMC has adopted a single management goal addressing the issue of Water Quality:

"The lake should be managed such that good water quality is assured."

The following six targets are recommended to support the Water Quality management goal.

1. Maintain a mean annual chlorophyll-a concentration of 14ug/l or less.

2. Maintain a mean annual multi-parametric TSI value of 55 or less.

3. Reduce current annual TN and TP loads from external sources by 15% and 21%, respectively.

4. Annually calculate current water and nutrient budgets for Lake Tarpon.

5. Maintain Class-III water quality standards for dissolved oxygen, pH, specific conductance and chlorides.

6. Attain an 80% TSS load reduction for all permitted MSSW facilities within the basin.

The rationale for each of the above recommended targets is briefly discussed below.

Rationale: One of the lake manager's most important tools is an accurate water/nutrient budget. This inflow/outflow analysis of both the sources and sinks of water and nutrients provides information critical to making management decisions. And since a lake's hydrologic and chemical character can change over time in response to changes in the watershed, water and nutrient budgets should be updated annually so that management strategies can be properly adjusted, and management actions re-prioritized.

Rationale: Maintenance of Class-III State water quality standards, as defined in 62-302 of the Florida Administrative Code, is technically required by law. Although toxics such as metals and organic compounds are not considered to be problems in Lake Tarpon, compliance monitoring with respect to dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, specific conductance and chlorides is relevant due to various management concerns. Both DO and pH are closely related to the management of living resources, whereas specific conductance and chloride concentrations may be used as indicators of saltwater intrusion.

Rationale: There is a rebuttable presumption that State design criteria for Management and Storage of Surface Water (MSSW) facilities achieve an 80% pollutant load reduction. Furthermore, because Lake Tarpon is an Outstanding Florida Water, a 95% pollutant load reduction is technically required for those MSSW facilities discharging directly into the lake. Although the statutes do not specify which pollutants are targeted by the State design criteria, they are generally interpreted to address total suspended solids (TSS) and biological oxygen demand. Attainment of these performance standards is rarely verified or enforced due to the complexities in monitoring individual MSSW facilities; however, available data indicate that most MSSW facilities are substantially deficient if not properly maintained. State law allows for stringent enforcement of these performance standards where it can be demonstrated that State water quality standards are being violated. It can be reasonably argued that nonpoint source pollutant loads to Lake Tarpon are violating the State water quality standard for nutrients (e.g., must not cause an ecological imbalance). Assuming that MSSW facilities meeting the 80% TSS load reduction standard also provide adequate nutrient removal, strict enforcement of this minimal performance standard throughout the watershed is justified.

4.1.2 Aquatic Vegetation

The LTMC has adopted two management goals addressing the issue of Aquatic Vegetation:

"Vegetation shall be managed to maintain nuisance aquatic plants to the lowest feasible level while encouraging beneficial native plants to establish."

"The lake and watershed should be managed to restore and enhance habitat abundance and diversity."

Implicit in these goals is the need to manage exotic vegetation such that a favorable balance is achieved between: public access to the lake; safe boating/skiing/swimming; a productive fishery; and desirable aesthetics without water quality degradation. The following four targets are recommended to support the Aquatic Vegetation management goal.

1. Expand the areal coverage of desirable, endemic submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) to 600 acres or more (>24% of the lake bottom area).

2. Limit the areal coverage of hydrilla to 100 acres or less (<4% of the lake bottom area; <17% of the SAV areal coverage target).

3. Maintain the areal coverage of emergent aquatic vegetation (EAV) at 120 acres or more.

4. Limit the areal coverage of cattails to 60 acres or less (<50% of the EAV areal coverage target).

The rationale for each of the above recommended targets is briefly discussed below.

Target 1: Expand the areal coverage of desirable, endemic submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) to 600 acres or more (>24% of the lake bottom area).

Rationale: Desirable, endemic submerged aquatic species such as coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum), eelgrass (Vallisneria americana), and strap leaf Saggitaria (Saggitaria subulata) provide substantial ecological benefits by stabilizing lake sediments, uptaking sediment and water column nutrients, and providing habitat for invertebrates and sport fish. Although the exotic hydrilla also provides some of these benefits, it has the potential to severely outcompete endemic species and severely limit recreational uses. No quantitative assessment of the areal coverage of submerged aquatic vegetation has ever been performed in Lake Tarpon. An analysis of lake bathymetry has indicated that approximately 26% of the lake bottom area is 8 feet deep or shallower, exclusive of residential canals. Furthermore, an analysis of historic Secchi disk depths has indicated that during periods of good water quality (1990-1992), light levels suitable for supporting rooted macrophyte production extended nearly 8 feet into the water column in some areas (Secchi disk depths >2 meters). Therefore, the 600-acre target areal coverage for submerged aquatic vegetation is considered to be technically achievable since bottom areas 8 feet deep or less could potentially support SAV. Since no quantitative survey of the coverage of submerged aquatic vegetation has ever been performed in Lake Tarpon, the current level of attainment of this target is not known.

Rationale: Hydrilla verticillata or hydrilla is the most problematic exotic species in Lake Tarpon. Hydrilla is capable of expanding its coverage very rapidly, and becomes a management problem when it restricts recreational use primarily by fouling boat propellers. Paradoxically, hydrilla also provides some ecological benefits in Lake Tarpon by serving as sport fish habitat and by competing with algae for available water column nutrients. While the mission of the FDEP Aquatic Plant Management Section is to manage hydrilla and other exotic species to their "lowest feasible levels," the complete eradication of hydrilla from Lake Tarpon is probably not feasible, and may not be desirable unless its niche is replaced by endemic species such as coontail and eelgrass. From a resource and recreational management standpoint, however, it is recommended that the coverage of hydrilla never be allowed to exceed 100 acres, or approximately 4% of the lake bottom area. Combined with Target 1 above, this target implicitly states that hydrilla should be managed so as to account for no more than 100 acres (or about 17%) of the minimal SAV areal coverage target of 600 acres. It should further be noted that the management range for hydrilla is zero to 100 acres, and that the upper limit of 100 acres of condensed coverage represents a threshold which requires immediate action.

Rationale: A previous quantitative survey of emergent aquatic vegetation performed in 1990 indicated that 136 acres of emergent herbaceous wetlands occurred in Lake Tarpon at that time (KEA, 1992). This study was completed during a period of drought and lower lake levels, and may represent the maximum potential extent of emergent aquatic vegetation in Lake Tarpon. Since then, anecdotal evidence suggests that higher water levels have caused the cattail fringe to recede, although this trend has not been quantitatively confirmed. The proposed emergent aquatic vegetation target of 120 acres is consistent with the potential coverage area under the proposed wider range of water level fluctuation.

Rationale: While cattails (Typha spp.) are endemic and beneficial emergent aquatic species, they tend to outcompete other desirable species and dominate the littoral zone. Due to their height and density, large monotypic stands often constitute an impediment to waterfront vistas and public access to the shoreline. In addition, excessively dense cattail stands limit fish spawning areas and provide relatively little food and habitat value for other wildlife species compared to more diverse emergent plant assemblages. Reducing the coverage of cattail in the littoral zone will allow for a greater diversity of desirable, endemic plant species to occupy the shoreline, and will provide for improved fish and wildlife habitat, especially if assisted revegetation efforts are employed. Combined with Target 3 above, this target implicitly states that cattails should be managed so as to account for no more than 60 acres (or about 50%) of the minimal EAV areal coverage target of 120 acres.

The LTMC has adopted a single management goal related to the issue of Fisheries:

"The fish populations of the lake should be managed to provide for sustained quality fishing opportunities."

The following five targets are recommended to support the Fisheries management goal.

1. Maintain a fish community balance of F/C=3.0-6.0 (e.g., the ratio of forage fish biomass to carnivorous fish biomass).

2. Maintain indices of Relative Stock Density (RSD) for major sport fish species of: 20-40% >14 inches for largemouth bass, 40-60% >6 inches for bluegill; 40-60% >7 inches for redear sunfish; and 40-60% >9 inches for black crappie.

3. Maintain a voluntary angler catch and release rate for largemouth bass of 85% or greater.

4. Maintain fishing effort in Lake Tarpon at >150 hours of fishing per acre per year.

5. Maintain angler success rates of: >0.30 fish/hour for largemouth bass; and >3.0 fish/hour for panfish (bluegill, redear sunfish, crappie, and catfish).

The rationale for each of the above recommended targets is briefly discussed below.

Rationale: The F/C ratio is a commonly used measure of fish community balance which can also serve as an indicator of lake trophic state as well. An F/C ratio ranging between 3.0 and 6.0 is typically correlated with good sport fishing opportunities as well as mesotrophic conditions. A richer measure of fish community balance is the Fishery Quality Index which integrate the F/C ratio with other parameters to estimate the condition of sport fish populations.

Rationale: The index of Relative Stock Density provides a numerical expression of population size structure, and provides another quantitative measure of the population balance of major sport fish species.

Rationale: Voluntary angler catch and release of sport fish - primarily largemouth bass - promotes desirable F/C ratios and maintains a healthy sport fishery. Furthermore, voluntary catch and release constitutes an effective means of biomanipulating the fish community such that mesotrophic lake conditions are affected. The proposed catch and release rate of 85% has been observed on Lake Tarpon by the FGFWFC in previous creel surveys, and has been attributed as a major contributor to the excellent sport fishery.

Rationale: The sport fishery of Lake Tarpon is one of the lake’s most important economic benefits to the region. A fishing effort of >150 hours per acre per year has been determined by the FGFWFC as an appropriate indicator that the lake is providing the expected recreational sport fishing value to anglers.

 

The LTMC has adopted two management goals addressing the issue of Wildlife and Associated Habitat:

"The lake and watershed should be managed to restore and enhance

habitat abundance and diversity."

"The lake and watershed should be managed to restore and maintain populations of endemic wildlife species."

The following six targets are recommended to support the Wildlife and Associated Habitat management goal.

1. Maintain or increase the number of eagle territories in the Lake Tarpon drainage basin.

2. Maintain or increase the species richness and abundance of endemic bird populations in the Lake Tarpon drainage basin.

3. Maintain the existing acreage (780 acres) of viable gopher tortoise habitat (e.g., xeric uplands) in the Lake Tarpon drainage basin.

4. Maintain the existing acreage (1,360 acres) of viable wetland habitat in the Lake Tarpon drainage basin.

5. Increase the number of participants in the Lake Tarpon Habitat Improvement Program by 10 parcels per year.

6. Increase the number of wildlife underpasses in the Lake Tarpon drainage basin.

The rationale for each of the above recommended targets is briefly discussed below.

Rationale: The bald eagle is currently listed as a threatened species by both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (FGFWFC). The Lake Tarpon drainage basin provides excellent habitat for nesting eagles in that it is a large waterbody with an abundant fish population surrounded by extensive stands of mature trees in close proximity. At least one breeding pair of eagles has nested within the basin boundaries, and the resource potential to support more breeding pairs exists

Rationale: In Florida, many endemic bird species are gradually being displaced by exotic birds. Endemic species provide natural insect control, transport native plant seed for distribution, and are enjoyed by numerous bird enthusiasts. The Lake Tarpon area also provides important wintering habitat for a number of seasonal migrants. Minor habitat improvements could be made to increase the species richness and abundance of endemic bird populations.

Rationale: The gopher tortoise is a state-listed species of special concern. Gopher tortoise burrows provide habitat for over 70 vertebrate and invertebrate commensal species, some of which are listed as endangered or threatened by the USFWS and/or the FGFWFC (i.e. eastern indigo snake, Florida mouse, gopher frog). Gopher tortoise populations are threatened by the loss of appropriate habitat. The loss of available habitat will likely result in a decline in the number of gopher tortoise burrows and the associated commensal species which are an important local source of biodiversity. Since the gopher tortoise typically inhabits well-drained upland habitats, little regulatory protection of their habitat exists. Public land purchases, or other less than fee simple mechanisms, to protect gopher tortoise habitat in the basin are needed.

Rationale: Currently, the acreage of viable wetland habitat in the Lake Tarpon drainage basin is estimated at approximately 1,360 acres, inclusive of the emergent aquatic vegetation surrounding the lake shoreline. Wetlands (e.g., freshwater swamps and marshes) are biologically productive ecosystems that provide critical food and shelter for the vast majority of wildlife populations in the basin. Although wetlands are generally well-protected by federal and state laws, wetland losses through dredge and fill activities are still permitted. A no net loss target is recommended for the Lake Tarpon drainage basin given the level of development that has already occurred in the basin. This is especially important for the extensive system of forested wetlands that remain in the eastern portion of the basin as they act as wildlife corridors linking Lake Tarpon to the Brooker Creek Preserve area.

Rationale: Existing and/or planned urban lands constitute over 60% of the Lake Tarpon drainage basin, and the majority of the existing large tracts of natural lands are already in public ownership (e.g., Anderson and Chesnut Parks), or are regulated (e.g., jurisdictional wetlands). Therefore, any significant improvements in wildlife usage and habitat in the basin will need to be achieved through voluntary cooperation with residents and businesses in the basin. A voluntary Lake Tarpon Habitat Improvement Program (LT/HIP) is recommended which provides habitat improvement guidelines, materials and incentives for residential and commercial property owners. The target of increasing participation by 10 parcels (e.g., residential and/or commercial properties) per year is both reasonable and achievable.

Rationale: Transportation related wildlife mortality is a significant problem in urban areas such as the Lake Tarpon drainage basin. Roadway systems also pose barriers to dispersion, isolate populations and fragment habitats. Providing wildlife underpasses has been shown to be successful in lowering highway mortalities and providing dispersion corridors and habitat linkages. Other than drainage structures, no wildlife underpasses currently exist within the Lake Tarpon drainage basin. East Lake Road and Keystone Road are of particular concern, and underpasses within the Lansbrook development are critical to maintaining existing wildlife populations, particularly mammals, in the area. These roads impose physical obstructions to wildlife movement within large cypress strand and hardwood swamp systems. A variety of species including small to medium size mammals, such as red fox, gray fox, river otter and bobcat, and amphibians and reptiles would benefit from an underpass system.

4.1.5 Flood Control

The LTMC has adopted a single management goal related to the issue of Flood Control:

"The lake and watershed should be managed to minimize flood damage."

The following two targets are recommended to support the Flood Control management goal.

1. Prevent flood damage ($0) to all properties within the Lake Tarpon drainage basin.

2. Manage lake levels to improve water quality and aquatic vegetation conditions while maintaining maximum flood protection.

The rationale for the each of above recommended targets is briefly discussed below.

4.1.6 Recreation and Aesthetics

The LTMC has adopted four management goals related to the issue of Recreation and Aesthetics:

"The lake should be managed in such a manner as to provide for safe and enjoyable recreational boating activities."

"The lake should be managed to provide opportunity for safe skiing and swimming."

"Recreational use of the lake should be managed such that the needs of multiple user groups are balanced and optimized."

"The lake should be managed such that other desirable aesthetic qualities are protected and/or enhanced."

The following four targets are recommended to support the Recreation and Aesthetics management goal.

1. Prevent boating and personal water craft accidents (0 accidents).

2. Maintain Class-III water quality standards for total and fecal coliform bacteria.

3. Attain 90% positive responses on recreational user and lakefront resident opinion surveys.

4. Maintain or increase recreational usage of the lake while still maintaining 90% user satisfaction.

The rationale for each of the above recommended targets is briefly discussed below.

Rationale: Public safety is a primary concern on any recreation waterbody. A zero tolerance for reckless boating is an appropriate level of service given the heavy recreational use that Lake Tarpon receives.

Rationale: The concentrations of total and fecal coliform bacteria in the water column indicate the presence of human pathogens. Water contact sports such as swimming and water skiing can be severely limited by excessive concentrations of human pathogens. To be safe for human water contact recreation, State water quality standards for coliform bacteria must be maintained.

Rationale: The most cost-effective and statistically comparable means by which to measure trends in subjective and qualitative factors such recreational and aesthetic satisfaction is through the use of public opinion surveys. The 90% positive response target is arbitrary and highly dependent on the questionnaire format, however, it should represent a relatively good measure of public satisfaction.

Rationale: No data exist to meaningfully determine the recreational carrying capacity of Lake Tarpon. Therefore, recreational use should be allowed to increase provided that user satisfaction and other lake management goals are not compromised.

The LTMC has adopted a single management goal related to the issue of Public Education:

"Education in matters related to and affecting the other goals of the Lake Tarpon Management Plan shall be provided."

The provision of an adequate Level-of-Service for public education can be measured in two ways: 1) as a function of the number and quality of public education events conducted and/or media products distributed; and 2) as a function of general public understanding of lake management issues, goals and objectives, as well as participation in the lake management process. The following two targets are recommended to support the Public Education management goal.

1. Annually provide for a minimum of four (4) public education/media events.

2. Attain 90% positive responses on recreational user and lakefront resident public opinion and knowledge surveys.

The rationale for each of the above recommended targets is briefly discussed below.

Rationale: It is recommended that public education/media events be provided for on an approximate quarterly basis. These events could include such activities as the annual Lake Tarpon Day festival, closed circuit television broadcasts, park displays, and brochure/newsletter mailouts.

Table 4-1 below presents a summary of the adopted goals and recommended targets for each of the identified priority lake and watershed management issue.

4.2 STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS

This section provides a description of the Structural Components of the Lake Tarpon Drainage Basin Management Plan. Structural components are those management alternatives that involve the construction or structural modification of a facility. As such, the structural components of the Plan are the most costly, and need to be properly budgeted for and funded through the annual Capital Improvements Plan.

For each of the described structural components of the Plan, the following information is provided:

• a description of the recommended management action;

• a discussion of the rationale and justification for the action;

• a summary of the expected benefits of the action;

• identification of the responsible entities; and

• the estimated cost of the action.

A total of 1,076 residences and businesses with on-site wastewater treatment systems (OWTS), or septic tanks, occur within the Lake Tarpon basin. This management action involves the extension of central sewer collection facilities to the remaining unsewered areas of the Lake Tarpon basin where OWTS are still in use. In addition, the action involves the hook-up of all effected residences and businesses to central sewer and the proper closure (e.g., capping or filling) of the inactive septic tanks.

Based on modeling results, sub-basins 5, 6, 7, 9 and 13 generate the highest nutrient loads from OWTS. The location of these sub-basins is shown in Figure 4-1. Only sub-basin 13 is located primarily within the jurisdiction of Pinellas County, with the other priority sub-basins being located primarily within the jurisdiction of the City of Tarpon Springs.

Because this management action is very costly, and it is based on modeling data with little empirical data to verify actual loadings, it is recommended a site-specific field investigation be conducted to confirm the magnitude of the loadings before proceeding with construction. Furthermore, if it is determined from empirical field data that the remaining septic tanks in the basin are generating substantial TN and TP loadings (e.g., of the order of magnitude predicted by modeling) then it is recommended that the construction of central sewer collection facilities and the hookup of the 1,076 residences and businesses be completed in phases over a period of eight years (e.g., initiate construction in 2000, complete by 2008).

Unlike stormwater runoff which is diffuse and difficult to treat, leachate from OWTS is a well defined pollutant source that can be completely removed from the system. The proximity and capacity of sewage treatment plants in the project area make this option both technically and logistically feasible. Furthermore, both the City of Tarpon Springs and Pinellas County have made commitments in their Comprehensive Plan to provide central sewer collection facilities to the remaining unsewered portions of the watershed by the year 2000.

Based on conservative modeling results, this management action would remove approximately 11.3% and 11.9% of the annual external TN and TP loads to the lake, respectively. Although costly, this management action is the single most effective pollutant load reduction strategy recommended in this Plan. In addition, this option would effectively remediate potentially adverse public health impacts associated with lakeside OWTS (e.g., unsafe fecal coliform concentrations during excessive rainfall or high water levels).

The City of Tarpon Springs and Pinellas County Utilities.

This management action involves construction and maintenance of enhanced stormwater treatment facilities at the outfall of each of the priority manageable hydrologic units (MHUs) and individual sub-basins identified in the watershed modeling work. Based on modeled pollutant loading estimates, the decreasing order of priority for the target MHUs and sub-basins is as follows.

- Group-B MHUs (contributing sub-basins 49, 51, 52, and 54);

- Group-D MHUs (contributing sub-basins 5 and 6);

- Group-A MHUs (contributing sub-basins 60, 62, 63, 65, and 66);

- Group-C MHUs (contributing sub-basins 45, 46, and 47);

- Individual sub-basin 23; and

- Individual sub-basin 21.

The location of these MHUs and sub-basins are shown in Figure 4-2. The Group B, D and C MHUs have existing ponds near their points of discharge to the lake, however, they are not properly sized to provide effective treatment via wet detention or retention. The Group A MHUs and individual sub-basin 23 have large wetland systems near their points of discharge to the lake, which could be modified to provide additional treatment and storage. In addition, the Group A MHUs and individual sub-basins 23 and 21 are also located near available undeveloped land area that could be used for pond construction or expansion.

Given the potentially high cost and low availability of land for pond construction and/or expansion, the use of more intensive treatment systems such as alum injection with floc settling ponds represent a more cost-effective approach per unit area of land. Preliminary discussions with the FDEP have indicated that off-line alum injection ponds would be a permittable approach on Lake Tarpon. Therefore, off-line alum injection facilities with floc settling ponds are the recommended technology.

Because of the diffuse nature of non-point source pollution, the effective reduction of pollutant loads from direct runoff is a difficult and costly problem. The priority MHUs and individual sub-basins were selected on the basis of pollutant load, hydrologic flow and other logistical factors such as proximity to available land. As such, implementation of structural BMPs in these areas offers the best potential for load reduction of the direct runoff component of external pollutant sources. Besides septic tank seepage, the attenuation of nutrient discharges from direct runoff offers the only other viable external pollutant load reduction strategy for Lake Tarpon.

As discussed above, the four priority manageable hydrologic units (MHUs) and two individual sub-basins cumulatively generate approximately 6.32 and 0.73 tons of TN and TP per year, respectively. This represents 11.2% of the total annual TN load, and 12.5% of the total annual TP load, from external sources. Furthermore, this represents 23.0% of the total annual TN load, and 18.1% of the total annual TP load, from the direct runoff component.

Assuming a maximum effectiveness of 40% TN removal and 90% TP removal for enhanced stormwater treatment technology such as alum injection with sediment traps, the construction of off-line alum ponds at the outfall point of the four priority MHUs and two priority sub-basins (e.g., a total of six facilities) would result in the removal of approximately 1.71 tons of TN, and 0.44 tons of TP, per year. This annual pollutant load reduction is equal to 6.2% of the TN load from direct runoff, and 10.9% of the TP load from direct runoff. This annual pollutant load reduction is also equal to 3.0% of the total external TN load, and 7.5% of the total external TP load.

In waterbodies that do not have substantial point source discharges of pollutants, the reduction of external pollutant loads is often very difficult and challenging. Besides septic tank seepage, the attenuation of nutrient discharges from direct runoff offers the only other viable external pollutant load reduction strategy for Lake Tarpon.

It is anticipated that the construction of enhanced stormwater treatment facilities would be funded by the Southwest Florida Water Management District with matching funds from Pinellas County and possibly the City of Tarpon Springs. The responsibility for property acquisition design, permitting and construction would fall primarily with Pinellas County.

Costs for installation, operation, and maintenance of alum injection systems with sediment traps for the four priority MHUs and two individual sub-basins (e.g., a total of six treatment facilities) have been estimated using unit costs listed for similar systems (ERD, 1994).

Capital costs typically include buildings, pumps, mixers, pipes, meters, etc. Costs for constructing sediment trap ponds have also estimated using the same unit costs as for the wet detention option. The prototypical pond design would allow for a minimum holding time of three hours for a storm event with one inch rainfall or less. It is assumed that new ponds will be constructed, or that existing ponds will be enlarged to accommodate the inflows. Thus, either new pond construction or existing pond enlargement will have similar costs. Pond construction costs are estimated to total $1,076,465 for all six units. It is assumed that capital costs for each alum injection system would be identical, and are estimated to be $223,618 per unit, including both pond construction and the installation alum injection pumps and chemical holding tanks. Therefore, the total capital cost for the six treatment facilities are estimated to be $1,341,708.

Annual operating costs include chemical purchases (aluminum sulfate and sodium hydroxide) at $0.50/gallon and $2.00/gallon, respectively. Maintenance costs for alum injection systems over the projected 20-year life of the facility include replacement of major mechanical parts (injectors, pumps, etc.). Other annual costs include operation and maintenance (O&M) labor of one person approximately one-half time, plus one month per year for each outfall. This equates to approximately 85% of one man-year. A typical technician labor rate is $15/hour, including overhead. Total annual O&M costs are estimated to be $139,724 per year for all six units. To calculate final cost estimates of dollars per pound of nitrogen and phosphorus removed, annual recurring O&M costs should be spread out over the 20-year projected life of the project. It should be noted that others have projected an effective alum injection system life span to be 30 years (ERD, 1994).

In summary the total cost of constructing, operating and maintaining six alum injection treatment facilities with sediment traps over the 20-year life of the project is estimated to be $4,136,188.

Figure 4-2. Non-point source priority sub-basins.

This management action involves the construction of one or more of eight recommended wildlife corridors or crossings interconnecting the natural wetland linear corridors along Lake Tarpon to other wetland and uplands to the east. The location of the recommended crossings are shown in Figure 2-10. The implementation and enhancement of each specific corridor will need a site specific study to evaluate existing and potential wildlife utilization by each species expected. Structural crossing for small mammals and reptiles may be appropriate at isolated locations but, generally, a non-structural approach in the residential environment is recommended. Such features as educational signs, speed limits, speed bumps and vegetative buffers are preferred.

Corridor crossings along East Lake Road are not recommended without additional study. One potential corridor has been identified along the southern boundary of the East Lake High School, ownership to which could potentially serve as a linkage to the Brooker Creek Preserve area to the east. It should, however, be noted that without proper design, wildlife dispersal corridors across a congested roadway such as McMullen-Booth Road could result in undesirable impacts such as increased roadkills, and nuisance occurrences within residential areas. These problems would be most exaggerated with regard to the larger mammalian species such as white tailed deer.

The concept of the "wildlife dispersal corridor" has been given much attention in ecological literature as well as in regulatory permitting decisions in recent years. A wildlife dispersal corridor can be defined as those pathways where animals have a tendency to traverse as part of their normal movements. Urban development, especially the roadway network, bisects or blocks these pathways resulting in disrupted travel routes and behavioral patterns. The corridor needs of wildlife are highly variable depending on the size, mobility and special needs of each specific wildlife species. Linear corridors paralleling Lake Tarpon along its eastern shoreline have been, for the most part, provided by the existing cypress wetland edge; however, contiguity with the larger linear wetland systems to the east has been disrupted by internal roadway development.

This management action can be expected to expand the habitat range of remaining amphibian, reptile and mammal populations within the basin, thus maintaining genetic viability, and improving the stability of these populations.

Pinellas County, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, and private developers.

The cost of wildlife crossings can vary substantially based on the type and size of structure involved. Based on available data from the FDOT, a typical 30' wide wildlife underpass costs approximately $50,000. Assuming that four priority crossings would be selected and constructed, the total estimated cost for this option is $200,000. Maintenance costs are considered to be minimal.

INSTALL STAGE AND FLOW MEASUREMENT DEVICES AT THE LAKE TARPON OUTFALL CANAL CONTROL STRUCTURE

This management action involves the installation of instrumentation for accurately measuring lake stage and flow volumes at the Lake Tarpon Outfall Canal control structure. In addition, this action involves the proper acquisition, storage, reduction and reporting of lake stage and flow volume data using accepted data management protocols.

The Lake Tarpon Outfall Canal provides a convenient structure for measuring flow and collecting water samples; however, instrumentation for accurately measuring and recording stage and flow volumes does not exist at the outfall control structure. The installation of state-of-art intrumentation is needed to address the defined monitoring objective of calculating annual water and nutrient budgets for Lake Tarpon. The estimation of mean annual TN, TP, and hydrologic loads discharged from the lake combined with estimates of mean annual loads entering the lake are needed to calculate lake water and nutrient budgets. Estimates of external loadings from tributaries, nonpoint sources, atmospheric deposition and groundwater are measurable and are addressed in separate monitoring objectives. To balance a water/nutrient budget, direct measurement of outflows from the lake are needed. Annual estimates of loads leaving the lake will enable the calculation of net loadings into the lake, loads which should be related to mean annual chlorophyll-a concentrations and TSI values.

The expected benefits of this management action include the acquisition of previously unavailable data essential to the support of various recommended management actions and monitoring programs, and to the justification of any potential modifications to the Plan in the future.

Southwest Florida Water Management District with logistical assistance from Pinellas County.

Preliminary cost estimates for the installation of state-of-the-art stage and flow measurement and recording devices at the outfall structure range between $15,000 and $20,000. Only minor labor costs would be associated with the operation and maintenance of this instrumentation.

STRUCTURAL COMPONENT 5

This action involves the reuse of lake water as a means of augmenting the existing wastewater effluent reuse system operated by the Pinellas County Utilities Department in the Lake Tarpon basin. Specifically, this action entails the construction of a pump station(s) and distribution lines to provide for the direct reuse of lake water for irrigation within the basin. On a broader scale, this action could involve a major storage component, combined with numerous potential reuse options for a larger annual volume of water.

This management action builds upon Management Component 1 discussed below which entails the modification of the existing lake level fluctuation schedule to provide for flushing and dilution of the lake. During the spring dry season, lake water that would otherwise be released downstream during the spring lake level drawdown could instead be pumped directly into the reuse system for distribution as irrigation water in the Lake Tarpon basin and other service areas. This alternative to downstream release has been discussed with the Pinellas County Utilities Department and the Southwest Florida Water Management District, and they have embraced the concept as it provides a potential source of irrigation water during the spring dry season when demand is greatest. The same concept also applies to a lesser extent for the fall lake level drawdown. Based on information provided by the Pinellas County Utilities Department, peak flow requirements within the Lake Tarpon basin are estimated at 3.4 million gallons per day (mgd).

This management action addresses the regional need to conserve and reuse freshwater supplies. In addition, it addresses a potentially problematic permitting issue with regard to the release of water from Lake Tarpon downstream to Tampa Bay. With the adoption of the Tampa Bay Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan prepared by the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program, Pinellas County is required to meet TN pollutant load reduction goals. Although the estimated total mass of TN released to Tampa Bay is relatively insignificant in the Tampa Bay nutrient budget, the release of water from Lake Tarpon may be viewed by the regulatory agencies as an increase in the allowable TN load allocated to Pinellas County. This management action effectively diffuses this concern by eliminating or reducing downstream releases or providing for in-basin reuse.

Although the S-551 structure provides a very flexible and cost-effective means of fluctuating lake levels, the discharge of lake water into the saline waters of the Lake Tarpon Outfall Canal represents the loss of a substantial volume of potentially reuseable freshwater. It should be noted that the proposed lake level fluctuation schedule could be achieved through the coordinated withdrawal of lake water in lieu of downstream discharges through the structure. If properly managed, the freshwater withdrawn from Lake Tarpon could be reused to provide a variety of regional benefits, especially if this water could be stored and redistributed throughout the entire year.

With an approximate surface area of 2,500 acres, a one-foot drop of the water level in Lake Tarpon from its normal elevation of 3.0 NGVD equates to approximately 815 million gallons of freshwater. Table 4-2 below shows the total annual elevational drawdown, the total annual discharge volume, and the annualized potential daily reuse volume for each of the three proposed fluctuation schedules (e.g., A, B and C, as listed in Table 4-3 below).

Because the proposed lake level fluctuation schedules call for drawdowns to occur over a relatively short time period (e.g., 60 days), an efficient means for pumping, storing and recovering the drawdown volume would need to be developed. Surface water storage is not a likely option due to the limited availability of vacant land in the Lake Tarpon basin. In addition, evapotranspiration losses from a surface water storage reservoir would likely be significant.

A more promising storage option for the lake drawdown water is Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR). Groundwater monitoring data from the Lake Tarpon area has shown that saltwater intrusion into the upper Floridan Aquifer is a potentially significant problem, especially in the southeastern portion of the Lake Tarpon watershed. The threat of advancing saline intrusion was partially responsible for the closure of the East Lake Wellfield in eastern Pinellas County. The pumping of surface water from Lake Tarpon into the upper Floridan Aquifer in the south Brooker Creek area could possibly form an effective barrier against further saline intrusion. Furthermore, if pumped into a sufficiently confined geologic strata, this water could be effectively recovered and distributed for numerous beneficial uses.

Stored lake drawdown water could be beneficially reused in numerous ways. Some of the potential options for beneficial reuse include the following:

• Direct potable use;

• Augmentation of the Pinellas County reclaimed water supply;

• Rehydration of drained or dewatered wetlands;

• Restoration of baseflows in Brooker Creek; and

• Dilution of saline concentrate from a desalination plant.

Given the pressing need to develop new potable water sources to reduce groundwater pumping and meet the regional demands resulting from future growth, it is unlikely that the proposed enhanced lake level fluctuation schedule could be permitted or implemented without some means to recover and reuse at least a portion of this freshwater resource. Unlike natural tributaries, no Minimum Flows and Levels regulatory requirements should apply since Lake Tarpon never had a historic discharge to Tampa Bay.

Another added benefit of storing and reusing lake drawdown water is the reduction of nitrogen loadings to Tampa Bay. As stated above, each 1.0 foot of water discharged from the lake carries with it a nutrient mass of 4.41 tons of TN and 0.25 tons of TP. Although no records are currently kept by the SWFWMD regarding the volume of lake water annually discharged to Tampa Bay, it is likely that a reduction in TN loadings to Tampa Bay of over 9 tons per year could be achieved by recovering and reusing discharged lake water. This load reduction is consistent with, and furthers, the nitrogen load reduction strategy agreed to by the Nitrogen Management Consortium of the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program.

For the above discussed reasons, it is recommended that Pinellas County initiate a detailed feasibility study of the various pumping, storage, and reuse alternatives for Lake Tarpon discharge water in the north Pinellas County area. To facilitate implementation of the proposed enhanced lake level fluctuation schedule in 1999, as well as other related components of the Lake Tarpon Drainage Basin Management Plan, this recommended feasibility study should be completed during 1999.

The potential benefits of this management action include: 1) regional water conservation and reuse; 2) the reduction of pollutant loadings to Tampa Bay; 3) the reduction of saltwater intrusion into local potable water aquifers; and 4) other potential beneficial reuse options such as the restoration of baseflows in Brooker Creek. In addition, by reducing the amount of wastewater effluent used as reclaimed water for irrigation, pollutant loadings to the basin will be theoretically reduced.

The Pinellas County Utilities Department would be responsible for the construction of the pump station(s) and distribution lines. Close coordination with the Southwest Florida Water Management District with regard to withdrawal rates and the attainment of target lake levels will be needed. In addition, it is likely that Water Use and Discharge to Groundwater permits will be required.

Construction cost estimates are not available since the project is still at the conceptual stage. The construction cost for the infrastructure needed for maximizing the storage and recovery options, including larger pumps and pipelines, is estimated at $2,000,000. The cost of this enhanced option would be offset by provision of substantial volume of water for numerous beneficial reuse options. Detailed cost estimates should be developed in a separate detailed feasibility study of the various pumping, storage, and reuse alternatives for Lake Tarpon discharge water in the north Pinellas County area. Based on data provided by the Pinellas County Utilities Department, the annual operation and maintenance costs associated with distributing 3.4 mgd of reuse water is estimated at $410,000.

4.3 MANAGEMENT COMPONENTS

This section provides a description of the Management Components of the Lake Tarpon Drainage Basin Management Plan. Management components are those management alternatives that involve non-structural modifications to the function, operation and/or maintenance of a facility or resource. In some instances the distinction between structural and management components is not clear, such as in the case of habitat restoration activities which sometimes involve earthmoving. The distinction made herein is that if the activity involves minor modifications to an existing facility or resource, and does not involve the construction of any new facilities, it is a management activity.

For each of the described management components of the Plan, the following information is provided:

• a description of the recommended management action;

• a discussion of the rationale and justification for the action;

• a summary of the expected benefits of the action;

• identification of the responsible entities; and

• the estimated cost of the action.

MANAGEMENT COMPONENT 1

This management action involves modifying the operational schedule of the Lake Tarpon Outfall Canal control structure (S-551) so as to provide for greater intra-annual lake level fluctuation, and inter-annual variability. The existing lake level fluctuation schedule adopted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and implemented by the SWFWMD is shown in Figure 4-3, whereas the recommended enhanced lake level fluctuation schedule is shown in Figure 4-4 and 4-4A. The enhanced schedule reestablishes a more natural pattern of seasonal and inter-annual variation in lake levels which are to be repeated every four years. The recommended four-year cycle is composed of three different annual lake level fluctuation schedules - A, B, and C. All three schedules have a high elevation of 3.4 feet NGVD. Schedule A has the greatest range with a low of 1.8 feet NGVD. Schedule B has a more moderate range with a low of 2.0 feet NGVD. Schedule C is the most conservative with a low of 2.2 feet NGVD. The four-year cycle involves a repeating pattern of the three schedules as follows: A, C, B, C, A, C . . . etc. Table 4-3 provides a tabular summary of the target monthly lake level elevations for proposed Schedules A, B and C.

Schedules A and C call for both spring and fall lake level drawdowns. The spring drawdown under Schedule A is more exaggerated than that for Schedule B, and it is repeated every four years. Theoretically, the spring discharge should result in the flushing and dilution of in-lake nutrient concentrations prior to the summer growing season, whereas the fall discharge is intended to flush nutrient-rich runoff accumulated from the summer rainy season. All three schedules also call for high water elevations of 3.4 feet NGVD during both the winter and summer months. These lake level highs are intended to flood littoral vegetation and control the expansion and proliferation of nuisance species, predominantly cattails and willows.

The recommended four-year enhanced lake level fluctuation schedule is intended to better simulate the natural hydrologic regime while still maintaining consistency with the operational range established by the ACOE for flood control. As such, the proposed modified schedule is much more similar to the schedule originally implemented by the SWFWMD during the mid-1970s than the schedule ultimately adopted by the ACOE (Bartos et al., 1978).

It should be noted that the recommended four-year enhanced lake level fluctuation schedule is not meant to be implemented rigidly, but rather it is to serve as a guideline for improved lake management. For example, the recommended low water elevation of 1.8 feet NGVD called for in Schedule A should clearly not be attained if extended drought and low water table conditions exist. Recently completed groundwater investigations of the Lake Tarpon area have indicated that volume replacement of flushed lake water by groundwater is limited to approximately 1.8 mgd when lake levels are lowered to elevation 1.8 ft. NGVD under normal hydrologic conditions (Upchurch, 1998). Under drought conditions, this groundwater inflow rate is likely to be substantially less.

Furthermore, an analysis of previous lake drawdown events has indicated that the recovery of water levels in Lake Tarpon is controlled predominantly by rainfall and associated runoff and tributary inflows (SDI, 1998). Therefore, it is recommended that the spring lake level drawdown be implemented only if the rainfall amounts for the months of January, February and March of that year equal or exceed the 20-year running average precipitation for these months. During years in which the 20-year running average precipitation for these months is not achieved, consideration should be given to initiating the spring drawdown in early May rather than early April so that prolonged exposure during the dry season in avoided.

With regard to the forthcoming implementation of the Lake Tarpon Drainage Basin Management Plan, it is further recommended that the four-year cycle, starting with Schedule A, be implemented in April of 1999 if suitable hydrologic conditions exist. Schedule A is most appropriate at this time given the elevated chlorophyll-a concentrations that have existed in the lake since 1993. Combined with the monitoring program recommendations provided in the Plan, the impacts of the most exaggerated annual lake level fluctuation schedule on aquatic vegetation and water quality should be well documented, and will allow for possible adjustments in the future.

Water level manipulation is one of the most common lake management techniques, used not only for the control of nuisance aquatic vegetation but also for water quality management via flushing and dilution (EPA, 1990). The design and capabilities of the Lake Tarpon Outfall Canal and control structure (S-551) allow for maximum flexibility in the management of lake levels. To date, unfortunately, the outfall structure has been rather conservatively managed solely for the purpose of flood control. The built-in flexibility has not been properly exploited or applied in the achievement of other lake management goals including aquatic plant management and water quality improvement. The recommended low elevations of 1.8, 2.0 and 2.2 feet NGVD should not present major riparian access or navigational problems. An inventory of nearshore areas and residential canals has been performed and indicates that no significant adverse impacts on recreational navigation will be caused by these lower water levels.

It is difficult to quantify the water quality benefits of periodic lake flushing because of the complex biological, hydrogeological and chemical interactions. There is, however, empirical evidence that short-term lake drawdowns in Lake Tarpon can have significant positive impacts on water quality. An accidental short term lake drawdown which occurred in March of 1990 is thought to have affected the reduction of in-lake chlorophyll-a concentrations for the remainder of that year. Although the discharge records are poorly documented, this event resulted in the drawdown of the lake from elevation 3.1 to about 1.7 ft. NGVD, releasing approximately 3,500 acre-feet of water. Assuming that this entire volume of water was discharged, it is estimated that approximately 6.2 tons of TN and 0.4 tons of TP were eliminated from the nutrient mass of the lake.

Following the refilling of the lake, in-lake pH concentrations dropped significantly (Leasure et al., 1992). It has been hypothesized that seepage of acidic groundwater from the surficial aquifer, and tannic acid discharges from adjacent swamps, were responsible for the observed acidification and suppressed algal growth. Furthermore, it is not known whether the suppressed algal activity was due to nutrient dilution from infilling groundwater or the concurrent acidification, or some combination of both factors. Nonetheless, this drawdown appears to have had a substantial short term (e.g., at least one growing season) positive impact on the water quality and trophic state reduction.

Using mean annual TN and TP concentrations from 1995 in-lake water quality data, it is estimated that the discharge of 1.0 foot of water, from elevation 3.0 to 2.0 NGVD, would result in a nutrient mass discharge of 4.41 tons of TN and 0.25 tons of TP. Although most of this nutrient mass will be replaced by inflowing precipitation, runoff and groundwater, effective dilution would occur if the cumulative nutrient concentrations in the inflow waters are even slightly lower than in-lake concentrations. Management Component 2 below discusses an optional means of improving the potential water quality benefits of enhanced lake level fluctuation.

In addition to the empirical water quality benefits, the greater range of water level fluctuation will effectively create a more conducive environment for the expansion of a variety of desirable native emergent and submergent species such as bulrush and eelgrass, and will reduce the competitive advantage of cattails. Raising the water level elevation to 3.4 NGVD for short periods of time (1 to 2 months) should not create an adverse flood risk given the capacity of the outfall structure to release very large volumes of water in a short period of time. Combined with site-specific revegetation projects, this management option should substantially improve the diversity of the littoral plant community in Lake Tarpon over the long-term.

A more varied water level fluctuation schedule will also improve sport fishing through the provision of better spawning habitat. Given the low cost of implementation, this component will likely be very cost-effective when compared to large scale habitat restoration projects. Finally, this component will create the opportunity for shoreline residents to remove exposed trash, debris and undesirable vegetation during low lake level periods. Combined with public education, this component should contribute to improved visual aesthetics along the lake shoreline.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers must approve any major deviations from the existing operational range and schedule for structure S-551. The Southwest Florida Water Management District has the responsibility for operation and maintenance of structure S-551, and would be accountable for achieving the target monthly lake levels. Pinellas County would be responsible for hydrobiological monitoring to document the impacts of implementing the enhanced lake level fluctuation schedule.

Given the existence and flexible design of the S-551 structure, as well as the willingness on the part of the SWFWMD to operate the structure in a more ecologically sound manner, the cost of implementing this management action is considered to be nominal. A non-recurring expenditure for equiping structure S-551 with state-of-the-art recording lake level and volume flow measurement instrumentation is recommended. In addition, some recurring cost for equipment O&M and staff time is anticipated. The total annual O&M cost for this component is estimated at $10,000. Given the potentially significant multiple benefits, this component is considered to be extremely cost-effective.

Figure 4-3. Current lake level fluctuation schedule.

Notes:

1. All elevations are given in feet NGVD.

2. Target lake level indicates the recommended water elevation to be attained on the first day of each month.

3. The proposed modified four-year lake level fluctuation schedule involves the sequential implementation of Schedules A,C,B,C... on a repeating four-year cycle.

This management action is an optional means of improving the potential water quality benefits of implementing the enhanced lake level fluctuation schedule discussed above in Management Component 1. Whereas Management Component 1 relies on the natural refilling of the lake following a lake level drawdown with naturally occurring inflows from precipitation, runoff and groundwater seepage, this management action involves the metered pumping of nutrient-poor water recovered from the Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) well discussed in Structural Component 5 to supplement the natural refilling of the lake, thus increasing lake flushing and dilution.

It must be stressed that this management action, combined with Structural Component 5 and Management Component 1 described above, should be considered as an integrated management strategy with the goal of addressing multiple lake management objectives including: 1) increasing the flushing rate of the lake; 2) reducing in-lake nutrient and algal concentrations; 3) enhancing the biodiversity of littoral vegetation communities; and 4) beneficially reusing all water discharged from the lake within the Lake Tarpon watershed. Although all three management actions could be constructed and/or implemented separately with some beneficial results, the synergistic benefits of these three components will not be realized unless they are implemented as an integrated system.

In concept, the scenario of implementing Structural Component 5, Management Component 1 and Management Component 2 as an integrated system can be described as follows:

1. In early April, the controlled lake level drawdown would be initiated by pumping water from Lake Tarpon into a confined ASR well located within the Lake Tarpon watershed. Depending on the pumping rate and aquifer storage capacity, the controlled lake level drawdown could be also be assisted by the release of water over the Lake Tarpon outfall structure.

2. A portion of the lake water being pumped into the ASR well would also be diverted directly to supplement reclaimed water supplies used for residential irrigation. Seasonal demand for reclaimed water is at its greatest during the spring dry season, and water pumped from the lake would be used to help meet the seasonal shortfall in supply. Once the June target low lake level elevation is attained, the pumping of lake water to the ASR well would be ceased.

3. The lake would be allowed to naturally refill through the summer rainy season. Beginning in August, nutrient-poor water recovered from the ASR well would be pumped back into the lake to supplement natural inflows such that the target high lake level elevation of 3.4 feet NGVD is attained in early October. This inflow of nutrient-poor recovered water would increase the lake flushing rate and effectively dilute the in-lake nutrient mass. If the target high lake level elevation is reached prior to October, excess water entering the lake would be allowed to flow over the Lake Tarpon outfall structure, into Old Tampa Bay.

4. The same pattern of lake drawdown and pumping to the ASR well would be repeated to a lesser degree during the autumn dry season.

5. During the winter, lake water stored in the ASR well would again be recovered and used to supplement the reclaimed water supply, as needed. In addition, the stored lake water could be recovered and used to meet other beneficial reuse needs such as maintaining baseflows in Brooker Creek or rehydrating dewatered wetlands within the watershed.

As proposed, this management action would involve the recovery of a volume of groundwater that would be less than the volume of lake water that is pumped into the ASR well. Therefore, there would be a net recharge of groundwater to the confined aquifers in the basin. To maintain this net recharge, a system for accurately monitoring water volumes transferred to and from the ASR well would be needed. Given the potential complexity of the infrastructure needed to implement Structural Component 5, Management Component 1 and Management Component 2 as an integrated system, as well as the associated regulatory considerations, it is recommended that Pinellas County undertake a detailed feasibility and preliminary design study to address these issues.

Flushing and dilution is a well-documented lake management technique that involves increasing the rate at which the nutrient mass is flushed from the lake combined with the use of higher quality dilution water to reduce in-lake concentrations of nutrients and algae (NYSDEC, 1990). Flushing and dilution serve to reduce the concentration of nutrients, and the period of time that aquatic vegetation is exposed to these nutrients. The reduced nutrient concentrations should lead to reduced algal growth and increased water column transparency due to lower algal cell concentrations and, to a lesser extent, the addition of more transparent water to the lake volume. Increased transparency, in turn, should lead to the proliferation of more desirable rooted aquatic plants.

Flushing and dilution, as a management technique, is most effective when an external supply of dilution water is used. The dilution water does not necessarily have to be of significantly higher water quality than the receiving waterbody; rather, it simply has to be slightly lower in nutrient concentrations. Historically, the external sources of water used for this technique have been nearby rivers, water supplies, or other waterbodies. River and stream flows have been diverted from their natural watercourses into lakes; however, where domestic water supplies have been used the construction of a pumping and piping system has usually been required (NYSDEC, 1990).

Algal cell concentrations may be reduced by flushing alone (e.g., the discharge of lake water). Increasing the water inflow will decrease the retention time and increase the flushing rate. If the flushing rate is greater than the algae growth rate, algal cells may be washed out of the lake system. Control can be achieved by a flushing rate of approximately 10-15% per day (NYSDEC, 1990). If flushing alone can be used to decrease algae concentration through washout, then lower quality water can be used, provided that the increases in algal growth rate resulting from the higher nutrient concentrations are not sufficient to exceed the increased flushing rate. Unfortunately, given the lack of an unlimited external supply of dilution water in the Lake Tarpon watershed, flushing rates approaching 10-15% per day are not achievable. In addition, dilution water with nutrient concentrations higher than those in the lake may exacerbate existing water quality problems. If higher inflow nutrient concentrations result in algal growth rates that exceed the increased flushing rate, then algal concentration in the lake could actually increase. For these reasons, it is imperative that a relatively high-quality source of dilution water be used in Lake Tarpon.

The potential water quality benefits of the recommended enhanced lake level fluctuation schedule could be significantly improved if some volume of discharged lake water were replaced with nutrient-poor water recovered from the proposed ASR well. The recovered ASR water would likely have very dilute nutrient concentrations compared to natural inflows from stormwater runoff and surficial aquifer seepage. Data reported by Upchurch (1998) indicate that Floridan aquifer wells in the vicinity of Lake Tarpon have nutrient concentrations as low a 0.07 mg/l for TN and 0.01 mg/l for orthophosphate. If water recovered from the ASR well has comparably low nutrient concentrations, implementation of this lake management action could result in substantial water quality improvements. As stated above, it is recommended that Pinellas County undertake a detailed feasibility and preliminary design study to quantify the potential water quality benefits of this component.

Using mean annual TN and TP concentrations from 1995 Lake Tarpon water quality data, it is estimated that the discharge of 1.0 foot of water, from elevation 3.0 to 2.0 NGVD, would result in a nutrient mass discharge of 4.41 tons of TN and 0.25 tons of TP. Although lake retention time would be reduced under the recommended enhanced lake level fluctuation schedule, most of the discharged nutrient mass would be replaced by nutrients contained in precipitation, runoff and groundwater seepage from the surficial aquifer. Effective dilution of the in-lake nutrient mass would occur only if the cumulative nutrient concentrations in the inflow waters were even slightly lower than in-lake concentrations, but measurements of the nutrient concentrations of inflowing waters indicate that only precipitation is less concentrated than lake water with respect to TN and TP.

The use of water recovered from the proposed ASR well to refill the lake following lake level drawdowns has the potential to dilute in-lake concentrations of TN and TP, and to further decrease lake retention time by adding a source of inflow water that does not currently exist. Based on box model analyses, the replacement of the entire 3,500 acre-feet of lake water discharged during the spring lake level drawdown specified under Schedule A of the recommended enhanced lake level fluctuation schedule (e.g., drawdown from elevation 3.4 to 1.8) with recovered ASR water would result in a net reducion in water column TN concentrations of approximately 1.9 tons, which equals about 3.5% of the annual TN load to the lake. This analysis assumed that the recovered ASR water would have nutrient concentrations similar to those observed in Floridan aquifer wells in the Lake Tarpon basin.

It should also be noted that this analysis considered only the dilutional effects and did not include the potential effects of decreased lake residence time (e.g., increased flushing rate) on algal growth due to the complexity of modeling such interactions. Increasing the flushing rate alone is likely to result in significantly reduced algal concentrations in Lake Tarpon, therefore, the potential benefits of this management action have likely been underestimated in the above described analysis.

In addition to the water quality benefits, the availability of a dependable, high quality source of replacement water for lake water discharged during the implementation of the enhanced lake level fluctuation schedule provides a mechanism for restoring and maintaining target lake levels in the case of drought. Without a dependable source of replacement water, there is some risk that drought following a lake level drawdown will result in an extended period of low lake levels which may adversely impact recreational uses of the lake. This management action provides insurance against that risk and allows for greater control over lake levels during drought conditions.

Pinellas County Utilities and the Southwest Florida Water Management District.

The costs associated with this component could vary substantially depending on the infrastructure required to transfer the dilution water from its source back to the lake. If this component was to be implemented as an integrated system, it is assumed that the majority of the infrastructure needed to recover water stored in the ASR well and convey it back to the lake (e.g., pumps and pipes) could be constructed concurrently with the infrastructure associated with Structural Component 5. Therefore, the $2,000,000 cost estimated for Structural Component 5 is assumed to accomodate the construction cost of this component. Additional operation and maintenance costs are likely to be associated with this infrastructure, but these costs cannot be accurately estimated until a feasibility and preliminary design analysis has been completed.

MANAGEMENT COMPONENT 3

This management action involves the permanent dedication of one mechanical harvester and transport barge, and a full-time operating crew, to Lake Tarpon for the harvesting of both cattails and hydrilla on a continual basis. Pinellas County Departments of Environmental Management and Mosquito Control (PCMC) would be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the harvester units. Drying and processing of the harvested plant matter would take place on publicly-owned property at Anderson and Chesnut Parks. Elements of the action include the following.

The LTMC should develop and implement a Lake Tarpon Aquatic Weed Management Plan every two years. The plan should be cooperatively developed by the LTMC and technical representatives from PCDEM, SWFWMD, FDEP, FGFWFC, and PCMC. The purpose of this plan should be to clearly articulate the two year aquatic weed management goals and priority areas, each agency’s responsibilities in meeting the goals, and a two year schedule for aquatic plant management activities on the lake. This plan should be based on the technical information generated from the biannual submergent and emergent vegetative surveys recommended in the Task 3.2.11 Interim Task Report.

A target annual harvest goal for cattails of 10 acres/year should be adopted. Cattails should be harvested from priority areas identified in the biannual Lake Tarpon Aquatic Weed Management Plan.

A target annual harvest goal for hydrilla of 100 acres/year (inclusive of chemically treated senescent tissue) should be adopted. Hydrilla should be harvested opportunistically from areas of heavy concentration on a continual basis. The highest priority use of the harvester should be to remove senescent and decomposing hydrilla mats following effective chemical treatment of infested areas. In this manner, mechanical harvesting of an annual biomass target would compliment existing chemical treatment programs in controlling the coverage of nuisance aquatics while also resulting in the removal of a mass of stored nutrients thus reducing the potential for nutrient recycling.

FDEP and SWFWMD should continue to have the primary responsibility for the management of submergent and floating nuisance aquatics in Lake Tarpon under the existing Cooperative Aquatic Plant Control Program. A stable and adequate long-term funding source should be pursued so that interruption in maintenance activities is avoided in the future. Consideration should be given to the use of Pinellas-Anclote Basin Board funds for this purpose. Pinellas County should assume primary control of emergent nuisance aquatics.

A maximum chemical treatment area limitation of 100 acres per year should be adopted by the LTMC for hydrilla control. Chemical treatment of hydrilla should be performed on a more frequent and regular basis to maintain the coverage within the proposed target range and to avoid the need for major treatment events on large coverage areas.

Assisted revegetation of the cattail harvest areas with desirable endemic species should be performed at a target rate of approximately 5 acres/year. It is anticipated that the proposed increased range in the lake level fluctuation schedule (see Management Component 1 above) will stimulate the natural recruitment and proliferation of a more diverse assemblage of desirable emergent species. Assisted revegetation, either implemented through publicly funded habitat restoration projects or required as conditions of permits, should be limited to commonly available, desirable endemic species including:

- eelgrass (Vallisneria americana)

- bulrush (Scirpus spp.)

- maidencane (Panicum hemitomon)

- pickerelweed (Pontedaria cordata)

- arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia)

This management action not only addresses the control of nuisance aquatic vegetation, but it also addresses water quality problems related to eutrophication as well. Macrophytes are widely employed for nutrient removal in wastewater treatment facilities. Reddy and DeBusk (1987) present a summary of the application of aquatic plants to the treatment of wastewater. The assimilation of nutrients into macrophyte biomass is used to fix water column nutrients and provide a means for their eventual removal from the aquatic system. Physical removal (i.e., harvesting) of the plant biomass is required to prevent the return of the assimilated nutrients to the water column or sediments as the plants senesce and decompose. Until relatively recently, however, experience with the use of macrophytes to remove nutrients from eutrophic surface waters has been limited in both the extent and scope. The principles of nutrient assimilation are the same in treating natural surface waters as in treating wastewater streams, but the relative concentrations of nutrients in the water column are much lower. The same species that have been employed in wastewater treatment, especially water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), have been used in removing nutrients from surface waters (Reddy and DeBusk, 1987).

Interest in the use of aquatic plants for eutrophication management has increased sharply in the past few years, accompanied by an emphasis on the use of naturally occurring rooted macrophytes for removing both water column and sediment nutrients. There have been several reports published on the successful application of mechanical harvesting of rooted aquatic plants to the mitigation of eutrophication (Souza, et. al., 1988). This is an area of aquatic management that is expected to be developing rapidly over the next few years.

This management option should not be considered contradictory with existing FDEP and SWFWMD policy which essentially states that hydrilla and other exotic nuisance aquatic plants should be managed at their lowest feasible levels. Rather, mechanical harvesting of an annual biomass target would compliment existing chemical treatment programs in controlling the coverage of nuisance aquatics while also resulting in the removal of a mass of stored nutrients thus reducing the potential for nutrient recycling. This is especially true with regard to the harvesting of senescing plant tissue following chemical treatment, which should be the primary objective of the harvesting program.

This management action will directly reduce the coverage of both submergent and emergent nuisance aquatic vegetation. In addition, it will contribute to the removal of nutrients from the lake ecosystem. Using cattail tissue analysis data from Lake Tarpon (Dames & Moore, 1992), the harvesting of 10 acres per year of cattails would result in the removal of approximately 170 tons of dry weight organic matter, and 0.3 tons of TP, from the system. Based on available harvesting data from Lake Okeechobee (Gremillion et al., 1988), it is estimated that the controlled harvest of approximately 100 acres of hydrilla in Lake Tarpon could result in the annual removal of approximately 12 tons of TN and 1.5 tons of TP per year. If this mass of plant tissue were to senesce and decompose simultaneously, as would be case after a large scale chemical treatment, the harvesting of this material would result in a very substantial internal load reduction which is equal to approximately 20% and 9% of the total annual external TN and TP loads, respectively.

The primary responsibility for the implementation of the harvesting program will rest with Pinellas County. The agencies represented on the Lake Tarpon Management Committee, including the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the Southwest Florida Water Management District and the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission should cooperate in the development and coordinated implementation of the Lake Tarpon Aquatic Weed Management Plan.

Pinellas County currently owns the harvester and transport barge, and is operating it on Lake Seminole. Therefore, only operation and maintenance costs would be involved. The best estimate given the assumptions presented in the Task 3.2.10 Interim Report suggests an annual O&M cost estimate to conduct full-time harvesting for hydrilla in Lake Tarpon to be between $160,000 and $200,000. To provide comparability with other nutrient reduction strategies, harvesting rate criteria must be based on cost per pound of nutrients removed. Based on a preliminary assessment of approximately $34 to $38 per pound of TP removed from the system, as reported by Gremillion et al. (1988), this option has the potential to be very cost-effective when compared to other watershed management options such as stormwater retrofit.

MANAGEMENT COMPONENT 4

This management action involves the development and implementation of a comprehensive local program to improve compliance monitoring and enforcement of permitted surface water management (MSSW) facilities in the basin. This program would involve the following elements:

1. Perform an inventory of all existing permitted MSSW facilities in the basin, as permitted by SWFWMD since 1985. Identify target MSSW facilities for inspection and potential monitoring. Monitoring candidates should be targeted based on the size of the service area and whether significant changes in contributing land uses have occurred since the facility was permitted. Develop a priority list of MSSW facilities to be inspected.

2. Inspect and monitor the priority MSSW facilities identified in Step 1 above. The facility should be inspected for compliance with the permitted design. In addition, stormwater entering and discharging from the facility following a storm event should be sampled for TSS, TN and TP.

3. If the facility is determined to be out of compliance with permitted design or water quality standards, the owner should be informed of the problems and the need to correct them. Florida Statutes require an 80% pollutant (TSS) removal efficiency and the attainment of Class-III water quality standards at the end of the discharge pipe.

4. Working cooperatively with the owners, develop a site-specific improvement plan for each target MSSW facility. The improvement plans could include such modifications as changing the water level control elevations or planting a littoral shelf. In addition, facility improvement plans should incorporate habitat improvement elements wherever feasible.

5. Provide financial assistance and technical guidance to owners, as appropriate, to implement the facility improvement plans.

Although facilities constructed prior to 1985 are legally vested from meeting water quality standards, the second level of priority under this program would be these older stormwater ponds. An attempt should be made to get owner of pre-1985 facilities to voluntarily participate in the program through financial incentives and/or assistance.

There is a rebuttable presumption that State design criteria for Management and Storage of Surface Water (MSSW) facilities achieve an 80% pollutant load reduction. Furthermore, because Lake Tarpon is an Outstanding Florida Water, a 95% pollutant load reduction is technically required for those MSSW facilities discharging directly into the lake. Although the statutes do not specify which pollutants are targeted by the State design criteria, they are generally interpreted to address total suspended solids (TSS) and biological oxygen demand. Attainment of these performance standards is rarely verified or enforced due to the complexities in monitoring individual MSSW facilities; however, available data indicate that most MSSW facilities are substantially deficient if not properly maintained. State law allows for stringent enforcement of these performance standards where it can be demonstrated that State water quality standards are being violated. It can be reasonably argued that nonpoint source pollutant loads to Lake Tarpon are violating the State water quality standard for nutrients (e.g., must not cause an ecological imbalance). Assuming that MSSW facilities meeting the 80% TSS load reduction standard also provide adequate nutrient removal, strict enforcement of this minimal performance standard throughout the watershed is justified.

The relatively intense level of existing and approved future development (e.g., the Lansbrook DRI) in the Lake Tarpon drainage basin limit the potential effectiveness of implementing more stringent regulations for new development. Many existing stormwater facilities exist within the watershed but may not be functioning at their intended level of service. Therefore, measures to bring these facilities into compliance with current or basin-specific performance standards is likely to be a cost-effective management option.

There is currently a rebuttable presumption in the law that existing surface water management facilities that meet state design criteria also comply with state water quality standards. This rebuttable presumption can be, and has been, legally challenged where the need for strict compliance can be clearly demonstrated. Since Lake Tarpon is an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) the applicable water quality standard for nutrients is concentrations which "do cause degradation of water quality" downstream of the discharge. Therefore, under existing regulations, it is possible to develop and enforce a higher basin-specific performance standard for existing stormwater management systems.

The pollutant load reduction associated with improving the performance of existing stormwater treatment systems is potentially significant given the level of development in the study area, especially in the western and southern portions of the watershed. It is not possible to accurately quantify this potential load reduction, however, until an inventory of existing facilities in completed.

The Pinellas County Departments of Environmental Management and Engineering would have the primary responsibility for implementing this management action. Coordination with the Southwest Florida Water Management District would also be required for accessing and reviewing old permit files and monitoring reports.

It is estimated that the effective implementation of this program would require one environmental specialist and one engineer on a full-time basis. In addition to the administrative costs associated with these staffing needs, a means of providing financial assistance to facility owners through a matching funds approach would be needed. The estimated total annual cost of this option is $100,000.

This management action involves the development and implementation of a local comprehensive Lake Tarpon Habitat Improvement Program (LT/HIP). The program would consist of two elements: 1) a private property habitat improvement element whereby residents and businesses in the basin would be recruited to voluntarily participate in the improvement of the "urban" habitat on their property; and 2) a public property habitat improvement element whereby parcels would be purchased into public ownership and then restored using various public funding sources. These two elements are described separately below.

The private property habitat improvement element would involve the recruitment of residents and businesses in the basin to voluntarily participate in the improvement of the "urban" wildlife habitat on their property. The urban habitat improvement guidelines would be jointly developed by Pinellas County and the FGFWFC; however, Pinellas County would have the primary responsibility for implementation. The program would also incorporate and build upon the guidelines of the Florida Yards & Neighborhoods (FY&N) program promoted by the Florida Cooperative Extension Service (FCES). The steps in developing and implementing this element are summarized below.

Pinellas County with assistance from the FGFWFC and FCES would develop standard guidelines for improved "urban" habitat. The guidelines could include such factors as canopy cover, use of drought tolerant native plants, linear footage of ecotone habitat, reduced fertilizer and herbicide applications, etc.

The LT/HIP would be advertised on government access television and through a flyer mailed to all residents in the watershed with their annual TRIM property tax notices. Interested citizens would be encouraged to contact the County to inquire about participation in the program.

For each interested citizen, a County environmental specialist would inspect the property and meet with the owner to discuss site specific recommendations for habitat improvements consistent with the adopted LT/HIP guidelines and standards. If the citizen desired to participate further, the County environmental specialist would prepare a site-specific concept plan for the property and discuss it with the owner.

Upon implementation of the recommended concept plan, and approval by a County inspector, the property owner would receive a certificate of participation in the LT/HIP. The certificate of participation would entitle the property owner to a property tax credit.

As an incentive for participating in the program, the County should consider issuing property tax credits based on a millage rate of 1.00 ($1.00 for every $1,000 of taxable value). The property tax credit would apply for every year that the property met the program guidelines. In this manner, the owner would be partially compensated on an annual basis for the initial costs of the landscape modification.

The primary commercial target for LT/HIP would be golf courses which offer great potential for habitat improvement and the provision of ecotonal habitat.

A goal of ten (10) new properties participating in the program per year has been established.

The recommended LT/HIP is different from the FY&N program administered by the FCES in that it would integrate habitat improvement strategies with water conservation and pollutant load reduction strategies. The FGFWFC has published a document entitled Planting a Refuge for Wildlife: How to Create a Backyard Habitat for Florida’s Birds and Beasts. This document presents excellent concepts for improving urban wildlife habitat on an individual parcel basis. Combined with Florida Yard-Stick and the FY&N Handbook, both published by the FCES, the general guidelines for the LT/HIP could be readily developed. In addition, the LT/HIP, as proposed, is also different in that it would offer monetary incentives for participation.

The public property habitat improvement element would involve the public fee simple purchase, or acquisition of less than fee simple control (e.g., conservation easements), of ecologically viable but distressed parcels within the basin. Public funds would be used to develop site-specific restoration and/or maintenance plans for priority parcels. In addition, existing publicly-owned lands which are ecologically distressed would also be improved under this element. The most prominent activity implemented under this element would entail assisted revegetation of lake shoreline areas following cattail harvesting, as recommended in Management Component 2 above. Available grant funds and cooperative agency programs (e.g., SWFWMD SWIM Program) should be utilized to the greatest extent possible.

Based upon the existing distribution and quality of natural habitats in the basin, the following specific habitat management actions and improvements are recommended for the identified key habitat types:

Reduce or eliminate herbicide applications.

Plant littoral shelves on ponds and lakes with desirable native vegetation.

Plant herbaceous and/or shrub layer in maintained areas.

Implement controlled burns where feasible.

Reduce herbicide applications.

Plant aquatics; recommend arrowhead (Sagittaria lancifolia).

Plant shrubs and trees in transitional zones and along berms; recommend wax myrtle (Myrica cerifa) and bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) with other hardwood species.

Add aerators or fountains to oxygenate water column and reduce algae growth.

Remove exotics and nuisance species; especially brazilian pepper and primrose willow.

Plant trees; recommend bald cypress with other associated hardwoods.

Restore natural hydrology.

Prevent trash dumping.

Remove exotics and nuisance species; i.e., brazilian pepper, chinaberry, cherry, melaleuca, mimosa and castor bean

Remove/eliminate entire habitat.

Restore by planting native trees; i.e., slash/longleaf pine - turkey oaks on drier soils with laurel, live and water oaks and wax myrtle on moister soils.

Prevent trash dumping; many of these habitats occur within industrial areas where hazardous materials and dumping may be a problem.

Remove/eliminate entire habitat.

Restore by planting native trees

On wetter sites, near Lake Tarpon, melaleuca should be replaced with bald cypress and other associated hardwoods.

Remove exotics at edge and within system. Most of the disturbed systems contain exotics and nuisance species at edges; i.e., brazilian pepper, elderberry, primrose willow and carolina willow.

Plant wax myrtle or cypress.

Restore natural hydrology. Most of the dehydrated systems occur where retention ponds are connected or located adjacent to the cypress system. Also, small isolated cypress domes located within sandhill communities are typically dehydrated (i.e., within Lansbrook Section 21, northwest and southwest 1/4).

Six special management areas (SMAs) have been identified within the Lake Tarpon basin. Based on their size, location, condition, and ownership, these areas appear to have the potential - subject to specific study - to provide wildlife enhancement to the basin. They are as follows:

SMA #1 Undeveloped rural upland corridor contiguous with borrow site linking open space to the north and east to major wetlands along Lake Tarpon.

SMA #2 Pinellas County upland utility site buffered by wetlands.

SMA #3 East Lake High School property-open range land contiguous to utility site and major wetlands.

SMA #4 Upland xerophytic habitats within bald eagle primary zone adjacent to wetlands east and west of site.

SMA #5 Disturbed rangeland surrounded by golf course.

SMA #6 Fish Hatchery property disturbed and modified wetlands.

The location and extent of these Special Management Areas are shown in Figure 2-11 above. Further evaluation of these sites should be performed under this program to determine the potential for their public acquisition and/or management. As of the publication date of this Plan SMAs #1 through #5 were proposed for development in the near future. It should further be noted that, while wetlands are afforded legal protection at the federal and state level, native upland habitats are not similarly protected. Therefore, priority should be given to public acquisition of remaining upland habitats wherever appropriate.

Residential yards and neighborhoods are among the first lines of defense against pollution in stormwater runoff entering surface waterbodies. Yet many homeowners fail to understand the potential impact of excess fertilizer, pesticides and water used in landscape maintenance on the health of lakes, streams and estuaries. The impact of residential runoff on Lake Tarpon water quality may be immediate in waterfront neighborhoods, or gradual, through the flow of stormwater drains, ditches, and streams. It has been estimated that residential land uses in the Tampa Bay watershed contribute about 10 percent of the bay’s total nitrogen loadings, as well as other pollutants such as pesticides and herbicides (TBNEP, 1997). It is likely that the residential land uses contribute a comparable proportion of the TN load to Lake Tarpon. An incentive-based voluntary program is needed to engender public participation in addressing these problems. In addition to residential and urban development impacts on water quality, the quantity and quality of native habitats in the basin have been significantly degraded from natural conditions. Although little can be done to recover the natural habitats lost to urbanization, much can be done to restore and maintain the quality and function of the remaining habitat remnants in the basin, both on public and private property.

The expected benefits of this management action include both water quality and habitat improvement. The ultimate effectiveness of the LT/HIP can be measured in at least four ways: 1) an increase in public education regarding the relationship of watershed activities to lake environmental quality; 2) a reduction in pollutant loading to the lake as a result of increased public awareness; 3) a reduction in the amount of potable water used for ornamental landscape irrigation; and 4) an increase in habitat diversity and the coverage of native endemic plants. It is obvious, however, that the long-term effectiveness of the program will be directly proportional to the number of residents and businesses actively participating in it.

Pinellas County, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and the Florida Cooperative Extension Service.

It is estimated that the recommended private property habitat improvement element of the program could be administered by one full-time environmental scientist. The cost of the public property habitat improvement element should best be determined on a project-specific basis. Using data available in the literature, the typical cost of planting and maintaining one acre of freshwater herbaceous wetland is approximately $5,000. Forested wetland restoration/creation is typically three to five times this amount. The estimated total annual cost for this option is $50,000.

4.4 LEGAL COMPONENTS

This section provides a description of the Legal Components of the Lake Tarpon Drainage Basin Management Plan. Legal components are those management alternatives that involve the adoption of new laws, rules and regulations, or the amendment of existing laws, rules or regulations.

For each of the described legal components of the Plan, the following information is provided:

• a description of the recommended management action;

• a discussion of the rationale and justification for the action;

• a summary of the expected benefits of the action;

• identification of the responsible entities; and

• the estimated cost of the action.

This management action involves the amendment of Florida Statutes to redefine the limits of the Lake Tarpon Outstanding Florida Waters to specifically include "the lake and all tributaries thereto." This amendment of the Florida Statutes would require legislative action by local representatives, and would mandate SWFWMD to require OFW treatment standards (95% pollutant load reduction) for all new development in the watershed, regardless of where the discharge of the MSSW facility is located. Currently, the OFW treatment standard in only required for facilities which discharge directly into the surface waters of the lake.

The apparent inappropriate legal interpretation of ambiguous laws has resulted in reduced regulatory effectiveness in the Lake Tarpon basin. The most important example of this problem involves the stormwater treatment level-of-service. Only those MSSW facilities that discharge directly into lake waters have historically been required to provide for the additional 50% treatment volume, and attain the presumed 95% OFW pollutant removal efficiency. If a facility discharges into a nearby ditch which flows directly to the lake, the OFW permitting requirements currently do not apply under SWFWMD’s interpretation, even though the pollutant load delivered to the lake would likely be the same as if it discharged directly to the lake. Furthermore, there has been some question among SWFWMD regulators in the past whether or not Lake Tarpon was in fact an OFW at all. As a result of these ambiguities, it is probable that not a single permitted MSSW facility within the Lake Tarpon basin meets the OFW treatment standard, the appropriate and intended standard since lesser treated stormwater discharges could contribute to the degradation of water quality in the Lake Tarpon OFW.

The expected benefits of this management action would be to raise the state mandated stormwater treatment standard for all new development in the watershed by an additional 50% (95% pollutant load reduction from all permitted MSSW facilities). In addition, this action would require stormwater discharges to meet a "no degradation of receiving waters" standard in addition to just meeting state water quality standards at the end of the pipe.

Local representatives in the Florida Legislature.

The only cost directly associated with this action would be hourly labor for existing Pinellas County legal staff, and legislative staff.

LEGAL COMPONENT 2

This management action would involve the adoption of a resolution by the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners and the City of Tarpon Springs Board of Commissioners designating the Lake Tarpon basin as a "Nutrient Sensitive Watershed." The resolution would reference the Lake Tarpon Drainage Basin Management Plan as the controlling planning document, and would identify the need for, and public commitment to, developing specific voluntary guidelines for the following:

• Regular street sweeping within the basin.

• Proper disposal of lawn cuttings and brush clippings to prevent the dumping of organic debris into the lake.

• Proper removal of pet droppings along public and private shoreline areas of the lake to prevent pet waste runoff into the lake.

• Fertilizer application rates for both residential and commercial land uses (e.g., number of pounds per acre per month) to prevent overapplication and excessive runoff and seepage to the lake.

• Reclaimed wastewater effluent application rates for both residential and commercial land uses (e.g., limited number of inches per acre per day) to prevent overapplication and excessive runoff and seepage to the lake.

• Optional control measures for reclaimed wastewater effluent application within the basin (e.g., automatic rain shut-off valves) to prevent runoff during storm events.

Long-term monitoring data indicate that the trophic state of Lake Tarpon has been increasing since late 1992, and that eutrophication now threatens to degrade the historically excellent sport fishery. Since the external sources of nutrients to the lake are generally diffuse in nature (e.g., no point sources), the problem of reducing external nutrient loads to the lake must be attacked on many fronts. The predominantly residential and commercial land uses within the basin probably contribute a substantial portion of the total nutrient load to the lake through sheetflow runoff, the dumping of lawn cuttings into the lake, pet waste runoff, and seepage of excessive applications of lawn fertilizers and reclaimed irrigation water. This may be expecially true for golf courses and heavily landscaped residential areas within the basin. Formal legal recognition of the nutrient sensitivity of the Lake Tarpon watershed, as well as measures to reduce these diffuse loads, are needed as part of the overall management strategy.

The expected benefits from this management action include the reduction of diffuse nutrient loads from residential and commercial land uses within the basin. While the Plan includes recommendations for capital projects that address the primary manageable sources of external nutrient loads (e.g., direct runoff and septic tank seepage), this management action, combined with improved public education, is aimed at addressing the more subtle nutrient loads associated with typical urban landscape management practices.

Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners and the City of Tarpon Springs Board of Commissioners.

The only cost directly associated with this action would be hourly labor for existing Pinellas County planning and legal staff.

LEGAL COMPONENT 3

This management action involves the cooperative development and adoption of a consistent ordinance, between Pinellas County and the City of Tarpon Springs, dictating the provisions for stormwater rehabilitation through redevelopment within the Lake Tarpon watershed. The provisions of the ordinance should address the retrofitting pre-1985 stormwater treatment and/or flood attenuation systems with systems that partially or wholly meet current standards for Outstanding Florida Waters. This ordinance should clearly recognize the fact that no net gain in water quality within the watershed can be achieved if redevelopment projects do not make some provisions for stormwater management and treatment. This is especially true of commercial projects that were originally developed prior to the State’s adoption of Chapter 17-25 F.A.C. and have no stormwater treatment system at all in the original design.

It is recommended, due to the nutrient sensitivity of the Lake Tarpon watershed, that the ordinance establish a 50% lower threshold than the existing countywide regulation for the requirement of stormwater retrofit. This recommendation, therefore, would require that all redevelopment which adds or exceeds a cumulative total of 1,500 square feet of additional impervious development or 10% of the lot or parcel to meet current SWFWMD surface water quality discharge standards for the entire site. If a site is completely razed, current surface water management standard requirements would apply for the entire site.

As an option, constrained redevelopment tracts may not be required to meet the current stormwater treatment standard, but rather a flexible process that would allow for incentives to achieve a net environmental or ecosystem benefit should be evaluated. Any measure of stormwater treatment on redevelopment sites within the watershed would provide a net increase in the water quality of stormwater runoff reaching the lake, therefore, redevelopment regulations should not be so stringent so as to discourage the activity. A payment in lieu of treatment provision should also be considered as a means of providing relief on constrained sites. If a payment in lieu of treatment provision is included, all funds generated from such a fee should be applied to the construction and operation/maintenance of regional stormwater treatment facilities elsewhere within the basin.

One of the most notable examples of regulatory inconsistency that has resulted in reduced regulatory effectiveness in the Lake Tarpon basin involves the potential reduction of pollutant loadings from stormwater runoff through watershed redevelopment. Under current conditions, SWFWMD, Pinellas County, and the City of Tarpon Springs all deal with stormwater requirements on redeveloped parcels differently. These differences are summarized below.

SWFWMD: On parcels developed prior to 1985 which are undergoing redevelopment, stormwater treatment is required only for the additional new impervious surface area resulting from redevelopment. Such treatment shall be consistent with current SWFWMD surface water quality discharge standards.

Pinellas County: All redevelopment which adds or exceeds a cumulative total of 3,000 square feet of additional impervious development or 25% of the lot or parcel shall meet current SWFWMD surface water quality discharge standards for the entire site. If a site is completely razed, current surface water management standard requirements shall apply for the entire site.

City of Tarpon Springs: If the additional development, redevelopment, or alteration of a site involves in excess of 30 percent of the gross floor area, more than one half acre, regardless of the gross floor area percentage, or involves a subdivision of an existing development site to increase the number of development parcels, the entire pre-existing site shall be made to conform to current SWFWMD surface water quality discharge standards.

These differences have likely resulted in a great deal of variability with regard to the approach and ultimate effectiveness of stormwater rehabilitation on redeveloped parcels in the watershed. Given the level of old development in the basin, rehabilitation through redevelopment could be critical to the long term reduction of pollutant loadings to the lake, or at least to holding the line on existing loadings. Therefore, a more consistent and effective approach is needed.

The expected benefits from this management action entail reduced nonpoint source pollutant loadings to Lake Tarpon as the watershed undergoes redevelopment.

Pinellas County and the City of Tarpon Springs

No addition staffing costs are anticipated through the implementation of this action. Existing site plan review and code enforcement staff should be sufficient. Improved efficiency and coordination between Pinellas County and the City of Tarpon Springs could reduce staffing needs.

4.5 POLICY COMPONENTS

This section provides a description of the Policy Components of the Lake Tarpon Drainage Basin Management Plan. Policy components are those management alternatives that involve the adoption of new policies and guidelines, or the amendment of existing policies and guidelines contained in state and local policy guidance documents.

For each of the described policy components of the Plan, the following information is provided:

• a description of the recommended management action;

• a discussion of the rationale and justification for the action;

• a summary of the expected benefits of the action;

• identification of the responsible entities; and

• the estimated cost of the action.

POLICY COMPONENT 1

This management action involves the establishment of a Lake Tarpon Watershed Management Area (WMA), via amendments to the Pinellas County and City of Tarpon Springs Comprehensive Plans. The WMA would formally establish a special planning and management district for the Lake Tarpon drainage basin.

The purpose of the WMA designation would be to focus the adopted goals of the Lake Tarpon Management Committee within a defined bi-jurisdictional geographic area, and to better coordinate and consolidate the decision making processes for regulatory and management activities conducted by Pinellas County and the City of Tarpon Springs within the Lake Tarpon watershed. The WMA in concept would be a "planning" district, rather than a taxing district, that would cover the entire Lake Tarpon drainage basin and place specific policy provisions in place for certain activities and land uses in both the unincorporated and incorporated areas of the basin.

As part of this action, Pinellas County and the City of Tarpon Springs should also adopt specific goals, objectives and policies for the Lake Tarpon Watershed Management Area. At a minimum, the goals adopted by the Lake Tarpon Management Committee should be embodied in the Comprehensive Plans of the County and the City. In addition, existing goals, objectives and policies as well as basin-specific level-of-service targets (e.g., sanitary sewer and stormwater treatment commitments) found elsewhere in the Pinellas County and City of Tarpon Springs Comprehensive Plans should be consolidated under the Lake Tarpon Watershed Management Area sections. Examples of such policies include:

• The requirement of OFW-level of stormwater treatment for all new development in the Lake Tarpon WMA.

• The consistent application of local stormwater treatment requirements for redevelopment within the Lake Tarpon WMA that exceeds the requirements of SWFWMD.

• The consistent application of land development codes and regulations, as well as voluntary guidelines for management activities such as fertilizer and wastewater reuse application rates, within Lake Tarpon WMA.

Numerous policy inconsistencies exist between the Pinellas County and City of Tarpon Springs Comprehensive Plans regarding issues that affect the Lake Tarpon Drainage Basin Management Plan. The designation of the Lake Tarpon Watershed Management Area, and the adoption of a consistent set of policy guidelines and level-of-service targets between both local government Comprehensive Plans will facilitate a common approach to resource management of the Lake Tarpon watershed.

The primary expected benefit of this management action is improved intergovernmental coordination between Pinellas County and City of Tarpon Springs with regard to watershed management issues in the basin.

Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners and the City of Tarpon Springs Board of Commissioners.

The only cost directly associated with this action would be hourly labor for existing Pinellas County and City of Tarpon Springs legal and planning staff time.

4.6 COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT COMPONENTS

This section provides a description of the Compliance and Enforcement Components of the Lake Tarpon Drainage Basin Management Plan. Compliance and Enforcement components are those management alternatives that involve measures to improve compliance with all enacted laws, rules and regulations applicable to the Plan. Improved compliance is usually achieved through more effective enforcement activities, however, other types of incentives (e.g., property tax credits) and disincentives should be explored.

For each of the described compliance and enforcement components of the Plan, the following information is provided:

• a description of the recommended management action;

• a discussion of the rationale and justification for the action;

• a summary of the expected benefits of the action;

• identification of the responsible entities; and

• the estimated cost of the action.

COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT COMPONENT 1

This management option involves the commitment to, and assignment of, a full-time Pinellas County Sheriff’s Department Marine Unit Deputy to enforce restricted speed zones in Lake Tarpon (e.g., the posted 200' no wake zone extending around the perimeter of the lake). Marine Unit Sheriff’s presence on Lake Tarpon should reduce user conflicts, and allow for more enjoyable passive recreational uses of the lake through improved enforcement of the existing noise ordinance (wildlife viewing, canoeing etc.). With crossover training by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, increased Sheriff's Marine Unit presence will also further other goals related to natural resource protection. A possible alternative would be to have this Sheriff split the full-time assignment between Lake Tarpon and Lake Seminole.

In addition to the assignment of the full-time Sheriff, this action also involves improved and coordinated record keeping procedures of complaints, violations and accidents on the lake. It is recommended that the Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management, the Pinellas County Sheriff's Department and the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission record and report quarterly summaries of complaints, violations, accidents, and other relevant incidents occurring on Lake Tarpon and in the watershed.

The most common complaint registered in surveys of recreational users of the lake involved power boaters, water skiers, and personal watercraft users violating the posted no wake zones on the lake. The lack of enforcement of these restricted speed zones was consistently cited as the problem. There is a lack of awareness of the adopted LTMC goals within the Pinellas County Sheriff's Department, at both the staff implementation and policy level. It is evident that this lack of policy coordination has negatively impacted budgetary commitment and enforcement orientation. Furthermore, it was determined during the preparation of the Plan, that no geographically organized records of complaints, violations, accidents, and other relevant incidents are maintained by the Sheriff’s Department. Therefore, it is not possible to accurately assess the frequency of such problems under the current record keeping approach.

The expected benefits include improved enforcement of restricted speed zones, aesthetic standards (e.g., the noise ordinance) and fish and wildlife rules and regulations. In addition, reduced user conflicts should result.

Pinellas County Sheriff’s Department with crossover training assistance from the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission.

This management action involves the assignment of one full-time Marine Unit Sheriff to Lake Tarpon, with a possible splitting of time on Lake Seminole. The costs of this action include: salary; equipment, including a truck and trailer, and a boat; and equipment maintenance. Annual recurrent costs are estimated at $60,000.

INSTALL ADDITIONAL BUOY MARKERS FOR, AND POST THE ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES WITHIN, THE 200' PERIMETER RESTRICTED SPEED ZONE

This management option involves the installation of a greater number of, and more visible, buoy markers for the 200' restricted speed zone around the perimeter of the lake. In addition, this option includes improved means of communicating to the public the limits, purpose, and intended benefits (e.g., erosion control, noise abatement, segregation of incompatible recreational uses) of the restricted speed zone, as well as allowable activities and speeds within it.

It is recommended that the existing buoy markers be removed and new, more visible marker buoys be installed approximately every 800 feet along the perimeter, 200' off the true shoreline of the lake. In addition, it is recommended that improved signage and instructional information be located at all public boat ramp kiosks clarifying the appropriate speeds allowed within restricted speed zone (e.g., clear definitions of no wake, idle speed, slow speed, etc.).

As discussed under Compliance and Enforcement Component 1 above, the most common complaint registered in surveys of recreational users of the lake involved power boaters, water skiers, and personal watercraft users violating the posted no wake zones in the lake. The lack of enforcement of these restricted speed zones was consistently cited as the problem. In addition, there was a lack of awareness of the limits, purpose and allowable speeds within the restricted speed zone.

Compliance with existing ordinances would be improved through enhanced marking of the restricted speed zone as well as improved posting of the regulations at key access points for boaters. In addition, improved public safety and enjoyment as well as reduced user conflicts should result.

Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management.

The estimated non-recurring cost for purchasing and installing additional new marker buoys, as well as improved signage and instructional information is $15,000.

4.7 SOCIAL AND RECREATIONAL COMPONENTS

This section provides a description of the Social and Recreational Components of the Lake Tarpon Drainage Basin Management Plan. Social and recreational components are those management alternatives that involve strategies and non-enforcement related measures to reduce recreational user conflicts and improve the recreational and aesthetic enjoyment of the lake.

For each of the described social and recreational components of the Plan, the following information is provided:

• a description of the recommended management action;

• a discussion of the rationale and justification for the action;

• a summary of the expected benefits of the action;

• identification of the responsible entities; and

• the estimated cost of the action.

SOCIAL AND RECREATIONAL COMPONENT 1

This management action involves the investigation of establishing a spatially segmented management scheme for the various recreational uses of the lake as a means of reducing user conflicts. A spatially segmented management scheme would restrict certain uses to specific portions of the lake during times of greatest use intensity (e.g., weekends and holidays). Two alternative segmented management schemes that have been recommended for consideration are shown in Figures 4-5 and 4-6; however, numerous other schemes have been proposed.

Given the potential complexities of informing the public of, and enforcing, a spatially segmented management scheme, it is clearly more practical to implement a one-year trial period during which only the increased enforcement of the currently marked "no wake" zone during weekends would be tested (see Compliance and Enforcement Component 1 above). Improved posting of rules of courtesy should also be attempted. At the end of one year a user survey should be conducted to determine the results. If the results of this survey are unsatisfactory, three alternatives for a segmented management plan should be explored. These alternatives include:

1. Implement a one-year trial period for a segmented lake management scheme on weekends and holidays only.

2. Implement a one-year trial period for a segmented lake management scheme for both weekends/holidays and weekdays.

3. Implement a one-year trial period for one user group only and add additional user group areas each subsequent year to ensure a gradual transition of a segmented management scheme.

The one-year trial period is recommended based on the fact that the water ski club was permitted a one-year trial period for establishing a course in the Lake Tarpon Outfall Canal by SWFWMD. Establishing a segmented lake management scheme on weekends and holidays is most appropriate due to the increased usage and potential safety hazards during these periods of highest activity. Alternative 3 would provide a gradual transition to a segmented lake management scheme and would also provide a means to monitor the success of the designated areas for each user group. The next step would be to conduct a series of public meetings to present the results of previous user group surveys, and to solicit public comments on the two (2) potential segmented management schemes proposed herein. Further coordination with user groups, homeowners and others is recommended prior to the adoption of any segmented management scheme.

The results of previous recreational user surveys have indicated that many users would prefer to have portions of the lake set aside for particular recreational uses, especially during weekends or periods of intense use. Population growth in the East Lake area and in neighboring Hillsborough and Pasco Counties will continue to add recreational use pressure on Lake Tarpon. Although improved enforcement measures of the existing no wake zones posted around the lake should be attempted first, a spatially segmented management scheme may be required in the future to allay user conflicts and protect public safety. It is, therefore, prudent to begin evaluating these options now.

Reduced recreational user conflicts; and improved public safety and enjoyment of the lake.

Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management

The only costs associated with this action would be administrative costs needed for conducting public meetings and workshops. The total estimated cost for this option is $5,000.

Figure 4-5. Segmented scheme: Option 1.

Figure 4-6. Segmented scheme: Option 2.

SOCIAL AND RECREATIONAL COMPONENT 2

This management action involves the establishment of a public pedestrian trail along the west side of the Lake Tarpon Outfall Canal to allow for bank fishing in the canal. The west side of the Lake Tarpon Outfall Canal is owned by Pinellas County, and SWFWMD retains a maintenance easement along the bank. It is anticipated that a mulch trail with minimal amenities (e.g., picnic tables, covered gazebos), as well as a small grassed vehicular parking area, would be required.

The Lake Tarpon Outfall Canal is a very popular area to fish in the lake primarily due to the deep water and bank structure provided there. Largemouth bass in particular seek the deeper cooler water during the summer months. Currently, public fishing access to the canal is only available via boat, and boating in the canal is generally discouraged by SWFWMD due to the erosional impacts on the canal banks. In addition, bank fishing opportunities around Lake Tarpon are extremely limited. A pedestrian trail along the publicly-owned west bank of the canal would make the canal available to a greater number of recreational users.

Increased recreational opportunities for sport fishermen; and reduced bank erosion along the Lake Tarpon Outfall Canal.

Pinellas County and the Southwest Florida Water Management District.

No formal cost data have been obtained for this project, however, it is estimated that design and construction costs would not exceed $50,000. Annual maintenance costs would be minimal.

This management action involves the provision of 24-hour access to the public boat ramps at Anderson Park. The entrance to the park would be modified such that a locked gate could be installed just beyond the boat ramp access, preventing access to the Park lands but allowing unimpeded vehicular access to the boat ramps at all times. Additional lighting would also be required.

All Pinellas County parks, including both Chesnut Park and Anderson Park on Lake Tarpon, open at 6:30 a.m. and close at dusk. Through public meetings and boat ramp user surveys, however, there have been numerous requests by fisherman to either extend the hours at the public boat ramps in the parks, or provide a public night access ramp to Lake Tarpon. The boat ramp at Anderson Park would be an excellent area to provide either extended hours or 24-hour access. The entrance to the park could be easily modified such that a locked gate could be installed just beyond the boat ramp access. This would allow unimpeded vehicular access to the boat ramps at all times. The Anderson Park boat ramps are also preferred for this purpose because the access to the lake through Salmons Bay does not directly abut any residential areas, and the night access should not result in public disturbances of any kind.

Increased recreational opportunities for sport fishermen.

Pinellas County Parks Department.

No formal cost data have been obtained for this project, however, it is estimated that construction costs associated with modifying the entrance to Anderson Park would not exceed $5,000. Annual maintenance costs would be minimal.

4.8 PUBLIC EDUCATION COMPONENTS

This section provides a description of the Public Education Components of the Lake Tarpon Drainage Basin Management Plan. The public education components are those management alternatives that involve strategies to improve public knowledge of lake and watershed management issues, problems and solutions; and to increase public interest and involvement in the lake management process and implementation of the Plan.

For each of the described public education components of the Plan, the following information is provided:

• a description of the recommended management action;

• a discussion of the rationale and justification for the action;

• a summary of the expected benefits of the action;

• identification of the responsible entities; and

• the estimated cost of the action.

PUBLIC EDUCATION COMPONENT 1

This management action involves the development and implementation of a comprehensive public involvement program for the Lake Tarpon watershed. The program would include a number of elements including the following:

• Preparation of a semi-annual newsletter (e.g., twice per year) to be mailed to residents and businesses in the basin informing the public of the various components of the Plan as well as findings, trends, and upcoming activities.

• Production and airing of a government access television presentation on Lake Tarpon, with updates to the program to be made on an annual basis. A video tape of this presentation should be made available to citizens upon request.

• Update and improve the "Help Save Lake Tarpon" brochure. The improved brochure should be distributed to all residents and businesses in the watershed.

• Establish a speakers bureau for homeowners association meetings and other public functions. Members of the LTMC should be recruited for this purpose.

• Establish an information clearinghouse for technical reports, monitoring data, and other information related to Lake Tarpon.

• Re-enact Lake Tarpon Day as an annual function. Sponsorship for this event should be actively solicited from local businesses.

Due to the cost involved in large scale mailouts, it is recommended that mailings be focused only to residents and businesses within the Lake Tarpon basin, exclusive of the South Creek and Brooker Creek basins. As an alternative, a subset mailing list could be developed for only those residents and businesses located within 1,000 feet of the lake.

Public apathy regarding lake and watershed management is a common pattern until obvious problems such as nuisance algae blooms and aquatic weed infestations become apparent. The public response to such problems is typically quite negative and unproductive. Improved public understanding of the causes of lake management problems, and the role that individuals can play in managing and improving the quality of the lake and watershed will go a long way to furthering the goals of the Plan. In addition, increased public involvement as stakeholders in the ownership and implementation of the Plan should reduce unproductive public criticism of governmental agencies, and improve the overall lake and watershed management effort.

Improved public understanding of lake management problems and solutions; increased pubic involvement and participation in the Plan implementation process.

Pinellas County Public Information Department and Department of Environmental Management.

Cost estimates for the various elements of the public involvement program need to be developed. It is anticipated that total annual costs, exclusive of staff time, would not exceed $30,000.

PUBLIC EDUCATION COMPONENT 2

This management action involves the recruitment of interested local citizens to participate in the collection of monitoring data from Lake Tarpon and the watershed. Local citizen involvement in monitoring activities would be implemented under a coordinated LakeWatch program.

A variety of data needs are identified in Section 5.0 of the Plan below, many of which are currently not being address by Pinellas County or other agencies. Interested citizens should be recruited to assist in the collection of such data wherever feasible. Local citizen LakeWatch programs have been very successful in central Florida, where numerous lake associations are actively involved in monitoring and data collection on their lakes. This type of public "ownership" in the resource can greatly improve public interest and involvement.

Improved public interest and involvement in the lake and watershed management process; the collection of additional monitoring data.

The Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management working with the central Florida LakeWatch organization.

Only staff administrative costs would be involved with this management action. The estimated total annual cost is $2,000.

4.9 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COMPONENTS

Operation and maintenance (O&M) components typically support activities associated with facilities management, and therefore are not considered to be stand-alone management actions. O&M activities are primarily associated with the structural components of the Plan; and management components that involve equipment and facilities such as an aquatic weed harvester and Lake Tarpon Outfall Canal control structure.

The Task 3.2.10 Interim Report presents a discussion of various O&M elements associated with the proposed management actions. Cost estimates for seven key recommended structural and management components of the Plan were prepared through consultation with County staff and other readily available information sources. Annual O&M costs for these components are summarized in Table 4-4 below.

Table 4-4. Summary of estimated annual operation and maintenance costs rounded to the nearest $1,000.

In summary, the recommended Lake Tarpon Drainage Basin Management Plan contains a total of 22 Plan components which address the seven identified lake management issues. The components of the Plan are listed below.

Structural Component 1 - Convert All On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems (Septic Tanks) in the Lake Tarpon Basin to Central Sewer Systems.

Structural Component 2 - Construct and Maintain Enhanced Stormwater Treatment Facilities in the Priority MHUs and Individual Sub-basins.

Structural Component 3 - Construct Wildlife Crossing Structures at Strategic Locations Within the Lake Tarpon Basin.

Structural Component 4 - Install Stage and Flow Measurement Devices at the Lake Tarpon Outfall Canal Control Structure.

Structural Component 5 - Construct Pump Stations and Distribution Lines for the Storage and Beneficial Reuse of Lake Discharge Water.

Management Component 1 - Implement an Enhanced Lake Level Fluctuation Schedule.

Management Component 2 - Increase Lake Flushing and Dilution.

Management Component 3 - Implement a Mechanical Harvesting Program for Nuisance Aquatic Vegetation.

Management Component 4 - Inventory Permitted MSSW Facilities in the Lake Tarpon Basin and Develop Facility Improvement Plans.

Management Component 5 - Develop and Implement a Comprehensive Lake Tarpon Habitat Improvement Program (LT/HIP).

 

 

Legal Component 1 - Amend the Florida Statutes to Specifically Define the Limits of the Lake Tarpon Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) to Include "All Tributaries Thereto."

Legal Component 2 - Adopt a Resolution Designating the Lake Tarpon Basin as a "Nutrient Sensitive Watershed."

Legal Component 3 - Strengthen and Standardize Local Ordinances for Regulating Stormwater Treatment for Redevelopment in the Lake Tarpon Basin.

Policy Component 1 - Establish a Lake Tarpon Watershed Management Area (WMA) via Amendments to the Pinellas County and City of Tarpon Springs Comprehensive Plans.

Compliance and Enforcement Component 1 - Assign a Full-time Pinellas County Marine Unit Sheriff to Enforce Restricted Speed Zones on Lake Tarpon.

Compliance and Enforcement Component 2 - Install Additional Buoy Markers For, and Post the Allowable Activities Within, the 200' Perimeter Restricted Speed Zone.

Social and Recreational Component 1 - Investigate the Establishment of a Spatially Segmented Management Scheme for Recreational Uses of Lake Tarpon as a Means of Reducing User Conflicts.

Social and Recreational Component 2 - Establish a Public Pedestrian Fishing Trail along the West Side of the Lake Tarpon Outfall Canal.

Social and Recreational Component 3 - Provide for Night Access to Public Boat Ramps at Anderson Park.

Public Education Component 1 - Develop and Implement a Comprehensive Public Involvement Program for the Lake Tarpon Watershed.

Public Education Component 2 - Develop and Implement a Local Citizens LakeWatch Program on Lake Tarpon.

Operation and Maintenance Component 1 - Perform Ongoing Operation and Maintenance Activities for Recommended Structural and Management Components of the Plan.