THE CONTINUING EVOLUTION OF STORMWATER AND WATERSHED MANAGEMENT IN FLORIDA

1
THE CONTINUING EVOLUTION OF STORMWATER AND
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT IN FLORIDA

• Eric H. Livingston
• Bureau of Watershed Management
• Florida Dept. of Env. Protection
• Tallahassee, Florida
• 850/245-8430
• eric.livingston_at_dep.state.fl.us
• http//www.dep.state.fl.us/water/watershed

2
THE PROBLEM
3
FLORIDAS WATERS ARE DIVERSE AND VALUABLE
4
FLORIDAS WATERS ARE VULNERABLE AND LIMITED

• Sandy soils
• Karst geology
• Rainfall
• Growth
• Intensive agriculture

1950 2,771,305 1960 4,951,560 1970
6,791,418 1980 9,746,961 1990 12,937,926 20
00 15,982,378 2020 20,000,000 2020(new)
22,894,100
5
(No Transcript)
6
STORMWATER IMPACTS FROM URBANIZATION

• Changes in ground water infiltration
• Changes in watershed hydrology
• Changes in stream hydrology
• Changes in stream morphology
• Changes in riparian zone habitat
• Changes in water quality
• Changes to aquatic habitat
• Changes in aquatic ecosystems

7
IMPACTS FROM URBANIZATION

• Changes in ground water infiltration
• Reduced volume of recharge water
• Lowering of ground water table
• Reduced stream baseflow
• Reduced lake levels

8
IMPACTS FROM URBANIZATION

• Changes in watershed hydrology
• Decreased infiltration
• Decreased depressional storage
• Decrease evapotranspiration
• Increased RO volume
• Reduced time of travel

9
(No Transcript)
10
IMPACTS FROM URBANIZATION

• Changes in stream hydrology
• Increased magnitude and frequency of flooding
• Increased prevalence of bank full flow
• More stream annual flow is stormwater instead of
  baseflow
• Increased stream velocity during storms

11
IMPACTS FROM URBANIZATION

• Changes in stream morphology
• Increased stream bank erosion
• Increased stream cross-sectional area
• Increased sediment loads
• Alteration of riffle-pool-run habitats
• Decrease in coarse grained channel sediments and
  increase in fine grained
• Enclosure in pipes or improved channels
• Increase in stream crossings or armoring

12
IMPACTS FROM URBANIZATION

• Changes in riparian zone habitat
• Decreased vegetation
• Decreased shading
• Increased temperature
• Increased stream bank erosion

13
IMPACTS FROM URBANIZATION

• Changes in water quality
• Higher sediment loadings
• More turbid water
• Nutrient enrichment
• Bacterial contamination
• Increased organic matter
• Increased toxics
• Increased temperature
• Increased trash and debris
• Increased fresh water

14
IMPACTS FROM URBANIZATION

• Changes in aquatic habitat and ecology
• Increased sediment smothering
• Elimination of pools and riffles
• Domination of aquatic plants
• Armoring eliminates habitat
• Change in
• biological community

15
IMPACTS FROM URBANIZATION

• Changes in aquatic ecosystem
• Shift from external to internal production
• Reduced biodiversity
• Destruction of wetlands, riparian buffers, and
  springs
• Shift from cold water to cool or warm water
  communities

16
THE STORMWATER PROBLEM

• Humans cause
• Changes in land use
• Compaction of soil, imperviousness
• Development in floodplains, wetlands
• Alteration of natural stormwater systems
• Adding Drainage systems
• Addition of pollutants

• Resulting in
• Decreased recharge
• Increased speed of runoff
• Increased volume of runoff
• Increased pollutants

17
THE SOLUTION TO DATE
18
EVOLUTION OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

• Drainage

19
IN THE BEGINNING

• Water was the common enemy
• Minimal Funding except for flood control
• Assimilative Capacity gt Pollutant Load
• People didnt understand - Few cared

• Management Dictum
• Ditch to Daylight
• Drain Wetlands
• Limited Science/Data
• Limited Flood Management
• No Environmental Linkage

20
DRAINAGE
GOAL Peak Discharge Rate Post lt Pre
21
Stormwater Quantity Goals

• Peak Discharge Rate
• Post-development Pre-development
• 10, 25, or 100 year storm
• Multiple storms
• 2-yr, 24-hour 10, 25, or 100 year storm
• Critical Storm
• Volume
• Closed Basins
• Basin specific criteria

22
Problems with Traditional Pre-Post Peak Flow
Requirements

• Goal is to prevent increases in flooding
• Presumes rate control will limit flood stage
  increases
• Limits peak flow rate (not volume)
• Flow volume will still increase
• Each site calculated separately
• Does not account for cumulative impacts

23
Pre-Post Peak Flow Immediately Downstream
24
Pre-Post Peak Flow 1 Mile Downstream
25
Pre-Post Watershed Response
26
Two AlternativesVolume Control or Volume-Time
Control

• Limits peak flow rate AND
• Limits volume discharged over a critical time
  frame
• Slightly larger (but comparable) facilities as
  peak discharge method
• Design time similar to peak discharge method
• Equitably applies controls to facilities that
  have largest impact to cumulative flow rate and
  volume

27
EVOLUTION OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

• Drainage
• Erosion and sediment control

28
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ACTS

• Mid 1970s Early 1980s
• Statewide legislation
• SWCD implementation
• BMP manuals
• Training programs

29
(No Transcript)
30
NEWS FLASH!!!!!

• FDOT, FDEP, and WMDs to revise Floridas erosion
  and sediment control
• Standards and specifications
• BMP manual
• Inspector manual
• UCF Stormwater Management Academy

Just say NO to hay bales!
31
EVOLUTION OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

• Drainage
• Erosion and sediment control
• Stormwater treatment

32
STORMWATER IS POLLUTED!

• 208, 319 program sampling results
• Few federal resources/mandates
• Few states implemented programs
• Assimilative Capacity gt Pollutant Load

• Management Dictum
• Drainage still rules
• Increased science/data
• BMP development
• New environmental linkage

33
Federal Clean Water Act Approaches

• Technology based effluent limits
• Water quality based effluent limits

34
Technology-based Stormwater RulesThe BMP Process

• 1. Design BMPs based on site-specific
• conditions, technical, institutional,
• and economic feasibility, and WQS.
• 2. Monitor to ensure proper implementation.
• 3. Monitor to determine BMP effectiveness.
• 4. Adjust BMP designs to improve
• effectiveness and/or evaluate and adjust
• WQS.

35
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE

• A control technique used for a
• GIVEN SET OF CONDITIONS
• to achieve
• WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY
• enhancement
• at the MINIMUM PRICE

36
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Nonstructural prevention
Structural mitigation
37
STATEWIDE STORMWATER TREATMENT PROGRAMS

• Florida 1979
• Maryland 1984
• Virginia 1990
• Delaware 1991
• South Carolina 1992
• Massachusetts 1998
• Rhode Island 2002
• Wisconsin 2002
• New Jersey 2003

38
FLORIDAS STORMWATER RULES

• 1979 Chapter 17- 4.248, F.A.C.
• 1982 Chapter 17- 25, F.A.C.
• 1994 Chapter 62- 25, F.A.C.
• Water management district ERP rules

• TECHNOLOGY BASED
• Performance Standard
• BMP Design Criteria
• Presumption of compliance

39
STORMWATER PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Load vs. concentration? Annual vs. seasonal vs
storm? For what pollutants?

• Most common in U.S. programs
• Retain sediment onsite or not violate
  turbidity standard
• 80 average annual reduction
• of TSS loadings

40
Performance Standard for New Stormwater
Discharges (62-40, F.A.C.)

• Erosion and sediment control
• Retain sediment on-site
• Not violate turbidity standard
• Stormwater quantity
• Discharge rate WMD or local standards
• Volume control
• Stormwater quality
• 80 average annual load reduction (TSS)
• 95 average annual load reduction
• Basin specific requirements

41
WHY 80 TSS LOAD REDUCTION?

• Equitability with point sources
• Min treatment secondary 80 TSS
• Cost effectiveness
• 80 knee of the treatment curve

42
Establishing Stormwater BMP Design Criteria to
meet Desired Performance Standards
43
BMP Design Criteria Factors

• Land Use
• imperviousness/DCIA, runoff volume, traffic
• Precipitation
• Volume, number of storms, interevent dry period
• BMP efficiency
• Annual load reduction, on-line vs off-line,
  reuse,
• retention vs detention, BMP treatment train
• Pollutants
• Annual vs seasonal loads, concentrations,
• first flush

44
(No Transcript)
45
SUMMARY OF CALCULATED AREAL POLLUTANT LOADING
RATES FOR CENTRAL AND SOUTH FLORIDA
FROM HARVEY HARPER, 1995, STORMWATER CHEMISTRY
AND WATER QUALITY
46
BMP Design Criteria Factors

• Land Use
• imperviousness/DCIA, runoff volume, traffic
• Precipitation
• Volume, number of storms, interevent dry period
• BMP efficiency
• Annual load reduction, on-line vs off-line,
  reuse,
• retention vs detention, BMP treatment train
• Pollutants
• Annual vs seasonal loads, concentrations,
• first flush

47
CUMULATIVE RAINFALL PROBABILITIES
48
BMP Design Criteria Factors

• Land Use
• imperviousness/DCIA, runoff volume, traffic
• Precipitation
• Volume, number of storms, interevent dry period
• BMP efficiency
• Annual load reduction, on-line vs off-line,
  reuse,
• retention vs detention, BMP treatment train
• Pollutants
• Annual vs seasonal loads, concentrations,
• first flush

49
Off-Line Schematic
50
(No Transcript)
51
COMPARISON OF TREATMENT EFFICIENCIES
ESTIMATED REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES TYPE OF
BMP ( LOAD REDUCTION) TN TP
TSS BOD DRY RETENTION 0.50 VOLUME 80 80
80 80 0.75 VOLUME 90 90 90
90 1.00 VOLUME 95 95 95
95 1.25 VOLUME 98 98 98
98 OFF-LINE RET/DET 60 85 90
80 WET RETENTION 40 50 85 40 WET
DETENTION 30 65 90 65 WET
DET/FILTER 0-10 50 85 75 DRY
DETENTION 10-20 20-40
20-60 20-50 DRY DET/FILTER 0-20 0-20
40-60 0-50 ALUM INJECTION 50 gt90
gt95 60
52
BMP Design Criteria Factors

• Land Use
• imperviousness/DCIA, runoff volume, traffic
• Precipitation
• Volume, number of storms, interevent dry period
• BMP efficiency
• Annual load reduction, on-line vs off-line,
  reuse,
• retention vs detention, BMP treatment train
• Pollutants
• Annual vs seasonal loads, concentrations,
• first flush

53
(No Transcript)
54
Original BMP Treatment Volumesto get 80
Effectiveness

• SWALES Infiltrate 80 of the runoff from a
  3- yr 1-hr storm within 72 hours.
• RETENTION Infiltrate runoff from 1 rain, or
  (lt100 ac) 0.5 runoff, within 72 hrs.
• FILTRATION Detain and filter runoff from 1 rain,
  or (lt100 ac), 0.5 runoff, within 72 hrs.
• DETENTION Detain 1 runoff and slowly release
  over a 5 day period.

55
Current BMP Treatment Volumes to get 80
Effectiveness
SWALES Infiltrate 80 of the runoff from a
3-yr 1-hr storm within 72 hours. RETENTION
Off-line Infiltrate 0.5 runoff, or 1.25 X Imp
Area. On-line Infiltrate an additional 0.5
runoff DETENTION Detain 1 runoff or 2.5 X Imp
Area and slowly release over a 5 day
period. WETLANDS Pretreat, detain 1 or 2.5 X
Imp Area, then sheet flow through wetland,
release over 5 days. FILTRATION
Off-line Filter 1 runoff or 2.5 X Imp Area
On-line Filter an additional 0.5 runoff
56
STORMWATER RULE PRESUMPTION OF COMPLIANCE

• It is a rebuttable presumption
• Bottom line not violate WQS
• Can require higher level of treatment
• Impaired waters example
• Upon listing invoke OFW treatment
• Upon BMAP - post lt pre loads

57
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Nonstructural prevention
Structural mitigation
58
STORMWATER TREATMENT PRACTICES

• Swales
• Retention systems
• Infiltration basins
• Infiltration trenches
• Exfiltration trenches
• Dry detention
• Filter systems
• Wet detention
• Wetlands
• Green roofs
• SW reuse

BMPs
59
BMP SELECTION CRITERIA

• Ability to meet regulatory criteria
• Institutional constraints
• Ability to meet environmental goals
• BMP pollutant removal effectiveness
• Public acceptance
• Ability to be implemented
• Ability to be maintained and operated
• Site characteristics

60
BMP SELECTION FACTORS

• Watershed area
• Area required
• Stormwater pollutants
• Sediment loading
• Soil type
• Slope
• Water table elevation

• Bedrock or hardpan
• Karst geology
• Proximity to foundations and wells
• Water availability
• Side effects
• Ancillary benefits

61
BMP TREATMENT TRAIN

Final Treatment and Attenuation
Runoff Load Generation
Additional Treatment Attenuation
Source controls Public ed Erosion control Roof
runoff Florida Yards LID
Storage tank Sediment sump Alum
Swales Catch basins Filter inlets Oil/water
separators
Retention Detention Wetlands Reuse
62
(No Transcript)
63
INFILTRATION PRACTICES

• DESCRIPTION Family of practices where the
  stormwater is infiltrated or evaporated rather
  than discharged.
• PURPOSE
• Reduce total volume
• Reduce pollutants
• POLLUTANT REMOVAL
• Percolation
• Filtering and adsorption

Evaporation
Infiltration
64
INFILTRATION(RETENTION) BMPs
65
INFILTRATION SYSTEM DESIGN CRITERIA

• 1. Treatment Volume
• Off-line Infiltrate 0.5 runoff, or 1.25 X
  Imp Area.
• On-line Infiltrate an additional 0.5 runoff
• 2. HSG A or B soils, less than 30 clay
• 3. 72 hour recovery time (24 - 36 hr if grassed)
• 4. Good percolation test data
• 5. Geological data if in Karst area
• 6. More than 2 feet to seasonal high ground
  water
• or bedrock
• 7. Do not use for erosion/sediment control
• 8. Proper construction is essential

66
INFILTRATION PRACTICES

• LIMITATIONS ON USE
• Require porous soils
• Not on soils with gt30 clay, gt40 silt/clay
• Not where high water tables, bedrock
• Not on fill sites or steep slopes
• Not at sites where hazardous materials spill
• Risk of ground water contamination

67
KARST GEOLOGY AREAS
68
(No Transcript)
69
KARST SENSITIVE AREASSpecial Design Criteria

• Bedrock at least three feet down
• Several small off-line landscape areas
• Swale conveyances
• Shallow basins
• Flat vegetated bottoms

70
SITE GEOLOGY ANDINFILTRATION SYSTEMS

• KARST SENSITIVE AREAS Special Data Needs
• Geologic borings and sections
• Location of limerock outcrops
• Location of sinkholes/solution pipes
• Description of ground water levels
• Topography - before and after

71
CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONSINFILTRATION

• Schedule construction in dry season
• Construct after site is stabilized
• If not, divert runoff not to final grade
• Verify soil conditions, water table, rock
• Minimize compaction Mark infiltration areas to
  keep equipment out
• Excavate with light, wide track equipment
• Place excavated material away, downslope
• Deeply till after final grade established

72
INFILTRATION PRACTICES

• OMM NEEDS AND OBLIGATIONS
• Maintain soil permeability
• Failure primarily caused by
• Inadequate soil investigation
• Use as ES control
• Use before site stabilized
• Improper construction compaction

73
MAINTENANCE INSPECTION - INFILTRATION

• Standing water or soggy soils
• Erosion and sedimentation
• Vegetation - coverage, growth,
• type
• Soil compaction or smearing
• Pretreatment BMPs
• Contributing area stabilization
• Inlets
• Debris

74
DETENTION PRACTICES

• DESCRIPTION A family of practices which detain
  runoff and discharge it.
• PURPOSE
• Flood protection
• Water storage
• Pollutant removal
• POLLUTANT REMOVAL
• Depends on type of detention BMP

75
DETENTIONPRACTICES
76
WET DETENTION POND

• DESCRIPTION A detention system with a permanent
  pool in which runoff is stored temporarily before
  discharge.
• ADVANTAGES
• High level of flood protection and stormwater
  treatment
• Used in areas with high water tables, poor soils
• Multiple ancillary benefits
• Relatively low maintenance
• Use as sediment trap during construction

77
WET DETENTION SYSTEMS PROCESSES POLLUTANT REMOVAL

• Occurs during quiescent period between storms
• Permanent pool crucial
• Reduces energy, promoting settling
• Habitat for plants and microorganisms
• Must maintain aerobic bottom conditions
• Gravity settling
• Pond geometry, volume, residence time, particle
  size
• Chemical flocculation
• Biological processes
• Filtering
• Adsorption onto bottom sediments
• Metabolized by microorganisms
• Uptake by aquatic plants, algae

78
WET DETENTION DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

• Must have a permanent pool of water
• Minimum drainage area of 5 hectares
• Site imperviousness, water table, soil type
• Remember the BMP Treatment Train
• Use a series of ponds
• Increase performance by enlarging surface area to
  gain more volume instead of deepening
• To reduce water short circuiting
• Use two or more distinct cells to promote plug
  flow
• Low inlet velocity
• Uniform flow distribution across the pond at the
  inlet
• Discharge from mid-depth, not the bottom

79
FLORIDA WET DETENTION DESIGN CRITERIA

• Permanent pool volume 14 day residence, 2
  (IMP Area) 0.5 (PERV Area)
• Treatment volume 1 or 2.5 (IMP)
• Discharge 1/2 treatment volume in first 60 hrs
• 50 additional volume for discharges to OFW
• Control elevation above SHWL, 18 flux
• Mean pond depth 6 feet Max depth lt 12 feet
• 30 pond area in planted littoral zone
• Minimum 31 length to width ratio
• Control peak discharge rate, volume (?)

80
WET DETENTION CONSERVATION DESIGN (SWFWMD)

• Treatment volume 1 or 2.5 impervious
• Permanent pool volume Rainy season 14 day
  residence volume treatment volume,
• minimum of 1.667 inch
• Pool with 8 max. depth, 34 pond below SHWL
• Control elevation gtSHWL upto 2
• Drawdown - peak discharge rate control
• V-notch weir, 0.5 in 24 hours, 10 max flux
  above SHWL/control elevation
• 35 littoral zone

81
WET DETENTION POND

• LIMITATIONS ON USE
• Not on fill or steep slopes
• May need supplemental water supply
• Minimum contributing DA of 8 - 10 acres
• Land intensive
• May not be suitable on sites with kids
• May not be suitable if receiving water is
  temperature sensitive

82
WET DETENTION SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS

• Side slopes no steeper than 41
• Fencing if steeper
• Emergency overflow is well stabilized
• Vegetated buffer around the pond
• Discharge structure
• Install first, then embankment, compaction
• Minimize number of conduits through embankment
• Anti-seep collars
• Anti-vortex devices
• Screens to prohibit access
• Locate where inaccessible
• Bottom drain, lockable
• Safety factor for debris accumulation

83
WET DETENTION POND

• OMM NEEDS AND OBLIGATIONS
• Maintain storage volume, discharge rate, and
  aquatic vegetation
• MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES
• Embankment - vegetation, integrity
• Remove debris from structures
• Aquatic plants
• Monitor sediment accumulations, remove
• Pretreatment BMPs
• Check and maintain structures

84
WET DETENTION SYSTEM MAINTENANCE

• MONITORING
• Sediment accumulations, pH and oxygen levels
• Vegetation
• Discharge structure
• ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
• Site inspections after storms
• Grass mowing, removal, and planting
• Removal of trees from the embankment
• Litter and debris removal
• Bank and vegetative stabilization
• Littoral zone vegetation
• REMOVAL OF ACCUMULATED SEDIMENTS
• Accumulation rate 1.1 - 4.2 cm/yr
• Accumulation rate 2.36 (Pond area/DA)
  100-1.438
• On average, remove every 10 - 15 years

85
COMPARISON OF TREATMENT EFFICIENCIES
ESTIMATED REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES TYPE OF
BMP ( LOAD REDUCTION) TN TP
TSS BOD DRY RETENTION 0.50 VOLUME 80 80
80 80 0.75 VOLUME 90 90 90
90 1.00 VOLUME 95 95 95
95 1.25 VOLUME 98 98 98
98 OFF-LINE RET/DET 60 85 90
80 WET RETENTION 40 50 85 40 WET
DETENTION 40 65 85 65 WET
DET/FILTER 0-10 50 85 75 DRY
DETENTION 10-20 20-40
40-60 30-50 DRY DET/FILTER 0-20 0-20
40-60 0-50 ALUM INJECTION 40 gt90
gt95 70
86
EVOLUTION OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

• Drainage
• Erosion and sediment control
• Stormwater treatment
• Stormwater retrofitting

87
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IMPROVES, BUT...

• Flooding continues - El Nino rains
• Assimilative Capacity Pollutant Load
• Channel erosion problems recognized
• Protecting ground water is an issue

• Management Dictum
• Monitor/collect data
• Improve H/H modeling
• Fair watershed WQ models
• Decrease discharge rates
• Use regional systems/basin criteria

88
MINIMUM STORMWATER TREATMENT GOALS FOR EXISTING
STORMWATER SYSTEMS
Reduce the load as needed to protect the
beneficial uses
89
NPDES STORMWATER PERMITSPHASE 1 - Nov. 16, 1990

• 1987 CWA change
• SWAWIA - based on SIC code
• Construction sites gt 5 acres
• Medium large MS4 (170 cities, FDOT)
• Broward Lee Pasco
• Dade Leon Pinellas
• Duval Manatee Polk
• Escambia Orange Sarasota
• Hillsborough Palm Beach Seminole

90
NPDES STORMWATER PERMITSPHASE 2 - Oct. 29, 1999

• SWAWIA no exposure waiver
• Effective January 29, 2003
• Construction sites gt 1 acre
• Small MS4
• Alachua Hernando Santa Rosa
• Bay Indian River St. Johns
• Brevard Marion St. Lucie
• Charlotte Martin Volusia
• Clay Okaloosa Walton
• Collier Osceola

91
STORMWATER RETROFITTING IN FLORIDA
Greenwood Wetland
Baffle Boxes
Packed bed wetland
92
Second generation baffle box
93
STORMWATER RETROFITTINGREGIONAL SYSTEMS

• Lake Jackson
• Greenwood Wetland
• Clear Lake Packed Bed Filter
• Brevard Chain of Lakes
• 10 Mile Filter Marsh

94
(No Transcript)
95
STORMWATER RETROFITTING - CHEMICAL TREATMENT
REGIONAL SYSTEMS

• Alum injection
• Lake Ella (1986)
• Lake Dot (1990)
• Today gt 40 systems
• Alum treatment trains
• Kapok wetlands
• WPB City Center

Polluant removal 40 TN, 90 others
96
(No Transcript)
97
ADVANCED STORMWATER TREATMENT

• Ultraviolet disinfection
• Ozone disinfection
• Stormwater reuse

98
EVOLUTION OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

• Drainage
• Erosion and sediment control
• Stormwater treatment
• Stormwater retrofitting

BUT We are still not achieving our goal
of protecting or enhancing aquatic ecosystems

• Watershed management

99
PAYING FOR PAST SINS

• Water is viewed as an critical resource
• Increased funding for conservation/WQ
• Assimilative Capacity lt Pollutant Load
• People begin to focus water issues

• Management Dictum
• Integrated watershed management
• TMDLs set to restore beneficial uses
• Managed stormwater is good water
• Push for stormwater reuse
• Restore wetlands/riparian buffers

100
Loss of Ecological Functions Caused By Cumulative
Impacts
101
Loss of designated uses
Impaired Waters
102
TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS

• Section 303 (d) FCWA
• States list impaired waters
• Develop TMDL WLA LA MOS
• Implementation plan

TMDL - max. amount of pollutant loading that can
be discharged to a healthy water body
103
(No Transcript)
104
FLORIDA WATERSHED RESTORATION ACTSection
403.067, F.S.

• Enacted in 1999, amended 2005
• Gives DEP clear legal authority for TMDLs
• Requires Good Science - DEP to adopt
  methodology for determining impaired waters
  Impaired Waters Rule (62-303, FAC)
• Requires Public Participation
• 303(d) lists are adopted by DEP secretary
• TMDLs, BMAPs are adopted by rule
• Requires equitable allocation of load
  reductions

105
THE WATERSHED APPROACH

• Divide watersheds into groups
• Rotate among groups over 5 years
• Five phases of basin cycle
• Phase 1 - Preliminary basin evaluation
• Products Status report, planning list,
  monitoring plan
• Phase 2 - Coordinated basin monitoring
• Products Assessment report, verified list
• Phase 3 - Data analysis TMDL development
• Phase 4 - Mgmt Action Plan development
• Phase 5 - Implementation

106
(No Transcript)
107
Basis for Nine-year First Cycle
108
STORMWATER/WATERSHED MANAGEMENTFINANCIAL
CHALLENGES
Big Money Problem
109
MEETING THE FINANCIAL CHALLENGETOP 10 LISTWHY
WE HAVE STORMWATER PROBLEMS

• 1. Our community does not have a stormwater
  utility.
• 2. It never rains at budget time
  (hydro-illogical cycle).
• 3. Stormwater systems seldom maintained.
• 4. No financial commitment or incentives from
  state.
• 5. Theyre too hard and expensive to solve.
• 6. Retirees from up north dont want to pay
  for anything.
• 7. Stormwater is the orphan infrastructure,
  crisis driven.
• 8. Our elected officials ran on a no new
  taxes platform.
• 9. Local officials and citizens dont
  understand the relationship between land use
  decisions, stormwater problems, and stormwater
  management needs.
• 10. Our citizens barely understand drainage.

110
FLORIDA FUNDING SOURCES

• Stormwater utility fee
• Stormwater program fees
• State Revolving Fund
• SWIM, WMD Coop Programs
• Section 319 NPS Grants
• TMDL WQ Restoration Grants

111
TMDL FUNDING

• FY05-06 DISTRIBUTION OF TAXES
• Water Protection Sustainability Program TF
• 100 m Alternative water supply
• 50 m TMDL BMPs (25 m Lake O)
• 85 to FDEP for nonag NPS pollution
• 15 to FDACS for ag NPS pollution
• 25 m SWIM activities
• 35 SFWMD, 25 SWFWMD, SJRWMD
• 7.5 SRWMD, NWFWMD
• 25 m Disadvantaged Small Comm WW grants

112
TMDL IMPLEMENTATION FUNDINGCOME AND GET
IT!!!!!!!!

• In the bank
• 8.5 m FY05/06 Doc Stamps (2/1/07)
• 17.5 m FY05/06 WPSP TF (2/1/07)
• 8 m FY06/07 Section 319 grants (May06)
• Purposes
• Stormwater treatment projects to reduce loads to
  waters with a TMDL
• Stormwater BMP research
• How apply
• http//www.dep.state.fl.us/water/watersheds/tmdl_g
  rant.htm
• http//www.dep.state.fl.us/water/nonpoint/319h.htm

113
Historical Perspective
Primary
LID
Imhoff
FYN
Gross Filtration
1920
1990
1870
2020